Planning Commission Agenda 01-08-2013REGULAR MEETING
MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION
Tuesday, January 8th, 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, Steve Grittman
1. Call to order
2. Consideration to approve Planning Commission minutes.
a. Regular Meeting of December 4th, 2012
3. Citizen Comments
4. Consideration of adding items to the agenda
5. Consideration of an Amendment to the Monticello Zoning Ordinance, Chapter 4,
Section 1 - Landscaping & Screening for adoption of regulations pertaining to native
landscaping requirements.
Applicant: City of Monticello
6. Consideration to review Ordinance 4566 for R -3 and R -4 Districts of the Monticello
Zoning Ordinance.
7. Community Development Director's Report
8. Adj ourn.
Planning Commission Agenda 01/08/13
5. Consideration of an amendment to Section 4.1- Landscaping and screening to allow
and regulate Native Landscapes. Applicant: City of Monticello (Intern EE /AS)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND
Previous Planning Commission discussion regarding the proposed ordinance led staff to
slightly revise the report based on the Commission's suggestions. The Commission
indicated that while there was general support for such an ordinance, a more measured
and incremental allowance for such landscapes would be preferable.
As such, staff has prepared a list of possible alternatives for the Commission's
consideration. Commission may select any combination or all of the measures for
incorporation into the ordinance.
Require with registration the documentation of a completed Community
Education course specializing in the planting and maintenance of native
landscapes.
Require a signed agreement with a professional native landscaping company who
would either install or install and maintain the landscaping. The Commission
may wish to recommend a term of maintenance. It should be noted that those
residents wishing to install a native landscape will likely have done research on
the care and maintenance of such plantings and requiring this type of professional
maintenance may dissuade some from installation.
Similar to the City ordinance for fowl (Title 6, Chapter 3), the City could require
consent of adjacent property owners. Sample language:
O The Community Development Department may grant registration pursuant to
this section after the applicant has sought the written consent of at least
eighty percent (8001o) of the occupants of the several descriptions of the real
estate situated within 100 feet of the applicant's real estate. Such written
consent shall be required on the first and initial application.
The proposed ordinance could be amended to include a 10 foot required setback
in both side lots and back yards.
A maximum of 20% of the front yard may be reserved for natural landscaping.
In addition, the front yard landscaping would include a 15 foot required setback
from the front property line.
A maximum of 75% of the rear yard may be reserved for natural landscaping.
Regardless of the additional limits Commission might choose to recommend above, if the
ordinance were to be adopted, staff would also provide an information packet (available
online and at City Hall) which would include the ordinance, permitted and prohibited
plantings, and a model plan.
PREVIOUS STAFF REPORT:
Planning Commission Agenda 01/08/13
The Planning Commission is asked to consider an amendment to the zoning ordinance to
allow the use of native plantings as an alternative turf covering in all zoning districts.
With widespread increased interest in native prairie treatments, the proposed amendment
responds to this interest while at the same time finding a way to place parameters and
boundaries to ensure the preservation of the aesthetic quality of Monticello's yards.
The City has adopted a set of base landscaping standards for residential districts. These
standards do not on their own prohibit the flexibility to install native treatments as a
landscaping option. However, in addition to base landscaping standards, the City Code
also includes public nuisance provisions which would prohibit native lawn coverings.
The Public Nuisance ordinance restricts the height of grasses, for example. Currently, the
City's public nuisance ordinance does not allow for plant growth in excess of six (6)
inches in height.
The benefits of adopting a set of native landscaping requirements are numerous. First,
native landscaping encourages water conservation. Elk River has a similar ordinance in
places and indicated a water conservation rate of approximately 10% on those properties
with native landscapes.
Native prairie plantings also require less usage of fertilizers and pesticides, and would
give individual residents more choices for selecting landscape and lawn coverings.
Staff recognizes that native planting areas must also be managed in order to avoid
nuisance issues. In order for native landscapes to be allowed the ordinance stipulates the
following:
• No noxious weeds are to be permitted; the public nuisance ordinance species
prohibited types of noxious weeds
• Setbacks will be required
• There should be no overhang or encroachment onto sidewalks, curb, or street
areas
• Soil erosion must be controlled during the transition period of the restoration
• All natural areas must be marked with a sign indicating that a restoration is in
process
• All natural areas must be mowed once annually between April 15 and June 1, to a
height no greater than eight inches.
• The City would not be responsible for damage to landscaped areas resulting from
public works improvements or snow removal activities.
In addition to these basic regulations, the ordinance outlines a simple registration process,
by which residents and /or businesses would register their property with the City as a
native planting area. Doing so would allow the City to track these locations in a
database, allowing staff to respond appropriately to questions about these properties from
neighbors or interested parties.
Planning Commission Agenda 01/08/13
Prior to registration approval, the landscape plans must be submitted to the Community
Development Department for review and approval and the applicant must purchase their
native planting sign from the City. At this time, staff is not proposing any annual City
inspection process.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1.) Motion to adopt Resolution 92012 -110 recommending approval of Ordinance 9569,
a zoning ordinance amendment relating to the Landscaping and Screening to allow
and regulate Native Landscapes, with additions as recommended by the
Commission.
2.) Motion to deny adoption of Resolution 92012 -110, recommending approval of
Ordinance 9569.
3.) Motion to table action on the request, pending additional information as identified by
the Planning Commission and staff report.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recognizes the value in responding to the needs of citizens and the environment,
while at the same time preserving the visual quality of the City. Staff believes that all
three can be accomplished with the proposed ordinance. The proposed ordinance
provides a way for citizens to explore and enjoy the benefits of native landscapes while
regulating the manner in which the landscapes are installed and maintained to avoid
potential negative impacts.
D. SUPPORTING DATA
A. Resolution 2012 -110
B. Ordinance 9569
C. Images
CITY OF MONTICELLO
WRIGHT COUNTY, MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION NO. 2012-110
Date: January 8th, 2013
Motion By:
Resolution No. 2012 -110
Seconded By:
A RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF AMENDMENT MONTICELLO
ZONING ORDINANCE CHAPTER 4, SECTION 1 TO ALLOW NATIVE
LANDSCAPING IN ALL ZONING DISTRICTS.
WHEREAS, the City of Monticello has adopted a zoning ordinance providing for the regulation
of landscaping in all zoning districts; and
WHEREAS, the Monticello Zoning Ordinance, Chapter 4 Section 1 regulations requires
additional performance standards to ensure mitigation against erosion and sedimentation,
reducing stormwater runoff and the costs associated therewith, preserving and protecting the
water table and surface waters, restoring soils and land denuded as a result of construction or
grading; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has conducted a public hearing on December 4th, 2012
to review the request and receive public comment on the proposed amendment; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Monticello finds that the amendment
supports the zoning ordinance purpose statement for land use in Chapter 3 of the Comprehensive
Plan, specifically as related to:
1) the creation of suitable environments for various types of places to live
2) the creation of suitable environments for various types of mixed use development, where
business, office, retail, and residential uses are able to enjoy the benefits of the
amendment to the ordinance namely to create neighborhoods that allow residents to
maintain a connection to the natural environment and open spaces.
3) creation and maintenance of attractive, safe and functional neighborhoods which
incorporate the natural characteristics of the setting
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the Planning Commission of the City of
Monticello, Minnesota:
The Planning Commission recommends that the City Council adopt the zoning ordinance
amendment revising permitted accessory uses in business districts in Ordinance No. 569.
ADOPTED this 8t' day of January 2013, by the Planning Commission of the City of Monticello,
Minnesota.
MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION
L'In
ATTEST:
William Spartz, Chair
Angela Schumann, Community Development Director
ORDINANCE NO. 569
CITY OF MONTICELLO
WRIGHT COUNTY, MINNESOTA
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 10 OF THE MONTICELLO CITY CODE,
KNOWN AS THE ZONING ORDINANCE, BY AMENDING CHAPTER 4.1—
LANDSCAPING AND SCREENING TO ALLOW AND REGULATE NATIVE PLANT
LANDSCAPES
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MONTICELLO HEREBY ORDAINS:
Section 1. Chapter 4.1 — Landscaping and Screening is hereby amended by adding a new
section 4.1(11)(7) titled as follows:
4.1(H)(7) Native Plant Landscapes
Section 2. Chapter 8.4 — Definitions is hereby amended by adding the following definitions:
GARDEN. • A cultivated area dedicated to growing vegetables, fruits, flowers,
ornamental grasses, groundcovers, shrubs and similar plantings in a
well - defined location.
NATIVE PLANTS: Those grasses, sedges, forbs, trees and shrubs which are plant
species native to or naturalized to the state of Minnesota,
excluding prohibited exotic species as defined in Minnesota
Statutes, Chapter 84D. Native plants do not include weeds.
NATIVE PLANT LANDSCAPES. A designated area where native plants are being or
have been planted Native plant landscapes do not
include gardens.
NATURAL AREA: An area that was purposely left to grow in a natural state and can
maintain itself in a stable condition with human intervention and
contains trees, shrubs, and native plants, excluding weeds and
turfgrass areas that contain more than 50% turfgrass.
ORNAMENTAL GRASSES. Grasses that are indigenous to the state of Minnesota
that are intended to add beauty to a garden.
Ornamental grasses do not include turfgrass or weeds.
TURFGRASS. Commercially available cultured turfgrass varieties, including
bluegrass, fescue and ryegrass blends, commonly used in regularly
cut lawn areas.
WEEDS. Noxious weeds as defined and designated pursuant to the "Minnesota
noxious weed law" in Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 18.75 -18.91 (as
amended from time to time), or any volunteer plants such as, but not
limited to, garlic mustard, spotted knapweed, or burdock Weeds do not
ORDINANCE NO. 569
include dandelions or clover. The City shall maintain a current list of
weeds and volunteer plants that are prohibited.
Section 3. Chapter 4.1([1)(7) hereby reads as follows:
4.1(H)(7) Native Plant Landscapes
Native Plant Landscapes are defined as a designated area where native
plants are being or have been planted and do not include gardens.
Native Plant Landscapes focus on the character and beauty of natural
grasses and vegetation, which shall not compromise the aesthetic quality
of city yards. Native Plant Landscapes typically require less watering
and absorb water quickly; do not provide food which would foster an
influx of rodents; rarely give off allergen -type pollens; and require less
intensive maintenance including less usage of fertilizers and pesticides.
(a) Native Plant Landscapes shall be allowed on residential and non-
residential areas. In rear lots, up to 75% of the applicable area is
allowed in native landscape plantings. There shall be no
overhang or encroachment onto sidewalks, curb or street areas.
Maintenance of Native Plant Landscapes does not exempt
property owners from existing zoning regulations.
(b) Setbacks shall be required for side, rear and front yards of
residential and non - residential areas. Setback must contain
pavement, rock, gravel, wood chips, or regularly mowed turf
grass, trees or shrubs.
(i) Side yard — 5 feet.
(ii) Backyard — 5 feet.
(iii) Front yard — 20 feet.
(c) A setback can be reduced to zero if there is:
(i) A public park, open space or vacant lot next to the
property.
(ii) An adjacent wetland, pond, lake, or stream.
(iii) Ifproperty is contained within a fully opaque fence
constructed according to zoning guidelines.
(iv) A restoration area is adjoining the property to be restored
with native plant landscaping.
(d) Applications shall be submitted and permits approved prior to
starting a Native Landscape project on any property. Application
and plans shall be submitted to the Community Development
Director for review and approval. The Community Development
Director shall review the application in accordance with this
ordinance prior to issuing a permit.
ORDINANCE NO. 569
Applications shall be on a form provided by the City and shall
include the following items as detailed on the application form:
(i) General information.
(ii) Site map (scale drawing).
(iii) Landscape proposal (scale drawing).
(iv) Planting schedule.
(v) Maintenance plan.
Permits shall expire if the Native Plant Landscaping is not
completed pursuant to the approved permit and landscape plan
within three months of the permit issuance date.
(e) All Native Plant Landscapes:
(i) Shall be marked with a sign indicating that a restoration
is in process. This sign must be installed upon native
planting installation.
(ii) Shall be controlled to prevent soil erosion during the
transition period of the restoration, in conjunction with
the City's Public Nuisance ordinance.
(iii) Shall be mowed once annually between April 15 and June
1, to a height no great than 8 inches.
(� It shall be unlawful for the property owner or occupant to allow
noxious plantings as part of a Native Landscape.
(i) Prohibited weeds: cocklebur, crabgrass, dandelions,
quackgrass, ragweed, and any grasses or weeds that are
classified as invasive species or are horticulturally out of
place according to the Minnesota Department of Natural
Resources.
(ii) Prohibited trees: female ginkgo, box elder, non disease -
resistant elm, non - hybrid cottonwoods, and any trees or
brush that are classified as invasive species or are
horticulturally out of place according to the Minnesota
Department of Natural Resources.
(iii) Lawns are prohibited from being left to "go natural" or
go to seed
(g) The City shall not be held responsible for damage to native
landscape areas in the city right -of -way or public easements
resulting from city improvement projects or snow removal. Native
Plant Landscaping shall not obscure, block or impede visual
sight lines; regulatory, warning or street identification signs; or
street light illumination required for safe and efficient
circulation of vehicles and pedestrians in the area.
(h) Turfgrass and other areas not covered by this ordinance are to
be maintained at a height of 6 inches or less. Areas exempt from
ORDINANCE NO. 569
the 6 -inch mowing requirement include wetlands, floodplains,
drainage ponds or ditches, pasture land, steeply- sloped areas,
and restoration areas.
(i) Failure to comply with this ordinance shall result in cutting of
vegetation and/or cutting of the weeds by the City or designated
contractor. Expenses shall be billed to the property owner and
can be considered a lien upon the property for the amount of the
cost incurred by the City. These procedures are done in
accordance with the City's Public Nuisance ordinance, City
Policies, and State Statutes.
Section 4. This Ordinance shall take effect and be in full force from and after its passage and
publication. Revisions will be made online after adoption by Council. Copies of
the complete Zoning Ordinance are available online and at Monticello City Hall.
ADOPTED BY the Monticello City Council this 10th day of December, 2012.
CITY OF MONTICELLO
Clint Herbst, Mayor
ATTEST:
Jeff O'Neill, City Administrator
VOTING IN FAVOR:
VOTING IN OPPOSITION:
■
l
.01cr Fe
■ y
1
ti
NATIVE -1 RAIRIE
PLANTINGS
$#we"
•avoo �A�.?r►rt a1:
rv"ft
v
1
%,h wA
•
F1
Ar
ol
Planning Commission Agenda 01/08/13
6. Consideration to review Ordinance #566 for R -3 and R -4 Districts of the Monticello
Zoning Ordinance. (NAC/AS)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND
The Planning Commission approved Resolution 2012 -082 recommending approval of
ordinance amendments which would modify the R -3 District to include additional
performance standards for higher density housing and add a new R -4 District to the
Zoning Ordinance. The Planning Commission took this action in October of 2012.
However, in discussing the actual ordinance language, it was determined by staff that no
purpose statement for the new R -4 district had been reviewed by the Commission. In
addition, staff believed that it was important for the Commission to see the ordinance
document in draft form before presenting the final version to the City Council.
As such, NAC has prepared the final ordinance document with purpose statement, which
is included here for the Commission's review.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
No action is required. This item is for review and discussion only.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION
None.
D. SUPPORTING DATA
A. Ordinance 9566
B. Resolution 2012 -082
C. Planning Commission Minutes, October 2012
ORDINANCE NO. 566
CITY OF MONTICELLO
WRIGHT COUNTY, MINNESOTA
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 10, SECTIONS 3, 4, AND 5 OF THE
MONTICELLO CITY CODE, KNOWN AS THE ZONING ORDINANCE, PROVIDING
FOR DEVELOPMENT OF PERFORMANCE STANDARDS AND LAND USE
PROVISIONS FOR HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL HOUSING BY AMENDING:
SECTION 3.2 — DISTRICTS ESTABLISHED
SECTION 3.4 — RESIDENTIAL BASE ZONING DISTRICTS
SECTION 4.1— LANDSCAPING AND SCREENING
SECTION 4.8 — OFF-STREET PARKING
SECTION 4.11(C) — RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT REQUIREMENTS
SECTION 5.1— USE TABLE
SECTION 5.2 — USE -SPECIFIC STANDARDS
SECTION 5.3 — ACCESSORY USE STANDARDS
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MONTICELLO HEREBY ORDAINS:
Section 1.
Section 2.
Chapter 3.2(A) — Establishment of Base Districts is hereby amended to add the
following as a residential base zoning district:
Table 3-1: Base Zoning Districts
Abbreviation: District Name:
R-4 Medium -High Residential District
Chapter 3.4(H) — R-3, Medium Density Residence District is hereby amended as
follows:
Table 3-8: R-3 Development Standards
R-3 District
R-3 District
Townhouse (4-10 du per
building)
Multi -family (6-12 units
per building)
Base Lot size
20,000 sf
30,000 sf
Gross Density
3-7 du/acre
8-12 du/acre
Max Density w/o
performance/PUD
4.0 du/acre
8.5 du/acre
Net lot area per du
4,500 sf/du
3,500 sf/du
Front setback
30 feet
40 feet
Corner side setback
25 feet
30 feet
Interior side setback
20 feet
20 feet
Rear setback to building
30 feet
40 feet
Clear open space setback from
ROW
25 feet
30 feet
Clear open space setback from
PL
10 feet
30 feet
ORDINANCE NO. 566
Buffer to SF
B buffer
B buffer
Common open space per du
NA
500 sf/du
Landscaping
16 ACI/acre +2 shrubs
16 ACI/acre +2 shrubs /10
/10 feet bldg. perimeter
feet bldg. perimeter
Parking requirements
2.5/du, with 2 enclosed
2.5/du, with 2 enclosed
Architecture
20% street min frontage
20% street min frontage
covered with enhanced
covered with enhanced
materials
materials
Roofs
5:12 pitch
5:12 pitch
Unit square feet
1,000 floor area
1,000 sf floor area
Garages
Attached
Covered, may be detached
Garage Setback
30 feet from ROW (35
May not access street
feet from curb of private
directly— must be served
street)
by interior driveway
Garage Doors
Maximum 16 feet width
No smooth panel doors —
facing street —no
detached buildings must
smooth panel doors
match principal building
materials and include
architectural fenestration
on sides facing
residentially zoned
property
Performance/PUD
options for Multi -family
buildings
Landscaping
Special landscape
Increased landscape
features including water
quantities and/or Sizes
features, recreational
beyond code minimums;
structures, patios, etc.
Special landscape features
including water features,
recreational structures,
patios, etc.
Open Space
Increased open space
areas per unit beyond
code minimums of 10% or
more
Parking
All required garage
parking attached to
principal building
Building Materials
Increased use of stone,
Increased use of stone,
brick beyond front, or on
brick beyond front, or on
other exterior walls
other exterior walls
Architecture
Extensive use of
Extensive use of
ornamental features,
ornamental features,
building and/or roofline
building and/or roofline
articulation, fenestration
articulation, fenestration
ORDINANCE NO. 566
Section 3. Chapter 3.4 — Residential Base Zoning Districts is hereby amended to add the
following section:
Section 3.4(J) R-4: Medium -High Density Residence District
Insert the following information on the R-4 cover page:
Section 3.4(J)
R-4 Medium -High Density Residence
District
The purpose of the "R-4", medium-high density residential district is to provide for
medium to high density housing in multiple family structures of 13 or more units per
building, and at densities of between 10 and 25 units per acre. The district is intended to
establish higher density residential opportunities in areas appropriate for such housing,
including those areas with access to commercial and/or medical services, higher capacity
transportation facilities, and other adequate public services including park and pathway
access. The City of Monticello shall zone land to the R-4 District only when, in its sole
discretion, all aspects of the property support the potential uses of the R-4 district,
including location, private and public services, and compatibility with existing and future
land uses in the area. This district is intended to provide exclusively multiple family
housing as defined in this ordinance, as opposed to lower density housing types such as
townhouses, two-family homes, or single family homes.
Minimum and Maximum Density: 10 — 25 dwelling units per acre
Maximum Base Density: 1,750 square feet of lot area per unit
and building wall
undulation atypical of
other buildings in similar
zoning districts
and building wall
undulation atypical of
other buildings in similar
zoning districts
Site Work
Use of decorative paving
Use of decorative paving
materials in parking,
materials in parking,
sidewalks, etc.; Extensive
sidewalks, etc.;
use of ornamental site
Extensive use of
lighting or similar
ornamental site lighting or
features.
similar features.
Housing for Seniors restricted
Accommodations to
Accommodations to
to 55 years of age or more
design and density
design and density
through PUD process
through PUD process only
only
Section 3. Chapter 3.4 — Residential Base Zoning Districts is hereby amended to add the
following section:
Section 3.4(J) R-4: Medium -High Density Residence District
Insert the following information on the R-4 cover page:
Section 3.4(J)
R-4 Medium -High Density Residence
District
The purpose of the "R-4", medium-high density residential district is to provide for
medium to high density housing in multiple family structures of 13 or more units per
building, and at densities of between 10 and 25 units per acre. The district is intended to
establish higher density residential opportunities in areas appropriate for such housing,
including those areas with access to commercial and/or medical services, higher capacity
transportation facilities, and other adequate public services including park and pathway
access. The City of Monticello shall zone land to the R-4 District only when, in its sole
discretion, all aspects of the property support the potential uses of the R-4 district,
including location, private and public services, and compatibility with existing and future
land uses in the area. This district is intended to provide exclusively multiple family
housing as defined in this ordinance, as opposed to lower density housing types such as
townhouses, two-family homes, or single family homes.
Minimum and Maximum Density: 10 — 25 dwelling units per acre
Maximum Base Density: 1,750 square feet of lot area per unit
ORDINANCE NO. 566
Base Lot Area
• Minimum = 30,000 square feet
Section 4. Section 3.4(J) — R-4: Medium -High Density Residence District is hereby
amended by inserting the following table and lot diagram immediately following
the R-4 cover page and renumbering tables that follow in the sequence:
Table 3-10: R-4 District Development Standards
R-4 District
Multi -family (13+ units per building)
Base Lot size
30,000 sf
Gross Density
10-25 du/acre
Max Density w/o performance/PUD
NA
Net lot area per du
Max 1,750 sf/du
Front setback
100 feet
Corner side setback
40 feet
Interior side setback
30 feet
Rear setback to building
40 feet
Clear open space setback from ROW
60 feet
Clear open space setback from PL
40 feet — no more than 50% of any yard facing a
street covered with parking/drive aisles
Buffer to SF
C buffer
Common open space per du
500 sf/du
Landscaping
1 canopy tree/ 2,500 sf open space +4 shrubs
/10 feet bldg. perimeter
Parking requirements
2.25 spaces/du, with max 1.1 space/du
uncovered
Architecture
20% street min frontage covered with
enhanced materials, horizontal siding of steel
or cement -board only (no vinyl or aluminum)
Roofs
5:12 pitch, plus roof ridge line articulation of 3
feet min.
Unit square feet
900 sf floor area
Garages
Attached or Underground — no detached
Garage Setback
May not access street directly — must be served
by interior driveway
Garage Doors
Must include glass and decorative panels if
visible from public street or adjoining
residentially zoned property
Performance/PUD
options for Multi -family buildings
Landscaping
Increased landscape quantities and/or sizes
beyond code minimums; Special landscape
ORDINANCE NO. 566
features including water features, recreational
structures, patios, etc.
Open Space
Increased open space areas per unit beyond
code minimums of 10% or more
Parking
All required garage parking underground
Building Materials
Increased use of stone, brick beyond front, or
on other exterior walls
Architecture
Extensive use of ornamental features, building
and/or roofline articulation, fenestration and
building wall undulation atypical of other
buildings in similar zoning districts
Site Work
Use of decorative paving materials in parking,
sidewalks, etc.;
Extensive use of ornamental site lighting or
similar features.
Housing for Seniors restricted to 55
Accommodations to design and density through
years of age or more
PUD process only
ORDINANCE NO. 566
Section 5. Section 4.1 — Landscaping and Screening is hereby amended as follows:
Table 4-4: Required Site Landscaping Plantings
Multi -Family Dwellings with five (5) or more units 16.0 ACI of canopy trees (including at least 3
evergreen trees) per acre + at least 2 shrubs per
each 10 feet of building perimeter, or as may be
otherwise specified in the zoning district
Section 6. Section 4.8 — Off-street Parking is hereby amended as follows:
Table 4-7: Minimum Off -Street Parking Spaces by Use
Multiple Family
2.5 spaces for each dwelling unit, of which two (2)
In general
must be enclosed, plus one (1) guest parking space
for every four (4) units, or as may be otherwise
specified in the zoning district
Section 7. Section 4.11(C) — Residential District Requirements is hereby amended to add the
following:
4.11(C)(4) R-3 District and other Districts with Multiple Family Housing
R-3 District and other Districts with Multiple Family Housing shall be
subject to building materials standards as follows:
All building walls facing a public street shall be covered with stone,
brick, cultured masonry simulating brick or stone, or other enhanced
materials acceptable to the City Council to an extent not less than 20%
of the exposed wall silhouette area. In addition, multiple family
structures of thirteen (13) or more units shall, when lap horizontal
siding, be constructed of heavy gauge steel or cement -board, with no use
of vinyl or aluminum permitted. Natural wood or species that is
resistant to decay may be permitted where approved by the City Council.
Section 8. Section 5.1 — Use Table is hereby amended as follows:
Table 5-1: Uses by District
Insert the R-4, Medium -High Residential District into the appropriate column of
the Table. Permitted and Conditional Uses of the R-3, Medium Density
Residential District, shall be adopted for the R-4 District, with the following
exceptions:
ORDINANCE NO. 566
Duplex: Not allowed
Townhouse: Not allowed
Multiple Family: "C" (Conditional Use)
Assisted Living Facilities: "C" (Conditional Use)
Section 9. Section 5.2(C) — Regulations for Residential Uses is hereby amended to add the
following:
Section 5.2(C)(2) Attached Dwelling
(d) Multiple Family
(v) Multiple family housing in the R-3, B-1, B-2 or CCD
zoning districts shall be subject to the requirements found
in Table 3-8 of Chapter 3.4 of this Ordinance.
(vi) Multiple family housing in the R4 zoning district shall be
subject to the requirements found in {new) Table 3-10 of
Chapter 3.4 of this Ordinance.
Section 10. Section 5.3(C)(3) — Table of Permitted Accessory Uses and Structures is hereby
amended as follows:
Table 5-4: Accessory Uses by District
Insert the R-4, Medium -High Residential District into the appropriate column of
the Table. Accessory Uses of the R-3, Medium Density Residential District, shall
be adopted for the R-4 District.
Section 11. The City Clerk is hereby directed to make the changes required by this Ordinance
as part of the Official Monticello City Code, Title 10, Zoning Ordinance, and to
renumber the tables and chapters accordingly as necessary to provide the intended
effect of this Ordinance. The City Clerk is further directed to make necessary
corrections to any internal citations that result from said renumbering process,
provided that such changes retain the purpose and intent of the Zoning Ordinance
as has been adopted.
Section 12. 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.
ORDINANCE NO. 566
ADOPTED BY the Monticello City Council this 1 lth day of February, 2013.
CITY OF MONTICELLO
Clint Herbst, Mayor
ATTEST:
Jeff O'Neill, Administrator
VOTING IN FAVOR:
VOTING IN OPPOSITION:
CITY OF MONTICELLO
WRIGHT COUNTY, MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION NO. 2012-082
Date: October 2, 2012 Resolution No. 2012 -82
Motion By:
Seconded By:
A RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF AN AMENDMENT TO
THE MONTICELLO ZONING ORDINANCE NO. 566 REVISING PERFORMANCE
STANDARDS FOR HIGH DENSITY HOUSING IN THE R -3 ZONING DISTRICT.
WHEREAS, the City of Monticello has adopted a zoning ordinance providing for the regulation
of land uses in various zoning districts; and
WHEREAS, the ordinance provides limited opportunity for high - density housing; and
WHEREAS, the provision of high - quality multiple family housing is consistent with the
Comprehensive Plan goals for high -value step -up housing; and
WHEREAS, the general population is expected to increase its choice for attached housing in the
future if quality housing is available in the community; and
WHEREAS, the zoning ordinance regulations require additional performance standards to
ensure compatible, compliant attached residential development; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has conducted a public hearing on October 2, 2012 to
review the requests and receive public comment on the rezoning;
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission finds that the revisions to the R -3 zoning district are
necessary and proper to meet the market demand for balanced housing, and the quality standards
of the Comprehensive Plan;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the Planning Commission of the City of
Monticello, Minnesota:
The Planning Commission recommends that the City Council adopt the zoning ordinance
amendment revising the various performance standards and requirements for multiple family
housing in Ordinance No. 566.
ADOPTED this 2nd day of October 2012, by the Planning Commission of the City of
Monticello, Minnesota.
MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION
ATTEST:
William Spartz, Chair
Angela Schumann, Community Development Director
MINUTES
MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION
Tuesday, October 2, 2012 - 6:00 PM
Mississippi Room, Monticello Community Center
Commissioners Present: William Spartz, Brad Fyle, Charlotte Gabler, Sam Burvee,
Grant Sala
Council Liaison Absent: Lloyd Hilgart
StaffPresent: Angela Schumann, Ron Hackemnueller, Steve Grittman -NAC
1. Call to order.
Bill Spartz called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m.
Bill Spartz introduced and welcomed new commissioners Sam Burvee and Grant Sala.
2. Consideration to approve Planning Conunission minutes.
a. Special Meeting of September 4th, 2012
CHARLOTTE GABLER MOVED TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF
SEPTEMBER 4, 2012. BRAD FYLE SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION
CARRIED 4 -0.
b. Regular Meeting of September 4t ", 2012
BRAD FYLE MOVED TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 4,
2012. CHARLOTTE GABLER SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION
CARRIED 4 -0.
3. Citizen Comments.
None.
4. Consideration of adding items to the agenda.
Commissioner Fyle requested the addition of an update on the Transportation
Advisory Committee meeting.
Commissioner Gabler added an update on the Monticello Girl Scouts Centennial Day
of Service.
Planning Commission Minutes - 10/2/12
5. Public Hearin_ g: Consideration of a Concept and Development Stage Planned Unit
Development and Rezoning from B -3 to Planned Unit Development for a 2 lot
commercial development includin vehicle sales and to adopt a Public Values
Statement. Applicant: Cornerstone Chevrolet
Planner Grittman provided a review of the application, stating that the applicant is
seeking to be released from the Planned Unit Development applied to the Carcone
Addition, a four lot commercial subdivision which overlays the former Monticello Ford
dealership site located in the southwest quadrant of Trunk Highway 25 and Interstate 94.
Specifically, the applicants wish to convert the former Ford dealership into a Chevrolet
dealership and establish their own Planned Unit Development. While no changes to the
footprint of the existing dealership building or parking areas are proposed, a number of
site modifications are required by General Motors (GM) to meet their branding
requirements.
Grittman reviewed both the site modifications and the conditions which would remain
unchanged. He indicated that access to the property is gained via two curb cuts on
Sandberg Road. The most southerly of the two enters the site along the south side of the
building and provides direct access to the sales lot and customer parking area. The
northerly access point is shared with the West Metro automobile dealership to the north.
This drive provides access to the service portion of the Cornerstone building, as well as
access to the West Metro property. The two parcels jointly utilize this area for
loading/unloading of car transports, utility and service vehicles, and as a secondary
access point for other traffic. Grittman stated that an existing Conditional Use Permit for
this shared access will remain in place concurrent with the new PUD approval,
guaranteeing both properties' use of the access drive,
Because the proposed Cornerstone Chevrolet dealership will be replacing the former Ford
dealership at the site, the footprint of the existing parking area will remain unchanged.
Landscaping will also remain unchanged, and currently consists of a combination of
shrub and tree species. Grittman noted that the applicants have indicated that they may
add ornamental landscaping to the west edge of the property, but prefer to consider that
independently rather than as a condition of the PUD. The City has confirmed its
agreement with this position as a part of the Public Values Statement governing the
development plan for the project. Site lighting is existing and is proposed to remain the
same as was previously approved by the City. Grittman went on to highlight some of the
exterior and interior building modifications proposed. Further, Grittman stated that
changes to site grading have not been proposed; as such, storm water drainage patterns on
the site should remain unchanged as well.
Grittman next focused on the signage proposed by the applicant and staff's
recommendation related to that request. He stated that the total area of wall signs
proposed will not exceed the permitted 15% of total building fagade fronting not more
than two public streets. However, the applicant is seeking additional flexibility in free-
standing signage. Specifically, the applicant is seeking a 200 square foot (10'x 20')
message board measuring 20 feet in height. The sign would be located along the east
2
Planning Commission Minutes - 1012/12
side of the subject site, a 60 square foot internally illuminated monument sign located at
the southwest corner of the site and a relocated 75 square feet (8' -8" x 8' -8 ")
pylon/freestanding sign. The sign would measure 28 feet in height and would be located
at the southeast corner of the site. Grittman stated that staff has recommended that the
applicant provide a scaled sign plan on a certificate of survey indicating the exact
location of proposed freestanding signs to confirm compliance with City sign standards
and setbacks.
Grittman indicated that for the purposes of freestanding signage, the allowances of the
Freeway Bonus Sign District apply. Those allowances permit two freestanding signs for
multiple frontage parcels. One sign may be 32 feet in height, and up to 200 square feet in
area. The second sign may be up to 14 feet in height, 100 square feet in area, and of
monument -style design. The code thus allows up to 300 total square feet of freestanding
sign area. The applicants have proposed 335 square feet on three separate structures.
In a PUD, Planned Unit Development District, signing restrictions shall be based upon
the individual uses and structures contained in the complex. At the same time, signs must
be in compliance with the restrictions applied in the most restrictive zoning district in
which the particular land use is allowed; in this case, the B -3, Highway Business District,
which were reviewed in consideration of proposed signage.
The City may grant flexibility under the PUD designation. To accommodate the
applicant's request, but still attend to the general requirements of the code, Grittman
indicated the following changes to the sign proposal are recommended by staff:
1. Allow a maximum freestanding sign area of 300 square feet (or up to 350 square feet
if the applicant agrees to forgo future temporary signage).
2. Require that changeable copy /digital display maybe no more than 50 square feet of
the total freestanding sign area (or up to 66 square feet if the messages include regular
time and temperature displays).
3. Permit the proposed signage to be spread over three total signs, one of which must be
of monument style design meeting the requirements of the code (14 feet height, 100
square feet maximum area).
4. No individual sign may be greater than 200 square feet, of which no more than 66
square feet of area may be changeable copy (as noted in item 2 above).
5. Apart from the monument sign, the two pylon signs may be constructed up to 32 feet
in height, in accordance with the allowances of the Freeway Bonus District sign
height.
6. The freestanding signs are constructed to comply with the requirements of the sign
ordinance in terms of materials.
Planning Commission Minutes - 1012112
Concluding his remarks, Grittman stated that subject to the conditions listed in Exhibit Z,
staff recommends approval of the adoption of the Public Values Statement, rezoning to
PUD, and Concept and Development Stage PUD. This recommendation is 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.
Commissioner Fyle questioned what the final staff recommendation for the digital
message board was. Mr. Grittman replied that staff recommended that a maximum of 66
square feet of a digital message board would be part of the sign package.
Commissioner Gabler questioned whether the Exhibit Z condition requiring the pathway
construction was a set in stone requirement. Mr. Grittman responded that it was not a
part of the applicant's plan, but staff recommended that a pathway be constructed along
Highway 25 frontage, within MnDOT right of way.
Commissioner Burvec asked which highway the digital sign would be focused towards.
Mr. Grittman said it would be facing Highway 25 traffic. Commissioner Buivee clarified
that it was staff's recommendation that to allow a 200 square foot sign with 66 square
feet available for digital messaging. Mr. Grittman clarified that it is staff's
recommendation that 3 66 square feet is available, any individual sign would be no larger
than 200 square feet.
Commissioner Spartz referred to exhibit Z and asked if there was anything written that
says they forgo temporary signage. Mr. Grittman responded that that is the intent of our
recommendation, item 4-1).
Commission Spartz opened the public meeting.
Steven Rohlf, representing the owner of Cornerstone Chevrolet, addressed the
Commission. Rohlf focused his comments on the signage. He informed the Commission
that the sign Cornerstone Chevrolet owns in Elk River along Highway 10 is 200 square
feet and that the majority of the messages that appear upon that sign are community
oriented; there are biblical verses, some car advertisements, there are car safety tips,
highway patrol messages pertaining to safe and sober awareness, generally things that are
meant to benefit people.
Rohlf stated that if Cornerstone Chevrolet were granted 200 square feet, Mr. Rolf
guarantees the same thing would appear in Monticello. In addition to this, the total
amount of signage would be 335 square feet, which is less than the allowable square
footage, and the signs will be shorter in height. Mr. Rolf is seeking the Commission's
opinion on this proposal.
Commissioner Gabler commented that the 200 square foot message board in Elk River
seems appropriate at that location. It is on Highway 10, where it is a more spread out
atmosphere, not in the central corridor. She stated that in this particular area of
4
Planning Commission Minutes - 10/2/12
Monticello, a 200 square foot sign would seem loud. Commissioner Gabler believes that
the same effect can be created on a much smaller sign.
Mr. Rohlf responded to that by stating that he has dealt with signage for 30 years, and
less is more when it comes to the message, but it is not the case with the size of the sign.
It would be less effective, if visible at all. Commissioner Gabler asked staff for the size
of the Community Center's message board sign. The staff estimated the sign to be 50
square feet, and the tradeoff was prohibition on other temporary signs.
Commissioner Gabler asked Mr. Rohlf if the digital signage for the Community Center
would be sufficient. Mr. Rohlf replied he is asking for at least 100 square feet, because it
is a standard size for an electronic sign, and 66 square feet is an odd size.
Commissioner Sala questioned what could be written on a 100 square foot sign that
would not fit onto a 50 square foot sign. Mr. Rohlf answered that if traffic is traveling at
a certain pace, if the writing is too small, the intended audience will not be able to see
anything. The sign company visited the property and accounted for the speeds on
Highway 25, taking this into consideration, the company recommended that 100 square
feet would be okay, and 200 square feet would be ideal. He stated that 66 square feet is
34% less, which is a significant amount. He reassured the Commission that there are a
lot of positive messages that Cornerstone Chevrolet does not want people to miss.
Commissioner Spartz asked Rohlf to confirm that the number staff feels comfortable with
recommending is 366 square feet. Mr. Grittman confirmed that statement to be accurate;
that the total free - standing signage not exceed that number.
Commissioner Spartz asked the applicant for the total number of square footage he was
proposing. Mr. Rohlf responded with 335 square feet. Commissioner Spartz asked Mr.
Grittman to clarify the issue. Mr. Grittman confirmed that the applicant is applying for
less square feet than the maximum, but more of that signage is digital than what is
recommended by staff.
Commissioner Fyle stated that he conducted research regarding traffic issues as it relates
to digital signs and did not find anything significant. He relied heavily on the Federal
Highway Administration for the information. The only concerns he had were related to
scrolling messages, and messages that flashed. Commissioner Fyle asked for those types
of delivery to be excluded. Grittman noted that messaging of that type is already
prohibited by code.
Commissioner Fyle stated that as the total square footage is less, and they are willing to
put up comimmity events, storm alerts, and perhaps even allow the police force access to
it for major events, he is willing to permit 200 square feet of messaging board.
Mr. Rohlf has no issues with flashing or scrolling messages.
Commissioner Spartz stated that while he is not in favor of the 66 square foot sign
Planning Commission Minutes - 1012/12
because he doesn't believe it would allow Cornerstone to advertise at full capacity, he is
also not sure that 200 square feet is the answer, either. And if they could meet
somewhere in the middle, that that would be ideal. He also asked the applicant to address
the pathway issue.
Mr. Rolf stated that he had concerns with the pathway requirement. And after talking to
30 +year employees of the dealership, not one of them remembers a time when someone
walked into a car dealership to purchase a car. Mainly, people have something they wish
to trade. He described the pathway as an impact fee, especially since it is not a new
business they are walking into, rather, one that has existed in that location many years, In
addition, it is on MnDOT right of way for the length of the building, and has absolutely
no benefit to the business. However, added that the location is a PUD, and if Cornerstone
Chevrolet were granted the 200 square foot sign, the sidewalk would be built, at
Cornerstone's expense, as long as staff retrieved the permits from MnDOT.
Commissioner Spartz concluded that sounded like negotiation, and that Planning
Commission can wont somewhat with negotiations under PUD, however, their
recommendation goes out to the Council.
Commissioner Spartz had a question regarding off street /on street loading and unloading
of trucks. Mr. Grittman answered that there is room and a designated location on site to
load and unload trucks.
Commissioner Spartz confirmed with Mr. Rohlf that he is familiar with will all items in
Exhibit Z and is only challenging items 4 and 7, but agree with all the others. Mr. Rohlf
concurred.
Commissioner Spartz welcomed anyone else to address the council. Bill Beard
introduced himself as one of the principals in the Beard Group. They are a real estate
development, and brokerage company located in Hopkins, MN at 750 2'd Street NE Suite
100. Mr. Beard is representing Jeff Sell from West Metro Auto.
Mr. Beard asked the Commission to recall that this parcel used to be all one PUD. In the
beginning they tried to figure out how Mr. Sell could buy his particular parcel. Instead of
a whole new PUD he would operate under a separate CUP with the underlying PUD that
is in place. What Mr. Sell didn't realize with this application was that the applicant
wanted to be removed from the PUD.
Mr. Beard stated that the property started and developed as one, with one drainage
system, and it used to have one electrical lighting system, with common easements. The
concern that West Metro has isn't with what Cornerstone is doing, the concern is what
this would mean to Mi. Sell, how he would be affected if he were left with the remaining
PUD. His request is that the Commission table this request for now so they can get an
attorney and figure out what this would mean for Mr. Sell. The attorney would also look
at the draft of the PUD. Mr. Beard asked if a draft of the PUD existed. Mr. Grittman
responded that there is one drafted. Mr. Beard said they could get an attorney look at it
Planning Commission Minutes - 1012112
right away. Mr. Beard simply does not think it is fair without the input of the neighbor,
and wants to make sure that Mr. Sell isn't unduly burdened.
Mr. Grittman said that the action the Planning Commission and staff would like to take
on this concern is to unwind the PUD, but not unwind the obligations to the neighbor.
They still have easement obligations on their property that the neighbor has the benefit
of, there are clarifications between the two parties such as joint and cross access along the
north boundary along the North access point from Sandburg Road. Nonetheless,
Grittman indicated that the City Attorney has guided the staff's process for this request.
He stated that it is in the city's interest that the neighbor's benefits are not being affected.
Staff's recommendation is that there is no need to delay this process.
Mr. Spartz asked if the current PUD that is in place recognizes the joint parking
agreement, and drainage agreement. Mr. Grittman asserted that the applicant continues
to be obligated by cross access with Mr. Sell. That was partly done by the CUP even
prior to the PUD when Carcone Addition. He stated that the City engineers examined
drainage agreement, and it was found that it was a private agreement between the two
parties.
Mr. Rohlf described three issues that connect the West Metro and proposed Cornerstone
sites together. First, the neighboring property has a sign on Chelsea Road and Sandburg
Road that is on the property which Cornerstone would be buying. In addition, there is a
CUP and private cross - access agreement relating to the entrance points on Sandberg
Road and lastly, there is a blanket drainage easement which the seller is working to
address. Mr. Rohlf said their goal is to own the property in mid- November and to be
moving in December.
Mr. Beard asked again for more time to have an attorney examine the document since
they can be very detailed, Commissioner Spartz followed upon that by saying ideally, he
would like to see this move forward by staying on the time frame for the business's sake.
He doesn't see how holding up the process would benefit the developer. He did however,
recommend to Mr. Beard to take the information, bring it to an attorney, and that he
should have enough time to address this before Council meets, if a problem were to be
found.
Mr. Grittman assured the Commission that staff is aware of the stated issues, and has
been working on them with the guidance and advice of the City Attorney, By replacing
the old PUD that had certain obligations for the Cornerstone site and West Metro site
with a new one for Cornerstone, the applicant continues obligations it had under old PUD
as it concerns their neighbor. There are different requirements for site development, but
same obligations towards their neighbor. Mr. Grittman also brought up the timing issues
(hat would arise with the Planning Commission's 60 clay agency action schedule, should
the decision be tabled until the next meeting.
Commissioner Gabler asked staff how many days notice is given for the public hearing
notices. Staff responded that a 10 day notice is given, with two notices in the local
7
Planning Commission Minutes - 1012112
newspaper. Commissioner Gabler concluded that Mr. Beard has had 10 days to read and
understand the material. The way she interprets this is that there was a lack of
information on .Mr. Beard's part, and as such, there is no sense in holding up
Cornerstone's progress.
Commissioner Fyle offered that a public hearing exists for anyone who has a concern
they feel they need to express. He said he doesn't see a problem with this particular
issue, and concludes he feels a decision should be made on this issue tonight.
Commissioner Spartz closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Fyle stated that he had no problem with the 366 square feet. He will go
along with the increased electronic sign size of 10 feet by 20 feet provided a substantial
amount of the messages are community- based.
Commissioner Sala agreed that the sign should be larger than 66 square feet, but that 200
square feet seems excessive. He would like to see a number that is more in the middle.
Commissioner Gabler stated that she is agreement with the proposal with exception of
signage. She was willing to go to 75 -100 square feet, but not 200 square feet.
Commissioner Burvee said he was still trying to find a reason to change the ordinance for
this applicant. if there is a set number, what is the reasoning to go outside of that
number. Commissioner Spartz clarified that it was brought to the Commission as a PUD,
which can allow for certain tradeoffs.
Commissioner Spartz also asked for thoughts on the pathway. Commissioner Gabler
suggested it stay in. She said that it comes down to council decision, commission can
make a recommendation, but ultimately council can pull it or keep it. Commissioners
Fyle and Sala agree that there is a need for the pathway, however Commissioner Fyle
thinks 10 feet wide sounds excessive. Mr. Grittman clarified that the reason for 10 feet is
for maintenance convenience. Also, it is less expensive to install a wider blacktop trail
than a narrow cement sidewalk.
Community Development Director Schumann offered another view point on the side
walls. She stated that Planning Commission is the first point of review for consistency
with the with the comprehensive plan, and have ability to recommend consistency with
the comprehensive plan, including the park and pathway plan. The highway 25 route is a
secondary route on the trail system so commission does have that ability to provide
recommendation to council. Ultimately, however, funding is a council decision. It is an
important statement for commission to recognize this issue because it connects to the
Chelsea Road system.
Commissioner Spartz agrees that ideally the pathway would remain in the agreement.
When it comes to signage, he is willing to support up to a 100 square foot sign for digital
messaging.
Planning Commission Minutes - 10/2/12
COMMISSIONER FYLE MOVED TO APPROVE ALTERNATIVE 1, INCLUDING
a. RECOMMENDATION TO APPROVE PUBLIC VALUES STATEMENT
FOR CORNERSTONE CHEVROLET;
b. RESOLUTION #2012 -081 RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF
ORDINANCE #565 C -PUD #1 FOR A CONCEPT AND DEVELOPMENT
STAGE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT; AND
c. RECOMMENDATION TO APPROVE REZONING FROM B -3 TO
PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT FOR A 2 LOT COMMERCIAL
DEVELOPMENT INCLUDING VEHICLE SALES,
SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS AS LISTED IN EXHIBIT Z, WITH A SIGN
ALLOWANCE OF A TOTAL OF 366 SQUARE FEET THAT ALLOWS UP TO 200
SQUARE FEET FOR A DIGITAL MESSAGE BOARD.
MOTION FAILS BY LACK OF A SECOND.
COMMISSIONER GABLER MOVED TO APPROVE ALTERNATIVE 1,
INCLUDING
a. RECOMMENDATION TO APPROVE PUBLIC VALUES STATEMENT FOR
CORNERSTONE CHEVROLET;
b. RESOLUTION #2012 -081 RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF ORDINANCE
9565 C -PUD #1 FOR A CONCEPT AND DEVELOPMENT STAGE PLANNED
UNIT DEVELOPMENT; AND
c. RECOMMENDATION TO APPROVE REZONING FROM B -3 TO PLANNED
UNIT DEVELOPMENT FOR A 2 LOT COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT
INCLUDING VEHICLE SALES,
SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS AS LISTED IN ITEMS 1 -9 IN EXHIBIT Z, WITH A
CHANGE TO ITEM 4D ALLOWING FOR A MAXIMUM MESSAGE BOARD AREA
UP 100 SQUARE FEET MAXIMUM. MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER
BURVEE.
In discussion on the motion, Mr. Grittman requested that the Commission consider a
condition that no on- street loading be permitted as part of the PUD.
COMMISSIONER GABLER AMENDED HER MOTION TO INCLUDE NO ON-
STREET PARKING AS ITEM 10 IN EXHIBIT Z. MOTION SECONDED BY
COMMISSIONER BURVEE. MOTION CARRIED, 5 -0.
EXHIBIT Z — CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
CORNERSTONE CHEVROLET PUD
LOT 2, BLOCK 1 AND LOT 2, BLOCK 2, CARCONE ADDITION
1. Applicant maintains the agreements necessary to comply with the existing
Conditional Use Pennit for cross access with Lot 1, Block 1 Carcone Addition
(West Metro Automotive Dealership site).
Planning Commission Minutes - 1012112
2. Existing landscaping on the site is maintained per plan submissions. Additional
landscaping will be a the applicant's discretion, outside of the PUD requirements,
3. Wall signage is installed per plan, as described in the staff report. Future changes
to signage will require the applicable sign permits. Expansion or additional
signage will be reviewed as an amendment to the PUD.
4. Freestanding signage will be changed from the proposed signage to be within the
following allowances:
a. Three freestanding signs, one of which must be a monument sign.
b. Total freestanding sign area to consist of 300 square feet between the three
signs, distributed as desired by the applicants.
c. Maximum digital message board area of 100 square feet (presuming
inclusion of occasional time /temp messaging ).
d. Digital message board may be added to the 300 square foot maximum if
applicants forgo temporary signage as provided in the sign ordinance.
e. Monument sign to be no greater than 14 feet in height and 100 square feet
in area.
f Pylon signs to be no greater than 32 feet in height and 200 square feet in
area.
g. All other sign ordinance regulations apply to freestanding signage.
5. Building materials and design as requested by the applicant.
6. Trash handling equipment is contained within the building or in an enclosure
attached to the building of materials consistent with those of the principal
building.
7. The applicant construct a pedestrian pathway along the Highway 25 frontage of
the site per City specifications, consistent with the direction of the City's Parks
and Pathways Plan,
8. Final record plans are developed and provided to the City illustrating compliance
with all terms of the PUD approval, other applicable ordinances, and including
Exhibit Z.
9. The applicants enter into a PUD Development Agreement guaranteeing
compliance with the terms of the PUD approval.
Schumann stated that the item will go to City Council meeting on Monday, October 8"'
10
Planning Commission Minutes - 10/2/12
6. Public Hearing - Consideration of amendment to the Monticello Zoning Ordinance,
Chapter 3 Section 4(n), R -3 Medium Density) Residential District and amendment to
adopt an R -4 (Medium to High Density) Residential District).
Applicant: City of Monticello
Planner Steve Grittman reviewed the proposed amendment. Grittman indicated that the
current R -3 District provides for attached housing in structures of up to 12 units per
building. This is a relatively modest density allowance for attached housing, and limits
the City's opportunity to attract higher- quality attached housing options. Although
occasionally limited due to location and demand, there is a market for luxury attached
housing, and as more adults enter a market where attached housing becomes more
attractive, higher -end multiple family options would be important to avoid losing those
community members to other locations.
Grittman stated that the City is handicapped by a lack of higher -end multiple family
housing, and as such, it is tempting to assume that all rental housing is the bottom of the
market. With a stated Comprehensive PIan goal of increasing housing stock quality, the
zoning regulations in place default to assuming that lower density is the only way to
increase quality. Grittman noted that .there are numerous examples of higher -end
attached housing in the area, and especially in other parts of the Twin Cities. These
examples are marked by specific elements, however. The approach taken in the attached
table is to create an increasing expectation on housing quality as density increases, and
place up -front expectations for any housing — similar to the approach taken with the R -IA
zoning district in single family housing — greater emphasis on open space, architecture,
building materials, and general site design.
This objective is possible to achieve, and many times, permitting greater density can help
a. developer deliver this type of product. In the past, however, the ordinance has not been
strong enough to insist on the quality sought by the City, and the PUD process has been
difficult to negotiate in an objective way. As a result, even PUD projects have not come
close to the City's intent for "step -up" housing quality.
Grittman explained that table provided in the staff report addresses housing by type,
rather than zoning district, in an attempt to identify the requirements that each style of
housing would require for it to meet the City's objectives. The three categories uses are
(1) Townhouses (currently possible in the R -2 and R -3 zoning districts), (2) Small -
building multi- family of 6 -12 units (similar to the current R -3 allowance) and (3) Large -
building multi - family of 13 or more units (not available under the current code).
Mr. Grittman stated that the goal is to develop zoning language that would allow higher
density but then also require it at the same time to meet more stringent zoning regulations
for development that were not present in the old code, and not present in the current code
and if someone were going to propose a higher density project, there would be some
specific site conditions and zoning regulations that apply to them that would ensure that
the project is a higher quality, higher amenity, higher visual amenity project than what we
would have commonly seen from an apartment style or multi- family housing in the past.
11
Planning Commission Minutes - 10/2/12
1\&-. Grittman explained that there are two ways to think about how the three categories of
housing can be clustered for zoning purposes. One approach would be to add this table to
the R -3 District, and establish under that zoning category the eligible uses and associated
requirements. As such, a property owner with R -3 zoned land would be able to choose
which of the three, or possibly what combination of the three, would part of a project and
design accordingly.
The second option is to pull out the third column of Large - building multi- family and
create a new R -4 zoning district. The advantage for the City with this approach is the
level of discretion at the rezoning level. If all options are clustered in the R -3 District, the
City may have more difficulty declining an application for the higher density option in an
area that seems inappropriate, even though the required performance standards would
require a reasonably quality project. If an applicant must seep a rezoning to R -4, the City
has a much greater review authority to deny a rezoning request for locational reasons.
In any case, the performance standards are intended to increase the requirements for this
type of housing in the community. The higher density projects would have the greatest
level of performance standards to qualify as a minimum project, ensuring that any project
proposed would exceed the standards of the City's current multi- family housing stock.
Finally, the table incorporates considerations for permitting densities on the greater end
through performance standards, and provides that all senior housing would require a PUD
approach — in this way, the densities, unit sizes, parking supply, and many other senior -
specific housing designs would be addressed under the PUD zoning approach, allowing
the City to respond to what is a varied and dynamic market, depending on level of
services and /or care.
Grittman reported that staff recommends Alternative 2, although Alternative 1 would
accommodate similar objectives, with only the loss of some locational control for the
higher density zoning option. The Planning Commission, if considering approval, may
add a finding that the provision of multiple family housing at higher densities is a
reasonable zoning allowance, provided the project quality is sufficiently upgraded to
accomplish the City's objective of increased quality and "step -up" housing, and will add
balance to the City's housing stock in the higher- density range through higher value
projects. In staffs view, the R -4 option give the city a little more authority in choosing
were those locations arc. The reason that is, is the way zoning decisions are made in
cities is the courts give the cities the greatest amount of discretion when you look at how
you zone your community. When you chose particular zoning for parts of your city,
courts have very little say in the review of those districts. It is easy to make findings that
support those decisions that are essentially bulletproof in court. The next level of
discretion collapses into once you are in a zoning district are you going to allow one type
of development or another, what kind of conditions are you .going to apply to one,
especially when you're writing code for the rules once you're in that zoning code, you're
still at a relatively high level of discretion. Staff's goal is to have the most allowable
decisions, but also the most defensible ones.
Mr. Grittman closed his comments and entertained Commission's questions.
Commissioner Fyle said he has not yet been in agreement to start a new R -4, and he has
12
Planning Commission Minutes - 1012112
not changed his mind. He stated that he is fine with R -3 standards with the PUD giving
the City the flexibility to decide what it wants in a development.
Commissioner Gabler stated that she is a proponent of the separation into an R -4 for the
fact that from a development perspective it is a lot clearer and easier to understand. She
said it also provides the ability to designate where those land areas so that you know if
you have an R -3 or an R -4. She inquired whether the City could apply the R -4 as an
overlay on top of the R -3 as an overlay instead of a separate district. Mr. Grittman
replied that the City could create an overlay district, essentially creating performance
requirements.
Commissioner Spartz commented that if the City is going to have high density, it should
get everything desired as pant of that up -front, and as such, he is leaning toward R -4.
Commissioner Spartz opened the public hearing. There was no public comment.
Commission Spartz closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Burvee said he needed more time to examine the information.
Commissioner Gabler had no additional comments. Commissioner Sala asked
Commissioner Fyle why he was against the R -4. Commissioner Fyle responded that with
R -4, there will be a lot of back and forth about what is allowable in each district. Under a
PUD, the City would keep the current zoning in place so it won't complicate anything
more. To change the zoning may make things easier up front, but easier to leave it alone
and let the applicant come forward and we can determine if it is an appropriate location
and move at that time.
COMMISSIONER GABLER MOTION TO APPROVE RESOLUTION 42012 -82
RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF ORDINANCE NO. 566, AMENDING THE R -3
ZONING DISTRICT (SECTION 3A(H)) THROUGH THE ADDITION OF
PERFORMANCE STANDARDS AND THE ESTABLISHMENT OF THE R -4, HIGH
DENSITY ZONING DISTRICT, RELATED PERFORMANCE STANDARDS, AND
HIGHER DENSITY ALLOWANCES, ALONG WITH ASSOCIATED CHANGES TO
SECTIONS 4.1(J) - LANDSCAPING, 4.8 - PARKING, 4.11(C) —BUILDING
MATERIALS, AND 5.2(C)(2) — ATTACHED DWELLING STANDARDS, MOTION
SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER SPARTZ, MOTION CARRIED 4 -1.
7. November Planning Commission Meeting Date. (AS)
Director Schumann stated that the 2012 General Election falls on November 6th, Planning
Commission's regularly scheduled meeting date. The Veteran's Day holiday (an
observed Federal holiday) falls this year on November 12th , and as such, the City
Council meeting will be moved to Tuesday, November 13th. Therefore, the Planning
Commission has the following dates available for a rescheduled meeting. Both of these
dates offer availability in the Mississippi Room.
Wednesday, November 7th
13
Planning Commission Minutes - 1012112
Tuesday, November 20t1i
COMMISSIONER FYLE MOTIONED TO RESCHEDULE THE REGULAR
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF NOVEMBER 6TH, 2012 TO NOVEMBER
7, 2012. MOTION SECONDED BY COMISSIONER GABLER, MOTION CARRIED
5 -0.
S. Community Development Director Report.
Schumann introduced Ellen Eden, Community Development Intern from St. Cloud
State.
9. Added Items•
Transportation Advisory Meeting- Commissioner F yle
Commissioner Fyle stated that the group reviewed progress on planning for the Fallon
Avenue bridge overpass and the second Mississippi River bridge crossing, In addition,
the TAC did discuss the 7n, Street extension west of I mart, over to Elm Street, which is
being reviewed for completion in a feasibility study by the City Council..
Monticello Girl Scouts Centennial Day of Service- Commissioner Gabler
Commissioner Gabler reported that as part of the Girl Scouts Centennial Day of Service,
the Monticello Girl Scouts will be removing leaves and debris from storm drains in the
downtown area from 10am -12pm on October 1311'
9. Adjourn
COMMISSIONER GABLER MOVED TO ADJOURN THE MEETING AT 7:41 PM.
MOTION WAS SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER SALA. MOTION CARRIED 5 -0.
Recorder:
Approved
Attest:
L-yinw n-1-- 5v,
14
Planning Commission Agenda — 01/08/13
7. Community Development Director's Report
Council Action — December Planning Commission Recommendations
Bedrock Motors
The City Council approved the preliminary and final plat, all requested Conditional Use
Permits, Variance appeal and proposed zoning ordinance amendments at their December
10th, 2012 meeting. Staff will be preparing the ordinance document and CUP, variance
and plat documents for recording accordingly.
Accessory Use Amendment
Council approved the amendment on the consent agenda during their December 10th
meeting.
Sign Ordinance Amendment
The City Council did not approve the proposed amendment as recommended by staff and
the Planning Commission. Instead, the Council voted to extend the interim ordinance for
another year.
Staff recommended to Council that the interim ordinance be expanded to include the
additional allowances proposed under the draft ordinance amendment, including:
• 150 days of additional temporary signage for outdoor seating areas at restaurants
• Employment signage without separate permit for commercial and industrial
zoning properties
Staff also recommended that the interim ordinance be adjusted such that all forms of
temporary signage by regulated consistently. As such, all forms of temp signage,
whether banner, corrugated plastic or changeable copy board, will now by subject to the
interim ordinance provisions.
Council will consider the final interim ordinance language on their consent agenda on
January 14th
Department of Building Safety - Construction Activity
Overall construction activity has been strong again this year. As of Dec. 1", 2012 the
construction valuation of the permits issued was $12,746,892. The number of permits
issued during this time period is 638. We have issued 22 new single family home permits
valued at $3,520,415. During the same time period last year we had 595 permits issued
with a total valuation of$11,956,553, with only one single family home permit issued
valued at $137,584.
It looks like we will issue at least 24 new single family home permits with a valuation of
about 3.8 million dollars by the end of December. Overall we will have a total valuation
of over 13 million. This should equate to about a ten percent increase from last year.
Leads/Development News
The City continues to receive and respond to commercial and industrial leads. Two
industrial users have been provided with information on available industrial properties
and buildings in the community within the last month and staff has met or made
appointments on three potential new commercial users within the last month. It is
obviously hoped that these leads turn into projects in the near future.
Bertram Chain of Lakes Regional Park — Phase IV Acquisition
The purchase agreement and shared use agreement have been completed and adopted by
the Wright County Board of Commissioners for the Phase IV acquisition of parcels 9, 10,
and 12. The City Council will be asked to consider action on the same documents in
January. The Fourth Addendum to the MOU and new Ground Lease document are also
anticipated for February Council review and approval. These documents support the
acquisition of the three parcels early in 2013. Council previously approved the fund
match for the parcels in February of 2012.
It should also be noted that the Wright County Board of Commissioners also voted in
December to approve the County fund match for Parcel 1, the first parcel in the athletic
complex area. The City Council approved the match in August of 2012.
Work on the required appraisal, review appraisal and grant documents for the Parcel 1
acquisition will begin in January. The County/City are awaiting word on a grant for other
remaining parcels (7B, 8B, 5C), as we may be able to combine appraisal services for
efficiency and cost savings.
A parcel map has been included for reference. The latest concept plan for the park,
which includes the final location of the YMCA Camp Manitou is also included.
Economic Development Chapter — Comp Plan
HKGi, the consultant who prepared the 2008 Comprehensive Plan, will be engaged to
complete the needed data updates to both Chapter 2 — Community Context and Chapter 4
— Economic Development in draft form. These updates include new baseline data
resulting from the 2010 Census, the McCombs market study, as well as internal inventory
of current City and MOAA industrial land.
The small group will be called together to review the updates and discuss other changes
to Chapter 4 in late January or early February.
MIE --;i
'rrw�r►
Proposed
Phase V
41.17 AC
i
126 Acres
9 Phase III
. (2011)
7
tr
7M
lrI
t .... . ....... ... w
2012 Acquisition
s �•:; ::r
140 Acres""�'�
Proposed
Phase IV
Match
approved 212012 ! ,�
Bertram Chain of Lakes 0 Existing Regional Park Boundary
N YMCA C•.vned
W I., Parcel 5 - Purchase Option
Wright :;Duns:
�rii. zoia 2010 Acquisition Parks
FM 1250.37 Acres- Tata I Project Area (51 -4 TOt91 AUeS - Land &Water)
0 400 800 1.600 C1@3*0 er ++rnyi Cava GIs. OF or me Ca nty;ur p
-
_— Co Rd 34 eley Trad
I '
Dry Prairie
t
Interpretive Area
i R . red
eeK
.Lnterpretive Signs
' Sh.ded Bench
ling
i First Lake
i
,
W
p City'of Monticello - - ' am �°. y1 r a Mud Lake ;
C Athletic Complex
s Lake lfcplogy — - -
' `` Interpretive Area .
Park ! .. ove Snok �, t ,water Q ty L r-
Entrance - YMCA MR, �~" H tog a d shnrghn -
,;> "� "'0 De v _ pment Management Area
k O erla Yc`iN tf rM
Ei1L�'ance date j-,
Park Uke,C `; Bertram -- -Chain Of Lakei�s
Reservation /.,,
]Visitor Facilities
,- /taanen Regional Park
f,
Fihing, Development Concept
E
o 4 ~' y; November 02 2012,(rev.
Oak Savanna Lan Lake ak Sava r
1' a, �Une.1#i 201
1 1 Interpretive ]Area r
_ ( t
Walk-in Restored Oak
l Re toratsn Campad `�' savanna
Prep
of Lakes,
Kame Eandform
Bertram Lake 1�~ .Area erpre signs - The Bertram Chain f L s,
r a Advisory Council
F e58H
/ .Are tMfio er J. - Shad d Bench j /� � \ \y �^
Ll jam Geo f rr n.,' — a --- Seating 500' i,., �/ V 1PCn' U / G. SQnes
SI s' /L unto. \�Ct \7t// - -
—
Tra I A5 /Tad Hen - Note:
.f ; ' •I' P rking B ke,Nike and Sk' T 'I d Walking Paths are shown 4or
J Park Entrance ea Ptu.1 layr t p p Existing pathways beyond
these
/Trail Head route alignm t (net h,,, hem), sh a mountain bika
[r Parking s, are sb i tt b y the SCO. Adveor Y
n
rad,ni-1 Rev ev, comm tree for consiaeration.
C' Owr
\ 1 Bike /Hike Trait
Canon -IL✓ l
Camp,W
•� ,.aka ACaaaa� -
G a )
Wetland Ecological Can —ti—
Blind
Interpretive -Afei,
I B k iNike Trait \ �. _ - fdq� g - i A ea
.i[nit p [ve Signs /{
—. Beaver Pond`°
h
i3z
r.; .
➢ke //Hike Traik VI
City Trail
Cannectian