Loading...
Planning Commission Minutes 01-21-1981 . . . MINUTES REGULAR MEETING - MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION Wednesday, January 21, 1981 - 7:30 P.M. Members Present: Jim Ridgeway, Ed Schaffer, Dick Martie, John Bondhus, Bill Burke. Members Absent: Loren Klein (ex-officio). 1. Public Hearing - Ordinance Amendment for Signs. The City of Monticello was recently notified that it has been selected to receive a grant from the Federal Highway Administration for the improvement of Ellison Park along the Mississippi River, because it lies adjacent to the Great River Road. However, in order to be eligible for these funds, the City was notified that it was necessary that an ordinance be adopted that indicates that the City would be willing to enter an agreement with the Federal Government which would enable the City, in the future, to purchase non-conforming signs along the Great River Road. The money for the purchase of these non-conforming signs along the Great River Road would come from the Federal Government. Although the Federal Government would not necessarily provide 100% of these funds, the agreement would not go into effect unless the Federal Government provided at least 75% of the funds for purchasing these non-conforming signs. It was noted that the availability of these funds in the future depends on congressional action during the next two years. Hearing no comments from the public, motion was made by Bill Burke, seconded by Dick Martie and unanimously carried to recommend approval of a sign ordinance amendment which would allow the City of Monticello to enter an agreement with the Federal Highway Administration to purchase non-conforming signs along the Great River Road whenever funds of at least 75% would become available from the Federal Government. 2. Public Hearing - Ordinance Amendment - Simplification of Variance Process. In an attempt to simplify the variance procedures, a public hearing was held to consider an ordinance amendment whereby the Planning Commission would hold a public hearing on variances requested, rather than the City Council, and would act and approve or deny each variance request. As part of the Planning Commission public hearing, the Planning Commission's action would be final, unless the decision was appealed by either the applicant or other citizen to the City Council. If the decision of the Planning Commission was appealed, the Council would then hear the variance request and make a final recommendation of approval or denial. - 1 - . . . Planning Commission Minutes - 1/2l/8l The attempt of this ordinance amendment would eliminate the necessity of both the Planning Commission and the City Council having a simple variance request on both agendas, especially in light of numerous setback and side- yard variances requested during the past years. Motion was made by Dick Martie, seconded by John Bondhus and unanimously carried to recommend adoption of a City ordinance amendment that would have variances heard by the Planning Commission at a public hearing where the decision would be made on the request, unless appealed to the City Council. 3. Public Hearing - Consideration of Conditional Use for a Planned Unit Develop- ment - Robert & Marion Jameson. Robert and Marion Jameson, who own a parcel of land on the south side of the Monticello Junior-Senior High School, made application for a conditional use to develop a planned unit development on their property. This planned unit development request would allow three more log cabins to be moved onto their property and restored and used as displays of the past for public observation on a limited basis. Marion Jameson indicated that the three buildings proposed for erection on their property are intended to resemble an historic neighborhood of different ethnic settlements. Mrs. Jameson indicated that they will not be charging an admission fee, although they will be asking for donations of $1.00 for adults and $.50 for children, etc. The Planning Commission recommended that the Planned Unit Development, as proposed, be approved for the three new buildings and that if addi- tional buildings are requested in the future, the request should be brought to the Planning Commission and City Council for their review and approval. Motion was made by Bill Burke, seconded by John Bondhus and unanimously carried to approve the conditional use request for a Planned Unit Develop- ment on the Jameson's property for up to three additional historical buildings. 4. Consideration of a Variance Request - Decorative Services. Decorative Services of Monticello requested a variance to eliminate the curb barrier around their parking lot and driveway to their new facility planned on the south half of a lot next to Independent Lumber in Oakwood Industrial Park. - 2 - Planning Commission Minutes - 1/2l/8l . Their reason for requesting the variance was that the back half of the lot is lower than the surrounding area, and by constructing a holding pond on the lot, they could contain the runoff water in that pond and could also use the pond as part of their landscaping. The plans for their request have been reviewed by John Badalich, City Engineer, and Mr. Badalich did indicate that the grading plan and the use of the holding pond would be acceptable. It was noted by the Planning Commission that the proposed location of the drainage pond would exist on part of the north half of the lot in Oakwood Industrial Park that is not part of the new building site. It was recommended by the Planning Commission that if the drainage pond is built as proposed, a drainage easement be obtained and recorded on the north half of this lot so that a future buyer would be aware of the drainage pond. Discussion did occur by the Planning Commission as to whether or not part of the parking lot should have a curb barrier even if the driveway would not, but a motion was made by Ed Schaffer, seconded by Bill Burke and unanimously carried to recommend approval of the variance request to eliminate the entire curb barrier requirement around their parking lot and driveway to the new facility. . 5. Consideration of possible Amendment to the City of Monticello's Park Dedication Ordinance Requirement. currently, the park dedication for the City of Monticello requires all developers requesting platting contribute lOt of the final plat gross area to be dedicated to the public for their use as either parks, play- grounds, public open space, or linear park and trail systems, or to contribute an equivalent amount in cash and the form of contribution, whether cash or land or combination thereof, shall be decided by the City Council based upon need and conformance with the City's approved plans. In the past, the City of Monticello has determined that the cash equivalent would be equal to 10% of the assessor's fair market value of the property. The assessor's fair market value of the property is determined to be as of January 2nd the preceeding year, and this market value determination is very low. The value per acre historically has been anywhere from $l,OOO to $4,000 per acre when, in fact, after development has occurred, residential property, for example, could be in the area of $24,000 per acre. This $24,000 is just an estimate, and based on four 1/4 acre lots selling for $6,000 each, not including assessments. If a developer proposes to pay the amount in cash, he is a lot better off than dedicating land which is worth quite a bit more than the assessor's fair market value. . - 3 - . . . Planning Commission Minutes - 1/21/81 As a result, it was recommended that the City of Monticello consider hold- ing a public hearing on amending the park dedication ordinance that would result in the following: A. when the park dedication was proposed in cash, the City would obtain an appraisal of the market value of the property based on final plat on a per acre basis. B. When the contribution is in land, the City would obtain an opinion from an appraisal firm that park dedication is equivalent to a lOt value of the total plat, as opposed to 10% of the land area, to discourage the developer from granting poorer land for park and receiving the same credit as the developer who offers good land. C. The park dedication should not include a wetland or ponding area, as this is ultimately saving the developer money as storm sewer would not be needed and the City still does not have any additional parks because the area is for ponding purposes. When the Planning Commission discussed lowering the park dedication require- ment from 10% to 5% after implementing the above way of determining market value, it was noted that the City would still probably be better off than it is under its present system because the valuation of the land would be much higher than the assessor's market value. After discussion on the percentage requirement, it was recommended that the 10% remain in the ordinance as previously stated, and that this percentage could be lowered in the future if it was determined to be excessive. It was the consensus of the Planning Commission members to hold a public hearing at their next regular meeting on the proposed amendment to the park dedication ordinance that would change the City's method in determining market value of the land to be proposed in park dedication cash or land requirements. 6. Approval of Minutes - November 11, 1980 Meeting. Motion was made by Ed Schaffer, seconded by John Bondhus and unanimously carried to approve the Planning Commission minutes of November 11, 1980 as presented. Meeting adjourned. RW/ns - 4 -