City Council Agenda Packet 05-12-2008 SpecialAGENDA
SPECIAL MEETV�' �WTY CA11TUff,1CM
Monday, May 12,2008
Call to Order
2. Workshop on proposed amendment to Monticello Zoning Ordinance, Chapter 3-5
Off-street Parking Requirements as related to the regulation of the size and weight
of vehicles parked in residential districts.
3. Adjourn
City Council Workshop Agenda- 05/12/08
2. Consideration of a request for an amendment to.the Monticello Zonin2 Ordinance,
Chaoter 3-5. Off-street ParkinLy, Reauirements. as related to the re2ulation of the
size and wei2ht of vehicles varked in residential districts. Auplicant: Citv of
Monticello.
The City Council has requested a workshop on this item to further clarify existing and
proposed ordinance language.
Provided below is the information resulting from the Planning Commission meeting and
the Planning Commission report itself. Included in supporting data are minutes from the
Planning Commission meetings on this topic. Also included are the most recent resident
comment emails on this topic.
City staff brought this item to the Planning Commission in order to better define the
parameters for enforcement action regarding commercial vehicles in residential districts -
Staff's concerns arose due to resident concerns regarding this issue.
The Commission considered this item at the January and February regular meetings and
discussed various methods for relating size and weight of vehicles. Based on input from the
Building Department and Public Works Department, an option was provided to utilize
MnDOT Validation Stickers (Exhibit E) as a measure for limiting the weights of
commercial vehicles in residential areas. In March, the Commission recommended that no
vehicles in excess of an "F" sticker rating be permitted in residential areas. Draft
ordinance language has been prepared accordingly, and is attached for review as Exhibit
D.
Staff has also edited the existing code language to refer to "vehicles" rather than
"automobiles", where applicable.
Due to recent concerns expressed by residents with parking of commercial vehicles in residential
areas, staff has requested that the City consider an ordinance amendment to clarify regulations on
commercial vehicle parking in residential areas throughout the City. Specifically, potential
ordinance amendments may establish restrictions on the weight and dimensions of commercial
vehicles allowed to park in residential neighborhoods, while not excluding emergency response
vehicles.
ANALYSIS
The current Zoning Ordinance language related to off-street parking states,
Of
.f-streetparkingfacilities 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. Not more
than one recreational vehicle or trailer may be parked in a residential driveway at one time. Any
additional recreational vehicles or trailers must be parked behind the front building line of the
principle structure. For purposes of this ordinance, recreational vehicles shall include
snowmobiles, A TVs, campers, trailers, motorhomes, boats, and the like. 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.
It has recently come to the attention of staff that the above ordinance language may not be
effective in regulating the parking of certain commercial vehicles, and the City has received
reports of such vehicles parked in residential neighborhoods throughout the City. As such, staff
has been directed to research potential amendments employing more specific parking
restrictions. Staff has prepared a number of options for consideration, ranging from specifying
vehicle types to regulating by size.
Weight. One option for placing further restrictions on commercial vehicle parking is to regulate
on the weight of the vehicle specifically. The existing ordinance allows vehicles up to 9,000
pounds to be parked in residential off-street parking facilities. However, staff performed a code
search of neighboring communities (attached as Exhibit A), and found that the majority of these
cities permit vehicles up to 12,000 pounds. This may be due to the increasing size non-
commercial trucks and SUVs which exceed the 9,000 pound limit. Therefore, staff recommends
an amendment to Section 3-2 [N] 4 regarding exterior storage and Section 3-5 [D] 7 regarding
off-street parking to allow vehicles up to 12,000 pounds as opposed to current 9,000 pound
limitation. While an amendment of this nature may be less -restrictive than the existing language,
it is not out of character with the intent of the ordinance and would reduce the number of
ordinance violations.
Dimensions. While the above amendment may allow for a wider array of vehicles to be parked
in residential areas, this may be mitigated by also regulating the actual dimensions of vehicles.
Regulating vehicles by dimension may also ease enforcement because, as stated above, the City
may currently have vehicles on City streets that exceed the existing weight restrictions. Some
cities do regulate parking in residential areas by physical size of vehicles. Doing so may
preclude most semi -cabs, and extraordinarily large commercial vehicles, but would permit
vehicles that are consistent with residential -style passenger vehicles and smaller commercial
vans and trucks. The city could exclude recreational vehicles from this prohibition if desired.
Staff has researched dimensions of various commercial vehicles, and said research may be found
attached as Exhibit B. Based on this research, the most appropriate dimensional restriction may
be to prohibit vehicles that are larger than 7 feet in height, 8 feet in width, and 25 feet in length.
These dimensions will allow for parking of various size pick-up trucks, while precluding most
semi -cabs and larger commercial vehicles. These dimensions would also permit vehicles that are
consistent with residential -style passenger vehicles and smaller commercial vans and trucks. Any
vehicle larger than the chosen threshold would be required to be kept within a garage, or stored
at a location that is appropriately zoned for such use. For ease of enforcement, a dimensional
standard may be most appropriate, as measuring vehicle dimensions is more feasible than
actually weighing vehicles. Regulating vehicles by size in this manner would require an
amendment to Section 3-5 [D].
Exceptions for "emergency response" vehicles. In dealing with the issue of commercial
vehicle parking in residential areas in the past, concerns have been raised on the potential of
precluding emergency response vehicles from parking in residential areas. This issue may again
require special consideration as this item is addressed. The City may need to include the most
obvious "emergency" vehicles such ambulances and any additional vehicles that meet a specific
definition. As such, one method of enforcement may be to define "emergency response"
vehicles. Said definition may include: (a) Ambulance, (b) Police and Sheriff, (c) Fire, (d)
Emergency tow vehicles. An exception such as this may be incorporated as an amendment to
Section 3-5 [D].
Based on recent concerns with parking in residential areas throughout the City, it appears as
though amendments to the Zoning Ordinance may be necessary to further restrict commercial
vehicle parking in such areas. Staff has presented a number of options for amending the
ordinance accordingly, and draft ordinance language may be prepared at the direction of the City.
A. Vehicle Dimensions
B. Matrix of Neighboring Community Commercial Vehicles Sizes
C. Draft Amendment Language- Vehicle Weight
D. Draft Amendment Language- Vehicle Dimensions
E. MnDOT Validation Stickers
F. Planning Commission Minutes- January — March
G. Resident Concerns Emails
NORTHWEST ASSOCIATED CONSULTANTS, INC.
4800 Olson Memorial Highway, Suite 202, Golden Valley, MN 55422
Telephone: 763.231,2555 Facsimile: 763,231.2561 plan nersCo)nacpla nning. com
B010-11"WIffil-Tv
TO: Angela Schumann
Z -n
FROM: Kimberly Holien
DATE: January 28, 2008
RE: Monticello- Vehicle Dimensions
In regard to the potential ordinance amendment placing farther restrictions on vehicle parking in
residential areas in the City of Monticello, I have gathered data on dimensions of various large
vehicles. The findings of said research are as follows:
Pickup. The largest passenger pickup truck found is an F650 crew cab. The dimensions of said
vehicle are as follows:
Length:
281 inches (23.4 feet)
Width:
97 inches (8.08 feet)
Height:
88.3 inches (7.36 feet)
Weight:
22,000-26,000 pounds
Other large pickups that may be more common for passenger vehicle use are as follows:
F350 HD Crew Cab:
Length:
258.7 inches (21.56 feet)
Width:
95.9 inches (8 feet)
Height:
76.1 inches (6.34 feet)
Weight:
10,100-13,000 pounds
F450 Crew Cab:
Length:
C�
262.4 inches (21.84 feet)
Width:
95.5 inches (7.96 feet)
Height:
N/A
Weight:
up to 16,000 pounds
F21 5 0 :
Weight: 8,800-10,000 pounds
Dump Truck. A range of potential dump truck dimensions is as follows:
Length:
19- 24.5 feet
Width:
8.5-9.5 feet
Height:
14-22 feet
Weight:
18,000-64,000 pounds
School Bus. While school buses may vary greatly in size, a range of potential dimensions is as
follows:
Small Bus (10-20 passengers):
Length:
231 inches (19.25 feet)
Width:
86.5 inches (7.21 feet)
Height:
105 inches (8.75 feet)
Weight:
9,600 pounds
Small Bus (20-30 passengers):
Length:
266 inches (22.17 feet)
Width:
96 inches (8 feet)
Height:
120 inches (10 feet)
Weight:
14,050 pounds
Large Bus (up to 90 passengers):
Length:
289-471 inches (24.08-34.75 feet)
Width:
up to 96 inches (8 feet)
Height:
124-127 inches (10,33-10.58 feet)
Weight:
up to 36,200 pounds
Tractor Trailer Cab. A wide range of sizes is available for this type of vehicle as well.
However, dimensions of a typical cab are as follows:
International 9900:
Length:
119-130 inches (9.92-10.83 feet)
Width:
92 inches (7,67 feet)
Height:
N/A
Weight:
52,000-60,000 pounds
Semi -trailer. A range of potential serni-trailer dimensions is as follows:
Z=�
Length: 45-53 feet
Width: 96-102 inches (8-8.5 feet)
Height: 13.5 feet (standard)
Cutaway Van. A range of potential dimensions for cutaway vans is as follows
Length: 15-18 feet
Width: 96 inches (8 feet)
Height: 84- 90 inches (7-7.5 feet)
Weight: 11,500-14,050 pounds aV
wow—
Straight Truck. A range of potential dimensions for said vehicle is as toiiows:
Length:
24-26 feet
Width:
102 inches (8.5 feet)
Height:
102-108 inches (8.5-9 feet)
Weight:
25,500-25,950 pounds
Walk- In Van. A range of potential dimensions for said vehicle is as follows:
Length: 16-18 feet
Width: 86.5-93.5 inches (7.21-7.79 feet)
Height: 81-85 inches (6.75-7.08 feet)
Weight: 10,000-19,000 pounds
I
Code Language
Off-street parking facilitiesaccessory to
residential use may beutilized solely for the
parking uflicensed and operable pasmanger
ouiomobi|ea, numore than one (1) truck not
toexceed gross capacity ofnine thousand
/9.OU0pounds, and recreational vehicle and
equipment. Not more than one recreational
vehicle ortrailer may boparked ina
residential driveway otone time. Any
additional recreational vehicles o[trailers
must beparked behind the front building line
ofthe principle structure. For purposes nfthis
ordinance, recreational vehicles shall include
snowmobiles, ATVo.campers, trailers,
mo(o/homes.boats, and the like, Under no
circumstances shall required parking facilities
accessory horesidential structures beused
for the storage ofcommercial vehicles or
equipment orfor the parking ofautomobiles
belonging hzthe employees, owners,
tenants, orcustomers ofbusiness or
manufacturing establishments.
On and off-street parking facilities accessory
to residential use shall beutilized solely for
the parking oflicensed and operable
passenger automobiles; nomore than one
truck not to exceed gross capacity of12,00
pounds; and recreational vehicles and
equipment, Under nocircumstances shall
required parking facilities accessory ho
residential structures beused for the storage
ofcommercial vehicles orequipment nrfor
the parking u[automobiles belonging to the
employees, owners, tenants nrcustomers of
business ormanufacturing establishments,
Off-street parking facilities accessory to
residential use shall beutilized solely for the
parking oflicensed and operable passenger
automobiles; nomore than one (1)
commercial vehicle, not toexceed gross
vehicle weight rating (GVVVIRN)oftwelve
thousand (12,000) pounds; and recreational
vehicles and equipment, Under no
circumstances shall parking facilities
accessory toresidential structures beused
for the storage ofcommercial vehicles, semi
trailers, orequipment orfor the parking of
automobiles belonging tothe employees,
owners, tenants, orcustomers o[business or
manufacturing establishments not m
resident all the residential site.
Residential parking use. Off-street parking None
facilities necessary toresidential use shall be
utilized solely for the parking o[licensed and
operable passenger automobiles; nomore
than one truck not bexceed gross capacity
n[12.O0Opounds; and recreational vehicles
and equipment. Under nocircumstances
shall required parking facilities accessory |n
residential structures baused for the storage
ofcommercial vehicles orequipment Orfor
the parking ofautomobiles belonging buthe
employees, owners, tenants, orcustomers o(
business ormanufacturing establishments.
Parking inresidential areas /off-stmetand
on -street) shall be limited to the use of the
residents ofthose homes, Except for short
term parking (six (8)hours o,less) and guest
parking, the number ofvehicles parked onor
infront oforesidential lot shall not exceed
double the number ofpersons residing on
the premises and having automobile driver's
licenses.
Use ofparking facilities accessory b NOOG
residential use, Off-street parking facilities
accessory bmresidential use shall beutilized
solely for the parking nflicensed and
operable passenger automobiles, numore
than one truck not bnexceed gross capacity
nf12.00Opounds, and recreational vehicles
and equipment. Under nocircumstances
shall required parking facilities accessory W
residential structures beused for the storage
ofcommercial vehicles orequipment orfor
the parking ofautomobiles belonging hnthe
employees, owners, tenants, orcustomers nf
business ormanufacturing establishments.
ORDINANCE NO.
CITY OF MONTICELLO
WRIGHT COUNTY, MINNESOTA
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING EXTERIOR STORAGE AND OFF-STREET PARKING
REQUIREMENTS
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MONTICELLO, MINNESOTA, ORDAINS:
SECTION 1. Section 3-2 [N] 4 shall be amended to read as follows:
EXTERIOR STORAGE: All materials and equipment except as provided for in Chapters
5 through 19 of this ordinance shall be stored within a building or fully screened so as not to be
visible from adjoining properties except for the following:
1. Clothes line pole and wire.
2. Recreational equipment and vehicles.
3. Construction and landscaping material currently being used on the premises.
4. Off-street parking of passenger vehicles and trucks not exceeding a gross capacity of
thousand (9,000) twelve thousand (12,000) pounds in residential areas.
5. Propane tanks, fuel oil tanks, and other similar residential heating fuel storage tanks
which do not exceed 1,000 gallons in capacity and shall not be located within five (5) feet
of any property line.
6. Wood piles in which wood is stored for fuel provided that not more than 10 cords shall be
stored on any property. A cord shall be 4'x4'x8'. All wood piles shall be five (5) feet or
more from the rear and side yard property lines and shall be stored behind the appropriate
setback line in front yards.
7. Solar heating systems.
SECTION 2. Section 3-5 [D] 7 shall be amended to read as follows:
7. Off-street parking facilities accessory to residential use may be utilized solely for the
parking of licensed and operable passenger automobiles vehicles, no more than one (1) truck not
to exceed gross capacity of nine thousand (9,000) twelve thousand (12,000) 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 automebiles.vehicles belonging to the employees, owners, tenants, or
customers of business or manufacturing establishments who are not a resident at a residential
site.
Iffl-18-11
CITY OF MONTICELLO
WRIGHT COUNTY, MINNESOTA
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MONTICELLO, MINNESOTA, ORDAINS:
SECTION 2. Section 3-5 [D] shall be amended with the creation of subsections 8 and 9, to read
as follows:
8. In areas zoned for residential ourposes, with the exceDtion of recreational vehicles and
emeraencv vehicles, on -street or off-street -oarkin2 of commercial or Dassen2er vehicles
licensed with a gross vehicle weight (GVW) decal letter code of "G" or treater shall be
prohibited. Emergency vehicles are those defined in Section 3-5 FD1 9 of this ordinance.
9. EMERGENCY VEHICLE: The term "emeraencv vehicle," for the Pumose of evaluatim4
vehicles which may be -oarked in residential areas, shall include ambulances. -police and
sheriff's deDartment vehicles, fire protection vehicles, tow vehicles and other law
enforcement vehicles.
Gross Weight - Decal letter code indicates the registered GVW of the vehicle. Decal is affixed
on the right side middle of the license plate. Decals range from "A" (1,500 GVW) through "6T"
(81,000 GVW always using 6 axles). Weights in excess of 81,000 GVW require an "X" decal
and special permits. Decal color is blue letters on a silver background. These are permanent
stickers which must be displayed with a gross weight validation sticker.
Month Sticker - Decal affixed to the lower left comer of plates displayed on passenger class
vehicles indicating the month of expiration. Renewal registration must be displayed by Midnight
of the tenth (10th) day of the month following the expiration month shown.
COLOR and EXPIRATION
MONTH STICKER
Silver Characters on Blue Background
Permanent
Year Validation Sticker - Decal affixed to the lower right comer of license plates indicating
year of expiration. Color code shown at right repeats at 5 year intervals. Single stickers issued
to single plate vehicles.
International Fuel Tax (IFTA) Fuel Decal - Decal is issued to the owners of vehicles which
are proportionally registered and licensed for interstate trucking. The fuel decal is affixed to the
left and/or right of the cab. Operators must also carry an IFTA cab card. The cab card will
indicate the states the vehicle may operate within (see IFTA permit ).
Sample
INTERNATIONAL FUEL TAX (IFTA) FUEL DECAL
CHARACTERS BACKGROUND EXPIRATION
White Blue 1997
White Magenta 1998
White Green.
1999
White Red 2000 1
White Gold 2001
International Registration Plan (IRP) Registration Stickers - The decals will appear on
vehicles which are proportionally registered and licensed for interstate trucking. The validation
sticker is affixed to the lower right hand comer of the license plate. Operators must also carry a
cab card which will indicate the states the vehicle has the authority to operate within.
COLOR and EXPIRATION
INTERNATIONAL REGISTRATION PLAN (IRP) REGISTRATION
STICKERS
CHARACTERS BACKGROUND EXPIRATION
Black Gold 1997 1
White Blue 1998
White Magenta 1999'
X4,14 01��i'
F 9
U 124
Planning Commission Minutes — 01/02/08
Charlie Pfeffer addressed the Commission representing Ocello, LLC. Pfeffer stated that this provision
would affect some of their property on Chelsea, adjacent to Groveland. He inquired whether this
ordinance would require reconstruction of their existing berm. Grittman stated that the City wouldn't
anticipate reconstructing any existing berm.
Hearing no further comment, Chairman Dragsten closed the public hearing.
Spartz stated that for the most part, the amendment looks good. He indicated that he did have some
concerns about topography. Dragsten stated that he would assume that the engineers will look at that
when they review the site.
MOTION BY COMMISSIONER VOIGHT TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE
AMENDMENT TO SECTION 3-5 [D] 9 WITH THE CREATION OF SECTION (T) AS
PREPARED, BASED ON A FINDING THAT THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT IS
NECESSARY TO ASSIST IN PROTECTING THE HEALTH, SAFETY, AND
WELFARE OF THE CITY.
llillini , I � 1 i 0 0
IFFIRIE111,11 I Ill lrotiv�l
8. Public Hearim4 - Consideration of a request for Amendment to the Monticello Zoning Ordinance,
Chanter 3-5, Off -Street ParkinQ Requirements, as related to the regulation of the size and weight of
vehicles parked in residential districts. AD-olicant: Citv of Monticello
Planner Holien presented the staff report, noting that due to recent concerns with parking of
commercial vehicles in residential areas, the City has requested an ordinance amendment to
increase regulations on commercial vehicle parking in residential areas throughout the City. The
potential ordinance amendments would establish restrictions on the weight and dimensions of
commercial vehicles allowed to park in residential neighborhoods.
Holien indicated that the current ordinance language states that off-street parking facilities
accessory to residential use may be utilized solely for the parking of licensed and operable
passenger automobiles. The ordinance goes on to state that no more than one truck not to exceed
gross capacity of nine thousand pounds, and recreational vehicle and equipment may be parked in
a residential driveway at one time. Holien stated that any additional recreational vehicles or
trailers must be parked behind the front building line of the principle structure. Recreational
vehicles include snowmobiles, ATV's, campers, trailers, motorhomes, boats, and the like. Holien
indicated that the ordinance clearly states that 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.
However, Holien stated that it has recently come to the attention of staff that the current
ordinance language may not be effective in regulating the parking of certain commercial vehicles.
The City has received reports of such vehicles parked in residential neighborhoods throughout the
City. As such, staff has researched potential amendments employing more specific parking
restrictions.
Holien explained that one option for placing further restrictions on commercial vehicle parking is
to regulate on the size of the vehicle specifically. The existing ordinance allows vehicles up to
9,000 pounds to be parked in residential off-street parking facilities. However, staff performed a
code search of neighboring communities and found that the majority of these cities permit
11
Planning Commission Minutes — 01/02/08
vehicles up to 12,000 pounds. This may be due to the increasing size non-commercial trucks and
SUV's which exceed the 9,000 pound limit.
In this regard, Holien stated that staff recommends an amendment to allow vehicles up to 12,000
pounds as opposed to current 9,000 pound limitation. While an amendment of this nature may be
less -restrictive than the existing language, it is not out of character with the intent of the
ordinance and would reduce the number of potential ordinance violations.
Holien stated that while such an amendment may allow for a wider array of vehicles to be parked
in residential areas, this could be offset by also regulating the actual dimensions of vehicles.
Some cities do regulate parking in residential areas by physical size of vehicles. Doing so may
preclude most semi -cabs, and extraordinarily large commercial vehicles, but would permit
vehicles that are consistent with residential -style passenger vehicles and smaller commercial vans
and trucks. The City could exclude recreational vehicles from this prohibition if desired.
Holien indicated that based on research of the dimensions of various commercial vehicles, the
most appropriate dimensional restriction may be to prohibit vehicles that are larger than 7 feet in
height, 8 feet in width, and 25 feet in length. These dimensions will allow for parking of various
size pick-up trucks, while precluding most semi -cabs and larger commercial vehicles. Dove
trucks, most cutaway vans, straight trucks and other commercial vehicles. Holien stated that
under the proposed ordinance, any vehicle larger than the chosen threshold would be required to
be kept within a garage, or stored at a location that is appropriately zoned for such use.
Another item to consider is the issue of "emergency response" vehicles. In dealing with the issue
of commercial vehicle parking in residential areas in the past, concerns have been raised on the
potential of precluding emergency response vehicles from parking in residential areas. This issue
may again require special consideration as this item is addressed. The City may need to include
the most obvious "emergency" vehicles such ambulances and any additional vehicles that meet a
specific definition. As such, one method of enforcement may be to define "emergency response"
vehicles.
Based on recent concerns with parking in residential areas throughout the City, it appears as
though amendments may be necessary. Holien stated that the information presented is for the
Commission's review and discussion in directing the development of draft ordinance language.
She noted that with any amendment to this ordinance provision, a public awareness effort should
be undertaken to inform citizens of the change and to provide residents with information on other
options for storage of their commercial vehicles.
Voight inquired about dimensions for the types of vehicles shown in the exhibits. Holien noted that
there may be some that do slip in under the noted dimensions.
Voight asked if the height of vehicles is measured to the top. Grittman stated that the ordinance would
be measured against highest point of any vehicle. Voight asked if Holien had reviewed the weight of
every vehicle against the dimensions. Holien noted that she did not, as weights vary so greatly.
Voight noted that two trucks might have the same dimensions, but the weight could vary.
Voight stated that it seems that the current language seems similar to other cities and that the current
ordinance seems very clear already.
Hilgart asked if the amendment is really necessary and was uncertain about measurements and
application of the ordinance. Hilgart gave an example, asking what would happen if someone worked
for Joe's Plumbing and had a work vehicle they brought home. Grittman clarified that if you are Joe,
you couldn't have one of your employee's trucks parked at your property; you can only park them if
12
Planning Commission Minutes — 01/02/08
they are your personal vehicle and meet the dimension and weight limits.
Voight noted that Big Lake's ordinance specifies "not a resident at residential site", which seems to
address Hilgart's concern. Voight requested that this language be added. Voight noted that concerns
and complaints are most likely not related to weight.
Grittman stated that he believes that there are some of the larger pick-up trucks that do exceed the
9,000 pounds. As such, it was felt that 12,000 pounds was about the right number. Public Works did
express concern about not having any weight limit, because there is wear and tear on streets, as they
are not designed to handle large volumes of commercial traffic. Grittman explained that the other part
of this is that rather than trying to estimate weight, the physical size is more enforceable number. It is
an easier number to regulate. The size relates to the concerns of residential character and is more
easily enforceable. He commented that in the end, they are just trying to eliminate those vehicles that
aren't something that you drive to work everyday. Grittman stated that the number one issue is that
people are driving their semi cabs home.
In that regard, Spartz asked what is making the current ordinance ineffective. Grittman stated that in
looking at the way the ordinance worked, it does preclude semis, but it was difficult to be able to apply
to a whole other range of other commercial vel-Acles. It was felt we should make the code more
enforceable. Spartz inquired how many vehicles this amendment would affect. Grittman stated that
he did not know; probably a handful.
Dragsten asked if the current ordinance provides an ability to enforce keeping semi cabs out of
residential areas. Grittman stated that there has been difficulty.
Gabler asked how a tow truck is considered an emergency vehicle. Grittman stated that discussion
was part of creating a definition for emergency response vehicles.
Grittman stated that this ordinance is intended to address all parking in residential driveways, both on
and off street. The goal is to make it understandable and enforceable and be able to apply it across the
board. Grittman stated that at this point, staff are looking for direction from the Commission in order
to craft an amendment.
Chairman Dragsten opened the public hearing.
Deimis Sullivan, 1201 Golf Course Road, addressed the Commission. Sullivan stated that lie has
a neighbor who parks his semi truck at his residential property. He stated that his issue is not
what is defined as a truck, but enforcing the current ordinance. Sullivan stated that he can see no
reason why a deputy can't put a ticket on the vehicle.
Dragsten and Grittman confirmed it is a problem. Dragsten requested that enforcement action be
taken care of in the morning by the Building Department.
Hearing no further comment, Chairman Dragsten closed the public hearing.
Dragsten asked if existing companies, such as Ritze Trucking, are exempt. Grittman stated that it
depends on the nature of the use. If it is a residential use, this ordinance is effective at the time of
adoption; you are not grandfathered in. If the use is a legal non -conforming use, then they are
grandfathered in as a commercial use. However, they can't intensify their use.
Dragsten stated that the 12,000 pound amendment seems common sense change, but that he does
have some concern about regulating size.
13
Planning Commission Minutes — 01/02/08
Voight stated that he doesn't know how to make it easier, but the size restriction needs to be
included. He noted that this can be a safety issue. Voight stated that he would like to see the
weights of some of the vehicles included in the dimensional exhibits. It might be easier to
compare. Dragsten and Spartz agreed. Grittman stated that weights could be brought to next
meeting for further clarification.
Spartz stated that in light of Building Official Anderson not being able to be present, he would
also like more information on enforcement.
Dragsten noted that the Commission doesn't want motorhomes excluded at this time. Hilgart
disagreed, stating that he isn't sure what the difference is between looking at a large recreational
vehicle versus commercial. Grittman stated that staff would prefer to get commercial vehicles
out of the way and then deal with recreational.
Dragsten noted that Voight's earlier comment on language clarification should be included in
whatever came back to the Commission.
MOTION BY COMMISSIONER VOIGHT TO CONTINUE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND
COMPLETE FURTHER STUDY ON A POSSIBLE AMENDMENT TO THE
MONTICELLO ZONING ORDINANCE AS RELATED TO OFF-STREET PARKING
MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER SPARTZ. MOTION CARRIED, 5-0.
9. Consideration to review a request for extension of a Conditional Use Pen -nit for a Concept Staiae
Planned Unit Development for Kiellbera Estates. a 372 unit mixed -residential development.
Applicant: Ocello, LLC
Community Development Coordinator Schumann presented the staff report for the request,
stating that on September 6fl', 2005, the Planning Commission reviewed and recommended
approval of a concept stage planned unit development request for the proposed Kjellberg Estates
project, submitted by Ocello, LLC. The City Council approved the concept stage PUD on
September 12t", 2005.
Schumann reported that the Concept Stage PUD approved for the Kjellberg Estates project is a
372 -unit mixed residential development project adjacent to the Kjellberg West homes property
and the Jefferson Commons commercial district. The project is proposed to consist of both
single-family uses and a mix of townhome styles.
The Planning Commission and City Council's approval of the request was conditioned on a
number of items, which were required to be addressed with any development stage application.
Schumann stated that due to non-use, the conditional use permit for PUD would have expired on
September 12`h, 2006. The Monticello Zoning Ordinance requires that conditional use permits
expire due to non-use after one year. The Planning Commission requested that staff notify
applicants of their expiration and offer a one-time opportunity to seek an extension.
Schumann noted that the extension letter sent by the applicant does not reference a specific
timeline for the extension period, but rather references the market conditions as a factor in a
development timeline.
Schumann commented that in considering the request for extension, Commission should consider
the surrounding land use context of the proposed plan, and the objectives outlined within the draft
comprehensive plan. The plan proposed in 2005 may no longer meet the objectives of the City.
14
Planning Commission Minutes — 02/06/08
1. Future development of Parcel A shall require fall Conditional Use Permit review to ensure compliance
with the proposed CUP for shared access.
2. The applicant shall provide a six-foot drainage and utility easement along the interior property lines of
both parcels.
3. The restoration of any private facilities disrupted due to work within the drainage and utility easement
shall be at the expense of the property owner.
4. The applicant shall provide a shared access and maintenance agreement and record it against all subject
properties.
5. The Subdivision and all necessary easements shall be recorded with the Wright
County Recorder's Office within 100 days of approval.
MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER HILGART. MOTION CARRIED, 5-0.
8. Consideration of a reouest for Amendment to the Monticello Zoninia Ordinance, Chanter 3-5, Off
Street Parking Reauirements, as related to the reLyulation of the size and weight of vehicles parked in
residential districts. ADi)hcant: Citv of Monticello
Holien provided the staff report for the request, stating that the item had previously been considered at
the January meeting, at which time the Commission directed staff to prepare more research.
Staff had prepared an exhibit regarding length, width and height. That exhibit has been amended to
include width. Additionally, the staff report has been amended to include information from Public
Works and the City Engineer, who noted that allowing 12,000 pound gross vehicle weight may create
a situation of quicker degradation for Monticello roadways. She noted that consumer vehicles may
already exceed that limit.
Holien explained that in working on a revised report for the Commission, Building and Public Works
staff recommended looking at a license plate regulation. Currently, vehicles of 9,000 pounds or more
are required to have a State license sticker with the letter "E", while 12,000 pound vehicles have an
"IF" sticker. The letters increase as the weight gets higher. Holien stated that the letter may also help
with ease of enforcement. She commented that Commission may feel inclined to just include license
plate regulation in lieu of weight.
Holien stated that in terms of emergency response vehicles, if the Commission would like to make an
exception for those types of vehicles, they would still need to meet parking location requirements.
Holien reported that Chief Building Official Anderson would not like to see vehicles in excess of 22'
long. Gabler asked if the Building Department has a width and height limitation they would like to
see. Holien stated that Anderson has only noted length requirement.
DJ Hennessey spoke to the Commission on behalf of the Building Department. Hennessey stated that
Anderson had mentioned length as a personal concern. He noted that when regulating widths, it would
start getting into personal vehicles violation. Heights are something the Building Department would
need to look into, to make sure the regulations don't cut into personal vehicles.
Dragsten commented that in trying to keep track, it would be nice to have simpler regulation.
Hennessey agreed, noting difficulties with measurements and vehicle weight capacity. He stated that
7
Planning Commission Minutes — 02/06/08
is why the Building Department had suggested the idea of regulating by license plates. As commercial
vehicles have to register with State, the sticker is a uniform requirement. It is also the easiest to
review for violation without encroaching on personal property.
Dragsten stated that in looking through the materials, it seems like it is more complicated than it needs
to be, that perhaps the sticker may be the easiest to understand and regulate. Dragsten asked who
enforces this ordinance. Hennessey responded that it is the Building Department. He also noted that
the City's current administrative fee ordinance does not include the ability to fine for these types of
violations.
Wojchouski asked what is parking defined as. Holien stated that parking would be determined as
stationary, in other words, stopped is parked.
Wojchosuki asked how these regulations could impact someone who is using a U -haul to move.
Holien stated that they wouldn't be able to leave it parked for a long period of time.
Voight stated that there would need to be some common sense in the application of the ordinance.
Hennessey stated that regulation would also be determined by the intent to store the vehicle, rather
than an incidental or transitory use. Dragsten clarified that it would be regulated if it were a chronic
problem.
Holien noted that there are also other locations available for parking of commercial vehicles. City
staff have been working to provide information on this.
Dragsten stated that the simplest means of regulating seems to be by the letter licensing requirement.
He indicated that the other issue to consider is whether emergency vehicles should be exempt.
Dragsten asked if towing vehicles are currently designated as emergency vehicles. Holien stated that
she doesn't believe they are included in that definition now. It has been brought up for discussion, but
never formally written in.
Gabler stated that she had been concerned about where tow vehicles could be parked. However, if the
ordinance applies to both on and off street parking, she stated that she felt that tow trucks should be
included within the definition of emergency vehicles.
Hilgart indicated that he had some concern about this regulation, as the large recreational vehicles are
as much of a problem. Schumann responded that staff would prefer to deal with commercial vehicle
regulation first, and then if the Commission chooses, call for a separate hearing on recreational
vehicles. Hennessey also noted that the off street parking ordinance requires that only one recreational
vehicle may be parked in a driveway. Spartz asked if RVs have a similar licensing structure through
the State. Holien stated that she was unsure. Hennessey commented that he believes that RVs have a
separate licensing system.
Hilgart noted that changing the regulation to 12,000 pounds makes it cloudy for him, as there maybe
personal vehicles that exceed that number, although the commercial designation seems to limit that.
He noted the increasing size of passenger vehicles.
Spartz stated that the intent of the amendment is to get an unsightly nuisance out of someone's yard in
an easily enforceable way. However, he noted that affecting someone's livelihood is a concern for
him.
Gabler asked if those who get violations can appeal. Holien stated that she doesn't know if the
Planning Commission Minutes — 02/06/08
administrative portion of the code has a formal appeal process.
Dragsten commented that some commercial vehicles parked in residential districts also pose a safety
issue; the intent is to get rid of those; especially if the City does offer somewhere else to park them.
Wojchouski recommended that this information should be provided to those who receive violations.
Voight stated that within the code search, Big Lake's ordinance included some language referencing
that "not a resident at residential site", which he believes needs to be added into the amendment.
Holien stated that could be added.
Holien stated that if the Commission chooses, staff could redraft the amendment based on the license
sticker requirement and bring it back in final formal for review.
MOTION BY COMMISSIONER DRAGSTEN TO DIRECT THAT STAFF DRAFT AN
ORDINANCE AMENDMENT REGULATING COMMERICAL VEHICLES IN RESIDENTIAL
DISTRICTS BASED ON THE FOLLOWING RECOMMENDATIONS:
An "IF" State license sticker, regulating 12,000 pounds, or greater
Including language "not a resident at the residential site"
Including tow trucks as emergency vehicles,
MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISIONER SPARTZ. MOTION CARRIED, 5-0.
9. Miscellaneous.
Commissioner Hilgart stated that he has been wondering about the sign issue in relationship to the
Moon Motors decision. He commented that it seems that perhaps the City should eliminate the sign
ordinance and evaluate each request case by case. He also noted a similar concern regarding variance
requests. He stated that his point was that the ordinance is the basis for decisions.
Gabler stated that she agreed with Commissioner Hilgart's concerns. The Commission had denied the
Moon variance and then when appealed, the City Council overruled the Commission. She inquired
what was the purpose of putting City staff through the motions of review if the outcome was pre-
determined.
Holien noted that the City is looking very closely at the sign ordinance and is about to embark on a
complete review and codification of the zoning ordinance.
Dragsten stated that the Commission looks at the sign ordinance every year, and that he believes that
the Commission tries to aecornmodate new and existing businesses. He noted that the Commission
did recommend amendments in the CCD and the freeway overlay district. Dragsten agreed that it is an
important issue.
Wojchouski responded to Hilgart's concern by referencing Moon's multiple products and the size of
building as Council's rationale for granting the variance. She stated that she thought it was tastefully
done in terms of the use. She suggested that perhaps the City does need to do some re -writing.
Drasgten stated that he thinks the point is that the Commission denied the request because there was
no hardship. Moon will have products on display in a very visible way along the interstate, which will
be seen more than the sign. With all that advertising, they should have been able to stay within the
ordinance.
9
Planning Commission Minutes — 03/04/08
Wojchouski cited an example, noting the size increase is proportional based on how far back
the building sits. She stated that it makes sense for emergency vehicles as they try to find
addresses. Dragtsen asked if the address number has to be on the building. Anderson
confirmed it has to be on the building.
Chairman Dragsten opened the public hearing and hearing no comments, closed the public
hearing.
IWAT 61
I I so In IN "Lei W-I'VEW0,1112r,61.
001 V M ON 161 TV -4 M ilk I NJ: I U go]
Consideration of a request for Amendment to the Monticello Zoning Ordinance, Chanter 3-5,
Off -Street Parking Requirements, as related to the regulation of the size and weight of
vehicles barked in residential districts. (Tabled from 2-6-08 meetine) ADDlicant: City of
Monticello
Grittman stated that this item had been reviewed previously by the Commission and deals
with language related to parking of commercial vehicles in residential districts. The
ordinance amendment is proposed to create a method to enforce the code reasonably and
to protect the residential character of neighborhoods.
Grittman stated that the current ordinance only regulates by weight, setting a limit of
9,000 pounds, gross vehicle weight.
Grittman indicated that research has shown that a limit of 12,000 pounds to be a much
more common standard. He explained that many pick-ups exceed the 9,000 pound
threshold, so the Commission had discussed regulating by size and other options. The
summary of the Commission discussion was to amend the ordinance to replace the 9,000
pound limit with 12,000 pounds and add a section to the code which uses MN State
vehicle licensing, which assigns a letter code by weight for commercial vehicles. The
ordinance proposed prohibits commercial vehicles with G or higher. Grittman explained
that the licensing option is much easier for staff to enforce. The language also adds an
exception for emergency vehicles and provides a definition of emergency vehicles.
Grittman stated that staff is recommending that the Planning Commission recommend
adoption of the ordinance.
Voight asked if Grittman has ever seen one of these stickers. Grittman stated that he has,
as he has been paying much more attention due to this amendment. He stated that it is a
pretty effective way to make a quick determination whether a vehicle is of a certain size.
Voight asked if they are on all vehicles. Dragsten confirmed, stating that they are in the
right hand comer.
Spartz asked about recreational vehicles. Grittman stated this ordinance does not address
those vehicles. Grittman stated that if the City decides it wants to discuss further
regulation of recreational vehicles, it should move that forward at a later time.
10
Planning Commission Minutes — 03/04/08
1 i 1
9. Public Hearing - Consideration of a reauest for Amendment to the Monticello Zonimu.
Ordinance for the retaulation of Grading, Erosion & Sediment Control. Ap-olicant: City of
Monticello
Schumann reviewed the updated staff report, stating that the Planning Commission had
reviewed and recommended approval of the proposed ordinance for Grading and Erosion
Control in December of 2007.
However, prior to bringing the amendment to the City Council for final review and
approval, staff held an implementation meeting to review the ordinance in terms of
implementation and enforcement. Representatives from Community Development,
Engineering, Public Works and the Building Department were present at the meeting.
Schumann explained that as a result of discussion at that meeting, the ordinance has been
revised. The revisions warrant a second review of the proposed ordinance by the
Commission.
Schumann commented that the revisions to the ordinance exist primarily within the
enforcement portions of the ordinance, Section 33-9. The previous ordinance language
was somewhat redundant and inconsistent in terms of violations of the ordinance and
remedy to violations. Any other revisions to the ordinance are minor in nature and are
related to providing clarity in the Definitions portion of the ordinance.
Voight commented that a special note has been made in the report regarding the
application of this ordinance if grading within 200' of a waterway. Schumann confirmed
that if a home backs up to a pond and grading was to occur within 200' of that waterway,
this ordinance would apply. Schumann cited retaining walls built within a stormwater
easement area and filling of ponds as examples of why a pen -nit would be needed. The
ordinance and better public education will help prevent such issues. Voight confirmed
that one wouldn't need a grading permit to dig post holes if within 200' of a waterway.
Schumann stated they would not.
Dragsten stated that he thought that the SWPPP covers erosion control for lots. He stated
his concern would be over -regulation. Schumann stated that large scale developments
still fall under their individual SWPPP and the ordinance is designed to work hand-in-
hand with the City's SWPPP.
11
To: Jeff O'Neill
Subject: RE: Ask a Question - Public Works (form) has been filled out on your site.
---Original Message ---
From: Please Dm Not [lick Reply [malltu:suppo ce.com]
Sent: Thursday, April 24» 2008 5;59 AM
To: Jeff O'Neill
Subject: Ask a Question - Public Works (form) has been filled out on your site.
Your Site has received new information through an online form.
Online Form: Ask a Question - Public Works Site URL; monticeIIomn. ice2.cmn
-----------------------------
FuII Name;
Complete Address:
Contact Phone Number -
Contact Email Address: -- Questimn or Concern /Please provide as much
detail as possible.): I have a neighbor who parks a semi trailer truck in his driveway. He
has done this since the Fall. I live on Hillcrest Rd which was just redone last summer. Not
only is the truck loud and unpleasant to look at, but I think it may be hurting our newly
redone road. How do Z know if this is acceptable? E-mail is the best way to reach me.
Thanks for your time.
Do Not Click Reply - This e-mail has been generated from an online form.
0
A�T� Schumann
From: Please DoNot Click Reply
Sent: Saturday, March 2B 2008110PM
To: Angela Schumann
Subject: Ask aQuestion Email Form (form)has been filled out nnyour site.
Your Site has received new information through on online form,
Online Form: Ask a Question Email Form
Site URL: monticeIlomn.govmffice2,com
-------------------------------------------------
Full Name:
Complete Address; cello Contact Phone Number: I&TAISSIMEW Contact
Email Address: fiISPOINOMENNEW Question or Concern /Please provide as much detail as
possible.): Hello, I have questions about parking semi trucks in residential driveways. From
what I hear, it's not allowed, but it also doesn't seem to be enforced. Could you give me a
link to the cities ordinances on semi trucks /with and without the trailer). My neighbor
keeps a semi cab in his driveway, services it on a daily basis, and the engine at idle alone
shakes things in my house. We just payed for a brand new road on Hillcrest and River Street/
I think he is probably over the weight limit for this zone anyway. Tanks,
eric
Do Not Click Reply - This e-mail has been generated from an online form.
1