Planning Commission Agenda 09-03-2013REGULAR MEETING
MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION
Tuesday, September 3rd, 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 August 6th, 2013
3. Citizen Comments
4. Consideration of adding items to the agenda
5. Continued Public Hearing — Consideration of a request for Comprehensive Plan
Amendment for a change in land use designation from Places to Shop to Places to Live
and a request for rezoning from B -4 (Regional Business) District to R -4 (Medium -High
Density Residence) District.
Applicant: IRET Properties
6. Public Hearing - Consideration of an amendment to Conditional Use Permit for Planned
Unit Development for the Monticello Big Lake Community Hospital District Campus
(CentraCare Health Monticello) for the relocation of an accessory use heliport.
Applicant: CentraCare Health System Monticello
7. Public Hearing — Consideration of a zoning text amendment to Title 10, Monticello
Zoning Ordinance, Chapter 4, Section 13(E) adding Wireless Telecommunications
Service Antennae and Antenna Support Structures as accessory uses on publicly owned
property by Conditional Use Permit, a request for Conditional Use Permit for Antenna
Support Structure in a R -2 (Single and Two - Family Residential) District, and a request
for Conditional Use Permit for Co- location of a Wireless Telecommunication Service
Antenna.
Applicant: City of Monticello and Verizon Wireless
8. Public Hearing — Consideration of a request for Amendment to CUP for Addition of
Equipment for Co- Location of Wireless Communication Antennae
Applicant: Faulk & Foster for AT & T Mobility
9. Public Hearing - Consideration of a request for amendment to the Official Zoning Map
for the City of Monticello for rezoning from R -2 (Single and Two - Family Residential) to
CCD (Central Community District), sub - district F -2 (Convenience and Services).
Applicant: City of Monticello
10. Upcoming Planning Commission Schedule
11. Community Development Director's Report
12. Adjourn.
MINUTES
MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION
Tuesday, August 6, 2013 - 6:00 PM -Mississippi Room, Monticello Community Center
Present: Brad Fyle, Charlotte Gabler, Sam Burvee
Absent: Bill Spartz, Grant Sala
Others: Angela Schumann, Ron Hackenmueller, Steve Grittman, Lloyd Hilgart
1. Call to order
Brad Fyle called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m.
2. Consideration to approve Planning Commission minutes
CHARLOTTE GABLER MOVED TO APPROVE THE JUNE 4, 2013 AND THE JULY 2,
2013 REGULAR MEETING MINUTES. BRAD FYLE SECONDED THE MOTION.
MOTION CARRIED 3-0.
3. Citizen Comments None
4. Consideration of adding items to the agenda None
Continued Public Hearine — Consideration of a reauest for Comprehensive Plan
Amendment for a change in land use designation from Places to Shop to Places to
Live and a request for rezoning from B-4 (Regional Business) District to R-4
(Medium -High Densitv Residence) District. Applicant: IRET Properties. Planning
Case Number: 2013-023
The Planning Commission had previously considered a request from IRET Properties to
change the land use and rezone the 5.2 acre property located at Lot 1, Block 2, Riverview
Square in preparation for developing multi -family housing. The public hearing was
continued to allow the Department of Natural Resources (DNR) the required 30 -days to
comment on the request due to its location within the Mississippi Wild & Scenic Overlay
District. The DNR expressed concerns about potential issues related to the view from the
river, clear cutting or removal of vegetation and stormwater management. The DNR will
monitor these concerns should the proposal move into the development stage.
IRET Properties submitted a letter requesting that their application be continued to the
September 3rd meeting to allow them an opportunity to conduct a neighborhood meeting.
Brad Fyle opened the public hearing.
The following area residents commented on the proposed plans: Mark Storey of 409
Riverview Drive, Pastors Dan and Dave Gasler, representing A Glorious Church at 300
Riverview Drive, Richard Burke, of 9800 Hart Boulevard and Dick Van Allen of 6448
Planning Commission Minutes — 8/06/13
River Mill Drive. Most stated that adding a four story, 92 unit building to the
neighborhood would result in increased stormwater runoff, traffic safety issues, a
perception of transiency, declining property values, and a disregard for the natural beauty
of the area. Some also spoke of frustration with continuing the hearing process.
Charlotte Gabler requested information about the number rental units by type and asked
about traffic flow at the intersection. Staff stated that the applicant has been made aware
of the potential need for a traffic analysis.
SAM BURVEE MOVED TO CONTINUE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT THE
SEPTEMBER 3' PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING. BRAD FYLE SECONDED
THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED 3-0.
6. Public Hearing - Consideration of a request for Amendment to Conditional Use
Permit for Planned Unit Development for retail development. Applicant: JR & R
II, LLC. Planning Case Number: 2013 - 027
The applicants, JR & R II, LLC, requested an amendment to Conditional Use Permit
(CUP) for a commercial Planned Unit Development (PUD) at 300 7th Street West (Lot 2,
Block 1 and Outlot C of the Kirkman Addition). They have proposed to re -use the
existing 86,000 square foot structure and parking area previously occupied by Kmart for
the operation of a principal retail use (Runnings store) with an accessory loading dock
and outdoor sales and display.
The existing CUP includes four parcels, zero -lot line development and cross parking and
access. The PUD includes two single -use principal buildings, a multi -tenant retail
building and associated parking field. The PUD amendment proposed addresses the
following:
• CUP - Retail > 10,000 SF in the L-8 (Freeway Commercial) sub -district
• CUP - Accessory use outdoor storage
• Variance — off street loading, dock length
• Variance - sign area square footage, free-standing signs
The L-8 sub -district requires no additional specific standards for CUP outside of the base
requirements for CUP.
Access An existing CUP for shared access will remain in place concurrent with the
amended PUD approval, guaranteeing both properties' use of the access points and
access drives.
Setbacks With the exception of the east property line, the current principal use structure
meets required setbacks.
Parking. With the exception of the loss of stalls as a result of adding cart corrals for the
proposed outdoor sales and display area, the footprint of the parking area will remain
2
Planning Commission Minutes — 8/06/13
unchanged. Parking lot maintenance is required per a private common area maintenance
agreement. Restriping the full parking field will be required.
Landscaping. Landscaping on the site is minimal and had been proposed to remain
unchanged. A landscaping plan will be required.
Lighting. The parking field lighting meets code requirements. A photometric plan will
be required.
Signage. A variance would be required to accommodate the 300 square feet free-
standing sign face area proposed. A certificate of survey will also be required.
Building Design. No changes to the footprint of the existing building or change in
materials to be used are proposed as part of the expansion.
Grading and Drainage. A grading and drainage plan will be required.
Outdoor Sales & Display/Outdoor Storage. The square footage of the original site plan
was reduced by an estimated 2,500 square feet to accommodate fire hydrant access.
Outdoor storage will be screened from view and surrounded by fencing. A photometric
plan and an encroachment agreement will be required.
Off -Street Loading — Variance
Off-street loading is a permitted accessory use within the CCD, however, a variance is
required to change the dock length dock to ensure adequate space for circulation and
truck exit/entry. A grading and drainage plan will be required as well.
Brad Fyle opened the public hearing.
The applicant's representatives, Scott Dahlke of Civil Engineering Site Design and
Wayne Elam of Commercial Realty Solutions addressed the Commission on three
Exhibit Z conditions.
Dahlke indicated that Runnings would prefer to plant 116 shrubs within the existing 3500
square feet of planting beds already available on the site rather than expand the
landscaping design to accommodate 200 shrubs. Schumann noted that there may be
additional opportunities, such as base planting at the monument sign and along the
storefront, to add plantings without adding islands.
Elam asked that the applicant be allowed a total of 300 square feet including an increase
in the size of the pylon signage and an additional 100 square foot monument sign as
allowed due to its Freeway Bonus sub -district location. The full 100 square feet of
signage may not necessarily be utilized on the 7th Street monument.
Dahlke clarified that the grading and drainage plan requested would be limited to the
recessed truck dock area. Drainage would collect in a catch basin which would tie into
Planning Commission Minutes — 8/06/13
the existing storm sewer and reduce runoff.
As there were no comments, the public hearing was closed.
Sam Burvee suggested that the sign ordinance be reviewed again since exceptions
continue to be made. Recent revisions to the sign ordinance have provided sign
compliance alternatives meant to encourage business within the community. The
ordinance may be considered when reviewing other such zoning housekeeping issues.
CHARLOTTE GABLER MOVED TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF
AMENDMENT TO CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR PLANNED UNIT
DEVELOPMENT FOR LOT 2, BLOCK 1, AND OUTLOT C, KIRKMAN ADDITION
AND LOT 1, BLOCK 1, MONTICELLO MALL, BASED ON A FINDING THAT THE
PROPOSED PROJECT IS CONSISTENT WITH THE INTENT OF THE
MONTICELLO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, AND RESULTS IN A DEVELOPMENT
THAT MEETS THE OBJECTIVES AND REQUIREMENTS OF THE CITY'S
PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT ZONING REGULATIONS AS FOUND IN
RESOLUTION 2013-058, SUBJECT TO THE CONDITIONS OUTLINED IN
EXHIBIT Z. SAM BURVEE SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED 3-0.
EXHIBIT Z — CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
Amendment to Conditional Use Permit for Planned Unit Development for Lot 2, Block 1, and
Outlot C, Kirkman Addition and Lot 1, Block 1, Monticello Mall, including
Conditional Use Permit for Retail over 10,000 SF in the L-8 (Freeway Commercial) sub -district
of the CCD, Conditional Use Permit for Accessory Use Outdoor Storage, Variance to Off-street
Loading and Variance to Sign Area
1. The applicant shall submit a revised site plan illustrating:
a. Placement of any proposed cart corrals which may result in additional parking
loss on a revised site plan.
b. Elimination of obstruction of the fire hydrant at the southwest corner of the site.
c. A certificate of survey illustrating final sign and fenceline placement shall be
submitted.
d. The north side of the storage area shall be screened from the public right of way.
2. Vehicle traffic in the dock area shall be for temporary loading and unloading purposes
only. No semi -trailer storage shall be allowed on site.
3. Restriping of the full parking field for the subject site shall be required. Restriping shall
be to required code dimensions.
4. The applicant will be required to provide a photometric plan verifying that all current site
lighting meets ordinance requirements for glare. All building and display lights shall be
code compliant by replacement or re -angling downward.
5. The applicant shall submit a landscaping plan illustrating the removal and replacement of
any dead or dying plan material and compliance with Table 4-4 of the zoning ordinance
4
Planning Commission Minutes — 8/06/13
for required plantings per site, to be located within existing parking lot islands and
planting beds.
6. The monument sign base shall be required to be architecturally similar to the principal
use building.
7. A photometric plan for any lighted signage shall be required at the time of sign permit
application.
8. The applicant shall reduce the size of the north pylon to 100 square feet to maintain code
compliance.
9. The applicant is required to submit a grading and drainage plan as a condition of
approval. The grading and drainage plan for the site must illustrate that the drainage
issue at the rear of the PUD buildings will not be compounded by the addition of the
recessed dock.
10. The applicants shall enclose trash handling equipment within the building, or within an
enclosure that is attached to the building and designed to blend with the overall building
architecture.
11. The applicant will be required to execute an encroachment agreement for the display area
and fence.
12. The applicants enter into a PUD Development Agreement guaranteeing compliance with
the terms of the PUD approval.
The City Council will consider this item at their August 12th meeting.
7. Community Development Director's Report
Monte Hill Club — The Planning Commission, Parks Commission and City Council will
meet to consider land use options onsite at the Monte Hill Club property at 5 p.m. on
August 12th.
Special Meeting — A special Planning Commission meeting has been tentatively
scheduled for 6 p.m. August 20th to consider land use and zoning issues related to a
potential telecommunications support structure.
8. Adiourn
CHARLOTTE GABLER MOVED TO ADJOURN THE MEETING AT 7:22 PM. SAM
BURVEE SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED 3-0.
Recorder: Kerry Burri _
Approved: September 3, 2013
Attest:
Angela Schumann, Community Development Director
5
5.
A.
Planning Commission Agenda — 09/03/13
Continued Public Hearing - Consideration of a request for a Comprehensive Plan
Amendment for a change in land designation from Places to Shop to Places to Live
and a request for rezoning from B -4 (Regional Business District to R -4, Medium -
Hi2h Density Residence District. Applicant: IRET Properties (NAC)
Property: Lot 1, Block 2, Riverview Square (southeast quadrant of
County Highway 39 and Hart Boulevard
The property consists of approximately 5.2 acres and is
currently vacant.
Planning Case Number: 2013 -023
REFERENCE & BACKGROUND
Request(s): Comprehensive Plan Amendment from "Places to Shop" to
"Places to Live" and rezoning from B -4, Regional Business
to R -4, Medium -High Density Residential District
Deadline for Decision: Originally 8/12/2013 (extended by Applicant request)
Land Use Designation: Places to Shop
Zoning Designation: B -4, Regional Business, and the Wild and Scenic
Recreational River Overlay District
The purpose of the "B -4" regional business district is to
provide for the establishment of commercial and service
activities which draw from and serve customers from the
entire community or region.
The purpose of this district is to protect and preserve the
scenic, recreational, natural and historical values of the
Mississippi River in the city by carefully controlling
development of this river corridor consistent with the state
Wild and Scenic River Act
Current Site Use: The site is currently undeveloped.
Surrounding Land Uses:
North: County Highway 39, Single Family Residential, R -1
East: Church and Twin Homes — R -1
Planning Commission Agenda — 09/03/13
South: Retail and Service — 13-2/13-3
West: Retail and Gas /Convenience - B -4
PROCESS UPDATE
The Planning Commission tabled action on the amendments and continued the public
hearing on August 6th to permit the applicants to hold a neighborhood meeting. That
meeting was held on August 20th, 2013. A copy of meeting notes is included with this
update. Also during this period, the City received comments from the Department of
Natural Resources indicating that it had no objections to the rezoning and Comprehensive
Plan amendment. Their comments were directed at both the land use and the general
concept layout for the site and building, although the site and building plans will be
subject to future CUP and variance consideration, as applicable.
The Alternative Actions below repeat the options from the original staff report, which is
included with this update.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS
Decision 1: Resolution of Recommendation for Comprehensive Plan amendment
reclassifying the subject property from "Places to Shop" to "Places to Live ", and
Rezoning to R -4, Medium -High Density
1. Motion to approve Resolution 2013 -052 recommending approval of the
Comprehensive Plan amendment reclassifying the subject property from "Places
to Shop" to "Places to Live ", and Rezoning to R -4, Medium -High Density
Residential, based on the findings identified in the Resolution.
2. Motion to deny Resolution 2013 -052, recommending a Comprehensive Plan
amendment reclassifying the subject property from "Places to Shop" to "Places to
Live ", and Rezoning to R -4, Medium -High Density Residential, based on findings
to be made by the Planning Commission.
3. Motion to table action on the request, pending additional information as identified
by the Planning Commission and staff report.
Planning Commission Agenda — 09/03/13
C. STAFF RECOMMWNDATION
Land Use amendments and rezoning applications are policy -heavy decisions, for which
there are rarely right or wrong choices. As noted above, the proposed land use change
from commercial to multi - family residential would have only minimal changes in traffic
and other impacts, and in some cases would likely lessen the impact on the City's
infrastructure.
The Comprehensive Plan, as now amended with the Embracing Downtown study
materials, can be read to support the rezoning, by taking steps that have the impact of
focusing commercial development toward the downtown area, away from competing
nodes. While this does not require the City to rezone undeveloped commercial land in
any way, the proposed rezoning for this site can at least be viewed as being consistent
with the City's land use policies in that way.
In some manner, the subject site should be able to function well under either commercial
or high - density residential regulations. While there are several areas of the community
that are zoned and can accommodate commercial land uses, the options for multiple
family residential are limited. Existing development patterns can often inhibit infill
higher densities, and finding compatible high- density sites can be a challenge. This
"alternative locations" factor supports the idea that rezoning to residential can be viewed
positively.
Finally, although unrelated to this proposal, the City has recently adopted an amendment
to its zoning ordinance that establishes a zoning district that allows higher density
residential development, but also places extensive requirements on that development to
meet the Comprehensive Plan goal of higher quality development in all categories.
Development of multiple family structures under that new district permit higher densities,
but also apply greater performance standards (along with a requirement for Conditional
Use Permit review) to ensure that the subsequent development proposal is consistent with
the City's objectives.
As a result, staff is supportive of the rezoning. There should be few, if any, negative
impacts on surrounding land uses. The comprehensive plan supports land use decisions
that have the effect of encouraging commercial development in the downtown area.
There are several options for commercial development in the City, but relatively few
competitive sites for high- density residential. And finally, the City's updated zoning
district helps to ensure that multiple family residential development will be done in a high
quality manner and be a credit to the community.
W�
D. SUPPORTING DATA
Planning Commission Agenda — 09/03/13
A. Resolution 2013 -052
B. Staff report for July 7, 2013
C. Aerial Site Image
D. Land Use Plan
E. Zoning Map
F. Applicant Narrative
G. Site Plan
H. Concept Drawing
I. Site Perspective Images
J. Height Perspective Illustrations
K. Neighborhood Meeting — NAC Staff Summary
CITY OF MONTICELLO
WRIGHT COUNTY, MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION NO. 2013 - 052
Date: September 3rd, 2013 Resolution No. 2013 - 052
Motion By: Seconded By:
A RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPTS AN
AMENDMENT TO THE ZONING MAP, REZONING FROM B -4, REGIONAL
BUSINESS TO R -4, MEDIUM -HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL, TOGETHER WITH AN
AMENDMENT TO THE COMPREHENSIVE LAND USE PLAN REGUIDING SAID
PROPERTY FROM "PLACES TO SHOP" TO "PLACES TO LIVE ", FOR THE
FOLLOWING DESCRIBED PARCEL:
LOT 1, BLOCK 2, RIVERVIEW SQUARE
WHEREAS, the property owner MMC Land Companies, together with IRET Properties as applicant,
have requested a comprehensive plan amendment and rezoning of the property named above; and
WHEREAS, said property is currently zoned B -4, Regional Business District; and
WHEREAS, the applicant proposes that the zoning map be amended to rezone the subject property
to R -4, Medium -High Density Residential District; and
WHEREAS, the property is designated as "Places to Shop" in the Monticello land use plan; and
WHEREAS, the designation "Places to Live" would accommodate multiple family residential
development; and
WHEREAS, the "Places to Live" designation would accommodate residential development that
would be compatible with the surrounding land uses; and
WHEREAS, high- density residential development can be adequately served by existing public
services, including utilities and roadways; and
WHEREAS, the proposed zoning would be consistent with the land use plan as amended; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Monticello finds that the proposed uses of the
property will be consistent with the intent of the Comprehensive land use plan and proposed zoning
district; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has conducted a public hearing on July 2, 2013, which was
continued to August 6th, 2013 and to September 3rd, 2013 to review the requests and receive public
comment on the rezoning; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission finds that the applicant has met the requirements for
Comprehensive Plan amendment and rezoning found in 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 amendment to the
Comprehensive Land Use Plan and a zoning map amendment to be identified as Ordinance #581.
ADOPTED this 3rd day of September, 2013 by the Planning Commission of the City of
Monticello, Minnesota.
MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION
I:
ATTEST:
Jeff O'Neill, City Administrator
William Spartz, Chair
Planning Commission Agenda — 07/02/13
5. Public Hearine — Consideration of a request for Comprehensive Plan Amendment
for a change in land use designation from Places to Shop to Places to Live and a
request for rezonine from B -4 ( Regional Business) District to R -4 (Medium -High
Density Residence) District. Applicant: IRET Properties (NAC)
Property: Lot 1, Block 2, Riverview Square (southeast quadrant of
County Highway 39 and Hart Boulevard)
The property consists of approximately 5.2 acres and is
currently vacant.
Planning Case Number: 2013 -023
A. REFERENCE & BACKGROUND
Request(s): Comprehensive Plan Amendment from "Places to Shop" to
"Places to Live" and rezoning from B -4, Regional Business
to R -4, Medium -High Density Residential District
Deadline for Decision: 8/12/2013
Land Use Designation: Places to Shop
Zoning Designation: B -4, Regional Business, and the Mississippi Wild and
Scenic Recreational River Overlay District
The purpose of the `B -4" regional business district is to
provide for the establishment of commercial and service
activities which draw from and serve customers from the
entire community or region.
The purpose of the MWSRR district is to protect and
preserve the scenic, recreational, natural and historical
values of the Mississippi River in the city by carefully
controlling development of this river corridor consistent
with the state Wild and Scenic River Act.
Current Site Use: The site is currently undeveloped.
Surrounding Land Uses:
North: County Highway 39, Single Family Residential, zoned R -1
East: Church and Twin Homes, zoned R -1
Planning Commission Agenda — 07/02/13
South: Retail and Service, zoned B -2/13-3
West: Retail and Gas /Convenience, zoned B -4
Zoning Map Amendment Standards
The applicants are seeking a rezoning and re- designation of the governing land use
requirements for the subject site from commercial ( "Places to Shop ") and B -4, "Regional
Business" zoning, to residential ( "Places to Live ") and R -4, "Medium -High Density
Residential" zoning. This is a fundamental change in land use direction for the subject
property.
While there are technical aspects to any land use and rezoning question, such as street
capacity, impacts on utilities, density and intensity of land use, and general impacts on
surrounding neighborhoods, a rezoning of this type is essentially a policy question.
Particularly in this case where the underlying zoning supports a highly intensive
commercial activity, a higher density residential designation does not lead to extreme
differences in impact.
It is important to consider the request for re- designation in the context of the potential of
one zoning/land use category to another — not (as is sometimes suggested by neighbors) a
change from a vacant property to a developed one. Any new development on the subject
property, whether under current or proposed zoning, will create significant new impacts
on traffic levels, infrastructure use, and other changes. For the Commission's reference,
the criteria for Comprehensive Plan Amendment have been included as supporting data.
The Zoning Ordinance also identifies the following standards for considering rezoning
(or other zoning ordinance) amendment requests:
2.4 (B) (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.
2
Planning Commission Agenda — 07/02/13
Of these, (b) and (c) are relevant to the current request. The Comprehensive Plan
question, item (c), is the primary policy consideration for the City, as the applicant
contends that conditions (from the time of the original commercial designation) have
changed dramatically, supporting the rezoning request. Therefore, as noted above, the
issue for consideration is the change from one land use designation to another.
When the property was originally platted and zoned for commercial use, the city required
the platting of an access street (Hart Boulevard) for primary access, and utility extensions
designed to be adequate to serve an intense commercial development. The applicants
suggest that the construction of a 92 unit multi - family residential building on the 5.2 acre
parcel as proposed would be feasible from an economic standpoint, manageable from an
infrastructure standpoint, and compatible with the existing land uses in the area.
As identified previously, the surrounding land uses are:
• B -4 Commercial to the west (both developed and vacant — uses include
gas /convenience store and retail);
• B -2 and B -3 Commercial to the south and southeast (both developed and vacant —
uses include print shop and bar /restaurant);
• R -1 Residential to the east (uses include two - family homes and a church); and
• R -1 Residential to the north, across County Highway 39 (uses are single family
residential).
The comprehensive plan amendment criteria requires that the City consider compatibility
with existing and proposed uses surrounding the subject properties. The proposed site
plan illustrates how a building could be constructed on the property to meet the
requirements of the zoning district, if rezoned to R -4. This specific plan is not under
consideration as a part of the rezoning, but is helpful in showing how the property could
be used if approved. The surrounding land uses are reasonably well isolated from the
proposed site. Perhaps the most "incompatible" use, the single family neighborhood to
the north, is separated from the proposed development site by at least 90 feet of road right
of way, as well as existing and required setbacks.
Traffic impacts from the project would be focused internally toward Hart Boulevard, just
as would any commercial development under the current zoning. From a traffic
generation standpoint, the proposed apartment project would be expected to generate
approximately 700 trips per day. A retail commercial development on this site would be
Planning Commission Agenda — 07/02/13
expected to generate around 1,000 trips per day, more if fast -food restaurant or other
convenience uses were part of a project.
The comprehensive plan amendment criteria identified in the zoning ordinance also
includes a reference to whether the amendment at addresses a demonstrated community
need. In a recent update to Chapter 2 Community Context of the Comprehensive Plan,
it was noted that almost 40% of the city's multi - family housing stock was constructed
prior to 1970. This suggests a need for updated multi - family housing units, developed
consistent with the comprehensive plan's overall goals for both step -up and life -cycle
housing.
Perhaps the greatest change since this site was platted and zoned — apart from economic
conditions — would be the City's adoption of the Embracing Downtown study as an
amendment to the Comprehensive Plan. This study re- focused the community's attention
on downtown Monticello development and redevelopment opportunities. Many of the
uses allowed in the B -4 District would be those that the City might encourage — under the
policies of the update Plan — to be located in the downtown area.
The considerations above examine the impacts of the rezoning on the site in question.
One of the related considerations for the City is how the reclassification of that land
might impact other "competitive" locations in the community. While the Embracing
Downtown project does not propose to "force" development to the downtown, it
encourages the City to take positive steps that support downtown development. The
zoning map envisions large areas of the community outside of the downtown that might
accommodate regional business activity. Paring down that regional commercial land
supply can be viewed as consistent with the Comprehensive Plan in this way.
Wild and Scenic Recreational River Overlay District Impacts. The Wild and Scenic
River Overlay District would not change under this request. There are impacts on a
proposed development under that district. These impacts would include a restriction on
potential building height, which is currently 25 feet in the MWSRR, rather than the 3 or 4
stories expected for a multiple family building. This would need to be addressed as a
variance from the MWSRR standard at the time of application.
Finally, with the rezoning application occurring on a site that is subject to the MWSRR,
the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources has 30 days to comment on the request.
A notice is being forwarded to the DNR staff. However, final action must await the
expiration of the 30 day period. Thus, the applicant should be notified of an extension to
the 60 day City decision period under MN Stat. 15.99, and consideration before City
Council will need to occur after the DNR has had the statutory opportunity for comment
on the request.
4
Planning Commission Agenda — 07/02/13
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS
Decision 1: Resolution of Recommendation for Comprehensive Plan amendment
reclassifying the subject property from "Places to Shop" to "Places to Live ", and
Rezoning to R -4, Medium -High Density
Motion to approve Resolution 2013 -052 recommending approval of the
Comprehensive Plan amendment reclassifying the subject property from "Places
to Shop" to "Places to Live ", and Rezoning to R -4, Medium -High Density
Residential, based on the findings identified in the Resolution. This motion
should include a condition that the City's 60 -day decision period is extended to
120 days, and that the DNR has the required opportunity to provide comment on
the rezoning.
2. Motion to deny Resolution 2013 -052, recommending a Comprehensive Plan
amendment reclassifying the subject property from "Places to Shop" to "Places to
Live ", and Rezoning to R -4, Medium -High Density Residential, based on fmdings
to be made by the Planning Commission. This motion should include a condition
that the City's 60 -day decision period is extended to 120 days, and that the DNR
has the required opportunity to provide comment on the rezoning.
3. Motion to table action on the request, pending additional information as identified
by the Planning Commission and staff report.
C. STAFF RECOMMNDATION
Land Use amendments and rezoning applications are policy - related decisions. As noted
above, the proposed land use change from commercial to multi - family residential would
have only minimal changes in traffic and other impacts, and in some cases would likely
lessen the impact on the City's infrastructure.
The Comprehensive Plan, as now amended with the Embracing Downtown study
materials, can be read to support the rezoning, by taking steps that have the impact of
focusing commercial development toward the downtown area, away from competing
nodes. While this does not require the City to rezone undeveloped commercial land in
any way, the proposed rezoning for this site can at least be viewed as being consistent
with the City's land use policies in such manner.
In some manner, the subject site should be able to function well under either commercial
or high - density residential regulations. While there are several areas of the community
that are zoned and can accommodate commercial land uses, the options for multiple -
family residential are limited. Existing development patterns can often inhibit infill
Planning Commission Agenda — 07/02/13
higher densities, and finding compatible high - density sites can be a challenge. This
"alternative locations" factor supports the idea that rezoning to residential can be viewed
positively.
Finally, although unrelated to this proposal, the City has recently adopted an amendment
to its zoning ordinance that establishes a zoning district that allows higher density
residential development, but also places extensive requirements on that development to
meet the Comprehensive Plan goal of higher quality development in all categories.
Development of multiple family structures under that new district permit higher densities,
but also apply greater performance standards (along with a requirement for Conditional
Use Permit review) to ensure that the subsequent development proposal is consistent with
the City's objectives.
As a result, staff is supportive of the land use amendment and rezoning. There should be
few, if any, negative impacts on surrounding land uses. The comprehensive plan
supports land use decisions that have the effect of encouraging commercial development
in the downtown area. There are several options for commercial development in the City,
but relatively few competitive sites for high- density residential. And finally, the City's
updated R -4 zoning district helps to ensure that multiple family residential development
will be accomplished in a high quality manner and be a credit to the community.
D. SUPPORTING DATA
A.
Resolution 2013 — 052
B.
Aerial Image
C.
Applicant Narrative
D.
Zoning Map
E.
Land Use Plan
F. Site Plan
G. Comparable Concept Image
H. Comprehensive Plan Amendment Review Criteria
L
Uousideerat9on of a request for Comprehensive Plan Amendment for a change in land use daignatiion franc Plats to Shop to Places to Live
and o request for rezoning from B-4 (Regional Business) District to R-4 (Medium -High Density Residence) District,
Lot 1, Block 2, River View Square,, PID # 155117002010
Cal
rI .. F
c
I
. j Ar
Y t�K
I
y
v
S"
-.0 Nfil
.•�Yl�� � iii
� y
'. K dA
w r
rl
Jil
Ir
MR
tom.. � w � �! #,• r ' *`b;J. ' S ea * � �
#
jr
` - , ` `.
SM
LLM
ct
a
a
0
.n
n
s
-14-1-
{ + e aaa as y
1 mob.
Ld
N
q
a
Q6
a
11'
TAKEN FROM ME
City of Monticello
Official Zoning Map
9P"W UN OVOW WAWd
ED
mm
IFW
El FIYT-�M
R-I
F
�-T
B-2 B 21
e
Power"
sumbeas mobb"
0-1
A-0
Da
On%
k"himmNsmats
m
LA
9P"W UN OVOW WAWd
ED
mm
IFW
El FIYT-�M
R-I
F
�-T
B-2 B 21
e
IRE TZ
PROPERTIES
RE: Lot 1, Block 2, River View Square
PID — R155 -177- 002010
IRET Properties has placed the parcel referenced above under contract with the hope to have the zoning changed from
Business District B4 to R4, which would allow density up to 25 units per acre. The existing parcel is 5.02 acres in size and
with the current setback requirements, we calculate that a 92 unit apartment community would be permissible under an
R4 zoning. Our intent would be to construct a Class A market rate apartment complex with underground parking.
IRET has owned and operated Monticello Village Apartments since 2004. During that time, the property has
continuously operated at or near full occupancy, which is an indication of a market that is in need of rental housing.
IRET has researched developing more apartments in Monticello in the past but determined that a project would not be
economically feasible due to the prior zoning requirements that drastically limited density.
The above referenced parcel has been for sale for several years as a commercial use opportunity. However, the fact that
it is removed from the other core retail centers in Monticello and the central business district makes it a less desirable
location for this use. Past interest in the site for commercial use has been limited and no successful sales have been
obtained
An apartment community on this site would very desirable. The location offers direct access to Interstate 94 and is in
close proximity to schools, entertainment and medical. Also, the primary uses in the immediate vicinity are light
commercial and multifamily housing so an apartment community would be a natural fit.
We feel that with the property's close proximity to shopping, banking, healthcare, schools, recreation and
transportation that a change in land use would be well suited for this location. The change would be supported by the
city's comprehensive plan and would enhance the existing city's assets in building a great place to live, work, shop and
play.
M2"-2711.
!o'r cP mnm�c Flu inn. ,
Pf#MEMVAVAMTM
P Address
regal Dualption tol, f CL, Rfkea
FrovmW W Number s- t- 00 VIC IQ .]J
PMPMMCWNEItMFCRMMN
Owner kame Iffln Rai I L r+a r✓
Owner Address
Owner ft22f&null - -
�riaai�'r� ifJllil
ApOkWft Wine R ,
t Address l S jftNwt.5� r f4r, k qA;� 1#
ii ant Phone /Email
APi►u ROM L — UM AMMM ME A"UCA"* FIN
Administretwe errs Not cable
Amendment to ordinance
Amendment +.scuw
Text Amendment + escrarr
Comff2henslkv Plan Amendment $200 +escrow
Conditiaml Use permit $M10 + esaM
Planned Unit Development
Ccailsborative $50 + Escrow
$2W + escrow
DeMopmem $200 +escrow
Final 50 + escrow
Site Plan Review +escrow
SicOch Wan Review Not appIcable
Subdivision
Simple 5ubdivislonlAdmMistratim Lot $20D + escrow
ComWmtion/Lot Line Adjustment
PnAEWM Plat $300 +esaow
Final Plat + escrow
$20D + escrow
VaCOM s.nxsnt or Aga Of v } $201) + escrow
I Piafl we CgmmbIzign 6 * $354
� v I
LAID UNAMICOM WW- R ikW INtROW _..
Commere>u1 do escrow kaddendd
0.3 Acres On i unit $500 ink -fam
4 30 ravers:. 2 }units $]000 based+ i00%rlit
12+ -MCM
LAND USEA"UCMXW F 4 MCM CALaMTHM
ToUd Faesfrom Above $
TouI Escrow from Above $
TOTAL TO BE PAID AT APPUCATMN $
sz�
Revised 5/80/2013
CITY OF MOrrMELLO
COMMMity iletirelopment
505 WWI" street, Stfft I
Meotiaallo, MIN 55352 Land Use Apptication
Pf#MEMVAVAMTM
P Address
regal Dualption tol, f CL, Rfkea
FrovmW W Number s- t- 00 VIC IQ .]J
PMPMMCWNEItMFCRMMN
Owner kame Iffln Rai I L r+a r✓
Owner Address
Owner ft22f&null - -
�riaai�'r� ifJllil
ApOkWft Wine R ,
t Address l S jftNwt.5� r f4r, k qA;� 1#
ii ant Phone /Email
APi►u ROM L — UM AMMM ME A"UCA"* FIN
Administretwe errs Not cable
Amendment to ordinance
Amendment +.scuw
Text Amendment + escrarr
Comff2henslkv Plan Amendment $200 +escrow
Conditiaml Use permit $M10 + esaM
Planned Unit Development
Ccailsborative $50 + Escrow
$2W + escrow
DeMopmem $200 +escrow
Final 50 + escrow
Site Plan Review +escrow
SicOch Wan Review Not appIcable
Subdivision
Simple 5ubdivislonlAdmMistratim Lot $20D + escrow
ComWmtion/Lot Line Adjustment
PnAEWM Plat $300 +esaow
Final Plat + escrow
$20D + escrow
VaCOM s.nxsnt or Aga Of v } $201) + escrow
I Piafl we CgmmbIzign 6 * $354
� v I
LAID UNAMICOM WW- R ikW INtROW _..
Commere>u1 do escrow kaddendd
0.3 Acres On i unit $500 ink -fam
4 30 ravers:. 2 }units $]000 based+ i00%rlit
12+ -MCM
LAND USEA"UCMXW F 4 MCM CALaMTHM
ToUd Faesfrom Above $
TouI Escrow from Above $
TOTAL TO BE PAID AT APPUCATMN $
sz�
Revised 5/80/2013
APi►u ROM L — UM AMMM ME A"UCA"* FIN
Administretwe errs Not cable
Amendment to ordinance
Amendment +.scuw
Text Amendment + escrarr
Comff2henslkv Plan Amendment $200 +escrow
Conditiaml Use permit $M10 + esaM
Planned Unit Development
Ccailsborative $50 + Escrow
$2W + escrow
DeMopmem $200 +escrow
Final 50 + escrow
Site Plan Review +escrow
SicOch Wan Review Not appIcable
Subdivision
Simple 5ubdivislonlAdmMistratim Lot $20D + escrow
ComWmtion/Lot Line Adjustment
PnAEWM Plat $300 +esaow
Final Plat + escrow
$20D + escrow
VaCOM s.nxsnt or Aga Of v } $201) + escrow
I Piafl we CgmmbIzign 6 * $354
� v I
LAID UNAMICOM WW- R ikW INtROW _..
Commere>u1 do escrow kaddendd
0.3 Acres On i unit $500 ink -fam
4 30 ravers:. 2 }units $]000 based+ i00%rlit
12+ -MCM
LAND USEA"UCMXW F 4 MCM CALaMTHM
ToUd Faesfrom Above $
TouI Escrow from Above $
TOTAL TO BE PAID AT APPUCATMN $
sz�
Revised 5/80/2013
LAID UNAMICOM WW- R ikW INtROW _..
Commere>u1 do escrow kaddendd
0.3 Acres On i unit $500 ink -fam
4 30 ravers:. 2 }units $]000 based+ i00%rlit
12+ -MCM
LAND USEA"UCMXW F 4 MCM CALaMTHM
ToUd Faesfrom Above $
TouI Escrow from Above $
TOTAL TO BE PAID AT APPUCATMN $
sz�
Revised 5/80/2013
sz�
Revised 5/80/2013
propertX Otarta 9�atei! _
I wn the tee title owner of the descrtbad property and I agree to this application. I certify that I am ht compliance
with all ordinance rrsgalrements and contiftions regarding other Qty approwl that have been prmiously granted.
pgnaturej
This applcation shell be processed In my name and I am the party whom the City owtact regarding the
application. I have completed all of the appFkaMe tAing requirements and t hereby admawiedgle that 1 have read
and fully understand the applicable prowislons of the City Ord] ices and current policies related to this
application and thatthe documents and information I have submitted also true and correct.
A"vCWWxA&%WMdROgWdftFM&MKrvW
1 acknowledge the Fees ik Escrow Purpose explanation below and hereby agree to pay all statemegtc..pgt dyed
pertairulsrg W a nee and CAty reutew.
C /4? /6?
Ylanenrte for ltetdew
MN Stale ISM allows a 60-day review period far final action on a bnd use appkatita, aria that app6icatlon is
found to be campleta. unless the City rascals the reubww parted and Im ncdft the appftnL brow request will
cwt be scheduled for public hearing or City rwbw until all rr quhW Information has been pmWded aced found to be
adequate by the Community Dxvadloprnent Departawn.
Pun pow of Pam & EW ON
fees: Tha application Sees are used for pubNaadan of the public hearing nattoe In the Ibtoca*glo Times, for
postap to mail the nxpkod notice to ambee kt ptopartiu = nutiirted by ordinance. and ram w4ft trims.
ftcrs The City uses osero w dqxmts forstaff and cwwj t re tine for ass rMAGW and prepraatlore of documents
related to On appllcmdom This may Include engineerin& kWk planner and anwh wnental pare r_ Should
the original ascrow beeutaeded, theappikant or responsible party Will be billed for all additional Services.
It is the polky of the City of Monticello to r squire applicants doe lend use mpproanals to reimburse the Chy for roosts
incary d M miaeving and aetirug upon applicaticM so thatthem costs arc am'- - by the tags *f the Citg.
These costs Include all of the CWs out -rat costs fw avemeq, Including the City's coats for rastew of the
appffcMM by the 0" stole oonaalting Engineey CmWitin g fir. City gtturvw, or other constdtarib.
The City vA1(rrwke the spp&=4 for these costs within 3 mw ft of final salon are the land use applicadw and
payrnwnt vrebil ba due n thRty pM d"& If papenarit is not aeeeiaad as rasquired bV this arawnant. the Cdr Will
promed ors awn to o or Ilan. Payerlsnt c* casts vs61 be rrsgedrtl6 WhMhwt o eppkWon is;rerMW or denbd.
10 WS 00 *113N QW JO */' '3N 44; 0 OW7 003�
miff
low -
C
jj
61
JQ 0,
or
90
C14
't
aQ
10
MONUCELLO APARTMENTS
MONTICELLO, MINNESOTA
PRELIMINARY
miff
�_ _ � .
+ *; -� .
�{
V J,
' '; ��
--------------- - - - - -- —_ —- -' =� "-
- - - - -- --
/ PRO O D
�l 4 T
APART ILD G
I %
I �
x �
4
i"
is i o r ° ,o
/ V
i
i
�P
ao
� � o P� n-
a( TO Srnic
MONTICELLO APARTMENTS
MONTICELLO, MINNESOTA 55362
P -105
Mlller
nacxrrecrs a sun.osas
Shortest distance from property line to the River = approximately 475 feet.
r
South property line, looking North towards the
River. Neighboring properties have no view of
the River.
Southwest property line, looking North towards
the River. Neighboring properties have no view
of the River
North property line, looking North towards the
River. The River cannot be seen from this
point.
North property line, looking Northwest towards
the River. The River cannot be seen from this
point.
This view is from Swan Park, located on the
River. The trees and foliage along the River is
consistent with this view.
This view is across the road from Swan Park,
looking Northwest. These properties are on
the River. The trees and foliage along the
River is consistent with this view.
This view is across the road from Swan Park,
looking Northwest. These properties are on the
River. The trees and foliage along the River is
consistent with this view.
This view is from Swan Park, located on the
River, looking South towards the Site. Very
heavy tree and foliage, typical along this view.
v --
This view is from Swan Park, located on the
River, looking South towards the Site. Very
heavy tree and foliage, typical along this view.
This view is from Swan Park, looking North
across the River. Very heavy tree and foliage
across the River. Very typical of the North shore
of the River. Difficult to see the buildings across
the River.
This view is from Swan Park, looking North
across the River. Very heavy tree and foliage
across the River. Very typical of the North
shore of the River. Difficult to see the buildings
across the River.
IRET�
PROPERTIES
Angela Schumann
Community Development Director
City of Monticello
505 Walnut Street, Suite 1
Monticello, MN 55362
Re: Planning Commission Meeting — August 6, 2013
Ms Schumann:
As a courtesy to the neighbors, IRET Properties, LLC, petitioner regarding the change of Land Use and Rezoning regarding
the property described as Lot 1, Block 2, River View Square Addition, Monticello, Minnesota, is requesting to table this
item from the Planning Commission Meeting agenda scheduled for tomorrow, August 6, 2013. It is IRET's intention to
organize a neighborhood meeting, at Monticello City Hall, to give the neighbors the opportunity to see the product type,
building design, landscaping and drainage design of the project. IRET would like this item to be placed on the agenda for
the September 3, 2013 Planning Commission meeting. Thank you for your consideration regarding this matter.
Sincer l ",
6dy Martin, CP
Senior Vice President — Residential Management
IRET Properties
4150 Second Street South, Suite 410
St. Cloud, MN 56301
320.251.6998 (phone) 1320-251-6935 (fax)
amartin @iret.com
iret.com I iret#roperties.com I NYSE Symbol: IRET
a subsidiary of Investors Real Estate Trust
NORTHWEST ASSOCIATED CONSULTANTS, INC.
4800 Olson Memorial Highway, Suite 202, Golden Valley, MN 55422
Telephone: 763231.2555 Facsimile: 763.231.2561 planners @nacplanning.com
MEMORANDUM
TO: Steve Grittman
FROM: Bob Kirmis
DATE: August 21, 2013
RE: Monticello - Monticello Apartments (IRET Properties)
Neighborhood Meeting
FILE NO: 191.08
Prepared at your request, this memorandum is intended to summarize comments
received at the IRET Properties neighborhood meeting held on August 20, 2013 (at 6:00
pm) at the Monticello Community Center.
The purpose of the meeting was to provide an opportunity for the developers of the
Monticello Apartments project (IRET Properties and Miller Architects and Builders) to
introduce the project to neighboring residents, receive informal feedback and answer
questions.
The meeting was attended by approximately 50 persons.
At the start of the meeting, the project developers introduced themselves and the
project to meeting attendees. In this regard, the following was conveyed:
• The development plans call for the construction of a 92 unit luxury apartment
building. The units are to be market rate with no age restrictions.
• Proposed amenities include underground parking, a swimming pool and health
center.
• IRET has developed similar apartment complexes all over the Midwest and
strives to maintain long -term ownership of its buildings. Photos were displayed
of similar developments located in the Cities of St. Cloud and Rochester.
• IRET's studies indicate that there is a very strong market for luxury apartments in
Monticello.
• The developers feel that a high density residential use will provide a desirable
transition between existing low density residential and commercial uses in the
area.
As part of the project, the developers indicated that park dedication (cash
contribution) will be required.
In order to achieve a financially successful rental project, a density of 15 units per
acre or more is necessary.
Following the introduction of the project, comments and questions were entertained. In
this regard, meeting attendees offered the following comments /questions:
• The excessive number of families (92) introduced to the area will have a negative
impact upon existing area residents.
• Concern was raised regarding the depreciation of area property values which will
result from the project.
• Question was raised whether the proposed facility will include any specific
amenities geared toward children.
• The developers were asked to explain the benefits that the project would bring to
the City.
• A number of meeting attendees expressed concern over the proposed structure
height, feeling the building is excessive in this regard.
• Multiple persons expressed concern over the amount of traffic which will be
generated by the proposed use and the resulting negative impacts upon the
neighborhood.
• An area resident asked for a show of meeting attendee hands identifying persons
in favor of the project (a small minority conveyed support).
• A meeting attendee expressed concern over child safety.
• Question was raised regarding anticipated apartment rents ($800 - $1,200
according to the developer).
• A meeting attendee claimed that County approval of the project is also likely
required. The same person raised concern over the possibility of minority
populations occupying the proposed apartment building.
• An area resident indicated that his property was purchased with an expectation
of future commercial development upon the subject site. In this regard, he has
long anticipated businesses which will benefit the commercial needs of the area.
• A number of area residents expressed a preference of commercial rather than
high density residential development upon the subject site.
• One area resident expressed displeasure with the developer /City attempts to
"sneak" the project through the approval process.
• Concern was raised over increased crime which "will" result from the project. It
was also noted that the City Police Department lacks staff to ensure area safety.
• A number of area residents indicated that they preferred the "Monte Club" site to
the site in question.
• An area resident questioned the City's ability to provide utility services to the
subject site.
• A resident stated that the proposed project will not benefit him in any way.
2
• A meeting attendee asked the developers if they would like to reside next to the
proposed apartment building.
• A resident stated that the project is not compatible with nearby single family
residential uses and will result in the loss of Monticello's small town identity.
• Question was raised as to whether or not the developer would be responsible for
area drainage problem which result from the project.
• Questions were raised by multiple persons as the whether or not the project
would prompt the installation of a nearby stoplight and roadway improvements.
• An area resident questioned the build time for the project (8 -9 months per the
developer).
The meeting concluded at approximately 7:20 pm
Please let me know if you have any questions.
3
6.
A.
Planning Commission Agenda — 9/03/13
Consideration of a request for an amendment to a Conditional Use Permit for a
Planned Unit Development for the Monticello Bit Lake Community Hospital
District Campus (CentraCare Health Monticello) for the relocation of an accessory
use heliport. Applicant: CentraCare Health System, Monticello (NAC)
Property: 1013 Hart Boulevard
The site for the helipad is located in the west hospital /clinic
parking lot, relocated from its original site near the hospital
entrance drive.
Planning Case Number: 2013 -028
REFERENCE & BACKGROUND
Request(s):
Deadline for Decision:
Land Use Designation:
Zoning Designation:
Current Site Use:
Surrounding Land Uses:
Amendment to Conditional Use Permit for PUD
September 22nd, 2013 (60 days)
Places for Community
B -2, Limited Business District
The purpose of the "B -2" Limited Business district is to
provide for low intensity retail or service outlets which deal
directly with the customer for whom the goods or services
are furnished. The uses allowed in this district are to
provide goods and services on a limited community market
scale and located in areas which are well served by
collector or arterial street facilities at the edge of residential
districts.
The current use of the site is for hospital and clinic, with
the area in question utilized as a parking lot serving both.
North: Residential, mix of R -1 (Single Family Residential) and R-
2 (Single and Two - Family Residential) and Public
Park/Mississippi River
East: Hospital and clinic, zoned B -2 (Limited Business), lie
directly to the east of the parking lot subject area. To the
Planning Commission Agenda — 9/03/13
east of the hospital campus itself is a medium to high
density residential use, zoned R -3 (Medium Density
Residential), with a Performance Zone Overlay.
South: Middle School, zoned A -O (Agriculture /Open Space)
West: Residential, zoned R -2 (Single and Two - Family
Residential) and a personal service use, zoned B -2 (Limited
Business)
Project Description: The applicant seeks approval of a relocation of the heliport,
for a temporary period, previously located near the entrance
drive to the hospital from County Highway 75. The
relocation is necessary to comply with DOT Aviation
requirements for flight path and other locational factors that
have made the original location no longer compliant. Two
alternative arrival /departure paths are required by DOT
Aviation to permit the location. The temporary period for
this location is expected to be for up to two years, pending
the results of the hospital's investigation into an alternative
permanent location.
Ordinance Requirements: The zoning ordinance allows clinics and hospitals as
permitted uses in the B -2 zoning district. The heliport is a
conditional accessory use for the hospital, and as such
requires an amendment to the PUD approval for the
hospital campus, approved previously by Conditional Use
Permit.
ANALYSIS
Earlier this spring, CentraCare was notified by DOT Aviation representatives that the
current helipad location no longer met DOT Aviation guidelines relative to the proximity
of the pad to CSAH 75. The hospital was given two options: move the helipad or work
with Wright County to close CSAH 75 when helicopter traffic was incoming/outgoing.
Since the time of the DOT notification, the helipad had been closed and the hospital has
been working on development of an alternate location. The City Council granted the
hospital a temporary use permit in late July for the relocation to the proposed area,
contingent on the application for PUD amendment. The applicant was made aware that
the PUD amendment was subject to a separate review and hearing.
Planning Commission Agenda — 9/03/13
The relocation of the helipad requires minimal site improvements, including pavement
markings, temporary obstruction barricades, and the addition of warning lights to existing
poles.
At the present time, the hospital has indicated that helicopter landings are and will be
variable, with 5 -10 per month. Security /maintenance staff for the hospital are present for
all landings and takeoffs and will continue to be present under any temporary
arrangement. Staff block off the heliport area during all landings and take -offs. Patients
are transported from the hospital to the landing area by ambulance.
CUP Requirements. The ordinance specifies that "Heliports shall be limited to hospitals
which require such for responding to medical emergencies." This condition has been met
with this application. No other conditions are listed by ordinance.
MWSRR. The entire hospital property is located within the Mississippi Wild Scenic &
Recreational River Overlay District. The DNR received proper notification of the
hearing and has no comment on the application.
Parking. The helipad will consume some of the existing parking during the interim
period. However, the loss will occur in the western-most parking area that is often not
utilized. The total parking stall loss is approximately 20 spaces on the site for the landing
area, with additional loss during actual landing /take -off periods. In reviewing provided
square footage of the various hospital uses and considering that the hospital PUD
includes a cross parking agreement with the Middle School, south of the County
Highway 75, the balance of parking available on the site is considered suitable for this
amendment.
Lighting. The helipad is located in a lighted parking lot, with a requirement that some of
the parking lot lights will be removed to accommodate the approach /departure paths. The
helipad itself will typically have aeronautic lighting requirements dictated by FAA
requirements — those are illuminated during operations. The hospital has indicated that
they will be required to post obstruction lighting for existing power poles in the area, as
well.
Signage. No changes to site signage are anticipated as a result of the helipad relocation,
outside of ground markings and directional and safety messaging.
Building Design. NA
Access and Circulation. Changes to circulation in the parking lot will occur as a result
of the project. Portions of the parking lot have been demarcated for closure, leaving
parking lot circulation only around the south and west sides of the helipad. The signalized
L;
Planning Commission Agenda — 9/03/13
intersection at Hart Boulevard can be triggered to a stop condition during helicopter
service, which will prevent additional traffic from entering the site during landings and
take -offs and eliminate potential vehicle conflicts with ambulance service to the heliport
Noise. The closest residential uses are within 150' of the proposed site and therefore the
noise impacts of the proposed relocation must be considered. The hospital has provided
information on the decibel levels associated with the helicopters which will use this
heliport, as well as information on sound equivalents. The decibel level average is 85 -87
dB. That is the sound equivalent of heavy traffic and household appliances such as a
vacuum or blender. The sound will be audible at property lines during stationary time on
the landing pad and as the air traffic moves overhead.
As noted, the hospital has indicated that use of the heliport is intermittent, with
approximately 5 -10 landings per month. As such, due to the nature of the use and the
intermittent nature of landings, the noise impacts will not be sustained and can be
supported under the PUD.
Staff has noted that the 135 degree arrival /departure path would minimize over - flights of
residential property and has therefore included a recommendation in that regard.
However, the City does not have authority to require compliance with this condition
under aviation rules.
Grading and Drainage. NA
Utilities. NA
Summary.
An amendment to the PUD permitting a temporary relocation of the original helipad is
necessary due to flight regulations and concerns over inadequacy of that location. The
hospital is investigating alternative permanent locations that will meet both state and
federal regulations and site conditions, for which a final PUD amendment will likely be
pursued within the next two years.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS
Decision 1: Resolution of Recommendation for Amendment to CUP for PUD
1. Motion to approve Resolution 2013 -069 recommending approval of an
amendment to Conditional Use Permit for PUD, based on findings as found in
said resolution, with a non - binding recommendation that the 135 degree
Planning Commission Agenda — 9/03/13
arrival /departure path is utilized as the primary route to minimize over - flights of
residential property.
2. Motion to deny Resolution 2013 -069 recommending an amendment to
Conditional Use Permit for PUD, based on findings to be made by the Planning
Commission.
3. Motion to table action on the request, pending additional information as identified
by the Planning Commission and staff report.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends Alternative 1 and approval of Resolution 2013 -069. The heliport is an
integral accessory use to the hospital and provides necessary emergency service to the
local community. This recommendation is based on the understanding that the hospital
intends to find a permanent location for the heliport that is more central to the campus
site.
It should be noted that the resolution included for adoption requires the hospital to
propose a new location by December 2015, or to request from the City Council an
extension of the amended CUP.
D. SUPPORTING DATA
A.
Resolution 2013 -069
B.
Aerial Image
C.
Official Zoning Map
D.
Applicant Narrative
E.
Application Site Plans
F.
Flight Path Information
G.
Sound Level Information
H.
Site Images
4
CITY OF MONTICELLO
WRIGHT COUNTY, MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION NO. 2013 - 069
Date: September 3, 2013 Resolution No. 2013 -069
Motion By: Seconded By:
A RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVE A AN
AMENDMENT TO CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR PLANNED UNIT
DEVELOPMENT FOR THE MONTICELLO -BIG LAKE COMMUNITY HOSPITAL
(CENTRACARE HEALTH MONTICELLO), APPROVING THE TEMPORARY
RELOCATION OF THE HELIPORT FACILITY AT:
1013 Hart Boulevard
Lot 1, Block 1, Monticello Big Lake Community Hospital Campus, 2 °d Addition
WHEREAS, the property owner Monticello -Big Lake Community Hospital District, as applicant, has
requested an amendment to its Planned Unit Development; and
WHEREAS, said property is currently zoned B -2, Limited Business District; and
WHEREAS, the amendment provides a temporary relocation of an accessory helicopter pad; and
WHEREAS, the relocation had been required under DOT Aviation rules for safe and proper
emergency flight operations; and
WHEREAS, the use of the helipad is a vital and important aspect of hospital operations for public
health and safety; and
WHEREAS, the relocation is temporary, pending a permanent location on the site; and
WHEREAS, the facility creates no additional burdens on other infrastructure or public safety
conditions in the area; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Monticello finds that the proposed uses of the
property will be consistent with the intent of the Comprehensive land use plan and proposed zoning
district; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has conducted a public hearing on September 3, 2013 to
review the request and receive public comment on the rezoning; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission finds that the applicant has met the requirements for a
Conditional Use Permit for Planned Unit Development;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the Planning Commission of the City of
Monticello, Minnesota:
The Planning Commission recommends that the City Council approve the Conditional Use Permit for
a Planned Unit Development, for a period to terminate on December 31, 2015, subject to extension
by the City Council and with a non - binding recommendation that the 135 degree arrival /departure
path is utilized as the primary route to minimize over - flights of residential property
ADOPTED this 3rd day of September, 2013 by the Planning Commission of the City of
Monticello, Minnesota.
MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION
By:
William Spartz, Chair
ATTEST:
Jeff O'Neill, City Administrator
Consideration of an amendment to Conditional Use Permit for Planned Unit Development for the Monticello Big Lake Community Hospital District
Campus (CentraCare Health - Monticello) for the relocation of an accessory use heliport.
Lot 1, Block 1, Monticello Big Lake Community Hospital District Second Addition, 1013 Hart Blvd., PID # 155208001010
f,4onticello Geographic Information System 1 kith 21 7_1918781 feet
•! leuend
40
Ilk
` c j
Legend
BASE ZONING DISTRICTS
Residential Districts
Low Residential Densities
A -0
R -A
R -1
Medium Residential Densities
T -N
R -2
C R -PUD
High Residential Densities
- R -3
- M -H
-------------------
pn
Business Districts =
B -1
B -2
B -3
. B -4
CCD
Industrial Districts
IBC
1 -1
1 -2
OVERLAY DISTRICTS
Performance Based Overlay District
Special Use Overlay District
Mississippi Wild, Scenic & Rec Overlay District
Shoreland District
Freeway Bonus Sign District
OTHER
water
City of Monticello
Official Zoning Map
S
��'
------------------
CENTRACARE Health
Monticello
City of Monticello
Community Development
505 Walnut Street
Monticello, MN 55362
Council Members:
CentraCare Health- Monticello is requesting an amendment to our PUD based on the temporary relocation
of our helipad.
Environmental /Campus Impact
The temporary pad will be located in the west parking lot. The scope of work for this project will include
3 large light poles and 4 shorter poles to be removed and capped with a weather rated metal box. (to be
reinstalled after a permanent site is completed), removal of rock from islands and addition of cement into
these islands to ensure no loose soil would be stirred up during landing and takeoff, removal of 3 trees,
which will be spaded and transplanted on the property, adding additional power line markers and
installation of 4 power poles and electrical for required obstruction lighting, and finally painting on the
required design "H" and safety zone to signify the takeoff and landing area. The total size of the helipad,
within the circle, including the safety zone is 8660 square feet.
Attached is a location map showing the new location of the helipad on our campus and location of new
poles, removed poles and trees which will be relocated.
Safety and Security
Lines will also be painted on the asphalt designating no parking areas. Hospital staff will be at the site for
all landings and takeoffs to further ensure site security. The windsock will be relocated to be near the
landing site for clear visibility for the pilots. The EMS Director in conjunction with the EMS Medical
Director, ED Medical Director and the ED Manager have developed staffing and response plans for
transport of patients to the helipad. Note in red, on the above attached document, the route the ground
ambulance will take to get to the new helipad. Hospital maintenance staff will ensure that the helipad and
adjacent areas are keep free from sand and debris.
Parking /Space
We currently have 680 parking spaces on campus. The temporary helipad site would take approximately
25 spaces for the pad and an additional 30 spaces to ensure parked vehicle safety. In monitoring the west
parking lot over the last four months, we found that area to be unoccupied by vehicles and feel there
would be not a negative parking impact to the campus. Attached is a usable campus square footage chart.
Noise levels
Included are 2 attachments to address noise level in decibels from a helicopter landing or taking off.
Helicopters create approximately 85 decibels for 4 minutes (standard takeoff or landing time). As noted in
the noise level chart this is comparable to a vacuum cleaner or blender. We expect approximately 5 times
a month that a helicopter would be dispatched to land here. The temporary site is approximately 100 yards
from the old site, so there should not be a notable difference from the noise level neighbors previously
experienced.
I'm available at any time to address any questions or concerns you may have.
Sincerely,
Mary Lanegran
Director of Facilities
CentraCare Health- Monticello
MISSISSIPPI
RIVER
se �- did$. -^"�•.
OTO, C* �®
W D �
s {
•• 4 G
a�� ^ b
1s Fey `� LOT 7, BLOCK , �_� : -�-
-
VIM — I
f .
®� •�»a�;
i
y 11 r
k BROADWAY srn'
.. -----•-. _ � l,! R
•
0
CeaMCAFE
Hmlh
>
IMMODello
SYMBOLS
Q RIAB
SELL
n MBAL LEK - -- TA "MAN
BSETAE
— RA BR R MOAEB SALL
AT� LINE
EAATIAN=
- — - RA,EA W L
- - - RATER SEA L
o APENINO NM ER
DONE] ROAM NUMBER
�fo�=aN=
o = R
° & PE DOOR
NUMBER
$ LA.OUT POINT
A REM
' TAN
o°RAMP TPPE
���� T D— sloE
INDICATION OF MATERIALS
CONCRETE
(ILAN AKw)nrEiE1
PANEL cTNo
BRICK
CONCRETE BLACK
5TANE
_EL
ALUMINUM
PSUM ROPRA
souNA ATTeNUAnrINO
wsuLAnoN -RlclB
ENESS _ REED NIT
S1.A C11—
S1.A (EINIT)
PLISo
COARSE GRASEL
tillll lW GRADE
SAND /AINTTECTURPL FREIRA
Temporary Helipad
CentraCare Health Monticello
MONTICELLO, MINNESOTA
ABBREVIATIONS
ARCHITECTURAL
. \0.1
TITLE SHEET
�CN
OFF A�,ALEIL LOOK
A.
AC ACCE53 DONEE
A— ARCL ALLEN WUEN"T ,
D11 D °�N° sA,�AN
ED BOADD NAB
11 NT° °°
ARAAINA �LT
a ^1CNEL OI IIN R� A1P11N w 1 °° °
AN / ELEKATAR
�N
SITE DENIOWTIOV PLAN
° °T �R „,
NET
Ao�
;D
°
N°:E°o�N
IGIENICI
-PIN111 I BL°E°,OR
SITE PL AA WEST
�=EA
��P,Oa
N.TEa�w
AN ,ILL
IA NNPL WALL °o°ERINA
A ° T
DTSN °ETwELN
AR
°K' °” a�TUD,
Ali
„ °,
°
ED
A
¢ �EN,ER LINE �N,La
IN 1AT11 IRAN MINUTE
EO R«Ia
��
°a�.
RLN I
NE° °AaNLT s E°
N,=
N °T T° �E
11 APEN� R
K. TRINE”
NUM °ER 1P °°N°=,
f
ET nNII KNIT
° °�
RAN WATER L<IDER
RIPS
Ro�N01 AREIER
COULP CONTRACTOR
CP
CFO 000FA
IT 1111M C
ILL IIENIT UNIT 1-11
°a�A PANEL
1E
L11
U/C
LNFN
LICOAL
UN "ED
m �E. MEOAIE EAAT
ANGLE
PROJECT DIRECTORY
OWNER
CENTRACARE HEALTH SYSTEM
MONTICELLO
1013 Hart Boulevard
Monticello, Minnesota 56362
CONTACT: DAVID LARSON
320 - 255 -5747
ARCHITECT MECHANICAL & ELECTRICAL
Pope Associates Inc. Design / Build
1255 Energy Park Drive
Saint Paul, Minnesota 55106
651 -642 -9200
SHEETINDEX
= ISSLIIT) IIRA ING
- IJIt {VVI Nfi I55U'Ll IIIR I2 F:1 RItFNf:I IUNI I
ARCHITECTURAL
. \0.1
TITLE SHEET
A2.1
SITE DENIOWTIOV PLAN
A22
SITE PL AA WEST
A23
MIL KID AI. NAS'I
Ali
N L LI ISAID KID kA
A2
11, IM11
SITE D
_p., EMOLITION PLAN
uatm
0
I
F
�F
S
6 "o
'" % 10"
(,�7\I �l
SITE PLAN -WEST
.�z.z vas ° =r -o"
uatm
F
I --,
9 \
i
i
4„
6 �
4,0
(1)
o (Z)
o
El
0, O
r
AG
\
\
\ x,
SITE PLAN —EAST
.�z., vas „_�,_p.,
uatm
(� I
F
I
I
11 El I*r I.N.111
— — — — — — — — — — —
#goo ftft*
F —U'N
F-'
7
10 45 N Iq
30'
1D,
x �xrx�o� �r .�� � `
AMEME.7
—E7S.W
H L!
�D PLAN
,
F
R MIR Ml
FLIGHT -RIVER PATH
wzs T PATH SECTION/ELEVATION
I.-
-Fl
�F
QFL,18y, PATH SECTION/ELEVATION - EAST PATH
L
4/24/2012
AC 150/5390 -2C
- - - PREFERRED APPROACH /DEPARTURE
SURFACE BASED UPON THE
PREDOMIAIA�IE WIND DIRECT N
-■ !
SEE DETAIL El
—
OPPOSITE '
APPROACH/ HELIPORT
DEPARTURE
SURFACE
(TYPICAL) 135°
SHADED AREA
TO HAVE SAME
CHARACTERISTICS
AS FATO
_R
500 FT [152 M]
250 FT [76 MI 1
i
500 FT
[152 M]
/ 4,000 FT
JF .� ' ;1,219 M]
250 FT --- rH v
[76 M]
500 FT
[152 M]
LEGEND
A Approach /Departure
Surface
2:1 Transitional Surface
Figure 2 -7. VFR Heliport Approach/Departure and Transitional Surfaces: General Aviation
25
4/24/2012
30 FT [10 M]
10 FT [3 M]
AC 150/5390 -2C
30 FT [10 M] 10 FT [3 M]
D 46
TOUCHDOWN /POSITION CIRCLE
INNER DIAMETER = Yz D OF
DESIGN HELICOPTER
18 IN [46 CM] WIDE
YELLOW STRIPE
Notes:
1 Standard TLOF perimeter stripe of 12 in [30 cm]. See figure 4 -25 for "H ", touchdown
position, overall length and weight limitation box dimensions.
2 The standard hospital identification is a red H within a white cross.
3 An option may be a red H within a white cross surrounded by a 12 in [30 cm] wide red
border (not illustrated).
4. The area outside of the cross may be colored red.
Figure 4-21. Standard Hospital Heliport Identification Symbols: Hospital
139
4/24/2012
AC 15015390 -2C
APPROACH /DEPARTURE SURFACE f
I IN GROUND FATO EDGE MARKING
SEE NOTE 3 AND DETAIL A TDPC
T I MARKING
PAINTED O
D TF EDG MARKING
E
SEE NOTE 2 j
I I
I I
I I
1p
D *b
I I
SAFETY AREA _ I
APPROACH /DEPARTURE SURFACE i
5 FT [1.5 M]
5 FT [1.5 M] MIN -12 IN [30 CM]
6 FT [2 M] MAX
i
DETAIL A FATO MARKING DETAIL
Notes:
1. Mark the perimeter of the TLOF and the FATO.
2. Define the perimeter of a paved or hard surfaced TLOF with a continuous
12 in [30 cm] white line.
3. Define the perimeter of the FATO with a 12 in [30 cm] wide dashed line per Detail A.
4. See Figure 4 -25 for " H ", touchdown /position, Overall Length and Weight Limitation box
dimensions.
Figure 4-23. Paved TLOF /Paved FATO — Paved TLOF/Unpaved FATO — Marking: Hospital
141
AC 15015390 -2C
SEE DETAIL A
10' -0"
[3 M]
- 6' -8" [1.8 M]
1' -0" [30 CM] �— X
4/24/2012
TOUCHDOWNIPOSITION CIRCLE
INNER DIAMETER = Y2 D OF
DESIGN HELICOPTER
18 IN [46 CM] WIDE
YELLOW STRIPE
SEE DETAIL B
SEE NOTE 2
5 FT [1.5 M]
SQUARE
T
Ia.
D 46,
5 IN
[12.7 CM]
SEE NOTE 3
NO WEIGHT LIMIT
2' -0"
[61 CM]
—F E
FD
ALTERNATE MARKING WITH
NO WEIGHT RESTRICTIONS
DETAIL A DETAIL B
HELIPORT INDENTIFICATION TLOF SIZE/WEIGHT
SYMBOL LIMITATION 'BOX
Notes:
1. See Appendix D for the form and proportion of the numbers used in the TLOF Size and
Limitation Box.
2. "10" indicates the maximum takeoff weight (10,000 Ibs [4,535 kg]) of the TLOF design
helicopter, in units of thousands of pounds [kilograms].
3. "D46" indicates the overall length of the largest helicopter (46 ft [14.0 M]) for which the
TLOF is designed.
Figure 4-25. TLOF Size and Weight Limitations: Hospital
X1+1+
N
W E CentraCare Health-Monticello I Feet
s
45 x 45 TLOF D=46 0 75 150 300
035
9
lifeLink III
3010 Broadway Street NE
Minneapolis, MN 55413 -1768
Office (612) 638 -4900
FAX (612) 638 -4931
August 5, 2013
Mary Lanegran
Centracare Health System
1013 Hart Boulevard
Monticello, MN 55362
Mary,
�camts
Cn. .... E. —ore A."do — of bled mlTmisj+vn spe—,
Communications Center:
Twin Cities (612) 378 -5465
Toll Free 1 -800- 328 -1377
I received your inquiry regarding noise levels of our helicopters operating into your helipad and I
have included that information below. Our pilots are sensitive to neighboring communities as
they operate into helipads. While adhering to our strict standards for safety, they do their best to
avoid noise- sensitive areas, and operate the aircraft in a manner in which best reduces ambient
noise levels.
Below you will find data that we have received from Bell Helicopter regarding noise levels
experienced during flyover operations. The Federal Aviation Administration sets stringent
requirements for noise evaluations and the data below is shown with a reference altitude of 492
feet above the ground at average ground speed. For neighboring households, this would be the
maximum noise level experienced, if the helicopter were to fly directly overhead, as we don't fly
lower than 500' above ground level over buildings.
NOISE LEVELS OF BELL HELICOPTERS
CERTIFICATED UNDER FAR PAR 36 APPENDIX J
MODEL SOUND NOTE
EXPOSURE
LEVEL
(dB)
FLYOVER
I Bell 407 1 85.1 12268 ka (5000 lb) confltluration I
Members:
Allma Hospitals & Clinics Children's Hospitals and Clinics of Minnesota Fairview Health Services
Hennepin County Medical Center Regions Hospital Sacred Heart Hospital, Eau Claire, Wl
St. Cloud Hospital /CentraCare Health System St Luke's St Mary's Medical Center
0 �0 Life Link III
3010 Broadway Street NE
Minneapolis, MN 55413 -1768
Offitie (612) 638 -4900
FAX (612) 638 -4931
scam is
Comti-imi— A— djWU-of W knfT —,p it Systems
Communications Center:
Twin Cities (612) 378 -5465
Toll Free 1 -800- 328 -1377
Life Link III recently purchased six new aircraft and will be phasing out the current fleet of Bell
407 aircraft over the next 24 months. The new AgustaWestland AW119Kx aircraft noise
information is listed below as received from the manufacturer.
Model I Variant I vvernigHt.
Level
AW 119Kx I Koala 1 86.5
Should you have any additional questions, please contact me.
Thanks,
Kevin K. Sperling
Safety Manager
Life Link III
612.638.4951
kksperling @lifelinkiii.com
Members:
Allina Hospitals & Clinics Children's Hospitals and Clinics of Minnesota Fairview Health Services
Hennepin County Medical Center Regions Hospital Sacred Heart Hospital, Eau Claire, Wl
St. Cloud Hospital /CentraCare Health System St. Luke's St. Mary's Medical Center
.:
7dEBI
Explospon
I nstantanaou$ image to y our �rsl
Rifle hit
13C d8
Parry thr-aghold of are avinfago hump
'1(1 dP
Ilk oonce�rt or night r lu b
Limit to 4 rn ins ex ure U me
A rplar-e tski n�] off
without hearing pratmbon .
BLnby offing loidly
a Jack hamri ier
1M dB
-a Personal M uSiC pl ayorS, I POas,
MP3 players at high volume e-q-
8096 of the maximum Ieyel
-a Stereo
95 d B
H rr*ring nails into wood
91) dB
4 ThurxAar
Limit to atmDut 2 hou ft. without
q C ai nsaw
Sri nq protection.
Lawn mower
�!5 05
Heavy traffic
Prolonged expire to ncm5e at tr {,
�Te damage
r bike
leyol results in hearing los% $o lire iii
ihmshalcfl
Vacuum cl aner
to B hours Wthout hearing
Electric mower
PFQteCfiOn.
Kitchen bh�ndar
74- 80 CJP
Hair dW
Flushing toilet
Laud telephone rirgirg
Busy Mice
-P Noiny mataursnt
FY) dB
Chatting with your �ii rifhe nds
OP to 20 dB
Rustling leaves
Clock ticks ng
CentraCare Health, Monticello
Looking North
,4,
14
Elm
Looking West
so
..p4t.k-
EN
Looking East
Looking South
CentraCare Health, Monticello
Looking Northwest
0
Looking Southwest
Looking Northeast
Looking Southeast
CentraCare Health, Monticello
Monticello
NE 035 -090 Approach /Departure: Caution trees N -S counter clockwise. Parking
lot is blocked during Takeoff /landing.
Monticello
CentraCare Health, Monticello
SE 135 Approach /Departure:. Caution - Numerous light poles /power line to
South. Stay on 135 app /dep, deviations south do not meet 8:1. Power line
marked with balls and offset obstruction light poles.
Power Line
Monticello
CentraCare Health, Monticello
Caution - Numerous light poles /power line to South. On 135 app /dep,
deviations north, west or south do not meet 8:1. Power line marked with
balls and offset obstruction light poles.
Planning Commission Agenda - 9/3/13
7. Consideration of a zonine text amendment to Title 10. Monticello Zonin
Ordinance, Chapter 4, Section 13(E) adding Wireless Telecommunications Service
Antennae and Antenna Support Structures as accessory uses on publicly owned
property by Conditional Use Permit, a request for Conditional Use Permit for
Antenna Support Structure in a R -2 (Single and Two - Family Residential) District,
and a request for Conditional Use Permit for Co- location of a Wireless
Telecommunication Service Antenna. Applicant: City of Monticello and Verizon
Wireless (NAC)
Property: 909 Golf Course Road
Legal Description: Lengthly legal (refer to application materials)
Planning Case Number: 2013 -026
A. REFERENCE & BACKGROUND
Request(s):
Amendment related to wireless telecommunication service
antennae and support structure requirements and
Conditional Use Permit to allow an antenna support
structure greater than 35 feet in height in an R -2, Single and
Two - Family Residence District. Two Conditional Use
Permits under the proposed ordinance — one for
construction of an antenna support structure (tower) and a
second CUP for the co- location of an antenna array for a
separate user ( Verizon Wireless) on the proposed tower.
Deadline for Decision:
October 6, 2013 (60 days)
Land Use Designation:
Places to Live
Zoning Designation:
R -2, Single and Two - Family Residence District
The purpose of the "R -2" Single and Two - family
Residential District is to provide for low to moderate
density one and two unit dwellings and directly related
complementary uses.
Current Site Use: The subject site is currently occupied by the City of
Monticello's public works facility.
Surrounding Land Uses:
North: Institutional (Pinewood Elementary school), zoned A -O,
Agricultural Open Space
Planning Commission Agenda - 9/3/13
South: Single family residential, zoned R -2, Single and Two -
family Residential
East: Two family residential, zoned R -2, Single and Two - family
Residential
West: Medium density residential, zoned R -3, Medium Density
Residential
Project Description: The City of Monticello wishes to erect a 199 foot high
antenna support structure (tower) upon its public works
facility site located at 909 Golf Course Road. The structure
is to be a monopole design. Antenna affixed to the support
structure will be used for public /quasi - public purposes
including public safety communications, the "Fibernet"
project, and to provide lease space to private wireless
communication companies (initially forVerizon Wireless).
The site is zoned R -2, Single and Two - Family Residential
which presently does not make an allowance for wireless
telecommunications antenna support structures.
To accommodate the request, three separate approvals are
necessary. First, the City Zoning Ordinance must be
amended to allow antenna support structures upon
residentially zoned properties which are devoted to
governmental uses (subject to various conditions).
Secondly, a conditional use permit which is specific to the
construction of the tower on the subject property must be
processed and approved. Finally, a conditional use permit
must be issued for Verizon's occupancy on the tower.
Ordinance Requirements: Presently, antenna support structures for wireless
telecommunications are not allowed in the City's residential zoning districts. The
proposed amendment would make an allowance for such structures on residentially zoned
property (specifically, the R -2 zoning district) but only if such property is devoted to a
"public" use.
As part of such amendment, it is also important to include reasonable parameters on such
an allowance as well as provide an opportunity for public input. In this regard, support
structure heights above the district limit (35 feet) are proposed to be subject to
conditional use permit processing.
Once the mechanism to process the request is created, conditional use permits applicable
to the subject property could then be processed.
2
Planning Commission Agenda - 9/3/13
ORDINANCE AMENDMENT
Telecommunication towers and antennae are regulated by Section 4.13 of the Zoning
Ordinance. In this regard, the intent of such provisions is as follows:
(1) Minimize adverse visual effects of towers through careful design, landscaping, and
siting standards.
(2) Avoid potential damage to adjacent properties from tower failure and weather related
occurrences through structural standards and setback requirements;
(3) Maximize the use of existing and approved towers and buildings to accommodate
new telecommunication antennas in order to reduce the number of towers needed to
serve the community;
(4) Utilize business, industrial and public land, buildings and structures for
telecommunications whenever possible and /or appropriate;
(5) Provide for the appropriate location and development of towers and antennas to
accommodate the communication needs of the residents and businesses within the
City of Monticello;
To make an allowance for the proposed antenna support structure (tower), Section
4.13(E) of the Ordinance addressing wireless telecommunications service antennae
support structures needs to be amended. In this regard, the following language (to allow
such structures upon residentially zoning properties which are devoted to public uses) is
proposed:
b. Support structures for personal wireless service antenna shall be considered a
permitted accessory use upon residentially zoned lots occupied by governmental
uses, subject to the following provisions:
The site upon which the antenna support structure is located is
occupied by a principal structure.
ii Antenna support structures which exceed the maximum height
requirements of the residential zoning district in which the antenna
support structure is located shall be allowed only by conditional use
permit.
III In no case shall an antenna support structure exceed one hundred
ninety nine (199) feet as measured from the natural grade at the
location of the structure.
Planning Commission Agenda - 9/3/13
(iv) Any antenna support structure shall be designed to accommodate
the co- location of other antenna arrays.
(v) Any freestanding antenna support structure shall be of monopole
design.
(vi) All freestanding antenna support structures for personal wireless
services shall be treated with a galvanized light grey color.
(vii) The provisions of Section 4.13(F) of this Chapter are satisfied.
As noted above, the proposed amendment would establish wireless service antenna
support structures as a permitted use upon R -2 zoned properties which are devoted to
public uses. When the original personal wireless antenna /tower regulations were written,
the objective for such towers was to restrict them to commercial and industrial locations
in the City, with the assumption that visual impacts of these towers would not be
compatible with residential areas.
The tension in tower regulation is typically one of fewer, but taller towers - with the
understanding that such towers would be able to provide service to larger areas of the
community and through co- location of several provides — as opposed to more, but shorter
towers — with the expectation that shorter towers would have less negative visual impacts
on neighborhoods, even though there would need to be more such towers to provide
competitive coverage.
To effect this goal, the City prohibited towers in the residential districts, limited them to
75 feet in the commercial districts, and capped them at 150 feet in industrial areas. The
proposed tower exceeds the City's previous height maximum, and would introduce
towers into the residential areas of the community for the first time.
To address potential compatibility concerns, the proposed ordinance limits the potential
locations to public property within the R -2 zoning district. While the City or other
governmental units may make greater efforts to ensure screening of ground equipment
and other locational aspects, it is clear that the taller towers will be visible to large areas
of the immediate residential neighborhood. As a procedural requirement, the ordinance
would establish towers which exceed the applicable district height limit (35 feet in the R-
2) only by conditional use permit processing.
The 199 foot maximum height limit is designed to avoid FAA requirements for lighting
of the top of the tower, while maximizing the possible tenants on the tower, thus limiting
the proliferation of new towers in the area.
4
Planning Commission Agenda - 9/3/13
CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS — 1. Antenna Support Structure
2. Verizon Wireless Co- location
The preceding amendment would establish the means by which the proposed antenna
support structure may be located upon residentially zoned properties which are devoted to
governmental uses. If approved, conditional use permits specific to the subject property
must then be processed for the tower, and for the proposed user.
CUP Evaluation Criteria
According to Section 2.4 (D)(4)(a) of the Zoning Ordinance, approval of a conditional
use permit application requires that the City find that conditions can be established to
ensure that a certain set of criteria will be met. The following is a listing of the
conditional use permit criteria:
(i) The conditional use will not substantially diminish or impair property
values within the immediate vicinity of the subject property;
Staff Comment — there have been various studies of the impact of
telecommunications towers on property values. Most are inconclusive at
best, balancing local property owner perception with enhanced
telecommunications services in the area. For the few that show negative
value impacts, the studies primarily rely on perceived value and visual
impact, rather than hard data, thus, it is difficult to rely on this factor
solely for support or opposition.
(ii) The conditional use will not be detrimental to the health, safety, morals,
or welfare ofpersons residing or working near the use;
Staff Comment - the tower will be engineered to meet required safety
loads and similar engineering standards, and should not create threats to
health or safety.
(iii) The conditional use will not impede the normal and orderly development
of surrounding property for permitted uses predominant in the area;
Staff Comment — there is no evidence that the tower would disrupt orderly
development of the surrounding property. Occasionally, concerned
neighbors will raise issues of frequency interference, however, the
bandwidth and range are closely regulated by the FCC, and should not be
an issue.
(iv) The conditional use will not pose an undue burden on public utilities or
roads, and adequate sanitary facilities are provided;
Planning Commission Agenda - 9/3/13
Staff Comment — there should be no impact on utilities, infrastructure, or
similar related facilities. Following construction of the tower, the operator
tenants (initially, Verizon Wireless) are likely to visit the site infrequently
for maintenance. For most of each month, the site will be unoccupied.
(v) The conditional use can provide adequate parking and loading spaces,
and all storage on the site can be done in conformance with City code
requirements;
Staff Comment — there will be no extraordinary impacts on the public
works site, and the tower has been sited to avoid existing improvements in
the far east corner of the site — an otherwise generally unusable location.
The carrier equipment will be installed in weather -proof equipment
cabinets within a secure fenced enclosure.
(vi) The conditional use will not result in any nuisance including but not
limited to odor, noise, or sight pollution;
Staff Comment - this issue will require a fmding that, contrary to previous
ordinance language, the tower will not have nuisance visual impacts. As
noted, these impacts have been reported in some studies, although not with
quantifiable value impacts. This specific requirement, however, does not
require that the visual impacts diminish value, only that they don't create a
nuisance.
(vii) The conditional use will not unnecessarily impact natural features such
as woodlands, wetlands, and shorelines; and all erosion will be properly
controlled;
Staff Comment — no natural features will be impacted by the proposed
tower.
(viii) The conditional use will adhere to any applicable additional criteria
outlined in Chapter 5 of the Ordinance for the proposed use.
Staff Comment - While value impacts cannot be verified, the primary
concern that the City will need to address is the potential visual nuisance
issue with the tower, particularly at the proposed height, could have in a
residential area. Although the site in question is public, the neighborhood
is dominated by residential uses in three directions. While such towers are
visually intrusive initially, some supporters argue that they become "part
of the landscape" over time. There is no defmitive threshold for
determining whether the visual impact rises to the level of "nuisance" —
the Planning Commission and /or Council will need to consider the
evidence and make a solid finding in this regard.
Planning Commission Agenda - 9/3/13
Antenna Standards
In addition to the standards included in the proposed Ordinance amendment, numerous
generalized standards apply to the proposed antenna support structure as provided in
Section 4.13(E). These are addressed below:
Separation Distance. According to the Ordinance, no new freestanding antenna support
structure may be located within one mile of any existing freestanding antenna support
structure. According to the information provided by Verizon Wireless, the nearest
freestanding antenna tower of sufficient height is located in excess of two miles east of
the subject site. The need for enhanced wireless coverage in the subject area appears to
be documented through Verizon's call /service analysis data. Thus, the separation
distance requirement of the Ordinance has been satisfied.
Co- Location. The Ordinance encourages the co- location of freestanding antennas when
opportunities exist. In this regard, the Ordinance states that no new freestanding antenna
support structure is to be approved when a co- location opportunity exists within one -half
mile of the proposed structure location.
As noted, no antenna support structures of a height necessary to accommodate reasonable
antenna functioning are located within two miles of the subject site. Thus, a co- location
opportunity does not exist within the City at the present time.
Support Structure Height. The antenna support structure is proposed to measure 199 feet
in height. In response, the draft Zoning Ordinance amendment references a maximum
199 foot structure height allowance. To be noted is that a maximum height requirement
of 75 feet currently applies in the City's commercial zoning districts and a 150 foot
requirement is applied in industrial zoning districts. In this regard, the proposed antenna
support structure height allowance is greater than that presently allowed elsewhere in the
City.
The acceptability of the proposed structure height is considered a policy matter to be
determined by City Officials.
Support Structure Appearance. According to the Ordinance, antenna support structures
must be finished a light -grey or galvanized color. As a condition of CUP approval, the
submitted tower elevation should be modified to specify tower color.
Setbacks. According to the Ordinance, antenna support structures and any appurtenant
structures must comply with the minimum setback requirements of the district in which
the proposed structure is to be located, or the distance determined as the fall zone of the
structure by a licensed professional engineer, whichever is greater. The existing
Ordinance further notes that no freestanding antenna support structure may be
located within 250 feet of an existing residence.
Planning Commission Agenda - 9/3/13
As shown on the site plan, the support structure is proposed to be located 57 feet from the
south lot line and 31 feet from the northeast lot line.
Information related to the support structure fall zone and separation distance from nearby
dwellings has not been provided. From aerial photography, it would appear that the
proposed tower would be within 150 feet or so of residential property south of the
proposed site. Thus, language is included with the amendment that would exempt towers
on public property from this provision.
With regard to fall zone, it is a general design standard that such towers are (1)
engineered to withstand environmental conditions that preclude the possibility of a fall,
and (2) in any event, are designed to collapse on themselves, rather than threaten
adjoining property. It is expected that the proposed tower will meet these standards.
Design and Construction. As a condition of CUP approval, the following design and
construction standards, as provided by the Section 4.13(F) of the Ordinance, should be
satisfied:
(a) No advertising or identification of any kind intended to be visible from the
ground or other structures is permitted, except applicable warning and
equipment information signage required by the manufacturer or by Federal,
State, or local authorities.
(b) All antennae, antenna support structures, and accessory structures shall be in
compliance with all City and State Building Codes, as applicable, and shall
obtain all necessary permits.
(c) Structure design, mounting and installation of the antenna and antenna support
structure shall be in compliance with the manufacture's specifications, and
installation plans shall be approved and certified by a licensed professional
engineer.
(d) Antenna support structures and antennae shall be grounded for protection
against a direct strike by lightning and shall comply, as to electrical wiring
and connections, with all applicable provisions of all State Codes.
(e) All transmitting, receiving and switching equipment shall be housed within a
structure or cabinet whenever possible and shall adhere to the following:
(i) If a new tower accessory building is necessary to house such equipment,
it shall be architecturally designed to blend in with the surrounding environment,
and shall be screened from view by landscaping as deemed necessary by the City
Council.
(ii) All transmitting, receiving and switching equipment shall be housed within a
structure or cabinet. Such structure shall be architecturally designed to blend in
Planning Commission Agenda - 9/3/13
with the surrounding environment, and shall be screened from view by
landscaping consistent with the screening and landscaping requirements of the
Monticello Zoning Ordinance.
(iii) Antenna support structures located within 1000' feet of the FiberNet
Monticello Co- Location Building shall be required to locate all transmitting,
receiving and switching equipment within the FiberNet Monticello Co- Location.
Equipment Buildings. As shown on the site plan, three equipment buildings have been
proposed at the base of the antenna support structure. All the buildings measure 360
square feet (12' x 30') in size. Structure height and finish materials have not however,
been specified. As a condition of CUP approval, the proposed height and finish materials
of the equipment buildings should be specified.
Fencing. The base of the support structure, including the three equipment buildings, is
proposed to be enclosed via a chain link/barbed wire fence (accessed from the northwest
via a swing gate). As a condition of CUP approval, the site plan should be revised to
indicate the fence height. The City would be granting a security exemption to allow the
barbed wire on the fenceline.
Landscaping / Screening. As noted previously, all transmitting, receiving and switching
equipment must be screened from view by landscaping consistent with the screening and
landscaping requirements of the Ordinance. As shown on the site plan, the support
structure area will be screened on the south and northeast by rows of existing coniferous
tree plantings. Such trees measure approximately twenty to thirty feet in height and are
considered an acceptable year -round screen.
Grading and Drainage. As required, a site grading plan has been submitted for review.
Such plan should be subject to review and recommendation by the City Engineer.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS
A. Decision 1: Zoning Ordinance Amendment
1. Motion to approve Resolution 2013 -066 recommending approval of the Zoning
Ordinance Amendment to allow antenna support structures upon residentially
zoned properties which are devoted to governmental uses (subject to various
conditions).
2. Motion to deny Resolution 2013 - 066 recommending approval of the Zoning
Ordinance Amendment to allow antenna support structures upon residentially
zoned properties which are devoted to governmental uses (subject to various
conditions).
W
Planning Commission Agenda - 9/3/13
3. Motion to table action on the requested Zoning Ordinance Amendment, pending
text modifications as suggested by the Planning Commission.
B. Decision 2: Conditional Use Permit for an antenna support structure at 909
Golf Course Road (Monticello Public Works property) in the R -2 district
1. Motion to approve Resolution 2013 -067 recommending approval of the
Conditional Use Permit for an antenna support structure, contingent on
compliance with those conditions specified in Exhibit Z.
2. Motion to deny Resolution 2013 -067 recommending for approval of the
Conditional Use Permit for an antenna support structure, based on findings to be
made by the Planning Commission.
3. Motion to table action on the conditional use permit request, pending additional
information as identified by the Planning Commission.
C. Decision 3: Conditional Use Permit for a co- location of personal wireless
services equipment on a tower at 909 Golf Course Road for Verizon Wireless.
1. Motion to approve Resolution 2013 -068 recommending approval of the
Conditional Use Permit for an antenna co- location, contingent on compliance
with those conditions specified in Exhibit Z.
2. Motion to deny Resolution 2013 -068 recommending for approval of the
Conditional Use Permit for an antenna co- location, based on findings to be made
by the Planning Commission.
3. Motion to table action on the conditional use permit request, pending additional
information as identified by the Planning Commission.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Planning staff believes that the amendment to allow antenna support structures upon R -2
zoned properties raises policy and neighborhood impact issues which have historically
resulted in a prohibition of such towers in residential areas. As noted in the report, even
for commercial or industrial towers (which are no more than 75 feet or 150 feet,
respectively), the current ordinance establishes a 250' required separation.
If such towers are to be introduced into residential districts, concern exists in regard to
the proposed 199 feet support structure height allowance. A decision regarding the
acceptability of the proposed support structure height (in residential zoning districts
occupied by public uses) is considered a policy matter to be determined by City Officials.
10
Planning Commission Agenda - 9/3/13
As such, staff recommends that if towers are to be introduced into residential areas of the
City, a height limit comparable to that established for competitive commercial or
industrial locations is adopted. The effect of the proposed ordinance could result in tower
applications that actually seek out public /residential property, rather than avoid those
areas as current ordinance is designed to do.
Nonetheless, the combined effects of the various provisions of the zoning ordinance
should minimize the potential locations in the City. Between the R -2 zoned areas, a
requirement that the property be put to public use, and the one -mile separation
requirement, there would not appear to be other potential locations that would meet all of
the requirements for location. Pinewood Elementary School is within the one mile
spacing of the proposed tower, and is zoned A -O; the middle school is zoned A -O as
well, and most of that property is within one mile of an existing tower on the Bondhus
Tool property. The High School campus property along School Boulevard is zoned R -1.
Thus, the ordinance is quite restrictive in possible options for future locations in
residential areas.
Provided City Officials find the proposed support structure height to be acceptable, staff
has included conditions of approval as listed in Exhibit Z, assuming that the proposed
ordinance would alter the height and separation requirements found in current code.
D. SUPPORTING DATA
A. Resolution 2013 -066 (Ordinance Amendment)
B. Resolution 2013 -067 (CUP for Antenna Support Structure)
C. Resolution 2013 -068 (CUP for Verizon Wireless Co- location)
D. Ordinance 9583
E. Aerial Images
F. Subject Site Zoning Map
G. Applicant Narrative, City of Monticello
H. Topographic Boundary Survey
I. Application Package, including:
i. Site Plan
ii. Grading Plan
iii. Site Elevation
iv. Notes
J. Applicant Narrative, Verizon Wireless
K. Cellular Coverage Study
L. Antenna and Tower Details
Z. Conditions of Approval
11
Planning Commission Agenda - 9/3/13
Exhibit Z — Conditions of Approval
City of Monticello
Conditional Use Permit
1. City Officials find the proposed antenna support structure height to be acceptable and
approve the Zoning Ordinance Amendment to allow antenna support structures upon
residentially zoned properties which are devoted to governmental uses (subject to various
conditions).
2. The submitted antenna support structure (tower) elevation shall be finished with a light grey
or galvanized color.
3. City Officials include a waiver for residentially zoned towers to the 250 separation
requirement from residences in the Ordinance amendment.
4. No advertising or identification of any kind intended to be visible from the ground or other
structures is permitted, except applicable warning and equipment information signage
required by the manufacturer or by Federal, State, or local authorities.
5. All antennae, antenna support structures, and accessory structures shall be in compliance
with all City and State Building Codes, as applicable, and shall obtain all necessary permits.
6. Structure design, mounting and installation of the antenna and antenna support structure shall
be in compliance with the manufacture's specifications, and installation plans shall be
approved and certified by a licensed professional engineer.
7. Antenna support structures and antennae shall be grounded for protection against a direct
strike by lightning and shall comply, as to electrical wiring and connections, with all
applicable provisions of all State Codes.
8. All transmitting, receiving and switching equipment shall be housed within a structure or
cabinet whenever possible, and shall adhere to the following:
A. If a new tower accessory building is necessary to house such equipment,
it shall be architecturally designed to blend in with the surrounding environment,
and shall be screened from view by landscaping as deemed necessary by the City
Council.
B. All transmitting, receiving and switching equipment shall be housed
within a structure or cabinet. Such structure shall be architecturally
designed to blend in with the surrounding environment, and shall be
screened from view by landscaping consistent with the screening and
landscaping requirements of the Monticello Zoning Ordinance.
12
Planning Commission Agenda - 9/3/13
9. The height and finish materials of proposed equipment buildings shall be specified.
10. The height of the proposed chain link/barbed wire fence shall be specified.
11. The submitted grading plan shall be subject to review and recommendation by the City
Engineer.
13
CITY OF MONTICELLO
WRIGHT COUNTY, MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION NO. 2013 - 066
Date: September 3, 2013 Resolution No. 2013 -066
Motion By: Seconded By:
A RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPTS AN
AMENDMENT TO THE ZONING ORDINANCE, PROVIDING FOR THE
CONSTRUCTION AND LOCATION OF WIRELESS ANTENNA SUPPORT
FACILITIES ON PUBLIC PROPERTY IN THE R -2 ZONING DISTRICT
WHEREAS, the City of Monticello finds that wireless communications are a growing technological
need in the community; and
WHEREAS, additional facilities are necessary for both commercial and public communications that
cannot be served by existing services and equipment; and
WHEREAS, adequate communications facilities cannot be met by the current zoning regulations
restricting antenna arrays to commercial or industrial zoning districts; and
WHEREAS, increased height of antenna support structures will reduce the need for additional
structures by providing multiple co- location opportunities on taller towers; and
WHEREAS, well - located and designed facilities under the ordinance will enhance the use and
accessibility to wireless technology in the area; and
WHEREAS, amendments to the ordinance will provide adequate opportunities for public review of
new proposals, as well as the mitigation of potential negative effects of such facilities; and
WHEREAS, such facilities, properly located and developed, will not create negative impacts for the
community or neighborhood; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has conducted a public hearing on September 3, 2013 to
review the requests and receive public comment on the amendment; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission finds that the applicant has met the requirements for
Comprehensive Plan amendment and rezoning found in 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 amendment to the zoning
ordinance identified as Ordinance No. 2013 -583.
ADOPTED this 3rd day of September, 2013 by the Planning Commission of the City of
Monticello, Minnesota.
MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION
By:
William Spartz, Chair
ATTEST:
Jeff O'Neill, City Administrator
CITY OF MONTICELLO
WRIGHT COUNTY, MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION NO. 2013 - 067
Date: September 3, 2013 Resolution No. 2013 -067
Motion By: Seconded By:
A RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVES A
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A WIRELESS
TELECOMMUNICATIONS SUPPORT STRUCTURE LOCATED AT:
909 Golf Course Road
PID # 155500101100
WHEREAS, the City of Monticello finds that wireless communications are a growing technological
need in the community; and
WHEREAS, additional facilities are necessary for both commercial and public communications that
cannot be served by existing services and equipment; and
WHEREAS, the proposed antenna support structure will meet the requirements of the zoning
ordinance regulating such facilities; and
WHEREAS, the location of a facility at the subject property will enhance wireless communications
in the area and the surrounding community; and
WHEREAS, the facility will accommodate continuing advances in technology serving the public,
both commercially and through public applications;
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has conducted a public hearing on September 3, 2013 to
review the request and receive public comment on the Conditional Use Permit; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission finds that the applicant has met the requirements for a
Conditional Use Permit as specified in the applicable sections of the Monticello 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 approve the Conditional Use Permit for
a 199 foot telecommunications antenna support facility as proposed by the City of Monticello.
ADOPTED this 3rd day of September, 2013 by the Planning Commission of the City of
Monticello, Minnesota.
MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION
By:
William Spartz, Chair
ATTEST:
Jeff O'Neill, City Administrator
CITY OF MONTICELLO
WRIGHT COUNTY, MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION NO. 2013 - 068
Date: September 3, 2013 Resolution No. 2013 -068
Motion By: Seconded By:
A RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVES A
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR THE CO- LOCATION OF A WIRELESS
TELECOMMUNICATIONS ANTENNA ARRAY FOR VERIZON WIRELESS
LOCATED AT:
909 Golf Course Road
PID # 155500101100
WHEREAS, the City of Monticello finds that wireless communications are a growing technological
need in the community; and
WHEREAS, additional facilities are necessary for both commercial and public communications that
cannot be served by existing services and equipment; and
WHEREAS, the applicants have shown a need for improved wireless services coverage that would
be served by the proposed location; and
WHEREAS, the facilities constructed by the applicants will be able to meet all applicable codes and
regulations, including, but not limited to, zoning, building, electrical, and other codes; and
WHEREAS, the facility will meet all applicable state and federal requirements for the provision of
wireless communications; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has conducted a public hearing on September 3, 2013 to
review the request and receive public comment on the Conditional Use Permit; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission finds that the applicant has met the requirements for a
Conditional Use Permit as specified in the applicable sections of the Monticello 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 approve the Conditional Use Permit for
Verizon Wireless for the co- location of a wireless antenna array, and associated ground equipment
and other improvements, as specified in the plans and specifications provided to the City of
Monticello.
ADOPTED this 3rd day of September, 2013 by the Planning Commission of the City of
Monticello, Minnesota.
MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION
By:
William Spartz, Chair
ATTEST:
Jeff O'Neill, City Administrator
DRAFT (8/23/13)
Ordinance No. 583
City of Monticello
Wright County, Minnesota
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 10 OF THE MONTICELLO CITY CODE,
KNOWN AS THE ZONING ORDINANCE, ADDRESSING SUPPORT STRUCTURES FOR
WIRELESS SERVICE ANTENNAE
The City Council of the City of Monticello hereby ordains:
Section 1.
Section 4.13(E) of the Monticello Zoning Ordinance (Wireless
Telecommunication Service Antenna and Support Structures) is
hereby amended to read as follows:
(E) Wireless Telecommunications Service Antennae and Antenna
Support Structures
Wireless telecommunications service antennae and antenna
support structures, for the purposes of this Ordinance,
shall mean any equipment necessary to provide or support
all types of wireless electronic communications, including,
but not necessarily limited to, wireless "cellular"
telephone, radio, and internet transmission and reception
communications between mobile communications providers and
users, including public safety communications.
(1) Wireless Telecommunications Service Antennae
(a) Co- location of antennae for personal wireless
services shall be a conditional use in all zoning
districts on any existing conforming antenna
support structure.
(2) Wireless Telecommunications Service Antennae Support
Structures
(a) Except as otherwise allowed by Section
4.13(E)(2)(b) below, JSsupport structures for
personal wireless service antennae shall be
1
allowed as an accessory use only by conditional
use permit, subject to the following provisions:
(i) Antenna support structures for personal
wireless services shall be no greater in
height than the maximum height
requirements of the zoning district in
which the antenna support structure is
located, unless otherwise allowed within
this section.
Antenna support structures for personal
wireless services "A -O" zoning district,
all residential zoning districts and the
"B -1" zoning district shall be required to
be attached to, or mounted upon, the
principal building, and shall match said
building in color and other design
features so as to minimize visibility.
Antenna support structures for personal
wireless services in the "B -2 ", "B -3" and
"B -4" zoning district shall be limited in
height to seventy five (75) feet as
measured from the natural grade at the
location of the structure.
(iv) Antenna support structures for personal
wireless services in the "I ", Industrial
districts shall be limited in height to
one hundred fifty (150) feet as measured
from the natural grade at the location of
the structure.
(v) Any antenna support structure shall be
designed to accommodate the colocation of
other antenna arrays.
(vi) Any freestanding antenna support structure
shall be of monopole design.
(vii) All freestanding antenna support
structures for personal wireless services
shall be painted a galvanized light -grey
color.
2
(b) Support structures for personal wireless service
antenna may be allowed as an accessory use by
Conditional Use Permit on residentially zoned
lots occupied by public uses, subject to the
following provisions:
(i) The site upon which the antenna support
structure is located is occupied by a
principal structure.
In no case shall an antenna support
structure exceed one hundred ninety nine
(199) feet as measured from the natural
grade at the location of the structure.
(iv) Any antenna support structure shall be
designed to accommodate the colocation of
other antenna arrays.
(v) Any freestanding antenna support structure
shall be of monopole design.
(vi) All freestanding antenna support
structures for personal wireless services
shall be finished with a galvanized light -
grey color.
(vii) The provisions of Section 4.13(F) of this
Chapter are satisfied.
This Ordinance shall take effect and be in full force from and
after its passage and publication.
Clint Herbst, Mayor
ATTEST:
Jeff O'Neill, City Administrator
3
Zoning text amendment adding Wireless Telecommunications Service Antennae and Antenna Support Structures as accessory
uses on publicly owned property by Conditional Use Permit, a request for Conditional Use Permit for Antenna Support Structure in an
R -2 (Single and Two - Family Residential) District, and a request for Conditional Use Permit for Co- location of a Wireless
Telecommunication Service Antenna. Applicant: City of Monticello /Verizon Wireless
Lengthy legal, Contact City Hall for description, 901 Golf Course Road, PID # 155500101100
Monticello Geographic Information System
1
E
x
.2L
■ tc
�E
4
� i�l,r,�rf• f>t � r � _ ��
ir
A60 �imww
I �1
� h a
1 inch - 153.323044 feet
yy 7
■
i
Legend
BASE ZONING
Residential UiI
` A -O
R -A
R -1
-- Med�UM Reside
T•N
R -2
R -PUO
—
Kip Hesmdenna
R -3
- M-H
OVERLAY DIS
Pelforn
Special
IYIIS515!
$h Orel;
Freewa
OTHER
Water
uu•n
Rationale for Building the Communications Tower
The City of Monticello is considering the construction of a communications tower on land
currently part of the Public Works facility at 909 Golf Course Road. The proposed triangle
section of the property has no other apparent use, but can be efficiently utilized by building the
tower. The purpose of the structure is first and foremost to increase the quality and scope of
wireless communications within the City of Monticello. However, there are additional benefits
that result from the City building and leasing the tower rather than engaging a private developer.
Initially, the tower will positively influence the quality and scope of communication in the area.
Wireless carriers that lease space on the tower will be able to provide better coverage and access
to their fastest networks (4G) to their subscribers. This will encourage other wireless providers
to expand their services in Monticello to remain competitive. With city ownership, other carriers
will find it easier step to co — locate on an existing structure, rather than go through the time and
expense of building their own structure. Thus the construction of the tower will enhance the
service residents, businesses, and visitors receive within the city limits.
While the potential for improved service is significant, the greatest benefits of construction are
gained from City ownership of, and thus control over, the communication tower. This control is
manifested in several advantages. First, the tower creates an additional, low -risk source of
revenue. By building it, the City of Monticello retains the right to collect and control the
distribution of the funds received from leasing agreements on the tower. These new funds will
bolster its income without raising the taxes on the city's residents and businesses.
Secondly, ownership gives the City additional influence over how communication towers are
developed in Monticello. While towers like the proposed structure are a necessary part of the
landscape in the 21St century, the City has a vested interest in limiting the number of them
looming overhead. By structuring lease agreements to specifically prohibit monopolization of a
single major tenant, the City can attempt to minimize the number of towers within the city limits.
Rather than individual towers for each carrier, several can work from a shared structure, and the
City can secure the continued aesthetic quality of Monticello. The neutrality will also alleviate
concerns of the various wireless carriers being on the same tower.
Next, the City can utilize the tower to effectively prepare for emergency situations. By owning
the tower, the City can stipulate that tenant wireless carriers are connected to back -up generators
that safeguard cell phone reception during emergencies. Historically, crisis situations like
Hurricane Katrina were exacerbated by a lack of cell phone reception in the area, due to the loss
of commercial power. The tower gives the City a way to influence certain wireless providers and
potentially avoid communication problems during disasters. The necessary generators would be
provided by the City, but the cost would be built into the carriers' tower rental fees.
Finally, The City of Monticello can use the communications tower for the benefit of the
municipally owned telecommunications company, FiberNet Monticello. FiberNet provides
internet, video, and telephone services within the city limits, and the nature of its services makes
it a potential tenant on the tower. City ownership guarantees FiberNet retains access to the tower
at no cost — a savings of over $500 per month when compared to private ownership of the tower.
Primary Uses for the Tower
The value of the communications tower is compellingly illustrated through the multiple uses
possible from this single structure. Initially, the tower provides space for up to three major
wireless providers from the communications industry. Companies can lease space on the
structure and provide improved cell phone service to the Monticello population. The City of
Monticello has already received a letter of intent from Verizon indicating interest in renting
space on the tower for not less than 10 and up to 25 years.
Coupled with better cell phone reception is the potential for city -wide outdoor Wi -Fi. This would
be provided by several wireless antennas attached to the tower and would add an additional
amenity to outdoor areas within the city limits. Residents and visitors would be able to use their
smart phones and other devices in Monticello's parks and access online information regarding
the extensive pathway system.
In addition to improved cell phone and Wi -Fi coverage, the tower can be used to improve
emergency communications in Monticello. As stated in the previous section, back -up generators
safeguard against a loss of cell phone service during an emergency. The tower can further
improve crisis communication by potentially enhancing the two -way radio dispatch used by the
Fire Department and other city or county responders. The upgrade would increase the quality of
communication during emergencies.
The tower also has the potential to benefit the City's telecommunication company, FiberNet
Monticello. FiberNet can utilize the tower for a television antenna and offer better reception to
its customers. As a municipally owned company, any improvement to service adds value to the
community. In addition, FiberNet can place microwave dishes on the tower to potentially deliver
services to surrounding communities. This would not only increase FiberNet's revenue, but also
bring increased market competition to the larger region.
Fibemet can also utilize the tower to provide a redundant path to its network for its business
customers. Some companies require a backup should the fiber to their premises be cut or
damaged. A microwave connection via the tower would provide the necessary diverse and
redundant path.
Finally, the tower could potentially be used for a mounted camera in the future. The camera
could be used to monitor traffic patterns in the city, detect developing severe weather as it
approaches Monticello, or be a form of additional city security.
In order to maximize co- location capability and also provide sufficient space for important
governmental communication applications, it is necessary to construct the tower to the elevation
proposed. This slightly higher tower providing both co- location opportunities and government
facilities will result in one tower to be built when there would otherwise be the need to build two
towers thus slowing the proliferation of communication towers in the City.
Duration of Use
This type of tower is expected to be operational for at least 25 years, with the possibility of
remaining viable for up to 50 years. The greatest outside risk to its stability is the threat of
natural disaster or extreme weather. Otherwise it could be limited in its duration by a City
decision to purposely destruct the tower.
Ed
�U
LoYa�l= ofFOrc�o�a�osol�' -V -
e�
�g
RIaHT bON6M1 VICINITY MAP
BNS„ MONTICELLO
�tH'SY
aoslnoN of eROPO \ co To " 1 1
URSE RU
(FVl.enw..y stake for, soil boom g)R cU
__ Q�
F3o1 ;'F
EtiEoN4 GROUND: °.EET
3N1a6)
,
v
q� oFR r z
F
+�4"es2e auouuo aa.=
rerr..mius....ti
COUNTY HIGHWAY NO. 39 (GOLF COURSE ROAD)
m.nn�`° 'anIK2"e �i91nt��
s STEM TUM-
Benchmark
Legend:
p
e una -1 Iron Monument
onm n.ua 6niace
0 oval surtce
HIF -are
rlo wnlarker
a.tln9
offs Fleretl Fntl secton
A'. E111119 sph,
(Dee E1,111 a T- 11untnIn.
4 1 -1roue T-
-Fr- U 111 Opts
- ' - 1v0 -- - - -- Fristing Elevation contour
Rellmetl Track
rr /f
General Notes: m .
rce1Itl.m -tion No.: 155500101100.
2. Flelb survz/ oomiletetl on H4qust 6.2013.
aepiala mrarc�r�sn�i rn n ev
o�
sENG -11 IC
55, 060nt NUmbera 03o7-13 , .ate. nprll ze,
pe,y m JG
- - - T - -
5, All tln :Nm r. v it orrnera at the time or
udltfplco ve�lryo)hatnall'llneM tot
A
Ultei
71 E . PROJECT No: 13.0134fi
DRAWN By GS
CHECKED BY: MEC
NE IF T11 11 'S IF THI °z5..v. 1aoF
1l4 of sEGTIO 10, T. 121 ., R 2b. rY.
N N
Isu equlre. trail oc
et (000) 252 -1166 forobwtlon ot4untleargmu mLL
- - - T - -
- -
�inz1
Property Description:
,I
PrepertV Description (Cont'dJ: F .111 -1FR OF Sea. 1o. T. 121 N. R.211.�
VAA>»,,,
naiee..
S%
(PerArle comp- e 1NO.00007 -13)
E111 11 IE111 121 M1. ipM1to
as fcluvs;
endn a outnv est comer of sell SOt C tnea cea st dlbnzt to llnetlol1 bt 01 dIMhce dl 31.01 teat maned norineesh .-th 65
Raime. Company extending from Lot'C' on the NF1la or NF1la ofsei. section 10 to Lot z of lot a of said
edlon l0,e cert_rerefromtbe f.bc4n9 tleswlbetl tred:
tlegraee 26 minutes a0 seconds leryatllstance of 330.0]teet to the point of baglnning of the panel to betlesctlbatl; thence contlnuln9�nort ngtM1e
M1M teM eb
prdon9auen oftne lasm.scio.tllin.1So.13he[ mere or less.m. point ono lin. pealel wit an. 16.5 feet bout -N of. as measur at a rym angle m, the
®
25 tl esctlbetl as follows:
talog the bout line ofsai. LOtoatlishnca of02o1 feetttne
nets Ilse ofsal. Got c; thence soutneesterly along Bela parallel Ilse 45.23 het to a pclnt on a Ilse drawn Nortn at a rl00nt angle to the soutn Ilse o1 sale Lot c
0 10 20 DO
tel point of baglnning: tlten.efNOrttlM1eat MbefleWng 65 degrees 26 minutes 30 ae.on.s left e.laten.e of 450.531 eat No
t-dt coma, of-ltl LOt .th.nce. -h., -H lln. 83. teat thence west p�rallel.1th th.
utnlne'of -idF.t I,ue6l66 tea t th. poi1t of ANN -119.
a�Im M1eMIln
stets "log th. ,to Ad linea akea'nce 0!4522tee toalffthd'wn Nonhal eIh,7 an9l. toto tout, linecol
5-th IlN tllstent 229]0 teat Eest ofthepointofbaglnning; thence Bout along the seltl
line a2o1 feet tnence
t una SOUtM1 line ofsaltl LOt C, tence.resta g seltl SOUtM1 IlneetlNhnce 0!223.]9 feet
m Alto 9i i9.
-th n 1.It shrlytletlectirfgn,.agrees
- 111-.1 adI11.1 off
etheh l9a 30,, -trl le1330.OId hh lnenody11lon0.90pe U,th.lhte fb.gilneol szbtolc e.lslence of30.D4hel to lnenorlhweslerly lneefsal. tol
.hM al la n.nhwe y 11- 330.90 het Cthep.lmo 9 9. I man r�..m.m Cre nnty w9 y .3s -r the
9
TOOBTAI UNDERGROUND FACILITIES
commltmfth NO.0000T-13F.1
sonmeM aa.00 ,lath there.,.
_
BEFORE YOU DIG IN MINNESOTA, GALL GOPHER STATE ONE CALL
BEFORE YOU DIGIN MINNESOTA,
Th.tnue
otcof th.NE114ot the NF l4 of Ldt Quo, Tm'rnsN 12 Ran9e25. tlescribe. as Cllows:
comer of sal. Let c: tnence Fast along the south Ina of sal. Lot c a. e of 3201 feet w
encln9 at the.,
Tiler Title commnment NE1A0] -13sN
f E 114 If
TOLL FREE: 62-1166OR
®
hN : t dlt t
Calineo'parallel9 �o
mend girto est comer or sal.Sot f330.07 east abng the so91n Ilse of drab. ea.l ttnencenonn .efiecting
or�32d:
E: 10
FAX LOCATE: 1E90- 236 -096]
tnhg toistant'1 11.11, ddil ryes n91e
hhighl neaofcsaia fosc3
stetsabn9thesal. parallel of 4523 het b6a llne.ra,vn,tdfbala rl91n
30 b. th -h.' tery alonate
tt
�.escibn, l'�ftne12'o6t hetfm3 linenparalelhwith antl 1665 n9le to. the
cnmlth-
mw sn,ure ecawef� uw of .e nouns ueTicc eereec .eu c+cmre
th 11.ldi -h th. S.Ah.1t
td. d°aa'�mleo303znI,g o�ti,gthl °aofaid- geed -lb pdr- ea=aaso� �a °ae� °a�a'of °9
point ofbeglnning, eumpting terefromtne tlowing .ascribe. peroel: (c0nfdltM1
N.H1tdtd tight
Ilneofsal. tote th di,,t utheaeterl alonorsal. raIlNln d.- hettoa C; ton aline th., North at ar h
Nd01,aiono'dfdI1 ,ldpd,�onapoin5.23 e soutn°.Ilneol sai . tort
nets N t
6.nt Ire tllatant 255.66 feet tmm to �me,.f.altl�tn.tan ..nth.naal.lte63.68teesten weatpamllel „bM1to
one olseitlaLOtCee.66 het to tM1e poinmfbeginning.
A
Ultei
71 E . PROJECT No: 13.0134fi
DRAWN By GS
CHECKED BY: MEC
PROPOSED MONOPOLE
909 GOLF COURSE ROAD
MONTICELLO, MN 55362
SHEET TITLE
TOPOGRAPHIC
SURVEY
SHEET NUMBER
V -1
Io Es..iou..s r11- INNESOTA
uF
D8121/1 2f
sas-
nm rm 40035
MICHAEL E.
CANNON
PROPOSED MONOPOLE
909 GOLF COURSE ROAD
MONTICELLO, MN 55362
SHEET TITLE
TOPOGRAPHIC
SURVEY
SHEET NUMBER
V -1
SITE NAME: FIBERNET MONTICELLO TOWER
SITE TYPE: RAWLAND MONOPOLE
SITE INFORMATION
PROPERTY OWNER: CITY OF MONTICELLO
ADDRESS: 505 WALNUT STREET
MONTICELLO. MN 55362
763.295.2711 (PHONE)
763.295.4404 (FAX)
TOWER OWNER: CITY OF MONTICELLO
SITE NAME: FIBERNET MONTICELLO TOWER
SITE NUMBER:
SITE CONTACT:
SITE ADDRESS: 909 GOLF COURSE ROAD
MONTICELLO, MN 55362
COUNTY: WRIGHT
LATITUDE (NAD 83):
LONGITUDE (NAD 83):
GROUND ELEVATION: 936.9' AMSL
RAD CENTER:
ZONING JURISDICTION: CITY OF MONTICELLO
POWER COMPANY:
TELEPHONE COMPANY:
IF USING 11N17" PLOT, DRAWINGS
WILL BE HALF SCALE
z
�
Monticeflo
LOCATION MAP
N z_
■ SITE
`LOCATION
m Ly, Fnih. • t , i.�
A
DRAWING INDEX
SHEET NO:
SITE QUALIFICATION PARTICIPANTS
REV:
DRIVING DIRECTIONS
(NAME COMPANY
NUMBER
DIRECTIONS FROM NEAREST MAJOR AIRPORT:
A/E ISAAC ODLAND ULTEIG ENGINEERS
651- 415 -3BOD
C -1
SITE PIAN
A
DEPART MINNEAPOLIS —ST. PAUL INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT, MN TOWARD E 72ND STREET. KEEP STRAIGHT
GRADING PIAN
A
ONTO E 72ND STREET. TURN RIGHT ONTO 34TH AVE S. TAKE RAMP FOR 1 -494 W. FOLLOW 1 -494 TO
SITE ELEVATION
A
EXIT 27. TAKE RAMP LEFT FOR 1 -94 WEST TOWARD ST. CLOUD. GO APPROX. 23 MILES TO EXIT 193.
NOTES
A
TAKE RAMP RIGHT FOR MN -25 TOWARD BUFFALO /MONTICELLO. TURN RIGHT ONTO MN -25N /PINE ST.
TURN LEFT ONTO 6TH ST W. TURN RIGHT ONTO MINNESOTA ST. TURN LEFT ONTO W 5TH STREET. TURN
RIGHT ONTO ELM ST AND THEN IMMEDIATELY TURN LEFT ONTO GOLF COURSE ROAD. SITE WILL BE ON RIGHT IN.IRTHI S'QF OF
DRAWING INDEX
SHEET NO:
SHEET TITLE
REV:
T -1
TITLE SHEET
V -1
TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY
A
C -1
SITE PIAN
A
C -2
GRADING PIAN
A
A -1
SITE ELEVATION
A
N -1
NOTES
A
CODES AND STANDARDS
ALL CONSTRUCTION SHALL COMPLY WITH THE LATEST ADOPTED
EDITION OF THE FOLLOWING PUBLICATIONS:
1. ASTM (AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR TESTING AND MATERIALS)
2. ACI (AMERICAN CONCRETE INSTITUTE)
3. AISC (AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF STEEL CONSTRUCTION)
4. AWS (AMERICAN WELDING SOCIETY)
5. IBC (INTERNATIONAL BUILDING CODE)
6 MOOT (MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION)
7. ANSI (AMERICAN NATIONAL STANDARDS INSTITUTE)
8. IEEE (INSTITUTE OF ELECTRICAL AND ELECTRONICS ENGINEERS)
9. NEC (NATIONAL ELECTRICAL CODE)
1D. NEMA (NATIONAL ELECTRICAL MANUFACTURERS ASSOCIATION)
11. NESC ( INATIONAL ELECTRICAL SAFETY COMMISSION)
12. OSHA (OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTHY ADMINISTRATION)
13. UL (UNDERWRITERS LABORATORIES, INC.)
14. APPLICABLE LOCAL CODES AND ORDINANCES
DO NOT SCALE DRAWINGS
SUBCONTRACTOR SHALL VERIFY ALL PIANS & EXISTING DIMENSIONS & CONDITIONS ON
THE JOB SITE & SHALL IMMEDIATELY NDTIFY THE ENGINEER IN WRITING OF ANY DISCREPANCIES
BEFORE PROCEEDING WITH THE WORK OR BE RESPONSIBLE FOR SAME
TO OBTAIN LOCATION OF PARTICIPANTS UNDERGROUND FACILITIES
BEFORE YOU DIG IN MINNESOTA, CALL GOPHER STATE ONE CALL
TOLLFREE
®
FAX A LOCATE: 1 b00- 236 -096]
ux srnms aLaulacs e�o0vs25roT1a6ssO� you ncxuTL
ACITY OF
m...0 nticello
Ev
�UEI PROJECT No: 13.D1346
DRAWN BY: JMM
CHECKED BY IJO
909 GOLF COURSE ROAD
MONTICELLO, MN 55362
SHEET TITLE
TITLE SHEET
SHEEP NUMBER
T -1
+937..4
I lx
CENTERLINE OF TRACKS
�iiAo
Am---o
+ +937.5 ' PROPOSED 12' -D"
m� ���� q9�
" I ��S F/�
f
ACCESS GRAVEL DRIVE
°
/T
/% \
"'o 19(l�tie�sT
.6
ro�
/
\
5937.1
�
- _____ __
936.5��%J'jf�l\��\
\\ \\ / j BNSF RAILWAY
4/M II\\C -9 �- R -O -W
37 5
- -
PROPOSED 12'
3
SWING GATE y` X6 //
I� ����
37.1 -- - - -_ 936.9 -
937 - - - --
DECIDUOUS -- - - - - -- -
7.1 TREE,
(TYP.) 937.1
TREE TO BE M �� �/ /
REMOVED A /C9�,9 'Q
PROPOSED 8'x4' -6"
R' - �- CONCRETE SLAB
o / /lI j j I l /// (FOR Cltt GENERATOR)
J /
s.im �ran�m. re�a'as�a.szm�
rn .:
1 O'
+937.2
937.4
w
936.9 0
937.0
10'_0^
- j/ /II t / / / PROPOSED
^ j / / / CHAINLINK FENCE
PROPOSEDr a / -�\�\{,� /_ 1 I // w/ BARBED WIRE
12'x3D'� 10 -0" A 1 ='='� ✓ \\ 1$
R
EQUIPMENT SHELTER /O. O j % \ \\�
/�
UEI PROJECT No: 13.D1346
DRAWN BY: JMM
1937.3 v
n
9
o C
(FUTURE CARRIER) 12" 9 OHC��a,;rf0 / I I CONIFEROUS TREE
II
�� f �� /�I� I / % (TYP.)
CHECKED BY: IJO
°
937.2
+ _
�
937.4 a
s' -o" b
PROPOSED 936.8 _
-- -- MONOPOLE
°
937.2 d n
n n
10'-D"
PROPOSED ,. -' nn
EQUIPMENT3SHELTER s
12' O" PROPOSED
937.3 ° d e
937.3 ..
(FUTURE CARRIER)
2'x30' 9• -3.
------------------- - - - - -- --- - - - - -- EOUIPMENT SHELTER
_ It'- - -_ -- __-
��
(FUTURE CARRIER) •o ���� ��� -���
A
oB /ss /ta
IssuED F.R REVIEW
°
937.0 I
°���
937.4
.o
,^°
__ s3��
CONCRETE J 937.7
RETAINING 937.6
-937.6 WALL +
c1'J6 \\ \111 j/
95• -0"
937.4
FIBER VAULT
/
%,p�.�__� \�/
j�l����
\\,�\
& CABINET / / /\� \\
L III ±938.3-
/ / / ����\\
\ \\ l\ \� \����� %������
%�
///��11��\� \ \� ///��11��\� \ \� / // %��\ \\
/�� IV \77���
937.8 938'
'° F°
%��� ������A %�� j � ��� � ��� A� �//
�1, //
937.5
838- --- --- + - - - - - - -- -937-
�° �°
- -
_. -----------
- -
- --- -- - -- - - � - a
--- - - - -- � r'(NV. =935.3
24 i FES -
+, -.., - -- - - - - - -- 936 - -- --- - - - - -- - --
+I N E•H . ° -__-_-_-_--------------------------------------
C.M.P. 936--------------------------------------------
- -- --- - - - - -- - -- -- -- 936 -- --- - - - - -- ------ - - - - -- - -
--------------------------------------------------------- - -- - -- �o-
- ---- - - - - -- 35_-
- - - - -- 935.5 - - - -- +935.4 935.1+ .---- - - - - -- -
- - - 9
- - - - - -- -- ------------
'- - 937
+938.6
938 -,_
- -- -- --
- - --
- - - - -- -- 936-- - -_... R -o -w LINE
- - - -- - --- __._ _
-----------------------------____--------
- ------------------
909 GOLF COURSE ROAD
MONTICELLO. AN 55362
938.3 -----------------------
937 -___, „
-------------- --------
- - - - -- -----------------------------------
HIGHWAY NO. 39 (GOLF COURSE ROAD)
937.8
- - -- ------------
SHEETTRLE
SITE PLAN
SHEET NUMBER
C -1
®
0 4 B 8
SITE PLAN
SCALE: 1/8" = 1' -D"
+
CENTERLINE OF TRACKS
+ . +937,5 PROPOSED 12' -0"
n ACCESS GRAVEL DRIVE
/�u,i������/i- °9��q�,eti
cITV or
.6
Am---onticello
" +937.5 I
936' i y
9.37 1 I
93
BNSF RAILWAY
,�
3.7.5 _ _ _ _______
'� --
PROPOSED 12' I I\� -9 \\ / R -O -W
SWING GATE
937.1 936.9
937- - - -___
OQ qti
7.1 ��
PROPOSED 8'.4' -6"
V� , CONCRETE SLAB (CITY)
II I
I
o
937_
5 ,
— (GENERATOR)
r� i
1 0"
+937.2 937.4
937'6
- � PROPOSED
- ----------------- - -- ----- - - - - -, -, �� /II I / /a..-
/ CHAINLINK FENCE
PR ED AR / BARBED WIRE
uaw- r.wa'w -smrr
u
936.9',
,� IitN , w/
p�iOOS TTTTIIT "'
I
+937.3
w 93%3
w4.
'
EQUIPMENT3 SHE L 0o
(FUTURE CARRIER)_____ 12 "�J� S� �nfe ep �j 1) �\�\�
— - - /JYJ
j� /lII
�\�\ \!
UEI PROJECT ND: 13.D1345
937.2 e
937.4
w.
a
'
-
,
93 , / /II
/�/4/��
936.8 �� % II ��� �
------ --- `---/ - - - - - - -- - P O , � /
\�
-- -
O' S_E_D
DRAWN BY: JMM
CHECKED BY: IJo
9372
_
PROPOSED MONOPOLE "
12'.30' j �, � �/� ��
- ♦
EQUIPMENT SHELTER � � ��F �
,
d w n
937.3
(FUTURE CARRIER) P R, OPOSE D
'x30' X $
UIPME2NT SHELTER \
937.3
793
--
-'- -R-
- - - -- RE CARRIER) 9 36
_P_ (
� 9370 � V
CONCRETE 937.7
RETAINING 937.6
�� g�6 \ \1 + /��I I��� \�
i
A
0-1/22/13
ISSUED FOR REVIEW
-937.6 WALL +
937.4
-- — —
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — �m A �I / ��
FIBER CABINETT ll�Il ����\� \ \�
/ /�j� /l�I �����\ \��
Ir
%�/5�11�� \� % / /��\ /\ /�� /N �\\ \\ /f
vJG
+938....
\\
\ �/ 1�
938
937.8 �,o
% /i
938 - -- t ; - --- -- - -- - -- -937
--- --- --------------
9-31-
-- - - - - --
r =(NV. =935.3
FES
Fo Fo
o --------------------- --
�O
O�
24 -- -- - -- - -- 936- - -- -- -- - - --
IN6H-----------------------
'-------------------
F
936- - -- - -- -- Fo
- - - - -- - - ------------------------------------------------ - - - - -- Fo_
----- 936-----------------------
_- 935.5-__ --
935.4
-,
'_, 937 j— — -- -937
- -----------------
935.1+ -=- _--
-— — 35-
936 -- R —o —w uNE
- — - -- - - - --
-- __,_ — ........
--- - - - - -- — ------------------------- -- - --
+938.6 - ......... ----------------- --------- ------
938.3 ' - ..........
- -- - - -- - - - --
- -_,_
937 -- - -____
- - -- -- --- - - - - --
COUNTY HIGHWAY NO. 39 (GOLF COURSE ROAD)
----- - - - - -- - -
938.1 - - - -- 937.8 - -'- - - -___ - - - - -_ --------- - - - - --
909 GOLF ROAD
- _
O, MN
MONTICELLO, MN 55362
GRADING SYMBOL LEGEND
SHEET TITLE
- - - - - -- 936 - - - - -- E %ISTNG CONTOUR (MINOR) 93 PROPOSED CONTOUR
GRADING PLAN
- - - - - -- 9355 - - - - -- EKISTNG CONTOUR (MAJOR) X 931 5 PROPOSED SPOT ELEVATION
SHEET NUMBER
+ 935_4 EXISTNG SPOT ELEVATION _ _ _ _
PROPOSED SILT FENCE
0 4 B 18
C°
GRADING PLAN
SCALE: 1 /8" = 1' -0"
OVERALL STRUCTURE HEIGHT
= 199' AGL
(1) 6' & (3) 3' PROPOSED MICROWAVES) (CITY OWNED)
CENTERLINE = 190' AGL (VERIFY WITH CITY)
ANTENNA CENTERLINE
(FUTURE CARRIER) = 165' AGL
ANTENNA CE ERUNE
(FUTURE VZW) = 150' AGL L_____�
ANTENNA CENTERLINE
(FIfNRE CARRIER) = 135' AGL
4 SECTOR ANTENNAS CITY OWNED r
I
CENTERLINE = 100' AGL (VERIFY WITH CITY) L_
1 PROPOSED WIDE ANGLE CAMERA WITH PAN AND TILT r
(1) PROPOSED WARNING SIREN /SPEAKER FOR XCEL
(1) TWO WAY DISPATCH ANTENNA FOR FIRE DEPARTMENT
(ALL CITY OWNED) = ELEVATIONS YET TO BE DETERMINED BY CITY
PROPOSED 199' -0" MONOPOLE
PROPOSED 12'x30' EQUIPMENT SHELTER
(FUTURE CARRIER)
-,
I
_ _J
-,
Mo �iiAo
W+.Mm -o.•. w- rwa +w -smrr
.ww�imp<om
UEI PROJECT ND: 13.D1396
DRAWN BY: JMM
CHECKED BY IJO
A
OB/22/13
ISSUED FOR REVIEW
V
'`oo�eJ
_\ G `1�
NOTE: CITY CONCRETE SLAB AND GROUND EQUIPMENT NOT SEEN IN THIS ELEVATION
PROPOSED 12'x30' EQUIPMENT SHELTER
(FUTURE CARRIER)
PROPOSED CHAINLINK FENCE
w/ BARBED WIRE (TYP.)
Y EXISTING GRADE
909 GOLF COURSE ROAD
MONTICELLO, MN 55362
SHEET TITLE
SITE ELEVATION
SHEET NUMBER
A -1
F
SOUTH ELEVATION NOT TO SCALE
GENERAL NOTES:
GENERAL CONSTRUCTION NOTES
1.
THE CONTRACTOR SHALL SUPERVISE AND DIRECT ALL WORK,
15.
CONTRACTOR SHALL NOTIFY THE ENGINEER IF DETAILS ARE
1. PLANS ARE NOT TO BE SCALED. THESE PLANS ARE INTENDED TO BE A
US NG HIS SKILL AND ATTENTION. HE SHALL BE SDLEY
VIFTWORKOIS OR NOT
OUTLINE ONLY UNLESS SHALL
Mo
RESPO METHODS.
WOHINDCUSDOM RYYUTRADENPRACTICEE...
�iiAo
TECHNIQUES, PROCEDURES AND SEQUENCES FOR COORDINATING
IT WILL BE ASSUMED THAT THERE IS NO OBJECTION TO THE
NECESSARY TO EFFECT ALL INSTALLATIONS AS INDICATED ON THE DRAWINGS.
ALL PORTIONS OF THE WORK UNDER THE CONTRACT.
DETAIL. DETAILS ARE INTENDED TO SHOW THE END RESULT OF
THE DESIGN. MINOR MODIFICATIONS MAY BE INCLUDED AS PART
2.
THE CONTRACTOR SHALL VISIT THE JOB SITE TO REVIEW THE
OF THE WORK.
2. DETAILS ARE INTENDED TO SHOW DESIGN INTENT. MODIFICATIONS MAY BE REQUIRED
SCOPE OF WORK AND EXISTING JOB SITE CONDITIONS
TO SUIT JOB DIMENSIONS OR CONDITIONS, AND SUCH MODIFICATIONS SHALL BE
INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO MECHANICAL, ELECTRICAL
16.
EXISTING ELEVATIONS AND LOCATIONS TO BE JOINED SHALL BE
INCLUDED AS PART OF THE WORK.
SERVICE, AND OVERALL COORDINATION.
VERIFIED BY THE CONTRACTOR BEFORE CONSTRUCTION. IF
THEY DIFFER FROM THOSE SHOWN ON THE PLANS, THE
3.
THE CONTRACTOR SHALL VERIFY ALL EXISTING CONDITIONS
CONTRACTOR SHALL NOTIFY THE ENGINEER SUCH THAT
3. CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR COORDINATING HIS WORK WITH THE
AND DIMENSIONS PRIOR TO SUBMITTING HIS BID. ANY
MODIFICATIONS CAN BE MADE BEFORE PROCEEDING WITH
WORK OF OTHERS AS IT MAY RELATE TO RADIO EQUIPMENT, ANTENNAS AND ANY
DISCREPANCIES, CONFLICTS OR OMISSIONS, ETC. SHALL BE
THE WORK.
OTHER PORTIONS OF THE WORK.
REPORTED TO THE ENGINEER BEFORE PROCEEDING WITH
THE WORK.
17.
ALL SYMBOLS AND ABBREVIATIONS USED ON THE DRAWINGS
4. INSTALL ALL EQUIPMENT AND MATERIALS IN ACCORDANCE WITH MANUFACTURERS
ARE CONSIDERED CONSTRUCTION STANDARDS. IF THE
RECOMMENDATIONS UNLESS SPECIFICALLY OTHERWISE INDICATED OR WHERE LOCAL
4.
THE CONTRACTOR SHALL PROTECT ALL AREAS FROM DAMAGE
CONTRACTOR HAS QUESTIONS REGARDING THEIR EXACT MEANING,
CODES OR REGULATIONS TAKE PRECEDENCE.
WHICH MAY OCCUR DURING CONSTRUCTION. ANY DAMAGE TO
THE ENGINEER SHALL BE NOTIFIED FOR CLARIFICATIONS BEFORE
NEW AND EXISTING CONSTRUCTION, STRUCTURE, OR EQUIPMENT,
PROCEEDING WITH WORK.
5. IN DRILLING HOLES INTO CONCRETE WHETHER FOR FASTENING OR ANCHORING
SHALL BE IMMEDIATELY REPAIRED OR REPLACED TO THE
PURPOSES, OR PENETRATIONS THROUGH THE FLOOR FOR CONDUIT RUNS, PIPE
SATISFACTION OF THE TENANT OR BUILDING OWNER, OR
18.
THE CONTRACTOR SHALL PROVIDE ALL NECESSARY BLOCKING,
RUNS, ETC., MUST BE CLEARLY UNDERSTOOD THAT REINFORCING STEEL SHALL NOT
m"xpl,- o..- osaw- rwaw -smrr
OWNER'S REPRESENTATIVE, AT THE EXPENSE OF THE
CONTRACTOR.
BACKING, FRAMING, HANGERS OR OTHER SUPPORT FOR ALL
OTHER ITEMS REQUIRING THE SAME.
BE DRILLED INTO, CUT OR DAMAGED UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES (UNLESS NOTED
OTHERWISE). LOCATIONS OF REINFORCING STEEL ARE NOT DEFINITELY KNOWN AND
5.
THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR, AND SHALL
19.
CITY APPROVED PLANS SHALL BE KEPT IN A PLAN BOX AND
THEREFORE MUST BE SEARCHED FOR BY APPROPRIATE METHODS AND EQUIPMENT.
LEI PROJECT No: 13.D1346
REPLACE OR REMEDY, ANY FAULTY, IMPROPER, OR INFERIOR
MATERIALS OR WORKMANSHIP OR ANY DAMAGE WHICH SHALL
APPEAR WITHIN ONE YEAR AFTER THE COMPLETION AND
SHALL NOT BE USED BY WORKMEN. ALL CONSTRUCTION SETS
SHALL REFLECT SAME INFORMATION. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL
ALSO MAINTAIN IN GOOD CONDITION, ONE COMPLETE SET OF
S. MINIMUM BEND RADIUS OF ANTENNA CABLES SHALL BE IN ACCORDANCE WITH
CABLE MANUFACTURERS RECOMMENDATIONS.
DRAWN BY: JMM
ACCEPTANCE OF THE WORK UNDER THIS CONTRACT.
PLANS WITH ALL REVISIONS, ADDENDA AND CHANGE ORDERS
ON THE PREMISE AT ALL TIMES. THESE ARE TO BE UNDER THE
CHECKED BY: IJ0
6. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL REMOVE ALL RUBBISH AND WASTE CARE OF THE JOB SUPERINTENDENT.
MAT RAILS ON A REGULAR BASIS, AND SHALL EXERCISE
STRICT CONTROL OVER JOB CLEANING THROUGHOUT
SITE WORK NOTES
CONSTRUCTION, INCLUDING FINAL CLEAN -UP UPON COMPLETION
OF WORK. ALL AREAS ARE TO BE LEFT IN A BROOM CLEAN
CONDITION AT THE END OF EACH DAY.
1. DO NOT SCALE BUILDING DIMENSIONS FROM DRAWING.
7.
THE CONTRACTOR SHALL SAFEGUARD THE OWNER'S PROPERTY
DURING CONSTRUCTION AND SHALL REPLACE ANY DAMAGED
2. CONTRACTOR SHALL CLEAN ENTIRE SITE AFTER CONSTRUCTION SUCH THAT NO PAPERS,
PROPERTY OF THE OWNER TO ORIGINAL CONDITION OR BETTER. TRASH, WEEDS, BRUSH OR ANY OTHER DEPOSITS WILL REMAIN. ALL MATERIALS COLLECTED
DURING CLEANING OPERATIONS SHALL BE DISPOSED OF OFF -SITE BY THE GENERAL
B.
IT SHALL BE THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE CONTRACTOR TO
CONTRACTOR.
LOCATE ALL EXISTING UTILITIES, WHETHER SHOWN HEREIN
OR NOT, AND TO PROTECT THEM FROM DAMAGE. THE
CONTRACTOR SHALL BEAR ALL EXPENSES FOR REPAIR OR
REPLACEMENT OF UTILITIES OR OTHER PROPERTY DAMAGED IN
A
DB/22/t3
ISSUED FOR REVIEW
CONJUNCTION WITH THE EXECUTION OF WORK.
9.
THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE COMPLETE
SECURITY OF THE SITE WHILE THE JOB IS IN PROGRESS AND
UNTIL THE JOB IS COMPLETED PER ALL APPLICABLE CODES.
__\\
10.
ALL CONSTRUCTION WORK SHALL CONFORM TO THE I.B.C. AND
ALL OTHER GOVERNING CODES, ALONG WITH THE GOVERNING
RESTRICTIVE CODES.
V
11.
THE CONTRACTOR AND ALL SUBCONTRACTORS SHALL COMPLY
v
WITH ALL LOCAL CODE REGULATIONS AND STATE DEPARTMENT
OF INDUSTRIAL REGULATIONS AND DIVISION OF INDUSTRIAL
SAFETY (OSHA) REQUIREMENTS.
12.
THE CONTRACTOR SHALL OBTAIN AND PAY FOR ANY PERMITS,
G
LICENSES AND INSPECTIONS NECESSARY FOR PERFORMANCE
_\o
OF THE WORK AND INCLUDE THOSE IN THE COST OF THE
WORK TO THE OWNER.
\`O
'c
13.
FIGURED DIMENSIONS HAVE PRECEDENCE OVER DRAWING SCALE,
AND DETAIL DRAWINGS HAVE PRECEDENCE OVER SMALL
SCALE DRAWINGS. CHECK ACCURACY OF ALL DIMENSIONS IN
THE FIELD. UNLESS SPECIFICALLY NOTED, DO NOT FABRICATE
ANY MATERIALS OFF -SITE, OR PERFORM ANY CONSTRUCTION
UNTIL THE ACCURACY OF DRAWING DIMENSIONS HAVE BEEN
VERIFIED AGAINST ACTUAL FIELD DIMENSIONS.
14.
CONTRACTOR SHALL NOTIFY THE ENGINEER OF ANY CONFLICTS
OR DISCREPANCIES WITHIN THE CONTRACT DOCUMENTS WITH
909 GOLF COURSE ROAD
THE CONTRACT DOCUMENTS AND THE FIELD CONDITIONS PRIOR
TO EXECUTING THE WORK IN QUESTION.
MONTICELLO, AN 55362
SHEET TITLE
NOTES
SHEET NUMBER
N -1
F
NOTES
August 81h, 2013
City of Monticello
505 Walnut Street
Monticello, MN 55....
RE: Proposed 195' Monopole Tower by the City of Monticello
To Whom It May Concern:
Verizon Wireless (VAW) LLC d/b/a Verizon Wireless has been working in cooperation with City of
Monticello and its representatives to find a suitable location in Monticello to meet Verizon Wireless's
coverage/service objective for this area .
Currently, there are no existing structures available for collocation to accommodate Verizon Wireless's
proposed equipment at the height necessary to achieve the coverage/service objective for this area.
Recently, Verizon Wireless became aware that the City of Monticello was engaged in discussions with a
tower construction company to build a new 195 foot monopole near the City of Monticello. Verizon
Wireless has made a preliminary determination that the proposed tower should satisfy its
coverage/service objective.
The City has provided its form site lease agreement to Verizon Wireless for the possible collocation of
Verizon Wireless's antennas and equipment on the proposed tower. Verizon Wireless will be reviewing
this site lease agreement and will be providing revisions so that the possible lease meets its corporate
standards for leasing. Verizon Wireless will also need to lease a parcel of land sufficient for the
installation of its equipment building, and in addition to seeking any needed zoning permits, Verizon
Wireless also conducts other due diligence on proposed sites, including environmental review.
Please note that this letter is not intended to be and shall not be binding upon the parties and no
binding agreements shall exist between the parties for any purpose until a final, definitive, fully
negotiated lease agreement has been fully executed and delivered.
Verizon Wireless looks forward to continue working with the City to meet Verizon Wireless's
coverage/service objective for this area.
Sincerely,
Sarah Hill
Agent for Verizon Wireless
Current and Proposed Demand and Coverage Maps of Monticello Area for Proposed Silver Creek Site
Jordan Alstad
RF Engineer, Verizon Wireless
7-19-2013
Below I have provided three maps that evidence the need for a Verizon Wireless Site at the proposed City Works property. The first map (Page 2)
shows the current cellular traffic of Verizon customers in erlangs, which is a measurement of usage. The area on the south east side of town is
the highest usage center for several miles (the map extends about 6.5 miles in any direction from Monticello).
The second map (Page 3) shows the current coverage by site sector from the nearby on air sites. Currently, nearly the entire high traffic area
shown in the first map is served by a single sector (01 Monty, shown in bright green). High traffic being served by a single site sector can lead to
problems with reliability and data speed; as more people accessing the network at a single access point, they are afforded less bandwidth and
thus slower speeds.
The third map (Page 4) shows the proposed coverage by site sector from nearby sites as well as the proposed site after it goes on air. Now the
high traffic area from the first map is offloaded from the 01 Monty sector onto the 02 and 03 Silver Creek sectors. This division of the high traffic
area will allow more users to access the network without sacrificing reliability and speed.
" J
mo
'5e
— t I
{x771+■{ S. +1 i - C�11l1' .� 1' -�f f'r
Ul" % 41.0
91 -17
E .� • " #r y ter. � 'ry r• y ���■� i
-fir #� ,_ `� ■�
- a7 - 7r■ r �k�r ' r �1f _ a x,+ _V3
Lq
r -
�"s I � • � .fir �'7 1 i � �" r+ �,� a "� ••••' r _� + a r
w. � r.
v
L
a
0
v
V)
v
0
CL
0
L
d
L
0
U
N
N
h0
f6
L
0
U
v
E
5
U
C
r-I
L
a
IL
0
v
V)
v
Ln
O
CL
O
L
d
L
O
u
U
N
N
h0
f6
L
O
U
N
O
Q
O
d
36n X2t RGHT -0OF
EXISTING RAILWAY
TRACKS
NOT FOR
z
/p l ' EXISTING
ENL
ON
CONSTRUCTI ON
Cltt OWNED
PROPOSED VEIM W CONCRETE SLAB
PREFABRICATED --
EQUIPMENT SHELTER
EXISTING FENCED
/
DESIGN6.
o II /
RGBERT�GAwB,AtA
To' 10'-0" a9'- 0"'•.1 EQUIPMENT SWEETER
Bs 3 VAIlEVVIEw RG.
/
EDEN PRAIRIE. MN 55344
(9S2)883-8m
a _k
tea.
a
Li
v u
I
I n
J
m Ii\ \1`� \� Y"
r-------L--L--L�- J
Li
Ell J /JJlli I\i�
RE PROVIDERS
SHELTER \ \lll�ll!/ b /r \I I f1� \ \ \I �J1� \� �J1 \I IJ \� t%1 L 20720826194
� ��1I11�
nu rNCAein� %_� t1G MINC
g�iJ \! 1"'611. ��� _� _ _
/ / /(111ft \�\ 1ellll ii \\'RO /tr /lt!Id'lil \ \\ \���\ �r/ fllli \ \ \����r�11ti11` \ \����j� /IJ I ���~ iii // a` �� `� mr I SILVER CREEK
IGHT "oFftwAY FO FO 11(I II
\\\
1N. =935.3 FO FO��_FO FO �FO_
77kElU'lPMENT
_AA cM _g =_ -� _ _ - FO�� GOLF COURSE ROAD
C.M.P. MONTICELLO, MN 553
g 62
- _______________
�- BENCHMARK 4.
SHEET CONTENTS:
COUNTY HIGHWAY NO. 39 (GOLF COU n+ SITE PLAN
VERIZON
WIRELESS
18801 BUSH LAKE RGAD
BLOOMINGTON, AM 55438
(812) Tw
O C
L will
SITE PLAN
SCALE:
3 dm
M
ANTENNA KEY
COAL( KEY
NOT FOR
AZIMUTH
POSITION
FUNCTION
OTY
WNUFAC111RER
MODEL
MOD
ANTENNA
ANTENNA
ELEC
MECH
�,
COAX
MAN
MODEL
DELECIRIC
DIAMETER
��
ARCHITECT
sera YADEYVIEw RD.
EDEN PRAIRIE, MN 00344
765.0 AGL
csszl eat -azBs
VER�M WiiElESS ANTENNA
__-(12) PROPOSED ANTEMPS,
SEE ANTENNA MOIAIRO
DETAIL
TYPE
LENGTH
TIP
CENTER
OWNTIL
DOWNIILT
W/ (1) DIMOR ON BOX
& (3) FARM BOXES
TYPE
(12) PROPOSED
WIRELESS
(INCH)
(FEET)
10801 BUSH LAKE RDAD
P
1.1
SLOOMINOTON,MN55438
1
COOMPE
LNX- 6515DS -VTM
COMA +45
96A
154
150
2'
7
1
INSIDE
PROJECT
wk? -So
FOM
1 -5/8
175
CITY awY NEO E ulPR MENT
a
1.2
TX/RXt
(1) PROPOSED i12°
2ND PORT
Lt -45
RET iMIA° CABLE
(INSIDE MONOPOLE)
i
MAIN
- - - - --
ANDREW
AVA7 -`l.]
_ ---
FOAM
1 -5 8'
175
TOWER ELEVATION
P
21
0
1
AMEL
WBX065Xi7M050
EYDO +45
54.7°
1525
150'
0'
0'
1
DIPLEX
COMMSCOPE
E l 5S09P49
OIPLIXED WITH 850
'X'
TX /RXi
-
- -
-
- -
2ND PORT
AWS -45
-
-
-
-
1
RRU
_
ERICSSON
RRUS -12
it) CWAMSWPE P- *12- S30 -12
0'
3.1
JRSLO
1
ANTEL
W8XG65X77MO50
AWS +45
54.
152.5
150
P
P
SECTOR
Fl1) FEED TAIL GIST. BOX TO RRU
U
3.2
TX /RX1
2ND PORT
EVD0 -45
0
DIPLD
COMMSCOPE
E15S09P49
DIPLEXED WITH 850
TX
COMMSCOPE
6515DS_VrM
LTE +45
96.4'
154'_
156_
7
1-
MAIN
ANDREW
1,58° 175_
-0'_
P
_4.1_
4,2
_0
TX Xi
_1
_LNX-
2ND PORT
COMA -45
__2'_ -
- --
T
MAIN
ANDREW
AVA7 -50
_FOAM _
FOAM 1 -5 8 175'
1W-
_ .1
1
--
- MMSCO
--
COMA +4_5
96.4
154
150
1_
-
AVAi -SO_
_ 1_ -5 9 175_
_
120'
_
1.2
TX RX7
- -- - --
__
2ND PORT
LTE -45
-
-
-
-
-
1
MN
--
AW7 -50
_
FOAM 1- B 175'
120'
21
TX 0
1
I EL
WBX065X17M050
EV00 +45
54.
1525
150
P
P
1
DIPLEX
COMMSCOPE
E15STP49
DIPLIXED WTM 850
y
- --
12T
- - --
2.2
- --
TX RX1
--
-
- - - - - --
-
_
2ND PORT
AWS -45
- -_-
- - --
-
-_ --
-_
_-
-
1
---
RRU
- - -- ---
FRICSSON
- - - --
RRUS -12
-- --
(1) COMMSCDPE Rtt412- 2530 -12
120'
3.1
1
ANTEL
WBXO65Xi7MO50
AWS +45
54.
1525
i
0'
0'
SECTOR
RBER FEED TIL DST. BOX TO RRU
- --
12P
- ---
3.2
-- --
TXfRXt
- -_ - - --
---- --- - --
2ND PORT
-- --
EV00 -45
- -_-
- - --
-
- --
- -_-
_ --
--
0
---
DIPLIX
-- - - - - --
COMMSCOPE
- -- --
E1 5509P §9
---- --- -- -50
DIPLE%ED WITH 850
120'
4.1
TX XO
1
COMMSCOPE
LNX- 6515DS -VTM
LTE +45
96.4'
154'
150'
0'
1
f -5
175_
120'
4.2
TX X1
2ND PORT
MA -4
-
1
'MAIN
_
� AN - --
AVA7 -50
__ _ _
FOAM 1
175
1.1
1
C
COMA +45
96.4
154
150
1
AVA7 90
1 -5
175
24P
1.2
T W)11
2ND PORT
LTE -45
1
_
m7-SO
FOAM t-5/8'
175'
24P
2.1
1
ANTEL
WBXO65X77MO56
EYCO +45
54.
1525
1 S
7
P
1
DIPLFX
COMMSCOPE
E15SO9P49
DIPLEXED_WITH 850
24P
2.2
TX /RXi
-
-
2ND PORT
AWS -45
-
-
-
-
-
- --
__
(1) calMSCaPE RMtz- S3D -9z
SECTOR
i
RRU
ERI
-12
Fl_W_R OSL -x
3.1
T X
1
ANTEL
WBXO65X77M0�
AYS +45
54.T
152.5'
15a
-
P_
--
3.2
TX RXT
-
' - - --
2ND PORT --
iV06 -16
-
-
-- -
--
0
DIPLEX
-- _
COMMSCOPE
-
E75S09P49
-RRU
- -
DIPLEXED WRH 850 --
�240'
4.1
TX XO
1
CAMMSCOPE
LNX- 65151S_VTM
L1£+IS
96.4
154
150
7-
1T
AWN
ANDEW
AVA7 -50
FOAM
4.2
TX X1
-
2ND PORT
C11MA -4!
-
-2'-
1
MAIN
-
ANDREW
AVA7 -50
FOAM
1
ADDITIONAL: COMMSL'OPE DISTRIBUTION BOX MODEL RVZDC- 3315 -PF -48 IN SHELTER, 1 ON TOWE .
24
JADED
I
LDF4-50A
I FOAM
1
70
(1} COMMSCOPE 6RRU TRUNK CABLE MOD LJ RFAI206- 24526 -XXX.
(i} RET'FOMERUN° CABLE & CONTROLLER INSIDE SHELTER.
5 ANTENNA KEY
SCALE: NONE
'X' SECTOR 0' AZIMUTH
NOTE: #1.2 TX /RX1 #2.2 TX /RX1 #3.2 TX /RX1 r4.2 TX/R)(1
T -FRAME MAKE AND MODEL #1.1 TX /RXO #2.1 TX /RXO #3.1 TX /RXO X4.1 TX /RXO
T.B.D. 12'_0•
CONTRACTOR . TO
(12) 2.5 °0 8.5' LONG
SCHEDULE GALVANIZED 40
MOUNTING PIPES -je
d C�SCALE. NONE
11.1 COMA {1.2 LTE
ti #2.1 CDM X22 #4.1 LTE #42 COMA
pfo °%' SECTOR I F':] ] 6 O Q l 1 t i
121:1 �CE rz2j E� UTE
H.1�UE f4.2�COMA (RID TYPI�
`gi p ,� M SECTOR @ [ [ 1 ] (g 1 (g o'-0
b 1.1 COMA #1.2 LTE �J �J
C14O /22 EVDO 14.1 LTE 14.2 CDMA ((1 UNUSED
@00000
7' SECTOR
NORTH
Q}a�}ti 6�(RR)Uy] (/^ \J { ^J {i) 1/2' GPS COAX
(1) 1/2° REI CABLE
ANTENNA MOUNTING DETAIL ORwMC SINE COAX ENTRY DETAIL INTERIOR VIEW)
3 SCALE: 311- -1' - -a. 2 SCALE : NONE
GRN_& WER LL
AGL 0 TO
TOWER ELEVATION WArSWE
SCALE: 1'- 30' 11,
A -3
NOT FOR
CONSTRUCTION
27Vcm- F RE HOW
19
an ❑nw EDUwMLNT
190.0' AGL
DESIGN 6,
ROBERT.I DAVIS,AIA
FUTURE PROVIDER ANTENNA EL
ARCHITECT
sera YADEYVIEw RD.
EDEN PRAIRIE, MN 00344
765.0 AGL
csszl eat -azBs
VER�M WiiElESS ANTENNA
__-(12) PROPOSED ANTEMPS,
SEE ANTENNA MOIAIRO
DETAIL
_. 150.I AGL
PROPOSED (1) COMAR MOUNT
FUTURE PROVIDER ANTENNA X�
4135.0' AGL
W/ (1) DIMOR ON BOX
& (3) FARM BOXES
VERIZON
(12) PROPOSED
WIRELESS
COAX
10801 BUSH LAKE RDAD
(INSIDE MONOPOLE)
SLOOMINOTON,MN55438
(612) TwD080
(1) PROPOSED S M
TRMNK HYBRID CABLE
COY OWNED ANTENNAS V
INSIDE
PROJECT
100. AGL MRlfr
20120828194
MINC
CITY awY NEO E ulPR MENT
85. AGl (VERIM
SILVER CREEK
(1) PROPOSED i12°
RET iMIA° CABLE
(INSIDE MONOPOLE)
EXISINO 199.a
MO OPOLE TO
GOLF COURSE ROAD
MONTICELLO, MN 55362
SHEET CONTENTS:
TOWER ELEVATION
COAX ENTRY DETAIL
ANTENNA MOUNTING DETAIL
COAX & ANTENNA KEY
GRN_& WER LL
AGL 0 TO
TOWER ELEVATION WArSWE
SCALE: 1'- 30' 11,
A -3
Planning Commission Agenda – 9/03/13
1
8. Public Hearing – Consideration of a request for Amendment to CUP for Addition of
Equipment for Co-Location of Wireless Communication Antennae. Applicant:
Faulk & Foster for AT & T Mobility (AS)
Property: Lots 6, 7, and 8, Block 2, Lauring Hillside Terrace,
406 E. 7th Street, PID#: 155029002060, 155029002070,
155029002080
Planning Case Number: 2013-012
A. REFERENCE & BACKGROUND
Request(s): Amendment to Conditional Use Permit for addition of
equipment at an existing tower site
Deadline for Decision: 60 days, October 6th, 2013
Land Use Designation: Places to Shop
Zoning Designation: IBC, Industrial & Business Campus
The purpose of the “IBC” industrial business campus
district is to provide for the establishment of limited light
industrial business offices, limited light manufacturing,
wholesale showrooms and related uses in an environment
which provides a high level of amenities, including
landscaping, preservation of natural features, architectural
controls, and other features.
The proposed use is allowed as conditional use in the
district as an accessory to principal use.
Current Site Use: The subject site consists of three parcels, with a single
multi-tenant building on the site. The existing principal
building crosses the property lines between the eastern two
of the three parcels. An existing 160-foot monopole
telecommunication tower exists on the center parcel.
Planning Commission Agenda – 9/03/13
2
Surrounding Land Uses:
North: The tower site itself is located behind the parking field and
existing building on the subject site. 7th Street (collector
route) and multi-family residential parcels, zoned R-3
(Medium Density Residential) are located to the north.
East: Vacant, zoned IBC
South: I-94 (arterial route)
West: Vacant, zoned IBC
Project Description: The applicant proposes to install a back-up generator for
the co-located telecommunication antenna. The generator
is proposed to be located within the existing tower
enclosure on the site.
Ordinance Requirements: The zoning ordinance encourages co-location of antenna
equipment on existing towers or other structures. Per
ordinance, an amendment to Conditional Use Permit is
required for the new equipment.
ANALYSIS
The conditional use permit for this property was approved in February of 2003. The CUP
included the construction of a 160-foot monopole wireless communication tower,
including antennas and transmitting cabinets.
Faulk & Foster, representing AT & T Mobility, is seeking an amendment to the CUP to
allow the installation of a proposed back-up generator, along with ancillary electric and
wiring equipment to support the generator. The generator will support service for co-
located antenna on the tower.
The generator itself is approximately 3.5’ x 8.5’ or 29 square feet in area and 4.5’ in
height and will sit on a 4’ x 10’ concrete slab. The generator is not proposed to be
enclosed within a building structure.
To follow is an analysis of compliance with zoning code provisions as related to the
request.
Parking. There is no specific parking requirement.
Landscaping. The enclosure is not being altered as a part of this work.
Planning Commission Agenda – 9/03/13
3
Lighting. No additional lighting is proposed.
Signage. No signage is proposed.
Noise. The applicant has provided sound reading information
indicating that the noise level produced by the generator is
60 DBI at 25 feet. The generator is exercised ounce a week
for approximately 30 minutes.
The noise generated by the proposed equipment will be
intermittent and is not anticipated to be audible at the
closest property line, the east line, which is approximately
100 feet from the proposed generator location. Sound will
be further dampened by existing ground equipment to the
north, east and west.
Screening The applicant has not proposed any additional screening for
the generator equipment. The generator will lie within the
existing fenceline enclosure, which is surrounded by
existing mature conifers on the east, south and west.
Building Design. No additional building construction is proposed.
Access and Circulation. The tower enclosure gains access from 7th Street and
through existing parking and access drives. No additional
traffic or improvements are anticipated as a result of this
application.
Grading and Drainage. No changes to grade or drainage are proposed.
Utilities. The applicant will be required to verify that no city utilities
are impacted by this work.
Conditional Use Permit Requirements
The zoning ordinance requires an amendment to Conditional Use Permit for equipment
for existing structures. The applicants have submitted the required information and
appear to be in compliance with each of the required regulations of the code. The
changes are minor and there are expected to be no visual or other impacts for surrounding
property.
Planning Commission Agenda – 9/03/13
4
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS
1. Motion to approve Resolution 2013-065 recommending approval of the
amendment to Conditional Use Permit as requested, based on the findings in said
resolution and subject to the condition that the applicant verify that the proposed
improvement will not impact city utilities or easements.
2. Motion to deny Resolution 2013-065 recommending for a Conditional Use
Permit, based on findings to be made by the Planning Commission.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends approval of the Conditional Use Permit as submitted, based on the
application materials provided, and with findings that the proposal meets the
requirements of the ordinance, and that the proposal no significant impacts on
surrounding property.
D. SUPPORTING DATA
A. Resolution 2013-065
B. Aerial Image
C. Zoning Map
D. Applicant Narrative
E. Application Package, including:
Site Plan
Elevations
Images
CITY OF MONTICELLO
WRIGHT COUNTY, MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION NO. 2013 —065
Date: September 3, 2013 Resolution No. 2013 -065
Motion By:
Seconded By:
A RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF AN AMENDMENT TO
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR ADDITION OF EQUIPMENT FOR
CO- LOCATION OF WIRELESS COMMUNICATION ANTENNAE
WHEREAS, Faulk & Foster has requested an Amendment to Conditional Use Permit for
Addition of Equipment for Co- Location of Wireless Communication Antennae for the property
located at Lots 6, 7, and 8, Block 2, Lauring Hillside Terrace, 406 E. 76 Street, which is located
in an IBC District; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the application for Amendment to
Conditional Use Permit pursuant to the regulations of the Monticello Zoning Ordinance; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on September P, 2013 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 submitted application is in compliance with each of the required regulations of the
Monticello Zoning Ordinance.
2. The proposed modifications to the existing antenna sight are minimal, and therefore there
are no expected impacts for surrounding property.
3. No additional traffic or improvements are anticipated resulting from this application.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the Planning Commission of the City of
Monticello, Minnesota:
1. Pursuant to Minn. Stat. §462.357, the application for Amendment to Conditional Use
Permit for Addition of Equipment for Co- Location of Wireless Communication Antennae
406 E. 7t' Street is hereby recommended to the City Council for approval.
ADOPTED this 3rd day of September 2013, by the Planning Commission of the City of
Monticello, Minnesota,
MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION
ATTEST:
William Spartz, Chair
Angela Schumann, Community Development Director
Request for Amendment to CUP for Addition of Equipment for Co- Location of Wireless Communication Antennae,
Lots 6, 7, and 8, Block 2, Lauring Hillside Terrace, 406 E. 7h Street,
PID##: 155029002060 ,155029002070,155029002080
Monficello Geographic InfonTiidon Syemrfi z is=r� r�eeaal foss a w.s�rsy.,. -, c,..s
Lv er
:P 411
qO
lip
do
Mr
Ts
4 r' ■F
T r
s +,
Lwww
"wz0wmmmfm
FuMM" cbmw
Now- a"4%
IK
AClla
- IW�A�mlF7pra�i
_h7
AA
2w9LAxmRmm
PmftmEw*mmwdQmwvw4
ow.vmw mom
OEM
11111r. www
Subject Parcel
City of Monticello
Official Zoning Map
WIVE
6
City or MDfItiCelto July 22, 2013
Community Development
Attn: Angei'a Schumann
505 Watnut St, Suite 1
Monticello, MN 55362
'763- 295 -2711
Re: Building permit for Proposed. AT &T Generator Addition
Applicant: AT &T by Faulk and Foster
Project Description: AT &T plans to add a 50kW back -up generator on
4'x10' Concrete slab.
AT &T Site Name: Monticello /RI.:MW 10102726
Location: 406 East 7t' St. Monticello, MN 55362
AT &T is proposing to ado a SOM back -up generator on a 4'x1U' concrete
slab at the existing site shown above.
Enclosed is the Land Use Application.
If you have any questions or ^e:}
hesif'aMn to is ntact me at _
. Thank you very m
Sincerely,
Kristi Solomon, Zoning Specialist
baulk & Foster
588 Three Mile Rd -NW
Suite 102 �1
T14v1� bG�`;y.�] IrRl TC14�V
4.11
CIsV 1F CffVOFM0NTfCELYLO
Community Devalopmant
505 Walnut Shut, Suite 1
]j/� t Mac Imno,MN $5362 .and Use Application
1 Y 1oL 0 {763, 295_2711 .
�,� - — '- "'iYMPY9PIIrtIPI�PIs
.e7
Commercial 'See escrow Resldentlel 0 -3 Acres $2,gp0 Statement on 1 unit 500 sin le- farm!
4 -10 6 000 reverse. 2 +units 1a0Q baaad + 100 unit
11+ 10,000
�rM
)#%+Co.
lieAsed 3/${2032
115111
Ad Inistrative Ajustment
i I !1 111
Not OR l3cable
Ameridmentto Ordinance
M! Amendment Rezonl
700+ escrow
Text Arne n dm ant
200 + escrow.
Com re enure Plan Amendment
200 T escrow
ConditionalUse Perm ft
00 +escrow
Planned Unit Davelg ment
Coliaborative
_ $50 +escrow
Concept
$200 +escrow
Devela rnent
200 + escrow.
Final
$50 +escrow
Slte Plan ReView
200 +- escrow
Skatch Plen Review
iVvtB Ilcat}le
Subdivision
Sim to Sub h+lslor�
20G + escrow
Prellminar Plat
300 + escrow
Final Piet
sso + escrow
Variance
Vacation Easement or Right of Way)
$x8q +escrow
200 + escrow
.e7
Commercial 'See escrow Resldentlel 0 -3 Acres $2,gp0 Statement on 1 unit 500 sin le- farm!
4 -10 6 000 reverse. 2 +units 1a0Q baaad + 100 unit
11+ 10,000
�rM
)#%+Co.
lieAsed 3/${2032
I am the fee.. a owner of the described properly nand I agree to tills application, I certliy tlat II am In comp ane
with all ord1fance requirements and cunditfons regarding other City approval that have been previously granted.
40 to
'>iWs applicetfon shall be processed In my name and t am the party whom the City should contact regarting the
appllcatfon. I have completed all Df the appilceble filing mqulraments and I hereby acknowledge that I have read
and fully understand the appllcable provisions of the City Ordlnances and current policies related to this
application and that the documents and Information I have submitted are true and correct.
o.3 1 0
a the Fees & Escrow Purpose explanation below and hereby agrsa to pay all stetements
additional aooJicatlon expense and City review.
rTrb
71mellne for Review
MN State 15,99 allows a 60-day review period for final action on a land use application, once that application Is
found to be complete, unless the City extends the review period and so notifies the applicant. Your request vial
not be scheduled for public hearing or My review until all required Information has been provided and found to be
adequate by the Community Development Department.
(Purpose of Fees & Escrow
Fees; The application fees are used for publication of the public hearing notice In the Monticello Times, for
postage to mail the required notice to adjacent properties as outlined by ordinance, and recording fees.
Fcrow; The City uses escrow deposits for staff and consultant time for case review and preparation of documents
related to she application. -nib may include engineering, legal, planning and environmental consultation. Should
the original escrow he exceeded, the applicant or responsible party will be blued for all additional services,
It Is the policy of the Oty of Nionticetlo to require applicants for land use approvals to reimburse the City for costs
Incurred in reviewing and acting upon applications, so that these costs are not borne by the taxpayers of the City. I
These cysts include all of the City's out -of- porker costs for Expenses, Including the City's costs far revievl of the
application by the City's staff, Consulting Engineer, Consulting Planner, City Attorney, or other consultants,
The City will Invoice the applicant for these costs within H months or final action on the land use application and
payment will be due within thirty (30) days. if payment is not received as required by this agreement, the City will
proceed on action to assess or Ilan. Payment of costs will be required whether the opplication Is grontad or denied.
Application Received Date
Han
60 Days J 178 Da�rs
J
i
1
i
EIOHNG PARIONG LCT. PROTECT J
DURING WNSIRUCTION - --
` K
DURING CONSTRUCTION
COMPOUND, PR07HCT ~
DURING CONSIRUC}ION
l 1 !
FXISTPIG AT&T YOBNIY Mr. BPoOGT: &
i r FItAMPIG PROTECT DURING CONSMOON
MISTING UTILITY ACK RF7 DURING
CONSINUGN
u =l
KWNG TRANSE'ORMER k MO
PEDESTAL, � PROTECT DURING
EXISTING ATkT MD&lJ'lY MIM MENT
1
SHELTER, PROTECT DOING CONSTRI OON f� / /J��.�`. + / / °- •C' e �D
E7asnwc FAUd+YENT ON Sail PLATFDlIEI.
.. p
PROTECT DURING OCNSTRUU04
PROP69FD AT&T DYAD. 441AW m SS
4ERI9F FD r�/�70MER OM11FJi ` 4 ?�VV �r � r 7
PRGFKM AT&T NORM GSIUATCR ON i.� /J : i
CONCRETE PAEe WFALL BATOR PER Eb9TN6 VAULT, PROTECT
YANUFACNRER'SFlCAnpE ! DURING CWSTRDCnON
PROPOSED AT&T YOBILM SEANCE
PROPOSED AT&T MOBILITY UNDERGROUND FNAUNti A7 SIiLTEA. OtlOROPIFTE
rIr(!wICA SMWM & CCN1FAS M rf OEEIEIIAL CONTRACTOR
W AATOR, MD LOCATE E)MM i9
MASTNO AT&T MMiU7Y ASCD BOOL
SERIFS ATB L
\ $ GENERAT AT &T YG71TY APPIEEdI
MROR 6EIEAT PuEe ro eT: RErLF® wmT clip
\ FASTING AT&T NON11M D=lMNFCT
MOUNTED ON WALL
^1� AWNNT>BAD
FM 7GOmRe
hfkSMNUrA
OP Krr AT&T U) O PYF]iCE11CY
STOP
ST SEI)i N IT m MOSED ON RML
ID PLAN PLAN A -1
i. eruO s/se' = r-c
8 7 1 6 5 4 3 2
SUGGESTED BATTERY uGGESTED BLOCK HEATER
HEAT ERlCHARGER CONDUIT LOCATION
CONDUIT LOCATION IOPTIONAL]
IDPTIONAL}
CONDUIT ENTRY AREA FOR GENERATOR o 4 0 P
LOAD LEADS (BOTTOM ENTRY) . SUGGESTED LOCATION FOR FUEL
CIRCUIT BREAKER OPTION, REMOTE
CONNECTION TO TRANSFER SWITCH INLET FL E7I IL FUEL LINE:
AND REMOTE ANNuxCIATOR I Ix. APT [.ALE,
O MODEL ALTERNATOR GENSET WEIONT IWLBSETI GENSCT kEIGHT IWETY
WITX Exc LDSHRE
5Dr6o PTB % /40TBA W15 RIG [1797 1 IO6A NG 12346 LBS1
19 112 KP7 X 4 i 0
140 07 % KP7 x 4078% TU U T
Ise 7 9 3 41
BATTERY RACK LOCATION T II 7
CEC3000 Co1ITROLLE
LOCATION
00
y�• -e AM UAL
$NUTOFF
YAL VE i
•e
_ O
B o B
:o
- — - — - — - - - FUEL INLET
I"
FPS (MALE,
INAT. GAS OR
II,I 'e L.P. GAS)
O O
OIL F1LTE IL DRAIN I I 0
La 0 ".S 0.69) u L I L U L IML NOTE
UNTING HOLES DtWENSIONS IN 11 ARE
INCH EOUIVALENTS. 1355 [81.21
A —jade [AD A
e, ''9`RIL'od R Cd
I
1 e10 it ICI ➢RNn Y1 [IMf411 01N �+
M 117OAL 4P70X 4Q7BOC I�•II °"
ISO Lmm DTO 200Y eeeA®e eMl f 11 -II may , ,3 I •O�
H T 6 5 T 4 3 2
i
NOSE
OINLNSIONS IN 11 ARC
INC. Eoul YALEMTS.
o�
Em
.®
EMEIM
all@1101i PRKr � MR
Annela Schumann
F rom Kristi Solomon
Sent Mondav, Auciust 19-2013 T13AM
To: Angela Schumann
Subject: RE: Letter of Completion, Review I nformali on
Affachymnts: Gen (2).jpg; ADV -8213 Dimension Print 5OREZGB.PDF
Ange la,
Perthe construction manger.
There is no structure
The noise leve I is 60 M at 25 feet
The generator is exercised ounce a week for approximately 30 minutes,
I have attached a copy of the dimensionsof thegenerateras well asa photo of the generattor.
Please let me kn mv f, you need anything else.
Thank you,
Khsti Soiomon, Zoning Specialist
F ;ilk F , ,
kibilm
Planning Commission Agenda- 09/03/13
9. Public Hearing — Consideration of a request for Rezoning from R -2 (Single & Two -
Family Residential) to CCD (Central Community District), F -2 (Convenience &
Services) for 108 Cedar Street. Applicant: City of Monticello (AS)
Property: 108 Cedar Street, PID #155 -010- 067151
Planning Case Number: 2013-029
A. REFERENCE & BACKGROUND
Request(s): Amendment to Official Zoning Map
Deadline for Decision: NA
Land Use Designation: Downtown
Zoning Designation: R -2 (Single & Two - Family Residential)
The purpose of the "R -2" single and two- family residential
district is to provide for low to moderate density one and two
unit dwellings and directly related complementary uses.
Current Site Use: The .16 acre subject site is currently occupied by a vacant
2080 square foot commercial building. The parcel also
includes small existing parking fields to the north and south
of the building.
Surrounding Land Uses:
North: Residential, zoned R -2, single - family home
East: Residential, zoned R -2, single - family home
South: Vacant, zoned CCD, F -2
West: Mixed- commercial, zoned CCD, F -2
Analysis:
The City of Monticello is seeking the rezoning of the subject site in order to correct a
zoning map error and create conformance with the comprehensive Plan for the subject
site.
The applicable review criteria for rezoning actions are outlined below.
Chapter 2.4 B (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.
The rezoning of the subject property is intended to correct an error related to the
adoption of a new zoning map, which occurred concurrent with the adoption of the
2011 comprehensive revision of the zoning ordinance. With the 2011 update, the
City eliminated the Performance Zone -Mixed (PZM) District. As the Planning
Commission may recall, the PZM was used in transition areas and allowed a mix of
both residential and commercial uses. In the elimination of the district, the City
rezoned PZM properties according to their existing base use.
In the case of the property at 108 Cedar Street, the property was rezoned to R -2, more
than likely due to the size of the parcel in our mapping system and the R -2 uses to the
east and north. However, an existing commercial building exists on the property and
the property has historically been utilized as a commercial site. In effect, the property
would have been more correctly rezoned consistent with parcels to the south and east
as Central Community District (CCD), F -2 (Convenience and Services). In short, the
property was zoned PZM on the pre -2011 zoning maps and was not intended for
rezoning to residential use as part of the ordinance update.
As such, the rezoning is supported under criteria "a" above.
Additionally, the property is guided as "Downtown" in the 2008 Monticello
Comprehensive Plan. The Zoning Ordinance states that "The purpose of the "CCD ",
Central Community District, is to provide for a wide variety of land uses,
transportation options, and public activities in the downtown Monticello area, and
particularly to implement the goals, objectives, and specific directives of the
Comprehensive Plan, and in particular, the Embracing Downtown Monticello report
and its Design Guidelines." The CCD zoning designation is therefore consistent with
past uses for this site and with the re -use of the site and the existing building and
therefore also meets review criteria "c" above.
The building is currently vacant, but is proposed for sale. The rezoning of the property
will facilitate ruse of the existing building for commercial purposes, subject to site review
for conformance of any proposed use to zoning requirements including parking, loading,
signage, etc., not withstanding any legal non - conformities.
The property owner has submitted a letter in support of the rezoning action.
A. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS
1. Motion to approve Resolution 2013 -064, recommending approval of Ordinance
#582 rezoning from R -2 (Single and Two - Family Residential) to CCD (Central
Community District), F -2 (Convenience & Services) for the property located at
108 Cedar Street, based on the findings in said resolution.
2. Motion of other.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends rezoning the subject property as proposed. The rezoning represents
appropriate zoning based on a review of all available records and corrects an error on the
zoning map consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.
D. SUPPORTING DATA
A: Resolution 2013 -064
B: Ordinance 9582
C: Aerial Image
D: Current Official Zoning Map
E: August 2010 Official Zoning Map
F: Land Use Plan — 2008 Comprehensive Plan
G: Monticello Zoning Ordinance, excerpts Chapter 3.5 and 5
H: Letter from Property Owner
CITY OF MONTICELLO
WRIGHT COUNTY, MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION NO. 2013 - 064
Date: September 3rd, 2013
Motion By:
Resolution No. 2013 -064
Seconded By:
A RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT AN
AMENDMENT TO THE ZONING MAP, REZONING FROM R -2 (SINGLE AND
TWO - FAMILY RESIDENTIAL) TO CCD (CENTRAL COMMUNITY DISTRICT), F-
2 (CONVENIENCE & SERVICES)
THE FOLLOWING DESCRIBED PARCEL:
THE SOUTHWESTERLY 87 FEET OF LOT 15 AND THE SOUTHWESTERLY 87
FEET OF THE WEST 14 FEET OF LOT 14, BLOCK `B ", TOWNSITE OF
MONTICELLO
WHEREAS, said property is currently zoned R -2, Single and Two - Family Residence District;
and
WHEREAS, the City of Monticello proposes that the zoning map be amended to rezone the
subject property to CCD, Central Community District, F -2, Convenience and Services; and
WHEREAS, the property is designated as "Downtown" in the Monticello land use plan; and
WHEREAS, the designation "Downtown" accommodates office and related commercial uses as
a permitted use; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Monticello finds that the proposed zoning
of the property will be consistent with the Comprehensive land use plan; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Monticello finds that proposed zoning
action will correct an error on the Official Zoning Map for the City of Monticello; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has conducted a public hearing on September 3rd, 2013
to review the requests and receive public comment on the rezoning; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission finds that the applicant has met the requirements for
rezoning found in 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 map amendment
to be identified as Ordinance 9582.
ADOPTED this 3rd day of September, 2013 by the Planning Commission of the City of
Monticello, Minnesota.
MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION
By:
William Spartz, Chair
ATTEST:
Angela Schumann, Community Development Director
ORDINANCE NO. 582
CITY OF MONTICELLO
WRIGHT COUNTY, MINNESOTA
AN ORDINANCE REZONING THE SOUTHWESTERLY 87 FEET OF LOT 15 AND
THE SOUTHWESTERLY 87 FEET OF THE WEST 14 FEET OF LOT 14, BLOCK "B",
TOWNSITE OF MONTICELLO FROM R -2 (SINGLE AND TWO -
FAMILY RESIDENTIAL) TO CCD (CENTRAL COMMUNITY DISTRICT), F -2
(CONVENIENCE & SERVICES)
PARCEL NOS. 155- 010 - 067152
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MONTICELLO HEREBY ORDAINS.
Section 1. The following lots are hereby amended to rezone from R -2 (Single and Two -
Family Residential) to CCD (Central Community District), F -2 (Convenience &
Services):
The Southwesterly 87 feet of Lot 15 and the Southwesterly 87 feet of
the West 14 feet of Lot 14, Block `B ", Townsite of Monticello
Section 2. The Official Zoning map under Title 10, Section 3.1 of the Zoning Ordinance
shall be amended accordingly by adoption of Ordinance #582 to be approved
by the Monticello City Council on September 9th, 2013.
Section 2. 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 upon request.
ADOPTED AND APPROVED FOR PUBLICATION BY the Monticello City Council this 9th
day of September, 2013.
CITY OF MONTICELLO
Clint Herbst, Mayor
ATTEST:
Jeff O'Neill, City Administrator
VOTING IN FAVOR:
VOTING IN OPPOSITION:
N
U
L
U
N
7
N
v
Q
N
O
LI
k �� �EnaJ m ► � R �
s
r .y �for
tz
Wi
Legend
BASE ZONING DISTRICTS
LN.
Residential Districts Business Pislncls
R -A B 3
ti `■�
8 _
.. Med�lxtl fiesipenVral Densities � CCC D
-N
A-2 Y Industrial Districts
R•PUG 18i p .
High Resnferdi4 Aensitews 1_2 �
R -3
- M•H
OVERLAY DISTRICTS
Pertormance Based Overlay District
Special US Overlay District
Mississippi Wild. Scenic & Rec Overlay District
Snoreland District
Freeway Bonus Sign District
OTHER j
Water I
City of Monticello
Official Zoning Map
Subject Parcel
N
�.
u•vr u
Legend
PERIMETER
Lakes
CityBoundary
Parcels
Zoning Districts
Agriculture - Open Space
Single Family Residential
Single Family Residential -A
Single Family and 2 Family Residential
Single Family and 2 Family Residential -
Medium Density Residential
Mobile Home Park
Residential Planned Unit Development
Performance Zone - Residential
Performance Zone - Mixed
Neighborhood Business
Limited Business
Highway Business
Regional Business
Central Community District
Light Industrial -A
Light Industrial
Heavy Industrial
Public - Semi - Public
PUD
CITY OF MONTI CELLO
OFFICIAL ZONING MAP
F_L_F_L___J Feet
0 1,200 2,400
® wse
Or M
1 "". I 111 1
11 1111 i e
DATE:
AUGUST, 2010
p
co — Big L ake S
rr. tf2
T sue.
► - 10
► o
Keller Lake -
� 6
,� ,gam► • 14
I x o
FF
North 106 1 e a
r n I f
h
o N 0 ^ I.
p Q I
w 0 0.25 0.5 1
Miles �pp c� • - -- -- -��� ^_ ��������� ��
tl Data Source: Mu DNR, Sherburne County, Wright k] ■ e � I P ' ': � Le��� - =
c
eouory, aoawsR &nssooares. N—ber i, 2011 �,� ° '�. � �...� °
1
Pelrc an Lake
Amended by City C—dl Resolution 2011 -92, September 26, 2011
Legend
Places to Live
iPlaces to Shop
iPlaces to Work
iPlaces to Recreate
iPlaces for Community
iDowntown
iMixed Use
iInterchange Planning Area
Urban Reserve
iInfrastructure
Rivers and Streams
SPublic Waters Inventory
'.'.'•`�'.... Wetlands (National & Public Waters Inventories)
Potential Greenway
OPotential Interchange
E] Future Bridge
^I Existing Arterial or Collector Road
Pro posed A rterial or Collector Road
Powerline
Monticello City Boundary
Orderly Annexation Area
Land Use Plan
Birch
Lake
i B
�I � � -
•. a � �'C tl �
��—
BerYraml �
- •
� a� � �
Lake ' to
Amended by City C—dl Resolution 2011 -92, September 26, 2011
Legend
Places to Live
iPlaces to Shop
iPlaces to Work
iPlaces to Recreate
iPlaces for Community
iDowntown
iMixed Use
iInterchange Planning Area
Urban Reserve
iInfrastructure
Rivers and Streams
SPublic Waters Inventory
'.'.'•`�'.... Wetlands (National & Public Waters Inventories)
Potential Greenway
OPotential Interchange
E] Future Bridge
^I Existing Arterial or Collector Road
Pro posed A rterial or Collector Road
Powerline
Monticello City Boundary
Orderly Annexation Area
Land Use Plan
Section 3.5 (G)
CCD Central Community District
The purpose of the "CCD ", Central Community District,
is to provide for a wide variety of land uses,
transportation options, and public activities in the
downtown Monticello area, and particularly to
implement the goals, objectives, and specific directives
of the Comprehensive Plan, and in particular, the
Embracing Downtown Monticello report and its Design
Guidelines.
All proposed development or redevelopment in the CCD
shall be subject to the requirements of the Design
Guidelines and other standards identified in the
Embracing Downtown Monticello report. It is not the
intent of this chapter to abrogate any general Zoning
Ordinance requirements in the CCD, and all such
requirements of the Monticello Zoning Ordinance apply
fully within the CCD unless addressed separately by a
more detailed CCD zoning regulation.
Sub - Districts. The CCD is hereby divided into sub -
districts, including three Flex Areas
(F -1, F -2 and F -3), and eight
Landmark Areas (L -1 through L -8).
The City Council shall, in accordance
with the process providing for zoning
map amendments in the Monticello
Zoning Ordinance, adopt a zoning map
for the CCD area identifying the sub-
district boundaries. i
Base Lot Area
• No minimum
Base Lot Width
• No minimum
CHAPTER 3: ZONING DISTRICTS
58dion 3.5 adress Baa- Zoning Districts
Srbrodion (G) Central Community District
�• r. (9y • fe . •
pr
Ir
Gty of Mastic ello Zoning Crdinanm Page 119
CHAPTER 3: ZONING DISTRICTS
Section 3.5 Business Bose Zoning Districts
Subsection (C) Central Community District
Page 120 City of Monticello Zoning Ordinance
D • D1011
West 25 East 25 and! i
Transition Cargill
(
0
Community Public Open Freeway
Development
and Walnut Cedar
Center/Liquor Space Commercial
Standards
F-1, L- I F-2, L-2 F-3 L-3
P
L-4, L-6 L-5, L-7 L-8
E Buildings
Buildings
Buildings
Buildings
should gain
should face
should face
Provide
should
exposure
TH 25 as
major
access and
maximize
Building
from TH 25,
primary
roadways,
exposure to
exposure to
Orientation
or from
exposure,
minimize
streets;
local streets,
major
provide
exposure to
accommodate
preserve
roadways
access to
district
pedestrians
pedestrian
_ _
parking
boundary
connections
Minimum
TH 25: 10 feet
Building Setback
Broadway: 10 feet
20 feet
None
None
20 feet
Other streets: None
Maximum
80 feet from
Street Setback
, None
Hwy 25
15 feet
None
None
None
None
only
Setback from
Private
Property w/in
None
�
I
None
5 feet
20 feet
None
None
5 feet
CCD
Setbackfrom
Private
Property Zoned
15 feet
15 feet
25 feet
40 feet
15 feet
15 feet
25 feet
other than
----CCD—
Freestanding Freestanding
Freestanding
signs shall
be of
signs shall
be of
Freestanding
Freestanding
Freestanding
Freestanding
Follow
monument
monument
signs shall
signs shall be
signs shall be of
signs shall be
existing
design, no
design, no
be of
of monument
monument
of monument
freeway
Signage
more than
more than
monument
design, no
more than 16
design, no
more than 22
design, no
more than 16
bonus
22 feet in
22 feet in
design, no
feet in height,
feet in height,
feet in height,
district
height, and
height, and
more than 6
and no less
and no less
and no less
allowance
no less than
no less than
feet in
than 5 feet in
than 5 feet in
than 5 feet in
(32 feet
5 feet in
5 feet in
height
width at base
width at base
width at base
height)
width at
width at
I
base
base
Exempt
Exempt
Buffering
Buffering
I
from
from
required at
Buffering
Buffering
Buffering
required at
buffering
buffering
the edge of
required at
required at the
required at
the edge of
generally.
generally.
the CCD
the edge of
e�Qe of *i,A
`°
the edge of
rhe CCD
Where
Where
per
the CCD per
CCD per
the CCD per
per
Buffering
directly
directly
requirement
requirement
requirement of
requirement
requirement
abutting
abutting
of Zoning
of Zoning
Zoning
of Zoning
of Zoning
single family
single family
Ordinance
Ordinance
Ordinance
Ordinance
Ordinance
residential,
residential,
Section
Section
Section 4.1(G)
Section
Section
per Section
per Section
4.1(G)4.1(G)
4.1 (G)
4.1(G)
4.1(G)
4.1(G)
Page 120 City of Monticello Zoning Ordinance
CHAPTER 3: ZONING DISTRICTS
58dion 3.5 adress Baa- Zoning Districts
Srbrodion (G) Central Community Distrid
Maximum Residential Density = 2,420 square feet per unit (18.0 dwelling units per
gross acre).
Base Density = 3.000 square feet of lot area per unit (14.5 units per gross acre). The
number of dwelling units may be increased up to the allowed maximum for projects
which provide at least half of the required parking underground or in above -grad
structures such as ramps or decks (including covered at -grade parking areas).
Building Height
• Minimum Height = 18 feet
• Maximum Height = 60 feet
Buildings may exceed 60 feet in height by conditional use permit, with enhanced site
improvements, architecture, and building materials.
Lot Coverage, Buildings
• Minimum Building Lot Coverage = 20 percent
• Maximum Building Lot Coverage = 90 percent
Floor Area Ratio = Maximum Floor Area Ratio — None
Accessory Structures
• Trash handling equipment shall be located within buildings wherever practical. If
located in a structure attached to, or detached from, the principal building, such
structure shall screen the trash handling equipment from the view of all
neighboring property and public rights -of -way, and shall be constructed of
materials which comprise the principal building. Gates and /or doors shall be
constructed of permanent opaque materials, matching the principal building in
color, and shall be kept closed at all times other than when being used for access.
Roofs for such structures are encouraged, but not required when the screening
wall of the enclosure is at least eight (8) feet in height.
• Any other accessory structures allowed in the CCD (see Table 5 -4 ) shall meet all
requirements of the CCD district applicable to principal buildings.
Framework Plan Zones
• Refer to Figure 3 -3 — Design Guidelines Use Area
Gty of Mastic ello Zoning Crdiname Page 121
CHAPTER 3: ZONING DISTRICTS
S -ctian 3.5 adness Ease Zoning Districts
SUbse-dion (G) Central Community District
Figure 3 -3: Des
t Andmgrk Mean
Corridors.
L•1 PW)k Parki" Rarrap
I fl6*0900ey S[rret
L -7 Fwkv orleriird Shopping
7 W41ntit Stern
L -3 CAr9111 Ur
f "kWay i5 ) Pine Sheer
LA CommmmiV Cwuar 5mr
L•5 flwerfrortTPUk
L-r fiisuQ Public Open Space
L -7 Perinanem Pubk Open Spurr
L-8 fm .W Reim 1i647anmgStarAwth1
fHai� ShoppangAfeaWrstdHveyZS DESIGN GUIDELINE ZONES
F., f_w+srnien�card5rrri�n FIT TO ZONING DISTRICTS
F-1 Transkhan
Page 122 Qty of Monticello Zoning Crdinanc e
CHAPTERS: USE STANDARDS
Section 5. / Use Toble
Subsection (A) Explonotion of Use 7-ab/e Structure
TABLE 5- 1: USES BY DISTRICT (cont.)
- Types Base Zoning Districts
Additional
Permitted
InterimPermitted
Industrial Uses
Auto Repair — Major
-
C
P
P
P
5.2 G I
Bulk Fuel Sales and
P
Storage
1
C P
C
i C C
eh
P P
P
5.2(G2j
Extraction of Materials
1
1
5.2 G 3
General Warehousing
C
P
5.2(G)(4)
Heavy Manufacturing
C
P
5.2 G 5
None
Industrial Services
Land Reclamation
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
5.2(GX6)
Light Manufacturing
C
P
5.2 G 7
Machinery/Truck Repair
P
& Sales
go
C
L2
Recycling and Salvage
C
Center
P
5.2(G)(9).
Self -Storage Facilities
P
C
5.2 G 10
Truck or Freight
Terminal
C
P
P
5.2 G"11
Waste Disposal &
C
Incineration
5.2 G12
Wrecker Services
C
P
5.2(G)( 13�
City of Monticello Zoning Ordinonce Page 315
CHAPTER S: USE STANDARDS
Section 5. l Use Table
Subsection (A) Explanation of Use 1 -able Structure
Medical % Clinical Services
C
P
P
P
-2! NA first flnnr,
CUP upper floors 5.2 F 18
Personal Services
P
P
P
P
L-2: NA first floor,
CUP upper floors
L-3: CUP
5.2(Fl(21 )
Places of Public Assembly
C
C
C
C
none
5.2(F)(22
Professional Office -Services
Including Financial Institutions
P
P
P
C
L-2: NA first floor,
CUP upper floors
5.2(F)(14
5.2 F20
Restaurants, Bars < 10,000 SF
P
P
C
C
none
5.2(F)(25)
Restaurants, Bars > 10,000 SF
P
C
_
C
C*P*
C
none
5.2 F25
Retail Sales < 10,000 SF
P
P
C
none
5.2 F 26
Retail Sales > 10,000 SF
(P
C
C
none
5.2(F)(26
Retail with Service
P
C
C
L-2: NA first floor,
CUP upper floors
5.2 F 26
Specialty Eating Establishments
< 10,000 SF
P*
P*
"Drive Through by CUP
5.2(F)(27)
Vehicle Fuel Sales
C
C
C
CC none _
P P L-2: NA
5.2 F 28
Veterinary Facilities _ _
i
Residential — Upper Floors
C
P
5.Z(E30
P P
Residential — Street Level
e
C
C
L-2: NA
Residential — Multiple Family
C
C
L-2: NA
Residential — Townhouse
C
none
Residential — Single Family C none
Industrial PUD L-3_PUD Only
Public Buildings or Uses C C C P none
Page 316 City of Monticello Zoning Ordinance
a7jopul-j auu j•
-)japui-1 ua.T I -O/,&
noX -- tuvtjs
•aguinp japjo jLlnoaddu Isonba.i
pui? QDD of BuluoZ all BuiSumlo sl X11D all Tell a_i mve ain aA jBioiowtuoojssomsnq .ioj
uaacl sutl asn S,i4iadoid atjs •IS .ippoD Sol I-e pal-vol Xpodoad atll jo siaumo atli Oxe aAk
-MN `oIlaoiJiiON "IS IrpaD 801 .TOJ OUIUOZ :a�1
Z9£99 II-M `ojjaoj1UON
'IS jnupArn SOS
ojjaaljuow jo XJID
uoissltutuoD BuluTTtjd
£ 10 Z `L isnOnV
Planning Commission Agenda — 9/03/13
10. Upcoming Planning Commission Schedule
A. REFERENCE & BACKGROUND
The Planning Commission is asked to assist staff in setting dates and times for workshop
subjects previously discussed by the Commission. To follow are workshops which need
to be set:
R -A zonine reeulation review: In July, the Planning Commission directed staff
to set a date for an on -site visit to Carlisle Village, an R -A neighborhood, as well
as time to discuss possible amendments to the R -A regulations.
Native landscapes site visits: Early in the year, the Commission considered a
possible zoning amendment allowing the planting and maintenance of native
landscapes in all zoning districts. The Commission tabled action on the proposed
amendments to allow for visits to both a residential and industrial site currently
utilizing native landscapes.
Planning application process: Staff would like to propose a workshop to review
the planning application process. This workshop would allow Commissioners to
become familiar with how the application process works for applicants and their
requests both before and after the request is considered by the Planning
Commission.
Monte Club ioint Planning /Parks Commission workshop: The City Council,
Planning Commission and Parks Commission held a joint workshop at the Monte
Club Hill site on August 12th- The purpose of the workshop was to determine
whether and how the site should be developed. The general consensus of those in
attendance was to preserve the majority of the 20+ AC site, with possible future
development allowed in previously developed areas. The group indicated that a
joint meeting between the Planning Commission and Parks Commission should
be scheduled to provide further definition to the types of uses and integration of
private development.
In addition to the above workshops, state law requires that no public meetings be held
during general election hours. As such, the regular November Planning Commission date
must also be re- scheduled.
Planning Commission Agenda — 9/03/13
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS
Planning Commission is asked to set dates for each of the above workshops. Calendars
for the next four months are included for reference with regular and second Commission
dates identified, as well as regular Parks Commission dates.
C. STAFF RECOMMNDATION
Staff defers to the Planning Commission on the dates and order of workshops.
D. SUPPORTING DATA
A. September — December Calendar
2
Septemher2013 October 2013
September 2013. Su Mo Tu We Th Fr Sa Su Mo Tai We Th Fr Sa
1 2 3 4 5. 6 7 1 2 3 4 5
8 9 10 11 12 13 14 5 7 8 9 10 - 11 12
- -'15 1F 17 19 19 10 11 1.3 14 15 16 17 18 19
22 23 24 25 26 27 28 20 21 22 23 24 25 266
29 30 27 28 29 30 31
Sunday
Monday
Tuesday
Wednesday.
Thursday
Friday
Saturday
Sep 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
6:00pm 7:00pm
Planning
n
Commission -
a
Regular Meeting
in
8
9
10
1,
12
13
14
co
CL
CD
LA
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
6:00pm 7:00pm
6:00pm 6:30pm Special
Planning
Planning
N
Commission -
Commission
�
Second Regular
Meeting
4)
Meeting
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
8:00am 9:00am Parks
00
Commission
N
N
N
CL
W
N
29
30
Oct 1
2
3
4 1
5
LA
V
0
011
N
Q
to
N
Angela Schumann 1 8/28/2013 8:58 AM
October 2413 4u Ms OctnSer2713 Nouemhet2013
Tu We Th Fr Sa Su Mo Tu We Th Fr 58
1 2 3 4 S. 1 2
6 7 8 9 10 11 12 3 4 5 6 7 9 9
13 14 15 Id 1? 18 19 14 11 12 13 14 15 16
20 21 22 23 24 25 26 17 18 19 20 21 22 23
27 28 291 30 31 24 25 26 , 27 28 29 30
Sunday
Monday
Tuesday
Wednesday
Thursday
Friday
Saturday _
Sep 29
30
Oct 1
2
3
4
5
6:00pm 7 :00pm
Ln
Planning
O
Commission -
a,
Regular Meeting
N
O_
W
N
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
N
r-1
V
0
13
14
15
16 117
119
6:00pm 7:00pm
6,
Planning
Commission -
Second Regular
o
Meeting
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
N
i
O
N
v
O
27
28
29
30
31
Nov 1
2
N
O
Z
i
n
N
U
0
Angela Schumann 2 8/28/2013 9,% AM
November 2013 Uecember2013
November 2013 Su Mo Tu We Th Fr Sa Su Mn to We Th Fr Se
1 2 1 1 3 4 5 6 7
1 4 5 6 7 8 9 8 u 10 11 12 _ 13 14
10 11 11 13 14 15 16 15 16 17 18 19 20 21
17 18 19 26 21 22 23 22 23 24 25 26 .27 28
24 25 26 27 28 29 -M 29 30 .31
Sunday
Monday
Tuesday
Wednesday
Thursday
Friday
Saturday
Oct 27
28
29
30
31
Nov 1
2
N
O
z
r.
[V
0
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
6:00pm 7:00pm
Planning
m
Commission -
Regular Meeting
z
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
UD
o
'
0
z
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
6:OOpm 7:00pm
rn
Planning
Commission -
Second Regular
Z
Meeting
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
0
v
ry
0
z
Angela Schumann 3 8/28/2013 8:58 AM
December 2013
Sunday
Monday
Tuesday
Dec 1
2
3
6:00pm 7:00pm
Planning
n
Commission -
Regular Meeting
8
9
10
ao
v
15
16
17
6:00pm 7:00pm
N
Planning
Commission -
Ln
Second Regular
d
o
Meeting
22
23
24
co
N
N
N
U
29
30
31
v
c
m
vi
N
4
18
25
Jan 1, 14
December 2013 Ianuary20144
Su Mo Tu We Th Fr Sa Su Mo. Tu We Th Fr Sa-
I 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4
3 9 1 0 11 12 13 14 5 6 7 8 9' 10 11
i5 16 17 18 19 20 21 12 13 1 -1 19 16 17 18
22 23 21 25 26 27 28 19 20 ?1 22 2e 24 25
29 30 .31 26 27 28 29, 30 31
Thursday Friday Saturday
5 16 17
8:00am 8 :30am Parks
Commission
12
19
26
2
13
20
27
3
14
21
28
4
Angela Schumann 4 8/28/2013.;':,;,,A`:
Planning Commission Agenda: 09/03/13
11. Community Development Director's Report
Union Crossings
The City has received a site plan and footings /foundation permit request from Ryan
Companies for a retail store at the the existing Union Crossings project. In 2007, Ryan
received amended development stage PUD approval for additional "inline" retail development
adjacent to Home Depot. Ryan proceeded to construct the OfficeMax and PetSmart buildings
as part of that approval, but held off on the two other proposed retail spaces approved with
that amendment. At this time, Ryan is seeking to move forward with construction of one of
the two remaining buildings spaces approved under the 2007 PUD amendment. There are no
substantive changes to the overall PUD, site plan and /or building aesthetics, and as such, the
2007 approval remains in effect and will not require Planning Commission or Council review.
The retail building will be under construction early this fall.
Embracing Downtown Update
On August 14th, the EDA authorized staff to begin work on the qualification, site analysis, and
demolition associated with the Montgomery Farms acquisitions. A copy of the EDA staff
report is attached for reference. The demolition of the buildings is necessary to complete the
TH 25 /CSAH 75 intersection improvements.
In addition to continuation of work on the SE corner as noted above, the EDA has made it a
priority to develop a framework which allows for a partnership between property owners and
the EDA in land sale and acquisition efforts in support of Embracing Downtown. The EDA
appointed a small task force to develop this framework. The group has discussed the potential
for developing option agreements for purchase of property as well as the possible future
formation of a private redevelopment corporation. More to come as these ideas progress.
TAC
Next meeting of the TAC is September 12th 2013. At the last TAC meeting, revised draft
alignments for the Fallon Avenue overpass were presented; these are pending the outcome of
the appraisal currently being conducted on the St. Henry's Catholic Church properties.
The group also discussed the possibility of progressing with signalization of the 4th Street
intersection, per the Embracing Downtown plan. The group is expected to discuss this in
more detail at the September meeting. This may also be a TIF 1 -6 spending option.
It is also important to note that the I -94 Coalition was able to arrange a meeting with Sen.
Mary Kiffineyer and U.S. Rep. Michelle Bachmann's offices. The group was able to present
information on the importance of funding the completion of 6 lanes on I -94 from Rogers to St.
Cloud.
Planning Commission Agenda: 09/03/13
City Staffing Changes
The Planning Commission should be aware that at the present time, the City has decided not
to replace City Engineer position, instead contracting for services with WSB & Associates.
Shibani Bisson is serving as our primary engineer, and she is in the City Hall office four days
each week. Ms. Bisson is very familiar with the City, having been involved in engineering
projects for the City for every ten years. Ms. Bisson will be attending an upcoming Planning
Commission meeting to provide an update on impending transportation capital improvements,
including the TH 25 /CSAH 75 intersection improvements and Fallon Avenue overpass.
In addition, Public Works Director Bob Paschke has submitted his resignation. Mr. Paschke
will be leaving Monticello to serve as the Public Works Director for the City of New Hope.
We wish him well.
On August 26th, the City Council approved an interim plan by which the Public Works
Director's responsibilities will be dispersed among the three existing Public Works
superintendents (Streets, Water & Sewer, Parks). This system will be reevaluated in six
months.
BCOL Updates
The City coordinated a picnic lunch at Bertram Chain of Lakes Regional Park on August 20th
Approximately 50 Chamber members attended the event and heard more about the park's
history, progress and future. Attendees then had a chance to tour the City /County portion of
the park.
The Friends of Bertram will be assisting the MCC with the Blazin' through Bertram trail
run/walk on September 14th. The Friends also held their first successful Sunset Walk at
Bertram on July 21St
The City /County BCOL Negotiations Team will meet with YMCA representatives on
Tuesday, August 27th to work through drafts of the legal ground lease, operations agreement
and 4th Addendum to the MOU. It is hoped that the two groups can make progress significant
enough to push forward with a City Council and County Board review in September.
2
EDA Agenda: 08/14/13
7. Consideration to authorize a request for quotes /proposals for redevelopment district
qualification and demolition of buildings at EDA -owned property located at 100 and
112 Broadway East. (AS)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
The EDA acquired the properties located at 100 and 112 Broadway East in May of 2012.
The acquisition of the properties was intended to serve the redevelopment goals of the
City per the Embracing Downtown plan, as well as facilitate the construction of planned
intersection improvements at CSAH 75 and TH 25.
Since the acquisition, the EDA has been working with Wilson Development Services to
relocate the residential and commercial tenants located in the buildings. At the present
time, there is one remaining tenant at the properties. The tenant is currently working with
a local real estate agent to relocate within the community.
In tandem with the relocation of tenants, the city has been working with state and local
agencies on funding of the CSAH 75 and TH 25 intersection improvements. The City
has successfully received $1.2 million in federal funding, $506,000 in state funding, and
$90,000 in county funding for the project, which will cover the full cost of the
construction of the planned intersection improvements. The City's plan at this time is to
begin design and permitting in 2014. Pending review of final plan documents and needed
outside agency review and approvals, the City would begin construction on phased
intersection improvements in 2015. The buildings will need to have been removed prior
to that time.
Cognizant of the time it may take to appropriately and legally prepare the site for
construction and redevelopment, the EDA is asked to authorize staff to post requests for
proposal /quote, as appropriate, for the following:
1. Coverage and Blight TIF Evaluation
Evaluation of the properties as "occupied" for coverage purposes and as "sub-
standard" are requirements for future inclusion in a TIF redevelopment district. The
EDA has up to three years from the time it adopts a resolution declaring the
properties sub - standard to establish a redevelopment district. More information on
coverage and blight tests is included with this report.
2. Environmental & Structural Review
The EDA will need confirmation that no environmental or structural hazards would
complicate demolition of the existing structures. In discussion with the City
Department of Building Safety, it was noted that the State of Minnesota Department
of Health and Minnesota Pollution Control Agency will require verification and
notification that no hazardous materials have been found in the building. If such
materials are found, abatement according to their standards prior to demolition will be
required.
EDA Agenda: 08/14/13
In addition, due to the proximity and building conditions between 112 East Broadway
and the adjacent 118 East Broadway building, the City would recommend a structural
analysis regarding impacts mitigation.
Staff would seek individual quotes or proposals for each component of this item.
Responders would have the opportunity to provide one or all of the said services.
3. Abatement/Demolition
A proposal for any required abatement and final demolition in compliance with all
local, state and federal regulations would be requested. This will include capping of
the existing well within the 112 East Broadway building.
It should also be noted that some level of site restoration will be necessary and will be
considered in relationship to pending timing related to intersection construction and
the limits of construction. Staff will also evaluate the opportunity and costs to
relocate overhead utility lines as part of this project.
Authorization to seek quotes and /or proposals at this time will allow for posting no later
than September 1St, 2013 with a return date of October 15th, 2013. Review and
recommendation would be brought forward to the EDA during their November meeting
for action.
Al. Budget Impact: Staff is requesting authorization to seek quotes in order to determine
budget impact. TIF District 1 -6 has been identified as a possible funding source. Staff
has also inquired of the EDA Attorney whether expenses incurred for these services
could be reimbursed as part of the future TIF district package.
A2. Staff Workload Impact: Staff will prepare draft proposal and quote requests and
prepare a recommendation for the EDA. Staff will also be requesting the assistance of
Ehlers & Associates and Kennedy & Graven as appropriate. Staff has already contacted
Ehlers and Associates for preliminary information and expertise on the processes
described.
The administration and execution of the actual evaluation, analysis and demolition
processes will require the work and coordination between the Community Development,
Department of Building Safety, Engineering and Public Works departments.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
Motion to authorize staff to prepare and post requests for quotes /proposals for
redevelopment district qualification, building environmental and structural analysis,
and demolition of buildings at EDA -owned property located at 100 and 112
Broadway East.
2. Motion of other.
EDA Agenda: 08/14/13
C. STAFF RECOMMWNDATION:
City staff recommends Alternative 91. Due to the time involved with any and each of the
three described process, it is advisable to begin work on this process as soon as possible.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Aerial Site Image
Ehlers & Associates Information — Coverage & Blight Tests for Redevelopment TIF
Building Imagery
MPCA Abatement and Demolition Information Handout