Planning Commission Agenda 11-07-2002
.
.,
j.
4.
5.
.
6.
.
AGENDA
REGULAR MEETING - MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION
Thursday - November 7, 2002
8:00 P.M.
Members:
Council Liaison:
S tafT:
Dick Frie, Robbie Smith, Richard Carlson, Rod Dragsten and Lloyd Hilgart
Clint Herhst
Jeff O'Neill, rred Patch, and Steve Grittman
I . Call to order.
2. Approval of the minutes of the regular Planning Commission meeting held October 1,2002.
Approval of the minutes of the special Planning Commission meeting held October 14,
2002. Approval of the minutes of the special Planning Commission meeting held October
28, 2002.
Consideration of adding items to the agenda.
Citizens comments.
Public Hearing - Consideration of a request for a conditional use permit and variance
allowing construction of accessory structure in excess of 1200 square feet. A ppl icant:
Craig and Naomi Schibonski
Public Hearing - Consideration of a request for preliminary plat approval for Monticello
Business Center 2nd Addition. Applicant: Michael Krutzig and Daryl Krutzig
7. Review revised sketch plan f()r the "Bruggeman" residential PUD, now referred to as M.W.
Johnson residential PUD.
8. SUl11lnary of the Fair Housing discussion at the HRA meeting of October 2, 2002.
9. Adjourn
- 1-
.
.
.
MINUTES
REGULAR MEETING - MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION
Tuesday - October 1,2002
7:00 P.M.
Members Present:
Absent:
Staff:
Dick Frie, Robbie Smith, Richard Carlson, Rod Dragsten and Lloyd Hilgart
Council Liaison Clint Herbst
JeffO'Neill, John Glomski and Steve Grittman
1 . Call to order.
Chair Frie called the meeting to order at 7:05 p.m.
2. Approval of the minutes of the regular Plannin~ Commission meeting held September 3.
2002.
A MOTION WAS MADE BY ROBBIE SMITH TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE
REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD SEPTEMBER 3,2002.
RICHARD CARLSON SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED
UNANIMOlJSL Y.
.,
.J.
Consideration of adding items to the agenda.
Chair Frie asked stafr if they were aware of the R V that has been parked in the parking lot of
Mississippi Shores for the past few months. Someone from the audience stated that this R V
has been parked in the lot for approximately 5 months now. Staff was unaware of this and
Frie asked John Glomski or other city staff to follow-up on this matter.
4.
Citizens comments. None.
5.
Public Hearing: - Consideration of a request for preliminary plat approval. Applicant:
Glen Posusta.
Steve Grittman provided the staff report advising that the applicant was requesting to expand
the Amax Mini Storage. The lots meet the zoning standards, although a proposed drive"vay
extension from Cedar Street into the expansion area was not part of the original review and
would require separate PUD approval. He stated that the subdivision appears to be
appropriate for approvaL with conditions.
Grittman noted several issues with the application such as the need for easements and
grading. drainage and utility plans. although he did note that thc applicant had dropped of
preliminary grading plans earlier in the day that need to be reviewed by the City Engineer.
Grittman stated sidewalks/pathways were not shown on the plans. phasing was unclear,
conveyance of land from the City to the applicant would need to be finalized. and therc are
non-conforming signs and advertising elements within the boundaries of the project which
-1-
Planning Commission Minutes - 10/01/02
.
staff vvould expect to be eliminated. Grittman clarified the portion of the ROW that the City
would be vacating as part of the Highway 25 project.
Chair Frie opened the public hearing. Glen Posusta, applicant commented that sidewalks
are shown on both sides of Cedar Street and he does not see the need for both in that area at
this juncture. Grittman stated it was common to have a significant amount of pedestrian
access in commercial areas for pedestrian circulation. O'Neill stated that was added to the
Cedar Street project by the City Council, which includes development from Dundas Road
and south to Kjellberg's, due to the magnitude of traffic in that area. He added that the City
is trying to develop, over time, a policy requiring sidewalks on both sides of roads, rather
than forcing pedestrians to cross to get to sidewalks. O'Neill advised they would be
connected. Posusta added that there is an existing pathway on one side of Hwy. 25 and he
felt this would be redundant and that this was an added cost, not only to himself. O'Neill
stated there is room in the boulevard and would not be taking any additional land, and that
the City Council could re-Iook at this when going over plans and specifications, as it would
be up to them to take out the sidewalks if they wish. Dragsten asked if there was a sidewalk
north of Chelsea Road on Cedar, and it was stated only on the one side. He stated he does
not feel there would be a lot of pedestrian traffic either. O'Neill added that there is another
development of approximately 170 homes in that area that will need to use the future
sidewalks, and that they are follovving patterns of other cities.
.
Chair Frie then dosed the public hearing. Smith asked Posusta if he was aware of the
conditions listed in Exhibit Z and did he have any concerns with them. Posusta stated he
understood the City's issues with his signage and he said his plan is to eventually put a sign
on the corner. but he has to acquire the property first. He added that it is his goal to put up a
conforming sign and remove any and all other signage, and anticipates having this done by
next spring. O'Neill added that he would need to get another approval for the sign as this
would be an off site area for signage. Smith stated he vvanted Posusta to understand that the
signage issue needs to be taken care of regardless of the outcome of this item.
A MOTION WAS MADE BY ROBBIE SMITH TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE
AMAX ADDITION PRELIMINARY PLAT, SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS LISTED IN
EXHIHIT Z AS FOLLOWS:
.
I. City agrees to convey required land to the applicant to complete the plat.
2. The plat is redrawn to include the required eascments, per City Engineer recommendation.
3. The applicant submits grading and drainage plans to the City Engineer for approval. This to
allow coordination of site development \\ith Cedar Street project.
4. The applicant coordinates site development with utility planning done by the City via the Cedar
Street improvement project.
5. The applicant submits street and sidewalk plans to the City Engineer for approval. or the
applicant petitions for Cedar Street and utility improvements. and cnters into an assessment
agreement relating to funding of Cedar Street project.
6. The applicant brings signage and truck parking into compliance with the City's zoning
ordinance.
-2-
.
Planning Commission Minutes - 10/01/02
RICHARD CARLSON SECONDED THE MOTION.
There \vas further discussion by Dragsten that he did not feel that there should be sidewalks
on both sides of the road. O'Neill advised that the Parks Commission would need to be
involved in that decision and that may not be particular to this site. O'Neill suggested that
this request be brought back at a future meeting. apart from this item. There was no further
discussion. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSL Y.
There was a recommendation from the Planning Commission to direct the Parks
Commission to review the issue on sidewalks within this area, and the results to be brought
back to the Planning Commission at the next meeting.
6. Public Hearillll - Consideration of a request for re-zoning from R-l to R-2A. Applicant:
Tom Holthaus. West Side Market.
Steve Grittman advised that the applicant was requesting to rezone, stating that as a result of
improvements to Co. Rd. 75 and other associated improvements to the intersection of Otter
Creek Road, as well as not being able to expand, the applicant's site has been affected and
therefore is proposing to change the use to a residential development.
.
Grittman summarized the criteria for consideration for re-zoning and advised of the
comprehensive plan calling fi.)r Broadway as a grand entrance street. I Ie added that the
current improvements to Broadv/aY are helping to facilitate that concept with reconstruction,
ne\v lighting and landscaping. Revitalization of the housing stock is an important
component of that goal also. Grittman stated that one \vay to make the zoning change to R-
2A compatible would be a housing plan that would include two stories with traditional
detailing and front porches: front setbacks closer to the street, preserving usable rear-yard
open space: adequate setback from Otter Creek Road: and compliance with other R-2A
design clements, including substantial landscaping and architectural details. Grittman
advised that 2 story's would not change the density. Another issue is the eventual redesign
of Otter Creek Road.
Chair Frie opened the public hearing. Ed Solberg. 1204 Sandy Lane, stated that he feels the
current plan is a gloritied mobile home park. He felt to change the re-zoning due to the
applicant's economics is not a reason for re-zoning. He also felt this was spot zoning.
.
Candy Johnson. 1233 Sandy Lane. stated she was speaking against the re-zoing in that she
feels this does not best support the land use on this site. Johnson stated that she and others
she has contacted had no objection to changing this land from the granclfathered use of a gas
station to a more compatible use of housing. Their concern is of density. She states the lots
are much larger on Broa(hvay ancl they feel there is a variety of homes giving a good mix of
home styles. but these would be 8 identical homes, which they felt are not compatible with
the other homes in that area. Johnson added they do not feel there is a demonstrated need
for this type of housing in this area as there arc other developments occurring in other parts
of the City for this type of housing. She added that the she didn't feel the square footage
..,
-,)-
.
Planning COlllmission Minutes - 10/01/02
conforms to the R-2A standards. Also. the setbacks of other houses would not be
compatible. She questioned whether this type of housing really brings people into the
neighborhood that would be the type that \vould stay there and have families that would go
into the schools. Doesn't feel that the smaller starter homes would bring in more students.
Diane Peters. 1120 Sandy Lane, stated she concurs with the other residents, not objecting to
housing development, just density. She noted some of the homes already in that area are on
too small oflots.
Arnold Stehler, east of the Westside Market stated that he preferred they stay as a market.
He did question how far the homes are required to be from the street and would they be in
line with the other homes. Grittman stated current R-I zoning states 30 ft. from the street
and these appear to be 45 feet, and that the homes would have double garages. Strehler felt
this would be too many residences, too much noise pollution already.
M iehe1e Berthiaume, 1112 Sandy Lane, stated her concern is that with the construction on
Broadway changing the sidewalks, etc., and that her children have to walk down Sandy Lane
to Otter Creek Road and then to Broadway. that this would add more children walking and
crossing in this area. She is also uncomfortable with this number of units in this area.
.
Chair Frie asked the applicant to respond to the concerns of the residents. Tom Holthaus,
applicant stated that it is not economically feasible for him to build only 2 to 3 units. The
market will close in 60 to 90 days and the consequences are that they cannot afford to tear
down the building and build on only 3 lots. stating the lots would be well O\er $100.000
each. He added that across the road from the Johnson' s is a to\vnhouse development and
this proposal would be no different. Holthaus stated they could build 2 story homes and
place them back /i'om the road. He added that the ramblers initially proposed would have
sold t()[ over $150.000. and 2 story's would sell for even higher. He questioned if there was
a specific area that the city was looking for R-2A zoning that he was not aware of. He stated
that the road in the back of the homes would change to a common area and therefore there
would be an association.
Holthaus advised that the square footage of these homes would be approximately 1.456
sq. ft. for a traditional 2 story with a porch on the front. and he stated that these will fit on
the same lots with the same setbacks. Grittman advised this was well in excess of the
standards for R-2A.
Chair Frie closed the public hearing. Carlson asked staff about bike paths and sidewalks on
the north side of Broadway. O'Neill stated that was a disappointing occurrence as there had
been a problem with existing trees and drainage issues. and Council had to make a decision
between trees and sidewalks.
.
I lolthaus advised of access problems from Broadway. stating the County \vould no longer
allow that. He also stated individual access from the road to the fronts would not be
allowed, but no problems with access off Otter Creek Road. Dragsten stated that in reply to
-4-
Planning Commission Minutes - 10/0 1/02
.
comments II'om a resident that the city bends over backvvard to help developers, he noted
that Holthaus had come before the Planning Commission a number of times 'vvith requests
which have not been approved. He added in regard to the statement that there would be an
increased number of cars at these residences, there are hundreds right now with the
convenience store and this would be cut down to approximately 16 cars at 2 trips a day.
cutting down traJlic significantly, and as far as noise pollution, this would only be helping
the situation versus the current market. Dragsten did add that he agrees that the applicant
needs to mect lot sizes. as well as all other zoning requirements.
Hilgart agreed with Dragsten that there would be less traffic with the proposed housing and
the values of the existing properties should not decrease as the properties would be of the
same value.
Frie stated he 'vvas surprised that he did not hear hom anyone regarding concerns with
lighting as there had been previous concerns by the residents with lighting 24 hours a day,
and he added that issue would be eliminated with this housing proposaL Frie asked how
receptive the residents would be to allowing Holthaus to expand and double the size of his
convenience store rather than allowing the style of housing being proposed.
.
Holthaus advised Carlson that the homes would be 2 story with crawl spaces and that he was
not sure how Otter Creek Road would align with Broadway. so the end unit would not be
built until that was finished approximately in 2004. They discussed varying the setbacks,
exterior bcades. roof lines and elevations, to make the houses look more individual. They
also mentioned the Prairie Creek development across Broadway and that they vary in color
and design. Robbie Smith questioned if Holthaus needed to build 8 units to make the project
work and he stated that was correct.
Ed Solberg asked if those last few lots could be built on and Holthaus stated yes. Dragsten
added that if everything falls into place they would be 2 buildable lots, right now there
would be 6 lots. The City does own some of that property where the end 2 lots are.
Grittman stated that if the City finds that they do not need the additional land for street
purposes, they would most likely sell those pieces off.
Candi Johnson apologized if she did not make herself clear on her previous comment on the
homes and the number of students they would generate. She noted the staff report stated that
this would support more families with students. She reiterated that some types of homes
seem to generate more families than others. Carlson asked how Johnson related that to the
value of the home. but she could not say what the values were. She added that this site was
zoned R-l when the convenience store was built. Chair Frie reminded Johnson that the
public hearing had been closed and added that the number of new students stated previously
did not relate to the values of these homes. There was no further discussion.
.
A MOTION WAS MADE BY ROD DRA.GSTEN TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF
THE REZONING TO R-2A. BASED ON A FINDING THAT THE PROPOSED ZONING
MEETS THE CONDITIONS OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE FOR REZONING
-5-
.
.
.
Planning COll1mission Minutes - 10/01/02
APPROVAL INCLUDING CONSISTI-::NCY WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
AND COMP A TII3ILlTY WITH TIlE NEIGHBORIIOOD. LLOYD HILGART
SECONDED THE MOTION.
There was further discussion by Carlson asking for clarification that they are directing the
developer to proceed with 2 story homes. Dragsten stated that was in his motion but that he
did not object to one level. There was no further discussion. MOTION CARRIED 4 TO 1
WITH ROBBIE SMITH VOTING IN OPPOSITION.
ROBBIE SMITH LATER QUESTIONED THE VOTE COUNT OF 4 TO 1 STATING HE
HAD VOTED IN FAVOR OF THE MOTION. CHAIR FRIE DIRECfED TO CORRECT
THE MOTION DUE TO THE MISUNDERSTANDING. THEREFORE, MOTION TO
APPROVE REQUEST pOR REZONING TO R-2A CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
7.
Public Heminl! - Consideration of a request for an amendment to the sian rel!ldations
I.':overninl! Lluantitv and size of siunage for lar!!e site, multi-tenant commercial developments.
Applicant: Jacob Holdin!!s of Monticello. LLC (Dennv Hecker).
Stcve Grittman advised that the applicant was looking to add a dealership to their facility
and hoping to develop a separate pylon sign for identification. Traditionally the city based
the number on the size of the parcel. Staff was concerned with using the number of
businesses as criteria. Grittman advised that there are cities that adopt ordinances that allow
more pylons based on size of the property. although those tend to be larger sites such as 10
to 20 acres. If they were to pursue this they would look at lot sizes of at least 5 acres. Staff
is concerned about prol i feration of requests for signs, therefore their recommendation would
be allowing more wall signage on larger buildings versus free-standing.
They discussed what other communities use for determinating number of signs and Grittman
stated he has seen multiple signs on pylon structures, which seems to be a more common
approach.
Chair Frie opened the public hearing. Bill Rambow, Jacob Holdings of Monticello. LLC,
representing Denny Hecker. stated that Grittman vvas correct in that KIA would piggy back
on another dealership sign but that in this case it was Chrysler who would not allow that.
Rambow stated the problem is that KIA doesn't have any signage at all at this time, and they
are requesting a ti'eeway side pylon and a wall sign on the Chelsea side for KIA. frie asked
Rambow if additional ti'ee standing signage was approved, vvoldd he be receptive to a
monument sign and Rambow stated that a monument sign would not be visible from the
freevvay. although he did state that a monument sign on Chelsea Road with wall signage on
the /i'eeway side would \vork. Chair Frie then closed the public hearing.
Dragsten commented that Denny Hecker is a nice addition to Monticello and c10es feel that
KI A needs signage. but also that having 50 to 100 cars parked on the front side also gives
good exposure. Dragsten liked the idea of monument signs. Carlson stated his preference
about a year ago was to have monuments on Chelsea Road and suggested taking the sign off
-6~
.
.
.
Plann ing Co 111 III ission Minutes - 10/0 1 /02
Chelsea Road and putting it on the free"vay side. but Rambow stated that would not be
doable as they need signage on Chelsea as well. Rambow stated that monument signs work
fine up to 40 mph. but after that they have no affect and if a pylon can't be added on the
freeway side. he would need wall signage on the freeway side as well as signage on Chelsea.
They discussed limitations on Chelsea Road and Grittman thought it was limited to number
of pylons/free standing based on number of road exposures, so according to current
ordinance it would have to be amended, as with pursuing a monument on Chelsea and a wall
sign on the freeway side.
Grittman stated that the current ordinance may accommodate for this type of wall signage
and this may not even be a concern. Rambow asked if they could put wall signs on both
Chelsea Road and the freeway side and Grittman stated they probably could. noting that the
new Towne Center has exposure on two sides as well.
A MOTION WAS MADE BY ROD DRAGSTEN TO RECOMMEND DENIAL OF A
SIGN REGULATION AMENDMENT. BASED ON THE FINDING THAT THE
EXISTING ORDINANCE PERMITS ADEQUATE BUSINESS IDENTIFICATION.
DICK FRIE SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
A MOTION WAS MADE BY DICK FRIE DIRECTING STAFF TO MEET WITH
MR. RAMBOW TO DISCUSS WALL SIGNAGE ON CHELSEA ROAD AND THE
FREEW ^ Y. ROD DRAGSTEN SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED
UNANIMOUSLY.
Robbie Smith added that he appreciates that Mr. Rambow is always willing to work with
City staff.
8. Public I !carin!.! - Consideration of a rec.luest for a conditional use permit and variance
allowine, aecessorv structure in excess of 1500 sq. [1. Applicant: Randv Rutf
John Glomski provided the staff report stating the site plan that was provided was not
typically what staff would accept. but that they felt they could work with it. He added that
this afternoon he \vas out at the property and found that the lot is actually 100 feet wide, not
the 70 feet the applicant had stated on his drawing. Glomski stated this does not change
staffs recommendation.
Glomiski stated that the applicant was proposing to section down the pole barn to 930 sq. ft.
which \\ould gi\e him a total of 1601 sq. 1'1. exceeding the 1200 sq. ft. allowable. as well as
exc(Tding the maximum of 1500 sq. ft. allowed by CUP and therefore the request for a
variance as \\ell. He summarized the zoning ordinance and the 4 conditions that the
applicant would han? to meet. He also stated that the applicant does not Illeet requirement
for a variance as no hardshi p can be determined. Therefore staff recommends denial of both
the CUP and the yariance.
- 7-
.
Planning COl11mission Minutes - I % I /02
Chair Frie opened the public hearing. Randy Ruff. 6] 1 Elm Street, stated that he was trying
to move the building without destroying it and having to rebuild. He also questioned ifhe
eould keep the existing tin roofbut vvould side with vinyl siding to match his existing house.
He clarified that this woulJ be tor personal storage only, not an expansion of Ruff Auto. He
also stated that there would be a development across the street in the future and he would
like to make his siJe of the street more presentable. lIe added that he is willing to make the
building smaller, but would like the maximum allowable.
.
Chair Frie closed the public hearing. It was clarified that the maximum height allowed is 15
feet. The applicant stated he would like to take portions in 7 foot increments which could
get him down to 1.5] 2 sq. ft. which he would prefer. Ruff added that there would be
increased labor costs i I' he were to have to take the building down any more than that. There
was discussion as to the area around Mr. RutT s property and it's future use and Ruff stated
that he does not plan to develop on the west side at this time. The other area is destined for
residential. They again asked if Ruff could possibly meet the] 500 sq. ft. maximum
requirement. Frie added that the Planning Commission's attitude is that they prefer to have
the accessory structures Ii)!" storage, but if at all possible they would prefer that it fits in with
the residential area and meet the size requirement without requiring a variance or CUP.
O'Neill stated he empathizes vvith Ruffs request but he feels this will set precedence in
other areas of town. O'Neill felt they may be creating a problem by allowing this. Ruff
stated again that he nl'eds this It)r personal storage.
A MOTION WAS MADE BY ROBBIE SMITH TO DENY THE CUP BASED ON TIlE
FINDING TIIA T TilE APPLlC ANT'S REQUEST DOES NUT' MEET THE
CONDITIONS FOR GRANTING A CUP. DICK FRIE SECONDED THE MOTION.
There was further discussion by Dragsten advising the applicant that he could request a CUP
for the 1.500 sq. 1'1. accessory structure. Hilgart concurred and also added that the structure
should have v'inyl siding to match the existing structure. There was no further discussion.
MOTION CARRIED J TO 2. WITH DRAGSTEN AND HILGART VOTING IN
oPPOSrrION.
A MOTION WAS MADE BY ROD DRAGSTEN TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF A
CUP ALLOWING A 1500 SQ. fT. ACCESSORY STRUCTURE WITH VINYL SIDING.
LLOYD IIILGART SECONDED THE MOTION.
There was furthl'r discussion that the tin roof was allowable as long as the color was similar
to the existing home. After no further discussion, MOTION CARRIED 4 TO I WITH
ROBBIE SrvlITl1 VOTli\G IN OPPOSITION.
.
A MOTION WAS rvlADE BY ROD DRAGSTEN TO DENY THE VARIANCE REQUEST
BASED ON TilL FINDING THAT THE REQUIREMENT FOR HARDSHIP IS NOT
MET. LLOYD '"LG!\RT SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED
UNANIMOUS/. '{.
-8-
.
.
.
Planning Commission Minutes - I % I /02
Richard Carlson added that he had a concern with the zoning of the former Ruff Auto site
with the statement by Randy Ruff that a portion of that property could possibly be
commercial. O'Neill stated there is nexibility with the PZM zoning and staff is not under
any obligation to allow commercial in a PZM zoned district.
9.
Discussion reuardinl.! temporary siun regulations as the v pertain to multi-tenant commercial
developments.
O'Neill stated that staff did not proceed with a public hearing due to the length of the agenda
as well as the lack of direction from the Planning Commission. Frie stated he preferred to
have the Planning COll1mission give direction to staff after holding a public hearing and
responding to comments from the public.
They discussed holding a workshop inviting multi-tenant businesses and researching other
cities to compare with and use as a guideline.
It was suggested to focus on multi-tenant businesses. put together a table of options, and
schedule a 'Aorkshop prior to a Planning Commission meeting. It was the consensus of the
members to hold separate meetings. one being an open house with a limited time from 7 pm
to <) pm. headed by Steve Grittman and starr. This will be open to the general public and
staffwill ac!\'ise the Chamber of Commerce also.
10.
Review buildinu plans for consistencv with Autumn Ridue pun requirements.
.Jeff cr Nei II provided the staff report adding that this came about when the building permit
application \\as submitted. There was a discrepancy with the minutes li'om the Planning
Commission meeting I(H" what the applicant had proposed and with what was actually
submitted. O'Neill advised that the minutes stated the homes would be 1700 sq. ft. finished
but the developer advised that he had stated the homes would be 1700 sq. ft. tinishable.
ThereflJre. the Planning Commission is asked to review this for clarification as to what their
understanding was. O'Neill advised that the developer is in compliance with all other
req uirements.
Frie asked Shawn Weinand, developer. if he was still looking at selling prices between
$130.000 and $150.000 and he elaritied they would actually be between $135.000 to
$170.000. lie also stated this is a PZM district with square footage requirements of 750 sq.
ft. finished. but that he had stated previously they \voldd be building with standards that
exceeded this. He also advised that he sees no problem in building to 1700 sq. ft. tinishable,
but that he did not mmt to be bound tl) that either. Frie asked Weinand to clarify finished
and finishahle. Frie advised that he \vas under the impression that these would be 1700 sq.
n. finished. not 900 sq. ft. Weinand stated he l'elt he was clear that these would be a range of
walkouts and split entries. and he apologized ifhe was misunderstood. He did add that they
also have many amenities and that at the previous meeting Mr. Dragsten had specifically
asked him about the square footages. therd()fe he thought they were clear.
-9-
.
.
.
Planning Commission Minutes - 10/0 1/02
Weinand achised that the homes would be a mix of912 sq. ft. and 888 sq. iL averaging to
900 sq. ft. Robbie Smith added that he understood also that these \vould be 1700 sq. f1.
tinished and he would like to review the tape from that meeting. Frie then asked John
Glomski. who had reviewed the tape, what his opinion was. Glomski stated that he could
understand the confusion and that from the dialogue he would think that Weinand had meant
1700 sq. ft. tinishable. O'Neill added that perhaps the misunderstanding came from
dialogue regarding meeting/exceeding the minimum standards.
Carlson added that he felt Weinand's presentation was for main level square foot finished
and expandable. Weinand also referred to another Planning Commission meeting when he
initially brought up the concept plan and he was sure that square footage was discussed at
that time as \vell. Dragsten added that he remembered asking staff if this proposal met the
minimum standards and also that he knew that these would not be 1700 sq. [1. finished at the
price Weinand had stated. l-Iilgart concurred that he understood these to be iinishable square
footage. There \vas no further discussion and Chair Frie directed stafTto issue building
permits to Mr. Weinand as submitted.
A MOTION WAS MADE BY DICK FRIE DIRECTING STAFF TO ACCEPT BUILDING
PLANS AS CONSISTENT WITH THE APPROVED PUD. RICHARD CARLSON
SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSL Y.
It was stated for the record that the homes would be 888 sq. ft. to 912 sq. f1.. averaging 900
sq. n. finished. Rod Dragsten asked that statTwork with Steve Grittman to discuss the
Planning Commission start looking at square foot averages in the future. and to place that
discussion on the November agenda.
11.
Sunnv Fresh Foods has applied for a special meeting on Monday. October 14.2002. prior to
the Citv Council meeting to discuss amendments to their CUP to allow truck parkin!!. bulk
LP storage. service bay additions and paving for bulk waste transport. sidewalks and
landscaping. Please let staff know if vou will not be able to attend so that we can determine
that there will be a quorum.
Chair Frie asked the other members if they were able to attend the special meeting.
A MOTION WAS MADE BY ROBBIE SMITH CALLING FOR A SPECIAL MEETING
OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ON MONDA Y. OCTOBER 14. 2002 AT 6 PM TO
DISCUSS A REQUEST FROM SUNNY FRESH FOODS FOR AN AMENDMENT TO
THEIR PlJD ALLOWING EXPANSION OF TRUCK PARKING, BULK LP STORAGE,
SERVICE BA Y ADDITIONS AND PAVING FOR BULK WASTE TRANSPORT.
SIDEWALKS AND LANDSCAPING. LL,OYD HILGART SECONDED TI-IE MOTION.
MOTION C-\RRIED UNANIMOUSL Y.
-10-
.
.
.
Planning Commission Minutes - 10101102
12.
November Plannin~ Commission meeting date contlict with City Council.
Jeff O'Neill advised the Planning Commission that thc regular meeting scheduled for
Tuesday, November 5 is election day and therefore \vould need to be rescheduled. He also
advised that it could not be moved to the following Tuesday duc to the City Council
rescheduling their regular meeting to that day. There was also a conflict with Wednesday,
November 6 and therefore staff is asking that the meeting be scheduled for Thursday,
November 7, 2002. Chair Frie advised that he would be unablc to attend but the other
members had not conflicts.
A MOTION WAS MADE BY ROBBIE SMITH TO RESCHEDULE THE NOVEMBER
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING TO THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 7, 2002 AT
7 P.M. LLOYD HILGART SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED
UNANIMOUSL Y.
13. Adiourn.
A MOTION WAS MADE BY ROD DRAGSTEN TO ADJOURN TI-[E MEETING AT
9:50 P.M. ROBBIE SMITH SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED
UNANIMOUSL Y.
Recorder
- I 1-
.
MINUTES
SPECIAL MI'~ETING - MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION
Monday - Octoher 14,2002
5:30 P.M.
Members:
Ahsent:
Staff:
Dick Frie, Robbie Smith, Richard Carlson, Rod Dragsten and Lloyd Hilgart
Council Liaison Clint Herhst
Jeff O'Neill and Fred Patch
1. Call to order.
Chair Frie called the meeting to order at 5:30 p.m. and declared a quorum.
2.
Consideration of allowinl.! a 36' pvlon sign to be incorporated into an approved planned unit
development. Applicant: Dave Peterson Ford/Jeff Sell. West Metro
.
.lefT O'Neill provided the report advising that the applicant is asking f()[ a separate pylon
sign to advertise a new franchise. This sign is to replace a sign that has already heen
approved via PUD when the overall sign plan was approved. He stated normally that would
be acceptable, but in this case there was no record of what the sign height or area was. The
proposed sign makes it 4 feet taller than what is currently allowed and therefore would he in
violation of the code. O'Neill stated the question was how tall the original sign was, adding
that they asked Mr. Sell and Mr. Peterson to provide this information, but they had no record
oCthis either. Today Mr. Sell informed O'Neill that he did find information that the original
sign height was 36' and therefore would be allowed.
Jeff Sell, Metro West, 1001 Ilwy 25, stated he received a letter from Ford Motor Co. dated
10/1 0/02, verifying that the sign was 36 feet. Sell advised that the letter was signed by Tom
McShane, Marketing Rep Specialist in charge of Ford's marketing. lIe added that they are
placing this sign within 5 ft. of the original sign. He also stated he was not aware of the 32'
limit, he was going by what appeared to he the height of the other signs in the area, adding
that this is a basic, medium size sign of the Ford Motor Co.
hie stated that from his conversation with O'Neill, what the applicant has now provided and
put on record justifies what was initially intended to he put up. Frie advised Mr. Sell that the
Planning Commission must start maintaining a consistency in the code regarding signage,
and the need for hringing them into conf'()rmiu1ce. Fric added that if they can basc their
decision on what was originally approved they would feel comf(Jrtable with that. O'Neill
concurred and stated it is up to the Planning Commission to determine if the letter from Ford
is acceptable.
.
Fred Patch advised the sign is approximately 135 sq. ft., stating they would be allowed up to
200 sq. ft., comparing this sign to the Dunlo sign which is 200 sq. ft. it is considerably
smaller. Patch also stated that the freeway ramp changed elevations when it was redone,
lowering it by about 4 feet, and therefore the sign will end up being approximately 8 feet
higher than what is now allowed by code, hut only duc to the fact that this is a replacement
-1-
.
.
.
Special Planning Commission Minutes - 10114/02
for what was originally approved. There was further discussion on verifying the original
sign height, consistency, and that the Amoco site across from the applicant's site was not
allowed to replace their existing sign at 36 feet. Patch advised that Amoco has chosen to
keep the existing sign and make no changes at this tinle.
A MOTION WAS MADE BY RICHARD CARLSON TO APPROVE THE
INSTALLATION OF THE SIGN UNDER THE ORIGINAL PUD STANDARDS, BASED
ON A FINDING THAT THE SIGN IS WITHIN THE INTENT OF THE ORIGINAL
PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT. ROD DRAGSTEN SECONDED THE MOTION.
There was further discussion to add to the motion that the sign width be limited to 135 sq. ft.
and height to 36 feet, as well as staff to verify the letter from Mr. McShane of Ford Motor
Company.
RICHARD CARLSON AMENDED IllS MOTION TO ADD THE LIMITED SIGN
I!EIGHT AND WIDTH, AS WELL AS STAFF VERIFICATION OF THE LETTER
FROM MR. MCSIIANE. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
,.,
,) .
Consideration of an amendment to conditional use permit for planned unit develonment
allowing for expansion of truck parkilU!, hulk LP storage, service hay additions, paving for
bulk waste product transport sidewalks and landscaping. Applicant: Sunny Fresh Foods
./eff (J'Neill provided the report stating that Sunny Fresh Foods was requesting an
amendment to their CUP and noted there were a numher of concerns such as a license
agreement, employee count for the area, and that staff wanted to use this opportunity to
address these concerns. Their redevelopment plan is positive for this area of the city, but
they want to make sure all these issues are taken care of as well.
O'Neill stated that Sunny Fresh put together a site plan, but that it was somewhat rushed to
have it ready for this special meeting. Unfortunately, the plans submitted on Wednesday
were changed and not received back from Sunny Fresh until late on Friday, so neither staff
nor Steve Grittman had sufficient time to review. He added that the Planning Commission
could request that Sunny Fresh go through another planning cycle so a full report could be
provided hy Steve Grittman prior to the next City Council meeting, adding that they could
still get the project started before the snow. O'Neill also advised that stafThas been trying to
work with Sunny Fresh to get this project through quickly due to the construction season.
O'Neill provided comments received from Grittman via e-mail relating to the original site
plan which included the following issues:
I. No setback for on-site landscaping adjacent to railroad/pathway.
2. Inadequate screening of trailer area/rom south.
-2-
Special Planning Commission Minutes - 10114/02
.
3. Crushed granite material tl)r trailer surface areas - paving only in automobile
parking lot area. If selni-trailcrs will damage asphalt, applicant should consider
concrete - gravel/crushed granite does not meet City code.
4. Curbing around parking area? Plan not clear.
5. No landscaping adjacent to property to north - fence will not screen view of
trailers.
6. Drainage issues based on City's Storm Sewer system - Engineer indicates that pipe
size may not be adequate.
7. Plain gravel surf~lce shown in right of way of Linn Street - should be paved to
provide acccss to parking and storage areas.
8. Lighting plan - shows a light on power pole in rail/5th Street R.O. W, and "wall
pack" lighting on buildings - need a photometric plan.
.
9. Wastewater hauling station on 4th Street side - should be moved to meet 5 foot
setback, and provide landscaping/screening between edge of driveway/concrete
apron and sidewalk.
Other issues are raised by this proposal, including location/need for LP Gas tank location,
and subdivision necessary to split this parcel from the Little Mountain Feed property.
Grittman added that given the time frame, he did not think they should proceed. There a
number of basic compliance issues, not to mention engineering/public works concerns that
should be reviewed, as well as the need to analyze parking issues and employee counts.
O'Neill addressed a few of the issues such as the current curb line and landscaping being
placed on the ROW, stating that because the ROW is not currently being used the Planning
Commission might allow them to place a buffer there. O'Neill also stated he was unsure of
(Trittman's response to outside storage area in that gravel/crushed granite did not meet city
code as he felt that as long as Sunny Fresh was able to control dust it may be allowed.
There was more discussion regarding the paving of Linn Street and submittal of photometric
plans. The applicant had not indicated they would be paving Linn Street and staff wanted
some type of material to control the dust. O'Neill stated that staff had suggested moving the
"waste discharge" area also. Dennis Darnell, head of manubcturing at Sunny Fresh Foods,
addressed the Planning Commission and stated they had looked into relocating the waste
discharge area but that it was not possible, and he further explained the process. It was
advised that the city did not want to vacate l,inn Street as they may need the street in the
future, therefore the city issued a license to Sunny Fresh to use the street. O'Neill added that
perhaps the license agreement could state that Sunny Fresh would be required to maintain
Linn Street.
.
-3-
Special Planning Commissioll Minutes ~ 10114/02
.
O'Neill stated that the issues brought up by Grittman could be resolved by meeting further
wi th Sunny Fresh and that there was no major concern regarding the expansion.
Chair Frie opened the public hearing. Frie asked Mr. Darnell to address the commission.
Darnell thanked the starr for their help in organizing this matter and stated they really have
about 4 di fferent projects at this time and are concerned with the weather. As far as the
recommendations that have been made, he did not feci they were unreasonable. Darnell
further stated they did not plan to pave Linn Street as they felt it was too expensive, and that
they arc not using it for anything other than egress for car and trailer parking.
In regard to the concern with the area where they currently pump the waste, he stated it was
a physical problem in that they would need to add about 20 feet of hose and that would make
it impossible for one person to handle. He did state they have other plans for ventilation
along that side of the bui Iding. They would do the best they can on north side with
plantings, admitting it was bad right now. In regard to curbing, he felt they have enough
room, but they would change plantings rather than break up the curb line, adding that he felt
it lookcd pretty good right now and thcy have other plans that will dress it up further. It was
advised that curbing still needs to be discussed as far as where they need to lay curb for
future expansion. Darnell added that they are hoping to improve the area and make the
traffic flow safer as well.
.
Roman Svoboda, owner of a property on 4th Street and Linn Street, stated he is concerned
about the whole project as the way it is now the noise is quite extravagant and people cannot
sleep with their windows open. He asked if the project goes forward would it increase the
noise or will there be a barrier? Darnell stated that one of the measures they have taken was
to improve their refrigeration as a portion of the noise was from the pinions on the trailers
running, stating previously they did not have the capacity inside the building to handle
refrigeration. Darnell added that the plan for parking the trailers in the area that they have
suggested will also help, stating this should cut the noise 801);;) to 90%. Svoboda also added
that the trucks that move the trailers back and forth do not appear to have the proper mutl1ers
either, and Darnell added they are not street grade and it is certainly something that can be
addressed and will take that under advisement.
Chair Frie then closed the public hearing. There was further discussion regarding the time
frame, but the members not comfortable in making a decision on such Sh011 notice. They
also felt that Sunny Fresh could work with staff in resolving the issues and they were
comfortable with the building department issuing a permit for the applicant to get footings
in. It was stated that there were concerns maintaining Linn Street and this would need to be
worked out with the Public Works Department and Engineering. Frie suggested several
options such as tabling the matter and holding a special meeting in two weeks, prior to the
City Council meeting, or table it to the November meeting.
.
Chair Frie asked Darnell ifhe was aware of the 9 concerns listed by Grittman, stating he felt
-4~
.
.
.
Special Planning Commission Minutes - 10114/02
that these eould be worked out with staff. and Darnell stated he had not seen the list but was
aware of some of the issues and felt conlldent that these issues could be worked out with
staff. Darnell added that the area they are asking for a building permit for was for employee
safety issues, stating if s a small part of the whole project, and asked that if at all possible
eould they get started on the footings due to the safety issues.
It was the consensus orthe Planning Commission to proceed with the huilding permit and
table the other items to a special meeting. Patch agreed a permit could he issued, hut added
that there are many site related issues that need to be addressed.
A MOTION WAS MADE BY ROD DRAGSTEN TO TABLE ACTION AND CONDUCT
A SPECIAL MEETING OF TilE PLANNING COMMISSION ON OCTOBER 18, 2002
AT 6:00 P.M. ROBBIE SMITII SECONDED TIlE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED
UNANIMOUSL Y.
A MOTION WAS MADE BY ROD DRAGSTEN TO APPROVE THE ADDITION FOR
TilE SUNNY fRESH PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT TO PROCEED WITH
FOOTINGS AND CONSTRUCTION. RICHARD CARLSON SECONDED THE
MOTION. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
4.
Adjourn.
A MOTION WAS MADE BY ROBBIE SMITI-I TO ADJOURN TIlE MEETING AT
6:30 P.M. RICHARD CARLSON SECONDED "f"HE MO'flON. MO'rlON CARRJED.
Recorder
-5-
.
MINUTES
SPECIAL MEETING - MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION
Monday - October 28, 2002
6:00 P.M.
Mcmbers Present:
Staff:
Dick frie. Robbie Smith. Richard Carlson, Rod Dragsten, Lloyd Hilgart and
Council Liaison Clint Herbst
Jeff O'Neill
I. Call to order.
2.
.
.
Chair Frie called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. and declared a quorum.
Tabled: Considcration of amendment to conditional use permit for planned unit
developmcnt allowing for cxpansion of truck parking. bulk LP storalle. service bay
additions. pa\inl.! for bulk waste product transport. sidewalks and landscapinl.!. Applicant:
Sunnv Fresh foods
JefT O'Neill provided the stafT report stating that Fred Patch. Ollie Koropchak and Steve
Grittman had met with Sunny Fresh representatives regarding the previous issues noted at
the special Planning Commission meeting on 10/14/02. Some of the concerns included
curb setback. storm water drainage issues. and the need tor delineators on the east side of the
parking lot. 0 'Neill stated staff felt there could be somc allowance in regard to the curb
setbacks. It \vas noted that the site does not meet City standards tor drainage and that there
would be overt1ow into the railroad ROW. O'Neill added that typically any site would be
asked to meet City standards and that City Engineer Bret Weiss had advised that this would
not add a great deal of expense to the applicant.
O'Neill advised that staff had not yet received employee counts. stating there is a greater
demand for parking with this expansion. and that there are strict requirements for parking in
the CCD. O'Neilllisted the conditions for approval. noting that the Planning Commission
could require all or just a number of the conditions. Ollie Koropchak, Economic
Development Director, stated that from the IDC's standpoint, they want to ensure
communication is up-front and all businesses are treated consistently.
Chair Frie opt::ned the public hearing. Frie askt::d Tim Sarracco, Sunny fresh Foods, if he
was familiar with the list of conditions stated in the staff report and Sarracco stated he had
received the memo from Steve Grittman, but had not seen the staff report. O'Neill then
went through the list of conditions with him and Sarracco noted a concern with the request
for parking delineators on the east end. stating this \V-auld be difficult as they maintain their
garbage dumpster pick-up/drop ofT at that end. Their goal was to maximize employee
parking and that is why they asked for the curh line to be kept where it is at. He also stated a
concern \vith adding parking area \vhich would make it difficult for snow plowing. They did
add more trees for screening. but they need to have egress to that building for trailers, stating
the trai !ers move in and out of that area approximately 6 times a week.
-1-
Special Planning COl11mission Minutes - 10/28/02
.
In regard to the concern with storm water drainage and ponding, Mr. Dewey Gunnarson,
Meyer-Rohlin, advised that they arc proposing to extend the current 12" storm sevver line
west to the new building. He stated that vvith previous additions/expansions, the 12" was
approved by the City and they are anticipating the same with this expansion. He noted there
was not room for retention ponds. Gunnarson advised that they have crushed granite and
gravel surfaces. and right now the storm water is spilling into the railroad area and they arc
diverting it to two ponding areas. the trailer storage and the auto parking areas. He stated
that this is the best they can do at this time and remain cost effective for Sunny Fresh. He
did state that they would be willing to work with the City Engineer on this concern. Frie
asked if they would be receptive to installing a larger pipe size and Gunnarson stated yes,
but questioned it as he stated typically it is not a good idea to fit larger pipe with smaller
existing pipes, but again stated they would work with the City Engineer. Frie then asked
Sarracco if they were planning on providing staff with employee counts and he stated he had
them with him tonight.
.
The Planning Commission then discussed concerns with buffering. especially on the
Community Center side, as well as the concerns with drainage. Sarracco added that they
have plans to improve the area, which is City property, and they would continue to maintain
it all the way down the property line. It was suggested that the City work together with
Sunny Fresh to address tree plantings and buffering. Frie advised that he had also
discovered that there was a very noisy cab parked at Sunny Fresh which was a concern of a
resident at the last meeting. Frie advised that Mr. Darnell had stated at the last meeting that
he would address that concern.
There was further discussion that the increased curb setbacks were not necessary. but they
would request the applicant to add additional trees. They asked that Sunny fresh work with
staff on possibly staggering the trees. They were also in favor of removing the condition that
a treatment plan for storm water run ot'fbe provided. O'Neill had advised that the City is
requiring all developments in the new areas of town to provide treatment systems, but there
is not space in the old part of town. He added that both Federal and State would eventually
put in place rules that the City would need to address. It was suggested that the City address
the issue at that time. Frie asked that a photometric plan in full compliance with City .
standards be listed as a condition for approval. O'Neill did state that staff had received a
lighting plan.
There was further discussion regarding a large privacy fence on the north side of the trailer
storage area and that it did not make sense to request landscaping on the interior of that
fence as there would be no public visibility there. They also discussed the condition
regarding delineators and the need for them. but O'Neill stated that this is a typical standard,
although if there is t()und to be a reason to not have them. for maneuvering, etc., that should
be looked into. He added that the Planning Commission should discuss this further before
~ .
striking it fi'ol1l the conditions. There was no further discussion.
.
A MOTION \VAS MADE BY ROBBIE SMITH TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE
SUNNY FRESH PUD REQUEST, SUBJECT TO THE CONDITIONS AS MODIFIED
-2-
.
.
.
Special Planning Commission Minutes.. 10/28/02
AND LISTED ^S FOLLOWS:
a.
Amendment to the site plan showing zero (0) setback as proposed by Sunny Fresh,
howe\er site plan should show a staggered double row of pine plantings between the
pathvvay and the Sunny Fresh curb. If space does not allow for two rows between
pathway and Sunny Fresh curb, one of the two rows of pine plantings should be
placed on the Community Center side of the pathway.
b. Provide for additional parking island delineators at eastern end of each parking isle
unless delineator interferes with garbage truck movements.
c. Storm water plan should be designed to meet storm water design standards for
volume control.
d. Documentation regarding parking stall demand to be provided by Sunny Fresh.
Sunny Fresh to comply with minimum standards for parking or provide funds to City
in accordance with the City code.
e. Establishment of a license agreement allovving Sunny Fresh to have use of the Linn
Street Right-or-Way.
f. Photometric plan must be provided that is in full compliance with City Ordinance.
RICHARD CARLSON SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED
UNANIMOUSL Y.
3.
Robbie Smith stated that he had been contacted regarding a concern with employees of
Towne Center parking in the parking lot as opposed to parking in the Liquor Store parking
lot. Clint Herbst advised that initially that was how the parking would be set up if there
became a problem with parking in the Towne Center lot. It was also stated that this should
be a concern of the tenants.
Chair Frie asked O"Neill if the new swan sculpture at the Community Center was going to
be lighted. He stated that he had received several calls requesting that it be lighted. Frie
was advised that Kitty Baltos was vvorking with the electrician to get the lighting installed.
4. Adiourn
A MOTION WAS MADE BY ROBBIE SMITH TO ADJOURN THE MEETING AT 6:45
P.M. RICHARD CARLSON SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED.
Recorder
-3-
.
.
.
Planning COIl1ll1ission Agenda - 11/7/02
5.
Public Hearing: Consideration of granting a conditional use permit and variance
allowing construction of an accessory structure in excess of 1200 square feet.
Applicant: Craie: and Naomi Schibonski. (FP)
A. REFERENCE AND I3ACKGROUND
Craig & Naomi Schibonski, 105 Ilillcrcst Road, have submitted an application for a land
use permit to the Monticello Planning Commission. The application requests that the
Monticello Planning Commission hold a public hearing to consider the following actions:
I. Conditional Use Permit to allow Construction of accessory structure in excess of
] 200 square feet total accessory structure area. The total proposed accessory
structure area includes both the area of the existing attached garage (572 square
feet) and the proposed detached garage (832 square feet) for a total accessory
structure area of 1404 square feet.
2.
Variances to allow:
A. Construction of an accessory structure to be constructed in the front vard
of the lot. City ordinances require that detached accessory structures must
be located behind the rear line of the house. On this lot and given the
location of the existing house, a rear yard placement of a new accessory
structure is not possible. The lot is odd in shape. It is also a corner lot.
The corner is formed by a very long sweeping eurve on Ilillcrest Road.
The front of the lot is to the north and the side fronting on a public street is
on the east. The rear yard is between the south side of the house and the
south property line. The new accessory structure is proposed to be located
on the north side of the house, which is in the front yard as defined by city
ordinance.
8. The existing house is constructed 16.2 feet from the south property line in
the area that would be considered the rear yard. The rear yard building
setback to property line is 30 feet. This existing non-conforming
condition must be recognized in consideration of both the conditional use
permit and variance request.
C. Installation of a second driveway approach and curb cut to provide vehicle
access to both the existing attached garage and to the proposed detached
garage. Each driveway approach will be on a diiTerent street as the lot is a
corner lot. Ordinances allow only one driveway approach per residential
parce]
.
Planning Commission Agenda - 11/7/02
11. AL TERNA TIVE ACTIONS
Action 1:
.
Action 2:
Action 3:
.
Conditional Use Permit
A. Motion to reeommend approval of a conditional use permit
allowing construction of accessory structure in excess of 1200
square feet, for a total accessory structure area of 1404 square
feet.(or olsome other area as determined appropriate by the
Commission) subject to the following conditions:
i. The accessory structure must be constructed with the same
exterior finish materials and roof pitch as the principal
structure/residence.
11. The accessory structure must not be used for any business
purpose other than those allowed by the zoning code as
permitted home occupations.
III. The accessory structure must have window openings
toward Hillcrest Road so as to create a street fhmt hlCade
that will be more residential in character than that of a fully
enclosed garage.
IV. Every effort should be made to protect and preserve mature
trees on the subject property.
B.
Motion to recommend denial of a conditional use permit allowing
construction of accessory structure in excess of 1200 square feet.
Variance - Second Curb Cut
A Motion to allow a variance providing for location of a second curb
eut driveway approach for the subject residential parcel, based on
the following findings:
I. The lot is a corner lot that will allow for a broad expanse of
landscaped yard along the street frontage and provide visual
separation of the two curb cut access driveways.
2. The second curb cut and drive must be paved and will
prevent blighting conditions that may be caused by driving
over the lawn.
3. Other findings as determined by the Commission.
R. Motion to deny a variance providing t()r a second residential curh
cut.
Variance - Front Yard Accessory Structure
A Motion to recognize the non-conforming condition of the existing
2
.
.
.
Planning Commission Agenda - 11/7/02
residence and allow a variance providing for the construction of a
detached accessory structure in the front yard of the subject
property, based on the following findings:
1. That a reasonable use of the lot and residential livability are
subject to hardship caused by the unique lot shape on a
corner of Ilillcrest Road.
2. The residential dwelling on the subject parcel was
constructed in the rear yard setback area and fronts on the
side yard fronting on Hillcrest Road. The front yard
effectively becomes a wide side yard. The proposed
location is the only location available for construction of an
accessory structure.
3. Other findings as determined by the Commission.
B. Motion to deny a variance allowing construction of an accessory
structure in the front yard of the subject parcel.
c.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
It is the opinion of staff that 1,200 square feet of accessory structure is sufficient
and recommends denial ora conditional use permit allowing for a greater area. If
the proposed accessory structure were 24' x 26' in dimension (624 sq. ft.), the
conditional use permit would not be required. The slightly smaller size along
with reducing the distance between the house and accessory structure may also
help to preserve an existing mature maple tree in the front yard.
Accessory structures arc routinely located in rear yards without a paved driveway
from the accessory structure to the street. It is the understanding of staff that the
accessory structure proposed is primarily for personal property and would not
routinely be used as a residential automobile garage. At this time staff does not
believe that a second curb cut and driveway should be allowed; however, it is
likely that in the future the existing attached garage area will be changed to living
space. The applicant may at that time remove the existing drive and curb cut, and
build a new curb cut and driveway between the street and the new accessory
structure.
Given the location of the residence on the parcel and the unique configuration of
the parcel, staff believes that a variance allowing the accessory structure to be
built in the "front yard" is reasonable. The "front yard" in this case for all
practical purposes appears to be the side yard fronting on a public street. It is
setback well from the street and should not diminish the property value of this
property or other surrounding properties.
3
.
D.
.
.
Planning Commission Agenda - 11/7/02
SUPPORTING DATA
Exhibit A - Copy of Application with Applicant's Request
Exhibit B - Copy of Existing Land Survey
Exhihit C - Copy of Proposed Site Plan
Exhi hi t D - Aerial
Exhibit E - November 1,2002 Letter Ii'om Neighbor - 107 Hillcrest Road
4
CITY OF MONTICELLO
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
505Walnut Street, Suite 1
Monticello, MN 55362
(763) 295-2711
Planning
Case # OIY - 04d.-
.
PUBLIC HEARING APPLICATION
Check Requested Action:
:2-. CONDITIONAL USE. $125 + all necessary consulting expenses*
_ ZONING MAP/ TEXT AMENDMENT. $250 + necessary consulting expenses*
SIMPLE SUBDIVISION. $125
SPECIAL PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING - $350
SUBDIVISION PLAT - $300 + $1 OO/acre up to 10 acres; $25/acre
after 10 acres + expenses. City will refund excess of per-acre deposit.
L VARIANCE REQUEST - $50 for setb.ack/$125 for others + nec. consult. expenses*
OTHER - - Fee $
* NOTE: Necessary consulting fees include cost to have City Planner analyze variance, rezoning, & conditional use permit
requests at the rate of $75/hr" The need for City Planner assistance !s determined solely by City staff.
Phone(Home)
C~ajg V- NtuJrY\J'
105 Ht{lLrC-5f
O?Fjc; - 3tJl ~
,~hWon5k.L'
Road . rYlnnJ{ Cd to I
t 1
Fax:
YVLr\
6531:,~
Applicant Name:
Address:
Business:
Property Address: 105 HI {t (' rc.5 f Road
Current Zoning: f{e.'5l" dcnlio....l
Legal Description of Property:
.
Lot: 7
: Block:
.;;.
,
; Suhdivision:_-1:1L Lure '51- 11.. cldl"fLO n
Other:
/LJl!t/OOl
\.I1tY-1nI- 6c1~~ 17
D:lte
Property Owner Signature
Date
Applicant Sigmlture (if applicable)
(CONTINUE ON BACK...)
.
Phapp.han: 1010 L02
J^/.. J.", .~ I V CD
Date Received/Amount Paid: lOJ11-f12.':3/~~-=-
Receipt Number: ___~ _ _
Publi, Hm;ng DOl" ~,,1 - C> ~ I ~6 A-
FOR ZONING MAP AMENDMENT ONLY: Proposed Zoning:
FOR SIMPLE SUBDIVISION ONLY: Sizl: of parcel to be divided:
FOR SUBDIVISION PLAT ONLY: Size of Parcel to be Platted:
Acres
.
Name of Firm Preparing Subdivision Plat:
Street Address:
City:
State: _ Zip:
Phone:
FOR VARIANCE ONL Y: Please identify the unique property conditions or hardship that exist that justifies granting a variance. A
hardship exists when by reason of property narrowness, shallowness, shape, or .exceptional topographic or water conditions, combines
with strict application of the terms of the ordinance result in exceptional difficulties when utilizing the parcel in a manner customary and
legally permissible within the district in which the lot is located.
Our house l.va~ bu;lf Fo..C~hj 111.(. ea:~t -SIde- of OLLr WYn~ r- lot) bt0+ thG
noyfh.. -:;Ule..- of fhL propevfl) 15 tOI'1>S{ rI~rr-d -I-ht' FroY'} + of fine Idf. I.Uc Wtt.rL-t
fa ~({d. ~ deJa..~d CJ.L6L'SSOY''j bud(!/L~ fo I-hr rkJrfj, l-UL5f- of ::>u..~ haU-5't.
WhlCh IS btJHfld the r-wu~(/ /r: If!'^- look ProM.. the..- fCL-S4-mt if /5
ih fi-onJ- of' Kt(..., hol.15!- 1 f (lOLl /cOk From rhe norfh. iil( va rla..nLL
,
wDH--l d CL{(OW LA-S to pu-+ fhe 9tlY1:V~C- in Pr()Yl-f (11 fhe hr-H.L5c' a-s l}OU
look Ii-:pr-n. +he Y)Q~,
.
**************************************************************************************************************
(For City Use Only)
COMMENTS:
.
Phapp.han: I % I /02
".'
FOR ZONING MAP AMENDMENT ONLY: Proposed Zoning:
FOR SIMPLE SUBDIVISION ONLY: Sizt: of parcel to be divided:.
. .
FOR SUBDIVISION PLAT ONLY: Size of Parcel to be Platted:
Acres
Name of Firm Preparing Subdivision Plat:
Street Address:
City:
State: _ Zip:
Phone:
FOR V ARI ANCE ONLY: Please identi 1'1' the un ique property conditions or hardsh ip that exist that justifies granting a variance. A
hardship exists when by reason of property narrowness, shallowness, shape, or .exceptional topographic or water conditions, combines
with strict application of the terms of the ordinance result in exceptional difficulties when utilizing the parcel in a manner customary and
legally permissible within the district in which the lot is located.
Our f.1(?U-se WC<~ hu; If Ftlc~,:,-., fhf-. ea--5f -SIde- of our CoYnf'.r lotI bu_,,-f. the:
norfh..sule..- of fhL prapeff'Lj 1-5 r_on-!.~rI~r:d tnI' F,..-Qnf of H'le /d+. i.Uc..Wtt.t'L~
fo ~({d. '^- de--tCt(;JUJJ a....Lt-c."5$Oy~. budd~ fo f-hr flnrl-J... Cri.JL:;./- of ::'iLr:- hal1-s't
Whlt-h IS' be..Jun.d fhe Ylou<5(, It: UOH. /QQk Protvl the- fCL-Sf} buJ ,+ IS
in fi-onJ- 01" fh.t-- hOH$!- If iJOu.. l~k FrorYl the norfl"1. 111( va ria,net.
,
WO/tu d allow IA..S fo pu.+ fhe ljttrtltJc:.. lh fyonf of fhe hdLL~C a..:; l)OU
look. From. fhe nonn.
--
**************************************************************************************************************
(For City Use Only)
COMMENTS:
.
Phapp. han: 10101/02
/,'
------------------
---....
-.....~
..........~
.....
'''''',
'",
,
'""
~ ~ \\
" (C3a,
"\ ~.". \
\" \
\ \
\ \
\ \
\ \
\ \
\ \
00 ~'~ i
n I' n I
I ,
I i
I f
I i
.
~~~- - .~--
- --, - - --- - ---~ - -------.......
t'.f
SPlll R.., L HNC[ ------.........
:-""-
-n.-.,
Z
.
8
------1-----
,
f
I
,
,
I
.
....
~
~
....
l.u
~
fg
.
~
~
,
10 I
/.?
---....."
.....~
"-
~ ~
4~ 6> "
"~..
..?.$'....
~~~
"
10
"
,
I
,
I
,
I
''i
I :.
'IS
j~
''''
I~
,0
I~
'~
Ii
.,.
I
"-
'" 1jJ
'"
, ,,^, ....0
"" \
\
,
\
\
,
\
,
\
,
\
2
7
:>l
~I
g
"( N 87056'54" W 120.49
I
I ~ I EXCEP7I(KrI ,
~ I
i-~1-------------------___l
,
I
I
6
5D
~ Q'IIl:Q: 01
.
.c- \' \ k 5;tc p\a"
~ c:.. Y') \ () 0.-1 S t
z
z
--------
----
--
---
.....
...-
~
"...
....
,/' .-
// ..--------- - i
// _.a //
/ ~.". / -
// ~ /'
. .L ,,{1 /' ~2'O
- +'''/ - --- ~
I -.--.J-
'.{, 1 l/ #tfI'1\~_';. /' /---
r ((){\V \; /
'J tri; -I ~ />
,/ ./1 if / '"
! r ~ /
lq / :3 ~
i ~ I
II 0(" / It,, ~3'1
" ':r.~ f+
! ! - _ __~ 1 '?"'''~~':'~~'~____.J
(t. _ ~
J~.6LJ
". b
.Arr(C))( Lou..t\O-,
~. 1\e\\O,",O KOMI
:;
~
......------..~--~
~~l
y-.,-;, 1
<t, I
I
I
5~
,__- -
~
3v/~
~
~
.
~
-..;
...
~.~
....
t .....
~ ~
~ ~
~
'"
c:a
:c:
oc
5?
.3 IILI: ,90. ~ N
~
I
I
c:a
--T
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
.
.
_..'''''_fliWk d
""....,/.'... ..'.. f. borholl
Schibonski Nel9) _
Lot line locations .5fe
estimated.
/,1\
.
OD
.
.
.
To: Monticello Planning Commission and City Council
From: Paul and Jo Ann Zemke, 107 Hillcrest Rd.
Date: November 1, 2002
Subject: Opposition to Conditional Use Permit and Variance
Requests by Craig and Naomi Schibonski
Our property is next to the property on which the Schibonskis wish to build
~n oversized garage. We have owned this property for more than 30 years.
We are adamantly opposed to the Schibonski's request and hope the
Monticello Planning Commission and City Council concur.
Our reasons are:
(1). The proposed garage will be built within 10 feet of our property line and
out from our front and back bedroom windows. We will no longer have a
view of the front road that swings around the corner.
(2). Thirteen years ago we built a $20,000 four season room on the back of
our house to take advantage of the east, west, and south views of the area.
The proposed garage will block our east view and box us in on that side.
(3). Building an oversized garage in the Schibonski's from yard and the
resulting blocking of our view will result, we believe, in lowering our property
value.
(4). The request for a second driveway which will be located to the front
side of our bedroom windows creates a potential nuisance noise and loss of
sleep situation for us.
(5). Hillcrest Addition is a mature neighborhood. The construction of the
proposed garage will result in the loss of a beautiful maple tree. Also, the
neat and orderly arrangement of home after home facing the front street
will be interrupted.
(6). Building ordinances exist to protect property owners in situations like
this. Please uphold your ordinances and deny this request.
My wife and I invite you to visit our property and see for yourself why the
Schibonski's requests should not be approved.
(1 a...( c..J' ~
Paul A. Zemke
~ ~ 3~'2L-
Jo Ann Zerrtke
- ._,~.
.
.
.
Plann ing COll1m ission Agenda - 11/07/02
.
6. Public Hearing: Consideration of a request for a Preliminary Plat for Monticello
Business Center Second Addition. Applicant: Michael and Darvl Krutzi2;. (NAC)
REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND
The applicants are seeking approval of a Preliminary Plat for a three-lot commercial
subdivision of property between Cedar Street and Highway 25, south of School
Boulevard. On the south, the property abuts the Kjellberg West Mobile Home Park, and
is crossed by three major power transmission lines. The design of the proposed plat
shows three commercial parcels, all approximately 2.3 acres in area, with between 290
and 311 feet of frontage on Cedar Street. The area under the power transmission
easement is proposed to be platted as an outlot.
.
All three of the lots exceed the requirements for commercial property under Monticello's
zoning regulations. There are two issues relating to the outlot that should be addressed,
however. first is the alignment of Cedar Street. The street is currently platted, but
unbuilt, as it is shown on the proposed plat, dead-ending into the mobile home park
approximately 317 feet from the edge of the II ighway 25 right of way. The City hopes to
extend Cedar Street to the south past the mobile home park.
To facilitate this objective, it would need to curve west toward the trunk highway, then
south along the Ii"ont of the mobile home park as a frontage road. As such, the plat may
need to be revised to better accommodate the curves in this street. Because the final
design is still being worked out, stafT would recommend that I,ot 3 and Outlot A be
contained in a single Outlot, pending the resolution of this issue. A final plat can latcr be
approved for this lot when the right of way is known. This process should not delay any
commercial construction, since Cedar Street will not be built until its right of way is
finalized.
The second issue involves the platting of the casement area as a separate outlot. Staff
would recommend that it be included as a part of Lot 3 on the eventual JInal plat. rather
than a separate outlot. Whatever area is not needed for the Cedar Street right of way
extension could be used for parking area, increasing the buildable options on the
remainder of Lot 3. Moreover, Outlot A has no other future use except as parking for Lot
3. Therefore, it could result in a situation where the future owner (if separate from Lot 3)
has little incentive to continue to pay taxes on the land. The City would not wish to end
up with this parcel as public land.
.
Planning Commission Agenda - 11/07/02
.
ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS
1. Motion to recommend approval of the Preliminary Plat for Monticello Business
Center Second Addition, with the condition that Lot 3 and Outlot A are combined
into a single Outlot A, pending determination ofthe Cedar Street alignment, at
which time a final plat can be processed for the parcel with the appropriate right
of way, and without any future outlot remnant
Motion also contingent on integration of future site plan development/final plat
with the city road and utility plans for development of Cedar Street right of way.
2. Motion to recommend approval of the Preliminary Plat as presented.
3. Motion to recommend denial of the Preliminary Plat, based on a concern that the
plat is premature.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
.
StatT recommends approval of the Plat as suggested in Alternative I above. This would
permit Lots 1 and 2 to proceed to final plat stage, with Lot 3 awaiting a resolution on the
Cedar Street alignment. It is likely that the new Cedar Street will require curved right of
way not shown on the plat, and that the residual land not needed for Cedar Street could
then he included in the Lot 3 area, to he used for parking supply. The resulting plats
would show no remnant outlots. Platting as proposed would leave a portion of the
proposed Outlot A as a remnant - needed neither for right of way, nor available to use by
Lot 3.
SUPPORTING- DATA
Proposed Preliminary Plat
.
2
.
.
~
.
f
ill'
lid
..~,
11,1
,
I
J. I
f( ,
I; ~
h r, 1 n i
'~l ~i J~ I =i il
I i I! . ~~I I)
f i' J 'ij i I ~
Ii i I! ~. ~ !I il
Ii II i jit III !~ h
fl. I! . i-II f ~ I~
Iii If j f Jl~ Ii d U
/'
~t;!t;!1I!
Utt
5151
IIII
..........
I~!!~
!!!!li
s:llllVA
b :~ lli
...J 'I'~ )'
~ g:"UJ1J ~f~~ ~
u 1>':1 '
- I,
~ : ~ J'
I- I M I
1______.-<__
B311lVA
,
,
,
\
\
\
\
\
I
I
I
.L33~lS
"
~
~ l\l
-<I ,~
~ &I it ~
~ e ~~~!
~ ~ ~I~!;
..!iil ~ :;l~
3j I'-- C1.I.
.,.,.....J
I
~~
J"
II
!
~ J
. il !
~ ~ j
&
.
02
=J::>'
w_
u>-
-f-
f-z
z:::J
00
::>'u
LLf-
OI
>-'2
f-O:::
-- ~
u_
.
z
o
~
UJE-i
UJ~
~Q
ZQ
~<
UJQ
;::JZ
~O
OU
~~
~UJ
~~
2~
E-iE-i
Zz
O~
~U
.
?~
1~
'"\"";;:'::::::;':'::':Sl ~
r c ._. _ _=::'
l~' I --. - --
! . g
I I c;--.J
, ,.J
. ..Ij
C'€.~"i:~IR
,,~ 'f,S'S
~\JS\l-"
IE!
~ ~
~ i~ .
l!l~;(I~
!;~ml
~~I;~
i
~i
i ~: n
~~ Iki...... __........Ii.. "
r ~ '..
I~ ;i"~ r,
~i ~i J Ii
II II j:
%
~
~
'2.
~
~
't
I
'0
, g
~ 4 Ilsi
~ r' II~
~~ - - J It.
51 - u 1 I"S
ji: ~, .hl
I~ I ~i~.
-.~ ~
i~ i~r
t
G
)
1
1h
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
,l',-,'.
"'"
o
m
l-
U
o
u
:s
>-
Z
<(
CL
::>.
o
u
(f)~
>-0
W>-
--.W
.... >
0:::0::
=:l:::J
(l)Ul
o
~- Z-
0-0:
_1----'
~
&>
.
.
.
Planning Commission Agenda - 11/07/02
7.
Review revised sketch Dlan for the "Bruggeman" residential PUD. now referred to
as MW Johnson residential PUD. (.10)
REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND
This is to let the Planning Commission know that Bruggeman Homes is no longer the
single huilder proposed for the development at the eastern boundary of the City and north
of the Freeway. The new development company is MW Johnson out of Lakeville, MN.
MW Johnson has provided a revised plan for Planning Commission review. Planning
Commission is asked to review the concept plan update and determine whether or not the
plan is consistent with the plan that has been previously approved.
City Staff has reviewed the new concept plan and SUpp01is recognition of the plan as
being consistent with the plan that was recently approved. According to Steve Grittman,
the new plan represents an improvement over the original plan hecause the housing mix
replaces townhomes with detached townhomcs. In addition, the attached 6-8 unit
townhome housing design is in a "row" format versus a box design which is also
superior to the original plan.
MnDOT has provided a proposed alignment of the freeway in the area and it now appears
that there will he minimal impact to the site. The site plan has been adjusted accordingly.
ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS
I. Motion accepting the revised concept plan presented by MW Johnson as being
consistent with the original concept plan submitted by Bruggeman Homes.
Under this alternative the developer will proceed to the preliminary
plat/development stage PtJD.
2. Motion to deny acceptance of the revised concept plan presented by MW Johnson
as not heing consistent with the original concept plan submitted by Bruggeman
Homes.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends alternative 1.
SUPPORTING DATA
Information provided hy Developer and Engineer (MFRA).
.
.
.
Planning Commission Agenda - 11/7/02
8.
Summary of the Fair Housim! Discussion at the HRA meeting of October 2. 2002.
(O.K.)
A. Reference and background.
At the HR^ meeting in October, the commissioners discussed local Fair Housing issues
in the community and developed strategies to meet any deficiencics. The exercise was
mandated because Federal Dollars were used and paid to the City of Monticello for the
$500,000 loan to Twin City Die Castings. In other words, this is part of the monitoring
required hy Cities who receive Federal funding.
Plcase read the summary noting the definition of the Fair Housing Act and the activities
completed. Please keep in mind and carry out the Suggested Strategies on page 3. No
formal action required by the Planning Commission, just record within your minutes.
.
SUMMARY OF THE FAIR HOUSING DISCUSSION
AT THE HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MEETING
OF OCTOBER 2, 2002.
As part of the grant application submitted to the Minnesota Department of Trade and Economic
Development by the City of Monticello for the Twin City Die Castings Company project and
because the grant dollars allocated to the City were HUD/Federal dollars. the HRA is to continue
to conduct public meetings to discuss local Fair Housing issues in the community and develop
strategies to meet any deficiencies. The commissioners also reviewed the Community FHEO
Summary Sheet submitted with the application. The following is a summary of the discussion:
Council member Brian Stumpf asked the Executive Director if she was aware of any
deficiencies? The Executive Director of the Housing and Redevelopment Authority responded
that she was unaware of any discrimination in the sale or rental of housing within the City of
Monticello. As far as any deficiencies in choice of housing? Housing permits within the last
year included: A range in value of owner-occupied. single-family housing permits (two
developments created within TI F Housing Districts) and the Landmark Square and East ]I" Street
rental housing permits.
1.
Definition Fair Housing Act: Title VIII of the Civil Rights Act of 1968, most commonly
known as the Fair Housing Act, prohibits discrimination in the sale or rental of housing
on the basis of race, color. religion, sex. and national origin. The Act was amended in
1988 to provide stiffer penalties and expand coverage to prohibit discrimination on the
basis of familial status and handicap. In addition to prohibiting a wide range of
discriminatory practices. the Act req uires that H LJ D programs be administered in a
manner that affirmatively furthers fair housing.
.
2. Fair housing activities that may be undertaken. One such activity listed was to conduct
public meetings (city Council. county commission, housing and redevelopment
authorities. regional development commissions. realtors, landlords. and citizen groups) to
discuss fair housing issues in your community.
3. The commissioners compared the 1990 and 2000 City of Monticello population
characteristics. The source being the US Census. The individual population in 1990
was 4.941 with approximately I % minority and 99% non-minority. The individual
population in :WOO was 7.868 with approximately 3% minority and 97% non-minority.
The greatest change in population by race/ethnic characteristics bet\veen 1990 and 2000
were: Hispanic 25 and 153. and Asian 26 and 43. Next the commissioners compared the
1990 and 2000 City of Monticello household characteristics. Number of units in 1990
was 1.908 units with 560;() owners and 37% renters. Number female head of households.
235. and O\er 65 age. 283. Number of units in 2000 was 2,944 with 72% owners and
28% renters. Numbcr female head of households. 380. and over 65 age. 234.
.
6
.
.
.
4.
The commissioners then looked at a Profile of Selected Economic Characteristics, 2000,
for City of Monticello. See Attachment A. Noted was the mean travel time to work. 26
minutes: median household income, $45,384; median family income, $53,566; median
earnings for male, $41.057 and female, $25.854; poverty status in 1999 - families 89 and
families with female householder, no husband present 43; median value of specified
owner-occupied units. $130.200; and median gross rent of specified renter-occupied
units. $571.
5.
Reviewed excerpts from the City of Monticello Building Code and Comprehensive Plan
Goals and Policies: The City should monitor housing development in an effort to provide
a full range of housing choices.
6.
From the League of Minnesota Cities: The Federal Government Office of Federal
Contract Compliance has advised that cities receiving federal funding need to work
directly with the Federal Agency from which funding is received to determine if an
affirmative action plan is required.
7.
Reviewed fair housing issues or impediments in Greater Minnesota as listed in the
statewide Analysis of Fair Housing conducted by the Minnesota Department of Housing
Finance.
FAIR HOUSING ACTIVITIES COMPLETED
WITHIN THE CITY OF MONTICELLO
1.
In 2001. the Monticello Housing and Redevelopment Authority authorized the Central
Minnesota Housing Partnership to conduct a housing plan for the City of Monticello as
part of the Wright County Housing Plan.
2.
In 2001. ajoint meeting was held among the Monticello City CounciL HRA. Planning
Commission. and other community leaders to hear the results of the housing plan as
presented by the Central Minnesota Housing Partnership.
3.
Working with the Central Minnesota I-lousing Partnership, the City of Monticello
submitted an application for funding to the Minnesota Housing Finance Agency. An
application were submitted in April 2001 and again. in September 2001. Both times the
application was denied.
4.
Although denied funding. the proposed low to moderate income, single-family, owner-
occupied housing and redevelopment project has proceed through the joint funding
etTorts of the City. HRA. Sunny Fresh Foods. Inc. (employer contribution). CMHP, and
the Greatcr Minncsota I lousing Agency. Groundbreaking anticipated by mid October,
2002.
2
.
.
.
5.
The City of Monticello Comprehensive Plan was amended in 2002 and one of the
housing goals remain: The City should monitor housing development in an effort to
provide a full range of housing choices.
SUGGESTED STRATEGIES
1. Provide the Planning Commission and City Council with a definition of the Fair Housing
Act as a means of promoting the Fair Housing Act.
2. Submit a summary of the HRA' s discussion on local housing issues to the Planning
Commission and City Council suggesting the continued monitoring of housing
development in an etfort to provide a full range of housing choices. Are there any
deficiencies in housing choices?
3. Suggest the City Councilor Administration work directly with the Federal Agency from
which funding was received to determine if an atllrmative action plan is required for the
City of Monticello.
.,
.J
~
Jun 11 02 05:01p
C@n~~al HN Hcusin~ P~nsp
320 258-8580
p.2
.
Table Dp.]. Profile of Selected Economic; Chilrac:terisdcs: 2000
Ceographic area: Monticello city, Minnesota
[Data based on a sample. For infonnatlon on confidenli~lity protection. sampling error, non"smp/ing error, and detlnitlons, see tll)(t)
Subjtlct
*'
eMPLOYMENT STATUS
Popul~tlon 16 y....rs and over. . . . . . . . . . . .
In labor force . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Civilian labor torca. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , . . .
Employed . . , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Unemployed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . - . . - . . . . . . . . . .
pen::ent of civilian labor force. . . . . . . . . . . .
Anned Forces. .. . .. . .. .. .. . .. .. .. . . .. . .. . ..
Not tn labor force.. . ............... ...........
Female. 16 y.ars and over . . . . . . .. .. . .. .
In labor fon::e . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Civilian labor force. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Employed. . . . . . . . . .. . . . . .. . . . .. . . . . . . .. .
Own children under 6 years. . . . . . . . . .. . . .
AD pa""nts in family in labor force . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
COMMUnNG TO WORK
Wortters 16 years and over ... . .. .. . .. . ..
~. truck. or van - - drove alone. ........ .. . _. .
Car. truck. or van - - carpooled. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Putllic tnamiportalion (including taxicab) . . . . . . . ..
Walked. .., - -' .. ...... .......... ...........
Othar means. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . - .
Worked at home . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Mean lTavel1ime 10 work (minutes)' ... . .. ... ...
Employed clvill~n popUlation
16 y_rs ~"d over. . . . . . . . . .. . . . . .. . . . .
OCCUPAnON
Management, professional, and related
oc:eupatiOl'ls ..................... . . . . . . . . . . .
Service ocaJpalions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
SaleS and office occupations ..................
Fam1ing, fishing, and foreslTy O<:cllpations. . . . .. .
ConstruCllon, axuaction, and malntenaocz
occupations ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Production, transpoMlion, and motl.,;al moVing
oecupations ..................... . . . . . . . . . . .
.
INDUSTRY
Agriculture, forestry, fishing and hunting.
and mining . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
ConstnJc1ion . . . . . . . . . , . . . . . . . . . . . . , . . . . . . . . . .
Manutacturin". . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Wholesale lr.Ide. .. .. . .. . .. . .. .. . .. .. . .. . . .. . .
Retail trade. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Transportation and warehousing. and utltl1i_....
Information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . - . . . . . . . . . . . ,
Finance, insuranca, real estate, and rental and
leasing. . . . , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Professional, scientific, management, admlnis-
traltve, and waste management servic:es . . . . . . .
Educalional. health and social setvir;:es . . . . . . . ..
Arts, entertainment, recreation, aca1mmadallon
and food service15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Olher services (eXQllpt public administration) ....
Public adminlstratlon. . . . . . , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
CLASS OF WORKeR
Private wage and salary workers. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Govemment wor1ters. . . , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Self-employed workers in OWO nol inootpOrated
businMS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Unpaid family workers ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Number Percent
s;nl
4,498
4,498
4,369
139
3.1
1,229
2,9901
2,174
2,174
2. 112
998
764
4,262
3,521
524
13
48
2a
128
26.0
4,359
1,243
655
1,273
17
446
3,741
430
165
2J
725
15
325
821
196
686
213
89
294
319
825
344
138
84
Subject
INCOME IN 1999
100.0 HOUHholds....... ......................
78.5 Less than $10,000............... ... .. ........
78.5 $10,000 10 514,999. .. . .. ..... . .. ... ... . ... ...
76.1 $15,000 10 524,999. .. . .. . .. .. . .. . .. . .. .. . ..--
2.4 $15,000 10 $34,999... . ... .. .. ... . __ .. . . .. ....
(X) S35,000 10 $49.999. .. . .. .. .... .. . .. . .. .. . . .. .
- 550,000 to S7 4.999. .. . .. . .. .. . .. ... .. . . .. . . . .
21.5 575,000 \0599,999...........................
100.0 5100.000 to $149,999. . .. --. .. .. . . . . .. .. . .. . . .
72.6 $150,000 10 $199,999. . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . .'
72.6 5200.000 or more . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
70.5 Median hOUS<lhold income (dollars). .. . . . . . . . . . .
100.0 With earnings. .. . .. . . . . .. .. .. . .. -- .. . .. . . . .. .
76.6 Mean earnings (dollan;;)' ....................
With Social Security income. .. . . . . .. . . . .. . .. . .
Mean Social Secul1ty Income (dollats)' .......
Wrth Supplemental Security lnoem. . . . . . . . . . . . .
Mean Supplemental Security Ineam.,
(dollars)'....... .... ......................
Wilh public assistance income. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Mean public assistance income- (dOllars)'
With retirement Income ....... . . . . . . . . . .. . .. . ,
llAean retiremenl income (doUars)'. .. , .. . .. .. .
100.0
82.6
12.3
0.3
1.1
0.7
3.0
(X)
Families . .. . .. . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. ..
Ltlss than 510.000. . . . .. . .... . .. . .. . .. ... .... .
100.0 $10,000 to 514,999. .. .. .. .. ... .. . .. . .. . .. .. ..
S15,ooO to $24,999...,.......................
$25.000 to $34,999. . . . , . . .. .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .
28.5 535,000 to $49.999. .. . ... .. .. . . . . . . . . . . .. . .. .
15.0 550,000 10 $74.999. .. ... . .. .. .. . . .. . .. . ... .. .
29.2 575,000 to S99.999. .. . .. . .. .. . .. . .. , .. . .. . . . .
0..4 5100,000 to $149,999.. .. ... . . .. . .. . .. .. . .. --.
$150.000 to $199,999.. ... .... .. . .. . . . ........
10.2 5200,000 or more . .. . .. .. .. . . .. . .. .. __ .. . . .. .
Median family incoma (dollars). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Percapila income (dollalS)' ...................
MedkMn Nmlngs (dotkMrs):
Male full.time, year-round workers. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
0.6 Femal.. full-lime. year-round workers ...........
7.5
18.8
4.5
15.7
4.9
2.0
16.6
Subject
6.7
7.3
18.9
POVERTY STATUS 'N llIM
Families. . . . . . .. . .. .. . .. . .. .. . . . .. . . . . . .
W~h related children under 18 yeans. . . . . . . .. . . .
With related children under 5 years...........
Famlll.. with fvmale ~oIcler. no
husband pntsent.. .. . .. . .. .. . .. .. . . .. . .
With related ehildr... under 18 Y"al'1l. . . . .. . . . . . .
With related children under 5 years...........
Number Percent
2.977
113
170
317
449
592
739
382
195
10
10
45,384
2,628
51.461
544
10,167
86
7,066
128
2,150
333
10,537
2,122
31
73
187
299
356
635
353
168
10
10
53.566
Hi.229
41,057
2S,8S4
Number
belOW
pov.rty
l.-vel
100.0
3.8.
5.7
10.6.
~N-
24.8
12.8
6.6
0.3
0.3
(X)~
88.3
(X)
18.3
(X)
2.9
(X)
4.3
(X)
11.2
(X)
100.0
1.5
3.4
8.8
14,1
16.8
29.9
16,6
7.9
0.5
0.5
(X) ~
(X)
(X)
(X)
Percent
below
poverty
Itrvel
89
65
39
4.2 rl
4.6
6.0
7.9
3.2
1.9
Individuals.. .... ... ... .. ..' ... ..........
85.8 18 years and over. . .. .. . .... .. .. .. . .. . .. .....
9.9 65 y""lS and over. . .. .. . .. .. . .. . .. . . . . .. . ..
Related children under 18 yeal':!l ...............
3.8 Rtlialed <;hildren 5 10 17 yeal':!l . . . . . . . .. .. . .. .
0.5 Unrelated individuals 15 yea", and over. . . . . . . . .
43
43
17
13.1 f-
15.8
23.6
367
230
45
121
85
117
4.6
4.3
7.4
4.8
5.0
9.2
.Represents zero or rounds to zero. (X) Not ~plicable.
'If the denominator ot a mean value or pIIr capita value ia lea than 30, then that value Is calculated using a rounded aggregate in the numerator.
See texl.
Source: US. Bureau of lhe Census. C&nsU$ 2000.
.
u.s, C&!"'UI B~rUI.I
3
25
Jun 11 02 05:01p
Cent~al HN Housin~ Ptnsp
320 255-5550
p.3
... a
1-"- .
.
Table DP-4. Profile of Selected Housing CharaCbllristics: 2000
Geographic area: Monticello city, Minnesota
[Data based on a sample. For infonnation on confidentiality prOtection. sampling error. nonsampling error. and definitions. see text]
Subject
Total t'lousln9 unl". . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . ..
UNITS IN STRUCTURE
1-unit. detadled. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .
1-uniL attached . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2 u.oits . . . . .. . .. . .. .. .. . . . .. .. . .. . . .... . .. n .
3 or 4 uniIB . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
5 to 9 unilll .. . . .. . .. .. . .. . .. . .. . .. .. . . . ... ...
10 to 19 unlla. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . .' .. .
20 or rnore units . . . . . . . .. .. . .. . .. . .. . .. ......
Mobile i'IornB. .. . . . . .. .. . .. . n . .. . . . . . . . . . ....
Boat, RV. van. ale . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
YEAR STRUCTURE BUILT
1999 to Marcil 2000 . . . . .. . .. .. . n . n . .. . .. . . .
1995 to 1998 ..... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . .. .. .
1990 to 1994 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . .. .. .
1980 to 1989 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . .. .. .
1970 to 1979 ... . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . .. . .. . .. ......
1960 to 1969 ................................
1940 to 1959 ....................... . ..... ."
1939 or earlier. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
.
ROOMS
1 rOom. . . . . . . . . .. .. .. .. .. .. .. . . .. .. . .. .. . .. .
2 moms.... ... ..... ... ...... ..... ..... ......
3 morns. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .' . .. .. . .. . . .
4 rooms. . . . . . . . .. . . .. . . . . .. . .. . .. . .. .. . .. .. .
5 morns. . . . . .. .. . . . .. . . .. .. .. .. .. . .. ... .. . ..
6 rooms. . . . . .. .. .. . . .. .. . .. . .. . .. . . .... .. . ..
7 rooms. .. . .. . . .. . . .. . .. . .. . .. .. . . .. .. . .. .. .
8 rooms. . . . .. . . .. . . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . . . .. .. . .. .
9 or more rooms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Median (rooms) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . .
Occupied MUlling unlta ... . .. . .. .. ....
YEAR HOUSEHOLDER MOVED INTO UNIT
1999 to March 2000 . .. ... . .. .................
1995 to 1998 . .. . . . . .. . . . .. . ..... . . . . . . ... .. .
1990 to 1994 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . - . . . . . . .. . . .
1980 to 1989 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .
1970 to 1979 . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .
1969 or eanler....... ........................
VEHICLES AVAILABLE
None. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .. .....
1 .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . .. . . ..
2....... .................. ....... ...........
3 or more. .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .
HOUSE HEATING FUEL
Utility gas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Bomed. tank. or LP gas. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Electricity. . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . .. . ..... .. . .
Fuel oil. kerosene. ele . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .
Coal or coke... ..................... .........
Wood... ......... ...........................
Solar energy... ..............................
Other fuel . . . . . . . . . . .. .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. .. . .. .
No fuel used. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
SELECTED CHARACTERlSllCS
Ladling complete plumbing facilities. . . . . . . . . . . .
Lacking complete kitchen facilities. .. .. . .. . .. .. .
No telephone service . .. . . . . .. . .. . . . . . . .. . .. . .
-Represents zero or rounds to zero. (X) Not appllcab\e.
Source: U.S. Bureau at the Census, Census 2000.
.4
3,005
Numboll' Percent
100.0
Subject
OCCUPANTS PER ROOM
Occupi..d housing units . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
1.00 or 1855. . . . .. . .. . .. .. . .. ...... . .. . .. ... ..
1.01 to 1.50 .... .. .. . .. . .. . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . .. ..
1.51 or mOAl... . .. . .. ... .. . .. ... . .. .. .. .. . . ..
1.771
347
33
112
53
185
294
210
222
678
351
798
418
130
186
222
58.9
11.5
1.1
3.7
1.8 Speclfl.s Dlllfner"Occupl.s unlls... . .. ..
6.2 VALUe
9.8 less than 550.000. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
7.0 S5O,OOO to $99,999...........................
- $100.000 to 5149.999. .. . .. . .. .. . ... .. ... ... ..
$150.000 to 5199.999...................... . ..
$200 .000 to 5299.999. . . . . .. . . .. . .. . .. . .. . . . . .
7.4 $300,000 to $499,999. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . ..
22.6 $500.000 to S999.999. . .. .. . .. .. . .. . .. .. .. . . ..
11.7 $1,000,000 or meAl. . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . .. .. .
26.6 Median (dollars). .. . .. .... . . .. . .. . . .. .. .... .. .
13.9
4.3
6.2
7.4
MORTGAGE STATUS AND SELECTED
MONTHLY OWNER COSTS
With a mongage . . . . .. . .. .. . .. . .. . .. ,..... ...
Less than $300 ....... .. .. . .. . .. . .. .. . . ..
$300 to $499 ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
S500 10 $699 . .. . . . . .. _. ... ...... ... . .. . .
$700 to $999 . .. . .. . .. .. .. .. .. . .. . .. . .. . .
$1.000 to $1,499 . .. . .. . ..... ... .. . .. . .. ..
$1,500 to $1,999. .. .... .. .. . .. . .. . .. . .. ..
$2,000 or meAl ..........................
Median (dollars). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Not mortga9ed. . .. . . .. . . . ... . .. . . . .. . ... .. ...
Median (dollars). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . .. . . .
26 0.9
90 3.0
240 8.0
529 17.6
480 16.0
390 13.0
524 17.4
386 12.8
340 11.3
5.9 (X)
2,927 100.0
774 26.4
1.131 38.6
486 16.6
330 11.3
125 4.3
81 2.8
172
902
1.430
423
-
2,230
~1
S34
84
.
- .
.
8
20
SELECTED MONTHLY OWNER COSTS
AS A PERCeNTAGE Of HOUSEHOLD
INCOME IN 1999
Less than 15.0 percent........ ............. ...
15.0 to 19.9 PlN'C:....t . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
20.0 to 24.9 percent. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
25.0 to 29.9 percent. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
30.0 to 34.9 percent. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . .
35.0 percent or more. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..
Not computed.. ... .. ........... ... ...........
Sp"o:lflOld r"n""-occupled unita . . . . . . . .
5.9 GROSS RENT
30.8 Less lhen $200 . .. . . . . .. .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. .
48.9 5200 to $299 .. . .. .. . .. .. .. ... .. . .. . .. .. .. .. .
14.5 $300 to $499 .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . .. .
5500 to $749 ... .. . .. . . . . .. ... .. . . . . .........
5750 to $999 .. . .. . .. . .. . .. .. .. . .. .. . .. .. . . . .
76.2 S 1.000 to $1,499 . .. . .. . .. .. .. . . .. . .. .. .. .. .. .
1.7 $1,500 ormor"...... ........................
18.2 No cash rent. .. . .. .. . .. .. . . .. .... .. . .. .. .. . ..
2..9 Medi;an (dollalS}... ...........................
61
_ GROSS RENT AS A PERCeNTAGE OF
. HOUSEHOLD INCOME IN 1999
0.3 Lass than 15.0 percent. .. ... ..... . . . . . . . ... .. .
0.7 15.0 to 19.9 percent..........................
20.0 to 24.9 pereant . .. . .. ... .. ... . .. .........
25.0 to 29.9 poarc"nt . . . . .. . . . . . . .. . .. . ..... ...
- 30.0 to 34.9 percent. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . .
_ 35.0 percent or more. . . . . . .. . .. ... . . . . . ... . ..
2.1 Not computed. . . . . . . . . . , . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . .
Nurno.r Pereant
2,927 100.0
2.822 96.4
77 2.6
28 1.0
1,810 100.0
6 0.3
262 14.5
1.026 56.7
370 20.4
121 6.7
16 0.9
- -
9 0.5
130,200 (X)
1.560 86.2
8 0.4
65 3.6
112 6.2
437 24.1
788 43.5
116 6.4
34- 1.9
1,079 (X)
250 13.8
309 (X)
454 25.1
378 20.9
375 20.7
ZTO 14.9
116 6.4
217 12.0
. -
821 100.0
74 9.0
55 6.7
140 17.1
483 58 II
21 2.6
22 2..7
7 0.9
19 2.3
571 (X)
208 25.3
138 16.8
117 14.3
101 12.3
42 5.1
196 23.9
19 2.3
u.s. CCfnlUS Bureau