Planning Commission Agenda - 12/03/2024AGENDA
REGULAR MEETING — PLANNING COMMISSION
Tuesday, December 3, 2024— 6:00 p.m.
Mississippi Room, Monticello Community Center
SPECIAL MEETING — JOINT MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION/CITY COUNCIL
WORKSHOP
Monticello Community Center — North Mississippi
4:45 p.m. Concept Stage Planned Unit Development Submittal for Data Center
Campus
Commissioners: Vice Chair Andrew Tapper, Rick Kothenbeutel, Teri Lehner, Melissa
Robeck, Rob Stark
Council Liaison: Councilmember Gabler
Staff: Angela Schumann, Steve Grittman, Ron Hackenmueller, Tyler Bevier
1. General Business
A. Call to Order
B. Consideration of Additional Agenda Items
C. Approval of Agenda
D. Oath of Office Administration —Richard Kothenbeutel
E. Consideration to appoint 2025 Planning Commission Officers
F. Approval of Meeting Minutes
• Regular Meeting Minutes - June 4, 2024
• Regular Meeting Minutes — August 6, 2024
• Workshop Minutes —September 3, 2024
• Regular Meeting Minutes — September 3, 2024
• Regular Meeting Minutes — November 4, 2024
G. Citizen Comment
2. Public Hearings
A. Consideration for Administrative Lot Subdivision and Combination, Variance to
Setback in an R-1 (Single Family) Residential District
Applicant: Steve Johnson
Regular Agenda
A. Consideration of recommendation of reappointment of Andrew Tapper to the
Planning Commission
Other Business
A. Community Development Director's Report
S. Adjournment
Planning Commission Minutes - 6/4/2024
Commissioners Present:
Robeck
Commissioners Absent:
Council Liaison Present:
Staff Present:
1. General Business
A. Call to Order
MINUTES
REGULAR MEETING — PLANNING COMMISSION
Tuesday, June 4, 2024 — 6:00 p.m.
Mississippi Room, Monticello Community Center
Chair Paul Konsor, Vice Chair Andrew Tapper, Teri Lehner, Melissa
Rob Stark
Councilmember Charlotte Gabler
Angela Schumann, Steve Grittman, Ron Hackenmueller, Hayden
Stensgard
Chair Paul Konsor called the regular meeting of the Monticello Planning Commission to
order at 6:00 p.m.
B. Roll Call
Paul Konsor called the roll noting all present with the exception of Rob Stark.
C. Consideration of Additional Agenda Items
None
D. Approval of Agenda
ANDREW TAPPER MOVED TO APPROVE THE JUNE 4, 2024 PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING AGENDA. NO SECOND WAS MADE. MOTION CARRIED
UNANIMOUSLY, 4-0
E. Aooroval of Minutes
• Regular Meeting Minutes —May 7, 2024
PAUL KONSOR MOVED TO APPROVE THE MINUTES. TERI LEHNER SECONDED THE
MOTION. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY, 4-0
F. Citizen Comments
None
2. Public Hearings
A. Consideration of an Amendment to the Monticello Citv Code. Title XV: Land Usaee
Chapter 153: Zoning Ordinance, Section 153.012 — Definitions, and 153.091— Use -
Specific Standards related to Wrecker & Towing Services as a Principal Use including
Definitions, Use -Specific Standards, and other regulations as necessary to define and
limit the intent or application of the proposed amendment
Applicant: City of Monticello
1
Planning Commission Minutes - 6/4/2024
City Planner Steve Grittman provided an overview of the proposed amendment. Steve
Grittman mentioned that the current ordinance was written through the lens of a
salvage yard use and how that us would coexist with existing neighbors. Salvage yards
are no longer an allowed use within the city. Staff felt the language needed to reflect the
updated uses of towing. The amendment would reflect how the City would review the
proposed conditional use permit proposed next on the agenda. Steve Grittman gave an
overview of the updated language including flexibility for future conditional use permit
requests. Updated language includes compliance with 100 year floodplain and no
dismantling of motor vehicles for parts. He stated that the goal of the amendment is to
shift from the salvage yard aspect to the towing aspect, with the understanding a tow
yard may hold vehicles for a certain amount of time, then moved and released to
another location.
Commission Chair Konsor asked for clarity around the height restrictions for fences and
if this requires a minimal height.
Planner Steve Grittman mentioned that screening fences are often 6ft in height, and up
to 8' would be allowable under the code. This would allow for flexibility of needs as
related to site screening.
Councilmember Gabler asked for clarification around business districts for fence height
which is limited to 7' in rear yards, yet this amendment mentions 8'.
Planner Steve Grittman responded that a variance would not be needed, as this
provision is an exception to the 7' high rule.
Commission Chair Konsor asked if other similar services would be affected by this
change and if they need to be notified.
Planner Steve Grittman answered that being a new code, this would apply to existing
wrecking and towing services, and existing businesses would be legally non -conforming.
Commission Chair opened the public hearing portion of the agenda item
Andrew Tapper shared a concern that if this use was a permitted use, how is this code
enforced.
Community Development Director Angela Schumann stated that the city ordinance
requires a change of use form if a site changes use. If a site was changing to a towing
agency, a site plan review would be required with an administrative review process by
staff. That may happen prior to or concurrent with a building permit as needed.
PAUL KONSOR MOVED TO ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. PC-2024-16 RECOMMENDING
APPROVAL OF AN AMENDMENT TO THE MONTICELLO CITY CODE, TITLE XV: LAND
Planning Commission Minutes - 6/4/2024
USAGE, CHAPTER 153: ZONING ORDINANCE, SECTION 153.012 — DEFINITIONS, AND
153.091— USE -SPECIFIC STANDARDS RELATED TO WRECKER & TOWING SERVICES AS A
PRINCIPAL USE INCLUDING DEFINITIONS, USE -SPECIFIC STANDARDS, AND OTHER
REGULATIONS AS NECESSARY TO DEFINE AND LIMIT THE INTENT OF APPLICATION OF
THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT, BASED ON FINDINGS IN SAID RESOLUTION. MELISSA
ROBECK SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION APPROVED UNANIMOUSLY, 4-0
B. Consideration of a Request for Conditional Use Permit for Wrecker & Towing Services
as a Principal Use in the B-3, Highway Business District
Applicant: Nick Christenson
City Planner Steve Grittman gave an overview of the site. Steve Grittman stated that this
location has been operating as an automobile and storage and repair facility for quite
some time. The applicant is looking to clarify the ownership and operation. As staff
reviewed the code for this use, staff noted the outdated code as addressed above with
the amendment. Staff felt the B-3 district was consistent with the applicant's use of the
site.
Steve Grittman provided an overview of the request, stating that the intent of the
conditional use permit appears to be a compatible use for the existing infrastructure and
nearby uses. Steve Grittman reviewed the standards outlined in the proposed ordinance
and the conditions in Exhibit Z. These include those related to vehicle storage on site
and the screening of vehicles. Nearby uses in this area are highway and automobile
uses. Staff found this applicant to be in compliance with the permit requirements.
Andrew Tapper asked about the map in the packet, inquiring if the two addresses are
one parcel. Steve Grittman agreed with the one parcel as two addresses. He noted it is a
multi -tenant building.
Chair Konsor opened the public hearing portion of the agenda item.
Paul Konsor read into the record the single write-in statement received. The comment
expressed concern with moving forward with the operations as it relates to street
parking issues. The comment was submitted by the owner of an adjacent property
owner, Jay Morrell.
Parul Konsor stated that parking was addressed in the application and indicated his
thought is that the conditions of approval address the site parking. Paul Konsor asked for
clarity regarding parking on the site in relationship to these concerns. He noted it
appears that the site plan illustrates just one parking spot.
Andrew Tapper echoed this question, requesting clarification on the parking on site in
relation to flat-bed towing vehicles illustrated on the street in the picture, and how this
Planning Commission Minutes - 6/4/2024
relates to the written public comment. He noted the road does see a fair amount of
congestion.
Paul Konsor inquired whether the site plan provided has adequate parking for the use
with the known parking needs in the vicinity. He also inquired if there is a definition of
parking.
Steve Grittman gave an overview of the city's definition of parking, uses, duration and
size requirements, and anything over 24 hours of parking is considered storage. The
applicant had indicated to staff that the vehicle equipment for the use would be parked
on -site.
Applicant Nick Christenson stated the photo in the agenda packet is a bit dated and said
there is occasional street parking as operations are occurring.
Parul Konsor asked if the site had enough space for movement of vehicles and to keep
vehicles on -site. Applicant Nick Christenson responded that towing vehicles are parked
inside overnight and that there is plenty of parking on -site, but as tow vehicles are
moving on -site, they may be parked on street for a period of time. Paul Konsor stated
that it needs to be the understanding that vehicles are to be parked on -site. The
applicant responded that there is room for the vehicles to be parked inside the fence.
Hearing no other public comment, Paul Konsor closed the public hearing.
Councilmember Gabler asked if there were paved surfaces available for outdoor storage,
and if it needs to be paved if it is not already.
Steve Grittman confirmed that there is a code requirement for paving for storage. He
stated that if vehicles are to be stored, the area will need to be paved
TERI LEHNER MOVED TO ADOPT RESOLUTION PC-2024-17 RECOMMENDING APPROVAL
FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR WRECKING AND TOWING SERVICES AS A
PRINCIPAL USE IN THE B-3 HIGHWAY BUSINESS DISTRICT BASED ON THE FINDINGS IN
SAID RESOLUTION AND SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS IN EXHIBIT Z. MELISSA ROBECK
SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED UNANAMIOUSLY, 4-0.
Paul Konsor stated that this will go to the June 241" City Council meeting.
C. Consideration of a Request for Preliminary & Final Plat of Cedar Street Storage;
Revocation of an Existing Conditional Use Permit for Planned Unit Development;
Development & Final Stage Planned Unit Development; Rezoning to Planned Unit
Development
Applicant: Bruce Stainbrook
LI
Planning Commission Minutes - 6/4/2024
City Planner Steve Grittman gave an overview of the requests, which relate to a
commercial self -storage facility located in The Pointes at Cedar District, approved as a
result of the adoption of the Small Area Plan. The self -storage use was approved
originally under a conditional use permit for planned unit development. The temporary
storage units on the site were approved through an amendment to the PUD for a 10-
year interim use permit, in anticipation of expansion. The termination date is
forthcoming, and the applicant is seeking approval for a new PUD. The applicant is
seeking approval to build another structure along the south property line and pursue
expansion. To accommodate this expansion, the proposal is to create a new PUD zoning
district that illustrates new structures, replats the property to combine the development
properties into a single parcel and then revoke the prior CUP.
Steve Grittman stated that the policy question is whether the proposed uses meet the
intent of the PUD; whether the result of the project is equal to or better than what
would be allowed under the base code allowances. Mr. Grittman noted that the use as
developed is an existing non -confirming use under The Pointes at Cedar zoning.
Normally, the City would not allow expansion of legal non -conforming uses. The
expansion requires the PUD path.
Steve Grittman noted that the staff report raises questions regarding screening and
buffering on the east and south property lines. With a zero lot line, the applicant
proposal would effectively move the buffering and screening i to the public side of the
property line.
Steve Grittman explained that staff is recommending approval with screening,
maintenance and landscaping addressed along the south and east boundary line. He
explained that the south side of the building would have a stucco finish, creating a
screening of a portion of the site, but a portion of the site would site be visible from
other areas of The Pointes.
Andrew Tapper clarified that the interim use permit allowing the temporary storage
containers is expiring. Steve Grittman confirmed and stated those would be required to
be removed regardless of action on the four requested actions.
Paul Konsor requested that staff provide an explanation for the four decisions. Steve
Grittman walked through the four decisions to be made that evening, the first being the
amendment to the code for a new custom PUD zoning district. The second is considering
the development and final stage PUD for the property. The third is the preliminary plat.
The preliminary and final plat and final stage PUD will go to City Council, and fourth is
revoking the previous conditional use permit.
Planning Commission Minutes - 6/4/2024
Ms. Lehner explained that she has some hesitation in making a change for PUD for this
project given The Pointes at Cedar is in its early stages. Andrew Tapper noted that this
piece already exists and then evaluating how to address this existing use within the PUD.
Andrew Tapper stated his concern over the zero lot line and related screening and
fencing. He noted that there is a current fenceline along Dundas and Cedar and how the
proposed project will continue or address that fenceline. He asked if the City allowed for
an "easement" for screening on the City side of the property line, for allowing the
applicant to use public land for screening. There was some discussion about screening
requirements for the east boundary versus the south boundary and the timing of the
screening improvements.
Community Development Director Angela Schumann responded, stating that the
proposed wall along the southern boundary will act as a screening tool on its own, and
that staff is recommending landscaping for additional screening. The screening
recommendation was on the east side, which could be a wall extension or additional
landscaping, which would be similar to their location along west Chelsea. Staff stated
there could be a screening and maintenance agreement prepared for City Council to use
city property for landscaping screening.
Paul Konsor noted that this is an existing use, and so the consideration will need to be
how to address the expansion relative to The Pointes at Cedar. The Commissioners
spoke about how to work with the applicant for a sufficient application, from the aspects
of The Pointes at Cedar, and addressing the termination of the interim permit.
Chair Konsor opened the public hearing portion of the agenda item.
Byron Bjorklund, applicant for StorageLink, addressed the Commission as the applicant
and property and business owner for the subject site. Mr. Bjorklund noted that the
concept meeting previously held for the project guided their planning for this proposal.
They have also been involved with The Pointes at Cedar as existing businesses. Mr.
Bjorklund explained they are trying to fit in with The Pointes project and noted the
existing landscaping on north and west side of the existing site. He noted the existing
landscaping and fencing on the north and west side of the property. It is their desire to
retain flexibility as The Pointes develops. The applicant suggested that the small areas
along the south EFIS wall be cemented for a 'clean and neat' look. He noted that the
south EFIS wall will provide screening from Cedar. The applicant stated they would be
willing to vacate Dundas Road as part of their application to be flexible for the project.
He reiterated that using cement along the south line will also prevent weeds. The new
buildings along the zero lot line will provide a screening shield.
Planning Commission Minutes - 6/4/2024
Andrew Tapper expressed his appreciation that they had been involved with The Pointes
project. He asked the applicant if they are comfortable with the property without a
separation from the proposed Pointes public spaces.
Mr. Bjorklund stated that it is likely that they might to fence the property in the future.
They have not done so yet as it is surrounded by agriculture, and noted willingness to
shift access points from Dundas Road. He noted that the City will likely want to
landscape against the site with the public park, as well.
Councilmember Gabler and Commissioner Robeck noted that the PUD provides some
measure of ability to continue working with the applicant into the future.
Hearing no further public comment, Chair Konsor closed the public hearing.
Andrew Tapper stated that he is in favor of the concrete surface at the southerly line.
Paul Konsor clarified the comment on future PUD flexibility. He stated that the
conditions for the PUD need to be approved with this application. Councilmember
Gabler noted that the Dundas Road vacation does create the opportunity for future
discussion on the site.
Paul Konsor stated that after discussion and clarification, he is comfortable with the
proposal.
Andrew Tapper asked if there was a single Exhibit Z for all four of the decisions. He
stated that if the Commission is comfortable with the concrete on the south side, then
they need to discuss the other conditions, including the conditions requiring extensive
landscaping, on both the south and east sides.
Community Development Director Angela Schumann clarified that there is an area on
the southeast portion of the lot that is not covered by the proposed building. The
condition is to require landscaping consistent with the biome in that space, as well as
the pockets of the buildings. The next condition for landscaping relates to the eastern
side, that the screening wall could be extended. Angela Schumann asked the
Commission if the maintenance agreement be removed as satisfied with the concrete
and state the landscape and southeast and east be a future condition.
Steve Grittman responded that it would be difficult to hold the applicant to a future
improvement. The current application is the time to apply reasonable conditions. He
stated that conditions waived, should be considered as permanently waived. Steve
Grittman noted that on the east side, staff had suggested a screening wall as a condition
of approval. He also noted that along the south side, it does appear that there would be
enough room for plantings and landscaping. He stated that the proposed landscaping
both provides an appropriate transition to The Pointes, as well as the flexibility granted
Planning Commission Minutes - 6/4/2024
by using a PUD. He stated that the City should expect the recommended landscaping as
part of the PUD and departure from code allowances.
The Commission discussed each of the landscaping conditions, noting that there is little
to no room to complete extensive screening on land that is theirs. Commissioner Tapper
also noted that it is likely they may want a fence along this line when the land to the
south develops as a public park.
Andrew Tapper spoke about the anticipated desire for a fence for the applicant to close
off the property, once the surrounding property is developed.
Paul Konsor commented on the conditions as written. If approved, even if in the future
the applicants wanted a fence, the approved conditions would require that the
landscaping should remain.
Andrew Tapper proposed two modifications to Exhibit Z in #3 and #4 to strike the words
"extensive" and "intense".
The other Commissioners agreed, stating that there is a gray area for interpretation of
the language for landscaping, as long as the landscaping is consistent with The Pointes
Community Development Director asked the Commissioners to clarify that they wanted
to have no requirements along the east wall as there is no room for landscaping.
The Commissioner clarified that the point of condition #4 was to require a full screening
wall along the east side of the property, similar to their site along west Chelsea Road.
Andrew Tapper noted that would not be consistent with the existing fenceline along
Cedar.
Paul Konsor asked what the direction would be if this were a new project.
Commissioner Lehner stated it was likely that there would be additional setback,
requirements for screening and landscaping. Teri Lehner noted that if they denied the
new building, they could require the screening. However, as an existing business, that
may not be the right decision.
Commissioner Lehner indicated that the best -case scenario would be to remove
condition #3, but add some landscaping along the southeast portion of the site, and
then some type of screening on the east side of the property. In likelihood, this would
not match The Pointes biomes. Teri Lehner stated that she has come full circle in that
what is discussed as the recommendation is the best -case scenario.
Commissioner Tapper asked if the City required the construction of the east screening
wall, could the construction be delayed until development of The Pointes adjacent.
Steve Grittman stated that is possible but would be a monitoring exercise and
development agreement requirements.
Planning Commission Minutes - 6/4/2024
The Commission discussed the timing and requirement for installation of the east wall at
length, particularly as an existing business.
Community Development Director Angela Schumann reminded the Commission that
there are multiple touch points, securities and compliance checks for planned unit
development.
They discussed striking the words "extensive" and "intense" in the conditions. Ms.
Schumann clarified that the Commission is not seeking improvements along the east
side of the property.
ANDREW TAPPER MOVED TO TABLE ALL FOUR DECISIONS UNTIL FURTHER REVIEW.
Teri Lehner added that the City then would take on the role of building the buffer they
deem necessary. Regarding the buffer on the south side is on the property owner with
the landscaping, line #4 is removed, and the City would be in charge of building the
screening. This allows the development to move forward and for the City to take steps it
deems necessary for screening.
ANDREW TAPPER MOVED TO ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. PC-2024-18 RECOMMENDING
THE APPROVAL OF A ZONING AMENDMENT CREATING THE CEDAR STORAGE PUD
ZONING DISTRICT AND REZONING THE PROPERTY FROM POINTES AT CEDAR DISTRICT TO
CEDAR STORAGE PUD ZONING DISTRICT. TERI LEHNER SECONDED THE MOTION.
MOTION CARRIEDED UNANIMOUSLY, 4-0.
PAUL KONSOR MOVED TO ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. PC-2024-19 RECOMMENDING
APPROVAL OF A DEVELOPMENT STAGE PUD FOR CEDAR STORAGE ADDITION SUBJECT TO
THE CONDITIONS IN EXHIBIT Z STRIKING ITEM #4 COMPLETELY IN EXHIBIT Z. ANDREW
TAPPER SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY, 4-0
PAUL KONSOR MOVED TO ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. PC-2024-20 RECOMMENDING
APPROVAL OF THE PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR CEDAR STORAGE ADDITION SUBJECT TO THE
CONDITIONS IN EXHIBT Z AND STRIKING #4 COMPLETELY FROM EXHIBIT Z. ANDREW
TAPPER SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY, 4-0
PAUL KONSOR MOVED TO ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. PC-2024-21 RECOMMENDING
APPROVAL OF THE REVOCATION OF A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A PUD FOR THE
FORMER AMAX SELF STORAGE, SUBJECT TO THE CONDITIONS IN EXHIBIT Z, STRIKING
ITEM #4. TERI LEHNER SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY, 4-0
Community Development Director Angela Schumann reminded the applicants to reach
out with any questions, and that this would appear on the City Council agenda on June
24 and with the unanimous nature of the motions, it would likely be placed on the
consent calendar.
Planning Commission Minutes - 6/4/2024
D. Consideration of an Amendment to the Monticello City Code, Title XV: Land Usage,
Chapter 153: Zoning Ordinance, Sections 153.012 — Definitions, 153.028 — Specific
Review Procedures & Requirements, 153.090 — Use Table, & 153.091— Use -Specific
Standards related to Contractor's Yard — Temporary, & Extraction of
Minerals/Materials as Principal Interim Uses including Definitions, Use -Specific
Standards, & other regulations as necessary to define and limit the intent or
application of the proposed amendment
Applicant: Citv of Monticello
City Planner Steve Grittman gave an overview of the draft ordinance amendment. He
indicated that staff recommends tabling the measure as it would give City staff more
time to receive comment from other departments.
Chair Paul Konsor asked if the action would be tabling and continuing the public hearing
until July. This was confirmed by staff.
Councilmember Gabler requested a map as it relates to both the City and Monticello
Township regarding extraction points.
Community Development Director Angela Schumann spoke about the use table and the
zoning map, noting the use is allowed in agricultural district and limited industrial
districts as an interim permit only. The ordinance is proposed to prohibit mining in
residential and commercial districts.
ANDREW TAPPER MOVED TO TABLE THE AMENDMENT TO THE MONTICELLO CITY CODE,
TITLE XV: LAND USAGE, CHAPTER 153: ZONING ORDINANCE, SECTIONS 153.012 —
DEFINITIONS, 153.028—SPECIFIC REVIEW PROCEDURES & REQUIREMENTS, 153.090—
USE TABLE, & 153.091— USE -SPECIFIC STANDARDS RELATED TO CONTRACTOR'S YARD —
TEMPORARY, & EXTRACTION OF MINERALS/MATERIALS AS PRINCIPAL INTERIM USES
INCLUDING DEFINITIONS, USE -SPECIFIC STANDARDS, & OTHER REGULATIONS AS
NECESSARY TO DEFINE AND LIMIT THE INTENT OR APPLICATION OF THE PROPOSED
AMENDMENT. PAUL KONSOR SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED
UNANIMOUSLY, 4-0
E. Consideration of an Amendment to the Monticello City Code, Title XV: Land Usage,
Chapter 153: Zoning Ordinance, Section 153.091, Use -Specific Standards, as related to
Day Care Centers as a Principal Use in the Industrial & Business Campus (IBC) District
Applicant: City of Monticello
Community Development Director spoke about the need for a public hearing as a clerical
error to correct a mistake from a secondary use to a principal use in IBC districts.
Paul Konsor opened the public hearing portion of the agenda item.
10
Planning Commission Minutes - 6/4/2024
Hearing no comments, Paul Konsor closed the public hearing.
PAUL KONSOR MOVED TO ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. PC-2024-23 RECOMMENDING
APPROVAL OF THE ADMENDMENT RELATED TO THE USE SPECIFIC STANDARDS TO THE
DAY CARE CENTERS AS A PRINCIPAL USE IN THE INDUSTRIAL AND BUSINESS CAMPUS
BASED ON THE FINDINGS IN SAID RESOLUTION. TERI LEHNER SECONDED THE MOTION.
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY, 4-0
3. Regular Agenda
None.
4. Other Business
A. Building Department Presentation
Andrew Tapper stepped out of the meeting.
Chief Building Official Ron Hackenmueller gave an annual overview of the Department of
Building Safety and Code Enforcement. He noted staffing changes moving the fire
inspection under the department. He explained 2023's valuation of permits was $76
million dollars and total building permits issued at approximately 1,300 permits. New
construction housing permits of 22 single-family detached, and 22 family attached units
were reported. Ron Hackenmueller indicated that 36% of all permits were completed
online. For the rental licensing program, for the prior year, there were 460 properties
with a total of 1932 rental units.
Paul Konsor asked if complaints and reports are anonymous, and Community
Development Director Angela Schumann stated that she would follow up on the current
compliant system.
B. Community Development Director's Report
Report was given on actions sent to City Council. Angela Schumann also noted that the
Rental Connections meeting was held and was successful, fire prevention was a topic of
discussion.
Hayden Stensgard announced his departure plans for a new role in the City of Dayton.
5. Adjournment
Meeting adjourned by consensus.
11
MINUTES
REGULAR MEETING — PLANNING COMMISSION
Tuesday, August 6, 2024 — 6:00 p.m.
Mississippi Room, Monticello Community Center
Commissioners Present: Chair Paul Konsor, Vice Chair Andrew Tapper, Teri Lehner, Melissa
Robeck, Rob Stark
Commissioners Absent: None
Council Liaison Present: Councilmember Charlotte Gabler
Staff Present: Angela Schumann, Steve Grittman, Ron Hackenmueller
1. General Business
A. Call to Order
Chair Paul Konsor called the regular meeting of the Monticello Planning Commission to
order at 6:00 p.m.
B. Roll Call
Chair Konsor called the roll.
C. Consideration of Additional Agenda Items
None.
D. Approval of Agenda
ANDREW TAPPER MOVED TO APPROVE THE MAY 7, 2024 REGULAR PLANNING
COMMISSION MEETING AGENDA. ROB STARK SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION
CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY, 5-0.
E. Approval of Minutes
• Regular Meeting Minutes —June 4, 2024 (Tabled)
• Special Meeting Minutes —July 2, 2024
AN DREW TAPPER MOVED TO APPROVE THE JULY 2, 2024 SPECIAL MEETING
MINUTES. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY, 5-0.
• Regular Meeting Minutes —July 2, 2024 (Tabled)
F. Citizen Comments
None.
2. Public Hearings
A. Consideration of a Request for Amendment to the Camping World Planned Unit
Development District as related to required building materials
Applicant: Camping World
City Planner Steve Grittman indicated that the applicant has requested tabling of the
item to allow for time to modify the proposal; they hope to do so without requiring the
variance requested via PUD.
ANDREW TAPPER MOVED TO TABLE ACTION ON THE REQUEST AND CONTINUE THE
HEARING TO THE REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 3, 2024
AT THE REQUEST OF THE APPLICANT. TERI LEHNER SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION
CARRIED 5-0
B. Consideration of a Request for Preliminary Plat (replat) of Haven Ridge West;
Development Staee Planned Unit Development: and Rezoning to Planned Unit
Development for a Residential Development including 298 single family detached and
attached residential units.
Applicant: Twin Cities Land Development
City Planner Steve Grittman gave an overview of the Haven Ridge replat project near
Fallon Avenue and 851" Street in the south corner of the city. Phase I was developed
under R-1 zoning. Phase II was initially zoned R-1, with the developer of that phase
requesting rezoning to PUD to narrow select lots.
Steve Grittman explained that another development team is looking at additional phases
known as Haven Ridge West. The proposed replat maintains much of the street pattern
proposed under the original preliminary plat, with 851" and Fallon Avenue extended to a
roundabout. Eisle Avenue as currently configured through the development currently
would be removed as part of the project as Fallon and 851" would become the new
through -streets. Edmonson Avenue forms the westerly boundary of the plat.
The remainder of the property would be developed similar to the original Haven Ridge.
The stormwater ponds would alter in shape, and two internal streets would become cul-
de-sacs.
Steve Grittman noted that with this proposal, the townhouse area has changed. It was
originally designed to have public streets, and with this proposal the applicant is
proposing private streets through this area. The redesigned townhouse area retains
more woodland and would be more markable per the applicant. The applicant is
meeting or exceeding the building materials requirements in this area.
The project area is about 137 acres, with a proposed increase from 252 to 298 units.
The developer is proposing three different single-family lot sizes of 52', 62' and 80' in
width. The 80' lots are the R-1 standard.
Staff has made recommendations to manage the design impacts at the street, with the
applicant showing enhancements beyond the R-1 standards.
Steve Grittman explained that the proposal requests include the amended preliminary
plat, development stage PUD, and a requested amendment to zoning ordinance to
create a Haven Ridge West PUD Zoning District.
Steve Grittman noted that as staff was completing the review of this project, the
applicant did provide an update to their phasing plan. This update modified the
construction timeline for the roundabout and development around the roundabout,
which included both single-family and townhomes. The applicant is proposing to modify
this to primarily single-family homes and moving construction of the roundabout to a
future phase. Staff's primary recommendation in response is that the road system must
be construction with the first phase, as completion of the improvements is needed to
support the development and should not be pushed out to a time when the
construction cost becomes infeasible for the balance of the development.
Steve Grittman walked through the Exhibit Z conditions for approval, including questions
raised by the applicant in response to the conditions.
The first condition was to plat the full right of way and construct the full roundabout in
the first phase of the plat as a condition of preliminary plat and stage approval.
Condition #2 relates to the need for a review process if changes are made to the
proposed phasing plan for the PUD. Steve Grittman indicated that the applicant had
questions regarding phasing and if a change to the phasing plan would require a full
public hearing and amendment to PUD or would be an internal staff review of
adjustments. Staff proposes to clarify Condition #2 to note that an adjustment of the
PUD process would be required for a change to the phasing plan rather than an
amendment to the PUD.
Steve Grittman reviewed the verification conditions outlined within Condition #3 for
future phases and submittal process. Verification of building materials, landscaping,
architectural designs, compliance with finished and finishable floor areas for all unit
types per PUD flexibility will be required. Establishment of HOA documentation and
landscaping verification will also be required for each phase. Steve Grittman stated that
the applicant has asked if this condition is an agreement to the developers proposed lot
standards table as presented, which would be incorporated as approved and within the
PUD. Steve Grittman confirmed that was the intent and that such standards would be
provided to all lot owners. This condition is proposed to be further clarified to note that
the minimum square footages would be per the applicant's request and table.
Condition #4 would also be clarified to note that the PUD plans and narrative
submissions as part of the PUD will be required to be provided recorded against all lots
and provided to all prospective lot owners consistent with the requirements in the
earlier Condition #3.
Steve Grittman went on to review Conditions #5 through 16 as provided in the
resolutions for approval.
In regard to Condition #17, Steve Grittman explained that the condition outlines the
requirements for park dedication as part of subdivision. He stated that the applicant
requested that the condition be further clarified to note that dedication will include a
mix of parkland dedication, trail easements and deeds and trail construction. Staff
further recommended that the applicant provide a park dedication exhibit as part of
final plat submission.
Steve Grittman completed a review of Conditions 18-27 as provided in the resolutions.
Paul Konsor asked if there was a map of what is currently approved and what changes
are proposed with the new plat. Steve Grittman illustrated the originally approved
preliminary plat sheet that was included in the agenda packet, and spoke about how the
street layout is similar, but with the newly proposed variation in lot size.
Councilmember Gabler indicated that the Parks Arts and Recreation Commission had
discussed the preservation of as many trees in the roundabout area as possible She
inquired about how this plan addresses that issue.
Steve Grittman responded by stating the applicants have done a thorough job at
identifying tree counts in the original and proposed updated plat. The change to a
private street within the townhome area and eliminating the proposed trail in the area
allows a shifting towards the wetland which has left more room for tree preservation.
Councilmember Gabler asked if by squeezing the lots closer to the wetland if there
would be future requests for deck or patios that would encroach into the wetland.
Steve Grittman shared that they would need to stay out of the wetland buffer area.
Paul Konsor stated that the proposed plat and PUD is favorable in terms of the changes
to the townhome area, the cleaning up of the outlots, additional preservation of trees,
and the previous through -street being updated to a cull -de -sac to prevent traffic from
exceeding speed limits. He summarized that the applicant is requesting more density by
proposing smaller lots and home footprints.
Paul Konsor asked for clarification in regard to the proposed changes to Condition #4
related to home design.
Steve Grittman stated the intention was to agree with the applicant's smaller footprint
square footage proposal.
Andrew Tapper asked if the phasing on the documents was relevant.
Steve Grittman stated there was an intention for construction in five phases, with the
roundabout construction to be completed in a future phase, not with the initial phase of
development. Staffs' recommendation is that the roundabout should be completed with
the first phase of development.
Paul Konsor asked whether berming around the roundabout should be utilized for
privacy as the townhomes rear face the roundabout.
Steve Grittman stated there is a fair amount of existing tree coverage and landscaping
shown in the plan for screening around the roundabout.
Councilmember Gabler asked if the roundabout central median was intended to be
rounded or flatter.
Ms. Schumann stated that staff is unsure of the exact specifications of the roundabout at
this time but is requesting via the conditions of approval that landscaping meet the
City's standards.
Mr. Lehner inquired about driveway widths and if the maximum 24' at the curb can be
extended in the front yard.
Steve Grittman stated that 30' maximum width and 28' feet in width at the curb is
required for R-1. Given the proposed lot widths for this project, the requirement here is
24' at the curb, but could widen out as it nears the home.
Paul Konsor opened the public hearing portion of the agenda item.
Scott Kutsforth, resident in Hunters Crossing, addressed the Commission. Mr. Kutsforth
asked if Hunters Crossing homes could be kept from getting hit by lights from vehicles
moving through this project. He indicated that another concern is the proposed width
of 85t" and Fallon given the addition of 300 homes. He asked if the Cit is going to
consider widening the street. His final question was whether this project would include
a park or if these new homes would be using Hunters Crossing Park.
Steve Grittman explained that at this time, Edmonson and 85t" sections outside of the
roundabout would remain rural sections, with widening and turn lanes as needed to
address the traffic.
Andrew Tapper noted the City's long-term plan to upgrade Fallon Avenue, the timing for
which relates to the construction of a needed trunkline from Chelsea Road to this
project area.
Ms. Schumann responded to the question regarding the park, stating that the developer
is proposing to add to Hunters Crossing park in the northernly portion, which will be
accepted by the City less stormwater and powerline encroachments. The park
dedication requirements will also be met with required trail connections and amenity
features. She noted that the City's policy standard is that a park must be accessible
within % mile from a neighborhood. Most of this new development would be within
that radius for Hunter's Crossing's Park. She noted that the area outside of the radius
indicates the need for the proposed new trail connections and a park search area to
identify a new park in the future as land develops nearby.
Paul Konsor asked about what is private to the association and what is public in terms of
trailways.
Ms. Schumann indicated that only a portion of trails within the townhome area will be
private. The trails along the wetlands and roadways, including those to Hunter's
Crossing trail are public. She noted that Condition 17 would require permanent
easements for the trailways and land credit contingent on public use.
Ben Schmidt, applicant representing Twin Cities Land Development, addressed the
Commission. Mr. Scmidt stated that staff has done a phenomenal job for the staff
report. Mr. Schmidt stated that there has been a good amount of communication with
staff on the plat development. In regard to the phasing plan, he stated that the goal for
roundabout was to not put off the roundabout for financial reasons, but rather that the
City would want to hold off on infrastructure development to allow other infrastructure
needs to work themselves out before construction. He stated that Phase 1 construction
of the roundabout would be fine with them. He noted that the design for the center of
the roundabout would be driven by city staff and engineering for a raised roundabout
and would like to keep the headlights down as well.
Mr. Schmidt stated that the townhome area was redesigned for a product that is needed
today as the previous design is no longer relevant. The new design saves trees, and it
makes the roundabout look more attractive and eliminates a short-cut. The lot sizes are
related to the increase of cost for home prices, and are proposed to address the need
for more affordable homes and a diversity of home types and lot sizes. It also will keep
road costs down.
Paul Konsor closed the public hearing portion of the agenda item.
Staff noted that updated resolutions with the clarifications to conditions #2, 3, 4 and 17
had been provided to the Commission and are available to the public for review.
TERI LEHNER MOVED TO ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. PC-2024-33 RECOMMENDING
APPROVAL OF A PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR HAVEN RIDGE WEST, SUBJECT TO THE
CONDITIONS IN EXHIBIT Z AND BASED ON FINDINGS IN SAID RESOLUTION. ANDREW
TAPPER SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY, 5-0.
TERI LEHNER MOVED TO ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. PC-2024-34 RECOMMENDING
APPROVAL OF A DEVELOPMENT STAGE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT FOR HAVEN
RIDGE WEST, SUBJECT TO THE CONDITIONS IN EXHIBIT Z AND BASED ON FINDINGS IN
SAID RESOLUTION. ANDREW TAPPER SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED
UNANIMOUSLY, 5-0.
TERI LEHNER MOVED TO ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. PC-2024-35 RECOMMENDING
APPROVAL OF AN AMENDMENT TO THE ZONING ORDINANCE FOR THE HAVEN RIDGE
WEST PUD ZONING DISTRICT, SUBJECT TO THE CONDITIONS IN EXHIBIT Z AND BASED ON
FINDINGS IN SAID RESOLUTION. ANDREW TAPPER SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION
CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY, 5-0.
C. Consideration of an Amendment to the Monticello City Code, Title XV: Land Usage,
Chapter 153: Zoning Ordinance, Section 153.028 — Specific Review Procedures and
Requirements as related to Planned Unit Development (PUD) Procedure and Timeline
for Rezoning to PUD, and other regulations as necessary to define and limit the intent
or application of the proposed amendment.
Applicant: City of Monticello
Steve Grittman provided an overview of the proposed amendments. He stated a series
of amendments to the existing PUD regulations as it relates to the process for multi -
phased PUD projects.
He stated that under current regulations, the Planning Commission holds a public
hearing for rezoning of an entire project, but by Code, actual rezoning applies only as
each phase is reviewed for Development and Final Stage PUD approvals.
Steve Grittman explained that the process has raised concerns for development where
the immediate Phase I portion of the project relies on the presumed future approvals of
subsequent phases. Because only the rezoning ordinance itself controls the land use, the
developer has no assurances that future phases of an integrated project would be
rezoned for the PUD rules in the original approval. This can result in complications,
especially when a large area of the property is being mass graded, but only a portion of
the area is subject to Phase I approvals, as well as concerns over the stability of financing
a large project when PUD zoning is not granted to future phases.
Staff has proposed language that would create a more specific alternative approval
process for multi -phased projects. This process allows the City to approve a Rezoning to
PUD over an entire project area, but limits the effect of the rezoning until the Final
platting, and Development and Final Stage PUD plans are approved. The original PUD
ordinance would be written to control land use and development standards throughout
the PUD project area but would prohibit the approval of construction until plans are
approved for any subject phase.
In single-phase PUD projects, the City sees the full development application for all
aspects of the project upon the initial submission, and the PUD Ordinance is adopted
authorizing construction throughout the project area. This modification would give
applicants for multi -phased projects an assurance over land use, and an understanding
of the relevant performance standards that will be applied to future reviews as those
plans are developed and approved. Just as with single phase projects, the applicant can
be confident in the standards of City review, and the City retains development control as
acceptable plans are designed.
ANDREW TAPPER MOVED TO ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. PC-2024-36 RECOMMENDING
APPROVAL OF AN AMENDMENT TO THE MONTICELLO ZONING ORDINANCE SECTION
153.028 - SPECIFIC REVIEW PROCEDURES & REQUIREMENTS RELATED TO THE PROCESS
FOR REZONING OF MULTI -PHASED PUD PROJECTS. PAUL KONSOR SECONDED THE
MOTION. MOTION CARRRIED UNANIMOUSLY, 5-0.
3. Regular Agenda
None.
4. Other Business
A. Communitv Development Director's Report
Angela Schumann provided an overview of Council action on Planning Commission
recommendations and a staffing update on the Community and Economic Development
Coordinator position.
5. Adjournment
MEETING ADJOURNED BY CONSENSUS AT 7:20 P.M.
Recorded By: Angela Schumann/Tyler Bevier
Date Approved:
ATTEST:
Angela Schumann, Community Development Director
AGENDA
JOINT MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION/CITY COUNCIL WORKSHOP
Monday, September 3, 2024 — 5:00 PM
Monticello Community Center
Planning Commissioners Present: Chair Paul Konsor, Andrew Tapper, Teri Lehner, Rob Stark
Planning Commissioners Absent: Melissa Robeck
City Councilmembers Present: Mayor Lloyd Hilgart, Charlotte Gabler, Tracy Hinz,
City Councilmembers Absent: Sam Murdoff, Lee Martie
Staff: Rachel Leonard, Angela Schumann, Ron Hackenmueller,
Steve Grittman
1. Call to Order
Mayor Lloyd called the joint workshop meeting of the Monticello Planning Commission
and City Council to order at 5:00 p.m.
2. Concept Stage Planned Unit Development Submittal for an approximately 150 mixed -
unit single-family residential development located within an R-1 (Single-family)
Residential District.)
PIDs: 155500231200
Legal Description: Lengthy — Contact City Hall
Applicant: JPB Land, LLC
Community Development Director Angela Schumann provided an overview of the
purpose of the meeting to the Planning Commission, City Council, and the public. She
explained that the joint workshop step provides an opportunity to the Planning
Commission and City Council to give initial feedback on a development proposal without
having to make a formal decision. While not a public hearing, mailed notice did go out
to the surrounding property owners, and if time allows, members of the public may
provide comment.
City Planner Steve Grittman provided an overview of the memo prepared by staff for
review of the proposed concept plan. Mr. Grittman noted that the parcel lies east of
Edmonson Avenue and represents a portion of the original Preliminary Plat for Hunters
Crossing. Hunters Crossing was platted for a mixed arrangement of single family
detached and townhouse units. He stated that the easterly half of the original Hunters
Crossing plat area was completed and developed, but development halted during the
recession, with the remaining 56 acres unplatted and undeveloped.
The proposal is to develop that remaining parcel, which will include dedication of
additional right of way for Edmonson Avenue. Mr. Grittman noted that parcel is
transected by a powerline corridor of just under 10 acres.
Mr. Grittman stated that the concept includes a unit count proposed at 147 singel-
family lots, distributed between three lot sizes, with the majority of the proposed lot
sizes smaller than the City's current base R-1 (Single -Family) Residential regulations.
The residential density is approximately 3.4 units per acre.
Mr. Grittman reviewed the PUD elements that City has commonly requested as part of
the flexibility in lot size. These include retention of natural features, enhancements to
architectural styles and materials, and addition of trail or other amenities.
Mr. Grittman explained that the property is located within the current City boundary,
but will require other approvals to proceed, including preliminary and final plat,
development and final stage PUD and rezoning to PUD.
Following Mr. Grittman's review, the floor was opened for Council and Commission
questions.
Chair Paul Konsor confirmed that all streets with the development are proposed as
public streets and that they are designed to meet public street standards.
Mr. Grittman confirmed, stating that the roads are proposed at a 60' width, and
additional ROW on Edmonson Avenue is requested as part of the plat.
Councilmember Charlotte Gabler inquired whether trunk infrastructure upsizing would
be needed. The developer's engineer confirmed. Ms. Gabler also noted that the
concept includes access or connection to the existing Hunters Crossing park. Ms.
Schumann responded that the developer has met with City staff including the Park &
Recreation Director for the purpose of additional park dedication with this plat, which
would be in the area of the powerline corridor and would serve as a bike -focused park.
Mr. Konsor inquired whether there would be trail connections into the development.
Mr. Grittman confirmed that Edmonson is being infilled with trail connections, including
along and throughout this development. The other connection of note is the proposed
extension of a trail connection along the powerline corridor.
The Mayor noted that the pathway along Edmonson from School Boulevard has been
completed on the west side of Edmonson.
Mr. Konsor commented that JP Brooks is a local builder and that is a positive to have a
local builder proposing to build in the community. He expressed support for the home
designs presented, and that they appear to be trying to accomplish meeting an
affordable home product with good design standards. He noted that while some homes
0A
are under the 1500 square foot requirement, the Commission has seen that request
before. He also expressed support for the stated density.
Mr. Konsor inquired about the HOA. Art Plante, representative for JPB Land as
developer, addressed the group. He confirmed that the HOA would complete snow and
mowing, and possibly the exterior maintenance on the smaller lots. He stated that the
street is public, plowed by the City.
Councilmember Hinz confirmed the homes are for purchase. The developer confirmed.
Councilmember Gabler inquired about how many lots would be a full basement design.
Mr. Plante responded that there will be a mixture of full basement, walkout and
lookouts. The exception would be the smallest lots, which would be slab homes.
Mayor Hilgart stated that the concept looks acceptable and is what would be expected
for this parcel. He noted that it is now typical to see lots much smaller than the 80' lots.
He expressed that the mix of styles and lots makes sense given that in order to get any
affordability, they will need smaller lots.
Mayor Hilgart Inquired whether attached townhome product will come back. Mr.
Plante explained that there are alternatives closer to the Twin Cities now for
townhomes. For purchasers in this area, green are for empty nesters who want main
level living are important, although they are not interested in maintenance. He
explained that the other two lots sizes are for younger families and then move up
options on the 62' lots. This mix provides a variety of options for variety of housing and
price points.
Mayor Hilgart noted that homes in Edmonson Ridge are built by JP Brooks. He
remarked that he thinks the HOA is important on the smallest lots.
Chair Konsor stated the developer should consider fencing or other buffer such as
evergreens where lots back up to one another. Mr. Plante responded that they've been
considering that issue, particularly where the smallest lots back up to larger lots.
Councilmember Hinz asked about the intentionality toward affordability. Mr. Plante
stated that they are still formulating cost and price points. Councilmember Hinz stated
that the City needs to be keenly aware of first-time home buyer needs. Mr. Plante
stated that they agree and that is their mission statement and certainly an objective for
this project. All aspects of design impact their pricing.
Commissioner Lehner stated that along that line, approximation of the life -cycle housing
sectors would be appreciated at the next review in order to give the boards an
understanding of the demographic for each style.
Mayor Hilgart stated that the way the development is laid out, the majority of traffic
would seem to use Edmonson to get to 85' or School, which is a positive for traffic
impacts.
Mr. Plante noted that they are dedicating additional ROW on Edmonson, as well as
bypass and turn lanes as needed. There will be a trail constructed on the east side of
Edmonson.
Councilmember Gabler inquired about landscaping recommendations. Mr. Plante
stated that they will meet the landscaping ordinance and screening as noted in the staff
memo, especially in the area of the park. They will try to enhance the site landscaping
as a trade-off to brick -stone requirements. They will have percentages in the
architectural detail, which will be provided with preliminary plat. They are currently
working through the details on the garage forward design recommendations.
Mr. Konsor stated he would be interested in looking at driveways as the small
landscaping strip ends up being a dead spot and nuisance.
Councilmember Gabler confirmed that the encumbered lot will be buildable; the
developer's engineer confirmed that it will be a larger desirable lot.
The Mayor and Chair opened the floor for public comment.
Mike Monson, 8785 Fairhill Lane, addressed the Commission. He expressed concern.
about traffic and construction debris. Ron Hackenmueller indicated that construction
traffic and debris can be addressed with the Building Dept. pre -construction meeting
and inspections. He also expressed concern about the park impact.
Ms. Schumann commented on the next steps for the applicant in terms of plans for
grading, traffic and park planning.
Mr. Konsor commented on the ability to access Edmonson, and that it will be important
to bring traffic comments forward for the developer's consideration.
Two other residents of Hunters Crossing indicated concerns regarding the volume and
speed of traffic, as well as the need for additional parkland in the area. It was noted
that there are also mature trees in existing yards that should be preserved.
Mr. Plante indicated that the road connections have all been discussed with City staff.
These connection points are staff recommended and they worked with what they were
directed to do in terms of connections.
Councilmember Gabler asked about traffic circle versus a stop sign. The developer's
engineer responded that roundabouts are not typical on a local street and connection of
this type.
11
Mayor Hilgart noted that this area was originally designed and approved in 2003 with
more density.
Administrator Rachel Leonard noted that these streets are intended to be connections
between neighborhoods to get to parks and to collector routes. They provide important
connections but are reviewed for safety and take into consideration site distances and
traffic calming.
Adjournment
MEETING WAS ADJOURNED AT 6:15 PM BY CONSENSUS.
MINUTES
REGULAR MEETING — PLANNING COMMISSION
Tuesday, September 3, 2024 — 6:00 p.m.
Mississippi Room, Monticello Community Center
Commissioners Present:
Commissioners Absent
Council Liaison:
Staff:
1. General Business
A. Call to Order
Chair Paul Konsor, Vice Chair Andrew Tapper, Teri Lehner, Melissa
Robeck,
Rob Stark
Councilmember Charlotte Gabler
Angela Schumann, Steve Grittman, Ron Hackenmueller
Chair Paul Konsor called the regular meeting of the Monticello Planning
Commission to order at 6:00 p.m.
B. Roll Call
Paul Konsor called the role, with all commissioners present except for
Commissioner Rob Stark.
C. Consideration of Additional Agenda Items
D. Approval of Agenda
ANDREW TAPPER MOVED TO APPROVE THE SEPTEMBER 3, 2024 REGULAR
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING AGENDA. TERI LEHNER SECONDED THE
MOTION. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY, 4-0.
E. Approval of Meeting Minutes
• Regular Meeting Minutes - June 4, 2024
ANDREW TAPPER MOVED TO APPROVE THE JUNE 4, 2024 REGULAR
MEETING MINUTES. TERI LEHNER SECONDED THE MOTION.
MOTION CARRIED UNANAMIOUSLY, 4-0.
• Regular Meeting Minutes - August 6, 2024
Community Development Director Angela Schumann stated that the
meeting minutes of August 6, 2024 are not yet available.
PAUL KONSOR MOVED TO TABLE THE AUGUST 6, 2024 MINUTES.
ANDREW TAPPER SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED
UNANMIOUSLY, 4-0.
Citizen Comment
None
2. Public Hearines
A. Continued Public Hearing - Consideration of a Request for Amendment to the
Campine World Planned Unit Development District as related to reauired
building materials
Applicant: Campine World
Community Development Director Angela Schumann stated the applicant is
asking to table the request and is looking for other options for fagade work.
PAUL KONSOR MOVED TO TABLE UNTIL THE OCTOBER 2, 2024 MEETING. TERI
LEHNER SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED UNANMIOUSLY, 4-0.
B. Consideration of a Request for Amendment to the Conditional Use Permit for
Planned Unit Development District for a Restaurant as a Principal Use and
Drive -Through Services as an Accessory Use in the B-4, Regional Business
District_
Applicant: HAZA Foods
City Planner Steve Grittman provided an overview of the proposed use, which is
proposed to be located within the PUD for the shopping center with Home
Depot, Target and additional uses. The property is at the corner of 71" Street and
Highland Way. The applicants are proposing a quick service restaurant with a
drive-thru and interior sit down capabilities.
Steve Grittman stated that traffic would enter the site from the north on the
internal private street, then travel in a one-way counterclockwise loop to a drive-
thru location, and back to the interior roadway that accesses Highland Way.
He stated that there are a few parking spaces for pre -orders with in -person
delivery, with angled parking for customers. The code requires 8 stacking spaces
for a drive-thru and there are easily 8 stack spaces, and the applicant has shown
additional spaces if the drive-thru was busy. There may be instances where
customers need to wait for a gap to back out of the angled parking spots. Staff
does not expect spillover of traffic onto the roadway with the site design. The
applicants have provided a parking calculation which is met. The site can
accommodate more parking as needed.
Steve Gritman noted that the site design provides for substantial setbacks for the
building development. He suggested that if the development pad were shifted
one way or the other, it could open up additional development opportunities,
2
although this is not required. He also noted that the landscaping plan meets the
code, although staff have suggested more information on how the open spaces
would be treated and if there could be more interesting landscaping.
Steve Grittman concluded that there were very few planning and zoning issues
raised by this case, and the primary concern with any drive-thru is circulation.
Steve Grittman reviewed the Exhibit Z Conditions of Approval. He stated that
the plans are required to be updated to include building elevations and building
materials, including for the attached building area to the south of the principal
structure. The walk-in building area is required to meet the zoning ordinance for
commercial building standards, in materials similar to the main portion of the
building. Exterior mechanical and related components (particularly on the south
side of the building) to match the base wall material colors.
Staff has requested more details to verify that the walk in cooler that faces 71n
Street will meet code requirements. Staff has asked the applicant for details on
paint color and materials to meet the intent of the PUD and its prominent
location for the site.
Steve Grittman stated that in regard to Condition 2, the applicant found a
location on the site suitable for the trash enclosure, yet staff is looking for more
material specifics regarding the enclosure.
Steve Grittman noted that regarding parking the applicant is required to provide
schematic floor plans to verify parking demand.
Regarding the landscaping plan, the applicant is required to provide a final
landscaping plan that identifies materials species. The landscape plan indicates
varies tree types and requires plant materials to be called out in the code
requirements. Staff found no issue in terms of quantity. The landscaping plan
should also be revised to add planting in the extensive turf areas on the east and
west sides of the development footprint.
For Condition 6, Mr. Grittman stated that signage and other components related
to the project are required to meet all requirements of the Union Crossing
Planned Unit Development and zoning requirements as applicable and are
subject to permitting as required. Only a monument sign is allowed per the
Union Crossings PUD and the applicant is aware that no pylon sign is permitted.
Steve Grittman stated that the lighting plan is required to be updated to verify
photometric compliance with the City's zoning regulations. Maximum pole
height is 25 feet.
For Condition 8, Steve Grittman stated that the project and site improvements,
including landscaping, will be required to be constructed and maintained per
plans provided, with incorporation of the recommendations made by the
Planning Commission and the staff report.
3
Finally, he noted Condition 9, which requires compliance with the comments of
the City Engineer and Building Department letters.
Steve Grittman stated that approval is recommended for the application in the
Union Crossing development.
Paul Konsor asked if Union Crossings PUD has its own pylon.
Steve Grittman confirmed and noted that other signage is regulated within the
PUD under the original Union Crossings comprehensive sign plan.
Paul Konsor asked about the 3D renderings for the delivery pick-up window
entrance and if that is an additional entrance to the entire building or the
delivery pick-up window. He expressed concerns over whether this is an
additional exit during a fire or if there is only one door into the building. Steve
Grittman stated that Fire Marshall would verify this to be met to code.
City Building Official Ron Hackenmueller stated this would be confirmed during
the official building code review for appropriate entrance and exits and thanked
the Commissioner for the question.
Teri Lehner asked about the crosswalk location proposed, as compared to where
a majority of parking is located, which is on the other side. She asked if another
crosswalk could be marked in relation to the parked cars and the stacked cars to
give a greater visual for customers crossing.
Paul Konsor asked about the shaded parking spaces. Steve Grittman indicated
these are waiting spaces after ordering at the drive-thru window.
Councilmember Gabler asked if customers need to use the private street to
reach Highland Way. Steve Grittman confirmed.
Andrew Tapper asked about the signage plan in relation to the layout of the
store. He noted the building faces the Marshalls and the parking lot and without
the pylon sign or street signage, the signage proposed may not be in the ideal
location. Steve Grittman stated they are entitled to have a monument sign on
the site per the PUD. They have not identified the site yet, and that there will
be directional signage as well.
Paul Konsor opened the public hearing portion of the agenda item.
Krystal Bloch site engineer for the applicant, addressed the Commission. She
indicated that they could adjust the exterior of the building as required to meet
the conditions. She stated she was available for other questions of the
Commission.
Paul Konsor asked for clarification on the walk-up delivery window. Krystal Bloch
stated that she is not sure if that is an exit to the entire interior of the building,
or only an accessible for walk-up traffic.
Paul Konsor closed the public hearing portion of the agenda item.
M
PAUL KONSOR MOVED TO ADOPT PC -RESOLUTION 2024-37 RECOMMENDING
APPROVAL OF AN AMENDMENT TO CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR PLANNED
UNIT DEVELOPMENT FOR RESTAURANT WITH DRIVE-THRU FACILITIES BASED ON
FINDINGS IN SAID RESOLUTION AND SUBJECT TO THE CONDITIONS OF EXHIBIT Z.
TERI LEHNER SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED UNANMIOUSLY, 4-0.
Angela Schumann stated that this item will go onto the September 23, 2024 City
Council Meeting on the consent agenda.
C. Consideration of an Amendment to the Monticello City Code, Title XV: Land
Usage, Chapter 153: Zoning Ordinance, Section 153.124 — Enforcement
Applicant: City of Monticello
Angela Schumann addressed the Commission on the item, indicating that
proposed ordinance relates to the enforcement of the zoning ordinance. Staff is
proposing changes to help with efficiency of contacting property owners and to
address the process itself.
She stated that the city attorney has concurred that the city does not have to
deliver a notice of violation via certified mail, and regular mail is sufficient.
Regular mail is at present delivered more quickly than certified mail.
Angela Schumann stated that staff would like to strike "receipt of the notice"
from the ordinance because without certified mail with delivery signature, the
regular mail option would be documented from the date when it was sent.
Angela Schumann also noted that staff is proposing language that relates to
repeat offenses. The current language sets up a process where a violation would
occur and a notice is sent, then another violation occurs, is cured, and then the
process continues with violations in subsequent weeks on repeat. At present,
there is no way for staff to move into the next step for prosecution as a
misdemeanor. The proposed language addresses that concern. She noted that
staff will continue to work with the property owner and have the discussion on
becoming compliant.
The final item proposed for amendment relates to a regularly occurring violation
for parking, where there is a discrepancy in the actual code definition, which is
for "small commercial vehicles". This amendment corrects the language from
"small construction vehicles" to be consistent with the applicable definition for
"small commercial vehicles".
Teri Lehner asked if the amendment requires that the repeat violations be the
same or similar in nature. Angela Schumann responded that staff is proposing
flexibility such that the offenses could be similar or different violations, such as
those for debris, zoning violations or parking violations.
Paul Konsor asked where the Enforcement ordinance falls in relationship to
planning and zoning and the Commission's role.
5
Angela Schumann answered that the Planning Commission holds hearings in
regard to any zoning amendment. This code section proposed for amendment is
from the Enforcement portion of the zoning ordinance. She explained that this
section of code provides the City with authority to enforce the balance of the
zoning ordinance.
Paul Konsor asked for clarification on the proposed amendment to Table 4-9.
Angela Schumann stated that the amendment is just correcting the title as it
conflicts with the definitions currently.
Commissioner Gabler asked if this is related to the three strikes rule with rental
licensing.
Angela Schumann indicated that they are not directly related, but certain
violations of the zoning ordinance may constitute a strike under the rental
licensing ordinance. The owner of the rental property is given the opportunity to
correct the issue. The purpose of both is to maintain the quality of the
neighborhoods and prescribe a process for dealing with public nuisance.
Paul Konsor asked about the process regarding notification to both the renters
and the property owner.
Ron Hackenmueller stated that the notice of violation is sent both to the owner
of the property and the renter.
Angela Schumann stated the property owner is the one responsible in the end.
Paul Konsor opened the public hearing portion of the agenda item.
Paul Konsor closed the public hearing portion of the agenda item.
PAUL KONSOR MOVED TO ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. PC-2024-38
RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF AN AMENDMENT TO THE MONTICELLO CITY
CODE, TITLE XV: LAND USAGE, CHAPTER 153: ZONING ORDINANCE, SECTION
153.124 — ENFORCEMENT, BASED ON FINDINGS IN SAID RESOLUTION. TERI
LEHNER SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED UNANMIOUSLY, 4-0.
Angela Schumann indicated that the item will be considered on the 91" or 23rd
City Council consent agenda.
3. Regular Agenda
A. Consideration of a presentation by the Parks & Recreation Director regarding
Monticello Tree Canopy
Angela Schumann stated that there has been much work related to the tree
canopy cover and introduced Park & Recreation Director Tom Pawelk to provide
P-Iu11WAIM a•.•�
6
Tom Pawelk addressed the Commission, discussing the important of the shade
tree canopy and its relation to the quality of life. He also explained the recent
with focus on emerald ash borer, or EAB, which has been discovered in
Monticello. He stated that Monticello is proceeding with a plan to address the
tree canopy, which includes a 4 parts program. It will include a canopy tree
inventory, EAB management plan, tree canopy assessment, and finalizing city
ordinance amendments to protect the canopy.
Tom Pawelk shared Monticello's selection for the EAB ReLeaf Program Grant for
$180,000, which is a three year grant.
Tom Pawelk illustrated the Inventory software TreeKeeper, and the public tree
inventory results. He noted that
42% are established trees, 9% are maturing trees, 6% are mature trees and that
there are 88 different species in Monticello right of way and parks.
He indicated that the next program steps include priority pruning, removal trees,
and tree replacement. He stated that staff will continue to seek out grants and
will continue to educate the public.
Tom Pawelk spoke about the Tree Ordinance changes that will be sent to
Community Development for review.
Andrew Tapper asked about the implementation of the Tree Inventory Software.
Tom Pawelk stated that the city has only had the program for a year.
Melissa Robeck asked what percentage of tree canopy is along public roadways
versus in neighborhoods. Tom Pawelk stated that within the right of way, 15%
are Ash trees.
B. Consideration to accept the 2024 Housing Workshop Summary
Angela Schumann provided an overview of the Housing Workshop Summary,
stating that staff is seeking acceptance of the document as an appendix to the
20023 Housing Needs and Demand Report.
She stated that the City Council, EDA and Planning Commission had held a
workshop earlier in the year with the goal of confirming, clarifying and
considering community housing goals, policies and strategies based on identified
priorities of the City.
She stated that during the workshop, the attendees reviewed key takeaway(s)
from 2023 Housing Needs & Market Demand Report and the 2040 Plan. The
group then discussed
7
housing priorities based on 2040 Plan, the Housing Needs & Demand report, and
the focus on jobs and quality of life.
The Housing Summary presented outlines the Next Steps & Policy Development
as identified by the attendees at the workshop. It includes prioritizing single-
family housing development to meet demand as identified in the 2023 Housing
Needs and Market Demand Study, identifying priority locations for owner -
occupied senior housing, developing and promoting a specific set of resources
for developers including TIF and other affordable housing incentives, and review
EDA Business Subsidy Policy to amend as needed to strengthen living wage job
goals.
ANDREW TAPPER MOVED TO ACCEPT THE 2024 HOUSING SUMMARY AS AN
ADDENDUM TO THE 2023 HOUSING NEEDS AND MARKET DEMAND REPORT.
TERI LEHNER SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED UNANMIOUSLY, 4-0.
4. Other Business
A. Community Development Director's Report
Angela Schumann gave an update on decisions for Broadway Plaza, the PUD
process amendment and the preliminary plat of Haven Ridge West.
An update was given regarding cannabis ordinance development and future
joint -workshops that are planned with the expiration of the moratorium on
January 1, 2025.
B. Adjournment
Meeting adjourned at 7:57 PM.
Planning Commission Minutes — 11/04/24
MINUTES
REGULAR MEETING — PLANNING COMMISSION
NOVEMBER 4, 2024— 6:00 p.m.
Mississippi Room, Monticello Community Center
Commissioners Present: Vice Chair Andrew Tapper, Melissa Robeck, Rob Stark
Commissioners Absent: Chair Paul Konsor, Teri Lehner
Council Liaison: Councilmember Gabler
Staff: Angela Schumann, Steve Grittman, Ron Hackenmueller, Tyler Bevier
1. General Business
A. Call to Order
B. Roll Call
Vice Chair Andrew Tapper called the regular meeting of the Monticello Planning
Commission to order at 6:02 p.m.
C. Consideration of Additional Agenda Items
►�C.TiT:'
D. Approval of Agenda
MELISSA ROBECK MOVED TO APPROVE THE NOVEMBER 4, 2024 REGULAR
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING AGENDA. ROB STARK SECONDED THE
MOTION. MOTION CARRIED, 3-0.
E. Approval of Meeting Minutes
• Regular Meeting Minutes
- June 4, 2024
• Regular Meeting Minutes
— August 6, 2024
• Workshop Minutes — September 3, 2024
• Regular Meeting Minutes
— September 3, 2024
• Regular Meeting Minutes
— October 1, 2024
• Special Meeting Minutes —
October 23, 2024
ROB STARK MOVIED TO TABLE THE MINUTES OF JUNE 4, 2024, AUGUST 6, 2024
AND THE WORKSHOP MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 3, 2024. MELISSA ROBECK
SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED, 3-0.
• Regular Meeting Minutes — October 1, 2024
Planning Commission Minutes — 11/04/24
ROB STARK MOVED TO APPROVE THE OCTOBER 1, 2024 REGULAR MEETING
MINUTES. ANDREW TAPPER SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED 3-0.
• Special Meeting Minutes — October 23, 2024
MELISSA ROBECK MOVED TO APPROVE THE OCTOBER 23, 2024, SPECIAL
MEETING MINUTES. ROB STARK SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED
3-0.
Citizen Comment
None.
2. Public Hearings
A. Consideration of an amendment to Title IX for General Regulations, Title XI for
Business Regulations and Title XV, Chapter 153: Zoning, for the regulation of
Cannabis land uses subiect to local adoption of the provisions and mandates of
the Minnesota State Statute Chapter 342. Applicant: Citv of Monticello
City Planner Steve Grittman gave an overview of the 2022 adoption of the law
from the State of Minnesota regarding Hemp/THC products, with full legalization
in 2023 of Cannabis for personal use and sale. A moratorium ordinance was
enacted by the City Council in 2023 to allow time for the State to develop its
regulations and local governments time for preparation of zoningregulations.
The moratorium expires on January 1, 2025 with a renewal prohibited.
Steve Grittman gave a brief overview of the retail registration component from
past special meetings of October 1, 2024 and October 23, 2024 leading up to this
evening's public hearing regarding land -use and zoning regulations. Presented
for the zoning ordinance amendment was an overview of the ordinance relating
to definitions, general -use standards, allowable uses by district, specific use
standards and temporary events.
Steve Grittman spoke about the requirements for retail registrations regarding
population thresholds, and reminded policymakers that the population for
Monticello requires two retail registrations be allowed, as well as the delegation
of registration to Wright County. He spoke about the 16 different types of
cannabis businesses licenses. Regulations in time, place and manner are at the
City's discretion. The City can enact the statutory maximum buffers, yet the City
cannot prohibit any of the 16 types of cannabis business. The general regulations
are utilizing the state statutory definitions as well as local definitions. Steve
Grittman indicated that the use -specific standards include no outdoor storage,
management of odor, compliance with zoning ordinance, and compliance with
state statute.
Planning Commission Minutes—11/04/24
Steve Grittman indicated that the amendment proposes cannabis retail activities
be limited to the B-3 and B-4 Districts, based on the rationale of consolidation of
retail trips. Steve Grittman explained that other cannabis uses would be located
in industrial districts, reserving industrial land for industrial purposes versus the
introduction of retail commercial uses in those districts. The 1-1 (Light
Industrial) uses are conditional for cannabis businesses and the 1-2 (Heavy
Industrial) cannabis businesses are permitted.
Steve Grittman gave an overview of cannabis mezzobusiness and
microbusinesses and stated they are a combination of differing types of cannabis
businesses and may include retail and industrial uses mixed into a single license;
and may have two sites, with the proposed ordinance written as retail reserved
for commercial areas and the industrial reserved for industrial zones in the
community. These business may include cultivation and packaging and would be
exclusive to the industrial portions of the City, with microbusiness allowed up to
5,000 sq. feet of cultivation and the mezzobusiness allowing up to 15,000 sq.
feet of cultivation.
Steve Grittman illustrated how staff were able to incorporate the statutory
requirements into the zoning requirements via a use -specific table for exclusive
use of cannabis businesses. He walked through the table beginning with
residential districts, and that they do not allow any cannabis uses; with
commercial districts for retail use limited to B-3 and B-4. The exception to retail
would allow lower -potency hemp edibles as permitted in B-2 districts, as this is
in tandem with existing uses from tobacco license uses. He concluded with
allowances for the other types of non -retail cannabis businesses as permitted or
conditional in the Industrial districts of 1-1 and 1-2, and showed the exception for
cannabis delivery would allow a business to locate in the B-2.
Steve Grittman gave an overview of the maximum buffering allowed by statute,
and City staff's recommendation regarding buffers for parks, residential
treatment facilities, daycares and schools. The statute allows for up to 1000'
from a school, and 500' from a daycare, residential treatment facility, and parks
regularly used by minors, including playgrounds and athletic fields. Regarding
buffers specifically for daycares, the ordinance is drafted to require buffers in
place within districts where cannabis is not allowed. Regarding park buffering,
the approach poses the least risk from the City Attorney's interpretation, yet
Steve Grittman indicated that there may need to be staff level interpretation and
the long-term planning to define those areas more regarding parks and
Planning Commission Minutes — 11/04/24
illustrated the similar struggle that other Minnesota cities are having in regard to
park buffers.
Commissioner Rob Stark asked about Wright County's buffers. Community
Development Director Angela Schumann indicated that the county is still
working on their ordinance as some Wright County communities would have had
a de facto ban utilizing the maximum buffers. Angela Schumann spoke about the
pending ordinance from Wright County that staff will review in the coming
weeks as their ordinance is adopted and will bring any changes back to the
Planning Commission.
Steve Grittman spoke to the number of parcels allowed for use and illustrated
preliminary mapping showing that at least 25% of all parcels in the zoning
districts where cannabis businesses are allowed are available for commercial
retail and industrial cannabis uses, and again reminded Commissioners that the
statute only requires up to two retail licenses within The City.
Steve Grittman spoke about temporary cannabis events permits with the notion
that is not a zoning section, yet references temporary cannabis events within the
zoning ordinance. Instead, it will defer to an amendment in City Code for special
event permitting. Allowable uses under special event permit include information
and sales, and shall not allow any smoking of any tobacco, cannabis, or lower -
potency hemp product to address the public nuisance aspect of smoking, with
the understanding the edibles and beverages would not violate this policy and
would be in tandem with alcohol -serving events.
Vice Chair Andrew Tapper referenced the previous two workshops and the
knowledge gained for Commissioners in the decision making process, and asked
for clarification for the lower -potency hemp regarding sales and asked if this
would still be allowed in 2025, as well as how buffering upon these business will
affect their business. Angela Schumann stated that Wright County was reluctant
to register these facilities previously, yet they may change their mindset, and the
City Attorney is following up with Wright County on the same item. Steve
Grittman stated that lower -potency hemp retailers are not subject to the buffer
as the buffer only applies to adult -use cannabis, and they would be
grandfathered in.
Vice Chair Andrew Tapper opened the public hearing portion of the item.
Vice Chair Andrew Tapper closed the public hearing portion of the item.
ANDREW TAPPER MOVED TO ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. PC-2024-45 AND
RESOLUTION NO. PC-2024-46 RECOMMENDING ADOPTION OF ORDINANCE NO.
Planning Commission Minutes — 11/04/24
835 FORAMEN DIM ENT TO MONTICELLO CITY CODE TITLE XV: LAN DUSAGE,
CHAPTER 153: ZONING AND TITLE IX: GENERAL REGULATIONS, CHAPTER 96:
PUBLIC GATHERINGSFOR ESTABLISHING REGULATIONS FOR CANNABIS AND
LOW -POTENCY HEMP PRODUCTS PURSUANT TO MINN.STAT. 342, BASED ON
FINDING IN SAID RESOLUTION., MELISSA ROBECK SECONDED THE MOTION,
MOTION CARRIED, 3-0.
B. Regular Agenda
None.
3. Other Business
A. Communitv Development Director's Report
Angela Schumann gave an overview of the Planning Commission workplan process
for 2025, hotel projects that are ongoing, the Rental Connections program meeting
recap and downtown facade improvement forgivable loan program.
B. Adjournment
ROB STARK MOVED TO ADJOURN THE NOVEMBER 4, 2024 REGULAR MEETING OF
THE MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION. MELISSA ROEBECK SECONDED. MOTION
CARRIED, 3-0. MEETING ADJOURNED.
Planning Commission Agenda: 12/03/2024
1B. Consideration of election of Planning Commission officers for 2025.
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
The Planning Commission is asked to take action to elect for positions of Chair
and Vice Chair of the Commission for 2025.
At present, the City code for Planning Commission requires that the Commission
elect a chair from its appointed members for a term of one year, and other
officers as it determines. The Planning Commission has in the past elected a Vice
Chair, in addition. The Vice Chair has fulfilled the duties of the chair in the event
of absence.
Unless otherwise directed by the Commission, staff will continue to serve as
Secretary.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
Decision 1: Chair Position
1. Motion to nominate Commissioner as Chair of the
Planning Commission for 2025.
2. Motion of other.
Decision 2: Vice Chair Position
1
Motion to nominate Commissioner
of the Planning Commission for 2025.
2. Motion of other.
as Vice Chair
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff defers to the Planning Commission on matters of appointment.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
A. City Code Title III, Chapter 32 - Planning Commission
PLANNING COMMISSION
§ 32.001 NAME OF THE COMMISSION.
The name of the organization shall be the Monticello Planning Commission.
(Prior Code, § 2-1-1)
§ 32.002 AUTHORIZATION.
(A) The authorization for the establishment of this Commission is set forth under
M.S. Ch. 462, Municipal Planning Enabling Act, as it may be amended from time to
time.
(B) The Planning Commission is hereby designated the planning agency of the city
pursuant to the Municipal Planning Act.
(Prior Code, § 2-1-2)
§ 32.003 MEMBERSHIP.
The Planning Commission shall consist of five members appointed by the City
Council. All members shall be residents of the city and shall have equal rights and
privileges.
(Prior Code, § 2-1-3)
§ 32.004 TERM OF OFFICE.
(A) Appointments. All members shall be appointed for three-year terms ending on
December 31 of a given year; however, the term may be terminated earlier by the City
Council. Terms shall be staggered so that no more than two members' terms shall
expire in a given year. The terms are to commence on the day of appointment by
Council. Every appointed member shall, before entering upon the discharge of his or
her duties, take an oath that he or she will faithfully discharge the duties of office.
(B) Renewals. When an expiring member's term is up, such member may be
reappointed by Council with the effective date of the new term beginning on the first day
of the next year following the expiration.
(Prior Code, § 2-1-4)
§ 32.005 ATTENDANCE.
It is the City Council's intention to encourage Planning Commission members to
attend all Planning Commission meetings. Should any Planning Commission member
be absent for more than three meetings in a calendar year, that member may be subject
to replacement by the Council.
(Prior Code, § 2-1-5)
§ 32.006 VACANCY.
Any vacancy in the regular or at -large membership shall be filled by the City Council,
and such appointee shall serve for the unexpired term so filled.
(Prior Code, § 2-1-6)
§ 32.007 OFFICERS.
(A) Elections. The City Planning Commission shall elect at its January meeting from
its membership a Chair, Vice Chair, and a Secretary who shall serve for a term of one
year and shall have powers as may be prescribed in the rules of the Commission.
(B) Duties of Chair. The Chair shall preside at all meetings of the Planning
Commission and shall have the duties normally conferred and parliamentary usage of
such officers.
(C) Duties of Vice Chair. The Vice Chair shall act for the Chair in his or her absence.
(D) Duties of Secretary.
(1) A Secretary may be appointed who is not a member of the Planning
Commission but can be employed as a member of city staff.
(2) The Secretary shall keep the minutes and records of the Commission; and with
the assistance of staff as is available shall prepare the agenda of the regular and
special meetings for Commission members, arrange proper and legal notice of hearings
when necessary, attend to correspondence of the Commission, and handle other duties
as are normally carried out by a Secretary.
(Prior Code, § 2-1-7)
§ 32.008 MEETINGS.
(A) The Planning Commission shall hold at least one regular meeting each month.
This meeting shall be held on the first Tuesday. Regular meeting times shall be
established by the Commission and approved annually with the regular meeting
schedule of Council and Commission. Hearings shall be heard as soon thereafter as
possible. The Planning Commission shall adopt rules for the transaction of business
and shall keep a record of its resolutions, transactions, and findings, which record shall
be a public record. The meeting shall be open to the general public.
(B) In the event of conflict for a regularly -scheduled meeting date, a majority at any
meeting may change the date, time, and location of the meeting.
(C) Special meetings may be called by the chair or two members of the Planning
Commission together, as needed, and shall be coordinated with city staff.
(Prior Code, § 2-1-8)
§ 32.009 QUORUM.
A majority of all voting Planning Commission members shall constitute a quorum for
the transaction of business.
(Prior Code, § 2-1-9)
§ 32.010 DUTIES OF THE COMMISSION.
(A) The Commission has the powers and duties assigned to it under M.S. Ch. 462,
Municipal Planning Enabling Act, as it may be amended from time to time, by this code,
and state law.
(Prior Code, § 2-1-10)
(B) The Planning Commission shall act as the Board of Adjustment and Appeals for
the Monticello zoning ordinance and shall act according to procedures as established by
the Monticello zoning ordinance.
§ 32.011 AMENDMENTS.
This subchapter may be amended as recommended by the majority vote of the
existing membership of the Planning Commission and only after majority vote of the City
Council.
(Prior Code, § 2-1-11)
§ 32.012 COMPENSATION.
Compensation of members of the Commission shall be as set forth in city code for fee
schedule.
(Prior Code, § 2-1-12) (Ord. 336, passed 11-22-1999; Ord. 337, passed 1-10-2011; Ord.
593, passed 3-10-2014; Ord. 607, passed 1-26-2015)
Planning Commission Agenda — 12/3/2024
2A. Public Hearing - Consideration of a request for Administrative Lot Subdivision and
Combination, Variance to Setback in an R-1 (Single Family) Residential District
Applicant: Steve Johnson
Prepared by:
Meeting Date:
Council Date (pending
Grittman Consulting, Stephen
12/3/2024
Commission action):
Grittman, City Planner
12/09/24
Additional Analysis by:
Community Development Director, Community & Economic Development Coordinator
ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS
Decision 1: Consideration of Administrative Lot Subdivision and Combination
1. Motion to adopt Resolution No. PC-2024-047 recommending approval of an
Administrative Lot Subdivision and Combination, subject to the conditions in Exhibit Z
and based on findings in said resolution.
2. Motion to deny the adoption of Resolution No. PC-2024-047 recommending approval of
an Administrative Lot Subdivision and Combination, based on findings to be made by
the Planning Commission.
3. Motion to table action on Resolution No. PC-2024-047.
Decision 2: Consideration of Variance to Setback in an R-1(Single Family) Residential District
1. Motion to adopt Resolution No. PC-2024-048 approving a variance to setback, subject to
the conditions in Exhibit Z and based on findings in said resolution.
2. Motion to deny the adoption of Resolution No. PC-2024-048 approving a variance to
setback, based on findings to be made by the Planning Commission.
3. Motion to table action on Resolution No. PC-2024-048
REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND
Property: Legal Description: Lengthy -contact City Hall
PID #: 155010049010; 155010049150;
M16719XIfOTBOI>U11 I'
Planning Case Number: 2024-43
Request(s): 1. Consideration for Administrative Lot Subdivision and
Combination,
1
Planning Commission Agenda—12/3/2024
2. Consideration for Variance to Setback in an R-1 (Single Family)
Residential District
Deadline for Decision: January, Yd , 2024 (60-day deadline)
March, 4t", 2024 (120-day deadline)
Land Use Designation: R-1 Single Family Residential District
Zoning Designation: R-1 Single Family Residential
Overlays/Environmental
Regulations Applicable: None
Current Site Uses: Place of Public Assembly and Single Family Home
Surrounding Land Uses:
North: Single Family Residential
East: Single Family Residential
South: Single Family Residential
West: Single Family Residential
Project Description: The applicants propose to resubdivide and then recombine a
series of individual parcels that currently contains two uses — a
single family home and a religious institution/place of public
assembly (Trinity Lutheran Church). The church and home have
been historically tied together, as the home served as the
residence of the church's clergy. However, this arrangement is no
longer needed, and the church proposes to convey the home as a
separate residence.
The resubdivision and recombination is an administrative process,
as the parcels in question are platted lots, part of the original plat
of the Townsite of Monticello. However, due to the location of the
buildings and parking lot improvements on the property, it is not
possible to meet current setback requirements when recombined.
As such, the applicants are seeking a setback variance approval to
accommodate the changes.
K
Planning Commission Agenda—12/3/2024
ANALYSIS:
Administrative Subdivision/Lot Combination.
Per Section 152.007 of the City's Subdivision regulations, a subdivision request that falls into
one of several categories may seek an "Administrative" subdivision process. Included in that list
is the following in Subd. (A):
(3) The adjustment of a lot line by the relocation of a common boundary and for which no
public right-of-way, easements, or other drainage concerns are evident to the Zoning
Administrator.
Procedurally, an Administrative Subdivision is distinguished from a full plat in that the applicant
may proceed to Planning Commission (and then City Council) with a certificate of survey, rather
than a full Preliminary Plat. In addition, the applicant need not return for a Final Plat approval.
Finally, the ordinance excuses the application from the requirement of a public hearing. The
presumption inherent in the Administrative Subdivision process is that while some official
review is necessary, the public impacts of the change are minor, and pose no issues for the
surrounding area.
In this case, the applicants propose to create two conforming parcels that each hold one of the
two existing uses on the property. No change to land use or nature of the site or building
locations are expected —they will continue to be a church use with its associated parking lot,
and a single-family residence.
Although the Administrative Subdivision language assumes no changes to any public land
interests, it includes this proviso in Subd. (B):
(B) Any easements which become unnecessary as a result of the division or combination
must be vacated. In addition, new easements must be established as determined by the City
Engineer.
There do not appear to be any existing easements on the current property, a common
condition in the original plat areas. As such, as a condition of approval, a perimeter lot drainage
and utility easement will be required for both parcels.
The subdivision and combination reconfigures the parcel with the single-family home to a lot of
10,000 square feet in area, the standard minimum for residential lots in the R-1 District. The lot
lines are shifted by borrowing a small portion of land from the parking lot parcel (Proposed
Parcel B) and adding it to the house parcel (Proposed Parcel A). The subdivision further
removes a portion of the house parcel and adds it to the church parcel.
The effect of the subdivision and combination accomplishes the following:
Planning Commission Agenda—12/3/2024
1. Creates a conforming lot for the house, in which the side yard is expanded, and the
parking lot and sidewalk stay with the parking lot to the east (shown below in
green); and
2. Shifts the south line of the parking lot parcel north, to keep a sidewalk and entry
canopy with the church parcel (shown below in yellow); and
3. Clips a portion of the parcel that contains the house along the landscape and
driveway edge, and adding that area to the church parcel (shown below in blue).
In staff's view, these changes are consistent with the requirements of the administrative
subdivision section language. However, these changes result in a zoning complication in which
the rear yard of the residential lot (Parcel A) no longer complies with the R-1 rear yard setback
requirements (reducing the rear yard to approximately 21 feet, short of the 30 foot
requirement). As such, and applicant has requested a variance from this setback standard,
discussed below.
d p�
VOST NORTHERLY �- . coKTd4
CORNER OF LOT-
15, BLOCK 49
B1 �^ -NORTHEASTERLY
LINE OF LOT 15,
BLOCK 49
,VCRTHN£STERLY x '
NE OF LOT T51
3LOCK 49
'jd Sp'�2g,
//NOR7HEASTE
UNE OF LOT
.,9 BLOCK 49
From P 0 1 A
to Part
14w P :1 FT
From P cel B
l ,.g p., jpBPar 1 A
10,000 S Ft ryy 8.001 Sq. F4. SOUTHEASTERLY ONE
4 _ OF LOT 14, BLOCK 49
Z _ /
S 86'48'42" E A^ Sbps QY
oT�is- 48.93
T �_,�
?c-_- --THE SOUTHEASTERLY
ONE OF
0. /
r� THE SOUTHEASTERLY BLOCK
4
FEET OF L07 id, BLOCK 49
/ N6s7793, - 50202,,, 4J - --:--NORTHEASTERLY ONE OF
THE SOUTHWESTERLY 8.00
0-FEET OF LOT 14. BLOCK 49
EDGE of cauuNs—
From Par4l B O's °�`
Pa1Cel C MOST SOUTHERLY -'/.'
to Pa roe)4C s9• Ft. CORNER OF LOT 14
L�L._�
rd
Planning Commission Agenda—12/3/2024
Variance.
For variance, the zoning ordinance sets out a series of requirements that revolve around two
primary considerations. First, the applicant is required to show that the proposed use of the
property is a reasonable one, consistent with the character of the area and the intent of the
zoning ordinance. Second, the applicant must show that to achieve this reasonable use, there
conditions on the property, peculiar to the land in question, not created by the applicant, that
create a practical difficulty in complying with the strict terms of the zoning ordinance.
In this case, the uses are indeed reasonable. Both uses are allowed in the R-1 zoning district,
and are longstanding existing uses of the property in question. No changes to use or manner of
use are expected as a result of the resubdivision. The practical difficulty is found in that when
the original buildings were constructed, the requirements of the ordinance did not limit the use
of multiple parcels for a single use, and that the traditional connection between the church and
house raised no land use concerns for the area. As the church grew and modified its parking
areas and access drives, the connection between house and church remained, and it continued
to be common in the original plat area to have uses in common ownership that crossed lot
boundaries.
With the separation of the church and house into discrete owners, the existing conditions
interfere in compliance with the current zoning regulations. Although the church was the
original initiator of the lot line conditions, these were common for the use at the time. To
accommodate current zoning lot area requirements and keep the various accessory uses (such
as driveways and entry canopies) on lots tied to their principal uses, the rear yard setback
variance is considered appropriate for this condition. Staff would further note that the house's
proximity to the existing driveway is not changing the physical condition, only the location of
the property boundary.
STAFF RECOMMENDED ACTION
Staff recommends approval of both the Subdivision/Combination and the setback variance as
requested. While the applicant could convey the parcel separately as now configured, the
improvements on the various properties would be separated by ownership boundaries that are
not consistent with the future land uses under separate ownership. The driveway (accessing the
church parking lot and entryway from Maple Street) would be on property owned by the
residence, and the yard space east of the residence would be on property owned by the church.
The subdivision/recombination — and the variance inherent in the redesign — corrects these
conditions, meeting the intent of both the subdivision and zoning regulations in question.
Planning Commission Agenda — 12/3/2024
SUPPORTING DATA
A. Resolution PC-2024-047, Lot Subdivision and Combination
B. Resolution PC-2024-048, Variance
C. Aerial Site Image
D. Applicant Narrative
E. Certificate of Survey
F. Excerpt, Monticello Subdivision Ordinance
Z. Conditions of Approval
EXHIBIT Z
Conditions of Approval
Administrative Lot Subdivision/Recombination
And Setback Variance
155-010-049150
155-010-049140
155-010-049010
1. The applicants record the Subdivisions and Recombinations concurrently.
2. The church -owned parcels are all included in a combined legal description that limit
conveyance without further resubdivision.
3. The applicants must reapply for a plat in the event that the County Surveyor or other
Recorder (or other County authority) rejects the legal descriptions created by this
Administrative process.
4. Execution of an easement for drainage and utility purposes per the direction of the City
Engineer.
5. Comments and recommendations of other Staff and Planning Commission.
1.1
CITY OF MONTICELLO
WRIGHT COUNTY, MINNESOTA
PLANNING COMMISSION
RESOLUTION NO. PC-2024-47
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF
THE CITY OF MONTICELLO APPROVING A SUBDIVISION AND LOT COMBINATION FOR A
CHURCH AND SINGLE FAMILY HOME
IN THE R-1, SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE DISTRICT
WHEREAS, the applicant is requesting a Subdivision and concurrent Lot Combination to
reconfigure property boundaries for a Church and an associated residential use; and
WHEREAS, the Subdivision Ordinance accommodates Administrative processing of such
subdivisions under specific conditions which exist in this situation; and
WHEREAS, the proposed subdivision is intended to reallocate existing principal and accessory
uses based on the long-term ownership of the underlying parcels; and
WHEREAS, the applicant is seeking the variance to allow sale of a residential parcel that is no
longer to be used by the religious institutional owner; and
WHEREAS, the proposed residential parcel may be sold separately, but would include ancillary
uses, including parking and driveways that belong to the church, while green space would be
inconsistent with typical residential surroundings; and
WHEREAS, the proposed Subdivision and Lot Combinations correct the deficiencies of the
current condition; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on December 3rd, 2024 on the
variance 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 voted to approve the variance to setback, clearing any
barrier to the subdivision and combination as proposed; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Monticello makes the following Findings of
Fact in relation to the approval of the Subdivision and Combination, as well as approval of the
variance:
1. The applicant has demonstrated practical difficulties in using the property in a
reasonable manner, due to the current property lines which allocate uses to separate
owners, reducing the attractiveness of the home as a stand-alone residential parcel.
2. The existing parcel is of otherwise sufficient size and area to accommodate the
proposed use.
3. The proposed resubdivision is more consistent with the City's intent to provide
adequate lot area and associated residential accessory uses on single family property.
4. The proposed residence will not be inconsistent with area uses, nor create interference
due to size or other factors.
5. The Administrative process of the Subdivision and Combination without a replat are
consistent with the intent and requirements of the Subdivision Ordinance.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the Planning Commission of the City of Monticello,
Minnesota, recommends that the City Council approves the requested Subdivision and Lot
Combinations for Trinity Lutheran Church based on the conditions provided in Exhibit Z of the
referenced staff planning report, as follows:
The applicants record the Subdivisions and Recombinations concurrently.
The church -owned parcels are all included in a combined legal description that
limit conveyance without further resubdivision.
The applicants must reapply for a plat in the event that the County Surveyor or
other Recorder (or other County authority) rejects the legal descriptions created
by this Administrative process.
4. Execution of an easement for drainage and utility purposes per the direction of
the City Engineer.
Comments and recommendations of other Staff and Planning Commission.
ADOPTED this 3rd day of December, 2024, by the Planning Commission of the City of
Monticello, Minnesota.
MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION
By:
Chair
ATTEST:
Angela Schumann, Community Development Director
CITY OF MONTICELLO
WRIGHT COUNTY, MINNESOTA
PLANNING COMMISSION
RESOLUTION NO. PC-2024-48
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF
THE CITY OF MONTICELLO APPROVING A VARIANCE TO
THE REQUIRED SETBACK FOR A SINGLE FAMILY HOME
IN THE R-1, SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE DISTRICT
WHEREAS, the applicant is requesting a variance to the rear yard setback requirements for a
Single Family home in the R-1, Single Family Residence District to establish a new rear lot line
that results in a reduced rear yard setback; and
WHEREAS, the zoning ordinance currently requires a setback for rear yards of 30 feet; and
WHEREAS, the proposed subdivision is intended to reallocate existing principal and accessory
uses based on the ownership of the underlying parcels; and
WHEREAS, the applicant is seeking the variance to allow sale of a residential parcel that is no
longer to be used by the religious institutional owner; and
WHEREAS, the proposed residential parcel may be sold separately, but would include ancillary
uses, including parking and driveways that belong to the church, while green space would be
inconsistent with typical residential surroundings; and
WHEREAS, the proposed subdivision and recombinations correct the deficiencies of the current
condition; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on December 3rd, 2024 on the
application and the applicant and members of the public were provided the opportunity to
present information to the Planning Commission; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has considered all of the comments and the staff report,
which are incorporated by reference into the resolution; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Monticello makes the following Findings of
Fact in relation to the approval of the variance:
1. The applicant has demonstrated practical difficulties in using the property in a
reasonable manner, due to the current property lines which allocate uses to separate
owners, reducing the attractiveness of the home as a stand-alone residential parcel.
2. The existing parcel is of otherwise sufficient size and area to accommodate the
proposed use.
3. The proposed resubdivision is more consistent with the City's intent to provide
adequate lot area and associated residential accessory uses on single family property.
4. The proposed residence will not be inconsistent with area uses, nor create interference
due to size or other factors.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the Planning Commission of the City of Monticello,
Minnesota, that the requested variance is approved based on the conditions provided in Exhibit
Z of the referenced staff planning report, as follows:
1. The applicants record the Subdivisions and Recombinations concurrently.
2. The church -owned parcels are all included in a combined legal description that
limit conveyance without further resubdivision.
3. The applicants must reapply for a plat in the event that the County Surveyor or
other Recorder (or other County authority) rejects the legal descriptions created
by this Administrative process.
4. Execution of an easement for drainage and utility purposes per the direction of
the City Engineer.
5. Comments and recommendations of other Staff and Planning Commission.
ADOPTED this 3rd day of December, 2024, by the Planning Commission of the City of
Monticello, Minnesota.
MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION
IN
Chair
ATTEST:
Angela Schumann, Community Development Director
f-11-rhBeacon� Wright County, M N
Request for Consideration for Administrative Lot Subdivision and Combination, Variance to Setback
Legal: Lengthy contact city hall, PIDS multiple, Address: 449 Broadway West, Monticello, MN 55362
Created by: City of Monticello
Trinity Lutheran Church
A congregation of the ELCA
Angela Schuman 11-1-2024
City of Monticello
505 Walnut Street, Suite 1
Monticello, MN 55362
Angela,
Trinity Evangelical Lutheran Church wishes to split from the accumulated parcels of Block 49 the
residence located at 424 West River Steet, Monticello, Mn. The purpose is to eventually sell the
property as clergy currently rent or own their personal residences. Meyer -Rollin has conducted a
survey removing the residence from the other parcels owned by the church leaving a parcel of
10,000 square feet required by city codes. Certified copies of the survey drawings with new legal
descriptions of the resulting parcels that will be submitted along with the original full legal
descriptions. A title search and opinion prepared by Preferred Title located in Monticello
accompanies the surveyor's documents.
The parcels involved are currently approved uses in an R-1 zone in which they are located. This
will likely not change and require a Conditional Use Permit. The breakout parcel meets the square
footage required in the current zoning requirements. Excess area from parcel A has been added to
parcel C. Parcel B has been reduced in size to 8,001 square feet to meet the 10,000 square foot
requirement for parcel A. The result of this rearrangement deviates from the requirement of a 30-
foot setback of the backyard. Additional space added to the east side yard has been added to parcel
A. This compensates for the reduced set back of the backyard. However, this adjustment will
require a variance rather than a plot adjustment. The physical nature of the properties justifies the
approval of the variance as the plot reflects the current condition of the property. Trinity Lutheran
Churc respectfully requests approval of the variance.
The above -mentioned supporting materials will be submitted in hard copy and electronically to
the city of Monticello on November 4, 2024
Sincerely,
Steve Johnson
Finance Committee Chair
Inviting People into the body of Christ -Igniting Passion to grow in faith -Exciting Believers for lives of service
449 West Broadway PO Box 776 Monticello, MN 55362 763-295-2092 www.ticmonticello.org office@ticmonticello.org
MOST NORTHE
LORLY- n C0r`L`-
CORNER OF T ?'
15, BLOCK 49 oz� � � sq, •�
S
8j�'29•• � -NORTHEASTERLY
sue_ A' i LINE OF LOT 15,
/ NORTHWESTERLY
LINE OF LOT 15,
BLOCK 49
s
4�
MOST WESTERLY—`/�
CORNER OF LOT 15
\°yF
�ST
CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY
FOR
TRINITY LUT'HERAN CHURCH
\
"-NORTHEASTERLY \
LINE OF LOT 14,
BLOCK 49 \
� V
--EDGE OF LIGHT POLE BASE
i 0.2 FT. S.E. OF LINE \
r
arcel B 9\
01 . S Ft. ``-- SOUTHEASTERLY LINE
q OF LOT 14, BLOCK 49 �\
/
o / \
(broke
°
---- —-NORTHWESTERLY LINE OF �P'
THE SOUTHEASTERLY 50.97
FEET OF LOT 14, BLOCK 49 /
- -NORTHEASTERLY LINE OF L /\
THE SOUTHWESTERLY 8.00 /
FEET OF LOT 14, BLOCK 49 /
lb
/ ##15233
h�
/ /15233 en °0P)/
LP• (br°k �
/ \ i
w L
P/ / s
0 30 60 90
245 / / GRAPHIC SCALE IN FEET
open I.P• `�����\�
\
\
/ SURVEYOR'S NOTES:
1. Existing parcel descriptions were obtained from
Wright County tax records.
\ 2. No title documentation was provided to us.
Easements and/or encumbrances mey exist which
are not shown hereon.
3. This drawing is provided only for use by the client
named hereon, for the purpose of adjusting the
parcel boundaries as shown hereon.
EXISTING DESCRIPTIONS
PID
155-010-049010
Lots
1 2 3 4
& 5, Block 49,
Townsite of Monticello, according to the recorded plat thereof, Wright County, Minnesota.
PID
155-010-049140
Lot
14,
Block
49, Townsite of
Monticello, according to the recorded plat thereof, Wright County, Minnesota.
PID
155-010-049150
Lot
15,
Block
49, Townsite of
Monticello, according to the recorded plat thereof, Wright County, Minnesota.
PROPOSED DESCRIPTIONS
Parcel A
That part of Lots 14 and 15, Block 49, Townsite of Monticello, according to the recorded plat thereof, Wright County,
Minnesota, described as follows: Beginning at the most northerly corner of said Lot 15; thence South 25 degrees 44
minutes 32 seconds West, assumed bearing, along the northwesterly line of said Lot 15, a distance of 127.15 feet;
thence South 64 degrees 23 minutes 29 seconds East, parallel with the northeasterly line of said Lots 14 and 15, a
distance of 36.78 feet; thence South 86 degrees 48 minutes 42 seconds East, a distance of 48.93 feet to the
northwesterly line of the southeasterly 50.97 feet of said Lot 14; thence North 25 degrees 43 minutes 56 seconds
East, along the northwesterly line of the southeasterly 50.97 feet of said Lot 14, a distance of 108.48 feet to the
northeasterly line of said Lot 14; thence North 64 degrees 23 minutes 29 seconds West, along the northeasterly line
of said Lots 14 and 15, a distance of 81.95 feet to the point of beginning.
Parcel B
The southeasterly 50.97 feet of Lot 14, Block 49, Townsite of Monticello, according to the recorded plat thereof, Wright
County, Minnesota, except the southwesterly 8.00 feet thereof.
Parcel C
Lots 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5, Block 49, Townsite of Monticello, according to the recorded plat thereof, Wright County,
Minnesota.
and
That part of Lots 14 and 15, Block 49, Townsite of Monticello, according to the recorded plat thereof, Wright County,
Minnesota, described as follows: Commencing at the most northerly corner of said Lot 15; thence South 25 degrees
44 minutes 32 seconds West, assumed bearing, along the northwesterly line of said Lot 15, a distance of 127.15 feet
to the point of beginning of the parcel to be described; thence South 64 degrees 23 minutes 29 seconds East,
parallel with the northeasterly line of said Lots 14 and 15, a distance of 36.78 feet; thence South 86 degrees 48
minutes 42 seconds East, a distance of 48.93 feet to the northwesterly line of the southeasterly 50.97 feet of said
Lot 14; thence South 25 degrees 43 minutes 56 seconds West, along the northwesterly line of the southeasterly 50.97
feet of said Lot 14, a distance of 48.49 feet to the northeasterly line of the southwesterly 8.00 feet of said Lot 14;
thence South 64 degrees 22 minutes 02 seconds East, along the northeasterly line of the southwesterly 8.00 feet of
said Lot 14, a distance of 50.97 feet to the southeasterly line of said Lot 14; thence South 25 degrees 43 minutes
56 seconds West, along the southeasterly line of said Lot 14, a distance of 8.00 feet to the most southerly corner of
said Lot 14; thence North 64 degrees 22 minutes 02 seconds West, along the southwesterly line of said Lots 14 and
15, a distance of 132.95 feet to the most westerly corner of said Lot 15; thence North 25 degrees 44 minutes 32
seconds East, along said northwesterly line of Lot 15, a distance of 37.79 feet to the point of beginning.
LEGEND
•
IRON MONUMENT FOUND
O
IRON MONUMENT SET
oHE oHE
OVERHEAD ELECTRIC
i
CATCH BASIN
HYDRANT
WATER VALVE
Os
SEWER CLEANOUT
WOOD FENCE
�
UTILITY POLE
C__
GUY WIRE
0 o
UTILITY RISERS
o
UTILITY VAULT
❑E
ELECTRIC METER
Il
SIGN
LIGHT POLE
ac
AIR CONDITIONING UNIT
REVISED 11/07/2024:
SET LOT CORNER MONUMENTS AS INDICATED
CONC. CURB &GUTTER
BITUMINOUS SURFACE
I hereby certify that this survey, plan, or
report was prepared by me or under my
CONCRETE SURFACE
direct supervision and that I am a Licensed
Land Surveyor under the laws of the State
boo 000 0°0
of Minnesota.
°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°�
LANDSCAPED AREA
C
O°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°
Lo',g °�°�°nQ°°a° E._--j
Date 11/01/2024
Abram A. Niemela
License No. 48664
N:\Carlson Projects\24362 - Trinity Lutheran\Prof Dwg\24362 COS.dwg
§ 152.007 EXCEPTIONS.
(A) When requesting a subdivision, combination, or recombination, if any of the following conditions exist, the subdivider
is required to present accurately drawn site and certified survey plan information for the proposed subdivision, combination,
or recombination, have the subdivision, combination, or recombination reviewed by the Planning Commission, reviewed and
approved by the City Council, and adhere to the park dedication requirements of §§ 152.080 through 152.085.
(1) A division which results in commercial or industrial parcels having an area of five acres or more with frontage on a
public right-of-way measuring 300 feet or more and which does not result in the division of the parcel into two or more lots,
any one of which is less than five acres in area or 300 feet in width and which does not necessitate the dedication of a public
right -of- way. Such division shall not cause any structure on the lot to be in violation of the zoning ordinance or said new
portions of lots to be in violation of city ordinance.
(2) Division of one previously platted parcel into no more than two buildable parcels, both of which will be in full
conformance with all applicable zoning regulations, and for which no public right- of -way, easements, or other drainage
concerns are evident to the Zoning Administrator.
(3) The adjustment of a lot line by the relocation of a common boundary and for which no public right-of-way,
easements, or other drainage concerns are evident to the Zoning Administrator.
(4) Division of an existing lot of record where the division is to permit the adding of a parcel of land to an abutting lot or
lots and the newly created property line will not cause the other remaining portion of the lot to be in violation with this
chapter or the zoning ordinance, and for which no public right-of-way, easements, or other drainage concerns are evident to
the Zoning Administrator.
(5) Combination of two or more parcels of record to create a parcel conforming to the requirements of the applicable
zoning district and for which no public right-of-way, easements, or other drainage concerns are evident to the Zoning
Administrator.
(B) Any easements which become unnecessary as a result of the division or combination must be vacated. In addition,
new easements must be established as determined by the City Engineer.
(C) In the event that the County Recorder shall refuse to record an administrative subdivision due to the legal description
of the proposed parcels or for any other reason, the applicant shall be required to comply with all of the requirements of §§
152.026 and 152.040 for preliminary plats.
Planning Commission Agenda: 12/03/2024
3A. Consideration of a recommendation of reappointment of Andrew Tapper to
the Planning Commission.
ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS
1. Motion to recommend Commissioner Andrew Tapper for a three-year term
to the Planning Commission, effective January 1, 2025.
2. Motion of other.
REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND
The Commission is asked to recommend appointment or action for expiring
Commission terms.
Commissioner Tapper's term ends December 2024. Commissioner Tapper has
indicated a willingness to serve another three-year term. As such, Commission is
asked to make a recommendation on the appointment to the City Council.
Current terms for the Commission are as follows.
Planning Commission Teri Lehner
3 yr
12/2026
(3-year staggered terms) Rob Stark
3 yr
12/2026
Andrew Tapper
3 yr
12/2024
Richard Kothenbeutel
3 yr
12/2027
Melissa Robeck
3 yr
12/2025
Charlotte Gabler
Council liaison
Commission recommendations on appointments will be considered for ratification
by the City Council on December 9, 2024.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff defers to the Planning Commission on matters of appointment.
SUPPORTING DATA:
A. City Code - Planning Commission
PLANNING COMMISSION
§ 32.001 NAME OF THE COMMISSION.
The name of the organization shall be the Monticello Planning Commission.
(Prior Code, § 2-1-1)
§ 32.002 AUTHORIZATION.
(A) The authorization for the establishment of this Commission is set forth under M.S. Ch. 462, Municipal Planning
Enabling Act, as it may be amended from time to time.
(B) The Planning Commission is hereby designated the planning agency of the city pursuant to the Municipal Planning
Act.
(Prior Code, § 2-1-2)
§ 32.003 MEMBERSHIP.
The Planning Commission shall consist of five members appointed by the City Council. All members shall be residents of
the city and shall have equal rights and privileges.
(Prior Code, § 2-1-3)
§ 32.004 TERM OF OFFICE.
(A) Appointments. All members shall be appointed for three-year terms ending on December 31 of a given year; however,
the term may be terminated earlier by the City Council. Terms shall be staggered so that no more than two members' terms
shall expire in a given year. The terms are to commence on the day of appointment by Council. Every appointed member
shall, before entering upon the discharge of his or her duties, take an oath that he or she will faithfully discharge the duties
of office.
(B) Renewals. When an expiring member's term is up, such member may be reappointed by Council with the effective
date of the new term beginning on the first day of the next year following the expiration.
(Prior Code, § 2-1-4)
§ 32.005 ATTENDANCE.
It is the City Council's intention to encourage Planning Commission members to attend all Planning Commission meetings.
Should any Planning Commission member be absent for more than three meetings in a calendar year, that member may be
subject to replacement by the Council.
(Prior Code, § 2-1-5)
§ 32.006 VACANCY.
Any vacancy in the regular or at -large membership shall be filled by the City Council, and such appointee shall serve for
the unexpired term so filled.
(Prior Code, § 2-1-6)
§ 32.007 OFFICERS.
(A) Elections. The City Planning Commission shall elect at its January meeting from its membership a Chair, Vice Chair,
and a Secretary who shall serve for a term of one year and shall have powers as may be prescribed in the rules of the
Commission.
(B) Duties of Chair. The Chair shall preside at all meetings of the Planning Commission and shall have the duties
normally conferred and parliamentary usage of such officers.
(C) Duties of Vice Chair. The Vice Chair shall act for the Chair in his or her absence.
(D) Duties of Secretary.
(1) A Secretary may be appointed who is not a member of the Planning Commission but can be employed as a
member of city staff.
(2) The Secretary shall keep the minutes and records of the Commission; and with the assistance of staff as is
available shall prepare the agenda of the regular and special meetings for Commission members, arrange proper and legal
notice of hearings when necessary, attend to correspondence of the Commission, and handle other duties as are normally
carried out by a Secretary.
(Prior Code, § 2-1-7)
§ 32.008 MEETINGS.
(A) The Planning Commission shall hold at least one regular meeting each month. This meeting shall be held on the first
Tuesday. Regular meeting times shall be established by the Commission and approved annually with the regular meeting
schedule of Council and Commission. Hearings shall be heard as soon thereafter as possible. The Planning Commission
shall adopt rules for the transaction of business and shall keep a record of its resolutions, transactions, and findings, which
record shall be a public record. The meeting shall be open to the general public.
(B) In the event of conflict for a regularly -scheduled meeting date, a majority at any meeting may change the date, time,
and location of the meeting.
(C) Special meetings maybe called by the chair or two members of the Planning Commission together, as needed, and
shall be coordinated with city staff.
(Prior Code, § 2-1-8)
§ 32.009 QUORUM.
A majority of all voting Planning Commission members shall constitute a quorum for the transaction of business.
(Prior Code, § 2-1-9)
§ 32.010 DUTIES OF THE COMMISSION.
(A) The Commission has the powers and duties assigned to it under M.S. Ch. 462, Municipal Planning Enabling Act, as it
may be amended from time to time, by this code, and state law.
(Prior Code, § 2-1-10)
(B) The Planning Commission shall act as the Board of Adjustment and Appeals for the Monticello zoning ordinance and
shall act according to procedures as established by the Monticello zoning ordinance.
§ 32.011 AMENDMENTS.
This subchapter may be amended as recommended by the majority vote of the existing membership of the Planning
Commission and only after majority vote of the City Council.
(Prior Code, § 2-1-11)
§ 32.012 COMPENSATION.
Compensation of members of the Commission shall be as set forth in city code for fee schedule.
(Prior Code, § 2-1-12) (Ord. 336, passed 11-22-1999; Ord. 337, passed 1-10-2011; Ord. 593, passed 3-10-2014; Ord. 607,
passed 1-26-2015)
Planning Commission Agenda — 12/03/24
4A. Community Development Director's Report
Council Action on/related to Commission Recommendations
• Consideration of adopting Resolution 2024-114 approving annexation; adopting
Resolution 2024-115 for the Final Plat and Development Contract for Broadway
Plaza; adopting Resolution 2024-116 for Final Stage Planned Unit Development for
Broadway Plaza; and Resolution 2024-117 and Ordinance 838 approving a rezoning
to Broadway Plaza Planned Unit Development District for a Commercial
Development including Commercial Lodging, Event Center, and Restaurant as
principal uses and adopting Summary Ordinance 838A for publication. Applicant:
Mike Schneider/Classics on Broadway, LLC
Approved on the November 25, 2024 City Council consent agenda.
• Consideration of adopting Resolutions 2024-118 and 2024-119, and Ordinance 835
Amending City Code Title XV: Land Usage, Chapter 153: Zoning and Title IX: General
Regulations, Chapter 96: Public Gatherings and adopting Resolution 2024-120 and
Ordinance 837 amending City Code Title XI: Business Regulations, all for the
regulations of Cannabis land uses subject to local adoption of the provisions and
mandates of the Minnesota State Statute Chapter 342 and adopting Summary
Ordinance 835A for publication. Applicant: City of Monticello
Approved on the November 25, 2024 City Council regular agenda.
2025 Planning Commission Workplan
Feedback from the Commission on development of the 2025 Workplan is requested. The
2024 Planning Commission Workplan and a fillable worksheet is attached for reference.
Planning Commission Agenda Resource Survey
The Planning Commission is asked to complete the attached survey to assist staff in
providing the Commission with the best possible agenda information for decision -making.
Responses to the survey are requested no later than December 16t", 2024 for January
agenda preparation adjustments.
Planning Commission Tools & Resources
A guide to the tools and resources for Planning Commission decision -making is attached
for reference. The guide is intended as a helpful reminder of the where Commission's
authority exists in law and corresponding planning documents.
Block 34 — Redevelopment Steps
The EDA released a Request for Proposal for site redevelopment concepts for the publicly
owned property on Block 34 in September of 2024. Two proposals were received by the
September 30, 2024, deadline. The two RFI responders attended an EDA Workshop in
early November to present and discuss their specific submittals. Following the
Planning Commission Agenda — 12/03/24
workshops, the EDA consensus was to continue discussion with Kraus Anderson for the
redevelopment of the publicly -owned properties on Block 34. A meeting with the group is
scheduled for December to work through the next steps for redevelopment on the block,
including timeline, phasing and public feedback process.
Staffing Changes
On November 12, the City Council approved the appointment of Bob Ferguson to the
position of Chief Building Official for the City of Monticello. Mr. Ferguson is currently
serving as the Building Official/Fire Inspector for the City of Monticello and will assume
the Chief post as of November 30, 2024. Ron Hackenmueller will stay on as the Chief
Emeritus until his retirement in January of 2025.
Development Status
Current status update through November is attached.
A new format for reporting on the status of development projects will also be added to
the City's website in the coming months. Watch for the new format at: Promects
Monticello, MN
CITY OF Monticello Planning Commission
2021-2025 Workplan
Monticello 2024 UPDATE
The Monticello Planning Commission is established to advise the Mayor, Council and Community
Development Department in matters concerning planning and land use matters; to review and make
recommendations regarding the Monticello 2040 Vision + Plan, subdivision and zoning ordinances and other
planning rules and regulations; to establish planning rules and regulations; and to conduct public hearings.
Purpose Statement:
The Planning Commission will support efforts to implement the Monticello 2040 Vision + Plan. The Planning
Commission will work collaboratively with the City Council, other City boards and commissions, and
community stakeholders in its work to achieve the Plan and the strategic goals of the city.
Organizational & Training Activities:
• League of Minnesota Cities training
o Land Use Mini Course - Land Use (Mini -Course) - League of Minnesota Cities (Imc
o Land Use Regulation: Your Role in Land -Use Decision Making - Land Use Regulation:
Your Role in Land -Use Decision Making - League of Minnesota Cities (Imc.ore)
• Continue to support regional planning as identified by the Monticello 2040 Vision + Plan.
o Implementation Chapter - Land Use, Growth & Orderly Annexation
■ Strategy 1.10.1 - Consider the outcomes of regional planning initiatives and participate in
processes resulting from the efforts of the Central Mississippi River Regional Partnership.
• Consistent with Policy 1.2 for Agency Coordination, monitor opportunity for
engagement in roadway and pathway connectivity planning across
jurisdictions, including the current Planning and Environmental Linkage
study.
• Initiate and/or facilitate organizational projects in support of the Monticello 2040 Vision + Plan.
o Implementation Chapter - Land Use, Growth & Orderly Annexation
■ Strategy 1.1.1- Facilitate biannual meetings to serve as a "Development Forum" with
interested property owners, realtors, builders and developers to discuss long-term
planning, real estate market conditions.
• Pending outcomes of a 2024 City Housing Workshop, facilitate a housing
forum with builders and developers.
11Page
Comprehensive Plan Activities:
• Support the implementation of the Monticello 2040 Vision + Plan through implementation of the
Goals, Policies and Strategies identified within the Plan.
o Land Use, Growth & Orderly Annexation Chapter
■ Review Land Use, Growth & Orderly Annexation Goals from Chapter 3 of the
2040 Plan.
■ Participate in a Council and Commission workshop on the amended Orderly
Annexation Agreement.
■ Residential Land Uses
• As needed following the 2024 Housing Policy Workshop, consider
amendments in the Goals, Policies and Strategies of the Implementation
Chapter of the Monticello 2040 Comprehensive Plan, as well as the Future
Land Use Map.
o Economic Development Chapter
■ Review industrial land inventory and planning consistent with Monticello 2040 Land
Use policies for industrial land use, including:
• Policies 1.1 (Land Use) and 8.1 (Economic Development) - Opportunity Areas
• Policy 1.2 - Growth Management (Land Use)
• Policy 5.1 - Land Supply and Employment Growth (Land Use)
• Policy 2.1 - Diverse Economic Sectors (Economic Development)
• Policy 2.4 — Industrial and Business Site Analysis and Availability (Economic
Development)
• Continue to support the priority projects set by the City Council, including The Pointes at Cedar and
reinvestment in Downtown Monticello. Small Area Plans for both projects are adopted as
Appendices to the 2040 Plan.
Zoning Ordinance/Map Activities:
• With City Council, establish City policy related to recent cannabis legislation, adopting the
necessary amendments to the Monticello Zoning Ordinance.
• Consider amendments to the Monticello Zoning Ordinance and Official Zoning Map in support of the
Monticello 2040 Vision + Plan guided land use, including, but not limited to the following.
Evaluation of Zoning Map:
■ CCD and its Sub -Districts
Evaluation of the following Zoning Code sections:
■ Floor area ratio requirements for commercial, industrial zoning districts
■ Impervious surface requirements for residential districts
■ Updating noise standards for more practical enforcement
■ Evaluation of regulation on short term rentals
■ Evaluation of the need for both B-3 and B-4 Districts
■ Evaluation of temporary use permits for portable container retail/specialty eating
establishments
21Page
Subdivision Ordinance Activities:
• Complete a review and amendment of the Monticello Subdivision Ordinance, including
consideration of amendments as recommended in the Goals, Policies and Strategies of the
Implementation Chapter of the Monticello Comprehensive Plan as follows.
o Implementation Chapter, Land Use, Growth & Orderly Annexation
Strategy 2.5.1 - Implement measures to slow down or "calm" traffic on local streets
by using design techniques and measures to improve traffic safety, provide eyes on
the street, and enhance the quality of life in Monticello's neighborhoods.
Strategy 3.8.2 - Require pedestrian and bike connections in new commercial
development.
■ Strategy 6.5.1- Conduct regular review of parkland allocation and ensure sufficient
amount of land is designated for parks and recreation activities in the City as the
population increases.
Research & City Department Update Topics
As resources and time allow, the Planning Commission will consider research and information related to
the following topic areas.
Topic
Annexation Process
Sacred Settlements (2023 Legislative change)
Policy and decision -making — City Board and Commission authority discussion
Review actions and next steps for East Bertram Planning Area and Northwest Planning Areas identified
in the Monticello 2040 Vision + Plan
31Page
ITY ��_ (01
Monticello
Monticello Planning Commission
2025 Workplan Worksheet
To assist in the development of a 2025 Planning Commission Workplan, please
provide input on the following areas:
Comprehensive Plan
Please list below any specific comprehensive plan topics for which you believe additional
long-range study are needed. (Examples include: identification of residential density in
specific area of the annexation area, identification of additional industrial land area, final
identification of interchange locations and supporting collector routes, etc.)
Zoning Code Sections
Please list below any areas within the zoning code for which you would like additional
information/study in 2025.
Other
Please list any other areas of focus for the workplan which interest you
Please e mail your responses to Angela Schumann by December 151h, 2024 at
angela. schumann@ci.monticello.mn.us.
CITY o F CITY OF MONTICELLO
Community Development
505 Walnut Street, Suite 1
Monticello, MN 55362
Monticeflo (763) 295-2711 . infogci.monticello.mn.us
Planning Commission Survey — Agenda Reports and Delivery
1. Planning Commission agendas are posted to the City website on the Thursday prior to
the regular Tuesday meeting. Do you feel the current agenda delivery date provides you
with adequate time for review of packet contents?
Yes ❑ NoF-1
2. What is your level of satisfaction with the content of the written staff reports and
supporting data?
Satisfied Neutral Unsatisfied
3. Is the inclusion of relevant ordinance sections within the staff report exhibit section
important to you, or do you utilize the online ordinances?
Prefer inclusion in the packet Prefer to reference digital ordinance
4. What is your level of satisfaction with the content of the verbal staff reports during the
Planning Commission meetings?
Satisfied ❑ Neutral ❑ Unsatisfied ❑
5. Are there specific items which you would like included or referenced in the verbal or
written staff reports which may be helpful in your review or analysis? Please provide
your suggestions.
6. Please check below each document which you have utilized online:
Zoning Ordinance Subdivision Ordinance Comprehensive Plan
7. If you have other comments about the Planning Commission agenda, resources or
meetings, please share them here:
Thank you very much for your time!
Revised 11/25/24
CITY OF
Monticello
Land Use Controls
Planning Commission Implementation
Tools and Resources
2024 Updated
This guide provides an overview of the land use control tools used by the City of
Monticello, along with the specific responsibility of the Planning Commission in
relationship to the control, and reference resources for more information.
Comprehensive Plan
The Comprehensive Plan is the city's blueprint for growth and is the foundation upon
which development and land use decisions are based. It contains long term goals for the
City's growth and the implementation strategies to help the City achieve those goals. It is
the official adopted policy regarding the future location, character, and quality of physical
development, and the conservation and enjoyment of the natural environment.
A Comprehensive Plan is also a guide to decision making. It provides the City a means for
balancing social, economic and environmental benefits with the costs associated with
development. Most other City policies and regulations regarding growth and
development are based on the Comprehensive Plan. All development -related ordinances
and regulations, such as the Zoning Ordinance and design guidelines, must be consistent
with and implement the goals of the Comprehensive Plan.
From a more technical perspective, the Comprehensive Plan is used by the City Council,
Planning Commission, other boards and Commissions, and City staff to inform and guide
policy decisions regarding land use, development and infrastructure improvements within
the City. Developers, real estate professionals and property owners also use the
Comprehensive Plan as an informative document to understand the City's vision and
policies regarding land use and development.
See excerpt from the Monticello 2040 Plan:
Municipal Comprehensive Planning in Minnesota is enabled by Section 462.353 of the
Minnesota State Statute. In this legislation, cities are granted the authority to prepare,
adopt and amend a comprehensive plan "for guiding the future development and
improvement of the municipality". Cities are also provided authority to implement that
Plan via a zoning ordinance or "other official actions" specified in the statute.
1 1 P a g e
The duty to prepare the comprehensive plan falls squarely on the Planning Commission
with support from planning staff and consultants. Once a Plan is prepared, The City
Council then has the authority to adopt the Plan. The Planning Commission also has the
responsibility to periodically review the plan and provide amendments as necessary. The
Statutes are not specific regarding the contents of the Plan, but the primary
implementation tool is the zoning ordinance or other "official controls". Land use decisions
and capital improvements are required to be in conformance to the Comprehensive Plan.
State Law requires that the Comprehensive Plan contain guidelines for the timing and
sequence of the adoption of official controls necessary to ensure planned, orderly, and
staged development and redevelopment consistent with the Land Use Chapter. Official
controls may include ordinances establishing zoning, subdivision controls, site plan
regulations, sanitary codes, building codes and official maps.
Authority of the Commission:
The Planning Commission is responsible for holding public hearings on the adoption of
and amendments to the Comprehensive Plan and making formal recommendations to
the City Council regarding the adoption and amendments.
References:
Monticello 2040 Vision + Plan: https://www.ci.monticello.mn.us/monti204O
League of MN Cities Handbook: Comprehensive Planning, Land Use and City -Owned
Land (Imc.orM
Zoning Ordinance/Map
A zoning ordinance regulates the use of land within a municipality consistent with its
Comprehensive Plan; it controls the ways in which the land can be developed and what
purposes the zoned land can serve. Monticello has adopted zoning regulations for the
purpose of carrying out the goals, policies and strategies of the land use elements of the
Monticello Vision + Plan. Historically, zoning was also established for the specific
purpose of protecting the public health, safety, and general welfare through the
establishment of regulations governing land development and use.
Monticello's zoning ordinance cites these two specific purposes, as well as others; see
excerpt from Chapter 1, Section 3(A):
(1) To implement the policies of the City's Comprehensive Plan;
(2) To protect the public health, safety, and general welfare of the community and its
people through the establishment of regulations governing development and use;
2 1 P a g e
(3) To promote orderly development and redevelopment;
(4) To protect the established use areas;
(5) To provide adequate light, air, and convenience of access to property;
(6) To prevent congestion in the public right-of-way;
(7) To prevent overcrowding of land and undue concentration of structures by regulating
land, buildings, yards, and allowed residential densities;
(8) To provide for compatibility of different land uses;
(9) To provide for administration and enforcement of this ordinance,
(10) To provide for amendments,
(11) To prescribe penalties for violation of such regulations and
(12) To define powers and duties of the City staff, the Board of Adjustment and Appeals, the
Planning Commission, and the City Council in relation to the Zoning Ordinance.
In Minnesota, the authority to adopt zoning ordinances is established in the Municipal
Planning Act, found in Minnesota Statutes, 462.356. The Municipal Planning Act
establishes a uniform and comprehensive procedure for adopting or amending and
implementing a zoning ordinance.
Zoning dictates what types of properties can exist or be developed within a particular
area within a municipality. For example, some areas (districts) are zoned strictly for
single-family homes (while accommodating some exceptions such as religious buildings
or parks), while certain mixed -used districts may allow for specific business and
residential uses to exist in the same area. Zoning considers the relationship and
transitions between uses, such as residential, commercial and industrial. Zoning
ordinances also regulate development performance standards, such as maximum
building height, minimum lot size, setbacks and building materials, etc.
Monticello also adopts an official zoning map. The zoning map illustrates the various
zoning districts enumerated within the zoning ordinance. The adoption of an official
zoning map is referenced within the ordinance, Chapter 3, Section 1.
Authority of the Commission:
The Planning Commission is responsible for holding public hearings on the adoption of
and amendments to the zoning ordinance. The Commission makes formal
recommendations to the City Council regarding the adoption and amendment of zoning
ordinances. The Planning Commission also holds hearings on conditional use permits
3 1 P a g e
and variance requests as outlined within the zoning ordinance. The Commission acts as
the Board of Adjustment and Appeals for variances and administrative appeals as
outlined by the zoning ordinance.
References:
Monticello Zoning Ordinance & Maps: Zoning Ordinance I Monticello, MN
League of MN Cities Handbook — Zoning Guide for Cities: Zoning Guide for Cities
Imc.or
Subdivision Ordinance and Platting
A subdivision is a plan for a distinct area of land for the purpose of sale, rent, or building
development.
Monticello's subdivision ordinance specifies the standards of the city related to the
layout and development of a given area, including lot number and configuration,
location of structures, public dedications and their standards (such as streets,
easements, trails or parks), public and private utilities, and grading, drainage,
stormwater management and erosion control.
These subdivision plans are most often developed through a plat, in both preliminary
and final plat stages. In come cases, the subdivision ordinance allows for administrative
subdivision processes such as lot combinations or lot line adjustments, without a plat
requirement. However, all subdivision must meet the subdivision ordinance standards
and requirements.
As noted by the League of Minnesota Cities, "Subdivision regulations allow cities to
ensure that a new development or redevelopment meets the standards of the city for a
safe, functional and enjoyable community. Importantly, subdivision regulations can help
the city preserve and protect vital natural resources."
Authority of the Commission:
The Planning Commission is responsible for holding public hearings on preliminary
plats, and making formal recommendations to the City Council regarding preliminary
plats. The Commission will also review and make recommendations regarding
administrative subdivisions. The Commission is also responsible for holding public
hearings on amendments or variances to the subdivision ordinance.
4
References:
Monticello Subdivision Ordinance:
https:Hcodelibrary.amlegaI.com/codes/monticellomn/latest/monticello_mn/0-0-0-
23559
League of MN Cities — Subdivision Guide: Subdivision Guide for Cities (Imc.org)
Natural Resource Inventory & Assessment
Monticello has completed and adopted a Natural Resources Inventory & Assessment
(NRI/A), which is recognized as a planning tool within the Monticello 2040 Vison + Plan.
An NRI/A identifies and describes the natural resources within a community, including
wetlands, water courses, woodlands and open spaces. It provides the basis for land
conservation planning, allows natural resource information to be included in local
planning and zoning, and provides communities with a strong foundation for informed
decision -making regarding its natural resources. In some cases, the document is an
inventory only; in Monticello the inventory was supplemented by an assessment, which
provides greater detail on the quality of the resources and references for
implementation strategy.
Monticello's NRI/A identifies ecologically significant resources, such as high -quality
wetlands or undisturbed native plant communities, but also recognizes culturally
significant natural resources.
The NRI/A is used to evaluate development proposals, ranging from plat requests to
individual site planning. It is also used as a background in park and pathway planning
considerations.
Authority of the Commission:
The adoption of the NRI/A does not require a public hearing. However, the Planning
Commission had the opportunity to review the document prior to adoption and
references the document as part of plan review. The City Council adopts the NRI/A.
References:
Monticello NRI/A: Natural Resource Inventory & Assessment I Monticello, MN
5 1 P a g e
Building, Fire & Property Maintenance Codes
The Minnesota State Building Code is the minimum construction standard required
throughout Minnesota, pending its adoption by a local jurisdiction. Monticello has
adopted the Minnesota State Building Code, with specific amendments. AS stated on
the Department of Labor and Industry website: "The State Building Code is intended to
create a level playing field for the construction industry by establishing the
construction standard for all buildings in the state." The Minnesota Fire Code and
International Property Maintenance Code, with amendments specific to Monticello
have also been adopted with amendments by the City of Monticello. Taken together,
these codes further the purpose of protecting health, safety and general welfare.
Authority of the Commission:
Although the Planning Commission has no direct authority over or responsibility for
these codes, which are reviewed and adopted by the City Council, they are noted here
as additional tools used to regulate the development and use of land. The Building
Code is applied and enforced in Monticello by the Department of Building Safety &
Code Enforcement. The Fire Code is jointly reviewed for compliance by the Department
of Building Safety & Fire Marshal. The Chief Building Official and Fire Marshal review
land use applications with the intent of informing applicants of future building and code
requirements as part of the customer service process. The Department of Building
Safety and Code Enforcement also administers the International Property Maintenance
Code and public nuisance ordinances.
References:
Monticello Building Codes:
https://codelibrary.amlegal.com/codes/monticellomn/latest/monticello mn/0-0-0-23328
Monticello Fire Code:
https://codelibrary.amlegal.com/codes/monticellomn/latest/monticello mn/0-0-0-21371
Monticello Nuisance Code:
https://codelibrary.amlegal.com/codes/monticellomn/latest/monticello mn/0-0-0-20682
6 1 P a g e
MONTICELLO DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS
88 acre parcel bounded by The Meadows to the North, Highway 25 to the
West, 85th Street N E to the South, and the Feather —Residential Concept Stage review for a planned unit development for a multi -phase Medical Office Joint City Council and Planning
P r,jectV Commercial/Light Industrial n,ighb,h,,d to the East Buildings an roughly 25 acres, with subsequent phases of private development to follow. Commission review on 3/25/24 On hold
Joint Chv Council and Planning
General Equipment Industrial 13 acre parcel a long CSAH 39 and West Chelsea Road Concept Stage review far planned unit development for Machinery/Truck Repair and Sales Commission revie on 7/2/24 Post Concept Stage BUD, Pre -Development Stage BUD Application Submittal
1PB Land/Meadowbrook
Residential
44 acre parcel along Edmonson Avenue
Concept Stage review far planned unit development for single-family residential
Reviewed in Joint PC/CC on 9/3/24
Concept Stage BUD Submittal
Tamarack/The M eadows at Pioneer Park
Residential
68 acre pe rcels long Fallon Avenue
Concept Stage review for planned unit development for single-family residential
Reviewed in Joint PC/CC on 9/16/24 Concept Stage P UD Submittal
f�
Pe,dl,g Land Use Application Projects
Project Type
Adi
Near the Southeast corner of 85th Street NE and Fallon Ave NE, Also South of
Descr pt on
Concept Stage review far a planned ..it development far a 291 residential
Appr-1 Dal, & Pr�grcs, Rcp.rl
Reviewed by Plannine Commission on Preliminary Plat, Rezoning and Development Stage PU D Application
Haven Ridge West
Residential
85th Street NE between Eislele Ave NE and Edmonson Ave N E
development with various lot sizes and townhome section
8/6/2024'
Approved; Next Submittals fo Final Plat and BUD
6321E. Broadway Street bound by Interstate 94 W the North and East
Development Stage BUD and preliminary plat for a]6-room hotel, 15,000 square -foot event
Reviewed by Plannine Commission on
Broadway Plaza BUD
Commercial
Broadway Street to the South
center, 6,800 square -foot restaurant, and, 6,000 square -foot post -frame building.
] 24
Approved 11.25.24, Annexation Pending
1.46 acre vacant lot a Iongth,Wesiside of Fallon Ave NE between Washburn
Development Stage review for a planned unit development of a vacant site for an Industrial
Reviewed by Planning Commission n Development Stage PU D Application Submittal approved; pending Final
Mas[ercraft Outdoors PUD
A66"i&D
Industrial
Computer Group and Norland Truck Sales
Service use
7/2/24
Stage and Rezoning
Savanna Vista Apartments
Residential
Southeast area of The Pointes at Cedar
2100 unit multi -family apartments
12/13/2021
First Building CO; continued construction
Twin Pines Apartments
Residential
South Side of School Blvd. East of Wal-Mart
96 multi -family unit apartment building
2/28/2022
Yet to Break Ground/Received Plat Ext. on 1/22/24
Block 52 Redevelopment
Mixed -Use
NE Corner of Highway 25 and Broadway St
87 multi -family units with rougly 30,000 sail ft of lst floor commercial
71 2022
Received Temporary CO/Residenial Units Being Rented/Office User CO
Featherstone 6th Addition
Residential
North of85th St NE and West of HiRhwav 25
215inRle-family lots with commercially Ruided outlets forfuture development
4/25/2022
Under Construction (Last New Const. Permit Pulled)
Haven Ridge 2nd Addition
Residential
South of Farmstead Ave and West of Fallon Ave NE
59 Single -Family Lot Development
Reapproved 8/28/2023
Site Grading Commenced (Building Permits Being Issued)
Headwaters West Development
Residential
AlonR South side of 7th St W between Elm St and Golf Course Rd
82 Twinhomes Senior 55+Development
4/22/2024
Under Construction
Deephaven 3(Lot 2)
Commercial
Southeast corner of Cedar St and Chelsea Rd
New Construction of a Clinic/Medical Service FaciliW(10,000 so fit)
N/A (Permitted Use)
Completed
Jimmy Johns/Baskin Robbi ns
Commercial
Southeast Corner of Oakwood Drive E and Cedar Street
New Construction of quick Service Resta u rant with Drive -Through Service
1222024
Commenced
Vacant property north of Chelsea Rd, south of Interstate 94, and west of
BUD for New Construction of two commercial lots for a quick -service restaurant and
Big River
Commercial
Forming Avenue
a coffee shop, with 6 lots platted for subsequent commercial development.
482024
Commenced, Chipotle and Starbucks Permitted
New Construction of a Panora Bread Location (Restaurant and Drive -through service) in the
Panora Bread
Commercial
Vacant Lot west of Mattress Firm/AT&T location on E. 7th Street
B-4, Regional Business District
5 28 2024
Permitted
Holiday Store EV Charging Stations
Commercial
110 Oakwood Drive E.
Installation of up to 12 Electric Vehicle Charging Stations in Lot behind Building
5282024
Permitted
Preliminary & Final Plat of Cedar Street Storage, Dev. & Final Stage PUD for expansion of
StoragaUnk (Dundas Site) BUD and Plat
Commercial
36 Dundas Road (Southeast corner of Dundas Road and Cedar Street)
permanent storage area
6 24 2024
Approved; Not Started
Conditional Use Permit Request far Wrecker & Towing Service as a Principal Use in the B-3,
Bob's Towing Conditional Use Permit
Commercial
219 Sandberg Road
Highway Business District
6242024
Approved
Development Stage Permit (CUP) far construction of a 91 hotel and restaurant in the
Development Stage permit approved; pending conditions resolution and
GoedNeighber- Pointe, at Cedar Development
Commercial
Along south side of Chelsea Road directly north of Deephaven Apartments
northern"Pepulus' hiomeofthe Pointes at Cedar District
7222024
building permit
Wendy's CUP
Commercial
Near Highland Way, Union Crossings
Conditional Use Permit for Amendment to BUD and accessory drive -through
9 23 2024
Approved
Valvoline
Cemmercial
Big River 445 BUD
Arndt to Big River 445 BUD and Development and Final State PUD - Auto Repair - Minor
10/28/2024
Approved
Les Schwab
Commercial
Big River 445 BUD ■
Arndt to Big River 445 BUD and Developmentand Final Stale BUD -Auto Repair - Minor
W/28/2024
Approved ,