Planning Commission Agenda 07-06-2010
AGENDA
MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION
Tuesday, July 6th, 2010
6:00 PM
Mississippi Room, Monticello Community Center
Commissioners: Rod Dragsten, Charlotte Gabler, Lloyd Hilgart, William Spartz,
and Barry Voight
Council Liaison: Susie Wojchouski
Staff: Angela Schumann, Ron Hackenmueller, Steve Grittman – NAC
1. Call to order.
2. Consideration to approve the Planning Commission minutes of February 3rd, 2010, May 4th,
2010, June 1st, 2010 and June 8th, 2010.
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 for Open & Outdoor Storage for Car Rental Facility.
Enterprise Leasing Company of MN, LLC
6. Consideration of a request for extension of a Conditional Use Permit for Amendment to
Planned Unit Development for a retail commercial development at Monticello Travel Center
2nd Addition. Applicant: Mielke Bros., LLC
7. Monticello Zoning Ordinance Revision – Comment Review and Update
8. Community Development Director’s Report.
9. Adjourn.
MINUTES
MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION
Tuesday, February 3rd, 2009
6:00 PM
Commissioners: Rod Dragsten, Charlotte Gabler, Lloyd Hilgart, William Spartz, and
Barry Voight
Council Liaison: Susie Wojchouski
Staff Angela Schumann, Gary Anderson, Steve Grittman — NAC
1. Call to order.
Chairman Dragsten called the meeting to order and declared a quorum of the
Commission, noting the absence of Commissioner Hilgart and the presence of Council
Liaison Wojchouski.
2. Consideration to approve the Planning Commission minutes of January 6th 2009 and
Planning Commission and City Council Sign Workshop minutes of January 6th 2009
Community Development Director Schumann indicated that the minutes of January 6th, 2009
would be provided at an upcoming meeting.
MOTION BY COMMISSIONER SPARTZ TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE JOINT
PLANNING COMMISSION AND CITY COUNCIL WORKSHOP OF JANUARY 6th, 2009.
MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER VOIGHT . MOTION CARRIED, 4-0.
3. Citizen Comments.
NONE.
4. Consideration of adding items to theage da
NONE.
Public Hearing - Consideration of amendment to the Monticello Comprehensive Plan for the
adoption of Chapter 6: Transportation Plan Applicant: City of Monticello
Community Development Director Schumann introduced the Transportation Plan, noting
that the State Statute allows for the Planning Commission's review of the Transportation
Plan during a public hearing. She noted that if adopted, the Plan becomes Chapter 6 of
the Monticello Comprehensive Plan. A supermajority of the City Council will be
required to adopt the plan formally as part of the Comprehensive Plan.
Planner Grittman indicated that a staff report had been prepared as an introduction to the
document, summarizing the contents of the plan to serving to aid the Commission frame
their recommendation. A proposed resolution had also been prepared in the event that
Commission is prepared to recommend adoption of the Plan. Grittman stated that staff's
recommendation is for adoption of the Transportation Plan.
One particular aspect of the plan that staff focused on was Highway 25. Grittman noted
that the Planning Commission had spent quite a bit of time discussing Highway 25 during
the Comp Plan process, and this plan outlined options for alleviation of the current and
future congestion. Staff is recommending a further study of roundabouts as the preferred
option, as staff believes roundabouts provide the best alternative to solving multiple
corridor issues over the long term. Grittman noted that multiple jurisdictions will be
involved in the ultimate decision. The goal for staff was to encourage further detailed
study of roundabouts for the corridor. The other major issues staff has reviewed relate to
river crossings, a third interchange location, and overall transportation system function.
City Engineer Bruce Westby thanked the Commission and emphasized the Transportation
Plan is designed to assist the Commission, Council, property owners and developers as a
decision-making document in transportation. It is a planning document, and as such it
does not have a specific set of measures that has to be implemented in a certain order
within a certain timeframe.
Westby turned the detailed presentation of the plan over to Chuck Rickart of WSB &
Associates, the plan preparer. Rickart stated that the primary purpose of the plan is to
provide technical guidance to policymakers and staff on transportation issues within the
community. Although it is not specific, it does provide a foundation for future
transportation decisions. It also provides the ability for coordination between
neighboring communities. The overall objective is to accommodate growth through
transportation. This is achieved by maintaining access for business in both motorized and
non -motorized traffic and doing so efficiently.
Rickart stated that the previous transportation plan provided a basis for this preparation.
From there, the recently adopted Monticello land use plan was incorporated, as well as
long range plans from Big Lake. This was done to be able to review river crossing
projections. The next step was to update traffic projections based on the long range
documents. Rickart indicated that the plan provides a basic analysis of existing
conditions in terms of what is there today and what issues exist. Then, the plan analyzes
future roadway access, non -motorized traffic, transit, aviation and goods movement, and
finally funding.
Dealing specifically with Highway 25, engineering staff understood through the Comp
Plan that Highway 25 was perhaps the largest single issue to be addressed by the
Transportation Plan. Rickart stated that existing traffic at the river crossing is 27,500-
35,000 vehicles per day. At 2030, approximately 45,000 vehicles per day are projected.
2
Rickart outlined the Transportation Plan's analysis of possible improvements to deal with
this volume.
Rickart reviewed short term improvement options. The first option was signal timing
modification implementation. Rickart stated that with other recent improvements, signal
timing could be improved in the corridor. Second, adding turn lanes could help improve
the capacity of the corridor, primarily at 7t' Street, I-94 and Broadway intersections.
Third, the study looked at access modifications, such as closing off side street access in
certain locations, concentrating access at Broadway, 4t' and 7th Streets. Signals could be
'placed at these intersections as part of this. The plan also looks at roundabouts in lieu of
signals. In a scenario including roundabouts, similar to access modification at 4t', 7t' and
Broadway, traffic would be concentrated to roundabouts at those intersections. Rickart
noted that the study indicates that roundabouts illustrate the largest long term benefit and
improvement to the corridor.
Rickart also reviewed long-term solutions for the Highway 25 corridor congestion,
including looking at a one-way pair option. Rickart described the function of one-way
pairs. Ultimately, over the long-term, the options illustrating the most improvements to
the corridor include a second river crossing and an additional western interchange to pull
traffic to other routes.
Rickart noted that timelines illustrated in the plan assume normal funding cycles for Mn/
DOT and typical project development. Improvements can move forward if funding
situations change.
Rickart reviewed the Highway 25 corridor improvement options in greater detail. In
discussing signal timing changes and turn lane improvements, Rickart stated that as part
of an upcoming mill and overlay project on Highway 25, Monticello work with Mn/DOT
to add turn lanes as noted in the plan. For the medium term, access modifications such as
median extension with signal additions or roundabouts could be implemented. A lot of
these things could also take place timed with development.
Rickart noted that again, although these improvements do have an overall improving
impact on the corridor, the long term issue is that 45,000 vehicles will still be traveling
Highway 25 and crossing the river. In order to mitigate delays due to that traffic, the
options for alleviating problems at the river are to add an additional lane, a one-way pair,
an additional river crossing and another interchange, or a combination of those
improvements.
In terms of interchanges and overpasses, Rickart stated that the Fallon Avenue overpass
has been identified in previous plans. This plan assumes completion of that overpass in
2030. The Federal Highway Administration has indicated that prior to construction of
any other interchange west of Highway 25, the Fallon Avenue overpass is required to be
completed. It is estimated that about 11,000 cars would use that overpass.
This plan anticipates up to two interchanges west of Highway 25, Rickart reported.
These could be located anywhere between County Road 39 and Orchard Road and would
divert about 6,000 cars per day from the Highway 25 corridor at I-94. However,
eventually, that traffic would still find its way back to Highway 25 to cross the River. In
short, these improvements would not impact the river crossing, but would improve
functionality of the Highway 25 corridor.
Rickart explained that river crossing options reviewed in the plan include a one-way pair
with a corresponding river crossing or the widening of an existing bridge. These options
would require improvement to the interchange at 1-94. Rickart commented that staff had
noted that the primary issue with a one-way pair is the creation of two high-volume
barriers within the downtown. This creates problems for east -west traffic movements and
pedestrian crossings.
The Transportation Plan also reviews three additional river crossing locations. The first
was at Orchard Road, connecting to Sherburne County Road 11. It is estimated that this
crossing would see a traffic volume of 11,000 vehicles per day, and would divert
approximately 7,000 vehicles out of the 45,000 crossing at Highway 25. With a possible
County Road 11 interchange at I-94, it would also create a regional connection. Rickart
suggested that the negative could be that the growth areas are on the other sides of the
community at this time; this option would most likely not serve immediate growth areas.
The second river crossing option was at Washington Avenue, connecting to Sherburne
County 14. This option would see a traffic volume of 22,000 vehicles per day, and divert
16,000 vehicles out of the 45,000 in 2030. Although this route would not be a direct
connection to I-94, it would align with the Fallon Avenue overpass. This would be a
purely local connection providing access for local population. However, it would carry a
significant amount of traffic. It also serves the growth area of south Monticello and Big
Lake. The third option was a river crossing aligning with the interchange at CSAH 18.
This crossing would carry 18,000 cars and divert about 10,000 trips from Highway 25.
Primarily, the issue with this crossing is that it gets closer to the proposed Otsego
crossing. The spacing then becomes unlikely to create as large of an impact on Highway
25 traffic, Rickart stated. It does provide a little bit more regional impact connecting to
Highway 14 and directly to the existing interchange at CSAH 18.
Rickart then explained that other item reviewed in detail within the plan included the
collector roadway network. The expansion of this network includes extensions of School
Boulevard west of Highway 25 to County 39, the extension of 7th Street west to eliminate
the existing gap and improvements to 85th Street south of School Boulevard. Rickart also
discussed completion of the north frontage road or 95th Street, which uses existing right
of way from the old interstate ramp. He stated that other north -south and east -west minor
collector improvements are also identified to improve the overall roadway network.
For non -motorized transportation, Rickart stated that two plans were created within the
plan. The first is a local plan identifying trail, sidewalk and on -road paths. The second
connects those local systems to a regional plan. The creation and coordination of these
two plans ensures non -motorized connections are provided. Rickart noted that the plans
use the recently completed Natural Resource Inventory & Assessment as a foundation for
trail opportunities. He commented that the non -motorized plans were developed with the
Parks Commission with assistance from City Administrator O'Neill and Schumann.
0
In terms of transit, Rickart indicated that the plan discusses the existing park and ride
facility along south Highway 25 and the existing service provided by RiverRider. The
study did look at possible connections to the Northstar commuter rail service in Big Lake.
Working with River Rider, it was determined that the primary obstacle to expansion of
transit service to Northstar is the bottleneck at Highway 25. River Rider has commented
that getting across the river in bus is no different than in a car in terms of congestion.
Rickart suggested that a future river crossing could change that scenario. The other
connection reviewed within the plan was to connect to the Metro system coming out of
Maple Grove. Again, the drawback is funding sources. Rickart relayed that River Rider
indicated that they are able to acquire only so much funding for service design.
Providing a metro connection would take almost their whole budget. They have
commented that if their budget expands, they would also consider a system expansion.
Rickart summarized the plan's analysis of funding and financing. He stated that the plan
envisions that the City will work with Wright and Sherburne Counties and the State
wherever possible. He reported that a regional coalition has been formed to review river
crossing alternatives, as the more involved with surrounding communities for solutions,
the more likely Monticello is to gain funding support. Rickart stated that federal funding
exists and cycles will be coming up; Monticello will work with Mn/Dot to get some
projects into the funding priority list. The other option for improvements funding is
through local assessments. Rickart cited CSAH 18, which was built with a local
assessment program.
Rickart concluded by outlining the next steps, which include the incorporation of public
hearing comments. Staff will bring those comments, along with results of meetings with
outside agencies, forward to the City Council. He reported that staff is looking at
Council adoption in March of this year.
Engineer Westby clarified that when staff discusses a recommendation as related to
roundabouts, staff is recommending a detailed study on the level of service these types of
improvements would provide to the corridor. In short, the goal would be to provide a
much better foundation of knowledge before recommending that the City move forward
with an actual implementation alternative. Westby also introduced the outside agency
representatives present, including Terry Humbert with Mn/DOT, John Mentor, the
Sherburne County Public Works Director, and Wayne Fingalson, Wright County
Highway Engineer.
Chairman Dragsten inquired if all of the Highway 25 improvement options would be
further studied, or is staff recommending that just the roundabout study move forward.
Westby stated that there may be elements recommended that do not require great study.
However, with any major improvements, a larger study is commenced to cover
environmental impacts and design impacts and to look at costs and benefits. Westby
stated that the study would look in detail at whatever options the City directed.
Community Development Director Schumann again addressed the Commission, stating
that the Police Commission has reviewed the document and would forward comments to
the City Engineer. The Parks Commission has also reviewed the plan, in particular the
Trails portion. They recommended approval, with some comments. Schumann entered
5
into the record the draft minutes of the Parks Commission for that purpose. Schumann
reported that the IEDC had also reviewed the plan. While the IEDC did not provide a
formal recommendation, they did provide general comments for the Commission's
review. Other formal written comments from the public had been received and were also
entered in record.
Commissioner Gabler provided her thoughts on the plan, stating that she thought the plan
functioned very well. She stated that in some areas, it was perhaps too vague and could
have been more detailed, for example in the area of transit. Gabler noted that Monticello
has strong potential for growth, which should cross beyond residential into other
development sectors. This notation was made in relationship to the plan introduction.
Gabler stated that table 5.1 seemed to provide a good task list for future transportation
improvements. She also noted that in terms of a possible river crossing at Washington
Avenue, the IEDC commented on the proximity to the hospital and she noted that further
study ion relationship to hospital expansion would be needed. Finally, in looking at the
timeframe presented in the plan she asked if there was a way to look at the interim
picture, for example projections at 2015. Rickart stated that the 2030 timeline was
selected due to a complete land use plan for development to that point. Rickart explained
that the City would need to determine a land use picture for 2015 in order to determine a
transportation projection for that timeframe. Gabler inquired if an analysis of what
impact another interchange in the west would have in terms of impact on the City's
industrial park. Rickart stated that typically, the development would drive the
interchange location. Rickart noted that the interchange would obviously provide an
improvement for access to those industrial developments. Gabler suggested that a better
clarification of timing on an interchange was needed.
Commissioner Spartz began his comments by stating that he thought transportation in
many ways dictates land use. Spartz stated that the Highway 25 corridor is his biggest
concern and found this plan addresses that issue in depth. He indicated that he would
support"working with neighboring communities to improve transit options. There is a
great need to look at how to make transit function better and he believed that it should be
a 0-5 year option. Spartz stated that his other suggestion related to river crossing. He
indicated his discouragement at it being a long-range solution. Spartz commented that a
researching a second river crossing needs to be a clear direction for the City.
Spartz continued, stating his personal view as a user of the current roundabout in
Monticello. In that regard, he is not a big fan, as it doesn't seem to function as it should.
While he understands it is a public acceptability issue, he commented that he is struggling
with understanding its application in Monticello. For example, how.a large vehicle with
a camper or boat is going to maneuver through a roundabout. If another bridge will help
alleviate the volume of traffic, perhaps the roundabouts will accentuate what happens
downtown. Everything he has read about roundabouts indicates they are safer and allow
traffic to move better. However, he would like to know about situations where they don't
work for comparison purposes, as he is concerned about the volume of traffic coming for
multiple directions.
Commissioner Voight stated that after reading the plan, he thought that as Chapter 6 of
the Comp Plan, this is the best chapter in the entire plan. In his opinion, it is far and
above the quality of the balance of the comp plan because it lays out specific analysis and
potential modifications. While it does not prescribe a specific route, it lays out the
options, along with likely impacts. He stated that it provides guidance with foundations
for that guidance. Voight explained that he also approved of the solid justification for the
Fallon Avenue overpass. Before reading this document, that improvement seemed like a
bridge to nowhere. After reading this plan, he indicated that he understands the need.
Voight reaffirmed that preparing the plans for the Fallon Avenue overpass and for a
second bridge crossing is critical. While the river crossing may be a 30 year project, it is
essential to have a plan in place. He cited stimulus funding and that if funding becomes
available in such scenarios, Monticello needs to be prepared. He commented that he
thought the plan was well organized, but that overall, the City needs more aggressive in
planning.
Voight inquired about extending frontage roads along Highway 25; if there was a reason
the roads aren't named. Rickart responded that they are commonly referred to as
frontage roads, but they are extension of Cedar and Deegan, so they could be labeled that
way.
Dragsten re -stated that Fallon Avenue needs to be a top priority. Dragsten agreed that the
plan was well prepared. He cited Table 5-1 with the listing of priorities as an important
tool. He noted the combination of intersection improvements along Highway 25 could be
lumped as one improvement, as they all aid in the functionality of that corridor.
Dragsten questioned whether the City would look at all of the options further, and then
narrow them down. Rickart stated that the next step in a detailed study would be an
intersection control evaluation (ICE). In this case, the ICE would be at 4th Street, 7th
Street and County Highway 75. The City will look at all options for those intersections
from signals to roundabouts. Mn/DOT then reviews the options and from there formal
recommendations will be developed based on the analysis.
Dragsten inquired what the timeline would be for immediate options noted, such as signal
timing and River Street modifications. Rickart answered that District 3 does have an
application in for Highway 25 signal retiming through the first stimulus allotment, which
is about a 12 month timeline. River Street's most recent study will be brought to Council
next week. Pending that review, something may move forward there as well. Rickart
also noted that as far as turn lanes, County 11 will get dual left turn lanes in Sherburne
County in 2010. The Transportation Plan identifies right turn lanes at 7th ,1-94 and
County 75 to also support Highway 25 corridor improvements. Those could be
completed with the Highway 25 overlay project, which is expected in 2010.
Gabler commented that if the City is considering turn lanes and also roundabouts, isn't
the City spending money twice? Rickart indicated that would be true. If roundabouts are
truly something the City is interested in considering, it would be important to accelerate
study timing in order to avoid duplicative spending. Dragsten inquired why the old
Highway 75 off ramp doesn't get used as 95th street. Westby responded that the existing
ramp was left in place because Mn/DOT is looking at replacing the twin bridges and
wasn't sure if they would need those ramps for traffic control, so they were left in place.
7
They will be replacing the bridges in July of 2009 — 2010. Staff will continue to talk with
Mn/DOT on whether the City will be able to use those once the project is complete.
Dragsten asked Mr. Humbert and Mr. Fingalson to comment on the overall plan and
roundabouts in particular.
Mr. Terry Humbert, District 3 Project Development Engineer, thanked the Commission
and City staff for the opportunity to review and comment on the plan. Humbert stated
that he had reviewed plan and in general concurred with the results of the plan.
Regarding roundabouts, Mn/DOT is generally in favor of them as they have shown to
reduce crashes and improve travel speeds. While they don't work everywhere, Humbert
stated that extra analysis would be completed to include how semi -trucks or large
vehicles would move through at this location. Dragsten asked Humbert to comment on
Monticello's application in terms of roundabouts. Humbert stated that two-lane
roundabouts are not yet functional on Minnesota highways, although they are under
construction at Highway 95 and 65. He noted that similar to dual lane left turns, people
will learn how to drive them.
Dragsten inquired about bridge funding. Humbert responded that it is most likely that
trunk highway funds would not be eligible because a second bridge would carry local
traffic, which is not on the trunk highway system. There may be State Aid or other local
funding options and federal funding may be available.
Spartz asked Mr. Humbert about multiple roundabouts within a short distance. Humbert
replied that although multi -lane roundabouts are somewhat limited, there are interchange
locations where roundabouts are used at closer spacing. Spartz inquired if those are in
Minnesota. Humbert replied that they are located in Minnetonka and Medford.
Wcjchouski stated that she was under the impression that the State is recommending
roundabouts at locations such as Highway 75 and Highway 25. Humbert answered that
in general, it is the favored option for intersections, although there is a caveat that other
constraints that may not yield it as the final option. Spartz inquired what some of those
constraints might be. Humbert responded that it might be right of way acquisition issues,
spacing, or excessive traffic movements in one direction.
Wayne Fingalson, Wright County Engineer, addressed the Commission. Fingalson stated
that although they have not reviewed the plan in great detail, the plan provides a good
framework in terms of how transportation improvements would be constructed.
Fingalson stated that in response to the questions about roundabouts, there is a place for
them, but there is a learning curve as to how they function. There is a good system in
place for evaluating all options.
Spartz inquired about the possibility of partnering with other communities to expand park
and ride and transit options, as this would ultimately take vehicles off Highway 25.
Fingalson commented on the initiative coming out of Wright County Economic
Development to support further study of metro transit expansion. Fingalson stated that
although increasing transit options make sense, getting people across the bridge is still a
problem. Voight indicated that he believes that people will continue to use I-94 to
commute over Northstar as a quicker option.
Fingalson commented that funding is always a factor in any transportation improvement.
Fingalson noted that federal and state funding limitations do exist. While the stimulus
will help, there are still too many projects for the amount of funding.
Westby expanded on roundabout locations on multi -lane roundabouts, noting the two-
lane roundabout in Richfield. The 2020 volume there are projected to be 40,000 vehicles.
There are also multi -lane roundabouts in place in Woodbury on Radio Drive. These are
not on the State Highway system, but are in existence for reference on how these types of
roundabout systems function.
Chairman Dragsten opened the public hearing.
Bob Viering, on behalf of the Monticello Chamber of Commerce, addressed the
Commission. Viering echoed the comment that the Plan is well written and researched.
It provides a good analysis of the current situation and laying out options. He indicated
that the only long-term solution to the Highway 25 issue is the construction of a second
bridge. The Chamber would support seeing steps taken to make this a priority. In regard
to Highway 25, the Chamber would also encourage working with WDOT to implement
the other short-term solutions. Finally, in looking at commuter patterns, Viering cited a
recent study indicating that currently approximately 50% of those living in Monticello
commute into the 7 -county metro area. The vast majority of that is on I-94. Only 20% of
people who live in Monticello live in Monticello. So, as I-94 does impact residents and
those coming in to work in Monticello, Viering stated that the Chamber would add the
improvements to I-94, including possible expansion, be added as a priority. Viering
noted the presence of Sherburne and Wright Counties, as well as the State, as a positive
to start working on the bridge project.
John Mentor, Sherburne County Public Works Director, addressed the Commission. He
noted that Sherburne County has been working closely with Big Lake, Big Lake
Township, Mn/DOT and the City of Monticello on the dual left turn lane on County 11.
It will be a step to improving congestion on Highway 25. As the last gentleman had
suggested, these entities have already been meeting for a little over a year on these
mutual transportation issues. One of the topics of discussion has obviously been the
bridge. In that regard, while there is a need for the local connection, he encouraged
continued cooperation with the City of Big Lake, Big Lake Township and Sherburne
County. Mentor did not that the County Board does have a current policy prohibiting
condemnation for transportation, which is important to note in terms of a local bridge
project. Dragsten agreed that mutual cooperation will be essential in getting the bridge
project completed.
Shannon Bye, Monticello Township, addressed the Commission. She commented that
relying on the freeway is not always a good option, especially on Fridays and weekends.
She encouraged a closer look at transit. She noted the Chamber's previous comment on
I-94 commuter traffic. In light of that, she stated that the transit option should be viewed
as a part of any I-94 improvement priorities.
W
Charlie Pfeffer, addressed the Commission representing Ocello, LLC. Pfeffer referred to
carbon -related issues in terms of where development will occur. He stated that as
developers, it adds a significant issue as to where people will choose to live and work.
Pfeffer encouraged the Commission to be aware of that and to view the plan as somewhat
fluid in light of those impacts.
Chairman Dragsten asked if it would be possible to clarify comments as related to I-94.
Rickart stated that they could add comments related to the I-94 coalition into the plan.
Terry Humbert indicated that right now, looking at traditional funding, the addition of
lanes to I-94 is probably beyond 2030. Mn/DOT has identified the six -lanes of 1-94 as a
`tier -two' project for the stimulus. He explained that an issue to be dealt with is lane
balance. When adding lanes, Mn/DOT needs to be aware of lane transitions. South of
the Crow River, the Metropolitan Council also has some jurisdiction. Dragsten asked
when Mn/DOT may find out about such funding. Humbert stated it would most likely be
2010.
Hearing no other comments, Chairman Dragsten closed the public hearing.
Wcjchouski sought confirmation from Westby that the Chelsea Road traffic counts would
be included in the final plan. Westby confirmed that they were inadvertently omitted and
would be included in the final plan.
Spartz commented that although roundabouts may not be his favored option, if it works
best for the Highway 25 corridor, then the essence of moving the plan forward is most
important.
Dragsten suggested that no matter what occurs in short-term on Highway 25, the need for
the bridge crossing is clearly a priority and that it should be moved from 2030-2050
timeline to 2015-2030 timeline. Dragsten inquired if a bridge crossing was included in
the Sherburne County plan. Mentor indicated that it was not. Wojchouski stated that for
Big Lake, this is not an immediate, perceived problem as it is in Monticello. Dragsten
concurred, although it can ultimately impact their commuting residents.
Gabler agreed, noting that as it takes a long time to plan for such improvements, and as
such plan for the improvements from 2009-2015. The Commissioners agreed that the
emphasis should be on planning for this crossing.
Gabler also recommended that the Fallon Avenue Bridge remain the number one priority
for 2009-2015. Dragsten suggested grouping all of the Highway 25 improvements into
one category. Rickart clarified that Fallon Avenue overpass only needed to be completed
before any other interchange be considered. The Commissioners agreed that it was still a
priority.
MOTION BY COMMISSIONER VOIGHT TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT FOR THE ADOPTION OF THE 2009
MONTICELLO TRANSPORTATION PLAN, WITH THE SPECIFIC
RECOMMENDATIONS AS NOTED, INCLUDING:
10
• ALL OPTIONS FOR HIGHWAY 25 IMPROVEMENTS, INCLUDING THE
IMMEDIATE STUDY OF A SECOND RIVER CROSSING, BE TAKEN AS A
FIRST PRIORITY FOR STUDY AND IMPLEMENTATION FOR THE CITY
OF MONTICELLO.
• THE COMPLETION OF THE FALLON AVENUE SHOULD REMAIN A
HIGH PRIORITY FOR THE CITY OF MONTICELLO AS STATED WITHIN
THE TRANSPORTATION PLAN.
THIS MOTION MAY BE BASED ON A FINDING THAT THE AMENDMENT
PROVIDES AN APPROPRIATE TRANSPORTATION CHAPTER FOR THE
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, SUPPORTS THE PROPOSED LAND USE PLAN, AND
FURTHERS THE CITY'S LAND USE AND DEVELOPMENT POLICIES THROUGH
THE PROVISION OF VITAL TRANSPORTATION FACILITIES.
MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER GABLER. MOTION CARRIED, 4-0.
6. Public Hearing - Consideration of a request for final plat for Union Crossings Fourth Addition
and amendment to Conditional Use Permit for Planned Unit Development for Union
Crossings. Applicant: Ryan Companies
Planner Grittman presented that staff report for the request, stating that Ryan Companies
is seeking a subdivision of the existing Union Crossings Lot 2, Block 2 to create two
parcels from what is currently one. Grittman reported that the purpose of the subdivision
is to separate the property occupied by the Office Max building from the easterly
remainder of the property. The Office Max parcel will be Lot 1, Block 1 Union
Crossings 4t' Addition, and the remainder will be Lot 2. Lot 2 will be set up to
accommodate future development, and may be split again at that time.
Grittman explained that Union Crossings was developed as a Planned Unit Development
to provide for a variety of retail buildings in a shopping center arrangement. The zero -
lot -line subdivision in this case does not raise any issues from a planning standpoint,
since the site was developed to provide utilities and stormwater control on a
comprehensive basis, rather than lot by lot. As such, the engineering staff have
recommendations as to easements and similar issues, but there is no concern with
forgoing the easements that would have otherwise
Grittman stated that staff is recommending approval of the plat as proposed.
Dragsten inquired as to the reasoning for the irregular lot lines. Grittman responded that
it is most likely these jogs are due to carving out lot lines based on needed parking and
private utility connections. Dragsten stated that it would seem this configuration may
eventually lead to property issues. Grittman agreed that is true for residential property,
but in this case, the overall development is under the control of a single property
manager.
11
Gabler asked if the applicant is familiar with the conditions noted. Grittman indicated
that they are.
Chairman Dragsten opened the public hearing. Hearing no comments, Chairman
Dragsten closed the public hearing.
MOTION BY COMMISSIONER SPARTZ TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE
PLAT AND PUD AMENDMENT, BASED ON A FINDING THAT THE
APPLICATIONS ARE CONSISTENT WITH THE ORIGINAL PUD APPROVALS
FOR UNION CROSSINGS, WITH THE RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE CITY
ENGINEER.
MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER GABLER. MOTION CARRIED, 4-0.
7. Public Hearing - Consideration of a request for amendment to Chanter 3 of the Monticello
Subdivision Ordinance Title 10 of Monticello City Code as related to Final Platting
Applicant: City of Monticello
Community Development Director Schumann stated that staff are seeking continuation of this
item to allow staff time to further review and discuss the need for this amendment.
Spartz inquired why this hasn't been done in the past. It would appear to be a checks and
balances measure. Dragsten stated that as Commission reviews these sites in detail at
preliminary, it would be nice to see the plats in their final configuration.
Chairman Dragsten opened the public hearing.
MOTION BY COMMISSIONER DRAGSTEN TO CONTINUE THE PUBLIC HEARING
MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER SPARTZ. MOTION CARRIED, 4-0.
8. Continued Public Hearing - Consideration of amendment to Chanter 6 of the Monticello
Subdivision Code as related to Parks Open Space and Public Use Applicant: City of
Monticello
Schumann stated that staff is also seeking continuation of this item. Staff is completing
additional research as related to statutory requirements and the City's park service area.
MOTION BY COMMISSIONER SPARTZ TO CONTINUE THE PUBLIC HEARING.
MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER VOIGHT. MOTION CARRIED, 4-0.
9. Community Development Director's Update
Schumann noted that this will become a regular written update. Much of the information
has been compiled from a report given to the City Council.
Schumann did not the inclusion of building permit and housing inventory information.
12
It was noted that Kohl's has made a decision not to locate in Monticello. Charlie Pfeffer,
representing land owner Ocello, explained that Kohl's representatives and Ocello had met
to put the final touches on the purchase and operating agreements. However, after that
meeting, Ocello learned that national executive committee had decided not to pursue the
Monticello Kohl's store. It was a market decision.
Commissioner Dragsten stated that he appreciated having the updates provided.
10. Adjourn.
MOTION BY COMMISSIONER SPARTZ TO ADJOURN.
MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER VOIGHT. MOTION CARRIED, 4-0.
13
MINUTES
MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION
Tuesday, May 4, 2010
6:00 PM
Mississippi Room, Monticello Community Center
Commissioners Present:
Council Liaison:
Staff:
Citizen:
1. Call to order.
Rod Dragsten, Charlotte Gabler, Lloyd Hilgart, William
Spartz, and Barry Voight
Susie Wojchouski
Angela Schumann, Ron Hackenmueller, Steve Grittman -
NAC
Barry Fluth
Chairman Dragsten called the meeting to order.
2. Consideration to approve Planning Commission minutes of February 3'-d 2010
and April 6th, 2010.
The minutes for the February meeting have not yet been submitted for
consideration.
MOTION BY COMMISSIONER SPARTZ TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF
APRIL 6, 2010.
MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER HILGART. MOTION
CARRIED 5-0.
3. Citizen comments. None.
4. Consideration of adding items to thea eg nda.
Commissioner Spartz requested that an item related to signage be added to the
agenda.
5. Public Hearing - Consideration of request to approve an amendment to the
Monticello Zoning Ordinance Chapter 14B — Central Community District as
related to ground floor residential dwellings Applicant: Fluth Barry/Masters 5th
Avenue
Planning Commission Minutes — 5/4/10
Steve Grittman, NAC, presented the request to amend the CCD Zoning district.
He stated that current zoning allows for residential multi -family structures above
a commercial use in the CCD with a limited density allowance of 1 unit per 9,000
square feet. This zoning was established to limit the number of units in order to
discourage apartment construction in the downtown and maintain as much
available land as possible for commercial uses. Developers have been looking at
mixed use options as well as full -residential projects.
Grittman suggested that there are a number of ways to amend the base CCD
zoning district to provide more flexibility for residential development in the
downtown area. The City could consider various options: allowing a special
district in the CCD; allowing a multi -family R-3 district; creating a hybrid district,
or creating a comprehensive list of restrictions and requiring conditional use
permits for increased ground floor or overall desnsity. Grittman cautioned that
any change made to the base district would allow this change to occur anywhere
throughout the CCD without restriction. If the City were to handle things in this
way, they would lose control over the CUP restriction process and be put in the
position of defending why an application for CUP should not proceed.
Staffproposed instead that a new zoning district called the CCD -R be created as
an overlay district in CCD, which would be applied on a parcel by parcel basis. A
new set of standards would apply. Applicants would be required to ask for
rezoning to add the overlay to their site and then apply for a CUP. The City would
have significant discretion to determine whether or not to approve the request
based on location, traffic generation, and similar uses.
Commissioner Gabler asked if an overlay district could be set up so that the front
and back parts of blocks would be handled differently. Grittman pointed out that
the overlay district language states that eligible property would not abut directly
onto TH 25, CSAH 75, or Walnut Street. The City could create a lot line division
and could add a PUD to it if so desired.
Commissioner Gabler also asked how adding an overlay district would affect the
type of tenancy allowed. Grittman replied that it would most likely be multi-
family but that it would depend on the developer's market. He also noted that the
Planning Commission would be able to regulate land use but not determine type
of ownership.
Commissioner Spartz suggested that the Commission might want to wait until the
City has the results of the Embracing Downtown Monticello study to make this
kind of a zoning decision. Grittman pointed out that the City would need to
consider each request as the applications come in and that this might instead be
looked at as an opportunity to begin considering what type of zoning might be
useful in the CCD.
2
Planning Commission Minutes — 5/4/10
Grittman pointed out that the Comprehensive Plan does not address the CCD.
Schumann noted that the 2008 Comprehensive Plan adopted the 1997 Plan until
the Embracing Downtown Monticello plan is adopted. Allowing a CCD -R does
not contradict any plan currently in place.
Grittman stated that rezoning to this overlay may actually enhance commercial
uses in the downtown. It is proposed that commercial level materials would
continue to be used on the ground floor units so that the design would remain
within established parameters. He noted that adopting the overlay district would
give the Planning Commission guidance about controlling development so that
they would not be in the position of negotiating with developers. Grittman also
indicated that adding an overlay district might bump the density to a performance
district.
Commissioner Hilgart asked about the formula for determining density. Based on
a total of 32,000 square feet, the overlay district would allow one dwelling per
3,000 square feet of lot area on first floor residential.
Commissioner Spartz asked if the City could do a PUD instead of an overlay
district. Grittman stated that a PUD would be used to flex performance standards
and not to flex density unless the PUD ordinance is written specifically for that. It
would have to be rezoned to a PUD district and new rules would need to be
written. There would be no code guidance and everything would be open to
negotiation.
Grittman noted that this proposal adopts the overlay district concept but does not
involve a particular site. He summarized that approval of Option 3 would
establish a new overlay district but that it would also take an action to rezone any
parcel within the new district. Adding the overlay district also then gives the
Planning Commission power over CUP applications. An applicant would still
have to apply for a rezoning to CCD -R as well as a CUP for a change to take
place. Parcels would be rezoned as CCD -R only in cases in which intensive
residential uses would enhance commercial uses. If applicant can meet the CUP
performance standards, the Planning Commission has the discretion to allow the
rezoning request.
He pointed out that there are some parcels in the downtown area better suited for
residential and ill-suited for commercial due to location. Some lots just aren't
appropriate for main floor residential. The Planning Commission would have the
discretion to choose to use the overlay district when the circumstances are
appropriate per parcel.
Grittman pointed out that adopting this overlay concept would alleviate any spot
zoning concerns as one of the fundamental issues with spot zoning is land use
consistency.
Planning Commission Minutes — 514110
Grittman suggested that the Planning Commission could choose to adopt Option 3
with amendments if this were appropriate.
Chairman Dragsten opened the public hearing.
Property owner and downtown developer Barry Fluth thanked the Commission
for considering the overlay district proposal. He stated that he felt that this type of
district would help bring the residential mix needed to make the downtown area
more successful. He noted that there are a number of parcels in which this
approach would work. He noted that he is considering developing market rent
apartments similar to those at Landmark Square to fit in with the ambiance of the
downtown. He stated that the units at that development are nearly full and feels
there is a market for more. He suggested that if the overlay district option passed,
he would return to the Planning Commission next month with a residential
development proposal.
Commissioner Spartz asked Fluth his thoughts about awaiting the outcome of the
downtown study to proceed with development plans. Fluth stated that he doesn't
think the new plan would vary much from having a combination of residential and
commercial development in the downtown and it might take a year or so before
any changes were approved.
Schumann stated that even after the downtown plan is completed, the City would
not yet have taken on any CCD district regulations for zoning. That will be a
separate process.
Wojchouski asked if there would be TIF involved. Schumann said, at this point, it
is just a land use consideration. TIF would be considered if the rezoning were to
be approved and a project put forward.
Chairman Dragsten closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Gabler asked if the overlay district could it be rolled into any new
downtown plan if it were successful or eliminated if it were not. Grittman stated
that the Commission always has the zoning authority to change policy consistent
with that plan when adopted.
Commissioner Gabler noted that she feels the proposal provides the flexibility to
support mixed use rather than doing spot zones to get folks downtown. She agreed
that the Commission could evaluate it as it is implemented.
Commissioner Hilgart asked if this proposal would eliminate commercial use on
main floor. Grittman stated that the overlay district doesn't change any existing
use in the CCD but would broaden the scope of options for the downtown.
0
Planning Commission Minutes — 5/4/10
MOTION BY COMMISSIONER VOIGHT TO RECOMMEND AN
AMENDMENT THAT CREATES AN OVERLAY DISTRICT IN THE CCD
FOR GROUND FLOOR RESIDENTIAL USES, ALONG WITH SPECIFIC
PERFORMANCE STANDARDS FOR SUCH DEVELOPMENT..
MOTION WAS SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER HILGART. MOTION
CARRIED 4-1.
Commissioner Spartz expressed concerns that the findings from the Embracing
Downtown Monticello RFP project should be reviewed prior to approving any
rezoning options.
6. Consideration of an update related to density and neighborhood design standards
for Places to Live.
Schumann stated that one of the primary objectives of the new designation Places
to Live in the City's 2008 Comprehensive Plan is to control for step up housing.
She noted that, although densities are not pre -assigned by the Plan, there are a
variety of tools available to the Planning Commission to control for density and
quality over quantity. She pointed out that the Planning Commission can also
identify particular zoning districts in the new code that meet the step up housing
Comp Plan objective.
Schumann noted that infrastructure services have already been extended to the
NW portion of the City, and for that reason, it would be developed more readily
than the City's broader south central region which is not yet served by
infrastructure.
She suggested that the Commission could, in updating the zoning code, increase
requirements as related to finishing standards. The revised code would also
strengthen application requirements for performance zoning and PUD. She
mentioned that the City is not obligated to automatically accept a property for
annexation because annexation only occurs at time of final plat. She pointed out
that the Commission has a great amount of leverage through the current orderly
annexation agreement and process.
Schumann told the Planning Commission that she feels that they have the control
necessary to address the Comprehensive Plan objectives.
7. Consideration of an update on the Monticello Housing Report
Schumann said the full housing report would not be completed by May. She
indicated that some good baseline data has been gathered, including classification
information on the types of housing from Wright County. The analysis will be
5
Planning Commission Minutes — 5/4/10
done by plat and include number of lots, how many lots are occupied, zoning of
each lot, the density of the total development, and the number of rental licenses in
both multi -family and single family complexes. Staff has been reviewing
situational information such as how long single and multi -family homes are
staying on the market, the price points, and the vacancy rates. She suggested
delaying the public meeting until this information can be carefully evaluated as
additional planning projects are also underway. Schumann stated that she expects
the housing report to be completed by staff in house by July or August.
Community Development Director's Re ort.
Schumann provided an update on the Carcone Addition. City Council approved
the preliminary plat, the final plat and the development agreement. Recording of
those documents and final execution are underway.
Commissioner Gabler asked about the status of those development projects that
have not been closed out. Schumann provided a summary of the varying points in
the close out process. She stated that the City has a guidebook for development
which identifies steps in the process. She noted that it is available on the City's
website under the Community Development section.
Staff will meet with stakeholders to discuss and facilitate the highest and best use
of the Rand Mansion. Current property owners would like to sell as quickly as
possible. They ask that the property be maintained in its historic state and would
prefer that it to be put to public or semi-public use. Schumann will keep the
Planning Commission apprised of any proposed action on the property.
9. Consideration of adding items to the agenda.
Commissioner Spartz noted a large developer sign on Hwy. 94 near Sunset Ponds
and wondered if it met the zoning code requirements. Schumann agreed that it is
big and bright. She will determine if it was a preexisting structure with a change
in the face and therefore a lawful use. Previous standards had allowed for a 200
sq. foot size sign for property for sale or lease over a certain amount of acreage.
The new code will allow only 96 square feet for property over ten acres.
10. Ad•o� urn.
MOTION BY COMMISSIONER SPARTZ TO ADJOURN.
MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER VOIGHT. MOTION CARRIED
5-0.
The meeting was adjourned at 7 p.m.
2
MINUTES
MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION
Tuesday, June 1, 2010
6:00 PM
Mississippi Room, Monticello Community Center
Commissioners Present:
Commissioners Absent
Council Liaison
Staff:
1. Call to order.
Rod Dragsten, Charlotte Gabler, Lloyd Hilgart, and
William Spartz
Barry Voight
Susie Wojchouski
Angela Schumann
Chairman Dragsten called the meeting to order noting the absence of
Commissioner Voight.
2. Consideration to approve Planning Commission minutes of February 3rd 2010
and May 4th, 2010.
Community Development Director Angela Schumann noted that both the
February and May minutes would be provided by via email that evening and
confirmed that future minutes would be included with the agenda packets.
3. Citizen comments. None.
4. Consideration of adding items to the agenda.
Commissioner Gabler requested an update on a) M& I Bank and b) Steiner
Development.
5. Consideration of a request for an extension of a Conditional Use Permit for
Concept Stage and Development Stage Planned Unit Development approval for a
multi -tenant shopping center, a Conditional Use Permit for Outdoor Storage a
Conditional Use Permit for a Car Wash, a Conditional Use Permit for a Motor
Fuel Station/Convenience Store a Conditional Use Permit for minor auto repair,
and Preliminary Plat approval. Applicant: Mills Properties Inc
Schumann stated that on June 12, 2007, the Planning Commission recommended
approval of a Concept and Development Stage Planned Unit Development (PUD)
and Preliminary Plat request for the proposed Mills Fleet Farm project. The City
Planning Commission Minutes — 6/1/10
Council approved each request including a Comprehensive Plan Amendment and
Rezone on June 25, 2007. On June 9, 2008 they extended that application and
approval for one year, and have also subsequently approved for the extension for
2009. She noted that the applicant has again requested an extension and is
available to answer questions. According to the zoning ordinance, due to non-use,
Conditional Use Permits for the PUD and Preliminary Plat expire after one-year
or June 8, 2010. The City has not received an extension letter but instead email
correspondence requesting the extension. Staff is recommending approval of
another extension subject to Planning Commission comments and conditions.
Council Liaison Susie Wojchouski asked if the applicant was requesting a two-
year extension. Schumann pointed out that the applicant had previously done so
but that City Council had granted only a one-year extension and agreed to check
in with plan status after a year.
Chairman Dragsten asked if the applicant could bring the Commission up-to-date
about the status of the project. Bruce Buxton, the engineer for Mills Properties,
spoke briefly about the history of the project. He indicated that they hadn't
anticipated the changing state of the economy back in 2007 when the project was
proposed. He stated that Mills had put all development projects on hold for 2008-
2010 and are currently reevaluating the situation. He noted that they still want to
develop the land and as soon as the economy turns around development would
proceed.
Commissioner Hilgart asked if Monticello would be the first Fleet Farm store to
be developed when the applicant proceeded with building. Buxton stated that the
overall project rankings would be reevaluated at that time but also indicated that
Monticello would not be the first store to be built.
MOTION BY COMMISSIONER SPARTZ TO RECOMMEND EXTENSION
OF THE JUNE 25, 2007 CONDTIONAL USE PERMIT FOR CONCEPT AND
DEVELOPMENT STAGE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT
PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR THE PROPOSED MILLS FLEET FARM FOR A
PERIOD OF ONE YEAR WITH THE CONDITION THAT ALL PREVIOUSLY
APPROVED CONDITIONS BE ASSIGNED TO THE EXTENSION.
MOTION WAS SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER HILGART. MOTION
CARRIED 4-0.
6. Public Hearing — To be opened and continued to June 8, 2010
Consideration of a reauest for rezoning from CC.T) (C entrnl r,
to a C C ll -K, Central
Avenue/Fluth, Barry.
11
Schumann indicated that due to a delay in the mailing of the public hearing notice
she requested that this public hearing, and the public hearing that follows, be
2
Planning Commission Minutes — 6/1/10
opened and continued at the next meeting. She indicated that staff has now
published notice for a special meeting and public hearings to be held on June 8th
both in the newspaper and in a revised mailed notice sent to all property owners
within 350 feet.
Commissioner Dragsten opened the public hearing. There were no public
comments. He then asked the Commission for any comments or questions.
Commissioner Spartz asked if, when the application comes back to City Council,
it would be considered a rezoning of the CCD and wondered if that would require
a 4/5 majority of Council. Schumann stated that it may require a super majority of
the council.
She clarified that the rezoning would act on the map amendment and not on the
applicant's proposal. The Commission would only determine whether or not the
rezoning meets the intention and is consistent with comprehensive plan. Mr. Fluth
would have to apply for a Conditional Use Permit and the Commission at that
time would evaluate his specific project proposal.
Schumann confirmed that the Commission would be asked to determine if CCD -
R use, or residential use on the first level, would be appropriate for each property
considered.
MOTION BY COMMISSIONER HILGART TO CONTINUE THE PUBLIC
HEARING ON JUNE 8TH AT 7 P.M..
MOTION WAS SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER GABLER. MOTION
CARRIED 4-0.
7. Public Hearing — To be opened and continued to June 8, 2010
Consideration of a Comprehensive Plan Amendment Conditional Use Permit for
Cross Parking, Cross Access and Drive-Throu2h Facility and Preliminary Plat for
the proposed Nicolle addition a commercial development in the CCD (Central
Community District) Applicant: Semper Development
Similar to the previous application, Schumann asked the Commission to open and
continue the public hearing. She suggested they would have plenty of time to
review the full text report. She indicated that the application includes multiple
components. She noted that the applicant has asked for final plat approval and
would like to move forward with some improvement planning. She stated that the
applicant is seeking concurrent approval at City Council.
Chairman Dragsten requested information be submitted in color. Schumann
confirmed that Semper Development would provide that as part of their full
presentation at the upcoming special meeting. She agreed to ask them to email
Planning Commission Minutes — 6/1/10
color pdf files in advance of the meeting. She noted that WSB, the City Engineer,
and the Public Works staff have reviewed and approved the staff report.
Commissioner Spartz asked if staff could shorten up Exhibit Z. Schumann noted
that the conditions listed in Exhibit Z are more general in nature and are details
that will actually be finalized with the final plat and the executions that go along
with it. She explained that once the Planning Commission and Council approve
the plans they will be redrawn all at once. The plans would then become the
record documents.
MOTION BY HILGART TO CONTINUE THE PUBLIC HEARING ON JUNE
8TH AT 7 P.M..
MOTION WAS SECONDED BY SPARTZ. MOTION CARRIED 4-0.
8. Community Development Director's Report
Schumann stated that the new Administrative Assistant has been trained on the
cable access programming and plans to post City Council agenda and Planning
Commission agendas on Channel 12 prior to meetings as requested.
She indicated that the biggest news is in the Finance Department as the City is
now taking utility bill payments online. She encouraged the Commissioners to
sign up for that new feature.
She included a tentative schedule for zoning ordinance revision and asked for
Planning Commission feedback. She asked specifically about the June 15th
steering committee date.
She noted that the upcoming Bertram Chain of Lakes Park Family Fun Day event
is scheduled for June 12a'.
She pointed out that two Planning Commissioners had participated in
interviewing consultants for the Embracing Downtown project and noted that staff
hoped to recommend a selection by the end of June.
Schumann included information in the agenda packet about state budget impacts
as well as some financial planning.
She also noted the liquor store has scheduled a summer beer tasting event on July
23rd.
Commissioner Spartz asked a question about what the numbers signify on the
Bertram Chain of Lakes information included in the agenda packet. Schumann
stated that the numbers represent the parcels that were assigned in the
Memorandum of Understanding with the YMCA. The City purchased parcels 5A
C!
Planning Commission Minutes — 6/1/10
and 6 as noted in red and also recently purchased an additional potion of parcel 5.
The next purchase will be parcel 7 and then phasing would continue on the west
side with parcels 1, 2, 8, 9, 10, and 12 with parcels 4 and 3 the last to be
purchased.
Commissioner Dragsten asked about the comments that were due to -date on the
zoning ordinance rewrite. Schumann stated that City staff would provide all
comments to City Planner Ben Gozola. In addition, the Industrial and Economic
Development Committee (IEDC) has established a small working group which
would provide lots of great feedback for the rewrite. They have one more meeting
scheduled. WSB would review the overlay districts to provide some general
feedback to make sure all was on track. Campbell Knutson would then be
providing legal review of some of the chapters. All comments would be
incorporated by the MFRA into a new red -lined version of the document which
would be then reviewed by the steering committee. Schumann confirmed that this
version would also incorporate ideas based on the Planning Commission's
neighborhood tour.
Schumann indicated that the City wouldn't be incurring additional costs by
extending the zoning code revision schedule and suggested that the more
feedback involved in the process the better the document. She suggested that the
Commission postpone the June 15th meeting and slide the schedule for the public
open house out further. Schumann noted that, although it may seem like the effort
is losing momentum, that staff and other groups are quite involved in providing
detailed input. She pointed out that Building Department staff has been extremely
thorough in their review as they are responsible for enforcing the code. She noted
that the components from WSB and the IEDC would provide a valuable frame of
reference for the Planning Commission's final review. The Commission agreed
that it would be acceptable to extend the deadline into November for code
revision completion.
Schumann noted that there were no development applications scheduled to come
before the Planning Commission for the July meeting. She suggested that the
steering committee meeting be held at the regular July Planning Commission
meeting and that the schedule stay on track for the potential July 26th joint
Planning Commission/City Council meeting. Schumann agreed to revise the
schedule and email it out with the meeting minutes and the June 8th agenda.
9. Consideration of added items.
a) M& I Bank
Schumann indicated that M & I Bank are due for their next extension in
August. She will communicate with them toward the end of June to determine
their intentions about an extension request.
5
Planning Commission Minutes — 6/1/10
b) Steiner Property
Schumann pointed out that the Steiner property has now gone back to the
bank. Commissioner Gabler noted that the property does not look very
attractive. Schumann stated that City Council has provided definitive direction
about mowing the City's main thoroughfares, collector routes and boulevards.
The Building Department will conduct a sweep of all of those areas and the
bank will get a notice about the property.
10. Adjourn.
MOTION BY COMMISSIONER SPARTZ TO ADJOURN.
MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER GABLER. MOTION CARRIED
4-0.
The meeting was adjourned at 6:27 p.m.
2
MINUTES
MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION
Tuesday, June 8th, 2010
6:00 PM
Mississippi Room, Monticello Community Center
Commissioners Present: Rod Dragsten, Charlotte Gabler, Lloyd Hilgart, William
Spartz, and Barry Voight
Council Liaison: Susie Wojchouski
Staff Angela Schumann
Call to order.
Chairman Dragsten called the meeting to order and noted a full quorum of the
Commission was present. Council liaison Wojchouski also present,
2. Citizens Comments.
None.
3. Consideration of adding items to the agenda.
None.
4. Continued Public Hearing — Consideration of a request for rezoning from
Schumann stated that the applicant is seeking an amendment to the Monticello
Zoning map that would rezone the property legally described as Lot 4, Block 36,
Original Plat of Monticello, from CCD to CCD -R. The property is located on the
west corner of Locust and Third Street and is approximately .75 acres in size.
Previously, the City Council reviewed a request by the applicant to amend the
CCD language to allow for greater ground floor density in the CCD. Rather than
allowing for the increased density on the ground floor across the district as a
whole, the City instead recommended approval of an overlay zoning district for
the CCD that would accommodate increased ground floor density under a
conditional use permit.
Schumann indicated that in making a determination that the CCD -R zoning is
appropriate for this particular parcel, the Commission will want to consider
Planning Commission Minutes — 6/8/10
whether the rezoning will meet the findings specified within the CCD -R district
purpose statement. In short, she stated that the primary issue for the City is
whether the use of this parcel for residential purposes, including the intended
ground floor residential, will serve to enhance the commercial downtown.
In considering this question, Schumann noted that the Commission may review a
number of influencing factors, including the location of this property relative to
other commercial and residential uses, the capacity for commercial development
at this location, the potential break-up of the flow of commercial development
along this corridor.
Schumann referred to the surrounding uses, stating that the majority of property to
the west of this site is utilized as single-family residential, while the property
directly to the north includes a mixed residential/commercial project in Landmark
Square. To the east is a former single-family home that has been converted to a
multi -tenant professional building. Directly to the south, across Third Street, is a
strip center commercial facility.
Schumann explained that although the uses are predominantly commercial in
nature, especially at the ground floor level, this area is adjacent to a broader area
of residential, although primarily single-family. A multi -family use in this
location could be viewed as a transitional use between the commercial properties
and the single-family homes.
In review of the potential for commercial development for the site, Schumann
said that it should be noted that a continuous commercial flow, coupled with the
concentration of commercial enterprise, tends to support greater numbers of
multiple -destination shopping trips for the downtown. Disruption of that flow
may decrease the viability of additional commercial development in the area.
However, Schumann recognized that the addition of housing may directly
increases the market for current and future business enterprise in the downtown
area. The applicant has attempted to develop the site as commercial, although
market forces may have precluded its success to date.
Commissioner Hilgart inquired what the density for the site would be changed to.
Schuman responded the applicant would be allowed to increase the 1 unit per
9000 square feet from the current 1 unit per 3000 square feet for upper level,
provided that he can meet the performance standard specified in the CCD -R
language. The increase would also be dependent on the ability to provide
parking. Grittman confirmed that a Conditional Use Permit would be
performance based at a density of 23 to 25 units per acre.
Commissioner Dragsten opened the public hearing. Council Member Tom
Perrault inquired if the additions would be apartments, condominiums, or town
2
Planning Commission Minutes — 6/8/10
houses. Applicant Barry Fluth responded it would be additional apartment
dwellings.
Michael Michaelis, River Street, inquired where the parking would be located.
Fluth responded that it would be on site parking.
Commissioner Spartz shared the concern for adequate parking being available for
both the apartments and other residents doing business downtown and suggests a
market analysis be completed prior to the approval of suggested rezoning.
Commissioner Hilgart interjected he had no concerns with the rezoning and
downtown housing would provide customers for downtown businesses.
Commissioner Voight concurred with Commissioner Hilgart.
Chairman Dragsten stated that the projected of length of time it will take for this
downtown commercial property to be redeveloped is unknown and the addition of
residential housing may help to revitalize downtown.
Commissioner Voight interjected that the applicant, Fluth could currently make
entirely the property residential on the upper floors and that the applicant is
asking to change the density.
MOTION BY COMMISSIONER HILGART TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL
OF AN AMENDMENT REZONING LOT 4, BLOCK 36, TO CCD -R BASED
ON THE FINDING THAT FOR THIS PARCEL, THE MORE INTENSIVE
RESIDENTIAL USES ALLOWED BY CCD -R WILL ENHANCE THE
COMMERCIAL CONCENTRATION IN THE SURROUNDING "CCD"
DOWNTOWN AREA, AND THAT THE REZONING IS CONSISTENT WITH
THE GOALS AND POLICIES OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.
MOTION WAS SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER VOIGHT. MOTION
CARRIED 4-1, WITH COMMISIONER SPARTZ VOTING IN DISSENT.
5. Continued Public Hearing - Consideration of a Comprehensive Plan Amendment
Conditional Use Permit for Cross Parking Cross Access and Drive -Through
Facility and Preliminary Plat for the proposed Nicolle addition a commercial
development in the CCD(Central Community District) Applicant: Semper
Development
Steve Grittman, City Planner, presented the staff report for the applications. The
proposed subdivision (Nicolle Addition) consists of three lots; Walgreen's Drug
Store, a Proposed Commercial Building, and an Existing Commercial Building.
Grittman stated that a drive though lane is proposed on the East side of the drug
store building. A Conditional Use Permit is required for drive through and for
proposed cross parking and cross access.
3
Planning Commission Minutes — 6/8/10
Grittman explained that the proposed plan includes a number of transportation
components, including dedication for right of way via the plat. Grittman pointed
out the proposed dual turn lanes from west bound CSAH 75 to north bound TH 25
and a re -configured access from River Street. He also noted an entrance only
from Broadway. The plan also proposes the reactivation of the East River Street
stop light. River Street would be open through to Cedar Street and end in a cul-
de-sac. There is no proposed access to the site from Hwy 25.
Grittman referred to the color renderings of the proposed Walgreen building and
to the proposed landscaping plan. He noted that the proposed landscaping is
currently 2 trees short of requirements of the City, however the code does allow
for some trade-off with the inclusion of additional shrub plantings. The burden
shall be upon the developer to demonstrate by narrative and by graphics how the
equivalent effect is provided.
A pylon sign for the Walgreen's has been proposed at the corner of Pine and
Broadway Streets. Grittman noted that as part of the Comprehensive Plan
Amendment language reflecting a policy change to street fronting buildings, some
type of visual enhancement of the corner sign is required as a condition of
approval. Grittman recommended a sign foundation planter. Commissioner
Gabler suggested the use of existing brick to enhance the sign.
Commissioner Gabler pointed out the City Code would allow a monument sign,
the details show a pylon. Grittman stated that due to site lines at the corner, a
pylon is probably the best option.
Commissioner Gambler inquired if there is a balance of parking spaces and green
landscaping. Grittman responded that although the parking shown is less that that
required by the full code requirement, there are provisions specific to the
downtown which allow for a significant reduction if the parking is available to the
public. Additionally, a condition of this application approval requires cross
parking. This is common to approve for the Downtown area.
Commissioner Spartz expressed concern for the number of parking spaces and
would it be adequate for future businesses. This would include parking on the
North side of River Street. Council Wojchouski added that it will be important to
ensure that the number of handicap spots will be sufficient.
Commissioner Hilgart inquired how it is that this structure will require less
parking stalls. Grittman addressed this, stating that the Downtown Parking
Ordinance permits a reduction of up to 40%. This is because it is assumed that a
downtown costumer will use one parking location and make several stops. The
proposed site is providing 66 parking spots.
0
Planning Commission Minutes — 6/8/10
Chairman Dragsten inquired when the right turn lane will be completed.
Schumann responded that the improvements are being timed to be completed with
the overall site development. Right now, the preliminary development timelines
has these developments being substantially complete by fall of this year.
Commissioner Gabler expressed the opinion that the proposed building is quite
tall, at approximately 30 feet. She expressed a desire to see it tied to the River.
John Kohler, representing Semper Development, described features of the
proposed building, stating that the building is brick with green awnings. This
project was based on a project done in Chanhassen. They can break up the fascia
with different colors of brick. Schumann interjected the height requirements are
met for the downtown.
Chairman Dragsten inquired if the drive through is designed for 3 car stacking.
Kohler described how it is actually designed for more than 3 cars.
Chairman Dragsten inquired if there were any concerns with Exhibit Z. Kohler
stated that they had reviewed the document and had no concerns.
Chairman Dragsten opened the hearing to public comment.
Tom Link of 207 East River Street expressed his concern of the blocking of East
River Street into a cul-de-sac. He noted that it would cut off access from Cedar
for residents in the area. He also questioned how much of his property would be
impacted by the cul-de-sac. Schumann responded that the cul-de-sac is proposed
to be completed completely within existing ROW.
Ken Holker, owner of the commercial building at 141 East Broadway, expressed
his concerns with cross parking and inquired how far back the right turn lane is to
extend. Grittman replied that under a long-term intersection plan, the turn lane it
is to extend for a majority of the block. However, at this time, the turn land will
only extend to the line of the property to be platted and will not impact the other
properties along CSAH 75. Street parking for those properties will remain the
same at this time. Grittman also noted that the same downtown parking
provisions and opportunities for cross easement for parking exist for the other
property owners on the block.
Robert Somerville, 213 East River Street, expressed his concern with the
proposed changes he will be driving 3 to 4 blocks out of his way to get to his
residence.
David Stromberg, 102 Cedar Street, expressed his concern with having a home
with a double car garage located near a cul-de-sac street. He indicated that while
overall he did not have a problem with the configurations as shown, he wanted to
confirm how his property may be impacted by the Cedar/River Street changes.
5
Planning Commission Minutes — 6/8/10
Myrna Anderson, 107 Cedar, sought assurance that there would be no changes to
Cedar Street parking. Grittman and Schumann confirmed that at this time, no
changes to on -street parking on Cedar are proposed.
Chairman Dragsten closed the public hearing.
MOTION BY COMMISSIONER VOIGHT TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL
OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN (DOWNTOWN PLAN) AMENDMENT,
PRELIMINARY/FINAL PLAT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS BASED
ON A FINDING THAT, WITH CONDITIONS, THE PROPOSAL IS
CONSISTENT WITH THE CITY'S COMPREHENSIVE PLAN POLICIES
AND APPLICABLE ORDINANCE REQUIREMENTS, SUBJECT TO
EXHIBIT Z AS FOLLOWS:
1. The City's Downtown Plan ("A New Bridge: Revitalizing Monticello's
Downtown and Riverfront") be amended to incorporate the following text:
At the intersection of Broadway and Pine Streets, parking lots may
be constructed only when all of the following conditions exist:
• Applicable traffic safety and access requirements limit the
ability to comply with building location standards of this
Plan.
• At least fifty (50) percent of either the Broadway or Pine
Street frontage is occupied by a building (non parking
area).
• An alternative vertical element is located at the street
corner which, as determined by City Officials, establishes
an architecturally compatible corner presence. Such
elements may include, but not be limited to public art,
interpretive signage, architectural business signs and
architecturally appropriate lighting.
2. Right-of-way dedications on the Preliminary/Final Plat are found to be
acceptable by the City Engineer.
3. Verify with qualified expertise that demolition will not negatively impact
structures on adjoining properties.
4. The area summary on the Preliminary Plat drawing be revised to correctly
identify the area of Lots 1 and 2 (consistent with the Final Plat drawing).
5. Drainage and utility easements on the Preliminary/Final Plat are found to be
acceptable by the City Engineer.
2
Planning Commission Minutes — 6/8/10
6. Cross parking and access easements for Lots 1 and 2 be established. Cross
parking and access should include an agreement for future agreements with
the adjoining property to the east. This issue shall be subject to comment and
recommendation by the City Attorney.
7. Pedestrian easements are established for sidewalks along TH 25 for public
sidewalks on private property, consistent with the recommendations of the
City Engineer.
8. The configuration of the Broadway Street access drive be modified such that
its design is not conducive to right -out turning maneuvers
9. Curb cut locations and widths are found to be acceptable by the City Engineer.
10. Color samples and/or a color rendering of the building (s) be provided for City
review.
11. City Officials find the proposed overstory tree quantities to be acceptable.
12. The freestanding sign be modified to incorporate some of the materials used in
the principal building and create a visually dominant sign base.
13. The trash enclosure utilize colors and details similar to those utilized on the on
the two abutting commercial buildings. Trash enclosure details shall be
submitted and approved by the City.
12. The applicant address the screening of the trash area from the north prior to
the construction of the north commercial building (which will ultimately be
used to screen the area).
13. Lighting be hooded and directed such that the source is not visible from
adjacent rights-of-way.
14. The applicant provide a plan for interim improvements upon Lot 2, Block 1,
including but not limited to, site improvements and maintenance.
15. Final grading, drainage, and utility plans are subject to comment and
recommendation by the City Engineer, Consulting Engineer, and Public
Works Staff. Specific review comments of those staff members are
summarized in this report, and attached as an Exhibit.
16. Provide final record drawings prior to execution of the development
agreement.
17. The applicant and City execute and record a development agreement
incorporating the development plans, standards and conditions as approved.
7
Planning Commission Minutes — 6/8/10
MOTION WAS SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER HILGART. MOTION
CARRIED 4-1, WITH COMMISIONER SPARTZ VOTING IN DISSENT.
6. Community Development director's Report
None.
7. Adjourn.
MOTION BY COMMISSIONER SPARTZ TO ADJOURN.
MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER VOIGHT. MOTION CARRIED
5-0.
The meeting was adjourned at 8:27 p.m.
Planning Commission Agenda – 07/06/10
1
5. Public Hearing: Consideration of a request for a Conditional Use Permit for
an amendment to a Planned Unit Development for outdoor storage of rental
vehicles in a B-3 Zoning District. Applicant: Enterprise Leasing and Shawn
Weinand. (NAC)
REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND
Enterprise is seeking a Conditional Use Permit to occupy the eastern-most portion
of the Groveland Center building for the operation of their automobile rental
facility. They would reserve up to 23 spaces in the parking area for customer and
rental car occupancy, and conduct office and car washing/vacuuming inside the
building. The applicants state that they would not be doing any actual repair on-
site. Open and Outdoor Storage in the B-3 District may be allowed under the
following regulations:
1. The area is fenced and screened from view of neighboring
residential uses or if abutting an "R" district in compliance with
Chapter 3, Section 2 [G], of this ordinance.
2. Storage is screened from view from the public right-of-way in
compliance with Chapter 3, Section 2 [G], of this ordinance.
3. Storage area is grassed or surfaced to control dust.
4. All lighting shall be hooded and so directed that the light source
shall not be visible from the right-of-way or from neighboring
residences and shall be in compliance with Chapter 3, Section 2 [H], of
this ordinance.
5. Does not take up parking space as required for conformity to this
ordinance.
6. The provisions of Chapter 22 of this ordinance are considered and
satisfactorily met.
The proposed “storage” area is within the existing parking of the Groveland
Center building. There is no residential property adjoining the subject property
that would be subject to the screening requirement in item 1 above.
With regard to screening from the public right of way (item 2), the storage area
itself does directly front on the public street – a future development phase at
Chelsea Road (Outlot B) separates the area from the street, although without
current construction, the stored cars will be visible. The storage area will be
visible diagonally across the parking lot area to the southwest.
However, as a PUD, the Groveland facility provides the opportunity to
accommodate the proposal under the current zoning. In this case, the “storage”
consists of cars that will be parked in the parking lot, virtually undistinguishable
Planning Commission Agenda – 07/06/10
2
from other parked vehicles. In addition, the applicants indicate that while up to
23 spaces are reserved, there will routinely be far fewer than this as most of the
stock is leased out at any one time.
Finally, the storage will not be visible from the public right in most cases when
other vehicles are parked in the lot – the parked vehicles will “screen” the view of
the stored vehicles. Although this screening is not the standard method for
accomplishing the ordinance objective, the storage of the vehicles in this area
should not raise any unsightliness issues, and is allowable by the PUD process.
With regard to items 3 and 4, the site is fully developed according to City
standards, and this application should pose no issue. City Code Enforcement staff
should verify compliance of the existing parking lot lighting with the property
owner.
Parking on the Groveland Center (item 5) is provided in the large lot adjacent to
Chelsea Road, as well as a secured area behind the building. The site has a total
of 181 parking spaces to serve a future total of approximately 40,000 square feet
of building area (including future development on Outlot B). At full office/retail
occupancy, the parking requirement would be 178 spaces, and current
occupancies require less space due to automotive service parking demand
(reducing parking requirements by 30 spaces or more), with the potential for
additional parking area on Outlot B in the future. As such, the proposed storage
area does not take up required parking area.
Item 6 (compliance with Chapter 22) is a procedural requirement for the
Conditional Use Permit process. This requirement is met through the current
application.
ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS
Decision 1: Conditional Use Permit for an Amendment to the Groveland Center
PUD for Open and Outdoor Storage of rental vehicles for Enterprise.
1. Motion to recommend approval of the CUP, based on findings that the
proposed storage area complies with the requirements of the CUP for
outdoor storage in the B-3 District, that the PUD provides adequate
flexibility to accommodate the storage of vehicles in the parking lot
without additional screening, and will eliminate issues with street
traffic conflicts at the current location.
2. Motion to recommend denial of the CUP, based on findings that the
application fails to conform with the specific requirements of the
Zoning Ordinance and will interfere with traffic on the adjacent street.
Planning Commission Agenda – 07/06/10
3
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends approval of the CUP based on the proposed site plan, limited to
rental vehicles as described in the application.
SUPPORTING DATA
A. Site Location Map
B. Site Plan
C. Elevations
Application Site Location: Enterprise
Exhibit 5A
Planning Commission Agenda – 06/08/10
1
6. Consideration of a request for extension of a Conditional Use Permit for Amendment to
Planned Unit Development for a retail commercial development at Monticello Travel
Center 2nd Addition. Applicant: Mielke Bros., LLC (AS)
REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND
On June 5th, 2007, the Planning Commission reviewed and recommended approval of an
amendment to Planned Unit Development request for the proposed Landmark Center
project, submitted by Mielke Bros., LLC. The City Council subsequently approved the
requests on June 11th, 2007.
Due to non-use, the conditional use permit for amendment to PUD will expire on June
11th, 2010. The Monticello Zoning Ordinance requires that conditional use permits
expire due to non-use after one year.
The extension request sent by the applicant requests a one-year extension period.
The planning report for the original item has been provided for reference.
ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS
1. Motion to recommend extension of the June 11th, 2007, Conditional Use Permit
for Amendment to Planned Unit Development for a retail commercial
development at Monticello Travel Center 2nd Addition with the condition that all
previously approved conditions be assigned to the extension.
2. Motion to recommend denial of an extension of the June 11th, 2007, Conditional
Use Permit for Amendment to Planned Unit Development for a retail commercial
development at Monticello Travel Center 2nd Addition, based on a finding to be
made by the Planning Commission.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends extension of the amendment to Conditional Use Permit for PUD. This
recommendation is consistent with the Commission recent one-year extensions for other
conditional use projects.
SUPPORTING DATA
Exhibit A: Staff Report - June 11th, 2007
Exhibit B: City Council minutes of June 11th, 2007
Exhibit C: Site Plans
City Council Agenda 060908
SC Consideration to approve a request for extension of a Conditional Use Permit for
Amendment to Planned Unit Development for a retail commercial development at
Monticello Travel Center 2 Addition Applicant Mielke Bros LLC AS
A REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND
The Plannin Commission unanimously recommended approval of the extension during
their June 3 2008 meeting
On June 5t 2007 the Planning Commission reviewed and recommended approval of an
amendment to Planned Unit Development request for the proposed Landmark Center
project submitted b Mielke Bros LLC The City Council subsequently approved the
requests on June 11 2007
Due to nonuse the conditional use permit for amendment to PUD will expire on June
11tb 2008 The Monticello Zoning Ordinance requires that conditional use permits
expire due to nonuse after one year
The extension request sent by the applicant requests aoneyear extension period
The planning report for the original item has been provided for reference
B ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS
The Planning Commission recommends alternative 1 below
1 Motion to approve aoneyear extension of the June l la 2007 Conditional Use
Permit for Amendment to Planned Unit Development for a retail commercial
development at Monticello Travel Center 2d Addition with the condition that all
previously approved conditions be assigned to the extension
2 Motion to deny an extension of the June 11t 2007 Conditional Use Permit for
Amendment to Planned Unit Development for a retail commercial development at
Monticello Travel Center 2d Addition based on a finding to be made by the
Planning Commission
C STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staffrecommends extension of the amendment to Conditional Use Permit for PUD This
recommendation is consistent with the Councils recent oneyear extensions for other
conditional use projects
D SUPPORTING DATA
Exhibit A Applicant Extension Request
Exhibit B Staff Report June l la 2007
Exhibit C City Council minutes of June 11 2007
Exhibit E Site Plans
Angela Schumann
Subject FW Request for Conditional Use Permit ext
Original Message
From Dan Mielke mailtoDanMielke@monticellokl2mnus
Sent Friday May 23 2008 248 PM
To Angela Schumann
Subject Request for Conditional Use Permit ext
To whom it concerns 52308
I hereby request a one year extension of our Landmark Center Conditional Use Permit for
parcel 5 Monticello Travel Center 2nd edition
Dan Mielke
Mielke Development LLC
1
Consideration of a request for Amendment to Planned Unit Development for a retail
commercial development at Monticello Travel Center 2 Addition Applicant Dan
Mielke NAC
BACKGROUND
The Planning Commission reviewed this item on June 5h The Commission expressed some
concern as related to the stacking space for the drivethrough facilities The Commission
discussed various alternatives choosing to condition their recommendation in such a way as to
allow the developer maximum flexibility while still allowing for a review should intensity of use
require further study As such the Commission recommended approval of the conditional use
permit for drivethrough as noted below
The Commission also recommended approval of the Planned Unit Development with the
conditions as noted In relationship to the PUD the Commission noted the quality of the
building design The Commission did discuss parking as related to tenant mix but determined
that due to existing cross easements and the total number of stalls on site the parking shown is
adequate for the proposed project The applicant indicated that they were willing to waive
temporary sign permits for this specific site in relationship to flexibility granted for other
portions of the PUD including the modifications to the Jiffy Lube sign As noted in the report
the applicant will be making changes to the existing Jiffy Lube sign to accommodate both that
existing project and this proposed project It will be the only pylon sign for this project As
such a condition waving temporary sign rights ahs been added to the conditions for PUD
approval
Mielke Development LLC is seeking an amendment to a Conditional Use Permit for
development stage Planned Unit Development for the construction of a shopping
center and a Conditional Use Permit for a drive through lane located at Lot 5 of
Monticello Travel Center Second Addition
The applicant is proposing a 9590 square foot commercial center with multiple
tenants to be located in the northeast portion of the site The underlying zoning is B
4 Regional Business
ANALYSIS
The subject site is located at the southeast corner of the intersection of State Highway
25 and Oakwood Drive The existing Planned Unit Development contains a Subway
restaurant with a drive through a Jiffy Lube a Holiday convenience store and motor
fuel station a Dairy Queen restaurant with a drive through and a second multitenant
commercial center The subject site is located in the center of the development
fronting on Cedar Street The site relies on PUD for shared parking shared access
and setback flexibility
Comprehensive Plan Monticellos Comprehensive Plan designates this area for
commercial use
Zonin The subject site is zoned B3 Highway Business The purpose of the B3
highway business district is to provide for and limit the establishment of motor
vehicle oriented or dependent commercial and service activities
CUPPUD A Planned Unit Development allows for flexibility in performance
standards with the understanding that the development will be held to higher
standards of site and building design than would ordinarily be required It is the
applicantsresponsibility to design the development with significant benefits and
communicate those benefits to the City for allowing aCUPPUD
Parking The proposed building is 9590 square feet in area The proposed uses for
the structure have not been provided Drive through lanes are proposed for the
northernmost unit and easternmost units ofthe building The drive through indicates
that these unit will be reserved for restaurant uses One restaurant unit is shown at
1499 square feet and one is shown at 1566 square feet The total kitchen and dining
areas for these tenants have not been provided Staff has therefore estimated the area
of the kitchen at 13 of the units Tenants for the remainder of the site are assumed to
be various retail services Restrooms and refuse rooms have also been illustrated on
the plan As such the estimated parking requirement is as follows
Tenant Area Re uirement Stalls
Restaurant 1
1499 sf total
10493 square feet
4497 s uare feet
1 space40 sf of dining area
1 s ace80 sf of kitchen area
27 spaces
6 s aces
Restaurant 2
1566 sf total
10962square feet
4698 s uare feet
1 space40 sf of dining area
1 s ace80 sf of kitchen area
28 spaces
6 s aces
Retail 1324 s uare feet 1 s ace200 sf of floor area 7 s aces
Retail 1143 s uare feet 1 s ace200 sf of floor area 6 s aces
Retail 1161 s uare feet 1 s ace200 sf of floor area 6 s aces
Total Required 86 spaces
The site plan illustrates 59 parking stalls 27 short of the minimum requirement The
remaining Planned Unit Development area contains approximately 272 parking stalls
15 of which are directly adjacent to the site Some overlap in uses is expected and
therefore a cross parking arrangement maybe accommodated by PUD to reduce the
number of stalls required
Due to the need for cross parking to accommodate the shortage staff recommends
that the applicant provide a leasing arrangement whenever available so that the
overlap in uses maybe evaluated more effectively
Drive Through The applicant is proposing two drive through lanes circulating
around the site One drive through lane is located on the east side of the building
with traffic circulating from south to north The second drive through is on the north
side of the building with traffic circulating from east to west As designed vehicles
exiting the east drive through lane will meet vehicles entering the north drive through
lane Thick striping is proposed to delineate the two drive through lanes and ease
traffic circulation The City recommends using epoxy orpolypreformed striping for
longevity and reduced maintenance
Drive through establishments are allowed in the B4 District by Conditional Use
Permit The Zoning Ordinance contains the following provisions for such uses
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 ablighting influence within a reasonable distance
of lot
At the boundaries of a residential district a strip of not less than five 5 feet
shall be landscaped and screened in compliance with Chapter 3 Section 2 G of
this ordinance
Each light standard island and all islands in the parking lot landscaped or
covered
Parking areas shall be screened from view of abutting residential districts in
compliance with Chapter 3 Section 2 G of this ordinance
Parking areas and driveways shall be curbed with continuous curb not less
than six 6 inches high above the parking lot or driveway grade
Vehicular access points shall be limited shall create a minimum of conflict
with through traffic movements shall comply with Chapter 3 Section 5 of this
ordinance and shall be subject to the approval of the City Engineer
All lighting shall be hooded and so directed that the light source is not visible
from the public right of way or from an abutting residence and shall be in
compliance with Chapter 3 Section 2 H ofthis ordinance
The entire area shall have a drainage system which is subject to the approval
of the City Engineer
The entire area other than that occupied by buildings or structure or plantings
shall be surfaced with a material which will control dust and drainage and
which is subject to the approval of the City Engineer
All signing and informational or visual communication devices shall be in
compliance with Chapter 3 Section 9 of this ordinance
As proposed each drive through lane is 12 feet in width The north drive through
lane appears to approximately 75 feet of stacking space enough for up to six vehicles
behind the pickup window and two vehicles behind the order board The east drive
through lane appears to have approximately 58 feet for stacking space enough for up
to five vehicles behind the pickup window and two behind the order board
For the north drive through lane overflow stacking maybe accommodated internally
by the existing parking lot drive lane However staff is concerned with any overflow
stacking for the east drive through lane An existing drive through lane for Chelsea
Commons exits directly adjacent to the entrance to the east drive through lane As
such any overflow stacking may prevent patrons from circulating through the
Chelsea Commons drive through
The applicant has not indicated potential users for the site making it difficult to
evaluate the potential volume of the drive through lanes A low volume drive through
would typically accommodate abusiness such as a coffee shop The existing Caribou
Coffee drive through has an average of five to six cars in the drive lane at one time
with more during peak periods Therefore the proposed stacking space would be
appropriate for slowvolume use However a higher intensity fastfooduse may
cause congestion problems with the proposed drive through configuration As noted
staff recommends that the applicant provide more detail on the potential drive through
users through submittal of a leasing plan so that a more thorough analysis of the
situation maybe performed
The consulting engineer has reviewed the drive through design and provides the
following comments
1 There does not appear to be enough room for stacking cars at the drive
through window located at the northeast entrance
2 Replace the proposed concrete bollards with a concrete island
Landscaping For commercial sites a minimum of one overstory tree per 1000
square feet of gross building floor area or one tree per SO lineal feet of site perimeter
whichever is greater is required The site has approximately 822531ineal feet of site
perimeter requiring 17 overstory trees as opposed to the 10 that would be required
under the floor area calculation
The applicant has provided one ofthe required 17 overstory trees as well as six
ornamental trees The ornamental trees are proposed along the east property line
The applicant is also proposing three irrigated planters on a concrete island on the
north side of the site adjacent to the drive through lane A fourth planter is proposed
on a concrete island in the southeast corner of the site Additional shrubs are also
proposed for the north side of the site and in the southeast corner No foundation
landscaping is illustrated on the plan and no grass is proposed with the exception of
the landscaped strip along the east property line
Lighting Alighting plan has been submitted for the site indicating full cutoff
lighting throughout the parking lot The photometric plan indicates readings as high
as 28 footcandles at the property line adjacent to Cedar Street Per ordinance the
lighting plan shall be required to be revised prior to Final Stage PUD illustrating
readings under one footcandle at the property line
Signage In the case of a building where there are two or more uses and which by
generally understood and accepted definitions is considered to be a shopping center
or shopping mall a conditional use permit maybe granted to the entire building in
accordance to an overall site plan indicating their size location and height of all
signs presented to the Planning Commission A maximum of 5 of the gross area of
the front silhouette shall apply to the principal building where the aggregate allowable
sign area is equitably distributed among the several businesses For purposes of
determining the gross area of the silhouette of the principal building the silhouette
shall be defined as that area within the outline drawing of the principal building as
4
viewed from the front lot line or from the related public streets Several existing
pylon signs are located throughout the Planned Unit Development
The front facade is approximately 2124 square feet in area The building will also be
visible from Oakwood Drive with a silhouette area of 2283 square feet The total
silhouette area for the site is 4407 square feet Therefore the total allowable area for
wall signage is 221 square feet
The applicant is proposing ten 26 square foot wall signs for a total of 260 square
feet Two wall signs are proposed on the east elevation three on the south elevation
four on the west elevation and one on the north elevation The location of signage
on all sides is acceptable However staff recommends that the applicant reduce the
amount of wall signage proposed to not exceed 221 square feet
The applicant is also proposing amultitenant pylon sign at aheight of 26 feet near
the Jiffy Lube site adjacent to Highway 25 The face area of this sign has not been
provided but has been calculated by staff at approximately 143 square feet As a
condition of approval the applicant shall be required to provide the square footage of
the tenant panels on this sign
For properties on Highway 25 303 feet of pylon sign area is allowed per every 10
feet of lineal frontage with the following exceptions
All properties may erect a pylon sign with a sign area of 50 regardless of front
footage abutting Highway 25 and
The maximum pylon sign area shall not exceed 100 sq ft regardless of total lineal
footage of property abutting Highway 25
The overall PUD has approximately 850 feet of frontage on Highway 25 and is
therefore allowed a pylon sign up to 100 square feet
A second monument sign is also proposed in the southeast corner ofthe site at the
entrance adjacent to Cedar Street This sign is 90 square feet in area and contains
nine identification placards Cedar Street is a collector street with a speed limit of 30
miles per hour As such a monument sign 25 feet in area and 16 feet in height is
allowed Although this proposed sign exceeds the maximum requirement staff
encouraged the applicant to propose a monument sign in lieu of apylon sign in this
location Due to the size of the overall PUD and the number of tenants the proposed
monument sign maybe appropriate
Access and Circulation Access to the site is provided by two existing curb cuts off
Cedar Street one on the north side of the site and one on the south side of the site
Cross access is possible to the north and south Internal drive lanes on the west side
of the site are proposed at 24 feet in width wide enough to accommodate twoway
traffic The internal drive lane on the east side of the site is proposed at 1624 feet
and is striped as a oneway drive Cars exiting the site on the east side will have the
option of exiting to the north only into the drive lane between the subject site and the
proposed Wendyssite This drive will serve as a passing lane for the adjacent drive
through lane Two ENTER ONLY signs one on each side of the entrance shall be
required at the entrance of this oneway drive aisle on the east side of the site The
applicant shall also be required to provide a DO NOT ENTER sign east of the exit
lane at the northeast corner of the site
No passing is proposed adjacent to the north drive lane prohibiting cars from
circulating around waiting vehicles A DRIVE THRU ONLY sign shall be
required at the entrance to this drive through lane to communicate that no pass
through lane is provided
Pedestrian access will be accommodated by a concrete sidewalk running along the
south and west sides of the building A sidewalk connection is also provided to the
Subway site to the west The width of the sidewalk in front of the building is
proposed at eight feet Staff recommends that the applicant provide a crosswalk at
the sidewalk separation extending west to the Subway site An existing sidewalk is
also located on the east side of the site within the Cedar Street rightofway
Building Design The building is proposed to be constructed mainly of EIFS block
with masonry wall base and prefinished metal coping The front of each unit will
contain a great deal of glass each with a fabric awning Some variation to the
roofline is also proposed to break up the long facade All sides of the building
contain windows vertical elements and roofline variation The only side without
fabric awnings is the east side as no entrances are proposed The proposed trash
enclosure will be incorporated into the building and be sectioned offby a steel door
The color elevations provided illustrate warm earth tones with gray tinted glass and
green awnings The proposed colors appear to blend well with the existing buildings
on the Monticello Travel Center site
Grading and Drainage The City Engineer and the consulting engineer from WSB
have reviewed the grading and drainage plans and provided the following comments
1 If not connecting to storm sewer stub on south end of site either remove stub
back to the manhole or install awatertight plug in upstream end of stub
2 Revise directional arrows for storm sewer on south end of site Currently
shown going in two directions from manhole
3 All details must match current City Standard Detail Plates as appropriate
City will provide in AutoCAD format upon request
4 Provide a detail ofthe curb section on the west property boundary
5 The applicant needs to provide a drainage map detailing the drainage areas for
each proposed catch basin and the locations of existing catch basins are not
identified on the plan
6 Provide details of how the drainage directed off site is managed specifically
the northwest entrance north parking spaces and the south parking spaces
Utilities Regarding the utility plan submitted the City Engineer and consulting
engineer have provided the following comments
1 Provide utility profiles at each utility crossing location to check for conflicts
Information incomplete at present
2 Provide insulation at storm sewer and watermain crossings per City Standard
Detail Plates 2005 and 2006
3 Provide easements for sanitary manhole and downstream pipe near northeast
corner of site Extend easement to Cedar Street rightofway
4 All unused sanitary sewer and watermain service lines must be removed back
to the main otherwise the developer will be responsible for maintaining all
abandoned lines in the future
5 Construct sanitary sewer manhole as standard sampling manhole near
northeast corner of site per City Standard Detail Plate 3007
6 All details must match current City Standard Detail Plates as appropriate
City will provide in AutoCAD format upon request
7 Show an overall site detail of the location of fire hydrants and access to the
hydrants per the fire department expectations
8 Include details of how the sanitary sewer clean out will be protected from
traffic loads
9 It appears that there are a number of sanitary and storm sewer stubs which will
not be used with this project Include a plan to abandon or remove these lines
Stormwater The City Engineer has reviewed the stormwater plans and provided the
following comment
1 All details must match current City Standard Detail Plates as appropriate
City will provide in AutoCAD format upon request
ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS
Decision 1 Regarding the request for an amendment to a Conditional Use Permit for
Development Stage Planned Unit Development for a strip center with retail and
commercial and restaurant uses the City has the following options
The Planning Commission recommends alternative 1 below
1 Motion to approve the Development Stage Planned Unit Development based
on a finding that the proposed use is consistent with the intent of the
existing PUD and the B3 District subject to the condition outlined in
Exhibit Z
2 Motion to deny the Conditional Use Permit for Development Stage Planned
Unit Development approval based on a finding that the proposed use is
not consistent with the intent of the existing PUD and the B3 District and
the use may not be supported by the site
Decision 2 Regarding the request for a Conditional Use Permit for two drive
through facilities the City has the following options
The Planning Commission recommends alternative 1 below
1 Motion to approve the Conditional Use Permit for two drive through facilities
based on a finding that the proposed use is consistent with the intent of the
PUD and the use satisfies the conditions of approval
2 Motion to deny the Conditional Use Permit for two drive through facilities
based on a finding that the conditions for approval have not been met
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Mielke Development LLC is requesting an amendment to a Conditional Use Permit
for Development Stage Planned Unit Development to allow for commercial strip
center containing a variety of retail and commercial uses as well as two restaurant
uses with drive through lanes The site is part of the existing Monticello Travel
Center Planned Unit Development which contains a mix of retail restaurant and
service uses
The proposed use appears to be generally consistent with the intent of the B3 District
and the existing PUD Staff has highlighted concerns with the proposed
development which maybe found listed in Exhibit Z Regarding Decision 1 staff
recommends approval of the amended CUP for Planned Unit Development subject to
these conditions outlined in Exhibit Z Based on discussion held at the Planning
Commission meeting staff has also included an additional condition regarding
temporary signage
Regarding Decision 2 staff recommends approval ofthe CUP for a drive through
facility subject to the conditions in Exhibit Z The site has adequate room for
stacking space for lowvolume drive through uses The Planning Commission
recommended condition 2 as related to the drivethrough in order to provide
some ability to control potential stacking problems with any highvolume user
SUPPORTING DATA
Exhibit A Site Plan
Exhibit B GradingErosion Control Plan
Exhibit C Utility Plan
Exhibit D SWPP Plan
Exhibit E Architectural Site Plan
Exhibit F Landscape Plan Revised
Exhibit G Signage Plan Revised
Exhibit H Signage Narrative
Exhibit I Floor Plan
Exhibit J Exterior Elevations Revised
Exhibit K Photometric Plan
Exhibit L Plan Review Comments from Bruce Westby dated 052107
Exhibit M Plan Review Comments from WSB dated 052207
Exhibit Z Conditions of Approval
EXHIBIT Z
Conditions of Approval
Development Stage PUD for Monticello Travel Center 2d Addition Lot 5 Block 1
1 The photometric plan shall be revised to reduce the footcandle reading at the property
line adjacent to Cedar Street to not exceed one footcandle
2 The applicant shall submit arevised signage plan illustrating wall signage not to exceed
221 square feet total The applicant shall also be required to provide square footage of
the proposed pylon sign
3 A crosswalk shall be provided at the sidewalk separation extending west to Subway
4 The applicant shall use epoxy orpolypreformed striping for longevity and reduced
maintenance
5 The applicant shall waive any use of temporary signs as related to Lot 5 Block 1
6 The applicant shall comply with all recommendations of the City Engineer as outlined in
the May 21St memo prepared by Bruce Westby and the May 22nd memo prepared by
WSB
Conditions of Approval
CUP for Drive Through Lanes
1 A drivethru only sign shall be required at the entrance to the north drive through lane
2 The use of the either or both drivethrough lanes for any highvolume tenant such as
those equal to a fast food user similar to a McDonalds or Burger King are subject to a
staff review and approval
Council Minutes 611OT
The tradein value of the 1988 truck is approximately 7500 but staff felt if it was sold on the
open market it may go as high as 10000 John Simola said the people who bid on the Citys
used equipment know that it is well maintained Clint Herbst said if the vehicle is good
enough to sell to someone else it is good enough for the City to use
John Simola explained the vehicle replacement policy that Public Works uses and how this
allows them to budget for these major purchases as well as replace vehicles before they
require major repairs Wayne Mayer felt if you aze going to spend the money it might be
better to go with the hook truck at this time rather than came back in another year with a
request to replace another truck John Simola stated the Sterling truck was supposed to be
replaced three years ago but was delayed In evaluating their equipment needs they felt going
with another Sterling truck at this time and adding the hook truck 23 years down the road
better met the needs of the City Tom Moores stated that the people who would buy the old
truck would be using it to plow parking lots He felt that for emergency type vehicles that are
the first ones out to clear streets a reliable vehicle is needed The Public Works Department
will again evaluate their equipment needs in July when the budget process starts so that the
appropriate amounts can be budgeted Tom Moores added that emission costs for trucks
have jumped up as well as the cost of steel He noted that within five years they would plan
to replace or add a street sweeper
SUSIE WOJCHOUSKI MOVED TO AUTHORIZE THE PURCHASE OF A STERLING
L8500 SINGLE AXLE TRUCK FROM BOYER TRUCKS OF ROGERS EQUIPPED
WITH A DUMP BODY AND PLOW EQUIPMENT FROM JCRAFTEQUIPMENT OF
LAKE CRYSTAL UNDER STATE BID CONTRACT WITH THE OPTION OF
ADVERTISING THE 1988 FORD L8000 ON SEALED BIDS PRIOR TO THE TRADE IN
DATE TOM PERRAULT SECONDED THE MOTION MOTION CARRIED
UNANIMOUSLY
SGAmendment to Development Contract for Carlisle Ilage S Addition Clint Herbst
had a concern about what is happening in the development as far as the trees He also
wondered if everything is in place as far as the letter of credit to make sure that everything is
cleared up and trees are replaced Jeff ONeill said there is 46000 in security available for
this Although the trees in the development that are dying must be replaced other trees may
be planted outside the plat at the discretion of the Council Clint Herbst asked Tom Scott
legal counsel if he felt if this was the time to table the item in order to make sure the City has
enough funds to take care of tree preservation Tom Scott felt if that was a Council cancem
then the item should be tabled
CLINT HERBST MOVED TO TABLE UNTIL THE NEXT MEETING ACTION ON
APPROVING THE AMENDMENT TO THE DEVELOPMENT CONTRACT FOR
CARLISLE VILLAGE 5 ADDITION BRIAN STUMPF SECONDED THE MOTION
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY
SHAmendment to Planned Unit Developmentfor retail commercial development t
Monticello Travel Center 2d Addition Clint Herbst pulled this item because of the
condition on Exhibit Z stating that the use of either or both drivethrough lanes for any high
volume tenant such as those equal to a fast food user similar to a McDonalds or Burger
King are subject to staff review and approval He didntfeel city staff was more qualified to
determine this than any consultants utilized by the applicant or tenant Clint Herbst felt
4
Council Minutes 611107
because they have their investment to protect the tenant would not put in something that
would be detrimental to the business The drivethrough lanes were either okay or they were
not The drive through lanes should not have to come back to staff Brian Stumpf said the
concern with stacking is to make sure that it does not come back on the public street Jeff
ONeill said there is concern that there might be occasions where it creates a visibility
problem Clint Herbst felt since it only affects the property owner the property owner would
be concerned that whatever they do works Clint Herbst reiterated his belief that if the
drivethrough was okay it should okay for whatever tenant was using it
Susie Wojchouski questioned the building name of Landmark Center since there is already a
Landmark Square She felt it might create confusion not only for shoppers but emergency
vehicles as well Tom Scott stated the City and County have certain controls with naming a
plat but he didnt feel they could require the owner to change a building name
Wayne Mayer asked about 3 on Exhibit Z stating that a crosswalk shall be provided at the
sidewalk separation extending west to Subway Dan Mielke addressed this item stating that
while he didntobject to this item at the meetings he did question why he is responsible to
provide marking to direct Subway patrons It is an internal sidewalk Staff wants them to
stripe the area so pedestrians could safely get over to Subway It was noted that Subway is
part of the planned unit development Dan Mielke felt if people were going to park there to
go to Subway they would go straight across and not follow the striping Wayne Mayer said
he couldntsee making this requirement for an interior property and questioned why the
crosswalk had to be there
WAYNE MAYER MOVED TO APPROVE THE DEVELOPMENT STAGE PLANNED
UNIT DEVELOPMENT BASED ON A FINDING THAT THE PROPOSED USE IS
CONSISTENT WITH THE INTENT OF THE EXISTING PUD AND THE B3 DISTRICT
SUBJECT TO THE CONDITIONS OF EXHIBIT Z WHICH WERE REVISED TO
INCLUDE THE FOLLOWING 1 THE PHOTOMETRIC PLAN SHALL BE REVISED TO
REDUCE THE FOOT CANDLE READING AT THE PROPERTY LINE ADJACENT TO
CEDAR STREET TO NOT EXCEED ONE FOOT CANDLE 2 THE APPLICANT SHALL
SUBMIT A REVISED SIGNAGE PLAN ILLUSTRATING WALL SIGNAGE NOT TO
EXCEED 221 SQUARE FEET TOTAL THE APPLICANT SHALL ALSO BE REQUIRED
TO PROVIDE SQUARE FOOTAGE OF THE PROPOSED PYLON SIGN 3 THE
APPLICANT SHALL USE EPOXY ORPOLYPREFORMED STRIIING FOR
LONGEVITY AND REDUCED MAINTENANCE 4 THE APPLICANT SHALLWAIVE
ANY USE OF TEMPORARY SIGNS AS RELATED TO LOT 5 BLOCK 1 AND 5 THE
APPLICANT SHALL COMPLY WITH ALL RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE CITY
ENGINEER AS OUTLINED IN THE MAY 21 2007 MEMO PREPARED BY BRUCE
WESTBY AND THE MAY 22 2007 MEMO PREPARED BY WSB AND TO APPROVE
THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR TWO DRIVE THROUGH FACILITIES BASED
ON A FINDING THAT THE PROPOSED USE IS CONSISTENT WITH THE INTENT OF
THE PUD AND THE USE SATISIFES THE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL WHICH
INCLUDES 1 A DRIVETHRUONLY SIGN SHALL BE REQUIRED AT THE
ENTRANCE TO THE NORTH DRIVE THROUGH LANE TOM PERRAULT
SECONDED THE MOTION MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY
5
L
U
L
C
J
i7
Q
W
o Ti
N M OD
IA
N N
n Z
M
W O t0
y I
i
N m
C
O
O
N
c
0
w
L
z
r
i
0
x
z
CITY SUBMITTAL 051407
oovx scr LANDMARK
CENTER
nsormioonv
K n
m
g m
0
Y
s RdearzgeaoG9IId9gRSceg96F es9g4ba 5 niFg
ae 9eBRE eg d 7aS F65G b b sis4 sRas 33 6gMddddd7i655RggyF ITS
9 4 i i5 22l C33C3i ri i 4E ijSr 5zgyFfrGEgojSFiO
e Ss8sds3 zkprgad9 qaaDaFaps Kxda dpagcrdd
5 qq j d Qg p ZtigFup sia4 pyp r
9 5 9 99 e 71R4 X96 A C ii 8
i
A
z
i
9
g
9EP
1
d m gO
a
i JP
r
1
YiySjF0bb4u z
iii xx F
E
F
TlY SUBMITTAL 051407
1 MONTIOELiO MN
apgs
3 aAas
tF x
oAQR
s EEeE sees
3
a
F
Z
ii d
y
y r
n
r
c c
C
C
p a
l tii f
r j 1
lJ
xt r fig ill
ps
g
6 z s
s a
9
CITY SUBMITTAL 051407
a
c
cr
C
1 6IREPLe1N 7lNDIRRjl a1ctmuCAm
OF8L7RVEY
g
R
CNiER Ftg eFIa d
yat6i
MGftI9II1b MIC
4
1 MoNTicsaqnsN
6 qEall t o
wWa
I IJI
u
a
So n g
3p6
A Q a1
g
J
axgg0
q
R
i q
a
P 9
g rte
Y
4
SUBMITTAL 051407
GRADIIVG I LANDMARK tlB tst o
DRAINAGE CEN1ER t g nrertnornm dra
tt rroANDERO6IONametdrltt
CONTROLPIAN
R a s ta gig nratc
61 MONTIOELLO biN icaAlC g ttS aawrarranr4aamuuaioanunsoa
a
s
ig
r
iA
a E
2
LRppp9
0
t
9
R
9
F
q
r
o
a F
c
r
C
lae 4d s
I G
S
a
e Aga Egpsagag
I Ra RO
i g s83 a
R 8f
a
m
R
QQ8R Q
i
J
SSgg
B
a
b
z
f
I g B8E p9i8g
0 g
i
gg
s
YOV
4S Q S z
k i
Y n 4NA
g
M1w
7 l x
I rCVh g
CITY SUBMITTAL 051407
n
o E
r
N
a
L
e gag Sn
as sRF
Rsss
a
a as
l
Jg
L
I 4 R
ggpp
g 3 @@@8
L
R
gy2
yM
g
q s RQ 333
A 3E
a
p
R RE
R s
n e
R
J ut
l
I i
v o
rn
Z
3
o0
@
R
e3 S
ev ux
rwr
waxrw LL5
ae
s
N
iDWIClf
yyy
e Y
nf1
R
g
R
Rd i R 38
Y SUBMITTAL 051407
e 6TORM WATER
POLLL7TION 0D CFNirFR
PREVENTION T
P PLAN nsoNrcesraoxav
y
I
e
F
se
p R @eR
o
tl
iR
A R
Ay
A xAq z
uirew
a a wvon Q
nrtl
wwwRamws
FIff t
Ei r
j
f
F
S I E E
s e e
e e e
c
a a i
eei eei eejAi
t
r 0 9 Yr
6 5 S S E
3 A i i
a
rg3
S e
m 5o
AlpIIRKctt wuwaeon
r
g
a
i
m
r
DL
i
er
I
I
i
i
i
i
i
i
a
A
s
SUBMITTAL 051407
I6NA6E PLAN ir I R
CENTER
i
i
i
norrrcosraonnv
N
c
I
V
f
1 O O v
ti a
a
aaa
Q
i m W
i1
z
U T
a r o
s9 p c t a
1
U
c
v C
N
v fy
m
O
y
0
t
G
TNl U
V
TO
k
G
YIO
I O
Ny
co n
O
p
G
D
D
Z
n
Z
1
s
m
t
r
O
ti3 rr r
4G jr li xxQUe W xvzaruisto
GOTOIZZITgI1SZI
s 5
o
Roy
o
o
i
1
D
0
d
6
3
8
o S
v
p X
LANDMARK CENTER SIGNAGE PROPOSAL 51407
Buildingsingae
Standard code multitenant building signage for each suite as illustrated on
the elevations
Due to the fact this building will be surrounded by drives and the building
front architecture is carried around all four sides of the building city staff
has suggested the addition of appropriate building signage as illustrated
Tenant Pylon
We propose combining the Landmark Center tenant pylon with the existing
Jiffy Lube pylon as illustrated
The Jiffy capsule will remain at the top The old style reader board will be
replaced by an electronic reader board with seven Landmark Center tenant
identification panels below
Landmark Center will waive tenants rights to the city permitted temporary
signs We want to keep the area uncluttered
Cedar Street entrance monument
Decorative low profile entrance marker monument sign
Drive Thru entrance markers
One low profile entrance marker for each drive thru lane
m
MAY 1 1
y 9 t4 i
P iV
rr Y
CCUrd
I
5l15l2007j Dan Mielke A31pdf
MAY 15 2007
r1
9j 3 3 Y 3fix1s
6 0 i o 1 m
i i m i
r
m
m m 2
o zd0G
Z
0 I oir
0
00
r
iv
55 p
001 J
p
BoO
i O O
Fyi 4
It
O D O O oo 0 O
ooG
0 0
o
e2 pa 9Q r s1 aFb 33aFrgYsrya3PQg
CITY SLR1IITTI03107
yr k1P1111t
NLKPA9IUNti
L112bIv
CHVTHh E971 ft pp1r3Etiit1111
a jiiFiJ111S r
t
i
a I 61111 f llit
E
L
c
Page
1
Planning Commission Agenda – 06/08/10
1
7. Monticello Zoning Ordinance Revision – Comment Review and Update (AS)
REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND
Although it may seem that things are quiet on this project, much work is occurring on the
review of the complete draft of the zoning code. It is important to complete a formal
review of action to date in the process and develop a framework of understanding on the
process moving forward.
As noted in a previous email, the IEDC small group has met three times to review the
proposed zoning code. This past week, they got through the landscaping portions of
Chapter 4 – Finishing Standards.
The small group has a lot of good feedback to offer and they are generating good
discussion on a number of items. As I mentioned earlier, I would rather that the Steering
Committee, IEDC and other groups feel that we have a good product going forward than
rush to meet a schedule. Therefore, I am not forecasting dates for the public
meetings/hearings until we are further along.
Additionally, because these are staff facilitated meetings, we are not incurring extra cost
at this point. Instead, we are consolidating the comments and funneling them to MFRA
for final inclusion into a redline version for the Steering Committee’s consideration.
For the Steering Committee’s benefit, I am also attaching a copy of comments to-date
from the following:
City staff (Community Development, Building)
City consultants (Campbell Knutson, WSB)
IEDC Small Group
Council member Perrault
As you will note, these comments are of significant detail. The Steering Committee will
meet on July 20th to review the draft code to date. The group will need to decide which
of the comments from above to incorporate into the next draft.
I would also propose a second July or early August Steering Committee meeting. If it
has taken the IEDC four meetings to get through their comments, I would like the
Steering Committee to have at least two meetings to digest all of the comments.
Steering Committee members can find a current draft of the code available online under
the Community Development section of the City website.
I would further recommend that we consider breaking up the public hearings into three
sections, rather than two. The amount of information in Chapters 3, 4, and 5 seem to
warrant the extra time as follows:
Hearing 1: Chapters 1- 3
Planning Commission Agenda – 06/08/10
2
Hearing 2: Chapter 4
Hearing 3: Chapter 5 - 8
Lastly, please find attached coverage of the zoning ordinance update process, which
appeared in the St. Cloud Times.
A
WSB
SB
&& elssociates, h1c. Infrastructure a Engineering a Planning ■ Construction
To: Angela Schumann, City of Monticello
Copy: Shibani Bisson, WSB & Associates
From: Andi Moffatt, WSB & Associates
Date: May 7, 2010
701 Xenia Avenue South
Suite 300
Minneapolis, MN 55416
Tel: 763-541-4800
Fax: 763-541-1700
Re: Wetland, Shoreland, Wild and Scenic, and Tree Ordinance Review
WSB Project No. 1494-40
As requested, we have reviewed the draft wetland, shoreland/wild and scenic, and potential tree
ordinance options for the City of Monticello. This review was based on conformance with State
and County standards, the City's needs, and ability to understand and implement the ordinance.
Based on this review, we offer the following comments:
A. Wetland Ordinance
The City currently has a Wetland District outlined in Chapter 3 of the Overlay Zoning District.
It is our understanding that the City is considering eliminating this district as it is never used.
Based on our review, understanding of other cities' wetland ordinances, and our experiences, we
offer the following:
• It appears the original intent of the ordinance was to protect wetlands. However, the
current language is cumbersome to implement and out of date.
• The language seems to require the City identify the location of wetlands for the overlay
district. This is not practical as wetlands can change over time. Further, the City is not
guaranteed to locate all the wetlands as part of the overlay, thus incurring a cost to the
City to routinely locate wetlands and/or address variances for changes.
• To meet the perceived original intent of the ordinance and to be in conformance with
State regulations, we recommend the existing language of the ordinance be removed and
new language inserted that would officially adopt the Wetland Conservation Act (WCA)
as the means to protect wetlands within the City (this was passed as Resolution 03-71 in
September 2003), and identify the City as the Local Government Until. The ordinance
could include general language as to what needs to be submitted to the City for review for
WCA approval. Sample language is attached to this memo for your consideration. If the
City wishes to have a wetland setback or wetland buffer, this would be the place for those
regulations. We recommend at least a setback so structures are not constructed
Minneapolis o St. Cloud
Equal Opportunity Employer
K:,01494-00\Docs\MEMO - —1—am - 050710.doc
May 7, 2010
Page 2
immediately abutting the wetland, thus resulting in no yards or usable space as this
usually results in wetland impacts by the landowner.
B. Shoreland/Wild and Scenic Ordinance
The City's Mississippi Wild and Scenic District ordinance was reviewed along with current and
draft sample Shoreland ordinances from the DNR. Based on this review and conversations with
Roger Stradal at the DNR, we offer the following information and suggestions:
Shoreland
• The purpose of a shoreland ordinance is to provide protection to DNR Public Waters and
Wetlands. This is currently a separate ordinance from the Wild and Scenic ordinance, but
may be combined based on DNR's future sample ordinance revisions.
• The only DNR Public Water/Wetland within the City's current boundaries is Wetland
393W located on the west side of TH25 and south of Chelsea Road.
• Based on information from the DNR, the DNR has never given 393W an official
designation per the Shoreland Ordinance.
• The OHW for this water body is 932.5 while the overflow outlet elevation is 950 feet.
There is also wetland mitigation attached to this waterbody that was used for the adjacent
development. This area is also owned by. the City.
Because of these factors, the City can determine whether or not to create a shoreland
ordinance for 393W. The DNR indicated they would prefer an ordinance, but is not
requiring one since they have not provided a Shoreland designation for the water body.
Since the area is developed around the water body, it is in public ownership, there is a high
100 -year high water level per the City's storm water management plan, and there is adjacent
wetland mitigation, it is our opinion that there is enough protection on this water body that
providing a shoreland ordinance for it would not be necessary.
For DNR Public Wetlands/Waters that are within the annexation area, they are currently
regulated by the Wright County shoreland ordinance. The City could indicate that if and
when these areas become part of the City, the Wright County ordinance would still apply.
Wild and Scenic District
The water bodies that fall within the Wild/Scenic designation are the Mississippi River and
Otter Creek. The Mississippi is classified as Recreational with Otter Creek as its tributary.
Because of the confusion between Shoreland and Wild/Scenic, there is some confusing
language in the ordinance for an average reader. Information and suggestions are below:
• The table of setbacks is very useful, but it is confusing with the "General Development"
criteria vs the Wild/Scenic what applies to which water bodies. The City's ordinance in
2.a says that the River and Otter Creek are "general development lakes and streams". I
did not find in the current DNR Shoreland ordinance (MR 6120)where this applies.
K:\01494-40\Docs\MEM0-—humann-050710An
May 7, 2010
Page 3
• The DNR's existing rules 6105 (Wild and Scenic rules) indicates that Otter Creek as a
tributary to the Mississippi River should have a 100 foot structure setback and a 75 foot
septic setback.(MR 6105.0110 Subp. 3.B.3 and 6150.0120). The Mississippi River should
also have these same setbacks with a bluffline setback for structures of 20 feet.
The text in Section l.d and 2.b.iii says these requirements apply to "all public waters".
This is confusing based on the information outlined in the Shoreland section above. Does
this really relate to "all public waters" (including future annexation areas and 393W) or
just Mississippi River and Otter Creek?
• If the City wishes to combine the Wild/Scenic regulations with the Shoreland Ordinance,
we recommend it be made clearer which water bodies are regulated by which standards.
C. Tree Preservation Ordinance
As part of the Natural Resource Inventory, wooded areas were inventoried and their quality
assessed within the annexation area. This information can be used by the City to develop a tree
preservation ordinance. Sample language was included with the NRI and is attached. Section 1-2
of this sample ordinance could be considered for incorporation into the ordinance. Some of the
sample language involves regulating only those woodland areas that are of higher quality;
however, only the areas within the annexation area were reviewed, so either additional review of
the areas in the City would be needed or language added that these areas would be reviewed as
part of a submitted development plan.
This concludes our review of these ordinances. If you have questions, please feel free to call me
at (763)278-7196.
K:V494-40\DomMEM0- axhamann-050710.doc
http://vN�vw.sctimes.com/,trticle/20100618/NEWSO1/106180039/Monticello-reworks-zorli
S'CUl7 es com
%., TaLeiza Calloway • tcallows;
com • June 18, 2010
MONTICELLO — After adopting an updated
comprehensive plan in 2008, Monticello is
revamping its zoning ordinances to match.
The yearlong task has included the creation of a
steering committee to aid in the process of updating
the framework for land use within the city.
Community Development Director Angela Schumann
said the code dates back to the 1970s.
New provisions include regulations for wind energy
systems, tree preservation and communication
towers.
"This is really an opportunity to respond to the
changes in development and it's an opportunity to
respond to the way people get to information,"
Schumann said. "What's most important about this
document is that it is more user-friendly and more
accessible."
The most recent draft of the revised code will be
available Monday on the city's Web site, www.ci.
monticello. mn.us.
From reorganization and redefinition to new
provisions, the code has already changed. The
document shrank from 33 chapters to eight, she
said.
Consulting firm MFRA helped with the process,
guiding public discussions and transcribing the
updates.
"We've learned that for this document to be effective,
we've got to engage (all) sectors of the community.
We have to make sure (it) can continue to evolve,"
she said. "We learned that we can create something
that is more clear and provides better direction for
growth and development."
The steering committee, made up of members from
the city's Planning Commission and the City Counci,
meets the third Tuesday of the month at the
Monticello Community Center. The next meeting is
in July.
Page 1 of 1.
Schumann said a second open house on the
process is planned for late August or early
September. For more information about the code call
her at 763-271-3224.
Advertisement
Mom Dilemma #36:
—'-
Your daughter insists
on vveaIing her princess
COStUrTle tO the g(OCery
store. Allow it or n0t7
•lI.' 1: i',`- 1 ; , , , .-It-
t71i msi 1
Print Powered By Uynr7�ic
littp://www.sctimes.com/fdcp/? 1.276891569420 6/18/2010
Kerry Burri Tom Perrault Comments.txt
From: Ben Gozola [bgozola@mfra.com]
Sent: Wednesday, June 23, 2010 11:54 AM
To: Angela Schumann
Subject: Kerry Burri & Tom Perrault Comments
Do you want me to address the comments below and denote them as staff edits in
the red -line version, or do you want to go through them first (assuming you
may not have seen them yet). Just let me know.
Thanks,
Ben Gozola, AICP
Senior Planner
MFRA, Inc. 114800 28th Ave N, Ste. 140, Plymouth, MN 55447 1 www.mfra.com
(763) 746.1650 Phone 1 (952) 217.0252 Cell 1 (763) 476.8532 Faxl
bgozola@mfra.com
-----Original Message -----
From: Kerry Burri[mailto: Kerry. Burri@ci.monticello.mn.us]
Sent: Friday, June 18, 2010 4:16 PM
To: Ben Gozola
Cc: Tom Perrault
Subject: FW: Monticello Code 06-01-10 Update
Sorry for taking so long to review the Zoning ordinance rewrite but lucky for
you I was on medical leave at work and had to stay off my feet a lot so I had
a chance to read the ordinance rewrite that you sent some time back and here
are my comments. This e-mail is coming from another city staffs e-mail
address so I could sit while doing this. Some of this may be read as
commentary but words mean things. Here we go. From Tom Perrault...
Page 21, Ch.2 Section 2.4 (5) Approval criteria
(d) and (e) can be quite subjective. I don't know what the "morals" of the
town are and I won't be stopping development over a tree, etc.
Page 25. Section 2.4 Sub.0 Variances, )(4) Review (b) Board of Adjustments and
Appeals. Last line ---Denial of any request.... review criteria. It thyat
wording correct?
Page 28 Section 2.4 Sub.D Review (a) Conditional Use Permit Criteria (iv) --
Define "burden" because almost anyone could make a case that any increase in
traffic is unwelcomed,etc. under(vii)l would not stop a development or a CUP
just to save a tree.
Page 32 (4) Review (a) Interim Use Permit Criteria (ii) "...adversely impact
the health, safety and welfare of the community." I can see this phase being
potentially abused and that using it can put a stop to almost anything that
could happen.. That phase it used all over except this time did not add
"morals" to it. Then (v)" ...that the interim use permit will not impose
additional costs on the public if it is necessary for the public to fully or
Page 1
Kerry Burri Tom Perrault Comments.txt
partially take the property in the future." Our building standards could also
cost the public more to take a property over. Maybe it is worth the risk.
Page 34 --under (8)Suspension and Revocation --again the use of "..public
health, safety and welfare.." referenced twice.
Page 43 --under (iv) 3. Proposed to save healthy existing trees. Trees can be
replaced. I think a developer will evaluate the situation and make a
decision.
Page 56 (6) Effect of an Administrative Home Occupation Permit Approval (e) An
applicant..... renewal of a permit. Better let the applicant know about this.
Page 59 (i) Percentage of Open Space. This open space requirements to me seem
excessive.
Page 60 (ii) Natural Feature Preservation --Some one may want a house on a
hilltop. Why? Do you need it for a windmill/wind turbine?
Page 68 (d)(v) General location of wetlands... within 200 feet of the
perimeter of the subdivision parcel. 200 feet seems to be excessive.
Page 84 3.4 (A) General Purpose(3) Strike the word "diverse" I will admit
have a strong adversion to the word. "Range" means about the same thing.
Diverse also dates this just like "groovy" or "jive" puts you into the late
1960's/early 1970's. Hopefully "diverse" will die in the English language
soon and you can strike it any time it is used in this re -write.
Page 89 Section 3.4 (D) R -A The maximum density and Base Density do not add
up. I understand a CUP but I am afraid of overcrowding and the CUP being
abused.
Page 90 (1) .... For the portion of the lot .... one ornamental shrub per each 150
square feet.... This might be excessive. I would need an example.
Page 91 Sect.3.4(e) R-1 I am again concerned with the math and overcrowding
in the R-1 district.
Page 110 Table 3-13 B-4 Development Standards --No setbacks? I can understand
if this is a strip mall or connected businesses but there is no setback
standards?
Page 113 CCD --If a high-rise were to come in, then there should be no limit on
density.
Page 114 Table 3-15 CCD Development Standards --Maximum Height: Should maximum
height be whatever the fire dept. can handle with the current equipment?
Page 118 Table 3-16 Same as before with Maximum Height: Whatever the fire
dept. can handle?
Page 2
Kerry Burri Tom Perrault Comments.txt
Page 120 Table 3-17. Along with my comment about height as in the last two
tables, I was wondering if the setbacks should be more especially if the
business could have unpleasant to be by because of dust, noise, etc.
Page 124, 125, etc. Floodplain Districts. Are any elevation alterations
allowed is my general question. Under page 125 (viii) I question "Why not
structures and for the 10 year frequency flood event. I also wonder
under(d)(i) I marked that and how "set in stone" will this be or do we have to
answer to the DNR?
Page 127 (f)(i) That might include anything and everything in reference to
materials.
Page 130(iv) ........... 100 -year or regional flood event. The plan.... Define
"regional flood event"?
Page 134 (c)(ii) ....parcel exceeding One Thousand Dollars($1,000) for a
structural addition... How was this dollar values determined?
Page 143 (4)Prohibited Uses --(e) and (h) This may conflict with some
permitted uses is the note I have for this.
Page 147 Table 3-18 Building Height Limitation of 35 feet --I may allow it to
go higher.
Page 148 Shoreland District (ii) ... breast height.... Is that young firm supple
breast or 90 year old sagging -to -your -belly button breast height. Maybe we
should use a "caliper inches" at a height above the ground.
Page 154 Table X-X:XXX Preservation of Natural Features I am not quite
following the table. I need an explanation. This also goes for the table on
the top of Page 155.
Page 155 (iv) Innovative Housing --Why does this apply to only low and
moderate income levels?
(b)(v) Outdoor Recreation Amenities..... at minimum five(5) percent
of the construction cost of the principal structure.... How was the 5% level
determined along with all the other levels?
Page 156 in regards to this page my question is "Can the "party room" be on
the 1 st floor and how would that affect the percentages?" in regards to both
items under (ii).
Page 158 (B) (7) Can we use a different work than "denuded"?
Page 165 (3) (b) Strike the word "diversity". I think you can get along
without it.
Page 189(H) (b) Chain Link Fences -Residential or any district --can vines grow
on it?
Page 3
Kerry Burri Tom Perrault Comments.txt
Page 190(5) Maintenance Required ---Will notices be given first before anything
else is done?
Page 192 (4) ...Certificate of Appropriateness? What the heck is that?
Page 197 (C) (4) 1 believe I was told that lawn signs for the primary
elections can go out on June 25 this year. We better check with the new state
laws/statues in regards to this so that we do not have to correct it later.
Page 199 (5) and (6). 1 don't know if I want to outlaw roof or rotating signs
even if rotating signs are very 1960's/1970's.
Page 215 Table 4-5 Type of Required Buffer Yards --I did not approve this when
it came before council in the last year or two. I did not like to limit the
number to only one recreational vehicle in the front or side parking.
Page 218 (d) .... which requires backing into the public street is prohibited.
So would we be outlawing angled parking like we have in front of Dan Olson's
building on Walnut Street?
Page 219 In regards to (k) Would Monticello Printing not be able to have
their parking lot at 3rd and Cedar St. like it is. With the 125 feet of
Street frontage, would you round up and down the value when it is over 125 ft
or a multiple there of.
In regards to (m) Striping--Wal-mart uses yellow and white striping in
their parking lot to differentiate parking areas. Would they not be able to
do this anymore?
Page 225--(G) Use of Required Area......... Storage of snow. So would Wal -mart
or other businesses have to get rid of their snow piles in their parking lots
after each snow event?
Page 226-230 How or where did these values come from? There is a duplication
of items at the top of page 227. Under restaurants on page 229, what would a
take-out place , may it be Domino's pizza, ice cream shop or Chinese take-out
be treated under this?
Page 233 (K) Commercial District Restrictions-- The sentence is not worded
correctly. "In the B-1 ...... trucks".
Page 236 (B) (1) (c) I disagreed with the 200 feet item when it first came up
before the city council and still do. 200 feet is excessive.
Page 246(C) (2) R-1 District --No less than 15% of the front building
fagade.... Are you counting the foundation in that or is that above the 15%
requirement?
Page 248 through Page 254. 1 will not approve wind mills/wind turbines in the
city
Page 257 through 259. Table 5-1 1 am still pondering some of the items on
Page 4
Kerry Burri Tom Perrault Comments.txt
this. Could boarding houses be allowed in a A -O? Could
Communications/Broadcasting be allowed in an A -O? In regards to day care
centers, what about in-house day care facilities in residential areas?
Page 264 Table 5-2 (2) The number of efficiency apartments in a multiple
dwelling shall not exceed five(5) percent of the total number of apartments.
How did that value be determined thus why that level?
Page 265(2)(a)(iii) Useable Open Space. The 30% is excessive I feel.
Page 267 (3) Group residential Facility ---Can someone operate an overnight
daycare in their home?
Page 270 (D) (2) (d) Interments shall take place at least 50 feet from the lot
line. Why so much? 25 feet might be enough especially with a fence. I could
understand it if it is along a roadway.
Page 271(2) (e) Cemeteries shall not be located with one-half mile of
Interstate Highway 94. Where did this value of one-half mile come from. Is
there a distance we need to be back from other roads like Hwy. 25, County Road
75, County Road 39, etc.
Page 273 (E) (3) (d) last word should be "met", not me.
Page 275 Why or Does "Victoria's Secret" count as adult? Also under (vii) 3.
Sign messages shall comply with the requirements aof size and number for the
district in which they are located? Does size really matter(sarcasm)?
Page 280 (c) Activities shall be limited..... conditional use permit. What
if they have a large party room or a yard that could hold a wedding, etc.
Would it be unlawful then. Under (6) Boarding Houses --I question some of the
numbers as in regards to number of units, % of ground floor space for
restaurant facilities and the "no case less that 25 seats for seating
capacity.
Page 282 (10) Day Care Center (a) Like I asked before, can there be no
overnight day care centers? Under(b)......... A minimum size of the outside
recreational facility.... Where did the values for the size come from(sq.ft.
per child)?
Page 283 (14)(a)(iii) Is there a size limit to the caretakers quarters and why
is there a limit of one?
Page 284 (17) (b) Could a business like G&K services be zoned for B-4 or could
they be in an 1-1 or 1-2 area? Under(c) could tattoo parlors be in an 1-2
district?
Page 294 (9) (a) (i) Add the word "at". The minimum lot area shall be at
least two acres.
Page 298(g) What if it fenced in regards to the 300 feet from the property
Page 5
Kerry Burri Tom Perrault Comments.txt
line?
Page 301 Table 5-2 1 am questioning allowing Communication antennas in all
districts. I also question allowing heliport as a "C" in all those districts
listed currently. What about Heliports in an A -O, 1-1 and 1-2 district?
Page 302 No Wind Energy Conversion System, Commercial or Non -Commercial.
Page 304 (3)(a)(i) 1. It is blank behind it.
Page 305 (ii) 3. Private garages shall not be used for the storage of more
than one commercial vehicle.... What if both people/both bread winners in the
family have a commercial vehicle?
Page 306 (4)(d) Under this item, is this an 1-2 standard. That is not very
big(I will refrain from a sarcastic remark here).
Page 307 (7) (b) What about in an R -A or R-2 district in regards to how many
boarders you can have?
Page 310 (c)(ii)2. Satellite dish antennas ---What about the size of them in
the other zoning districts?
Page 314 (d)(x) In regards to off-street parking, What about Tupperware, Avon
and Mary Kay parties?
Page 315 items(e)(i) and (f)(iii)1. Conflict in who can be employed in a home
based business.
Item(f)(ii) ties into item on page 314(d)(x)
General question here ---Can someone have a home-based business selling adult
material that is currently zoned under the 1-2 district? Can they have
parties like Tupperware and Avon do? I have heard of people having such a
business(never been to one of those parties).
Page 319 (20) (a)(v) Can a vehicle with a "For Sale" sign not be parked on a
public street? I know some cities have outlawed this. What if someone is not
a resident and parks their vehicle in town and does not know of the ordinance?
Page 321 (a)(viii) No wind energy conversion systems!!!
Page 325(32)and (33) No wind energy conversion systems!!!
Page 331 (d) add "in". Not be located within any right-of-way;
That should conclude my comments for now. Thank you.
Tom Perrault
Monticello City Councilmember
Page 6
MEMORANDUM
TO: Angela Schumann
FROM: Andrea McDowellll Poehler
DATE: May 27, 2010
RE: Zoning Ordinance Review
Global Comments
• A definition section must be provided;
• The ordinance makes references to this ordinance or sections of this ordinance, if
the ordinance will be codified with the City Code, the references to "ordinance"
should change to references to a chapter, title or section or "this Code" as
appropriate
• Throughout the zoning ordinance are references to "consistency with the
Downtown Revitalization Plan." If this Plan is not part of the Comprehensive
Plan, it should be officially adopted by the City; otherwise, the references to it in
the zoning ordinance may not be supportable and a denial based on lack of
consistency may be subject to challenge. If the requirements are specific, perhaps
it should be an overlay district and the requirements directly incorporated into the
zoning ordinance. This would provide the best deterrent to any challenges.
• I have not yet completed a review of the antenna/satellite provisions which will
require a review of federal law and recent updates. I will provide that as soon as
possible
• Without the definitional provisions, some of these comments and my review may
be incomplete.
• Please feel free to call me to discuss any of the comments at (651) 234-6228
Chapter 2
Table Summary of Rose of Decision -Making Bodies: Is the Community Development
Department actually the decision making body on Building Permits and Certificates of
Occupancy. I believe that role is assigned through state law to the Building Inspector and
the Community Development Department would merely recommend. Please confirm.
2.2(C)(6) — this is inconsistent with the table where the PC makes final decision.
However, if a site plan agreement is required, that should go to the City Council.
2.2(F)(1) — (2) — Is this appropriate for the zoning ordinance or should it be located in the
general code provisions related to commissions and committees?
2.3(B) — You may want to add an additional subsection (4) providing that the City may
require necessary supporting title information establishing ownership interests in the
property, such as a title commitment. This could also be included under 2.3(D)(2).
2.3(D) — You may want to require as part of the application submission that "applicant
provide a list of property owners located within the required notification distance of the
subject property for the type of application. Said listing shall be obtained from and
certified by an abstract company."
2.3(H)(4) — The City may want to consider requiring an escrow for applications to cover
these costs up front. Escrow amounts for the various application types can be added to
the fee schedule, with a requirement that the escrow be maintenance/replenished to cover
costs.
2.3(I)(2) — Revise first line to read: "Unless otherwise expressly provided or re uic�red by
law, all statutorily or code required notices shall be postmarked or published . .. "
2.4(B)(4)(b) — Do you want to provide that the Council may decide to hold a hearing in
addition to recommendation by Community Dev. Dept?
Also, the last sentence of this section does not comply with state law with respect to
zoning map amendments and must be revised to read:
Approval of an amendment shall require a majority vote of all members of the city
council. Amendments which change all or part of the existing classification of a zoning
district from residential to either commercial or industrial require a two-thirds
majority vote of all members of the city council.
2.4(C)(1) In the seventh line "of property" should read: "on property"
2.4(D)(7) With the economy as it is, a lot of permits have been getting extended where
property owners are short on funds, do you want to consider unlimited extensions if
approved by council.
2.4(D)(4)(d) — Fifth line, "insure" should read "ensure."
2.4(D)(8)(a)-(b) — Is 6 months adequate? Should council have the ability to provide
unlimited extensions, if necessary.
2.4(E)(4)(v) I am not sure of the purpose for the consent agreement in relation to
property that may be taken over by the public, can you provide additional info? This
restriction could be considered a "taking" through limiting the use of the property in
advance of public acquisition.
2.4(E)(8) — The first clause of the first sentence is invalid and must be revised to read:
The City Council may suspend or revoke an Interim Use Permit upon finding that any of
the conditions set forth in the permit are violated.
Like a variance and CUP, IUPs run with the land and cannot be revoked if the property is
in compliance with the permit and city code. If the use is having an impact on
surrounding property in a way not foreseen in the initial approval, the City would need to
enforce it under its nuisance ordinance, but could not revoke the IUP.
I recommend deleting the last sentence, as this would be something that could be
considered as part of the revocation process, but does not need to be a requirement under
the code.
2.4(E)(9) — See previous comments regarding time limits and extensions for permits
issued, but unused.
2.4(E)(10) — I recommend deleting this section. The statutes do not provide for an
alternate approval process for renewals. If the IUP is set to expire, it requires an
amendment under the full process to extend.
2.4(G) — technically, these are variances and should be treated as such, including the
provision of notice and hearing
2.4(N)(7)(i) — Delete "maximum of in heading, as it suggests that something less than
the maximum can be awarded.
2.4(N)(12)(a)(i) — Do you want to add at the beginning of this section: "Unless an
extension is approved by the City Council, ... "
2.4(N)(12)(c)(iii) — If an abstract is provided, it will require the city to spend additional
funds to have an attorney review the abstract. This may be very simple and
straightforward for a short, clean abstract; however, it may be very cumbersome and
costly for a lengthy abstract. I recommend deleting the last sentence and revising this
section to read as follows:
"Up-to-date title evidence for the subject property in a form acceptable to the City shall
be provided as part of the application for the PUD Final Plan. "
2.4(N)(12)(c)(iv) — Revise this section to read:
"Developer shall provide warranty deeds for Property being dedicated to the City for all
parks, outlots, etc., free from all liens and encumbrances except as otherwise waived by
the City. "
2.4(N)(12)(c)(v) — Revise this section to read:
"Developer shall provide all easement dedication documents for easements not shown on
the final plat including those for trails, ingress/egress, etc., together with all necessary
consents to the easement by existing encumbrancers of the property. "
Chapter 3
• Throughout this chapter, the chart references "Required yards," to make this more
clear, I would recommend changing all references in the charts and footnotes to:
"Required Setbacks "
• In the flood related overlay districts, I am not sure that the requirements are up-to-
date, given the references to statutes that have been repealed for many years. Can
you confirm that the regulations themselves have been reviewed recently?
• Should 3.7(C) include a new subsection after (C)(5) dealing with criteria for a
General Flood Plain District similar to the breakout sections for the FF and FW
Districts?
3.2(A)- the flood fringe (FF) and floodway (FW) districts should be included here.
3.5(G) — Information missing on the B -C district
3.7(C)(1)(a) — change the reference to Chapter 104 to 103F. Minn. Ch. 104 was repealed
in its entirety.
3.7(C)(2)(a) — this should include a reference to general flood plain districts and/or any
zones identified in a Flood Insurance Study for the City, if one has been done?
3.7(C)(2) — Would a definition section be useful or the definitions included elsewhere,
e.g.
(G) Definitions: Unless specifically defined below, words or phrases used in this Chapter
shall be interpreted so as to give them the same meaning as they have in common usage
and so as to give this Chapter its most reasonable application.
BASEMENT.- Any area of a structure, including crawl spaces, having its floor or base
subgrade (below ground level) on all four (4) sides, regardless of the depth of excavation
below ground level. This definition of basement is for interpreting and administering only
the provisions of this Chapter dealing with floodplain regulations and is distinct from
the definition that applies to the other Chapters of this Title.
EQUAL DEGREE OF ENCROACHMENT.- A method of determining the location of
floodway boundaries so that flood plain lands on both sides of a stream are capable of
conveying a proportionate share of flood flows.
FLOOD: A temporary increase in the flow or stage of a stream or in the stage of a
wetland or lake that results in the inundation of normally dry areas.
FLOOD FREQUENCY: The frequency for which it is expected that a specific flood
stage or discharge may be equalled or exceeded.
FLOOD FRINGE: That portion of the flood plain outside of the floodway. Flood fringe
is synonymous with the term 'floodway fringe" used in the Flood Insurance Study for the
City.
FLOOD PLAIN.• The beds proper and the areas adjoining a wetland, lake, or
watercourse which have been or hereafter may be covered by the regional flood.
FLOOD- PROOFING: A combination of structural provisions, changes, or
adjustments to properties and structures subject to flooding, primarily for the reduction
or elimination of flood damages.
FLOOD WA Y.- The bed of a wetland or lake and the channel of a watercourse and
those portions of the adjoining flood plain which are reasonably required to carry or
store the regional flood discharge.
OBSTRUCTION: Any dam, wall, wharf, embankment, levee, dike, pile, abutment,
projection, excavation, channel modification, culvert, building, wire, fence, stockpile,
refuse, fill, structure or matter in, along, across, or projecting into any channel,
watercourse or regulatory flood plain which may impede, retard or change the direction
of the flow of water, either in itself or by catching or collecting debris carried by such
water.
PRINCIPLE STRUCTURES: All structures that are not accessory structures.
REACH: A hydraulic engineering term to describe a longitudinal segment of a stream
or river influenced by a natural or man-made obstruction. In an urban area, the segment
of a stream or river between two (2) consecutive bridge crossings would most typically
constitute a reach.
REGIONAL FLOOD: A flood which is representative of large floods known to have
occurred generally in Minnesota and reasonably characteristic of what can be expected
to occur on an average frequency in the magnitude of the 100 year recurrence interval.
Regional flood is synonymous with the term "base flood" used in the Flood Insurance
Study.
REGULATORYFLOOD PROTEC TIONELEVA TION: The regulatory flood
protection elevation shall be an elevation no lower than one foot (I) above the elevation
of the regional flood plus any increases in flood elevation caused by encroachments on
the flood plain that result from designation of a floodway.
STRUCTURE: Anything constructed or erected on the ground or attached to the
ground or on-site utilities, including, but not limited to, buildings, factories, sheds,
detached garages, cabins, manufactured homes, travel trailers/vehicles not meeting the
exemption criteria specified in subsection , and other similar items.
VARIANCE: A modification of a specific permitted development standard required in
an official control, including this Chapter, to allow an alternative development standard
not stated as acceptable in the official control, but only as applied to a particular
property for the purpose of alleviating a hardship, practical difficulty, or unique
circumstance as defined and elaborated upon in the City's respective planning and
zoning enabling legislation. This definition of a variance is for interpreting and
administering only the provisions of this Chapter dealing with flood plain regulations
and is distinct from the definition that applies to the other Chapters of this Title.
3.7(C)(4)(a)
(i) — revise first line to read: "Agricultural: General farming, pasture, grazing, outdoor
plant nurseries, horticulture... "
(ii) — revise first line to read: "Industrial and Commercial: yards, loading areas,
parking areas, and airport landing strips. "
(iii) — revise first line to read: "Private and Public Recreational Uses: golf courses,
tennis courts, driving ranges, archery ranges ... "
(iv) — revise first line to read: "Residential uses: lawns, gardens, parking areas and play
areas.
3.7(C)(4)(c)- revise heading to read: "Conditional and Interim Uses"
3.7(C)(4)(d) —revise heading to read: "Standards for Floodway Conditional and Interim
Uses "
3.7(C)(g) — replace reference to Minn. Statute Chapter 105 to Minnesota Statutes,
Chapter 103G (as 105 was repealed).
3.7(C)(4) - add new subsection (i) to read:
(i) Garbage and Solid Waste Disposal:
a. Garbage and solid waste disposal sites may not be located in floodway areas.
b. There shall be no further encroachment upon the floodway at existing sites.
3.7(C)(5)(e) — add new subsection (viii) to read as follows?:
(viii) Waste Treatment and Waste Disposal:
a. No new construction, addition, or modification to existing waste treatment facilities
shall be permitted within the flood fringe unless emergency plans and procedures for
action to betaken in the event offlooding are prepared, filed with and approved by the
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency. The emergency plans and procedures must provide
for measures to prevent introduction of any pollutant or toxic material into the flood
waters.
b. There shall be no disposal ofgarbage or solid waste materials within flood fringe
areas except upon issuance of a conditional use permit for sites approved by the
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, provided there will be no further encroachment on
the floodway.
3.7(C)(7)(c) — There should be a colon after "provided" in the first sentence, not a period.
3.7(C)(9)(b)(iii)- Add "or interim" after the word "conditional" in the second sentence.
3.7(C)(9)(c)(v) — To avoid conflict with the 60 day rule requirements, I recommend
deleting the first 9 lines and retaining the remainder of the section beginning with
"Violations of any conditions and ......
3.7(C)(9)(d) — Revise heading to read: "Conditional and Interim Uses ". Also,
throughout this Section add "and interim " after "conditional whenever used in this
section.
3.7(C)(9)(d) — Revise first line to read: "The City Council shall hear and decide
applications for conditional and interim uses ... "
3.7(C)(9)(d)(ii) — To avoid conflicts with the 60 day rule, I recommend deleting the first
sentence.
3.7(C)(9)(d)(iii)(5) — To avoid conflicts with the 60 day rule, I recommend deleting this
subsection in its entirety.
3.7(C)(12)(a) — In the 5th line, replace the word "he" with "the Commissioner"
Wetland and Scenic River Overlay Districts. These sections are based on references to
outdate state law and rules. Will they be updated accordingly and do you want my
review before or after these sections are reviewed and updated?
Chapter 4
4.1(A)(2) —Capitalize "City" in the second sentence. This probably should be a global
comment.
4.1(E)(3)(a) — revise the reference to 3(a) to ? Not sure what is intended here,
perhaps (C)(1)?
4.1(E) — Are there any species of trees that should be prohibited, e.g. ash?
4.1(H)(3) — this section seems extremely vague such that denial of the 500 feet bonus
could easily be challenged. Are there any specific indicators that you could include?
4.1(H)(4) — Revise last sentence to include a reference to the "proof of parking" section.
4.1(J)(1) — Clarify last sentence to specify what is being screened: e.g. the building or the
entire parcel, or ?
4.1(J)(2) — same comment as for 4.1(J)(1)
4.1(M) —Revise second sentence to read: "Such fence shall provide 100% opacity and
shall not exceed eight (8) feet in height or be less than six (6) feet in height. "
4.1(M) — The last sentence needs to be deleted or revised to give clarification on the type
of fencing materials that are appropriate and should not be left to the discretion of a city
department.
4.1(N)(2) — What is "landscaped garden area"? This should have a definition. What is
contemplated for the remaining 40% of the front yard? This section seems a bit
complicated. I am not sure that I clearly understand it.
4.3(C)(2) — the "t" in the 4a' line should be "to."
4.3(D) Revise first line to read: "Fences and walls are not permitted in the public right-
of-way except for retaining walls as approved by the City Engineer through a written
encroachment agreement in a form approved by the City. "
4.5(A)(3A-3) — revise references to the "sign ordinance" to read "this Section " or, if
appropriate, "this Chapter. "
4.5(A)(3A-4) —revise "permit" in the second line to read: "sign permit. "
4.5(A)(3A-4)(F) —revise the last line to read: "within the time frame provided for a
decision as provided under Minn. Stat. Section 15.99. "
4.5(A)(3A-5)(A) —revise last line to read: "involving sign painting on a surface other
than the surface of the building. "
4.5(A)(3A-5)(D) — recent changes in state law require that this section be revised to read
as follows:
All noncommercial signs are permitted on private property in any zoning district with the
express consent of the owner or occupant of such property. In a State general election
year, noncommercial signs of any size may be posted in any number forty-six (46) days
before the State primary in a State general election year until ten (10) days following the
State general election. Election signs posted in connection with elections held at times
other than those regulated by Minn. Stat. 211B.035 shall not be posted more than 13
weeks prior to the election and shall be removed by the party responsible for the erection
of the sign or the property owner within ten (10) days after the election.
4.5(A)(3A-5)(E) — Are these defined somewhere?
4.5(A)(3A-6)(C) — Since the premise of this section is not to base regulations on
"content" and since state law provides a remedy, should this section be deleted?
4.5(A)(3A-10)(M) — Delete the second "that" in the first line.
4.5(A)(3A-10)(M) — In the first line of the paragraph on monument signs, delete "are"
and replace with "area. "
4.5(A)(3A-10)(S) — the limitations on area in this section should clarify whether the limit
is per face of a multi -faced sign or a total for all faces. This comment is a global
comment as it applies throughout Section 4.5 and limits on area provisions.
4.5(A)(3A- I 0)(U)(3) — limit per face or total for all faces?
4.5(A)(3A-10)(V) — Revise this section to add at the end of the first paragraph the
following and number each paragraph thereafter: "Dynamic signs shall comply with the
following requirements: "
4.5(A)(3A-10)(V) — Revise the second line of the 4th paragraph (to be renumbered as 3.)
to read as follows: "time and temperature displays which may change as frequently as
once every three (3) seconds. "
4.5(A)(3A-10)(V) — Delete the 7th paragraph regarding "Amber Alert." This is
inconsistent with the policy of the ordinance to not base requirements on "message."
This could be deemed to be a "taking" of private property.
4.5(A)(3A-10)(V) —Eighth paragraph regarding licensing. If there is a license
requirement, I recommend that license -related provisions be place there and not in the
sign ordinance, which has no such requirement and that this paragraph be deleted. The
City could provide a single statement that, as a condition of the sign permit, all necessary
licenses be obtained for a dynamic sign.
4.5(A)(3A-10)(V) —Ninth paragraph. Would the City want to include a restriction for
abutting property that is used for residential purposes (even if not zoned for residential)
e.g. a legal nonconforming use?
4.5(3A -11)(A) — There is no PZM zoning district identified in the district table or
elsewhere in the zoning ordinance.
4.5(3A -11)(A) — sign area limit per face or total area of all faces?
4.5(3A -11)(B) — There is no P -S zoning district identified in the district table or
elsewhere in the zoning ordinance.
4.5(3A -11)(B) — sign area limit per face or total area of all faces?
4.5(3A -12)(A) — No P -S or PZ districts.
4.5(3A -12)(A)(1) —revise first line to read: "Exceptfor the uses specified in Section 3A -
12A2 and 3 of this Chapter, not more than one (1) "
4.5(3A -12)(A) (1)(a)— sign area limit per face or total area of all faces?
4.5(3A -12)(A) (2)— sign area limit per face or total area of all faces?
4.5(3A -12)(A) (3)— sign area limit per face or total area of all faces?
4.5(3A -12)(B) —No PZ district
4.5(3A -12)(B) (2)(a)— sign area limit per face or total area of all faces?
4.5(3A -12)(A) (2)(b)— What is the "freeway corridor area"? Also, sign area limit per face
or total area of all faces?
4.5(3A -12)(A) (2)(d)— Sign area limit per face or total area of all faces?
4.5(3A -12)(A) (5)— After the first paragraph, letter each following paragraph in
alphabetical order "a" through "g"
4.5(3A-12)(H)(2)(b) — delete this paragraph as unnecessary. The procedures have
already been established in chapter 2. Duplication may result in confusion and failure to
make changes in both duplicative sections when changes are made, resulting in
inconsistencies.
4.7(A)(1) — Delete "as" in the first line.
4.8(F)(5) — No PZ district.
4.9(B)(4)(b) — Should a letter of credit or other security deemed acceptable by the city be
required rather than a bond that can be more difficult and cumbersome to draw upon?
4.9(E)(3) — Revise the word "should" in these 2 sentences to read "shall."
4.10(C)(R-1 District) - Revise the first line to read: "A minimum of 15% of the front
building fagade of any ... " Is it clearly defined within the code what the "front" of the
building is? The final 2 sentences under this section provide a bit too much discretion to
the zoning administrator. See attached example ordinance of additional sample criteria
for design standards to limit discretion through design criteria guidelines.
4.10(C)(R-IA and R -2A District) — No such districts identified in Chapter 3. Revise first
line to read: "A minimum of 20% of the front building ... " Same comments as above.
4.11
• Should this use be an IUP?
4.11(B)(3)(b) — delete this provision. Abutting owner complaints are not a basis for
requiring response, unless the use is in violation of the ordinance (e.g. nuisance, MPCA
noise standards) or permit provisions. Refer in the ordinance to the requirement of
complying with MPCA noise standards.
Chapter 5
5.1(A) Use Table.
Group Residential Facilities. The Use Table and definition sections must be updated to
conform to the requirements of state law as follows:
The following uses must be considered permitted single family residential use of
property:
• State licensed residential facility or a housing with services establishment
registered under Chapter 144D serving six or fewer persons;
• Licensed day care facility serving 12 or fewer person;
• Group family day care facility licensed under Minn. Rules parts 9502.0315 to
9502.0445 to serve 14 or fewer children;
• Exception: a residential facility whose primary purpose is to treat juveniles who
have violated criminal statutes relating to sex offenses or have been adjudicated
delinquent on the basis of conduct in violation of criminal statutes relating to sex
offenses shall not be considered a permitted use.
The following uses must be considered a permitted multifamily residential use of
property or a conditional multifamily residential use if necessary to provide conditions to
assure proper maintenance and operation of the facility:
• State licensed residential facility serving from 7 through 16 persons;
• Licensed day care facility serving from 13 through 16 persons
Manufacture Home Parks. Concern regarding the allowed districts. Note that a
manufactured home park must be allowed as a conditional use in any zoning district that
allows the construction or placement of a building used or intended to be used by two or
more families. This would require that manufactured home parks be allowed in the B-2,
CCD and R-2 districts as Conditional Uses. Standards for granting the conditional use
should be explicitly stated in the city ordinance.
Place of Public Assembly Use. Concern regarding the Place of Public Assembly District.
Note that this may be subject to challenge under the Religious Land Use and
Insitutionalized Persons Act ("RLUIPA"). RLUIPA provides that no government may
impose or implement a land use regulation in a manner that:
• Treats a religious assembly or institution on less than equal terms with a nonreligious
assembly or institution. For example, a zoning ordinance that allows community centers
and fraternal organization centers in a particular district, but not a religious center (such
as a church, mosque or synagogue), whose use would be strikingly similar to the other
allowed uses. Note that districts available to Public Buildings or Uses are more
expansive than the Place of Public Assembly districts. If a church wanted to locate in a
B 1 or B2 district, for example, they may have an argument under RLUIPA, based on
other similar uses that are allowed in those districts.
• Discriminates against any assembly or institution on the basis of religion or religious
denomination.
• Totally excludes religious assemblies from their jurisdiction or unreasonably limits
religious assemblies, institutions, or structures within a jurisdiction.
The City can consider this issue now or wait to face it and perhaps address through and
ordinance amendment if challenged in the future.
5.2(A)(1)(e) - Cities may adopt local noise control ordinances. However, cities cannot set
standards describing the maximum levels of sound pressure that are more stringent than those set
by the MPCA with respect to environmental noise monitored at the location of the receiver. Cities
can adopt more restrictive noise level limits than those set by the MPCA to regulate the emission
of noise from specific sources. The noise provisions in this section are not consistent with the
MPCA regulations. I recommend deleting the noise provisions in this section in their entirety and
providing the following as a general performance standard for all districts:
Noises emanating from any use shall be in compliance with and regulated by the State of
Minnesota pollution control standards and rules. In no case shall noise emanations constitute a
nuisance as defined and regulated by this code.
The League has model long and short form noise ordinances that the City could review and
consider for the Code, but these are usually not located within the zoning ordinance.
5.2(B)(3) — need a definition for "community garden" provided somewhere in the zoning
ordinance.
5.2(C)(2)(d)(vi)(1) — need clarification on what constitutes "useable open space"
5.2(C)(3)(g) — I am not familiar with this document or whether it is currently in use. I
recommend revising this subsection to read: `All state laws and statutes governing such use are
strictly adhered to and all required operating permits are secured. "
5.2(E)(1) — What if there are mixed uses in the remaining portion of the building?
5.2(E)(3)(a) — I recommend deleting this provision as unenforceable.
5.2(C)(3)(d) — "me" should be "met"
5.2(C)(3)(e) — This language gives too much discretion and is thus unenforceable. Revise to read
"The site shall conform to signage requirements provided under Section _ of this Code."
Delete the last sentence. The sign provisions may need to be updated to include signage options
for multiple tenant structures.
5.2(F) — to be valid and enforceable, the adult use provisions must have been adopted with very
specific Findings of Fact based on studies documenting the negative secondary effects associated
with adult uses. If this wasn't done when these provision were originally adopted, it should be
done now. Also, courts have approved ordinances where at least 5% of the land was available for
adult uses. Applying the setbacks, the area appears to be reduced to 2.35%. This amount of land
is definitely on the low side. Acreage closer to 5% would be preferable. Could the setbacks be
reduced and/or the Il district be included with even greater setbacks?
5.2(F)(3)(b) — in the third to fourth sentence "to the side of the principal structure" should be
better clarified, e.g. referencing side or front yard setbacks.
5.2(F)(4)(a)(i) — this section would be more clear if it were reversed to read: "The architectural
appearance and functional plan of the building and site shall be consistent with the existing
buildings and area to avoid impairment in property values and blight within a reasonable distance
of the lot."
5.2(F)(4)(a)(v) — It may be clearer to reference opacity, e.g. 100% opacity.
5.2(F)(4)(a)(xiii) — No PZM district listed in table or uses.
5.2(F)(4)(b)(iv) — The "city's theme lighting style" should be better identified, either by reference
to a plan or specific detail on the style.
5.2(F)(5)(b) — No PZR district or use identified in Ordinance.
5.2(F)(4)(e) — Delete the following language at the end of the subsection: "under this conditional
use permit."
5.2(F)(6)(a) — I'm not sure I understood the requirements here. Should this section read: `7 the
existing building/structure proposed for the use is determined by the City to be substandard
and/or blighted ...... I am still concerned that this sort of requirement is not proper for a zoning
ordinance, as it should be determined under the building permit requirements as to whether the
building meets code for the change in use. Any prohibitions along these lines could constitute a
"taking."
5.2(F)(6)(e) — Reverse to read as follows: "The architectural appearance and functional plan of
the building and site shall be consistent with the existing buildings on the site or in the area to
avoid impairment in property values or blight within a reasonable distance of the lot. "
5.2(F)(10)(a) —Revise to read: "No overnight facilities shall be provided for children served by
the daycare. Children must be delivered and removed from the facility daily. "
5.2(F)(10)(b) —I recommend breaking this out into subsections as follows: "An outdoor
recreation facility: (i) shall be appropriately separated from the parking lot and driving areas by
a fence not less than 4 feet in height; (ii) shall be located .... "
5.2(F)(1 0)(c) — I am not familiar with these regulations. I would recommend generally referring
to compliance with state laws as follows: All state laws and statutes governing such use are
strictly adhered to and all required operatingpermits are secured. "
5.2(F)(1 1)(c) — This language is too vague to be enforceable. I recommend the following: "Dust
and noise are controlled consistent with Minnesota Pollution Control rules and regulations. "
5.2 (F)(20)(b)(i) — Is it intended that there is no setback from R-3 and R-4 districts?
5.2(F)(21)(a)(ii) — Why is there a maximum consignment sales requirement for a business
involved consignment sales?
5.2(G)(1)(i) — after "shop" add the word "located. "
5.2(G)(5)(b) — reference opacity for clarity?
5.2(G)(6) — Should this be an IUP?
5.2(G)(11)(a)(i) — insert "at" after "shall be"
5.2(G)(1 1)(f) — should there be a definition for "recreational vehicles" that incorporate the other
terms use: "pleasure boats," etc.
5.3(B)(1) — Second sentence should be revised to read "The provisions of this Section establish
additional... "
5.3(D)(3)(a)(ii)(1) —Revise second line to read: `family orfamilies residing upon the premises,
except as follows: "
5.3(D)(4)(f) — I recommend deleting this provisions. It is a provision that has not been
specifically upheld by the courts and thus, could endanger the validity of the entire adult business
ordinance provisions. It is also inconsistent with the first amendment provisions and sign
ordinance premise against "content -based" restrictions on signage.
5.3(D)(5) — Is there a maximum by which the buildings can exceed the principal structures in the
A -O district or are they totally exempt from all height restrictions?
5.3(D)(7) (a) and (b) — Add `per dwelling unit" at the end of each sentence. Also, if not already
included in the definition section, the City may want to consider adding the following definition
generally:
FAMILY.• An individual or group that maintains a common household and use of
common cooking and kitchen facilities and common entrances to a single
dwelling unit, where the group consists of
L Two (2) or more persons each related to the other by blood, marriage,
domestic partnership, adoption, legal guardianship (including foster
children); or,
2. Not more than four (4) unrelated persons.
5.3(D)(9)(a)(ii) — This standard is a bit vague. Are there some criteria that can be added?
5.3(D)(15)(d)(ii) — The standard is not enforceable. Revise to read: "Not have substantial
adverse effects or noise impacts on nearby residential neighborhoods. "
5.3(D)(19)(b)(i) —Revise last sentence to read: "This percentage maybe increased through
issuance of a conditional use permit. " Are there standards or limits that will apply to an increase
under a CUP?
5.3(D)(21)(a)(i) — deleted second "are considered"
5.3(D)(21)(a)(ii)(8) — need standards
5.3(D)(23)(e) — Will the PCA issue a permit, if it is exempt under the PCA requirements?
5.3(D)(21)(t) —Delete this provision. A CUP runs with the land permanently and cannot be
revoked unless the use violates the conditions or the City Code, e.g. nuisance or MPCA
noise/dust standards. Objection by neighbors is never a basis to revoke unless the foregoing are
met.
5.3(D)(29)(a) — Revise last line to read "inches in depth must be fenced in accordance with the
provisions of Section 5.3(D)(29) "
Table 5-3
Construction Dumpster — is there a more technical phrase for "expiration or finaling of a building
permit?" as provided under building code?
Tents and Canopies 1eS — Should there be a distinction here between commercial use and large tents
and canopies from the small backyard tents and canopies that are becoming backyard fixtures as
sold by Target/Walmart, etc.?
Wayside Stands — Are these defined?
5.4(D): Revise first line to read: "Temporary uses, structures, or events shall comply with the
following: "
5.4(D)(7) —Revise to read: "Temporary signs permitted under the Code and associated with the
use or structure shall be removed when the temporary activity ceases. "
5.4(E)(5)(b) — This section is too vague to be enforceable, some standards or criteria would be
necessary.
5.4(E)(7)(e) — Add "no" prior to "more."
5.4(E)(9)(c) — Revise to read "Not reduce minimum parking areas below the minimum required
for the property under the City Code. "
5.4(E)(9)(e) —Revise to read: `Renew all applicable temporary use permits annually. "
5.4(E)(10)(a)(ix) — Delete the second sentence.
5.4(E)(13)(d) — Revise to add "in writing" after `Be authorized."
5.4(E)(14)(d)(iv) — Is it possible that special events may require multiple permits for different, but
compatible uses, for a large community event? Would language to this effect achieve the same
goal: "The special event shall not conflict with another permitted special event at the same
location that will negatively impact on the public health, welfare, or safety. " If the events
conflict from a private standpoint, that is not the issue, only the impact on health, safety, welfare
of the public.
5.4(E)(14)(e) —Revise "premises benefitted by" in the first sentence to read: "issuance of the"
Chapter 6
6.4(F) — Delete the word "subject" in the last line.
General Comment. What about existing nonconforming lots? Sample language below:
A. General Restriction. No building, structure or use shall be erected, constructed
or established on a nonconforming lot unless a variance is granted by the City, except as
otherwise provided for by this Title.
B. Required Merger of Common Ownership Lots: Except as provided for in Section
I1-102-15 of this Title or as may otherwise be allowed pursuant to this chapter, if in a
group of two (2) or more contiguous lots or parcels of land owned or controlled by the
same person, any individual lot or parcel is nonconforming as to lot width, lot area, or
lot frontage such individual lot or parcel shall not be sold or developed as a separate
parcel of land, but shall be combined with adjacent lots or parcels under the same
ownership or control so that the combination of lots or parcels will equal one (1) or more
zoning lots each meeting the full lot requirements of this title lessening the
nonconformity.
1. The designation of a zoning lot pursuant to this section shall be approved by the
zoning administrator if the zoning lot complies with the lot requirements of the district in
which it is located and will have a single tax identification number.
2. Interior lot lines within a designated zoning lot shall be disregarded in applying
setbacks and other zoning ordinance standards.
3. The subdivision of a designated zoning lot shall be in accordance with Title _ of
the City Code.
C. Vacant Or Redeveloped Lots: Except in environmental protection districts
established in Chapter _ of this Title, legal, nonconforming, vacant lots of record may
be developed for single-family detached dwellings upon approval of an administrative
permit, provided that:
1. Legally Established: The lot in question was legally established in accordance
with requirements of this code existing at the time of its creation and is a separate,
distinct tax parcel.
2. Allowed Use: Single-family residential dwellings are an allowed use within the
base zoning district.
3. Minimum Lot Size:
a. Sewered Lots: A legal nonconforming lot having direct access, as determined by
the City Engineer, to municipal sewer shall be considered buildable provided
measurements for lot area and/or width meet minimum requirements or are sixty six
percent (66%) of the requirement of the base zoning district.
b. Unsewered Lots: A legal nonconforming lot not having access to municipal sewer
shall be considered buildable provided it complies with section of this title.
C. The lot shall not have more than twenty five percent (2501o) impervious surface if
located within the Shoreland Overlay District.
4. Access: The lot in question has frontage on and will directly access an improved
public street.
5. Health Concerns: Public health concerns (potable water and sanitary sewer) can
be adequately addressed.
6. Setback and Yard Requirements: The setback and yard requirements of the base
zoning district can be achieved while simultaneously resulting in development which
complies with the character and general design of the immediate area and the objectives
of the comprehensive plan and this title.
D. Developed Lots: An existing conforming use on a lot of substandard size and/or
width may be expanded or enlarged if such expansion or enlargement meets all other
provisions of this title.
Chapter 7
While this Chapter includes very good guidelines concerning processing of an enforcement
action, I would recommend that most of it be provided as part of an internal policy and not laid
out in ordinance format. The ordinance provisions tend to tie the city's hands unnecessarily in
some cases and subject the City to additional challenges where the letter of the process identified
by ordinance is not followed. I would recommend shortening the provisions to a more summary
form as provided in this sample:
ENFORCEMENT:
This Title shall be administered and enforced by the Zoning Administrator who is appointed by
the City Administrator. The Zoning Administrator may institute in the name of the City any
appropriate actions or proceedings against a violator as provided by statute, charter or
ordinance. The Zoning Administrator's duties shall include, but not be limited to, thefollowing:
A. Periodically inspect buildings, structures, and uses of land to determine compliance with the
terms of this Title.
B. Notes, in writing, any person responsible for violating a provision of this Title, indicating the
nature of the violation and ordering the action necessary to correct it.
C. Order discontinuance of illegal use of land, buildings, or structures; order removal of illegal
buildings, structures, additions or alterations; order discontinuance of illegal work being done;
or take any other action authorized by this Title to ensure compliance with or to prevent violation
of its provisions, including cooperation with the City Attorney in the prosecution of complaints.
D. Maintain permanent and current records of the Zoning Ordinance, including all maps,
amendments, conditional uses and variances.
E. Maintain a current file of all permits, all certificates and all copies of notices of violation,
discontinuance, or removal for such time as necessary to ensure a continuous compliance with
the provisions of this Title and, on request, provide information to any person having a
proprietary or tenancy interest in any specific property.
F. Provide clerical and technical assistance to the Planning Commission and Board of Zoning
Adjustments and Appeals.
G. Receive, file and forward as applicable to the Board of Zoning Adjustments and Appeals,
Planning Commission, or City Council all applications for conditional use permits, variances,
interim use permits, administrative permits, amendments or site plans as required herein.
Sample Ordinance Design Standards Language
10-6-21: DESIGN STANDARDS FOR SPRUCE STREET COMMERCIAL, MIXED USE,
AND BUSINESS/FLEX ZONING DISTRICTS:
(A) Site Development Standards (In Addition To Any Performance Standards That May Be
Applicable): These standards apply to the business/flex, mixed use, and Spruce Street commercial
zoning districts unless otherwise specified. The zoning districts are depicted on the official zoning
map.
1. Outdoor Storage: All materials shall be stored and/or warehoused within the principal building.
2. Off Street Parking: Off street parking areas shall be designed and located to minimize their
impacts on adjacent development, streets and pedestrian corridors. Parking lot landscaping is
required per this chapter.
3. Sidewalks: Sidewalks shall be provided on both sides of all streets. Trails may be required
instead of sidewalks as provided in the city's trail master plan.
(a) All pedestrian walkways shall have and maintain a minimum unobstructed pathway width of
fifteen feet (15') along the north/south corridor (i.e., the first roadway constructed between CSAH
50 and Spruce Street, west of Denmark Avenue) and within the mixed use area. Pedestrian
walkways bordering off street parking areas shall be at least eight feet (8') wide. Pedestrian and
bicycle pathways connecting to greenways or trail systems are subject to standards in the city trail
master plan.
(b) Walkways shall be designed to create a safe and uninterrupted pedestrianway, and to avoid
frequent crossings by driveways and streets.
(c) Pedestrian walkways shall be designed as amenity areas with approved landscaping, benches,
lighting, signage, and street furniture.
(d) Pavers shall be required within the sidewalk design and within the crosswalk areas.
Installation of the pavers shall comply with city standards.
(e) Electrical and water services shall be required within the sidewalk areas to prepare for
amenities including (but not limited to) water fountains, clocks, kiosks and seasonal lighting, and
shall be master planned during the design phase of the project.
4. Screening: Screening of service yards, refuse, and waste removal areas, loading docks, truck
parking areas and other areas which tend to be unsightly shall be accomplished by use of walls,
fencing, dense planting, or any combination of these elements. Screening shall block views from
public rights of way, private street and off street parking areas, and shall be equally effective in
winter and summer. Chainlink and slatted fencing are prohibited.
5. Lighting: The lighting in the Spruce Street area shall be designed to create a well balanced,
integrated lighting plan for public and private locations that enhances vehicular and pedestrian
visibility while minimizing glare and contrast. Exterior lighting shall comply with section 10-6-8
of this chapter. The intent for lighting is to provide needed illumination of the site, while at the
same time preventing glare to residential uses either within or adjacent to the site. Light fixtures
should be oriented to pedestrian circulation so that pedestrian walkways are emphasized and
safety is enhanced.
(a) At the time of site plan review for the development, a detailed lighting plan shall be
submitted.
(b) Any lighting required on the perimeter of parking lots or along streets shall consist of fixtures
illustrated in the city's standard detail plate as "streetlight - downtown district". The interior
portions of parking lots may be lit with cobra lights.
6. Required Amenities: For each development, one of the following amenities per ten (10) acres
of net developable land area shall be required and installed at the time of construction of the
project. The amenities shall be highly visible, easily accessible outdoor focal points or gathering
places for residents, employees, and visitors to the development site:
(a) Patio and/or plaza with permanent seating areas; provided such patio or plaza has a minimum
depth of fifteen feet (1T) and a minimum total area of three hundred (300) square feet.
(1) Pavers as required in the city standards shall be installed within the patio or plaza.
(2) Patios and plazas shall include pedestrian amenities intended to support these places as
gathering areas such as benches, water features, kiosks, etc.
(b) Landscaped minipark, square, or green, provided such amenity has a minimum depth and
width of fifteen feet (I T) and a minimum total area of six hundred fifty (650) square feet, and
includes pedestrian amenities intended to support these places as gathering areas. The landscaped
miniparks, squares or greens do not count toward the park dedication requirements.
(c) Protected customer walkway, arcade, or easily identifiable building pass through containing
window displays and intended for general public access.
(d) Water feature, such as a pond or fountain, provided the feature is easily accessed by
pedestrians and includes or integrates permanent seating areas for pedestrians.
(e) Any other well designed area and/or focal feature that the city finds consistent with the intent
of these design standards, and that substantially enhances such development and serves as a
gathering place for residents, visitors, customers, and employees.
7. Parking Of Bicycles: Bike parking spaces shall be installed at ten percent (10%) of the total
number of automobile spaces within the development. For convenience and security, bicycle
parking facilities shall be located near building entrances, shall be placed parallel to the
sidewalks, shall be easily visible and shall not be located in remote automobile parking areas.
Such facilities shall not, however, be located in places that impede pedestrian or automobile
traffic flow or that would cause damage to plant material. Bike racks shall provide a means for
the bicycle frame and one wheel to be attached to a permanent fixture (designed for securing
bicycles) by means of a lock.
(B) Architectural Standards:
1. Fronts Of Buildings: Any building face and yard that abuts CSAH 50, Spruce Street, or Pilot
Knob shall be considered a front and shall reflect a level of aesthetic treatment equal to or greater
than that of building faces and yards that abut the north -south corridor and the major roads in the
mixed use district.
2. Unifying Design Theme: Buildings and/or streetscapes in the Spruce Street commercial district
and the business/flex district shall reflect a unifying design theme that incorporates features found
along the north/south corridor and within the mixed use district. City staff and the planning
commission shall determine whether development proposals satisfy this requirement.
3. Exterior Surfaces: Major exterior surfaces of all walls shall be face brick, stone, glass, stucco,
architecturally treated concrete, cast in place or precast panels, decorative block, or approved
equivalent, as determined by the city. The following may not be used in any visible exterior
application except when specifically permitted by the city in areas with limited public view:
exposed cement ("cinder") blocks; fabricated metal or pole construction structures, including
sheds, warehouses, and industrial buildings constructed either on or off site of corrugated metal
panels; exterior brick that is painted over; or experimental materials with no proven record of
durability or ease of maintenance in the intended application.
4. Facades: Unless otherwise agreed to in writing by the community development department,
developers of buildings located along the north/south corridor and within the mixed use district
shall use facade variations to differentiate separately leased commercial spaces. Facade variations
shall incorporate modulated and articulated building wall planes and rooflines through use of-
(a)
f(a) Projections, recesses, and reveals expressing structural bays or other aspects of the facade,
with a minimum change of plane of six inches (6").
(b) Changes in color or graphical patterns, changes in texture, or changes in building material.
(c) Varying parapet heights and designs that demonstrate that the buildings are different from
each other and that add interest to the streetscape.
(d) Recessed entrances.
(e) Building entrances that incorporate elements providing shade from the sun and weather
protection for pedestrians.
(f) Corners which are distinguishable from the remainder of the building through the use of
towers, architectural treatments, arches, roof forms, or size and mass.
All buildings along the north/south corridor and within the mixed use district shall be constructed
with at least one functional or decorative (false facade) upper story. To the extent practical or
feasible, variations in rooflines or heights shall be used to differentiate separately leased
commercial spaces within buildings.
5. Windows: Windows shall be provided on walls that are adjacent to public or private rights of
way, parking lots and sidewalks. False windows are allowed.
6. Projections: Buildings may have one of the following projecting from the building facade:
(a) Awnings/canopies over the first floor windows and along the frontage of all building
entrances.
(1) Projection: Awnings and canopies shall not project more than five feet (5) into the public
right of way, except where located above an entrance, in which case the maximum projection
shall not exceed eight feet (8'). In no event should an awning or canopy be supported by poles or
other structural elements located in the public right of way.
(2) Length: Awnings and canopies should emphasize the rhythm of the facade bays, windows and
entrances, and shall not continue uninterrupted along the building facade.
(3) Height: The bottom of awnings and canopies should be at least eight feet (8) above sidewalk
grade.
(4) Illumination: Backlit awnings and canopies are not permitted.
(5) Inscription: Lettering on awnings and canopies shall comply with subsection 10-6-3(B)1(k) of
this chapter.
(6) Materials: Awning and canopy materials should be limited to cotton, acrylic or vinyl coated
cotton, copper or bronze coated metal, or clear glass. Other materials may be used if approved by
the community development department. Awnings shall be designed with a slope. No horizontal
awnings are allowed. Structural supports shall be constructed of steel and/or aluminum and shall
(if or where visible) incorporate ornamental features.
(b) Projecting signs perpendicular to the building. Projecting signs shall comply with subsection
10-6-3(B)5(e) of this chapter.
7. Public Entrances: For commercial buildings located along the north/south corridor, each
separate ground level tenant space shall have at least one public entrance that faces the
north/south corridor. For buildings located within the mixed use district, each separate ground
level commercial tenant space shall have at least one public entrance that faces the nearest major
public or private street. Developers shall be encouraged to also provide public entrances adjacent
to off street parking areas.
8. Site Plan Review: All applications shall comply with the requirements of subsection 10-6-
23(E) of this chapter for site plan review. Site characteristics to be evaluated for this purpose
include building and plant materials, colors, textures, shapes, massing, rhythms of building
components and details, height, roofline and setback.
9. Screening Of Roof/Exterior Equipment: Mechanical equipment, satellite dishes, and other
utility hardware, whether located on the roof or exterior of the building or on the ground adjacent
to it, shall be screened from the public view with materials identical to or strongly similar to
building materials, or by landscaping that will be effective in winter, or they shall be located so as
not to be visible from any public right of way, private street or off street parking area. In no case
shall wooden fencing be used as a rooftop equipment screen.
Consolidated Comments
5-28-10
Planning Commission Neighborhood Tour
Staff Review
IEDC
OVERALL
Add a reference index that lists all tables/charts in the code in table of contents or as an index in back.
Consider that each chapter and/or section should have its own table of contents.
In any location referring to Detached Accessory Structure in the Chapter 5 District standards, there
should be a "See Chapter 5 — Accessory Structure Uses" link or notation.
CHAPTER 2: REVIEW PROCEDURES & REQUIREMENTS
Overall note: Make sure that all applications in this section refer to "Common Review
Requirements" instead of general review requirements. For example, see page 37, (5)(b),
where it says "general requirements".
Page 10: In the chart, please separate the IEDC (Industrial & Economic Development Committee) from
the EDA (Economic Development Authority). The role of decision/review is the same for both and is as
listed.
Page 10/11: Add text for the EDA. They are incorporated into Chapter, Section of City Code and should
be set up in a structure similar to the Parks Commission on page 10.
Page 10/11: Add text for the IEDC. They are incorporated into Chapter, Section of City Code and should
be set up in a structure similar to the Parks Commission on page 10.
Page 11: Delete all current text for the IEDC as listed.
Page 15: Section D(e): Capitalize "city"
Page 17: Section H(4)(c): after `Community Development Department" insert "in accordance with fee
schedule" and delete text after "Community Development Department".
Page 48: Add a new review requirement section requiring review of condominium plats.
CHAPTER 3: ZONING DISTRICTS
Page 80: In section (A) and everywhere thereafter, please delete any reference to "Mobile" Home Park.
Please use "Manufactured" in its place.
Page 80: Table 3-2: Match overlay districts to those based on the editing notes below.
Page 81: Add allowance for license agreement.
Page 82: In (C)(1), does this provision need to stipulate allowance by variance or PUD?
Page 82: (C)(2), need to exclude weigh scale somewhere.
Page 82: (C)(2)(iii) may need a reference to the Detached Accessory Structure listings in Chapter 3
Page 83: (b): In the Corner Visibility section, eliminate the 30' benchmark and utilize 25' instead. In the
Corner Visibility diagram, insert 25' and delete 30'. Also, in the right diagram, the text should say "Lots
with an interior corner lot angle of less than 90 degrees at the corner.
Page 84: In (b)(ii): it should read "allowed"
Page 85: Standards applicable to All Residential Base Zoning Districts needs a diagram illustrating the
difference between condominiums and zero lot line developments. Also — should this section be moved
from here to the residential use section instead to consolidate information?
Page 88: A -O, Table 3-3: In this able and others, please be sure that units of measurements are
indicated in all areas. Example: Required Yards have no unit of measure. In the A -O table, Max height
should state feet after "15"
Page 88: Table looks like it is missing a separation line in Max Width and Pitch/Soffit items.
Page 88: Subitem [1} should read: Detached accessory structures shall be located in the rear yard.
R -A Residential Amenities
Page 89: R -A Purpose statement should include a statement corresponding to the comp plan's
designation for "move -up housing".
Page 89: Remove top picture and insert other image from those emailed.
Page 89: Maximum Density calc should read: 10,890 sq. ft. per unit (Four units per gross acre). Apply
this same unit of measure for max densities throughout residential districts. The square footage makes
this consistent width base density.
Page 89: After "Base" and before "Density" add in parentheses (Average) and then apply this to all
sections.
Page 89: Add a separation line between Density and Lot standards; this creates better definition
between eh unrelated sections and should be carried through all districts wherever applicable
Page 89: Base lot area should be increased to 14,000 square feet
Page 90: Table 3-4: Again, note all applicable units of measure.
Page 90: Eliminate first footnote for setback averaging.
Page 90: Table 3-4: The second row should read "Detached Accessory Structure" in the first box, and
should indicate "Not Permitted" in the front yard or side yard boxes.
Page 90: Add two additional separate footnotes which apply to Attached Accessory Structures as
follows:
• The minimum floor area for all attached accessory structures shall be 700 sq. ft.
• No portion of any garage space may be more than five feet closer to the street than the front
building line of the principal use (including porch).
Page 90: Add a footnote to the Detached Accessory Structure Required Yards that reads: "Detached
accessory structures shall not exceed fifteen (15) in height, shall be six (6) feet or more from any other
building or structure and shall not be located within a utility easement.
Page 90: Change [21 footnote to add: For interior lots, the attached accessory structure must meet a 6
foot side yard setback and the sum of the side yard setbacks must be a minimum of 20 feet.
Page 90: Eliminate footnote [11 for lot setback averaging.
Page 90: Under Minimum floor Area, add in the single-family building box "1400 sq ft. foundation and"
2000 square foot finished, then the footnote should read only "Square footage exclusive of attached
accessory space".
Page 90: Minimum building width for the single family building should be 24 feet.
Page 90: In the box beneath Minimum Roof Pitch and Soffit — please add space between pitch and soffit
and eliminate parentheses around "no minimum soffit".
Page 90: The listed landscaping standard is for T -N. Should this standard be listed here or in Chapter 4
for Finishing Standards. If we are going to list some individual residential landscaping standards here,
the R -A district should be 2 trees per lot, no more than 15 feet from curb, and 4 trees per corner lot.
R-1 Single -Family Residential
Page 91: Add a line separator between density and lot standards (as noted in above)
Page 91: Maximum Density calc should read: 8,712 sq. ft. per unit (Five units per gross acre).
Page 91: After "Base" and before "Density" add in parentheses (Average) and then add "(Average)" to
all sections.
Page 92: Table 3-5 — Add all notes from above R -A District for attached and detached accessory
structures, except that the required minimum square footage for attached accessory structures should
be 550 square feet and no "5 foot forward rule".
Page 92: Minimum building width should be 24'
Page 92: Under Minimum Floor Area, the single-family building box, it should read 1,050 foundation,
1,050 finished and 2000 finishable. Then the footnote should read only "Square footage exclusive of
attached accessory space".
Page 92: Eliminate the first two footnotes.
Page 92: Footnote [6] should read "No rambler style home shall have a foundation footprint of less than
1,400 square feet exclusive of attached accessory structure space"
Page 92: In the box beneath Minimum Roof Pitch and Soffit — please add space between pitch and soffit
and eliminate parentheses around "no minimum soffit".
Page 92: In the sketch -up, we need to add driveways (applicable to all district sketch -ups). Also, what is
the bump -out in the right illustration — is it a garage? Sketch -up should also reflect revised footnote
information for detached and attached accessory structures.
R-2 Single and Two -Family Residence Districts
Page 93: Line separator between density and lot standards
Page 93: Maximum Density calc should read: 6,223 sq. ft. per unit (Seven units per gross acre)
Page 93: Base (Average) Density should be 10,000 square feet
Page 94: Table 3-6: Again, make sure to apply units of measure as needed (yard requirements, ex)
Page 94: Table 3-6: Apply the same detached accessory structure standards as revised from previous
districts. Add a footnote requiring that attached accessory structure standards shall be a minimum of
550 square feet and no portion of any attached accessory structure may be more than 10 feet closer to
the street that the principal structure.
Page 94: Table 3-6: First row box/column should read "Single Family/Duplex Building" and then second
box in first column should read "Townhouse/Multi-Family Building"
Page 94: Third box in first column should read "Detached Accessory Structure" and should indicate "Not
Permitted" in the front yard or side yard boxes.
Page 94: For single family/duplex, the Minimum Floor Area should be 1050 foundation footprint, 1050
finished and 2000 finishable per unit
Page 94: For townhomes/multi-family, Minimum Floor Area CK at 1000 foundation, 1000 finished.
Page 94: Minimum roof pitch should be 4/14 and space then "No minimum soffit"
Page 94: Eliminate first footnote.
Page 94: Add a footnote that reads: Except for single family buildings, any driveway leading directly to
an attached accessory structure may not exceed 18' in width at the front yard property line.
T -N Traditional Neighborhood Residence District
This may be another "move -up" comp plan purpose statement district due to higher amenities and
performance standards?
Page 95: Line separator between density and lot standards
Page 95: Should read Base (Average) Density
Page 95: Maximum Density calc should read: 5,445 sq. ft. per unit (Eight units per gross acre).
Page 95: Add a maximum width of 65 feet at street.
Page 96: Table 3-7: The second row should read "Detached Accessory Structure" and should indicate
"Not Permitted" in the front yard or side yard boxes.
Page 96: Again, add units of measure where needed.
Page 96: Change setback for the following in table form:
Front
Front
Interior
Street
Rear Yard
Rear Year
Yard
Yard
Side
Side
Minimum
Maximum
Minimum
Maximum
(ft)
(ft)
(ft)
(ft)
(ft)
(ft)
SF
25
30
6
25
20
NA
Front
Load
SF
15
25
6
15
25
NA
Rear
Load
Page 96: Add two additional separate footnotes which apply to Attached Accessory Structures as
follows:
• The minimum floor area for all attached accessory structures shall be 480 sq. ft.
• For front -loaded attached accessory structures, no portion of any garage space may be more
than five feet closer to the street than the front building line of the principal use (including
porch).
Page 96: Under Minimum Floor Area, in the single-family building box, it should read 1,000 foundation
footprint, 1,200 finished. Then, a footnote should be added that reads that reads "Square footage
exclusive of attached accessory space".
Page 96: Add a footnote to the Detached Accessory Structure that reads: "Detached accessory
structures shall not exceed fifteen (15) in height, shall be six (6) feet or more from any other building or
structure and shall not be located within a utility easement.
Page 96: Minimum roof pitch, there should be a space and then "No minimum soffit" — no parentheses.
Page 96: Are landscaping performance standards going to be here or in finishing standards?
Page 96: Separate footnote: "No private driveway leading to an accessory structure may be more than
18 feet in width at the front yard property line."
R-3 Medium Density Residence District
Page 97: Line separator between density and lot standards
Page 97: Maximum Density calc should read: 3,111 sq. ft. per unit (Fourteen units per gross acre)
Page 97: Should read Base (Average) Density
Page 97: If this is a medium density district, shouldn't some level of multi -family be permitted by right?
See table 5-1 in the Use chapter. The base lot area conflicts directly with the lot area/unit or base
density calculation. Suggestion: Change base lot area to 5,000 sq ft townhome/15,000 for multi -family
and change base density to 5,000 sq. ft. per unit.
Page 98: Table 3-8 Add footnote that height can be increased by conditional use permit (do not limit to
three stories as listed in the [2} footnote).
M -H — MANUFACTURED Home RESIDENCE District (Change title)
Page 99: Text in purpose statement should read: The purpose of the "M -H Manufactured"
Page 99: Maximum Base Density calc should read: 3,350 sq. ft. per unit (Thirteen units per gross acre)
Page 99: Should read "Base (Average) Density
Page 100: Table 3-9 Add a footnote similar to first footnote on page 98 that requires additional
buffering next to single family residential. (This footnote may be unnecessary with buffer yard
requirements).
Page 100: Second row should read "Detached Accessory Structures"
BUSINESS BASE ZONING DISTRICTS
Page 101: Under the Condominiums section, add cross referenced to new condominium review
requirement in Chapter 2.
B-1 Neighborhood Business District
Page 103: Why does the Maximum Density allow for residential, but the use table does not allow for
residential uses? Add square foot density breakdown here, too.
Page 104: In FAR and Max Impervious here and all locations after, list as "Reserved"
Page 104: Delete the first and second footnote
B-2 Limited Business District
Page 106: Ensure that the use table and the base density and lot area make sense.
Page 106: Delete the first footnote
Page 104: FAR/Impervious — "Reserved"
B-3 Highway Business Districts
Page 108: FAR/Impervious —"Reserved"
B-4 Regional Business Districts
Page 110: Add a footnote for Yard Requirements that no building or structure may be located on a
drainage and utility easement.
Page 110: FAR/Impervious — "Reserved"
Page 110: Table 3-13, Add footnote that height can be increased by conditional use permit (do not limit
to three stories as listed in the [2) footnote).
INDUSTRIAL DISTRICTS
Page 115: Add reference to Comp Plan or is this text from Comp Plan already?
B -C Business Campus District
Page 111: Keep current purpose statement from I -1A District.
Page 112: FAR/Impervious —"Reserved".
Page 112: Adjust max height to allow any multi -story building.
Page 112: Revise front and street side setback to 50'
Page 112: Add a footnote that when any of these required yards abut a zoning district other than 1-1 or
1-2, the setbacks for the abutting yard must be 50 feet.
Note for Finishing Standards — no outdoor storage in B -C.
1-1 Light Industrial
Page 118: FAR/Impervious —"Reserved".
Page 118: For setbacks, allow reduction to 30' for front, street side and 15" rear with an added footnote
that requires when any of these required yards abut a zoning district other than 1-1 or 1-2, the setbacks
for the abutting yard must be 50 feet.
Page 118: Adjust max height to allow any multi -story building.
1-2 Heavy Industrial
Page 120: FAR/Impervious — "Reserved".
Page 120: For setbacks, allow reduction to 30' for front, street side and 15" rear with an added footnote
that requires when any of these required yards abut a zoning district other than 1-1 or 1-2, the setbacks
for the abutting yard must be 50 feet.
OVERLAY DISTRICTS
Floodplain:
Page 122: Add Flood Insurance Map for 1981, info to come.
Page 125: (c) I think this footnote reference is wrong. I think it should be 33(c)(4)(a)
Wetland District:
Page 140: Eliminate (2)(a) and rephrase (b) to detail land to which ordinance applies.
Page 140: Section (2)(b) — eliminate new orange text that reads "depicted on the official wetland
overlay district map", as well as existing green ext referring to map in the same sentence. Basically,
remove any reference to a map. WSB has recommended that this district not include any map, but
rather be established on a wetland -by -wetland basis using the 100 foot edge benchmark.
Page 142: Add/change text as follows ...(Conservation Easement)
Page 143: In section (a), separate out plan requirements in (i), (ii), etc.
Page 143: In section (b), change "Building Inspector" to City Engineer.
Shoreland District: see WSB Memo
Mississippi Wild & Scenic:
Adopt by reference Minnesota Statutes and Rules and refer to overlay map.
Freeway Bonus District:
Page 151: See adopted regs from Sign Ordinance referencing Freeway Bonus and include right here.
(Not in another section.)
Drinking Water Supply Management Area•
Add"RESERVED"
Performance Based Zoning:
Page 152: Section (2) — I must have missed this — but is the idea to zone all current PZM areas back to
their base zoning and then create an immediate PZ overlay or only add overlay once they have met
these standards? I think it must be the latter, but just checking. So- the first version of the zoning map
will show no PZ overlay, just the key code for it?
Page 153: 1 don't know that I would include B-3 in the mixing allowed by PZ. This is one to run by the
Steering Committee.
Page 154: Shouldn't these less than/greater than symbols be flipped?
Page 154: The less discretion given to Community Development Department, the better — this applies to
each category. The more specific the requirements, the better (as shown by the sample tables). For
example, a specific number or size of plantings should yield a specific density reduction.
Page 155: Again, flip symbols.
Page 155: Innovative Housing: Instead of innovative housing and leaving it up to CDD, why not
incorporated accepted standards like LEED? Eliminate last clause relating to financial feasibility and low
to moderate income standards.
CHAPTER 4: FINISHING STANDARDS
Page 159: 2(a), change standard to 2 caliper inches as measured 6" above ground.
Page 159: Item (2)(b) Should just be evergreens here, not including shade trees, which are
included in (a).
Page 160: Use "Required Species" provision instead of "City's approved plan materials".
Page 161: Use berm alternative language proposed in orange.
Page 162: Just a note to be sure that a cross reference exists between this section and the
application requirements listing landscaping plan (Site Plan for example).
Page 162: Change this provision to note that plantings are at placed at planters risk, but does
not prohibit them and will not be replaced by the easement holder.
Page 162: Somewhere in requirements add: At Certificate of Occupancy, 3" top soil borrow is
required, with fully established turf within 6 months of CO. Perhaps this belongs in Section
4.1(J).
Page 162: There is no number (1) under (D)
Page 162: Under (D)(2) "It is required that the plan be produced on a separate sheet ..."
should be a separate numbered provision.
Page 163: (b)(x) Add also "and percentage of gross site area covered by pervious and
impervious surfaces".
Page 169: In the perimeter buffer section, reference the ability propose an alternate plan, page
164.
Page 164: Eliminate 4.1(D)(e) requirements altogether.
Page 166: You illustrated sketch -ups at Steering Committee —just confirming that they will be
included here. Vehicular Use Area and Perimeter Vehicular Use standards are new terms and
need the illustrations!
Page 167: 1 am assuming that landscaped islands in these use areas will count toward overall
site landscaping requirements?
Page 168: In section (c), please add cross reference to the minimum size requirement on page
159.
Page 168: In item (c)(iii), allowance for understory trees to be used beneath overhead utilities
where permission has been granted over easement?
Page 168: Item (f)(ii) This section requires minimum height four years after planting —this
standard is different from overall site landscaping requirement and security. No one will check
it four years later. Should just fall under regular site compliance listed in the next section.
Page 168: Change item (c), (e), (f) — to add an INCENTIVE CLAUSE, 10% parking reduction for
landscaped planting strips.
Page 170: Eliminate sub item [2] in buffer table for Admin Adjustments
Page 171: Table 4-2 — see notes
Page 173: Where do we get to standards for 2 and 2-4 family dwellings?
Page 174: Table 4-3 — correct the word "Plantings"
Page 174: Can Perimeter vehicular strip plantings be used to satisfy both that requirement and
the general site requirements? Relates also to island delineators.
Page 174: Item (4) Shrub placement, we should list a max placement, recommended at 10 feet
unless sidewalk, which is 15 feet.
Page 178: Item 3, change title to "Agreement & Security". The text should read as follows: A
landscaping security shall be submitted with the building permit application. Such security
guarantees that in exchange for building permit, the owner will construct, install and maintain
all items shown on the approved plan and that they will replace and or correct any deficiencies
or defaults that occur in the plan for a period of one complete year or two complete growing
seasons subsequent to the complete installation according to approved landscaping plan.
Page 178: Deleting text beginning "In no instance ..." to end. Replace with deleted item (d)
from page 179.
Page 179: Delete item (d) as it has been replaced.
Page 179: Check font size consistency
Page 179: In item (1), capitalize City.
Page 179: Item (2): delete "as directed by the Community Development Department".
Page 396: Define DBH in relationship to specimen tree definition.
Page 179: Where do we require a plan sheet detailing a tree inventory and required size
identification?
Page 140: 4(B), in addition to a certified arborist, add a provision allowing Community
Development or Parks Superintendent to allow for removal.
Page 183: Credits — please be sure to note that dead, dying or diseased trees may not be used
towards crediting.