Planning Commission Agenda 07-05-2011
AGENDA
MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION
Tuesday, July 5th, 2011
6:00 PM
Mississippi Room, Monticello Community Center
Commissioners: Rod Dragsten, Brad Fyle, Charlotte Gabler, William Spartz, and
Barry Voight
Council Liaison: Lloyd Hilgart
Staff: Angela Schumann, Ron Hackenmueller, Steve Grittman – NAC
1. Call to order.
2. Consideration to approve the Planning Commission minutes of June 7th, 2011.
3. Citizen Comments.
4. Consideration of adding items to the agenda.
5. Public Hearing - Consideration of an amendment to the Monticello Zoning Ordinance,
Chapter 3, Section 7, Special Use Overlay District, including amendments to the official
zoning map of the City of Monticello.
Applicant: City of Monticello
6. Public Hearing – Consideration of an amendment to the Monticello Zoning Ordinance,
Chapter 4, Section 13 - Telecommunications Towers and Antennas, Chapter 5, Section 1- Use
Table, Chapter 5, Section 2 – Use Specific Standards and Chapter 5, Section 3 - Accessory Uses
Applicant: City of Monticello
7. Zoning Ordinance Amendments – Code Tracking Update
8. Community Development Director’s Report. Verbal Update
9. Adjourn.
MINUTES
M ONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION
Tuesday, June 7, 2011 - 6:00 PM
Mississippi Room, Monticello Community Center
Commissioners: Rod Dragsten, Brad Fyle, Charlotte Gabler, Barry Voight, and
William Spartz
Council Liaison: Lloyd Hilgart
Stafr Angela Schumann, Ron Hackenmueller, Steve Grittman-NAC
1. Call to order
Rod Dragsten called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m.
2. Consideration to approve Planning Commission minutes
BRAD FYLE MOVED TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF MAY 3, 2011 AS
CORRECTED. MOTION WAS SECONDED BY BARRY VOIGHT. MOTION
CARRIED 5-0.
BILL SPARTZ MOVED TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE MAY 17, 2011
SPECIAL MEETING. MOTION WAS SECONDED BY BRAD FYLE. MOTION
CARRIED 5-0.
3. Citizen Comments None
4. Consideration of adding items to the agenda
a) Status update on Broadway Market corner property
5. Public Hearing - Consideration of a request for Rezoning from I -I (LightIndustrial) to
B-2 (Limited Business) for Lot 1 and 2, Block 1, Oakwood Industrial Park (101 Chelsea
Road). Applicant: Quarry Community Church/City of Monticello
The applicant is requesting a rezoning from I-1 to B-2 to accommodate the relocation of
Quarry Church. The rezoning of the site from an industrial to a commercial designation
is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan's land use direction and resolves an existing
inconsistency with the plan for that site. The B-2 District allows an array of civic and
institutional uses including Places of Public Assembly. Given the types of uses allowed in
the district, the rezoning to B-2 further supports the site as a transitional piece between
higher intensity commercial uses on the west and the industrial sites to the east. Quarry
Church's intended use of the site would require no other land use review through the
Planning Commission.
The public hearing was opened.
Planning Commission Agenda — 06/07/11
Applicant Kari Sanders stated that Quarry Church had been utilizing the middle school and
renting office space in Monticello since 2001. Quarry Church is aware of the potential for
conversion of other surrounding industrial properties to commercial uses which may generate
larger volumes of traffic and other land use impacts. The applicant noted that they typically
reserve a park if they need a large outdoor space to meet. They'd like to be in their new
facility by the end of 2011.
The public hearing was closed.
BILL SPARTZ MOVED TO ADOPT RESOLUTION 2011-46, RECOMMENDING
THE REZONING OF OAKWOOD INDUSTRIAL PARK, LOT 1 & 2, BLOCK 1 FROM I-
1 (LIGHT INDUSTRIAL) TO B-2 (LIMITED BUSINESS). MOTION WAS SECONDED
BY CHARLOTTE GABLER. MOTION CARRIED 5-0.
6. Public Hearing - Consideration of an amendment to the Monticello Zoning
Ordinance, Chapter 4, Section 13 - Telecommunications Towers and Antennas, Chapter
5, Section I- Use Table, Chapter 5, Section 2 — Use Specific Standards and Chapter 5,
Section 3 - Accessory Uses Applicant: Cit} of Monticello
Telecommunication towers and antennas were not listed as an allowable principal use
within the Chapter 5 use table of the new zoning code. This generated a larger discussion
at the staff level about these types of structures as principal and accessory uses, permitted
or conditional, in any zoning district. The City Council established an interim ordinance
prohibiting tower and antenna placement until an analysis of this issue was completed.
The Planning Commission has been asked to provide direction to staff for the preparation
of ordinance amendments.
Steve Grittman suggested that further differentiation within the code between antennas
and towers may better serve the City's interests as the two are often quite different in
terms of structure and placement. He noted that the City may want to consider whether
allowing antenna and/or tower structures as principal uses is appropriate in any district. He
also suggested the City consider whether tower and antenna status as a permitted
accessory use in all zoning districts is acceptable.
Staff agreed to prepare an inventory of existing tower sites and zoning districts within
Monticello. After some consideration, the Commission seemed to view principal uses less
favorably for antennas and towers and view conditional use permits in all districts as a
possibility. There was some discussion of the importance of setting specific standards for
each zoning district for both antennas and towers and the value of co -location.
BARRY VOIGHT MOVED TO CONTINUE THE PUBLIC HEARING ON AN
AMENDMENT TO THE MONTICELLO ZONING ORDINANCE, CHAPTER 4,
SECTION 13 - TELECOMMUNICATIONS TOWERS AND ANTENNAS, CHAPTER 5,
SECTION 1- USE TABLE, CHAPTER 5, SECTION 2 — USE SPECIFIC STANDARDS
AND CHAPTER 5, SECTION 3 - ACCESSORY USES TO JULY 5'5 2011 AND TO
DIRECT STAFF TO DEVELOP AN ORDINANCE BASED ON RECOMMENDATIONS
2
Planning Commission Agenda — 06/07/11
TO BE MADE BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION. MOTION WAS SECONDED BY
BRAD FYLE. MOTION CARRIED 5-0.
7. Puuhis Hearing - Consideration of an Amendment to the 2008 Monticello
Comprehensive Plan for the Adoption of the 2011 Monticello Parks & Pathway
Systems Plan
Steve Grittman presented the 2011 Park and Pathway Systems Plan which would replace
Chapter 5 of the 2008 Monticello Comprehensive Plan. The plan provides an overall
vision with accompanying policy statements and details specific goals and objectives that
support the stated vision. Input from a variety of stakeholders was critical to the process
and has been a founding component of the plan's development. As park service areas and
needs change, the City will have the flexibility to adapt the plan to better serve users while
maintaining the overall system vision.
The plan encompasses a coordinated park and pathway system which:
• Builds on existing assets
• Incorporates needed infrastructure
• Provides recommendations for future development
• Integrates area -wide facilities and resources
• Details opportunities to provide residents with more/better information on park
and trail facilities
A number of guiding principles emerged as the process unfolded. The plan strongly
emphasizes choices, continuity, short and long term planning, the preservation of nature
and history, river access, and the acquisition and development of the Bertram area as a
regional park. In summary, the plan represents a change in park development policy from
a focus on many smaller neighborhood parks, to one of fewer, larger parks, connected by
primary and secondary pathways throughout Monticello.
The Park survey results will be included as a reference piece to accompany the adopted
Park Plan. The role of the Park Commission and the Planning Commission in determining
and approving park planning was also clarified. Steve Grittman will assist the Park
Commission in developing a work plan for a multi-year implementation strategy for the
plan. Staff also noted that Wright County will take the Monticello Park Plan into account
as it develops its own plan.
The public hearing was opened. Hearing no comment, the public hearing was closed.
BILL SPARTZ MOVED TO ADOPT RESOLUTION 2011-44, RECOMMENDING
APPROVAL OF THE 2011 MONTICELLO PARK AND PATHWAY SYSTEMS
PLAN AND RELATED AMENDMENTS TO CHAPTER 5 OF THE 2008
MONTICELLO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. MOTION WAS SECONDED BY
BARRY VOIGHT. MOTION CARRIED 5-0.
3
Planning Conunission Agenda — 06/07/11
8. Public Hearing - Consideration of an Amendment to the Official Monticello Zoning Map
Applicant: City of Monticello
Since City approval of the 2011 Official Zoning Map, staff has found that amendments to
the map are necessary for a variety reasons.
Two annexed properties on the east side of the community, which were previously
associated with the plats of Hidden Forest and Niagara Falls, need to be illustrated on the
zoning map.
The Landmark Square II parcel, located at the northeast corner of Locust and Third
Street, is incorrectly shown on the current zoning map as CCD with a CCD -R overlay.
The proposed zoning map illustrates the final configuration. of the Special Use Overlay
District. There was some discussion of the need to reconsider the Adult Use Ordinance
buffer zone and make further amendment to the zoning map based on approval of the
Quarry Church rezoning request.
Staff agreed to note the CCD -R in the zoning map legend.
The public hearing was opened. Hearing no comments, the public hearing was closed.
BARRY VOIGHT MOVED TO RECOMMEND ORDINANCE #531, AN
AMENDMENT TO THE OFFICIAL MONTICELLO ZONING MAP, SUBJECT TO
ILLUSTRATION OF THE REZONING OF LOTS 1 & 2, BLOCK 1 TO B-2, AND
PENDING FINAL COUNCIL APPROVAL. MOTION WAS SECONDED BY BILL
SPARTZ. MOTION CARRIED 5-0.
ROD DRAGSTEN MOVED TO CALL FOR A PUBLIC HEARING FOR NEXT MONTH
FOR THE SPECIAL USE OVERLAY DISTRICT. MOTION WAS SECONDED BY BILL
SPARTZ. MOTION CARRIED 5-0.
9. Consideration of a Final Stage PUD for Landmark Center
In 2007, the City Council approved an amendment to conditional use permit for the
development stage Planned Unit Development for Landmark Center, a retail complex
within the Monticello Travel Center 2nd Addition. The CUP for PUD has been extended
each year since the original approval.
In working with tenants for the building, the developer, Mielke Bros., LLC has indicated
that there is a need for adjustments to the originally approved site plan and building
elevation plan.
The applicant brought forward final stage site and architectural drawings for review by
the Community Development Department consistent with the Final Stage PUD
ordinance. Staff believed that the changes were of significance and requested that the
12
Planning Commission Agenda — 06/07/11
applicant appear before the Planning Commission for Final Stage PUD review.
Site Plan
The proposed site plan would accommodate the removal of one of the two drive-throughs
originally approved along the east side of the building, as well as a slightly larger
building.
Parking
The total square footage of the building as proposed is now 10,300 square feet, an
addition of 710 square feet. The revised plan illustrates 56 spaces, a net loss of 3 spaces
to the PUD. The parking required for this specific site actually comes closer to meeting
code requirements due to the users proposed under this final stage plan.
Access & Circulation/Off Street -Loading
Access to the site continues to be provided through two existing curb cuts at Cedar Street.
One of the two previously approved drive-throughs has been removed easing circulation
concerns relative to Cedar Street. The new site plan, accommodating the slightly larger
building, now includes a dedicated off-street loading area for semi -trailer traffic and
accommodates a drive aisle for the parking located along the east side of the property.
Building Elevations
The applicant proposed revisions to the previously approved building elevations. The
changes include a curved roofline on the south and east facades of the building to
accommodate the potential tenant for the site. Staff recommended additional detail to the
fagade treatment on the Cedar Street side of the building.
Lighting
The applicant has proposed the addition of an architectural light bar along the tenant
space located on the south and east facades of the building.
BRAD FYLE MOVED TO APPROVE THE FINAL STAGE PUD FOR LANDMARK
CENTER, A PORTION OF MONTICELLO TRAVEL CENTER 2ND ADDITION,
SUBJECT TO ALL ORIGINAL CONDITIONS OF THE JUNE 11, 2007 APPROVAL
AND THOSE CONDITIONS LISTED IN EXHIBIT Z AS FOLLOWS. MOTION WAS
SECONDED BY BARRY VOIGHT. MOTION CARRIED 5-0.
1. The applicant is to clarify the intensity of off-street loading activities to the
satisfaction of the City.
2. No semi -trailers will be allowed to remain on-site for longer than a 24 hour
period, consistent with regulations for the temporary nature off-street loading.
3. The applicant is to provide turning templates for truck traffic entering and exiting
the site with building permit.
4. The applicant is to supply a pavement striping/painting plan for the one-way
areas with building permit.
S. A cross -easement for parking and access must remain in place to accommodate
potential future changes in use for the tenants within the buildings.
Planning Commission Agenda — 06/07/11
6. Specific lighting fixture detail will be required for all architectural lighting
elements, which must not exceeding 60 watts or 100 lumens.
7. Compliance with the comments by the City Engineer on the Grading, Drainage &
Erosion Control, Utility and SWPPP Plans.
8. All conditions assigned under the June 11th, 2007 approval shall be applicable.
9. The applicant is to provide additional vertical detail in the east elevation of the
building.
10. Community Development Director's Report
The Bertram Chain of Lakes Family Fun Day is Saturday, June 1 lth from 11 AM -4 PM.
A concept plan for the park will be available for comment. The City and County currently
own 370 of the 1200 acres of the Bertram property. A 2011 acquisition is planned and
grant funds have been encumbered. Council will be asked to fund its share of the
acquisition match sometime this summer.
Staff reported that the 2010 Census indicated that Monticello's actual population was
12,759 or 1,000 more than estimated. Staff will continue to analyze the data and provide
the Commission with other trends and comparisons over the coming year.
Construction for the TH 25/CSAH 11/CR 14 Intersection Improvements project is
anticipated to occur between June 6th and September 2nd. There will be significant delays
on Highway 25 and Broadway. The City is working with Mn/DOT to try to mitigate
traffic issues within the downtown area.
There was brief discussion about the new law amending standards for granting a
variance. The City will update its current ordinances pertaining to variances as a result of
this law at the July Planning Commission meeting.
Staff clarified that the special Council workshop dealing with a Silver Springs concept
proposal would begin at 5 pm on June 13, 2011.
It. Added Items
a) Status update on Broadway Market corner property
There was no discussion related to this item.
12. Adjourn
BILL SPARTZ MOVED TO ADJOURN THE MEETING AT 8:13 PM. MOTION WAS
SECONDED BY BRAD FYLE. MOTION CARRIED 5-0.
Recorder: Kerry T. Burri
Approved: July 5, 2011
Attest:
Community Development Director
0
Planning Commission Agenda: 07/05/11
1
5. Public Hearing - Consideration of an amendment to the Monticello Zoning Ordinance,
Chapter 3, Section 7, Special Use Overlay District, including amendments to the official
zoning map of the City of Monticello. Applicant: City of Monticello (AS)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
In June, the Planning Commission called for a public hearing regarding an amendment of the
Special Use overlay district relative to the pending bowling alley site rezoning.
However, in discussing this item at a staff level, it has been determined that it may actually be
premature to revise the district at this point. The rezoning of the parcel to commercial does
not have a large impact on the district, it actually would exclude the parcel from the district.
Quarry Church currently has a letter of intent on the property and should the property close, it
would be appropriate at that time to review the Special Use District and determine which
abutting or adjacent parcels should be removed from the districts.
For the above reasons, staff is requesting that Planning Commission continue the hearing to
August, 2011. It is anticipated that by that time, the City will have moved further along in its
progress of the potential sale of the property and the possible conversion of use.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. Motion to continue the hearing on the amendment to the Monticello Zoning
Ordinance, Special Use Overlay District to August 2nd, 2011.
2. Motion of other.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
City staff recommends Alternative #1.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Official Zoning Map for the City of Monticello
Cou
nty
Hwy 75
Chelsea Rd
State Hwy 25
85th St NE
9
0
t
h
S
t
N
E
Linn St
Pine St
7th St
Sc
h
o
o
l
B
l
v
d
Riverview Dr
Cedar St
W River St
M a r v i n R d
Jason Ave
Dundas Rd
W Broadway St
Hart Blvd
Country La
Haug Ave NE
Elm St
W 4th St
Fenning Ave NE
Oakwook Dr
Mall
a
rd La
95th St NE
Fallon Ave NE
Edmonson Ave NE
Mississippi Dr
5th St
C o u ntry C lu b R d
Sandberg Rd
P e l i c a n L a
Fa
lc
o
n
D
r
Fenning Ave
Walnut St
Oak Ridge Dr
Oriole La
Club View Rd
Broad way St
Hillcrest Rd
E River St
Headman La
M i l l Tr a i l L a
Falcon Ave NE
Wright St
Benton St
Elwood Rd
Ramsey St
6th St
River Mill Dr
Wildwood Way
Hilltop Dr
Mi
l
l
R
u
n
R
d
Oak View La
Farmstead Ave
Ma
r
t
i
n
D
r
4th St E3rd St E
Red Rock La
Gillard Ave NE
Maple St
Fallon Dr
Willow St
View La E
Grey Stone Ave
Marvin Elwood Rd
Fieldcrest Cir
Fairway Dr
Jason Ave NE
Vine St
Meadow La
Jerry Liefert Dr
Praire Rd
Starling Dr
Palm St
Unknown or No Streetname
Fallon Ave
Golf Course Rd
Falcon Ave
Ke
v
i
n
L
o
n
g
l
e
y
D
r
Craig La
R e d O a k L a
Front St
5th St W
Thomas Park Dr
Locust St
M
o
c
k
i
n
g
b
i
r
d
L
a
W 3rd St
Eastwood Cir
Briar Oaks Blvd
F a r m s t e a d D r
Henipin St
E i d e r L a
Dayton St
Oak La
River Forest Dr
Meadow Oak Ave
Kampa Cir
O a k R i d g e C i r
M
i
l
l
Ct
River Ridge La Garrison AveOakview Ct
Dundas Cir
Kenneth La
Otter Creek Rd
Minnesota St
Eagle Cir
Crocus La
M eado w O ak La
Stone Ridge Dr
Chestnut St
1
2
0
t
h
S
t
N
E
D arro w Ave N E
Diamond Dr
Pebble Brook Dr
Widgeon La
Washington St
Bunker Cir
H
o
m
estead
D
r
Thomas Cir
E n d i c o t t T r
Center Cir
Oak View Cir
Sandtrap Cir
Country Cir
Cheyen Ct
O ld T e rrit o ral R d
Tanager Cir
Hillcrest Cir
Osprey Ct A corn Cir
Balboul Cir
S w a ll o w C i r
R
i
v
e
r
s
i
d
e
C
i
r
Meadow Oak Ct
Matthew Cir
E Oak Dr
S
t
o
n
e
R
i
d
g
e
C
i
r
Oakwood Dr
Meadow Oak Ave NECounty H w y 75
Hart Blvd
Marvin Rd
Marvin Rd
Wright St
90th St NE
Cedar St
Minnesota St
$J
U
Z
P
G
.
P
O
U
J
D
F
M
M
P
0G
G
J
D
J
B
M
;
P
O
J
O
H
.
B
Q
.J
T
T
J
T
T
J
Q
Q
J
8
J
M
E
4
D
F
O
J
D
3
F
D
0
W
F
S
M
B
Z
%
J
T
U
S
J
D
U
07
&
3
-
"
:
%
*
4
5
3
*
$
5
4
1F
S
G
P
S
N
B
O
D
F
#
B
T
F
E
0
W
F
S
M
B
Z
%
J
T
U
S
J
D
U
!!!
!!
!
!
!!
!!
!
!
!
4I
P
S
F
M
B
O
E
%
J
T
U
S
J
D
U
05
)
&
3
8B
U
F
S
-F
H
F
O
E
"
0
3
"
3
5
/
3
3
1
6
%
3
.
)
BA
S
E
Z
O
N
I
N
G
D
I
S
T
R
I
C
T
S
Re
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
D
i
s
t
r
i
c
t
s
--
L
o
w
R
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
D
e
n
s
i
t
i
e
s
--
M
e
d
i
u
m
R
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
D
e
n
s
i
t
i
e
s
--
H
i
g
h
R
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
D
e
n
s
i
t
i
e
s
#
#
#
#
$$
%
*#
$
*
*
Bu
s
i
n
e
s
s
D
i
s
t
r
i
c
t
s
In
d
u
s
t
r
i
a
l
D
i
s
t
r
i
c
t
s
4Q
F
D
J
B
M
6
T
F
0
W
F
S
M
B
Z
%
J
T
U
S
J
D
U
!!!
!!
!
!
!!
!!
!
!
!
Planning Commission Agenda: 07/05/11
1
6. Public Hearing – Consideration of an amendment to the Monticello Zoning Ordinance,
Chapter 4, Section 13 - Telecommunications Towers and Antennas, Chapter 5, Section 1- Use
Table, Chapter 5, Section 2 – Use Specific Standards and Chapter 5, Section 3 - Accessory Uses
Applicant: City of Monticello (AS)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
In June, the Planning Commission called for a public hearing for amendments relating to
telecommunication towers and antennas.
The following areas were reviewed for potential amendments to the ordinance:
1. The City may want to consider whether allowing antenna and/or tower structures as
principal uses is appropriate in any district. As a principal use, the tower would be the
only use on the property. It may not be the intent of the City to completely prohibit such
towers as principal uses in the new code.
2. The City should consider whether tower and antenna status as a permitted accessory use in
all zoning districts is acceptable. More likely, in some cases the City would want to allow
such tower uses only as conditional uses. Planning Commission will note that
radio/television broadcast towers and telecommunication towers already require CUPs
(4.13(E) and (F), but there is an opportunity to further clarify the requirements in the use
tables to eliminate any confusion about where such uses are permitted versus conditional.
3. Differentiation between antennas and towers may better serve the City’s interests, as the
two are often quite different in terms of structure and placement. Separating towers,
antennas and even perhaps the types of towers (radio/broadcast versus personal wireless)
within the use tables themselves can help eliminate confusion during the review process.
Standards for each would then de encapsulated separately within section 4.13.
Planning Commission reached consensus on the following direction related to the above in
terms of developing potential amendments:
1. Separate the varying types of towers/antennas within the tables and text and provide
appropriate regulations for each
2. Generally prohibit towers/antennas as principal uses of properties with limited exceptions
3. Require Condition Use Permits for towers and some antennas in all zoning districts;
display clearly within tables
4. Define what types of antennas may be allowed without a CUP and under what conditions
City Planner Steve Grittman has begun working on ordinance language based on this
direction. However, Mr. Grittman is not able to attend July’s meeting and it is important that
he be present to detail the ordinance amendment alternatives. Staff is therefore asking that the
public hearing on the amendments be continued to the August 2nd, 2011 Planning
Commission meeting.
Planning Commission Agenda: 07/05/11
2
At the June meeting, Planning Commission also requested that staff prepare an inventory of
towers and antennas already in place in throughout the City as a reference point for
considering amendments.
That inventory has been prepared and is included with this report. It is staff’s intention to
review the inventory for discussion at the July meeting. Such discussion may lead to
additional direction on final ordinance preparation.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. Motion to continue the hearing on the amendment to the Monticello Zoning
Ordinance, Telecommunication Towers and Antennas to August 2nd, 2011.
2. Motion of other.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
City staff recommends Alternative #1.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Tower & Antenna Inventory
Tower—Bondhus Property
163 feet in height, Owner: Verizon Wireless LLC
Tower is an accessory use
Zoning District: I-1
Antenna—New River Medical Property
Approximately 60 feet in height (85 ft AGL)
Tower is an accessory use
Zoning District: B-1
Antenna—TDS Property
Approximately 90 feet in height
Antenna is an accessory use
Zoning District: CCD
Tower—Workforce Center Property
Approximately 150 feet in height
Tower is an accessory use
Zoning District: IBC
Antenna—Olsen & Sons Property
Approximately 70 feet in height
Antenna is an accessory use structure
Zoning District: B-3
Tower—Xcel Property
340 feet in height, Owner: Xcel Energy Services Inc.
Antenna is an accessory use structure
Zoning District: I-2
Tower—Monte Club Property
390 feet in height
Owner: SBA Towers II LLC
Tower—Monte Club Property
324 feet in height
Owner: Bridge Water Telephone Co
Tower—Monte Club Property
Approximately 170 feet in height
Monte Club Hill Towers
Property Owner: Brian K Schultz
Parcel Size: 8.67
Zoning: R-A, towers are principal use of property
Distance to nearest residential property: Approximately 500 feet or 1/10 of a mile
To
w
e
r
—Wo
r
k
f
o
r
c
e
C
e
n
t
e
r
P
r
o
p
e
r
t
y
Zo
n
i
n
g
D
i
s
t
r
i
c
t
:
I
B
C
To
w
e
r
—Xc
e
l
P
r
o
p
e
r
t
y
Zo
n
i
n
g
D
i
s
t
r
i
c
t
:
I
-2
Planning Commission Agenda: 07/05/11
1
7. Zoning Ordinance Amendments – Code Tracking Update (AS)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
Staff has been tracking minor adjustments/amendments resulting from the adoption of the
new Zoning Ordinance. During the July meeting, staff will request Planning Commission
feedback on a few of these items in order to develop amendment language for the August
Planning Commission meeting.
Some of the various text items that require, or may require, amendment:
Variance law
Subdivisions in R-2 zoned portions of the Original Plat and Lower Monticello
Outdoor storage CUPs in industrial districts
Regulations for building materials in the IBC
R-A landscaping standards
Industrial PUDs
Occasional sale signage
Indoor entertainment conditions
Special use permit for events held after 10 PM
Accessory structure language placement
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
No formal action is required.
443 Lafayette Road KMINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF (651) 284-5005
St. Paul, Minnesota 66155 1-800-DIAL-DLI
www.dli.mn.gov LABOR & INDUSTRY TTY: (651)297-4198Affikk
June 17, 2011
To: Stakeholders, Customers and Other Users of Department of Labor and Industry Services
Re: Potential Disruption in State Operations
We are writing because you or your organization is regulated in some manner by the Minnesota
Department of Labor and Industry ("DLI") or you are a user of one or more of the services
offered by DLI.
As you may know, the Minnesota State Legislature adjourned May 23, 2011 without reaching an
agreement with the executive branch to appropriate money to fund the operations of state
government for the fiscal year that begins July 1, 2011.
DLT operates on a bicnlial budget. Funds are appropriated by the Minnesota Legislature every
two years, with each fiscal year beginning on July 1 and ending on June 30 of the following
calendar year. Our current biennial budget is due to end after June 30, 2011. In the absence of
legislation specifically appropriating funds for the continuing operations of DLI for the next
biennium, we will have no or very limited authority to continue agency operations. In this event,
only those limited services that are deemed to be "critical" by a court will continue.
Because we do not know whether the biennial budget process will conclude in time to avoid a
disruption to our operations nor do we know which, if any, services provided by DLI will
continue in such an event, we must advise you that in the absence of legislatively authorized
appropriations as of July 1, 2011, we anticipate that virtually all of DLI's operations will cease.
These include, but are not limited to, the issuance of licenses, pennits, and building plan
approvals; vocational rehabilitation services; workers' compensation dispute resolution and
mediation services; OSHA consultations; the administration of exams required for licensure; the
approval of apprenticeship agreements; and electrical and other inspection services not related to
incidents of imminent danger or catastrophic situations.
For questions about a potential disruption of DLI services, please e-mail us at
dti.comiiiurAc,itioias@state.nin.us prior to July 1, 2011; emails received on or after July 1 will not
be responded to until DLT resumes operations. We also suggest that you monitor state web sites,
bulletins and media outlets for updates and further information regarding any disruption in state
govermnent services.
Sincerely,
< Y�
essica Looman
Assistant Commissioner
This Information can be provided to you in alternative formats (Braille, large print or audio).
An Equal opportunity Employer
ez
March 2nd, 2011
John Blumentritt
Design Studios
Mesa, AZ
RE: Silver Springs Development Concept
Dear Mr. Blumentritt,
Thank you for taking the time to meet with City staff on February 81" to discuss your ideas for
development at the Silver Springs Golf Course area.
As we discussed, staff has provided below a brief overview of the initial steps that your
proposal would require.
Annexation
The Silver Springs area is outside the current municipal boundary, located completely within
Monticello Township. However, the property does lie within the City's Orderly Annexation
Area. The City's Orderly Annexation Agreement (OAA) with Monticello Township requires
that for property annexation to occur, three criteria must be met:
1. The current property owner must consent to annexation.
2. The property must be contiguous to the City. As applicant, a site plan defining the land
area/parcels your development proposal encompasses and illustrating contiguity to the
current City boundary will be required. Planning for the area cannot begin until
contiguity is demonstrated. Outside of annexation, the property's development is
subject to County zoning regulations.
3. The property must be able to be served by City sewer and water. Currently, City utility
services have not been extended to this area. As noted during the February 8th meeting,
utilities are approximately 1 mile from the Silver Springs area.
City staff has spoken with Wright County Planning & Zoning officials regarding the concept
proposal. Wright County Planning & Zoning is responsible for the administration of the OAA
and has indicated that should the three criteria above be demonstrated, the applicant could
move through the City planning process. Annexation proceedings would not formally begin
John Blumentritt
February 24th, 2011
4; 2
until the platting component of the planning process. However, the City would engage in on-
going communications with the County and Monticello Township through the initial stages of
this project.
Application for Planned Unit Development and Comprehensive Plan Amendment
The design, magnitude and density of the development concept you presented would require a
Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Planned Unit Development rezoning action. Both
processes are designed to determine the suitability and compatibility of the proposed
development with the City's long-range land use goals.
The property is currently guided as "Areas for Recreation", which is a recognition of the site's
last active land use. An application for comprehensive plan amendment will evaluate the
highest and best use of this property via the City's stated land use objectives, identified in the
2008 Comprehensive Plan.
In regard to the PUD process, the City recently adopted a new Zoning Ordinance which
establishes a four step application for Planned Unit Development rezoning. The first step is an
application for PUD Collaborative Process. This application requires that the applicant meet
with City Council and applicable Commissions in a work session aimed at developing a set of
common goals for the proposed development. This work session would also be utilized to
address the comprehensive plan amendment at a preliminary level.
The Collaborative Application process and Comprehensive Plan Amendment process as
outlined in the zoning code detail specific plan requirements. A copy of the full code language
for both applications is included with this letter.
Should the City's collaborative team and the applicant determine that the project is compatible
with the City's long-range goals, the City will proceed with adoption of a Public Values
statement. At that time, the applicant may move forward with the next application in the PUD
process.
To initiate an application for Planned Unit Development and Comprehensive Plan Amendment,
the City's current fee schedule requires a $200 application fee (each application) and a required
escrow deposit. The escrow required is currently $150 per unit. As the unit count proposed in
concept (estimated at 2000 units) would require a potentially cost prohibitive escrow for the
Collaborative Application, the City would request as an alternative that the PUD Collaborative
John Blumentritt
February 24th, 2011
�3
and Comprehensive Plan Amendment Applications be accompanied by a minimum escrow
deposit of $10,000 per application.
At the Design Stage PUD level, platting applications will also be required. It is at this stage that
formal annexation application begins.
Please note that should the application move beyond the PUD Collaborative Process, the escrow
per the current fee schedule would be required. At $150 per unit, the total for 2,000 unit
development would require a $300,000 escrow.
Alternative Urban Areawide Review (AUAR)
During the February 8th meeting, staff outlined the various infrastructure components that any
application for this concept proposal would need to address.
The City Engineer has determined that to gain a preliminary understanding of utility and
transportation infrastructure (including preliminary cost estimates) and environmental impact,
the City would need to complete an update of the Alternative Urban Areawide Review (AUAR)
previously completed for the Silver Springs area. The previous AUAR was completed in 2006.
To update and re -submit the document to the appropriate local and state agencies, the
estimated cost is $15,000-20,000. This amount would be required to be placed in escrow to
begin the AUAR updating process.
The AUAR would only be the first step in a detailed analysis of the infrastructure needed to
support the concept presented. Additional feasibility reports would be required as the project
moves through the planning process. Each study would require its own escrow deposit.
Fiscal Impact Analysis
The nature of the concept presented warrants study of the potential fiscal impacts to the City for
infrastructure development and long-term implications for City services. The concept also
raises new questions for the City regarding the status of the proposed housing for property tax
purposes.
Therefore, concurrent with the PUD Collaborative Application, the City would complete a
preliminary fiscal impact analysis to assist the City in understanding the financial implications
involved with this type of development. The City would require an initial escrow deposit of
$10,000 to complete this fiscal impact analysis. Additional financial studies would be
completed as necessary via future project application and design phases.
John Blumentritt
February 24th, 2011
Page 14
Escrow Agreement
To address the numerous escrows required under the above planning processes, the City would
require that you enter into an escrow agreement allowing for the replenishment of funds
should/as the escrow is expended. The City's standard escrow agreement is enclosed for
reference.
These escrow amounts identified above are re -stated below:
AUAR Update $15,000
Fiscal Impact Analysis 15,000
PUD Collaborative Application 10,000
Comprehensive Plan Amendment Application 10,000
INITIAL ESCROW TOTAL: $50,000
The concept you've presented is an exciting and interesting opportunity, but it also represents a
spectrum of important decisions, investment and planning - both for the City and yourself as a
potential applicant.
Staff understands that you may have additional questions regarding the information above.
Please do not hesitate to call or email with those questions. We look forward to hearing from
you.
Sincerely,
Angela Schumann
Community Development Director
End
c: Jeff O'Neill, City Administrator
Bruce Westby, City Engineer
Tom Kelly, Finance Director
Megan Barnett, Economic Development Director
Tom Salkowski, Director, Wright County Planning & Zoning
Planning Commission Agenda: 07/05/11
1
8. Community Development Director’s Report. (AS)
Bertram Chain of Lakes
At the time of this report, a staff report had been prepared for Council consideration of a
Phase III acquisition at the Bertram Chain of Lakes property. Staff will provide a verbal
update at the Planning Commission meeting.
Silver Springs
Mr. John Blumentritt addressed the City Council during a short workshop on June 13th,
reviewing a residential concept for the Silver Springs property. Mr. Blumentritt sought to
gauge the City’s interest in such a project prior to proceeding further with additional study.
The concept presented includes the development of a large senior community consisting
primarily of park model (manufactured homes) in a private, gated setting. The concept may
include up to 2000 units of housing. Mr. Blumentritt’s concept also includes the development
of a number of amenities to serve the community, including redevelopment of the golf course
and a large community building.
Generally, the Council indicated that the concept is interesting and should be researched
further, but requires additional background information.
Since the time of the workshop, staff have had an opportunity to discuss next steps with Mr.
Blumentritt. These include providing some basic utility/transportation analysis, annexation
process information and a City staff fact-finding process on similar communities through the
nation. A letter previously provided to Mr. Blumentritt is provided for the Commission’s
reference.
Staff will keep the Commission posted on progress on this concept.
JME – MPCA Permitting
The City of Monticello was copied on a public notice related to an MPCA Solid Waste permit
for JME of Monticello, Inc. The notice invites comment though July 1st, 2011.
Currently, JME is taking in construction materials in at the Monticello JME site via their
returned disposal containers. They are then sorting the materials and distributing/hauling the
material off-site. This activity is occurring within the hoop building located on Dundas Road.
JME representatives have indicated that they are not storing the materials within their new
hoop building for any extended period of time, nor or they storing these materials outside.
They have stated that they sort, process and re-distribute the materials only. The MPCA
permit essentially allows JME to process a larger volume of material in this manner.
This processing activity began while the old zoning code was in place. The I-2 District
allowed for processing and warehousing, which then encompassed these uses. In a review of
the previous code relative to this use, no new CUP or other zoning permit was needed to
process a larger volume of material in the process described by JME.
Planning Commission Agenda: 07/05/11
2
As such, the City will respond to the MPCA notice with a letter detailing information related
to the current uses on the JME site, which includes a number of non-conforming
grandfathered uses and permitted uses.
However, if JME seeks to expand the size of buildings used for the above purposes, to add
buildings for the above purpose, or seeks to store materials for recycling (indoors or
outdoors), a new Conditional Use Permit will be required for Recycling/Salvage and possibly
Outdoor Storage. This information was provided previously to both the MPCA and JME.
The City will continue to enforce the noise and dust ordinance for JME. The City has
received complaints regarding both issues in the past. A statement regarding compliance with
code on these items will be included in the City’s letter to the MPCA.
Carlisle Village Neighborhood Meeting
Staff attended a neighborhood meeting for Carlisle Village residents on June 15th. The
meeting was organized by residents of Carlisle Village.
Staff was able to answer resident questions ranging from mailbox maintenance to the
possibility of creating a neighborhood park. Residents were able to air their concerns
regarding nuisance items and the development status of the vacant lots.
Since the time of the meeting, staff have also provided a number of resources to the group,
including covenant documents, homeowners association documents, conservation easement
info and City website links. Staff encouraged the residents to use the online Help Desk as a
means of communicated quickly with the City on various issues.
In addition to City representation, the residents also invited the Wright County Sheriff’s
Department. The residents are researching the formation of a neighborhood watch group.
The Carlisle organizers have also agreed to act as resources for other neighborhoods looking
to develop their own neighborhood networks and watch groups.
PUD Ordinance Workshop
One of the goals set after the adoption of the new Zoning Code was the completion of a joint
Planning Commission and City Council workshop aimed at developing a full understanding
of the practical application of the new PUD Ordinance. In particular, staff wanted to focus on
the collaborative components of the new code.
Staff will be asking the Planning Commission to hold the workshop in August, possibly prior
to their regular meeting (August 2nd). A formal invite will be sent to the Council once a firm
date is set.
Building Activity
Overall building activity has been strong compared to last year at this time. Staff issued 202
Planning Commission Agenda: 07/05/11
3
permits with a valuation of 1.4 million last year, compared with 234 permits with a value of
2.9 million this year. The commercial and industrial sectors are very strong again this year.
The new Walgreens store is nearing completion and NLD has applied for a remodel
permit for the vacant Monticello Times building. The initial review has been
completed and we are awaiting their response on a few corrections.
The Aroplax building addition is well underway; they are currently installing the
precast wall panels.
Plans have been submitted for a new multi-tenant building, Landmark Center, on the
Mielke property. The review of the shell of the building should be completed by the
time you meet Monday night.
We have been in contact with Heritage Construction and plans for the new Vet Clinic
behind Walmart should be arriving in the next couple of weeks.
There is still a lot of activity at the New River Clinic (Zumbrunnen Building). As it
stands now half of the 2nd floor is finished for the Physician’s Clinic. The other half is
now under construction for the expansion of the Physician’s Clinic. They are putting
the finishing touches on the east half of the main level and should be ready for
Novacare to move in the week of June 27th. A permit was just recently issued for the
new Wound Clinic to be finished in the east half of the lower level. They will also be
getting a permit for a bulk oxygen tank and some site improvements on the east end of
the building.
Walmart had submitted plans for a major remodel back in February but has since
changed the scope of work to be completed. We did receive the final plans this week.
This was their second revision. They plan to start the remodel project in August.
The Department of Building Safety has also seen an influx of various residential addition and
alteration permit applications; decks, porches, basement finishes, remodels, etc.
Grass & Weeds Concerns
With the spring’s above normal rainfall, the Department of Building Safety is continuously
receives service requests for long grass and weeds. Staff has been proactive on getting the
thistle and weeds under control, with an emphasis on the empty lots in the new developments.
Although there is still much work to be done, staff has a good handle on the problem areas. So
far this year staff has written 394 blight notices, with long grass and weeds being the majority
of the notices. Last year at this time 345 notices had been issued. Staff continues to work with
the property owners on property maintenance problems. This can be a long process when it
involves foreclosed properties due difficulties in communicating with the large out-of-state
mortgage companies.
Possible State Shut-Down
Attached is a letter from the Department of Labor and Industry. Ron spoke with Richard
Lochrem, State Building Code Representative, about alternatives during the shut down. He
Planning Commission Agenda: 07/05/11
4
could not give Ron much direction because much remains unknown at this point. As such,
staff contacted the contractors that may be affected and gave them a heads up. The
construction stages for the building projects that are currently underway could go a few weeks
without being affected. Staff will do everything we can to keep everything on schedule.
EDA
The EDA closed on John Chadwick’s 13.6 acre parcel on June 1st. In order to make the
property more attractive, staff will be reviewing options to plat the lot with the necessary
easements and access in the near future.
The EDA authorized Jim McComb to begin marketing key areas in downtown Monticello to
potential end users. Mr. McComb has initiated several conversations with specific businesses
looking to develop in Minnesota. Jim will be presenting options in downtown Monticello to
these key entities. Hopefully one of the proposals will lead to a catalyst project occurring in
downtown in the near future.
Embracing Downtown
The next Embracing Downtown meeting is scheduled for Tuesday, June 28th from 4-6pm at
the Community Center. This is an important meeting to attend as the consulting group will
begin introducing implementation planning strategies. The tentative agenda is as follows:
Review Framework Plan - Kathy Anderson
Transportation Planning Review – Miles Lindberg
Implementation Planning – Jim McComb
Downtown Revitalization Framework – Janna King
Next steps
Questions & discussion
TH 25 / CSAH 75 NE Quadrant Improvements (City Project No. 10C005)
The final lift of pavement was placed last week, and all striping should be completed within
the next 2 weeks. The signal system at the intersection of TH 25 & River Street will then be
re-energized as soon as the lane designation striping is complete.
2011 Street Reconstruction Project (City Project No. 11C001)
The preconstruction meeting was held on Tuesday, June 21st, at which time Redstone
Construction provided the City with their preliminary project schedule, a list of their
subcontractors, and a list of contact numbers for construction staff. Redstone informed City
staff that they had already placed the traffic control for Phase 1 of Area 4B, which includes
East River Street from Cedar to New Street, as well as Cedar Street and Palm Street between
East Broadway and East River Street. Redstone said they would begin reclaiming the
pavement sections on these streets Wednesday morning, weather permitting. They then said
they would then begin working on the utility improvements under these streets once the
Planning Commission Agenda: 07/05/11
5
pavement sections had been removed and stockpiled on the City’s parcel in the NE corner of
Cedar and East Broadway. Utility work on Phase 1 is estimated to take 2 to 3 weeks to
complete, after which Redstone will begin working on the utility improvements on West
River Street between West Broadway and the ball fields. Per Council direction, work on
phase 2 of Area 4B will not begin until after RiverFest. A Newsletter was mailed to Area 4B
property owners on Wednesday.
2011 Street Lighting Improvements (City Project No. 11C002)
Staff met with Wright Hennepin Services on Friday, June 17th to discuss the Council directed
modification to the maintenance contract, reducing the opt-out notice lead time from 1-year to
1-month. Wright Hennepin Services immediately agreed to correct the contract as requested,
after which both the construction and maintenance contracts were executed so materials could
be ordered. It is estimated that the materials will take 6 to 8 weeks to be delivered, putting the
estimated project start date sometime around mid to late-August.
CSAH 75 Bridge Removal & Realignment Project (Wright County Project)
Wright County will begin working on the realignment of County State Aid Highway 75
(CSAH 75) within the next week or two. This will include the removal of the existing bridge
over the Burlington Northern Sante Fe railroad tracks. The City is still working to secure the
necessary funding to construct the pedestrian underpass during the realignment of CSAH 75.
Although Wright County did not support assistance with funding, other parties have stepped
forward to bridge the funding gap so installation of the underpass is now good possibility.
The Administrator of the Land-o-Lakes Choir Boys indicated support for pledging pull tab
gambling proceeds to help fund project. Further action by this group is required before staff
can say that funds have been committed. In addition, Veolia has actually committed a
significant amount toward the project. Once the necessary funding is finalized, a
supplemental agreement can be used to construct the underpass improvements, but this would
likely need to occur no later than the week of the next City Council meeting on July 11 th.
Finally, continued support by Xcel in the future on completion of the connecting trails looks
promising.
TH 25 / CSAH 11 / CR 14 Intersection Improvements (Mn/DOT project)
Mn/DOT began construction on their project on June 6th, and the estimated project completion
date is September 2nd, weather permitting. Intermittent lane closures will occur throughout
the project. Traffic on TH 25 will be reduced to one lane in both directions and switched
from one side of the bridge to the other for a period of 4 to 6 weeks starting some time after
the July 4th weekend. As Council is aware, Mn/DOT’s plans originally showed traffic on
northbound TH 25 being reduced from 2 lanes to 1 lane during this period south of Broadway
which would have caused significant traffic congestion, especially during the evening rush
hour. Mn/DOT is still discussing the option of moving this lane reduction onto the bridge per
the City’s request.
Planning Commission Agenda: 07/05/11
6
Potential impacts to Improvement Projects and Law Enforcement services due to a State
Government Shutdown
In the event that State Government shuts down on July 1st the Engineering Department
anticipates the following impacts to our City Improvement projects and our Law Enforcement
contract with the Sheriff’s Office.
1. Construction activities on all City improvement projects, including State Aid eligible
projects, would continue as planned. Mn/DOT’s lab (testing) services would most
likely not be available, but this shouldn’t have a negative impact on our projects. State
Aid payment requests would probably not be able to be processed but this shouldn’t be
an issue as we have already requested payment in the amount of 95% of our eligible
State Aid funds in advance of construction so we should be able to pay the contractors
in the event of a shutdown.
2. All state Master Agreements would most likely be suspended, but since none of our
projects have Federal funding this would not impact us.
Captain Anselment informed us that our law enforcement services should not be negatively
impacted by a State shutdown. He believes the State Patrol would be considered essential and
as such would not be shut down, but even if they were he said the Sheriff’s Office handles
over 95% of the traffic calls in the County so adding a few more calls should not negatively
impact our level of service.
City Limit/Population Signs
MNDOT has been contacted to find out details on updating city limit/population signs. We
have been informed this is a state and county responsibility for their roads. State funding was
to be approved by June 17 and orders put into the Oakdale DOT location for production of
their signs. The order in which the signs are produced are random; but when they arrive at the
Monticello DOT, our Engineering Department will be contacted for the proper placement
location.