Planning Commission Agenda Packet 02-07-1995_jb
AGENDA
REGULAR MEETING - MONTICELLO PLANNING CO ION
Tuesday, February 7, 1995 - 7 p.m -
Members: Richard Carlson, Jon Bogart, Richard Martie, Dick Frie, Rod
Dragsten
1. Call to order.
2. Consideration of appointing a chairperson for 1995.
3. Consideration of approval of minutes for the re meeting held
January 3, 19%. e' C ('4'm n�. ---^
4. Public Hearing --Consideration of a zoning ordinance amendment regulating
pole building construction. Applicant, Monticello Planning Commission.
5. Public Hearing --Consideration of zoning ordinance amendments regulating
placement of accessory structures (storage sheds) in the rear yard of double
li onting lots. Applicant, Monticello Planning Commission.
6. Public Hearing --Consideration of zoning ordinance amendments establishing
buffer yard requirements. Applicant, Monticello Planning Commission.
/ 7. Public Hearing --Consideration of approving the preliminary plat of phase V
VVV of the Cardinal Hills subdivision. Applicant, Value Plus Homes.
S. Consideration of alternatives for development of a zoning ordinance
amendment that would allow vehicle storage or parking at a location other
than the principal use. Applicant, Jay Morrell.
9. Consideration to adopt a resolution Ending the modified Redevelopment
Plan for Redevelopment Project No. 1, and TIF Plan fbr TIF District No.
1-19, located within Redevelopment Project No. 1, to be consistent with the
comprehensive plan for the city.
10. Review time line and plan for updating comprehensive plan for the city.
11. Review sketch plan outlining residential development of the John 1mrson
property (Jeff report).
12. Adjournment.
Consideration of anqLin&g a chairoereon for iqn. (J.O.)
A. REFERENCE ATjp LkCKGROUND:
As you may already know, the two new members of the Planning
Commission replacing Cindy l emm and Brian Stumpf are Dick Frio and
Rod Dragsten. Welcome to Dick and Rod and congratulations on your
appointments!
Jon Bogart has volunteered as acting chairperson pending the appointment
of the new commission members. Now that a frill body of the Planning
Commission has been established, it is appropriate to formally appoint a
chairperson.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
Accept nominations and vote on the position of chairperson.
Q--MAFF RECOMMENDATION:
None.
`._ None.
MIIVUTES
REGULAR MEETING-MONTICELLO PLANNING CObDUSSION
Tuesday, January 3,1995 - 7 p.m.
Members Present Jon Bogart, Richard Martie, Richard Carlson
Members Absent: None
Staff Present: Jeff O'Neill, Wanda Kraemer, Steve Grittman, Consulting City
Planner
1. The meeting was called to order by acting chairperson Jon Bogart at 7 p.m.
2. ,Aooroval of the minutes of the regular meeting held October 4. 1894.
The minutes were approved with the correction to Item 3, number 3 of the
five reasons supporting the zoning amendment should read: The proposal
will not tend to cause depreciation of the land values in the area.
3. Apamal Of the minutes of the regular meeting held December 8. 1994 - 7
R&
4. Public Hearing -Consideration of a 2•ft, variance to the 10 -ft side yard
setback, which would allow expansion of an existing garage. Anulicant.
Paul Klein,
Chairperson Bogart opened the public hearing
Jeff O'Neill, Assistant Administrator, explained that in the past the city has
allowed gideyard variance to enable construction of a standard size two car
garage. In this case, there is already a 370 eq R garage with dimensions of
22' x 18'8 and adding 10' to the width will result in a garage size that is
larger than the standard size. The property owner can achieve reasonable
and full use of his property without a variance and there is no unique
circumstance or hardship that would justify the variance and granting the
variance could set a precedent that would impair the intent of the
ordinance. O'Neill stated that the Planning Commission might consider
changing the ordinance for side yard setbacks.
Steve Grittman, Consulting Planner, explained that the average width of a
garage is 20 to 22 feet.
Klein described his request noting that his wish to save the existing garage
doors.
Page 1
Planning Commission Minutes - 1/03185
Chairperson Bogart then closed the public hearing.
Richard Martie did not think changing the ordinance would be beneficial.
He thought that this request did meet requirements. Richard Martie made
a motion to approve the 10 ft. side yard setback because it is a reasonable
use of the property and still 28 feet to the next structure. The motion died
due to lack of a second.
Richard Carlson stated that he would like to see the present ordinance
protected. CARLSON MADE A MOTION TO DENY THE REQUEST
BASED ON THE EVIDENCE THAT THERE IS NO HARDSHIP
JUSTIFYING THE GRANTING OF THE 2 FOOT VARIANCE TO THE
SIDE YARD SETBACK. 2nd by Jon Bogart. Voting in favor: Richard
Carlson, Jon Bogart. Opposed: Richard Martie.
Public Hearing-Consideraiion of a conditional use aermik allywrne the
develoameny of a 48 -unit 3-sfory senior housing aroiect. A22LcanL
Monticello Senior Houaine Alliance.
Jeff O'Neill, Assistant Administrator, reviewed the site plan. He noted that
the site plan is located in the P7.M zone and is allowed with a conditional
use permit. The 2 acres site is located directly east of the existing clinic
facility and encompasses two platted lots and portion of the River Street
right-of-way. The site design and associated parking layout utilizes the
clinic driveway. The river extends along the northern boundary of the
property. Extending through the northern side of the site is the River
Street right-of-way, which was platted many years ago but never developed
for roadway purposes. The pathway plan adopted by the City currently
calls for River Street to become a location for a pathway that will someday
be extended Brom River Street to Mississippi Drive. To the east of the site
is a home recently purchased by John Bondhus. Farther to the east is the
Bondhus office complex and the wastewater treatment plant. The presence
of the wastewater treatment plant and periodic odors that impact the area
represent some potential for incompatibility between uses. The Planning
Commission should carefully weigh the risk associated with allowing
development of the congregate care senior housing facility at this location
duo to this factor. The consensus among the HRA, the Hospital Board of
Directors, and the Senior Housing Alliance is that although it is
demonstrated that odor problems do occur in the area, the frequency of the
problem is linked to unique atmosphere conditions that occur only a few
days per year. The view had been that although during certain days there
may be a problem for the most part odors are not a problem. The City staff'
Page 2
Planning Commission Minutes - 1103/95
has asked the architect to design the air intake system to include an air
filtration mechanism that will bring fresh air into the hallways and general
use areas of the building. In addition, the individual wall air conditioners
serving each unit will also have an air filtration system that is designed to
mitigate odor problems.
The parking will include 18 parking spaces in front of the building, 33
underground for a total of 51 spaces which meets code requirements.
O'Neill went on to outline the conditions required by the ordinance and
suggested adding an air filtration requirement.
n Bogart opened the public hearing
Jay Nelson, architect for BRW and working for the Monticello Senior
Alliance, explained the that there is a need for senior housing in Monticello
and there have already been numerous inquires on this new proposal. He
went through the site plan and building information. The building will be
visible from a main road (County Road 75) which will provide the
advertising needed and make the complex easy to find and acceas. On the
otherhand, the river in the back of the building offers a scenic park setting
for residents to enjoy the outdoors. The building will be situated to allow as
many units as possible to have a river view. The front of the building will
be designed to look like and early 1900's riverfront hotel. There will be a
covered walkway, screened porch, and open porch across the front and west
side. The front will be red brick and the back will have a wooden carriage
house look. The floor plans will include a large waiting area off of the
dining room, the doors and hallways will be wide enough for walkers and
wheelchairs. The corridors will be decorated with color variations and wood
trim not just white in color. There will be a small hotel room in the
complex for residents guests. A large eomLmon mail area. A Bill basement
with underground parking.
The main parking lot would be between the building and the clinic. The
City bus would be able to pick residenta ny from the front entrance but
could block traffic during this time, Nelson stated there would be room to
make a place for the bus to pull off but that would involve taking more of
the green space and it was his opinion this would not be necessary.
The position of the building will require realignment of the sewer line that
runs through the property. The City Engineer requested that the slope
around the building be changed to 4 to 1 slope instead of the 3 to 1 that was
Page 3
Planning Commission Minutes - 1/03/95
originally designed. The drainage will be through the storm sewer
connection which runs in back of the building in front of the garage door
and connects to the receptor system. Because of the large amount of 611
needed and the long sewer line the budget will not handle the bridge that
would connect the housing development with the pathway. Barb
Schwientek, Hospital Administrator, indicated that this is still in the long
term plan and is planning on working with the HRA and TIF funds.
Richard Carlson questioned if there would be tunnel to the hospital.
Schwientek stated that there could not be a tunnel because of the storm
water system but there is a possibility of a connection to the clinic. The
connection would be made if and when the clinic added a second floor and
would be a walkway between the housing complex and the clinic at the
second floor level.
Chairperson Bogart dosed the public hearing.
Richard Carlson inquired if there had been any surveys taken to confirm
that there is an interest in this project.
Al Larson, HRA, stated about two years ago a survey was taken that did
indicate a need for senior housing. There has already been money put down
on apartment units in anticipation that the project will be approved.
Bogart suggested improvements to the parking lot grading plan. He
suggested that certain elopes could be flattened out without additional
expenses.
RICHARD MARTIE MADE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE 3 -STORY
SENIOR HOUSING PROJECT CONTINGENT ON KEEPING
CONSISTENT WITH THE GEOGRAPHY OF THE AREA, THE
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, AND THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:
1. NOT MORE THAN 10% OF THE OCCUPANTS MAY BE PERSONS
60 YEARS OF AGE OR UNDER (SPOUSES OF A PERSON OVER
60 YEAR OF AGE OR CARETAKERS, ECT.).
2. EXCEPT FOR CARETAKER UNITS, OCCUPANCY SHALL BE
LIMITED TO MAN AND WIFE, BLOOD RELATIVES, OR A
SINGLE MAN OR SINGLE WOMAN.
3. FILE AN ANNUAL REPORT WITH THE CITY THAT SHOWS THE
Page 4
Planning Commission Minutes - 1103/96
MONTHLY RESUME OF OCCUPANTS OF SUCH A MULTIPLE
DWELLING, LISTING THE NUMBER OF TENANTS BY AGE AND
CLEARLY IDENTIFYING AND SETTING FOR THE
RELATIONSHIP OF OCCUPANTS 60 YEARS OF AGE OR UNDER
TO QUALIFIED TENANTS OR TO THE BUILDING.
4. ONE OFF-STREET LOADING SPACE IN COMPLIANCE WITH
CHAPTER 3, SECTION 6, OF THIS ORDINANCE IS INSTALLED.
6. ELEVATOR SERVICE IS PROVIDED TO EACH FLOOR LEVEL.
6. USEABLE OPEN SPACE AS DEFINED IN CHAPTER 2, SECTION
2, OF THE ORDINANCE, AT A MINIMUM, IS EQUAL TO 20% OF
THE GROSS LOT AREA.
7. THE SITE OF THE MAIN ENTRANCE OF THE PRINCIPAL USE
IS SERVED OR IS LOCATED WITHIN 400 FT OF REGULAR
TRANSIT SERVICE.
8. THE SITE OF THE MAIN ENTRANCE OF THE PRINCIPAL USE
IS WITHIN 400 FT OF COMMERCIAL SHOPPING
DEVELOPMENT OR ADEQUATE PROVISION FOR ACCESS TO
SUCH FACILITIES IS PROVIDED.
9. AN AIR FILTRATION SYSTEM WILL BE DEVELOPED THAT
WILL SERVE COMMON AREAS WITHIN THE BUILDING AND
WILL SERVE INDIVIDUAL APARTMENTS MEETING THE
DESIGN REQUIREMENTS OF THE CITY ENGINEER.
The motion was seconded by Richard Carlson. Motion passed
unanimously.
Public Hearing - (}onsidergNon of a conditional use Permit allowing the
development of a ioint onrking fgcility shared by Monticello -Bis Lake
Community Hospital D{etrict pnd the pronosed senior housing facility.
li n Mont gcIlp Senior Housing Alliance and Monticello -Big Lake
f,ommunity Hospital District.
Chairperson Bogart opened the public hearing. No fiuther discussion.
Bogart closed the pubdc hearing.
RICHARD CARLSON MADE A MOTION TO GRANT A CONDITIONAL
Page 5
Planning Commission Minutes - V03/95
USE PERMIT ALLOWING DEVELOPMENT OF A JOINT PARKING
FACILITY SHARED BY THE MONTICELLO-BIG LAKE COMMUNITY
HOSPITAL DISTRICT AND THE MONTICELLO SENIOR HOUSING
ALLIANCE CONTINGENT ON: A PROPERLY DRAWN LEGAL
INSTRUMENT EXECUTED BY THE PARTIES CONCERNED FOR JOINT
USE OF THE OFF-STREET PARKING FACILITIES, DULY APPROVED
AS TO FORM AND MANNER OF EXECUTION BY THE CITY
ATTORNEY, SHALL BE FILED WITH THE CITY ADMINISTRATOR AND
RECORDED WITH THE COUNTY RECORDER. Richard Martie seconded.
Motion passed unanimously.
Steve Grittman, Consulting City Planner, gave an update on the status of
the development of buffer/screen regulations.
The commissioners discussed in detail what responsibility the city should
take on this issue and were in agreement that it is important to regulate
the screening between the different zones for aesthetic purposes but the
security of adjoining properties not requiring screening should be the
responsibility of the owners. There are many areas to look at concerning
height, amount of plantings, maintenance responsibility, ect of the berms or
screening. Everyone was in agreement that it was time to define this area
and update the ordinance before development continued in 1995.
RICHARD MARTIE MADE A MOTION TO CALI. FOR 6 FJJBLIC
IEA L4G AT SHE IyEXT MEF;TIN4REGARDW4 ADOPTION OF TiiE
BUFFER/SC!WEI REGULATIONS. Seconded by Richard Carlson. Motion
passed unanimously.
O'Neill noted his concern about proliferation of pole buildings and noted
that the IDC has discussed this concern as well but has not developed a
consensus. He noted that the Planning Commission might wish to explore
the possibility of stabling regulations governing this type of construction.
The Commissions all agreed that the item is one that surfaces every few
years and should be addressed.
111CHARD MARTIE MADE A MOTION TO CALL FOR A PUBLIC
LREARING QN THE REGULATION OF POLE BUILDINGS. Seconded by
Richard Carlson. Motion passed unanimously.
The last item discussed was setbacks on double frontage lots for accessory
buildings. In many of the new developments and future developments there
is street frontage on two sides of the lots. Because of this, there are many
Page 6
Planning Commission Minutes - V03%
accessory buildings (examples, dog houses, fish houses, storage buildings)
close to the street. Grittman stated that many communities require
awry buildings have a 30 R setback when on street or require
screening.
RICHARD MMUIE MADE A MOTION TO CALL FOR A PUBLIC
HEARING ON REGULATIOII OF REAR Y4RD AWMCi9 ON DOUBLE
FRONTAGE LOTS., Richard Carlson seconded the motion. Motion passed
unanimously.
S. Adjournment. MOTION BY RICHARD MARTIE TO ADJOURN THE
MEETING. Seconded by Richard Carlson. Meeting adjourned at 9:05 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Wanda Kraemer
Development Services Technician
Page 7
Planning Commission Agenda - 2/7/95
4. Public Hearin—Consideration of a coning grdinanSe amendment
regulating Dole building constructioDlicant. Monticello
Planning Commission. (J.O.)
At the previous meeting of the Planning Commission, staff informed the
Planning Commission that there has been growing interest in development
of commercial and industrial facilities that utilize pole construction. Recent
examples include the construction of the vacant facility north of Little
Mountain School, and the Polycest manufacturing site. In recent months,
City staff has received inquiries regarding City regulations governing pole
building construction from applicants interested in building in Monticello.
One inquiry came from a person interested in locating a business on the
Pfeffer property on Fallon Avenue near Custom Canopy. Another party was
interested in a site for a pole building near Wendy's. These requests come
on the heels of recent concern expressed by the Industrial Development
Committee regarding the proliferation of pole building construction.
The Industrial Development Committee was not specific in outlining its
concern regarding pole building construction, and there were mixed opinions
as to the level of regulation that is appropriate. It was clear, however, that
the level of concern was significant enough to warrant requesting that the
Planning Commission review current regulations and determine whether or
not tightening regulations is appropriate.
In light of the trends noted above, I requested that the City Planner prepare
a report outlining the positive and negative aspects of pole construction.
City staff requests that you review this information and provide further
direction to City staff on this matter. This is an important but not urgent
matter. Perhaps it is appropriate to review the report, discuss it, and table
action pending further review.
According to the City Planner, his greatest concern is regarding the
potential for pole construction in the B•3 and B-4 (commercial) zones of the
city. Pole building construction has the potential for significant negative
impact on commercial areas; therefore, it may make sense to act soon to
adopt ordinance amendments accordingly. In terms of industrial areas, it
may be more difficult to establish a clear consensus that pole buildings
should be further regulated in industrial areas; therefore, the Planning
Commission may wish to wait until completion of the comprehensive plan to
regulate pole building construction in industrial areas.
Planning Commission Agenda - 217/95
Attached are excerpts from the comprehensive plan that may apply to the
decision at hand. Please review the ordinance amendment in terms of the
comprehensive plan and determine whether or not the ordinance
amendment proposal is consistent with the comprehensive plan.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS.:
Motion to adopt an ordinance amendment regulating construction of
pole buildings.
As with every zoning ordinance amendment, a motion to adopt the
ordinance amendment must include a "finding" that provides specific
reasons why the amendment is appropriate. The finding must relate
to the criteria noted below.
Consistency with the comprehensive plan
Compatibility with the geography or character of the area
Effect on land values
Demonstrated need for the amendment
The report provided by Steve Grittman should assist you in applying
the criteria above to the decision at hand.
Motion to deny adoption of an amendment regulating construction of
pole buildings.
This alternative should be selected if the Planning Commission does
not believe that an ordinance amendment is necessary after reviewing
the decision criteria noted above in alterative 01.
It is recommended that the Planning Commission discuss the matter in
detail, then direct staff to update the proposed ordinance accordingly. The
updated ordinance would then be reviewed at an upcoming meeting.
If the Planning Commission were to adopt an ordinance amendment today,
it would be the recommendation of City staff to adopt regulations limiting
pole construction in commensal districts. However, we are not sure how
strong the regulations should be. Should pole buildings be banned
altogether, or should they be allowed but be limited by requiring special
footing design or by requiring special exterior treatments?
Planning Commission Agenda - 217/95
In terms of regulating pole construction in industrial zones, it may be
difficult to justify completely banning pole building construction in I-1 and
1-2 industrial areas. On the other hand, as noted in Grittman's report, pole
buildings do not hold their value and provide only a 6sdion of the tax
revenue that other types of construction provido. Perhaps it makes sense to
help preserve industrial land for higher value construction at a time in the
history of the city when we are trying to replace the tax revenue generating
power of the power plant.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Planner's report from 1994; Proposed ordinance amendment governing pole
buildings in commercial zones; Excerpts from the comprehensive plan.
PUG -29-1994 1543 NAC 612 496 9837 P.02/13
PLANNWG REPORT
TO: FILE
FROM: Bob Kirmis/Cary Teague/Stephen Grittman
DATE: 16 March 1994
RS: Monticello - pole Building Study
Fibs NO: 191.06 - 94.06
BACSGROUM
At your request, we have assembled a variety of information
relating to pole building construction and their regulation within
the City of Monticello. Hopefully, this report can serve an
educational role and contribute to the City's decision-making
process in regard to the regulation of such a building type. 1
ISSUES ANALYSIS
Pole Bail g nerinition. An obvious question tb be answered in
regard to potential pole building regulation is what are the
characteristics of such a building type.
The Monticello Zoning Ordinance does not include a definition of
the term pole building. As such, a review of other municipal
Zoning Ordinances was conducted to identify common definition of
the term.
The City of Albertville provides what is considered to be a
standard definition of the term pole building an reiterated below:
Pole Buildings: Any structure possessing the following
characteristics: structural wood poles or timbers buried
in ground on individual footings' metal wall coverings
hung vertically of less than twenty-eight (2e) gauge.
Such definition shall not include or apply to decks, sign
supports, earth retention structures, playground
equipment, electric utilities, or any similar structure
not covering or enclosing a specific area.
PW -29-1994 15:43 WC 612 595 %W P.U.Vii �
To be specifically noted from the above definition is that a pole
building is characterized by its rood pole framing system and lack
of a perimeter foundation. Thus a simple metal aided building may
not technically be considered a pole building.
mdntina Rtaulatien. Currently, the City's building material
performance standards are relatively limited and do not
specifically address the issue of pole building construction.
In review of the City zoning Ordinance, the following building type
performance standards are establieheds
Section 3-2.8.3
In R-1, R-2, R-3, and VZ -R Districts, all buildings meet
adhere to the following standards:
(a) Minimum building width of 24 feet.
(b) Mia4-- 3:12 roof pitch with -4r,4-- six (6) inch soffit.
(c) Building must be anchored to a permanent concrete or
treated wood foundation.
(d) No metal siding shall be permitted wider than 12 inches
or without a one-half (1/2) inch or more overlap and
relief.
(e) Minimum floor area shall be 1,000 square feet.
(f) All dwellings shall meet all regulationa of the esinaeaota
Uniform Building Code.
Section 3.2.8.4
In all districts, all buildings shall be finished on all aides
with consistent architectural quality, materials, and design.
Based on the aforementioned, the construction of pole type
commercial and industrial buildings is currently permitted within
the City.
Generally speaking, a City's toning Ordinance
is tended to reflect and implement established City policies. Of
Particular consideration in this matter are policies which relate
to the City's desired building quality.
0
Ftrl 29-1994 1543 NqC bU r= 7w, r.aw1.) �
In review of the City's 1994 Comprehensive Plan, the following
established polices relate to the issue of building quality:
o Aesthetics and good urban design shall be an important factor
in evaluating proposals although these will not be the sole
determinants leading to rejection or approval of proposed
projects.
C The tax structure must be a factor in planning the industrial
and co=nrcial uses permitted by the City.
Pole &angina Va. Cenwnational 8nildinv - Cest nefareatisl_ Based
on information from the Mnastrista, St. Bonifacius and Waconia
Building inspector, the 'average) square footage costs for Pole
Buildings and Conventional Building for commercial or iadnstrial
type uses is as follows:
Conventional Building $45.00 per square foot.
Pole Building $16.00 per square foot.
Using the above figures the cost coagaarison for a 1,000 square foot
building is as follows:
Conventional Building $45,000.00
Pole Building $16,000.00
Pole building characteristics, as
defined earlier in this report, hold both advantages and
disadvantages when cagAxed to other conventional construction
types, such as stick built, precast concrete, concrete block, etc.
advantageei
1. Pole type buildings are typically more affordable than other
building types.
2. Pole buildings can be constructed in a relatively short period
Of time.
3. A high degree of design flexibility and is now available for
Pole type construction.
4. Pole buildings are more easily relocated than other building
types.
S. Affordability prompts increased rate of development.
3
lJ
PLJG-29-19964 1$:44 NAC ole X= 2c., r— i. �
Disadvantages:
1. Reflective of their construction costs, pole buildings
typically generate lower property values than a comparable
building of higher quality construction.
3. Pole buildings commonly hold a perception of being less
visually appealing than alternative building types.
3. Increased rate of development of such a building type may not
be desirable.
4. Pole building construction may establish an "imageN of the
City which is inconsistent with the City's development
objectives.
S. Pole building construction may raise compatibility concerns
with regard to adjacent structures.
6. 'typically pole buildings require extra maintenance, and do not
have the life span of a building of conventional construction.
The issue of pole building regulation is not
new to developing cities. For your information, we have attached
able regulations from a number of area communities. A summary
of these regulations is provided below.
Of the City's interviewed, those that do not allow pole buildings,
or those which require extensive treatment to building facades, do
so for the following reasons: Having aesthetically pleasing
commercial, industrial or residential areas to attract new
business, or residents to the community; Maintain* property values,
and tax base in the commis"ity; Prevent maintenance or structural
problems typically associated with pole buildings.
1. saves armor s.igbe.. Alter years of discussion, the City of
Inver Grove Heights adopted building type standards designed
to address the issue of pole building construction. Specific
provisions intended to address this matter included the
followings
a. Excepting agricultural accessory structures, require all
buildings in all districts in excess of 1,000 square feet
to be constructed with a full perimeter foundation.
b. Except for accessory tam structures Dad residential
accessory buildings of 110 square feet or lose, prohibit
sheet metal siding an all residential accessary
buildings.
4
0
ALra-29-1994 15:44 !WC 612 595 ywv F'. *O ' 1.)
C. All exterior facades of commercial, industrial or public
buildings shall have the same or equally attractive facia
as the front. At least 50 percent of the exterior
vertical surface shall consist of one or a combination of
the following: brick veneer, sculptured, textured,
concrete block or panels, natural wood siding, steel,
alumlaum or vinylal p siding, natural stone or glass,
sheet or corrugated steel or aluminum finish is permitted
only in the upper one-third of the building wall height.
2. Ready all of commercial development within
the City of St. Sonifacius' along State Highway 7 are pole
buildings. These buildings became an issue for the City as
they began to run down, become unsightly, and eventually many
went out of businesses.
a. In an effort to make this commercial area aesthetically
pleasing, and to prevent the commercial district from
becoming run down in the future, the City passed an
ordinance that prohibits construction of pole buildings
in all commercial districts.
b. pole buildings are allowed in the rural residential
portions of the City.
3. Lakeville
a. In residential districts, accessory buildings in excess
of 150 s.f. must be constructed of the same or similar
Quality exterior building material as the principal
building.
b. Exterior facades containing metal or fibArglass finish of
co®ercial, industrial or yublio buildings aro limited to
50 percent of any one Wali.
4. &ARO- JARM
a. pole barna are only allowed in the rural portions of the
City. pole basal or metal sided buildings are not
allowed an residential property smaller than 5 acres in
size.
b. Construction of accessory builma not occur prior to
or taller than the principal ding. M tuber of
accessory buildings, construction standards, size,
location, and height are each regulated depending on the
sire of lot on which the buildings are located.
a. All buildings constructed on camimercial or industrial
5
_ _ o
ALD -29-1994 15:44 NAC 612 59S 9837 11.1?el13
land must be of wood frame, steel, reinforced concrete,
masonry or an equivalent or better material. No building
shall have pole barn type construction nor an exterior
wall surface of sheet metal. Exterior wall surfaces of
all buildings shall be face brick, glass, stone,
decorative block, architectural concrete cast in place,
or architectural metal panel.
d. Pole building construction and sheet metal exteriors
within commercial or industrial districts, are allowed by
CVP if the pole barn is an accessory structure, or as an
expansion of an existing pole building.
S.
a. The City of waconia prohibits pole buildings defined as:
Any building using wood or metal poles as a principle
structural support where ouch supports are not affixed to
a floor slab but inserted directly into the ground to
achieve alignment and bearing capability.•
b. sheet metal, plastic or fiberglass siding is prohibited.
C. All buildings in commercial and industrial districts must
take on the exterior architectural appearance of exiting
structure in the immediate area. 8xterior building
finish must consist of materials comparable to: Brick;
Natural stone; Concretes Finished wood such as cedar,
redwood and cypress; Glass curtain wall panels;
6. B�OIII
a. Require a conditional use permit for any acceseory
structure. standards include exterior siding material,
finish, color, roofing, and the architecture must be
similar to the principal building and general
neighborhood environment or business area.
b. No mention is made with regard to pole buildings.
7. M&tIQL2
a. Pa— buildings are nxompt from regulation.
b. Buildings must be compatible with yriacipal structure.
Height and setbacks are regulated by the underlying
soniag district.
C. If more than one accessory building is to be located on
a lot, a CGP is required.
6
0
0
iX,29-1994 14:45 - tpC - -612-SW-9837 P.08/13
d. Other in association with farming operations, no
galvanized or unfinished steel or unfinished all-4—
buildings
l•-4—buildings except thooe specifically intended to have a
corrosive designed finish such as cortin areal is
permitted in any zoning district.
e.
a. Accessory buildings made of corrugated metal exterior are
required to obtain a conditional use permit. size,
height and setbacks are regulated per the underlying
ZQn district.
b. Accessory buildiags must be constructed on a concrete
slab or floating foundation.
9. Aunatzius
a. Paan buildings are exempt from regulation.
b. more than one accessory building or any such structure
over 700 square feet, requires a COP.
C. The same or similar quality exterior building material
@ball be used is the accessory building and in the
principal building.
I
a. Paan buildings are exert from regulation.
b. Accessory buildings may not be useQ for commercial
operations in a residential district.
C. Any accessory building which exceeds 1,000 square feet is
required to obtain a CM
d. Tho City does not have any construction standards. Pale
buildings are allayed in all zoning districts, including
cc®ercial and residential.
7
lilt+ -29-1994 15:45 NAC
512 :'tb 'isse r, WW1.3
TO Robert W. Schaefer, City Administrator
FROM Alice Keppel, Planning Supervisor
DATE May 17, 1991
SUBJECT PrrooppoosseeddOrdimncoCLtrifyingandEamblishingRegslacomCencertus`Pole
Baildiogs. Accessary Structures to Single -Family Residences and Building
Exterior Requirements for Commercial, Industrial and Institutional Buildings.
Attached is a copy of the proposed ordinance, referenced above. Planning Commission held the public
hearing an May 7, 1991 and rsxommeaded approval. A copy of disk recomoiandation is attached. The
proposed ordinance has been scheduled for fiat reading by the City Council as May M 1991.
Plasmas Commission bas disco -sed the item an numerous ocasioas and staff has prepared several
informational reports. Thepurpose of this memo is to provide a summary of the information provided to
the Ploaniag Commission arhieb has en1 i.,4 is the tett .w ordiaaaca.
The regulation ofbuildinag�s and similar structures arose in July. 1988, from discussions between the
al
Plassg sad Bail�g tagpsaioas staff. Topics induded:
appropriateness of suet structures for commercial/industrial use.
eompatibdiry of appearance with adjacent urneturea
relatively low value of construction.
Regulations were ultimately adopted which recognized that polo buildings aro appropriate cold'gmiage
accessory structures for a¢rtcultural uses, however sot desirable for other types of development. such u
commercial or iodustrial. in addition. a mazimem square footage was established for accessory structures
rfomCoCode: residences. January. 1990, the City Council adopted the following amendments to t
ohe
Subd. 1S pip, Rg,drenLW In &U zoning districts, structures in excess of 1,000 square
fent of Stan floor era shall be constructed with a toll perimater foundation.
Excoptionn to this requirement are accessory struaum to principal agricultural uses
(ie. /arms, ranches, smblos, Fraenboom& norssries and uses doomed similar by the
City Coaaet'l) in the 'A' tuning district
Solid. 16 Accessory uses inall'A',
'E' and 'R' zoning districts " tot exceed a maximum I floor arm of 1.000
square gas. Sheet mod aiding shag b• prohibited u •siding material an all such
suoersres n to this requirement aro accaoory structures to single-family
residential on o all W. 'E' and'R' zoning dlaaicti with gross floor areas of 120
square feet or leu. and at:anory stroctum to principalit�aohus tuseshe City Co airaw
reaches. stables, greenhouses, atuterin and ones domed
La the'A' toning districts.
The aapppproach is Sabal. 13 was chosen. since the Zoning authority granted to the City by State Staim
provides the appomtauy to moist banding construction standards within the toning Code by reforests
to foavdadaa typo U con teh that by regairiag a fall perlmetn toandadon, a more conventional typo of
coaatruedon would result to practice, however, this has ant oeearred for some types of commercial
constroedo IL
The basis for Solid. 16 was. twofold. 'Fiat iamblhhiM a ottalmumof 1.000 apoaro' toot liqshicbisved
consistency with ade rtiin Sate Bnpd"Coprovisions. bangs o.ar 1.000 pawn !nest are reroed by
the Sate Building Code to provide a bard -surfaced floor wi Interval plambiog sad fLmmable waste
traps. Second. the sirs of necessary structures was limited to a sale in propordea to the principal gauetore
they related to
L��
RJG-29-1994 1545 NAC 612 5% 9837 P.10i13
Robert w. Schaefer, Clty Ada"imatar
May 17, 1991
Pap
Since the so-called 'pole bualding' repLations were adopted last year. the Planning saff and Building
lenmetioas staff have fond that the current requirements do not address some typos of construction and
us difficult to admiaitta The regairemeaa are not clearly endarstsod br builders, and now construction
methods which meet the Isar of the ordinance, but am the intent. have bean dweloped. The appUatioa
of the requiremssts to commercial and industrial development has ban the greatest source of difficulty,
since pole -type buildings may be connected with fall -perimeter foundations. The requirement for a fall
perimeter foaadation don not eliminate metal shianad buMap as originally intended.
During the summer of 1990. several requests for variances from the requirements were granted. The
Planning Commission requested that the csrrest reguladons be braagitt back to the Commission for
analysh, rovisioe and e3atifien60a.
Staff provided isformaasa regardingg thepereeived problems with the cureat ordinance, the practice of
other cider, the egoinmsata of the Stam Balding Code and advice of the City Attains, in several reports
to the Plaaaiag Commission. Ultimately. the Planning Commission formed a aonsnsas of opinion with
respect to the proposed clarifications and revisions of the ordinance:
o Clardy the curtest requirement far'fall perimeter foundation' by amending it to read: fu4
continuous structural load•bearingpaimrtar foundation. The City Balding Official advises
We Landow is more accurate.
o The tartest 1.000 square feet muimam for accessM structures to dngle• family residences
Is approrpdate and should be retained A clarification bas mads to apply the 1.000 sq. ft
maelz%w to necessary structures to single-family development in the'A . 'E', 'R•1' and
'R•1' diisalccr, h would am apply to any of the R-3 districts.
o Attached praps should be exempted from the 1.000 square (am maximum. Attached
ganga may ettud 1.000 square feat, however will be mora expensive to construct because
of Sate Suildina Cede requirements.
0 9pedfy a maximum to covmge by strucmm in the R•1 dis icts of 30% or 4,000 square
fast, w3siehsver is hssa This is cossismat with restrictions is the 8.1 district (4,000
quare !am manimam buildiaa coverap) and thed3hoeeLsd Regulation s (304L marimom
mvmZe by impen{om aarfacal The lot coverage could be achieved by as any btdldisp
as dnire4 provided n4 damcbed accessory sttumn osseeded 1.000 ser ft
o A miaisaam spa of 6 feet should be required between pitacipal and scassosy araetuns.
and batw ass accessary nructatos to maintain axsisaney with State BMW& Coda This also
sllmisatss the potential of accessory bWldtsp bsiaa cottat and within laohn of ass
another.
o The meat effective way to Unit the construction of pole type bu0dinp for commerefal and
imduatrial no is to specify building; esarfor esgxiramom% similar to what has been adapted
for mtald•fam0, residential est warehouse developmsat goakodnal uses were also
IadudadTbebaildfnaanterior requirements spedl that Aatormrropted mwleanrbrn
are only permitted to the upper one third of the buildiag hsiaht Tkb Wave the rets of
MOW for tooflag material, however mmicts its exclusive am on astufor surfaces.
0
i&'r29-1994 15:45 - - IiiC - - -- - 612 Sn 993? P.11/13
Rabat W. Sdf den City A.,./:%. � ... .
May 17, 1991
pale S
raldodu
The --had ordiaaaes repreaean the eombia" errors at rhe Ybaafog commiaim chy mff and city
A=fwy to darity aad rube the szbdn6 regoimmem bro morkaW reawnabb regnbdons.
It addidWAI iatormadoa. b dedte4 pl— ad+ire..
i•`r►
Aa
AW" 29-1994 1546 NAC 612 545 9837 P. 12/13
CITY OF INVER GROVE MBIGBTS
DASOTA COUNTY, NINNBSOTA
ORD21ANC8 20. 731
an DADIIOlm ANE1®Yn SECTION 515.47, SUBDIVISI0N LS and 16
OF MM INVER GROVE BSIGHM CITY CODE ,.:,a. ..w«w TO FULL
a,rd..s.:... FOUNDATION J4.M.0&WrW k" POR A-W—W.9.3, AND
REGULATIONS TO ACCESSORY TO SII3S.B-
FAMMY RMIDENTM MM PRINCIPAL AGRICOLT08AL USES M
CLARIFYING TM FULL c,:.:....:..rro. POMU)A% ON R:.�- •f
1....L..� •..u. ATUCRED GARAGES FROM TBE 10 000 ' SO. FT. MAZZNM
SIZE FOR AN ACCESSORY a..w.r.•..AS TO a 331iGIa PAN= Rss1n8NCE;
RSTABLISKM a MAZIM@i IAT COVERAGE SY
FOR THE R-1 RSSIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICTS; AM REWIRXHG A
IlIRZ;lUM SPACING OF 6 FEET BETWEEN BU=MSGS; ASID ADDXM A
SUBDIVISION 17 vu:...aZai.Mv BQ=MG WCTZRIOR Rdr-- •s FOR
COM MRCIAL, INDQSTR= AND -64 ...... WML
The City Council of Iaver Grove Heights ordains as followst
SECTION I. �,y_. Inver Grove Heights City Code Section
515.47, Subdivision 15, is hereby amended to road as follows:
Subd. 13 Foundation Roauira=. In DU zoning districts,
structures in *=ass of 1,000 square feet of gross floor
area shall be constructed vith a full continuous
structural load-bearlAq perimeter foundation. Exceptions
to this requirement are accessory structures to
principal agricultural uses (i.a.•, farms, ranches,
stables, greenhouses, nurseries, and uses deemed similar
by the City Council) in the -A- Soninq District.
SECTION II. laver Grove Heights City Code Section
513.47, Subdivision 16 is hereby amended to read as follows+
Sabel. 16. . Each detached accessory structure
to "le -family residential uses in all -a-, -E-,
.R-11 AND -R-2- Zoning Districts shall not asxead a
total maximum gross floor area of 1,000 square feet.
Sheet or corrugated steel or aluminum metal shall be
prohibited as a siding material on all such structures -
Zxeeptions to this requirement are accessary structures
to single-family residential uses in all -A-, -E- and
-R- toning districts with gross floor areae of 120
square feet or 1668, and accessary Structures to
principal agricultural uses (i.e. farms, reaches,
stables, Qnen)bowu, nurseries and uses deemed similar
by she City Couaeil) in the -A- Zoning Districts. These
shall be a minimum 'space of sin (6) feet between the
principal and accessory structure unless attached, and
a minimum space of els (6) feet between all other
l�
ALCr29-1994 15:46 me 61275% 9W? P. 13/13
Ordinance No. 731 Page 2
y accessory structures. In all R-1 toning districts, the
total •---..� — lot coverage by all strnetu=s shall not
esoca" 3016 or 4,000 square feet, whichever is lose.
SHCTI09 III. Inver Grove Heights City Code Section
513.47 is hereby amended to add the following subdivisions
Sum- 17. +pant
All essterior
vertical surfaces of auy principal or accessory
structure in any •81, •i• or •P• toning district shall
have an equally attractive or the same fascia as the
front. at least $00 of the exterior vertical surface
shall consist of one or a combination of the followinq
or similar materials bzie): veneer) aenl , textured
concrete block or s natural good sidiaq; at"].*
alnmias>m or vinyl lap sidings natural stone or glass.
ehset or corrugated steel or alvmiaam finish is
permitted only in the upper one third of the building
wall height.
IT. 2US Ordinance shall be in fall
force and effect from and alter its passage and publication according
to law.
Passed this ath day of JulV , 1991
Ayes 4
Mayes 0
■.TTT'Tr'l..;r1'rm74.7r'-1m.
TOT$L P.1
FAC
F®-01139 NRC612 595 9837 P.05/V
Northwest Associated Consultants, Inc.
YaaAM PL ANNI MO - 0E110M - MA•a aT a 981A NCM
MEMPANDiJM
TO:
kff O'Neill
FROM:
DATE:
Stephen Oeitunan
2 February 1994
R13:
Moatleello - Fab BtllMiggs in Business Dig xicts
FIM NO:
191.06 - 95.01
Enclosed with this is a draft Zoning Owe amen relating to the
nsaietinm on the coamuetioa of pole bailOW in eonurroecW districts. As we discussed, this
isto has been raised again by the IDC, as well as the potential constntNon of such a building
in one of the eommuMty's commercial arras.
Currently, hfondoOlo's Zoning Ordit= pmmft any type of comstiuction, regllydless of its
Mucaual charms or exterior fabb, so long as the bnihSng mean the City's building
coda In the post, pole type construction and metal aftflor finishes have bees the target of
discussion pdmadly in rho IaduatrW Disc. Those paavioaa dbcud ms have reached is a
decision to leave the Zoning Ordiasnce as it stood. The curramt issue asters an commmial
arras, and has been raised again to foals the Planning Commission's attention to that aspect of
pole building onstsuction.
As we have nomd in aladn to Pak bulmlags -in htdastrfal seas, polo eensuocdos is a diaper
construction of less durability which is most oammonly uWlred in agsfalmnl and some
induwial buildings Wean awae of few citles which parmit pole coomuction in cmmn=W
disudcts. If the planntog Cammisskm widu to elimimte the possibility of pole emu
flue commacW areas, we have prgmnd a dmft ordinance which would aoomWH-h that result.
This =dim= would apply only to constntcdon in Wl. W2.134, and 84 Discus. no
Business Campos Dimka has a uparue balm' ng muerWs ,,,,..... ., radon.
5775 Wayzata Bid - Suite 555 - S4 Louis Perk, MN 85418 - (812) 585.9836 -Fox. 595-
`1'
- - -- ----- -
FEB -02-1995 11:39 NC - - --- -- — - 612 495 9837 P.OFwW
Another aspect for regodn>mm such as this is the mo&4adee. Most . adopt
restrialoos bated an reasoms of vabmthm said aedbetim As a aeaolt, oder meal -clad sbumms
are often iwbded in the restricted . We have iwh dad metal bnihliogs in the
mdim m lagWp so the Pdmaiag Commisdm con choose to ptobibdt such buildings as ads
as pole boihdb*L The Plamfog Commission's discutosim d=M begin with this motivadw
issue, thea the or 0; eam be tailored to ®it the City's oammmL
0
So
FEB -82-1995 11=39
NAC
ORDRUNCB NO.
CITY OF MONnCIId.O
612 5959837 P.B7B7
AN OBDIIVMCE A110a MG SECTION 3.2 OF TM BION77CELW ZONUG
(MINANCE, JUCKAM NG TO TM —6t iia,,,N.,W..,;.,J----RE1Mi'I'B iM
BU11MGS IN M BUSQ4M D1SI8M-M BY MOHMUNG POLE AND OTMR
BWAL SMZD BUUMGS.
M CITY COMM OF M CM OF AWNZ=IA DOES MRMY =AM:
>:aSdmL-L SNOW 3-2, Gamal Bidldia$ � PeffoV1. ;,,.,,.., or ft
zoWVg ONioamoe b haft amended by the fallo bw.
[0] In my budoesa dirAm tel, B-2, B-3, ad B4, mA bidldhlp"be eomtmad %*m
full, pet nowt Palmer fatodatboaa. No polo -type shall bell hied
In additiom, nD comvemlon0y4 med mad clad kWdbp o1Lpaen�oeeled soeel or
ther
omeal bell be pm ft4 fo
of m&uin typo.
Seethm 2. This otdbum shall become eifa" . r uM ks passage sod
publkadm
ADOPTED by the Moodw City Cwncil this day of 1994.
CfTV OF MON ICDA
rGF-t=�i�
By:
MMM
AY®:
NAYS:
VAL P. 0�
1
community. The community goals are preferences as tot (1) the
general type of community that future physical development should
help produce; and (2) the character and location of the major
physical elements forming the urban environment.
Before the Comprehensive Plan can be carried into effect, these
community goals must be stated clearly and general agreement on them
must be reached. Otherwise, the plan cannot be conceived of as the
community's policy concerning physical development. Investigating
community attitudes and formulating a publicly acceptable statement
of broad community goals is a basic part of the planning process. A
*goal" is a desired objective to be reached.
1. To develop and emphasise Monticello as a community that can
offer the advantages of being near a metropolitan area for the
enjoyment of major cultural, sports, and business assets and yet
be completely and distinctly separate from the metropolitan area
and its suburbs.
2. To encourage steady, careful growth by maintaining reasonably
high standards.
J. To utilise the inherent advantages of the community in terms of
location, existing population, school system, available land,
*to., to gain the best possible advantage from these assets so
as to develop a reputation as a community combining all the
desirable elements for living in Minnesota.
4. To develop the City according to an officially adopted
Comprehensive Plan for land use, transportation, and community
facilities. While the plan should not be inflexible, neither
should it be amended indiscriminantly.
S. To develop urban land uses according to a set of uniform
standards applicable to the City. such standards should govern
land use, public improvements, health conditions, safety
features, aesthetic considerations, and other elements of the
urban environment for purposes of safeguarding the public
health, safety, convenience, and general welfare.
6. To maintain a public image which associates Monticello with
excellence in planning, design, and structural Quality.
7. Tb coordinate local plans with those of the school district,
adjacent and nearby communities, and others, is essential to the
wall -being of local residents.
e. To develop a sound and broad tax bass for the City and the
school district is essential in order to provide revenue for
adequate public facilities and services without creating undue
burdens upon property owners.
9. To bass all development decisions upon compliants with the City
Plan, appropriate planning methods and procedures, and
development standards that help to assure the best possible
results within the realm of economic and legal feasibility.
-38-
C°Mt P�rN`
9. Aesthetics and good urban design shall be an important factor in
I- evaluating development proposals although these will not be the
sole determinants leading to rejection or approval of proposed
projects. In the making of urban development decisions, many
factors will be taken into consideration including the
following: (a) effect on adjacent and nearby property values;
(b) safety factors; (c) health consideration; (d) landscaping:
(e) light and air space; (f) traffic generation and flow
patterns; (g) density and intensity of use; and (h) other items
.' affecting the public welfare.
{�� 1
r10. Encourage the preservation of special scenic and/or historical
1i interest sites in their original state, if at all practicable
and feasible.
11. Thetax structure must be a factor in planning the industrial
and commercial uses permitted by the City.
li. flood plain zoning should be considered for areae subject to
excessive water and run-off or potential flooding. The
objective is to preserve space for proper store drainage, avoid
property damage, prevent soil erosion, and preserve scenic and
recreational values.
11. Thedevelopment and maintenance of public buildings and land
s hoald set a high standard and good example for private property
owners to follow.
1/. AXI land should be free from noxious weeds, litter, debris,
inoperative vehicles, junk, hazards, and other undesirable
influences.
16. Require precautionary measures to insure that soil erosion will
be ■inimized to the greatest extent possible during development
construction.
16. Smoke, noise, dust, litter, vibrations, weeds, soils, erosion,
junk, and other undesirable elements must be controlled by
'performance standards' in the zoning regulations and other
codes and ordinances.
17. Adlopt an Official Map designating proposed major public .paws
and corridors.
4
01
-------- - ------
---- --- ---
10. To make major public expenditures according to a capital
improvements program and budget which establishes priority
schedules for five or six years in advance based on projections
of need end estimated revenues.
11. To encourage suitable housing in good living environments for
people of all ages, incomes, and racial and ethnic groups
throughout Monticello.
17. To allow development of new housing only where it is in harmony
with the natural environment and where adequate services and
facilities ace available.
13. To eliminate all instances of housing blight (dilapidation, poor
maintenance, etc.) as rapidly as possible.
14. To concentrate commercial enterprises into relatively compact
and well-planned areae by discouraging *spot" and 'strip"
business development.
1S, ib encourage the development of a strong industrial employment
base so that persona can live and work in Monticello.
16, To develop high qua ty industrial areae which ace free from
nuisance characteristics such as noise, smoke, odors,
vibrations, glare, duct, and other objectionable features.
17. To purchase recreation sites for long-range needs at an early
date in order that proper sites can be obtained before urban
development or land costs render acquisition hopeless.
18. To develop public utilities and services that are well planned
and cost-effective for present and future needs at the lowest
possible operating and maintenance coats.
19. To evaluate present and future traffic flow volumes in order to
develop various land use strategise to prevent congestion on the
public streets.
20. To protect residential areas by channeling major traffic volumes
onto a relatively few major streets.
-39-J
d
Planning Commission Agenda - 2/7/95
s. Public Hearing— &
dLnqjftpflon of zoning ordinance amgndmpnts
olgeemenj o ry stragtures Jstorage sheds) lm the
rear v$rd of double -fronting lots. Annllcant. Monticello Planning
Commission. W.O.)
(t. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
At the previous meeting of the Planning Commission, the Commission heard
a report from City staff and called for a public hearing on adoption of an
ordinance amendment that would regulate placement of accessory
structures, namely storage sheds and kennels for properties that have road
frontage on both the front and the rear of the property. Double -fronting lots
are an unavoidable result of development of collector roads such as School
Boulevard that extend along the perimeter of development areas. When
subdivisions are designed, efforts are made to limit the number of double -
fronting lots and to provide for extra lot depth in an effort to buffer the
impact of having a busy road as a rear yard boundary.
A side affect of double -fronting lots that has become a problem in the recent
past is the proliferation of storage buildings and kennels that are placed at
the 5 -ft setback minimum on rear yards of double -fronting iota. Examples
of this practice can be found along School Boulevard on the west side of the
Cardinal Hills subdivision. Planning Commission is asked to review this
practice and consider adopting an ordinance amendment that would change
the setback requirement to 30 R I hope to have a video of the Cardinal
Hills area available for your review.
Staff suggested considering adoption of the ordinance for the following
reasons.
There is a concern that placement of storage sheds and kennels in
close proximity to School Boulevard and other collector roads has a
negative impact on the "eye" and present a negative image for the
area and the community. By moving storage buildings away firom the
rear edge of the property, visibility of storage areas is reduced, and
the view along the boulevard is enhanced.
Regulation of the location of storage sheds does not significantly limit
or impair the use of the property by the individual property owner. It
only limits where the storage sheds can be located.
A number of cities have identified this problem and established
regulations accordingly. Regulating double -fronting rear yard
setbacks is a common practice among other cities.
Planning Commission Agenda - 2/7/95
4. The lflein Farms plat has a number of double -fronting lots on School
Boulevard and Fallon Avenue. It would make sense to establish
regulations prior to development of the plat.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. Motion to adopt an ordinance amendment regulating placement of
accessory structures (storage sheds) in the rear yard of double -
fronting lots.
As with every zoning ordinance amendment, a motion to adopt the
ordinance amendment must include a "finding" that provides specific
reasons why the amendment is appropriate. The finding must relate
to criteria noted below.
1. Consistency with the comprehensive plan
2. Compatibility with the geography or character of the area
3. Effect on land values
4. Demonstrated need for the amendment
2. Motion to deny adoption of an ordinance amendment regulating
placement of accessory structures (storage sheds) in the rear yard of
double -fronting lots.
Planning Commission should select this alternative if the proposal
does not meet the criteria for amending the zoning ordinance.
Perhaps it is the view of the Planning Commission that the benefit to
the community that comes from requiring the deeper rear yard
setback is not significant enough to warrant limiting the rights of the
property owner as proposed.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends alternative p1 for reasons noted above.
Report from Steve Grittman; Copy of proposed zoning ordinance
amendment; Copy of present ordinance; Excerpts from comprehensive plan;
Copy of preliminary plat of 10ein Farms showing double -fronting lots; Video
presented at meeting.
FEB -e2-1995 11=38 IWC 612 5% 9837 P. W_/07
FACNorthwest Associated Consultants. Inc.
URBAN PLANNING- DESIGN- IMARKST RESBARCH
MMORAMI M
TO: Jeff O'Neill
FROM: Stephan O>imolan
DA28: 2 February 1995
REL Monticello - Accessory 8uildi Mm Setbac b on Double Frontage Late
FUE NO: 191.06 - 95.02
The enclosed dews ordimm is dasigwd to control the aesthetic impact of rear yards which are
vi" to passing traffic an double fiontege lots. Moat typically, such ]ore will have rear yards
which ere arapmed to eollc= or arterial street aafl3c. and as such, can boos a significant
impact on the tsaveliog public's impseasion of the community. Under the current ordinam,
several accessory nose are e:emptad hum the namdetd rear yard scft& under Ordinance
Section 3.3 (D]. In the ease of do& fromeage lob, such .'.,,.,..,. impact only other
properties' rear yards. Wbere the ress yards are Imposed, the pl m ft Comndaahon could mabs
an WeV to control visual cbumm in the rear yard.
As we ban discussed, theca b some concern about the effectiveness of an ardioame such as the
ams proposed U a propaety owmr b in= an clumcft the rear yard. it may be difficult to
replm suf iclemly. However, this ozdiaaaoe would at least emma that the thirty feet &Qui bug
rho rear We lioelp M right-of-way would be fee of acoeaaesy bWldioga, and rho anent
Ordbaooe language prohibim unenclosed outdoor atasage of all but receead mal agaipmm and
a fete adw Rams (am Section 3-2 [N]).
The ahemadve approach to this lasso would be to ancmp to ems a screaming mgWn mm for
rear yards an doable hussage Iota. However, thin may be lupracdal to certain slumiams,
particularly where the adjob g sues b higher than the peoWty to be . Moreover,
an amsc&c scram may be dlfHluth to crura when them aro —me= com4mus property
owners with dine ft opWooa out am &a bndsap . femdng, and other scree ft efforts.
Flaft, there may be dma lm where a doable from a lot may Ojofa atha dde or hour
property lines, mgdq any accessory building, or an hnpozin farms at eaoea, a problematic
lnt:utloa an aha melghbata' use of property.
5775 Wayzata bbd - Stile 555 • SL Ltwis Park. MN 55416 - (612) 595.9636'Fax. 595.9837
FEB -02-1995 11138 NFIC 612 595 9837 P.034"
As 8 reaob, we have put the Mowing bagap wbh the ®aala of ease of G,..,,,...., t
acrd daft, 1 :... i.,,"Ag that it wMact be the pedba oohzdm m each acrd every cane. We
believe that wbez unique condbioma create the need for .... !„ .,, ate, the Zaeing
Oadbaoce'a vadaaoe 9 m c eaa permttacanddcadon of those WWW 000Mloma.
LN;
FEB -e2-1995 11:39 NFc 612 SM 9857 P. 84,1V
OBDIIMU= NO.
CPPV OF MONTICEI.LO
AN ORDDt4NCB A1MUNOING SECTION 33 EDT OF 71E, 1MONTICELLO ZONING
ORMNANCE, B3DATiNG TO 721E SETBACK itNQiJFOR ACCESSORY
BUMUMGS ON DOUBTS FRONTAGE LOTS. BY, i..iu SVCS BVUMD B
FROM DSAS YARD SETBACK F.102dPrIONS.
THE CrIY COUNCII. OF THE CrIY OF MONTICEI O DOES HEREBY ORDAIN:
lugmjL Section 3-3, Yaad RcqWrcMcoU of the Moatioeb Zordag Offtm is
beteby rmaaded by toWadug Secdm 3.3 (D13. with the tollowbgr
3. In pear yatdfv Arbon and fteMsm wpm pmrbn, wad amps in cases of doable
&oonge lots, mmdowl ad bwmdty drying egaipcat, ba>000, btemwgk
datacbed oaodow living Dooms, piogea, am air eooftonimg or bW*
e
In cam of doable fYamage law, ahr amdhimft or beatimg
etpdpmeas may be allowed to eotaaacb ao more them fin foot, p voided that It
tW1l'
==no Em® un=oft pmpardu atm puff rig s -d -way.
Thio onbaooe shall become cubed" immedlu* wm hh passage and
ADOPTED by the idoa>tfoo0o Qty Coaacil thio day of 199ti.
CITY OF MOMICH JA
ATIM.
By:
mkvw
AVIS:
NAYS:
0
Em
2. In R-1, R-2, B-1, and B-2 districts, if lot is a
corner lot, the side yard setback shall be not less
than twenty (20) feet from the lot line abutting
the street right-of-way line.
[D) The following shall not be considered as encroachments
on yard setback requirements:
PRESENT
ORDINANCE 1. Chimneys, flues, belt courses, leaders, sill,
pilaster, lintels, ornamental features, cornices,
eaves, gutters, and the like, provided they do not
project more than two (2) feet into a yard.
2. Terraces, steps, or similar features, provided they
do not extend above the height of the ground floor
level of the principal structure or to a distance
less than two (2) feet from any lot line.
3. In rear yards: recreational and laundry drying
equipment arbors and trellises, balconies,
breezeways, open porches, detached outdoor living
rooms, garages, and air conditioning or heating
equipment.
4. Solar systems.
[E) Lots of multiple housing unit structures may be divided
for the purpose of condominium ownership provided that
the principal structure containing the housing units
shall meet the setback distances of the applicable
zoning district.
In addition, each condominium unit shall have the
minimum lot area for the type of housing unit and usable
open space as specified in the area and building size
regulations of this ordinance. Such lot areas may be
controlled by an individual or joint ownership.
(F) In residential districts where the adjacent structures
exceed the minimum setbacks established in
subsection (C) above, the minimum setback. shall be
thirty (30) feet plus two-thirds (2/3) of the difference
between thirty (30) feet and the setback or average
setback of adjacent structures within the same block.
3-4: AREA AND BUILDING SIZE REGULATIONS:
[A) PURPOSE: This section identifies minimum area and
building size requirements to be provided in each zoning
district as listed in the table below.
MONTICELLO ZONING ORDINANCE 3/19
Cs
8. To develop a sound and broad tax base for the City and the
school district to essential in order to provide revenue tot
adequate public facilities and services without creating undue
burdens upon property owners.
9. To base all development decisions upon compliance with the City
Plan, appropriate planning methods and procedures, and
development standards that help to ensure the best possible
results within the realm of economic and legal feasibility.
38
os-
yaicl (o,Kr �lr•^ E.K,�
community. The community goals arepreferencesas tos (1) the
general type of community that future physical development should
help produce; and (2) the character and location of the major
1
physical elements forming the urban environment.
Before the Comprehensive Plan can be carried into effect, these
community goals must be stated clearly and general agreement on them
must be reached. Oehecwiae, the plan cannot be conceived of as the
eommunity'e policy concerning physical development. Investigating
community attitudes and formulating a publicly acceptable statement
of broad community goals is a basic part of the planning process. A
*goal" is a desired objective to be reached.
1. Tb develop and emphasize Monticello as a community that can
offer the advantages of being near a metropolitan area for the
enjoyment of major cultural, sports, and business assets and yet
be completely and distinctly separate from the metropolitan area
and its suburbs.
2. To encourage steady, careful growth by maintaining reasonably
high standards.
3. To utilize the inherent advantages of the community in terms of
location, existing population, school system, available land,
etc., to gain the beet possible advantage from these assets so
as to develop a reputation as a community combining all the
desirable elements foe living in Minnesota.
6. Tb develop the City according to an officially adopted
Comprehensive Plan for land use, transportation, and community
facilities. While the plan should not be inflexible, neither
should it be amended indiscriminantly.
S. To develop urban land uses according to a set of uniform
standards applicable to the City. Such standards should govern
land use, public improvements, health conditions, safety
features, aesthetic considerations, and other elements of the
urban environment for purposes of safeguarding the public
health, safety, convenience, and general welfare.
6. To maintain a public image which associates Monticello with
excellence in planning, design, and structural quality.
7. To coordinate local plans with those of the school district,
adjacent and nearby communities, and others, is essential to the
well-being of local residents.
8. To develop a sound and broad tax base for the City and the
school district to essential in order to provide revenue tot
adequate public facilities and services without creating undue
burdens upon property owners.
9. To base all development decisions upon compliance with the City
Plan, appropriate planning methods and procedures, and
development standards that help to ensure the best possible
results within the realm of economic and legal feasibility.
38
os-
NOTES: urr buck of map
KLEIN FARMS �
W",r A
x_ -N U(
JX•'
1. _' • -—
I ✓ �� 2 e •� d' eF
Q OUTIOt` C; .�„ n R .rr" /r \ y 7\ s-
ilo
' y d„ n r �• •+ u • 110
• 1 .. / � % . ii i 1: 4w' y rid e` '`n t `• 1 n — '��� )
L
I � ��% • — _ _ eouo� , _ .1 _ aoui.claao y _ � � �;v� ;i
M111WLB� - •
KLEIN FAr MS
PRELIMINARY LAT
/� PARI( IACATION 1'0 BE DETERMINED �
Planning Commission Agenda - 2/7/95
Public Hearin,—Considgration of a zoning orllinanc@ amendment,
gatabliehiw buffer yard . gouirements. Am9 cM Monticello
Plannina Commission. W.O.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
After considerable review and discussion, the Planning Commission ordered
a public hearing on final adoption of ordinance amendments regulating
development of buffer yards. The purpose of the ordinance amendment is to
establish landscaping and screening requirements designed to separate
incompatible land uses. The need for the ordinance amendment stemmed
from the recent City Council decision (May 1894) to allow development of
residential land uses at the Klein property directly adjacent to an industrial
district.
The Planning Commission has reviewed the ordinance on numerous
occasions and could consider adoption of the amendment at this time;
however, due to the fact that there are two new members on the Planning
Commission, it may make sense to review the ordinance in detail again.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS.
Motion to adopt the zoning ordinance amendment establishing buffer
yard requirements.
As with every zoning ordinance amendment, a motion to adopt the
ordinance amendment must include a "finding" that provides specific
reasons why the amendment is appropriate. The finding must relate
to criteria noted below.
Consistency with the comprehensive plan
Compatibility with the geography or character of the area
Effect on land values
Demonstrated need for the amendment
Motion to deny adoption of a zoning ordinance amendment
establishing buffer yard requirements.
This alternative should be selected if the Planning Commission
cannot make a finding that supporta the zoning ordinance
amendment following the criteria noted under alternative 01.
Planning Commission Agenda - 2/7/95
3. Motion to table the matter.
Planning Commission may wish to table the matter to allow the new
Commission members time to absorb and understand the purpose and
impact of the proposed amendment prior to development of a formal
recommendation to Council.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff reoommends approval if the new Planning Commission members feel
they have had adequate time to review and understand the ordinance and
its implications.
A. SUPPORTING DAA:
Planner's report; Proposed ordinance amendment; Copy of meeting minutes
and agenda items pertaining to this topic from May 1994 to present; Letter
from Jay Morrell; Excerpt from comprehensive plan.
B�SEP-29-1994 08:23 IAA 612 595 98SI I'.tWlb
IryA Northwest Associated Consultants, Inc.
C URBAN PLANNING• DESIGN- r A a a a T RESEARCH
MFd4iORANDUM
TO: Jeff O'Neill
PROM: Dan Licht/Stephen Grittman
DATE: 29 September 1996
RE: Monticello - Huffer Yard Ordinance
PILE NO: 191.06 - 94.11
BACKGROUND
Recently, the City has considered adopting a buffer yard ordinance
requiring buffer yards separating iuccupatible uses. This
memorandum will outline the current Zoning Ordinance standards for
separating incompatible uses and outline the components of an
attached draft ordinance amendment requiring buffer yards.
Attached for reference.
Exhibit A - Draft Ordinance
ANALYSES
�++...++� �........ . The current Monticello Zoning
Ordinance does not establish specific requirements for abutting
incompatible uses regarding setbacks or landecappinngg Section 3.2
8
101 of the owing ordinance specifies the req rZIscreening and
landscaping standards. This is a blanket ordinance which does not
take into consideration adjoining uses and potential impacts. Like
the required landscaping ordinance, the setback oral—nee is a
blanket ordinance with standards that do not increase dependent oa
the adjoining use, such as when an industrial use abuts a
residential use.
5775 Wayzata SNd - Suite 555 - SL Louis Perk. MN 55418 - (812) 595.8838 -Fax. 585.9837
0
Draft Huffer lard Ordinance. The draft ordinance establishes a
matrix of land use interfaces and applies a specified buffer yard
requirement based on the degree of conflict. The concept of a
buffer yard involves a horizontal component and a vertical
component. The horizontal component of a buffer yard involves the
use of setbacks to separate incompatible uses. The vertical
component of a buffer yard is the landscaping and screening used to
separate the incompatible uses. The draft ordinance has lour
buffer yard types which are defined by the width and intensity of
landscaping required. This system of having buffer yards is
intended to accommodate different types of conflicts by
anticipating all possible combinations of conflict.
In terms of required vegetation, the draft ordinance requires a
number of plant units. A plant unit is simply a measurement that
translates the amount of vegetation required into a quantitative
unit. Various types of vegetation have been assigned a plant unit
value. under the draft ordinance, evergreen trees are assigned a
plant unit value of 15. Thus, in a Type A buffer yard, where 40
plant units per 100 feet of property line is required, three pine
trees would be required per 100 feet. However, because the
ordinance does not specify what types of trees must be planted, the
developer is free to create a unique landscape plan. The only
requirement is that the plant unite of the proposed landscaping
must equal or exceed the number required for the type of buffer
yard.
The number of required plant units may be reduced two ways. The
first involves the preservation of existing vegetation. The number
of plant unite will be reduced proportionately to the number of
trees and shrubs preserved. The second reduction of plant units
and buffer yard width as a credit for berms or fences. Plant units
may be reduced to 75 percent or buffer yard width may be reduced to
50 percent of the ordinance requirement if a fence or berm is used
to screen the incompatible uses.
The draft ordinance is written so that in areas of vacant land, the
required landscape yard is overlaid on the abutting property line,
with half of the area on each side. The property owners on each
side are responsible for 50 percent of the required planting units
for the required landscaped yard. To protect existing developments
from undue hardship when a new development establishes on an
abutting property, the draft ordinance has a provision which
exerts existing development from the requirements of the ordinance
until such time as the existing development in significantly
charged, altered, or e-aaded. in addition, the draft ordinance
requires that where a developer of vacant land must install a
buffer yard adjacent to property which is 50 percent developed (by
footage), the new developer Waist install the entire buffer yard on
the new property.
D
The draft ordinance is designed as an amendment to Section 3-3,
Yard Requirements, of the Zoning ordinance. The amendment involves
adding the buffer yard language as additional yard requirements.
The draft ordinance uses the current required landscaping
ordinance, Section 3-2 (a) for regulating the area designated to be
landscaped. Therefore, the landscaped portion of the buffer yyaarrd
can be regulated and administered as would any other required
landscaping.
CONCLUSION
In response to the City of Monticello's interest in a buffer yard
ordinance, our office has drafted such an ordinance. This
ordinance seeks to anticipate negative' impacts that may arise
between adjoining uses. To reduce those impacts, the draft
ordinance assigns one of four buffer yard requirements based upon
the intensity of conflict between the uses. The City should
consider how the ordinance will offset each land use interface, and
whether the intensity of the buffer yard should be increased,
decreased, or left as proposed.
Under the City's Zoningq Ordinance, the Planning Commission is to
consider five factors in its consideration of an amendment. The
Planninreco®eendattCommissiont is to then the City Councils regarding the pof rt and
oposed
amendment. The five factors are as follows:
1. Relationship to the Comprehensive Plan.
2. Geographic area involved in the request.
3. Tendency of the proposal to depreciate the area.
a. Character of the surrounding area.
S. Demonstrated need for the use.
In this case, the intent of the Ordinance amendment is to effect a
compatible transition between differing (and potentially
conflicting) land uses. This action should have the effect of
enhancing the subject areas, rather than depreciating them. In
addition, a major concern of the C=Wreheasive Plan is appropriate
land use transitions, and concern over this possibility in the
Klein Parms/Oakwood Industrial Park area gave rise to the need for
the Ordinance. The Planning Commission may make a finding of fact
that the buffer yard ordinance positively impacts the affected
areas and complies with the intent of the Comprehensive Plan goals
and objectives.
py,� Dc�s�+LT
..J
P--( Dxll�-imc r
J
Af,W Zr�1O�s'�+na� V5� sl
-Fa« w 4aaw 1
�L
R�1%4DEpmkM
ZO
_f GNIM�RtAO.t�lJ� � 3 aST.
t e.eTL..
t' g,
Mti
$3 D�.si�+ct" L f�aDrasrt�. bl�'.
ORDINANCE AMENDMENT NO.
THE CITY COUNCIL OF MONTICELLO, MINNESOTA, HEREBY ORDAINS
THAT CHAPTER 8, SECTION 8, OF THE MONTICELLO ZONING
ORDINANCE PERTAINING TO YARD REQUIREMENTS BE AMENDED BY
ADDING THE FOLLOWING:
3-3: YARD REQUIREMENTS
[G] Required Buffer Yards
1. PURPOSE: Buffer yards are required as to reduce the negative
impacts that result when incompatible uses abut one another.
2. The following table lists the minimum buffer yard requirements
dependent upon the intensity of the conflict of the abutting uses:
Intensity Minimum Minimum No. Plant Units
of Building Landseape Required -100 Feet
Connitt 3�= Bewack Yard of Property Line
Minimal A 30 feet 10 feet 10
Moderate B 30 het 20 feet 80
significant C 40 het 3o feet 120
Severe D 50 feet 40 feet 180
(a) Minimum building setback measured from the abutting
property line.
(b) Minimum landscaped yard measured as extending
perpendicular from the abutting property line and
extending along length of property line. Half of the
required distance on each side of the property line and
extending the length of the property line.
(c) Plant units are a quantitative measure of the required
plantings for the minimum landscaped yard.
i) Plant unit value shall be assigned as follows:
Plant
Veeetatien Unit Value
Evergreen Trees 16
Deciduous Tree 10
Evergreen/Coniferous Shrubs 6
Shr uba/Bushes 1
14
Ordinance Amendment No.
Page 2
ii) The number of plantings required shall equal or
exceed the number of required plant units based
upon the values assigned in Section 3-3 (G) 2(c) of
this ordinance.
iii) The property owners on both sides of the abutting
property line for which the buffer yard overlays shall
each be responsible for fifty (50) percent of the
required planting required for the length of the
abutting property line.
3. Minimum Required Buffer Yard: The following table represents
the type as specified by Section 3-3 (F) 2 of buffer yard required
for abutting incompatible uses:
MINIMUM REQUIRED BUFFER YARD
Lowy -Density High -Density Insti-
Use Residential Reside_n i tutional Commercial Industrial
Lowy Density
Residential None A B C D
High Density
Residential A None A B D
Institutional B A None A C
Commercial C B A None B
Industrial D D C B None
4. The site and type of required plantings shall be according to Section 3-2
[G] 4 and Section 3-2 lG] B of this ordinance.
B. Existing trees or vegetation within a required minimum landscape yard
preservation may substitute for required plants. The number of plant
units required shall be proportionately reduced according to the number
of trees or vegetation preserved.
6. The location of an opaque fence or earth berm of at least b feet in height
within a required landscaped yard shall be considered credit toward the
plant unit requirement. The number of required plant units shall be
reduced by fifty (50) percent.
0 All fences shall be subject to the requirements of Section 3.2 [G]
of this ordinance.
(00
Ordinance Amendment No.
,Page 3
ii) All berms shall be subject to the requirements of Section 3-2 [G]
of this ordinance.
7. i) Development of a Vacant Property. The owner of a vacant
property which would require a buffer yard under the terms of
this ordinance shall be required to install one-half of the width
and intensity of the required buffer yard along the entire length
of the abutting property line in all casae except for the following-
ii)
ollowing
ii) Where development of abutting property exceeds fifty (50) percent
of the length of the abutting property line by footage, the
owner/developer will be required to install the entire width and
intensity of buffer yard as determined in this ordinance.
8. Existing Development. Any existing development adjacent to property
developed in accordance with Section 3.3 [G] 7 i) shall be considered
exempt from the provisions of said ordinance until such time as the
property or development is substantially altered, remodeled, or
expanded. At such time, the existing development shall provide the
remaining one-half of the buffer yard improvement.
i
9. The criteria for the submission requirements and approval of a buffer
yard landscape plan shall be according to Section 3.2 [G] of this
ordinance.
Adopted this 14th day of November, 1994.
Mayor
City Administrator
(00
r
Council Minutes - GOS4
Finally, (YNeM went on to outline important steps that the Planning
Commission recommeade in an effort to address the city-wide land use
issues that have been raised during the process of reviewing the request
The list of follow-up activities include:
a.
Complete comprehensive plan update. Identify fixture
industrial areas. Work closely with the Township on this
matter.
b.
Update zoning district regulations. Maintain diversity of
industrial land types for various industriallotBce naes.
Q
Develop plans for pending utilities to existing industrial lands,
including the Gladys Hoglund site.
d.
Update B-4 district regulations governing development m
regional commercial district 1
e.
Require intense harming by ordinance to separate industrial
from residential uses.
f.
Complete transportation system designs and subdivision
designs in a manner separating conflicting udes.
g.
Improve linkages between commardal areas:
1) Work with the state Highway Department to improve
traffic flow on Hwy 25 via improved signal timing.
2) Realign Ceder street to improve land utili—Non
3) Pursue development of Fallon Avenue overpass.
LOA
community. The community goals are preferences as tot (1) the
general type of community that future physical development should
help producer and (2) the character and location of the major
physical elements forming the urban environment.
Before the Comprehensive plan can be carried into effect, these
community goals must be stated clearly and general agreement on them
must be reached. Otherwise, the plan cannot be conceived of as the
community's policy concerning physical development. Investigating
community attitudes and formulating a publicly acceptable statement
of broad community goals is a basic part of the planning process. A
"goal' is a desired objective to be reached.
1. To develop and emphasise Monticello as a community that can
offer the advantages of being near a metropolitan area for the
enjoyment of major cultural, sports, and business assets and yet
be completely and distinctly separate from the metropolitan area
and its suburbs.
2. To encourage steady, careful growth by maintaining reasonably
high standards.
3. To utilise the inherent advantages of the community in terms of
location, existing population, school system, available land,
etc., to gain the best possible advantage from these assets so
as to develop a reputation as a community combining all the
desirable elements for living in Minnesota.
a. To develop the City according to an officially adopted
Comprehensive Plan for land use, transportation, and community
facilities. While the plan should not be inflexible, neither
should it be amended indiocriminantly.
S. To develop urban land uses according to a set of uniform
standards applicable to the City. Such standards should govern
land use, public improvements, health conditions, safety
features, aesthetic considerations, and other elements of the
urban environment for purposes of safeguarding the public
health, safety, convenience, and general welfare.
6. To maintain a public image which associates Monticello with
excellence in planning, design, and structural quality.
7. To coordinate local plans with those of the school district,
adjacent and nearby communities, and others, is essential to the
well-being of local residents.
S. To develop a sound and broad tax base for the City and the
school distriot In essential in ardor to provide revenue for
adequate public facilities and services without creating undue
burdens upon property owners.
9. To base all development decisions upon compliance with the City
Plan, appropriate planning methods and procedures, and
development standards that help to assure the best possible
results within the realm of economic and legal feasibility.
-3e-
V
!J I Cater E,.,•,��'
INDUSTRIAL POLICIE6 ?too
1. All lend suitable for industrial develooment in the City should
be zoned to preserve it for said use ani to avoid needless harm
to homes which might develop in potential industrial areas.
land used by industry is entitled to protection against
residential encroachment.
2. Through proper land use planning, certain types of industry can
be good neighbors with areas used for residential and other
purposes, the type of industry, screening (green planting,
fencing, etc.), required building Qesion, and other factors
greatly affect the compatibility of such uses.
3. Industries which produce undesirable affects injurious to the
public health, safety, convenience, and general welfare will be
discouraged.
6. Excellence of site and building design will be s major factor in
approving or disapproving industrial development proposals
within the City.
S. performance standards will be utilised to judge industrial
proposals rather than the more rigid policy of judging
Industrial uses by typal any industrial type use will be
permitted provided it can prove compliance with standards
governing smoke emission, noise, odors, vibrations, and the like.
S. Encourage design and development of industrial parka with
exposure to Interstate 96 rather than scattering such uses
indiscriminately through the community.
7. The City public Works Division shall review, with respect to
sewer and water use, the impact each particular industry has on
those utilities and their expected life.
-so-
September 15, 1994
M 8 P TRANSPORT. INC.
Pnm1s - (612) 2MI22
Mobs - (612) 332-4740
Fax . (612) 332.2380
ALEXANDRIA CONCRETE CO.
Fhons .(612) 793.4800
Fax - (612) 7934678
Hr. Rick Wolfsteller
City Administrator
City of Monticello
250 Broadway Hast
Monticello, MN 55382
Dear Rick:
CONCRETE PRODUCTS OF NEW LONDON, INC.
Pa -012)354-4111
CONCRETE OF MORBUS, IMC.
No -(G12)W94=
WADENA READY4=
Plans - (218) 0.71.1558
Fax . (812) 7W 497e
After sitting through the "Work Shop/Hearing" regarding the zoning
change requested for the Klein/Emmerich development on Tuesday.
September 8, as an interested party I would like to make the
following observations and recommendations:
It would appear that this development will achieve the zoning
change and will proceed in placing multiple family dwellings
adjacent to the I-2 zone/Industrial Park. With this in mind. it is
essential that requirements be made at the time of rezoning so as
to minimize problems both for the present and the future.
The requirement of berm barriers is essential; however, it can only
be effective if it is maintained at a minimum of 13 feet in height.
The suggestion of a 8 foot berm is ludicrous if it is believed to
be of any value in separating these two non -conforming zoning
districts. If plantings are required, a minimum height of 7 feet
at the time of planting would be necessary to address the issues of
separation immediately. I would like to suggest thnt if a 8 foot
high berm is still found to be essential, the developer should be
required to place an 8 foot high cyclone fence on top of this berm
permanently separating the R-3 zone from the I-2 zone. It would be
unjust to ask current and future I-2 occupants to construct a fence
of this nature for security and safety purposes when it is the R-3
non -conforming zoning making the request of a change for their
accommodation.
The suggestion of placing the east/west street on the north aide of
the R-3 buildings, I believe is a very sound idea. This would
create somewhat of a natural division line and boundary between the
two conflicting zoning districts. I believe this should be
mandatory for any site plan that would be approved, regardless of
which berm configuration is required.
■ t P 1A60iPORT, OIC. AIOARMA COIRAlt1 C0.WUMUM40 D NAM 1`1 umm=a C01CI M 01 rM MC.
P.O. Wa 477 P.O. go 868 P.O. an 65 17650 Nary. 23 N.H. 12M Paa6o A�v}//�yyaa- �
Monticello, MN 55382 AMxanilft MN 58306 waft". MN 66162 Now L6rgen, MN 56273 Monis, MN 6¢q7
Page 2
September 15, 1994
Mr. Rick Wolfateller
I would like to emphasize the responsibility each of you has in
approving this zone change. While we all like to have growth and
expansion, it is of the utmost importance that we look at potential
problems which will occur now and in the future when making zoning
changes. I would Suggest that the requirements be made as strong
as possible regarding the berm, density, and street locations so
that we will not be trying to close the barn door after the horse
has escaped 5 or 10 years from now.
Sincerely,
M &A TRANSPORT
Morrell
r ident
JCM/1i
0-a
Planning Commission Agenda - 217/95
7. Rmhllc gena-Consideratlon of aoorovina the me _
Aikam V of the Cardin-gHE;M au t. Valve Plug
ROM". (J.O.)
t- REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
Enclosed is the preliminary plat of phase V of the Cardinal Hills
subdivision. Phase V includes 34 lots, which is slightly smaller than the
previous two phases. I plan on providing a complete site plan review at the
meeting.
Motion to recommend approval of the preliminary plat of phase V of
the Cardinal Hills subdivision.
2. Motion to recommend denial of the preliminary plat of phase V of the
Cardinal Hills subdivision.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Phase V is completely consistent with the development plan previously
reviewed and approved by the City; therefore, approval of this phase is
virtually a housekeeping matter.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Copy of preliminary plat.
e . Consideration of alternatiyes foir &velopment of a zonlna ordinance
Amendment that would allow vehicle storage or ogrkiM at 11
location other than the orincioal use. Auulicant. Jav Morrell (J.O.)
A REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
A few weeks ago, City staff discovered that Jay Morrell, owner of M & P
Transport, was parking/storing vehicles and trailers on property recently
purchased from the Oakwood Partnership. The lot purchased for vehicle
parking is located some distance from the M & P offices or "principal use.
This practice is not allowed under our current ordinance. Under the
current ordinance, parking and/or storage is allowed as an accessory use.
An accessory use is not allowed without a principal use. In other words,
parking lots and storage areas cannot be developed without an associated
business operation on the same site.
Morrell was notified of the violation accordingly. In response to the
notification, Morrell has requested that the City consider amending the
zoning ordinance in a manner that would allow storage to occur at a
location other than the location of the principal use. Morrell has not offered
a specific ordinance amendment because there are a number of approaches
that could be made to accomplish Morrell's goal. It, therefore, makes sense
to review the various approaches with the Planning Commission to
determine the beat approach prior to submittal of a formal application
request for a zoning ordinance amendment.
Planning Commission will be provided with a verbal report Brom Steve
Grittman regarding possible alternatives for development of zoning
ordinance amendments that would allow storage or parking of vehicles at a
location other than the principal use. Jay Morrell will be applying for an
ordinance amendment based on the Planning Commission conversation and
discussion of the matter.
�l Following are different approaches that will be reviewed at the meeting in
��' ;• more detail.
h
1. Adopt an ordinance that allows outside storage to occur as a
conditional use in an 1.2 sane (currently it is allowed only as an
accessory use).
2. Adopt an ordinance amendment that allows outside storage as an
accessory use on a parcel other than the parcel on which the principal
use is occurring.
10
Planning Commission Agenda - 2/7/95
31 Adopt an ordinance that allows outside storage as an interim use.
Under this alternative, an ordinance amendment would need to be
developed that would allow short -teem or interim use of land in a
manner that is not consistent with the zoning ordinance. Morrell
would be allowed to use the property for storage for a limited number
of years and be required to screen the storage ares
Other alternatives???
Planning Commission may decide that the ordinance is fine the way
it is and reject the notion of providing any guidance to Morrell to
assist him in designing an amendment to the code. Under this
alternative, Morrell would prepare a zoning ordinance amendment for
review at the next meeting of the Planning Commission. The
Planning Commission would review and make recommendation to
Council for review at fust meeting of the City Council in March.
Enforcement action would be initiated at such time that the Council
acts to deny the ordinance amendment necessary to legally support
Morrell's use of the land.
Please note that enforcement action has been delayed based on the
advice of the City Attorney. It is his view that the City should fust
determine whether or not to change the ordinance to allow the use
before taking legal action. He has noted that the culmination of the
legal action will occur after the decision on the zoning ordinance
amendment is made; therefore, it would be premature to take legal
steps at this time.
Planning Commission is naked to review Grittman's report and the options
above and provide Morrell with guidance as to development of a zoning
ordinance amendment. The ordinance amendment would be reviewed at the
meeting in March.
Staff has no firm recommendation at this time. We do believe that the
existing ordinances limiting off-sito storage and parking are important.
Changes to it should not be taken lightly.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Copy of all correspondence with Jay Morrell regarding this situation.
M Eau Broadway
P. O. Box 1147
Monticello, MN
55362.9245
Phone: (612) 295.2711
Metro: (611) 333-5739
Fax: (612) 2954404
Jay O. Morrell
M & P Transport, Inc.
PO Box 477
Monticello MN 88362
Dear Jay Morrell:
Enclosed is the rezoning application you requested. Please complete the
application and return the application and the $280.00 to City Hall by January
20th, 1998. The Planning Commission will meet on February 7th, 1998.
If you have any questions, please give me a call.
Sincerely,
CITY OF MONTICELLO
wexl-i0
Jeff ONeill
Assistant Administrator
JO/wk
Enclosure
cc: File
r
4
goo`
DC3
r 6 P TPANVO11T. BIC.
January 6. 1995
M 8 P TRANSPORT, INC.
PIn,1a - (612) M3172
Metro -(612)=-4740
Fu - (512) 3324166
ALEXANDRIA CONCRETE CO.
P10 • (612) 7834600
Fax - (612) 763x676
Jeff O'Neill. Assistant Administrator
City of Monticello
250 East Broadway
PO Box 1147
Monticello, MN 55362
CONCRETE PRODUCTS OF NEW LONDON, INC.
Pla - (612) 3542911
CONCRETE OF IIOARW, INC.
Ph" - (612) 5693700
WADENA READY441X
Phone - (216) 631.1666
Fa - (612) 763.4676
In regards to our recent correspondence regarding my ordinances,
would you please send to me complete any and all ordinances that
would apply to the rezoning application the City is requesting.
If you have any questions please give me a call.
Sincerely,
ay�C. Morrell
M d P Transport
JCM8le
a
r • P ALUMMOM COrC= CO. WANN UM40 COQ PNPNXLVNN 01
ML
P.O. Box on P.O. On 666 P.0. BOX as 17660 N.T. 23 N.H.
MOM1p00, MN 55352 AMaWdit MN 66706 W666116, MN 564112 Nor 1ar16, MN 66777
1 v�
CNICRIT! 0 6b�101 l Ic
1200 PWP4 AwriM
Mmr4. MN 66267
250 East Broadway
P. O. Box 1141 January 10, 1995
Monticello, MN
55362.9245
Phone: (612) 295.2711
Metro: (612) 333.5739
Fax: (612) 295-4404
Mr. Jay Morrell
10054 Ickler Avenue NE
Monticello, MN 55362
Dear Mr. Morrell:
In regard to the zoning ordinance violation at Lot 2, Block 3, Oakwood Industrial Park,
and per your request for additional information, enclosed are sections from the zoning
ordinance that apply. As you will note, in the I-1 and I-2 zones, outside storage is
allowed as an accessory use and regulated under the conditional use permit process.
According to the ordinance, "an accessory use is a subordinate urge which is located on the
same lot on which the main building or use is situated and which is reasonably necessary
and incidental to the conduct of the primary use of such building or main use."
Therefore, an accessory use without an associated principal use on the same property is
not a lawful permitted use.
Following are ideas for ordinance amendments that, if adopted, would accompliah your
goal of using said property for outside storage. Please review the ideas below and contact
me to set up a meeting to discuss the matter Rather. Again, the deadline for submittal
of your formal application is Monday, January 23, 1895.
Request that outside storage be redefined as an allowable principal use regulated
under the conditional use permit pi es.
OR
Request that the definition of accessory use be modified to allow outside storage as
an n sacry use to occur 6n a different lot fi-om the main building or use.
Mr. Jay Morrell
January 10, 1995
Page 2
Thank you for reviewing this information; I look forward to your call.
Sincerely,
CITY OF MONTICELL.O
Assistant Administrator
JO/kd
Enclosures
cc: Paul Weingarden, City Attorney
Gary Anderson. Building Oficial
File /
R
December 27. 1994
NI 8 P TRANSPORT, INC.
PhWo - (6121 295.7122
woo - (614 734{740
Fa • (6121 312.4x8
ALEXANDRIA CONCRETE CO.
Pla @ - (512) 7534600
Fax - (6121 7634M
Gary Anderson, Zoning Administrator
City of Monticello
290 East Broadway
PO Box 1147
Monticello, MN 97362-9245
�or,�
CONCRETE PRODUCTS DF NEW LONDON. INC.
PhX* - (812)764.2711
CONCRETE OF MORRIS, INC.
Pnxxt - (612) 5N47ao
WADENA READY -VU
PNa» • (t1a)x11.1558
Fax . (6721 7a3457e
I am in receipt of your letter dated December 22, 1994 regarding
our use of Block 3. Lot 2, Oakwood Industrial Park.
I am in disagreement with you regarding your interpretation. We are
now a current building owner in the Industrial Park which we occupy
and I feel we are in compliance to the current ordinances.
I also believe if you were to check the minutes of past meetings
you will find that I have received permission to store trailers
outside the facility.
However, since you have raised an issue we would very much like to
comply with all of your wishes. Therefore, please send us an
application of ordinance amendment form as you have suggested in
1B.
I would also ask that the City Join me in this request since it
would obviously promote and encourage expansion within the Oakwood
Industrial Park.
S erelyy,,
aye ala r' '1 1
JCMsje
ccs Rick Wolfsteller, City Administrator
Jeff O'Neill, Assistance City Administrator
John Simple. Public Works Director
Paul Weingarden, City Attorney
Bret Weiss. City Engineer
Brad Fyle, Mayor
e a P TUMM. a0, uDuIMM 00>ICIIItS C0 Wa0TA6 FOACT40C TIWX ��M m
MIL
P.O. ON 677 P.O. Cw 558 P.O. abs as 17656 law. 27 N.C.
MonOCaaD. MN 85M Alpartlru. NIN 56300 INaOaw MN 5sw NOW 1pt5oa, MN 66277
J)?
COsf'R11 C1 �Ml1. INC
1200 Patllb Awwa
Marv, UN 1{6467
250 East Broadway
P. O. Boa 1147
Monticello, MN
55362.9245
Phone: (612) 295.2711
Metro: (((66�122)) 333-5g7p399
Fax Mat Jay Morrell
MP Transport
Bo: 477
1401 Fallon Avenue
Monticello, MN 683824477
RE: Storage of Semi -Trailers on Block 3. Let 2
Oakwood Induetrial Park Addition, City of Monticello
Dear Mr. Morrell,
December 22, 1994
I noticed today that you have created a driveway access to Lot 2 and are currently storing some semi•
trailers in the back southeast comer of Block 3, Lot 2, Oakwood Industrial Park Addition in the City
of Monticello. The use of this lot for outside storage of these semi -trailers in not an allowable use
within the zoning district designation for this lot, 1.2 (heavy industrial) zoning without a principle use,
that being some type of a building. If a building was conducted them first then outside storage is
only allowed as a conditional use in the 1.2 (heavy industrial) zoning. You have two options with
regards to addressing this matter. They are as follows:-
Remove
ollows:
Remove the existing semi -trailers and remove the culvert for the driveway
with a 60 material over it This work is to be completed within 10 days upon
receipt of this letter or this matter will be tam over to the City Attorney for
flarther action.
Submit a completed application for an ordinance amendment to allow outside
storage in an 1.2 (heavy industrial) zoning as an allowable use without a
prfncipis use, (a building structun) on the site. Use of the property fbr outside
storage would depend on the results of the zoning ordinnnee amendment
Remove the existing semi -trailers and remove the culvert for the driveway
with a 60 material over it This work is to be completed within 10 days upon
receipt of this letter or this matter will be wined over to the City Attorney fbr
Author action.
ce)
Mr. Jay Morrell
December 22, 1990
Page 2
Develop a principal use an site and sambit a request for a conditional on
permit allowing open and outside storage. In conjunction with prepartion and
review of building plans, submit an application for a conditional use request
to allow open and outdoor storage in an I-2 (heavy industrial) zone.
Also, The metal culvert which is currently placed in the rightof-way for the driveway access to this
lot must meet City design criteria
You will have 10 days upon receipt of this letter to remove the erisd semi-trailm and the metal
culvert with the fill material over it from Block 8, Lot 2, Oakwood Industrial Pari Addition in the City
of Monticello. Failure to remove both from this lot will result in turning this matter over to the City
Attorney for Aurther action.
If you should have any questions please feel tree to contact me.
Sincerely,
CITY OF MONTICELLO
Gely Anderson
Toning Administrator
OAdb
er. hick Wolfhteller, City Administrator
Jeff O'Nd% Aesistent City Admiafatrator
John Simola, Public Works Director
Paul Wdngarden, City Attorney
Bret Weiss, City Engineer
Brad Fyfe. Mayor
08
Planning Commission Agenda - 2P7/95
Cpnsidgratlon 19 4o9t yk resolution ftndina the LmodMed
RedeyeLopment Plan for jEtedevelopment Proieot No. 1. @nd TIF LPI�n
for TIF Dlqtrict No, 1-19. located Within Redevelopment Project No. 1.
,to be consistent with the comprehensive plan for the City, (OX)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
Although the budget within the TIF Plan for TIF District No. 1-19 may need
to be modified, the Planning Commission is requested to adopt the enclosed
resolution in order to keep the project on a timely schedule.
TIF District No. 1-19 is a 25 -year Housing District which is created to assist
with the financing of the 48 -unit congregate senior housing project as proposed
by the Monticello Senior Housing Alliance, Inc.
I believe the Planning Commission previously approved conditional use permits
allowing for the development of a 48 -unit, 3 -story senior housing facility and
allowing for development of a joint parking lot shared by the Hospital District
and the Housing Alliance. Some time ago, I believe the Planning Commission
approved the Land Use Study for the overall Monticello Hospital District or
Campus area for compliance with the City of Monticello Comprehensive Plan.
The TIF budget does include dollars for public improvements in the area of
realignment of the sanitary sewer, construction of a biketpedestrian path
bridge, construction of a fire truck path, and the installation of two fire
hydrants. The unanswered question to the TIF budget is the use of TIF for
land acquisition an the amount of $120,000, as the HRA understood the
Hospital District was donating the land as equity.
The Planning Commission is requested to review the plan and project for
consistency to the comprehensive plan of the City. This appears to be more of
a housekeeping item for the Planning Commission.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. A motion to adopt the resolution finding the modified Redevelopment
Plan for Redevelopment Project No. 1, and TIF Plan for TIF District No,
1-19, located within Redevelopment Project No. 1, to be consistent with
the comprehensive plan for the City.
2. A motion to deny adoption of the resolution.
3. A motion to table any action.
Planning Commission Agenda - 217/98
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Sinoe the Planning Commission has previously reviewed the project and to
keep the project on a timely schedule, staff recommends Alternative 01.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Copy of the TIF Plan with current approved budget and resolution for
adoption.
13
TIB DISTRICT NO. 1-19 BUDGET
APPROVED BY HRA JANUARY 26, 1995
LAND ACQUISITION
DEMOLITION/REMOVAL
$ 7,500.00
SITE IMPROVEMENTS
STORM SEWER
15,440.00
SANITARY SEWER
18,950.00
WATER
3,400.00
PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS
UTILITY REALIGNMENT
12,000.00
FIRETRUCK PATH/HYDRANTS
10,000.00
BIKE/PED PATHWAY BRIDGE
10,000.00
SITE PREPARATION
39,208.00
OTHER PREPARATION FOOTINGS
15,675.00
PARKING/PAVING/LANDSCAPING
48,6§7.09
SUBTOTAL
$170,830.00
CONTINGENCY
20,000.00
ADMINISTRATION
20.000.00
TOTAL
$220,830.00
SECTION Rx
TAR I NCRENUM FINANCING PLAN FOR
TAR INCREIVV>IIVM FINANCING DISTRICT NO. 1-19
Subsection 20.1. Statement of 0biectives. See Subsection 1.4 of the
Redevelopment Plan.
Subsection 20.2. The RedevelgUnmij3an. See Section I, Subsections 1.1
through 1.20.
Subsection 20.3. Description of the Pro* The project, located within Tax
Increment Financing District No. 1-19, consists of the development of a 48 -unit senior
housing facility. This project is expected to begin in 1995 and be completed by
January 2, 1996.
Subsection 20.4. Parcels to be Included in Tax Increment Financina District
No. 1-19. The following property is located in the City of Monticello, County of
Wright, State of Minnesota.
PID Number:
133-015-021-020
PID Number:
155-015-M-120
PID Number:
155-015-021-010
PID Number:
155-011-000210
PID Number:
155-011-000050
PID Number:
155-015-022-020
PID Number:
155-015-022.040
Also described as:
Those parts of Lots 2, 3, 4, 10, 11, 12. Block 22 and Block 21 lying southeasterly
of the center lite of said Lot 2 extended northeasterly to the shoreline of ibn
Mississippi River and lying northwesterly of the northeasterly extension of t :�
southeasterly lite of said Lot 10.
C9 �
Also that part of Lot S of Auditor's Subdivision No. One according to the recorded
map thereof lying westerly of the southwesterly extension of the southeasterly line of
Lot 4, Block 22, LOWER MONTICELLO according to the recorded plat thereof
extended southwesterly to the southwest line of said Lot S except that part lying
southeasterly of a line parallel with and 12.5 feet northerly of a line described as
follows: Beginning at the intersection of the southwesterly extension of the
southeasterly line of Lot 3 of said Block 22 with the southeasterly extension of the
southwest line of said Block 22, thence southwesterly at a deflection angle of 132
degrees 46 mimites from the said southeasterly extension of the southwest line of
Block 22, a distance of 139.3 feet more or less to said southwest line of Lot S of
Auditor's Subdivision No. One and said line there terminating.
Also that part of Broadway Stmt of LOWER MONTICELLO according to the
recorded plat thereof lying southeasterly of the southwesterly extension of the anter
line of Lot 2, Block 22 of said LOWER MONTICELLO and northeasterly of the
....w.:y extension of the southwest line of Lot S of the Auditor's Subdivision
No. One according to the recorded map thereof.
Subsection 20.5. Parcels in Acquisition. The Authority may acquire the
property listed in Subsection 20.4, which property is located within Tax Increment
Financing District No. 1-19.
Properties identified for acquisition may be acquired either by the City or the
Authority in order to accomplish public improvements listed in Subsection 1.11 of the
Redevelopment Plan hereof.
Subsection 20.6. Development Activity in Tax Increment 1=iMncing,District
No. 1-19 for Which Contracts will be Sigma. The following contract(s) will be
entered into by the Housing and Redevelopment Authority and the pawn(s) named
below:
Prior to the certification of Tax Increment Financing District No. 1-19, a
Development and Assessment Agreement will be executed between the Housing and
Redevelopment Authority of Monticello and Monticello Senior Housing Alliance, Inc.
Subsection 20.7. Other Specific Development E=cted to Occur within
Redeveiggment Project No. 1.
(As specific development is expected to occur, it will be inserted into this Subsection.)
XX
l./
Subsection 20.8. Estimated Public Improvement Costs and Sunoortive Data.
See Subsection 1.10 of the Redevelopment Plan for estimated costs associated with
Redevelopment Project No. 1.
Subsection 20.9. Sources of Revenue, land acquisition costs, and other costs
outlined in Subsection 1.10 of the Redevelopment Plan will be financed through the
annual collection of tax increments.
Subsection 20.10. Original Ta:_ Capacity. Pursuant to Section 469.177, Subd.
1, of the Tax Increment Financing Act, the original tax capacity value for Tax
Increment Financing District No. 1-19 is estimated to be $5,096, based on the tax
capacity value of all taxable real property within Tax Increment Financing District
No. 1-19. Pursuant to Section 469.177, Subds. I and 4, of the Tax Increment
Financing Act, the County Auditor of Wright County (the 'County Auditor') shall
certify in each year the amount by which the original tax capacity value has increased
or decreased as a result in a change in tax-exempt property within Tax Increment
Financing District No. 1-19, reduction or enlargement of Tax Increment Financing
District No. 1-19 or changes in connection with previously issued building permits.
In any year in which the current tax opacity value of Tax Increment Financing
District No. 1-19 declines below the original tax capacity value, no tax capacity value
will be captured and no tax increment will be payable to the Authority.
Subsection 20.11. Estimated Captured Tax Ca2acily Value. Pursuant to Section
469.175, Subd. 1, and Section 469.177, Subd. 2, of the Tax Increment Financing
Act, the estimated captured tax capacity value in Tax Increment Financing District
No. 1-19 at final completion will approximate $37,454. . This estimated annual
captured capacity value is determined in the following manner:
Estimated Tax Capacity Value at Final Completion $42,550
Original Tax Capacity
Captured Tax Capacity Value
537,454
Subsection 20.12. Tvne of Tax Increment Financing District. Tax Increment
Financing District No. 1-19, is pursuant to Section 469.174, Subd. 11, a Qualified
Housing District as described below:
'Qual{jled Housing District' means a type of tax increment financing district which
consists of a project, or a portion of a project, intended for occupancy, in part, by
persons or families of low and moderate income, as defined in chapter 462A. Title
II of the National Housing Act of 1934, the National Housing Act of 1959, the United
XX -3
9
Housing Act of 1937, as amended, Title V of the Housing Act of 1949, as amended,
any other similar present or future federal, state, or municipal legislation, or the
regulations promulgated under any of those acts. A project does not qualify under
this subdivision if the fair market value of the improvements which are constructed
for commercial uses or for uses other than low and moderate income housing consists
of more than 20 percent of the total fair market value of the planned improvements
in the development plan or agreement. The fair marloet value of the improvements
may be determined using the cost of construction, capitalized income, or other
appropriate method of estimating market value.
Subsection 20.13. Duration of Tax In=eme t Financing District No_ 1-19.
Pursuant to Section 469.176, Subd. 1(e), of the Tax Increment Financing Act, the
duration of Tax Increment Financing District No. 1-19 will be twenty-five (25) years
from the date of receipt of the first tax increment.
Subsection 20.14. Pursuant to
Mim+ gM Statutes, Section 469.173, Subd. 1(7), specific findings and analysis have
been completed relating to the proposed development in Tax Increment Financing
District No. 1-19. Additional relevant documentation relating to the findings and
analysis will be on file and available for review in the City Administrator's office.
Subsection 20.15.
Test No. 1: The estimated impact on other taxing jurisdictions assumes
construction would have occurred without the creation of Tax Increment
Financing District No. 1-19. If the construction is a result of Tax Increment
Financing, the impact is $0 to other entities.
Test No. 2: Notwithstanding the fact that the fiscal impact on the other taxing
jurisdictions is $0 due to the fact that the financing would not have occurred
without the assistance of the City, the following estimated impact of Tax
Increment Financing District No. 1-19 would be as follows if Test No. I (the
'but for' test) was not met:
Xx•s
IMPACT ON TAX BASE - - -
Original Net 'Future Net Captured Net
Tax Bax Tax Capacity Tax Capacity Tax Capacity District %
:Entity Payable 1995 Payable 1995. Payable 1995 Payable 1995 of Entity'
Wright County $48,638.744 $ 5,096 $42,550 $37,454 .077%
City of Moadcello $15,583,604 $ 5,096 $42,550 537,454 .240%
I.S.D. No. 882 $19,344,524 $ 5,096 $42,550 537,454 .194%
I Hospital District 523,874,025 $ 5,096 $42,550 $37,454 .157%
BeACT ON TAX CAPACrrY
Entity Tax Rate 1994 - - Potential Taxes
Wright County 31.965 $11,972 i
I City of Monticello 17.530 6,566 i
I.S.D. No. 882 60.634 22,710
Hospital District 2.744 1.028
Tams 112.873 542,276
Subsection 20.16. rash Flow Assurngdons and Anal= -
A. Future Tax Capacity. The estimated future tax capacity of Tax Incmmcat
Financing District No. 1-19 at final completion is anticipated to be $42,330,
payable in the year 1997.
B. $ojected Timing. The payment of the first tax increment from Tax Increment
Financing District No. 1-19 will be received by the Authority in 1997.
C. Original Tax Capacoty. The County Assessor's records show the original tax
capacity of Tax Increment Financing District No. 1-19 to be S5,096 for t. -re`
in 1994 and payable in 1993.
D. Gross Tax Calmcily Rate. The original local tax rate is 112.873 percent. Tbi;.
rate is estimated for taxes payable in 1994, although the actual rate Lu to
certified will be for taxes payable in 1995.
XX -5
9
t
E. Tax Increment Total tax increment at the completion of all redevelopment
activity has been calculated assuming a static gross tax capacity rate and a
valuation increased by zero percent (0%) compounded annually.
F. Capital Eamditures. Capital expenditures are a summary of the items
associated with the public improvement costs set forth in Subsection 10.8 and
are to be financed from the proceeds of the Bonds ad tax increment revenue.
Subsection 20.17. f4thmted Amnimt nf RnrwjM TndCbMd=. It is anticipated
that $379,830 of bonded indebwdness will be incurred with respect to this portion of
the Redevelopment Project.
Subsection 20.19. Tax increment Financing AM= for Tax Increment
Financing District No. 1-19. The tax increment received with respect to Tax
Increment Financing District No. 1-19 will be submitted by the Authority to the City
and segregated by the Authority in a special account or accounts (the "Tax Inurement
Account") on its official boosts and records or as otherwise established by resolution
of the City to be held by a trustee or trustees for the benefit of holders of the Bonds.
Subsection20.19. Modification of Tax Increment Financingl3istricx No. 1-19.
As of February 27, 1995, there have been no modifications made to Tax Increment
Financing District No. 149.
XX -6
� %r
i of
f
C` Y..
1 % v •
EXHIBrr XX -B
DYSTRICT r. "& Av r<a-ATION FORM
Name of District or Modification: Tax increment Financing District No. 1-19
Date of City Council Approval:
Qu4LITED , . Tvq •tis; as crnvla : s a .
At the rime of district creation or modiBcmiort. the k1lowUtf conditions MIX
—I_ The project, or a portion of the project Is intended for ooazpancy, in per, by persons
or !families of low and mod , as defined in chapter 462A, Tide 11 of the
National Housing Act of 1934, the National Housing Act of 1939, the United States
Housing Act of 1937, as amended, Tide V of the Housing Act of 1949, as wended.
any other similar present or tinure federal, state, or municipal legislation, or the
regulations promulgated under any of those acts.
The fair market value of the improvements which are constructed for commercial
uses or for uses other than low and moderate income housing does not consist of
more than 20 percent of the coral fair market value of the planned improvements in
the development plan or agreemem.
Land Use Plan Map
City Council Resolution
Project Objectives
Other:
This Fortis Prepared by: Public Resource Group. Inc.
Original Building Condition Data Collected by: NIA
Documentation in support of District Certification is on file at the City offices.
XX -B
V
APPENDIX B
` Chronology of Resolattons
Establishing the Development Program,
the Development District, the Tax Increment Fina—d Plaw,
and the Tax Increment Flm Districts
DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT NO. I
TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT NO. 1-19
D= AZiap
appy i 1_ 1995 Resolution of HRA for the establishment of
Tax Increment Financing District No. 1-19.
aMy 13. 1995 Letter to County Commissioner representing
the area of TIF District No. 1-19.
Iannu= 13 1405 Letters sent to Wright County, Independent
School District No. 882, and Hospital
District
Ian= . 1993 Resolution of the City Council calling for a
Public Hearing.
Febru>try 7. 1995 Submit Notice of Public Hearing to local
February 9, 1993/
February 16. 1995 Notice of Public Hearing is published in the
local newspaper, calling for a Public Hearing
on February 27, 1995.
November 2g. 1994 Resolution of the City Council modifying the
Redevelopment Plan for Redevelopment
Project No. l and adopting the Tax Increment
Financing Plan for Tax Increment Financing
District No. 1-19.
Appendix B -2
PLANNING COMMISSION
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION OF THE MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION
FINDING THE MODIFIED REDEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR
REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT NO. 1, AND TAX INCREMENT
FINANCING PLAN FOR TAX INCREMENT FINANCING
DISTRICT NO. 19, LOCATED WITHIN REDEVELOPMENT
PROJECT NO. 1, TO BE CONSISTENT WITH THE
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN FOR THE CITY.
WHEREAS, the City's Modified Redevelopment Plan for Redevelopment
Project No. 1, and the Tax Increment Financing Plan for Tax Increment Financing
District No. 19 (the "Plan"), located within Redevelopment Project No. 1, have been
submitted to the Monticello Planning Commission, pursuant to M4nnesota Statutes,
Section 469.027; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed said Plan to determine the P
consistency of said Plan to the Comprehensive Plan of the City.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, BY THE MONTICELLO
PLANNING COMMISSION, that the Plan is consistent with the Monticello
Comprehensive Plan, and the Commission recommends approval of the Plan to the
Monticello City Council.
Adopted: Fe�gt 7. 1991
Chairman
Attest:
Planning Commission Agenda - 2/7/95
to. R21L time Line and plan for andadw comprehensive plan for the
SBL W.O.)
A. REFERENC&AND BACKGROUND:
As you may have read in the local newspaper, the City Council recently
authorized an expenditure of $24,000 toward completion of an update to the
comprehensive plan for the city. As you know, the comprehensive plan is
very important because it is the blue print from which specific land use
decisions are made.
For your information, I have attached information from the City Planner
outlining the scope of the study and a time line. Planning Commission
should review this information and come prepared with any questions or
comments regarding the the comprehensive plan update process.
None.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
None.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Information from City Planner.
IryA Northwest Associated Consultants, Inc.
C U R a A N PLANNING- e a S I O N• MARKET RESEARCH
29 December 1994
Mr. Jeff O'Neill
Assistant City Administrator
P.O. Box 1147
Monticello, MN 55362
RE: Monticello - Comprehensive Plan Update
FILE NO: 191.09
Dear Jeff:
This letter is intended to serve as a proposed outline, budget, and scope of work for an update
of Monticello's Comprehensive Plan. As a part of this scope, we have made some assumptions
as to the your staffs ability to assist with a part of the data collection, preserving as much of
the City's planning budget for professional services such as meeting direction and analysis. The
Comprehensive Plan is designed to be what it says - a plan which addresses nearly every City
function.
Particularly important in the project's scope must be a study of the interrelationships and
coordination of the various services which the City provides. For example, the plan must
provide guidance for the City's activities in economic development, -land use planning, and
infrastructure development so as to assure that the policies ate consistent and efficient. Where
the City acts without this coordination, the services provided to the community fail to satisfy all
of the objectives they am intended to. Moreover, whets a conflict occurs, but the plan provides
inadequate coneladon of services, the City's decision -makers on longer have solid policy
guidance to resolve the conflict. Tbese scenarios result in unnecessary costs and consumption
of resourm.
In order to provide a sufficient Revel of attention, and to assure that the plan is indeed
"comprehensive". the issues which the plan addresses, and the impacts of the various policies
proposed must be analyzed in debail. The following work plan envisions this attention to demal.
Although many people think of the Land vete Plan when disczusing the Comprehensive Plan, the
Goals and Policies am much mots Its essence. It is not possible to foresee every development
which will come to Monticello over the am twenty or thing years. The Plan gives guidance
to the Planning Commission, City Council, and staff through Its establishment of consistent
objectives which all development must mat When an unforeseen project does arise, its
propriety can be mectausd by its' ftatherance of the City's Goals, Objectives, sod Policies.
Goals which am not sufficiently specific do ant help the City's decision mating process, a
particularly important factor when the mapped plans are out of date.
5775 Wayzata Blvd. - Sante 555 - St. Loads Park, MN 55416 - (612) 595.9636'Fax. 595-9837
00)
Mr. Jeff O'Neill
Page Two
In the following paragraphs, 1 have provided a summary of what the C.,..Y..: ,...,; Plan does
for a City, especially one which is thorough and natant. After this section, a generalized scope
identifies the approximate number of consultam hours which might be expected for purposes of
developing a project budget
W ELAT TEm ComPR m mon PLAN is ALL ABour.
Identiftes the Issues in the Comffitnity (what is dds emmmatity abotat)
What problems, and what strengths, does the community have:
*in attracting new growth?
ein providing public services to its residents?
ein taking tate of its existing developmem?
*in lig private (e.g. commercial) services to its residents?
*in dealing with other units of government?
•in communicating with its residents?
ein communicating with its commercial/iti saial operations?
Sometimes, these issues are physical infharucaue related, sometimes they are administrative
in nature, and at other times, they an economics rdated. Mus primary purpose of this phase
of Comprehensive Planing is to know where the community is on the growth and development
map.
Clatiflee E : I..., 6. Goals (what kilo of ddnp are tinporrmes to W a emmmadty?)
For instance, does the community wam to:
•grow feat?
•grow slowly?
estop growth?
•grow in only a certain land use?
•grow in a certain direction?
esay no to growth which is outside of its general objective?
eincteam its services to certain (or Q groups?
eprovide certain services as a City?
•require new development to prwi& its own services?
erequim new development to pay for all of in own swAces?
She bosom line pepetieak?
•dream a Dale? '
Mr. Jeff O'Neill
Page Three
Given that the issues process tells what the community is tike at a point in time, what does the
community want to be Rice in the future? Sometimes these relate to efficiency of service
delivery, but often they relate to the services that should be delivered in the first place.
Everybody wants to do things efficiently, but that's merely the answer to the question of how
to do things. The real questions are what do we want to do, and what do we want to be like?
C Proms an Analysis of Necessary Projects (Whet the cammwdq mute do to geri om
when it is to where it wmru w be)
For instants, what are the pros and coos of the City:
eplanning certain areas for certain land uses?
•modifying is annexation agrxmenn?
eflmding a certain public works project!
*providing sewer and water to a new developmem?
•developing a more extensive pedestrian trails system?
•refluing a rezoning request?
•altering is public improvement standards?
•seeking a gram for a certain project?
•spending City tax dollars on a redevelopment project!
For every project, there will be pros and cons, costs for projects dote and opportunity cosy for
projects foregone. The Comprehensive Plan must set up a framework for analyzing both large
scale City endeavors, and smaller scale private activities. Extensive staff, board, and Council
gridlock should be able to be avoided, even for those projects which are unanticipated. The
question which can always be asked is how well does a proposal further the goals the community
established in is planning process? The follow-up question keeps the Comprehensive lrlaa fresh:
Have the City's goals changed?
One concern which consistently appears in the Comprehensive Plug process is what to do
about proposals brought before the Plan is complete? Occasionally, for Very Big tssua, it may
be necessary to place a moratorium and study the proposal as a part of the C.,...,, , a Plan
process. More often. a community will analyze the proposal in the coaext of the planning done
to date. Such projects are no worse off than those that came half a year earlier. This City has
to evaluate the pros and cons in relation to is goals, and make a decision.
To Wager the delay in establishing the new plan, however, the mom likely that projects will
occur which are either at odds with the community's goals, or at least misdirected. The
importance of the Planning process is not diminishted, though. b=,, there are always new
lnojects coming up. The central Component of a good plan is its fiadbility. Not flexibility in
setting standards, but rather in addressing varied issues and projects not thought of by the City
when it did the planning in the first place.
e/0
Mr. Jeff O'Neill
Page Four
Fatally, one of the greatest gains in a Comprehensive Plan is the new appreciation for the value
of the plan. Seeing when the decisions come from is an r7hrminatiag process for many of those
involved It is often difficult for new planning Donets and Council members to abide
by a Plan which is no longer relevant (even when the plan's recommendations might be valid).
The process becomes the validation for many of those involved.
SCOPE OF WORK
Tacda and bnvmoiy
The Tactics stage of wort would be designed to identify those services which the
community believes the City delivers well, and not so well. Individual matings
With stakeholder in the community's growth would be one way of developing a
list of Comprehensive Planning issues which must be addressed in one way or
another. This wort is not intended to be a scientific survey of opinion, but wider
is designed to elicit issues. To a large = at, recent development acdVida and
staff worst have gore a significant way toward providing a framework for this
discussion. The more complete the list of Lmues, the more targeted the Planning
work can be.
Inventory is a process of identifying the current state of the City, both phydcWly
and wcio-demogtaphically. The Inventory tells the community where it is at a
point in time. This data becomes the baseline for further Comprehensive Phm
study, and helps to identify ism,d on which the analytical portions of the Plan
depend. This budget programs a significant amount of raw data collection into
the process by City staff.
QaruLwu Suefib i Regtdrrd Senior Staff - 43
Support Staff - 60
Clerical- 22
123
Mr. Jeff O'Neill
Page Five
Polity Pfaurbrg
As noted in the previous discussion, Policy Planning is the heart of the
Comprehensive Plan. It forms the conceptual basis for the City's growth and
development decisions for several years. The community's values are stated in
the Policy Plan, which are thea reflected in the later stages of planning wort,
such as the Zoning Ordinance and other programs and implementation steps. The
Policy Plan in Monticello's caurrem C..W,..,.._;, Plan is sound, but larks
specificity to the cm. issues facing the community. The process, beginning
with the Tactics wort, is designed to build community values into the planning
process, which yklds a much greater confidence in their validity.
Consultant SNffRoum Requtrrd• Senior Staff - 35
Support Staff - 15
Clerical - 1Q
60
Demlopmmt Fiuvrawont
The Development Framework bridges the gap between the existing conditions
identified in the Inventory, and a community which loot like the one crAsiomd
in the Goals and Policies. The precise elements of the Development Ftamewmt
can not be lmown at the beginning of the process, since the Tactics watt
ideatifld issues to which the Development Framewort tespoods. However,
based on previous discussion, the Monticello Plan would be expected to include
the Land Use Plan, i„�.,,r .. of the existing Tmna m=ion and Sanitary
Sewer Mm, and Urban Growth Management element (including annention
proposals and urban service area delWeadoa), an element addressing Housing std
Housing choice in the community, a Regional Impact Analysts element
(evaluating the impaca of growth in the Wright County area, the Twin Cities
Mempolima Area, and the St. Cloud area), and a Community Facilidrs element
(including the eompledon of the City's Parb and TraftTathway plans). Other
elements would be addressed as they an raised throughout the process. Whereas
the inventory sets out the mw data of current conditions, the Development
Framework provides analysis and program formulation.
Causulront Sraff HO as Requdna , Senior Staff - So
Support Staff - so
Clerical - 21
las
Mr. Jeff O'Neill
Page Six
The Implementation phase translates the elemenn of the Development Framework
into practical reality by establishing concrete steps which the City needs to take
in order to enact the Policies of the now . Plan. This sage of
work will include an inn of ........ _G.1 work tasks, and a
r....:.:i, , S. - of the tasks for purposes of budgeting. The Impkmentadon stage
puts the Plan into action, making it more than a theoretical planning exercise.
Conrulwu StgBSours &grind Senior Staff - 20
Support Staff - 25
Clerical - 12
SS
In summary, the total hours projected for the Comprehensive Plan Update are as follows:
Swff Hours Summary: Senior Staff - 180 hrs. ® S70/hr. - 512,600
Support Staff - 180 bra. ® S45/hr. = S8,100
Clerical - 65 hra. ® $25/hr. = S1,625
TOTAL 522.323
This cost iaclu printing and copying of all oec unq draft masetiais. However, it excludes
the cost of final draft; in I g. This con will vary depend upon the length of the document,
use of color in the project development, and camber of copies raquesta& A separate estimate
of final printing cwt be developed at your request. Further, this cost excluthe cost of
meeting attendance. Meetings would be bled under our arrear rnatracaral agreement. It is
estimated that approximately ten public meetings will be necessary throughout the
Comprehensive Plan process, includin8 public beatings and neighborhood meedngs.
This project would be completed on a time and materials basis, with the Total figure
..r... . g a 'oot to exceed' amount. AD expeasm, including travel, communications, and
other are included in this estimate.
Mr. Jeff O'Neill
Pap Seven
I would be happy to discass this project and our work program 0 1 u your convenience. I
planing on 2—din g the special meetiag of the racy Council to review the project. we at
Northwest are deeply appreciative of the opportmmty to serve the Cay of Monaallo, and we
look forward to coag that relationship with this project.
may,
NOUBWES'I' ASSOCLI?TlD CONSUL'T'AN'T'S, INC.
<4T,� I I
Stephen W. Grittam
Vice President
A, w
.a...
WYwrry
IYm .
CDM.
wM
1b" .
taft*
UpM•
NY+ /W
Dwh.A
P11bft
/IM
MMW.
Planning Commiulon Meeting
A City Council Meeting
Q Joint Meeting
0,�
Planning Commission Agenda - 2I7/95
11. Review sketch plan optlinina residential develoameat of the Doha
Leerson rnmrty (Jeff rgggft). (J-0.)
tl. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
Staff will provide a brief review of the Leerson property sketch plan, which
is attached for your review. No deaieions regarding the plan are requested
at this time.
1
,�----- 6. 40.81-
3} so --ow e6 86 127 -
95
1 30
i
N
I I
'SW Commas S15 Till R25
I"•100'..__.