Planning Commission Agenda 06-01-1999
.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
. 6.
.
AGENDA
REGULAR MEETING - MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION
Tuesday, June 1, 1999
Members:
Dick hie, Robbie Smith, Roy Popilek, Richard Carlson, Rod Dragsten
Council Liaison:
Clint Herbst
Call to order.
Approval of minutes of the regular meeting held May 4, 1999.
Consideration of adding item to the agenda.
Citizens comments.
Public Hearing - Consideration of a Conditional Use Permit within the B-3 Zoning
District to allow an automobile repair facility, and a Variance from the City's Parking
supply regulations. Applicant: Royal Tire, Inc.
Continued Public Hearing - Consideration of an amendment to the Monticello
Comprehensive Plan relating to the land use designation of the property west of Kjellberg
West Mobile Home Park. Applicant: City of Monticello.
7. Continued Public Hearing - Consideration of a Zoning Ordinance amendment adding
tatoo parlors as a permitted use in a B-4 District. Applicant: City of Monticello.
8. Continued Public Hearing - Consideration of a sign variance request for perpendicular
professional sign. Applicant: Metcal1~ Larson & Muth.
9. Discuss status ofMOAA Land Use Plan.
] O. Adjourn.
.
.
.
MINUTES
REGULAR MEETING - MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION
TUESDAY, MAY 4,1999
Members:
Rod Dragsten, Dick Frie, Roy Popilek and Robbie Smith
Staff:
Steve Grittman, Jeff O'Neill and Fred Patch
Absent:
Richard Carlson and Council Liaison Clint Herbst
1. Chair Frie called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. and declared a quorum present.
2. Consideration of approval of the minutes of the April 6. 1999 rel?ular meetim~ and the
April 26. 1999 special meeting.
ROD DRAGSTEN MOVED TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE APRIL 6, 1999
REGULAR MEETING. ROY POPILEK SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION
CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
ROD DRAGSTEN MOVED TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE APRIL 26, 1999
SPECIAL MEETING. ROBBIE SMITH SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION
CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
3.
Consideration of adding items to the agenda.
No items were added to the agenda.
4. Citizen Comment.
There was no one present under citizen comment.
5.
Public Hearing - Consideration of a request for a Conditional Use Permit for a Planned
Unit Development within the B-3 Zoning district and a Preliminary Plat to allow outdoor
vehicle sales and associated automotive service uses and variances to the Citv's Sign
Ordinance. Applicant: Monticello Ford.
Steve Grittman presented the staff report on this item. The property is located at the
southwest quadrant ofT.H. 25 and 1-94 and is affected by a project that would eliminate
their property access from Oakwood Drive. The site currently contains a Ford dealership
and it is proposed to add other services such as car rental, quick lube service and repair
services. A conditional use permit is required for any Planned Unit Development and
because the applicant is combining a number of pieces of land into one parcel a plat is
required. The applicant is also requesting variances to the City's sign ordinance. Steve
-1-
.
Planning Commission Minutes - 5/4/99
Grittman reviewed the variances requested noting that the variances were significantly
over what the ordinance allows.
· Number of signs - The sign ordinance allows one free standing sign. The
applicant is proposing four pylon signs in addition to building and entrance signs.
· Sign area - The square footage of the signs proposed by the applicant is 600
square feet while the ordinance allows 300 square feet of area.
· Setback - The applicant shows the setbacks at 5 and 7 feet while the ordinance
requires 15 feet.
· Prohibited sign - One of the signs the applicant is proposing is an electronic
message board. The City ordinance does not allow electronic message boards in
any zoning district.
The staff recommended approval of the conditional use permit for the Planned Unit
Development and of the preliminary plat. However, the staff did not recommend
approval of the variances to the sign ordinance. Steve Grittman suggested that if the
Planning Commission felt the sign plan should be approved it may be prudent to look at
doing it as an amendment to the ordinance. In granting a variance the Planning
Commission must find that requirements of the ordinance denied the property owner
reasonable use of the property or created a physical hardship.
.
Robbie Smith asked about the landscaping requirements for the proposal. Steve Grittman
explained how the number of trees and plantings were determined.
Chair Frie opened the public hearing. Dave Peterson, 1312 Prairie Creek Lane, stated
that the number of signs requested is not excessive considering the amount of land area of
the parcel. If the property was not being combined into one parcel but remained
individual parcels each parcel would be entitled to one free standing sign. He felt the
number of uses proposed for the site justified the number of signs that were being
requested. Mr. Peterson also stated that plans to change T.H. 25 impacted his business as
the state would not grant a right-in offT.H. 25 and added that signage is critical to his
business. In this case since the business cannot be seen from the freeway, the signage is
very important, especially the electronic message board. Mr. Peterson noted that
currently the business has two free standing signs.
In response to the landscaping concerns, Mr. Peterson stated that a portion of the area is a
display lot and not a parking lot. He believes it is better not to have a lot of trees or
plantings in the display area. Chair Frie closed the public hearing.
.
Robbie Smith noted that the request for additional signs was, in part, because of the
change in access and asked if the applicant could meet the IS' setback requirements. The
applicant stated he could comply with that requirement. The Planning Commission
-2-
.
Planning Commission Minutes - 5/4/99
reviewed the proposal for compliance with parking requirements and pointed out that the
parking lot area would need to be paved and curbed.
The Planning Commission discussed the variances from the sign ordinance. Previously
the Planning commission had discussed whether electronic message boards should be
allowed and how they should be handled within the ordinance. The staff indicated that
the sign ordinance needs some extensive work and they were not at a point to propose any
amendment to the sign ordinance dealing with electronic signs. The applicant
commented that combining the parcels into one severely restricted the amount of signage
he could have for the business. He felt the way the sign ordinance was written was
discriminatory towards large land parcels. Chair Frie responded that the City is required
to apply the ordinance equally against all the parcels in the same zoning district. Robbie
Smith commented that the electronic message board could flash multiple messages and
thus reduce the number of signs needed. Dave Peterson concurred that this approach had
merit and the Planning Commission discussed reasonable restrictions that could be placed
on the use of an electronic message board. These included: 1) That it not be a flashing
sign; 2) A time limit be placed on how often the message could change; and 3) That it not
be a motion sign. Steve Grittman added that any amendment to the sign ordinance would
require a public hearing.
.
ROY POPILEK MOVED TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE CONDITIONAL
USE PERMITS FOR A PUD AND FOR OUTDOOR SALES BASED ON A FINDING
THA l' THE SITE PLAN MEETS THE INTENT OF THE ZONING DISTRICT AND
ALL PERFORMANCE STANDARDS OF THE ORDINANCE ARE COMPLIED
WITH. ROD DRAGSTEN SECONDED THE MOTION.
ROY POPILEK AMENDED THE MOTION TO INCLUDE APPROVAL OF THE
PLANS BY THE CITY ENGINEER. ROD DRAGSTEN SECONDED THE
AMENDED MOTION. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
ROBBIE SMITH MOVED TO RECOMMEND APPRO V AL OF THE PRELIMINARY
PLAT BASED ON THE FINDING THAT THE PROPOSAL IS CONSISTENT WITH
DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS OF THE B-3 ZONING DISTRICT. ROY
POPILEK SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
DICK FRIE MOVED TO APPROVE A MODIFIED SIGN PLAN AND VARIANCES
BASED ON THE FINDINGS MADE AT THE HEARING INCLUDING
UNIQUENESS OF THE NEEDS OF THE BUSINESS AND THE IMPACT OF THE
ROAD PROJECT ON THE BUSINESS OPERATION.
.
In further discussion Dick Frie explained that rather than use the amendment approach,
-3-
.
.
.
Planning Commission Minutes - 5/4/99
the variance route would provide a quicker result for the applicant. He noted that the
Planning Commission could approve the request based on an anticipated amendment to
the ordinance but there is the possibility that an ordinance amendment might fail to pass.
The sign plan proposed for approval would include the two existing signs which are
grand fathered in and the use of one electronic message board for a total of three signs.
Dick Frie stated that the restrictions on the property access was the basis for the finding to
grant a variance. Since there was no second to the motion, Dick Frie rescinded his
motion. There was additional discussion on the signage for the building and the free
standing signs.
ROBBIE SMITH MOVED TO APPROVE THE SIGN VARIANCES AND A
MODIFIED SIGN PLAN WHICH INCLUDES BUILDING SIGNS AS PROPOSED,
TWO PYLON SIGNS AND ONE ELECTRONIC MESSAGE BOARD BASED ON
THE FINDINGS MADE AT THE HEARING INCLUDING THE SIZE OF
THE PROPERTY RELATIVE TO THE NUMBER OF SIGNS AND THE
NUMBER OF DISTINCT AND INDEPENDENT BUSINESS OPERATIONS AND
THE IMP ACT OF THE ROAD PROJECT ON THE BUSINESS OPERATIONS AND
SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS FOR THE USE OF THE
ELECTRONIC MESSAGE BOARD: 1) MESSAGE DISPLAYED FOR A LIMITED
DURATION; 2) NO FLASHING SIGN AND 3) NO MOTION IN THE ELECTRONIC
SIGN 4) THREE SECOND PAUSE BETWEEN MESSAGES REQUIRED. LED
DISPLAY REQUIRED. DICK FRIE SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION
CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Rod Dragsten suggested that the City staff look a revising the sign ordinance.
6. Public Hearing - Consideration of a Conditional Use Permit for a Planned Unit
Development in an R-2 District and a simple subdivision. Applicant: Little Mountain
Limited Partnership.
Steve Grittman presented the staff report noting that the property is zoned R-2 which
allows townhouses as a conditional use. Since the residential units will not directly front a
public street a Planned Unit Development is required. Steve Grittman indicated that this
meeting constitutes the concept plan review for the proposal. It was pointed out that the
proposed street would intersect with Marvin Elwood Road at a curve and this is an item
that should be reviewed by the City Engineer as well as reviewing the possible
reconfiguration of the proposed street to make it a through route. Steve Grittrnan also
reviewed open space requirements, landscaping, sidewalks and future development of the
balance of the parcel. Staff recommended approval of the concept stage PUD.
Chair Frie opened the public hearing. Steve Tomczyk, 226 Crocus Lane, questioned the
-4-
.
Planning Commission Minutes - 5/4/99
landscaping provisions and whether any of the open space shown could be built on later.
Steve Grittman replied that the open space was for the benefit of the project and could not
be developed in the future. Brad Larson, 9533 Briarwood, stated that there is a total of28
units with attached single car garages. It is proposed that some time in the future the
southerly 10 acres may be developed as individually owned townhouses. A question was
raised regarding the alignment of the proposed street and it was suggested that it should
run on the west side of the parcel. Steve Grittman indicated that this is something that the
City Engineer would need to review. Rose Prudhomme, 235 Crocus Lane, stated that she
was concerned about the housing density and also about the road running behind her
house.
.
There was discussion on the zoning for the parcel. It had originally been zoned as
industrial, then rezoned to R~3 in the 80's. Recently it was considered for rezoning from
R-3 to R-2. The Planning Commission felt that the R-2 designation would be an
improvement to the site over what was there under the R~3 designation. While the
residents may prefer to have an R-l designation, the rational for the R-2 designation was
that it could serve as a buffer or transition area from the industrial zoned property.
Anthony Clark, 211 Crocus Lane also expressed his concern about the location of the
street and questioned whether having the street along the back of his lot would affect the
value of his property. It was noted that the street could serve as a buffer between the R-2
and R-l area. The appropriate landscaping for the area abutting the proposed street
would be addressed at the development stage PUD hearing. Chair Frie closed the public
hearing.
The Planning Commission asked about the height of the berm and was told it would be
approximately six feet. Roy Popilek was concerned about garage space. Steve Grittman
stated that the proposal allowed for approximately three parking spaces per unit. The
Planning Commission also addressed park dedication requirements. Although it is likely
that for this proposal there would be a cash dedication in lieu of land, it was noted that the
Park commission had not officially reviewed the proposal.
ROBBIE SMITH MOVED TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE SIMPLE
SUBDIVISION FOR LITTLE MOUNTAIN LIMITED PARTNERSHIP BASED ON A
FINDING THAT THE PROPOSAL DOES NOT REQUIRE A PLATA T THIS TIME.
ROD DRAGSTEN SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED
UNANIMOUSL Y.
.
ROY POPILEK MOVED TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE CONCEPT
STAGE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT SUBJECT TO CONSIDERATION OF
THE ISSUES MENTIONED IN THIS REPORT AND OTHERS IDENTIFIED AT THE
PUBLIC HEARING INCLUDING CITY ENGINEER REVIEW OF RELOCATING
-5-
.
.
.
Planning Commission Minutes - 5/4/99
THE PROPOSED STREET AND SIDEWALK TO THE WEST SIDE OF THE
PARCEL. ROBBIE SMITH SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED
UNANIMOUSL Y.
7. Public Hearing - Consideration for approval of Conditional Use Permits for ioint parking
and buildinl! height in excess of two (2) stories. Applicant: Comfort Inn Motel.
Steve Grittman gave the staff report explaining that it is proposed to construct a 52 unit
hotel on Lot 3, Block 1, Silver fox Addition which is the site of the existing Best Western
hotel. The applicant is requesting a conditional use permit to allow for joint parking for
the two facilities and a conditional use permit to allow a building in excess of two stories.
Chair Frie opened the public hearing. No one present spoke on the proposal. Chair Frie
closed the public hearing. Roy Popilek asked what happens to the conditional use permit
if one of the hotels is sold. Steve Grittman stated that the conditional use permit runs
with the land and would not be affected by a property transfer. The Planning
Commission discussed landscaping for the site, fire protection and the vacation of
Oakwood Drive. The signage was also reviewed and it was noted that currently there is
one pylon sign and that the franchise agreement prohibits sharing of signs.
ROD DRAGS TEN MOVED TO APPROVE THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS TO
ALLOW FOR JOINT PARKING BETWEEN THE TWO FACILITIES AND TO
ALLOW FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A THREE STORY BUILDING BASED ON
THE FINDING THAT THIS IS CONSISTENT WITH THE DIRECTION OF THE
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND COMPLIES WITH THE CRITERIA FOR
APPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT CONTAINED IN THE
MONTICELLO ZONING AND SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE AND SUBJECT TO
THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:
A. The Planning Commission finds that criteria for each separate conditional use permit
application is satisfactorily met.
B. The applicant submits a landscaping plan indicating the type and height of trees to be used on
the site subject to review and approval by the City.
C. The proposed cul~de-sac for Oakwood Drive is subject to review and approval by the City
Engineer.
D. Occupancy of the building is contingent upon compliance with all building and fire codes
including a fire suppression program.
ROY POPILEK SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
8. Public Hearing - Consideration of a rezoning request and concept site plan approval from
A-O to R-4 Mobile Home Park District. Applicant: Kiellberg, Inc.
-6-
.
Planning Commission Minutes - 5/4/99
Steve Grittman gave the staff report reviewing with the Planning Commission the
original proposal and the proposal currently under consideration. In previous Planning
Commission action the request for rezoning was denied based on the fact that the City's
Land Use Plan called for mid-density housing in the area and the plan submitted did not
meet the requirement. There were also traffic concerns that impacted the Planning
Commission's decision. The revised plan submitted by the applicant significantly
increases the density. The staff felt that if the City was considering a mobile home park
expansion the first proposal would be superior. Although the second plan would be more
consistent with the City's Land Use Plan, it was noted that one of the policy aims of the
land use plan for that area was to encourage upper scale housing. It was questionable
whether this proposal would meet that. Steve Grittman pointed out that the MOAA
Board action would also affect this property. Rod Dragsten asked about the state law
governing mobile homes. Steve Grittman explained that the law requires the City to
allow mobile home parks as a conditional use in districts where the City allows multiple
units.
.
Chair Frie opened the public hearing. Brian Southwell, legal counsel for the applicant,
spoke to the Planning Commission on the reasons for bringing forward this plan. The
applicant felt that the original plan was more sensitive to the desire of the City for upper
scale housing but it was not consistent with the land use plan, therefore a second plan was
submitted. He noted that the road leading into the mobile home park would serve the
area until such time as School Boulevard would be extended. Mike Quinn, 3485 88th
Street felt that the lower density plan was more acceptable to the adjacent property
owners. He expressed his concern that there was so little information on the plan relating
to landscaping and berming. He also questioned the setbacks from the power line
easement as it appears that some of the lot could be affected by that. Chair Frie noted
that this request is strictly for rezoning and that a more detailed plan would be required
when the mobile home park expansion is proposed. A number of residents expressed
their concern about how the proposed expansion would impact traffic in the area and
aesthetic concerns about the existing mobile home park. Chris Scribner, 3456 88th Street
raised the issue of pedestrian traffic between the mobile home park and adjacent
residential developments. Chair Frie closed the public hearing.
.
Chair Frie stated that the Planning Commission had requested a copy of the study done
by MnDOT for the area in question but that it had not yet been submitted. He asked if
the applicant had given any consideration to the development of townhouses for this area
instead of a mobile home park. Mr. Southwell responded that economics was a factor in
their decision to expand the mobile home park rather than pursue other types of
development. Chair Frie suggested that a townhouse development could serve as a buffer
between the existing residential developments and the mobile home park. Chair Frie also
-7-
.
.
.
Planning Commission Minutes - 5/4/99
encouraged the applicant to attend the upcoming MOAA Board meeting to specifically
discuss this item.
ROBBIE SMITH MOVED TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF AN R-2 ZONING
DISTRICT AMENDMENT BASED UPON THE FINDING THAT THIS DISTRICT IS
MOST CONSISTENT WITH ALL OF THE OBJECTIVES OF THE
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN INCLUDING LAND USE AND HOUSING VALUE. DICK
FRIE SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSL Y.
12. Public Hearing - Consideration of an amendment to the Monticello Comprehensive Plan
relating to the land use designation of the property west of Kiellberg West Mobile Home
Park. Applicant: City of Monticello.
Because this agenda item was related to the previous item it was moved up for Planning
Commission consideration. It was the feeling that based on the earlier Planning
Commission action this item could be tabled. Chair Frie opened and closed the public
hearing.
DICK FRIE MOVED TO CONTINUE THE PUBLIC HEARING ON THE PROPOSED
AMENDMENT TO THE MONTICELLO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN RELATING TO
THE LAND USE DESIGNATION FOR THE PROPERTY WEST OF KJELLBERG
WEST MOBILE HOME PARK PENDING ADDITIONAL INFORMATION AS A
RESUL T OF THE PUBLIC HEARING CONDUCTED BY THE PLANNING
COMMISSION ON THE REZONING REQUEST. ROY POPILEK SECONDED THE
MOTION. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
9.
Public Hearing - Consideration of a zoning text amendment to allow externally
illuminated proiecting wall signs. Applicant: City of Monticello.
Fred Patch gave the staff report noting that the proposed amendment was initiated by a
sign permit application by Metcalf, Larson & Muth. Since it was in the CCD District, the
Design Advisory Team (DA T) reviewed the request. DAT felt that the application met
the intent of the Monticello Downtown Revitalization Plan. The guidelines of the
Monticello Downtown Revitalization Plan, however, are not consistent with the Zoning
Ordinance. The proposed amendment would allow externally illuminated projecting
signs not exceeding 8 sq. ft. in area or 8 ft. above grade only in the CCD District.
Chair Frie opened the public hearing. Rita Ullrich representing MCP (Monticello
Community Partners) asked what the difference was between a projecting sign and an
overhanging sign which Fred Patch explained. Scott Hill, 1320 West River Street, felt
-8-
.
.
.
11.
Planning Commission Minutes - 5/4/99
that there could be a problem with the projecting signs in that in order to get better
visibility the signs would be placed at various heights thus creating an uneven look. If
the projecting signs are all consistently placed, the signs would be blocked out. Chair
Frie closed the public hearing. There was considerable discussion on how the placement
of the signs should be regulated. It was suggested that the ordinance amendment could
include upper and lower limits for the placement of the signs. Chair Frie asked if having
this provision in the ordinance amendment would place OAT in a capricious position
when they conducted their review. Steve Grittman stated if OAT based their
recommendations on consistent application of findings it would not be considered
arbitrary or capricious. Chair Frie asked if there was any consideration of allowing
projecting signs outside the CCD District. Jeff O'Neill replied that this type of sign is
more suited to the CCD District since the CCD District is pedestrian oriented. Fred Patch
felt that sign placement limits in the ordinance amendment, other than for purposes of
safety, would be overkill and would limit the flexibility of DA T in their review of
proposals.
DICK FRIE MOVED TO RECOMMEND TO THE CITY COUNCIL THAT THE
ORDINANCE AMENDMENT ALLOWING PROJECTING WALL SIGNS IN THE
CCD DISTRICT BE APPROVED. ROBBIE SMITH SECONDED THE MOTION.
MOTION CARRIED WITH ROD DRAGSTEN VOTING IN OPPOSITION.
10.
Public Hearing - Consideration of a sign variance request for perpendicular professional
sign. Applicant: Metcalf. Larson & Muth.
Initially the applicant withdrew his request for the sign variance based on the Planning
Commission approval of the proposed sign ordinance amendment for the CCD District. It
was noted that there is the possibility that the Council may fail to approve the proposed
amendment. The applicant rescinded his decision to withdraw his request for a variance.
Chair Frie opened and closed the public hearing.
ROD DRAGSTEN MOVED TO CONTINUE THE PUBLIC HEARING ON THE
REQUEST FOR A SIGN VARIANCE FOR METCALF, LARSON & MUTH UNTIL
THE NEXT MEETING. DICK FRIE SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION
CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Public Hearing - Consideration of rezoning from PZM (Performance Zone Mixed) to
I-IA (Light Industrial) Applicant: City of Monticello.
Steve Grittman presented the staff report. The parcel in question lies between Elm Street
and Minnesota Street. The PZM District allows single and two family homes as
permitted uses, townhouses as a conditional use and some commercial activities as a
-9-
.
.
.
Planning Commission Minutes - 5/4/99
conditional use. It was questioned whether residential would be an appropriate use for
this parcel. The staff felt it would be difficult to develop this as a residential use because
of its proximity to Ruff s Auto and the site did not provide good exposure or access as far
as commercial development. Zoning it I-IA appeared to be the most logical designation
and this zoning would also provide a good transition between Ruff s Auto and the
commercial developments.
Chair Frie opened the public hearing. Tom Brennan, the property owner, spoke in
opposition to the proposed rezoning explaining there has been interest in the past for
development of the land for residential use and currently there is a purchase option on the
property with the intent of a residential development being proposed if the deal closes.
Randy Ruff, 611 Elm Street asked about the alignment of 7th Street and its extension and
also about the width of the watermain easement. Chair Frie closed the public hearing.
DICK FRIE MOVED TO TABLE ACTION UNTIL THE JUL Y MEETING ON THE
REZONING FROM PZM TO I-IA SUBJECT TO ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
BEING SUBMITTED WHICH WILL BE THE PROPERTY OWNER
COMMUNICATING WITH THE CITY STAFF AS TO WHETHER THE
TRANSACTION ON HIS PROPERTY IS CONSUMMATED. ROY POPILEK
SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
13. Consideration of a Zoning Ordinance amendment adding tattoo parlors as a permitted use
in a B-4 District. Aoolicant: City of Monticello.
ROD DRAGS TEN MOVED TO CONTINUE THE PUBLIC HEARING ON THE
ZONING AMENDMENT ADDING TATTOO PARLORS AS A PERMITTED USE IN
A B-4 DISTRICT. ROBBIE SMITH SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION
CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
14. Public Hearing - Consideration of an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance which allows
Essential Services as permitted uses in the R-l Zoning District. Applicant: City of
Monticello.
It was discovered that essential services are not listed as permitted uses in the R-I Zoning
District and an ordinance amendment was drafted to correct this omission. Chair Frie
opened and closed the public hearing.
ROY POPILEK MOVED TO RECOMMEND APPROY AL OF THE AMENDMENT
TO THE ZONING ORDINANCE TO ALLOW ESSENTIAL SERVICES AS
-10-
.
.
.
Planning Commission Minutes - 5/4/99
PERMITTED USES IN THE R-l ZONING DISTRICT BASED ON THE FINDING
THAT IT REFLECTS THE INTENT OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE. ROD
DRAGSTEN SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
15. Uodate on MOAA Land Use Plan
Jeff O'Neill updated the Planning Commission on what progress had been made on
reaching an agreement on a land use plan for the area covered under the MOAA
agreement. It was suggested that the Planning Commission members may wish to attend
the MOAA meeting.
ROY POPILEK MOVED TO ADJOURN THE MEETING AT 10:45 P.M. ROD
DRAGSTEN SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSL Y.
Recording Secretary
-11-
.
.
.
Planning Commission Agenda -06/01/99
5.
Consideration ofa request for a Conditional Use Permit within the B-3 Zoning District
to allow an automobile repair facility. and a Variance from the City's Parkin!! supply
re!!ulations. Applicant: Royal Tire. (NAC)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
Royal Tire is proposing to occupy the vacated building between Cedar Street and Trunk
Highway 25, formerly occupied by the Automatic Garage Door company. The site contains
a large metal building with two access drives onto Cedar Street. The survey for the parcel
does not show parking area, however, and the change of use will require substantially more
parking than the previous user, according to Zoning Ordinance standards.
Parking Variance
According to the parking standards of the Zoning Ordinance, Auto Repair facilities require
8 spaces, plus one space per 800 square feet of floor area over l,OOO square feet. The
building consists of 13,500 square feet. This results in a parking requirement for the
proposed use 01'24 spaces. Attached to this report is an exhibit which illustrates a site plan
with 19 parking spaces, including the required handicapped space. A variance of five spaces
would be necessary to accommodate this design.
Without a specific knowledge of the use of the site, it may be possible to fit a few more
spaces on the property, and retain access to the building in its current configuration. The
variance would allow the proposed user to occupy the building, and fit a reasonable amount
of parking on the property in conformance with the setback requirements of the parking
regulations. Variances must be supported by a finding that the property may not be put to
a reasonable use without the variance. In this case, such a finding may be considered based
on the following factors:
a. The building is existing on the site. Due to the configuration of the property and
existing building, it is not possible to meet the parking requirements for any B-3 use.
Other retail uses would require as many as 65 spaces.
b. The property is an existing lot of record which is relatively shallow in shape. There
is no other opportunity to provide additional parking without requiring removal of
a portion of the structure.
c. The proposed use minimizes the amount of parking actually needed, due to lower
parking needs than other B-3 uses.
With these conditions, the variance may be considered a reasonable accommodation. As
noted in these factors, most other B-3 uses would require far more parking for a building of
this size, makingrc-use of the building virtually impossible. One issue which should be
-1-
.
Planning Commission Agenda -06/01/99
made a condition of variance approval would relate to the parking and storage of vehicles
being repaired. Due to the constrained amount of parking, no outdoor, overnight storage of
vehicles should be permitted. This will help to enhance the site's aesthetics, and avoid
spillage of parking onto Cedar Street.
Conditional Use Permit
As noted, the proposed use requires a Conditional Use Permit in this district. The Zoning
Ordinance lists 18 special requirements for the issuance of this CUP. A copy of that section
of the Ordinance is attached to this report as an Exhibit. Since the applicant has submitted
only a survey, and not a complete site plan, staff has not had the opportunity to verify
compliance with the listed conditions. Most of the requirements relate to routine standards
applied to commercial uses, including paving and curbing of all parking areas, lighting
standards, landscaping and screening, and drainage, dust, and noise control.
.
If the site plan were to be based on the staffs parking configuration shown in the Exhibits,
the remaining components of the site plan would include Engineering approval and a
landscape plan. Staff would encourage additional landscaping on this site to enhance the
visual impact of the building along Highway 25, and provide a light screening effect of the
parking areas along Cedar Street. A signage plan should also be incorporated into the CUP
review, in accordance with condition number 13.
B. ALT'ERNATIVE ACTIONS:
Decision 1: Variance to Parking Standards
1.
Motion to approve the Variance from 24 parking spaces to 19 parking spaces, based
on a finding that the existing lot of record is shallow in dimension, and the existing
building restricts the ability to add other parking to meet Zoning Ordinance
requirements,
2.
Motion to deny the Variance, based on a finding that additional land could be sought,
or building size reduced, to comply with the minimum parking regulations.
3.
Motion to table action on the Variance, subject to the submission of additional
information.
.
-2-
-2-
.
Planning Commission Agenda -06/01/99
Decision 2:
Conditional Use Permit for Auto Repair in a B-3 District
1. Motion to recommend approval of the CUP, based on a finding that parking will be
adequate as proposed, and on condition that the requirements applying to this CUP
listed in the ordinance are submitted to stafl for review and approval.
2. Motion to deny the CUP, based on a finding that the proposed use can not fit on the
site due to parking and loading requirements.
3. Motion to table action on the CUP, subject to submission of additional information,
including a more complete site plan and landscaping plan.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
.
Staff believes that the variance to parking supply is a reasonable request for this use, with
the conditions stated above. Particularly where no overnight storage of vehicles is allowed,
the lesser parking supply would not tend to be encroached upon by vehicles in need of repair
being stored for long periods of time. This latter concern is one of the primary problems
with auto repair facilities. The size of the building should be able to accommodate inside
storage if longer term storage becomes necessary.
The CUP may be approved, based on the Planning Commission and City Council's comfort
with leaving the remainder ofthe site plan review to staff. Since this is an existing building,
the remaining requirements relate to paving and curbing according to the revised parking
plan, and landscaping the site for screening and aesthetics. If the Planning Commission is
uncomfortable with this process, tabling action would allow the opportunity to view the
complete site plan prior to final approval.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Exhibit A - Site Survey
Exhibit B - Staff-prepared Parking Layout
Exhibit C - Zoning Ordinance Conditions Applicable to this Land Use
.
-3-
.
.
.
~
~
~
tI)
,
~
Cb
~
~
,~
~
~
~
~ti
.....
t.,c
s: ~
'@ t:
C .t:
~~
tJ ~
Kf~
~ :'l: (5
~ ~.....
t\ "'C.(;:
~"'I:l,
S< 0..: 'I::
~ ...,~
~ ~,.
......?:~
~ ~ ~
1-:5 ~,I::
'<.J G.....
...... ~.....
~
....... ct
..\0:'1:)
lJ~
~ I,:
OJ 8
"'. ~
..... 'l>
<::1.(;:
...., .....
.....................
~,
--........- -
.{1
-,..
~
~ , ~
u
[f) ~:
~ Z u
:r: X..c:
- u
0.. ~.5
-< II
p::
t:l
Il
-,
--....
{1
-.........
S"c?
II
, .
. /+ .. :.~ . ~
" "-.
..........
...........
. . ...........
~
I.
t
:,;
.....~. : . . .
.....
...........
;
.
.
~,
.
~..
,~~ ............
~~
I .
./
"
J.
"
...........
~"'~
0/[/
/
..............~.,
~.--,
,...r..
"'-
6"\
Exhibit A - Site Survey
/"J? u;-...,~~~~ _ I' '."'
e"os ." raJ';"'~- .
,0/01' /6'6'6' r~I'''<-.J
S S /JJ' Y
~oSS~8~ r Exhibit B .. Staff Parking Layout
.
N 69053'33- W
pkTt 170.58
m~s. 170. 32
I
,
i
,
, .-
, I
I
: I
I .
. I
2 I
~ l \!
~ i' ./
~ ~ I n\
~ ~lj \~
~ t. I \ f ~
~ ~. ~ r:::::
~ ~ r.........
.:- r./
~ i ~ V
~I ~
('.
~ ~ \ .
~ ~i ~
~ ~i! k
() ~ I ~'
~ ~ i l /
~ Ii ~
I I
I I
! I
1/ \ ..
\ " V' /
I c~.L/.LL:%~
"<. ~!!C
I
. f
c,Q. \
c=,1
t ~ J.-, ~
, ,
t
..... j
..... ~
~
~
"
~ "
~
~
.....
" ~
b
~ ~
'.: f:
1 , 't
'-
~
~
r ~
~
JJ
~
~
;s?
.....
cE
,.-
"'-
t)
~
.. - ~-
I
~..
....
~
-
l.o-:
....
..
\ "
-
. \,
...
"<.J
\ .
..
.. .
\ .
..
..
.. .
..
\ .
.-:-~
. .
.... tl ' I
t ~ ~! : .
. ~ .!
.'-=
~
t'G
.' "-~
: ... . . ~ .
--
.0:'"':".::
- Jo;- i!! ;
-
/"
~,
--
I
I
J
~
l I
.. I
.,J
'. \
..
. "
.
I ..
. . .. ..
~ I
"
\ \
I .. . .
..
I \
,
JJ I
I~
'Q;
~
:~
I
I
<.
1,...( y -
I . .
;" '"
)c
I
\ ,
,
f
I
I
J 5'?-
11. PrQ':i8itHl~ are: maa~ to eeatrel 8.1'1a re:eh-le:e: ft6i~e.
.
12, Th~ pT'Q':isieR3 ofC).}\l,k, 17 ..rl1.:~ ...J;ULlU':': jlllr mR3idcrgQ ao.d
satisfactorily met.
~ MOTOR FUEL STATION, MOTOR FUEL ST A TIONlCONVENIENCE
~ STORE, AUTO REPAIR~MINOR, AND TIRE AND BATTERY STORES
AND SERVICE PROVIDED THAT:
1. Regardless of whether the dispensing, sale, or offering for sale of motor
fuels and/or oil incidental to the conduct of the use or business, the
standards and requirements imposed by this ordinance for motor fuel
stations shall apply. These standards and requirements are, however, in
addition to other requirements which are imposed for other uses of the
property.
2. The architectural appearance and functional plan of the building and site
shall not be so dissimilar to the existing buildings or area as to cause
impainnent in property values or constitute a blighting influence within a
reasonable distance of the lot.
3. The entire site other than that taken up by a building, structure, or
plantings shall be surfaced with a material to control dust and drainage
which is subject to the approval of the City Engineer.
.
4.
A minimum lot area oftwenty~two thousand five hundred (22,500) square
feet and minimum lot dimensions of one hundred fifty (150) feet by one
hundred thirty (130) feet.
5. A drainage system subject to the approval of the City Engineer shall be
installed.
6. A curb not less than six (6) inches above grade shall separate the public
sidewalk from motor vehicle service areas.
7. The lighting shall be accomplished in such a way as to have no direct
source of light visible from adjacent land in residential use or from the
public right~of~way and shall be in compliance with Chapter 3, Section
2 [H], of this ordinance.
8. Wherever fuel pumps are to be installed, pump islands shall be installed.
9. At the boundaries ofa residential district, a strip of not less than five (5)
feet shall be landscaped and screened in compliance with Chapter 3,
Section 7 [G], of this ordinance.
.
10. Each light standard landscaped.
sa
Exhibit C .. Ordinance CUP Conditions
MONTICELLO ZONING ORDINANCE
13/4
11. Parking or car magazine storage space shall be screened from view of
abutting residential districts in compliance with Chapter 3, Section 2 [G],
of this ordinance.
.
12. Vehicular access points shall create a minimum of conflict with through
traffic movement, shall comply with Chapter 3, Section 5, of this
ordinance, and shall be subject to the approval of the City Engineer.
13. All signing and informational or visual communication devices shall be
minimized and shall be in compliance with Chapter 3, Section 9, of this
ordinance.
14. Provisions are made to control and reduce noise.
15. No outside storage except as allowed in compliance with Chapter 13,
Section 4, of this ordinance.
16. Sale of products other than those specifically mentioned in Chapter 13,
Section 4, be subject to a conditional use permit and be in compliance with
Chapter 13, Section 4 [F], of this ordinance.
17. All conditions pertaining to a specific site are subject to change when the
Council, upon investigation in relation to a formal request, finds that the
general welfare and public betterment can be served as well or better by
modifying the conditions.
.
18. The provisions of Chapter 22 of this ordinance are considered and
satisfactorily met.
ID]
}TpU/ ilnd IIser! ::tl1tomggile/light trucl: sales and diSiplay p
at:
.
The outside sales and display area does not utilize parking spaces which
are required for conformance with this ordinance. .5 ~
MONTICELLO ZONING ORDINANCE 13
The enclosed principal use (sales and display Ice) is a minimum of
00 square feet, excluding the area used r mechanical repair and
reco 'tioning.
2.
3. All lighting 11 be hooded and s irected that the light source shall not
be visibl rom the public right-of-wa from neighboring residences,
I be in compliance with Chapter 3, ction 2 [H], of this
ance.
The outside sales and display area shall be hard surface
.
Planning Commission Agenda - 06/01/99
6.
Continued Public "earinl: - Consideration of an amendment to the Monticcllo
Comprehensive Plan relatinl! to the land use desil!nation of the propcrty west of
Kjellberg West Mobile Home Park. Applicant: Citv of Monticello.
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
At the City Council meeting of May 10, 1999, the Council agreed to pass on to the
MOAA the Planning Commission's recommendation of May 4,1999, to approve a R-2
Zoning District amendment based upon the finding that this district is most consistent
with all of the objectives of the Comprehensive Plan including land use and housing
value. No further action will be taken on this item until a final decision is made by the
MOAA Board regarding this matter.
B. AL TERNA T1VE ACTIONS:
None
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
None
. D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Exhibit A - Planning agenda item from May 4, 1999.
.
-4-
.
..
-.
JtP'
Planning COlllmission Agenda - 05/04/99
8.
Public HeariDl! - Consideration of a rezonine: and concept site Dlan approval from
AO to a R-4. Mobile Home Ilark District. Applicant: Kiellberg's. Inc. (NAC)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
Kjellberg's, Inc., has requested approval ofa rezoning and concept site plan approval for
a mobile home park with an R-4, Mobile Home Park zoning district designation. A
previous request for a rezoning to R-4 was found to be inconsistent with the City's
Comprehensive Plan, as well as with the pending MOAA draft land use plan. The site
plan which accompanied the first proposal indicated a low density residential pattern,
whereas the land use plan indicates a medium density pattern. For Monticello, this
pattern has typically meant twin home or townhouse development.
The applicant has submitted a new site plan which illustrates a much more denscly
developed mobile home park. This proposal would be consistent with the density
recommendations of the City's Comprehensive Land Use Plan. However, it would
continue to be inconsistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan objective of encouraging,
higher-valued housing. Moreover, the land use objectives envision that n'}id-density
housing will consist primarily of attached housing, such as townhouses or twinhomes.
This type of development pattern can be distinguished from mobile home park
development of similar density in its ability to preserve common open spaces within the
development.
.,.
With regard to the housing value objective, this current proposal would be less desirable
than the first plan due to its smaller lots, and generally more congested layout. Thus,
neither proposal entirely meets the direction of the Comprehensive Plan. The second plan
better matches the proposed density, however, it sacrifices housing value as compared to
the first.
If the City supports the annexation at this time, it may also consider a zoning district
recommendation for R-2, a district which supports both single and two-family residential,
as well as townhouses by Conditional Use Pennit. It should be noted, however, that state
law also includes Mobile Home Parks as a Conditional Use in Multiple Family Districts.
The applicant indicates that they would pursue the expansion of the mobile home park
under the County's jurisdiction.
......
13.
ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
,I, i'~
1.
Motion to recommend an R-4 Zoning District amendment, based upon the second
plan, supported by a finding that the second plan provides for a development
density within the range envisioned by the Comprehensive Plan of the City of
Monticello.
\0" ,
-12-
.
'.-.
.
Planning Commission Agenda - 05/04/99
2.
Motion to recommend an R-4 Zoning District amendment, based upon the first
plan, supported by a finding that between the two mobile home park plans, the
first plan better meets the objectives of the City Comprehensive Plan with regard
to housing value.
3.
Motion to recommend an R-2 Zoning District amendment, based upon a finding
that this district is most consistent with all of the objectives of the Comprehensive
Plan, including land use and housing value.
4.
Motion to recommend denial of the rezoning, concurrent with denial of the
petition for annexation, based upon a finding that consideration of the rezoning is
premature pending resolution of the land use plan issues in the Monticello Orderly
Annexation Area.
5.
Motion to table action on the rezoning, pending the submission of additional
information.
C.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
If the City believes that a mobile home park expansion on this site will be a compatible
land use, staff would recommend a rezoning to R-4, with a preliminary approval of the
previous site plan (Alternative 2). A finding which supports the lower density mobile
home park development in a medium density land use district could be made to include
references in the Comprehensive Plan regarding housing value, and incorporation of the
existing Kjellberg's mobile home parks in the density calculations.
In the alternative, a rezoning to R-2 would be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan,
both in regard to land use and to housing style. It should be noted that under state law,
the applicant may be able to rcquest.a Conditional Use Permit for a mobile home park in
the R-2 zoning district.
D. SUPPORTING DATA
Exhibit A - Site Plan No.2
Exhibit B - Site Plan No. I
Exhibit C - Area Location Map
,,~~
-13-
.
.
.
Planning Commission Agenda - 06101/99
7.
Continued Public Hearine - Consideration of a Zonine Ordinance amendment
adding tattoo parlors as a permitted use in a B-4 District. Applicant: City of
Monticello. (NAC)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
At the Planning Commission meeting of May 4, 1999, it was stated that the City had been
approached with regard to the opening of a tattoo parlor. It was noted that tattoo parlors
are currently not listed in any zoning district within the City. Staff is investigating the
options available to the City in establishing this use based on an understanding that it is
not likely that the City can prohibit them. Without any regulation, such businesses would
be able to open anywhere without restriction. There is currently no state licensing of
tattoo facilities which has raised a concern over public health. The County has been
working toward a health department regulation of tattoo and body piercing businesses.
Staff is still working on getting details of the County's proposed regulations, but is not
prepared to recommend any ordinance changes at this time.
Therefore, we recommend that the issue be tabled until the next regular Planning
Commission meeting in July.
D.
SUPPORTING DATA
None
-5-
.
.
.
Planning Commission Agenda - 06/01/99
8.
Continued Public Hearine: - Consideration of a si2:n variance reQuest for
perpendicular professional si2:n. Applicant: Metcalf. Larson & Muth. (J.O.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
Jeff O'Neill will give a verbal update at the June 1, 1999, Planning Commission Meeting.
-6-
.
.
.
Planning Commission Agenda - 06/01/99
9.
Discuss status of MDAA Land Use Plan. (J.D. & C.H.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
At the May meeting of the MOAA, the MOAA voted 4-1 (Belsaas opposed) to adopt a
Land Use Map. This action was viewed by the MOAA as sufficient to gain compliance
with the City/Township Agreement that required MOAA plan adoption by July 8, 1999.
The MOAA also voted approval of Exhibit C (City Comprehensive Plan for the
Southwest Area as of March 98). The MOAA then placed a moratorium on development
in Exhibit C Area and called for a public hearing on Exhibit C Area with the goal of
changing the land use designations for this area in July. Without adoption of the plan by
July1999, the City/Township agreement would lapse resulting in the standard Statewide
Format for Planning and Annexation. The map adopted by the MOAA is inconsistent
with the City's Comprehensive Plan. Land that is affected by inconsistent designations is
undevelopable until one of the planning authorities changes the designation to match the
other, or until the City/Township Agreement expires (10 years). Areas of inconsistency
will be reviewed at the meeting.
Under state statutes, land use planning on city perimeters is done by the county and
annexation is up to the city which must meet certain state standards which include the
following:
1. Land annexed must be 60 acres or less and be contiguous to the City.
2. The owner must petition for annexation.
3. A public hearing is held by the City.
Properties annexed under circumstances above cannot be contested by the Township
under state law. Therefore, no Municipal Board of State Planning Authority would be
involved.
At the May 10 meeting of the City Council, the Council requested that a letter be drafted
to the MOAA and Township indicating that the requirement of adoption of a plan was not
met by the MOAA with their recent action.. It was the view ofthe City Council that
adoption of a "map" does not fulfill the Agreement. The narrative supporting the map
(plan) was not available for review and there was no public hearing held for review of
the narrative.
The letter to the MOAA Township is being prepared but not sent as of this date.
-7-
.
Planning Commission Agenda - 06/01/99
B.
ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
Discussion and update only.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
None
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Exhibit A - Letter from Tom Salkowski regarding MOAA action to adopt a Land Use
Map.
Exhibit B - Minutes from MOAA May 5, 1999, Meeting.
Exhibit C - Southwest Area Concept Plan.
Exhibit D - Monticello Joint Planning Board Agenda & Staff Report for June Meeting.
Exhibit E - Memo to City Council 4/26/99 outlines Annexation process without a MOAA
in place.
.
.
-8-
I~
.
.
.'
, pffice of ,
PLANNING AND,ZONING
WRIGHT COUNTY GOVERNMENT CENTER
10 Second $treet NW; Rm 140. Buffalo. MN 55313.1185
(612) 682-7338 .
, Fax #(612) 682.7872'
7&66
May 12, 1999
Jeff O'Neill
City of Monticello
250 E. Broadway Box 1147
Monticello, MN. 55362
Re: Actions taken at the May 5, 1999 Monticello Joint Planning Board meeting
pear Jeff:
The Monticello Joint Planning Board took the foHowing actions at their m.etini on May 5, 1999.
I have not yet received the minutes of that meeting, but can report the following based on my
notes.
The annexation of Klein Fanns 5th Addition (teersen property) was approved by the Board. You
can proceed with annexation, and any necessary paperwork you need from the Township should
be forwarded to them. The Board noted that this property was 'in the old "urban service area" and
had been previously approved for annexation by th.e Township.
The Monticello Joint Planning Board also adopted a Land Use Plan pursuant to section 3 of the
"Joint Resolution pfthe City of Monticello and the To~hip of Monticello as to the Orderly
Annexation of Property" signed in March of 1998. The governing land use plan map adopted is
the one prepared by NAC (Grittman) and labeled "MOAA Draft~ 1-22-99" with the'following
'changes: .. All YMCA property in section'16 (T.. 121, R. 25) shall be labeled Public/Quasi-
Public; and, .
'- Any conflict between the 1/22/99 draft and "Exhibit,C" of the Joint Resolution,
which is the version of the Southw~t Area Concept Plan attached to the joint
resolution, will b~ resolved in favor of Exhibit C.
This last clause wa:~ necessitated by ~he fact that 'the joint agreement specifi,es that "Exhibit en
must be incorporated into the plan. Rcali~g that "Exhibit C" is no longer current with either the
City or the 'Joint Planning Board's plansJor the ~outhwest Area, the Ioint Planning Board
subsequently set a,public hearing' for iuly 7. The purpose of this he~g is to .consider Bmending: ,
the 'newly adopted plan map for the Southwest Area only. At that time, the Board'may consider
new or amended language for the Plan also. ' ,
, '
..
'EXHIBIT A '
, 'Printed on ,recycled paper. ", "':.
~qual OpjxJr~unity / ~lIirrriatil)(l ~ction ~m~loyer .
, '
, '
~.,,\
, .
.
.
..
.
~
For the time being, the Board also adopted the language of the Wrie:ht County Land Use Plan by
reference to serve as a policy guide to accompany the new land use plan map until new Or
amended language may be adopted. The Board specifically noted that the County's policies for
agricultural areas shall apply, since the purpose of the Joint Planing Board is to maintain the
orderly annexation area in a rural state until annexation is ready. For specific proposals and
peunit requests, the Wright County Zoning Ordinance and Subdivision Regulations are also in
effect, as they have always been in the MOM.
With the adoption of a land use plan, annex.ation requests can now proceed as detailed in the
Joint Agreement and my letter (regarding timing) to you dated May 13. 1998. If you have any
questions, please do not hesitate to call me at 682-7330.
Sin;relY, /!;I 4
#i1f!J!~
cc.P.Sawatd~e,Chwr
R. Belsaas, Mayor
F. Denn, Township Chair
EXHIBIT A4 ' "d-
.
.
.
Meeting of May 5, 1999
MONTICELLO ORDERLY ANNEXATION AREA BOA
MINUTES (Informational)
The May 5, 1999 meeting of the Monticello Orderly Atmexation Area Board was called to order
at 7:30 PM by Pat Sawatzke, Chairman, with Board members Roger Belsaas, Franklin Denn,
Clint Herbst, Ted Holker and Tom Salkowski, Administrator, present. Steve Grittman, City
planning consultant was also present.
I. APPROVE AGENDA: APPROVE MINUTES FOR AIlRIL 7. 1999
Belsaas made a motion to approve the agenda as written, seconded by Delill. VOTE: CARRlED
UNANIMOUSL Y.
In regard to the minutes for April 7, Holker made a eonection to page 3, paragraph 6, sentence 3.
It should read Holker stated if there is no was to service it. Holker also made a correction to page
4, paragraph 3, sentence 3. The sentence should be deleted. DeIill made a motion to approve the
April 7, 1999 meeting minutes with the above corrections, seconded by Belsaas. VOTE:
CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
II.
IlUBLIC BEARING - SILVER SPRINGS GOLF COURSE
LOCATION: N. Yz of the NE Y4 and the E Yz of the NE Y4 ofNW Y4, Sec. 8, Twp. 121,
Range 25. Tax # 213-100-081200
Petition: Conditional Use Permit to construct a new club hOllse as regulated in Section
604.4 of the Wright County Zoning Ordinance.
Salkowski reviewed the staff report noting he had met with the owners and their consultants and
asked them not to proceecl much further until it was reviewed at this meeting. Pam and Peter
Dane, the owners, were present and they introduced the following individuals working on this
project with them. Mike Smith - Strack Construction company, Egor Lenzer - attorney, Bob
Strack - Strack Construction and Dave Cottrell - Cheyene Plumbing. Smith made a presentation
to the Board stating this building is set-up to service 2-3 groups of people at a time. There is
seating available for 200 in one area, 180 in another dining area and 170 in the snack bar or
infOlmal dining area. He stated parking is represented on the Highway 39 side, and that they
plan to pave the existing driveway and have two alternative sites for the sewer system which are
undisturbed and away from public areas toward Highway 39. Smith stated they plan to cater to
the cross country ski crowd during the winter months. Strack stated they would like to receive
approval the earliest possible date due to the short building season and offered to answer any
questions the board or public may have tonight. He stated the Danes need this facility to be
competitive in this market.
EXHIBIT B
~~3
.
.
.
Pam Danc statcd they have to be able to havc a full restaurant 7 days a week in order to pay for
the new building. Herbst asked if the other building would be taken down. Pam and Peter Dane
stated it would continuc to bc us cd to service the golf course. Sawatzke asked how this request is
different than thc request in 1988. The Dane's stated it is a smaller, scaled-down version.
At this time, thc discussion was opened to the public. There were no comments from the public
so the hearing was closed.
Sawatzke asked Salkowski if the conditional use permit was primarily for a golf course. Lenzer
stated the primary use will be for recreation - golfing and skiing. The incidental use is to help
pay for such a facility. llerbst questioned the use of a restaurant as incidental. Lenzer stated its
main use will be to service the golfers. Salkowski stated if there was not a golf course already
there this would not be allowed outside a commercial district, and that he felt this was a stretch
as an accessory to the golf course with the seating capacity planned for the restaurant. He stated
his main concern was sewage treatment, and that the County Planning Commission would not
approve a restaurant for a golf course in other areas of the County. However, Salkowski noted
that there are unique considerations in this case, as a plan which was very similar had been
approved in the past and the location in the MOAA where city sewer will someday be available
is crucial. He stated on-site sewers can have problems when they are not used much during the
week and then you have 600 people using it on the weekend. He stated he does not have any
strong feelings whether this is approved or not because this Board approved it before.
Belsaas asked what kind of system was put in at the Monte Club. Salkowski stated the biggest
system they could jam in the space available. Cottrell stated he works with the state and the PCA
in developing any sewer system they put in. Denn stated concern over the golf course being on a
conditional use permit in an ag zone and now approving a restaurant to go along with it. He
stated we have been criticized before because we allow so many things to occur in an ag zone.
He suggested the Board be very specific in regard to the use. Salkowski stated if the Board goes
ahead it is a policy decision made in the MOAA and it should be made clear that it is not
something that would be allowed elsewhere in the county. Holker stated he did not have a
problem with it. However, he stated they will have to deal with the Highway Department in
regard to the memo distributed at the meeting regarding safety. Salkowski stated if the Board's
direction is to approve this he could dr2.ft something for approval at their next meeting with
contingency itcms and conditions which have been discussed.
Pam Dane asked if it could be approved tonight contingent on the highway engineer's conditions
and the septic system. Sawatzke stated he felt it would be approved, however, they need to wait
to make the final decision. Belsaas stated the Board needs to see the plans and conditions to
make a final approval. Lenzer questioned if the Board was okay with the concept of the parking
and drainage could they go ahead and begin. Salkowski stated he didn't understand what the
hurry was if it wasn't today it would be 30 days from today. He went on to say there are grading,
drainage and site issues which need to be dealt with first. Deml asked if they should amend the
ordinance for this situation - for the Dane's protection too. Discussion followed. Salkowski
2
~,~
EXHIBIT B
.
asked if the Board wanted to amend the ordinance or go with findings of fact. Belsaas asked
which was the best option. Salkowski stated amending the ordinance is the best option.
However, if the findings of fact and conditional use permit are acceptable to their attorney it can
be made to work that way.
A motion was made by Herbst, seconded by Holker directing staff to prepare findings and
conditions for approval of this at the next MOAA Board meeting. VOTE: CARRIED
UNANIMOUSL Y. It was stated this would be approved on June 2 if all the conditions are m~L
III. ANNEXATION REVIEW - KLEIN FARMS 5TH ADDITION
Salkowski stated this request is in the old urban servicc area. Had it been lookcd at previously it
would have been approved. Dave Klein showed a copy of the final plat to members of the
Board. Discussion was opened to the public. There were no public comments.
A motion was made by I-Iolker, seconded by Belsaas stating the Board finds this contiguous to
the city and it meets the criteria for annexation and should be allowed into the city by proceeding
with annexation. It was in the old urban service area and this annexation had been approved
previously by the Town Board. VOTE: CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
. IV. Land Use Plan Review
Salkowski distributed Exhibit C to members of the Board stating it was not the most up-to-date
version of the Southwest Area Concept Plan, but is the copy that was attached to the joint
agreement. He went on to say at the last meeting this Board reached agreement on everything
west of Highway 25 and all the YMCA property was changed to public/quasi~public, and had
asked the City to agree to the Plan west of Highway 25. He stated there has been no formal
response from the City and no action was taken.
Salkowski stated there were three options available to the Board at this time. The first would be
to adopt no plan and the agreement expires. Hc stated the Minnesota Municipal Board sunsets
this year and there has been no decision as to what will take its place. They may stop taking
contested orders. If the agrecment lapses county zoning will re-apply and an old MOAA LUP
may come into effect. In theory, the Township and County could go back and approve one-acre
lots in the MOAA if that is what landowners propose. The second option would be if this Board
agrees with the City and adopts the City Plan the way they want it. A narrative would stillnced
to be adopted stating what zoning regulations apply. The third and final option would be if the
Board adopts a plan the City doesn't agree with. This would not be an ideal situation either. Thc
plan would have to be changed back to comply with the south west area concept plan (exhibit C).
.
EXHIBIT B
4~~
3
.
.
.
It was suggested to finalize a map tonight and adopt language by reference to complete the plan.
It was also stated that adopting a plan keeps the agreement alive. Herbst stated the City Council
received a report of three large industrial requests for land - 100 acres, 85 acres and 25 acres.
Belsaas stated that would pretty much consume all the available industrial land in the City.
Herbst stated in regard to "Golden Nugget" he had suggested allowing the first portion of the
housing to go in to see what they could do and leave the rest undesignated until they can prove
themselves, but that suggestion was rejected by the rest of the City Council. Sawatzke stated that
area lacks amenities suitable for housing and is going to leave the City short of industrial land.
Bolker asked why the City did not act on Exhibit C. Belsaas stated the compromise that came
out of the last City meeting was what the City wanted to stick with. Grittman stated the LUP is a
unit and they didn't want to piece meal it. Herbst stated he felt Exhibit C wasn't acted upon
because of the "Golden Nugget" property. Sawatzke asked why 2 attorneys would write a
contract and staple Exhibit C to it. Grittman stated there was no dispute on the LUP then and the
nature of the negotiations was that the Plan was going to be developed by the City. Sawatzke
stated he is frustrated with the fact that three times this Board has unanimously approved
something and the City won't even make a motion on it. He stated letting the agreement lapse
could leave the community navigating in dangerous waters with no guide nor state agency to deal
with annexations. I-Ie stated he feels this is a major growth area and wonders what will happen if
county zoning controls the growth allowed in this area. Denn stated the Municipal Board is not
accepting contested hearings after July I. They will go to the State Planning Agency which does
not really want the job. No one is sure where annexation issues will end up.
Herbst stated the City has led everyone to believe industrial cannot be served at the "Golden
Nugget" location, but the hlCl is that residential cannot currently be served either. Grittman
stated it has been prepared for residential and a lift station improvement for residential still needs
to be made. Sawatzke stated the whole idea behind the agreement is to get representation from
each area to do the best for the community. There is no reason we can't all agree to that. We
should try to approve the best plan for adoption. We need to approve something. Belsaas stated
he needs to listen and respond to all the other committees and boards he is a part of and take all
of the information into consideration. While Belsaas personally feels the ""Golden Nugget""
property is suited to industrial, he will have to vote based on direction from the numerous City
committees. Bruce Theilen (City Council member in the audience) asked why we can't let the
City come up with a LUP the MOAA could work off. There was discussion regarding the
"Golden Nugget" property and changing the zoning to allow for higher end homes, as well as
allowing a section to be built to see how they market. Sawatzke stated he felt it was too late to
begin negotiations again considering the July deadline.
Salkowski, referring to the map, asked if any of the members were aware of any decision by the
Ci ty on the Markling property. No comments. Salkowski asked if any of the members heard the
Monte Club is interested in adding a hotel and stated if this does go, they will have to acquire
additional land. Belsaas stated he received a call from the owners ofthe Monte Club asking for
direction to pursue a hotel. Belsaas stated he suggested they acquire land contingent to re-zoning
4
t},~
EXHIBIT B
.
.
.
and annexation of the land. Salkowski noted that the map, as currently drawn, allows no room
for any commercial expansion at the Monte Club location.
Sawatzke suggested the Board approve something so we can have a better discussion about this.
Mr. Frie (in the audience) stated he was certain the Board will never agree on the LUP that
satisfies everyone. However, he stated a bad LUP is better then no LUP. I-Ie stated he is in the
real estate business and he sees Comprehensive Plans and LUPs changing constantly. Holker
noted that a land use plan that changes constantly is not worth the effort. There was discussion of
Exhibit C in the agreement and how that must be included in the plan since the City has refused
to amend the joint agreement. Sawatzke suggested adopting the LUP map and using the current
land use ordinances and language within the county policies. By adopting the County Plan, land
will continue to be regulated as it has in the past until it is annexed. Salkowski was directed to
draft a motion that will adopt a land use plan to meet the terms of the joint agreement and
comply with the wishes ofthe Board.
At 10:00 PM there was a 15 minute break. At 10: 15 the meeting reconvened.
Holker moved that, based on a series of public hearings, numerous discussions with City Council
members, property owners, and consultants representing the City of Monticello and developers,
and considering the restrictions imposed by the Joint Resolution, the Monticello Joint Plalming
Board does adopt the Land Use Plan map labeled MOA draft- 1/22/99, with the exceptions that
all YMCA property in section 16 shall be designated Public/Quasi-public, and in any area where
this draft conflicts with Exhibit C of the Joint Resolution, exhibit C shall apply. Further, for the
purpose of administering land use decisions in the Monticello Orderly Annexation Area until
further plans or regulations are adopted, the Wright County Land Use Plan and its policies for
Agricultural areas arc hereby adopted by reference, and the Wright County Zoning Ordinance
shall apply for specific permit requests.
Herbst seconded the motion. VOTE: passed 4 TO 1 (Belsaas opposed.).
Sawatzke noted that this action should be viewed as a beginning rather than an ending, and he
supported adopting a plan as better for the efltire community than letting the orderly annexation
area die.
Holker made a motion, realizing that no one is entirely satisfied with the current plan, to set a
public hearing on July 7 to amend the plan for Exhibit C and the Southwest area in the Joint
Agreement. Belsaas seconded the motion.
Discussion: Salkowski asked if this was to be a hearing on the entire plan, or just the areas west
of Highway 25. Holker and Belsaas both emphasized that the purpose of this hearing was strictly
to review and consider amending the area covered by Exhibit C.
YOTE: CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Belsaas made a motion that alll1exations no longer be allowed in the Exhibit C area until atter
the hearings. Denn seconded the motion. YOTE: CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
5
4'~
EXHIBIT B
.
.
.
V. OTHER BUSINESS
Salkowski presented bills to members of the Board for their approval. Belsaas made a motion,
seconded by Denn to approve the bills as presented. VOTE: CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
The meeting adjourned at 10:35 PM.
Respectfully submitted,
/
6
q~~
EXHIBIT B
\
\
\
\
\
\
~ .
.
98-7
SOLl'J11VEST AREA CONCEPT PLA1~
~
~
N"""",,,,,, 1 997
.~ 1 COO 2COO 3000
~--
SCALE IN FEET
L..J
.:.................
~.._....
~
-
-
Low Density Residential
. IncLJs-:T:cl
Medium I High Density Resk:enlicL_J Pt.:biic I Serni Public
4~'
Commercial
II II II Future Street
.
Exhibit C .. Southwp.st A rea C()nr.~rt PI(=In
,..'.
.
.
.
MONTICELLO JOINT PLANNING BOARD
AGENDA AND STAFF REPORT
Wednesday. June 2. 1999 7:30 pm Monticello Township Hall
I.
Approve Agenda; Approve Minutes for May S, 1999
II.
Continued Public Hcaring- Silver Springs Golf Course
LOCA TI ON: N. Y2 of the NE lf4 and the E Y2 of the NE lf4 of NW lf4, Sec. 8, T wp. 121,
Range 25. Tax # 213-100-081200
Petition: Conditional Use Permit to construct a new club house as regulated in Section
604.4 of the Wright County Zoning Ordinance.
As this report is written, staff have received and begun review of a detailed site, grading
and drainage plan for the proposal, which includes improvements (turn and bypass lanes)
for the highway. We will not have final review and recommendations ready in time to
mail Board members this report, but expect to have adequate information to act on the
conditional use permit at the June 2 meeting. As this report is written, staff can report the
following comments based on preliminary reviews.
- Adequate parking is provided in a hard surface lot. Verbal comments received
from the Soil and Water Conservation District indicate no major problems with
the drainage and water quality system, and staff expect final comments prior to
the meeting.
- No written reports have been submitted regarding sewage treatment. However,
County staff have discussed the sewer with MPCA staff who have visited the site
with the applicant's designer. While we would like to get more detail on the flow
calculations and proposed design, there is little doubt that there is room and
adequate elevation to properly treat sewage.
- The County Building Inspector has reviewed preliminary building plans
submitted and indicates that the building will have to include a fire suppression
sprinkling system as currently designed. The inspector has mentioned this to the
applicant's architect. Since sprinklers can be an expensive proposition in rural
areas, staff mention this only because it may result in some design changes to the
building to avoid the need for sprinklers.
Unless some serious, unexpected problems arise between now and the meeting, staff
expect to have a motion prepared for the Board to adopt approving the project.
1
EXHIBIT D
4~ft)
.
.
.
III.
Land Use Plan Review
Staff have no new significant information to present. The attached letter was sent to the
City staff, mayor and chairmen of the Town Board and Joint Planning Board on May 12,
with the intention of informing all parties that a land use plan has been adopted. There
has been no reply. Statf gather from a newspaper article that there may have been some
question at a City Council meeting as to whether or not the Board adopted a plan in
accord with the joint agreement. Staff understood that the intent of the Board was to
adopt such a plan, and the minutes of the meeting reflect that a land use plan was
adopted. The statutory definition of a land use plan is:
(462.352 Suhd. 6.) Land Use Plan. "Land use plan" means a compilation of policy
statements, goals, standards, and maps, and action programs for guiding the future
development oJprivate and public property. The term includes a plan designating types
oj uses for the entire municipality as well as a specialized plan showing specific areas or
spec{fic types oj land uses, such as residential, commercial, industrial, public or
semipublic uses or any combination of such uses.
While the Joint Planning Board concentrated on the development and adoption of a land
use plan map, the motion also specifically adopted the Wright County Land Use Plan to
serve as the policy statements, goals and standards applicable to lands in the MOAA until
they are annexed. It is the opinion of staff that a land use plan has been adopted by the
Board, as we have informed the City and Township. lfthe Joint Planning Board is
concerned that the City may start a legal challenge to the Board's actions, you should
consider hiring legal counsel for further advice.
Steve Grittman has informed Salkowski that Steve is working on a land use plan map as
adopted by the Board and will have it ready for the meeting. (The plan map published in
the Monticello Times was not correct.) Statfwould also like the Board to discuss the
nature of the public hearing you have set for the July meeting, so that notices will be
accurate.
IV. Other Business
~I
(
owski, Planning Board Administrator
ce. 1. O'Neill
M. Smith, Strack Construction
2
~,,'
EXHIBIT D
.
.
~.,,~
.
Council Agenda - 4/26/99
16. Consideration of a resllonse to the MOAA Board regardine the MOAA land use
plan. (NAC)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
This report is provided for additional information relating to the City's response to the
MOAA land use plan proposal. It has been suggested by some that the City should
consider the pros and cons of all its options prior to agreeing to any land use plan,
particularly one which would result in significant conflicts with the City's
Comprehensive Plan. Previous agenda information to the City Council included a
number of items which showed that the City's Comprehensive Plan was to be the basis
for the MOAA land use plan. There have been a substantial number of changes to the
basic City plan through the planning process at the MOAA. As staff has previously
noted, these changes are counter to the very intent of the MOAA agreement.
One option available to the City is to allow the agreement between the City and the
Township to lapse following the extension date in June. Under the terms of the
agreement, the MOAA Board must adopt a land use plan by a specific date (originally
within one year of the date of the agreement). Ifno land use plan is adopted, the
agreement's language indicates that it will be void, and the Orderly Annexation Area
would be eliminated. Members of the Council have asked staff to provide information on
the annexation and planning process if such an event were to occur.
Annexations are controlled by Minn. Stat. ~4l4. Where no Orderly Annexation
Agreement exists, annexations occur in one of two ways, depending on the location of the
land and who is seeking the annexation. Generally, annexations may occur by an
ordinance adopted by the City if all of the following conditions are present:
I> Annexation is petitioned by all of the owners of the subject land.
I> The subject land in the petition is no more than 60 acres in area.
I> The subject land is contiguous to the then existing municipal boundary.
Under this process, the City receives the petition from the property owner and calls for a
public hearing on an annexation ordinance. After the allotted time period (usually 30
days), the City holds the hearing, adopts the ordinance, and forwards the petition to the
Municipal Board. The Municipal Board (or the State Planning Agency after 12/31/99)
signs the annexation order at its next meeting. There is no hearing or contest before the
Municipal Board, and if the statuto re uire - . to
~ny t e annexatIQll. This process is not available to cities which are subject to an
orderly annexation agreement with a township.
The second form of annexation process occurs when any of the required conditions are
not met. That is, the land is not contiguous, it is being petitioned by the City instead of
the land owner(s), or it is larger than 60 acres. This petition requires a hearing before the
Municipal Board. A Municipal Board hearing is like an informal trial in which each CI, \~
32 EXHIBIT E -,
Council Agenda - 4/26/99
.
party (which probably means the City and the Township, but may also mean a separate
land owner) presents evidence and witnesses to the Board, which sits as an administrative
"court. "
The practice of the Municipal Board is to insist that the parties get together and attempt to
negotiate an agreement regarding the annexation. If no negotiation is successful, a
hearing date is scheduled, and the parties go through with the presentation of their cases.
The Municipal Board sits as a five-member body--three permanent members and two
members from the County Board not involved in the subject territory. As with any
"judicial" decision, the outcome is not often predictable. The Board's decisions may be
appealed to District Court.
Since the Township and County representatives to the MOAA Board have not been
willing to adopt the City's proposed land use plan, staff is concerned about the ongoing
interaction with the MOAA Board as development in the annexation area suggests more
fine tuning to the land use plan. Members of the MOAA have expressed an
unwillingness to consider amendments and have criticized the City for Comprehensive
Plan amendments in the past. The City has spent a considerable amount of money on the
drafting and redrafting of land use plans to date, and the text support for the plans is still
to come.
.
Moreover, a number of the Board members view the land use plan as more of a zoning
map, requiring detailed property line delineations, even where no development pattern is
available to provide context. It is foreseeable that even subtle variations in the future land
use will face rigorous scrutiny at the MOAA level, and very possibly denial, even though
it is the City which has the most at stake in creating and managing the land use pattern
following annexation.
Allowing the MOAA Board to adopt a land use plan which is at odds with the City's
Comprehensive Plan is highly detrimental to the City's ability to manage its land use and
growth pace, as well as the need to match development with its financial obligations. If
the MOAA Board members are unwilling to adopt a land use plan consistent with the
City's plan (as the MOAA agreement envisioned), staff does not believe that the
agreement is in the best interests of the City. The vast majority of annexations which
occur in the Monticello area comply with the conditions for annexation by ordinance.
They are typically small, contiguous, and requested by the land owners. These were the
elements which formed the backbone of the MOAA agreement. As a result, they are
designed to control leap-frog growth.
.
An additional option which changes the agreement, but keeps the OAA in place, was
suggested by Tom Salkowski at the most recent MOAA Board meeting. This option
would reinstate the "Urban Service" line into the MOAA but eliminate the land use
planning element which is in the current agreement. While this option is similar to the
method which the City and Township were using previously, we would recommend a I ~
mechanism for increasing the Urban Service Area as it became developed. The 9" L..I
33 EXHIBIT E
Council Agenda ~ 4/26/99
.
shortcoming of the previous agreement was that there was no interest on the part of the
Township to recognize or allow for new growth, and there was no time limit on the OAA
agreement. This option has appeal because it takes the MOAA out of the land use
planning business, although it may allow the MOAA to retain zoning administration
authority. The land use plan has proven to be the sticking point, even though there was
no contention on this issue envisioned when the agreement was being drafted.
This would require the City and Township to enter into a new agreement. There is no
way to know the Township's interest in this option or how long it would take to draft a
new agreement acceptable to both parties. The primary advantage to this option is that it
has some political appeal in retaining some form of City/Township agreement. It is also
better than the current situation, where the Township and County representatives have
interjected themselves into what should be a City function. It is less f1exible than the
annexation by ordinance process, however, in that contiguous land may not be annexable
if it is on the wrong side of the Urban Service line but within the OAA. This brand of
line-drawing can have an artificial effect on market conditions in the area.
.
With regard to planning authority, the City will most likely have little input into land use
decisions made beyond its existing borders. State law permits cities a two-mile
extraterritorial zoning authority only where there are no Township or County regulations
in place. However, the County's current regulations call for agricultural zoning and long-
term urban development. The Township may not adopt zoning which is less restrictive
than the County's regulations.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. Motion to approve the request of the MOAA and enter into an amendment to the
OAA agreement which substitutes the City's most recent land use plan proposal
on land west of Highway 25 for "Exhibit C" to the agreement.
2. Motion to resubmit the entire land use plan proposal to the MOAA without
amendment.
3. Motion to consider an alternative counter-proposal land use plan to the MOAA.
4. Motion to consider a renegotiation of the OAA agreement which removes land
use planning as a component of annexation.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
.
Staff does not recommend alternative #1. As noted in the text above, this course of action
leaves the land to the east of Highway 25 subject to further negotiation. In the view of
staff, the land use in the city should be treated as a complex unit rather than a parcel-by~
parcel series of islands. Where land use is determined for one area, the proposed use &I,.' ,J
34 EXHIBIT E I "'1
Council Agenda - 4/26/99
.
affects the City's interest in another area. Moreover, the most contentious areas (such as
the Gold Nugget land) are subject to recommendations of the MOAA which are not
supported by the City's Comprehensive Plan.
Staff fully recognizes the Council's concern over housing value in new development.
This policy was made an underpinning for the development of the Goals and Policies of
the Comprehensive Plan, which has been the basis for staff s involvement and reaction to
the development proposals which have been made. To better address the City's concern
for housing quality, enhancements to the City's Zoning Ordinance may be considered
which reinforce the requirements being imposed on the Gold Nugget project.
Without the cooperation of the Township or County members of the MOAA Board, staff
is concerned about the ongoing costs and uncertainty under the current OAA agreement.
As noted in the text, current state annexation law affords cities the opportunity to
efficiently consider annexations which are property-owner petitioned, small, and
contiguous to the city border. Between the current agreement (with the MOAA Board
proposed land use plan) and state law annexation-by-ordinance, the latter option is much
more manageable for the City. If the Township is interested, staff believes that a
renegotiation of the OAA agreement to remove land use considerations from annexation
proposals would be a solid option as well.
.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Letter trom IDC.
.
35
EXHIBIT E
lJ~6
.
.--
.
REQUEST FOR INPUT
Ollie Koropchak, HRA Executive Director
At the May 10 Council meeting, the Council tabled any action to acquire a 6-foot strip of the
Grassl parcel located on the south side of West Broadway until the HRA considered Grassl's
request to swap his south side lot with the HRA's lot lying on the north side of West Broadway.
Mr. Grassl attended the HRA meeting of May 12 and asked the HRA of their interest to swap
parcels. This was an add-on item tot he HRA agenda. The HRA purchased the north parcel from
Barry Fluth in 1996 after the roof collapsed and the building was demolished. This predate the
Downtown Revitalization and Riverfront Plan. Previous discussions have been for the HRA to
control the parcel for future redevelopment of the HRA parcel along with the parcels lying to the
east to Pine street (Highway 25). It appears Council and the HRA both agree to the benefits of a
front to rear walkway on the south and north sides of West Broadway consistent with the Plan.
At the HRA meeting of May 12, the commissioners tabled for one month any action to swap
parcels request input from the City Council, MCP, DAT, North Anchor Committee, and
Planning Commission. Mr. Grassl prefers the north lot for easier access to Big Lake; however,
he indicated he plans to construct on one side or the other.
INPUT REQUESTED:
Would the Planning Commission prefer the HRA to swap their one individual parcel or hold
their parcel for future redevelopment of all the parcels lying to the east to Pine Street?
.
-.
.