Planning Commission Agenda Packet 04-05-1994AGENDA
REGULAR MEETING - MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION
Tuesday, April 8, 1994 - 7 pm.
Members: Cindy Lemm, Richard Carlson, Richard Martie, Jon Bogart, Brian
Stumpf
1. Call to order.
2. Approval of minutes of the regular meeting held March 3, 1994, and the
special meeting held March 28, 1994.
3. Public Hearing --Consideration of amendments to the zoning map and
consideration of amendments to the Comprehensive Plan for the City
relating to rezoning of the property known as "The Evergreens" and relating
to establishing a comprehensive land use plan for the Klein property.
Applicant, Emmerich/Kjellberg/lOein.
4. Public Hearing --Consideration of amendments to the zoning map of the City
relating to rezoning of certain properties from their current designation to
the I-1 (light industrial) zoning designation. Applicant, Monticello Planning
Commission.
5. Continued Public Hearing --Consideration of a variance request to allow
installation of a pylon sign that exceeds the 324 high maximum.
Applicant, McDonald's Corporation.
e. Continued Public Hearing --Consideration of a conditional use permit
allowing minor auto repair and open and outdoor storage in a B-3 (highway
business) zone. Applicant, Milton Olson.
7. Public Hearing --Consideration of an amendment to Section 34: (G) of the
zoning ordinance that further defines minimum floor area requirements for
the various styles of single family residential structures. Applicant,
Monnticello Planning Commission,
8. Adjournment.
MINUTES
REGULAR MEETING - MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION
Thursday, March S. 1994 - 7 p -m -
Members Present: Cindy Lemm, Richard Martie, Jon Bogart, Brian Stumpf, and
Richard Carlson
Members Absent: None
Staff Present: Gary Anderson, Jeff O'Neill
1. The meeting was called to order by Chairperson Cindy Lemur at 6:59 p.m.
2. A motion was made by Richard Carlson and seconded by Jon Bogart to
approve the minutes of the regular meeting held February 1, 1994. Motion
carried unanimously with Richard Martie absent.
3. A motion was made by Jon Bogart and seconded by Brian Stumpf to
approve the minutes of the special meeting held February 22, 1994. Motion
carried unanimously with Richard Martie absent.
4. Public Hearing—Con iderapon of a conditional useeQ�it to allpw omn and
outdoor storaee and Consideration of a oarkine loy and drive aisle
conditional use hermit in an I-2 (heavv industrial) zone. Aonlicant. Sunny
Fresh Foods. Inc.
Mr. Jeff O'Neill, Assistant Administrator, explained the Sunny Fresh Foods
request to allow open and outdoor storage and a conditional use permit for
parking lot and drive aisle design standards in an 1-2 (heavy industrial)
zone. Sunny Fresh proposal includes the addition of a two-story office
meetingtofGce space and employee break room of approximately 8200 aq ft.
The other proposed addition would be a 4200 sq ft addition in the
production area adjacent to the existing production area in the northwest
corner of the building.
PARKING
The proposed parking lot expansion will create a demand of 21 additional
stalls. The site plan as proposed will show 119 total parking stalls. Under
the ordinance requirement, Sunny Fresh Foods has chosen to be allowed to
use the minimum 8 spaces plus I space per 2 employees at the maximum
shift. There also exists some additional off-street set parking spaces at 2 other
locations on their site; one being near the shop portion of their building and
the other portion is near the far west end of their building near the
northwest corner where some production employees park. Sunny Fresh
Foods also has a written joint parking lot arrangement utilizing the United
Page 1
Planning Commission Minutes - 3/3/94
Methodist Church's parking lot during the work week with the church
utilizing some of the Sunny Fresh drive aisle parking area on Sundays for
their church events. Also noted on the site plan are places where existing
curbcuts exceed the 24 ft maximum width. The zoning administrator and
the city engineer will make a determination on the excess curb widths of
these curbs.
LANDSCAPING
With the renovation of the old creamery portion of their building complex,
we saw some additional landscaping plantings that were planted as part of
that remodeling project. As part of this expansion project, we will get the
completion of the landscaping to accomodate the minimum requirements of
the ordinance with the complement of overstory trees in combination with
some small shrub plantings along with shrub plantings to act as a natural
vegetation screening of existing tanks on the south portion of the existing
building.
Chairperson Cindy Umm then opened the public hearing portion of the
meeting. Mr. Don Roberts, Sunny Fresh Foods, explained the proposed
expansion plans in detail for planning commission members.
Cindy Lemm then closed the public hearing portion of the meeting and
opened it up for any further input from the planning commission members.
With there being no further input from planning commission members, a
motion was made by Brian Stumpf and seconded by Richard Martie to
approve the conditional use permit allowing outside storage in an 1.2 (heavy
industrial) zone. Motion carried unanimously.
A motion was made by Brian Stumpf and seconded by Richard Martie to
approve a conditional use permit allowing a reduction in the drive aisle and
parking requirements in an 1-2 (heavy industrial) zone. Motion is based on
the finding that the conditional use permits requested are consistent with
the character and geography of the 1.2 zoning district. The condition use
permits will not result in a depreciation of adjoining land values and are
consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Motion carried unanimously.
Public Hearine--Conlideration of amendments to the zonin¢ man and to the
comprehonsive Plan for the Citv r intine p fezonina of the pMperty known
ps "The F�verm eens." Annlicnnts. Kim Kigllherc• Kiellhore Inc. and Tonv
Emmerich. Tonv Emmerich Construction Inc.
Planning Commission member, Jon Bogart indicated that he would like to
abstain from voting on this agenda item as he had a conflict of interest on
this proposed request..
Page 2
Planning Commission Minutes - 3/3/94
Mr. Jeff O'Neill, Assistant Administrator, explained the applicant's proposed
rezoning request of residential land area currently known as 'The
Evergreens" residential subdivision. Mr. O'Neill, in his presentation, cited
how the proposed rezoning dealt with our comprehensive plan. Mr. O Neill
commented that if rezoning is allowed to occur as proposed, the applicants
would propose to apply to the Monticello Orderly Annexation Board for
annexation of the agricultural property known as the Klein property.
Within the Klein property, the zoning at the time of annexation is A -O
(agricultural) with the applicants proposing to rezone that to R-2 as a buffer
strip from the 1-2 (heavy industrial), transitioning into a major portion of
the area being R-1 (single family residential). Within the proposed rezoning
request, zoning is proposed to be changed from R-1 (single family
residential) to PZM (performance zone mixed), B-3 (highway business), B-4
(regional business), and BC (business campus) zoning districts.
Cindy Lemm then opened the public hearing portion of the meeting. Mr.
Glen Posusta questioned why the curvy roads. Why not put a straight road
through? Mr. Jay Johnson, partner with Tony Emmerich Homes,
commented on the conflicts with the Amoco pipeline easement and the
overhead electrical powerline easements. Mr. Glen Nemec questioned
whether this is a developer- or city -proposed rezoning. If it is from the
developer, it should be generated from the developer and not from the city.
O'Neill noted that the request has been submitted by the developer with
input from city stair. The proposed request shows a lot of B-4 zoning near
the west edge of the proposed rezoning area. Why is there so much B-4
zoning here when we have a tough time keeping businesses in existing
business buildings downtown? If we create more B4 zoning would there be
even more of the trend for vacation of buildings in the downtown area?
Where are there other communities that have experienced this type of
zoning, either where it's been official to do the rezoning or where it's not
worked in other communities? Mr. John McVay, representing the Industrial
Development Committee, expressed the IDC's concern that there is not any
area for 1-1 (light industrial) or 1.2 (heavy industrial) zoning in the proposed
zoning request. Mr. Al Larson, Housing and Redevelopment Authority
Chairman, reconfirmed the HRA's position similar to the IDC's position of
leaving room for industrial expansion. Mr. Larson commented on the
number of industrial projects that have come into this community over the
last 3 to 5 years. If that trend continues, the City could be out of some type
of 1.2 (heavy industrial) or 1-1 (light industrial) zoning. The comment was
also raised that the IDC had not had sufficient time to review this proposed
rezoning plan in its entirety. Jay Johnson indicated that the land had been
looked at for over 1 year and I(jellberg's (and is not suitable for R-1 (single
family residential). It is difficult to develop under R-1 designation due to
easements existing on the property, those easements being Amoco gas
pipeline and electrical overhead transmission powerlines.
Pago 3
Planning Commission Minutes - 3/3/94
With there being no further comments from the public, Cindy Lemm closed
the public hearing portion of the meeting and opened it up for any input
from planning commission members. Concerns raised by the planning
commission members were as follows: roadways should be used to separate
zoning districts and the need for more industrial zoning. There being no
further input from the planning commission members, a motion was made
by Richard Carlson and seconded by Brian Stumpf to table the
consideration of amendments to the zoning map and the comprehensive
plan for the City relating to the rezoning of the property known as "The
Evergreens." Voting in favor. Cindy Lemm, Brian Stumpf, Richard Martie,
and Richard Carlson. Abstained: Jon Bogart.
A motion was also made by and seconded by
to call for a public hearing on rezoning of B-3 areas located west of the
Oakwood Industrial Park area from B-3 (highway business) to industrial
and to call for a hearing on rezoning of the Lundsten property from 1.2
(heavy industrial) to 1.1 (light industrial). Motion carried??? r
Public Hearing --Consideration of a condi}ional use permit allowing open and
outdoor storage and gnsideration of narking lot and drive aisle conditional
use oermit in an 1.1 (light industrial) zone. Aunlicant. SMA Eievator.
Cary Anderson, 'Zoning Administrator, explained SMA Elevator's request to
allow open and outdoor storage and for a parking lot and drive aisle
conditional use permit in an 1-1 (light industrial) zone. SMA Elevator is
proposing to build a 54 ft by 80 ft addition onto their existing building.
Within the enclosed site plan, 7 additional off-street parking spaces will be
created along the south wall of the proposed addition and 3 additional
parking spaces will be created to the west of the existing office. The
existing site currently has hard -surfaced asphalt on the parking lot and
concrete curbing around its parking lot drive aisle perimeters. This site
also shows 14 existing trees on it. The minimum number of overstory trees
that will he required will be 26 total utilizing the building square foot
requirement or 12 overstory stroes utilizing the lot perimeter requirement.
The applicant is proposing a 509! overstory tree reduction with utilization of
the existing overgrown shrubbery around the front of their front and side of
their building off of Chelsea Road and Thomas Park Drive public right of
ways. The proposed existing overstory trees will be spaded out and
transplanted at other areas onsite rather than where Choy currently exist in
the open and outdoor storage area of their lot. The applicant is proposing to
install a screening fence from the northeast corner of their building
northerly to the northeast property line and also along the west property
line from the prolmsed new addition southwest corner southerly to the
southwest property line. This proposed screening would meet the intent of
the ordinance to screen from public right of way. The suggestion from staff
Page 4
Planning Commission Minutes - 3/3/94
is that the entire area should be screened similar to what was done at
Custom Canopy.
Chairperson Cindy Umm then opened the public hearing portion of the
meeting. A representative from SMA Elevator questioned the need for the
entire area to be screened in back. Their intent is to utilize the whole lot
but they understood that as long as they screened from the public right of
way they met the intent of the ordinance.
Cindy Lemm then closed the public hearing portion of the meeting and
opened it up for any further input from planning commission members.
Discussion among the planning commission members centered around the
area that would be needed for the screening fence to be installed. There
being no further input from the planning commission members, a motion
was made by Jon Bogart and seconded by Richard Martie to approve the
conditional use permit to allow open and outdoor storage in an 1-1 (light
industrial) zone, with conditions being that the entire outdoor storage area
is to receive a screening fence around it. Motion carried unanimously.
With the site plan as presented, the applicant does not need to request the
conditional use permit for parking lot and drive aisle design reductions.
Public Heprine--Consideration of an amendment to Section 3-9: (E) of the
zonine ordinance, reeulatine jhe definition. ping. number. and location of
nremise and product siens allowed within the PZM. B-1. B-2. B-3. B-4. 1.1
and 1-2 districts. Anniicant. Monticello Plannine Commission.
Mr. Jeff O'Neill, Assistant Administrator, explained Holiday Stationstores'
request to allow building wall business identification signs on all 3 public
right of ways, those being Walnut Street, Highway 25 (Pine Street), and
West 7th Street. In addition, the ordinance will address signs placed on gas
station canopies where we don't allow them by ordinance. Under the
proposed amendment a canopy sign would be considered to he an eligible -
placed display in an allowable wall sign area.
Cindy Lemm than closed the public hearing portion of the meeting and
opened it up for any input from public. With there being no input from the
public, Cindy Lemm then closed the public hearing portion of the meeting
and opened it for comments from planning commission members. Planning
commission members telt comfortable with the proposed ordinance
amendment with the exception of the following sentence: "Tho total
maximum allowable sign area for any wall shall be determined by taking
ten percent (10%) of the gross silhouette area of the front building up to one
hundred (100) square feet, whichever is less." Instead the sentence should
read: "The total cumulative allowable sign area for any wall Shull be
Page 5
Planning Commission Minutes - 3/3/94
determined by taking ten percent (10%) of the gross silhouette area of the
front building up to one hundred ( 100) square feet, whichever is less." With
that proposed change, a motion was made by Richard Carlson and seconded
by Jon Bogart to approve the proposed zoning ordinance amendment based
on the findings outlined in the City Planner's report. Motion carried
unanimously with Richard Martie absent.
Public Hearine--Consideration of a variance reauest to allow replacement of
existine non-conformine pvlon lien with a new non-conformine pvlon sien
and reader board sien. The realacement pvlon sien to be more square
foota¢e than the 200 so ft maximum and taller than the 32 a maximum
allowed. Applicant. McDonald's Corporation.
Mr. Jeff O'Neill, Assistant Administrator, explained McDonald's 2 variance
requests that would allow replacement of an existing non -conforming pylon
sign with a new non -conforming sign. The existing pylon sign is 64 ft in
height as measured from the top of the sign to the freeway public right of
way. Maximum allowed by ordinance is 200 sq ft of sign area and 32 ft
above the road surface where it gains its major exposure.
Cindy Lemm then opened the public hearing portion of the meeting for any
input from the public. With there being no input from the public, she
entertained comments from the planning commission members. Planning
commission members were concerned about the additional square footage of
the sign and the height of the sign in relationship to other signs in the area.
Motion was made by Brian Stumpf and seconded by Richard Martie to deny
the variance request on the sign size requirement based on the finding that
the applicant has failed to demonstrate a unique situation or hardship that
would warrant the variance. It is not consistent with the ordinance and
would require in a negative precedent. Voting in favor: Richard Martie,
Brian Stumpf, Richard Carlson. Opposed: Cindy Lemm, Jon Bogart.
A motion was made by Jon Bogart and seconded by Richard Martie to ask
for a clarification on the square footage requirement definition for this pylon
sign. Motion carried unanimously.
A motion was then proposed by Richard Carlson and seconded by Brian
Stumpf to determine that the square footage for the sign is in compliance
with the minimum sign requirement and, therefore, a variance request is
not needed. Motion was withdrawn. A motion was made by Brian Stumpf
and seconded by Jon Bogart to withdraw denial of the variance request
regarding the sign height requirement and to have this request come back
to Planning Commission at the next meeting for the Consulting Planner's
input on the location of a pylon sign near the public right of way for
Interstato 94. Motion carried unanimously.
Page 6
Planning Commission Minutes - 3/3/94
Public Hearina--Consideration of an amendment to Section 3-2: (F) of the
zoning ordinance regulating placement of fences. Amendment would allow
placement of fences on a Droperty line only with written approval from
uronerty owners affected. ADpiicant. Monticello Planning Commission.
Jeff O'Neill, Assistant Administrator, explained to planning commission
members the proposed ordinance amendment which would regulate the
placement of fences in relation to side or rear property lines. City Planner
has reviewed our ordinance as well as ordinances in effect in other cities
and has recommended an alternative if Planning Commission is interested
in taking a stronger stand with regards to regulating placement offences.
Cindy Lemm then opened the public hearing portion of the meeting.
Comments from the public were that the problems that had been
encountered by the 2 residents that were in attendance were because fences
had been placed right on the property line. In one of the cases, the fence
was placed 3 feet onto his property line and the owner failed to remove the
fence and he had to remove the fence and replace it on her property at the
rear of her house. In the other example, the property owner came and
placed a fence right on the property line and drilled post holes into the
ground to secure the posts which support the fence. The holes were dug
right up next to where the property iron supposedly was. The property iron
was never moved and, to dig the hole around where the property iron was,
he had to remove the stake to get the post in.
There being no further input from the public, Cindy Lemm then opened to
comments from planning commission members. Concerns voiced by
Planning Commission member Jon Bogart were centered around there being
no need to adopt an ordinance amendment regulating placement offences
on residential property. If fences are to be placed on or near the property
line they should be allowed to be placed to best utilize their lot. A fence can
be erected within 12 inces of a property line and the person erecting that
can still stand on their own property when doing that. Being no further
input from the planning commission members, a motion was made by Jon
Bogart and seconded by Richard Carlson to deny Cho proposed ordinance
amendment regulating placement of fences. Motion carried unanimously.
10. Puhlic Heprina--Consideralion of pn amendment jo Section 34: (C) of thq
zoning ordinange that fiirthpr defines -minim pm floor area reopirements for
kho variltus styles of single family residential structures Applicant.
Monticello Pinnnina Commission.
Mr. Jeff O'Neill, Assistant Administrator, explained to planning commission
members that city staff would like to have additional time to review the
Pago 7
Planning Commission Minutes - 3/3/94
proposed minimum square footage requirements as proposed by the
Consulting Planner.
Therefore a motion was made by Jon Bogart and seconded by Richard
Martie to table the consideration of an amendment to Section 3-4: (G) of the
zoning ordinance that further defines minimum floor area requirements for
the various styles of single family residential structures. Motion carried
unanimously.
Public Hearine--Consideration of a conditional use vermit allowine minor
auto renair and oven and outdoor storaee in a B-3 (hiehwav business) zone.
Auvlicant. Milton Olson.
Jeff ONeill, Assistant Administrator, explained to planning commission
members that Mr. Olson is still on vacation and would not be in attendance.
He would request that the Planning Commission table this and bring it
back at their next regularly scheduled meeting. Therefore, a motion was
made by Jon Bogart and seconded by Richard Martie to table the
consideration of a conditional use permit allowing minor auto repair and
open and outdoor storage in a B-3 (highway business) zone. Motion carried
unanimously.
12. Considerption of calling for a vublic hearing on an amendment to the
Monticello Zonine Ordinance reeulatine pole construction.
Mr. Jeff O'Neill, Assistant Administrator, requested that Planning
Commission call for a public hearing for a proposed amendment to the
Monticello Zoning Ordinance regulating pole construction. Therefore, a
motion was made by Jon Bogart and seconded by Brian Stumpf to request
city staff to research a proposed amendment to the Monticello Zoning
Ordinance regulating pole construction. Motion carried unanimously.
Additional Informntion Items
Mr. Jeff O'Neill explained to Planning Commission the problems that we
are having with a zoning ordinance amendment requiring a 4/bth's vote for
approval, while a conditional use permit can be approved by a majority vote.
Jeff O'Neill suggested that the Planning Commission propose a zoning
ordinance amendment which would regulate approval of zoning ordinance
amendments and conditional use permits by City Council by requiring a
4/bth's vote for both of those. Motion carried unanimously.
Page 8
Planning Commission Minutes - 3/3/94
Neat proposed regular meeting of the Monticello Planning Commission
would be Tuesday, April b, 1994, at 7 p.m. The b planning commission
members present proposed to set this date for their regularly scheduled
meeting.
There being no further business, a motion was made by Jon Bogart and
seconded by Richard Martie to adjourn the meeting. The meeting adjourned
at 10:41 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Gary Anderson
Zoning Administrator
Page 9
MINUTES
SPECIAL MEETING - MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION
Monday, Mauch 28, 1894 - 8:50 p.m.
Members Present: Cindy Lemm, Richard Martie, Jon Bogart, Brian Stumpf, and
Richard Carlson
Members Absent: None
Staff Present: Gary Anderson, Jeff O'Neill, Bret Weiss
The meeting was called to order by Chairperson Cindy Lemm at 5:30 p.m.
Public Hgqring--Consideration of aooroval of the nM]iminary Dint of the,
Eastwood knoll residential subdivision. ADDlicant. Citv of Monticello.
Jeff O'Neill, Assistant Administrator, explained the City of Monticello's
request for a preliminary plat approval of the Eastwood Knoll residential
subdivision. Outlots C and D of the Meadow Oak subdivision are being
platted in conjunction with the City of Monticello's acquisition of the
property through a mortgage foreclosure process. Monticello Planning
Commission is asked to review this with the City being the developer in this
case, similar to if a private developer was here with a request before them.
SITE PLAN REv1Ew
The plat as originally platted was proposed to be 43 lots. The new proposal
will have fewer lots and is proposed to preserve as many trees as possible
through the process of laying out the road in a manner so as to avoid the
removal of as many trees as possible. The new proposal is proposed to have
30 lots.
STREET SygrFm
The subdivision process provides for access into this subdivision through the
existing road in Meadow Oak Estates called Meadow Oak Lane. The other
access point will come from Phase 11 of the Briar Oakcs development which
will access through the Briar Oakes Boulevard to Meadow Oak Lane with a
street to be named Woodcrest Drive. The original proposal called for
Meadow Oak Lane to continue through this development with 2 cul-de-sacs
off of that and to connect up with Meadow Oak Avenue. Under this
proposal, Meadow Oak Lane will continue through with a cul-de-sac coming
off of it to feed one portion of the development and another cul-de-sac to
come back out to hook up to Meadow Oak Lane.
Page 1
Planning Commission Minutes - 3/28,94
PARKS AND PATHWAY SYSTEM
As part of the Meadow Oak development, the City has also secured Outlet A
which is immediately north and west of this proposed replatting of Outlots
C and D. This area is proposed for a more active type park situation with
the possible incorporation of softball/baseball fields. Pathway systems were
proposed to cut through portions of the lots in this development through to
a street system which would also serve as pathways to hook up with
already existing pathways in Meadow Oak Estates; Meadow Oak 2nd, 3rd,
and 4th additions; and the Briar Oakes Estate additions.
POTENTIAL CONNEUMON OF COUNTY ROAD 118 TO COUNTY ROAD 78 vIA
MEADow OAK AvENuE
At times there has been discussion of a direct link from County Road 118,
via Meadow Oak Avenue, to County Road 75. As property continues to
develop in the future, this may be an alternate road that could be used as a
direct pathway from County Road 75 to County Road 118. However, it is
not proposed to make this connection at this time.
YOUNG OAK TREES
There are several young mature oak trees existing on Outlots C and D
which could be transplanted and relocated in other areas of the city.
UTILITY SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT
The City Engineer is completing the feasibility study which outlines the cost
to extend water, sanitary sewer, roads, storm sewer, etc. From the work
that has been completed to date, it appears that it is feasible to serve the
site with existing utilities. Bret Weiss commented that the water and sewer
system is in place for this project and the city has also provided a water and
sewer stub in the northwest corner of this project to serve future expansions
of existing unplatted land.
Cindy Lemm then opened the public hearing portion of the meeting for
comments. Mr. Bob Crieman, resident in the Meadow Oak Estates, voiced
his opposition to the additional traffic that would be going by his residence
as the proposal in front of him shows where the Meadow Oak Lane would
not continue to hook up with Meadow Oak Avenue. When he purchased his
house, what was proposed to be the future platting of Oudot C and D
showed the connection of Meadow Oak Lane to Meadow Oak Avenue
through Oudot C and D. Mr. Charles Walters, another Meadow Oak
Estates resident, questioned the additional storm sewer runoff into the
main pond which is located behind his place. With no controls on water
Page 2
Planning Commission Minutes - 3/28M
runoff, the existing pond is already at a high point. Is the City looking at
getting a direct outlet for the Meadow Oak pond to the Mississippi River or
what is the city's intention? Mr. Bret Weiss commented, in regard to the
additional traffic, that there are only 12 lots in addition to the existing lots
to utilize this as their access point out onto County Road 76 through
Meadow Oak Lane to Meadow Oak Avenue.
Cindy Lemm then closed the public portion of the meeting and opened it up
for further comments from the planning commission members. Questions
raised by the planning commission members dealt with drainage issues, the
storm sewer proposed between lots 3 and 4, the catch basin proposed at
Woodcrest Drive and Meadow Oak Lane, and the pond proposed in the back
of lots 21 and 22. Has city staff considered an alternative outlet for
Meadow Oak Lane to connect to Meadow Oak Avenue? There were
questions concerning the city's involvement as a developer of these 2
residential tracts of land versus letting a developer develop this as there's a
definite conflict of interest. The conflict of interest should be dealt with as
a separate issue --the issue at hand is the proposed plat request. There
being no further discussion from planning commission members, a motion
was made by Richard Martie and seconded by Jon Bogart to approve the
preliminary plat of the Eastwood Knoll residential subdivision subject to the
drainage calculations to be approved by the City Engineer, Bret Weiss.
Voting in favor: Richard Martie, Jon Bogart. Opposed: Cindy Lemm.
Abstained: Richard Carlson. Brian Stumpf was absent. Cindy Lemm was
opposed to directing all area traffic onto Meadow Oak Lane. Also it was
part of the motion that the walking path running cast/west along the
powerline casement be completed as part of this project.
A motion was made by Richard Carlson and seconded by Jon Bogart that
the Planning Commission go on record as not in favor of the City being the
developer of the Oudots C and D. City should make every effort to work
out some sort of a deal with a private developer to allow private
development to occur. Motion carred unanimously with Brian Stumpf
absent.
Public Hppring--Consideiglaon of rezoning Ouflots C and D of the Meadow
Oak subdivision from R -PUD to R-1. Anolicant. City of Monticello.
Mr. Jeff O'Neill, Assistant Administrator, explained to planning commission
members and members of the public that were present the city's request to
rezone this area from an R -PUD (residential planned unit development) to
an R-1 (single family residential) zoning. Intent behind this is that it is no
longer a residential planned unit development project and it is now
designed to the minimum standards of the R -I zoning district guidelines.
Pago 3
Planning Commission Minutes - 3/28/94
Cindy Lemon then opened the public hearing portion of the meeting. With
there being no comments from the public, she closed the public hearing
portion of the meeting and opened it up for any comments from planning
commission members. With there being no comments from planning
commission members, a motion was made by Richard Martie and seconded
by Jon Bogart to rezone Outlots C and D of the Meadow Oak subdivision
from R -PUD to R-1. Motion is based on the finding that the R-1 zoning
designation and associated plat are consistent with the original PUD
concept. Motion carried unanimously with Brian Stumpf absent.
A motion was made by Jon Bogart and seconded by Richard Martie to
adjourn the meeting. The meeting adjourned at 7:07 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Gary Anderson
Zoning Administrator
Page 4
Planning Commission Agenda - 4/5/94
3 Public Hearin—Consideration of amendments to the zoning man
and consideration of amendments to the Comprehensive Plan for
the City relating to rezoning of the prooerty known as" 1'he
Evergreens" and relating to establishing a comprehensive land use
Wan for the Klein oronerty. Applicant. Emmerich/Kiellbe ein.
W.O. )
AND
Public Hearing—Consideration of amendments to the zoning man of
the Citv relating p rezoning of certainproperties from their
current designation to the 1-1 (light Industrial) zoning designation.
Applicant. Monticello Planning Commission. W.O. )
REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
Planning Commission is asked to review the proposed zoning map
amendments relating to the site formerly known as "The Evergreens",
review the proposed land use configuration for the Klein property, and then
consider making a recommendation on any possible adjustments to the
Comprehensive Plan. As you recall, at the previous meeting of the Planning
Commission, the Planning Commission reviewed the proposal in detail and
found that the complexity of the issues warranted further research and
study. Therefore, the item was tabled. In the meantime, a community
information meeting was held on March 30, 1994, and the Industrial
Development Committee met to discuss the matter further. 1 believe all of
the planning commission members were present for the information
meeting; therefore, I will not review this meeting further. However,
attached you will find a summary of the comments and questions provided
to me during the meeting break.
On Thursday, March 31, the Industrial Development Committee convened a
special meeting to discuss the rezoning proposal for the purpose of providing
a recommendation to the Planning Commission. Mayor Maus informed me
that the Industrial Development Committee did not make a formal motion
for approval or denial of the land use plan as submitted. Maus noted that
there were a variety of comments, some in support and some against the
plan as proposed. He did note, however, there did appear to be consensus
that there is a concern about the transition between the existing 1-2 zone
and the Klein property. As you know the plan calls for multi -family
residential up against the 1.2 zone which appears to be inconsistent with
the goals of the 1-2 zone, which is to create isolation of the 1-2 zone.
According to the City Planner, despite the fact that the 1.2 and R-3 land
uses will be in direct contact with each other, the Planner has indicated
that isolation can be achieved through proper design of the development
Planning Commission Agenda - 4/6/94
area. With the proper extension of roadways isolating residential traffic
from industrial traffic and through installation of berms, landscaping, and
fencing, an adequate practical level of isolation can be achieved. It is
understandable that some are skeptical that such isolation could be
achieved and that we could ultimately be creating a negative situation for
both the residential and industrial land uses. Between Friday, April 1 and
the meeting time, I will be attempting to visit areas within the metro area
where backyard transitions from heavy industry to multi -family has been
achieved and, hopefully, I will get some direct testimony from individuals in
the area as to the consequences of having the 2 zoning districts adjacent to
each other.
In addition to the information provided to you in the previous supplement
and in addition to information provided to you at the meeting on March 30,
I have attached 2 sets of information for your review. One includes a list of
general goals that the City might have for itself regarding land use
planning and utility extensions. In addition to identifying general goals, I
have also identified 4 basic alternatives for configuring the land uses in the
area. I then rated each goal in terms of each of the alternatives. At the
meeting, I plan to review each of the goals in detail and also review the
rating of each goal in terms of the 4 alternatives. During discussion, I
would like the Planning Commission's assistance in goal identification and
rating, etc. In addition to the rating system mentioned above, I have
provided statistical information on how each of the alternatives as identified
will impact the inventory of each type of zoning district. The table is self-
explanatory so I will not discuss it any further. You will find the
information quite interesting. I look forward to reviewing it with you in
detail. The following is a quick review of the basic alternatives that I have
identified for planning commission review. Of course, the final land use
configuration may ultimately resemble a hybrid of one or more of the
alternatives. Therefore, Planning Commission should not feel limited to
selecting any one of the alternatives provided.
ORIGINAL PLAN - ALTERNATIVE 1
This alternative simply leaves the zoning map and Comprehensive Plan as
is.
PROPOSAL wrrH PLANNING COMMISSION REQUEST - ALTERNATIvE 2
This alternative includes the proposal as submitted by Emmerich and Klein
including conversion of B-3 (highway business) land to 1.2 (heavy industrial)
uses in the area north of the H jellberg property as identified in the
Planning Commission request at a previous meeting.
2�
Planning Commission Agenda - 4/5/94
PROPOSAL WITHOUT PLANNING COMMISSION REQUEST - ALTERNATIVE 3
This alternative would be to accept the proposal as submitted by Emmerich
and Klein but not include a rezoning of the B-3 (highway business) property
north of the site.
KLEIN/INDUmut, ALTERNATE - ALTERNATIVE 4
This alternative identifies no changes to the zoning map but does call for
changes to the Comprehensive Plan as follows: take the northerly 80 acres
of the Klein farm and divide it into a 20 -acre section of I-1 (light industrial)
land along the northern boundary and the remaining 60 acres would be
designated as BC (business campus) land.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
Dms1ON 1-A: KdELLBF.RG REZONING
Motion to approve zoning map amendments as identified in
alternatives 2 or 3.
Planning Commission may wish to modify either one of these
alternatives under this motion.
In the motion, Planning Commission may wish to identify the basis
for the action in terms of the following:
a. The motion should identify the consistency with the
Comprehensive Plan. As you know, the Chelsea corridor study
is the general plan that the Planning Commission should be
using when reviewing this matter. In terms of the Kjcllberg
property, the Comprehensive Plan identified the land being
used for residential purposes. This is because at the time the
plan was prepared it was thought that would be the only
alternative for the site. If Planning Commission approves a
rezoning of the site, then it should identify the need to amend
the Comprehensive Plan accordingly. Some of the reasons for
amending the Comprehensive Plan could he identified in the
discussion of goals and objectives fur the City as outlined in the
attached table.
b. The motion should identify the level of consistency with the
geography and character of the area.
3
Planning Commission Agenda - 4/5/94
C. Potential depreciation of adjoining land values should be
discussed as a criteria for rezoning.
d. A demonstrated need for the rezoning could also be mentioned
in the finding.
Again, while reviewing this difficult and complex matter, please be
keeping in mind the basic criteria above for rezoning property. If the
Planning Commission selects this alternative, we should attempt to
list the reasons for the rezoning in terms of the criteria listed above.
2. Motion to deny the rezoning request. As with the alternative above,
Planning Commission should identify specific for the denial.
3. Motion to table the matter. The Planning Commission does have the
option of tabling the matter further; however, there is a limit to the
length of time that items can be tabled by the Planning Commission.
For the meeting on Tuesday, I will let you know if the timing is such
that the City Council must be making a decision on this prior to the
next regular meeting of the Planning Commission.
DECISION 1•B: KLEIN PROPERTY COMPREHENSIVE PIAN AMENDMENT
Motion to amend the Comprehensive Plan by specifically identifying
the type of acceptable land uses for the Klein property.
Currently, Cho Comprehensive Plan does not clearly define the
acceptable future land use for the Klein property. In the motion,
Planning Commission may wish to identify the acceptable mix of land
uses and identify reasons supporting its recommendation.
2. Motion to deny making any changes to the Comprehensive Plan.
3. Motion to table the matter.
DECISION 2: RF20NING OF PROPERTY NORTH OF KJELIAIERG'S
Motion to recommend approval of rezoning based on findings as
identified by the Planning Commission during discussion.
2. Motion to deny rezoning.
3. Motion to table the matter.
Planning Commission Agenda - 4/5/94
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
DECISION 1-A
Staff has no distinct recommendation at this time but looks forward to
reviewing goals and objectives listed on the attached sheet along with
statistics outlining inventory of various types of land. It is hoped that
structuring the discussion will assist the Planning Commission toward
establishing a recommendation on this matter.
DECtsION 1-B
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission make a recommendation
on the long term use of the lGein farm based on reasons identified during
discussion.
DEnSION 2
Due to the questions that remain relative to the possible extension of
Chelsea Road through the heart of this rezoning area, it may make sense to
hold off on rezoning of the B-3 area until the transportation issues are
resolved. With regards to rezoning of the Lundsten property, it may make
sense to rezone this area to 1-1 due to the possibility of adverse secondary
impacts that could be caused by 1-2 uses.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
List of goals and objectives and associated alternatives; Statistics
identifying available land by type and impact of each alternative on land
inventory; Copy of zoning maps showing each alternative; Copies of maps
from Comprehensive Plan; Copy of resolution on Chelsea Area land use;
Copy of map from public hearing notice (agenda item t14); List of comments
from March 30, 1994 meeting; Copy of Chamber of Commerce questions
from March 30, 1994 meeting; Copy of 1/24/94 letter from City Planner.
IMPAC! ANALYSIS OF Srt[MEAICH/KIBIN AND ALTERNATE PQOPOSAIB
Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4
Property
Zone
Original
Proposal
Proposal
Klein/Ind
Plan
w/PC reauest
wo/PC reauest
Aftemate
Impact of
B-3
88
59
99
88
Alternatives
B-4
0
38
38
0
City-wide basis
PZM
44
55
55
44
R-1
283
183
183
223
R-2
20
0
0
0
R-3
27
54
54
27
BC
87
120
120
147
1-1
41
96
41
61
1-2
49
34
49
49
TOTAL
639
638
638
639
Summary
R-1
283
183
183
223
R-2
20
0
0
0
R-3
27
54
54
27
PZM
44
55
55
44
Comm
88
97
137
88
Ind
177
250
210
257
'1`0TAL
839
639
639
639
EMAC R E S. W K4: 04/01/94
3
Page 2
LAND USE STATIUMCS
DIPACT ANALYSIS OF AND ALTERNATE PROPOSAIS
Alternative 1
Property Zone Original
Plan
Klein
B-3
Proposal
B-4
w/PC request
PZM
U
R-1
0
R-2
0
R-3
133
BC
0
1-1
27
1-2
0
TOTAL
Kjellberg
B-3
0
B-4
160
PZM
0
R-1
0
R-2
0
R-3
0
BC
55
I.1
— 0
1-2
55
_
TOTAL
PC/IDC Request
B-3
38
B-4
20
PZM
133
R-1
0
R-2
27
R-3
33
BC
55
1-1
0
1-2
317
'I UTAL
Summary of
B-3
All three rezone
B-4
areas
PZM
R-1
R-2
R-3
BC
1-1
1-2
` 6'—rAL j
EMACRES. WK4: 04/01/94
0
0
0
140
20
0
0
0
0
160
0
0
9
93
0
0
0
0
0
102
40
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
15
55
40
0
9
233
20
0
0
0
15
317,
Alternative 2
Alternative 3
Proposal
Proposal
w/PC request
wo/PC reauest
U
0
0
0
0
0
133
133
0
0
27
27
0
0
0
0
0
0
160
160
11
11
38
38
20
20
0
0
0
0
0
0
33
33
0
0
0
0
102
102
0
40
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
55
0
— 0
15
55
55
11
51
38
38
20
20
133
133
0
0
27
27
33
33
55
0
0
15
317
317
Alternative 4
Klein/Ind
Alternate
0
0
0
80
0
0
60
20
0
160
11
38
20
0
0
0
33
0
0
102
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
55
a
55
11
38
20
80
0
0
93
75
0
317
GiD Page 1
RATING OF EACH ALTERNATIVE IN TERMS OF GENERAL GOALS
GENERAL GOALS
Rating in terms of meeting goal objective:
1=Worst 5=Best
Allow efficient extension of utilities to service developable
areas
Provide attractive location for regional retail
Provide sufficient variety of commercial land
Maintain viable downtown
Provide ample inventory of industrial land
Provide variety of industrial land
Provide ample Inventory of quality residential land
Provide balanced supply of land diff types of land
Create separation of residential/industrial traffic
Maintain Isolation of 1-2 areas.
Where possible, create backyard land use transitions
Limit common access where conflicting uses are separated
by a roadway
Encourage development of School Blvd to ease congestion
at Hwy 25
Utility system financing driven by development revenue
Road system financing driven by development revenue
void leapfrog developmenUannexation Issues
L
E M G O A L S. W K 1: 04/01/94
Alternative 1 Alternative 2 � Alternative 3 Alternative 4
Original
Proposal I
Proposal
Klein/Ind
Plan
with PC
wo/PC
Alternate
Request
Request
51
5
5
3
31
4
5
3
3
4
51
3
3
5
4
3
41
4
3
5
31
3
3
4
21
4
4,
2
4
3
3
3
41
4
3
3
31
3
3
5
5
5
5
4
41
4,
4
4
51
5
5
2
5
5
5,
3
5
5.
5
3
4
4
4;
3
a
o�
Yoo
--C--
sing,
Xe
_lv
-odu
SI-pu,01%
so
Togo
1A
Ali
City of Monticello Chelsea Area Land Use and Circulation Study
Proposed Land Use
4
* 'Site 14,501%X406%
RESOLUTION 92- 4
RESOLUTION ADOPTING CHELSEA AREA LAND USE
AND CIRCULATION STUDY AS AN AMENDMENT TO
THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN FOR THE CITY OF MONTICELLO
WHEREAS, the City Council has recognized the need to update land
use policies and prepare amendments to the comprehensive plan that
will enable the Chelsea area to achieve its full potential in terms
of commercial and industrial development without negatively
impacting school and neighborhood uses.
WHEREAS, the City Council has recognized the need to develop a plan
for development of a transportation system necessary to support
development in the Chelsea area.
WHEREAS, in response to the needs above, the City of Monticello
Planning Commission has been directed by the City Council to study
and update comprehensive land use plans for the Chelsea area; and
WHEREAS, the Chelsea area planning process included information
gathered via a formal public hearing along with numerous
informational meetings involving various agencies and City
committees; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission finds that it is in the best
interest of the City to preserve a portion of the undeveloped areas
in or adjacent to the city for industrial uses.
NOW, THEREFORE, DE IT RESOLVED that the Monticello City Council, in
agreement with the Planning Commission, finds that the Chelsea Area
Land Use and Circulation Study achieves the planning goals set
forth; therefore, the City Council hereby adopts the Chelsea Area
Land Use and Circulation Study in full as an amendment to the
comprehensive plan for the City of Monticello.
Let it further be resolved that the City should plan to preserve
land for industrial uses at the site of the Klein farm or at the
"Evergreens" residential development site. Final location of the
site for industrial uses is to be established at such time that the
viability of the Evergreens residential development project has
been determined.
Approved by the Monticello City Council this 24th day of February,
1992.
1
77 May, r
C ty strator
c3f�
Hi''Nwar
t--------- -------- --------------
-------
LOT
Consideration of amendments
Eiii
~
to the coning map of the city
relating to reaoning of certail I
-t
properties from their current
designation to the 1-1 (light
industrial) zoning designation h
APPLICANT: Monticello
Planning
_
Commission 1
COMMENTS AND QUESTIONS FROM MARCH 31, 1994 MEETING
relating to rezoning of property known as'The Evergreens('
and the l Dein property
Creates a city within a city --how do we create a focus? Is it possible to do
so?
2. If businesses follow the freeway, why would Target locate in Buffalo? (Hwy
55 is a death trap.)
The only interchanges are Hwy 25 and I-94 and the exchange to the east.
Industry does not like to truck through residential areas. Why not keep the
industry close to the interchange and put the residential further out? The
Klein property fits into the Industrial Park.
Over last 5 years, 58 acres were developed M as industry and it is
suggested Monticello only needs 70 acres over 20 years. This is hard to
believe.
Promoting BC quality business and commercial, but lower quality housing.
Is this in direct conflict? Quality industrial and commercial should require
quality housing.
4. Don't you think it will be a big mistake keeping the Klein property zoned
industrial for the long range planning?
6. ' Focus on Downtown - specialty stores: Financing difficulties --how do
you regenerate interest? venture capital?
• New infrastructure? Interchange?
• Major regional complex; large anchor stores: will you be able to
attract?
' Hwy 25 improvements - concern about traffic on 86th
' Concern about traffic on Hwy 26 --how can it be diminished?
6. Are we putting as much emphasis on developing downtown as we are on
this project?
7. Why would you break up the industrial park? And where in the city would
you put it?
Why would you assume a shopping mall/center should or would be allowed
to locate in Monticello? We have throe major retailers within 10 miles of
one another! Why would they locate on Hwy 26 versus 1-94?
MAR3ICOM.PCA: 4/5/94 0
8. I have personally contacted several hundred businesses to try to get them to
locate in Monticello. With our present population growth we are still a long
way away from major commercial growth. Who does the city or developers
think will use these areas under consideration? (be specific)
9. If this goes through, how will it impact timing of sewer system?
10. Concern about buffer zone against heavy industrial.
11. Could most of the land between Chelsea Road and I-94 be changed to I-2?
12. Define I-1 and 1-2 uses more explicitly.
13. Establish quality standards.
14. What was the reasoning behind the original zoning plan? If it was good
then, why isn't it a good zoning plan now?
16. Residential zoning fits with school. Like some of the proposed changes.
Discuss in detail where the industrial areas could be.
16. Frontage road should continue.
17. What is the traditional "planned" zoning type progression?
MAR81 COM.PCA: 4/5194
JAN — 2 4— 9 4 M O h1 T i 3 4 O /, l ,. P. 0 1
� IVr
IryA Northwest Associated Consultants, Inc.
Cj
U A 8 A N VL A N N I Nn . Mae I0N • aARK8T R 9 5 9 A A C N
MEMORANDUM
TO:
Jeff O'Neill
FROM:
Stephen Grittmaa
DATE:
24 January 1994
RSI
Monticello . Sewer Study Land/population Analysis
FILE NO:
191.06 - 94.01
we have run a couple of projections for Monticello's population
through the year 2020. The projections were based on State
Demographer projections for Sherburne and Wright Counties. We also
used past population figures in the City of Big Lake and the
Townships of Monticello, Big Lake, and Backer. Finally we used
building permit data in the five local communities, and the
inventory of land use which you had conducted.
The projections listed below are provided for slow growth and fast
growth scenarios. Our 'most likely* estimate would be the midpoint
projection, particularly` over the long term. The 2020 midpoint
projection accommodates both the slower and faster growth periods
which are likely to occur at some point in the projection *window*.
Projection Year
2mod LM Im
Slow Growth 6,070 7,210 6,340
Midpoint 61760 7,680 9,460
Past growth 60680 81880 10,620
To these figures, we have applied a straight ratio of land use
absorption needs. This is clearly an unscientific approach, but
actually makes some intuitive sense, at least. The City's
traditional commercial role may change over time, but for
Monticello, that transition occurred soma time ago. The ratio of
commercial land use to residential population is not likely t
«. 'WYIkAKI
E,'.. .. _ ; - Ya
477• \A/a.,+71 `� n
.J A N- 2 4- 9 4 M O N 7: 4 0 O
R. O
change drastically, anyway. Industrial land use is another tale,
of course, since much of blonticello's industrial growth is only
superficially tied to any specific location.
Low Density Residential
High Density Residential
Commercial
-*► Inaustrial ;
=nsEstutioaal (Non -School)
Net Acreage Absorption
Gross Acreage Absorption
(Includes Streets, Ponds,
parkland, etc.)
ACRES NEEDED (Cumulative)
1000 2010 &Q
170
350
390
20
40
60
30
60
95
20
'SII
45
70
400 du
__Q
--Q
250
515
905
335
690
1,080
To these figures (the not acreage) we can back into some
assumptions about construction activity. For commercial, assume
one fourth of the acreage is building area. For industrial, assume
one third. For Institutional, one fourth also. For the
residential numbers, we have assumed ten unite per net acre on high
density residential and 2.2 units per acro for low density
residential.
Please call Cary if you need to discuss these figures. I will be
back in town Thursday. Hope this helps.
11
UNITE/BUILDING SO. F(=AGB
am
Zola
am
Low Density Residential
373 du
770 du
1,210 du
High Density Residential
300 du
400 du
600 du
Commercial
323,000
630,000
1.035 mill
Industrial
290,000
693,000
1.013 mill
Institutional
110,000
220,000
323,000
Please call Cary if you need to discuss these figures. I will be
back in town Thursday. Hope this helps.
11
Planning Commission Agenda - 4/6/94
Continued Public Hearing --Consideration of a variance renuest to
allow Installation of a pylon sign that exceeds the 32 -ft hiah
maximum. ADDUcant. McDonalds Corooration. W.O.1
REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
As you recall at the previous meeting of the Planning Commission, the
Planning Commission considered a request by McDonald's to allow a sign
that exceeded a 200 sq ft maximum and to allow the sign to be 60 ft high
versus code which limits sign height to 32 ft. Planning Commission
reviewed the design of the sign and determined that a variance was not
necessary because the total sign area did not exceed the 200 sq ft
maximum. It was the Planning Commission's interpretation the blank
space under the McDonald's arch should not be counted as sign area and
that only the physical square footage of the arch itself be included the sign
area calculation for that sign.
At the Council meeting on April 11, the City Council will he informed of this
interpretation and will be asked to consider whether or not it agrees with
the Planning Commission's interpretation. If the Council does not agree,
then a new variance request will need to be submitted by McDonald's for
subsequent Planning Commission at the May meeting of the Planning
Commission.
The Planning Commission tabled further consideration of the sign height
variance for 2 reasons. The first reason being that there was some
confusion as to whether or not McDonald's had a vested right to have a sign
equal in height to their existing sign. City staff was asked to check the file
closely and discuss the matter with the City Attorney to determine whether
or not McDonald's even needs to attain a variance in order to replace the
existing sign. The other reason for tabling the matter related Co the
position of the sign relative to the Highway 26 bridge abutment. It was not
clear at the meeting if the presence of the bridge abutment would present a
valid justification for extending the sign to a height as proposed.
Staff has done additional research on the 2 items above with regard to
whether or not McDonald's needs a variance. In the permit file for the
McDonald's restaurant we found that a permit was issued for the sign. We
found no record of an associated variance being granted along with issuance
of the sign permit. The sign was either permitted prior to the ordinance
being established which makes it a lawful, non -conforming sign or it was
permitted after the establishment of the sign ordinance without going
through the proper variance process. According to the City Attorney, Cho
City is not obligated to allow the sign to be replaced as is or replaced with a
sign that is less non -conforming. In summary, any sign replacing the one
that exists today, must meet minimum or a variance must be granted to
allow it to have characteristics that don't meet code.
Planning Commission Agenda - 4/5/94
With regard to a justification for a sign height variance based on hardship
created by the Highway 25 bridge abutment, the City Planner reviewed the
site from both directions on the freeway. It was his determination that the
visibility of the sign from both directions is not hampered by the Highway
25 bridge abutment. In his estimation, a pylon sign meeting the maximum
allowed under the freeway bonus (32 feet) would extend well above the
Highway 25 bridge abutment and, therefore, he visible to traffic eastbound
on I-94. He also noted that if the sign is extended to a height of 60 feet as
proposed, it is likely that the view of the sign could possibly be obstructed
by the Wendy's sign. It was his view that from an ordinance standpoint
and a commercial standpoint, it makes sense to install the sign with a
maximum height of 32 feet.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
Motion to approve the variance request.
Under this alternative, Planning Commission will need to make a
finding which identifies a hardship or unique situation that would
justify sign height variance.
If Planning Commission would like to grant the variance but is
unable to find an unique circumstance supporting the variance then
Planning Commission should consider adjusting the ordinance to
allow higher pylon signs.
2. Motion to deny the variance based on the finding that an unique
situation or hardship has not been identified that could justify the
variance.
As noted above, it appears that the sign is clearly visible from both
directions if extended to a height of 32 feet. Therefore, it is difficult
to justify a variance in this situation.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends alternative Q.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Copy of 3/3/94 agenda item; Sign detail submitted by McDonalds.
Planning Commission Agenda - 3!3/94
e. Public Hearing --Consideration of a yarlance rgauest to allow
replacement of an existing non-confonnina ovlon slim vgith a new
non-conformine pvlon sign and reader board simn. Replacement
sauare footage will eggeed the 200 as ft maximum and exceed
the 32 -ft high maximum allowed. Avolicant. McDonalds
Corporation. (J.O.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
McDonalds is requesting two variance requests that would allow
replacement of an existing non -conforming pylon sign with a new non-
conforming pylon sign. The pylon sign now in place has a sign area of
424 sq ft. Its height is 64 ft as measured from the top of the sign to the
freeway right -of --way. Sign height is always measured from the right of -way
from which the sign gains its principal exposure. According to the city
ordinance under the freeway bonus provision, sign area is limited to
200 sq ft, and sign height is limited to 32 ft. The freeway bonus gives
McDonalds an additional 14 ft of height and 100 aq ft of sign area over what
is allowed to other property owners on Highway 25 that lie outside of the
800 -ft freeway bonus area.
The sign now in place was installed either prior to the City establishing
sign ordinances, or it was installed without formally obtaining a variance.
Therefore, no approvals were ever granted for the sign as it now exists. The
sign is either a lawful non -conforming sign if it was installed prior to the
sign ordinance being enacted, or it is an illegal sign that was installed
without first obtaining the proper permits. Or perhaps it was installed
without properly being monitored by the City. Whatever the case, the City
is not obligated to allow the sign to be replaced as is or replaced with a sign
that is less nonconforming. Any sign replacing the one that exists must at
a minimum meet code, or variances must be granted to allow it to have
characteristics that don't meet code.
The new sign is proposed to have a sign area of 344 sq ft, making it
144 sq ft bigger than allowed by code. In addition, it is proposed that the
sign height amount to 60 ft versus city code, which limits sign height to
32 ft.
In terms of a variance to the sign size requirement, it is difficult to justify a
variance based on hardship due to the fact that a sign constructed to the
maximum size allowed by code provides ample notice to travelers on I.94
that a McDonalds is located at the exit ramp. In terms of the sign height, it
does appear that the base of the sign is relatively low in relation to the
0
Planning Commission Agenda - 3/3/94
Highway 25 overpass. It may be that additional sign height might be
necessary in order to raise the sign above the Highway 25 bridge ramp so as
to provide a view of the sign for traffic that is eastbound on I-94.
Unfortunately, I have not been able to visit the site to determine whether or
not a 32 -ft sign would be high enough to project over the ramp and,
therefore, be visible by traffic that is eastbound on I-94. If a 32 -ft sign is
not high enough to provide a view of the sign for eastbound traffic, then
perhaps a variance to the sign requirements is justified.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1A. Motion to approve the variance to the sign size requirement.
Under this alternative, Planning Commission would approve the
variance to the sign size requirement. As usual, with every variance
request, a unique situation or hardship should be identified that
explains why a variance is necessary. As you have noted in the
motion, I've included no reference to a unique situation since I
couldn't think of one. If the Planning Commission is serious about
granting a variance to the sign size maximum, then we should
definitely change our ordinance to allow larger signs.
Motion to deny the variance to the sign size requirement based on the
finding that the applicant has failed to demonstrate a unique
situation or hardship that would warrant the variance, it is not
consistent with the ordinance, and would result in a negative
precedent.
2A. Motion to approve the variance request allowing a sign height in
excess of 32 ft.
Under this alternative, Planning Commission could make a finding
that added sign height is necessary in order to allow the sign to
project over the Highway 25 bridge ramp so that the sign is visible to
travelers eastbound on I-94. City staff will be researching the matter
further and hopes to have a better indication as to the proper extent
of the variance, if necessary, to achieve sign visibility fbr eastbound
traffic on 1.94.
Motion to deny variance based on the finding that a hardship has not
been demonstrated and that a precedent would be set by granting a
variance.
R&I
s
Planning Commission Agenda - 3/3194
Under this alternative, Planning Commission makes a finding that a
32-R high sign is of a sufficient height to accomplish the sign's goals
and, therefore, there is no hardship or unique situation that warrants
a variance.
MMENDATION:
Staff' recommends that Planning Commission deny the variance to allow any
sign square foot area in excess of the maximum allowed (200 sq ft). With
regard to the sign height variance, it appears to be reasonable to allow a
variance to the extent necessary to achieve adequate visibility of the sign for
travelers eastbound on I-94.
D. SUPPORTING DATA
Sign detail submitted by McDonalds.
Arm
s
frim DFUNIM a a1 TUI ASRW SO AN ARMS ANI LIFT AS X LET e
40 SECID
G[. W°OI1S 6Y• t %l Mrs � A91 t0 Mml i0 ma m
ItrA%11sMUUMA
[�XpHyGriSI LL!m Wx Ltff �
E tIYOID.f fL NPS mi4 _ 1 � €,2A� �° f
AIa IICid
G Vy;M�s_(o� As V. Im vwli 'Ir go
[[*A IgV[FSAAt w.j.tc AMAOI �
I�Vvv po ox SII Imu ILA MIT WS miL
5[ (TVO CIRMIS) i•_r
tASI[l I uWM I 21MSNOVLLC WWI"
yr mn ar,.
_ . rxA m a SWI am rot BEIM rout sgtm7 I (LLCIRrAC �Ci01
ullu SCCIOI a ME *UP Im Llnrm. �mA[LTap �1 LLTS /
R r L r rtAlmavl I -�I— •
—'— LAIPS l lr% Im 1r • ^ r -r A4
SUM, I I Q IA67'li!
0 ) yr KWIM an I[IK U fdtkm
retro►
tvtm°IL m too I[IN. AIMS Qui m
L t/ • 1 re y amn It Is. Ra
L t ' l Y- tS � 61 i(es .� p PO SKA ro nI u as m
11�4a111SI1 �M
S, �vI'm roll A=V.
3 mmx
NEST TAM /I
MM C INS TAY) 0 A► IQNt11 IKX OIRr ICI) Md
FLAT rA j \ IT, rK=TE i )td M ata IIIII
�uraR at I
INAinim
.5,.. 1• �LSSSLR
sAt-1,
E01
�nttlloL Te rag
FR Ia1NlLl m FIS m y T¢f a 1r+ ent
r+ �. mwms IIaslsi
an 9=00
MPS&Mllft
--- 9 � s1 11 Anm�1 0 ImtrSr 1
. —-ra
fz
F vr sstm a ou
)ur
IN M=
I
1
ow. u ac as
o txmq ILII [tlotA ma A
c a py • .. . r' OL ROG mmx Q Zit Mr.
fmKM=1000101
rasr IT a UL Uttv'I lum.
IIUII aim a a m [DCMUISoll
r -4a m.. ' Ii°It
um tam am men au Iw /a lE
y Fat too Iwe
N
aIr•IluIn
Planning Commission Agenda - 4/5/94
8. Continued Public Hearing—Consideration of a conditional use
permit allowing minor auto repair and oxen and outdoor storage in
a B•9 (hiuhwav business) zone. Location is Section 11. Part of W 1/2
of SW 1/4, Unnlatted property in the city of Monticello. AooRcant.
Milton Olson. (G.A.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
As of the dictation of this agenda supplement, the applicant Milton Olson
has not come in with his plans for the cleanup and screening requirements
of this property. Jerry's Towing has now taken over the lease space of the
former Monticello Auto Body shop in Milton Olson's building. Jerry's
Towing is aware that they are operating on a day -today basis there, where
the City can come in and have them removed at any time. Milton requested
that this be tabled until the next Planning Commission meeting at which
time prior to that he would be in with his plans for the cleanup of his
property to bring it back into conformance. The cleanup of the property
would consist of removing of exterior storage items. Everything that would
be stored outside as part of Jerry's Towing and Milton Olson's materials
would all go into a screened, fenced -in area. Landscaping would be
installed to the minimum requirements as with concrete curbing and
continuation of asphalt pavement. Mr. Olson appeared at the Monday,
March 14 City Council meeting prior to its start and indicated that he
would be the next morning to go over his plans for the cleanup of his
property. As of this date he has not been in yet.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. Motion to approve the conditional use permit.
2. Motion to deny the conditional use permit.
3. Motion to turn this item over to the City Attorney and have him
prosecute this under the minimum enforcement provisions of the
Monticello %ening Ordinance.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff is very disappointed that Milton Olson, as the owner, or Jerry's
Towing, as the lessee of his property, have foiled to come in with their plans
for the cleanup of the Milton Olson site. Therefore, the staff recommends
that this item be turned over to the City Attorney for prosecution under the
minimum enforcement requirements of the Zoning Ordinance.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
None.
Public Hearina—Consideration of an amendment to Section 3.4: (G)
of the zoning ordinance that further defines minimum figor area
requirements for the various styles of single family residential
structures. AaDlicant. Monticello Planning Commission. (J.0.)
This item was tabled at the previous regular meeting. Attached is a copy of
the information provided previously. Steve Grittman will be present to
review the proposed amendment in detail.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Copy of 3/3/94 agenda item; Copy of 2/28/94 Planner's report; Copy of
proposed ordinance amendment.
Planning Commission Agenda - 3/3/94
to. Ppblic Hearing—Consideration of an amendment 0 Section 34: (G)
of the zonina ordinance that farther defines minimum floor gree,
leauirements fo; the various stsles of sln#e family residential
structures. ADuliCant. Monticello Planning Commission. (J.O.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
As you recall, some months ago Planning Commission called for a public
hearing on the possibility of adjusting our zoning ordinance so that more
flexibility would east to allow for the various types of housing styles that
are now constructed. The current ordinance is somewhat limited in its
approach to regulating floor area, and the new language would expand
flexibility and so on.
Please see Steve Grittman's report for further detail.
13. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. Motion to adopt zoning ordinance amendment based on
recommendations as outlined in the Planner's report.
2. Motion to deny adoption of zoning ordinance amendment as proposed.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends alternative pl as outlined in the Planner's report.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Planners report; Copy of proposed ordinance amendment.
0
14
rather than the current regulation of 1,800 square feet of floor
area.
Again, a garage in usually built in conjunction with b in
Minnesota, which causes livable areas on first floors to be smaller
in size, therefore, this alternative also allows livable area on
the first level to be reduced in size while maintaining the State
Uniform Building Code requirement of 800 square feet. This
alternative does not offer the flexibility to the builder as
Alternative 01, due to the fact that the first floor must Contain
at least 500 square feet of livable area. Also, under Alternative
42, a definition of livable floor area will have to be created.
a4iaie ��i;AZLV— 4
Our office reca=ends Alternative 01, as it offers the most
flexibility to builders with the vn4-4-- required floor area, and
the it will adapt to the ever changing trends in.housing styles.
The attached document contains an ordinance amendment per
Alternative 01, including the addition of the livable floor area
definition.
3
i
�0
IL -NC L.u(LilWaC�L AbSUG(dieU uunsuitants, Inc.
U R B A N PLANNING • DESIGN . MARKET RESEARCH
NOUVIORANDUM
TO: Jeff O'Neill
FROM: Cary Teague/Steve Grittman
DATE: 28 February 1994
RE: Monticello - Minimum Floor Area Requirements
FILE N0: 191.06 - 94.05
BACKGROUND
Over the past few weeks, the City has been considering the
appropriateness of the current minimum requirement of floor area
per dwelling unit for single family homes. This memo will outline
the current Zoning Ordinance regulations on floor area, offer two
alternatives, and make recommendation on adopting one of the two
alternatives. Also, attached is a draft of an ordinance amendment
in conjunction with our offices' recommendation.
ANALYSIS
Current ordinance Requirements
Section 3.4 (01 1. of the Monticello city code requires that one-
story dwellings be at least 96o square feet, and two-story
dwellings be at least 790 square feet per story. However, minimum
square footage of a one-story building may be reduced to 964 square
feet if a garage is added with at least 400 square feet. In no
case, however, shall the minimum dimension of that garage be less
than 16 feet. In the definition section of the current City Code
square footage is not specifically defined.
With the ever changing styles of new housing, both Single family
dwellings and townhoaus, the above ordinance does not meet the
current desires of builders and developers. In particular,
development housing units, with let floor livable areas of much
lees than 750 square feet with a garage, and a larger second level.
This is a currant trend in both two story town homes, and multi-
level single family dwellings.
8773 Wayzata Blvd. - Suite 555 - St Louts Park, MN 85418 - (812) 595.9838 -Fax. 595-8837
i
Therefore, the following sections of this report outline
alter-.atives which may offer greater flexibility in building new
homes in Monticello.
Alternative 01 - Require a minimum of 960 Square feet of livable
floor area for the entire unit.
This alternative allows housing waits to be constructed with a
first floor Square footage of less than current 750 square foot
requirement. As an example, a townhome could be constructed with
400 square feet of livable floor area on the first level, and 560
on the second, or a multi-level single family home could be
constructed with a 400 square foot livable area on the first level,
1,000 square feet on the second level and 400 square feet on the
third level.
This alternative gives a macs greater amount of flexibility and
creativity to the developer/builder, as the livable floor area of
the first, and second floor may be significantly reduced in size.
Also, the style of housing is not dictated. Current regulations
require homes to be somewhat uniform in size and shape, unless the
structure is significantly larger than tha: which is required
City Code. As trenda in housing styles change, due to to
flexibility that this regulation offers, the ordinance can adapt to
those changes, because it only regulates the minimum square footage
or the entire house, rather than a specific floor of the house.
It should also be mentioned, that in many instances, homes built in
Minnesota are usually constructed with a two stall garage 1400
square feet>, therefore, the minimum building foot print for most
new home construction will likely be at least 800 square feet. The
State Uniform Building code requires single family homes to be at
least 800 square feet in size, therefore, this new requirement of
960 square feet would satisfy the State requirement.
Under Alternative 01, Livable Floor Area must be defined within the
City Code. Livable floor Area may be defined as follows: The
total of all floor areas of a building, excluding stairwells and
elevator Shafts, equipment rooms, interior vehicular parking or
loading; and all floors below the first or ground floor, except
when used or intended to be used for human habitation or service to
the public.
alternative 01 - Require Two -Story Dwellings to be 500 s.f per
story.
By reducing the two-story dwelling requirement to 300 square feet
per story, greater flexibility is also afforded builders for
construction of two-story family homes, by reducing the required
size of the building foot print. Two-story homes would now be
required to contain at least 1,000 square feat of livable area,
( ri-f OF b1ON110E LLL
COUNTY OF WRIGHT
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDZNANCB AKM=G THE ZOMW OBDnMNCE, TITLE 10, SECTION 3-4
AREA AND SIIILD=Q SIZE REWLATXOVS
The City Council of the City of Monticello, Wright County,
Minnesota does ordain:
Section 1. Title 10, Section 3-4, (G) of the Monticello
Zoning Ordinance is hereby amended to read as follows:
1. ALL ONE AND/OR TKO -FAMILY DnLLnma AMID TOimN mzs shall
contain at least 960 square feet of livable floor area as
defined in Section 2-3 (FL) of the City Zoning Ordinance.
Section a. Title 10, Section 1-2 of the Monticello Zoning
ordinance is hereby amended to add the following:
(FLI FLOOR AREA - LIVABLBs The total of all floor areas of a
building, excluding stairwells and elevator shafts,
equipment rooms, interior vehicular parking or loading;
and all floors below the first or ground floor, except
when used or intended to be used for human habitation or
service to the public.
section a. This Ordinance shall take effect immediately upon
its passage and publication according to the City Charter.
PASSED this day of , 1994.
ATTEST:
Richard xolfeteller, City Administrator
1
Kan Maus, Mayor
11