Planning Commission Agenda 08-01-2017
AGENDA
REGULAR MEETING - MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION
st
Tuesday, August 1, 2017- 6:00 p.m.
Mississippi Room, Monticello Community Center
Commissioners: John Alstad, Brad Fyle, Sam Murdoff, Marc Simpson
Council Liaison: Charlotte Gabler
Staff: Angela Schumann, Steve Grittman (NAC), Jacob Thunander, John Rued
1.General Business
A.Call to Order
B.Consideration of approving minutes
th
a.Special/Joint Meeting Minutes July 11, 2017
th
b.Regular Meeting Minutes July 11, 2017
C.Citizen Comments
D.Consideration of adding items to the agenda
2.Public Hearings
A.Continued Public Hearing - Consideration of a request for amendment to the
Monticello Comprehensive Plan for the Downtown Small Area Study
Applicant: City of Monticello
B.Public Hearing Consideration of a request for Rezoning Planned Unit
Development, Development Stage Planned Unit Development, and Preliminary
Plat for Autumn Ridge Villas for detached single family lots in an R-3 (Medium
Density Residential) District at Autumn Ridge 3rd Addition
Applicant: SW Wold Construction/Ocello, LLC
C.Public Hearing - Consideration of a request for amendment to official Monticello
Zoning Map for rezoning from A-O (Agriculture Open Space) District to R-1
rd
(Single Family Residence) District and Preliminary Plat for Featherstone 3
Addition for detached single family lots
Applicant: Graser, Horst
D.Public Hearing - Consideration of a request for amendment to official Monticello
Zoning Map for rezoning from B-4 (Regional Business) to B-3 (Highway
Business) District and text amendment to the Monticello Zoning Ordinance
Section 5.2 Use-Specific Standards
Applicant: Ryan Buffalo Land Company, LLC.
E.Public Hearing - Consideration of a request for Conditional Use Permit for Micro-
Brewery/Taproom in CCD (Central Community District)
Applicant: Burt, Bill and Penny
F.Public Hearing - Consideration of a request to amend the Monticello Zoning
Ordinance Chapter 4, Section 8 for regulations on driveway width for
residentially zoned parcels
Applicant: City of Monticello
G. Tabled - Consideration of a Rezoning to Planned Unit Development District, and
Development Stage Planned Unit Development for Self-Storage Facility in a B-3
(Highway Business) District. Applicant: KB Properties, LLC
3. Regular Agenda
A. Consideration of a report on purchase agreement for 220 West Broadway Street
for consistency with Monticello Comprehensive Plan.
B. Consideration of Recommendation for Appointment of Planning Commissioner
C. Consideration of the Community Development Directors Report
4. Added Items
5. Adjournment
MINUTES
SPECIAL/JOINT MEETING - MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION AND CITY
COUNCIL
Tuesday, July 11th, 2017 - 5:00 p.m.
Mississippi Room, Monticello Community Center
Commissioners Present: John Alstad, Brad Fyle, Sam Murdoff, Marc Simpson
Commissioners Absent: Lucas Wynne
City Council Present: Brian Stumpf, Jim Davidson, Bill Fair, Charlotte Gabler, Lloyd Hilgart
Staff Present: Angela Schumann, Steve Grittman (NAC), John Rued
1. Call to Order
Brad Fyle called the Special/Joint Meeting of the Monticello Planning Commission and
City Council to order at 5 p.m.
2. Concept Proposal for amendment to Planned Unit Development for detached single
rd
family lots in an R-3 (Medium Density Residential) District at Autumn Ridge 3
Addition. Applicant: SW Wold
Steve Grittman explained that the original project was conceived to be 169 townhome
units, with 79 lots that do not have townhomes built on them at present. The applicant
would like to reconsider that plat and replace the 79 lots with a proposed 41 detached
single family (townhome) lots. These units would still be included in an association
agreement and management and a common area agreements. All the streets, utilities, and
parking bays were constructed with the original project, with a trail throughout the site.
Grittman noted that twelve attached townhomes were built along School Boulevard. The
applicant is proposing to create a separate association from the prior development.
Grittman explained that the base zoning is R-3. The bulk of the driveway depth is 25 feet,
with a couple areas where that number is smaller. The back spacing is around 40 feet,
with narrowing at certain areas. Grittman stated that the original approval had tighter rear
yard separations as newly proposed.
Grittman stated that staff reviewed the concept proposal and provided recommendations
on driveway orientation and sizing, and requested the boards give direction to the
applicant.
Grittman explained a conflict between what City Staff and the applicant preferred for
treatment utilities for connections and abandonment. There are 79 utility lots with 41 only
needed to be used.
Grittman explained the purpose of the concept stage submittal was to provide the
applicant with direction for moving towards development stage plans.
Brad Fyle introduced Matt Theisen to explain his concerns with the utility system.
Theisen indicated he marked each of the utility connections and that the property owner
owns the service to the main. He mentioned concerns with leaking at the corps, the main,
1
or by the curb. Theisen stated there was two alternatives for the existing service by either
removing it at the current site and moving it back from 5 feet from the curb, shutting it
off and plugging it or they could remove it all together and plug it.
Brian Stumpf clarified that the homeowner or the association would pay for any charges
for leaking systems. Lloyd Hilgart indicated that he preferred the association to pay for
any problems with the system.
Fyle indicated that City services would stay where they are at. Theisen indicated the curb
box would likely stay in its place, but standpipes would likely move locations. Fyle asked
if in the association could write up all the conditions including possible utility repair and
be nailed down in
the association documents. Angela Schumann indicated that a clause in the development
agreement would be included and the City Attorney would verify.
Hilgart asked for the concern of shorter driveways and if sidewalk would be placed in
these areas. Grittman explained no sidewalk was proposed at this time. Jim Davidson
stated that he would rather see a porch than a longer driveway. Shawn Weinand indicated
that those concerns were revised on the plan and they shortened up the porch where the
driveways were tight.
Charlotte Gabler asked if one of the units could be removed to better accommodate the
concerns. Weinand cited economic concerns.
Stumpf asked how many different elevation styles would be demonstrated. Weinand
indicated that two different styles would be proposed. Weinand indicated that the homes
would be a slab on grade with a crawl space. He stated that these homes would be for
those who are looking to upgrade from their current townhouse, empty nesters, or single
parents. He stated they would be selling at $230,000 to $300,000 range. He stated the
current townhomes are selling at $145,000-$150,000. He stated that 25 percent of the
units could be over 3,000 square feet, with the balance of the units closer to 1,500 to
1,600 square feet.
Fyle asked if the total value of the buildings would be similar to single family homes.
Weinand stated that it would be very close and pull up the price of the other units in the
area. He estimated that it would be a two to three year build out. He stated units like these
have sold well in other towns. Very little grading would need to occur and swales
between the homes would exist.
Angela Schumann stated that a public hearing is not required during the concept stage
submittal, but that meeting notice went out to residents within 350 feet of the property.
She also asked for the applicant to discuss the proposed association documents.
Weinand stated that the house and the exterior of the house would be the responsibility of
the homeowner to maintain. The exterior maintenance (including mowing, shrub
clipping, streets, and snow removal) would be included in the association fees.
Fyle asked for clarification on street maintenance. Weinand indicated that the streets are
private and maintenance would be covered through the association fees.
2
Brad Fyle allowed the public to comment.
Matt Theisen asked if the crawl spaces would be concrete. Weinand confirmed. Theisen
asked if the water services coming through the floor. Weinand confirmed.
Shelby Ferguson, an owner of one of the townhomes in Autumn Ridge, expressed
concerns with the current association. She stated that association is difficult to work with
and that work is not completed. Weinand stated that the association was turned over to
the homeowners, but that none of the homeowners have stepped up to be on the board.
Ferguson commented that financial reports are not received any more and mentioned
concerns with Personal Touch (the management company). Weinand recommended
forming their own board and hiring a new management company.
Stumpf asked for clarification if the renters could be represented on the association board.
Weinand declined stating that the property owner only could be on the board. John Rued
indicated that a rental license requirement is in place through the City and that several
rentals exist in this neighborhood. It was noted that association documents are private
agreements between property owners and not the responsibility of the City.
Debra Peterson, a property owner of a townhome in Autumn Ridge, indicated she had no
issues with the association, until hail damage was received to her property. She echoed
difficulties with dealing with Personal Touch management and appearance of their
neighborhood. She asked if the City could help with locating the information of the
property owners. Bill Fair indicated that information is publicly available through the
Fyle stated that most of the issues had to do with the association and that the residents
may needwith guidance on reorganizing the association.
Shannon Willing, a resident at Autumn Ridge, indicated that the current roads are narrow
and encouraged the driveways to be 25 feet long to avoid parking on the street. She cited
concerns especially in the winter with snow/ice removal. She recommended a playground
in the area as many of the kids are playing in the street.
Allison Janitor, a homeowner in the Autumn Ridge, asked for clarification of the
association. Weinand indicated that separate associations would exist and that common
crossing access agreements would exist. She asked about snow removal. Grittman stated
that they could hire different contractors to complete such work, but often times the
associations will work together.
Sam Murdoff asked how large the lots were proposed. It was noted that the lots would
vary, but they an average of 47 feet wide by 74 feet deep or around 2,800 square feet.
Grittman stated the design shows ten feet between units.
Fyle indicated from the conversations that the development agreement should be properly
laid out to understand the association.
Hilgart indicated he would not approve something without a proper association in place.
Jim Davidson noted the importance and need for this type of housing in the community.
3
3. Adjournment
MARC SIMPSON MOVED TO ADJOURN THE MEETING AT 5:53 PM. SAM
MURDOFF SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED, 9-0.
Recorder: Jacob Thunander ____
Approved: August 1, 2017
Attest: ____________________________________________
Angela Schumann, Community Development Director
4
MINUTES
REGULAR MEETING - MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION
Tuesday, July 11th, 2017 - 6:00 p.m.
Mississippi Room, Monticello Community Center
Commissioners Present: John Alstad, Brad Fyle, Sam Murdoff, Marc Simpson,
Commissioners Absent: Lucas Wynne
Council Liaison Present: Charlotte Gabler
Staff Present: Angela Schumann, Steve Grittman (NAC), John Rued
1. General Business
A. Call to Order
Brad Fyle called the Regular Meeting of the Planning Commission to order at
6:00 p.m.
B. Consideration of approving minutes
th
a. Regular Meeting Minutes June 6, 2017
SAM MURDOFF MOVED TO APPROVE THE REGULAR
TH
MEETING MINUTES FROM THE JUNE 6, 2017 PLANNING
COMMISSION MEETING. MARC SIMPSON SECONDED THE
MOTION. MOTION CARRIED, 4-0.
C. Citizen Comments
None.
D. Consideration of adding items to the agenda
None.
2. Public Hearings
A. Continued Public Hearing Consideration of a request for Rezoning to
Planned Unit Development, a request for Development Stage Planned Unit
Development for Vehicle Sales and Rental, Auto Repair Minor, and
Accessory Office and Retail Uses in a B-3 (Highway Business) District,
including allowance for 13
Applicant: FRHP Lincolnshire, LLC
Steve Grittman explained that the request was for an expansion of a current
facility under a new PUD to occupy a former used car dealership. The PUD was
intended to accommodate some of the conditions that exist on the site. Grittman
noted that most of the expansion site would be used for recreational vehicle sales
and displays.
Grittman stated the accommodations for the PUD would be needed to
accommodate the proposed building size and floor ratio. The applicant requested
having an expanded sales area that is outside of the standards ratio for building
size to display area size.
1
A flag pole alsowasproposed at 130 foot flag poleheight.
Grittman noted that a monument sign is currently located a couple feet in the
right-of-way. Camping World proposed to keep that monument sign in the
location as constructed, as well as the additional sign shown.
Grittman explained the comments identified in Exhibit Z of the staff report. The
applicant requested having a larger flagpole height than the staff recommendation
and to construct a fence or wall around the east and south boundaries of the east
parcel.
Brad Fyle asked which sign was in question. Grittman responded that it was the
monument sign located along 3801 Chelsea Road. Staff recommended removing
it out of the right-of-way. The current location is around 2.5 feet in the right-of-
way.
Brad Fyle commented that he did not have a problem with the flagpole height.
Fyle asked if the existing building would further violate the Zoning Ordinance per
the provision regarding the ratio percentage of building to lot. Grittman
confirmed, stating the Hecker Building that was originally built and conformed to
the previous code. Camping World then purchased land from the City and paved
that area, increasing the percentage beyond the allowed limit. By adding more
land, the percentage further violates the ordinance, even with the two buildings on
the acquired lot. As the ordinance is written, the applicant would need to have
40,000 square feet of additional building to conform.
Charlotte Gabler asked what the two buildings on the acquired site would be
considered. Grittman stated they would be considered accessory uses. Grittman
stated the point of the screening condition was to direct traffic to the main
building. Gabler also asked if it would be practical to combine the parcels.
Grittman stated that combining the lots would not necessarily resolve any issues
within the PUD.
Fyle asked for clarity about the access points. Grittman responded that there are
currently three curb cuts along Chelsea Road. They are proposing to gate at least
one of the driveways for operational purposes and they would completely close
off one of the entrances.
Gabler asked if the stormwater plan was sufficient with the addition of new
pavement. Angela Schumann stated the stormwater system for the existing site
was approved at the last meeting, but the new site was proposed to have an
underground system. She stated the City Engineer has approved the configuration
with minor comments.
Fyle opened the public hearing and invited the applicant to come forward first.
2
Walter Kucharyszyn, Camping World Lincolnshire, Illinois, stated he reviewed
the Exhibit Z comments. He stated the zoning requirements for the pylon sign
would be met. He was concerned with the expenses that would incur by moving
the monument sign out of the right-of-way, citing that it was approved under the
previous owner when it was constructed. He also stated concerns with turning
movements if the sign were moved farther into the Camping World site.
Kucharyszyn explained that the existing pavement on the former Bedrock Site
was not curbed stated that Camping World would complete the curbing, if
desired. He also stated that a landscaping plan was submitted the previous day.
The detail on the fence was also provided.
Kurcharyszyn explained the importance of having a flagpole at the proposed 130
feet. He stated that many employees at Camping World are veterans and that it is
very well noticed by people. He asked that the setback of the flag pole be set at 15
feet and reassured that the FAA completes their review of the structural
engineering.
Kucharyszyn explained that he preferred to construct a fence or wall around the
east and south boundaries of the east parcel (per 9c. of the staff report). He also
stated their compliance for items 10, 11, and 12 of the staff report.
Gabler asked if a similar flagpole height was seen in Monticello, specifically
noting
height of the Perkins flagpole, but believed
taller.
Gabler also asked for detail on the ornamental fence and landscaping detail.
Schumann stated that the ornamental fence would be placed along the south, east,
and west boundary line. Grittman also explained that the submitted landscaping
plan included evergreen shrubs, trees, perennial, and deciduous trees. Gabler
asked if any over story trees were required. Grittman confirmed stating the over
story trees would be located along the common boundary and along Chelsea
Road. Grittman was unable to verify if the numbers of plantings would conform
to code due to the time of the submittal of the landscaping plan.
Sam Murdoff asked if the applicant was planning on keeping the existing
buildings on the former Bedrock Motors site. Kucharyszyn confirmed, stating that
they would be used for detailing. Murdoff also asked if the green space would be
paved. Kucharyszyn confirmed stating it would be used for inventory.
Shawn Weinand, Ocello, stated he looked at purchasing the property years prior.
He was informed at that time that if the property was modified, the existing metal
buildings on the site would have to be removed as they did not meet the B-3
Zoning.
Creek Business Park. He suggested dressing up the existing buildings. Fyle
commented that he was not in favor of Bedrock Motors not updating the building
materials. He noted if this was new construction, it would not be allowed as is.
3
Hearing no further comments from the public, the hearing was closed.
Marc Simpson asked if an existing flagpole exists. A Camping World
representative confirmed.
Gabler asked how to take all existing metal buildings in Monticello and repurpose
them. She questioned if a repurposing section of the code could be created.
Grittman stated that the applicant could use the site as is as an existing non-
conforming property. However because other improvements to the site are
proposed, the code applies to bring non-conformities into conformity. Many cities
have tiered stages of approval to bring sites into compliance. Grittman stated they
could look into adding language to the code to include a repurposing section.
Gabler asked if he agreed with improving the building surface of the existing
buildings. Kucharyszyn stated that was a corporate decision. Gabler asked if that
could be something included in the PUD or development agreement. Grittman
stated that it is important to think about how to enforce such decisions.
Fyle asked how they could enforce the building materials specifications. Grittman
stated they would propose the applicant submit revised plans showing the
approved improvements.
Marc Simpson asked for clarification on the gated entrance. Kucharyszyn
responded a manual gate would be created. Simpson asked if it would be
accessible if necessary for the fire department. Kucharyszyn confirmed that
something could be done to make the area more accessible. He explained that
there would be only one entrance for the general public. Grittman added that there
would be a property connection on the north portion of the site.
Murdoff asked if any code issues would exist with only the one access. Grittman
stated that the southeast entrance would be open in any case, but that the applicant
should work with the Fire Department so that they were also satisfied with the
site.
SAM MURDOFF MOVED TO ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. PC-2017-016,
RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF THE DEVELOPMENT STAGE
PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT AND REZONING TO PLANNED UNIT
DEVELOPMENT, AS RECOMMENDED BY STAFF IN EXHIBIT Z, BUT
WITH AMENDED CONDITIONS AS SPECIFIED BY THE PLANNING
COMMISSION AT THE PUBLIC HEARING. MARC SIMPSON SECONDED
THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED, 4-0.
EXHIBIT Z
Camping World PUD
3801, 3887 Chelsea Road
Lot 1, Block 1 Camping World First Addition
4
Lot 1, Block 1, Maas Addition
1. Meet the architectural materials requirements of the pylon sign standards.
2. Enforce the requirements for monument sign relocation at 3810 Chelsea Road, by
moving the sign out of the right of way; or if location is approved by the City, the
applicant shall enter into a license agreement for the encroachment.
3. Provide curbing around the entire paved area, consistent with the requirements of the
zoning ordinance.
4. Revise landscaping plan to provide quantity and species for proposed landscaping
along south portion of the site.
5. Provide materials and height detail for proposed ornamental fence.
6. Accommodate the proposed flagpole height of 130 feet.
7. Locate the flagpole at a distance from the east and north property line a distance of
8. Demonstrate FAA review and approval for flagpole as required.
9. Upgrade the existing buildings with exterior architectural treatments to meet/exceed
the requirements for commercial buildings and construct a fence or wall around the
east and south boundaries of the east parcel, with landscaping on east and south sides
to create an attractive visual screen, and which focuses traffic and attention to the
main property (3801 Chelsea).
10. Revise site and building plans to illustrate consistency in proposed improvements.
11. Comply with the comments of the City Engineer per the checklist included with the
staff report of July 11th, 2017.
B. Public Hearing - Consideration of a request for amendment to Conditional
Use Permit for Development Stage Planned Unit Development for Multi-
Tenant Commercial Building in a B-3 (Highway Business) District
Applicant: Larson Building, Inc/Crown Bay, LLC
Steve Grittman explained that the PUD accommodated the development of a
commercial site at Monticello Travel Center. The site is surrounded by existing
access drives or streets. The building entrance would face Oakwood Drive with
parking bays at the north and west side of the building. An existing curb cut for
general public access to the site would be eliminated along Cedar Street, but
access would be allowed on the east side of the site through the existing shared
access drive. Trash receptacles would be on the south side of the building.
5
Grittman noted that a sign easement exists on the south side of the lot for a large
pylon sign. They are not proposing any structures in this area, but are proposing a
monument sign elsewhere on the site. The easement remains in place as
originally approved.
Retail and office uses were proposed to be accommodated at the site. Cross access
easements and parking agreements would be set with adjoining property owners.
It was noted that adequate parking was proposed on the site, however would need
to be recalculated if a food service use was to locate in the building.
Staff recommended approval of the proposal, subject to the comments displayed
in Exhibit Z.
Charlotte Gabler asked if any drive through lanes were proposed. Grittman
declined, stating only a service drive on the south portion of the side would be
provided.
Brad Fyle opened the public hearing and welcomed the applicant to the podium
first.
Bob Lamont, Crown Bay LLC., explained that the staff report was presented
accurately and stated compliance with the Exhibit Z comments.
Marc Simpson verified that either two or three tenants could be located in the
proposed development. Lamont confirmed.
Dan Mielke, adjacent property owner in the PUD, stated that no concerns with the
proposal. He asked that all operational easements stay in place, that the businesses
are always able to use the driveways, and that all drives stay open during the
construction stage.
Lamont stated one of the Exhibit Z comments included verification of cross-
parking and access agreements and reassured the Planning Commission that it
would be easily provided. Fyle verified that th
during construction. Lamont confirmed.
Hearing no further comments, the public hearing was closed.
Decision 1: Consideration of an amendment to a Conditional Use Permit for
a Development Stage Planned Unit Development (PUD) to accommodate the
construction of a multi-tenant commercial building and associated site
improvements and parking.
MARC SIMPSON MOVED TO ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. PC-2017-017
RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF THE AMENDMENT TO CONDITIONAL
USE PERMIT FOR PUD, BASED ON THE FINDINGS IN SAID
RESOLUTION, AND CONTINGENT ON COMPLIANCE WITH THE
6
CONDITIONS LISTED INEXHIBIT Z. SAM MURDOFF SECONDED THE
MOTION. MOTION CARRIED, 4-0.
EXHIBIT Z
Conditional Use Permit/Planned Unit Development
And PUD Development Stage Site Plan Review
Lot 6, Block 1, Monticello Travel Center
1. Proposed Tenants include those listed in the B-3 District as Permitted Uses, in
addition to commercial and/or professional office space (a Conditional Use in the
B-3 District).
2. The applicants complete Change of Use process requirements as tenants change to
verify continued compliance with zoning requirements.
3. Verification of executed cross-parking and access agreements within the Travel
Center PUD.
4. Verification that lighting fixtures meet the requirements of the zoning ordinance
as specified in this report.
5. Compliance with comments from the City Engineer in t
June 5th, 2017.
6. Payment of required development charges and submission of required
landscaping security.
7. Other comments of the Planning Commission and Staff provided at the Public
Hearing.
C. Public Hearing - Consideration of a request for Rezoning to Planned Unit
Development and Development Stage Planned Unit Development for Self-
Storage Facility in a B-3 (Highway Business) District.
Applicant: KB Properties, LLC
Steve Grittman explained that the proposed development of a self-storage facility
would be located along Chelsea Road and abuts the Groveland development.
There would be a small parking area, gated with a kiosk. The applicant proposed
construction of the development in phases. Grittman explained that most of the
buildings along Chelsea would be the same size, reducing down as they move to
the north. The drive aisles were proposed at 24 feet, with a few narrower sections
near the units facing Chelsea Road. Staff recommends accommodating the 24 foot
width at all locations due to visibility concerns. Staff also recommended bollard
placements at the corners of the buildings and pavement markings to define traffic
movement.
Grittman stated that the applicants proposed a cast-iron fence around the site
except along the west area where a berm exists. Stormwater management would
7
be located alongthe south side of the development. The landscaping is adequate
south of the site and along Chelsea Road. Staff recommended a rock mulch be
placed along Chelsea Road where a pathway. This would ensure the landscaping
would not spread onto the pathway.
The buildings were proposed to be primarily metal exteriors, with cultured stone
wainscot on sides of buildings facing the roadway. Fencing and landscaping for
screening would be provided on the site. Grittman noted the building materials
were the largest code variation.
Grittman reviewed the Exhibit Z comments with the Planning Commission and
recommended approval of the proposal.
Brad Fyle asked for clarification about the fence. Grittman confirmed that no
fencing would exist adjacent to the residential area. Only landscaping and a berm
were proposed near this area. Fyle asked if the fencing would be phased. Grittman
responded that the proposal was to construct the buffer landscaping along the
berm as a part of the first phase, and then he believed it would be constructed as
they built out from east to west. All of the landscaping would be built with the
first phase.
Fyle opened the public hearing and invited the applicant to speak first.
Keith Burnham, KB Properties, stated that he had no issues satisfying the
comments in Exhibit Z. Burnham added that all residents maintain a fence to the
eed to have two fences back to back with the
proposed buffering and landscaping. Fyle asked for clarification on the
construction of the metal fencing. Burnham stated that they would phase the
fencing.
Charlotte Gabler mentioned concerns with traffic along Innsbrook Drive.
Nicole Hills, 10036 Park Place Drive, mentioned concerns with the appearance of
the building on the corner of Innsbrook Drive and Chelsea Road. She also
mentioned safety concerns with having no fence along the residential area.
Shawn Weinand, Ocello, explained concerns with having metal buildings in a B-3
area. He expressed a desire to have a taller fence along the property and explained
that with the landscaping the ends of the buildings would still be visible. He
recommended having additional architectural materials used on the corners of the
buildings and on the fence. He mentioned the difficulty in having a kiosk during
the winter, not having a manager on site, no restrooms, and garbage concerns. He
recommended grading and landscaping the site all at once so that people know
residential area and mentioned concerns with snow removal and keeping the
buildings dry because of the elevations. He also recommended having 25 feet
driving lanes with ballads at the corner of every building. Weinand asked the
applicant to consider the type of customers he was trying to attract.
8
Burnham responded to concerns with the kiosks and explained that the kiosks
would be housed inside a climate control building and that the option to call him
or an operator would be available instantly.
Burnham explained that the buildings facing Innsbrook Drive and Chelsea Road
would use stone rock wainscot and fibrous cement board. He explained that much
of the landscaping would add color and break up the buildings.
Burnham explained that the target customer is residents of Monticello and
explained that the concerns with dumping garbage would occur regardless of his
development.
Burnham stated that the grading would occur all at once. He also added that snow
removal could be blown into the rain gardens.
Burnham noted that Monticello has two self-storage facilities, both of which are
understood to be full with waiting lists.
He reiterated his desire to cater to Monticello residents.
Burnham also explained that if people wanted to get over a fence, they would do
so regardless. He explained the costs to build a fence along the residential area
would be expensive.
Hearing no further comments, the public hearing was closed.
Fyle explained that the buildings facing Chelsea Road should be better dressed
up. He stated the buildings facing Innsbrook Drive would be sufficient with the
landscaping and agreed that additional fencing would be unnecessary along the
residential area.
Murdoff agreed with Fyle and added that he would like to see the fence completed
all at one time.
Gabler asked for the height of the berm. Scott Dahlke, Civil Engineering Site
Design, stated that from the residential side to the berm, it varies from four to six
feet and from the berm towards the storage units would be up to seven feet.
Dahlke stated the berm would provide significant screening with the landscaping.
Gabler asked for the building to be enhanced along the streets and agreed with the
fencing being completed around the perimeter at the time of development.
Burnham believed with the landscaping and the raingardens the view would be
broken up. Gabler asked if the buildings along the outside perimeter could have
gables to better transition the proposed development. Burnham said that he would
be open to the change. Concerns with the visual appearance above the fence line
was a concern.
9
Gabler asked for clarification of the entrance gates. Burnhamexplained the site
would have a security system with automatic locking and that the gate between
the buildings would not allow access to anyone.
Simpson agreed with the comments of the fence around the perimeter and to
better tailor the buildings.
Scott Dahlke proposed that the development stage plans get approved and that the
comments from the Planning Commission and City Engineer comment letter get
addressed in the final stage PUD plan review.
SAM MURDOFF MOVED TO TABLE ACTION ON RESOLUTION NO. PC-
2017-018, PENDING SUBMISSION OF ADDITIONAL MATERIAL FROM
THE APPLICANT, PUBLIC, AND/OR STAFF. MARC SIMPSON SECONDED
THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED, 4-0.
D. Public Hearing - Consideration of a request for amendment to the Monticello
Comprehensive Plan for the Downtown Small Area Study
Applicant: City of Monticello
Angela Schumann explained that the most recent version of the Small Area Study
was included in the packets. Schumann explained that the request for approval
was tabled at the EDA meeting. The EDA have since asked for a workshop
meeting with the Planning Commission to discuss implementation of the plan.
Staff requested tabling action and continue the public hearing on the item.
Schumann encouraged the Planning Commission to attend a special meeting on
th
Wednesday, July 12 at 7 pm at the Community Center.
Brad Fyle asked if a quorum was necessary. Schumann responded that the public
notice notes that a quorum of the Planning Commission, EDA, and/or City
Council may be present. Schumann also requested any specific questions or
concerns regarding the plan be sent to her.
MARC SIMPSON MOVED TO TABLE ACTION ON THE REQUEST FOR
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT FOR ADOPTION OF THE
DOWNTOWN SMALL AREA STUDY AND RELATED AMENDMENTS
ST
AND CONTINUE THE HEARING TO AUGUST 1, 2017. SAM MURDOFF
SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED, 4-0.
E. Public Hearing - Consideration of a request to amend the Monticello Zoning
Ordinance Chapter 5, Section 3 for regulations for accessory use outdoor
storage in industrial districts
Applicant: City of Monticello
Angela Schumann explained that discussion was held at the June Planning
Commission Meeting, but the public hearing was not opened.
10
Brad Fyle opened the public hearing. Hearing no comments, the public hearing
was closed.
Schumann added that staff recommended approval of the changes as identified in
the exhibits.
SAM MURDOFF MOVED TO ADOPT RESOLUTION PC-2017-014,
RECOMMENDING ADOPTION OF ORDINANCE 6XX, FOR
AMENDMENTS TO MONTICELLO ZONING ORDINANCE CHAPTER 5,
SECTION 3 FOR REGULATIONS FOR ACCESSORY USE OUTDOOR
STORAGE IN INDUSTRIAL DISTRICTS, BASED ON FINDINGS IN SAID
RESOLUTION. MARC SIMPSON SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION
CARRIED, 4-0.
3. Regular Agenda
A. Consideration to accept the resignation of Planning Commissioner Lucas
Wynne and to direct posting of vacant position for Commission.
MARC SIMPSON MOVED TO ACCEPT THE RESIGNATION OF LUCAS
WYNNE FROM THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND TO DIRECT
POSTING OF VACANT POSITION FOR COMMISSION. SAM MURDOFF
SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED, 4-0.
B. Consideration to call for a public hearing for amendment to the Monticello
Zoning Ordinance for Chapter 4, Section 8 as related to driveway width for
single-family residential lots.
Angela Schumann explained that the Zoning Ordinance requires a maximum
width of 24 feet between the curb and the property line for single-family
residential lots. At the last City Council meeting, two separate residents applied
for a driveway permit for over 24 feet.
Per City Council discussion, staff have asked the Planning Commission for a
st
public hearing for August 1, 2017.
Brad Fyle asked what the width of the proposed driveways by the two residents
was. Schumann responded that she believed they were 30 and 31 feet. She also
added that those residents decided to move forward with a driveway permit to the
width that currently conforms to code.
Schumann also added that the reason driveway permits were started was to ensure
that residents stay within code allowance.
Schumann noted that driveway widths vary from city to city, but 24 feet width is
common. The reasons for the 24 width has to do with the amount of impervious
surface per lot, the amount of area for snow storage and visibility, and lot widths.
MARC SIMPSON MOVED TO CALL FOR A PUBLIC HEARING BY THE
MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION ON AUGUST 1ST, 2017 TO
11
CONSIDER AMENDMENTS TOTHE MONTICELLO ZONING
ORDINANCE, CHAPTER 4, SECTION 8 FOR DRIVEWAY WIDTH FOR
SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL PARCELS. JOHN ALSTAD SECONDED
THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED, 4-0.
C. Consideration of the Community Development Directors Report
Angela Schumann stated that she provided an update on the Planning Commission
list of recommendations in the report. She noted a previous item that was heard,
Chadwick/Bowers comprehensive plan amendment and rezoning, the applicants
have requested tabling at the past few City Council meetings. Mr. Chadwick has
requested to withdraw his application and Mr. Bowers has asked to continue
moving forward.
4. Added Items
Brad Fyle asked that the previous two applicants for the Planning Commission be
contacted for the opening on the Planning Commission. Schumann responded that the
message would be given to the Human Resources department.
5. Adjournment
MARC SIMPSON MOVED TO ADJOURN THE MEETING AT 8:12 PM. SAM
MURDOFF SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED, 4-0.
Recorder: Jacob Thunander ____
Approved: August 1, 2017
Attest: ____________________________________________
Angela Schumann, Community Development Director
12
PlanningCommissionAgenda–8/1/17
2A.ContinuedPublicHearing-Considerationofarequestforamendmenttothe
MonticelloComprehensivePlanfortheDowntownSmallAreaStudy
Applicant:CityofMonticello(NAC)
Property:CityofMonticello
PlanningCaseNumber:2017-023
A.REFERENCE&BACKGROUND
TheCityCouncilhascalledforapublichearingbythePlanningCommissionforthis
item.
TheEDAandPlanningCommissionattendedajointsessiontoreviewtheplanon
th
July12,2017.Theprojectconsultantsareworkingatthistimetorevisethedraft
plantorespondtothecommentsanddirectionprovidedatthejointmeeting.
th
TheEDAwillconsiderrecommendationontherevisedplanonAugust9,2017.As
theEDAhasnotyetmadeaformalrecommendationontheplan,itisrecommended
thatthePlanningCommissiontableactionontheitemandcontinuethepublic
hearingatthistime.
AlinktotheupdatedsmallareaplanwillbesenttothePlanningCommissiononce
available.
B.ALTERNATIVEACTIONS
1.MotiontotableactionontherequestforComprehensivePlanAmendmentfor
adoptionoftheDowntownSmallAreaStudyandrelatedamendmentsand
continuethehearingtoSeptember5th,2017.
2.Motionofother.
C.STAFFRECOMMENDATION
None.
D.SUPPORTINGDATA
A.DraftDowntownSmallAreaPlan,July2017-tobesentasavailable.
1
From:SaraC.Buermann<Sara.Buermann@co.wright.mn.us>
Sent:Monday,June26,20173:42PM
To:AngelaSchumann
Cc:VirgilHawkins
Subject:RE:MonticelloDowntownPlan
HelloAngela,
ThankyoufortheopportunitytoreviewthedraftoftheMonticelloDowntownplan.Thecountysupportsand
encouragessafetymodificationsthatimprovedtheexperienceofpedestriansalongourCountyRoad75(Broadway)and
intersectionswithcitystreetswhilealsomaintainingtheflowoftraffic.Welookforwardtoworkingwiththecityto
furtherinvestigatestrategiesoutlineintheplantoimprovetheexperienceofpedestrianssuchascurbextensions/bump
outsandpedestrianrefuges.Installingtrafficcontroldevicessuchas4-waystopsattheintersectionsofBroadwayand
Cedarand/orBroadwayandWalnutwouldrequireanintersectioncontrolevaluation.Inaddition,reducingtraffictoa
singlelanewestboundonBroadwaywouldalsorequireamoreextensivetrafficstudy.Therequiredtrafficstudies
woulddeterminetheimpactstotheflowoftrafficalongtheroadwayasaresultofmodificationstotheroadwayor
intersectionscontrol.
Asuggestedstrategytothatisnotoutlinedintheplan,buthasshowntogreatlyimprovepedestriansafetyisthe
installationofthePedestrianActivatedRectangularRapidFlashBeacon(RRFB).Whenactivatedbypushbutton,LED
arraysflash,drawingdriverattentiontothepedestrian.RRFBsincreasedriveryieldingcomplianceupto90%andare
idealforimprovingsafetyatuncontrolledpedestriancrossings.Ihaveattachedacoupleofpicturestoshowhowthe
useofablackpoleimprovestheaestheticqualityofthesedevices.TheycanusesolarpowerorbehardwiredforAC
power.
Again,thankyoufortheopportunitytocommentontheCityofMonticelloSmallAreaPlan.Pleaseletusknowifyou
havefurtherquestionsandwelookforwardtofurtherdiscussionsregardingtheproposedimprovementsinthe
downtownarea.
SaraBuermann,PE
TrafficEngineer
WrightCountyHighwayDepartment
3600BraddockAveNE
Buffalo,MN55313
763-682-7391
From:AngelaSchumann\[mailto:Angela.Schumann@ci.monticello.mn.us\]
Sent:Thursday,June15,201710:02AM
1
To:VirgilHawkins<Virgil.Hawkins@co.wright.mn.us>
Cc:ChadD.Hausmann<Chad.Hausmann@co.wright.mn.us>;SaraC.Buermann<Sara.Buermann@co.wright.mn.us>
Subject:RE:MonticelloDowntownPlan
Thankyou,Virgil.
Pleasefindattachedthemostrecentdraft.
Ilookforwardtohearingthethoughtsandcommentsofyourteam.
AngelaSchumann,AICP
CommunityDevelopmentDirector
CityofMonticello
www.ci.monticello.mn.us
763-271-3224
EmailcorrespondencetoandfromtheCityofMonticellogovernmentofficeissubjecttotheMinnesotaGovernment
DataPracticesActandmaybedisclosedtothirdparties.
From:VirgilHawkins\[mailto:Virgil.Hawkins@co.wright.mn.us\]
Sent:Thursday,June15,20179:53AM
To:AngelaSchumann<Angela.Schumann@ci.monticello.mn.us>
Cc:ChadD.Hausmann<Chad.Hausmann@co.wright.mn.us>;SaraC.Buermann<Sara.Buermann@co.wright.mn.us>
Subject:MonticelloDowntownPlan
HiAngela,
ItwasgoodtotalkwithyouabouttheWalnutStreet/Highway75portionoftheDowntownPlanyesterday,followingthe
TH25Studymeeting.PleaseforwardtouswhattheDowntownPlanhasrecommendedfortreatmentsatthis
intersection,forourinput/commentsandconsideration.Welookforwardtoworkingwiththecityonthisimportant
plan,forthesafetyofpedestriansandtrafficalike.
PleaseforwardtheinformationtoChadHausmann,AssistantCountyEngineer.
Thanks,Virgil.
SentfrommyVerizonWireless4GLTETablet
NOTICE:ThisE-mail(includingattachments)iscoveredbytheElectronicCommunicationsPrivacyAct,18U.S.C.2510-2521.This
E-mailmaybeconfidentialandmaybelegallyprivileged.Ifyouarenottheintendedrecipient,youareherebynotifiedthatany
retention,dissemination,distribution,orcopyingofthiscommunicationisstrictlyprohibited.Pleasereplybacktothesenderthatyou
havereceivedthismessageinerror,thendeleteit.Thankyou.
NOTICE:ThisE-mail(includingattachments)iscoveredbytheElectronicCommunicationsPrivacyAct,18U.S.C.2510-2521.ThisE-
mailmaybeconfidentialandmaybelegallyprivileged.Ifyouarenottheintendedrecipient,youareherebynotifiedthatany
retention,dissemination,distribution,orcopyingofthiscommunicationisstrictlyprohibited.Pleasereplybacktothesenderthat
youhavereceivedthismessageinerror,thendeleteit.Thankyou.
2
Planning Commission Agenda –08/01/2017
2B.Public Hearing –Consideration of a request for Rezoning Planned Unit
Development, Development Stage Planned Unit Development, and Preliminary
Plat for Autumn Ridge Villas for detached single family lots in an R-3 (Medium
Density Residential) Districtat Autumn Ridge 3rd Addition.Applicant: SW
Wold Construction/Ocello, LLC(NAC)
Property:Legal:Lengthy Legals –See Exhibits
Address:Vicinity of Edmundson Avenue NE and
School Boulevard
Planning Case Number:2017-020
A.REFERENCE & BACKGROUND
Request(s):Preliminary Plat, Rezoning from R-3 to PUD,
Development Stage PUD
st
Deadline for Decision:September 1, 2017
Land Use Designation:Places to Live
Zoning Designation:Existing: R-3, Medium Density Residence District
Proposed: PUD, Planned Unit Development District
The purpose of the Planned Unit Development (PUD)
zoning district is to provide greater flexibility in the
development of neighborhoods and non-residential
areas in order to maximize public values and achieve
more creative development outcomes while remaining
economically viable and marketable. This is achieved
by undertaking a process that results in a development
outcome exceeding that which is typically achievable
through the conventional zoning district
Overlays/Environmental
Regulations Applicable:NA
Current Site Use:Vacant
Surrounding Land Uses:
North: Vacant Commercial
East:Low Density Residential
South:Low Density Residential
West:Townhouses (Autumn Ridge)
Project Description:The project is intended to replat 79 unbuilt attached
townhouse lots to accommodate 41 detached single
1
Planning Commission Agenda –08/01/2017
family “townhouse”lots, creating a new associationfor
the detached units. Both the built and un-built portions
of the current property are zoned R-3, Medium Density
Residence District. As such, the applicant also needs a
rezoning to accommodate the detached units –a
Planned Unit Development District is proposed for this
purposefor the area to be platted.
ANALYSIS
Project Background.
The proposal is made by SW Wold Developmentand Ocello, LLCfor the remaining
undeveloped townhouse area along Edmonson Avenue NE, the east half of the
original Autumn Ridge Development. The property is currently zoned R-3, Medium
Density Residence District. The west half of the project included 169townhouse
units -90of which were built in this area as a part of the original Autumn Ridge
PUD. An additional 91townhouse lots were final platted but 79 of these units were
not built.
The current proposal is for a PUD Development Stage review. The project underwent
Concept Stage review previously, intended to provide the applicant an opportunity to
get City feedback on a potential development proposal prior to more formal zoning
review and the extensivesupporting materials that such reviews require. The
Planning Commission and City Council hadthe opportunity to review the project, ask
questions of the proposer, and provide comment as to the issues and elements raised
by the project. Neighboring property owners also attended the meeting and provided
comment.
The original Autumn Ridge development was platted and processed as a Planned Unit
Development by Conditional Use Permit, over the then-existing R-3 zoning district.
The project is served by a private street and public utilities, with an internal pathway
connection –all of which was built for the project. In the area where the
infrastructure was built, but the majority of townhouses were not completed, the
applicant is proposing to replat the area to accommodate 41 detached townhouses –
small lot single family homes subject to an association maintenance agreement. The
applicant proposes to split the association for the new detached project from the
previous attached townhouse association.The applicant has indicated that the
existing 12 units are already a part of the existing Autumn Ridge homeowner’s
association.
The primary difference in association management is that for detached projects,
individual unit owners provide for their own exterior maintenance, subject to the
overview of the association. In attached projects, it is typical that the association also
manages the maintenance of the building exteriors.
2
Planning Commission Agenda –08/01/2017
Plan and Plat Review.
The original attached townhouse project provided for units of approximately 24 feet
wide by 64 feet deep (including garage and porch) –primarily 2-story units. The
proposed project would delete the existing unit lot lines, and create 40 foot by 70 foot
lots accommodating detachedunits. As noted in the Concept review, the units are
commonly in the range of 1,650 square feet on one level –several would include
“look-out” living space.
Staff made the following observations for discussion at the concept review; a
corresponding comment on analysis of the development stage application on each has
been provided in italics
1.The proposed project will change density from 7.2 units per acre to about 3.9
units per acre gross, 4.6 units per acre net.This is a range commonly
considered to be low-to mid-density. Although the Comprehensive Plan
does not direct specific densities within the Places to Live land use category,
the lower density for the proposed replat would be considered to be a
transitional style between the lower densities to the south and east, and the
mid-density and commercial uses to the west and north.
2.Infrastructure is already built –private roads, water, sanitary sewer, (some)
internal and external pathways.Staff and the Parks Commission is
recommending the connection of the internal pathway system in the
proposed project to the pathway along Edmonson Avenue. This connection
is important to provide better access to the City’s “trunk” pathway system,
and will serve in lieu of internal sidewalks that would be expected in a
single family neighborhood. With the narrower private streets, access to the
pathway system via this additional connection is important to increase safety
for pedestrians.
Particular note was made of the existing utilities, and the process for
abandoning those water service lines not needed due to the reduction in the
unit count. The Public Works department has negotiated a process for
accomplishing this abandonment, with the understanding that those
portions of the system being abandoned will be the ongoing responsibilityof
the homeowner’s association in the event additional maintenance is
required.Comments on this are included in the City Engineer’s letter.This
obligation will further be noted in the development agreement for the
project.
3.Most of existing townhouses face away from proposed units –only in
northern section would attached units face detached units.The transition
from attached to detached units (west to east) does not appear to be overly
abrupt.
3
Planning Commission Agenda –08/01/2017
4.Side-to-side setbacks shown as 10 feet building separations.This is,
essentially, a 5 foot side yard setback, which would be similar to that of the
City’s “T-N” district, which allows small-lot single family at similar
densities with a 6 foot internal side yard setback. The T-N standard is set to
accommodate standard lot platting, in which drainage and utility easements
would also be 6 feet in width. The proposed Autumn Ridge project utilizes a
common drainage and utility system that is already in place.
5.Front setback from curb –majority at 25 feet, some 23-24 feet, one (Lot 31) at
21’-4”.The applicant has modified the design from the Concept review by
reducing the size of the porch addition for those units where the lot depths
cannot accommodate the standard porch design. As a result, the setbacks
from curb meet the 25 foot standard adopted by the City in similar projects.
6.Perimeter setbacks shown at 30 feet from Edmonson.This setback is
consistent with the typical requirements for residential areas from public
roadways.
7.Back-to-back setbacks generally at 40 feet separation –one area (lots 24-27)
at 20-25 feet +.The original project anticipated a number of building
separation distances less than the common 40 feet proposed in the replat.
These separations should be adequate to meet the expectationsof the
original approvals. The applicant should consider additional rear-yard
landscaping improvements to increase privacy between units in these areas.
8.Lot 31 –should be moved or redesigned to increase driveway length to (at
least) 23 feet. This modification has been made as noted in the comments to
Item 5, above.
Eliminate porch; or
encroach into exterior setback; or
provide alternative floor plan to reduce depth. Consider additional
landscaping to buffer if allowed to encroach.
9.Lots 26 and 27 –realign to square up driveways with street, avoid oblique
angles for backing vehicles.This modification has been made.
10.Garages are 22x24 deep; consistent with code requirements.For reference,
garage size requirements in the “T-N” district are 480 square feet. The
proposed garages for this project are 524 square feet.
11.Some appear to be look-out design with finishable basements. Site plan
appears to showa variety of lower-level styles, including Crawl Space, Full
Basement, Lookouts, and combinations.Driveway grades are provided.The
applicant has clarified that the majority of units will include crawl spaces,
with some units able to accommodate lookout lower levels.
4
Planning Commission Agenda –08/01/2017
12.Will need to see more detailed landscaping set –especially front foundation
plantings.See separate landscaping comments in the following section.
13.Will need to understand division of association requirements and cross-access
and maintenance agreements.The applicant has indicated that the new
project will be severed from the existing association, which will remain in
place for the attached units. The detached units will establish a new
homeowner’s association for the maintenance of this portion of theAutumn
Ridge project. The two associations will continue to have cross-access
between project areas to accommodate access to the adjoining public street
system.
14.Applicant will need to verify signatories on plat to illustrate platting and
County approvalfor recording, etc. including appropriate legal descriptions.
This will be a requirement for recording the plat.Also required will be the
resolution of any comments of the City Attorney as related to the
homeowner’s association.
15.Check on Trail connections –consider taking trail out to Edmonson? As
noted above in the comment to Item 2, staff recommends connecting the
internal pathway to the existing Edmonson Avenue path, in lieu of internal
sidewalks or other pathway improvements.
Additional Landscaping comments.The proposed landscaping plan shows an
extensive overstory planting throughout the project. The ordinance requires a total of
4 caliper inches of tree planting per unit, and 8 caliper inches for corner lots in single
family developments. For multiple family development, the ordinance requires 16
caliper inches per acre, plus two ornamental trees and 2 shrubs per 10 feet of building
perimeter. Finally, the standards in the T-N District (which is designed for small-lot
single family development, the ordinance requires 4 caliper inches of overstory tree
planting, 2 ornamental trees, and extensive shrub plantings in the front yard of each
unit.
The proposed plans do not identify ornamental tree or shrub plantings, although the
overstory treeplanting equals 208 caliper inches, which would be 5 caliper inches on
a per unit basis, or about 20 caliper inches per acre.The applicants should addsome
shrub and perennial plantings for each unit –a “typical” planting plan would suffice
for the purposes of the PUD approval.
In addition, planning staff would recommend 4-5 conifer tree plantings between the
units where back-to-back building separation is less than 40 feet, to increase privacy.
PUD Rezoning
To accomplish the single-family use proposed, the applicant has requested a PUD
zoning. An analysis of the PUD is incorporated into the plan review above. The
5
Planning Commission Agenda –08/01/2017
PUD zoning is conditioned on recognition of the prior conditional use permit for
planned unit development with respect to shared access.
B.ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS
Decision 1. Rezoning to PUD
1.Motion toadoptResolutionNo. PC-2017-019, recommending approval of
rezoning the subject property from R-3, Medium Density Residence District to
PUD, Planned Unit Development District, based on the findings noted in the
resolution.
2.Motion to denyadoption of ResolutionNo. PC-2017-019, based on findings
stated by the Planning Commission following the public hearing.
3.Motion to table action on the Resolution, subject to additional Information from
staff, the applicant, or others as directed.
Decision 2. Preliminary Plat
1.Motion to adopt Resolution No. PC-2017-020, recommending approval of the
Preliminary Plat for Autumn Ridge Villas, based on the findings noted in the
resolution.
2.Motion to deny adoption of ResolutionNo. PC-2017-020, based on findings
stated by the Planning Commission following the public hearing.
3.Motion to table action on the Resolution, subject to additional Information from
staff, the applicant, or others as directed.
Decision 3. Development Stage PUD
1.Motion to adopt Resolution No. PC-2017-019, recommending approval of
Development Stage Planned Unit Development, based on the findings noted in the
resolution.
2.Motion to deny adoption of ResolutionNo. PC-2017-019, based on findings
stated by the Planning Commission following the public hearing.
3.Motion to table action on the Resolution, subject to additional Information from
staff, the applicant, or others as directed.
C.STAFF RECOMMENDATION
6
Planning Commission Agenda –08/01/2017
Planning staff recommends approval of the Rezoning to PUD, Preliminary Plat, and
Development Stage PUD, with the conditions identified in Exhibit Z. As noted in the
proposed findings, the redesign adds diversity to the housing style in this area, which
is a positive transition between the existing attached townhouses, commercial areas,
and single family neighborhoods. The homes are consistent with the City’s intent for
additional options in housing stock (larger and higher value detached townhomes than
those being developed in other areas), and the design and amenities that are part of
the project adapt the current infrastructure well to the redesigned units.
D.SUPPORTING DATA
A.Resolution PC-2017-019
B.Resolution PC-2017-020
C.Draft Ordinance No. 6XX
D.Aerial Site Image
E.Applicant Narrative
F.Plan Set, including:
a.Cover Sheet
b.Existing Conditions Survey
c.Preliminary Plat
d.Preliminary Site Plan
e.Preliminary Grading and Drainage Plan
f.Preliminary Utilities Plan
g.Preliminary Landscape Plan
h.Elevation
i.Floor Plans
G.Certificate of Survey
H.Drainage Memo
I.City Engineer’s Letter, dated July 26, 2017
Z. Conditions of Approval
7
Planning Commission Agenda –08/01/2017
EXHIBIT Z
Rezoning to PUD, Development Stage PUD, and
Preliminary Platfor Autumn Ridge Villas
rd
Legal Description (lengthy): parts of Autumn Ridge 3Addition
1.Apathway connection is provided from the internal portion of the project to
Edmonson Avenue NE as directed by City staff.
2.Abandoned utility lines will be the responsibility of the homeowner’s association for
future maintenance as needed.
3.The homeowner’s association will be responsible (at minimum) for street, driveway,
and landscaping maintenance and any other improvements in the common areas of
the project.
4.The applicant will provide verification of a mutual cross-access agreement between
the original Autumn Ridge project and the proposed replat area.
5.All driveways shall be at least 25 feet in depth from face of garage to street curb.
6.Side building separations shall be no less than 10 feet.
7.Landscaping plans shall be revised to add typical shrub and ornamental plantings for
each unit, as well asadditional conifer tree plantingin those rear yard areas where
buildings are separated by less than 40 feet.
8.The requirements of the City Engineer’s report, dated July 26th, 2017, are met.
9.The applicant enter into a development agreement as a condition of Final Plat and
Final PUD approval.
10.Resolution of any comments of the City Attorney as related to the homeowner’s
association for the Autumn Ridge development.
11.Compliance with the comments of other staff and Planning Commission.
8
CITY OF MONTICELLO
WRIGHT COUNTY, MINNESOTA
PLANNING COMMISSION
RESOLUTION NO. PC-2017-019
RECOMMENDINGAPPROVAL OF AREZONING TO “AUTUMN RIDGE
PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT”AND DEVELOPMENT STAGE PLANNED
UNIT DEVELOPMENT FOR AUTUMN RIDGE FOURTH ADDITION
WHEREAS, the applicant owns property along Edmonson Avenue NE and School
rd
Boulevard, portions of Autumn Ridge 3Addition; and
WHEREAS,the applicant has submitted a request to plat said property into forty-one
single family parcels, and outlots to contain common property improvements, and develop it
as an “detached townhome” project under a PUD;and
WHEREAS, the site is guided for residential uses under the label “Places to Live” in
the City’s Comprehensive Plan; and
WHEREAS, the proposed PUD, along with the companion Plat, are consistent with
the long-term use and development of the property for industrial uses; and
WHEREAS,the Planning Commission held a public hearing on August 1, 2017 on
the application and the applicant and members of the public were provided the opportunity to
present information to the Planning Commission; and
WHEREAS,the Planning Commission has considered all of the comments and the
staff report, which are incorporated by reference into the resolution; and
WHEREAS,the Planning Commission of the City of Monticello makes the following
Findings of Fact in relation to the recommendation of approval:
1.The Plat provides an appropriate means of furthering the intent of the
Comprehensive Plan for the site by putting the existing and proposed
improvements and parcels to residential uses.
2. The proposed improvements on the site under the Preliminary Plat are
consistent with the needs of the development in this location as a medium
density residential area.
3.The improvements will have expected impacts on public services, including
sewer, water, stormwater treatment, and traffic which have been planned to
serve the property for the development as proposed.
4.. The PUD flexibility for the project, including parcels without public street
frontage, are consistent with the intent of the City’s economic development
objectives, as well as with the intent of the PUD zoning regulations.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the Planning Commission of the City of
Monticello, Minnesota,that the Planning Commission hereby recommends that the
1
CITY OF MONTICELLO
WRIGHT COUNTY, MINNESOTA
PLANNING COMMISSION
RESOLUTION NO. PC-2017-019
Monticello City Council approves the Rezoning and Development Stage PUD,subject to the
conditions listed in Exhibit Z as follows:
1.A pathway connection is provided from the internal portion of the project to
Edmonson Avenue NE as directed by City staff.
2.Abandoned utility lines will be the responsibility of the homeowner’s association for
future maintenance as needed.
3.The homeowner’s association will be responsible (at minimum) for street, driveway,
and landscaping maintenance and any other improvements in the common areas of
the project.
4.The applicant will provide verification of a mutual cross-access agreement between
the original Autumn Ridge project and the proposed replat area.
5.All driveways shall be at least 25 feet in depth from face of garage to street curb.
6.Side building separations shall be no less than 10 feet.
7.Landscaping plans shall be revised to add typical shrub and ornamental plantings for
each unit, as well as additional conifer tree planting in those rear yard areas where
buildings are separated by less than 40 feet.
8.The requirements of the City Engineer’s report, dated July 26, 2017, are met.
9.The applicant enter into a development agreement as a condition of Final Plat and
Final PUD approval.
10.Resolution of any comments of the City Attorney as related to the homeowner’s
association for the Autumn Ridge development.
11.Compliance with the comments of other staff and Planning Commission.
ADOPTEDthis6th day of June, 2016,by the Planning Commission of the City of
Monticello, Minnesota.
MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION
2
CITY OF MONTICELLO
WRIGHT COUNTY, MINNESOTA
PLANNING COMMISSION
RESOLUTION NO. PC-2017-019
By: _______________________________
Brad Fyle, Chair
ATTEST:
____________________________________________
Angela Schumann, Community Development Director
3
CITY OF MONTICELLO
WRIGHT COUNTY, MINNESOTA
PLANNING COMMISSION
RESOLUTION NO. PC-2017-020
RECOMMENDINGAPPROVAL OF APRELIMINARY PLAT
FORAUTUMN RIDGE FOURTH ADDITION
WHEREAS, the applicant owns property along Edmonson Avenue NE and School
rd
Boulevard, portions of Autumn Ridge 3Addition; and
WHEREAS,the applicant has submitted a requesttoplat said propertyinto forty-one
single family parcels, and outlots to contain common property improvements, and develop it
as an “detached townhome” projectunder a PUD; and
WHEREAS, thesite is guided for residentialuses underthe label “Places toLive” in
the City’s Comprehensive Plan; and
WHEREAS, the proposed PUD, along with the companion Plat,are consistent with
the long-term use and development of the property for industrialuses; and
WHEREAS,the Planning Commission held a public hearing on August 1, 2017on
the application and the applicant and members of the public were provided the opportunity to
present information to the Planning Commission; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has considered all of the comments and the
staff report, which are incorporated by reference into the resolution; and
WHEREAS,the Planning Commission of the City of Monticello makes the following
Findings of Fact in relation to the recommendation of approval:
1.The Platprovidesan appropriate means of furthering the intent of the
Comprehensive Plan for the siteby putting the existing and proposed
improvements and parcels to residentialuses.
2.Theproposedimprovements onthe siteunder the Preliminary Platare
consistent with the needs of the developmentin this locationas a medium
density residential area.
3.The improvements will haveexpected impacts on public services, including
sewer, water, stormwater treatment, and trafficwhich have been planned to
serve the property for the development as proposed.
4..The PUD flexibility for the project, including parcels without public street
frontage, are consistent with the intent of the City’s economic development
objectives, as well as with the intent of the PUD zoning regulations.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the Planning Commission of the City of
Monticello, Minnesota,that the Planning Commission hereby recommends that the
1
CITY OF MONTICELLO
WRIGHT COUNTY, MINNESOTA
PLANNING COMMISSION
RESOLUTION NO. PC-2017-020
Monticello City Council approves the Preliminary Plat for Autumn Ridge Villas,subject to
the conditions listed in Exhibit Z of the staff report as follows:
1.A pathway connection is provided from the internal portion of the project to
Edmonson Avenue NE as directed by City staff.
2.Abandoned utility lines will be the responsibility of the homeowner’s association for
future maintenance as needed.
3.The homeowner’s association will be responsible (at minimum) for street, driveway,
and landscaping maintenance and any other improvements in the common areas of
the project.
4.The applicant will provide verification of a mutual cross-access agreement between
the original Autumn Ridge project and the proposed replat area.
5.All driveways shall be at least 25 feet in depth from face of garage to street curb.
6.Side building separations shall be no less than 10 feet.
7.Landscaping plans shall be revised to add typical shrub and ornamental plantings for
each unit, as well as additional conifer tree planting in those rear yard areas where
buildings are separated by less than 40 feet.
8.The requirements of the City Engineer’s report, dated July __, 2017, are met.
9.The applicant enter into a development agreement as a condition of Final Plat and
Final PUD approval.
10.Resolution of any comments of the City Attorney as related to the homeowner’s
association for the Autumn Ridge development.
11.Compliance with the comments of other staff and Planning Commission.
st
ADOPTEDthis1day of August, 2017,by the Planning Commission of the City of
Monticello, Minnesota.
2
CITY OF MONTICELLO
WRIGHT COUNTY, MINNESOTA
PLANNING COMMISSION
RESOLUTION NO. PC-2017-020
MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION
By: _______________________________
Brad Fyle, Chair
ATTEST:
____________________________________________
Angela Schumann, Community Development Director
3
ORDINANCE NO. 6XX
CITY OF MONTICELLO
WRIGHT COUNTY, MINNESOTA
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 10 OF THE MONTICELLO CITY CODE,
KNOWN AS THE ZONING ORDINANCE, BY ESTABLISHING THE AUTUMN RIDGE
PUDAS A ZONING DISTRICT IN THE CITY OF MONTICELLO, AND REZONING
THE FOLLOWING PROPERTY FROM R-3, MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENCE
DISTRICT TO AUTUMN RIDGEPUD, PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT:
See attached Legal Description
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MONTICELLO HEREBY ORDAINS:
Section 1.Section 2.4(O)–Planned Unit Developments, Title 10 –Zoning Ordinance is
hereby amended by adding the following:
(XX) Autumn RidgePUD District
(a)Purpose. The purpose of the Autumn RidgePUD District is to provide
for the development of certain real estate subject to the District for
residentialland uses.
(b)Permitted Uses. Permitted principal uses in the Autumn RidgePUD
District shall be single family residentialuses as found in “T-N”,
Traditional Neighborhood Zoning District, subject to the approved
Final Stage Development Plans dated _____, and development
agreement dated ____, 2017, as may be amended.The introduction of
any other use from any district, including Conditional Uses in the T-N
District,shall be reviewed under the requirements of the Monticello
Zoning Ordinance, Chapter 2, Section (O) –Planned Unit
Developments for Development Stage PUD and Final Stage PUD.
(c)Accessory Uses. Accessory uses shall be those commonly accessory
and incidental to residentialusesas allowed in the T-N District, and as
specifically identified by the approved final stage PUD plans.
(d)District Performance Standards.Performance standards for the
development of any lot in the Autumn RidgePUD District shall adhere
to the approved final stage PUD plans and development agreement. In
such case where any proposed improvement or use is not addressed by
the Final Stage PUD, then the regulations of the T-N, Traditional
NeighborhoodDistrict shall apply.
(e)Amendments. Where changes to the PUD are proposed in the manner
1
ORDINANCE NO. 6XX
of use, density, site plan, development layout, building size, mass, or
coverage, or any other change, the proposer shall apply for an
amendment to the PUD under the terms of the Monticello Zoning
Ordinance, Section 2.4 (O)(10). The City may require that substantial
changes in overall use of the PUD property be processed as a new
project, including a zoning district amendment.
Section 2.The zoning map of the City of Monticello is hereby amendment to rezoned the
following described parcels from I-2, Heavy IndustrialDistrict to Autumn Ridge
PUD, Planned Unit Development District:
See attached Legal Description.
Section 3.The City Clerk is hereby directedto mark the official zoning map to reflect this
ordinance. The map shall not be republished at this time.
Section 4.The City Clerk is hereby directed to make the changes required by this Ordinance
as part of the Official Monticello City Code, Title 10, Zoning Ordinance, and to
renumber the tables and chapters accordingly as necessary to provide the intended
effect of this Ordinance. The City Clerk is further directed to make necessary
corrections to any internal citations that result from said renumbering process,
provided that such changes retain the purpose and intent of the Zoning Ordinance
as has been adopted.
Section 5.This Ordinance shall take effect and be in full force from and after its passage
and publication. The ordinance in its entirety and map shall be posted on the
City website after publication.Copies of the complete Ordinance and map are
available online and at Monticello City Hall for examination upon request.
ADOPTED BYthe Monticello City Council this ___ day of ____, 2017.
__________________________________
Brian Stumpf, Mayor
ATTEST:
___________________________________
Jeff O’Neill, Administrator
AYES:
NAYS:
2
COVER SHEET
PUD AND PRELIMINARY PLAT SUBMITTAL
AUTUMN RIDGE VILLAS
E E SEA D M TI E M TA T S A EI A DEM d S D STATE S ITE AMSA M TA T
S TT DEM r d A IA T E I EE I I A A E E S T S ITE MI EA IS M DA E AS I E SE EM d DE IS
MSTEAD I E SE EM d d MA EA MI E I E SE EM r
PROPERTY OWNERDEVELOPERCONSULTANTENGINEERSURVEYORLANDSCAPE ARCHITECT
PROJECTLOCATION
T T S A E
VICINITY MAP
S EET TIT E E S EETE ISTI DITI S S E E IMI A AT E IMI A SITE A E IMI A ADI A D D AI A E A E IMI A TI ITIES A E IMI A A DS A E A ASI
A
SHEET INDEX
ZONING MAP
PRELIMINARY PLAT
PUD AND PRELIMINARY PLAT SUBMITTAL
AUTUMN RIDGE VILLAS
0
0
0
.
0
0
.
07
7
0
0
.
0
7
0
0
.
0
7
MM A EA S A E ATTEDAS T T A IT D AI A E A D TI IT EASEME T E E TI E T
ББ
NOTES:
LEGEND:
АА
ЏЏ
ВВ
TYPICAL LOT DETAIL
ЎЎ
ЍЍ
ЌЌ
40.32
ЊЉЊЉ
ЋЋ
S A A T T TS SI E AMI MES ITS A E S A STA S T MI D D
ЊЊ
0.096.070.850.250.25
11.01
AREA AC
3,839
37,07810,78010,780
264,600479,769
AREA SF
PARCEL AREA TABLE
OL_AOL_B
TOTAL
B10_L8
OLD_B1
OLD_B2
PARCEL
0.11
0.080.080.080.090.090.090.090.090.090.080.090.090.080.080.090.090.090.090.10
AREA AC
3,4883,4783,4783,7093,7093,7163,7163,7373,8243,5953,7103,9463,4783,5453,8374,0083,9804,1084,4444,670
AREA SF
PARCEL AREA TABLE
B5_L1B6_L1B7_L1B8_L1B9_L1
B4_L4B5_L2B6_L2B7_L2B8_L2B8_L3B9_L2B9_L3
B10_L1
B10_L2B10_L3B10_L4B10_L5B10_L6B10_L7
PARCEL
T A D EA A D ET EE I DI S MI IM M DISTA E ET EE I DI S I DI SET A M EDM S A E
E T SIDE A D AD A E T T D I E
0.090.100.090.090.090.090.090.090.080.080.090.090.080.090.090.090.080.090.090.09
AREA AC
SS SITE A EA I DES T TS A A D A TS ET SITE A EA I DES T T A TS ESS S EASEME T T S MMA ET DE SIT MM A EA T T A SED A I SED
SET A SE ISTI I SED I
SITE PLAN SUMMARY:PROPERTY DESCRIPTION:
A T M ID E T I D ADDITI r M E E T d d A T M ID E T I D ADDITI
3,771
3,8684,2733,9733,9053,9083,8803,8803,8803,6483,4973,9993,9923,5204,0083,8473,5303,7203,7103,710
AREA SF
PARCEL AREA TABLE
B1_L1B2_L1B3_L1B4_L1
B1_L2B1_L3B1_L4B1_L5B1_L6B1_L7B1_L8B1_L9B2_L2B2_L3B2_L4B3_L2B3_L3B3_L4B4_L2B4_L3
PARCEL
SITE PLAN
PUD AND PRELIMINARY PLAT SUBMITTAL
AUTUMN RIDGE VILLAS
AS T T A IT D AI A E A D TI IT EASEME T E E TI E T
MM A EA S A E ATTED
NOTES:
LEGEND:
ББ
АА
ЏЏ
ВВ
TYPICAL LOT DETAIL
ЎЎ
ЍЍ
ЌЌ
ЊЉЊЉ
ЋЋ
S A T T TS MI SI E AMI MES ITS A E S A STA S T D D
A
ЊЊ
T A D E T SIDE A D AD A E T T D I E EA A D ET EE I DI S MI IM M DISTA E ET EE I DI S I DI SET A M EDM S A E
ET SITE A EA I DES T T A TS ESS S EASEME T ET DE SIT
SS SITE A EA I DES T TS A A D A TS T S MMA MM A EA T T A SED A I SED SET A SE ISTI I SED I
SITE PLAN SUMMARY:
GRADING & EROSION CONTROL PLAN
PUD AND PRELIMINARY PLAT SUBMITTAL
AUTUMN RIDGE VILLAS
GRADING LEGEND:
O
L
/
CS
S
C
O
L
/
S
C
TYPICAL LOT
O
L
/
O
B
L
F
/
S
C
O
L
/
B
F
S
C
O
B
L
F
/
B
F
O
L
/
B
F
GRADING NOTES:
O
L
/
B
F
B
F
S
C
O
L
/
B
F
O
L
/
B
F
O
L
/
S
C
S
C
S
C
S
C
S
C
F
B INLET PROTECTION
/
L
O
INLET PROTECTION
C
S
/
L
O
C
S
B
/
L
O
F
F
B
/
L
O
B
F
S
C
S
C
FB
S
C
S
C
B
F
C
S
/
L
O
B
F
C
S
/
L
O
C
S
/
L
O
C
S
/
L
O
C
S
/
L
O
C
S
/
L
O
C
S
/
L
O
C
S
/
L
O
C
S
/
L
O
ROCK ENTRANCE
ROCK WEEPER
SILT FENCE
UTILITY PLAN
PUD AND PRELIMINARY PLAT SUBMITTAL
AUTUMN RIDGE VILLAS
Б
А
Џ
В
Ў
Ѝ
Ќ
ЊЉ
Ћ
Њ
LANDSCAPE PLAN
PUD AND PRELIMINARY PLAT SUBMITTAL
AUTUMN RIDGE VILLAS
E
L
C
R
I
C
D
R
A
H
C
R
O
SHRUB PLANTING DETAIL NOT TO SCALE
2
NOT TO SCALE
TREE PLANTING DETAIL
1
A
P
P
L
E
L
A
N
E
O
R
C
H
A
R
D
C
IR
C
L
E
PHASING PLAN
PUD AND PRELIMINARY PLAT SUBMITTAL
AUTUMN RIDGE VILLAS
LEGEND:
ББ
АА
ЏЏ
ВВ
PHASE 1
ЎЎ
ЍЍ
ЌЌ
PHASE 2
ЊЉЊЉ
PHASE 3
ЋЋ
ЊЊ
PHASE 4
EL
DBO
18425
1"=60'
DL, PLF
06/29/17
217-0060
License Number
DRAWN BYCHECKED BYDATE ISSUEDSCALEJOB NO.FIELD CREW
DENNIS B. OLMSTEADPrint NameSignatureJUNE 29, 2017
I hereby certify that this survey, plan, or reportwas prepared by me or under my directsupervision and that I am a duly Licensed LandSurveyor under the laws of the state ofMinnesota.Date
MAINFAX
233 Park Ave S, Ste 300Minneapolis, MN 55415612.758.3080 612.758.3099www.alliant-inc.com
NOTES
LEGEND
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
SCHOOL BLVD. & OAKWOOD DRIVE E.MONTICELLO, MN
AUTUMN RIDGE VILLASEXISTING CONDITIONS SURVEY
Autumn Ridge Third Addition, Wright County, Minnesota, except Lots 1-6, Block 1 and Lots 1-6, Block 2.Wright County ground feet, based on the Minnesota Coordinate System, Southern Zone,
NAD83, 1986 (non HARNvalues). Coordinate values dated September, 1995.
1. This survey and the property description shown herein are based upon legal description provided, our in houserecords and may not depict all easements, appurtenances or encumbrances
affecting the property.2. The locations of underground utilities are depicted based on information from Gopher State One Call system for arecords and field locations which may not be
exact. Verify all utilities critical to construction or design.3. The orientation of this bearing system is based on the Wright County Coordinate System NAD83. Coordinates are4. All
distances are in feet.5. The area of the above described property is 479,769 square feet or 11.014 acres.6. Bench Mark 1: Top nut of hydrant located at the intersection of Apple Lane
and Orchard Circle having an elevationof 961.48 feet NGVD29.7. There is a drainage and utility easement over all of Outlot A, part of Lot 3, Block 17, and part of Lot 1, Block 18.
E
L
C
R
I
C
D
R
A
H
C
R
O
E
N
A
L
E
L
P
P
A
E
L
C
R
I
C
D
R
A
H
C
R
O
Building a legacy ǤƚǒƩ legacy. 701 Xenia Avenue South
Suite 300
Minneapolis, MN 55416
Tel: 763-541-4800
Fax: 763-541-1700
July 26, 2017
Ms. Angela Schumann
Community Development Director
City of Monticello
505 Walnut Street, Suite 1
Monticello, MN 55362
Re: Autumn Ridge Villas- Preliminary Plat and PUD Plan Review
City Project No. 2017-020
WSB Project No. 010149-000
Dear Ms. Schumann:
We have reviewed the preliminary plat and preliminary civil plans dated June 30, 2017 and
drainage memo dated June 29, 2017 as prepared by Alliant Engineering and offer the following
comments:
Preliminary Grading and Drainage Plan
1. Label the % grades and drainage arrows for all side yard and back yard swales for each
lot. A minimum 2% swale is required.
2. Add EOF arrows per the legend.
3. Label FFE elevations of the buildings adjacent to those shown for the project.
4. A cross section detail drawing of the infiltration basin and pretreatment forebay should be
shown on the plans as referenced with the drainage memo. This should include elevation
data and subsurface materials used for infiltration along with final restoration details.
5. Label the top of casting and invert elevations of the existing storm sewer in the rear yard
areas.
6. The proposed development is part of a Common Plan of Development as defined by the
MPCA. Since 1 acre or more of the site is being disturbed, a NPDES/SDS Construction
Storm Water General Permit and SWPPP shall be provided with the grading permit or
with the building permit application for review, prior to construction commencing.
Equal Opportunity Employer
wsbeng.com
K:\\010149-000\\Admin\\Docs\\Autumn Ridge\\LTR-a-schumann-Autumn Ridge Plan Review 072617 FINAL.docx
Autumn Ridge
July 26, 2017
Page 2
7. Applicable
website- Engineering department.
8. A grading permit application will need to be submitted for the infiltration basin
construction.
Drainage Memo
9. The drainage memo identifies 2.49 acres of new impervious area, but the impervious area
exhibit calculated 2.543 acres of new impervious. The calculations are correct, but the
discrepancy in the memo should be revised.
10. Soil borings were not provided within the footprint of the infiltration basin. Borings were
provided along the south boundary of the site.
a. Two of the three soil borings show a clay layer extending seven feet deep, and the
drainage memo indicates that the basin will be excavated to approximately six feet.
The contractor should excavate the basin to clean infiltrating sand, as noted on the
grading plan.
b. An infiltrometer test was performed and yielded high infiltration rates of 23.3 inches
per hour. Soils that have infiltration rates more than 8.3 inches per hour must be
amended to slow the infiltration rate below 8.3 inches per hour, per the NPDES
General Construction Permit requirements. The applicant is proposing an infiltration
rate of 1.3 inches per hour and will need to identify what soil amendments will be
made to accomplish this. In addition, infiltration rates must be verified in the field
after soil amendments are implemented.
c. The updated drainage memo should include calculations that demonstrate the
infiltration basin will drawdown within 48 hours, assuming the design infiltration
rate.
Utility Plan
11. A utility excavation permit must be obtained from the Public Works department prior to
commencement of the sewer and water utility connections to each home along with the
removal and abandonment of the unused water services.
K:\\010149-000\\Admin\\Docs\\Autumn Ridge\\LTR-a-schumann-Autumn Ridge Plan Review 072617 FINAL.docx
Autumn Ridge
July 26, 2017
Page 3
12. The water service abandonment detail shall be revised to indicate that the water service
shall be capped with the same material.
13.
responsible for the abandoned water service and any damage and repair needed in the
boulevard and street as a result of a leaking service, with the intent to absolve the City
from any responsibility. This approach is consistent with the fact that the water service is
the responsibility of the property owner from the main in the street to the house
Please have the applicant provide a written response addressing the comments above. Please give
me a call at 763-271-3236 if you have any questions or comments regarding this letter.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
WSB & Associates, Inc.
Shibani K. Bisson, PE
City Engineer
Enclosure
skb
K:\\010149-000\\Admin\\Docs\\Autumn Ridge\\LTR-a-schumann-Autumn Ridge Plan Review 072617 FINAL.docx
Planning Commission Agenda – 08/01/2017
2C.Public Hearing –Consideration of a request for amendment to official Monticello
Zoning Map for rezoning from A-O (Agriculture –Open Space) District to R-1
rd
(Single Family Residence) District and Preliminary Plat for Featherstone 3
Addition for detached single family lots:Graser, Horst/Gold Nugget Development.
(NAC)
nd
Property:Legal:Outlot A, Featherstone 2Addition
PID:155-180-000010
Planning Case Number:2017-026
A.REFERENCE & BACKGROUND
Request(s): Preliminary Plat to create 24 single family lots and one
outlot; Rezoning to R-1, Single Familyfor 24-lot area
of Outlot A
th
Deadline for Decision:September 12, 2017
Land Use Designation:Places to Live
Zoning Designation:Existing: A-O Agricultural Open SpaceDistrict
Proposed: R-1, Single Family Residence District
The purpose of the "R-1" single family district is to
provide for low density, single family, detached
residential dwelling units and directly related
complementary uses.
Overlays/Environmental
Regulations Applicable:NA
Current Site Use: Agriculture
Surrounding Land Uses:
North: Agriculture/Single Family Residential
East:Agriculture/Single Family Residential
South:Agriculture
West:Agriculture
Project Description:The applicants are proposing to plat (and rezone) an
additional 24 lots, continuing the development of the
single family portion of the Featherstone development.
This project was originally preliminary platted in 2003
1
Planning Commission Agenda –08/01/2017
ANALYSIS
Preliminary Plat
The Preliminary Plat approved for the Featherstone project (from 2003, as noted
above) included approximately 150 acres of single and two-family residential land, as
th
well as approximately 10 acres of commercial use at the intersection of 85Street NE
and Highway 25, and an additional 60 acres of industrial along Highway 25 in the
stnd
northwest portion of the 220 acre site. Featherstone 1and 2Additions final platted
approximately 50 acres into 87 single family lots and parkland.
The plat concept relied on a series of linear park segments and pathways angling from
the northeast corner of the property along Edmonson Avenue to a larger future park
th
installation along 85Street. This green space connection would include some of the
property’s park dedication requirement, a pathway connection, and some limited
neighborhood park facilities.
The current proposal would final plat an additional 24 single family lots to complete
ndth
the connection of Ebersole Avenue NE from the 2phase of the project to 85Street.
The total areaof the plat is just over 11 acres in area.
Although a Preliminary Plat for this area was previously approved, the applicant is
required to re-process the approval, as according to the Development Agreement
recorded with the original project, the previousPreliminary Plat approval expired
after 8 years. The proposed plat is consistent with the original approval.
Lot Dimensions. The current R-1 zoning standards are as follows:
Lot Area (Average): 12,000 square feet
Lot Width (Average):80 feet(70 minimum)
Front Setback: 30 feet
The proposed plat has lot sizes that range in area from 12,750
square feet to more than 24,000 square feet. Lot widths are
listed ranging from 80 feet to more than130 feet, although
most are approximately 85 feet in width. The three narrowest
lots do not show the applicable method for measuring lot
width. However, they easily meet the applicable averaging
requirement. For reference, the Zoning Ordinance uses the
sketch shown on the right as the applicable measurement,with
the dashed line representing the required front setback.
Plat Layout.A portion of an existing stormwater pond –developed at the time of the
previous phase, occupies the rear yard areas of Lots 4-9, Block 2, on the east side of
the plat. The project also includes two stubbed street extensions. On the north side,
2
Planning Commission Agenda –08/01/2017
th
87Street is extended to the west for connection to future phases of Featherstone.
This street will also accommodate access to the previously platted park area, as well
as the linearpark/pathway system upon full development.
Additional street stubs are provided for the development and future extension of what
th
would be 8Street NE. The extension to the west would provide access to an
additional phase of Featherstone, while the easterly extension would provide access to
th
the 20 acre parcel at the corner of 85Street and Edmonson (a parcel currently owned
by the City of Monticello). These street extensions should be constructed with the
rd
other improvements to Featherstone 3Additionto avoid future problems with access
and construction.
th
As noted, the westerly extension of 86Street would provide access to future
rd
Featherstone additions. One such example is shown in dashed lines on the 3
Addition Preliminary Plat, and includes 9 lots. These 9 future lots are not part of the
rd
3Additional proposal.
Easements.The applicant’s Preliminary Plat shows typical drainage and utility
easements along the perimeter of all lots, in addition to covering the existing
stormwater pond noted above. However, the detail shows the easements as 5 feet
interior, and 10 feet along streets and at the perimeter of the plat. This detail should
be changed to 6 feet and 12 feet, respectively.
Park Dedication. No new park land dedication is included with this phase. The
original Preliminary Plat accommodated the linear park design noted above.
However, as noted, that Plat approval has expired. The applicant is not, at this time,
seeking re-approval of the remainder of the residential plat area. As such, the park
dedication agreements from the original approval should be reiterated in the new
rd
Development Agreement covering the proposed 3Addition, and recorded against
remaining Outlots to ensure that the park dedication requirements will be met as
originally planned.
Planned Unit Development
Featherstone was approved as a conditional use permit for planned unit development.
No change to the PUD is proposed with this application. As such, the existing zoning
standards in place at the time of the PUD approval are proposed to remain in place.
The standards are those equivalent to the R-1 zoning standards in place at that time.
The Featherstone PUD did not modify base lot or building design standards for the R-
1 areas.
Rezoning
As noted,the applicant is seeking rezoning of the lots to be plattedfrom A-O,
Agricultural Open Space to R-1, Single Family Residence District. The subject area
is guided “Places to Live”, and the low-density, single family pattern is the long-
3
Planning Commission Agenda –08/01/2017
planned-for use ofthe property. Concurrent with approval of the Final Plat, the City
Council may adopt the rezoning ordinance establishing the R-1 Zoning District over
the new platted area.The remainder of the area outside of the platted lots, proposed
rd
as Outlot A, Featherstone 3Addition, will remain A-O until further platting and
rezoning is requested.
B.ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS
Decision 1. Preliminary Plat
1.Motionto adopt Resolution No. PC-2017-021, recommending approval of the
rd
Preliminary Plat for Featherstone 3Addition, subject to the Conditions listed in
Exhibit Z of the staff report, and based on the findings in said resolution.
2.Motion to deny adoption of ResolutionNo. PC-2017-021, based on findings
identified following the Public Hearing.
3.Motion to table action on the resolution, subject to additional information as
requested by the Commission.
Decision 2. Rezoning.
1.Motion to adopt Resolution No. PC-2017-022recommending approval of the
Rezoning from A-O, Agricultural Open Space to R-1, Single Family Residence
rd
Districtfor the 24 single-family lots to be platted as Featherstone 3Addition,
based on the findings in said Resolution.
2.Motion to deny adoption of ResolutionNo. PC-2017-022, based on findings
identified following the Public Hearing.
3.Motion to table action on the resolution, subject to additional information as
requested by the Commission.
C.STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends approval of both Resolutionsfor Rezoning and Preliminary Plat, as
stated in Alternative 1 for each decision. The proposed plat and rezoning is
consistent with the expectations of the original platand zoningproposal for the area,
and all lots are consistent with the requirements of the current R-1 zoning district.
The planned unit development approved previously governs the building
development standards and remains unchanged.
D.SUPPORTING DATA
A.Resolution PC-2017-021
B.Resolution PC-2017-022
4
Planning Commission Agenda – 08/01/2017
C.Draft Ordinance No. 6XX
D.Aerial Site Image
E.Applicant Narrative
F.Existing Conditions
G.Preliminary Plat
H.Grading and Erosion Control Construction Plan
I.Utility & Street Construction Plan
J.Landscape Plan
K.Final Plat
L.City Engineers Letter, dated 7/26/2017
Z. Conditions of Approval
5
Planning Commission Agenda – 08/01/2017
EXHIBIT Z
rd
Preliminary Plat for Featherstone 3Addition
PID 155-180-000010
nd
Outlot A, Featherstone 2Addition
1.Lots 6, 7, and 8, Block 2, are re-notated to indicate actual lot width per Zoning
Ordinance definition.
thth
2.Street extensions for 87Street NE and 86Street NE are constructed to their full
extent in the plat.
3.Easement notations arecorrected to be consistent with City standards.
4.Street and lot designs for future extension, shown in dashed lines, are not included in
rd
the 3Addition plat.
5.Park Dedication requirements for the full Featherstone project are reiterated, and if
necessary, re-calculated and included in the updated Development Agreements and
recorded against the current and future phases.
6.Compliance with the terms of the City Engineer’s report, dated July 26, 2017.
7.Compliance with other staff comments as submitted.
6
CITY OF MONTICELLO
WRIGHT COUNTY, MINNESOTA
PLANNING COMMISSION
RESOLUTION NO. PC-2017-021
RECOMMENDINGAPPROVAL OF APRELIMINARY PLAT
RD
FORFEATHERSTONE 3ADDITION
WHEREAS, the applicant seeks to developproperty legally described as Outlot A,
nd
Featherstone 2Addition; and
WHEREAS,the applicant has submitted a request toplat said propertyinto twenty-
fourparcels, and develop it for single family residential use; and
WHEREAS, thesite is guided for residentialuses underthe label “Places to Live” in
the City’s Comprehensive Plan; and
WHEREAS, the proposed Plat isconsistent with the long-term use and development
of the property for residentialuses; and
WHEREAS,the Planning Commission held a public hearing on August 1, 2017on
the application and the applicant and members of the public were provided the opportunity to
present information to the Planning Commission; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has considered all of the comments and the
staff report, which are incorporated by reference into the resolution; and
WHEREAS,the Planning Commission of the Cityof Monticello makes the following
Findings of Fact in relation to the recommendation of approval:
1.The Platprovidesan appropriate means of furthering the intent of the
Comprehensive Plan for the siteby putting the existing and proposed
buildings to residentialuse.
2.Theproposedimprovements onthe siteunder the Preliminary Platare
consistent with the needs of the developmentin this locationas an residential
area.
3.The improvements will haveexpected impacts on public services, including
sewer, water, stormwater treatment, and trafficwhich have been planned to
serve the property for the development as proposed.
4..The Plat isconsistent with the intent of the City’s economic development
objectives, as well as with the intent of the R-1, Single Familyzoning
regulations.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the Planning Commission of the City of
Monticello, Minnesota,that the Planning Commission hereby recommends that the
rd
Monticello City Council approves the Preliminary Plat for Featherstone 3Addition,subject
to the conditions listed in Exhibit Z of the staff report as follows:
1
CITY OF MONTICELLO
WRIGHT COUNTY, MINNESOTA
PLANNING COMMISSION
RESOLUTION NO. PC-2017-021
1.Lots 6,7, and 8, Block 2, are re-notated to indicate actual lot width per Zoning
Ordinance definition.
thth
2.Street extensions for 87Street NE and 86Street NE are constructed to their full
extent in the plat.
3.Easement notations are corrected to be consistent with City standards.
4.Street and lot designs for future extension, shown in dashed lines, are not included in
rd
the 3Addition plat.
5.Park Dedication requirements for the full Featherstone project are reiterated, and if
necessary, re-calculated and included in the updated Development Agreements and
recorded against the current and future phases.
6.Compliance with the terms of the City Engineer’s report, dated July __, 2017.
7.Compliance with other staff and Planning Commission comments as submitted.
st
ADOPTEDthis1day of August, 2017,by the Planning Commission of the City of Monticello,
Minnesota.
MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION
By: _______________________________
Brad Fyle, Chair
ATTEST:
____________________________________________
Angela Schumann, Community Development Director
2
CITY OF MONTICELLO
WRIGHT COUNTY, MINNESOTA
PLANNING COMMISSION
RESOLUTION NO. PC-2017-022
RECOMMENDINGAPPROVAL OF A ZONING MAP AMENDMENT
REZONING THE SUBJECT PROPERTY FROM
“A-O”, AGRICULTURAL OPEN SPACEDISTRICT
TO “R-1”, SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE DISTRICT
WHEREAS,the applicant has submitted a request torezone a portion of Outlot A,
nd
Featherstone 2Addition subject to its platting into single family residential lots; and
WHEREAS, the proposed amendment isconsistent with the long-term use and
development of the property suggested by the Comprehensive Plan; and
WHEREAS, theoriginalpreliminary plat for the area anticipated low-density
residential uses for the subject area; and
WHEREAS,the Planning Commission held a public hearing on August 1, 2017on
the application and the applicant and members of the public were provided the opportunity to
present information to the Planning Commission; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has considered all of the comments and the
staff report, which are incorporated by reference into the resolution; and
WHEREAS,the Planning Commission of the City of Monticello makes the following
Findings of Fact in relation to the recommendation of approval:
1.The rezoning isan appropriate means of furthering the intent of the
Comprehensive Plan for the site.
2.The use of the site for low-density residential development is consistent with
the City’s economic development objectives.
3. Theamendmentresultsin a zoningdesignationthat more closely achieves the
goals and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan than would the current
agricultural zoning.
4. The amendmentresultsin the potential for development that would be
compatible and consistent with the existing surrounding land uses in the area.
6.The resulting land useswill have impacts on public services, including sewer,
water, stormwater treatment, and trafficwhich have been planned to serve the
property for the subject propertyas proposed.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the Planning Commission of the City of
Monticello, Minnesota,that the Planning Commission hereby recommends that the
Monticello City Council adopts Ordinance No. ___ rezoning the subject property from “A-
O”, Agricultural Open Space to “R-1”, Single Family Residence District.
1
CITY OF MONTICELLO
WRIGHT COUNTY, MINNESOTA
PLANNING COMMISSION
RESOLUTION NO. PC-2017-022
st
ADOPTEDthis1day of August, 2017,by the Planning Commission of the City of
Monticello, Minnesota.
MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION
By: _______________________________
Brad Fyle, Chair
ATTEST:
____________________________________________
Angela Schumann, Community Development Director
2
ORDINANCE NO. 6XX
CITY OF MONTICELLO
WRIGHT COUNTY, MINNESOTA
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 10 OF THE MONTICELLO CITY CODE,
KNOWN AS THE ZONING ORDINANCE, BY REZONING THE FOLLOWING
PROPERTY FROM A-O, AGRICULTURAL OPEN SPACEDISTRICT TO
R-1, SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCEDISTRICT:
rd
FEATHERSTONE 3ADDITION
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MONTICELLO HEREBY ORDAINS:
Section 1.The zoning map of the City of Monticello is hereby amended to rezone the
following described parcels from A-O, Agricultural Open Spaceto R-1, Single
Family Residence District:
PID NUMBER:155-180-000010
(See attached Legal Description)
Section 2.TheCity Clerk is hereby directedto mark the official zoning map to reflect this
ordinance. The map shall not be republished at this time.
Section 3.The City Clerk is hereby directed to make the changes required by this Ordinance
as part of the OfficialMonticello City Code, Title 10, Zoning Ordinance, and to
renumber the tables and chapters accordingly as necessary to provide the intended
effect of this Ordinance. The City Clerk is further directed to make necessary
corrections to any internal citations that result from said renumbering process,
provided that such changes retain the purpose and intent of the Zoning Ordinance
as has been adopted.
Section 5.This Ordinance shall take effect and be in full force from and after its passage
and publication.The ordinance in its entirety and map shall be posted on the
City website after publication.Copies of the complete Ordinance and map are
available online and at Monticello City Hall for examination upon request.
ADOPTED BYthe Monticello City Council this ___ day of ____, 2017.
1
ORDINANCE NO. 6XX
__________________________________
Brian Stumpf, Mayor
ATTEST:
___________________________________
Jeff O’Neill, Administrator
AYES:
NAYS:
2
Building a legacy ǤƚǒƩ legacy. 701 Xenia Avenue South
Suite 300
Minneapolis, MN 55416
Tel: 763-541-4800
Fax: 763-541-1700
July 26, 2017
Ms. Angela Schumann
Community Development Director
City of Monticello
505 Walnut Street, Suite 1
Monticello, MN 55362
rd
Re: Featherstone 3 Addition Plan Review
City Project No. 2017-026
WSB Project No. 010151-000
Dear Ms. Schumann:
We have reviewed the grading, street and utility plans dated June 28, 2017 and the stormwater
management plan dated June 22, 2017, as prepared by Pioneer Engineering and offer the
following comments:
Grading Plans
1. Provide a narrative or earthwork calculations showing grading operations of the site
(i.e. mining/borrow areas, topsoil stripping, excavation and filling). It is understood
that most of the site will be filled. Demonstrate show the fill and underlying soils will
support the road bed based on City standards.
2. The typical street section should include a 2-foot sand section. The typical section and
street should be labeled as 32-feet from face of curb to face of curb.
3. Six-inch drain tile shall be provided under the curb or in the rear yards in order for
sump pump discharges pipes to connect to for each lot.
4. Driveway % grades should be labeled.
5. Verify that the driveway width is a maximum 24-feet wide between the curb and
property line.
6. Label the % grades with drainage arrows for all side yard and rear yard swales. A
minimum 2% swale is required.
7. The street grade labels are crowded and should be revised to be more visible.
Equal Opportunity Employer
wsbeng.com
K:\\02596-420\\Admin\\Docs\\050817 submittal
Featherstone 3rd Addition
July 26, 2017
Page 2
8. A 2-foot clay liner for the pond is not needed for purposes of wellhead protection.
the low vulnerability DWSMA and a liner is no longer needed.
9. Pond slopes should have a maximum 4:1 slope.
10. Show the existing pond inlet and outlet pipes more clearly with elevation information.
11. Seed mixes for the pond is still under review and will be provided to the applicant this
week.
12. A maintenance route from an adjacent roadway shall be identified on the plans for the
pond and rear yard catch basins.
th
13. 86 Street should extend to the easterly property line with tying in the grades to the
adjacent City owned property. The existing contours should extend past the site
boundary.
14. Include erosion control and restoration on the borrow area plan.
15. Conservation easement posts shall be provided every other lot at the property lines for
Block 2, Lots 2/3, 4/5, 6/7 and 8/9. The posts shall comply with the City Detail.
Street and Utility Plans
16. A project location inset map shall be provided on each sheet.
17. The watermain off-set should be removed and the watermain should be constructed
with an over-depth to avoid installing additional bends.
18. Label the watermain as Class 52.
th
19. The sewer and water stub on the east end of 86 Street shall extend past the property
line into the City-owned property for future connection. The sewer stub shall extend
past the temporary hydrant for future extension.
20. Include the typical section on the street sheets.
21. The sidewalk shall be 6-feet wide and note 5-feet wide per City standards.
22. Conduit crossings will likely need to be installed at street intersections depending on
private utility needs.
K:\\010151-000\\Admin\\Docs
Featherstone 3rd Addition
July 26, 2017
Page 3
23. Mailbox locations shall be shown on the plans.
th
24. Label 85 Street.
25. All riprap shall be grouted in place and extend to the bottom of the pond per City
standards.
26. Include a skimmer structure on the pond outlet.
27. Show the existing pond inlet and outlet pipes more clearly with elevation information.
28. FES 521 and FES 522 are labeled in profile but not on the plans.
Stormwater Management
1. Provide a description of pretreatment in the narrative.
2. Additional information is needed for the culvert under Ebersole Avenue. This is an
offsite discharge point and does not appear to direct runoff to Basin 50. The drainage
area to that culvert should be reflected in the model.
nd
3. Pond 40 and Pond 50 were shown to equalize at 952.4 in the Featherstone 2
Addition Plans, but in the current model the HWL of Pond 40 is higher than Pond 50.
The applicant should explain or fix the discrepancy.
4. Infiltration rates should be verified in the field with an infiltrometer test. The basin
must drawdown within 48 hours, and soils that have infiltration rates of more than 8.3
inches per hour must be amended to slow the infiltration rate to less than 8.3 inches
per hour.
5. Provide rational method calculations confirming adequacy of the storm sewer design
for the 10-year storm event. Calculations should adhere to the following guidelines:
The rational method runoff coefficient (c) is designated by land use and
should be assigned a value no less than 0.7.
Minimum allowable velocity in closed conduit = 3.0 fps
Maximum allowable velocity in closed conduit = 12.0 fps
6. Since 1 acre or more of the site is being disturbed, a NPDES/SDS Construction Storm
Water General Permit shall be obtained before construction commences.
K:\\010151-000\\Admin\\Docs
Featherstone 3rd Addition
July 26, 2017
Page 4
HydroCAD Model
7. Provide model assumptions in the narrative; specifically, why was one acre of
unconnected impervious assigned to Drainage Area 5?
8. Verify the drainage areas into Basin 50 and clearly define all points of discharge from
the site in the narrative. For example, the lots and street clouded in the Figure below
in Drainage Area 5 in the
Model.
9. The HWL of Pond 50 is listed as 952.6 in the plans, 950.5 in HydroCAD, and 952.5
in the stormwater management plan. This discrepancy should be revised so that the
model and narrative support what is shown on the plans.
10.
clay liner extending up to the outlet elevation of 949.0. Verify that the clay liner will
be used and if so:
a. Update the HydroCAD model so that Exfiltration in Pond 50 occurs only
above the outlet elevation of 949.0.
b. The callout under Pond 50 in the plans
Please have the applicant provide a written response addressing the comments above. Please
give me a call at 763-271-3236 if you have any questions or comments regarding this letter.
Thank you.
WSB & Associates, Inc.
Shibani K. Bisson, PE
City Engineer
K:\\010151-000\\Admin\\Docs
Featherstone 3rd Addition
July 26, 2017
Page 5
skb
K:\\010151-000\\Admin\\Docs
Planning Commission Agenda –08/01/2017
2D.Public Hearing –Consideration of a request for amendment to official Monticello
Zoning Map for rezoning from B-4 (Regional Business) to B-3 (Highway Business)
District and text amendment to the Monticello Zoning Ordinance Section 5.2 Use-
Specific Standards. Applicant: Ryan Buffalo Land Co.(NAC)
Property:Legal:Outlot D, Otter Creek Crossing
PID:155-171-000040
Planning Case Number:2017-029
A.REFERENCE & BACKGROUND
Request(s):Rezone the property from B-4, Regional Business,to B-
3, Highway Business, and aText Amendment to revise
the coverage ratio requirement for Vehicle Sales
buildings to accommodate a smaller building than
current regulations permit. The applicant would, if
approved, eventually apply for a plat andConditional
Use Permit for a proposed automobile dealership on the
platted parcel.
th
Deadline for Decision:September 17, 2017
Land Use Designation:Places to Shop
Zoning Designation:Existing: B-4, Regional Business District
Proposed:B-3, Highway Business District
The purpose of the “B-3” (highway business) district is
to provide for limited commercial and service activities
and provide for and limit the establishment of motor
vehicle oriented or dependent commercial and service
activities.
Overlays/Environmental
Regulations Applicable:Freeway Bonus Sign District
Current Site Use:Vacant
Surrounding Land Uses:
North: Interstate 94
East:Commercial –Motorsports Dealership
South:Vacant Industrial Land
West:Vacant Commercial/Industrial Land
1
Planning Commission Agenda –08/01/2017
Project Description:The applicant is seeking to develop an automobile
dealership on the subject site, utilizing approximately 5
acresat this time. The applicant intends to acquirean
additional 5 acres, which maybe developed as a future
phase. To accommodate this objective, the applicant
needs to rezone the property to B-3, Highway Business,
and amend the zoning ordinance to reduce the building
coverage ratio for such buildings.
Future required applications would include a final plat
for the desired lot configurationand Conditional Use
Permit for the site developmentof a vehicle sales
facility. The first two of these four steps are being
proposed at this time, with the final two steps pending
approval of the first.
ANALYSIS
The applicant is requesting changes to the zoning regulations governing the
establishment of motor vehicle sales and display, and further seeking a rezoning of
property to accommodate an application for Conditional Use Permit for such a use.
Upon approval of the zoning amendments, the applicant expects to subdivide the
property in question, and pursue the CUP on a portion of the subject property.
Rezoning
The property subject to the rezoning request is located immediately to the west of the
Moon Motors facility along Chelsea Road, consisting of 19.08 acres. The parcel is
currently zoned B-4, Regional Business, and the applicantand property owner are
seekinga rezoning to B-3, Highway Business for the full parcel, as required by
ordinance. The applicant proposesto developfive of the ten acres in a first phase,
with the remaining five acres to be developed as a second phase in the future.The
balance of the parcel, at 9.08 acres, is not proposed for development at this time.
The zoning pattern along ChelseaRoad is dominated by B-3zoning, with the
property in question the last parcel of B-4 zoning in this corridor. The area is guided
as “Places to Shop”, a commercial designation that would support either zoning
district. Given the dominance of B-3 zoning –and uses –the designation of B-3
zoning for this site would appear to be reasonable.
Zoning Text Amendment.
The applicant also seeks an amendment to the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance
that require a certain ratio of building-to-land area for vehicle sales lots. The current
ordinance, in Table 5-3,reads as follows:
2
Planning Commission Agenda –08/01/2017
The applicant’s plan will be to construct a building of between (approximately)
20,000 to 25,000 square feet+, on a 5 acre portion of the subject 10 acre property.
This would resultin a lot coverage ratio of between about 9.2% and 11.5%, less than
the required 15% and 40,000 square foot thresholds.
The applicant further notes that they may wish to eventually expand on the full 10
acres, or may seek a second separate dealership on the second 5 acre parcel. It is
anticipated that following the expansion, at least 40,000 square feet of building area
would be in place on the 10 acres. At this time, it is unclear what may occur in this
regard. As such, the applicant is asking the City to change the ordinance in a way
that would accommodate this long-term expansion. Again, the minimum ratio would
be 9.2% or 40,000 square feet on 10 acres of land. By comparison, the current
regulations would require 15% of the 10 acre property be covered by building –a
building area of more than 65,000 square feet.
For reference, when the current regulation was imposed, the City was concerned that
a signficant portion of its most valuable commercial real estate might be consumed by
large open sales lots with little building development for tax base or employment. At
the same time, there was concern that land-starved dealerships in the core area of the
Twin Cities were looking for cheaper land for open sales areas where they could store
vehicle inventory without constructing extensive dealership buildings. The City
adopted the current ordinance to preserve the development capacity and value of its
freeway-frontage commercial land.
During that period, three large automobile dealerships constructed new facilities to
comply with the building standardsper the table. The applicants have indicated that
both trends are passed, and that the regulations should be relaxed to accommodate
more current patterns in dealership development. They have indicated that they will
provide additional examples of significant dealership construction, but which has
trended to the slightly smaller floor areas.
To address the applicant’s request, and to make sense of the remainder of the table,
staff would suggest the following amendment. The concept is to continue to reflect
the intent of the original regulation, but accommodate greater variation and the
changes to the industry upon which the applicant’s request is based.
3
Planning Commission Agenda –08/01/2017
Parcel SizeLot Coverage PercentMinimum BuildingSize
Less than 2 acres5%2,500 square feet
2 acres to less than 4 acres 7% 10,000 square feet
4 acres to less than 8 acres9%20,000 square feet
8 acres or more9%40,000 square feet
*whichever requires the larger building
While this amendment relaxes the previous standard, it would still protect the City
from seeing very small buildings developed on very large lots and having valuable
freeway frontage underutilized.By retaining the 9% threshold, even if a property
owner were to control many acres,a significant building would be required, ensuring
that the City’s economic development objectives are met.
If the Planning Commission wishes to address the issue of overall size of such uses, it
may also wish to set an overall cap to the land area allowable for vehicle sales and
rental.
B.ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS
Decision 1. Rezoning from B-4 to B-3.
1.Motion toadoptResolutionNo. PC-2017-024recommending adopting
Ordinance No. 6XX, rezoning the subject property from B-4, Regional
Business to B-3, Highway Business.
2.Motion to denyadoption of ResolutionNo. PC-2017-024based on findings
to be stated following the public hearing.
3.Motion to table action on the resolution, subject to additional information
from staff, applicant, or others as directed.
Decision 2. Zoning Text Amendment to Table 5-3.
1.Motion to adopt Resolution No. PC-2017-025recommending adoption of
the zoning amendment Ordinance No. 6XX, amending the building size
ratio for vehicle sales/rental uses.
2.Motion to deny Resolution No. PC-2017-025based on findings to be
stated following the public hearing.
3.Motion to table action on the resolution, subject to additional information
from staff, applicant, or others as directed.
4
Planning Commission Agenda –08/01/2017
C.STAFF RECOMMENDATION
The proposed amendment would significantly reduce the City’s threshold size for
buildings on vehicle sales and rental parcels from the current standard. As noted, the
intent of the original code was to ensure that the most valuable commercial real estate
in the City was put to an intensive use, both in terms of tax capacity and employment.
However, the applicants have suggested that the industry has changed in its
requirements for these uses.
By creating an intervening threshold (4-8) acres, and altering the percentage, the City
may consider this an alternative for vehicle sales uses which both takes advantage of
the freeway frontage so valuable to the community, and returns that advantage
through a building of reasonable size and value.
This amendment would be a change in policy direction fromthe time that this
regulation was originally adopted. If the Planning Commission and Council are
convinced that industry changes support this change, and that vehicle sales continues
to represent a “highest and best use” of the freeway frontage, the amendment would
be consistent with this policy objective, and staff would recommend the amendments
as suggested.
D.SUPPORTING DATA
A.Resolution PC-2017-024
B.Resolution PC-2017-025
C.Draft Ordinance No.6XX
D.Applicant Narrative
E.Subject Parcel Image
F.Example VehicleSales Building to Lot Ratios
G.Ordinance Excerpts
5
CITY OF MONTICELLO
WRIGHT COUNTY, MINNESOTA
PLANNING COMMISSION
RESOLUTION NO. PC-2017-024
RECOMMENDING APPROVAL
OF AREZONING FROM B-4, GENERAL BUSINESS TO
B-3, HIGHWAY BUSINESS TO ACCOMMODATE THE DEVELOPMENT
OF A VEHICLE SALES AND RENTAL FACILITYAND RELATED USES
WHEREAS,the applicant is proposing to developa vehicle sales and rental facility
with accessory minor vehicle service, open storage, and accessory outdoor commercial
recreation for a test track;and
WHEREAS, the subject property is currently zoned B-4, General Business, which
does not allow vehiclesales and service usesas proposed; and
WHEREAS,the subject property is proposed to be zoned B-3, Highway Business, in
which vehicle sales and rental, as well as the proposed accessory uses are allowedby
conditionalusepermit; and
WHEREAS, the dominant zoning district in the area is currently B-3, Highway
Business,
WHEREAS, the subject property is guided for “Places to Shop” in the official
Comprehensive Plan; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing to considerthe matter at
st
its regular meeting on August 1, 2017,and the applicant and members of the public were
provided the opportunity to present information to the Planning Commission; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has considered all of the comments and the
staff report, which are incorporated by reference into the resolution; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Monticello makes the following
Findings of Fact in relation to the recommendation of approval:
1.The proposed rezoningis consistent with the intent of the Monticello Comprehensive
Plan.
2.The proposed rezoning will be consistent with the present and future zoning and land
uses in the area.
3.The proposed rezoningwillmeet the requirements of the Monticello Zoning
Ordinance.
4.The proposed rezoning will not create undue burdens on public systems, including
streets and utilities.
1
CITY OF MONTICELLO
WRIGHT COUNTY, MINNESOTA
PLANNING COMMISSION
RESOLUTION NO. PC-2017-024
5.The proposed rezoningwill not create substantial impacts, visual or otherwise, on
neighboring land uses.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the Planning Commission of the City of
Monticello, Minnesota thatthe proposed rezoningis hereby recommended for approval.
st
ADOPTEDthis1day of August, 2017,by the Planning Commission of the City of
Monticello, Minnesota.
MONTICELLOPLANNING COMMISSION
By: _______________________________
Brad Fyle, Chair
ATTEST:
______________________________
Angela Schumann, Community Development Director
2
CITY OF MONTICELLO
WRIGHT COUNTY, MINNESOTA
PLANNING COMMISSION
RESOLUTION NO. PC-2017-025
RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF AN AMENDMENT
TO TABLE 5-3 OF THE MONTICELLO ZONING ORDINANCE BY REVISING
THE BUILDING SIZE RATIO FOR VEHICLE SALES AND RENTAL USES.
WHEREAS, the Zoning Ordinance limits vehicle sales and rental uses to the B-3,
Highway Business Zoning District by Conditional Use Permit; and
WHEREAS, vehicle sales and rental uses are subject to Table 5-3 of the Zoning
Ordinance, establishing minimum building size ratios for such uses based on the size of the
subject parcel; and
WHEREAS,the applicant seeks an amendment to the Zoning Ordinancethat would
revise Table 5-3 by altering the building size ratios for vehicle sales and rental uses; and
WHEREAS, the areas allowing such uses areguided for “Places to Shop” in the
Monticello Comprehensive Plan; and
WHEREAS,the subject use is allowed inthe B-3zoning district by conditional use
permit; and
WHEREAS, the proposed amendment would accommodate a use that would be
consistent with other existing and future land uses in the area, as well as withcontemporary
trends for similar uses; and
st
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on August 1, 2017on
the application and the applicant and members of the public were provided the opportunity to
present information to the Planning Commission; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has considered all of the comments and the
staff report, which are incorporated by reference into the resolution; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Monticello makes the following
Findings of Fact in relation to the recommendation of approval:
1.The proposed use is consistent with the intent of the land use plan for those areas
zoned appropriately.
2.TheB-3zoning district is a compatible zoning district within the land use category.
3.The proposed use within the B-3District would be compatible with the existing and
future uses of land in the area.
4.The amendment reflects changes to the industry for such use, and better
accommodates the development of property for vehicle sales and rental.
5.Thoseareas of the City zoned and guided for other B-3 uses will adequately support
the proposed use when meeting the amended requirements in Table 5-3.
1
CITY OF MONTICELLO
WRIGHT COUNTY, MINNESOTA
PLANNING COMMISSION
RESOLUTION NO. PC-2017-025
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the Planning Commission of the City of
Monticello, Minnesota:
That the City Council should approve the amendment to the zoning ordinance amending
Table 5-3, revising the threshold ratio of building size to lot area for Vehicle Sales and
Rental.
st
ADOPTEDthis1day of August, 2017,by the Planning Commission of the City of
Monticello, Minnesota.
MONTICELLOPLANNING COMMISSION
By: _______________________________
Brad Fyle, Chair
ATTEST:
______________________________
Angela Schumann, Community Development Director
2
ORDINANCE NO.6XX
CITY OF MONTICELLO
WRIGHT COUNTY, MINNESOTA
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 10OF THE
MONTICELLO ZONING CODE,CHAPTER 5, TABLE 5-3,
MINIMUM BUILDING SIZE FOR VEHICLE SALES/RENTAL USES
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MONTICELLO, MINNESOTA HEREBY
ORDAINS:
Section 1.Chapter 5, Table 5-3is hereby amended to read as the follows:
Parcel Size Lot Coverage Percent Minimum Building Size
Less than 2 acres5% 2,500 square feet
2 acres to less than 4 acres 7% 10,000 square feet
4 acres to less than 8 acres 9% 20,000 square feet
8 acres or more9% 40,000 square feet
*whichever requires the larger building
Section 2.The City Clerk is hereby directed to make the changes required by this Ordinance
as part of the Official Monticello City Code, Title 10, Zoning Ordinance, and to
renumber the tables and chapters accordingly as necessary to provide the intended
effect of this Ordinance. The City Clerk is further directed to make necessary
corrections to any internal citations and diagrams that result from such
amendments, provided that such changes retain the purpose and intent of the
Zoning Ordinance as has been adopted.
Section 3.This Ordinance shall take effect and be in full force from and after its passage and
publication. Revisions will be made online after adoption by Council. Copies of
the complete Zoning Ordinance are available online and at Monticello City Hall.
st
ADOPTED BYthe Monticello City Council this 1day of August, 2017.
CITY OF MONTICELLO
__________________________________
Brian Stumpf, Mayor
ORDINANCE NO.6XX
ATTEST:
___________________________________
Jeff O’Neill, City Administrator
VOTING IN FAVOR:
VOTING IN OPPOSITION:
July 3, 2017
Angela Schumann
City of Monticello
505 Walnut St.
Monticello, MN 55362
RE: Text Change Amendment
Zoning Change
Property: Outlot D, Otter Creek Crossing
PID #155-171-000040
Property Owner: John Chadwick Farms, LLC.
John Chadwick
4477 Manitou Road, Excelsior, MN 55331
Buyer: Ryan Buffalo Land Company, LLC
Bob Ryan
911 st Hwy 55, Buffalo, MN 55313
Dear Angela;
Ryan Buffalo Land Company is requesting the following changes.
1) Text Change Amendement: The Buyer / Applicant has a purchase agreement for the east 10 acres
of Outlot D, Otter Creek Crossing for the purpose of constructing a car dealership. The Buyer is
requesting a text change amendment to Section 5.2 Use-Specific
Standards, to change the coverage ratio of the property. The applicant is requesting to be able to
construct a 20,000 sf building on 5 acres of land, which is a coverage ratio of 9.18%. If the
applicant would want to add additional paved property to the subject property, the coverage ratio
of 9.18% would apply.
2) Zoning Change: The property is currently zoned B-4. The Citred
B-3 zoning for Auto Sales and Service. Therefore the applicant is requesting a zoning change
from B-4 to B-3.
Thank you for your assistance.
Commercial Realty Solutions, LLC
Wayne Elam
President
From:WayneElam
Sent:Wednesday,July26,20179:23PM
To:AngelaSchumann;SteveGrittman
Cc:
Subject:FW:RyanMotor-MonticelloProject
7/26/17
Angela&Steve;
Seeemailbelowfromthearchitectregardingrecentcardealershipconstruction.
Thanksforyourassistance.
Wayne
From:DarwinLindahl
Sent:Wednesday,July26,20176:10PM
To:WayneElam;BobRyan
Subject:RyanMotor-MonticelloProject
Wayne,
Asrequestedhere'salistofprojectofsimilarsizethatisbeingproposed.
1.BillionNissan,SiouxCity,IA
BuildingSF(TotalFloorArea):18,095sf
Site:6.48acres
Built:2014
2.KIAofMankato,Mankato,MN
Building(TotalFloorArea):19,140sf
Site:4.09acres
Built:2015
1
3.BismarckHonda,Bismarck,ND
Building(TotalFloorArea):23,812sf
Site:4.54acres
Built:2015
4.BismarckNissan,Bismarck,ND
Building(TotalFloorArea):12,601sf
Site:2.88acres
Built:2015
5.BismarckVW,Bismarck,ND
Building(TotalFloorArea):11,143sf
Site:3.11acres
Built:2015
6.WaschkeCDJR,Virginia,MN
Building(TotalFloorArea):14,800sf
Site:2.22acres
Built:2016
7.MankatoNissan,Mankato,MN
Building(TotalFloorArea):22,800sf
Site:5.06acres
Built:Current
8.SchwietersChevrolet,Willmar,MN
Building(TotalFloorArea):26,981sf
Site:6.9acres
Built:Current
9.RydellofIndependence,Independence,IA
Building(TotalFloorArea):25,282sf
Site:4.25acres
Built:Current
Lastly,we'reworkingonadealershipprojectthatwillbegoingintoaSWsuburbofsimilarsize;approximately
23,000sfona3.88acresite.It'sintheearlystageslikethisprojectsoIcandivulgelocationorfranchise.
Letmeknowifyouhaveanyquestions.
Thanks,
-DarwinLindahl
D ARWIN L INDAHL A RCHITECTS,P.A.
2
CHAPTER 5: USE STANDARDS
Section 5.1 Use Table
Subsection (A) Explanation of Use Table Structure
TABLE 5-1: USES BY DISTRICT (cont.)
Use Types
Base Zoning Districts
Additional
C I
A R R R T R R M B B B B I I
Requirements
C B
O A 1 2 N 3 4 H 1 2 3 4 1 2
Permitted
D C
ed
Vehicle Fuel Sales
CCC 5.2(F)(30)
Vehicle Sales and Rental
1A
C 5.2(F)(31)
-
Veterinary Facilities
C 5.2(F)(32)
(Rural)
Veterinary Facilities
CCC 5.2(F)(32)
(Neighborhood)
SEE TABLE 5
Wholesale Sales
PPP None
Industrial Uses
Auto Repair Major CPP 5.2(G)(1)
Bulk Fuel Sales and
PP 5.2(G)(2)
Storage
Contractor's Yard,
III 5.2(G)(3)
Temporary
Extraction of Materials I II 5.2(G)(4)
General Warehousing CCPP 5.2(G)(5)
Heavy Manufacturing C 5.2(G)(6)
1A
-
Industrial Services CP None
5
Land Reclamation C CCCCCCCCCCCCCC 5.2(G)(7)
Light Manufacturing PPP 5.2(G)(8)
Machinery/Truck Repair
PP 5.2(G)(9)
SEE TABLE
*
& Sales
Recycling and Salvage
CC 5.2(G)(10)
Center
Self-Storage Facilities PCP 5.2(G)(11)
Truck or Freight
CPP 5.2(G)(12)
Terminal
Waste Disposal &
C 5.2(G)(13)
Incineration
Wrecker Services CP 5.2(G)(14)
TABLE 5-1A: CENTRAL COMMUNITY DISTRICT (CCD) USES
Use Types
Sub-Districts
Additional
Permitted
Exceptions
Requirements
F-1 F-2 F-3 L
Brew Pub P P P P none 5.2(F)(7)
5.2(F)(12)
Commercial Day Care C C C C none
5.2(F)(8)
Commercial Lodging P P C none
City of Monticello Zoning Ordinance Page 321
CHAPTER 5: USE STANDARDS
Section 5.2 Use-Specific Standards
Subsection (F) Regulations for Commercial Uses
(iii)Drive-through facilities shall be located to minimize their exposure to the
street.
(iv)Accessory structures, including canopies, menu boards, pay windows, and
other structures supporting drive-through functions shall be constructed of
materials to match those of the principal building.
(v)Site planning shall be designed to emphasize connections to pedestrian
facilities.
(30)Vehicle Fuel Sales:
(a)Regardless of whether the dispensing, sale, or offering for sale of motor fuels
and/or oil is incidental to the conduct of the use or business, the standards and
requirements imposed by this ordinance for motor fuel stations shall apply.
These standards and requirements are, however, in addition to other
requirements which are imposed for other uses of the property.
(b)Wherever fuel pumps are to be installed, pump islands shall be installed.
(c)All signing and informational or visual communication devices shall be
Section 4.5: Signs
minimized and shall be in compliance with Section 4.5of this ordinance.
(d)Provisions are made to control and reduce noise.
(e)If in the CCD District, the following standards shall also apply:
(i)The design of the site promotes pedestrian access adjacent to and along
the property.
(ii)No more than two (2) curb cuts of twenty-four (24) feet in width or less
shall be permitted.
(iii)Site lighting shall utilize fixtures similar in style to that designated by the
.
(iv)
and design review is conducted by the Planning Commission.
(v)The proposed use demonstrates compatibility and consistency with the
e Downtown Revitalization Plan.
(31)Vehicle Sales or Rental
(a)The minimum building size for any vehicle sales or rental use shall comply
with the standards in Table 5-3.
Page 352 City of Monticello Zoning Ordinance
CHAPTER 5: USE STANDARDS
Section 5.2 Use-Specific Standards
Subsection (F) Regulations for Commercial Uses
TABLE 5-3: MINIMUM BUILDING SIZE FOR VEHICLE SALES/RENTAL USES
Parcel Size Lot Coverage Percent * Minimum Building Size *
Less than 2 acres 5% 2,500 square feet
2 acres to4 acres 10% 10,000 square feet
Greater than 4 acres 15% 40,000 square feet
*Whichever requires the larger building
(b)When abutting a residential use, the property shall be screened with an opaque
Section 4.1(G):
Standards for
buffer (Table 4-2
Perimeter Buffers
ordinance.
(c)All lighting shall be in compliance with Section 4.4 of this ordinance.
(d)The outside sales and display area shall be hard surfaced.
(e)The outside sales and display area does not utilize parking spaces which are
required for conformance with this ordinance.
(f)Vehicular access points shall create a minimum of conflict with through
traffic movement and shall be subject to the approval of the Community
Development Department.
(g)There is a minimum lot area of twenty-two thousand five hundred (22,500)
square feet and minimum lot dimensions of one hundred fifty (150) feet by
one hundred thirty (130) feet.
(h)A drainage system subject to the approval of the Community Development
Department shall be installed.
(32)Veterinary Facilities
(a)Treatment shall be limited to small household pets unless the facility is
conditionally permitted as a rural veterinary facility.
(b)In the CCD district, animals shall only be housed overnight if they are
undergoing medical treatment or observation. Overnight boarding for non-
medical reasons shall be prohibited.
(c)The site shall be designed to prevent animal waste from being exposed to
stormwater or entering the stormwater system, streams, lakes, or conveyances.
If an area is provided for animals walking, it shall not be exposed to
stormwater and the waste shall immediately be picked up and disposed of
properly.
City of Monticello Zoning Ordinance Page 353
Planning Commission Agenda –08/01/2017
2E.Public Hearing–Consideration of a request for Conditional Use Permit for Micro-
Brewery/Taproom in CCD (Central Community District). Applicant: Burt, Bill and
Penny(NAC)
Property:Legal:Lots 4 and 5, Block 35, Original Plat of
Monticello (parts)
Address: 213 Pine Street
Planning Case Number:2017-028
A.REFERENCE & BACKGROUND
Request(s):Conditional Use Permit for Brewery/Taproom
th
Deadline for Decision:September 9, 2017
Land Use Designation:Downtown “Shopping”
Zoning Designation:CCD (F-1; Flex Shopping)
The purpose of the “CCD”, Central Community
District, is to provide for a wide variety of land uses,
transportation options, and public activities in the
downtown Monticello area, and particularly to
implement the goals, objectives, and specific directives
of the Comprehensive Plan, and in particular, the
Embracing Downtown Monticello report and its Design
Guidelines.
Overlays/Environmental
Regulations Applicable:NA
Current Site Use:Commercial Buildings
Surrounding Land Uses:
North: Commercial
East:Pine Street/Hwy 25 -Commercial
South:Commercial
West:Public Parking
Project Description:The applicants proposed to occupy 2,000 square feet of
the existing building at the northwest corner of Pine
rd
Street (Hwy 25) and West 3Street to operate a Micro-
Brewery and Taproom facility, utilizing existing site
improvements, with interior building modifications as
necessary to support the use.
1
Planning Commission Agenda –08/01/2017
ANALYSIS
Project Background.The proposed Micro-Brewery/Taproomfor Rustech Brewery
Company would occupy a portion of the existing building at 213 Pine Street. In late
2015, the City adopted new regulations accommodating this use, which is a growing
industry in Minnesota and around the country. The primary issues related to these
businesses relate to the mixing of what has been traditionally an industrial use
(brewing) with what is most commonly a commercial use (bar/lounge).
Several factors distinguish these uses from traditional breweries or bars. Traditional
breweries are industrial uses –they do not entail service of their product on the
premises. Traditional bars are commercial uses –they sell the production of other
producers (brewers, vintners, distillers, etc.) by the drink, on the premises.
First, by contrast, the size of the brewery/taproomis limited to a smaller scale. Thus,
the industrial aspect of the facility is minimized in many, but not all, cases. Second,
as a brewery, the facility is intended to produce beverages which may (but are not
necessarily required to be) packaged and sold through off-sale retailers, such as liquor
stores. Third, as a “taproom”, the facility is permitted to sell all or a portion of its
production in “on-sale” portions (by the drink) on the brewery premises. And fourth,
the brewery may be permitted to sell a portion of its production in “growlers” –
commonly half-gallon “carry-out” containers for consumption off site.
The applicant is proposing to remodel a portion of the building (2,000 square feet) to
accommodate a five-barrel brewhouse, additional restroom space, walk-in cooler,
bar/tap area, and reserving about two-thirds of the facility for seating of customers,
with the plans showing an estimated seating capacity of 47 seats. The applicants
expect to employ two persons, expanding over time to a four-person staff. Hours of
operation are planned for Wednesday, 4p –9p; Thursday, 4p –10p; Friday 3p –11p;
Saturday 12p –11p; and Sunday, 11a –6p. They project expanding to Monday and
Tuesday within a year or twoof their initial opening, with hours on those days similar
to Wednesday hours. The materials estimate a brewery capacity of 750 barrels per
year, expecting to begin operation at about half of that capacity.
Specific Zoning Requirements.The zoning ordinance lists the following specific
standards for these uses (with staff comments included):
(24) Production Breweries and Micro-Distilleries with Accessory Taproom or
Cocktail Room shall be allowed by conditional use permit in the CCD, B-3
and B-4 Districts, provided that:
(a) The owner of the brewery qualifies for and receives a brewer license and a
malt liquor wholesale license from the State of Minnesota, according to Minn.
Statutes Section 340A.301.This will be a requirement of the applicant’s
liquor license.
2
Planning Commission Agenda –08/01/2017
(b) The Brewery or Micro-Distillery includes an accessory brewer's taproom or
cocktail room for the on-sale of products produced on-site, and such room
shall require the applicable license from the City of Monticello, according to
City Code Section 3-1-13.The applicant proposes, as noted, that about two-
thirds of the floor area of the facility will be utilized for taproom space.
(c) On-site sale of beer in the form of growlers shall require a Brewery License
for Off-Sale of Malt Liquor, accordingto City Code Section 3-1-13. Off-sale
hours of sale must conform to hours of sale for retail off-sale licensees in the
City of Monticello.The applicant indicates that they will be pursuing these
licenses with the City.
(d) Total production of malt liquor may not exceed 10,000 barrels annually. Of
the 10,000 barrel production limit, onsite taproom retail sales shall not exceed
3,500 barrels annually, 500 barrels of which may be sold off-sale as growlers.
The brewer shall annually submit production reportswith the request to renew
a brewer taproom or off-sale malt liquor license.As noted, the applicants
propose a capacity of 750 barrels per year.
(e) A micro-distillery may be issued a license for off-sale of distilled spirits. Not
applicable to this application.
(f) Total production of liquor may not exceed 40,000 proof gallons annually. Not
applicable to this application.
(g) The brewery or micro-distillery facility provides adequate space for off-street
loading and unloading of all trucks greater than twenty-two (22) feet in
length. In the absence of off-street loading, the City may impose limits on
deliveries or shipments using the public right of ways, including regulating
the number of trucks per day and the hours that deliveries are permitted.The
applicants indicate that they will have only limited, small-volume deliveries,
primarily from light trucks without the need for full loading space.
(h) Loading docks shall be located and designed so they are not visible from
adjoining public streets or adjoining residential zoning.No loading docks are
proposed.
(i) No outdoor storage is permitted on the site, with the exception that waste
handling (refuse and/or recycling) may occur in an enclosure that is fully
screened from adjoining streets and residential zoning.The plan does not
show exterior waste handling, which is expected to be addressed indoors.
(j) No odors from the business may be perceptible beyond the property line.This
type of facility is not expected to produce eternal odors.
(k) The business must be housed in a building that utilizes building design similar
to, or compatible with, common commercial architecture, and shall avoid
large wall expanses which contribute to an industrial environment.The
building is an existing facility in downtown Monticello. The applicants do
not propose to make changes to the exterior.
(l) The brewer must demonstrate the capacity for producing, processing and
storing malt liquor on the commercial site through the provision of a building
floor plan illustrating production, bottling, and storage areas.The application
materials include a detailed floor plan. No bottling facilities are shown.
(m)All exterior lighting shall be compliant with Chapter 4.4 of the Monticello
3
Planning Commission Agenda –08/01/2017
Zoning Code.The applicants do not propose exterior changes.
Parking. For facilities such as these, aparking demand of 36 spaces would be
expected, as follows:
Brewery Production Area: 600 square feet at 1 space/500 sf –1space
Bar/Restaurant Area: 1,400 square feet at 1 space/40 sf –32spaces
The site plan shows a total of 11spaces in the main parking lot on the south side of
the building, serving the 4,000 square foot building. A line of angle parking is striped
along the west property line adjacent to the City’s public parking lot, but the
dimensions of this area do not support reasonable use of this parking area as shown.
It would be possible to stripeapproximately 4parallel spaces adjacent to the public
parking lot, leaving a drive aisle between those and the buildingwall. This results in
a total supply on-site of 15spaces for the buildingon the subject property. The salon
tenantin the building would be expected to require a total of 5spaces for personal
services at one space per 350 square feet.
As such, thefull parking requirement for the building, with the addition of the
brewery/taproom, would total 38spaces, compared to a supply of 15spaces. In the
CCD, the property’s supply requirement may be reduced to 60 percent of the full
calculation when the spaces are open to cross parking with other properties in the
downtown. Applying this to the entire sitewould result in a parking demand
calculation of 23required spaces overall for the site. The ordinance accommodates
the further reduction in off-street parking supply by making up the shortage through a
CCD parking fund into which the applicants may contribute toward the cost and
maintenance of public parking serving their building. Under the estimate above, the
site appears to have an8-space deficit tobe accounted forto the parking fund.
An alternative parking demand count would utilize a combination of pick-up/counter
space and “specialty eating establishment” designation for the seating area.This
calculation results in 8spaces for the pick-up/counter(or bar)area, and one space per
three seats of dining space, resulting in a basedemand of 24spaces. Under this
approach, the site could meet the parking requirement by designating6parking
spaces along the south side of the building near the applicant’s entry, and the 6
parallel spaces along the west side of the building for public access, effectively
reducing the demand to 17spaces, leaving the site just 2 spaces short of the
requirements in the CCD.
Moreover, if the owner of the adjacent building to the north also would agree to
restripe the parallel spaces, and open up his lot for public access, the CCD credit
would apply to the combined site, resulting in no deficit.
Because the zoning ordinance does not include a specific parking requirement for
brew pubs, bars or taprooms, the Planning Commission and City Council may elect to
apply one of the above calculations at this time, then research the parking for such
4
Planning Commission Agenda –08/01/2017
uses in more detail in order to specify the actual parking demand, which may require
a future code amendment specific to these use types.
B.ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS
1.Motion toadoptResolutionNo. PC-2017-023, recommending approval of a
Conditional Use Permit for a Brewery/Taproom, subject to the conditions
included in Exhibit Z.
2.Motion to denyadoption of ResolutionNo. PC-2017-023, based on findings
identified by the Commission after the public hearing.
3.Motion to table action on the Resolution, subject to additional information from
staff, the applicant, or others as directed.
C.STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends approval of the CUP, basedon findings that support the
entertainment and hospitality objectives of the City’s downtown development
planning. The use fits the City’s development objectives for downtown, and the
applicant’s materials support the intent of the ordinance adopted for this purpose.
With regard to parking, staff believes that the supply is adequate, with the
understanding that parking on the west side of the building will be striped for parallel
spaces adjacent to the building, leaving a drive aisle adjacent to the City’s public
parking lot. This would be supported by the existence of a large public parking lot on
the adjacent property, which is rarely full. In addition, the proposed use would be
operating at times when other service or office uses are typically closed,
accommodating a shared-use aspect that would suggest the public parking lot is more
than adequate to support the use.
Finally, as an entertainment/hospitality type of use, the proposed brewery/taproom is
consistent with the City’s economic development objectives that have been expressed
in many versions of the City’s Comprehensive Plans and downtown development
studies. Staff believes that the development policies of the City, along with the
infrastructure already in place, support the location of the proposed facility.
D.SUPPORTING DATA
A.Resolution PC-2017-023
B.Subject Site Aerial Image
C.Applicant Narrative
D.Site Plan
E.Brewing Process
5
Planning Commission Agenda –08/01/2017
F.Water and Sewer Usage
G.City Engineers Letter, dated 7/26/17
Z. Conditions of Approval
6
Planning Commission Agenda –08/01/2017
EXHIBIT Z
Conditional Use Permit for Rustech Brewery/Taproom
213 Pine Street
Lots 4 and 5, Block 35, Original Plat of Monticello
1.The applicant completes all licensing applications necessary as specified in the City
Code and Zoning Ordinance.
2.The applicant sells only the products of the brewery produced on-site.
3.Deliveries are only by passenger vehicle or light truck, and do not utilize the public
right-of-way.
4.The addition of brewery capacity beyond the current size would require an
amendment to the CUP.
5.The addition of packaging facilities for wholesale distribution would require an
amendment to the CUP, or the applicant may request that accommodation as a part of
this application with an adequate description as an amendment to the project
narrative.
6.The applicant complies with the requirements of Section 5.2.F(24) of the Zoning
Ordinance, as referenced in the staff report.
7.The parking area along the west side of the building is re-striped to provide 4parallel
spaces adjacent to the public parking lot,retaininga drive aisle between this parking
and the west building wall.
8.The City Council approves the parking calculation supporting a net requirement for
23parking spaces for the subject property.(Alt: 17 spaces)
9.The property owner agrees to accommodate public access to the parking spaces along
the south and west side of the property in order to comply with the 60% parking
supply standard for CCD land uses.No further parking accommodations would be
necessary to support this use in its proposed configuration.
10.Compliance with the terms of the City Engineer’s report dated July 26, 2017.
11.Compliance with the comments of other staff and Planning Commission.
7
CITY OF MONTICELLO
WRIGHT COUNTY, MINNESOTA
PLANNING COMMISSION
RESOLUTION NO. PC-2017-023
RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR
A BREWERY/TAPROOM FOR RUSTECH BREWING
LOTS 4 AND 5, BLOCK 35, ORIGINAL PLAT OF MONTICELLO
WHEREAS, the applicant has submitted a request to occupy a portion of the subject
property to operate a brewery/taproom facility; and
WHEREAS, the site is zoned CCD (F-1), which allows such use by Conditional Use
Permit; and
WHEREAS, the proposed use and development are consistent with the
Comprehensive Land Use Plan for the area; and
WHEREAS, the applicants have provided materials documenting compliance with
the terms of the applicable zoning regulations; and
WHEREAS, the uses are consistent with the intent and purpose of the CCD zoning
district; and
WHEREAS, the uses will not create any unanticipated changes to the demand for
public services on or around the site; and
th
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on December 6, 2016
on the application and the applicant and members of the public were provided the
opportunity to present information to the Planning Commission; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has considered all of the comments and the
staff report, which are incorporated by reference into the resolution; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Monticello makes the following
Findings of Fact in relation to the recommendation of approval:
1. The proposed uses are consistent with the intent and purpose of the CCD,
Central Community Zoning District.
2. The proposed uses are consistent with the existing and future land uses in the
area in which they are located.
3. The impacts of the improvements are those anticipated by commercial land
uses and are addressed through standard review and ordinances as adopted.
4. The brewery/taproom meets the intent and requirements of the applicable
zoning regulations, pursuant to the conditions attached to the Conditional Use Permit.
5. Parking is found to be adequate with the improvement made as a part of
Exhibit Z, in light of the hours of operation and supplies of public parking in the vicinity.
1
CITY OF MONTICELLO
WRIGHT COUNTY, MINNESOTA
PLANNING COMMISSION
RESOLUTION NO. PC-2017-023
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the Planning Commission of the City of
Monticello, Minnesota, that the Planning Commission hereby recommends that the
Monticello City Council approves the Conditional Use Permit for Brewery/Taproom, subject
to the conditions listed in Exhibit Z as follows:
1. The applicant completes all licensing applications necessary as specified in the City
Code and Zoning Ordinance.
2. The applicant sells only the products of the brewery produced on-site.
3. Deliveries are only by passenger vehicle or light truck, and do not utilize the public
right-of-way.
4. The addition of brewery capacity beyond the current size would require an
amendment to the CUP.
5. The addition of packaging facilities for wholesale distribution would require an
amendment to the CUP, or the applicant may request that accommodation as a part of
this application with an adequate description as an amendment to the project
narrative.
6. The applicant complies with the requirements of Section 5.2.F(24) of the Zoning
Ordinance, as referenced in the staff report.
7. The parking area along the west side of the building is re-striped to provide 4 parallel
spaces adjacent to the public parking lot, retaining a drive aisle between this parking
and the west building wall.
8. The City Council approves the parking calculation supporting a net requirement for
23 parking spaces for the subject property.
9. The property owner agrees to accommodate public access to the parking spaces along
the south and west side of the property in order to comply with the 60% parking
supply standard for CCD land uses. No further parking accommodations would be
necessary to support this use in its proposed configuration.
10. Compliance with the terms of
11. Compliance with the comments of other staff and Planning Commission.
st
ADOPTED this 1 day of August, 2017 by the Planning Commission of the City of
Monticello, Minnesota.
2
CITY OF MONTICELLO
WRIGHT COUNTY, MINNESOTA
PLANNING COMMISSION
RESOLUTION NO. PC-2017-023
MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION
By: _______________________________
Brad Fyle, Chair
ATTEST:
____________________________________________
Angela Schumann, Community Development Director
3
--
Bill and Penny Burt
Change Page Date Changes
Number of Parking stalls. 3 6/18/2017
Wastewater/sanitary sewer impact 11 6/18/2017
Clarification in narrative on how we propose operation will meet 12 7/3/2017
the standards set out in the zoning ordinance for micro-brewery
and taproom.
Introduction
This narrative is to serve as information related to conditional use permit
application for brewery.
Summary
Rustech Brewing Company is a newly formed brewery to bring patrons a warm
and inviting experience for the local residents, tourists, and visitors, while
contributing to the economic growth of the Monticello Community.
We intend to open a 5 barrel brewery with a tasting room located on 213 Pine
Street in the city of Monticello, MN.
Operations will include the manufacturing of malt liquor, daily operations, and
direct sales through the taproom. Customer seating will be approximately 49
people.
Direct sales utilizes the Minnesota Taproom and Growler licenses, which would be
applied for through the City of Monticello.
Hours of Operation
During the first 1.5 years of operation our hours of operation will be as below.
rd
During the 2.5 3 year we plan to expand to Monday and Tuesday hours of
operation.
Page | 1
Monday: 4:00pm - 9:00pm (Year 2)
Tuesday: 4:00pm - 9:00pm (Year 2)
Wednesday: 4:00pm - 9:00pm
Thursday: 4:00pm - 10:00pm
Friday: 3:00pm - 11:00pm
Saturday: 12:00pm - 11:00pm
Sunday: 11:00am-6:00pm
Number of Employees
2 employees during the first year of business.
Additional 2 employees during the second year of business
Water Needs
Below are the anticipated water needs for the brewery.
Brew house production:
For the first year the brew house will require 1963 gallons of water. The second
year will require 2563 gallons of water. The max amount of water possibly needed
is 3875 gallons a month at max production.
Brew house Cleaning:
There will be a Clean-in-place (CIP) system onsite at Brewery. CIP for reducing the
amount of labor needed for cleaning and sanitizing operations. One of the main
advantages of CIP systems is that they can recirculate and allow the reuse of
chemicals and rinse water, thereby reducing consumption by as much as 50%. CIP
systems largely remove human contact with cleaning and sanitizing agents, thus
reducing the risk of harmful exposure. They also assure a more consistent
cleaning by removing some of the common sources of human error in cleaning.
Page | 2
Bathrooms:
There were will be (2) two bathrooms at the brewery with (1) Sink and (1) toilet in
both bathrooms.
Bar Sink:
There were will (1) Bar Sink for cleaning glassware.
Number of parking stalls
The lot is shared with the hair salon/barber shop with overflow parking in the
public parking lot adjacent to your space.
18 total shared.
7 - Parking places west side of building.
11 - Spaces shared to south of building.
1 Designated to Handicap parking.
Outdoor storage
None
Page | 3
Current Layout
Below is the inside layout of location at 213 Pine Street before any changes.
There is one bathroom and one small utility room.
7/3/2017
Page | 4
Future walls and room layout
Contractors will add walls for Handicap bathroom, walk-in cooler, brewhouse area
and mill room.
Page | 5
Brewery Layout
Below is the anticipated brewery design.
Page | 6
Page | 7
Building on left will be the brewery (2000 SQ FT)
Page | 8
Corner view
Entrance to parking lot
Entrance #1
Front entrance - No changes to door or windows
Page | 9
Signage
Sign
Entrance #2
Side entrance - No changes to door or windows
Page | 10
BREWHOUSE AREA
The brewhouse area will consist of a 5 BBL system.
There will be a Boiler in the Brewhouse area to provide steam to the Boil tank
There will be indoor chiller to the Brewhouse area to cool the Fermentation tanks.
There will be Three Vessels to the brewhouse, The (HLT) Hot Liquor tank, The Mash tank and
Boil tank. Then Boil tank will be venelated outside (TBD).
Page | 11
Fermentation tanks.
There will (3) Three Fermentation tanks.
Brite tanks.
There will (1) one Brite tank.
Page | 12
ğƭƷĻǞğƷĻƩΉ{ğƓźƷğƩǤ ƭĻǞĻƩ źƒƦğĭƷ
If needed Rustech Brewing Company will use the Side-stream process of collecting high strength,
concentrated wastes at the sourcebefore it hits the floor, and setting it aside for disposal.
Sources of this high-strength wastewater include fermenter bottoms, spent yeast, returned beer in kegs,
fermenter blow off, beer in hoses or pipes at the beginning or end of a packaging run; the primary
source is the brewhouse, Tank rinsings, hop back rinsings, kettle residues, and trub.
In the brewery there will be (5) section pipe extends up through the floor about 6 inches. This prevents
other material from entering the pipe. Specific high-strength materials are piped or hosed into the
equipment drain. Everything else enters the normal floor-drain system.
1 in the brewhouse area
2 in the cellar area
2 in the packaging areas.
made of stainless steel that can be wheeled around. Short with casters on it, so
it can go under all tanks and pumped into chemical totes.
After side streaming, the remaining portion of our wastewater can be referred to as low-strength
wastewater. This will be cleaning and (CIP). Clean-in-place is a method of cleaning the interior surfaces
of pipes, vessels, process equipment, filters and associated fittings, without disassembly. Water in our
cellar and brewhouse, as well as any packaging line wastewater, boiler blow-down, cooling tower blow-
down, and general wash-down waters.
The BOD (biochemical oxygen demand) of this low-strength wastewater is still high-strength compared
our problems, but it does help.
Sanitary wastewater (toilets, sinks, and kitchen) will not be included in the low-strength waste stream
and will be piped directly to the sanitary sewer.
Page | 13
ƚƓźƓŭ ƚƩķźƓğƓĭĻ ŅƚƩ ƒźĭƩƚΏĬƩĻǞĻƩǤ ğƓķ ƷğƦƩƚƚƒ͵
I have a Brewer's Notice application inprocess to the Alcohol & Tobacco Tax and
Trade Bureau (TTB).
I will be obtain a brewer's bond for my Brewer's Notice.
Page | 14
Page | 15
I will apply for the brewery license for off Sale.
I will conform to hours of sale for off-sale retail.
Total production for the brew house will never exceed 750 Barrels annually.
Page | 16
Not Applicable
Not Applicable
The brewery facility will not need large truck deliveries. Most shipments will be 50
LBS of grain delivered with pickup truck size.
Page | 17
There will be no loading docks at the brewery.
There will be no outdoor storage from the brewery.
No Odors will go beyond property line.
Page | 18
The premises will have get four new eight foot walls. One as a divider for seating, one to
surround a walk-in cooler, one to separate the brew house area from the taproom.
The will be an additional bathroom added with handicap access.
There will be a Mill room built to code for crushing grain.
Page | 19
All Kegs will be stored in a walkin cooler.
Page | 20
Waste Water
Water Needed
53
3131
500500
.ğƩƩĻƌƭ ЋƓķ ǤĻğƩ
64583875
7750046500
ЎЉЉ
tƩƚķǒĭĻ tƩƚķǒĭĻ ЎЉЉ .ğƩƩĻƌƭ ЋƓķ ǤĻğƩ
ğƷĻƩ
ƭğŭĻ ğƓķ ǞğƭƷĻ
53
3131
.ğƩƩĻƌƭ ЊƭƷ ǤĻğƩ
380380
49082945
5890035340
/ğƌĭǒƌğƷźƚƓƭ ŅƚƩ ǞğƷĻƩ ƓĻĻķƭ/ğƌĭǒƌğƷźƚƓƭ ŅƚƩ ǞğƷĻƩ ǞğƭƷĻ
ЌБЉ
LƓŅƚƩƒğƷźƚƓ ğƓķ vǒĻƭƷźƚƓƭ
tƩƚķǒĭĻ tƩƚķǒĭĻ ЌБЉ .ğƩƩĻƌƭ ЊƭƷ ǤĻğƩ
per Month
per Month
12 months = 12 months =
ğƷĻƩ ǞğƭƷĻķ
ğƷĻƩ bĻĻķĻķ
Gallons of water per bbl =Gallons of water per bbl =
5 bbls of water per bbl brewed =
Gallons of Water wasted per year
Gallons of Water Needed per year
* Gallons of
3 bbls of wastewater per bbl brewed =
* Gallons of
Question: Does the city have pH Limits?
Brew 380 barrels (bbl) the 1st year and 500 barrels (bbl) the seconds year.Purchase 80,000 gallons of fresh water from the city per year max.Discharged 50,000 gallons of water to the
sewer per year max.wğƷźƚƭʹ5 bbls of water per bbl brewed (80,000/500/31)3 bbls of wastewater per bbl brewed (31 = gallons of water per bbl)Brewery wastewater is naturally acidic, usually
tending to stabilize at pH 4.5 or so. However the wastewater can also be high in pH during CIP cycles in the brewery. The pH will lower as the water sits due to wild yeast and bacterial
metabolic activity. Many breweries have discharge limits imposed on them by their municipality in regards to pH. Some will be generous with limits between pH 5.0 to 11.0. Others will
be tight, for example 6.0 to 8.0. or have no limits. These limits vary widely state by state and even town by town. Some cities have no enforced pH limits at all.When being billed
sewer charges, make sure you are not billed for water that ends up in your product. Most cities have a system in place to not bill sewer charges for irrigation water. What you are
asking for is to not bill sewer charges for beer that will be packaged and shipped out of your sewer district- or for Solids in the wastewater can be an issue. Solids are fairly easy
to address because they can be removed mechanically. A good starting place in screens in the floor drains- with employees trained to dump the screenings in the trash.
Μ
Ļ
Ʃ
ƭ
Ʃ
ǒ
ƒ
Ʒ
Ļ
ƭ
ƚ
ƌ
ǒ
ŭ
ƚ
C
ƩǞ
Ļ
Λ
ƚ
Ʀ
Y
ƭ
Ʃ
ğ
Ɠ
D
ğ
/
ƒ
Ļ
Μ
Ʒ
ƭ
ƭ
ǤƉ
{
Ɠ
ğ
Ļ
Ʒ
ĭ
ŭ
ğ
ƌ
Ɠ
ź
t
Ɠ
Ɠ
ğ
ź
Ļ
ƌ
Ɠ
ĭ
ğ
Ʃ
Ļ
ƌ
ƚ
/
Ņ
Λ
t
L
Ļ/
ƭ
ǒ
ƚ
ŷ
Ǟ
Ļ
Ʃ
.
Ɖ
Ɠ
ğ
Ļ
Ʒ
ź
Ʃ
.
Ɠ
ƚ
ź
Ɖ
Ʒ
Ɠ
ğ
Ʒ
ğ
Ɠ
Ļ
Ʃ
ƚ
ƒ
Ʃ
ǒ
Ļ
ƨ
ź
C
\[
Ʒ
ƚ
I
ƭ
ƌ
Ɠ
ƌ
ź
ƚ
Ņ
ź
Ʒ
Ǥ
ƭ
ƌğ
Ʒ
ƭ
Ǟ
Ɠ
ƚ
Ļ
ƌ
Ļ
{
ƒ
ĭ
Ʃ
Ļ
ƚ
C
Ʃ
t
Ǥ
Ɠ ƭ
ź
А
ƭ
ğ
ƚ
Њ
Ʀ
ƒ
Љ
ƭƒ
Ļ
Ћ
h
Ʒ
ƒ
Ώ
ƭ
ƭ
Ǥ
Ļ
ƚ
Ў
Ʃ
{
Ļ
/
Ћ
ǝ
Ώ
Ɠ
Ļ
ŭ
ƚ
w
ź
А
Ʒ
Ɠ
ğ
ź
Ʒ
Ɠ
Ǟ
Ļ
Ǟ
ƚ
ƒ
ƌ
Ļ
Ʃ
Ļ
Ʃ
C
C
.
Ʃ
Ļ
Ʒ
ƒ
ŷ
ğ
ƚ
Ʃ
ĭ
Ņ
Ļ
Ɠ
Ѣ
Ļ
L
Ʒ
Ʒ
Ǥ
Ʃƭ
Ʒ
ƭ
ź
ğ
Ļ
Ʒ
ĭ
ğ
ǒ
Ǟ
w
δ
Њ
Building a legacy ǤƚǒƩ legacy. 701 Xenia Avenue South
Suite 300
Minneapolis, MN 55416
Tel: 763-541-4800
Fax: 763-541-1700
July 26, 2017
Ms. Angela Schumann
Community Development Director
City of Monticello
505 Walnut Street, Suite 1
Monticello, MN 55362
Re: Rustech Brewing CUP
City Project No. 2017-028
WSB Project No. 010397-000
Dear Ms. Schumann:
We have reviewed the submittals dated July 3, 2017 and additional sewer and water usage
information received on July 25, 2017 and offer the following comments:
1. There is one 1-inch water and one 4-inch sewer service that serves the subject 213 Pine St
building, currently occupied by Hammers Hair Lounge and the 211 Pine Street building
currently occupied by Belde Chiropractic. With the Rustech Brewery proposal, 3
businesses would be served by one water and sewer service. Currently there are 2 water
meters, one for each current business. It is recommended that a separate water meter be
installed for the Rustech Brewery use.
rd
2. Currently there is one curb stop/water shutoff just north of 3 Street that would shutoff
water for both buildings. There is an additional water shutoff for the 213 Pine Street
building. It is recommended that another water shutoff be installed for the Belde
Chiropractic building in order to isolate the water shutoffs for both buildings.
3. The applicant has indicated that the high strength wastewater from their operations,
consisting of grain material, will not be discharged to the sanitary sewer system, but will
be disposed of offsite. The low strength wastewater, which consists of cleaning and
sanitizing agents, is proposed to be discharged to the sanitary sewer system. Additional
information shall be provided as to the content and concentration of these agents. This
plant operator to
determine if any additional treatment is needed.
4. The applicant shall provide a maintenance agreement demonstrating how the property
owners for 211 and 213 Pine Street will maintain the water and sewer service serving the
Equal Opportunity Employer
wsbeng.com
K:\\010397-000\\Admin\\Docs\\LTR-a-schumann-Rustech 072617.docx
Rustech Brewery
July 26, 2017
Page 2
rd
buildings from the water and sewer mainlines on 3 Street to the buildings. These
service lines are not be owned or maintained by the City per City ordinance.
Please have the applicant provide a written response addressing the comments above. Please give
me a call at 763-271-3236 if you have any questions or comments regarding this letter.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
WSB & Associates, Inc.
Shibani K. Bisson, PE
City Engineer
Enclosure
skb
K:\\010397-000\\Admin\\Docs\\LTR-a-schumann-Rustech 072617.docx
Planning Commission Agenda – 08/01/2017
2F.Public Hearing - Consideration of a request for amendment of the Monticello
Zoning Ordinance for driveway width for single family parcels.
Property:City of Monticello
Planning Case: 2017-030
A.REFERENCE AND BACKROUND
The Planning Commission is asked to consider amending the zoning ordinance as related
to the allowance for maximum width of single-family drivewaysbetween the curb and
the property line of a parcel.
The current ordinance states:
4.8(E)(2)(a)(ii): The maximum driveway width between the public street and the
property line shall not exceed twenty-four (24) feet.
This standard is applicable to all driveways - residential, commercial, industrial and
civic/institutional.
The request to explore whether the driveway width standard should be amended to allow
additional width for residential properties between the curb and property line was
directed to the Planning Commission by the City Council, after hearing from residents of
the Groveland neighborhood and staff that widths varying from the 24’ standard are
becoming a more common request and are being installed (without variance) within the
community.
The 24’ standardhas been in place within the ordinance for a number of years, dating
back to the prior codification of the ordinance. Although the exact rationale for the 24’
standard is unknown, the 24’ width accommodates a two-stall garage designmore
common to home construction in the 1970’s and 80’s, with many two-stall garages
varying in width generally from 20-25 feet.
While the 24’ width may have developed to support a two-stall garage design, the ability
to widen the driveway beginning at the curb or property line has become a common
request for properties with a third-stall design, which is becomingthemore standard
single-family design. A wider driveway width at the curb would allow for maneuvering
of vehicles straight in to the third stall, whether head-in or backing. It also provides
additional area for storage of vehicles, including recreational vehicles.
The current ordinance allows for a driveway design meeting the 24’ standard width from
the curb toproperty line, then widening out to meet a third stall garage, and in some
cases, to the extra space beside the garage allowed by the ordinance. The 24’ maximum
width therefore accommodates the ability for at least two parked vehicles within a
driveway, while providing adequate unpaved open space at the front of the lot for the
needs noted above.
Planning Commission Agenda–08/01/2017
In considering additional width between the property line and curb, it is important to note
that the area for potential widening is located in the boulevard area of the public street
right of way, beyond the individual property line. This area of the right of wayis
important for a variety of reasons. The area is used for winter snow storage, boulevard
green space (including space for planting of the required two boulevard trees), utility
infrastructure,and needed visibility area for the backing of vehicles.
For reference, Monticello’s current zoningordinance requires R-1 and R-2 lots to average
80’ in width and R-A lots 90’ in width. The T-N District, which allows widths as narrow
as 45’, allows a maximum driveway width of 18’, consistent in width from curb to home.
The 24’ maximum width is flexible enough to be used as a standard ontraditional lots,
cul-de-sac lots (which narrow in width as theyapproach the street), and on older city lots,
which may be as narrow as 66’.The standard of 24’ of maximum width for those each of
these types ofproperties is important in providing the aforementioned opportunity for
snow removal and green space.
Allowing additional driveway width will also increase the amount of impervious surface
on a property, which has an impact on the overall stormwater system. Certainly, on a
single-lot basis, the additional square footage of impervious is minimal, but added over a
series of 1000+single-family units throughout the community, the amount of additional
run-off from the increased impervious has a larger impact on the stormwater system.
In addition, the Commission will want to consider that single-family properties are
commonly required to have a 6’ drainage and utility easement along the interior side
property lines. This easement allows for the grading of a drainage swale between homes.
Garages must be set back at least 6’ from the property line, in part to accommodate this
swale.The current ordinance allows paving up to 3’ from the property lineadjacent to
the garage, primarily to allow for the additional extra space where thegarage is setback
further than the required 6’.(Seeattachedexhibits.)If the ordinance were amended to
allow additional driveway width to the curb, drivewayscould be paved to within 3’ of the
property lineall the way to the street, modifying the drainage swale area,and in cases
where driveway areas are side-by-side, allowing a total of only 6’ of green space between
properties in front yard areas.
Examples of various existing scenarios, including those illustrating potential modification
to allow additional width are provided for illustration.
It has been observed both in an aerial analysis and visual inspections by the Building
Department that it is common for driveways to meet the 24’ width at the property line,
then begin to widen prior to the property line. Therefore, if the Planning Commission is
inclined to consider for recommendation allowing additional width between the curb and
property line, staff would offer an alternative which would allow a maximum width of
30’ at the property line, with a taper to meet the 24’maximumat the curb. This change
would accommodate the wider driveway at the property line, while still providing for
Planning Commission Agenda–08/01/2017
open space in the boulevard areafor needed improvements and snow storagenearer the
curb.
Pending the Commission’s recommendation, staff will prepare corresponding ordinance
language.
B.ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS
1.Motion of no action.
2.Motion to recommend amendment to the Monticello Zoning Ordinance to allow
additional width between the driveway and curb for single-family properties in the R-
1, R-2 and R-A zoning districts,at a maximum of 30’at the property line,
maintaining the 24’ maximum width at the curbline.
3.Motion to recommend amendment to the Monticello Zoning Ordinance to allow
additional width between the driveway and curb for single-family properties in the R-
1, R-2 and R-A zoning districts as recommended by the Planning Commission.
4.Motion to table for additional information and study.
C.STAFF RECOMMENDATION
StaffrecommendsAlternate #1,that the ordinance remain at 24’ in maximum driveway
widthfrom curb to property line. Although third-stall garage design may support an
additional width that is “easier” for residents to accomplish backing movements and for
additional storage of vehicles, staff believes the open space in the boulevard area serves a
public purpose.
Staff certainly understands, and receives, the requests for the wider driveways. However,
as noted above, the boulevard area is needed for snow storage for both street and
driveway snow, open green space, boulevard tree area, utility infrastructure, and clear
backing visibility area for vehicles. It also best accommodates a balance between
pavement of open area for the variety of single family lot widths throughout the
community, including cul-de-sac lots and those lots within the original and lower
Monticello plat areas, where lot widths may be as narrow as 66’.
The current ordinance also provides adequate opportunity for storage and parking of
vehicles withinside andrear yards (recreational vehicles may be parked in rear yards)
and additional space alongside driveways, without the expansion of additional pavement
area in the front yard. Further, the 24’ width allows the drainage swales to be maintained
to a greater degree between properties.Finally, the current driveway width can be
applied tothe varying R-1, R-2 and R-A lot types and widths, while still providing
adequate open space in the boulevard area for the noted items.
Planning Commission Agenda–08/01/2017
To take a proactiveapproach to this issue, regardless of the City’s decision on the
ordinance component, the Building Department would recommend an inspection of
driveway width as part of the building inspection process. This allows the department to
work with contractors and property owners at the beginning of the process, rather than
once the driveway is in place.
D.SUPPORTING DATA
A.Ordinance Excerpts
B.Aerial Image Examples
CHAPTER 4: FINISHING STANDARDS
Section 4.8 Off-street Parking
Subsection (E) Standards Applicable to All Uses
(ii) In the case of single family dwellings, parking shall be prohibited in any
portion of the rear yard. In the case where the only attached or detached
garage on a property is located in the rear yard, parking may be allowed
in designated driveways leading directly into a garage, or on one (1) open
surfaced space located on the side of a driveway away from the principal
use as shown in Table 4-9 and Figure 4-11. Said extra space shall be
surfaced as required by Table 4-9 and Figure 4-11.
(iii) In the case of single family dwellings, parking in the side yard shall be
allowed on a surfaced space as shown in Table 4-9 and Figure 4-11.
(f) All parking must occur on a paved surface except as may be permitted by this
ordinance.
(2) Vehicular Use Area Design
(a) Curb Cuts and Access
(i) Each property shall be allowed one (1) curb cut access per one
hundred twenty-five (125) feet of street frontage. All property shall be
entitled to at least one (1) curb cut.
(ii) The maximum driveway width between the public street and the property
line shall not exceed twenty-four (24) feet.
(iii) Within all districts, a five foot radius curb may be constructed at the
public street in addition to the maximum driveway width allowed.
(iv) Driveway access curb openings on a public street except for single, two-
family, and townhouse dwellings shall not be located less than forty (40)
feet from one another.
(v) No curb cut access shall be located less than forty (40) feet from the
intersection of two (2) or more street right-of-ways. This distance shall
be measured from the intersection of lot lines.
(vi) All driveway access openings shall require a culvert unless the lot is
served by storm sewer or is determined unnecessary by the Community
Development Department. Size of culvert shall be determined by the
Community Development Department but shall be a minimum of fifteen
(15) inches in diameter.
(vii) Except for single, two-family, and townhouse residential development
(and as otherwise noted in this ordinance), all open vehicular use areas
shall have a perimeter concrete curb barrier around the entire parking
lot, said curb barrier shall not be closer than six (6) feet to any lot line as
measured from the lot line to the face of the curb.
City of Monticello Zoning Ordinance Page 259
CHAPTER 4: FINISHING STANDARDS
Section 4.8 Off-street Parking
Subsection (F) Standards Applicable to Residential Uses
(7) Permit Required
A permit shall be required for the installation of any surfacing material intended
to be utilized for off-street parking. The fee for an off-street parking permit shall
be set forth in a fee schedule adopted by the City Council. The fee payment shall
accompany the permit application.
(8) Maintenance
It shall be the joint and several responsibility of the lessee and owner of the
principal use, uses, or building to maintain in a neat and adequate manner, the
parking space, accessways striping, landscaping, and required fences.
(F) Standards Applicable to Residential Uses
(1) Location of Required Parking in Residential Areas
(a) For single family and two family dwellings, off-street parking on a paved
driveway within fifteen (15) feet of any street surface shall be allowed as long
as it does not block any public sidewalk or pathway.
(b) In the case of townhouse dwellings, parking shall be prohibited in any portion
of the front yard except designated driveways leading directly into a garage or
one (1) open paved space located on the side of a driveway away from the
principal use. Said extra space shall be surfaced with concrete or bituminous
material. For single family and two-family dwellings, parking shall be
located as found in Table 4-9 and Figure 4-11.
(c) Parking and/or storage of passenger vehicles, recreational vehicles and
equipment, emergency vehicles, and small commercial vehicles shall
conform to the requirements of Table 4-9 and Figure 4-11. For the purposes
of Table 4-9 and Figure 4-11
commer
(d) Under no circumstances shall large commercial vehicles be parked or stored
in residential zoning districts, or on property that is used for residential
purposes.
Page 270 City of Monticello Zoning Ordinance
CHAPTER 4: FINISHING STANDARDS
Section 4.8 Off-street Parking
Subsection (F) Standards Applicable to Residential Uses
TABLE 4-9: TYPE OF REQUIRED BUFFER YARD FOR OFF-STREET PARKING
AREAS IN RESIDENTIAL AREAS
Diagram Small
Area Passenger Recreational Emergency Construction Other
Key Vehicles \[1\] Vehicles \[1\] Vehicles \[1\] Vehicles \[1\] Notes
Driveway leading
One such One such
directly into a garage Any number Any number
A vehicle vehicle
within the front yard (paved) (paved)
(paved) (paved)
of a lot
One One such One
passenger or vehicle, if it is passenger or
Parking space adjacent One such
small the only such small
to the driveway within B vehicle
commercial vehicle within commercial
the front yard of a lot (paved)
vehicle the front yard vehicle
(paved) (surfaced) (paved)
Other portions of the
C No No No No
front yard
Yes, within a Yes within a Yes, within a Yes, within a
space space space space
Side yard, adjacent to consisting of consisting of consisting of consisting of Must maintain minimum
garage side of D the 15 feet the 15 feet the 15 feet the 15 feet 3 foot setback to side lot
structure adjacent to adjacent to adjacent to adjacent to line in all cases
the building the building the building the building
(surfaced) (unsurfaced) (surfaced) (surfaced)
Side yard more than
E No No No No
15 feet from garage
Side yard on opposite
side of house from F No No No No
garage
Yes, within a Yes within a Yes, within a Yes, within a Must maintain minimum
space space space space 3 foot setback to side lot
Side yard on corner consisting of consisting of consisting of consisting of line in all cases. This
lot facing a public G the 15 feet the 15 feet the 15 feet the 15 feet space may encroach to
street adjacent to adjacent to adjacent to adjacent to within 5 feet of the right
the building the building. the building the building of way, provided
(surfaced) (unsurfaced) (surfaced) (surfaced) screening is included.
\[1\] see section 8.4 for definition
City of Monticello Zoning Ordinance Page 271
CHAPTER 4: FINISHING STANDARDS
Section 4.8 Off-street Parking
Subsection (F) Standards Applicable to Residential Uses
Small
Diagram Passenger Recreational Emergency Construction
Area Vehicles Vehicles Vehicles Vehicles Other
Key \[1\] \[1\] \[1\] \[1\] Notes
No current limit to
Yes number of such vehicles
Rear yard H No No No
(unsurfaced) must maintain a 3 foot
setback to lot line
\[1\] see section 8.4 for definition
Figure 4-11
Page 272 City of Monticello Zoning Ordinance
CHAPTER 4: FINISHING STANDARDS
Section 4.8 Off-street Parking
Subsection (F) Standards Applicable to Residential Uses
(2) Vehicular Use Area Design in Residential Areas
(a) Curb Cuts and Access
(i) Single family uses shall be limited to one (1) curb cut access per property.
(ii) Curb cut access shall be at a minimum three (3) feet from the side yard
property line in residential districts.
(b) Surfacing
Paving and surfacing requirements for parking and storage of passenger
vehicles, emergency vehicles, recreational vehicles, and small commercial
vehicles for single and two-family dwellings shall be as found in Table 4-9
and Figure 4-11.
(c) Residential District Garage Requirements
In all residential zoning districts, all detached single family homes and duplex
units shall include development of an attached or detached garage. The
minimum size requirement for the garage floor shall be 450 sq ft with a
minimum garage door opening of 16 ft. with the following exceptions and/or
deviations by district:
(i) R-1 District
An attached garage of at least 550 square feet shall be constructed as part
of any single family home.
(ii) R-A District
1. An attached garage of at least 700 square feet shall be constructed as
part of any single family home.
2. Garage frontage: From side building line to side building line of any
single family structure, no more than 40% of such building width
shall consist of Garage doors that face the street. Side or rear loaded
garages are not subject to this regulation. An exception shall be made
for garage doors that face the street, but are set back at least ten feet
in back of the front building line of the principal use.
3. No portion of any garage space may be more than five feet closer to
the street than the front building line of the principal single family
use.
City of Monticello Zoning Ordinance Page 273
82nd St Ne
July 26, 2017
1 inch = 94 feet
City Boundary
Map Powered by DataLink
from WSB & Associates
Gatewater Dr
July 26, 2017
16.2 Feet
1177..77 fftt
2211..99 fftt
16.7 ft
MpuXjeui(tbsfspvhimz
71(jouijtmpdbujpo
1 inch = 47 feet
City Boundary
Map Powered by DataLink
from WSB & Associates
Hayward Ct N
July 26, 2017
1 inch = 47 feet
City Boundary
Map Powered by DataLink
from WSB & Associates
Innsbrook Ct
July 26, 2017
1 inch = 47 feet
City Boundary
Map Powered by DataLink
from WSB & Associates
Woodside Dr
July 26, 2017
1 inch = 47 feet
City Boundary
Map Powered by DataLink
from WSB & Associates
Planning Commission Agenda –8/01/17
2G.Tabled –Consideration of a Rezoning toPlanned Unit Development District, and
Development StagePlanned Unit Development for Self-Storage Facility in a B-3
(Highway Business) District.Applicant: KB Properties, LLC(NAC)
Property:3936Chelsea RoadWest
Lot 11, Block 4, Groveland Addition
Planning Case Number:2017-022
A.REFERENCE & BACKGROUND
This item was tabled by the Planning Commission from its July meeting. In tabling
action on the request, the Commission requested that the applicant address comments of
the Commission as related to the proposed building materials and elevations, as well as
the comment that it would be preferred that the proposed fence be constructed with the
first phase of the project.
The applicant has provided revised building elevations for the Commission’s
consideration. In addition, the applicant has provided an updated fence detail.
The applicant will be present to discuss the proposed adjustments with the Commission.
The original staff report on the item is provided as a referenceon the full project analysis.
th
Planning Commission will also refer to the draft minutes from the meeting of July 11,
2017for additional information on the item and discussion.
B.ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS
Decision 1: Considerationof a Rezoning from B-3, Highway Business, to Planned
Unit Development (PUD) District, and Development Stage PUD approval,to
accommodate the construction of a self-storage project and associated site
improvements.
1.Motion to adopt Resolution No. PC-2017-018recommending approval of the
Rezoning from B-3, Highway Business, to PUD District, together with a
Development Stage PUD approval, based on the findings in said resolution,
and contingent on compliance with the conditions listed in Exhibit Z.
2.Motion to denyadoption of Resolution No. PC-2017-018, based on findings
identified at the public hearing.
3.Motion to table action on Resolution No. PC-2017-018, pending submission
of additional material from the applicant, public, and/or staff.
1
Planning Commission Agenda –8/01/17
C.STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff continues to recommendAlternative 1, approval of the Rezoning and Development
Stage PUD. The proposed use is quiet, low volume, and compatible with proximity to
residential areas. In addition, the site plan is consistent with the required buffering
between commercial and residential areas, and staff would expect little conflict between
the uses. Further, the applicant had provided revised elevations to better meet the
commercial building materials standards as requested by the Planning Commission.
A final stage application and review by the City Council will be required.
D.SUPPORTING DATA
th
A.Staff Report, July 11, 2017
B.Resolution PC-2017-018
C.Ordinance No. 6XX, Draft
D.Aerial Parcel Image
E.Applicant Narrative
F.Applicant Plan Submittal, including:
a.Project Location Plan
b.Site Plan
c.Grading and Drainage Plan
d.Sanitary and Water Utility Plan
e.Storm Sewer Utility Plan
f.Landscape Plan
g.SWPPP
h.Details
i.Phasing Plan
j.Fire Hydrant Coverage Plan
k.Fire Truck Circulation Plan
l.Lighting/Photometric Plan
m.Building Elevations–REVISED
n.Fence Detail -REVISED
th
G.City Engineer’s Letter, dated July 5, 2017
Z. Conditions of Approval
2
Planning Commission Agenda –8/01/17
EXHIBIT Z
Rezoning to Planned Unit Development
And PUD Development Stage Site Plan Review
Lot11, Block 4, Groveland
1.Redesign of the site planto accommodate 24 feet of width for all drive aisles.
2.Provision for pavement markings and bollards in the center aisle area to ensure protection
of building corners due to the curved aisle design.
3.Alter rock mulch in planting areas along the Chelsea Road pathway to an irregular
material of larger size to avoid spread of the material onto the pathway.
4.Verify transition grading between future and current phase improvements.
5.No outdoor storage will be permitted in the project.
6.No use of the future phase areas until such phase is developed in accordance with the
approved site plan.
7.Provide signage plans in compliance with the Sign Ordinance requirements by separate
permit.
8.Compliance withcomments from the City Engineer in the Engineer’s letter dated July
5th, 2017.
9.Developer shall enter into a development agreement related to the proposed
improvements.
10.Other comments of the Planning Commission and Staff provided at the Public Hearing.
3
CITY OF MONTICELLO
WRIGHT COUNTY, MINNESOTA
PLANNING COMMISSION
RESOLUTION NO. PC-2017-018
RECOMMENDINGAPPROVAL OF AREZONING TO PUD DISTRICT ANDA
DEVELOPMENT STAGE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT FOR
AFFORDABLE STORAGE, A SELF STORAGE FACILITY
LOT 11, BLOCK 4, GROVELAND ADDITION
WHEREAS,the applicant has submitted a request torezoneits property along
Chelsea Road and Innsbruck Drive,Lot 11, Block 4,GrovelandAdditionfrom B-3, General
Business District to PUD, Planned Unit Development District; and
WHEREAS,theapplicant concurrently proposes to develop the property for
commercialself-storage uses;and
WHEREAS, thesite is guided for commercialuses underthe label “Places to Shop”
in the City’s Comprehensive Plan; and
WHEREAS, the proposed PUD,isconsistent with the long-term use and
development of the property for commercialuses;and
WHEREAS,the Planning Commission held a public hearing on July 11, 2017on the
application and the applicant and members of the public were provided the opportunity to
present information to the Planning Commission; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has considered all of the comments and the
staff report, which are incorporated by reference into the resolution; and
WHEREAS,the Planning Commission of the City of Monticello makes the following
Findings of Fact in relation to the recommendation of approval:
1.The PUD providesan appropriate means of furthering the intent of the
Comprehensive Plan for the siteby constructing the proposed buildings for
commercialuse.
2.Theproposedimprovements onthe site under the Development Stage PUD
are consistent with the needs of the PUD in this locationas acommercialarea.
3. The proposed improvements will be compatible in transition between other
commercial uses along Chelsea Road and adjoining residential areas to the
south.
4. The improvements willhaveexpected impacts on public services, including
sewer, water, stormwater treatment, and trafficwhich have been planned to
serve the property for the development as proposed.
5. The PUD flexibility for the project, including a parcel with multiple buildings
on one parcel, is consistent with the intent of the City’s economic
development objectives, as well as with the intent of PUD zoning.
1
CITY OF MONTICELLO
WRIGHT COUNTY, MINNESOTA
PLANNING COMMISSION
RESOLUTION NO. PC-2017-018
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the Planning Commission of the City of
Monticello, Minnesota,that the Planning Commission hereby recommends that the
Monticello City Council approves the Rezoning and Development Stage PUD,subject to the
conditions listed in Exhibit Z as follows:
1.Redesign of the site plan to accommodate 24 feet of width for all drive aisles.
2.Provision for pavement markings and bollards in the center aisle area to ensure
protection of building corners due to the curved aisle design.
3.Alter rock mulch in planting areas along the Chelsea Road pathway to an irregular
materialof larger size to avoid spread of the material onto the pathway.
4.Verify transition grading between future and current phase improvements.
5.No outdoor storage will be permitted in the project.
6.No use of the future phase areas until such phase is developed in accordance with the
approved site plan.
7.Provide signage plans in compliance with the Sign Ordinance requirements by
separate permit.
8.Compliance withcomments from the City Engineer in the Engineer’s letter dated July
5th, 2017.
9.Developer shall enter into a development agreement related to the proposed
improvements.
10.Other comments of the Planning Commission and Staff provided at the Public
Hearing.
ADOPTEDthis11th day of July, 2016,by the Planning Commission of the City of
Monticello,Minnesota.
MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION
By: _______________________________
Brad Fyle, Chair
2
CITY OF MONTICELLO
WRIGHT COUNTY, MINNESOTA
PLANNING COMMISSION
RESOLUTION NO. PC-2017-018
ATTEST:
____________________________________________
Angela Schumann, Community Development Director
3
ORDINANCE NO. 6XX
CITY OF MONTICELLO
WRIGHT COUNTY, MINNESOTA
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 10 OF THE MONTICELLO CITY CODE,
KNOWN AS THE ZONING ORDINANCE, BY ESTABLISHING THE AFFORDABLE
SELF-STORAGE PUDAS A ZONING DISTRICT IN THE CITY OF MONTICELLO,
ANDREZONING THE FOLLOWING PROPERTY FROM B-3,HIGHWAY BUSINESS,
TO AFFORDABLE SELF-STORAGE PUD, PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT:
LOT 11 BLOCK 4,GROVELAND ADDITION
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MONTICELLO HEREBY ORDAINS:
Section 1.Section 2.4(O)–Planned Unit Developments, Title 10 –Zoning Ordinance is
hereby amended by adding the following:
(XX) Affordable Self-Storage PUD District
(a)Purpose. The purpose of the Affordable Self-Storage PUD District is
to provide for the development of certain real estate subject to the
District for commercialland uses.
(b)Permitted Uses. Permitted principal uses in the Affordable Self-
Storage PUD District shall be self-storage uses as found in the B-3,
Highway Business District of the Monticello Zoning Ordinance,
subject to the approved Final Stage Development Plans dated _____,
and development agreement dated ____, 2017, as may be amended.
The introduction of any other use from any district, including
Conditional Uses in the B-3District, shall be reviewed under the
requirements of the Monticello Zoning Ordinance, Chapter 2, Section
(O) –Planned Unit Developments for Development Stage PUD and
Final Stage PUD..
(c)Accessory Uses. Accessory uses shallbe those commonly accessory
and incidental to industrialuses, and as specifically identified by the
approved final stage PUD plans, but shall not include outdoor storage
or other activities.
(d)District Performance Standards. Performance standards for
development in the Affordable Self-Storage PUD District shall adhere
to the approved final stage PUD plans and development agreement. In
such case where any proposed improvement or use is not addressed by
the Final Stage PUD, then the regulations of the B-3,Highway
Business District shall apply.
1
ORDINANCE NO. 6XX
(e)Amendments. Where changes to the PUD are proposed in the manner
of use, density, site plan, development layout, building size, mass, or
coverage, or any other change, the proposer shall apply for an
amendment to the PUD under the terms of the Monticello Zoning
Ordinance, Section 2.4 (O)(10). The City may require that substantial
changes in overall use of the PUD property be processed as a new
project, including a zoning district amendment.
Section 2.The zoning map of the City of Monticello is hereby amendment to rezoned the
following described parcels from B-3, Highway Business District toAffordable
Self-Storage PUD, Planned Unit Development District:
Lot11, Block 4,Groveland Addition to Monticello
Section 3.The City Clerk is hereby directedto mark the official zoning map to reflect this
ordinance. The map shall not be republished at this time.
Section 4.The City Clerk is hereby directed to make the changes required by this Ordinance
as part of the Official Monticello City Code, Title 10, Zoning Ordinance, and to
renumber the tables and chapters accordingly as necessary to provide the intended
effect of this Ordinance. The City Clerk is further directed to make necessary
corrections to any internal citations that result from said renumbering process,
provided that such changes retain the purpose and intent of the Zoning Ordinance
as has been adopted.
Section 5.This Ordinance shall take effect and be in full force from and after its passage
and publication. The ordinance in its entirety and map shall be posted on the
City website after publication.Copies of the complete Ordinance and map are
available online and at Monticello City Hall for examination upon request.
ADOPTED BYthe Monticello City Council this ___ day of ____, 2017.
__________________________________
Brian Stumpf, Mayor
ATTEST:
___________________________________
Jeff O’Neill, Administrator
AYES:
NAYS:
2
SITE DESIGN
CIVIL ENGINEERING
INDEX OF CIVIL SITE DRAWINGS:
SITE
MONTICELLO, MINNESOTA
SITE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT
AFFORDABLE SELF STORAGE
E
E
T
T
I
I
S
S
MINNESOTA
WRIGHT COUNTY
SITE DESIGN
CIVIL ENGINEERING
INDEX OF CIVIL SITE DRAWINGS:
SITE DATA: PARKING DATA: SETBACK:
KEY NOTES:
SITE PLAN NOTES:GENERAL NOTES:
LEGEND:
EXISTING LEGAL DESCRIPTION
SURVEY DATA PROJECT LOCATION
SITE DESIGN
CIVIL ENGINEERING
SITE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT
Affordable Self Storage
INDEX OF CIVIL SITE DRAWINGS:
EXISTING LEGAL DESCRIPTION
SURVEY DATA PROJECT LOCATION
SITE DESIGN
CIVIL ENGINEERING
INDEX OF CIVIL SITE DRAWINGS:
EXISTING LEGAL DESCRIPTION
SURVEY DATA PROJECT LOCATION
SITE DESIGN
CIVIL ENGINEERING
INDEX OF CIVIL SITE DRAWINGS:
POND OUTLET CONTROL STRUCTURE (OCS-1)
EXISTING LEGAL DESCRIPTION
SURVEY DATA PROJECT LOCATION
SITE DESIGN
CIVIL ENGINEERING
INDEX OF CIVIL SITE DRAWINGS:
EXISTING LEGAL DESCRIPTION
SURVEY DATA PROJECT LOCATION
SITE DESIGN
CIVIL ENGINEERING
VEGITATION GROUND COVER SCHEDULE
EROSION CONTROL MAINTENANCE SCHEDULERESPONSIBLE PARTY
INDEX OF CIVIL SITE DRAWINGS:
IMPERVIOUS AND DISTURBANCE AREASEROSION CONTROL QUANTITIES
EROSION CONTROL NOTESEROSION CONTROL INSTALLATION SCHEDULE
POLLUTION PREVENTION NOTES
SWPP NARRATIVERUNOFF ROUTING OFFSITE
EXISTING LEGAL DESCRIPTION
SURVEY DATA PROJECT LOCATION
SITE DESIGN
CIVIL ENGINEERING
INDEX OF CIVIL SITE DRAWINGS:
DEMOLITION NOTES
EXISTING LEGAL DESCRIPTION
SURVEY DATA PROJECT LOCATION
SITE DESIGN
CIVIL ENGINEERING
8" Ø STEEL POST FILLEDWITH CONCRETEPAINTED YELLOWFINISH SURFACE18"Ø CONCRETEFOOTING
3"
2'-0"
W/ 1.5" LETTERS
WHITE ON BLUEBLACK ON WHITEHANDICAP SIGN
FINISH GRADE
THIS SIGN TYP @ EACH3" GALVANIZED STEEL POLE
HANDICAP PARKING SPACE
L
C
18"
1'-0"
18"12"5'
CONCRETE
CONCRETE PAVEMENT - HEAVY DUTY
INDEX OF CIVIL SITE DRAWINGS:
BITUMINOUS PAVEMENT
CONCRETE PAVEMENT - SIDEWALK
CROSS-GUTTER SLOPE DETAIL
SITE DESIGN
CIVIL ENGINEERING
INDEX OF CIVIL SITE DRAWINGS:
EXISTING LEGAL DESCRIPTION
SURVEY DATA PROJECT LOCATION
SITE DESIGN
CIVIL ENGINEERING
EXISTING LEGAL DESCRIPTION
SURVEY DATA PROJECT LOCATION
SITE DESIGN
CIVIL ENGINEERING
EXISTING LEGAL DESCRIPTION
SURVEY DATA PROJECT LOCATION
SITE DESIGN
CIVIL ENGINEERING
EXISTING LEGAL DESCRIPTION
SURVEY DATA PROJECT LOCATION
Tory Williams 2017
Tory Williams 2017
Tory Williams 2017
Tory Williams 2017
Building a legacy ǤƚǒƩ legacy. 701 Xenia Avenue South
Suite 300
Minneapolis, MN 55416
Tel: 763-541-4800
Fax: 763-541-1700
July 5, 2017
Ms. Angela Schumann
Community Development Director
City of Monticello
505 Walnut Street, Suite 1
Monticello, MN 55362
Re: Affordable Self Storage
City Project No. 2017-022
WSB Project No. 010276-000
Dear Ms. Schumann:
We have reviewed the civil plans and drainage analysis received on June 12, 2017 as prepared by
Civil Site Design and offer the following comments.
Grading and Drainage Plan
1. Show the existing private utilities where grading is proposed to occur in the drainage and
utility easement along Chelsea Road. Address any impacts to private utilities.
2. Identify all emergency overflow routes and elevations for the proposed parking lot catch
basin on the grading p below the low building
opening. Clearly define an EOF on the plans. EOF routes are required to be a minimum
width of 5 feet and have 4:1 side slopes. The maximum flow depth in EOFs is required
to be less than one foot as calculated for a 100-year back to back storm event.
3. Grading, drainage and erosion control shall comply
Chapter 4, section 4.10 related to grading, drainage, stormwater management and erosion
control and the Ci- -
Engineering department.
Sanitary and Water Utility Plan
4. The City does not allow plastic (Endopure) watermain services from the main to the
meter. Copper or DIP is acceptable.
5. A gate should be provided in the fence at the hydrant locations off of Chelsea Road for
fire truck hose access.
Equal Opportunity Employer
wsbeng.com
K:\\010276-000\\Admin\\Docs\\LTR-a-schumann-Affordable Storage 070517.docx
July 5, 2017
Page 2
6.A note should be added to the plans that the City will not be responsible for any
additional costs incurred that is associated with variations in the utility as-built
elevations. These items shall be verified in the field prior to construction.
7. A utility excavation permit must be obtained from the Public Works department prior to
commencement of utility connections.
8. Provide an as-built utility plan once construction is complete.
Stormsewer Utility Plan
9. The minimum storm sewer pipe size shall be 15-inch per City Design Manual.
10. Roof drainage and downspout locations should be shown on the drainage maps and plan
set.
11. Riprap protection is required at all inlet pipes into ponds from the NWL to the bottom.
12. All outlet structures to ponds include a skimming device. Skimming is not provided at
the outlet of the ponds.
Stormwater Management
13. Provide rational method calculations confirming adequacy of the storm sewer design for
the 10-year storm event. Calculations should adhere to the following guidelines:
The rational method runoff coefficient (c) is designated by land use and
should be assigned a value no less than 0.7.
Minimum allowable velocity in closed conduit = 3.0 fps
Maximum allowable velocity in closed conduit = 12.0 fps
Discharge velocity into a pond at the outlet elevation is required to be 6.0 fps
or less.
14. The proposed stormwater management includes rate control at the downstream regional
pond north of Chelsea Road. Water quality/volume reduction is proposed through on site
infiltration practices.
15. The stormwater report, model and drainage maps show that of the 198,100 acres of new
impervious area only 139,655 square feet is routed to the infiltration system. Therefore,
the infiltration system was designed to treat 12,802 cubic feet of runoff. (Applying 1.1
inches over this area results in a volume of 12,802 cubic feet). There is 83,257 square
feet of new imperious area (from S3 and S4) that leaves the site with no volume reduction
or water quality benefit. This area should be routed to the infiltration basins and the
HydroCAD model should be updated.
16. Depth to groundwater and bedrock must be confirmed in the proposed infiltration areas to
ensure infiltration is not being proposed within 3 feet of the seasonally high water table
or bedrock. This information should be obtained from a soil boring investigation. Soil
K:\\010276-000\\Admin\\Docs\\LTR-a-schumann-Affordable Storage 070517.docx
July 5, 2017
Page 3
classifications from the investigation can be used for preliminary design purposes. Soil
borings should extend to a minimum of 5 feet below the bottom of the infiltration
practice. The lowest (i.e. most restrictive) infiltration rate within 5 feet shall be used for
design purposes.
17. Soils that have infiltration rates more than 8.3 inches per hour must be amended to slow
the infiltration rate below 8.3 inches per hour, per the CSWGP. The CSWGP does allow
for the local unit of government (the City) flexibility with this rate criteria.
18. The rainfall depths were slightly different than the values shown on the checklist. The
d HWL was
slightly higher.
19. The existing conditions scenario is inaccurate and does not represent the current site
conditions which is primarily pervious. The stormwater report indicates that the site is
currently mostly pervious with a small area of impervious surface. This is not shown in
the drainage area map/model. The narrative describes the site as having 6.15 acres of
impervious/grass area and 0.13 acres of impervious surface. Assuming A soils for the
site this results in a composite CN value of 40 for existing conditions. A CN value of 80
was modeled for existing conditions, however this is only for a fully developed scenario.
The CSWMP models fully developed conditions, and should not to be confused with
existing conditions. Comparing existing and proposed discharge rates is not relevant or
accurate for this project as rate control is provided at the regional City pond. The
stormwater report narrative should be corrected to reflect this.
20. The rainfall depths were slightly different than the values shown on the checklist. The
slightly higher. Future submittals should include the correct values.
21. A stormwater maintenance agreement will be required. A template will be provided to the
applicant.
SWPPP
22.
23. Erosion control blankets are required for all areas with slopes greater than or equal to 3:1.
24. An NPDES/SDS Construction Storm Water General Permit (CSWGP) shall be provided
with the grading permit or with the building permit application for review, prior to
construction commencing.
Details
K:\\010276-000\\Admin\\Docs\\LTR-a-schumann-Affordable Storage 070517.docx
July 5, 2017
Page 4
25.2017 General Specifications and
Standard Detail Plates for -
Engineering department.
Phasing Plan
26. The phasing plan should identify under which phase the grading and utility work will
occur.
Please have the applicant provide a written response addressing the comments above. Please
give me a call at 763-271-3236 if you have any questions or comments regarding this letter.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
WSB & Associates, Inc.
Shibani K. Bisson, PE
City Engineer
cc: Steve Grittman, NAC
Enclosure
skb
K:\\010276-000\\Admin\\Docs\\LTR-a-schumann-Affordable Storage 070517.docx
PlanningCommissionAgenda:08/01/17
3A.Considerationofareportonpurchaseagreementfor220WestBroadwayStreetfor
consistencywiththeCityofMonticelloComprehensivePlan.(AS)
A.REFERENCEANDBACKGROUND:
ThePlanningCommissionisaskedtoconsiderarecommendationfindingthatthe
acquisitionof220WestBroadwayStreetbytheCityofMonticelloEconomic
DevelopmentAuthorityisinconformancetotheCity’sComprehensivePlan.Theparcel
isavacantpropertylocatedalongBroadwayStreetandisbeingacquiredtosupport
additionalgreenspaceandpotentialparkingoptionsforthedowntown.
Theparcelisguided“Downtown”withintheMonticelloComprehensivePlan.The
ComprehensivePlanconsiderstheDowntowndesignationasalandusewhichisintended
to“beamixofinter-relatedandmutuallysupportivelanduses”.ThePlan’sobjectives
forDowntownspecificallycitetheneedforconnectivitybetweenlandusesandtheneed
toprovidebothadequatesupplyandadequateaccesstoparking.Inaddition,thedraft
DowntownSmallAreaStudyfurtherrecognizesthesmallvacantparcelsalongBroadway
asspecificopportunitiestoprovidestheseneededlinkages,andinaddition,asan
opportunityforgreenspacealongthedowntowncorridors.
Assuch,theEDAhasmovedtopurchasethepropertyasameanstofacilitatetheCity’s
largereffortstosupportreinvestmentandredevelopmentinthedowntownbyproviding
landareaforconnectionintoexistingparkingareas,thepotentialforexpansionofpublic
parkingifneededtosupportneworredevelopmentinthearea,andtheopportunityfor
“parklet”spaceasenvisionedbythedraftDowntownSmallAreaStudy.
B.ALTERNATIVEACTIONS:
1.MotiontofindthattheproposedacquisitionofcertainlandbytheCityof
MonticelloEconomicDevelopmentAuthorityforDowntownisconsistentwith
theCityofMonticelloComprehensivePlan.
2.Motionofother.
C.STAFFRECOMMENDATION:
CitystaffsupportsAlternative#1above.AcquisitionofthispropertybytheEDA
providesadditionallandandflexibilitytosupporttheCity’seconomicdevelopment
objectivesforrevitalizationofthedowntowninconcerttheboththecurrent
ComprehensivePlan,aswellasthedraftSmallAreaPlanforthedowntown.
D.SUPPORTINGDATA:
A.AerialImage
B.MonticelloComprehensivePlan,Chapter3–LandUse,Excerpts
C.DraftDowntownSmallAreaPlan,Excerpts
1
Qsfqbsfe!gps;!Uif!Djuz!pg!Npoujdfmmp Qsfqbsfe!cz;Dvojohibn!Hspvq!Bsdijufduvsf-!Jod/
Djuz!pg!Npoujdfmmp!Tnbmm!Bsfb!Qmbo Npoujdfmmp-!NO Esbgu!Sfqpsu!bt!pg!Kvof!32-!3128!!!!!Qsfqbsfe!gps;!Uif!Djuz!pg!Npoujdfmmp Qsfqbsfe!cz;Dvojohibn!Hspvq!Bsdijufduvsf-!Jod/
pg!nbovgbduvsjoh-!qspdfttjoh-!xbsfipvtjoh-!
ejtusjcvujpo!boe!sfmbufe!cvtjofttft/!
6/!Qmbdft!up!Xpsl!nbz!jodmvef!opo.joevtusjbm!
cvtjofttft!uibu!qspwjef!ofdfttbsz!tvqqpsu!up!uif!
voefsmzjoh!efwfmpqnfou!pckfdujwft!pg!uijt!mboe!vtf/!!
Fybnqmft!pg!tvqqpsujoh!mboe!vtft!jodmvef!mpehjoh-!
Beejujpobm!qvcmjd!pckfdujwft!boe!tusbufhjft!gps!Qmbdft!
up!Xpsl!dbo!cf!gpvoe!jo!uif!Fdpopnjd!Efwfmpqnfou!
dibqufs/
Qmbdft!up!Tipq
Uif!Dpnqsfifotjwf!Qmbo!eftdsjcft!jttvft-!qmbot!boe!qpmjdjft!sfmbufe!up!uif!Epxoupxo!jo!tfwfsbm!tfdujpot!
pg!uif!Qmbo/
Qmbdft!up!Tipq!eftjhobuf!mpdbujpot!uibu!bsf!ps!dbo!cf!
efwfmpqfe!xjui!cvtjofttft!jowpmwfe!xjui!uif!tbmf!pg!
cfuxffo!uif!dpnnfsdjbm!qbsdfm!boe!bekbdfou!
sftjefoujbm!vtft/
gps!tfswjdf!cvtjofttft/!!Qmbdft!up!Tipq!hvjeft!mboe!vtft!
uibu!bsf!cpui!mpdbm!boe!sfhjpobm!jo!obuvsf/!!
Qmbdft!up!Tipq!jo!b!nboofs!uibu!foibodft!Npoujdfmmp/
Qpmjdjft!.!Qmbdft!up!Tipq
Jo!hvjejoh!mboe!vtft!gps!Qmbdft!up!Tipq-!uif!
Epxoupxo
Dpnqsfifotjwf!Qmbo!tfflt!up;
Dpvodjm!sftpmvujpo!3123.122!po!Kbovbsz!:-!3123!
2/!
boe!jt!ifsfjo!jodpsqpsbufe!bt!bo!bqqfoejy!pg!uif!
cvtjofttft!uibu!qspwjef!hppet!boe!tfswjdft!offefe!
cz!Npoujdfmmp!sftjefout/Dpnqsfifotjwf!Qmbo/
3/!Uif!Dpnqsfifotjwf!Qmbo!tfflt!up!dbquvsf!uif!
Epxoupxo!jt!b!vojrvf!dpnnfsdjbm!ejtusjdu!uibu!jt!qbsu!
pqqpsuvojuz!gps!dpnnfsdjbm!efwfmpqnfou!uibu!
pg!Npoujdfmmpt!ifsjubhf!boe!jefoujuz/!!Ju!jt-!ipxfwfs-!
tfswft!b!cspbefs!sfhjpo/!Qmbdft!up!Tipq!xjui!b!
op!mpohfs!qpttjcmf!gps!Epxoupxo!up!cf!Npoujdfmmpt!
sfhjpobm!psjfoubujpo!tipvme!cf!mpdbufe!xifsf!
uif!usbggjd!epft!opu!ejtbewboubhf!usbwfm!xjuijo!
gvuvsf!dpnnfsdjbm!efwfmpqnfou!tpvui!pg!Joufstubuf!:5!
Npoujdfmmp/!
bmpoh!UI!36!boe!jo!fbtu!Npoujdfmmp!bmpoh!joufstubuf!:5!
4/!Dpnnfsdjbm!efwfmpqnfou!xjmm!cf!vtfe!up!fyqboe!
ibwf!sfqmbdfe!uif!epxoupxo!bsfb!bt!qsjnbsz!tipqqjoh!
boe!ejwfstjgz!uif!mpdbm!qspqfsuz!uby!cbtf!boe!bt!bo!
fmfnfou!pg!b!ejwfstf!tvqqmz!pg!mpdbm!kpct/
up!cf!b!qmbdf!vomjlf!boz!puifs!jo!Npoujdfmmp/
5/!Qmbdft!up!Tipq!xjmm!cf!mpdbufe!po!qspqfsuz!xjui!
bddftt!up!uif!tusffu!dbqbdjuz!offefe!up!tvqqpsu!
Hvjejoh!Qsjodjqmft!boe!Hpbmt!eftdsjcfe!jo!uif!!
Fncsbdjoh!Epxoupxo!Qmbo/!!Epxoupxo!jt!joufoefe!
6/!Fbdi!qbsdfm!tipvme!tvqqmz!bo!befrvbuf!tvqqmz!pg!
up!cf!b!njy!pg!joufs.sfmbufe!boe!nvuvbmmz!tvqqpsujwf!
qbsljoh!uibu!nblft!ju!dpowfojfou!up!pcubjo!uif!
mboe!vtft/!!Cvtjofttft!jowpmwfe!xjui!uif!tbmf!pg!hppet!
hppet!boe!tfswjdft/
boe!tfswjdft!tipvme!cf!uif!gpdvt!pg!Epxoupxo!mboe!
7/!Cvjmejoh!nbufsjbmt-!gbdbeft!boe!tjhobhf!tipvme!
vtf/!!Sftjefoujbm!efwfmpqnfou!gbdjmjubuft!sfjowftunfou!
dpncjof!xjui!qvcmjd!jnqspwfnfout!up!dsfbuf!bo!
boe!qmbdft!qpufoujbm!dvtupnfst!jo!uif!Epxoupxo!bsfb/!!
buusbdujwf!tfuujoh/
Djwjd!vtft!esbx!jo!qfpqmf!gspn!bdsptt!uif!dpnnvojuz/
8/!
fehft!boe!qspwjejoh!cvggfsjoh!ps!tfqbsbujpo!
3119!Dpnqsfifotjwf!Qmbo!!Vqebufe!3125Mboe!Vtf!!}!!4.24
Evsjoh!uif!qmboojoh!qspdftt-!uif!qpufoujbm!gps!3/!Epxoupxo!jt!joufoefe!up!cf!bo!joufs.dpoofdufe!
bmmpxjoh!dpnnfsdjbm!bdujwjuz!up!fyufoe!fbtufsmz!pvu!pg!
gvodujpo!pg!Epxoupxo!jt!bt!b!dpnnfsdjbm!ejtusjdu/!!
Puifs!mboe!vtft!tipvme!tvqqpsu!boe!foibodf!uif!
pwfsbmm!pckfdujwft!gps!Epxoupxo/
bt!uif!fbtufso!fehf!pg!Epxoupxo!gps!uxp!cbtjd!sfbtpot;!
)2*!Epxoupxo!tipvme!cf!tvddfttgvm!boe!tvtubjobcmf!
4/!Uif!Djuz!xjmm!cvjme!po!dpsf!bttfut!pg!hsfbufs!
Epxoupxo!Npoujdfmmp!bt!jefoujgjfe!jo!uif!
cfgpsf!ofx!bsfbt!pg!dpnqfujujpo!bsf!dsfbufe<!boe!
Fncsbdjoh!Epxoupxo!Qmbo/!
foibodf!uif!joufhsjuz!pg!sftjefoujbm!ofjhicpsippet!
5/!B!tibsfe!wjtjpo!bnpoh!qspqfsuz!pxofst-!cvtjoftt!
fbtu!pg!Epxoupxo/
ufbn!xpsl!boe!mpoh!ufsn!tvddftt/!
Npsf!uibo!boz!puifs!mboe!vtf!dbufhpsz-!Epxoupxo!ibt!
6/!B!tibsfe!voefstuboejoh!pg!sfbmjtujd!nbslfu!qpufoujbm!
tuspoh!dpoofdujpot!up!puifs!qbsut!pg!uif!Dpnqsfifotjwf!
jt!uif!gpvoebujpo!gps!eftjho!boe!hfofsbujpo!pg!b!
ifbmuiz!cvtjoftt!njy/!
Epxoupxo!Qmbo!bt!jut!hvjejoh!qmboojoh!epdvnfou!
gps!uif!Epxoupxo/!Uif!gpmmpxjoh!qbsut!pg!uif!
7/!B!tbgf-!buusbdujwf!ivnbo!tdbmf!fowjsponfou!boe!
Dpnqsfifotjwf!Qmbo!bmtp!beesftt!dpnnvojuz!eftjsft!
fousfqsfofvsjbm!cvtjofttft!uibu!bdujwfmz!fnqibtj{f!
boe!qmbot!gps!uif!Epxoupxo!bsfb;
qfstpobm!dvtupnfs!tfswjdf!xjmm!ejggfsfoujbuf!
Epxoupxo!gspn!puifs!tipqqjoh!ejtusjdut/!
!
8/!Qspqfsuz!wbmvft!dbo!cf!foibodfe!jg!qspqfsuz!
pxofst!boe!uif!Djuz!tibsf!b!wjtjpo!gps!Epxoupxo!
npsf!efubjmfe!ejtdvttjpo!pg!uif!jttvft!gbdjoh!uif!
boe!bdujwfmz!tffl!up!dvmujwbuf!b!tbgf-!bqqfbmjoh!
Epxoupxo!boe!qpufoujbm!qvcmjd!bdujpot!offefe!up!
beesftt!uiftf!jttvft/
fowjsponfou!boe!buusbdujwf!cvtjoftt!njy/!!
!
9/!Ipvtjoh!jo!uif!Epxoupxo!dbo!gbdjmjubuf!ofdfttbsz!
gbdups!gps!uif!gvuvsf!pg!Epxoupxo/!!Uif!
sfefwfmpqnfou!boe!csjoh!qpufoujbm!dvtupnfst!
Usbotqpsubujpo!dibqufs!pg!uif!Dpnqsfifotjwf!Qmbo!
ejsfdumz!joup!uif!bsfb/!!Ipvtjoh!nbz!cf!gsff.
boe!uif!Usbotqpsubujpo!dibqufs!pg!uif!Fncsbdjoh!
tuboejoh!ps!jo!tibsfe!cvjmejoht!xjui!tusffu!mfwfm!
dpnnfsdjbm!vtft/
usbwfm!up!Epxoupxo!boe!uif!pqujpot!gps!njujhbujoh!
:/!Epxoupxo!jt!uif!djwjd!dfoufs!pg!Npoujdfmmp/!!Up!
uif!efhsff!qpttjcmf-!vojrvf!qvcmjd!gbdjmjujft!)tvdi!
Epxoupxo!tusffut/
bt!uif!Dpnnvojuz!Dfoufs-!uif!Mjcsbsz!boe!uif!Qptu!
!Uif!Qbslt!dibqufs!pg!uif!Dpnqsfifotjwf!Qmbo!
qspwjeft!gps!qbslt!jo!uif!Epxoupxo!boe!uif!usbjm!
b!nfbot!up!csjoh!qfpqmf!joup!uif!Epxoupxo/
tztufnt!uibu!bmmpx!qfpqmf!up!sfbdi!Epxoupxo!po!
21/!Epxoupxo!tipvme!fnqibtj{f!dpoofdujpot!xjui!
gppu!ps!cjdzdmf/
uif!Njttjttjqqj!Sjwfs!uibu!bsf!bddfttjcmf!cz!uif!
!Uif!Fdpopnjd!Efwfmpqnfou!dibqufs!pg!
qvcmjd/!
uif!Dpnqsfifotjwf!Qmbo!boe!uif!Gjobodjbm!
22/!Epxoupxo!tipvme!cf!b!qfeftusjbo.psjfoufe!qmbdf!
Jnqmfnfoubujpo!dibqufs!pg!uif!Fncsbdjoh!
jo!b!nboofs!uibu!dboopu!cf!nbudife!cz!puifs!
Epxoupxo!Qmbo!mbz!uif!gpvoebujpo!gps!qvcmjd!
dpnnfsdjbm!ejtusjdut/
bdujpot!boe!jowftunfout!uibu!xjmm!cf!offefe!up!
23/!Epxoupxo!tipvme!ibwf!bo!befrvbuf!tvqqmz!pg!gsff!
bdijfwf!uif!eftjsfe!pvudpnft/
qbsljoh!gps!dvtupnfst!ejtusjcvufe!uispvhipvu!uif!
bsfb/
Qpmjdjft0Hvjejoh!Qsjodjqmft!!Epxoupxo
24/!Uif!Djuz!boe!cvtjoftt!dpnnvojuz!nvtu!xpsl!
2/!Epxoupxo!jt!b!tqfdjbm!boe!vojrvf!qbsu!pg!
bdujwfmz!xjui!NoEPU!up!fotvsf!tbgf!mpdbm!bddftt!
Npoujdfmmp/!!Ju!nfsjut!qbsujdvmbs!buufoujpo!jo!uif!
up!cvtjoftt!ejtusjdut/!
dpnnvojuz!qmbot!boe!pckfdujwft/!
4.25!!}!!Mboe!VtfDjuz!pg!Npoujdfmmp
Bmm!pg!uiftf!qpmjdjft!xpsl!uphfuifs!up!buusbdu!qfpqmf!up!dibsbdufs!boe!tjuf!eftjho!tipvme!cf!dpnqbujcmf!xjui!
uif!bekbdfou!sftjefoujbm!ofjhicpsippet/
Epxoupxo!boe!up!foibodf!uif!qpufoujbm!gps!b!tvddfttgvm!
cvtjoftt!fowjsponfou/!!
4/!Bmm!opo.sftjefoujbm!efwfmpqnfou!xjmm!cf!psjfoufe!
up!Cspbexbz!Tusffu!boe!opu!up!4se!Tusffu!ps!Sjwfs!
Bnfoenfou!up!Dpnqsfifotjwf!Qmbo02::8!Epxoupxo!
Tusffu/
Sfwjubmj{bujpo!Qmbo
5/!Dpnnfsdjbm!efwfmpqnfou!dpnqbujcmf!xjui!uif!
Sftpmvujpo!3121.15:-!bepqufe!8023021;
Epxoupxo!tipvme!cf!fodpvsbhfe!up!mpdbuf!uifsf/
Bu!uif!joufstfdujpo!pg!Cspbexbz!boe!Qjof!Tusffut-!
6/!Npsf!joufotf!ipvtjoh!boe!dpnnfsdjbm!vtft!nbz!cf!
qbsljoh!mput!nbz!cf!dpotusvdufe!pomz!xifo!bmm!pg!uif!
bmmpxfe!jg!ejsfdumz!sfmbufe!up!uif!iptqjubm/
gpmmpxjoh!dpoejujpot!fyjtu;
Qmbdft!up!Sfdsfbuf
!
Qmbdft!up!Sfdsfbuf!dpotjtu!pg!qvcmjd!qbslt!boe!qsjwbuf!
mjnju!uif!bcjmjuz!up!dpnqmz!xjui!cvjmejoh!mpdbujpo!
sfdsfbujpo!gbdjmjujft/!!Uif!mboe!vtft!bsf!fttfoujbm!
tuboebset!pg!uijt!Qmbo/
!
boe!Usbjmt!dibqufs!pg!uif!Dpnqsfifotjwf!Qmbo!eftdsjcft!
ps!Qjof!Tusffu!gspoubhf!jt!pddvqjfe!cz!b!cvjmejoh!
uif!dvssfou!qbsl!boe!usbjm!tztufn!boe!uif!gvuvsf!qmbo!
)opo.qbsljoh!bsfb*/
up!nbjoubjo!boe!foibodf!uijt!tztufn/
!Bo!bmufsobujwf!wfsujdbm!fmfnfou!jt!mpdbufe!bu!uif!
uif!mboe!vtf!gps!qvcmjd!qbslt!boe!qsjwbuf!sfdsfbujpo!
dpnqbujcmf!dpsofs!qsftfodf/!Tvdi!fmfnfout!
nbz!jodmvef-!cvu!opu!cf!mjnjufe!up!qvcmjd!bsu-!
mpdbujpot!joup!b!{pojoh!ejtusjdu/!!Pgufo-!uif!qvsqptf!
joufsqsfujwf!tjhobhf-!bsdijufduvsbm!cvtjoftt!tjhot-!
pg!uif!{pojoh!ejtusjdu!jt!up!hvjef!qsjwbuf!efwfmpqnfou-!
boe!bsdijufduvsbmmz!bqqspqsjbuf!mjhiujoh/!!
tvdi!bt!ipvtjoh/!!Voefs!dvssfou!Tubuf!Mbx-!{pojoh!
sfhvmbujpot!usvnq!uif!Mboe!Vtf!Qmbo!boe!hpwfso!uif!
Njyfe!Vtf
vtf!pg!mboe/!!Xjui!uif!qpufoujbm!gps!uif!sfefwfmpqnfou!
Uif!Njyfe!Vtf!jt!b!usbotjujpo!bsfb!cfuxffo!uif!
pg!hpmg!dpvstft-!ju!jt!jnqpsubou!uif!Dpnqsfifotjwf!Qmbo!
Epxoupxo!boe!uif!iptqjubm!dbnqvt/!!Ju!ibt!cffo!
boe!puifs!mboe!vtf!dpouspmt!xpsl!jo!dpodfsu!up!bdijfwf!
dsfbufe!jo!sfdphojujpo!pg!uif!vojrvf!obuvsf!pg!uijt!bsfb/!!
uif!eftjsfe!pvudpnft/
mpoh.ufsn!sftjefoujbm!ofjhicpsippet!boe!b!nbkps!
Uif!Djuzt!qmbot!boe!qpmjdjft!gps!qbslt-!usbjmt!boe!
usbotqpsubujpo!dpssjeps!)Cspbexbz!Tusffu*/!!Ju!jt!bmtp!b!
pqfo!tqbdf!dbo!cf!gpvoe!jo!uif!Qbslt!dibqufs!pg!uif!
mjol!cfuxffo!uif!Epxoupxo-!uif!iptqjubm!dbnqvt!boe!
Dpnqsfifotjwf!Qmbo
uif!fbtu!joufsdibohf!sfubjm!bsfb/!!
Qmbdft!gps!Dpnnvojuz
Qmbdft!gps!Dpnnvojuz!dpotjtu!pg!qvcmjd!boe!tfnj.
foibodf!ipvtjoh!jo!uijt!qbsu!pg!Npoujdfmmp/!!Boz!
qvcmjd!mboe!vtft/!!Qvcmjd!vtft!jodmvef!bmm!hpwfsonfoubm!
opo.sftjefoujbm!efwfmpqnfou!tipvme!cf!eftjhofe!up!
gbdjmjujft!)djuz-!dpvouz-!tubuf!boe!gfefsbm*!boe!tdippmt/!!
ofjhicpsippet/!!
iptqjubmt-!boe!puifs!jotujuvujpobm!vtft/
Qpmjdjft!.!Njyfe!Vtf
Ju!jt!jnqpsubou!up!opuf!uibu!uiftf!mboe!vtft!sfmbuf!pomz!
2/!Efwfmpqnfou!tipvme!opu!ibwf!ejsfdu!bddftt!up!
Cspbexbz!tusffu/!!Bddftt!tipvme!dpnf!gspn!tjef!
opu!hvjef!uif!mpdbujpo!pg!ofx!divsdift-!tdippmt-!qvcmjd!
tusffu/
cvjmejoht!boe!puifs!jotujuvujpobm!mboe!vtft/!!Qmbdft!gps!
3/!Opo.sftjefoujbm!efwfmpqnfou!tipvme!cf!mjnjufe!up!
3119!Dpnqsfifotjwf!Qmbo!!Vqebufe!3125Mboe!Vtf!!}!!4.26
!Fyfdvujwf!Tvnnbsz
!Cjh!cpy!boe!sfubjm!efwfmpqnfou!dpoujovf!up!pddvs!
Sfdsfbuf!cbtfe!po!uif!dpoujovfe!vtf!bt!b!hpmg!dpvstf/!!
ejsfdumz!dpnqfuf!xjui!uif!Epxoupxo!boe!buusbdu!
tnbmmfs!cvtjofttft!)uibu!njhiu!puifsxjtf!dpotjefs!
boe!Dpnqsfifotjwf!Qmbo!bnfoenfou!gps!sftjefoujbm!
b!Epxoupxo!mpdbujpo*!up!bekbdfou!qbsdfmt/
efwfmpqnfou/!!Ju!jt!mjlfmz-!ipxfwfs-!uibu!uijt!tdbmf!pg!ofx!
efwfmpqnfou!xjmm!sfrvjsf!uif!bddftt!qspwjefe!cz!b!ofx!
Epxoupxo!Hpbmt
Hjwfo!dvssfou!qmbot!boe!dpoejujpot-!uif!Fncsbdjoh!
Epxoupxo!Qmbo!boe!uif!Dpnqsfifotjwf!Qmbo!
pg!puifs!jogsbtusvduvsf!jowftunfout!cfgpsf!fyufoejoh!
sfdpnnfoet!uif!gpmmpxjoh!hpbmt!gps!Epxoupxo/!
vujmjujft!gps!sfefwfmpqnfou!pg!uif!hpmg!dpvstf/
Dpodfqut!gps!Epxoupxo!sfefwfmpqnfou!tipvme!
Epxoupxo!Gpdvt!Bsfb
jo!uif!sftfbsdi!boe!bobmztjt!pg!Epxoupxo!dpoejujpot!
uibu!bsf!ejsfdufe!cz!uif!tubufe!hpbmt!gps!Mboe!Vtf-!
Dpvodjm!sftpmvujpo!3123.122!po!Kbovbsz!:-!3123!
boe!jt!ifsfjo!jodpsqpsbufe!bt!bo!bqqfoejy!pg!uif!
tpmvujpot!tipvme!cf!uiptf!uibu!cftu!nffu!uiftf!hpbmt/!
Dpnqsfifotjwf!Qmbo/!
Mboe!Vtf
Epxoupxo!Npoujdfmmp!offet!tqfdjbm!buufoujpo!
!Ejwfstjgz!mboe!vtf!jo!uif!Epxoupxo<!tvqqmfnfou!
jo!uif!Dpnqsfifotjwf!Qmbo/!!Gpmmpxjoh!uif!3119!
sfubjm!boe!tfswjdf!vtft!xjui!puifs!bdujwjujft!uibu!
Dpnqsfifotjwf!Qmbo!vqebuf-!uif!dpnnvojuz!voefsuppl!
!Fodpvsbhf!sfefwfmpqnfou!pg!pme!boe!pctpmfuf!
tusvduvsft<!fodpvsbhf!dpotpmjebujpo!pg!tnbmm!
fnqibtj{ft!uif!jnqpsubodf!uibu!uif!dpnnvojuz!qmbdft!
qbsdfmt!xjui!nvmujqmf!pxofstijqt/!
!Cbmbodf!qbsljoh!boe!mboe!vtf!up!fotvsf!bwbjmbcjmjuz!
sfmjft!po!uif!Fncsbdjoh!Epxoupxo!Qmbo!bt!b!hvjef!gps!
pg!befrvbuf!qbsljoh!bu!bmm!ujnft/!
qvcmjd!boe!qsjwbuf!bdujpot!jo!uif!Epxoupxo!bsfb/
!Fodpvsbhf!njyfe!vtf!cvu!ep!opu!nblf!ju!b!
Sfwjubmj{joh!boe!tvtubjojoh!Epxoupxo!Npoujdfmmp!
sfrvjsfnfou!ps!qsfsfrvjtjuf!gps!efwfmpqnfou!ps!
sfefwfmpqnfou/!
qspqfsuz!pxofst!boe!puifs!tublfipmefst/!!Qmboojoh!
!Ejtdpvsbhf!sftjefoujbm!bt!b!gsff.tuboejoh!mboe!vtf!
gps!uif!gvuvsf!pg!uif!Epxoupxo!nvtu!sfdphoj{f!uif!
xjuijo!uif!dpsf!epxoupxo!bsfb/
qsbdujdbm!sfbmjujft!gbdjoh!dpnnfsdjbm!efwfmpqnfou!jo!
!Ftubcmjti!qiztjdbm!dpoofdujpot!cfuxffo!uif!dpsf!
Epxoupxo;
Epxoupxo!bsfb!boe!uif!sjwfsgspou!boe!qbsl/
!
!Fodpvsbhf!mboe!vtft!uibu!tfswf!bt!fwfojoh!boe!
xfflfoe!buusbdujpot!up!uif!Epxoupxo!bsfb/
bddftt!gspn!uif!Ijhixbz!up!bekbdfou!qspqfsujft/
!Fyqboe!gbdjmjujft!boe!qbsljoh!bekbdfou!up!Xftu!
!
Csjehf!Qbsl!up!ifmq!dsfbuf!bo!bodips!buusbdujpo!bu!
jodsfbtf/!!Hsfbufs!wpmvnft!boe!dpohftujpo!bdu!bt!bo!
uif!opsui!foe!pg!Xbmovu!Tusffu/!
jnqfejnfou!gps!qfpqmf!mjwjoh!tpvui!pg!J.:5!dpnjoh!
Usbotqpsubujpo
up!Epxoupxo/
!Bdlopxmfehf!uibu!Ijhixbz!36!xjmm!cf!mjnjufe!jo!
!
ufsnt!pg!qspwjejoh!ejsfdu!qspqfsuz!bddftt/
!Efwfmpq!djsdvmbujpo!qbuufsot!uibu!vujmj{f!mpdbm!
wpmvnft!nblf!qfeftusjbo!dpoofdujpot!cfuxffo!
tusffut!gps!joejwjevbm!tjuf!bddftt/
Epxoupxo!boe!sftjefoujbm!bsfbt!up!uif!fbtu!wfsz!
4.31!!}!!Mboe!VtfDjuz!pg!Npoujdfmmp
Gjhvsf!4.23;!Gsbnfxpsl!Qmbo!gspn!uif!Fncsbdjoh!Epxoupxo!Qmbo
3119!Dpnqsfifotjwf!Qmbo!!Vqebufe!3125Mboe!Vtf!!}!!4.32
!Sfdphoj{f!Ijhixbz!36!bt!b!cbssjfs!cfuxffo!uif!fbtu!
boe!xftu!qbsut!pg!uif!ijtupsjd!Epxoupxo!dpsf!bsfbt!
fyufoejoh!up!fjuifs!tjef!pg!uif!Ijhixbz!36!dpssjeps/
!Dpotjefs!efwfmpqjoh!jo!ejtusjdut!up!sfevdf!uif!offe!
ps!eftjsf!up!dsptt!Ijhixbz!36!cfuxffo!8ui!tusffu!
boe!uif!sjwfs!dspttjoh/
!Tusfohuifo!qfeftusjbo!ujft!uispvhipvu!Epxoupxo!
jodmvejoh!dpoofdujpot!up!puifs!qbsut!pg!uif!Djuz!up!
uif!tpvui-!xftu-!boe!fbtu/!Epxoqmbz!Ijhixbz!36!
bt!b!dpssjeps!gps!qfeftusjbo!npwfnfou/
!Jnqspwf!qfeftusjbo!dpoofdujpot!cfuxffo!Cspbexbz!
Tusffu!boe!uif!sjwfsgspou!Qbsl!bsfb!up!bmmpx!uif!qbsl!
up!tfswf!bt!bo!buusbdujpo!uibu!csjoht!qfpqmf!joup!uif!
epxoupxo!bsfb/
!Jnqspwf!bddftt!up!uif!Njttjttjqqj!Sjwfs!up!fyqboe!
po!sfdsfbujpobm!pqqpsuvojujft/
!Fyqmpsf!dsfbujpo!pg!b!gpvsui!tjhobmj{fe!joufstfdujpo!
po!Ijhixbz!36!cfuxffo!8ui!Tusffu!boe!Cspbexbz!
Uif!Dpnqsfifotjwf!Qmbo!tfflt!up!foibodf!uif!fyjtujoh!dpnnfsdjbm!dpsf!bmpoh!Cspbexbz!cz!cvjmejoh!
tuspoh!dpoofdujpot!xjui!uif!sjwfsgspou!boe!uif!djwjd0sfubjm!ejtusjdu!po!uif!tpvui!foe!pg!Xbmovu!Tusffu/
Tusffu!up!jnqspwf!bddftt!up!bsfbt!xjui!efwfmpqnfou!
boe!sfefwfmpqnfou!qpufoujbm!po!fjuifs!tjef!pg!uif!
Ijhixbz!36!dpssjeps/
Epxoupxo!Eftjho!boe!Jnbhf
!Fodpvsbhf!eftjho!tuboebset!uibu!fmfwbuf!uif!rvbmjuz!
pg!Epxoupxo!efwfmpqnfou!xjuipvu!dsfbujoh!voevf!
ibsetijqt!gps!qspqfsuz!boe!cvjmejoh!pxofst/
!Bdlopxmfehf!uibu!uif!ijtupsjd!Nbjo!Tusffu!
cvjmejoht!boe!efwfmpqnfout!bmpoh!Cspbexbz!
Tusffu!bsf!gvodujpobmmz!pctpmfuf!gps!nboz!ufobout!
boe!vtfst!jo!upebzt!bvupnpcjmf!boe!dpowfojfodf.
esjwfo!nbslfuqmbdf/
!Uif!qvcmjd!sfbmn!pg!tusffut-!cpvmfwbset!boe!
tjefxbmlt!sfqsftfout!uif!cftu!pqqpsuvojuz!up!dsfbuf!
bo!joufsjn!jnbhf!gps!epxoupxo!bt!ju!sfefwfmpqt/
Uif!dvssfou!foe!pg!Xbmovu!Tusffu!jt!b!cbssjfs!up!jnqspwjoh!dpoofdujpot!cfuxffo!Epxoupxo!boe!uif!
sjwfsgspou/
!
tpgufofe!xjui!tusffutdbqf!boe!mboetdbqf!gfbuvsft!up!
!Ofx!cvjmejoht!jo!uif!Ijhixbz!36!boe!Cspbexbz!
dpssjepst!tipvme!cf!mpdbufe!up!bmmpx!gps!fwfouvbm!
ftubcmjti!bo!jefoujuz!gps!uif!Dfousbm!Dpnnvojuz!
xjefojoh!pg!uif!dpssjeps!sjhiu.pg.xbz!boe!spbexbz/
Ejtusjdu!)DDE*/
!Up!uif!fyufou!qpttjcmf-!cvjmejoht!tipvme!pddvqz!
!Efwfmpqnfou!tipvme!psjfou!upxbse!uif!joufstfdujpo!
tusffu!gspoubhft!boe!tipvme!gspou!po!qvcmjd!
pg!Ijhixbz!36!xjui!Cspbexbz!up!ublf!bewboubhf!pg!
tjefxbmlt!xjui!dpoofdujpot!up!b!dpoujovpvt!
Epxoupxo!tjefxbml!qfeftusjbo!tztufn/
!Ofx!efwfmpqnfou!jo!uif!Ijhixbz!36!dpssjeps!
tipvme!cf!tdbmfe!up!bmmpx!wjtjcjmjuz!up!efwfmpqnfou!
vq!up!b!cmpdl!ps!npsf!bxbz!gspn!Ijhixbz!36/
4.33!!}!!Mboe!VtfDjuz!pg!Npoujdfmmp
!Qspqptfe!vtft!tipvme!ibwf!befrvbuf!qbsljoh!B!lfz!up!efwfmpqnfou!jo!uijt!gpdvt!bsfb!jt!uif!
)qsjwbuf!ps!qvcmjd*!xjuijo!fbtz!boe!dpowfojfou!
xbmljoh!ejtubodf/
mfbet!up!uif!sfdpotusvdujpo!pg!Gbmmpo!Bwfovf!boe!uif!
sfmbufe!fyqbotjpo!pg!nvojdjqbm!tbojubsz!tfxfs!boe!
!
xbufs!tztufnt/!!Gvuvsf!efwfmpqnfou!xjmm!cf!mjnjufe!
mpdbufe!qvcmjd!hbuifsjoh!tqbdft!up!csjoh!qfpqmf!
xjuipvu!beejujpobm!vujmjuz!dbqbdjuz/
uphfuifs!up!fyqfsjfodf!b!tfotf!pg!dpnnvojuz!uibu!
jt!bttpdjbufe!xjui!epxoupxo/
Fbtu!Gpdvt!Bsfb
Tpvui!Dfousbm!Gpdvt!Bsfb
Dpoujovfe!sftjefoujbm!hspxui!up!uif!tpvui!jt!bo!
hspxui!up!uif!xftu!boe!tpvui/!!Efwfmpqnfou!tipvme!
hspxui!bdijfwft!tfwfsbm!pckfdujwft;
pckfdujwft!pg!uijt!Qmbo/
!Ju!ifmqt!up!gbdjmjubuf!uif!fyqbotjpo!pg!uif!tbojubsz!
Tfwfsbm!gbdupst!dpvme!dbvtf!uif!Djuz!up!fodpvsbhf!gvuvsf!
tfxfs!tztufn!jo!dpokvodujpo!xjui!uif!sfdpotusvdujpo!
sftjefoujbm!efwfmpqnfou!jo!uif!Fbtu!Gpdvt!Bsfb;
offefe!up!tvqqpsu!gvuvsf!joevtusjbm!hspxui!bsfb!
!Jodsfbtfe!pwfsbmm!ipvtjoh!efnboe!uibu!fydffet!uif!
bmpoh!Ijhixbz!36/!!
dbqbdjuz!up!tvqqpsu!hspxui!jo!puifs!bsfbt/
!
!
vtf!uif!ofx!fbtufso!joufsdibohf!xjui!J.:5!sbuifs!
offe!up!diboofm!vtf!up!uif!fbtu!joufsdibohf/
uibo!Ijhixbz!36/!!
!Uif!offe!up!tpmwf!tupsnxbufs!boe!esbjobhf!
!Uiftf!bsfbt!qspwjef!bqqspqsjbuf!mpdbujpot!gps!
nbobhfnfou!jttvft!)Ejudi!44*!jo!uijt!bsfb/!!Tpmwjoh!
dpoujovfe!hspxui!jo!fousz.mfwfm!tjohmf!gbnjmz!ipnft!
esbjobhf!jttvft!bmmpxt!fbtuxbse!fyqbotjpo!bmpoh!
Dpvouz!Spbe!29/
up!Mjwf!bsf!jnqpsubou!fmfnfout!pg!nbjoubjojoh!bo!
befrvbufmz!ejwfstf!ipvtjoh!tupdl/
efwfmpqnfou!bsfb!xjuijo!uif!Psefsmz!Boofybujpo!Bsfb!
!Psefsmz!fyqbotjpo!up!uif!tpvui!npwft!efwfmpqnfou!
upxbset!bsfb!pg!ijhifs!obuvsbm!bnfojuz/!!Bsfbt!bmpoh!
uiftf!bsfbt!bmmpx!gps!ijhifs!bnfojuz!ofjhicpsippet/!!!!
uif!tpvuifso!fehf!pg!uif!Psefsmz!Boofybujpo!Bsfb!
Uijt!hspxui!dbo!pddvs!xjui!ofx!dpmmfdups0bsufsjbm!
qspwjef!bopuifs!mpdbujpo!gps!qpufoujbm!npwf!vq!
tusffu!dpssjepst/!!
ipvtjoh/
Gjhvsf!4.25;!Mboe!Vtf!Qmbo!.!Fbtu!Gpdvt!Bsfb
Gjhvsf!4.24;!Mboe!Vtf!Qmbo!.!Tpvui!Dfousbm
3119!Dpnqsfifotjwf!Qmbo!!Vqebufe!3125Mboe!Vtf!!}!!4.34
!Dibsbdufs!Bsfbt
Planning Commission Agenda –08/01/17
3B.Considerationof Recommendation for Appointment of Planning
Commissioner(AS)
A.REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
The Planning Commission is asked to consider recommendation on the
appointment for the vacant positionon the Commission.
Prior to the regular meeting, the Commission will have had the opportunity to
interview candidate(s) for the position. The recommended candidate will serve
the balance offormer Commissioner Wynne’sterm,which expires at the end of
2018.A listing of theterms is provided below for reference. The
Commissioner’s terms are staggered in three year increments.
John Alstad 3 yr12/2017
appointed 3/13/17
Sam Murdoff3 yr12/2017
appointed 1/12/15
Brad Fyle, Chair3 yr12/2019
Marc Simpson3 yr12/2019
appointed 6/08/15
Lucas Wynne(OPEN)3 yr12/2018
Appointed 9/12/16
Council
Charlotte Gablerliaison
The Commission’s recommendation will be forwarded to the City Council on
th
August 14,2017.
B.ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1.Motion to recommend appointment of _______________ to fill out the
remainder of a three-year term on the Planning Commission.
2.Motion of other.
C. SUPPORTING DATA:
A.City Code Title 2, Chapter 1 -Planning Commission
CHAPTER 1
PLANNING COMMISSION
SECTION:
2-1-1: Name of the Commission
2-1-2: Authorization
2-1-3: Membership
2-1-4: Term of Office
2-1-5: Attendance
2-1-6: Vacancy
2-1-7: Officers
2-1-8: Meetings
2-1-9: Quorum
2-1-10: Duties of the Commission
2-1-11: Amendments
2-1-12: Compensation
2-1-1: NAME OF THE COMMISSION: The name of the organization shall be the
Monticello Planning Commission.
2-1-2: AUTHORIZATION: The authorization for the establishment of this commission
is set forth under Minnesota Statutes, Section 462, Municipal Planning Enabling
Act. The planning commission is hereby designated the planning agency of the
City pursuant to the Municipal Planning Act.
2-1-3: MEMBERSHIP: The Planning Commission shall consist of five members
appointed by the Council. All members shall be residents of the City of
Monticello and shall have equal rights and privileges.
2-1-4: TERM OF OFFICE:
(A) Appointments. All members shall be appointed for three year terms
st
ending on December 31 of a given year; however, said term may be
terminated earlier by the Council. Terms shall be staggered so that no
en year. Said terms are
to commence on the day of appointment by Council. Every appointed
member shall, before entering upon the discharge of his duties, take an
oath that he/she will faithfully discharge the duties of office.
(B) Renewals. When an expiri
reappointed by Council with the effective date of the new term beginning
on the first day of the next year following the expiration.
MONTICELLO CITY CODE TITLE 2 / Chapter 1 / Page 1
2-1-5:
Commission members to attend all Planning Commission meetings. Should any
Planning Commission member be absent for more than three meetings in a
calendar year, that member may be subject to replacement by the City Council.
2-1-6: VACANCY: Any vacancy in the regular or at-large membership shall be filled
by the City Council, and such appointee shall serve for the unexpired term so
filled.
2-1-7: OFFICERS:
(A) Elections. The City Planning Commission shall elect at its January
meeting from its membership a chair, vice chair, and a secretary who shall
serve for a term of one year and shall have such powers as may be
prescribed in the rules of said Commission.
(B) Duties of Chair. The chair shall preside at all meetings of the Planning
Commission and shall have the duties normally conferred and
parliamentary usage of such officers.
(C) Duties of Vice Chair. The vice chair shall act for the chair in his absence.
(D) Duties of Secretary. A secretary may be appointed who is not a member
of the Planning Commission but can be employed as a member of city
staff. The secretary shall keep the minutes and records of the
Commission; and with the assistance of staff as is available shall prepare
the agenda of the regular and special meetings for Commission members,
arrange proper and legal notice of hearings when necessary, attend to
correspondence of the Commission, and handle other duties as are
normally carried out by a secretary.
2-1-8: MEETINGS:
(A) The Planning Commission shall hold at least one regular meeting each
month. This meeting shall be held on the first Tuesday. Regular meetings
shall commence at 6:00 p.m. Hearings shall be heard as soon thereafter as
possible. The Planning Commission shall adopt rules for the transaction
of business and shall keep a record of its resolutions, transactions, and
findings, which record shall be a public record. The meeting shall be open
to the general public.
(B) In the event of conflict for a regularly-scheduled meeting date, a majority
at any meeting may change the date, time and location of the meeting.
(C) Special meetings may be called by the Chair or two members of the
Planning Commission together, as needed, and shall be coordinated with
MONTICELLO CITY CODE TITLE 2 / Chapter 1 / Page 2
city staff.
2-1-9: QUORUM: A majority of all voting Planning Commission members shall
constitute a quorum for the transaction of business.
2-1-10: DUTIES OF THE COMMISSION: The Commission has the powers and duties
assigned to it under Minnesota Statutes, Section 462, Municipal Planning
Enabling Act, by this Code, and state law.
2-1-11: AMENDMENTS: This ordinance may be amended as recommended by the
majority vote of the existing membership of the Planning Commission and only
after majority vote of the City Council.
2-1-12: COMPENSATION: Compensation of members of the Commission shall be as
set forth in City Code for Fee Schedule.
(#336, 11/22/99) (#337, 1/10/11) (#593, 3/10/14)
(#607, 1/26/15)
MONTICELLO CITY CODE TITLE 2 / Chapter 1 / Page 3
Planning Commission Agenda 08/01/17
3C.
Council Action on Commission Recommendations
Consideration of approving an amendment to a Conditional Use Permit for
Planned Unit Development and Development State PUD Review for multi-tenant
commercial building in a B-3, Highway Business District. Applicant: Larson,
Andy/Crown Bay
Council approved this item on consent. The applicant will be required to submit
Final Stage application plans for Council consideration.
Consideration of adopting Ordinance 667 and Summary Ordinance 667A for
amendments to Monticello Zoning Ordinance Chapter 5, Section 3 for regulations
for accessory use outdoor storage in industrial districts. Applicant: City of
Monticello
Council approved this item on consent.
Consideration of adopting Ordinance 672 and Summary Ordinance 672A
amending the Monticello Zoning Ordinance and amending the official zoning
map for rezoning from I-2 (Heavy Industrial) to Planned Unit Development for
Spaeth Industrial Park, to approve a Final Stage PUD, a Final Plat for the Spaeth
Industrial Park, and Development Contract for the Spaeth Industrial Park.
Applicant: Spaeth, Kenneth
Council approved this item on consent.
Consideration of adopting Ordinance 673 and Summary Ordinance 673A
amending the PUD, Final Stage Planned Unit Development and Final Plat for
Chelsea Corner for Office, Service, and Warehouse Uses in the Red Rooster
Planned Unit Development. Applicant: Red Rooster Properties
Council approved this item, with the developer providing the Council with
information on an enhanced front elevation design.
Consideration of approving a request for Comprehensive Plan Amendment
W
for rezoning the subject parcel from B-4 (Regional Business) District to a I-1
(Light Industrial) District. Applicant: Jim Bowers/JX Bowers LLC; Applicant
John Chadwick/John Chadwick Farms, LLC has withdrawn his application
Council approved the comprehensive plan amendment and rezoning to IBC for the
Њ
Planning Commission Agenda 08/01/17
Consideration of approving a request for Development Stage Planned Unit
Development for Vehicle Sales and Rental, Auto Repair Minor, and Accessory
Office and Retail Uses in a B-3 (Highway Business) District, including allowance
Council approved the Development Stage PUD request as recommended by the
Planning Commission, with one modification. The Council required the applicant
to make modifications to the buildings to meet commercial zoning building material
standards within 1 year, while meeting the base zoning standards for landscaping.
Additional screening and fencing was not required.
The applicant will be required to submit Final Stage application plans for Council
consideration.
Ћ