Planning Commission Agenda 08-03-1999
.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
.
6.
-.,.
AGENDA
REGULAR MEETING - MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION
Tuesday, August 3, 1999
Members:
Dick Frie, Robbie Smith, Roy Popilek, Richard Carlson, Rod Dragstcn
Council Liaison:
Clint Hcrbst
Call to order.
Approval of minutes of the regular meeting held July 6, 1999.
Consideration of adding items to the agenda.
Citizens comments.
Public Hearing - Consideration of a request for a Concept Stage Planned Unit
Development and Concept Stage Office/Industrial/Regional Storm Water Pond
development for two parcels totaling approximately 11 acres in size.
Applicant: Hagen Companies, Inc.
Public Hcaring - Consideration of approval of the Preliminary Plat for Hart Blvd.
Addition. Applicant: City of Monticello.
7. Public Hearing - Consideration of a variance to the 5' setback requirement for drive
aisles. Applicant: PetersonlGrimsmo Funeral Home.
8. Public Hearing - Consideration of a request for a Preliminary Plat, Rezoning to Rl and
R2, and Final Plat for Groveland, a Mixed Use Development. Applicant: Ocello, LLC.
9. Public Hearing - Consideration of a sign variance request for perpendicular professional
sign. Applicant: Metcalf, Larson & Muth, P.A.
10. Continued Public Hearing - Tattoo and Body Piercing amendments to the City Code and
Zoning Ordinance. Applicant: City of Monticello.
11. Consideration of a revised preliminary plat for Rolling Woods Subdivision.
12.
Discussion regarding the rezoning of the PS zone to include schools, churches and parks.
13.
Adjourn.
.
.
.
MINUTES
REGULAR MEETING - MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION
Tuesday, July 6, 1999
Members:
Dick Frie, Robbie Smith, Roy Popilek, Richard Carlson, Rod Dragsten
Staff:
Stcve Grittman and Fred Patch
Absent:
Council Liaison Clint Herbst and Jeff O'Neill
1. Chair Frie called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. and declared a quorum present.
2. Approval of minutes of the regular meeting held June L 1999.
RICHARD CARLSON MOVED TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE JUNE 1,
1999 REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING. ROD DRAGSTEN
SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
3.
Consideration of adding items to the agenda.
Rod Dragsten inquired on the Kjellberg West mobile home park amendment to the
comprehensive plan that was continued at the June 1 meeting. Steve Grittman advised
that this item was tabled until the July Planning Commission meeting but it would be
discussed at the July 7 MOAA hearing and this should be put back on for the August
Planning Commission meeting.
Rod Dragsten requested to be included as item #9b to give an update on the North Anchor
meetings.
Dick Frie requested to be included as item 9c to be advised on the proper procedure for
changing through streets to 4-way stops (Walnut Street).
4. Citizens comments.
There was no response from the audience.
-1-
.
.
".
Planning Commission Minutes - 7/6/99
5.
Public Hearim,: - Consideration of a side yard setback variance from required 20' to
proposed 5'. Applicant: Torn Brion
Steve Grittman presented the staff report. Mr. Torn Brion has applied for a variance to
allow the reconstruction of a detached garage to a portion of his single fami Iy lot which
would reduce the required 20 foot corner lot side setback to 5 feet. The applicant has
suggested that the garage would be in line with the adjoining neighbor's house setback.
The parcel in question appears to have more than adequate rear yard space in which to
locate the proposed garage. A small shed on the property could also be moved to
facilitate the garage location if necessary. With the availability of other optional
locations, the requirement that the City find a hardship is a difficult one to meet. A
variance in this case, based on the materials presented, does not appear to be j llstified by
the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance.
Chair Frie opened the public hearing. Torn Brion informed the commission of his
reasoning for this variance application, explaining the view from his house to his
backyard is obstructed and therefore they could not see their children when they are in the
backyard playing. He did not discllss with staff any other options he may have, but was
open to suggestions. Chair Frie closed the public hearing.
There was discussion from the commission on advising the owner of other possible
options he may have. Mr. Brion was advised on several options such as moving the
existing shed toward the north of his property line which would open up his backyard,
moving the existing buildings around as there is ample land area, possibly moving
his driveway, as well as adding on to his existing shed.
ROBBIE SMITH MOVED TO DENY THE VARIANCE, BASED ON A FINDING
THAT THERE ARE ADEQUATE OPTIONS AVAILABLE TO THE APPLICANT
IN SITING A GARAGE, AND THAT THE REQUIREMENT FOR HARDSHIP IS
NOT MET. ROD DRAGSTEN SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION
CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
6. Public Hearing - Consideration of a preliminary plat and rezoning from Ag to Rl & R2
on a 255 acre parcel (Groveland). Applicant: Ocello. LLC
Steve Grittman presented the staff report. Groveland is a 253 acre project located directly
west of the City's western boundary and south of 1-94 along the proposed westerly
extension of Chelsea Road. The project consists of a proposed 328 single family lots,
-2-
.
Planning Commission Minutes - 7/6/99
approximately 10 acres of "multi-family" (townhouse), 12 acres of commercial area
along the south side of Chelsea Road, several park and wetland open spaces, and a
proposed "PZM" area on the far southern portion of the project, adjacent to Kjellberg's
Mobile Home Park.
The development anticipates that Chelsea Boulevard will be constructed this year
between its connection to the east and 90th Street on the west. The first phase of
development will include one ofthe two townhouse parcels and 38 single family lots
extending to the south. The Preliminary Plat is heavily affected by two utility easements
which run diagonally through the property. A United Power Association easement
crosses from the cemetery along 90th Street to the DNR wetland abutting Highway 25.
About 800 feet to the southwest, a Standard Oil easement parallels the UP A easement.
Both of these easements affect the plat design, as well as the public dedication areas.
.
Land Use. The land use proposed for Groveland closely reflects the City's
Comprehensive Plan for the area, and has been the subject of numerous discussions
between City Staff and the developer. The primary area of difference is in the
commercial land use designation along Chelsea Road. Chelsea Road is shifted to the
north in this project, resulting in a smaller reservation of commercial land than the
original planning document for the area. The Comprehensive Plan does acknowledge the
likelihood that such changes may be accommodated, however, depending upon the ability
to attain the City's land use goals which the maps represent. In this case, the primary
objective was the continuous connection of Chelsea Road from east to west. Additional
objectives included the preservation of commercial lands along both sides of Chelsea, and
creation of attractive open spaces along the two large wetland areas.
The land use pattern created by the project is reflective of the City's proposed pattern.
The change in the Chelsea Road location decreased the amount of reserved commercial
land, but had the added benefit of providing new access to existing commercial
properties, notably Gould Bros. Chevrolet. This trade-off should be acceptable, so long
as the City reserves the remaining commercial area available to the south of the project in
the "Remmele" site, and adjoining properties.
Preliminary Plat. The proposed preliminary plat is generally acceptable, although staff
has made a number of comments regarding roadway alignment, cul-de-sac design, and
public open spaces. The 15 conditions were summarized for the commission.
.
Steve Grittman pointed out that the plan does meet the land use pattern and that the
conditions stated did not all relate to the first phase, although the commission could ask
for a revised preliminary plan rather than approving first phase stating the conditions. A
letter from the Wright Soil and Water conservation District was provided to all members
-3-
.
Planning Commission Minutes - 7/6/99
regarding the wetland review.
Final Plat. The proposed final plat for the first phase includes 38 single family lots and
an outlot of 6.1 acres for townhouse development. A rezoning to R-l for the single
family area and to R-2 for the townhouse area will be required upon annexation approval
and filing of the final plat. The final plat lots meet all requirements for approval, and are
not affected by the changes proposed to the remainder of the preliminary plat.
Chair Frie opened the public hearing. The commission inquired as to the number of
accesses into this development compared to the number of houses. Steve Grittman stated
that there is only one access proposed for phase one of this project but that he has been
working with the developer on this issue and there are adequate accesses proposed for the
development.
Mr. Scott Hill asked Steve to clarify if Chelsea Road would be realigned again. Steve
stated that it would not and that east of the connection point is consistent with the plans.
He also stated that the City Engineer and representatives have been in contact with the
land owners regarding Chelsea Road. It was stated again that the development will have
a number of accesses but will be somewhat limited on the east side.
.
Ms. Iris Harris asked to know the values ofthe proposed homes and the time frame of
bringing in this development. Mr. Dan Parks of McCombs, Frank and Roos explained
that he was there to answer questions as well as give a brief overview of this proposed
development. He stated that the owners/developers could not attend this meeting and
unfortunately he could not answer Ms. Harris' questions on the value of the homes, he
would prefer to have the developer explain the type of housing. Mr. Parks stated that his
firm deals with the land/lot sizes but not the housing. He relay these questions to the
developer.
Mr. Tom Holthaus of Little Mountain Development LLC, owner of property on Chelsea
Road, provided a letter of concern regarding this proposed project. He feels it is
somewhat premature at this time and that he has no intention of developing their property
at this time. He is also concerned with the zoning as far as putting single family
residential by commercial property and the potential problems of noise, traffic and
aesthetics.
Mr. Carlson, business owner, stated this plan would serve his property well and that
this is an acceptable alternative. Walt Rasmussen, land owner, was concerned with the
possible rezoning of his agricultural property. Steve Grittman stated Mr. Rasmussen's
home would eventually be converted to industrial.
.
-4-
.
Planning Commission Minutes - 7/6/99
Chair Frie closed the public hearing. Chair Frie reiterated that this request is premature
and questioned if anyone approached the township. Steve Grittman explained the process
and how it works. There was continued discussion regarding adequate access into this
development, park land dedication and that this proposed development seems premature
given that the MOAA board is not meeting until Wednesday, July 7, and it might be
better to wait until this meeting has occurred stating that what transpires at the MOAA
meeting will help this procedure in an orderly fashion. The commission relayed that they
would like the Parks Commission to provide a formal report as well.
Chair Frie questioned if we recommend adoption of the preliminary plat tonight, do we
just as well as approve the final plat? Steve Grittman stated that generally this would be
true and that is why conditions are placed on the recommendation for approval. It is
common to see long lists of conditions on preliminaries, but the Planning Commission
could ask to have a revised preliminary plan to show that all conditions have been met.
Procedurally the agreement has been met by MOAA as it meets their requirements. Chair
Frie suggested that this information be taken to the MOAA meeting as the next step.
.
Steve Grittman stated that this proposal has not been the subject of controversy and that
this is part of Exhibit C on the comprehensive plan. It was the feeling that it is
appropriate to consider this proposal at this time in order to give everyone a chance to
look at all angles to keep the ball rolling. The City Engineer has also been working on
the Chelsea Road design and has been in communication with them. The City Engineer
feels that this is the alignment that is the most appropriate and meets the peoples
expectations. Chair Frie reiterated that he believes these issues should be resolved before
moving ahead.
The commission also questioned the type of housing, sizes, etc., as well as the power line
easement and lots with 40' setbacks. Steve Grittman stated that the type of housing was
not something the City could dictate according to City Ordinance. This is not a PUD, but
a straight plat according to the subdivision and zoning ordinance. Chair Frie asked of
McCombs, Frank and Roos that the styles and price ranges of these homes be known,
strictly for information purposes. Rod Dragsten motioned that rather than deny the
request, to table for a number of days until these issues have been ironed out.
CHAIRFRIE MOTIONED TO RECOMMEND DENIAL OF THE
PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR GROVELAND, BASED ON A FINDING THAT THE
DEVELOPMENT WOULD BE PREMATURE DUE TO THE MOAA'S
MORATORIUM ON ANNEXATION IN THE AREA. ROBBIE SMITH
SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED WITH ROD DRAGSTEN
VOTING IN OPPOSITION.
.
-5-
.
.
.
Planning Commission Minutes - 7/6/99
7.
Continued Public Hearing - Consideration of a rezoning from PZM. Performance Zone -
Mixed. to I-I A. Light I ndustrial. Applicant: City of Monticello.
Steve Grittman presented the staff report. At the previous meeting of the Planning
Commission, this item was tabled pending possible sale of the land in question to a
developer interested in development of the land under the current zoning whieh includes
residential uses. It is my understanding that the Planning Commission did not want to
rezone the parcel to industrial if the current sale was contingent on the existing zoning.
In other words, the merits of the rezoning did not appear sufficient to ruin a pending land
transaction.
It is my understanding that the parcel has been sold, or a sale is eminent. Staff has met
with the developers who are proposing construction of five 12 unit apartment buildings
on the eastern half of the site. The western half (land adjacent to Ruff Auto) will be held
for a future use which is likely to be residential as well. The site plan for the entire parcel
will be presented for Planning Commission review in August.
The commission stated concerns on the time frame of this project as well as the
possibility of this project turning into a blight area. Fred Patch advised that City Staff has
accomplished what was intended and also recognized the blighting that could appear is
understood, but at this time that is not an issue. It appears at this time withdrawing is in
order. Steve Grittman eXplained there is a lot of work to do to design this project. Fred
explained tax increment financing and the fact that it does take a good deal of negotiating
and time. As 7th Street is moved, it is likely work could be done to buffer the Ruff Auto
site and that the land use may change. The commission was concerned with facing a
rezoning issue if this particular sale (Brennan) falls through. It was stated that it could be
up to two years before the City is faced with rezoning again. Fred stated that the
Planning Commission could be more proactive in this issue in terms of land use. It was
suggested by commission to put a time line on this project.
ROY POPILEK MOTIONED TO WITHDRAW PLANNING COMMISSION
REQUEST FOR REZONING BRENNAN PROPERTY FROM PZM TO I-lA,
WITH THE CONDITION THAT IF A SALE DOES NOT OCCUR WITHIN SIX
MONTHS, THE REQUEST WOULD BE REFERRED BACK TO THE
PLANNING COMMISSION FOR REVIEW. RICHARD CARLSON SECONDED
THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
-6-
.
.
.
Planning Commission Minutes - 7/6/99
8.
Continued Public Hearing - Consideration of a Conditional Use Permit within the B-3
Zoning District to allow an automobile repair facilitv. and a variance from the Citv's
Parking supply regulations. Applicant: Royal crirc. Inc.
Fred Patch presented the staff rcport. 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. At the June 1, 1999 Planning Commission Meeting, a
parking plan had not been completed to the satisfaction of the Zoning Ordinance and
Planning Commission. The applicant was directed by the Commission to design a new
parking pIan that would maximize the parking available on site.
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 Hoor area over 1,000 square feet.
The building consists of 13,500 square feet. This results in a parking requirement for
the proposed use of 24 spaces. Attached to this report was an Exhibit which illustrated
a site plan providing for 22 parking stalls, including the required handicapped space.
A variance of two (2) spaces would be necessary to accommodate this design. Several of
the proposed parking stalls will be located in front of existing overhead doorways. Access
drives to the building will be retained in its current configuration with curbing added.
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.
-7-
.
Planning Cummission Minutes - 7/6/99
Due to the constrained amount of parking, no outdoor and no overnight storage of
vehicles should be permitted. 'fhis 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. Most ofthe CUP
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. All appear to be addressed by the new site plan.
The remaining components ofthe site and landscape plan would include Engineering and
Zoning Administrator approval. 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 sign plan should also be
incorporated into the CUP review, in accordance with condition number 13.
.
Fred Patch explained that the setbacks have been met, as the Ordinance requires 24'.
Parking is to be established in front of the two overhead doors as Royal Tire does not
need access to these doors. He also states this is a reasonable request as stated in the last
report.
Scott Hill stated his concern on the storage of vehicles. He did go out to Royal Tire after
the last public hearing and it looked as if no attempts were made to take care of the
storage problem. He also counted as many as 27 vehicles parked in the lot at one time
and both entrances into Royal Tire were partially blocked by vehicles either waiting to be
maintained or owned by employees. Mr. Hill was concerned where the vehicles will be
parked when it snows.
Mr. Dan O'Neill of Royal Tire was present. He explained that measures have been taken
to remedy the storage problem and it will be taken care of. A number of the vehicles in
question have already been addressed, some of the vehicles are Royal Tire company
vehicles as well as employee vehicles. They have also cleared out the back storage area
and employee vehicles could be parked back there. At this time there are 13 employees
but the maximum number of employees at one time is eight to nine.
.
Mr. Joel Erickson owner of the Monticello Big Lake Pet Hospital north of Royal Tire was
present. He provided a picture taken on 6/24/99 from his property looking at Royal Tire
showing cars parked where there are no stalls. People are using the hospital parking lot
to get to and from Royal Tire and his concern is that it will get worse as the business and
-8-
.
Planning Commission Minutes.. 7/6/99
the City grow.
Fred Patch advised that a good deal of work has been done regarding other issues with
Royal Tire. This space was previously used as storage/warehouse and there will be
additional SAC charges and other issues other than zoning but that these are secondary to
land use concern. Royal Tire needs to make arrangements for ofT-site storage for these
vehicles. An option would be to acquire land across the street as parking is not part of the
land use. Joint parking agreements could be worked out.
ROBBIE SMITH MOTIONED TO DENV THE VARIANCE, BASED ON A
FINDING THAT ADDITIONAL LAND COULD BE SOUGHT, OR BUILDING
SIZE REDUCED, TO COMPL V WITH THE MINIMUM PARKING
REGULA TIONS. NO SECOND ON THE MOTION. MOTION DIED.
.
RICHARD CARLSON MOTIONED TO APPROVE THE VARIANCE FROM 24
PARKING SPACES TO 22 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. ROD DRAGSTEN
SECONDED THE MOTION, WITH THE AMENDMENT THAT ALL 22 STALLS
WILL BE MAINT AINED YEARLY. MOTION CARRIED WITH DICK FRIE
AND ROBBIE SMITH VOTING IN OPPOSITION.
Conditional Use Permit for Auto Repair in a B-3 District
ROBBIE SMITH MOVED TO DENY THE CUP, BASED ON A FINDING THAT
THE PROPOSED USE CAN NOT FIT ON THE SITE DUE TO PARKING AND
LOADING REQUIREMENTS. NO SECOND ON THE MOTION. MOTION
DIED.
ROY POPILEK MOTIONED TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE CUP,
BASED ON THE FINDING THAT PARKING WILL BE ADEQUATE AS
PROPOSED, NO OVERNIGHT AND NO OUTSIDE STORAGE OF VEHICLES
WILL BE ALLOWED, AND ON CONDITION THAT THE REQUIREMENTS
APPL YING TO THIS CUP LISTED IN THE ORDINANCE ARE SUBMITTED
TO STAFF FOR REVIEW AND APPROVAL. ROD DRAGSTEN SECONDED
THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED WITH ROBBIE SMITH VOTING IN
OPPOSITION.
.
-9-
.
.
.
Planning Commission Minutes - 7/6/99
9.
Continued Public Hearing - Consideration of a Zoning Ordinance amendment adding
Tatoo parlors as a permitted use in a 8-4 District. Applicant: City of Monticello.
Steve Grittman advised the commission that he did receive information on this issue
while he was on vacation last week, but he did not have a chance to review this
information before this evenings meeting. Steve requested that this item be on the
August Planning Commission agenda.
ROY POPILEK MOVED TO CONTINUE THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR
CONSIDERATION OF A ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT ADDING
TATOO PARLORS AS A PERMITTED USE IN A 8-4 DISTRICT TO THE
AUGUST PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING. ROD DRAGSTEN
SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED.
9b. North Anchor Update
Rod Dragsten presented the report stating that the North Anchor committee has been
meeting every two weeks.
9c.
Request for explanation as to the procedure regarding through streets changed to 4~wJJY..
stops (Walnut St.). FP.
Fred Patch explained the reason for changing this particular intersection from a through
street to a 4-way stop. The Fire Department had approached City Staff stating their
difficulty getting to fires with the traffic and road construction lately. Staff and Council
felt it appropriate for fire vehicles to pass down 6th Street to Hwy 25. Their intention is to
only have the stop signs on Walnut Street in the future as it is not intended to be a
through way as it is pedestrian oriented. Mayor Belsaas brought this issue up to Council
who directed staff to make the change to a 4-way and the Public Works department
ordered signs for Walnut Street. Fred stated this was an add on item at the last Council
meeting and the Mayor felt it vital that signs go up immediately due to the fire
department vehicles. There are additional signs on the way.
9d. Request for interpretation and clarification on an ordinance adooted at the last Citv
Council meeting regarding the removal of elected officials from office.
Chair Frie expressed his concern with the language stated in the ordinance proposed at
the last City Council meeting. He stated that the way the ordinance now reads,
commissioners are on a day-to-day basis and can be removed at any time. He does not
feel that this language is the intent of the Council. He asked Steve Grittman to express
~ 10-
.
.
.
Planning Commission Minutes - 7/6/99
the Plmming Commission's opinion at the special meeting being held Thursday, July 8,
1999. Steve stated he will if given the opportunity to speak as it is not a public hearing.
10. Adiourn.
ROBBIE SMITH MOVED TO ADJOURN AT 9:30 P.M. ROD DRAGSTEN
SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Recording Secretary
-11-
Planning Commission Agenda -08/03/99
.
5. Consideration of a request for a review ofa Concept Stage Planned Unit Development
and Concept Stage Office/Industrial/Regional Storm Water Pond devclo{lment for two
oarcels totalinl! aoproximately 11 acres in size. Applicant: Hal!cn Companies. Inc.
(NAC)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND
Hagen Companies, Inc. has applied for consideration of a residential Planned Unit
Development and adjacent office/industrial use. The submitted concept plans consists of
two parcels totaling approximately 11 acres located west of Minnesota Street, south of Ruff s
Auto, and east of Elm Street. The first stage of development would include the construction
of the residential PUD and regional storm water pond. Construction of the proposed
office/industrial building, regional stormwater ponding facilities and extension of 7th Street,
between Minnesota and Elm Streets, would occur as a second stage.
.
The Comprehensive Plan guides the subject parcels for future commercial uses. Both parcels
are zoned PZ-Mixed Use Zoning District. The purpose of this district is to provide for
transitions between high density residential land uses and low intensity business uses, as well
as an intermixing of the uses as part of a given project. Developments within the PZ-M
District are processed as a planned unit development.
Procedurally, the City should consider the PUD concept plan, making comments and
requirements for the developer's further planning. The review of the concept plan is for the
purpose of identifying issues in the design which would raise concem for the City. A PUD
project is assumed to be a departure from the zoning standards, but with a superior design
and development not likely through the strict application of those standards. Therefore, the
ultimate finding which the City must make is that the project design meets the intent ofthe
PUD ordinance. Following the concept plan review, the developer will need to apply for a
development stage PUD for both parcels.
7th Street
.
Access to the residential element of the project is proposed from Minnesota Street. The City
has long anticipated that development west of Minnesota Street would necessitate the
extension of 7th Street west to Elm Street, as guided by the Comprehensive Plan. The
applicant is proposing that this construction would not occur until the construction of an
office/industrial building on the western parcel. As part of the residential PUD first phase,
the right-of-way for 7th Street must be dedicated and the development agreement must
contain a provision that waves any objections by the developer to assessments to the A-]
parcel for the construction of 7th Street when the construction occurs.
Planning Commission Agenda -08/03/99
.
Parcel A-i, High Density Residential PUD
The eastern parcel, labeled Parccl A-Ion thc site plan, is proposed to contain a high density
residential PUD and is approximately 3.4 acres in size, excluding proposed right-of-way.
Consideration of a PUD is necessary because more than one building is proposed for the site.
Five, 12-unit apartment buildings (60 units) are proposed for this site. Multiple family
dwelling structures containing 12 or less dwelling units are a permitted use in the PZ-M
Zoning District. The parcel exceeds minimum lot size and width requirements.
Lot Area per Unit, Multiple Family
The development must provide 10,000 square feet oflot area for the first unit, 2,000 square
feet for each additional one bedroom unit, and 3,000 square feet for each additional two
bedroom unit. The applicant has not provided information on the number of bedrooms per
unit; however, it appears that sufficient lot area is provided for the number of units proposed.
The plan must include 500 square feet of usable open space for each dwelling unit, or 30,000
square feet total. The concept plan is compliant with this requirement. The applicant will
need to provide f100r plan information to determine if there is sufficient lot area for the units
proposed. The subject site may not support the maximum number of units allowed under
these requirements in order to provide required buffer yards and building location.
.
Buildings
Five principal structures are proposed, each with 12 units. ]'he buildings have a defined
height of 23 feet, measured to the midpoint of the pitched roof. The buildings have lap
siding with aluminum trim and fiberglass shutters. The material and color of the building
siding has not been specified.
All of the buildings meet required perimeter setbacks. Regarding internal setbacks, A
general standard is that buildings should be no closer than one-half the sum of the heights
of the two buildings. In this case, the buildings should be separated by at least 23 feet.
Buildings in the concept plan are spaced only 15 to 18 feet apart. As such, the site plan
should be revised in increase the building separation.
Landscaping
Landscape plans have been provided that do not include plant types, quantities, or sizes.
This information will be required at the development stage. Multi-residential sites are
required to contain a minimum of one tree per dwelling unit. Additional trees will be
required on the west side of the proposed garages to provide screening for second story
apartments. A buffer yard is required along the western and northwestern boundaries of the
site between the existing industrial use (auto salvage yard) and the proposed office/industrial
use.
.
Planning Commission Agenda -08/03/99
.
The bufferyard establishes increased building setbacks and requires a minimum landscaped
yard consisting of specific amounts of planting materials. Because the abutting residential
and proposed officelindustrial use parcels are under joint ownership, the 40 foot landscaped
yard may overlay the property line. However, the applicant must provide an intensively
landscaped yard completely on the subject site to screen the auto salvage yard to the
northwest.
The plan show garages on parcel A-I setback ten feet from the western property line, which
would encroach into the reg uired landscaped yard. The Zoning Ordinance does allow for the
landscaped yard to be reduced if a fence or berm is provided. In that the garage in not an
occupied building, it may be considered similar to a fence for buffering purposes. This is
also supported by the fact that the A-I parcel is being buffered from more intensive uses to
the northwest and west. While the garages provide screening at the ground level, views from
second floor apartments would not be screened. A revised landscaping plan illustrating
bufferyard plantings will be required as part of the development stage review. The
landscaping should be composed primarily of coniferous trees to provide second story
screenmg.
.
Parking
The site plan provides a sufficient number of parking stalls, including 30 garage stalls and
91 open parking stalls. All of the garages are located along the western property boundary,
a distance of approximately 300 feet from the eastern buildings. An alternative layout that
provides garages in closer proximity to all of the buildings would be preferable.
Refuse
While information regarding refuse location and enclosure is not required in a concept plan,
it is an issue that may affect site layout and screening, and should, therefore, be considered
early in the site design process. Refuse information will be required at the development
stage.
Parcel A-2, Office/Industrial/Regional Storm Water Pond
The western parcel is labeled A-2 on the site plan and is proposed to be developed with an
office/industrial structure and regional storm water pond. The site is approximately 7.4 acres
including proposed rights-of-way. The site plan for parcel A-2 is very conceptual at this
point. No landscaping, building elevations or floor plans have been submitted. All ofthese
will be required as part of a subsequent development stage application.
.
The proposed use ofthe building must be clarified. Professional offices are a conditional use
in the PZ-M District, but industrial uses are not allowed. Depending on the specific type of
use, a low intensity industrial use may be accommodated as part of the pun. Allowing such
a use would be dependent upon compatibiI ity with surrounding uses, traffic generation, etc.
Planning Commission Agenda -08/03/99
.
Particular concern would be compatibility with the residential uses proposed on parcel A-I.
The developer is proposing to construct a regional storm water pond on parcel A~2 that the
City has identified as being needed in this general area. The pond would be constructed as
part oi'the first phase of the project to City standards with the expectation of the developer
receiving financial compensation from the City for the land value, excavation of soil, and
permanent outlet infrastructure for the pond. The developer is proposing to use the
excavated material to raise the elevation of the residential site. The pond would help to
provide a physical separation between the auto salvage yard to the north and the proposed
deve I opment.
Brennan Property
A sketch plan should be provided by the developer demonstrating how the parcel south of
the proposed PUD could be developed. This parcel is not owned by the applicant and is not
expected to be developed at this time; however, the extension of 7th Street will impact the
developable area of this parcel As such, a sketch plan is necessary illustrate that the property
will continue to have access and development potential with the extension of 7th Street as
proposed.
.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS
Concept Plan for Parcel A-I, Village Apartments
1. Motion to recommend approval of the PUD Concept Plan based on a finding
that the proposed plan is consistent with the intent of the Comprehensive
Plan and PZ-M District, subject to the conditions listed in Exhibit Z.
2. Motion to recommend denial of the PUD Concept Plan based on a finding
that the proposed land use is inconsistent with the policies of the
Comprehensive Plan and intent ofthe PZ-M District.
3. Motion to table action on the PUD Concept Plan, subject to the submission
of additional information.
c.
STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS
.
The proposed concept plan is generally consistent with the provisions of the PZ-M
Zoning District and Comprehensive Plan guiding for the site. However, more
detailed plans are required for site landscaping to ensure that the proposed residential
Plmming Commission Agenda -08/03/99
.
residential use will be compatible with existing and planned uses of the area. Some
modifications to the site plan are also recommended to provide appropriate open space
between buildings and better integrate the garages and residential dwellings. Regm'ding the
proposed office/industrial use, more information is necessary about the proposed use in
order to determine if it will be appropriate in the area. Further, more specific plans rcgarding
development of this site, including building and landscape plans are necessary. All of these
issues, however, may be evaluated and decided as part of a development stage review. As
such, staff recommends approval of the concept plan as outlined under Alternative Action
1.
D. SUPPORTING DATA
Exhibit A - Site Location
Exhibit B - Concept Plan
Exhibit C - Project Narrative
Exhibit 0 - Architectural Styling
Exhibit E - Landscape Plan
Exhibit Z - Conditions of Approval
.
.
JUL-29-1999 13:20
NAC
612 595 9837 P.1S
'. City of Monticello
~"-, ~
-.... ''"''
....
',-
'. "-
'~'" .
......
-..
.:--.. .
..
, .~
l~\\ ~ \
{' i
. I \
'. , ~ "
,..... . \( ~"
.. :. ',', ~ ~"
.. ~I _.. \
'~~"-: -~ '\
. . .....
" ~"
" ~"
. ...
,
I
o ~'Q lOCO
~
2000
i;.;;.
14
"
/
...,
..
j
.'
>-
_----u
---.-
o?
D
f>
.
[
EXHIBIT A
5-1
JUL-29-1999 13:21
I ,-=- I'
r------'_._"'f."_._--_.'" '!
:,:: I :, t "J. .~ I
~~~ I 'i}!/;:,,' 'ft-I; I G
""~~ I fA1i~' "i,,!.. "0 I Z' n
3~~ '- irr~;"j~" I' '; ~
!l!15 1--: ":'-----. ~o
~ . i. ../=, , i[ :"r:-- I :~ 2:
R=' I ~~~;-.. \ I~ I +<: I' ~
~ i ).~ -! ..., "'Q
~ll".__~~"'!L____r_u~
I " I
.
~
~ ~ ~ ~'i ~
P I ~~ ~
~: a~ ~
~j,1"i ~
y I ~ ol:t ~
r..d~ ~
'l~ t ~',. u..
~ ~ i ~!
1'1; l!l!
i ~ ~ ~a
!l III ~i
I HI
t
" ~
~
~ ~
i '
c
- ...--(I!)-----
CONCEPT PLAN
NAC
/
.::,.. ;
!~/ /
..0
':./ I
I~ /
'e/
I
I
I
J-
,
/
I
/
, ,
,/: '" , "'..
,',' , I,...
..... ,_ __.. ... _.... .__ I.
o ',\
2Ci i:-I
t8 0,
III ~
I~~ ."
~~t ~
~! lil:
~~
g~
~"
r
, "
,
.,....: -
I"
, ,
" '. ,!.,
. "":j
'.
;
,;
.
,
I
. I
i
rOo
~
~
il
" )
~
!
, '
i
j
.. ,!
, ! c
I'
.11.
. r.~.
"
'"I' I,. .
.~..
I EXHIBIT B]
PROPOSl!D ,
RIi:SIDENTIAL 60 UNIT
APARTMENTS
MONTtC&lLO, lIlNNEiOTl
HAG!N COMPANIES, INC.
lSllD JACIC$ON 1l'.fU Mi.
. ......"..c"'.... ~ S~lInti
'~'IU"III"IlI""".'"
~ '~"I'"
. ....lIIn"'lllllio.lt..
II- ~:I
. 1ft.. " .u.1II\I.
. . rMO ~I~ .:d-1I11U '
~-~
JUL-29-1999 13:21
NAC
612 595 9837 P.20
.
Hagen Companies
MONTICELLO RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT
Minnesota Street
Monticello, Minnesota
Project Narrative
Concept Plan submittal
Submitted July 12, 1999
Introduction
This project narrative is being submitted on behalf of Hagoo Companies for a proposed
residential development in the City of Monticello. Tho proposed c;oncept development. identifies
two parcels which are under the ownership of the liag.n Com.pUlies and Mr. Hagen's partners.
TIle two parcels hereinafter identified as; Parcel A-I and A-2 when combined in acreage total
approximately eleven (11) acres. This concept submittal identifies the applicant's intent of
developing a 60 unit apartment complex on approximately 3.7 acres ofpropeny identifed as
parcel A-I. The 3.7 acre parcel will have all of its access and utilities takcn from Minnesota
St.reCl. The 5 building 60 unit apartment complex. will provide sufficient parking and garage
parking to meet the city of Monticello codes.
.
RLK.Kuusisto, Ltd. is serving as surveyor. site planner. engineer and landscape architectural
consultant for this project. RLK.Kuusisto. Ltd. is a planning. design and engineering firm
located in Minnetonka. The firm has extensive experience in working with residential
developers and in designing developments to meet the codes of each city. John Dietrich ASLA ·
Brian Sullivan, Mark Scholle and Doug UrhamlDer are the principal contacts for this project.
Jeff Allman of Allman Associates is the project architect and will be responsible for the building
design and detail. Each building will be similar in design and shape, for reference a schematic
building elevation bas also been submitted with this concept application.
.
ConeDt submittal
TIle subm ittal is for concept approval and site plan review of approximately 11 acres of property
located west of MiMosota Street, south of Ruff's Auto, east ofEhn Street and north of 13 acres
currently under the ownership of Mr. Brennan. There are also two parcels along Minnesota St.
south of parcel A-I which are not a part of this concept submittal. TIle subject parcel is vacant
and is currently identified as two separate tax parcels_ For purposes of this report Parcel A-I is
3.7 acres and is proposed to be developed as residential and Parcel A-2 is 7.4 acres and will be
developed as a regional storm water pond and a future office/industrial structure. The concept
site plan identifies how the two parcels could ultimately be developed. For di",usssion purposes
the lite plan hu shown how tho rlpt-of..way and 7th Stte.t wou.ld be allgood If extended
through the property. 7th Street'. 80' rliht.of-wl)' Iw beln centered on tho .x.ilting property
line and is consistent with the right-of-way shown '&It of Minnesota Street. A triangular shape
parcel would be left between the regional pond and 711l Street which if parked at a ratio of 3 cars
per 1000 sq. ft. would result in a 30 to 36.000 sq. ft. building. Based upon past actions parcel A-
2 could be guided for an industrial use vs a residential use-
June 1999
RLK.Kuusisto. Ltd.
. 1 .
NARRATIVE
CSM - Soulhwcst Tech Cenw
EXHIBIT C
S..~
.
.
.
JUL-29-1999 13:21
NAC
612 595 9837 P.21
The initial stage of development will be to construct the regional storm water pond to the city
standards along with the 60 unit apartment complex. No ex.teDsion of 7th Street is proposed at
this time. Secondly since the two parcels are separate tax parcels a preliminary plat will not be
necessary to develop the apartment complex. or stormwater pond. The City of Monticello has
identified the need for a 14 Acre-ft regional stormwater pond to be constructed in this general
area. As shown on the concept site pl.n. the pond will act as a buffer to the industrial land use of
Ruff. .uco and the fQtu.r. d,v.lopmel'lt within pan;:lls A..l and A..2.. Th. pond will be
conltruct.d to the City ltandardl with the .xptc,*~io" of tho dov.loper rectJivinS fin'n;ial
campen.atian from thlll City for the land value. excavation of loil and permenant outlet
infrastructure to create the necessary basin of the pond. The .xcavated material will allow the 3.7
acre parcel, A.. I to be raised to allow the residential site to drain to the pond. The storm water
drainage from the apartment complex will be treated for water quality and rate control within the
resional pond prior to discharge. Based upon Rlk's understanding the pond will outlet along the
north side of the apartments toward Minnesota Street. Rlk anticipates the City engineer will
provide detail comments on where and at what rate the pond should be disoharging.
The subject property is zoned PZM which is classified as a performance based zoning district.
Apartments are an approved use, bowever when more than one structure is proposed on a lot of
record, a Condition Use Permit is required. The applicant understands this requirement and fully
intends to submit a complete application for site plan review upon receiving comments on this
concept plan..
Pr,lIl'(1jna(v lite PIIP
The lite plan of p..rc:al A..l conaiaU of five buildings ,pocificaUy desiancd for twelve apartments
within each building. Each buildings footprint is ..pprox.. lOS' by 60'. Sufficient parkin; haIJ
been provided to allow for 2 vehicle spaces per unit. Along the west property line is a roW of
garages, which provide a physica.l separation between the future land use of parcel A-2 and the
residential nature of the apartment dcvelopmcmt. The buildings are oriented around tbe central
parking area with a.1I having a minimum oftwo sides facing an open yard. The building design
includes either patios or decks for the units. Tho applicant will provide berms and landscaping to
buffer Minnesota Street from the residenl;Cs. Sidewalks will provide accesS to the parking areas
and provide a direct pedestrian connection to Minnesota street.o
June 1999
RLK-KuU$ilto, Ltd.
NARRATIVE
CSM - Southwest Tech Center
.1..
5-4
612 595 9837 P.22
JUL-29-1999 13:22
NAC
.
',' , I "l'
.. '.
.~, . "," ",', ~,
· 8:'.:8"",:
i "':":..:,:,1 ,:f.
;.. ,. " I
.J' Ii .":
. :
,: I,:' :,': '
, I
~ .' :
. I ",.l.
. ~ :. ~
'.
. , .
I ,I ,,;.
, " I, ::,.' ~ ' .
I . I' .,'
.' . !"
~ . '. I.
" . ,"
. ~ I ~.
,,'\ ",
~ =
~ .f" "
..., .' . \ d
0 i
....
\""
i.
. .
.
,. .
, 8'....8 ::.;..
., .:,' . ~;'>.: : ".:,'
,,'r.. ~:,:;.!:,." 1-
J"
.,
jII." ,
i
~
:
EXHIBIT 0
~-5
612 595 9837 P.23
NRC
JUL-29-1999 13:22
. ....~. ~~~ ,::~~'" ~\-::".~
::'..~.'
~
i. f.J' ;
";,;a-,.j- "',
""'( .
\.. ,to.:
"T
\ "
'~
~
.
,
" .
(.
~"'"'.
I'f\,~
,{ ;\11
t ~
.~1:<.
~k-
.
, '".
00
-LY
"I,. ,~. "
.. ...;,../
.. ..... '. I
~.
I
ZJL.~~~~~~
'~:."f_=w=.~.=z:"~ ,
" """". ~- .,
.
.' .'
EXHIBIT E
?,c.,
JUL-29-1999 13:23
NAC
r---.....-,ojI..._,._~_.--'-_.._-,.-~-_._-----~- ":'. ' , ... " '. ' -------
I . .;~1~'
! '~TiTfi"m:m1 L:..i':~'!il;,d:l:.ub::. --_..~~{~~i~~JI ~,
-l,1.l.,.......I......~.. "-,... .... .. ".""'" ...."/..,,, . .'. ,',
'.' ',\ a? ". r ':i .~ I)
. ..... .' :.. l::::I' , !? j'l' '--\i
I:; ,'I'~~I1 'T' }...... ",'." ,"..... ..,."....1~..,., .....' '.' .:""..,,.". r ~ 9--:' i
t..~~L..~. .........' '..",,'" "~ ..:
, .. '.' ..' I, ....' '",' , j, -'''~I I
r. ' . .. " . I IA 1,1 '~ I ' ,
. ..'7"'"".......li-w~ 71';'= -"'"T~.-.r....'.,.."':'T...'J:IH'"iH-..........i"".."~' '.l'I"f=:IJ-j'r.!~LI' rm~ ,.!..
!I l 1;" " Ii ~ ,I'! I ' I . I '1 I I I
. n' ',. ,I , ~I .' '- i.I I............... ~. \! ,. I \"'1 I . ~ .
\1 ,".l!!!!'~"""~." ..~. ....~."""~~~~':"'_. . ....'lll: .~-..,.,,",... .'
!!:;-:~l?f~'.) .. '.':'/"~':>~;;:,:....:t~,:;~~r';<tt~;l~,\>"""7~:-;";::""(_'=~~"~ '\~~:~~~ . "':'-~':I
J.. .iL.:.~~..;..;: c. .",,-..' ,\_, "'. .... .. ...-, 1.....1: '\.,-". C,...~........-......,,~.....'. ".. '''~r ~ .,...~'J1'1 ..1.
!'\. . .j! ". ..::( '; ~.. ". . . -:-..' . , ~:,..:.,~ ""'I( lil:_:~:') -.
i.:' l' ,. .., . ,;... : """ ;, I
r . :1: . .,..~:. 'I. .' Le. "',; !I ,I
i ., I. ~ ..' i.l'" "'[1
::: '..~j',' ::ill. , . .' . . :~::'~::;.I '11-='1'\'
. ,I . ! I '. ~: ;'1 i '..... ..- f
: I ' ...~: . . ..~..., . I; ...~.=t .
.j :i .iL.-.J!..,,).,:,...,....... ,,,.,-'--''''.'
11". :1: "I' r .0:. ,tl")' '~; '.
~ ' ,'I' '\" . ..... l '.~ ,I
[I ! '......~ .,....,~... --' ".:, "
. '.". 'I' \ .--~.. -
1,1 .\\.~,tl..':~,o#/
. .' i'l .....,,\\1")4(. !,;. .
J." "'~if"'.' .~,)."....,..""..._.. . .
, 'r" -[.......'''...,.--.....''...
1, ' J' \ I ~
.._,J.',_. ....... ilo ".\'" "..1-....... 1'\:ol1" ....' ..,
_...,._'_"'lllI_f ~"'III~"taa,;...'... j'I'IIIIIIIIII""
~I:I . it'- '/'t"':j,i~::~~!~E:.i:L..
........ .,..." , ~ . . j f
.'.:,. J i :,..-...t
.;..;.... .~. t;k .;; . !~. -'. ~l
i "it,' ,'/ J 1i.~..."L
J )..:/ '~;::;':;'-" (.jr~'!\ ..
'. \..vh_.A.;.~~~~.~:jI'._.
::J"".....,...~..11...~rr~.tr:1i i~
__ i l':. ..L 1,1"., b.,-t~::'. ~.?~~:~..,..;;,..;]:L ....
;(~ ...." If 'I
" ,.1 .'. .... (,l ~'l
#tt.A \. \;" ;.~J ......!,.
_Jl' -- "...:' j., I'!
l'{--" '7""t rt . ,'~;: .~
11". "f} i~r-
. .i' "," Jf~' ,(<L:.~:)\ . j": ~,r:J
, " , "'''Jr'' " ,\ "
'I ..,' : ',~, ::~,.~ ' I'" ,'j....,
; 111/ \ ~ \. Ii ,i . I~l
,1. . \ 1~..,., ~.. '!it r""1,1
. '> ,> ,:, J! ("'J'~ ...., H
,:'\ '. '..' ',. .~' '-v V (/'.'-.ii;'~. _J-'"
': ~ "\: :' . 1 \ 1/ ,~!.. ~j
J.',.;;,..tf"''' ..;:t...~':M ' ':-., I'
,:..'_Jt~...'J~':L:IL~l.c~~~.~...~.- ~ ."..
.
.
I
I
I
I
'1
j
I
I
:\
I
I
(
I
I
'I
r
1
;
i
i
I
i
I'
I
I
1
',I .
.
:i
"
:1
; ~
,
~.l-~,.:::'1
.i .1
.:...". i,
~~'I ," '. tll:,.f.
. 11 '~\,j:i
1 . ). '"
! '-.. : ~ ,~ ~~ \
1_... : I .J. ~ l
I; 1.;--'............: j'
'1"" ~"-{Jil".""
I ~ ',""", " .
. I ',J,,,- ~ ....
. t':J ;~~\i)\. ~)
.\ "~
.: \_J.,~' '
,~._.~~ -:",~,l,~.--ll
.., ,
.. ~\
. h'
>i
;
612 595 9837
P.24
--
I
I
!
_-..-' L
~'1
Planning Commission Agenda -08/03/99
.
RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
1. The applicant submit a development stage application including all plans required by
Section 20-3 [Bl of the Zoning Ordinance.
2. The applicant dedicate right-of-way for extension of 7th Street and enter into an
agreement to pay future assessments for construction of said strect, subj ect to review
and approval of the City Attorney.
3. Building floorplans are provided to demonstrate that therc is sufficient lot area based
upon the type of residential units proposed.
4. The site plan for parcel A-I is revised to provide a minimum distance bctween
buildings equal to one-half the sum of the adjacent building heights.
5 A detailed landscaping plan is provided specifying the type, size and location of all
existing and proposed plantings. The landscape plan shall provide a butfer yard as
required by the Zoning Ordinance on the west and north lot lines of parcel A-I.
.
6.
The site plan of parcel A-I is revised to provide garage space in closer proximity to
the cast structures.
7.
All exterior refuse locations are identified on a revised site plan for parcel A-I
8.
The intended use of parcel A-2 is specified.
9.
Grading and drainage plans for the regional stormwater pond are submitted, subject
to review and approval of the City Engineer.
10.
A sketch plan illustrating potential development of the Brennan property with
extension of 7th street is provided by the applicant.
11.
Comments of other City Staff.
.
EXHIBIT Z
~.e
.
.
.
Planning Commission Agenda -08/03/99
6.
Consideration of approval of the preliminary plat for Hart Blvd. addition. (JO)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
As you may recall, some time ago with the development ofthe River View Square Plat, there
was a need to subdivide the River View Square property from a parcel that included both
land on the East side of East Co. Rd. 39 and land on the West side of West Co. Rd. 39. The
simple subdivision of this property which was made which resulted in River Square on one
side and a remnant parcel on the West side of East Co. Rd. 39. This particular plat
encompasses the remnant property. The parcels identified on this plat are linked to adjoining
parcels and become logical extensions of neighboring lots. It is expected that the City will
sell these small parcels which are undevelopable to the adjoining property owners.
Approval of this consideration of this plat is truly a house-keeping matter.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1.
Motion to approve the preliminary plat ofthe Hart Blvd. addition.
2. Motion to deny approval of the preliminary plat of the Hart Blvd. addition.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION
City Staffrecommends approval ofthe Hart Blvd. addition. Once the plat is approved, the
City would then be in position to sell the small parcels to the adjoining property owners.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Copy of the preliminary plat.
.
.
.
.
.
.
HART BOULEVARD ADDITION
fv1;.~ C\I-~ f? L. I...//\} c)
F)L I-~ ;!f~
firJ<:;L_ Uf\JO /
/
/
/
-~'L
O!JTLO~ A
I
I
I
I
"'_.
jj 1Ir<<l'tllil- r I~
_1m''>>"
'r..Z:::.~_~*:'~-"'w.\
~~
I
I~-
i'::-;.r--1.1-"
''10
,:';.5'/
2"nz,Da UND smrnm)&B" JNt;.
il/o/'lnCfl.~, r,NNNESOTA
!"
.~~'1-1"
l~/'IO..DII
- -. - ~-:~~:~
tV/O. 1<<I.UNl1~~i C
- -------r-
"
I
I
I
I
I
I
F""
_f(..u..-rrl
.. ,"
ieM.Il 'H:II_HfD'T
:""'k-_",,_
a l':III",~,~.~~lI[r
1 ";:"- I ~ /
V !'-_ vv
~$"'w.<"IH'o;"';~"':~it:':rs~r{'!.~- It>
....._....11711'".____
SOU,L~??E-'
~-
HI"" . ...11. 'l~rH ,.., ."",,1.'''' !~T ""n ...,"
~'"'''l-: ,,.,,o.ID'''''' .."or ,. ./#""_UUl",J""
,jMlfr".ff....I"t..!_........~_,III'~,."
ID .1
.....--...
--
Planning Commission Agenda - 08/03/99
7.
Consideration of a variance to the five foot set-back requirement for drive aisles.
AOlJlicant Peterson/Grimsmo Funeral home.
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
Planning Commission is asked to conduct a public hearing and consider granting a
variance to the drive aisle setback requirement along the Red's Mobile side of the
property. On the Red's Mobile side of property the site plan shows drive aisle that serves
the mortuary garages. This portion of the parking lot will be used by mortuary vehicles
only which means that there will be no head-in parking that would result in bumper
overhang, and no parallel parking that would result in door swing hanging over adjacent
property. In addition, area of the variance is roughly adjacent to the blank east wall of the
Red's Mobile building. A variance would bring the curb very close to the Red's mobile
building wall and maximize functional space. Requiring the setback would provide space
for landscaping which would break up the monotony of the blank wall but reduce area
needed for maneuvering vehicles.
The applicant has indicated that the variance is necessary to obtain reasonable use of the
property due to the configuration and location of the existing building.
There is some precedent supporting the variance. A few months ago, Thein Well
company was given a variance allowing the curb line to move adjacent to the lot line.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. Motion to grant the variance to the drive aisle set-back requirement.
Motion based on the finding that the variance is necessary to allow reasonable use of the
property. The remodeling of an existing structure and associated utilization of adjacent
land requires granting of a variance. There is no parking along the variance boundary.
As a modification to this alternative, Planning Commission could grant the variance in
the area of the garage stall entrance area only. The curb could be moved in to meet
setback requirements as it extends south of the stall area. This would provide space for
landscaping and trees.
.
CITY OF MONTICELLO
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
250 E. Broadway, PO Box 1147
Monticello, MN 55362
(612) 295-2711
Planning
Case # ,.cr1-nd/)
PUBLIC HEARING APPLICA nON
Check Requested Action:
_ CONDITIONAL USE - $125 + all necessary consulting expenses.
_ ZONING MAP/ TEXT AMENDMENT ~ $250 + necessary consulting expenses.
SIMPLE SUBDIVISION - $125
SPECIAL PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING. $250
_ SUBDIVISION PLAT - $300 + $100/acre up to 10 acres; $25/acre
after 10 acres + expenses. City will refund excess of per-acre deposit, !
-~ V ARlANCE REQUEST ~ $50 for setback/$ 125 for others + nee. 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 is determined solely by City staff.
Applicant Name: !1lLc_~tJ(c4u;(~a r ~~ fl'1Uv::;t4tt1
'!J> r8j)tU./ftU Au ,.c:r~,( L .-1
W I~, 2P CrY! f Business: (0/'<. ( z9S7 0 )17
Address:
Phone(Home)
Property Address: Z 4'0 ,F r 13 r~ Wctj
..ii.gal Description of Property:
. Lot: ; Block: ; Subdivision:___'
Other:
Current Zoning:
R f ,r C\. d dJ \ !-/o \1\ Y-o CM" p"()~- 00:: It C{ 1/.
Describe Request: _ # f J ' /
"To dR W>fW'vte ,{ r/Mr'rJ.Mc(i 1> W 10 ;pI IVR CUM!- V OV' arr'ueuJ7,t&'(l'~~_
,/-fbd t d-A I('<~r'f? /'-/7 e . ff Ul ~~kr:~ -dis;:,~ ;( A(}.A(~
/5 bfT-lor~f/:;:l (or rJ.-Nf io hlfY/Id Ikr 1.d-1-:Jj ffAA I~ -, dtr~
'f11t.d..1~ ~ V/~, fJ(Ol)o>>rf C1~r Lv . ~M M_.QJJ-~~
Information provided by the applicant on this form is true and correct. s: e.Q pi ~ a. i.( 0... (h U~ :
,.,.1-1'[-91 .j(;m~-GV'(~VVjWO ~J (h~
Date
Property Owner Signature
'J-r(,P9
bt /PlJ'c!lcU1 Cr-
'( Applicant Signature (if applicable)
Date
.
(CONTINUE ON BACK...)
PHapp.han: 12198
fJA
Date Received/Paid: ~ i
Receipl Number: I '1~
Public Hearing Date: 9_ I
I
(
.
/ ~ p~ ,,:::' i=tl
'. "" ~" .:b.
~ ;' ~,i J o~
'" S J;6 "" "'" (.l
,~-r . "f... ~ ~.
-;:t> '" 0-...
~ 1. ""........
~
~;{J" ~
~/..{ ;~
'-t~ ."" 0'
j r
/
/
.Qv
"
'"
,'h~~
i'
.f;'
.
/
.
/
/
/ Qt
.. ~
/1
0
.., ..
/~ ()
';- of'
/
..
/ "'r
"
/ ....,
.:&
/ ",
",
/ .....,
/ ".,
A
0,
/ .....,
'-
'-
~.
.........
/
'-
.........
"1
/
/
/
/
/
'1B
.
.
.
Planning Commission Agenda -08/03/99
8,
Consideration of a request for a Preliminary Plat. Rezoninl! to R-l and R-2. and Final
Plat for Groveland. a Mixed Use Development. Applicant: Ocello. LLC. (NAC)
A, REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND
This report addresses revised preliminary plat plans submitted after the Groveland request
was denied at the July 6. 1999, Planning Commission meeting,
Groveland is a 253 acre project located directly west of the City's western bOlmdary and
south of 1-94 along the proposed westerly extension of Chelsea Road, The proj ect consists
of a proposed 328 single family lots, approximately 10 acres of "multi-family" (townhouse),
12 acres of commercial area along the south side of Chelsea Road, several park and wetland
open spaces, and a proposed "PZM" area on the far southern portion of the project, adjacent
to Kjellberg's Mobile Horne Park.
The development anticipates that Chelsea Boulevard will be constructed this year between
its connection to the east and 90th Street on the west. The first phase of development will
include one of the two townhouse parcels and 38 single family lots extending to the south.
The Preliminary Plat is heavily affected by two utility easements which run diagonally
through the property. A United Power Association easement crosses from the cemetery
along 90th Street to the DNR wetland abutting Highway 25. About 800 feet to the southwest,
a Standard Oil easement parallels the UP A easement. Both of these easements affect the plat
design, as 'well as the public dedication areas,
Land Use. The land use proposed for Groveland closely reflects the City's Comprehensive
Plan for the area, and has been the subject of numerous discussions between City Staff and
the developer. The primary area of difference is the commercial land use designation along
Chelsea Road, Chelsea Road is shifted to the north in this project, resulting in a slightly
smaller reservation of commercial land than the original planning document for the area.
The Comprehensive Plan does acknowledge the likelihood that such changes may be
accommodated, however, depending upon the ability to attain the City's land use goals
which the maps represent. In this case, the primary objective was the continuous connection
of Chelsea Road from east to west. Additional objectives included the preservation of
commercial lands along both sides of Chelsea, and creation of attractive open spaces along
the two large wetland areas.
The land use pattern created by the project is reflective of the City's proposed pattern. The
change in the Chelsea Road location decreased the amount of reserved commercial land, but
had the added benefit of providing new access to existing commercial properties, notably
Gould Bros. Chevrolet. This trade-off should be acceptable, so long as the City reserves the
remaining commercial area available to the south of the project in the "Remmele" site, and
adjoining properties,
.
.
.
Planning Commission Agenda -08/03/99
Preliminary Plat. The preliminary plat has been revised to address staff comments regarding
roadway alignment, cui-de-sac design, and public open spaces. Staff comments about the
unrevised plans and descriptions of how those comments have been addressed in the revised
plans are listed below and are illustrated in Exhibit B and Exhibit C.
1.
Phasing. The project will be d(fficult to phase due to the limited access available to
the project area. Only one of the five access roads (/'iltreet "A") is able to be
constructed under the current plan and the pattern of surrounding property
ownership. Coupled with the road alignment comments made below, the developer
will have to be aware of the needfor the development qf additional access points as
early in the construction phasing as possible.
The applicant has provided the following written response: The developer intends to
construct the First Phase as originally indicated beginning in the northeast portion of
the project at the extension of proposed Chelsea Boulevard. The anticipated
sequence of development will extend westerly to 90th near the proposed new
intersection of 90th and Chelsea Boulevard. This sequencing of construction will
provide several alternative site access opportunities. It is intended that site
development will then progress southerly from the First Phase toward the future
westerly extension of School Boulevard from Trunk Highway 25. This generalized
sequence of site development will minimize site accessibility concerns.
2.
Tofadlirate internal street development and phasing, stqllrecommends realigning
the connection to Chelsea Road/90th Street on the west. Thisplan would route Street
"C" directly into Chelsea Road at the boundary between the singlefamily area and
the commercial area. (..C)ee note 2 on Exhibit C)
The street has been realigned as described above.
3. 9(Yh Street would be redirected into an intersection with Chelsea. asproposed by the
developers, but maintaining a 1/8 mile spacing (see note 3).
90th Street has been redirected as described above.
4.
Lot depth in Block 5 is a concern, due to the impact qf the UP A power line easement.
The buildable area is very shallow (as little as 30feet)fbr many of these lots due to
front yard setbacks and rear yard power line easement. An alternative layout should
be considered which increases the depth of these building pad'i on both sides of the
power line (see note 4).
Lots have been lengthened in the block, now labeled Block 15, to provide buildable
areas that are at least 50 feet deep.
.
Planning Commission Agenda -08/03/99
5.
Street connection to the south property should be relocated to the west to minimize
the resulting cul-de-sac length, and take beller advantage (~fthe likely alignment of
5,'chool Boulevard on the "Remmele" property (see note 5).
The street connection has been relocated as described above.
6. The small cul-de-sac which serves lots in the proposed park area (Outlot .1) may be
eliminated and replaced with lots which.front directly onto Street "F". Public Works
stalfprefer plat designs which minimize the number of cul-de-sacs (:\"ee note 6).
The cul-de-sac has been eliminated and the lots have been aligned along Street "F"
and Street "A".
7. The project anticipates the use of entrance monuments at access points to Chelsea
Road/90th Street. City Staff will work with the developer to prepare appropriate
designsfor monuments.
No specific monumentation is being considered at this time. City Staff will work
with the developer to prepare appropriate designs for these monuments.
.
8.
One parcel, Lot 2 of Block 5, is shown at 11,900 square feet in area. All other lots
appear to be of standard size or greater. This lot should be increased in area to meet
Zoning Ordinance requirements (see note 8).
This lot has been enlarged to 12,300 square feet, and all lots now comply with lot
area requirements.
9. A buffer yard and planting will be required along the rear yards of Block 1 abutting
the commercial district. The commercial areas will also share in the buffering
requirement according to City code (see note 9).
A 50 foot buffer yard and planting has been noted on the preliminary plat along the
north side of what is now labeled Block 17 and Block 19. The buffer yard will be
required to extend a little further to the east and west to buffer the entire border
between residential and commercial uses.
10.
Two small out lots have been shown in Block 5 between the power line easement and
Street "D". These should be combined into one and located at Outlot H (\'ee note
10).
.
The two outlots have been combined as described above.
11.
The lots in Block 15 which back onto the west wetland (Outlot K) should be extended
.
.
.
Plmming Commission Agenda -08/03/99
into the wetland area, reserving drainage easements over the wetland This is to
ensure that the City will have no maintenance responsibilities over the upland
portions of the area ('Jee note 11).
The lots havc bcen extended into the wctland area. A drainage easement over the
wetland should be notcd on the plat.
12.
Pathway will be located along the south side of Chelsea Road, the UPA easement,
and along the boundaries of the wetlands as shown on the plat drawing. A short
section of pathway should also be located on Out/ot D connecting to the commercial
area. The gas line easement crosses proposed lots and pathway connections in three
locations, resulting in d~fJicult building sites. It is recommended that Lot 17 o..fBlock
13, Lot 1 of Block 15, and Lot 9 of Block 16 be dedicated as parkland to provide
greater access to the wetland pathways, and eliminate the difficult building sites (see
note 12).
A trail corridor is shown on the preliminary plat in almost all of the areas described
above. The pathway should also extend along the entire south side of Chelsea Road,
extend from Street "B" to 90th Street, and extend through the park along the UP A
easement. The lots listed above have been revised to provide greater access to
pathways.
13.
A rear yard ponding area is proposed in Block 17. Access to City maintenance
crews will need to be preserved in this area (see note 13).
An easement should be shown from a street to the pond to allow access by City
maintenance crews.
14. Sidewalk will be required along the following street segments, in accordance with
City policy: Street "c" ;rom the UPA easement on the northwest to the wetland
pathway connection at the gas line easement; Street "F" ;rom the western plat
boundary to Street "C"; Street "G" on its north loop between Street "C" and Street
"H"; and S'treet "H" from the connection with Street "G" and the connection to the
south (see note 14).
The preliminary plat indicates a pathway corridor along the segments described
above. In addition to the segments described above, Exhibit C illustrates sidewalk
between Street "C" and the UP A easement along two roads in the northwest portion
of the site.
15.
The plan shows a pathway connection from the southeast corner of the project to
Highway 25. This should be realigned to the south to connect with School
Boulevard, which will have pathway and/or sidewalk connecting to an intersection
.
Planning Commission Agenda -08/03/99
with Highway 25 ('iee note 15).
The pathway has been realigned as described above.
Final Plat. The proposed final plat for the first phase includes 38 single family lots and an
outlot of 6.1 acres for townhouse development. ^ rezoning to R-l for the single family area
and to R-2 for the townhouse area will be required upon annexation approval and filing of
the final plat. The final plat lots meet all requirements for approval, and are not affected by
the changes proposed to the remainder ofthe preliminary plat.
As an additional point of information, one of the parcels (Little Mountain Partnership)
separating Groveland Plat from the Chelsea Road connection has been acquired by the
developer. There remains one last intervening parcel that remains to be acquired by the City
as part of the Highway 25 Project.
B. AL TERNA TrVE ACTIONS
Decision 1: Preliminary Plat for Groveland
.
1.
Motion to recommend approval of the Preliminary Plat for Groveland, a mixed use
development, based on a finding that the land use pattern is consistent with the City's
Comprehensive Plan, subject to the conditions listed in Exhibit Z.
2. Motion to recommend denial of the Preliminary Plat for Groveland, based on a
finding that the subdivision is premature based on the standards of the Monticello
Subdivision Ordinance.
3. Motion to table action on the Preliminary Plat, subject to the submission of additional
information.
Decision 2: Rezoning to R-t and R-2
1. Motion to recommend approval of the Rezoning to R -1 for the single family portion
of the first phase and R-2 for the townhouse portion of the first phase, based on a
finding that the zoning would reflect the intent of the City's Comprehensive Plan.
2. Motion to recommend denial of the Rezoning, based on a iinding that the proposed
zoning is inconsistent with the intent of the City's Comprehensive Plan.
3. Motion to table action of the Rezoning, subject to resolution of other plat issues.
.
.
.
.
Planning Commission Agenda -08/03/99
Decision 3: Final Plat for Phase 1 of Groveland
1. Motion to recommend approval of the Final Plat for Goveland Phase 1, based on a
finding that the plat is consistent with the Land Use Plan and complies with the
dimensional and design requirements of the Subdivision Ordinance.
2. Motion to recommend denial of the Final Plat for Groveland Phase 1, based on a
finding that the plat is premature based on the standards of the Monticello
Subdivision Ordinance.
3. Motion to table action of the Final Plat, subject to review and approval of annexation
by MOAA Board or subject to additional information.
Under this alternative, a special Planning Commission meeting could be called in
August, to be held after the MOAA meeting, or the preliminary plat could be
considered at the regular meeting in September.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDA nON
Staff recommends approval of the Preliminary Plat, subject to conditions as stated in Exhibit
Z. The plat has been the subject of considerable discussion between the City and the
developer, including a concept review by the Planning Commission and City Council. The
revised proposed plat responds to comments given to the applicant and, with the
recommended conditions, meets the City's zoning and subdivision regulations, as well as the
Comprehensive Plan and Parks Master Plan. Last of all, according to the City/Township
Agreement, property subject to annexation is supposed to be reviewed by the MOAA prior
to preliminary plat approval, therefore, approval should at a minimum be contingent on
MOAA approval. IF Planning Commission is more comfortable getting MOAA input prior
to formal approval, then Alternative 3 should be selected.
D. SUPPORTING DATA
Exhibit A - Site Location
Exhibit B - General Development Plan & Preliminary Plat including Grading Plan
Exhibit C - Issues from Unrevised Plat
Exhibit D - Final Plat
Exhibit Z - Conditions of Plat Approval
]91.07 - 99,]3
.
<0 ~""" - OO(N .>a;
11:1 ~ t,u,ll.Y ~SDnIYlAl
R2 SItc;U .. t ,.~y ftt$b[NT\......
03 _ 001$1,., 'ESloo<n~
.... ~ H~ 'MK
'-NI IOIDD<n..... ~ ....., lll:""'-........,
.%~. - %ON( - _'.OOfnAl..
:f-" ="Is~J"aro
:1 _nal.ua;m
.. !'~ r-ss
:c !;;\tf"\"'~=S
II K;AV'r ItfDUSTrlAL
/'
~UlQ1'ION-'
B-1'IlD -DIIIIII1T
lIISIu (Pll_,
ZONING AND LAND USE MAP
"0' '0 SC"~C
.
,
/
r:m-.'
VICINITY MAP
.
INDEX OF DRAWINGS
1!g., ~!!Y..!!!I!.
· ~ -....,. Io>cetl... . _....
I ~ ,,",tar'" ,..,.....
:II "'UmI"117 flat, "..1.1I Bait
· ...1Iml...., ""t, ....1.1I lieU
II .....UIaboot7 ....... PI... HerU. IIa.It
/I .....1l..1aor7 Cnodlar Plaa. ....th IIaIr
'I' ~ uUUt" 1'1.... ....."' BeU
· ......1..1""'7 UWll1 PI.... S.,,", B.U
. ...u......., fI..III PI.,
"OT TO SCAlE
Eihibit A
8-'
E"9/,,'~"'ft9 . PfCflnif1g . SlJrveyir.g
,...."'!i/;~
........."............"........'.....>...,.:1'1'.
H:Y:M.......:,.,.. "'.'FRA
. <.:.;~:;'.:::. ~
:sr
"'()." McCombs Frank RoO!
. ASSociates, Inc.
l~zn"'*"""tulM.~~.t" ~.~1
~ H;I"lf-~010 . .\)J' I/;/ns-45.!J
(-1r.Ji.~~I:~
aleIIl
Ocello, LLC,
107al1 H_IIW. NW
c... Rlfldl. MN 55433
(112) 755-fiS4
""led
Groveland
....... MN
....T1IIIl
Zonlnglnd Lind Use.
Locltlon. Ind Genera'
Development Plan
I ......_. 1;.11'1)" ~~ 'h pi.., am C~IIIJ""" =t:
~ 01 w^rtIr jItoor :k.~' ~~ .,1: th.t
t CI'I 0 d-ll~ 1R'ttt"t<<~ ..11'..... l..~
.,.... 'lit 10." .. ~".. 'Stot. c:! """'-"~I.
.!!'"~ .t...../ A #-G ""'.1 W. ......
2!!L_ f/1./,.
..I;iJ''I".trl~ N~f!J 1~11
;:t~""'J ~
~ ~Wf
~-
...~ !</IV,"
...........
nn"'D~7.~;~ ~~'~j-~,IV""'"''''''
-.. ~~~...... ~-....' ""."..--..--
. ...... ....~__.....n..........~u.~.~~.~..~.
, ,
:r~II:..:=~~:~~_.:==:=
I~~~
.j..-..-+.j.._...._._m.._............
IT · ---:==
--. -.. --.t..---..---
---_..._.....,.~,~~w
\
'"
SIlI~ llm.....
[~,~]
MFIlA FIlE 110.: 118n
.
.
--.;:
-_:. ::::. ~ - - - - - --
~-- -'::::-- --........
- - - - :::-.::: -=-- INreR -
--- -- --.: -~-!
""""-.: -- ---
---......~-.
I I
II
I I
\
./'
./ /'
./
.
R:fI
o 100 200 400
~
NORTH
I
.00
I
II
/1
(~hibit f>>
6-~
.
.
=_.L.-- ~. /:iifl' __ _ _ - - "'-_),."// 'e' " ';
.. CllI 1'//;'/'" ...t.'I ... --. "'"""- / / "-. I
~ m/?/,'i -=:.:=="e:. 2 oC'::::!!::I~J ...~. / " , '., I . .',. -
~~ ~ ~ ~J'i/ I R 1111 R'[!] [!J [ZJ gJJ C!J Lf1lrn Cl:l " .../~;~ I I ~\ (' .. ii
.. 'j / Q;t \ \ \''',
-..... . .~. - ---. -.~ '~~ / I ~. ..\\".
J ~/.d;-4~~, So: ~I"'~~'~.& . "~ \~\~\\\\i\\
" \. Offij 'T - I ,,'I .>/~./). /., a I ~ ,l~ \
i ;;:!r ., ~ ~~~ if ~ ~ / ~~~ · ~ ~~ "~~~ ,"
!Ii v. ~~p. .........7 .~ ~: I) "~~t/~~~/h ~~ r ~~~,
'~~ lII! ~ fA fA T N ~~ ~~ ~,,"-t,
t. ~ ~ __' - ..~ ~. '(;j ~ "/;.~ 7 ~ ~ II< '\.'0/ ~ V,'" , ~~
.~ ~ ~-: l1iJ'l:h\~\~,~ ~rt. "if, /~'- h ".. ~ ~ · ~ \ \\~1 '(
a\ ~.......-::: ././ ~.4; ~~ /~ ~ AI: ~~~ ~ ~ ~~ '\:1\
~~ ~~ .- ~ ,.~ ~~~/ W:~~- UI, ~J g, \ '
~ Kvr ~ ~\f ~ ,- z'/..,.... ~ ~<::.y 'i:S *1
;;;" \\~~IL.:.,I LZl~~\~/ ~~'/~. _ ~ '4Y. ,! \
I \' ~ 0 - - - V, /~ ~ .-.01.. "I ... l. 5~ ~~ 1:'
- .. ~ kt'" - N '" ~ _ .,. fJ ~ ~ _ "'~ ~0 ~ J1 )
n Q 'rJ "" · Jl:. ,,~~ - ~~ b #':ol · ~,~ 1
~ _~ \~/ -Jv'; C?!:i~~ 7, ~K~~~,\~~~~//i 'ti~'" Q~ ~rf ~J
~J~~J \ ~:r..~~;/ :~~~ '/ ~~~~~I.~ l]~ fj ~/'~'..
~ "" / '~ ' // ,~f!J ~{l.~... J - ,:;t; ~~~ ~~~ - ~ WI!
'~ "'i'. N" ~~-.:::J -4 /1 1//
"3f_~' " ";-;/ ~ - ~ ~ ~ ti1 : ~~/) ~l. ~ 0 l~ '
? ~/ ,~~ ~' ,- ~-\~~~}1t '8 - 0 , (;J,Tj .~<
J/" B"~ g \~..~.j t\Q~"!.~ 0., IN- .
;; ~~: - 'I ~-..~ '~'I/J ~! ,/1/ ;'
!/ '" j -----di :~~') Gf, Ik~J.
/ ~M:ij: _ k:\ ~~,; ._~.':~ ,y~ l,r-}\ f
~ .D ~(~\~~~~ ~~ ~ ijwl, I ;
~ ~ ~_ - ~}\~ '::;;'-::;io~. .~\' , '"
..... .... - ~ ~ \ ~ ' "'I.,; I I..
~ ,Ij\" ~ ~ ~ ~ A oJ' . ..... I( II. OUTLOT 8
~ ~ ~~. ~, 0 \ \ "" ~" '.,
~.~~1~~~~7~\ ,.~ \ & ~.... "'/hrl ;,4' I!
~
/
.
.
'~- ...,..~ ...,-
/
/
... ,..........,
\
,.,
"
'..,
''',
"
f~\
,,; "^
~ ,~..
\
.
/// ;t'/
0,~/
/.ij../.. i/
/ij X//
/4~;t/
/ij X/I
-'l/ X//
'l/ ,;i/
~
-0
~S
0,-
"'0
,.....
no
I
I J t
I'};, I ~
If I
H/
I
,.
>I
I~ j
~i
,:~::'!
NO' 2'52"" 338.
OollfLOT 8
.81 AC
",0
" C;
.
.
I
/
/
/
/
1.172' I
/ /
/ t
/e~t/
/ co
/ ~
/ t
/ /
/ I
/ /
/ I
/ /
/ t
/ /
/ . .. NOO"05'5,n /
[1M ...ru.a. 0" "" ....IM or ... .. ." or _ '.. ','''. u,/ /
/ I
/ /
~lfl;~lil!ii! i ~~!ili i ;i i (rrl!iii:
~~I~i~o~!1~i~ IJ!iz~ t: p!~ji~
~illi~fil~irf ~lli;f !s I~il;i~
~:j,llill~~li ~l~~il ~! ;fi!!i!
I~~ii~(l~!f:!lt :"Iit,~ fli II!;!::
P-i:iP . ". 6' ,I.i , "l"'l.l'
~Jl..~i~!ll"l~ ili~o." ~ {1~o.;1
~f ~li'lo.41a' 13iEI' f liltll"
t. ~l il~!~:p ..flfr' ~ !I rrf
!Ji~rl!ff~tJI~ i~liil [ Ip'i'ill
~ito~~lo.-o~i If ,f f ;t ir
~~".lii;f~lfl; iili~ i~IJii
181!f11fllif" ~ll" I 'l- ~.
6'''llIJ~it~~~f i~..il ~ti~l
i:~~t!~ti.l~~ tilr~ ~ i~&il~
:Ill~fi~ei~,i .. 11 ' "If!~!
-'I!or~08i.1 t p i I I~~"
iif~il(llli:i!iJ lii~ ~ ~ ;:l:
~ ~fo.f~.. (rj( ~llr i I ":~f
~ ~~Pi Joo flat ~ If !
, 1'!~iJ~i~li ~..!: - Ii;!,
..f!~II~lf:..1 'li1 I : ir-i
!ltilJlli!f~1 111[ I 8 triz
oo;~IJ a: ollll 08- " 1 I ll.p;
~l-I~ [~Iiif ~21 - g ~p}
~J~if!Jii~:1 I{fl ! i i~i:
i~i! Ji~~;l I~~ I 10lf
'~fHiilil~JIJi-s tl;1 ..I ! ~II;
.~ il f ~ff 0 ~t i
lilll~f ~ I ~t:l~ f .. s" -
"" '''i.,It.2 H.l ilU .. I J.~I~
f~~ .~! ii!'_ I:~ J fih
il
.. ~!
It.
l't
i!
"i
t-
.., ~
~H
?O il
. ~t
.
o
i ff~;tift.~~tII Pi
~li "f:- iH ~l l!
=~i Igl!!e~1' I...
f~~'~I~ !!!i!l. [i
..(8fhUifiJf f ~
;t.Ui5 f'lIlli pl
i'tit~~~lll!i [f
;ift.li!.l d ...~
Il~l ~:rllt,1 ~!
J !1'.~ij"U~ f"
Iii Ihillerf "i
ot. Plh; fir.E
1'["~I:..:I!!.f [ H
Ifl..l!F!r~lItr f9
;~il~ilsoil:~ -I
~!~iJlffl;rri I~.
11 !lIB p.;... 0 u i
.:: .. Il~~t~t (~
1~11 i i~f!:i (I
I'rs Slll~!I.~~i I"
;-15'1 .lIli~~fl if
i~li it~ ..-I! I(
:Ul:l is I!i~l~
H [~-11l'0 5'1
w! :irl~ht
~; Iii !lfl
II ~l""" j
,.~ flli~H"
I: !r:;rd
[J ....~!hf(lf
11 fAilil
ifl ~hf IS
if i~,~ln.t
. 5'0 81'''' ,"ti
! !~!i: j8
[
f
;;
I
~
f
..
..
i
i
'"
I
i
I
OJ
r
I
!l.
2
i
~
&
)
""-
4o.9.~
-
-~..--",...,.-....,
---' \
--..----- \
-~".------_..-..--_..._..~.!
...
o
iO
~a
!~
t::l
~s
~6
~....
0,.
JUL-29-1999
13:25
<I
P.28
612 595 :8~__
' -- ....
.
~,::-:::.":'-:,=",:,:,;,=.:..s_
- - -'-..
........
.,~
r~liL
"<
...........
'.
......,
"
".
",
"
FkF1
" .,
'. ,'.
"" .,....'~ '.', ,..,
'. ".., ',\,
EXHIBIT C
/-..
--::--
/ ~ -
' ~?AR':>..
.
..........J
---
.
[
~
~,...
..
;
.
t
~'; 'v
~~-' t.
~~ V
~~;>.. r.
~, v
~ ''\.~,~
~ n 'Y--,~ "
"~ ..,," oN
'..-::~ .._,.""".......
"'''', - ~""_._.- -=- --
~~ '- -----
L.~ ~._._
~
"'..
"',~, ( ....~~
'~" ..
"~ r
' "
, ::-- j
'~
, ",~
' "
'::--
'~,
'~::--
'~
.....
e
i
/
~:'
./
..~,
........... ......, ..'.......
" ::::--'::"',
...................., ...~......,
............'.............~..........
' ~ , '":.... ' -
,~ ,
'..... --........~
..................... "-...
'.....
'.....,
.....
~
'i7r
11/
II
II Ii
I.
, jl
~~'" !
i'<~~~'%
I " ' "
,
,
,
(;
~
".
...---.....
-,
....~
I
i
:
Ii
.
I
I
fP
-.....----...."..-,,-..
~~;b't b
~.~
.
.
.
Planning Agenda - 8/3/99
9.
Public Hearinl; - Consideration of a sien variance request for oerpendicular
orofessional sien. Applicant: Metcalf. Larson. & Muth. (F.P.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
DA T is now recommending that this application for variance be considered on its own,
and that the attached ordinance amendment be considered for action at the September
1999 meeting of the Planning Commission.
The Design Advisory Team [DA T] for the City has reconsidered this application for a
projecting wall sign in the Central Community District, at 313 West Broadway, Metcalf,
Larson & Muth.
Initially the DA T found that the sign proposed for the building at 313 West Broadway
appeared to be consistent with the Monticello Downtown and Riverfront Revitalization
Plan and recommended that the Sign Ordinance be amended to allow such signs.
However, the City Council and DAT have since recognized that a change in the City Sign
Ordinance to allow this sign would likely establish a precedent for similar signs, some of
which may be aesthetically objectionable.
Several findings that may be made to support a variance include:
1. The architecture of the building is unique. The high/low roof arrangement
at the front of the building will compliment and bring the proposed
decorative projecting sign into the architecture of the building. (This is a
unique architectural condition that is not existing elsewhere in the district.)
2. The decorative support and frame for this externally illuminated sign are
ornamental and compliment the design of the building.
3. The historical/antique design ofthe sign and sign support are consistent
with the Monticello Downtown and Riverfront Revitalization Plan.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. Motion to recommend to the City Council that a variance be allowing for erection
of an internally illuminated projecting wall sign at 313 West Broadway in the
CCD District subject to the sign not exceeding 8 square feet in area and at least 8
feet in height above grade, making findings (as stated above or other as
determined by the Commission).
2. Motion to recommend to the City Council that the variance be denied.
HPR-1~-" THU 0':3' Si~ns Plus
.
.
;'
/
/
.
q-,
/
J
I
~
.I
/
.I
/
f
/
I
f
I ~ ~
,r ?~1
~
:~
~
I~
?~ >,~
\::.-:;; '0 z
i ~ ;-~_ ~ ~
Iii !J ~ ~ G
~ ~ ~=--~
612 878 2142
P.02
,...
<i
.........--===v~
,
/
o
\$}
;
,
I
i
,
!
i
fl:1 ~J ~~
y-i !
'7" ,-
~_)I.
"-~
1..=-- ;
I'?.. .
!L.., .',
... .......~... ....
iZ_'t ~~
-
""
f)
~.~
k~
.~
..~
.-.....
i.<-'"
(~
p. "
.....
..t;
-:::.:::~'""=" ._~~--...rl.",__--,__
.
.
.
Planning Agenda - 8/3/99
ORDINANCE NO.
CITY OF MONTICELLO
WRIGHT COUNTY, MINNESOTA
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 10, CHAPTER 2, SECTION 2-2, ITEM [PI]; TITLE
10, CHAPTER 3, SECTION 3-9, ITEM [B] 2. (k); AND, TITLE 10, CHAPTER 3, SECTION 3-
9, ITEMS [EJ 2.; OF THE MONTICELLO ZONING ORDINANCE BY ESTABLISHING
SIGN REGULATIONS.
THE CITY OF MONTICELLO DOES ORDAIN:
Title 10, Chapter 2, Section 2-2, Item [PI] of the City Code is hereby amended to read as follows:
[PI] PROJECTING SIGN: A sign, other than a wall sign, which is affixed to a
building and which extends perpendicular from the building walL including but
not limited to overhanging signs.
Title 10, Chapter 3, Section 3-9, Item [B] 2. (k) ofthc City Code is hereby amended to read as
follows:
(k) Overhanging Proiecting Signs except as hereinafter provided.
Title 10, Chapter 3, Section 3-9, Items [E] 2. of the City Code is hereby amended to read as
follows:
2. Within the PZM, B-1, B-2, B-3, B-4, CCD, I-I, and 1-2 districts,
signs are subject to the following size and type regulations:
(a) Within the PZM and B-1 districts, the maximum allowable
square footage of sign area per lot shall not exceed the sum
of one (1) square foot per front foot of the building plus one
(1) square foot for each front foot of lot not occupied by a
building, up to one hundred (100) square feet. Each lot will
be allowed one (1) pylon or freestanding sign and one (1)
wall sign or two (2) wall signs total.
(b)
For buildings in which there is one (1) or two (2) business
uses within the B-2, B-3, B-4, CCO, I-I, and 1-2 districts,
q... ;L
.
Planning Agenda - 8/3/99
and for buildings used for commercial retail activities
located within a PZM district and located on property
adjacent to B-2, B-3, B-4, CCD, 1-1, or 1-2 districts, there
shall be two (2) options for permitted signs, as listed below
in 2.(b)i. And 2.(b)ii. The property owner shall select one
option, which shall control sign development on the
property.
.
.
1.
Option A. Under Option A, only wall signs shall be
allowed. The maximum number of signs on any
principal building shall be six sign boards or
placards, no more than four (4) of which may be
product identification signs. Signs may be
displayed on at least two walls, or equal to the
number of streets upon which the property has legal
frontage, whichever is greater. Each wall shall
contain no more than two product identification
signs and two business identification signs. The
total maximum area of wall signs shall be
determined by taking twenty percent (20%) of the
gross silhouette area of the front of the building up
to three hundred (300) square feet, whichever is
less. If a principal building is on a corner lot, the
largest side of the building may be used to
determine the gross silhouette area.
For purposes of determining the gross area of the
silhouette of the principal bui Iding, the silhouette
shall be defined as that area within an outline
drawing ofthe principal building as viewed from
the front lot line or from the related public street(s).
11.
Option B. Under Option B, a combination of wall
signs and a maximum of one (1 ) pylon sign may be
utilized. The total number of business identification
signs allowed (whether wall or pylon) shall be at
least two (2), or equal to the number of streets upon
which the property has legal frontage, whichever is
greater. Only two product identification signs shall
be allowed, and these wall signs may be only on one
wall. The total maximum allowable sign area for
any wall shall be determined by taking ten percent
(10%) of the gross silhouette area of the front of the
Q...3
.
.
.
Planning Agenda - 8/3/99
building up to one hundred (l00) square feet,
whichever is less. The method [or determining the
gross silhouette area shall be as indicated in Subd.
2.(b)i. Above. Pylon signs shall be regulated as in
Subd. 4 below. For single or double occupancy
business structures, the total maximum allowable
signage on the property shall be three hundred (300)
square feet. For multiple occupancy structures, the
total maximum allowable signage on the property
shall be as determined under Subd. 3 below.
(#272, 06/26/95)
(#230, 06/22/92)
(#247, 03/14194)
(#265, 12/12/94)
3.
Conditional Uses in Commercial and Industrial Districts: The
purpose of this section is to provide aesthetic control to signage
and to prevent a proliferation of individual signs on buildings with
three (3) or more business uses. The City shall encourage the use
of single sign boards, placards, or building directory signs.
(a) In the case of a building where there are three (3) or more
business uses, but which, by generally understood and
accepted definitions, is not considered a shopping center or
shopping mall, a conditional use shall be granted to the
entire building in accordance with an overall site plan under
the provisions of Option A or Option B (descri bed in 2 (b) i
and ii above) provided that:
1. The owner ofthe building files with the Zoning
Administrator a detailed plan for signing illustrating
location, size in square feet, size in percent of gross
silhouette area, and to which business said sign is
dedicated.
11.
No tenant shall be allowed morc than one sign,
except that in the case of a building that is situated
in the interior of a block and having another
building on each side of it, one sign shall be
allowed on the front and one sign shall be allowed
on the rear provided that the total square footage of
the two signs does not exceed the maximum
q-L\
.
.
(b)
.
Planning Agenda - 8/3/99
allowable square footage under Option A or Option
B described in 2 (b) i and ii above.
111. No individual business sign board/placard shall
exceed twenty-five percent (25%) of the total
allowable sign area.
IV. An owner of the building desiring any alteration of
signs, sign location, sign size, or number of signs
shall first submit an application to the Zoning
Administrator for an amended sign plan, said
application to be reviewed and acted upon by the
Zoning Administrator within ten (10) days of
application. If the application is denied by the
Zoning Administrator, the applicant may go before
the Planning Commission at their next regularly
scheduled meeting.
v.
In the event that one tenant of the building does not
utilize the full allotment of allowable area, the
excess may not be granted, traded, sold, or in any
other way transferred to another tenant for the
purpose of allowing a sign larger than twenty-five
percent (25%) of the total allowable area for signs.
VI. Any building identification sign or building
directory sign shall be included in the total
allowable area for signs.
Vll. Any sign that is shared by or is a combination of
two or more tenants shall be considered as separate
signs for square footage allowance and shall meet
the requirements thereof.
V111. All signs shall be consistent in design, material,
shape, and method of illumination.
In the case of a building where there are two (2) or more
uses and which, by generally understood and accepted
definitions, is considered to be a shopping center or
shopping mall, a conditional use permit shall be granted to
the entire building in accordance to an overall site plan
indicating their size, location, and height of all signs
q-5
.
(c)
.
Planning Agenda - 8/3/99
presented to the Planning Commission.
A maximum of five percent (5%) of the gross area of the
front silhouette shall apply to the principal building where
the aggregate allowable sign area is equitably distributed
among the several businesses. In the case of applying this
conditional use permit to a building, the building may have
one (1) pylon or freestanding sign identifying the building
which is in conformance with this ordinance. For purposes
of determining the gross area of the silhouette of the
principal building, the silhouette shall be defined as that
area within the outline drawing of the principal building as
viewed from the front lot line or from the related public
street( s).
Signs for promoting and/or selling a development project:
For the purpose of promoting or selling a development
project of three (3) to twenty-five (25) acres, one sign not to
exceed one hundred (100) square feet of advertising surface
may be erected on the project site. For projects of twenty-
six (26) to fifty (50) acres, one or two signs not to exceed
two hundred (200) aggregate square feet of advertising
surface may be erected. For projects over fifty-one (51)
acres, one, two, or three signs not to exceed three hundred
(300) aggregate square feet of advertising surface may be
erected. No dimension shall exceed twenty-five (25) feet
exclusive of supporting structures.
Such signs shall not remain after ninety-five (95) percent of
the project is developed. Such sign permits shall be
reviewed and renewed annually by the City Council. If
said sign is lighted, it shall be illuminated only during those
hours when business is in operation or when the model
homes or other developments are open for business
purposes.
4. Pylon Sign: The erection of one (1) pylon sign for any single lot is
allowed under the following provisions:
.
(a)
Location: No pylon sign shall be located closer to the
property line than as allowed in Section 3-9 [CJ 7. In the
case of a corner lot, both sides fronting on a public right-of-
way shall be deemed the front.
CJ-It>
.
Planning Agenda - 8/3/99
(#269, 5/8/95)
(h) Parking Areas, Driveways: No part of the pylon signs shall
be less than five (5) feet from any driveway or parking area.
(c) Area, Height Regulations:
SPEED AREA HEIGHT
ROAD CLASSIFICATION (MPH) (SO FT) FEET
Collector 30 25 16
35 50 20
40 100 24
Major Thoroughfares 30 50 18
35 100 22
40 125 24
45 150 26
. 50 175 28
Freeways and
Expressways 55 200 32
and
above
Highway 25 NA 50- 22
100
1.
In the case of subject property directly abutting
State Highway 25, pylon sign area may range from
50 sq ft to 100 sq ft depending on total lineal feet
fronting Highway 25. 3.03 feet of pylon sign area is
allowed per every 10 feet of lineal frontage with the
following exceptions: 1) all properties may erect a
pylon sign with a sign area of 50 regardless of front
footage abutting Highway 25, and 2) the maximum
pylon sign area shall not exceed 100 sq ft regardless
of total lineal footage of property abutting Highway
25.
.
(#173,4/1 0/89)
q-1
.
Planning Agenda - 8/3/99
(d)
Definitions: Definitions of road classifications apply as
dellned by the official comprehensive plan as adopted.
(e)
Application: The level at which the sign control system
applies is determined by the type of road, as defined above,
which directly abuts the subject property.
1. In the case of subject property directly abutting
more than one (1) road, each designated by a
different road classification type, the less restrictive
classification shall apply in determining sign area
and height.
11. Actual sign height is determined by the grade of the
road from which the sign gains its principal
exposure.
111.
Area as determined by the formula under 3 (c)
above, applies to one (1) face of a two (2) faced
pylon sign, or two (2) faces of a four (4) faced sign,
etc.
.
IV. A bonus allowing "freeway standard signs" (200 sq
ft in area and 32' high) in a commercial or industrial
area is available to all businesses located within 800
feet of a freeway but do not abut a freeway.
5. Address Numbers Sign: A minimum of one (1) address number
sign shall be required on each bui lding in all zoning districts.
(a) Location: The address numbers shall be so placed to be
easily seen from the public street.
(b) Size Regulations: The address numbers shall not be less
than three and one-half (3-112) inches in height.
(c) Material Regulation: The address numbers shall be metal,
plastic, or wood.
(d)
Color Regulation: The address numbers shall be in a
contrasting color to the color of the building/dwelling.
.
(e) Enforcement Regulation: The Building Official or Zoning
q-6
.
.
.
Planning Agenda ~ 8/3/99
Administrator or their authorized representative shall:
1. Assign all new building/dwelling address numbers.
n. Approve type of material and color of all
building/dwelling address numbers.
6. Proieeting Signs; Within the CCD District but onlv in the
"Broadwav Downtown District" thereof as defined bv the
Monticello Downtown and Riverfront Revitalization Plan,
proiecting signs shall be permitted.. Such signs:
1. shall not exceed six (6) square feet in area,
1L. shall be considered a wall SilW for the purposes of
maximum allowable sign area,
111. shall be attached to a building facade fronting on a public
street,
IV.
shall not extend more than 12" bevond the plane ofthe
building facade to which it is attched, and
v. shall be at least 8 feet but not more than 12 feet in height
above walking surfaces or sidewalks.
This Ordinance shall become effective immediately upon its passage and publication according
to law.
ADOPTED by the Monticello City Council this
day of
1999.
CITY OF MONTICELLO
By:
Roger Belsaas, Mayor
ATTEST:
By:
Rick Wolfsteller, City Administrator
AYES;
NAYS;
q-,
.
10.
.
.
Planning Conunission Agenda -08/03/99
Tattoo and Bodv Piercin2: amendments to the Citv Code and Zoning Ordinance. (NAC)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
Monticello has been discussing the adoption of regulations for tattoo parlor uses. These uses
create two issues of public concern. The first is a land use matter focused upon appropriate
locations for such uses. The second issue relates to public health and safety concerning the
potential to spread disease. Other communities have addressed these issues through their
zoning and licensing powers. An annotated bibliography of research sources regarding the
content coverage and control of tattoo parlors and body piercing establishments has been
prepared and attached as Exhibit A to this report.
From a zoning perspective, tattoo parlors are considered commercial operations. Based on
previous research, there is a lack of documentation or support for an approach to regulating
these uses as sensitive uses that must be separated from other uses to avoid negative impacts
(i.e. adult uses). Rather, these uses are basic service businesses, much like a barber shop or
beauty parlor, which are appropriate in commercial zoning districts. Not allowing the uses
in the City is also an option. However, this approach may only serve to create
"underground" uses and also forfeits the City's opportunity to closely regulate tattoo parlors
through a licensing requirement in the City Code. Therefore, the intent of protecting the
public health and safety may be better served by a combination of allowing the uses in
specific Zoning Districts and licensing requirements.
In considering the existing Zoning Districts established in the Zoning Ordinance, our office
would recommend making tattoo parlors and body piercing establishments a permitted use
in the 8-4 Regional Business District. As a commercial use, body piercing establishments
or tattoo parlors have no unique characteristics that would require a conditional use. The B-4
District is most appropriate for the use given the broad range of uses allowed within the
District and its anticipated trade area potential. These same considerations make including
these uses in more limited neighborhood commercial districts less appropriate, in part due
to potential greater access by minors. A Zoning Ordinance amendment making tattoo parlors
and body piercing establishments a permitted use in the B-4 District has been prepared and
attached as Exhibit B.
The primary concern with tattoo parlors and body piercing establishments is the potential to
spread disease and negatively effect public health and safety. A secondary concern is also
to restrict access to these businesses by minors due to the heath aspects and permanency of
tattoos and/or piercing. The operation of businesses related to these issues are best regulated
through a City's licensing powers.
An amendment to the City Code has been prepared (Exhibit C) based upon Minnesota State
Department of Health and Family Service regulations, Minneapolis Division of
.
Planning COlmnission Agenda -08/03/99
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Exhibit A -
Exhibit B -
Exhibit C -
Exhibit Z -
.
.
Annotated Bibliography
Zoning Ordinance Amendment - draft
City Code Amendment - draft
Conditions of approval
.
.
.
JUL-30-1999 09:29
NAC
612 595 9837 P.16
7/29/99
DRAFT . DRAFT - DRAFT - DRAFT
ORDINANCE NO.
CITY OF MONTICELLO
WRIGHT COUNTY. MINNESOTA
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 10, THE ZONING ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF
MONTICELLO CONCERNING BODY PIERCING AND TATTOO PARLOR
REQUIREMENTS AS A PERMITTED USE IN THE 8-4. REGIONAL BUSINESS
DISTRICT.
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MONTICELLO DOES HEREBY ORDAIN:
S8ction 1. Section 2-2 (Definitions) of Title 10 of the Monticello City Code is
amended to add the following definitions:
[BF.1] BODY PIERCING:
Penetrating, or making a hole in or through the human
body to place jewelry or objects of metal or plastic on
any area for cosmetic purpose.
[F} TATTOO, TATTOOING: Any method of placing designs, letters, scrolls, figures,
symbols or any other mark upon, under or in the skin
with ink or any other substance resulting in the
coloration of the skin by the aid of needles or any other
instruments which puncture any portion of the skin to
any degree.
Section 2. Section 14~2 (Permitted Uses - 8.4 Zoning District) of Title 10 of the
Monticello City Code is amended to include the following:
[KK] Body Piercing Establishments
[LL] Tattoo Parlors
EXHIBIT B
10"'-'
.
.
.
JUL-30-1999 09:30
NAC
612 595 9837 P.17
Section 3. This Ordinance shall be effective following its passage and
publication.
ADOPTED this _ day of
of Monticello.
ATTEST:
By:
Rick Wolfsteller, Administrator
1999 by the City Council of the City
CITY OF MONTICELLO
By:
Roger Belsaas, Mayor
10- !>>
JUL-29-1999 13:16
NAC
612 595 9837 P.02
. SOURCES:
Luedtke Gerald, "SpacedMOut Zoning". This article identifies various issues while
establishing spacing requirements for land uses.
Minnesota Department of Health, Chapter No. 408, Sec. 25 [609.2246] identifies
requirements for tattooing minors.
Mlnn..ota Oepartment of Health, 011..1. Control N ewe I etter, This new.lltt.r i8 entitled
Update" Univ.r..1 Precaution. for Prevention of Trlnernl..lon of HIV, Map.titl. Ii Viru8
and Other Bloodbome Pathogens In Health Care Settings".
Long Gayle, Leland Rockman, "Infectious Complications of Tattoos". This review article
discusses various issues of infectious diseases that are transmitted because of tattooing.
Mathews, "Municipal Ordinance". Section 39.262 discusses general license requirements
for tattoo establishments.
Department of Health and Family Support. This memorandum lists the revisions that are
expected to be made to the Minneapolis tattoo licensing ordinance. These revisions are.
specifically identified by the Minneapolis Division of Environmental Health.
.
Association of Profesaionel Piercers, liThe Basie Ten". Identlfi.. minimum basic standard.
which responsible pi.reers must follow to avoid disease transml.sion to them.elvel and
their clients.
liThe Point" Issue No. 1-5. General articles by APP discussing history, ethics, legislation
information regarding bOdy piercing Information.
The following are nsts of City Codes for license and zoning that were referenced:
Minneapolis, MN Code - Tattooing
Sherburne, MN Code - Tattooing Ordinance
Shakopee, MN Code - Tattooing
New Hope, MN Code M Tattooing License
Lakevllle, MN Code - Tattoo and Body Piercing License
Bloomington, MN Code.. Tattooing License
Oak Harbor, WA
Ocean City, MD
Port Orange, FL ~ Regulations for Tattoo Parlors
Jefferson Parish, LA .. Spacing Regulations for Tattoo Parlors
.
EXHIBIT A
10 .. ,
JUL-30-1999 09:26
NAC
612 595 9837 P.02
.
.
.
7/30/99
DRAFT - DRAFT - DRAFT
ORDINANCE NO.
CITY OF MONTICELLO
WRIGHT COUNTY, MINNESOTA
AN ORDINANce AMENDING TITLE 3, THE BUSINESS AND LICENSE REGULATIONS
OF MONTICELLO CITY CODE BY ESTABLISHING LICENSE REGULATIONS FOR
TATTOO AND BODY PIERCING BUSINESSES.
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MONTICELLO DOES HEREBY ORDAIN:
Section 1. That the Monticello City Code Title 3 be amended by adding thereto a
new Chapter 14 to read as follows:
3-14-1
3-14-2
3-14-3
3-14-4
3-14-5
3-14-6
3-14-7
3-14-8
3-14-9
3-14-10
3-14-11
3-14-12
3-14-13
3-14-14
3-14-1
CHAPTER 14
TAlTOO AND/OR BODY PIERCING ESTABLISHMENTS
Purpose
Definitions
License Required
Application Content-License Application
Application Execution
Application Verification
Fees
Persons Ineligible for License
Locations Ineligible for a License
General License Requirements
Health and Sanitation Requirements
Sanctions for License Violations
Penalty
Severability
PURPOSE: The purpose of this section is to regulate the business of
tattooing and/or body piercing in order to protect the health, safety and
welfare of the general public. The City Council finds that the experience of
other cities indicates that there is a connection between tattooing/body
piercing, and hepatitis and other health problems. The City Council finds
EXHIBIT C _,
,O-~
JUL-30-1999 09:26
NAC
612 595 9837 P.03
.
that the stringent regulations governing tattooing and body piercing can
minimi~e the hepatitis and disease risk, and therefore protect the general
health and welfare of the community.
DEFINITIONS: The following words and terms, when used in this Chapter,
shall have the following meanings unless the context clearly indicates
otherwise.
3-14-2
BODY PIERCING:
CERTIFICATE OF
INSPECTION:
.
CLEAN:
EMPLOYEE:
GOOD REPAIR:
ISSUING AUTHORITY:
OPERATOR:
.
Penetrating or making a hole in or through the
human body to place jewelry or objects of metal
or plastic on any area for cosmetic purposes.
Written approval from the designated City
representative or agency that the tattooing
and/or body piercing establishment has been
inspected and meets all the requirements of the
chapter relating to physical facilities, equipment
and layout for the operation of the
establishment.
The absence of dirt, grease, rubbish, garbage,
and other offensive, unsightly or extraneous
matter.
Any person over eighteen (18) years of age
other than an operator who renders any service
in connection with the operation of a tattoo
and/or body piercing establishment and receives
compensation from the operator of the business
or its patrons.
Free of corrosion, breaks, cracks, chips, pitting,
excessive wear and tear, leaks, obstructions,
and similar defects so as to constitute a good
and sound condition.
The City Administrator or his/her designee.
Any individual, firm, company, corporation or
association that owns' or operates an
establishment where tattooing and/or body
2
10-5
JUL-30-1999 09:26
NAC
612 595 9837 P.04
.
.
.
3-14-3
3-14-4
piercing is performed and any individual who
performs or practices the art of tattooing/body
piercing on another person.
TATIOO, TATTOOING:
Any method of placing designs, letters, scrolls,
figures, symbols or any other market upon,
under or in the skin with ink or any other
substance resulting in the coloration of the skin
by the aid of needles or any other instruments
which puncture any portion of the skin to any
degree.
LICENSE REQUIRED: No person shall operate any establishment where
tattooing and/or body piercing is practices, nor engage in the practice of
tattooing and/or body piercing without being licensed pursuant to this
Chapter. All licenses issued pursuant to this Chapter shall expire on
December 31st of the year in which the license is issued. Renewal of an
expired license shall be administered pursuant to application for a new
license as set forth in this Chapter. A state licensed physician who engages
in the practice of tattooing and/or body piercing shall be exempt from the
license requirement. Jewelry stores and accessory stores that provide
exclusively ear piercing services using piercing guns shall be exempt from
this license requirement.
APPLICATION CONTENT.LlCENSEAPPLlCATION: Every application for
a license under this Chapter shall be made on a form supplied by the Issuing
Authority and shall request the following information:
(A) If the applicant is a natural person:
1.
The name, place and date of birth, street residence address,
and phone number of the applicant.
Whether the applicant is a citizen of the United States, a
resident alien, or is able to legally be employed in the United
States.
2.
3.
Whether the applicant has ever used or has been known by a
name other than the applicant's name, and if so, the name or
names used and information concerning dates and places
where used.
3
10 -III
JUL-30-1999 09:26
.
4.
NAC
612 595 9837 P.05
The name of the business if it is to be conducted under a
designating name, or style other than the name of the
applicant and a certified copy of the certificate as required by
Minnesota Statutes, Section 333.01.
5. The street addresses at which the applicant has lived during
the preceding five (5) years.
6. The type, name and location of every business or occupation
In which the applicant has been engaged during the preceding
five (5) years, and the name(s) and addresses(s) of the
applicant's employer(s) and partner(s), if any, for the
preceding five (5) years.
7. Whether the applicant has ever been convicted of a felony,
crime, or violation of any ordinance other than a petty
misdemeanor. If so, the applicant shall furnish information as
to the time, place and offense for which convictions were had.
(B) If the applicant is a partnership:
.
1.
The name(s) and addressees) of all general and limited
partners and all information concerning each general partner
required in sub-part A of this section.
2. The name(s) of the managing partner(s) and the interest of
each partner in the tattooing establishment
3. A true copy of the partnership agreement shall be submitted
with the application. If the partnership is required to file a
certificate as to a trade name pursuant to Minnesota Statutes,
Section 333.01, a certified copy of such certificate shall be
attached to the application.
(C) If the applicant is a corporation or other business:
.
1.
The name of the corporation or business formed, and if
incorporated, the state of incorporation.
A true copy of the Certificate of Incorporation. Articles of
incorporation or' association agreement, and bylaws shall be
attached to the application.
2.
4
lOw'
JUL-30-1999 09:27
NAC
612 595 9837 P.06
.
.
.
3-14-5
3-14w6
3.
The name of the manager(s), proprietor(s), or other agent(s)
in charge oHhe business and all information concerning each
manager, proprietor, or agent required in subwpart A of this
section.
(D) For all applicants:
1. Whether the applicant holds a current tattooing and/or body
piercing license from any.other governmental unit.
2. Whether the applicant has previously been denied a tattooing
and/or body piercing license from any other governmental unit.
3. The location of the business premises and the legal
description thereof.
4. Whether all real estate and personal property taxes that are
due and payable for the premises to be licensed have been
paid, and if not paid, the years and amounts that are unpaid.
s.
Whenever the applications for premises either planned or
under construction or undergoing substantial alterations, the
application shall be accompanied by a set of preliminary site
and building plans. if not already on file with the City, showing
the design of the proposed premises to be licensed.
6. Such other information the City Council or the Issuing
Authority may require.
APPLICATION EXECUTION: All applications for a license under this
Chapter shall be signed and sworn to. If the application is that of a natural
person, it shall be signed and sworn to by such person; if that of a
corporation, by an offer thereof; if that of a partnership, by one of the general
partners; and if that of an unincorporated association, by the manager or
managing officer thereof. Any falsification on a license application shall
result in the denial of a license.
APPLICATION VERIFICATION: All applications shall be referred to the
Issuing Authority for verification and investigation of the facts set forth in the
application. including any necessary criminal background checks to assure
compliance with this Chapter. The application shall be issued or denied by
5
10'" &
JUL-30-1999 09:27
NRC
612 595 9837 P.07
.
the Issuing Authority in accordance with Sections 8 and 9 of this Chapter.
The City Administrator shall issue a tattoo and/or body piercing
establishment permit within thirty (30) days of receipt of the application,
unless the Administrator finds that:
(A) The correct license fee has not been tendered to the City and, in the
case of a check or bank draft, honored with payment upon
presentation.
(8) The operation, as proposed by the applicant, if permitted, would not
comply with all applicable laws, including, but not limited to, the City's
business, zoning and health regulations.
(C) The applicant has knowingly made any false, misleading or fraudulent
statement of fact in the application for the permit or in any document
required by the City in connection therewith.
(D) The applicant has operated a tattoo establishment and has had a
license denied, revoked or suspended for any of the above cases by
the City or any other sate or local agency within two (2) years prior to
the date of the application.
.
(E) The applicant if an individual, or any of the officers and directors if the
applicant is a corporation, or any of the partners, Including limited
partners, if the applicant is a partnership, and the manager or other
person principally n charge of the operation of the business is not
over the age of twenty..one (21) years.
3-14-7
FEES:
(A) Application Fee:
1.
The application fee shall be set by resolution of the City
Council.
2.
The license application fee shall be paid in full before the
application for a license shall be accepted. Upon rejection of
any application, the license fee shall be refunded in full to the
applicant except where rejection is for a willful misstatement in
the license application.
.
6
la - "
JUL-30-1999 09:27
NAC
612 595 9837 P.08
Separation application fee shall be paid for establishments
providing both tattooing and body piercing services.
(B) Investigation Fee: An applicant for any license under this Chapter
shall pay the City at the time an original application is submitted, a
nonrefundable fee at a rate set by the City Council resolution to cover
the costs involved in verifying the license application and to cover the
expense of any investigation by the City's designated representative
or agency needed to assure compliance with this Chapter. In the
event an establishment is adding more than one service at a different
time. additional investigation fee shall be paid for investigation
needed to assure compliance with this Chapter.
.
3.
(C) License Fee:
.
1. Separate license fees shall be paid for each process of
tattooing and body piercing service. This fee shall be paid
annually with the license expiring on December 31 of the year
in which the license is issued.
2. The annual license fee shall be set by City Council resolution.
3-14-8
PERSONS INELIGIBLE FOR LICENSE:
(A) No license under this Chapter shall be issued to an applicant who is
a natural person if such applicant:
.
1.
Is a minor at the time the application is filed.
2.
Has been convicted of any crime directly related to the
occupation licensed as prescribed by Minnesota Statutes,
Section 364.03, Subd. 2, and has not shown competent
evident of sufficient rehabilitation and present fitness to
perform the duties of the licensed occupation as prescribed by
Minnesota Statutes. Section 364.03, Subd. 3.
3.
Is not a citizen Of the United States, a resident alien, or does
not have the legal authority to be employed in the United
States.
4.
Is not of good moral character or repute,
7
10 - lb
JUL-30-1999 09:27
NAC
612 595 9837 P.09
.
(B) No license under this Chapter shall be issued to a partnership if such
partnership has any general partner or managing partner.
1 . Who is a minor at the time the application is filed.
2. Who has been convicted of any crime directly related to the
occupation licensed as prescribed by Minnesota Statutes,
Section 364.03, Subd. 2, and who has not shown competent
evidence of sufficient rehabilitation and present fitness to
perform the duties of the licensed occupation as prescribed by
Minnesota Statutes, Section 364.03, Subd. 3.
3. Who is not a citizen of the United States, a resident alien, or
does not have the legal authority to be employed in the United
States.
4. Is not of good moral character or repute.
(C) No license under this Chapter shall be issued to a corporation or
other organization if such applicant has any manager, proprietor, or
agent in charge of the business to be licensed:
.
1.
Who is a minor at the time the application is filed.
2.
Who has been convicted of any crime directly related to the
occupation licensed as prescribed by Minnesota Statutes,
Section 364.03, Subd. 2, and who has not shown competent
evidence of sufficient rehabilitation and present fitness to
perform the duties of the licensed occupation as prescribed by
Minnesota Statutes, Section 364.03, Subd. 3.
3. Who is not a citizen of the United States, a resident alien, or
does not have the legal authority to be employed in the United
States.
4. Is not of good moral character or repute.
3-14-9
LOCATIONS INELIGIBLE FOR A LICENSE: The following locations shall
be ineligible for a license under this Chapter:
.
8
,0 ... , \
JUL-30-1999 09:28
NAC
612 595 9837 P.10
.
(A) Taxes Due on Property. No license shall be granted or renewed for
operation on any property on which taxes, assessments. or other
financial claims of the state, county, school district, or City are due,
delinquent. or unpaid. In the event a suit has been commenced
under Minnesota Statutes, Section 278.01-278.03, questioning the
amount of validity or taxes, the City Council may on application waive
strict compliance with the provision; no waiver may be granted,
however, for taxes or any portion thereof which remain unpaid for a
period exceeding one (1) year after becoming due.
(B) Improper Zoning. No license shall be granted or renewed if the
property is not properly zoned or. does not qualify as a legal non-
conforming use for tattooing and/or body piercing establishments
under Title 10 of this Code.
(C) Premises Licensed for Alcoholic Beverages. No license shall be
granted or renewed if the premises is licensed for the furnishing of
alcoholic beverages pursuant to Title 3, Chapter 2 of this Code or is
licensed as a sexually-oriented business pursuant to Title 3, Chapter
of this Code.
.
3-14-1 0
GENERAL LICENSE REQUIREMENTS:
(A) Tattoos on Minors. No person shall tattoo any person under the age
of eighteen (18) except in the presence of, and with the written
permission of, the parent or legal guardian of such minor. The
consent must include both the custodial and non-custodial parents,
where applicable.
(B)
Prohibition on License Transfer. The license granted under this
Chapter is for the operator and the premises named on the approved
license application. No transfer of a license shall be permitted from
place-to-place or from person-to-person without first complying with
the requirements of an original application, except in the case in
which an existing non-corporate licensee is incorporated and
incorporation does not affect the ownership, control. and interest of
the existing licensed establishment.
(C)
Hours of Operation. A licensee under this Chapter shall not be open
for business for tattooing and/or body piercing before 7:00 AM nor
after 11 :00 PM.
.
9
tQ-'a.
JUL-30-1999 09:28
NAC
612 595 9837 P.ll
.
(0) Licensed Premises. The tattoo and/or body piercing establishment
license is only effective for the compact and contiguous space
specified in the approved license application. If the licensed
premises is enlarged, altered, or extended, the licensee shall inform
the Issuing Authority. No person shall engage in the practice of
tattooing at any place other than the place or location named or
described in the application and license. A separate room shall be
required for body piercing and tattooing services. The applicant shall
submit a drawing to scale of the tattoo/body piercing facilities.
(E) Effect of License Suspension or Revocation. No person shall solicit
businesses or offer to perform tattooing services while under license
suspension or revocation by the City.
(F) Maintenance of Order. The licensee shall be responsible for the
conduct of the business being operated and shall at all times maintain
conditions of order.
.
(G) Employee Lists. The licensee shall provide to the Issuing Authority
a list of employees including operators who perform tattooing at the
licensed establishment and shall verify that each employee has
received a copy of Sedions 10 and 11 of this Chapter. Each operator
shall submit evidence of apprenticeship of at least thirty days under
a licensed tattoo artist.
(H) Liability Insurance. All licensees shall have at all times a valid
certificate of insurance Issued by an Insuranoe company licensed to
do business in the State of Minnesota indicating that the licensee is
currently covered in the tattoo business by a liability insurance policy.
Such insurance shall be kept in force during the term of the license
and shall provide for notification to the City prior to terminating or
cancellation. A certificate of insurance shall be filed with the City.
The minimum limits of coverage for such insurance shall be:
1. Each claim, at least two hundred thousand dollars ($200,000).
2. Each group of claims, at least five hundred thousand dollars
($500,000).
3-14-11
HEALTH AND SANITATION REQUIREMENTS: No person shall engage in
the practice of tattooing and/or body piercing at any place in the City without
complying with the following regulations:
.
10
10- ,~
JUL-30-1999 09:28
NAC
612 595 9837 P.12
.
(A) Lavatory Requirement. Every place where tattooing andlor body
piercing is practiced shall be equipped with an adequate and
conveniently located toilet room and hand lavatory for the
accommodation of employees and patrons. The hand lavatory shall
be supplied with hot and cold running water under pressure; shall be
maintained in good repair at all times; and shall be kept in a clean
and sanitary condition. Toilet fixtures and seats shall be of a sanitary
open front design and readily cleanable. Easily cleanable, covered
receptacles shall be provided for waste materials. Every lavatory
facility shall be provided with an adequate supply of hand cleansing
compound and single service sanitary towels or hand drying devices.
.
(B) Skin Infection. No person having any skin infection or other diseases
of the skin shall be tattooed or body pierced.
(C) Sterilization and Disposal of Bio-Hazardous Materials. All needles,
razor blades, sharps or other equipment utilized for penetrating the
skin shall be individually pre-packaged, pre-sterilized and disposable.
No such equipment shall be used on more than one customer. All
bio-hazardous waste shall be disposed of in accordance with law, and
disposal procedures shall be approved by the Issuing Authority_
Sterilizing solutions and methods may be used for the purpose of
sterilizing instruments other than needles, razor blades, sharps or
other equipment utilized for penetrating the skin when such sterilizing
solutions and methods are approved by the Issuing Authorityl
Sterilizing solutions and methods may be used for the purpose of
sterilizing instruments other than needles, razor blades, sharps or
other equipment utilized for penetrating the skin when such sterilizing
solutions and methods are approved by the Issuing Authority, and
Wright County Public Health Department.
(0) Skin Preparation Procedures. The following procedures shall be
used for skin preparation:
1.
Each operator shall wash his or her hands thoroughly with
soap and water and then dry them with a clean towel before
and after each tattoo and/or body piercing. Operators with
skin infections of the hand shall not perform any tattooing
and/or body piercing services.
2.
Whenever it is necessary to save the skin, pre-packaged, pre-
sterilized, disposable, razor blades shall be used.
.
11
, b-\'\
JUL-30-1999 09:29
NAC
612 595 9837 P.13
.
3.
The skin area to be tattooed and/or body pierced shall be
thoroughly cleaned with germicidal soap, rinsed thoroughly
with water, and sterilized with an antiseptic solution approved
by the issuing authority. Only single service towels and wipes
shall be used in the skin cleaning process.
(E) Operating Furniture. All tables, chairs, furniture, or area on which a
patron receives a tattoo and/or body pierce shall be covered by single
service disposal paper or clean linens, or in the alternative, the table,
chair or furniture on which the patron receives a tattoo and/or bOdy
pierce shall be impervious to moisture and shall be properly sanitized
after each tattoo and/or body pierce.
(F) Towels. Every operator shall provide single service towels or wipes
for each customer or person and such towels or wipes shall be stored
and disposed of in a manner acceptable to the issuing authority.
(G) Garments of Operator. Every operator shall wear clean, washable
garments when engaged in the practice of tattooing and/or body
piercing. If garments are contaminated with blood or body fluids,
such garment shall be removed and changed.
.
(H) Pigments. Pigments used in tattooing shall be sterile and free from
bacteria and noxious agents and substances including mercury. The
pigments used from stock solutions for each customer shall be placed
in a single service receptacle, and such receptacle and remaining
solution shall be discarded after use on each customer in accordance
with procedures approved by the issuing authority.
(I)
Jewelry. Jewelry for the other parts of the body shall be made of
implant grade, high.:quallty stainless steel (300 series), solid 14K or
18K gold, niobium, titanium, platinum, or a dense, low-porosity plastic
such as monofilament nylon, acrylic, or Lucite. Eat studs or other
jewelry designed for earlobe piercing are not appropriate jewelry for
other body parts. Jewelry shall have no nicks, scratches, or irregular
surfaces which might endanger the tissues.
(J)
Minimum Floor Space. There shall not be less than one hundred fifty
(150) square feet of floor space lilt the place where the practice of
tattooing and/or body piercing is conducted, and said place shall be
so lighted and ventilated as to comply with the standards approved
by the Issuing Authority.
.
12
,aw \')
JUL-30-1999 09:29
NRC
612 595 9837 P.14
.
.
.
3-14-13
3-14-13
(K) Influence of Alcohol and Drugs. No person shall practice tattooing
and/or body piercing while under the influence of alcoholic beverages
or illicit drugs. No customer shall be tattooed and/or body pierced
while under the influence of alcoholic beverages or illicit drugs.
(L) Written Instructions. The operator shall provide the person tattooed
and/or body pierced with printed instructions on the approved care of
the tattoo and/or body pierce during the healing process.
(M) Living Quarters. No place licensed as a tattoo and/or body piercing
establishment shall be used or occupied as living or sleeping
quarters.
(N) Other. The operator shall comply with any and all other regulations
or conditions of operation determined to be necessary by the Issuing
Authority, Wright County Public Health Department or the State of
Minnesota for the protection of the public health, safety and general
welfare.
SANCTIONS FOR LICENSE VIOLATIONS:
(A) The City Council may revoke the license or suspend the license for
a violation of:
1. Any provision of this Chapter or any other local law governing
the same activity during the license period.
2. Any criminal law during the license period which adversely
affects the ability to honestly, safely, or lawfully conduct a
tattooing and/or body piercing business.
(B) The City Council may, upon ten (10) days written notice to the
operator and following a public hearing, revoke the license or
suspend the license if the licensee submitted false information or
omitted material information in the license process required by this
Chapter.
PENALTY: A violation of this Chapter shall be a misdemeanor under
Minnesota law.
13
to-\\o
.
.
.
JUL-30-1999 09:29
NAC
612 595 9837 P.15
3-14-14
SEVERA8ILI1Y:lf any section, subsection, sentence, clause, or phrase of
this Chapter is for any reason held to be invalid, such decision shall not
affect the validity of the remaining portions of this Chapter. The City Council
hereby declares that it would have adopted the Chapter in each section,
subsection, sentence, clause, or phrase thereof, or phrases be declared
invalid.
Section 2. This Ordinance shall be effective following its passage and publication.
ADOPTED this _ day of
of Monticello.
1999 by the City Council of the City
CITY OF MONTICELLO
By:
Roger Belsaas, Mayor
ATTEST:
By:
Rick Wolfsteller, Administrator
14
10- ,'1
.
.
.
Planning Commission Agenda -08/03/99
RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
1. Review and Comment of Wright County Public l-Icalth Department and establishment of
inspection procedures.
2. Comments of other City Staff.
EXHIBIT Z
'0 - , ~
.
.
.
11.
Planning Commission Agenda -08/03/99
Consideration of a revised preliminary olat for Rollin~ Woods Subdivision. (.10)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
The preliminary plat for the Rolling Woods subdivision was approved by the Planning
Commission and later also approved by the City Council. The approval was contingent on
approval of a Wetland Mitigation Plan. Due to input from the Wright County Soil and
Conservation District regarding the Wetland Mitigation Plan, there has been a need to
slightly revise the preliminary plat. The revisions made to the plat are relatively small and
do not, in staffs opinion, call for a new public hearing, however, staff believes it to be
significant enough to bring it before the Planning Commission for an update.
One of the major changes to the plat calls for realignment of the road system which will
result in the placement of the parkland adjacent to a wetland area which will result in the
connection of these two open spaces, thus making the park feel bigger than it really is.
The Parks Commission was given the opportunity to review the new park layout and is
comfortable with the new plan. As a final note, the Monticello Orderly Annexation Area
reviewed the preliminary plat at a recent meeting and indicated support for annexation of this
parcel.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. Motion finding that the revised preliminary plat is substantially consistent with the
original plat. Revisions are hereby recommended for approval and no additional
public hearing regarding this preliminary plat is needed.
Under this alternative, a revised preliminary plat will be presented to the City
Council most likely along with the final plat and development agreement.
2. Motion calling for a public hearing on the revised plat.
Planning Commission should take this action if it believes that the changes are
significant enough to warrant bringing this item back to public hearing format. It is
the view of City Staff that the changes to the plat are internal and do not affect
adjoining property owners. In addition, the Parks Commission is satisfied with the
changes that have been made and therefore there is no need to bring this item back
before the Planning Commission.
.r
!
/
(
)
;;L~'-- -
_ 7,_
,/ ,.
,<. ~
/'\
/.'iJ ,
\
\
\
\
"
"
\
\
\
\
-"
j~ai I
l>'
'--
!
i
I
/
!
i
,
!
/
',,-
...,.....
~~~/'
r UI'''''--'' \,
/ ~Cl-",'\ ~
J t4 "'-..,,'"
( i 1\\, \
Ii
'in
',t' '--1/-
w
i--r'--
I ~,
/ V\,
.
.
.
12.
Planning Commission Agenda -08/03/99
Discussion regarding the rezoning of the PS zone to include schools. churches and
parks. (.TO)
Verbal discussion.