Planning Commission Agenda 04-05-2007
.
.
.
AGENDA
MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION
Tuesday, AprilS'h, 2007
6:00 PM
Commissioners:
Rod Dragsten, Charlotte Gabler, Lloyd Hilgart, William Spartz,
and Barry Voight
Council Liaison:
Brian Stumpf
Staff:
Angela Schumann, Gary Anderson
Kimberly Holien and Steve Grittman - NAC
1. Call to order.
2. Approval of the minutes of the Planning Commission meetings of March 6th, 2007.
3. Consideration of adding items to the agenda.
4.
Citizen comments.
5. Continued Public Hearing - Consideration of a request to establish an overlay district applied
to Properties along River Street, and an amendment to the Monticello Zoning Ordinance
Section 3-3 [F] regulating front yard setback averaging.
Applicant: City of Monticello
6. Public Hearing - Consideration of a request for Preliminary and Final Plat for Monticello
Business Center, a commercial subdivision in a B-4 (Regional Business) District.
Applicant: Wal-Mart Real Estate Business Trust
7. Public Hearing - Consideration of a request for amendment to the Monticello Zoning
Ordinance Chapter 3-2[N], as related to the exterior storage of vehicles in rear yards in
residential districts.
Applicant: City of Monticello
8. Consideration to approve a resolution finding that a modification to the Redevelopment Plan
for Central Monticello Redevelopment Project No. I and the TIF Plan for TIF District No. 1-
38 conform to the general plans for the development and redevelopment of the city. WRE,
LLC dba Walker In-Store
9. Consideration to review for comment the Wright County NEQ Land Use Plan
10.
Adjourn.
.
.
.
MINUJES
MONTICELLO PLA~kNG COMMISSION
March 6th, 2007
6:00 PM
Commissioners Present:
Rod Dragsten, William Spartz, Barry Voight, Charlotte Gabler
Commissioners Absent:
Lloyd Hilgart
Council Liaison Present:
Brian Stumpf
Staff:
Angela Schumann, Gary Anderson
Kimberly Holien and Steve Grittman - NAC
1. Call to order.
CHAIRMAN DRAGS TEN CALLED THE MEETING TO ORDER, DECLARING A
QUORUM AND NOTING THE ABSENCE OF COMMISSIONER HILGART.
2.
Approval of the minutes of the Planning Commission meetings of Februarv 6th, 2007
Commissioner Voight requested that the minutes be amended to reflect the correct spelling of
his last name.
MOTION BY COMMISSIONER VOIGHT TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF
FEBRUARY 6TH, 2007 AS AMENDED.
MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER HILGART. MOTION CARRIED, 4-0.
3. Consideration of adding items to the agenda.
NONE.
4. Citizen comments.
Art Doran, 6040 Bakken Street, asked to address the Commission regarding the
American Legion. Chairman Dragsten noted that item would be discussed during the
public hearing for item number 7 on the agenda.
5. Public Hearing Consideration of a request for a Conditional Use Permit for Development
Stage Planned Unit Development approval for an imine retail center at Union Crossings.
Applicant: Rvan Companies US, Inc.
I
.
PIID"" H"lirn pre="" '"" _ ~""rt, JOribi"' 'b, ,i" 'P<'o"'" fee "'" pro,,"~d
retail complex. Holien indicated that applioant, Ryan Companies, has proposed five
retail sites, connected to the existing Home Depot. The retail sites would gain access
from Highland Way. The site shares parking with Home Depot, for which there is an
existing cross parking permit. There are approximately 50 excess parking stalls with the
cross parking arrangement. Holien reported that a majority of required landscaping for
this project had been constructed with the Home Depot project. There is landscaping in
place in parking islands and along the County Road 75 side. To meet requirements, the
applicants are proposing additional landscaping as shown in the site plans.
Holien indicated that the applicant meets signage requirements. She noted that the
photometric lighting plan shows high candlefoot readings along Highland Way, which
the applicants have made an effort to screen with landscaping.
Holien illustrated the building elevations, explaining that the proposed appearance is
architecturally consistent with other buildings on the site, and meets code requirements.
Overall, Holien stated that the project is consistent with the existing PUD and the B-4
district. She reported that planning staff did not receive the engineer's report in time for
the Commission review; it will be provided prior to the City Council meeting.
.
Gabler asked if the buildings are already leased out. Holien replied that she believes a
portion of them are. Dragsten noted that the elevations seem to indicate that PetSmart
and Office Max have leased space. Voight asked if they would be sharing the pylon sign.
Holien replied that is not known at this time, but that this project and any tenants are
required to follow the approved sign system for the PUD.
Spartz asked if the 4600 square foot area would have two users. Holien stated that she
believed that to be accurate based on the plans. Ultimately, that will be the applicant's
decision in leasing. Dragsten asked if the tenants were to put signage on both sides,
would they still comply. Holien answered that they would be in compliance.
Dragsten referred to the engineering comments from WSB listed in the reports. Dragsten
asked ifWSB's comments were always contained in reports. Holien stated that they are
included if they are available. Dragsten asked about a detailed lighting review. Holien
stated that the photometries would be reviewed at building permit.
Voight asked about what type of trees would be included parking islands. Holien replied
that the planting schedule doesn't refer to existing landscaping, but they do show autumn
blaze maple and crabapples. Voight asked if these qualiry as overstory trees. Holien
stated that the maples count, the crabapples do not. The combination of landscaping on
site and in parking areas allows them to meet the minimum requirement.
Chairman Dragsten opened the public hearing.
.
2
.
.
.
Steve Broyer, representing Ryan Compani -'s, stated that the lighting plan as presented is
the original PUD lighting plan. Since that ~ime, Ryan has worked with the City to
address the lighting fixtures. The standards shown along Highland Way have now been
switched to the City's circuiting plan.
Dragsten referred to Exhibit Z. Broyer stated that they are prepared to address those
items. Dragsten commented that staggering the buildings and adding cosmetic elements
to the facades does help break up the building appearance.
Spartz asked about a construction timeframe. Broyer stated that upon approval by
Council, they will begin construction plans immediately.
Stumpf asked to discuss circulation. He referenced the opposing accesses coming off of
Highland Way, noting that the access points don't line up across Highland. Grittman
stated that the reason those access points don't align is that they are for service vehicles
only. In working with Ryan, staff wanted to ensure that only truck traffic exits that way.
The City engineers did not want public traffic crossing there. Broyer further confirmed
that the Target access is a right in - right out condition only.
Hearing no other comments, Commission Dragsten closed the public hearing.
MOTION BY COMMISSIONER SPARTZ TO APPROVE THE DEVELOPMENT
STAGE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT AND FINAL PLAT, BASED ON A
FINDING THAT THE PROPOSED USE IS CONSISTENT WITH THE INTENT OF
THE EXISTING PUD AND THE B-4 DISTRICT, SUBJECT TO THE CONDITIONS
OUTLINED IN EXHIBIT Z AS FOLLOWS:
1. All wall pack lighting shall be full cutoff lighting to reduce glare.
2. The applicant shall revise the plans to comply with all recommendations ofthe City Engineer, as
outlined in this report and detailed in the memo from WSB, dated 2/27/07 and any additional
recommendations from the City Engineer regarding grading, drainage and utilities.
MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER VOIGHT. MOTION CARRIED, 4-0.
6.
Public Hearing - Consideration of a request for a Conditional Use Permit for Development
Stage Planned Unit Development approval for a multi-tenant shopping center, Final Plat
Approval and Conditional Use Permit approval for a drive through lane at Union Crossings.
Applicant: Rvan Companies US, Inc.
Planner Grittman provided the staff report, describing the discussion at the previous
Commission meeting, in which the proposed item was tabled. Grittman referred to the
changes in the plans, discussing the redesign of the drive through. The re-design closes
an access, allowing traffic to circulate around a parking bay and limiting access to the
rear of the site. Grittman stated that a few parking spaces were lost, but the overall
design is better. He also noted that the project is actually in excess for parking due to
shared parking over the entire PUD.
o
.)
.
Grittman illustrated the revised elevations. ,He indicated that the added awnings and wall
treatments break up the wall planes, which may address the Commission's concerns.
Staff believes that they have met the requirements as related to building appearance. The
listed condition in Exhibit Z ensures that the applicant will meet the comments ofthe
engmeers.
Stumpf asked if clients would order and pick up at the same window. Grittman
illustrated the order and pick up locations.
Dragsten asked about the area shown in previous plans where the parking lot encroached
into the easement. Grittman stated that it no longer encroaches into that easement.
Grittman also noted that a recent ordinance amendment doesn't allow parking on
drainage and utility easements. In areas that the City has utilities running through the
middle of sites, the City obtains agreements that property owners are responsible for
maintaining and possibly reconstructing parking areas. Dragsten stated that the report
states that the back of curb is on the easement. Grittman confirmed that to be accurate
and noted that the City felt that it could work around the curb without having to remove
it. Dragsten asked if they had adequate stacking in the drive through lane. Grittman
stated that it has room for 7 vehicles, which is more than adequate.
.
Dragsten asked if businesses would have to come back to the Commission for the
proposed monument sign. Holien stated there are monument signs that were approved
originally. Schumann explained that each sign package proposed would also be reviewed
for comparison to the approved PUD with a submitted building permit package.
Steve Broyer, representing Ryan Companies, again addressed the Commission. Broyer
stated that internally, they were happy with the revisions. Broyer noted that the lighting
plan had changed, as they went with 30' poles over 38' poles. Dragsten and Voight
agreed that the elevations had improved.
Dragsten asked if Ryan is familiar with conditions. Broyer stated that they are familiar
with the conditions and will address them as required
MOTION BY COMMISSIONER VOIGHT TO APPROVE THE DEVELOPMENT
STAGE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT AND FINAL PLAT, BASED ON A
FINDING THAT THE PROPOSED USE IS CONSISTENT WITH THE INTENT OF
THE EXISTING PUD AND THE B-4 DISTRICT, SUBJECT TO THE CONDITIONS
OUTLINED IN EXHIBIT Z AS FOLLOWS:
1. The applicant shall revise the plans to comply with all recommendations ofthe City Engineer,
as outlined in this report and detailed in the memo from WSB dated 1/23/07 and the memo
from City Engineer Bruce Westby, dated 1/24/07.
MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER SPARTZ. MOTION CARRIED, 4-0.
.
MOTION BY COMMISSIONER SPARTZ TO APPROVE THE CONDITIONAL USE
PERMIT FOR A DRIVE-THROUGH FACILITY, BASED ON A FINDING THAT
4
.
.
.
THE PROPOSED USE IS CONSISTENT WITH THE INTENT OF THE PUD AND
THAT THE USE ST A TISFIES THE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL.
MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER GABLER. MOTION CARRIED, 4-0.
7. Public Hearing - Consideration of a request for an amendment to the Monticello Zoning
Ordinance Section 2-2 (PI) defining public signs and an amendment to Section 3-9 regulating
Signs to address off-site. quasi-public signs. Applicant: Citv of Monticello
Planner Grittman reviewed the staff report, discussing the American Legion's request.
Grittman stated that the report addresses the current definition of a public sign. What is
proposed is to amend the definition, expanding it to include civic groups. The
amendment proposed would allow the Council to designate those groups by resolution.
Grittman noted that the other item for consideration is to amend the sign ordinance's
limitation on where public signs can be placed. Currently, the zoning ordinance restricts
public signs to a few ofthe zoning districts. Grittman stated that this isn't consistent with
where signs currently exist, as public safety signs are in all zoning districts. Regardless
of the other issues, staff would recommend amending the ordinance to address the
location of such signage.
Grittman explained that the third amendment item for consideration clarifies the sizes,
design and number of public signs for non-governmental organization. This amendment
provides consistency and helps to avoid proliferation of such signs.
Gabler stated that such signs could be helpful and show that the City supports those
groups. Spartz asked ofthere would be any other approvals needed. Grittman stated that
first the organization would need to be designated, and then need a license to be reviewed
by the City to make certain it doesn't interfere with public safety.
Voight clarified that the Council will make the decision as to whether a group would fit
this criteria. Grittman confirmed.
Dragsten confirmed that one of the amendments just eliminates the zoning district
problem. Grittman stated that item would be recommended regardless. Dragsten asked if
right now the American Legion fits the description of non-commercial. Grittman stated
that as a staff we don't believe that they meet a non-commercial designation. The way
the ordinance is written is almost exclusively governmental.
Stumpf asked what other civic groups could qualifY under the amendment. Grittman
stated that obviously the VFW, possibly the Rotary, Lions, etc. He noted that many don't
have facilities, which may be self-limiting in terms of signage.
Stumpf asked if the Commission would make a recommendation for the maximum
number to the Council. Grittman replied that the Planning Commission has an
5
.
amendment before them allowing 1 sign; thby have the option to change that number.
Stumpf asked if it could be posted with an existing sign, rather than adding a new sign.
Grittman stated that the Commission could consider that as a restriction.
Voight referred to information regarding about what other communities have done.
Voight asked if there are communities that make these distinctions for civic groups.
Grittman stated that while he couldn't cite specific communities, he has seen signs of this
nature. Govenmental public signage is more common.
Dragsten asked if the Commission has to determine whether civic groups are non-
commercial. Grittman responded the ordinance amendment opens up that discussion.
Chairman Dragsten opened the public hearing.
.
Art Doran, 6040 Bakken Street, spoke to the Commission as Commander of the
American Legion. Doran stated that there are many people that come through town, who
would like to stop, but do not know where the American Legion is. The Legion has
requested a sign for many years. Doran stated that the American Legion is a public, civic
organization that donates a lot of funding to the community. He explained that if the
Legion does not generate funds, then they do not have the ability to give back to the
community. Doran referred to the Commission's question about other cities that have
signs. He cited other circumstances where they are present. Doran summarized that the
Legion would appreciate the Commission's consideration ofthis matter.
Dragsten asked if the Legion had done any other type of advertising or considered
changing their sign. Doran stated that they have been doing advertising in the local
paper. Doran stated that by keeping their sign in its location, the problem will still be the
same, as people can't see it from County 75.
Spartz recognized the uniqueness of their facility. He asked where the Legion would put
the sign if allowed. Doran replied that they would probably seek to have it at the comer
of County 75 and Elm.
Voight asked Doran if the majority of people who frequent their facility are participating
in Legion activities or are there for the bar. Doran stated that it is both.
Hearing no further comments, Chairman Dragsten closed the public hearing.
Dragsten stated that he believes that the Legion does compete with other businesses
within the community and the sign would give them an unfair advantage. Dragsten
suggested that perhaps they could utilize other alternatives.
Voight agreed and stated that there are already way too many signs in the community and
that he doesn't think the City needs more signs.
.
6
.
.
.
I
Stumpf stated that he considers their locatidn unique. Stumpf noted the VFW is also
tucked off the freeway. Dragsten concurred regarding location, but stated that he just isn't
sure these organizations fit the ordinance definition.
Spartz stated that the location is unique, but that the amendment would allow Council the
discretion to decide whether the organization meets the civic definition. Dragsten stated
that he doesn't disagree, just opens the door to other civic organizations.
Grittman noted that the motions regarding the first two proposed amendments go together
in relationship to the Legion request.
MOTION BY COMMISSIONER DRAGSTEN TO DENY THE PROPOSED
AMENDMENT TO PERMIT OFF-SITE DIRECTIONAL SIGNS AS IDENTIFIED IN
EXHIBIT A OF THE 03/06/07 PLANNING COMMISSION REPORT, BASED ON A
FINDING THAT THE REQUESTED AMENDMENT IS NOT CONSISTENT WITH
THE INTENT OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE.
MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER VOIGHT. MOTION CARRIED, 3-1,
WITH COMMISSIONER SPARTZ IN DISSENT.
MOTION BY COMMISSIONER DRAGS TEN TO DENY THE PROPOSED
AMENDMENT TO PERMIT OFF-SITE DIRECTIONAL SIGNS AS IDENTIFIED IN
EXHIBIT B OF THE 03/06/07 PLANNING COMMISSION REPORT, BASED ON A
FINDING THAT THE REQUESTED AMENDMENT IS NOT CONSISTENT WITH
THE INTENT OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE.
MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER VOIGHT. MOTION CARRIED 3-1,
WITH COMMISSIONER SPARTZ IN DISSENT.
MOTION BY COMMISSIONER VOIGHT TO APPROVE AN AMENDMENT TO
SECTION 3-9 OF THE MONTICELLO ZONING ORDINANCE TO ALLOW PUBLIC
SIGNS IN ALL ZONING DISTRICTS.
MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER DRAGSTEN. MOTION CARRIED,
4-0.
8. Public Hearting Consideration of a request to establish an overlav district applied to
Properties along River Street. and an amendment to the Monticello Zoning Ordinance Section
3-3 (F) regulating front yard setback averaging. Applicant: City of Monticello (NAC)
Prior to the staff report on the item, Chairman Dragsten asked for clarification on what
portion of River Street the ordinance covered. Grittman responded that the ordinance
would deal primarily with the river side of the street.
7
.
i
Grittman provided background for the CO~iSSion, referring to the current ordinance
which calculates setbacks based on an aver ging formula. At the last meeting, the
Planning Commission considered whether 0 eliminate the clause, establishing a straight
30' setback, or to establish an overlay district that would apply to a certain portion of
River Street, creating a 50' setback. The Planning Commission recommended against
that amendment, recommending to eliminate front yard setback averaging, and creating a
30' front yard setback. Grittman reported that recommendation had gone forward to the
City Council. However, the City Council was concerned that property owners may not
have understood the impact the overlay could have. So the item was re-noticed with
emphasis on the overlay. Grittman explained that the Commission has a second
opportunity to review the item and to allow the property owners a second chance at
public hearing.
Stumpf asked from what point to what point would the area on River Street include.
Grittman stated that the discussion is basically between East Bridge to Ellison. Stumpf
noted that there could be properties on the west side that are impacted. Grittman stated
that the averaging applies in every district, but based on where houses are typically sited,
the averaging clause is really only applicable for River Street.
.
Dragsten stated that at the December meeting, when making the motion to recommend
denial of the overlay district, the Commission's intent was to not create the separate
district, allowing instead the River Street area to blend with the rest of the City in terms
of setback.
Grittman stated that he interpreted the direction of Council not as disagreement, but to
allow for more discussion.
Chairman Dragsten opened the public hearing.
Chief Building Official Anderson noted for the record a letter received by the Planning
Commission from John Sandberg and Phyllis Johnson. Chairman Dragsten read the
letter, which encouraged the Commission to recommend for the 30' setback, allowing full
use of property. Dragsten asked if Anderson had spoken with Sandberg. Anderson
confirmed that he had, and that Sandberg would just like the 30' to be a standard city-
wide. Sandberg would like to build an addition and wouldn't be able to meet the
averaged setback.
A resident at 13 Linn Street addressed the Commission, seeking confirmation that the
overlay would apply to the north side of River Street only. He inquired what would
happen to the south side. Grittman stated that it would just be a standard 30' setback.
.
Adrian Boisclair, resident along East River Street, explained to the Commission that his
lot is not very deep and inquired how the ordinance and any potential amendment would
affect his property. Grittman stated that the standard setback is 30' from property line.
Anderson stated that Boisclair lives at the comer of Washington and River, on the north
side. Dragsten clarified this ordinance would not effect him.
8
.
Hearing no further comments, Chairman Dtagsten closed the public hearing.
V oight stated that he believes that City should do away with averaging altogether. Voight
commented that he doesn't think government or neighboring properties should regulate
setbacks. Voight recognized that River Street is unique, so perhaps they should look at
the overlay with the 50' setback.
Stumpf stated that it isn't the Council's intent to dictate where someone can put their
house, it would be to protect the neighbor. Stumpf stated that without averaging, it was
to protect uniformity.
Dragsten stated that he is in favor of setbacks being within the proximity of neighboring
properties.
Gabler confirmed that the ordinance would only be creating one overlay district in one
area. Dragsten stated that averaging is in place now. Grittman stated that if you are
going to have averaging, you need to define what you are averaging. He explained that
the overlay district proposed establishes a straight 50' setback for the north side of River
Street.
.
Spartz asked if the ordinance currently requires averaging the whole block, or just
neighbors. Grittman answered that the ordinance is currently based on averaging just the
two adjacent structures.
Spartz stated that it may be simpler to just apply the overlay. Voight noted that in
December the Commission had recommended eliminating the averaging altogether.
Grittman reiterated his concern with the averaging clause. There are enforcement issues
by requiring different property owners to comply with different setbacks within the same
district. As a result, you have a differential impact on property owners. The City's
ability to regulate through zoning is supposed to be applied equally throughout a district.
Dragsten inquired ifby creating an overlay district with averaging the Commission would
address this issue. Grittman stated that it would be better than city-wide averaging, but
would still have some of the same issues. Dragsten stated that he would prefer to have
the overlay district and have some sort of language for averaging that would allow some
movement for placement. Grittman clarified that in that case, it would need to regulate
both minimum and maximum setbacks.
Anderson illustrated some River Street lot examples for the Commission's reference.
.
Chairman Dragsten referred to the options. Gabler asked if we could take each scenario
and apply it to some circumstances. The Commissioners requested an inventory that
would allow for comparison of the different scenarios.
9
.
.
.
MOTION BY COMMISSIONER GABLEl TO INVENTORY THE NORTH SIDE OF
RIVER STREET FROM OTTER CREEK TO THE HOSPITAL IN RELA TIONSIP TO
THE SETBACK SCENARIOS PRESENTED AND TO AND TABLE ACTION ON
THE RIVER STREET SETBACK AND OVERLAY ITEM UNTIL THE INVENTORY
CAN BE REVIEWED.
MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER SPARTZ. MOTION CARRIED, 4-0.
Holien asked if they only wanted setback information, or if they would also like to have
the number of non conforming lots created by each situation. The Commission requested
both pieces of information.
9.
Consideration of the creation of an Interim Amendment to Section 9-1 of the CiTY Code
regulating traffic. allowing the City to grant permission to the Chamber of Commerce to
plan a sign within the City right-of-wav for a temporary period of time.
Planner Grittman presented the staff report, indicating that the Monticello Chamber of
Commerce has approached the City on behalf of its members, seeking to create a test of
potential off-site advertising messages. The sign proposed is a temporary sandwich
board style sign at comer ofHwy. 25 and Broadway. Grittman reported that the
Chamber would be responsible for regulating and monitoring the activity on the sign and
at the time the ordinance expires, to come back with some further request as related to
downtown businesses. Grittman explained that the Chamber is eventually envisioning
something more permanent.
Staff has written a draft of an ordinance amendment which would allow for that sign to
be located on City property for 6 months, at which time the sign would have tt be
removes and parties would have to determine if sign was useful.
Staff s concerns relate to the amount of traffic and information at that intersection.
Grittman referred to the staff report, stating that it outlines a series of conditions for
approval. He stated that staff doesn't have a specific recommendation, but does have
concerns about setting precedent regarding signage and safety concerns.
Stumpf asked if sandwich boards are already allowed. Grittman stated that they are
allowed on site, but this would be an off-site sign. Stumpf stated that it is a duplication of
current ordinance and allows more signage and clutter. Stumpf commented that people
on Highway 25 are not interested in a sandwich board just because they are driving
through town. Stumpf stated that he is for helping local business, but is not sure this is
the answer.
Spartz inquired who would determine if the sign actually directed customers to their
bueiness. Grittman noted that measurement is the difficulty. Gabler asked if the
Chamber would be collecting funds for this. Grittman stated that it was his
understanding that the Chamber would create the sign, but that the business would
prepare and pay for the insert. However, placement would be rent free.
10
.
Voight asked if at the end of the 6 months, I~' someone has to come back with a report.
Grittman stated that this is written to allow management within ROW or on its own
property. City has control over where and hen these would be located.
Dragsten stated his opinion that a 6-month trial would be acceptable, although we don't
want to create more signage.
Voight stated that he believes this request is similar to the Legion agenda item, which just
creates more signage.
MOTION BY COMMISSION DRAGS TEN TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE
AMENDMENT TO SECTION 9-1 OF THE CITY CODE TO ALLOW A
TEMPORARY SANDWICH BOARD SIGN FOR THE CHAMBER OF COMMERCE
WITHIN THE CITY RIGHT OF WAY, AS PREPARED BELOW.
A. The subject sign shall be located on City property at the southwest corner of the
intersection, adjacent to the Chamber of Commerce site.
B. The subject sign shall be a sandwich board sign.
C. The subject sign shall not exceed four (4) feet in height.
.
D. The face area of the sign shall not exceed seven (7) square feet on either side.
E. No sign shall he located within ten (l0) feet of a fire hydrant.
F. No sign shall be placed within the public right of way.
G. The Chamber of Commerce shall be responsible for all scheduling of tenants wishing to
advertise a message on the sign.
H. Color and design shall meet the design gnidelines for the CCD zoning district, and shall not
be composed of "fluorescent" colors.
I. The Chamber of Commerce shall be responsible for reviewing the design of each faceplate
to be placed on the sign.
J. The sign must be well maintained and kept in good repair at all times. Maintenance of the
sign shall be the responsibility of the Chamber of Commerce.
K. The sign shall be located on ground level.
L. The sign shall not obstruct the vision of drivers or pedestrians or detract from the visibility
of any official traffic control device.
M. The placement of the sign shall not impede pedestrian or vehicle circulation. The Chamber
of Commerce shall be responsible for sign placement.
N. The sign shall not occupy any public sidewalk.
.
O. The sign shall not have electrical connections, nor include any lighted or moving
component.
11
.
.
.
I
i
P. This agreement shall expire on Septbmber 30,2007.
MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER GABLER. MOTION CARRIED 3-1,
VOIGHT IN DISSENT.
Gabler suggested that the Legion work with the Chamber to get their name on the
sandwich board sign
10. Adiourn
MOTION BY COMMISSIONER SPARTZ TO ADJOURN.
MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER VOIGHT. MOTION CARRIED, 4-0.
12
.
.
.
Planning Commission Agenda - 04/03/07
50
Continued - Consideration of a request for an amendment to the Monticello
Zonin2 Ordinance Section 3-3 IF] re2ulatin2 front vard setback avera2in20
Applicant: City of Monticello (NAC)o
REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND
As directed by the Planning Commission, staff has prepared a document including
information on existing setbacks of all homes on the north side of River Street,
from Washington Street to Otter Creek Road. This document may be found
attached.
The existing setbacks of homes in this area have been compared against four
setback options. Options include the following:
. 30 foot minimum setback
. 50 foot minimum setback
. Minimum setback equal to the average setback of adjacent structures
. A minimum setback of 30 feet plus 2/3 of the difference between 30 ft
and average setback of adjacent structures
Staff applied each setback alternative to the existing homes to calculate the
number of non-conforming lots created. The number of non-conforming lots
created under each alternative is as follows:
Setback alternative
Number ofnon-conformin2lots
7 lots
26 lots
26 lots
17 lots
30 feet
50 feet
Average setback of adiacent structures
30 ft plus 2/3 of the difference between 30
ft. and the average setback of adj acent
structures
As illustrated above, the same number of non-conforming lots is created under a
50 foot minimum setback requirement and a minimum setback equal to the
average setback of adjacent structures. The alternative that creates the fewest
non-conforming lots is a 30 foot minimum setback. This setback is consistent
with the required minimum setback in the R-l, R-2, R-3, and R-4 districts.
RECOMMENDATION
Staffrecommends deleting the averaging clause in regard to front yard setbacks
and relying on the existing 30 foot setback requirement on all R-l properties,
including those on the north side of River Street. As demonstrated above, up to
26 non-conforming lots may be created under the alternate setback options.
1
Planning Commission Agenda - 04/03/07
.
Requiring a 30 foot minimum setback along River Street, would not necessitate
an overlay district, as it is consistent with the current Ordinance.
Deleting the averaging clause and requiring a straight 30-foot setback would ease
enforcement for regulating the setback at a staff level and create a consistent
setback for all R-l properties. The recommended setback also allows all property
owners to have a clear understanding of what they may do with their property. As
shown on the attached exhibits, this minimum setback is also consistent with the
current development pattern. As such, staff recommends eliminating the
averaging clause to require a 30 foot minimum setback along River Street and all
R-l zoned properties within the City.
AL TERNA TIVE ACTIONS
Alternative four below leaves the ordinance as is, which requires setbacks 30 ft
plus 2/3 of the difference between 30 ft. and the average setback of adjacent
structures
1. Motion to recommend approval of an amendment to Section 3-3[F] to
require a 30 foot minimum front yard setback.
.
2.
Motion to recommend approval of an amendment to Section 3-3[F] and
the creation of the River Street Overlay District.
Under this option, the Commission has three options:
a. 50' setback
b. 30' plus 2/3 ofthe difference between the 30' setback and the
setback of the two adjacent structures
c. Setback equal to the average of the two adjacent structures
3. Motion to deny an ordinance amendment to Section 3-3[F} and the
creation of the River Street Overlay District.
SUPPORTING DATA
A. Planning Commission Agenda Report 03/06/07
B. River Street Setback Comparison Spreadsheet
C. River Street Lot Comparison Images
.
2
.
.
.
A
Planning Commission Agenda - 03/06/07
8.
Consideration of a request for an amendment to the Monticello Zonin2 Ordinance
Section 3-3 IF! re2ulatin2 front vard setback aVera2ID2. Applicant: City of
Monticello (NAC).
The Planning Commission considered this item at their December 5, 2006 Illeeting,
and recommended approval of Alternative 2, amellding Section 3-3. [F] of the
Zoning Ordinance only. The recomme.ndedamendmellt would delete the averaging
clause for front yard setbacks in all residential districts. The Commission expressed
concern that the creation of an overlay district would affect few properties, and may
not be necessary. The Commission determined that deleting the averaging clause
would be an effective control for Illaintailling uniforlJlity.
The City Council considered this .item at their January 2~, ~OQ7llleeting and
recommended tablillgthe item. The Council was concerned that the. residents
affected by this amendment may not have been aware of the implications of the
proposed amendment, or whether an overlay district would be a desired substitute.
The Council tabled this item to call for a sec9nd pllblic hearing at the Planning
Commission level, focusing on the overlay district. .
The City has recently reviewed a request:from a, property owner on River Street to move
a single family home off a lot and rebuild, with the new home located closer to the front
yard setback line than the originiiI building footprint. Upon reviewing the request, it was
determined that the proposed location would not be permitted, due to a clause in the
ordinance establishing an averaging requirement for front yard setbacks.
The minimum front yard setback requirement in the R.I District is .CUITetlt established at
30 feet. The subject proposal meets this requirement. However, the Zoning Ordinance
contains additional restrictions for front yard setbacks, establishing a maximum setback
requirement, as well as a minimum.
Section 3-3 of the Zoning Ordinance pertains to yard requirements, including all
requirements for front yard setbacks. Section 3-3 (F) specifically contains a provision for
front yard setbacks in residential districts with adjacent structures. This section states,
"In residential districts where the adjacent structures exceed the
minimum setbacks established in subsection [C] above. the
minimum setback shall be thirty (30) feet plus two-thirds (2/3) of
the difference between thirty (30) feet and the setback or average
setback of adjacent structures within the same block. "
1
.
Planning Commission Agenda - 03/06/07
The existing ordinance presents a number of application issues. As the ordinance reads,
the maximum setback allowed for each lot is contingent upon the setbacks of the adjacent
structures on the block. In that manner, each time a home is altered in any way that
results in a new setback, the average setback for the block changes. Essentially, the
actions of one homeowner dictate the building envelope of the adjacent property owners.
As such, the ordinance is highly difficult to enforce. This Section was initially adopted to
encourage uniform site lines along all city blocks. However, staff believes a more
effective control for maintaining uniformity may be established.
The ability to maintain setback uniformity is particularly a concern along River Street,
due to the nature of the properties and the unique natural features of the area. The
majority of homes along River Street greatly exceed the required minimum setback, in an
effort to place homes close to the riverfront. As such, any home proposing to simply
meet the minimum requirement may result in extreme staggering of homes along the
street. The averaging technique may have maintained some uniformity in this regard, but
as explained above, is highly difficult to enforce.
.
Amendments. To address the issue of uniformity, staff has prepared an ordinance
amendment containing two sections. The first section would simply delete any reference
to the current averaging technique, and delete any maximum setback limitations.
Removing this provision in the ordinance would apply a uniform setback to all properties,
regardless of the setback of the adjacent structures.
The second section of this amendment establishes an overlay district for properties on
River Street, identified as the "RS" RiverStreet District. This overlay district would be
applied to and superimposed on all properties located on River Street, identified as such
by a corresponding street address. The amendment would establish a more significant
front yard setback for all properties along River Street, and would provide the
opportunity to maintain uniform site lines along both sides of the road, while applying the
same setback for all properties. The regulations and requirements imposed by the "RS,"
River Street, district shall be in addition to those established for the district which jointly
applies.
The proposed amendment is found below, and may be modified at the direction of the
Planning Commission and/or City Council.
.
2
.
, Planning Commission Agenda - 03/06/07
ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS
Regarding the proposed amendment to Section 3-3 [F] of the Zoning Ordinance
regulating front yard setback averaging, the City has the following options:
1. Motion to recommend approval of the amendment to Section 3-3 [F] and the
creation of the "RS" River Street District, as prepared below.
2. Motion to recommend approval of the amendment to Section 3-3 [F] only.
3. Motion to deny the ordinance amendment and creation of the "RS" River Street
Overlay District as proposed.
RECOMMENDATION
.
As stated above, the current averaging technique applied to front yard setbacks is
outdated and difficult to enforce. An amendment must be made to the ordinance to apply
a uniform setback to all properties, regardless of the location of adjacent structures. The
proposed amendment was drafted due to inquiry for a property on River Street.
Properties along this street are unique, and have in the past been subject to a setback
averaging regulation. If the setback averaging is still
desired, staff would recommend the use of an overlay district, rather than the problematic
language in the ordinance. As such, a sample ordinance creating an overlay district has
been drafted.
However, an overlay district would only affect a small area of the City. In addition, the
setback averaging (in any form) creates an uneven field for the purposes of applying
zoning rules and for property owners attempting to utilize their property. Therefore, staff
recommends approval of Alternative 2, deleting the averaging clause.
.
3
.
Planning Commission Agenda - 03/06/07
CITY OF MONTICELLO
WRIGHT COUNTY, MINNESOTA
ORDINANCE NO,
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 3 OF CHAPTER 3 RELATING TO
YARD REQUIREMENTS AND CREATING CHAPTER 19C, ESTABLISHING
THE "RS" RIVER STREET DISTRICT
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MONTICELLO, MINNESOTA ORDAINS:
SECTION 1. Section 3-3 [F) relating to front yard setbacks is hereby amended
to read as follows:
[Fl. In reaidential E1istriets waaf1l the adjaeeat slf'aemr-es elleeed t1ie miniFffilHi
setbaeks aatablisnoo ia subseetisB [C] abaya, the miflimwB setl;Hlek sftall bs
thirty (30) feet plus tv;a thirds (2.'3) sftlie E1iffoTeaoe 'aet'o';eea thirty (30) f-eet
aRe the setbaek eT a\'6fage setbaek af adjaeeBt straetur1lS withiB the same
~
.
SECTION 2, Section 3-3 [C) 1 relating to yard requirements is hereby amended
to read as follows:
[C]. In R-I, R-2, B-1, and B-2 districts where adjacent structures,
excluding accessory buildings within same block, have front yard
setbacks different from those required, the front yard minimum
setback shall be the average of the adjacent structures. If there is only
one (1) adjacent structure, the front yard minimum setback shall be
the average of the required setback as established within the
underlying residential district and the setback of the adjacent
structure. In Be ease shall the mini_ frsllt YllT4 set'aaek eReeed
thirty (30) feet, eJle6flt as pTs'.'ided in sooseetisB [F] belew.
.
4
.
Planning Commission Agenda - 03/06/07
CHAPTER 19C
"RS" RIVER STREET OVERLAY DISTRICT
SECTION:
19C-I: Purpose
19-2: District Application
19C-3: Permitted Uses
19C-4: Prohibited Uses
19C-5: Development Regulation
19C-l: PURPOSE: The purpose of the "RS" River Street overlay district is to establish
regulations specific to the low density, single family, detached residential dwelling units
and directly related complementary uses located along River Street.
19C-2: DISTRICT APPLICATION:
.
[A] The "RS," River Street, district shall be applied to and superimposed on all
properties located on River Street, and identified as such by a corresponding street
address, contained herein existing or amended by the text of this ordinance. The
regulations and requirements imposed by the. "RS," River Street, district shall be in
addition to those established for the district whiCh jointly applies. Under the Joint
Application of Districts, the more restrictive requirements shall apply.
19C-3: PERMITTED USES: The following operations and uses are permitted in the
"River Street district" as a matter of right subject to arty other applicable code, ordinance,
or law:
[A] Those uses permitted in the "R.I " District, under the same conditions as listed in that
district.
19C-4: PERMITTED ACCESSORY USES: The following are permitted accessory
uses III
The "River Street" District as a matter of right subject to any other applicable code,
ordinance, or law:
[A] Those permitted accessory uses as allowed in the "R -I" District, under the same
conditions as listed in that district.
19C-5: CONDITIONAL USES: The following are conditional uses in the "River
Street" District (requires a conditional use permit based upon procedures set forth in and
regulated by Chapter 22 of this ordinance).
.
[A] Those conditional uses as allowed in the "R.I District, under the same conditions as
listed in that district.
5
.
Planning Commission Agenda - 03/06/07
19B-6: SETBACKS. The following minimum requirements shall be observed in a
Public/Semi-Public Use District, subject to additional requirements, exceptions, and
modifications set forth in this Ordinance.
[A] Front Yards:
Not less than fifty (50) feet.
[B] Side Yards:
1.
Side Yard, interior. Ten (10) feet minimum to dwelling and six (6)
feet minimum to accessory structures.
2.
Side Yard, comer. Twenty (20) feet minimum on the street side
and ten (10) feet minimum to house on interior side
2.
Not less than six (6) feet for single family homes on lots of record
with a lot width 66 feet or less in the Original Plat of Monticello
and Lower Monticello which are zoned R-I or R-2.
.
[C] Rear Yards: Not less than thirty (30) feet.*
*May be subject to additional district regulations, including, but not limited to, the Wild
and Scenic Rivers Management District, the Flood Plain Management District, and the
Shoreland District.
THIS AMENDMENT SHALL BE IN FULL FORCE AND EFFECTIVE
IMMEDIATELY FOLLOWING ITS PASSAGE AND PUBLICATION
Approved by the Monticello City Council the 23rd day of January, 2007.
CITY OF MONTICELLO
By:
Mayor Clint Herbst
ATTEST
By:
Jeff O'Neill, City Administrator
.
6
.
c::
0
II>
"i:
n:s
Q.
E
0
(,)
~
. (.)
n:s
.0
-
G>
U)
-
G>
G>
"-
-
U)
"-
G>
>
0::
.
----
Gl
.... ...
c c
~ III
... C
:I .-
u'E
o
------- - --
...
Gl 0
Cl...
III ...
... III
Gl.c
~1i
I/)
.... III
c .!!!
Glt:
... Gl
.!!. c.
~ e
II..
Cl'"
C ...
.- III
'lii.c
'- ....
>< Gl
WI/)
----
,~
ii)'
...
Gl Gl ~
III .c ~
5 E ~
J::I-
Z l/l
III
___w
e
o
0,
e
E
Ul
'"
s:
...
...
III
.c
....
Gl
I/)
....
o
o
u.
o
In
...
...
III
.c
....
Gl
I/)
....
o
o
u.
o
l"l
Gl
...
c
.!!!
C.
E
o
u
~
Cl
>
III
l"l
-
N
ij
- --,----- ----
I
Gl'
...!
ci
Ill'
=i
a.'
EI
01
u
,~ ,~' ,~I" '~I '~II 'E~' II ,~I ' ,
E E E' EEl E'
~ ~ ~,~ ~ ~ I I~!
o 0 0: 0 0 S I ~
'E 'E1'Ei'E c c 'E1c c t: cl1: C:C I r:: C C C C C c c:c c c
o 0 01 0 .~ .~ ol.~.~ 0 .~I'~ .SQ,,~ : 0 ~~.~ .~ .~ .~ _~ ~I.~ .~ .~
<1 t:I t..'! I ~ 0.. a. 't I a. 0.. 't 0.. a. 0.. a. l't 0..' a. a. a. 0..' c.. i5..'0.. a. a.
e ele e E,E e E E,c E E!E E c E E E E E'E E E E E
~ ~liT~ ~_~18 ~ 8 8~ 8 818 81 I~ 8 8~8 8.r'8 8 8 8 8
, I I I'
I , ,
I '
_ _ _1_1_ _1_ _ _ _ _1_ __ _ _ _,_ _1_1_1_
~ g ~'~I~i~ ~ ~ ~I~ ~:~ ~!~ g g ~Ig ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~nnnnlnnn~nnlnnn nnnnnn,nnlnnn
g'I~I,g g gig gg gig g g gg ~ g g g g g gig gig g g
00,00000'0 OlO 0 0 0 0 zoo 0 010 OlO 0,0 0 0
-C;I i C; CI CI r i-- CI '
I c' 1 c c, c , c
! '~I I'~ '~I I'~ 1 : !'~
- - _,- - ,21- -',21- ,2'- - i,2 -1- -.- -1-,2 - -
.~.~ .~:.~ .~ 5 '~i'~ si.~ S .ffi .~ a .~I.~ .~I.~!.~I.~ S .~ .ffi
a. a. a. 0.. 0.. Y a.j c. y: a. y a. c., y 0..' 0.. 0..1 a.i 0.. a. y a. a.
E E E E E c E,E ciE,c E E~ c E E E,EiE E c E E ~
0000 0 0 OrO OiolO 0 0'_ 0 0 0 o,OiO 0 0 0 0_
o 00 0 0 z 0+0 ~()IZ _e..> o,z zoo 0 0 i 0 0 ~()() Z
. Ii,
CD 03,;0) Q5 Q) a;iCi) Q) Q) (j) Q) a>~Q) OJ _ Q) Q) Qi!(j); Q) Q51a>!Qi.....
(j) ~ ~ ~,~ ~ $ $;~ $,$ ~ $ ~!,$ $ :E ~ ~ $I~! $ .& ~i~ ~
~ ,...., - Nile> I"- 0> ("')''1''""" co:co 0) 0) COiN CV) - C"') N COlCO' 0Cl 0) N:C"') -
'""" q ""': '<:;t,"" a ..;:t ,... LO ,",,"i"" <( ~ f""; O):li:~ ~ <<=! ~ <<=! <X:!I'~I<( <( 0) 0) aiC"') ,...
N :s::~ r---:iC":i ~I""': .....: -.::f 0)'''''': -Z :::: ::t ~ ~ N C"') 0') ,... ""I'I""""I-Z !,...Z iii ~ -.::ficci <0
'""" ...;" ",,":LO v'co v (0 LOt~- __~_....~............ 0Cl co co co CO~i I: N N C"'),N CV)
CI 1 C1c:" OlC i tn tn I C) CJ)i tn tn tn C)! i tn:...
II: 1 ._1._ i.!: e I II: C! C C e I:i I e c::'
E I E' E 'E 'E' 'E 'E! E 'E 'E 'E;] 'E'E
_ _ ...0 ..... ..... 010.....10..... 0 .....1_ ...0..... .E ..... ...5 ...0..... 0 ..... ...5,1 I _ _ .EI- .E
c: c: c: c: ....1.... c: ~ .... c:.... c: c: c: c: c: .... c: c: c: c:
ro ro II: ro ro II: I: role ro e ro ro e ro e ro e e ro e ro 1:1 ro ro e ro e
.- .- 0._ .- 0 0.-,0.- 0.- .- 0 '-10 - 0 0'.- 0.- 0 ! 1'-'- 0.- 0
a~uaau,u~luau~l~ uau~uuau~lu ~ay~y
E E c E E c1c Ere E c EIE <( c Elc Eic elE c E c1<( 1<( E Elc E c
0;0001000 oio 0 0 00_ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 OOj_ 1_ 0 0 0 0 0
0,0 Zo 0 Z Z 0 Z 0 ZOO :;::~ 0 Z Olz Z 0 z,O Z z '" ZOO Z 0 Z
: ill
i I :
!'O) _ ti :,
ti til ti Q) ti ~ti ! Q) Q51(j) (j) aJ Q) Q)
0; ..."',0; ...(I,)llo;lQj ~Cl? JE:,(j) JE wi Q) 051- (1,)' Q) Q) Qj Q) Q)-
-.- (1,):- (l,)1~ -i- '+- Q) - - ~
JE It)1,2 It):,2 ~ LO LO:~ It) _I,... -'Ico CO:O') 0- co ~ co
u; ~I~ ~!u; ~I~ a;i~ ~ ~-rl~'~ :: ~,:~ :: ~ :: ~ ~ ___---1-
, 1 T !
I I !
_ _ _ _ _ -,- _!- .....1_.....1 ..... '0) 05 (i5 Qj Qj Qj _1'0;
Q) Q) (I,) (I,) (I,) (I,),Q) Q)iQ) Q)iQ) WI' (I,) Q) Q) Q) Q)IQ) Q) Q) Q)
~ ~ ~ ,2 ,2 ~i~ ~i~ ~I~ Q) Q) - - - - - - Q) -
, -<(-CO..;:t""CO'l""""N-O
LO ,... N It) LO "":1:0 LOlco OiLO OCl,':--Z 0,'1"""" 0 'I"""" 00'1"""" ""'N
" " '" '" " "',<Xl "r"'-"'I'" OJr-l~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ I'-- ~
1 I I
OJ 1'--1'1"""" LOiCV) 0)1..--
'I"""" 0 0 Ni'l"""" 010
,'" "'I'" ":" "I"
! I
I
(i5'Qj Qj
Q)IQ) Q)
-,--
N:LO C"')
N,o::t C"')
,_ _N
I
I
~:glg ~ ~i~ ~
I~ ~U-II --
00 iCll .
1;; :.,1 00 1
l"'oQ) i gi, .SI
:...J ...J!
I
_0;
'" '"
",'"
...",
1'--0
(00)
M M
1iiQ5
1ii~~
<(~I.()LO
-oC":icci
Zvvv
1ii1ii
JEJE
o
"
0;
~
'"'
OJ
'l""""LOO')""L()(j)C"')""'I""""LO
N NT"" 0 N..--'I""""OON
""""""""COcoCOCOCOLO
L()C"')C"')""'I"""" LOO)C"')""
N'I""""OC"')C"')NT""T""O
C"')C"')C"')NNNNNN
--~ "" --- - --
i_
II/) 00
I." >- 00
,0- '"
I ~ I Ul :E
EI Cl
.CI
I ro, s:1
,:I: 0::, !
!
i
I
i--
iOO
'e
'0
I~
u5
E
(ij
0..
I
o
,
, I _
tn OJI C) 0)1 CJ) ~,
.5 .5!.5 ':!':1.5
E E'E EIEIE
.2 .E .E .2 .E!.2
e e II: e cie
00000,0
u u u U u:u
I I I I Ii'
e II: II: e ere
0000010
ZZ;ZZZZ
tn' ~ 2J!
.5i .: .:!
E! E EI
...1 ......,
01 i 0 0,_ _
1....lc,.... ....lc: c:
is .~iS iS~ ~
uCi.;U ua"U
C E:c e EE
00'000'0
Z o'ziz 010
I r !
: i g' ! g
I 1'- .-
I I lEE
- -',S - .E
,ffi ffi,1I: ffi e
1'= =1 R = 8
c..c..yc..l
~,E E Co E Co
~iO 0 0
Z,O 0 Z 0 Z
,-
....._.....w.....
(I,) OJ Q),~ Q)
~,2~'LO~
..;:t,... co,...: 0
NNMN'<:;t
I
0;
~I
OJ
1'0) Q) 1ii
!~~~
''I''""" N""
NMN
-'
(I),
~:
Gl'
.
s:::::
0
Ul
"t:
C'tl
C.
E
0
u
~
. (,)
C'tl
.Q
-
Q)
U)
-
Q)
Q)
...
-
U)
...
Q)
>
D::
.
...
CD 0
Ol.>::
f! U
CD,g
~-;
lIJ
~
CD Ol
_ U >
s:::::: c CU i i
! ns ~ Q) l1> 1U!Q5 tV Q) Q) OJ Q3 Q) 4i Q) Q) wl-a> Q) W Q5 Q; Q) Q) Q5iQ5 Q5iw1
5'= N ~ ~ ~ ~:~..cE ~ ~I~ ~ ~ ~~ ~I~:.s:? ~ ~ ~ ~ ~,~ ~i~ $1$
u 'E.+ ('l'),N I"--- ('l') ,.... N CC:N Ll) co lO co Ni'l"""" 0> co co L() "I"'"" Ll)'('I') ,.....!m "','" ,
O 0 ""'" 0'''1''""" 0 co 'I"""" 'I"""" co:co 'I"""" "1"""". -q-M O!('I') N 0> c.o ('l') co '<:t "1""""1 "IT""" (\J,co!<(
________~._~jI~ ~J~ ~ ~_~j~ ~Ig g co ~ ~ ~;~ ~ ~ ~ ~ rri ~_+~I~-I-~ ~:~iz
Ie>> 10) aCJI CJI aD at>> tD C) I CJ tn:
~I'~ !.~ .~.~ '~I .~.~.~.~ .~.~' I,'~I .~
= .E ..... S ..... .E .E ..... .E .....1..... .E .E -- .E .E -1- .E ..... .E ..... ..... .E ..... ..... .E
~ c ffi c ~ c c ~ c CIC c c c C c ffiiffi c C c C Cic C C c
E 0._ 0 .- 0 0 ._ 0 .!lll.!ll 0 0 .!ll, 0 0 .-.- 0 .!ll 0 J:1 .!ll 0 !lll.!lll 0
oyay~yy~yaayyaYYliayay~ayalay
u c,E c E c c E c EiE CIC E C c E E c E c E E c EIE c <(
Oio 0,0 0 0 0 0 0:0 0,0 OiO 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0_
Z:O Z 0 Z Z 0 Z 0.0 Z Z O,Z Z 00 Z 0 ZOO Z 0,0 Z Z
---'t-- -_..,_._.._~.__.. ---...- ....-..t.-- -- ; r-
U) ! i :
C CD
9!:e 1_ ..... _
.... lD i Q) Q) I Q.)
CUc.-'Q.) Q)I+-' Q,).....!.....
=s 0 a>l_ <D C1J_,(l) (1)- Q),Q)
< .... ~i~ ~ $ Lt':!:~ ~ ~ $I'~
0. Oi""'"' cc 'I"""" f'oo..'T'"" co C\l co L()
~ M -~-~~~---~~q:>-!":-lr::-,
, ,
Qi I
Q:iQ5Q5Q5Q)Q)Q)Q)Q)Q)Q)Q5Q5"Q) IDQ5Q)WW
2 $ ~ $ ~ ~ ~12 $12 2 .! 22 j 2 $ 2 ~ $
~ ";:.L~_J~L~_R ~~:2 ~,~ ~ ~ ~'.q ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
I 1 I
... I' 1 I
CD CD I I !
en .c LO ~im LO:~ f'-., MI'" LO ~ LO ~ '" LO ~ f'-., M LO L{) ~ ~
0:1 E:~ o"',~'" "'",1.$2 $2 ~ ~ ~ 0 0 ~ T""" N 0 0 ~ T""" N 0 ~
J:~i'l i. I........................i......r---r---r---f'-.,f'-.,cocococococ:nc:n
--t -U5~-- -1-
il!! i
15l 1 en"';
:QJ
i C ! Q)
I~I '5
~ 011 Oll Oll Ol Ol 01 0111 011 Oll 01 i Ol 01' OI!
SIBIBIB B.5.5.5 B:BIB I B .51~
Jl EIEiE ! E E E E EE1EI IE EIE
.... ~"~12 - - - ..... ..... ..... ..... .....'1- ..... 2 .2 .2 .2 .2i$!l.2 .....I.....!$! - .21,2
o c:c c C C C C cc c C c C C C C C ciclc C C'c C C C'C
~, ~I ~I ~ i,i i.i ili i;ij'i i ~I ~ ~ ~ ~i ~ ~Iili ~ i,i ~I ~
~IO 010 0 0 OiO 0 01010 0 o. 0.0001000:0000100.0
;z Z!Z 0 0 0 0 0 O'Ott.l t.l_c,);Z Z Z z,z Z z,o 0 Z 0+<..l.;Z ~+_
~i ! i: I i
Ui :: I i
C\'S! : iC)C)C) C)i
.ci !c C.C CI
....1 I i.- .-..- .-
Jl'1 i : I . E E:E IE
_I..... +-' ..... ..... ..... .....i_..... ..... ..... ........... 0 010..... _ .....i_ _ ..... .....'..... .....'.....10
'0 C! C C C C C c: C C C C 1::1 c: 'C 'C 'C I:: I:: e e el C cl C c, C1'C
rom m m m m mim ro ro ro ro:ro 0 0 0 m m m'm roim ro'lm mimiO
~I~~..~ ~i.!~ ~I~I~!~ ~I~ ~I~ .~ I.~.I..~~ ~'.~.~ ~;~~ ~.~I~I ~
MOO 0 0;0 OiO 0:0 0 0 0 0 OiOO 0 010 0 0 0 0 010 0 0
___ 0000'001000000 0 2:.fZ~Z t) 010 0 0 0 0 010 0 Z
C) : C) I C) C)I C)i C), OJ' OJ: I C) ! en
g.i'~ I'~ .~ .'~I'~'~: .~ .~I., I.~ i .~
C\'S:~ i~ ~ ,~ ~~: ~ ~! ~ I ~
=..2 +-'!.S!.....................E -'..... - - -~.g ~.2i-.E - .2:- -.S! -I-.g
~ C CIC cell:: C C CIC: C C C1C C CIl:: C C c,C: c: C c:,e C
E 0 .!lll' 0 .!ll .!ll.!ll .!ll 0 .!ll:.!ll .!ll...!ll .!lli 0 0, Ol.!ll'. 0 .!ll 0 .!ll .!ll 0 .!lll.!ll 0
o U"'i5.. Ulo.. o..jo.. 0.. (,) a.ia. 0.."'i5.. 0..1 U U: U10..! U a. u a. c.. u 0.. 0.. u
U ~ E ~IE EiE E ~ EiE E,E E!~ ~\~ E!~ E ~ E E ~ E E ~ <
000001000000'0100 OjOIOIO 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0_
Z.U Z 0 U'U U Z U U U U'O Z Z,.Z O'Z 0 ZOO Z U U Z z
i- - -.-
Qi
~QJQJ
LO~~
cOLO~
....CD...
a;Q5
~~
Qi
'"
--0:
'" -
CXlZ
Ol'>::
c U
.- III
-;.0
.- -
>< CD
WlIJ
a; "Q)Q5
Q) Q) (lJ Q)Q)
- Q) (lJ-.-
LO--O.q
Of'-.,Om~C'\ICO
COC"")~~MC'\I
Q5w
~~
",I~ '" CJ>
NIOOO
O>~~~
M ....
~ ~
00
~ ~
.1
U5!
Cil
;:
,g
~
Cil.
Q)!
c..:
ell
::2:
"S
c
iii
'"
J:
o
u5
E
ill
~
.
.
.
Planning Commission Agenda- 04/03/07
6.
Public Hearin2 - Consideration of a request for Preliminarv and Final Plat for Monticello
Business Center. a commercial subdivision in a B-4 (Re2ional Business) District. (NAC)
Applicant: Wal-Mart Real Estate Business Trust .
REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND
Wal-Mart Real Estate Business Trust has applied for Preliminary and Final Plat approval for
Monticello Business Center Fourth Addition on behalf of the Wal-Mart Real Estate Business
Trust. The proposed minor subdivision consists of splitting off Lot 2 of the Monticello Business
Center Third Addition to sell the parcel. The subject site is .76 acres in size and is zoned B-3,
Highway Business. The site is located in the northwest comer of the Wal-Mart parking lot. The
remaining portion of the site, identified as Lot I, is 26.89 acres in area.
Comprehensive Plan. The subject site is guided for commercial land uses.
Zoning. The subject site is zoned B-3, Highway Business. The purpose ofthe B 3 highway
business district is to provide for and limit the establishment of motor vehicle oriented or
dependent commercial and service activities.
ANALYSIS
The applicant is proposing a minor subdivision to split a piece of property from the Monticello
Business Center Third Addition and plat it as a separate parcel. A conditional use permit for a
motor fuel station was previously approved for the site. This CUP has since expired. As such,
no zoning approvals apply to this new platted parcel. Any use requiring a conditional use permit
must formally apply for approval.
Lot Requirements and Setbacks. Applicable lot and setback requirements for the B-3 District
are shown below. These performance requirements refer to Lot 2. All performance
requirements for Lot I are unaffected by the subdivision.
Lot Width
Front Yard Setback
Rear Yard Setback
Side Yard Setback
Requirement
100 feet
30 feet
30 feet
10 feet
Proposed
139.4 feet
N/A
N/A
N/A
A building footprint has not been illustrated on the plat. Therefore, setback information is not
available. However, the size of the parcel appears to be large enough to accommodate a
commercial user without requiring a setback variance. The placement of any structure on the site
will be evaluated on its own merit. No minimum lot size is required for the B-3 District.
Access. An access easement for the site is proposed over the existing driveway into the Wal-
Mart parking lot. Access into the site is possible in the southeast comer, the southwest comer,
and on the east side of the site. Upon development of the site, staff recommends that the
southwest curb cut be restricted to right-in/right-out traffic to prevent traffic from backing up
onto Cedar Street. This issue may be addressed with any future land use application for the site.
.
Grading, Drainage, and Utilities. The City Engineer has reviewed the plans for all grading,
drainage, and utility issues and offers the following comments:
. Obtain permanent drainage easement over private stormwater pond (runoff discharges into
pond).
. Obtain utility easement over 6" sanitary sewer service line to Cedar Street, including
within the access easement area.
. Obtain utility easement over 2" water service line connecting lot 2 to 12" water line in
front ofWalMart, as well as over the water line connecting to School Boulevard. The
viability of the existing 2" water service as shown will need to be verified once a use for
the lot has been identified. Connection to 8" DIP watermain stub on Cedar Street may be
necessary.
Recording. Ifthe final plat is approved by the City Council, the subdivider shall record it with
the Wright County Recorder within 100 days after said approval. If the subdivider fails to so
record the final plat, the approval shall be considered void, unless a request for time extension is
submitted in writing and approved by the City Council prior to the expiration of the 100 day
period.
ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS
.
Regarding the request for preliminary and final plat approval of the Monticello Business Center
Fourth Addition, a lot split resulting in two lots, the City has the following options:
1. Motion to approve the Preliminary and Final Plat of the Monticello Business Center
Fourth Addition, subject to a finding that the proposed use is consistent with the
intent ofthe B-3, Highway Business District, and the Comprehensive Plan, subject to
the condition outlined in Exhibit Z.
2. Motion to deny the Preliminary and Final plat, based on a finding that the proposed
use is not consistent with the intent of the B-3 District.
RECOMMENDATION
Upon review of the proposed plat, staff finds that it is consistent with the performance
requirements for the B-3, Highway Business district. The site is proposed to have access from
the existing driveway into the Wal-Mart site. The site appears large enough to support a
commercial use which meets the setback requirements for the district. As such, staff
recommends approval of the preliminary and final plat. Any future user which may require
further zoning approvals must formally apply.
SUPPORTING DATA
.
A:
B:
Z:
Preliminary Plat
Final Plat
Conditions of Approval
2
.
.
.
EXHIBIT Z
Conditions of Approval for Monticello Business Center Fourth Addition
1. The applicant shall comply with all recommendations ofthe City Engineer, as noted in a memo
dated March 28, 2007 and detailed above.
3
~:::=~i
OOt"l!"S.~.~ni""""P3
-,-
-o~ -5~~--n
U'O.J.J04'-"'. '
," '""~O
'" ~\!,;;:>"'C
p W$~1J.."CS ,5 "4) jG 5
JOpun JC ~b~1 t"" un~;,"1,d~~'U;lO!l ^~~
UO'O "'AJn. ~,~t;~t'G"tD~ \~~~~/;;:
, !lJao.{ca'''ul
SNOISlk3d
:,;:'~,3'"
olV..';l
NOIIIGOV HldnOj
d31N3:J
VlOS3NNI~ '
Ol13JIINO
SS3NIsns Ol13:JIINO~
55'"
S10\O
,
NOlldl~JS}[] SNO'SII'.3~ '
:VfG
"
"',,
1 Vld ^"
qVNI~1 13dd
,~
~~~
;:':-:;:;
I'!,
I i.=~
"lJj=
~5;
,
If'"u
-.L~~"---
~
c
,
~
c
/
1,
z~
a
~
,
'-:. -~
VWI
II -1./
!,,'. /\~ I.
".,"/1," $1
.:A-.,..,,-;,-I
_cc,>,"'''i I
, -\ ~---'--,j{
, \ '~",'
'I
/'
,j
"
"
"
"
I!
../
\
\
\
"
"
a
,
~-
~
'ZI~-
~~
0m
/
/
';
/
/
/
/
/
-,,~
9-1"~1
.lr~-
3,.~".L1>.oo~
1!7~
,0
",
~~
^.
:~~
,
g~, ~
~ !;:Sf2~
~~g~
"-2 <"w~ij
~ ~~
~ ;~
o~8
"
~i.~
~ ~ ,
0
5'---
~ 00
~ 3 z'"
. :::t:>
, 0"
,
0 0
, ~
~"
0" ~
,.,<( 0 0
;,;:0>
o
c,
,
,
,
~zw
~~J
~1!,J:
ao~
.;.~-w
"'>-.'"
~---- ~-
'-........J-'-
. /~.
;J! ""
/~
~
,
i
>
,
,
u
.
0
.~
u
gal
.0
,"
~]
tl
"
rr 0
,
J
z.
Q:iO ,
e_
,8:'0' U
< .
"
. .
0'
12:5
.0
);:'~
z.
'-J'"
uC
Co
"'.
"'
5H'
.0
z
o
"
~R
;J;~ ~
&: 1": :;
e_~.s~
~%D~
~-oiOl'!
~'gE'~
~ ~~.5
~i'ih:
~~ ~~
:::l~~'"
t1~~:g
~ ~ "{l
~ ~ 2Jj
ii!;!
~~~;;
o "1L.1!""'
~~~]~
11m I!
~ -00 ~~
ill!! ~~
00
;.~~~f! ;~
-. ~ - ~ t
1111! !i
tlily / f-~~
/ ! / -----
/ II
~I
, '" "
0/';"'ft.~ 9,\\ r ~ ~
h I ~ __"\) ~
x 'f.,J / l ~ .....('~
, I,(-~ ~ :s>
i? o:@:.... ~ 41
"" ''/ :.;,~g ,_~ ~ 400..(~
... i?<l.....,0~ z.;- ~. i:6Si";
tf/ "'",$f?$ ~ S'
I 0", / ;fr","lf' .r: ~
. /" 1 i?iS;:;,,::: ~
- ,ft!a<Q ~
17:;/)/ / W ~~
/\<-" 1 2, f
(:'-"/ '/
I~;:;.' ,0 1
~,. 1
I 11 ,"
/A/'tv 1 <-",,~
~IJ '/ ~~;:;'';-",c.,
, o~ ..p Q.'"'q.f
/ ,::::., 4'~,/ 1 &:'%.'4
,'J.'.' ;::.'f"<S0',s-"
(~,' / ,*Y,..;:f",r..'Y,p ~
17:"".' / \_-??<v\~,>:-<::J 6 J
~ 1'---2-"" ~ &> ;j!
1 l?D' ,,<:
/ I}' >(J 1::"<'
/ '/ /~ ;?
/ '/ ~o
^e 'I b/'"
:; / ",oJ ;;!
~/~ oJ,;-i!
1 .~~ .~ C\J ,,/0
/ .~/'I 1;", !;/O"-c-c'
::'- 1\.,'/ '" ~ Itf
MIj 4~f--. /;.',
/~~!~~ ~J a 91l~ /t?!t
li
I
I
f
u
,.
.0
~ e-
~~
" 0
a-g
z 0
0,
CO
~H
z 0
i!;~
€:'
Co
."
~]
"-
u 0
~~
"'
zo
ifj-'"
,.
ct>2
B
~
"
~~
I'
~j
~
I
,
3
.sf ~
:g:;
" c
t'~
~';,
'n
~
o
,
,
g
"
,
c
~
.
"
o
o
g
~
,
]
.t,
~-:'1
"'.
o.
C,
z.
0'
H
~
"
&
1
,
o
z
1
!:~
%]
~
., ']
~ ~
~
I
~
o
~
. "
" .g
.~ "6
.~ ~
g~l
~loi
.,
I!
.-
o.
2~
.'
~~
1
,
.;~
l!.:~
" I
,.
~i:
~.~~
.~
~ f
t Ii
~ ~
.'
s:
.-
.'
U
c
cO
c,
I='~
<0
t;;S
..
'0
" 0
..",
~$'f'/
';.. ""
l
j
.
~
,
c
~~
c"
,.
:.J:1
~~
~ ~
'rO':.J
I'd
_ .
.9! ~
5.5
0'
J
R
o
,
]
"
".
:>
, .
;l~
--
,."
--
,:'
,,'
"
6
C)
ct5
f--.
C)
-.j
,i)
:I';
II
I
f
u
I~
,<'>0
:0."
,.
I'~!
~~
zz
'r:
::;
,
u
~I
]
:5
,
:~
,
~I
.
r
,
!
0 I
0
"
J
,
u
0 :~
] If
,;
1
2
"
"
1
~
.
0
.
.
,
,
o
"
"
.~
.
o
~
o
,
J
~
:. .J
.8
l~
.
~ i
"
f~
u'
.
o
"
o
:]
,
u
"
~ -~
]
o
o
;;
~ I
~~
~~I
U I
~ ,
~ .
~~
~~
00
d~
u.
,;c
~ "
~;
00
li~
~~
1
Ii
:~
'1
R
.
~I
!.
.
o
"
,-
o
!.
~.
" ,
i~
;s
o-
j"
tj-E
c'
d
00
:::;;.5
"
o.
-"
:~
~~
,
,
f
"
t
,
l ,
,.~ ,~ ., .,
~ ~ ~'Q
.C',"]. / ",-, /
-----" /::/
----- ----- --1 Ii";:';
----- _____ I
r-B 7' 6'oSp..('
~t ~ ~~,j.!J;~i
"~, f) 'I y;J<Ii"c ",7 ~
~6~ ") 'I" 11......-----.
0::;0 .., ~ .....o~-----
zcO ;; 2' I i?....
~O~ ~ 'I 'c.
Wl-~ ~v ,,,", I ':;01:':'9
~~@ k" ~ {~ t~ ~~~~
~~~$ 'Iy"~~ -t"j ~~~~
\ {; ;} t? ~zg:~
}f,'-/ /tl,' S'c" ,;;~~o, zwOO
'>-:( r 9~ II t3-uQ'" .i'i2j J /
, , ~ 0-<:, o~t' /
~\I / II ................_//::Jv: ~ /
'<> I~I I " ::;0 i I *
f,</I rc~ '------_( I ,(V I
/ if I -I
/~ -''- / I .,. I
, 4:; r'~1 ji~,fj I ~t;1
III!!? ,," If$ .n
/ $"-'" <Jo i I ~ I
I;, ,fffi''''ff <elf./ '<
!/~$i / <J~~ i'.!-~ / /
.~/ ,!:-O,::," >:J-':>J'8' '
;"1--11 1/ /i/ l1~'// /
'/ ......,,-<: ~Q.~
''2 ./, &619 is',,. I I
1:/$5 ,~"Q(<}JI
jl ,:,/ ~< <'-...j. I
" ;- I
/ /.'" / "'i I
I/~I d I.
;;;il tJ I
I~ ,. /
Ill!! /
"I
,
:0
,
/
.
.
.
Planning Commission Agenda- 04/03/07
7.
Public Hearine - Consideration of a request for amendment to the Monticello Zonine
Ordinance Chapter 3-2INl. as related to the exterior storaee of vehicles in rear yards in
residential districts.Applicant: City of Monticello (NAC).
REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND
The City recently amended the public nuisance ordinance to address blight issues within
the City. In discussions regarding this amendment, concerns were raised regarding
vehicle storage in the rear yard of residential properties.
As the zoning ordinance currently reads, vehicle parking is allowed in the side yard and
rear yard of residential properties. Parking is also allowed in the front yard, provided it is
on a designated driveway leading directly into a garage or on one open, surfaced space
located on the side of a driveway away from the principal use. Said extra space is
required to be surfaced with concrete or bituminous material.
The public nuisance ordinance prohibits junk vehicles by classifying them as refuse.
Junk vehicles are defined as, "a vehicle without a valid current license, or without a valid
current registration (if applicable), or which is apparmently inoperable located outside an
enclosed building in a residential area including, but not limited to, automobiles, trucks,
motorcycles, snowmobiles, trailers, all-terain vehicles, and watercraft. Junk vehicles are
not allowed to be parked in any portion of the yard on a residential property.
In order to further support the amended nuisance ordinance and ease enforcement for
City Officials, an amendment to Section 3-5 ofthe Zoning Ordinance relating to off-
street parking requirements is proposed. This amendment would prohibit vehicle storage
in the rear yard, except in cases where a properties only garage is located in the rear yard.
Under these circumstances, vehicle parking would be allowed on designated driveways
leading directly to the garage, or on one open, surfaced space located on the side of a
driveway away from the principal use. This exception is identical to that allowed for
vehicle parking in the front yard.
Accessory Structures. The Ordinance states that for single family residential uses, no
detached accessory building shall exceed 10% of the rear yard of the parcel on which it is
located, nor shall any combination of attached garage and detached accessory building
exceed 1,200 square feet, whichever is less. This area may be increased to 1,500 square
feet by Conditional Use Permit only. No property shall be permitted to have more than
one detached accessory structure for each dwelling, except:
. By conditional use permit, or
. For conforming single family dwellings, one (I) detached accessory structure of
not more than 120 square feet shall be permitted as a second accessory structure
without a conditional use permit.
1
Planning Commission Agenda- 04/03/07
.
As it relates to the proposed amendment, no property would be allowed more than one
detached garage in the rear yard, except by conditional use permit.
CONCLUSION
The City Council has asked staff to prepare an amendment restricting vehicle storage in
the rear yard of any residential property. The amendment proposed creates an additional
paragraph to the off-street parking section of the zoning ordinance, specifically referring
to location. It should be noied that this amendment may have other impacts on residential
properti es.
One issue to consider is whether or not the amendment will require the City to regulate
parking in the side yard as well. The current ordinance permits parking in the side yard,
with no setback restrictions. This may allow vehicles to be parked in the side yard,
directly abutting the property line.
Some language issues may also need to be addressed. Section 3-5[F] of the Zoning
Ordinance currently states, "All accessory off-street parking facilities required by this
ordinance shall be located and restricted as follows." The City may want to consider
modifying this language, as the off-street parking facilities regulated by the Ordinance
are not necessarily required.
.
Additional modifications may include addressing the required setback from a street
surface. This is particularly true in light of recent enforcement questions regarding the
15' parking setback from the street.
In dealing with similar amendments in other cities, several issues have also surfaced.
One potential consequence is that, with the language proposed, residents may be
compelled to purge any items that had previously been stored in a detached garage to
make room for a vehicle, and instead store these items in the rear yard. Items such as
snowmobiles, ATV's, and the like that may have been previously stored in the detached
garage may be removed to make room for a vehicle. This may create further blight
Issues.
ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS
In regard to the proposed amendment to Section 3-5 [F] of the Zoning Ordinance, the
City had the following options:
1. Motion to recommend approval of the proposed amendment, based on a finding
that the the amendment is consistent with the intent of the off-street park
regulations and it will assist in protecting the health, safety, and general welfare
ofthe community.
.
2
Planning Commission Agenda- 04/03/07
.
2. Motion to recommend denial of the proposed amendment, based on a finding that
the amendment is not consist with the intent of the Zoning Ordinance in regard to
off-street parking regulations.
RECOMMENDATION
Prohibiting vehicle storage in the rear yard of residential properties will support the
amended public nuisance ordinance, and assist City Officials in addressing blight issues.
An exception has been allotted for situations where a property's only garage is in the rear
yard. For such occurances, parking may allowed in a manner identical what is currently
allowed in the front yard. The proposed amendment address the specific issue of rear
yard vehicle storage only. If the goal of the City is to address this issue in isolation, staff
recommends approval of the following amendment.
As noted in the above text, several other issues may also need to be addressed in
correlation with the proposed amendment. Staff can prepare a more comprehensive
ordinance amendment to address these issues at the direction of the City.
SUPPORTING DATA
.
A. Proposed Ordinance
B. Current Off-Street Parking Ordinance
.
3
Planning Commission Agenda- 04/03/07
A
.
ORDINANCE NO.
CITY OF MONTICELLO
WRIGHT COUNTY, MINNESOTA
AN ORDINANCE RESTRICTING THE LOCATION OF OFF-STREET PARKING IN
RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS, AMENDING SECTION 3-5 OF THE MONTICELLO
ZONING ORDINANCE
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MONTICELLO ORDAINS:
Section 1. Section 3-5[F] the Monticello Zoning Ordinance is amended to create the
following section in its entirety:
7. In the case ofsingje familv. two-familv. and townhouse dwellings. parking shall be
prohibited in anv portion of the rear vard. In the case where the onlv attached or
detached garage on a propertv is located in the rear vard. parking mav be allowed in
designated drivewavs leading directlv into a garage. or on one (1) open. surfaced
space located on the side of a drivewav awav from the principal use. Said extra space
shall be surfaced with concrete or bituminous material.
. Section 2. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall be effective immediately upon its passage
and publication according to law.
Adopted by the City Council of Monticello, Minnesota on the _ day of
,2007.
CITY OF MONTICELLO
By:
Mayor Clint Herbst
ATTEST
By:
Jeff O'Neill, City Administrator
.
4
.
.
.
(?
960 square feet.
(b)
I 1/4 story, I 1/2 story, I 3/4 story--I ,060 square feet.
(c) Two-Story Dwelling--750 square feet per story, NOTE: All
square footages are based on [mish area above grade,
(d) EXCEPTION: The minimum square footage ofa one-story
may be reduced to 864 square feet if a garage is added with at
least 400 square feet. In no case, however, shall the minimum
dimension of that garage be less than 16 feet.
(7/22/91, #210) (5/23/94, #251)
2. MULTIPLE DWELLING UNITS: Except for elderly housing, living
units classified as multiple dwellings shall have the following
minimum floor areas per unit:
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
Efficiency Units
One Bedroom Units
Two Bedroom Units
More than Two
Bedroom Units
500 square feet
600 square feet
720 square feet
An additional I 00 square feet
for each additional bedroom
3,
ELDERLY (SENIOR CITIZEN) HOUSING:
Living units classified as elderly (senior citizen) housing units shall
have the following minimum floor areas per unit:
(a)
(b)
Efficiency Units
One Bedroom
440 square feet
520 square feet
[H] EFFICIENCY APARTMENTS: Except for elderly (senior citizen) housing,
the number of efficiency apartments in a multiple dwelling shall not exceed
five (5) percent of the total number of apartments, In the case of elderly
(senior citizen) housing, efficiency apartments shall not exceed twenty (20)
percent of the total number of apartments.
3-5:
OFF-STREET PARKING REQUIREMENTS:
[A] PURPOSE: The regulation of off-street parking spaces in these zoning
regulations is to alleviate or prevent congestion of the public right-of-way
and to promote the safety and general welfare of the public by establishing
minimum requirements for off-street parking of motor vehicles in accordance
with the utilization of various parcels ofland or structures,
[B]
APPLICATION OF OFF-STREET PARKING REGULATION: The
MONTICELLO ZONING ORDINANCE
3/31
.
.
.
[C]
[D]
regulations and requirements set forth herein shall apply to all off-street
parking facilities in all of the zoning districts ofthe city.
SITE PLAN DRAWING NECESSARY: All applications for a building or
an occupancy permit in all zoning districts shall be accompanied by a site
plan drawn to scale and dimensioned indicating the location of off-street
parking and loading spaces in compliance with the requirements set forth in
this section.
GENERAL PROVISIONS:
1. FLOOR AREA: The term "floor area" for the purpose of calculating
the number of off-street parking spaces required shall be determined on
the basis of the exterior floor area dimensions of the buildings,
structure, or use times the number of floors, minus ten (10) percent.
2. REDUCTION OF EXISTING OFF-STREET PARKING SPACE OR
LOT AREA: Off-street parking spaces and loading spaces or lot area
existing upon the effective date of this ordinance shall not be reduced
in number or size unless said number of size exceeds the requirements
set forth herein for a similar new use.
3.
NON-CONFORMING STRUCTURES: Should non-conforming
structures or use be damaged or destroyed by fire, it may be re-
established if elsewhere permitted in these zoning regulations, except
that in doing so, any off-street parking or loading space which existed
before shall be retained.
4. CHANGE OF USE OR OCCUPANCY OF LAND: Any change of
use or occupancy of land already dedicated to a parking area, parking
spaces, or loading spaces shall not be made, nor shall any sale of land,
division, or subdivision ofland be made which reduces area necessary
for parking, parking stalls, or parking requirements below the
minimum prescribed by these zoning regulations.
5. CHANGE OF USE OR OCCUPANCY OF BUILDING: Any change
of use of occupancy of any building or buildings, including additions
thereto, requiring more parking area shall not be permitted until there
is furnished such additional parking spaces as required by these zoning
regulations.
6. PUBLIC PARKING LOTS: In the event ofa change of use or
occupancy ofland and/or buildings where such change shall cause the
new use to be in violation of the minimum parking requirements of this
section, the Planning Commission may recommend approval of a
variance which would grant the use of public parking spaces in a
MONTICELLO ZONING ORDINANCE
3/32
.
sufficient number to bring the total number of parking spaces (public and
private) into compliance with the minimum requirements of this section.
For each public parking space required to comply with the minimum
requirements of this section, an annual fee shall be paid to the City, said
fee to be established on an annual basis by the City Administrator. Any
variance request to utilize public parking space shall be reviewed in
accordance with the provisions of Chapter 23 of this ordinance and shall
require final approval of the City Council.
7.
Off-street parking facilities accessory to residential use may be utilized
solely for the parking of licensed and operable passenger automobiles, no
more than one (1) truck not to exceed gross capacity of nine thousand
(9,000) pounds, and recreational vehicle and equipment. Under no
circumstances shall required parking facilities accessory to residential
structures be used for the storage of commercial vehicles or equipment
or for the parking of automobiles belonging to the employees, owners,
tenants, or customers of business or manufacturing establishments.
8. CALCULATING SPACE:
(a) When determining the number of off-street parking spaces results in a fraction,
each fraction of one-half (1/2) or more shall constitute another space.
.
(b)
In stadiums, sports arenas, churches, and other places of public assembly in
which patrons or spectators occupy benches, pews, or other similar seating
facilities, each twenty-two (22) inches of such seating facilities shall be counted
as one (1) seat for the purpose of determining requirements.
(c) Should a structure contain two (2) or more types of use, each shall be calculated
separately for determining the total off-street parking spaces required.
9. STALL, AISLE, AND DRIVEWAY DESIGN:
(a) PARKING SPACE SIZE: Each parking space shall be not less than nine (9)
feet wide and twenty (20) feet in length exclusive of access aisles, and each
space shall be served adequately by access aisles. EXCEPTION: Where
desired, up to 25% of the parking spaces may be not less than seven
and one-half (7-112) feet in width and not less than sixteen (16) feet in
length when served adequately by access aisles to accommodate compact
car parking and should be marked as such.
(b)
WITHIN STRUCTURES: The off-street parking requirements may be
furnished by providing a space so designed within the principal building or one
(I) structure attached thereto; however, unless provisions are made, no building
permit shall be issued to convert said parking structure into a dwelling unit or
living area or other activity until other adequate provisions are made to comply
with the required off-street parking provisions of this ordinance.
.
MONTICELLO ZONING ORDINANCE
3/33
.
.
.
(c)
Except in the case of single, two-family, and townhouse dwellings, parking
areas shall be designed so that circulation between parking bays or aisles occurs
within the designated parking lot and does not depend upon a public street or
alley.
Except in the case of single, two-family, and townhouse dwellings, parking area
design which requires backing into the public street is prohibited.
(d) 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 oflot lines.
(e) Except in the case of single family, two-family, and townhouse dwellings,
parking areas and their aisles shall be developed in compliance with the
following standards:
ANGLE
WALL
TO
MINIMUM
WALL TO
INTERLOCK
MINIMUM
INTERLOCK TO
INTERLOCK
MINIMUM
30
45
60
90
44.5'
53.4'
59.7'
64.0'
40.3'
50.0'
57.4'
64.0'
48.6'
56.8'
62.0'
64.0'
Parallel Parking: Twenty-two (22) feet in length.
(f) The maximum driveway width between the public street and the property line
shall not exceed twenty-four (24) feet with the following exceptions:
I. Within all districts, a five foot radius curb may be constructed at the
public street in addition to the maximum driveway width allowed.
2. Curb cut access in industrial and commercial zoning districts may exceed
twenty-four (24) feet with the approval of the City Engineer and the
Zoning Administrator. Denial by the City Engineer or Zoning
Administrator of curb cut access in excess of twenty-four (24) feet may
be appealed following the procedures outlined in Chapter 23 of the
zoning ordinance. (1110/00,#399)
(g) Curb cut openings and driveways shall be at a minimum three (3) feet from the
side yard property line in residential districts and five (5) feet from the side
yard lot line in business or industrial districts.
(h)
Driveway access curb openings on a public street except for single, two-family,
MONTICELLO ZONING ORDINANCE
3/34
.
.
.
(i)
(j)
(k)
(1)
(m)
(n)
(0)
and townhouse dwellings shall not be located less than forty (40) feet from one
another.
The grade elevation of any parking area shall not exceed five (5) percent.
Each property shall be allowed one (1) curb cut per one hundred twenty-five
(125) feet of street frontage. All property shall be entitled to at least one (1)
curb cut. Single family uses shall be limited to one (1) curb cut access per
property.
SURF ACING: All areas intended to be utilized for parking space and
driveways shall be surfaced with materials suitable to control dust and
drainage.
Except in the case of single family and two-family dwellings, driveways and
stalls shall be surfaced with six (6) inch class five base and two (2) inch
bituminous topping or concrete equivalent. Drainage plans shall be reviewed
by the City Engineer and subject to his approvaL City staff may waive this
requirement if it is determined that the drainage plans do not merit further study
by the City Engineer. Staff determination in this regard shall be based on size
of parking surface area, simplicity of design plan, and proximity/accessibility to
existing storm sewer facilities.
EXCEPTIONS: See D. 9 (s) Stall Aisle and Driveway Design Conditional Use
Permit. (#192,7/9/90)
STRIPING: Except for single, two-family, and townhouses, all parking stalls
shall be marked with white painted lines not less than four (4) inches wide.
LIGHTING: Any lighting used to illuminate an off-street parking area shall be
so arranged as to reflect the light away from adjoining property, abutting
residential uses, and public right-of-ways and be in compliance with Chapter 3,
Section 2, [G] and [H] of this ordinance.
SIGNS: No sign shall be so located as to restrict the sight lines and orderly
operation and traffic movement within any parking lot.
CURBING AND LANDSCAPING: Except for single, two-family, and
townhouses, all open off-street parking shall have a perimeter 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 ofthe curb. In
addition, no parking area may be located upon a public drainage and/or utility
easement adjoining a public street. Grass, plantings, or surfacing material shall
be provided in all areas bordering the parking area.. An exception to the
setback requirement shall be granted in Business Districts where adjoining
business provide for private cross access between parking lots. In such cases,
driveway curb cuts up to 24 feet in width shall be permitted. Adjoining
MONTICELLO ZONING ORDINANCE
3/35
.
.
.
business properties may share t' II parking access of more than 24 feet with no
curb barrier by Conditional Us Permit provided that:
1. The required landscaping and island areas within the share parking lot
meet the combined minimum as required by this Ordinance.
2. The parking lot meets the required setback at the perimeter of the parcels
in question.
3. The curb cut access locations to the parking lot( s) are approved by the
City Engineer.
4. A shared access and maintenance agreement is provided by the property
owners and recorded against all subject properties.
(#428, 8/22/05)
EXCEPTIONS: See D. 9 (s) Stall Aisle and Driveway Design Conditional
Use Permit.
(#192,7/9/90)
(p) REQUIRED SCREENING: All open, non-residential, off-street parking areas
of five (5) or more spaces shall be screened and landscaped from abutting or
surrounding residential districts in compliance with Chapter 3, Section 2, of
this ordinance.
(q)
ALL DRNEW A Y ACCESS OPENINGS shall require a culvert unless the lot
is served by storm sewer or is determined unnecessary by the Building
Inspector. Size of culvert shall be determined by the Building Inspector but
shall be a minimum of fifteen (15) inches in diameter.
(r) CURBING:
1. All commercial and industrial off-street parking areas and driveways in
commercial areas shall have a six (6) inch non-surmountable continuous
concrete curb around the perimeter of the parking area and driveways.
11. All off-street driveways and parking areas in the I-I, I-lA, and 1-2
districts shall have a continuous, concrete, non-surmountable curb
barrier. This requirement shall be modified only by the STALL, AISLE,
AND DRNEW A Y DESIGN CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT as
described in Section 3-5, Subd. [D] 9(s), or by a permit from the Zoning
Administrator for a portion of the parking and driveway area which meets
the following conditions:
(#298, 10/13/97)
a. The area is shown by adequate site plans and reasonable growth to
be subject to a future expansion of the driveway and/or parking
area.
b.
The area is shown by adequate drainage plans to be able to control
MONTICELLO ZONING ORDINANCE
3/36
.
.
.
drainage as recommended by the City Engineer. The Engineer
may approve bituminous curbing as a temporary drainage control
measure.
c.
The area is shown by adequate site plans to be able to control site
traffic and circulation as recommended by the City Engineer. The
Engineer may approve movable curb stops as a temporary traffic
control measure. (#280, 6/10/96)
iii. All curb designs and materials shall be approved by the City Engineer.
EXCEPTIONS: See D. 9 (s) Stall Aisle and Driveway Design
Conditional Use Permit.
(s) STALL AISLE AND DRIVEWAY DESIGN CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT:
Stall aisle and driveway design requirements as noted in (k) Surfacing, (0)
Curbing and Landscaping, and (r) Curbing, may be lessened subject to the
following conditions:
1. Any reduction in requirements requires completion of the conditional use
permit process outlined in Chapter 22 of this ordinance.
11. Final approval of parking and driveway drainage plans associated with
conditional use permit request shall be provided in writing by the City
Engineer. Engineering expenses greater than the portion of building
permit fee allocated for engineer plan review shall be paid by applicant
prior to occupancy of structure.
111. Only properties which have existing buildings and are being expanded or
remodeled for a new use shall be eligible for this conditional use permit.
IV. The applicant must show, and the Planning Commission must fmd, that
there are existing non-conformities of the property which are being
eliminated by the expansion or remodeling which justifY a deferral to the
paving, landscaping, or curbing requirements.
v. A deferral shall be considered by the City as a part of an application
which includes full site plans, drawn to scale, of both the immediate
paving, landscaping and curbing improvements and the ultimate paving,
landscaping, and curbing improvements.
VI. A deferral of paving, landscaping, and/or curbing shall be granted for no
more than two (2) years, after which the paving, landscaping, and curbing
shall be brought into conformance with zoning ordinance and the
approved plans.
MONTICELLO ZONING ORDINANCE
3/37
.
.
.
vii. In all districts other than the A-O District, this deferral shall apply only to
the required paving, curbing and landscaping which is applicable to the
existing portion of the use and building. Paving, curbing and landscaping
attributable to any expansion shall be installed at the time of the
expanSIOn.
viii. In all districts other than the A-O District, this deferral shall be available
only to those properties where the total value of building expansion or
remodeling (as determined by the City of Monticello's Building Official)
is equal to no more than 25% of the Estimated Market Value (EMV) of
the Building as established by the Wright County Assessor at the time of
the permit request. Subsequent requests shall use the original EMV as
the baseline value.
(1/24/00, #341)
[E] 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] LOCATION: All accessory off-street parking facilities required by this ordinance shall
be located and restricted as follows:
1.
Required accessory off-street parking shall be on the same lot under the same
ownership as the principal use being served except under the provisions of
Chapter 3, Section 5 [I].
2. Except for single, two-family, and townhouse dwellings, head-in parking
directly off of and adjacent to a public street with each stall having its own
direct access to the public street shall be prohibited.
3. There shall be no off-street parking within fifteen (15) feet of any street surface.
4. The boulevard portion of the street right-of-way shall not be used for parking.
5. SETBACK AREA: Required accessory off-street parking shall not be provided
in front yards or in side yards in the case of a comer lot in R-I, R-2, R-3, PZ,
and B-1 districts.
6. In the case of single family, two-family, and townhouse dwellings, parking
shall be prohibited in any portion of the front yard except designated driveways
leading directly into a garage or one (I) open, surfaced space located on the
side of a driveway away from the principal use. Said extra space shall be
surfaced with concrete or bituminous material.
[G]
USE OF REQUIRED AREA: Required accessory off-street parking spaces in any
district shall not be utilized for open storage, sale, or rental of goods, storage of
inoperable vehicles as regulated by Chapter 3, Section 2 [M], of this ordinance, and/or
MONTICELLO ZONING ORDINANCE
3/38
.
.
.
storage of snow.
[H] NUMBER OF SPACES REQUIRED: The following minimum number of off-street
parking spaces shall be provided and maintained by ownership, easement, and/or lease
for and during the life ofthe respective uses hereinafter set forth.
1. SINGLE FAMILY, TWO-FAMILY, AND TOWNHOUSE UNITS:
Two (2) spaces per unit.
2. BOARDING HOUSE, FRATERNITY HOUSE, SORORITY HOUSE: At
least two (2) parking spaces for each three (3) persons for whom
accommodations are provided for sleeping.
3. MULTIPLE FAMILY DWELLINGS: At least two (2) off-street parking
spaces per unit with one (I) enclosed space per two (2) units.
4. PUBLIC PARKS, PLAYGROUNDS, AND PLAY FIELD:
At least five (5) parking spaces for each acre of park over one (I) acre; two (2)
parking spaces per acre for playgrounds; and ten (10) spaces of each acre of
play field.
When a public recreation site has more than one (I) use designation, the areas
must be divided for determining the required parking spaces.
5.
MOTELS, MOTOR HOTELS, HOTELS: One (I) space per each rental unit
plus one space for each ten (10) units and one (I) space for each employee on
any shift.
6. SCHOOL, ELEMENTARY AND JUNIOR HIGH: At least one (I) parking
space for each classroom plus one (I) additional space for each fifty (50)
student capacity.
7. SCHOOL, HIGH SCHOOL THROUGH COLLEGE AND PRIVATE AND
DAY OR CHURCH SCHOOLS: At least one (I) parking space for each seven
(7) students based on design capacity plus one (I) for each three (3) classrooms.
8. CHURCH, AUDITORIUM: At least one (I) parking space for each four (4)
seats based on the design capacity of the main assembly hall. Facilities as may
be provided in conjunction with such buildings or uses shall be subject to
additional requirements which are imposed by this ordinance. (#186,4/23/90)
9. BASEBALL FIELDS, STADIUMS: At least one (I) parking space for each
eight (8) seats of design capacity.
10.
COMMUNITY CENTER, PHYSICAL CULTURE STUDIOS, LIBRARIES,
PRIVATE CLUBS, LODGES, MUSEUMS, ART GALLERIES: Ten (10)
spaces plus one (I) for each one hundred fifty (ISO) square feet in excess of two
MONTICELLO ZONING ORDINANCE
3/39
.
.
.
thousand (2,000) square feet of floor area in the principal structure.
II.
SANTI ARIUMS, CONVALESCENT HOME, REST HOME, NURSING
HOME, OR DA YNURSERIES: Four (4) spaces plus one (I) for each three (3)
beds for which accommodations are offered.
12. ELDERLY (SENIOR CITIZEN) HOUSING: Reservation of area equal to one
(I) parking space per unit.
Initial development is, however, required of only one-half (1/2) space per unit,
and said number of spaces can continue until such time as the City Council
considers a need for additional parking spaces has been demonstrated.
13. DRIVE-IN ESTABLISHMENT: At least one (I) parking space for each fifteen
(15) square feet of gross floor area but not less than fifteen (15) spaces.
(#190, 5/14/90)
14. OFFICE BUILDINGS, ANIMAL HOSPITALS, AND PROFESSIONAL
OFFICES: Three (3) spaces plus at least one (I) space for each two hundred
(200) square feet of floor area.
15.
BOWLING ALLEY: At least five (5) parking spaces for each alley plus
additional spaces as may be required herein for related uses contained within
the principal structure.
16. MOTOR FUEL STATION: At least four (4) off-street parking spaces plus two
(2) off-street parking spaces for each service stall. Those facilities designed for
sale of other items than strictly automotive products, parts, or service shall be
required to provide additional parking in compliance with other applicable
sections of this ordinance.
17. RETAIL STORE AND SERVICE ESTABLISHMENT: At least one (I) off-
street parking space for each two hundred (200) square feet.
18. RETAIL STORE AND SERVICE BUSINESS WITH FIFTY (50) PERCENT
OR MORE OF GROSS FLOOR AREA DEVOTED TO STORAGE,
WAREHOUSES, AND/OR INDUSTRY: The number of spaces shall be
required by either (a) or (b).
(a) At least eight (8) spaces or one (I) space for each two hundred (200)
square feet devoted to public sales or service plus one (I) space for each
500 square feet of storage area.
(b) At least eight (8) spaces or one space for each employee on the maximum
shift.
19.
RESTAURANTS, CAFES, PRIVATE CLUBS SERVING FOOD AND/OR
MONTICELLO ZONING ORDINANCE
3/40
.
.
.
DRINKS, BARS, TAVERNS, NIGHTCLUBS, CONVENIENCE FOOD: At
least one (1) space for each forty (40) square feet of gross floor area of dining
and bar area and one (I) space for each eighty (80) square feet of kitchen area.
(#190,5/14/90)
20.
UNDERTAKING ESTABLISHMENTS: At least twenty (20) parking spaces
for each chapel or parlor, plus one (I) parking space for each funeral vehicle
maintained on the premises. Aisle spaces shall also be provided off the street
for making up a funeral procession.
21.
AUTO REPAIR, MAJOR BUS TERMINAL, TAXI TERMINAL, BOATS
AND MARINE SALES AND REPAIR, BOTTLING COMPANY, SHOP FOR
A TRADE EMPLOYING SIX (6) OR LESS PEOPLE, GARDEN SUPPLY
STORE, BUILDING MATERIAL SALES IN STRUCTURE: Eight (8) off-
street parking spaces plus one (I) additional space for each eight hundred (800)
square feet of floor area over one thousand (1,000) square feet.
22.
SKATING RINK, DANCE HALL, OR PUBLIC AUCTION HOUSE:
One (I) off-street parking space for each forty (40) square feet of floor space.
In the case of an auction house facility, outside sales area shall be added to the
floor space of principal building when determining square footage.
23.
GOLF DRIVING RANGE, MINIATURE GOLF, ARCHERY RANGE: Ten
(10) off-street parking spaces, plus one (I) for each one hundred (100) square
feet of floor area.
24. MANUFACTURING, FABRICATING, OR PROCESSING OF A PRODUCT
OR MATERIAL; WAREHOUSE; STORAGE; HANDLING OF BULK
GOODS; POST OFFICES: At least eight (8) spaces plus one (I) space for each
two (2) employees on each shift based on maximum planned employment or at
a minimum at least eight (8) spaces plus one (I) space for each five hundred
(500) square feet of floor area.
25. CAR WASH (In addition to required magazining or stacking space):
(a) AUTOMATIC DRIVE THROUGH, SERVICED: A minimum often
(10) spaces or one (I) space for each employee on the maximum shift,
whichever is greater.
(b) SELF-SERVICE: A minimum of two (2) spaces.
(c) MOTOR FUEL STATION CAR WASH: Zero (0) in addition to that
required for the station.
26. HOSPITALS: Two (2) spaces per each bed.
27.
THEATRES:
MONTICELLO ZONING ORDINANCE
3/41
.
.
.
(a) THEATRE LOCATED WITHIN ORIGINAL PLAT OF MONTICELLO:
At least one (I) parking space for each five (5) seats based on the design
capacity of the main assembly hall. Facilities as may be provided in
conjunction with such buildings or uses shall be subject to additional
requirements which are imposed by this ordinance.
(b) THEATRE NOT LOCATED IN THE ORIGINAL PLAT OF
MONTICELLO: At least one (I) parking space for each four (4) seats
based on the design capacity of the main assembly hall. Facilities as may
be provided in conjunction with such buildings or uses shall be subject to
additional requirements which are imposed by this ordinance.
(#186,4/23/90)
[I] JOINT FACILITIES:
I. The City Council may, after receiving a report and recommendation from the
Planning Commission, approve a conditional use permit for one (I) or more
businesses to provide the required off-street parking facilities by joint use of
one (I) or more sites where the total number of spaces provided are less than
the sum of the total required for each business should they provide them
separately. When considering a request for such a permit, the Planning
Commission shall not recommend that such permit be granted nor the Council
approve such a permit except when the following conditions are found to exist:
(a) Up to fifty (50) percent of the parking facilities required for a theatre,
bowling alley, dance hall, bar, or restaurant may be supplied by the off-
street parking facilities provided by types of uses specified as a primarily
daytime use in subparagraph (d) below.
(b) Up to fifty (50) percent of the off-street parking facilities required for any
use specified under (d) below as primary daytime uses may be supplied by
the parking facilities provided by the following nighttime or Sunday uses:
Auditoriums incidental to a public or parochial school, churches, bowling
alleys, dance halls, theatres, bars, or restaurants.
(c) Up to eighty (80) percent of the parking facilities required by this section
for a church or for an auditorium incidental to a public or parochial school
may be supplied by off-street parking facilities provided by uses specified
under (d) below as primarily daytime uses.
(d) For the purpose of this section, the following uses are considered as
primarily daytime uses: Banks, business offices, retail stores, personal
service shops, household equipment or furniture shops, clothing or shoe
repair or service shops, manufacturing, wholesale, and similar uses.
(e) Conditions required for joint use:
1.
The building or use for which application is being made to utilize
MONTICELLO ZONING ORDINANCE
3/42
.
.
.
Planning Commission Agenda - 04/03/07
?
Consideration to approve a resolution frodi"!!: that a modification to the
Redevelopment Plan for Central Monticello Redevelopment Proiect No.1 and the
TIF Plan for TIF District No. 1-38 conform to the !!:eneral plans for the development
and redevelopment ofthe citv. WRE. LLC dba Walker In-Store (O.K.)
A. Reference and backl!round:
The Planning Commission is asked to adopt the attached resolution stating it finds the
modification to the Redevelopment Plan for the Central Monticello Redevelopment Project No.
I and proposed TIF District No. 1-38 Plan conform with the general plans for development
and redevelopment of the city as described in the comprehensive plan.
Proposed TIF District No. 1-38, an Economic District, is being established to assist with land
and public improvement costs associated with development of the Monticello Business Center.
WRE, LLC dba Walker In-Store plans to construct a 10,240 sq. ft. office/assembly/warehouse
facility along Dalton Court. The company markets, sells, assembles, and distributes in-store
display products. The proposed project will bring 11 full-time permanent jobs at an annual
average wage-level of at least $18.81 per hour without benefits.
The legal description of the parcel is Lot 2, Block 1, Otter Creek Crossing 3rd Addition. The
size of the lot is 5.8 acres of which 1.5 acres is developable and the remaining acres consist of
utility and ponding easements. The zoning is II-A (Light IndustriallBusiness Campus). As you
recall, Declaration of Protective Covenants for Phase II have been recorded against the
property to ensure quality exterior building materials, installation of irrigation, and no out-door
storage. City staff and consultants met with the developer and architect on February 20 for the
free Pre-Design Consultation.
For this agenda item, the Planning Commission is stating the TIP Plan for District No. 1-38
conforms with the Comprehensive Plan: land use, zoning, and general development plans.
The HRA will consider approval of the Plan on April II, 2007, and the City Council has
scheduled a public hearing for consideration to adopt the TIP Plan for District No. 1-38 on
April 23, 2007. It is anticipated conveyance of the land will take place soon thereafter.
B.
Alternative Action:
1.
Motion to adopt a resolution finding that a modification to the Redevelopment Plan for
Central Monticello Redevelopment Project No. I and the TIF Plan for TlF District No.
1-38 conform to the general plans for the development and redevelopment of the city.
I
.
Planning Commission Agenda - 04/03/07
2.
A motion to deny adoption of a resolution finding ..............................................
3.
A motion to table any action.
C.
Recommendation:
The City Administrator and HRA Executive Director recommend Alternative No.1. The
proposed project complies with the Protective Covenants, the Comprehensive Plan, and
creates liveable wage-level jobs.
D. SUDDortinl! Data:
Resolution for adoption, map, excerpt of the TIF Plan. Elevations and concept of project.
.
.
2
.
.
.
PLANNING COMMISSION
CITY OF MONTICELLO, MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION
FINDING THAT A MODIFICATION TO THE REDEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR
CENTRAL MONTICELLO REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT NO. I AND A TAX
INCREMENT FINANCING PLAN FOR TAX INCREMENT FINANCING
DISTRICT NO. 1-38 CONFORM TO THE GENERAL PLANS FOR THE
DEVELOPMENT AND REDEVELOPMENT OF THE CITY.
WHEREAS, the City Council for the City of Monticello, Minnesota, (the "City") has proposed to
adopt a Modification to the Redevelopment Plan for Central Monticello Redevelopment Project No. I
(the "Redevelopment Plan Modification") and a Tax Increment Financing Plan for Tax Increment
Financing District No. 1-38 (the "TIP Plan") therefor (the Redevelopment Plan Modification and the TIP
Plan are referred to collectively herein at the "Plans") and has submitted the Plans to the City Planning
Commission (the "Commission") pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.175, Subd. 3, and
WHEREAS, the Commission has reviewed the Plans to determine their conformity with the general
plans for the development and redevelopment of the City, as described in the Comprehensive Plan for the
City.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Commission that the Plans conform to the general
plans for the development and redevelopment of the City as a whole.
Dated: April 3, 2007
Chair
ATTEST:
Secretary
.
HI il
0< Ii " -I
ClO 0 .... ]' I!
~ ~ 0 ~E-< 1 II
. ~o
.... ~z ~Ii
0 ~E-< ~oo
U~
z f::lu .....z ~
E-< E-<~ E-<Z
U z~ z.....
..... 00 o~
Q::i ~~ ~ ;;..~
E-<
00 ~E-< ...E-<
..... OZ
~ <z ;;..;;J
~ Q::i~
E-<~ E-<O
Z Z~ .....u
..... UE-<
U ~o
Z u~ :=
< ~ ~
Z ;;> .....
..... ~ Q::i
... ~ ~
E-< ~
. Z Q::i
~
~
~
Q::i
U
Z
.....
><
<
E-<
,
,
L-,-,,_,.-
.
i ,;
/ .,
~
r
"
~
~
~
i
i
,
.
.
i
I
J
!
.
,
.
.
--:1
I
'<-1
_1- "
--I,
"z_1
I
I
.
~
~
~
.
/,,:Y"<~~>/ '>'"
--LL>,~u~c
ci- Q~ /' / ,. ~ '
~~ ~~ ,/ / ../' ,.,f,.#;~ /
Ql() ~to-: ~/ /' ,,/ ",;,,:;' /
-:..~ ~_ t ,,/" /' /--~-./ it'.t'.': "
o ~ ~ ;,c 0 ../ ,/' / -~- --~, !
~ ~ ~ "u </) ,./ ./ '~
<_ ~ ~ffi~ ,/ / ~i
Qt.", eN::: // ~ . ~
~ffi~ ~3g ,./A' ~~
~ I ,./~/ 0
N A'/ ".. b
N ," y, ~+...,. ,: ,
~ >- /'/~r/ \ <~~~ """'~/
~ :i/~</ \ ;~'" "') ~.
~ ' ,. Xl ~, ..;. 't
,'7/' : ~\,+y:..r;, .~'" j op'l ,.;,.~- _____
,,,;,' ,~~;;,~... ,j, ,"""::."',!'"
~ _ ~ _ _ -,.{!:" \I.J',~ \ ,'->-. .<'.- !. I
~ " / ,...... ';. "~"i ,,1 .... .., t;~ ,
~ /'/ ~ -<t "'.....~ ~ig;
~ / / ,,_,_ _ ' 1; '<.c-'-
~ /// \'l-~"" J ~~ :-'1-~
~ ! ! ,'-, '" '"
~ ' I} , ',,- '"
N ! / ! ""'-'" '" ': ~~
S ,,' U-~, -
~ 1-/ I ", I-
C'l .: - ,I 0... \.' \: d~'>>
~ _cue !.I! _t /."., "
~~ rn<<~//'jr- ~< m ' '- ~ - -
! , /..... - . =>
t"~ " I,''' j,. ~ 0
" ///t., _i, :;; l;;
Il.o " /,' ~, '.0 c' I>':'
~/>>{ ~ "( -- i~ I
~ ,~/ I ~ i" ' '..
~. ',/ -"" ~
.. ~ I t
r."'"
" ,:f'\:"
Ar
. ,-is.''
.~.;;;:/':=>
.j-"
"'
....
o
F
::>
"
, '
" :
, ,
/ .
--- ,
lalm..JtnllJ/JlIQ;lJ/S...J ,
OJ ,:
I- .:
o '
~ ...{:'!- r
5 ...:v' ....
~. ~--/ !
( ..:::r- ..lJ-j
j
, -
\...-./==":
" ,
'""""'"
__illILl" ~~
..wa....~~l,.....-'
--
IBUO.J01"'OI1fXJ_
~
~
"-
"'"
,- #.~ "'"
"'"
"'"
,
----
"'" ()
---"'" "'1(
--- -- ~
~O
('~
"V
"-
Ov
-?~
RETAINING
WALl.
-q,.
'0.
DRAINAGE AND ENT
UTTUlYEXA EA~ LOCA TTON
\ERlFY
l\lTH SUR\IEY
'"
SITE nATA.
. 1-1A _ 5.82 ACRES
ZONING 253.652 s.r. oss s.r.
AREA - 0240 GR 096 S.F.)
6UILDING - ~4OlI: OfFICE ('\it (6.1H s.r.)
~6OX WAREHOU
3666 NET S.F. STALLS
PARKING DATA oss s.r. LESS FlO:T -3 .j. 1/200 _ 21
OFl'1CE 4.096 GR . 3.666 S. . 5,530 NET s.r. 19 STAllS
' SE - 6,IH s.r.S~ ~o~ AT 6 + 1/500 - 40 STAllSAU.S ~~:5
WAREHOU, 40 Sf
.
.
.
z
o
"'
~
~
5
F
. ~
~
I-
Ul,
~
F~
:::J
0
Ul
"
<:
.
.
.
.
.
Planning Commission Agenda - 4/03/07
9.
Consideration to review for comment the Wril!:ht County "Northeast
Ouadrant" Land Use Plan. (NAC)
REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND
As the Planning Commission is likely aware, Wright County has been in the
process of preparing a new Land Use Plan for the Northeast Quadrant of the
county. This effort consists ofland use planning primarily for Monticello
Township, Buffalo Township, and Rockford Township. The proposed plan does
not address land uses inside incorporated City boundaries, nor does it affect land
use planning within the Monticello Orderly Annexation Area. It is the first of
three phases ofland use planning for Wright County. The next phase will address
the northwest quadrant, and the fmal phase will address the southern section of
the county.
The plan address future land uses beyond, and adjacent to, the boundaries of the
MOAA. Although the plan is described as utilizing a twenty year planning
horizon, it will impact Monticello's future by establishing land use patterns in
areas which may become targets for long-term incorporation. The County has
scheduled a Public Hearing later in April to consider public comments on the
planning document.
East of Monticello
Adjacent to the MOAA, the plan shows five primary future land use designations
(in addition to small areas of residential that are already developed). To the east
of the City, Rural Residential and Agricultural designations are shown. Rural
Residential is defmed in the plan as one residential dwelling per ten acres, while
Agricultural areas are intended for farming, but allow one residential dwelling per
forty acres. The plan discusses the possibility that the County may consider a
change in the Agricultural area to one dwelling per twenty acres. This reflected a
discussion at the task force level debated the long-term viability of farming in
some areas ofthe county, and whether are-designation ofthis area would be
better labeled as "Rural", rather that "Agricultural.
The I :40 versus 1 :20 debate is not likely to affect future City development or
growth. Under either density, urban uses are usually able to be integrated over
time when municipal services become available. The Twin Cities has extensive
experience with one dwelling per ten acres. The Metropolitan Council established
this density designation many years ago as a "holding zone" for future urban
expansIOn.
This designation has generally not been successful in achieving that goal. In most
areas, local governments have been pressured to allow higher densities in some
neighborhoods by averaging the 1: 10 standard over a broader area. In many areas
where I: I 0 has been used and developed at that density, urban expansion has been
1
Planning Commission Agenda - 4/03/07
.
strongly resisted by the residents of those large lots. Due to the development
pattern that has been created by the I: I 0 standard, expansion into these areas has
been thwarted, or made much more expensive, or both. As a result, reliance on
this density as a holding zone is not an effective tool. Instead, the rural residential
designation is most likely to result in a long-term, or "permanent", land use
pattern. Monticello (as well as the county) should view it as such.
The county's plan envisions a land use pattern that has concentrations of urban
development in the incorporated cities separated by areas of rural use (primarily
rural residential and agricultural uses). The current Monticello Comprehensive
Planning effort has focused on building out the MOAA, and encouraging long-
term growth to the west ofthe community. Therefore, agricultural and rural
residential uses to the east of the MOAA - between Monticello and Otsego -
would appear to be consistent with both the City's planning vision as well as the
county's desire for rural spaces between urban concentrations.
South of Monticello
.
To the south, the county's draft plan shows additional agricultural uses flanked by
two unique preservation designations. One of these surrounds Pelican Lake, and
is identified as "Resource Lands". Resource lands are essentially important
environmental or ecological areas that provide valuable open space resources to
the county as a whole. The designation of the areas around Pelican Lake for this
purpose mirrors the City's existing Comprehensive Plan, and is an excellent
component ofthe county's planning efforts.
The second preservation area consists of several sections of land along either side
of Trunk Highway 25 between Buffalo and Monticello. This area is designated
"Aggregate Resources" and is intended to preserve the ability to exploit the sand
and gravel in these areas before they are developed. With growth in the Wright
County region, aggregate resources area a vital, but limited, requirement for urban
growth. The plan is designed to make sure that areas with high concentrations of
high-quality aggregates are protected from premature development. The City of
Monticello should support this plan.
West of Monticello
West of the City are three distinct land use categories. The first is an additional
"Resource Land" designation for the YMCA property. This is consistent with the
city's joint efforts with the county in preserving this important area as public open
space. The remainder of the area is split between two categories - Agricultural
and Rural Residential. As discussed in previous sections, the Rural Residential
must be viewed as a permanent land use - it does not efficiently accommodate
transition to urban development.
.
2
Planning Commission Agenda - 4/03/07
.
The question for Monticello is whether permanent rural areas to the west of the
current MOAA boundaries represent an appropriate land use pattern.
The county intends to preserve extensive areas of rural use between
concentrations of urban development. To the west of Monticello (not included in
this planning phase), there is a small village concentration at Silver Creek
(approximately 5 miles) and several more miles to Clearwater, the nearest
location for full urban services.
Coupled with the city's current planning efforts that prescribe much of
Monticello's future growth to the west, planning staff believes that the county's
plan should not encourage development of any type in this area. Although the
potential urbanization of this area would be many years away, it important that the
interim land uses not interfere with the long-term "permanent" pattern. Just as the
county is protecting the resource areas from development, areas such as these that
may reasonably be expected to urbanize need the county's land use protection.
.
The draft plan discusses urbanizing areas as those which cities will be able to
provide with municipal services based on current or planned service capacity-
often utilizing the 20 time horizon for the county's plan as definition of
reasonableness. This is not an appropriate definition, as municipal infrastructure
is planned to last for decades beyond the 20 year timeframe. Introducing land
uses that will interfere with urbanization within a 40 or 60 year timeline (or even
more) should be discouraged.
In summary, the Rural Residential designation to the west of Monticello should
be changed to Agricultural. Under this scenario, planning staff does not believe
that a possible change to one dwelling per twenty acres would negatively affect
future urbanization of this area. Moreover, since there are many miles ofterritory
between the western edge of Monticello Township and the nearest urban area, the
county's objective of preserving rural space between urban nodes is maintained.
ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS
The Planning Commission should discuss the Wright County Comprehensive
Plan and consider comments to be made as a part of the county's public hearing
process on the Northeast Quadrant draft plan.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
.
Staff recommends that Monticello provide comment to Wright County,
supporting the proposed plan and its objectives, with one primary change. That
would be a redesignation of the areas to the west of the City from the draft "Rural
Residential" to "Agricultural". The city does not have an opinion relating to the
3
Planning Commission Agenda - 4/03/07
.
county's debate over density in the Agricultural areas, but believes that a
residential density of I :20 would not necessarily create a negative impact on
future urbanization.
SUPPORTING DATA
A. Wright County DRAFT Northeast Quadrant Land Use Plan
.
.
4