The URL can be used to link to this page

Planning Commission Agenda - 05/02/2023AGENDA REGULAR MEETING – PLANNING COMMISSION Monday, May 2, 2023 – 6:00 p.m. Mississippi Room, Monticello Community Center PLANNING COMMISSION WORKSHOP Monticello Community Center 5:00 p.m. Continued Review of the Monti 2040 Land Use Designations and Industrial Uses 1. General Business A. Call to Order B. Roll Call C. Consideration of Additional Agenda Items D. Approval of Agenda E. Approval of Meeting • Workshop Meeting Minutes—April 4, 2023 • Regular Meeting Minutes—April 4, 2023 • Special Meeting Minutes—April 12, 2023 F. Citizen Comment 2. Public Hearings A. Consideration of Conditional Use Permit for an Accessory Structure—Major in the R-1, Single Family Residential District Applicant: Ben Roberg B. Consideration of an Amendment to the Headwaters West Planned Unit Development District related to Subdivision Ordinance Requirements for Utility Installation Applicant: Delta Modular Construction, LLC 3. Regular Agenda 4. Other Business A. Community Development Director's Report 5. Adjournment MINUTES REGULAR MEETING - MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday, April 4, 2023 - 6:00 p.m. Mississippi Room, Monticello Community Center Commissioners Present: Paul Konsor, Andrew Tapper, Eric Hagen, Teri Lehner, Melissa Robeck Council Liaison Present: Charlotte Gabler Staff Present: Angela Schumann, Steve Grittman (NAC), Hayden Stensgard, Ron Hackenmueller 1. General Business A. Call to Order Chair Paul Konsor called the regular meeting of the Monticello Planning Commission to order at 6:08 p.m. B. Consideration of approving minutes a. Regular Meeting Minutes—March 7. 2023 ANDREW TAPPER MOVED TO APPROVE THE MARCH 7, 2023 REGULAR MEETING MINUTES. PAUL KONSOR SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY, 5-0. C. Citizen Comments None D. Consideration of adding items to the agenda None E. Consideration to approve agenda TERI LEHNER MOVED TO APPROVE THE APRIL 4, 2023 REGULAR MEETING AGENDA. PAUL KONSOR SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY, 5-0. 2. Public Hearings A. Consideration of a Reauest for Conditional Use Permit for Cross/Joint Parkin Easement in the Broadway Sub -District of the Central Community District (CCD) Applicant: City of Monticello City Planner Steve Grittman provided an overview of the agenda item to the Planning Commission and the public. The proposed shared parking area is behind the four southeastern properties of Block 51. In relation to the downtown improvement project currently in design phase, this Conditional Use Permit would allow that existing parking area to be redesigned within the City's overall improvement plans and be opened for public use. Mr. Grittman went through the conditions of approval located within Exhibit Z. Mr. Konsor asked if the four lots in question have one common owner. Mr. Grittman clarified that there are three separate owners for the four lots and those property owners would enter into an agreement with the City related to parking. Mr. Konsor asked if the City plans to pay for the costs of improvements as shown in the agenda. Community Development Director Angela Schumann confirmed. The City's investment in the parking lot improvements allow for the ability to enter into an agreement with the property owners, to not only allow cross parking between the owners of the properties, but also the public. Mr. Konsor asked if there were plans to install signage on or near the property to note it will be open to the public. Ms. Schumann confirmed. Andrew Tapper asked if any of the signage would reserve parking spaces in the lot for businesses on that block. Ms. Schumann clarified there are no plans for specific spaces to be reserved for the businesses on the block. Mr. Konsor asked if there are plans for the properties' trash areas. Ms. Schumann noted that the plans included in the agenda show a new, shared enclosure for those four properties. Mr. Konsor expressed concern regarding the new lot's availability to the public. Ms. Schumann clarified that the agenda item was directly related to the Land Use component of these improvements. The City's Zoning Ordinance requires a Conditional Use Permit to be obtained, prior to the subject properties and parties entering into the cross -easement agreement to share the parking. Teri Lehner asked if there was concern at a staff level, related to the accessibility of the lot following the improvements. Mr. Grittman confirmed though it is an existing condition, there is concern related to only one access to the parking area. Mr. Konsor opened the public hearing portion of the agenda item. Jill Agosto, 142 W. Broadway St., Monticello, MN 55362, asked for clarification on which parking lot was under consideration. Ms. Schumann clarified that the subject parking lot is on Block 51, on the northwest corner of Walnut Street and West Broadway Street. Mr. Konsor closed the public hearing portion of the agenda item. Mr. Tapper mentioned that this proposed arrangement should help alleviate the overall concern about parking availability in the downtown. Mr. Konsor reiterated his concern related to not having the easement agreement in place prior to approving the Conditional Use Permit, and the lack of assurance of the public's ability to use the lot. After a brief discussion related to Mr. Konsor's concern, Mr. Grittman noted that execution of the cross -easement agreement for public use could be added as a condition of approval. Mr. Konsor asked if a draft agreement was available, and whether there is language included in the agreement to allow for signing the lot as public parking. Ms. Schumann said that there is a draft agreement, and there is language within the agreement that allows for public use of the lot. Separately from the draft agreement, the City is working on a community sign plan that includes public parking areas all around the City to be signed as such. PAUL KONSOR MOVED TO ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. PC2023-13, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR CROSS/JOINT PARKING, SUBJECT TO THE CONDITIONS IN EXHIBIT Z, WITH THE ADDED CONDITION THAT APPROVAL OF THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT IS CONTINGENT ON EXECUTION OF THE CROSS -EASEMENT AGREEMENT, AND BASED ON THE FINDINGS IN SAID RESOLUTION. ANDREW TAPPER SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY, 5-0. 3. Regular Agenda A. Consideration of finding that land acquisition of portions of Lots 11 and 12, Original Plat of Monticello, PID 155010051111, by the City of Monticello is in conformance with the Monticello 2040 Comprehensive Plan. Ms. Schumann provided an overview of the agenda item to the Planning Commission and the public. This proposed acquisition is in conjunction with the downtown improvements noted earlier. Acquiring this property would allow the City to complete necessary improvements adjacent to the subject property. In addition, some of the necessary grading will need to take place on the property itself. City ownership of the property would provide maximum flexibility towards that necessary grading. Mr. Tapper asked if the existing building and business operating on the property are expected to remain following the proposed acquisition. Ms. Schumann confirmed both will remain in place at this time. ANDREW TAPPER MOVED TO ADOPT RESOLUTION PC -2023-14, FINDING THAT THE PROPOSED ACQUISITION OF CERTAIN LAND, PORTIONS OF LOTS 11 AND 12, ORIGINAL PLAT OF MONTICELLO, PID 155010051111, BY THE CITY OF MONTICELLO IS CONSISTENT WITH THE CITY OF MONTICELLO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN (MONTICELLO 2040 VISION + PLAN) TERI LEHNER SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY, 5-0. B. Consideration of finding that land acquisition of portions of Lots 1, 2, 4 and 5, Block A, Original Plat of Monticello, PID 155010066010, by the City of Monticello is in conformance with the Monticello 2040 Comprehensive Plan. Ms. Schumann provided an overview of the agenda item to the Planning Commission and the public. The proposed acquisition is related to a potential expansion of East Bridge Park, as the subject parcel currently abuts East Bridge Park's parking lot. Mr. Konsor asked if the existing home on the site would be removed following the City's acquisition. Ms. Schumann confirmed that the home would be removed, though there are no plans or timeline for the removal. Mr. Konsor asked if this parcel would then also be rezoned. Ms. Schumann confirmed that rezoning would take place, as it is anticipated all parcels that make up East Bridge Park would be combined as one lot. Melissa Robeck asked if there was any consideration of the liability of having a vacant building, owned by the City, remain until the time of demolition. Ms. Schumann confirmed that concerns related to that have been considered and would directly affect the City's timeline for building removal. PAUL KONSOR MOVED TO ADOPT RESOLUTION PC -2023-15, FINDING THAT THE PROPOSED ACQUISITION OF CERTAIN LAND, PORTIONS OF LOTS 1, 2, 4 AND 5, BLOCK A, ORIGINAL PLAT OF MONTICELLO, PID 155010066010, BY THE CITY OF MONTICELLO IS CONSISTENT WITH THE CITY OF MONTICELLO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN (MONTICELLO 2040 VISION + PLAN), ANDREW TAPPER SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY, 5-0. C. Consideration of Communitv Develoament Director's Re Ms. Schumann provided an overview of the agenda item to the Planning Commission and the public. 4. Added Items None 5. Adjournment Teri Lehner moved to adjourn the regular meeting of the Monticello Planning Commission. Andrew Tapper seconded the motion. Motion carried unanimously, 5-0. Meeting adjourned at 7:12 p.m. MINUTES WORKSHOP MEETING - MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday, April 4, 2023 — 5:00 p.m. Mississippi Room, Monticello Community Center Commissioners Present: Paul Konsor, Andrew Tapper, Eric Hagen, Teri Lehner Commissioners Absent: Melissa Robeck Council Liaison Present: Charlotte Gabler Staff Present: Angela Schumann, Steve Grittman (NAC), Ron Hackenmueller, Hayden Stensgard, Jim Thares 1. General Business A. Call to Order Chairperson Paul Konsor called the workshop meeting of the Monticello Planning Commission to order at 5:02 p.m. 2. Meeting Agenda A. Review and Discussion of the Monticello 2040 Vision + Plan (Monticello Comorehensive Plan) Land Use Designations and Industrial Uses Community Development Director Angela Schumann provided an overview of the agenda item to the Planning Commission and the public. This workshop item stemmed from a discussion had at the March Planning Commission regular meeting related to two public hearing agenda items that focused on industrial Comprehensive Plan land use designations. The discussion at that regular meeting focused on the distinctions between the industrial land use designations currently included in Chapter 3 of the Comprehensive Plan. Background was provided by Ms. Schumann on the origins of the Monticello 2040 Vision + Plan (Comp Plan), which was adopted in November of 2020, and how it differs from the previously adopted 2008 plan, which included broader land use designation (ex. Places to Live, Places to Shop, etc.). Ms. Schumann explained the specific goals of land use designations within the Comp Plan, such as Employment Campus, Light Industrial Park and General Industrial, and the goals' direct relationship with creating tax base and job opportunities, while incorporating a variety of business fields within those designations. Those shared goals are connected to the Economic Development goals established within the Comp Plan, which include business attraction & retention, and workforce development. The distinctions that separate the three subject designations are also related to how specific land uses affect a given property regarding the goals of creating tax base and job opportunities. The main discussion points of the workshop was directed at those noted industrial land designations and focused on designation summaries for each to verify these summaries reflect what the City would like to see in those designations. A review of example allowable uses and lot standards to verify they correctly reflect was also a main discussion point. Andrew Tapper raised the question of what uses are considered employment campuses, and whether that would include manufacturing uses. Ms. Schumann clarified that the level of jobs and tax base provided by certain manufacturing users would allow them to be considered as an employment campus and would not be considered inconsistent with the goals established by the land use designations. It was also noted that site impacts to surrounding area plays a role in allowable uses within each designation, with the least restrictive designation being General Industrial. The group was in consensus that any minor revisions recommended by Staff or directed by the Planning Commission would be brought back to the Planning Commission for review and discussion at a workshop meeting in May. No action was taken on the item. 3. Adjournment Paul Konsor moved to adjourn the workshop meeting of the Monticello Planning Commission. Teri Lehner seconded the motion. Motion carried unanimously, 4-0. Meeting adjourned at 6:02 p.m. MINUTES SPECIAL MEETING - MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION WEDNESDAY, April 12, 2023 — 5:00 p.m. Mississippi Room, Monticello Community Center Commissioners Present: Paul Konsor, Andrew Tapper, Eric Hagen, Melissa Robeck Commissioners Absent: Teri Lehner Council Liaison Present: Charlotte Gabler Staff Present: Angela Schumann, Steve Grittman (NAC), Ron Hackenmueller, Hayden Stensgard 1. General Business A. Call to Order Chairperson Paul Konsor called the special meeting of the Monticello Planning Commission to order at 5:08 p.m. 2. Public Heari A. Consideration of a Request for an Amendment to Conditional Use Permit for Planned Unit Development related to replacement of outdoor storage tanks. Applicant: Cargill Kitchen Solutions, Inc. City Planner Steve Grittman provided an overview of the agenda item to the Planning Commission and the public. Cargill sought an amendment to their existing Conditional Use Permit for Planned Unit Development to replace outdoor CO2 tanks. The proposed tanks to be installed reach a height of 60 feet, in comparison to the existing 42 -foot -tall tanks on site. The proposal also includes installation of three tanks, two in the immediate future and another at an undefined later date. Mr. Grittman noted that though these are not considered buildings, the Central Community District regulations allow for structures to be a maximum of 60 feet tall. The applicants noted that due to the slight change in the site plan, a few parking spaces in the vicinity would need to be relocated. Cargill had also included plans for a third tank to be installed in the future. Mr. Grittman noted that there was a public comment submitted by email, noting concerns regarding the site and its impact to the surrounding residential neighborhood. The letter noted concerns of traffic and noise, specifically. Mr. Konsor asked for clarification on why the applicants are proposing to slightly move the location of the tanks. Mr. Grittman noted that it is necessary for operations that the new tanks are set up and functioning, before the existing can be removed from site. Councilmember Charlotte Gabler asked if the site has an existing landscape plan for the property, given it has a CUP for PUD. Mr. Grittman clarified that staff did not have any recollection of a landscape plan from its original approval. Mr. Konsor asked if there needs to be additional screening on site, due to the property abutting a different zoning district. Mr. Grittman clarified that that requirement is suited for new developments that abut a different zoning district than its own. Mr. Konsor opened the public hearing portion of the agenda item. Martin Pylvainen, 313 W. 4t" Street, Monticello, MN 55362, addressed the Planning Commission and the public. Mr. Pylvainen noted he submitted the public comment online and expressed concerns regarding the impact on the surrounding residential neighborhood. He also encouraged added screening and landscaping to the site to not further disrupt the surrounding neighborhood. Andrew Tapper asked if Mr. Pylvainen had a preference for the height of the fence that was mentioned. Mr. Pylvainen stated that what has been done in other locations on the property would seem sufficient, and that the City's Arborist would have an understanding of what could be planted on site as well. Ryan Schmitz, on behalf of the applicant Cargill Kitchen Solutions, addressed the Planning Commission and the public. Mr. Schmitz noted that the installation of these new tanks will not add any production levels to the site. The third proposed tank included in the request is not planned to be installed right away. At that time, Cargill had no plans to install the third tank, though that third tank would increase production at the facility. Mr. Tapper asked if Cargill has plans to increase production on site. Mr. Schmitz clarified that Cargill has no intention at this time to increase production. Mr. Konsor asked why Cargill does not have plans to install the third tank right away. Mr. Schmitz clarified that the plant is set up so that one tank supports specific production line(s) within the facility. The facility does not have a third line set up to utilize the proposed third tank right away. Mr. Schmitz also addressed the screening barrier discussion along West 4t" Street, and that Cargill staff would oppose any screening requirements in that area, due to the visibility needs of the drivers using that access. Councilmember Gabler asked if there has been a traffic study done between this area of West 4t" Street and Highway 25. Ms. Schumann noted the only information for that area and traffic was related to Highway 25 traffic and its justification for a signal at 4t" Street. There is no information directly related to Cargill's site. Councilmember Gabler asked the applicants if they knew how many trucks visit the site daily. Mr. Schmitz noted it varies for multiple reasons. Eric Hagen asked if there was a way to require screening on the north edge of the property, but so not to disrupt the view of the drivers accessing and leaving the property. Mr. Grittman noted it was a topic the Planning Commission could address through its recommendation if they chose to do so. Mr. Hagen asked the applicants if they knew the average height of the trucks entering the site. Mr. Schmitz said he could not provide an exact answer but did note that any fence height over 6 feet would be problematic. Mr. Hagen noted that it did not seem necessary at this time to require any additional landscaping or buffering but noted it could be necessary at the time of the third tank installation, given a third production line would be included with that. Mr. Pylvainen reiterated that his main concern related to the consideration is noise. He also noted concerns about proactively approving a third tank, due to that increasing the overall production on site, and further disturbing the surrounding area. Mr. Konsor closed the public hearing portion of the agenda item. Mr. Tapper noted that if the Planning Commission recommended approval for the future third tank, it eliminates any ability to conduct necessary studies related to increasing production. Whereas it would not be as great of an issue if the third tank didn't come with increased production. Mr. Tapper said he would prefer that the applicants come back for another amendment at the time they are ready for the third tank. Mr. Konsor expressed challenges with the Planning Commission requirement such a specific buffer requirement, and noted he would prefer it if the surrounding neighbors took screening into their own hands on their own property. Mr. Konsor also agreed that the applicants should return with another amendment once they are ready to install the third tank. Mr. Hagen did not believe it was necessary for the applicants to come back for approval of the third tank. Mr. Tapper reiterated that requiring the applicants to come back for the third tank allows staff and the Planning Commission to review potential impacts to the site and surrounding area, given the third tank comes with an additional production line. ANDREW TAPPER MOVED TO ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. PC -2023-16 RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF AN AMENDMENT TO A CUP FOR A PUD, SUBJECT TO THE REVISED CONDITIONS IN EXHIBIT Z, ALLOWING THE INSTALLATION OF 2 TANKS FOR THIS APPROVAL RATHER THAN THREE, AND BASED ON THE FINDINGS IN SAID RESOLUTION. SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY, 3-1, WITH COMMISSIONER HAGEN VOTING IN DISSENT. 3. Adjournment PLANNING COMMISSION. ANDREW TAPPER SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY, 4-0. MEETING ADJOURNED AT 6:08 P.M. Planning Commission Agenda - 05/02/2023 2A. Public Hearing - Consideration of a Conditional Use Permit for an Accessory Structure—Major in the R-1, Single Family Residential District. Applicant: Benjamin Roberg Prepared by: Meeting Date: Council Date (pending Northwest Associated Consultants 05/02/2023 Commission action): (NAC) 05/26/2023 Additional Analysis by: Community Development Director, Chief Building and Zoning Official, Community & Economic Development Coordinator, Project Engineer ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS Consideration of a Conditional Use Permit for total accessory building space exceeding 1,200 square feet in area. 1. Motion to continue the public hearing on the request to the June 6, 2023 regular Planning Commission meeting and table action on Resolution No. PC -2023-17. The applicant has requested that the Planning Commission continue the hearing on this item and table action on the recommendation. The applicant has indicated an intent to submit a companion application for conditional use permit for the driveway extension component of the proposed project. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND Property: Legal Description: Lot 8, Block 2, Sunset Ponds Addition 1 , &WWeXII$►Z11.11] Planning Case Number: 2023-15 Request(s): Conditional Use Permit for garage area more than 1,200 square feet Deadline for Decision: June 11, 2023 (60 -day deadline) August 10, 2023 (120 -day deadline) Land Use Designation: Low Density Residential Zoning Designation: R-1, Single Family Residential 1 Planning Commission Agenda - 05/02/2023 Overlays/Environmental Regulations Applicable: NA Current Site Uses: Single Family Residential and Attached Garage Surrounding Land Uses: North: Single Family Residential East: Single Family Residential South: 1-94 / Single Family Residential West: 1-94 / Single Family Residential Project Description: The construction of a 28' x 32' detached accessory structure is proposed on the subject property. The structure is proposed to be located within the rear yard of the site and includes a total of 896 square feet on the ground level and an additional 480 square feet on a second level identified as storage. Including the existing attached 596 square foot three -stall garage, a total of 1,492 square feet of space is proposed on the site. The upper storage area of the accessory building is not included. The Zoning Ordinance permits a total of 1,200 square feet of garage area, with an additional 300 square feet allowed by Conditional Use Permit, and a maximum overall area of 1,500 square feet. The applicant has indicated that the ground floor area of the proposed accessory structure is intended to be used as a shop, golf simulator area and potentially, the parking area for a passenger vehicle. The second floor will be used only for personal storage and constructed as such. In conjunction with the garage (accessory structure) construction, the applicant intends to remove an existing 120 square foot storage shed located on the site. ANALYSIS Zoning. The subject site is zoned R-1, Single Family Residential. Within R-1 districts, detached accessory buildings may not exceed 1,200 square feet in area except by conditional use permit. Thus, the processing of a conditional use permit is necessary. 2 Planning Commission Agenda - 05/02/2023 Setbacks. As indicated below, the proposed detached accessory building location meets applicable setback requirements: Lot Area and Width. The subject site measures 25,494 square feet in size and has a width of approximately 80 feet (measured at the front setback line). This exceeds the minimum standards for lots located in R-1 zoning districts. Building Height. The maximum allowed accessory building height in the R-1 zoning district is 15 feet. The Ordinance defines "building height" as follows: A distance to be measured from the mean ground level to the top of a flat roof, to the mean distance of the highest gable on a pitched or hip roof, to the deck line of a mansard roof, to the uppermost point on all other roof types. As shown on the submitted front building elevation, two dormers are proposed. While the two dormers technically include "gables," it is, in this case, considered appropriate to measure structure height from the side elevation gables. In this regard, a structure height of 15 feet is proposed in compliance with the maximum height requirement of the Ordinance. Building Type and Design. The applicant has submitted a narrative which states that the proposed accessory building will be finished in siding and shingles which will match those used on the existing home. As shown on one of the submitted building elevations, it appears that vertical siding is proposed on the accessory building. In contrast, the home appears to have horizontal siding. Staff recommends that the orientation of the siding on the accessory structure match that on the home. As a condition of conditional use permit approval, the materials used to finish the garage must sufficiently match the existing home in material type and color. Driveway. As previously indicated, the applicant has expressed an interest in parking a vehicle in the accessory building, and have provided a garage door to a portion of the building. With this in mind, the structure will function as a "garage" and may be accessed via a driveway. The applicant should identify the intended surfacing to access the garage, rather than drive a vehicle over grass. This clarification should be made as a part of the review process. 3 Required Proposed Front Yard No closer than the Principal Building NA Side Yard (north) 6 feet 9 feet Side Yard (east) 6 feet 96 feet Rear Yard 6 feet 45 feet Lot Area and Width. The subject site measures 25,494 square feet in size and has a width of approximately 80 feet (measured at the front setback line). This exceeds the minimum standards for lots located in R-1 zoning districts. Building Height. The maximum allowed accessory building height in the R-1 zoning district is 15 feet. The Ordinance defines "building height" as follows: A distance to be measured from the mean ground level to the top of a flat roof, to the mean distance of the highest gable on a pitched or hip roof, to the deck line of a mansard roof, to the uppermost point on all other roof types. As shown on the submitted front building elevation, two dormers are proposed. While the two dormers technically include "gables," it is, in this case, considered appropriate to measure structure height from the side elevation gables. In this regard, a structure height of 15 feet is proposed in compliance with the maximum height requirement of the Ordinance. Building Type and Design. The applicant has submitted a narrative which states that the proposed accessory building will be finished in siding and shingles which will match those used on the existing home. As shown on one of the submitted building elevations, it appears that vertical siding is proposed on the accessory building. In contrast, the home appears to have horizontal siding. Staff recommends that the orientation of the siding on the accessory structure match that on the home. As a condition of conditional use permit approval, the materials used to finish the garage must sufficiently match the existing home in material type and color. Driveway. As previously indicated, the applicant has expressed an interest in parking a vehicle in the accessory building, and have provided a garage door to a portion of the building. With this in mind, the structure will function as a "garage" and may be accessed via a driveway. The applicant should identify the intended surfacing to access the garage, rather than drive a vehicle over grass. This clarification should be made as a part of the review process. 3 Planning Commission Agenda - 05/02/2023 Conditional Use Permit Criteria. Approval of a conditional use permit application requires that the City find that conditions can be established to ensure that all the following criteria will always be met: (i) The conditional use will not substantially diminish or impair property values within the immediate vicinity of the subject property. Staff Comment: The proposed conditional use is expected to increase the property value of the subject site and is not expected to negatively impact neighboring properties. The parcel is an oversized single family lot, and is bounded by the 1-94 exit ramps— little impact if any is likely on neighboring property. (ii) The conditional use will not be detrimental to the health, safety, morals, or welfare of persons residing or working near the use. Staff Comment: The accessory structure will be constructed in accordance with Building Code requirements and will not endanger persons or property in the area. (iii) The conditional use will not impede the normal and orderly development of surrounding property for permitted uses predominant in the area. Staff Comment: The surrounding area is fully developed. No access or development will be impacted by the proposed accessory building. (iv) The conditional use will not pose an undue burden on public utilities or roads, and adequate sanitary facilities are provided. Staff Comment: Construction of the accessory building is not expected to have an impact on utilities or roads. (v) The conditional use can provide adequate parking and loading spaces, and all storage on the site can be done in conformance with City Code requirements. Staff Comment: As discussed in this report, the applicant should clarify the use of the building for parking of a private vehicle in regular use. Adequate surfacing compliant with zoning ordinance should be an aspect of the plan if this is part of the applicant's intent. (vi) The conditional use will not result in any nuisance including but not limited to odor, noise, or sight pollution. Staff Comment: While a portion of the accessory building is to be devoted to a "shop," odors and/or noise impacts are not anticipated. It is important to note that the requirements of the City's nuisance ordinance apply to all properties in the City. The uses in the building are typical of those expected for single family property, and no extraordinary impacts are foreseen. 4 Planning Commission Agenda - 05/02/2023 With the finish materials which match the existing structure, no visual impacts are expected. (vii) The conditional use will not unnecessarily impact natural features such as woodlands, wetlands, and shorelines; and all erosion will be properly controlled. Staff Comment: No impacts to any natural features are expected with this project. (viii) The conditional use will adhere to any applicable additional criteria outlined in Chapter 5 for the proposed use. Staff Comment: In review of the remaining provisions of Chapter 5, the project will be compliant with the City's requirements. Accessory Building CUP Requirements. In addition to the requirements above, the Zoning Ordinance also imposes the following requirements upon accessory structures such as that proposed by the applicant: (i) Size 1. Except by Conditional Use Permit issued pursuant to Section 5.3(D)(2)(0)(i)(2) below, no detached accessory building shall exceed ten percent (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 the following maximum area, whichever is less: a. 1,200 square feet, or b. The gross square footage of the principal building footprint. Staff Comment: The combined floor area of the existing garage and proposed detached garage exceeds 1,200 square feet. Thus, the processing of a conditional use permit is necessary and is currently in process. For reference, the Zoning Ordinance defines "floor area" as 'The sum of the gross horizontal areas of the floors of a building measured from the exterior faces of the exterior walls or from the centerline of walls separating two buildings... and excluding attic areas with a headroom of less than seven feet". 2. The size limitations for accessory building area listed in Section 5.3(D)(2)(a)(i)(1) above may be increased, up to a maximum square footage of 1,500 square feet, by the issuance of a Conditional Use permit when the following conditions are found to exist: a. Accessory building space is to be utilized solely for the storage of residential personal property of the occupant of the principal dwelling, and no accessory building space is to be utilized for commercial purposes. Staff Comment: As noted, the second floor of the building is proposed to be used for personal storage, with an external stairway providing access to the storage area. The Building Code considers habitable space to be areas of an adequate 5 Planning Commission Agenda - 05/02/2023 square footage with a ceiling height of at least 7 feet or more. In this case, the applicant has designed the building with an interior ceiling height of 6'-11", which avoids the inclusion of the space as "habitable", per building code definition. This then keeps the total accessory building square footage under the 1,500 square foot cap. Although the space is usable, the primary purpose and application of the 1500 square foot ordinance limitation has been to space which is habitable or may be occupied. The applicant has stated in his narrative that the accessory building will be used for storage of personal property. As a condition of approval, no commercial business will be allowed in the new garage or existing garage. b. The parcel on which the accessory building is to be located is of sufficient size such that the building will not crowd the open space on the lot. Staff Comment: The subject property measures 25,474 square feet in size and has sufficient width to accommodate the proposed rear yard accessory structure. C. The accessory building will not be so large as to have an adverse effect on the architectural character or reasonable residential use of the surrounding property. Staff Comment: The new garage will have a footprint of 896 square feet. Staff believes that this is not an unreasonable size given the lot area and its width. d. The accessory buildings shall be constructed to be similar to the principal building in architectural style and building materials. Staff Comment: The applicant has stated his intent to provide siding and roof materials similar to the principal building in compliance with this requirement. As discussed previously, the siding should be oriented to match the existing home. STAFF RECOMMENDED ACTION Staff recommends Alternative 1, tabling action on the request for Conditional Use Permit and continuing the public hearing to the June 6, 2023 regular meeting of the Monticello Planning Commission. The applicant has requested that the Planning Commission continue the hearing on this item and table action on the recommendation. The applicant has indicated an intent to submit a companion application for conditional use permit for the driveway extension component of the proposed project. SUPPORTING DATA A. Resolution PC -2023-17 B. Aerial Site Image 0 C. Applicant Narrative D. Site Plan Based on the Certificate of Survey E. Plans, Including: a. Building Elevations b. Floor Plans c. Attic Layout and Wall Detail Z. Conditions of Approval 7 Planning Commission Agenda - 05/02/2023 Planning Commission Agenda - 05/02/2023 EXHIBIT Z CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR ACCESSORY STRUCTURE HAVING A FLOOR AREA GREATER THAN 1,200 SQUARE FEET LOT 8, BLOCK 2, SUNSET PONDS ADDITION A certificate of survey detailing all structures, including the proposed, is provided which meets the requirements of the ordinance and those recommendations of the Chief Building Official and City Engineer. 2. The building is constructed per plans provided, ensuring that the upstairs space is not "habitable", per building code provisions. 3. If the accessory structure is to be used for the storage of a motor vehicle or vehicles it is considered a "garage" and driveway access shall be identified. The location and configuration of such driveway shall be illustrated on the site plan. 4. The second floor of the garage (accessory building) shall be devoted to personal storage and shall not be used for the occupancy of persons. 5. No business use shall be conducted within the accessory structure. 6. The exterior finish materials of the accessory structure shall match the existing home in material type, color, and the orientation of the siding. 7. The existing 120 square foot storage shed located on the site shall be removed prior to certificate of occupancy for the new accessory building. 8. The accessory structure may not be used for a home occupation unless authorized under separate review per ordinance requirements. 9. Comments and recommendations of other Staff and the Planning Commission. 0 CITY OF MONTICELLO WRIGHT COUNTY, MINNESOTA PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. PC -2023-17 RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A DETACHED ACCESSORY BUILDING IN AN R-1 (SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE) DISTRICT LOT 8, BLOCK 2 SUNSET PONDS ADDITION PID 155-159-002080 WHEREAS, the applicant has submitted a request to construct a detached accessory structure in the rear yard portion of the subject property for storage of private residential storage and recreational use; and WHEREAS, the proposed total accessory building space would exceed the standard garage area of 1,200 square feet; and WHEREAS, accessory building space, when exceeding 1,200 square feet, requires a Conditional Use Permit, and WHEREAS, the site is zoned Single -Family Residence (R-1) and, which allows such use by Conditional Use Permit; and WHEREAS, the proposed use and development are consistent with the Comprehensive Land Use Plan designation of "Low Density Residential" for the area; and WHEREAS, the applicants have provided materials documenting the proposed structure and location of the structure on the subject property; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on May 2, 2023 on the application and the applicant and members of the public were provided the opportunity to present information to the Planning Commission; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has considered all of the comments and the staff report, which are incorporated by reference into the resolution; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Monticello makes the following Findings of Fact in relation to the recommendation of approval: 1. A certificate of survey detailing all structures, including the proposed, is provided which meets the requirements of the ordinance and those recommendations of the Chief Building Official and City Engineer. CITY OF MONTICELLO WRIGHT COUNTY, MINNESOTA PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. PC -2023-17 2. The applicant has provided plans demonstrating that the proposed structure will be in compliance with maximum square footage requirements, which require a accessory structures to total no more than 1,500 square feet. 3. The applicant has provided plans demonstrating that the detached structure addition is architecturally similar to the principal structure in roofline and fagade appearance, subject to appropriate conditions of approval. 4. The parcel is a lot which will accommodate the accessory space without crowding the subject property or neighboring parcels. 5. The large rear yard, and the lack of neighboring residential property in that direction minimizes the potential for negative impacts. 6. The building will be constructed so as to be consistent with the use and building massing of other single-family structures common in the community and in the neighborhood. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the Planning Commission of the City of Monticello, Minnesota, that the Planning Commission hereby recommends that the Monticello City Council approve the Conditional Use Permit for a detached garage, subject to the conditions identified in Exhibit Z of the Staff report, as listed below: 1. A certificate of survey detailing all structures, including the proposed, is provided which meets the requirements of the ordinance and those recommendations of the Chief Building Official and City Engineer. The building is constructed per plans provided, ensuring that the upstairs space is not "habitable", per building code provisions. 3. If the accessory structure is to be used for the storage of a motor vehicle or vehicles it is considered a "garage" and therefore driveway access shall be identified. The location and configuration of such driveway shall be illustrated on the site plan. 4. The second floor of the garage (accessory building) shall be devoted to personal storage and shall not be used for the occupancy of persons. 5. No business use shall be conducted within the accessory structure. 6. The exterior finish materials of the accessory structure shall match the existing home in material type, color, and the orientation of the siding. 7. The existing 120 square foot storage shed located on the site shall be removed prior to certificate of occupancy for the new accessory building. 2 CITY OF MONTICELLO WRIGHT COUNTY, MINNESOTA PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. PC -2023-17 8. The accessory structure may not be used for a home occupation unless authorized under separate review per ordinance requirements. 9. Comments and recommendations of other Staff and the Planning Commission ADOPTED this 2nd day of May, 2023 by the Planning Commission of the City of Monticello, Minnesota. MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION By: Paul Konsor, Chair ATTEST: Angela Schumann, Community Development Director 3 Consideration of a CUP for an Accessory Structure -Major in the R-1, Single Family Residential District Created by: City of Monticello To City of Monticello Community Development Staff: As part of the Conditional Use Permit (CUP) process, this document is to serve as the written narrative for my application for our property on 9413 Giffort Court; Monticello, MN 55362. We are asking for a Conditional Use Permit for the purpose of increasing the square footage allowed for a detached structure on our property up to the allowable 900 square feet. This is to build a detached shed structure that would have a footprint of 28' by 32'. Half of the structure would be used as a shop area and the other half would be used for a personal golf simulator area. We are using attic space for storage, which is accessible by deck stairs. This attic area will not be used for occupancy, but to store personal belongings for our family of six. We have added two dormers to the roof of the structure that will face the street for aesthetic purposes. We will be finishing this structure with siding that matches as close as possible to our existing color on our home, and it will have black/gray architectural shingles, which are the style on our home as well. Our existing 10x12 accessory shed will be removed upon building this detached structure. CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY FOR M. W. JOHNSON CONSTRUCTION UILT FOUNDATION REQUIREDL7stu7FRVeY 79°4 01 yv� top 1�s \ BLOCK 2 � d a <.vv GARAGE DRP 1 CRS DRIVEWAY 7. M 15.00 WWi m 0 26.77 ;p. 1" _ 40' 0 4p pa 1 9 ADDRESS — 9413 GM= FORT COURT "", l) FILE COPY HOUSE TO RE STAKED IN FOLD UPON COMPLETION OF GRADING . 'SLC,., to I.1t�L";i lid`vfiEC'1'7t7[y SVC MVV —934.0 (kRl,PLAIp_)5W LOT AREA = 2547+-50- PT. " HOUSE AREA = 1663 SQ. FT. NOTE ALL HOUSE DIMENSIONS ARE TO OUTSIDE OF FOUNDATION LEGAL DESCRIPTION --PROPOSED GARAGE FLOOR ELEV.=946.7 PROPOSED TOP OF BLOCK ELEV.=947.7 PROPOSED BASEMENT FLOOR ELEV.-939.7 DENOTES PROPOSED DRAINAGE DIRECTION ® DENOTES PROPOSED ELEVATION OOOxO DENOTES EXISTING ELEVATION DENOTES WOOD HUB TO BE SET O DENOTES IRON PIPE MONUMENT SET 0 DENOTES IRON MONUMENT FOUND 0 DENOTES SERVICE LOCATION LOT BLOCK 2, SUNSET PONDS, CITY OF MONTI VERTICAL DIFFERENCE WEEN PROPOSED GARAGE FLOOR CELLO, WRIGHT COUNTY, MINNESOTA BE do TOP CURB AT CENTER OF DRIVEWAY - 3.1 1 HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS SURVEY WAS PREPARED BY ME OR UNDER Bohlen SRvsWAM T REGISTERED LAW SURVEYOR �THE SOFF STATE OF SOTA. Surveying & Engineering r �y y 31462 Foliage Avenue 4735 123rd Street W. • $'5-04 1 /✓ Northfield, MN 55057 Savage, MN 55378 DATE _ _..- lr-- B E Suite zoo �'—Phone: (507) 645-7768 Phone: (952) 895-9212 LEROY H. BOHLEN, LAND SURVEYOR Fax: (507) 645-7799 Fox: (952) 895-9259 MINNESOTA LICENSE NO. 10795 IOt8blk2cert.S90 a Iilij i 40 to man K9 'WeInt We low 74 04, \ ; ly ® 5 4 3T ! HOP zu E I U 3® 1 29 !a € I _ .. �i s t I ZtO S I t 3 F �tuew i.� I Pn� dF con 1ir' r' -_ 1 'ice f as 1 i t Eliz€2.=DOC, 3 «i Zv" ftI II i 41 I F1 ll N I E Summylk Oman smts; -lice I 1 3 -_ -- t 2a a 0 Avfi1c- Lp,OuT llg =� {' cw i� 0 0 OS15 mtvbbihm a� t I pw P //N thl ,c a it i� *'4 . - �WjotALFI nAW M WO Sc�It- `Z p Lq l l "/&, w l- 3" Zxb V*,1L t*m lb&6-0 O,c' k, spv -*W t � , -Ise S -le pLgvloo xio fro MA � O (- Mw Planning Commission Agenda - 05/02/2023 2B. Public Hearing - Consideration of an Amendment to the Headwaters West Planned Unit Development District related to Subdivision Ordinance Requirements for Utili+ Installation. Applicant: Delta Modular Construction, LLC Prepared by: Meeting Date: Council Date (pending Northwest Associated Consultants 05/02/2023 Commission action): (NAC) 05/26/23 Additional Analysis by: Community Development Director, Chief Building and Zoning Official, Community & Economic Development Coordinator, Project Engineer, Fire Marshal ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS Consideration of an Amendment to a PUD, Planned Unit Development District 1. Motion to adopt Resolution No. PC 2023-18 approving an Amendment to the Headwaters West Planned Unit Development District related to Subdivision Ordinance Requirements for Utility Installation, based on findings in said Resolution and subject to the conditions in Exhibit Z. 2. Motion to deny the adoption of Resolution No. PC 2023-18 approving an Amendment to the Headwaters West Planned Unit Development District related to Subdivision Ordinance Requirements for Utility Installation, based on findings to be made by the Planning Commission. 3. Motion to table action on Resolution No. 2023-18. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND Property: Legal Description: Blocks 1-4, Country Club Manor 2nd Addition PID #: Multiple Planning Case Number: 2023-17 Request(s): Amendment to PUD, Headwaters West Planned Unit Development District Deadline for Decision: June 10, 2023 (60 -day deadline) August 9, 2023 (120 -day deadline) Land Use Designation: Mixed Density Residential 1 Planning Commission Agenda - 05/02/2023 Zoning Designation: PUD, Headwaters West Planned Unit Development District Overlays/Environmental Regulations Applicable: NA Current Site Uses: Platted, Under Construction Surrounding Land Uses: North: Monticello Country Club, Single Family Residential (R-2) East: Single Family Residential (R-1) South: 1-94 West: Vacant, Multi -Family PUD Project Description: The subject site is located along 7t" Street, south of County Road 39 and east of Interstate 94 and consists of individual parcels to be developed for 30 twinhome buildings containing 60 total units. The proposed twinhomes are to be accessed via a new public street which intersects 7th Street West in two locations. The applicants are preparing for construction of the units and are seeking amendment to the PUD to waive the Subdivision Ordinance requirement for natural gas main service to the project area. The Subdivision Ordinance requires the provision of both public (sanitary sewer, water, and stormwater) and private FI, 2 Planning Commission Agenda - 05/02/2023 utilities (electricity, natural gas, telecommunications) as a part of all subdivisions. The applications propose to construct units that are all -electric, and wish to delete the requirement for gas main in this subdivision. ANALYSIS: The City's Subdivision Ordinance requires that all new subdivisions supply a full range of public and private utilities to new subdivisions, both for the expectation that such services are necessary for efficient and proper function of the land uses being developed, as well as to facilitate the extension of those services to adjoining parcels which can utilize the service lines to facilitate development of those parcels. This request is to vary from this Subdivision Ordinance requirement. As this property was approved and is being developed as a Planned Unit Development, the appropriate process for consideration of the requested flexibility is through a PUD amendment. The necessary consideration for PUD amendment relates not to the "practical difficulties" test for variance, but rather, whether the amendment promotes the intent of the Zoning Ordinance and the Comprehensive Plan, upholding (or improving upon) the goals of the PUD as originally conceived and approved. The applicants are developing a project that has received City/EDA financial assistance to create dwelling units that are focused on senior residents of modest incomes. The terms of the financing agreement include a requirement that the units will be available as for -rent units for a period of 25 years (or until the obligation of the assistance is fulfilled). The applicants are constructing the units to be all -electric, without the need for natural gas services for any function. Heat, water heating, kitchen appliances, etc., will all be fueled by electricity. The applicants have further noted that the retail natural gas provided (CenterPoint) will not install gas mains without hooking up the main to the units and thus utilizing the system for sales of natural gas. In other subdivisions, CenterPoint's practice has been to provide the mains at their cost, with the expectation that they would recoup the costs of that infrastructure through gas connection and sales. By enforcing its ordinance, the City would require the developer to install the gas mains, but the main line would not be used for individual service connections to the units, since those units are specifically constructed to rely on electricity only for services. Moreover, the applicants suggest that the extension of the gas mains through the subdivision would not facilitate the development of surrounding lands, as is commonly the case. Here, natural gas supply is already available to other surrounding land, most of which is already Planning Commission Agenda - 05/02/2023 developed with the service. Those surrounding areas do not need the extension for the availability of natural gas. The adjacent development parcel, part of the approved PUD, is proposed to be developed as a multi -family structure. It is staff's understanding that the multi- family structure will be served with natural gas. To staff's knowledge, no other plat within the city boundary has been developed without individual parcel access to natural gas service. Monticello 2040 Plan's Implementation chapter includes a strategy for ensuring that developers are aware of their responsibilities to install public infrastructure including utilities, roadways and parks through subdivision ordinance requirements. In this case, the elements supporting the approval of flexibility to this portion of the subdivision ordinance includes a number of factors: 1. As discussed, the extension of natural gas through this project is not related to serving adjoining lands. This project location is somewhat unique in that way, as natural gas is already available to the surrounding area. 2. The elimination of natural gas mains will not negatively impact the PUD design or development. Electric heat and appliances are proposed that will serve the units, compliant with building code provisions for residential usage. 3. The gas mains, if constructed, would not be utilized. As such, there is a factor of cost and "waste" that would be at odds with the City's intended goals for the project which include affordability and the City's overall land use goals for efficiency and sustainability. 4. The project, to be owned and operated as rental units for an estimated period of 25 years, ensures that no foreseeable change to the project is likely to occur that would dictate an after -the -fact need to supply the utility. 5. If the situation arose where gas were to become a desired utility addition, the City Engineer has indicated that natural gas could still be extended with other improvements already in place, and with minimal disruption to the site. 6. The long-term future for natural gas usage is mixed, with a public policy direction suggesting fuels such as gas may eventually be phased out. With the 25 -year timeline in place for the proposed condition, changes to how land uses are served with utilities would be expected. Monticello's 2040 Plan includes an Implementation Strategy recognizing this potential transition: "Strategy 4.4.3 - Support energy provider efforts to transition to carbon -free energy sources over time." With these factors in mind, the amendment to the PUD as proposed, while unorthodox given the City's past experience with new development, should not negatively impact the intent or development plan of the project. No external changes would be evident, and no impact on surrounding land uses are foreseen. 4 Planning Commission Agenda - 05/02/2023 STAFF RECOMMENDED ACTION Planning Staff recommends approval of Alternative 1, the amendment to the PUD, Headwaters West Planned Unit Development District, providing a waiver of the Subdivision Ordinance requirement for the provision of natural gas to the project area. Staff's recommendation is based on the findings as outlined within this report and the companion resolution. As a condition of approval, staff is recommending an amendment to the Development Contract and Planned Unit Development Agreement, or other instrument is recorded against each individual lot within the plat area impacted by the amendment reflecting the utility service availability. SUPPORTING DATA A. Resolution PC -2023-18 B. Aerial Image C. Applicant Narrative D. Subdivision Ordinance, Excerpts Z. Conditions of Approval 5 Planning Commission Agenda - 05/02/2023 EXHIBIT Z Conditions of Approval Amendment to the Headwaters West PUD District 1. Issues related to the provision of all other utility services shall be subject to comment and recommendation by the City Engineer. 2. The applicant demonstrates compliance with all building code requirements for heat and other services, and shall be subject to City Building Department review and approval. 3. An amendment to the Development Contract and Planned Unit Development Agreement and/or other instrument is recorded against each individual lot within the plat area impacted by the amendment reflecting the utility service availability. 4. Comments and recommendations of other Staff and Planning Commission. 0 CITY OF MONTICELLO WRIGHT COUNTY, MINNESOTA PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. PC 2023-18 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF MONTICELLO RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF AN AMENDMENT TO THE HEADWATERS WEST PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT WHEREAS, the applicant has received approval for the development of a parcel for twinhome residential use; and WHEREAS, the development approvals for the project include a Planned Unit Development zoning district; and WHEREAS, the project is approved and regulated to provide affordable rental units to seniors, a component of the City's housing planning; and WHEREAS, the City's Subdivision Ordinance requires the extension of natural gas mains into the project area, while the applicant's twinhome unit designs will not utilize that private utility; and WHEREAS, the project's public financing requires that the units remain affordable rental units under the same management for a period of at least 25 years or until the financial obligation is met; and WHEREAS, certain public policy encourages a phasing out of the use of natural gas as a heating and/or appliance fuel; and WHEREAS, if constructed with the project, the gas mains would represent an unused utility service in the public right of way and easements; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the application for the PUD pursuant to the regulations of the applicable ordinances and land use plans and policies, as well as the original project intent and approvals; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on May 2nd, 2023 on the application and the applicant and members of the public were provided the opportunity to present information to the Planning Commission; and CITY OF MONTICELLO WRIGHT COUNTY, MINNESOTA PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. PC 2023-18 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has considered all of the comments and the staff report, which are incorporated by reference into the resolution the following Findings of Fact in relation to the recommendation of approval: 1. The extension of natural gas through this project is not related to serving adjoining lands, as natural gas is already available to the surrounding area. 2. The gas mains, if constructed, would not be utilized. 3. The project, to be owned and operated as rental units for an estimated period of 25 years, ensures that no foreseeable change to the project is likely to occur that would dictate an after -the -fact need to supply the utility. 4. If the situation arose where gas were to become a desired utility addition, the nature of the provision of natural gas is such that it could be added with other improvements in place, and with minimal disruption to the site. 5. The long-term future for natural gas usage is mixed, with a public policy direction suggesting fuels such as gas may eventually be phased out. 6. The elimination of natural gas mains will not negatively impact the PUD design or development. 7. The impacts of the improvements are those anticipated by the existing and future land uses and are addressed through standard review and ordinances as adopted. 8. The proposed development details meet the intent and requirements of the applicable zoning regulations and are consistent with the applicable land use policies and ordinances. 9. The proposed PUD amendment is not anticipated to negatively impact surrounding residential properties, and instead is expected to encourage long term affordable residential uses on the subject property. 10. Approval of the PUD will not result in the need for additional road or utility infrastructure other than that being provided for the proposed use and should not otherwise negatively impact the health or safety of the community. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the Planning Commission of the City of Monticello, Minnesota recommends to the City Council that the proposed Development Stage PUD for Country Club Manor First Addition be approved, subject to the conditions of Exhibit Z of the staff report, as follows: 1. Issues related to the provision of all other utility services shall be subject to comment and recommendation by the City Engineer. CITY OF MONTICELLO WRIGHT COUNTY, MINNESOTA PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. PC 2023-18 2. The applicant demonstrates compliance with all building code requirements for heat and other services and shall be subject to City Building Department review and approval. 3. An amendment to the Development Contract and Planned Unit Development Agreement and/or other instrument is recorded against each individual lot within the plat area impacted by the amendment reflecting the utility service availability. 4. Comments and recommendations of other Staff and Planning Commission. ADOPTED this 2nd day of May, 2023 by the Planning Commission of the City of Monticello, Minnesota. MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION Es ATTEST: Paul Konsor, Chair Angela Schumann, Community Development Director Consideration of an Amendment to the Headwaters West Planned Unit Development Created by: City of Monticello D E LTA MODULAR CONSTRUCTION Monticello Town Homes 4-6-23 Narrative for Monticello Town Homes Natural Gas Main Variance in reference to the Monticello Town Home project, the town home buildings are all electric and do not require natural gas. The City of Monticello requires a gas service to be brought into a new development. However, Center Point Energy will not bring in the gas service unless we plan to use the natural gas. Delta Modular Construction is requesting a variance to eliminate the natural gas service to the Monticello Townhome development. There will be no changes to the construction documents due to the elimination of the natural gas. § 152.101 CONSTRUCTION IMPROVEMENTS. (A) (1) No final plat shall be approved by the City Council without first receiving a report from the City Engineer certifying that the improvements described herein, together with the agreements and documents required herein, meet the minimum requirements of all applicable ordinances. (2) Drawings showing all improvements as built shall be filed with the City Clerk. (B) No final plat shall be approved by the City Council on land subject to flooding or containing poor drainage facilities and on land which would make adequate drainage of the streets and lots impossible. However, if the subdivider agrees to make improvements which will, in the opinion of the City Engineer, make the area completely safe for residential occupancy and provide adequate street and lot drainage and conform to applicable regulations of other agencies such as the U.S. Corps of Engineers or the Department of Natural Resources, the final plat of the subdivision may be approved. (C) In addition, the plats may not be approved if the cost of providing municipal services to protect the floodplain area would impose an unreasonable economic burden upon the city. (D) As a condition of final plat approval, the development agreement shall make provision in the manner hereinafter set forth for the installation, at the sole expense of the subdivider, of such improvements as shall be required by the city, which improvements may include, but are not limited to items included in division (G) below. The installation of said improvements shall be in conformity with city approved construction plans and specifications and all applicable city standards and sections of this code. The subdivider shall not commence with construction of improvements until financial assurances are provided as contained in the development agreement. (E) Developer installed improvements. (1) No owner or subdivider shall be permitted to start work on any improvements without providing the city a financial security, in a form acceptable to the city and consistent with city ordinance or policy as adopted by the City Council, guaranteeing the improvement will be installed in accordance with all laws, rules, regulations, and policies as approved by the city. The amount of the financial security shall be 125% of the engineer's estimate of the total cost of the improvements to be installed, as verified by the City Engineer and set forth in the development agreement. In the event the required improvements are not completed within the specified timeline, all amounts held in the development agreement as security may be drawn upon by the city and applied by the city to the cost of completing the required improvements. If the available securities are not sufficient to complete the required improvements, the necessary additional cost to the city shall be assessed against the subdivision. (2) Securities may be reduced from time to time prior to improvement acceptance upon submission of formal request by the owner or subdivider. No reduction of security shall be authorized unless the improvements associated with the reduction request have been inspected by the city and found to be in compliance with this chapter and satisfactory evidence of contractor payment has been provided. (3) Prior to any public improvement being accepted by the city, the owner or subdivider shall post a maintenance bond or other security in a form acceptable to the city naming the city as obligee in an amount deemed appropriate by the City Council to insure the maintenance of the improvements for a period of 24 months from the date of acceptance or approval by the city. (4) The owner or subdivider shall continue to be responsible for defects, deficiencies, and damage to improvements during development of the subdivision. No inspection approval of release or reduction of funds from the security as to any component or category shall be deemed to be city final approval of the improvements or otherwise release the owner or subdivider of its obligation relating to the completion of the improvement within the final subdivision until a release on all improvements and maintenance is issued by the City Council declaring that all improvements have in fact been constructed as required. (5) The applicant shall provide to the city grading and utility as -built drawings of all improvements. (6) The owner or subdivider engaged in the development of lands and properties may request city participation in the payment of the costs of certain improvements. City participation shall be negotiated with the subdivider and established by the City Council pursuant to entering into a development agreement. The Council shall on a case-by- case basis determine infrastructure impact on areas outside the subdivision. City required oversizing of infrastructure beyond the appropriate standard residential or commercial equivalent shall be eligible for funding by the city. Source of city funding shall not be a determinate of financial participation. (7) Nothing in this section shall prohibit or prevent the city from establishing a fee, charge, or assessment against the subsequent subdivider/developers which benefit from the prior improvements for the purpose of maintaining or upgrading the public improvements. (8) All of the required improvements to be installed under the provisions of this subchapter shall be inspected during the course of their construction by the City Engineer. All of the inspection costs pursuant thereto shall be paid by the owner or subdivider in the manner prescribed in § 152.100(C). (9) The city shall have the right to install any or all of the required improvements as it may elect and upon such terms and conditions as it may deem appropriate under the circumstances. (F) City installed improvements. (1) Any person desiring to have improvements installed may request the city to install the improvements, if the request is accompanied by a written petition signed by 100% of the landowners pursuant to M.S. Ch. 429, as it may be amended from time to time, and a waiver of assessment appeal. Acceptance of the request shall be discretionary on the part of the City Council, based on the benefit to the property owners, and subject to the following conditions and as authorized by state law. (2) (a) Prior to the making of such required improvements, the City Council shall require the owner or subdivider to pay to the city an amount equal to a minimum of 25% and up to 100% of the estimated total cost of the improvements, including not only construction but all indirect costs. (b) The actual percentage to be determined by the city in each case based on its review of the following: 1. The financial background of the developer; 2. The normalcy of the unit charge for putting in the improvement; 3. An evaluation of the cost recovery potential through the sale of the land; 4. The likelihood of success of the development; and 5. Developer default on any outstanding assessment payment in the past 12 months. (3) This payment must be made to the city prior to the City Council adopting the resolution ordering the project. (4) If approved by the City Council, the city may cause the improvements to be made and special assessments for all costs of the improvements to be levied on the benefitted land, except any land which is or shall be dedicated to the public. The total project cost, less the deposit, will be assessed 100% against the benefitted property payable in not more than ten annual installments with interest at a rate of at least 1.5% (rounded up to the nearest 0.25%) over the rate paid on bonds issued to finance the improvements or, if financed internally, over the then equivalent rate the city determined it would have to pay on bonds issued at that time; provided, however, at the entire assessment balance outstanding against a given parcel is to be paid in full prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy permit for principal use of new construction on that parcel or within 180 days after a building permit for new construction is issued, whichever comes first. (5) Water, sanitary sewer, and storm sewer lateral lines shall be assessed 100% against the benefitted property within the proposed subdivision. These assessments shall be made on a residential housing unit basis. (6) Water, sanitary, and storm sewer trunk fees will be due at the time of platting or in cases where properties have already been platted, applicable trunk fees will be collected at such time a new building permit is issued. (7) (a) The cost of constructing permanent streets, including curb and gutter, will be 100% assessed against benefitted property based on front footage. Corner lots shall be assessed for frontage only with no charge made for the long side lot footage. Costs resulting from intersections and side lot footage shall be included in the total amount to be assessed and apportioned over the net assessable footage. (b) In the case of odd -shaped lots, the footage shall be measured at the building setback line; however, in no event shall the assessable footage be less than the minimum lot width as required by the city. (8) In the event a building permit is applied for prior to completion of installation of the improvements, an escrow payment to the city shall be deposited in an amount equal to 125% of the estimated total assessment. (9) Upon completion of the project and determination of the actual cost to be assessed, any overcharge will be refunded and any additional cost will be due the city within 30 days of notification of the additional cost. If, for any reason, subsequent to having made the advance payment to the city the developer should withdraw from the project, the city is entitled to retain an amount equal to the city's cost related to the project to that time, and the balance shall be refunded to the developer. (10) At the request of the owner or subdivider, the city may agree to spread all of the assessments against the subdivision on a per lot or residential housing unit basis rather than on the various methods set forth in divisions (F)(5), (F)(6), or (F)(7) above. (11) In all cases, the procedure for local improvements prescribed in M.S. Ch. 429, as it may be amended from time to time, shall be followed. (12) The requirements of this subchapter are intended to be compatible with the assessment policy in this division (F). (G) Minimum improvements. (1) It is hereby the policy of the city to, as soon as practicable after the approval of the proposed plat, require the installation of all of the following improvements within the subdivision. (2) In addition to those below, additional improvements may be required by development agreement: (a) Trunk and lateral sanitary sewer; (b) Trunk and lateral water main; (c) Storm drainage facilities; (d) Stormwater maintenance; (e) Streets; (f) Concrete curb and gutter; (g) Street traffic control devices; (h) Lot grading; (i) Trail development; (j) Sidewalk development; (k) Electricity (within one-fourth mile); (1) Natural gas (within one-fourth mile); (m) Communications (within one-fourth mile); (n) Water shut-off boxes; (o) Street striping and signing; (p) Streetlights; (q) Landscaping; (r) Monuments; (s) As -built plans; and (t) Easement and deeds § 152.105 UTILITIES. All necessary utility easements must be recorded prior to utility installation. (A) Electricity. The subdivider shall be responsible for providing electric service to the plat. Whenever possible, a joint trench shall be utilized for small utilities (cable, fiber, gas, electric, telephone). (B) Communications. The subdivider shall be responsible for providing phone service to the plat. Whenever possible, a joint trench shall be utilized for small utilities (cable, fiber, gas, electric, telephone). (C) Natural gas. The subdivider shall be responsible for providing natural gas service to the plat. Whenever possible, a joint trench shall be utilized for small utilities (cable, fiber, gas, electric, telephone). Planning Commission Agenda — 05/02/23 4A. Community Development Director's Report Council Action on/related to Commission Recommendations o Consideration of a Request for Conditional Use Permit for Cross/Joint Parking Easement in the Broadway Sub -District of the Central Community District (CCD). Applicant: City of Monticello Approved on the consent agenda of the City Council on April 10, 2023. o Consideration of finding that land acquisition of portions of Lots 11 and 12, Original Plat of Monticello, PID 155010051111, by the City of Monticello is in conformance with the Monticello 2040 Comprehensive Plan. A purchase agreement for this parcel was approved by the Council on the consent agenda on April 10, 2023. o Consideration of finding that land acquisition of portions of Lots 1, 2, 4 and 5, Block A, Original Plat of Monticello, PID 155010066010, by the City of Monticello is in conformance with the Monticello 2040 Comprehensive Plan. A purchase agreement for this parcel was approved by the Council on the consent agenda on April 24, 2023. o Consideration of a request for an Amendment to a Conditional Use Permit for Planned Unit Development related to replacement of outdoor storage tanks. Applicant: Cargill Kitchen Solutions, Inc. This item was considered as part of the regular agenda of the City Council on April 24, 2023. The City Council unanimously approved the Conditional Use Permit, allowing for the requested three tanks, rather than the Commission's recommendation for two tanks. Cargill clarified in the meeting that the additional tank's expected production impact would be minimal in terms of traffic and parking. Local Land Use Regulation — Legislative Update During the 2023 legislative session, a bill was introduced that would have significantly impacted local government's ability to regulate land use, including both zoning and subdivision regulation. Information on the "Legalize Affordable Housing" bill can be found at: Zoning Preemption Bill Advances in the House - League of Minnesota Cities (Imc.org) In addition to this bill, legislators offered amendments which include components or variations of the bill language as part of the consideration of other omnibus bills. More information can be found: House Passes Omnibus HousinE Finance Bill as Amended - LeaEue of Minnesota Cities (Imc.orE) Planning Commission Agenda — 05/02/23 Thus far, these pre-emptions to local authority have not moved forward. The League of MN Cities watches these legislative initiatives closely and sends alerts to cities when local support or action is needed. Monticello has responded as needed and will continue to do so. THC Regulation Bills relating to the legalization of adult -use cannabis continue to move forward this session. As noted in prior Director reports, we continue to monitor the progress of this legislation. At the time legislation is finalized, City staff will work with the City Attorney, League of MN Cities and Wright County Health and Human Services on next steps. MOAA Rezoning Request City staff were present to address the MOAA Board on April 13, 2023 regarding a rezoning request made in the Orderly Annexation Area. Following discussion, the MOAA Board continued the hearing on the item and tabled action on the request to the May 10, 2023 MOAA meeting. Planning Commission can review the full Council report regarding the request here. Planning Commission Training Opportunities The League of MN Cities offers a series of online courses to support local leaders in understanding and applying land use law. The 2023 Planning & Zoning budget includes funding for training purposes which can be used for Commissioners who would like to attend. More information on the sessions is attached. Commissioners interested can reach out to Vicki Leerhoff at City Hall to register. Project Update List May's updated project listing is attached. 2 Deephaven Apartments Residential 1255 Edmonson Ave NE 3 apartment buildings totalling 165 units 1/30/2020 Completed Take 5 Car Wash Commercial 4008 Deegan Court New construction car wash (4,146 sq ft) 9/27/2021 Received Temporary Certificate of Occupancy Monticello Lakes Apartments Residential Southeast area of The Pointes at Cedar 2 100 unit multi -family apartments 12/13/2021 Yet to Break Ground Runnings Expansion Commercial 300 7th St W Expansion of current facility (13,962 sq ft) 12/13/2021 Completed Twin Pines Apartments Residential South Side of School Blvd. East of Wal-Mart 96 multi -family unit apartment building 2/28/2022 Yet to Break Ground Block 52 Redevelopment Mixed -Use NE Corner of Highway 25 and Broadway St 87 multi -family units with rougly 30,000 sq ft of 1st floor commercial 9/30/2022 Demo Completed/Under Construction Featherstone 6th Addition Residential North of 85th St NE and West of Highway 25 21 Single-family lots with commercially guided outlots for future development 8/24/2022 Under Construction Tesla Stations at Cub Foods Commercial 206 7th St W Installation of 8 charging ports in the Cub Foods parking lot 7/12/2022 Completed Taco Bell Remodel Commercial 124 7th St E Remodel of existing building and expansion of 724 sq ft 9/30/2022 Completed Haven Ridge 2nd Addition Residential South of Farmstead Ave and West of Fallon Ave NE 59 Single -Family Lot Development 10/26/2022 Yet to Break Ground Headwaters West Development Residential Along South side of 7th St W between Elm St and Golf Course Rd 102 apartment unit & 60 townhome Senior 55+ Development 9/26/2022 Townhomes Under Construction Sunny Days Therapy Commercial Along South side of 7th St E West of Old McDonald's Location Development of an Occupational Child Therapy Facility 8/22/2022 Under Construction Camping World Commercial 3801 Chelsea Rd W Installation of an attached paint booth (1,100 sq ft) 8/22/2022 Yet to Break Ground Electro Industries Expansion Commercial 2150 River St W Expansion of current facility (4,300 sq ft) 9/26/2022 Yet to Break Ground Wiha Tools USA Industrial Along South Side of 7th St E across from Wright St and Ramsey St New construction light manufacturing (72,540 sq ft) 11/28/2022 Groundbreaking Ceremony on 4/21/2023 Kwik Trip #345 Commercial 9440 State Highway 25 Expansion of current facility (520 sq ft) 1/23/2023 Under Construction Scooter's Coffee Commercial 100 7th St W. New Construction of Drive -Through Coffee Shop 1/23/2023 Yet to Break Ground 4/5/23, 11:25 AM Land Use Regulation: Your Role in Land -Use Decision Making - League of Minnesota Cities LMCLEAGUE MINNESOTA CITIES MEMBERLEARN ONLINE COURSES Land Use Regulation: Your Role in Land -Use Decision Making Primary audience City Council, Planning Commissioners Course time 60 minutes In this course, you will learn the basics of why and how cities engage in land use planning and regulation, and why local officials should take time to carefully and conscientiously create land use laws. You will also become familiar with the tools cities use to regulate land use as well as the process that cities should consider when making land use decisions. By completing this course, you will: • Explain why cities regulate land use • State the importance of the Municipal Planning Act • Recognize that cities play multiple roles in the land use process • Classify the types of discretion that cities have to make land use decisions • Examine the tools that cities use to regulate land use • Outline the process that cities should consider when making land use decisions Register now! Subject Matter Expert Jed Burkett, Loss Control/Land Use Attorney - League of Minnesota Cities Features Videos, infographics, downloadable materials, and knowledge check — learn more about MemberLearn. Cost 0 - 20 users = $15 per user 21- 50 users = $10 per user https:/lwww.Imc.orgAearning-eventsAeamingsAand-use/ 1/2 4/5/23, 11:27 AM LMCLEAGUE MINNESOTA CITIES MEMBERLEARN ONLINE COURSES Land Use (Mini -Course) - League of Minnesota Cities Land Use (Mini -Course) Primary audience City Council Course time 15 minutes In this mini -course, you will learn why cities get involved in land use regulation. You will also learn about the different roles that cities play in the land use process. Note: This mini course is designed to introduce you to core concepts about land use decisions. For a more thorough understanding please see our full length Land Use course. By completing this course, you will: • Explain why cities regulate land use • State the importance of the Municipal Planning Act • Recognize that cities play multiple roles in the land use process • Classify the types of discretion that cities have to make land use decisions Access this course now Subject Matter Expert Jed Burkett, Loss Control/Land Use Attorney - League of Minnesota Cities Features Videos, infographics, downloadable materials, and knowledge check — learn more about MemberLearn. Cost Free https://www.Imc.orgAearning-eventsAaarningsAand-use-mini/ 1/1