Loading...
Planning Commission Agenda 04-02-2013REGULAR MEETING MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday, April 2nd, 2013 6:00 PM Mississippi Room, Monticello Community Center Commissioners: Chairman William Spartz, Sam Burvee, Brad Fyle, Charlotte Gabler, Grant Sala Council Liaison: Lloyd Hilgart Staff- Angela Schumann, Ron Hackenmueller 1. Call to order 2. Consideration to approve Planning Commission minutes. a. Regular Meeting of March 5th, 2013 3. Citizen Comments 4. Consideration of adding items to the agenda 5. Public Hearing — Consideration of an amendment to the Monticello Zoning Ordinance, Chapter 2, Section 4 — Specific Review Procedures & Requirements. 6. Consideration to approve Community Development Director's Report 7. Adjourn. MINUTES MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday, March 5, 2013 - 6:00 PM Mississippi Room, Monticello Community Center Commissioners Present: Commission Liaison Absent: Staff Present: Staff Absent: 1. Call to 2. Chairman Bill Spartz, Sam Burvee, Brad Fyle, Charlotte Gabler, Grant Sala Lloyd Hilgart Angela Schumann, Steve Bill Spartz called the meeting to order at 6: a) Regular Meeting Minutes of January 8th, 20 BRAD FYLE MOVED TO APPROVE THE REGULAR MEETING MINUTES OF JANUARY 8, 2013. GRANT SALA CARRIED 5 -0. b) Regular III utes of Feb r CHARL TE GR MOVED MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 5, 2013 N CARRIED 5 -0. 3.'tizen Comments None 4. 5. 5th, 20 HE MOTION. MOTION OVE THE REGULAR MEETING SAM BURVEE SECONDED THE MOTION. The Planning Commission was asked to recommend the proposed 2013 City of Monticello Zoning Map for adoption by the City Council. The map addresses all 2012 and January - February, 2013 rezoning actions, including: • Ordinance #544 — Map Amendment for Rezoning from R -1 to I -1 for Lots 3, 6 and 13, Auditor's Subdivision #1 (corrective map action on Bondhus Tool property) • Ordinance #553 — Map Amendment for Rezoning from I -1 to B -2 for Lot 1, Block 1, Oakwood Industrial Park (Quarry Church site) Planning Commission Minutes - 3/05/13 • Ordinance #563 — Map Amendment for Mississippi Wild Scenic & Recreational and Shoreland Overlay Districts • Ordinance #572 — Map Amendment from B -3 to B -4 for Lot 4, Block 1, Commercial Plaza 25 Addition (1260 Cedar St.) • Ordinance #573 — Map Amendment from B -3 to B -4 for Lot 1, Block 1, 90th Street 2nd Addition (3801 Chelsea Rd.) Bill Spartz opened the public hearing. As there were no comments, the public hearing was closed. ^sly Brad F le asked how the Planning Commission had rev handled updating the zoning map. Bill Spartz indicated that the zoning map had typically been updated at the start of each year since the 2008 Comprehensiv an (Co. Plan) revision. Charlotte Gabler noted that she hadn't realized thafVe Mississi L and Scenic & Recreational and Shoreland Overlay Districts were so extensive. GRANT SALA MOVED TO RECOMMEND ADOP N OF THE 21r CITY OF MONTICELLO OFFICIAL ZONING MAP. C OT E GABLER/SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED 5 -0. 6. Community Development Diree ort Building Official Ron Hackenmuelle rovi Noverof the expansions and new commercial /industrial projects th o lace 012. Some of the larger projects noted were a new-Cherry rry retail st , a McDonald's rebuild, the Xcel shooting range, the Walker In -Sto ice expansi , a new Frito Lay distribution warehouse, and the Lakelan4i Dental move and remodel. The 2012 total value for new c f single family homes was $3.5 million. Six new homes, with an average value o 6,000, were built in Sunset Ponds. Three homes, with an average- value of $266,000, were built in Carlisle Village. Ten homes, with an ^average value of -000, wereiilt in Hunter's Crossing. Three homes, with an average value of $131,000, w�ote built in Featherstone. One single family home permit was issued in January 2013. Two additional building plans were in the review process. Brad Fyle asked Charlotte Gabler about the Comp Plan update. Gabler said that the small group had incl y revised data and reorganized the Economic Development chapters. 7. Adiourn BRAD FYLE MOVED TO ADJOURN THE MEETING AT 6:19 P.M. GRANT SALA SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED 5 -0. Recorder: Kerry Burri Approved: April 2, 2013 Attest: Angela Schumann, Community Development Director 2 Agenda: 04/02/13 5. Consideration of an amendment to the Monticello Zoning Ordinance, Chapter 2, Section 4 — Specific Review Procedure & Requirements (AS/NAC) A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: This amendment is necessary for the Zoning Ordinance text to be in compliance with state statutes for decisions on Comprehensive Plan amendments and rezoning actions. Chapter 2 of the Zoning Ordinance provides specific information on the formal procedures for each type of land use application accepted by the City of Monticello. This procedural information includes the reviewing bodies, application requirements, review requirements, and approval criteria for each application type. Currently, the language for "Review" (the procedures by which the reviewing bodies take action on a given application) is not in compliance with State Statute as related to Council action to approve for two application types. This is more than likely due to transposition of the review requirements for the two application types. The first section requiring amendment for compliance is for the review of comprehensive plan amendments. The language currently reads as follows: 2.4(A)(4)(b) City Council The City Council may hold a public hearing on the amendment if they deem such necessary or it is deemed necessary by the Community Development Department. After consideration of the Planning Commission recommendation and /or hearing, if applicable, the City Council may adopt the amendment or any part thereof in such form as it deems advisable. Approval of an amendment shall require a majority vote of all members of the City Council except for amendments which change all or part of the existing classification of a zoning district from residential to either commercial or industrial which will require the approval of four - fifths of all the members of the City Council. The described approval process is incorrect. The requirement in Statute (462.355 Subd. 3) is that approval of any and all comprehensive plan amendments requires a two- thirds majority, except in the case of Affordable Housing amendments (which has its own statutory rules). Further, the Comprehensive Plan has no reference to zoning districts in adoption or amendment language, and therefore to refer to such districts in comprehensive plan amendment review is inconsistent. The second "Review" area requiring amendments is for the language of zoning map amendments. The language currently reads: 2.4(B)(4)(b) City Council The City Council may hold a public hearing on the amendment if deemed necessary by the Community Development Department. After consideration of the Planning Commission recommendation and /or hearing, if applicable, the City Council may adopt the amendment or any part thereof in such form as it deems advisable. The amendment requires the approval of four - fifths of all the members of the City Council. Again, the described approval process is incorrect. The Statute (462.357 Subd. 2) provides for a simple majority vote, except for zoning amendments which change the classification of land from residential to commercial or industrial. The amendment from residential to commercial or industrial requires a two- thirds majority vote. As the Monticello City Council is made up of 5 persons, a two- thirds majority for both actions as required above is 4 of 5 Council members. The draft ordinance document with proposed language is attached for reference. The amendment provides for language consistent with State Statute. Al. Staff Impact: None. A2. Budget Impact: Limited to publication of hearing notice, preparation of ordinance revisions and publication of ordinance document. B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS: Motion to recommend adoption of Ordinance #576, based on the findings as stated in Resolution #2013 -015. 2. Motion to table for further discussion and research. C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the ordinance as drafted. D. SUPPORTING DATA: A. Ordinance #576 B. Planning Commission Resolution #2013 -015 C. State Statute 462.355 D. State Statute 463.357 E. Monticello Zoning Ordinance, Section 2.4 (current) 2 ORDINANCE NO. 576 CITY OF MONTICELLO WRIGHT COUNTY, MINNESOTA AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 10 OF THE MONTICELLO CITY CODE, KNOWN AS THE ZONING ORDINANCE, BY AMENDING CHAPTER 2.4 — SPECIFIC REVIEW PROCEDURES & REQUIREMENTS THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MONTICELLO HEREBY ORDAINS: Section 1. Section 2.4 — Specific Review Procedures & Requirements, Title 10 — Zoning Ordinance is hereby amended as follows: 2.4(A) — Comprehensive Plan Amendments (4)(b) City Council The City Council may hold a public hearing on the amendment if they deem such necessary or it is deemed necessary by the Community Development Department. After consideration of the Planning Commission recommendation and /or hearing, if applicable, the City Council may adopt the amendment or any part thereof in such form as it deems advisable. Approval of an amendment shall require fifths of all the member-s of the City r,.,,, ei . the approval of two- thirds of all the members of the City Council, except as may be exempted by State Statute. Section 2. Section 2.4 — Specific Review Procedures & Requirements, Title 10 — Zoning Ordinance is hereby amended as follows: 2.4(B) — Zoning Ordinance and Zoning Map Amendments (4)(b) City Council The City Council may hold a public hearing on the amendment if deemed necessary by the Community Development Department. After consideration of the Planning Commission recommendation and/or hearing, if applicable, the City Council may adopt the amendment or any part thereof in such form as it deems advisable. The amendment r-e"i the approval of four- fifths of all the member-s of the City Cetmeil. Approval of an amendment shall require a majority vote of all members of the City Council exceptfor amendments which change all orpart of the existing classification of a zoning district from residential to either commercial or industrial, which will require the approval of two - thirds of all the members of the City Council. ORDINANCE NO. 576 Section 3. This Ordinance shall take effect and be in full force from and after its passage and publication. Revisions will be made online after adoption by Council. Copies of the complete Zoning Ordinance are available online and at Monticello City Hall. ADOPTED BY the Monticello City Council this 8th day of April, 2013. ATTEST: Jeff O'Neill, City Administrator I VOTING IN FAVOR: in VOTING IN OPPOSITION: CITY OF MONTICELLO Clint Herbst, Mayor CITY OF MONTICELLO WRIGHT COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION NO. 2013-015 Date: April 2nd, 2013 Motion By: Resolution No. 2013 -015 Seconded By: A RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF AMENDMENT TO THE MONTICELLO ZONING ORDINANCE CHAPTER 2, SECTION 4 — SPECIFIC REVIEW PROCEDURE & REQUIREMENTS FOR COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENTS AND ORDINANCE TEXT AMENDMENTS WHEREAS, the City of Monticello has adopted a zoning ordinance providing for the specific review procedures and requirements for land use applications; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has conducted a public hearing on December 4th, 2013 to review the request and receive public comment on the proposed amendment; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Monticello finds that the amendment to the zoning ordinance will be consistent with State Statutes 462.355 for the adoption and amendment of the comprehensive plan; and State Statute 462.357 governing the official controls of the zoning ordinance; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the Planning Commission of the City of Monticello, Minnesota: The Planning Commission recommends that the City Council adopt the zoning ordinance amendment revising permitted accessory uses in business districts in Ordinance No. 570. ADOPTED this 2nd day of April 2013, by the Planning Commission of the City of Monticello, Minnesota. MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION ATTEST: William Spartz, Chair Angela Schumann, Community Development Director MINNESOTA STATUTES 2012 462.355 462.355 ADOPT, AMEND COMPREHENSIVE PLAN; INTERIM ORDINANCE. Subdivision 1. Preparation and review. The planning agency shall prepare the comprehensive municipal plan. In discharging this duty the planning agency shall consult with and coordinate the planning activities of other departments and agencies of the municipality to insure conformity with and to assist in the development of the comprehensive municipal plan. In its planning activities the planning agency shall take due cognizance of the planning activities of adjacent units of government and other affected public agencies. The planning agency shall periodically review the plan and recommend amendments whenever necessary. When preparing or recommending amendments to the comprehensive plan, the planning agency of a municipality located within a county that is not a greater than 80 percent area, as defined in section 103G.005, subdivision 10b, must consider adopting goals and objectives that will protect open space and the environment. Subd. 1 a. Update by metropolitan municipalities. Each municipality in the metropolitan area, as defined in section 473.121, subdivision 2, shall review and update its comprehensive plan and fiscal devices and official controls as provided in section 473.864, subdivision 2. Subd. 2. Procedure to adopt, amend. The planning agency may, unless otherwise provided by charter or ordinance consistent with the municipal charter, recommend to the governing body the adoption and amendment from time to time of a comprehensive municipal plan. The plan may be prepared and adopted in sections, each of which relates to a major subject of the plan or to a major geographical section of the municipality. The governing body may propose the comprehensive municipal plan and amendments to it by resolution submitted to the planning agency. Before adopting the comprehensive municipal plan or any section or amendment of the plan, the planning agency shall hold at least one public hearing thereon. A notice of the time, place and purpose of the hearing shall be published once in the official newspaper of the municipality at least ten days before the day of the hearing. Subd. 3. Adoption by governing body. A proposed comprehensive plan or an amendment to it may not be acted upon by the governing body until it has received the recommendation of the planning agency or until 60 days have elapsed from the date an amendment proposed by the governing body has been submitted to the planning agency for its recommendation. Unless otherwise provided by charter, the governing body may by resolution adopt and amend the comprehensive plan or portion thereof as the official municipal plan upon such notice and hearing as may be prescribed by ordinance. Except for amendments to permit affordable housing development, a resolution to amend or adopt a comprehensive plan must be approved by a two - thirds vote of all of the members. Amendments to permit an affordable housing development are approved by a simple majority of all of the members. For purposes of this subdivision, "affordable housing development" means a development in which at least 20 percent of the residential units are restricted to occupancy for at least ten years by residents whose household income at the time of initial occupancy does not exceed 60 percent of area median income, adjusted for household size, as determined by the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development, and with respect to rental units, the rents for affordable units do not exceed 30 percent of 60 percent of area median income, adjusted for household size, as determined annually by the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development. Subd. 4. Interim ordinance. (a) If a municipality is conducting studies or has authorized a study to be conducted or has held or has scheduled a hearing for the purpose of considering adoption or amendment of a comprehensive plan or official controls as defined in section 462.352, Copyright © 2012 by the Office of the Revisor of Statutes, State of Minnesota. All Rights Reserved. 2 MINNESOTA STATUTES 2012 462.355 subdivision 15, or if new territory for which plans or controls have not been adopted is annexed to a municipality, the governing body of the municipality may adopt an interim ordinance applicable to all or part of its jurisdiction for the purpose of protecting the planning process and the health, safety and welfare of its citizens. The interim ordinance may regulate, restrict, or prohibit any use, development, or subdivision within the jurisdiction or a portion thereof for a period not to exceed one year from the date it is effective. (b) If a proposed interim ordinance purports to regulate, restrict, or prohibit activities relating to livestock production, a public hearing must be held following a ten -day notice given by publication in a newspaper of general circulation in the municipality before the interim ordinance takes effect. (c) The period of an interim ordinance applicable to an area that is affected by a city's master plan for a municipal airport may be extended for such additional periods as the municipality may deem appropriate, not exceeding a total additional period of 18 months. In all other cases, no interim ordinance may halt, delay, or impede a subdivision that has been given preliminary approval, nor may any interim ordinance extend the time deadline for agency action set forth in section 15.99 with respect to any application filed prior to the effective date of the interim ordinance. The governing body of the municipality may extend the interim ordinance after a public hearing and written findings have been adopted based upon one or more of the conditions in clause (1), (2), or (3). The public hearing must be held at least 15 days but not more than 30 days before the expiration of the interim ordinance, and notice of the hearing must be published at least ten days before the hearing. The interim ordinance may be extended for the following conditions and durations, but, except as provided in clause (3), an interim ordinance may not be extended more than an additional 18 months: (1) up to an additional 120 days following the receipt of the final approval or review by a federal, state, or metropolitan agency when the approval is required by law and the review or approval has not been completed and received by the municipality at least 30 days before the expiration of the interim ordinance; (2) up to an additional 120 days following the completion of any other process required by a state statute, federal law, or court order, when the process is not completed at least 30 days before the expiration of the interim ordinance; or (3) up to an additional one year if the municipality has not adopted a comprehensive plan under this section at the time the interim ordinance is enacted. History: 1965 c 670 s 5; 1976 c 127 s 21; 1977 c 347 s 68; 1980 c 566 s 24; 1983 c 216 art I s 67; 1985 c 62 s 1, 2; 1995 c 176 s 4; 2004 c 258 s 1; 2005 c 41 s 17; 1 Sp2005 c I art 1 s 91; 2008 c 297 art I s 59; 2010 c 347 art I s 24 Copyright © 2012 by the Office of the Revisor of Statutes, State of Minnesota. All Rights Reserved. MINNESOTA STATUTES 2012 462.357 462.357 OFFICIAL CONTROLS: ZONING ORDINANCE. Subdivision 1. Authority for zoning. For the purpose of promoting the public health, safety, morals, and general welfare, a municipality may by ordinance regulate on the earth's surface, in the air space above the surface, and in subsurface areas, the location, height, width, bulk, type of foundation, number of stories, size of buildings and other structures, the percentage of lot which may be occupied, the size of yards and other open spaces, the density and distribution of population, the uses of buildings and structures for trade, industry, residence, recreation, public activities, or other purposes, and the uses of land for trade, industry, residence, recreation, agriculture, forestry, soil conservation, water supply conservation, conservation of shorelands, as defined in sections 10317.201 to 10317.221, access to direct sunlight for solar energy systems as defined in section 216C.06, flood control or other purposes, and may establish standards and procedures regulating such uses. To accomplish these purposes, official controls may include provision for purchase of development rights by the governing body in the form of conservation easements under chapter 84C in areas where the governing body considers preservation desirable and the transfer of development rights from those areas to areas the governing body considers more appropriate for development. No regulation may prohibit earth sheltered construction as defined in section 216C.06, subdivision 14, relocated residential buildings, or manufactured homes built in conformance with sections 327.31 to 327.35 that comply with all other zoning ordinances promulgated pursuant to this section. The regulations may divide the surface, above surface, and subsurface areas of the municipality into districts or zones of suitable numbers, shape, and area. The regulations shall be uniform for each class or kind of buildings, structures, or land and for each class or kind of use throughout such district, but the regulations in one district may differ from those in other districts. The ordinance embodying these regulations shall be known as the zoning ordinance and shall consist of text and maps. A city may by ordinance extend the application of its zoning regulations to unincorporated territory located within two miles of its limits in any direction, but not in a county or town which has adopted zoning regulations; provided that where two or more noncontiguous municipalities have boundaries less than four miles apart, each is authorized to control the zoning of land on its side of a line equidistant between the two noncontiguous municipalities unless a town or county in the affected area has adopted zoning regulations. Any city may thereafter enforce such regulations in the area to the same extent as if such property were situated within its corporate limits, until the county or town board adopts a comprehensive zoning regulation which includes the area. Subd. 1 a. Certain zoning ordinances. A municipality must not enact, amend, or enforce a zoning ordinance that has the effect of altering the existing density, lot -size requirements, or manufactured home setback requirements in any manufactured home park constructed before January 1, 1995, if the manufactured home park, when constructed, complied with the then existing density, lot -size and setback requirements. Subd. lb. Conditional uses. A manufactured home park, as defined in section 327.14, subdivision 3, is a conditional use in a zoning district that allows the construction or placement of a building used or intended to be used by two or more families. Subd. 1 c. Amortization prohibited. Except as otherwise provided in this subdivision, a municipality must not enact, amend, or enforce an ordinance providing for the elimination or termination of a use by amortization which use was lawful at the time of its inception. This subdivision does not apply to adults -only bookstores, adults -only theaters, or similar adults -only businesses, as defined by ordinance. Copyright C 2012 by the Office of the Revisor of Statutes, State of Minnesota. All Rights Reserved. 2 MINNESOTA STATUTES 2012 462.357 Subd. Id. Nuisance. Subdivision lc does not prohibit a municipality from enforcing an ordinance providing for the prevention or abatement of nuisances, as defined in section 561.01, or eliminating a use determined to be a public nuisance, as defined in section 617.8 1, subdivision 2, paragraph (a), clauses (i) to (ix), without payment of compensation. Subd. 1 e. Nonconformities. (a) Except as otherwise provided by law, any nonconformity, including the lawful use or occupation of land or premises existing at the time of the adoption of an additional control under this chapter, may be continued, including through repair, replacement, restoration, maintenance, or improvement, but not including expansion, unless: (1) the nonconformity or occupancy is discontinued for a period of more than one year; or (2) any nonconforming use is destroyed by fire or other peril to the extent of greater than 50 percent of its estimated market value, as indicated in the records of the county assessor at the time of damage, and no building permit has been applied for within 180 days of when the property is damaged. In this case, a municipality may impose reasonable conditions upon a zoning or building permit in order to mitigate any newly created impact on adjacent property or water body. When a nonconforming structure in the shoreland district with less than 50 percent of the required setback from the water is destroyed by fire or other peril to greater than 50 percent of its estimated market value, as indicated in the records of the county assessor at the time of damage, the structure setback may be increased if practicable and reasonable conditions are placed upon a zoning or building permit to mitigate created impacts on the adjacent property or water body. (b) Any subsequent use or occupancy of the land or premises shall be a conforming use or occupancy. A municipality may, by ordinance, permit an expansion or impose upon nonconformities reasonable regulations to prevent and abate nuisances and to protect the public health, welfare, or safety. This subdivision does not prohibit a municipality from enforcing an ordinance that applies to adults -only bookstores, adults -only theaters, or similar adults -only businesses, as defined by ordinance. (c) Notwithstanding paragraph (a), a municipality shall regulate the repair, replacement, maintenance, improvement, or expansion of nonconforming uses and structures in floodplain areas to the extent necessary to maintain eligibility in the National Flood Insurance Program and not increase flood damage potential or increase the degree of obstruction to flood flows in the floodway. (d) Paragraphs (d) to 0) apply to shoreland lots of record in the office of the county recorder on the date of adoption of local shoreland controls that do not meet the requirements for lot size or lot width. A municipality shall regulate the use of nonconforming lots of record and the repair, replacement, maintenance, improvement, or expansion of nonconforming uses and structures in shoreland areas according to paragraphs (d) to 0). (e) A nonconforming single lot of record located within a shoreland area may be allowed as a building site without variances from lot size requirements, provided that: (1) all structure and septic system setback distance requirements can be met; (2) a Type 1 sewage treatment system consistent with Minnesota Rules, chapter 7080, can be installed or the lot is connected to a public sewer; and (3) the impervious surface coverage does not exceed 25 percent of the lot. Copyright © 2012 by the Office of the Revisor of Statutes, State of Minnesota. All Rights Reserved. MINNESOTA STATUTES 2012 462.357 (f) In a group of two or more contiguous lots of record under a common ownership, an individual lot must be considered as a separate parcel of land for the purpose of sale or development, if it meets the following requirements: (1) the lot must be at least 66 percent of the dimensional standard for lot width and lot size for the shoreland classification consistent with Minnesota Rules, chapter 6120; (2) the lot must be connected to a public sewer, if available, or must be suitable for the installation of a Type 1 sewage treatment system consistent with Minnesota Rules, chapter 7080, and local government controls; (3) impervious surface coverage must not exceed 25 percent of each lot; and (4) development of the lot must be consistent with an adopted comprehensive plan. (g) A lot subject to paragraph (f) not meeting the requirements of paragraph (f) must be combined with the one or more contiguous lots so they equal one or more conforming lots as much as possible. (h) Notwithstanding paragraph (f), contiguous nonconforming lots of record in shoreland areas under a common ownership must be able to be sold or purchased individually if each lot contained a habitable residential dwelling at the time the lots came under common ownership and the lots are suitable for, or served by, a sewage treatment system consistent with the requirements of section 115.55 and Minnesota Rules, chapter 7080, or connected to a public sewer. (i) In evaluating all variances, zoning and building permit applications, or conditional use requests, the zoning authority shall require the property owner to address, when appropriate, storm water runoff management, reducing impervious surfaces, increasing setback, restoration of wetlands, vegetative buffers, sewage treatment and water supply capabilities, and other conservation- designed actions. 0) A portion of a conforming lot may be separated from an existing parcel as long as the remainder of the existing parcel meets the lot size and sewage treatment requirements of the zoning district for a new lot and the newly created parcel is combined with an adjacent parcel. Subd. If. Substandard structures. Notwithstanding subdivision le, Minnesota Rules, parts 6105.0351 to 6105.0550, may allow for the continuation and improvement of substandard structures, as defined in Minnesota Rules, part 6105.0354, subpart 30, in the Lower Saint Croix National Scenic Riverway. Subd. lg. Feedlot zoning controls. (a) A municipality proposing to adopt a new feedlot zoning control or to amend an existing feedlot zoning control must notify the Pollution Control Agency and commissioner of agriculture at the beginning of the process, no later than the date notice is given of the first hearing proposing to adopt or amend a zoning control purporting to address feedlots. (b) Prior to final approval of a feedlot zoning control, the governing body of a municipality may submit a copy of the proposed zoning control to the Pollution Control Agency and to the commissioner of agriculture and request review, comment, and recommendations on the environmental and agricultural effects from specific provisions in the ordinance. (c) The agencies' response to the municipality may include: (1) any recommendations for improvements in the ordinance; and Copyright © 2012 by the Office of the Revisor of Statutes, State of Minnesota. All Rights Reserved. 4 MINNESOTA STATUTES 2012 462.357 (2) the legal, social, economic, or scientific justification for each recommendation under clause (1). (d) At the request of the municipality's governing body, the municipality must prepare a report on the economic effects from specific provisions in the ordinance. Economic analysis must state whether the ordinance will affect the local economy and describe the kinds of businesses affected and the projected impact the proposal will have on those businesses. To assist the municipality, the commissioner of agriculture, in cooperation with the Department of Employment and Economic Development, must develop a template for measuring local economic effects and make it available to the municipality. The report must be submitted to the commissioners of employment and economic development and agriculture along with the proposed ordinance. (e) A local ordinance that contains a setback for new feedlots from existing residences must also provide for a new residence setback from existing feedlots located in areas zoned agricultural at the same distances and conditions specified in the setback for new feedlots, unless the new residence is built to replace an existing residence. A municipality may grant a variance from this requirement under section 462.358, subdivision 6. Subd. lh. Comprehensive plans in greater Minnesota; open spaces. When adopting or updating a comprehensive plan in a municipality located within a county that is not a greater than 80 percent area, as defined in section 103G.005, subdivision 10b, and that is located outside the metropolitan area, as defined by section 473.121, subdivision 2, the municipality shall consider adopting goals and objectives for the preservation of agricultural, forest, wildlife, and open space land and the minimization of development in sensitive shoreland areas. Within three years of updating the comprehensive plan, the municipality shall consider adopting ordinances as part of the municipality's official controls that encourage the implementation of the goals and objectives. Subd. 2. General requirements. (a) At any time after the adoption of a land use plan for the municipality, the planning agency, for the purpose of carrying out the policies and goals of the land use plan, may prepare a proposed zoning ordinance and submit it to the governing body with its recommendations for adoption. (b) Subject to the requirements of subdivisions 3, 4, and 5, the governing body may adopt and amend a zoning ordinance by a majority vote of all its members. The adoption or amendment of any portion of a zoning ordinance which changes all or part of the existing classification of a zoning district from residential to either commercial or industrial requires a two- thirds majority vote of all members of the governing body. (c) The land use plan must provide guidelines for the timing and sequence of the adoption of official controls to ensure planned, orderly, and staged development and redevelopment consistent with the land use plan. Subd. 3. Public hearings. No zoning ordinance or amendment thereto shall be adopted until a public hearing has been held thereon by the planning agency or by the governing body. A notice of the time, place and purpose of the hearing shall be published in the official newspaper of the municipality at least ten days prior to the day of the hearing. When an amendment involves changes in district boundaries affecting an area of five acres or less, a similar notice shall be mailed at least ten days before the day of the hearing to each owner of affected property and property situated wholly or partly within 350 feet of the property to which the amendment relates. For the purpose of giving mailed notice, the person responsible for mailing the notice may use any appropriate records to determine the names and addresses of owners. A copy of the notice Copyright C 2012 by the Office of the Revisor of Statutes, State of Minnesota. All Rights Reserved. MINNESOTA STATUTES 2012 462.357 and a list of the owners and addresses to which the notice was sent shall be attested to by the responsible person and shall be made a part of the records of the proceedings. The failure to give mailed notice to individual property owners, or defects in the notice shall not invalidate the proceedings, provided a bona fide attempt to comply with this subdivision has been made. Subd. 4. Amendments. An amendment to a zoning ordinance may be initiated by the governing body, the planning agency, or by petition of affected property owners as defined in the zoning ordinance. An amendment not initiated by the planning agency shall be referred to the planning agency, if there is one, for study and report and may not be acted upon by the governing body until it has received the recommendation of the planning agency on the proposed amendment or until 60 days have elapsed from the date of reference of the amendment without a report by the planning agency. Subd. 5. Amendment; certain cities of the first class. The provisions of this subdivision apply to the adoption or amendment of any portion of a zoning ordinance which changes all or part of the existing classification of a zoning district from residential to either commercial or industrial of a property located in a city of the first class, except a city of the first class in which a different process is provided through the operation of the city's home rule charter. In a city to which this subdivision applies, amendments to a zoning ordinance shall be made in conformance with this section but only after there shall have been filed in the office of the city clerk a written consent of the owners of two- thirds of the several descriptions of real estate situate within 100 feet of the total contiguous descriptions of real estate held by the same owner or any party purchasing any such contiguous property within one year preceding the request, and after the affirmative vote in favor thereof by a majority of the members of the governing body of any such city. The governing body of such city may, by a two - thirds vote of its members, after hearing, adopt a new zoning ordinance without such written consent whenever the planning commission or planning board of such city shall have made a survey of the whole area of the city or of an area of not less than 40 acres, within which the new ordinance or the amendments or alterations of the existing ordinance would take effect when adopted, and shall have considered whether the number of descriptions of real estate affected by such changes and alterations renders the obtaining of such written consent impractical, and such planning commission or planning board shall report in writing as to whether in its opinion the proposals of the governing body in any case are reasonably related to the overall needs of the community, to existing land use, or to a plan for future land use, and shall have conducted a public hearing on such proposed ordinance, changes or alterations, of which hearing published notice shall have been given in a daily newspaper of general circulation at least once each week for three successive weeks prior to such hearing, which notice shall state the time, place and purpose of such hearing, and shall have reported to the governing body of the city its findings and recommendations in writing. Subd. 6. Appeals and adjustments. Appeals to the board of appeals and adjustments may be taken by any affected person upon compliance with any reasonable conditions imposed by the zoning ordinance. The board of appeals and adjustments has the following powers with respect to the zoning ordinance: (1) To hear and decide appeals where it is alleged that there is an error in any order, requirement, decision, or determination made by an administrative officer in the enforcement of the zoning ordinance. (2) To hear requests for variances from the requirements of the zoning ordinance including restrictions placed on nonconformities. Variances shall only be permitted when they are in Copyright © 2012 by the Office of the Revisor of Statutes, State of Minnesota. All Rights Reserved. 6 MINNESOTA STATUTES 2012 462.357 harmony with the general purposes and intent of the ordinance and when the variances are consistent with the comprehensive plan. Variances may be granted when the applicant for the variance establishes that there are practical difficulties in complying with the zoning ordinance. "Practical difficulties," as used in connection with the granting of a variance, means that the property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by the zoning ordinance; the plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner; and the variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. Economic considerations alone do not constitute practical difficulties. Practical difficulties include, but are not limited to, inadequate access to direct sunlight for solar energy systems. Variances shall be granted for earth sheltered construction as defined in section 216C.06, subdivision 14, when in harmony with the ordinance. The board of appeals and adjustments or the governing body as the case may be, may not permit as a variance any use that is not allowed under the zoning ordinance for property in the zone where the affected person's land is located. The board or governing body as the case may be, may permit as a variance the temporary use of a one family dwelling as a two family dwelling. The board or governing body as the case may be may impose conditions in the granting of variances. A condition must be directly related to and must bear a rough proportionality to the impact created by the variance. Subd. 6a. Normal residential surroundings for persons with disabilities. It is the policy of this state that persons with disabilities should not be excluded by municipal zoning ordinances or other land use regulations from the benefits of normal residential surroundings. For purposes of subdivisions 6a through 9, "person" has the meaning given in section 245A.02, subdivision 11. Subd. 7. Permitted single family use. A state licensed residential facility or a housing with services establishment registered under chapter 144D serving six or fewer persons, a licensed day care facility serving 12 or fewer persons, and a group family day care facility licensed under Minnesota Rules, parts 9502.0315 to 9502.0445 to serve 14 or fewer children shall be considered a permitted single family residential use of property for the purposes of zoning, except that a residential facility whose primary purpose is to treat juveniles who have violated criminal statutes relating to sex offenses or have been adjudicated delinquent on the basis of conduct in violation of criminal statutes relating to sex offenses shall not be considered a permitted use. Subd. 8. Permitted multifamily use. Except as otherwise provided in subdivision 7 or in any town, municipal or county zoning regulation as authorized by this subdivision, a state licensed residential facility serving from 7 through 16 persons or a licensed day care facility serving from 13 through 16 persons shall be considered a permitted multifamily residential use of property for purposes of zoning. A township, municipal or county zoning authority may require a conditional use or special use permit in order to assure proper maintenance and operation of a facility, provided that no conditions shall be imposed on the facility which are more restrictive than those imposed on other conditional uses or special uses of residential property in the same zones, unless the additional conditions are necessary to protect the health and safety of the residents of the residential facility. Nothing herein shall be construed to exclude or prohibit residential or day care facilities from single family zones if otherwise permitted by a local zoning regulation. Subd. 9. Development goals and objectives. In adopting official controls after July 1, 2008, in a municipality outside the metropolitan area, as defined by section 473.121, subdivision 2, the municipality shall consider restricting new residential, commercial, and industrial development so that the new development takes place in areas subject to the following goals and objectives: Copyright C 2012 by the Office of the Revisor of Statutes, State of Minnesota. All Rights Reserved. 7 MINNESOTA STATUTES 2012 462.357 (1) minimizing the fragmentation and development of agricultural, forest, wildlife, and open space lands, including consideration of appropriate minimum lot sizes; (2) minimizing further development in sensitive shoreland areas; (3) minimizing development near wildlife management areas, scientific and natural areas, and nature centers; (4) identification of areas of preference for higher density, including consideration of existing and necessary water and wastewater services, infrastructure, other services, and to the extent feasible, encouraging full development of areas previously zoned for nonagricultural uses; (5) encouraging development close to places of employment, shopping centers, schools, mass transit, and other public and private service centers; (6) identification of areas where other developments are appropriate; and (7) other goals and objectives a municipality may identify. History: 1965 c 670 s 7, 1969 c 259 s 1; 1973 c 123 art 5 s 7; 1973 c 379 s 4; 1973 c 539 s 1; 1973 c 559 s 1,2; 1975 c 60 s 2; 1978 c 786 s 14,15; Ex1979 c 2 s 42,43; 1981 c 356 s 248; 1982 c 490 s 2; 1982 c 507 s 22; 1984 c 617 s 6 -8; 1985 c 62 s 3; 1985 c 194 s 23; 1986 c 444; 1987 c 333 s 22; 1989 c 82 s 2; 1990 c 391 art 8 s 47; 1990 c 568 art 2 s 66,67; 1994 c 473 s 3; 1995 c 224 s 95; 1997 c 113 s 20; 1997 c 200 art 4 s 5; 1997 c 202 art 4 s 11; 1997 c 216 s 138; 1999 c 96 s 3,4; 1999 c 211 s 1; 2001 c 174 s 1; 2001 c 207 s 13,14; 2002 c 366 s 6; 2004 c 258 s 2; 2005 c 56 s 1; ISp2005 c 1 art I s 92; art 2 s 146; 2007 c 140 art 12 s 14; 2008 c 297 art I s 60,61; 2009 c 149 s 3; 2011 c 19 s 2 Copyright © 2012 by the Office of the Revisor of Statutes, State of Minnesota. All Rights Reserved. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT CHAPTER 2: APPLICATION REVIEWS AND PROCEDURES Section 2.4 Specific Review Procedures & Requirements Subsection (A) Comprehensive Plan Amendments (N) Reconsideration of Land Use Approval Applications No application for land use approval which has been denied by the City Council, in whole or in part, shall be reconsidered for a period of six (6) months from the date of City Council action on the application, except where there is substantial new evidence or proof of a change in conditions with respect to such application. Before any such reconsideration, the City may require the submission of the appropriate application fee and the application may be considered as a new application. 2.4 Specific Review Procedures & Requirements (A) Comprehensive Plan Amendments (1) Purpose and Scope This section sets out the procedure to follow when considering a change to the Comprehensive Plan. (2) Initiation of Proceedings Proceedings for the amendment of the Comprehensive Plan shall be initiated by one of the following: (a) An owner of property or an authorized representative of an owner pursuant to Section 2.3(B), Authority to File Applications; (b) Recommendation of the Planning Commission; or (c) Action of the City Council. (3) Application (a) All applications to amend the Comprehensive Plan shall be in accordance with Section 2.3, Common Review Procedures & Requirements. (b) In addition to the common review requirements, applications for Comprehensive Plan amendments shall also include the following: Section 2.3: Common (i) The name of the applicant; Review Requirements (ii) A narrative explaining the requested change and the reasons why the Comprehensive Plan should be amended per the request; (iii) The legal description of all real property proposed for change (if applicable); City of Monticello Zoning Ordinance Page 19 CHAPTER 2: APPLICATION REVIEWS AND PROCEDURES Section 2.4 Specific Review Procedures & Requirements Subsection (A) Comprehensive Plan Amendments (iv) The existing and proposed land use and zoning designations for all properties proposed to change (if applicable); (v) A map of the properties to be modified to a different land use category, showing the addresses and land uses for adjacent properties (if applicable); (vi) The proposed text and/or maps to be added, amended, or deleted from the Comprehensive Plan along with documentation as to the location of the text changes in the Comprehensive Plan, if applicable. (4) Review (a) Planning Commission Before any amendment is adopted, the Planning Commission shall hold at Section 2.311: Public Notification least one public hearing after proper notice has been issued in accordance with Section 2.3(I). Following the hearing, the Planning Commission shall adopt findings and recommendations on the proposed amendment as soon as practical. The Community Development Department may forward an application to the City Council without a recommendation from the Planning Commission only if it is deemed necessary to ensure compliance with state mandated deadlines for application review. (b) City Council The City Council may hold a public hearing on the amendment if they deem such necessary or it is deemed necessary by the Community Development Department. After consideration of the Planning Commission recommendation and /or hearing, if applicable, the City Council may adopt the amendment or any part thereof in such form as it deems advisable. Approval of an amendment shall require a majority vote of all members of the City Council except for amendments which change all or part of the existing classification of a zoning district from residential to either commercial or industrial which will require the approval of four- fifths of all the members of the City Council. (5) Approval Criteria Recommendations and decisions on Comprehensive Plan amendments shall be based on consideration of the following criteria: (a) Whether the proposed amendment corrects an error or addresses the need resulting from some changing condition, trend, or fact arising since the adoption of the Comprehensive Plan; Page 20 City of Monticello Zoning Ordinance ZONING TEXT OR MAP AMENDMENT CHAPTER 2: APPLICATION REVIEWS AND PROCEDURES Section 2.4 Specific Review Procedures & Requirements Subsection (B) Zoning Ordinance Text and Zoning Map Amendments (b) Whether the proposed amendment is consistent with the guiding principles of the Comprehensive Plan; (c) The extent to which the proposed amendment addresses a demonstrated community need; (d) Whether the proposed amendment will protect the health, safety, morals, and general welfare of the public; (e) The impacts on the natural and built environments, including air, water, noise, stormwater management, wildlife habitat, water quality, vegetation, drainage, streets, and other engineering design or environmental factors; (f) Whether the proposed amendment is compatible with existing and proposed uses surrounding the subject property; whether the proposed design and land uses are appropriate for the land; and whether the proposed amendment will maintain or improve compatibility among uses and ensure efficient development within the City; (g) Whether the proposed amendment will result in a logical, orderly and predictable development pattern; and (h) Whether the proposed amendment is consistent with the purpose of this ordinance. (B) Zoning Ordinance Text and Zoning Map Amendments (1) Purpose and Scope This section sets out the procedures to be followed in reviewing and considering a text change to this ordinance or an amendment to the zoning map with the exception of a map amendment to a planned unit development, which shall be subject to the procedures in Section 2.4(P), Planned Unit Development. (2) Initiation of Proceedings Proceedings for the amendment of the text of this ordinance or the zoning map shall be initiated by one of the following: (a) An owner of property or an authorized representative of an owner pursuant to Section 2.3(B), Authority to File Applications; (b) Recommendation of the Planning Commission; or City of Monticello Zoning Ordinance Page 21 CHAPTER 2: APPLICATION REVIEWS AND PROCEDURES Section 2.4 Specific Review Procedures & Requirements Subsection (B) Zoning Ordinance Text and Zoning Map Amendments (c) Recommendation of the Community Development Department; or (d) Action of the City Council. (3) Application (a) All applications to amend the text of this ordinance or the zoning map shall be in accordance with Section 2.3, Common Review Procedures & Requirements. (b) In addition to the common review requirements, applications for changes to the text of this ordinance or the Zoning Map shall also include the following: (i) The name of the applicant; (ii) A narrative explaining the requested modification and the reasons why the changes are supported by the Comprehensive Plan; (iii) The legal description of all real property proposed for change, if applicable; (iv) The existing and proposed land use and zoning designations for all properties proposed for change, if applicable; (v) A map of the properties to be modified to a different zoning designation, showing the addresses and zoning designations for the subject properties and the adjacent properties, if applicable; (vi) The location of the proposed text to be added, amended, or deleted in this ordinance, if applicable. (4) Review (a) Planning Commission Before any amendment is adopted, the Planning Commission shall hold at least one public hearing after proper notice has been issued in accordance with Section 2.3(I). Following the hearing, the Planning Commission shall adopt findings and recommendations on the proposed amendment as soon as practical. The Community Development Department may forward an application to the City Council without a recommendation from the Planning Commission only if it is deemed necessary to ensure compliance with state mandated deadlines for application review. Section 2.3: Common Review Requirements Section 2.3(1): Public Notification Page 22 City of Monticello Zoning Ordinance CHAPTER 2: APPLICATION REVIEWS AND PROCEDURES Section 2.4 Specific Review Procedures & Requirements Subsection (C) Variances (b) City Council The City Council may hold a public hearing on the amendment if deemed necessary by the Community Development Department. After consideration of the Planning Commission recommendation and/or hearing, if applicable, the City Council may adopt the amendment or any part thereof in such form as it deems advisable. The amendment requires the approval of four -fifths of all the members of the City Council. (5) Approval Criteria Recommendations and decisions on zoning amendments shall be based on consideration of the following criteria: (a) Whether the proposed amendment corrects an error in the original text or map; or (b) Whether the proposed amendment addresses needs arising from a changing condition, trend, or fact affecting the subject property and surrounding area. (c) Whether the proposed amendment is consistent with achieving the goals and objectives outlined in the comprehensive plan. (C) Variances (1) Purpose and Scope The Variance process is intended to provide limited relief from the strict requirements of this ordinance in those cases where strict application of a particular requirement will create practical difficulties due to circumstances unique to the individual property under consideration. It is not intended that Variances be granted to allow a use not permitted by the underlying zoning district, nor to merely remove inconveniences or financial burdens that the requirements of this ordinance may impose on property owners in general. Variances are intended to address extraordinary, exceptional, or unique situations that were not caused by the applicant's act or omission. (2) Initiation of Proceedings Variances shall be initiated by an owner of property or an authorized representative of an owner pursuant to Section 2.3(B), Authority to File Applications. City of Monticello Zoning Ordinance Page 23 Planning Commission Agenda: 04/02/13 6. Community Development Director's Report City Engineer — Statement from City Administrator Bruce Westby has resigned from his position as Monticello City Engineer after providing 7 years of service to the City. Bruce leaves to take a position as City Engineer for the City of Ramsey in Anoka County. His last day with the City of Monticello is Wednesday, April 3rd. Bruce leaves as his legacy the successful completion of a number of important transportation and infrastructure projects, along with the establishment of a foundation for future projects, which are now in the planning and development stage. This list includes: • Oversight of the development of the 2010 City of Monticello Transportation Plan, the City's foundation for Monticello's transportation network for the next 15 years • Development of City's Geographic Information System • Completion of NE Quadrant intersection improvements at TH Highway 25/ CSAH 75, and the successful development of funding sources for future intersection improvements • Planning, grant management and expansion of the community pathway network, including construction of CSAH 75 underpass and Great River trailways (to be constructed in spring 2013) • Assistance with recent planning for waste water treatment plant upgrades • Coordination of numerous road reconstruction projects • Staff support and direction for planning efforts for the future Fallon Avenue Overpass and 2nd Mississippi River crossing • Development of plans for the extension of 7th Street from Minnesota to Elm Street and improvements at 7th Street and TH 25 • Management of the build -out of numerous residential and commercial subdivisions • Formation of the Transportation Advisory Committee for the City of Monticello In addition to his efforts on these and other important engineering projects, Bruce has provided top notch, conscientious service to Monticello's citizens. His integrity and dedication to the residents and businesses of Monticello was a constant in his work. The City extends a sincere "thank you" to Bruce and wishes for continued success in his career as a City Engineer. The City Council and city staff are currently evaluating options for filling the City Engineer position. In the interim, engineering services for the City will be provided by the city's long- time consulting engineering firm, WSB & Associates. In addition to assisting with identifying work redistribution, WSB is preparing a proposal outlining projected costs associated with maintaining the new arrangement. This information will be used for budgeting purposes and as a resource for evaluating this interim direction. In summary, it is being recommended that the position is not filled at this time and see what happens with greater use of WSB. However, at some point in the near future, the concept of hiring an engineer will likely be revisited. Planning Commission Agenda: 04/02/13 Economic Development Position — Update from the City Administrator Subsequent to discussions with the EDA regarding the Economic Development position, a new idea for filling the need has emerged which staff will requests that Council consider jointly with the EDA in the near future. To follow is a quick summary of the idea. The concept involves utilizing the services of an economic development professional as a consultant, representing Monticello to prospects. The particular approach we would like to examine is novel because it involves multiple cities ( "competitors ") sharing the same individual (hired by WSB) for conducting prospecting and responding to prospects at the initial level. Staff believes that this idea has merit because we can reduce the costs of prospecting and could very well have better results. Yes, the consultant would have mixed loyalties because of representing multiple cities, but cities are in competition anyway and the consultant might have a better chance of getting noticed if representing multiple cities to a business prospect. The cost of this service would likely be less than that to hire our own staff person and could actually be a more effective method for the City of Monticello to get noticed. The details regarding this idea and how the position would function will be reviewed by the City Council and the EDA at an upcoming meeting. At the moment, we are putting the details of the proposal together, along with a list of issues or topics that might come to mind when thinking about this idea. We felt it important to evaluate this option before going further in hiring our own Economic Development professional. Communications & Planning Internships Staff interviewed a candidate for a 10 -15 hour /week communications internship. The candidate specializes in organizational communications and outreach, which would be highly beneficial to the City at this time. The communications internship is expected to begin in May and run for 10 weeks. Staff also met with St. Cloud State University regarding the possibility of instituting a regular fall semester Planning internship with the City of Monticello. At this time, we are awaiting word back from SCSU on the internship parameters. As Council will recall, the Community Development Department had an intern last fall. Ellen Eden interned for 12 weeks and provided valuable assistance and project support to the department. Comp Plan Update — Community Context & Economic Development Staff presented a project overview and a draft of the proposed amendments to the Comprehensive Plan's Community Context and Economic Development chapters during their March meeting. The IEDC requested additional time to review and will take up the items for recommendation at their April meeting. The EDA will also receive the Comp Plan for review and recommendation during their regular April meeting. It is staff's intent to bring the amendments to public hearing at the Planning Commission meeting on May 5', 2013. 2 Planning Commission Agenda: 04/02/13 Monte Club Hill Update Please find attached materials relating to a recent public meeting held by the Monticello City Council as related to the possible sale of the Monte Club site. At the conclusion of the meeting, Council directed that IRET (the potential developer) work with staff to obtain the necessary information needed to prepare a concept plan for the site. From that point, Council could continue consideration of the concept. Staff provided the IRET team with Monte Club site topography and utility information. We are now awaiting their response on the timing of a site visit and concept plan. 1RET has requested follow -up information on other potential sites, as well. 7th Street Extension On March 25th, the City Council approved the feasibility report for the extension of 7th Street West from Minnesota to Elm Streets. This important collector route connection is planned for 2014 construction, pending approval of plans and specifications and final outcomes of assessment hearings. Native Plantings Ordinance A tour of native planting locations will be scheduled for May. This tour was requested by the Commission in order to better evaluate the proposed Native Plantings ordinance, which was introduced this winter. Watch for more detail in your May agenda packet. Subdivision Ordinance The update of the subdivision ordinance has now been put on hold due to the resignation of the City Engineer and the current workload levels in both the Community Development and Building Departments. It is anticipated that the project will be picked up once the updates to the Comprehensive Plan have been completed and a timeline for filling the City Engineer position has been determined. The engineer plays a critical role in the ordinance's development due to the design standards and requirements specified within the subdivision ordinance. Agenda: 3/13/13 Consideration of Possible Development at "Monte Club Hill" site (AS /JO) A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: In January of this year, the City was contacted by IRET Properties regarding the possibility of developing a new multi - family apartment complex within Monticello. IRET Properties owns and manages a number of properties throughout Minnesota and North Dakota, including the Monticello Village Apartments. The company also works with design -build firms to develop multi- family projects, which IRET ultimately owns and manages long -term. Information on a number of potential sites was provided to IRET. The Monte Club Hill site rose to the top of their list of locations of interest. The City of Monticello currently owns five parcels on the Monte Club Hill, two of which are currently used for water tower infrastructure and parkland. The three other parcels were acquired with the development of the Jefferson Commons /River City Extreme project. They were the former home of the Monte Club supper club and total approximately 10. 12 acres. The southernmost parcels are those most likely to be developable, as they were the site of the club and its parking fields, although there are grade changes on the parcels that impact access and development area. The northern parcel is densely wooded with steep variations in topography. The parcels are guided as "Places for Community" within the Comprehensive Plan, which the Comp Plan uses as a designation for public and semi - public land uses. The parcels are zoned "A -O (Agriculture -Open Space) ", which is standard for properties annexed, but not developed. In late January, representatives of IRET met with staff in person and Mayor Herbst in to discuss their company, development concept, and the site in more detail. At this time, IRET is seeking feedback from the City Council on a willingness to guide the site for a higher -end multi - family product, and in that regard, a whether the Council is open to the sale of the property for development. Council will recall that in January of this year, the City adopted a new ordinance for higher density multi - family housing, allowable under a rigorous set of performance standards. As such, higher- density multi - family housing (including multi -story apartment buildings) is now allowable in an R -4 District. The City would need to first rezone property to establish an R -4 District. In some cases, including the Monte Club site, the City would also need to process a comprehensive plan amendment. During the workshop, IRET will provide an overview of their company, past and current projects, and their initial development concepts for Monticello. Following the presentation, staff has outlined a set of possible actions for Council to discuss in terms of next steps in considering the possible sale and development of the Monte Club site. Each will be reviewed in more detail at the meeting. 1. Develop a clear vision for the Monte Club by adopting a Public Values Statement for the site a. What is the site's cultural and actual value — how do these impact potential sale price? b. Should the land be public or private? Both? c. What type of development is desired? Commercial? Residential? Mixed Use? What type of development offers the best overall "value" to the taxpayers in terms of tax base, job creation, amenities, etc.) d. What performance standards should apply to the site and how do those standard impact value of the land/sale price? e. Does the Council wish to set physical development limits based on the character of the land? If Council elects this alternative as its first step, work could immediately begin on this step, and once complete, Council could move forward with option 2 or 3 below. Council could also choose to involve the Planning and Parks Commission in this discussion. 2. Allow IRET to proceed in working with staff on understanding site development and planning process a. Establish developable area, utility and access limitations and options b. Future: land use and site development process; finance planning, purchase agreement negotiations, etc. This option makes no commitment to IRET on entering into the development process, but rather allows staff to work with IRET in understanding the potential limitations and costs of developing the site prior to formal application and negotiations. 3. Develop and open an Request for Proposal process for development on the property a. Adherence to Public Values Statement b. Timeline for development c. Sale price With this option, it should be noted that some level of discussion similar to that proposed under alternative "1" above may be necessary, as it will serve to outline the parameters for RFP. Without a vision for the site, the RFP will not allow for an "apples to apples" comparison of proposals. While the City may 2 be open to seeing proposals for different types of development for the site (commercial vs. residential), the definition of certain performance standards, amenities or public areas will help in the final evaluation of RFPs. B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS: 1. Motion to begin the process for adoption of a Public Values Statement Develop for the Monte Club site. 2. Motion to allow IRET to proceed in working with staff on understanding the Monte Club site development and planning process. 3. Motion to begin work on a Request for Proposal process for the Monte Club site. 4. Motion of other. C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Monte Club Hill, "Little Mountain ", is the City's namesake and primary geographic landmark. Development of the site will forever change the site, for better or worse. As such, staff recommends taking a small detour to allow for a Council planning process which clearly defines the City's primary goals for the site. In addition, one of the most frequent criticisms of the City process is the lack of consistent and clear direction. Providing clear direction on site development parameters will lead to a clearer process for the developer, whomever that may be. It will also provide the Council with a firmer understanding of what it expects to achieve on the site and what value it hopes to gain overall. D. SUPPORTING DATA: A. Aerial Site Image B. Comprehensive Plan C. Zoning Map 3 CITY OF Montieflo s e I - J � N 0 Olt 7 "k i City park and water tower parcels_ Jr, JL _ _ _ . - : L - - . . `-- IF t 4L h. � li "•�. W y��1y RC r 7. 11A1 d L - 0rly Total acreage of 3 .4P or parcels: 10.12 AC L•� I - J � N 0 Olt 7 "k i City park and water tower parcels_ Jr, JL _ _ _ . - : L - - . . `-- IF t 4L h. �