Planning Commission Agenda Packet 10-04-1994'jV
AGENDA
REGULAR MEETING - MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION
Tuesday, October 4, 1894 - 7 p m.
Members: Cindy Lemm, Jon Bogart, Richard Martie, Richard Carlson, Brian
Stumpf
1.
Call to order.
2.
Approval of minutes of the regular meeting held September 6, 1994.
3.
Public Hearing --Consideration of amendments to the zoning ordinance
establishing zoning district designation entitled "Public and Semi -Public
Uses (PS)". Applicant, Monticello Planning Commission.
4.
Public Hearing --Consideration of amendments to the Monticello
Comprehensive Plan which would allow public and semi-public uses at the
western portion of the Gladys Hoglund property.
0 ti,V4.
6.
Public Hearing --Consideration of amendments to the official zoning map of
the city of Monticello. Proposed is a change from I-1 (light industrial) to PS
(public and semi-public uses). Applicant, St. Henry's Church/Gladys y �- s.� •:
Hoglund.
6.
Public Hearing --Consideration of a variance request to the yard setback
requirement. Applicant, Sunny Fresh Foods. 1....� yd ' •,y <^_ ^, i - • r
7.
Public Hearing --Consideration of a variance to the yard setback
requirements which would allow construction of a temporary structure in an
I-1 zone. Applicant, Jeff Michaelis, Riverside Oil.
8.
Public Hearing --Consideration of amendments to the Monticello Zoning
Ordinance establishing buffer yard standards for the purpose of separating
residential, commercial, and industrial land uses.
8.
Public Nearing --Consideration of amendments to the official zoning map
and consideration of establishment of zoning district designations and
boundaries in conjunction with annesation request. Proposed is a change in
zoning district designations from AO (agricultural) to R-1, R-2, and R-3
zoning district designations. Applicant, E & K Development.
' 10.
Public Hearing --Consideration of approval of "Main Farms" preliminary
plat. Applicant, E & K Development.
/ 11.
Public Hearing -.Consideration of a variance reuest to the parking lot
perimeter curb requirement. Applicant, Fay -Mar Manufacturing.
12.
Adjournment.
The September 6, 1994, minutes are not complete at
this time.
Planning Commission Agenda - 10/4/94
Public Hestina—Consideratloa of amendmpnts to the zoning
grd_in_anop ijllehina se Mk district desiangtign putitlgd "Public
qpd Se)ni-Public Uses (PHP. Aaolicant. Monticello Planning
Commission. (J.O.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
As you recall, the Planning Commission authorized preparation of an
ordinance amendment that would establish a zoning district specifically
designed to regulate institutional land uses which were previously allowed
as a conditional use in the residential zoning districts (R-1 through R-3).
One of the reasons for establishing this zoning district is to allow a property
to be zoned specifically for an institutional use without the risk of the
property being used for residential uses. The zoning ordinance amendment
proposed would allow a church to be located at the Hoglund site but would
not allow the residential uses under the "R" district designation.
At this time, it is proposed that the PS zoning district designation be
established in conjunction with the St. Henry's Church/Gladys Hoglund
rezoning application. At some point in the future, it may be necessary to
review other existing institutional uses currently in operation and consider
making a zoning map amendment that would place such institutional uses
in the PS zoning district designation. Of course, such uses could include the
Little Mountain/Middle School area, Pinewood School, Hospital District, and
other church uses. Please note that institutional uses now operating in
residential districts under existing conditional use permits would remain as
conforming uses. Establishment of the new zoning district regulations
regulating institutional uses will have no effect on existing schools,
churches, etc. All existing rules governing such uses as located remain in
effect.
Please review the memorandum from the City Planner regarding this topic
and study the draft ordinance carefully.
A. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
Motion to approve establishment of the PS (publidsemi-public) zoning
district based on consistency with one or more of the five factors
below:
Planning Commission Agenda - 10/4/94
Relationship to comprehensive plan
Geographic area involved in the request
Tendency of proposal to depreciate the area
Character of the surrounding area
A demonstrated need for the use
Motion to deny establishment of the PS (publictsemi-public) zoning
district. Motion to deny the proposal should be based on one or more
of the five factors to consider when analyzing a zoning amendment
request.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
According to the City Planner and according to my experience with other
communities, it is very common for cities to have a special zoning distrid
regulating public and semi-public uses. As noted in Steve Grittman's
memo, institutional uses which are now allowed in a variety of zoning
districts should be regulated separate fibro other district designations which
have operational characteristics that are distinct from either residential or
commercial land uses. It is our view that it makes sense to establish this
new zoning district designation not solely for the purpose of addressing the
Hoglund/St. Henry's Church situation. Therefore, there is a demonstrated
need to establish this zoning district designation for the benefit of the
community as a whole.
Memo from Steve Gdttman; Draft ordinance.
F
S08 25 NAC 612 595 9837 P.16i16NA Northwest Associated Consultants. Inc.
C URBAN PLANNING - OEeAOM•MARKET aseEAaCM
M WORMDUM
TO: Jeff O'Neill
FROM: Stephen Grittman
DATE: 29 September 1994
R8: Monticello - •P -S•, Public/Semi-Public Zoning
District
FILE NO: 191.06 - 94.13
This memorandum forwards a draft of a new zoning district entitled
•P-80, Public/Semi-Public District. This district is proposed to
be established in those areas where institutional land uses are
proposed which were previously addressed by Single Family Zoning.
This district is designed to accommodate the unique needs of
institutional uses which have operational characteristics which are
distinct from either residential or commercial land uses.
Only a few uses were placed in the Permitted Use section of the new
district, reserving moat of the primary uses for the Conditional
Use section. This is to pormit the City to consider specific sites
for institutional uses which seem to be appropriate, but which may
not have strict land use plan support. In many cases, the OP -S'
District will appear as a •spot sono on the Zoning Map. However,
if the City considers the required factors for zoning amendments,
and the particular conditions for the proposed use, such 'spot
zoning" should not be considered negatively.
The five factors which the zoning Ordinance Mete for Planning
Commission consideration in amendments are summarized as follows:
1. Relationship to the Comprehensive Plan.
1. Geographic area involved in the request.
3. Tendency of the proposal to depreciate the area.
4. Character of the surrounding area.
5. Demonstrated need for the use.
5775 Wayzata Blvd - Suite 555 - St. Louis Park, MW 55416 • (612) 595.9836 -Fax. 595.9837
C_3
SEP -29-1994 08:25 NFIC 612 995 9837 P.11/16
in consideration of the public/Semi-Public District, we believe
that it pexmits more effective implementation of the Comprehensive
Plan Goals and objectives by avoiding the location of institutional
uses in areas which are ill suited for the intensity of activity
which such uses can generate. As a result, the Planning Commission
should be able to make a finding of fact that throe h the adoption
and application of the P-8 Soniag District, each of the five
amendment factors will result in more effective land use regulation
and compatibility.
O
SFP-29-1994 08:25 NRC 612 595 9837 P.12/16
ORDINANCE NO.
CM OF MONnCELLO
AN .,i...a,.w i AMMIM T88 39=XCSLLO CITY CODS BY C&RhTXHG TDB
•P-861 P9BLIC/SE112-PU=C DISTRICT, am SBT)l8LI88m RAIA AILD
STANDARDS TS8RZFOR.
T88 CITr COWM OF THE CITY OF 18DPSCZW DOES 88MRST ORDAIN*
section i- Title 10 of the Monticello City Code, known as
the Zoning Ordinance, is hereby amended by adding the following:
CHAPTER
OP -S' - PUBLIC/SEMI-PUBLIC USE DISTRICT
SECTION:
_-1: Purpose
_-2: Permitted uses
_-3: Permitted Accessory Uses
4: Conditional Uses
_-S: Lot Requirements and Setbacks
•1: PURPOSE: The Public/Semi-Public Use District is
established to provide for the unique locational and
development needs of public and eemi-public uses. These
uses have operational characteristics which can be as
intense as commercial uses, and which can impact
residential areas, but have varying peak periods of
activity. In addition, they may comprise a single parcel
in an area of other land uses, requiring special
treatment. This District establishes standards which the
City can apply in the consideration of new Public/Semi-
Public use proposals.
_-3t .sr.....s.. USESt The following uses are allowed as
permitted uses:
(A) Public Parks.
(B] Public regulated, unoccupied utility buildings and
structures nocessary for the health, safety, and
general welfare of the community.
SEP -29-1994 08:25 NK 612 595 9837 P.13/16
[CI Cemeteries
(D) Governmental administrative offices.
er,s.ae,J ACC88SORY USES: The following uses are allowed
as accessory uses:
[A] Recreational buildings and facilities accessory to
Public parks.
[e] Parking lots and garages for temporary parking of
licensed, operable passenger vehicles.
[C] Public pedestrian trails and pathways.
_-4: CODIDITIONAL USES: The following uses are allowed as
conditional uses. Where not designated, the uses are
allowed as either principal or accessory uses.
(A) Storage of such vehicles, equipment, materials, and
machinery which are accessory to permitted or
conditional principal uses in the Public/Semi-
Public Use District, subject to the following
conditions:
1. Such storage is fully screened from
neighboring properties and the public right-
of-way.
2. The storage area is treated to control dust,
drainage, and maintenance of ground cover
vegetation.
3. The storage area is set back from adjoining
residential districts a distance no less than
double the adjoining residential setback.
4. Compliance with the requirements of Section 22
of the Monticello Zoning Ordinance.
(e) Public and Private educational institutions,
subject to the following conditions:
1. Educational institutions on parcels exceeding
20,000 equare feet in area shall be located
with direct frontage on, and access to, a
collector or arterial street.
2. The buildings are set back from adjoining
residential districts a distance ao less than
double the adjoining residential setback.
F
SEP -29-1994 8825 PWC 612 595 9637 P. 14/16
3. Parking areae are developed to accommodate the
most intense concurrent uses of the facility
so as to minimize overflow parking onto the
public street.
4. Accessory outdoor recreational facilities
provided with lights for night use shall be
located no nearer than 500 feet from a
residential district.
S. Compliance with requirements of Section 22 of
the Monticello Zoning Ordinance.
(CI Religious institutions such as churches, chapels,
temples, and synagogues, subject to the following
conditions:
1. Religious institutions on parcels exceeding
20,000 square feet in area shall be located
with direct frontage on, and access to, a
collector or arterial street.
2. The buildings are set back from adjoining
residential districts a distance no lase than
double the adjoining residential setback.
3. Parking areae are developed to.accammodate the
most intense concurrent uses of the facility
no as to minimise overflow parking onto the
public street.
4. Compliance• with requirements of Section 22 of
the Monticello Zoning Ordinance.
5: IAT REQUIREMER 8 AND SETBACKS. The following minimum
requirements shall be observed in an Public/Semi-Public
Use District, subject to additional requirements,
exceptions, and modifications set forth in this
Ordinance.
(A) Minimum Lot Area: None
(BI Minimum Lot Width 150 feet
(C) Setbacks:
1. Prost Yards: Not less than forty (40) feet.
2. Side Yards:
(a) Not lean than ten (10) feet when abutting
non -residentially Boned property.
(b) Not legs than twenty (20) feet when
abutting residentially zoned property.
3
SEP -29-1994 OB: 26 PWC 612 595 9837 P.15V16
3. Rear Yards: Not less than thirty (30) feet.
8eneien 4_ Section 3-3 [C] of the Monticello Zoning Ordinance
(Title 10 of the City Code), establishing yard requirements for the
various land use zoning districts, is hereby amended to read as•
follows:
[C] All setback distances as listed in the table below
shall be measured from the appropriate lot line and
shall be required -4n4—,- distances.
A -O
Prost Yard
SO
Ride Yard Rear Yard
30 50
R-1
30
10 30
B-2
30
10 30
R-3
30
20 30
R-4
30
30 30
PER
See Chapter 10
for specific regulations.
P2M
See Chapter 10
for specific regulations.
B-1
30
15 20
9-2
30
10 20
B-3
30
10 30
B-4
0
0 0
I-1
40
30 40
I-2
40
30 50
B -C
50
30 40
P -S
See Chapter _
for specific regulations.
Sjckioa 3. Section 3-4 [A] of the Monticello Zoning Ordinance
(Title 10 of the City Code) establishing lot sizes for the various
land use zoning districts, is hereby amended to read as follows:
[A] PURPOSE: This section identifies minimum area and
building size requirements to be provided in each
zoning district as listed in the table below.
DISTRICT LOT AREA LOT WIDTH BUILDIM BBIGST
A-0
2 acres
200
N/A
A-1
12,000
80
2-1/2
R-2
12,000
80
2-1/2
R-3
10,000
80
2
R-4
48,000
200
1
PZR
12,000
80
2.1/2
PEM
12,000
BO
2
B-1
8,000
80
2
B-2
N/A
100
2
B-3
N/A
100
2
B-4
N/A
N/A
2
I.1
20,000
100
2
4
j3'
Ab
SEP -29-1994 09:26 PAC 612 5% 9837 P. 16/16
x -s 30,000 2.00 2
B -C 30,000 100 a
P-9 N/A 150 50 Beet
Beetiea 4. Section 6-4 UQ relating to allowance of
institutional uses in the R-1, Bingle Family Residential District
by Conditional Use Permit is hereby repealed.
Beatiea B. This ordinance shall become effective immediately
upon passage and publication.
ADOPTED by the Monticello City Council this day of
, 1994.
VVVV*iA
l
MY 08 MNMCRT.?
By:
mayor
Marx
AYES:
NAYS:
5
3
TOT(t P. 6
Planning Commission Agenda - 10/4/94
4. Public Hearing—Considgrsftloa o1 jumgndmenp@ to the Monticello
Comprehensive Plan which wQpld allow public and semi•umblic uses
pt the western ooLtion of the Gladvs Hoglund pmnerty. (J.O.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
As you recall, at the previous meeting it was recognized that the
comprehensive plan on page 61 speaks specifically to the Hoglund property
in the section of the plan pertaining to industrial development. Specifically,
the comprehensive plan states: "The area north of Interstate 94 between
Highway 25 and Washington is also recommended for industrial
development because of the exposure to Highway 94 and Highway 25."
Obviously, the proposal to develop church uses at this location is
inconsistent with this statement in the comprehensive plan. In conjunction
with the discussion of the merits of the zoning ordinance amendment and
associated map amendment, the Planning Commission should review this
comprehensive plan statement. If it is the view of the Planning
Commission that the church use proposed at this location is viable, then the
comprehensive plan should be amended accordingly.
B. ALTERNATME ACTIONS:
Motion to amend the comprehensive plan in a manner allowing for
church uses at the proposed location.
Motion to deny recommending amendment to the comprehensive plan
to allow church uses at the proposed location.
Obviously it is important that the comprehensive plan be consistent with
decisions to amend the zoning ordinance. Therefore, the comprehensive
plan should be updated if appropriate. The motion to amend the
comprehensivo plan, if necessary, should be made immediately prior to a
zoning ordinance amendment changing the Hoglund designation from 1-1 to
PS uses. See the next agenda item for more detail on the zoning ordinance
amendment question.
Page 61 of the comprehensive plan.
The Northern States Power Generating Plant has proven to be
a good neighbor for the City of Monticello both in the
sense of its tax base and its cooperation with the
Community. Portions of the NSP land are utilised for
recreational purposes near the Wright County Montiasippi
Pack. The Guide Plan recognizes the need on the part of
the City to maintain a good relationship with the NBP
Plant. One of the features of the Guide Plan is the
proposal to ultimately construct a full interchange between
Interstate 94 and County Highway 75 to serve the plant
directly off of the Interstate. This is to,, nen'ad for
two reasoner first, it will avoid unnecessary touting of
traffic to and from the NSP Plant via County Highway 75 and
State Highway 25 through the center of the community)
secondly, from s safety standpoint, direct access to the
freeway should be advantageous in time of major emergency
at the NSP Plant (Bee Figure 10).
If the Interstate 94 interchange Is constructed near the
NSP Plant, Industrial development potential will develop
for the land near the Interchange. Industrial development
of the property is dependent upon the construction of the
interchange.
Mother type of development that is possible It the
Intersection is constructed is the usual interchange
-61-
Industrial development is proposed in the Guide Plan for
the area southeast of the nearest interchange between
Highway 25 and Interstate 90, known as the Oakwood
Industrial Park. In addition, the area directly east of
the Oakwood Industrial Park and west of County Highway 118
is`commended for industrial development. (The area north
of Interstate d between Highway 25 and Washington is oleo
7
recommended for industrial development because of exposure
to Highway 94 and 25.
�•
VL
Q.•''
Future industrial development should be governed by high
development standards including construction codes, proper
road access, adequate off-street parking, adequate loading
space, proper site and architectural design, and adequate
landscaping. These are not unreasonable requests to make
of new development. Some marginal industrial developers
may object to such high standards and therefore they may
refuse to locate in Monticello. However, good industrial
development will abide by ouch high standards if they are
assured that other industrial development will abide by
similar standards. The well designed and well maintained
industrial park will maintain its value not only to the
property owner but to the City. The City's consultants
have met with the owners of the Oakwood Industrial Park and
produced revisions in the original plat plan which will
allow greater flexibility in lot size opportunities for
potential industrial developers.
The Northern States Power Generating Plant has proven to be
a good neighbor for the City of Monticello both in the
sense of its tax base and its cooperation with the
Community. Portions of the NSP land are utilised for
recreational purposes near the Wright County Montiasippi
Pack. The Guide Plan recognizes the need on the part of
the City to maintain a good relationship with the NBP
Plant. One of the features of the Guide Plan is the
proposal to ultimately construct a full interchange between
Interstate 94 and County Highway 75 to serve the plant
directly off of the Interstate. This is to,, nen'ad for
two reasoner first, it will avoid unnecessary touting of
traffic to and from the NSP Plant via County Highway 75 and
State Highway 25 through the center of the community)
secondly, from s safety standpoint, direct access to the
freeway should be advantageous in time of major emergency
at the NSP Plant (Bee Figure 10).
If the Interstate 94 interchange Is constructed near the
NSP Plant, Industrial development potential will develop
for the land near the Interchange. Industrial development
of the property is dependent upon the construction of the
interchange.
Mother type of development that is possible It the
Intersection is constructed is the usual interchange
-61-
Planning Commission Agenda - 10/4/94
Public onQf amendment$ to the official Vaing
mqp of the city. Montice0o. Pr000rled to a change from I-1 (light
Lndnetrial) to P8 (publiq pd semi-ngbiic uses). Anpllcant St.
HenWs Church/Gladsn Hodund). W.O.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
As you recall, at the previous meeting of the Planning Commission, a public
hearing was held at which time a request was made to rezone 35 acres of
the western portion of the Gladys Hoglund property from I-1 uses to a
residential district designation which would allow future development of a
church campus. As a result of the discussion, it was determined that
perhaps it is not appropriate to rezone the property for residential uses,
thereby opening the door for the possibility that reaidential uses rather than
a church use would ultimately develop at this location. In an effort to block
this possibility, it was determined that the Planning Commission would look
at establishing a public and semi-public use district and consider zoning the
area under consideration accordingly.
Subsequent to the meeting in September, it is my understanding that
St. Henry's Church was contacted by the Malone family regarding the
potential sale of the Malone property to the church. This is significant
because the Malone property is located directly to the northwest of the
Hoglund property. The Malones own approximately 7.6 acres of land zoned
under the R-2 designation. Purchase of the Malone property by the church
reduces the church's need for industrial land and results in a reduction of
land converted from industrial uses to PS uses from 35 acres to 30 acres.
Please see the map information for detail. For your information, I have
included a copy of Steve Grittman's report relating to the issue from the
previous agenda supplement, As always, review Grittman's document; and
in your motion for approval or denial of the zoning map amendment, relate
your decision to:
Relationship to the comprehensive plan
Geographic area involved
Tendency of proposal to depreciate the area
Character of the surrounding area
Demonstrated need for the use
Motion to approve request to rezone the 30 -acre Gladys Hoglund site
from I.1 to public and semi-public uses.
Assuming that the Planning Commission amended the comprehensive
plan accordingly as part of the previous agenda item, the Planning
Commission could make its finding of approval of the rezoning
Planning Commission Agenda - 10/4/94
request based on consistency with the comprehensive plan. In terms
of geographic area involved and character of the surrounding area,
the church use would be consistent with the Little Mountain
Settlement area, the Rand Mansion, and would not result in severe
conflicts with the industrial area if the site and internal roadway
systems are configured properly.
In terms of the demonstrated need for the use, as you know, the City
has an abundant supply of industrial land to satisfy development
needs for the next 16-20 years; therefore, the proposed rezoning
should not have a short-term impact on industrial land inventory. At
the same time, however, the City should not remove land from the
industrial land supply without recommitment to the goal of finding a
suitable industrial area at a new location at an isolated location west
of Highway 26. As you recall, the goal of finding an alternative
industrial site was established in conjunction with the decision to
maintain the comprehensive plan as designated with regard to the
iOein farms development.
Motion to deny request to rezone the 30 -acro Gladys Hoglund site
from I-1 to public and semi-public uses.
Under this alternative, the Planning Commission could make a
finding that it is not appropriate to rezone the area for PS uses due
to the fact that the proposal is not consistent with the comprehensive
plan. Arguments could be made that although the proposal is
consistent with the geography and character of the surrounding area,
a demonstrated need for the use has not been established. It could be
argued that there is sufficient residential land inventory throughout
the community that would allow for space necessary for the church
use. Why remove revenue-producing industrial land from the city
inventory when other residential land for church uses is available.
It is our view that a good case can be made for each side. From a land use
standpoint, the request is reasonable and workable. From a narrow
economic/tax base standpoint, it would appear that it's best to leave the
property industrial. From a "community development" standpoint, the
development will provide subjective societal benefits that could exceed the
concrete economic benefits that the higher tax base would provide. It's your
call.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Copy of previous report from City Planner, Copy of church site plan; Copy of
public hearing notice.
Nr
08753 NAC 612 595 98V P.02iO3
rN Northwest Associated Consultants* Inc.
C URBAN PLANNING • 0981 GO - 11 ANNE T RIESILARC N
M MORAMUM
TO: Jeff O'Neill
FROM: Stephen Grittman
DATE: 1 September 1994
RB: Monticello - St. Henry's Church Zoning Amendments
FILE NO: 191.07 - 94.07
This memorandum is intended to at—rise our comments regarding the
St. Henry's Church proposal for the rest portion of the Hoglund
property. The request is to rezone a certain portion of the
Industrial acreage to R-1 to accommodate the institutional land
use.
1. Rifest ni Reaenina. One concern relates to the possibility
that the property may be rezoned, but never utilized as a
church facility, after which a developer may attempt to plat
a single family subdivision in accord with the new R-1 zoning.
it would be possible for the City to rezone the land back to
1-1 if it believed that the church development were not likely
to take place. In addition, the underlying Comprehensive Plan
land use would not support single family, a possible reason to
deny any single family plat proposal, although the courts have
been trouble for cities whose zoning is too far at odds with
the land use plan.
A second option would be to rezone the land to planned unit
Development, rather than R-1. Vnder PUB zoning, the City
could permit a church facility/complex, but not give up
control to a potential single family plat. In this way, the
underlying land use plan and policies would control any plat
proposal more positively.
2. with Caawshe=sive Plan. Another concern relates
to the use of the property by the church facility when the
Comprehensive Plan calls for Industrial. Since the land use
plan does not specifically identify areas for new
institutional use location, it is often left to the policy
5775 Wayzata Blvd • Suite 555 ' St. Louis Park, lull 55416 - (812) 595-0638•Fax. 595-9837
SEP -e2-1994 08:53 NAC 612 595 9837 P.b.310J
section of the plan to determine when a church proposal is
consistent with the plan. Just as when a church develops on
R-1 land guided in the plan for single family, the permit for
the church should identify Comprehensive Plan policies which
support the decision.
Induatr7al/InstitutiomIL Land Iran Compatibility. The
utilisation of existing Industrial land supply for non-
industrial uses is an issue which was discussed as a part of
the Klein- rich proposal. It is our opinion that the
eastern area of the community is of much hi her value as non-
industrial land use, particularly where the transportation
system does not support the truck traffic to be generated. on
the property in question, the eastern portion could reasonably
develop industrially, due to its potential access to the area
of the intersection with County 117 and County 75.
However, the westerly portion is adjacent to residential
neighborhoods, through which some truck traffic may be
encouraged to travel. The location of the church facility on
the west end of the property may mitigate this concern
somewhat. To be recognized is the fact that churches,
particularly large ones, can generate significant levels of
traffic throughout the week.
4. In_uat_ial La=d Uses. Generally. This proposal again raises
the issue of industrial land supply on a community wide basis.
As we had advocated in the previous &= rich/Klein proposal,
and as supported in the Chelsea Corridor study, the City would
be well served to proceed to establish an alternative location
for industrial land uses which will not conflict with existing
commercial and residential traffic or land uses.
Since the location of the School complex is a fact,
residential development will continue to follow the school,
and the 25/94 interchange area is already congested with
commercial traffic, our recommended location for future
industrial expansion is to the west of the City. The St.
Henry's proposal would fit well with these plans. If this is
not the intent of the City, and industrial uses are desired
for the easterly and southerly portions of the co=wnity, the
City should immediately seek alternative areae for commercial
and (especially) residential growth. The current growth areae
will rapidly lose their attractiveness for residential
development as industrial land uses expand in the current
locations.
S
TOTAL P.
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
Notice is hereby given that public hearings will be held by the City of
Monticello Planning Commission on October d , 1994 , at
7 p.m., in the Monticello City Hall to consider the following matters:
PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of amendments to the zoning ordinance establishing
a zoning district designation entitled "Public and semi -Public
Uses (P9)•.
APPLICANT: Monticello Planning Commission
PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of amendments to the Monticello Comprehensive Plan
which would allow Public and Hemi -Public Uses in the area noted
on the map below.
APPLICANT: Bt. Hanry-a Church
PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of amendments to the official zoning map of the city
of Monticello. Proposed is a change from I-1 (light industrial)
to PH (public and semi-public uses). Location: see map below.
APPLICANT: Bt. Henry's Church
zztmn RCM {.1 ([aa
�\
(!0lLIC
dI nnl.[C
ego:
Written and oral testimony will be accepted on above subjects, and all
persons desiring to be heard on referenced subjects will be heard at
this meeting.
OTE( Decisions of tho Planning Commission will be subject to the
approval or donlal of the City Council and will be heard on
Monday, ootggar 10 , 19 94 , at 7 p.m., at the
Monticello C ty Hall.
'gem Adwq Sl70Ail4 - iij L
, i
uary n ersorvon n strator
Planning Commission Agenda - 10/4/94
Public Hearing—Coneidergtion of a vprlance to the yard setback
reauirement. AovHeant. Sunnvv Fresh Foods W.O.)
,A. REFE&ENCE AND BACKGROUND:
Sunny Fresh Foods proposes to build a refrigerated warehouse facility
directly adjacent and south of the existing complex. This facility is proposed
to be constructed up to the property line boundary between 5th Street and
Sunny Fresh Foods. As you know, 5th Street is currently occupied by
Burlington Northern Railroad. Under normal circumstances, a request to
build up to the property line would not even be considered; however, in this
case, due to the uncertain future use of the 5th Street right-of-way, it
appears that granting the variance has some ment. In response to this
request, I asked the City Planner to work with Sunny Fresh to 1) define the
long-term development plan for Sunny Fresh, 2) how Sunny Fresh plans
will impact the area, 3) to assist the City in defining the best use of the 5th
Street property for the long-term, and 4) provide a plan for achieving this
goal. Sunny Fresh is cooperating in the study by providing the funds
necessary to complete the study ($2,800).
The report will be provided at the meeting on Tuesday.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
Motion to grant the variance to Sunny Fresh, which would allow a
30 -ft encroachment on the setback requirement.
Under this alternative, the motion could be based on information
identified in the Planner's report.
Motion to deny the variance to Sunny Fresh.
Under this alternative, the motion could be based on an alternative
identified in the Planner's report.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
At this point, the planning study is being finalized by the City Planner and
Sunny Fresh Foods; therefore, City staff has not had access to the
information. Staff looks forward to reviewing the report and the
alternatives contained therein at the meeting on Tuesday.
None.
Planning Commission Agenda - 10/4/94
Public Hearina—CggsiderAdgn of a varlgM@_to the vard setback
reauirements which would allow construction of a temoorary
soveture in an 1I-1 zone. Aoolicant. Jeff Michaelis. Riverside Oil
(J.OJ
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
Jeff Michaelis is requesting permission to build a temporary structure
which would allow him to enclose his fuel transport truck. In order to
obtain a building permit, he needs a variance to the front yard setback
requirement. Michaelis has noted that his vehicle has suffered damage
when parked outside at this location due to vandalism. In addition, being
able to park the vehicle on site next to the fuel depot is the appropriate
location for this vehicle. In the past, you may remember that Michaelis has
parked his vehicle at his residence, which is not allowed by ordinance.
Michaelis also proposes to build a screening fence to screen materials
currently stored on site. If the area Michaelis is now screening has always
been used for storage even prior to inception of the zoning ordinance, then a
screening fence can be installed without further permission by the City
Council. If, however, the area proposed for outdoor storage represents a
new use or an expansion of the existing use, then a conditional use permit
allowing outside storage would be necessary. In order to obtain a
conditional use permit allowing outside storage, a principal use must be
established. Unfortunately, a fuel depot is not considered to be a principal
use; therefore, unless the zoning ordinance is amended, Michaelis will be
unable to store material on site.
In terms of the temporary structure that Michaelis proposes, it may make
sense to allow Michaelis to build the structure if it is agreed that the
structure will be used temporarily and that there is no guarantee that the
site will be used in the long-term as a fuel depot. Planning Commission
may take the view that a variance is acoeptablo in this situation due to the
fact that it is temporary and, perhaps, because reasonable use of the
property does include allowing construction of a storage building, which
cannot be achieved without a variance due to the dimensions of the
property. On the other hand, Planning Commission could take the view
that if it is the long-term goal to eliminate the fuel depot use on site, then
no actions should be taken to encourage investments in the site, thereby
making the site a more desirable place for Michaelis to be located. Even
though the storage building proposed will be relatively inexpensive, the
funds used to build the temporary structure could be better spent on
helping fund relocation efforts.
Planning Commission Agenda - 10/4194
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
Motion to grant a variance to the yard setback requirement which
would allow construction of a temporary structure in an I-1 zone.
Motion is based on the finding that a garage is necessary in order for
Michaelis to have reasonable use of the property. Due to the
dimension of the lot, it is impossible to build a storage building at the
location without a variance. Furthermore, the structure is temporary
in nature and will be removed at such time that the fuel depot
operation is relocated.
Under this alternative, placement of the storage building on site
would not be considered an expansion or intensification of the use;
therefore, there would be no upgrades made to the site such as
development of paved areas, curb and gutter, landscaping, etc. If it is
determined that it is likely that the Riel depot will remain on site for
years to come, then perhaps the Planning Commission should grant
the variance contingent on Michaelis complying with all other aspects
of the zoning ordinance, including providing landscaping, a paved
service area, curb and gutter, etc. In addition, a separate zoning
ordinance amendment should be drafted which would enable outside
storage as proposed by Michaelis.
2. Motion to deny the variance to the yard setback requirement.
Under this alternative, Planning Commission could make a finding
that reasonable use of the property can be achieved without the
variance. In addition, there are numerous zoning ordinance
violations and problems with soils that would need to be corrected
before or in conjunction with development of the storage building.
Furthermore, this alternative would seem to make sense if it is the
goal of the Planning Commission to ultimately relocate the fuel depot
to another location. Also, if Planning Commission deems the
development of a storage building as an expansion of a current non-
conforming use, then at a minimum, even with the variance, all other
aspects of the site would need to be brought up to code.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommendation is withhold pending review of associated Sunny Fresh
planning study.
p. SUPPORTING DATA:
Copy of site plan prepared by Jeff Michaelis.
Je4T
� p
a
ae
a
yt�c saJ.
a
)(4 p
I
(ton
Planning Commission Agenda - 10/4/94
8. Public Hearlaa—Considq &n pf sLmendmpnts to ft Monticello
Zoning Ordinance establishing bp8er vard (itandards for the
purpose of separating residential. commerci&E and industrial land
Una. (J.OJ
A- REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
In conjunction with the establishment of the residential uses adjacent to the
Oakwood Industrial Park as envisioned under the Klein/Emmerich plan in
May 1994, the Planning Commission and the City Council authorized
development of an ordinance buffering industrial and residential uses. The
first draft is now complete and ready for formal review. Please see Steve
Grittman's memo and associated draft ordinance for further detail.
B. ALTERNATWE ACTION9:
Motion to adopt or modify and adopt proposed regulations
establishing buffer yard requirements. Motion is based on the finding
that the proposed ordinance is consistent with the comprehensive
plan, consistent with the geography and character of the areas
involved, will not result in depreciation of adjoining land values, and
there is a demonstrated need for the proposed ordinance.
Under this alternative, if the Planning Commission adopts the
ordinance as presented, the ordinance will apply not only to buffering
industrial and residential uses, but also commercial and residential
uses. Please note that the ordinance does go beyond merely buffering
the impacts between the industrial and residential uses and is meant
to apply to other areas where it may make sense to create buffer
yards between districts.
If the Planning Commission believes that this ordinance goes beyond
the scope of the original request, then it could simply be scaled back
to include only areas between industrial and residential uses. Staff
hopes to have some examples of how the buffer yard requirement
would affect development in time for presentation at the meeting on
Tuesday. We would like to be able to show you some case examples
of existing development in Monticello to show how the buffer yard
requirement might have been employed.
Planning Commission Agenda - 10/4194
Motion to deny proposed regulations establishing buffer yard
requirements.
If the Planning Commission believes that the regulations do not make
sense and do not accomplish the goal of buffering industrial and
residential uses, etc., then this alternative should be selected.
ai_;t LTi • _�
It is the view of City staff that, at a minimum, the regulations buffering
industrial and residential uses should be established. Perhaps the buffer
yard requirements affecting other districts should be put on hold until we
have had a chance to review the proposed ordinance amendment in more
detail. One item of controversy that you may wish to consider is the height
of the berm separating land uses. Please note that Jay Morrell, owner of
M & P Transport, would desire a higher berm (13 R) than that which is
identified as acceptable in the buffer yard requirement (5 R). Please see his
attached letter for detail on his request. Perhaps the buffer yard berm
between residential/industrial should be increased?
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Memo from Steve Grittman; Buffer yard requirement ordinance; Letter from
Jay Morrell.
to
JrN
SEP 0823 NRC 612 595 9637 P.02/16
Northwest Associated Consultants, Inc.
C U MOA N ► L ANN 1 N O • DESIGN • MARKET RESEARCH
MEMORANDUM
T0: Jeff O'Neill
FROM: Dan Licht/Stephen Grittman
DATE: 29 September 1994
RE: Monticello - Buffer Yard Ordinance
FILE N0: 191.06 . 94.11
BACKGROUND
Recently, the City ban considered adopting a buffer yard ordinance
requiring buffer yards separating incompatible uses. This
memorandum will outline the current Zoaiag 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
ANALYSIS
SAKUw► 2Lm1nown . The current Monticello Zoning
Ordinance does not establish specific requirements for abutting
incompatible uses regarding setbacks or landscaping. Section 1-2
IOl of the Zoning Ordinance specifies the required screening and
landscaping standards. Thia is a blanket ordinance which does not
take into consideration adjoining uses and potential impacts. Like
the required landscaping ordinanee, the setback ordiinneaanee is a
blanket ordinance with standards that do not increase dependent on
the adjoining use, such as when an industrial use abuts a
residential use.
5775 Wayzata Blvd • Suite 555 ' SL Louis Parte, MN 55416 ' (612) 595.9636•Fax. 595.9837
SEP -29-1494 08:23 NRC 612 595 9837 P.03i16
Draft Buffer Yard O�rdi�se. 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 four
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 is. 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 units 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 an the abutting property line,
with halt of the area on each side. The property owners on each
side are responsible for SO 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
excepts existingvel t from the requirements of the ordinance
until ouch time as the 4=ting development is significantly
charged, altered, ore�gended. In addition, the draft ordinance
requires that where a developer of vacant land swat install a
buffer yard adjacent to property which is SO percent developed (by
footage), the new developer must install the entire buffer yard on
the new property.
SEP -29-1994 0823 NRC 612 5% 9837 P.04i16
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 pard
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 Zoning Ordinance, the Planning Commission is to
consider five factors is its consideration of an amendment. The
Planning Commission is to then make a finding of fact and
recommendation to the City Council regarding the proposed
amendment. The five factors are as follows:
1. Relationship to the Crehensive Plan.
2. Geographic area involved in the request.
3. Tendency of the proposal to depreciate the area.
6. Character of the surrounding area.
5. 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 Coaiprehensive Plan is appropriate
land use transitions, and concern over this possibility in the
Klein Farms/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.
SEP -29-1994 OB: 24 NRC 612 995 9837 P.05i16
DRAFT - DRAFT - DRAFT
ORDINANCE NO.
[6A%ALs) ai, (6):V 4 (4W A 0 ]
An ORDIBA= I,o . ,. -"ro 2= IEM J dit l :.,, a., .,m. ORDIFAFCS BY ADDS=
r.1.r.._°'_,�_•s AFD STAM)ARDB FOR BUFFER YARDS.
T83 CIT! COMCIL OF TBB CITY OF 3RI;i'fICBLLO DOES ffiESY ORDAMs
Sention i. Section 3-3, Yard Requirements of the Monticello
zoning Ordinance is hereby amended by adding the following -
3 -3 YARD RSQDIRMCUM
(0) 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 M4n4tm a No. Plant units
of Building Landscape Required -100 Feet
cone Z8 Yard of Pranerty Line
Minimal A 30 feet 10 feet 40
Moderate 8 30 feet 30 feet e0
Significant C 40 feet 30 Leet 120
Severe D 50 feet 40 feet 160
(a) Ninim»m building setback measured from the abutting
property line.
(b) Kin4=— 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 miaimum landscaped yard.
SEP -29-1994 08=24 PAC _._ 595 9837 P.06i16
3.
7
Low Density
Residential
High Density
Residential
institutional
Commercial
Industrial
i) plant unit value shall be assigned as follows:
Plant
Veaetatien flit Value
Bvergreen Trees 15
Deciduous Tree 10
Evergreen/Coniferous Shrubs 5
Shrubs/Buehee 1
ii) The number of plantings required shall equal
or exceed the number of required plant units
based upon the values assigned in Section 3-
3.2.(c) of this Ordinance.
iii) The property owners on both sides of the
abutting property line for which the buffer
S25
rlays shall each be responsible for
O) percent o! the required planting
for the length of the abutting
property line.
iSinianlm Required Buffer Yard: The following table
represents the type as specified by Section 3-3 (P) 2 of
buffer yard required for abutting incompatible uses:
HZEE l[ REQ42RM B17YYSR TAlla
Low -Density High -Density insti-
None A
8 C D
A None
A
8
D
8 A
None
A
C
C 8
A
None
B
D D
C
8
None
4. The size and type ofrequired plantings shall be
aeeorUn to Section 3.2.(0).4 and Section 3-2.[GI .3 of
this Ordinance.
2
SEP -29-1994 08:24 NRC _-- 595 9837 P. 07/16
S. Mcisting trees or vegetation within a required minimsm
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
4 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.
i) All fences shall be subject to the requirements of
Section 3-1.101 of this Ordinanee.
ii) All berms shall be subject to the requirements of
Section 3-2.101 of this Ordinance.
7. 1) 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 requ}red
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 cases except for
the following:
ii) where development of abutting p rty exceeds
fifty (50) percent of the length o! 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.
S. Existing Development. Any existing development adjacent
to property developed in accordance with Section 3-
3.(0).7.1) shall be considered exempt from the provisions
of said ordinance until such tims 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
rovement.
9. The criteria for the submission requirements and approval
of a buffer yard landscape plan shall be according to
Section 3-1.IGl of this Ordinance.
SEP -241994 08=24 PqC c__ 5% 9637 P.08/16
Section 2. This ordinance shall became effective immediately
/ upon its passage and publication.
ADOp= by the m=ticello City Council this day of
1994.
ATTSBT :
CITY OF IMTICSLTA
b -M
Clerk
4
AYES:
NAYS:
mayor
L%
DO
r A F TRANSPORT. NIC.
September 15. 1994
M A P TRANSPORT, INC.
Phone •(612) 2953122
Metro • (612) 3324740
Fax • (912) 332.2398
ALEXANDRIA CONCRETE CO.
Plane -(912)7934800
Fax -(912)7934976
Hr. Jeff O'Neill
Asst. City Administrator
City of Monticello
250 Broadway East
Monticello, MN 55362
Dear Jeff:
CONCRETE PRODUCTS OF NEW LONDON, INC.
Phone -(912)3642311
CONCRETE OF MORRIS, INC.
Phone •(612) 6883700
WADENA READY -MIX
Phone - (218) 931.1668
Few -(612)7e34876
After sitting through the "Work Shop/Hearing" regarding the zoning
change requested for the Klein/Emmerich development on Tuesday,
September 6, 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 1A feet in height.
The suggestion of a 6 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 that if a 6 foot
high berm is still found to be essential, the developer should be
required to place an B 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/weet street on the north side 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.
■ A P TiANOOAT. IMC. Alt7AN IIIA CaN71IT1 CO. WADNMA V=40 CONCOM MIOOIRit OF PR r NT1 OF MOM ac.
NflN leNC.
P.O. a" 4" v,o. sow gee P.O. an as 17650 N".Y.. 2 2 3 N.E. 1200 P.dSe /1
MoMlalb. MN 65362 AluYdrl L MN 56300 Weeens. MN 58M NOW Lorton. MN 66273 MOMS. MN 9629
t
Paga 2
September 15, 1994
Mr. Jeff O'Neill
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 & P RA SPORT
J C Morrell t�
e dant
JCM/lj
Planning Commission Agenda - 10/4194
9. Public Hearlng—Considerption gf gmendments fp the official zoning
map and consideration of pstabUshment gf zoning distr clq
designations and boundaries in coniunction with gnnexation
rgauest. Proposed is a change in zoning district design4tions from
A,O (amicuituraii ko R.I. R-2. and jt.4 zoning district designations.
Anplicant. E d: H Development. (J.O.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
In conjunction with development of the Klein Farms preliminary plat and
associated annexation request, E & K Development is requesting
amendments to the official zoning map as noted on the attached copy of the
preliminary plat. The zoning map amendments requested are identical to
the land use designations approved during the review of the comprehensive
plan completed in wrtiunction with the associated rezoning of the land to
the west previously owned by Kent Kjellberg.
As you know, when property is annexed to the city, it is annexed under the
agricultural uses unless specific action is taken to bring the property into
the city under a different zoning designation. The petition for annexation
submitted by the applicant is contingent on the approval of the preliminary
`- plat and associated zoning district boundaries. This rezoning plan as
presented was discussed in great detail in conjunction with the recent
update of the comprehensive plan. Due to the fact that the update is
consistent with the current request, no additional discussion of this matter
appears merited.
Please note that in conjunction with the rezoning request, Planning
Commission will be reviewing a zoning ordinance amendment requiring
establishment of a buffer yard between industrial and residential zoning
districts. More detail regarding this amendment is provided in a
subsequent agenda item.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. Motion to approve the rezoning request in conjunction with the
preliminary plat and petition for annexation of the Klein property.
Under this alternative, the motion could be based on finding that the
rezoning as proposed is consistent with the comprehensive plan and
is consistent with the geography and character of the area given the
Planning Commission Agenda - 10/4(94
presence of the Little Mountain School and the impending
establishment of a buffer yard requirement. The finding could also
refer to the demonstrated need for the land use involved.
2. Motion to deny the rezoning request in conjunction with the
preliminary plat and petition for annexation of the Klein property.
This alternative should be considered if the Planning Commission
believes that the comprehensive plan review and associated approval
of the Klein/Emmerich land use plan granted a few months ago is no
longer current and needs to be revisited.
It is the view of City staff that the zoning district alignment was reviewed
at great length only a few months ago, and it was determined at that time
that the zoning district designations as requested by the developer were
appropriate for the area. It is also our view that nothing has occurred in
the past few months that would appear to justify a change in the City's
position with regard to proper land use in this area. Therefore, City staff
recommends approval of the rezoning request as proposed.
See preliminary plat which outlines proposed zoning district designations;
Copy of comprehensive plan excerpt.
NOTES: on back of map KLEIN" FARMS
{PROPOSED ZONING KAP)
WTL!L_ A
1A.r
Vol OUTLOT C,, rir a PC n —a go
0
10
.00
-46
r
KLEIN FARMS r /�� '« j!
RI SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL PRELIMINARY PLAT
R2 SINGLE & 2 FAMILY RESIDENTIAL
R3 MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIL
NOTES:
TOTAL AREA 60.73 ACRES
1915
107 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS
1 OJTLCT - FOURS SINGLE FAMILY
3 OUTLOTS - MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL
EXISTING
ZONLMG
THE NORTH HALF OF SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 14
IS CURRENTLY
OUTSIDE OF THE CITY LIMITS OF MONTICELLO.
PROPOSED T.ONINA .
Parcel Atee le[reel Proposed
OutlotA 7614e.rw•s 1yr4/sl
roniee
R-1
Pit lot P to: leOdntewn/al
R-1
Outlot C e.214a.eiq•e,4"MA.1
R-3
Outlot D 7.4
R-1
Single Family 44.7 Jeo?wAn,14w.A j
R-1
School Blvd. 3.6
Edmonson Avenue 1.S
Fallon Avenue 1.7
R-1 RP DIRa71Cm
MINIMLM
MINIMUM LOT AREA - 13,000 GO. FT.
MINIMUM FRONT SETBACK - 30 FEET
MINIMUM 8f08 YARD 86TBACR - 10 FEET
MINIMUM REAR YARD BKTBACK - 10 FEET
MINIMUM LOT WIDTH AT SETBACK - 00 FKET
The North half of the Southeast Quarter of Section 14, Tovns4p
121, Range 76, Wright County, Minnesota.
PLANNING COMMISS10N REC014IENDA1'1UN - Land use dec:isiuns acid plan UL JCLLVIt
t. Green Area - Emmerich rezoning request (Recommendation - Adopt)
2. Yellow Area - Klein Comprehensive Plan (Recommendation - Adopt)
3. Blue Area - NoglundlLundsten rezone (Recommendation - Table for further study)
PLAN OF ACTION:
4. a.Complete comprehensive plan update - Identify future industrial areas.
b. Update zoning district regulations - Maintain diversity of industrial land.
c. Develop plan for extending utilities to Hoglund site.
d. Update district regulations governing development in Regional Commercial District.
e. Require intense berming by ordinate to separate industrial from residential uses.
f. Transportation system design/subdivision design to separate conflicting uses.
g. Improve linkages between commercial areas.
1. Improve traffic flow on Hwy 25 via improved signal timing.
2. Re -align Cedar Street to improve land utilization.
3. Pursue development of Fallon Avenue overpass__
1`'� e _ '"`. .
NO
94 , I a . i ♦ r,,,.. t
.J t"
' 11
50x Multiple Pamily
`�Bueiness i__50X Two Family
`Campus a
�XX
i
Single to mily homes
.school Boulavarj
i•
perforbwnce
Single family homes
Zone`
M.tam l(
I
��`• Commercial &!.1
1
-
i
Planning Commission Agenda - 10/4/94
10. Puhlie lRearing—Consideration of guprovpl of "Mein Farms"
oreliminary plat. Aoolicant. E & K Develooment. (J.0.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
As you recall, at the previous meeting of the Planning Commission, Jay
Johnson, representing E & K Development, and Dave Klein were present to
review the Klein Farms preliminary plat. Planning Commission is now
asked to conduct a public hearing and a formal review of the plat, make
suggested changes, and consider a recommendation regarding the plat to
the City Council. Following is a brief review of the plat along with
identification of issues that the Planning Commission should be aware of.
The Klein Farms preliminary plat encompasses 80 acres and is located
north of the future School Boulevard and between Fallon Avenue and
Edmundson Avenue. The plat calls for development of 107 single family
dwellings in the area designated for R-1 uses. Outlot A is designated for
R-2 uses, and it is proposed that 48 units be developed at this location.
Outlot B is proposed for the R-2 zoning district and will contain 80 units, or
7.8 units per acre. Outlot C is proposed to be designated under R-3 uses,
which will net 44 units, or b units per acre. Lying to the north of the
property is the Oakwood Industrial Park. According to the buffer yard
ordinance, it will be required that a buffer yard be built along the northern
boundary of Outlots B and A to mitigate conflicts between residential and
industrial uses. The construction of the buffer yard in this case is the
responsibility of the Klein/Emmerich development.
To the east of the site is Little Mountain School. Obviously, the two uses
are compatible. An effort will be made to make sure that a crosswalk to the
school property is situated at a logical location. It is likely that the
crosswalk will be located at the point where the Klein Fauns' access drive
meets Fallon Avenue. To the south of the property is School Boulevard,
which will be constructed simultaneous to development of the Klein Farms
property. It is not known at this time if School Boulevard will be
constructed with phase I of the development. According to the information
provided, School Boulevard is constructed to state aid standards for a
3840 mph road. It includes development of an 8 -ft off-road bituminous
pathway, which is consistent with the pathway plan for the city.
To the west of the site is Edmundson Avenue. Across the street is a
business campus zone. Business campus zoning districts have slightly
higher design standards than the industrial auras. In addition, tho roadway
separation helps to mitigate negative impacts between the business campus
use and the adjoining residential uses. It appears, therefore, that a logical
transition in land use is accomplished at this location. Also, the road
systems appear to be designed to minimize conflicts between residential and
commercial traffic.
Planning Commission Agenda - 1014/94
The development of the property is somewhat hampered by the presence of
a Northern Natural Gas Company pipeline extending through the property
from north to south. The alignment of the lots and roadways are somewhat
dictated by the presence of this pipeline. There are a few double -fronting
lots on the plan along School Boulevard that are relatively short (145 ft).
The developer has made an effort to mitigate this problem by proposing a
4 -ft berm along the School Boulevard right-of-way to mitigate the impact of
School Boulevard on such lots. There are also double -fronting lots along
Fallon Avenue that have a depth of 165 ft, which is about 25 ft deeper than
the double -fronting lots at the Cardinal Hills subdivision.
1!41 W__v Vf
The utility plan is currently under review by the City Engineer. According
to the City Engineer, development of the property appears feasible. It is not
likely that further analysis of the utility plan and adjustments made will
result in substantive changes to the plat. Therefore, it appears appropriate
to review the preliminary plat prior to approval of the utility plans as
presented.
PARK DEVELOPMENT
The developer is required to provide 8 acres of park land with this 80 -acre
plat. In addition, another 8 acres will need to be provided with
development of the area south of School Boulevard. The Parks Commission
has met on two separate occasions regarding the 10ein Farms preliminary
plat. It is the view of the Planning Commission that the entire 160 -acre
site, including the north 80 acres and south 80 acres can be best served by
developing a single relatively large centralized athletic complex to be located
at a position adjacent to and south of School Boulevard. The precise
location for the park has not been established at this time; however, the
developer has agreed to provide 16 acres of park land at a location outside
of power lino easement areas. It is the view of the Parks Commission that
short-term development of park area on the 80 acres north of School
Boulevard is not necessary at this time due to the fact that Little Mountain
School is available to provide for necessary open space for the short term.
In addition, the Monticello Zoning Ordinance requires private park facilities
for multi -family developments that could occur in Outlet C. Outlets B and
A are medium density developments, and it is not likely that such
developments would provide private park areas.
PATHWAYS
As mentioned earlier, School Boulevard will provide the major east/west
pathway corridor for residents living in the subdivision. Pointe of
destination include the school campus to the east and the future commercial
area to tho west. The internal road system will be built with a 38 -ft wide
Planning Commission Agenda - 10/4/94
road surface, which will enable safe movement of pedestrians from within
the subdivision to the pathway on School Boulevard. In addition, it is
suggested that a pathway be constructed at a location connecting Blocks 4
and 3. Such a pathway would connect the west half of the development
area to the internal road system linking the west side to Little Mountain
School. Such a pathway would allow people living in the western half of the
plat to walk to Little Mountain School without having to walk all the way
down to School Boulevard and back up Fallon Avenue. It should be noted
that there may be a problem with establishing this pathway due to
limitations in grading and crossing the Northern Natural Gas Company
pipeline.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
Motion to recommend granting approval of the preliminary plat of the
10ein Farms subdivision. Motion is contingent on approval of the
utility plans by the City Engineer and contingent on modifications to
the plat as suggested during the course of the meeting. It is also
suggested that approval be contingent on entering a development
agreement guaranteeing development of the park area south of School
Boulevard.
Under this alternative, Planning Commission would move the
preliminary plat forward for subsequent review by the City Council.
Motion to deny approval of the preliminary plat of the IUein Farms
subdivision.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff has reviewed the preliminary plat in some detail and can generally
confirm that the preliminary plat meets the minimum requirements of the
subdivision ordinance. It is suggested that the Planning Commission review
the plan in detail with the developer, make suggested changes where
appropriate, and unless major modifications are needed, it appears
appropriate to recommend approval of the preliminary plat.
Copy of Main Farms preliminary plat.
16
NOTES: bit back of map
I N '
i,.V0-U T L 0 T C,, I
am oT
KLELFARMS
m
5
QWrm
KLEIN FA]
PRELIMINARY�
PARK WATION TO BE D"FRMINED -..0
(a
NOTES:
l
TOTAL AREA . 80. 33 ACRES
I=
107 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS
1 OUTLCT - FU14112 SINGLE FAMILY
1 OUTI.OTS - MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL
EXISTING ZONING
THE NORTH HALF OF SOU I(EAST QUARTER OF SECTION Ie
IS CURREM•LY
OUTSIDE OF THS CITY LIMITS OF MONTICELLO.
PROPOSED ZONIN0 '
Parcel Area faereel Proposed
Outlet A 7.8Ie0..lh-6 I-%/. l
Tonin
R-1
0mlor B 10.71ROWn.7 e..+./«.1
R-1
Outlet C 0.7 Iee,Wb�eMWb/s.l
R-1
Outlet D 7.e
R-1
Single Family ee.7 I�Or�n„rMMn/oc.l
R•1
School Blvd. 1.9
RA—noon Avenue 1.5
Fallon Avenue 1.3
n-1 RRGDIR_MiM
MINI!!UM
MINIMUM LOT AREA - 17.000 60. FT.
MINIMUM FRONT SETBACK - IO FEET
MINIMUM SIDE YARD SKTBACK io FEET
MINIMUM REAR YARD SETBACK 10 FEET
MINIMUM LOT WIDTH AT SETBACK - BO FEET
The north halt of the Southeast Quarter of Section 14. Townabp
ill, Range 15, Wright County. Minnesota.
NOTES: " 1
TOTAL AREA - 60.12 ACRES �f
I=
107 SIHGLS FAMILY LOTS
1 OJTILT FUIURS SINGLE FAMILY
I OUTLOTS - MEDIUM DENSITY RKSIDENrIAL
az IBTINO .MING
THE NORTH HALF OF SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 14
IS CURRENTLY
OUTSIDE OF THE CITY LIMITS Or MONrICEL1.O.
PROPOSED TONING .
Parcel Area 1•ezeel proeoeed
outlot A 7.{MNwib.{ira/s.R
Loe_ine
R -t
Calot B 10.1 Mae,e9n.7.{rAlp/ac)
Aq
outlot C {.7R..da.{ 4N4""
R-1
outlot D 7.4
R-1
SinFamily N.7 Ra+.uu.e....u/sl
R -i
BehOo1 Blvd. I.r
Sdaon•on Avenue 1.3
1.1108 Avenue 1.S
R-1 Jcimm
MINIMUM mouIp
MINIMM LOT AREA - 12,000 SQ• FT.
MINIMUM rRoNT SETBACK - 10 FEET
MINIMUM SIDE YARD SETBACK 10rIIT
MINIMUM RJAR YARD SCrBACK 10 FEET
MINIMUM LOT WIDTH AT SRTBACK • e0 FEET
TheNorth half of the Southeast Qwrt•r of Section 14, Tbvnsiip
121, Range 2S, Wright County, Minnesota.
O-
K/ein, Fry-r�S