The URL can be used to link to this page

Planning Commission Agenda 08-02-2016 AGENDA REGULAR MEETING - MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday, August 2nd, 2016 - 6:00 p.m. The regularly scheduled Planning Commission meeting of Tuesday, August 2nd, 2016 has been recessed to 6:00 PM on Tuesday, August 16th, 2016 Mississippi Room, Monticello Community Center Commissioners: Brad Fyle, Linda Buchmann, Sam Murdoff, John Falenschek, Marc Simpson Council Liaison: Charlotte Gabler Staff: Angela Schumann, Steve Grittman (NAC), Jacob Thunander, John Rued 1. General Business A. Call to Order B. Consideration of approving minutes a. Regular Meeting Minutes – July 5th, 2016 b. Recessed Regular Meeting Minutes – July 6th, 2016 C. Citizen Comments D. Consideration of adding items to the agenda 2. Public Hearings A. Public Hearing – Consideration of a request for amendment to the Monticello Zoning Ordinance, Chapter 5, Section 2 - Use-Specific Standards for regulations relating to Recycling & Salvage Centers, a request for Conditional Use Permit for Recycling & Salvage Center, and a request for Conditional Use Permit for Vehicular Use Area Design for Deferred Parking and Curbing requirements. Applicant: Budd, Stephen B. Public Hearing – Consideration of a request for amendment to the Monticello Zoning Ordinance, Chapter 5, Section 2 - Use-Specific Standards for regulations relating to Recycling & Salvage Centers, a request for Conditional Use Permit for Recycling & Salvage Center, a request for Conditional Use Permit for Vehicular Use Area Design for Deferred Parking and Curbing requirements, and a request for Administrative Lot Combination. Applicant: Budd, Stephen C. Public Hearing – Consideration of a request for amendment to the Monticello Zoning Ordinance, Chapter 5, Section 3 – Accessory Uses, opting out of the provisions for Temporary Health Care Dwellings as defined by, and provided for in, MN Statutes Section 462.3593. Applicant: City of Monticello 3. Regular Agenda A. Consideration to adopt Resolution No. PC-2016-031, a Resolution finding that the proposed acquisition of Certain Land (a portion of parcel by the City of Monticello as co-owner for Park Purposes is consistent with the City of Monticello Comprehensive Plan B. Consideration to adopt Resolution No. PC-2016-032, a Resolution finding that the proposed sale of Certain Land (PID # 155010029020) by the City of Monticello for commercial purposes is consistent with the City of Monticello Comprehensive Plan C. Consideration to adopt Resolution No. PC-2016-033, a Resolution finding that the proposed sale of Certain Land (PID # 155010050011) by the City of Monticello for residential purposes is consistent with the City of Monticello Comprehensive Plan D. Consideration of the Community Development Directors Report 4. Added Items 5. Adjournment MINUTES REGULAR MEETING - MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday, July 5th, 2016 - 6:00 p.m. Mississippi Room, Monticello Community Center Present: Brad Fyle, Marc Simpson Absent: Linda Buchmann, Sam Murdoff, John Falenschek, Council member Charlotte Gabler Staff: Angela Schumann, Steve Grittman (NAC), John Rued 1. General Business A. Call to Order Chairman Brad Fyle called the meeting to order at 6:11 p.m. Chairman Fyle recessed the meeting at 6:12 p.m. until Wednesday, July 6th at 7:00 p.m. due to a lack of a quorum and a power outage, with all public hearings continued to Wednesday, July 6th, 2016 at 7:00 PM 1 MINUTES REGULAR MEETING - MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION Wednesday July 6th, 2016 - 7:00 p.m. The regularly scheduled Planning Commission meeting of Tuesday, July 5th, 2016 was recessed to 7:00 PM on Wednesday, July 6th, 2016 Mississippi Room, Monticello Community Center Present: Brad Fyle, Linda Buchmann, Sam Murdoff, John Falenschek, Marc Simpson Council Liaison: Charlotte Gabler Staff: Angela Schumann, Steve Grittman (NAC), John Rued 1. General Business A. Call to Order Chairman Fyle called the recessed meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. B. Consideration of approving minutes a. Regular Meeting Minutes – June 7th, 2016 MARC SIMPSON MOTIONED TO APPROVE THE REGULAR MEETING MINUTES OF JUNE 7th, 2016. MOTION SECONDED BY JOHN FALENSCHEK. MOTION CARRIED 5-0. C. Citizen Comments NONE. D. Consideration of adding items to the agenda NONE. 2. Public Hearings A. Public Hearing – Consideration of a request for Amendment to CUP for Development and Final Stage Planned Unit Development for AMAX Addition for a 720 square foot expansion of self-storage facility in a B-3 (Highway Business) District. Planning File#: 2016-033 Applicant: Posusta, Glen/A-Max Self-Storage LLC Steve Grittman explained the request to amend the CUP for development and final stage PUD for a self-storage facility that has a series of buildings that lies across three lots at the intersection of Cedar Street and Dundas Road. Currently, the property consists of seven different buildings with an amendment that was made to accommodate temporary buildings along the south boundary line. The applicant is proposing to expand a small portion of the property for additional building space. The building expansion is proposed to include an additional 720 square feet of self-storage space. The proposal 2 encroaches on the front setback on Cedar Street, but is behind an existing security and decorative fence, which will cutoff access on the west end. Mr. Grittman reassured there would still be adequate circulation on the site. He also stated there would be no visual impact to the streets and no additional impact to storm water. Mr. Grittman stated that City Staff recommend one foot candle lighting at the property line as consistent with City Code. Staff recommended approval with conditions under Exhibit Z. Chairman Fyle opened the public hearing. As there were no public comments, the hearing was closed. SAM MURDOFF MOVED TO ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. PC-2016-023 FOR APPROVAL OF THE AMENDMENT TO A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR PUD, AND FINAL STAGE PUD FOR A 720 SQUARE FOOT ADDITION TO AMAX STORAGE AS SHOWN ON THE APPLICANT’S MATERIALS DATED JUNE 7TH, 2016, BASED ON THE FINDINGS IN SAID RESOLUTION, AND CONDITIONS ATTACHED TO EXHIBIT Z. MARC SIMPSON SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED 5-0. Exhibit Z Amendment to Conditional Use Permit for PUD; and Final Stage PUD 36 Dundas Road 1. Verification of lighting plans. 2. Recommendations of other City Staff. Angela Schumann stated this request will be included on the July 27th consent agenda of the City Council. B. Public Hearing –Consideration of a request for amendment to the Monticello Zoning Ordinance and amendment to the Official Zoning Map for rezoning from B-2 (Limited Business) to Planned Unit Development and Development and Final Stage PUD for uses including office, warehouse and self-storage. Planning File #: 2016-034 Applicant: Red Rooster Properties, Inc. Steve Grittman presented a PUD request for storage which would require a rezoning ordinance. Red Rooster Properties is proposing rental storage on the property to occupy building space that is not being used. The applicant proposes to allow civic organizations, such as the Monticello Lions, be able to utilize the space, but would possibly consider other commercial users in the future. In the current B-2 district, storage as a principle use is not allowable. However, self-storage is a principle use in the B-3 zone. A PUD is being proposed as there may be multiple principle users of the site’s accessory storage buildings. Mr. Grittman further explained improvement accommodations non-tenant users of the space would possibly need. Typically, if there is an area that the 3 public is going to access, site improvements are required. Currently, the site storage building area does not contain pavement or other site improvements. Mr. Grittman also stated that the applicant may have interest in the future to allow commercial offices as a principle use of these buildings, with storage as an accessory use, including contractors. City staff recommend approval with conditions listed in Exhibit Z. Chairman Fyle opened the public hearing. Tom Holthaus from Red Rooster Properties gave a brief overview of his interest in allowing civic groups to store in the facilities. Mr. Holthaus noted that at this time, he is unable to make additional improvements to the site if the storage space would be used at no cost as is proposed. If commercial users would be using the space, Mr. Holthaus stated that it would be an option to help pay for improvements. At this time, Mr. Holthaus said that he did not want a lot of activity happening at the site. Commissioner Murdoff expressed appreciation for being willing to help the community in this way. Commissioner Buchmann asked about which civic groups would be able to use the space and how recruitment would be made. Mr. Holtz stated it depended on the organization and the space needed. A case by case basis would determine who could use the storage. Wes Olsen from the Monticello Lions spoke about the need for storage. Mr. Olson stated the organization spends up to $5,000 per year on storage that could be used to go back into the community. He stated that other civic organizations also are struggling to find storage at low to no cost. As there were no further public comments, the hearing was closed. Chairmen Fyle asked the Commission and Staff for any further comments and acknowledged the project, but was concerned it could lead to larger issues if this was opened up to more users. Mr. Grittman stated that the second alternative was a development agreement to waive the pavement to have only non-profits store at the facility. Commissioner Murdoff raised concern about discriminating against nonprofit versus for profit entities. Mr. Grittman stated under the PUD that the applicant enters into the agreement willingly and could the agreement be written into the development agreement who could utilize the space. Commissioner Simpson asked the applicant where the doors were located on the facility. Mr. Holthaus stated that most doors are located facing the hard packed grave on the center of the site. 4 Commissioner Murdoff reiterated concern for discriminating against entities. Angela Schumann stated that the City would work with the City Attorney for the proposed language, which would default to the uses described in the staff report. Any uses beyond that described in the report would be an amendment to the PUD. Decision 1. Resolution No. 2016-024, Rezoning and Development Stage Planned Unit Development. SAM MURDOFF MOVED TO ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. PC-2016-024 RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF A REZONING TO PUD, PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT (ORDINANCE NO. 651), AND DEVELOPMENT STAGE APPROVAL OF THE SITE PLAN FOR RED ROOSTER PROPERTIES, BASED ON THE FINDINGS IN SAID RESOLUTION, AND THE CONDITIONS ATTACHED TO THIS STAFF REPORT AS EXHIBIT Z, WITH THE EXCEPTION THAT THE CITY WOULD AGREE BY DEVELOPMENT CONTRACT TO WAIVE PAVING REQUIREMENTS DURING SUCH PERIOD AS THE TENANTS ARE NON-PROFIT ORGANIZATIONS TO WHOM THE APPLICANT IS DONATING STORAGE SPACE FOR LITTLE OR NO RENT. LINDA BUCHMANN SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED 5-0. Exhibit Z Development Stage Planned Unit Development 100 Chelsea Road PID No. 155-018-002012 1. Paving of areas to accommodate storage tenants’ or industrial service users entry and access to their storage space. 2. No outdoor storage of materials or equipment shall be permitted in the PUD. 3. Paving and circulation on the site shall be subject to the review and comment of the City Engineer. 4. The applicant enter into a PUD and Development Agreement for the site specifying for the allowable uses and conditions. 5. Conditions recommended by other City staff or the Planning Commission. C. Public Hearing – Consideration of a request for Conditional Use Permit for Auto Repair – Minor, Auto Repair - Major and Conditional Use Permit for Vehicle Sales in a B-3 (Highway Business) District. Applicant: Janikowski, Ryan 5 Steve Grittman explained that the proposal request for conditional use permit to allow major and minor auto repair and vehicle sales in the B-3 District. Janikowski’s Auto and Repair is proposing to use the northeast portion of the building. There are no changes to the proposed site, besides relocating signage. Currently, the south portion of the building is being occupied by a sports training facility which was recently amended to City Code to allow for commercial recreation. Due to a requirement in City Code, vehicles awaiting service need to be screened from public right of way. The applicant is proposing the southeast area of the site would be a vehicle waiting service area, with no visibility to Chelsey Road or I-94. City staff believes that this is an appropriate use for the site and recommends approval with Exhibit Z comments. Chairman Fyle opened the public hearing. Wayne Elam from Commercial Realty Solutions reiterated his interest in being granted the conditional use permit. As there were no further public comments, the hearing was closed. JOHN FALENSCHEK MOVED TO ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. PC-2016- 025 RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS FOR JANIKOWSKI AUTO REPAIR AND VEHICLE SALES ON THE QUARRY CHURCH PROPERTY AT 3939 CHELSEA ROAD WEST, BASED ON FINDINGS IN THE RESOLUTION, AND ON COMPLIANCE WITH THE CONDITIONS IN EXHIBIT Z OF THIS REPORT. LINDA BUCHMANN SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED 5-0. EXHIBIT Z Conditional Use Permits for Auto Repair-Major, and Vehicle Sales 3939 Chelsea Road West Lot 1, Block 1, Gould Addition 1. The storage of automobiles awaiting service be limited to the east side of the building south of the refuse enclosure. If more storage becomes necessary, an amendment to the CUP would be required, and the City may impose a requirement for an enclosure. 2. No outdoor storage of parts or portions of automobiles or equipment is permitted. 3. Any vehicle kept outside for more than 48 hours shall be licensed and operable. 6 4. The applicant obtain sign permits for all proposed signage, with such signage to be in compliance with requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. 5. Comments and recommendations of other Staff. D. Public Hearing – Consideration of a request for amendment to the Monticello Zoning Ordinance and amendment to the Official Zoning Map for rezoning from B-4 (Regional Business) to Planned Unit Development, a request for Development and Final Stage Planned Unit Development, and a request for Preliminary and Final Plat for the Mills Fleet Farm Addition to Monticello, a proposed commercial development project including a retail facility of over 165,000 square feet, a vehicle fuel sales facility, a car wash facility, and two future development parcels. Applicant: WSN/Ramerth, Tim Steve Grittman explained the request to amend the zoning ordinance to rezone to a PUD district for development of a Mills Fleet Farm facility, a request for development and final stage PUD, and preliminary and final plats. Mills Fleet Farm is anticipating developing the site to include all facilities on the south portion of Chelsea Road. The north parcel between Chelsea Road and I-94 would be preserved for future development, but would have a site development sign that identifies the Mills retail facility along the I-94. Mills Fleet Farm is proposing to plat the property to separate the main store facility from the gas station and car wash. There would also be an outlot for future development on the property, with two development parcels. Mr. Grittman provided further details of the proposed layout including: landscaping, ponding, fencing, and access. City staff recommends approval of the project with conditions identified in Exhibit Z. Council member Gabler asked if the signage could include a digitalized, scrolling signage and if lighting could be considered around the top of the main facility. Mr. Grittman stated that would be a reasonable request if in compliance with the allowances of the code. Commissioner Simpson questioned Exhibit Z, item 2. He asked who would review and approve the fire connections as the City does not have a designated Fire Inspector. Mr. Grittman stated that it would go to the appropriate City Staff and referred to John Rued for further details about fire safety of the proposed site. Mr. Rued stated the the renderings from the plans appear to be adequate. Commissioner Simpson asked if the facility would be fully supplied with sprinklers. Mr. Rued noted the City has just began plan review for this item. Depending on loading and types of hazardous materials may require an early suppression fast response (ESFR) system or in-rack sprinkler system. 7 Chairman Fyle opened the public hearing and first invited the applicant to speak about the proposed project. Tim Ramerth from WSN introduced himself as the applicant on behalf of Mills Fleet Farm. He offered clarification to the Commission’s comments by first discussing the windows in the main facility. Mr. Ramerth stated the windows in the front of the main facility will help to create a better customer shopping experience and bring in more natural light. Mr. Ramerth then discussed signage and stated that due to an 85 foot utility easement and being located along I-94, the larger sign would be more visible to the public. In response to Council member Gabler’s questions, the illumination of the sign was directed by MnDOT to avoid having dynamic signs as they can be an impediment to traffic safety. The lighting on the building will only have illumination behind signage on the main facility, but there is illumination around the convenience store. In response to Commissioner Simpson’s questions about fire safety, Mr. Ramerth confirmed that heavy duty pavement would be constructed around the building and gates would be designed for emergency acccess. Mr. Ramerth assured the building would be fully fire suppressant with sprinklers. Commissioner Simpson asked about access. Mr. Ramerth stated there are currently two accesses, but is requesting an additional for convenience and access to ancillary uses across from Chelsey Road. Mr. Grittman stated that theCity Engineer’s report recommends the western-most access be constructed for right in, right out. The applicant is anticipating a full cross intersection, but is willing to work with the City to address comments. Council member Gabler questioned the amount of trucks that would be using Chelsea Road. Hugh Leasum from Mills Fleet Farm stated there is a combination of 20 to 30 trucks per day, dependent on the season. Commissioner Gabler asked if there was a request for additional landscaping to separate UMC from the facility. Mr. Grittman described that there is an extensive planting in that area to comply with the sea-level buffer. Mr. Ramerth expressed there would adequate space for trucks and vehicles to park off of Chelsea Road. Commissioner Murdoff asked about access and entrances. Mr. Ramerth stated about 5 to 6 vehicles could be stacked at each entrance. Eric Gibson from UMC represented Don Tomann (majority owner of UMC). Mr. Gibson read a letter detailing Mr. Tomann’s comments and concerns, which was entered into the formal record. Traffic safety, taxes, livable wages, and zoning were principle concerns. Mr. Gibson stated that if the proposed project were to be approved, Mr. Tomann would like the City’s consideration for a traffic light rather than traffic circle on the north-south connection. He also asked that a privacy fence be constructed between the properties to eliminate litter. 8 Council member Gabler asked Mills representatives to address the feasibility and concerns of Mr. Gibson’s comments. Mr. Ramerth stated that Mills prides themselves on having a clean facility and that the landscaping would have the same effect as a fence. Mr. Leasum stated the facility would have 60 full time employees, 15 of which will be department heads. These positions would pay $13-15 per hour with a benefits package. 100 to 150 part time employees will also be hired above minimum wage. Traffic concerns were brought to the Commissioners attention again. Mr. Ramerth stated that an EAW was performed in 2007 with the prior, original application. Traffic items outlined in the EAWreport were reflected in the proposal in terms of measures to reduce or eliminate impact. Chairman Fyle stated that Mr. Gibson mentioned having to pay additional taxes to create the exit off of I-94. Angela Schumann stated there were special assessment agreements for County Road 18 and I-94 interchange. Simultaneously, there was reconstruction on Chelsea Road. Development projects and adjoining property owners had special assessment agreements for some of those improvements. Shawn Weinand from the Monticello Industrial Park stated he paid $2.8 million for improvements. According to conditions set forth in the development agreement, an additional $733,000 was assessed to rezone the area to commercial. Mills Fleet Farm paid that amount and $104,000 for the additional 2 acres of development across Chelsea Street. None of the industrial properties were assessed for the interchange improvements. Council member Gabler restated her desire for message board signage and if that type of signage could be located near the gas station and car wash. Mr. Ramerth stated that MnDOT has specific regulation on those types of signs and there are currently limits on the size of that signage. Mr. Grittman stated that currently the proposed signage of the free standing sign and the monument sign is under the maximum allowance under code allowance and could allow for flexibility. As there were no further public comments, the hearing was closed. Decision 1: Rezoning to PUD, Planned Unit Development District and Development and Final Stage PUD approval. LINDA BUCHMANN MOVED TO ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. PC-2016- 026, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF A REZONING TO PUD, PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT, INCLUDING A DEVELOPMENT STAGE PUD APPROVAL, BASED ON THE FINDINGS IN SAID RESOLUTION, AND THE CONDITIONS IDENTIFIED IN EXHIBIT Z AS ATTACHED TO THIS REPORT. SAM MURDOFF SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED 5-0. 9 Decision 2: Preliminary and Final Plat for Mills Fleet Farm Addition MARC SIMPSON MOVED TO ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. PC-2016-027, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF THE PRELIMINARY AND FINAL PLAT FOR MILLS FLEET FARM ADDITION, BASED ON THE FINDINGS IN SAID RESOLUTION, AND THE CONDITIONS IDENTIFIED IN EXHIBIT Z AS ATTACHED TO THIS REPORT. JOHN FALENSCHEK SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED 5-0. Ms. Schumann stated the applicant has applied for final plat and final stage PUD. This item will be taken to City Council in two steps. The development stage PUD and preliminary plat will be presented to City Council on Monday, July 11th. The final stage PUD, final plat, and rezoning action to PUD will follow on July 27th. As appropriate, the applicant will be required to revise plans and there will be a corresponding development plan. EXHIBIT Z Rezoning to PUD, Development and Final Stage PUD, Preliminary and Final Plat for Mills Fleet Farm Addition Chelsea Road, Monticello PID Nos. 155011000190 and 155011000102 1. The light pole fixtures shall not be higher than 25 feet. 2. The Fire Inspector shall review and approve the fire connections. 3. The applicant relocate required landscaping for engineering purposes to open space around the gas station/car wash facility without reducing overall quantity. 4. The applicants relocate the vehicle fuel sales trash enclosure to a position less prominent in view, such as to the south of the fuel tank area, farther away from Chelsea Road. 5. The applicants apply for final stage planned unit and final plat. 6. The applicant enter into a development contract with the City specifying and securing all relevant aspects of the project. 7. The applicants comply with the terms of the City Engineer’s letter dated June 29, 2016. 8. The applicants comply with the recommendations of other City staff. 3. Regular Agenda A. Consideration of the Community Development Directors Report 10 Angela Schumann provided an update on Bertram Chain of Lakes Regional Park. At the end of June, The City and Wright County closed on Phase 9 and 10, which consisted of acquisition of 250 land acres. The passive area of the park is complete. The City and Wright County will work to acquire the final 40.89 acres of land anticipated by 2017. Ms. Schumann encouraged the Commission to visit the park 4. Added Items NONE. 5. Adjournment LINDA BUCHMANN MOVED TO ADJOURN THE MEETING AT 8:56 P.M. MARC SIMPSON SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED 5-0. Recorder: Jacob Thunander ___ Approved: August 2, 2016 Attest: ____________________________________________________ Angela Schumann, Community Development Director Planning Commission Agenda – 08/02/2016 1 2A. Public Hearing – Consideration of a request for amendment to the Monticello Zoning Ordinance, Chapter 5, Section 2 - Use-Specific Standards for regulations relating to Recycling & Salvage Centers, a request for Conditional Use Permit for Recycling & Salvage Center, and a request for Conditional Use Permit for Vehicular Use Area Design for Deferred Parking and Curbing requirements. Applicant: Budd, Stephen (Integrated Recycling Technologies and Platinum Technologies). (NAC) 2B. Public Hearing – Consideration of a request for amendment to the Monticello Zoning Ordinance, Chapter 5, Section 2 - Use-Specific Standards for regulations relating to Recycling & Salvage Centers, a request for Conditional Use Permit for Recycling & Salvage Center, a request for Conditional Use Permit for Vehicular Use Area Design for Deferred Parking and Curbing requirements, and a request for Administrative Lot Combination. Applicant: Budd, Stephen (Integrated Recycling Technologies and Platinum Technologies). (NAC) Property: Legal: Lot 6, Block 2, Oakwood Industrial Park; and Lots 2 and 3, Block 1, Monticello Commerce Center 5th Addition; Address: 219 Dundas Road; and 9696 Fallon Avenue Planning Case Number: 2016-037, 2016-038 A. REFERENCE & BACKGROUND Request(s): Zoning Ordinance Amendment to modify regulations relating to recycling; Conditional Use Permits for recycling operations on both properties; Conditional Use Permits for deferral of a portion of parking and curbing improvements on both properties. Deadline for Decision: September 3, 2016 Land Use Designation: Places to Work Zoning Designation: I-2, Heavy Industrial District (219 Dundas); and I-1, Light Industrial District (9696 Fallon) The purpose of the I-2 District is to provide for the establishment of heavy industrial and manufacturing development and use which because of the nature of the product or character of activity requires isolation from residential or commercial use. Planning Commission Agenda – 08/02/2016 2 The purpose of the "I-1," light industrial, district is to provide for the establishment of warehousing and light industrial development. Overlays/Environmental Regulations Applicable: NA Current Site Use: Recycling Processing and Storage Surrounding Land Uses: North: Manufacturing and Office East: Vacant Commercial Retail (Mills Fleet Farm) South: Industrial West: Industrial Project Description: The applicant is seeking approvals to accommodate an existing recycling center on two properties. The request includes amendments to the zoning ordinance regulations that currently restrict the use in scope, Conditional Use Permits for both parcels to operate under the revised zoning regulations, and modifications to the parking and site improvement requirements to defer certain paving and curbing improvements until future phases. ANALYSIS There are three application requests that would apply to each of the two properties that comprise the recycling operations of IRT. The two properties lie on either side of Fallon Avenue, just north of Dundas Road. Because the public actions for the two properties are the same, the requests have been incorporated into a single staff report. The report will specify when certain conditions or recommendations apply to only one of the two parcels, which will be designated as the “Dundas” property (fronting on Dundas along the west side of Fallon Avenue) and the “Fallon” property, which abuts the east side of Fallon Avenue. A site plan review has also been incorporated into the review of these applications. For processing purposes, the Fallon property will require an administrative lot combination, as it currently consists of two separate parcels – this process does not require review by Planning Commission. Planning Commission Agenda – 08/02/2016 3 Existing Conditions. The business has grown on the two properties without formal city zoning reviews. As such, many of the existing conditions are not in conformance with current zoning regulations. Moreover, because the current codification of the zoning regulations adopted in 2011 was written to tightly restrict this type of use, the business is not able to meet many of the requirements in any case. Fallon Site: Currently, the Fallon property contains an outdoor truck scale that is located along the south property line, near the Fallon Avenue right of way. Trucks must be weighed, then enter the site to be unloaded, then recirculate back to Fallon to re-enter the scale for to measure the difference in the load. Because of the circulation pattern and the location of the scale, trucks often are left to queue along Dundas Road waiting for the scale to clear. The Fallon site also accommodates smaller loads on the north side of the site, including service to members of the general public. There are some paved areas on the Fallon property, particularly on the south portion of the site. The north site is dominated by gravel surfaces, as well as some grassed areas. The south parcel had received a Conditional Use Permit for outdoor storage under the previous zoning ordinance, when the code had no separate provision for Recycling and Salvage as a separate use. The north portion of the Fallon site has had no separate approvals. Under the current zoning regulations, Recycling and Salvage is now listed as a distinct use, with several conditions applied to the operation. As part of this application, the applicant is seeking to modify those regulations to better fit their business model and recognize the expansion into this northerly parcel Dundas Site: The Dundas property includes office and processing space in an existing building, as well as an outdoor storage yard with a separate driveway entrance from Fallon Avenue. A paved parking lot has access from Dundas Road, but an unpaved expansion of that parking area was added to the site a few years ago. A larger grassed area surrounds the west and north side of the existing facility pending future expansion of the use into this area. It should be noted that no previous approvals have been granted for the current use of the Dundas site. The proposed CUP is intended to legitimize the general use of the property for recycling, and create a process for bringing the site into conformance with the code. Planning Commission Agenda – 08/02/2016 4 Zoning Ordinance Amendment. The current zoning addresses recycling operations as a Conditional Use in both the I- 1 and I-2 zoning districts. The applicant is seeking amendment to the current regulations, notated in the underlined text below. Staff comments accompany the proposal, with both comments and alternative text distinguished in italics. The specific conditions listed below apply to this use in either district: (12) Recycling and Salvage Center (a) The center shall be on a parcel with an area of at least five acres. The applicant proposes a change to a four-acre lot size to accommodate the size of the Fallon property. Staff believes that the reduction is reasonable – the five acre size does not appear to relate to any specific need of this type of business if adhering to the performance standards suggested below. (b) The center shall be located at least 250 feet from any residential district, school, or day care. No changes proposed. (c) Except for a freestanding office, no part of the center shall be located within 50 feet of any property line. The applicant is seeking a reduction in this setback to 15 feet to accommodate operations on the existing property. Staff believes that 15 feet is reasonable for outdoor areas, provided they are screened and buffered consistent with the requirements of the zoning ordinance. The buffering requirements would account for increased separation if the adjoining land uses suggest it. Staff’s suggested wording would be “15 feet, or in compliance with the buffering requirements of Section 4.1(G), whichever requires the greater separation.” Building setbacks would remain as the underlying district requirements apply. (d) All recycling activities and storage areas shall be effectively screened from view by walls, fences, or buildings. Such screening shall be designed and installed to ensure that no part of recycling activities or a storage area can be seen from rights-of-way or adjacent lots. No changes are proposed. (e) All outdoor storage areas shall be surrounded by a solid fence or wall that is at least eight feet high, located no less than 100 feet from any public right- of-way, and located no less than 50 feet from any adjacent property. The applicant proposes to reduce this separation to 30 feet from the right of way, and 15 feet from adjacent property. Staff supports these changes, with the notation that (as with item (c) above, the buffering requirements would continue to apply. Thirty feet is the applicable building setback from the right of way, which would be consistent with the proposed fence setback under this change. Planning Commission Agenda – 08/02/2016 5 (f) Recyclable materials shall be contained within a leak-proof bin or trailer, and not stored on the ground. The applicant proposes to eliminate this provision, suggesting instead reliance on the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) stormwater permitting process for “ferrous and non-ferrous” materials. Staff believes that provisions allowing storage of raw materials on gravel surfaces can raise issues of erosion, dust, and discharge concerns that have a local impact, as well as a state pollution control impact. If materials are to be permitted to be stored on the ground, pavement and stormwater control improvements, such as curbing, would be important elements in ensuring a clean site and avoiding issues for the City’s overall stormwater management systems. As such, staff’s recommendation is to allow open storage of such materials only on paved surfaces that manage stormwater appropriately. If desired, a deferral could be sought to allow the applicant to phase in these improvements. It should be noted that an additional reason for these types of provisions is also related to aesthetics, and avoiding piles of refuse. To address this issue, an additional component of the regulations would be to limit the height of the storage to no more than the height of a compliant screening fence. The applicant has an MPCA Industrial Stormwater permit, which is required based on the facilities type of use. Please see the City engineer’s report related to the compliance of this permit. (g) Only limited sorting, separation, or other processing of deposited materials shall occur on the site. The applicant suggests deletion of this section, noting that the significant majority of the operation involves sorting, separation, and processing. It is noted that household biodegradable wastes (basically garbage) could still be subject to this provision if an exception is made for the types of materials handled by the applicant’s business. Staff believes that the current provision would effectively prohibit a recycling operation in the City, and this provision should be removed. The exception provision is not necessary, as the handling and transfer of household biodegradable wastes would be a separate business, not included in the definition of “recycling or salvage”, and is prohibited in the next section as it currently reads. (h) There shall be no collection or storage of hazardous or biodegradable wastes (as defined by the PCA) on the site. The applicant proposes to add a certification provision to allow the handling of hazardous waste materials. Staff agrees that the purpose of a recycling operation would be to accommodate the handling of these types of waste, provided proper handling is ensured. However, staff would recommend continuing to prohibit handling and storage biodegradable waste. Planning Commission Agenda – 08/02/2016 6 No changes are proposed to the remaining provisions: (i) Space shall be provided to park each commercial vehicle operated by the center. (j) The facility shall be administered by on-site persons during the hours the facility is open. (k) The site shall be maintained free of fluids, odors, litter, rubbish, and any other non-recyclable materials. The site shall be cleaned of debris on a daily basis and shall be secured from unauthorized entry and removal of materials when attendants are not present. (l) Noise levels shall be controlled in accordance with Section 5.2(A)(2)(e). (m)Signage shall include the name and phone number of the facility operator and indicate any materials not accepted by the center. (n) Access to the center shall be from a collector or arterial street. (o) No dust, fumes, smoke, vibration or odor above ambient level shall be detectable on abutting properties. Site Plan Proposals – Conditional Use Permits. The applicant has requested Conditional Use Permits to operate recycling and salvage operations on the two subject properties, “Dundas” and “Fallon”, and for deferral of paving requirements until a future phase for both sites. The deferral is requested in part due to the planned near-term improvements proposed to support improved circulation on and between the two sites. The applicant’s proposed changes to the site development would entail the following: Fallon Site:  Relocate the truck scale from the south Fallon Avenue driveway to the north, and move it further into the interior of the site to allow stacking of truck traffic off of the street.  Establish a circulation pattern in which traffic enters the Fallon site from the north. Truck traffic would continue to the scale, then around the building to unload, exiting the site at the south entrance. Some of this traffic may exit the site and cross Fallon Avenue to the Dundas site to unload (either to the open storage or to the building). The applicant is seeking a deferral of paving and curbing requirements for the truck circulation route on the site. Planning Commission Agenda – 08/02/2016 7  General public traffic would enter the north access drive, then turn south to weigh and park on the north side of the building. This area would be paved and curbed in accordance with the requirements of the zoning ordinance. Existing public traffic would travel south to the south driveway. The middle driveway of the three existing on the Fallon site would be eliminated to better control circulation and access. Dundas Site:  Retain the existing driveway to customer and employee parking on Dundas Road.  Retain the existing driveway for loading/unloading trucks along Fallon Avenue.  Defer paving of the auxiliary gravel parking area west of the main parking lot off of Dundas.  Expand and fence the open storage area, retaining the gravel surface.  Provide a semi-truck and trailer parking location  Future phase: Add access from Dundas for trucks along the west line of the property, to cross the north side of the Dundas site to the north Fallon access. In summary, the applicant will improve the facility by relocating the truck scale and better organizing the truck circulation on the Fallon site, in addition to separating public and commercial traffic, improving the public traffic with pavement and curbing. No outdoor storage is sought on this portion of the facility. The applicant would further create a fenced enclosure for outdoor storage on the Dundas site with a solid eight-foot fence. Given the above improvements, the applicant proposes to defer the following improvements: o Paving and curbing of existing auxiliary parking area on the Dundas site. o Paving through the truck circulation on the Fallon site. o Paving of open storage area on the Dundas site.* *It should be noted that the applicant’s proposal for the open storage area is to rely on gravel surface only, and that if staff’s recommendation for paved open storage is adopted, it is presumed that the applicant prefers to delay this requirement to a future date. In discussions with the applicant, they indicate that pavement in this area would not be economically feasible, and are seeking an alternate approval to accommodate a dust-free gravel surface, such as Class II or Class III aggregate surface or potentially a 100% crushed aggregate surface to accommodate the trucking and equipment movements, but which would minimize both dust and tracking of gravel on to Fallon Avenue, a current Planning Commission Agenda – 08/02/2016 8 issue with site operation. Staff has suggested that if this alternative is approved by the Planning Commission and City Council, an initial stage would involve paving of the driveway apron from the street to the setback line. However, as noted previously, concerns over protection of the City’s stormwater system should be taken into consideration as a part of this aspect of the applicant’s proposal. To ensure that the applicant is able to operate the facility in a manner that will meet the ongoing stormwater requirements (as well as meet the City’s “Illicit Discharge” ordinance requirements), staff has added a condition that the applicant regularly demonstrates compliance with MPCA standards by providing all documentation and correspondence to the City as related to their MPCA industrial storm water permit and complies with corrections and other measures as a condition of the CUP approval. For purposes of deferral, pavement requirements can be deferred through a separate CUP process, according to the following provision: (5) Vehicular Use Area Design Conditional Use Permit Stall aisle and driveway design requirements outlined in Section 4.8 may be lessened subject to the following conditions: (a) Any reduction in requirements requires completion of the conditional use permit process outlined in Section 2.4(D) of this ordinance. (b) Final approval of parking and driveway drainage plans associated with conditional use permit request shall be provided in writing by the Community Development Department. Engineering expenses greater than the portion of building permit fee allocated for engineer plan review shall be paid by applicant prior to occupancy of structure. (c) Only properties which have existing buildings and are being expanded or remodeled for a new use shall be eligible for this conditional use permit. (d) The applicant must show, and the Planning Commission must find, that there are existing non-conformities of the property which are being eliminated by the expansion or remodeling which justify a deferral to the paving, landscaping, or curbing requirements. (e) A deferral shall be considered by the City as a part of an application which includes full site plans, drawn to scale, of both the immediate paving, landscaping and curbing improvements and the ultimate paving, landscaping, and curbing improvements. (f) In all districts other than the A-O District, this deferral shall apply only to the required paving, curbing and landscaping which is applicable to the existing portion of the use and building. Paving, curbing and landscaping attributable to any expansion shall be installed at the time of the expansion. The deferral requests noted above are for properties with existing buildings and site improvements. As discussed, the applicant is making a series of changes to the site that will minimize circulation conflicts with existing truck traffic, and improve site Planning Commission Agenda – 08/02/2016 9 conditions – particularly on the Fallon site as a first phase of development. The requested deferrals would not be waivers, but instead provide a timeline for full compliance in subsequent phases. Staff would therefore suggest a timeline for addressing future improvements as follows: 1. Paving of the parking area on the Dundas site – 2017 2. Paving of the truck circulation areas on the Fallon site – 2018 3. Paving of the open storage (or compliance with the storage container requirements for open storage) – 2019 Finally, on the Dundas site, the applicant is storingsemi-trucks and trailers. Currently, these trucks and trailers are stored on grassed surface areas of the site. To comply with code, these vehicles should either be stored within the outdoor storage area and screened, or the truck parking location should be surfaced with an appropriate gravel surface, as designated on an updated site plan. As a condition of approval the applicant should prepare a truck circulation plan that incorporates both sites, showing circulation and turning movements similar to that previously submitted for the Fallon site. To document the conditions and stormwater management plans for both sites, updated surveys should be submitted for review. The Fallon site survey should be prepared and submitted as a part of the initial project involving the general public parking and relocation of the truck scale. The Dundas site survey may be submitted at the time of any site plan changes to that property, including pavement or other surfacing of the property. Buffering and Setbacks. As noted, the proposed ordinance establishes setbacks of 30 feet from the street and 15 feet from adjoining property, provided (per the staff recommendation) that the required buffers are met at the perimeter of the site. For all setbacks but one, the industrial site adjoins industrial property. The applicant has proposed a complete screening fence for the open storage area that would be solid, eight feet in height, and set back from adjoining property lines by more than 50 feet in most cases. The applicable setback from Fallon Avenue would be 30 feet under the proposed amendment. Along the east and north lengths of the Fallon boundary, the site adjoins office and retail commercial property respectively – recently approved for the Mills Fleet Farm project. The buffer requirements in this case are as follows:  Industrial to Commercial: “C” Buffer (Semi-Opaque)  20 feet, or 5 feet in width with solid screening fence. Planning Commission Agenda – 08/02/2016 10  2” of overstory trees and 16” of understory trees per 200 feet (based on half of required buffer planting). (Based on a perimeter line of 430 feet, a total of 5 ACI of overstory trees and 34” of understory trees along the east boundary of the site. Along the north, 4” and 32” of tree planting would be required for the 400 foot length). Stormwater management. The City Engineer has been working with the applicant in their efforts to develop an acceptable stormwater management plan, which would be incorporated as a condition of any zoning approvals. In addition, staff recommendations below presume completion of the lot combination process on the Fallon site. Subdivision action. The applicant will need to combine the two parcels that comprise the Fallon site into a single development parcel. According to Subdivision Ordinance Section 11-8-2, this combination can be accomplished by an administrative review, with referral directly to the City Council for formal approval. The combination will be a condition of the other approvals for the Fallon site. B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS Decision 1. Zoning Ordinance Amendment to Section 5.2 (G)(12) amending the requirements for Recycling and Salvage uses in the Industrial zoning districts. 1. Motion to adopt Resolution No. PC-2016-028 recommending adoption of Ordinance No. 652 for amendment the Monticello Zoning ordinance for standards regulating Recycling and Salvage uses, based on findings in said Resolution. 2. Motion to deny adoption of Resolution No. PC-2016-028 recommending adoption of Ordinance No. 652 for amendment the Monticello Zoning ordinance for standards regulating Recycling and Salvage uses, based on findings to be identified following the public hearing. 3. Motion to table action on the resolution, subject to the submission of additional information. Decision 2. Conditional Use Permit for Recycling and Salvage for the Dundas site. 1. Motion to adopt Resolution PC-2016-029 recommending approval of the Conditional Use Permit for Recycling and Salvage uses for IRT at the Dundas site, subject to the provisions of Exhibit Z, and based on findings in said Resolution. 2. Motion to deny adoption of Resolution No. PC-2016-029, based on findings identified following the public hearing. Planning Commission Agenda – 08/02/2016 11 3. Motion to table action on the resolution, subject to the submission of additional information. Decision 3. Conditional Use Permit for Recycling and Salvage for the Fallon site. 1. Motion to adopt Resolution PC-2016-030 recommending approval of the Conditional Use Permit for Recycling and Salvage uses for IRT at the Fallon site, subject to the provisions of Exhibit Z, and based on findings in said Resolution. 2. Motion to deny adoption of Resolution No. PC-2016-030, based on findings identified following the public hearing. 3. Motion to table action on the resolution, subject to the submission of additional information. Decision 4. Conditional Use Permits for Deferral of Pavement and Curbing at the Dundas site. 1. Motion to adopt Resolution No. PC-2016-029 recommending approval of the Conditional Use Permit for deferral of paving requirements for IRT at the Dundas site, subject to the provisions of Exhibit Z, and based on findings in said Resolution. 2. Motion to deny adoption of Resolution No. PC-2016-029, based on findings to be identified at the public hearing. 3. Motion to table action on the resolution, subject to the submission of additional information. Decision 5. Conditional Use Permit for Deferral of Pavement and Curbing at the Fallon Site 1. Motion to adopt Resolution No. PC-2016-030 recommending approval of the Conditional Use Permit for deferral of paving requirements for IRT at the Fallon site, subject to the provisions of Exhibit Z, and based on findings in said Resolution. 2. Motion to deny adoption of Resolution No. PC-2016-030, based on findings to be identified at the public hearing. 3. Motion to table action on the resolution, subject to the submission of additional information. Planning Commission Agenda – 08/02/2016 12 C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of the zoning ordinance amendment as proposed by staff in the draft Ordinance No. 652, with the additional elements suggested to accommodate the buffer yard requirements and the pavement requirements for open storage of recycling materials which is not kept in weather-proof containers. As noted, the applicants are seeking a change that would allow for open storage on gravel surface. They have indicated that they would be willing to pursue a different gravel composition that minimizes dust and take steps to paving approaches to avoid tracking of gravel onto the public street. With the ordinance in place, staff would further recommend approval of the Conditional Use Permits for Recycling and Salvage and for pavement deferrals under the existing ordinance process for both the Fallon and Dundas sites, with the conditions identified in Exhibit Z. It is staff’s understanding that the primary issue for the applicant would be the paving requirement in the open storage area. As noted in the report, staff has some concerns related to the use relative to compliance with requirements for the City’s stormwater system, and has recommended paving, as well as continuing compliance with requirements and conditions of MPCA permitting. The Planning Commission should address this item specifically in its review and recommendation. D. SUPPORTING DATA A. Resolution PC-2016-028 for Ordinance B. Resolution PC-2016-029 for Dundas Site C. Resolution PC-2016-030 for Fallon Site D. Ordinance No. 652, Draft E. Aerial Site Image – Dundas Site F. Aerial Site Image – Fallon Site G. Applicant Narratives: 1. Ordinance Amendment 2. Conditional Use Permit Narrative 3. Administrative Lot Combination Narrative H. Dundas Site Plan I. Fallon Site Plans: 1. Site Plan 2. General Notes & Specifications 3. Standard City Details 4. Grading Plan 5. SWPPP 6. Landscape Plan J. Fence Details K. City Engineer's Letter, dated June 28th, 2016 L. Monticello Zoning Ordinance, Excerpts Z. Conditions of Approval Planning Commission Agenda – 08/02/2016 13 EXHIBIT Z Budd, Stephen – Integrated Recycling Technologies and Platinum Technologies 219 Dundas Road and 9696 Fallon Avenue Legal: Lot 6, Block 2, Oakwood Industrial Park; and Lots 2 and 3, Block 1, Monticello Commerce Center 5th Addition 1. Adoption of the proposed zoning amendment, Ordinance No. 635, incorporating the following modifications to the applicant’s proposed text: a. Permit open storage of materials on the ground, only when paved. b. Accommodate reduced setbacks, provided buffering requirements are met. 2. Construct the improvements to both sites consistent with the approved site plan, including an updated plan showing truck/trailer parking on the Dundas site. 3. Prepare and submit a revised landscaping plan as noted in the report to meet the buffer planting requirements. 4. Incorporate a timeline for future pavement improvements, as follows: a. Pave Dundas parking by 2017 b. Pave Fallon truck circulation by 2018 c. Pave Dundas open storage by 2019 5. Provide the City with all documentation and correspondence with the MPCA for industrial stormwater permit to ensure compliance with the permit per the City’s Illicit Discharge Ordinance, and incorporation of mitigation or correction measures required to meet MPCA standards and requirements. 6. Provide screening fencing as proposed on the plans to Fallon north and east boundaries. 7. All future parking and circulation changes not included in the approved deferrals to be paved at time of installation. 8. No outdoor storage on the Fallon site. 9. Any expansion of outdoor storage on the Dundas site will require an amendment to Conditional Use Permit. 10. Truck parking/storage to be on an improved surface, or within the screened storage enclosure. 11. Compliance with the terms of the City Engineer’s report. Planning Commission Agenda – 08/02/2016 14 12. Completion of lot combination on Fallon site, along with vacation of internal DU easements, or execution of an encroachment agreement for improvements lying within the easement. 13. Provide an updated survey of the Dundas site at the time of the parking lot paving. 14. Provide an updated survey on the Fallon site with the first phase improvements. 15. Provide an updated site plan showing truck circulation. 16. Other staff comments and recommendations. 1 CITY OF MONTICELLO WRIGHT COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION NO. PC-2016-028 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF MONTICELLO RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF AN AMENDMENT TO THE ZONING ORDINANCE REGULATING RECYCLING AND SALVAGE USES IN THE INDUSTRIAL DISTRICTS WHEREAS,the applicant is proposing to amend the zoning ordinance relating to the regulation of recycling and salvage uses; and WHEREAS,the proposed occupancy will result in improved impacts to the site or to surrounding property and public rights of way; and WHEREAS,the proposed facility is consistent with the relevant general and conditional zoning requirements of industrial zoning district intent; and WHEREAS,the proposed use is consistent with the purpose and intent of the I-1, Light Industrial and I-2, Heavy Industrial Districts; and WHEREAS,the Planning Commission held a public hearing to consider the matter at its regular meeting on August 16th, 2016 and the applicant and members of the public were provided the opportunity to present information to the Planning Commission; and WHEREAS,the Planning Commission has considered all of the comments and the staff report, which are incorporated by reference into the resolution; and WHEREAS,the Planning Commission of the City of Monticello makes the following Findings of Fact in relation to the recommendation of approval: 1.The proposed ordinance is consistent with the intent of the Monticello Comprehensive Plan. 2.The proposed ordinance amendment will meet the requirements and intent of other sections of the Monticello Zoning Ordinance. 3.The ordinance will not create undue burdens on public systems, including streets and utilities. 4.The proposed ordinance will not create substantial impacts, visual or otherwise, on neighboring land uses or public property. 2 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the Planning Commission of the City of Monticello, Minnesota that the proposed zoning ordinance amendment is hereby recommended for approval. ADOPTED this 16th day of August, 2016, by the Planning Commission of the City of Monticello, Minnesota. MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION By: _______________________________ Brad Fyle, Chair ATTEST: ______________________________ Angela Schumann, CommunityDevelopment Director CITY OF MONTICELLO WRIGHT COUNTY, MINNNESOTA PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. PC-2016-029 1 RECOMENDING APPROVAL OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS FOR RECYCLING AND SALVAGE AND DEFERRAL OF PAVING REQUIREMENTS FOR INTEGRATED RECYCLING TECHNOLOGIES (IRT) AT 219 DUNDAS ROAD;LOT 6, BLOCK 2, OAKWOOD INDUSTRIAL PARK WHEREAS, the applicant has submitted a request to improve property for recycling uses in the I-2, Heavy Industrial District; and WHEREAS,the improvements will mitigate existing traffic and business operations issues currently being experienced in the area, both public and private; and WHEREAS, the proposed use will require the approval of conditional use permits for recycling and salvage and pavement deferrals to facilitate the use as proposed; and WHEREAS, the uses are consistent with the intent and purpose of the I-2, Heavy Industrial zoning district; and WHEREAS,the uses will not create any unanticipated changes to the demand for public services on or around the site; and WHEREAS,the Planning Commission held a public hearing on August 16th, 2016 on the application and the applicant and members of the public were provided the opportunity to present information to the Planning Commission; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has considered all of the comments and the staff report, which are incorporated by reference into the resolution; and WHEREAS,the Planning Commission of the City of Monticello makes the following Findings of Fact in relation to the recommendation of approval: 1.The proposed uses are consistent with the intent and purpose of the I-2, Heavy Industrial District. 2.The proposed uses are consistent with the existing and future land uses in the area in which they are located. 3.The impacts of the improvements are those anticipated by industrial land uses and are addressed through standard review and ordinances as adopted. 4.The recycling uses meet the intent and requirements of the applicable zoning regulations, pursuant to the conditions attached to the Conditional Use Permit. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the Planning Commission of the City of Monticello, Minnesota, that the Planning Commission hereby recommends that the CITY OF MONTICELLO WRIGHT COUNTY, MINNNESOTA PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. PC-2016-029 2 Monticello City Council approves the Conditional Use Permits for Recycling and Salvage, and deferral of paving improvements, subject to the conditions listed in Exhibit Z as follows: 1.Adoption of the proposed zoning amendment, Ordinance No. 635, incorporating the following modifications to the applicant’s proposed text: a.Permit open storage of materials on the ground, only when paved. b.Accommodate reduced setbacks, provided buffering requirements are met. 2.Construct the improvements to both sites consistent with the approved site plan, including an updated plan showing truck/trailer parking on the Dundas site. 3.Prepare and submit a revised landscaping plan as noted in the report to meet the buffer planting requirements. 4.Incorporate a timeline for future pavement improvements, as follows: a.Pave Dundas parking by 2017 b.Pave Fallon truck circulation by 2018 c.Pave Dundas open storage by 2019 5.Provide the City with all documentation and correspondence with the MPCA for industrial stormwater permit to ensure compliance with the permit per the City’s Illicit Discharge Ordinance, and incorporation of mitigation or correction measures required to meet MPCA standards and requirements. 6.Provide screening fencing as proposed on the plans to Fallon north and east boundaries. 7.All future parking and circulation changes not included in the approved deferrals to be paved at time of installation. 8.No outdoor storage on the Fallon site. 9.Any expansion of outdoor storage on the Dundas site will require an amendment to Conditional Use Permit. 10.Truck parking/storage to be on an improved surface, or within the screened storage enclosure. 11.Compliance with the terms of the City Engineer’s report. CITY OF MONTICELLO WRIGHT COUNTY, MINNNESOTA PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. PC-2016-029 3 12.Completion of lot combination on Fallon site, along with vacation of internal DU easements, or execution of an encroachment agreement for improvements lying within the easement. 13.Provide an updated survey of the Dundas site at the time of the parking lot paving. 14.Provide an updated survey on the Fallon site with the first phase improvements. 15.Provide an updated site plan showing truck circulation. 16.Other staff comments and recommendations. ADOPTED this 16th day of August, 2016 by the Planning Commission of the City of Monticello, Minnesota. MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION By: _______________________________ Brad Fyle, Chair ATTEST: ____________________________________________ Angela Schumann, CommunityDevelopment Director CITY OF MONTICELLO WRIGHT COUNTY, MINNNESOTA PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. PC-2016-030 1 RECOMENDING APPROVAL OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS FOR RECYCLING AND SALVAGE AND DEFERRAL OF PAVING REQUIREMENTS FOR INTEGRATED RECYCLING TECHNOLOGIES (IRT) AT 9696 FALLON AVE., LOTS 2 AND 3, BLOCK 1, MONTICELLO COMMERCE CENTER 5TH ADDITION WHEREAS, the applicant has submitted a request to improve property for recycling uses in the I-1, Light Industrial District; and WHEREAS,the improvements will mitigate existing traffic and business operations issues currently being experienced in the area, both public and private; and WHEREAS, the proposed use will require the approval of conditional use permits for recycling and salvage and pavement deferrals to facilitate the use as proposed; and WHEREAS, the uses are consistent with the intent and purpose of the I-1, Light Industrial zoning district; and WHEREAS,the uses will not create any unanticipated changes to the demand for public services on or around the site; and WHEREAS,the Planning Commission held a public hearing on August 16th, 2016 on the application and the applicant and members of the public were provided the opportunity to present information to the Planning Commission; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has considered all of the comments and the staff report, which are incorporated by reference into the resolution; and WHEREAS,the Planning Commission of the City of Monticello makes the following Findings of Fact in relation to the recommendation of approval: 1.The proposed uses are consistent with the intent and purpose of the I-1, Light Industrial District. 2.The proposed uses are consistent with the existing and future land uses in the area in which they are located. 3.The impacts of the improvements are those anticipated by industrial land uses and are addressed through standard review and ordinances as adopted. 4.The recycling uses meet the intent and requirements of the applicable zoning regulations, pursuant to the conditions attached to the Conditional Use Permit. CITY OF MONTICELLO WRIGHT COUNTY, MINNNESOTA PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. PC-2016-030 2 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the Planning Commission of the City of Monticello, Minnesota, that the Planning Commission hereby recommends that the Monticello City Council approves the Conditional Use Permits for Recycling and Salvage, and deferral of paving improvements, subject to the conditions listed in Exhibit Z as follows: 1.Adoption of the proposed zoning amendment, Ordinance No. 635, incorporating the following modifications to the applicant’s proposed text: a.Permit open storage of materials on the ground, only when paved. b.Accommodate reduced setbacks, provided buffering requirements are met. 2.Construct the improvements to both sites consistent with the approved site plan, including an updated plan showing truck/trailer parking on the Dundas site. 3.Prepare and submit a revised landscaping plan as noted in the report to meet the buffer planting requirements. 4.Incorporate a timeline for future pavement improvements, as follows: a.Pave Dundas parking by 2017 b.Pave Fallon truck circulation by 2018 c.Pave Dundas open storage by 2019 5.Provide the City with all documentation and correspondence with the MPCA for industrial stormwater permit to ensure compliance with the permit per the City’s Illicit Discharge Ordinance, and incorporation of mitigation or correction measures required to meet MPCA standards and requirements. 6.Provide screening fencing as proposed on the plans to Fallon north and east boundaries. 7.All future parking and circulation changes not included in the approved deferrals to be paved at time of installation. 8.No outdoor storage on the Fallon site. 9.Any expansion of outdoor storage on the Dundas site will require an amendment to Conditional Use Permit. 10.Truck parking/storage to be on an improved surface, or within the screened storage enclosure. 11.Compliance with the terms of the City Engineer’s report. CITY OF MONTICELLO WRIGHT COUNTY, MINNNESOTA PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. PC-2016-030 3 12.Completion of lot combination on Fallon site, along with vacation of internal DU easements, or execution of an encroachment agreement for improvements lying within the easement. 13.Provide an updated survey of the Dundas site at the time of the parking lot paving. 14.Provide an updated survey on the Fallon site with the first phase improvements. 15.Provide an updated site plan showing truck circulation. 16.Other staff comments and recommendations. ADOPTED this 16th day of August, 2016 by the Planning Commission of the City of Monticello, Minnesota. MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION By: _______________________________ Brad Fyle, Chair ATTEST: ____________________________________________ Angela Schumann, CommunityDevelopment Director ORDINANCE NO. 652 CITY OF MONTICELLO WRIGHT COUNTY, MINNESOTA AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 10 OF THE MONTICELLO ZONING CODE FOR THE FOLLOWING SECTIONS: SECTION 5.2 (G)(12) REGULATING RECYCLING AND SALVAGE AS A CONDITIONAL USE IN THE I-1 AND I-2 ZONING DISTRICTS THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MONTICELLO, MINNESOTA, HEREBY ORDAINS: Section 1. Sections 5.2 (G)(12) (a), (c), and (e) – (h) are hereby amended to read as follows: (12) Recycling and Salvage Center (a) The center shall be on a parcel with an area of at least five four acres. (c) Except for a freestanding office, no part of the center shall be located within 50 15 feet of any property line, or the minimum buffer yard setbacks required in Section 4.1 (G), whichever requires the greater setback. (e) All outdoor storage areas shall be surrounded by a solid fence or wall that is at least eight feet high, located no less than 100 30 feet from any public right-of- way, and located no less than 50 15 feet from any adjacent property. (f) Recyclable materials shall be contained within a leak-proof bin or trailer, and not stored on the ground. In the alternative, the outdoor storage of recyclable materials may occur on the ground, provided that the surface is paved and curbed to control dust and drainage in a manner that is consistent with the City’s stormwater management requirements, and is fenced and screened to ensure that no storage is taller in elevation than the height of the screening. (g) Only limited sorting, separation, or other processing of deposited materials shall occur on the site. The facility shall at all times comply with the terms of the MCPA permitting for the site, and shall promptly comply with any order for mitigation or correction issued by the MPCA when an inconsistency or violation is found. The City may require additional improvements to protect the City’s stormwater management system resulting from operation of the facility, including but not limited to, additional stormwater treatment, reporting, and notifications as appropriate. (h) There shall be no collection or storage of hazardous or biodegradable wastes (as defined by the PCA) on the site. The storage of hazardous wastes shall be, at all times, found to be compliance with the requirements and permitting of the MPCA as applicable to the site and the material in question. ORDINANCE NO. 652 Section 3. 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 and diagrams that result from such amendments, provided that such changes retain the purpose and intent of the Zoning Ordinance as has been adopted. 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 22nd day of August, 2016. CITY OF MONTICELLO __________________________________ Brian Stumpf, Mayor ATTEST: ___________________________________ Jeff O’Neill, City Administrator VOTING IN FAVOR: VOTING IN OPPOSITION: B u dd , Step hen - R eq uest fo r Amen dment to Zon in g O rdina nce, Con ditio na l Use Permits 219 Dundas Road, PID 155-018-002061 C reated by : C ity of Monticello 728 ft B u dd , Step hen - R eq uest fo r Amen dment to Zon in g O rdina nce, Con ditio na l Use Permits 9696 Fallon Avenue, 155-131-001020 and 155-131-001030 C reated by : C ity of Monticello 364 ft Page 1 of 3 Ordinance Amendment Narrative IRT requests the following modifications be made to the current version of the City of Monticello Recycling and Salvage Center Ordinance (Sect. 5.2(G)(12)). Revising the current standard will allow IRT to comply with local requirements, improve operations and help shape the standard for future businesses seeking to open a recycling and salvage business in Monticello. IRT believes that the following revisions will benefit the city and its residents by allowing IRT to continue operating a successful recycling center of ferrous, non-ferrous and electronic scrap. Proper recycling of these materials is essential to both economic development and environmental sustainability. IRT is committed to processing materials with the environment, human health and safety at the forefront of its operations and has demonstrated this commitment by obtaining and complying with Environmental, Health and Safety Management System certifications: R2:2013 (responsible recycling), ISO: 14001 (environmental health) and OHSAS: 18001 (worker health and safety). Section 5.2 (G) (12) (a) Current: The center shall be on a parcel with an area of at least five acres. Requested Revision: The center shall be on a parcel with an area of at least four acres. Reason: IRT’s Dundas Rd address has a total of five acres and its Fallon Ave address will have a total of four acres if administrative lot combination is approved. (c) Current: Except for a freestanding office, no part of the center shall be located within 50 feet of any property. Requested Revision: Except for a freestanding office, no part of the center shall be located within 15 feet of any property. Reason: Changing the ordinance from 50ft to 15ft will alleviate traffic on Fallon Avenue by allowing additional use of the land to install a fence around the property that leaves sufficient room to relocate the truck scale and create an onsite truck staging area. Page 2 of 3 (e) Current: All outdoor storage areas shall be surrounded by a solid fence or wall that is at least eight feet high and located no less than 100 feet from any public right of way, and is located no less than 50 feet from any adjacent property. Requested Revision: All outdoor storage areas shall be surrounded by a solid fence or wall that is at least eight feet high and located no less than 30 feet from any public right of way, and is located no less than 15 feet from any adjacent property. Reason: Changing the ordinance from 100ft to 30ft (with regard to public right of way) and 50ft to 15ft (with regard to adjacent property) will allow future construction of fencing on Dundas to match IRT’s Fallon Ave address. Decreasing the distance will allow further maximization of property while maintaining appropriate distance from right of way and adjacent properties. (f) Current: Recyclable materials shall be contained within a leak-proof bin or trailer, and not stored on the ground. Requested Revision: Remove provision completely or add exception for ferrous and non-ferrous materials if in compliance with storm water permit issued by the MPCA. Reason: IRT currently stores its ferrous and non-ferrous materials outside. Storage areas are layered with class 5 for grading to a storm water run-off pond. Material is received clean of oil and other hazardous material/liquids. Storm water runoff is managed in accordance with an industrial storm water permit issued by the MPCA. (g) Current: Only limited sorting, separation or other processing of deposited materials shall occur on the site. Requested Revision: Removal of this standard or add an exception in regards to ferrous, non-ferrous and electronic scrap sorting and separation. Reason: 95% IRT’s business is sorting, separating and/or segregating materials into categories that ensure shipments of like materials to vendors while managing focus materials appropriately. Although, the current standard may be applicable to other recycling centers that manage residential and/or commercial biodegradable wastes, it Page 3 of 3 limits the operations of IRT. Onsite sorting of materials is integral to the success of the business and compliance with the R2 certification. (h) Current: There shall be no collection or storage of hazardous or biodegradable wastes (as defined by the PCA) on the site. Requested Revision There shall be no collection or storage of hazardous or biodegradable wastes (as defined by the PCA) on the site. Unless the organization holds a certification to ISO: 14001, R2:2013, E-Stewards and/or other environmental management system certificate issued by an accredited third party certification body. Organizations that hold such certification are allowed to collect and store hazardous wastes in compliance with federal, state and certification standards. Reason: R2:2013 Responsible Recycling and E-Stewards are certifications that have become industry standard and demonstrate an organization’s commitment to human and environmental health and safety by managing focus materials or hazardous materials appropriately. IRT currently holds the R2:2013 certification. IRT receives minimal quantity of hazardous waste but handles what it does receive in accordance with the MPCA, R2 and ISO standards. Property Information: Property ID: 155-018-002061 Property Description: 219 Dundas Road, Monticello MN 55362 Sect 14 Twp 121 Range 025 Oakwood Industrial Park Lot 006 Block 002 Property ID: 155-131-001030 Property Description: 9696 Fallon Avenue, Monticello, MN 55362 Sect 13 Twp 121 Range 025 MONTI COMMERCE CENTER 5TH ADDN Lot 003 Block 001 Property ID: 155-131-001020 Property Description: 9696 Fallon Avenue, Monticello, MN 55362 (applied to be combined with 155-131-1030) Sect 13 Twp 121 Range 025 MONTI COMMERCE CENTER 5TH ADDN Lot 002 Block 001 Page 1 of 1 Conditional Use Permit Application Narrative 219 Dundas Road & 9696 Fallon Avenue IRT has prepared the following narrative to complete the application for a conditional use permit for both of its facilities, 219 Dundas Road (“Dundas”) and 9696 Fallon Ave (“Fallon”) to receive permit for the following items: 1. Use under the Recycling and Salvage Center Ordinance (Dundas & Fallon) 2. Deferral on standards for parking and drive aisles for Dundas 3. Deferral on trucking and employee parking for Fallon Operational Overview IRT is located right off Interstate 94 and MN Highway 25 in th e industrial park of Monticello. IRT processes non-ferrous and ferrous metals, electronic scrap, catalytic converters and precious metals. IRT was established in 1997 but began its operations in 2000 at the Fallon Avenue facility. In 2008, IRT expanded their operations to the Dundas Road facility and now conducts their operations in the two adjacent facilities. The Fallon Avenue facility processes non -ferrous and ferrous metals. The Dundas Road facility processes e-scrap, catalytic converters and precious metals. Page 2 of 2 Dundas Conditional Use Permit Narrative IRT would like to establish its 219 Dundas Road address for use under the Recycling and Salvage Center ordinance. IRT has submitted an application with requested modifications to the Recycling and Salvage ordinance. Currently, IRT’s Dundas address is zoned as Industrial District I-2. In addition to the ordinance, IRT would like to request a deferral of 3 years to construct additional parking. Improvements made to the Fallon address will take precedent over Dundas to resolve the immediate need to alleviate traffic on Fallon Ave. The enclosed plan details the parking lot. Page 3 of 3 Fallon Conditional Use Permit Narrative IRT would like to establish its 9696 Fallon Avenue address for use under the Recycling and Salvage Center ordinance. IRT has submitted an application with requested modifications to the Recycling and Salvage ordinance. Currently, IRT’s Dundas address is zoned as Industrial District I-1. In addition to the ordinance, IRT would like to request approval for a Conditional Use Permit for the following plan and timeline. Please note the following plans are based on the assumed approval of IRT’s Fallon Avenue Administrative Lot Combination application. Plan Proposal As shown in the civil preliminary plans, IRT will eliminate the existing north drive access point and move this access as far north as able. IRT will only have two access points to the Fallon facility. The preliminary plans show the relocation of the scale from the south access point moved to the new, proposed north access. The entrance of the northern access will be curb, gutter and asphalt which will end at the designated point shown on the plans. At this point, gravel will be placed before, around and after the scale and into the truck staging area. The truck staging area will all be gravel. Ten foot concrete aprons will be installed directly before and after the scale. Curb, gutter and asphalt will extend through the employee/customer entrance and lot. The employee/customer lot will have signage designating ‘Employee Only’ and ‘Customer Only’ parking. A six foot fence will be installed around the north side and east side of the Fallon property. No storage will take place along the six foot fence. All storage will take place within the current privacy fence on the property. Project Timeline The following pages detail the flow of traffic for each type of vehicle that will visit IRT’s Fallon facility. YEAR 1 – 2016-2017 YEAR 2 – 2017-2018 YEAR 3-2018-2019 Curb & Gutter Asphalt Move Scale & New Pit Dirt Work & Gravel Drive Fence Dundas Parking Lot Page 4 of 4 Fallon Trucks (Ferrous and Non-Ferrous Material) 1. Trucks enter the North access from Fallon Ave. 2. Trucks are weighed on scale Note: The current plan reflects consideration of queued trucks. The plans demonstrate enough room for up to 3 queued trucks with additional room for trucks to park beside one another if necessary. We do not anticipate enough traffic to utilize this space as weigh in takes ~2 minutes. 3. Trucks approach staging areas to wait for the go ahead to enter the loading dock 4. Trucks are loaded/unloaded at dock. 5. Exit South access point 6. Follow steps 1, 2 & 5 (enter, weigh, exit) 1 2 3 5 4 Page 5 of 5 Dundas Trucks (E-Scrap Material) 1. Trucks enter North access from Fallon Ave. 2. Trucks are weighed on scale. This process takes ~2 minutes. 3. Trucks approach staging areas to wait for go ahead on loading/unloading. 4. Once the truck is able to be loaded/unloaded, trucks will travel through Fallon yard to the south access to cross Fallon Avenue and enter the adjacent access point to approach the Dundas loading dock. 5. Truck is unloaded/loaded 6. Exit Dundas North Access. 7. Repeat steps 1,2 & exit South access (enter, weigh, exit) Page 6 of 6 Employees 1. Employees enter North Access from Fallon Avenue 2. Turn right 3. Drive straight to either turn left to enter parking lot 4. Park in designated employee only parking 5. Employees will exit out of the south access point Page 7 of 7 Door Customers / Peddlers 1. Enter the North access 2. Turn Right 3. Drive straight and turn left into designated customer trailer parking area 4. Material to be unloaded and weighed by IRT staff 5. After weighing is complete, customers will exit parking lot. 6. Customers will park in lot in front of office to receive payment for materials. Note: customers may stay parked in customer drop off lot and walk into office for payment. 7. Exit the South Access. Administrative Lot Combination IRT would like to combine its two Fallon Avenue lots, 155-131-001020 and 155-131-001030. This combination will allow for IRT to purse development plans to relocate scale, create employee and customer parking lot and a truck staging area. Building a legacy – your legacy. 701 Xenia Avenue South Suite 300 Minneapolis, MN 55416 Tel: 763-541-4800 Fax: 763-541-1700 Equal Opportunity Employer wsbeng.com K:\02596-280\Admin\Docs\LTR-a-schumann- IRT 072816.docx July 28, 2016 Ms. Angela Schumann Community Development Director City of Monticello 505 Walnut Street, Suite 1 Monticello, MN 55362 Re: IRT Site Improvements City Project No. 2016-038 WSB Project No. 02596-280 Dear Ms. Schumann: We have reviewed the preliminary civil plans dated June 30, 2016 and the stormwater calculations dated July 25, 2016, as prepared by Schultz Engineering & Site Design and offer the following preliminary comments. General Comments 1. A title sheet should be provided with location map of the site, sheet index and property owner name and address for the both the 9696 Fallon Avenue and 219 Dundas Road sites. 2. A certificate of survey for both sites shall be provided. 3. An overall plan sheet shall be provided showing how trucks and customers will circulate within and between the two sites. Signage shall be shown on this plan sheet. It is our understanding trucks and vehicles will enter from the northerly access point to the Fallon Avenue site and exit from the southerly access either to Fallon Avenue or to the Dundas Road site. Truck turning templates shall be provided as well for these circulation patterns. CS1 Site Plan 4. The applicant is making an improvement to the truck circulation issue where currently trucks are queuing along Dundas Road to enter the Fallon Avenue site as described in the planning report. The proposed plan includes removing the existing northerly access to the Fallon Avenue site and relocating it to the north property to improve circulation. Two July 28, 2016 Page 2 K:\02596-280\Admin\Docs\LTR-a-schumann- IRT 072816.docx access points are being proposed with the Fallon Avenue site. It is expected that these access points will align with the future improvements and access to the Dundas Road site. A maximum of two access points with the proposed access spacing is reasonable to provide circulation to these sites, while considering that with the constriction of the Fallon Avenue overpass, traffic volumes will increase. In the future Fallon Avenue will likely be widened and improved with curb and gutter and turn lanes to accommodate future traffic volumes. 5. It is preferred that pavement be placed on the current and proposed aggregate areas of both sites to prevent tracking on City streets, reduce dust and manage stormwater. Currently, aggregate is being tracked onto Fallon Avenue, which requires Public Works to sweep the streets more frequently than routine maintenance. It was discussed with the applicant that an improved alternative aggregate material be placed on the sites to reduce tracking and dust in the interim. 6. The width of the southerly access on the Fallon Avenue site shall be shown on the plans. 7. The existing sanitary sewer and watermain that extend along the Fallon Avenue boulevard and ditch shall be shown on the plans. 8. The plans should reference and be in compliance with the most recent City of Monticello General Specifications and Standard Detail Plates for Street and Utility Construction located on the City’s website- Engineering department. C3 Grading Plan 9. Percent grades should be labeled for the parking lot and driveways. 10. Show the existing drainage and utility easements around the site and adjacent pond to the east. 11. Existing contours shall be shown with a dashed line type. 12. An as-built of the grading plan for the infiltration basin shall be provided once construction is complete. C6 SWPPP Plan 13. Include a standard detail for culvert inlet protection. 14. Add a temporary stabilization option. 15. Ditch/swales and infiltration areas shall include blanket stabilization in a temporary state if final stabilization cannot be reached. July 28, 2016 Page 3 K:\02596-280\Admin\Docs\LTR-a-schumann- IRT 072816.docx 16. Provide perimeter control around the infiltration basin to prevent equipment from tracking into the area after grading. 17. Provide perimeter control around riprap area at the outlet of the 18-inch outlet pipe from the infiltration basin. 18. Identify stockpile areas with BMP measures. 19. Provide temporary/permanent stabilization near the northwest corner of the parking area, just upstream of the grass swale. 20. Add a callout for J-hook silt fence Stormwater Management The site drains to the adjacent regional pond to the east, however an onsite infiltration basin is required in order to meet volume control requirements, since the site is creating more than 1 acre of impervious surface. WSB added the adjacent regional pond to the HydroCAD model submitted by Schultz Engineering in order to determine if the regional basin has sufficient capacity. Results of the model indicated that the proposed 18-inch pipe from the site to the regional pond will back up during large storm events with a resulting HWL for the proposed onsite infiltration basin to be 952.91 feet. This does not appear to be an issue for the proposed project or adjacent structures, but should be noted on the plan set and in the stormwater report. Rate control is managed through this pond and meets City standards, therefore no further action is required for rate control. Routine maintenance of the proposed infiltration basin is important to ensure the basin achieves volume reduction. In addition, the plan set indicates that infiltration testing will be completed after the site is stabilized. Typically infiltration testing is conducted prior to approving the proposed stormwater management. If the infiltration tests indicate an infiltration rate lower than 0.8 in/hr, modifications to the basin will be required. If during construction groundwater is observed at less than 3 feet from the bottom of the basin, the infiltration basin is not allowed per MPCA guidelines. It’s recommended that the Minnesota Stormwater Manual be referenced for finalizing the infiltration basin design and infiltration testing procedures. A separate stormwater maintenance agreement for the infiltration basin will be provided for the applicant to sign, which will be recorded with the County. MPCA Industrial Stormwater Permit The applicant has an MPCA industrial stormwater permit for the 9696 Fallon Avenue and 219 Dundas Road sites. These permits are required based on the facilities uses or classifications. The applicant has a permit based on SIC code 5093- Scrap Recycling and Waste Recycling Facilities. Upon request, the applicant provided their Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) associated with these permits along with their facility inspection reports and monitoring and testing information. The main purpose of the applicant’s SWPPP is to implement July 28, 2016 Page 4 K:\02596-280\Admin\Docs\LTR-a-schumann- IRT 072816.docx best management practices for the sites to eliminate or reduce contact or exposure of pollutants to stormwater or remove pollutants from stormwater prior to discharge from the facility. These documents were requested by the City to ensure compliance with the City’s Illicit Discharge Ordinance, which regulates non-storm water discharges (which is defined as any discharge to the storm drain system that is not composed entirely of storm water) to the City’s drainage system. City staff reviewed these documents as part of our plan review process and understands the following:  IRT monitors and samples for storm water runoff quarterly as required by the MPCA permit at two locations.  One location is at the northeast corner of the Fallon Avenue facility adjacent to the stormwater pond. The second location is on the Dundas Road site, north near the adjacent ditch.  The applicant provided their monitoring report from April to June, 2016 which shows elevated levels than the benchmark level that the MPCA sets for certain metals.  Based on the applicant’s SWPPP, four samples are taken per year and an average is utilized to determine the facilities discharge concentration.  The MPCA is the regulatory authority that reviews the applicants testing reports, other reporting information and reviews the applicant’s corrective action plan. As a result, it is recommended that the applicant provide the City will all documentation and correspondence they have with the MPCA for their industrial stormwater permit to ensure compliance with the permit per the City’s Illicit Discharge Ordinance. Drinking Water Supply Management Area (DWSMA) The Dundas Road site is located to the low and moderate vulnerability in the City’s DWSMA. The low and moderate vulnerability is partially the result of the semi-contiguous clay layer. This clay layer reduces the ability of water to infiltrate to the City’s water supply aquifer. The City’s wellhead protect plan indicates that groundwater flows to the northeast toward the Mississippi River. The groundwater flow is down gradient of the City’s wells and the subject sites and thus unlikely to be affected by potential contamination. However, increases in pumping may have an impact of the groundwater flow direction. Therefore, the City should continue to monitor their wells and take samples as required. Please have the applicant provide a written response addressing the numbered comments above. Final plans will need to be submitted, reviewed, and approved prior to grading and building permit approval. Please give me a call at 763-271-3236 if you have any questions or comments regarding this letter. Thank you. July 28, 2016 Page 5 K:\02596-280\Admin\Docs\LTR-a-schumann- IRT 072816.docx Sincerely, WSB & Associates, Inc. Shibani K. Bisson, PE City Engineer cc: Steve Grittman, NAC skb CHAPTER 3: ZONING DISTRICTS Section 3.6 Industrial Base Zoning Districts Subsection (D) I-1: Light Industrial District City of Monticello Zoning Ordinance Page 123 (D) I-1: Light Industrial District Section 3.6 (D) I-1 Light Industrial District The purpose of the "I-1," light industrial, district is to provide for the establishment of warehousing and light industrial development. Base Lot Area  Minimum = 20,000 square feet Base Lot Width  Minimum = 100 feet Typical I-1 Building Types Typical I-1 Lot Configuration CHAPTER 3: ZONING DISTRICTS Section 3.6 Industrial Base Zoning Districts Subsection (D) I-1: Light Industrial District Page 124 City of Monticello Zoning Ordinance TABLE 3-17: I-1 DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS REQUIRED YARDS (in feet) [1] Max Height (stories / feet) Max Floor Area Ratio (FAR) Max Impervious (% of gross lot area) Front Interior Side Street Side Rear All Uses 30 15 30 15 2 stories 30 feet [2] (Reserved) (Reserved) [1]: When any yard abuts a zoning district other than I-1 or I-2, the setbacks for the abutting yard must be 50 feet. [2]: Multi-story buildings may be allowed as a conditional use pursuant to Section 2.4(D) contingent upon strict adherence to fire safety code provisions as specified by the International Building Code as adopted in Title 4, Chapter 1 of the Monticello City Code. Accessory Structures  See Section 5.3(B) for all general standards and limitations on accessory structures. Other Regulations to Consult (not all inclusive)  Section 3.3, Common District Requirements  Section 3.6(B), Standards Applicable to All Industrial Base Zoning Districts  Section 4.1, Landscaping and Screening Standards  Section 4.5, Signs  Section 4.8, Off-Street Parking  Section 4.9, Off-Street Loading  Section 4.11, Building Materials CHAPTER 3: ZONING DISTRICTS Section 3.6 Industrial Base Zoning Districts Subsection (E) I-2: Heavy Industrial District City of Monticello Zoning Ordinance Page 125 (E) I-2: Heavy Industrial District Section 3.6 (E) I-2 Heavy Industrial District The purpose of the "I-2," heavy industrial, district is to provide for the establishment of heavy industrial and manufacturing development and use which because of the nature of the product or character of activity requires isolation from residential or commercial use. Base Lot Area  Minimum = 30,000 square feet Base Lot Width  Minimum = 100 feet Typical I-2 Building Types Typical I-2 Lot Configuration CHAPTER 3: ZONING DISTRICTS Section 3.6 Industrial Base Zoning Districts Subsection (E) I-2: Heavy Industrial District Page 126 City of Monticello Zoning Ordinance TABLE 3-18: I-2 DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS REQUIRED YARDS (in feet) [1] Max Height (stories / feet) Max Floor Area Ratio (FAR) Max Impervious (% of gross lot area) Front Interior Side Street Side Rear All Uses 30 15 30 15 2 stories 30 feet [2] (Reserved) (Reserved) [1]: When any yard abuts a zoning district other than I-1 or I-2, the setbacks for the abutting yard must be 50 feet. [2]: Multi-story buildings may be allowed as a conditional use pursuant to Section 2.4(D) contingent upon strict adherence to fire safety code provisions as specified by the International Building Code as adopted in Title 4, Chapter 1 of the Monticello City Code. Accessory Structures  See Section 5.3(B) for all general standards and limitations on accessory structures. Other Regulations to Consult (not all inclusive)  Section 3.3, Common District Requirements  Section 3.6(B), Standards Applicable to All Industrial Base Zoning Districts  Section 4.1, Landscaping and Screening Standards  Section 4.5, Signs  Section 4.8, Off-Street Parking  Section 4.9, Off-Street Loading  Section 4.11, Building Materials CHAPTER 5: USE STANDARDS Section 5.1 Use Table Subsection (A) Explanation of Use Table Structure City of Monticello Zoning Ordinance Page 319 TABLE 5-1: USES BY DISTRICT (cont.) Use Types “P” = Permitted “C” = Conditionally Permitted “I” = Interim Permitted Base Zoning Districts Additional Requirements A O R A R 1 R 2 T N R 3 R 4 M H B 1 B 2 B 3 B 4 C C D I B C I 1 I 2 Vehicle Fuel Sales C C C SE E T A B L E 5 -1A 5.2(F)(30) Vehicle Sales and Rental C C 5.2(F)(31) Veterinary Facilities (Rural) C 5.2(F)(32) Veterinary Facilities (Neighborhood) C C C 5.2(F)(32) Wholesale Sales P P P None Industrial Uses Auto Repair – Major C *SE E T A B L E 5-1A P P 5.2(G)(1) Bulk Fuel Sales and Storage P P 5.2(G)(2) Contractor's Yard, Temporary I I I 5.2(G)(3) Extraction of Materials I I I 5.2(G)(4) General Warehousing C C P P 5.2(G)(5) Heavy Manufacturing C 5.2(G)(6) Industrial Services C P None Land Reclamation C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C 5.2(G)(7) Light Manufacturing P P P 5.2(G)(8) Machinery/Truck Repair & Sales P P 5.2(G)(9) Recycling and Salvage Center C C 5.2(G)(10) Self-Storage Facilities P C P 5.2(G)(11) Truck or Freight Terminal C P P 5.2(G)(12) Waste Disposal & Incineration C 5.2(G)(13) Wrecker Services C P 5.2(G)(14) TABLE 5-1A: CENTRAL COMMUNITY DISTRICT (CCD) USES Use Types “P” = Permitted “C” = Conditionally Permitted “I” = Interim Permitted Sub-Districts Exceptions Additional Requirements F-1 F-2 F-3 L Brew Pub P P P P none 5.2(F)(7) Commercial Day Care C C C C none 5.2(F)(12) Commercial Lodging P P C none 5.2(F)(8) CHAPTER 5: USE STANDARDS Section 5.2 Use-Specific Standards Subsection (G) Regulations for Industrial Uses City of Monticello Zoning Ordinance Page 357 (i) All conditions pertaining to a specific site are subject to change when the Council, upon investigation in relation to a formal request, finds that the general welfare and public betterment can be served as well or better by modifying the conditions. (j) If the business repairs semi-trucks or other large machinery, a specific area shall be designated for the exterior storage of the things being repaired and/or other vehicles and equipment accessory and incidental to the vehicle or machinery being repaired or serviced. (10) Production Breweries and Micro-Distilleries Production Breweries and Micro-Distilleries shall be allowed as a permitted use in the I-1 and I-2 District, provided that: (a) The owner of the brewery qualifies for and receives a brewer license and a malt liquor wholesale license from the State of Minnesota, according to Minn. Statutes Section 340A.301. (b) Total production of malt liquor may not exceed 250,000 barrels annually. (11) Production Breweries and Micro-Distilleries with Accessory Taproom or Cocktail Room Production Breweries and Micro-Distilleries with Accessory Taproom or Cocktail Room shall be allowed by conditional use permit in the IBC, I-1 and I-2 Districts, provided that: (a) The facility is located in an area that includes and/or serves commercial traffic. (b) The facility is not located within 500 feet of a residential zoning district. (c) The owner of the brewery qualifies for and receives a brewer license and a malt liquor wholesale license from the State of Minnesota, according to Minn. Statutes Section 340A.301. (d) Total production of malt liquor may not exceed 250,000 barrels annually. (12) Recycling and Salvage Center (a) The center shall be on a parcel with an area of at least five acres. (b) The center shall be located at least 250 feet from any residential district, school, or day care. CHAPTER 5: USE STANDARDS Section 5.2 Use-Specific Standards Subsection (G) Regulations for Industrial Uses Page 358 City of Monticello Zoning Ordinance (c) Except for a freestanding office, no part of the center shall be located within 50 feet of any property line. (d) All recycling activities and storage areas shall be effectively screened from view by walls, fences, or buildings. Such screening shall be designed and installed to ensure that no part of recycling activities or a storage area can be seen from rights-of-way or adjacent lots. (e) All outdoor storage areas shall be surrounded by a solid fence or wall that is at least eight feet high, located no less than 100 feet from any public right-of- way, and located no less than 50 feet from any adjacent property. (f) Recyclable materials shall be contained within a leak-proof bin or trailer, and not stored on the ground. (g) Only limited sorting, separation, or other processing of deposited materials shall occur on the site. (h) There shall be no collection or storage of hazardous or biodegradable wastes (as defined by the PCA) on the site. (i) Space shall be provided to park each commercial vehicle operated by the center. (j) The facility shall be administered by on-site persons during the hours the facility is open. (k) The site shall be maintained free of fluids, odors, litter, rubbish, and any other non-recyclable materials. The site shall be cleaned of debris on a daily basis and shall be secured from unauthorized entry and removal of materials when attendants are not present. (l) Noise levels shall be controlled in accordance with Section 5.2(A)(2)(e). (m) Signage shall include the name and phone number of the facility operator and indicate any materials not accepted by the center. (n) Access to the center shall be from a collector or arterial street. (o) No dust, fumes, smoke, vibration or odor above ambient level shall be detectable on abutting properties. Section 5.2(A)(2)(e): Noise CHAPTER 8: RULES & DEFINITIONS Section 8.4 Definitions Subsection (B) Lots City of Monticello Zoning Ordinance Page 453 PRODUCTION BREWERY: A facility that manufactures, processes and warehouses beer for wholesale distribution in off-sale packages to retail liquor establishments and may retail beer product for on-site consumption in a taproom for off-site consumption as growlers. A production brewer may not have an ownership interest in a brewery licensed under Minnesota Statutes Section 43-A.409, Subd. 6, clause (d). PROFESSIONAL OFFICE – SERVICES: A commercial use involving administrative, clerical, or professional operations, and routinely including direct transactions or consultations with clients for such services. Such uses commonly include legal, financial, insurance, or real estate services, among others, but do not include retail sales of stock-in-trade goods. PUBLIC BUILDING OR USE: Any facility, including but not limited to buildings and property that are leased or otherwise operated or funded by a governmental body or public entity. PUBLIC WATERS: Any waters as defined in Minnesota Statutes, section 103G.005, Subd. 15, 15a. REACH (in relation to flood plains): A hydraulic engineering term to describe a longitudinal segment of a stream or river influenced by a natural or man -made obstruction. In an urban area, the segment of a stream or river between two consecutive bridge crossings would most typically constitute a reach. REAL ESTATE OFFICE/MOBILE SALES HOME: A dwelling temporarily used as a sales office for a residential development under construction for on-site sales RECREATIONAL VEHICLE CAMP SITE: A lot or parcel of land occupied or intended for occupancy by recreational vehicles for travel, recreational, or vacation usage for short periods of stay subject to the provisions of this ordinance. RECYCLING AND SALVAGE CENTER: A facility engaged solely in the storage, processing, resale, or reuse of recyclable and recovered materials. REGIONAL FLOOD: A flood which is representative of large floods known to have occurred generally in Minnesota and reasonably characteristic of what can be expected to occur on an average frequency in the magnitude of the 100-year recurrence interval. Regional flood is synonymous with the term "base flood" used in the Flood Insurance Study. PlanningCommissionAgenda–08/02/2016 1 2C.PublicHearing–ConsiderationofarequestforamendmenttotheMonticello ZoningOrdinance,Chapter5,Section3–AccessoryUses,optingoutofthe provisionsforTemporaryHealthCareDwellingsasdefinedby,andprovidedforin, MNStatSection462.3593.Applicant:CityofMonticello.(NAC) Property:Legal:NA Address:NA PlanningCaseNumber:2016-039 A.REFERENCE&BACKGROUND Request(s):AmendmenttotheZoningOrdinanceoptingoutofstate statuteprovisionsthatotherwiserequire accommodationoftemporaryhealthcaredwellings. DeadlineforDecision:August31,2016 ANALYSIS Background.Thisspring,theLegislaturepassed,andtheGovernorsigned,alaw purportingtorequiremunicipalitiestoallow“TemporaryFamilyHealthCare Dwellings”underMNStatSection462.3593.Thenewlawdefinesthesedwellings, requirestheiraccommodation,butincludesan“opt-out”provisionthatpermitsthe municipalitytoexemptthemselvesfromtheprovisions. Intentofthenewlaw.Thestatuteitselfwas,accordingtoanarticleinthe StarTribune,developedandputforwardbyaNewBrightonfirmthatbuildsthese units,called“NextDoorHousing”.Thatarticlecanbefoundat http://www.startribune.com/tiny-trailer-homes-offer-a-solution-for-families-in- need/381847531/forreference. Thestatuteincludesanexemptionforanymunicipalitythatalreadyhasanordinance thatallowstemporaryhealthcaredwellingsasapermitteduse.Thestatuteisalso specificaboutapplyingincaseswhereamunicipalityhasordinancesthatwould otherwiseprohibittheusethroughareferencetoitsaccessoryuseprovisionsor recreationalvehicleregulations. ComponentsoftheStatute.Thenewlawincludesthefollowingaspects: •Definitionsofcaregiver,personneedingcare,and“relative”providingcare; •Specifiesthatthesubjectofthestatuteisa“mobile”residentialdwelling; •Specifiesthattheunitmustbebuiltoff-site; PlanningCommissionAgenda–08/02/2016 2 •Specifiesthattheunitisnomorethan300squarefeet,andhasnopermanent foundation; •Thattheunitis“universally”designedandmeetsaccessibilitystandards; •Thattheunitaccessplumbingandelectricalthroughtheprincipalhome,or“other comparablemeans”. •Thattheunitusesexteriormaterialscompatibleto“standardresidential construction”andhasanenergyratingofR-15; •Issizedtobemovablewithaone-tonpickuptruck; •Providesthatsuchunitswillbepermitteduses; •Providesforanapplicationandpermittingprocess,includingnoticeto“adjacent” propertyowners; •Providesthattheunitmustmeetsetbacksandfloorarearatiorequirements; •Providesthattheunitisoccupiedbyonlyoneperson; •Providesforonesix-monthpermitterm,andoneadditionalsixmonthterm; •Providesformunicipalinspectionandarevocationprocess; •Providesforamaximum$100feefortheinitialpermit,and$50feeforthe additionaltermextension; •IncorporatesMNStatSection15.99forpermitreview. •Providesfortheopt-outordinanceasnotedbelow. Opt-outprovision.Thenewstatute,asapartofMNStat462,isincorporatedintothe municipalplanningandzoningregulations,andwillbecomeeffectiveonSeptember 1,2016.Themunicipalitywillhavetooptoutoftheregulationpriortothatdateto avoiditseffect.Becausethisisazoningregulation,anyopt-outwillneedtobe processedasanamendmenttothezoningordinance,requiringthetypicalhearingand ordinanceadoption. Theonlyopt-outisanexplicitopt-out.TheLeagueofMinnesotaCitieshasdrafteda modelopt-outordinance,onwhichaproposedordinanceforMonticellohasbeen based. Accessorydwellingunitsgenerally.Theissueofaccessorydwellingunitsforthe purposeofprovidinglivingspaceforfamilymembersneedingcarehasbeenwidely discussed.Thecontextformostofthesediscussionshasbeenforattachedunitsthat constitutesomeformofseconddwellingonsinglefamilyparcels.Therearevarious arguments,proandcon,fortheseunits.Currently,Monticello’szoningordinance providesforaccessorydwellingasapermittedaccessoryusetosinglefamilyhomes initslowerdensityzoningdistricts,includingA-O,R-A,R-1,R-2,andT-N.These provisionsbythemselvesdonotpre-emptthestatutoryrequirement.Therefore, withouttheopt-out,thestatutewouldapplyinMonticello. Issuesunderthenewlaw.Apartfromtheissuesraisedbyaccessorydwellings,the TemporaryFamilyHealthCareDwellingaddressesaseparateaspectofthisissue– mobile,detached“trailer”unitsthatarehauledtothesubjectresidentialproperty, installedwithconnectionstotheelectricalandplumbingservicesfromthemain PlanningCommissionAgenda–08/02/2016 3 house,andthendetachedandremoved,theoretically,whentheiruseisnolonger needed. Interestingly,thestatuteprovidesforasinglesix-monthperiodofinstallation,andthe optionforoneadditionalsix-monthperiod.Thestatutealsoprovidesforanextensive processofpermittingandlocationalregulationsthatwouldsupersedeacommunity’s normalreviewprocess.Itisnotclearhowthestatutemightapplytosomebodywho wishestoapplyforathirdsix-monthperiod–itwouldappearthatthestatute prohibitsthatextension. SummaryandAlternatives. 1.TheCitymaychoosetodonothing,andallowthestatutetogointoeffect.In thiscase,allofthedetailsofthelaw,includingsize,location,construction, delivery,timing,andprocesswouldberegulatedbythestatute. 2.TheCitymaydecidethatitwishestoallowTemporaryFamilyHealthCare Dwellings,butpreferordinancedetailsmoretunedtoitsspecificrequirements andzoningobjectives.Examplesofalternativespreferredbythemunicipality mightbeprovidingforsite-builtfacilities,differencesinsizeormaterials, differencesinlocationorscreeningrequirements,theuseofinterimuse permitsorconditionalusepermits,oralternativenoticerequirements,justto nameafew.Insuchacase,themunicipalityshouldtakeactiontoadoptan ordinanceopting-outofthestatute,andproceedtoadoptitsownregulations. Itwillbeimportantthatthemunicipalityopt-outofthestatelaw,orthestatute mayhavetheeffectofpre-emptingthepreferredalternative. 3.TheCitymaydecidethatonlyattachedand/ordetachedaccessoryunitsare suitableintheircommunity.Again,themunicipalitywillneedtotakespecific actiontoadoptanopt-outordinancetoavoidtheeffectofMNStat462.3953 priortoSeptember1,2016. 4.TheCitymaydecidethatitdoesnotfavoraccessoryunits.Instead,families whichareconsideringprovidinghealthcaretotheirfamilymemberscandoso withintheconfinesofasinglefamilyhome.Itmaybenecessarytoaddsome definitiontowhatconstitutesaseparateresidentialuse(especiallycooking andsanitation/plumbingfacilities)toensurethatsinglefamilyhomesarenot accidentallymodifiedtocreateadditionaldwellingunitsontheproperty. Asnoted,theCity’scurrentregulationsallowforaccessorydwellings,butnotina temporarystructureorvehicle.ToensurethatthestatutedoesnotimpacttheCity, adoptingtheopt-outprovisionintheattachedordinanceisrecommendedbystaff. PlanningCommissionAgenda–08/02/2016 4 B.ALTERNATIVEACTIONS 1.MotiontoadoptResolutionNo.PC-2016-031optingoutoftheMnStat.462.3593 relatingtotemporaryfamilyhealthcaredwellings,basedonfindingsinsaid resolution. 2.MotiontodenyadoptionofResolutionNo.PC-2016-031,basedonfindingstobe madebythePlanningCommission. C.STAFFRECOMMENDATION AsnotedstaffrecommendsoptingoutoftheStatue.Thevastmajorityof communitieshavetakenthispath,choosinginsteadtoconsiderandregulate accessorydwellingsundertheCity’suniquepoliciesinthisregard.Thestatute requiresnumerousconditionsthatareproblematicformostneighborhoods. D.SUPPORTINGDATA A.ResolutionNo.PC-2016-031 B.OrdinanceNo.653,Draft C.LeagueofMNCitiesFAQ D.MnStatute462.3593 E.MonticelloZoningOrdinance,Excerpts 1 CITY OF MONTICELLO WRIGHT COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION NO. PC-2016-031 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF MONTICELLO RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF AN AMENDMENT TO THE ZONING ORDINANCE OPTING OUT OF THE REQUIREMENTS OF MN STAT SECTION 462.3593 WHEREAS,the Minnesota Legislature passed, and the Governor has signed, MN State 462.3593 requiring municipalities to provide for Temporary Family Health Care Dwellings; and WHEREAS,the statute provides for an opt-out, exempting the municipality from the requirements of the statute; and WHEREAS,the City of Monticello currently regulates accessory dwellings separately from the requirements of the statute; and WHEREAS,the Planning Commission held a public hearing to consider the matter at its regular meeting on August 16th, 2016 and the applicant and members of the public were provided the opportunity to present information to the Planning Commission; and WHEREAS,the Planning Commission has considered all of the comments and the staff report, which are incorporated by reference into the resolution; and WHEREAS,the Planning Commission of the City of Monticello makes the following Findings of Fact in relation to the recommendation of approval: 1.The proposed statutory requirements are not consistent with the intent of the Monticello Comprehensive Plan. 2.The proposed statute, if enacted, will not meet the requirements and intent of other sections of the Monticello Zoning Ordinance. 3.The ordinance will be inconsistent with the regulations and intent of the City for single family neighborhoods. 4.The proposed statutory provisions have the potential to create substantial impacts, visual or otherwise, on neighboring land uses or public property. 2 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the Planning Commission of the City of Monticello, Minnesota that the proposed zoning ordinance amendment opting out of the requirements of MN Stat Section 462.3593 is hereby recommended for approval. ADOPTED this 16th day of August, 2016, by the Planning Commission of the City of Monticello, Minnesota. MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION By: _______________________________ Brad Fyle, Chair ATTEST: ______________________________ Angela Schumann, CommunityDevelopment Director ORDINANCE NO. 653 CITY OF MONTICELLO WRIGHT COUNTY, MINNESOTA AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 10 OF THE MONTICELLO ZONING CODE, CHAPTER 5, SECTION 3, OPTING-OUT OF THE REQUIREMENTS OF MINNESOTA STATUTES, SECTION 462.3593 THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MONTICELLO, MINNESOTA HEREBY ORDAINS: Section 1. Chapter 5, Section 3 (B) is hereby amended to add the following: (6) The City of Monticello opts-out of the requirements of Minn. Stat. §462.3593, which defines and regulates Temporary Family Health Care Dwellings. Section 2. Chapter 5, Section 3 (D) is hereby amended to add the following: (3) The City of Monticello opts-out of the requirements of Minn. Stat. §462.3593, which defines and regulates Temporary Family Health Care Dwellings. Section 3. 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 and diagrams that result from such amendments, provided that such changes retain the purpose and intent of the Zoning Ordinance as has been adopted. 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 22nd day of August, 2016. CITY OF MONTICELLO __________________________________ Brian Stumpf, Mayor ATTEST: ___________________________________ Jeff O’Neill, City Administrator VOTING IN FAVOR: VOTING IN OPPOSITION: Temporary Family Health Care Dwellings of 2016 Allowing Temporary Structures – What it means for Cities Introduction: On May 12, 2016, Gov. Dayton signed, into law, a bill creating a new process for landowners to place mobile residential dwellings on their property to serve as a temporary family health care dwelling.1 Community desire to provide transitional housing for those with mental or physical impairments and the increased need for short term care for aging family members served as the catalysts behind the legislature taking on this initiative. The resulting legislation sets forth a short term care alternative for a “mentally or physically impaired person”, by allowing them to stay in a “temporary dwelling” on a relative’s or caregiver’s property.2 Where can I read the new law? Until the state statutes are revised to include bills passed this session, cities can find this new bill at 2016 Laws, Chapter 111. Does the law require cities to follow and implement the new temporary family health care dwelling law? Yes, unless a city opts out of the new law or currently allows temporary family health care dwellings as a permitted use. Considerations for cities regarding the opt-out? These new temporary dwellings address an emerging community need to provide more convenient temporary care. When analyzing whether or not to opt out, cities may want to consider that: • The new law alters a city’s level of zoning authority for these types of structures. • While the city’s zoning ordinances for accessories or recreational vehicles do not apply, these structures still must comply with setback requirements. • A city’s zoning and other ordinances, other than its accessory use or recreational vehicle ordinances, still apply to these structures. Because conflicts may arise between the statute and a city’s local ordinances, cities should confer with their city attorneys to analyze their current ordinances in light of the new law. 1 2016 Laws, Chapter 111. 2 Some cities asked if other states have adopted this type of law. The only states that have a somewhat similar statute at the time of publication of this FAQ are North Carolina and Virginia. It is worth noting that some states have adopted Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) statutes to allow granny flats, however, these ADU statutes differ from Minnesota’s Temporary Health Care Dwelling law. Temporary Family HealthCare Dwellings June 27, 2016 Page 2 • Although not necessarily a legal issue for the city, it seems worth mentioning that the permit process does not have the individual with the physical or mental impairment or that individual’s power of attorney sign the permit application or a consent to release his or her data. • The application’s data requirements may result in the city possessing and maintaining nonpublic data governed by the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. • The new law sets forth a permitting system for both cities and counties 3. Cities should consider whether there is an interplay between these two statutes. Do cities need to do anything to have the new law apply in their city? No, the law goes into effect Sept. 1, 2016 and automatically applies to all cities that do not opt out or don’t already allow temporary family health care dwellings as a permitted use under their local ordinances. Do cities lose the option to opt out after the Sept. 1, 2016 effective date? No, the law does not set a deadline for opting out, so cities can opt out after Sept. 1, 2016. However, if the city has not opted out by Sept. 1, 2016, then the city must not only have determined a permit fee amount 4 before that date (if the city wants to have an amount different than the law’s default amount), but also must be ready on that date to accept applications and process the permits in accordance with the short timeline required by the law. Cities should consult their city attorney to analyze how to handle applications submitted after Sept. 1, 2016, but still pending at the time of a later opt out. What if a city already allows a temporary family health care dwelling as a permitted use? If the city already has designated temporary family health care dwellings as a permitted use, then the law does not apply and the city follows its own ordinance. The city should consult its city attorney for any uncertainty about whether structures currently permitted under existing ordinances qualify as temporary family health care dwellings. What process should the city follow if it chooses to opt out of this statute? Cities that wish to opt out of this law must pass an ordinance to do so. The statute does not provide clear guidance on how to treat this opt-out ordinance. However, since the new law adds section 462.3593 to the land use planning act (Minn. Stat. ch. 462), arguably, it may represent the adoption or an amendment of a zoning ordinance, triggering the requirements of Minn. Stat. § 462.357, subd. 2-4, including a public hearing with 10-day published notice. Therefore, cities may want to err on the side of caution and treat the opt-out ordinance as a zoning provision.5 3 See Minn. Stat. §394.307 4 Cities do have flexibility as to amounts of the permit fee. The law sets, as a default, a fee of $100 for the initial permit with a $50 renewal fee, but authorizes a city to provide otherwise by ordinance. 5 For smaller communities without zoning at all, those cities still need to adopt an opt-out ordinance. In those instances, it seems less likely that the opt-out ordinance would equate to zoning. Because of the ambiguity of the Temporary Family HealthCare Dwellings June 27, 2016 Page 3 Does the League have a model ordinance for opting out of this program? Yes. Link to opt out ordinance here: Temporary Family Health Care Dwellings Ordinance Can cities partially opt out of the temporary family health care dwelling law? Not likely. The opt-out language of the statute allows a city, by ordinance, to opt out of the requirements of the law but makes no reference to opting out of parts of the law. If a city wanted a program different from the one specified in statute, the most conservative approach would be to opt out of the statute, then adopt an ordinance structured in the manner best suited to the city. Since the law does not explicitly provide for a partial opt out, cites wanting to just partially opt out from the statute should consult their city attorney. Can a city adopt pieces of this program or change the requirements listed in the statute? Similar to the answer about partially opting out, the law does not specifically authorize a city to alter the statutory requirements or adopt only just pieces of the statute. Several cities have asked if they could add additional criteria, like regulating placement on driveways, specific lot size limits, or anchoring requirements. As mentioned above, if a city wants a program different from the one specified in the statute, the most conservative approach would involve opting out of the statute in its entirety and then adopting an ordinance structured in the manner best suited to the city. Again, a city should consult its city attorney when considering adopting an altered version of the state law. What is required in an application for a temporary family health care dwelling permit? The mandatory application requests very specific information including, but not limited to:6 • Name, address, and telephone number of the property owner, the resident of the property (if different than the owner), and the primary care giver; • Name of the mentally or physically impaired person; • Proof of care from a provider network, including respite care, primary care or remote monitoring; • Written certification signed by a Minnesota licensed physician, physician assistant or advanced practice registered nurse that the individual with the mental or physical impairment needs assistance performing two or more “instrumental activities of daily life;”7 statute, cities should consult their city attorneys on how best to approach adoption of the opt-out ordinance for their communities. 6 New Minn. Stat. § 462.3593, subd. 3 sets forth all the application criteria. 7 This is a term defined in law at Minn. Stat. § 256B.0659, subd. 1(i) as “activities to include meal planning and preparation; basic assistance with paying bills; shopping for food, clothing, and other essential items; performing household tasks integral to the personal care assistance services; communication by telephone and other media; and traveling, including to medical appointments and to participate in the community.” Temporary Family HealthCare Dwellings June 27, 2016 Page 4 • An executed contract for septic sewer management or other proof of adequate septic sewer management; • An affidavit that the applicant provided notice to adjacent property owners and residents; • A general site map showing the location of the temporary dwelling and the other structures on the lot; and • Compliance with setbacks and maximum floor area requirements of primary structure. The law requires all of the following to sign the application: the primary caregiver, the owner of the property (on which the temporary dwelling will be located) and the resident of the property (if not the same as the property owner). However, neither the physically disabled or mentally impaired individual nor his or her power of attorney signs the application. Who can host a temporary family health care dwelling? Placement of a temporary family health care dwelling can only be on the property where a “caregiver” or “relative” resides. The statute defines caregiver as “an individual, 18 years of age or older, who: (1) provides care for a mentally or physically impaired person; and (2) is a relative, legal guardian, or health care agent of the mentally or physically impaired person for whom the individual is caring.” The definition of “relative” includes “a spouse, parent, grandparent, child, grandchild, sibling, uncle, aunt, nephew or niece of the mentally or physically impaired person. Relative also includes half, step and in-law relationships.” Is this program just for the elderly? No. The legislature did not include an age requirement for the mentally or physically impaired dweller. 8 Who can live in a temporary family health care dwelling and for how long? The permit for a temporary health care dwelling must name the person eligible to reside in the unit. The law requires the person residing in the dwelling to qualify as “mentally or physically impaired,” defined as “a person who is a resident of this state and who requires assistance with two or more instrumental activities of daily living as certified by a physician, a physician assistant, or an advanced practice registered nurse, licenses to practice in this state.” The law specifically limits the time frame for these temporary dwellings permits to 6 months, with a one-time 6 month renewal option. Further, there can be only one dwelling per lot and only one dweller who resides within the temporary dwelling 8 The law expressly exempts a temporary family health care dwelling from being considered “housing with services establishment”, which, in turn, results in the 55 or older age restriction set forth for “housing with services establishment” not applying. Temporary Family HealthCare Dwellings June 27, 2016 Page 5 What structures qualify as temporary family health care dwellings under the new law? The specific structural requirements set forth in the law preclude using pop up campers on the driveway or the “granny flat” with its own foundation as a temporary structure. Qualifying temporary structures must: • Primarily be pre-assembled; • Cannot exceed 300 gross square feet; • Cannot attach to a permanent foundation; • Must be universally designed and meet state accessibility standards; • Must provide access to water and electrical utilities (by connecting to principal dwelling or by other comparable means 9); • Must have compatible standard residential construction exterior materials; • Must have minimum insulation of R-15; • Must be portable (as defined by statute); • Must comply with Minnesota Rules chapter 1360 (prefabricated buildings) or 1361 (industrialized/modular buildings), “and contain an Industrialized Buildings Commission seal and data plate or to American National Standards Institute Code 119.2”10; and • Must contain a backflow check valve.11 Does the State Building Code apply to the construction of a temporary family health care dwelling? Mostly, no. These structures must meet accessibility standards (which are in the State Building Code). The primary types of dwellings proposed fall within the classification of recreational vehicles, to which the State Building Code does not apply. Two other options exist, however, for these types of dwellings. If these structures represent a pre-fabricated home, the federal building code requirements for manufactured homes apply (as stated in Minnesota Rules, Chapter 1360). If these structures are modular homes, on the other hand, they must be constructed consistent with the State Building Code (as stated in Minnesota Rules, Chapter 1361). What health, safety and welfare requirements does this new law include? Aside from the construction requirements of the unit, the temporary family health care dwelling must be located in an area on the property where “septic services and emergency vehicles can gain access to the temporary family health care dwelling in a safe and timely manner.” What local ordinances and zoning apply to a temporary health care dwelling? The new law states that ordinances related to accessory uses and recreational vehicle storage and parking do not apply to these temporary family health care dwellings. 9 The Legislature did not provide guidance on what represents “other comparable means”. 10 ANSI Code 119.2 has been superseded by NFPA 1192. For more information, the American National Standards Institute website is located at https://www.ansi.org/. 11 New Minn. Stat. § 462.3593, subd. 2 sets forth all the structure criteria. Temporary Family HealthCare Dwellings June 27, 2016 Page 6 However, unless otherwise provided, setbacks and other local ordinances, charter provisions, and applicable state laws still apply. Because conflicts may arise between the statute and one or more of the city’s other local ordinances, cities should confer with their city attorneys to analyze their current ordinances in light of the new law. What permit process should cities follow for these permits? The law creates a new type of expedited permit process. The permit approval process found in Minn. Stat. § 15.99 generally applies; however, the new law shortens the time frame within which the local governmental unit can make a decision on the permit. Due to the time sensitive nature of issuing a temporary dwelling permit, the city does not have to hold a public hearing on the application and has only 15 days (rather than 60 days) to either issue or deny a permit. For those councils that regularly meet only once a month, the law provides for a 30-day decision. The law specifically prohibits cities from extending the time for making a decision on the permit application. The new law allows the clock to restart if a city deems an application incomplete, but the city must provide the applicant written notice within five business days of receipt of the application identifying the missing information. Can cities collect fees for these permits? Cities have flexibility as to amounts of the permit fee. The law sets the fee at $100 for the initial permit with a $50 renewal fee, unless a city provides otherwise by ordinance Can cities inspect, enforce and ultimately revoke these permits? Yes, but only if the permit holder violates the requirements of the law. The statute allows for the city to require the permit holder to provide evidence of compliance and also authorizes the city to inspect the temporary dwelling at times convenient to the caregiver to determine compliance. The permit holder then has sixty (60) days from the date of revocation to remove the temporary family health care dwelling. The law does not address appeals of a revocation. How should cities handle data it acquires from these permits? The application data may result in the city possessing and maintaining nonpublic data governed by the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. To minimize collection of protected heath data or other nonpublic data, the city could, for example, request that the required certification of need simply state “that the person who will reside in the temporary family health care dwelling needs assistance with two or more instrumental activities of daily living”, without including in that certification data or information about the specific reasons for the assistance, the types of assistance, the medical conditions or the treatment plans of the person with the mental illness or physical disability. Because of the complexities surrounding nonpublic data, cities should consult their city attorneys when drafting a permit application. Should the city consult its city attorney? Yes. As with any new law, to determine the potential impact on cities, the League recommends consulting with your city attorney. Temporary Family HealthCare Dwellings June 27, 2016 Page 7 Where can cities get additional information or ask other questions. For more information, contact Staff Attorney Pamela Whitmore at pwhitmore@lmc.org or LMC General Counsel Tom Grundhoefer at tgrundho@lmc.org. If you prefer calling, you can reach Pamela at 651.281.1224 or Tom at 651.281.1266. CHAPTER 5: USE STANDARDS Section 5.3 Accessory Use Standards Subsection (C) Table of Permitted Accessory Uses Page 366 City of Monticello Zoning Ordinance (b) The decision of the Community Development Department to permit or deny an unlisted use or structure is final, but may be appealed pursuant to Section 2.4(H). (3) Table of Permitted Accessory Uses and Structures TABLE 5-4: ACCESSORY USES BY DISTRICT Use Types “P” = Permitted “C” = Conditionally Permitted “I” = Interim Permitted Base Zoning Districts Additional Requirements A O R A R 1 R 2 T N R 3 R 4 M H B 1 B 2 B 3 B 4 C C D I B C I 1 I 2 Accessory Dwelling Unit P P P P P 5.3(D)(1) Accessory Building – minor P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P 5.3(D)(2) Accessory Building – major P P P P P P P C P P P P P P P P 5.3(D)(3) Adult Use – accessory C 5.3(D)(4) Agricultural Buildings P 5.3(D)(5) Automated Teller Machines (ATMs) P P P P P P P P 5.3(D)(6) Automobile Repair – Major C 5.3(D)(7) Automobile Repair – Minor C 5.3(D)(8) Boarder(s) P P P 5.3(D)(9) Bulk Fuel Sales/Storage P P P C 5.3(D)(10) Cocktail Room (Retail Sales Accessory to Micro- Distillery) C C C C C C 5.3(D)(11) Co-located Wireless Telecommunications Antennae C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C 4.13(E) Commercial Canopies P P P P P P P P 5.3(D)(12) Commercial Transmission/ Reception Antennae/ Structures C C C C C C 4.13(D) Donation Drop-off Containers P P 5.3(D)(13) Drive-Through Services P P P C P P P 5.3(D)(14) Section 2.4(H): Appeal of Administrative Decisions CHAPTER 5: USE STANDARDS Section 5.3 Accessory Use Standards Subsection (D) Additional Specific Standards for Certain Accessory Uses Page 368 City of Monticello Zoning Ordinance TABLE 5-4: ACCESSORY USES BY DISTRICT (cont.) Use Types “P” = Permitted “C” = Conditionally Permitted “I” = Interim Permitted Base Zoning Districts Additional Requirements A O R A R 1 R 2 T N R 3 R 4 M H B 1 B 2 B 3 B 4 C C D I B C I 1 I 2 Swimming Pool P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P 5.3(D)(31) Taproom (Retail Sales Accessory to Production Brewery) C C C C C C 5.3(D)(33) Large Trash Handling and Recycling Collection Area P P P P P P P P P P P P 5.3(D)(34) Wind Energy Conversion System, Commercial C C C C C 5.3(D)(35) Wind Energy Conversion System, Non-commercial C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C 5.3(D)(36) Wireless Telecommunications Support Structures C C C C C C C 4.3(E) 4.3(F) (D) Additional Specific Standards for Certain Accessory Uses (1) Accessory Dwelling (a) Accessory dwelling units are permitted only on lots with single-family detached dwellings. (b) No more than one accessory dwelling unit per lot is permitted. (c) Detached accessory dwellings shall be architecturally compatible with the principal dwelling. (d) Occupants of accessory dwelling units are limited to the following: (i) Family members of the person occupying the principal structure. Family members include parents, children, siblings, grandparents, aunts, uncles, and cousins of an occupant of the primary structure. (ii) Employee of the occupant of the principal structure whose employment is directed to the principal structure and/or the associated land area of the principal structure. (iii) Employee who provides medical and/or personal care services to an occupant of the primary structure. CHAPTER 5: USE STANDARDS Section 5.3 Accessory Use Standards Subsection (D) Additional Specific Standards for Certain Accessory Uses City of Monticello Zoning Ordinance Page 369 (e) Accessory dwelling units shall be positioned in one of the following locations: (i) Within the principal structure (e.g. a lower level apartment); (ii) Attached to the principal building; (iii) Detached and behind the principal structure as a freestanding building or above a detached outbuilding. (f) Attached accessory dwelling units shall adhere to the following: (i) The accessory dwelling unit must be attached to the principal structure and have an operative interconnecting door with the principal structure. (ii) Access to the unit shall only be from the side or rear yard of the principal structure. (g) Detached accessory dwelling units shall adhere to the following: (i) The detached accessory dwelling unit shall be a minimum of six (6) feet from the principal structure. (ii) The accessory dwelling unit must be located in the same base zoning district as the principal structure. (h) The use of manufactured homes, travel trailers, campers, tractor trailers, or similar vehicles as an accessory dwelling unit shall be prohibited. (i) An accessory dwelling unit shall have a floor area of at least 300 square feet and shall not exceed 25 percent of the floor area in the principal structure. (j) At least one, but no more than two, off-street parking spaces shall be provided for an accessory dwelling unit (in addition to the required off-street parking serving the principal use). (k) Accessory dwelling units shall not be sold apart from the principal structure. (l) Accessory dwelling units shall not include home occupations. (2) Accessory Building – Minor (a) Minor accessory buildings do not require a building permit, but shall comply with all applicable zoning regulations. (b) In the M-H district, one minor accessory building for storage of equipment and refuse is permitted for each manufactured home provided the accessory building can meet all required setbacks, and is designed of weather resistant material that will enhance the general appearance of the lot. CHAPTER 8: RULES & DEFINITIONS Section 8.4 Definitions Subsection (B) Lots City of Monticello Zoning Ordinance Page 437 DRIPLINE: A vertical line that extends from the outermost branches of a tree’s canopy to the ground around the circumference of the tree. DRIVE-THROUGH SERVICE: A building opening, including windows, doors, or mechanical devices, through which occupants of a motor vehicle receive or obtain a product or service. DUMPSTER: A container that has a hooking mechanism that permits it to be raised and dumped into a sanitation truck or be hauled away for emptying. DWELLING: A building or portion thereof designated exclusively for residential occupancy, including one-family, two-family, and multiple family dwellings, but not including hotels, motels, and boarding houses. DWELLING, ACCESSORY UNIT: A dwelling unit, either within the same building as the single-family dwelling unit or in a detached building. Accessory dwelling units shall be developed in accordance with the standards set forth in this ordinance and only in those zoning districts where permitted. DWELLING, ATTACHED: A structure intended for occupancy by more than one family, including duplexes, townhomes, multi-family dwellings, apartments, and condominiums. Accessory dwelling units as defined and permitted by this ordinance are incidental to a principal dwelling unit and are not considered to be attached dwellings. DWELLING, DUPLEX OR TWO-FAMILY: Any building that contains two separate dwelling units with separation either horizontal or vertical on one lot that is used, intended, or designed to be built, used, rented, leased, let or hired out to be occupied, or occupied for living purposes. DWELLING, SINGLE FAMILY DETACHED: Any building that contains one dwelling unit used, intended, or designed to be guilt, used, rented, leased, let or hired out to be occupied, or occupied for living purposes by one (1) family. DWELLING, MULTIPLE FAMILY: A building designed with three (3) or more dwelling units exclusively for occupancy by three (3) or more families living independently of each other but sharing hallways and main entrances and exits. PlanningCommissionAgenda:08/02/16 1 3A.ConsiderationtoadoptResolutionNo.PC-2016-032,aResolutionfindingthatthe proposedacquisitionofCertainLand(aportionofPID#213100172100)bytheCity ofMonticelloasco-ownerforParkPurposesisconsistentwiththeCityof MonticelloComprehensivePlan.(AS) A.REFERENCEANDBACKGROUND: ThePlanningCommissionisaskedtoconsideradoptionofaresolutionrelatingtothe acquisitionbytheCityofMonticelloofavacantparcelofpropertylocatedadjacentto theBertramChainofLakesRegionalPark.Theparcelwillbeincorporatedintothe regionalparkanditsboundary.TheresolutionasksthePlanningCommissiontoconsider whethertheconveyanceisinconformancetotheCity’sComprehensivePlan. Theparcelisapproximately3acresandislocatedonBriarwoodAvenue,lyingbetween BriarwoodAvenueandBertramLake.ThepropertyincludesasmallportionofBertram lakeshore. Atthistime,theexistingpropertyowneroftheparcelisinterestedinsaleoftheparcelto theCityandCounty.The3acrepieceeastofBriarwoodispartofalargerparcel,the balanceofwhichislocatedwestofBriarwood. WhiletheparcelitselfisoutsidetheCity’slandusemappingarea(whichincludesonly thelandwithintheMonticelloOrderlyAnnexationArea),theBertramChainofLakes RegionalParkisrecognizedintheComprehensivePlan,Chapter5-Parks.TheParkand PathwayPlanspecificallycitesasoneofsevenpolicyobjectives“Prioritizingthe acquisitionanddevelopmentofBertramLakesRegionalPark”.Theparcelisshownin thepark’simmediatevicinity. Inthecaseofthisparcel,itslocationalongtheBertramLakeshorelinemakeitafitfor acquisitionandincorporationintothelargerparkboundary.Ofthefourlakeswithinthe park,thisparcelisoneofonlytwoparcelswhichtheCityandCountydonotyetown. Onceacquired,theCityandCountywillthenmanageallbutonesmallareaofBertram lakeshore.Ownershipandmanagementofthelakeshorewillsupportthegoalsforthe largerpark,includingthepreservationofthenaturalresourcesanddevelopmentofthe recreationalresourceinconcertwiththeComprehensivePlan. B.ALTERNATIVEACTIONS: 1.MotiontoadoptResolutionNo.PC-2016-032,aresolutionfindingthatthe proposedacquisitionofcertainlandbytheCityofMonticelloforParkPurposes isconsistentwiththeCityofMonticelloComprehensivePlan. 2.MotiontodenyadoptingResolutionNo.PC-2016-032,aresolutionfindingthat theproposedacquisitionofcertainlandbytheCityofMonticelloforPark PurposesisconsistentwiththeCityofMonticelloComprehensivePlan,basedon findingstobemadebythePlanningCommission. PlanningCommissionAgenda:08/02/16 2 3.Motiontotableforadditionalinformation. C.STAFFRECOMMENDATION: CitystaffsupportsAlternative#1above.ThePark&PathwayPlanofthe ComprehensivePlanplacesapriorityonparkacquisitionanddevelopmentattheBertram ChainofLakesRegionalPark.Assuch,giventhelocationoftheproposedacquisition parcelanditsrelationshiptothePark&PathwayPlan’sgoalsforprotectingand preservingthenaturalresourcesatBertram,staffbelievestheacquisitionoftheparcelin concertwiththeCity’sComprehensivePlan. D.SUPPORTINGDATA: A.ResolutionNo.PC-2016-032 B.AerialImage C.MonticelloComprehensivePlan,Chapter5–Parks,Excerpts CITY OF MONTICELLO WRIGHT COUNTY, MINNESOTA PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. PC-2016-032 A RESOLUTION FINDING THAT THE PROPOSED ACQUISITION OF CERTAIN LAND BY THE CITY OF MONTICELLO FOR PARK PURPOSES IS CONSISTENT WITH THE CITY OF MONTICELLO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN WHEREAS,the City of Monticello (“City”) and Wright County (“County”) propose to acquire jointly certain parcels of real property described in Exhibit A attached hereto (the “Property”) and located in the Monticello Township, Wright County; and WHEREAS,the City desires to acquire the property in order to facilitate the protection and development of the Bertram Chain of Lakes Regional Park; and WHEREAS,Minnesota Statutes, Section 462.356, subd. 2 requires the Planning Commission to review the proposed acquisition or disposal of publicly-owned real property within the City prior to its acquisition or disposal, to determine whether in the opinion of the Planning Commission, such acquisition or disposal is consistent with the comprehensive municipal plan; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the proposed acquisition of the Property, and has determined that the Property is located in an area designated for park and recreation purposes within the City’s comprehensive plan, and is therefore consistent with such use. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED,by the Planning Commission of the City of Monticello, that the acquisition of the Property by the City is consistent with the City’s comprehensive municipal plan, and will promote the protection and development of parkland within the City. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this resolution be communicated to the City Council of the City of Monticello. ADOPTED this 16th day of August, 2016, by the Planning Commission of the City of Monticello, Minnesota. MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION By: _______________________________ Brad Fyle, Chair ATTEST: ____________________________________________ Angela Schumann, CommunityDevelopment Director CITY OF MONTICELLO WRIGHT COUNTY, MINNESOTA PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. PC-2016-032 EXHIBIT A Description of Property (Legal to be provided with certificate of survey) Su b j ect Pa rce l City Bou nd ar y Ju ly 27, 201 6 Map Po wer ed by DataLink fro m WS B & Ass ociates 1 inch = 752 fe et Sou rce: Esri, Digita lG lo be , Ge oE ye, E arthst arGeographics, CNES/A irbus DS, USDA,US GS, A EX, Get ma ppin g, A erog rid , IG N, IGP,swissto po , a nd the GIS User Community Chapter 3 - Parks System Objectives Monticello Parks and Pathways Plan Vision and Policy • Providing continuity and linkages between public parks, open spaces, residences, and businesses. o The City is expecting that the entirety of the community be interconnected through the park system and pathway plan. o The park and pathway system must continually be examined to ensure continuity as the community grows. o The pathways in the community serve as both transportation system and recreation system. Pathways must connect to desired destinations. Pathways must provide alternative routing options. Pathways must provide safe design alternatives for pedestrians and bicyclists. o Parks must be accessible by all types of transportation. • Improving and increasing views to, access to, and utilization of the Mississippi River. o The City will seek more and easier connections to areas where views of the river are available to the public. o Direct access to river use will be sought wherever public spaces permit, including those in use now, as well as those (such as existing, undeveloped right of way) that have been overlooked. o Extended frontage along the river will be protected wherever it may be available, while respecting the rights of private landowners. • Providing for facilities that will serve the community in both short and long terms. o The City expects to prioritize recreational needs of the community in concert with all providers of recreation users, facilities, and programs, including other recreation providers, such as the school district and private facilities. o Coordination among recreation providers will be critical to maximize efficiency and level of service. • Allowing reasonable flexibility on final pathway routes, park locations, and plan implementation strategies. o Options change over time, and plan implementation will require regular monitoring as new options present themselves. o This plan is specific in terms of policies, but conceptual in terms of design – design should change to reflect new alternatives that achieve the same objective. o Consideration of alternatives should begin with the specific policy and the most important components. Monticello Parks and Pathways System Plan Page 3-3 Chapter 3 - Parks System Objectives Monticello Parks and Pathways System Plan Page 3-4 • Providing a range of choices for system users. o The Plan is intended to serve all potential system users. o Advancement of healthier lifestyles implies the need to appeal to underserved users through convenience, innovation, or other methods that will increase use of the parks and pathways in Monticello. o The City will strive to provide superior recreational opportunities for all residents. • Utilizing the system to assist in preserving the natural and historic nature of the community. o In creating the system, priority will be on including areas that are found to be of significance to the community. o Preferences cite interest in natural open space experiences and improved pathway continuity, choice, and alternatives. o Expand the scope of the park and pathway system to include a wider variety of recreation experience. • Prioritizing the acquisition and development of Bertram Lakes Regional Park. o The unique opportunities provided by the Bertram Lakes facility will dominate Monticello’s park and pathway planning for the foreseeable future. o Focus on Bertram Lakes for many of the community park facilities that might have otherwise been originally planned throughout the community. o Identify and supplement community park facilities with opportunities for neighborhood park experiences. o Ensure extensive pathway connections to both Bertram Lakes and the community parks to mitigate for the lack of true neighborhood park proximity. o Adapt community park facilities over time to ensure a variety of park and recreation experiences for the users of the facilities as they evolve over time due to access, growth, and demographic change. Chapter 4 - Parks and Pathways System Plan Monticello Parks and Pathways System Plan Page 4-1 Parks and Pathways System Plan The Parks and Pathways System Plan sets forth the plans and strategies that guide specific actions of the City in ongoing operation, new acquisition, development and planning. The system plan builds on the existing conditions and system objectives by identifying gaps between current reality and vision, then going on to establish a set of physical plans for the long-range organization and development of Monticello’s recreation system. To this point, the following summary of findings, issues, and principles guide the creation of the Plan: The investment in the Bertram Chain of Lakes park facility will dominate the community’s park acquisition and development for the foreseeable future. This investment drives Monticello to look toward the creation of fewer new park facilities during the planning period. The community has expressed a desire to continue parkland development but with a focus on specific aspects of recreation, including; More emphasis on pathway development, including continuity, increased options and loops, and connections to parks, business areas, and schools. Increased emphasis on water-oriented access and recreation, both natural and man-made, including Bertram Lakes, the Mississippi River, and other areas. Expanded opportunities for natural open space experiences. Support for Monticello Community Center facilities, expanding access, choice, and hours where possible. The new facilities that are to be considered will be concentrated in fewer, larger park locations, especially Bertram Chain of Lakes, and a few new locations that maximize opportunity for natural open space. Occasional smaller facilities may be developed when densities, barriers, or other conditions call for additional park locations to ensure adequate proximity and coverage. Focus on increased athletic field development, particularly youth baseball and soccer. Concentrate athletic fields in a few locations, particularly the opportunities at Bertram Lakes, to facilitate the attraction of tournament play, and to minimize common infrastructure such as maintenance needs, concession buildings, lights, and other similar elements. Chapter 4 - Parks and Pathways System Plan Monticello Parks and Pathways System Plan Page 4-12 Bertram Chain of Lakes Regional Park. As the primary focus of the City’s current park acquisition and development activities, is it appropriate to provide additional clarity to the role that this major facility will play in the City’s parks system. As often mentioned in this document, Bertram Lakes will quickly become the City’s most heavily used facility due to its natural beauty, its diversity of land forms, and its access to water – especially with the provision of an outdoor swimming beach – an amenity not currently available to the community. Bertram is already among the most often visited of Monticello parks, even though its facilities are largely undeveloped and only partially available to the general public. As the acquisition goes forward, the City and County, guided by a joint organization known as the Bertram Chain of Lakes Advisory Council, has been working on planning for the development of the park. Planning is preliminary at this stage, but has taken advantage of the park’s broad array of unique spaces and opportunities. The greatest level of activity is located in the northern portion of the 1,200 acre property. Park elements include potential for camping, active recreation on the lake, including swimming, fishing piers, and non-motorized boating. A significant portion of this area for the City would be the opportunity to develop a major multi-use athletic complex on what is currently farmed land. As noted in other sections of this document, numerous groups have cited a need to increase the number of sports fields for competition, practice, and tournament play. The bulk of the property has been programmed at this conceptual stage as more passive recreational pursuits, including an extensive system of unsurfaced pathways. As the Parks and Pathways plan notes, Bertram Lakes will provide a significant percentage of the City’s park development, and access is critical to its ability to serve in this role. Moreover, the Chain of Lakes is a part of the identified greenway route. As such, it is important that design development for Bertram Chain of Lakes accommodates the City’s pathway system, including paved routes that will provide continuity with the remainder of the City’s Primary Pathway routes. Working these improvements into the Bertram design should be a priority of the City’s representation on the Advisory Council. On the following page, a preliminary sketch of the possible improvements for the north side of the Bertram Chain of Lakes facility is provided for illustration purposes. Because of the early stage of design, changes to this plan are likely before development proceeds. Instead, the intent of the inclusion of this sketch plan is to show possibilities rather than identify outcomes for the park. Planning Commission Agenda: 08/02/16 1 3B. Consideration to adopt Resolution No. PC-2016-033, a Resolution finding that the proposed sale of Certain Land (PID # 155010029020) by the City of Monticello for commercial purposes is consistent with the City of Monticello Comprehensive Plan. (AS) A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: The Planning Commission is asked to consider adoption of a resolution relating to the sale of a parcel of property located at 349 West Broadway by the City of Monticello EDA. The parcel will be sold for purposes of revitalizing a vacant building and property for commercial purposes. The resolution asks the Planning Commission to consider whether the conveyance is in conformance to the City’s Comprehensive Plan. The parcel is approximately .19 acres and is located in the Central Community District (CCD) and within the F-3 (Transition) sub-district of the CCD. The building has been vacant since 2008. The Monticello EDA purchased the property in 2008 for the purpose of revitalization of the site. At this time, the EDA has received an offer for consideration of sale. The potential buyer intends to remodel the property for a fitness studio, which they will own and operate. Fitness studios are considered “Personal Services” and are considered Permitted Uses in the F-3 Transition sub-district of the CCD. The development must meet all requirements of the zoning ordinance, which will be verified as part of site plan application process and through the building permit process. In addition, in the purchase and development agreement for the pending sale, the EDA is allowed to include site plans and reference to other building plans for minimum improvements as approved by the EDA. The parcel is located within an area guided “Downtown” within the Monticello Comprehensive Plan. The Comprehensive Plan indicates that the “Downtown is intended to be a mix of inter-related and mutually supportive land uses.”, and that “Businesses involved with the sale of goods and services should be the focus of Downtown land use”. Reinvestment in the refurbishing of a commercial property in the downtown supports these two statements. The fitness studio offers a service which supports the focus for business uses intended for Downtown. The addition of businesses in a vacant building will also add to the mix of uses in the area, bringing potential customers into the downtown. Further, the Embracing Downtown Plan, which is an appendix to the Comprehensive Plan and which guides land use in the downtown area, also states the following land use goals: “Encourage redevelopment of old and obsolete structures . . .” and “Diversify land uses in the downtown”. The sale of this property for renovation and introduction of a new business use is in support of these two goals. The EDA is tentatively scheduled to consider the purchase and development agreement for 349 West Broadway on August 10th, 2016. Planning Commission Agenda: 08/02/16 2 B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS: 1.Motion to adopt Resolution No. PC-2016-033, a resolution finding that the proposed sale of certain land by the City of Monticello EDA for commercial purposes is consistent with the City of Monticello Comprehensive Plan. 2.Motion to deny adopting Resolution No. PC-2016-033, a resolution finding that the proposed acquisition of certain land by the City of Monticello EDA for commercial purposes is consistent with the City of Monticello Comprehensive Plan, based on findings to be made by the Planning Commission. 3.Motion to table for additional information. C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: City staff supports Alternative #1 above. As noted in the analysis above, the renovation of a vacant commercial site for the introduction of a new business use is consistent with Chapter 3 – Land Use of the Comprehensive Plan and with the Embracing Downtown Plan. D. SUPPORTING DATA: A.Resolution No. PC-2016-033 B.Aerial Image C.Monticello Comprehensive Plan, Chapter 3– Land Use & Embracing Downtown Plan, Excerpts D.Monticello Zoning Map CITY OF MONTICELLO WRIGHT COUNTY, MINNESOTA PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. PC-2016-033 A RESOLUTION FINDING THAT THE PROPOSED SALE OF CERTAIN LAND BY THE CITY OF MONTICELLO ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY FOR COMMERCIAL PURPOSES IS CONSISTENT WITH THE CITY OF MONTICELLO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN WHEREAS,the City of Monticello Economic Development Authority (the “Authority”) proposes the sale and conveyance of certain parcels of real property described in Exhibit A attached hereto (the “Property”) and located in the City to Hallie Leffingwell Dba We Thrive Fitness (the “Developer”); and WHEREAS,the Authority desires to transact the sale of the Property to the Developer pursuant to its economic development powers, in order to facilitate the promote economic redevelopment and job opportunities and to promote the redevelopment of land which is underutilized within the City; and WHEREAS,Minnesota Statutes, Section 462.356, subd. 2 requires the Planning Commission to review the proposed acquisition or disposal of publicly-owned real property within the City prior to its acquisition or disposal, to determine whether in the opinion of the Planning Commission, such acquisition or disposal is consistent with the comprehensive municipal plan; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the proposed conveyance of the Property, and has determined that the Property is located in an area designated for “Downtown”, which includes commercial services uses within the City’s comprehensive plan, and is therefore consistent with such use. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED,by the Planning Commission of the City of Monticello, that the sale of the Property by the Authority to the Developer is consistent with the City’s comprehensive municipal plan, and will promote economic redevelopment and job opportunities and to promote the redevelopment of land which is underutilized within the City. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this resolution be communicated to the Board of Commissioners of the Authority. ADOPTED this 16th day of August 2016, by the Planning Commission of the City of Monticello, Minnesota. MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION By: _______________________________ Brad Fyle, Chair ATTEST: ____________________________________________ Angela Schumann, CommunityDevelopment Director CITY OF MONTICELLO WRIGHT COUNTY, MINNESOTA PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. PC-2016-033 EXHIBIT A Description of Property The South ½ of Lots 1, 2 and 3, in Book 50, Townsite of Monticello, according to the plat on file and of record in the office of the Register of Dees in and for Wright County, Minnesota; Said South ½ of Lots 1, 2, and 3, Block 50, can also be described as follows: Beginning at the mid-point on the common line between Lots 3 and 4, in said Block; thence Southerly along said common line 82.5 feet to the Southerly line of said Block (being Southeast corner of said Lot 3); thence Westerly along the Southerly line of Lots 3, 2 and 1 for a distance of 99 feet to the Southwest corner of Lot 1; thence Northerly along the Westerly line of lot 1 for a distance of 82.5 feet; thence straight Easterly 99 feet to the point of beginning and there terminating. Su b j ect Pa rce l City Bou nd ar y Ju ly 27, 201 6 Map Po wer ed by DataLink fro m WS B & Ass ociates 1 inch = 94 f eet Sou rce: Esri, Digita lG lo be , Ge oE ye, E arthst arGeographics, CNES/A irbus DS, USDA,US GS, A EX, Get ma ppin g, A erog rid , IG N, IGP,swissto po , a nd the GIS User Community vii A Framework Plan was developed for the downtown CCD District that illustrates the reorganization of the northern part of downtown to capture existing market opportunities for both new development on vacant lots and redevelopment of other existing properties. The plan represents a 90 degree reorientation of the downtown shopping district with improved access and sight lines from TH-25. The north end is anchored by public access and river oriented commercial activity. The south end is anchored by existing retail near I-94 (Cub Foods area) and the Community Center, which generates over 230,000 visits per year. It is a fusion of a traditional downtown with a format that works for today’s retailers. A key feature of the Framework Plan is the proposed addition of a traffic signal at the intersection of TH-25 with 4th Street to enhance access to the four- block area bounded by 4th Street, Broadway, TH-25, and Locust Street. This four-block area represents the primary opportunity to create a site larger than a city block that can accommodate a medium-sized retailer, such as a department store, and its required parking. An anchor use in this location will enjoy access and visibility from TH-25 and will become the focal point for additional retail redevelopment in the downtown CCD District. Vision, Guiding Principles and Goals Vision: Downtown Monticello is the sub regional center for business, professional, personal, health care services, dining and river-anchored recreation between St. Cloud and Maple Grove. Retail vitality is created by anchor stores and businesses that provide shopping and convenience goods in a human scale environment and are concentrated in districts with safe and convenient access and good parking. Retail, viii dining and entertainment businesses build on proximity to the Mississippi River, parks and trails to create an activity node for outdoor recreation including bicycling, fishing, canoeing, kayaking, walking, sledding, skating and bird watching. Guiding Principles provide a flexible framework to guide public and private sector planning, decisions, teamwork, and investment over time. Recommended principles include:  Build on core assets of greater downtown Monticello: o Monticello’s role as the sub regional center between St. Cloud & Maple Grove o Mississippi River & city parks o Traffic generated by bridge crossing o New River Medical Center o Community Center o Employee/customer/visitor base created by Xcel, Cargill & New River Medical Center o New Walgreen’s  A shared vision among property owners, business owners, and the City is the foundation for effective team work and long term success.  A shared understanding of realistic market potential is the foundation for design and generation of a healthy business mix.  A safe, attractive human scale environment and entrepreneurial businesses that actively emphasize personal customer service will differentiate downtown from other shopping districts.  The river is a distinctive asset that differentiates downtown Monticello and serves as a foundation for design and as a focus for activity.  Property values can be enhanced if property owners and the city share a vision for downtown and actively seek to cultivate a safe, appealing environment and attractive business mix.  The city and business community must work actively with MnDOT to ensure safe local access to business districts. Goals: To secure the vision described above, the consulting team recommends that the following goals be adopted and implemented by the City of Monticello and its EDA. LAND USE  Diversify Land use in the downtown; supplement retail and service uses with other activities that generate traffic.  Encourage redevelopment of old and obsolete structures; encourage consolidation of small parcels with multiple ownerships.  Balance parking and land use to ensure availability of adequate parking at all times.  Encourage mixed use but don’t make it a requirement or prerequisite for development or redevelopment.  Discourage residential as a free-standing land use within the core downtown area.  Establish physical connections between the core downtown area and the riverfront and park.  Encourage land uses that serve as evening and weekend attractions to the downtown area.  Expand facilities and parking adjacent to West Bridge Park to help create an anchor attraction at the north end of Walnut Street. Land Use | 3-132008 Comprehensive Plan ~ Updated 2014 of manufacturing, processing, warehousing, distribution and related businesses. 5. Places to Work may include non-industrial businesses that provide necessary support to the underlying development objectives of this land use. Examples of supporting land uses include lodging, office supplies and repair services. Additional public objectives and strategies for Places to Work can be found in the Economic Development chapter. Places to Shop Places to Shop designate locations that are or can be developed with businesses involved with the sale of goods and services. Places to Shop may include offices for service businesses. Places to Shop guides land uses that are both local and regional in nature. Policies - Places to Shop In guiding land uses for Places to Shop, the Comprehensive Plan seeks to: 1. The Comprehensive Plan seeks to attract and retain businesses that provide goods and services needed by Monticello residents. 2. The Comprehensive Plan seeks to capture the opportunity for commercial development that serves a broader region. Places to Shop with a regional orientation should be located where the traffic does not disadvantage travel within Monticello. 3. Commercial development will be used to expand and diversify the local property tax base and as an element of a diverse supply of local jobs. 4. Places to Shop will be located on property with access to the street capacity needed to support traffic from these businesses. 5. Each parcel should supply an adequate supply of parking that makes it convenient to obtain the goods and services. 6. Building materials, facades and signage should combine with public improvements to create an attractive setting. 7. Site design must give consideration to defining edges and providing buffering or separation between the commercial parcel and adjacent residential uses. These policies help to create sustainable locations for Places to Shop in a manner that enhances Monticello. Downtown The Embracing Downtown Plan was adopted by City Council resolution 2012-011 on January 9, 2012 and is herein incorporated as an appendix of the Comprehensive Plan. Downtown is a unique commercial district that is part of Monticello’s heritage and identity. It is, however, no longer possible for Downtown to be Monticello’s central business district. The mass of current and future commercial development south of Interstate 94 along TH 25 and in east Monticello along interstate 94 have replaced the downtown area as primary shopping districts. The future success of downtown requires it to be a place unlike any other in Monticello. The Comprehensive Plan seeks to achieve the Vision, Guiding Principles and Goals described in the Embracing Downtown Plan. Downtown is intended to be a mix of inter-related and mutually supportive land uses. Businesses involved with the sale of goods and services should be the focus of Downtown land use. Residential development facilitates reinvestment and places potential customers in the Downtown area. Civic uses draw in people from across the community. The Comprehensive Plan describes issues, plans and policies related to the Downtown in several sections of the Plan. 3-14 | Land Use City of Monticello During the planning process, the potential for allowing commercial activity to extend easterly out of the Downtown along Broadway was discussed. The Comprehensive Plan consciously defines Cedar Street as the eastern edge of Downtown for two basic reasons: (1) Downtown should be successful and sustainable before new areas of competition are created; and (2) The Comprehensive Plan seeks to maintain and enhance the integrity of residential neighborhoods east of Downtown. More than any other land use category, Downtown has strong connections to other parts of the Comprehensive Plan. Therefore the City has adopted the Embracing Downtown Plan as its guiding planning document for the Downtown. The following parts of the Comprehensive Plan also address community desires and plans for the Downtown area: f The Land Use chapter contains a specific focus area on Downtown. The focus area contains a more detailed discussion of the issues facing the Downtown and potential public actions needed to address these issues. f The operation of the street system is a critical factor for the future of Downtown. The Transportation chapter of the Comprehensive Plan and the Transportation chapter of the Embracing Downtown Plan influence the ability of residents to travel to Downtown and the options for mitigating the impacts of traffic on Highway 25 and other Downtown streets. f The Parks chapter of the Comprehensive Plan provides for parks in the Downtown and the trail systems that allow people to reach Downtown on foot or bicycle. f The Economic Development chapter of the Comprehensive Plan and the Financial Implementation chapter of the Embracing Downtown Plan lay the foundation for public actions and investments that will be needed to achieve the desired outcomes. Policies/Guiding Principles – Downtown 1. Downtown is a special and unique part of Monticello. It merits particular attention in the Comprehensive Plan and in future efforts to achieve community plans and objectives. 2. Downtown is intended to be an inter-connected and supportive collection of land uses. The primary function of Downtown is as a commercial district. Other land uses should support and enhance the overall objectives for Downtown. 3. The City will build on core assets of greater Downtown Monticello as identified in the Embracing Downtown Plan. 4. A shared vision among property owners, business owners and the City is the foundation for effective team work and long term success. 5. A shared understanding of realistic market potential is the foundation for design and generation of a healthy business mix. 6. A safe, attractive human scale environment and entrepreneurial businesses that actively emphasize personal customer service will differentiate Downtown from other shopping districts. 7. Property values can be enhanced if property owners and the City share a vision for Downtown and actively seek to cultivate a safe, appealing environment and attractive business mix. 8. Housing in the Downtown can facilitate necessary redevelopment and bring potential customers directly into the area. Housing may be free- standing or in shared buildings with street level commercial uses. 9. Downtown is the civic center of Monticello. To the degree possible, unique public facilities (such as the Community Center, the Library and the Post Office) should be located in the Downtown area as a means to bring people into the Downtown. 10. Downtown should emphasize connections with the Mississippi River that are accessible by the public. 11. Downtown should be a pedestrian-oriented place in a manner that cannot be matched by other commercial districts. 12. Downtown should have an adequate supply of free parking for customers distributed throughout the area. 13. The City and business community must work actively with MnDOT to ensure safe local access to business districts. Planning Commission Agenda: 08/02/16 1 3C. Consideration to adopt Resolution No. PC-2016-034, a Resolution finding that the proposed sale of Certain Land (PID # 155010050011) by the City of Monticello for residential purposes is consistent with the City of Monticello Comprehensive Plan. (AS) A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: The Planning Commission is asked to consider adoption of a resolution relating to the sale of a parcel of property located on 413 4th Street by the City of Monticello EDA. The parcel will be sold for single-family residential purposes. The resolution asks the Planning Commission to consider whether the conveyance is in conformance to the City’s Comprehensive Plan. The parcel is approximately .38 acres and is located in an R-2 (Single and Two-Family Residential District), The Monticello EDA purchased the property in 2008 for the purpose of demolishing and abating the prior single-family structure, which was considered a nuisance property. The City of Monticello has held the parcels in ownership until such time as the EDA has the potential to convey/sell the property for economic development purposes. At this time, the EDA has received an offer for consideration of sale. The potential buyer wishes to construct a single-story single-family home on the parcel. The home must meet all requirements of the zoning ordinance for square footage and other performance standards, which will be verified prior to finalization of the purchase and development agreement and through the building permit process. In addition, in its purchase and development agreement for the pending sale, the EDA is allowed to place restrictions that the home must be owner-occupied. The parcel is located within an area guided “Places to Live” within the Monticello Comprehensive Plan. The Comprehensive Plan considers the designation as a land use primarily intended for residential development. The Places to Live land use designation includes a policy statement which seeks to “Develop quality neighborhoods that create a sense of connection in the community and inspire sustained investment.” according to the Comprehensive Plan. In this case, the reinvestment in the existing neighborhood through development of a new single-family home supports Comprehensive Plan objectives. Further, the Comprehensive Plan provides that the City will “Provide a range of housing choices that fit all stages of a person’s life cycle”. The proposed single-story home will provide an opportunity for single-story living for those seeking an accessible living option. The EDA is tentatively scheduled to consider the purchase and development agreement on August 10th, 2016. Planning Commission Agenda: 08/02/16 2 B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS: 1.Motion to adopt Resolution No. PC-2016-034, a resolution finding that the proposed sale of certain land by the City of Monticello EDA for residential purposes is consistent with the City of Monticello Comprehensive Plan. 2.Motion to deny adopting Resolution No. PC-2016-034, a resolution finding that the proposed acquisition of certain land by the City of Monticello EDA for residential purposes is consistent with the City of Monticello Comprehensive Plan, based on findings to be made by the Planning Commission. 3.Motion to table for additional information. C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: City staff supports Alternative #1 above. Chapter 3 – Land Use of the Comprehensive Plan outlines the goals for residential development within the City. The sale of this lot within the core area of the community for purposes of development of a single-family residential home is consistent with the goals of the Comprehensive Plan, as noted above – specifically those relating to reinvestment in neighborhoods and life-cycle housing options. D. SUPPORTING DATA: A.Resolution No. PC-2016-034 B.Aerial Image C.Monticello Comprehensive Plan, Chapter 3– Land Use, Excerpts D.Monticello Zoning Map CITY OF MONTICELLO WRIGHT COUNTY, MINNESOTA PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. PC-2016-034 A RESOLUTION FINDING THAT THE PROPOSED SALE OF CERTAIN LAND BY THE CITY OF MONTICELLO ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY FOR RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT PURPOSES IS CONSISTENT WITH THE CITY OF MONTICELLO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN WHEREAS,the City of Monticello (“City”) proposes to convey certain parcels of real property described in Exhibit A attached hereto (the “Property”) and located in the City to the City of Monticello Economic Development Authority (the “Authority”), for reconveyance to Taylor Holdings, Inc (the “Developer”); and WHEREAS,the Authority desires to transact the sale of the Property to the Developer pursuant to its housing and redevelopment powers, in order to facilitate the development of an owner-occupied single family residential dwelling within the City; and WHEREAS,Minnesota Statutes, Section 462.356, subd. 2 requires the Planning Commission to review the proposed acquisition or disposal of publicly-owned real property within the City prior to its acquisition or disposal, to determine whether in the opinion of the Planning Commission, such acquisition or disposal is consistent with the comprehensive municipal plan; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the proposed conveyance of the Property, and has determined that the Property is located in an area designated for “Places to Live”, a residential designation use within the City’s comprehensive plan, and is therefore consistent with such use. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED,by the Planning Commission of the City of Monticello, that the conveyance of the Property by the City to the Authority, and the sale of the Property by the Authority to the Developer, are consistent with the City’s comprehensive municipal plan, and will promote housing and redevelopment within the City. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this resolution be communicated to the Board of Commissioners of the Authority. ADOPTED this 16th day of August, 2016, by the Planning Commission of the City of Monticello, Minnesota. MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION By: _______________________________ Brad Fyle, Chair ATTEST: ____________________________________________ Angela Schumann, CommunityDevelopment Director CITY OF MONTICELLO WRIGHT COUNTY, MINNESOTA PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. PC-2016-034 EXHIBIT A Description of Property Su b j ect Pa rce l City Bou nd ar y Ju ly 27, 201 6 Map Po wer ed by DataLink fro m WS B & Ass ociates 1 inch = 94 f eet Sou rce: Esri, Digita lG lo be , Ge oE ye, E arthst arGeographics, CNES/A irbus DS, USDA,US GS, A EX, Get ma ppin g, A erog rid , IG N, IGP,swissto po , a nd the GIS User Community Land Use | 3-52008 Comprehensive Plan ~ Updated 2014 The remainder of this section describes the categories used in the Comprehensive Plan in greater detail. Places to Live The Comprehensive Plan seeks to create and sustain quality places for people to live in Monticello (see Figure 3-3). This category designates areas where housing is the primary use of land. The emphasis behind Places to Live is to help ensure that Monticello offers a full range of housing choices, while preserving and enhancing the quality of neighborhoods. Although a single land use category, Places to Live does not suggest housing is a homogenous commodity or that any type of housing is desirable or allowed in any location. When someone says “house” the most common image is a single family detached dwelling. This housing style is characterized by several features. There is a one-to- one relationship between house and parcel of land - the housing unit is located on a single parcel. The house is not physically attached to another housing unit. The housing is designed for occupancy by a single family unit. The typical neighborhood in Monticello is made up exclusively of single family detached homes. The primary variables become the design of the subdivision, the size of the lot and the size and style of the dwelling. Many older neighborhoods in Monticello (north of Interstate 94) were built on a traditional grid street system. Over the past thirty years, development patterns have moved to a new suburban curvilinear Figure 3-3: Land Use Plan - Places to Live 3-6 | Land Use City of Monticello pattern, characterized by curvilinear street layout with the use of cul-de-sacs. A variety of factors, including consumer preference and housing cost, have increased the construction of attached housing in recent years. Duplexes, twin homes, quads and townhomes are common examples of this housing style. Although the specific form changes, there are several common characteristics. Each housing unit is designed for occupancy by a single family. The housing units are physically attached to each other in a horizontal orientation. Places to Live will include some neighborhoods designed to offer a mixture of housing types and densities. Mixed residential neighborhoods create a pattern that combines single-family detached housing with a mixture of attached housing types. Using good design and planning, these mixed residential neighborhoods can achieve a higher density without compromising the overall integrity of the low-density residential pattern. This integration strengthens neighborhoods by increasing housing choice and affordability beyond what is possible by today’s rules and regulations. It also avoids large and separate concentrations of attached housing. It enhances opportunities to organize development in a manner that preserves natural features. A complete housing stock includes higher density residential areas that consist of multi-family housing types such as apartments and condominiums. In the near term, the Comprehensive Plan does not anticipate expanding the existing supply of higher density housing. It is likely that Monticello will need additional higher density housing to: f Provide housing suited to the needs of an aging population. f Facilitate redevelopment in the Downtown or in other appropriate locations of the community. f Provide housing needed to attract the work force required to achieve economic development goals of the City. Higher density residential land uses should be located and designed to be compatible with nearby residential or mixed uses, on lots able to accommodate larger buildings and added traffic generation. In addition, siting factors for high density residential uses will prioritize access to services and amenities including public utilities, parks, trails and open space, and commercial and/or medical services. It will be important, when considering potential designation of high density housing development, that the parcels meet the specific standards of the zoning district, and such development can be accommodated in accordance with the policies in this Plan. While these comments and the comments in the zoning ordinance are intended to be instructive they are not necessarily the only factors that might come into play on specific properties. Policies – Places to Live The Comprehensive Plan seeks to achieve the following objectives for residential land use in Monticello: 1. Provide a range of housing choices that fit all stages of a person’s life-cycle (see below). 2. Support development in areas that best matches the overall objectives of the Comprehensive Plan. 3. Develop quality neighborhoods that create a sense of connection to the community and inspire sustained investment. The Comprehensive Plan seeks to maintain the quality and integrity of existing neighborhoods by encouraging the maintenance of property and reinvestment into the existing housing stock. Changes in housing type should be allowed only to facilitate necessary redevelopment. 4. Create neighborhoods that allow residents to maintain a connection to the natural environment and open spaces. 5. Seek quality over quantity in residential growth. Achieving the objectives for quality housing and neighborhoods may reduce the overall rate of growth. 6. Reserve areas with high amenities for “move up” housing as desired in the vision statement. These amenities may include forested areas, wetland complexes, adjacency to parks and greenways. Some of the City’s policy objectives require further explanation. Planning Commission Agenda: 08/02/16 1 3D. Community Development Director’s Report. Planning Commission Recommendations The City Council took the following action at its meeting on June 27th as related to items on the July agenda of the Planning Commission:  Consideration of a request for Amendment to CUP for Development and Final Stage Planned Unit Development for AMAX Addition for a 720 square foot expansion of self-storage facility in a B-3 (Highway Business) District. Applicant: Posusta, Glen/A-Max Self-Storage LLC City Council approved the amendment to CUP on July 22nd, 2016, with Council member Posusta abstaining from the vote.  Consideration of a request for amendment to the Monticello Zoning Ordinance and amendment to the Official Zoning Map for rezoning from B-2 (Limited Business) to Planned Unit Development and Development and Final Stage PUD for uses including office, warehouse and self-storage. Applicant: Red Rooster Properties, Inc. City Council approved the planned unit development rezoning on July 22nd, 2016 on the consent agenda.  Consideration of a request for Conditional Use Permit for Auto Repair – Minor, Auto Repair - Major and Conditional Use Permit for Vehicle Sales in a B-3 (Highway Business) District. Applicant: Janikowski, Ryan City Council approved the CUP on July 22nd, 2016 on the consent agenda.  Consideration of a request for amendment to the Monticello Zoning Ordinance and amendment to the Official Zoning Map for rezoning from B-4 (Regional Business) to Planned Unit Development, a request for Development and Final Stage Planned Unit Development, and a request for Preliminary and Final Plat for the Mills Fleet Farm Addition to Monticello, a proposed commercial development project including a retail facility of over 165,000 square feet, a vehicle fuel sales facility, a car wash facility, and two future development parcels. Applicant: WSN/Ramerth, Tim City Council approved the development stage PUD and preliminary plat on June 11th, 2016. The City Council approved the final stage PUD, rezoning to PUD and final plat, with corresponding development agreement, on July 22nd, 2016.