Planning Commission Agenda 03-04-2014
AGENDA
MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
Tuesday, March 4th, 2014 - 6:00 PM
Mississippi Room, Monticello Community Center
Commissioners: Chairman Brad Fyle, Sam Burvee, Charlotte Gabler, Alan
Heidemann, Grant Sala
Council Liaison: Lloyd Hilgart
Staff: Angela Schumann, Steve Grittman - NAC, Ron Hackenmueller
1. Call to order.
2. Citizen Comments.
3. Consideration of adding items to the agenda.
4. Consideration to approve Planning Commission minutes.
a. Regular Meeting – January 7th, 2014
b. Special Meeting – February 4th, 2014
c. Rescheduled Regular Meeting – February 11th, 2014
d. Special Meeting – February 24th, 2014
5. Public Hearing – Consideration of a request for Concept and Development Stage Planned
Unit Development and Rezoning to Planned Unit Development for a K-12 Educational
Institution in an R-3 (Medium Density Residence) District and CCD (Central Community
District.
Applicant: Miller, Eric
6. Public Hearing – Consideration of a request for Conditional Use Permit for an Industrial
Services use in an I-1 (Light Industrial) District, a request for Variance to Monticello
Zoning Ordinance section 4.3, Fences and Walls as related to fence appearance, and a
request for Variance to Monticello Zoning Ordinance section 5.3, Accessory Uses as
related to area and extent of outdoor storage.
Applicant: All Elements, Inc.
7. Public Hearing – Consideration of a request for an amendment to the Monticello Zoning
Ordinance, Section 5.2, Use Table and 5.3, Use Standards to allow Temporary Public
Infrastructure Construction Facilities by Interim Use Permit and request for an Interim
Use Permit for Temporary Public Infrastructure Construction Facilities.
Applicant: Shafer Contracting Co., Inc.
8. Public Hearing – Consideration of a request for Preliminary Plat for Pine View 2nd
Addition, a 3 unit residential plat in an R-1 (Single-Family Residence) District.
Applicant: Kjellberg, Kent
9. Community Development Director’s Report
10. Adjourn.
MINUTES
REGULAR MEETING - MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION
Tuesday, January 7, 2014 - 6:00 PM - Mississippi Room, Monticello Community Center
Present: Brad Fyle, Charlotte Gabler, Sam Burvee, Grant Sala
Absent: None
Others: Angela Schumann, Ron Hackenmueller, Steve Grittman, Lloyd Hilgart
1. Call to order
Brad Fyle called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m.
2. Approval of Minutes – December 3rd, 2013 Regular Meeting
CHARLOTTE GABLER MOVED TO ACCEPT THE DECEMBER 3, 2013 REGULAR
MEETING MINUTES AS PRESENTED. GRANT SALA SECONDED THE MOTION.
MOTION CARRIED 4-0.
3. Citizen Comments None
4. Consideration of adding items to the agenda None
5. Public Hearing – Consideration of an Amendment to the Monticello Zoning
Ordinance, Chapter 3, Section 4(D) – RA (Residential Amenities) District.
Applicant: City of Monticello
Angela Schumann summarized that the commissioners had agreed to increase the base
required lot width from 90 feet to 100 feet and eliminate lot averaging in the RA
(Residential Amenities) District during their October 1, 2013 workshop. She noted that
the increase in lot width would enable a larger square footage home, the retention of lot
amenities and the situation of homes relative to the “5 foot rule” (which allows the garage
to be no closer than 5’ to the street than the home).
Based on further consideration of the need for flexibility in subdivision design,
Schumann suggested that Planning Commission reconsider eliminating lot width
averaging or increase the percentage of lots required to meet or exceed the 100 foot
width.
It was noted that developers seek to meet the minimum width in order to enable the
maximum number of lots allowed and that this can make it difficult for builders to
accommodate other standards.
After some discussion, the consensus of the commission was that it would be useful to
review actual plats and housing styles which have been developed and built and clarify
Planning Commission Minutes: 01/07/14
2
how well the vision for the RA District has been addressed prior to making any
amendments to the ordinance. This would also provide an opportunity for commissioners
to consider if amending the ordinance would support the Comprehensive Plan goal of
providing step up or higher end housing.
Brad Fyle opened the public hearing. As there were no comments, the public hearing was
closed.
CHARLOTTE GABLER MOVED TO TABLE ACTION ON RESOLUTION 2014-
001, AMENDING THE MONTICELLO ZONING ORDINANCE, CHAPTER 3,
SECTION 4(D) – RA (RESIDENTIAL AMENITIES) DISTRICT UNTIL
FURTHER NOTICE. SAM BURVEE SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION
CARRIED 4-0.
6. Public Hearing - Consideration of adopting Ordinance #589 rezoning a portion
of Lots 1 and 2, Block 1, Oakwood Industrial Park, from B-2 (Limited Business)
to B-4 (Regional Business). Applicant: City of Monticello Planning Case
Number: 2014-002
Angela Schumann summarized that the City had rezoned two parcels located at 101
Chelsea Road from an industrial designation to a commercial designation in response to
a request to allow “Places of Public Assembly” as a permitted use.
As that use is no longer relevant, staff asked that the site be rezoned from B-2 (Limited
Business) to B-4 (Regional Business) to accommodate a wider variety of commercial land
uses, including the possible location of an indoor commercial entertainment enterprise. The
site had previously served area recreation needs as a bowling facility. The site’s location
along two collector routes supports a regional designation for potential uses. Rezoning
to B-4 would continue to be consistent with the pattern of transition from industrial to
commercial land uses as guided by the Comprehensive Plan for this area.
The request meets both the second and third considerations for amendment to the
Official Zoning Map of Monticello in that it addresses needs arising from a
changing condition, trend, or fact affecting the property and surrounding area; and in
that it is consistent with achieving the goals and objectives outlined in the
comprehensive plan.
Brad Fyle opened the public hearing. As there were no public comments, the public
hearing was closed.
SAM BURVEE MOVED TO ADOPT RESOLUTION 2014-002, RECOMMENDING
REZONING OF OAKWOOD INDUSTRIAL PARK, LOT 1 & 2, BLOCK 1 FROM B-2
(LIMITED BUSINESS) TO B-4 (REGIONAL BUSINESS). CHARLOTTE GABLER
SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED 3-1 WITH BRAD FYLE VOTING IN
OPPOSITION.
Planning Commission Minutes: 01/07/14
3
Fyle stated that he did not support the rezoning request because the B-2 District
designation provides an adequate buffer for the industrial park.
7. Public Hearing – Consideration to recommend for the adoption the 2014 City of
Monticello Official Zoning Map
Angela Schumann asked that the Planning Commission table action on adoption of
the Official Zoning Map. She indicated that it is necessary to provide clarity as to
shoreland boundaries along the Mississippi River and Otter Creek, as required by the
text of the zoning ordinance, prior to adopting the map.
She pointed out that the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) is
currently in the process of revising floodplain mapping for Wright County and
suggested that it would be difficult to determine shoreland boundary until maps have
been completed and approved.
Staff will work with WSB and the Department of Natural Resources (DNR) to
delineate the appropriate overlay boundary for the Shoreland District as related to the
floodplain. Staff will also conduct an analysis related to the special use overlay to be
included as part of the official zoning map. In addition, the revised map will serve to
document any map amendments approved in 2013.
Brad Fyle opened the public hearing. As there were no comments, the public hearing
was closed.
CHARLOTTE GABLER MOVED TO TABLE ACTION ON ADOPTION OF THE
2014 CITY OF MONTICELLO OFFICIAL ZONING MAP. GRANT SALA
SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED 4-0.
8. Consideration to adopt a Public Values Statement for Collaborative Stage PUD for
K-12 Educational Use in the R-3 (Medium Density Residence) District and CCD
(Central Community District). Applicant: SRCS Building Company/Miller, Eric
(NAC) Planning Case Number: 2013-002
Steve Grittman reported that the Planning Commission and the City Council had met
jointly with the developer for the Swan River Montessori School to consider common
objectives related to the proposed facility expansion project. These objectives were
summarized in a Public Values Statement which would serve as a tool for evaluation for
the City and a design guideline for the developer during the Planned Unit Development
(PUD) process.
The proposed project would involve construction of a separate building on a site to the
west of the existing school (503 Maple Street) to allow for increased classroom and office
space. The facility would continue to share common support facilities such as parking,
student drop-off. The new space would enable the school to expand programming
without expanding student population.
Planning Commission Minutes: 01/07/14
4
Grittman noted that the City Council must also adopt the Public Values Statement in
order to move the proposal beyond the collaborative stage of the PUD process. He also
confirmed that the Planning Commission would have the opportunity to consider the
proposed project further throughout the PUD process.
GRANT SALA MOVED TO ADOPT THE FINAL PUBLIC VALUES STATEMENT
FOR THE SWAN RIVER MONTESSORI EXPANSION. SAM BURVEE SECONDED
THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED 4-0.
9. Consideration of a request for extension of a Conditional Use Permit for a Drive-
Through Facility, Joint Parking and Joint Access. Applicant: SA Group Properties,
Inc.
Angela Schumann reported that SA Group Properties, Inc. had requested an extension of
the Conditional Use Permit (CUP) originally issued for a proposed commercial
development project at Broadway Market in 2006. She noted that the CUP for cross-
parking, cross access and a drive-through at the corner of CSAH 75 and CSAH 39 had
been extended for continuous one-year periods since that time and had now expired due
to non-use.
Schumann indicated that legal counsel for the applicant had advised extending rather than
amending the CUP at this time as existing private reciprocal easements of record and
access and parking improvements are already in place. Staff pointed out that it will be
necessary to amend the CUP prior to development if it does not reflect previously
approved plans.
Charlotte Gabler said that she’d like to draw the line on extensions. In response, Angela
Schumann explained that although the revised zoning ordinance allows for only one
extension, this particular CUP had been approved under the provisions of the previous
zoning ordinance, which did not limit the number of extensions. Schumann also noted
that, in this case, the proposed development is appropriate for the site, would be
consistent with plans already approved, and is likely to be developed.
SAM BURVEE MOVED TO RECOMMEND EXTENSION FOR ONE YEAR OF THE
SEPTEMBER 25TH, 2006 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A DRIVE-THROUGH
FACILITY, JOINT PARKING AND JOINT ACCESS FOR THE BROADWAY
MARKET DEVELOPMENT, WITH THE CONDITION THAT ALL PREVIOUSLY
APPROVED CONDITIONS BE ASSIGNED TO THE EXTENSION. GRANT SALA
SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED 4-0.
10. Consideration to review a summary and recommendation of next steps as related to
R-4 (High Density Residence) Workshop (NAC)
Steve Grittman summarized that the Planning Commission and City Council had met in
joint session to discuss issues related to locating R-4 (High Density Residence) Districts.
Planning Commission Minutes: 01/07/14
5
The meeting focused on defining principles and factors by which to consider future R-4
rezoning requests as development proposals come up on a case by case basis. There was
general agreement that various factors work in combination and that no single factor is
determinative. The following factors were identified as key considerations in rezoning to
R-4:
Replacement land use
Local transportation network access to roadways
Architectural compatibility and building massing need buffering
Adequate public facilities
Proximity to lower density residential neighborhoods performance based
consideration
Proximity to other high density residential neighborhoods
Brad Fyle said that he’d prefer to identify one R-4 site and speculated that property on 7th
Street west of the former Kmart site seemed to him to be a general concept area.
Grant Sala suggested that it may even be appropriate to rezone more than one site R-4 at
this time especially since there had been some developer interest in the R-4 concept. He
agreed that the process of identifying factors for consideration is a step in right direction.
Sam Burvee indicated that he would prefer to provide guidelines than rezone any
particular site.
SAM BURVEE MOVED TO CALL FOR A PUBLIC HEARING TO AMEND THE R-4
ZONING DISTRICT AND THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TO INCORPORATE
FACTORS AND PRINCIPLES INTO THE CODE TO MANAGE AND DIRECT THE
LOCATIONS FOR FUTURE R-4 AREAS. GRANT SALA SECONDED THE
MOTION. MOTION CARRIED 4-0.
11. Consideration to review for recommendation the extension of Interim Ordinance
#568 for Temporary Signs
Angela Schumann summarized that the interim temporary sign ordinance had been
extended each year since it was established in 2011 in response to concerns voiced by the
business community that it was too restrictive. Extension of the interim ordinance has
provided an annual opportunity to consider whether amending the ordinance would
resolve issues related to the number of allowable days of use.
Building Official Ron Hackenmueller indicated that 40-45 days per year seemed to be
the average for temporary sign usage. He noted that staff have asked that permit holders
submit 2013 usage data. He pointed out that the majority of violations involve placing
signs on the public right of way or easement and failure to remove temporary signage in
a timely manner.
Planning Commission Minutes: 01/07/14
6
Brad Fyle pointed out that the commission had amended the temporary sign ordinance as
a way to increase visibility for local businesses struggling to survive in the midst of an
economic downturn. He suggested that it may no longer be as critical to provide such
flexibility in 2015.
Schumann indicated that it would be useful to provide an opportunity for the new
commissioners to review temporary sign issues prior considering further amending the
interim ordinance. She suggested that extending the interim ordinance through 2014
would enable them develop a recommendation for 2015.
GRANT SALA MOVED TO RECOMMEND EXTENSION OF INTERIM
ORDINANCE #568 TO JANUARY 1ST, 2015. CHARLOTTE GABLER SECONDED
THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED 4-0.
12. Consideration to call for a public hearing for amendment to Monticello Zoning
Ordinance, Chapter 6 – Non-Conformities, Section A. Applicant: City of Monticello
Steve Grittman pointed to the need to amend the language in Chapter 6, Section A (1) of
the zoning ordinance to tighten the broad reading in place and bring it into conformance
with state statute. The amendment would eliminate the possibility of expansion of non-
conformities beyond what the City had intended. Grittman recommended that the
Planning Commission call for a public hearing to consider the amendment.
CHARLOTTE GABLER MOVED TO CALL FOR A PUBLIC HEARING FOR
AMENDMENT TO THE MONTICELLO ZONING ORDINANCE, CHAPTER 6 –
NON-CONFORMITIES, SECTION 1. SAM BURVEE SECONDED THE
MOTION. MOTION CARRIED 4-0.
13. Community Development Director’s Report
TAC Update - The January 9th TAC meeting will be rescheduled.
Vacant Planning Commission Position – Staff agreed to schedule an interview with the
applicant interested in the vacant commission seat and continue to advertise the position
until that time.
BRAD FYLE MOVED TO SCHEDULE THE INTERVIEW FOR THE VACANT
POSITION ON THE PLANNING COMMISSION FOR 5PM ON TUESDAY,
FEBRUARY 4TH OR, AS AN ALTERNATE DATE, AT 6PM ON TUESDAY,
FEBRUARY 18TH. GRANT SALA SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED
4-0.
Social Media and Native Landscapes – Staff confirmed that public testimony should
only be taken through written correspondence submitted as part of the hearing record or
during the public hearing on an ordinance amendment. Social media may be used to
notify the public about and invite input related to issues to be considered at upcoming
meetings. Staff will prepare a social media release related to the native landscaping
Planning Commission Minutes: 01/07/14
7
ordinance in an effort to obtain public input.
reSTOREing Downtown meeting – Schumann agreed to verify that it would be
appropriate for Charlotte Gabler to officially represent the Planning Commission at
reSTOREing Downtown meetings which she had been attending in a non-official
capacity. Grant Sala expressed interest in representing the commission as well. The next
meeting will be January 16th at 8:00 AM at City Hall.
14. Adjournment
CHARLOTTE GABLER MOVED TO ADJOURN THE MEETING AT 7:23 PM.
GRANT SALA SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED 4-0.
Recorder: Kerry Burri __
Approved:
Attest: ___________________________________________
Angela Schumann, Community Development Director
MINUTES
SPECIAL MEETING - MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION
Tuesday, February 4, 2014 - 5:00 PM
Academy Room, Monticello Community Center
Present: Brad Fyle, Sam Burvee, Charlotte Gabler, Grant Sala
Absent: None
Others: Angela Schumann, Ron Hackenmueller
1. Call to order
Brad Fyle called the special meeting to order at 5:00 p.m.
2. Purpose
The purpose of the special meeting is to interview two candidates for the vacant position
on the Planning Commission for the term ending December 31, 2015.
3. Planning Commissioner Interviews
The Planning Commission interviewed Alan Heidemann and Brian Stoll. Each applicant
responded to interview questions and shared their perspectives in an effort to highlight
their qualifications to serve on the Planning Commission.
After brief consideration, the Planning Commission came to general consensus that
although both applicants were strong candidates, Alan Heidemann’s experience serving on
the Parks Commission would be a better fit.
Staff noted that the Planning Commission recommendation would be included for
consideration at the February 10th City Council meeting.
4. Adjournment
CHARLOTTE GABLER MOVED TO ADJOURN THE SPECIAL MEETING AT 5:52
PM. GRANT SALA SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED 4-0.
Recorder: Kerry Burri __
Approved:
Attest: ___________________________________________
Angela Schumann, Community Development Director
MINUTES
SPECIALMEETING-MONTICELLOPLANNINGCOMMISSION
Tuesday,February11,2014-6:00PM-MississippiRoom,MonticelloCommunityCenter
Present:BradFyle,SamBurvee,CharlotteGabler,AlanHeidemann,GrantSala
Absent:None
Others:AngelaSchumann,RonHackenmueller,SteveGrittman,LloydHilgart
1.Calltoorder
BradFylecalledthemeetingtoorderat6:00p.m.
2.AcceptPlanningCommissionminutes–January7th,2014
TheJanuary7th meetingminuteswereunavailableforconsiderationatthistime.
3.CitizenComments None
4.Considerationofaddingitemstotheagenda None
5.PublicHearing-ConsiderationofarequestforaConditionalUsePermitfor
VehicleSalesandRentalinaB-4(RegionalBusiness)District.Applicant:DellInc.,
dbaQualityRV
SteveGrittmanreportedthattheapplicanthadrequestedaConditionalUsePermit(CUP)
forthesalesanddisplayofrecreationalvehiclesat3801ChelseaRoad(Lot1,Block1,
90th StreetAddition).ThepropertyhadoriginallybeenzonedaB-3(HighwayBusiness)
Districtanddevelopedasanautomobiledealership.ItwaslaterrezonedtoB-4(Regional
Business)Districtsothatitcouldbeusedasanofficeandtrainingfacility.Thesiteis
currentlyvacant.
QualityRVhasproposedtomakenominalchangestothepropertyandbuilding,
primarilyrelatedtobuildingaccessandshowroomdoors,andupdatethesignage.The
useincludesserviceandmaintenanceofrecreationalvehiclesthatareforsaleorare
beingpreppedfornewbuyers.Heavilydamagedvehicleswillnotbestoredonsite,andas
such,noissuesareexpectedrelatingtoscreeningfortheproposeduse.
GrittmanconfirmedthattherequestmeetsConditionalUsePermitcriteriaasrequiredby
2.4(D)(4)(a)ofthezoningordinanceinthattheproposeduseisconsistentwithlanduses
inthearea,consistentwiththeimprovementsandrequirementsforsuchusesinthe
district,andwillnotnegativelyimpactsurroundingpropertiesorpublicfacilities.
Standardsrelatedtominimumbuildingsize,screening,lighting,surface,parking,access,
lotsizeanddrainageasidentifiedin5.2(F)(29)VehicleSalesorRentalofthezoning
ordinanceareallinplaceandexpectedtobecompliantwithcurrentimprovements.
PlanningCommissionMinutes:2/11/14
2
BradFyleaskedGrittmanifaCUPwouldhavebeenrequiredifthesitehadremained
zonedB-3.GrittmanstatedthateitherzoningwouldrequireaCUPfortheproposeduse.
CharlotteGableraskedifabufferwouldbenecessaryonthewestsideoftheproperty.
Grittmanindicatedthatislandlandscapingwouldnotberequiredbecausethelotwould
beusedforvehicledisplayratherthanstripedforcustomerparking.
BradFyleopenedthepublichearing.
CoreyMoyer,theGeneralManagerofQualityRV,of4754164th LaneNWinAndover,
saidthathewaslookingforwardtogrowingthebusinessinMonticello.
LloydHilgartaskediftheRamseyfacilitywouldbeclosedandiftheywouldbeleasing
orpurchasingthefacilityinMonticello.Moyerindicatedthatthey’dbebringingtheirfull
staffandhopetohiremore.
GableraskediftheyplantorentRVsfromtheproposedlocation.Moyersaidthatthey
hadn’tdonesoatthepreviousfacilityasspacehadbeenlimitedbutthattheywouldlike
tohavethatoption.
Astherewerenocomments,thepublichearingwasclosed.
CHARLOTTEGABLERMOVEDTOADOPTRESOLUTION2014-010
RECOMMENDINGAPPROVALOFTHECONDITIONALUSEPERMITFOR
QUALITYRVCONTINGENTONCONDITIONSINEXHIBITZ.SAMBURVEE
SECONDEDTHEMOTION.MOTIONCARRIED4-0.(AlanHeidemanndidnotvote.)
EXHIBITZ
ConditionalUsePermitforVehicleSalesandRental
3801ChelseaRoad,Lot1,Block1,90th StreetAddition
1.Theapplicantwillprepareacertificateofsurveyandsubmititforfinalreviewfor
confirmationofsitedesignandusepriortooccupancy.
2.Signageplanswillbesubmittedforpermitsinaccordancewithsignordinance
allowancesandprocessing.
ThisitemwillbeconsideredbytheCityCouncilontheFebruary24th agenda.
6.PublicHearing–ConsiderationofanamendmenttotheMonticelloZoning
Ordinance,Chapter6–Non-Conformities,Section2.Applicant:CityofMonticello
PlanningCaseNumber:2014-006
SteveGrittmanpointedoutthatexistingnon-conformingusesandstructuresmaybe
replacedormaintainedbutthatexpansionofnon-conformitiesarerestrictedtoexisting
single-familyhomeswhichdonotmeetupdatedsetbackrequirementsorarelocatedin
PlanningCommissionMinutes:2/11/14
3
districtswhereresidentialuseisnotpermitted.Grittmansaidthattheordinancelanguage
inChapter6,Section2Non-Conformities,AuthoritytoContinue,currentlyallowsforthe
expansionofanynon-conforminguseinanydistrict.HerecommendedthattheCity’s
non-conformitiesordinancebeamendedtoagreewithstatestatute.
BradFyleopenedthepublichearing.Astherewerenocomments,thepublichearingwas
closed.
SAMBURVEEMOVEDTOADOPTRESOLUTION2014-011RECOMMENDING
APPROVALOFANORDINANCEAMENDMENT.GRANTSALASECONDEDTHE
MOTION.4-0.(AlanHeidemanndidnotvote.)
7.Adjournment
CHARLOTTEGABLERMOVEDTOADJOURNTHEMEETINGAT6:26PM.
GRANTSALASECONDEDTHEMOTION.MOTIONCARRIED5-0.
Recorder:KerryBurri__
Approved:March4,2014
Attest:___________________________________________
AngelaSchumann,CommunityDevelopmentDirector
Planning Commission Agenda – 03/04/14
1
5. Consideration of a request for Concept and Development Stage Planned Unit
Development (PUD) and Rezoning to PUD for a K-12 Educational Institution in an
R-3 District and CCD District. Applicant: Eric Miller, o/b/o Swan River
Montessori. (NAC)
Property: Lot 6 & 7, Block 10, Townsite of Monticello (503 Maple
Street)
Lots 8, 9 & 10 EX SWLY 45FT THOF, Block 11 (500
Maple Street)
Two adjacent and interrelated PUD properties are
proposed, at 503 Maple Street (PID 155-010-010060) and
500 Maple Street (PID 155-010-011080), between 4th St.
W. and 5th St. W. in the downtown Monticello area.
Planning Case Number: 2014-012
A. REFERENCE & BACKGROUND:
Request(s): Planned Unit Development rezoning and plan approval.
Deadline for Decision: April 14th, 2014 (60 days)
Land Use Designation: Downtown Land Uses & Places to Live
Zoning Designation: R-3, Medium Density Residential (503 Maple St.)
The purpose of the “R-3” medium density residential
district is to provide for medium density housing in
multiple family structures ranging up to and including
twelve (12) units and directly related, complementary uses.
CCD, Central Community District (500 Maple St.)
The purpose of the “CCD”, Central Community District, is
to provide for a wide variety of land uses, transportation
options, and public activities in the downtown Monticello
area, and particularly to implement the goals, objectives,
and specific directives of the Comprehensive Plan, and in
particular, the Embracing Downtown Monticello report and
its Design Guidelines.
Planning Commission Agenda – 03/04/14
2
Proposed Zoning: The purpose of the PUD zoning district is to provide
greater flexibility in the development of neighborhoods and
non-residential areas in order to maximize public values
and achieve more creative development outcomes while
remaining economically viable and marketable.
Current Site Use: The 500 Maple St. parcel is currently occupied by the Swan
River Montessori school, which shares parking with the
City of Monticello to the east. The 503 Maple St. parcel
currently contains a single family home, and is the site for a
new school building associated with the existing school
building at 500 Maple St.
Surrounding Land Uses:
North: Railroad ROW
East: (Included in PUD) CCD, Monticello Community Center
South: R-3, Medium Density Residential District
West: R-3, Medium Density Residential District
Project Description: The applicant is proposing to rezone the CCD and R-3
District parcels located at 500 Maple St. and 503 Maple St.
to Planned Unit Development District. In addition the
applicant is requesting City approval of PUD plans for a
new school building located at 503 Maple St., which will
be associated with an existing Montessori school building
located at 500 Maple St., resulting in a campus type
arrangement for the educational institution. The PUD
designation is desired to facilitate interactions and
improvements between the two school sites by providing
flexibility with regards to access, parking supply, building
architecture, setbacks, and landscaping.
Ordinance Requirements: When a proposal is made for Planned Unit Development,
the applicants are required to generally describe their
project, including a description of proposed uses, buildings,
site improvements, and other elements. The first step in the
PUD approval process is to conduct a collaborative
Planning Commission/City Council workshop meeting with
the developer at which a Public Values Statement is
developed. This meeting was held on December 18, 2014,
from which a Public Values Statement was written and
forwarded to the applicant and public officials. The Public
Planning Commission Agenda – 03/04/14
3
Values Statement forms the parameters for consideration of
development proposals on the property and for the elements
constituting the new PUD District that will apply to the
subject area.
With the adoption of the Public Values Statement, the
applicant requests approval of preliminary PUD plans for
the project, proceeding from Concept Stage to
Development Stage approvals, often (as in this case)
combining the two plan reviews.
ANALYSIS
PUD REZONING
The parcels will be subject to the requirements of PUD approval, including the following
applicable expectations for a development seeking a rezoning to PUD:
(a) Ensure high quality construction standards and the use of high quality construction
materials;
Comment: The design of the new school building should reflect the materials and design
of the existing Montessori school building, with exterior construction materials very
similar to that of the existing building. The new school building will integrate fiber
reinforced cement lap siding, a manufactured stone base with watertable, and a steel
roofing panel that will resemble traditional shingles but have an extended life.
(d) Promote aesthetically-pleasing design within the neighborhood and appears attractive
and inviting from surrounding parcels;
Comment: The new school building is similar in design and finish to the existing school
building, so will maintain an aesthetic appearance already familiar to the neighborhood.
In addition, the applicants wish to install vegetative screening in the form of shrubs
around the perimeter of the PUD site, to help filter views between residential uses and
the school, and will implement attractive, native ground cover plantings consisting of a
combination of grasses and flowers to further beautify the site.
Though loosely based on the architecture of the existing school building, the proposed
school building is simpler in design. The roof has a low pitch (4/12), which in
combination with flat windows and minimal roof variation results in a muted building
appearance. The roof on the existing school building has more dramatic roof
architecture and glass presentation to the street which adds character to the building.
The addition of dormers or decorative features (e.g. skylight, etc.) to the roof of the new
school building would add interest to the upper portion of the building. Specifically,
Planning Commission Agenda – 03/04/14
4
matching the cupola design of the existing building would tie the two structures together
architecturally.
(e) Incorporate extensive landscaping in excess of what is required by code;
Comment: This requirement is generally met. See landscaping discussion below.
(f) Provide high-quality park, open space, and trail opportunities that exceed the
expectations established in the Comprehensive Plan;
Comment: The school will provide an outdoor classroom experience, including
constructing a gazebo shelter to be integrated with site landscaping. The park shelter
will be designed with finish materials conforming to the principal school building.
As part of the Public Values Statement, the City indicated that the applicant should make
an effort to design the north part of the PUD cognizant of the fact that trail facilities may
be implemented along the rail right-of-way in the future. The school should consider
how the PUD design might cater to bicycle or pedestrian access from a trail to the north,
and given the accessibility of bicycles to the site, how bicycle parking facilities can be
provided.
(g) Provide a convenient and efficient multi-modal transportation system to service the
daily needs of residents at peak and non-peak use levels, with high connectivity to the
larger community.
Comment: The site can already be accessed by existing City sidewalks. The sidewalks
will be impacted with implementation of a bump-in at the front of the proposed school
building. The applicant intends to restore impacted walks post construction. Sidewalks
along the PUD site connect north and south along Maple Street, and west along 6th St.,
but do not connect east along 5th or 6th St. These additional sidewalk connections are not
indicated in the City’s Transportation or Park & Trail Plan. In addition, as described
above, PUD approval may be an opportunity to request that the school address bicycle
access and facilities for teachers and children. The site is not otherwise accessed by
public transportation.
(h) Promote development that is designed to reduce initial infrastructure costs and long-
term maintenance and operational costs;
Comment: No new infrastructure costs will be incurred by the City. In addition, the
applicants have chosen building materials for durability, and are proposing landscaping
that when established may require less maintenance then typical lawn.
(i) Where applicable, maximize the use of ecologically-based approaches to stormwater
management, restore or enhance on-site ecological systems, and protect off-site
Planning Commission Agenda – 03/04/14
5
ecological systems including the application of Low Impact Development (LID)
practices;
Comment: The applicants will install native plants mixes throughout the site. Native
plants have deep root systems that aid in the infiltration and filtration of stormwater
runoff. Proposed native plantings will also provide habitat to birds, insects and small
mammals, while serving as an educational tool for school children. Additional detail will
be necessary for approval of stormwater management proposals by City Engineering
staff.
PUD REVIEW
Setbacks. The new school building will be located on a parcel currently zoned R-3
District, which can serve as a starting point for considering building setbacks on the
parcel. However, a PUD designation provides some flexibility in the interpretation of
Ordinance standards for the existing zoning district, with the understanding that deviation
from any standards will provide additional benefits to the site and neighborhood,
including improvements in landscaping, architecture, and use of the site.
The following is an analysis of required setbacks in the R-3 District and proposed
setbacks for the PUD:
Required Proposed
Front yard: 30 feet Zero (0) feet
Side yard (interior): 40 feet* 60 feet
Railroad ROW: 25 feet 15 feet
Rear yard: 60 feet* 57 feet
*The side interior and rear setbacks are double that of the R-3 District because Ordinance requires school
buildings in any district to be set back from adjoining residential districts a distance no less than double the
adjoining residential setback. As the school site abuts R-3 District parcels to the south and west, the
increased setback is based off of R-3 district requirements.
The applicants are proposing a reduced railroad setback of only 15 feet, which would
allow school entrances on either side of Maple St. to be more closely oriented to each
other, in addition to providing an enhanced school yard south of the school building. If
the school building is permitted this flexibility, increased landscape buffering should be
required to mitigate noise levels from the railroad and reduce the risk of school children
accessing the railroad.
The applicants have proposed a dense line of Isanti dogwood along the railroad right-of-
way. This is an attractive native cultivar reaching 6 feet in height. While this species
may enhance the proposed buffer, it should be coupled with additional shrubs or small
Planning Commission Agenda – 03/04/14
6
trees to create a more opaque screen between the school yard and the railroad.
Recommended species include viburnums, ninebarks, American elder, tall American
arborvitae varieties (or other evergreens adapted to the region), etc.
In addition, the applicants are requesting a zero lot line front setback. The reduced front
setback will allow for a covered walk extending from the entry of the new school
structure to the public walk along Maple St. The walkway is intended to provide
protection from the weather and will enhance visual continuity between the two school
buildings. A zero lot line setback is allowed in the CCD, which the existing school
building is located within. The applicants feel the new school building could likewise
benefit from reduced setbacks and are requesting a PUD to be able to coordinate site
design with the adjacent school building and otherwise improve the use and appearance
of the site.
Off-Street Parking. The proposed building is not intended to create an increase in
enrollment, but rather will provide improved school spaces for existing enrollees. As
there will be no increase in density on the site, the developer is not proposing additional
parking or drives, but would like to use existing shared parking located between the
Montessori school at 500 Maple St. and the City of Monticello buildings to the east.
The applicant is proposing traffic design intended to prevent traffic congestion on the
public right of way and increase traffic control for pedestrian safety. Methods for doing
so include the implementation of crosswalks for pedestrian movement across Maple St.
and bump-ins on the street for temporary parking or deliveries apart from the flow of
traffic.
The proposed bump-ins will be 10 ft. wide and will be oriented across the street from a
bump-in used for drop off in front of the existing school building. The crosswalk will be
8 foot wide and is situated between building entrances for either school building. In
addition, the applicant will install crosswalk signs and advanced crosswalk signs (a
distance from the actual crosswalk) to alert traffic to pedestrian movement. The
applicants indicated that lighting or call controls could also be considered but aren’t
currently proposed. The applicant suggested that these additional traffic controls may not
be necessary as traffic along Maple St. is not anticipated to increase with the construction
of the new school, and student movement across Maple St. will be scheduled and
monitored. Staff is suggesting that the applicants will be made responsible for ongoing
maintenance of the pedestrian safety improvements.
Landscaping. The PUD site is required to provide a perimeter landscape buffer to
separate it from residential uses to the south and west, and the railroad right-of-way to the
north. The Ordinance would require a basic buffer between residential uses and a more
opaque buffer to heavier land uses such as the railroad. In addition, Ordinance requires
minimum site landscaping exclusive of required perimeters buffers. Institutional land
uses are required to provide 14.0 ACI (aggregate caliper inches) of canopy trees
Planning Commission Agenda – 03/04/14
7
(including at least 2 evergreen trees) per acre and at least 1 shrub per each 10 feet of
building perimeter.
The 503 Maple St. parcel is .5 acres and the proposed school building is approximately
256 feet in perimeter, which would require 7 ACI of canopy trees and 26 shrubs. The
requested PUD designation provides some flexibility in this regards, but with the
expectation that proposed buffers and landscaping will provide additional benefit to the
site and neighborhood, or otherwise go above and beyond base landscaping requirements
for the existing districts. Proposed landscaping accomplishes this task, but may be
improved.
The applicants intend to remove trees on the site that conflict with building placement or
road improvements, but will otherwise maintain healthy existing trees on site which far
exceed required ACI for the land use.
Instead of providing the required shrubs the applicants wish to implement large swaths of
native prairie and woodland plantings, in the form of grasses and wildflowers. The
intention is to provide wildlife habitat, improve stormwater infiltration, beautify the site,
and provide an educational experience. The use of native, drought tolerant vegetation is
encouraged by the City to reduce dependency upon irrigation.
While minimal shrub and tree plantings will benefit sunny native seed mixes intended for
the south and west portions of the site, the applicants should consider implementing
additional areas of shrubs or small trees in association with woodland/shade tolerant seed
mixes along north and east portions of the site. Shrub plantings interspersed with shady
seed mixes along the front of the school will provide additional visual interest around the
foundation of the building in winter months and will improve shade and soil conditions
for the proposed seed mixes. There are numerous low maintenance native or non-native
cultivars that can serve these functions (e.g. compact viburnum species, ninebarks, dwarf
bush honeysuckles, chokeberries, white cedars, serviceberries or other small fruiting
trees, fragrant sumac, etc.).
The applicants are proposing a continuous dogwood shrub buffer along the south, west,
and north lot lines in excess of what the City would have required. The deciduous
species chosen is attractive but will provide minimal screening in winter months as the
sole species applied to the site. It is recommended that the applicants maintain extents of
the proposed dogwood species, but intersperse them with other shrubs. Several of the
species listed above would work in this situation as well.
The PUD site and demolition plan does not indicate tree protection areas for trees that
will be preserved during construction. The applicant shall adhere to tree protections
standards provided in Chapter 4 Section 4.2 of the Zoning Ordinance, including
protecting the area within the drip line of any tree from soil compaction during
development, erecting sturdy tree protection fencing no closer than one linear foot to the
Planning Commission Agenda – 03/04/14
8
tree’s drip line, and providing the barriers necessary to protect installed shrub or
perennial vegetation from damage during and after construction. The Community
Development Department shall consider the existing site conditions in determining the
exact location for tree protection fencing. Areas located inside of tree protection fencing
are considered “tree save areas.”
The applicant shall be responsible for the maintenance of all approved landscaping and
shall present a healthy and orderly appearance free from refuse and debris. All plant life
shown on an approved landscape plan shall be replaced if it dies, is seriously damaged, or
removed. This is of particular concern for native grass and perennial seed mix areas
which will need to be kept free of tree seeds or invasive species seeds entering the site
from surrounding properties.
As a result of this issue, staff is suggesting that the applicants provide an adequate
maintenance plan for the native landscape to avoid weed or invasive infestations that can
interfere with successful installations of this sort.
Lighting. A lighting plan for the new school building has not been provided, though the
site plan seems to indicate some degree of exterior lighting underneath the school’s
exterior walkway. The applicants shall provide a lighting plan which adheres to
Ordinance Section 4.4 pertaining to Exterior Lighting, or otherwise addresses any
deviation from standards described therein for consideration by the City.
Signs. The applicants have not provided a sign plan for review. If exterior signage is
proposed in association with the new school building, the applicants shall provide a sign
plan indicating the location and design of proposed signs, which shall adhere to sign
requirements provided in Ordinance Section 4.5 Signs, or otherwise address any
deviation from standards described therein for consideration by the City.
Building Design. The new school building will integrate fiber reinforced cement lap
siding, a manufactured stone base with watertable, and a steel roofing panel that will
resemble traditional shingles but have an extended life. Building materials are intended
to reflect a traditional residential style that will blend with the character of the
neighborhood, and reflect materials and design implemented on the existing school
building. All materials will provide factory finishes. As noted above, staff is
recommending additional detailing, particularly along the roof line through dormers,
increased roof pitch (especially for the walkway cover), and/or cupolas that will reflect
the design of the existing building.
Grading and Drainage. The applicant will need to meet the requirements of the City
Engineer with regard to grading and drainage on the site.
As a significant portion of the site is planted in native seed mix, swaths of pervious
surface are found throughout the site and provide an opportunity to infiltrate stormwater
Planning Commission Agenda – 03/04/14
9
runoff before it moves off of the site, which is an ideal situation. Impervious surfaces
(including the building, the gazebo, and sidewalks) total approximately 29% of the site
(6,270.8 square feet). This percentage may be improved with the implementation of
pervious pavers in the landscaping design, as opposed to an impervious walkway.
Pervious pavers can be chosen for accessibility and aesthetics, and will permit
stormwater to infiltrate into the ground. The applicants have expressed an interest in
making the site sustainable, and should consider this option to reduce hard surfaces and
increase the ability of the site to treat stormwater runoff. In the alternative, stamped
concrete may be substituted to reflect the aesthetic of the pavers, although not necessarily
the stormwater benefit.
The proposed grading, drainage, and erosion control measures are subject to review and
approval by the City Engineer. The applicants are required to adhere to any
recommendations from the City Engineer as a condition of PUD approval.
Utilities. The PUD site and demolition plan indicates that existing water and sewer pipes
to the existing single family home on the property will be capped. It is unclear where
new water and sewer lines will be implemented between the school and Maple St. The
applicants will need to work with the City’s public works and engineering staff to
indicate where water and sewer lines will be installed. Other utility lines are indicated on
PUD site plans.
Accessory Use Requirements. A gazebo is proposed south of the school building. A
concrete path through landscaped areas provides students access to the structure. The
gazebo is approximately 768 square feet in area, and is located 14 feet from the west
property line and 16 feet from the south property line. The City requires accessory
structures to meet a minimum 6 foot setback from lot lines. The applicants have not
provided an elevation or section of the gazebo, so it is not possible to determine the
structures height. Upon installation, accessory structures may not exceed 15 feet.
Trash Handling. The applicant intends to utilize refuse facilities at the existing school
to fulfill the waste storage needs of the school expansion.
PUD PROCESS
Should the Planning Commission recommend approval of the Concept and Development
Stage Planned Unit Development and the PUD rezoning, only the Concept and
Development Stage requests will go forward to Council consideration at this time. The
City Council will take final action to rezone the property via Ordinance #592 at such
times as it considers the Final Stage PUD application. The Final Stage Application will
require the revision of all submittals to meet approved conditions and is reviewed only at
the Council level. A companion development agreement will also be considered by the
City Council at the time of Final Stage PUD and PUD rezoning review.
Planning Commission Agenda – 03/04/14
10
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS
Decision 1: Resolution of Recommendation for Concept and Development Stage
Planned Unit Development and PUD rezoning
1. Motion to adopt Resolution 2014-016 recommending approval of the requested
Concept and Development Stage Planned Unit Development and the PUD
rezoning, based on the findings in said Resolution, and that the subject parcels can
meet the requirements for PUD approval, and that the flexibility provided with the
PUD designation will encourage site and building design features beneficial to
both the Swan River Montessori School and the community, contingent on
compliance with the conditions listed in Exhibit Z.
2. Motion to recommend denial Concept and Development Stage Planned Unit
Development and the PUD rezoning, based on the finding that the subject parcels
are unable to meet the requirements for PUD approval.
3. Motion to table action on the request for further study.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of the Concept and Development Stage Planned Unit
Development and the PUD rezoning, based on findings as noted above and in Resolution
2014-016 and subject to the conditions listed in Exhibit Z.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
A. Ordinance No. 592
B. Resolution 2014 – 016
C. Land Use Application
D. Aerial Image
E. Applicant Narrative
F. Site Location Sheet
G. Site Plan
H. Landscape Plan
I. Exterior Elevations
J. Preliminary PUD Plan
K. Site and Demo Plan
L. Grading and Erosion Plan
M. City Engineer’s Comments, February 26th, 2014
Z. Conditions of Approval
Planning Commission Agenda – 03/04/14
11
Exhibit Z – Conditions of Approval
Swan River Montessori School PUD
500 and 503 Maple Street
1. The addition of dormers or decorative features (e.g. cupolas and skylight, etc.) to the roof
of the new school building to add interest to the upper portion of the building. Increase
pitch of roof, or mirror features from existing building.
2. The school should consider how the PUD design might cater to bicycle or pedestrian
access from a trail to the north (along the rail ROW), and given the accessibility of
bicycles to the site, how bicycle parking facilities can be provided.
3. Proposed dogwood shrubs should be coupled with additional shrubs or small trees
throughout the PUD site. Along the rail road additional shrubs/small trees should be used
to create a more opaque screening affect, and along the south and west property lines
additional shrubs/small trees should be added to create a more continuous buffer through
winter months. Recommended species include viburnums, ninebarks, American elder,
tall American arborvitae varieties (or other evergreens adapted to the region), etc.
4. The applicants should consider implementing additional areas of shrubs or small trees in
association with woodland/shade tolerant seed mixes along north and east portions of the
site. There are numerous low maintenance native or non-native cultivars that can serve
these functions (e.g. compact viburnum species, ninebarks, dwarf bush honeysuckles,
chokeberries, white cedars, serviceberries or other small fruiting trees, fragrant sumac,
etc.).
5. The applicant shall adhere to tree protections standards provided in Chapter 4 Section 4.2
of the Zoning Ordinance (no tree protection currently provided).
6. Provide a maintenance plan for of seed mixes & shrub/tree plantings (removal of
invasives or weeds, and replacement of any dead specimens).
7. The applicants shall provide a lighting plan for review, and address any deviation from
standards.
8. The applicants shall provide a signage plan (if any), and should address any deviation
from standards.
9. Implementation of (colored stamped) pervious pavers in the landscaping design, as
opposed to a plain concrete walk.
Planning Commission Agenda – 03/04/14
12
10. The proposed grading, drainage, and erosion control measures are subject to review and
approval by the City Engineer. The applicants are required to adhere to any
recommendations from the City Engineer as a condition of PUD approval.
11. The applicants will be responsible for pedestrian crossing improvements, including
signage, and long-term maintenance.
12. Provide details of the proposed gazebo, including materials and dimensions. Upon
installation, accessory structures may not exceed 15 feet.
13. Complete and submit Final Stage PUD documents consistent with the required conditions
of approval for inclusion in the final PUD ordinance and development contract.
14. Execution of a development contract securing the required improvements.
City of Monticello, Minnesota
Wright County
Ordinance No. 592
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 10 of the Monticello City Code, known as the Zoning
Ordinance, by establishing the Swan River PUD as a zoning district in the City of Monticello,
and rezoning certain lands to this district.
The City Council of the City of Monticello hereby ordains:
Section 1.
Chapter 2.4 (P) is hereby amended to add the following:
(13) Swan River PUD District.
(a) Purpose. The purpose of the Swan River PUD District is to provide for
the development of certain properties for elementary and secondary school
activities and uses. The purpose of the district shall incorporate the Public
Values Statement of record, as may be amended, adopted jointly by the
Planning Commission and City Council as of January 27, 2014.
(b) Permitted Uses. Permitted principal uses in the Swan River PUD District
shall be Elementary and Secondary School, subject to the approved Final
Stage Development Plans and development agreement, as may be
amended.
(c) Accessory Uses. Accessory uses shall be those commonly accessory and
incidental to elementary and secondary schools, and as identified by the
approved final stage PUD.
(d) District Performance Standards. Performance standards for the
development of any lot in the Swan River PUD District shall adhere to the
approved final stage PUD plans and development agreement. Only where
any proposed improvement is not addressed by the final stage PUD, the
regulations of the CCD, Central Community District shall apply.
(e) Where changes to the PUD are proposed in the manner of use, density, site
plan, development layout, or building size, mass or coverage, or any other
change, the proposer shall apply for an amendment to PUD under the
terms of the Monticello Zoning Ordinance, Section 2.4 (P)(10). The City
may require that substantial changes in overall use of the PUD property be
processed as a new project, including a zoning district amendment.
Section 2.
The zoning map of the City of Monticello is hereby amended to rezoned the following
described parcels from CCD and R-3, respectively, to Swan River PUD District:
[Insert Legals]
Section 3.
The City Clerk is hereby instructed to mark the official zoning map to reflect this
ordinance. The map shall not be republished.
Section 4.
This Ordinance shall take effect and be in full force from and after its passage and publication.
__________________________________
Clint Herbst, Mayor
ATTEST:
___________________________________
Jeff O’Neill, Administrator
AYES:
NAYS:
1
CITY OF MONTICELLO
WRIGHT COUNTY, MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION NO. 2014 - 016
Date: Resolution No.
Motion By: Seconded By:
A RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF A
CONCEPT AND DEVELPOMENT STAGE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT AND
PUD REZONING FOR
SWAN RIVER CHARTER SCHOOL AT 500 AND 503 MAPLE STREET
WHEREAS, SRCS, on behalf of the Swan River Charter School, has requested a Planned Unit
Development to permit expansion of its facility at 500 and 503 Maple Street, and
WHEREAS, the expansion will be located on a separate parcel from the existing facility; and
WHEREAS, the applicants and the City have identified a list of objectives known as the Public
Values Statement for the Swan River PUD; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on March 4, 2014 on the
application and the applicant and members of the public were provided the opportunity to present
information to the Planning Commission; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has considered all of the comments and the staff report,
which are incorporated by reference into the resolution; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Monticello makes the following Findings
of Fact in relation to the recommendation of approval:
1. The proposed Concept and Development Stage of the Swan River Planned Unit
Development is generally consistent with the intent of the City’s zoning regulations
governing PUD projects.
2. The proposed Concept and Development Stage of the Swan River Planned Unit
Development is generally consistent with the intent of the Public Values Statement
adopted by the Planning Commission and City Council for this project.
3. With recommendations of staff incorporated into this resolution, the project will be
eligible for PUD approval.
2
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the Planning Commission of the City of
Monticello, Minnesota, that Commission recommends adoption of the PUD zoning ordinance
and approval of the Concept and Development Stage PUD and PUD rezoning for Swan River
Charter School, with the conditions as follows:
1. The addition of dormers or decorative features (e.g. cupolas and skylight, etc.) to the roof
of the new school building to add interest to the upper portion of the building. Increase
pitch of roof, or mirror features from existing building.
2. The school should consider how the PUD design might cater to bicycle or pedestrian
access from a trail to the north (along the rail ROW), and given the accessibility of
bicycles to the site, how bicycle parking facilities can be provided.
3. Proposed dogwood shrubs should be coupled with additional shrubs or small trees
throughout the PUD site. Along the rail road additional shrubs/small trees should be used
to create a more opaque screening affect, and along the south and west property lines
additional shrubs/small trees should be added to create a more continuous buffer through
winter months. Recommended species include viburnums, ninebarks, American elder,
tall American arborvitae varieties (or other evergreens adapted to the region), etc.
4. The applicants should consider implementing additional areas of shrubs or small trees in
association with woodland/shade tolerant seed mixes along north and east portions of the
site. There are numerous low maintenance native or non-native cultivars that can serve
these functions (e.g. compact viburnum species, ninebarks, dwarf bush honeysuckles,
chokeberries, white cedars, serviceberries or other small fruiting trees, fragrant sumac,
etc.).
5. The applicant shall adhere to tree protections standards provided in Chapter 4 Section 4.2
of the Zoning Ordinance (no tree protection currently provided).
6. Provide a maintenance plan for of seed mixes & shrub/tree plantings (removal of
invasives or weeds, and replacement of any dead specimens).
7. The applicants shall provide a lighting plan for review, and address any deviation from
standards.
8. The applicants shall provide a signage plan (if any), and should address any deviation
from standards.
9. Implementation of (colored stamped) pervious pavers in the landscaping design, as
opposed to a plain concrete walk.
10. The proposed grading, drainage, and erosion control measures are subject to review and
approval by the City Engineer. The applicants are required to adhere to any
recommendations from the City Engineer as a condition of PUD approval.
3
11. The applicants will be responsible for pedestrian crossing improvements, including
signage, and long-term maintenance.
12. Provide details of the proposed gazebo, including materials and dimensions. Upon
installation, accessory structures may not exceed 15 feet.
13. Complete and submit Final Stage PUD documents consistent with the required conditions
of approval for inclusion in the final PUD ordinance and development contract.
14. Execution of a development contract securing the required improvements.
ADOPTED this 4th day of March, 2014, by the Planning Commission of the City of
Monticello, Minnesota.
MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION
By: _______________________________
Brad Fyle, Chair
ATTEST:
______________________________
Angela Schumann, Community Development Director
F:\CommunityDevelopmentDirector\Planning&Development\PlanningFiles\2014\2014.012.SRCS.ConCDvlptStagePUD\PCAgenda&Minutes\LTR-aschumann-SwanRiver022614.doc
Infrastructure Engineering Planning Construction701XeniaAvenueSouth
Suite300
Minneapolis,MN55416
Tel:763541-4800
Fax:763541-1700
February26,2014
Ms.AngelaSchumann
CommunityDevelopmentDirector
CityofMonticello
505WalnutStreet,Suite1
Monticello,MN55362
Re:SwanRiverMontessori–PlanReview
WSBProjectNo.1494-850
DearMs.Schumann:
WehavereviewedthepreliminarydevelopmentstagePUDdocuments,datedFebruary14,2014,
andthedrainagereportprovidedtousonFebruary24,2014aspreparedbyBogart,Pederson&
Associates,Inc.,andofferthefollowingcomments.
SiteandDemolitionPlan
1.CrosswalksignageshouldconformtotheMnDOTstandardsignmanualwiththe
applicablesignnumbernotedontheplans.Signsshouldbedesignedtomeetretro-
reflectivityrequirementsperCitystandards.Thecityusesdiamondgrade(DG3)type
sign.ThesignageshallbemaintainedbySwanRiverperthedevelopmentagreement.
2.ThecrosswalkmarkingsshallbemaintainedbySwanRiverperthedevelopment
agreement.
3.Theexistingsidewalkshallberemovedtothenearestjoint.
4.Theproposedwaterserviceshallconnecttotheexistingcurbstopunderthesidewalk.
Theexistingwaterservicedepthshallbemeasuredtoensureaminimum7.5feetof
cover.Theproposedwaterserviceshallbeconstructedtoaminimum7.5feetofcover.
5.Theproposedsanitarysewerserviceshallconnecttotheexistingservicelineunderthe
sidewalk.TheCitywilltelevisetheexistingservicelinetothemain.Theexisting
servicelinemayneedtolinedasdeterminedbytheCity.Thecostofliningwillbethe
applicant’sresponsibility.
6.Theslopeandinvertelevationsoftheproposedsanitarysewerservicelineshouldbe
notedonthefinalplans.
7.AutilityexcavationpermitmustbeobtainedfromthePublicWorksdepartmentpriorto
commencementofutilityconnections.
Ms.AngelaSchumann
February26,2014
Page2
F:\CommunityDevelopmentDirector\Planning&Development\PlanningFiles\2014\2014.012.SRCS.ConCDvlptStagePUD\PCAgenda&Minutes\LTR-aschumann-SwanRiver022614.doc
8.Provideanas-builtutilityplanonceconstructioniscomplete.
9.ThenoteregardingconformancetoCitystandardsshallindicatetheCityofMonticello,
nottheCityofElkRiver.
DrainageReport
10.Thestormwaterdischargeratefromtheproposedsiteshouldbeatorbelowtheexisting
dischargerate.
11.Thestormwatermodelingofsiteshouldbeperformedforthedevelopingparcelbeing
separatefromtheupstreamsubwatershed.Themodelingshouldsimulatetheimpervious
areaandperviousareaseparatelyinadistributivemethodandnotwithacompositecurve
number.Therunofffromthenewimperviousareaisbeingunderestimatedbyusinga
compositeCNwiththeentireupstreamarea.Thecurvenumbersof45and47inthe
modelforresidentiallandusearelowerthananymodelingvaluesintheMinnesota
Hydrologyguide.
12.Theuseofa39curvenumberdoesnotrepresenttheuseoftopsoil-organicmaterialon
thesite.Acurvenumberof61shouldbeusedforperviousareasinthemodeling.
13.Thedepthofflowintheoverlandflowpathacrossthenorthendofthesiteforthe100-
yeareventshouldbedetermined.Thefreeboardtothelowbuildingopeningandlow
floorelevationshouldbeprovidedforthebuilding.Thetypicalfreeboardtothelowfloor
elevationshouldbe1.5’toallowfor0.5’offlowdepthand1’offreeboard.
14.Themaximumlengthofsheetflowshouldbe100’whendeterminingthetimeof
concentrationforthesite.Themodelinginputforsheetflowandshallowconcentrated
flowshouldbechanged.
GradingandErosionControlPlan
15.TheswalesonsiteshouldbeinconformancewiththeCitydesignstandardswhichisa
2.00%minimum.Theslopeoftheswaleshouldbeaddedtotheplans.Theproposedspot
elevationsoftheflowpathshouldbeshownontheplans.
16.Thegradingplanforthesitedoesnotappeartoprovidefreeboardtotheproposed
structure.
17.Theswaleacrossthenorthendofthesiteshouldbeencompassedwithadrainageand
utilityeasementsinceitwilltakedrainagefromtheditchalongtherailroadandadjacent
propertiestothewest.Thedepthoftheswaleshouldprovidefreeboardtothelowfloor
andlowbuildingopening.
18.Provideelevationsoftheflowpathacrossthesidewalktoensurewaterwillnotbe
trappedalongthebuilding.Theproposedflowpathacrossthesidewalkonthesouthend
ofthesitedoesnotappeartobebelowthelowbuildingopening.
Ms.AngelaSchumann
February26,2014
Page3
F:\CommunityDevelopmentDirector\Planning&Development\PlanningFiles\2014\2014.012.SRCS.ConCDvlptStagePUD\PCAgenda&Minutes\LTR-aschumann-SwanRiver022614.doc
19.Thegradingplanorerosioncontrolplanshouldincludeerosioncontrolitems.Theuseof
siltfence,inletprotection,constructionentrances,andapplicableBMP’sshouldbeadded
tothefinalplans.
LandscapePlan
20.Thelandscapeplanshowsbushesalongthenorthpropertylinethatmayobstructthe
overlandflowpath.Providemodificationssothatthisdoesnotoccur.
Pleasehavetheapplicantprovideawrittenresponseaddressingthecommentsabove.Final
constructionplanswillneedtobesubmitted,reviewed,andapprovedpriortobuildingpermit
approval.Pleasegivemeacallat763-271-3236ifyouhaveanyquestionsorcomments
regardingthisletter.Thankyou.
Sincerely,
WSB&Associates,Inc.
ShibaniK.Bisson,PE
CityEngineer
cc:SteveGrittman,NAC
JonBogart,Bogart,Pederson&Associates,Inc.
skb
Planning Commission Agenda – 03/04/14
1
6. Public Hearing – Consideration of a request for Conditional Use Permit for an
Industrial Services use in an I-1 (Light Industrial) District, a request for Variance to
Monticello Zoning Ordinance section 4.3, Fences and Walls as related to fence
appearance, and a request for Variance to Monticello Zoning Ordinance section 5.3,
Accessory Uses as related to area and extent of outdoor storage. Applicant: All
Elements, Inc. (NAC)
Property: Legal: Lot 1, Block 1, Barger Addition
Address: 301 Chelsea Road, Monticello
Planning Case Number: 2014-011
A. REFERENCE & BACKGROUND:
Request(s): 1. Conditional Use Permit for Industrial Services
(Contractor) in the I-1 District
2. Variance for an oversized outdoor storage yard
3. Variance for a non-permitted fence material
Deadline for Decision: April 11, 2014
Land Use Designation: Places to Work
Zoning Designation: I-1 Light Industrial District
The purpose of the I-1 Light Industrial district is to
provide for the establishment of warehousing and light
industrial development.
Overlays/Environmental
Regulations Applicable: Freeway Bonus Sign District
Current Site Use: Existing vacant office/warehouse building with
associated parking lot
Surrounding Land Uses:
North: Interstate 94
East: Office/Warehouse (I-1)
South: Multi-tenant office building
West: Fallon Avenue overpass
Project Description: All Elements, Inc. would like to relocate from their
Dundas Road location to an existing office/warehouse
building at 301 Chelsea Road. No modifications to the
existing building or parking are proposed. The
Planning Commission Agenda – 03/04/14
2
applicant is proposing an enclosed outdoor storage area
in the rear yard.
ANALYSIS
Conditional Use Permit
All Elements, Inc. is a roofing and siding contractor located at 1347 Dundas
Road in Monticello (I-2 District). The business has outgrown its current
location and is seeking to occupy an existing vacant office/warehouse building
at 301 Chelsea Road approximately one-half mile from their current location.
The proposed relocation would place the business in an I-1 district where
contractor operations (included in the definition of “Industrial Services”) are
allowed via conditional use permit.
Conditional Use Permit Evaluation Criteria
Approval of a conditional use permit application requires that the city find that
conditions can be established to ensure that all of the following criteria will
always be met:
(i) The conditional use will not substantially diminish or impair property
values within the immediate vicinity of the subject property;
Comment: The proposed use will fit within the existing building and
operations will be similar to those of surrounding uses. This condition is met.
(ii) The conditional use will not be detrimental to the health, safety, morals, or
welfare of persons residing or working near the use;
Comment: The proposed use is consistent with other office/warehouse uses in
the area and is not anticipated to have a detrimental affect on persons in the
surrounding area. This condition is met.
(iii) The conditional use will not impede the normal and orderly development
of surrounding property for permitted uses predominant in the area;
Comment: The proposed use is in similar character to surrounding uses and
is not anticipated to impede future development and use of the area. This
condition is met. One of the remaining issues is potential stormwater impacts
from the proposed outdoor storage area. The applicant proposes a gravel
surface which would trigger stormwater management improvements, such as
ponding and/or fees for regional treatment. The applicant will need to work
with the City Engineer to verify existing conditions, as well as any additional
requirements to accommodate the use as proposed.
(iv) The conditional use will not pose an undue burden on public utilities or
roads, and adequate sanitary facilities are provided;
Planning Commission Agenda – 03/04/14
3
Comment: The proposed use will occupy an existing building which is
anticipated to be sufficient to meet the utility and infrastructure needs of the
business. This condition is met.
(v) The conditional use can provide adequate parking and loading spaces, and
all storage on the site can be done in conformance with City code
requirements;
Comment: Industrial Services are subject to the parking standards in Table
4-8. The parking calculations are as follows:
Use: Ratio: Square Feet: Spaces Required:
Warehouse/Manufacturing 1:1,250 14,000sf 12 spaces
Office/Administrative area 1:300 6,000sf 20 spaces
Total required: 32 spaces
Total provided: 42 spaces
The site provides parking in excess of ordinance requirements. The site has
existing compliant off-street loading facilities. This condition is met.
The applicant is proposing an enclosed outdoor storage yard of 25,980 square
feet which exceeds the floor area of the principal structure. The applicant has
applied for a variance to allow for the additional square footage to
accommodate truck movements within the outdoor storage area and for
design compatibility with adjacent buildings. If the variance is not approved,
the applicant shall be required to submit a site plan demonstrating that the
outdoor storage area is in compliance with the ordinance standards as a
condition of approval.
(vi) The conditional use will not result in any nuisance including but not
limited to odor, noise, or sight pollution;
Comment: The proposed use is not anticipated to generate any nuisance.
This condition is met.
(vii) The conditional use will not unnecessarily impact natural features such as
woodlands, wetlands, and shorelines; and all erosion will be properly
controlled;
Comment: The proposed use will not impact any natural features; the
business is locating in an existing building and there are no significant
existing natural features on the site. This condition is met.
(viii) The conditional use will adhere to any applicable additional criteria
outlined in Chapter 5 for the proposed use.
Comment: The applicant must obtain a variance to permit an oversized
outdoor storage area or submit documentation for a redesigned outdoor
storage area that meets the requirements of the ordinance as a condition of
approval. The applicant will also need to obtain a sign permit for new
Planning Commission Agenda – 03/04/14
4
business signage per ordinance requirements. If lighting is proposed in the
outdoor storage yard, a lighting plan must be submitted and approved.
Variance for Oversized Outdoor Storage Yard
The applicant is proposing to enclose a 25,980 square foot area of the rear
yard for outdoor storage. Outdoor storage is a permitted accessory use in the
I-1 Light Industrial District; however Section 5-3(B)(2)(b) states that
accessory uses “be subordinate in area, extent, and purpose to the principal
use or structure.” As the principal building on the site has approximately
20,000 square feet of floor area, a strict reading of the ordinance would
require that the proposed storage yard obtain a variance from the ordinance
standard, since it is proposed to be greater in extent and area than the principal
building size.
The applicants have stated that the proposed size of the storage yard was
determined by the dimensions required for truck maneuvering through the
area and also from an aesthetic perspective to align with the northwest wall of
the building on the site and the northeast façade of the adjacent building to
provide visual continuity in the area.
As a part of the applicant’s materials, the site plan shows drive aisle and truck
maneuvering within the enclosed area, leaving less than 20,000 square feet of
actual storage net area. The applicant’s narrative further notes that without
the storage area sized as proposed, the facility would be inadequate to serve
their business needs. Finally, the applicants support their request with an
aesthetic argument, suggesting that the alignment of the fence reflects the
location of existing structures on this parcel and the neighboring lot, resulting
in a more ordered look to the area.
Variance Review Criteria
The ordinance states that the variance process is intended to provide limited
relief from the requirements of the ordinance in those cases where strict
application of a particular requirement will create practical difficulties due to
circumstances unique to the individual property under consideration.
Variances are intended to address extraordinary, exceptional, or unique
situations that were not caused by the applicant’s act or omission.
Approval of a Variance may be made upon a determination that practical
difficulties will result based on the following criteria:
(i) The property in question cannot be put to a reasonable use if the provisions
of this ordinance are strictly applied.
Comment: The existing building occupies a small portion of the large site and
may be expanded to increase the size of the principal building. Likewise, the
proposed outdoor storage area could be reduced in size to be less than the
Planning Commission Agenda – 03/04/14
5
floor area of the principal building. This reduction would inhibit the overall
site for the applicant’s intended purpose. This criterion is not met.
(ii) The circumstances rendering the property unusable are unique to the
property.
Comment: While there are no circumstances existing that render the property
“unusable” should the variance not be granted, the property is impacted by a
large slope easement along the west boundary that affects use, access, and
drainage. This condition inhibits the ability to access this area, and may be
seen as an impact on the use and layout of the property. This includes the
ability to add a secondary access circulation drive on the east side of the
property. This criterion is not met, however, full use of the property is
impacted by the easements on the west side of the property.
(iii) The circumstances rendering the property unusable were not created by
the owner thereof.
Comment: The locations of the buildings in the area, as well as the existence
of the slope area on the property, are conditions that were created by other
parties. This criterion is met.
(iv) A variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality.
Comment: The property in question is large and a substantial side and rear
yard will remain outside of the proposed outdoor storage area. The
combination of the principal building and outdoor storage area will be
roughly equivalent to the building footprint of the adjacent structure to the
east. The open space character of the industrial district will not be altered if
the variance is granted. This criterion is met.
(v) Economic considerations alone shall not constitute a sufficient basis for a
Variance if reasonable use for the property exists under the terms of the
regulation.
Comment: Outdoor storage as a permitted accessory use in the I-1 District
and can be accommodated on the site without a variance. This criterion is not
met.
The applicant has stated that the proposed size of the outdoor storage yard is
determined in part by the area needed for truck maneuvering. A site plan has
been submitted that shows access into the yard with 20 foot drive aisles. If
this area is kept open for traffic, the usable storage area is less than the square
footage of the building. Aisle widths of 20 feet are common dimensions for
fire code access, and would be consistent with that requirement. If the City
chooses to consider approval of the variance, a condition that ensures
retaining these open aisles for both size and fire code purposes would be
appropriate.
Planning Commission Agenda – 03/04/14
6
Variance for Non-permitted Fence Material
Outdoor storage areas adjacent to a public right-of-way are required to be
screened. The applicants are proposing to use eight-foot high opaque white
steel panels as fence material to enclose the outdoor storage yard. The
material was selected upon recommendation from a manufacturer as a more
durable material than PVC which may deteriorate over time due to UV
exposure and weathering.
The proposed white steel panels will be similar in design to the exterior
materials on the existing building. The applicants have also proposed
additional evergreen landscape screening on the northeast and northwest sides
of the outdoor storage yard to enhance the appearance of the site and further
buffer the area from the future Fallon Avenue and Interstate 94.
The ordinance describes customary fence materials in Section 4.3(J)(1) as
follows:
Fences and walls shall be constructed of any combination of treated
wood posts and vertically-oriented planks, rot-resistant wood, wrought
iron, decorative metal materials, brick, stone, masonry materials, or
products designed to resemble these materials. Where wood, masonry,
or other opaque materials are specified for particular types of
screening or buffering fences or walls, all other fence materials are
prohibited.
A variance to this section of the ordinance is required since sheet metal panels
have not commonly been included in the required definition as “decorative”
metal.
Variance Review Criteria
Approval of a Variance may be made upon a determination that practical
difficulties will result based on the following criteria:
(i) The property in question cannot be put to a reasonable use if the
provisions of this ordinance are strictly applied.
Comment: As other appropriate fencing materials are available for enclosing
the outdoor storage yard, the property may be put to reasonable use without a
variance. This criterion is not met.
(ii) The circumstances rendering the property unusable are unique to the
property.
Comment: The selection of white metal fence material has been proposed in
part for aesthetic continuity with existing building materials found on the site.
The proposed fence material has also been selected for durability
characteristics and the site in question is open and exposed to the elements.
Planning Commission Agenda – 03/04/14
7
However, other fence materials may be aesthetically compatible and durable
under site conditions to permit enclosure of the outdoor storage yard without
a variance. This criterion is not met.
(iii) The circumstances rendering the property unusable were not created by
the owner thereof.
Comment: While the proposed fence materials have been selected to match
exterior materials on the existing building, this condition does not require the
use of same/similar materials for fencing on the site. This criterion is not met.
(iv) A Variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality.
Comment: A variance permitting the use of white metal fence panels will not
alter the essential character of the area. If the materials are corrosion
resistant and will be maintained in good condition, the appearance of opaque
metal fencing may be negligibly distinguishable from other solid fence
materials that may be found in the area. The proposed installation of
evergreen screening on the outside of the fence will break up the potentially
monolithic appearance of the tall, solid fence and further enhance the
appearance of the area. This criterion is met.
(v) Economic considerations alone shall not constitute a sufficient basis for a
Variance if reasonable use for the property exists under the terms of the
regulation.
Comment: The applicants have indicated that the selection of solid white
metal fence panels is based on the material’s durability and complementary
characteristics with the existing building on the site. However, alternative
fence materials are available to provide opaque enclosure of the outdoor
storage yard. This criterion is not met.
The purpose and intent of the ordinance section relating to the regulation of
fences is ensure visual harmony within residential and business districts;
protect adjacent properties from the indiscriminate placement and
unsightliness of fences and walls; and ensure the safety, security, and privacy
of properties (Section 4.3(A)). The proposed fence material is otherwise
consistent with the intent of the ordinance.
In addition, the applicant has proposed planting an evergreen landscape buffer
along the sides of the fence adjacent to a public right-of-way to soften the
appearance of the fence. The proposed trees are set at 15 foot intervals. An
evergreen tree planting at 15 feet provides an attractive appearance from
public streets and as the proposed fence material is intended to be durable and
in all other respects meet ordinance standards, the granting of a variance to
allow steel fence panels is reasonable.
In this way, the fencing would provide screening and security for the storage
yard, and the planting would enhance the aesthetic view of the metal fencing,
Planning Commission Agenda – 03/04/14
8
which is the purpose of this section of the Code. The combination of these
two elements accomplishes the purpose of the ordinance, and meets the
variance criteria more closely.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
Decision 1. Conditional Use Permit
1. Motion to adopt Resolution No. 2014 - 017 approving a Conditional Use
Permit for an Industrial Service business in an I-1 District, subject to variance
decisions on extent of the storage area, and fencing materials, based on
findings in said resolution and contingent on compliance with conditions as
listed in Exhibit Z.
2. Motion to deny the Resolution for a Conditional Use Permit, based on
findings to be made by the Planning Commission.
Decision 2. Variance for Size of Accessory Outdoor Storage Yard
3. Motion to adopt Resolution No. 2014 - 019 approving a Variance for an
accessory outdoor storage yard exceeding the size of the principal building,
based on findings in said resolution.
4. Motion to deny the Resolution for a Variance to the Outdoor Storage Yard
size, based on findings to be made by the Planning Commission.
Decision 3. Variance from prohibition on Metal fencing materials.
5. Motion to adopt a Resolution No. 2014 - 018 approving a Variance for
alternative fencing materials, based on findings in said resolution.
6. Motion to deny the Resolution for a Variance to fencing materials, based on
findings to be made by the Planning Commission.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
All Elements, Inc. is an existing business in Monticello that is seeking a site within
the city to accommodate their expanding operations. The business has been operating
in compliance with ordinance standards at their current location as a permitted use in
the I-2 Heavy Industrial District.
The proposed site has an existing building and off-street parking and loading facilities
that allow the proposed conditional use to operate in compliance with ordinance
standards. The nature of the proposed use is similar in character to office/warehouse
uses permitted in the I-1 District. Approval of the conditional use permit for
Planning Commission Agenda – 03/04/14
9
industrial services (contractor) in the I-1 Light Industrial District is recommended
with the conditions identified in Exhibit Z.
The request for a variance to allow for the outdoor storage area as proposed meets the
variance criteria in a limited way as related to this individual site, as the use of the
remainder of the site in impeded by a substantial slope area on the west portion of the
property for the future Fallon Avenue overpass. Moreover, while the enclosure
exceeds the size of the building, the actual usable area of the storage yard is less than
the building, consistent with ordinance requirements. Finally, the applicants propose
the screen-wall location in an effort to improve aesthetics by aligning it with existing
structures on their property and the neighbor to the east. In this way, the storage area
meets the general intent of the ordinance by limiting negative aesthetic impacts of
outdoor storage areas.
While alternatives exist for fence materials to enclose the outdoor storage area, the
applicants have selected a material that is expected to meet the ordinance intent for
attractive, durable fence construction. The request for a variance from fence material
standards to permit the use of white metal panel fencing is reasonable, as a strict
reading of the ordinance excludes materials that would otherwise meet performance
standards.
In summary, staff recommends approval of the Conditional Use Permit, and for
approval of both variances. With the conditions intended to minimize aesthetic
issues, and require adequate circulation and fire-fighting access within the storage
yard, the outdoor storage area would appear to meet the overall intent of the code for
this use.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
A. Resolution 2014-017 for Conditional Use Permit
B. Resolution 2014-019 for Variance to Storage Area Size
C. Resolution 2014-018 for Variance to Fence Materials
D. Land Use Application
E. Aerial Site Image
F. Applicant Narrative
G. Site Plan
Z. Conditions of CUP Approval
Planning Commission Agenda – 03/04/14
10
Exhibit Z
Conditions of Approval for a Conditional Use Permit for Industrial Services
(Contractor) at 301 Chelsea Road
1. Outdoor storage must be configured and screened on the site in compliance with
ordinance requirements, or subject to variance approval.
2. The applicant must identify the existing storage area surface, and comply with
stormwater management requirements, along with any applicable trunk fees, as
recommended by the City Engineer.
3. The applicant must obtain a sign permit for new business signage per ordinance
requirements.
4. If lighting is proposed in the outdoor storage yard, a lighting plan must be submitted and
approved.
5. A building permit must be obtained for the outdoor storage yard fence.
6. The storage yard shall maintain 20 foot wide drive aisles consistent with the approved
site plan, dated 02/27/2014.
CITY OF MONTICELLO
WRIGHT COUNTY, MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION NO. 2014 - 017
Date: Resolution No.
Motion By: Seconded By:
A RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF
A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR AN INDUSTRIAL SERVICES BUSINESS
AT 301 CHELSEA ROAD.
WHEREAS, All Elements, Inc. has submitted an application for a conditional use permit for
industrial services (contractor) for the property located at 301 Chelsea Road in the I-1 Light
Industrial District, and
WHEREAS, the proposed conditional use is similar in nature to permitted uses in the I-1 District
and will be consistent with the character of uses in the district, and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on March 4, 2014 on the
application and the applicant and members of the public were provided the opportunity to present
information to the Planning Commission; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has considered all of the comments and the staff report,
which are incorporated by reference into the resolution; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Monticello makes the following Findings
of Fact in relation to the recommendation of approval:
1. The conditional use will not substantially diminish or impair property values within the
immediate vicinity of the subject property
2. The conditional use will not be detrimental to the health, safety, morals, or welfare of
persons residing or working near the use
3. The conditional use will not impede the normal and orderly development of surrounding
property for permitted uses predominant in the area
4. The conditional use will not pose an undue burden on public utilities or roads, and
adequate sanitary facilities are provided
5. The conditional use can provide adequate parking and loading spaces, and all storage on
the site can be done in conformance with City code requirements
6. The conditional use will not result in any nuisance including but not limited to odor,
noise, or sight pollution
7. The conditional use will not unnecessarily impact natural features such as woodlands,
wetlands, and shorelines; and all erosion will be properly controlled
8. The conditional use will adhere to any applicable additional criteria outlined in Chapter 5
for the proposed use.
9. The use will meet the various standards for development within the applicable zoning
district, with the exception for any variances granted by the Planning Commission.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the Planning Commission of the City of
Monticello, Minnesota recommends approval of a conditional use permit for industrial services
(contractor) and a variance to permit the use of steel fence materials at 301 Chelsea Road subject
to the following conditions:
1. Outdoor storage must be configured and screened on the site in compliance with
ordinance requirements, or subject to variance approval.
2. The applicant must identify the existing storage area surface, and comply with
stormwater management requirements, along with any applicable trunk fees, as
recommended by the City Engineer.
3. The applicant must obtain a sign permit for new business signage per ordinance
requirements.
4. If lighting is proposed in the outdoor storage yard, a lighting plan must be submitted
and approved.
5. A building permit must be obtained for the outdoor storage yard fence.
6. The storage yard must maintain 20 foot wide drive aisles consistent with the approved
site plan, dated 02/27/2014.
ADOPTED this 4th day of March, 2014, by the Planning Commission of the City of
Monticello, Minnesota.
MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION
By: _______________________________
Brad Fyle, Chair
ATTEST:
______________________________
Angela Schumann, Community Development Director
CITY OF MONTICELLO
WRIGHT COUNTY, MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION NO. 2014 - 018
Date: Resolution No.
Motion By: Seconded By:
A RESOLUTION APPROVING A VARIANCE TO THE FENCE MATERIALS FOR
SCREENING AN OUTDOOR STORAGE AREA AT 301 CHELSEA ROAD.
WHEREAS, All Elements, Inc. has submitted an application for alternative fencing materials for
the property located at 301 Chelsea Road in the I-1 Light Industrial District, and
WHEREAS, the proposed fence is similar in nature to materials utilized for permitted uses in the
I-1 District and will be consistent with the character of uses in the district, and
WHEREAS, the fencing materials are designed to meet the general intent, if not the specific
terms, of the requirements of the City’s zoning ordinance; and
WHEREAS, with landscaping and screening as noted, the fence will provide security and
enclosure for the storage yard, while the landscaping will provide the aesthetic screening for the
area; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on March 4, 2014 on the
application and the applicant and members of the public were provided the opportunity to present
information to the Planning Commission; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has considered all of the comments and the staff report,
which are incorporated by reference into the resolution; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Monticello makes the following Findings
of Fact in relation to the recommendation of approval:
1. The proposed fence material, with the landscaping as proposed, will not be visible to the
surrounding property or roadways.
2. The fence material is consistent with the intent of the zoning ordinance, and as such,
constitutes a reasonable use proposed by the applicant.
3. The restriction to other materials, in this situation and location, would constitute a
practical difficulty in putting the property to a reasonable use.
4. The fence materials will be consistent with both the development of the property, and
with the general conditions in the surrounding area.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the Planning Commission of the City of
Monticello, Minnesota recommends approval of a conditional use permit for industrial services
(contractor) and a variance to permit the use of steel fence materials at 301 Chelsea Road subject
to the following conditions:
1. Outdoor storage must be configured and screened on the site in compliance with
ordinance requirements, or subject to variance approval.
2. The applicant must identify the existing storage area surface, and comply with
stormwater management requirements, along with any applicable trunk fees, as
recommended by the City Engineer.
3. The applicant must obtain a sign permit for new business signage per ordinance
requirements.
4. If lighting is proposed in the outdoor storage yard, a lighting plan must be submitted
and approved.
5. A building permit must be obtained for the outdoor storage yard fence.
6. The storage yard must maintain 20 foot wide drive aisles consistent with the approved
site plan, dated 02/27/2014.
ADOPTED this 4th day of March, 2014, by the Planning Commission of the City of
Monticello, Minnesota.
MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION
By: _______________________________
Brad Fyle, Chair
ATTEST:
______________________________
Angela Schumann, Community Development Director
CITY OF MONTICELLO
WRIGHT COUNTY, MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION NO. 2014 - 019
Date: Resolution No.
Motion By: Seconded By:
A RESOLUTION APPROVING A VARIANCE FROM THE REQUIREMENTS
FOR THE SIZE AND EXTENT OF AN OUTDOOR STORAGE
AS AN ACCESSORY USE AT 301 CHELSEA ROAD.
WHEREAS, All Elements, Inc. has submitted an application for a variance for industrial to
enclose a proposed outdoor storage yard on property at 301 Chelsea Road in the I-1 Light
Industrial District; and
WHEREAS, the proposed storage yard enclosure exceeds the size and extent of the principal
building on the property; and
WHEREAS, the property includes a significant slope easement that impedes other access and
development; and
WHEREAS, the proposed enclosure will consist of circulation aisles that diminish the total
storage use; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on March 4, 2014 on the
application and the applicant and members of the public were provided the opportunity to present
information to the Planning Commission; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has considered all of the comments and the staff report,
which are incorporated by reference into the resolution; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Monticello makes the following Findings
of Fact in relation to the recommendation of approval:
1. There are unique conditions on the property that create practical difficulties in putting
the property to the use proposed by the applicant.
2. The proposed use is a reasonable one provided it meets the requirements and
conditions of the City.
3. The conditions on the property are not the result of any actions of the applicant.
4. Denial of the requested variance would diminish the reasonable economic use of the
property.
5. Economic conditions are not the sole factor in considering variance approval.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the Planning Commission of the City of
Monticello, Minnesota recommends approval of a conditional use permit for industrial services
(contractor) and a variance to permit the use of steel fence materials at 301 Chelsea Road subject
to the following conditions:
1. Outdoor storage must be configured and screened on the site in compliance with
ordinance requirements, or subject to variance approval.
2. The applicant must identify the existing storage area surface, and comply with
stormwater management requirements, along with any applicable trunk fees, as
recommended by the City Engineer.
3. The applicant must obtain a sign permit for new business signage per ordinance
requirements.
4. If lighting is proposed in the outdoor storage yard, a lighting plan must be submitted
and approved.
5. A building permit must be obtained for the outdoor storage yard fence.
6. The storage yard must maintain 20 foot wide drive aisles consistent with the approved
site plan, dated 02/27/2014.
ADOPTED this 4th day of March, 2014,, by the Planning Commission of the City of
Monticello, Minnesota.
MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION
By: _______________________________
Brad Fyle, Chair
ATTEST:
______________________________
Angela Schumann, Community Development Director
Project Narrative
February 27, 2014
City of Monticello
Attn: Angela Schumann
505 Walnut Street
Monticello, MN 55362
RE: Conditional Use Permit and Variance Applications
301 Chelsea Road NE, Monticello, MN
Request
All Elements, Inc. is requesting Conditional Use Permit and Variance approvals related to the
property at 301 Chelsea Road NE, Monticello.
All Elements Inc. business includes commercial and residential roofing, siding, windows, and
gutters. All Elements Inc. currently operates at 1347 Dundas Road, Monticello. The business
has outgrown the current property and has a commitment to growing the business in Monticello.
All Elements Inc. is looking to move the business to the existing 301 Chelsea Road property and
is requesting necessary City’s approvals to allow for continued business operations.
All Elements proposes to improve the site with an outdoor storage area with a fence enclosure
and landscape screening. No change is proposed to the existing building or parking
configuration at the 301 Chelsea Road property. The property is zoned I-1 and is within is
within the Freeway Bonus Sign District.
Background
All Elements currently has its home office in Monticello, MN and does work throughout
Minnesota, Wisconsin, Iowa, and the Dakotas.
All Elements Inc. does commercial and residential roofing, siding, windows, and gutters. All
Elements Inc. started in Brooklyn Park, MN in February 2002 by John and Tara Thurber. After
growing out of their facility in Brooklyn Park the business was moved to Rogers, MN to better
accommodate the needs of the business. In 2010 while continuing to grow their business John
and Tara wanted to bring All Elements to the same town that they call home, Monticello. In
doing this it was much easier to be involved in the local community through volunteering for
various community organizations. Community involvement and volunteering has been a
characteristic that All Elements encourages their employees to experience also.
Project Narrative, Page 2 of 8
301 Chelsea Road NE, Monticello, MN February 27, 2014
Operations
The current location can be visited anytime between the hours of 8:00am and 4:30pm to see the
pride All Elements takes in making sure that the facility is visibly pleasing on the exterior. Great
pride and care is taken in every company vehicle and piece of equipment to make sure that they
are maintained both physically and mechanically. A majority of All Elements employees are
from Monticello, Big Lake, Becker, and the St Cloud area. All Elements currently has 27
employees and continues to grow at a steady pace.
Conditional Use Permit and Comments
Conditional Use Permit is requested for the following activities:
• Outdoor Storage in an I-1 zoned property.
Approval of a Conditional Use Permit application requires that the City find that conditions can
be established to ensure that all of the following criteria will always be met:
(i) The conditional use will not substantially diminish or impair property values within the
immediate vicinity of the subject property;
Comment: It is not anticipated that the proposed use will diminish or impair property
values in the vicinity of the subject property. The property is bounded by; I-1 Light
Industrial properties to the east and west, B-4 Business District to the south, and I-94 to
the north. Businesses of similar type with outdoor storage can be found on nearby
industrial properties.
The industrial base zoning districts of the City Code are intended to provide locations for
the retention, expansion, and creation of businesses that provide jobs in the community.
The proposed use would allow for retention and expansion of an existing business in the
community.
(ii) The conditional use will not be detrimental to the health, safety, morals, or welfare of persons
residing or working near the use;
Comment: It is not anticipated that the activities associated with All Elements operations
will be detrimental to the health or welfare of persons in the vicinity of the business. All
materials are handled in a safe manner and in compliance with the requirements of the
City Code and Zoning Ordinance.
(iii) The conditional use will not impede the normal and orderly development of surrounding
property for permitted uses predominant in the area;
Project Narrative, Page 3 of 8
301 Chelsea Road NE, Monticello, MN February 27, 2014
Comment: Adjacent properties to the east, south, and west are existing developed
properties. It is not anticipated that the proposed use will negatively impact development
of surrounding properties in the area.
(iv) The conditional use will not pose an undue burden on public utilities or roads, and adequate
sanitary facilities are provided;
Comment: Public utilities and roads currently exist in the area of the proposed use.
Access for the property is off of Chelsea Road. Access to Fallon Avenue (future) on the
west side of the property may not be allowed due to Fallon Avenue design and elevation.
Public sanitary sewer and water services currently serve the property. No extensions of
sanitary sewer or water service are proposed for the use. The proposed use will not
pose a burden on public infrastructure.
(v) The conditional use can provide adequate parking and loading spaces, and all storage on the
site can be done in conformance with City code requirements;
Comment: Adequate vehicle parking exists on site for employees and visitors for the
proposed use. Adequate loading berths also exist on the site for the proposed use. All
loading is to be in compliance with Section 4.9 Off-street Loading and outdoor storage is
to be in compliance with City Code.
(vi) The conditional use will not result in any nuisance including but not limited to odor, noise,
or sight pollution;
Comment: It is not anticipated that the proposed use will create nuisance odors, noise,
or sight pollution. Typical materials handled and stored for the proposed use do not
create odors or noise and the storage area is proposed with a fence enclosure and
landscape screening for visual appeal.
(vii) The conditional use will not unnecessarily impact natural features such as woodlands,
wetlands, and shorelines; and all erosion will be properly controlled;
Comments: The existing site of the proposed use does not include woodland, wetlands, or
shorelines. The proposed use will not impact any natural features. A significant portion
of the proposed outdoor storage area has evidence of previously placed aggregate
surfacing. The outdoor storage area is proposed to be surfaced with recycled aggregate
materials for a dust-controlled surface. Storm water runoff increase from the outdoor
storage area is anticipated to be negligible considering a portion of the site has
previously placed aggregate surface. Placement of recycled aggregate is to be
completed in a manner that will result in no change to existing drainage configuration
and/or directions. Any erosion will be controlled on site in compliance with City Code.
(viii) The conditional use will adhere to any applicable additional criteria outlined in Chapter 5
for the proposed use.
Project Narrative, Page 4 of 8
301 Chelsea Road NE, Monticello, MN February 27, 2014
Comment: The proposed use will comply with all City Code requirements as appropriate.
In addition to the overall Conditional Use Permit criteria as detailed above, the Zoning
Ordinance also details additional requirements by use. The proposed outdoor storage
component of the application requires compliance with Section 5.2(G) Regulations for Industrial
Uses and specifically Section 5.2(G)(4) General Warehousing as detailed below:
(a) The use shall be located at least 500 feet from any residential district, school, or day care
center.
Comment: The existing site is understood to be compliant with this requirement.
(b) The use shall not locate storage areas within a required setback or perimeter buffer;
Comment: The proposed use and improvements will comply with this requirement.
(c) The use shall locate outdoor storage areas to the rear of the principal structure. All such
outdoor storage shall be screened from view of adjacent properties in conformance with the
requirements of Section 4.1(I).
Comment: The proposed use and improvements will comply with this requirement.
(d) The use shall be designed to ensure proper functioning of the site as related to vehicle
stacking, circulation, and turning movements.
Comment: The existing site improvements are in compliance with this requirement.
(e) The use shall have direct access onto an arterial or collector roadway.
Comment: The existing site improvements are in compliance with this requirement.
Variance
Variance is requested for the following items:
• Variance for construction materials of fence enclosure
• Variance for size of fence enclosure
The proposed fence enclosure materials do not fully comply with Section 4.5 Fences and Walls
of the City Code, and the proposed fence enclosure area does not comply with Section 5.3
Accessory Use Standards.
Section 4.5 Fences and Walls and specifically 4.5(G) Prohibited Fences require compliance with
the following:
Project Narrative, Page 5 of 8
301 Chelsea Road NE, Monticello, MN February 27, 2014
(1) Fences or walls made of debris, junk, rolled plastic, sheet metal, plywood, wooden landscape
lattice or waste materials are prohibited in all zoning districts unless such materials have been
recycled and reprocessed for marketing to the general public as building materials that resemble
new building materials and are designed for use as a fencing material (e.g., picket fencing made
from recycled plastic and fiber).
Comment: All Elements is requesting a construction material variance from an 8’ fully
opaque PVC fence to an 8’ fully opaque white steel fence. This request is made for 2
purposes. The information that we obtained from the fence supplier is the PVC fence
basically has a 10 year useful life. The PVC, overtime, dries out from the sun and the
elements and is susceptible to becoming brittle and breaking. The white steel fencing
that we are proposing will match the white steel siding on the building. It will be much
stronger and will be installed with a top cap, which will give the fence a finished
appearance. An example picture of the white steel materials proposed for the fence is
below.
Example Fence Materials Picture
Project Narrative, Page 6 of 8
301 Chelsea Road NE, Monticello, MN February 27, 2014
Landscape screening with 6’ coniferous trees planted at 30’ intervals in proximity to the
fence is proposed to enhance the esthetic appearance of the property.
Section 5.3 Accessory Use Standards and specifically Section 5.3(B)(2) General Standards
require compliance with the following:
(c) Be subordinate in area, extent, and purpose to the principal use or structure;
Comment: The proposed fence enclosure area is larger than the existing building on the
property. The existing building includes a main level measuring 17,037 sf and a
mezzanine level measuring 3,000 sf, for a total floor area of 20,037 sf. The proposed
fence enclosure is 25,980 sf. The difference is 5,943 sf.
We are requesting a size variance for practical usable storage area that is necessary for
the expanding business. The outdoor storage area must be large enough that we can
drive in, off of Chelsea Road, on the east side of the building and once we enter the
outdoor storage area, to be able to turn around to drive out. The principal use of the
property remains industrial service use and the vehicle and trailer storage and
associated movement areas are accessory to that use.
Portions of the fence enclosure will not be directly used for materials storage as access
drive and turning movement areas are needed. Drives and usable storage areas have
been identified on Site Plan C1. The usable storage area within the fence enclosure is
19,233 sf. Access drive and turning movement area are critical for orderly organization
of materials, vehicles and trailers within the enclosure. Screening of vehicles and
trailers within the enclosure is preferred aesthetically and leaves more spaces available
in the parking lot for employees and clients.
A list of some of the items that are to be stored within the enclosure:
• 5 enclosed job trailers: 7’ x 16’
• 2 low dumpsters (roll offs) 4’ tall x 20’
• 5 high dumpsters (roll offs) 6’ tall x 20’
• 20’ flat bed truck
• 26’ flat bed truck
• 2 1-1/2 ton trucks single rear axle
• Dumpster (roll off) truck
We are proposing to line up the west side of the fence with the existing west wall of the
existing building, and line up the east side of the fence with the existing parking lot curb
parallel to the east property line. We are proposing the north side of the fence to be lined
up with the north wall of the adjacent building to the east, the Hoglund Bus Building.
This will create nice clean site lines and will be compatible with adjacent properties
Project Narrative, Page 7 of 8
301 Chelsea Road NE, Monticello, MN February 27, 2014
Approval of a Variance is to be made upon a determination that practical difficulties will result based
on consideration of the following criteria:
(i) The property in question cannot be put to a reasonable use if the provisions of this ordinance
are strictly applied.
Comment: Strict compliance with the fence materials provisions of the ordinance results
with fence materials not desirable to the applicant. The fence materials as allowed by the
ordinance do not allow for a material match with the existing material of the building
resulting in visual esthetics to be degraded. Materials strength and durability would be
degraded with alternate materials.
Strict compliance with the fence enclosure area provisions of the ordinance results in an
outdoor storage area of inadequate size for the proposed business operations.
(ii) The circumstances rendering the property unusable are unique to the property.
Comment: The existing building materials are unique to this property. The applicant
desires fence materials to match existing building materials.
An outdoor storage area of inadequate size is not viable for business operations. The
existing building is unique to this property and has a floor area that does not provide for
ordinance compliance regarding the requested fence enclosure area. Construction of
additional building to increase the floor area is not a viable option.
(iii) The circumstances rendering the property unusable were not created by the owner thereof.
Comment: The applicant desires the fence materials to match the existing building
materials. Circumstances beyond the applicants control regarding existing building
materials, and ordinance allowed fence materials, result in requesting to use fence
materials other than those identified in the ordinance.
The existing building size and resulting compliant limited outdoor storage area is beyond
the control of the applicant. An outdoor storage area of inadequate size is not viable for
business operations.
(iv) A Variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality.
Comment: The fence materials proposed would enhance visual esthetics of the fence with
a match to existing building material and have superior strength and durability. The
fence enclosure area is proposed with boundaries that line up with existing development
on adjacent property. Both the fence materials and size do not negatively alter the
character of the locality with its industrial setting.
Project Narrative, Page 8 of 8
301 Chelsea Road NE, Monticello, MN February 27, 2014
(v) Economic considerations alone shall not constitute a sufficient basis for a Variance if
reasonable use for the property exists under the terms of the regulation.
Comment: Considerations for the variance of fence materials are visual esthetics and
superior strength and durability. Considerations for fence enclosure area are adequate
size for business operations.
We look forward to continuing successful operations in Monticello.
Thank you for your consideration
CI
V
I
L
E
N
G
I
N
E
E
R
I
N
G
SI
T
E
D
E
S
I
G
N
1347 Dundas Road
Monticello, MN 55362
John Thurber
(763)314-0234
ALL ELEMENTS, INC
PROJECT LOCATION:
LEGAL DESCRIPTION:
INDEX OF DRAWINGS:
CI
V
I
L
E
N
G
I
N
E
E
R
I
N
G
SI
T
E
D
E
S
I
G
N
1347 Dundas Road
Monticello, MN 55362
John Thurber
(763)314-0234
ALL ELEMENTS, INC
PROJECT LOCATION:
LEGAL DESCRIPTION:
INDEX OF DRAWINGS:
Planning Commission Agenda – 03/04/14
1
7. Public Hearing – Consideration of a request for an amendment to the Monticello
Zoning Ordinance, Sections 5.1, Use Table, and 5.2, Use Standards, and related
administrative amendments, to allow Temporary Public Infrastructure Construction
Facilities by Interim Use Permit; and a request for an Interim Use Permit for
Temporary Public Infrastructure Construction Facilities. Applicant: Shafer
Contracting Co. (NAC)
Property: Legal: Lengthy Legals; PIDs 155011000101,
155011000111, 155011000171
Address: NA
Planning Case Number: 2014 - 007
A. REFERENCE & BACKGROUND:
Request(s): Ordinance amendment to add an interim use in the IBC
District to allow for a contractor yard, concrete mixing,
and other related activities associated with a state or
federal highway project. Approval of an interim use
permit to allow for said operations for the duration of
the 2014 construction season.
Deadline for Decision: April 22, 2014
Land Use Designation: Places to Shop
Zoning Designation: IBC
The purpose of the IBC district is to provide for the
establishment of limited light industrial business
offices, limited light manufacturing, wholesale
showrooms and related uses in an environment which
provides a high level of amenities, including
landscaping, preservation of natural features,
architectural controls, and other features.
Overlays/Environmental
Regulations Applicable: N/A
Current Site Use: Undeveloped/Agriculture
Surrounding Land Uses:
North: Interstate Highway 94
East: Undeveloped/Agriculture (B-2/Places to Shop)
South: Undeveloped/Agriculture (B-4/Places to Shop);
Business Park (IBC/Places to Work)
Planning Commission Agenda – 03/04/14
2
West: Undeveloped/Agriculture (B-4/Places to Shop);
Industrial (I-1/Places to Work)
Project Description: Temporary use of approximately five acres adjacent to
the eastbound lane of Interstate 94 approximately one-
half mile west of CSAH 18 for a contractor’s yard to
include a portable concrete batch plant with on-site
outdoor storage of concrete base materials for the
purpose of reconstruction of I-94 between CSAH 39 to
CSAH 18.
ANALYSIS
Interim Use Ordinance Amendment
Use of the proposed property for a contractor’s yard with concrete production
is not currently permitted in the IBC District. An ordinance amendment is
needed for the proposal to proceed as further described below. As this is a
temporary use of the property that would not otherwise be consistent with the
purpose and intent of the IBC District, the process to allow this use is via an
interim use permit.
Interim uses are allowed for a brief period of time provided certain conditions
are met, and a specific event or date can be established for discontinuance of
the use. Interim uses must be specifically identified in the zoning ordinance
otherwise they are considered prohibited.
The description of the interim use must be tightly defined to indicate that such
use is associated with a state highway project on a site immediately adjacent
to a state or federal trunk highway. Allowing this interim use only in the IBC
District will further limit the possible future locations for such use. The only
other parcels zoned IBC in the city meeting this definition are located between
I-94 and 7th Street West just east of Highway 25.
To permit this use, Table 5.1: Uses by District would be amended to add
“Temporary Contractor’s Yard” as an interim use in the IBC District. Section
8.4 (Definitions) would be amended to add the following language:
TEMPORARY CONTRACTOR’S YARD: A temporary staging area
for activities associated with a state or federal highway project
including storage of base materials and portable facilities for concrete
production located immediately adjacent to a state or federal trunk
highway, and other uses as specified by the City Council.
Planning Commission Agenda – 03/04/14
3
Interim Use Permit
If an ordinance amendment is approved to allow for a temporary contractor’s
yard with a portable concrete batch plant, the applicant is requesting approval
of an interim use permit to allow for operations on the site for the duration of
the 2014 construction season.
Overview of Proposed Operations
Shafer Contracting Co., Inc. will be reconstructing a section of I-94 from
County Road 39 to County Road 18 in 2014. They are proposing to utilize
approximately five acres immediately south of I-94 one-half mile west of the
interchange at County Road 18 for construction staging for the project. The
principal use of the site will be the operation of a portable concrete batch
plant.
Concrete sand and coarse aggregate materials will be transported to the site
and stockpiled approximately two weeks prior to the start-up of the concrete
batch operations. Cementitious materials (concrete bonding agents) will be
stored on the site in closed containers.
The applicants will haul and store materials on the proposed site, and mix
concrete for use on the reconstruction of Interstate 94 through Monticello.
The concrete mixing facility would be approximately 60 feet in height, and
would operate during two periods of construction, beginning in the spring of
2014, and complete prior to the end of the 2014 construction season.
Environmental Impact
Concrete generated on the site will be loaded and transported to the project
site via two temporary access drives leading directly to the eastbound lanes of
I-94 and via Chelsea Road to the County Road 18 interchange for access to
the westbound lanes of the freeway. Highway 25 and County Road 39 will
also be utilized for haul routes during the duration of the project. All
proposed haul routes must be submitted by the applicant to MnDOT for
approval.
The applicant has estimated that there will be approximately 145 trips per day
for two two-week periods to deliver concrete base materials to the site.
Approximately 239 trips per day will occur over two two-and-a-half-week
periods to transport batched concrete to the project site. Half of those trips
will utilize the direct access to I-94 from the site.
Two ingress/egress points will enter the site from Chelsea Road. The
applicant will be responsible for sweeping Chelsea Road near the site entrance
as needed during the duration of operations and hauling. A water truck must
be on-site at all times for dust control. The site must be maintained so as to
Planning Commission Agenda – 03/04/14
4
minimize dust and particulate matter in accordance with Minnesota Pollution
Control Agency requirements.
Proposed hours of operation are from 7:00 am to 8:00 pm, Monday through
Saturday. Noise associated with the operations may be anticipated during
these times. Noise levels shall be controlled in accordance with Section
5.2(A)(2)(e).
The applicant is currently working with the city engineer to establish a
stormwater pollution prevention plan (SWPPP) as required by the Minnesota
Pollution Control Agency. The applicant intends to add the site to an existing
permit obtained for this type of operation. The applicant must comply with all
requirements and recommendations of the city engineer.
Site Restoration at Conclusion of Use
The site is currently undeveloped/in agricultural production. Existing topsoil
will be removed and stored on-site and a gravel base will be installed to
provide a temporary platform for operations. The applicant must restore the
site to existing conditions when concrete operations conclude for the final
phase of the road reconstruction project. The applicant must also repair or
replace any roadway and trail infrastructure damaged as a result of the
operations and hauling.
Interim Use Permit Review Criteria
Approval of an Interim Use Permit application requires that the City find that
conditions can be established to ensure all of the following criteria will always
be met:
(i) The use is allowed as an interim use in the respective zoning district and
conforms to standard zoning regulations.
Comment: Approval of the interim use permit is contingent upon approval of
an ordinance amendment to allow for a contractor’s yard as an interim use in
the IBC District.
(ii) The use will not adversely impact nearby properties through nuisance,
noise, traffic, dust, odor, or unsightliness and will not otherwise adversely
impact the health, safety, and welfare of the community.
Comment: During the project operations, there will be significant heavy truck
traffic, noise from large vehicles and the operation of the portable concrete
batch plant, and conditions that may result in dust and odors. The applicant
must comply with all state regulations pertaining to noise, dust and odor
control and comply with the limits on hours of operation. The site is located
immediately adjacent to I-94 to minimize the use of local roads for hauling.
The site is primarily surrounded by undeveloped parcels; however, the open
land between the site and nearby businesses and the schools to the south may
allow for noise from the operations to carry beyond the site.
Planning Commission Agenda – 03/04/14
5
(iii) The use will not adversely impact implementation of the comprehensive
plan.
Comment: The proposed use is temporary and is associated with maintaining
the I-94 corridor through Monticello, an essential transportation corridor.
Future use of the site for Industrial and Business Campus purposes will not be
affected by this interim use.
(iv) The date, event, or change in circumstances that will terminate the use is
identified with certainty.
Comment: The use will commence at the start of the construction season as
weather permits and will terminate no later than a date determined by the
applicant and the city.
(v) The applicant has signed a consent agreement stating that the applicant,
owner, operator, tenant and/or user has no entitlement to future reapproval of
the Interim Use Permit as well as agreeing that the interim use will not impose
additional costs on the public if it is necessary for the public to fully or
partially take the property in the future.
Comment: The applicant has acknowledged that this is a temporary permit
allowing operations for a limited period of time. This acknowledgment will
take the form of a written agreement with the City.
(vi) The applicant agrees to all conditions that the City Council deems
appropriate to allow the use including the requirement of appropriate financial
surety to cover the cost of removing the interim use and any interim structures
upon the expiration of the interim use permit.
Comment: The applicant has agreed to comply with required conditions
including repair or replacement of any roadway and/or trail infrastructure
damaged by the operations during the duration of the use.
(vii) There are no delinquent property taxes, special assessments, interest, or
City utility fees due upon the subject parcel.
Comment: None are known.
(viii) The interim use will adhere to any applicable additional criteria outlined
in Chapter 5 for the proposed use.
Comment: The applicant must comply with all general performance
standards in the ordinance with regard to noise, dust, and odors and all
conditions outlined in Exhibit Z.
Planning Commission Agenda – 03/04/14
6
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. Motion to recommend adoption of (1) Ordinance No. 591 establishing Temporary
Contractors Yard relating to the construction of public infrastructure in the IBC
District by Interim Use Permit, and (2) Resolution No. 2014-020, approving an
interim use permit for a Temporary Contractors Yard on the property identified in
this report, based on findings in said resolution and contingent on compliance
with Conditions outlined in Exhibit Z.
2. Motion to deny adoption of Ordinance and Resolution.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
As this use is temporary and would not otherwise be appropriate in the IBC District
and is sited so as to minimize negative impacts on adjacent properties, staff is
recommending adoption of an ordinance amendment to allow for a contractor’s yard
with a portable concrete plant as an interim use and the subsequent processing of an
interim use permit for the operation. The Planning Commission may consider both
actions in a single motion as they are intertwined – without the amendment, no IUP
would be available, and without the IUP proposal, the City would not likely consider
the amendment.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
A. Ordinance No. 591
B. Resolution 2014-020
C. Land Use Application
D. Aerial Site Image
E. Applicant Narrative
F. Site Overview Map
G. Site Plan
H. Haul Route Plan
I. City Engineer’s Comment Letter, February 26th, 2014
Z. Conditions of Approval
Planning Commission Agenda – 03/04/14
7
Exhibit Z
Conditions of Approval for an Interim Use Permit to allow a Contractor’s Yard and
Portable Concrete Batch Plant
1. All proposed haul routes must be submitted by the applicant to MnDOT for approval.
2. The applicant must sweep Chelsea Road near the site entrance as needed during the
duration of operations and hauling.
3. A water truck must be on-site at all times for dust control. The site must be
maintained so as to minimize dust and particulate matter in accordance with MPCA
requirements.
4. The applicant must comply with proposed hours of operation from 7:00 am to 8:00
pm, Monday through Saturday.
5. Noise levels shall be controlled in accordance with Section 5.2(A)(2)(e).
6. The applicant must submit an approved stormwater pollution prevention plan.
7. The applicant must comply with all requirements and recommendations of the city
engineer.
8. The applicant agrees not to occupy the site prior to the final approval of applicable
permits, and agrees to terminate operations and restore the site to original conditions
by a date no later than November1, 2014, weather permitting.
9. The applicant shall comply with all recommendations of the City Engineer as
provided in the comment letter dated February 26th, 2014.
10. The applicant executes a consent agreement with the City specifying the dates of
operation and termination, and other conditions as adopted by the City Council.
City of Monticello, Minnesota
Wright County
Ordinance No. 591
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 10, CHAPTERS 5 and 8 of the Monticello City Code,
known as the Zoning Ordinance, by amending Section 5.1, Use Table, Section 5.2, Use
Standards, and Section 8.4, Definitions, providing for the use of certain lands as Temporary
Contractor’s Yards in association with public infrastructure construction projects in the City of
Monticello.
The City Council of the City of Monticello hereby ordains:
Section 1.
Chapter 5.1, Use Table, is hereby amended by adding the following use within the Industrial
Uses Section, and designating said use as an Interim Use in the IBC, Industrial and Business
Campus District:
Temporary Contractors Yard
Section 2.
Chapter 5.2, G., Use Standards, is hereby amended by adding the following:
(14) Temporary Contractor’s Yard
(a) Temporary Contractor’s Yards shall be allowed only by Interim Use Permit, subject
to the standards of Section 2.4 E. of this Ordinance.
(b) Temporary Contractor’s Yards shall be accommodated only in association with the
construction of public infrastructure projects on public property, rights of way, or
public easements.
(c) Temporary Contractors yards shall be located only on property directly abutting a
State or Federal highway, and shall minimize use of local streets.
(d) Such yards shall provide haul routes for approval by the City Engineer.
(e) Such yards shall provide adequate securities, as determined by the City Council, for
the restoration of any municipal infrastructure damaged due to the operation of the
yard.
(f) Such yards shall provide, as a condition of their permit, for adequate stormwater
management, dust control, traffic control, and other requirements of the City
Engineer.
(g) Interim Use Permits for Temporary Contractor’s Yards shall include a restoration
plan ensuring the restoration of the property to a condition meeting the zoning and
nuisance standards of the City.
Section 3.
Chapter 8.4, Definitions, is hereby amended to add the following in the alphabetical list of
Zoning Definitions:
TEMPORARY CONTRACTOR’S YARD: A temporary staging area for activities
associated with a state or federal highway project including storage of base materials and
portable facilities for concrete production located immediately adjacent to a state or
federal trunk highway, and other related uses as specified by the City Council.
Section 4.
This Ordinance shall take effect and be in full force from and after its passage and publication.
__________________________________
Clint Herbst, Mayor
ATTEST:
___________________________________
Jeff O’Neill, Administrator
AYES:
NAYS:
1
CITY OF MONTICELLO
WRIGHT COUNTY, MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION NO. 2014-020
Date: Resolution No. 2014-020
Motion By: Seconded By:
A RESOLUTION FOR AMENDMENT TO THE MONTICELLO ZONING
ORDINANCE, SECTION 5.2, USE TABLE, AND 5.3, USE STANDARDS TO
ALLOW TEMPORARY PUBLIC INFRASTRUCTURE CONSTRUCTION
FACILITIES BY INTERIM USE PERMIT; AND APPROVING A REQUEST FOR
AN INTERIM USE PERMIT FOR TEMPORARY PUBLIC INFRASTRUCTURE
CONSTRUCTION FACILITIES
WHEREAS, Shafer Contracting Co., Inc. has submitted an application for an ordinance
amendment and interim use permit to allow a contractor’s yard as an interim use in the
Industrial and Business Campus (IBC) District, and
WHEREAS, the interim use of the proposed site for construction staging and concrete
mixing operations is in conjunction with an approved MnDOT roadway reconstruction
project of Interstate 94 between CSAH 39 and CSAH 18, and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on March 4, 2014 on the
application and the applicant and members of the public were provided the opportunity to
present information to the Planning Commission; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has considered all of the comments and the staff
report, which are incorporated by reference into the resolution; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Monticello makes the following
Findings of Fact in relation to the recommendation of approval:
1. The proposed ordinance amendment addresses needs arising from a changing
condition, trend, or fact affecting the subject property and surrounding area.
2. The proposed ordinance amendment will not create conditions that interfere with
achieving the goals and objectives outlined in the comprehensive plan.
3. The applicant will be required to comply with the conditions imposed as a basis for
approval of the interim use permit.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the Planning Commission of the City of
Monticello, Minnesota recommends approval of an ordinance amendment to allow a
2
contractor’s yard as an interim use in the Industrial and Business Campus District and
recommends that the processing of an interim use permit for the proposed contractor’s yard
and portable concrete batch plant proceed upon approval of the ordinance amendment.
ADOPTED this 4th day of March, 2014, by the Planning Commission of the City of
Monticello, Minnesota.
MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION
By: _______________________________
Brad Fyle, Chair
ATTEST:
______________________________
Angela Schumann, Community Development Director
city Of aTy OF MONMCELLO
0DIRMUnity DeMOP=t
$05 Walnut suftt, Suite I
Modoollo, IM 55362
Monti 0 (72) 295-2711 Nftmofitia4lo rati,us. Land Use Application
er Nkme
erAddrm
, AMP"
-,.4A -, TF� - . �
Admirdstrortive &Atistment
Amendment to Ordinance
Mia RAmendment ,(Rezoft
+ escrow
TextArwndmenl:
I Comprehensive Plan Amendment
$200 + escrow
$200 + escrow,
f Conditional Use Permit $200 + escrow
nned Unit Development
Colla I>oretfvej
Concept
Development
Final
+ escrow
escrow
$200+ escrow
crow
$0
200+escrow
Not agelicable
!)fiber taVon CuWns, Ternp Infras!YsVre
Plan Review
Sketch Plan Review
Subdivision
$300 + escrow
Sub/Admin Lot Comb/Lot Line Ad jq
_Ernele
Prel minm Plot
Final Plot
go + eprow r
Variance
$200 + escrow
Vacation fE8semLnjqAIC
ht V+f Way)
$200 + escrow
$350
special Planning Commission Meet
11
total Fees from Above
TOTAL TO 69 PAI
P, I —"Vo
*$" emww I , Rasidetttlal
$2,900 . stortmem or 1.1 unit1 $500 tslngle4i
36.066 fvp.",� � 2 + urdts f S1000 based +
Ip ICP 110 ri rT. t- A E � r --o ow CAt C 0 LAI ON
IM -1-9- -
r
2 2.W
Rowi-sud Slit M14
I am the fee title owner of the described property and i agree to this application, I Certify that I am in compliance
with all ordtnance requirements and conditions regarding other City approval that have been previously granted.
This application shall be processed In my name and I am the party whom the City should contact regarding the
application. I have completed all of the applicable filing requirements and I hereby acknowledge that i have read
and fully understand the applicable provisions of the City Ordlnances and current policies related to this
application and that the documents and information I have submitted are true and correct.
- -- - foals) 1.2 + • 1.t
do the Fees & Escrow Purpose explanation below and hereby agree to pay all statements received
to additionsl ap kation expense and City review.
a
Timeline for Review
MN State 15.99 allows a 6"ay review period for final action on a land use application, once that application Is
found to be complete, unless the City extends the review period and so notifies the applicant. Your request will
not be scheduled for public hearing or City review until all requ,red information nes been provided and found to be
adequate by the Community Development Department.
Purpose of trees & Escrow
Fees: The application fees are used for publication of the public hearing notice in the Monticello Times, for
postage to main thh rcq, J notu:e to kdlacem propenic-s yrs ourlinird by ordinance, and recording fees.
Escrow: The City uses escrow deposits for staff and consultant time for case review and preparation of documents
related to the application. This may Include.engineering, legal, planning and erivironmental oonsultation. Should
the original escrow be exceeded, the applicant or responsible party will be billed for all additional services.
It is the policy of the City of Monticello to require applicants for land use approvals to reimburse the City for costs
incurred In reviewing and acting upon applications, so that these costs are not borne by the taxpayers of the Qty.
These costs include all of the City's out -of poc` et costs for expenses, Including tho City's costs for review of the
application by the qty's staff, Consulting Engineer, Consulting Planner, City Attorney, or other consultants.
The city wlii invoice the applicant for these costs w!thin 3 anonthri of flnal action on Na ford use appiicdtion and
payment will be due within, thirty (30) days, if payment is not received as required by this agreement, the• City will
Applkatton Action Deadline Date
Infrastructure Engineering Planning Construction 701 Xenia Avenue South
Suite 300
Minneapolis, MN 55416
Tel: 763 541-4800
Fax: 763 541-1700
February 26, 2014
Ms. Angela Schumann
Community Development Director
City of Monticello
505 Walnut Street, Suite 1
Monticello, MN 55362
Re: Shafer IUP- Temporary Concrete Batch Plant
WSB Project No. 1494-830
Dear Ms. Schumann:
We have reviewed the application by Shafer Contracting dated January 30, 2014 and offer the
following comments, in addition to NAC’s planning report.
1. The existing average daily traffic volume on Chelsea Road is approximately 3,800
vehicles per day between TH 25 and CSAH 18. The applicant is proposing to add
approximately 265 trucks per day to this volume over two, 2-4 weeks periods. Chelsea
Road can accommodate this additional truck traffic in terms of weight limit and roadway
capacity.
2. Trucks hauling signs and other signs deemed necessary by the City shall be placed by the
applicant along Chelsea Road and side streets during the trucking operations. MnDOT
will also be monitoring Chelsea Road, in coordination with the City, to mitigate traffic
concerns and provide additional signage or other traffic control devices needed for the
project.
3. Two curb cuts are proposed to be created for access to the site. The applicant shall
remove and replace the curb on Chelsea Road and the adjacent pathway that is damaged
by use of the site, to City standards. The City shall be notified 48-hours prior to the
removal and replacement of the curb and pavement. The pathway shall be replaced in
between their concrete production periods to allow for use of the path during that time.
4. The applicant shall submit a storm water pollution prevention plan for the site for review
and approval prior to utilizing the site.
5. The applicant shall adhere to spring load restrictions as required by the City of
Monticello and Wright County.
6. MnDOT has approved the use of direct access points to I-94 from the site, which will
reduce the amount of truck traffic on Chelsea Road while the eastbound lanes are being
paved. Utilities within these access areas will need to be protected from potential
damage.
Ms. Angela Schumann
February 26, 2014
Page 2
F:\Community Development Director\Planning & Development\Planning Files\2014\2014.007.I94IUP.Schafer\PC Agenda & Minutes\LTR-a schumann-Shafer IUP 022614.doc
7. It should be noted that Chelsea Road, between TH 25 and CSAH 18, will be the
designated detour route for MnDOT’s I-94 reconstruction project to occur this summer.
The City Council approved a detour agreement with MnDOT, whereas the City will be
compensated for use of Chelsea Road as the official detour route for the duration of the
project, which is anticipated to occur from April through September 2014. MnDOT is to
provide maintenance (i.e., patching, filling potholes) on Chelsea Road along with
providing traffic control measures.
8. It should also be noted that the temporary concrete batch plant is anticipated to be a
similar operation to the temporary batch plant approved in 2010 for the MnDOT I-94
twin bridge replacement project.
Please give me a call at 763-271-3236 if you have any questions or comments regarding this
letter. Thank you.
Sincerely,
WSB & Associates, Inc.
Shibani K. Bisson, PE
City Engineer
cc: Steve Grittman, NAC
skb
Planning Commission Agenda 03/04/2014
8. Public Hearing - Consideration of a request for Preliminary Plat for Pine View
Second Addition, a 3 unit residential plat in an R-1 (Single-Family Residence)
District. Applicant: Kjellberg, Kent.
Properties: 1131 Broadway W (and adjacent outlot), 1127 Broadway
W, 1123 Broadway W, Monticello, MN 55362
Outlot A, Lots 1, 2, and 3, Block 1, Pine View, of Wright
County, Minnesota.
The site is located north of Co. Rd. 75 and east of Otter
Creek Rd., north of Interstate 94. The subject parcels are
currently vacant and will be used for single family
residential development.
Planning Case Number: 2014-008
A. REFERENCE & BACKGROUND:
Request(s): Approval of the Pine View Second Addition Preliminary
Plat, combining an outlot and three existing R-1 Single
Family Residential District parcels into three R-1 District
parcels, and associated public street, drainage and utility
easements vacations.
Deadline for Decision: April11, 2014 (Vacation); June 12, 2014 (Plat)
Land Use Designation: Places to Live
Zoning Designation: R-1, Single Family Residence District
The purpose of the "R-1" single family district is to provide
for low density, single family, detached residential
dwelling units and directly related complementary uses.
Current Site Use: The subject parcels are currently vacant.
Surrounding Land Uses:
North: R-1 District parcels
East: R-1 District parcels
South: A-O District Parcel (Pinewood Elementary School)
West: R-1 District parcels
1
Planning Commission Agenda 03/04/2014
ANALYSIS
ZONING AND SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE STANDARDS
The applicant wishes to combine a an outlot and three vacant parcels (PID
155204000010, PID 155204001010, PID 155204001020, and PID 115204001030) into
three new parcels, to be used for single family residential development. The parcels are
zoned R-1 Single Family Residence District, and the new parcels will maintain this land
use designation. The combined parcels shall meet all requirements of the Monticello
Zoning Ordinance and Subdivision Ordinance.
Lot Area and Setbacks. Required lot area, width and building setbacks for the R-1
District are as follows:
Lot area: 10,000 square feet
Lot width: 70 feet
Front yard: 30 feet
Interior side yard: 10 feet
Street side yard: 20 feet
Rear yard: 30 feet
The proposed lots will maintain a minimum 30 foot front yard building setback, a
minimum 30 foot rear yard building setback, and a minimum 10 foot side yard building
setback (except for Lot 1, which will maintain a 30 foot side yard setback from the
street), meeting R-1 District standards. Each lot will also meet the minimum lot area and
width standards described above.
Dwellings. Single family residential dwellings are indicated on the preliminary plat.
There is an existing developed single family residential dwelling on the proposed Lot 3.
Dwellings on Lots 2 and 3 are in line with adjacent residential dwellings along Co. Rd.
75, and the dwelling on Lot 1 is oriented to Otter Creek Rd. Dwellings on the proposed
lots are required to maintain the minimum width, depth, and floor areas provided in
Chapter 5, Section 5.2(C) of the Zoning Ordinance. Building pads as provided for Lots 1
and 2 appear to meet these requirements, but it will depend on the type of single family
dwelling implemented on each parcel (e.g. one bedroom, two bedroom, etc.). The single-
family dwelling on Lot 3 meets required setback standards and zoning requirements for
floor area.
The R-1 District requires that attached garages be provided with principal residential
structures. It appears that an attached garage will be provided with each of the proposed
dwellings, which shall further be required to meet minimum accessory size requirements
as provided in the R-1District Ordinance.
The dwellings are required to be served by public sanitary sewer and water. The
preliminary plat indicates that all lots will have a sanitary sewer and water connection to
pipes running along Co. Rd. 75.
2
Planning Commission Agenda 03/04/2014
Parking and Driveways. Driveways are proposed for Lot 1 from Otter Creek Rd., and
for Lot 2 from Co. Rd. 75. Shared driveway access already exists for Lot 3 along Co. Rd.
75 with the adjacent property to the east. Driveway locations and design generally meet
off-street parking and drive requirements provided in the Ordinance. As the proposed
lots are not served by City storm sewers, a culvert is required to be installed at driveway
access opening for Lot 2 (a culvert already exists in association with the shared driveway
for Lot 3). A culvert for Lot 1 may be required based on review of the City Engineer at
the time of building permit. The culverts shall be a minimum of 15 inches in size unless
otherwise directed by the City Engineer.
Park Dedication. Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes 462.358, Subdivision 2b, the City
Council of Monticello shall require all developers requesting platting or replatting of land
in the City of Monticello to contribute an amount of land for public park and trail
purposes. Park dedication requirements for the existing lots were established through the
platting of the original Pine View Addition. The park dedication requirement was
included in the special assessments assigned to each lot as part of the Pine View
Addition. All special assessments associated with these lots have been paid and therefore
park dedication requirements have been satisfied for the Pine View Second Addition plat.
Grading, Drainage and Erosion Control. The preliminary plat was not accompanied
by a separate stormwater, drainage, and erosion control plan. The plat illustrates existing
and proposed contours, in addition to showing silt fence to be installed around the
northwest corner of Lot 1, between the proposed building pad and the north and west lot
lines.
Development of the proposed lots will need to adhere to erosion control and drainage
requirements provided in Sec. 11-5-5 and 11-5-6 of the Subdivision Ordinance, in
addition to meeting related standards provided in Section 4.10 of the Zoning Ordinance.
The City Engineer will review the proposed plat and provide additional recommendations
pertaining to grading, drainage, erosion control and stormwater management on the site.
Easements and Right-of-Way. The proposed lots provide drainage and utility
easements 6 feet wide along all side lot lines and 12 feet wide along the front and rear
lines of each lot, as required by Ordinance. In addition, a twelve foot side lot easement is
provided along the street side of corner Lot 1.
The preliminary plat identifies existing drainage and utility easements and an area of
public right of way at the corner of Otter Creek Rd. and Co. Rd. 75 which will become
obsolete with approval of the vacation request. The applicant has provided a petition to
vacate the currently platted easements and public right-of-way, which provides legal
descriptions of said areas and is signed by the fee title property owner. As part of the
Pine View Addition platting and development agreement, the City has made the
determination to allow vacation of the public right-of-way at the corner of Otter Creek
Rd. and the County Rd. as realignment of portions of Otter Creek Rd. make the right-of-
way area to be vacated unnecessary. Through the vacation petition process, the City will
vacate the easements for drainage and utility easements and right of way, conditioning
3
Planning Commission Agenda 03/04/2014
the vacation on the final plat reestablishment of all required drainage and utility
easements.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
Decision 1: Resolution of Recommendation for Approval for Preliminary Plat
1. Motion to recommend adoption of Resolution No. 2014-021, approving the
proposed preliminary plat for Pine View Second Addition, combining one outlot
and three R-1 Single Family Residence District parcels (PID 155204000010, PID
155204001010,PID 155204001020, and PID 115204001030) into three R-1
District parcels, based on findings in said resolution. This motion is contingent
on compliance with the conditions listed in Exhibit Z.
2. Motion to recommend denial of the Resolution and preliminary plat based on the
finding that the proposed plat is inconsistent with the intent and requirements of
the Subdivision and Zoning Ordinance.
3. Motion to table action on the request for further study.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Subject to the conditions listed in Exhibit Z, staff recommends approval of the requested
preliminary plat, based on the findings in Resolution 2014-021.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
A. Land Use Application
B. Aerial Site Image
C. Applicant Narrative
D. Petition for Vacation
E. Preliminary Plat
F. Wright County Highway Department Comment Letter
G. City s Comment Letter
Z. Conditions of Plat Approval
4
Planning Commission Agenda 03/04/2014
Exhibit Z: Conditions of Approval
Preliminary Plat of Pine View Second Addition
1) The applicant shall provide drainage, erosion control, and stormwater management
plans for review and approval by the City Engineer, and will need to address any
recommendations the engineer makes in this regards. Further, development of the
proposed lots will need to adhere to erosion control and drainage requirements
provided in Sec. 11-5-5 and 11-5-6 of the Subdivision Ordinance, in addition to
meeting related standards provided in Zoning Ordinance Section 4.10.
2) The applicant shall comply with all recommendations of the City Engineer as provided
th
in the comment letter dated February 26, 2014.
3) Future dwellings on subdivided parcels are required to meet the minimum width,
depth, and floor area standards provided in Chapter 5, Section 5.2(C) of the Zoning
Ordinance, and the minimum garage area standards for accessory garages in the R-1
District.
5
1
CITY OF MONTICELLO
WRIGHT COUNTY, MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION NO. 2014-021
Date: Resolution No.
Motion By: Seconded By:
A RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF A PRELIMINARY PLAT
FOR PINE VIEW SECOND ADDITION, A THREE-LOT SINGLE FAMILY PLAT
IN THE R-1, SINGLE FAMILY ZONING DISTRICT.
WHEREAS, the existing land to be platted is zoned single family residential, and is guided for
residential land uses; and
WHEREAS, the proposed preliminary plat will create three single family parcels and will not
increase the density of the underlying platted land; and
WHEREAS, the proposed lots will meet the dimensional standards of the applicable R-1 zoning
district; and
WHEREAS, the plat incorporates an outlot into the plat which was created for the purpose of
development with these parcels; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on March 4, 2014 on the
application and the applicant and members of the public were provided the opportunity to present
information to the Planning Commission; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has considered all of the comments and the staff report,
which are incorporated by reference into the resolution; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Monticello makes the following Findings
of Fact in relation to the recommendation of approval:
1. The proposed plat is consistent with the land use plans of the City of Monticello’s
Comprehensive Plan;
2. The proposed plat is consistent with the standards of the applicable R-1 zoning
district;
3. The proposed plat will be able to meet all the standards of the City’s development
regulations with the incorporation of staff comments and recommendations.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the Planning Commission of the City of
Monticello, Minnesota:
2
The Planning Commission hereby recommends that the Monticello City Council approve the
Preliminary Plat for Pine View Second Addition, with the recommendations of staff.
ADOPTED this 4th day of March, 2014, by the Planning Commission of the City of
Monticello, Minnesota.
MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION
By: _______________________________
Brad Fyle, Chair
ATTEST:
______________________________
Angela Schumann, Community Development Director
Infrastructure Engineering Planning Construction 701 Xenia Avenue South
Suite 300
Minneapolis, MN 55416
Tel: 763 541-4800
Fax: 763 541-1700
February 26, 2014
Ms. Angela Schumann
Community Development Director
City of Monticello
505 Walnut Street, Suite 1
Monticello, MN 55362
Re: Pineview 2nd Addition – Preliminary Plat Review
WSB Project No. 1494-840
Dear Ms. Schumann:
We have reviewed the preliminary plat dated January 21, 2014, as prepared by Taylor Land
Surveyors, Inc., and offer the following comments.
1. Individual lot drainage shall be contained within the proposed drainage and utility
easements. The swales shall be in conformance with the City design standards which is a
2.00% minimum. The slope of the swale and proposed spot elevations of the flow path
will need to be shown on the lot survey prior to building permit approval.
2. Erosion control measures will be identified at the building permit stage.
3. The proposed water service shall be tapped into the existing 12-inch watermain. The
proposed water service shall be constructed to a minimum 7.5 feet of cover.
4. The proposed sanitary sewer service shall connect to the existing 8-inch sewer. The
slope and invert elevations of the proposed sanitary sewer service line should be noted on
the plans.
5. A utility excavation permit must be obtained from the Public Works department prior to
commencement of utility connections.
6. Show the driveway connection all the way to edge of pavement on CSAH 75 and Otter
Creek Road. The “proposed driveway” label for the driveway from Otter Creek Road
appears to be in the incorrect location. The existing sidewalk may need to be removed
and replaced to accommodate the driveway construction. More detail regarding the
location, grade, connection to Otter Creek Road and potential sidewalk replacement for
the driveway and will be reviewed with the building permit.
The final plat must be recorded prior to building permit approval. Please give me a call at 763-
271-3236 if you have any questions or comments regarding this letter. Thank you.
Ms. Angela Schumann
February 26, 2014
Page 2
F:\Community Development Director\Planning & Development\Planning Files\2014\2014.008.Pineview2nd\PC Agenda & Minutes\LTR-a schumann-Pineview2nd 022614.doc
Sincerely,
WSB & Associates, Inc.
Shibani K. Bisson, PE
City Engineer
cc: Steve Grittman, NAC
skb
Planning Commission Agenda: 03/04/14
1
9. Community Development Director’s Report
I-94 Reconstruction Project (CSAH 18 TO WEST OF TH 25) – Update by WSB & Assoc.
MnDOT will be reconstructing I-94 to address traffic weaving issues between TH 25 and
CSAH 18 starting in April 2014. The project will replace the concrete pavement on I-94 and
includes widening into the center median, installing a concrete barrier between eastbound and
westbound inside lanes, separating the eastbound TH 25 ramp and loop from mainline traffic
with a raised concrete barrier, constructing an eastbound acceleration lane, and constructing a
westbound auxiliary lane between the entrance loop at CSAH 18 and exit ramp at TH 25. The
project also includes reconstructing the pavement for all ramps and loops at the TH 25/I-95
Interchange and replacing pavement where the CSAH 18 loop ramps tie into I-94.
The project will be staged to keep two lanes of traffic in each direction open at all times on I-
94. When one of the interchanges, either at TH 25 or CSAH 18, is closed for ramp and
acceleration lane work, traffic will be detoured via Chelsea Road and CSAH 75 to one of the
interchanges to access eastbound I-94. MnDOT has indicated that access to westbound I-94
will be detoured to CSAH 75 to the interchange in Hasty, as both the westbound on ramps to
I-94 from TH 25 and CSAH 18 will need to be shut down. This has raised concerns wit h staff
and MnDOT is working on a plan to limit the duration that this will occur. A majority of the
traffic impacts and detours are anticipated to take place between May 1 and September 1.
Please note that residents and business owners are invited to learn about traffic changes,
construction plans and other details on MONDAY, March 3rd.
Two open houses will be held at Monticello Community Center, 505 Walnut St., in the
Mississippi Room.
Business owners and managers are invited to a presentation and open house Monday,
March 3 from 3:30 p.m. to 5:30 p.m.
A public open house will follow the business meeting from 6 p.m. to 8:30 p.m. in the
same location.
Those attending either event can learn about the project’s schedule and planned lane and
ramp closures, get information on the noise wall, view a preliminary layout of the project
and take home project information. Staff from the Minnesota Department of
Transportation, Shafer Contracting and the city of Monticello will also be on hand to take
comments and answer questions.
To have project updates including advance notice of traffic changes sent to your inbox,
subscribe to the I-94 Monticello email updates (signing up takes about two minutes).
More information is also available at the project website: mndot.gov/d3/monti/ .
Planning Commission Agenda: 03/04/14
2
April Commission Agenda
The Commission will be asked to review items related to overall zoning policy matters as part
of its April agenda. These items will include updates and/or action related to:
Special Use Overlay District land area analysis
Shoreland district mapping
Preliminary information on the interim ordinance related to Public Assembly
Public hearing for amendments to the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning ordinance to
incorporate factors and principles into the code and plan to manage and direct the
locations for future R-4 areas
Finally, it is hoped that the Commission can make time to attend a “Foundations” workshop
in April designed to provide the Commission with information on the legal basis for planning
and zoning actions, the role of Planning Commissioners, level of discretion associated with
various land use actions, and other important information related to the Commission’s role.
That workshop may need to occur on a meeting date separate from the regular meeting in
order to allow adequate time for presentation, discussion and questions.
Builder Workshop
The good news is that planning applications and building permits are up. The bad news is
that the workload has caused a delay in the ability to plan and host a builder and developer
workshop. This item may be put on hold until further notice.
EDA Hospitality Study
In December, the Economic Development Authority authorized proceeding with preparation of a
hospitality market study for Monticello. The Planning Commission may recall that while a
detailed market study was completed as a component of the Embracing Downtown plan, that
study was focused specifically on the potential development of retail uses (with limited
information on office/professional uses) within the downtown. The market study did not
include research on other intended uses in the downtown, including hospitality, river
recreation and tourism industries, and possible residential market capacity.
In the case of a hospitality study, the Embracing Downtown Plan specifically cites the river as
an asset and notes “uses that can capitalize on the . . . proximity to the park and Mississippi
River” should be encouraged. The Embracing Downtown Design Guidelines further support
this statement, indicating that “Landmark”-designated areas adjacent to the river can and
should support hospitality, boutique shopping and river-oriented recreation. Furthermore, the
Economic Development chapter of the Comprehensive Plan includes as a Guiding Principle:
“A shared understanding of realistic market potential is the foundation for design and
generation of a healthy business mix.” A market study for hospitality is essentially the first
required step in establishing the feasibility of a hospitality complex within the downtown
area.
Once complete, the Planning Commission will receive a copy of the study.
Planning Commission Agenda: 03/04/14
3
City Council Action – Land Use Decisions
On February 24th, the City Council took the following action related to recent Planning
Commission recommendations:
Consideration to approve an interim ordinance allowing places of Public Assembly on
a temporary basis as a principal or accessory use in a B-3 (Highway Business) District
by Interim Use Permit and to approve an interim use permit for a Place of Public
Assembly in a B-3 District. Applicant: Faith Family Life Center
Decision – Approved on consent agenda.
Public Hearing –Consideration of a request for a Conditional Use Permit Use Permit
for Vehicle Sales and Rental in a B-4 (Regional Business) District. Applicant: Dell
Inc. dba Quality RV
Decision - Approved on consent agenda.
Public Hearing – Consideration of an amendment to the Monticello Zoning Ordinance,
Chapter 6 – Non-Conformities, Section 2. Applicant: City of Monticello
Decision – Approved on consent agenda.