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 -