Planning Commission Minutes 08-07-2001
.
.
.
MINUTES
REGULAR MEETING - MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION
Tuesday - August 7, 2001
7 :(){) P.M.
Members Present:
Dick Frie. Rohhie Smith., Richard Carlson, Rod Dragsten and
Council Liaison Clint Herbst
Absent:
Staff:
Roy Popi Ick
Jeff O'NeilL Fred Patch and Steve Grittman
I . Call to order.
2.
"
-) .
Chair Frie called the meeting to order at 7 PM. noting the absence or Roy Popilek.
Approval or minutes of the rel.wlar meeting held July 3.2001.
A MOTION WAS MADE BY ROBBIE SMITH AND SECONDED BY ROD
DRAGSTEN TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF TilE JULY 3. 2001 PLANNING
COMMISSION MEETING WITH TilE ADDITION OF TilE 'TIME OF
ADJOURNMENT BEING 9:30 PM. Motion carried unanimously.
Consideration of adding items to the a1.'.enda.
Rod Dragsten requested to review the concept designs of the new Liquor Store. This was
placed as item 148 on the agenda.
Chair Frie asked Fred Patch to e1ahorate on blight situations in the City. specifically a
question asked of Mr. Frie as to when or where does stall encroach on pri vate property.
when is it considered trespassing. Fred Patch stated that in their official capacity as
building ol"/icial and building inspector, they can enter property at will if there aren't any
"no trespassing" signs posted. Patch also stated that there have been cases where signs
have been posted and he has had to enter the property but has heen approved hy the City
Attorney. He stated that this is never into a building or hOlne, property only.
Patch elaborated to state that so long as you don't enter or invade privacy you can go as
t~lr as to take pictures through the windows incases where there is a suspected health
hazard. etc. Clint Herbst added that perhaps this particular property could have heen
made aware of by a neighbor and that is how the inspector would have known that there
was blight on the property that may be otherwise hidden.
.
.
.
Planning COnlmission Minutes - 08/07/01
4.
Citi/cns comments. Nonc
5. Public Hearing - Consideration of a request for a variance to the rear yard setback
requirements to allow construction of a deck. Applicant: Max Johnson.
"'This item was removed from the agenda*
{i Puhlic Ilcaring - Consideration 01' a preliminary plat, an alnendment to the existing
planned unit development (pur)). a variance Crom the minimum 10 Coot side yard setback
Cor propcrties in the R-2 District and a variance from the minimum 40-foot separation
between a curb cut and any intersection of two puhlic streets. Applicant: Front Porch
Associates.
Steve Grittman advised that the applicant is requesting approval of a preliminary plat and
a conditional use permit/planned unit development (CUP/PUD) amendment. In
conjunction with these approvals, the applicant is also requesting a five-foot side yard
setback variance and a 31.5 foot curb cut separation variance. These appl ications are
intended to allow the construction of one twin home unit on the property located at 722
West yh Street.
The subject propcrty is directly north of the Elm Street Crossing Townhomes. The
applicant plans to include the proposed twin home with the Elm Street Crossings
Association. This would allow both developments to use the open space included in this
project and make the Association responsible for maintenance on both sides of the street.
The second part 01' the application is for preliminary plat and ClJP/PlJD amendment. The
suhject property is an existing lot of record that meets all or tbe required lot size and
dimensional requirements for properties in tbe R-2 District. Prior to final plat approval.
the applicant must suhmit detailed landscape, lighting, and grading, drainage and utility
plans.
The Planning Commission and City Council are requested to weigh rivef~lctors when
considering a conditional use for a planned unit development. These factors are as
follows:
l.
7
Relationship to municipal Comprehensive Plan.
The geographical area involved.
Whether such use will tend to or actually depreciate the area in which it is
proposed.
The character of the surrounding area.
The demonstratcd need for such use.
3.
4.
5.
In reviewing thesc factors, staff can make several findings. First. the Proposed Land Use
2
Plann jng Comm ission Minutes - 08/07/0 I
.
Map included in the City's Comprehensive Plan guides the subject property for Low-
Density Residential use. Thercfl.)J"e, the development of town homes on this site is
consistent with the City"s Comprehensive Plan. Second, according to the City's Existing
Land Use Map, this site is surrounded by rnedium and high density residential uses. In
addition, this development will be consistcnt in dcsign with the properties directly to the
south. As a result, this development will be consistent with the surrounding land uses.
Finally, development of residential units on this vacant property should not depreciate the
surrounding properties.
The Ordinance also states a non-econOlnic hardship should be demonstrated to justify
approval of a variance request and after comparing the criteria with the applicant's plans,
stafT aclvised the following findings regarding the request for a five-fiJot side yard setback
vanance.
a. The subject property is an irregular shaped lot. The triangular shape of the
lot makes it irnpossible fl.)!' the applicant to fit the proposed structure
within the required setbacks. Moreover, the structure is a permitted use
and is not out of character with the area or the Ordinance.
b.
The subject property lies directly south of the Burlington Northern
railroad. As a result. the proposcd five-f()Ot side yard setback would shift
the structure only live feel closcr to the railroad line and not cause a
noticeable impact on the adjacent property.
.
^ her comparing the variance criteria with the applicant's plans, staff advised the
following nndings regarding the request fl.)!' a 31.5 foot curb cut separation variance:
a. The applicant could eliminate the need for thc variance by rerouting the
driveway onto Fln1 Street.
b. The applicant has failcd to demonstrate the existence of a non-economic
hardship. I f fact, it would require less pavement, and therefore cost less,
to reroute the driveway onto Elm Street.
c. Granting this variance would significantly reduce the stacking and safety
distance between the proposed curb cut and Elm Street. The applicant has
suggested that a driveway aligned with Elm Street may confuse drivers.
Staff believes this concern could be addressed through design of the
driveway and landscaping.
With regard to this driveway. Public Works and engineering staff support the variance to
minimize driveway access to Flm Street. Planning statThelieves that the safety issues
.
3
Planning Commission Minutes - 08/07/01
.
raised by the proposed driveway location are greater than an additional driveway onto
Elnl. Neither Elnl nor )lh Streets are collector status roadways that would result in a
recommendation fiJr no driveway access, although it is Llir to presume that Elrn probably
has slightly more total traftic than 5th Street in this location.
Rod Dragsten asked if the applicant could have the driveway come out on Elm Street and
Grittrnan stated yes, but Pubic Works stated it would be safer not to. Robbie Smith asked
if the applicant was proposing the garage/driveway coming right out to Co. Rd. 39 and
stafl noted that they would suggest a turnaround driveway. Dick Frie asked about
covenants regarding open space and would the City get a copy of it. Grittman stated the
City would have jurisdiction over conditions of the pun, but not over the covenants.
Clint Ilerbst stated that the Council wishes for the Planning Commission to review
covenants fix larger projects. Grittman advised that the Planning Commission would not
want to be responsible fl.)!' too much in regard to the covenants, but certainly there are
issues that would be noted as part of the pun approval. rrie asked if prior to final plat
approval when applicant needs to submit all final items, could staff at that timc ask for a
copy of the covenants and the applicant advised that he would provide that.
.
Chair Frie opened the public hearing. Mike Cyr, applicant noted that it there is actually
31 feet frOln street to edge of driveway. Regarding traffic from Elm to 51h, there is
considerably more traffic on Elm St. than on 5th, and that they proposed this option for
safety reasons.
Chair Frie closed the public hearing. Smith stated he felt this was a good project. but had
onc issue in question with the driveway separation, feels that Elm St. is a much busicr
street, and for safety purposes, backing out/pull ing out would encountcr 3 intersections so
he agrees with the applicant in thc placcment of the driveway.
Richard Carlson noted there was room for a turnaround at the garage and it should be
squared that off. Rod Dragsten concurred. Grittman clarified the stafCs reasoning for
suggested placement oCthe driveway in that they were assuming cars would come out of
thc driveway f()rward and would come out a fcw fect in front of the intersection, the
concern being cars coming down Elm and going to )lh St, they would be in the car's blind
spot therefore that was staffs safety issue.
Decision Onc: Preliminary Plat
A MOTION WAS MADE BY ROBBIE SMITH AND SECONDED BY ROD
DRAGSTEN TO APPROVE THE PRELIMINAR Y PLAT BASED ON TilE
FOLLOWING FINDINGS:
.
4
Planning Commission Minutes - 08/07/01
.
b.
The subject property is consistent with the dimensional and size standards
for properties in the R-2 District.
The proposed use is consistent with the Proposed Land Use Map included
in the City's Comprehensive Plan as well as the surrounding land uses.
a.
AND SUBJECT TO THE fOLLOWING CONDITIONS:
a. The applicant submits and receives approval of detailed landscape, and
grading, drainage and utility plans.
b.The appl icant receives approval of a five- f()()t side yard setback variance.
c. A copy of the covenants will be supplied.
Motion carried unanimously.
Decision Two: CliP/pun Amendment
A MOTION WAS MADE BY ROBl3IE SMrn I AND SII.:ONDED BY RICHARD
CARLSON TO APPROVE AN AMENDMENT -ro THE EXISTING CONDITIONAL
USE PERMIT/PLANNEn UNIT DEVELOPMENT BASED ON TIlE FOLLOWING
I"INDINGS:
.
b.
The application is consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan.
Thc proposed use is consistent with the character, design, and density of
the surrounding uses.
The proposed use should not tend to depreciate the surrounding area.
a.
c.
SUBJECT T{) THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:
a. The appl icant recei ves approval of a 11 vc- f'()()t side yard setback variance.
Motion carried unanimously_
Decision Three: Side Yard Setbaek Variance
A MOTION WAS MADE BY ROBBIE SMI"TH AND SECONDED BY ROD
DRAGSTEN TO APPROVE A FIVE-FOUr SIDE YARD SETBACK VARIANCE
HASEn ON THE fOLLOWINCJ FINDINGS:
a.
The subject property is an irregular shaped lot. The triangular shape of the
lot makes it impossible f()r the applicant to fit the proposed structure
within the required setbacks.
.
5
Planning Commission Minutes - 08/0710 I
.
b.
The subjcct property is an existing lot of rccord that meets all of the
required lot size and dimensional requirements for properties in the R-2
District.
The subject property lies dircctly south of the Burlington Northern
railroad. As a result, the proposed five-foot side yard setback would shift
the structure closer to the railroad line and not causc a noticeable impact
on thc adjacent properties.
c.
SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:
a. Approval of the preliminary plat and conditional use permit/planned unit
development amendment.
b. The applicant submits and receives approval of detailccllandscape ancl
grading, drainage, and utility plans.
Motion carried unanimously.
Decision Four: Driveway Separation Variance
.
A MOTION WAS MADE BY ROBBiE SMITH AND SECONDED BY ROD
DRJ\GSTEN TO APPROVE A 31.5 FOOT DRIVEWAY SEP ARA nON v ARIANCF
BASED ON TilE FOLLOWING FINDINGS:
a. The applicant has demonstrated the existcnce of a non-economic hardship.
b. Granting the driveway separation variance would not reducc the stacking
and safety distance between the proposed curb cut and Elm Street.
There was further discussion among the members asking the applicant if there would be
significant landscaping by the driveway, which the applicant stated there would bc, and
adding that perhaps cutting down sorne of the landscaping may help with visibility. It
was advised that the landscaping was subject to final approval as previously stated.
Robbie Smith also stated that it is his finding that 51h Street was a safer choice f'()r backing
onto vcrsus Elm Street. There was no further discussion. Motion carried unanimously.
L Consideration of an atnenclmcnt to a Planned lJnit Development in the PZ-M Zoning
District to pennit the expansion of Darking lot facilitics. Applicant: Monticello-Gig Lake
Community Hospital District.
Steve Grittman advised that the applicant is sceking an amcndment to its Planncd Unit
Development to allow the expansion of its parking lot on the west end of the upper
parking area, adjacent to Dayton Street. The parking lot would extend from the existing
.
6
Planning Commission Minutes - 08/07/0 I
.
parking area by removing the curb and continuing the driveways to the west. An
additional tier of spaces would be constructed to the edge of the hillside on the north. In
all, thc new parking lot would gain of 107 spaccs.
The currcnt PUD approval plans iln' a multi-level parking ramp which would connect the
upper and lower parking areas in the location of thc current dental clinic property.
Becausc the hospital district does not control that site, the ramp is not yet feasible.
Howevcr, hospital staff continue to utilize a "temporary", unimproved parking area in the
lower area near the nursing home entrance. This parking area was originally intendcd to
provide overl1ow parking during a previous construction projeet. As a part of this PUD
amendmcnt. parking in this tcmporary lot should be terminated, and the area returncd to
landseaped green space.
With regard to the new parking arca itself the hospital proposes to include adequate
planted islands with a combination of Red Maple, I-Ioneylocust, Shrub Roses, and sod.
The lot will be graded to take the drainage to catch basins along Broadway, away from
the River. The City Enginecr should comment on the drainage plans.
.
The primary design issue for Planning Staff relates to the acccss to Dayton Strcet. The
City has long been concerned with west- or north-bound hospital traffic utilizing River
Strect to get to lIighway 25. If acccss is permitted to Dayton, stafr would recommend a
design which discourages, or prohibits, right-turn traffic which would then end up on
River Street. Instead SOlne sort of angled driveway which forces exiting traffic to turn let
on Dayton toward Broadway would be the preferred design. This dcsign would also
permit right-turn-in traffic coming li'om Broadway onto Dayton. Since there is a rnedian
in Broadway at Dayton, east-bound traffic would need to use the signalized main hospital
entrance for access to Broadway.
Public Works staff has suggested a preference for proh i biting access fronl the llospi tal
property to Dayton Street. While this option would function best to eliminate potential
traffic onto River Street planning staff is concerned about the quantity of traffic forced to
utilize the central access point without a secondary egrcss.
It should be noted that this amendment would not affect the expectation of the City that a
parking ramp will be integrated into the project at some future time. The City may wish
to discuss whether continued replacement of housing in this arca with surf~tce parking lots
should be continued any t~lrther west than thc current proposal.
A tinal issue relates to pedestrian access along the Hospital area. Particularly with the
extension of the parking area to more than 800 feet fi"om the main entrance, stalTbelieves
that a sidewalk should be integrated into the plan. It should also be noted that the city's
.
7
Planning Commission Minutes - 08/07/0 I
.
planning f(n Highway 75 includes future pedestrian sidewalk in this area. A combination
of City and Hospital sidewalk construction may be possible to minimi/.e costs f(Jr both
parties. The funding arrangernents would have to be worked out. If not possible, the
Hospital should be prepared to install sidcwalk to benefit the staff and visitors that will be
using this distant parking lot.
Chair Fric opened the public hearing. 8arb Schwientek, Ilospital Adrninistrator, was
present. as well as Roger Oberg. She noted that the temporary parking is being handled
with their new plans and they are discussing whcn to begin construction of the lot. One
issue with exiting the parking lot is that part of Ilart Blvd. is a safety zone for the heli-
pad, therct()l"C one of the reasons that limits thc ability f(w people to exit the lot is that this
safety zone remains unti I the helicopter has exited. Another concern is fl.)!' staff parking
on River Street if the tcmporary parking lot is taken away bef()!"e a new once is built. She
did add that the Dental staff is also using the tcmporary parking bclow which is
designated for staff rrie asked Schwientek were the construction of the parking ramp
fits in and she stated that it is part of the overall master plan. Thc Ilospital Board has not
yet made a time line in that regard.
.
Chair Frie stated that he feels there is an issue with the extended parking lot and a
potcntial security issue for staff and visitors leaving late at night. Frie added that
aesthetically the Hospital looks very nice, but the parking seems to be expanding so t~lr
down 8roadway. lie also added that previously the Planning Commission and Ilospital
had discussed the building of a 3 level ramp and Barb Schwientek stated that they are still
considering it but economically it is not feasible at this time as they estimate it to cost
between $4.5 to $5 million. Schwientek also added that she has had no negative
comments from property owners on this particular issue. She also noted that they would
start the shuttle service once again during this construction which would help with
security, as well as having a security consultant come out to advise them. They also work
with the Wright County Sheriffs Dept. They do not have security personnel at this time,
and are not convinced that adding one security person would help, therd(ne the reason
for asking the security consultant to comment. There is no longer access to all inside
fi.lCilities after hours either. Schwientek reminded them that this is a short tenn option
until a ramp could be built.
Oberg added that thcy solicited concerns from employees regarding distant parking, they
added 5 additional cameras but do not have a security guard on staff. I Ie notcd the value
of having these cameras in place and also that their I ighting consultant had stated they
had the best lit parking lot in the city. He advised as well that they are seriously looking
into have the hospital shuttle once again and that they have also added a yd shift
maintenance person who would assist personnel to their vehicles if requested.
.
8
Planning Commission Minutes - OR/07/0l
.
Walter Klatt. 924 F. River Street, asked Schwientek what the Ilospital was planning long
term for the area below the hill on River Street and she advised that they would not be
going below the hill with any parking and that they will be landscaping and installing
irrigation further down Broadway which would help to maintain the green area.
Robbie Smith added that he would like to see a landscaping plan as well as review the
lighting plan to make sure it is not ewer-lit. rrie asked also if by elirninating houses {()r
installation of parking lots would cause the City to lose tax dollars and Schwientek did
concur that no tax dollars are gained from parking lots.
A MOTION WAS MAD\-: HY DICK FlUE AND SECONDED BY RICHARD
CARLSON TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE PIJD AMENDMENT, WITI I
CONDITIONS THAT TIlE TEMPORARY PARKING IN THE LOWER AREA 81':
REMOVED AND IZE-LANDSCAPED; ACCESS TO DA YTON STREET B1': RE-
DESIGNED TO PERMIT RIGIIT TURN-IN, LFFT TURN-OUT TRAFFIC ONLY,
DISCOURAGING TRAFFIC FROM lJSINCi RIVER STReET; DEVELOPMeNT OF A
LANDSCAPING PLAN ACCEPTABLE TO THE CITY PLANNeR, AND
INSTALLA nON OF SIDEWALK ON BROADWAY ALONG THE FULL LENGTH
OF TI IE HOSPITAL DISTRICT PROPERTY.
.
ROBBIE SMITI I AMEN[)l<j) THE MOTION ADDING A CONDITION TI IA T TIll,:
PARKING LOT LIGHTING BE REVIEWED FOR COMPLIANCE WIT I I CITY
ORDINANCE. RICHARD C'ARLSON SECONDED THE AMENDMENT. Motion
carried unanimously.
8. Public Hearin!-', - Consideration of a request for a conditional use permit allowin~ a
reduction in the standard design requirements for stall aisle and driveway design.
Applicant: Integrated Recycling Technolol':ies, Inc.
Fred Patch provided the stafr report noting this is rather a routine appl ication by
I ntegrated Recycling Technologies, Inc. who is developing the parcel located at 9696
Fallon A venue. Their development proposes a future expansion area to the east of the
building which would include a driveway on the north side of the building to enable
vehicles to maneuver around the entire building.
Prior to the expansion, the area east of the building will be used as a truck turn around.
That area is proposed by the applicant to be left with a gravel surf~tce, without curb, gutter
or paving. The City Zoning Code recognizes by exception that it is unreasonable to
require improved parking and drive surfaces in expansion areas. Such exceptions are
allowed by conditional use permit in 1- L I-I A, and 1-2 zones under the provisions of
section 3-5, 0.9 (s) Stall Aisle and Driveway Design Conditional Use Permit, subject to
.
9
.
.
.
Planning Comm ission Minutes - OR/07/0 1
the conditions as provided in Exhibit 7.
It has becn common practice to allow such conditional usc permits when building
expansion areas are idcntitied. Patch also noted that thc building is under construction at
this time.
Chair Frie opened the public hearing. Frie askcd Mr. Steve Budd, owner of IRTr. if hc
was hlllliliar with the conditions listed in Exhibit Z and he stated that he was aware of
them. The public hearing was closed. Dragsten asked if there was some sort of time
limit if the surElce is not paved and Patch stated the ordinance does not state a timc limit
other than what he placed in thc terms listed in Exhibit L Budd was thcn asked what his
time line was and he stated that he would like to sce it done in 5 years. This was added to
the list of conditions as itenl 5. Patch added that the conditional use eould state that it
expired in 5 years or that it was subject to rencwal after 5 years.
A MOTION WAS MADE BY ROD DRAGSTEN AND SECONDED BY RICHARD
CARLSON TO RECOMMEND TO TilE CITY COUNCIL TO APPROVE A
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT' TO ALLOW A REDUCTION IN TIlE STALL AISLE
AND DRIVEWAY DESIGN REQUIREMENTS FOR SURFACING, CURl3ING, AND
LANDSCAPING, SUBJECT TO TI IE CONDrrIONS LISTED IN EXHIBIT Z. Motion
carried unanimously.
9.
Public Ilcarin!-', - Consideration of a relluest for an amcndment to the sign ordinance
allowing ovcr-hanQing signs over 6 square fect on Walnut Street. Applicant: Citv of
Monticello.
Frcd Patch provided the staff report stating that the sign ordinanccs of the City were
recently modified to allow projecting signs in the Broadway Downtown District of the
Central Community District. The Monticello Downtown and Riverfront Rcvitalization
Plan encourages the design and installation of projecting signs in the Broadway
Downtown District as well as in the Walnut District. When thc original ordinance
allowing projccting signs was considered, thc Walnut District was inadvcrtently not
included.
The Walnut District is split by the Civic/Institutional, and the Industrial districts along
Walnut Street. Since the time the Walnut District was fIrst identillcd, the cOrl1rllercial
Townc Center project has bcen conccivcd and development has startcd. Thc Towne
Centcr project is located in the Civic/Institutional Distriet and yet should be included in
the area where projccting signs should be allowed. 'rhe ordinance amendment proposed
by this action designates all of Walnut Street, south of the Broadway Downtown District
as an area where projecting signs may bc permitted.
10
.
.
.
ill
Planning COl11l11ission Minutes - 08/07/0 I
By including the entire length of Walnut Street south of the Broadway Downtown
District, Sunny fresh Foods, Monticello Public Lihrary or the Community Center will be
included in the area where projecting signs are allowed; however, it is doubtful that those
properties will want to erect projecting signs.
Just as originally considered, the suggested amendments would allow only externally
illuminated projecting wall signs. Such signs would have to be erected at least 8 feet
ahove grade and must not exceed 6 square feet in area.
Chair Frie opened the puhlic hearing and hearing no response, the public hearing was
closed. There was no discussion among the members other than Chair Frie asking if there
had been any discussion regarding installing stop lights or signs at Walnut and Broadway.
Herhst noted that there was discussion duri ng the Broadway reconstruction meetings, that
this intersection would warrant a signal. Herbst also stated the County had suggested that
this intersection be blocked ofT by a median.
A MOTION WAS MADE BY ROD DRAGSTEN AND SECONDED BY ROBBIE
SMfTH 'T"O RECOMMEND TO THE CITY COlJNCIL THAT TIlE ORDINANCE
AMENDMENT ALLOWING PROJECTING WALL SIGNS IN THE CCD DISTRICT
BE APPROVED. Motion carried unanimously.
Fred Patch added that there are some sign proposals coming forward at this time with
development of the Liquor Store as well as community center signagc which may bc
placed out on Ilwy 25. There may also be signage on Walnut, noting there is no signage
on the Community Center building itself. lie noted Towne Centre will have signagc on
each unit as well.
Discussion reearding. City Council request for Planning: Commission to hold workshop to
discuss land use issues reQarding Gold NUQuet.
JcfT O'Neill noted that the City Council had asked that the Planning Commission build a
guide plan or land use plan. Maybe a lnixed use concept could he accomplished, the
liRA & IDe would like to look at possible industrial. O'Neill added that the city needs
to update their plan and lnay want to take advantagc of cOlnmercial/industrial as wcllas
residential in that area. The Developer would be involved in a workshop f(H" input as well
and perhaps it could be held prior to the next Planning Comlnission meeting if the agenda
is light. Frie stated maybe not a workshop but a f()fum, possibly should have builders,
dcvelopers, rcaltors as well as City Council and Planning Commission. He statcd that the
people he has approached were interested in participating. He added that the II RA
unanimously approved the Gold Nugget area as industrial. O'Neill stated a workshop
would be to kick off discussion and set the framework. hut no decisions would be made at
II
.
.
.
Planning COl11l11ission Minutes - 08/07/0 I
that time. This would be the first step in the revision of the comp plan, allowing ideas,
and noting it was the City Council who asked for this as a planning item. Ilerbst added
that they are convinced that something needs to be done in the area where the Gold
Nugget area is. Problem is that nobody ever ruled that the MOAA is not valid; everyone
agrees something needs to be done in that area.
Frie asked if they should delay until the court rules, and they stated no that there needs to
be discussions on this now. lIcrbst noted that they had also met with the school fl1r their
input. After further discussion it was noted that the Planning Commission Inay not feci
the same today as it did in the beginning in regard to the use of the Gold Nugget land.
A MOTION WAS MADE BY ROD DRAGSTEN AND SECONDED BY RICHARD
CARLSON AUTHORIZING STAFF TO SE'r A WORKSHOP DATE AND TIME OF
SEPTEMBER 18 AT 7 PM INCLUDINCJ THE CITY COUNCIL, PLANNING
COMMISSION, STAFF AND OWNER OF GOt,D NUGGET, TO DISCUSS TilE
LAND USE ISSUES REGARDING GOLD NUGGET. Motion carried unanimously.
lL
Discussion regarding allowing advertising sil.!ns to be placed on city benches with an
approved permit.
Jcff(),Neill stated that staff had been approached by a company who works with
communities with transit systems providing benches with signage at no charge to the
City. They rent the signs to husinesses for advertising and the bene/it to the City would
be free, maintained benches throughout thc City. Downside is that the ordinance does not
allow that at this time. There is no real need at this time for benches throughout the City.
Frie states that he has seen this and it seems to attract vandal ism. Carlson added itj ust
seems another form of advertising and he feels the town is small enough that they don't
need to sell the advertising. Dragsten stated no interest eithcr. Patch asked what the
Planning Commission felt about henches, non-advertising, in certain spots of the city
perhaps given by the Lions, Rotary, etc. and they felt that was okay as long as they would
be maintained. No action was needed.
12. Considcration of regulatory options to provide for higher value housinl.!. Applicant: City
of Monticello.
Stcve Grittrnan provided the report stating the City had been discussing options by which
higher valued housing can be encouraged in Monticello. A general concern has been
expressed in this context that the grcat majority of the new housing in the community is
of lower or moderate values, and higher-enc!. move up housing opportunities arc
generally not availahle. The Comprehensive Plan makes note of this issue in the
12
Planning Commission Minutes - 08/07/0 I
.
encouragelnent of housing styles throughout the range of value and lifestyle. It is
important to the life of the community that a full range of housing options is available,
otherwise, various aspects of the community's econOlnic development goals become too
difficult to achieve.
There has heen much written recently about the difficulty of constructing affordable
housing units in the Twin Cities area. Rising land costs (among other reasons) have
made new metro-area housing construction under $250,000 a virtual impossihility. In
areas such as Monticello, however, the problem is reversed. Although real estate values
have been rising rapidly, they still lag Llr behind the near suburban areas. As a result,
comlnunities on the li'inge of the Twin Cities area, with good commuter access to
suburban employment centers, have become the prinlary suppliers of the most affordable
housing - even though the definition of "affordable" has changed dramatically in the past
tive years.
.
To encourage higher valued housing, the City Inay consider a number of zoning
regulations that increase the costs of housing construction. Most of these relate to larger
lot and/or building sizes. As an example, a zoning regulation for single family lots of
18,000 square feet and 100 fect of width would increase the land per unit (reducing single
Llmi Iy density), and would also incrementally increase the cost of providing streets and
utilities - both on an overall per-acre basis, and on an individual lot width basis.
By increasing the minimum house size, the City would automatically increase the
resulting valuation of housing built on those lots - in genera!. an increase of about $100
per square foot would result. This can be a tricky regulation, howevcr, since most
housing is already built in excess of the City's minimum size. I-lousing in the 1,600
square Il.)ot to 2,000 square fi:)Ot range is most common. To have a signilicant effect, a
regulation for minimun1 housing sizes of more than 2,500 square feet would be necessary.
At issue for Monticello is the existence or strength or a Inarket for homes of $300,000 or
more. I lousing in the Twin Cities suburban area comrnonly costs this much, with
buildings and lots of typical suhurban size. The number of home buyers seeking housing
in this price range in Monticello is relatively small. Because o[this lower demand, prices
in this range have not escalated as quickly, and the options arc greater. Buyers in this
price Inarkel have choices of country or wooded acreage, river frontage, lakeshore, and
small acreage rural deveJoprnent, not to mention suburban neig.hborhoods 15 miles closer
~ ~
to thc metro corc.
Staff has been working with a developer who shared lot costs and pricing as an example
of the market issues present. Lot development costs (including hard and soft costs) for a
single Llmily project reached about $40,000, with raw land costs totaling about 15% of
.
13
.
.
.
I.'"
....2.:.
Planning Commission Minutes - 08/07/0 I
that figure. This developer claimed that lot prices were about the same, meaning there
was no profit in the development. They typically seek protit margins of around 20l!(1 over
cost, meaning lot prices would need to increase to $50,000 to meet their financial pro
tlmna. By comparison, most single Llmily lots in Twin Cities suburban developments
exceed $100.000.
As a general approach, planning staff would suggest that the City will not be able to
artificially create a rnarket for expensive homes. I lowever, there are some areas around
the City that would lend themselves to higher valued neighborhood development.
including river frontage or wooded lands. The City could inventory those areas, then
zone to protect them for future development, allowi ng the market to "catch up". We
would also suggest discussions about the potential for rural cluster development. This
model is most commonly used in rural areas where traditional municipal utilities are not
provided. In the larger Monticello area, acreage developments are capturing the bulk of
the upper end housing market. There is no reason that this type of development should be
only located in unincorporated areas. The City could designate certain areas for this type
of development, making a conscious decision to provide its finite utility service capacity
to other areas.
Cirittman had spokcn to Wright County I lousing Authority who also statcd that those
types of homes are not often found in this area. Herbst asked if the City should increase
the size of the lots since we havc limited space available. Frie added that he would like to
see designated areas in the City that were zoned for higher-end homes. No action was
taken.
Clint Herbst was excused at 9: 1 0 pm.
Discussion Item: Issues relating to the regulation of m(ll1ut~lCtured housing in single
family zones.
Steve Orittman advised that staff had bccome aware of concerns over thc construction of
manut~lctured housing in single l~lmily developments in the City. Neighbors had asked
City Stall whether it was possible to prohibit this type of building. It was staffs
understanding that some of these neighbors rnay be attending the Planning Commission
rneeting to raise the issue but there was no one in attendance.
As a general rule, the City has extremely limited authority to regulate the erection of
rnanufactured housing in single family areas. The State's planning statutcs require that
Cities may not adopt regulations that have the effect of prohibiting manuLlctured homes
when such homes mect other zoning regulations applicable to single l~unily construction.
Together with subsequent case law, this means that any regulation the City adopts must
14
.
.
.
Planning Commission Minutes - 08/07/0 I
apply cqually to site-built and manuf~tctured housing, and that the regulation may not bc
discri rninatory.
It is also important to remember that any regulation rnust have somc basis in legitimate
concern f(Jr public welfarc. The one regulation that many communitics also have and
apply is a requirement that homcs being moved into the cOll1lnunity have a conditional
use permit for the moving process. This allows the City to verify compliance with codes
prior to the move, and avoids non-compliant homes from coming in and sitting vacant
due to a lack of livability.
While these regulations arc good standards to havc. it should bc pointed out that the
statutes, and subsequent court rulings, have been designed to eliminatc the discrimination
against manufactured housing. The regulations mentioned above have been integrated
into most manufactured housing construction. As a result, thc regulations rnanage the
type of manufactured housing. but do nothing to prohibit (or cven discourage) it. All of
this is due to a very vigilant, and effective. lobbying effort on the part of the
Manut~tctured I lousing Association. Planning Staff has participatcd in mcetings in
communities where plans to adopt regulations were well attended by the Association's
represcntali ves.
Thc Planning Commission was somcwhat surpriscd that there were no regulations
regarding manufactured homes in the covenants or that particular housing development.
O'Neill advised that the residents felt that the City should havc advised theln of this prior
to this homc coming in. Chair rric suggested adding something in the City's newslctter
regarding manufactured homes, also covering covenants and how they are handled by the
City. O'Neill stated that this item was flJr discussion purposcs prior to it bcing on the
City Council agenda. Staff had no specific recommendation and no action was taken.
14.
Proposal bv Mike Cyr for ioint DarkinQ - mock 36.
Mike Cyr. MLC Building and Remodeling, advised the Planning Commission of a
project he has bcen working on for a new law office proposed to be built on 11I0ck 36.
Cyr addcd that hc has had numerous discussions with both thc HRA and City Staff
regarding shared parking as this appears to be the main issue with this project. Cyr stated
that all owners on this block need to participate in the shared parking to lnake the project
work. He stated that 177 spots are needed if there is no shared parking. but otherwise
reduccd by 60% ifshared parking can be worked out. This brings the parking spaces
needed down to 106. Cyr added that their plan can only tit 83 within the block which
leaves 23 spots deficient. The redevelopment plan adopted by City Council and put in
with the City's Comprehensive Plan states they can count adjacent street parking as part
or that mix, but the City code does not state it that way. Cyr added that i l' they were able
to count street parking, then according to the rcdevelopment plan they would have 115
spaces which is more than needed. Again noted the redcvelopment plan states this is
allowed. Cyr stated that thc City Council will bc hearing this proposal as well on August
15
.
Planning Commission Minutcs - 08/07/0 I
13 and O'Neill stated that the Council would be asked to contribute parking funds to
accommodate parking deficiency, looking at the finance of this project to see if they
want to use City dollars !()r that. O'Neill added again that each time a developer is short
on parking they need to collect lor the deficiency so that at some point when more
parking needs to be developed, the City will have the dollars to do this. O'Neill states
that he does not believe the Council will waive the parking fee, but will look at the
project and see how it can be funded.
Grittrnan states that he does not feel there is a contlict between code and comp plan, it is
set up to say that they could reduce to 60(1'0, but that does not include on street parking as
they have already reduced down to the bare minimums, he also noted that city streets
need to be maintained and this would be the means to fund that. O'Neill stated that staff
are very supportive of the project and wants to see it go torward, and also advised that the
liRA is funding some of the parking as well through TIF.
Cyr asked for the Planning Commission's feelings on this project and Frie stated he is
very supportive. Cyr asked about the parking and if the Planning Commission would
approvc the project if they were deficient in parking. O'Neill noted that in peak times
there would be a potential problem, but that it is sti II workable but that they nced to be
aware of that and that eventually it costs thc city to maintain the parking. Their feelings
. were to tell Mr. Cyr that they would do what they could to see the project move forward.
14B. Ilighwav Liquor Expansion
Fred Patch provided a concept plan advising that some ideas discussed for the building
were to keep with the copper and brick to go with the decor of the area. Dragsten added
that thc other bui ldings such as Cub [<' oods were asked to keep with thc look of "the older
downtown" and that this design seems to be more modern looking. Dragsten asked i r the
Design Advisory Team was reviewing this item and O'Neill stated that they had looked
at it earlier that day at their meeting and that it was noted by DAT to have staff work with
the developer to meet the design requirements of D^ T. Patch also advised of a concept
of the landscaping, lighting and signagc. Working on structurc at this point. The
Planning Commission did state that the City should be consistent with their requirements
in ths area.
15.
^diournmcnt.
.
^ MOTION WAS MADI,: BY RICII^RD C^RLSON AND SECONIWf) BY ROD
DRAGSTEN TO ^DJOURN TilE MEETING ^T 9:45 PM. Motion carried
(iiS~
ecc rder
16