Planning Commission Agenda 01-02-2001
.
Members:
AGENDA
REGULAR MEETING - MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION
Tuesday - January 2,2001
7:00 P.M.
Dick rrie, Robbie Smith, Roy Popi1ck, Richard Carlson, Rod Dragsten
Council Liaison:
Clint Herbst
Statl:
1.
2.
^'
-) .
4.
. 5.
6.
.
JelT O'NeilL 'Fred Patch, Steve Grittman and Lori Kraemer
Call to order.
Approval of minutes of the regular meeting held December 5, 2000.
Consideration of adding items to the agenda.
Citizens comments.
Public Hearing - Consideration for approval of concept stage planned unit development
for a townhome development. Applicant: Eagle Crest Northwest, Inc.
Public Hearin~ - Consideration of amendments to the zoning. ordinance re~ardin!.!,
...... '-, "-
accessory buildings in residential districts. Applicant: City or Monticello
7. Verbal update by Fred Patch regarding the "IDS Telecom improvements.
8. Discussion regarding Planning Conlmission melnber terms.
9. Adjourn.
- 1-
.
.
.
MINUTES
REGULAR MEETING - MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION
Tuesday - December 5, 2000
7:00 P.M.
Members Present:
Dick Frie. Robbie Smith, Roy Popilek. Richard Carlson and Rod
Dragsten.
Absent:
Council Liaison Clint Herbst
Staff Present:
leff O'Neill, Fred Patch, Steve Grittman and Lori Kraemer
1. Call to order.
Chair Frie called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
2.
Approval of minutes of the regular meetil1l..': held November 8. 2000.
A MOTION WAS MADE BY ROY POPILEK AND SECONDED BY RICHARD
CARLSON TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE NOVEMBER 8. 2000
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING WITH A CORRECTION TO THE MOTION
APPROVING THE OCTOBER 3, 2000 MINUTES THAT THE MOTION CARRIED 4
TO O. WITH DICK FRIE ABSTAINING. Motion carried unanimously.
..,
J.
Consideration of adding items to the agenda.
leffO'Neill added a redevelopment update regarding 6th Street and Minnesota Street.
This was placed as item lOon the agenda.
4.
Citizens comments. None
5.
Consideration of a Rezoning to a Planned Unit Development Zoning District and a
Concept Stage PUD to permit the expansion of a bus service and [wrage. Applicant:
H02.lund Bus Company.
Steve Grittman, City Planner. provided the report stating the applicant has applied for an
amendment to the City's Zoning Map to allow the expansion of its Hoglund Coach Lines
facility along the south side of Interstate 94. The property is currently zoned B-3 on the
\vest. and I-Ion the east with a number of buildings and related uses on the site. Staff
has noted that the business has gradually expanded over the years onto property which
\vas not a part of previous permits. Moreover. a separate business (Hoglund
Transportation) occupies a portion of the property. As such. the businesses currently exist
as legal. non-conforming uses. The zoning ordinance allmvs the continuation of non-
conforming uses (so-called ""grandfather"" rights). but does not permit their expansion.
- 1-
.
Because of the mix of buildings and activities, the only procedural way to allow an
expansion of the existing business would be through the PUD zoning process.
Staff considered whether the bus company, based on previous growth and permits, should
be considered a conforming use in the B-3 District.
Grittman advised that under PUD zoning, the City and the applicant negotiate a range of
land uses and site development standards, sometimes with specific phasing requirements.
It is implicit in PUD zoning that the proposed uses show compliance with the direction
and intent of the City's Comprehensive Plan. The Comprehensive Plan for this area
directs that commercial uses which can take advantage of the site's freeway exposure
would be the preferred land use.
Grittman noted two sets of issues which the City should address in reviewing this
application. ~rhe first is the land use plan compliance, and whether the existing land use
is most appropriatc long-term use for this area and second, the development standards
applicable to this site if the City dctermines that the use is appropriate.
.
Grittman stated uses such as the transportation and bus companies currently occupying
the site are more typical of industrial district uses. These uses typically provide business
services to other business (or institutional) entities rather than directly to the retail public.
In a spot check of other T\vin Cities area communities with bus services, Grittman stated
he could tind none where such uses are allowed in commercially zoned areas.
In areas where industrial districts are developed adjacent to freeways. a heightened level
of building and site development standards are typically applied. The existing
improvements consist of. generally, metal buildings and gravel surface. Only a few areas
of paved parking are developed, with limited landscaped open space on the site. This
would be inconsistent with expectations commonly held for freeway exposure. The
proposed development would add a pole structure addition to the existing parts storage
building.
While a PUD district permits flexibility in the application of standards, the intent of the
PUD technique is to encourage a higher standard of development rather than lower. In
the 25/94 interchange area. the City has reccntly seen a significant increase in
development activity. most with a high level of building and site improvements.
In summary. the existing land use of the property does not appear to comply \vith the
direction of the Comprehensive Plan or the highest and best usc attributes of the sitc. Bus
and transportation t~tcilities are an important scrvice business. but would be more
compatible with industrial areas. preserving high visibility sites for higher intensity
commcrcial uses.
.
The Planning Commission discussed the t~lCt that the existing site is a signiticant
-2-
.
economic development opportunity for both the land owner and the City. With the
dramatic increase in the community's population and commercial activity, together with
the improvements to Highway 25 and Chelsea Road, this property could likely be put to a
highly intense commercial use which complements the surrounding commercial
development and takes advantage of the new and existing transportation facilities. In the
past, the City has helped businesses such as this one to seek alternative locations more
compatible with their operational needs such as a cooperation between the property
owner and the City looking at possible City~owned land available for trade, or finding a
developer to buy land and develop. Use of City contacts could also be an asset. The
commissioners asked the Hoglunds if this option was of interest to them and it was stated
that it was not at this time.
The commissioners also asked Grittman if they were to approve a pu~ district would
that zoning stay with the land and it was stated that it would. Deputy City Administrator
O'Neill asked Grittman if an interim use permit as a temporary use would be an option
and Grittman stated it could be an option, noting that an interim use gives the City and
the applicant a time frame to agree upon at which time the site would be made ready for
re~development for another type of use. Grittman also advised that this option vvould
still require a PUD for mixed uses on this site, but the City can incorporate interim use
concept under a PUD zoning.
.
Chair Frie opened the public hearing. Wayne Hoglund, Hoglund Bus Company. advised
that they have the room on their site for the expansion and they've been located on this
site i'()[ a long time. I-lolly Klein, Hoglund Bus Company. advised the different
businesses operated on this site as vvell as the research she conducted which showed that
their competitors for bus sales and service vvere all located on major freeways and
highways. lIoglunds feci that freeway exposure/location is very important for their
business. Gordon Hoglund of Hoglund Transportation was also present stating that he is
a partner and concurs with Gordon that this site with it's exposure to the freeway is
important. Grittman clarified that the City was not disputing the value of the freeway
exposure. just stating that those businesses are more typical of Business Districts,
clarifying the zoning districts.
Chair Fric closed the public hearing. There was discussion as to what the applicant
would have to do to bring their site up to City standards and Grittman advised it would be
the basic standards such as public/employees parking which would have to be
paved/curbed. They do have some areas of the site that are paved. although less than we
would see in our ordinance. Would also require some delineation between storage and
display area, and parking/driveway areas. and advised that a typical PUO would require
additional landscaping/screening.
.
::#'
Hoglunds' stated it is their plan to construct the same type of structure that matches what
is currently on the site. Fred Patch advised that the life of a metal building such as this
vvould he approximately 20 years. Iloglunds have no plans to reconstruct their site nor
-3-
.
.
.
split it up. It was also noted that due to the fact that the Hoglund business has been on
this site for a very long time and that there should be certain "grand father" rights, City
statT should vvork with the applicant to accommodate their need for expansion at this
time.
Hoglund stated their intent is to move forward immediately if they get approval from the
City. Grittman stated that this application is very preliminary at this point and they have
not gone into detail with the applicant regarding the site improvements other than paving/
landscaping in accordance with City ordinance.
Decision 1: Zoning Map Al11endl11enlfi'ol11 B-3 and 1-1 10 PUD
A MOTION WAS MADE BY DICK FRIE AND SECONDED BY ROD DRAGSTEN
TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE REZONING TO PUD, BASED ON A
FINDING THAT THE EXISTING USE IS COMPATIBLE WITH PRESENT AND
FUTURE LAND USES OF THE AREA. Motion carried unanimously.
Decision 2: Concept Stage Planned Unit Developmenl
A MOTION WAS MADE BY ROY POPILEK AND SECONDED BY ROBBIE SMITH
TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE CONCEPT STAGE PUD. SUBJECT TO
COMPLIANCE WITH MINIMUM SITE DEVEL,OPMENT STANDARDS
INCLUDING PAVING AND CURBING OF PARKING AREAS. SCREENING OF
STORAGE AREAS. AND DEVELOPMENT/MAINTENANCE OF APPROPRIATE
LANDSCAPING.
There was further discussion stating that staff may want to consider this type of business
in the fact that they have very limited public traffic and therefore it may not be
appropriate for the City to ask the applicant to curb 90% of their business, with the
realization that this does go against the standards of a PUD. It was stated by the City
Planner and City stafT that they will need direction from the Planning Commission on
what site improvements the applicant will be asked to make. Jeff O'Neill also stated a
determination will need to be made clarifying definition.
Motion carried unanimously.
6.
Public HearinQ - Consideration of an ordinance amendinQ the Monticello Zoninu
Ordinance. Chapter 3. Section 3-5. lD J 7. bv add in!!; suhsections (a) and (b). establishim!
reQulations for commercial vehicles in residential districts.
Fred Patch. Building Official. provided the staff report noting that on November 8, 2000
the Planning Commission called f()r a public hearing to reconsider this ordinance
amendment relating to 9.000 lb. vehicles in residential districts. On September!!. 2000
the City Council did not follow the recommendations of the Planning Commission and
-4-
.
.
.
-'
denied the Zoning Ordinance amendment to allow enforcement of ordinances restricting
commercial vehicles from residential districts. The Council directed staff to look into
allowances for emergency vehicles, tow trucks, and the like.
The current ordinances intend to disallow commercial vehicles in residential districts
(with some exceptions); however, alone the 9,000 lb. gross vehicle weight restriction is
insufficient to enable enforcement.
This ordinance amendment along with amendments to the tratlic ordinances (on-street
parking ordinances) will help to preserve the character of our residential districts while
not limiting necessary commercial vehicle traffic serving those districts. A proposed
draft of the ordinance amendment was attached for discussion at the meeting. Patch
noted that in other Cities there is no exception for vehicles such as tow trucks, although
there are emergency situations that may require quick access to a tow truck.
Chair Frie opened the public hearing. Hearing no response, the public hearing was
closed.
The commissioners discussed the possibility of determining these vehicles by wheel
count which Patch stated would not be an option that would work. Patch also stated the
only way that it was really clear to police departments that he has previously worked with
was by certain license plates. The commissioners asked what this ordinance amendment
would do to long-time residents and Patch stated that there are some that are grand-
fathered in such as Ritze Trucking. It was also noted that there was no response to the
public hearing once again and therefore it was their hope that the amended ordinance
would satisfy certain concerns when turned down at City Council level. It was the
consensus that this was clear and concise.
A MOTION WAS MADE BY ROBBIE SMITH TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL TO
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THIS ORDINANCE AMENDING MONTICELLO ZONING
ORDINANCE, CHAPTER 3, SECTION 3-5, [D1 7, BY ADDING SUBSECTIONS (A)
AND (8). AND ESTABLISHING REGULATIONS FOR COMMERCIAL VEHICLES
IN RF:SIDEN"rIAL DISTRICrS. Motion carried unanimously.
Also stated by Patch was that there will be another ordinance amendment change
proposed to the City Council regarding 9,000 lb. gross vehicles parking on City streets,
noting that the above amendment was for these vehicles parking on residential property.
Chair Frie asked that Patch bring information from other cities as comparables to the City
CouncillVlceting.
7.
Discussion Item - House and Gara~e Sizes for Sin!llc Familv Developmcnt.
Stcve Grittman, City Planner. provided the report reminding that the Planning
Commission raised discussion regarding appropriate sizes for accessory buildings and
-5-
.
.
t
argument is that as people acquire more stuff, larger accessory buildings may be better
than outdoor storage of that stuff. The second common concern over larger accessory
buildings is the chance that such buildings are used for commerciaL rather than
residential, purposes. Most home occupation ordinances prohibit the use of such
buildings for commercial purposes to avoid over-intensification of commercial activity in
residential areas and unfair competition with the City's commercial tax-paying
enterprises.
Grittman stated that this item has been a high priority issue in other cities for at least 2 to
5 years. There was discussion that foundation size should be stated as well in that the
accessory structure could not be larger than the foundation size of the house. Fred Patch
stated that vvhatever the Planning Commission decides he would ask that they keep it
clear/concise. It was the consensus that the Planning Commission would prefer to have
larger sizes versus outside storage.
A MOTION WAS MADE BY DICK FRIE AND SECONDED BY ROY POPILEK TO
CALL FOR A PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER AMENDMENTS TO THE
ZONING ORDINANCE REGARDING ACCESSORY BUILDINGS. Motion carried
unanimously.
8.
Consideration of callinS!. for a public hearing on proposed amendment to setback
standards limitin!.! construction of parking lots and drive areas on draina!.!e and utilitv
easements.
Jeff O'NeilL Deputy City Administrator. provided the staff reporting stating that the
Planning Commission is asked to discuss the possibility of changing parking lot setback
standards to match easements. Under our current ordinance. a problem is created when
we allow parking lots to extend within 5' of a property line. This is because doing so
results in parking lot/curb to be constructed in easement areas. There is no law limiting
this type of construction within a utility easement.
A perimeter lot utility casement ranges from 6' - 12', normally 6' on the sides and 12' in
the front and back. At the same time we allow parking lots within 5' of the property line.
This means that parking lots can be installed from I' to 7' into the casement area. This
encroachment of parking lots does not legally limit City use of the easement but if the
parking lot is someday disturbed to accommodate a utility project. the City is liable for
the cost of repair. This liability can effectively eliminate the ability of the City to use the
easement.
If the setback requirements matched easement requirements, this problem would be
eliminated and additional green space \vould result. On the other hand, simply incrcasing
setback standards from 5' to as much as 12' eould impact efficient use of land and
increase the cost of development. Also a discussion of right-of-way width might also be
appropriate \\ith this topic because utility installation also occurs in thc right-of-way
-7-
.
.
t
adjacent to easements in the front yard area. Perhaps increasing ROW width and
reducing easement width at the front yard (12') is another alternative. Unfortunately this
option has limits as the major commercial street widths are already set with streets
already in place such as School Blvd., Chelsea Road, Th Street etc.
It was noted that this issue was previously tabled and Chair Frie asked if this item could
be ready for the next regular meeting in January. O'Neill stated that staff would prefer to
work with public works and engineering, and that this may take time. It was advised that
this is a priority item for public works and engineering and they will begin researching.
A MOTION WAS MADE BY RICHARD CARLSON AND SECONDED BY ROBBIE
SMITH TO TABLE PENDING FURTHER STAFF RESEARCH. Motion carried
unanimously.
9.
Consideration ofrequestini; reappointment to membership on the Planning Commission.
Roy Popilek and Richard Carlson.
According to Planning Commission meeting minutes from 3/2/99 a staggered term
program was proposed by the Planning Commission with each member accepting a tenn.
The Planning Commission recommended establishment of a one year term. 2 two year
terms and :2 three year terms. In January 2000. the City Council fonTlally adopted the
staggered term program. A year had to be subtracted from each members term due to the
time lag between Planning Commission recommendation and the date of formal adoption
by the City Council in January 2000. In the Council Action taken in January 2000.
Council appointed Robbie Smith to a three year term, Roy Popilek and Richard Carlson
to a one year term and Dick Frie and Rod Dragsten to the remaining two year terms.
Therefore. Roy and Richard arc up for reappointment to a three year term. The question
is. do Roy and Richard wish to serve another term (three years).
If Roy and Richard agree to serve an additional term. then their name will be placed
before the City Council for appointment. If they do not wish to serve, then we will need
to advertise for new members.
Both Roy Popilek and Richard Carlson stated their interest in serving another term. Chair
Frie stated the Planning Commissions support as well.
9a. Dick Frie asked for an update of the North Anchor area. Roy Popilek stated there had
been a meeting and there arc some sensitivity issues in the report and therefore have been
asked not to discuss this publicly. Popilck recommend that anyone having questions to
please meet with Rod Dragsten or himself at another time.
9b.
Richard Carlson stated that recently TDS Telecom redid their parking lot and did not
install curb. Fred Patch stated that they maybe didn't previously have curb and therefore
would not need to install. [t was stated that City staff was not involved. advising that if
-8-
.
.
.
'-
TDS were replacing what was existing, they did not require a permit from the City,
noting that the City does not issue permits for parking lots.
Carlson stated that their site was torn up for appro x 2 weeks with large equipment on
their site, as well as he thinks they possibly also placed a catch basin. It was stated that
staff was not aware of this previously. Again Patch stated that he saw this as
maintenance and there was no reason for the City to become involved. Possibly Pubic
Works should have been involved if a catch basin was installed or anything to do with
storm sewer. etc.
It was asked if it was too late to contact TDS and determine what was done on their site
and if it was in compliance. It was stated that this could possibly be done, but that it
would be a Public Works issue. Patch stated he will obtain information and bring it to the
next Planning Commission meeting as an update.
10.
Update bv .lefT O'Neill regardin!.! Redevelopment at 6th Street and Minnesota Street.
O'Neill reported that there are plans for redevelopment in this area which calls fix a 12
unit complex, noting that the developer owns a portion of this site and also has the
opportunity to put a home/duplex in this area versus a multi-unit complex. He would like
to work with the City to come up with a plan for something with a little higher density.
He is proposing higher density, owner occupied, possibly senior oriented housing. He is
proposing 20 ft. setbacks versus 30 ft. due to parking issues. He also noted that they have
been working with the developer on many different plans such as multi-unit quads,
apartment type, ranging from $120,000 to $130.000 for an approx. 1,100 sq. ft. unit with
very small 2 car garages. O'Neill advised that he will be brings this to the Planning
Commission's attention as it is going to the HRA for review and \vouldlike direction as
to how to proceed. Financing would be used for costs such as demo, relocation. although
a finance plan has not been prepared.
Grittman added that the City would need a little more information from the developer.
and also would ask for some design changes adding that this could be a nice project.
What the developer is proposing would be consistent with zoning and would be a nice
project. O'Neill states that from a marketing standpoint this is a good project. Also
stated that there is a lot of detail yet to be submitted and they would want to be assured
that these are ofa good quality.
It was asked ifTIF would be considered and it was stated yes, which is common in cases
of blighted areas. Also stated was the fact that this is a lower priority than the
redevelopment of Front Street. Chair Frie states that the commission conceptually
agrees, with restrictions and this would be a positive for this area.
The commissioners also noted that because of the location of this proposed project
would it be possible to restrict these units to age 55 and older and it was stated that it
could. It \\"as stated that they would like to see that versus a "starter" type home. Garage
-9-
.
.
.
--
sizes werc again discussed and that they need to be larger or there will be storage
problems. The 55 and older seems to work best for these types of homes, smaller
garages, etc.
11.
Adiourn.
A MOTION WAS MADE BY ROBBIE SMITH AND SECONDED BY ROD
DRAGSTEN TO ADJOURN THE MEETING AT 9: I 5 P.M. Motion carried
unanimously.
Recording Secretary
-10-
.
.
,
Planning Commission Agenda - OJ/02/01
~.
Consideration of a Concept Stage PU D for a 77 unit townhouse proiect in Klein Farms
Estates 2"" Addition. Applicant: Kagle Crest Northwest. (NAC)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
Eagle Crest is seeking concept stage approval of a proposed townhouse development in
Klein Farms Estates 2nd Addition. north of Farmstead Drive and south of the Industrial Park
which abuts the project's northern boundary. The site is zoned Residential Planned Unit
Development and accommodates a medium density residential project. The site appears to
be approximately ten acres in size, which would accommodate a maximum of around 80
townhouse units.
The proposed layout is divided into two basic areas. The eastern portion contains 31 units
of side-by-side townhouse units in 8 building clusters - 7 clusters of 4 units each and one
three unit huilding. A central private street serves all of the units which are arranged in a
linear pattern tlanking both sides of the private street. The unit styles would be one level
ramhlers with front loaded double garages. Each building eluster includes two garages side
by side which creates a driveway "curb cue' on the private access street of about 45 feet in
width. 'r-hese driveway cuts are separated by landscaped areas which vary from 40 to 60 feet
in width.
The western portion of the project would contain 36 units in nine "quadraminium" buildings.
A perimeter pri vate street provides access to this development. from which a series of 16 foot
wide driveway spurs serve the individual units. The units in this half of the project are
proposed to be two level buildings which double garages in a "tuck-under" arrangement.
Similar curb-cut widths arc proposed for the side by side double garages, although
landscaped separations arc somewhat wider - 55 to 65 feet for the hulk of the buildings. The
western-most buildings show a narrower landscaped area, however, the building spacings
appear to be just 12 to 22 feet, below the required separation in a PU D ~ equal to the height
of the buildings. For these units, a building height of 24 feet would require building
separation of the same dimension. Because of the restricted area, one of these western-most
buildings will not fit as designed.
The west side also has a conflict with the bulTer yard requirements t(n residential areas
adjacent to existing industrial development. A 50 foot wide bufferyard is required, at least
40 feet of Vv'hich must he a landscaped area. While the setback to the buildings in
approximately 60 feet, a 24 foot private street occupies a portion of the required landscape
area, leaving the green space at a width of just 20 feet. The street must be shi !led at least 20
feet to the south, or a different arrangement for the units Inust he considered. One option
would he to place the private street between the pairs of buildings (similar to the east side),
- 1-
.
Plann ing COllllll ission Agenda - 0 I /02/0 I
with driveway spurs on both sides providing access to four units each. Such a layout would
make the 16 foot driveway dimension a more acceptable concept.
An additional consideration fiJr the project should be the inclusion of small cl usters of visitor
parking throughout the development. With narrow private streets, there would be severely
limited opportunity for non-residents to park when visiting the neighborhood.
Apart from these layout issues. the project would require landscaping and amenities
consistent with the intent of the PUf) ordinance. Essentially, this ordinance states that pun
is a zoning technique which is appropriate to allow flexibility in application of the basic
regulations (such as internal setbacks and public street fi-ontage) when the design and
amenities of the project show superior quality and, on balance, substantively exceed the
minin1um standards of the City's zoning regulations. For the townhouse project adjacent to
the cast boundary, a substantial amount of front-yard landscaping was required, including
both f()Undation plantings and in comnwn areas. The submitted preliminary landscape plan
shows only a few shrubs at the unit entrances and about one tree per unit outside of the
require buffer plantings. T'he buildings elevations illustrate aluminum lap siding with a
limited amount of brick fascia on the garage fi'onts.
.
For a project which is designed with straight private streets and linear building locations. site
amenities should be greatly increased to 111itigate the relatively monotonous sight lines.
Front yard landscaping should be intensified significantly. Other elements could also be
considered. including fencing or other structural items, and consideration for pedestrian
access, such as a sidewalk along the private street. The garage front design of the rambler
units makes the streetscape views an issue. Also. the public's view of this project will be of
the backs of most of the units from Fannstead Drive. Special attention should be given to
the design of this area, such as perimeter shrub planting and other elements. Because this
will be rear yard space f(Jr the residents, a design which provides a feeling of private open
space, but avoids a continuous six-f()ot fence along the street should be considered.
Finally, none of the units are shown with porch additions or patio spaces, however, these
elements arc often sought by residents either in the initial construction phase or later. The
project designers should show how these spaces will be addressed, with attention to the
public views of the site, the private use of the space, and the purpose ofPUD design.
8.
ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS
1.
Motion to recommend approval of the concept pun plan, with direction to the
devcloper to incorporate the comments of staff and the Planning Commission into
its Development Stage PUO plans.
.
_J_
.
Planning Commission Agenda - 0 1/02/0 I
2.
Motion to recommend denial of the concept PlJ D plan, based on a finding that the
proposal f~dls short of the City's expectation for pun development.
3. Motion to table action on the concept PUD plan, pending submission of additional
inflWlnation.
C STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staffwould recommend approval of the concept plan only with attention to the issues raised
in this report and an enhanced design consistent with these comments. As noted in other
PUD applications, it is not the purpose of the pun ordinance to merely drop standards and
maximize raw land density. Instead. it is the purpose ofPU n to signi ficantly increase design
and development quality. The proposed concept plan shows a neighborhood which would
have the bare minimum of visual and site amenities, while maximizing the number of units
that a 10 acre parcel can support.
.
D. SUPPORTING DATA
I.
7
Site Location
Site/Landscape Plan
Building Elevations for Rambler Units
8uilding Elevations for Quad Units
..,
-, .
4.
.
-'
..,
- .)-
_/.--~.-...
.---
;!
11
i
;!
iI
!
II
II
1-----
II
!l
I
II
II
'.
I
,.
I
II
..
I
,
i i
1
fH~ ROAD I i
1 /
/ I ! /
,
I [ V
_. , I
i f
( \
I
I I.
I
DUNDAS jROAq \ \
S I
\ \ I
0 r
:3 I r I
~ '-~'l \ t. I
0 I 1 [ , \
1
;
% 1
--e--J
j.. " -'
// ~
-< <
I _'~
~
," \ "
! " :
; ,! _\
I~
........
I ~~,
, .....
I (
,
i
\
I
I
.
~ 11C"'
~T10N.
~\
..
E
------.......
, .)..........-..... ~...-' Jji ........"
{f ,. ,,1/ ,.,
"'...- , I I
S --....., / . I
(iI!-.--- l'; I /
'''-l I \
l'-l ....,
_......: I' ......-----~':....
-- I. ~,
. . ~
. i I ""'''''
. I'
:a;l_:II.3_.:::I3Ii~""-..=--"'=-~..~'" ·
=-.~~';;I=-.~- l
I
I
i
I
I
i
i
!
. !
~--'-'
,...
-
-
C
4:
o
a:
,.
~
u"
~
..J
..J
?t1E LolAnON M~ :
-~ . -I ~_I
612 595 9837 P.03/05
It ...
! -!
.~~~r~~~j~ll~~
.Ai-1J..lJ1 j~~..,~
S .'~ ~
- ~ ~l ~ ;. N Ja :~ :) ~ .;! il> ~ ;.. "lI!.
..M~.J..\Nt4IJtIft"'--""" ....
DEC-28-2000 11:43
~ .
NAC
~ ~!ln
If .ll
~. ~ ~
, 11.. t,i
"~ 4'" ..
1; iJ Ii
~ ~~J~
1
F
%
~
~
: i ~
:~
~...
: ~ '"
, ~ .1
..~-
:. i
, -"
~i::;-:::[!foo.:;;:!i"l"'''''~~~~
~ -c 'C '-\ ~ ~\ ~~ -6 = "'" '- ~ _.1 '::.
"
1
~
1
~"
''''
*
3;""3(\V t'/Q'Sf'lQ',jQJ' 3'l'J
""
:S j.;
~ EY
J: ~ ~
"'"
,-:,' '
. "{Ol:_' ~
:i'
1-~~~
:1 =--1 .
.... ,
H
I ~
~. " 1.1
r ~H I ~U
~~ ~te~ ,lf1 1
J ~ J il~ ~~,t.t~!
.." ~'" '" ~'"' ...
:'i" ,.51; 01:1 ~.. <.c -
:do -:i ...... '';_
" ..
; i
d !
..(
. ':..~:i'
.; ~~::'!
DEC-28-2000 11:43
"
..
I
. ,
.'
"
,
NAC
j
r !
it.
I-
.. ~
"'"
612 595 9837 P.04/05
" ,
, .
..,
~ ,.
~ ,
.i
~' : I .)
I.
"
!.], \;:-,
.. ~
~ ' oz' ' "
,~"j
W~ ,.('\ :
~ N .' "
~\\t, ~a' "
,\) , It''.,' . ' ,
:), -.t
,~'~, 0' '
'2"
~~, it "
.~,~" ~a
.." .,L\,
"
..
, .
" .'
"
..
"
: "
'. . ,
"
"
"
..
,
"
..
"
~()n...Dui& ~.
~t 1~ U NITS
'''.
"
"
",-..
~
_9
<(
~
~ 3
. ~ ~
., -
5~3
Planning Commission Agenda -1/02/01
.
~.
Consideration of an amendment to the zoning ordinance re!!3rding accessory buildinl!s
in residential districts. Applicant: City of Monticello. (NAC)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
Staff and the Planning Commission recently discussed the consideration of amendments to
the City's accessory building size regulations. The attached draft ordinance would replace
the section of the zoning ordinance which currently states as follows:
4. No detached accessory building shall exceed ten percent (10%) of the rear yard or
one thousand (1 ,flOO) square feet in floor area, whichever is less.
The amendlnent would include both attached and detached accessory space within the 10%
/ 1,000 square foot maximum. add a requirement that the accessory space may not be larger
than the building footprint of the principal use. and create a CUP process for having larger
accessory space than the limits. As noted previously, the current regulations address
detached space only, but have no "circuit breaker" to allow larger buildings. and creates an
absolute cap of 1,500 square feet. In some instances, larger buildings may be appropriate.
. B.
1.
2.
..,
.J.
ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS
Motion to recommend approval of the proposed ordinance amendment.
Motion to recommend denial of the proposed ordinance amendment.
Motion to table action on the amendment pending additional information.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION
StatT recommends approval of the amendment to allow the review of oversized accessory
buildings. This process would make reasonable accommodation for most properties (up to
a 4-car garage size without further processing, and would allow for neighbor and City review
for larger space. In many cases, the space will be better than the alternative, which is
outdoor storage of residential equipment such as boats, snowmobiles, and other items.
D.
SUPPORTING DATA
1.
Draft Ordinance Amendment
.
-1-
.
.
,
City of Monticello
Wright County, Minnesota
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 10, CHAPTER 3, SECTION 3-2 [DI, OF THE
MONTICELLO ZONING ORDINANCE RELATING TO ACCESSORY BlJILDINGS ON
SINGLE F AMIL Y RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY.
THE CITY COUNCIL OF TI-lE CITY OF MONTICELLO, MINNESOTA l-IEREBY ORDAINS
AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1.
Chapter 3, Section 3-2 [D 14. is amended to read as rollows:
4. Except by Conditional Use Permit issued pursuant to Section 3-2 [0 I 5., for single family
residential uses, no detached accessory building shall exceed ten percent (10%) of the rear
yard or the parcel on which it is located, nor shall any combination of attached garage and
detached accessory building exceed the following maximum area, whichever is less:
(a)
(b)
1,000 square feet: or
The gross square f(Jotage of the building footprint of the principal use.
Section 2.
Chapter 3, Section 3-2 [0] 5. and Chapter 3, Section 3-2 [DJ 6. are amended to renumber said
Sections as Section 3-2 [D] 6. and Section 3-2 [D] 7., respectively.
Section 3.
Chapter 3, Section 3-2 [D1 is amended to add Section 3-2 [D] 5. as follows:
I. T'he size limitations for detached and attached accessory building area listed in Section 3-2
rD] 4. may be increased, up to a maximum square footage or 1,500 square feet, by the
issuance of a ConditionallJse Permit when the following conditions are f()lll1d to exist:
(a) Accessory building space is to be utilized solely for the storage of residential
personal property of the occupant of the principal dwelling, and no accessory
building space is to be utilized for commercial purposes.
(b)
The parcel on which the accessory building is to be located is of sufficient size such
that the building will not crowd the open space on the lot.
.
.
.
..-'
(c)
The accessory buildings will not be so large as to have an adverse effect on the
architectural character or reasonable residential use of the surrounding property.
(d) The accessory buildings shall be constructed to be similar to the principal building
in architectural style and building materials.
Section 4.
This ordinance shall become effective from and after its passage and publication.
//s//
.
.
.
~
Planning Commission Agenda - 01/02/0 I
1.
Vcrbal uodate regardinl! thc TDS Tcleeom improvements. (FP)
Fred to provide update at the meeting.
- 1-
.
.
,
~.
Planning Commission ^gcnda - 01/02/0 I
Discussion rcgardill1! Plannim! Commission member terms. (.10)
Please see attached memo.
- 1-
MEMO
MONTICELLO
DATE:
Deccmher 28,2000
TO:
Planning Commission
FROM:
Jeff
RE:
Planning Commission Terms
I-lere is the final chapter and hopefully the final word on the Planning Commission terms. After further
review of the record, it was fCHmd that according to Council action taken in January 2000, there is no need
for re-appointment of any Planning Commission member for 2001.
. Therefore, Richard Carlson and Roy Popilek will not be up for rc~appointlnent until 2002. Sce the
attached appointment listing for further detail.
,
Monticello City Hall, 505 Walnut Street, Suite I, Monticello, MN 55362-8831 · (763) 295-2711. Fax: (763) 295-4404
Office of Public Works, 909 Golf Course Rd., Monticello, MN 55362 · (763) 295-3170 . Pax: (763) 271-3272
.
.
,
2001 ANNtJAL APPOINTMENTS
Official Depositories:
Newspaper:
Housing & Redevelopment Authority:
(5-year staggered terms)
Planning Commission:
(Assuming 3-year staggered tenns)
Health Officer:
(I year)
Acting Mayor:
(1 year)
.Joint Commissions:
Community Education
Fire Hoard
MO^^
Lihrary Board:
(3-year staggered)
Attorney:
Planner:
Auditor:
Marquette Bank Monticello
Chief Financial Officer - authorized to designate
other depositories for investment purposes
only.
Monticello Times
l.
2.
Bob Murray
Steve Andrews
Dan Frie
Brad Barger
Darrin Lahr
12/2001
12/2002
12/2003
12/2004
12/2005
"
_J.
4.
5.
1.
2.
J.
4.
5.
Robbie Smith
Richard Carlson
R.oy Popilek
Rod Dragstcn
Dick J''rie
12/2003
]2/2001
] 2/2001
12/2002
12/2002
River Place Phvsician Clinic
Clint Herbst
Roger Belsaas
Rick Wolfsteller and Brian Stumpf
ROQer fklsaas and Clint Herbst
l. Tom Parker 12/2002
2. Gordy Jacobson 12/2003
" Jeanette I _ukowski 12/2002
-) .
4. Jim Maus 12/2003
5. Diane Ilerbst 12/2001
Dennis Dalen of Olson. LJsset & Weingarden
Northwest Associated Consultants (Steve Grittman)
Gruys. Borden, Carlson & ^ssociates
.
.
.
Recycling Committee:
Economic Development Authority:
(6-year staggered terms)
Engineer:
Police Advisory Commission:
(3-year staggered terms)
Parks Commission:
(3- year staggered tenns)
DA T (Design Advisory Team)
(2-year staggered terms)
MCC Advisory Board
(3-year staggered terms)
MCC established 9/11/00 and members
appointed 10/9/00.
Bruce Thielen
I.
2.
Roger Carlson,Council
Clint I lerbst, Council
Ken Maus
Darrin Lahr
Barb Schwientek
Bill Oemcules
Ron Hoglund
"
~.
4.
5.
6.
7.
WSB & Associates
1. Brian StumpL Council
I Dick Slais
" David Gerads
-, .
4. Brad Fyle
5. Liz DeMarais
1. Earl Smith
2. Larry Nolan
" Fran fair
-, .
4. Nancy McCaffrey
5. Rick Traver
1. Pam Campbell
2. Susie Woichouski
" Dennis Sullivan
-, .
4. Carl Sorenson
5. Ron I-Ioglund
6. Mike Cyr
7. Amanda Gaetz
I. Harvey Kendall
2. Bob Murray
" Wanda Kraemer
-, .
4. Roger Belsaas
5. lclclla Ziegler
Couneillhlison (ex-officio) aopointments to City committees:
liRA
Planning Commission:
Parks Commission:
Police Conll11ission:
I .ibrary Board:
MCP:
Brian Stumpf
Clint Herbst
Roger Carlson
Brian Stumpf
Bruce Thielen
Bruce Thielen
12/2006
12/2002
12/2002
12/2003
12/2004
12/2005
12/2001
12/2002
12/2003
12/2003
12/2001
12/2002
12/200 I
12/2002
] 2/200J
12/2002
12/2001
12/2002
12/2002
12/2002
12/200 ]
12/200 ]
12/2001
12/2001
12/2003
12/2003
12/2002
12/2002
12/2001