Planning Commission Agenda 01-04-2000
.
1.
2.
.,
-) .
4.
5.
.
6.
,
AGENDA
REGULAR MEETING - MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION
Tuesday, January 4,2000
Members:
Dick Frie, Robbie Smith, Roy Popilek, Richard Carlson, Rod Dragsten
Council Liaison:
Clint Herbst
S ta ff:
Jeff O'Neill, Fred Patch, Steve Grittman and Lori Kraemer
Call to order.
Approval of minutes of the regular meeting held December 7, 1999.
Consideration of adding items to the agenda.
Citizens comments.
Public Hearing - Consideration of an amendment to a conditional use permit to allow
expansion for industrial use. Applicant: Sunny Fresh Foods
Public llcaring - Consideration of a zoning text amendment defining minimum lot width
as measured at front yard building set-back line. Applicant: Zoning Administrator
7. Public Hearing - Consideration of a zoning text amendment that clarifies curb cut
requirements or driveway widths in residential districts. Applicant: Zoning Administrator
8. Continued Public Hearing - Consideration of a Comprehensive Plan amendment for land
west of the Kjellberg West Mobile Home Park. Applicant: City of Monticello.
9. Continued consideration ofDA T comments regarding the proposed amendment to the
Sign Ordinance allowing electronic reader boards.
10. Continued Public Hearing - Consideration of an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance to
allow for a deferral of parking lot paving and/or curb requirements in the Business
Districts. Applicant: City of Monticello. (Continued discussion from previous meeting,
no additional report provided).
II. Set Planning Commission meeting dates where conflicts occur in 2000.
12.
Adjourn.
.
.
,
MINUTES
REGULAR MEETING - MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION
Tuesday, December 7, 1999
Members Present:
Dick Frie, Robbie Smith, Roy Popilck, Richard Carlson, Rod
Dragsten and Council Liaison Clint Herbst
Staff Present:
Jeff O'Neill, Fred Patch, Dan Licht and Lori Kraemer
1. Call to order. Chair Frie called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m., noting that Council
Liaison Herbst would be late as well as the first applicant, Steve Johnson/Monticello
Ford. Mr. Popilek was excused from the meeting at 9:00 p.m.
2. Apnroval of minutes of the regular meeting held November 2. 1999.
ROY POPILEK MOVED TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE NOVEMBER
2, 1999 REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING. RICHARD
CARLSON SECONDED THE MOTION. Motion carried.
3.
Consideration of adding items to the agenda.
Robbie Smith asked lor a discussion regarding parcel 28 and the zoning code
interpretations. This was placed under item 14b.
Roy Popilck asked to discuss outside storage issue at Royal Tire. This was placed under
item 14c.
4.
Citizens comments.
Nonc
5.
Continued Public Hcaring - Consideration of a request for an amendment to a Planned
Unit Development within the B-3 Zoning District to allow for an oll-site auto
sales/storage lot. Anplicant: Dave Peterson's Monticello Ford.
Jeff O'Neill provided the staff report regarding the Monticello Ford reader board sign
amendment that was tabled at the last Planning Commission meeting pending
presentation of additional site data and additional information regarding proposed
changes to the sign system. The applicant did obtain additional information regarding the
sign system, however the data relating to the balance of the amendment had not been
provided, therefore Planning Commission was asked to consider an amendment to the
PUD that applies only to the sign system.
In discussions with the applicant it was found that he is willing to reduce the total sign
-1-
.
.
.
area of the entire sign system in an amount equal to or greater than the added sign area
requested with the reader board. Jeff O'Neill also stated that approving the amendment
to the CUP relating to increasing the sign of reader board will not result in an increase of
the total sign area proposed.
Chair Frie opened the public hearing. Mr. Steve Johnson, Monticello Ford, addressed
the commission explaining the reduction in building signs and trading one for the other.
He also provided a display showing the entire property and how it relates in size to the
reader board.
Chair Frie closed the public hearing.
The members further discussed concerns of future reader boards on Highway 25 and
regulating the sizes, and the members were in agreement on placing a "cap" on the size of
reader boards. Dan Licht stated that because this particular reader board is in a pun and
the sign is appropriate for this site, it does not set precedence for future signs.
ROD DRAGSTEN MOVED TO APPROVE AN AMENDMENT TO THE SIGN
SYSTEM PORTION OF THE PUD. AMENDMENT APPROVED CALLS FOR
EXP ANDING THE READER BOARD AREA FROM 26 SQUARE FEET TO 70
SQUARE FEET, ALONG WITH A REDUCTION IN OTHER SIGN AREA
SQUARE FOOT AGE BY 44 SQUARE FEET. MOTION BASED ON THE
FINDING THAT THE AMENDMENT TO THE SIGN PORTION OF THE CUP
IS .JtJSTIFIEll BASED ON CONSISTENCY WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE
PLAN. THE AMENDMENT PROIJOSED WILL NOT RESULT IN A SIGN
SYSTEM THAT WILL UNDERMINE THE INTENT OF REGULATIONS
GOVERNING SIGNAGE IN THE HIGHWAY 25 CORRIDOR. ALL OTHER
REQUIREMENTS OF THE PUD APPROVAL GRANTED IN MAY 1999 MUST
BE MET. RICHARD CARLSON SECONDED THE MOTION. Motion carried.
6.
Public Hearing - RellUesting a special home occupation permit that requires equipment
other than customarily found in the home. Applicant: Wayne Weber dba N & W
Assemblv.
Rod Dragsten excused himself from this item stating a conflict of interest.
Dan Licht provided the report noting the request by Mr. Wayne Weber for approval of a
home occupation permit to operate a business from his property at 1210 W. River Street.
The business involves the receipt of industrial parts which are then repackaged for
distribution to other business locations. Mr. Weber utilizes a 1,200 square foot detached
garage for the storage of materials for his business, and a forklift to unload delivered
materials. These aspects of the business require that the applicant request a Special
Home Occupation Permit, which is a license to operate an accessory commercial use on
the applicant's residential property.
Most of the essential aspects of the Home Occupation ordinance appear to have been met
.2-
.
and there have been no neighborhood complaints regarding the operation. There was
concern that vehicles might be used in place of an expanded garage for storage space.
The one issue raised by the ordinance would be the issue of exterior storage which is
prohibited. It had previously been observed, and Jeff O'Neill provided pictures, that the
applicant had utilized the driveway for the parking of commercial vehicles (one large
truck and one small truck), a violation of the City code.
Chair Frie opened the public hearing. Rod Dragsten, 1226 W. River St., stated that Mr.
Weber has lived there for over a year and keeps the area clean, and he had no concerns
with his business. Mr. Dragsten did however have a concern about the possibility of
increased activity.
Mr. Weber addressed the commission advising that he is now renting warehouse space in
Big Lake, but cannot move in until approx. the end of December. He also stated that one
of the vehicles parked at his residence is for sale and will be moved. He was not aware
that this was not legal, and therefore will park it at the warehouse in Big Lake. Mr.
Weber also stated that most of the in/out activity will take place at the warehouse and not
his residence. Fred Patch advised Mr. Weber that the vehicles cannot be in exccss of
9000 lbs., and Mr. Licht addcd that deliveries can be made by this size vehicle, but not
parked.
.
Dan Goeman, 1209 Sandy Lane, has property that backs up to Mr. Weber's and has never
had a problem with this home business. He also added that Mr. Weber maintains the
property well and that in this particular area there already is a lot of RV and commercial
rig traffic, and with Mr. Weber moving into a warehouse, activity would only decrease.
Chair Frie closed the public hearing. There was further discussion by the members that
there be no chemicals, no complaints trom neighbors, and no overnight storage of trucks
at his residence. Chair Prie stated he had been approached by neighbors with concerns
such as truck parking, possible increase in traffic, possible noise, possible lighting and/or
signage, and outside storage. It was determined that none of these items were an issue.
Chair frie requested that home occupation permits be consistently reviewed by staff and
followed up on a consistent basis, not just if complaints are received. Hc asked staff to
check into this process. Fred Patch did state the code is not defined and Dan Licht stated
that after the first year the permit needs to be renewed by the applicant.
.
ROBBIE SMITH MOVED TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE SPECIAL
HOME OCCUPATION PERMIT, SUBJECT TO THE REMOVAL OF ANY
EXTERIOR STORAGE OF COMMERCIAL VEHICLES OR OTHER
MATERIALS AND EQUIPMENT FROM THE SITE. INTERIOR STORAGE IS
ALLOWED UNDER A SPECIAL HOME OCCUPATION PERMIT. RICHARD
CARLSON SECONDED THE MOTION. Motion carried 4 to I with Rod Dragsten
abstaining.
-3-
.
.
.
7.
Continued Public Hearinl! - Consideration of a preliminarv Dlat approval for Klein Farms
6th Addition. Applicant: Dave Klein
Dan Licht provided the staff report noting eleven conditions listed from the 11/2/99
Planning Commission meeting. Staff had met with the developer to discuss these and
other issues relating to the proposal. The applicant has submitted a revised plat in
accordance with these conditions.
Dan Licht advised the members of some remaining issues which included the landscape
treatment of the pond area, final determination ofthe maintenance road to the pond, and
consideration ofa temporary cul-de-sac for the end of Park Drive. Staff has encouraged
the applicant to work with the adjoining land owner to obtain an easement which would
avoid placing the temporary cul-de-sac in the front yards of Lot 4, Block I and Lot I,
Block 4. Jeff O'Neill stated that the applicant has worked with staffto address the issues
which have been raised. He also noted that the outstanding issues will not affect the
layout or staff s recommendation.
Chair Frie opened the public hearing. Dave Klein, applicant, advised the members that
he did not have time to meet with Jeff O'Neill regarding maintenance of seeding (this
will be a natural seeding, area). Mr. O'Neill states he will be talking with Steve Grittman
and that this will be covered in the Developers Agreement.
Chair Frie closed the public hearing. There was further discussion by the members
regarding a pathway that will be added from Phase 4 to Phase 6 along Fallon Ave.
Decision 1: Preliminary Plat for Klein Farms 6th Addition
ROY POPILEK MOVED TO APPROVE THE PRELIMINARY PLAT, SUB.JECT
TO FINAL LANDSCAPE PLAN SUBMISSION, FINAL APPROVAL OF THE
MAINTENANCE ROAD DESIGN, AND AGREEMENT ON THE TEMPORARY
TURN-AROUND ISSUE FOR PARK DRIVE. DICK FRIE SECONDED THE
MOTION, AMENDING TO ADD IMPROVEMENT COSTS PER LOT OF
DEVELOPED LAND FOR UPGRADING FALLON AVENUE TO BE
DETERMINED AT CITY COUNCIL LEVEL. Motion carried.
Decision 2: Rezoning of Klein Farms 6th Addition to R-), Single Family Residential
RICHARD CARLSON MOVED TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE
REZONING TO R-l, BASED ON A FINDING THAT THE ZONING
DESIGNA TION WOULD BE CONSISTENT WITH THE LOW DENSITY
RESIDENTIAL RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE CITY'S LAND USE PLAN
FOR THE AREA. ROD DRAGSTEN SECONDED THE MOTION. Motion
carried.
-4-
.
.
.
8.
Public I learing - Consideration of a Comprehensive Plan amendment for land west of the
Kiellberg West Mobile Home Park. Applicant: City of Monticello.
Dan Licht provided a report regarding a possible amendment to the comp plan. The City
has been reviewing issues related to the Kjellberg Mobile Ilome Park area, including the
future land use of the area west of the existing development. The owners of the Kjellberg
Mobile Home Park have requested approval of annexation and zoning which would allow
the development of an expansion of the Mobile Home Park, both of which were rejected
by the City. The most recent action of the Planning Commission was to recommend a
zoning ofR-2, Medium Density Residential, if annexed. The City's position has been
that this designation would encourage attached housing in the range of four to eight units
per acre. An expansion of the Mobile Home Park was not viewed as Jitting with this
designation.
However, staff has become concerned that the designation is not specitlc enough. In
order to address this issue, staff is recommending an amendment to the Comprehensive
Plan which would more clearly spell out the intended development. Some options
included redesignating the site for low density residential or another land use, excepting
the site J[om the City's long range development plans, or amending the text of the plan to
provide greater detail as to the preferred development pattern.
The current land lIse plan designation is for medium density residential, with a general
reference to attached housing styles including twin homes and townhouses. The MOAA
had also designated the site for medium density residential, consistent with the City's
plans. Staffs preferred option was to more specifically spell out the meaning of medium
density residential land use in the Comprehensive Plan. Suggested language was as
follows:
In the extraterritorial areas of the community. medium densiZY residential is expected to
mean attached housinj? such as twin homes or townhomes in the range o/four to eight
units per acre. In keeping with the City's overall housinj? goals, most (~j'these prr~iects
are expected to be processed with the City's Planned Unit Development zoning technique
with an intent to increase project quality and value.
As noted in other portions of the Comprehensive Plan, the City qlMonticello has a
sign~ficant amount of existing housing in the "affordable n range, including rental
housing and mobile home parks. The City's proportion (~lthese housing types are higher
than most other communities in the region. It is expected that new medium density
residential development will be designed to encourage individual home ownership
through both plat design and utility design. Mobile home parks are not expected to be a
part of the housing expansion for the foreseeable future.
The intent of this clause, to be inserted in the Comprehensive Plan text which discusses
the land use in the southwest growth area of the City, including the land west of Highway
25 and the Kjellberg West area.
-5-
.
.
.
Chair Frie opened the public hearing and with no one present, the public hearing was
closed.
Clint Herbst was asked about the OAA' s attitude on this issue. Clint stated it should not
be a problem, although they may question why it had not been changed when the map
was initially done. He was certain, however, that the OAA would be in agreement with
the City's amendment. JetfO'Neill stated that the narrative change maintains
consistency with the OAA plan. Clint Herbst agreed, the City just needs to clarify
medium density.
There was further discussion by the members on possibilities of designating a specific
area with specific performance standards further defining the district regulations and Dan
Licht advised that this could be done. They also discussed that if they were to
recommend amendment of the comp plan to include new text such as the language
proposed, retaining the existing medium density land use designation, the Planning
Commission would have to direct staff to the specific language and staff could bring it
back to the City Council noting the Planning Commission had already addressed the
Issue.
ROD DRAGSTEN MOVED TO TABLE ACTION ON THE PLAN
AMENDMENT, SUBJECT TO ADDITIONAL INFORMATION, PENDING
ADDITIONAL LANGUAGE. RICHARD CARLSON SECONDED THE
MOTION. Motion carried.
9.
Public Hearing - Consideration of a request for an amendment to the R-I and R-2 side
yard setbacks to permit a six foot setback on the garage side. Applicant: Harold Shermer.
Je1TO'Neill provided the report advising the members ofMr. Shermer's request for the
City to amend its side yard setback requirements in R-I and R-2 Zoning Districts from
ten feet to six feet on the garage side.
.Jeff noted that there arc other communities who allow narrower side yards on the garage
side, hut these allowances tend to occur in small lot single family districts, such as an R-
2, or where wider lots are required in which case the standard setback is usually wider
than ten feet. He also advised that the City has granted variances in the past to
accommodate garage construction on these narrower lots. A 6 and 10 foot setback
requirement (6 feet on the garage side) would seem to be appropriate in these areas, most
of which are zoned R-2. While the City has stated that larger single family development
is an important housing goal, a reduction of the side yard setbacks in the current R-I
District would reduce the spaciousness of the subdivision in exchange for the potentially
larger house size. Developers always have the option of platting lots which are wider
than the minimum if they wish to construct houses which cannot fit within the 60 foot
wide buildable area now in place.
It was also noted by staffthat the City's R-I District has been the primary zoning district
for recent single family development with the 10 foot sethacks in place. Several hundred
-6-
.
.
.
single family homes have been huilt within these guidelines.
Chair Frie opened the public hearing. Mr. Shermer stated his concern with a gas line
coming through an area in the first phase of his subdivision which affects 3 to 4 lots. lIe
did statc that he was not asking for the entire subdivision to be changed.
Chair Frie closed the public hearing.
There was further discussion by the members and they wcre in agreement that they wcrc
not in favor of changing the setback requirements for one subdivision, but they would
like to work with Mr. Shermer on other possible solutions.
Some options suggested to Mr. Shermer included re-platting, although Mr. Shermer did
state that all utilities were in place already, howevcrFred Patch stated that this can still be
done without a large impact. Another option would be for Mr. Shermer to request a
variance as this is an isolated case, although there docs not seem to be a hardship as these
lots are still buildable. Another option was for a PUD which the developer would need to
do somcthing that would raisc the value of this property.
ROBBIE SMITH MOVED TO RECOMMEND NO CHANGES TO THE SIDE
YARD SETBACKS IN THE R-l AND R-2 DISTRICTS. RICHARD CARLSON
SECONDED THE MOTION. Motion carried.
10.
Consideration of a request for an amended plat for Parkside to allow the elimination of a
pathway in the side yard. Applicant: Harold Shermer.
Jeff O'Neill provided the staff report regarding Mr. Shermer's request that the City allow
a revised plat for his Parkside subdivision. This subdivision was designed with a cul-de-
sac, from which a pathway route was reserved to allow a pedestrian connection trom the
cul-de-sac to the next street. Jcff also noted that staff has recently reconsidered such
pathways in light of concerns over their compatibility with residential side yards, as well
as difficulty in constructing and maintaining such pathways in limited areas.
In the case of Parkside (as with Klein Farms 6th Addition), it is believed that the short
additional distance from the cul-de-sac to the street and principal sidewalk does not
necessitate a pathway through the sidc yards as previously planned.
There may be situations where such pathway connections are still appropriate. In these
cases, staff will likely be recommending a wider pathway right-of-way (forty feet or
more), and potentially wider lots adjacent to avoid both the crowding issue and the
maintenance problems encountered with the previous dcsign. Staff should look at future
issues on a case-by-case basis. Jeff O'Neill also notcd that this was brought before the
Parks Commission and Steve Grittman, and they are all in agreement.
ROY POPILEK MOVED TO APPROVE THE PLAT AMENDMENT FOR
PARKSIDE AT MEADOW OAKS, ELIMINATING THE PATHWAY IN THE
SIDE YARD, BASED ON A FINDING THAT THE BENKFITS OF THE
-7-
.
-.
.
:PlaJ\nl~ LDf11rf\,fjS"(\;n\ W),V/lLKS
I 'l-1-t:t q
going to put at least 25% back into their business, they would be required to put in
paving/and or curb. If the improvements were less than 25%, they would not be required
to install at that time, but it would be accumulative and once reaching 25% they would be
required to install. Also, paving and curbing required fiJr new parking areas required
and/or when the City Engineer requires the paving or curb and gutter for controlling
storm water.
Chair Frie opened the public hearing. Being no one present, the public hearing was
closcd.
It was again statcd that staff was looking for guidance from the Planning Commission.
Dan Licht added that in Otsego curb is requircd at least around the expanded area, if not
around the entire area and that they arc firm on this requirement. Fred Patch asked that if
the ordinance was stated as such, and recommcnded by the City Engineer, this could be
done.
CHAIR FRIE MOVED TO TABLE ANY ACTION PENDING FURTHER INPlJT
FROM STAFF. RICHARD CARLSON SECONDED THE MOTION. Motion
carried.
13.
Consideration of call for a public hearing on a zoninl.!: text amendment that clarifies curb
cut requirements in residential districts.
Fred Patch provided the staffreport advising the members that several residences have
recently been constructed with driveway widths excecding 24 feet in width at thc
property line. The way thc current ordinance reads is interpreted by the City to mean
that the driveway width across the boulevard area of the public street must not exceed 24
feet in residential districts. Unfortunately, our interpretation and the words of the
ordinance differ.
The ordinance language of "curb cut access" is not defined by the zoning code. A "curb
cut access" may be interpreted to mean the curb cut providing access to the lot. In the
case of surmountable curb no curb cut is made, and wherc curb cuts are made in typical
B6/12 curbing, the driveway may be greater in width after the curb cut and prior to
crossing the property line.
Fred Patch suggested that the ordinance be amended to state what is intended:
The maximum drivewav width between the IJuhlic street and the oropertv line
shall not exceed twenty-four (24) .leet with the following exception~:
L
Within all districts, a five foot radius curh mav be constructed at the
IJublic street approach in addition to the maximum drivewav width
allowed.
2. Curh cut access in industrial and commercia! zoning districts mav exceed
-9-
.
.
.
14B.
twenty-fbur (24) ICet with the armroval of the City Fngineer and the
Zoninz Administrator. Denial by the City Hngineer and Zoning
Administrator of curb cut access in excess o(twenty-f()llr (24) (eet may he
aroea/ed following the TJrocedures outlined in Chaoter 23 orthe zoninz
ordinance.
This suggested change will assist in enforcement of the ordinance and retain the aesthetic
standards intended. Fred Patch asked the Planning Commission to call for a public
hearing to address this issue.
ROBBIE SMITH MOVED TO CALL FOR A PUBLIC HEARING AMENDING
THE ZONING TEXT AS IT RELATES TO CURB CUT REQUIREMENTS.
RICHARD CARLSON SECONDED THE MOTION. Motion carried.
14. Review recent code amendment formallv allowine: payment to Planning Commission
members for attendance at special Planning Commission meetings called by applicants.
Jeff O'Neill advised the members that when the original fee was established for special
meetings the intent was for the members to be paid for their attendance. At the City
Council's last meeting the code was amended to add that all members who attend a
special meeting requested by an applicant who pays a special meeting fee set by the City
shall receive additional compensation of $50 for each special meeting attended.
The members stated their concern that they were not contacted prior to the decision by
the City Council and they had other issues they would like to discuss with the Council.
The Planning Commission would like to be paid for special meetings called by the City
Council as well. Fred Patch advised that possibly they would like to add to the code
spcciallanguage stating "where a quorum is required", or perhaps any special meeting
"calling for a public hearing" or action that must by taken by the Planning Commission.
There was further discussion by the members regarding the possibility of raising the
commissioners fee rather than paying for special meetings. Clint Herbst suggested staff
should look into other communities to see amount paid per meeting and that he will bring
this issue to the Council members at their special meeting on 12/8/99.
Dick Frie asked that staff also look into the ordinance regarding the member terms. He
stated that at the Planning Commissions 3/2/99 meeting the terms had been changed but
they are not noted in the ordinance. Staff will look into this.
No action was necessary.
Update on Parcel 28
Robbie Smith advised the other members and staff that the owner of parcel 28, Dan
Mielke, has been contacting him repeatedly on a problem regarding interpretation of the
City's ordinance relating to setbacks. Mielke states he believes that he was sold a parcel
-10-
.
.
.
with dimensions that will not allow it to be developed in a manner consistent with City
setbacks. lIe believes the land was over valued due to this point.
Steve Grittman reviewed the dimensions and reported that the lot has sufficient width at
the setback line because the minimum setback width is measured at the front yard setback
line.
14C. Discussion regarding outside storage at Royal Tire.
Roy Popilek commented on concerns he has regarding Royal Tire and conditions placed
on them that no outside storage of used tires was to be done. Roy's concern is that we
are not following up on conditions placed on applicants at the time approval is granted.
Fred Patch advised that Royal Tire's building permit was just granted for improvements
to their building and now is the time to address the outside storage issue. Fred will
address.
15. Adiourn
ROBBIE SMITH MOVED TO ADJOURN THE MEETING AT 10:00 P.M.
RICHARD CARLSON SECONDED THE MOTION. Motion carried.
-11-
.
.
t
Planning Commission Agenda ~O1/04/00
5.
Consideration of a request for an amendment to a Conditional Use Permit Planned
Unit Development within the CCD Zonin!! Distrietto allow an expansion of the Sunny
Fresh industrial faeilitv. Applicant: Sunny Fresh Foods. (NAC)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
Sunny Fresh Foods is seeking an amendment to their Conditional Use Permit to
accommodate an expansion of their faci I ity along 4th Street betwccn Walnut and Linn Streets.
The existing facility includes an "R&D" building at the corner of Walnut and 41h Street, and
the main plant which lies between 4th Street and the Burlington Northern Railroad, which is
also the City's 51h Street right-of-way. The Conditional Use Permit covers the Planncd Unit
Development previously granted, and the CUP requirement which is now a part of the CCD
zoning district.
This application is being addressed as a concept stage PUD to provide site planning feedback
to the applicant prior to the development of final plans. Final stage PUD would require
complete drainage and utility plans, a site plan revised per concept stage comments, and a
landscape plan.
Planning staff comments on the concept site plan are summarized as follows:
1. Linn Street. The expansion will increase Sunny Fresh's ability to manage it truck
tra1lic at the Linn Street entrance. Since this expansion will essentially maximize the
applicant's use of this area, it would be an appropriate time to resolve the City's
control and improvement of Linn Street. Options would include:
a. Full improvement of Linn Street, including paving, curb and gutter, and a
new crossing of 5th Street/BN Railroad.
b. Partial improvement of the area to include a truck access, separate pedestrian
access, but no street crossing of the rail line.
c. Vacation of Linn Street, with sale of the right~of-way to Sunny Fresh and
Little Mountain Feed, subject to any utilities in the street.
Future public use of the Linn Street right-of-way may be determined now with the
completion of private construction in this area. If the City believes that there will be
future desire for a street crossing in this location, Option a. or b. should be chosen.
A full street crossing of the BN Railroad will take a significant amount of time to
achieve. This issue will require additional study by the City to select the most
appropriate alternative.
2.
Paving and Curbing. Paving and curbing is planned for the "Truck Staging Area" at
the west end of the building, as well as for the Fire Lane along the south building
.
Planning Conunission Agenda -01/04/00
wall. This will improve the aesthetics of the area, as well as the use and maintenance
of the public right-of-way.
3. Screening. The building and site aesthetics on the south side of the building will be
made more attractive with the expansion. Sunny Fresh indicates that a small amount
of truck traffic will be necessary in the "Fire Lane" along the south side for access
and servicing of the tanks which arc in the middle of the expansion area. The site
plan shows a line of trees along this boundary which should provide a visual buffer
between Sunny Fresh and the Community Center. It would be appropriate to
consider a more intensified planting near the Truck Staging area and the tank location
to better screen these uses.
4. 5th Street Encroachements. The line of trees mentioned in point 3. above are shown
located on the BN/5th Street right-of-way. The encroachment in this location must
be approved by the City, verified that the railroad will not object, and tied to the PU 0
approval. Since the standard requirement would be that buffcr zone landscaping
occurs on the property of the applicant, this would be an area of flexibility being
requested for this PUO. The maintenance of these trees should be the responsibility
of the applicant, including replacement if they do not survive.
.
.
.......-
5.
Curbing Setback. Associated with the trees mentioned above is the site plan request
to located the Fire Lane curb right along the property line of the 5th Street right-of-
way. This encroachment on the setback can be allowed under the terms of the PUD.
6. Buffer Yard Encroachment. Anotheraccommodationbeingrcquested under the PUD
is the setback encroachment into the buffer yard which would be rcq uircd in thi s area.
The CCO zoning district allows for zero setbacks, but the bufTer yard requirements
still apply. The City has been willing to reduce these dimensions in areas of the CCD
where urban design would appear to support the more intense development.
However, the landscape plan should still be drawn to address the need to provide
butTering and screening.
7.
Parking. The proposed site plan shows an expansion of the parking lot along Walnut
Street, including a new curb cut to Walnut, and use of an existing curb cut to 4th
Street. The plan shows a total of 96 angled spaces. Staff has developed an
alternative layout which would provide up to 101 spaces and allow two-way traffic
now between the R&O building and the main plant. One of the concerns with the
one-way flow proposed was that all plant traflic in this area would be directed to exit
onto Walnut. A two-way flow would allow some of that traffic to circulate to 4th
Street as well. The redesign would allow for the inclusion of a step-van loading area
near the R&D building as indicated by the applicant. The revised plan also reverses
the one-way tratlic south of the R&D building, but is not critical to the design. As
a final note, the applicant should provide employment counts of the maximum shift
.
.
.
Planning Commission Agenda -01/04/00
for both before and after the expansion. This information will be important in
establishing a parking demand requirement for the site.
8.
Pedestrian Traffic. With the recent planning for Walnut and the construction of the
Community Center, special attention should be paid to pedestrian and bicycle flow
in the area. 'l"he area along 4th Street has sidewalk only in front of the current
Methodist Church property, soon to be purchased by Sunny Fresh. As a result, and
pedestrian traffic in this area is forced into the street. Because pedestrian traffic to
the core of downtown is best served by a route along 4th Street, planning staff would
recommend the placement of sidewalk in this area. The City will need to work with
Sunny Fresh on the timing and financing of this item. Staff has discussed the
possibility that the applicant may be made responsible for a larger portion of this
project in exchange for the PUD flexibility be considered on the south side of the
building for buffer yard, landscaping locations, and curb setback.
Staffhas also discussed the possibility of a pathway along the 5th Street right-oY-way.
The advantage of a pathway in this location is that it could run through the core of
the community, connecting the elementary and middle schools, the Broadway path
on either end, and pass directly by the Community Center. This pathway would
probably be best located on the north side of the rail track, and would not likely be
a part of the Sunny Fresh project.
9.
Methodist Church Property. The proposed site plan indicates that the Methodist
Church site will be acquired by June of 2000. Sunny Fresh stafThas indicated that
the site may be partially converted to parking area, with a re-use of a portion of the
building which is not a part of the historic structure for office space. Any available
plans for this conversion should be incorporated into this application. Where firm
plans are not yet available, the applicant will need to request an amendment at the
time such plans are prepared.
The Design Advisory Team has reviewed the plan and recommends approval contingent on
completion oflandscaping improvement noted in this report. The DAT has not reviewed the
Planner's recommendation that sidewalk be installed on 4th Street. The initial view by DA T
was that sidewalk on 4th Street should not be installed with pedestrian traffic detoured to a
future 5 Y2/Railroad pathway.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS
1.
Motion to recommend approval of the Concept Plan for the Sunny Fresh cuP/pun
amendment, subject to consideration of the issues raised in this report, based on a
finding that the expansion is appropriate for the site and the neighborhood, and will
result in a more acceptable operation of the site.
Planning Commission Agenda -01/04/00
.
2.
Motion to recommend denial of the Concept Plan, based on a finding that the
expansion would represent an overutilization of the site consideri ng its location.
3. Motion to table action on the Concept Plan, subject to the submission of additional
information.
c. STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends approval of the Concept Stage PUD amendment. The expansion will
increase the activity on the site somewhat, but will also result in a better site organization as
well as improve the aesthetics of the property from the south. With the location of the
community center, and the potential for increased public use of the yh Street/BN right-of-
way, the improvements to be made would be a welcome addition to the area.
.
Some of the issues require additional study by the City. These include resolution of the
improvements to be made in Linn Street and the use of the 5th Street/BN right-of-way. This
is the time to making these decisions, however, since the expansion represents the likely
extent of private improvements to be made in the foreseeable future. As noted in the report,
the applicant will need to provide complete drainage and utility plans, a site plan revised per
Planning Commission and City Council comments, and a landscape plan for Final Stage
PUD approval.
D. SUPPORTING DATA
Exhibit A - Proposed Site Plan
Exhibit B - Staff Parking Recommendation
.
.....
~
!
Ni
a
-.....-?'
~'
\~.. I)
,"..jI~
r"-
I
I
'll
0
c:
~
-j ~_..-
..
I Z
c
3
II) i
....
! . I ., fA
r"-
I ....
:0 1'0
III -
; ITl (l)
....
ITl -
0
-j (;
Q) i
....
~d -
:;;
q CD
I 3
I tn
'2:
~.'
~.
-- --..
J-'
r
I
EXHIBIT A 'PROPOSED SITE PL.AN
611
.
o-go---;'--- --
-,.-- -0- - -0- - ~ 0... - - ---<i'
, ; \
~ I
t
I
*
....... I
"~:
oJ.;': 1
;tl~ I
~:.:,
.""':: I
'.',: 00 I
~~:
".,."'r 0 I
. .. ';f{':'~/ I
o
EXISTING
R&D
~rOVlde for
two-way
(.. ~r~~fic "
I.. y... <.) 1.\
/J,,i ,'f,.J )
? t{~l-'
y~
"
.
I-
...
. ..
" .. w
".
w
cr
I-
(f)
.
. 7.
.
"
6.
Consideration of a zoning text amendment defming minimum lot width as measured at the front
yard building set-back line. Applicant: Zoning Administrator
INFORMA nON/BACKGROUND
Planning Commission is asked to consider making a minor amendment to the definitions section of the
zoning code clarifying the defmition of lot width. It has been the practice of the City and other cities to
define lot width as the width as measured at the front yard setback line. Our ordinance is not specific in
this regard as it states that "lot width is the shortest horizontal distance between the side lot lines
measured at the building setback line". It is proposed that the language be modified by modifying the
code as follows. "lot width is the shortest horizontal distance between the side lot lines measured at the
front yard building setback line",
This issue arose when Dan Mielke purchase property from the city thinking that he had purchased a
buildable lot. When he checked the lot width requirements it was his interpretation that the lot was not
buildable because it did not meet the minimum lot width across the entire length of the lot. Adoption
of the amendment creates code language that more clearly reflects common practice. According to
Steve Grittman, many cities that he works with use the front lot line to set the building width. If the lot
narrows toward the rear lot line, the dimensions of the buildable area narrows accordingly.
ALTERNATIVES
Motion to adopt the proposed ordinance amendment.
Motion based on the finding that the amendment is necessary to clarifY code interpretation and
to reflect past practice.
8. Motion to deny adoption of the proposed ordinance amendment.
Motion based on the finding that the current interpretation of the code does not need
clarification. Or motion to deny based on the finding that the code needs to be changed to
require that the lot width be established based on horizontal distance between side lot lines as
measured from rear and front lot lines.
RECOMMENDA nON
Staff recommends alternative one.
SUPPORTING DATA
Excerpt from the Zoning Code
.
.
.
[LG] LOT DEPTH: The shortest horizontal distance between the front lot line and the
rear lot line measure from a ninety (90) degree angle from the street right-of-way
within the lot boundaries.
[LH] LOT, FRONTAGE: The front of a lot shall be, for purposes of complying with
this ordinance, that boundary abutting a public street right-of-way having the
least width. No front of a lot shall be less than two-thirds (2/3) of the minimum
lot width requirement.
[LI]
LOT, INTERIOR: A lot, other than a corner lot, including through lots.
[LJ]
LOT LINE: A property boundary line of any lot held in single or separate
ownership, except that where any portion of the lot extends into the abutting
street or alley, the lot line shall be deemed to be the street or alley right-of-way.
[LK]
LOT, THROUGH: A lot fronting on two (2) parallel streets.
f(O'd'1cJ'oA
LOT, WIDTH: Tie shortest horizontal distance between the side lot lines
measured at the"b~i-Iding setback line.
[LL]
[MA]
MEDICAL AND DENTAL CLINIC: A structure intended for providing
medical and dental examinations and service available to the public. This
service is provided without overnight care available.
[MB] MANUF ACTURED HOUSING: "Manufactured Home" means a structure
transportable in one or more sections which in the traveling mode is 8 body feet
or more in width or 40 body feet or more in length, or, when erected on a side, is
760 or more square feet and which is built on a permanent chassis and designed
to be used as a dwelling with or without a permanent foundation when
connected to the required utilities, and includes the plumbing, heating, air
conditioning, and electrical systems contained therein; except that the term
includes any structure which meets all the requirements and with respect to
which the manufacturer voluntarily files a certification required by the City and
complies with the standards established under this chapter and which meets the
Manufactured Home Building Code.
[Me] MOBILE HOME: A mobile home is a manufactured home that is less than 16
feet wide, over at least 30 feet of its length in the erected mode, suitable for
year-round occupancy and containing the same water supply, waste disposal,
and electrical conveniences as immobile housing subject to tax or registration
under state law, and having no foundation other than wheels, jacks, or skirting.
Width measurement shall not take account of overhangs and other projections
beyond the principal exterior walls.
[MD] MOBILE HOME PARK, INDEPENDENT: An approved mobile home park
which has underground utility service to each site and only permits independent
mobile homes.
MONTICELLO ZONING ORDINANCE
2/15
~~
.
.
.
Planning Commission Agenda -- 01/04/00
7.
Public Hearing - Consideration of a zoning text amendment that clarities curb cut
requirements in residential districts. Zoning Administrator
Backeround:
A few residences have recently been constructed with driveway widths exceeding 24 feet
in width at the property line. The current ordinance reads a s follows:
No curh cut access shall exceed twenty-fuur (24) feet in width with thefhllowing
exception: Curb cut access in industrial and commercial zoninl; districts may
exceed twenty-fiJUr (24) feet with the approval of the City Engineer and the
Zoninl; Administrator. Denial by the City Engineer and Zoning Administrator r~l
curh cut access in excess (?ftwenty-four (24) feet may be appealedfollowinl; the
prucedures outlined in Chapter 23 (?fthe zoning urdinance.
We have interpreted this ordinance to mean that the driveway width across the boulevard
area of the public street must not exceed 24 feet in residential districts. Unfortunately,
our interpretation and the words of the ordinance differ.
The ordinance language of "curb cut access" is not defined by the zoning code. A "curb
cut access" may be interpreted to mean the curb cut providing access to the lot. Tn the
case of surmountable curb no curb cut is made, and where curb cuts are made in typical
B6/12 curbing, the driveway may bc greater in width alter the curb cut and prior to
crossing the property line.
It is suggested that the ordinance state what is intended:
The maximum drivewav width between the Dublic street and the Drr)f)ertv line
shall not exceed twenty-four (24) feet with the folio wing exceptions.:
L Within all districts, a five foot radius curh mav he constructed at the
{}uhlic street in addition to the maximum drivewav width alluwed.
2. Curh cut access in industrial and commercial zoning districts may exceed
twenty-four (24) feet with the approval r~lthe City Enl;ineer and the
Zoning Administrator. Denial by the City Engineer and Zoning
Administrator q{curb cut access in excess of twenty -four (24) feet may be
appealedfhllowing the procedures uutlined in Chapter 23 ufthe zuning
ordinance.
This suggested change will assist in enforcement of the ordinance and retain the aesthetic
standards intended.
.
Planning Commission Agenda - 0 I /04/00
ALTERNATIVES
I. Motion to recommend to the City Council that the ordinance amendment
clarifying maximum driveway width be adopted..
2. Motion to recommend to the City Council that the ordinance amendment
clarifying maximum driveway width be denied.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommends Alternate 1 above.
ATTACHMENTS
. Copy of proposed Ordinance with strike-out and underlining to
show amendments.
.
.
.
.
.
Planning Commission Agenda - 01/04/00
ORDINANCE NO.
CITY OF MONTICELLO
WRIGHT COUNTY, MINNESOTA
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 10, CHAPTER 3, SECTION 3-5, ITEM [D] 9. (F); OF
THE MONTICELLO ZONING ORDINANCE BY ESTABLISHING DRIVEWAY WIDTH
REGULATIONS.
THE CITY Of MONTICELLO DOES ORDAIN:
Title 10, Chapter 3, Section 3-5, Item [019. (f) of the City Code is hereby amended to read as
follows:
(f) No curb cut access shall exceed twenty four (24) feet in \ividth ''''lith the following
exception:
The maximum driveway width between the public street and the property line shall not
exceed twenty-four (24) feet with the following exceptions:
.L
Within all districts. a five foot radius curb may be constructed at the public
street in addition to the maximum driveway width allowed.
2.
Curb cut access in industrial and commercial zoning districts may exceed
twenty-four (24) feet with the approval of the City Engineer and the
Zoning Administrator. Denial by the City Engineer and Zoning
Administrator of curb cut access in excess of twenty-four (24) feet may be
appealed following the procedures outlined in Chapter 23 of the zoning
ordinance.
This Ordinance shall become effective immediately upon its passage and publication according
to law.
ADOPTED by the Monticello City Council this
day of
2000.
CITY OF MONTICELLO
By:
Roger Belsaas, Mayor
ATTEST:
By: ___
Rick Wolfsteller, City Administrator
AYES:
NAYS:
,A
.
.
.
Planning Commission Agenda -01/04/00
8.
Consideration of an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan for land west of K iellberg
West Mobile Home Park. Applicant: City of Monticello. (NAC)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
At its previous meeting, the Planning Commission tabled action on a text amendment to the
Comprehensive Plan which would add language to better define the proposed "Mid to High
Density" Residential land use category for land west of the Kjellberg West Mobile Home
Park. The intent of the language is to indicate that this category is reserved for higher
density attached housing of higher development quality, and suggesting that lower cost entry
levcl housing was in adequate supply in other parts of the community. The Planning
Commission requested that the language be modified to better define "high quality" prior to
recommending adoption of the amendment. Staff has provided a proposed modification
which would read as follows:
In the extraterritorial areas of the community, medium to high density
residential is expected to mean attached housing such as twin homes or
townhomes in the range of four to eight units per acre. In keeping with the
City's overall housing goals, most of these projects are expected to be
processed with the City's Planned Unit Dcvelopment zoning technique with
an intent to increase project quality and value.
For the purposes of this section. increased quality and value is presumed to
mean that housing in this land use catcQ:ory would be priced in the upper 60%
of the range of housing prices prevalent in the community at the time of
development. To encourage highcr qualit y. the City wi II review such housing
projects with an expectation that extraordinary project amenities are offered
as a part of the project. Amenities may include substantial areas of private
open spacc and recreational facilities. public open space opportunities where
the natural features of the site are appropriate. preservation of native plant
associations, professionally designed landscape features, and other similar
concepts.
As noted in other portions ofthe Comprehensive Plan, the City of Monticello
has a significant amount of existing housing in the "affordable" range,
including rental housing and mobile home parks. The City's proportion of
these housing types is higher than most other communities in the region. It
is expected that new medium to high density residential development will be
designed to encourage individual home ownership through both plat design
and utility design. Mobile home parks are not expected to be a part of the
housing expansion for the foreseeable future.
.
Planning Commission Agenda -01/04/00
B.
ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS
Decision 1:
1. Motion to recommend approval ofthe Comprehensive Plan amendment as proposed,
based on a finding that the existing plan language needs clarification to provide land
use direction which reflects the City's intent.
2. Motion to recommend no change to the Comprehensive Plan amendment based on
a finding that the existing language adequately reHects the City's intended land use
direction.
3. Motion to table action on the amendment, subject to additional information.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION
.
Stan' recommends the amendment as modified. The change would be consistent with the
previous interpretations of the plan for this area, and would serve to provide additional
clarity to the plan without a change in the land use designation. It also maintains consistency
with the MOAA land use plan for the area.
D. SUPPORTING DATA
none
.
.
.
.
-
Planning Commission Agenda -01/04/00
9.
Consideration of a proposed amendment to the Sign Ordinance to allow electronic
messal!e board sil!ns in certain districts. Applicant: City of Monticello. (NAC)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
Staff has provided an amended sign ordinance for electronic message board signs for
Planning Commission review. The changes from the previous draft are as follows:
· The allowable districts now include the B-3 and B-4 (as previously), together with
a portion of the CCD which would be parcels directly fronting on Highway 25, south
of 41h Street. This would keep such signs out of the downtown areas which are
designed to be more pedestrian oriented, such as Walnut and Broadway.
· The size ofthe electronic message board is now limited to a maximum of70 square
feet, or 50% of the size of the allowable pylon, whichever is less. Therefore, if the
allowable pylon sign area were 100 square feet, the applicant could only have 50
square feet of electronic message board.
B.
ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS
1. Motion to recommend approval of the amendment as proposed.
2. Motion to recommend denial of the amendment.
3. Motion to table action on the amendment, subject to additional information.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff has no additional recommendation at this time.
D. SUPPORTING DAfA
Exhibit A - Draft Ordinance
.
.
.
scrolling text is allowed.
!'L
The siqn meets all requirements of the City's Building and
Electrical Codes.
v. The siqn does constitute a separate or additional freestanding
siqn support structure. The sign must be otherwise allowed
under this ordinance as a pylon sign. or must be a part of an
allowed pylon sign plan, as defined herein.
YL The electronic messaqe board portion of the sign does not
constitute more than fifty percent (50%) of the allowable pylon
sign area, or seventy (70) square feet. whichever is less.
Section 3.
This ordinance shall become effective from and after its passage and publication.
//s//
CiA
.
,-
,-
\
Planning Commission Agenda -01/04/99
City of Monticello
Wright County, Minnesota
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 10, CHAPTER 3, SECTION 3 [B] AND SECTION
3 [C] OF THE MONTICELLO ZONING ORDINANCE RELATING TO ELECTRONIC
MESSAGE BOARD SIGNS.
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MONTICELLO, MINNESOTA HEREBY ORDAINS
AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1.
Chapter 3, Section 3 [B] 2. (i) is amended to read as follows:
(i)
Except for Electronic Messaae Board Signs as allowed in Section 3
rEl 4.(f), nNo sign shall display any moving parts, nor shall it be
illuminated with any flashing or intermittent lights, nor shall it be
animated. Exempt are time and temperature information and barber
poles.
All displays shall be shielded to prevent light to be directed at
oncoming traffic in such brilliance as to impair the vision of any driver.
No device shall be illuminated in such a manner as to interfere with
or obscure an official traffic sign or signal.
Section 2.
Chapter 3, Section 3 [E] 4. is amended to add the following:
Section 3 [E] 4. ill Electronic Messaae Boards may be allowed in the B-3 and B-4
Zoning Districts, and on those parcels within the CCD Zoning District
which have direct frontage on Trunk Highway 25 south of 4th Street,
as a part of the freestandina or pylon sign display, provided that:
L The sign complies in all other respects with the Sign
reaulations of the Zonina Ordinance.
!L. The sign does not create a traffic hazard or a nuisance.
!!L.
The sign does not flash its messaae, although continuous
gA
, . ,~'__'._m.
.
.
.
10.
PlaIll1ing Commission Agenda -01/04/99
Consideration of an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance to allow for the deferral of
parking lot pavin!! and/or curbing requirements. Applicant: City of Monticello. (NAC)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
The Planning Commission tabled action on the paving and curbing deferral ordinance for the
purpose of adding sections which would limit the size of projects which would be eligible
and require paving and curbing for the portion of an expansion which causes an increase in
parking requirements. Staff has included language for those sections, but has exempted the
A-O District from those standards to avoid conflicts with the Golf Course deferral request.
As now written, the proposed ordinance would allow deferrals of paving, curbing and
landscaping by CUP in the following situation:
.
The property must be developed, and being redeveloped ll)f a change of use. Vacant
parcels would not qualify for the deferral.
The City Engineer would have to certify that the site will not need curbing for
drainage purposes, and approve a drainage plan.
The Planning Commission must find that an existing non-conf()rmity is being
eliminated as a condition to granting the parking lot deferral.
The applicant must submit full plans.
The deferral is for no more than two years.
Except in the A-O District, paving and curbing would be required for parking lots
attributable to expansion areas, but the deferral could be given for existing parking
demand.
Except in the A-O District, properties undergoing an expansion/remodeling of more
than 25% of their value would not qualify for the deferral.
.
.
.
.
.
.
B. AL TERNATIVE ACTIONS
Decision 1:
]. Motion to recommend approval of the ordinance as submitted.
2. Motion to recommend denial of the ordinance as submitted.
3. Motion to table action on the ordinance, subject to additional information.
c. STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff has no additional recommendation on this item.
D. SUPPORTING DATA
Exhibit A - Draft Ordinance
.
City of Monticello
Wright County, Minnesota
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 10, CHAPTER 3, SECTION 3-5 [0], OF THE
MONTICELLO ZONING ORDINANCE RELATING TO PAVING AND CURBING
REQUIREMENTS IN THE A-O, B-1, B-2, B-3, B~4 and PZM ZONING DISTRICTS.
THE CITY COUNCil OF THE CITY OF MONTICEllO, MINNESOTA HEREBY ORDAINS
AS FOllOWS:
Section 1.
Chapter 3, Section 3-5 [0] is amended by adding the following:
[0] 9. (t)
STALL, AISLE, AND DRIVEWAY DESIGN CONDITIONAL
USE PERMIT IN THE A-O, B-1, B-2, B-3, B-4 AND PZM
DISTRICTS:
.
Staff, aisle, and driveway design requirements as noted in (k)
Surfacing, (0) Curbing and landscaping, and (r) Curbing, may
be lessened subject to the following conditions:
i. Any reduction in requirements requires completion of
the conditional use permit process outlined in Chapter
22 of this ordinance.
ii. Final approval of parking and driveway drainage plans
associated with a conditional use permit request shall
be provided in writing by the City Engineer. The City
Engineer must certify that curbing is not necessary to
control drainage on the site. Engineering expenses
greater than the portion of building permit fee allocated
for engineer plan review shall be paid by applicant prior
to occupancy.
iii. Only properties which have existing buildings and are
being expanded or remodeled for a new use shall be
eligible for this conditional use permit.
.
iv.
The applicant must show, and the Planning
loA
.
.
.
Commission must find, that there are existing non-
conformities of the property which are being eliminated
by the expansion or remodeling which justify a deferral
to the paving, landscaping, or curbing requirements.
v.
A deferral shall be considered by the City as a part of
an application which includes full site plans, drawn to
scale, of both the immediate paving, landscaping and
curbing improvements and the ultimate paving,
landscaping, and curbing improvements.
VI.
A deferral of the paving, landscaping, and/or curbing
shall be granted for no more than two (2) years, after
which the paving, landscaping, and curbing shall be
brought into conformance with the zoning ordinance
and the approved plans.
VII.
In all districts other than the A-O District, this deferral
shall apply only to the required paving, curbing and
landscaping which is applicable to the existing portion
of the use and building. Paving, curbing and
landscaping attributable to any expansion shall be
inStalled at the time of the expansion.
viii. In all districts other than the A-O District, this deferral
shall be available only to those properties where the
total value of building expansion or remodeling (as
determined by the City of Monticello's Building Official)
is equal to no more than 25% of the Estimated Market
Value (EMV) of the Building as established by the
Wright County Assessor at the time of the permit
request. Subsequent requests shall use the original
EMV as the baseline value.
Section 2.
This ordinance shall become effective from and after its passage and publication.
//s//
10 A
.
.
.
11.
Plann ing Comm ission Agenda - 01/04/00
Set Plannine Commission meeting dates where conflicts occur in 2000.
See attached memo fix City Clerk, Dawn Grossinger.
MEMO
MONTICELLO
To:
From:
Lori Kraemer, Community Development
Dawn Grossinger, Deputy City Clerk I<')-n
Date:
December 27, 1999
Re:
Planning Commission Meeting Dates - 2000
There are a couple of conflicts with the regular Planning Commission meeting dates. The
Planning Commission should look at changing their regular meeting dates scheduled
for the following days:
March 7, 2000
_ Precinct caucus (No meetings to be held aftcr 6 p.m.)
July 4, 2000
- Fourth of July holiday
.
November 7,2000
- Election Day
The first Wednesday of each month the HRA meets here at City Hall and the MOAA also meets
so I don't know if the Planning Commission wants to schedule for the first Wednesday. If you
could check with them and come up with alternative meeting dates it would be appreciated.
Because these would be changes from the regular schedule we would need to provide the
appropriate notice of the meeting date changes. Please let me know what you tind out.
Thanks.
~
Monticello City Hall, 250 E. Broadway, PO Box 1147, Monticello, MN 55362-9245 . (612) 295-271\ · Fax: (612) 295-4404
Office of Public Works, 909 Golf Course Rd., Monticello, MN 55362 . (612) 295-3170 . Fax: (612) 271-3272