Planning Commission Agenda 08-07-2001
.
.
.
AGENDA
REGULAR MEETING - MONTICELLO I)LANNING COMMISSION
Tuesday - August 7, 2001
7:00 P.M.
Memhers:
Dick Frie, Rohbie Smith, Roy Popilek, Richard Carlson, Rod Dragsten
Council Liaison:
Clint Herbst
Stat!':
Jeff O'Neill, Fred Patch and Steve Grittman
1. Call to order.
2. Approval of minutes of the regular meeting held July 3, 200 I.
3. Consideration of adding items to the agenda.
4. Citizens comments.
5. Public Hearing - Consideration of a request for a variance to the rear yard setback
requirements to allow construction of a deck. Applicant: Max Johnson.
"'This item has been removed from the agenda'"
6.
Consideration of a preliminary plat, an amendment to the existing planned unit
development (PUD), a variance from the minimum 10 foot side yard sethack for
properties in the R-2 District and a variance from the minimum 40-foot separation
bctween a curb cut and any intersection of two public streets. Applicant: Front Porch
Associates.
7. Consideration of an amendment to a Planned Unit Development in the P7-M Zoning
District to permit the expansion of parking lot facilities. Applicant: Monticello-Big Lake
Community Hospital District.
8. Public Hearing - Consideration of a request for a conditional use permit allowing a
reduction in the standard design requirements for stall aisle and driveway design.
Applicant: Integrated Recycling Technologies, Inc.
9. Public Hearing - Consideration ofa request for an amendment to the sign ordinance
allowing over-hanging signs over 6 square feet on Walnut Street. Applicant: City of
Monticello.
10. Discussion regarding City Council request for Planning Commission to hold workshop to
discuss land use issues regarding Gold Nugget.
II.
Discussion regarding allowing advertising signs to be placed on city benches with an
approved permit.
-1-
.
.
.
12.
Consideration of regulatory options to provide for higher value housing. Applicant: City
of Monticello.
13. Discussion [tem: Issues relating to the regulation of manufactured housing in single
family zones.
14. Proposal by Mike Cyr for joint parking.
] 5. Adjournment.
-2-
.
.
.
MINUTES
REGULAR MEETING - MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION
Tuesday, July 3, 2001 - 7 p.m.
Members Present:
Council Liaison:
StatT Present:
Dick Frie, Robbie Smith, Roy Popilek, Richard Carlson, Rod Dragsten
Clint Herbst (Absent)
Fred Patch, Steve Grittman
1. Call to order.
Chairman Frie called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
2. Approval of minutes of the rel?ular meetin~ June 5 2001.
A MOTION WAS MADE BY ROBBIE SMITH TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF
THE REGULAR MEETING HELD JUNE 5, 2001. MOTION SECONDED BY ROD
DRAGSTEN.
Motion passed unanimously.
3.
Consideration of addin~ items to the a~enda.
It was noted by Robbie Smith that an item regarding side yard setbacks for veterinary
clinics in the B-3 district was not on the agenda. Mr Grittman eXplained that due to the
Independence Day Holiday, statT intended to reserve the item for the meeting in August.
Roy Popilek requested that the commission discuss property blight issues and
enforcement status, and specifically review the extensive blight surrounding Danner
Trucking at State Highway 25 and Dundas Road.
Chairman Frie added item 10: Blight Update and Danner Trucking Blight.
4. Citizens comments.
No comments were heard.
5.
Public Hearing - Consideration of a request for rezoning from I-I to R-2 the easterlv
119+ feet of parcel occupied by Electro Industries. Inc. at 2150 W. River Street and the
parcel occupied bv Riverside Oil Companv at 1156 W. River Street: and consideration of
a concept and development stage planned unit development: and consideration of a
requcst for preliminary plat approval for Montissippi Trail Townhomes. a 97-unit
townhome development. Applicant: Harstad Holdings. Inc.
StatT report on this item was presented by Steve Grittman. Mr. Grittman reviewed the
Page I
.
points made in the staff rcport and notcd the following differences from the prcviously
approved townhome development on this property:
..
There has been a change in the unit style. The townhomes are now proposed to be
one story, all with basements. Some basements may be look-out or walk-out.
The project will be on a larger parcel with the inclusion of approximately 119 feet
of additional width along the westerly boundary. This change will include fence
and a tree line to be densely planted along the westerly boundary, intending to
resolve land use issues, buffer yard and safety concerns mentioned in a previous
public hearing for development of the parcel.
The loop road is larger, providing improved access, solving the snow storage and
garbage pick-up issues and eliminating all of the cuI de sacs except one at the
south end of the project.
..
Staff recommended that some of the trees scheduled for the westerly boundary be moved
to the easterly boundary to provide more visual separation between the R-l district to the
east and this R-2 townhome project. No other suggestions were made by staff and Mr.
Grittman commented that he considers the project to be of the high standard expected.
Mr. Dragsten asked if the tree line on the neighboring property will remain in place. Mr.
Grittman responded to the affirmative.
.
Chairnlan Frie opened the public hearing and recognized Mr Mike Gair, representing Mr.
Sherber and Mr. Forest Harstad, the new builder for the project.
Mr. Gair reported that the footprint of the development is 2.5 acres larger as land area has
been added on the west property line. This property line move will allow mining along
the west property line as there is approximately 10 feet of grade change. The additional
soils will allow for walkouts and lookouts to be built on the south end of the project. Mr.
Gair also said that a fence will be added along the westerly property line. The loop road
provided more open space within the development. Mr. Gair also noted that trees to be
planted will be 3.5" caliper, one inch larger than otherwise required by the City.
Hearing no other comments, Chairman Frie closed the public hearing and opened
discussions by the Commission.
.
Robbie Smith expressed his satisfaction with the project as redesigned. Richard Carlson
made no comments. Dick Frie asked the developers if this is "affordable housing". Mr
Harstad expressed his expertise in townhome development and compared this project to a
project he has built in New Brighton. Each of the proposed townhomes built for
Montissippi Trail Tovvnhomes will be one story, each with a full basement and two stall
garage. He said that the expected sale price of a townhome unit will be in a range
betvveen $170.000.00 and exceeding $200,000.00. Chairman Frie asked if the property
owners to the west remain concerned about tire and public safety as related to the
coniferous tree line and oil storage west of the development. Mr. Gair said that these
Page 2
.
.
.
concerns were dispensed with as part of the additional land purchase. Mr. Frie also asked
about protective covenants and enforcement of those covenants. The developers stated
that the declarations and by laws of the association will be recorded at the County for
each townhome. Mr. Harstad stated that each homeowner has the opportunity to
foreclose based on the declarations and bylaws.
Rod Dragsten had no questions.
Roy Popilek asked if the cuI de sac at the south end of the project provided adequate fire
department access, and if the snow storage issues had been resolved. Mr. Grittman
answered to the affirmative.
Richard Carlson asked ifthere will be a connection to Prairie Road. Mr. Grittman stated
that the internal road for this project will be private but connected to Prairie Road. The
cuI de sac terminus of the interior roadway will provide a distinctive sense of entry.
MOTION BY ROD DRAGS TEN TO RECOMMEND TO THE CITY COUNCIL THAT
THE EASTERLY 119+ FEET OF PARCEL OCCUPIED BY ELECTRO INDUSTRIES,
INC. AT 2150 W. RIVER STREET AND THE PARCEL OCCUprED BY RIVERSIDE
OIL COMPANY AT 1156 W. RIVER STREET BE REZONED FROM I-I TO R-2,
ONE AND TWO F AMIL Y RESIDENTIAL USE. MOTION SECONDED BY
RICHARD CARLSON.
Motion passed unanimously.
MOTION BY ROD DRAGSTEN TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL TO THE CITY
COUNCIL OF A CONCEPT AND DEVELOPMENT STAGE PLANNED UNIT
DEVELOPMENT; AND CONsrDERA nON OF A REQUEST FOR PRELIMINARY
PLA T APPROVAL FOR MONTISSIPPI TRAIL TOWNHOMES, A 97-UNIT
TOWNHOME DEVELOPMENT. MOTION SECONDED BY ROBBIE SMITH.
Motion passed unanimously.
6. Review draft ordinance pertaining to signm;e along the Highway 25 corridor.
StafT report on this item by Steve Grittman. Mr. Grittman eXplained that there are three
options that may be explored and reiterated the content of the staff report.
Chairman Frie stated that he believes that there is consensus that a workshop should be
held with the property O\vners affected. Fred Patch reported on recent one on one
meetings he has held \\irh Monticello Ford, Tom Thumb/Amoco/British Petroleum, and
Mr. Dan Milke. Robbie Smith questioned if the Milke development caused the only
appearance of dissatisfaction with the current ordinances.
Page: 3
.
.
.
MOTION BY CHAIRMAN FRIE, SECOND BY ROY POPILEK TO ASK CITY
COUNCIL TO ALLOW THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO HOLD A WORKSHOP
IN SEPTEMBER WITH THE BUSINESS OWNERS ALONG HIGHWAY 25.
Motion passed unanimously.
7. Report on sanitary sewer reconstruction at front street.
Staff report on this item by Fred Patch. He explained that it is likely that the sanitary
sewer and water mains along Front Street are old and will likely not suit the development
that is proposed. If townhome units are built along Front Street each unit wil be required
to have a separate service. That would mean that most of the street would have to be
excavated to install new services. As the lines are old and new services are necessary, all
utilities will likely have to be rebuilt.
8.
Review operation of Gateway Music Festivals' business otlice and 531 West Broadway,
former mortuary site.
Staff report for this item by Fred Patch. Mr. Patch said that he had visited with Mr.
Thielman, owner of Gateway Music Festivals on July 3rd. Mr. Thielman had told Mr.
Patch that the asphalt on the easterly property line would be cut back 5 feet from the
property line by the end of July 2001. No other discllssion.
9.
Discllss options for development of zoninlf district regulations supporting stepMup
housing goals.
StatI report by Steve Grittman. Mr. Grittman presented a verbal report regarding the state
of housing in new developments on the east and southeast end of town. Chairman Frie
requested clarification as to what the perceived problem is and wanted clarification of
what is "higher end housing". Fred Patch provided a verbal description of the source of
the concerns expressed by residents in the subject neighborhoods and opinions of the
developers and realtors involved. Additional discussions were to be conducted at a
future meeting. No further discussion.
10. Verbal Update on Bli~ht and Danner Trucking.
Fred Patch provided an update on specific properties where repeat violators are again
involved in enforcement actions. He expressed frustration with repeat offenders,
obstructions to enforcement and the slowness of prosecutions. Mr. Patch also reported
that the state of the City as related to blight is very good and that public information had
been provided via the city newsletter and newspaper on several occasions this spring.
Mr. Patch summarized the situation of blight at the Danner Trucking business. The
Pag<:4
.
.
.
11.
Commission expressed concern that Danner Trucking is offensive in its appearance at the
south entrance to the city. Mr. Patch told the Commission of staff frustration regarding
the establishment of the trucking business and said that Mr. Jeff O'Neill and Mr. Patch
will be meeting with the Mayor regarding this issue.
Adiournment.
MOTION BY ROD DRAGSTEN, SECONDED BY ROBBIE SMITH TO ADJOURN.
Motion passed unanimously.
Page 5
.
.
.
Planning Commission Agenda - 08/07/01
6.
Consideration of a preliminary plat, an amendment to the existing planned unit
development (PUD), a variance from the minimum 10 foot side vard setback for
properties in the R-2 District and a variance from the minimum 40-foot separation
between a curb cut and anv intersection of two public streets. Applicant: Front Porch
Associates. (NAC)
A RE~ERENCEANDBACKGROUND
1 . Appl ication Summary. The applicant, Front Porch Associates, is req uesting approval
o[ a preliminary plat and a conditional use permit/planned unit developmcnt
(CUP/PUD) amendment. In conjunction with these approvals, the applicant is also
requesting a five-foot side yard setback variance and a 31.5 foot curb cut separation
variance. These applications are intended to allow the construction of one twin home
unit on the property located at 722 West 5th Street.
The subject property is directly north of the Elm Street Crossing Townhomes. The
applicant plans to include the proposed twin home with the Elm Street Crossings
Association. 'fhis would allow both developments to use the open space included in
this project and make the Association responsible [or maintenance on both sides of
the street.
2.
Preliminary plat and CUP/PUD amendment. The subject property is an existing lot
of record that meets all of the required lot size and dimensional requirements for
properties in the R-2 District. Prior to final plat approval, the applicant must submit
detailed landscape, lighting, and grading, drainage and utility plans.
The CUP/PUD amendment is intended to allow the applicant to plat a two-lot zero
lot line subdivision with common open space and include it in the Elm Street
Crossing development. The proposed development is directly north across ~ifth
Street hom the Elm Street Crossing Townhome CUP/PUD whieh the applicant
developed in 1998. The two new units will be part o[ the existing townhome
association, have similar exterior materials, and be subject to the same by-laws.
Section 22-1 (D) requires the Planning Commission and City Council to weigh five
t:1c1ors when considering a conditional use for a planned unit development. These
[actors are listed below.
I. Relationship to municipal Comprehensive Plan.
2. The geographical area involved.
3. Whether such use will tend to or actually depreciate the area in which it is
proposed.
4. The character of the surrounding area.
.
Planning COl1l1nission Agenda - 08/07/01
5.
The demonstrated need f<H such use.
In reviewing these hlctorS, staff can make several findings. First, the Proposed Land Use
Mapinc luded in the City's Comprehensive Plan guides the subject property for I ,ow-Density
Residential use. Therefore, the development oftownhomes on this site is consistent with the
City's Comprehensive Plan. Second, according to the City's Existing Land Use Map, this
site is surrounded by medium and high density residential uses. In addition, this
development will be consistent in design with the properties directly to the south. As a
result, this development will be consistent with the surrounding land uses. Finally,
development of residential units on this vacant property should not depreciate the
surrounding properties.
3. Variance Evaluation Criteria. Chapter 23 of the Zoning Ordinance outlines the
criteria the City must weigh when considering a variance request. The Ordinance
states that the Planning Commission must make a finding that the proposed action
will not:
.
1.
2.
3.
4.
Impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent property.
Unreasonably increase the congestion in the public street.
I ncrease the danger of fire or endanger the pu blic safety.
Unreasonably diminish or impair established property values within the
neighborhood or in any other way be contrary to the intent of this Ordinance.
The Ordinance also states a non-economic hardship should be demonstrated to justify
approval of a variance request.
After comparing these criteria with the applicant's plans, stafloffers the following findings
regarding the request for a five-foot side yard setback variance.
a. The subject property is an irregular shaped lot. The triangular shape of the
lot makes it impossible for the applicant to fit the proposed structure within
the required setbacks. Moreover, the structure is a permitted use and is not
out of character with the area or the Ordinance.
b. The subject property lies directly south ofthe Burlington Northern railroad.
As a result, the proposed five-foot side yard setback would shift the structure
only five feet closer to the railroad line and not cause a noticeable impact on
the adjacent property.
After comparing the variance criteria with the appl icant' s plans, our stalTotTers the followi ng
findings regarding the request for a 31.5 foot curb cut separation variance.
.
2
Planning Commission Agenda - 08/07/0 I
.
a.
The applicant could eliminate the need for the variance by rerouting the
driveway onto Elm Street.
b. The applicant has failed to demonstrate the existence of a non-economic
hardship. If f~lct, it would require less pavement, and therefore cost less, to
reroute the driveway onto Elm Street.
c. Granting this variance would significantly reduce the stacking and safety
distance between the proposed curb cut and Elm Street. The applicant has
suggested that a driveway aligned with Elm Street may confuse drivers. Staff
believes this concern could be addressed through design of the driveway and
landscaping.
With regard to this driveway, Public Works and engineering stalT support the variance to
minimize driveway access to Elm Street. Planning stalTbelieves that the safety issues raised
by the proposed driveway location are greater than an additional driveway onto Elm. Neither
Elm nor Y" Streets are collector status roadways that would result in a recommendation for
no driveway access, although it is fair to presume that Elm probably has slightly more total
tra11ic than 5th Street in this location.
.
B
ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS
Decision One: Preliminary Plat
1. Approve the preliminary plat based on the following lindings:
a. The subject property is consistent with the dimensional and size standards for
properties in the R-2 District.
b. The proposed use is consistent with the Proposed Land Use Map included in
the City's Comprehensive Plan as well as the surrounding land uses.
Should the City choose to approve the preliminary plat, staff recommends that this
action be subject to the following conditions:
a. The applicant submits and receives approval of detailed landscape, and
grading, drainage and utility plans.
b. The applicant receives approval of a five-foot side yard setback variance.
2.
Denial of the preliminary plat based on findings developed during the meeting.
.
3
Planning Commission ^genda ~ 08/07/01
.
')
J.
'('able the application and request morc information.
Decision Two; CUPlPUD Amendment
I. Approval of an amendmcnt to the existing conditional use permitlplanned unit
development (Cup/PUn) based on the following findings:
a. The application is consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan.
b. The proposed use is consistent with the character, design, and density of the
surrounding uses.
c. The proposed use should not tend to depreciate the surrounding area.
Should the City choose to approve the CUP/PUD amendment, staffrecommends that
this action be subject to the following condition:
a. The applicant receives approval of a five-foot side yard setback variance.
2. Denial of amendment to the existing conditional use permit/planned unit
development (CUP/PUD) based on thc following finding:
.
a.
The subject property is not physically connected to the Elm Street Crossing
Townhomes and should have a separate conditional use permit/planned unit
development.
3. Table the application and request more information.
Decision Three; Side Yard Setback Variance
I. Approval of a five-foot side yard setback variance based on the following findings:
b.
The subject property is an irregular shaped lot. The triangular shape of the
lot makes it impossible for the applicant to fit the proposed structure within
the required setbacks.
The subject property is an existing lot of record that meets all of the required
lot size and dimensional requirements for propeliies in the R.-2 District.
The subject property lies directly south of the Burlington Northern railroad.
As a result, the proposed five-foot side yard setback would shift the structure
closer to the railroad line and not cause a noticeable impact on the adjacent
properties.
a.
c.
.
4
Planning COIl1Il1 ission Agenda - 08/07/01
.
Should the City choose to approve the five-foot side yard sethack variance, staff
recommends that this action be subject to the following conditions:
a. Approval of the preliminary plat and conditional use pcrmit/planned unit
development amendment.
b. The applicant submits and receives approval of detailed landscape and
grading, drainage, and utility plans.
2. Denial of a five-foot side yard setback variance based on the following findings:
a. The applicant has failed to demonstrate a non-economic hardship.
3. Table the application and request more information.
Decision Four: Driveway Separation Variance
1.
Approval of a 31.5 f()ot driveway separation vanance based on thc following
findings:
.
a. The applicant has demonstrated the existence of a non-economic hardship.
b. Granting the driveway separation variance would not reduce the stacking and
safety distance between the proposed curb cut and Elm Street.
2. Denial of a 31.5 foot driveway separation setback variance based on the following
findings:
a. The applicant could eliminate the need for the driveway separation variance
by rerouting the driveway onto Elm Street.
b. The applicant has failed to demonstrate the existence of a non-economic
hardship. If fact, it would require less pavement, and therefore cost less, to
reroute the driveway onto Elm Street.
c. Granting the driveway separation variance would significantly reduce the
stacking and safety distance between the proposed curb cut and Elm Street.
^I
_J.
Table the application and request more information.
.
5
Planning Commission Agenda - 08/07/01
.
c.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Based on the materials included in this application and the findings made in this report, staff
makes the f(Jllowing recommendations:
1. Approval oi'the preliminary plat, consistent with the conditions listed in Decision 1,
Alternative 1 above.
2. Approval of the amendment to the existing conditional use permit/planned unit
development f(Jr Elm Street Crossing Townhomes to include the twin home unit
located on the property at 722 West 5th Street, consistent with the conditions and
findings listed in Decision 2, Alternative I, above.
3. Approval of the five-f()ot side yard setback variance request, consistent with the
findings listed in Decision 3, Alternative 1, above.
4. Denial of the 31.5 foot driveway separation variance request, based on the findings
listed in Decision 4, Alternative 2, above.
.
D.
SUPPORTING DATA
Site Location Map
Site Plan
Front Elevation
Foundation Plan
First Floor Plan
Building Section
Landscape Plan
.
6
AUG-02-2001
"t1::r::
c n,
1:"'"
~~
I~
"'Po
Il> c:;
:3 .-
~- ~
, ..,
i'~
:::
()
9= 03 NAC
;.;; ",;;;~----O II
~CQ~=~z~~~~~~~~(")~N
a= ~ ~ ::5 ';;' S ~. ~ ~ ~ 0 (J tj, ;. ftt ~ ::: 0
~ - ,... ...... e:r- .... Ib - ." - ~ S: I)Q UIi:l ~~ Q.::l
"'r-.,o:=a:-::rocc..-:~__\"'J I:lI
- ~ ro ~ '" n' e''' .. II> .. S .. /II C :; Ii!"tIl
~:o:a,<:Q.~3S~:.; ......,;::"'000
-g..,~ = ~ Ql - D:. g>'~r-o~
Cr:::OtIllllc;:T=:l"'gl;lS:3"'l....~
~ ~ a ; C tfJ g ~ ~ ;.;1 g ~I ..... t'II t"" =' c.
~. :1 :; ....... ~. ;' ~ ~ nl ~ ~..;- I -';:';- ~
l> 10 C ~ C " _ N N ~, "tl w. a '<:
--=~~~=oo~~~~~o~=
;:.: II.! g; '" ~. ~ ; g ;.. "< ro ~ ~ ~ ~t
'<; :0 Q.:::;' -.;0 '"
'" c:::J: :' :i" too ..
~ ~!:~=' ;:3~""
f"'" >:: \8...., (b r+ 'CrI
11"1 It E: r- ~ =:=:: ;' Q
() ~ (tI ~ ~"< - i"CI
.... :l '"
... '"
ji;' ~
- 0
'tl
:3
.,
=
612 595 9837
P.05/11
.
(J
o
~~
'"
~
Q.
"
=
E
=tl
.~
(j
..
......
~
o
~
~
Q
=
fIIIIIIl..
_.
~
~
--
-
=
.
en
c
Ill-
c..-
~ .. ') .
-l ..
" ~
Zt
o
"
m
::g
-I
<
!
--.0---
~
i
=
B
.
n;~ . ~ It-
rl",~ . . !I
. I L., " III
IIf rf.
~
i
J
i
.
.
.
AUG-12I2-212112119= 1214
. "....
:'~,
~,
~i
10
NAC
~~
!!im
,lJ
.r
"P
'Z
1\
612 595 9837
~
"
.~:;:.
.~...lI"""
.r I-;~'D~'.!-~--TJ
}"; 1 l"~_ ~ /,
r----.- fJ
;; " 1;0.;
I : II //')'
Ij "
/1
, ,
'~I
/1
I'
//
, ,
,t/~'
I.;~
, 'I:
/1.'
" I
, ,
if
" I
, '
if
.. I
, ,
/;
" ,
, I
/1
"
" I
,
"
II
~~n'~
,.. ~'''''lIr
I
I
I
I
,
I
I
r
i
I
I
I,'
I
I
I ~
,
,
I
"
I
..-r _ ""',06&1!l1:.
~"":.~ ~Mt.
-.....
P.12I6/11
''''l'''n''rnl"\r 0
i!NHi!Hii!,I!~~ !
dli~lh'tIFHlt~!;l 1':
...l'!1iIM,ltl,.., i5
H!~~~lln~fhll; ..
Don 5Im~N5'?N
tiC" POIQN TrAt1
,..PI Jill. II. n: 1\. ~. IIiII .-..
t.I' c~ ...110I.>> h_"", '~ofI~ __1111I"
.....
AUG-02-2001 9:04
.
NAC
""1.
612 595 9837 P.07/11
: G
~ !
I_
i Q
q
CJ
~"'11 VJ
~~ ~~
",-i !!I~
...
. 'm
. 1- ~Jl1
~m "r
. <: 'Om S
}:. ~~
-I
2 -i
Q
z
j~f'
i
.
t..J
l';r
~~
~rrr
. r;; f
.., <: *
\k> ·
-I ~
2-
b..
~~
!!iJ:
-I
J!l
m
'"
e
~
"""""..~...."..........
&J"I .,.~ ~1N6
Dorr51mC?N59N
tll::J" Dr5IQN llit'I
"'ltoo...,..
Iwi ~IIU iii. n: i111. r-.. .. ~
11oo. cl'ftl ""-IIII~ JlI..... 1:11II1 ...,.._
j;I'nmnUfftHt~ ~ 0
I, ilt!li!..IIII'[~ ~
l;ll~:Ul'W' ~I:o.~
t'~i ~.rl~lr'" !5
i,hlhij I, '1:1 I;; i
l'hlk,td.O IIIli
"'"
FlUG-02-201211
3:1214
.
2 I
::;
!!' I
i I
I
,
jI I
!; I
If
~ .
;1l
~~
~2
. ~1J
.1>
. --I I
;-0
~z
~
~
t
. !
!
...
'"
~
~
~
~
IS
"
...
.~~ .'''' E ~.. "'4-. =" 1.~~..'-- :: =:j
"""' _n__.,.. hn C-'~~'~~o.!:-=-=rJu____.,,,~_-_.,":-..n.,~ ---ri
: ---:;;~~ r ~ 9;.l ~{jT ,- I ~ ~ ------- --- . --r ]
: de~! ~~ F I " ;r7 ~ E.~: ' I
, iUt, ih - .... "~I ~, I ~I i :
. : l',=il: ~-t'u ~I' I - ll,,~,' ~l B", I
, ~ I 'L,a "", r.., : '
< I E ~: ~ II ~ ~__ ___,,-_ ',. : :
t- : l;~ .i: ~'.- ~ I ~.F~il I, I
: fit · I '"==r- lIP j 13 ~. I '
: 1( I . I l' ,~f .: I I
J I 1,: : II r ! I~~ I/X,i E : ,: [
r":':::' j:'Co I L~
: ~"~ :' '" , , I~l;! ,. I ,
i i : :'-C ifTn.;. ':f:I~' ... ~~~:;L~"..."
r~ ::... i ~~. :.:~~~~~~ < .~ -_.'~ -. .:.---:i-~-~"~--~t~,,~~r'
-L:=--:-~,:i' ii!; i ~J" I~I ~_nn,~=.:-.--.J i
,;C , ....i:' , --' _
. , n I I f~il r ~'_m;n_ - I
(' i i : ! ~ :,l~ -'! ~ i
t---=- ~ L_-C:::_- ~-::!- ,-L! ", '_ nnJ ~
---f------.--., T ~.- "= ____
i I ----I ~ : -!i -- f, - ~ ,------ ----r
: ! '~I;i ' ~ j~ III i
:: 10:" I ,I i-., ,-,-- !~ ~!J · :
i ~::." ::jJ : Ii ~i' :
-~~ I :: ~i I I ,J
I: i:' , z~ ~I : ;:b---' l~i!
h;:;:;~J." il'~' ~k 'h:
/:= ,'I ii ~li i
. , !:= .~, ~. ~ ~
': : ) E l~r r"~~~ ' ~!
I .- !.-. i I-"".~ ..
i,l --: ;1 i ii!- ii, :
, ii' :,- ~ : I
J :!.-'m____n,: ilJ.~!~ -_ n, 1 i
i ..;~;:r_~;(r0-.:: ~~...nj>::::; I
I~ v 1.----1; I ~~ ""/" ~ '''..4 :
~ f~ /1, : in a": :
_;'_JI fE=_~...~. i~ !-' : :
,nl, ~"" ,~~'! I~' ii~; _,,__
I I ..~~ / I . I!:
lQL~J:J__ j J..,'" .,..-J )'
,
,I ....._, 'I"'.",. _
NFlC
r
I: ~ !!
i
Uli_:__
.
ij1
~: ;ii,f~f;
~ ~~
~.
i1
612 595 9837
P.08/11
~
s
, "---r
,
,
I
,
,
I
,
,
''"'''.___.n__~..J
I
~ I:
I
! I
i
: : --r::E~~T"'" ------I
I I .,. ,,~. ....... ..... I
, I
I I
I ,
l - 1
: '..' I' :
, )(,
: ~ ~
i ,iil
: ~~RI
: i~ii
, : In: I
.. ~ :;-~~~~:::::;::::;;:;~: t:1--.--J
I".' '
,
,
:
,
I
,
,
'-- .
I
_ FOI..:U 'A6!'::.
~.'I!OI:IOT~
DCJ~ "'t1C?ff5~ff
Rg~IQN TtAI:I
iUmmmml!fi ~ D'
l~riid!"l',itf> Sj ~
'l.,.il' t~~r. 2 ~
1:hrh1'!d!rime ~ n
1IICIUCI.A'nI:II~.....
...... 'I". "I IliI lIt.. tl~"'" I!III' IIIDIII
...... IBIIII aI-IIIIa~ ,,_. liIA! ~'" 1111)
RUG-02-20013:05
.
.
~:!!
....JO
~~
i:-rr
'r-
~8
.il}
II
r
~
(J>
~
Il'
i"
~
~
~
;;;
P
:!l
'> '. ;~,;~:;.i>'
,f.Y:~~~~~:ij:;!;l J(
'."F"~'l,1{
~;I.~ll
E
.
NRC
612 595 9837 P.09/11
~-'-'-'-'--'"
.-
~'~'_L ..... r--'~:.
1IlI:io~'."'i1r'WM' 1
I
-~
r-'
"-'
f-l~"'--i
-,
-....,.".".....
_..,.--:_~.
2
::;
,.
j:li
g
~
~
I ~: ~ .~
~_n -.- ~ I ~,' ~
:Ii: I 11)('
, :, , ~ : r . :
i - n !;-"=-Ifl< ... - 1.... -., ..-.' "..
:ri t 1'\ !;
, i ~ 1- ~:;;; ~ ~~-- 1 ~ I
i: ~~ ;,<,-- rr~~~/\ H ! ~
Ja --!.!.'_ :, II' , ,- II ! 0 I H ~i i~~~ I
- ".. ,-.- .'...,-e. iB i~&y i
~ IT r I '\,y ldillj' : If 52 ~-~ ~.~1"- =;/
. ~~ '7 ill' '~A ~PF~ T'{l f7i
· I'" ~:i~ ,...../ -~1!T ;TIf ru~~ i ~ ....ll; l
j ~~'- j:'!~.=t ~ ! ~g ~". ~ ~
II I': l' r-.. ~1! l---ll i,' - n,: ~ ~ ~~. ~.;
~~ I ~ . .... ~...
I I , ; l.J I n" . 11-0
I! _ r uj_. '..-. - .... ~-=L ~ ~
, I n.~ ~R q~5 ~: ~ ~ :
,; Ui ~ - ~...tr: .<.."
liP ~. ... 1'~1
· fJ j~;f __Ji~l
~j ~~I
~ I --:;. I.
~ . iv . m ,: ~I~ II ~ 01 i H "-
i ':1 .~ I< , ~~.. i'
I: ~ir .. ~ .
d ~..2 i:, ,~ "~'\ ~
I II iM..i:il .,
11I..... I) L..n~
, I' ~if1J"l' - .~~:l~!
ji ~ I ~i ! I ~I ecs=- D ~
; l w: ~~i t> . m .
.~ ,.....,~": ~ I ~ ~ a
, .~. ~ ., ,. ,'i ,., !.l i :~
-. ., . ....1
1, J I . . .,(; I ~
..~": I c:'~ I. .I
,"{,: lA',,: I
.~-~""" ,~
I: n---[Jjill ."... r~U
~ .- '=,Y, ~ I
a.1II~ ii
?~ t;I l
I~ ' l
~ : l\
~ i nt
t I
)
J ~:.;.~ :
I 1 I
; i :
1. ~ __ n_ .__,_I.~I'...:._____~.__J
@.
~
;!J
,.:1
L_
I~
. ,
I
1
I
r~
.
:;
:.
6
i
I
r-
.. ;~
! :IR
: ~ :~
i r ~~
-'-----. ...
~ ~ ~
II ;;~
f
I~
I :
... ...........--.-
....,._ _" . - _...1
I % I
I .
I
--- .-..! '
.'-
,---
~-- .-l!'f'..._'........,..,,_... ~"',,.
.""--~~.,,I
~-
'--"-"'-'-'-
-~....,p--
Il.M 6TNi1f CIIlQIWiIi'ti
nD~lrn'?Nj,?].
t10n Dl:5:IJN TrAI'!!
UmHtmir~u~~ ~ 0
,j,l L-,l-"I'l'" "
";'li!l~..!.;~ 'rl"!Oj ~
,l:lli'l"IIIi' ~ ~
imiim~llnl:l~ !ll
-.......-
:ItaDI........Il..CIoo.I.~~
""t'. I*Il .....1... r'-'" (.,.1 ..~~IIl'l.
AUG-12I2-21211211..9: 1215
NAC
612 595 9837 P.1121/11
.
~;.~. ,.. ffT- .-1~' .,~
IItv!r'll1
~
< 1
, , ~ ~ ~ ""
. a~
IR . l l~ I " .
i' . l . ill Sa
'S - i ,~ I .fj~i i~
.r ' if ~: a _
p ~ ! '.')1" ~!,1.
" P
:! i ~r. if-in aha! ~~ Rh~ ~""'D
! ! I I II I I . r
I I ~~
I
'gEI ~f
!.i I I
olii~ E ~l
,
n- - !
OJ! Q
1------------.
,
""--
I '
I '
, I
I I',
I ,
I '
I I
, I
. J I
I
I
,
I
,
---- .n. I
I
,
I
:
I
,
,
i
I
... '..-.1
,
I
....I
i
11:01
f:5
,. ,...
-Q
1:-
:a
'0'>
~ITI
()
-I
2
.
I
I
,
,
I I
,----" "'_______J
..--....#
~.qi ~ ~~-I!~ ~ e BU.';,'--
. l"" J ~ II' 'i -i
ff:i ~ ~f "l ~ f jllllH
I~ d Hdu ; ! i ii f
liq II I~H ~ . q
qe . I"
t ~~ . ~~r d " Il
;, ~ ~; \ ~ ~
! i l. i _,
Jlt 'iIIHI-~ini
i ~ll~: ~ ' ~~~H~! i'~
I U i') :bl ~I J ~
i I . .:I~" 1 ,
:ilj ~ g~H'!i H~ ~
.~ 555 HId 13.
~ ~ 5 =, P""i ! -. "
~ f ~ r iii = ~ ! ~
I ~jllPi:,
._~ _", !r. ~ "
iT.""',
fff]
I
:~ '-
id
~i i
j
jl~Y
l
.
rjmlr;IJrii~fttlf~ "0
r.~ . !lJ:~o!ll -!''' lliI
I ,!iiiltH~l'~hlf!il
i:m~~UUfm a
_1"ORC:Ll ANO AM~
El.M6~T """,,Dl>ING
llDpffflC?rt59N.
1:11:::1" Df'i1aN 'TrAm
.......-
~~,~.Irl.,'II: I\.D..IIL_.....
1iIoi.~IlI"'AI.\~.... 'lIIC~llllll-llII"I'
" bJ ~ ~
~-t;o <= ";b =
;.;,' ~,..., V'1 ;e
'K. ~ (f"I ......,
""1 ..+
~. V"\ ..-{ "t-"
:s;.. ~7 1"'1 ,
~,~~
....'" v> r
.:J::.,. I L.,. ,
-::17 D ,r.
~. .<'1--.
~~ i: t;\.
'-- ,; t
~ ~ 2:
D- ,.....
L.
AUG-02-2001 3:05
.
"
r
1::."
-'"
~-
C7
(,I"
. ('I
~,~
...,
m
17
r-
::z:,.,
~
C
L
,."
~
I,
...,.
~
........
"~
::l:;.>
t'1,
n'1
~'
.
~
1:.;.'
:17 -.:,.
~~C'l
""1::>......-
~.(;~
~,..,~
, 1
NAC
612 595 9837 P.ll/ll
~ ('t f)."J"":t...._
7;? rf (( f~
: I't.-. A
'<:>1:1';"
-'. '" '~l 1::' \.ILl
1"~O. "?- ~..d r -:;.~~, r""'"
' . ~- :'\......(Z, ~= ~
- '- - - 'r.:~:;",-' \
~~~" ----
~r - '-'0) ~ 'I'" -_-__~
~- Wffi: - - -~,i\ ./ ,,--' -~~/..,_"
~ ~ ~~~ C:~J ~~.t'/
I
I
I
---
~.?:
~ .(:...
,~
"'P
-""3.
C::f) Q)
(2)
". ')
\ W
c;......
7:.7 (i'>
~ 7P.
..... C 7:7
'6'\ :;P"
z .fA'
- '(1'-
-f
, ' 1>
JI.tJ1; /l.J111.1{
./
I
I
/
.,'------, ,.
T
"
"
'-'- ''', ~
%J
~
"""
/
/
11 n /
)> 2
of) /
~ = ~--=r--.
. ~2 ~. / I
() 0 ~~ I
~I
t"I
/
/
/
4J/
'j;
,~ I
/
/
/
/
/
/ "
/ I
/ /
I
, J/,/J ( wl/:fl(
c
z
-,
-f
, 7>
, ~
G~
CD
I
I
~
,- ~
>- ~
^ -~
~ s
~ ~
In ~
o ~
~ ,.,
::.". ~,
0,' ~
:'I:.~
)of, "
'-:>0
-I
"""
r-
"'-
~
f11
'N
R
'7'<'
:;.
~
,-
,..,
I
I
'"
;ID
, I
r:?
?5, I
?-'
"'~
~1
I i
I I
C\
~">
~
'"
1 .
.
.
.
Planning COlllmission Agenda -8/07/01
7.
Consideration of an amendment to a Planned Unit Develonment in the PZ-M Zoning
District to permit the expansion of parkin!! lot facilities. Applicant: Monticello-Big
Lake Community Hospihll District. (NAC)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
Monticello-Big Lake Hospital is seeking an amendment to its Planned Unit Development to
allow the expansion of its parking lot on the west end of the upper parking area, adjacent to
Dayton Street. 'The parking lot would extend from the existing parking area by removing the
curb and continuing the driveways to the west. An additional tier of spaces would be
constructed to the edge of the hillside on the north. In all, the new parking lot would remove
nine spaces, but replace them with 116 new spaces, a net gain of 107 spaces.
The current PUD approval plans for a multi-level parking ramp which would connect the
upper and lower parking areas in the location of the current dental clinic property. Because
the hospital district does not control that site, the ramp is not yet feasible. Jlowever, hospital
sta1T continue to utilize a "temporary", unimproved parking area in the lower area near the
nursing home entrance. This parking area was originally intended to provide overflow
parking during a previous construction project. As a part of this PUD amendment, parking
in this temporary lot should be terminated, and the area returned to landscaped green space.
With regard to the new parking area itself: the hospital proposes to include adequate planted
islands with a combination of Red Maple, Honeylocust, Shrub Roses, and sod. The lot will
be graded to tak'e the drainage to cateh basins along Broadway, away frdm the River. The
City Engineer should comment on the drainage plans.
The primary design issue for Planning Staff relates to the access to Dayton Street. The City
has long been concerned with west~ or north-bound hospital traffic utilizing River Street to
get to Highway 25. Ifaccess is permitted to Dayton, staffwould recommend a design which
discourages, or prohibits, right-turn traffic which would then end up on River Street. Instead
some sort of angled driveway which forces exiting traffic to turn let on Dayton toward
Broadway would be the preferred design. This design would also permit right-turn-in traffic
coming from Broadway onto Dayton. Since there is a median in Broadway at Dayton, east-
bound traffic would need to use the signal ized main hospital entrance for access to
Broadway.
Public Works staff has suggested a prefercnce for prohibiting access from the Hospital
property to Dayton Street. Whilc this option would function best to climinate potential
traffic onto River Street, planning staff' is concerned about the quantity of traffic f()fced to
utilize the central access point without a secondary egress.
.
Plann ing Cornm ission Agenda -8/07/01
It should be noted that this amendment would not affect the expectation of the City that a
parking ramp will be integrated into the project at some future time. The City may wish to
discuss whether continued replacement of housing in this area with surf~lCe parking lots
should be continued any farther west than the current proposal.
A 1I.nal issue relates to pedestrian access along the Hospital area. Particularly with the
extension of the parking area to more than 800 feet from the main entrance, staff believes
that a sidewalk should be integrated into the plan. It should also be noted that the city's
planning for Highway 75 includes future pedestrian sidewalk in this area. A combination
of City and Hospital sidewalk construction may be possible to minimize costs fi)r both
parties. The funding arrangements would have to he worked out. If not possible, the
Hospital should he prepared to install sidewalk to benefit the stafT and visitors that will be
using this distant parking lot.
B. AL TERNA TIVE ACTIONS
1.
Motion to recommend approval of the PUD Amendment, with conditions that the
temporary parking in the lower area he removed and re-Iandscaped, and that the
access to Dayton Street be redesigned to permit right-tum-in, len-tum-out traffic
only, discouraging tranic from using River Street.
.
2. Motion to recommend denial of the PUD Amendment, based on a concern with
surface parking lot expansions replacing housing in this area.
3. Motion to table action on the PUD Amendment, subject to additional information.
C. STAPr RbCOMMENDA TION
Staff recommends approval ofthe PUD Amendment only with the conditions mentioned in
this report, specificaIly, that the lower temporary parking is terminated, and that access to
Dayton Street is designed to avoid dumping traffic onto River Street. The City has had the
objective ofminimizing hospital traffic through the residential and park areas in this part of
the community for some time. Both of these measures would facilitate accomplishment of
that objective. Also as noted in this report, approval is not intended to affect the previous
planning flJr a ramp serving the hospital campus.
As a separate item of discussion, the City may wish to consider whether Dayton Street
should serve as the western-most boundary for parking lot expansion. Continued
.
2
.
Planning Commission Agenda -S/07/01
replacement of housing with parking lot in this area will have a detrimental effect on the
neighborhood, and on the visual impression of the Broadway corridor in this area.
D. SUPPORTING DATA
1. Site Plan
2. Grading Plan
3. Landscape Plan
.
.
3
.... ...J
;"':"<
._~ .....
~o:
~CJ)
~o
.~ ::I:
II ~D
I IlIa
I.~ ~!12
i~f I~
Un !
:dli I)
111' J 'Is
fl{li II Z Ii
'!IIi I ill
"
/'
lJ'
" J'l
~,~~ J ~
'''",
" v..., : " ........ ,\
~.. '-_ "'>-.,, /\. Ii I "J'"
1'(;l:l"'..."i/.7 ':~:Ill' "'<:<....., \. i.li II I"
''l'{' ' . ,I '.'''''.., ~l.l., 1"'1 ,~"'; I
:.':" /~ c., ~.' '<~" \ ;;1
'/ J1 . I " '" -"- , 71
, . I ,J <":,,, f . " I: "', \, eo
" /: _, /" $f!'.,",... I "'" O' I,.:,'", .~
",,-' "f' I , ,i!" ,.,'i~f,'''I / ,'.,/ '",' , ....".. -......l"-..... ,r..",,'
'. ", i . . ,I? "';, l''', " ~ ..I,' - \ 1 . "-./.,
. ~ j. "Y;,l/." -"'..:' ':~'I,.-"~Il/'?~~:':'::"(":'~''''''' \A);;>.,..,'J.':.:\....::.;><~~~",:.i
. ' 1" I" - ..""~ . ........ " .' . ~.'
. '> '. ,',",'Y< l..__ ~" ",:~. . '!~",,' :'.~.:' ..:, '" . \ ,/I...',:~;^.:;...',.~......'.')~.:,.:,...'~.<::,y
..../~ ; " ~ '., ~~i<~~;:'l;-;is,.../ -'~.'~(,:'S'r"';;;~:"'~~. '\ ,i::: '.
/,/ . hi' ~ · ..~~:,' .,vi'.
i ~:' )//' }):; . ,~t~.t . ':>::~",. ": ~_ --':;-j;:'.::;;> ~,.,i""'"
,,// i:0 ,/ " '>,-( '''<<1",:,,:, ~>._,,:j}~ :' '/," 1'" /'/
. :/iy~/?i, '_,I i . ~ "~t~~:.~\~~~~'r:;Y , . .
.,'~,/;/ it/ .. ~b{~i \l:>,,';f// ric~~/i~;~X' ',. /
,,).. ('/~" . ,/ (, " ... .tt;,1~/..."\.....,/~.-.."./l,::,:.Wf, ..::~.:,,?/' :.,,/~~>>, ,/,~:,;x,\,'<,,:::~,/ ..
,. ~ .. . ( " <>.,.,. i ,"..'" /. ~.~ ". I ",. ,t,f' '$/''''~i'...", ",).. '/ ~
'.' I': I,' /~'"-';/~~:;",<<,,,(, i~)",';':~'i'/ ./({~:::';?, "t:"'!//J:",J.:)I:~<~:~::;.<:<,;.--:'~~i':.'."'/;'>"':{.,,"/-'
'c. .' lot '", ' ,~. '. \' , ' , ii .,...{,.;::.:t/.. ll~ '>>~"" . "",'.\' ".,
J !" " ", ',,'; '.. ,. ~,:1:i " o'!!,'." ,. /'.i . ') " ", .
.'/' I> " ~; ..'1'.... . ,: )J~~~.fi lc;'>;;;:" i /:?' /
L,,, '\"1.'.,/],,, "'~".(<~~.. iH "~:;i":Y ll', ~l')j/>.,: . .t.
" ' , . ,,'. ,I, ' "'''''''.'.r~ ii ' """(':' .'. ~~., .>c. i I. "
,.?t~~ '-''''lA,i!'l ....../:, 'I,: 'L' "'/~r" ""'~} .f.l~/ i/ .l.../.;'(:,.... /""/'.,. "'. . . //
, I: ;' .'~ Vl:~' .,,' j' . ,l '." :' ,:,)\1 ii/ ',)'>!:.,/{/}..",;:;> ,'i'
"/1 / .....";{ , " ~ ,. ". ~"il j/ lJ.-,l"~i/i/)::;,'/ .,.' /'
""/Ii'" i'Z"i.'/ ..!~,'I. rr;{.,:i!l*'/~~/ .
'. ,,~i " / ,>,j~)J' !fl;,",'o .,'" ~\, .:'/", ,. :', '"",.
...... .... . .,~,., '., ' ." ,"'.., \.1,~ 1 t ':L'
" " " r' .' ,~ "" V'I r ", ",
. . ". 'I' .. ...' ,. . 'P. " j' I '+'~ ", /
.... y"-lo ~ /,r:.:..~.;....."c;c:, .\ .'i./ ",,;" I, "~" ...1,,,.. ~\.~~'.~' ~/, '". '~'.~::"" ," /j;5(
, .t-:::'". " i'/i' ',ti" ,/'/~;>'" . "', l''',f.'#' /:I.~i~:' ,}':i'~'~~~~'1Q,,~"'" i., ,(. (
'1;." ....~:'..,.~:.~.~l.~/",/~.<::;,;/' ~>.)./" ~,JJ:~il/"
~ ",.;:<i, ;!:~~,~~\.~~
i
~
b.
ail
iii
/
.(1': .
?
/:,'
/<</~;.;'-
I
/
"
/'
I'
/1
/
/
",.
'.":"","l.:'1
..J lit] I
a~~1 Illi~ i Ii
~ III I I I
!ilfill II tltl! II !t
!bit I ill
/t
II
II
i;
'.1
--I
-,<
J~
~a::
:::IioCl)
-~o
:.):l:
I, Lfi
J i!!~~
.. j:::'j/l/" '. 'l}~f/,,:::' ',....,....",i;~:~':':::.r",:,'?'::,c';:.:7"~='~~'::,":';:i:~'~:J/ i'
i/ !' I "II,,' &L'(lgf "p t'L C -", .'
,I/! 4/ ,;,,' ",,' 'w \,/",~. ,'''" 'I,...,..o,n:-s, , .
/ ~ j ~ i ',' '" f, '"",$ ::: ,;;;';: .,~.:;':;;.-=---:::.- ~~~:,~,., / .I
"'. ! / ;' Iii ,J / "".."/". /,/ Ir'''''r'--'''''',lr''O'1'''''':'f':#''-r':"''''I''''''::iY'''''''f'~ .' / !
I -- . ) ./ - -- i I; / .., , I I I ! I 1/1 , ,.!
I/!I/II/ /11/:/'('/ I j,,' I I I! \ r t;S::>/ <,'
" , "/1 I 1'1'1' >>,r 1 I I""".'';':,'"
,., ," . Ij Ii / ;: i/ / I / if ('~"""~".""~ ,/ I '."-- ,. --''.
I,' tj I h il i (n h \ ,,:CO';;""7"'" .,.,.,..,- , ," . I'" ,,-- ". .- .,
/'/i _.,' I 1,1; l ) ,,"c..'
I. '..' 1'1.1111 1/11' .._"--,,,.'., . .,"""'....,.",..,.---.'" . --"".""'."'~
I .r i i I Ii Ii ; I j II tl ; / \,rir - ~'""""", ("':'::~l'-
I . , II' , ' 'I ' I "
1 i " i I I I Ii i! \ \! "..""....____" '''~..J'''''':,1J''''J...w.... ""n "-', i
If: U i fill i. d I \ ;.' "-,...",....,.",,,,"...,,..,,,,,. .' I.
'I I.' III -It" ti... ':' I""~"'"''-''' I ..,,-,..,-^
. : l : . (1 t~ ;, ~ , to {{ I , "..,.,__.1....""" . . ~
. '..' .'. i. ". "t'. '\ I I I ",."",,,,,,''''''''' / ---""'."--" ,
i : 1,/ i ' ; \ '\' , ''I 'I' \:, J! I ' "" ""'''/. """'''''''' , ""...", ; t .;
" ' .,.1 I .\1 '"'''''.''' !
/' ' , '; \ " \ \ \ \ \ \ \ ( I \ ' ,.."-,J.."".".,,, / t I
-- Ii,,>) I" \ \ \ i, ' \ I '"F''' : '
ii" 1/ /". e" '.' 1\\ T'''''''''-'--' /-",. . \ I
''''''i:'l':.itl'i,:;:'',,:;;''(''~}lll. ,..:::"n~~:'~_" ,...., t'--'-'".".~^,--"",,,,, -". ..' \.[
, ,.'/,' I '.I.! i ///. . ./.;i" 1.'; I ..... /""--' " '
,/c';I,:'iJU(//' "I < ,.",,,..."" / I
',','11/" ,. -' \\\.\\ 'I, '
Ii /, 1 i -'<1 ) \ ,\\ 1.1 '''''''.'''''''''''''''''''-' II
/ , :'.'.'11(/' ,,' /\\\ ' 1\"""" <Il~ \"."..""."".' Ii
.I 'JI//:'(!!i~/'/>" Jl"""<'" ,.\".1;i
",',' '/ ,d ' (It ' ,- . I "''',.'''.,,'''- __".,,:',.,.J.;
" I, . ; /r'- i 1\ \,,' / ' f',1 I I~/I;"";;"<!'''';:''''>'''''')' "\ \, J11 '
( J I i j I . , \ \ I \ , ,..,",'" I.t 'il ,.,' 'j L.,
, . i_ ~ 1 L~ ~ ~ . I ;, (.I { ..~:.," ...J ". B." ~" ,,"". "" ~ . - ' '
, I II rr (\ )' 1 /' ' "'>;\--."""""''''''''''''''''''''''''''''"''-- ,,- --,. "~.l"
, f.'" 1'1') ; ',I . fi ,__",,",,,,,,,.,.,,,,.,,,,:::,,,,,...,,:,--,t' I .
t ;,1,'//;" :,'J( "J:f .'" II '" .. Ui\
! II, 'Z"/"/ '< l ,\
I" "/"""/ \. \
, "I' ',i., --,-- '1 -- ' I
, / i/J/'i';'~"/'/i;~1 ll',\ ; \ \-'
/ ii'(: 'U"/-','-'I / ~ ~,!'jl,
, : I ' " , " , I" " , i " 'i".""b",,,, ",
, I / 1.1" j I,"}' / "
, " " I lit' Ii "
,i " I I i J I:' Ii .7 it[,' ,,:' f,;!,' / / " --""" _.. 1
" ~ ".,.;""
JII ~: / .. ) 1(IiI.l~~i~ ~- I
. ' til.' I' .. 'I ii ·
w r:::j / ,tt ,k '/ ~f
",/,y'\\~(':':',!0". ~..,"
, I '\';'/.. i/ ~
, i. '>'-'''\(''/'IJ ~
}/',',",? .' ":))~;';I'i/!IJ. '~
/~i}!,;iLt~~~'~i. ~
,/ ..',/",.,./~{'~;.f.':~, "i.,.r>'..";' -, .~~
i-',I;''-'--'..'' :~
",.., ,,'. ~
'f
\
\,,,,"'
, ~
"",;"",.,,
".,...."..",.,....."..1 ,.r
1 :r:,3(il:;
H ~~' (1 =3:)
I" .
I, ,"1' I
jl i i
AiL i I
. ,j \,~' \
n \ If t \
! i ~ /f / ~
I ; ; 1 ~ J
.i ;#j: \
I I yi I . ,,'
)1,j'I./\'"
Ji
,/"
/),i.r\
I
I
!
i
!
)'t.
~;
t
"""":>"J'1
/'~,;::
l '(':'~~<. .
i"l"
i t
. .. ---"
. ~ '"
1 .\OU
~:" \
l' ~~~/ /"',
;: " - ~ t
,I iii
1 ~
i ,,~
; ''1:
~J,
e "",
S~)!
:; i!
.. ,II
~
I
I:
" '\~
,(,1',
i J .
i 'I'
'~ \.
I
.;1
II
III
d
Ii it
Ii fi
if rr
11 F
,.j !f
I}:.'!,.;. H:';I
fi,~ \1. N~~
;;,u !.-
i! I';,~'!~~;
Ii
"
'I
Ii
.'
1'1, '
Ii Iff'
!S 1
Ii II
I' ii,
a II
/J !1
I II ~ -\
:; ,i
~ \ II
,~ Ii
Ii i Ii
, Ii \ n
P ,i,~ .,1.'.'
1I ",11
;"1 ~ iI
~I .~i
~ " r i
i; 11
/; ~ I',..".
1; M
;j I'!
:!\, ~
J\,/'/'~:;, :--:'" "!
'i '. 1.\<", '.f
1', '- Ii'''' ij~
,t I
I. HJ ~
gl~ I :!jli I)
3 ,'ll' J !J'
ji {,p JJ l ~
Hili Ii ill
. .." .. '''''''''''''''' ... ""'"''''-''' '" . '..u,,,..,, ". ',. "."...... "",,- . J1// l /ji II
, l'i , 'f
, I ,i i i Jj
Ji'"'''T'''''''ft>C"TI''''''''''f'''''f'''''''Tl N""'~!;"":~I"'"".~" .,' <'.!..'.'./. ,'I / tl.,.l
~ I >""""""__".' 1r I "
It. I il'd"_"~,p' iJ'
I, 1 I ,I '~,~:<".,._,,,,,,;I' ',/ J~
. t,","'''''''''''''..". ,_". _".. _e, ._., ,,_ __, '''~ ...,.,. '''''' '" liir." I
,ii<' I
I
I
1
>- ,. I, ~
I-
Ol-...,J
.....z< I III!
-=>1-
~ ::E a:
- ::E en
~Oo 'g~ ~'2
-. C,,) :I:
c_..
I
!
j
.. ---,.- .-.-
,
L.
..-., .". ",~., .",~, ",~,' -.""_ d".'. ..,'.. ,.".
(:~:~~:~::::)
~:,
#
.", .. ..,... ,..,., ".'" ~,", .......\,. '''-:-"
".',,,~ ~-,,' ..~.., .....~,..~ft~,,,'..,,~ '"'''''*''_''~:\L"""'''_,,,,,,,~ '."
.~ ^.,'~ ,._',"J.',~"" "",'m. '..~, .~., ", ~ ,_.. ,.... ."'" ""
''') I ! ' i
t",J,:.",.""""",,,,.;,,,,
..."""......-0.."..".,,_..
'"'-.....,. -.. ..:,.'....w.~.'.." .~.~....',,_._,
..
Ii
~
)(k
xc
i'
'-I:
! ~
I
I'
f
"~'.
11
i"
d
"
il
Ii
a
if
II
4
il
If
/,
N
if
}l
I"
i!
II
g
a
/!: 1.1
Ii if
,I if If
I ,'i lI-
e: II
,-
I' -)
I'
.! ,'I
I' .%2
,: !!
Ii :I If
II c:,!'
ii I
il /i
I' N ,
.;q
" II "
Ii li
",,: .~ 'I II
)'
~ 11 'I
!
N Ii II
fi .Ii
,j
i;i Ii /;
I'
Ii r!
II .'
il
!i II
I,. ,;
f ~: ;.r
/t fI
i'.1 '1
.
.
.
8.
Public Hearing - Consideration of a reQuest for a conditional use permit allowin!! a
reduction in the standard desi!!n reQuirements for stall aisle and driveway design.
Applicant: Integrated Recyclin!! Technolo!!ies. Inc.. (FP)
BACKGROUND
Integrated Recycling Technologies, Inc..is developing the parcel located at 9696 Fallon A venue.
Their development proposes a future expansion area to the east of the building. The expansion
would include a driveway on the north side of the building to enable vehicles to maneuver
around the entire building.
Prior to the expansion, the area east of the building will be used as a truck turn around. That area
is proposed by the applicant to be left with a gravel surface, without curb, gutter or paving. The
City Zoning Code recognizes by exception that it is unreasonable to require improved parking
and drive surfaces in expansion areas. Such exceptions are allowed by conditional use permit in
I-I, I-lA, and 1~2 zones under the provisions of section 3-5, D. 9 (s) Stall Aisle and Driveway
Design ConditionallJse Permit. subject to the conditions as provided in Exhibit Z (attached
hereto ).
It has been common practice to allow such conditional use permits when building expansion
areas are identiiied.
ALTERNATIVES
1. Motion to recommend to the City Council to approve a conditional use permit to allow a
reduction in the stall aisle and driveway design requirements for surfacing, curbing and
landscaping subject to the conditions of Exhibit Z.
2. Motion to recommend to the City Council to deny the subject conditional use permit
request.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommends Alternate I above.
ATTACHMENTS
· Location and Site Plan
.
Exhibit Z - Requirements of ConditionallJse Permit to Allow Reduction
in Stall Aisle and Driveway Design Requirements.
1J1IH
,. [
.,
Q_ II,J
. ~a~J
';.;. ~
~
;
- 3
o
-
-
~
~
....
......
i
~
.
......
Q
~
~
.-
u
~
.
i
011
~
g
::'
>
....
a:
w
a..
o
g::
a..
t-
O
w
...,
a:l
;:)
CI)
!
....
d"=::.
Ib
.:!
D
..
'"
~ e
.." ...
e -
~ -; .!
=- >~
., '" <:
aJ - =-,::; ~ +8 "'C
o.tEI--j:; ~....~
Q .- -;; Q) .... w
j::.. ~ ,. ""'Cj C 9> .... M
r. ~~:i ~a:.:s~
4l ...- 00; 'Q" <:
.;: fII ~ : t\l ~: ~ ... ';j . ~
....Qi;=OC:(....~cJC~;::J:::= ...,_~~
,-"E, .......;;;.... ..NNlT.: '" C ~ ;:I~o; ~
~ ";:3 au = =: = lU;: ~ ~ '"0 .= -;; - E -':.C 1-0 !..
d '" S. c: Ei '" E "" Q '" ;:I ., e .... .... 0; 's
::lom;:!:; oo'7;s::=o=lD::;! u~ra::::J4)
otf.l<<i={&.~ ==:;.0 .,~= aJ8..s.6-=~
llJoil,-" E cEEo.,,""Oi =0;;'<:'
cg. ot).!...!::J~~I.~...QI1J4:lj;";--
s:: ~ ~ i: !)II DG:a ;; ~ ~ ~ ~ :::: ~ 0 ~ .- - ~.~
o.~CI:tO.~.~ CI) Q ~;; :....jIoo e ~'QQ=~-=~:Z
c:..:>jI!U"llI/lI/l::S::l=:g. '" "'.w.-'" 1JJ~.'!!Pv '"
ll..;;;::..:i ~ c:; u,.J...::! ;;::: ll..
....
~
...
-'
'"
if;
.2
-~Ii
Q
o_........._~~~
. . . _ .. A 1" .
(;)
.--------1
I
1
Vl
Zo:::
- lJ../
<(3:
::;;:0-
0:::0
lJ../
1-)>-
<(CD
~~
. 0-
I.OZ
<(
lJ../0:::
0:::0
0-3:
::>
...""
lJ../
lJ../
I-
a.
o
I,()
0:::
lJ../
1.0 a.
0.0.
X-Q I
OU
.
Lfl
I,()
cr>
.
1.0' .
I.O~
X I I
1 . 00
y;>~-
Q)
OLI)
.c<S:J
--r'-:-'..)
vi"
2Lll
m
. II
CG
00
.__-lA~_/'f':--_':" _
.,.
---
~', . ;>':00
I ~~?-~-- -f;~ -~-- ~
~; V~~ ;?:-:_._._.________ __________._~__.___._, ._.____
'f ---.--~--;- -:::;:"'\
~t q' ~lJ../
II ~ f: .-. // _~~.JZI~_______
II N <p a: // ---- -----, .-=:J - ___
II . ~::> II l - _~; ']___----
II 1~ ~l t--+--- ------~~- 111
1/ - /I I t:: - ' .' '0-:"
" ! /I i I ~ - ./ ../ ~ I-
It ! /I i I .... - CD
II i II l ~ - c- ,g - ~
II ! II I -, -<." 1.0
II ! II I ./:) _ ,~a:: ',c- 1,1').
! II I '.' _ f ai
I II I r...J
I '-4.,';
II I <~ . . ~ '
II ,j ., O' (:
~ ~~ ' 'j
ttcu
Ill- lJ../.
1~g5!
I~I-!
It;.; ::> I
II ......,
11 !
II !
11 !
11 !
II !
II !
II <.:1 !
I ::>!
...JI
a.j
a.i
oi
j
~i
I
i
i
i
!
i
l:o
~O
~ ! .
Vlb
~p
::>l'T"
u .
-......'
~i
~
0>
Vl
0:::
lJ../
I
I-
VlO
::>
0>-
ZCD
II ::;;:.
HI ::J lJ../
!I I- >
II CD 0:::
II lJ../ 0
II 0::: ><:
II ::>u
II ~~
III . ... I- I
liB ~I
II'" CD II
1110 'P.II
1111 ill
II. , II
, II
1 II
;
w
~
T-
n
I
""
1-:r
Ii!J
o
Z
lJ../
<D
/
.-:::.:. ./
C:>Z
ZD
w....................
0:::01-
=:1---1..........
1-..........0
:::J::JO
LLOJ<::I:
<.:1
lJ../
o
....
111
1TI
lJ../
U
a.c:::
::;;:0 ><:
<(0 ...J
0:::0 <(
~
0..0 lJJ
<(I- 0
U
-lJ../ Vl
00-
ZO lJ../
. <(...J I-
:I:Vl W
0:::
U
Z
0
U
>
0:::
lJ../
VllJ../
U
0:::-
w>
1-0:::
<(lJ../
3:Vl
Vl
::>
0
z
::;;:
:::l
I- W
<D :::
.. ...--:
N r0
'"
In <;T
~
L{)
C
,,--
r--
o CHn
WZOI
en ..........
DO II
CL---1
o..........W
0::: :::J LL
o...OJLL
a.
::;;:
::J
0..
0-
::;;:
:::l
a.
00
I-
o
....
111
'~.~.~:....: .f~~:;...;"~
In
o
N
.....
.....
I-
::J
U
CD
c:::
::J
U
....." <.:1
::lOZ.....~
W W ........
I-W 0
VlO:::I-...J
>-<.:1Vl-
Vl W ::J
...J~CD
O:...J
lJ../<(wo
...J r W
><:%I-Vl
z- o.
Zo..Vl
0:::0000:::
o..w c:::w
V>...JOa.I
...J W I-
O<(I-WO
ZI-<(I
::JV>uo->-
ozo CD
a::-...J....
0%
<.:1
w-
OV>
-w
VlO
..
I U
<.b~
in
Cfl ~
/ "-
I
/
/
/
/
I
c:::
lJ../ I
0- I
~ I
~ if
~ I
U I
lJ../ I
0-1
WI
51
Z
8'
I
""./r
L
\0
\
\
\
....
G....._J:
. cc
.. c:::
::lO::C
....01-
o c::: v,
....-
::lO c
::>0
::lOw....;
-<.:1....;
Z<(<(
->
::E...JZ
<(0
<(Vl
I..i..;
...J...JI-
...J--
<ov
,0- Vl
Vlo..w
ZO:I:
-I-f-
::E:
U
<
W
,.,
wc
o:::c
<
r c
~ ~~
W ...J
0.>-
N
wz
:I: 0
l-
V
ZI..L
ov'
e
zc..
~(l:
0=
:I:c..
Vl
VlC
w-,
lJ../1-
0:",
I-C
c-
w
w
a::
I-
Vl
::J
o
::J
o
w
W
c:::
0-
V>
::J
o
a::
w
I..i..;
Z
o
U
-
I
N
<.P
00
W
1-(::
OC
ZI..L
I
I
I
L.I.;
w . C
:I:lJ../-
I-I-v
o (f)::::'
Z
::>lJ../f--
O:I:C
O:::I-C
<( ...
...
wo~
u
za::l..L
WlJ../a;
....1-
we
1-:;:>-
...J-
-0:...
VllJ../L
c..:;::
...J ...
...J W L.
<(0:::
I--f--
Vll-_
zz-
-wv
Q)
>
VlZ
....",
01-
""",
~.., If
cr>c;
II "
>
c'--
1.0
::E:.D
cr>
n.
::;;::;:
::J-
o..cr:
.
.
.
EXHIBIT Z
TO CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO
ALLOW A REDUCTION IN STALL AISLE AND
DRIVEWAY DF.SIGN REQlHREMF.NTS FOR
INTEGRATED RECYCLING TECHNOLOGIES, INC.
The Conditional Use Permit to allow a reduction in stall aisle and driveway design requirements
for Integrated Recycling Technologies, Inc. is subject to the fiJI/owing requirements:
1. Final approval of parking and driveway drainage plans associated with conditional use
permit request shall be provided in writing by the City Engineer.
2.
No open or outdoor storage shall be allowed on the property without first obtaining
separate approval from the City.
3. Parking and drive perimeter shall not extend closer that 20 feet to the property lines of
any adjoining parcel.
4. At such time that routine use by the public is observed, the drive area shall be paved.
.
.
.
9.
Public Hearinl! - Consideration of a reQuest for an amendment to the si,:m ordinance
allowing ovcr-halH!inl! signs over 6 square feet on Walnut Street. Annlicant: City
of Monticello. (FP)
BACKGROllND
The sign ordinances of the City were recently modified to allow projecting signs in the
Broadway Downtown District of the Central Community District. The Monticello Downtown
and Riverfront Revitalization Plan encourages the design and installation of projecting signs in
the Broadway Downtown District as well as in the Walnut District. When the original ordinance
allowing projecting signs was considered, the Walnut District was inadvertently not included.
The attached map indicates the extent of the Walnut District. The Walnut District is split by the
Civic/Institutional, and the Industrial districts along Walnut Street. Since the time the Walnut
District was first identified, the commercial Towne Center project has been conceived and
development has started. The Towne Center project is located in the Civic/Institutional District
and yet should be included in the area where projecting signs should be allowed. The ordinance
amendment proposed by this action designates all of Walnut Street, south of the Broadway
Downtown District as an area where projecting signs may be permitted.
By including the entire length of Walnut Street south of the Broadway Downtown District,
Sunny Fresh Foods, Monticello Public Library or the Community Center will be included in the
area where projecting signs arc allowed; however, it is doubtful that those properties will want to
crect projecting signs.
.Just as originally considered. the suggested amendments would allow only externally illuminated
projecting wall signs. Such signs would have to be erected at least 8 feet above grade and must
not exceed 6 square feet in area. (See Ordinance Attached.)
ALTERNATIVES
I. Motion to recommend to the City Council that the ordinance amendment allowing
projecting wall signs in the eCD District be approved.
2. Motion to recommend to the City Council that the ordinance amendment allowing
projecting wall signs in the CCD District be denied.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
StafT recommends that the Planning Commission recommends Alternate I above.
ATTACHMENTS
.
.
Copy of Map Describing AtTected Area of Walnut Street.
Copy of proposed Ordinance with strike-out and underlining to show
amendments.
.
Districts - Downtown Monticello will always be a mix of uses, ages and patterns, and the
plan recognizes a series of districts fonned around basic uses and character.
Therefore, a building near the river wiII have a character different from a
building near the interstate. A unifonn building character across the entire
downtown will never be achieved and would likely be undesirable for tenants
and the community. Within districts, however, buildings would have a strong
relationship to one another and a consistent relationship to the streets of the
district.
.
. ------"-
"01 Ph......
BIll "'rvl'fII'''O~
~ '''OA,bWA'Y: OOW7fTOWN
~. ,
~ '.OADWAY, un A liD
~ WElT
~ WAllIUT
.mtP'lHI
EE:=B nVENtH .tllElt . A
(ZZLj TllAN"tlONAl
L:J NE'OH'O.toOOD
~ ...D.U"'''IAL
~
f::... ':'.-,~\1 '''''K ANQ o~eN .'ACI
-- C'VICllN.tlTVTION..... , I Nt. "
-- ''1'"".,..
~~ ~.
a land uses ~ downtown will be dellned acrordlng to eleven dlstt1ds, wtth compaUblllly and character being the prtmary conslderaUon for cadi destgnauon.
_ ~ A New Bridge
-. ~ Rtvft/1l/zJng MonUrello's Downtown and RIverfront
gt 3:72
/
.
.
.
ORDINANCE NO.
CITY OF MONTICELLO
WRIGHT COUNTY, MINNESOTA
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 10. CHAPTER 3, SECTION 3-9, ITEMS rEJ 6; OF
THE MONTICELLO ZONING ORDINANCE BY ESTABLISHING SIGN REGULATIONS.
THE CITY OF MONTICELLO DOES ORDAIN:
Title 10, Chapter 3, Section 3-9, Itcm [EJ 6. of the City Code is hereby amended to read as follows:
6. Projecting Signs: Within the CCD District but only in the "Broadway
Downtown District" thereof as defincd by the Monticello Downtown
and Riverfront Revitalization Plan, and along that portion of Walnut
Street extcnding: south of the "Broadwav Downtown District," projecting
signs shall bc pennitted.. Such signs:
I. shall not exceed six (6) square feet in area,
II.
shall be considercd a wall sign for the purposes of maximulll
allowable sign area,
III. shall be attached to a building facade fronting on a public street,
IV. shall not extend more than 12" beyond the plane of the building
facade to which it is attched, and
v. shall be at least 8 feet but not lllore than 12 feet in height above
walking surfaces or sidewalks.
This Ordinance shall becorne effective imlllediately upon its passage and publication according to law.
ADOPTED by the Monticello City Council this_.__ day of_______ 200 I.
CITY OF MONTICELLO
ATTEST:
Ry: ___________
Roger Belsaas, Mayor
By: ____..__.____..___
Rick Wolfsteller, City Administrator
AYES:
NAYS:
.
.
.
l!1
Planning Commission Agenda - 08/07/01
Discussion re1!arding City Council request for Planning: Commission to hold
workshop to discuss land use issues regarding Gold Nug:g:et. (.10)
Verbal report by Jeff O'Neill
.
.
.
lL
Planning Conllllissioll Agenda - 08/07/01
Discussion re2:ardin1! allowin1! advertisin2: signs to be placed on city benches with an
aonroved Ilermit. (JO)
Verbal report by Jeff O'Neill
.
.
.
lb
Planning COIllIll ission Agenda -8/07/01
Consideration of rel,!ulatorv options to provide for hi1!her value housing. Applicant:
City of Monticello. (NAC)
A. REfERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
The City has bccn discussing options by which higher valucd housing can be encouraged in
Monticello. A general concern has been expressed in this context that thc great majority of
the new housing in the community is of lower or moderate values. and higher-end. move up
housing opportunities are generally not available. The Comprehensive Plan makes note of
this issue in the encouragement of housing styles throughout the range of value and lifestyle.
It is important to the life of the community that a full range of housing options is available,
otherwise, various aspects of the community's economic development goals become too
difficult to achieve.
There has been much written recently about the difficulty of constructing affordable housing
units in the Twin Cities area. Rising land costs (among other reasons) have made new
metro-area housing construction under $250,000 a virtual impossibility. In areas such as
Monticello, however, the problem is reversed. Although real estate values have been rising
rapidly, they still lag far behind the near suburban areas. As a result, communities on the
fringe of the Twin Cities area, with good commuter access to suburban employment centers,
havc become the primary suppliers of the most affordable housing - even though the
definition of "affordable" has changed dramatically in the past five years.
To encourage higher valued housing, the City may consider a number of zoning regulations
that increase the costs of housing construction. Most of these relate to largcr lot and/or
building sizes. As an example, a zoning regulation for single family lots of 18,000 square
feet and 100 feet of width would incrcase the land per unit (reducing single family density),
and would also incrementally increase the cost of providing streets and utilities - both on an
overall per-acre basis, and on an individual lot width basis.
By increasing the minimum house size, the City would automatically increase the resulting
valuation of housing built on those lots - in general, an increase of about $1 00 per square f<Jot
would result. This can be a tricky regulation, however, since most housing is already built
in excess of the City's minimum size. Housing in the 1,600 square flJot to 2,000 square {(Jot
range is most common. To have a significant effect, a rcgulation for minimum housing sizes
of more than 2,500 square feet would be necessary.
At issue f(H Monticello is the existence or strength of a market for homes of $300,000 or
more. Housing in the Twin Cities suburban area commonly costs this much, with buildings
and lots of typical suburban size. The number of home buyers seeking housing in this price
range in Monticello is relatively small. Because of this lower demand, prices in this range
.
Plann ing COI11l11 ission Agenda -8/07/01
have not escalated as quickly, and the options are greater. Buyers in this price market have
choices of country or wooded acreage, river frontage, lakeshore, and small acreage rural
development not to mention suburban neighborhoods 15 miles closer to the metro core.
Staff has been working with a developer who shared lot costs and pricing as an example of
the market issues present. Lot development costs (including hard and soH costs) for a single
family project reached about $40,000, with raw land costs totaling about 15% ofthat figure.
This developer claimed that lot prices were about the same, meaning there was no profit in
the development. They typically seek profit margins of around 20% over cost, meaning lot
prices would need to increase to $50,000 to meet their financial pro forma. By comparison,
most single family lots in Twin Cities suburban developments exceed $100,000.
.
As a gcneral approach, planning staff would suggest that thc City will not be able to
artificially create a market tor expensive homes. However, there are some areas around the
City that would lend themselves to higher valued neighborhood development, including river
frontage or wooded lands. The City could inventory those areas, then zone to protect them
t{)f future development, allowing the market to "catch up". We would also suggest
discussions about the potential for rural cluster development. This model is most commonly
used in rural areas where traditional municipal utilities arc not provided. In the larger
Monticello area, acreage developments are capturing the bulk of the upper end housing
market. There is no reason that this type of development should be only located in
unincorporated areas. The City could designate certain areas tor this type of development,
making a conscious decision to provide its finite utility service capacity to other areas.
B. AL'rERNATIVE ACTIONS
1. Motion to call for a public hearing on changes to the Zoning Ordinance relating to
lot and/or building sizes.
2. Motion to recommend that the City Council direct stafTto develop draft amendments
to the City's Comprehensive Plan relating to future upper-end housing areas.
3. Motion to table action on these issues, requesting additional information for a future
meeting.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff has no specific recommendation at this time.
.
2
.
.
.
13.
Planning Con1mission Agenda -8/07/01
Discussion Item: Issues relating to the regulation of manufactured housing in single
family zones. (NAC)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
Statfhas become aware of concerns over the construction of manufactured housing in single
family developments in the City. Neighbors have asked City StafT whether it is possible to
prohibit this type of building. It is staff s understanding that some of these neighbors may
be in attendance at the August Planning Commission meeting to raise the issue with the
Planning Commission.
As a general rule, the City has extremely limited authority to regulate the erection of
manufactured housing in single family areas. The state's planning statutes require that Cities
may not adopt regulations that have the effect of prohibiting manufactured homes when such
homes meet other zoning regulations applicable to single family construction. Together with
subsequent case law, this means that any regulation the City adopts must apply equally to
site-built and manufactured housing, and that the regulation may not be discriminatory. An
example of the first type ofillegal regulation would be one that requires manufactured homes
to meet a standard not required of site built homes, such as minimum width. An example of
the second type of illegal regulation would one that has the dIect of discriminating, such as
requiring all homes in a single family district to be at least two stories.
It is also important to remember that any regulation must have some basis in legitimate
concern for public welfare. Examples of legal regulations include requirements for full,
periineter f()Undations and/or basements; minimum width r'equirements applicable to all
single family homes (22-24 feet is most common); minimum roof slope (3: 12 is c0111mon);
and requirements that all structures meet the applicable state building or manufactured
housing codes. The one regulation that many communities also have and apply is a
requirement that homes being moved into the community have a conditional use permit feJf
the moving process. T'his allows the City to verify compliance with codes prior to the move,
and avoids non-compliant homes from coming in and sitting vacant due to a lack of
livability.
While these regulations are good standards to have, it should be pointed out that the statutes,
and subsequent court rulings, have been designed to eliminate the discrimination against
manufactured hOllsing. The regulations mentioned above have been integrated into most
manufactured housing construction. As a result, the regulations manage the type of
manufactured housing, but do nothing to prohibit (or even discourage) it. All of this is due
to a very vigilant, and effective, lobbying effort on the part of the Manufactured Housing
Association. Planning Staff has participated in meetings in communities where plans to
adopt regulations were well attended by the Association's representatives.
.
Planning Commission Agenda -8/07/0 I
I3.
AI,TI.:RNATIVE ACTIONS
I. Motion to call for a public hearing on regulations relating to minimum standards for
single family housing.
2. Motion to table action on the issue, pending additional information.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff has no specific recommendation at this time.
D. SUPPORTING DATA
None
.
.
2
.
.
.
14.
Proposal hv Mike Cy r for ioint parkin!!.
Mike Cyr to provide verbal presentation.
Planning Commission Agenda - 08/07/01