Loading...
Planning Commission Agenda - 06/03/2025 AGENDA REGULAR MEETING – PLANNING COMMISSION June 3, 2025 – 6:00 p.m. Mississippi Room, Monticello Community Center Commissioners: Chair Andrew Tapper, Vice-Chair Melissa Robeck, Rick Kothenbeutel, Teri Lehner, Rob Stark Council Liaison: Councilmember Kip Christianson Staff: Angela Schumann, Steve Grittman, Bob Ferguson, Tyler Bevier 1. General Business A. Call to Order B. Roll Call C. Consideration of Additional Agenda Items D. Approval of Agenda E. Approval of Meeting Minutes • Regular Meeting Minutes – May 6, 2025 F. Citizen Comment 2. Public Hearings A. Continued Public Hearing - Consideration of a Request for an Amendment to the Monticello City Code, Title XV, Land Usage, Chapter 153: Zoning Ordinance, Section 153.044 Business Base Zoning Districts, Central Community District for standards applicable to Parking and 153.067 Off-Street Parking, Standards applicable to commercial, industrial and civic/institutional uses in the Central Community District (CCD). Applicant: City of Monticello 3. Regular Agenda 4. Other Business A. Community Development Director’s Report 5. Adjournment MINUTES REGULAR MEETING – PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday, May 6, 2025 - 6:00 p.m. Mississippi Room, Monticello Community Center Commissioners Present: Chair Andrew Tapper, Vice Chair Melissa Robeck, Rick Kothenbeutel, Teri Lehner, Rob Stark Council Liaison Present: Kip Christianson Staff Present: Community Development Director Angela Schumann, City Planner Steve Grittman, Bob Ferguson, Tyler Bevier 1. General Business A. Call to Order Chair Andrew Tapper called the regular meeting of the Monticello Planning Commission to order at 6:00 p.m. B. Roll Call Andrew Tapper called the roll. C. Consideration of Additional Agenda Items None. D. Approval of Agenda MELISSA ROBECK MOVED TO APPROVE THE MAY 6, 2025 REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING AGENDA. ROB STARK SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY, 5-0. E. Approval of Meeting Minutes • Regular Meeting Minutes – April 1, 2025 TERI LEHNER MOVED TO APPROVE THE APRIL 1, 2025 REGULAR MEETING MINUTES. RICK KOTHENBEUTEL SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY, 5-0. • Workshop Meeting Minutes – March 4, 2025 ANDREW TAPPER MOVED TO APPROVE THE MARCH 4, 2025 WORKSHOP MEETING MINUTES. TERI LEHNER SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY, 5-0. F. Citizen Comment None. 2. Public Hearings A. Continued Public Hearing - Consideration of a Request for an Amendment to the Monticello City Code, Title XV, Land Usage, Chapter 153: Zoning Ordinance, Planning Commission Regular Meeting Minutes – 05/06/2025 2 Section 153.044 Business Base Zoning Districts, Central Community District for standards applicable to Parking and 153.067 Off-Street Parking, Standards applicable to commercial, industrial and civic/institutional uses in the Central Community District (CCD). Applicant: City of Monticello Community Development Director Angela Schumann reminded Commission of the item discussed from the April 2025 agenda. Schumann spoke to the memo outlining the amendment and of comments from Commissioners for direction. Staff continues preparing a list of amendments and is asking to continue the matter for public hearing to June 2025. ANDREW TAPPER MOVED TO CONTINUE THE HEARING TO THE REGULAR MEETING OF JUNE 3, 2025 AND POSTPONE ACTION ON THE REQUEST UNTIL THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO JUNE 3, 2025, AND TO FURTHER DIRECT STAFF TO PREPARE AN ORDINANCE FOR REVIEW BASED ON PLANNING COMMISSION DIRECTION AS STATED. MELISSA ROBECK SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY, 5-0. B. Consideration of a request for a Conditional Use Permit for an Accessory Structure - Major in the R-1, Single Family Residential District with a driveway leading to the detached structure in the rear yard. Applicant: Benjamin Roberg Angela Schumann reminded Commissioners of the applicant’s previously applied-for Conditional Use Permit (CUP) in 2023 which has expired and walked through the requirements for new CUP application process. Councilmember Liaison Kip Christianson arrived at the Planning Commission meeting at 6:05 P.M. Angela Schumann explained that the existing detached structure will be required to be removed to maintain the maximum square footage threshold for detached accessory structures. The proposed structure will match the principal structure and design and will meet all setback requirements. Angela Schumann walked through the submitted prior survey to showcase the proposed driveway extended to the accessory structure; the driveway will need to meet the 3-foot setback and accurately dimension the setback and specify the paving materials. The code has flexibility in the materials, with staff recommending paving materials preferred. The driveway would be subject to the parking ordinance. Angela Schumann spoke to the criteria of the CUP for accessory use and the conditions in Exhibit Z. Angela Schumann stated that an updated certificate of survey is required, the proposed structure is for personal storage and shop use only, the CUP requires removal of minor accessory structure and no business use Planning Commission Regular Meeting Minutes – 05/06/2025 3 authorized in structure, and that exterior finish materials are to match existing home in material type and color, and home occupation is per code. Chairperson Tapper asked about the change in terms from the prior application. Angela Schumann responded that the current application includes the removal of gables and exterior staircases at the partial second-story addition of the structure. Andrew Tapper opened the public hearing portion of the agenda item. Hearing no public comment, Andrew Tapper closed the public hearing portion of the agenda item. TERI LEHNER MOVED TO ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. PC-2025-18 RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR AN ACCESSORY STRUCTURE- MAJOR IN THE R-1, SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT WITH A DRIVEWAY LEADING TO THE DETACHED STRUCTURE IN THE REAR YARD, 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 a request for Preliminary Plat of Meadows at Pioneer Park; Development Stage Planned Unit Development; Rezoning to Planned Unit Development for proposed 157 single-family residential development in the Monticello Orderly Annexation Area (MOAA), currently guided as low-density residential. Applicant: Reid Schulz City Planner Steve Grittman presented the staff analysis on the proposed preliminary plat and planned unit development, stating the land use guidance as low-density residential for this area, located on the south side of the community. Steve Grittman explained that the proposal will require an annexation process on a parallel track. Mr. Grittman stated that as part of the decision-making process, the Commissioners will consider the Monticello 2040 Vision + Plan density at 3-6 units per acre for Low Density residential land use and the residential amenities typically required in the corresponding R-1 district. The applicant has used both R-1, or Single Family Residential, and Transitional Neighborhood (T-N) residential standards for comparison in the proposed PUD. Steve Grittman spoke to the layout of street connections to the north with the Cardinal Hills development. Steve Grittman noted the angular open area reserved for gas line easement which is unbuildable. With reference to the south, there is a connection to 85th Street NE near the Haven Ridge development, and future extension of roadway northwest to Fallon Drive NE, with a connection to the east at future “Robin Street”. The project is proposed with a phasing plan to address the timing of these location points, which assists Planning Commission Regular Meeting Minutes – 05/06/2025 4 in determining how much of the project can be developed at a time to maintain access for the newly developed and existing areas. Steve Grittman spoke to the proposed net density at 3.1 to 3.3 acres, with 95 lots proposed at 65 ft. width, and 52 lots at 45 ft. in width. He noted the request for 7.5 ft. side yard setbacks, outside of the standard R-1 or T-N allows. Lot areas range from 7,000 to 8,000 square feet, with the 65 ft. lots measuring 8,000- 10,000 square feet. Steve Grittman spoke to issues raised by staff regarding the various outlots. One suggestion for the outlot along the gas line easement is for the lot lines to be extended to the middle of the easement. This addresses the concern of maintenance and landownership which could be overlooked if left an outlot. Steve Grittman addressed other outlots throughout the development, noting the proposal is to transfer wetland or stormwater ponds to the City. He also noted other measures proposed for flexibility to the number of units and the layout. Steve Grittman spoke to the standards for reasonable amount of visitor parking scattered throughout areas of the development, of common area space to accommodate a residential mailbox station, and additional amenity areas. Per the planned unit development agreement, the use and design of said outlots will be key. Steve Grittman noted that there is a long stretch of uninterrupted block that exceeds the subdivision code for block length. The proposed residential block is more than 1,000 linear feet, where the code requires 600 feet. t=This block length is difficult to find relief without dividing long lengths of land. He suggested that the length could be broken by communal space access or open space. He also commented on the need to understand how private outlots will be maintained and remain accessible. Maintenance of smaller lots is another concern, particularly exterior lot landscaping work and snow plowing. Steve Grittman spoke to these conditions which are typically managed by homeowner’s associations. The relationship of building size to lot size and who will maintain exterior areas needs clarification moving forward, including clarification between maintenance for the 45-foot lots and the 65-foot lots. Steve Grittman spoke to the grading and extension at the future “Robin Street”. The conditions require a viable connection to the east to support future new development. The applicant will also need to address the retaining walls at the east which fall within the existing gas line easement; they are required for grading purposes. It is also recommended that the plans and walls be revised such that any retaining walls fall outside of the scope of City maintained property and are then otherwise managed by common entity or the HOA. Steve Grittman stated that a turn-around location at the dead-end of “Robin Street” would need to be determined as a maintenance measure for the public Planning Commission Regular Meeting Minutes – 05/06/2025 5 street, with appropriate signage and barricade for future through street extension. Steve Grittman referred to the park dedication recommendation with a mix of land dedication and cash-in-lieu credit for park trails providing connections to existing parks. Steve Grittman also summarized the other noted conditions of in Exhibit Z, including those related to home design and plan revision. These conditions are recommended by staff for any approval consideration by the Commission. Chair Andrew Tapper asked for clarification on the traffic study. Angela Schumann stated the study was included by the applicant and that the City engineer’s comments reference said study, including key points and comments throughout the development pertaining to stop signs, curb extensions, and other infrastructure components. Councilmember Kip Christianson asked where might a similar development exist in the City having 45-foot lots. Steve Grittman stated that recently the City has received more common requests for 65-foot lots. Kip Christianson asked Mr. Grittman if he was aware of other communities with 45-foot lots. Maple Grove and St. Michael were provided as examples by Mr. Grittman and with adequate time for research, a list could be considered and available for Commission to review. Angela Schumann spoke to Sunset Ponds having detached single-family units with approximately 52-foot wide lots. Andrew Tapper if lots and foundation plans were received. Steve Grittman spoke to the grading plan within the report. Andrew Tapper inquired on the roadway authority for 85th Street NE. Steve Grittman indicated that the street is under City jurisdiction for maintenance in this area. He noted it was originally intended as a regional road and was a primary route when still within Township regulation. As a part of the Haven Ridge development, 85th Street NE has been proposed to be diverted for a roundabout, leading to Fallon Avenue toward the west as the primary collector, and would return to local road status when complete. Andrew Tapper opened the public hearing portion of the agenda item. Barb and Steve Berndtson, 9050 Heron Court, asked about the lot sizes discussed at the past meetings and questioned how the City benefits from the proposed development. Stormwater runoff is also a concern on Heron Court where it could collect further into the wetland. Speaking to the tree allowance per lot and utility gas line easement, Ms. Berndtson suggested the added depth of the lot might cause increased outdoor storage issues. Sandra Hennessy, 5330 Mallard Lane, spoke to water runoff concerns behind Mallard Lane and suggested a retention pond or other stormwater collection measures to avoid backyards from flooding. Ms. Hennessy also spoke to the Planning Commission Regular Meeting Minutes – 05/06/2025 6 roadway into the Cardinal Hills development potentially increasing traffic flow and speed through the neighborhood. Ms. Hennessy spoke to the lack of trees proposed, in comparison, to the existing significant trees in her development. She stated her concerns that the lots are too small and spoke to the potential unkempt backyard debris. Ms. Hennessy referred to the pathway expansion between two collection ponds and a needed fence along both sides for safety and neighboring property damage deterrents. Jim Quast, 5250 Mallard Lane, asked if future “Tanager Circle” might be the only proposed access into the Cardinal Hills development and how it will function for the 157 added houses to the area. Andrew Tapper responded that there are three access points for the development. Mr. Quast spoke on increased traffic of additional residents through the neighborhood and of safety measures for others traveling on-foot, suggesting placement of sidewalks or speedbumps, and spoke to the walking path extension. Mr. Quast stated that he is not in favor of smaller lot sizes. Laura Bishop, 8820 Farmstead Avenue, stated concerns as to the traffic increase of ATVs and other vehicles driving too fast in the area. Ms. Bishop stated that she is not in favor of the 157 housing units having only one access at 85th Street NE, causing congestion and increased speeds on Fallon. Reid Schulz, applicant and representative for Tamarack Land Development, address the Commission. He spoke to the concept review previously before Planning Commission and Council in fall 2024, explaining that the plans presented are consistent with the concept. Mr. Schulz spoke to the relationship with Monticello on past projects, of other communities in the Twin Cities area, and the national network platform with other developers. Mr. Schulz explained how Monticello was spatially selected for this development, and to the potential future growth for first-time or second-generational homebuyers at affordable costs. Reid Schulz spoke to “clustered” neighborhoods as a means to address construction costs for the buyer of the lots. Mr. Schulz addressed the proposed landscaping plan including two trees per lot; lots with one tree planted in front of 45-foot lots and buffer trees within the corridor. He stated that stormwater is a recognized concern and considered by engineering; will work closely with staff on the stormwater design to satisfy all requirements of the City and watershed districts. Andrew Tapper asked about the recommendation for lot line extension into the natural gas easement. Reid Schulz responded, stating that each community addresses utilities differently when adhering to regulations pertaining to the easement. He did not object to the condition. Planning Commission Regular Meeting Minutes – 05/06/2025 7 Andrew Tapper noted the depicted outlot D and asked of its future use. Reid Schulz proposed it may have been designed as a stormwater basin; they are happy to look at alternatives. Rick Kothenbeutel spoke to another development of similar nature currently being built in Buffalo with smaller lot sizes and questioned why Monticello is asked to allow 45-foot lots when others of similarity do not include this lot width. Reid Schulz recognized and named the development and then spoke of the national builder working on the project. Each community is different in that builders offer a variety of housing units, or “products” based on the needs of the community. Reid Schulz indicated that the building contractors are looking at the land and the needs from a planning perspective and how to make it work with their available products and standards. Comparing the Buffalo project to Monticello in how they are similar or different is difficult; the costs and demands are unique to each community’s needs and land allowance. Council member Kip Christianson inquired about the trees and landscaping in front yards on the 45-foot lots, with staggered planting for clarification. Mr. Schulz confirmed. Kip Christianson asked the applicant to speak to the density of housing units proposed, particularly noting easements and stormwater on this site. Reid Schulz said Monticello is not subject to the Metropolitan Council standards for density goals. He explained that clustered developments of a low-impact design consider factors like easements, buffers, and wetlands, within the available land and can support additional development density in those areas. He stated that this statement is not to suggest that this development should support more dense development, they have not run numbers to support additional development on the subject site. He noted there are areas within the subject property that could be designed to support more units. Mr. Christianson stated that the community is not necessarily looking for more density. He also noted his understanding that the developer’s role is to come up with a plan for this unique piece of land that will work for a builder, including modifications to the City’s ordinance. He stated that he also is looking to understand how the proposed building standards negotiated with staff will be translated to builders. Reid Schulz confirmed that in the past, builders had proposed both development and building; that has shifted to lot development by others and then those lots are sold to national builders. He stated it is their goal to have a builder on board when the plan is presented to the Council. Reid Schulz said the applicant is presenting enhanced architectural features, landscape improvements, trail amenities, and open spaces to give back to the community; to enhance the development with flexibility on lot sizes. Reid Schulz spoke briefly to the relationship of developer to land seller to builder-buyer and factors to recoup capital amid a fluctuating economy and how to make the pricing and development work in the area. Planning Commission Regular Meeting Minutes – 05/06/2025 8 Kip Christianson asked of the economics if lots were to adhere to 65-foot setbacks. Reid Schulz stated the proposal would not work with all lots at 65 feet without some concessions from other entities. The 45-foot lots and the density allow for better financial appeal. He also noted it would be new product type; he confirmed that they are slab-on-grade housing units. Reid Schulz spoke to the economics as the driving factor of the matrix in how and what the future builder will design and create, and, if outside of the applicant’s proposed fixed-financial scope, another community will be considered for the proposed development. Andrew Tapper noted that the report requires an anti-monotony standard and how a proposed builder may receive this, as the applicant is the developer, not the builder. Reid Schulz stated that they have no issue with that and that national builders have a variety of standards for aesthetics and architecture to accommodate this requirement. Hearing no other public comment, Andrew Tapper closed the public hearing portion of the agenda item. Rick Kothenbeutel spoke to struggling with approval of 45-foot lots, based on public comments and anticipated outcomes. He recognized that is a great piece of property and that they could work with transportation components. Rick Kothenbeutel stated the design could be better. He suggested a lower percentage of smaller units for the development; the proposed suggests 50%. Mr. Kothenbeutel was not in favor of the density to be created with the 45-foot lots. ANDREW TAPPER MOVED TO ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. PC-2025-22 RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF A REQUEST FOR A DEVELOPMENT STAGE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT FOR THE MEADOWS AT PIONEER PARK, A PROPOSED 157 LOT SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT, SUBJECT TO THE CONDITIONS IN EXHIBIT Z AND BASED ON FINDINGS IN SAID RESOLUTION. MOTION FAILED FOR LACK OF A SECOND. TERI LEHNER MOVED TO ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. PC-2025-22 RECOMMENDING DENIAL OF A REQUEST FOR A DEVELOPMENT STAGE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT FOR THE MEADOWS AT PIONEER PARK FOR PROPOSED 157 LOT SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT, BASED ON FINDINGS TO BE MADE BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND DIRECTING STAFF TO PREPARE THE RESOLUTION AND AUTHORIZING THE CHAIR TO EXECUTE SAID RESOLUTION. RICK KOTHENBEUTEL SECONDED THE MOTION. Mr. Grittman noted that the Commission will need to note their findings for the record for purposes of preparation of the resolution as a record of official action. Teri Lehner stated that she concurs with Commissioner Kothenbeutel’s comments on the number of 45-foot lots and stated that a smaller percentage might be proposed other than what was presented. Planning Commission Regular Meeting Minutes – 05/06/2025 9 Andrew Tapper spoke to not being opposed to the lot size due to the unique nature of products to suit the space with aesthetic appeal. He noted that he has seen where these lots and products work well. Andrew Tapper indicated that his concerns related to the proposed road structure. He noted the traffic report’s support for including an added four-way stop at Mallard and future “Tanager” intersection, somewhat addressing the public concern for this point. He stated that there is a challenge for this project in that there is no strong road outlet feature; the outlets are into the Cardinal Hills neighborhood and the additional traffic through that neighborhood are his major considerations. Rick Kothenbeutel spoke to wetlands and buffering, per Exhibit Z. Angela Schumann explained that the proposal is to retain the majority of the existing, identified, and delineated wetlands and provide for a wetland buffer. The applicant is required to provide information on the quality of wetlands to verify the width of buffer required. She also noted that the applicant will be required to submit the replacement and mitigation application and process for the smaller wetland within the development. Andew Tapper confirmed the location of the wetland to be mitigated. Melissa Robeck indicated that her concern is also the large amount of smaller lot sizes proposed. Kip Christianson spoke to the tricky nature of the encumbered parcel. He stated that the 45-foot lots are an interesting approach to address development concerns at this phase of the proposal, considering the board’s desire to move away from attached single-family homes at past meeting discussions. Kip Christianson noted the Commission’s concerns regarding limiting the amount of smaller homes; stated his interest to see how economics work with the parameters in lieu of townhomes. Community members have expressed not wanting townhomes within single-family home developments and agrees that too many smaller lots at once is presented. Commissioner Tapper called for a vote on the motion on the floor. MOTION PASSED 4 – 1, ANDREW TAPPER VOTING AGAINST. Andrew Tapper inquired whether the Commission should proceed with the other decisions. Staff confirmed. Andrew Tapper confirmed the next motion is for rezoning to PUD. TERI LEHNER MOVED TO ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. PC-2025-23 RECOMMENDING DENIAL OF THE ZONING DISTRICT AMENDMENT ADDING THE MEADOWS AT PIONEER PARK PUD DISTRICT AND REZONING TO PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT FOR MEADOWS AT PIONEER PARK, A PROPOSED 157 LOT SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT, AND REZONING THE PROPOSED LOT 1, BLOCK 11 TO R-1, BASED ON FINDINGS TO BE MADE BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND Planning Commission Regular Meeting Minutes – 05/06/2025 10 DIRECTING STAFF TO PREPARE THE RESOLUTION AND AUTHORIZING THE CHAIR TO EXECUTE SAID RESOLUTION. MELISSA ROBECK SECONDED THE MOTION. Steve Grittman reminded the Commission of the need to state findings and whether or not the applicant has met their burden for use of PUD. To that point, Andrew Tapper reiterated the consensus heard in public comments, as well as the consensus of the Commission that the is City giving too much to allow the extent of flexibility within the planned unit development. Kip Christianson spoke to the complexity of the parcel and noted that the existing Cardinal Hills street design accommodates access and connection from this area and regardless of final decision on this proposal, that street connection is likely to be expected. Andrew Tapper concurred. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY, 5-0. Councilmember Christianson also noted that the change in zoning from compliance with base R-1 standards to a PUD does increase the potential for traffic as a matter of finding for the zoning decision. TERI LEHNER MOVED TO ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. PC-2025-021 RECOMMENDING DENIAL OF A REQUEST FOR THE PRELIMINARY PLAT OF MEADOWS AT PIONEER PARK, A PROPOSED 157 LOT SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION, BASED ON FINDINGS TO BE MADE BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND DIRECTING STAFF TO PREPARE THE RESOLUTION AND AUTHORIZING THE CHAIR TO EXECUTE SAID RESOLUTION. ROB STARK SECONDED THE MOTION. Andrew Tapper stated that findings had been made on the prior motions and apply to this decision. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY, 5-0. A six-minute recess was called at 7:54 p.m. Meeting called back to order at 8:00 p.m. D.Consideration of an Amendment to the Monticello 2040 Vision + Plan (Comprehensive Plan), Chapter 3, “Land Use, Growth and Orderly Annexation” reguiding certain parcels from their existing Estate Residential, Commercial and Residential Flex, and Mixed Neighborhood designations to Light Industrial Park designation. Applicant: Scannell Properties, LLC City Planner Steve Grittman addressed the Commission on the request for an amendment of the Monticello Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map, reguiding the subject area from its current land use designations guided to “Light Industrial Park” (LIP). Steve Gritmann referred to the applicant’s prior concept Planning Commission Regular Meeting Minutes – 05/06/2025 11 workshop. The applicant shared a preliminary layout at that time; those aspects are not the consideration of the request. Steve Grittman explained that the process for reguiding land use is laid out in the zoning ordinance. The ordinance lays out a series of guiding considerations. The first and essential consideration is whether the proposed amendment corrects an error or addresses a changing condition or trend since adoption of the plan. Mr. Grittman stated that the change relates to the horizon for data centers since the time of the plan’s adoption. The idea that the city would modify the land use plans to address this land use is to address the text of the plan to determine if and how to accommodate data centers. He stated that the city had adopted language into the Light Industrial Park land use designation. Then next step to address is standards, process, and rules for data center operation. For consideration of a map amendment, the effect would be a change to the map to LIP. It does not necessarily mean that a data center would be developed here; that would be subject to future application. Steve Grittman stated that the change supports consideration but does not compel the City to approve the change. Other considerations include compatibility with surrounding land use, availability of utilities, and consistency with other Comprehensive Plan goals. Mr. Grittman noted that City’s goals for stabilization and creation of tax base, as well as the creation of living wage jobs. Data centers create tax base but are more limited in job creation. Steve Grittman noted the surrounding land uses, including the large lot rural residential to the west and south, and the presence of the Bertram Chain of Lakes Park to the north. One of the aspects of future considerations will be the buffering of industrial uses to these other land uses. This would be a consideration for any light industrial use and may be more compelling for more intense light industrial uses. Steve Grittman stated that in staff’s view, the light industrial park is a reasonable land use consideration and consistent with the considerations for amendment. He suggested that the City will need to consider where to replace the Estate Residential land use and if this area develops as data center, how to accommodate more traditional light industrial park land area. He noted there is no Exhibit Z. Andrew Tapper inquired if the amendment was approved and if the proposed data center does not come to fruition, does the designation of LIP remain and under Monticello authority. Steve Grittman confirmed that the designation of land use will continue under City authority and is also subject to applicable zoning and subdivision regulations. Andrew Tapper spoke to the difference between the land reguidance with the concept of the subject land potentially becoming a data center versus Planning Commission Regular Meeting Minutes – 05/06/2025 12 envisioning the impacts to the traffic a light-industrial enterprise might bring. He also noted the unique nature of the location and the complexities it encompasses. The complexity and difference between a data center and other light industrial prospects is a consideration. Steve Grittman suggested that the Commissioners should consider the land use guidance and future zoning providing the necessary protections; he suggested that the decision is to review the best use of the land with appropriate controls and whether it is a compatible land-use pattern with neighboring parcels. Rick Kothenbeutel spoke to current events reported in the media on withdrawing data centers and asked how corrective zoning might be addressed. Steve Gritmann said if the reguidance is approved, the City still maintains land use jurisdiction and the area could be considered for future amendments. He also stated that any industrial use would require rezoning. The comprehensive plan is considered as groundwork, or step one of the development process, with other regulations for staff or Commission to address at a later time. Andrew Tapper opened the public hearing portion of the agenda item. Hearing no public comment, Andrew Tapper closed the public hearing portion of the agenda item. MELISSA ROBECK MOVED TO ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. PC-2025-19 RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF AN AMENDMENT TO THE MONTICELLO 2040 VISION + PLAN (COMPREHENSIVE PLAN), CHAPTER 3, “LAND USE, GROWTH AND ORDERLY ANNEXATION” RE-GUIDING CERTAIN PARCELS FROM THEIR EXISTING ESTATE RESIDENTIAL, COMMERCIAL AND RESIDENTIAL FLEX, AND MIXED NEIGHBORHOOD DESIGNATIONS TO LIGHT INDUSTRIAL PARK DESIGNATION, SUBJECT TO THE CONDITIONS IN EXHIBIT Z AND BASED ON FINDINGS IN SAID RESOLUTION. ROB STARK SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY, 5-0. E.Consideration of a request for Amendment to the Red Rooster Planned Unit Development for changes related to the building expansion for vehicle use and storage. Applicant: Brian Jovan/Jovan Properties LLC Steve Grittman provided an overview of the agenda item, explaining the history of the existing PUD through a series of uses and buildings dating back to 2017. Steve Grittman stated that the proposed amendment is for an expansion of an existing building and removal of the non-conforming buildings and structures for the new replacement, if approved. The proposed building expansion would abut the parcel to the south zoned Heavy Industrial (I-2). Steve Grittman noted that the property is adjoining a portion of the same PUD to the east. Steve Grittman stated that while the ordinance would typically require paving and curbing of circulation and parking areas with an expansion, Exhibit Z Planning Commission Regular Meeting Minutes – 05/06/2025 13 conditions would allow the applicant to keep and maintain gravel surface as proposed by the applicant. Steve Grittman spoke to the delineation from gravel to pavement, the shared driveway, and landscaping and easement maintenance. Although the proposal does not fully meet current City code, the presented improvements demonstrate progress toward better mitigation. Andrew Tapper opened the public hearing portion of the agenda item. Brian Jovan, 100 Chelsea Road, addressed the Commission as applicant and owner. Andrew Tapper inquired about the proposed screening for the proposed addition, where it was located in context to streetside view and spoke to potential tree removal, per depiction. Brian Jovan stated that he obtained the parcel in 2017 and is not familiar with the history other than the lumber yard that was in operation dating back into the mid-2000s. Andrew Tapper noted the pines pictured along the fence line of the neighboring parcel. Brian Jovan said no trees have existed throughout the duration of ownership. Andrew Tapper referenced the proposed screening condition to the applicant. Brian Jovan responded that the proposed improvements will support improved aesthetics and equipment storage purposes and agrees that screening would visually help. He noted that the lean-to, or cold storage open-sided addition would provide shelter for loading and storage for trailers that are outside at present. Andrew Tapper closed the public hearing portion of the agenda item. ANDREW TAPPER MOVED TO ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. PC-2025-24 RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF AN AMENDMENT TO THE RED ROOSTER PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT FOR CHANGES RELATED TO THE BUILDING EXPANSION FOR VEHICLE USE AND STORAGE, SUBJECT TO THE CONDITIONS IN EXHIBIT Z AND BASED ON FINDINGS IN SAID RESOLUTION. MELISSA ROBECK SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY, 5-0. F.Consideration of a request for an Amendment to the Conditional Use Permit for Planned Unit Development for Carcone Second Addition, for interim improvements to support the land use of vehicle sales, display and storage. Applicant: Aeron Ashbrook Steve Grittman addressed the Commission on the request to amend an existing CUP for PUD. The request involves interim improvements to expand the vehicle sales use on a portion of the easterly parcel, which would allow the applicant to occupy the land on an interim period while full improvement plans are yet to be identified. Mr. Grittman then spoke to the timelines and conditions of the PUD as listed in Exhibit Z. Andrew Tapper asked for clarification on the acreage of the lot depicted on the survey. He noted having questions on the area concerning grade, the proximity Planning Commission Regular Meeting Minutes – 05/06/2025 14 of unpaved Marvin Road, and for stormwater management. Andrew Tapper suggested revisions to the conditions to incur a penalty if permanent improvements are not completed by a specified date. Steve Grittman responded, noting the the staff report’s condition for approval and maintenance review by City Engineering, including the standard City stormwater management review process, for grading, drainage, and erosion control, permitted according to acreage. Andrew Tapper opened the public hearing portion of the agenda item. Hearing no public comment on the request, Andrew Tapper closed the public hearing portion of the agenda item. ROB STARK MOVED TO ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. PC-2025-20 RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF AN AMENDMENT TO THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT FOR CARCONE SECOND ADDITION, FOR INTERIM IMPROVEMENTS TO SUPPORT THE LAND USE OF VEHICLE SALES, DISPLAY AND STORAGE SUBJECT TO THE CONDITIONS IN EXHIBIT Z AND BASED ON FINDINGS IN SAID RESOLUTION. TERI LEHNER SECONDED THE MOTION. Discussion proceeded with comment on record by Mr. Tapper concerning stormwater and the vulnerable grassy area and spoke to relying on engineers’ analysis and recommendations for his consideration. Mr. Tapper indicated that the public hearing was closed, but allowed the applicant to speak for further discussion and to address the Commission. Jeff Sell, applicant and for Sell Real Estate Holdings LLC, 1001 State Highway 25 South, addressed the Commission. He stated that the proposal is intended to secure and convert the land from grass to impervious surface, a required compliance with General Motors (GM), and future study of the use of the parcel in question and area surrounding. A new facility is envisioned for the future; the final placement and acreage allowance is pending based on discussions within the two-year agreement with GM. Mr. Sell spoke of his standing success within the Monticello community and of business retention to stay in the same location. Mr. Tapper said he hoped he was incorrect about the land being vulnerable and is grateful to Mr. Sell’s business within the community, despite his personal stance with the land conditions and characteristics. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY, 5-0. 3. Regular Agenda None. 4. Other Business A. Community Development Director’s Report Planning Commission Regular Meeting Minutes – 05/06/2025 15 Community Development Director Angela Schumann provided updates on the report. Angela Schumann spoke to the housing workshop meeting held on March 31 with discussions and to future consideration of amendments to the 2040 Plan to incorporate the direction and goals of the policy boards slated for June 2025. No action was taken on the agenda item. 5. Adjournment TERI LEHNER MOVED TO ADJOURN THE MAY 6, 2025 REGULAR MEETING OF THE MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION. MELISSA ROBECK SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY, 5-0. MEETING ADJOURNED AT 8:59 P.M. Planning Commission Agenda – 06/03/2025 1 2A. Continued Public Hearing - Consideration of a request for an Amendment to the Monticello City Code, Title XV, Land Usage, Chapter 153: Zoning Ordinance, Section 153.044 Business Base Zoning Districts, Central Community District for standards applicable to Parking and 153.067 Off-Street Parking, Standards applicable to commercial, industrial and civic/institutional uses in the Central Community District (CCD). Applicant: City of Monticello Prepared by: Grittman Consulting, Stephen Grittman, City Planner Meeting Date: 06/03/2025 Council Date (pending Commission action): 06/23/2025 Additional Analysis by: Community Development Director, Community & Economic Development Coordinator ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS 1. Motion to adopt Resolution 2025-016 recommending approval of Ordinance No. 8XX Amendment to the Monticello City Code, Title XV, Land Usage, Chapter 153: Zoning Ordinance, Section 153.044 Business Base Zoning Districts, Central Community District for standards applicable to Parking and 153.067 Off-Street Parking, Standards applicable to commercial, industrial and civic/institutional uses in the Central Community District (CCD), based on findings in said resolution. 2. Motion to adopt Resolution No. PC-2025-16 recommending denial of Ordinance No. 8XX Amendment to the Monticello City Code, Title XV, Land Usage, Chapter 153: Zoning Ordinance, Section 153.044 Business Base Zoning Districts, Central Community District for standards applicable to Parking and 153.067 Off-Street Parking, Standards applicable to commercial, industrial and civic/institutional uses in the Central Community District (CCD), based on findings in said resolution, based on findings to be made by the Planning Commission and directing staff to prepare the resolution and authorizing the Chair to execute said resolution. 3. Motion to continue the hearing to the Planning Commission regular meeting of July 1, 2025 and postpone action on Resolution No. PC-2025-16. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND Property: Legal Description: City of Monticello PID #: City of Monticello Planning Commission Agenda – 06/03/2025 2 Planning Case Number: 2025-14 Request(s): An Amendment to the Monticello City Code, Title XV, Land Usage, Chapter 153: Zoning Ordinance, Section 153.044 Business Base Zoning Districts, Central Community District for standards applicable to Parking and 153.067 Off-Street Parking, Standards applicable to commercial, industrial and civic/institutional uses in the Central Community District (CCD). Deadline for Decision: NA Land Use Designation: Downtown Mixed Use - DMU Zoning Designation: Central Community District - CCD Overlays/Environmental Regulations Applicable: NA Current Site Uses: Downtown Monticello Project Description: Consideration of amendments related to parking requirements for the Central Community District. ANALYSIS: A series of amendments to various sections of the zoning ordinance regulating off-street parking are proposed. The amendments relate to both general restaurant parking calculations, as well as regulations specific to downtown parking requirements. The amendments proposed are consistent with direction provided by the Planning Commission on potential ordinance amendment options presented during the April regular meeting. A short summary of the amendments follows. Central Community District Ordinance – Section 153.044 (G) Section 1: Proposes to extend the walking distance for eligible parking when evaluating feasibility of payment into the parking fund. Currently, the City calculates the available parking within 400’ of the primary entrance. The amendment increases the distance to 450’. This increase supports the Downtown Small Area Plan “park once strategy”, which encourages multiple visits to downtown destinations, although they will only park once. The amendment also recognizes that a City block has a distance of 330’; the longer distance proposed allows for walking one- and one-half block between Planning Commission Agenda – 06/03/2025 3 parking and a destination. The proposed amendment further details how the 450’ distance is measured. Finally, this section of amendments clarifies the timeline for City review of the required parking study for payment into the parking fund. Section 2: The proposed amendments clarify that a conditional use permit process is required to utilize either or both cross and joint parking options in the CCD. While other sections of the ordinance reference the need for CUP. This provision lies within the CCD ordinance itself for easy reference. The ordinance amendment to this section further clarifies that existing parking deficiencies are not grandfathered into the parking requirement calculation when a use converts to a more intense parking demand. As a reminder, the code accommodates two forms of shared parking. “Joint” parking allows two sites/uses to provide less than the required number of parking spaces for either or both of the uses, but only when conditions can support the shared use through hours of operation or differing use types. Joint parking requires authorization through Conditional Use Permit, which continues in this amendment proposal. “Cross” parking allows two sites/uses adjoining one another to share parking, allowing cross access to parking lots. Joint parking may or may not be a part of the cross-parking agreement. Cross parking is also allowed via Conditional Use Permit. Off-Stret Parking Ordinance – Section 153.067 Section 3: Amends the off-street parking table to require parking spaces for sit-down restaurants based on occupant load as specified in the adopted building code. The requirement is 1 parking space per three occupants. Staff believes this is a more accurate representation of parking demand for restaurants than the current square footage requirement. Section 4: Reference to the CCD District’s amended language for parking study added. Section 5: Clerical correction for clarity. Section 6: Proposes to amend the ordinance consistent with the CCD parking distance regulation noted above, increasing the eligible parking for joint use to parking located within 450’ for full credit and 800’ for half credit per space. The measurement method is also provided. STAFF RECOMMENDED ACTION Staff recommends adoption of the proposed amendments for off-street parking requirements. The amendments support the City’s goals for Downtown revitalization. The amendments balance the necessary parking supply to support business and customer parking needs with reservation of land area for active tax base and employment activities. Planning Commission Agenda – 06/03/2025 4 SUPPORTING DATA A. Resolution 2025-16 B. Ordinance No. 8XX, Draft C. Ordinance Excerpts D. Planning Commission Minutes of April 1, 2025 E. Planning Commission Agenda Report – April 1, 2025 CITY OF MONTICELLO WRIGHT COUNTY, MINNNESOTA PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. PC-2025-16 1 RECOMMENDING ADOPTION OF AN ORDINANCE AMENDING MONTICELLO CITY CODE XV, CHAPTER 153.044 AND 153.067, RELATED TO REQUIREMENTS REGULATING THE PARKING OF PASSENGER VEHICLES WHEREAS, the City of Monticello regulates the required minimum amount of parking for specific land uses and the availability and accessibility of public and private parking within the Central Community District; and WHEREAS, the zoning regulations applicable to parking facilities both facilitates and limit their locations in ways that the City uses to support its goals for land use; and WHEREAS, the City finds that revision of the Code to add more specificity and direction is in the public interest; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on June 3rd, 2025 on the application and the applicant City of Monticello and members of the public were provided the opportunity to present information to the Planning Commission; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Monticello makes the following Findings of Fact in relation to the recommendation of approval: 1. The zoning amendment provides an appropriate means of furthering the intent of the Comprehensive Plan by focusing the ordinance regulations on the needs of the community. 3. The change in zoning language will accommodate reasonable and efficient operation of existing or new parking facilities when evaluating new development or changes in land use. 4. The change in language will have no expected impacts on public services and expected land uses. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the Planning Commission of the City of Monticello, Minnesota, that the Planning Commission hereby recommends that the Monticello City Council approves the zoning amendment to modify the regulations applicable to Parking of Passenger Vehicles as defined in the proposed ordinance. ADOPTED this 3rd day of June, 2025, by the Planning Commission of the City of Monticello, Minnesota. CITY OF MONTICELLO WRIGHT COUNTY, MINNNESOTA PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. PC-2025-16 2 MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION By: _______________________________ Andrew Tapper, Vice-Chair ATTEST: ____________________________________________ Angela Schumann, Community Development Director ORDINANCE NO. 8XX AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE MONTICELLO CITY CODE XV, CHAPTER 153.044 AND 153.067, RELATED TO REQUIREMENTS REGULATING THE PARKING OF PASSENGER VEHICLES THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MONTICELLO ORDAINS: SECTION 1. Section 153.044 (G)(4)(d) is hereby amended to read as follows: 2. A commercial use which demonstrates an adequate amount of available parking is eligible to propose to vary from the requirements of this section by deferring its required off-street supply and contributeing to the public parking fund in lieu of providing all or a portion of the off street-parking as required by this ordinance. shall be accompanied by a parking study, subject to review and approval by Community Development staff, which illustrates an adequate amount of available unused public parking within 400 feet of the establishment’s primary entrance. “Adequate amount” shall be established by the city on a case-by-case basis in review of the applicant’s individualized parking study,. Such study but shall be required for payment-in-lieu to the public parking fund and shall include the following elements, as a minimum: (1) an examination of the public parking supply located within 450 feet of the establishment’s property, measured from the boundary of the subject property in a straight line to the public parking facilities commonly available for use by the proposed business during its peak usage hours; (2) the likely demand placed on said supply by the proposed business based on contemporary resources for parking utilization; and (3) an estimate of competing demand on said supply. The Community Development Department may request additional information to support the analysis of the study, and shall render an opinion as to the sufficiency of the public parking supply within 15 business days following the submission of all requested study materials. SECTION 2. Section 153.044 (G)(4)(d) is hereby amended to read as follows: 3. An existing business non-residential land use, as of the date of this chapter, which has a parking supply which is substandard according to § 153.067 - Off-Street Parking, shall be considered a legal nonconformity. The business non- residential land use may expand or change to another business land use that increases the parking supply deficiency only by approval of a Conditional Use Permit for Joint-parking and/or Cross-parking, or if necessary, participating in the CCD parking fund, according to the requirements of this Section and §153.067(E)(4)(c) for such deficiency. The parking deficiency applicable to such new or expanded non-residential land use occupant shall be calculated based on the existing available parking on-site and shall not “grandfather” the prior deficiency. SECTION 3. Section 153.067, Table 4-7, MINIMUM OFF-STREET PARKING SPACES BY USE, is hereby amended to read as follows: Restaurants. Sit down/dining area: 1.0 space for each 40 square feet of gross floor area of dining and bar area; Pick-up or Counter Area: 1.0 space for each 15 square feet of gross floor area but not less than 15 spaces; Kitchen Area: 1.0 space for each 80 square feet of kitchen area. 1.0 space for each 3 seats of seating capacity as determined by the Building Code. Seasonal outdoor seating shall be exempt from the application of off- street parking requirements, provided such seating does not occupy required off-street parking spaces. SECTION 4. Section 153.067 (E)(4)(c) is hereby amended to read as follows: 1. Where the city finds that there will be adequate opportunity to provide public parking in the vicinity of the subject property, and at the city’s option, the owner shall pay into a “CCD” parking fund an amount as established by City Council Resolution. Said fund shall be used for the acquisition, construction, and/or maintenance of publicly- owned parking in the “CCD” district. Eligibility for this payment-in-lieu shall be determined based on the availability of an adequate amount of parking per Section 153.044(G) of this ordinance. SECTION 5. Section 153.067 (G) is hereby amended to read as follows: (3) Joint facilities for commercial, industrial & civic/institutional uses. A conditional use permit for one or more businesses to provide the required off-street parking facilities by joint use of one or more sites where the total number of spaces provided are less than the sum of the total required for each business should they provide them separately. Notwithstanding other provisions of this section, including Subd. (G)(3)(a), (G)(3)(b), (G)(3)(c), and (G)(3)(d), for uses in the CCD, the Community Development Department shall determine the compatibility of uses qualifying for joint parking facilities, and the appropriate levels of joint use. Except as allowed herein, when considering a request for such a permit, the Planning Commission shall not recommend that such permit be granted nor the Council approve such a permit except when the following conditions are found to exist: SECTION 6. Section 153.067 (G)(3)(e) is hereby amended to read as follows: (e) Conditions required for joint use: 1. The building or use for which application is being made to utilize the off-street parking facilities provided by another building or use shall be located within 300 450 feet of such parking facilities for each full space to be credited. Any proposed joint parking space more than 450 feet, but within 800 feet, of the subject property shall be counted as one-half space. with the following exception: For theatres located in the Original Plat of Monticello, theatre parking provided by another use shall be located within 500 feet of said theatre Distances shall be measured from the nearest boundary of the subject property in a straight line to the proposed parking space; any parking space or portion of a space shall be eligible to be counted. SECTION 7. The City Clerk is hereby directed to make the changes required by this Ordinance as part of the Official Monticello City Code, Title XV, Chapter 153, Zoning Ordinance, and to renumber the tables and chapters accordingly as necessary to provide the intended effect of this Ordinance. The City Clerk is further directed to make necessary corrections to any internal citations that result from said renumbering process, provided that such changes retain the purpose and intent of the Zoning Ordinance as has been adopted. SECTION 8. This Ordinance shall take effect and be in full force from and after its passage and publication. The ordinance in its entirety and map shall be posted on the City website after publication. Copies of the complete Ordinance and map are available online and at Monticello City Hall. __________________________________ Lloyd Hilgart, Mayor ATTEST: ___________________________________ Rachel Leonard, Administrator AYES: NAYS: ITEM 2B Exhibit A | MONTICELLO ZONING ORDINANCE, APPLICABLE EXCERPTS ______________________________________________________________________________________ 153.044 BUSINESS BASE ZONING DISTRICTS (G) Central Community District, CCD. (3) General requirements. (c) Private joint-parking use. All new non-residential parking areas shall be designed to accommodate cross-access and joint use throughout the CCD zoning district to minimize the need for parking infrastructure. (4) Performance standards. (d) Parking. 1. Off-street parking areas shall be developed and constructed according to the requirements of § 153.067. Parking supply shall be as identified in this chapter, or where not specified herein, as in § 153.067 – Off-Street Parking. 2. A commercial use which propose to vary from the requirements of this section by deferring its required off-street supply and contributing to the public parking fund shall be accompanied by a parking study, subject to review and approval by Community Development staff, which illustrates an adequate amount of available unused public parking within 400 feet of the establishment’s primary entrance. “Adequate amount” shall be established by the city on a case-by-case basis in review of the applicant’s individualized parking study, but shall include the following elements, as a minimum: (1) an examination of the public parking supply commonly available for use by the proposed business during its peak usage hours; (2) the likely demand placed on said supply by the proposed business based on contemporary resources for parking utilization; and (3) an estimate of competing demand on said supply. 3. An existing business, as of the date of this chapter, which has a parking supply which is substandard according to § 153.067 - Off-Street Parking, shall be considered a legal nonconformity. The business may expand or change to another business that increases the parking supply deficiency only by participating in the parking fund, according to the requirements of this Section and § 153.067(E)(4)(c) for such deficiency. 4. Parking shall not be located on a parcel between the front building line of the principal building and the public street, except where expressly provided for by the City Council after recommendation from the Planning Commission. § 153.067 OFF-STREET PARKING. (C) Change in use or occupancy. (1) Change in use or occupancy of land. (a) Any change of use or occupancy of land already dedicated to a parking area, parking spaces, or loading spaces shall not be made, nor shall any sale of land, division, or subdivision of land be made which reduces area necessary for parking, parking stalls, or parking requirements below the minimum prescribed by these zoning regulations. (b) Off-street parking spaces and loading spaces or lot area existing upon the effective date of this chapter as denoted in § 153.004 shall not be reduced in number or size unless said number of size exceeds the requirements set forth herein for a similar new use. (2) Change in use or occupancy of a building. Any change of use of occupancy of any building or buildings, including additions thereto, requiring more parking area shall not be permitted until there is furnished such additional parking spaces as required by these zoning regulations. (3) Site plan drawing necessary. In all zoning districts, all applications for a building permit or prior to a change in use for an existing building or as required for a certificate of occupancy in all zoning districts shall be accompanied by a site plan drawn to scale and dimensioned indicating the location of off-street parking and loading spaces in compliance with the requirements set forth in § 153.067. (E) Standards applicable to all uses. (4) Vehicular use area stall calculation requirements. (a) General provisions. 1. The minimum number of off-street parking spaces shown in Table 4-7 shall be provided and maintained by ownership, easement, and/or lease for and during the life of the respective uses hereinafter set forth. 2. When determining the number of off-street parking spaces results in a fraction, each fraction of one-half or more shall constitute another space. 3. In stadiums, sports arenas, churches, and other places of public assembly in which patrons or spectators occupy benches, pews, or other similar seating facilities, each 22 inches of such seating facilities shall be counted as one seat for the purpose of determining requirements. 4. Should a structure contain two or more types of use, each shall be calculated separately for determining the total off-street parking spaces required. (b) Floor area. 1. The term "floor area" for the purpose of calculating the number of off-street parking spaces required shall be determined on the basis of the interior floor area dimensions of the buildings, structure, or use times the number of floors. 2. Whenever practical, final parking calculations shall be based on an actual building floor plan. 3. Unusable space (e.g. entries, halls, service areas, bathrooms, etc) within uses may be excluded from floor area calculations when applicable. 4. Required parking spaces may be reduced through alternative development types (e.g. Planned Unit Development, etc) as permitted in this chapter. (c) CCD district exceptions. Property owners in the CCD District shall comply with the parking supply requirements as listed in Table 4-7 of this chapter. However, property owners may be granted flexibility from a portion of their required parking supply under the following conditions: 1. Where the city finds that there will be adequate opportunity to provide public parking in the vicinity of the subject property, and at the city’s option, the owner shall pay into a “CCD” parking fund an amount as established by City Council Resolution. Said fund shall be used for the acquisition, construction, and/or maintenance of publicly-owned parking in the “CCD” district. 2. The city may, in addition to, or as an alternative to, the option listed in § 153.067(E)(4)(c)1. above, and at the discretion of the city, offer the property owner the opportunity to choose to supply parking at a rate which is 60% of the requirement listed in § 153.067 provided that the owner grants an easement to the public for automobile parking use over the subject area. The owner shall retain responsibility for maintenance of said parking area. (G) Standards applicable to commercial, industrial and civic/institutional uses. (3) Joint facilities for commercial, industrial & civic/institutional uses. A conditional use permit for one or more businesses to provide the required off-street parking facilities by joint use of one or more sites where the total number of spaces provided are less than the sum of the total required for each business should they provide them separately. When considering a request for such a permit, the Planning Commission shall not recommend that such permit be granted nor the Council approve such a permit except when the following conditions are found to exist: (a) Up to 50% of the parking facilities required for a theatre, bowling alley, dance hall, bar, or restaurant may be supplied by the off-street parking facilities provided by types of uses specified as a primarily daytime use in division (d) below. (b) Up to 50% of the off-street parking facilities required for any use specified under division (d) below as primary daytime uses may be supplied by the parking facilities provided by the following nighttime or Sunday uses: Auditoriums incidental to a public or parochial school, churches, bowling alleys, dance halls, theatres, bars, or restaurants. (c) Up to 80% of the parking facilities required by § 153.067 for a church or for an auditorium incidental to a public or parochial school may be supplied by off-street parking facilities provided by uses specified under division (d) below as primarily daytime uses. (d) For the purpose of this section, the following uses are considered as primarily daytime uses: Banks, business offices, retail stores, personal service shops, household equipment or furniture shops, clothing or shoe repair or service shops, manufacturing, wholesale, and similar uses. (e) Conditions required for joint use: 1. The building or use for which application is being made to utilize the off-street parking facilities provided by another building or use shall be located within 300 feet of such parking facilities with the following exception: For theatres located in the Original Plat of Monticello, theatre parking provided by another use shall be located within 500 feet of said theatre. 2. The applicant shall show that there is no substantial conflict in the principal operating hours of the two buildings or uses for which joint use of off-street parking facilities is proposed. 3. A properly drawn legal instrument executed by the parties concerned for joint use of off-street parking facilities, duly approved as to form and manner of execution by the City Attorney, shall be filed with the City Administrator and recorded with the County Recorder, Wright County. (4) Cross parking facilities for commercial, industrial and civic/institutional uses. Adjoining business properties may allow cross parking and/or access if authorized by a conditional use per the requirements of § 153.028(D) and subject the following conditions: (a) The required island and landscaping requirements in § 153.060 are met. (b) The vehicular use area meets the required setback at the perimeter of the parcels in question. (c) The curb cut access locations to the parking lot(s) are approved by the city. (d) A shared parking/access and maintenance agreement is provided by the parking owners and recorded against all subject properties. (e) A properly drawn legal instrument executed by the parties concerned for joint use of off-street parking facilities, duly approved as to form and manner of execution by the City Attorney, shall be filed with the City Administrator and recorded with the County Recorder. May 6, 2025 Planning Commission Agenda – 6/03/25 1 4A. Community Development Director’s Report Council Action on/related to Commission Recommendations • Consideration of a request for Preliminary Plat of Meadows at Pioneer Park; Development Stage Planned Unit Development; Rezoning to Planned Unit Development for proposed 157 single-family residential development in the Monticello Orderly Annexation Area (MOAA), currently guided as low-density residential Applicant: Reid Schulz The applicant requested moving this item to the June 9th, 2025 City Council agenda. • Consideration of an Amendment to the Monticello 2040 Vision + Plan (Comprehensive Plan), Chapter 3, “Land Use, Growth and Orderly Annexation” re-guiding certain parcels from their existing Estate Residential, Commercial and Residential Flex, and Mixed Neighborhood designations to Light Industrial Park designation. Applicant: Scannell Properties, LLC The City Council approved this item on the consent agenda on May 27, 2025. • Consideration of a request for Amendment to the Red Rooster Planned Unit Development for changes related to the building expansion for vehicle use and storage. Applicant: Brian Jovan/Jovan Properties LLC The City Council approved this item on the consent agenda on May 27, 2025. • Consideration of a request for an Amendment to the Conditional Use Permit for Planned Unit Development for Carcone Second Addition, for interim improvements to support the land use of vehicle sales, display and storage. Applicant: Aeron Ashbrook The City Council approved this item on the consent agenda on May 27, 2025. Legislative Action The City received information from the Coalition of Greater MN Cities that the zoning pre- emption language did not proceed in any form for this session. However, the Housing chairs of both the Senate and House intend to address the language again in the next session. City staff will continue to work the LMC and CGMC on conversations with legislators on housing solutions rather than pre-emption. Meadowbrook Plat & Construction JPB Land has recorded the plat and all related development documents with Wright County. Work has commenced on site for the first phase of construction on this residential neighborhood. Housing Workshop Follow-Up Council will consider adoption of the minutes from the March workshop in June. Following, staff will coordinate a Planning Commission workshop for consideration of Planning Commission Agenda – 6/03/25 2 direction on 2040 Plan and zoning ordinance amendments. City Annual Comprehensive Financial Report The City’s consulting auditor provided an overview of the report, commonly known as the annual audit, on May 13, 2025. To view the report, click here: 1248 Project Update List The project update list current through May 2025 is attached. Website Project Page A reminder to stay current with news and information by visiting: Projects | Monticello, MN Concept Projects Project Type Address/Location Description Review Date & Info Progress Report Project V Commercial/Light Industrial 88 acre parcel bounded by The Meadows to the North, Highway 25 to the West, 85th Street NE to the South, and the Featherstoe Residential neighbohood to the East Concept Stage review for a planned unit development for a multi-phase Medical Office Buildings on roughly 25 acres, with subsequent phases of private development to follow. Joint City Council and Planning Commission review on 3/25/24 On hold General Equipment Industrial 13 acre parcel along CSAH 39 and West Chelsea Road Concept Stage review for planned unit development for Machinery/Truck Repair and Sales Joint City Council and Planning Commission review on 7/2/24 Post Concept Stage PUD, Pre-Development Stage PUD Application Submittal Pending Land Use Application Projects Project Type Address/Location Description Approval Date & Info Progress Report Tamarack/The Meadows at Pioneer Park Residential 68 acre parcels along Fallon Avenue Concept Stage review for planned unit development for single-family residential Reviewed in Joint PC/CC on 9/16/24 Recommended denial at May 2025 Planning Commission Meeting. Previously Approved Projects Project Type Address/Location Description Approval Date & Info Progress Report Broadway Plaza PUD Commercial 6321 E. Broadway Street bound by Interstate 94 to the North and East Broadway Street to the South Development Stage PUD and preliminary plat for a 76-room hotel, 15,000 square-foot event center, 6,800 square-foot restaurant, and a 6,000 square-foot post-frame building. 11/24/2024 Approved 11.25.24, Annexation Pending Twin Pines Apartments Residential South Side of School Blvd. East of Wal-Mart 96 multi-family unit apartment building 2/28/2022 Final Plat Expired Haven Ridge West Residential Near the Southeast corner of 85th Street NE and Fallon Ave NE, Also South of 85th Street NE between Eislele Ave NE and Edmonson Ave NE Concept Stage review for a planned unit development for a 298-unit residential development with various lot sizes and townhome section Reviewed by Planning Commission on 1/7/25 Preliminary Plat, Development Stage PUD approved at January Meeting. Block 52 Redevelopment Mixed-Use NE Corner of Highway 25 and Broadway St 87 multi-family units with rougly 30,000 sq ft of 1st floor commercial 7/11/2022 Continued leasing of commercial spaces, Revised Conditions CC Approved 2.24.25 Featherstone 6th Addition Residential North of 85th St NE and West of Highway 25 21 Single-family lots with commercially guided outlots for future development 4/25/2022 Under Construction; last lot permit issued Haven Ridge 2nd Addition Residential South of Farmstead Ave and West of Fallon Ave NE 59 Single-Family Lot Development Reapproved 8/28/2023 Home sites under construction Country Club Manor 3rd/4th Addition Residential Along South side of 7th St W between Elm St and Golf Course Rd 82 Twinhomes Senior 55+ Development 4/22/2024 Under construction, home sites under constructionDeephaven 3 (Lot 2)Commercial Southeast corner of Cedar St and Chelsea Rd New Construction of a Clinic/Medical Service Facility (10,000 sq ft)N/A (Permitted Use)Completed Jimmy Johns/Baskin Robbins Commercial Southeast Corner of Oakwood Drive E and Cedar Street New Construction of Quick Service Restaurant with Drive-Through Service 1/22/2024 Withdrawn Big River Commercial Vacant property north of Chelsea Rd, south of Interstate 94, and west of Fenning Avenue PUD for New Construction of two commercial lots for a quick-service restaurant and a coffee shop, with 6 lots platted for subsequent commercial development. 4/8/2024 Commenced, Chipotle open and Starbucks finalizing construction Holiday Store EV Charging Stations Commercial 110 Oakwood Drive E.Installation of up to 12 Electric Vehicle Charging Stations in Lot behind Building 5/28/2024 Construction commenced StorageLink (Dundas Site) PUD and Plat Commercial 36 Dundas Road (Southeast corner of Dundas Road and Cedar Street)Preliminary & Final Plat of Cedar Street Storage, Dev. & Final Stage PUD for expansion of permanent storage area 6/24/2024 Construction commenced Rockstone Auto Commercial 219 Sandberg Road Conditional Use Permit Request for Minor Automotive use as a Principal Use in the B- 3, Highway Business District 1/27/2025 Approved Fairfield Inn & Restaurant Commercial Along south side of Chelsea Road directly north of Deephaven Apartments Development Stage Permit (CUP) for construction of a 98-room hotel and restaurant in the northern "Populus" biome of the Pointes at Cedar District 7/22/2024 Construction commenced Wendy's CUP Commercial Near Highland Way, Union Crossings Conditional Use Permit for Amendment to PUD and accessory drive-through 9/23/2024 Approved; building permit submitted Valvoline Commercial Big River 445 PUD Amdt to Big River 445 PUD and Development and Final State PUD - Auto Repair - Minor 10/28/2024 Approved; building permit submitted Les Schwab Commercial Big River 445 PUD Amdt to Big River 445 PUD and Development and Final State PUD - Auto Repair - Minor 10/28/2024 Approved, building permit submitted Discount Tire Commercial 1300 7th Street East Conditional Use Permit for Auto-Repair Minor and Cross Access 3/24/2025 Approved Mastercraft Outdoors PUD Industrial 1.46 acre vacant lot along the West side of Fallon Ave NE between Washburn Computer Group and Norland Truck Sales Development Stage review for a planned unit development of a vacant site for an Industrial Service use 3/24/2025 Approved JPB Land/Meadowbrook Residential 44 acre parcel along Edmonson Avenue 3/24/2025 Development Stage and Rezoning Approved. Active Adventures Commercial 207 Dundas Road Indoor Entertainment/Recreation Commercial Approved MONTICELLO DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS AGENDA RECAP MONTICELLO CITY COUNCIL Tuesday, May 27, 2025 – 6:30 p.m. 1. General Business A. Call to Order & Pledge of Allegiance B. Recognition of Pam Loidolt and Introduction of new Monticello Senior Center Director Jay Jay Tauzell C. Approval of Agenda – Approved D. Approval of Meeting Minutes - Approved • Special Meeting Minutes from May 12, 2025 • Special Meeting Minutes from May 13, 2025 • Regular Meeting Minutes from May 12, 2025 E. Citizen Comments - None F. Public Service Announcements/Updates G. Council Liaison Updates • Economic Development Authority • Park, Arts, and Recreation Commission H. Department Updates • Construction Update 2. Consent Agenda – Approved A. Consideration of approving payment of bills - Approved B. Consideration of approving new hires and departures for City departments - Approved C. Consideration of approving the sale/disposal of surplus city property – No report D. Consideration of adopting Resolution 2025-33 accepting donation of $300 from Women of Today for Farmers Market Power of Produce Kids Club and $1,028.20 from H. Brothers Painting for mural by MontiArts at Nordic Tap House – Adopted resolution accepting donations E. Consideration of adopting Resolution 2025-34 accepting a grant from the Central Minnesota Arts Board in the amount of $18,972 for a community mural project – adopted resolution accepting grant CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING (Academy Room) 6:00 – 6:15 p.m. Discussion on THC Beverage Sale at Hi-Way Liquors F. Consideration of approving a special event permit for the Monticello VFW Post 8731, including use of City resources for Summerfest 2025 event on July 26, 2025 – approved special event permit G. Consideration of approving a special event permit allowing use of Ellison Park and related assistance for the Brewfest event on August 16, 2025, and approval of temporary liquor license. Applicant: Monticello Lions Club – Approved special event permit and temporary liquor license H. Consideration of adopting Ordinance 849 amending City Code Title IX, Chapter 112: Mobile Food Units, Section 112.28 Conditions of Licensing Adopted ordinance 849 I. Consideration of authorizing a one-month credit of base water and sewer charges to properties that provide water samples for testing – Authorized the credit J. Consideration of setting the 2025 pension benefit level at $5,500 per service year for current Monticello Fire Relief Association members and a deferral rate at 2.5% for past members – Approved the pension benefit level K. Consideration adopting Resolution 2025-35 approving an amendment to the Monticello 2040 Vision + Plan (Comprehensive Plan), Chapter 3, “Land Use, Growth and Orderly Annexation” re-guiding certain parcels from their existing Estate Residential, Commercial and Residential Flex, and Mixed Neighborhood designations to Light Industrial Park designation. Applicant: Scannell Properties, LLC – Adopted resolution approving the amendment to the comp plan L. Consideration of adopting Ordinance 850 amending the Red Rooster Planned Unit Development for changes related to the building expansion for vehicle use and storage. Applicant: Brian Jovan – Adopted ordinance 850 M. Consideration of approving an amendment to the Conditional Use Permit for Planned Unit Development for Carcone Second Addition, for interim improvements to support the land use of vehicle sales, display and storage. Applicant: Aeron Ashbrook – Approved the amendment N. Consideration of adopting Resolution 2025-36 approving plans and specifications and authorizing to bid for Golf Course Road (CSAH 39) Trail project – Adopted resolution approving plans and specification and authorizing bids O. Consideration of approving a funding and construction agreement with Wright County and adopting Resolution 2025-37 restricting on-street parking on Golf Course Road from Elm Street to Bridge 86802 over Interstate 94 for the Golf Course Road Trail Project – Adopted resolution restricting on-street parking and approved the agreement P. Consideration of approving a quote from Michels Underground Cable, Inc. for Fibernet installation within the Country Club 4th Addition for $30,299.26 – Approved the quote Q. Consideration of approving an agreement with Xcel Energy for the relocation of a transmission line pole as part of the School Boulevard Intersection Improvements Project – Approved the agreement R. Consideration of approving annual liquor license renewals for 2025-2026 Approved liquor license renewals 2A. Consideration of items removed from the consent agenda for discussion Adjournment