Planning Commission Agenda 07-01-2014
AGENDA
MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
Tuesday, July 1st, 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 - May 6th, 2014
b. Regular Meeting – June 3rd, 2014
5. Public Hearing – Consideration of a request for Preliminary Plat, Final Plat for the Vine
Street Place and Variance to Monticello Zoning Ordinance requirements for lot standards
relating to street frontage.
6. Community Development Director’s Report
7. Adjourn.
MINUTES
REGULARMEETING-MONTICELLOPLANNINGCOMMISSION
Tuesday,May6th,2014-6PM-MississippiRoom,MonticelloCommunityCenter
Present:BradFyle,SamBurvee,CharlotteGabler,AlanHeidemann
Absent:GrantSala
Others:AngelaSchumann,RonHackenmueller,SteveGrittman,JayMoore
1.Calltoorder
BradFylecalledthemeetingtoorderat6p.m.
2.CitizenCommentsNone
3.Considerationofaddingitemstotheagenda
•ComprehensivePlanamendment(AngelaSchumann)
•FleetFarmupdate(CharlotteGabler)
•CouncilactionrelatedtoSwanRiverPUDcrosswalkupdate(BradFyle)
4.ConsiderationtoapprovePlanningCommissionminutes
a.SpecialMeetingMinutes–March4th,2014
SAMBURVEEMOVEDTOAPPROVETHEMARCH4TH,2014REGULAR
SPECIALMEETINGMINUTES.ALANHEIDEMANNSECONDEDTHEMOTION.
MOTIONCARRIED3-0.(CharlotteGablerabstainedasshehadnotattendedthe
meeting.)
b.RegularMeetingMinutes–March4th,2014
ALANHEIDEMANNMOVEDTOAPPROVETHEMARCH4TH,2014REGULAR
SPECIALMEETINGMINUTES.BRADFYLESECONDEDTHEMOTION.MOTION
CARRIED3-0.(CharlotteGablerabstainedasshehadnotattendedthemeeting.)
c.RegularMeetingMinutes–April1st,2014
TheregularmeetingminutesforApril1st,2014wereunavailableatthistime.
5.PublicHearing–Considerationofarequestforconditionalusepermitforcross-
accessandPreliminaryandFinalPlatfortheCedarStreetRetailAddition,a
commercialsubdivisioninaB-3(HighwayBusiness)andB-4(RegionalBusiness)
District.Applicant:Oppidan.PlanningCaseNumber:2014-017
PlanningCommissionMinutes:5/06/14
2
SteveGrittmanreportedthattheapplicantproposedtoconstructa17,636squarefoot
retailfacilitywithadrive-throughdrop-off/donationcentertobeleasedtoGoodwill.The
developmentsiteisproposedtobelocatedattheCedarStreetRetailAdditionandis
guidedPlacestoShopandzonedB-3(HighwayBusinessDistrict).
OppidanrequestedpreliminaryandfinalplatapprovalandaConditionalUsePermit
(CUP)forcrossaccess/parking.Thepreliminaryplatcombinestwoparcels
(155500142302,155500142314)andsubdividesanother(155500142400)tocreateone
2.64acreparcel.Theremainingportionofthesubdividedpropertywouldbeplattedasan
outlotforfuturedevelopment.
Grittmanrecommendedapprovalofthepreliminaryplatsubjecttorevisionsdelineating
requiredperimeterdrainageandutilityeasements,plattingoftheCedarStreetright-of-
wayandDundasRoadeasement,andotherconditionsasnotedinExhibitZ.
Grittmanalsosummarizedthatthecrossaccess/parkingrequestedmeetsrequiredCUP
evaluationcriteriaasoutlinedinSection2.4(D)(4)(a)aswellasadditionalconditionsof
approvalrequiredinChapter4,Section4.8,SubsectionG.(2)(iv.).Conditionsofapproval
areincludedinExhibitZ.Grittmanpointedoutthatthecrossaccess/parkingbetween
adjoiningbusinesspropertieswillreducethenumberofaccessdrivesonCedarStreet
enhancingtrafficsafetyandfacilitatevehicularcirculationonthesite.
Inresponsetoquestions,Grittmannotedthatthelocationofthisparcelwouldnot
typicallybeconsideredanoptionforR-4zoningandmulti-familyhousinguse.Healso
indicatedthatstaffhadalsoinitiallyquestionedtheproposedlocationofthedrivethough
laneonthepropertybuthadconcludedthatthevisibilityalongHighway25wasnotan
aestheticconcern.
BradFyleopenedthepublichearing.
JayMoore,representingOppidanInvestmentCompanyofMinnetonka,describedthe
non-profitmissionofGoodwillandrespondedtoquestions.Heexplainedthatthe
locationofthedrivethroughlaneisdesignedtoincreasethevisibilityofthedonation
centerbecausethestorereliesondonationsasrevenue.Moorenotedthatdirectional
signagewillalsoberequestedtoprovidefortrafficcontrolontheproperty.Healso
acknowledgedagreementwiththeconditionsofapprovallistedinExhibitZ.
Astherewerenofurthercomments,thepublichearingwasclosed.
CHARLOTTEGABLERMOVEDTOADOPTRESOLUTION2014-048TO
RECOMMENDAPPROVALOFTHEPRELIMINARYANDFINALPLAT,AND
CONDITIONALUSEPERMITFORCROSSACCESS/PARKINGBETWEEN
ADJOININGBUSINESSPROPERTIES,SUBJECTTOCONDITIONSOUTLINEDIN
THERESOLUTION.ALANHEIDEMANNSECONDEDTHEMOTION.MOTION
CARRIED4-0.
PlanningCommissionMinutes:5/06/14
3
EXHIBITZ
ConditionsforApproval
CedarStreetAddition
ConditionalUsePermitforCrossParking/Access&
PreliminaryPlat
1.Thefinalplatmustshowrequireddrainageandutilityeasementsaroundthe
perimeteroftheparcelandsucheasementsshallbededicatedtothecity.
2.Encroachmentagreementsmustbefiledwiththecityforallareaswheredrive
aislesencroachondrainageandutilityeasements.
3.Thefinalplatshallincludetheplattingofthefullright-of-wayforCedarStreet.
4.ThefinalplatshallincludeaneasementthroughOutlotAforDundasRoad.
5.Asidewalkconnectionmustbeinstalledbetweenthenortheastdriveaccessand
northpropertyline.
6.Atrailconnectionmustbeprovidedfromtheparkinglottothetrailalong
Highway25.
7.Additionallandscapingmustbeprovidedatthesoutheastcornerofthepropertyto
ensuresufficientscreeningoftheloadingarea.
8.Alllandscapedareasmustbeirrigated.
9.Thenortheastdrivewaymustberealignedperengineer’srequirements;ifparking
spacesareremovedasaresult,aproofofparkingareashouldbedesignatedon
thesite.
10.Theapplicantmustobtainapprovalfromeasementholdersforallproposedtree
andshrubplantingsineasementareas.
11.Vehicularuseareasontheparceltothenorthmustmeetallrequiredsetbacksand
landscapingrequirementsatsuchtimethatdevelopmentisproposed.
12.Futurecurbcutaccesslocationsbetweentheparcelinquestionandtheadjoining
propertytothenorthshallbesubjecttoreviewandapprovalbythecity.
13.Theproposedutility,grading,drainage,anderosioncontrolplansaresubjectto
reviewandcommentbytheCityEngineer.Theapplicantshallcomplywithall
recommendationsoftheCityEngineerasprovidedinthecommentletterdated
May1st,2014.
14.Asharedaccessandmaintenanceagreementshallbefiledbytheadjoining
propertyownersatsuchtimethattheparceltothenorthisdeveloped.
PlanningCommissionMinutes:5/06/14
4
15.Theapplicantshallexecuteadevelopmentagreementcoveringthetermsofthe
City’sPlatandCUPapproval.
6.PublicHearing–ConsiderationofamendmenttoTitle10,MonticelloZoning
Ordinance,Chapter2.4(P)–SpecificReviewRequirements,PlannedUnit
DevelopmentsandSection2.3(I)relatingtowrittennotificationforPlannedUnit
Developmentapplications,PlanningCaseNumber:2014-023
Grittmansummarizedthat,inworkingthroughthePlannedUnitDevelopment(PUD)
processinplace,staffhadidentifiedvariousissueswhichrequirefurtherreviewand
revision.Hebrieflydescribedordinanceamendmentsproposedtoaddresstheseissues.
StaffproposedthatwrittennotificationrequirementsforPUDapplicationsbechangedto
350feettobeconsistentwithstatutorynotificationrequirementsandallotherCityland
useapplicationnotificationrequirements.
Otherproposedamendmentstothetextof2.4(P)arelistedbelow:
P(1)ThecollaborativeprocessisreplacedasmovedtotheConceptStage
review–moreaboutthischangebelow.
P(3)NotationrelatedtoexistingPUDs
P(4)ClarifythatPUDmaybeusedinanyzoningdistrict.
P(7)Rewordthepublicvaluesdiscussionasamoregeneralizedexample,and
restatethepurposeofPUDdesign.
P(7)(e)/(g)/(j)Clearerwording
P(7)(l)AddeditemtospecifythatPUDdevelopmentintensityisintendedto
reflectthecapacityofthelandandservices–possiblymore,possiblyless.
P(8)(b)DeletesthereferencetoroadwidthasaspecificPUDflexibilityoption–
theCityhasstandardroadwidthrequirementsbasedonpublicsafety.
Roadwidthmaybecomeanelementqualifyingforflexibility,butthe
applicantshouldproveitinthedesign.
P(8)(b)(New)AddssomeexamplesofflexibilitybyPUD,andmakesthe
considerationofflexibilitydiscretionary(“may”),ratherthanmandatory
(“shall”).
P(9)(a)EliminatesthissectiononCollaborativeprocess,movingtheprocessand
requirementstotheConceptStage(andpartiallyintotheDevelopment
Stage).
P(9)(a)PUDConceptPlan.Thistextincorporatesaroleforthecollaborative
processatConceptPlanstage,andaddsthepublicvaluesrequirements
here.Inaddition,theneighborhoodmeetingisspecificallymadeoptional.
FurthercreatesalistofrequirementsorobjectivesfortheConceptPlan,
whichincludespublichearingandcomment.Oneoftheissuesraisedby
thecurrentcodeisthecreationofasetofobjectivesforthePUDpriorto
publichearingandcomment–apotentialskirtingofzoningrequirements
whichrequirepubliccommentopportunity.
P(9)(a)(iii)4.Addsarequirementthattheapplicantidentifydevelopmentobjectives
PlanningCommissionMinutes:5/06/14
5
(apartofthecollaborativeprocess).
P(9)(a)(iii)9.Addsarequirementthattheapplicantidentifytheareasinwhichhe/she
proposestovaryfromthestandardzoningrequirementsasapartofthe
applicationsubmission.
P(9)(a)(iv)3.AddsarequirementforapublichearingattheConceptStagereview.
Thishearingincorporatespublicnoticeintotheearlystagesoftheprocess,
andavoidslaterclaimsthattheprojecthasbeentooextensivelydeveloped
tochangeafterpubliccomment.
P(9)(b)RenamesthePreliminaryPlatstageasPUDDevelopmentStage,
PreliminaryPlat,andRezoning.Thesearethreeapplicationsbeing
consideredafterConceptreviewhasoccurred,andestablishtheworking
developmentrightsfortheproject.Staffhadconsideredremovingtheplat
languagefromthecode,butinsteaditislefthere,essentiallyrequiringthat
PUDprojectsoccuronplattedland.TheDevelopmentStagePUDplans,
thePreliminaryPlat,andtheRezoningtoPUDwouldoccurconcurrently
atthisstage.
P(9)(b)(iv)3.IncorporatesarequirementthatstaffgeneratesaPublicValues
StatementfromtheConceptStagediscussions,anditisthentobe
consideredbythePlanningCommission(andthenCityCouncil)asan
initialpartoftheDevelopmentStagereview.
P(9)(b)(iv)5.Rewordsthefindingscriteriaforinternalconsistency.
P(9)(b)(iv)6.Addsnotetothisprocesssectionthatdirectsthestafftopreparea
rezoningordinanceforreview,butspecifiesthatrezoningadoptionwould
besubsequenttoFinalStagePUDapproval.
P(9)(c)FinalStagePUDandFinalPlat–requiresconformancewiththe
DevelopmentStagePUDandPreliminaryPlatapprovals,anddeletesthe
repealerprovisiononthezoning(sincethezoningwillnothavehappened
unlessallotherapprovalsaregranted).
P(9)(c)(iii)Variousclarificationsonconsistencyandrequirements.
P(9)(c)(iv)AddsclarificationthattheFinalStagePUDandFinalPlatwillbe
reviewedandapprovedbytheCityCouncil,ratherthantheimpliedstaff
reviewonly.ProvidesthattheCouncilmayrefertheFinalStagebackto
thePlanningCommissionifappropriate.
P(10)(b)Specifiesthata“PUDAdjustment”shallbetreatedasachangetothe
FinalPUDandwillfollowthatprocess.
P(11)Cancellationwouldoccuruponspecificfindings,includingthose
identifiedinthisnewlanguage.
WhilemanyoftheissuesnotedwerehousekeepingdetailsproposedtorefinethePUD
ordinancelanguageforclarityandconsistency,severalwereprocessrelated.
TheCityAttorneyhadrecommendedstreamliningthecurrentmulti-stagePUD
applicationprocesstomeetthe60daylegalrequirement.Onesignificantprocessrelated
amendmentremovestheconceptreviewfromtheapplicationprocess.Thisnotonly
shortensthePUDtimelinebutalsoinvitespublicengagementbeforedecisionsaremade.
Thosewhoownpropertywithintheaffectedareawouldreceiveaconceptreview
PlanningCommissionMinutes:5/06/14
6
meetingnotice.Theconceptreviewmeetingwoulddifferfromapublichearinginthatno
actionwouldbetaken.StaffalsoproposedamendingthePUDordinancetoconduct
processesconcurrentlyasappropriateinviewofprocesstimelinerequirements.
BradFyleopenedthepublichearing.Astherewerenocomments,thepublichearingwas
closed.
CHARLOTTEGABLERMOVEDTOADOPTRESOLUTION2014–049
RECOMMENDINGAPPROVALOFTHEAMENDMENTSTOSECTION2.3AND
2.4,REVISINGTHEPROCESSANDREQUIREMENTSFORPUDINTHE
MONTICELLOZONINGORDINANCEANDDIRECTINGSTAFFTOPREPAREAN
ORDINANCEFORADOPTION,BASEDONFINDINGSINSAIDRESOLUTION.
ALANHEIDEMANNSECONDEDTHEMOTION.MOTIONCARRIED4-0.
7.Public Hearing–Considerationtorecommendfortheadoptionthe2014Cityof
MonticelloOfficialZoningMap
AngelaSchumannprovidedanoverviewoftheproposed2014CityofMonticello
OfficialZoningMapandnotedthefollowinginclusions:
•RezoningActions
o Ordinance#581-Rezoning108CedarStreetfromR-2toCCD,F-2
o Ordinance#589-Rezoning101ChelseaRoadfromB-2toB-4
•SpecialUseOverlayDistrict
o Boundaryupdate
•ShorelandDistrict
o Boundarysetbystate
o Companionmapincludingshorelandandfloodplainboundariesadoptedby
reference
•WildandScenicRecreationalRiverDistrict
o Boundarysetbystate
BradFyleopenedthepublichearing.Astherewerenocomments,thepublichearingwas
closed.
CHARLOTTEGABLERMOVEDTOADOPTRESOLUTION2014-047
RECOMMENDINGTHEADOPTIONOFTHE2014CITYOFMONTICELLO
OFFICIALZONINGMAP,INCLUDINGSHORELAND/FLOODPLAIN
COMPANIONMAP.SAMBURVEESECONDEDTHEMOTION.MOTION
CARRIED4-0.
PlanningCommissionMinutes:5/06/14
7
8.Considerationofitemsaddedtotheagenda
•ComprehensivePlanamendment(AngelaSchumann)–AttheirApril28th meeting,
theCityCouncildirectedthePlanningCommissiontocallforapublichearingto
consideraComprehensivePlanamendmenttoreguideaparcelonthenortheast
quadrantofCountyRoad18andMeadowOakAvenuefromPlacestoShoptoPlaces
toLive.ThisamendmentwillbeincludedaspartoftheJunecommissionagenda.
•FleetFarmupdate(CharlotteGabler)–MillsFleetFarmhasbeennotifiedthatthe
twoyearextensionoftheirConditionalUsePermit(CUP)expiredinAugust2013.
BecauseFleetFarmhad,however,submittedapplicationsconsistentwithafinalstage
approval,ithasavalidPUDwhichinvolvesanexpirationtimelinethatdiffersfrom
thatofaCUP.AnysubstantivechangestotheprojectrequireareplatandPUD
amendment.
•CouncilactionrelatedtoSwanRiverPUDcrosswalkupdate(BradFyle)–TheCity
CouncilapprovedlocatingthecrosswalkattheintersectionofMapleand5½Street
aspertheCityEngineer’srecommendationforpedestriansafety,ratherthanatmid-
block,ashadbeenproposed.Councilalsorequiredthatturfbeutilizedfromthefront
lineofthebuildingforwardtothestreetforaestheticreasons,ratherthannative
landscapingashadbeenproposed.
9.Adjournment
SAMBURVEEMOVEDTOADJOURNTHEMEETINGAT7:12PM.ALAN
HEIDEMANNSECONDEDTHEMOTION.MOTIONCARRIED4-0.
Recorder:KerryBurri__
Approved:July1,2014
Attest:___________________________________________
AngelaSchumann,CommunityDevelopmentDirector
Planning Commission Agenda – 07/01/2014
1
5. Public Hearing – Consideration of a request for Preliminary Plat, Final Plat for the
Vine Street Place and Variance to Monticello Zoning Ordinance requirements for
lot standards relating to street frontage.
Property: Legal: See plat documents
PID: 155010022010
Address: Vicinity of Vine Street, 5th Street
Planning Case Number:
A. REFERENCE & BACKGROUND
Request(s): Approval of a Variance from Subdivision Standards,
Preliminary and Final Plat Approval, and Site and
Building Plan Approval to Develop a Duplex in the R-2
Single and Two Family Residence District.
Deadline for Decision: August 1st, 2014 (Variance and Final Plat),
November 29th, 2014 (Preliminary Plat)
Land Use Designation: Places to Live
Zoning Designation: R-2 Single and Two Family Residence District
The purpose of the R-2 Single and Two Family
Residence District is to provide for low to moderate
density one and two unit dwellings and directly related
complementary uses.
Overlays/Environmental
Regulations Applicable: None
Current Site Use: Vacant/undeveloped
Surrounding Land Uses:
North: Single Family Homes/Places to Live (R-2)
East: Single Family Homes/Places to Live (R-2)
South: Railroad Tracks
West: Single Family/Two Family Homes/Places to Live (R-2)
Project Description: Patrick Benoit of Benoit Properties, LLC is seeking a
variance from subdivision standards to create a lot with
no street frontage in order to construct a back-to-back
duplex utilizing a zero lot line to divide the properties.
The parcel on the east (Lot 2) has no direct street access
Planning Commission Agenda – 07/01/2014
2
and will access the Vine Street cul-de-sac via a shared
driveway with the lot on the west (Lot 1).
Subject to the approval of the variance, the applicant
has also requested approval of a preliminary and final
plat and site and building plans.
ANALYSIS
The parcel in question is approximately 0.36 acres (15,682 square feet) and zoned R-
2 Single and Two Family Residence District; duplexes are a permitted use in the
district. The site is currently undeveloped and is adjacent to existing single family
homes to the north and east, the Vine Street cul-de-sac on the west, and railroad
tracks to the south.
Preliminary and Final Plat. The proposed preliminary plat creates two lots for the
purposes of constructing a back-to-back duplex. The combined lot area exceeds the
base district minimum of 12,000 square feet in compliance with Section 3.4 (B)(1)(a).
Variance. All lots are required to have 80 feet of frontage on a public street in the R-
2 District; Lot 1 has approximately 63 feet of frontage on the Vine Street cul-de-sac
(the substandard frontage width is an existing condition prior to subdivision and is
considered legally non-conforming). Lot 2 is approximately 80 feet wide on the
western property line, but the lot has no direct frontage on the cul-de-sac. Lot 2 will
access the street via a shared driveway access easement across Lot 1 (cross access
agreement must be filed with the plat). A variance from subdivision standards is
needed to permit this condition.
In order to grant a variance from subdivision standards, the following findings must
be met (Sec. 11-9-1(A)):
1. That there are special circumstances or conditions affecting said property
such that the strict application of the provisions of this ordinance would
deprive the applicant of the reasonable use of his land.
Comment: The site contains sufficient lot area to accommodate a two-family
dwelling. However, due to the configuration of the lot which is constrained
by the railroad tracks to the south, access is limited to the narrow frontage on
the Vine Street cul-de-sac. This substandard frontage width is an existing
condition in place prior to the replatting of the lot for the purpose of
establishing two separate lots. Further, street access may be accommodated
by a cross-access easement agreement for Lot 2 which lacks street frontage.
This condition is met.
2. That the granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public
welfare or injurious to other property in the territory in which property is
situated.
Comment: The variance will not create conditions detrimental to the public
welfare or negatively impact adjacent properties. An access easement will be
Planning Commission Agenda – 07/01/2014
3
required to provide street access from Lot 2 across Lot 1. This condition is
met.
3. That the variance is to correct inequities resulting from an extreme physical
hardship such as topography, etc.
Comment: As noted under finding one, the lot is long and narrow with access
only onto the Vine Street cul-de-sac due in part to the railroad tracks to the
south. The lot size and proposed use is compliant with ordinance standards
and the submitted site plan shows that the development will otherwise be able
to meet ordinance standards without variance. This condition is met.
Easements. Drainage and utility easements have been indicated around the perimeter
of the lot with the exception of the zero lot line parcel boundary. A common drainage
plan has been submitted for the development of the duplex site which may not require
additional D/U easements along the zero lot line (subject to comment by the city
engineer).
A 12 foot drainage and utility easement will be dedicated along the north (side) lot
line at the request of the city as there is no drainage and utility easement along the
rear lot lines of the parcels to the north.
Two easement encroachments are depicted on the proposed site plan for the duplex: a
patio area for Lot 1 (approximately 2 feet) and the southern edge of the curbed
driveway approximately 3 feet from the south property. An easement encroachment
agreement must be filed with the property when the plat is recorded.
Because the property relies on a lot without street frontage, a private access and
maintenance easement will also be required between the two parcels. The applicant
should specify how these areas will be maintained and agreements will be secured for
future capital improvements to the building and grounds, such as roofing or driveway.
Site and Building Plan. As noted above, the proposed combined lot area exceeds the
minimum lot size requirement for the R-2 District. The proposed duplex is situated
back-to-back along a zero lot line (the shared wall must provide appropriate fire
protection per building and fire code requirements). The structure meets all required
setbacks (30’ front/rear; 10’ interior side). Previously submitted building elevations
(dated March 27, 2014) show the structures to be compliant with district height
requirements.
The submitted building elevations do not specify exterior materials, although lap
siding is indicated. The ordinance requires at least 20 percent of multi-family
building facades facing a public street to consist of brick or stone (or cultured
masonry simulating these materials); the west façade of the duplex on Lot 1 must
meet this standard.
Planning Commission Agenda – 07/01/2014
4
The finished floor area for each two-bedroom duplex exceeds the minimum floor area
by unit type according to Table 5-2 (820 sf for a two-bedroom unit) as depicted on
floor plans dated March 27, 2014:
Lot 1 (Unit 2): 1,478 sf
Lot 2 (Unit 1): 1,684 sf
As noted above, the driveway will be paved and curbed; sufficient garage and off-
street parking space has been provided. An easement for shared driveway access will
be required as a condition of plat approval.
The submitted landscape plan indicates two tree species to be planted on the site
including one deciduous canopy tree variety and one ornamental tree variety.
Fourteen shrubs will be planted around the foundation on the south and west sides of
the duplex.
The landscape plan is compliant with ordinance standards; however, due to the
somewhat unusual orientation of the lot with the side yard abutting the rear yards of
adjacent single family homes, staff is recommending installation of additional
landscaping along the side lot line to provide a visual buffer between the properties.
Placement of a shrub border near the property line is not anticipated to negatively
impact the functionality of the drainage and utility easement and will provide
additional privacy and visual separation for the parcels.
Grading, drainage, and utility plans are subject to comment and approval by the city
engineer.
Park Dedication. The Parks Commission will be reviewing the plat in relation to
recommending park land dedication or cash payment in lieu of land. That
information will be provided verbally to the Planning Commission as a part of the
public hearing.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS
1. Motion to adopt Resolution No. 2014 - 066 approving a variance from zoning and
subdivision standards to create a lot with no street frontage that will access the
public street via a shared driveway access easement; and recommending approval
of the following to City Council:
a. Preliminary and final plat for the creation of two lots with a zero lot line;
b. Site and building plans for the construction of a back-to-back duplex on
the site in question in the R-2 Single and Two Family Residence District
Motion based on findings in Resolution 2014-066 and subject to conditions
outlined in the attached Resolution No. 2014 – 066 and
Exhibit Z.
Planning Commission Agenda – 07/01/2014
5
2. Motion to deny adoption of Resolution 2014-066 based on findings enumerated
by the Planning Commission.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION
The request for a variance to allow for the creation of a lot without street frontage is
not anticipated to create adverse impacts on surrounding properties and may be
justified due to the unique configuration of the long, narrow parcel with limited
frontage on the Vine Street cul-de-sac and constraints imposed by the railroad tracks
to the south. The lot area is sufficient for the development of a two-family home and
the proposed duplex meets all other ordinance standards without requiring additional
variances. As a condition of approval, a driveway access easement agreement must
be filed with the final plat.
The submitted site and building plan conform to ordinance standards; however, the
applicant must confirm that the floor plans and elevations dated March 27, 2014 are
the relevant documents for review. The applicant must also provide additional detail
regarding building finish materials prior to final approval. Additional landscaping
such as a shrub border, must be installed along the north property line to provide
screening for the side yard of the duplex and the rear yards of the adjacent residential
properties.
Staff is recommending approval of the variance from zoning and subdivision
standards to create a lot without street frontage, approval of the preliminary and final
plat, and site and building plan approval to construct a back-to-back duplex with a
shared driveway on the Vine Street cul-de-sac subject to the conditions outlined in
Exhibit A.
D. SUPPORTING DATA
A. Resolution 2014-066
B. Aerial Site Image
C. Applicant Narrative
D. Applicant Narrative - Variance
E. Preliminary Plat Documents, including:
a. Title Sheet
b. Site Plan
c. Grading & Drainage Plan
d. Utility Plan
e. Landscape Plan
f. Detail Sheet
g. Detail Sheet
h. Preliminary Plat
i. Final Plat
F. City Engineer’s Comment Letter
Z. Conditions of Approval
Planning Commission Agenda – 07/01/2014
6
EXHIBIT Z: CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
Vine Street Place
1. A cross access easement agreement must be established and filed with the county to
provide access from Lot 2 across Lot 1 to the Vine Street cul-de-sac.
2. The applicant shall specify how long-term maintenance and capital improvements
will be provided for between the two parcels.
3. The shared wall facing on the zero lot line must be a structural wall meeting building
code and property line requirements.
4. Additional landscaping, such as a shrub border, shall be installed along the north
property line to provide additional visual buffering for the side yard of the duplex and
the rear yards of the adjoining residential parcels.
5. Exterior finish materials on the west side of the duplex on Lot 1 must have at least 20
percent of the façade consisting of brick, stone, or cultured masonry simulating these
materials.
6. Execution of an encroachment agreement for improvements in the public easements.
7. Execution of a development agreement governing requirements and improvements in
the plat.
8. Recommendations of the City Engineer relating to grading, drainage, utilities, and
stormwater management.
CITYOFMONTICELLO
WRIGHTCOUNTY,MINNESOTA
RESOLUTIONNO.2014-066
MotionBy:SecondedBy.
ARESOLUTIONAPPROVINGAVARIANCEFROMSUBDIVISIONSTANDARDS,
ANDRECOMMENDINGAPPROVALOFPRELIMINARYANDFINALPLAT,AND
SITEANDBUILDINGPLANTOCONSTRUCTADUPLEXINTHE
R-2SINGLEANDTWOFAMILYRESIDENCEDISTRICT
WHEREAS,PatrickBenoitofBenoitProperties,LLCisseekingapprovalofapreliminaryand
finalplatandsiteandbuildingplansinordertoconstructaback-to-backduplexutilizingazero
lotlinetodividethepropertiesintheR-2SingleandTwoFamilyResidenceDistrict;and
WHEREAS,Lot2hasnodirectstreetaccesswhichrequiresavariancefromsubdivision
standardsandLot2willaccesstheVineStreetcul-de-sacviaanaccesseasementacrossashared
drivewaywithLot1;and
WHEREAS,thePlanningCommissionheldapublichearingonJuly1,2014ontheapplication
andtheapplicantandmembersofthepublicwereprovidedtheopportunitytopresent
informationtothePlanningCommission;and
WHEREAS,thePlanningCommissionhasconsideredallofthecommentsandthestaffreport,
whichareincorporatedbyreferenceintotheresolution;and
WHEREAS,thePlanningCommissionoftheCityofMonticellomakesthefollowingFindings
ofFactinrelationtotherecommendationofapproval:
1.Thelotinquestionhassufficientareatoaccommodateatwo-familyhome,
2.AduplexisapermitteduseintheR-2District,andtheproposedsiteandbuildingplan
meetsallrequiredsetbacksestablishedbythedistrict.
3.Therearespecialcircumstances,includingconfigurationandaccess,affectingthislot
whichjustifythegrantingofthevarianceinordertoallowforreasonableuseofthe
propertyandgrantingthevariancewillnotbedetrimentaltothepublichealthand
welfare.
4.Thesiteandbuildingplansmeettheperformancestandardsintheordinanceforthe
developmentofaduplexintheR-2Districtsubjecttotheconditionsoutlinedbelow.
NOW,THEREFORE,BEITRESOLVED,bythePlanningCommissionoftheCityof
Monticello,Minnesotathatavarianceforalotwithoutpublicstreetfrontageisherebyapproved,
andthatthepreliminaryandfinalplatandsiteandbuildingplansarethereforerecommendedfor
approvalbytheCityCouncil,subjecttothefollowingconditions:
1.Acrossaccesseasementagreementmustbeestablishedandfiledwiththecountyto
provideaccessfromLot2acrossLot1totheVineStreetcul-de-sac.
2.Theapplicantshallspecifyhowlong-termmaintenanceandcapitalimprovementswillbe
providedforbetweenthetwoparcels.
3.Thesharedwallfacingonthezerolotlinemustbeastructuralwallmeetingbuilding
codeandpropertylinerequirements.
4.Additionallandscaping,suchasashrubborder,shallbeinstalledalongthenorthproperty
linetoprovideadditionalvisualbufferingforthesideyardoftheduplexandtherear
yardsoftheadjoiningresidentialparcels.
5.ExteriorfinishmaterialsonthewestsideoftheduplexonLot1musthaveatleast20
percentofthefaçadeconsistingofbrick,stone,orculturedmasonrysimulatingthese
materials.
6.Executionofanencroachmentagreementforimprovementsinthepubliceasements.
7.Executionofadevelopmentagreementgoverningrequirementsandimprovementsinthe
plat.
8.RecommendationsoftheCityEngineerrelatingtograding,drainage,utilities,and
stormwatermanagement.
ADOPTED this1st dayofJuly,2014,bythePlanningCommissionoftheCityof
Monticello,Minnesota.
MONTICELLOPLANNINGCOMMISSION
By:_______________________________
BradFyle,Chair
ATTEST:
______________________________
AngelaSchumann,CommunityDevelopmentDirector
MainOffice:Becker Phone:763/262-8822
13076FirstStreet Tollfree:888/210-8301
Becker,MN55308 Fax:763/262-8844
MapleLake
311DivisionSt.W.Box249Phone:320/963-6900
MapleLake,MN55358 Fax:320/963-6060
PROPOSEDDEVELOPMENTNARRATIVE
VINESTREETPLACE
CityofMonticello,WrightCounty,MN
Preparedfor:PatBenoit
Date:June2,2014
Preparedby:JeffreySwanson
1.SITELOCATIONANDEXISTINGCONDITIONS:
Sitelocation:ThesiteislocatedonVineStreetintheCityofMonticello.ZonedR-2.
ExistingSiteConditions:Thesiteiscurrentlyvacant.Totalsitearea=0.36acres.
2.NEGATIVEIMACTSANDMITIGATIONMEASURES
Proposedconstructionincludestwotownhomeunits,servicedbyasharedpaved
driveway.Theapplicantwillbethebuilderandplanstobuildafterfinalapprovalthis
fall.Applicantwillobtainrecordofprivateeasementforshareddrivewayandservices.
ThedevelopmentdoesnotrequireanEAWasitdoesnotexceedtheresidential
thresholds.Thepossiblenegativeimpactsoftheconstructionactivitiestosurrounding
propertiesincludebutarenotlimitedtoincreasednoise,dust,andtraffic.Tolimitthe
impactsoftheconstructionactivities,workinghourswillbelimitedtodaylighthours,
excessivelydustyconditionswillbeaddressedthroughwaterapplication,andtrafficwill
besmallduetothesizeoftheproject.Inaddition,sedimentanderosioncontrolmeasures
willbeimplementedbeforethecommencementofconstruction.
MainOffice:Becker Phone:763/262-8822
13076FirstStreet Tollfree:888/210-8301
Becker,MN55308 Fax:763/262-8844
MapleLake
311DivisionSt.W.Box249Phone:320/963-6900
MapleLake,MN55358 Fax:320/963-6060
VARIANCEREQUEST
VINESTREETPLACE
CityofMonticello,WrightCounty,MN
Preparedfor:PatBenoit
Date:June2,2014
Preparedby:JeffreySwanson
1.SITELOCATIONANDEXISTINGCONDITIONS:
Sitelocation:ThesiteislocatedonVineStreetintheCityofMonticello.ZonedR-2.
ExistingSiteConditions:Thesiteiscurrentlyvacant.Totalsitearea=0.36acres.
2.BACKGROUNDINFORMATION
Proposedconstructionincludestwotownhomeunits,servicedbyasharedpaved
driveway.BasedonaMay6th Pre-designmeeting,itwasstatedthata20footfaceto
facedrivewaywasrequired.Itwasalsostatedthatafull12footeasementwouldbe
requiredalongthenorthpropertylinesincetherewerenoeasementsforthebacklotlines
forthepropertiestothenorth.Thebuildingwasredesignedtoaccommodatethe12foot
easementbyincreasingthe10footsetbacktoa12footsetback.Duringafollowupcall,
Angelastatedthatavariancewasneededtoaddresstheshareddrivewayleadingtothe
citycul-de-sac.
3.REQUESTS
Avariancetotheordinanceforencroachmentofthedrivewayoverthesoutheasementis
beingrequested.Duetothenatureofthecul-de-saclot,itisnarrowatthestreetaccess.
Withthebuildingbeingpushedtothesouthforthefull12footnortheasementandthe20
footdriveway,thedrivewaywillencroachonthesoutheasement.Therearenopublic
utilitiesinthiseasement.
Avariancetotheordinanceforashareddrivewayforthetwohousingunitsisbeing
requested.Duetothenatureofthecul-de-saclot,theunitsneedtobeorientedbackto
backinsteadofsidetoside.Developerwillobtainrecordofprivateeasementforshared
drivewayandservicestoavoidanyfutureconflictsbetweentheownersofthelots.
94+)*6%1706;/+00'516#
BSBBSB
BS
B
BS
B
BS
B
BS
B
BS
B
BSB
BS
B
BS
B
BS
B
BS
B
BSB
N
BS
B
BSBBSB
BS
B
BS
B
BS
B
BS
B
BS
B
BSB
BS
B
BS
B
BS
B
BS
B
BSB
N
BSBBSB
BS
B
BS
B
BS
B
BS
B
BS
B
BSB
BS
B
BS
B
BS
B
BS
B
BSB
N
N
1
2
Blo
c
k
1
¾¾¾
¾
BSB
BS
B
BS
B
BS
B
BS
B
BS
B
BS
B
BS
B
BS
B
BS
B
BS
B
BS
B
BSB
/
SB
L
SB
L
8S
J
H
I
U
$
P
V
O
U
Z
.
J
O
O
F
T
P
U
B
7*
$
*
/
*
5
:
.
"
1
4F
D
T
5
X
Q
3
H
F
1
2
Blo
c
k
1
¾¾¾
¾
/
SB
L
SB
L
8S
J
H
I
U
$
P
V
O
U
Z
.
J
O
O
F
T
P
U
B
7*
$
*
/
*
5
:
.
"
1
4F
D
T
5
X
Q
3
H
F
Planning Commission Agenda: 07/01/14
1
6. Community Development Director’s Report
Council Action – Planning Commission Items
Places of Public Assembly Analysis –Motion to deny calling for a hearing for
amendment to zoning ordinance consistent with Planning Commission’s
recommendation
Comprehensive Plan Amendment, Places to Shop to Places to Live – Approved
AMAX Amendment to CUP for PUD – Approved with change to 10 year interim
PUD approval and no required setback.
Monticello ALP CUP – Approved without change
Zoning Ordinance Amendments – Approved without change
Market Matching – Economic Development Services
The EDA and City Council will be meeting in a joint workshop session on July 14th to discuss
a one year contract renewal for Market Matching economic development services, provided
by WSB & Associates. Staff has recommended the one year renewal with a revised contract
for services reflecting new deliverables and outcomes based off of those achieved in prior
years.
For Commissioners wishing to learn more about this service and the proposal for 2014-2015
services, please review the June EDA agenda report.
Status of Recent Retail Development Approvals
The Monticello ALDI is under construction at the corner of School Boulevard and Cedar
Street. Grading work has begun on the Goodwill site located south of Dundas Road along
Cedar Street.
TAC Updates
River Crossing - A meeting of stakeholders to discuss the regional transportation
system has been scheduled for June 24th at 7:00 PM in Big Lake. Mayor Herbst as a
member of the Monticello Transportation Advisory Committee and Councilmember
Perrault, as appointed member to the Mississippi River Crossing task force, have been
invited to attend on behalf of the City of Monticello. Each organization represented
will bring two elected officials and a staff person to the event. The purpose of this
initial workshop will be to discuss the proposed process, provide background
information, and begin to document stakeholder interests. From there, it is hoped that
a series of meetings will be planned to enable collaborative planning process to
develop a common transportation system vision and high-level plan to reach it.
TH 25/CSAH 75 – A meeting with the Wright County Transportation Committee has
been requested by the City of Monticello for the purpose of presenting and discussing
Planning Commission Agenda: 07/01/14
2
phasing options for the CSAH 75 corridor improvements, including lane
configurations and on-street parking options. An update will follow this meeting,
expected to occur in July.
Fallon Avenue – No update at this time.
Construction Updates from the City Engineer
West 7th Street Extension Project- Construction Update
Paving of the trail along the north side of 7th Street between Elm Street and Minnesota
Street has been completed. Restoration and boulevard tree planting is also complete.
The underlying chip seal and mill and overlay improvements along 7th Street between
Elm Street and CR 39 is complete. The final lift of pavement on the new 7th Street
between Minnesota Street and Elm Street and on Elm Street is anticipated to take
place in the next two weeks. Staff is proposing to close 7th Street to traffic between
Minnesota Street and Elm Street for a maximum period of 2 days in order for the
contractor to pave the final lift.
Hillside Farms 3rd and 4th Addition Public Improvements
Sidewalk construction is complete along Deer Street and Bison Avenue. The
remaining work is scheduled to take place the week of June 23, which includes final
lift of pavement on the development’s internal streets, utility adjustments, cluster
mailbox placement, trail construction along Fenning Avenue adjacent to the
development, internal trail extension north of Deer Street on the east side of the
development, installation of conservation easement posts, silt fence removal, cleanup,
and other associated appurtenant work.
Wright County has not yet set a date for the sale of the tax forfeit properties in this
development, which includes 47 lots in Hillside 3rd and 4th Addition.