Planning Commission Agenda 11-05-2014
AGENDA
MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
Wednesday, November 5th, 2014 - 6:00 PM
Mississippi Room, Monticello Community Center
Commissioners: Chairman Brad Fyle, Sam Burvee, Charlotte Gabler, Alan
Heidemann
Council Liaison: Lloyd Hilgart
Staff: Angela Schumann, Steve Grittman - NAC, Ron Hackenmueller
1. Call to order.
2. Citizen Comments.
3. Consideration of adding items to the agenda.
4. Consideration to approve Planning Commission minutes.
a. Regular Meeting – October 5th, 2014
5. Public Hearing - Consideration of a request for Amendment to Development Stage
Planned Unit Development (PUD) for Sunset Ponds 2nd Addition
Applicant: Jensen, Donald/Sunset Ponds, LLC
6. Consideration to call for a Public Hearing on December 3rd, 2014 for Amendments to
Title 10 of Monticello City Code - Zoning Ordinance and Title 11 of Monticello City
Code – Subdivision Ordinance, chapters and sections as follows.
a. Monticello Zoning Ordinance, Chapter 2, Section 4(M) – Grading, Drainage and
Erosion Control Permit
b. Monticello Zoning Ordinance, Chapter 4, Section 10 – Grading, Drainage and
Erosion Control
c. Monticello Subdivision Ordinance, Chapter 5 – Design Standards
7. Consideration to set interview schedule for Planning Commission vacancy.
8. Adjourn.
1
MINUTES
REGULAR MEETING – MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION
Tuesday, October 7th, 2014 - Mississippi Room, Monticello Community Center
Present : Brad Fyle, Sam Burvee, Charlotte Gabler
Absent : Alan Heidemann, Grant Sala
Others: Angela Schumann, Steve Grittman - NAC, Ron Hackenmueller, Lloyd Hilgart
1. Call to order
Brad Fyle called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m.
2. Citizen Comments None
3. Consideration of adding items to the agenda
Request to call for a Public Hearing (Angela Schumann)
Rod Dragsten (Lloyd Hilgart) – Lloyd Hilgart announced, for those who had not yet
heard, that former Planning Commissioner Rod Dragsten had recently passed away.
Hilgart expressed appreciation for Dragsten’s 17 years of service on the Planning
Commission and several years as a member of the EDA. He also said that Dragsten
would be missed as a friend.
4. Consideration to approve Planning Commission minutes
a. Regular Meeting – June 3rd, 2014
SAM BURVEE MOVED TO APPROVE THE JUNE 3RD, 2014 REGULAR
MEETING MINUTES. CHARLOTTE GABLER SECONDED THE MOTION.
MOTION CARRIED 3-0.
b. Regular Meeting – August 5th, 2014
SAM BURVEE MOVED TO APPROVE THE AUGUST 5TH, 2014 REGULAR
MEETING MINUTES. BRAD FYLE SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION
CARRIED 3-0.
5. Consideration to accept resignation of Commissioner Sala
Angela Schumann stated that Grant Sala had accepted a position with the Building
Department and submitted his resignation as a member of the Planning Commission.
Schumann thanked Sala for his years of service and noted that staff look forward to
working with him in this new role. City Building Official Ron Hackenmueller pointed
out that Sala had been hired as a part-time, temporary employee. The City will post
notice of the vacant position immediately.
2
CHARLOTTE GABLER MOVED TO ACCEPT THE RESIGNATION OF
COMMISSIONER SALA. SAM BURVEE SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION
CARRIED 3-0.
5A. Consideration of approval for calling for a Public Hearing for an ordinance
amendment to Section 5.1 to allow Personal Services as a permitted use in the L-
2 District of the CCD
Schumann pointed out that the L-2 District in the CCD is the only block in which
Personal Services is not currently allowed as a permitted use. She noted that several
businesses defined as Personal Services are located on the L-2 block, but indicated
that these are considered existing lawful non-conforming uses. Any new Personal
services are not currently allowed by ordinance. Staff recommended calling for a
public hearing to consider amending Section 5.1 of the zoning ordinance because
there is a business looking for that type of use on that block.
Schumann suggested that this matter be considered, for scheduling expediency, on
Monday, October 27th, to coincide with discussion related to a concept plan review
for Planned Unit Development to be considered by both the Planning Commission
and the City Council on that same evening.
Charlotte Gabler asked if it had been an oversight to exclude new personal services
uses from the L-2 District. Schumann explained that the northwest corner of Highway
25 and CSAH 75 was intended to be river-oriented commercial but wasn’t meant to be
exclusive of other types of uses that might want to locate there. Personal services, while
commercial in nature, relates to self-care types of businesses, such as dance studios and
hair care salons.
BRAD FYLE MOVED TO CALL FOR A PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER
AMENDING SECTION 5.1 OF THE MONTICELLO ZONING ORDINANCE
AND TO REVIEW A CONCEPT PLAN FOR PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT
JOINTLY WITH THE CITY COUNCIL IN CONJUNCTION WITH A SPECIAL
MEETING AT 5 P.M. ON OCTOBER 27TH. SAM BURVEE SECONDED THE
MOTION. MOTION CARRIED 3-0.
6. Consideration to reschedule November Planning Commission meeting
Brad Fyle had suggested that the November Planning Commission meeting be
scheduled after the election. The Commissioners considered meeting either on
Wednesday, November 5th or Monday, November 10th to minimize delays in the
meeting schedule.
CHARLOTTE GABLER MOVED TO RESCHEDULE THE NOVEMBER
REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING TO WEDNESDAY,
NOVEMBER 5TH, 2014 AT 6 P.M. BRAD FYLE SECONDED THE MOTION.
MOTION CARRIED 3-0.
3
7. Consideration to call for public hearing on an amendment to the Monticello
Comprehensive Plan, Chapter 3-Land Use, as related to required Land Use Plan
Map amendments
Staff asked that the Planning Commission call for a public hearing to consider
amending the Monticello Comprehensive Plan due to Land Use Plan map changes.
These amendments are the result of replatting or other parcel split/combination
actions in the years since the first land use map was adopted. This action is necessary
to maintain map accuracy.
CHARLOTTE GABLER MOVED TO CALL FOR A PUBLIC HEARING FOR
DECEMBER 2, 2014 FOR CONSIDERATION OF AMENDMENT TO THE
MONTICELLO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, CHAPTER 3 - LAND USE, AS
RELATED TO REQUIRED MAP AMENDMENTS. SAM BURVEE SECONDED
THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED 3-0.
8. Community Development Director’s Report
Transportation Advisory Committee (TAC) – Charlotte Gabler asked if there had
been any response from the County in regard to the TAC and the Council’s letter
about the parking request on the north side of Broadway. Schumann indicated that
staff would schedule a meeting with the Wright County Transportation Advisory
Committee soon in an effort to work toward a solution for final design.
Land Use Training Seminar – Schumann briefly summarized the purpose of the
land use training seminar and the process involved in participating in the training as a
full commission.
Rod Dragsten - Angela Schumann indicated that Rod Dragsten will be formally
recognized for his service to the Planning Commission and EDA at the November
regular meetings.
9. Adjournment
SAM BURVEE MOVED TO ADJOURN THE MEETING AT 6:21 PM. BRAD
FYLE SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED 3-0.
Recorder: Kerry Burri __
Approved:
Attest: ___________________________________________
Angela Schumann, Community Development Director
Planning Commission Agenda – 11/05/14
1
5. Public Hearing - Consideration of a request for Amendment to Development Stage
Planned Unit Development (PUD). Applicant: Sunset Ponds, LLC/Jensen, Donald
(NAC)
Property: Lots 6, 7, 9 and 10 Block 3, Sunset Ponds 2nd Addition
Planning Case Number: 2014 - 048
A. REFERENCE & BACKGROUND
Request(s): Planned Unit Development Amendment allowing for
modifications to required 20% front building materials
requirement, garage door width, 5’ garage forward
regulation, and overall garage size relative to home
footprint.
Deadline for Decision: December 19, 2014
Land Use Designation: Places to Live
Zoning Designation: T-N (formerly R-2A), Sunset Ponds Planned Unit
Development
The purpose of the "T-N," The purpose of the "T-N"
traditional neighborhood residential district is to provide
for medium density, single family, detached residential
dwelling units and directly related complementary uses.
Current Site Use: The four lots proposed for amendment are vacant
residential properties.
Surrounding Land Uses:
North: Residential, including township and R-1
East: Residential, Monticello Township
South: Residential, R-2A
West: Residential, R-2A
Planning Commission Agenda – 11/05/14
2
Analysis:
In the fall of 2012, the City approved a Planned Unit Development (PUD) amendment to
the Sunset Ponds 2nd Addition to allow limited lot and building flexibilities for certain
lots within the subdivision. The subject subdivision is comprised of 35 lots, 31 of which
were granted lot and building flexibilities via the PUD. Of the 35 lots in the subdivision,
nearly one half are currently developed.
At the time of application processing, it was anticipated that a limited market for standard
single family residential lots existed. As a result, Lots, 6, 7, 9 and 10, Block 3 were
reserved for that market and excluded from the 2012 PUD amendment application. The
applicant has indicated that, since 2012, a market for the standard single family lots
within the subject subdivision has not been demonstrated. As a result, the applicant
proposes to amend the PUD to allow the previously excluded lots (Lots 6, 7, 9 and 10,
Block 3) to be granted the same lot and building flexibilities currently afforded the
balance of the lots within the subdivision.
Lot Characteristics. Lots 6, 7, 9 and 10, Block 3 are located in the extreme northeast
corner of the subdivision. The orientation of the building on each of the lots is proposed
to remain unchanged from the previous submittal. Generally consistent with other lots in
the subdivision, the lot areas of the four lots is as follows:
Lot 6: 7,200 square feet
Lot 7: 9,400 square feet
Lot 9: 10,650 square feet
Lot 10: 10,700 square feet
Previous PUD Approval. With the exception of Lots 6, 7, 9 and 10, Block 3, the
following flexibilities were granted to lots within the Sunset Ponds 2nd Addition as part of
the 2012 PUD approval:
Front Building Facades. The City Code requires that no less than 20% of the front
building façade of any structure in the R-2A shall be covered with brick or stone.
The applicant was granted flexibility to allow for stone veneers, shake siding or
similar enhanced styles of accent colors. Such flexibility was granted subject to the
following:
Stone veneer must be provided on both the garage face area and portico as
shown on submitted plans.
Planning Commission Agenda – 11/05/14
3
Shake siding shall not be permitted in lieu of stone veneer, but only to
complete the required 20% requirement.
Any corner lot must include additional stone or brick on the secondary right-
of-way elevation to better meet the intent of the 20% “front building façade”
requirement.
Garage Doors. The City Code requires that from side building line to side building
line of any single family structure, no more than 50% of such building width shall
consist of garage doors that face the street. The applicant was granted flexibility from
such requirement provided that exterior design enhancements be provided to off-set
the “garage-forward” appearance. These enhancements include the following:
Additional gables and variation in building materials and colors.
Finished living space above the garage, cantilevered slightly beyond the
garage building line, which creates a visual break along the front building
plane of the homes.
Garage doors which include raised panels (and may include window lights).
Garage Setbacks. The City Code requires that no portion of any garage space may be
more than five feet closer to the street than the front building line of the principal
single family use. The applicant was granted flexibility from such garage setback
requirement subject to the following:
Cantilevered living areas be placed over the garage, effectively creating the
effect of single family living space closer to the street than the garage.
Garage doors must include raised panels (and may include window lights).
Accessory Storage Space. The City Code requires that, except by conditional use
permit, the combination of attached garage and detached accessory building must not
exceed the gross square footage of the building footprint of the principal use.
Ultimately, the Planning Commission recommended and the City Council approved
the requested PUD subject to the following specific conditions:
1. The plans for the building permit shall comply with the Zoning Ordinance
minimum finished square footage standards.
2. The plans for the building permit shall comply with the Zoning Ordinance
minimum setback requirements.
Planning Commission Agenda – 11/05/14
4
3. Stone or brick veneer shall be on both the garage face area and portico as shown
on the provided plans dated October 6, 2012.
4. Shake veneer shall not be permitted as an exclusive treatment in lieu of stone or
brick veneer, and shall only be used to compliment the brick or stone in meeting
the required 20 percent as shown on the plans.
5. Any corner lot shall include additional stone or brick on the secondary right-of-
way elevation to better meet the intent of the 20 percent “front building façade”
requirement.
6. All garage doors shall include raised panels and may include window lights.
7. No homes on abutting properties may be constructed of the exact same exterior
home design.
8. The applicant enter into an agreement for amendment to Planned Unit
Development for Sunset Ponds 2nd Addition.
PUD Amendment Criteria. In considering whether to amend an existing PUD, the City
must consider whether the proposed amendment affects the PUD’s ability to continue to
achieve PUD goals outlined by Code. Specifically, a determination should be made
whether the amendment supports higher standards of site and building design, efficient
use of land, a more desirable environment than possible through strict application of the
zoning regulations, and innovative residential development housing options at all levels.
Approval of the 2012 PUD does, to some degree, establish that the requested lot and
building standard flexibilities satisfy the intent of the PUD.
The requested PUD amendment is a result of a changing market condition applicable to
the subject lots. The applicant believes that current market conditions have resulted in
limited interest in standard single family lots such as presently allowed and that the
allowance certain design flexibilities (as allowed for other lots within the subdivision)
will increase buyer interest.
As in the case of the previous 2012 PUD amendment approval, the proposed homes will
meet the minimum home area requirement of the underlying zoning district but are to be
organized in a manner not presently allowed.
Also to be noted is that landscaping upon the subject lots will meet minimum Zoning
Ordinance requirements and will be similar to other compliant lots within the
subdivision.
Planning Commission Agenda – 11/05/14
5
In this regard, it is not anticipated that approval of the amendment will negatively
impacts the health and safety of the City.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS
1. Motion to adopt Resolution 2014-111, recommending approval of an Amendment
to Conditional Use Permit for Planned Unit Development as related to residential
design standards for T-N (Single-Family) District for Lots 6, 7, 9 and 10 Block 3,
Sunset Ponds 2nd Addition, subject to the conditions outlined in Exhibit Z and
based on a finding that the proposed amendment continues to achieve the goals of
the original PUD and is consistent with the long-range goals for residential
development as outlined in the Comprehensive Plan.
2. Motion to deny adoption of Resolution 2014-011, recommending approval of an
Amendment to Conditional Use Permit for Planned Unit Development as related
to residential design standards for R-1 (Single-Family) District for Lots 6, 7, 9 and
10 Block 3, Sunset Ponds 2nd Addition based on findings to be made by the
Planning Commission.
3. Motion to table action on the request for further study.
C. STAFF RECOMMNDATION
In 2012, the Planning Commission determined that the requested lot and building
standard flexibilities provided an acceptable balance between ensuring the construction of
homes which blend into the existing Sunset Ponds neighborhood and the applicant’s
desire for a marketable home product.
Recognizing that Lots 6, 7, 9 and 10 of the subdivision are internal to the
development, the infilling of a housing product which is similar in size and character
to neighboring homes is expected to be compatible with surrounding uses. In this
regard, it is recommended that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the
requested PUD amendment subject to the same conditions imposed as part of the
2012 amendment approval.
Planning Commission Agenda – 11/05/14
6
D. SUPPORTING DATA
A. Resolution 2014-111
B. Aerial Image – Subject Parcels
C. Application
D. Narrative Information
E. Amendment Text
F. Plat Map
G. Aerial of Neighborhood
H. Lot Orientation/Survey Example
I. Home Design – Image Illustrations
J. Home Design – Exterior Options
K. Home Plans
L. Neighborhood Home Images
Z. Recommended Conditions of Approval
Planning Commission Agenda – 11/05/14
7
Exhibit Z
Sunset Ponds 2nd Addition Amendment to PUD
(Lots 6, 7, 9 and 10, Block 3)
October, 2014
1. The plans for the building permit shall comply with the Zoning Ordinance
minimum finished square footage standards.
2. The plans for the building permit shall comply with the Zoning Ordinance
minimum setback requirements.
3. Stone or brick veneer shall be on both the garage face area and portico as shown
on the provided plans dated October 6, 2012.
4. Shake veneer shall not be permitted as an exclusive treatment in lieu of stone or
brick veneer, and shall only be used to compliment the brick or stone in meeting
the required 20 percent as shown on the plans.
5. Any corner lot shall include additional stone or brick on the secondary right-of-
way elevation to better meet the intent of the 20 percent “front building façade”
requirement.
6. All garage doors shall include raised panels and may include window lights.
7. No homes on abutting properties may be constructed of the exact same exterior
home design.
8. The applicant enter into an agreement for amendment to Planned Unit
Development for Sunset Ponds 2nd Addition.
CITY OF MONTICELLO
WRIGHT COUNTY, MINNESOTA
PLANNING COMMISSION
RESOLUTION NO. 2014-1111
Motion By: Seconded By:
RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF AN AMENDMENT TO A CONDITIONAL USE
PERMIT FOR PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT REVISING REQUIREMENTS
FOR BUILDING DESIGN IN SUNSET PONDS SECOND ADDITION
WHEREAS, Sunset Ponds, LLC has submitted an application for an amendment to a
Conditional Use Permit (CUP) for a Planned Unit Development (PUD) revising certain
building requirements for construction on the following parcels:
Lots 6, 7, 9 and 10, Block 3, Sunset Ponds 2nd Addition;
WHEREAS, the subject parcels are part of a subdivision in which all other nearby parcels
had previously received approvals for similar amendments; and
WHEREAS, the development of the PUD subdivision has proceeded successfully on other
lots, consistent with the intent of the PUD approvals; and
WHEREAS, the amendment for the proposed lots will further those PUD objectives; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on October 27th, 2014 on the
application and the applicant and members of the public were provided the opportunity to
present information to the Planning Commission; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has considered all of the comments and the staff
report, which are incorporated by reference into the resolution; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Monticello makes the following
Findings of Fact in relation to the recommendation of approval:
1. The proposed amendment is consistent with the original PUD intent for the project.
2. The proposed changes to the homes will allow the proposed buildings on the
proposed lots to be compatible with others in the immediate neighborhood.
3. The proposed amendment is consistent with the goals of the City's Comprehensive
Plan.
4. The site and building plans meet the performance standards in the ordinance for the
development of a single family home in the applicable zoning district, subject to the
conditions outlined below.
CITY OF MONTICELLO
WRIGHT COUNTY, MINNESOTA
PLANNING COMMISSION
RESOLUTION NO. 2014-111
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the Planning Commission of the City of
Monticello, Minnesota that the proposed amendment to the Sunset Ponds PUD is hereby
recommended for approval subject to the following conditions:
1. The plans for the building permit shall comply with the Zoning Ordinance
minimum finished square footage standards.
2. The plans for the building permit shall comply with the Zoning Ordinance
minimum setback requirements.
3. Stone or brick veneer shall be on both the garage face area and portico as
shown on the provided plans dated October 6, 2012.
4. Shake veneer shall not be permitted as an exclusive treatment in lieu of stone
or brick veneer, and shall only be used to compliment the brick or stone in
meeting the required 20 percent as shown on the plans.
5. Any corner lot shall include additional stone or brick on the secondary right-
of-way elevation to better meet the intent of the 20 percent "front building
fayade" requirement.
6. All garage doors shall include raised panels and may include window lights.
7. No homes on abutting properties may be constructed of the exact same
exterior home design.
8. The applicant enter into an agreement for amendment to Planned Unit
Development for Sunset Ponds 2nd Addition.
ADOPTED BY the Monticello Planning Commission this 27th day of October, 2014.
CITY OF MONTICELLO
Brad Fyle, Chair
ATTEST:
Angela Schumann,
Community Development Director
Amendment to Development Stage Planned Unit Development (PUD) - Lots 6, 7, 9 & 10, Block 3, Sunset Ponds 2nd Addition
9398, 9404, 9408 & 9410 Golden Pond Lane (155173003100,155173003090, 155173003070, 155173003060)
Planning Commission Agenda – 11/05/14
1
6. Consideration to call for a Public Hearing on December 3rd, 2014 for
Amendments to Title 10 of Monticello City Code - Zoning Ordinance and Title
11 of Monticello City Code – Subdivision Ordinance, chapters and sections as
follows. (AS)
a. Monticello Zoning Ordinance, Chapter 2, Section 4(M) – Grading, Drainage
and Erosion Control Permit
b. Monticello Zoning Ordinance, Chapter 4, Section 10 – Grading, Drainage and
Erosion Control
c. Monticello Subdivision Ordinance, Chapter 5 – Design Standards
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
The Planning Commission is asked to call for a public hearing to be held during its
regular December meeting for the purpose of considering amendments to the
Monticello Zoning Ordinance and Subdivision Ordinance. These amendments relate
to the requirements mandated for the City’s Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System
(MS4) General Permit. The MS4 Permit is described in overview in the attached
supporting data.
WSB & Associates, the City’s consulting engineering firm, is assisting the City in
attaining compliance with MS4 permitting. As part of those efforts, WSB has
completed a review of the City’s codes for compliance with MS4 standards. As a
result, WSB is recommending a number of amendments to the City’s Zoning and
Subdivision Ordinances (as well as other ordinances which come under the review
and amendment authority of the City Council). The Planning Commission is required
to hold public hearings on amendments to the Monticello Zoning Ordinance and
Subdivision Ordinance.
As such, the Planning Commission is asked at this time to call for a public hearing for
amendment to the Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance, chapters and sections as noted.
A background memo has been prepared by WSB which provides a brief summary of
the type of amendments the Commission will be asked to review.
Representatives of WSB & Associates will be present at the December meeting to
review the ordinance amendments in full and to provide additional information on the
MS4 General Permit.
Planning Commission Agenda – 11/05/14
2
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. Motion to call for a public hearing for December 3rd, 2014 for Amendments to
Title 10 of Monticello City Code - Zoning Ordinance and Title 11 of Monticello
City Code – Subdivision Ordinance, chapters and sections as follows. (AS)
a. Monticello Zoning Ordinance, Chapter 2, Section 4(M) – Grading, Drainage
and Erosion Control Permit
b. Monticello Zoning Ordinance, Chapter 4, Section 10 – Grading, Drainage and
Erosion Control
c. Monticello Subdivision Ordinance, Chapter 5 – Design Standards
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends alternative 1 above. These amendments are necessary to achieve
compliance with federal and state permit requirements for the City.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
A. EPA Stormwater Background – MS4
B. October 30th, 2014 WSB Memo, MS4 Ordinance Review
C. City Council Agenda – Staff Report of 6/23/14
engineeringplanningenvironmentalconstruction 477TemperanceStreet
St.Paul,MN55101
Tel:651-286-8450
Fax:651-286-8488
Memorandum
To:AngelaSchumann,CityofMonticello
From:ShibaniBisson,WSB&Associates
GregBeckius,WSB&Associates
Date:October30,2014
Re:MS4OrdinanceReview
CityofMonticello
WSBProjectNo.2092-400
WSB&Associates’staffreviewedtheCityofMonticello’sordinancesandhaveidentifiedwherethe
currentordinanceshavedeficienciesaccordingtothenewrequirementsoftheMunicipalSeparateStorm
SewerSystem(MS4)GeneralPermit.PleaseseeenclosedCityCouncilagendaitemfrom6/23/14that
describestheMS4programandrequirements.
OurrecommendedordinancerevisionsaredesignedtobringtheCity’sordinancesintocompliancewith
thenewregulatorymechanismrequirementsoftheMS4GeneralPermit.
Belowisabriefsummaryoftheordinanceanalysisperformedandrecommendationsforordinance
revisionsrequiredtosatisfythenewrequirementsoftheMS4GeneralPermitasoutlinedbelow.
OrdinanceAnalysis
WSBstaffreviewedtheCity’sMS4StormwaterPollutionPreventionPlanApplicationfor
Reauthorization,whichoutlinedthetaskstheCityagreedtoundertakeinordertocomeintocompliance
withtheMS4GeneralPermitbyJanuary15,2015.WSBstaffcomparedtheCityofMonticello’s
ordinancestotheEnvironmentalProtectionAgency’smodelordinancesandordinancesthathavebeen
adoptedbyotherCitiesthatarerepresentativeofthetypeoflanguageandcontentneededtosatisfythe
newpermitrequirements.WSBstaffalsoutilizedguidancedocumentsfromtheMinnesotaPollution
ControlAgencywhichincludedrecommendationsforsatisfyingtheregulatorymechanismrequirements
forMinimumControlMeasure3,4,and5.
Recommendations
ThefollowingCityordinancesarerecommendedtoberevisedtobeincompliancewiththenew
requirementsoftheMS4GeneralPermit.Alsoidentified,isabriefdescriptionoftherevisions.
Title10-MonticelloZoningOrdinance:Chapter2–Section2.4(M)
Grading,DrainageandErosionControlPermitRequirements
St.CloudMinneapolisSt.Paul
EqualOpportunityEmployer
wsbeng.com
F:\\CommunityDevelopmentDirector\\Boards&Commissions\\PlanningCommission\\2014\\Agenda\\November\\Item6.MS4\\ExhB.WSBMemo.doc
Ms.AngelaSchumann
October29,2014
Page2
UpdatetitletoGrading,Drainage,StormwaterManagementandErosionControlPermit
Requirements
UpdateSectionreferences
Title10–MonticelloZoningOrdinance:Chapter4-Section4.10(A-H),
Grading,Drainage&ErosionControl
UpdatethePurposesectiontoincludestatutoryauthorization
AddcleardefinitionsforBestManagementPractices(BMPs),dewatering,erosionprevention,
sedimentcontrol,stabilized,etc.
UpdatetheGrading,DrainageandErosionControlPlanRequirementstobeasstringentasthe
NPDESConstructionGeneralPermit,anduselanguagetakendirectlyfromthepermit
o Includelanguageandrequirementstoaddressthelocationofanywaterbody,andany
biologicallyorarchaeologicallysignificantareaswithinonemileofthesite
ReferencetheCity’sEngineeringDesignGuidelines.
AddasectiononStormwaterManagementRequirements
UpdateapprovalstandardstocomplywiththenewlyissuedNPDESMS4Permitwithinthe
ConstructionRequirementssection
o Includeguidelinesforspecialorimpairedwaters
o BMPstominimizeerosion
o BMPstominimizethedischargeofsedimentandotherpollutants
o BMPsfordewateringactivities
o Siteinspectionsandrecordsofrainfallevents
AddlanguagetotheInspectionsectionregardingthefrequencyofrequiredinspections(onceper
weekandwithin24hoursafterarainfalleventgreaterthan0.5inch).Alsoaddlanguage
describingtherecordsneededfromeachinspection
UpdatethemaintenancesectiontoincludeprovisionsformaintenanceandrepairofBMPs
Addasectionregardingthestipulationsforfinalstabilizationofasite
Title11–SubdivisionOrdinance:Chapter5DesignStandards
Section11-5-5:ErosionandSedimentControl
Section11-5-6:Drainage
ReferencetheCity’sEngineeringDesignGuidelinesandChapter4oftheZoningOrdinance
Updatetoincludetheprocessofstabilizationiflocatedwithin1-mileofspecialorimpaired
water.
IncorporatelanguageoftheMinimalImpactDesignStandards(MIDS)andwaterResources
ManagementPlanformanagingvolume,TSS,andTPforredevelopmentandnewdevelopment.
Title7–Chapter10IllicitDischargeDetectionandEliminationOrdinance
Section7-10-1:PurposeandIntent
Section7-10-8:SuspensionofMS4Access
Section7-10-14:Enforcement
UpdateSection7-10-1:PurposeandIntenttoincludeMinnesotaRules,Parts6120.2500-
6120.3900,MinnesotaRulesChapters8410,8420and70510.0210reference.
Includelanguageinsection7-10-8:SuspensionofMS4Accesstoincludeemergencyceaseand
desistorders
UpdateSection7-10-14:Enforcementtoincludeasectionforawarningnoticeifthereisa
violation
AddlanguagedescribingwhattheNoticeofViolationshallcontain
F:\\CommunityDevelopmentDirector\\Boards&Commissions\\PlanningCommission\\2014\\Agenda\\November\\Item6.MS4\\ExhB.WSBMemo.doc
Planning Commission Agenda – 11/05/14
1
7. Consideration to set interview schedule for Planning Commission vacancy. (AS)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
To date, the Planning Commission has received one application for the single open
seat on the Commission.
Planning Commission is asked to consider moving forward with interview at this
time, or to delay interview for an additional time. The position has been posted since
October 8th, 2014.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. Motion to set an interview date of ______________, 2014 to interview
candidate(s) for the open position on the Monticello Planning Commission.
2. Motion of other.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff defers to the Planning Commission’s recommendation on this procedural item.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
A. Planning Commission posting, City website