The URL can be used to link to this page

Planning Commission Agenda - 07/05/20221. Agenda Documents Documents: 070522. PCAG EN DA. PD F 060722.PCMINUTES.DRAFT. PDF 060722.PCWORKSHOPMINUTES.PDF 2A. STORAGE BOX PUD AMENDMENT.PDF 2B. RETAIL SERVICES ORDINANCE AMENDMENT.PDF 3A. 2022 BUILDING DEPARTMENT UPDATE.PDF 3B. CDD REPORT.PDF AGENDA REGULAR MEETING - MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday, July 5, 2022 - 6:00 p.m. Mississippi Room, Monticello Community Center Commissioners: Paul Konsor, Andrew Tapper, Alison Zimpfer, Eric Hagen and Teri Lehner Council Liaison: Charlotte Gabler Staff: Angela Schumann, Steve Grittman (NAC), Hayden Stensgard, and Ron Hackenmueller 1. General Business A. Call to Order B. Consideration of election of Planning Commission officers C. Consideration of approving minutes a. Joint Meeting Minutes —June 7, 2022 b. Regular Meeting Minutes —June 7, 2022 D. Citizen Comments E. Consideration of adding items to the agenda F. Consideration to approve agenda 2. Public Hearings A. Consideration of a Request for an Amendment to the Zoning Ordinance to Allow Temporary Storage Boxes as an Accessory Use in the Affordable Storage and StorageLink Monticello PUD Districts. Applicant: City of Monticello B. Continued - Consideration of a Request for an Amendment to the Monticello Zoning Ordinance for Retail Service Uses Including but Not Limited to Definition, Zoning Districts and Standards Applicant: City of Monticello 3. Regular Agenda A. 2022 Building Department Update B. Consideration of Community Development Director's Report 4. Added Items 5. Adjournment MINUTES REGULAR MEETING - MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday, June 7, 2022 - 6:00 p.m. Mississippi Room, Monticello Community Center Commissioners Present: Andrew Tapper, Alison Zimpfer, Eric Hagen and Teri Lehner Commissioners Absent: Paul Konsor Council Liaison Present: Charlotte Gabler Staff Present: Angela Schumann, Steve Grittman (NAC), Hayden Stensgard, and Ron Hackenmueller 1. General Business A. Call to Order Vice -Chairperson Andrew Tapper called the regular meeting of the Monticello Planning Commission to order at 6:00 p.m. B. Consideration of election of Planning Commission officers ANDREW TAPPER NOMINATED PAUL KONSOR FOR CHAIRPERSON OF THE MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION. ERIC HAGEN SECONDED THE NOMINATION. NOMINATION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY, 4-0. ERIC HAGEN NOMINATED ANDREW TAPPER FOR VICE -CHAIRPERSON OF THE MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION. ALISON ZIMPFER SECONDED THE NOMINATION. NOMIATION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY, 4-0. C. Consideration of approving minutes a. Workshop Meeting Minutes — May 18, 2022 TERI LEHNER MOVED TO APPROVE THE MAY 18, 2022, WORKSHOP MEETING MINUTES. ALISON ZIMPFER SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY, 4-0. b. Regular Meeting Minutes— May 18, 2022 ERIC HAGEN MOVED TO APPROVE THE MAY 18, 2022, REGULAR MEETING MINUTES. ALISON ZIMPFER SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY, 4-0. D. Citizen Comments None E. Consideration of adding items to the agenda None F. Consideration to approve agenda ERIC HAGEN MOVED TO APPROVE THE JUNE 7, 2022, REGULAR MEETING AGENDA. TERI LEHNER SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY, 4-0. 2. Public Hearings A. Consideration of a Request for Development Stage Planned Unit Development for Headwaters West Apartments, a Proposed 102-Unit Multi -Family (Senior - Restricted) Development in the R-3, Medium Density Residential District Applicant: Headwaters Development Commissioner Eric Hagen provided a summary and recap of the public hearing process to the public. City Planner Steve Grittman provided an overview of the agenda item to the Planning Commission and the public. He noted that the property is also the subject of a previously approved land use application for 60 twin home units proposed by the same applicant. Mr. Grittman went through the conditions of approval in Exhibit Z. It was explained that the addition of a looped pedestrian trail on the 1-94 side of the property was recommended by City staff as a means to address some of the concern related to the rear yard of the site. Councilmember Charlotte Gabler asked how many one -bedroom apartments there were in this proposed development. Mr. Grittman clarified that there was 8 studio units and 70 single -bed units. Vice -Chair Andrew Tapper asked for clarification on the parking calculation. Mr. Grittman said the total parking spaces per unit equals 1.6 space per unit. Mr. Tapper opened the public hearing portion of the agenda item. Public Comment Brian Nicholson, of Headwaters Development, LLC. (applicant), addressed the Planning Commission and the public. Mr. Nicholson reiterated that this is a continuation of the previous application reviewed and acted upon by the Planning Commission at their April 5, 2022 regular meeting. He said that the conditions of approval in Exhibit Z are acceptable with the exception of the one related to the adjustment of the roofline of the apartment building and requested that to remain as shown in the elevations. He illustrated a visual of the rear side of the building with landscaping. Mr. Tapper asked if the looped trail around the building can be worked into the final plans. Mr. Nicholson clarified that this is something that can be done, and the applicant is committed to working with staff on an agreeable width of said trail. A question was asked about the height of the trees to be planted along the 1-94 side of the property. Mr. Nicholson clarified that the Norway Spruce reach heights above 40 feet tall. Public Comment Douglas Ziermann, 27 Fairway Drive, asked for clarification on how tall the trees are when they are planted. Ms. Schumann noted that the City's Zoning Ordinance requires new conifer trees to be 6 feet tall at planting. Public Comment Jack Nelson, 8 Center Circle, expressed concerns regarding the added traffic on 7th Street West in that area. He also expressed concerns regarding the capacity of the water treatment plant and hope that the addition of these developments are accounted for. Mr. Nelson asked what color the building is going to be as well. The color of the building matches the elevations provided in the agenda. Mr. Tapper mentioned there is a traffic study in the agenda and it does note that with the addition of the proposed development, 71h Street is capable of handling the added traffic. Ms. Gabler asked if staff has any updates on the capacity of the water treatment plant. Ms. Schumann noted that the City Council will be reviewing a Strategic Transition Plan summary at the upcoming Council meeting on June 11, 2022, included in the summary is a study related to a comprehensive plan on water, wastewater and sanitary sewer. Mr. Hagen mentioned that there was a public comment submitted by email that has been included in the agenda packet again noting concerns on traffic and unit type. Public Comment Chris Barta, 28 Fairway Drive, expressed concerns regarding the size of the apartment building relevant to the zoning district and the surrounding neighborhood of single-family homes. Public Comment Karen Barta, 28 Fairway Drive, expressed concerns regarding the safety of 7' Street in that neighborhood, considering many families walk along 7' Street. She also wanted clarification on the timeline of the project. Mr. Nicholson responded saying that the timeline of the project is currently unclear and noted that the added construction traffic will be minimized by having a majority of the project constructed off site. Mr. Nicholson made the clarification that this development, including the previously approved twin homes, are strictly ages 55 and above. It is not an assisted living facility. Ms. Barta also expressed concerns over this development affecting property taxes in the neighborhood. Mr. Grittman clarified that there have been many studies done that provide examples showing that new development such as this does not affect the property taxes of the surrounding community. Commissioner Alison Zimpfer also noted that at the last public hearing held in April regarding this development, there are plans to add a pathway along the south side of 71" Street. Ms. Barta also made the note that there is a significant amount of wildlife on the property that will need to relocate. Mr. Tapper closed the public hearing portion of the agenda item. ERIC HAGEN MOVED TO ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. PC-2022-037, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF A DEVELOPMENT STAGE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT FOR HEADWATERS WEST APARTMENTS, A PROPOSED 102-UNIT MULTI -FAMILY (SENIOR RESTRICTED) DEVELOPMENT, BASED ON THE FINDINGS IN SAID RESOLUTION AND SUBJECT TO THE CONDITIONS OF EXHIBIT Z. ALISON ZIMPFER SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY, 4- 0. B. Consideration of a request for Rezoning to Planned Unit Development Development Stage Planned Unit Development and Preliminary Plat Haven Ridge, for replat of Haven Ridge 2nd Addition, a Proposed 59 Unit Single Family Residential Development in an R-1 (Single -Family Residence) District. Applicant: Haven Ridge, LLC. Mr. Grittman provided an overview of the agenda item to the Planning Commission and the public. The proposed 2nd Addition includes the extension of Farmstead Avenue, which was developed as part of the Haven Ridge 1st Addition. The replatting of the property is due to the proposed adjustment in lot count in the 2nd Addition. The replat includes additional lots to help offset the added cost of extending Farmstead Avenue underneath the powerlines. The powerlines restrict development and result in a long frontage with no development. In addition, the location of a gas line beneath the lines requires that the lines themselves be raised. Mr. Grittman reviewed the conditions of approval in Exhibit Z for the agenda item. Mr. Tapper asked for the originally approved zoning for the 2nd Addition. Mr. Grittman clarified that the original approval included the R-1 zoning of the development. The recommended change to a set of standards similar to T-N is due to the lower density of the development. Ms. Zimpfer mentioned that the original approval had average lot sizes of 80 feet and asked if there was a change to the lot widths in the replat. Mr. Grittman confirmed that the average lot width had been adjusted to 62 feet. Public Comment Marc Schulte, applicant, addressed the Planning Commission and the public. Mr. Schulte noted that the limited two-story homes in this addition is due to the market conditions. He also clarified that the multiple types of home designs that were included in the agenda packet is due to on -going negotiations with builders. Once a builder is identified, there will be more clarity provided on the home designs for this development. Public Comment Craig Heinen, 8815 Farmstead Avenue, expressed interest in not extending Farmstead Avenue, and leaving the current cul-de-sac as is due to safety concerns for the residents who live along that road. Mr. Grittman mentioned the maximum length of cul-de-sacs within the City by Ordinance is 600 feet. Currently, Farmstead Avenue is a cul-de-sac that is 1,300 feet in length and was originally approved strictly as a temporary cul-de-sac with plans to connect the road with the subsequent development. He also noted the extension allows for multiple outlets to the neighborhood, reducing traffic impacts at single points and enhancing access for emergency vehicles. Public Comment Shannon Bye, 5235 85th Street NE, mentioned that all five phases of development had been previously approved and had the understanding that there would be available "step-up" housing, including larger homes and wider lots than what is currently proposed in this request to replat. Ms. Schumann clarified that the replatting includes the change in development standards via the PUD from an R-1 base zoning to those similar to the T-N District. The T-N base zoning allow for additional performance standards not originally included in the R-1, and meets the minimum building size requirements of the R-1 standards. The additional performance standards are proposed due to the smaller lots proposed. Public Comment Loren O'Brien, owner of adjacent land, asked if the utilities will be stubbed for future development in that area. Mr. Grittman noted the amount of wetlands within the development make the extension of utilities in those areas difficult. The current plan is for utilities to service the adjacent noted property from the north. Mr. O'Brien made the note that he did not want the developments surrounding his property to leave his land unserviceable for future development. Mr. Tapper closed the public hearing portion of the agenda item. ALISON ZIMPFER MOVED TO ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. PC-2022-038, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF REZONING TO PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT FOR THE PROPOSED 59 UNITS OF HAVEN RIDGE 2ND ADDITION, BASED ON THE FINDINGS IN SAID REOOLUTION. ERIC HAGEN SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY, 4-0. ALISON ZIMPFER MOVED TO ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. PC-2022-039, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF A PRELIMINARY PLAT (REPLAT) OF HAVEN RIDGE 2ND ADDITION, A 59-UNIT SINGLE FAMILY PLAT, BASED ON THE FINDINGS IN SAID RESOLUTION AND SUBJECT TO THE CONDITIONS OF EXHIBIT Z. ERIC HAGEN SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY, 4-0. ALISON ZIMPFER MOVED TO ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. PC-2022-040, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF DEVELOPMENT STAGE PUD FOR HAVEN RIDGE 2ND ADDITION, A 59-UNIT SINGLE FAMILY PLAT, BASED ON THE FINDINGS IN SAID RESOLUTION AND SUBJECT TO THE CONDITIONS OF EXHIBIT Z. ERIC HAGEN SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY, 4-0. C. Consideration of a Request for an Amendment to the Zoning Ordinance to Allow Temporary Storage Boxes as an Accessory Use in the Affordable Storage and StorageLink Monticello PUD Districts. Applicant: City of Monticello Mr. Grittman provided an overview of the agenda item to the Planning Commission and the public. The addition of this accessory use to the Planned Unit Developments noted would include guidelines to meet certain setbacks adjacent to residential zones, limiting the stacking height of the said storage boxes, and being able to meet fire code standards within the site with the addition of the storage boxes. The ability to have storage boxes as an accessory use at the two noted locations would be contingent on their ability to meet the originally approved PUD standards. Mr. Hagen asked for clarification on what brought this item to the Planning Commission. Ms. Schumann clarified that the City Council requested the Planning Commission to hold a public hearing on this item and staff created this ordinance amendment language for the Planning Commission to review. Ms. Gabler added that when the original discussion occurred in October of 2021, the City Council was split, 3-2 on the vote. Mr. Tapper asked if this accessory use is eligible at the StorageLink site on Cedar Street. Ms. Gabler said that this accessory use would not apply to the Pointes at Cedar Planned Development District. Mr. Hagen said that he would be more comfortable with approving this if it was a guarantee that these sites would utilize these storage boxes as an accessory use. Mr. Tapper asked if storage boxes were currently on either site. Ms. Schumann clarified that there are no storage boxes on either site. Mr. Tapper opened the public hearing portion of the agenda item. Mr. Tapper closed the public hearing portion of the agenda item. Eric Hagen recommended tabling the item to provide time to get a better understanding of how the storage boxes have affected surrounding communities that already include them in their zoning ordinance. ERIC HAGEN MOVED TO TABLE ACTION ON RESOLUTION NO. PC-2022-041. TERI LEHNER SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED 3-1, WITH ANDREW TAPPER VOTING IN THE OPPOSITION. D. Consideration of a Request for an Amendment to the Monticello Zoning Ordinance for Retail Service Uses Including but Not Limited to Definition Zoning Districts and Standards Applicant: City of Monticello Ms. Schumann provided an overview of the agenda item to the Planning Commission and the public. Staff recommended tabling the item while further research is conducted on the item. ANDREW TAPPER MOVED TO TABLE ACTION ON RESOLUTION NO. PC-2022-035, REGARDING A REQUEST FOR AMENDMENT TO THE MONTICELLO ZONING ORDINANCE FOR THE RETAIL SERVICE USES INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO DEFINITION, ZONING DISTRICTS AND STANDARDS AND CONTINUE THE PUBLIC HEARING TO JULY 5, 2022. TERI LEHNER SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY, 4-0. 3. Regular Agenda A. Consideration to adopt Resolution PC-2022-OXX finding that the establishment of TIF District 1-46 and TIF Plan for TIF District 1-46 conforms to the Monticello 2040 Comprehensive Plan Ms. Schumann provided an overview of the agenda item to the Planning Commission and the public. Ms. Schumann noted the Employment Campus land use guidance for the site and the Industrial Business Campus zoning, explaining that the proposed use is consistent with Light Manufacturing, which is a permitted use in the IBC District. WiHa Tools is seeking to establish an economic development tax increment financing district to support the development of a new facility in Monticello. Planning Commission was asked to review the plan and decide whether the development fits the adopted Monticello 2040 Comprehensive Plan related to land use. ANDREW TAPPER MOVED TO ADOPT RESOLUTION PC-2022-042, FINDING THAT THE ESTABLISHMENT OF TIF DISTRICT AND TIF DISTRICT 1-46 CONFORMS TO THE MONTICELLO 2040 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. ALISON ZIMPFER SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY, 4-0. B. Consideration Community Development Director's Report Ms. Schumann provided an overview of the agenda item to the EDA and the public. Ms. Schumann noted a change to the recently reviewed redevelopment plans on Block 52. The height of the building has been adjusted from a maximum of 75 feet to 60 feet. The necessity for the change is related to the building's fire suppression system and the developers were not made aware of this issue until after the public hearing portion of their land use application. City Council approved the development stage planned unit development and preliminary plat with the change to the maximum height of the building. 4. Added Items None 5. Adjournment TERI LEHNER MOVED TO ADJOURN THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION. ANDREW TAPPER SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY, 4-0, MEETING ADJOURNED AT 9:12 P.M. MINUTES SPECIAL JOINT MEETING - MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday, June 7, 2022 — 4:30 p.m. Mississippi Room, Monticello Community Center Commissioners Present: Andrew Tapper, Teri Lehner, Eric Hagen Councilmembers Present: Mayor Lloyd Hilgart, Charlotte Gabler, Jim Davidson, Sam Murdoff Staff Present: Angela Schumann, Steve Grittman (NAC), Ron Hackenmueller, Hayden Stensgard 1. General Business A. Call to Order Mayor Lloyd Hilgart called the Special Joint Meeting of the Monticello City Council and Planning Commission to order at 4:30 p.m. 2. Joint Meeting Agenda A. Consideration of a Concept Planned Unit Development Submittal for Scooter's Coffee Drive-Thru in the Central Community District. Applicant: Java Mates, LLC. City Planner Steve Grittman provided an overview of the agenda item to the City Council, Planning Commission and the public. The location of this proposed site is on the same property as the Pancho Villa Restaurant along Highway 25, adjacent to Cub Foods and KFC, which will require use of Planned Unit Development. Scooter's Coffee is a drive-thru only facility that includes a double order alley proposed on the southeast portion of the lot. Mr. Grittman noted there is an exit lane next to the drive-thru lane for people to bypass if necessary. Mr. Grittman noted that if this item comes back as a formal land use application, it is expected that the applicant further clarifies things such as building architecture, signage, and other final details related to the building and site layout. Councilmember Charlotte Gabler asked for clarification on how customers exit the area. Mr. Grittman clarified that southbound traffic could exit directly on to Highway 25. Customers heading North will have to exit on to 7t" Street West of KFC and use the stoplight. Community Development Director Angela Schumann noted there are access agreements between the property being discussed and the adjacent properties that will need to be addressed by the submitters. Commissioner Andrew Tapper asked if there are any setback issues regarding the location of the proposed building. Mr. Grittman clarified that there are no issues regarding setbacks. Mr. Grittman clarified that the current trash enclosure on site is intended to be shared between Pancho Villa and Scooter's Coffee. Kyle Wermerskirchen, of Java Mates, LLC. and submitter of the concept proposal, noted that the owner of the Cub Foods property has deferred their interest in the proposal to their tenant, Cub Foods. Cub expressed concerns that include the location of the building and the amount of potential stacking in the drive-thru lanes and how that could potentially affect their delivery zone on that side of their building. Commissioner Teri Lehner asked how Scooter's manages their own delivery system for supplies. Brent Scheil, of Java Mates, LLC., clarified that Scooter's does all of their own deliveries and the schedule is tailored to each location, so it does not intrude on surrounding businesses and their processes. Councilmember Sam Murdoff suggested adjusting the traffic flow on site to alleviate any potential issues in the future. Though the adjustment would remove a little bit of parking on site, the loss of parking might not be noticeable due to the large amount of parking currently. Mr. Grittman mentioned that the peak hours for both Scooter's Coffee and Pancho Villa are complementary to each other. The maximum amount of stacking in the drive-thru aisle will occur in the morning hours when Pancho Villa is not in operation. Ms. Gabler asked about the anticipated timeframe for the project. Mr. Brent Scheil clarified that the applicants hope to begin the process in the fall of 2022. 3. Adjournment ANDREW TAPPER MOVED TO ADJOURN THE MEETING. CHAROTTE GABLER SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY, MEETING ADJOURNED AT 5:14 P.M. Planning Commission Agenda — 07/05/2022 2A. Consideration of a request for an Amendment to the Affordable Self -Storage PUD and StorageLink Monticello PUD for the Addition of "Storage Boxes" as an Allowable Accessory Use. Applicant: City of Monticello. Prepared by: Northwest Associated Meeting Date: Council Date (pending Consultants (NAC) Commission action): 07/05/2022 TBD Additional Analysis by: Community Development Director, Community & Economic Development Coordinator, Chief Building Official ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS Decision 1: Consideration of an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance to allow Temporary Storage Boxes as an accessory use in the Affordable Storage and Storage Link PUD Districts. 1. Motion to table action on Resolution No. PC-2022-041 to a future meeting of the Planning Commission. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND Property: PID #: 152-125-004110; 152-266-001010 Planning Case Number: 2022-026 Request(s): An amendment to the Zoning Ordinance to allow Temporary Storage Boxes as an accessory use in the Affordable Storage and Storage Link PUD Districts Deadline for Decision: July 15, 2022 September 14, 2022 Land Use Designation: Community Commercial Zoning Designation: PUD Overlays/Environmental Regulations Applicable: NA Current Site Uses: Self -Storage Surrounding Land Uses: North: Regional Commercial East: Community Commercial 1 Planning Commission Agenda — 07/05/2022 South: Single Family Residential West: Mixed Uses Project Description: The public hearing on this item was directed to the Planning Commission by the City Council. The amendment would create an allowance within these two PUD zoning districts, both occupied by Commercial Self -Storage uses, to store and rent portable/temporary storage "boxes" — such as "Pods" or similar —for use off -site. The amendment would be specific to these two PUD zoning districts only. ANALYSIS: In June, the Planning Commission opened the public hearing for this item and discussed the item at length. It was noted that review of this item was directed to the Commission by the City Council. Following discussion, the Commission closed the hearing and tabled action on the item requesting that staff provide additional information on other, similar type uses and how they are addressed in other communities. Staff has not had an opportunity to gather and analyze the requested information. As such, staff is requesting that the Commission again table action on the request to allow for this analysis. Staff will provide an update to Council on the progress of this item. Included for the Commission's reference is the previously prepared staff report and exhibits. STAFF RECOMMENDED ACTION Staff recommends tabling of this item at this time. SUPPORTING DATA A. Resolution PC-2022-041 B. Ordinance No. XXX C. Aerial Site Image D. Planning Commission Staff Report, June 7th, 20222 E. Planning Commission Staff Report, October 5, 2021 F. Planning Commission Minutes, October 5, 2021 G. City Council Staff Report, October 25, 2021 H. City Council Minutes, October 25, 2021 I. Letter of Public Comment 2 Planning Commission Agenda — 07/05/2022 CITY OF MONTICELLO WRIGHT COUNTY, MINNNESOTA PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. PC-2022-041 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF MONTICELLO RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF AN AMENDMENT TO THE ZONING ORDINANCE ADDING ACCESSORY USE TO THE AFFORDABLE STORAGE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT, AND THE STORAGE LINK PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT WHEREAS, the City regulates land uses in its various zoning districts, including an allowance for various types of uses in specific zones; and WHEREAS, the Commercial Self -Storage use is conducted primarily under Planned Unit Development regulations which have specific allowances for uses in their respective PUD Districts; and WHEREAS, the option to utilize such facilities for the rental and storage of portable temporary storage buildings for temporary storage on other real property may be considered within the scope of uses considered accessory to the principal Commercial Self - Storage use; and WHEREAS, the zoning district amendments herein will accommodate reasonable additions to related uses by adding temporary structures as accessory uses to the subject PUD Districts; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on June 7, 2022 on the application and the applicant and members of the public were provided the opportunity to present information to the Planning Commission; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has considered all of the comments and the staff report, which are incorporated by reference into the resolution; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Monticello makes the following Findings of Fact in relation to the recommendation of approval: 1. The usefulness of the zoning regulations require clarity and definition to avoid misinterpretation, and promote the effectuation of the City's land use objectives. 2. The proposed amendments add related accessory uses to current Commercial Self -Storage business properties under reasonable regulations. 3. The proposed amendments refine the understanding of the terms used, and therefore advance the City land use regulations and objectives. 4. The proposed amendments will improve the communication of the intent of the zoning regulations to property owners, businesses, and city officials. CITY OF MONTICELLO WRIGHT COUNTY, MINNNESOTA PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. PC-2022-041 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the Planning Commission of the City of Monticello, Minnesota, that the Planning Commission hereby recommends that the Monticello City Council approves the Amendment to the Zoning Ordinance as specified in Ordinance No. ADOPTED this 71h day of June, 2022, by the Planning Commission of the City of Monticello, Minnesota. MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION Z ATTEST: Andrew Tapper, Vice -Chair Angela Schumann, Community Development Director 2 ORDINANCE NO. - AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE MONTICELLO CITY CODE AMENDING SECTION 3.8(J)(8) AND 3.8(J)(15) BY ADDING ACCESSORY USES TO EACH DISTRICT THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ORDAINS: Section 1. Section 3.8 (J)(8) and 3.8 (J)(15) are hereby amended to add the following: Accessory Uses. Accessory uses shall be those commonly accessory and incidental to industrial uses, and as specifically identified by the approved final stage PUD Plans, but shall not include outdoor storage or other activities, with the followin _ egxception: Q Storage Boxes or "Pods", or similar temporary structures manufactured specifically for the purposes of portable self -storage use, may be permitted to be stored for rental on the site, provided such structures meet the following conditions: a. No such storage shall be placed within 100 feet of a residential zoning district, or within 30 feet of a street right of way, or within 10 feet of any other lot line. b. No such storage shall be stacked to a height greater than nine (9) feet from existing grade on which it sits. C. Any such storage shall be placed only on a paved surface. d. No such storage shall be placed within any driveway, required landscapin area, rea, parking space, or other space required b, t�pproved PUD plan for site circulation and/or operations. e. Any such storage shall meet all requirements for fire and other emergency vehicle access, including access to fire hydrants or other utilities. f. Storage of such structures shall not occupy more than 5% of the total lot area. g. Delivery of such structures to the site, or removal of structures from the site, shall occur only during the hours of 7:OOa.m. and 9:OOp.m. h. No such temporary/portable structure shall at any time be used for storage of any goods on the property in this zoning district and shall only be available for rental to users off -site, unless it is placed completely within a permanent storage structure approved as a part of the PUD. i. No such storage shall include the use of containers commonly used for rail transport purposes or similar shipping containers. Section 2. 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 3. 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 , 2022 Lloyd Hilgart, Mayor ATTEST: Rachel Leonard, Administrator AYES: NAYS: EXHIBIT A Section Sec. 2-230. - Establishment. Sec. 2-231. - Sec. 2-232. - Sec. 2-233. — Sec. 2-234. - Sec. 2-235. - Secs. 2-236, 2-237. - Reserved. Sec. 2-230. - Establishment. {Insert text of ordinance} Planning Commission Agenda — 06/07/2022 2C. Public Hearing - Consideration of a request for an Amendment to the Affordable Self - Storage PUD and StorageLink Monticello PUD for the Addition of "Storage Boxes" as an Allowable Accessory Use. Applicant: City of Monticello. Prepared by: Northwest Associated I Meeting Date: Council Date (pending Consultants (NAC) 06/07/2022 Commission action): 06/27/22 Additional Analysis by: Community Development Director, Community & Economic Development Coordinator ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS Decision 1: Consideration of an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance to allow Temporary Storage Boxes as an accessory use in the Affordable Storage and Storage Link PUD Districts. 1. Motion to adopt Resolution No. PC-2022-041 recommending approval of an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance to allow Temporary Storage Boxes as an accessory use in the Affordable Storage and Storage Link Monticello PUD Districts based on the findings in said resolution and as drafted in the proposed ordinance 2. Motion to deny the adoption of Resolution No. PC-2022-041 recommending denial of an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance to allow Temporary Storage Boxes as an accessory use in the Affordable Storage and Storage Link Monticello PUD Districts based on findings to be made by the Planning Commission. 3. Motion to table action on Resolution No. PC-2022-041. Property: PID #: 152-125-004110; 152-266-001010 Planning Case Number: 2022-026 Request(s): An amendment to the Zoning Ordinance to allow Temporary Storage Boxes as an accessory use in the Affordable Storage and Storage Link PUD Districts 1 Planning Commission Agenda — 06/07/2022 Deadline for Decision: July 15, 2022 September 14, 2022 Land Use Designation: Community Commercial Zoning Designation: PUD Overlays/Environmental Regulations Applicable: NA Current Site Uses: Self -Storage Surrounding Land Uses: North: Regional Commercial East: Community Commercial South: Single Family Residential West: Mixed Uses Project Description: The public hearing on this item was directed to the Planning Commission by the City Council. The amendment would create an allowance within these two PUD zoning districts, both occupied by Commercial Self -Storage uses, to store and rent portable/temporary storage "boxes" — such as "Pods" or similar —for use off -site. The amendment would be specific to these two PUD zoning districts only. ANALYSIS: The proposed amendment would create an allowance for two existing Commercial Self -Storage PUD facilities to add the storage and rental of portable storage structures for use by renters off - site. The proposal would not permit these structures to be used for storage on the site of the Self -Storage areas as separate storage buildings. The concept is based in the idea that tenants of self -storage buildings or similar users would be the most typical customers for this use. The proposed amendment is designed to allow the two facilities under their current PUD ordinance approvals to store these boxes on their property in specifically designated areas as a permitted accessory use in the district. Renters would either seek delivery of the structures, or if property equipped, could remove them from the site for their own use. The amendment places a series of conditions on this use. Anything outside of these conditions would require an amendment to the PUD. 2 Planning Commission Agenda — 06/07/2022 The proposed conditions are as follows: Storage Boxes or containers, or similar temporary structures manufactured specifically for the purposes of portable self -storage use, may be permitted to be stored for rental on the site, provided such structures meet the following conditions: a. No such storage shall be placed within 100 feet of a residential zoning district, or within 30 feet of a street right of way, or within 10 feet of any other lot line. b. No such storage shall be stacked to a height greater than nine (9) feet from existing grade on which it sits. c. Any such storage shall be placed only on a paved surface. d. No such storage shall be placed within any driveway, required landscaping area, parking space, or other space required by the approved PUD plan for site circulation and/or operations. e. Any such storage shall meet all requirements for fire and other emergency vehicle access, including access to fire hydrants or other utilities. f. Storage of such structures shall not occupy more than 5% of the total lot area. g. Delivery of such structures to the site, or removal of structures from the site, shall occur only during the hours of 7:OOa.m. and 9:OOp.m. h. No such temporary/portable structure shall at any time be used for storage of any goods on the property in this zoning district and shall only be available for rental to users off -site, unless it is placed completely within a permanent storage structure approved as a part of the PUD. i. No such storage shall include the use of containers commonly used for rail transport purposes or similar shipping containers. The City previously considered an amendment for a similar use specific to the Affordable Storage PUD. The issue for the City at that time was the ability to distinguish the use of such storage boxes as either display or outdoor storage and whether the proposed use was industrial in scale. In the proposed amendment, the use is proposed only as an accessory use to existing commercial self -storage and is limited in activity and scope. With this amendment, it is hoped that this use could be incorporated without disruption to the approved PUD activity or to the surrounding neighborhood. STAFF RECOMMENDED ACTION As the item was directed by the City Council to the Planning Commission, staff defers to both bodies on the amendment to the Affordable Storage and Storage Link PUD Zoning Districts, both located along Chelsea Road West. 3 Planning Commission Agenda — 06/07/2022 At issue for the City will be whether the proposed amendment sufficiently addresses the use of these units as accessory to a Commercial Self -Storage use, and whether the applicable conditions satisfactorily address their use in commercial districts. SUPPORTING DATA A. Resolution PC-2022-041 B. Ordinance No. XXX C. Aerial Site Image D. Planning Commission Staff Report, October 5, 2021 E. Planning Commission Minutes, October 5, 2021 F. City Council Staff Report, October 25, 2021 G. City Council Minutes, October 25, 2021 4 Planning Commission Agenda — 10/05/2021 2C. Public Hearing —Consideration of a request for an Amendment to the Affordable Storage Planned Unit Development for proposed Portable Container Accessory Use. Applicant: Burnham, Keith Prepared by: Northwest Associated Meeting Date: Council Date (pending Consultants (NAC) Commission action): 10/05/21 10/25/21 Additional Analysis by: Community Development Director, Chief Building and Zoning Official, Community & Economic Development Coordinator, Project Engineer, Fire Marshal ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS Decision 1: Consideration of an amendment to a Planned Unit Development for Affordable Self -Storage to keep storage boxes on the site as outdoor storage. 1. Motion to recommend approval of a PUD Amendment for outdoor storage as provided in the application materials for the Affordable Self -Storage PUD, based on a finding that the proposed use would be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan objectives for uses and activities in the area and other findings to be made by the Planning Commission, and per conditions set by the Planning Commission as a part of the public hearing. 2. Motion to adopt Resolution No. PC-2021-037 (denial), based on findings as identified in said Resolution, and requiring the removal of the storage boxes from the site no later than .2021. 3. Motion to table action on Resolution No. PC-2021-037, subject to additional information supplied by staff and/or applicant. Decision 2: Amendment to Ordinance for Planned Unit Development for Affordable Self - Storage to correction of language in Section (8)(c). 1. Motion to recommend approval of a PUD Amendment for the Affordable Self -Storage Planned Unit Development for correction of language in Section (8)(c) to read as follows: Accessory Uses. Accessory uses shall be those commonly accessory and incidental to *,gal commercial uses, and as specifically identified by the approved final stage PUD Plans, but shall not include outdoor storage or other activities. 2. Motion to table action on the proposed Amendment to Ordinance for Planned Unit Development for Affordable Self -Storage to correction of language in Section (8)(c). Planning Commission Agenda — 10/05/2021 REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND Property: Legal Description: Lot 11, Block 4, Groveland Addition PID: 155-125-004110 Planning Case Number: 2021-036 Request(s): Amendment to a Planned Unit Development to allow outdoor storage of rental storage containers Deadline for Decision: November 12, 2021 (60-day deadline) January 11, 2022 (120-day deadline) Land Use Designation: Community Commercial Zoning Designation: Affordable Self -Storage PUD District Overlays/Environmental Regulations Applicable: NA Current Site Uses: Self Storage Facility Surrounding Land Uses: North: RV Dealership East: Vacant Commercial (Zoned B-3) South: Single Family Residential West: RV Dealership Project Description: The applicant proposes to utilize a portion of the current self - storage property along the westerly boundary, as well at the ends of several of the self -storage buildings on the property to store a series of "storage boxes". These units are delivered to the property and rented to individuals which are then used to self - store goods. The applicant indicates that the request is for a total of 58 such storage boxes of varying sizes, between 7.5 by 7.5 feet and 8 by 20 feet. The applicant has suggested that the units will be empty, although that is not expressly stated in the application narrative. The applicant has indicated in the past that the boxes would sit on the ground, without stacking, although that clarification is not made in the current application. The applicant previously proposed an amendment to the Affordable Storage Planned Unit Development for the 2 Planning Commission Agenda — 10/05/2021 introduction of storage boxes on the site, which was considered by the Planning Commission in August of 2021. The application was withdrawn prior to Council consideration. it is noted that several of these boxes have already been moved on to the site counter to the requirements of the original PUD approvals and are currently in violation of the Zoning Ordinance. ANALYSIS: Planned Unit Development (PUD) is a zoning technique that allows developers and the City to establish a set of development requirements which, while not meeting all of the specific standards of a traditional zoning district, are designed to exceed the City's objectives for the zoning district that would otherwise apply. The City's land use objectives are described in the Comprehensive Plan, and typically address various performance standards as well as classes of land use. In this case, the applicable land use classification in the Comprehensive Plan is "Community Commercial", and the underlying zoning district that would apply if the PUD zoning were not in place would be B-3, Highway Business. One of the primary objectives of the Comprehensive Plan is the orderly development and use of land, consistent with consideration for other land uses in the neighborhood of the subject property. As shown on the map below, and noted above, the subject property is in an area of mixed commercial and residential uses, indeed abutting residential development on one side of the property. The Community Commercial designation is designed to be a "low -scale" retail area along major roadways that serve the community. 3 Planning Commission Agenda — 10/05/2021 When the original PUD was granted for the commercial self -storage facility on this property, it was specifically noted that outdoor storage of materials on the site would not be permitted. In Monticello, outdoor storage of materials is a use that is specifically relegated to industrial districts. Such areas often create a significant amount of noise and other activity that is not compatible with neighboring "low -scale" uses, and particularly problematic for single-family residential areas, where outdoor activities rely on relative quiet and non -industrial activity on adjoining property. The applicant's narrative seeks to distinguish this use as "Open Sales" accessory use, as opposed to outdoor storage. However, "Open Sales" uses involve retail transactions where customers may visit the retail site, inspect the goods, pay for the materials, and transport them from the retailer. This type of transaction is distinguished from the current proposal in that the storage boxes are stored on the site, loaded, and delivered to off -site customers, all without the customer's ability to pick up and take any retail goods with them from the retail location. This is fundamentally not a retail activity, as would be implied by the "Open Sales" land use category. Further, the zoning ordinance definition for Outdoor Storage is directly applicable to the proposed use. That definition reads as follows: OUTDOOR STORAGE: The keeping, in an un-roofed area, of any goods, material, merchandise, or vehicles in the same place for more than twenty-four (24) hours. This shall not include the display of vehicles for sale in a new or used car sales lot. Outdoor storage is prohibited in commercial districts and is specifically prohibited by the language of the Affordable Self -Storage PUD. The applicant's materials do not specify, but the process by which the storage boxes would be transferred to and from the site would be via truck and some manner of jack or crane, increasing the equipment activity and noise on the site. This activity is expected in an industrial area, but not in a commercial district, and especially not in proximity to a residential neighborhood. The proposed storage of these units on the property is therefore an industrial one, and incompatible with the proximity of the use to residential property. The narrative further notes that the original PUD district references accessory uses in the "Industrial" areas as potentially allowed uses in the Affordable Storage PUD District. While staff believes that the original reference is a typographical error— noting that outdoor storage was expressly not allowed in the district language — industrial use would be inappropriate in this 4 Planning Commission Agenda — 10/05/2021 location based on the impacts and discussion previously noted. As part of any amendment consideration, staff would request that the City amend the ordinance of the PUD to correct this language to "Commercial." Further, the City's fire department officials have noted concern with the storage of the proposed boxes on the site, which were not anticipated when the original plan was approved. The locations restrict fire -fighting access to portions of the property, most significantly, to the west side of the line of stored boxes along the west boundary of the site. Moreover, the revised site plan shows a large area of snow storage in the southwest corner of the site that would make the fire hydrant in that location inaccessible. The Fire Marshal has requested an apparatus turning template be prepared to demonstrate maneuverability within the site with the unit locations as proposed. As noted in prior review, there is one self -storage site in Monticello that was granted an interim use permit for temporary storage boxes in the past. That site is the Storage Link facility at Dundas Road and Cedar Street. The City granted the IUP for this site as a temporary measure to accommodate expansion of the facility. There are at least three major aspects of this prior approval that differentiate it from the Affordable Storage request. First, the Storage Link facility abuts undeveloped commercial land. There is no residential in near proximity to the site. Moreover, the facility sits at the intersection of roads that serve exclusively commercial properties west, north and south, and industrial property to the east. Second, the Storage Link temporary storage boxes are utilized as an interim storage use, and have only limited, if any, trucking and active machinery at the site. As such, there is much less likelihood of noise disruption to surrounding land uses, particularly as the adjoining property was anticipated to be vacant for some time. Finally, as noted, the permit granted was an Interim Use Permit, acknowledging that the proposed storage units were temporary in nature. While no adjoining development was anticipated in the near term, removal of the temporary storage is required at the expiration of the IUP term and adjoining development (now a part of the Chelsea Commons planning area) would then develop without the impacts of temporary storage on that site. In summary, the proposed storage box business would introduce what is commonly considered to be an industrial activity to the Affordable Storage PUD site. As noted, PUD requires a finding that the proposed development meets and exceeds the City's land use goals in exchange for relaxation of certain zoning requirements. Introduction of an industrial use on property guided for "low -scale" commercial use, adjacent to a low -density single-family neighborhood would be counter to this requirement. 5 Planning Commission Agenda — 10/05/2021 STAFF RECOMMENDED ACTION For Decision 1, Staff recommends Alternative 2, denial of the PUD Amendment. As noted in this report, the addition of outdoor storage, and the nature of the storage in question which would entail heavy equipment and truck operations to support it, would be inconsistent with the intent of the land use direction specified by the Comprehensive Plan, and incompatible with the uses directly adjoining the subject property, particularly that of the single-family residential neighborhood to the south of the subject property. For Decision 2, Staff recommends Alternative 1, which would correct the prior error in the adopted ordinance for the Affordable Storage PUD consistent with the intent of the original approved plans. Staff would ask the Planning Commission to specify a removal date within their motion. Per ordinance, staff typically allows up to 30 days for correction of a code violation. SUPPORTING DATA A. Resolution PC-2021-037 B. Aerial Site Image C. Applicant Narrative D. Proposed Site Plan and Detail E. Affordable Self -Storage PUD Ordinance F. Ordinance Excerpts G. Monticello 2040 Vision + Plan, Excerpts Z. Conditions of Approval EXHIBIT Z Lot 11, Block 4, Groveland Addition Affordable Storage PUD Amendment 1. If Planning Commission motions to recommend approval of the amendment to PUD to allow the proposed storage units, staff would recommend that Commission provide a list of conditions applicable to the proposed use on the site. 0 CITY OF MONTICELLO WRIGHT COUNTY, MINNNESOTA PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. PC-2021-037 RECOMMENDING DENIAL OF AN AMENDMENT TO THE AFFORDABLE STORAGE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT REVISING THE SITE USES IN THE AFFORDABLE STORAGE PUD ZONING DISTRICT, AND AMENDING FOR CORRECTION THE LANGUAGE OF SAID DISTRICT TO REMOVE REFERENCES TO INDUSTRIAL ACCESSORY USES WHEREAS, the applicant has submitted a request to revise certain aspects of an existing self -storage project, including the addition of outdoor storage and handling of individual "storage boxes"; and WHEREAS, the site is zoned PUD, Planned Unit Development, and is subject to a previously approved Planned Unit Development ordinance; and WHEREAS, the proposed use and development are inconsistent with the Comprehensive Land Use Plan designation of "Community Commercial" for the area; and WHEREAS, the proposed amendment would create impacts that are incompatible with the adjoining single family residential neighborhood, including noise, truck and machinery operations, and other effects; and WHEREAS, the applicant has provided updated materials describing the changes, which are associated with industrial uses in Monticello's land use regulations; and WHEREAS, the uses are inconsistent with the intent and purpose of the underlying zoning district, which is "Community Commercial", and anticipates only "low -scale" commercial activities; and WHEREAS, the uses will create unanticipated changes to the demand for public services on or around the site; and WHEREAS, the storage proposed meets the Zoning Ordinance definition of "Outdoor Storage", an industrial use; and WHEREAS, references in the current language of the Affordable Storage PUD District to industrial accessory uses require amendment to delete said references and clarify the prohibition of such uses; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on October 51", 2021 on the application and the applicant and members of the public were provided the opportunity to present information to the Planning Commission; and CITY OF MONTICELLO WRIGHT COUNTY, MINNNESOTA PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. PC-2021-037 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 denial: The proposed uses are inconsistent with the intent and purpose of the Affordable Storage PUD Zoning District. The proposed uses are inconsistent with the existing and future land uses in the area in which they are located, including both the adjoining commercial uses as well as the adjoining single family residential area. The impacts of the improvements exceed those anticipated by the existing and future land uses and cannot addressed through standard review and ordinances as adopted. 4. The planned amendments do not meet the intent and requirements of the applicable zoning regulations. 5. The existing storage uses related to this request for amendment are not consistent with the terms of the approved PUD and must be removed from the site no later than .2021. 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 denies the Planned Unit Development Amendment for Affordable Storage and amend the language of the Affordable Self -storage District to remove references to Industrial accessory uses. ADOPTED this 51" day of October, 2021 by the Planning Commission of the City of Monticello, Minnesota. MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION Paul Konsor, Chair ATTEST: Angela Schumann, Community Development Director 2 O A D L O V) W V/V L 0 r) D 0- O +-+ E W E Q E L M� W N O O Ln c-I C"I 0 Q N r-I Ln Lf) 7i C) d c O C Co v O L U O co r -61 _! N Cl) U � J Z J N W cO W cI W 0_ X U ix o m ~ Z O Y a 2 w w a o' Y O w O r-+ m J 0 N Z W Oo Q Z U r-1 H O O 0 w w 41 L C � o: a u O d N 0. N 00 co O J W V Z O 2 W O} F- V r1 0 c-� v41 IZT 0 Y V O m r-4 r-i O O J Z 0 Q a 0 N a J � W E O L) D! O V � � Co N � O � pp O c a � v a= N � r-I � O f- O O Z 0 tN z C O �i u Q) 0 x O CO KB Properties PUD Amendment and Corresponding CUP Affordable Storage provides public self storage, with multiple locations in MN. The company has invested nearly $4MM in its 6.28 acre Monticello location and has provided a much needed service to the community. In addition to providing an in -demand service for local residents, Affordable Storage also contributes over $62,000 in annual property taxes, while placing very little demand on municipal services. In September of 2017, the City Council approved a PUD for Affordable Storage, located at 10111 Innsbrook Drive, and recently approved an amendment related to screening on this property (October 2020). Affordable Storage is proposing Accessory Use activities identified as "Open Sales" in the MZO within their current PUD. Subsection C of the Affordable Self -Storage PUD District in the Monticello Zoning Ordinance (MZO) outlines the permitting of an Accessory Use as follows: (c) Accessory Uses. Accessory uses shall be those commonly accessory and incidental to industrial uses, and as specifically identified by the approved final stage PUD Plans, but shall not include outdoor storage or other activities. "Open Sales" is defined on Page 495 of the MZO as follows: OPEN SALES: Any open land used or occupied for the purpose of buying, selling, and/or renting merchandise and for the storing of same prior to sale. This use includes all outdoor sales and display of goods and/or materials that are not specifically addressed as Outdoor Storage, Sidewalk Sales & Display, or Off -Street Vehicle Parking. As the display, leasing and sale of a "Portable Container" (Defined in MZO Page 499) is not specifically addressed as Outdoor Storage, Sidewalk Sales & Display, or Off -Street Vehicle Parking, the proposed use being defined as "Open Sales" is accurate. "Open Sales" is identified as an allowed Accessory Use, with a Conditional Use Permit (CUP), in the underlying B3 Zoning District, as well as the 11 Zoning District as outlined in Table 5-4 on Page 415 of the MZO. Subsection E of the Affordable Self -Storage PUD District in the Monticello Zoning Ordinance goes on to establish the method for amending the existing PUD for this Accessory Use CUP as follows: (e) Amendments. Where changes to the PUD are proposed in the manner of use, density, site plan, development layout building size, mass, or coverage, or any other change, the proposer shall apply for an amendment to the PUD under the terms of the Monticello Zoning Ordinance, Section 2.4 (O,)(10. The City may require that substantial changes in overall use of the PUD property be processed as a new project, including a zoning district amendment. Therefore, Affordable Storage, in accordance with the MZO, is applying for an Amendment to its existing PUD to grant a CUP for "Open Sales" as an Accessory Use. Affordable Storage is asking to be granted a PUD Amendment and CUP to allow for the utilization of 5,687 sq ft of at -grade space for the purpose of selling and renting merchandise and for the storing of the same prior to sale. This represents less than 7.5% of the current building space on site and 2% of the total land area of the parcel. This puts the request well within the Accessory Use guidelines as written in the MZO. The proposed locations for displaying varying size portable containers are outlined in the attached site -plan. This plan allows the maintaining of adequate site -circulation, fire access and snow removal. The area utilized for "Open Sales" will be neatly organized and screened from public view at a much higher standard than similar uses in the immediate area. There will be no assembly or manufacturing on site. All portable containers will be assembled off -site prior to being brought to the location to be displayed for the purpose of selling and/or renting. Although this accessory use will not substantially increase the amount of traffic, or noise at the site, Affordable Storage is willing to limit the hours for placement and replacement of the portable containers to Monday through Friday, between the hours of 10 a.m. and 4 p.m. Affordable Storage currently operates at 98% capacity for it's fixed location self -storage products indicating there is still substantial market demand for this use in the community. The addition of this Accessory Use will allow the company to not only serve more community members, but also serve them in a more convenient and affordable manner, capturing a growing trend in its industry. The proposed use has little to no measurable impacts on adjacent land owners, the general public right-of-way, or local infrastructure. There will be no changes to lighting, signage, garbage, or any other elements of the property. There will be no changes to the amount of impervious surface, or drainage on the site. Affordable Storage feels that this is an ideally suited location for this use and the request is in harmony with the area as well as the spirit of its original PUD. ir SNOW STORAGE AREA = 6,055 SF h'f A SNOW STORAGE AREA = 5,330 SF 2ox8, 2px8, 2oX8, 1018, 2018 2U r8, 10X8 10, co o� 4 EA - 15'X8' p / STORAGE CONTAINERS i �\EGG \ SNOW STORAGE S�\EGG 4 EA - 7.5'X7.5' STORAGE CONTAINERS a. \\� 2 EA - 15'X8' Q) 1 STORAGE CONTAINERS 3 EA - 8'X8' o,/ G STORAGE CONTAINERS V\�O 2 EA5' 8' 1� STORAGE CONTAINERS 3 EA - 7.5'X7.5' STORAGE CONTAINERS 3 EA - 7.5'X7.5' STORAGE CONTAINERS 1 EA - 20'X8' STORAGE CONTAINER �0- �\EGG *4 4 EA - 7.5'X7.5' STORAGE CONTAINER �Q o, 4 EA - 7.5'X7.5' STORAGE CONTAINERS 4 EA - 7.5'X7.5' / STORAGE CONTAINERS\Cj 4 EA - 7.5'X7.5' STORAGE CONTAINERS / SNOW STORAGE AREA = 15,525 SF / d d SNOW STORAGE AREA = 14,650 SF EpE EOF la � � al r X 0 30' SCALE: 1" = 30' LEGEND: 15'X8' PROPOSED STORAGE CONTAINER (SIZE OF UNIT INDICATED ON PLAN) SNOW STORAGE AREA SITE PLAN NOTES: 1. PROPOSED STORAGE POD CONTAINERS SHALL BE LOCATED ON EXISTING IMPERVIOUS SURFACE IN LOCATIONS SHOWN ON THE PLAN. 2. SNOW SHALL BE STORED IN LOCATIONS INDICATED ON PLAN. SITE PLAN INFORMATION: PARCEL AREA: • 6.28 ACRES ± SITE DATA EXISTING / PROPOSED PAVEMENT AREA 121,956 SF BUILDING AREA 76,144 SF PERVIOUS AREA 75,316 SF TOTAL AREA 273,416 SF PROPOSED STORAGE CONTAINERS CONTAINER SIZE AREA (SF) NO. OF CONTAINERS TOTAL AREA (SF) OF STORAGE 20' X 8' 160 17 2,720 15' X 8' 120 10 1,200 8' X 8' 64 3 192 7.5' X 7.5' 56 281 1,575 TOTAL AREA OF CONTAINERS 5,687 EXISTING BUILDINGS AREA (SF) BUILDING 1 3,364 BUILDING 2 4,530 BUILDING 3 5,130 BUILDING 4 4,530 BUILDING 5 5,130 BUILDING 6 4,530 BUILDING 7 5,130 BUILDING 8 4,230 BUILDING 9 5,130 BUILDING 10 3,930 BUILDING 11 5,130 BUILDING 12 3,930 BUILDING 13 5,130 BUILDING 14 3,030 BUILDING 15 5,130 BUILDING 16 5,130 BUILDING 17 3,030 TOTAL 76,144 STORAGE CONTAINER: z O D_ U U7 w 0 uO N 0 U 0 U 0 U 0 v N p O N m m m 0 w z z Y O Q W C2 CD Lu D D D U D IL Z MI* 0 v 10� Z w Zm N W (n Y C oW coV_ W li QW 9 U. .. C7f/1 WN �WH~0�0 y� Q cow m yN r1� ♦^ mzz rLco LL v Oaj°C WWO 0 Z5 z JVW o - OJ W �H a A U w z z w J Q o Q U z u r QC Q O = LL U C Q w J Ln O 0- J W DC O W 0o U u c/) p~ L/) z z I= 0 0 2 0 ILL ILL LL G 0 LL m O Q U F-- U SHEET NO. c I CHAPTER 3: ZONING DISTRICTS Section 3.8 Planned Unit Development Districts Subsection Q) Special Use Overlay District (b) Permitted Uses. Permitted principal uses in the Autumn Ridge PUD District shall be single family residential uses as found in the "T-N", Traditional Neighborhood Zoning District, subject to the approved Final Stage Development Plans and development agreement dated September 1 lth, 2017, as may be amended. The introduction of any other use from any district, including Conditional Uses in the T-N District, shall be reviewed under the requirements of the Monticello Zoning Ordinance, Chapter 2, Section (0) — Planned Unit Developments for Development Stage PUD and Final Stage PUD. (c) Accessory Uses. Accessory uses shall be those commonly accessory and incidental to residential uses as allowed in the T-N District, and as specifically identified by the approved final stage PUD plans. (d) District Performance Standards. Performance standards for the development of any lot in the Autumn Ridge PUD District shall adhere to the approved final stage PUD plans and development agreement. In such case where any proposed improvement or use is not addressed by the Final Stage PUD, then the regulations of the T-N, Traditional Neighborhood District shall apply. (e) Amendments. Where changes to the PUD are proposed in the manner of use, density, site plan, development layout, building size, mass, or coverage, or any other change, the proposer shall apply for an amendment to the PUD under the terms of the Monticello Zoning Ordinance, Section 2.4 (0)(10). The City may require that substantial changes in overall use of the PUD property be processed as a new project, including a zoning district amendment. (8) Affordable Self -Storage PUD District (a) Purpose. The purpose of the Affordable Self -Storage PUD District is to provide for the development of certain real estate subject to the District for commercial land uses. (b) Permitted Uses. Permitted principal uses in the Affordable Self -Storage PUD District shall be self -storage uses as found in the B-3, Highway Business District of the Monticello Zoning Ordinance, subject to the approved Final Stage Development Plans dated September 11, 2017 and development agreement dated September I Vh, 2017, as may be amended. The introduction of any other use from any district, including Conditional Uses in the B-3 District, shall be reviewed under the requirements of the Monticello Zoning Ordinance, Chapter 2, Section (0) — Planned Unit Developments for Development Stage PUD and Final Stage PUD. Page 222 City of Monticello Zoning Ordinance CHAPTER 3: ZONING DISTRICTS Section 3.8 Planned Unit Development Districts Subsection Q) Special Use Overlay District (c) Accessory Uses. Accessory uses shall be those commonly accessory and incidental to industrial uses, and as specifically identified by the approved final stage PUD Plans, but shall not include outdoor storage or other activities. (d) District Performance Standards. Performance standards for the development in the Affordable Self -Storage PUD District shall adhere to the approved final stage PUD plans and development agreement. In such case where any proposed improvement or use is not addressed by the Final Stage PUD, then the regulations of the B-3, Highway Business District shall apply. (e) Amendments. Where changes to the PUD are proposed in the manner of use, density, site plan, development layout, building size, mass, or coverage, or any other change, the proposer shall apply for an amendment to the PUD under the terms of the Monticello Zoning Ordinance, Section 2.4 (0)(10). The City may require that substantial changes in overall use of the PUD property be processed as a new project, including a zoning district amendment. (9) Rivertown Suites PUD District (a) Purpose. The purpose of the Rivertown Suites PUD District is to provide for the development of certain real estate subject to the District for multiple family residential land uses. (b) Permitted Uses. Permitted principal uses in the Rivertown Suites PUD District shall be multiple family residential uses as found in the R-4, Medium - High Density Residential District of the Monticello Zoning Ordinance, subject to the approved Final Stage Development Plans dated July 23, 2018 and development agreement dated September 7, 2018, as may be amended. The introduction of any other use from any district shall be reviewed under the requirements of the Monticello Zoning Ordinance, Chapter 2, Section (0) — Planned Unit Developments for Development Stage PUD and Final Stage PUD. (c) Accessory Uses. Accessory uses shall be those commonly accessory and incidental to residential uses, and as specifically identified by the approved final stage PUD plans. (d) District Performance Standards. Performance standards for the development of any lot in the Rivertown Suites PUD District shall adhere to the approved final stage PUD plans and development agreement. In such case where any proposed improvement is not addressed by the final stage PUD, then the regulations of the R-4, Medium -High Density Residential District shall apply. City of Monticello Zoning Ordinance Page 223 CHAPTER 5: USE STANDARDS Section S.3 Accessory Use Standards Subsection (C) Table of Permitted Accessory Uses (3) Table of Permitted Accessory Uses and Structures • Accessory Building — P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P minor 5.3 D1( 1 I ( Accessory Building — P P P P P P P C P P P P P P P Pmajor 5.3 D 2 Adult Use — accessory LP] C 5.3 Q 3 Agricultural Buildings 5.3 LQJ 4 Air Conditioning Units P I P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P Automated Teller Machines (ATMs) P P P P P P P P S. 3(D)(51 Automobile Repair — C Major 5.3f D)(6) Automobile Repair — Minor C C 5.3 UD 7 Boarder(s) P P p 5.3 D 8 Bulk Fuel Sales/Storage P P P C ICI C 5.3 D 9 Cocktail Room (Retail Sales Accessory to Micro- C C C C C C Distillery) 5.3(Dj(10) Co -located Wireless Telecommunications C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C Antennae 4.13(E) Columbarium (Accessory P P P P P P P use to Cemeteries) 5.3(D(1 1) Commercial Canopies P P P P P P P P 5.3(D 12) Commercial Transmission/ Reception Antennae/ C C C C C C Structures 4.13(D) Donation Drop-off P P Containers 5.3 D 13 Drive -Through Services P P P C P P P 5.3 Q14 Entertainment/ Recreation C C C C 14 5.3 D 15 — Outdoor Commercial Fences or Walls p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p P 4.3 Greenhouse/Conservatory p p p p p p p P P P P P P P P P 5.3 D 16 non-commercial Heliports C C C C C 5.3 D 17 Home Occupations P P P P P P P p p P 5.3 D 18 Indoor Food / p p p p p p p p 5.3 D 19 Convenience Sales Page 414 City of Monticello Zoning Ordinance CHAPTER 5: USE STANDARDS Section 5.3 Accessory Use Standards Subsection (C) Table of Permitted Accessory Uses 9 , . ' - -. Indoor Storage P P P P p P 5.3 D 20 Incidental Light p p p p P 5.3(D)(21) Manufacturing Machinery/Trucking :�iEc 5.3(D)(22) Repair & Sales Office P P P P P P none Off-street Loading p p C P P P P P P P 4.9 Space Off-street Parking P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P 4.8 Open Sales P h C C C 5.3(D(23) Operation and storage of agricultural P 5.3(D)(24) vehicles, equipment, and machinery Outdoor Seating — Accessory to restaurant, bar, production brewery with P\C P\C P\C P\C 5.3(D)(25) taproom, microdistillery with cocktail room, and/or brewpubs Outdoor Sidewalk Sales & Display P P P P P P P P 5.3(D)(26) (businesses) Residential 5.3(D)(27)(a) Outdoor Storage P P P P P P P P P P Industrial 5.3 D 27 b Park Facility Buildings & P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P 5.3(D)(28) Structures (public) Private Amateur 4.13(B Radio P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P Private Receiving Antennae and P P P P P P P P P P P P p p p p 4.13(C) Antenna Support Structures City of Monticello Zoning Ordinance Page 415 CHAPTER 5: USE STANDARDS Section 5.3 Accessory Use Standards Subsection (D) Additional Specific Standards for Certain Accessory Uses Retail Sales of Goods (as P P P P P P C C 5.3(D)(29) part of an office or industrial use Shelters (Storm or P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P 5.3(D)(30) Fallout Sign(s) P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P 5.3 Q 31 Solar Energy System P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P 5.3(D)(32) Swimming Pool P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P 5.3(D)(33) Taproom (Retail Sales C C C C C C 5.3(D)(34) Accessory to Production Brewer Large Trash Handling and P P P P P P P P P P P P 5.3(D)(35) Recycling Collection Area Wind Energy Conversion C C 7 C C C 5.3(D)(36) System, Commercial Wind Energy Conversion C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C 5.3(D)(37) System, Non-commercial Wireless Telecommunications Support Structures C C C C C C C 4 3 (E1 4.3(Fl (D) Additional Specific Standards for Certain Accessory Uses (1) Accessory Building — Minor (a) Minor accessory buildings do not require a building permit, but shall comply with all applicable zoning regulations. (b) In the M-H district, one minor accessory building for storage of equipment and refuse is permitted for each manufactured home provided the accessory building can meet all required setbacks, and is designed of weather resistant material that will enhance the general appearance of the lot. (2) Accessory Building — Major (a) In all residential districts except M-H, the following shall apply: (i) Size Page 416 City of Monticello Zoning Ordinance CHAPTER 8: RULES & DEFINITIONS Section 8.4 Definitions Subsection (8) Lots or on the effective date of any amendment of this Ordinance, that does not comply with the use regulations of this Ordinance or the amendment. NURSING HOME (CONVALESCENT HOME): A facility that provides nursing services and custodial care generally on a 24-hour basis for two or more unrelated individuals who for reasons of illness, physical infirmity, or advanced age, require such services; but not including hospitals, clinics, sanitariums, or similar institutions. OBSTRUCTION (in relation to flood plains): Any dam, wall, wharf, embankment, levee, dike, pile, abutment, projection, excavation, channel modification, culvert, building, wire, fence, stockpile, refuse, fill, structure, or matter in, along, across, or projecting into any channel, watercourse, or regulatory flood plain which may impede, retard, or change the direction of the flow of water, either in itself or by catching or collecting debris carried by such water. OFFICE USE: An establishment primarily engaged in providing professional, financial, administrative, clerical, and similar services. OFF-STREET LOADING SPACE: A space accessible from the street, alley or way, in a building or on the lot, for the use of trucks while loading or unloading merchandise or materials. Such space shall be of such size as to accommodate one (1) truck of the type typically used in the particular business. OPACITY (OPAQUE): A measurement indicating the degree of obscuration of light or visibility. An object that is 100% opaque is impenetrable by light. OPEN SALES: Any open land used or occupied for the purpose of buying, selling, and/or renting merchandise and for the storing of same prior to sale. This use includes all outdoor sales and display of goods and/or materials that are not specifically addressed as Outdoor Storage, Sidewalk Sales & Display, or Off -Street Vehicle Parking. OPEN SPACE: An area on a lot not occupied by any structure or impervious surface. OPEN SPACE, USABLE: A required ground area or terrace area on a lot which is graded, developed, landscaped, and equipped and intended and maintained for either active or passive recreation or both, available and accessible to and usable by all persons occupying a dwelling unit or rooming unit on the lot and their guests. Such areas shall be grassed and landscaped or covered only for a recreational purpose. Roofs, driveways, and parking areas shall not constitute usable open space. City of Monticello Zoning Ordinance Page 495 CHAPTER 8: RULES & DEFINITIONS Section 8.4 Definitions Subsection (B) Lots ORDINARY HIGH WATER (new shoreland district code): The boundary of public waters which may include wetlands, and shall be an elevation delineating the highest water level which has been maintained for a sufficient period of time to leave evidence upon the landscape, commonly that point where the natural vegetation changes from predominantly aquatic to predominantly terrestrial. For watercourses, the ordinary high water level is the elevation of the top of the bank of the channel. For reservoirs and flowages, the ordinary high water level is the operating elevation of the normal summer pool. OUTDOOR STORAGE: The keeping, in an un-roofed area, of any goods, material, merchandise, or vehicles in the same place for more than twenty-four (24) hours. This shall not include the display of vehicles for sale in a new or used car sales lot. OUTPATIENT CARE: Medical examination or service available to the public in a hospital. This service is provided without overnight care and shall be considered a separate, independent, principal use when combined or operated in conjunction with a hospital. OWNER: The person or entity with a legal or equitable interest in the land on which the construction activities will occur. PARAPET: A low wall which is located perpendicular to (extension of front wall) a roof of a building. PARK FACILITY, ACTIVE: A park or recreation facility that includes one or more of the following: buildings, lighting, ball fields, tennis courts, swimming pools, skate parks, golf courses, or other active sports facilities. Active park facilities will commonly include benches, picnic areas, trails, sidewalks, and other similar features. PARK FACILITY, PASSIVE: A park or recreational facility that does not include the construction of facilities, lighting, or development of ball fields or other active sports facilities. Passive parks may include benches, picnic areas, trails and sidewalks. PARKING, OFF-STREET: The act of keeping a passenger vehicle as defined herein and/or small commercial vehicles, recreational vehicles and emergency vehicles as defined herein, on an approved parking space, properly surfaced, for a period of less than twenty-four (24) hours. PARKING BAY: The parking module consisting of one or two rows of parking spaces or stalls and the aisle from which motor vehicles enter and leave the spaces. PARKING ISLAND: Landscaped areas within parking lots used to separate parking areas and to soften the overall visual impact of a large parking area from adjacent properties. Page 496 City of Monticello Zoning Ordinance CHAPTER 8: RULES & DEFINITIONS Section 8.4 Definitions Subsection (8) Lots RIVER, TRIBUTARY: Rivers in the Protected Public Waters Inventory that are not classified by the DNR as an agricultural, forested, remote or transition river. ROOF: The exterior surface and its supporting structure on the top of a building or structure. The structural makeup of which conforms to the roof structures, roof construction and roof covering sections of the International Building Code. ROOT ZONE: The area inside the dripline of a tree that contains its roots. SCHOOL, Pre-K-12: A public or private school offering general, technical, or alternative instruction at the elementary, middle, or high school level that operates in buildings or structures on land leased or owned by the educational institution for administrative purposes. Such uses include classrooms, vocational training (including that of an industrial nature for instructional purposes only in middle or high schools), laboratories, auditoriums, libraries, cafeterias, after school care, athletic facilities, dormitories, and other facilities that further the educational mission of the institution. SCHOOL, HIGHER EDUCATION: A public or private non-profit institution for post- secondary education or a public or private school offering vocational or trade instruction to students. Such educational institutions operate in buildings or structures on land leased or owned by the educational institution for administrative purposes. Such uses include classrooms, vocational training (including that of an industrial nature for instructional purposes only), laboratories, auditoriums, libraries, cafeterias, after school care, athletic facilities, dormitories, and other facilities that further the educational mission of the institution. SCROLLING TEXT: A type of dynamic sign movement in which the letters or symbols move horizontally across the sign in a continuous scroll, permitting a viewer to observe the message over time. Scrolling shall not include flashing or other types of video movement. SEDIMENT CONTROL: Measures and methods employed to prevent sediment from leaving the site. SELF -STORAGE FACILITY: A building or group of buildings that contains equal or varying sizes of individual, compartmentalized, and controlled access stalls or lockers for the storage of residential or commercial customer's goods or wares. SEDIMENT: The product of an erosion process; solid material both mineral and organic, that is in suspension, is being transported, or has been moved by water, air or ice, and has come to rest on the earth's surface either above or below water level. City of Monticello Zoning Ordinance Page 501 FUTURE LAND USE MAP COMMERCIAL DESIGNATIONS There are four commercial and mixed land use designations as follows: Community Commercial A Community Commercial designation applies to existing commercial uses along State Highway 25, School Boulevard and Chelsea Road, as well as other small pockets of Monticello that include existing shopping centers, retailers and entertainment uses. The intent of Community Commercial is to provide locations for everyday retail goods and services generally oriented to a city-wide basis. Regional Commercial A Regional Commercial designation applies to areas targeted for uses that serve the traveling public and larger retail uses and commercial development intended for a regional market. This designation is generally applied to various areas along the Interstate 94 corridor with high visibility. The development character of the regional commercial development will continue to be auto -oriented, large format commercial uses such as `big -box' uses and other uses that require a large parking area. Looking to the future, opportunities for connectivity and design linkages between such development and nearby uses and neighborhoods will be emphasized. Downtown Mixed -Use The Downtown Mixed -Use category identifies and designates the downtown area as a primary development focus for downtown intended to improve, revitalize and redevelop Downtown Monticello as envisioned in the 2017 Downtown Small Area Plan. The goal is to transform downtown into a thriving commercial area with new mixed -use, specialty retail and restaurant uses with enhanced streetscape and pedestrian amenities. Entertainment uses, co -working spaces, boutiques and cafes are also envisioned. New downtown development should also embrace and be oriented towards the river whenever possible. Commercial/Residential Flex The Commercial/Residential Flex designation encourages the mix of flexible and compatible development of commercial, office, retail and residential uses in limited areas of the city on the same or adjacent properties. The purpose of this designation is to give the city and property owners flexibility for future land use based on market demand. The Commercial/Residential Flex designation is applied to a few of the remaining large vacant parcels in the City including the parcels located south of Chelsea Road and north of School Boulevard and centered along Dundas Road. This designation is also applied to parcels located between Interstate 94 and 7th Street West. These properties may be developed as commercial, residential, or mixed land uses under the city's PUD zoning, subject to review and approval of the City. u)" F F Park/OpenSp— Cemetery TABLE 3.3.- FUTURE LAND USE COMMERCIAL ACREAGES Source: Monticello Downtown Small Area Plan (2017) 60 (« LAND USE, GROWTH AND ORDERLY ANNEXATION COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL (CC) The Community Commercial designation includes low -scale retail, service, and office uses located along the City's arterials and collector streets. Some of these areas are developed as auto -oriented "strip" shopping centers while others are freestanding offices, commercial uses, or clusters of businesses intended to meet the needs of the community at large. Typical retail uses would include supermarkets, drug stores and miscellaneous local -serving retail stores and services. Typical office commercial uses might include banks, finance, real estate, medical and dental offices, and professional services. Typical service commercial uses might include gas stations, restaurants including fast food, used car sales, and minor auto repair businesses. Primary Mode Vehicular with access to collectors and arterials l Transit or l shuttle service Secondary Mode Shared bike/ pedestrian facilities 2018 Correlating • Floor Area Ratio Zoning District (FAR) 0.30 to 0.50 B-2 • Height - Limited Business District 1-2 stories • Lot Area I B-3 N/A Highway Business District MONTICELLO 2040 VISION + PLAN MINUTES REGULAR MEETING - MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday, October 5th, 2021- 6:00 p.m. Mississippi Room, Monticello Community Center Commissioners Present: Paul Konsor, Andrew Tapper, Eric Hagen and Teri Lehner Commissioners Absent: Alison Zimpfer Council Liaison Present: Charlotte Gabler Staff Present: Angela Schumann, Steve Grittman (NAC), Hayden Stensgard, and Ron Hackenmueller 1. General Business A. Call to Order Chairperson Paul Konsor called the regular meeting of the Monticello Planning Commission to order at 6:00. B. Consideration of approving minutes a. Special Meeting Minutes — July 6, 2021 b. Regular Meeting Minutes — August 7th, 2021 c. Regular Meeting Minutes — September 71h, 2021 ERIC HAGEN MOVED TO APPROVE THE AUGUST 7th AND SEPTEMBER 71h PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES. TERI LEHNER SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION APPROVED UNANIMOUSLY, 4-0. ERIC HAGEN MOVED TO TABLE THE JULY 61h SPECIAL MEETING MINUTES APPROVAL; PAUL KONSOR SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY 4-0. C. Citizen Comments None D. Consideration of adding items to the agenda None E. Consideration to approve agenda ANDREW TAPPER MOVED TO APPROVE THE OCTOBER 5, 2021, PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING AGENDA, ERIC HAGEN SECONDED THE MOTION, MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY 4-0. 2. Public Hearing A. Public Hearing — Consideration of request for Amendment to Planned Unit Development for expansion of an existing Vehicle Sales & Rental use in a B-3 (Highway Business District). Applicant: Ashbrook, Aeron Planning Commission Minutes —October 5, 2021 Steve Grittman provided an overview of the application. The PUD that is in place in this location was put in place to accommodate the shared access between West Metro as well as Cornerstone. The expansion would be an addition to the already existing building on site. The applicant provided two different plans for the one expansion proposed. The first one included service bays for vehicles to be worked on, the second set of plans also included the service bays, but also had a second story on the expansion for office space. If plans are approved, the applicant will move forward with the plans that include the second story. The expansion would have very little impact on the site plan. This use is an allowed use in the zoning district and the expansion fits the site, causing no setback issues. Staff believes the use is consistent with both the function of the property as well as the intent of the PUD. Staff recommends approval of the amendment to the conditional use permit with the conditions noted in Exhibit Z. Eric Hagen asked how far the building would be from the Child Care Center next to it following completion of the expansion. Stephen Grittman said that the site plan showed a setback of about 35 from the property line and that there is a parcel that divides the property lines of both West Metro and the Child Care Center, which is roughly another 20 feet. The total space separating the two is about 55 feet. Paul Konsor opened the public hearing, hearing no comments, the public hearing was closed. Eric Hagen said that he believes it is a good use for the space and agrees with the staff s recommendation. Andrew Tapper said he did not see an issue regarding parking on the site. ERIC HAGEN MOVED TO ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. PC 2021-034, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF AMENDMENT TO THE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT, BASED ON THE FINDINGS IN SAID RESOLUTION ON THE CONDITIONS IDENTIFIED IN EXHIBIT Z, ANDREW TAPPER SECONDED THE MOTION, MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY 4-0. EXHIBIT Z Conditions for Approval Planned Unit Development Amendment for West Metro Buick GMC 1. The site plan shall be modified to specify intended off-street parking areas and related drives aisles. 2. The applicant address, to the satisfaction of the City, the handling of increased parking demand which may result from the addition of 2,736 square feet of new office space included in the "Plan B" development option. This dedicated parking should include adequate parking for employee counts under either option, and avoid on -street parking needs. Planning Commission Minutes —October 5, 2021 3. The height of the two-story development option (Plan A) shall be reduced to 30 feet. 4. The submitted building elevations shall be modified to specify intended finish materials that match the existing structure. 5. All new site signage shall be subject to sign permit processing. 6. Issues related to site grading, drainage and utilities shall be subject to comment and recommendation by the City Engineer. B. Public Hearing — Consideration of a request for Conditional Use Permit for Accessory Structure exceeding 1,200 square feet and a Variance to Accessory Structure square footage maximum of 1,500 square feet and Variance to side yard setback for an existing single-family residential use in the Central Community District, General Sub -District. Applicant: McCarty, Clarence Steve Grittman provided an overview of the land use application request. Grittman noted that there are three proposed resolutions, two of which needed action. The one is for the Conditional Use Permit and the other two have to do with the Variance request. The applicant is looking to add 20-foot-wide garage on the east side of the house. The setback would be met as it is 6 feet from the property line. The added square footage of the garage would put the total square footage of accessory structures over 1,900 sq ft. The zoning code calls for single-family homes to not have more than 1,500 sq ft of accessory structures, but the code also calls for single-family homes to have an attached 2-car garage. The issue brought forth would be whether to allow the applicant to exceed the threshold of 1,500 sq ft after the Condition Use request. Staff believes that the attached garage is a consistent use for the site. Grittman noted the variance request to exceed 1,500 sq feet has been seen recently in the past and has been denied subsequently. Staff s recommendation is to approve the Conditional Use Permit to exceed the 1,200 sq ft threshold up to 1,500 sq ft but deny the variance to exceed the 1,500 sq ft threshold. An option observed by staff would be to reduce the size of existing accessory structure to meet the maximum of 1,500 sq ft. Eric Hagen asked if there was any historical significance to the barn on the property where making changes to it would be a problem. Grittman responded that it is not on the historic register. Paul Konsor asked if there was an aerial view of the barn on site, to know that there were no additions to the barn since its first construction. Grittman responded saying that just based on observation of what information is currently available, it does look like it was added on at a later date. Andrew Tapper asked for clarification there is no verification of the age of the building. Grittman noted that the applicant would be able to better answer that question. Charlotte Gabler asked if the commission had been approached about a similar Planning Commission Minutes —October 5, 2021 situation with the applicant prior to this hearing. Grittman confirmed that the applicant had submitted a similar application for a different parcel. Paul Konsor opened the public hearing. Applicant Clarence McCarty said that there is no documentation regarding the age of the barn but is aware that it is over 150 years old. A colleague at the Wright County historical Society had told him that the barn used to be the town's livery stable. McCarty confirmed that the barn has been added on to, but it would not be applicable to remove any parts of the barn. Eric Hagen noted that it has been allowed before for applicants to go above the 1,200 square feet. Hagen also understands the use of the barn, the option is there to remove parts of accessory structures to meet the 1,500 square foot maximum, but it is not desirable. Steve Grittman clarified that variances were decided by hardship, meaning there is no other option. That has since changed to practical use, where as long as it seems like a reasonable request, the variance could be granted. Eric Hagen asked Steve Grittman if it still true that variances can be approved only if all conditions were met. Grittman responded saying that to approve a variance, the essentials include a unique condition to the property, that said condition was not created by the applicant, and that same condition creates practical difficulty in terms of putting the property to reasonable use. The term "reasonable use" offers flexibility in its definition. Eric Hagen said that it is certainly unique to have a barn in the middle of down. But it does not restrict the property from reasonable use. He also noted that even though the specific impeding structure may be a unique situation because it is a barn, if it was another type of structure causing the same problem, those two situations would be one in the same. Applicant Clarence McCarty noted that this condition was in fact not created by himself (the applicant) as the barn was built before the town was created. It would be difficult to remove any parts of accessory structures on the property, but believes the attached garage is a necessary structure for the property. Andrew Tapper said that if there was some validation of the significance of the barn, it would be a different story. Eric Hagen agrees with Tapper saying that if something makes this barn unique to any other structure, then it would be clearer to the variance approval. Hagen also noted that it may be a good idea to look at the separation between hardship and reasonable use noted earlier, this would also potentially give the applicant more time to see if there actually is some historical significance to the barn. Hearing no more public comments, Paul Konsor closed the public hearing. Paul Konsor said that his opinion is that any property has limitation to it, the Planning Commission Minutes —October 5, 2021 barn is in use and being utilized and the homeowner, due the ask for expansion, has outgrown the property. Unless there is something from a historical society, he could not see reason to approve the variance. Teri Lehner concurs with Paul Konsor that if there is something to make this historically significant beyond the barn just being old, then the variance would be easier to approve. Steve Grittman noted that it is discussed in the staff report that if the planning commission is looking for a way to approve this, those factors would need to be addressed, such as information claiming historical significance on the barn. Andrew Tapper asked that if the CUP was approved but the variance was denied, could the applicant come back with the variance to try to get it approved again. Grittman responded saying that they would need to do it within six months, or they could appeal it to the City Council. Councilmember Charlotte Gabler asked Steve Grittman if they approved the CUP and removed the part in exhibit z regarding the removal of existing accessory buildings to meet the 1,500 square foot maximum and said this property has met its max capacity for square footage and could not ask again, could that be possible. Steve Grittman said that could be a condition on the CUP, but it is unlikely to make this a binding agreement down the road, due to new councils being able to overturn the decision. Paul Konsor suggested approving the CUP and tabling the decision on the variance. Andrew Tapper asked the staff about the application deadline if the variance decision was tabled. Angela Schumann said that staff would need to send the applicant an extension letter, or the applicant would have to waive their 60-day timeline. Commission would have until December 23rd5 2021, to make a decision on the variance. Eric Hagen believes that historical significance might not have anything to do with approving or denying the variance. Andrew Tapper responded that the commission would be looking for something binding or official. Eric Hagen does not see a way that this variance could be approved without it causing problems in the future with other decisions. Decision 1: Consideration of a Conditional Use Permit for a detached garage with a total of more than 1,200 square feet on a single-family parcel. ERIC HAGEN MOVED TO ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. PC 2021-035, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, BASED ON THE FINDINGS IN SAID RESOLUTION, AND THE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL AS REQUIRED IN THE ORDINANCE AND IN EXHIBIT Z. SECONDED BY PAUL KONSOR. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY 4-0. Planning Commission Minutes —October 5, 2021 Decision 2: Variance from the maximum total garage space on a single-family parcel. ERIC HAGEN MOVED TO ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. PC 2021-036 (DENIAL), DENYING THE VARIANCE FOR A DETACHED GARAGE EXCEEDING THE TOTAL SQUARE FOOTAGE ALLOWANCE OF 1,500 SQUARE FEET ON A SINGLE-FAMILY PARCEL, BASED ON THE FINDINGS IN SAID RESOLUTION. SECONDED BY TERI LEHNER. MOTION CARRIED 3-1 WITH PAUL KONSOR VOTING IN OPPOSITION. EXHIBIT Z Conditions for Approval Conditional Use Permit for 319 W 3rd St 1. A portion of the existing accessory building shall be removed such that a setback of not less than 6 feet is maintained along the north property line. 2. The amount of accessory garage (storage) space on the property shall not exceed 1,500 square feet. 3. No accessory buildings other than the new attached garage and the reconstructed detached building are permitted on the property. 4. The proposed attached garage is constructed per the provided plans. 5. No business use may be made of the building, and such building is utilized solely for the storage of personal residential equipment and materials. 6. The exterior materials used to finish the new attached accessory structure must match the existing home in material type and color. 7. No exterior lighting be attached to the garage that will glare onto adjoining property. 8. All exterior parking and storage shall meet the requirements of the zoning ordinance, and existing residential trailers, equipment, and other storage is removed from the site, lawfully parked in the rear yard, or stored in the accessory buildings on the property. 9. The disturbed areas of the site shall be seeded or sodded within one calendar year of the issuance of a certificate of occupancy. 10. Recommendations of the City Engineer. 11. Comments and recommendations of other staff. Planning Commission Minutes —October 5, 2021 C. Public Hearing — Consideration of request for an Amendment to the Affordable Storage Planned Unit Development for Proposed Portable Container Accessory Use. Applicant: Burnham, Keith Steve Grittman provided an overview of the land use application request. Grittman notes the applicant states that in the language of the PUD district, outdoor storage is an accepted accessory use, but staff believes this is a typographical error. As part of the original approval of the PUD, outdoor storage was not intended to be allowed. Staff believes the intent of the application was to accommodate a low -intensity commercial use in this location give its proximity to the residential area, which is consistent with the comprehensive plan in this area. The addition of the storage boxes to the site would introduce more traffic to the site, particularly equipment that would move these boxes on and off the site. Staff believes this is incompatible with the way the district was originally designed. The applicant suggests that the storage boxes are a form of outdoor display, which is allowed in some commercial areas in Monticello. In staffs view, this type of use differs from outdoor display. Staff recommends denial of the amendment to the planned unit development as proposed. Eric Hagen asked how this application is different from the one the applicant submitted in the month of August. Steve Grittman responded that the applicant withdrew the application prior and reconfigured the layout of the site and rewrote the application in a different form. Paul Konsor asked to clarify the decision on the table. Grittman clarified by describing the first decision as the amendment to the planned unit development proposed by the applicant. The second decision is from the City of Monticello staff that would correct the wording in the existing in the PUD, as the intent of the language was to reflect commercial uses, rather industrial uses. Eric Hagen asked if this language was specific to this Planned Unit Development. Grittman confirmed that this language is specific to this Planned Unit Development. Paul Konsor asked what the language clarification of language would do to the PUD. Grittman responded by saying that the applicant was relying on the language to allow this use the applicant is applying for. Staff is looking to clear this up so future confusion wouldn't be necessary. Tapper added on saying that this PUD has always been a Commercial district and not Industrial. Paul Konsor asked to clarify that conditions within a PUD is specific to the property the PUD relates to. Planning Commission Minutes —October 5, 2021 Grittman said that was correct. Paul Konsor asked why this language change would make a difference when the condition was already specific to only this property under discussion. Grittman described the way language is created specifically for PUD and that the grammatical error came when the PUD was created. Paul Konsor opened the public hearing. Tim Dolan of the Decklan Group, representing the applicant Keith Burnham, said that the applicant interpreted the PUD the way he read it, that is why the storage boxes were already placed on the site. The language in the PUD that the amendment would change is where a great deal of confusion came from regarding this application. The basics of the request is that the storage boxes on site are not outdoor storage. The applicant claims that these storage containers are not outdoor storage, but more so open sales. The definition of Open Sales in the code reads as follows: "OPEN SALES: Any open land used or occupied for the purpose of buying, selling, and/or renting merchandise and for the storing of same prior to sale. This use includes all outdoor sales and display of goods and/or materials that are not specifically addressed as Outdoor Storage, Sidewalk Sales & Display, or Off -Street Vehicle Parking." Since these containers are for rent or for sale, the applicant believes that these should be allowed in the PUD. The definition of Open Sales is vague and doesn't include the size of what is being sold, or where it is allowed to be sold. The applicant also believes that the amendment to the language does not apply to this request. Mr. Dolan also clarified the difference between the original application to the one being discussed at this meeting included public access and that this application is a Conditional Use Permit to allow open sales. The original focused more on the discussion of outdoor storage. Mr. Dolan also noted that the comprehensive plan guidance regarding this Planned Unit Development, the underlying zoning district, is Community Commercial. Permitted uses in Community Commercial include gas stations, drive-thru's, strip malls etc. The point being that these uses create more traffic and noise than what is being proposed in the application. Mr. Dolan believes this is the lowest impact use that could be put on said site, and that this is backed by almost all subsets of planning data. From a noise perspective, Mr. Dolan and the applicant both have difficulty in seeing the problems this would have involving added noise to the area. Dolan also noted that of the first 16 parcels on Chelsea Road, 14 have some sort of Outdoor Storage and/or Open Sales. Dolan does not see a better place in the whole city of Monticello that these storage containers could be placed. Dolan addressed staff concerns regarding the snow storage on site with these containers taking up some space where that snow storage would be, saying that the applicant did not want to continue with any further engineering regarding snow storage without some guidance form the planning commission. The Planning Commission Minutes —October 5, 2021 applicant has no problem also with addressing issues with fire access and public traffic through the site. To further emphasize cooperation, Dolan expressed his preference for tabling the decision so staff and the planning commission, as well as the applicant, could address concerns. Paul Konsor asked if Mr. Dolan if he knew if the applicant was aware that the original PUD had the clause included that stated no outdoor storage. Tim Dolan said that yes, the applicant was aware, but the application does not address outdoor storage because the argument is that it is open sales. Paul Konsor asked if the original PUD for the site had anything regarding open sales as an allowable use. Tim Dolan said that the PUD allows accessory uses on the site. It would "open sales as an accessory use to storage". Dolan noted that the accessory use definition for the PUD emphasizes a footprint on the site at no greater than 30 percent, this applicant is using around 5 percent. Paul Konsor asked why the PUD allows for open sales when originally the PUD was established for a storage facility. Dolan responded that the PUD outlines what could potentially be utilized on the site. For accessory uses, steps apply to getting the go ahead for accessory uses in the district, which is why they submitted an application. This process was something that both parties agreed upon when creating the PUD. Andrew Tapper asked that the applicant's preference would be for the planning commission to table action so they could come back with a Conditional Use Permit Application regarding open Sales as an accessory use. Tim Dolan said no, the CUP is already a part of this current application. But it would be tabled to allow the planning commission to tie any loose ends regarding this application so there is no confusion. Paul Konsor asked if the containers are for rent or for sale. Tim Dolan answered that they are both for sale and for rent. Paul Konsor asked if customers typically come to the site and pick up the boxes. Tim Dolan responded that they could do that. But the goal of these containers is to advertise to current customers who come to the site already, that is why they are not placed along Chelsea Road. Paul Konsor asked if a customer buys a container, the customer keeps it. Tim Dolan said potentially, yes. Paul Konsor said the definition for Outdoor Storage in the PUD includes the keeping of merchandise, which is what the containers are, so merchandise storage for longer than 24 hours would not be allowed in the PUD. Tim Dolan noted that the functioning word in that definition is "keeping". In terms of Open Sales, the definition's first part is what the applicant believes to be applicable in this situation. The differentiating part between the two is sales. Planning Commission Minutes —October S, 2021 Paul Konsor explained that he was attempting to clarify what specifically applies here whether it be outdoor storage or open sales. Andrew Tapper asked again to clarify whether this is an application for an amendment to the existing PUD to grant a CUP for open sales as an accessory use. Tim Dolan said that yes, this is an application for CUP to grant open sales as an accessory use. Andrew Tapper noted for clarification, that if the planning commission decided that this use was considered outdoor storage, then the application would go no further. But if the planning commission sees it as open sales, then this would come back next month looking for an amendment to the CUP. Steve Grittman noted that the main discussion is whether this is outdoor storage or open sales, and Grittman reminded the body that staff believes this is outdoor storage. Paul Konsor asked Steve Grittman if open sales was originally allowed in the CUP. Grittman responded that no, open sales was not allowed originally in the CUP. Paul Konsor believed that originally, the intent was clear that outdoor storage was not allowed, and because they are on the site for more than 24 hours, it is difficult to call this open sales. Tim Dolan emphasized that the applicant is relying on the City's code, not that the applicant is creating his own language. Angel Schumann clarified that reapplying would be necessary. The narrative provided by the applicant states that the application is proposing accessory use activity identified as open sales. The PUD itself states that the accessory uses shall be commonly accessory and incidental to the ordinance adopted and as specifically identified in the Final Stage PUD. Reapplying would not be necessary considering what they are already asking. Teri Lehner asked if the decision on the table is specific to whether this action is outdoor storage or open sales. Eric Hagen did not believe that this was the case. Charlotte Gabler asked Mr. Dolan if the boxes were rented, would they be brought back to the site and stay there after being filled. Tim Dolan said potentially. Charlotte Gabler and Paul Konsor were both in agreement that if that is the case, they would then be considered as outdoor storage. Paul Konsor noted that this discussion is not necessarily fixed on what this act will be called, it is more so whether the planning commission would allow it. On that note, Tim Dolan emphasized the area in which they are asking to do it, in the district and on the site itself, and that it is small ask. Charlotte Gabler asked why they physically need to be on the site in the first Planning Commission Minutes —October 5, 2021 place, because they are empty when bought or rented, why they couldn't be stored somewhere else, and the customer can pick one out of a catalog when the item is needed. Tim Dolan said that they could, but the intent for these to be on site is to put them in front of Affordable Storage's customer base. Paul Konsor asked if the applicant would be willing to have the three different sizes on site and when a customer needs one of the sizes, it would be shipped from a different site to wherever the customer needed the storage box. Tim Dolan responded that the one reservation the applicant would have with that is the replacement of said box when it is needed. Eric Hagen asked if these containers were being utilized by the business now. Tim Dolan said no the ones on site are not being used. Eric Hagen asked if they would be considered outdoor storage right now when they are not being used or being rented or sold. Tim Dolan said yes, as they sit now, they are outdoor storage until the issue at hand is resolved. Eric Hagen finds this concept of open sales difficult when in fact, they are being stored on the site. In doing so, the applicant would be in violation of the PUD due to the use of outdoor storage. Hagen understood that the definition of what these storage containers should be classified as is different in the eye of the applicant. When they are sitting on the site, full or empty, they are not there specifically for advertisement, but also storage. Andrew Tapper asked Eric Hagen what the difference between a box and a car if they are both items for sale and rent. The point of it being that it needs to be an approved accessory use. If it was agreed upon that this specific instance is open sales, it still would be against the PUD regarding the accessory use of open sales. Tapper's argument is that open sales in this case would be other activity, and not an accessory use. But he does see that it is very difficult to decide what these containers could be defined as. Angela Schumann pointed out that vehicle sales and rental is a specific use outlined by code and has its own standards. She also reminded the commission that this site has its own PUD district so the accessory use, whatever it be defined as, was not intended for this PUD, but the applicant has the ability to amend the PUD to allow one of these accessory uses. Paul Konsor asked if the applicant would be willing to display the four container sizes outside and the rest be stored inside a building. Tim Dolan said that there is no room to add building space on the site for them, and that it would affect the noise and vehicles moving the containers around the site. Tim Dolan reemphasized that this application is based on the City's adopted code. Charlotte Gabler asked if there was a way this request could be an Interim Use Planning Commission Minutes —October 5, 2021 Permit rather than a Conditional Use Permit. Grittman responded that the amendment to the PUD could have an expiration date. Tim Dolan requested that if an expiration date were to be added to this application, a minimum of 24 months would be appreciated. Eric Hagen asked what differences the city see in that 24-month period. Eric Hagen sees an issue with this because the containers are still being stored on site, and the expiration date for this application would not change that fact. It is going to set a precedent for other storage businesses to see what they can sell at their sites beyond storage. Tim Dolan emphasized that the definition of open sales includes the storage of said item for sale. Paul Konsor recommended to table this item for everyone to have time to get a better grasp of the issue. Tim Dolan said that was fine and this was expected by the applicant. Eric Hagen asked Paul Konsor if he didn't feel comfortable making a decision on this issue tonight. Paul Konsor responded and said he believes there could be more discussion of options, while these options haven't been discussed to the full extent, tabling would be an option. Teri Lehner agreed that more time to fully understand the issue at hand would be beneficial. Shawn Weinand, a landowner in the area, believes this is another tactic to postpone the moving of the containers. Notes there is no store on site to sell anything. Accessory uses to mini storage would include selling packaging and tape, etc. Mr. Weinand believes this was clear in the PUD. Eric Hagen believes that the only thing that has changed between the previous application to the current one is the definition of what the storage containers are. Paul Konsor closed the public hearing segment of this item. Andrew Tapper clarified his view that it is difficult to deny this as open sales. But they can deny the fact that this is an approved accessory use to the PUD. Teri Lehner agrees that the original intent was not to have 40 containers on site. Eric Hagen believes that the job of the planning commission is not to find a solution, it is to act on the application at hand with the information given. Decision 1: Consideration of an amendment to a Planned Unit Development for Affordable Self -Storage to keep storage boxes on the site as outdoor storage. PAUL KONSOR MOVED TO ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. PC 2021-037, BASED ON Planning Commission Minutes —October 5, 2021 FINDINGS AS IDENTIFIED IN SAID RESOLUTION, AND REQUIRING THE REMOVAL OF THE STORAGE BOXES FROM THE SITE NO LATER THAN NOVEMBER 15, 2021. ANDREW TAPPER SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY 4- 0. Decision 2: Amendment to Ordinance for Planned Unit Development for Affordable Self -Storage to correction of language in Section (8)(c). PAUL KONSOR MOVED TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF A PUD AMENDMENT FOR THE AFFORDABLE SELF -STORAGE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT FOR CORRECTION OF LANGUAGE IN SECTION (8)(c) TO READ AS FOLLOWS: ACCESSORY USES. ACCESSORY USES SHALL BE THOSE COMMONLY ACCESSORY AND INCIDENTAL TO INDUST-44 COMMERCIAL USES, AND AS SPECIFICALLY IDENTIFIED BY THE APPROVED FINAL STAGE PUD PLANS, BUT SHALL NOT INCLUDE OUTDOOR STORAGE OR OTHER ACTIVITIES. ANDREW TAPPER SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY 4- 0. D. Public Hearing — Consideration of a request for Rezoning to Planned Unit Development, Development Stage Planned Unit Development and Preliminary Plat Monticello Business Center Eighth Addition for Monticello Meadows, a proposed 200-unit multi -family residential project in a B-4 (Regional Business) District. Applicant: Baldur Real Estate, LLC Steve Grittman provided an overview of land use application request. The site would include two 100-unit apartment building as well as a community center. One of the comments staff had concerning the layout of the buildings on the site would be to adjust the buildings to fit better with the boundary lines. A significant amount of fill will be necessary on this site to build up the buildings. Grittman noted that this use of land is entirely consistent with the Chelsea Commons Small Area Plan expectations with the site. Staff supports the resident density of the area at 18.5 units per acre and would have supported a denser residential use of this site. Staff also supports the open space amenities proposed on site, such as the community building. The building is valuable and supports the idea of the proposed Planned Unit Development. The parking supply is below the standards that are applied in R-4 districts for multi -family. The expectation is 2.25 parking spaces per unit and this site has proposed a parking average of 2.1. The applicants do however meet the standards when it comes to indoor parking, with 100 parking spaces underneath each building. Staff recommends that there is more detail to the lighting on site as well as the signage that will be on site. With the site being in the southern biome of Chelsea Commons, staff expects a more natural look in terms of grading. The berms on site have been updated since the original plans were received by staff to better fit the "Oak Savanna" style biome and features in the southern part of Chelsea Commons. Fire access is one area that needs to Planning Commission Minutes —October 5, 2021 be addressed as well. The applicants will need to clarify a better way to access the back sides of the buildings proposed. If access is still necessary, a trail system going around both buildings could be applicable if it meets all the necessities from the fire department. Staff would also recommend the structure of the building to represent the prairie style architecture that will be in the southern biome of Chelsea commons. It has been noted in the staff report that the community building proposed does represent the prairie style architecture staff is looking for on the site. Significant enhancements are recommended by staff in terms of the landscaping on site. Staff would appreciate to see landscaping that supports the southern biome of Chelsea Commons with more prairie -like trees and shrubs. The stormwater plan for the site includes capturing the stormwater and routing it to the proposed pond system at the center of Chelsea Commons. The for the Planned Unit Development on this site mainly include the ability to elevate the proposed site above minimum requirements of any residential district in Monticello. Grittman closed by reminding the commission that the decision tonight include rezoning to a Planned Unit Development and a Development Stage PUD, as well as a preliminary plat. Paul Konsor asked to confirm the new name of the project as it has changed from Monticello Meadows to Monticello Lakes. Andrew Tapper asked Grittinan to clarify the site the project has chosen to build on. Tapper also asked to clarify some topographical questions regarding the slope of the site. Chalrotte Gabler asked about the garages that were added to the site on the night of the Panning Commission meeting and what that means for the site. Grittman said he did not have any further comment on the garages at that point. Charlotte Gabler asked if garages on a site were ever discussed when discussing the Chelsea Commons Small Are Plan. Grittman said that the Small Are Plan does not define anything like garages on an apartment site, and most the project involved in the Small Area Plan are going to be PUD's so they will be analyzed individually. Paul Konsor asked if staff had given anything to the applicant regarding the architecture style the City is looking for in this region of Chelsea Commons. Steve Grittman responded that there is nothing beyond what is in the staff report. Eric Hagen noted that in the small area plan, parking has been discussed and promotes underground parking to minimize the area for parking in the small area plan. Paul Konsor opened the public hearing. Mark Welch of G Cubed Engineering said that reiterations have been done following the meeting with staff on the Tuesday before the planning commission meeting. The landscape requests have been acknowledged and are being worked on. The updated site plan showed that the community center Planning Commission Minutes —October 5, 2021 proposed on site has moved, other adjustments include the pathways on site, as well as the added garage space. Welch noted that the one underground parking space is attached to each apartment rented, they are not separate. The Garages however are separate and do not come with renting a unit. Eric Hagen asked how many garage spaces are being proposed for the site. Mark Welch said there are seven buildings for garage space and one building has eight spaces, 56 garage spaces, which would allow for just over a quarter of the units to have a garage space as well as one underground space. Welch also addressed the staff concerns regarding the fire access on the site. He said that as the site is in the plans, they meet the hose lay out lengths for being able to reach all parts of the buildings in case of emergency. Eric Hagen asked about the parking spaces facing the lakes on the site plans and was wondering if that would be the best use for the area. Mark Welch said that this was provided for the fire truck turn around criteria. But that could be adjusted to better utilize that space for looking at the lake. Paul Konsor asked if Mark Welch was the applicant, designer or architect. Mark Welch said that he was representing the applicant and he has been a part of the site layout process. Welch noted that one of the changes made was the roof design on the apartment complex. Eric Hagen asked if the housing density has changed since the last plans were provided to staff and the commission. Mark Welch said that the site has the same density and is still at 200 units. Eric Hagen rephrased his question and asked if the 18.5 per acre density has stayed the same from original plans to the updated plans. Mark Welch said that was correct. He also noted that due to the geometry of the site where the apartments are proposed, the applicant and designers could not rearrange the buildings to better orient the site. Eric Hagen mentioned that it had been discussed before about where the garages are, that piece of the site could have been used for light commercial. Such as a coffee shop or etc. Hagen was wondering if that idea was still being floated around or if it was of the table following the addition of the garages. Mark Welch said that there hasn't been much discussion of bringing commercial use on to the site. If commercial uses were to be added to the site, then there would have to be discussion of a second access. Charlotte Gabler noted that the second access point to the site would be very close to the intersection on Edmonson Avenue and that could be difficult. Mark Welch said that at this time, adding a commercial use on the site would not be something that is ideal to the site plan. Welch also noted that the site plan needs to show more berms along Edmonson Avenue. Eric Hagen asked if the landscaping was going to incorporate more of the Planning Commission Minutes —October 5, 2021 "Oak Savanna" style landscape to better fit the proposed biome. Mark Welch said that at this point they are not far enough along to show the specifics of the Oak Savanna style landscape. Eric Hagen asked about the intent underneath the powerlines on site if that was planned to be reserved for stormwater. Mark Welch said that there will be a need for stormwater in that area of the site, due to some of the grading on site and where things slope. Welch also noted that the developer adds a significant piece of art on the sites he develops and noted that there is not subsidized housing in these apartments. The apartments are going to be market rate and they will be on the higher end of that market rate. Paul Konsor made the comment that tabling decision on this project is still an option for both parties to address the conditions that would be adopted if this was approved. Paul Konsor also noted that he believed, architecturally, the apartments do not fit the expected design of the southern part of Chelsea Commons. It was brought up to him that this complex would be something not normally seen in Monticello, but to him it is a normal apartment project. When looking at the design standards for this part of Chelsea Commons, the material and landscape should reinforce the themes of the area. While it should be more of a prairie style architecture theme, Konsor does not believe the site plan fits that theme. Mark Welch noted the change in roof structure and how that change was specifically made to try and work in more of the prairie style theme. He also mentioned the difficulty of keeping with the prairie style architecture with larger buildings. He emphasized that the stacked glass on the complexes is reflective of that prairie style look in bigger buildings. Angela Schumann noted that the developer and his team are making an effort to respond to the conditions described in the staff report and the designs of the buildings and materials to better fit the style is one of the conditions. The staff report specifically addresses an enhancement of building entrance points and gateways on to the site. Eric Hagen said that he admires what has been presented to the commission but would like to see the project finalized between the developer and staff so there is an agreed upon project presented. Andrew Tapper said the project looks good and acknowledges the difficulties in making a three-story building align with that prairie style architecture. Tapper also addressed the possibility of instead of the added brick or stone the exterior of the building, adding more natural wood to it. Shawn Weinand, the owner of the land this site is proposed, said that the apartments the developer has already built are some of the nicest buildings in the Twin Cities. He noted that this project is one of the nicest projects that he has assisted with bringing to the Planning Commission. He finished his statement emphasizing that the more pressure the commission puts on the developer, the more difficulty he is going to have completing projects in Planning Commission Minutes —October 5, 2021 Monticello. Paul Konsor closed the public hearing segment of this agenda item. Eric Hagen asked staff if there was any way to have a special session if conditions are met before the next scheduled planning commission meeting to approve this item. Angela Schumann said that special meetings are directed under the action of the commission. If this is something that the commission could see doing, the next step for this item would be to table decision and wait for those conditions to be met. To keep with the same schedule for review at the council level, the applicant would have about five days to address the concerns so the planning commission would have time to call a special meeting before council reports were completed. Mark Welch said that that timeline would be difficult to get everything ready. Charlotte Gabler asked about a special meeting the day of the city council meeting, if that were applicable so the timeline was relatively the same. Angela Schumann said that her hesitation would be from whether or not a special meeting for council would be needed that day. A lot of this timeline depends on what the applicant would be able to provide to staff on the week of the 11 tr, Eric Hagen asked the commission if anyone was ready to move forward with the decision of the item. Paul Konsor said that he does not feel ready to approve the decision and recommended tabling the item. Eric Hagen asked the applicant what tabling the item would do to the development plan. Mark Welch said that there is no issue with tabling to the next planning commission meeting. Teri Lehner agreed with Paul Konsor about tabling the item until certain conditions are addressed and resolved. Eric Hagen asked staff if tabling decision would include tabling all three decisions regarding this item. Angel Schumann said that would be staff s recommendation to table all three. Andrew Tapper noted that he does not have the same reservations as the rest of the commission, but he is not going to argue any of the points already made because tabling the item has no effect on the project. Decision 1: Consideration of a Preliminary Plat for Monticello Business Center Eighth Addition. ERIC HAGEN MOVED TO TABLE ACTION ON RESOLUTION NO. PC 2021-03 8, SUBJECT TO ADDITIONAL INFORMATION FROM THE APPLICANT AND/OR STAFF. PAUL KONSOR SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY, 4-0. Planning Commission Minutes —October 5, 2021 Decision 2: Consideration of a Rezoning to PUD, Planned Unit Development District. ERIC HAGEN MOVED TO TABLE ACTION ON RESOLUTION NO. PC 2021-039, SUBJECT TO ADDITIONAL INFORMATION FROM THE APPLICANT AND/OR STAFF. PAUL KONSOR SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY, 4-0. Decision 3: Consideration of a Development Stage PUD ERIC HAGEN MOVED TO TABLE ACTION ON RESOLUTION NO. PC 2021-040, SUBJECT TO ADDITIONAL INFORMATION FROM THE APPLICANT AND/OR STAFF. PAUL KONSOR SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY, 4-0. E. Public Hearing — Consideration of request for a Corrective Amendment to the City of Monticello Official Zoning Map for Shoreland Overlay District Boundaries. Applicant: City of Monticello Angela Schumann provided an overview of the land use application request. While making improvements to an area of Chelsea Rd West, it was noted that an area that was described as Otter Creek was not a part of a shoreland defined creek, but rather a county ditch system. This corrective measure is to ensure the City only applies these certain criteria where it is necessary. Angela Schumann continued pointing out on a map where the adjustment will be made. She also noted that if the City is not changing the text of the shoreland ordinance, but rather correcting the map, certification is not required. Andrew Tapper asked which map was the original and which shows the amendment. Angela Schumann clarified. Paul Konsor opened the public hearing, hearing no comment, the public hearing was closed. PAUL KONSOR MOVED TO ADOPT RESOLUTION 2021-041 RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF A CORRECTIVE AMENDMENT TO THE CITY OF MONTICELLO OFFICIAL ZONING MAP FOR SHORELAND OVERLAY DISTRICT BOUNDARIES. ANDREW TAPPER SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY, 4-0. 3. Regular Agenda A. Consideration of Administrative Subdivision and Administrative Lot Combination for two parcels located in the Central Community District, General Sub -District. Applicant: Mosbart Properties, LLC Steve Grittman provided an overview of the land use application request. Staff s main concern is with the survey showing that the correction would not correct all the issues that applicant wants to address. Staff s recommendation is to approve Planning Commission Minutes —October 5, 2021 the subdivision with a redescription of the conveyed to include all the improvements while at the same time maintaining the setback. Andrew Tapper wanted to clarify that the southeast 22 feet described in the request should be closer to 28 or 29 feet. Steve Grittman confirmed. Paul Konsor asked for confirmation that the two parcels in discussion are not joining up as one parcel, but more so a section of the one parcel is being absorbed by the other parcel. Steve Grittman confirmed. Paul Konsor asked what the parcels are zoned as. Steve Grittman said they are both in the CCD, downtown mixed use. ANDREW TAPPER MOVED TO ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. PC 2021-042, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF THE SIMPLE SUBDIVISION AND CONCURRENT LOT COMBINATION, BASED ON FINDINGS IN SAID RESOLUTION, AND THE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL AS REQUIRED IN THE ORDINANCE AND EXHIBIT Z. TERI LEHNR SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY, 4-0. EXHIBIT Z SIMPLE SUBDIVISION AND LOT COMBINATION 213 THIRD STREET EAST (PID: 155-010-069020) 250 BROADWAY EAST (PID: 155-010-069080) 1. The submitted survey shall be expanded to include the legal description of the applicant's existing parcel and the existing funeral home parcel. 2. The parcel to be conveyed to the funeral home property shall be expanded in size such that the curb of the parking lot shall not be closer than six feet to any lot line (as measured from the lot line to the face of the curb). 3. The subdivision shall be processed and recorded concurrently with the subdivided portion's combination with the adjoining funeral home property. 4. In the event the County rejects the descriptions of the metes and bounds subdivision, the applicant shall re -apply and utilize a formal plat process. 5. Any future development on either parcel will be subject to required setbacks from the proposed property lines. 6. Compliance with the requirements of the City Engineer as identified. B. Consideration to appoint a Planning Commissioner to serve on the Chelsea Commons Professional Engineering, Park & Open Space Planning and Landscape Architecture Services proposal review team. Planning Commission Minutes —October 5, 2021 Angela Schumann addressed the commission and requested to amend the item to include two considerations. First, staff is looking for a planning commissioner to serve on the review team for incoming proposals for the professional engineering, park & open space planning and landscape architecture services for Chelsea Commons. The city Council approved requesting proposals that relate to the public spaces of the Chelsea Commons area. Commissioner Zimpfer has expressed interest in being a part of this process. Planning commission needed to appoint someone to represent on the RFP review team, and also a representative for the work group regarding zoning ordinances relating to the Chelsea Commons proj ect. Teri Lehner said that she would be happy to volunteer for wither position. Angela Schumann mentioned that it is a good idea to appoint alternates, in case certain times are unable to work for the person appointed. PAUL KONSOR MOVED TO APPOINT ALISON ZIMPFER TO SERVE ON THE PROPOSAL REVIEW TEAM. ANDREW TAPPER SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY, 4-0. TERI LEHNER MOVED TO APPOINT PAUL KONSOR TO SERVE ON THE ZONING WORK GROUP WITH TERI LEHNER SERVING AS THE ALTERNATE. ERIC HAGEN SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY, 4-0. C. Consideration of the Community Development Director's Report Angela Schumann provided the Community Development Director's Report in the agenda packet. 4. Added Items None S. Adjournment ERIC HAGEN MOVED TO ADJOURN THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION. SECONDED BY PAUL KONSOR, MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY 4-0, MEETING ADJOURNED AT 10:41 p.m. Recorder: Hayden Stensgard �&_ Approved: November 1, 202 Attest: Angela Skvdkanr , Community Development Director Planning Commission Minutes —October 5, 2021 City Council Agenda: 10/25/2021 4113. Consideration of a request for an Amendment to the Affordable Storage Planned Unit Development for proposed Portable Container Accessory Use. Applicant: Burnham, Keith Prepared by: Meeting Date: ® Regular Agenda Item Northwest Associated Consultants, 10/25/2021 ❑ Consent Agenda Item Community Development Director Reviewed by: Approved by: City Attorney, Chief Building Official City Administrator ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS Decision 1: Consideration of an amendment to a Planned Unit Development for Affordable Self -Storage to keep storage boxes on the site as outdoor storage. Planning Commission recommended denial of the proposed amendment for outdoor storage within the Affordable Self -Storage PUD. Motion to adopt Resolution 2021-85 denying a PUD Amendment for storage boxes on the Affordable Self -Storage site as outdoor storage based on findings in the stated Resolution for denial and requiring the removal of the containers no later than November 15, 2021. Decision 2: Amendment to Ordinance for Planned Unit Development for Affordable Self - Storage for correction of language in Section (8)(c). Planning Commission recommended approval of the proposed amendment for correction of language. Motion to adopt Ordinance No. 765 for PUD Amendment for the Affordable Self -Storage Planned Unit Development, based on findings in Resolution 2021-85, for correction of language in Section (8)(c) to read as follows: Accessory Uses. Accessory uses shall be those commonly accessory and incidental to stFial commercial uses, and as specifically identified by the approved final stage PUD Plans, but shall not include outdoor storage or other activities. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND Property: Legal Description: Lot 11, Block 4, Groveland Addition PID: 155-125-004110 Planning Case Number: 2021-036 City Council Agenda: 10/25/2021 Request(s): Amendment to a Planned Unit Development to allow outdoor storage of rental storage containers Deadline for Decision: November 12, 2021 (60-day deadline) January 11, 2022 (120-day deadline) Land Use Designation: Community Commercial Zoning Designation: Affordable Self -Storage PUD District Overlays/Environmental Regulations Applicable: NA Current Site Uses: Self Storage Facility Surrounding Land Uses: North: RV Dealership East: Vacant Commercial (Zoned B-3) South: Single Family Residential West: RV Dealership Project Description: The applicant proposes to utilize a portion of the current self - storage property along the westerly boundary, as well at the ends of several of the self -storage buildings on the property to store a series of "storage boxes." These units are delivered to the property and rented to individuals which are then used to self - store goods. The applicant indicates that the request is for a total of 58 such storage boxes of varying sizes, between 7.5 by 7.5 feet and 8 by 20 feet. The applicant has suggested that the units will be empty, although that is not expressly stated in the application narrative. The applicant has indicated in the past that the boxes would sit on the ground, without stacking, although that clarification is not made in the current application. The applicant previously proposed an amendment to the Affordable Storage Planned Unit Development for the introduction of storage boxes on the site, which was considered by the Planning Commission in August of 2021. The application was withdrawn prior to Council consideration. 2 City Council Agenda: 10/25/2021 it is noted that several of these boxes have already been moved on to the site counter to the requirements of the original PUD approvals and are currently in violation of the Zoning Ordinance. ANALYSIS: Planned Unit Development (PUD) is a zoning technique that allows developers and the City to establish a set of development requirements which, while not meeting all the specific standards of a traditional zoning district, are designed to exceed the City's objectives for the zoning district that would otherwise apply. The City's land use objectives are described in the Comprehensive Plan, and typically address various performance standards as well as classes of land use. In this case, the applicable land use classification in the Comprehensive Plan is "Community Commercial", and the underlying zoning district that would apply if the PUD zoning were not in place would be B-3, Highway Business. One of the primary objectives of the Comprehensive Plan is the orderly development and use of land, consistent with consideration for other land uses in the neighborhood of the subject property. As shown on the map below, and noted above, the subject property is in an area of mixed commercial and residential uses, indeed abutting residential development on one side of the property. The Community Commercial designation is designed to be a "low -scale" retail area along major roadways that serve the community. When the original PUD was granted for the commercial self -storage facility on this property, it was specifically noted that outdoor storage of materials on the site would not be permitted. 3 City Council Agenda: 10/25/2021 In Monticello, outdoor storage of materials is a use that is specifically relegated to industrial districts. Such areas often create a significant amount of noise and other activity that is not compatible with neighboring "low -scale" uses, and particularly problematic for single-family residential areas, where outdoor activities rely on relative quiet and non -industrial activity on adjoining property. The applicant's narrative seeks to distinguish this use as "Open Sales" accessory use, as opposed to outdoor storage. However, "Open Sales" uses involve retail transactions where customers may visit the retail site, inspect the goods, pay for the materials, and transport them from the retailer. This type of transaction is distinguished from the current proposal in that the storage boxes are stored on the site, loaded, and delivered to off -site customers, all without the customer's ability to pick up and take any retail goods with them from the retail location. This is fundamentally not a retail activity, as would be implied by the "Open Sales" land use category. Further, the zoning ordinance definition for Outdoor Storage is directly applicable to the proposed use. That definition reads as follows: OUTDOOR STORAGE: The keeping, in an un-roofed area, of any goods, material, merchandise, or vehicles in the same place for more than twenty-four (24) hours. This shall not include the display of vehicles for sale in a new or used car sales lot. Outdoor storage is prohibited in commercial districts and is specifically prohibited by the language of the Affordable Self -Storage PUD. The applicant's materials do not specify, but the process by which the storage boxes would be transferred to and from the site would be via truck and some manner of jack or crane, increasing the equipment activity and noise on the site. This activity is expected in an industrial area, but not in a commercial district, and especially not in proximity to a residential neighborhood. The proposed storage of these units on the property is therefore an industrial one, and incompatible with the proximity of the use to residential property. The narrative further notes that the original PUD district references accessory uses in the "Industrial" areas as potentially allowed uses in the Affordable Storage PUD District. While staff believes that the original reference is a typographical error— noting that outdoor storage was expressly not allowed in the district language — industrial use would be inappropriate in this location based on the impacts and discussion previously noted. As part of any amendment consideration, staff would request that the City amend the ordinance of the PUD to correct this language to "Commercial." Further, the City's fire department officials have noted concern with the storage of the proposed boxes on the site, which was not anticipated when the original plan was approved. 4 City Council Agenda: 10/25/2021 The locations restrict fire -fighting access to portions of the property, most significantly, to the west side of the line of stored boxes along the west boundary of the site. Moreover, the revised site plan shows a large area of snow storage in the southwest corner of the site that would make the fire hydrant in that location inaccessible. The Fire Marshal has requested an apparatus turning template be prepared to demonstrate maneuverability within the site with the unit locations as proposed. As noted in prior review, there is one self -storage site in Monticello that was granted an interim use permit for temporary storage boxes in the past. That site is the Storage Link facility at Dundas Road and Cedar Street. The City granted the IUP for this site as a temporary measure to accommodate expansion of the facility. There are at least three major aspects of this prior approval that differentiate it from the Affordable Storage request. First, the Storage Link facility abuts undeveloped commercial land. There is no residential in near proximity to the site. Moreover, the facility sits at the intersection of roads that serve exclusively commercial properties west, north and south, and industrial property to the east. Second, the Storage Link temporary storage boxes are utilized as an interim storage use, and have only limited, if any, trucking and active machinery at the site. As such, there is much less likelihood of noise disruption to surrounding land uses, particularly as the adjoining property was anticipated to be vacant for some time. Finally, as noted, the permit granted was an Interim Use Permit, acknowledging that the proposed storage units were temporary in nature. While no adjoining development was anticipated in the near term, removal of the temporary storage is required at the expiration of the IUP term and adjoining development (now a part of the Chelsea Commons planning area) would then develop without the impacts of temporary storage on that site. In summary, the proposed storage box business would introduce what is commonly considered to be an industrial activity to the Affordable Storage PUD site. As noted, PUD requires a finding that the proposed development meets and exceeds the City's land use goals in exchange for relaxation of certain zoning requirements. Introduction of an industrial use on property guided for "low -scale" commercial use, adjacent to a low -density single-family neighborhood would be counter to this requirement. PLANNING COMMISSION REVIEW AND RECOMMENDATION Planning Commission reviewed the request and held a public hearing on the item on October 1, 2021. Following an overview of the staff report, the Commission asked for clarifying information. The Commission noted that they understood the clerical need for the PUD ordinance correction but noted that because the PUD specifies the specific plans and conditions for the project, the 5 City Council Agenda: 10/25/2021 language would not seem to impact the available uses other than what might be sought through amendment. The Commission also inquired whether when a PUD is approved it should be "as good or better" than the underlying zoning. Staff confirmed that has been the applied standard. During the public hearing Tim Dolan, Decklan Group, addressed the Commission as the representative for the applicant. Mr. Dolan explained that the applicant had read the PUD ordinance and believed that the placement of the containers was consistent with the PUD ordinance. The containers have remained in place as the application continues through the process. He indicated that the clarification to the language in the PUD from "industrial" to "commercial" for accessory uses relates to the confusion by the applicant on what was allowed for the PUD. He indicated that the proposed correction is a substantive change to what was approved by the city and what was signed. However, Mr. Dolan stated that they would suggest that the containers are "open sales" rather than "outdoor storage" as they are for rent and for sale and do not object to the change. They do not believe that what they are asking is industrial in nature. Mr. Dolan noted that the primary changes to the prior application are to the height and location of the containers, along with the request to recognize the use as open sales. He stated that the Community Commercial land use designation would allow gas stations and auto repair. He indicated that those uses would be higher intensity than what is proposed. He also noted the strong presence of outdoor storage and outdoor sales and display already existing along Chelsea Road. Mr. Dolan stated they would be willing to adjust the plans based on the direction of the Commission, including location, screening, turning movements and hours of operation. He would request tabling if Commission would provide that direction. The Commission asked if the applicant was aware of the clause prohibiting outdoor storage within the PUD ordinance. Mr. Dolan indicated that was accurate, but that the use is open sales and display. Mr. Dolan confirmed that the boxes are for both rent and sale. It was noted that "open sale" is an allowable accessory use in the underlying B-3 District, subject to the conditions in the code. There was discussion regarding whether a conditional use permit would be required as "open sales" is listed as a conditional accessory use in the B-3 (Highway Business) District. There was also significant discussion regarding the definitions of "open sales" and "outdoor storage". Mr. Dolan stated that the sales language is the functional language for this proposed use. Staff clarified that their position is that based on the way the Affordable Self -Storage PUD ordinance is written, a CUP would not be required. Rather, the amendment to the PUD for the proposed use is required. Staff's position is that the intent of the PUD was that there would not 0 City Council Agenda: 10/25/2021 be materials stored outside the buildings. Commission reiterated that although the "open sales" use is allowed as an accessory in the B-3 District, it was not written specifically into the PUD. Staff noted that the PUD language indicates that accessory uses shall be identified on final stage PUD plans, and further cited that the PUD language states that amendments to the PUD are necessary when changes to the PUD are proposed in the manner of use, density, site plan, development layout, building size, mass, or coverage. Mr. Dolan noted that applicant was also willing to accept an interim use permit under the PUD for the proposed use. Staff confirmed that would be an option under the current PUD amendment process. Shawn Weinand, 4065 Chelsea Road West, addressed the Commission. Mr. Weinand commented that the City has in the past specified requirements for building sizes when considering outdoor sales and display. He stated that the PUD was clear in not allowing outdoor storage within the PUD. No other public was present to address the Commission on the request. Commission suggested that other than the interpretation of the use, the current application was like the prior application, which was recommended for denial by the Commission. The Commission also indicated that consistency with the original PUD and its intent is important to the decision. The Commission unanimously recommended denial of the amendment to Planned Unit Development for the storage of the proposed containers, recommending a removal date of November 15, 2021. The Commission recommended approval of the amendment to the ordinance for PUD for correction of language in Section (8)(c). STAFF RECOMMENDED ACTION For Decision 1, Staff recommends denial of the PUD Amendment. As noted in this report, the addition of outdoor storage, and the nature of the storage in question which would entail heavy equipment and truck operations to support it, would be inconsistent with the intent of the land use direction specified by the Comprehensive Plan, and incompatible with the uses directly adjoining the subject property, particularly that of the single-family residential neighborhood to the south of the subject property. Staff would ask the City Council to specify a removal date within their motion. Planning Commission recommended a removal date of November 15, 2021. Per ordinance, staff typically allows up to 30 days for correction of a code violation. 7 City Council Agenda: 10/25/2021 For Decision 2, Staff recommends approval of the amendment correcting the prior error in the adopted ordinance for the Affordable Storage PUD consistent with the intent of the original approved plans. SUPPORTING DATA A. City Council Resolution 2021-085 B. Planning Commission Resolution PC-2021-037 (Recommendation for Denial) C. Proposed PUD Ordinance Amendment D. Aerial Site Image E. Applicant Narrative F. Proposed Site Plan and Detail G. Affordable Self -Storage PUD Ordinance H. Ordinance Excerpts I. Monticello 2040 Vision + Plan, Excerpts Z. Conditions of Approval EXHIBIT Z Lot 11, Block 4, Groveland Addition Affordable Storage PUD Amendment 1. If City Council motions to approve the amendment to PUD to allow the proposed storage units, staff recommends that Council provide a list of conditions applicable to the proposed use on the site. 0 CITY OF MONTICELLO WRIGHT COUNTY, MINNNESOTA RESOLUTION NO. 2021-85 DENYING AN AMENDMENT TO THE AFFORDABLE STORAGE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT REVISING THE SITE USES IN THE AFFORDABLE STORAGE PUD ZONING DISTRICT, AND APPROVING A MODIFICATION TO THE LANGUAGE OF SAID DISTRICT TO REMOVE REFERENCES TO INDUSTRIAL ACCESSORY USES WHEREAS, the applicant has submitted a request to revise certain aspects of an existing self -storage project, including the addition of outdoor storage and handling of individual "storage boxes"; and WHEREAS, the site is zoned Affordable Storage PUD, Planned Unit Development, and is subject to a previously approved Affordable Storage Planned Unit Development District ordinance; and WHEREAS, the proposed use and development are inconsistent with the Comprehensive Land Use Plan designation of "Community Commercial" for the area; and WHEREAS, the proposed amendment would create impacts that are incompatible with the adjoining single family residential neighborhood, including noise, truck and machinery operations, and other effects; and WHEREAS, the applicant has provided updated materials describing the changes, which are associated with industrial uses in Monticello's land use regulations; and WHEREAS, the industrial nature of the proposed uses are inconsistent with the intent and purpose of the underlying zoning district, which is "Community Commercial" and anticipates only "low -scale" commercial activities; and WHEREAS, the uses will create unanticipated changes to the demand for public services on or around the site; and WHEREAS, the storage proposed meets the Zoning Ordinance definition of "Outdoor Storage", an industrial use; and WHEREAS, the City's land use category, and attendant conditions, of Open Sales as an accessory use specifically applies to those districts that include this use, which the Affordable Storage Planned Unit Development District specifically does not include; and CITY OF MONTICELLO WRIGHT COUNTY, MINNNESOTA RESOLUTION NO. 2021-85 WHEREAS, a required condition of Open Sales, if allowed, is screening of said use from both residential property and public rights of way, with which the proposed plan will not comply; and WHEREAS, references in the current language of the Affordable Storage PUD District to industrial accessory uses require amendment to delete said references and clarify the prohibition of such uses; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on October 5th, 2021 on the application and the applicant and members of the public were provided the opportunity to present information to the Planning Commission; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has considered all of the comments and the staff report, and recommends denial of the proposed amendment as to outdoor use, but approval of the amendment as to deletion of the references to "industrial' uses; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Monticello makes the following Findings of Fact in relation to the recommendation of denial: 1. The proposed uses are industrial in nature, inconsistent with the intent and purpose of the Affordable Storage PUD Zoning District, which is to provide commercial self -storage use to customers in an area of mixed commercial and residential land uses. 2. The proposed uses are inconsistent with the existing and future land uses in the area in which they are located, including both the adjoining commercial uses as well as the adjoining single family residential area due to increased outdoor visual and noise impacts that are otherwise disallowed uses in the area. 3. The existing Affordable Storage Planned Unit Development District requires amendment only to delete inappropriate references to industrial uses which imply uses that are incompatible with the area and the direction of the Comprehensive Plan. 4. The negative impacts of the amendments through the addition of the outdoor use and activity exceed those anticipated by the existing and future land uses and cannot be addressed through standard review and ordinances as adopted. 5. The planned amendments do not meet the intent and requirements of the applicable zoning regulations, which under commercial zoning requirements would prohibit the uses as proposed. 6. The planned amendments are inconsistent with the directions of the Comprehensive Plan, which call for low -scale commercial uses. 7. The existing storage uses related to this request for amendment are not consistent with the terms of the approved PUD, and to restore consistency, must be removed from the site no later than November 15th, 2021. 2 CITY OF MONTICELLO WRIGHT COUNTY, MINNNESOTA RESOLUTION NO. 2021-85 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Monticello, Minnesota, that the City Council hereby accepts the recommendation of the Monticello Planning Commission and adopts this resolution of approval of an amendment to the Affordable Storage Planned Unit Development District by removing references to "industrial" use, and denial for the proposed Planned Unit Development Amendment for Affordable Storage to establish outdoor storage uses, based on the findings and other factors identified herein. ADOPTED this 25th day of October, 2021 by the City Council of the City of Monticello, Minnesota. ATTEST: Jennifer Schreiber, City Clerk MONTICELLO CITY COUNCIL Lloyd Hilgart, Mayor 3 CITY OF MONTICELLO WRIGHT COUNTY, MINNNESOTA PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. PC-2021-037 RECOMMENDING DENIAL OF AN AMENDMENT TO THE AFFORDABLE STORAGE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT REVISING THE SITE USES IN THE AFFORDABLE STORAGE PUD ZONING DISTRICT, AND AMENDING FOR CORRECTION THE LANGUAGE OF SAID DISTRICT TO REMOVE REFERENCES TO INDUSTRIAL ACCESSORY USES WHEREAS, the applicant has submitted a request to revise certain aspects of an existing self -storage project, including the addition of outdoor storage and handling of individual "storage boxes"; and WHEREAS, the site is zoned PUD, Planned Unit Development, and is subject to a previously approved Planned Unit Development ordinance; and WHEREAS, the proposed use and development are inconsistent with the Comprehensive Land Use Plan designation of "Community Commercial" for the area; and WHEREAS, the proposed amendment would create impacts that are incompatible with the adjoining single family residential neighborhood, including noise, truck and machinery operations, and other effects; and WHEREAS, the applicant has provided updated materials describing the changes, which are associated with industrial uses in Monticello's land use regulations; and WHEREAS, the uses are inconsistent with the intent and purpose of the underlying zoning district, which is "Community Commercial", and anticipates only "low -scale" commercial activities; and WHEREAS, the uses will create unanticipated changes to the demand for public services on or around the site; and WHEREAS, the storage proposed meets the Zoning Ordinance definition of "Outdoor Storage", an industrial use; and WHEREAS, references in the current language of the Affordable Storage PUD District to industrial accessory uses require amendment to delete said references and clarify the prohibition of such uses; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on October 5t", 2021 on the application and the applicant and members of the public were provided the opportunity to present information to the Planning Commission; and CITY OF MONTICELLO WRIGHT COUNTY, MINNNESOTA PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. PC-2021-037 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 denial: 1. The proposed uses are inconsistent with the intent and purpose of the Affordable Storage PUD Zoning District. 2. The proposed uses are inconsistent with the existing and future land uses in the area in which they are located, including both the adjoining commercial uses as well as the adjoining single family residential area. 3. The impacts of the improvements exceed those anticipated by the existing and future land uses and cannot addressed through standard review and ordinances as adopted. 4. The planned amendments do not meet the intent and requirements of the applicable zoning regulations. 5. The existing storage uses related to this request for amendment are not consistent with the terms of the approved PUD and must be removed from the site no later than 1d1-(If J1" , 2021. NOW, THEREFORE, BE /T RESOLVED, by the Planning Commission of the City of Monticello, Minnesota, that the Planning Commission hereby recommends that the Monticello City Council denies the Planned Unit Development Amendment for Affordable Storage and amend the language of the Affordable Self -storage District to remove references to Industrial accessory uses. ADOPTED this 5th day of October, 2021 by the Planning Commission of the City of Monticello, Minnesota. MONT�CELt ANNING COMMISSION By: Pau onsor, Chair ATTEST: Angela Schumaoo, Col`nrl unity Development Director 2 ORDINANCE NO.765 CITY OF MONTICELLO WRIGHT COUNTY, MINNESOTA AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 10 OF THE MONTICELLO CITY CODE, KNOWN AS THE ZONING ORDINANCE, AFFORDABLE SELF -STORAGE 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 as follows: (8) Affordable Self -Storage PUD District (c) Accessory Uses. Accessory uses shall be those commonly accessory and incidental to industfial commercial uses, and as specifically identified by the approved final stage PUD Plans, but shall not include outdoor storage or other activities. 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 25th day of October, 2021. ATTEST: Lloyd Hilgart, Mayor 1 ORDINANCE NO.765 Jennifer Schreiber, City Clerk AYES: NAYS: O A D L O V) W V/V L 0 r) D 0- O +-+ E W E Q E L M� W N O O Ln c-I C"I 0 Q N r-I Ln Lf) 7i C) d c O C Co v O L U O co r -61 _! N Cl) U � J Z J N W cO W cI W 0_ X U ix o m ~ Z O Y a 2 w w a o' Y O w O r-+ m J 0 N Z W Oo Q Z U r-1 H O O 0 w w 41 L C � o: a u O d N 0. N 00 co O J W V Z O 2 W O} F- V r1 0 c-� v41 IZT 0 Y V O m r-4 r-i O O J Z 0 Q a 0 N a J � W E O L) D! O V � � Co N � O � pp O c a � v a= N � r-I � O f- O O Z 0 tN z C O �i u Q) 0 x O CO KB Properties PUD Amendment and Corresponding CUP Affordable Storage provides public self storage, with multiple locations in MN. The company has invested nearly $4MM in its 6.28 acre Monticello location and has provided a much needed service to the community. In addition to providing an in -demand service for local residents, Affordable Storage also contributes over $62,000 in annual property taxes, while placing very little demand on municipal services. In September of 2017, the City Council approved a PUD for Affordable Storage, located at 10111 Innsbrook Drive, and recently approved an amendment related to screening on this property (October 2020). Affordable Storage is proposing Accessory Use activities identified as "Open Sales" in the MZO within their current PUD. Subsection C of the Affordable Self -Storage PUD District in the Monticello Zoning Ordinance (MZO) outlines the permitting of an Accessory Use as follows: (c) Accessory Uses. Accessory uses shall be those commonly accessory and incidental to industrial uses, and as specifically identified by the approved final stage PUD Plans, but shall not include outdoor storage or other activities. "Open Sales" is defined on Page 495 of the MZO as follows: OPEN SALES: Any open land used or occupied for the purpose of buying, selling, and/or renting merchandise and for the storing of same prior to sale. This use includes all outdoor sales and display of goods and/or materials that are not specifically addressed as Outdoor Storage, Sidewalk Sales & Display, or Off -Street Vehicle Parking. As the display, leasing and sale of a "Portable Container" (Defined in MZO Page 499) is not specifically addressed as Outdoor Storage, Sidewalk Sales & Display, or Off -Street Vehicle Parking, the proposed use being defined as "Open Sales" is accurate. "Open Sales" is identified as an allowed Accessory Use, with a Conditional Use Permit (CUP), in the underlying B3 Zoning District, as well as the 11 Zoning District as outlined in Table 5-4 on Page 415 of the MZO. Subsection E of the Affordable Self -Storage PUD District in the Monticello Zoning Ordinance goes on to establish the method for amending the existing PUD for this Accessory Use CUP as follows: (e) Amendments. Where changes to the PUD are proposed in the manner of use, density, site plan, development layout building size, mass, or coverage, or any other change, the proposer shall apply for an amendment to the PUD under the terms of the Monticello Zoning Ordinance, Section 2.4 (O,)(10. The City may require that substantial changes in overall use of the PUD property be processed as a new project, including a zoning district amendment. Therefore, Affordable Storage, in accordance with the MZO, is applying for an Amendment to its existing PUD to grant a CUP for "Open Sales" as an Accessory Use. Affordable Storage is asking to be granted a PUD Amendment and CUP to allow for the utilization of 5,687 sq ft of at -grade space for the purpose of selling and renting merchandise and for the storing of the same prior to sale. This represents less than 7.5% of the current building space on site and 2% of the total land area of the parcel. This puts the request well within the Accessory Use guidelines as written in the MZO. The proposed locations for displaying varying size portable containers are outlined in the attached site -plan. This plan allows the maintaining of adequate site -circulation, fire access and snow removal. The area utilized for "Open Sales" will be neatly organized and screened from public view at a much higher standard than similar uses in the immediate area. There will be no assembly or manufacturing on site. All portable containers will be assembled off -site prior to being brought to the location to be displayed for the purpose of selling and/or renting. Although this accessory use will not substantially increase the amount of traffic, or noise at the site, Affordable Storage is willing to limit the hours for placement and replacement of the portable containers to Monday through Friday, between the hours of 10 a.m. and 4 p.m. Affordable Storage currently operates at 98% capacity for it's fixed location self -storage products indicating there is still substantial market demand for this use in the community. The addition of this Accessory Use will allow the company to not only serve more community members, but also serve them in a more convenient and affordable manner, capturing a growing trend in its industry. The proposed use has little to no measurable impacts on adjacent land owners, the general public right-of-way, or local infrastructure. There will be no changes to lighting, signage, garbage, or any other elements of the property. There will be no changes to the amount of impervious surface, or drainage on the site. Affordable Storage feels that this is an ideally suited location for this use and the request is in harmony with the area as well as the spirit of its original PUD. ir SNOW STORAGE AREA = 6,055 SF h'f A SNOW STORAGE AREA = 5,330 SF 2ox8, 2px8, 2oX8, 1018, 2018 2U r8, 10X8 10, co o� 4 EA - 15'X8' p / STORAGE CONTAINERS i �\EGG \ SNOW STORAGE S�\EGG 4 EA - 7.5'X7.5' STORAGE CONTAINERS a. \\� 2 EA - 15'X8' Q) 1 STORAGE CONTAINERS 3 EA - 8'X8' o,/ G STORAGE CONTAINERS V\�O 2 EA5' 8' 1� STORAGE CONTAINERS 3 EA - 7.5'X7.5' STORAGE CONTAINERS 3 EA - 7.5'X7.5' STORAGE CONTAINERS 1 EA - 20'X8' STORAGE CONTAINER �0- �\EGG *4 4 EA - 7.5'X7.5' STORAGE CONTAINER �Q o, 4 EA - 7.5'X7.5' STORAGE CONTAINERS 4 EA - 7.5'X7.5' / STORAGE CONTAINERS\Cj 4 EA - 7.5'X7.5' STORAGE CONTAINERS / SNOW STORAGE AREA = 15,525 SF / d d SNOW STORAGE AREA = 14,650 SF EpE EOF la � � al r X 0 30' SCALE: 1" = 30' LEGEND: 15'X8' PROPOSED STORAGE CONTAINER (SIZE OF UNIT INDICATED ON PLAN) SNOW STORAGE AREA SITE PLAN NOTES: 1. PROPOSED STORAGE POD CONTAINERS SHALL BE LOCATED ON EXISTING IMPERVIOUS SURFACE IN LOCATIONS SHOWN ON THE PLAN. 2. SNOW SHALL BE STORED IN LOCATIONS INDICATED ON PLAN. SITE PLAN INFORMATION: PARCEL AREA: • 6.28 ACRES ± SITE DATA EXISTING / PROPOSED PAVEMENT AREA 121,956 SF BUILDING AREA 76,144 SF PERVIOUS AREA 75,316 SF TOTAL AREA 273,416 SF PROPOSED STORAGE CONTAINERS CONTAINER SIZE AREA (SF) NO. OF CONTAINERS TOTAL AREA (SF) OF STORAGE 20' X 8' 160 17 2,720 15' X 8' 120 10 1,200 8' X 8' 64 3 192 7.5' X 7.5' 56 281 1,575 TOTAL AREA OF CONTAINERS 5,687 EXISTING BUILDINGS AREA (SF) BUILDING 1 3,364 BUILDING 2 4,530 BUILDING 3 5,130 BUILDING 4 4,530 BUILDING 5 5,130 BUILDING 6 4,530 BUILDING 7 5,130 BUILDING 8 4,230 BUILDING 9 5,130 BUILDING 10 3,930 BUILDING 11 5,130 BUILDING 12 3,930 BUILDING 13 5,130 BUILDING 14 3,030 BUILDING 15 5,130 BUILDING 16 5,130 BUILDING 17 3,030 TOTAL 76,144 STORAGE CONTAINER: z O D_ U U7 w 0 uO N 0 U 0 U 0 U 0 v N p O N m m m 0 w z z Y O Q W C2 CD Lu D D D U D IL Z MI* 0 v 10� Z w Zm N W (n Y C oW coV_ W li QW 9 U. .. C7f/1 WN �WH~0�0 y� Q cow m yN r1� ♦^ mzz rLco LL v Oaj°C WWO 0 Z5 z JVW o - OJ W �H a A U w z z w J Q o Q U z u r QC Q O = LL U C Q w J Ln O 0- J W DC O W 0o U u c/) p~ L/) z z I= 0 0 2 0 ILL ILL LL G 0 LL m O Q U F-- U SHEET NO. c I CHAPTER 3: ZONING DISTRICTS Section 3.8 Planned Unit Development Districts Subsection Q) Special Use Overlay District (b) Permitted Uses. Permitted principal uses in the Autumn Ridge PUD District shall be single family residential uses as found in the "T-N", Traditional Neighborhood Zoning District, subject to the approved Final Stage Development Plans and development agreement dated September 1 lth, 2017, as may be amended. The introduction of any other use from any district, including Conditional Uses in the T-N District, shall be reviewed under the requirements of the Monticello Zoning Ordinance, Chapter 2, Section (0) — Planned Unit Developments for Development Stage PUD and Final Stage PUD. (c) Accessory Uses. Accessory uses shall be those commonly accessory and incidental to residential uses as allowed in the T-N District, and as specifically identified by the approved final stage PUD plans. (d) District Performance Standards. Performance standards for the development of any lot in the Autumn Ridge PUD District shall adhere to the approved final stage PUD plans and development agreement. In such case where any proposed improvement or use is not addressed by the Final Stage PUD, then the regulations of the T-N, Traditional Neighborhood District shall apply. (e) Amendments. Where changes to the PUD are proposed in the manner of use, density, site plan, development layout, building size, mass, or coverage, or any other change, the proposer shall apply for an amendment to the PUD under the terms of the Monticello Zoning Ordinance, Section 2.4 (0)(10). The City may require that substantial changes in overall use of the PUD property be processed as a new project, including a zoning district amendment. (8) Affordable Self -Storage PUD District (a) Purpose. The purpose of the Affordable Self -Storage PUD District is to provide for the development of certain real estate subject to the District for commercial land uses. (b) Permitted Uses. Permitted principal uses in the Affordable Self -Storage PUD District shall be self -storage uses as found in the B-3, Highway Business District of the Monticello Zoning Ordinance, subject to the approved Final Stage Development Plans dated September 11, 2017 and development agreement dated September I Vh, 2017, as may be amended. The introduction of any other use from any district, including Conditional Uses in the B-3 District, shall be reviewed under the requirements of the Monticello Zoning Ordinance, Chapter 2, Section (0) — Planned Unit Developments for Development Stage PUD and Final Stage PUD. Page 222 City of Monticello Zoning Ordinance CHAPTER 3: ZONING DISTRICTS Section 3.8 Planned Unit Development Districts Subsection Q) Special Use Overlay District (c) Accessory Uses. Accessory uses shall be those commonly accessory and incidental to industrial uses, and as specifically identified by the approved final stage PUD Plans, but shall not include outdoor storage or other activities. (d) District Performance Standards. Performance standards for the development in the Affordable Self -Storage PUD District shall adhere to the approved final stage PUD plans and development agreement. In such case where any proposed improvement or use is not addressed by the Final Stage PUD, then the regulations of the B-3, Highway Business District shall apply. (e) Amendments. Where changes to the PUD are proposed in the manner of use, density, site plan, development layout, building size, mass, or coverage, or any other change, the proposer shall apply for an amendment to the PUD under the terms of the Monticello Zoning Ordinance, Section 2.4 (0)(10). The City may require that substantial changes in overall use of the PUD property be processed as a new project, including a zoning district amendment. (9) Rivertown Suites PUD District (a) Purpose. The purpose of the Rivertown Suites PUD District is to provide for the development of certain real estate subject to the District for multiple family residential land uses. (b) Permitted Uses. Permitted principal uses in the Rivertown Suites PUD District shall be multiple family residential uses as found in the R-4, Medium - High Density Residential District of the Monticello Zoning Ordinance, subject to the approved Final Stage Development Plans dated July 23, 2018 and development agreement dated September 7, 2018, as may be amended. The introduction of any other use from any district shall be reviewed under the requirements of the Monticello Zoning Ordinance, Chapter 2, Section (0) — Planned Unit Developments for Development Stage PUD and Final Stage PUD. (c) Accessory Uses. Accessory uses shall be those commonly accessory and incidental to residential uses, and as specifically identified by the approved final stage PUD plans. (d) District Performance Standards. Performance standards for the development of any lot in the Rivertown Suites PUD District shall adhere to the approved final stage PUD plans and development agreement. In such case where any proposed improvement is not addressed by the final stage PUD, then the regulations of the R-4, Medium -High Density Residential District shall apply. City of Monticello Zoning Ordinance Page 223 CHAPTER 5: USE STANDARDS Section S.3 Accessory Use Standards Subsection (C) Table of Permitted Accessory Uses (3) Table of Permitted Accessory Uses and Structures • Accessory Building — P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P minor 5.3 D1( 1 I ( Accessory Building — P P P P P P P C P P P P P P P Pmajor 5.3 D 2 Adult Use — accessory LP] C 5.3 Q 3 Agricultural Buildings 5.3 LQJ 4 Air Conditioning Units P I P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P Automated Teller Machines (ATMs) P P P P P P P P S. 3(D)(51 Automobile Repair — C Major 5.3f D)(6) Automobile Repair — Minor C C 5.3 UD 7 Boarder(s) P P p 5.3 D 8 Bulk Fuel Sales/Storage P P P C ICI C 5.3 D 9 Cocktail Room (Retail Sales Accessory to Micro- C C C C C C Distillery) 5.3(Dj(10) Co -located Wireless Telecommunications C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C Antennae 4.13(E) Columbarium (Accessory P P P P P P P use to Cemeteries) 5.3(D(1 1) Commercial Canopies P P P P P P P P 5.3(D 12) Commercial Transmission/ Reception Antennae/ C C C C C C Structures 4.13(D) Donation Drop-off P P Containers 5.3 D 13 Drive -Through Services P P P C P P P 5.3 Q14 Entertainment/ Recreation C C C C 14 5.3 D 15 — Outdoor Commercial Fences or Walls p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p P 4.3 Greenhouse/Conservatory p p p p p p p P P P P P P P P P 5.3 D 16 non-commercial Heliports C C C C C 5.3 D 17 Home Occupations P P P P P P P p p P 5.3 D 18 Indoor Food / p p p p p p p p 5.3 D 19 Convenience Sales Page 414 City of Monticello Zoning Ordinance CHAPTER 5: USE STANDARDS Section 5.3 Accessory Use Standards Subsection (C) Table of Permitted Accessory Uses 9 , . ' - -. Indoor Storage P P P P p P 5.3 D 20 Incidental Light p p p p P 5.3(D)(21) Manufacturing Machinery/Trucking :�iEc 5.3(D)(22) Repair & Sales Office P P P P P P none Off-street Loading p p C P P P P P P P 4.9 Space Off-street Parking P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P 4.8 Open Sales P h C C C 5.3(D(23) Operation and storage of agricultural P 5.3(D)(24) vehicles, equipment, and machinery Outdoor Seating — Accessory to restaurant, bar, production brewery with P\C P\C P\C P\C 5.3(D)(25) taproom, microdistillery with cocktail room, and/or brewpubs Outdoor Sidewalk Sales & Display P P P P P P P P 5.3(D)(26) (businesses) Residential 5.3(D)(27)(a) Outdoor Storage P P P P P P P P P P Industrial 5.3 D 27 b Park Facility Buildings & P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P 5.3(D)(28) Structures (public) Private Amateur 4.13(B Radio P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P Private Receiving Antennae and P P P P P P P P P P P P p p p p 4.13(C) Antenna Support Structures City of Monticello Zoning Ordinance Page 415 CHAPTER 5: USE STANDARDS Section 5.3 Accessory Use Standards Subsection (D) Additional Specific Standards for Certain Accessory Uses Retail Sales of Goods (as P P P P P P C C 5.3(D)(29) part of an office or industrial use Shelters (Storm or P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P 5.3(D)(30) Fallout Sign(s) P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P 5.3 Q 31 Solar Energy System P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P 5.3(D)(32) Swimming Pool P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P 5.3(D)(33) Taproom (Retail Sales C C C C C C 5.3(D)(34) Accessory to Production Brewer Large Trash Handling and P P P P P P P P P P P P 5.3(D)(35) Recycling Collection Area Wind Energy Conversion C C 7 C C C 5.3(D)(36) System, Commercial Wind Energy Conversion C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C 5.3(D)(37) System, Non-commercial Wireless Telecommunications Support Structures C C C C C C C 4 3 (E1 4.3(Fl (D) Additional Specific Standards for Certain Accessory Uses (1) Accessory Building — Minor (a) Minor accessory buildings do not require a building permit, but shall comply with all applicable zoning regulations. (b) In the M-H district, one minor accessory building for storage of equipment and refuse is permitted for each manufactured home provided the accessory building can meet all required setbacks, and is designed of weather resistant material that will enhance the general appearance of the lot. (2) Accessory Building — Major (a) In all residential districts except M-H, the following shall apply: (i) Size Page 416 City of Monticello Zoning Ordinance CHAPTER 8: RULES & DEFINITIONS Section 8.4 Definitions Subsection (8) Lots or on the effective date of any amendment of this Ordinance, that does not comply with the use regulations of this Ordinance or the amendment. NURSING HOME (CONVALESCENT HOME): A facility that provides nursing services and custodial care generally on a 24-hour basis for two or more unrelated individuals who for reasons of illness, physical infirmity, or advanced age, require such services; but not including hospitals, clinics, sanitariums, or similar institutions. OBSTRUCTION (in relation to flood plains): Any dam, wall, wharf, embankment, levee, dike, pile, abutment, projection, excavation, channel modification, culvert, building, wire, fence, stockpile, refuse, fill, structure, or matter in, along, across, or projecting into any channel, watercourse, or regulatory flood plain which may impede, retard, or change the direction of the flow of water, either in itself or by catching or collecting debris carried by such water. OFFICE USE: An establishment primarily engaged in providing professional, financial, administrative, clerical, and similar services. OFF-STREET LOADING SPACE: A space accessible from the street, alley or way, in a building or on the lot, for the use of trucks while loading or unloading merchandise or materials. Such space shall be of such size as to accommodate one (1) truck of the type typically used in the particular business. OPACITY (OPAQUE): A measurement indicating the degree of obscuration of light or visibility. An object that is 100% opaque is impenetrable by light. OPEN SALES: Any open land used or occupied for the purpose of buying, selling, and/or renting merchandise and for the storing of same prior to sale. This use includes all outdoor sales and display of goods and/or materials that are not specifically addressed as Outdoor Storage, Sidewalk Sales & Display, or Off -Street Vehicle Parking. OPEN SPACE: An area on a lot not occupied by any structure or impervious surface. OPEN SPACE, USABLE: A required ground area or terrace area on a lot which is graded, developed, landscaped, and equipped and intended and maintained for either active or passive recreation or both, available and accessible to and usable by all persons occupying a dwelling unit or rooming unit on the lot and their guests. Such areas shall be grassed and landscaped or covered only for a recreational purpose. Roofs, driveways, and parking areas shall not constitute usable open space. City of Monticello Zoning Ordinance Page 495 CHAPTER 8: RULES & DEFINITIONS Section 8.4 Definitions Subsection (B) Lots ORDINARY HIGH WATER (new shoreland district code): The boundary of public waters which may include wetlands, and shall be an elevation delineating the highest water level which has been maintained for a sufficient period of time to leave evidence upon the landscape, commonly that point where the natural vegetation changes from predominantly aquatic to predominantly terrestrial. For watercourses, the ordinary high water level is the elevation of the top of the bank of the channel. For reservoirs and flowages, the ordinary high water level is the operating elevation of the normal summer pool. OUTDOOR STORAGE: The keeping, in an un-roofed area, of any goods, material, merchandise, or vehicles in the same place for more than twenty-four (24) hours. This shall not include the display of vehicles for sale in a new or used car sales lot. OUTPATIENT CARE: Medical examination or service available to the public in a hospital. This service is provided without overnight care and shall be considered a separate, independent, principal use when combined or operated in conjunction with a hospital. OWNER: The person or entity with a legal or equitable interest in the land on which the construction activities will occur. PARAPET: A low wall which is located perpendicular to (extension of front wall) a roof of a building. PARK FACILITY, ACTIVE: A park or recreation facility that includes one or more of the following: buildings, lighting, ball fields, tennis courts, swimming pools, skate parks, golf courses, or other active sports facilities. Active park facilities will commonly include benches, picnic areas, trails, sidewalks, and other similar features. PARK FACILITY, PASSIVE: A park or recreational facility that does not include the construction of facilities, lighting, or development of ball fields or other active sports facilities. Passive parks may include benches, picnic areas, trails and sidewalks. PARKING, OFF-STREET: The act of keeping a passenger vehicle as defined herein and/or small commercial vehicles, recreational vehicles and emergency vehicles as defined herein, on an approved parking space, properly surfaced, for a period of less than twenty-four (24) hours. PARKING BAY: The parking module consisting of one or two rows of parking spaces or stalls and the aisle from which motor vehicles enter and leave the spaces. PARKING ISLAND: Landscaped areas within parking lots used to separate parking areas and to soften the overall visual impact of a large parking area from adjacent properties. Page 496 City of Monticello Zoning Ordinance CHAPTER 8: RULES & DEFINITIONS Section 8.4 Definitions Subsection (8) Lots RIVER, TRIBUTARY: Rivers in the Protected Public Waters Inventory that are not classified by the DNR as an agricultural, forested, remote or transition river. ROOF: The exterior surface and its supporting structure on the top of a building or structure. The structural makeup of which conforms to the roof structures, roof construction and roof covering sections of the International Building Code. ROOT ZONE: The area inside the dripline of a tree that contains its roots. SCHOOL, Pre-K-12: A public or private school offering general, technical, or alternative instruction at the elementary, middle, or high school level that operates in buildings or structures on land leased or owned by the educational institution for administrative purposes. Such uses include classrooms, vocational training (including that of an industrial nature for instructional purposes only in middle or high schools), laboratories, auditoriums, libraries, cafeterias, after school care, athletic facilities, dormitories, and other facilities that further the educational mission of the institution. SCHOOL, HIGHER EDUCATION: A public or private non-profit institution for post- secondary education or a public or private school offering vocational or trade instruction to students. Such educational institutions operate in buildings or structures on land leased or owned by the educational institution for administrative purposes. Such uses include classrooms, vocational training (including that of an industrial nature for instructional purposes only), laboratories, auditoriums, libraries, cafeterias, after school care, athletic facilities, dormitories, and other facilities that further the educational mission of the institution. SCROLLING TEXT: A type of dynamic sign movement in which the letters or symbols move horizontally across the sign in a continuous scroll, permitting a viewer to observe the message over time. Scrolling shall not include flashing or other types of video movement. SEDIMENT CONTROL: Measures and methods employed to prevent sediment from leaving the site. SELF -STORAGE FACILITY: A building or group of buildings that contains equal or varying sizes of individual, compartmentalized, and controlled access stalls or lockers for the storage of residential or commercial customer's goods or wares. SEDIMENT: The product of an erosion process; solid material both mineral and organic, that is in suspension, is being transported, or has been moved by water, air or ice, and has come to rest on the earth's surface either above or below water level. City of Monticello Zoning Ordinance Page 501 FUTURE LAND USE MAP COMMERCIAL DESIGNATIONS There are four commercial and mixed land use designations as follows: Community Commercial A Community Commercial designation applies to existing commercial uses along State Highway 25, School Boulevard and Chelsea Road, as well as other small pockets of Monticello that include existing shopping centers, retailers and entertainment uses. The intent of Community Commercial is to provide locations for everyday retail goods and services generally oriented to a city-wide basis. Regional Commercial A Regional Commercial designation applies to areas targeted for uses that serve the traveling public and larger retail uses and commercial development intended for a regional market. This designation is generally applied to various areas along the Interstate 94 corridor with high visibility. The development character of the regional commercial development will continue to be auto -oriented, large format commercial uses such as `big -box' uses and other uses that require a large parking area. Looking to the future, opportunities for connectivity and design linkages between such development and nearby uses and neighborhoods will be emphasized. Downtown Mixed -Use The Downtown Mixed -Use category identifies and designates the downtown area as a primary development focus for downtown intended to improve, revitalize and redevelop Downtown Monticello as envisioned in the 2017 Downtown Small Area Plan. The goal is to transform downtown into a thriving commercial area with new mixed -use, specialty retail and restaurant uses with enhanced streetscape and pedestrian amenities. Entertainment uses, co -working spaces, boutiques and cafes are also envisioned. New downtown development should also embrace and be oriented towards the river whenever possible. Commercial/Residential Flex The Commercial/Residential Flex designation encourages the mix of flexible and compatible development of commercial, office, retail and residential uses in limited areas of the city on the same or adjacent properties. The purpose of this designation is to give the city and property owners flexibility for future land use based on market demand. The Commercial/Residential Flex designation is applied to a few of the remaining large vacant parcels in the City including the parcels located south of Chelsea Road and north of School Boulevard and centered along Dundas Road. This designation is also applied to parcels located between Interstate 94 and 7th Street West. These properties may be developed as commercial, residential, or mixed land uses under the city's PUD zoning, subject to review and approval of the City. u)" F F Park/OpenSp— Cemetery TABLE 3.3.- FUTURE LAND USE COMMERCIAL ACREAGES Source: Monticello Downtown Small Area Plan (2017) 60 (« LAND USE, GROWTH AND ORDERLY ANNEXATION COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL (CC) The Community Commercial designation includes low -scale retail, service, and office uses located along the City's arterials and collector streets. Some of these areas are developed as auto -oriented "strip" shopping centers while others are freestanding offices, commercial uses, or clusters of businesses intended to meet the needs of the community at large. Typical retail uses would include supermarkets, drug stores and miscellaneous local -serving retail stores and services. Typical office commercial uses might include banks, finance, real estate, medical and dental offices, and professional services. Typical service commercial uses might include gas stations, restaurants including fast food, used car sales, and minor auto repair businesses. Primary Mode Vehicular with access to collectors and arterials l Transit or l shuttle service Secondary Mode Shared bike/ pedestrian facilities 2018 Correlating • Floor Area Ratio Zoning District (FAR) 0.30 to 0.50 B-2 • Height - Limited Business District 1-2 stories • Lot Area I B-3 N/A Highway Business District MONTICELLO 2040 VISION + PLAN REGULAR MEETING — MONTICELLO CITY COUNCIL Monday, October 25, 2021— 6:30 p.m. Mississippi Room, Monticello Community Center Present: Lloyd Hilgart, Jim Davidson, Bill Fair, Charlotte Gabler, and Sam Murdoff Absent: None 1. General Business A. Call to Order & Pledge of Allegiance Mayor Hilgart called the meeting to order at 6:30 p.m. Mayor Hilgart noted that Councilmember Bill Fair was sworn in prior to the special meeting. B. Manufacturer's Week Proclamation C. Approval of Agenda Councilmember Gabler moved approval of the agenda. Councilmember Murdoff seconded the motion. Motion carried unanimously. D. Approval of Meeting Minutes • Special Meeting Minutes from October 11, 2021 • Regular Meeting Minutes from October 11, 2021 Councilmember Murdoff moved approval of both sets of minutes. Councilmember Gabler seconded the motion. Motion carried unanimously. E. Citizen Comments Clarence McCarty, downtown business owner, commented on the downtown dumpster enclosure located on Block 35. The enclosure is being left unlocked and open for non-paying people to empty their garbage. He requested that the City notify participating business owners to make sure they lock it and look at providing better security. Staff will review the enclosures for any updates that can be made. F. Public Service Announcements • Downtown Trick -or -Treat is Thursday, October 28 from 4 — 6 p.m. G. Council Liaison Updates • EDA — Councilmember Davidson stated that the EDA approved the preparation of a wetland delineation and plans and specifications for grading and stormwater improvements for a portion of City/EDA property at Otter Creek Business Park. • 1-94 Coalition — Councilmember Gabler noted that there was a zoom meeting regarding grants. 2. Consent Agenda: Councilmember Fair moved approval of the Consent Agenda. Councilmember Gabler seconded the motion. Motion carried unanimously. A. Consideration of approving the payment of bills. Action taken: Approved the bill and purchase card registers for a total of $807,957.57. B. Consideration of approving new hires and departures for city departments. Action taken: Approved the hires for Parks and MCC and departures for MCC.. Parks, and DMV. C. Consideration of approving the sale/disposal of surplus city property for the Street Department. Action taken: No report this cycle. D. Consideration of approving an application for a temporary charitable gambling permit for a raffle to be conducted by the Monticello Chamber of Commerce for their annual banquet on December 3, 2021. Action taken: Application was approved. E. Consideration of adopting Resolution 2021-81 supporting the Wright County Local Option Sales Tax. Action taken: Resolutions 2021-81 was adopted. F. Consideration of approving annual Snowplowing and Ice removal Policy for the 2021-2022 snow season. Action taken: Approved the policy. G. Consideration of approving "The Pointes at Cedar" as the final name for the "Chelsea Commons" planning area and authorizing the corresponding correction of documents. Action taken: Approved `The Pointes at Cedar' as the final name. H. Consideration approving an Administrative Subdivision and Administrative Lot Combination for two parcels located in the Central Community District, General Sub -District and approving a Waiver of Application Fee & Escrow. Applicant: Mosbart Properties, LLC. Action taken: Approved the Administrative Subdivision and Administrative Lot Combination based on findings in Resolution PC-2021-042 and the conditions of approval as required in the ordinance and Exhibit Z and approved the Waiver of Application Fee & Escrow based on the finding that the encroaching condition and non -conformity was created by the City of Monticello as the prior owner. I. Consideration of approving a Corrective Amendment to the City of Monticello Official Zoning Map for Shoreland Overlay District Boundaries. Applicant: City of Monticello. Action taken: Adopted Ordinance 764 approving a corrective amendment to the City of Monticello Official Zoning Map for Shoreland Overlay District Boundaries, based on findings to be made by the City Council. 3. Public Hearings: A. PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of adopting Resolution 2021-82 approving an assessment roll for delinquent miscellaneous accounts to be certified to the County Auditor for 2022 payable tax year Jennifer Schreiber, City Clerk, presented the item. There was minimal discussion among City Council. Mayor Hilgart opened the public hearing. No one testified. Mayor Hilgart closed the public hearing. Councilmember Murdoff moved to adopt Resolution 2021-82 approving the assessment roll for delinquent miscellaneous accounts. Councilmember Davidson seconded the motion. Motion carried unanimously. B. PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of adopting Resolution 2021-83 approving an assessment roll for delinquent utility accounts to be certified to the County Auditor for the 2022 payable tax year Jennifer Schreiber presented the item. There was minimal discussion among City Council. Mayor Hilgart opened the public hearing. No one testified. Mayor Hilgart closed the public hearing. Councilmember Fair moved to adopt Resolution 2021-83 approving an assessment roll for delinquent utility accounts. Councilmember Murdoff seconded the motion. Motion carried unanimously. 4. Regular Agenda: A. Consideration of an Appeal to Denial of Variance to Accessory Structure square footage maximum of 1,500 square feet and Consideration of approving a Conditional Use Permit for Accessory Structure exceeding 1,200 square feet for an existing single family residential use in the Central Community District, General Sub -District. Applicant: Clarence McCarty Steve Grittman, NAC, provided an overview of the request for appeal by the applicant. There was discussion among City Councilmembers. Mayor Hilgart commented that he did not believe approving the variance would set a precedent. He noted that in this situation, the applicant has a unique existing detached accessory structure and is seeking to add an attached garage to the home, which is different from the more common request of an existing attached garage and request for large, detached accessory structure. Councilmember Fair concurred. To allow the proposed two -stall garage addition, staff's proposal was that part of the barn would need to be removed because the total square footage of accessory garage space exceeds what is allowed by ordinance. Clarence McCarty, the applicant, addressed the City Council. He noted that the barn was there before the City was platted. The current house was built in 1926. He noted that it would not be feasible to remove a portion of the barn. Due to the uniqueness of the property, he requested that City Council reverse the decision by the Planning Commission denying the variance. Councilmember Fair moved to approve the variance from the maximum total garage space on a single-family parcel based on the uniqueness of the property, such as lot, age of structures, location in downtown area, and existing barn/garage structure preceded the house. Councilmember Murdoff seconded the motion. Motion carried unanimously. Mayor Hilgart moved to adopt the Conditional Use Permit as recommended by the Planning Commission, based on findings in Resolution PC-2021-035, and the conditions of approval as required in the ordinance and in Exhibit Z, excluding #2 and 3. Councilmember Davidson seconded the motion. Motion carried unanimously. B. Consideration of an amendment to the Affordable Storage Planned unit Development for Proposed Container Accessory Use. Applicant: Keith Burnham Steve Grittman, NAC, presented the item and noted that the Planning Commission unanimously recommended denial of the amendment. Staff also recommended denial of the amendment as the operation would be inconsistent with the intent of the land use specified by the Comprehensive Plan and, in addition, it is incompatible with the uses directly adjoining the subject property, particularly that of the single-family residential neighborhood to the south. It was also noted by staff that there should be a recommended removal date of November 15, 2021. When the original PUD was granted for commercial self - storage facility on this property, it was specifically noted that outdoor storage of materials on the site would not be permitted. Outdoor storage of materials is a use that is specifically relegated to industrial districts. Tim Dolan, Decklan Group on behalf of the applicant, addressed the City Council. Mr. Dolan explained that the applicant had read the PUD ordinance and believed the placement of containers was consistent with the ordinance. He also noted that the primary changes to the application are to the height and location of the containers. Mr. Dolan requested that they Council grant the amendment for a short-term use, up to 48 months. There was discussion among City Council. Councilmember Gabler commented that she would support the use for up to 48 months, with a review at 12 months. Councilmember Davidson agreed with 12 months because, in 12 months, Affordable Storage would have enough data on whether the use serves a purpose and would be able to build a structure. Councilmember Fair noted that he appreciated the investment the company has mode, but he would not support anything more than 12 months, as the City needs to consider the adjoining properties. Mayor Hilgart does not support the use, as it will set a precedent for facilities that have detached buildings such as those proposed. Councilmember Davidson added that this use would have never been allowed in the original PUD. Councilmember Murdoff commented that the City should allow based on the current business model originally allowed, with is storage. Staffs position is that the intent of the PUD was that there would not be materials stored outside the buildings. Councilmember Fair moved to affirm Planning Commission's denial of the request and require the removal of containers by November 15, 2021. Councilmember Davidson seconded the motion. Steve Grittman noted that there is a Council resolution in the packet, as proposed by staff, affirming the denial and listing the findings of fact for denial. Councilmembers Fair/Davidson had friendly amendment to motion to adopt Resolution 2021-85 denying a PUD Amendment for storage boxes on the Affordable Self -Storage site as outdoor storage based on findings in the stated resolution for denial and requiring the removal of the containers no later than November 15, 2021. Motion carried 3-2; Councilmembers Gabler and Murdoff voted against as they supported an interim use permit. Councilmember Gabler moved to adopt Ordinance 765 for PUD Amendment for the Affordable Storage Planned Unit Development, based on findings in Resolution 2021-85 for correction of language in Section (8)(c) to read as follows: Accessory Uses. Accessory uses shall be those commonly accessory and incidental to " commercial uses, and as specifically identified by the approved final stage PUD plans but shall not include outdoor storage or other activities. Councilmember Fair seconded the motion. Motion carried unanimously. C. Consideration of authorizing the purchase of a replacement fire engine for $20,000 from the City of Clearwater Rachel Leonard, City Administrator, provided an update on the purchase. The request was because Engine 12 was damaged responding to a call. The engine was not a total loss and is being repaired. To maintain an adequate fleet, the proposed fire engine will be used in the interim. Staff is optimistic that the insurance proceeds will cover the repairs of Engine 12 and the cost of this replacement vehicle. This item will not be a permanent vehicle of the Fire Department and will be sold when Engine 12 is repaired. There was minimal discussion among City Council. Councilmember Fair moved to authorize the purchase of the fire engine. Councilmember Gabler seconded the motion. Motion carried unanimously. 6. Adjournment: By consensus, the meeting was adjourned at 8:03 p.m. Recorder: Approved: Jennifer Schreiber an Att From: Anaela Schumann To: Hayden Stensaard; Vicki Leerhoff Subject: FW: Affordable Storage Monticello Date: Tuesday, June 7, 2022 3:19:02 PM Please print letter and images for tonight and post to agenda. Angela Schumann Community Development Director City of Monticello www.ci.monticello.mn.us 763-271-3224 Email correspondence to and from the City of Monticello government office is subject to the Minnesota Government Data Practices act and may be disclosed to third parties. From: Keith Burnham Sent: Tuesday, June 7, 2022 11:56 AM To: Angela Schumann <Angela.Schumann@ci.monticello.mn.us> Subject: Affordable Storage Monticello To Whom It May Concern, I am the only guy you know that wanted to store empty boxes. A small number of empty boxes, that are screened by our development. We asked to use less than 5% of our existing business for this. You are the only body I know that would deny such a simple request. Affordabox Portable Storage was a start up in 2021 without a home. If you have ever started a company, you know that the beginning is dicey. A new company is weak and fragile at the beginning. When I was weak and fragile, you denied me, and kicked me off my own property. Since our original request in 2021, we have opened 2 new business locations in St. Michael. Affordabox has experienced 50 times revenue growth since January 2022, and has outgrown its 16,000 sq ft facility. We are looking at other communities to expand our business. We have recruited, hired, and trained many new employees from the roll off and recycling business to sustain our growth. Payroll has quadrupled from 2021 to 2022, and we expect it to double every year for the next 3 years. Affordabox average employee salary is currently at around 60k/ yr, and is expected to rise at 10%/ yr over the next 3 years. We offer Paid Holidays, Paid Vacation, and Health Insurance Coverage for all of our employees. A 5 year projection puts us in a brand new warehouse and office facility, with 1 million in annual Payroll, and a 20 million valuation. Monticello did nothing to recruit us into their community..... in fact, the opposite occurred. In closing, the request to store empty boxes doesn't have the same meaning today as it did a year ago. We were forced to scramble, and find other opportunities. If approved, we may or may not decide to use the capability. If the City is going to approve it, I recommend allowing for 1 display location on each public street. For us, it would be one on Chelsea Road, and one on Innsbrook Drive. I have attached a photo as an example. Storing empty boxes is not a business..... displaying what you have stored is. Thank you to the two Council Members who tried to give us a chance last year...... Keith Burnham Sent from my Verizon, Samsung Galaxy smartphone Planning Commission Agenda — 07/05/2022 213. Continued Public Hearing - Consideration of a request for Amendment to the Monticello Zoning Ordinance for the Retail Service Uses Including but Not Limited to Definition, Zoning Districts and Standards. Applicant: City of Monticello Prepared by: Northwest Associated Meeting Date: Council Date (pending Consultants (NAC) 07/05/22 Commission action): 07/25/2022 Additional Analysis by: Community Development Director, Community and Economic Development Coordinator, Chief Building Official ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS Decision 1: Consideration of an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance to add definitions of retail businesses. 1. Motion to adopt Resolution No. PC-2022-035 recommending approval of Ordinance No. based on findings in said resolution. 2. Motion to deny the adoption of Resolution No. PC-2022-035 recommending denial Ordinance No. based on findings to be made by the Planning Commission. 3. Motion to table action on Resolution No. PC-2022-035. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND Property: Legal Description: NA PID #: NA Planning Case Number: 2022-027 Request(s): 1. Amendment to the Zoning Ordinance Deadline for Decision: NA NA Land Use Designation: NA Zoning Designation: NA 1 Planning Commission Agenda — 07/05/2022 Overlays/Environmental Regulations Applicable: NA Current Site Uses: NA Surrounding Land Uses: NA Project Description: The adopted Pointes at Cedar (PCD) zoning district includes an allowance for "Retail Service" uses, which are not currently defined within the Zoning Ordinance. The proposed amendment is designed to close that gap and provide clarity as to the classification between general "Retail Commercial" uses and "Retail Service" uses. In addition, the proposed amendment provides for the zoning districts in which the "Retail Service" use would be allowed. ANALYSIS: The purpose of this proposed zoning ordinance amendment is to add specificity to uses intended to be allowed in the City's various Business districts, but more specifically as to how those uses are addressed in the PCD, Pointes at Cedar District. The current zoning regulations address the definition of retail uses only in part. As a result, a clarification to the existing "Retail Commercial Use" definition and a new definition for "Retail Services" are proposed. In general, a retail transaction is one in which a provider of goods (or services) delivers the good to the end user on site. Most often, that good is a tangible product, such as groceries, a bicycle, or any other finished product. The key is that it is being provided to the end user of the product, and not sold for further manufacture or resale. A retail service use is one in which the business may also create or manufacture goods or property to sell to the end user. Examples would be artistic creations which can be both intellectual or tangible property. As such, a "retail service" business is often one which is both creating and delivering this type of property for sale — again to the end user only. Included below are the two proposed definitions. 2 Planning Commission Agenda — 07/05/2022 Amended Definition: RETAIL COMMERCIAL USES (OTHER): P r;I., engaged ;n the sale ^F ^ eds and- Fr.,.. -, A commercial land use where the establishment is primarily engaged in the sale of goods and materials to the general public, accepts payment or orders for, and delivers to the end user a good or service. Elements of the retail business include stock -in -trade held on the premises in the case of goods or provides a service to the end user on the premises. Retail business may arrange for delivery of a good rather than deliver the good concurrent with the transaction, or may accept payment or orders electronically in advance, for delivery of the good or service in person at a later date. Retail Commercial Uses do not include those businesses engaged primarily in delivery of goods for further treatment or finishing, or the sale of goods to businesses for subsequent resale, sale of goods from moveable motorized vehicles, or medical clinics. Where the Zoning Ordinance establishes a separate class of use for a specific business, such business shall be subject to the specific regulations applicable to such use. New Definition: RETAIL SERVICE: A form of Retail Commercial Use that creates a product of value (either good or service) on site and delivers said good or service to the end user on site. Examples include businesses which fabricate and/or craft creative goods on site and both display and sell such goods to the end user at the retail location such as artist studios, bicycle shops, photography studios or similar uses. Where the Zoning Ordinance establishes a separate class of use for a specific business, such business shall be subject to the specific regulations applicable to such use. Allowance by District: The allowance for "Retail Service" uses is proposed to be added as a permitted principal use to the 6-2, 6-3 and 6-4 districts, all commercial districts. In addition, it is proposed to be added as a permitted principal use to all sub -districts of the CCD and to The Pointes at Cedar district. Table 5-1 of the Zoning Ordinance is proposed to be amended accordingly. Table 5-1 is proposed to be amended to include a reference to The Pointes at Cedar, Ordinance No. 776 rather than a full secondary table. In addition, one small change for consistency with current definitions is proposed to Table 5-1. The ordinance currently provides definitions for both "Commercial Offices" and "Office — Professional Office — Services". Table 5-1 is proposed to include both, allowing both as permitted uses as currently permitted. Planning Commission Agenda — 07/05/2022 Use Standards: In regard to use standards for the proposed "Retail Service" use, the following are proposed to be added to Chapter 5, Section 2 — Use -Specific Standards. (2X) Retail Service a) Repair of all goods shall occur within an enclosed building. b) Outdoor sales and display shall be conducted in accordance with this ordinance. c) Off-street loading and delivery shall be in accordance with this ordinance and shall not reduce the required off-street parking required for the site and use. d) Outdoor storage shall be prohibited. e) No process involved in a service operation shall produce noise, vibration, air pollution, fire hazard, or noxious emission which will disturb or endanger neighboring properties. f) If adjacent to a residential property, the use shall require installation of a buffer yard in accordance with this ordinance. In addition, the Retail Commercial Uses (Other) use standards require amendment to eliminate reference to the previous ordinance for the CCD. With the adoption of the 2017 Downtown Small Area Plan, these standards became obsolete and/or were incorporated into the amendments located in the CCD section of the ordinance. The proposed amendments are as follows: (27) Retail Commercial Uses (Other) Mw " ON 4 Planning Commission Agenda — 07/05/2022 STAFF RECOMMENDED ACTION Staff recommends Alternative 1, leading to adoption of the Ordinance establishing the additional definitions in the Zoning Ordinance, Section 8.4, and the addition of Retail Service uses to the B-2, B-3, B-4 and Pointes at Cedar District. Staff would further recommend the addition of the use in all sub -districts of the CCD. SUPPORTING DATA A. Resolution PC-2022-035 B. Ordinance No. XXX C. Ordinance Excerpts 5 CITY OF MONTICELLO WRIGHT COUNTY, MINNNESOTA PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. PC-2022-035 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF MONTICELLO RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF AN AMENDMENT TO THE ZONING ORDINANCE ADDING DEFINITIONS RELATED TO RETAIL BUSINESS WHEREAS, the City regulates land uses in its various zoning districts, including an allowance for various types of retail uses in specific zones; and WHEREAS, the definitions of retail business currently rely on common understanding, but have limited specific definitions in the code; and WHEREAS, the clarity of the code will advance by the addition of said definitions; and WHEREAS, the zoning district amendments herein will accomplish the objectives of the City's land use plans and regulations; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on July 5, 2022 on the application and the applicant and members of the public were provided the opportunity to present information to the Planning Commission; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has considered all of the comments and the staff report, which are incorporated by reference into the resolution; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Monticello makes the following Findings of Fact in relation to the recommendation of approval: 1. The usefulness of the zoning regulations require clarity and definition to avoid misinterpretation, and promote the effectuation of the City's land use objectives. 2. The proposed amendments add definition to terms used in the zoning ordinance, but which rely only on common usage and understanding. 3. The proposed amendments refine the understanding of the terms used, and therefore advance the City land use regulations and objectives. 4. The proposed amendments will improve the communication of the intent of the zoning regulations to property owners, businesses, and city officials. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the Planning Commission of the City of Monticello, Minnesota, that the Planning Commission hereby recommends that the Monticello City Council approves the Amendment to the Zoning Ordinance as specified in Ordinance No. CITY OF MONTICELLO WRIGHT COUNTY, MINNNESOTA PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. PC-2022-035 ADOPTEDthis 5th day ofJuly, 2022, bythe Planning Commission of the City of Monticello, Minnesota. MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION IN ATTEST: Paul Konsor, Chair 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, BY ADDING DEFINITIONS RELATED TO RETAIL USES THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MONTICELLO HEREBY ORDAINS: Section 1. Chapter 3 Title 10 — Zoning Districts is hereby amended by adding the following: 8.4 Definitions RETAIL COMMERCIAL USE: Establishments primarily engaged in the sale eede. Retail eommer-eial uses may inelude by are not limited to bookstores, antique ster-es, gr-eeer-y ster-es and similar- uses; bttt de not inefttde sales ffe moveable motorized vehieles. A commercial land use where the establishment is primarily engaged in the sale of goods and materials to the general public, accepts payment or orders for, and delivers to the end user a good or service. Elements of the retail business include stock -in -trade held on the premises in the case of goods or provides a service to the end user on the premises. Retail businesses may arrange for delivery of a good rather than deliver the good concurrent with the transaction, or may accept payment or orders electronically in advance, for delivery of the good or service in person at a later date. Retail Commercial Uses do not include those business engaged primarily in delivery of goods for further treatment or finishing, or the sale ofgoods to businesses for subsequent resale, sale of goods from moveable motorized vehicles, or medical clinics. Where the Zoning Ordinance establishes a separate class of use for a specific business, such business shall be subject to the specific regulations applicable to such use. RETAIL SERVICE: A Retail Service establishment is a form of Retail Business that creates a product of value (either good or service) on site and delivers said good or service to the end user on site. Examples of Retail Services include businesses which fabricate and/or craft creative goods on site and both display and sell such goods to the end user at the retail location such as artist studios, bicycle shops, photography studios or similar uses. Where the Zoning Ordinance establishes a separate class of use for a specific business, such business shall be subject to the specific regulations applicable to such use. ORDINANCE NO. Section 2. Section 5.1, Table 5-1 shall be amended as follows: Retail Service shall be established as a permitted principal use in the B-2, B-3, 13- 4, CCD (all sub -districts) and The Pointes at Cedar (all sub -districts). Section 3. Section 5.1, Table 5.1 shall be further amended as follows: Offices, Commercial and Professional -Services Section 4. Section 5.1, shall be amended by adding Table 5-1B and adding the following: Table 5-1B THE POINTES AT CEDAR DISRICT (PCD) See Ordinance No. 776 Section 5. Section 5.2 for Use Specific Standards shall be amended by adding the following: (28) Retail Service a) Repair of all goods shall occur within an enclosed building. b) Outdoor sales and display shall be conducted in accordance with this ordinance. c) Off-street loading and delivery shall be in accordance with this ordinance and shall not reduce the required off-street parking required for the site and use. d) Outdoor storage shall be prohibited. e) No process involved in a service operation shall produce noise, vibration, air pollution, fire hazard, or noxious emission which will disturb or endanger neighboring properties. If adjacent to a residential property, the use shall require installation of a buffer yard in accordance with this ordinance. Section 5. Section 5.2(E) is hereby amended as follows: (27) Retail Commercial Uses (Other) (a) If the retail sales includes consignment sales, the following standards shall apply: (i) Sales and storage shall not exceed 1,000 square feet in area. (ii) At least 80% of the sales shall be of consigned merchandise. (iii) No auctions shall take place on the premises. (iv) There shall be no outside storage. PWVPMffAWfiTfiTfi ORDINANCE NO. ............ . ...... Section 6. 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 7. 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 , 2022 Lloyd Hilgart, Mayor ATTEST: Rachel Leonard, Administrator AYES: NAYS: CHAPTER 5: USE STANDARDS Section S. I Use Table Subsection (A) Explanation of Use Table Structure (c) Interim Permitted Uses = I An "I" indicates that a use may be permitted for a brief period of time provided certain conditions are met, and a specific event or date can be established for discontinuance of the use. Inability of the City to establish conditions to adequately control anticipated impacts is justification for denial of an interim permitted use. Interim Permitted Uses may also be subject to special regulations as referenced in the "Additional Requirements" column. (d) Prohibited Uses = Shaded Cells A shaded cell indicates that the listed use is prohibited in the respective base zoning district. (e) Uses Not Provided for Within Zoning Districts In any zoning district, whenever a proposed use is neither specifically allowed nor denied, the Community Development Department shall determine if the proposed use is comparable in potential activities and impacts to a use listed within the zoning district and is acceptable related to land use compatibility, traffic, and/or nuisance issues and established conditions and standards relating to development of the use. Where such a determination is made, the requirements established for the listed use shall apply as minimum standards for the proposed use. Additional requirements may be applied to address differences between the listed use and the proposed use. If no comparable use determination can be made, the use will be considered prohibited in which case an amendment to the ordinance text would be required to clarify if, where and how a proposed use could be established. TABLE 5-I: USES BY DISTRICT Use Types "P" = Permitted "C" = Conditionally Permitted "I" = Interim Permitted Base Zoning Districts AKR R T R R M B B B B O1 2 N 3 4 H 1 2 3 4 C I Additional C B 1 2 Requirements Uses Agriculture p P P P P P P P p p p p FP FP 5.2(B)(1) Agricultural Sales PAgricultural J Community•- Q F W WU Page 358 City of Monticello Zoning Ordinance CHAPTER 5: USE STANDARDS Section S. i Use Table Subsection (A) Explanation of Use Table Structure Use Types "P" = Permitted .. Conditionally. Permitted • , "I" = Interim Permitted Residential Uses 5.2(C)(1) Attached Dwelling Types 5.2(C)(2)(a) - Duplex p C 5.2(C)(21(b) 5.2(C)(21(c) 5.2(C)(21(dl - Townhouse C p - Multiple -Family C P C C Detached Dwelling p p p p p p None Group Residential P P P P P 5 2(C)(3) Facility, Single Family Group Residential C C C 5.2(C)(3) Facility, Multi -Family Mobile & Manufactured Home Park C C C P C 5.2(C)(4) Civic & Institutional Uses Active Park Facilities (public) P P P P P P P P P P P P p p p None Active Park Facilities P P P P P P P 5.2(D)(1) (private) Assisted Living Facilities C P C C P 5.2 D 2 Cemeteries C C C C C C C 5.2 D 3 Clinics/Medical Services C p p C None Essential Services p p p p p p p p p p p p p C p p None 5.2(D)(4) Hospitals C p p Nursing/Convalescent C C C C C C C C C P P 5.2(D)(5) Home Passenger Terminal C C C C None Passive Parks and Open P P P P P P P P P P P P p p p None Space Place of Public Assembly C C C C C p C 5.2 D 6 Public Buildings or Uses C C C C C C C P C C P P C P P 5.2 D 7 Public Warehousing I I I 5.2(D)(8) Temporary Schools, K-12 C C C C C C I I 5.2 D 9 Schools, Higher None Education C Utilities (major) C C C 5.2 D 10 City of Monticello Zoning Ordinance Page 359 CHAPTER 5: USE STANDARDS Section 5.1 Use Table Subsection (A) Explanation of Use Table Structure TABLE 5-1: USES BY DISTRICT • AdditionalUse Types Base Zoning Districts Conditionally-. Permitted • A 1 2 N 3 4 H 1 2 3 4 , "I" = Interim Permitted Commercial Uses Adult Uses 11 P P 3.7 K Auction House C 5.2E 2 Auto Repair — Minor C C P P 5.2E 3 Automotive Wash Facilities P C 5.2E 4 5.2E 5 Bed & Breakfasts C C C C C Brew Pub P P 5.2E 6 Business Support Services P P P P P None Commercial Lodging C P P 5.2 E Commercial Self -Storage C P 5.2 F 3 Communications/Broadcasting P P P P 5.2E 8 Convenience Retail C P P P 5.2E 9 Country Club C 5.2E 10 Day Care Centers C C P P C 5.2E 1 1 Entertainment/ Recreation, P P C C C 5.2E 12 Indoor Commercial Entertainment/ Recreation, C C C C 5.2E 13 Outdoor Commercial 5.2E 14 5.2E 15 5.2E 16 5.2E I Event Center C C C Financial Institution P C P Funeral Services P P Kennels (commercial) C Landscaping / Nursery P 5.2E 18 Business Offices P P P P P P P 5.2E 20 Personal Services C P P P 5.2E 22 Production Brewery or Micro -Distillery without P P 5.2 F 12 Taproom Production Brewery or 5.2E 23 Micro -Distillery with C C C C C 5.2 F 13 Taproom or Cocktail Room Recreational Vehicle Camp C 5.2E 24 Site Repair Establishment C P P P P 5.2E 25 Restaurants C P P C 5.2E 26 Page 360 City of Monticello Zoning Ordinance CHAPTER 5: USE STANDARDS Section S. I Use Table Subsection (A) Explanation of Use Table Structure 5-1: USES BY DISTRICT (cont.) Use Types Base Zoning Districts ConditionallyRequirement AdditionalTABLE Permitted •2 A�l Retail Commercial Uses (other) Buildings Less P P P 5.2(E)(27) than 10,000 SF Retail Commercial Uses (other) Buildings Over F I C P P 5.2(E)(27) 10,000 SF P P Specialty Eating 7] C P 5.2E 28 Establishments C C C Vehicle Fuel Sales C 5.2E 29 Vehicle Sales and Rental 5.2E 30 Veterinary Facilities C 5.2E 3 I Rural C C Veterinary Facilities C 5.2E 31 (Neighborhood) P P P None Wholesale Sales Industrial Uses Auto Repair — Major C P P 5.2(F)(I ) Bulk Fuel Sales and P p 5 2(F)(2) Storage Contractor's Yard, I I I 5.2(F)(4) Temporary Extraction of Materials I I I 5.2 F 5 General Warehousing C P P 5.2 F 6 Heavy Manufacturing C 5.2 F 7 Industrial Services C P None Industrial Self -Storage C C 5.2(F)(8) Facilities Land Reclamation C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C 5.2(F)(9) Light Manufacturing P P P 5.2(U(!0) Machinery/Truck Repair P P 5.2 F I I & Sales Recycling and Salvage C C 5.2(F)(14) Center Truck or Freight C C 5.2(F)(15) Terminal Waste Disposal & C 5.2(U(! 6) Incineration Wrecker Services C P 5.2(F)(17) City of Monticello Zoning Ordinance Page 361 CHAPTER 5: USE STANDARDS Section 5.1 Use Table Subsection (A) Explanation of Use Table Structure Uses: Residential Uses Single Family P* CUP *Upper floors only Multi 3 du or under P* CUP* P * Upper floors only Townhouse CUP CUP* CUP P *Townhouses on Broadway east of Pine only Multi 4-12du CUP CUP CUP CUP Multi 13+ du CUP CUP CUP CUP CUP Ground -Floor CUP* P P *Allowed on ground floor for townhouses on Broadway east of Pine Commercial Brew Pub < 10,000 sq. ft. P P P P Brew Pub > 10,000 sq. ft. CUP P CUP P Commercial Day Care CUP CUP P Commercial Lodging P CUP CUP P Entertainment/Recreation, Indoor Commercial (including theaters) CUP* CUP* CUP* CUP <10,000 sq. ft. only Entertainment/Recreation Outdoor Commercial Event Centers CUP CUP CUP CUP CUP Subject to 5.2 (F) (14) Funeral Services CUP Personal Services P P P P CUP Places of Public Assembly CUP CUP CUP CUP CUP Production Brewery/Taproom P P P P Micro Distillery/Cocktail Room P P P P Professional Office -Services and Retail CUP* P P P P Upper floors preferred Commercial Office CUP* - not allowed on ground floor P/CUP* on ground floor P/CUP* on ground floor P Upper floors preferred Financial P P P P Drive thru by CUP Restaurants, Bars <I0,000 sq. ft. P P P P CUP Restaurants, Bars > 10,000 sq. ft. CUP P CUP P CUP Page 362 City of Monticello Zoning Ordinance CHAPTER 5: USE STANDARDS Section S. I Use Table Subsection (A) Explanation of Use Table Structure Retail Sales < 10,000 s. ft. P P P P P Retail Sales > 10,000 s . ft. CUP CUP CUP P CUP Retail with Service CUP P P P P Specialty Eating Establishments < 10,000 s . ft. P P P P CUP Vehicle Fuel Sales CUP Veterinary Facilities <10,000 sq ft CUP CUP CUP CUP No outdoor uses Industrial Uses Industrial PUD PUD Only PUD Only Civic & Institutional Uses Clinics/Medical Services CUP CUP P P Public Buildings or Uses (incl. P public arks CUP P CUP CUP Schools Pre-K-12 CUP CUP CUP City of Monticello Zoning Ordinance Page 363 CHAPTER 5: USE STANDARDS Section 5.2 Use -Specific Standards Subsection (E) Regulations for Commercial Uses 2. Site lighting shall utilize fixtures similar in style to that designated by the City for use in public areas of the "CCD" district. 3. The building, site, and signage meet the standards for the "CCD" district and design review is conducted by the Planning Commission. Section 5.30)(14): 4. Drive through facilities comply with the requirements of Section Drive Through 5.3(D)(14). Service 5. The proposed use demonstrates compatibility and consistency with the City's Comprehensive Plan and the Downtown Revitalization Plan. (27) Retail Commercial Uses (Other) (a) If the retail sales includes consignment sales, the following standards shall apply: (i) Sales and storage shall not exceed 1,000 square feet in area. (ii) At least 80% of the sales shall be of consigned merchandise. (iii) No auctions shall take place on the premises. (iv) There shall be no outside storage. (b) In the CCD, F-2 sub -district, the following conditions shall apply to retail sales in buildings having a retail floor area greater than 10,000 square feet: (i) Building architecture shall be designed to vary facade height, fenestration, and other details to provide the appearance of several smaller retail buildings, rather than a single large structure. (ii) Parking shall be oriented to wrap around buildings, rather than be located entirely in the front of the building. (c) In the CCD, F-2 sub -district, the following conditions shall apply to retail sales accessory services: (i) Accessory service shall occupy no more than 40 percent of the main floor of any building. (ii) Service may include activities that support the retail sales of goods on the premises, including repair, fabrication, rental, assembly, shipping, or similar activities. (iii) Service activities may occur as an entity separate from retail sales, but shall meet the requirements of this section. City of Monticello Zoning Ordinance Page 393 CHAPTER 8: RULES & DEFINITIONS Section 8.4 Definitions Subsection (B) Lots RECREATIONAL VEHICLE CAMP SITE: A lot or parcel of land occupied or intended for occupancy by recreational vehicles for travel, recreational, or vacation usage for short periods of stay subject to the provisions of this ordinance. RECYCLING AND SALVAGE CENTER: A facility engaged solely in the storage, processing, resale, or reuse of recyclable and recovered materials. REGIONAL FLOOD: A flood which is representative of large floods known to have occurred generally in Minnesota and reasonably characteristic of what can be expected to occur on an average frequency in the magnitude of the 100-year recurrence interval. Regional flood is synonymous with the term "base flood" used in the Flood Insurance Study. REGULATORY FLOOD PROTECTION ELEVATION: The regulatory flood protection elevation shall be an elevation no lower than one foot above the elevation of the regional flood plus any increases in flood elevation caused by encroachments on the flood plain that result from designation of a floodway. REPAIR ESTABLISHMENT: An establishment primarily engaged in the provision of repair services for TV's, bicycles, clocks, watches, shoes, guns, canvas products, appliances, and office equipment; including tailor; locksmith; and upholsterer. RESTAURANT: An establishment where meals or prepared food, including beverages and confections, are served to customers for consumption on or off the premises. Such a facility may include indoor and outdoor seating and/or drive through services. RETAIL COMMERCIAL USES (OTHER): Establishments primarily engaged in the sale of goods and materials to the general public not otherwise specifically defined in code. Retail commercial uses may include by are not limited to bookstores, antique stores, grocery stores and similar uses; but do not include sales from moveable motorized vehicles. RIVER, AGRICULTURAL: Rivers that run through intensively cultivated areas, mainly in the southern and western area of Minnesota. RIVER, FORESTED: Rivers that are in forested, sparsely to moderately populated areas with some roads; typically found in northeast, southwest and north -central Minnesota RIVER, REMOTE: Rivers that are primarily in roadless, forested, sparsely populated areas in northeastern Minnesota. RIVER, TRANSITION: Rivers that are in a mixture of cultivated, pasture and forest lands. Page 500 City of Monticello Zoning Ordinance &'K CITY OF �Monticello BUILDING SAFETY & CODE ENFORCEMENT DEPARTMENT Serving residents and businesses by supporting new construction projects, renovation of existing properties, and building expansion within the City of Monticello. City staff: • Ron Hackenmueller — Chief Building Official • Deb Cole —Building Dept. Coordinator/Inspector • Bob Ferguson —Inspector • Wayne Kalla —Inspector (Joined us in December Zozz) Consulting As Needed: • Rum River Construction Consultants • Andy Schreder — Inspector • Brant Schreder — Inspector T a CITY OF Monticello KEEPING OUR COMMUNITY BEAUTIFUL: Helpful information from Monticello's Department of Building Safety CITY OF Monticello BUILDING SAFETY Department Brochures: these are handed out to the public and explain what our department does, offers detailed descriptions of public nuisances/blights, enforcement, and how they can make a report. • Dedicated to user-friendly, professional customer service • Providing comprehensive, clear and consistent education and information • Supporting stakeholders' ability to achieve their building objectives • Maintaining compliance with building, fire, and city codes CITY OF -a Monticello $8o,000,000.00 $70,000,000.00 $6o,000,000.00 $50, 000, 000.00 $40,000,000.00 $ 30, 000, 000.00 $ 20, 000, 000.00 $1010001000.00 $0.00 Total Building Valuation Building Valuation 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 Revenue vs. Expenses (Budgeted Expenses) Revenue vs. Expenses $1,000,000 $800,000 $600,000 $400,000 $2001000 $o � 1 2010 2012 2013 2014 2015 2o16 -$200,000 ■ Revenue Totals ■ Expense Totals ■ Net Revenue Totals III III III III 2020 Much of the workload from the permits in 2021 will roll into 2022 inspections 2c,z-i wzz•1 :.. ... 400 200 Annual Permit Counts I Permits Issued Annual Permit Counts Total Permits Issued 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 New Construction House Permits: Single Family Attached and Single Family Detached New Construction House Permits Total Permits Issued 100 go 8o 70 6o 50 40 30 20 10 0 95 2009 2011 2013 2015 2017 2019 2021 On -Line Permits Our on-line permits went live in August 2021..We have had an overwhelming response from those using it, and it has been nothing but positive. We have issued $34,595.00 worth of permits, for a total Of 281. permits. HOW IT WORKS: MOW& • They apply for their basic "over the counter" permits on our IT" I T I'll �rE_ A N�C.�LL� �'LT�'l T _E website. (permits that do not require a plan review) T1 • They then receive an e-mail with a link for them to pay for 1. �T M their permit. • Once they pay, they receive another e-mail which has theira-�� r.. permit attached. • Then their application and permit automatically gets filed into Laser -fiche. Application Permit What a Difference a Year Makes: January:L —April i5 Year Number of Permits Valuation 2019 137 $1,295,133 zozo 339 $5,354,226 zozl 269 s16,593,074 2022 165 $5,566,126 Th ru 4-1 121000 101000 61000 4, 000 21000 NUMBER OF BUILDING INSPECTIONS 10,556 m� Hailstorm 1,1o8 11117 1,333 Ajo 0 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 *2oo8 was the Memorial weekend hailstorm, work carried into zoog as well Rental Ordinance & Licensing Purpose: To maintain our current housing stock in a safe, healthy, and code compliant status. • Benefits property owners, renters, and the community • Rental Ordinance has been in place since 2007 • Continued efforts to maintain a responsive and efficient program. • Adjustments in 202o and 2023. to work with owners and tenants during the pandemic. • 2022 inspections have been going smoothly. Rent, nsing Process: TypicalYear Applications due every year & inspections every other year — even addresses inspected on even years and odd addresses inspected on odd years. • Oct./Dec.: • December 31 • February 1: • February 15: • February 22: • March 30: • March 14: • May 15: Application reminders sent to property owners Applications due by to avoid the late penalty Late application letters are sent out Inspection reminders are sent out Non -applicants go to City Attorney for final notice to apply for license, prior to prosecution letter • 13 letters sent in 2020 • 1.5 letters sent in 2021: All property owners have applied for their license, after receiving the attorney's letter • 13 letters sent in2022 : 3 remaining to apply. Licenses are mailed to properties that passed inspection and properties not requiring an inspection All rental properties requiring inspections are to be completed All unlicensed rental properties turned over to City Attorney for prosecution Rental Applications Received Rental Applications Recieved .•• 500 434 446 399 400 346 358 312 300 287 200 100 494 486 468 467 j0 M 438 421 425 M o- - - - - - - - - - - - - 2007(08) 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2O14 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 Z00% compliance in 2018 201 202o and� 9, 2021 Rental Fees Collected s6o,000.00 $49,600.00 $42,835•00 $ 0 000.00 $45,235.00 $49,020.00 5 � $47,645.00 $39625.00 $4o,665.00 $43,671.00 $451210.00 $45,600.00 $44,,110.00 $40,000.00 L $38,5oo.o0 $38,85o.o0 $32,115.00 $30,000.00 $201000.00 $101000.00 $0.00 — — — — — — — — — — — — — 2007(o8) 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2o18 2019 2020 2021 Single Family Home Rentals 450 400 394 358 350 343 349 328 331 324 313 3�9 300 269 276 248 �50 237 201 200 150 100 5o 0 2007(o8) 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2o16 2017 2o18 2019 2020 2021 547 200 100 Number of Rental Property Inspections byYear �73 261 249 307 335 353 288 291 257 267 279 221 0 2007(08) 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2o16 2017 2o18 2019 2020 2021 The City Adopts Codes and Zoning Policies to Protect the Health, Safety, and Quality of Life of Monticello Residents. Enforcement of these Regulations Results in a More Beautiful Community, Stable Neighborhoods, and a Safe, Secure, and Balanced Environment. No Mow May On Monday, March z8 City Council approved 'No Mow May' in Monticello. This approval suspends nuisance enforcement in relation to grass lengths (weed lengths will still be enforced) per City Ordinance g1.o6 for the month of May. The goal of No Mow May is to allow grass to grow unmownfor the month of May, creating habitat and forage for early season pollinators. Please note: if you plan on participating, enforcement will resume June 1 and all lawns must be maintained. For more information visit our websiteat www.ci.monticello.mn.us I, HOW TO HELP OUR BEES: NO MOW t MAY S%)r �VxS `p8. PLANT BEE FLOWERS/ NATIVE PLANTS AFs� FF. FR�F pF Communications Campaigns In addition to our No Mow May Campaign, we are also working with the City's Communications specialist to promote education about nuisances and blights. This includes and 3-month social media campaign, printed materials such as our tri-fold brochure, inserts in the City's utility bills, and signs around MCC. Public Nuisance Based on the following numbers, there have been fewer notices issued since the transition to a complaint only basis. 7nn 600 500 400 300 200 100 0 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2o16 2017 2o18 2019 2020 2021 Number of Blights Mowed by Contractor In 2olo and 2011 the numbers were higher because the City conducted a "sweep" every spring. Online Help Desk Correspondence Building & Rental Ordinance Questions Building / Sign Permit questions Blight Citizen Service Desk / See Click Fix 1;7 r: 50 02021 02020 100 150 ■ 2019 ■ 2018 ■ 2017 250 300 350 202:L Noteworthy Projects Equipment —Almost Complete F i2 � ��_ .1�`• e•T.. �.f:�4 x.F�4:'9Y''v'Yc'.. - - J-i�d�.�r.�� .. ��..-;;Vi'v`.r; 9`�`G � a:�l��'" s_+�;.ui: -_ `mot �•":��YA�i�x.�- . ��: a2n'e::-4��+-�'�. _ .. :: i?f ��' �.aq. '%:1�r1'' r� r_L��'q` � � iy�.?ir+.' � 4,-,�'J��'g� � �",i'ii . �..,. �-U .�'a• •.- ..... UMC - Almost Complete Storage Link — In Progress ALDI - Completed 202:L Noteworthy Projects Due North Carwash —Almost Complete Healing Moments Counseling - Complete A zc '^ndinq Construction Projects • Take 5 Car Wash • Monticello Lakes - Purposed zoo Apartment Units • Twin Pines - Purposed 94 Units • Stoney BrookVillage — Purposed z8Townhomes • Haven Ridge 2nd—In Planning • Featherstone 6t"— In Planning A few more projects are in the planning stages: Including Block 52 NEW NEIGHBORHOODS / UNDER CONSTRUCTION Autumn Ridge Villas Addition * 41 lots tota I * 4 lots remaining to be permitted * 1 in the Parade of Homes NEW NEIGHBORHOODS / UNDER CONSTRUCTION Carlisle Village WhAddition * 72 lots tota I * All permits have been issued NEW NEIGHBORHOODS / UNDER CONSTRUCTION Deep Haven— 2nd & 3rd Apartment Building —Under Construction Deep Haven —1st Apartment Building - Complete NEW NEIGHBORHOODS / UNDER CONSTRUCTION Iwo Edmonson Ridge Addition 54Single Family Lots • ZoUnder Construction • 1 Parade of Homes NEW NEIGHBORHOODS / UNDER CONSTRUCTION Featherstone 5tn Addition • 26 Single Family Lots • 15 permits issued • 3 completed NEW NEIGHBORHOODS / UNDER CONSTRUCTION Haven Ridge zst Addition • 27 Single Family Lots • All Permits Issued QUESTIONS? Feel free to stop in or call us at (763) 295-3o6o aftfsk— V_q OWL dL •• r : r - .art # •� �. - Planning Commission Agenda — 07/05/22 313. Community Development Director's Report Council Action on/related to Commission Recommendations • Consideration of a Request for Development Stage Planned Unit Development for Headwaters West Apartments, a Proposed 102-Unit Multi -Family (Senior -Restricted) Development in the R-3, Medium Density Residential District Applicant: Headwaters Development Approved on the consent agenda. The developer is now required to submit final plat and final stage PUD applications for both the twinhome and multifamily components of the project. They have provided an extension of the 60-day decision requirement to accommodate those applications. • Consideration of a request for Rezoning to Planned Unit Development, Development Stage Planned Unit Development and Preliminary Plat Haven Ridge, for replat of Haven Ridge 2nd Addition, a Proposed 59 Unit Single Family Residential Development in an R-1 (Single -Family Residence) District. Applicant: Haven Ridge, LLC. Approved on the regular agenda, 4-1. The developer has submitted final plat and final stage PUD applications, which are tentatively set for Council review on July 251", 2022. The Pointes at Cedar Project Updates The Master Plan was featured at the recent Walk & Roll event, where attendees were able to identify those items they were most looking forward to in the public spaces. The amenities favored included interactive water features, small venues for performances and live music, and a location for food trucks. The Compass Committee also met in June to review the feedback received and its reflection on the Master Plan. The Compass Committee continued to support smaller, integrated amenities throughout The Pointes. These amenities would be directly tied to the biome in which they are located. It was also noted that the design of the Master Plan was intentionally geared toward flexibility in how spaces are used throughout the park. City Council approved a contract amendment for the grading and design portion of the project, allowing for additional engagement opportunity, survey work and necessary stormwater pollution prevention document. At this time, the first round of improvements is tentatively set for 2024. Staff will be focusing over the next month on gathering images for The Pointes ordinance image library. The Master Plan will also be showcased at the Riverfest Block Party at the MCC. Please mark your calendars for a joint workshop on the Master Plan with PARC and City Council, scheduled for Monday, August 8tn In addition, the June project update will be posted to https://www.ci.monticello.mn.us/276/The-Pointes-at-Cedar-Small-Area-Plan Population Projections Each year, the State Demographer's office provides updated city population estimates. Planning Commission Agenda — 07/05/22 This document is attached for reference. State Demographic Center June 1, 2022 300 Centennial Office Building 658 Cedar Street St. Paul, MN 55155 Telephone: 651-201-2473 TTY: 651-297-4357 Dear Clerk: MINNESOTA STATE DEMOGRAPHIC CENTER DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION Rachel Leonard, City Administra City of Monticello 505 Walnut St Ste 1 Monticello, MN 55362-8822 The State Demographer is required by law to produce annual population and household estimates for each of Minnesota's cities and townships. Enclosed you will find a sheet containing the April 1, 2021, population and household estimates for your jurisdiction. These estimates are being sent to you now for review and comment. It's important that our estimates are accurate, as they are used to distribute state aid to cities and townships. If you have questions about how our estimates impact a specific program, please contact the state agency responsible for that program. The enclosed figures represent estimated population and household changes since the 2020 Census. The number of households corresponds to the number of occupied housing units. A household may be a single family, one person living alone, or any group of people who share the same living area. While we believe that our estimates are usually accurate, we realize there may be occasional problems. For this reason, we value your comments. We may not be aware of such changes as housing demolitions, the gain or loss of group quarters (like college dormitories, nursing homes, etc.), construction of public housing and the gain or loss of mobile homes. Please note that our estimates: pertain to one year ago, not the present; have also been sent to your county auditor for review; are subject to change and are not considered final until they are released to the Minnesota Department of Revenue in July. If you are satisfied with our estimates, it is not necessary to contact us or provide any further information. If you wish to challenge our estimates, please send us the appropriate data described in the enclosed challenge guide by June 24, 2022. Questions or comments should be directed to Eric Guthrie by email or at the address listed on the letterl.ead. Since we are working away from the office during the pandemic, the best way to reach us is by e-mail at local.estimates c state.mn.us. You may also try to reach us by phone at (651) 201- 2473. Thank you for taking time to review these estimates. Sincerely, Susan Brower State Demographer Enclosures DATE: June 1, 2022 TO: Rachel Leonard, City Administra City of Monticello FROM: Susan Brower Minnesota State Demographer SUBJECT: 2021 Population and Household Estimates Your April 1, 2021 population estimate is 14,619. Your April 1, 2021 household estimate is 5,548. If you have any questions or comments about these estimates, please contact the State Demographic Center, 300 Centennial Office Building, 658 Cedar Street, St. Paul, MN 55155, phone (651) 201-2473 or send an e-mail to local. estimates &state.mn.us. All challenges must be submitted in writing. Please refer to the enclosed sheet for details. HOW TO CHALLENGE THE POPULATION AND HOUSEHOLD ESTIMATES FROM THE STATE DEMOGRAPHER The legal responsibilities of the State Demographer with respect to local population estimates dictate that we be able to defend any revisions to the estimates. Consequently, we need documentation for our files. Cited below are types of information we will accept with a challenge to our estimates. You may select whichever approach is most appropriate for your situation. However, the more information you can provide the better. No challenges will be accepted after June 24. 1. You may send us the number of active residential utility accounts in April 2020 and April 2021. We would prefer electrical accounts, but water and sewer accounts are acceptable. Please summarize your data. We don't need a list of all utility customers. Summary data for intervening years are helpful. Utility data are much more useful when provided together with building permit data (see #2 below). 2. Another approach is to provide the number of housing units added and lost by calendar year for the years beginning with 2020. Building and demolition permits are a good source of such information. Be sure to include mobile homes and apartments, and indicate whether any of the apartments were for the elderly. Please try to be as specific as possible about the type of unit involved (single-family, apartment, mobile home, etc.). 3. An actual count of persons or households may be accepted, but places with more than 100 people must contact the State Demographer before proceeding with a count. The count you submit should be for 2022. We will interpolate a number for 2021. You must provide the following information: a. List the house number and street name of each housing unit in your city or township. If there is more than one unit at an address, please list each unit and provide an apartment number. b. Indicate whether the unit is occupied or vacant. If the unit is occupied, indicate the number of residents. Only year-round residents should be counted. Young people away at college or in the military, elderly persons who have moved to a nursing home in another town and seasonal (summer) residents should not be counted. c. Group quarters such as nursing homes, dormitories, jails and group homes should not be counted as housing units. Give us the name and address of the facility and the number of residents. d. After you have listed each housing unit, you must summarize your data and give us the total number of residents, the total number of vacant units and the total number of occupied units. e. Please indicate when the count was completed. Any additional information you can provide about your community will be appreciated. Changes in vacancy rates, the conversion of summer homes to year-round use, and changes in employment opportunities are the types of things we like to hear about when we are evaluating an estimate. One final request --when you write to us, please provide your mailing address and a telephone dumber or e-mail address where you can be reached during the day. Thank you. Dear Local Partner, We are including this message to update you on the status of the 2020 Census release and the opportunities and tools available to you for working with those data. Interest in these once -a - decade data is always high, and as a result many of you have already contacted the Minnesota State Demographic Center (SDC) for assistance in interpreting and using the data. The most current data is available on our website: https://mn.gov/demography/. Using the navigation menu to access Data by Topic > Population Data > 2020 Decennial Census > Redistricting will give data users access to data for various levels of geography down to the block level. These data are available in a comma separated value (.csv) format, which can be opened by most spreadsheet and database programs. Many have requested the data be displayed on a map to make the data easier to access and review. We have put together a web map local leaders can use to see the block -level data for their area. The data included in this map are: Total Population, Total Housing Units, Occupied Housing Units, and Vacant Housing Units. That mapping application can be accessed http://t.lv/BCI)O. Please be sure to read the notes on block -level data and the need for aggregation before drawing any conclusions about census coverage or accuracy for an area. The Count Question Resolution Program (CQR) is a program that allows local governments to request the U.S. Census Bureau review their boundaries and housing counts in the 2020 Census. The highest elected official for every governmental unit in the state should have already received infonmation about the CQR from the U.S. Census Bureau. If your highest elected official has not received the data or you need another copy of those materials, they are available here: https.://www.census g _K/pr grams-surye_y_s/decennial-census/decade/2020/planning- management/evaluate/cgr.html. We are sending this information to you now because the CQR program is the only way for local governments to seek corrections to the 2020 Census data. Please note that the Census Bureau will only allow consider some types of corrections to the data. Details about the types of corrections the Census Bureau will consider are available on the CQR web page. Each jurisdiction Must initiate the request and supply all necessary documentation directly to the U.S. Census Bureau. The deadline to do so 'is June 30, 2023. While our office does not have any official role in the CQR program, we will provide any assistance we can to local leaders as they navigate their submissions to the U.S. Census Bureau. Regardless of whether a local area needs assistance, please notify us if you do make a challenge through the CQR program. This will allow us to review the challenge to see if it should be incorporated into our annual population estimates. You can notify the Minnesota State Demographic Center about your CQR submissions at: local. estimates@state.mn.us. The Minnesota State Demographic Center Team