Planning Commission Agenda 05-02-2017
AGENDA
REGULAR MEETING - MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION
Tuesday, May 2nd, 2017 - 6:00 p.m.
Mississippi Room, Monticello Community Center
Commissioners: John Alstad, Brad Fyle, Sam Murdoff, Marc Simpson, Lucas Wynne
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. Special Meeting Minutes – April 4th, 2017
b. Regular Meeting Minutes – April 4th, 2017
C. Citizen Comments
D. Consideration of adding items to the agenda
2. Public Hearings
A. Public Hearing – Consideration of a request for Rezoning to Planned Unit
Development, a request for Development Stage Planned Unit Development for
Vehicle Sales and Rental, Auto Repair – Minor, and Accessory Office and Retail
Uses in a B-3 (Highway Business) District
Applicant: FRHP Lincolnshire, LLC
B. Public Hearing – Consideration of a request for Comprehensive Plan Amendment
for ‘Places to Shop’ to ‘Places to Work’ and a request for Rezoning from a B-4
(Regional Business) District to a I-1 (Light Industrial) District
Applicant: Jim Bowers and John Chadwick
3. Regular Agenda
A. Consideration of the Community Development Directors Report
4. Added Items
5. Adjournment
Special Joint Meeting
Mississippi Room - 5:00 PM
Concept Stage Planned Unit Development for Detached
Townhome Lots
Applicant: Carlisle Village, LLC
1
MINUTES
SPECIAL JOINT MEETING - MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION AND CITY
COUNCIL
Tuesday, April 4th, 2017 - 5:00 p.m.
Mississippi Room, Monticello Community Center
Present: Brad Fyle, Marc Simpson, Sam Murdoff, Charlotte Gabler, Jim Davidson,
Bill Fair, Brian Stumpf, Lloyd Hilgart
Staff: Angela Schumann, Steve Grittman (NAC), John Rued
1. Call to Order
Brad Fyle called the meeting to order at 5:00 p.m.
2. Concept Stage Planned Unit Development for Multi-Lot Industrial Development
Applicant: Ken Spaeth
Steve Grittman stated the request was to consider a concept stage multi-lot industrial
development in the I-2 (Heavy Industrial) District. A typical development in this district
is one building per lot. A Planned Unit Development (PUD) is required when multiple
lots do not have frontage on a public street and rather rely on a private street system. The
PUD provides flexibility from the Zoning Ordinance provided there are layouts,
amenities, or better designs that further accomplish the goals of the Comprehensive Plan.
Grittman stated that the proposal was for eight, approximately 7,000 square foot
industrial buildings. Each building would be placed on its own lot. This would allow each
to be purchased and/or leased out to tenants. Common parking, driveways and truck
courts would be provided on site. A half-acre would be reserved for stormwater purposes
and would serve as a buffer between the residential area adjacent to the site.
Sam Murdoff joined the meeting.
Brad Fyle commented that Buffalo has a similar development and asked if there were any
attachments showing that project. Grittman declined and stated his familiarity with the
project. He said that it was designed for small industrial service businesses, small
fabrication or other types of facilities supporting their business.
Fyle asked what building was to the east of the site. Simpson replied that it was the
former Polycast building. Wayne Elam, Commercial Realty Solutions stated that the
buildings are proposed as post frame buildings, similar to adjacent structures. Fyle noted
that the last series of building appeared to be close to the back lot line. Grittman
confirmed and noted that the industrial facilities on the east and west only developed the
front half of their lots and had room to expand to the front. The applicant indicated that
he would develop this project in phases starting with the north portion of the lot first.
Fyle commented about noise concerns. Grittman noted that the City Ordinance has noise
standards. The entry office spaces would face the residential area and would less likely
generate a lot of noise. Fyle also noted that a holding pond and a berm would serve as a
2
buffer. Fyle asked what the rear lot setback was set at. Grittman stated that the district
standard is 50 feet; this proposal exceed that requirement. Bill Fair asked what percentage
of the lot would be hard surfaced. Grittman responded about 78 percent. Grittman noted
that the full engineering of the site has not been completed and that the applicant would
need to meet the City’s full stormwater management requirements when submitting
development stage PUD plans.
Fyle asked the Building Department if the City could require the buildings to be dressed
up a little more. Rued stated that was a condition that could be determined in the PUD
plans. From the Building Department’s perspective, as long as the applicant met the
building code for design standards, they would be able to continue their project. Grittman
confirmed that building materials and architecture are part of the PUD discussion.
Gabler noted that an association would need to occur that would take care of maintenance
and common shared access and parking. Grittman confirmed. Gabler also noted that there
were no other areas for small, start-up industrial businesses to locate in Monticello and
expressed appreciation for the opportunity.
Fyle asked if the site was accessible by semi-tractor trailer. Grittman stated that there was
a proposed loop road that semi’s should be able to drive and turn around in the truck
court areas. He added that unloading on the street would not occur as a condition of PUD.
Stumpf indicated that a semi could maneuver back portion of the site. Grittman stated
they would need to work around the engineering and guarantee the turn radius were
accomplishable.
Gabler asked if fewer buildings could go up if needed to better accommodate the site.
Elam stated there were other options the property owner would be interested in such as
making the buildings narrower. Elam reminded the boards that it was not reviewed in
detail by an engineer and that it was only a concept.
Marc Simpson commented that fire accessibility should be considered.
Wayne Elam introduced Ken Spaeth (property owner) and Scott Dahlke (Civil
Engineering Site Design), Shelia Zachman (Commercial Realty Solutions). Elam stated
that the goal of the project was to develop cost-effective alternatives for small businesses
to buy a small piece of land and construct a post frame building. The drawing provided
was the maximum square footage the property could handle. Elam suggested if the
turning radius for the semis was too shallow, they could shrink the buildings. Elam stated
that Spaeth would build one 7,500 square foot building and divide into three spaces to
rent out. The space would have a separate entry doors, bathrooms, and an overhead door.
Elam suggested that the location would be ideal for small construction companies and
expressed a need for this type of development within the city.
Stumpf echoed concerns of the appearance of the buildings especially those facing the
Golden Eagle Road townhomes and suggested dressing them up. Spaeth added that no
overhead doors would be located on that side and stone would be placed facing those
townhomes. The buildings facing Dundas Road would also have stone placed.
3
Fyle asked if there would be any concerns with having more than one business in a
building. Schumann stated that an association would be required as a part of the PUD
package and would demonstrate how the site would function and the management of
tenancy. Grittman noted that it wouldn’t be uncommon to have a building occupied by
multiple tenants.
Rued added that depending on the type of businesses located in a building, the
requirements for fire safety may require additional changes to the building design.
Murdoff asked if a shared wall could be placed to consolidate down to four buildings
rather than eight buildings. Elam stated that it was counter from what the goal of the
project was to create smaller industrial development buildings of up to 7,000 square feet
each. Elam added that they’d like to stay away from condo-ing buildings due to the
complexities it presents.
Lloyd Hilgart asked what the PUD would be set up for. Grittman stated that having six
frontages face a private street would be one reason for a PUD. Grittman also indicated
that the lot areas (which are less than required by code) and interior setbacks would also
trigger a PUD. Hilgart mentioned having something in place for the aesthetics for each
building to match especially in color and size. Elam indicated that it was the intent to put
in the agreement so that the building aesthetics looked similar and that a minimum
building size was established. Spaeth noted that any property owner that was looking to
develop inside the development, would need to have the City Council’s approval.
Schumann stated that unless they have approval for final stage development plans, the
applicant would need to apply for an amendment to PUD when they are ready to plat a
new lot or add a building that is substantially different from the original proposal.
Grittman stated that there is a broad mix of uses that could occur in the I-2 Zoning
District, but noted that the land use impacts should be less impactful due to the smaller
size of the facilities.
Stumpf asked if outdoor storage would occur on the vacant lots as the first building was
constructed. Spaeth declined.
Brad Fyle opened up the meeting for public comments.
Kathy Hanson, Board Director for Golden Eagle Villas stated she was comfortable with
the proposal.
Scott Dahlke passed around a landscape plan for the property. Trees would be planted
throughout the site. He also added that a berm would be placed in between the
townhomes and the industrial buildings. Landscaping would also occur on the end walls
of each building. It was noted that there would be around 170 feet between the proposed
industrial buildings to the townhomes. A fence would also be built along the berm to
separate the development from the residential areas.
Fyle summarized that no major concerns were brought up at the meeting besides the
aesthetics of the buildings, groundwater management, and traffic flow onsite.
4
3. Adjournment
MARC SIMPSON MOVED TO ADJOURN THE MEETING AT 5:45 P.M. SAM
MURDOFF SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED, 8-0.
Recorder: Jacob Thunander ____
Approved: May 2, 2017
Attest: ____________________________________________
Angela Schumann, Community Development Director
1
MINUTES
REGULAR MEETING - MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION
Tuesday, April 4th, 2017 - 6:00 p.m.
Mississippi Room, Monticello Community Center
Present: John Alstad, Brad Fyle, Sam Murdoff, Marc Simpson
Absent: Lucas Wynne
Council Liaison: Charlotte Gabler
Staff: Angela Schumann, Steve Grittman (NAC), John Rued
ADMINISTER OATH OF OFFICE TO NEWLY APPOINTED MEMBER – JOHN
ALSTAD
BRAD FYLE ADMINISTERED THE OATH OF OFFICE FOR NEWLY APPOINTED
MEMBER JOHN ALSTAD.
1. General Business
A. Call to Order
Chairman Brad Fyle called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m.
B. Consideration of approving minutes
a. Regular Meeting Minutes – March 7th, 2017
MARC SIMPSON MOVED TO APPROVE THE REGULAR
MEETING MINUTES OF MARCH 7TH, 2017. MOTION
SECONDED BY SAM MURDOFF. MOTION CARRIED, 3-0-1
WITH JOHN ALSTAD ABSTAINING.
b. Special Meeting Minutes – March 7th, 2017
MARC SIMPSON MOVED TO APPROVE THE SPECIAL
MEETING MINUTES OF MARCH 7TH, 2017. MOTION
SECONDED BY SAM MURDOFF. MOTION CARRIED, 3-0-1
WITH JOHN ALSTAD ABSTAINING.
C. Citizen Comments
None.
D. Consideration of adding items to the agenda
None.
2. Public Hearings
Special Joint Meeting
Mississippi Room - 5:00 PM
Concept Stage Planned Unit Development for Multi-Lot
Industrial Development
Applicant: Ken Spaeth
2
A. Public Hearing - Consideration of a request for Rezoning to Planned Unit
Development, a request for Development Stage Planned Unit Development
for Vehicle Sales and Rental, Auto Repair – Minor, and Accessory Office and
Retail Uses in a B-3 (Highway Business) District
Applicant: FRHP Lincolnshire, LLC
Brad Fyle noted that the applicant had withdrawn their request at the time.
Steve Grittman stated that the applicant instead requested tabling action on their
item. Grittman suggested to open and continue the public hearing to the next
regular Planning Commission meeting. He also suggested tabling action until the
next meeting.
Brad Fyle opened the public hearing. Hearing no comments, Fyle requested a
motion to continue the public hearing at the next regular meeting. SAM
MURDOFF MOVED TO CONTINUE THE PUBLIC HEARING TO THE
NEXT REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING ON MAY 2ND,
2017. MARC SIMPSON SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION SECONDED,
4-0.
Brad Fyle asked if there were any rules for how long an applicant could request
tabling action. Grittman explained that there is not a specific rule in place,
however staff would check in with the applicant to understand their plans in
moving forward.
3. Regular Agenda
A. Consideration of the Community Development Directors Report
Angela Schumann provided the Community Development Directors Report and
mentioned the Government Training Services Land Use Workshops. Schumann
stated that a budget is set aside for such trainings and that any Planning
Commissioner that was interested in attending should contact her. She encouraged
the Planning Commission to visit the Government Training Services website to
see the different trainings they offer throughout the year.
Brad Fyle asked about the Cruiser’s site and if there was a time limit that a fuel
station could stay vacant. John Rued indicated that they applied for a permit to
remove the canopy and tanks from the site. He stated that at this time, the
property owner had no intentions of removing the building from the site.
Schumann stated that a Conditional Use Permit was issued for the site and that
any land use changes to the site would require a new application.
Charlotte Gabler asked if there was a period of time that signage had to be
removed from a vacant building. Schumann stated the City has an abandon sign
provision in the Zoning Ordinance. Schumann also noted that the City is
implementing a ‘Change in Use’ form that will help determine license and
permitting requirements.
Marc Simpson asked where the Papa John’s store would be locating. Rued
explained that it would be located in the former Cherry Berries building. Rued
3
noted that their plumbing plans have been received, amended, and approved by
the State of Minnesota. Their sign has also recently been installed.
Fyle asked when Sherburne State Bank would be open. Rued stated they are
planning on having their final inspection this week, with an opening date soon
after.
Gabler asked about the status of Moon Motorsports. Rued explained they had
their footing inspections. Precast panels and structural steel were set in place and
they were getting ready to install the steel roof.
Rued provided an update about Mills Fleet Farm. He stated that the floor of the
retail facility was poured and their plumbing rough-ins were placed. Staging of
merchandise would likely be in June and would require a temporary Certificate of
Occupancy. A possible opening of the first week of September is expected.
The Planning Commission asked about residential development. Schumann stated
that the last inventory map that was prepared in February indicated there was less
than 80 remaining lots. She noted that number is now lower due to the high
number of permits that were received in March.
Schumann also noted that the Cuningham Group and Tangible Consulting would
be presenting findings for the Small Area Study of the downtown to the EDA on
April 12th at 6 pm. She invited the Planning Commission to attend.
B. Planned Unit Development Discussion
Angela Schumann stated that over the next few months the Planning Commission
is expected to receive applications for Planned Unit Development (PUD).
Schumann wanted to discuss the history and process of PUDs.
Schumann noted that the purpose of PUDs are to allow for flexibility from base
code requirements for superior development projects. Prior to the 2011 code
amendment, the City required PUDs by Conditional Use Permit with three
application stages: Concept, Development, and Final. Depending on the applicant,
some of the applications would be submitted at the same time. Concept Stage and
Development Stage PUDS required Public Hearings, and the Final Stage required
a staff review to ensure the final met all of the requirements assigned during
development stage review. Often times the City would see PUDS for commercial
projects with shared access and parking, zero lot lines, and no access to a public
street. PUDS for residential development occurred when a mix of zoning was
present or for flexibility from lot or building designs. PUDs are also used when
there are more than one principal buildings are present.
Following the new code in 2011, PUDs are now applied through a Rezoning
action. The City has more discretionary authority with a Rezoning, over a
Conditional Use Permit, which was recommended by the City Attorney.
Concept Stage PUD is a proposal or a submittal that is equivalent to a ‘site plan
review’ in other cities. Planning Commission and City Council hold a special
meeting to provide informal feedback to help guide the applicant as they develop
4
their plans for a land use application. Then it moves into Development Stage
PUD, which requires a Public Hearing during the Planning Commission. It will
then move forward to the City Council for final decision. Then a Final Stage PUD
application is submitted for only City Council review, with no public hearing.
City Council will determine a decision for Rezoning at this time. A Development
Agreement would also accompany the ordinance if approved. Schumann pointed
out that the City Attorney mentioned that a PUD is a single application and needs
to follow the 60-day rule for decision making. When a PUD requires platting, an
additional 60 days would be applied to make the decision.
After a PUD is approved, there may be changes or adjustments that an applicant
will propose making. There are three options which include: Administrative
Amendment, PUD Adjustment, and PUD Amendment. An Administrative
Amendment is a minor adjustment to the PUD where staff can review and
approve the changes. PUD Adjustments are specified in the Zoning Ordinance
and require City Council consent. When substantive changes to a PUD are
requested, the applicant is required to submit Development and Final Stage plans.
Schumann asked the Planning Commission if they had any questions.
Fyle and Gabler complimented the process for PUDs since the 2011 code
amendment. Schumann stated that from a Building Department viewpoint, PUDs
can be difficult to tract particularly when it relates to building design. Through the
zoning ordinance and applicant checklists, the City requires applicants to provide
a summary of where they are specifically varying from the code. This helps to
build an ordinance that identifies these variables and is easy for the Building
Department to understand. Gabler asked if the Exhibit Z comments could be
further expanded to include where the applicant is varying from the code.
Schumann stated that it is a requirement for applicants to submit, but could ensure
the applicant submits an updated and complete listing of flexibilities.
4. Added Items
Brad Fyle asked if the Monticello Specialty Dental facility was making any progress.
Schumann stated that the last correspondence involved completing a development
agreement and once that was received, the applicant could apply for permits.
5. Adjournment
MARC SIMPSON MOVED TO ADJOURN THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE
PLANNING COMMISSION AT 6:24 PM. SAM MURDOFF SECONDED THE
MOTION. MOTION CARRIED, 4-0.
5
Recorder: Jacob Thunander ____
Approved: May 2, 2017
Attest: ____________________________________________
Angela Schumann, Community Development Director
Planning Commission Agenda – 05/02/2017
1
2A. Continued Public Hearing - Consideration of a request for Rezoning to Planned
Unit Development, a request for Development Stage Planned Unit Development
for Vehicle Sales and Rental, Auto Repair – Minor, and Accessory Office and
Retail Uses in a B-3 (Highway Business) District.Applicant: FRHP
Lincolnshire, LLC
(NAC)
Property:Legal: Lot 1, Block 1 Maas Addition, together with
Lot 1, Block 1 Camping World First Addition
PID: 155225001010, 155243001010
Planning Case Number:2017 - 011
A.REFERENCE & BACKGROUND
Representatives for FRHP Lincolnshire have indicated that it is their intention to
provide revisions to previously prepared submittals. The revisions have not yet been
received and as such, the request at this time is to table action on the item and
continue the hearing to the June meeting of the Planning Commission.
A letter extending the deadline for agency action on the request has been sent to the
applicant.
B.ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS
1.Motion to table action on the request and continue the public hearing to the June
6th, 2017 regular meeting of the Planning Commission.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION
None
D. SUPPORTING DATA
None
Planning Commission Agenda – 5/2/17
1
2B.Public Hearing – Consideration of a request for Comprehensive Plan
Amendment for ‘Places to Shop’ to ‘Places to Work’ and a request for Rezoning
from a B-4 (Regional Business) District to a I-1 (Light Industrial) District
Applicant: Jim Bowers and John Chadwick (NAC)
Property:Outlot C & D, Otter Creek Crossing
155-171-000030 & 155-171-000040
Lengthy Legals for Parcels
Planning Case Number:2017-013
A.REFERENCE & BACKGROUND
Request(s):Amend Land Use Designation from “Places to Shop” to
“Places to Work”; Rezone two parcels of property from
B-4 Regional Business to I-1 Light Industrial
Deadline for Decision:June 11, 2017
Land Use Designation:Places to Shop
Zoning Designation:B-4 Regional Business District
The purpose of the “B-4” regional business district is to
provide for the establishment of commercial and
service activities which draw from and serve customers
from the entire community or region.
Overlays/Environmental
Regulations Applicable:Freeway Bonus Sign District
Current Site Use:Vacant Lot
Surrounding Land Uses:
North:R-3 Medium Density Residential District; B-2 Limited
Business District (across I-94)
East:B-4 Regional Business District
South:I-1 Light Industrial District
West:I-1 Light Industrial District
Project Description:The applicants seek to change the land use map for two
vacant parcels of land from “Places to Shop” to “Places
to Work”. In addition, the applicants wish to rezone
said parcels from B-4 Regional Business to I-1 Light
Industrial.
Planning Commission Agenda – 5/2/17
2
ANALYSIS
Comprehensive Plan Amendment.As noted above, the applicants are seeking an
amendment to the “Land Use Plan Map” which can be found in the Comprehensive
Plan. Therefore, a Comprehensive Plan amendment is necessary.
I-94 Interchange Study.In 2016, the City undertook a land use analysis as a part of
the ongoing I-94 Interchange Study. The study examines the possibility of an
interchange at the County Road 39 overpass. This is along the northern boundary of
the northwest parcel. It should be noted that the study suggests this area should be
zoned commercial if an interchange is constructed. However, as noted in the
applicant’s narrative, the City already has an abundance of vacant commercial zoning
while industrial options are limited. In addition, the interchange study did not
contemplate in depth the re-guiding of existing land uses within City boundaries.
In support of the redesignation, the Comprehensive Plan identifies the northwest side
of the City as needing to expand on existing “Places to Work”. The Economic
Development portion of the Plan promotes emphasis on this land use category, and
the land use plan supports additional industrial growth in the northwest region. As
noted above, the I-94 Interchange Study supports these strategies by identifying
industrial land uses as a component of the land use mix for the area.
While the “Places to Work” category is an important element in the City’s growth and
development, the Comprehensive Plan’s Economic Development chapter focuses on
tax base and job creation as the most important factors in seeking new industrial
growth. At the same time, City staff reports an increase in industrial development
interest that includes a component of outdoor storage. Outdoor storage, while it
supports the principal business activity, does not create tax base or employment.
Finding a balance point to promote industrial development is an element of the
analysis in this case.
The Zoning ordinance identifies the following factors for considering proposed
Comprehensive Plan amendments:
(a)Whether the proposed amendment corrects an error or addresses the need
resulting from some changing condition, trend, or fact arising since the
adoption of the Comprehensive Plan;
(b)Whether the proposed amendment is consistent with the guiding principles of
the Comprehensive Plan;
(c)The extent to which the proposed amendment addresses a demonstrated
community need;
(d)Whether the proposed amendment will protect the health, safety, morals, and
general welfare of the public;
Planning Commission Agenda – 5/2/17
3
(e)The impacts on the natural and built environments, including air, water,
noise, stormwater management, wildlife habitat, water quality, vegetation,
drainage, streets, and other engineering design or environmental factors;
(f)Whether the proposed amendment is compatible with existing and proposed
uses surrounding the subject property; whether the proposed design and land
uses are appropriate for the land; and whether the proposed amendment will
maintain or improve compatibility among uses and ensure efficient
development within the City;
(g)Whether the proposed amendment will result in a logical, orderly and
predictable development pattern; and
(h)Whether the proposed amendment is consistent with the purpose of this
ordinance.
Most of these factors are present in considering the proposed land use plan
amendment, including changes in the needs and demands for industrial land.
Designating the map for “Places to Work” as requested, and considering a rezoning of
the property from B-4 to an industrial designation would support the City’s economic
development objectives for tax base and job creation. As such, the applicants’
request appears to be consistent with the direction and policies of the current
expectations of the Comprehensive Plan.
It is conceivable that if an interchange is eventually planned at County 39,
circumstances may suggest zoning which would allow for more commercial land uses
nearest to the interchange location.
Zoning.The subject site is zoned B-4 (Regional Business) District. The applicants
are seeking to rezone the property to I-1 (Light Industrial) to be consistent with
property across Chelsea Rd. W.
However, City staff recognizes that the parcels are along I-94 which offers significant
exposure to passing traffic, and the area serves as a western gateway to the
community. In addition, the parcels also front Chelsea Road, a major collector route
for the city. The parcels therefore are considered double-fronting and highly visible
from both I-94 and Chelsea Road.
In considering the appropriate zoning for the property, it is noted that a change to I-1
would allow for outdoor storage, while a change to IBC would accommodate many of
the same light industrial uses, but would limit outdoor storage. IBC allows light
industrial, offices, and other business type uses. Also as noted above, the potential
issue of a freeway interchange at the County 39 location could impact the long-term
Planning Commission Agenda – 5/2/17
4
land use demands on this site. In this regard, staff has examined to potential for both
I-1 and IBC zoning designations for the subject parcels.
Industrial District Covenants.In regard to consistency with the parcels across
Chelsea Road, within the City-owned industrial park, it is important to note that
private covenants apply. The purpose of the covenants was to ensure that the district
would be developed with higher standards for buildings, site improvements (such as
landscaping), and restrict outdoor storage activities. While these covenants would not
apply to the properties subject to the rezoning, it is important to understand how the
adjoining lands have developed to now, and are expected to further develop into the
future. Thus, while the general designation is for “Places to Work”, and the zoning
designation is I-1, there is a higher level of development standards applied to that
area.
Lot Area and Width.The following table shows that the parcels will be conforming
with the I-1 District standards as well as the IBC District standards. It should be
noted that the table below represents an analysis of the parcels in their current
configuration. Any future subdivision of the parcels would require platting, at which
time the lot area, widths and setbacks would again be evaluated.
Lot Area and Width
Rezone to I-1 Light Industrial
Parcel Lot Area Required Compliant Lot
Width
Required Compliant
Southeast 831,399 ft. 20,000 sq. ft.Yes 1,700 ft. 100 ft.Yes
Northwest 831,393 ft. 20,000 sq. ft.Yes 900 ft. 100 ft.Yes
Rezone to IBC Industrial Business Campus
Parcel Lot Area Required Compliant Lot
Width
Required Compliant
Southeast 831,399 ft. 8,000 sq. ft. Yes 1,700 ft. 100 ft.Yes
Northwest 831,393 ft. 8,000 sq. ft.Yes 900 ft. 100 ft.Yes
The two subject parcels will be compliant with the City’s requirements for lot size
and width in the I-1 District as well as the IBC.
Setbacks.The following table shows the setback requirements for the B-4, I-1, and
IBC districts:
Setback Comparison
B-4 Regional
Business District
I-1 Light Industrial
District
IBC Industrial
Business Campus
Front 0 feet 30 feet 50 feet
Side (Interior) 0 feet 15 feet 30 feet
Side (Street)0 feet 30 feet 50 feet
Rear 0 feet 15 feet 40 feet
Planning Commission Agenda – 5/2/17
5
From the table above, the properties’ current zoning is the least restrictive of the three
in terms of setback. The applicant should be aware that any rezoning will result in
more restrictive setback requirements. It is noted that the IBC District imposes a
greater setback requirement than does the I-1 District. However, the parcels are of
adequate size to accommodate development under either district, so setbacks need not
factor into the City’s decision.
Overlay District.The area is within the Freeway Bonus Sign District. This district
allows for additional signage along I-94. The rezone would not exempt the parcels
from this district. It should be noted that the area is also adjacent to the Special Use
Overlay District. The City may wish to consider impacts of these overlay districts on
development of the subject property as separate actions.
B.ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS
1.Motion to adopt Resolution PC-2017 - 008 recommending approval of a
Comprehensive Plan amendment to “Places to Work”, and Ordinance No.
6XX for rezoning from B-4 (Regional Business) District to IBC (Industrial
Business Campus) District as proposed by City Staff.
2.Motion to adopt Resolution PC-2017 - 008 recommending approval of a
Comprehensive Plan amendment to “Places to Work”, and Ordinance No.
6XX for rezoning from B-4 (Regional Business) District to I-1 (Light
Industrial District) as proposed in the application of April 1, 2017.
3.Motion to deny adoption of Resolution PC- 2017 – 008 for a Comprehensive
Plan amendment and rezoning from B-4 Regional Business District to I-1
Light Industrial District as proposed in the application of April 1, 2017.
4.Motion to table Resolution PC-2017 - 008 pending additional information as
identified by the Planning Commission during the public hearing.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION
An amendment of the Comprehensive Plan requires consideration of the general goals
and policies of the City for long-term land use, and how the proposed amendment
would further those goals. In this case, it is noted that the City has a large inventory
of undeveloped commercial property in the Highway 25 corridor, and the
Comprehensive Plan recommends the inclusion of more industrial land uses toward
the northwest.
Commercial uses are better accommodated in concentrations along major accessible
corridors, as well as in proximity to freeway interchanges. At the current time, there
is not immediate freeway interchange near the subject property, although the City is
Planning Commission Agenda – 5/2/17
6
engaged in a series of studies (currently focusing on Highway 25) to determine the
possible location or locations for future interchange locations. As this determination
is quite some time into the future, the industrial designation for the area appears to be
appropriate.
With regard to the specific industrial zoning district, the staff report notes that the
high level of exposure to the freeway, as well as the covenant-enforced requirements
on the adjoining industrial park to the southwest suggest that the IBC District would
be more appropriate for the site than the I-1. Particularly given the restrictions on
outdoor storage and allowance for certain commercial uses, the IBC District would
better reflect the future development of the site in question. As such, staff
recommends Alternative #1, approval of the Comprehensive Plan amendment, and a
rezoning to the IBC, Industrial Business Campus District.
D. SUPPORTING DATA
A.Resolution PC-2017-008
B.Draft Ordinance No. 6XX
C.Aerial Site Image
D.Applicant Narrative
E.Excerpt, Monticello Comprehensive Plan:
a.Land Use Map
b.Economic Development
F.Commercial Land Inventory Map
G.Industrial Land Inventory Map
H.Excerpt, Monticello Zoning Ordinance
a.IBC (Industrial Business Campus)
b.I-1 (Light Industrial)
c.Use Table
I.Excerpt, Monticello Interchange Study
a.Concept Maps
J.Monticello Zoning Map
CITY OF MONTICELLO
WRIGHT COUNTY, MINNESOTA
PLANNING COMMISSION
RESOLUTION NO. PC-2017-008
1
RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF A COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT
REDESIGNATING THE SUBJECT PROPERTY FROM “PLACES TO SHOP” TO
“PLACES TO WORK”, AND REZONING THE SUBJECT PROPERTY FROM
“B-4”, REGIONAL BUSINESS TO “IBC”, INDUSTRIAL BUSINESS CAMPUS”
WHEREAS, the applicant has submitted a request to reguide and rezone subject
property, identified as Outlot C & D, Otter Creek Crossing, resulting in a change from
business-related land uses to industrial-related land uses; and
WHEREAS, the applicant concurrently proposes to market the property for industrial
users; and
WHEREAS, the proposed amendments are consistent with the long-term use and
development of the property suggested by the Comprehensive Plan; and
WHEREAS, the City has experienced a need for additional industrial land through
development inquiries; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on May 2, 2017 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 land use plan amendment and rezoning are an appropriate means of
furthering the intent of the Comprehensive Plan for the site.
2. The use of the site for industrial development is consistent with the City’s
economic development objectives.
3. The amendments result in a land use designation that more closely achieves
the goals and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan than would the current
regulations.
4. The amendments result in the potential for development that would be
compatible and consistent with the existing surrounding land uses in the area.
6. The resulting land uses will have impacts on public services, including sewer,
water, stormwater treatment, and traffic which have been planned to serve the
property for the subject property as proposed.
CITY OF MONTICELLO
WRIGHT COUNTY, MINNESOTA
PLANNING COMMISSION
RESOLUTION NO. PC-2017-008
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 Amendment to the Comprehensive Plan, redesignating
the subject property from “Places to Shop” to “Places to Work”, and adopts Ordinance No.
___ rezoning the subject property from B-4, Regional Business to IBC, Industrial Business
Campus.
ADOPTED this 2nd day of May, 2017, by the Planning Commission of the City of
Monticello, Minnesota.
MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION
By: _______________________________
Brad Fyle, Chair
ATTEST:
____________________________________________
Angela Schumann, Community Development Director
ORDINANCE NO. 6XX
1
CITY OF MONTICELLO
WRIGHT COUNTY, MINNESOTA
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 10 OF THE MONTICELLO CITY CODE,
KNOWN AS THE ZONING ORDINANCE, BY REZONING THE FOLLOWING
PROPERTY FROM B-4, GENERAL BUSINESS DISTRICT TO
IBC, INDUSTRIAL BUSINESS CAMPUS DISTRICT:
OUTLOTS C AND D, OTTER CREEK CROSSING
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MONTICELLO HEREBY ORDAINS:
Section 1. The zoning map of the City of Monticello is hereby amended to rezone the
following described parcels from B-4, Regional Business to IBC, Industrial
Business Campus District:
PID NUMBERS: 155-171-000030 & 155-171-000040
(See attached Legal Description)
Section 2. The City Clerk is hereby directed to mark the official zoning map to reflect this
ordinance. The map shall not be republished at this time.
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 that result from said renumbering process,
provided that such changes retain the purpose and intent of the Zoning Ordinance
as has been adopted.
Section 5. This Ordinance shall take effect and be in full force from and after its passage
and publication. The ordinance in its entirety and map shall be posted on the
City website after publication. Copies of the complete Ordinance and map are
available online and at Monticello City Hall for examination upon request.
ADOPTED BY the Monticello City Council this ___ day of ____, 2017.
__________________________________
Brian Stumpf, Mayor
ORDINANCE NO. 6XX
2
ATTEST:
___________________________________
Jeff O’Neill, Administrator
AYES:
NAYS:
B o wers, Jim/Cha dwick, Joh n - R eq uest for Comp reh en siv e Plan Amen dment an d R ezo ning
Outlot C & D, Otter Creek Crossing | 155-171-000030 & 155-171-000040 | Lengthy Legals
C reated by : C ity of Monticello
546 ft
£¤10 £¤10
Æÿ25
!(14!(11!(43!(50!(68!(5!(81§¨¦94
Æÿ25!(75
!(18
!(117!(3 9
!(106
!(37!(1310 0.5 10.25
Miles-
June 9, 2014Data Source: MnDNR, Sherburne County, Wright County, and WSB & Associates. Land Use Plan
Amended by City Council Resolution 2014-062, June 9, 2014
Legend
Places to Live
Places to Shop
Places to Work
Places to Recreate
Places for Community
Downtown
Mixed Use
Interchange Planning Area
Urban Reserve
Infrastructure
Rivers and Streams
Public Waters Inventory
Wetlands (National & Public Waters Inventories)
Potential Greenway
Potential Interchange
Future Bridge
Existing Arterial or Collector Road
Proposed Arterial or Collector Road
Powerline
Monticello City Boundary
Orderly Annexation Area
Economic Development | 4-72008 Comprehensive Plan ~ Updated 2013
Facilitating Redevelopment
The Comprehensive Plan seeks to create a place where
land use plans, policies, and controls work together
with private investment to properly maintain all
properties in Monticello. It is recognized that this
approach may not succeed in all locations. Despite
the best plans and intentions, properties may become
physically deteriorated and/or economically inviable. In
such places, city intervention may be need to facilitate
redevelopment and prevent the spread of blight. This
intervention may include:
f Acquisition of land.
f Preparation of sites for development.
f Construction or reconstruction of public
improvements.
f Provision of adequate parking supply.
f Remediation of polluted land as needed.
f Removal of other physical and economic barriers
to achieve community objectives.
These actions may require the use of tax increment
financing, tax abatement, or other finance tools
available to the City.
Development Strategies
The following strategies will be used to implement
the Comprehensive Plan in the area of Economic
Development:
1. The City must use the Comprehensive Plan
to provide adequate locations for future job-
producing development (Places to Work).
2. The City should adhere to the Comprehensive Plan
to encourage stable business setting and promote
investment and expansion of facilities.
3. The City should coordinate utility planning
and manage other development to ensure that
expansion areas are capable of supporting new
development in a timely manner.
4. The City will continue to work with existing
businesses to maintain an excellent business
environment, retain jobs, and facilitate expansions.
5. In addition to assisting business seeking to locate
in Monticello, the City should actively target and
market to businesses which will be a supplier,
customer or collaborative partner to existing
businesses within the community.
6. The City should target and market to businesses
which would benefit from Monticello’s utility and
communications infrastructure.
7. The City will work with the CentraCare Health
System to ensure the retention and to promote the
expansion of health care services in Monticello.
8. The City will use the Comprehensive Plan to
maintain and enhance the quality of life in
Monticello as a tool for attracting businesses and
jobs.
Economia Develop
Ideally, the Comprehensive Plan does not have an Economic Development
chapter. The Land Use Plan would be sufficient to channel market forces
to meet the development objectives of the community. In reality, certain
development needs cannot be met without public intervention. The
Economic Development chapter of the Plan focuses on the aspects of
Monticello's future that require particular attention and action by the City.
These actions include:
► Attracting and retaining jobs
► Expanding the tax base
► Enhancing the economic vitality of Downtown
► Facilitating redevelopment
Attracting and Retaining Jobs
The creation and retention of jobs is one of the most important objectives
for Monticello. Jobs, particularly jobs with income levels capable of
supporting a family, are key to achieving many elements of Monticello's
vision for the future.
► Jobs attract residents to the community. Jobs will pay a critical role in
creating the type of "move up" housing sought by the City.
► Jobs provide the income needed to support local business and
government services.
► Retention of businesses promote community stability by keeping jobs
and residents in Monticello.
The Community Context chapter of the Comprehensive Plan contains a
section on Employment. This section contains data about employment in
Monticello and of its residents. Among the key findings in this section are:
► While the community added nearly 5,000 people between 2000 and
2010 according to the U.S. Census, it only added 1,430 jobs according
to the Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages (QCEW). In 2010,
the community had 6,992 jobs according to the QCEW but 7,093
people in the labor force according to the Census.
2008 Comprehensive Plan — Updated 2013 Economic Development 1 4-1
4-2 | Economic Development City of Monticello
f The U.S. Census Bureau, Center for Economic
Studies’ OntheMap website shows that in 2010
4,597 people leave the community each day to
work, while 3,849 people come into the community
to work. Only 835 both live and work in the
community.
f Approximately 15% of residents in 2010 are
employed within the community. This has dropped
from 18% in 2002.
f As shown in Figure 4.1, 2012 data from the
Minnesota Department of Employment and
Economic Development (DEED) on their
mnprospector.com website shows that Monticello
is made up of a wide range of small to medium
sized employers. Only 10 employers have more
than 100 employees. Over half have fewer than
four (4) employees.
f Workers for Monticello businesses come primarily
from Monticello and the surrounding region.
Nearly 75% of people working in Monticello live in
Monticello, adjacent townships, or other places in
Wright and Sherburne counties (2010 OntheMap).
f Nearly 40% of Monticello residents work in
Hennepin County, with the largest percentage in
Minneapolis, Plymouth, and Maple Grove. Another
15% work elsewhere in Wright County, including
Buffalo and St. Michael.
f The 2007-2011 American Community Survey
(ACS) Census reported a mean travel time to work
of 28.5 minutes. This is up from the 2000 Census
travel time of 24 minutes. The mean travel time in
the 2007-2011 ACS was 29.7 minutes for Wright
County and 24.5 minutes for the region overall.
Background Reports
The City of Monticello conducts studies and assessments
as needed to help guide its economic development
efforts. The findings and recommendations of these
studies are summarized below with the most recent
provided first.
2010 Business Retention and Expansion Research (BR&E)
Report
Monticello’s Business Retention and Expansion (BR&E)
program was initiated by the City of Monticello, the
Monticello Chamber of Commerce and Industry,
DEED, and the University of Minnesota Extension. It
was also sponsored by over a dozen local businesses.
Through the BR&E program, 60 businesses were
visited. Findings from the visits and data analysis found:
f 78% of the visited businesses were locally owned
and operated.
f 20% of businesses were in manufacturing, 18% in
retail trade, and 13% in other services.
f The businesses employed over 1,600 full-time and
975 part-time employees, with a trimmed average
(an average where the low and high were discarded
to prevent skewing) of 15.38 full-time employees,
slightly down from 15.52 three years ago. The
firms also had a trimmed average of 7.76 part-time
employees, up from 6.96 three years ago.
f Most full-time employees are in manufacturing,
food and beverage, retail trade, and medical, while
part-time employees are in medical, retail trade,
and tourism/recreational services.
f Survey results indicated that the medical industry
is the highest employer in Monticello, followed by
retail trade and manufacturing.
f Businesses in the community are fairly stable with
about half expecting some type of change.
The BR&E identified four strategies aimed at helping
businesses become more profitable. Each strategy
was accompanied by a list of potential projects
intended to be ideas for the community to explore.
The implementation of the projects is intended to be
a collaborative effort among the various sectors of the
community. The four strategies identified included:
Number of
Establishments by Size Number Percent
1-4 Employees 254 52.05
5-9 Employees 97 19.88
10-19 Employees 64 13.11
20-49 Employees 42 8.61
50-99 Employees 21 4.30
100-249 Employees 7 1.43
250-499 Employees 2 0.41
500-999 Employees 1 0.20
Figure 4-1: 2012 Total Establishments by Size
Economic Development | 4-32008 Comprehensive Plan ~ Updated 2013
f Improve Business Retention and Expansion
Through Technical and Development Assistance.
f Improve Labor Force Availability and Productivity.
f Improve Infrastructure to Help Move Goods,
Customers, and the Labor Force More Efficiently.
f Improve and Promote the Quality of Life in
Monticello.
During the 2013 comprehensive plan economic
development update process, it was noted that the 2010
Business Retention and Expansion Research strategies
were similar to the 2008 Development Strategies. The
review process identified the need to continue similar
strategies into the future.
Preceding the development of the 2008 Comprehensive
Plan an assessment was conducted by St. Cloud State
University to determine whether a bioscience park
should be established in Monticello. At that time the
bioscience industry was an economic development
focus statewide. While the attraction of a bioscience
business is not a particular focus of Monticello today,
there are findings of that study that can be useful to
consider in the overall development of economic
development strategies for the community.
Some of the Monticello’s strengths for attracting
businesses included:
f Land availability (compared to Metro Area).
f Access to major highways (I-94, U.S. 10 and STH
25).
f Regional growth of employment base.
f Development of local fiber optic system.
f Proximity to universities.
f Overall location.
f Expansive park system.
f Monticello Community Center.
Recommended business development activities that
apply to the attraction and retention of all businesses
include ensuring that there are sites suitable and
attractive to potential businesses available and ready
for development. The community should continue to
explore and establish partnerships with a variety of
stakeholders that can work together to support business
attraction and retention. This includes the identification
of funding sources which may be an incentive for
businesses locating in Monticello. When available the
City should participate in special tax zones that have
been made available at the state and federal level to
support business development and retention.
Expanding the Tax Base
A traditional objective of local economic development
planning is the expansion of the property tax base.
Under the current system of local government finance,
property taxes are the largest source of city revenue.
For this reason, it is an important aspect of economic
development planning in Monticello.
Understanding the Property Tax System
Effective strategies to promote the growth of the tax
base require a clear understanding of the property tax
system.
Property Valuation
There are three forms of property valuation. The
foundation of the property tax system is Estimated
Market Value. This amount is the value of a parcel
of property as set by the County Assessor. In some
circumstances, the State Legislature limits the amount
of Estimated Market Value that can be used for taxation.
These adjustments result in the Taxable Market Value.
The value used to calculate property taxes is Tax
Capacity. Tax Capacity Value is a percentage of Taxable
Market Value. The percentage factors are set by the
State Legislature and vary by class of property.
Changes in the Tax System
Traditional economic development theory seeks
commercial and industrial development as a means of
building tax base. Historically, the system supported
this approach. A dollar of estimated market value of
commercial-industrial property carried a higher tax
capacity value than residential property. Over the past
twelve years, tax “reforms” by the State Legislature have
changed this situation.
Destination for Innovation
1.
3.
7.
5.
9.
2.
4.
8.
6.
10.
14.
18.
23.
27.
12.
16.
20.
25.
29.
39.
11.
15.
19.
24.
28.
38.
13.
17.
22.
21.
26.
30.
40.
31.
41.
32.
42.
33.
43.
34.
44.
35.
45.
36.
46.
37.
47.48.
49.
PIDUpdated: 4/2016 Owner
Jim Thares
Jim.Thares@ci.monticello.mn.us
(763) 271-3254
Properties for Sale
Guided Commercial
Size (Acres)2013 Taxes Zoning
155-050-000020
155-018-001020
155-500-142104
155-500-142300
155-500-142303
155-213-001010
155-500-142400
155-221-000010
155-210-001010
155-164-000020155-176-001020
155-176-002011
155-164-000040155-164-000050
155-164-000030
155-193-001020
155-151-004010
155-174-001010
155-171-001021
155-157-001020
155-157-001010
155-151-003010
155-500-142210
155-125-004110
155-171-000040
155-171-000030
Joseph Lofromboise Trust
Kean of Monticello, Inc
City of Monticello
Premier Bank Minnesota
City of Monticello
City of Monticello
Glen & Lois Posusta
John & Mary Lundsten
Ocello LLC
Quad Development LLC
Kleinbank
City of MonticelloCity of Monticello
City of Monticello
City of MonticelloCity of Monticello
City of Monticello
Highland Bank
Ohana Properties Family LP
Ohana Properties Family LP
4134 Deegan Avenue NE LLC
Arma Property LLC
Ohana Properties Family LP
Bradley & Sharon Larson
City of Monticello
Ocello LLC
Wells Fargo Bank NA
Ocello LLC
John Chadwick Farms LLC
J X Bowers LLC
3.13
1.92
5.11
18.31
3.20
3.07
1.79
38.87
43.15
3.80
1.80
2.832.70
1.29
6.14
2.14
7.20
7.02
0.57
0.90
1.16
1.671.55
1.78
4.11
12.96
6.28
11.85
19.09
19.09
$3,340.00
$4,938.00
$0.00
$29,934.00
$0.00
$0.00
$9,800.00
$1,628.00
$0.00
$6,474.00
$6,160.00
$0.00$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$7,984.00
$2,476.00
$4,482.00
$6,304.00
$9,424.00$6,368.00
$2,950.00
$0.00
$7,055.00
$6,042.00
$6,452.00$878.00
$841.00
IBC
B-2
B-2
R-PUD
B-2
B-4
B-3
B-3
B-3
B-3
B-4
B-4
B-4
B-4
B-4
B-4
B-4
B-4
B-3
B-4
B-4
B-4
B-4
B-4
B-4
B-4
B-3
B-3
B-3B-3
B-4
B-4
155-029-002130 G&E Properties LLC 4.18 $5,302.00 IBC
155-029-002120 G&E Properties LLC 2.03 $2,940.00 IBC
155-029-002110 G&E Properties LLC 2.11 $3,054.00 IBC
155-029-002100 G&E Properties LLC 2.20 $3,186.00 IBC155-029-002090 G&E Properties LLC 2.28 $3,300.00 IBC
155-029-002050
155-068-001010
155-185-001010
155-202-001060155-079-001010
155-212-001010
155-212-001030155-178-002030
155-205-001020
155-117-002010
155-117-001030
155-086-000010
155-196-000020
Kenneth Maus
Riverwood Bank
State of Minnesota
IRET PropertiesJyoti R Patel
Monticello Industrial Park
Monticello Industrial Park, Inc
Ryan Companies US INC
Kean of Monticello, IncRyan Companies US INC
Ryan Companies US INC
MMC Land Company LLC
MMC Land Company LLC
SPO LLC
5.40
19.35
1.58
0.510.79
40.83
1.54
1.091.27
1.87
5.04
2.24
0.95
1.43
$3,230.00
$30,286.00
$0.00
$0.00$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$263.00
IBC
B-3
B-3
B-3
B2/IBC
B-3
B-4
B-4
B-4
B-4
Legend
Privately Owned Properties - Guided Commercial
City Owned Properties - Guided Commercial
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.8.9.
10.11.12.13.
14.15.
16.17.
18.
19.20.
21.
22.
23.24.25.26.
27.
28.
30.31.32.33.34.35.
36.
37.38.
39.40.
41.
42.43.44.45.
46.
47.48.
49.
29.
155-037-001010
B-4
B-4
155-125-000040
155-125-000070
155-227-000010
155-011-000171
Destination for Innovation
1.
5.
9.
3.
7.
11.
2.
6.
10.
12.
13.
4.
8.
PID
Updated: 4/2016
Owner Size (Acres)2013 Taxes Zoning
Jim Thares
Jim.Thares@ci.monticello.mn.us
(763) 271-3254
Properties for Sale
Guided Industrial
Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, i-cubed, USDA, USGS, AEX, Getmapping,
Aerogrid, IGN, IGP, swisstopo, and the GIS User Community
Legend
Privately Owned Properties - Guided Industrial
City Owned Properties - Guided Industrial
1.2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
City of Monticello 10.87 $0.00 I-1
155-191-000020 City of Monticello 1.83 $0.00 I-1
City of Monticello 5.28 $0.00 I-1
City of Monticello 4.99 $0.00 I-1
City of Monticello 6.67 $0.00 I-1
City of Monticello 16.1 Dev $0.00 I-1
City of Monticello 5.01 $0.00 I-1
155-185-000010
155-171-000060
City of Monticello
City of Monticello
2.32
13.67
$0.00
$0.00
I-1
A-0
155-018-003020 Kenneth & Teresa Spaeth 4.39 $4,452.00 I-2
Properties for Sale
Guided Industrial
Monticello Industrial Park Inc
Schultz & Schupp LLC
Standard Iron
7.25
1.18
4.5
$4,164.00
$3,302.00
$5,948
IBC
I-1
I-2
155-038-001060
Jim Thares
Jim.Thares@ci.monticello.mn.us
(763) 271-3254
155-194-000010
155-223-000010
155-194-000010
155-194-000020
155-171-000050
155-194-000040
155-143-001020
155-018-002070
CHAPTER 3: ZONING DISTRICTS
Section 3.6 Industrial Base Zoning Districts
Subsection (C) Industrial and Business Campus District
City of Monticello Zoning Ordinance Page 123
(C) Industrial and Business Campus District
Section 3.6 (C)
IBC Industrial and Business Campus District
The purpose of the “IBC” industrial business campus
district is to provide for the establishment of limited
light industrial business offices, limited light
manufacturing, wholesale showrooms and related uses
in an environment which provides a high level of
amenities, including landscaping, preservation of
natural features, architectural controls, and other
features.
Base Lot Area
Minimum = 8,000 sq ft.
Base Lot Width
Minimum = 100 ft.
Typical IBC Building Types
Typical IBC Lot Configuration
CHAPTER 3: ZONING DISTRICTS
Section 3.6 Industrial Base Zoning Districts
Subsection (C) Industrial and Business Campus District
Page 124 City of Monticello Zoning Ordinance
TABLE 3-16: IBC 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 50 30 50 40
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.
Additional
Regulations
In the IBC district, every effort shall be made to preserve natural ponding areas and features of the land
to create passive open space.
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 (D) I-1: Light Industrial District
City of Monticello Zoning Ordinance Page 125
(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 126 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 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
Residential Uses 5.2(C)(1)
Attached Dwelling Types 5.2(C)(2)(a)
- Duplex P C *SEE TABLE 5-1A 5.2(C)(2)(b)
- Townhouse C P 5.2(C)(2)(c)
- Multiple-Family C P C C 5.2(C)(2)(d)
Detached Dwelling P P P P P P None
Group Residential
Facility, Single Family P P P P P 5.2(C)(3)
Group Residential
Facility, Multi-Family C C C 5.2(C)(3)
Mobile & Manufactured
Home / Home Park C C C P C 5.2(C)(4)
Civic & Institutional Uses
Active Park Facilities
(public) P P P P P P P P P P P P *SEE TABLE 5-1A P P P None
Active Park Facilities
(private) P P P P P P P 5.2(D)(1)
Assisted Living Facilities C P C 5.2(D)(2)
Cemeteries C C C C C C C 5.2(D)(3)
Clinics/Medical Services C P P C None
Essential Services P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P None
Hospitals C P P C 5.2(D)(4)
Nursing/Convalescent
Home C C C C C C C C C P P 5.2(D)(5)
Passenger Terminal C C C C None
Passive Parks and Open
Space P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P None
Place of Public Assembly C C C C C P C 5.2(D)(6)
Public Buildings or Uses C C C C C C C P C C P P C P P 5.2(D)(7)
Schools, K-12 C C C C C C I I 5.2(D)(8)
Schools, Higher
Education C None
Utilities (major) C C C 5.2(D)(9)
Office Uses
Offices P P C P * P P P 5.2(E)
CHAPTER 5: USE STANDARDS
Section 5.1 Use Table
Subsection (A) Explanation of Use Table Structure
Page 320 City of Monticello Zoning Ordinance
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
Commercial Uses
Adult Uses *SEE TABLE 5-1A P P 3.7(K)
Auction House C 5.2(F)(2)
Auto Repair – Minor C C P P 5.2(F)(3)
Automotive Wash Facilities P C 5.2(F)(4)
Bed & Breakfasts C C C C C 5.2(F)(5)
Boarding House C 5.2(F)(6)
Brew Pub P P 5.2(F)(7)
Business Support Services P P P P P None
Commercial Lodging C P P 5.2(F)(8)
Communications/Broadcasting P P P P 5.2(F)(9)
Convenience Retail C P P P 5.2(F)(10)
Country Club C 5.2(F)(11)
Day Care Centers C C P P C 5.2(F)(12)
Entertainment/Recreation,
Indoor Commercial P P C C C 5.2(F)(13)
Entertainment/Recreation,
Outdoor Commercial C C C C 5.2(F)(14)
Financial Institution P C P 5.2(F)(15)
Funeral Services P P 5.2(F)(16)
Kennels (commercial) C 5.2(F)(17)
Landscaping / Nursery
Business P 5.2(F)(18)
Personal Services C P P P P P 5.2(F)(22)
Production Brewery or
Micro-Distillery without
Taproom
P P 5.2(G)(10)
Production Brewery or
Micro-Distillery with
Taproom or Cocktail Room
C C C C C 5.2(F)(24)
5.2(G)(11)
Recreational Vehicle Camp
Site C 5.2(F)(25)
Repair Establishment C P P 5.2(F)(26)
Restaurants C P P 5.2(F)(27)
Retail Commercial Uses
(other) P P P 5.2(F)(28)
Specialty Eating
Establishments C P P P 5.2(F)(29)
CHAPTER 5: USE STANDARDS
Section 5.1 Use Table
Subsection (A) Explanation of Use Table Structure
City of Monticello Zoning Ordinance Page 321
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 SEE TABLE 5-1A 5.2(F)(30)
Vehicle Sales and Rental 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 *SEE TABLE 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 5.1 Use Table
Subsection (A) Explanation of Use Table Structure
Page 322 City of Monticello Zoning Ordinance
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
Commercial Offices – Principal C P P C L-2: NA first floor,
CUP upper floors 5.2(F)(20)
Commercial Recreation: Indoor P P C C none 5.2(F)(13)
Commercial Recreation:
Outdoor C C none 5.2(F)(14)
Convenience Retail C P* C C *F-2 Drive Through by CUP 5.2(F)(10)
Funeral Services C C none 5.2(F)(16)
Medical / Clinical Services C P P P L-2: NA first floor,
CUP upper floors 5.2(F)(19)
Personal Services P P P P L-3: CUP 5.2(F)(22)
Places of Public Assembly C C C C none 5.2(F)(23)
Production Brewery or Micro-
Distillery with Taproom or
Cocktail Room
C C C C none 5.2(F)(24)
Professional Office-Services
Including Financial Institutions P P P C L-2: NA first floor,
CUP upper floors
5.2(F)(15)
5.2(F)(21)
Restaurants, Bars < 10,000 SF P P C C none 5.2(F)(27)
Restaurants, Bars > 10,000 SF P C C none 5.2(F)(27)
Retail Sales < 10,000 SF P P C C none 5.2(F)(28)
Retail Sales > 10,000 SF P C C none 5.2(F)(28)
Retail with Service P C C L-2: NA first floor,
CUP upper floors 5.2(F)(28)
Specialty Eating Establishments
< 10,000 SF P* P* C* P* *Drive Through by CUP 5.2(F)(29)
Vehicle Fuel Sales C C C* L-8 only 5.2(F)(30)
Veterinary Facilities C P C C none 5.2(F)(32)
Residential – Upper Floors P P P P L-2: NA
Residential – Street Level C C L-2: NA
Residential – Multiple Family C C L-2: NA
Residential – Townhouse C none
Residential – Single Family C none
Industrial PUD L-3: PUD Only
Public Buildings or Uses C C C P none
Bertram Lake
Birch
Long Lake
Mud Lake
Unnamed
First Lake
¬«25
Interchange Map Option #1
Legend
Proposed Roads
Existing Roads
Concept Greenway (1000 Ft. Corridor)
Wet Areas (Lakes, Rivers, Wetlands)
Parcels
Source: NAC, Inc., WSB & Assc., Wright County
Proposed Land Uses
Commercial
Industrial
Medium Density Residential
Single Family Residential
City Boundary
Existing Land Uses
Commercial
Industrial
Parks and Open Space
Single Family Residential 1,499 Ac.Medium Density Residential 223 Ac.Commercial 248 Ac.Industrial 116 Ac.
Gross Land Use Acres:
Net Land Use Acres (excludes wet areas, greenway & ROW, but incorporates land where existing roads may be removed):
February 8, 2016
0 0.5 10.25 Miles Ü
Mississippi
River
§¨¦94
Single Family Residential 1040 Ac.Medium Density Residential 146 Ac.Commercial 193 Ac.Industrial 103 Ac.
Interchange Area
94
39AETNA75
2590THBROADWAY
120TH
127TH
RIVER
4TH
3RD
CHELSEAELM6THPINECAMERONBRIARWOOD7TH
CEDAR10 0 TH
SCHOOL LINNDUNDASMARVINMAPLEWALNUTPARK PLACE
PRAIRIE
SANDY
GOLF COURSE
EDMONSON110TH
119TH
5TH
SAVANNAH
1 1 6 T HAFTON
DALTON
97THPRESCOTTMINNESOTADEEGANHEDMAN102ND
REDFORDPALMSANDBERGIN N S B R O O KALPINE
CHAMBERLAI
NFRONT
WESTONFAIRWAY
PINE ST TO WB I94
W O O D S ID E VINEFA R M S T E A D
99 T H
KEVIN LONGLEY
PINE ST TO EB I94SPRUCE
BRENTWOOD
HILLTOP
HILLCREST
MATTHEWCRAIGOTTERCREEKHAYWARDMARVIN ELWOODOAK124TH
OAKWOODKAMPACROCUSLOCUSTKENNETHDARROW
SU
M
MITOAKVIEW LOCUSTCEDARVINERIVER
94
5TH
7THDALTONMINNESOTA 25RIVER
Bertram Lake
Birch
Long Lake
Mud Lake
Unnamed
First Lake
Interchange Map Option #2
Legend
Proposed Roads
Existing Roads
Concept Greenway (1000 Ft. Corridor)
Wet Areas (Lakes, Rivers, Wetlands)
Parcels
0 0.5 10.25 Miles Ü
Source: NAC, Inc., WSB & Assc., Wright County
City Boundary
Existing Land Uses
Commercial
Industrial
Parks and Open Space
Single Family Residential 940 Ac.Medium Density Residential 123 Ac.Commercial 123 Ac.Industrial 184 Ac.
Gross Land Use Acres:
Single Family Residential 769 Ac.Medium Density Residential 115 Ac.Commercial 44 Ac.Industrial 155 Ac.
Net Land Use Acres (excludes wet areas, greenway & ROW, but incorporates land where existing roads may be removed):
Proposed Land Uses
Medium Density Residential
Single Family Residential
Commercial
Industrial
§¨¦94
Mississippi
River
¬«25
Interchange Area
94
39
75
AETNABROADWAY
2590TH120TH
127TH
4TH
RIVER
3RD
CHELSEAELM6THPINECAMERON7THBRIARWOOD100TH
CEDARLINNMARVI
NDUNDASMAPLEWALNUTPARK PLACE
PRAIRIE
SANDY
GOLF COURSE
110TH
119TH
5TH
SAVANNAH
EDMONSON1 1 6 T HAFTON
DALTON
PRESCOTTMINNESOTAHEDMANPALMSANDBERGIN N S B R O O K
REDFORDALPINECHAMBERLAI
NFRONT
WESTONFAIRWAY
PINE ST TO WB I94
W O O D S ID E VINE99 T H
KEVIN LONGLEY
PINE ST TO EB I94SPRUCE
BRENTWOOD
HILLTOP
HILLCREST
MATTHEW102NDCRAIGOTTERCREEKHAYWARDMARVIN ELWOODOAK124TH
OAKWOODKAMPACROCUSLOCUSTCHESTNUTKENNETHDARROW
SU
M
MITOAKVIEW LOCUSTCEDARVINERIVER
94
5TH
7THDALTONMINNESOTA 25RIVER
Bertram Lake
Birch
Long Lake
Mud Lake
Unnamed
First Lake
Interchange Map Option #3
Legend
Proposed Roads
Existing Roads
Concept Greenway (1000 Ft. Corridor)
Wet Areas (Lakes, Rivers, Wetlands)
Parcels
§¨¦94
¬«25
Mississippi
River
Source: NAC, Inc., WSB & Assc., Wright County
Proposed Land Uses
Commercial
Industrial
Medium Density Residential
Single Family Residential
City Boundary
Existing Land Uses
Commercial
Industrial
Parks and Open Space
February 8, 2016
0 0.5 10.25 Miles Ü
Single Family Residential 941 Ac.Medium Density Residential 127 Ac.Commercial 249 Ac.Industrial 303
Net Land Use Acres (excludes wet areas, greenway & ROW, but incorporates land where existing roads may be removed):
Interchange Area
Single Family Residential 1,235 Ac.Medium Density Residential 140 Ac.Commercial 405 Ac.Industrial 466
Gross Land Use Acres:
94
39
75
AETNABROADWAY
2590TH120TH
127TH
4TH
RIVER
3RD
CHEL SEAELM6THPINECAMERON7THBRIARWOOD100TH
CEDARLINNMARVI
NDUNDASMAPLEWALNUTPARK PLACE
PRAIRIE
SANDY
GOLF COURSE
110TH
119TH
5TH
EDMONSONSAVANN AH
1 1 6 T HAFTON
DALTO
N
PRESCOTTMINNESOTAHEDMANPALMSANDBERGIN N S B R O O K
REDFORDALPINECHAMBERLAI
NFRONT
WESTONFAIRWAY
PINE ST TO WB I94
W O O D S ID E VINE99 T H
KEVIN LONGLEY
PINE ST TO EB I94SPRUCE
BRENTWOOD102NDHILLTOP
HILLCREST
MATTHEWCRAIGOTTERCREEKHAYWARDMARVIN ELWOODOAK124TH
OAKWOODKAMPACROCUSLOCUSTKENNETHDARROW
SU
M
MITOAKVIEW LOCUSTCEDARVINERIVER
94
5TH
7THDALTONMINNESOTA 25RIVER
Be rtram Lake
Birch
Long Lake
Mud Lake
Unnamed
First Lake
¬«25
Interchange Map Option #4
Legend
Proposed Roads
Existing Roads
Concept Greenway (1000 F t. Corridor)
Wet Areas (Lakes, Rivers, Wetlands)
Parcels
Source: N AC, Inc., WSB & Assc., Wright County
City Boundary
Existing Land Uses
Comm ercial
Industrial
Parks and Open Space
March 1, 2 016
Mississippi
River
§¨¦94
0 0.5 10.25 Miles Ü
Proposed Land Uses
Medium Density R esidential
Single Fam ily Residential
Single Family Reside ntial 1,172 Ac.Med ium Density R esiden tia l 1 23 Ac.
Gross Land Use Acres :
Net Land Use Ac res (excludes w et areas, gre enw ay & R OW, but incorporate s land where existing roads may be re move d):
Single Family Reside ntial 919 Ac.Med ium Density R esiden tia l 7 3 Ac.
No Build
County Hwy 75
Chelse
a
R
d
State Hwy 2585th St NE90th St NELinn StPine St7th St
School Blvd
Riverview Dr
Cedar StW Rive
r
S
t
Marvin
Rd
Jason Ave
Dundas Rd
W Bro
a
d
w
a
y
S
t
Hart
B
l
v
d
Country LaHaug Ave NEElm StW 4th
S
t
Fenning Ave NEOakwook DrMallard La
95th St NE
Fallon Ave NEEdmonson Ave NEMississipp
i
D
r
5th St
Co
u
n
t
r
y
C
l
u
b
R
d
Sandberg RdPelican LaFalcon Dr
Fenning AveWalnut StOak Ridge DrOriole LaClub View Rd
Bro
a
d
w
a
y
S
t
Hillcrest Rd
E River
S
t
Headman
L
a
Mi
l
l
Tra
i
l
LaFalcon Ave NEWright StBenton StElwood RdRamsey St6th St
River Mill Dr
Wildwood Way
Hilltop Dr
Mill Run Rd
Oak View La
Farmstead AveMartin Dr
4th St E
3rd St
E
Red Rock LaGillard Ave NEMaple StFallon DrWillow StView La EGrey Stone AveMar
v
i
n
E
l
w
o
o
d
R
d
Fiel
d
c
r
e
s
t
C
i
rFairway DrJason
A
v
e
N
EVine StMeadow La
Jerr
y
L
i
e
f
e
r
t
D
r
Praire Rd
Starling DrPalm StUnknown or No StreetnameFallon AveGolf Course Rd
Falcon AveKevin Longley Dr Craig LaRed Oak LaFront
S
t
5th St
W
Thomas Park DrLocust StMockingbird La
W 3rd
S
t
Eastwood CirBriar Oaks Blvd
F
a
rm
s
t
e
a
d
D
r Henipin StEider LaDayton StOak L
a
River Forest Dr
Meadow Oak Ave
Kampa Cir
Oak R
idge
C
ir
Mill Ct
River Ridge La
Garrison AveOakvi
e
w
C
tDundas CirKenneth LaOtter Creek RdMinnesota StEagle CirCrocus LaMe
a
d
o
w
O
a
k
L
a
Stone Ridge DrChestnut St120th St NE
Dar
r
o
w
A
v
e
N
E
Diamond Dr
Pebble Brook Dr
Widgeon LaWashington StBunker CirHomestead DrThomas CirEn
d
i
co
t
t
T
rCenter CirOak View CirSandtrap CirCountry Cir
Cheyen Ct
Ol
d
T
e
r
r
i
t
o
r
a
l
R
d
Tanager CirHillcrest CirOsprey Ct
Ac
o
r
n
C
i
rBalboul CirS
w
a
l
l
o
w
C
i
r
Riverside Cir
Meadow Oak CtMatthew CirE Oak DrStone Ridge CirOakwood DrMeadow Oak Ave NECo
u
n
t
y
H
w
y
7
5
Hart
B
l
v
dMarvin RdMarvin RdWright St90th St NECedar StMinnesota St01
02
03
04
City of MonticelloOfficial Zoning Map
01-23-17
:Legend
BASE ZONING DISTRICTS
Industrial Districts
IBC
I-1
I-2
Residential Districts
-- Low Residential Densities
A-O
R-A
R-1
Business Districts
B-1
B-2
B-3
B-4
CCD-- Medium Residential Densities
T-N
R-2
R-PUD
-- High Residential Densities
R-3
R-4
M-H
OTHER
Water
Mississippi Wild, Scenic & Rec Overlay District
OVERLAY DISTRICTS
Performance Based Overlay District
!!!!!!!!!!!!Shoreland District
Special Use Overlay District
!!!!!!!!!!!!Freeway Bonus Sign District
Mills Fleet Farm03
Red Rooster04
PUDs
Swan River01
Monticello
High School02
Planning Commission Agenda: 05/02/17
1
3A. Community Development Director’s Report.
1.Planning Commission Recommendations
Due to the tabling of the FRHP Lincolnshire item, no Planning Commission
recommendations were required to be forwarded for review by the Council.
2.Downtown Small Area Study Update
The City’s project consultants, the Cuningham Group and Tangible Consulting, presented
conceptual land use scenarios for the downtown small area to four separate stakeholder
groups and the EDA over the last two weeks.
The stakeholder groups included property and business owners, Wright County and
MnDOT engineers and other partners interested in the downtown planning process, such
as the school district, hospital and library.
The EDA has a chance to weigh in with comments on the preliminary goals and concepts
in a workshop on April 25th.
Important upcoming dates for the plan:
Steering Committee meeting – Thursday, May 4th, 2017
Public Open House – Wednesday, May 31st, 2017
It is anticipated that the Planning Commission will review the plan in June or July.
3.Legislative Update
Land use matters are often on the table in any legislative session, with the 2017 session
being no exception.
Planning Commissioners are encouraged to stay up-to-date on legislation which may
impact land use review and decision-making by visiting the League of MN Cities website.
Commissioners can also sign up for their Cities Bulletin, which covers not only legislative
topics, but other issues important to policy makers and citizen volunteers like the Planning
Commission. To view the latest issue and sign up, visit:
https://www.lmc.org/page/1/cities-bulletin-newsletter.jsp
One issue that has been working its way through the legislature is a proposal to amend the
statutes for interim ordinances, often referred to as moratoriums. The proposed bill would
restrict the use of interim ordinances as related to housing proposals. Please read the
latest information on this proposed legislation, provided by the League of MN Cities at:
https://www.lmc.org/page/1/InterimOrdinanceUpdate.jsp
April 18, 2017
The Buffalo Walk Bike Coalition invites you to attend a Bikeable Community Workshop in Buffalo this
spring. This workshop is part of an effort to make it safer and easier for residents of all abilities to walk
and bike around Buffalo. The workshop is being presented by the Minnesota Departments of Health and
Transportation and the Bicycle Alliance of Minnesota.
We invite you to participate in this six-hour workshop on Thursday, May 18th from 7:45 am -2:00 pm at
Discovery Elementary at 301 2nd Ave NE in Buffalo. We want your help developing realistic strategies to
make Buffalo a safe and more pleasant place to bike, improving the economic vibrancy of our
community and the health of our residents.
At the workshop, we will learn more about successful bike design, safety, education, enforcement, and
encouragement. We will relate these concepts specifically to Buffalo by studying a bike route during the
workshop. A guided bike ride around Buffalo will help us understand and identify obstacles to biking and
suggest potential short-term and long-term solutions.
Please wear comfortable shoes and clothing suitable for the weather that day. Also, bring along a bicycle
and helmet to participate in the mobile workshop portion—a leisurely paced 4-5 mile bike ride in small
groups highlighting bicycle facilities and opportunities. A limited number of bicycles will be available at
no cost to those who do not have access to a bicycle.
We hope you will be able to join us for this important workshop. To register for this workshop, complete
the registration form available at: https://goo.gl/forms/sm7lftFqydC96pLj2
Questions? Contact Mikaela Robertson at (763) 682-7513 or Mikaela.Robertson@co.wright.mn.us.
Buffalo Bikeable Community Workshop Agenda
7:45 am -2:00 pm Thursday, May 18th 2017
Discovery Elementary, 301 2nd Ave NE, Buffalo
7:45 am Registration, refreshments
8:00 am Welcome & Introductions
Define the 6 Es (Equity, Evaluation and Planning, Engineering, Education, Enforcement,
Encouragement) and the benefits of supporting biking
Equity – the role of equity in community improvement
Evaluation & Planning - bicycle counting, bicycle plans, and land use planning
Engineering
Education – riding in traffic
Break
Mobile Workshop: 5 Mile Community Assessment and Ride
12:00 pm Reconvene & Lunch
Enforcement - examples
Encouragement - examples
Summary & Evaluation
Bicycle Friendly Community Discussion & Action Planning
2:00 pm End