Planning Commission Agenda 11-07-2012REGULAR MEETING
MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION
Wednesday, November 7th, 2012
6:00 PM
Mississippi Room, Monticello Community Center
Commissioners: Chairman William Spartz, Sam Burvee, Brad Fyle, Charlotte
Gabler, Grant Sala
Council Liaison: Lloyd Hilgart
Staff: Angela Schumann, Ron Hackenmueller, Steve Grittman
1. Call to order
2. Consideration to approve Planning Commission minutes.
a. Regular Meeting of October 2nd, 2012
3. Citizen Comments
4. Consideration of adding items to the agenda
5. Public Hearing – Consideration of a request for Amendment to Conditional Use Permit
for Planned Unit Development as related to residential design standards for R-2A
(Single-Family) District lots.
Applicant: Sunset Ponds, LLC
6. Public Hearing - Consideration of a request for Conditional Use Permit for
Entertainment/Recreation – Indoor Commercial, Places of Public Assembly, Restaurant
and Retail uses under 10,000 square feet in the F-3 Sub-District of the CCD (Central
Community District).
Applicant: Hillside Partnership, LLC
7. Community Development Director’s Report
8. Adjourn.
MINUTES
MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION
Tuesday, October 2, 2012 - 6:00 PM
Mississippi Room, Monticello Community Center
Commissioners Present: William Spartz, Brad Fyle, Charlotte Gabler, Sam Burvee,
Grant Sala
Council Liaison Absent: Lloyd Hilgart
Staff Present: Angela Schumann, Ron Hackenmueller, Steve Grittman-NAC
1. Call to order.
Bill Spartz called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m.
Bill Spartz introduced and welcomed new commissioners Sam Burvee and Grant Sala.
2. Consideration to approve Planning Commission minutes.
a. Special Meeting of September 4th, 2012
CHARLOTTE GABLER MOVED TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF
SEPTEMBER 4, 2012. BRAD FYLE SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION
CARRIED 4-0.
b. Regular Meeting of September 4th, 2012
BRAD FYLE MOVED TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 4,
2012. CHARLOTTE GABLER SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION
CARRIED 4-0.
3. Citizen Comments.
None.
4. Consideration of adding items to the agenda .
Commissioner Fyle requested the addition of an update on the Transportation
Advisory Committee meeting.
Commissioner Gabler added an update on the Monticello Girl Scouts Centennial Day
of Service.
Planning Commission Minutes - 10/2/12
2
5. Public Hearing: Consideration of a Concept and Development Stage Planned Unit
Development and Rezoning from B-3 to Planned Unit Development for a 2 lot
commercial development including vehicle sales and to adopt a Public Values
Statement. Applicant: Cornerstone Chevrolet
Planner Grittman provided a review of the application, stating that the applicant is
seeking to be released from the Planned Unit Development applied to the Carcone
Addition, a four lot commercial subdivision which overlays the former Monticello Ford
dealership site located in the southwest quadrant of Trunk Highway 25 and Interstate 94.
Specifically, the applicants wish to convert the former Ford dealership into a Chevrolet
dealership and establish their own Planned Unit Development. While no changes to the
footprint of the existing dealership building or parking areas are proposed, a number of
site modifications are required by General Motors (GM) to meet their branding
requirements.
Grittman reviewed both the site modifications and the conditions which would remain
unchanged. He indicated that access to the property is gained via two curb cuts on
Sandberg Road. The most southerly of the two enters the site along the south side of the
building and provides direct access to the sales lot and customer parking area. The
northerly access point is shared with the West Metro automobile dealership to the north.
This drive provides access to the service portion of the Cornerstone building, as well as
access to the West Metro property. The two parcels jointly utilize this area for
loading/unloading of car transports, utility and service vehicles, and as a secondary
access point for other traffic. Grittman stated that an existing Conditional Use Permit for
this shared access will remain in place concurrent with the new PUD approval,
guaranteeing both properties’ use of the access drive.
Because the proposed Cornerstone Chevrolet dealership will be replacing the former Ford
dealership at the site, the footprint of the existing parking area will remain unchanged.
Landscaping will also remain unchanged, and currently consists of a combination of
shrub and tree species. Grittman noted that the applicants have indicated that they may
add ornamental landscaping to the west edge of the property, but prefer to consider that
independently rather than as a condition of the PUD. The City has confirmed its
agreement with this position as a part of the Public Values Statement governing the
development plan for the project. Site lighting is existing and is proposed to remain the
same as was previously approved by the City. Grittman went on to highlight some of the
exterior and interior building modifications proposed. Further, Grittman stated that
changes to site grading have not been proposed; as such, storm water drainage patterns on
the site should remain unchanged as well.
Grittman next focused on the signage proposed by the applicant and staff’s
recommendation related to that request. He stated that the total area of wall signs
proposed will not exceed the permitted 15% of total building façade fronting not more
than two public streets. However, the applicant is seeking additional flexibility in free-
standing signage. Specifically, the applicant is seeking a 200 square foot (10’x 20’)
message board measuring 20 feet in height. The sign would be located along the east
Planning Commission Minutes - 10/2/12
3
side of the subject site, a 60 square foot internally illuminated monument sign located at
the southwest corner of the site and a relocated 75 square feet (8’-8” x 8’-8”)
pylon/freestanding sign. The sign would measure 28 feet in height and would be located
at the southeast corner of the site. Grittman stated that staff has recommended that the
applicant provide a scaled sign plan on a certificate of survey indicating the exact
location of proposed freestanding signs to confirm compliance with City sign standards
and setbacks.
Grittman indicated that for the purposes of freestanding signage, the allowances of the
Freeway Bonus Sign District apply. Those allowances permit two freestanding signs for
multiple frontage parcels. One sign may be 32 feet in height, and up to 200 square feet in
area. The second sign may be up to 14 feet in height, 100 square feet in area, and of
monument-style design. The code thus allows up to 300 total square feet of freestanding
sign area. The applicants have proposed 335 square feet on three separate structures.
In a PUD, Planned Unit Development District, signing restrictions shall be based upon
the individual uses and structures contained in the complex. At the same time, signs must
be in compliance with the restrictions applied in the most restrictive zoning district in
which the particular land use is allowed; in this case, the B-3, Highway Business District,
which were reviewed in consideration of proposed signage.
The City may grant flexibility under the PUD designation. To accommodate the
applicant’s request, but still attend to the general requirements of the code, Grittman
indicated the following changes to the sign proposal are recommended by staff:
1. Allow a maximum freestanding sign area of 300 square feet (or up to 350 square feet
if the applicant agrees to forgo future temporary signage).
2. Require that changeable copy/digital display may be no more than 50 square feet of
the total freestanding sign area (or up to 66 square feet if the messages include regular
time and temperature displays).
3. Permit the proposed signage to be spread over three total signs, one of which must be
of monument style design meeting the requirements of the code (14 feet height, 100
square feet maximum area).
4. No individual sign may be greater than 200 square feet, of which no more than 66
square feet of area may be changeable copy (as noted in item 2 above).
5. Apart from the monument sign, the two pylon signs may be constructed up to 32 feet
in height, in accordance with the allowances of the Freeway Bonus District sign
height.
6. The freestanding signs are constructed to comply with the requirements of the sign
ordinance in terms of materials.
Planning Commission Minutes - 10/2/12
4
Concluding his remarks, Grittman stated that subject to the conditions listed in Exhibit Z,
staff recommends approval of the adoption of the Public Values Statement, rezoning to
PUD, and Concept and Development Stage PUD. This recommendation is based on a
finding that the proposed project is consistent with the intent of the Monticello
Comprehensive Plan, and results in a development that meets the objectives and
requirements of the City’s Planned Unit Development zoning regulations.
Commissioner Fyle questioned what the final staff recommendation for the digital
message board was. Mr. Grittman replied that staff recommended that a maximum of 66
square feet of a digital message board would be part of the sign package.
Commissioner Gabler questioned whether the Exhibit Z condition requiring the pathway
construction was a set in stone requirement. Mr. Grittman responded that it was not a
part of the applicant’s plan, but staff recommended that a pathway be constructed along
Highway 25 frontage, within MnDOT right of way.
Commissioner Burvee asked which highway the digital sign would be focused towards.
Mr. Grittman said it would be facing Highway 25 traffic. Commissioner Burvee clarified
that it was staff’s recommendation that to allow a 200 square foot sign with 66 square
feet available for digital messaging. Mr. Grittman clarified that it is staff’s
recommendation that 366 square feet is available, any individual sign would be no larger
than 200 square feet.
Commissioner Spartz referred to exhibit Z and asked if there was anything written that
says they forgo temporary signage. Mr. Grittman responded that that is the intent of our
recommendation, item 4-D.
Commission Spartz opened the public meeting.
Steven Rohlf, representing the owner of Cornerstone Chevrolet, addressed the
Commission. Rohlf focused his comments on the signage. He informed the Commission
that the sign Cornerstone Chevrolet owns in Elk River along Highway 10 is 200 square
feet and that the majority of the messages that appear upon that sign are community
oriented; there are biblical verses, some car advertisements, there are car safety tips,
highway patrol messages pertaining to safe and sober awareness, generally things that are
meant to benefit people.
Rohlf stated that if Cornerstone Chevrolet were granted 200 square feet, Mr. Rolf
guarantees the same thing would appear in Monticello. In addition to this, the total
amount of signage would be 335 square feet, which is less than the allowable square
footage, and the signs will be shorter in height. Mr. Rolf is seeking the Commission’s
opinion on this proposal.
Commissioner Gabler commented that the 200 square foot message board in Elk River
seems appropriate at that location. It is on Highway 10, where it is a more spread out
atmosphere, not in the central corridor. She stated that in this particular area of
Planning Commission Minutes - 10/2/12
5
Monticello, a 200 square foot sign would seem loud. Commissioner Gabler believes that
the same effect can be created on a much smaller sign.
Mr. Rohlf responded to that by stating that he has dealt with signage for 30 years, and
less is more when it comes to the message, but it is not the case with the size of the sign.
It would be less effective, if visible at all. Commissioner Gabler asked staff for the size
of the Community Center’s message board sign. The staff estimated the sign to be 50
square feet, and the tradeoff was prohibition on other temporary signs.
Commissioner Gabler asked Mr. Rohlf if the digital signage for the Community Center
would be sufficient. Mr. Rohlf replied he is asking for at least 100 square feet, because it
is a standard size for an electronic sign, and 66 square feet is an odd size.
Commissioner Sala questioned what could be written on a 100 square foot sign that
would not fit onto a 50 square foot sign. Mr. Rohlf answered that if traffic is traveling at
a certain pace, if the writing is too small, the intended audience will not be able to see
anything. The sign company visited the property and accounted for the speeds on
Highway 25, taking this into consideration, the company recommended that 100 square
feet would be okay, and 200 square feet would be ideal. He stated that 66 square feet is
34% less, which is a significant amount. He reassured the Commission that there are a
lot of positive messages that Cornerstone Chevrolet does not want people to miss.
Commissioner Spartz asked Rohlf to confirm that the number staff feels comfortable with
recommending is 366 square feet. Mr. Grittman confirmed that statement to be accurate;
that the total free-standing signage not exceed that number.
Commissioner Spartz asked the applicant for the total number of square footage he was
proposing. Mr. Rohlf responded with 335 square feet. Commissioner Spartz asked Mr.
Grittman to clarify the issue. Mr. Grittman confirmed that the applicant is applying for
less square feet than the maximum, but more of that signage is digital than what is
recommended by staff.
Commissioner Fyle stated that he conducted research regarding traffic issues as it relates
to digital signs and did not find anything significant. He relied heavily on the Federal
Highway Administration for the information. The only concerns he had were related to
scrolling messages, and messages that flashed. Commissioner Fyle asked for those types
of delivery to be excluded. Grittman noted that messaging of that type is already
prohibited by code.
Commissioner Fyle stated that as the total square footage is less, and they are willing to
put up community events, storm alerts, and perhaps even allow the police force access to
it for major events, he is willing to permit 200 square feet of messaging board.
Mr. Rohlf has no issues with flashing or scrolling messages.
Commissioner Spartz stated that while he is not in favor of the 66 square foot sign
Planning Commission Minutes - 10/2/12
6
because he doesn’t believe it would allow Cornerstone to advertise at full capacity, he is
also not sure that 200 square feet is the answer, either. And if they could meet
somewhere in the middle, that that would be ideal. He also asked the applicant to address
the pathway issue.
Mr. Rolf stated that he had concerns with the pathway requirement. And after talking to
30+year employees of the dealership, not one of them remembers a time when someone
walked into a car dealership to purchase a car. Mainly, people have something they wish
to trade. He described the pathway as an impact fee, especially since it is not a new
business they are walking into, rather, one that has existed in that location many years. In
addition, it is on MnDOT right of way for the length of the building, and has absolutely
no benefit to the business. However, added that the location is a PUD, and if Cornerstone
Chevrolet were granted the 200 square foot sign, the sidewalk would be built, at
Cornerstone’s expense, as long as staff retrieved the permits from MnDOT.
Commissioner Spartz concluded that sounded like negotiation, and that Planning
Commission can work somewhat with negotiations under PUD, however, their
recommendation goes out to the Council.
Commissioner Spartz had a question regarding off street/on street loading and unloading
of trucks. Mr. Grittman answered that there is room and a designated location on site to
load and unload trucks.
Commissioner Spartz confirmed with Mr. Rohlf that he is familiar with will all items in
Exhibit Z and is only challenging items 4 and 7, but agree with all the others. Mr. Rohlf
concurred.
Commissioner Spartz welcomed anyone else to address the council. Bill Beard
introduced himself as one of the principals in the Beard Group. They are a real estate
development, and brokerage company located in Hopkins, MN at 750 2nd Street NE Suite
100. Mr. Beard is representing Jeff Sell from West Metro Auto.
Mr. Beard asked the Commission to recall that this parcel used to be all one PUD. In the
beginning they tried to figure out how Mr. Sell could buy his particular parcel. Instead of
a whole new PUD he would operate under a separate CUP with the underlying PUD that
is in place. What Mr. Sell didn’t realize with this application was that the applicant
wanted to be removed from the PUD.
Mr. Beard stated that the property started and developed as one, with one drainage
system, and it used to have one electrical lighting system, with common easements. The
concern that West Metro has isn’t with what Cornerstone is doing, the concern is what
this would mean to Mr. Sell, how he would be affected if he were left with the remaining
PUD. His request is that the Commission table this request for now so they can get an
attorney and figure out what this would mean for Mr. Sell. The attorney would also look
at the draft of the PUD. Mr. Beard asked if a draft of the PUD existed. Mr. Grittman
responded that there is one drafted. Mr. Beard said they could get an attorney look at it
Planning Commission Minutes - 10/2/12
7
right away. Mr. Beard simply does not think it is fair without the input of the neighbor,
and wants to make sure that Mr. Sell isn’t unduly burdened.
Mr. Grittman said that the action the Planning Commission and staff would like to take
on this concern is to unwind the PUD, but not unwind the obligations to the neighbor.
They still have easement obligations on their property that the neighbor has the benefit
of, there are clarifications between the two parties such as joint and cross access along the
north boundary along the North access point from Sandburg Road. Nonetheless,
Grittman indicated that the City Attorney has guided the staff’s process for this request.
He stated that it is in the city’s interest that the neighbor’s benefits are not being affected.
Staff’s recommendation is that there is no need to delay this process.
Mr. Spartz asked if the current PUD that is in place recognizes the joint parking
agreement, and drainage agreement. Mr. Grittman asserted that the applicant continues
to be obligated by cross access with Mr. Sell. That was partly done by the CUP even
prior to the PUD when Carcone Addition. He stated that the City engineers examined
drainage agreement, and it was found that it was a private agreement between the two
parties.
Mr. Rohlf described three issues that connect the West Metro and proposed Cornerstone
sites together. First, the neighboring property has a sign on Chelsea Road and Sandburg
Road that is on the property which Cornerstone would be buying. In addition, there is a
CUP and private cross-access agreement relating to the entrance points on Sandberg
Road and lastly, there is a blanket drainage easement which the seller is working to
address. Mr. Rohlf said their goal is to own the property in mid-November and to be
moving in December.
Mr. Beard asked again for more time to have an attorney examine the document since
they can be very detailed. Commissioner Spartz followed up on that by saying ideally, he
would like to see this move forward by staying on the time frame for the business’s sake.
He doesn’t see how holding up the process would benefit the developer. He did however,
recommend to Mr. Beard to take the information, bring it to an attorney, and that he
should have enough time to address this before Council meets, if a problem were to be
found.
Mr. Grittman assured the Commission that staff is aware of the stated issues, and has
been working on them with the guidance and advice of the City Attorney. By replacing
the old PUD that had certain obligations for the Cornerstone site and West Metro site
with a new one for Cornerstone, the applicant continues obligations it had under old PUD
as it concerns their neighbor. There are different requirements for site development, but
same obligations towards their neighbor. Mr. Grittman also brought up the timing issues
that would arise with the Planning Commission’s 60 day agency action schedule, should
the decision be tabled until the next meeting.
Commissioner Gabler asked staff how many days notice is given for the public hearing
notices. Staff responded that a 10 day notice is given, with two notices in the local
Planning Commission Minutes - 10/2/12
8
newspaper. Commissioner Gabler concluded that Mr. Beard has had 10 days to read and
understand the material. The way she interprets this is that there was a lack of
information on Mr. Beard’s part, and as such, there is no sense in holding up
Cornerstone’s progress.
Commissioner Fyle offered that a public hearing exists for anyone who has a concern
they feel they need to express. He said he doesn’t see a problem with this particular
issue, and concludes he feels a decision should be made on this issue tonight.
Commissioner Spartz closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Fyle stated that he had no problem with the 366 square feet. He will go
along with the increased electronic sign size of 10 feet by 20 feet provided a substantial
amount of the messages are community-based.
Commissioner Sala agreed that the sign should be larger than 66 square feet, but that 200
square feet seems excessive. He would like to see a number that is more in the middle.
Commissioner Gabler stated that she is agreement with the proposal with exception of
signage. She was willing to go to 75-100 square feet, but not 200 square feet.
Commissioner Burvee said he was still trying to find a reason to change the ordinance for
this applicant. If there is a set number, what is the reasoning to go outside of that
number. Commissioner Spartz clarified that it was brought to the Commission as a PUD,
which can allow for certain tradeoffs.
Commissioner Spartz also asked for thoughts on the pathway. Commissioner Gabler
suggested it stay in. She said that it comes down to council decision, commission can
make a recommendation, but ultimately council can pull it or keep it. Commissioners
Fyle and Sala agree that there is a need for the pathway, however Commissioner Fyle
thinks 10 feet wide sounds excessive. Mr. Grittman clarified that the reason for 10 feet is
for maintenance convenience. Also, it is less expensive to install a wider blacktop trail
than a narrow cement sidewalk.
Community Development Director Schumann offered another view point on the side
walk. She stated that Planning Commission is the first point of review for consistency
with the with the comprehensive plan, and have ability to recommend consistency with
the comprehensive plan, including the park and pathway plan. The highway 25 route is a
secondary route on the trail system so commission does have that ability to provide
recommendation to council. Ultimately, however, funding is a council decision. It is an
important statement for commission to recognize this issue because it connects to the
Chelsea Road system.
Commissioner Spartz agrees that ideally the pathway would remain in the agreement.
When it comes to signage, he is willing to support up to a 100 square foot sign for digital
messaging.
Planning Commission Minutes - 10/2/12
9
COMMISSIONER FYLE MOVED TO APPROVE ALTERNATIVE 1, INCLUDING
a. RECOMMENDATION TO APPROVE PUBLIC VALUES STATEMENT
FOR CORNERSTONE CHEVROLET;
b. RESOLUTION #2012-081 RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF
ORDINANCE #565 C-PUD #1 FOR A CONCEPT AND DEVELOPMENT
STAGE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT; AND
c. RECOMMENDATION TO APPROVE REZONING FROM B-3 TO
PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT FOR A 2 LOT COMMERCIAL
DEVELOPMENT INCLUDING VEHICLE SALES,
SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS AS LISTED IN EXHIBIT Z, WITH A SIGN
ALLOWANCE OF A TOTAL OF 366 SQUARE FEET THAT ALLOWS UP TO 200
SQUARE FEET FOR A DIGITAL MESSAGE BOARD.
MOTION FAILS BY LACK OF A SECOND.
COMMISSIONER GABLER MOVED TO APPROVE ALTERNATIVE 1,
INCLUDING
a. RECOMMENDATION TO APPROVE PUBLIC VALUES STATEMENT FOR
CORNERSTONE CHEVROLET;
b. RESOLUTION #2012-081 RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF ORDINANCE
#565 C-PUD #1 FOR A CONCEPT AND DEVELOPMENT STAGE PLANNED
UNIT DEVELOPMENT; AND
c. RECOMMENDATION TO APPROVE REZONING FROM B-3 TO PLANNED
UNIT DEVELOPMENT FOR A 2 LOT COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT
INCLUDING VEHICLE SALES,
SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS AS LISTED IN ITEMS 1-9 IN EXHIBIT Z, WITH A
CHANGE TO ITEM 4D ALLOWING FOR A MAXIMUM MESSAGE BOARD AREA
UP 100 SQUARE FEET MAXIMUM. MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER
BURVEE.
In discussion on the motion, Mr. Grittman requested that the Commission consider a
condition that no on-street loading be permitted as part of the PUD.
COMMISSIONER GABLER AMENDED HER MOTION TO INCLUDE NO ON-
STREET PARKING AS ITEM 10 IN EXHIBIT Z. MOTION SECONDED BY
COMMISSIONER BURVEE. MOTION CARRIED, 5-0.
EXHIBIT Z – CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
CORNERSTONE CHEVROLET PUD
LOT 2, BLOCK 1 AND LOT 2, BLOCK 2, CARCONE ADDITION
1. Applicant maintains the agreements necessary to comply with the existing
Conditional Use Permit for cross access with Lot 1, Block 1 Carcone Addition
(West Metro Automotive Dealership site).
Planning Commission Minutes - 10/2/12
10
2. Existing landscaping on the site is maintained per plan submissions. Additional
landscaping will be a the applicant’s discretion, outside of the PUD requirements.
3. Wall signage is installed per plan, as described in the staff report. Future changes
to signage will require the applicable sign permits. Expansion or additional
signage will be reviewed as an amendment to the PUD.
4. Freestanding signage will be changed from the proposed signage to be within the
following allowances:
a. Three freestanding signs, one of which must be a monument sign.
b. Total freestanding sign area to consist of 300 square feet between the three
signs, distributed as desired by the applicants.
c. Maximum digital message board area of 100 square feet (presuming
inclusion of occasional time/temp messaging).
d. Digital message board may be added to the 300 square foot maximum if
applicants forgo temporary signage as provided in the sign ordinance.
e. Monument sign to be no greater than 14 feet in height and 100 square feet
in area.
f. Pylon signs to be no greater than 32 feet in height and 200 square feet in
area.
g. All other sign ordinance regulations apply to freestanding signage.
5. Building materials and design as requested by the applicant.
6. Trash handling equipment is contained within the building or in an enclosure
attached to the building of materials consistent with those of the principal
building.
7. The applicant construct a pedestrian pathway along the Highway 25 frontage of
the site per City specifications, consistent with the direction of the City’s Parks
and Pathways Plan.
8. Final record plans are developed and provided to the City illustrating compliance
with all terms of the PUD approval, other applicable ordinances, and including
Exhibit Z.
9. The applicants enter into a PUD Development Agreement guaranteeing
compliance with the terms of the PUD approval.
Schumann stated that the item will go to City Council meeting on Monday, October 8th.
Planning Commission Minutes - 10/2/12
11
6. Public Hearing - Consideration of amendment to the Monticello Zoning Ordinance,
Chapter 3, Section 4(H), R-3 (Medium Density) Residential District, and amendment to
adopt an R-4 (Medium to High Density) Residential District).
Applicant: City of Monticello
Planner Steve Grittman reviewed the proposed amendment. Grittman indicated that the
current R-3 District provides for attached housing in structures of up to 12 units per
building. This is a relatively modest density allowance for attached housing, and limits
the City’s opportunity to attract higher-quality attached housing options. Although
occasionally limited due to location and demand, there is a market for luxury attached
housing, and as more adults enter a market where attached housing becomes more
attractive, higher-end multiple family options would be important to avoid losing those
community members to other locations.
Grittman stated that the City is handicapped by a lack of higher-end multiple family
housing, and as such, it is tempting to assume that all rental housing is the bottom of the
market. With a stated Comprehensive Plan goal of increasing housing stock quality, the
zoning regulations in place default to assuming that lower density is the only way to
increase quality. Grittman noted that there are numerous examples of higher-end
attached housing in the area, and especially in other parts of the Twin Cities. These
examples are marked by specific elements, however. The approach taken in the attached
table is to create an increasing expectation on housing quality as density increases, and
place up-front expectations for any housing – similar to the approach taken with the R-1A
zoning district in single family housing – greater emphasis on open space, architecture,
building materials, and general site design.
This objective is possible to achieve, and many times, permitting greater density can help
a developer deliver this type of product. In the past, however, the ordinance has not been
strong enough to insist on the quality sought by the City, and the PUD process has been
difficult to negotiate in an objective way. As a result, even PUD projects have not come
close to the City’s intent for “step-up” housing quality.
Grittman explained that table provided in the staff report addresses housing by type,
rather than zoning district, in an attempt to identify the requirements that each style of
housing would require for it to meet the City’s objectives. The three categories uses are
(1) Townhouses (currently possible in the R-2 and R-3 zoning districts), (2) Small-
building multi-family of 6-12 units (similar to the current R-3 allowance) and (3) Large-
building multi-family of 13 or more units (not available under the current code).
Mr. Grittman stated that the goal is to develop zoning language that would allow higher
density but then also require it at the same time to meet more stringent zoning regulations
for development that were not present in the old code, and not present in the current code
and if someone were going to propose a higher density project, there would be some
specific site conditions and zoning regulations that apply to them that would ensure that
the project is a higher quality, higher amenity, higher visual amenity project than what we
would have commonly seen from an apartment style or multi-family housing in the past.
Planning Commission Minutes - 10/2/12
12
Mr. Grittman explained that there are two ways to think about how the three categories of
housing can be clustered for zoning purposes. One approach would be to add this table to
the R-3 District, and establish under that zoning category the eligible uses and associated
requirements. As such, a property owner with R-3 zoned land would be able to choose
which of the three, or possibly what combination of the three, would part of a project and
design accordingly.
The second option is to pull out the third column of Large-building multi-family and
create a new R-4 zoning district. The advantage for the City with this approach is the
level of discretion at the rezoning level. If all options are clustered in the R -3 District, the
City may have more difficulty declining an application for the higher density option in an
area that seems inappropriate, even though the required performance standards would
require a reasonably quality project. If an applicant must seek a rezoning to R-4, the City
has a much greater review authority to deny a rezoning request for locational reasons.
In any case, the performance standards are intended to increase the requirements for this
type of housing in the community. The higher density projects would have the greatest
level of performance standards to qualify as a minimum project, ensuring that any project
proposed would exceed the standards of the City’s current multi-family housing stock.
Finally, the table incorporates considerations for permitting densities on the greater end
through performance standards, and provides that all senior housing would require a PUD
approach – in this way, the densities, unit sizes, parking supply, and many other senior-
specific housing designs would be addressed under the PUD zoning approach, allowing
the City to respond to what is a varied and d ynamic market, depending on level of
services and/or care.
Grittman reported that staff recommends Alternative 2, although Alternative 1 would
accommodate similar objectives, with only the loss of some locational control for the
higher density zoning option. The Planning Commission, if considering approval, may
add a finding that the provision of multiple family housing at higher densities is a
reasonable zoning allowance, provided the project quality is sufficiently upgraded to
accomplish the City’s objective of increased quality and “step-up” housing, and will add
balance to the City’s housing stock in the higher-density range through higher value
projects. In staff’s view, the R-4 option give the city a little more authority in choosing
were those locations are. The reason that is, is the way zoning decisions are made in
cities is the courts give the cities the greatest amount of discretion when you look at how
you zone your community. When you chose particular zoning for parts of your city,
courts have very little say in the review of those districts. It is easy to make findings that
support those decisions that are essentially bulletproof in court. The next level of
discretion collapses into once you are in a zoning district are you going to allow one type
of development or another, what kind of conditions are you going to apply to one,
especially when you’re writing code for the rules once you’re in that zoning code, you’re
still at a relatively high level of discretion. Staff’s goal is to have the most allowable
decisions, but also the most defensible ones.
Mr. Grittman closed his comments and entertained Commission’s questions.
Commissioner Fyle said he has not yet been in agreement to start a new R-4, and he has
Planning Commission Minutes - 10/2/12
13
not changed his mind. He stated that he is fine with R-3 standards with the PUD giving
the City the flexibility to decide what it wants in a development.
Commissioner Gabler stated that she is a proponent of the separation into an R-4 for the
fact that from a development perspective it is a lot clearer and easier to understand. She
said it also provides the ability to designate where those land areas so that you know if
you have an R-3 or an R-4. She inquired whether the City could apply the R-4 as an
overlay on top of the R-3 as an overlay instead of a separate district. Mr. Grittman
replied that the City could create an overlay district, essentially creating performance
requirements.
Commissioner Spartz commented that if the City is going to have high density, it should
get everything desired as part of that up-front, and as such, he is leaning toward R-4.
Commissioner Spartz opened the public hearing. There was no public comment.
Commission Spartz closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Burvee said he needed more time to examine the information.
Commissioner Gabler had no additional comments. Commissioner Sala asked
Commissioner Fyle why he was against the R-4. Commissioner Fyle responded that with
R-4, there will be a lot of back and forth about what is allowable in each district. Under a
PUD, the City would keep the current zoning in place so it won’t complicate anything
more. To change the zoning may make things easier up front, but easier to leave it alone
and let the applicant come forward and we can determine if it is an appropriate location
and move at that time.
COMMISSIONER GABLER MOTION TO APPROVE RESOLUTION #2012-82
RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF ORDINANCE NO. 566, AMENDING THE R-3
ZONING DISTRICT (SECTION 3.4(H)) THROUGH THE ADDITION OF
PERFORMANCE STANDARDS AND THE ESTABLISHMENT OF THE R-4, HIGH
DENSITY ZONING DISTRICT, RELATED PERFORMANCE STANDARDS, AND
HIGHER DENSITY ALLOWANCES, ALONG WITH ASSOCIATED CHANGES TO
SECTIONS 4.1(J) - LANDSCAPING, 4.8 - PARKING, 4.11(C) – BUILDING
MATERIALS, AND 5.2(C)(2) – ATTACHED DWELLING STANDARDS. MOTION
SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER SPARTZ. MOTION CARRIED 4-1.
7. November Planning Commission Meeting Date. (AS)
Director Schumann stated that the 2012 General Election falls on November 6th, Planning
Commission’s regularly scheduled meeting date. The Veteran’s Day holiday (an
observed Federal holiday) falls this year on November 12th , and as such, the City
Council meeting will be moved to Tuesday, November 13th. Therefore, the Planning
Commission has the following dates available for a rescheduled meeting. Both of these
dates offer availability in the Mississippi Room.
Wednesday, November 7th
Planning Commission Minutes - 10/2/12
14
Tuesday, November 20th
COMMISSIONER FYLE MOTIONED TO RESCHEDULE THE REGULAR
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF NOVEMBER 6TH, 2012 TO NOVEMBER
7, 2012. MOTION SECONDED BY COMISSIONER GABLER. MOTION CARRIED
5-0.
8. Community Development Director Report.
Schumann introduced Ellen Eden, Community Development Intern from St. Cloud
State.
9. Added Items:
Transportation Advisory Meeting- Commissioner Fyle
Commissioner Fyle stated that the group reviewed progress on planning for the Fallon
Avenue bridge overpass and the second Mississippi River bridge crossing, In addition,
the TAC did discuss the 7th Street extension west of Kmart, over to Elm Street, which is
being reviewed for completion in a feasibility study by the City Council..
Monticello Girl Scouts Centennial Day of Service- Commissioner Gabler
Commissioner Gabler reported that as part of the Girl Scouts Centennial Day of Service,
the Monticello Girl Scouts will be removing leaves and debris from storm drains in the
downtown area from 10am-12pm on October 13th.
9. Adjourn
COMMISSIONER GABLER MOVED TO ADJOURN THE MEETING AT 7:41PM.
MOTION WAS SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER SALA. MOTION CARRIED 5-0.
Recorder: Ellen Eden__
Approved: DATE, 2012
Attest: ___________________________________________
Angela Schumann, Community Development Director
Planning Commission Agenda 11/07/12
5. Public Hearing Consideration of a request for Amendment to Conditional Use
Permit for Planned Unit Development as related to residential design standards for
R-2A (Single-Family) District lots. Applicant: Sunset Ponds, LLC (AS)
Property: Lots 1, 3-5, 11-18, 20, Block 3; Lot 1, Block 1, Lot 2, 5-8, 10-
nd
11, 13, Block 2, Lot 2-10, Sunset Ponds 2 Addition, Block 4,
Lot 2, Block 5, Sunset Ponds
Planning Case Number: 2012-033
A. REFERENCE & BACKGROUND
Request(s): Amendment to CUP for Planned Unit Development
allowing for modifications to required 20% front building
materials requirement, garage door width,
forward regulation, and overall garage size relative to home
footprint.
Deadline for Decision: December 7th, 2012
Land Use Designation: Places to Live
Zoning Designation: T-N (formerly R-2A), Sunset Ponds Planned Unit
Development
The purpose of the "T-N" traditional neighborhood
residential district is to provide for medium density, single
family, detached residential dwelling units and directly
related complementary uses.
Current Site Use: The thirty-two lots proposed for amendment are vacant
residential properties.
Surrounding Land Uses:
North: Residential, R-1 and parkland
East: Residential, Monticello Township
South: Residential, R-2
West: Residential, R-1 and wetland
Њ
Planning Commission Agenda 11/07/12
Analysis:
The Planned Unit Development for Sunset Ponds was approved in 2003, under the
previous version of the Monticello Zoning Ordinance. Very few modifications were
made under the original Planned Unit Development to the General Building and
Performance Requirements and Lot Size requirements for the development. Instead,
the PUD was used to allow a mixing of zoning districts within the development.
In December of 2011, the City approved an amendment to PUD for five lots in the R-1
area of Sunset Ponds. The amendment was proposed by Sunset Ponds, LLC, the
applicant for this request. The amendment sought many of the same flexibilities
proposed with this application.
At this time, Sunset Ponds, LLC is seeking to amend the PUD to allow limited flexibility
in building and performance standards for thirty of the lots it owns within the T-N portion
of the development. The balance of the lots in the area will comply with existing base
ordinance and PUD standards.
The applicant is requesting that the City approve five specific home plan designs
presented for the remaining T-N lots. The desig
Deluxe The applicant has presented four exterior elevation variations
Customer package information detailing the design option packages for the
proposed homes has also been included for reference on color treatments and
combinations.
The narrative and plans provided by the applicant indicate that the houses will meet the
d(finished), minimum garage square footage,
and all setback and landscaping requirements for the district. The applicant has not
provided a specific floor plan illustrating how homes will meet the square footage
requirements; therefore any approval is conditioned on compliance
minimum finished square footage standards:
R-2A shall be built that does not consist of at least 1,200 square feet in finished floor
area, exclusive of mechanical, garage or unfinished storage space. All such finished
With this PUD amendment, the applicant is seeking flexibility from four principal design
standards as follows.
Ћ
Planning Commission Agenda 11/07/12
o Code Requirement:
structure in the R-
The applicant is seeking the flexibility to allow for stone veneers, shake siding or
similar enhanced styles of accent colors. The applicant is also seeking
clarification on how this standard will be applied on corner lots.
Comment: The five home designs presented each illustrate a
maximization of stone treatment on the front façade of the garage-face
area and entrance portico. In two of the designs, the applicant seeks to
include shake siding on the garage and house front gables in order to meet
the 20% requirement.
Recommendation: Staff would recommend a requirement that stone
veneer be required on both the garage face area and portico as shown on
the provided plans. Shake siding shall not be permitted in lieu of stone
veneer, but only to complete the required 20% as shown on plans.
For the purposes of corner lot treatments, the code indicates that the front
of any lot is the area between the two side lot lines along the street right of
way having the narrowest width. Staff would therefore recommend that
any corner lot include additional stone or brick on the secondary right of
way elevation to better meet the intent of t
requirement.
o Code Requirement:
family structure, no more than 50% of such building width shall consist of garage
Comment: Each of the home designs proposed exceeds the above
standard. The applicants propose exterior design enhancements to off-set
the garage-dominant appearance. These enhancements would include
additional gabling and variation in building materials and colors. The
applicants also proposes finished living space above the garage,
cantilevered slightly beyond the garage building line, which creates a
visual break along the front building plane of the homes.
Recommendation: Staff would recommend that this flexibility be
supported by a requirement that all garage doors include raised panels and
window lights.
Ќ
Planning Commission Agenda 11/07/12
o Code Requirement:
Comment: As noted above, the applicant is seeking to off-set the
flexibility requested by placing cantilevered living area over the garage,
effectively creating the effect of single family living space closer to the
street than the garage to reduce the garage-forward appearance.
Recommendation: Staff would suggest that any flexibility in this standard
should be accompanied by a requirement for the upgrades in garage door
treatments as noted above.
o Code Requirement:
combination of attached garage and detached accessory building exceed the
following maximum area, whichever is less: The gross square footage of the
Comment: Although no floor plans were submitted, the lot plans
submitted by the applicant in, a
total footprint of
an intent to meet the minimum garage size of 450 square feet for all
garages.
approximately 585
square feet. As such, for at least some of the homes proposed, the
applicant is seeking flexibility from the provision requiring a larger home
footprint than garage footprint. The applicant proposes to include the
living area above the garage as part of the footprint calculation of the
home, thereby balancing the garage and home foundation sizes.
Recommendation: No specific recommendation.
To further illustrate the flexibility sought by the applicant, the table below illustrates the
base code standards, any variation approved under the original PUD and the proposed
amendment sought by the applicant.
Ѝ
Planning Commission Agenda 11/07/12
T-N (formerly R-2A) Building & Performance Standards
Standard Base Ordinance PUD Proposed
Amendment
Roof Pitch 5/12 5/12 5/12
Minimum 1200 sq. ft. 1200 sq. ft. Total finished square
Finished Floor footage is stated at
Area 1361 sq. ft.
An unfinished basement
is also noted in the plan
submittals.
Minimum Floor 1000 sq. ft. 1000 sq. ft. 585 sq. ft. main floor +
Area 663 sq. ft. above garage
Building 20% of front facade 20% of front facade 20% stone veneers,
Materials covered in brick or stone covered in brick or stone shake siding or similar
wood or stucco wood or stucco enhanced styles of
finished homes may be finished homes may be accent colors
reduced to 5% reduced to 5%
Garage Size 450 sq. ft. 450 sq. ft 450 sq. ft. 663 sq. ft.
Garage Size No attached garage may No attached garage may 585 sq. ft. - building
Relative to exceed the gross square exceed the gross square footprint of principal
Principle footage of the building footage of the building structure
Structure footprint of the principal footprint of the principal 663 sq ft - attached
structure structure garage footprint for
three-stall garage
Garage Door Size ning dual door dual door 16openings dual door
Landscaping 60% of front yard in 60% of front yard in 60% of front yard in
garden per City garden per City garden per City
landscape plan landscape plan landscape plan
Ў
Planning Commission Agenda 11/07/12
Neighborhood Meeting
The 2011 amendment to Sunset Ponds generated a significant amount of neighborhood
comment. In that regard, Sunset Ponds, LLC (the applicant) invited all those within the
st
1 to discuss the currently
proposed amendments. The Planning Commission and City Council were also invited to
attend. Information resulting from that meeting will be presented by the applicant as part
of the public hearing.
In reviewing the application materials, the Public Works Department submitted a
comment suggesting that the applicants clarify for the City the current management of the
related to the common irrigation system, which is currently shut off due to non-payment
by the association.
PUD Amendment Criteria
In considering whether to amend an existing PUD, the City is asked to consider the
whether the proposed ue to achieve PUD
goals outlined by code. Specifically, whether the amendments support higher standards
of site and building design, efficient use of land, a more desirable environment than
possible through strict application of the zoning regulations, and innovative residential
development housing options at all levels.
Planning Commission should also consider the intent of the T-N district in their review,
which is to create neighborhoods which reinforce a house-forward design within a small
lot land use pattern.
ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS
1. Motion to approve Resolution 2012-093, recommending approval of an
Amendment to Conditional Use Permit for Planned Unit Development as related
to residential design standards for T-N (Single-Family) District lots for Sunset
Ponds, subject to the conditions outlined in Exhibit Z and based on findings in
said resolution.
2. Motion to deny Resolution 2012-093, Amendment to Conditional Use Permit for
Planned Unit Development as related to residential design standards for R-1
(Single-Family) District lots for Sunset Ponds, based on findings to be made by
the Planning Commission.
3. Motion to table action on the request for further study.
Џ
Planning Commission Agenda 11/07/12
STAFF RECOMMNDATION
Planning Commission will need to determine whether the amendments proposed will
provide the needed balance between construction of homes which blend into the existing
Sunset Ponds neighborhood and the appli
The applicant has proposed design enhancements intended to off-set the flexibility
recommendations related to these design enhancements as a means of strengthening the
SUPPORTING DATA
A. Resolution 2012-093
B. Aerial Parcel Image
C. Plat Map
D. Applicant Narrative
E. Lot Sketches
F. Proposed PUD Home Plan Designs
a. four designs
b.
G. Home Cross-Section Example
H. Package Options
I. Landscape Plan (City of Monticello Example)
J. Façade Examples
K. Monticello Zoning Ordinance Excerpts
Z. Conditions of Approval
А
Planning Commission Agenda 11/07/12
Exhibit Z
Sunset Ponds Amendment to PUD
Sunset Ponds, LLC
November, 2012
1. The plans submitted for building permit shall comply with the zoning ordinance
minimum finished square footage standards.
2. The plans submitted for building permit shall comply with the zoning ordinance
minimum setback requirements.
3. Stone veneer shall be required on both the garage face area and portico as shown on the
th
provided plans and dated October 6, 2012.
4. Shake veneer shall not be permitted in lieu of stone veneer, but only to complete the
required 20% as shown on plans.
5. Any corner lot shall include additional stone or brick on the secondary right of way
6. All double garage doors include raised panels and window lights.
7. No homes on abutting properties may be constructed of the exact same exterior home
design.
8. The applicant enter into an agreement for amendment to Planned Unit Development for
nd
Sunset Ponds and Sunset Ponds 2 Addition.
Б
CITY OF MONTICELLO
WRIGHT COUNTY, MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION NO. 2012-093
Date: November 7th, 2012 Resolution No. 2012-093
Motion By: ________________ Seconded By: _______________
A RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF AMENDMENT TO
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT AS RELATED
TO RESIDENTIAL DESIGN STANDARDS FOR T-N (FORMERLY R-2A) SINGLE-
FAMILY DISTRICT LOTS
WHEREAS, the City of Monticello has approved a Conditional Use Permit for Planned Unit
Development for the lots legally described in Exhibit A; and
WHEREAS, the City of Monticello has adopted a zoning map providing for the regulation of
land uses in various zoning districts; and
WHEREAS, the parcels within the PUD are zoned T-N, formerly R-2A, Single-Family District;
and
WHEREAS, the parcels are identified in the City’s Land Use Plan as being guided for “Places
to Live”; and
WHEREAS, the applicant has requested an amendment to the PUD to allow flexibility from the
City of Monticello’s the T-N, formerly R-2A, District standards ; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has conducted a public hearing on November 7th, 2012
to review the request and receive public comment on the amendment; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Monticello finds that the amendment to
PUD will be consistent with the Comprehensive land use plan; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Monticello finds that the amendment
supports PUD ordinance purpose statements for higher standards of site and building design,
efficient use of land, a more desirable environment than possible through strict application of the
zoning regulations, and innovative residential development housing options at all levels;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the Planning Commission of the City of
Monticello, Minnesota:
The Planning Commission recommends that the City Council adopt an amendment to conditional
use permit for Planned Unit Development for Sunset Ponds, subject to the following conditions:
The plans submitted for building permit shall comply with the zoning ordinance
minimum finished square footage standards.
The plans submitted for building permit shall comply with the zoning ordinance
minimum setback requirements.
Stone veneer shall be required on both the garage face area and portico as shown on the
provided plans and dated October 6th, 2012.
Shake veneer shall not be permitted in lieu of stone veneer, but only to complete the
required 20% as shown on plans.
Any corner lot shall include additional stone or brick on the secondary right of way
elevation to better meet the intent of the 20% “front building façade” requirement.
All double garage doors include raised panels and window lights.
No homes on abutting properties may be constructed of the exact same exterior home
design.
The applicant enter into an agreement for amendment to Planned Unit Development for
Sunset Ponds and Sunset Ponds 2nd Addition.
ADOPTED this 7th day of November 2012, by the Planning Commission of the City of
Monticello, Minnesota.
MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION
By: ________________________________
William Spartz, Chair
ATTEST:
___________________________________________
Angela Schumann, Community Development Director
Planning Commission Agenda 11/07/12
6. Public Hearing - Consideration of a request for Conditional Use Permit for
Entertainment/Recreation Indoor Commercial, Places of Public Assembly, and
Restaurant and Retail uses under 10,000 square feet in the F-3 Sub-District of the
CCD (Central Community District). Applicant: Hillside Partnership, LLC (AS)
Property: 500-560 Cedar Street
PIDs 155029001040 and 15500114201
Planning Case Number: 2012-033
A. REFERENCE & BACKGROUND
Request(s): Conditional Use Permit for entertainment/recreation
indoor commercial, places of public assembly, retail and
restaurant uses under 10,000 square feet in a multi-tenant
building in the F-3 (Transitional) Zone of the Central
Community District)
Deadline for Decision: December 11th, 2012
Land Use Designation: Downtown
Zoning Designation: CCD
Sub-district: F-3, Transitional
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.
Current Site Use: Multi-tenant commercial building
Surrounding Land Uses:
North: Multi- and single family residential, CCD
East: Multi-family residential, CCD
South: Multi-family residential, CCD
West: Multi-tenant commercial, CCD
Њ
Planning Commission Agenda 11/07/12
ANALYSIS
The applicant is requesting a conditional use permit to allow a mixing of retail, indoor
commercial recreation, places of public assembly, and restaurant uses for future tenants
in an existing multi-tenant commercial building.
In 1992, the property was issued a Conditional Use permit for retail commercial uses
under a Performance Zone-Mixed District. The property also received variances related
to parking, and subsequently rezoned another portion of the property to allow for the
expansion of the parking area.
Following the completion of the 1997 Downtown Revitalization Plan, the City adopted
changes both to its comprehensive plan and zoning ordinance, consistent with the 1997
plan. At that time the zoning for this property was amended to CCD, Central Community
District. Retail and restaurant uses became permitted uses in the new CCD, and the old
CUP was extinguished.
In 2011, the City adopted a new plan for downtown, the Embracing Downtown plan, and
again adopted amendments to the zoning ordinance in support of the plan. However,
with this series of amendments, the CCD zoning remains i-
designations which reflect the character of various districts within the downtown itself.
As such, this property has retained its CCD zoning designation, but is now within the F-3
(Transitional) sub-district. The F-3 cla
the edge of the downtown, where commercial properties often abut residential uses.
With these situations in mind, the code once again requires Conditional Use Permits for
retail and restaurant uses under 10,000 square feet. Therefore, to accommodate new uses
in the vacant tenant spaces, Hillside Partnership is required to obtain a new CUP.
It is important to note that the City must evaluate the new uses under the 2012 CCD
zoning code. Other unrelated permanent site conditions that have been continuously used
on this site would be grandfathered in if out of compliance with the current code, or,
allowed under any variances approved at the time of their development. In that regard,
this report will not address any existing non-conformities resulting from adoption of new
code in terms of the building structure itself.
Commission should also note that under the current zoning ordinance, no CUP is required
for multi-tenant building shared parking. Conditional use permits for cross-parking are
only required in the case of multiple buildings sharing parking areas. However, the site
analysis below does include a review of current parking availability relative to the newly
proposed uses.
Ћ
Planning Commission Agenda 11/07/12
CUP Approval Criteria Site Use Analysis
With this request, the applicant is seeking approval to allow a mix of potential tenants
within the existing building. These tenants may include retailers, restaurants, and places
of public assembly. At the present time, the building has three available tenant spaces.
The CUP application submitted includes a specific request related to the relocation of BL
Bikes. Although primarily retail in nature, the CUP for retail use would also include this
accessory storage and minor repair of skateboards and bicycles. The
CUP request for BL Bikes also includes an indoor commercial recreation component,
which is evaluated in this report as a separate principal use CUP.
No outdoor activity for any of the above proposed uses is requested under this CUP. The
applicant has been advised that such uses would require a separate CUP.
The zoning ordinance stipulates that recommendations and decisions on conditional use
permits be based on consideration of the following overall criteria.
The conditional use will not substantially diminish or impair property values within
the immediate vicinity of the subject property;
Comment: Compliant. The building is an existing multi-tenant commercial property
seeking the same or similar uses as previous. Performance standards for buffering
and landscaping on the site have been put in place under previous approvals to
address potential impacts to surrounding properties.
The conditional use will not be detrimental to the health, safety, morals, or welfare of
persons residing or working near the use;
Comment: Compliant.
The conditional use will not impede the normal and orderly development of
surrounding property for permitted uses predominant in the area;
Comment: The subject site is guided for commercial uses, and more specifically,
.
locations are intended to be a mix of inter-related and mutually supportive land uses.
Businesses involved with the sale of goods and services should be the focus of
Downtown land use. The proposed uses are consistent with this statement.
The conditional use will not pose an undue burden on public utilities or roads, and
adequate sanitary facilities are provided;
Comment: Compliant, existing.
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;
Ќ
Planning Commission Agenda 11/07/12
Comment: Parking analysis was completed based on existing tenants. The current site
uses require a total of 42 spaces. The proposed BL Bikes use would require an additional
25 spaces. Based on current parking availability of 180 total spaces, staff believes the
proposed uses for the vacant tenant spaces can be accommodated, subject to a condition
that a parking analysis be required for any restaurant or place of public assembly use
tenant prior to occupancy to ensure adequate supply.
The site has a total of 180 total parking spaces available over the two parcels.
Space Occupancy Use Ordinance # of
Requirement Spaces
Requir
ed
1,000 sq. ft. Retail 1space/350 sq. ft. 3
1,882 sq. ft. Vacant *
1,000 sq. ft. Personal Services 1space/350 sq. ft. 3
3,740 sq. ft. Personal Services 1space/350 sq. ft. 11
8,900 sq. ft. Vacant 25 for
proposed retail retail
and indoor use**
entertainment/r
ecreation
1,680 sq. ft. Clinic/Medical 4 spaces/1000 sq. ft. 7
Services spaces
5,597 sq. ft. Vacant *
4,548 sq. ft. Clinic/Medical 4 spaces/1000 sq. ft. 18
Services spaces
*Use is undefined. Requires parking analysis at time of occupancy.
**Indoor skate parks undefined within parking code. Calculation assumes full retail use.
The conditional use will not result in any nuisance including but not limited to odor,
noise, or sight pollution;
Comment: Compliant. See also conditions related to outdoor uses below.
The conditional use will not unnecessarily impact natural features such as woodlands,
wetlands, and shorelines; and all erosion will be properly controlled;
Comment: Not applicable.
The conditional use will adhere to any applicable additional criteria outlined in
Chapter 5 for the proposed use.
Comment: Evaluated below.
Ѝ
Planning Commission Agenda 11/07/12
In addition to the overall Conditional Use Permit evaluation criteria, the zoning code
outlines review criteria specific to uses, and to uses specific to the F-3 CCD sub-district.
In this case, the retail, restaurant, and indoor commercial recreation each have specific
review criteria, which are evaluated for the purpose of the CUP application below.
Entertainment/Recreation Indoor Commercial
No auctions shall take place on the premises.
Comment: None proposed with this application.
Outdoor storage shall be prohibited.
Comment: None proposed.
Noise shall be controlled consistent with the standards of this ordinance.
Comment: Condition of approval.
When abutting a residential use, the property shall be screened with an aesthetic
buffer (Table 4-2
ordinance
Comment: Compliant; an existing retaining wall is in place along the east and south
property line, along with
property line, the parking and building are screened from neighboring single-family
homes with a landscaped buffer.
Places of Public Assembly
Although the code sets out no specific standards for Places of Public Assembly, the use
must be evaluated through the overall CUP criteria. As such, the use within a tenant
space is compliant per the analysis noted above.
Restaurants
The Zoning Ordinance requires
requires a CUP subject to the following conditions:
Primary access from local residential streets shall be prohibited.
Comment: Compliant. Access to the site and all parking areas is from Cedar Street
only.
Restaurants having outdoor seating (including, but not limited to, seating for dining or
listening to live or recorded acoustic or amplified entertainment outside of the
building) shall comply with the following standards:
o The outdoor portions of the restaurant shall not operate after 10:00 P.M. unless a
Special Event Permit for such events has been approved by the City Council.
Ў
Planning Commission Agenda 11/07/12
o The outdoor seating area shall not obstruct the movement of pedestrians along
sidewalks or through areas intended for public use.
Comment: Not applicable at this time. Any restaurant seeking to locate within the
building will be required to comply with the above, including the need for CUP due
Restaurants having drive-through facilities shall require a conditional use permit and
comply with the following standards:
o All requirements for an accessory drive-through facility shall be met.
o The architectural appearance and functional plan of the building and site shall not
be so dissimilar to the existing buildings or area as to cause impairment in
property values or constitute a blighting influence within a reasonable distance of
lot.
Comment: Not applicable. No drive-through facility proposed. Any drive-through
must be approved through a subsequent and separate CUP application.
When abutting a residential use, the property shall be screened with at least a semi-
opaque buffer (Table 4-2
ordinance.
Comment: Compliant; see note in Entertainment/Recreation Indoor Commercial.
Each light standard island and all islands in the parking lot landscaped or covered.
Comment: Existing poles in place; existing lawful non-conformity.
Parking areas shall be screened from view of abutting residential districts in
compliance with Section 4.1(F) of this ordinance.
Comment: Compliant. See above comment.
Vehicular access points shall be limited, shall create a minimum of conflict with
through traffic movements, and shall be subject to the approval of the Community
Development Department.
Comment: Compliant; two conforming access points in place providing ingress and
egress from Cedar Street.
If in the CCD District, the following standards shall also apply:
o The design of the site promotes pedestrian access adjacent to and along the
property.
o Site lighting shall utilize fixtures similar in style to that designated by the City for
Comment: Existing poles in place; existing lawful non-conformity.
review is conducted by the Planning Commission.
Џ
Planning Commission Agenda 11/07/12
Comment: Existing building; any non-conformities grandfathered due to continuous
use.
Drive through facilities comply with the requirements of Section 5.3(D)(11).
Comment: Not applicable. No drive-through facility proposed. Any drive-through
must be approved through a subsequent and separate CUP application.
The proposed use demonstrates compatibil
Comprehensive Plan and the Downtown Revitalization Plan.
Comment: Compliant. The proposed mix of office/professional, retail and restaurant
uses is supported by the Embracing Downtown Plan.
Retail
In the F-3 sub-district, the zoning code outlines only one associated site condition for
Retail uses under 10,000 square feet:
If the retail sales includes consignment sales, the following standards shall apply:
o Sales and storage shall not exceed 1,000 square feet in area.
o At least 80% of the sales shall be of consigned merchandise.
o No auctions shall take place on the premises.
o There shall be no outside storage
Comment: Not applicable at this time. The applicant has indicated that there may be
a possibility of the location of a secondhand or thrift store in one of the tenant spaces.
This provision would not apply to that type of use, but rather only to consignment
stores specifically. See definition notations below.
However, in the review meeting with the applicant held prior to the public hearing,
the applicant expressed a desire for the Planning Commission to consider calling for a
public hearing regarding the 1,000 square foot threshold, noting that there are many
existing consignment stores that exceed this square footage.
Thrift Store: Thrift and charity stores sell used clothes that were donated by
individuals. Depending on the individual store, profits from the sales that go directly
to charity vary, but all sales contribute in some way monetarily to the charity who
owns the thrift.
Consignment Store: Consignment shops are places where individuals sell their used
clothing through a dealer. The shop, as the dealer, takes a percentage of the profit for
each item sold. If items do not sell during the period they are on the sales floor, they
are returned to individual without compensation.
А
Planning Commission Agenda 11/07/12
ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS
1. Motion to approve Resolution 2012-094, recommending a Conditional Use Permit
for Entertainment/Recreation Indoor Commercial, Places of Public Assembly,
Restaurant and Retail uses for the property located at 500-560 Cedar Street,
subject to the conditions outlined in Exhibit Z and based on findings as contained
within said resolution.
2. Motion to deny Resolution 2012-094, recommending a Conditional Use Permit
for Entertainment/Recreation Indoor Commercial, Places of Public Assembly,
Restaurant and Retail uses for the property located at 500-560 Cedar Street, based
on findings to be made by the Planning Commission.
3. Motion to table action on the request for further study.
STAFF RECOMMNDATION
Staff recommends alternative 1 above, subject to the conditions listed in Exhibit Z. The
existing building configuration, location and parking can appropriately accommodate the
proposed uses. In addition, the proposed uses adequately meet the conditions outlined by
code.
SUPPORTING DATA
A. Resolution 2012-094
B. Aerial Parcel Image
C. Applicant Narrative
D. Site Plan
E. Tenant Plan
F. Monticello Zoning Ordinance Excerpts
1. CCD Sub-District Map
2. CCD Use Table
Z. Conditions of Approval
Б
Planning Commission Agenda 11/07/12
Exhibit Z
500 -560 Cedar Street
Hillside Partnership, LLC
November, 2012
1. The applicant shall provide a parking plan analysis indicating the total amount of parking
for each tenant and the total facility for each tenant space prior to occupation.
2. Noise shall be controlled consistent with the standards of this ordinance.
3. Any future drive-through use shall require approval of a conditional use permit.
4. Any future outdoor uses, including outdoor restaurant seating and outdoor commercial
recreation, shall require approval of a conditional use permit.
5. The building and tenant space signage shall require separate sign permit approval subject
to the current sign ordinance.
В
CITY OF MONTICELLO
WRIGHT COUNTY, MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION NO. 2012-094
Date: November 7th, 2012 Resolution No. 2012-094
Motion By: ________________ Seconded By: _______________
A RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
FOR ENTERTAINMENT/RECREATION – INDOOR COMMERCIAL, PLACES OF
PUBLIC ASSEMBLY, AND RESTAURANT AND RETAIL USES UNDER 10,000
SQUARE FEET IN THE F-3 SUB-DISTRICT OF THE CCD
(CENTRAL COMMUNITY DISTRICT).
WHEREAS, the City of Monticello has adopted a zoning map providing for the regulation of
land uses in various zoning districts; and
WHEREAS, the parcel(s) subject to this Conditional Use Permit are as legally described in Exhibit
A; and
WHEREAS, the parcels associated with the request are zoned CDD, sub-district F-3; and
WHEREAS, the parcels are identified in the City’s Land Use Plan as being guided for
“Downtown”; and
WHEREAS, the applicant has requested a conditional use permit to allow
Entertainment/Recreation – Indoor Commercial, Places of Public Assembly, and Restaurant and
Retail uses under 10,000 square feet; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has conducted a public hearing on November 7th, 2012
to review the request and receive public comment on the amendment; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Monticello finds that the amendment to
PUD will be consistent with the Comprehensive land use plan; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Monticello finds that the Conditional Use
Permits meets the use criteria required by the Zoning Ordinance for consideration of such permit.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the Planning Commission of the City of
Monticello, Minnesota:
The Planning Commission recommends that the City Council adopt a Conditional Use Permit for
the subject parcels, subject to the following conditions:
1. The applicant shall provide a parking plan analysis indicating the total amount of parking
for each tenant and the total facility for each tenant space prior to occupation.
2. Any future drive-through use shall require approval of a conditional use permit.
3. Any future outdoor uses, including outdoor restaurant seating and outdoor commercial
recreation, shall require approval of a conditional use permit.
4. The building and tenant space signage shall require separate sign permit approval subject
to the current sign ordinance.
ADOPTED this 7th day of November 2012, by the Planning Commission of the City of
Monticello, Minnesota.
MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION
By: ________________________________
William Spartz, Chair
ATTEST:
___________________________________________
Angela Schumann, Community Development Director
Planning Commission Agenda: 11/07/12
1
7. Community Development Director Report. (AS)
Permitting
Commercial and Industrial construction is having another strong year. Below are some of the
projects staff has been working on throughout the year.
Community Center Remodel (this one is an ongoing challenge)
Walker In Store (remodel)
Mosford, Barthel and Company (remodel and addition of a platform lift)
West Metro Buick-GMC (remodel with a small addition)
Old Monticello Times Building (remodel for a Dentist office space, Lakeland Dental
will be moving into this building)
Tire Service Inc. (addition)
WSI (47,000 square foot addition)
McDonald’s Rebuild (tear down old, build new)
Frito Lay Distribution Warehouse (remodel at 406 7th Street East)
Building Dept. staff has many other smaller projects we have been working on as well.
Residential construction has been very strong compared to the last few years. As of Oct. 31st
we have issued 20 new single family-detached home permits.
DNR Certification
On October 31st, 2012, the City received verbal confirmation from the DNR that they will be
sending a formal letter certifying the Mississippi Wild Scenic and Recreational and Shoreland
overlay district language. After two years, this is the last step in the process . The City now
has a fully adopted set of ordinances to protect our public waters.
Cornerstone
On October 22nd, the City Council approved an amendment to the existing PUD for the
Carcone Addition (as opposed to a new PUD) as related to the Cornerstone application. The
action was requested by the applicant and the other party to the PUD, Sell Real Estate
Holdings. Council also approved an allowance for the 200’ square foot message board.
Staff is waiting for all parties to sign the corresponding development agreement and for
Cornerstone to submit final materials in compliance with the approved conditions.
Planning Commission Agenda: 11/07/12
2
R-3/R-4
Council will consider Planning Commission’s recommendation on this amendment on
November 26th, 2012.
Subdivision Ordinance
City Engineer, Building Dept. and Community Development staff met to begin ordinance re-
write process. In our discussions, it was determined that due to workload issues and the need
to incorporate other code or policy components into the new ordinance, the updating will
require more time than originally anticipated.
The new process has been outlined as follows.
Each of us will update chapters as follows:
Chapter 1, General Provisions - Angela
Chapter 2, Rules & Definitions - DJ/Ron
Chapter 3, Procedures - Angela
Chapter 4, Data Required - Angela/Bruce
Chapter 5, Design Standards - Bruce
Chapter 6, Parks & Open Space - Angela
Chapter 7, Required Improvements - Bruce
Chapter 8, Conveyance - Angela
Chapter 9, Variance - Angela
Chapter 10, Fees - Ron, DJ
Timeline:
Drafted sections, outline or comment by March 1, 2012 to MFRA
In the updating process for each chapter, the following FIVE components of review will
be completed:
1) Eliminate outdated data and/or language.
2) Eliminate redundancy within the document or between this document and other city docs.
3) Add new proposed language from other city docs (listed below) or other sources. Sample
ordinances from other communities included in binder.
4) Consider reorganization of the chapter you are working on as well as the larger document.
How can we make it more sensible/usable?
5) Include hyperlink suggestions as applicable.
Planning Commission Agenda: 11/07/12
3
City resources and policies for reference, incorporation into Subdivision Ordinance as
applicable:
Comp Plan
Zoning Ordinance
Transportation Plan
Natural Resource Inventory & Assessment
Park & Pathway Plan
Downtown Plan
Fee Schedule
State Park Dedication Statute
State WCA rules (wetlands)
City ordinances for Trees, Boulevards, Sewer & Water
Street Light Policy
Planning Commission’s subdivision tour notes
Sign requirements
Economic Development Chapter – Comp Plan
The small group of EDA, IEDC and Planning Commission members had a very productive
first meeting with some specific recommendations for updating the baseline data and
reference information in the chapter. Additions will include 2010 Census econ data, Business
Retention & Expansion information and references to data from new Embracing Downtown
plan. We will also include a current inventory of available industrial land (both in current
municipal boundary and annexation area) as well as how much of that land is available
relative to potential infrastructure investments. From there, the group will discuss specific
strategy statements for potential amendment.
I will keep the Commission posted as updates progress. Next meeting of the small group will
be in December.
Embracing Downtown & reStoreing Downtown
Block 34: Staff, along with two members of the City Council (Mayor Herbst and Council
member Hilgart) and two members of the EDA (President Demeules and Commissioner
Tapper) met in a small group worksession to review the results of three different financial
scenarios for Block 34 redevelopment. The summary of the financial scenarios indicate that
redevelopment is most feasible with a larger number of users and acquisition of a larger
number of parcels, which maximizes the TIF potential under the creation of a new district.
With that information in hand, the group met with ACE Hardware to discuss other alternatives
for relocation and the types of EDA assistance that may be involved.
Relocation of tenants continues to progress on Block 34, as well. All residential tenants in the
BL Bikes building have relocated at this time. Staff is in the process of working with BL
Bikes on a new site location in Monticello, which may require planning action. Lakeland
Planning Commission Agenda: 11/07/12
4
Dental continues to make progress on their new location in the old Times building on River
Street.
The remaining tenants, which include the Pizza Factory, BL Bikes and Good Clean Fun tattoo
parlor, have all received their 90-day notice to vacate.
ReStoreing Downtown
Janna King continues to work with the property and business owners in the reStoreing
downtown effort, assisting them as they move toward becoming an independent, self-
supporting organization. The Chamber of Commerce will act as the fiscal agent for this entity
until they are ready to seek non-profit status. The group has determined that they wish to
progress forward in fundraising to hire a part-time staff person to coordinate and advocate for
the effort. More information on that strategy will be provided as it unfolds.
Staff has requested that the reStoreing Downtown team present an update on their activities
and progress to the EDA in November.
Industry of the Year
Press release regarding event attached.
DATE: Wednesday, October 24, 2012
For immediate distribution
Contact: Angela Schumann, Community Development Director
(763) 271-3224
Angela.schumann@ci.monticello.mn.us
CARGILL KITCHEN SOLUTIONS RECEIVES
MONTICELLO INDUSTRY OF THE YEAR AWARD
Monticello, MN - Cargill Kitchen Solutions was awarded the 2012 Monticello Industry of
the Year award at the 3rd Annual Manufacturer’s Appreciation Breakfast, held on
October 24th. The event was hosted by the City of Monticello Industrial Development
Committee and Economic Development Authority.
Cargill was nominated for the award by other businesses in the community. To win the
award, the industry must strongly exhibit qualities of business excellence, employee
engagement, community involvement, customer relations, innovation, and economic
growth.
Cargill Kitchen Solutions established its headquarters in Monticello 25 years ago and
employs over 365 people.
In presenting the Industry of the Year Award, IEDC Chairman and local business owner
Luke Dahlheimer noted Cargill Kitchen Solutions’ numerous community engagement
activities. These efforts include preparing meals for the National Guard, donating
money to Second Harvest, supports local health and human service agencies by
conducting an annual United Way campaign. The industry was also involved in the
planning and execution of Monticello High School’s first Junior Achievement (JA) In-a-
day event and joined with the Central Minnesota Housing Partnership to construct 11
affordable homes in the area. Cargill Kitchen Solutions’ employees and involved in each
of these efforts, taking a role planning of community outreach choices.
Plant Manager, Kurt Zweifel, accepted the award on behalf of all the stakeholders at
Cargill Kitchen Solutions. Mr. Zweifel stated that “Cargill Kitchen Solutions is very
CITY OF MONTICELLO
PRESS RELEASE
fortunate to be a partner in this great Monticello community. We are sincerely
appreciative of this recognition of our stakeholders. I thank each of them for their
generosity and commitment to serve, and for working hard to enable Cargill’s vision of
enriching the communities in which we work and live. Special thanks to the IEDC and
the EDA for hosting this morning’s event, for all they do, and for this great award. We
look forward to our continued work together.”
Senator Amy Koch provided the keynote address at the breakfast event, highlighting the
legislative initiatives that impacted business. In her presentation, Senator Koch
reviewed accomplishments in the last legislative session related to business and
industry. In addition, Senator Koch spoke about business and industry-related issues
that were left unfinished that she would like to see completed this session.
- - -