Planning Commission Agenda 02-03-1998
AG NDA
REGULAR MEETING ~ MONTIC LLO PLANNING COMMISSION
Tuesday, Febru 3,1998 - 7 p.m.
...
Members: Dick Frie, Richard Carlson, Di k Martie, Rod Dragsten, Robbie Smith
1. Call to order.
2. Approval of minutes of the regular eting held January 6, 1998.
3.. '.'€onsideration of adding items to the
"
\
4. Citizens comments.
5. Public Hearing--Consideration of a v riance within the R-2 zoning district to
locate a building within the required 30-ft front yard setback area and within
the 20-ft side yard setback area. Ap licant, Jerry Sonsteby.
6. Public Hearing--Consideration of a r quest for a conditional use permit for final
PUD approval on Phase I of the Hos ital Campus. Applicant, Monticello-Big
Lake Community Hospital District.
7.
Public Hearing--Consideration of an xtension of the conditional use permit for
Resurrection Lutheran Church. App icant, Mark Paschke, Hagemeister and
Mac Architects, Inc.
..
8. Public Hearing--Consideration of an endment to the comprehensive plan by
eliminating the Fallon Avenue overp ss. Applicant, St. Henry's Church.
9. Consideration of calling for a public earing adopting amendments to the city
zoning map and ordinances relating 0 the establishment of the Central
Community District (CCD) and trans'tional rezonings including the
consideration of performance zone- xed (PZM) district. Applicant, City of
Monticello.
10. Update and discussion of appoint me ts to the Design Advisory Team (DAT).
11. Consideration of calling for a public earing for an amendment to the
comprehensive plan guiding land us and planning for related services in the
areas adjacent to the city's south and west boundaries. Applicant, City of
Monticello.
12. Updates.
.....-'-~
...
A.
B.
Community Center.
Highway 25 Project.
13. Adjournment.
.
.
.
MINU ES
REGULAR MEETING - MONTICE LO PLANNING COMMISSION
Tuesday, January , 1998 - 7 p.m.
Members Present: Dick Frie, Richard Carlso , Dick Martie, Rod Dragsten, Robbie Smith
Council Liaison Present: Clint Herbst
StatTPresent: Fred Patch, Steve Grittm n
1. Call to order.
Chairman Frie called the meeting to order 7:05 p.m. and introduced Robbie Smith as
the newest member of the Planning Commi sion. Robbie Smith was congratulated and
welcomed to his appointment.
2. A rovalofmin f h i
meeting held December 2. 1997.
A MOTION WAS MADE BY ROD DRA STEN TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF
THE SPECIAL MEETING HELD DECE ER 1, 1997. MOTION SECONDED BY
DICK MARTIE.
Motion passed unanimously.
A MOTION WAS MADE BY RICHARD ARLSON TO APPROVE THE MINUTES
OF THE REGULAR MEETING HELD D CEMBER 2, 1997. MOTION SECONDED
BY ROD DRAGSTEN.
Motion passed unanimously.
3.
Chairman Frie added item 16 c. Di
Rod Dragsten added item 16 d.
Page 1
.
.
.
4.
Citizens comments.
No comments were heard.
5.
Staff report on this item was presented by red Patch. Patch explained that the Planning
Commission is requested to re-hold the req ired public hearing in response to the
insufficient publication of this item. This iem was not published to reflect the possibility
that the property could be rezoned from th Medium Density Residential (R-3) Zoning
District to the Single and Two-Family Resi ential (R-2) Zoning District
Chairman Frie opened the public hearing a d recognized Debbie Tibbetts of227 Crocus
Lane. Ms. Tibbetts spoke in favor of the r oning oftheKlucas property toR..;2 Single &
2 Family Residential. Dan Goeman, Realto for Mr. Klucas made comments regarding the
owner's disfavor ofthe rezoning to R-2.
Hearing no other comments, Chairman Frie closed the public hearing.
Richard Carlson spoke in favor of the R-20ning classification of the property. Rod
Dragsten expressed that he feels that the pr perty would more appropriately be zoned 1-1
Light Industrial in that the rezoning to R-2 ould likely have adverse impacts on the
development ofl-2 property of Electro Ind stries, Inc. to the west of the Klucas property.
Steve Grittman noted that between R-2 an 1-2 zoning districts that buffer yards would be
required upon future development.
MOTION BY DICK MARTIE TO RECO ND TO THE CITY COUNCIL THAT
THE 20.76 ACREKLUCASPROPERTY ., DRESSED 19&0 RIVER STREET WEST
BE REZONED FROM R-3 MEDIUM DE SITY RESIDENTIAL TO R-2 SINGLE & 2
FAMILY RESIDENTIAL BASED UPON THE FINDING THAT R-2 PROVIDES A
MORE COMPATffiLE TRANSITION BE WEEN NEIGHBORHOODS AND THAT
THE R-2 ZONING DISTRICT DESIGNA ION ISCONSTSTENTWITH THE
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. MOTION S CONDED BY RICHARD CARLSON.
Motion passed with commissioners Dick F e, Richard Carlson, Dick Martie and Robbie
Smith voting in favor and Rod Dragsten vo ing in opposition to the motion.
Page 2
. 6.
.
.
Staff report on this item was presented by Seve Grittman. It was recognized this
application for variance is being processed p nding designation oftheCCD Zoning
District area. It is likely that this property ill be within the CCD District and as such,
awnings projecting over the public right-of- ay will be encouraged.
Chairman Frie opened the public hearing an recognized Chip Bauer, contractor for
Richard K1ine.,~ner of Ernie's Bait.-Chip auer discussed construction details and
limitations. Richard Kline stated that he w s hopeful that the commission would allow
the variance as it would enable him to impr ve the appearance of his property.
Hearing no other comments, Chairman Fri closed the public hearing.
The commission noted that a license must b obtained from Wright County to permit
private property extensions over the public . ght-of-way and discussed the proposed
height and projection of the awning. After ubstantial discussion it was agreed that
consistency in awning height is important t thear-chitecturalaestheticofthe.downtown
area.
MOTION BY RICHARD CARLSON TO PROVE THE APPLICATION FOR A
VARIANCE BASED ON THE FINDING THAT THE VARIANCE IS SUPPORTED
BY THE COMPREHENSlVEPLANFO THE DOWNTOWN AREA, THAT THE
AWNING IS WELL PROPORTIONED TO THE BUILDING, AND THAT A
PENDING ZONING AMENDMENT W L AVOID NEGATIVE PRECEDENT; AND
SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CO ITIONS:
1. MINIMUM 8-FT CLEARANCE BET N THE LOWEST PORTION OF T1-ffi AWNING OR
ITS STRUCTURE AND THE GROUND SURF ACE BELOW.
2. MIN1MUM 3-FT CLEARANCE BET EN Tl-ffi FACE OF T1-ffi CURB AND THE CLOSEST
PROJECTION OF THE AWNING OR S RUCTURE.
3. EXECUTION OF A LICENSE AGREE NT BETWEEN THE PROPERTY OWNER AND THE
LOCAL GOVERNMENT WITH JURIS ICTION OVER TI-ffi RIGHT-OF-WAY, EITHER
COUNTY OR CITY.
MOTION SECONDED BY ROBBlE S
Motion passed unanimously.
Po e 3
.
.
.
7.
f-
Staff report on this item was presented by St ve Grittman. It was recognized this
application for variance is being processed p nding designation oftheCCD Zoning
District area. It is likely that this property w 11 be within the CCD District and as such,
awnings projecting over the public right-of- ay will be encouraged.
Chairman Frie opened the public hearing an recognized Steve Johnson, owner ofthe
property. SteY~ Johnson discussed construe ion details and limitations notingthatthe
structure would be 8 to 9 feet above the sid walk, would project approximately 3 feet
from the face of the building and be spruce een in color. He also commented regarding
signs proposed to be on the awnings. Steve Johnson stated that with repairs being made
to the brick facade, this improvement to the uilding is the first in athree phase
remodeling of the property that has been su ~ect to MCP review and approval. No lights
are proposed to be installed within the awni g structure.
Hearing no other comments, Chairman Frie losed the public hearing.
Commissioners spoke in favor of the awnin structure and noted that a license must be
obtained from Wright County to permit pri ate property extensions over the public right-
of-way.
MOTION BY DICK MARTIE TO APPRO THE APPLICATION FOR A
VARIANCE BASED ON THE FINDINGS THAT THE VARIANCE IS SUPPORTED
BY THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN FOR THE DOWNTOWN AREA, THAT THE
AWNING IS WELL PROPORTIONED T THEBUlLDING, AND THAT A
PENDING ZONING AMENDMENT WIL AVOID NEGATIVE PRECEDENT; AND
SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING COND TIONS:
1. MINIMUM 8-FT CLEARANCE BETWEE THE LOWEST PORTION OF THE AWNING OR
ITS STRUCTURE AND TI-IE GROUND URF ACE BELOW.
2. MINIMUM 3-FT CLEARANCE BETWE TIIE FACE OF TI-IE CURB AND TI-IE CLOSEST
PROJECTION OF THE AWNING OR ST UCTURE.
3. EXECUTION OF A LICENSE AGREE NT BETWEEN THE PROPERTY OWNER AND THE
LOCAL GOVERNMENT WITH JURISDI TION OVER THE RIGHT-OF-WAY, EITHER
COUNTY OR CITY.
MOTION SECONDED BY ROD DRAGS EN.
Motion passed unanimously.
Page 4
.
.
.
8.
Staff report on this item was presented by Seve Grittman. Steve Grittman reviewed a
new site plan made available by Dan Goema at the meeting. The new site plan proposed
to eliminate the second curb cut and drivew y on the west side of the front of the
property. The .one drive entrance proposed nthe east side of the front of the property
would be 24 feet in width and at least 5 feet setback from the side property line. Steve
Grittman stated that as the subject property d adjacent properties are all within the PZM
Zoning District, no buffer yards are require ; however, the parking lot must be screened
from adjacent residential properties. Steve . man presented a letter to the Commission
from Mr. & Mrs. Seestrom of 11474 Cleme ta Ave. NW. Who wrote in favor of the
conditional use permit provided a wooden b sket weave screening fence is installed on the
west property line to screen their property om the parking lot.
Chairman Frie opened the public hearing an recognized Dan Goeman. Mr. Goeman
presented his plan regarding the change in se of the property and stated that he would
prefer to maintain the existing two curb cut , and to not install concrete curb and gutter
around the parking lot and drive areas. He elt that omission of curb and gutter would
help to maintain the residential character of the area.
Hearing no other comments, Chairman Frie closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Carlson expressed concerns egarding the residential character of East
Broadway and would like the Commission 0 give further consideration to the future
residential or commercial redevelopment 0 the area along East Broadway. Chairman Frie
recognized Joe Holtaus. Mr. Holtaus state that he would preferto seethe residential
character of the area maintained and felt th t curb and gutter would be commercial in
nature. The Commission was in favor of d ferring the installation of required concrete
curb and gutter. Fred Patch suggested tha on-site bonding may provide a surety to enable
the curb and sutter to be deferred and yet rovide some guarantee of future installation if
the commercial use of the property would ontinue for more than two years.
MOTION BY DICK FRIE TO RECO ND TO THE CITY COUNCIL THAT A
CONDITIONALUSEPERMIT BE ALL WED FOR A COMMERCIAL OFFICE IN
THE PZM ZONING DISTRICT BASED ON A FINDING THAT THE PROPOSED
USE WOULD BE COMPATIBLE WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN FOR THE
AREA, AND SUBJECT TO THE FOLL WING CONDITIONS:
1.
A PLAN FOR LANDSCAPING AND S ~ENING OF THE PARKING AREA FROM
ADJACENT RESIDENTIAL USES IS P OVIDED, TOGETHER WITH THE APPROPRIATE
LANDSCAPE SURETY.
2.
ONE OF THE EXISTING 12.FT CURB UTS AND DRIVEWAYS IS ELIMINATED, AND
THE OTHER IS WIDENED TO A TW . WAY, 24-FT WIDE DRIVEWAY.
Page 5
.
.
.
3.
THE BUILDING OFFICIAL CERTIFIES STRUCTURE AS MEETING THE BUILDING
CODES APPLICABLE TO COMMERC OFFICE BUILDINGS.
4. AN ON-SITE SURETY IN THE FORM 0 A PERFORMANCE BOND OR LETTER OF
CREDIT MUST BE PROVIDED TO THE ITY GUARANTEEING THAT WITHIN TWO
YEARS OF THE CITY COUNCIL APPRO AL OF THIS CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT,
CONCRETE CURB AND GUTTER WILL E INSTALLED AROUND ALL DRIVEWAY AND
PARKING AREAS AS REQUIRED BY CI Y ORDINANCE.
9.
MOTION SECONDED BY ROD DRAGS
Motion passed unanimously.
Fred Patch presented the staff report for thi item. It was explained that city ordinance
allows only four signs to be erected on the roperty. Two of the signs must be product
identification signs and two must be busines identification signs. Both business
identification signs areto be wail signs. On business identification sign may be a pylon
sign and the other must be a wall sign. No ore than 100 square feet of sign may be
erected on any wall, and the pylon sign mus not exceed 58 square feet in area. It was
explained that to avoid the necessity of a v . ance, Kathy Froslie must reduce the area of
proposed signs 00. the south wail of the buil ing by 17 square feet, and those signs mustbe
constructed together to develop consistenc in design, material, shape and method of
illumination.
Chairman Frie opened the public hearing an recognized Kathy Froslie. Ms. Froslie
explained that the uoing In Styte'" sign is lreadybuilt and hoped that it could be used.
Mr. Patch stated that Ms. Froslie had been onsidering a redesign of the "Antiques"sign to
make it a neon sign, similar to the "Going I Style" sign and 17 square feet smaller in size.
Robbie Smith expressed concern regarding he number of signs and the possibility of
"clutter" in the number of signs intended.
Hearing no other comments, Chairman Fri closed the public hearing.
MOTION BY ROBBIE SMITH TO REC MMEND TO THE CITY COUNCIL THAT
A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT BE ALOWEDFOR THE ERECTION OFSIGNS
AT 103 PINE STREET, SUBJECT TO FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:
1. ONLY THREE (3) WALL SIGNS AND NE (1) PYLON SIGN MAY BE ALLOWED.
ONLY TWO (2) WALL SIGNS MAY BE BUSINESS IDENTIFICATION SIGNS AND ONE (I)
WALL SIGNMAYBE A PROIJUCTID CATION SIGN. ONE (1) PYLON SIGN MAY
BE ALLOWED AND THAT SIGN MUS BE A PRODUCT IDENTIFICATION SIGN TO
INCLUDE A LISTING OF AVAILABLE RODUCTS AND SERVICES.
.
.
.
2.
THE TOTAL AREA OF SIGNS TO BE E CTED ON ANY WALL OF THE BUll,DING MUST
NOT EXCEED 100 SQ FT IN AREA AND THE PYLON SIGN MUST NOT EXCEED 58
SQUARE FEET IN AREA.
AS A NEW SIGN IS BEING ERECTED 0 THE SOUTH SIDE OF THE BUll,DING, THE
SIGN PLAN MUST BE REDESIGNED T DEVELOP SIGNS FOR THE SOUTH SIDE OF THE
BUll,DING TIIA T ARE CONSISTENT DESIGN, MATERIAL, SHAPE AND METHOD OF
ILLUMINATION.
ANY FUTURE AL TERA nON OF SIGNS MUST BE CONSISTENT WITH TillS
CONDJTIONAL USE PERMIT. PRIOR T ALTERING ANY SIGNS, THE PROPERTY
OWNER MUST APPLY FOR AND RECE VE A SIGN PERMIT FROM THE ZONING
ADMINISTRATOR. lHEZONINGAD ISTRATORMAY FIND THAT THE
APPLICATION IS CONSISTENT WITH illS CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND ISSUE A
PERMIT FOR THE ALTERATION, OT RWISE THE APPLICANT MUST RECEIVE
FURTHER AMENDMENT TO THIS CO ITIONAL USE PERMIT.
3.
4.
10.
and
MOTION SECONDED BY DICK MART
Motion passed unanimously.
The Planning Commission requested that it ms 10 and 11, both referring to Danner
Trucking, be discussed anhe same time.S affreport onthis item was presented by Steve
Grittman. Mr. Grittman provided backgro nd information regarding the proposed
ordinance and described various requireme ts contained within the proposed ordinance
that are intended to mitigate possible undes rable effects an interim use for trucking and
trucking services may have on neighboring ses.
Mr. Grittman made several suggestions we e made regarding the plan presented in
application for the interim use permit. It a pears that required customer parking spaces
and semi trailer storage areas are insufficie t as presented. If an interim use permit were
allowed, it was r-ecommendedthanhe inte muse permit be issued for a fixed term such as
not exceed 5 years in duration.
Chairman Frie opened the public hearing a d recognized Jim Flemming, attorney
representing Mr. Danner. Mr.F1emming r iterated several points previously made to the
Planning Commission.
Hearing no other comments, Chairman Fri closed the public hearing.
MOTION BY ROD DRAGS TEN TO RE OMMEND TO THE CITY COUNCIL THAT
THE ORDINANCE BE ADOPTED AME ING THE ZONING CODE TO ALLOW
TRUCK REPAIR BY INTERIM USE PE T AS PROPOSED IN THE ORDINANCE
INCLUDED AS EXHIBIT ~<A"BASED' PON THE FINDINGS THAT THE
,
AMENDMENT WOULD BE CONSIS T WITH THE CITY'S GOALS IN THE
.
T.H. 25 CORRIDOR AND WOULD BE C NSISTENT WITH THE INTENT OF THE
B-3 ZONING DISTRICT.
MOTION SECONDED BY DICK MARTI
Motion passed unanimously.
11.
1.
2.
3.
4.
. 5.
6.
7.
8.
.
MOTION BY ROD DRAGSTEN TO REC
AN INTERIM USE PERMIT BE APPRO
TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS [
STAFF REPORT]:
MMEND TO THE CITY COUNCIL THAT
D FOR DANNER TRUCKING SUBJECT
SO LISTED AS EXHIBIT "C" OF THE
COMPLIANCE WITH THE TERMS OF l' ORDINANCE AMENDMENT ALLOWING
TRUCKING SERVICE AS AN INTERIM SE IN THE B-3 DISTRICT.
REVISION OF THE SITE PLAN TO SHO ADEQUATE PARKING (OR PARKING AREA)
WITH APPROPRIATE IMPROVEMENT , INCLUDING PAVING AND CURBING.
REVISION OF THE SITE PLAN TO SHO MORE THAN 6,000 SQ FT OF TRAll.ER
PARKING AREA, WITH A GRAVEL S ACE AND A METHOD OF GRAVEL
CONTAINMENT.
SUBMISSION OF A LAND SURVEY SITE PLAN DRAWN TO SCALE DOCUMENTING
ADEQUATE DIMENSIONS OF THE SIT TO ACCOMMODATE THE PROPOSED LAYOUT.
SUBMISSION OF FINANCIAL GU EES TO ENSURE INST ALLA nON OF ALL
IMPROVEMENTS AS SHOWN ON THE INAL SITE PLAN.
EXECUTION OF A DEVELOPMENT CO TRACT FOR THE INTERIM USE PERMIT
INDICA nNG A SPECIFIC TERMINA 1'1 N DATE FOR THE PERMIT, SIGNED BY THE
CITY AND THE APPLICANT.
COMPLIANCE WITH ALL BUILDING C DE REQUIREMENTS.
THE APPLICANT MUST HAVE CONTR I. OF THE LAND AREA CONSIDERED FOR THE
INTERIM USE AND AS DEPICTED BY HE PROPOSED SITE PLAN.
THIS MOTION IS BASED ON A FIND G THAT THE INTERIM USE PERMIT
ALLOWS THE CITY TO MANAGE THE CURRENT AND FUTURE LAND USE OF
THE AREA, AND THE CONDITIONS A T ACHED TO THE PERMIT WOULD
MITIGATE THE POTENTIAL NEGATI IMPACTS OF AN INDUSTRIAL USE IN
THE COMMERCIAL DISTRICT. COND TIONAL USE PERMIT
MOTION SECONDED BY RICHARD C
Motion passed unanimously
MOTION TO AMEND THE PREVIOUS OTION BY DRAGSTEN TO ADD A
FURTHER CONDITION THAT THE IN ERIMUSE PERMIT HA VB A DURATION
OF FIVE (5) YEARS FROM THE DATE F ISSUANCE BY THE CITY COUNCIL.
Page 8
.
.
.
MOTION SECONDED BY CARLSON
Motion passed unanimously.
12.
Fred Patch presented the staff report for thi item. Patch eXplained that the sign erected
on the property was erected under a permit or temporary sign. He further explained that
because ofthe architectural character and 10 ation of the existing building, the pylon sign
appears to be more appropriate than wall si ns.
Chairman Frie opened the public hearing, re ognizing Larry Carter, owner ofthe property.
Mr. Carter explained that he had erected th sign in November prior to gaining a permit
for permanent sign due to impending frost.
Hearing no other public comments, Chairm Frie closed the public hearing.
The Planning Commission considered the 10 ation of the sign and concluded that the
placement wa,Sappropriate due to site cond'tions. It was determine that traffic visibility
would not be obstructed by the sign as only right turns can be made when exiting the
driveway.
MOTION BY DICK MARTIE TO APPR VE THE APPLICATION FOR A
V ARIANCEALLOWING APYLONSIG roBE ERECTED WITH 0 FEET
SETBACK FROM THE FRONT PROPE Y LINE BASED ON THE FINDINGS
TRA T THE VARIANCE WILL NOT RA E ADVERSE IMP ACTS UPON
ADJACENT PROPERTY, TRAFFIC, P LIC SAFETY OR DIMINISH PROPERTY
VALVES, AND THAT THE VARIANCE. ILL PROVIDE A MORE REASONABLE
OPPORTUNITY TO ADVERTISE THE XISTING PERMITTED BUSINESS USE
OF THE PROPERTY; AND SUBJECT T THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:
1.
THE FUTIJRE SIGNS TRA T MAY BE E CTED UPON THE PROPOSED SIGN
STRUCTURE WILL BE CONSIDERED LOWED USES, NOT REQUIRING FUTURE
VARIANCE IF THE REQUIRED SIGN P JRMITS ARE OBT AlNED FROM THE BUILDING
OFFICIAL.
FUTURE SIGNS ERECTED ON THE SI N STRUCTURE MUST NOT BE IDGHER NOR
LARGER IN AREA THAN ALLOWED B THIS VARIANCE IF GRANTED.
THIS VARIANCE WilL EXPIRE WITH HE BUILDING. IF THE BUILDING IS RAZED, OR
ALTERED TO PERMIT THE ERECTIO OF A CONFORMING PYLON SIGN, THEN THE
SIGN STRUCTURE AND SIGN ALLO D BY THIS VARIANCE MUST BE REMOVED
AND ANY FUTURE SIGN MUST BE E TO CONFORM TO CITY ORDINANCES
EXCEPT AS OTHERWISE APPROVED Y CITY COUNCIL.
2.
3.
Page 9
.
.
.
13.
MOTION SECONDED BY RICHARD C
Motion passed unanimously.
Steve Grittman reported that St. Henry's is equesting a continuance pending a proposed
change to the City Comprehensive Plan. A etter further explaining the position of St.
Henry's was provided to the Planning Co 'ssion.
14.
Fred Patch presented the staff report for thi item. The effects of the existing and new
ordinance were .explained. The commission expressed that this is a long overdue change
and makes sense.
Chairman Frie opened the public Hearing. . Robin Peikert of 2880 Red Oak Circle was
recognized. Mr. Peikert expressed concern regarding the elimination ofthe 2 foot
setback requirement for fences. Patch expl 'ned social consequences, enforcement
difficulties, private property rights and the ossible adverse possession actions that could
come from confusion of property line locati ns caused by setback fences.
Mr. Glen Posusta of 10383 Kahler Ave. , and owner of Amax Storage spoke against
the new ordinance in its prohibition of new arbed wire fences in the city. He stated that
he would see barbed wire around the top 0 a fence that may be erected on his business
property as good advertising for security,
Hearing no other comments, Chairman Frie closed the public hearing.
The Commission discussed the favorable as ects of the proposed ordinance regulating
fences.
MOTION ROBBIE SMITH TO RECO ND TO THE CITY COUNCIL THAT THE
ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 3 SECTION 2 ITEM [F] OF THE
MONTICELLO ZONING ORDINANCE, ST ABLISHING REGULATIONS FOR THE
INST ALLATION OF FENCES BE ADO TED.
MOTION SECONDED BY ROD DRAG TEN.
Motion unanimously approved.
Page 10
.
.
.
15.
Di
Chairman Frie, and Commissioners Carlson and Dragsten will attend the Comprehensive
Planning Workshop in S1. Cloud on Februa 26, 1998 from 9:00 a.m. until 4:00 p.m.
Commissioner Smith will attend a Planning 'Basics" Workshop in St. Cloud on April 18,
1998 from 9:00 a.m. until 4:00 p.m.
16. Updates:
A.
Steve Grittman stated that the City ad held an informational workshop on
Monday January 5, 1998. Public co ents received at the meeting induded
concern that the boundaries of the CD District included much more than
previously anticipated. The CCD istrict boundaries will be coming before the
Commission at the February meetin .
B.
C.
Rod Dragsten announced that the CP Annual Meeting will be held January 14,
1998 at 6:30 p.m. at the Monticello High School, and invited all Commissioners to
attend.
17. Adjournment
MOTION BY ROD DRAGS TEN, SECO ED BY ROBBIE SMITH TO ADJOURN
THE MEETING AT 10:25 P.M.
Motion passed unanimously.
Page 1
.
.
.
Planning Commission Agenda - 2/3/98
5.
No information had yet been receive from the Chief Building Official at
printing time.
.
.
.
PLANNING COMMISSION 213198
5.
A
Mr. Jerry Sonsteby, owner of a residence loc ted in the R-2 Single and Two Family
Zoning District at 300 East 3rdStreet, is req esting that a variance be considered to allow
a new residence to be constructed within the required 30 foot front yard setback area, and
within the 20 foot side yard setback area. T e existing residence was heavily damaged by
the July 1, 1997 windstorm. It is proposed t at the existing residence will be tom down
and that a new residence will be built in the s me location.
When originally developed the present Zoni Code of the City had not been adopted.
The Zoning Code currently requires that wh never a non-conforming building is destroyed
to more than 50 percent of its estimated mar et value, then the land and building shall be
subject to all the regulations specified in the oning Code. The proposed new house is to
be 26 to 28 feet in width and 42 feet in lengt
Variance Review:
As previously noted, the applicant has reque ted a variance from the required 30 foot front
yard setback area, and the required 20 foot . de yard setback area fronting upon a public
street, as required within the R-2 Zoning Di trict.
Section 23-3 ofthe ordinance requires that' consideration of variance applications, the
Planning Commission must make findings th t approval of the variance will not:
1. Impair an adequate supply oflight d air to adjacent property.
2. Unreasonably increase the congestio of a public street.
3. Increase the danger offire or endan er the public safety.
4. Unreasonably diminish or impair est hlished property values within the
neighborhood or in any other way b contrary to the intent of the ordinance.
The Planning Commission must make a find ng that a non-economic hardship exists, and
that the property cannot be put to reasonabl use if the variance is denied.
A land survey and a proposed site plan are xpected to be available for Planning
Commission to review in considering this v riance. The precise location of existing
buildingls and the proposed location ofthe ew buildingls are unknown; however,
according to Mr.Sonsteby it is unlike1ytha: a variance wiUbe required for the front yard
facing 3rd Street; however, the new house i proposed to be approximately 5 feet from the
side lot line along Palm Street, requiring a 15 foot variance from the required 20 foot side
yard setback.
.
.
.
PI.ANNING COMMISSION 2/3/98
B. AL TERNA TIVE ACTIONS:
A.
Move to:
Recommend to the City Co ncil that the variance be denied as the
ordinance provides sufficien opportunity to erect a new residential
structure upon the property n conformance with City ordinances.
B.
Move to:
Recommend to the City Co ncil that a variance be granted to erect a
residential structure within t e side yard setback area fronting on Palm
Street contingent upon the fl Howing requirements:
1.
2. The res,idence must be ade to comply with aU other City Ordinances, except
as otherwise approved y City Council.
Making the rmdings that:
1. Locating the residence pon this corner lot according to City ordinances
would unreasonably d. inish the opportunity to build a suitable house upon
the lot.
2. The residential structu will not have adverse impacts upon adjacent
property, traffic, public safety or diminish property values.
c.
3. [Other fmdings as deter ined by the Commission.]
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends Alternative "A". Findings for unique condition or non-economic hardship
are insufficientto justifY a variance. This 66'by 16 'corner lot is typical for urban residential
blocks. The granting of a variance may set unwant d precedent for future development and
redevelopment on corner lots of urban residential bocks.
If a new residence were constructed on the subject property in accordance with City ordinances,
the maximum house width would be 36 feet. That idth is typical for residential construction and
does not seem to unreasonably diminish the oppo nity to build a suitable house upon the lot.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Exhibit A - Copy of Applicable Ordinance Section: 3-1 [G] relating to non-conforming buildings.
Exhibit B - Location Map.
Exhibit C - Site Plan
Exhibit D - Proposed Land Survey (to be available at Planning Commission Meeting)
.
.
.
>
[E]
[F]
[G]
[H]
When any lawful non- onforming use of any structure or land in any
district has been chan ed to a conforming use, it shall not thereafter
be changed to any non conforming use.
A lawful non-conformi g use of a str.lcture or parcel of land may be
changed to lessen the on-conformity of use. Once a non-conforming
structure or parcel of! d has been changed, it shall not thereafter
be so altered to increas the non-conformity.
If at any time a non-co orming building, structure, or use shall be
destroyed to the extent of more than fifty (50) percent of its estimated
market value, said val e to be determined by the City or County
Assessor, then without further action by the Coucil, the building and
the land on which such building was located or maintained shall,
from and after the date of said destruction, be subject to all the
regulations specified b these zoning regulations for the district in
which such land and b 'ldings are located. Any building which is
damaged to an extent 0 less than fifty (50) percent of its value may
be restored to its forme extent, Estimate of the extent of damage or
destruction shall be m de by the Building Inspector.
Whenever a lawful non conforming use of a structure or land is
discontinued for a peri d of six (6) months, any future use of said
structure or land shall e made to conform with the provisions of this
ordinance.
[I] Normal maintenance 0 a building or other structure containing or
related to a lawful non- onforming use is permitted, including
necessary non-structur repairs and incidental alterations which do
not physically extend 0 intensify the non-conforming use.
[J]
Normal maintenance, n cessary non-structural repairs, and
incidental alteration of lawful non-conforming sign includes repair
or maintenance of exist ng lettering done without changing the
subject, form, or design of the lawful non-conforming sign,
Alterations may be ma e to a building containing or related to a
lawful non-conforming esidential unit when said alteration will
improve the livability t ereof, provided the alteration will not
increase the number of welling units. In the B-4 zone, alterations or
expansion may be made to a building containing or related to a
lawful non-conforming esidential unit when said alteration or
expansion will improve he livability thereof, provided the alteration
or expansion will not in rease the number of dwelling units and
provided that such aIte ation or expansion shall not constitute more
than 50 percent of est' ated market value.
SA
MONTICELLO ZONING ORDINANCE
3/2
h
---
,'~
""",
..:".......:>:.:-.........~---...
~::-~~ -
t 3rd Street
. 300 Eas
LocatIOn:
~~
'<'~..
, I
!
j
--.I.- _ ,
(\
~,
<{
w
~
1~i'2u- g~:~:d
....... c: l- ,!:: 0 -:: "0
Q,) Q,)"t:l Q,) ::::I VI
l-.caeoQ,)
.............. 0 <..> ~
o 0 c:...... ,-
-l .!:: <( 0 o:::E
.
ex.:}
I!
_--J~ x
~
I-
U
o
l"-
co
l"-
"<t-
I
I
I
I
~~,
':,
I
'~.
"'~
>-
<
:It
w
>
we::
::.:':0
0::.
up.-
.....CD
Wz
(/)-
''',
'... .
~-,
'~, >- W
'-, 15::1i:
I <
'.. t;jff
... ~81O "
'\, -Oa
'. -3:
\ . \
\.l..~
\:' ,
.
~"
)8
I
~
"
-,
( 1
r ; ...... \
'!.. - - -.)
- ,
~-.)
\ ' \
:c ("i \.l..~
(/) a.. ... -
=> -:c (,
CD = (/) ...._'
N=> ~-~
.............1(-'
_lL..... 1 \~_~
- ,
,-
, '
-,
"I ~
:'l
W
~~ti
.,.,0::<
~lL.<:l
,~... 'O.t~
. q
o ~\
~
I
'-.
;:1>,
BITUMINOUS DRIVE
._'" .SV3~
.'iJ...RETE DRiVE' \;I
6l'~<;; 9IeoN\,. \ 1 V' -; d
'r '''''I
0
. , 1't
g W I-
ell ~
'lei < 0
- >-ff
' a::: OJ! ~
0
l-Clg
(/)0 2:;:;:
lOr<)
N:lt"ltz 3:...1
.t2l" I-W
Q)
= :i
Z:lt
1"')0
..........
.SV'3~, ~t'g91 00.<;;91
l() OJ
OJ .
c;j 0
----.SV'3~ OL 'orr '.All:::> Cl d ,s'orr'l V'ld
l.L.W '-
02:
OJ ...I
!:fw::.:':
""U
. 00
o orr----~ c;j ffi
~-..
;
\ ~ -...
~ I-- u) ~ -.) (....--"',
iE <( <( ')
6l -.J w (....\'\ ~--
CL ~ '"
o CD ~.,
o. """ '-,
VI \......
(.Q . "~
CDLO
CD
~C
.~d\l~q
l
~_o
CO
133~lS
V\JlVd
o
as
.
I
I
I...'~~
-r ,"
I \00'1.'
't- -
/ ...
_/
I
,~
(( _...J"
\ I,., ,., -.., ;'"
}of I I I I >..,
,. I \,. ,,. I I ...1
't -'
/~...
...-/
,
.~.
.
.-'
- I
-l-
.
ICELLO
COMMUNITY DEVELOP NT DEPARTMENT
250 E. Broadway, PO Box 1147
Monticello, N 55362
(612) 295 2711
Planning
Case tf:
PUBLIC HEARING APPLICATION
Check Requested Action:
* NOTE: Necessary consulting fees .include cost to hav City Planner analyze variance, rezoning, &
conditional use permit requests at the rate of $75Ihr. e need for City Planner assistance is determined
solely by City staff.
CONDITIONAL USE - $1 5.00 + all necessary consulting expenses*
_ ZONING MAPI TEXT AM NOMENT - $250.00 + necessary consulting expenses*
SIMPLE SUBDIVISION - 50
SPECIAL PLANNING CO SSION MEETING - $250
_ SUBDIVISION PLAT. $3 0 + $lOO/acre up to 10 acreSj $25/acre
after 10 acres + expenses. City will refund excess of per-acre deposit.
:!:........ VARIANCE REQUEST - 50 for setbackl$125 for others + nec. consult. expenses*
_ OTHER - Fee $
P.pplicant Name:
Address:
Phone: Home:
Property Address:
.al Description of Property: _t
Lot:~_j Block:
:n 8,
Current Zoning:
Describe Request: _'-UG
Other:
t..
., I-~I /~~l ..5--IC"e.~ f-
Information provided by the applicant on this form is true an correct.
)-q-ci e
,
/-7-98
Date
Date
.
(CONT NUE ON BACK...)
s.c.
Date ReceivedJPaid: / /1 :J-/1;(
Receipt Number: ,~j <:d.-S .
Public Hearing Date:
VCUSSAM.APP: 2/06//95
FOR ZONING MAP AMENDMENT ONLY: Proposed Zo ing:
FOR SIMPLE SUBDMSION ONLY: Size of parcel to b divided:
.OR SUBDMSION PLAT ONLY: Size of Parcel to be Patted:
Name of Finn Preparing Subdivision Plat:
Street Address:
City:
Acres
FOR VARIANCE ONI.. Y: Please identify the Wlique prop rty conditions or hardship that exist that justifies
granting a variance. A hardship exists when by reason of p operty narrowness, shallowness, shape, or exceptional
topographic or water conditions, combines with strict applic tion of the terms of the ordinance result in exceptional
difficulties when utilizing the parcel in a manner custom and legally permissible within the district in which the
lot is located.
Phone:
he" 5
.~J
a'-C
********************************************************* ******************************************************
(For City se Only)
COMMENTS:
,
.
$(:
YCUSSAM.APP: 2/06//95
. 6.
.
.
Planning Commission Agenda - 2/3/98
(NAC)
At its January 12 meeting, the City ouncil approved the vacation of Hart
Boulevard past the Hospital campus ite, subject to certain conditions,
including approval of the final PUD. The Hospital District is now requesting
final PUD approval for its first phase The first phase includes an expansion
of the hospital building on its east si e toward the clinic building, together
with parking lot expansion on the for er Hart Boulevard right-of-way, and
the construction of the new entrance ocation for the project. Also proposed
as part of Phase I would be the reloca ion of the helipad.
The purpose of final PUD review is to ensure that issues identified earlier
have been addressed, and conditions ecommended during the initial concept
reviews have been complied with. W have summarized the issues and
recommendations as follows:
Phase I Issues:
1. Utilities in Hart Boulevard. T
that city utilities may require
would likely occur during the
issue should be coordinated be
Public Works Department.
e public works department has noted
aintenance or reconstruction, which
ospital's parking lot construction. This
een the Hospital and Monticello
11. Helipad. The helipad has been relocated from its original proposed
location to the west. The new 1 cation will allow helicopter flight
operations to occur without tra c interference with the Hospital's
main entrance. Although it is till close to the County Highway, this is
an improved location for the he ipad, and it appears to have County
Highway Department support. Moreover, though hopefully not
necessary, the Sheriff has indic ted his availability to manage traffic
during flight operations. Final y, the County will have to convey a
small triangle of property to th Hospital to accommodate the new
location.
Hi.
Access to CSAH 75 (Broadway) The County has been reluctant to
allow continued right-out egres from the main hospital driveway to
Highway 75 at the west end of he project. There are currently two
access points to the County Hig way in this location, and the County
is asking that these be closed i exchange for approval of the revised
hospital access drive. The City' position is that keeping one egress
driveway in this location would facilitate circulation on the Hospital
2
.
Planning Commission Agenda - 2/3/98
site and encourage traffic to se Broadway rather than River Street in
the future. The Hospital's sit plan assumes that the driveway will be
closed. While the proposed pI should work, the City should continue
to lobby the County to retain he right-out egress to Broadway. In
either case, the Hospital site Ian should reflect the continuation of a
3D-foot drive through the proj ct. The proposed site plan reduces the
driveway width to 24 feet wes of the main entrance. Due to the
volume of traffic and the pote tial for right-out egress to Broadway,
the 3D-foot width should be re ained for the full length.
As an additional matter, the hase I construction should be expanded
to include the driveway const ction throughout the Hart Boulevard
area, including along the fron of the dental clinic property. The site
plan shows this area to be pro ammed as Phase II, part of the
parking ramp construction. H wever, this area will be necessary to
retain access for the three pro erty owners west of the Hospital
affected by the vacation of Ha Boulevard. Assuming that the County
will require closure of the cur nt access points as a condition of the
new driveway location, the ac sses to the private property will have to
be constructed concurrently with the rest of Phase I.
.
IV.
. . This requirement consists of
access provision to the other p operty owners affected by the vacation
of Hart Boulevard, and coordi ation of the relocated access and
intersection with CSAH 75 bet een the Hospital, the County, and the
School District. The Hospital istrict has indicated that all parties are
in agreement with the plan. T e City should include a condition
requiring written approval fro the affected parties. Approval should
be in the form ofletters from t e School District and County on the
access location, and easement greements signed by the property
owners sharing the Hospital a cess drive.
The site plan has been modified to sh w compliance with setback violations
raised in previous plans. The prima issue outstanding will be design of the
parking ramp and circulation issues esulting from the ramp design. The
previous approvals suggested that th ramp be designed in such a way as to
preclude lower level access. This des' would greatly discourage traffic
from using River Street as a campus ccess point. Combined with the right-
out egress to Broadway, the design w uld facilitate better internal circulation
without compromising traffic levels i the residential area to the west of the
project. The site plan has not altered the design of the ramp other than to
make it fit setback requirements. AI ough this will be a Phase II final PUD
issue, the Hospital should be aware t at ramp design must be modified prior
to any further approvals.
.
3
.
B.
AL TERNATIVE ACTIONS:
Planning Commission Agenda - 2/3/98
1. Motion to recommend approval of the conditional use permit for a final
stage PUD for the Hospital Ca pus, contingent on the conditions
listed in Exhibit X. This motio should be supported by a finding that
the project meets the Monticell Comprehensive Plan goals and
provides for a design which bet er meets the City's zoning objectives
than strict enforcement of thos regulations would allow.
2. Motion to deny the conditional se permit for a final stage PUD based
upon a finding that the project s not consistent with the
comprehensive plan objectives s identified by the Planning
Commission.
3. Motion to table action on the fi al stage PUD pending additional
information.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff is comfortable recommending ap roval of the final stage PUD.
Although some issues are still to be a dressed, these are primarily details
which are commonly worked out and onitored by staff as the project
proceeds toward construction. The 0 y change of significance to the site
plan would be the negotiation with th County for the right-out egress drive
to Broadway. This change would not ffect the remainder of the project
design, however.
.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Exhibit A - Site Plan - Phase I Final UD
Exhibit B - Phasing Plan
Exhibit C - Building Elevations
Exhibit D ~ Conditions of Approval
.
4
'-~ .~~ IIlG
,.~ ],1 ~l
~ ~
rI~ ~~} ~!
~'~i! -,
,.~ ~'
~~~ 51!
. 'Ii i I i I! I II I! I i I
,<I II ,IIJ ,I, Cl ....J
::> <(
1:- : I II I 0..: ill I- ;~ 1 ,~
I" (f) I-
....J <( ~
I II I I <( ::r: llJ z
j, ,\i z a... ::;) ~ ...-
u:: (f) ~ ~ q f.
1~ J~ : ~
......~
~//
.//
~...",;;":,:,:",,,,:,,- 0
!; "';jWZ:mi!I~J~"',O 0
................... ....................,
...............~/'
o
"-
(v
(v
,'7;'
v-/
o
c)
/
.
/
(=~
~~.
U
III ^'
" .
u.. e.
~ ~1
a.. "
..
0::
"
, r I
r .j
~f i 'I
Iii I ! I
"II U
I i" j
.. v' I i
I!I : It
III ~;II II '" ~ i
'" '"
.... Id i '"
0 814m
'" ...J ' --.,'
4"
(P-I
,~ ~-J
:.J.JWz<c
,,~ 0~~1:::
(t~-;."'I i= -J ~ D-
,~Z ::?- U)
0(900
2rnCl:t:
>-
1-1-
-U
Z_
0:::> a:
-1~1--
"5:00
'~ u100
- I UO-1
~ ~~;:
O.q;a:
:E-1OO
,,0
_I:
OJ
,;S
4<'
.~Q:
...
.f'
.
#..:i'.i>
(;flf~
-V -9-,~
"w!'
:y
.
.~......
/
.......~
./".....----------,
/
/
l
/ '.
/1 .",........
.,
I
I
I
-.........,/
/
./
//
I
/
//
I
I
I
I
/
/
.
~' ~
/,'1.
~. ~,
/
/,">
~~~
;2~
~ :.~ '.l ~ ~
njU
Z " )~~-. ~-.::.---.. <
s ~ :..,.,
-.:( ~- T
5-1
~I
.... I ~ I:.
~L~;;~~~~,'i~
~ i i i nJ,H !
" .
;, ;.
:III II
I 1:'
'1' ~
( i~
,-
:z:
<t:
--l
0...
W
f-
CJ)
,
i
.,
~ ~ ,
liHL
~;;:~~
~ ~ j i ~,l
./
. /
. ~"J .'
~~./
\.;<0 "
0'0./
'0 '
/
/
,;~*
.~.,
,~....
"v
~ i~~~~
{,I) .. _
~qH~i
~ ~ -- -
---;..- - -;; 9 ~
t ~ L ;
i5 a .. .... .
~,--! "
s j ~ _
~ ~;L;
~:; ;;~~;
'<Ui~g~.1'
~ ~ j ~ ~.,2._"._.3_
~
I~
I:
/: 11-2-
z
<t:
--l
0...
W
f-
if)
-- .
o >-
. ~ ::l w !:: ...J
. W::.;::Z<c
~~ C> <( => I-
~ 1---l~CL
Z :::E(J)
ae<!lOO
-.:: c:l Q :J:
~ Ii iO:~On ---r
z,1 1
9. '. 1 ... I :
~ I'. t:r1=-cr
;.I----l---... I
,l--,-,c-=-+- ---Cl .
...., -~ ~ .,-. ! ~.I I/o
':. ~I, t;l~ ,.~
!I~ Ii '. i\:
kl~ ~. i"1 ' ..
.. G::
,.~ 'i,
rJ. i III
,
h
fl'
~I;
I
\ .
'i
I
It:
I I
I !
eil)
d
-../,
, '
-I'
,I
l'
,.tl....
I~
"I','
"
'~
,I
"
'~
,rf:
"
"
'" I
I
j.
!.L
~ ......
i}_ ~.j~ _~. j~
~ ~ 0
I I 1
I I
I I
(,
i
11 ! ~I I ; II ! ! Ii: ! ! i I i 1111
1 J ,I I > I Ii II
J..I 1 J ,
~.k ~ ~. j
~ ~' r ·
rt----- -,.
...~ ~ .M~'411 ~ ..." ~
T 1 ,
I
i
1
1-----1-"
LbJ
Fo,
-'1'1'
iJ"
I I------rl-
l~____
1 I
ii-D.;
':D'I
1-0-+
'r-,
,I ~
.~ ~. ~
~~
,~, i~
d ~ E i t;l~
...J
<c
...J .1-
<(ql-
z~~
-CLOJ
u.. :::::>
(J)
~
(lJe~
~"'!O;:!o:
..,~~
~::l'::lil5
:z:~:ll~~
i~~~a
g~~il5
I'-----I<~
~~~~
~~ ~'-=..
fJ ~~
:~(J J.;j
r~-~
1 1
,
~~ ~::
f," l:J
-... ~--~.~
I I
! 1
'D' ...~'
1 I.. ,,"
'i ' I J;::;_,I,~-
:: ~I ';;';'.:,.1
I . ',,, " ,~;~ ;,
0- '] it1~~~:,
'q"'~'
I -....:..-. -:.., "It. ....'.'
,.'\..1 (
I I "I,~." "f~'j
';-tj-I--ib::,r
,--~-,lh,'..,.k.l1Jl
I 'I." ~
'0'
(5
~
~-~
~ ~
, .
"
UJ
t-
en
I
o
=>
a..
I '
, I
i
1
I ;
I
I ,
~
"
"I
w l.
~I ~ ~
(t
.
.
.
Hospital Campus Final P
. Phase I Conditions
1. Coordinate Hart Boulevard drivewa construction with public works
department.
2. Document conveyance of property fr m County to accommodate helipad.
3. Revise site plan, if necessary, based pon negotiation with County Highway
Department on right-out egress to B oadway.
4. Revise site plan to illustrate 3D-foot riveway for full length of project (from
Hart Boulevard on the east to the en of the parking ramp on the west).
5. Revise the phasing plan to include d 'veway construction in front of the
future parking ramp as Phase I consruction.
6. Provide documentation of access and arking easement agreements with all
adjoining property owners north ofC AH 75 affected by Hart Boulevard
vacation.
7.
Provide written documentation of Co nty approval of new access driveway
location for CSAH 75.
8. Provide written documentation of Sc 001 District agreement with new access
driveway location as coordinated wit the Hospital and the County.
9. Preliminary site plan will be required to demonstrate access and egress to
the parking ramp at the top level onI .
10. Compliance with all City Council con itions for the vacation of Hart
Boulevard.
Exhibit D - Hospital hase I Final PUD Conditions
'-'if
.
.
.
7.
Planning Commission Agenda - 2/3/98
(F.P,)
No information had yet been receive from the Chief Building Official at
printing time.
5
.
.
.
...
1
PLANNING COMMISSION 213198
7.
REFEREN E AND BACKGRO ND'
On May 6, 1997 the Planning Commission c nsidered and recommended approval of a
conditional use permit request to anow the esurrection Lutheran Church facility in the
PS (Public/Semi-Public) Zoning District. 0 May 12, 1997 the City Council affirmed the
recommendation of the Planning Commissio and approved the Conditional use Permit for
Resurrection Lutheran Church.
In anticipation of expiration of that Conditi nal Use Permit, Mark Paschke of Hagemeister
and Mack Architects, Inc., on behalf of the hurch is requesting that the Planning
Commission approve a one year extension 0 the Conditional Use Permit.
It is anticipated that construction will begin ound April 15, 1998; however, to insure that
land use considerations of the City do not in erfere, this extension will prevent expiration
and the need to reconsider this item in its en irety.
B.
AL TERNA TIVE ACTIONS:
recommend to the City Cou cil that the Conditional Use Permit to allow a
.church facility in the PS (Pu lic/Semi...;Public) Zoning District for
Resurrection Lutheran Chur h be extended for one year from the date of
City Council approval of this extension.
Motion to:
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of the extensio of the Conditional Use Permit.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Exhibit A - Copy of Minutes of Planning C mmission 5/6/97
Exhibit B - Copy of Minutes of City Counci 5/12/97
.
.
.
'I)-C{j
Planning Commission Agenda - 5/6/97
12.
13.
. Applicant. Resurrection Church.
Steve Grittman, City Planner, report d that Resurrection Lutheran Church
has applied for a rezoning of their pa cel at County Highway 118 and
Fenning Avenue (east of the middle shoo!) from A-O, Agriculture to PS,
Public and Semi-Public District. The P-S District is intended for land uses
which are institutional in nature, an which have patterns of use which are
different from the other large land us s. Church facilities are Conditional
Uses in the P-S District, and as such, the Church has requested approval of a
CUP as well. All action taken by the City on this application is conditioned
'upon final annexation of the parcel i 0 the City limits.
There were no comments.
Chairman Frie opened the public hea 'ng.
Chairman Frie closed the public hea
After a short discussion, DICK MART E MADE A MOTION TO APPROVE,
SECONDED BY JON BOGART, THE REZONING OF THE SUBJECT
PROPERTY TO P-S, PUBLIC & SEM -PUBLIC DISTRICT BASED ON THE
FINDING THAT ESTABLISHMENT F A PS DISTRICT AT THIS
LOCATION IS CONSISTENT WITH HE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.
Motion passed unanimously.
RICHARD CARLSON MADE A MOT ON TO APPROVE, SECONDED BY
ROD DRAGSTEN, A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A RELIGIOUS
INSTITUTION IN A P-S DISTRICT. Motion paseed unanimously.
Page 1
7.Ac
.
.
.
G.
cF I - 0 II
Council Minutes - 5/12/97
Resurrection Church. Reco endation: Approve the conditional
use permit to allow a church fa 'lity in a PS district with the following
conditions:
..
1. The temporary te . nus of the paved parking area is
constructed to co trol drainage and traffic to the
satisfaction of the City Engineer. A rolled asphalt curb in
this area would b an inexpensive suggestion to provide
an interim impro ement.
2. The Church agre s to expand the paved parking area
prior to building xpansion in the event that
demonstrated par . ng demand exceeds the current
supply.
The Church works with the City to appropriately route
the pathway aro d and/or through the property to
connect with path ay routes to the east and west.
3.
4. The Church provi es a plan illustrating landscaping
improvements, inc uding the control of storm water and
erosion after cons ction.
Approval is based upon the fin 'ng that the proposed use has met, or
will meet with appropriate ch ges, the conditions as defined in the
zoning ordinance, including ad quate traffic access and management,
adequate setbacks to protect th neighborhood, adequate parking to
accommodate the proposed use and compatibility with the
neighborhood and comprehensi e plan objectives. Approval is also
subject to completion of the exation proc~ss.
.. _.'.~'~.~_____..._~...d.r.___. - ~~...~.-- ~-~-_.,-- .-- - . - - ~. ~.-.'~.. _.. ~ .. ~ _.. ..___ ._....... ," ~,r .'. ._. _...... ...._.....__....... ~~_
A MOTION WAS MADE BY BRUCE TH LEN AND SECONDED BY ROGER
CARLSON TO APPROVE THE CONSEN AGENDA AS RECOMMENDED. Motion
carried unanimously.
. . - -".>
. . ,',- .:'". ~.>~.,~<''''~ . -. ., -." ...:,....
.1.-:
"
......"...;-
. ....
, .'.'.: ," ; :." ~"~' ': - :.". .~'.': . .
~.- .
""J~'
22-2:
AMENDMENTS - INITIATION: The City Councilor Planning Commission
may, upon their own motion, ini iate a request to amend the text or the
district boundaries of this ordin nee. Any person owning real estate within
the city may initiate a request t amend the district boundaries or text of this
ordinance so as to affect the sai real estate.
.
22-3: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT:
[A] PURPOSE: The purpose f a conditional use permit is to provide the
City of Monticello with a easonable degree of discretion in
determining the suitabili y of certain designated uses upon the general
welfare, public health, an safety. In making this determination,
whether or not the condi onal use is to be allowed, the City may
consider the nature ofth adjoining land or buildings, whether or not
a similar use is already i existence and located on the same premises
or on other lands immedi tely close by, the effect upon traffic into and
from the premises or on y adjoining roads, and all such other or
further factors as the Cit shall deem a requisite of consideration in
determining the effect of uch use on the general welfare, public
health, and safety.
.
[B] RECONSIDERATION: henever an application for a conditional use
permit has been consider d and denied by the City Council, a similar
application for a conditio al use permit affecting substantially the
same property shall not e considered again by the Planning
Commission or City Co cil for at least six (6) months from the date of
its denial; and a subsequ nt application affecting substantially the
same property shall like . se not be considered again by the Planning
Commission or City Co cil for an additional six (6) months from the
date of the second denial unless a decision to reconsider such matter is
made by the City Counci .
.
[C] LAPSE OF CONDITIO USE PERMIT BY NON-USE: Whenever
within one (1) year after anting a conditional use permit the work as
permitted by the permit hall not have been completed, then such
permit shall become null and void unless a petition for extension of
time in which to complet the work has been granted by the City
Council. Such extension shall be requested in writing and filed with
the City Clerk at least t irty (30) days before the expiration of the
original conditional use ermit. There shall be no charge for the filing
of such petition. The re uest for extension shall state facts showing a
good faith attempt to co plete the work permitted in the conditional
use permit. Such petiti n shall be presented to the Planning
Commision for a reco endation and to the City Council for a
decision. Further, whe ever a conditional use has not been in
operation for a period of six (6) months, the conditional use shall be
considered to be null an void.
7C
MONTICELLO ZONING ORDINANCE
22/3
.
{t...,;
ill J,1N' ;~ ~ @
Hagemeister and Mack · Architects, Inc.
501 W. St. Germain, Suite 200
St. Cloud, MN 56301-3605
Tel.: 320 . 251 .9155
Fax: 320 . 251 .4919
CITY OF MONTICELLO
January 14, 1998
Mr. Fred Patch
Chief Building Official
City of Monticello
250 East Broadway
Monticello, MN 55362
Re: Resurrection Lutheran Church
!y1onticello, MN
Architect's Project No. 9661
. Dear Mr. Patch,
This memo is in regards to our conversation this pas Monday afternoon, 1/12/98. On behalf of
Resurrection Lutheran Church, we would like to file for an extension of the Conditional Use
Permit granted the Church last year. The building p oject was pushed back to this Spring while
the Church continued its fund-raising campaign. Th project will be rebid over the period from
January 15 to February 12, 1998. Upon approval of he bid results, construction is anticipated to
begin around April 15, 1998. We ask that you forw rd this memo to the Planning Commission
and if there are any additional forms that need to be ubmitted, please contact our office.
Sincerely,
-J1~ ~
Mark Paschke
Hagemeister and Mack Architects, Inc.
.
copy: Rick Wolfsteller, City Clerk
Building Committee, Resurrection Lutheran hurch
7-(
Members American Institute of Architects · Mlnne ota Society American Institute of Architects
.
.
.
8.
Planning Commission Agenda - 2/3/98
As you all recall (all but Robbie), a fe months ago St. Henry's Church
requested that the Fallon Avenue bri ge be removed from the transportation
portion of the comprehensive plan du to the interference of the view of the
church from the freeway. The item as tabled pending additional analysis of
the location and height of the bridge y the City Engineer and the Church
ArchitectlEngineer. It now appears at there may be a design that is
acceptable to the Church; therefore, t e Church has withdrawn its request.
This is according to a phone message left to me on Thursday, January 29, by
John Olson.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. No action needed.
C.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
None.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
None.
\
6
Planning Commission Agenda - 2/3/98
. 9.
(NAC)
The City has adopted the text of a ne zoning district intended to implement
the objectives of the downtown revital zation plan. At this time, staff is
requesting that the Planning Commis ion consider rezoning a portion of the
greater downtown area to the new dis rict, called the "CCD", Central
Community District. Recently, an op n house was held for property owners
in and near the downtown to review p oposed district lines and provide
comment to the City regarding the im acts of the district on the area.
The most commonly heard comment as in regard to the residential portions
of the proposed district near the trans'tion line between CCD and (typically)
R-2 neighborhoods. The concern refle ted in these comments was the CCD
district's language which places co ercial uses above residential uses in
terms of ease of administration.
.
As a result, staff will be requesting th t the CCD rezoning be considered at
the Planning Commission's next mee 'ng, together with a transitional
rezoning on certain properties utilizi g the existing PZM district. The PZM
District permits R-1 and R-2 uses by ermitted use, and R-3 and B-2 uses by
conditional use. With the underlying Revitalization Plan as the controlling
comprehensive plan for the area, an e ective transition which protects the
neighborhoods from inappropriate en roachments should be possible.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. Motion to call for a public hea ng for rezoning in the downtown area.
Staff believes that the rezonings sho ld be implemented at this time in order
to provide some time to integrate the design review process and other new
district regulations. A map of the pr posed rezoning lines is attached to this
report.
2. Motion to defer calling for a p blic hearing
.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Exhibit A - Proposed rezoning
_on I _
.
,...
rn,
I
<::
~:
.0.
CI);
UJ'
z\
=1
x:~
I
!
.
'98 02:40PM CITY OF MONTICELLO
P.9/9
i
[
! I
'" i
i
:
. ,.
'-I
.
.
.
10.
Team. (NAC)
Planning Commission Agenda - 2/3/98
The newly adopted Central Comm ity District (CCD) includes a provision
for design review of projects propose within the greater downtown area.
Staff and MCP representatives have been discussing the process for
integrating the design review into t development review process of City
staff and the Planning Commission. Because this is a new process for all
involved, it was believed that the PI nning Commission should be made
aware of the appointments to the De ign Advisory Team (DA T) and the
process likely to come out of these di cussions. The appointments are listed
on the attached memo from Rita m 'ch. These individuals were appointed to
the DAT by Council on January 26, 998.
It should be noted that discussion at staff level is ongoing, particularly as
design review may relate to signs. T e process, at least for the initial
applications, will include the followi g:
Permitted Uses
For these uses, the DAT's design re 'ew comments will be advisory only.
That is, they will be intended to be i structive to an applicant, but would not
necessarily affect the Building Offici I's review of an application for a
building permit for a permitted use. s a result, the effectiveness of the
DAT's comments will largely depend upon MCP's ability to advertise the
design guidelines in advance of any ajor, or even minor, construction.
Although this is particularly true for permitted uses, it is important for
conditional uses as well.
Procedurally, the DAT should get no ice of an application for a building
permit application from the City's bIding inspection department staff. The
DAT may waive certain procedural r quirements for plan submissions and
formal review. Therefore, on permit d uses, the DAT may choose to provide
only cursory review and oral comme ts, or it may choose to conduct a much
more formal and thorough process. atever the case, if they become
involved in a permitted use applicati n, they must abide by the open meeting
law. With regard to a conditional us permit or input from the DAT to the
EDA on expenditure of public funds r private use, the DAT must uphold all
meeting laws, which will require es lishment of regular meetings, etc.
8
.
Planning Commission Agenda - 2/3/98
For these uses, the City imposes a s bmission deadline for Planning
Commission agendas of about three eeks prior to the Planning
Commission's meeting date. It shoul be possible for the DAT to meet during
that period and provide its design re . ew comments for the Planning
Commission's agenda packet. For th se applications, the DAT's comments
have the weight of a staff report - th yare advisory to the Planning
Commission in its action or recomme dations. The Commission's practice
should be to incorporate the DAT's c mments into its report to the City
Council, amending the comments as t sees fit, just as the Planning
Commission incorporates other staff omments, conditions, and
recommendations.
It should be understood that this pro ess will require some adjustment to fit
schedules and comfort levels of the i dividuals involved. A review of the
process would be a valuable exercise, perhaps near the end of the first year.
As noted above, the more effectively he design expectations of the
Revitalization Plan are communicate to property owners and developers in
the CCD area, the more successful t e design review process is likely to be.
.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
No action requested. Discuss proces and expectations of DA T or discuss
other issues relating to CCD district egulations.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff believes that the MCP is in the est position to provide its slate of
appointees to the DAT, and this proc ss was anticipated as the DAT was
being created. We recommend that t e City accept the MCP's DAT
candidates.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Exhibit A - MCP memo
.
9
.
.
.
JAN 21 '98 10:39AM CITY OF MONTICELLO
P.3/3
Monticello Communit Partners
Po Box 984
Monticello MN 55362
295-0999
January 9, 1998
MEMO
. To: n. Mayor Bit! Fair;. Councilman Roger Carlso ;-Gouncilman Clint-Herbst; Councilman+'Srian'
Stumpf; Councilman Bruce Thielen
From: Rita Ulrich, MCP Manager ~
Re:
In keeping with our work on the Downtown and iverfront Revitalization Plan and the Central
Community District Ordinance recently approved by the City Council, Monticello Community
Partners (MCP) hereby submits for your conside ation the following people for appointment to
the Design Advisory Team: Pam Campbell, Gai Cole, Ronald Hoglund, Rita Ulrich, and Susie
Wojchouski. Each of these nominees is well ver ed in the design guidelines incorporated in
the Downtown and Riverfront Revitalization Plan and has participated in training on design
considerations and building rehabilitation for do ntown Monticello. It is our understanding that
Fred Patch and Ollie Koropchak will serve as ad isors and city liaisons on the Team.
Monticello Community Partners is committed to p oviding ongoing training and education for
Team members so that they may carry out their uties in a knowledgeable and professional
manner. We will be convening a meeting of the earn in the third or fourth week of January to
work out procedures and guidelines for reviewin proposals and applications in accordance
with the Central Community District Ordinance.
It is our belief that the Design Advisory Team will make a valuable and lasting contribution to
the visual enhancement and economic revitaliza on of Monticello.
Thank you for your consideration.
cc: MCP Board of Directors
Fred Patch, City of Monticello
Ollie Koropchak, City of Monticello
Design Advisory Team members
If) -- ,
11.
.
.
.
Planning Commission Agenda - 2/3/98
The City's comprehensive plan inclu es land use planning for areas south
and west of the current city bound a es. As you may recall, a significant
concept of the comprehensive plan is to direct future growth to the south and
west of the city by investing in infra tructure improvements which would
serve growth in that direction rathe than to the east. Over the past several
months, staff has conducted a more etailed study of the issues which would
affect land use patterns in that area including transportation, utility
corridors, physical lay of the land, e isting land uses, and goals and policies
from the current plan. A concept la d use plan was developed with these
issues in mind, and which has been iscussed at staff level, with other City
organizations, and at a public open ouse.
The purpose of the plan amendment is to allow the City to plan for both long-
and short-term infrastructure impro ements which would be needed to serve
the area. Although the plan would ave no legal effect as things now stand,
a component of the proposed Orderl Annexation Area agreement with
Monticello Township would include he adoption of the City's land use plan
in the revised OM. As a result, the City's comprehensive plan and its
component "Southwest Area Plan" ould form the basis for any land use
decision in the OM, preserving the arious properties for the City's long-
term intended use.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. Motion to call for a public hea 'ng to consider amendments to the
comprehensive plan as propos d in the "Southwest Area Plan."
2. Motion to defer calling for a p hlic hearing for a comp plan
amendment at this time.
Staff requests the Planning Commission call for the hearing to be scheduled
for its meeting on March 3, 1998. P nding an agreement with the Township,
we would like to have the plan read for adoption by the OAA Joint Planning
Board as soon as possible.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Exhibit A - Southwest Area Concep Plan (Draft)
10
SOU DWEST AREA CONCEPT PLAN
,
~,C
November 1997
o 1000 2000 3000
b.d
SCALE IN FEET
~. ~"~~n~~ ,~~.,,~ ~
Ll
i
.
D Low Densiiy Residential
_ Medium / High Densiiy Residential
_ Commercial
_ industrial
Public / Semi Public
~ Future Street
II" I
.
.
.
12.
Updates. (J.G.)
A. Commnnity Center.
Planning Commission Agenda - 2/3/98
Thank you for attending the inform ion meeting on January 20,1998. The
meeting was well attended and the i put was valuable. We hope to answer
all comment card questions that wer not covered at the meeting by phone or
in writing.
A small group of the City Council an HRA has been formed to analyze the
input from the task force and comm ity at large regarding the community
and training center. This group will look at center components, budget, and
financing options. Their recommend tion or alternatives will be presented to
both the HRA and to the City Conn '1. The goal is to have a recommendation
in place to the HRA by February 4, 1 98, and to have the recommendation to
the City Council by February 9, 199 .
11