Planning Commission Agenda 05-02-2006
.
.
.
I
AGENDA
MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION
Tuesday, May 2nd, 2006
, 6:00 PM
Commissioners:
Rod Dragsten, Lloyd Hilgart, Craig Schibonski, William Spartz,
and Sandy Suchy
Council Liaison:
Glen Posusta
Staff:
Jeff O'Neill, Angela Schumann and Steve Grittman - NAC
1. Call to order.
2. Approval of the minutes of the regular Planning Commission meeting of Tuesday, April 4th,
2006.
3. Consideration of adding items to the agenda.
4. Citizen comments.
5.
Public Hearing - Consideration of a request for a Conditional Use Permit for a Concept
Stage Planned Unit Development for Rosewood Heights, an 8-unit townhome unit
development in an R-2 (Single and Two-Family Residential) District.
Applicant: Minnesota Development Agency, LLC
6. Public Hearing - Consideration of a request for a Conditional Use Permit for Open and
Outdoor Storage, Open and Outdoor Sales and Display and Minor Automobile Repair in a B-
4 (Regional Business) District.
Applicant: Jeff's Dream, LLC/Moon Motors
7. Public Hearing - Consideration of a request for an Amendment to the Monticello Zoning
Ordinance regulating directional signage or identification signs for institutional uses in
the P-S, Public Semi-Public District..
Applicant: Resurrection Lutheran Church
8. Comprehensive Plan Update
.
.
.
I
MINUTES
MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION
Tuesday, April 4th, 2006
6:00 PM
.,
Rod Dragsten, Lloyd Hilgart, Craig Schibonski, William Spartz, and
Sandy Suchy
Commissioners:
Council Liaison:
Glen Posusta
Staff:
Jeff O'Neill, Angela Schumann and Steve Grittman - NAC
1. Call to order.
Chairman Dragsten called the meeting to order at 6:00 PM and declared a full quorum of the
Commission.
2. Approval ofthe minutes of the rel!Ular Planning Commission meeting ofTuesdav. March 7th. 2006.
Schibonski noted a correction to the spelling of Chairman Dragsten's name on the last page.
MOTION BY COMMISSIONER HILGART TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF MARCH 7th, 2006.
MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER SCHIDONSKI. MOTION CARRIED, 5-0.
3.
Consideration of adding items to the agenda.
Schibonski requested as item 16 the addition of a discussion regarding the City Council approval of
Niagara Falls and Hidden Forest plats.
4. Citizen comments.
NONE.
5. Public Hearing - Consideration of a reauest for Conditional Use Permit for a professional office
in a B-1 (Neighborhood Business) District. Applicant: Don Hickman
Grittman presented the staff report, explaining the proposed use and the intent of the B-1 district.
Grittman also noted the primarily residential uses that surround the subject property. Grittman
stated that the proposed use meets the zoning ordinance requirements for conditional use permit.
Grittman reported that staff had a discussion with the applicant regarding some of the
requirements of the ordinance in terms of uses in the B-1 district. One of burdens for this
applicant is the need to come through and get a new CUP when the use changes for this property.
Grittman suggested that in the future, the City may want to look at amendment to ease that
process for small businesses, particularly when burden may be out of proportion to the actual
I
Planning Commission Minutes 04104/06
impact of the use. Grittman indicated that the types o(uses such as those proposed by this
applicant are appropriate as either permitted or conditional uses in these types of area.
.
Grittman stated that staff recommends approval with the conditions listed in Exhibit Z.
..
Chairman Dragsten opened the public hearing.
Hearing no comment, Chairman Dragsten closed the public hearing. Dragsten asked the
applicant, Don Hickman, to come to the podium for any questions.
Spartz commented that after reading the applicants concerns in the application narrative, he is
glad that Grittman addressed possible future resolutions to future use issues.
Dragsten agreed, stating that we want to keep business in town and not have frustrated business
owners. Dragsten asked if Hickman had seen and agreed with the conditions listed in Exhibit Z.
,
Hickman questioned the condition asking for verification of landscaping. Dragsten asked if Hickman
had any in place there currently. Hickman replied that he does not. Hickman stated that lighting glare
shouldn't be an issue as the lighted canopy won't be used. Hickman also said that parking lot signage
will not be a problem. Dragsten stated that he isn't sure the landscaping is needed, as it the site is kept
well.
MOTION BY COMMISSIONER SUCHY TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A PROFESSIONAL AND COMMERCIAL OFFICE AT
355 EAST BROADW A ywrTH THE CONDITIONS AS NOTED IN EXHffiIT Z, BASED ON
A FINDING THAT THE LOW-INTENSITY COMMERCIAL USE PROPOSED MEETS THE
CONDITIONS REQUIRED BY CODE, IS COMPATIBLE WITH THE AREA, AND IS
CONSISTENT WITH THE PURPOSE OF THE B-1 DISTRICT.
.
1. Signage for the site consistent with the requirements of the applicable zoning
district.
2. The applicant provide the noted information regarding parking space dimensions
and availability. A parking layout consistent with standard dimensional
requirements for angled parking will be required.
3. Parking lot signage to direct traffic as to the one-way nature of the traffic flow.
4. The applicant verify or provide additional tall shrub plantings to mitigate the
impact of the building wall on the west, and the lighting on the east, relative to
the neighboring residential uses.
5. Other conditions as recommended by the Planning Commission.
MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER SPARTZ. MOTION CARRIED, 5~O.
6. Public Hearing ~ Consideration of a request for Conditional Use Permit to allow a drive-in and
convenience fast food establishment in a B-4 District. Applicant: Tom Holthaus
Grittman reviewed the staff report, referencing the property's location at the northwest comer of
School Blvd. and Deegan Avenue. The site currently adjoins a number of other restaurant
facilities and is zoned B-4. Grittman noted that the City had recently amended the zoning
ordinance to accommodate cross driveways by CUP. The conditional use permit is also needed
for the drive~through. Grittman stated that the plan meets all zoning requirements for parking and
.
2
I
Planning Commission Minutes 04/04/06
.
setbacks. The proposed sign plan shows a free standing sign and three wall signs. The ordinance
allows one per frontage. As such, Grittman reported that this restaurant would be allowed two
wall signs plus the pylon. The applicant will need to remove one wall sign to comply with the
code. Staff has discussed with applicants the removal of the sign along the drive through side.
With that change, sign plan would also meet ordinance. The other primary request that staff had
made was to intensify a portion of landscaping adjacent to the residential neighborhood.
Intensifying the screening and landscaping would block headlights from the drive through and
minimize noise from order board.
"
Grittman stated that staff had a chance to meet with applicants; the applicant appeared amendable
to meeting those conditions at the preliminary level. With those comments, staff is
recommending approval of the conditional use permit.
Spartz asked about the zoning of the corner lot. Grittman indicated that it is commercial, either
B-3 or B-4. O'Neill noted the buffer yard ordinance would apply to that lot.
Suchy asked about the purpose of the right-in, right-out configuration. Grittman stated that there
is a median that prevents left turns out. Traffic has to go back through parking lot and exit on
Deegan.
Schibonski asked ifthe median currently exists. Grittman stated that it may not be there, but it is
part of the School Boulevard plans. Schibonski inquired if this design is consistent with other
combined access points. Grittman stated that this is a standard commercial driveway width, so it
should be more than adequate to handle the traffic.
.
Dragsten asked if it is just this lot being finalized, or the whole plat. Grittman explained that this
lot is being final platted as part of a separate process. Dragsten asked if the lots are being sized
according to what is needed. Girttman confirmed that the developer is final platting the lots as
needed by buyers.
Dragsten stated that he did not find a materials list and asked if that is something the Commission
can get. Grittman stated that the building materials are on one of the sets. The building is
proposed to be EFIS with metal wall banding and cap. There are also metal arches over
windows, and a ledge stone and stucco front elevation finish.
Chairman Dragsten opened the public hearing.
Hearing no comment, Chairman Dragsten closed the public hearing and asked Mr. Holthaus to
make himself available for questions.
Schibonski asked if there was going to be a sidewalk. Grittman stated that there is a pathway in
place on the north side of School Boulevard. A sidewalk will extend along Deegan. Schibonski
asked that the Deegan Avenue sidewalk be added as a condition.
Hilgart clarified that the conditions would be those listed on Exhibit Z, plus the sidewalk.
Holthaus asked the Commission to consider allowing the sod to be removed as a condition and
replaced with rock. Holthaus stated that sod is harder to clean. He stated that the buffer is a
combination of rock with evergreens and lilacs. He noted that the grass would be irrigated.
.
3
I
Planning Commission Minutes 04/04/06
Grittman stated that his primary concern with ground material is under the trees. Grittman stated if
they can maintain the grass in the areas around the building, he has no objection to that. Holthaus .
stated no other problems with Exhibit Z.
Suchy asked if there is otitdoor seating. Holthaus confirmed that there would be a patio.
Posusta asked about the pathway. Grittman indicated that the existing pathway is asphalt and the
proposed sidewalk is concrete.
MOTION BY COMMISSIONER HILGART TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR TACO JOHNS, SUBJECT TO THE CONDITIONS
FOUND IN EXHIBIT Z.
1. The wall sign on the west side of the building shall be removed.
2. The landscape plan shall be revised to provide additional screening in the
northwest comer of the site. Said screening may be accomplished
through dense vegetation, a solid fence, or any combination thereof.
Proposed sod at landscape buffer shall be removed and replaced with
shrubs and/or sock mulch. Sod shall remain around the building.
3. The applicant shall submit sample colors or building photos and verify
that materials of the trash enclosure will match those of the principal
structure.
4.
The volume of the drive-through communication systems shall not be
audible from the nearby residential area. A sound/decibel qualification
may be required at the time of building permit.
.
5. Photometric plan is subject to approval by the City Building Official.
6. Site plan shall be revised to include Deegan Avenue sidewalk.
MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER SPARTZ. MOTION CARRIED, 5-0.
O'Neill noted that the Commission is welcome to review the access design standards at their
convenience.
7. Public HearinQ: - Consideration of a request for Conditional Use Permit for a Concept Sta!!:e
Planned Unit Development for a nursing home and medical. health clinic and professional office
facility in a PZM (Performance Zone Mixed) District.
Applicant: St. Benedict's Senior Community
O'Neill reported that the applicant had withdrawn the request. The Commissioners were provided
with a comment letter submitted by neighboring property owner Merrill Busch for review. O'Neill
stated that no discussion or consideration was required.
.
4
.
.
.
Planning Commission Minutes 04/04/06
8.
Public Hearing: _ Consideration of an Amendment to Conditional Use Permit for a Development
StalZe Planned Unit Development for an expansion to the Muller Theater.
Applicant: AMCON
Grittman discussed request, stating that the applicant is seeking an amendment to the planned unit
development, which was put in place when the theater was originally constructed. The
amendment is being sought to accommodate a theater expansion. The expansion is slightly less
than 10,000 square feet and provides another large theater auditorium, along with additional
parking. Grittman explained that a future access driveway will extend to connect with School
Blvd. The City and the applicant and property owner are working on the exact terminus of that
drive. That doesn't affect the plan or building. Grittman reported that the request meets the
zoning requirements for setbacks and parking. The building itself will be similar to the existing
structure and the landscaping appears to meet the requirements of the zoning ordinance. Staffis
recommending approval with the comments as noted related to the outlet to School Boulevard
and final engineering and building review.
.,
Dragsten asked if there are any potential problems with access. Grittman stated that there are not.
Spartz asked if the expansion area would be accessible from the main theater. Grittman stated
that it would be entirely accessed from within.
Schibonski asked if they would be removing a watermain. Grittman confirmed. Schibonski
asked if they would be adding additional fire safety. Grittman stated that he believes so, that item
is subject to final building review.
Chairman Dragsten opened the public hearing.
Hearing no comment, Chairman Dragsten closed the public hearing.
Suchy indicated that the request seems to be consistent with original approval.
Hilgart asked if with the original request, the theater had the option to add four more screens.
Matt Knutson with AMCON, and Mike Muller with Muller Theaters addressed the Commission.
Muller stated that they have space on other end for 4 screens. They are currently renting those spaces
out for retail use. However, the success of the Monticello theater has necessitated the additional
theater. Muller stated that adding the theater to the east end wasn't feasible. He stated that eventually,
that retail area will be converted to theaters.
Dragsten asked about a timeframe for the expansion. Muller stated that he expects to be substantially
complete by the end of June, although sooner if possible. Dragsten complimented original addition
and asked Muller if he had any problems with the conditions of approval. Muller stated that he had
met with City representatives, and is not opposed to putting the road where the City proposes; the City
just needs to make sure there is enough room to develop other lots.
MOTION BY COMMISSIONER SPARTZ TO RECOMMEND AFPROV AL OF THE
DEVELOPMENT STAGE PUD AMENDMENT FOR AMCON/MULLER THEATRE, BASED ON
A FINDING THAT THE PROPOSED ADDITION IS CONSISTENT WITH THE REQUIREMENTS
OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE, AS WELL AS THE CONDITIONS REQUIRED OF THE
ORIGINAL PUD. THE RECOMMENDATION IS CONDITIONED ON:
5
I
Planning Commission Minutes 04/04/06
a.
The applicant's continuation of work with staff on the westerly
driveway design
Review of the City Engineer for final engineering detail.
Final lighting plan subject to the review of the Building Official.
.
b.
c.
...
MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER HILGART. MOTION CARRIED, 5-0.
9. Public HearinQ: - Consideration of request for variance from the Monticello Zoninl! Ordinance
regulatinl! wall and pylon sil!lla~e and consideration of a request for rezoninQ: from B-3 (Hil!hwav
Business) to B-4 (ReQ:ional Business) for the proposed Warnert Retail plat. Applicant: Miller
Architects and Builders
Grittman presented the staff report, stating that at this time, the applicants have requested tabling
of the sign variance. He reported that they intend to meet with staff regarding that application at
a future time. In terms of the rezoning request, the B-3 district is more tailored to automobile
traffic, while the B-4 zoning district is more suited to retail-oriented uses. Grittman stated that
Staff is recommending approval due to the proposed use, and recommend tabling action on
slgnage.
Spartz asked about any potential issues about changing the zoning now and then seeing
something entirely different proposed for the site. Grittman stated that a B-3 or B-4 designation
doesn't make a large impact in terms of the site plan. The only issue is whether the tenants would
require separate CUPs. Grittman noted that some B-4 uses aren't allowed in B-3 or are
conditional uses. Grittman commented that B-3 is an old district, geared to the automobile, .
setting up areas for gas stations and auto repairs. Due the growth ofthe community, Highway 25
is really a commercial core, and therefore B-4 is most appropriate designation.
Dragsten stated that his that concerns is that the BA would potentially impact users in terms of
standards. Grittman noted that many items, such as parking, are determined by use, not by zone.
Dragsten commented that in that case, when evaluating parking, sites are evaluated based on the
most intense use. Grittman stated that most intense standard is retail; it doesn't matter what zone,
the use determines the parking.
Chairman Dragsten opened the public hearing.
Hearing no comment, Chairman Dragsten closed the public hearing.
MOTION BY COMMISSIONER HILGART TO RECOMMEND AFPROV AL OF THE
REZONING FOR THE PROPOSED PLAT OF W ARNERT RETAIL, BASED ON A FINDING
THAT THE B-4 DISTRICT BEST REFLECTS THE LONG TERM LAND USE FOR THIS
PROPERTY.
MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER SCHIBONSKI. MOTION CARRIED, 5-0.
MOTION BY COMMISSIONER SPARTZ TO TABLE THE HEARING ON THE VARIANCE.
MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER SUCHY.
MOTION CARRIED, 5-0.
.
6
.
.
.
)
Planning Commission Minutes 04/04/06
10.
Public Hearing _ Consideration of a request for an interim use permit for the relocation of a
billboard within Outlot A. Country Club Manor. Applicant:Citv of Monticello '
O'Neill noted that the Commission had dealt with this issue in the past, as this is the second ofthe
two relocations from the former A VR site. The City has established an interim use pemnt that
has allowed us to move billboards moved by public proj ect. If the City finds an appropriate site,
it can accept the lease and then relocate the sign. When the lease runs out, the City can then take
the sign down.
O'Neill reported that the proposed site is at Outlot A of Country Club Manor, next to the RV site.
There are four signs on the property, and this replaces a current sign, for which the lease is
expiring. O'Neill noted that the City will have one less sign on the site and avoid damages
involved with buying A VR property. O'Neill stated that the Commission and Council are asked
to approve the interim use.
Suchy asked about costs to install carrier pipes. O'Neill stated that wouldn't apply to this item, it
was a carry-over from previous item.
Schibonski asked how long the lease is. O'Neill stated that it will mirror what was established
with A VR, and the same terms. It was originally a 15 year agreement, with 13 years left. They
will get same time duration, extended for the time that the sign was down on the A VR site due to
construction.
Dragsten asked about first sign. O'Neill responded that sign went to River Street location, near
the Xcel ballfields. Dragsten stated that typically when talking about interim uses, they are
allowed for a short period of time. He inquired whether the Council has considered this. O'Neill
replied that the City had limited options left, referring to state law for damages that would be due
to the sign company if the signs are not relocated. The Council could have said we could make it
shorter, but would need to pay damages. Posusta stated that since it is on City property, the City
has control of it. At the time the property develops, the City could buyout the contract.
Posusta commented that a tentative agreement had been reached with A YR.
Dragsten stated that he just wanted to note that the City will be setting a precedent for the length
of time in an interim use. O'Neill commented that the time is specific to this use.
Chairman Dragsten opened the public hearing.
Hearing no comment, Chairman Dragsten closed the pubic hearing.
MOTION BY COMMISSIONER SPARTZ TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF GRANT AN
INTERIM USE PERMIT ALLOWING RELOCATION OF A SIGN FROM THE A VR SITE TO
OUTLOT A OF COUNTRY CLUB MANOR. THE TERM OF THE INTERIM USE PERMIT TO
MATCH THE TIME TERMS IDENTIFIED IN THE ORIGINAL LEASE AGREEMENT.
MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER HILGART. MOTION CARRIED, 5-0.
7
Planning Commission Minutes 04/04/06
11.
Consideration to approve a resolution of the City of Monticello Plannine Commission finding
that a modification to the redevelopment plan for Central Monticello Redevelopment Proiect No.
1 and a TIP plan for TIP District No. 1-37 conform to the general plans for the development and
redevelopment of the city.
Applicant: Karlsburger Foods. Inc.
.
Koropchak presented the staff report, stating that the Commission is asked to adopt a resolution
indicating that the district conforms to the redevelopment plans for Monticello, through the
comprehensive plan. Koropchak reported that the TIP district being created is 2.5 acres in size,
for which the City Council did approve the final plat. The buildable lot is 2 acres. Karlsburger
Foods will be relocating from Dayton. On a tour of the Dayton facility, Public Works Director
John Simola found that this company would have little or no effect on the wastewater capabilities
of the City. Koropchak stated that creating a TIF district allows the HRA to collect a portion of
taxes in a process set up by state statute. Koropchak stated that the school district and County
have 30 days to comment; the City has never had any objections from those taxing authorities.
Koropchak stated that this district would be an economic district running for 11 years, and
collecting increment for 9 years. The company has 16 full-time jobs relocating from Dayton,
with an average wage over $21 per hour without benefits. Another 4 full time jobs will be
created in Monticello, at over $18 per hour without benefits. The property is zoned I-IA and is
owned by the City. Karlsburger will be responsible to the covenants established for the first 35
acres of the park. Koropchak reported that the HRA will address the plans and elevations. Staff
will also review those at the appropriate time.
Spartz stated that this company appears to be what the City was looking for in terms of candidates .
for the park.
Schibonski asked if this is only a TIF issue review and is not related to a review of the building.
Koropchak answered that the building will be looked at by staff, as it is a permitted use.
Koropchak indicated that the Commission is responsible for finding that the use fits the zoning
district and comprehensive plan.
Dragsten asked about the minimum wage needed to get TIP. Koropchak stated that for the
industrial park, the criteria is $16 per hour without benefits. The last two proposals brought
forward have been higher than that. Koropchak stated that Karlsburger hopes to close May 1,
with the building move happening in October.
MOTION BY COMMISSIONER SUCHY TO ADOPT A RESOLUTION FINDING THAT A
MODIFICATION TO THE REDEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR CENTRAL MONTICELLO
REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT NO.1 AND THE TIF PLAN FOR TIF DISTRICT NO 1-37
CONFORM TO THE GENERAL PLANS FOR THE DEVELOPMENT AND REDEVELOPMENT
OF THE CITY.
MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER HILGART. MOTION CARRIED, 5-0.
12. Public Hearing - Consideration ofa request for amendment to the Monticello Comprehensive
Plan relatinl! to open space planninl!. Applicant: City of Monticello
O'Neill provided background information regarding this item. O'Neill stated that the amendment is .
being considered in order to support the future purchase of the YMCA property. The YMCA property
8
I
Planning Commission Minutes 04/04/06
.
is approximately 1200 acres, and includes the YMCA's Camp Manitou. The site is located west of \
City, adjacent to the current city limits. It is owned completely by the YMCA.
O'Neill reported that a little over one year ago, the YMCA indicated to the City an interest in selling
property. The YMCA stated that they were looking at putting capital toward other areas. At that time, .,
the City Council took an interest in the site, looking at the history of this asset as part of the City.
Members ofthe Council stated that they were interested in the acquisition and preservation of this site,
believing it important not loose the area to development. A task force was formed to address the issue,
including representatives from the City and County. Since that time, the YMCA has completed an
appraisal. The task force hasn't gotten into serious negotiations with the YMCA at this point. The
task force is working on providing more background info to go the City Council to aid their decision
regarding the possible purchase of the site. The background information includes concept plans,
financing, and operations.
O'Neill stated that the task force's ultimate goal is to preserve the site for public use forever. The
comprehensive plan amendment proposed is an early action in working toward acquisition of that
property.
Grittman stated that the YMCA property is unique in its size, and it is rare to find something this size
and this pristine so close to the City limits. The City is asking the Commission to consider the comp
plan amendment, which would incorporate the entire YMCA as public open space. Grittman
explained that currently, the comp plan designates the majority of the area as open space, but the plan
does not necessarily envision pubic ownership. Grittman stated that this comp plan policy would
incorporate that intent into the comp plan. It also sets the ground work for further implementation
actions.
.
Grittman stated that staff recommends approval.
Hilgart asked what the appraisal came in at. Grittman stated that the property owners are not willing
to share that information at this time. Hilgart asked about vision for the property. Grittman stated that
they are working on that based on factors such as site trips, soil, wetland, and other coverages.
Grittman referred to active recreation area and passive park spaces, stating that it is likely that the
YMCA Camp space would be designated for active spaces, with other limited areas for active use,
such as primitive camping. Grittman indicated that although those would be active, they would be low
impact. The majority of the site would remain passive.
Hilgart asked if there will be access to the lakes. Grittman stated that there are two places for potential
access. It is anticipated that it would non-motorized access.
Suchy stated that she feels that this is a once in a lifetime opportunity for the City. She commented
staff and the Council for their role. Suchy stated that it is essential to preserve this space, as it will be
an enormous benefit to the community in the future.
posusta commented that the City has been working with the County on this potential purchase, for the
purposes of financing and operations.
O'Neill stated that it is important to have the plan amendment in place, so that when looking at
financing techniques, the City can identify that this is part ofthe City's parks and open space plan.
.
posusta asked if the City is diminishing negotiating powers by approving this amendment. Grittman
responded that he thinks the City is enhancing their position in that regard as it reinforces that the
9
,
I
Planning Commission Minutes 04/04/06
City's interest in this property is as parkland, the same is true for the County. Grittman stated that the .
policy doesn't say that it can't be part of County, but that it is integral to the City's park and open
space plan.
Dragsten stated that his concern is the potential cost of this property. He indicated his concern with
adopting this policy is that it would mean that it can't be sold to anything but a public entity. He
stated that seems to preclude anything in the open market. Dragsten stated that he doesn't know ifhe
is supportive of that.
Posusta stated that the City has control out there anyway. Dragsten commented that the amendment
boxes in the area as open space. Grittman replied that this policy just creaks the door open wider for
public use of the property. The Commission is not changing the area's designation as open space, but
it would be opening the door for the City to acquire the property for public open space. Grittman
indicated that as the City goes through the process, the financing becomes more clear. In terms of the
uses, the City may decide that certain portions might be better suited for park and open space. In
which case, then the City would re-draw your map based on those uses.
O'Neill asked Grittman to address the park dedication issue. Grittman referred to dedication
requirements by statute, stating that when you take from private land owners, you have to treat
everyone equally. Grittman stated that this proposed amendment equalizes the impact between land
dedication and cashin lieu of land. This City recently increased the cash dedication fee, and as such,
the City needs to change land requirement in relationship to that ordinance. Grittman noted that the
increased fee was intended to generate a stream of revenue to purchase the YMCA property. Grittman
reported that it is also important to note that the City can't put dedication all off on new development,
parkland dedication has to be balanced between existing and projected growth areas.
.
Posusta noted that this policy is also consistent with Council's direction to encourage large parks as
opposed to pocket parks.
Dragsten stated that it seems to recommend the policy amendment at this time may be putting the cart
before the horse, as the target is 1200 acres. O'Neill stated that this purchase is a plausible
consideration for the City.
Grittman stated that to the question of whether the City should move forward, part of what the City is
trying to do, is to provide a background for acquisition. This policy simply states that this area is good
to have part ofthe City's plan for parkland.
Dragsten commented this amendment seems to cut out any private purchase unless the City decides it
will be private; this is without understanding of funding. He stated that it is possible that this area
could provide upscale housing and still have room for park. O'Neill stated that in working with the
County, they can plan for that if that is the ultimate vision. The County and task force want to create
as much open space as possible, although there may be edges that fit development. O'Neill stated that
the task force's vision has been for preservation as too much development would cause a loss of
character for the area.
Spartz asked how the City will deal with a request to develop a 100 acre parcel. Grittman responded
that at that time, the Planning Commission will need to decide which parts are appropriate for
development. Those decisions are better made as part of larger comprehensive plan. Grittman
indicated that in negotiating with the developer, considerations made through the comprehensive plan
gives the City more advantage and more leverage. .
10
I
Planning Commission Minutes 04/04/06
.
Spartz asked about a timeframe for the process. O'Neill stated that one of the reasons for the
amendment is to justify the park dedication fee, which is already in place.' The City must justify the
fee in terms ofland dedication. O'Neill commented that the other concern is that the YMCA is
serious about selling and we do not want to lose this opportunity.
II
Schibonski asked if there are other people or agencies who may want to proceed with this effort.
O'Neill stated that the DNR was part of the original task force, but they have determined that while it
is a great recreational space, the property did not have diversity and size to meet their programs. The
DNR encouraged the City to look at state and federal grant programs. There is no state representative
on the task force right now, O'Neill reported.
Grittman referred an area map, stating that the most ecologically diverse environment in the area is
Lake Maria. The YMCA would be more or a recreational area than a preserve.
Hilgart inquired if it is the intent that by raising the dedication requirement, everyone pays the fee
versus a land dedication. Grittman stated that the City makes the decision on whether to take land or
cash in development proposals. Grittman said that the requirement is that the land percentage needs to
be roughly equivalent to the cash.
O'Neill remarked that the task force is thinking about future generations in the preservation of this
space and thinking about the future development of the City.
Hilgart stated that the acquisition makes sense in terms of a quality of life perspective on why people
would choose Monticello to work or live in. Dragsten inquired if there are other communities that
have taken on something like this. Grittman and O'Neill stated that this isn't unusual, many regional
park are join ventures between cities and counties or other park entities.
Spartz asked if the comp plan amendment makes the subdivision amendment possible. Grittman
replied that one supports the other. This item adjusts the comp plan based on a majority ofthe YMCA
property becoming parks and open space. The position of the task force is that all of it should be.
Grittman also noted that the land is currently under County regulation which allows development in 40
acre parcels. If that occurred, it would be lost forever as parkland for public use.
O'Neill referenced that the City Council would be holding a workshop to discusS the YMCA
acquisition prior to the next City Council meeting. The workshop will be a forum for the groundwork
of a concept, financial and operations plan.
.
Chairman Dragsten opened the public hearing.
Hearing no comment, Chairman Dragsten closed the public hearing.
MOTION BY COMMISSIONER SUCHY TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT, BASED ON A FINDING THAT THE YMCA
PROPERTY IS AN INTEGRAL PART OF THE OPEN SPACE PATTERN OF THE
COMMUNITY, AND THAT CONVERSION OF THE PROPERTY TO OTHER NON-PARK
OR OPEN SPACE USES WOULD BE INCONSISTENT WITH THE CITY'S
EXPECTATIONS FOR THIS PROPERTY, AS WELL AS COMPROMISE THE CITY'S
QUALITY OF LIFE AND GENERAL WELFARE.
.
MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER HILGART.
11
Planning Commission Minutes 04/04/06
Hilgart stated it is already guided for open space and reiterated that this policy would just be guide it
for public open Space to justiJY park dedicatiolL If the City can't afford it, then this is a moot point. .
Grittman stated that the policy still gives the City leverage as to the type of development that is
alIowed.
Posusta asked if the YMCA property is all in the Orderly Annexation Area. Grittman stated that 80%
of the property is in the OAA. Posusta inquired ifthe City needs approval from township on the
balance. Grittman answered that the County's agricultural zoning applies, so the park use designation
does not present a problem. Grittman also indicated that the annexation agreement doesn't preclude
this action. If the City owns the property, the boundary can extend.
Spartz questioned whether this policy is premature. He stated that while he thinks it has merit, he is
not sure he is comfortable approving the amendment at this time. Spartz suggested it may be best to
table action at this point until more is known about the potential acquisition. O'Neill recommended
that the COmmission could table action until after the workshop.
Suchy asked for a vote on the motion on the table.
WITH A VOTE ON THE MOTION ON THE FLOOR, MOTION FAILS 2~2~ I, WITH
COMMISSIONERS SPARTZ AND DRAGSTEN IN DISSENT, COMMISSIONER SCHIBONSKI
ABSTAINING.
Grittman stated that technically the motion fails. The COmmission can direct that the recommendation
go forward to Council, or present another motion.
MOTION BY CHAIRMAN DRAGSTEN THAT THE COMMISSION TABLE FURTHER ACTION .
ON THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT UNTIL TRAINING IS COMPLETED AND THE
COMMISSION CAN UNDERSTAND THE FULL RAMIFICATIONS OF WHAT IS BEING
PRESENTED.
MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER SPARTZ.
MOTION CARRIED, 5~O.
13. Public Hearin - Consideration of are uest for amendment to the Monticello Subdivision
Ordinance. Section 11-6- I (At relZU1ating park dedication requirements.
Applicant: Citv of Monti celIo
Grittman stated that the two items are linked, but not inseparable. Grittman reported that the current
ordinance requires two alternative ways of measuring dedication from proposed subdivisions.
Currently, the land dedication percentage is 10%, or a density calculation based on population. The
ordinance requires 1 acre for every 75 residents. Grittman stated that the inclusion of the YCMA as a
potential acquisition target increases the City's need to add to dedication requirement. Grittman
indicated that the revised numbers based on this inclusion are shown in the proposed amendment. The
amendment raises the land percentage from 10% to 18% and the land density ratio from 75 persons to
40 persons. This amendment would compliment the recently approved ordinance increasing the fee
per unit in lieu of land dedication. Grittman stated again that the City is required by law to have
dedication requirements for cash and land that are equitable. The intent of the ordinance amendment
is to bring the land requirement into conformance with fee. .
12
I
Planning Commission Minutes 04/04/06
.
Hilgart asked how this compares with other c.ities' rates. Grittman responded that it is a little higher,
although some are close at $2800 _ $3000. He stated that it is more common to see fees in the $2000
range. Again, the increase is purely to accommodate the expected need to acquire the YMCA.
Grittman stated that the $1500 cash fee was lagging in terms ofthe amount ofland the City needed to
acquire at a base level in any case. #I
Hilgart asked what happens if the City raises the requirement and then don't buy land. Grittman stared
that the intent is to be able to purchase the land. Hilgart asked if the increase will affect the amount of
development. Grittman stated that theoretically it could, but it is not so far out of line with other
communities that it would halt development.
O'Neill noted that present land value has increased, so essentially this increase is just a shifting of
revenue, channeling some of what would have been profit to park/community use. posusta stated that
it is already having an impact as Insignia went away and Paumen has expressed some concerns.
Grittman responded that Insignia had indicated that their primary issue was the price of the land versus
the approvals in land use that they had gotten, not park dedication.
Schibonski asked about the $3500 rate. Grittman stated that the rate was adopted separately as part of
the fee ordinance. Schibonski asked if it is consistent with surrounding area fees. Grittman stated that
it is required to be consistent with the city's goals, not with the surrounding area. He stated that by
law, consistency with the City's own goals and needs it what should be measured.
Spartz stated that he thinks the comp plan policy amendment and subdivision ordinance item items are
related.
Dragsten asked if this were to go into effect, would it impact new developments or those who have not
gotten final plat approval. Grittman stated that the City would have the discretion on that item.
Technically, it would apply it to anyone who has not platted.
Dragsten stated that he thinks there should be an increase, that the City is behind in terms of what land
values are. He indicated that he doesn't know if this is the right number, but does see the need for an
increase
.
Chairman Dragsten opened the public hearing.
Hearing no comment, Chairman Dragsten closed the public hearing.
MOTION BY COMMISSIONER HILGART TO recommend approval ofthe amendment to the
Subdivision Ordinance, based on a finding that it will incorporate the YMCA or similar
properties, and that the proposed dedication requirement accounts for fair division of the
contribution to acquisition of said property from future development and existing development.
MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER SUCHY.
Hilgart stated that by phrasing the recommendation that way, if plans do not move forward to purchase
the YMCA, the City still has the funds to acquire a larger regional park.
Spartz asked if the need for the proposed increase will be covered in the workshop. O'Neill responded
that the concept of park acquisition would be as the number seems to be valuable to get 2/3 of the
parkland needed in comparison to the development capacity for the City.
.
13
Planning Commission Minutes 04/04/06
I
Dragsten agreed, asking if the COmmission could recommend that the amendment only impact new
applicants. O'Neill stated that the fee program was approved at January I", thereby impacting new .
applicants as of that date.
WITH A VOTE ON THE MOTION ON THE FLOOR, MOTION CARRIED, 4-1, WITH
COMMISSIONER SPARTZ IN DISSENT.
...
14. Consideration to review an update on sil!l1ag-e as related to temporary sign ordinance.
Schumann reported that Commissioner Suchy would be moving forward on a task force organized to
address the issue. Schumann also entered into the record a letter regarding temporary signage from
Lynn Dahl~Fleming.
O'Neill referred to the temporary sign ordinance discussion held by the Commission previously. The
Commission gave their direction on this item regarding 40 days.
O'Neill noted that we cannot distinguish between the two. The constitution does not give the City the
ability to distinguish content.
O'Neill stated that the task force will be looking at options to create centralized reader boards as an
alternative to help eliminate the proliferation of these signs. Suchy stated that she had talked with
other communities and those she checked with did not monitored non~profit temporary signage.
Anderson reported that the Building Department has been enforcing the temporary sign ordinance.
Anderson stated that he appreciated the direction as everyone gets treated the same, and have the right
to come before the Council to ask for something different..
15. Consideration of information regardinl2: the 2006 Monticello Comprehensive Plan update.
O'Neill reported that the City Council will be interviewing four potential comprehensive plan
proposers tomorrow (April 51h) from 4~8 PM. He stated that the Planning COmmission is integral to
process and is welcome to attend.
16. Hidden ForestlNial2:ara Falls
Schibonski stated that changes had been made to the Hidden Forest and Niagara Falls plats and
inquired whether, due to those changes, it needed to come back to the Planning Commission.
Schibonski explained that the plan the Planning COmmission had reviewed came before the Council
for a separate review as it wasn't possible for the plat to be designed that way.
.
O'Neill stated that essentially the plat is still the same. The pathways, boardwalk, and park are also
still there, they are just in a different form with less open water. O'Neill stated that the issue with the
open water had come up after the Planning Commission had approved it. He noted that the City
Council has the option to send it back to the Commission for further review. Staffhad brought the
revision to the City Council prior to actual preliminary plat approval to get feedback on the revision.
At that time, Council did not elect to send it back to the Commission. The Council elected to request
that modifications be made to make most of the amenities, and go back to Parks COmmission to
negotiate any other needed changes in light of the revision to the water. O'Neill stated that it isn't out
of order or WlUsual for a plan to change before it goes to Council. The Council has not yet approved .
14
I
planning Commission Minutes 04/04/06
.
either Hidden Fo~est or Niagara Falls at the preliminary plat stage. As such, the Planning
Commissions till has an opportunity to express their opinion to the Council.
Dragsten asked if O'Neill has a map of what the revised proposal. O'Neill explained that he did not;
but essentially they'are noW proposing a channel and small pocket of open water. Staff has asked if
the developer can redirect the channel to run along the wetland perimeter so that the open water is
more visible. The developer originally stated that they didn't think they could excavate more of the
pond, however they will get that clarified so that they can create higger pockets. Dragsten clarified
that the changes are to the site's waterflow. O'Neill confumed. O'Neill stated that it wasn't a bait and
switch proposal, it was that when the wetland engineering was completed, it was discovered that the
site was too low to accomplish what they want to do. The site still has capacity and will have wetland
characteristics. O'Neill commented that the properties adjoining the wetland are zoned R-lA, which
requires upper end homes. Grittman stated that there is a chance the change in water features may
affect the home values.
Dragsten stated that it would have been better if it had come back as the Commissioner is concerned
about maintaining the type of housing product. Schibonski stated that in the future, it should at least
be recommended that it come back.
Grittman stated that the ordinance is set up to allow Council to make that decision. Schumann
commented that staff has generally used substantive changes to the plat as a measurement of when
additional or secondary review by the Commission is needed.
Suchy stated that the change does concern her in terms of the type of housing.
O'Neill noted that there was recently a POO proposal that was rejected by Council. In the discussion,
it was bought up that the City Council would like to filter PUD plans better. The problem is that staff
do not necessarily know what the Council and Commission consider a "superior" POO product. That
is something the Commission and Council have to decide. O'Neill indicated that they would be
organizing a meeting to discuss a policy on POO criteria. Dragsten and Schibonski volunteered to
serve as representatives.
posusta commented that in the PUD O'Neill referred to, the developer followed all required criteria
and the Commission passed the plan. The majority of Council believe there should be changed in the
ordinance for standards in POOs. The Council will be looking at this plan again after revisions.
posusta stated that the Council didn't feel it needed to come back to the Commission for review.
.
17. Adjourn.
MOTION BY COMMISSIONER SPARTZ TO ADJOURN.
MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER SUCHY. MOTION CARRIED, 5-0.
.
15
.
.
.
" I
Planning Commission Agenda - 5/02/06
5.
Public Hearin!!:: Consideration of a reQuest for a Conditional Use Permit for a
Conce t Sta e Planned Unit Develo ment for an 8~unit townhouse development
in an R~2 Sin Ie and Two~Famil Residential District. A licant: Minnesota
Development A!!:encv. LLC. (NAC/JO)
,
REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND
The Minnesota Development Agency has submitted an application for Concept Stage
PUD for the construction of Rosewood Heights, a housing development designed for
senior citizens with associated covenants. The subject site is a 1.1 acre site located
along the west side of Palm Street, including the unbuilt Palm Street right of way, and
south of 4th Street. The site is zoned R-2, Single Family and Two Family
Residential.
Comvrehensive Plan: Monticello's Comprehensive Plan designates this area for
single family and two family residential development.
Zoninf!: The subject site is zoned R-2, Single Family and Two Family Residential.
CUP/PUD: A Planned Unit Development allows for flexibility in performance
standards with the understanding that the development will be held to higher
standards of site and building design than would ordinarily be required. It is the
applicant's responsibility to design the development with significant benefits and
communicate those benefits to the City for allowing a PUD.
Design Overview. The proposed project is an 8-unit condominium development
designed specifically for seniors. The applicant is proposed two 4-unit townhouse-
style structures on a private drive extending south from Palm Street. The applicant
has indicated that this site was chosen due to its close proximity to the City's senior
center, downtown, and hospital. The applicant has also indicated that they are in the
process of completing a ghost plat, incorporating the property to the east for potential
future development.
Lot Requirements and Standards. The following table illustrates the applicable
performance requirements for the proposed use in the R-2 district:
1
I
Planning Commission Agenda - 5/02/06
Front Yard Setback
Side Yard Setback
Side Yard Setback (Comer)
Rear Setback
Minimum Lot Area
Lot Area Per Unit
Minimum Lot Width
Building Height
R-2 Standard Requirements
, 30 feet
10 feet
20 feet
30 feet
12,000 sf
6,000 sf
80 feet
2.5 stories
Proposed
25 feet
19.5 feet
30 feet
25 feet
24,090 feet
6,022 feet
165 feet
1 story
The proposed plan does not comply with the front setback requirements. One of the
areas of flexibility being requested would be that setback standard. The density is
being maximized on this site, with the presumption that the City will sell or grant the
right of way to the applicant, and the future private street area is included in the
density calculation.
A 30-foot utility easement exists along the southern edge of the property. The
applicant has provided a 40-foot setback to the principal structure. However, the
feasibility of this setback must be determined by the City Engineer and Public Works
Director. The depth of the deep sanitary sewer at this location may require a setback .
greater than 40 feet.
Density. The R-2 District is designated for low to medium density residential
development. The proposed development would have 8 units on a 1.1 acre site,
allowing 6,022 square feet of lot area per unit. The gross density of the site is 7.27
units/acre. By comparison, other recent townhouse projects in the general area of
Monticello's "original plat" area have been constructed at 5 to 5.5 units per acre.
Open Space. The zoning ordinance requires that each multiple family dwelling site or
townhouse site shall contain at least 500 square feet of usable open space as defined
in for each dwelling unit, or a minimum of 30% green space, whichever is greater. In
this case, 30% is greater, requiring the applicant to provide a minimum of 14,454
square feet of green space for the 8 units proposed. In a PUD, common open space at
least sufficient to meet this minimum requirement is necessary for the benefit and
enjoyment of the residents of the PUD.
The applicant has provided approximately 18,700 square feet of open space. The
majority of this open space is located in the rear yard of each unit, with smaller
pockets located between driveways and in side yards. The minimum of amount of
required open space has been provided, but the Planning Commission should discuss
whether or not the open space areas are designed in a manner that meets the City's
expectations for PUD design.
.
2
Planning Commission Agenda - 5/02/06
.
Building Design. The concept plan proposes two attached townhome structures, each
containing four units. Both structures will be single-story buildings with two-stall
garages. Each structure has two forward-facing garages and two located to the side of
the structure. The applicant has provided colored elevations to provide details on the
style of the homes. Each structure has a steep roof pitch and will be beige in color
with red accents and cedar shingles. All front loaded garage doors contain windows.
All units are designed according to ADA standards, to accommodate handicapped
residents. Bathrooms and kitchens in each unit are designed to be wheelchair
accessible, and hallways, sidewalks, walkways and driveways are all designed to
accommodate those who need assistance from wheelchairs, walkers, and canes.
.,
.
Garage size does not meet code standards. In all residential zoning districts, all
single and two-family dwelling units must include development of an attached or
detached garage. Minimum size requirement for garage floor is 450 square feet with a
minimum garage door opening of 16 feet. The proposed garages are less than 400
square feet and have 19' 11" garage door openings. The minimum garage space
requirement may be flexible via PUD if it is found that the development supplies
other tangible benefits to justify the flexibility. It should be noted that the City
established the 450 square foot standard to avoid the outside parking and storage
concerns that can occur when smaller garages are permitted. With the garage sizes as
proposed, owners oflarger vehicles will not be able to conveniently enter or exit the
vehicles when parked in the garages. The developer notes that a smaller garage
standard is appropriate for a development that serves seniors only and the space
otherwise used for garage could be transferred to living area or green space.
Streets and Access. The PUD ordinance requires that private roadways within the
project shall have approved curb and gutter and an improved surface of20 feet or
more in width and shall be so designed as to permit the City fire trucks to provide
protection to each building. For most projects, however, the City has required that
private streets be no less than 24 and 28 feet when one side of the street is needed for
parking.
The applicant is proposing to provide access by constructing a 20-foot wide private
drive that extends southwest into the site, aligning with Palm Street. While this drive
will be accommodating a limited number of units, staff is concerned that the proposed
width may be too narrow if it is intended for use for parking as well as a drive.
No cul-de-sac or other turnaround area has been provided to accommodate
garbage/recycling trucks and emergency vehicles. The applicant has noted that waste
collection will be centralized via dumpster so garbage trucks will not need to enter the
site and could serve the dumpster directly off of 4th street.
.
The City's Fire Department has requested that a maximum distance of250 feet be
used for the distance from fire hydrants and public streets to the farther point of any
buildings. This plan does not appear to comply with this standard.
3
Planning Commission Agenda - 5/02/06
..
Staff is also concerned with access to the side-facing garages. Access to the garages
for the northwest and southwest units will be provided by curved driveways, each
with a 24-foot turning radius, and a minimum turning radius of 15.3 feet. This
turning radius provides minimal turning space, and especially affects vehicles exiting
the garages. Each driveway only has 7 feet of stacking space, making it difficult to
maneuver into and out of the garage. The turning radius illustrated on the site plan
shows that the driveways are not wide enough to accommodate vehicles, and they
will be required to drive on the yard in order to access the garage. The driveway for
the northernmost unit comes within 3.5 feet of 4th Street, providing inconvenient
access for the resident and creating potential congestion issues at the access. The
driveway for the southernmost unit is shown within a 30-foot utility easement. The
driveways for the middle units create conflicts for vehicles backing out of the either
garage, and eliminates the possibility of parking space in front of either garage.
Although this design has more curb appeal, turning radius and stacking constraints
work against the side loaded garage concept.
.
Staff has noted conflict regarding access to adjacent properties. By vacating the 80-
foot public right-of-way on Palm Street for a private drive, the applicant will be
eliminating access to a property that currently has frontage on a public right-of-way
(Palm Street). The property to the east of the site, identified as Lot 1, would lose
frontage on the public right-of-way, cutting off access to the property. Vacating this
right-of-way would also cut off potential access for several more lots to the east and
west of the site. The elimination of this right of way would need to be resolved prior .
to development stage PUD or Preliminary Plat application can be considered.
Parking. It has been the practice of the City to ensure that adequate guest parking is
provided as a requirement for PUD, particularly where private streets are utilized.
The City has previously required one guest parking space for every three units.
Recently, the City Council requested that a Concept PUD have one guest parking
space for each unit. By the old standard, three guest parking spaces need to be
provided. By the new standard, eight guest parking spaces would need to be
provided.
Due to the narrow width ofthe private drive (20'), no on-street parking will be
possible, and the lack of parking outside of some of the garages further exacerbates
this problem. As a solution, the applicant could increase the width of the private drive
to 28 feet to allow for on-street parking on one side. In lieu of proving on-street
parking, the applicant has indicated a willingness to provide a parking bay at the end
of the private drive. It is not clear how the supply of parking will be affected by the
applicant's changes. However, through the approval of a recent PUD, the City
Council has given general direction that overall parking supply should be at least five
spaces per unit. As another alternative, Council could consider relaxing this standard
for an exclusively senior development.
Stormwater. The site is not currently served by storm sewer and no plans have been
submitted to contain stormwater on site. Engineering staff has indicated that drainage .
4
1
Planning Commission Agenda - 5/02/06
.
in the area is a potential concern, due to existing flooding, and the distance to storm
sewer. This issue will need to be examined more closely ifthe project proceeds to
Development Stage PUD and Preliminary Plat.
Future Development. The applicant has expressed an interest in developing the two
properties to the east ofthe site in the future. This potential future development
would have an identical design to the current concept plan. This design is purely
conceptual, as the applicant does not currently have an agreement with the landowner.
However, a ghost plat has been viewed by staff.
In order for the applicant to develop the property to the east, additional setback
flexibility would be required for the current concept plan. The applicant would
require a 16-foot rear yard setback, as opposed to the 30 feet required. Developing
the properties to the east would also limit the applicant from widening the proposed
20-foot street to accommodate on-street parking.
.
Typically the City requires 78 feet of face-to-face separation between townhouse
units across private streets. The applicant is proposing 22 foot driveways and a 20
foot street width, for a total separation of only 64 feet. This combination is very
similar to the dimensions at the Morning Glory PUD. The Autumn Ridge project,
which has been criticized for its high density and "tight" street feel, has 74 feet of
separation between units. The density proposed is much more intense than that of the
Autumn Ridge development. It would also appear that the ghost plat project would
exceed the allowable density under the R-2 zoning standards.
Summary
The purpose of PUD is to provide standards designed to allow the development of
neighborhoods recognizing that traditional density, bulk, setbacks, use, and
subdivision regulations which may be useful in protecting the character of
substantially developed areas may be inappropriate to control development in less
developed areas. Specifically, it is intended to encourage the following:
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
. 7.
1. Innovations in residential development to the end that the growing demands
for housing at all economic levels may be met by greater variety in tenure,
type, design, and siting of dwellings and by conservation and more efficient
use ofland in such development;
Higher standards of site and building design through the use of trained and
experienced land planners, architects, and landscape architects;
More convenience in location of accessory commercial and service areas;
The preservation and enhancement of desirable site characteristics such as
natural topography and geologic features and the prevention of soil erosion;
A creative use of land and related physical development which allows a
phased and orderly transition ofland from rural to urban uses;
An efficient use of land resulting in smaller networks of utilities and streets
thereby lowering housing costs and public investments;
A development pattern in harmony with the objectives ofthe Monticello
5
I
Planning Commission Agenda - 5/02/06
Comprehensive Plan;
8. A more desirable environment than would be possible through the strict
application of zoning and subdivision regulations of the City; ..
9. To give the landowner and developer reasonable assurance of ultimate
approval before expending complete design monies while providing City
officials with assurances that the project will retain the character envisioned
at the time of concurrence;
10. Flexibility for variation from the provisions of this ordinance including
setbacks, height, lot area, width and depth, yards, etc.
.
Planning Commission is asked to evaluate if the concept plan demonstrates tangible
amenities or other benefits to justify the requested flexibility, or complies with many
of the City standards applied to other townhouse projects. The Planning
Commission is asked to review the site plan, identifY site design areas of concern and
provide direction to the applicant accordingly to be applied to design of the
development stage PUD.
AL TERNA TIVE ACTIONS
Decision 1: Development Stage Planned Unit Development for
1. Motion to recommend approval of the Concept Stage PUD, based on a finding .
that with comments made at the hearing, the project will meet the City's
intent for PUD design.
1. Motion to recommend denial of the Concept Stage PUD, based on a finding
that the project will require significant design changes to meet the City's
intent for PUD development, and should be resubmitted according to the
comments of the Planning Commission.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission review the PUD and discuss in
particular the following areas where standards are flexed or out of compliance with
policy and or code.
1. Is additional common open space needed?
2. Should the applicant be required to submit an alternate driveway design,
providing driveways and garages that are accessible and maintain architectural
attractiveness?
3. Should the plan shall be revised to provide a minimum of five total parking
spaces per housing unit?
4. Should the plan be revised to provide a turnaround for emergency vehicles? .
6
I
Planning Commission Agenda -.5/02/06
.
5. Should the plan be revised to comply with the Fire Department access
requirements?
6. Should t.tre plan should be revised to be consistent with the density of other
townhouse projects in the community?
7. Access to adjoining property must be considered and accounted for.
8. Engineering issues, including stormwater control, must be considered.
SUPPORTING DATA
.
A. Aerial Photo
B. Site/Area Images
C. Applicant Request Package, Including:
1. Applicant Narrative
2. Description in Present Form
3. Description in Completed Form
4. Presentation Drawing
5. Aerial Image
6. Existing Conditions
7. Site Plan
8. Circulation Plan
9. Floor Plan
10. Elevations
.
7
Page 1 of2
I
.
http://156.99 .28.84/ servlet/ com.esri.esrimap.Esrimap?ServiceN ame=CustomParcel&ClientV ersion=3.1 &... 4/20/2006
.
.
.
Rosewood PUD
Views to West
1
.
.
.
View of Site from Hill to South
Palm Street View to NW
2
.
.
.
3
.
.
.
4
.
.
.
5
.
.
.
6
.
.
.
7
.
Minnesotat"Development
Agmcy; LLC
(,..l '"'I;
'-'
.
\".......,,"..-."...
Fonnal request for concept plan approval
ROSEWOOD HEIGHTS
Monticello MN.
To: Monticello city staff,
Planning Commission,
City Council.
From: Minnesota Development Agency L.L.c.
9766 Fallon Ave. suite 201
Monticello MN. 55362
763-295-LAND
.
Objective: To achieve concept plan approval along with recommendations if any from the
City of Monticello.
In the package submitted please find the following.
Cover letter.
Description of the property as is now.
Description of the property when done with ROSEWOOD HEIGHTS.
Presentation drawing, concept B.
Aerial photo of existing conditions.
Existing conditions sketch.
Site plan.
Circulation plan.
Floor plan of units to be built.
Color rendering of an exterior elevation.
This package was created by: Minnesota Development Agency L.L.c.
Any questions can be forwarded to Dewey Gunnarson @ 763~295-5263
Or Matthew Froelich @ 612~363-1907
.
9766 Fallon Avenue, Suite 201 · Monticello, MN 55362
Phone: 763-29s.-LAND · Fax: 763-295-4-696 . WW\v.m:Ildevelopmentagency.com
.
.
.
Description of ROSEWOOD HEIGHTS
In present form.
Lot 5 and lot 6 of block G Have one single family dwelling on them. The house and
garage are in disrepair. The home to the west (lot 7) is in good shape and nice looking. To
the West of that is an apartment building. To the south of the whole project is
commercial, apartments, or an abandon railway.
The south extension of Palm Street is bluntly an eyesore. It appears that someone is
putting gravel and doing some grading on the right of way. My guess it would be the
owner directly to the East. It appears he is using the Palm R.O.W. to access his garage.
This home is not owner occupied it is a rental property. We ask that the City assist us in
removing his use and access on the Palm R.O.W.
Both lots and the RO.W. have little tree coverage. Palm Street and lot 5 are overrun
with weeds and debris.
The home on Lots 10 and 1 block H could use some help also. The rest of the homes
to the East are not in bad shape. To the South there is single family homes most are nice
looking. I think objections will come from the South and the homeowner directly to the
East.
An important issue is there seems to be no plan for the surface water run off to the
South of any of these properties. Best we can tell it seems to run to the East but in its own
good time. This should be looked at for this project and the other properties.
The overall condition of the site is not horrible but it could use some sprucing up.
.
.
.
Description of ROSEWOOD HEIGHTS
In completed form.
Rosewood Heights will consist of 8 condominium homes. These homes have been
specifically designed for seniors. They will be affordable with out giving up amenities or
sacrificing the exterior elevations.
The project:
Rosewood Heights is in a great location for senior living. The residents are a
couple blocks from downtown, groceries, Monticello senior center, and a few blocks
from the hospital and St. Henry's church. Our private street is lined up with Palm Street
and will cause no traffic issues.
Rosewood Heights will be set up as condominiums and will have an association
governing over the whole project. The association will control water, garbage, snow
removal, lawn care, insurance, reserves for future improvements, and most importantly
control the rules and regulations. These Condo's will be set up as age targeted (exact age
not yet determined).
Rosewood Heights has two indoor parking spots per home and fourteen spots not
blocking the private street. All streets and walk ways will be designed as flat as possible
to accommodate wheel chairs, walkers, and canes. Accessibility and comfortable living
are our primary goals.
The Homes: Out of our Hardwood collection.
Birchwood 1 (outside unit) Birchwood 2 (inside unit)
Both homes are designed with four foot hallways three foot doors. Wheelchair
accessible baths and kitchens. They have extra large mud rooms with ample storage. The
Birchwood's will be on one level and meet A.D.A. standards. Our intention is not
necessarily to have all handicap residents as much as planning on it for the future so they
won't have to move. Both Birchwood's will have a back patio for grilling and enjoying
the outdoors. Both also have two car garages.
Ghost plat:
We are working on a ghost plat to incorporate the property to the East. We should
have this done and available for hand out at the council meeting. I must stress we are not
interested in this property now. With or with out (TIF HRA or any other city funds.)
We will show as an option for the future.
~
~
51
Q
~
~
~
Q#
~
~;
s:
It!
~
....
~
~ O!;
'"
~2 -J
~
'"
~ ~
~
'"
~ ~
I ;~
~~
1\
If)
Cb
\t-
O) ..::t:.
^J
~ 0v
~
I
(])
~ I
B ~
t::; ~
B
~
~
,5;'9,
If)
o
aT
Q:-
:::::!
c;
~
r_
t;
::& ~ 0
~ O~~
of ~(S~
~ ~ '"
M !:)!/lif
I- t;~~ ~UJ<
~ a; ~~~m O~A ~~~~
'l~ ~ o.:lg ~<I-
1il I ~!/l~ <!/loa.
OUJ1t<
(;.. '" II~~ ;Zo.: ~
III I ~~8ii 5F!..J~
lll<<(
~~<l) ~f5!/l :J~~G
~lJjm~ <(~~ <(~~lJj
;Zl- lJj
~i!S~w ~~f5 I!!~~~
.. ~~~ 0;;: <(
~n~ ;ZW J::
l
l
...
:/~:)L~} "0
.-,.-- :t~: d
\. ~./.L-/ I f")
~ ~~~~
l- I I g
~ ll::o
.., I
~ i!i ~.. '"
~ ~~B8
~2 ~mm~
~ I ~1-
l'2~~~
i:l ll::&i
'"
I ..............
b
f!:
0)
0)
:z-.
/'v-
rv
"'---
~
o
I")
1\
.0-.9~
.o~I~ x iIO-."
1,l1_1,l~\_mu.:I"Y
.............................---...... ...-.......... .'....._.........
'V
lJl
"
I ~
. . .
\:,
,),
~
..
.
.....
Q~
t ii~v-
< a
zQ
<r.... i~j,>=M..
SL
~
"
I
...
"
I
..
.0 ,.
~
'"
. I
~
In
01
d
"
.. I
'"
.0-,91
'",....-
[m .~m, .OJ'. ./
~ Im')1 vv m
I .
i
i
~
.0 ,.
=1~K:") ~ I
~ l~(J~
':::..:::;:"
rm~-
if]
()L
G~ JL]
i i
..............~.~................. /,.o-,~
~j~~
~
",..............................................., ............. '''.....................,...''''''..................."......................'''''..............................."'"..
"
. I
'"
lJl
<l
"
I
'"
.
.
~
i
!
i
rnl
~=
...................
:..:.:::.... .0-,< ~:
A. 1"\ .. .:::::::::::;:;:.::.:\'lllIlIllI".....
. 16-.11/'(1/ mmmm ............ ~
~J_ !
~
I
~. '=~I~rs01
m;:::::::m., I .mmmmmmmm.~.o_,~ ~
'"
.
'r
..
~
.
\0
I
..
.9-,01 .9 .01
'lD
~
:., I
I ...
;,-
b
.o~,~l ~
b
.'
~'"
'"
.
\0
I
..
. .
J I
"" !!
,"
. I
..
.
!
?
in
I
'"
.
:;. I
~ ~
~
I
...
~
~
. ~ :., 'b
.0- ,O~ I I
... ~
'lD
~ ".?
'b
'lD ~
~
:., b
I ~
...
~ >
?
...
~ J
~
~ J
~ l!!
.
.
.
Planning Commission Agenda - 5/02/06
6.
Public Hearin2: Consideration of a reQuest for a Conditional Use Permit for
Open and Outdoor Storae:e. Open or Outdoor Displav. and Minor Auto ReP'flir.
Applicant: Jeff's DreamIMoon Motorsports. (NAC)
REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND.
Moon Motorsports has submitted site and building plans and an application for a
Conditional Use Permit for Outdoor Storage, Outdoor Sales, and Display and Light
Auto Repair on Lot I, Block I ofthe Otter Creek Crossing development. The subject
site is approximately 5.25 acres in area and is zoned B-4, Regional Business.
Conditional Use Permit
The zoning ordinance makes the following requirements for the proposed uses:
Open and outdoor storage a conditional use in the B-4 District, provided that:
I. The area is fenced and screened from view of neighboring residential uses
2. Storage is screened from view from the public right of way
3. Storage area is grassed or surfaced to control dust.
4. All lighting shall be hooded and so directed that the light source shall not be
visible from the public right of way or from neighboring residences.
Open or outdoor service sale is a conditional use, provided that:
I. Outside service sales and equipment rental connected with the principal use is
limited to 30% of the gross floor area of the principal use. This percentage
may be increased as a condition of the conditional use permit
2. Outside sales areas are fenced or screened from view of the right-of-view.
3. All lighting shall be hooded and so directed that the light source shall not be
visible from the public right of way or from neighboring residences.
4. Sales area is grassed or surfaced to control dust.
Minor Auto Repair is a conditional use, provided that the following applicable
requirements are met:
I. Regardless of whether the dispensing sale or offering for sale of motor fuels
and or oil is incidental to the conduct of the use or business the standards and
requirements imposed by this ordinance for motor fuel stations shall apply
2. The architectural appearance and functional plan of the building and site shall
not be so dissimilar to the existing buildings or area as to cause impairment in
property values or constitute a blighting influence within a reasonable distance
of the lot.
3. The entire site other than that taken up by a building structure or plantings
shall be surfaced with a material to control dust and drainage which is subject
to the approval of the City Engineer.
4. A minimum lot area oftwenty two thousand five hundred 22500 square feet
and minimum lot dimensions of 150 feet by 130 feet.
I
Planning Commission Agenda - 5/02/06
5. A drainage system subject to the approval of the City Engineer shall be .
installed.
6. A curb not less than six 6 inches above grade shall separate the public
sidewalk from motor vehicle service areas.
7. The lighting shall be accomplished in such a way as to have no direct source
of light visible from adjacent land in residential use or from the public right of
way.
8. Wherever fuel pumps are to be installed pump islands shall be installed.
9. Each light standard landscaped.
10. Vehicular access points shall create a minimum of conflict with through
traffic movement.
11. All signing and informational or visual communication devices shall be
minimized and shall be in compliance with the Sign Ordinance.
12. Provisions are made to control and reduce noise.
ANALYSIS
Lot Requirements and Standards. The B-4 Zoning District does not have specific
area and building size regulations or setback requirements that would be applicable to
the site. However, minor auto repair uses require a minimum lot area of22,500
square feet as a conditional use. Minimum lot dimensions for this use are 150 feet by
130 feet. The subject site meets these minimum standards, as shown below:
Lot Area
Lot Width
Lot Len th
Re uired
22,500 sf
150 feet
13 0 feet
Pro osed
228,690 sf
425.38 feet
539.5 feet
The southern portion of the lot remains vacant at this time, with the exception of the
access drive. It is the property owner's intent to possibly sell that portion of the
property in the future. At that time, the property owner will need to apply for a
planned unit development or re-plat, pending a land purchase or lease situation.
Outdoor Storage. The applicant has designated a site to the west of the principal
structure approximately 6,200 square feet in area to be used for outdoor storage. The
outdoor storage area will be used to store trailers and crates that are waiting to
shipped. No motorcycles, ATV's, or other products will be stored outside. The
proposed site is in a location that will not take up any area for required parking.
The outdoor storage area is required to be fenced and screened from the public right~
of-way and neighboring residential areas. No residential areas border the site. The
applicant has indicated that a fence will be constructed along the perimeter of the
outdoor storage site. However, materials of the proposed fence have not been
provided. A required screening fence is required to be constructed of masonry, brick, .
wood, or steel. Such fence shall provide a solid screening effect and not exceed eight
I
Planning Commission Agenda - 5/02106
.
feet in height or be less than six feet in height. The applicant shall be required to
provide details on the proposed fence, indicating compliance with these requirements.
Staffwould recommend that chain link fencing with slats not be used for this
purpose.
The outdoor storage area is required to be surfaced to control dust and drainage. The
indicate that the outdoor storage site would be surfaced with 6" Class V. Staff
recommends that the applicant pave this area with an alternate material to control dust
in a more effective manner, and the applicants have agreed to comply with this
recommendation.
The applicant is also required to provide hooded lighting to ensure that no light is
visible from the public right-of-way. According to the photometric plan, 30-foot
poles with hooded Soft Square lighting fixtures will be used on the site. The
photometric plan does not show any footcandle readings at the perimeter of the
outdoor storage area, indicating that lighting will not be visible from the right-of-way.
.
Outdoor Sales and Display. The total outdoor sales display area is limited to 30% of
the total area of the principal use. For the size of the building proposed, the applicant
is allowed 8,640 square feet of outdoor sales display area. The applicant has
illustrated five concrete boulder display pads outside of the principal structure. Two
display pads are to be located in the northeast comer of the site, one in the northwest
comer ofthe site, and two located in the test track area. These display pads are only
large enough to support one vehicle each, and will not exceed the maximum allowed
square footage and will not take up any area for required parking. All lighting is
hooded and so directed that the light source shall not be visible from the public right
of way.
Test Track Area. The applicant has illustrated a test track area in the northwest
comer of the site, approximately 10,000 square feet in area. The Zoning Ordinance
does not contain any information relating to test track areas. Therefore, staff has
applied the same requirements used for outdoor sales and display.
The test track area must be fenced or screened from the public-right-ofway. The
applicant is proposing intense vegetation along the western and northern perimeters
ofthis site, utilizing a variety of Norway and Ponderosa Pines and Smooth Sumac.
The City may require additional screening and/or fencing surrounding this site to
further control other issues, such as noise. The test track shall be required to comply
with all provisions of Section 3-2 [K] of the Zoning Ordinance relating to noise.
The test track area must also be surfaced to control dust. The concept plan does not
indicate what materials will be used to surface this area. However, the applicant has
indicated that potential materials include Class V, wood chips, or rubber mulch. The
applicant must choose a material that will effectively control dust.
.
I
Planning Commission Agenda - 5/02/06
Parking. For retail stores and service establishments, the ordinance requires 1 .
parking space for every 200 square feet of retail floor area, and 1 space for every 500
feet of storage area. The parking requirements for the proposed ~se are as follows:
# of Spaces Required
# of Spaces Proposed
Retail
12,000 sf
Service and Stora e
18,625 sf
60
60
38
36
The applicant has shown vehicle and trailer parking along the east side of the
building. These spaces are adequately sized to count as two parking spaces each.
Under this count, the applicant's plan meets the zoning requirements, and should have
more than adequate parking for the proposed use. The applicant shall also provide
additional handicapped parking stalls to comply with state requirements. Staff
recommends that the applicant convert at least one parking stall near the service
entrance into handicapped parking.
Landscaping. The ordinance requires a minimum of one overstory tree per 50 feet of
site perimeter. The perimeter of the site is 1,930 feet. Said length requires the
applicant to provide 37 trees on the site. The applicant has satisfied this required by
providing 41 trees on site, as well as several shrub planting areas and other .
landscaping. The applicant has provided the majority of the dense vegetation near the
test track and northeast comer of the site.
The City recognizes the value of interstate highway exposure to commercial and
industrial developers. The City also wishes to avoid the undesirable monotony of
fully exposed building sides and rears and wishes to provide natural visual variety to
the travelers on the interstate. Natural visual variety will alleviate the boredom for
travelers and will project a clean and pleasant image of the City. Commercial and
industrial developers of lots/parcels having substantial exposure to the interstate are
required by Ordinance to provide landscaping that creates a 60% opacity year-round
with at least 80% of such screening to be of natural materials. The applicant has
proposed dense vegetation in the northwest and northeast comers of the site. A
fence has also been proposed along the freeway. The proposed plan meets the zoning
requirements.
As a condition of allowing minor auto repair uses in the B-4 District, all lighting
standar~s shall also be landscaped. The landscape plan shall be modified to indicate
compliance with this requirement.
Signage. For businesses in the B-4 District, a combination of wall signs and a
maximum of one pylon sign may be utilized for a maximum of 300 square feet of
signage per property. The applicant is proposing a single monument sign at the
.
I
Planning Commission Agenda - 5/02/06
.
entrance to the site, in lieu of a pylon sign. The face of the monument sign is 96
square feet.
In addition to the monument sign, the applicant is proposing a series of wall signs on
the front of the building. The ordinance allows the site one business identification
sign per street on which the property has legal frontage, and two product
identification signs on the same wall. The total maximum allowable sign area for any
wall shall be determined by taking 10% of the gross silhouette area of the front of the
building up to 100 square feet, whichever is less. In this case, the maximum
allowable sign area is 100 square feet. One 28 square foot wall sign is proposed,
displaying the name of the business. Five smaller product identification signs are
combined beneath the business identification sign. For the purpose of this
application, this band of signage is considered as one sign. It will be required that
when the total area of each ofthe five product identification signs is calculated, it is
no more than 72 square feet. As such, the one product identification band and one
business sign may total a maximum of 100 square feet to meet the two wall sign
ordinance requirement.
.
Access. A single access to the site will be provided by a private drive off Chelsea
Road, in the southeast comer of the site. This 24-foot drive lane will accommodate
two lanes of traffic throughout the site. The applicants have indicated that this
driveway will be shared with any future potential user of the open portion of the
property.
Staffhas discussed the location ofthe loading dock with the applicants. The loading
dock is located on the southern end of the principal structure and is accessed via a 21-
foot wide drive lane. Original plans raised a concern that the location of the loading
dock would not provide a feasible turning radius for semis to enter, due to its close
proximity to the driveway. The applicant has broadened the parking lot to create an
area for semis to back into. The applicant should illustrate turning radii for the
loading dock to demonstrate that it may be reasonably accessed.
Grading, Drainage, and Utilities. Grading, Drainage, Erosion Control and Utility
Plans are subject to review and comment by the City Engineer.
AL TERNA TIVE ACTIONS
Decision 1: Conditional Use Permit for Outdoor Display and Outdoor Storage for
Moon Motorsports.
.
1. Motion to recommend approval of the Conditional Use Permit for Moon
Motorsports to allow for Open and Outdoor Storage, Outdoor Sales and
Display, and Light Auto Repair, based on a finding that the proposed uses
I
Planning Commission Agenda - 5102/06
meet the requirement of the B-4 District, subject to the conditions outlined
in Exhibit z.
.
,
2. Motion to recommend denial of the Conditional Use Permit, based on a
finding that the proposed use and site plan are inconsistent with the City's
Comprehensive Plan for this area.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Planning staff recommends approval of the Conditional Use Permit and site and
building plans at this time, based on a finding that the subject lot is sufficient to
accommodate the proposed use, and the proposed uses are consistent with the intent
of the B-4 District. Staff recommends approval of the application, subject to the
conditions found in Exhibit Z
SUPPORTING DATA
A. Aerial Image:
B. Site Images
C. Applicant Request Package, Including
i. Title Sheet
ii. Site Plan and Certified Survey
iii. Grading, Drainage and Erosion Control Plan
iv. Utility Plan - Sanitary Sewer and Watermain
v. Utility Plan - Storm Sewer
vi. Landscaping Plan
vii. Site Lighting
viii. Reference Floorplan
ix. Elevations
x. Building Schematic
.
.
Planning Commission Agenda - 5/02/06
.
Exhibit Z - Conditions of Approval
Jeff's Dream, LLC/Moon Motorsports
Lot 1, Block 1, Otter Creek Crossings
,
1. The applicant shall provide design details of proposed fencing.
2. The applicant shall verify the turning radius for trucks entering and exiting the
loading dock.
3. The applicant shall provide at least one additional space for handicapped parking.
4. The outdoor storage area shall be covered with a bituminous surface - curbing is
not required.
5. The landscape plan shall be modified to illustrate that each individuallighting
standard is landscaped.
6. The total area ofthe five individual product identification signs and one wall
business identification sign shall equal 100 square feet or less.
7. Grading, Drainage, Erosion Control and Utility Plans are subject to review and
comment by the City Engineer.
8. Wherever fuel pumps are to be installed, the applicants shall comply with safety
installations in accordance with the City Building Official and Fire Department.
.
.
P,ge 1 of2
.
http://156.99 .28.84/servl et/com.esri.esrimap. Esrimap?ServiceName=Custom Parcel&Cli entV ersion=3.1 &... 4/20/2006
.
.
I
~
o
+-'
o
:2:
c
o
o
:2:
~
C1>
:>
en
::J
o
";::
ctl
>
.
I
----'
-- ._~
~
,
.
.
.
N
flfSS Nw 'UJVddOU
lOS ';J );,H11.T8 NOISIAI.a l
,
~ ~d~lo! <if" v~osaNNIW 'OTUI:)UNOW
DN141v)j; ~HnLd"~]
(17vn t ~ ~ ~ ~ K ~"C 8 :"
< i./,q,,,,, ~ ~ i ~ f ~ n ~ H
q,)tvo ~ :rOD ~B z ~ ~ ~ ~. SDIOdS"llO~OW NOOW
::) iii;:.. ~ h L" 50
~ a1 ~ ~ ~ ~ f ~ ~ K~
fi()O;!i~~O-~~~
KOl-n:!:lKd
;IJ3!1'ltM11~:ItOlId
VZZil'\fJ..KvJr 00
;AB6ilM;)
~~I.l}l~~NIA\ 'u
; ,
nlO-~O-Nd
~HHHS
~
rJl
~
rJJ ~~ ~ r=
~~ <
8 k
L
Z r
88 l
~
~O 0 tJ1I'
r
~~ fl,
O~ ~ r
ZOO 8 r..;
o~ r
0 ~ ~.
o~ ~'
Z
~
0
0
rJJ
o
r
if)
g),
<I)
z
o
;:::
:>
o
<I)
~~N",
:>f!i~8
tJ~~lI(
~~~:f:
tn~o"~
~~::J'"
~o~l'-.
~f~~
~=~'f
o
~
!
ot
~
O'lVdilOIl
->US NOISIAIcr Z
u......._....._...'.._...
.- '.,\
.,
-:"
.. "i,'"
".......
...- - ..-..-.. . -..
1[';.... 'ON ..uGn Pjcg.uuf" - .
I-- "":lO" ~ 00l>IJ.
---;:;? _......P-::::z JB Z8~8-Zllll (rIll.) XD.J /lUI-/!911 (rII4 'lid
gDQ~ PJU; If~" :.JIIQ tl"llll Nfl 'o/onne "N~~ "4H . 111 NN 'OTI'H:>I.LNOW:
'DJCII.uu,.. JO .~JS SI:IO.Afffll\l:InS ON"'-' - SI:IfffllINION9 avOH V'HS'l'HH:>
8t/, JQ ." IHI' ..-pun JO.i4M;ns ":: JJam IaoI ::::- - """ll::: .ONI IN/7HOI:J-I:J3A3W Ii ~ ~ I~
puDl pe.u~1l lJnp IlII wO , ~IMI~ S.LlIOd5ffiO.LOW NOOW
pug. uOJlJt^IfHlrM ~ ,(w .l*pun JO
.w A'cr palrxJ&Id !tOM ~ JO "'. SIIOISI.1Ri i i ~
',{MmIJ .,"" li)1IJ .("fl.IW AqOJOtI , - ! I I
--.--..-..
H
~ '"
13
i ! !
l~~ ~I f J f i Ii i
..1 g ~.
(n.! ~d~ . h~l · I II ~ ~~ I
{till 8 j 1 i!]l J!
I!J ! I~~~ 1a'J~ 8p:11 t ~. ! II i
~!~' i~~ ,i~i'llJj ,.
!!l1 ! I~I!I !!f! lji~ ~ ',J ~ ~ ~ ~
~ III r~
Ifl~ i .1!~1 r - IflU U . ~i
o . ~i
I II~ b Q
"
.~
0;'
D'
..-,~
\ ,
"
.~
,~~
/'..1
I-Y'
c...'
" -'
i5
, ,
....
"
,
"-
"-
"
dUll
.OlSWU ~
.
~ U ~ .i ~
~\ i i ~ .g~ ~ 1l~1 ~
~\tllll I IIII .!~ I;:-!
;;~.'I'.\...\.\.i!!~~~ ~ ~u~~h ~~~~~B
"<\ \l\ ill '(15~~~ill~ ~:teill~~
~~ IMmiU IIiI!j
~ 'cl.l.I.:, icti:i.
f.-
."
."
~ .: ~
;-. ~:: .'. II
~j
...J
, <:
~ li::i
~ D
I t!>
z
II fft
=:l
U
~
~ IM~
IW it ~
Cl
if) i~ ~ i
.. :t ~
i ~!
'11 .JNJfJ3 ""ldr"'" ~
~
""/I-nll ("111.) .Ool 11I1.1-ZIIII ("11'<) 'lid
"""II H" 'o/OJj"1I "HIIZ 'Mi< 1I11 NW 'QTI'il;)I.LNOW
BWOA3AWI1S aNV" - Bl:S!fINIIDNS avOll V'.3:!)lHH:)
.ONI tN/7HO~"~3A3W SJ.lIOdSROJ.OW NOOW
'I(
NO
li.~ ~ I~! '~~,
Ii; ~ I ~
i! ;: ;! ;:
~~I zl U ~~
jil I; ~~ ~~
9~i 51d 510 5!6
il:~= IL~ IL IL
!h hI !il IiI
2U 280 2~0 2~.
~
@ @) @ @
~~[
-.. )
--.......l':",~-___...
", .,1
.~......
~
~ ~ ~
i~
i g '. ~ 2! "
tl ~l/
i:
~~ l!;
..
h ~ ;l\ ,. !
, .
I ~ n ~
..
h~U I
on ..
r~ lI'l
~ ill
_.~:; ;"
ow
az f!iZif"H 'IoU ~0lD<J l;8pll-;QQ ([:Q.:) ~o.4 IQ.l:I-r;QQ ([:Q.I:> '~<I NW 'O'IT3:JUNOW
~" 'd """"--=- I.. [:I[:~~ NI1 fOlCW"1J "Ng~ .~H ~,. ~ l i A1IV
~ I( ... '" fitlO.AlIA~8 aNV"'I - SW,.ilNIDNII avOl1 WST3H:) Ii & ~ I~
~~;.;~~-:,,~= If: Dal'" -d?"""" """F.: .ONI 'NI1HOI:/-I:/3A3W s.LlIOdS1Io.r.OW NOOW i I . I
D WD I ~\ fIUD, UOItlVUMI'W :pIIJIP I ~
,(UJ ~pu'" "'0 tu.I .<q pNDdtud .-
IDM ~d&l JO 't,IQ~*' - --
",- 'lIOId 'I'll \'>Ill .1M!''' Jq....~ I
(NMwH
.LINV!-
}.
;-
t
g
~ ~ ~
~
~
~ I
.,
~
;~
Is:
~~I
I
I
~I &""'"I110=0lllllllll=n
Willa
NOISIAIa ~
iD.,' .....
.~
I....'S
'D Ul"
JH:~i~I'" ;'~n"'~;;
~ UlD ~~~~~U:::~~= ':
_D4Ilo \JOdIu JO 'UOllDOlW-d.
'.Ojd 0''1> 1"'1 .!Jl_ .<qo... I
""''' ""',.::;-"" ~
SNDiSIA3I/
z:......-z:1I1I (rilL) .D,;/ IIIU -Z:1I11 (rill.) "..1
r "'rig NI'f 'DI'Wf18 "Ngr; ....W 1111
S"'O.A~!oII'JS aNV7 - S"'~1INJDN~
"ONI 6N/7HO/:J"/:J!iLt3W
NJi'i[ 'OTllI:JllNON
avOlI V'HS'I'tlH::>
S.LlIOdSRO.LON NOON
<PrnO
I~,~ ~I!!
.....lilJr
"
~ ~ ~ .o~!i!i!i"!i ~
R WR.oR 8 ~8 .oR WR .oR IR "R
~ !~ !~ I! ~! II II !I !I II
I d ~I d n d d $I ~I il
-l
~
~a
~~
(f)i'J2
~a
oI:
.....u
(f)Z
~
~
8
./ .-
,'." . '''.
!!
~ i ~~U ~ J I Ir~
) 2 ~ l'5bt';t';
~ b ii~i ~ ~~ ~ ~
z I~ Un ~~i
!j! I ~ i ~~: lj 1:l ~
10 ~ &>lolo&> u~ i~
I: s~ ~~~~ II
~ ~
il ~ gg 15~ 8..11 II
. ~
~' -
.... .
~
<>~~ '" i'il'
Tnll
:OIswa z
~.
,I.... .....
"
.' ""-
;ra.Ii-l:88(~8l) xc..! 18"1-';W (nl) '~d
,J: ~ "g-p N1'4 ~OIDJJn8 "Ng~ "If_,., ........
": JHJf10 _ ~ ~
SNOISVo3I/
SIIOA.!llAllns ON."..., - SI:ISSNJ"NS
.ONI 'N/7HOI:/-l:J3A3W
NN 'OTI'EI::>llNOW:
avOll VRS'IHH::> ~ '3:dV~
:t ~ j!! Il!i ~
S~)lOdSH:O~OW NOON I ~ ." t::!Z <;
-- Ii; I j
~
~
~:i
<>
~
a~ i H H i! i! i 12 12 12 12 12
III .. !il !il ~ ~ ;jj ;jj $
.. .. .. ..
! I I I I I I
I ~ I I II ~
! ! ~ ~ ~
i ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ a ~ ! ~ '" "
~
:::)
Cl
I1.J 8
:r:: i ~ ~ ~
u ~ ~ ~
(j) I ~ ~ i I ~ ~
t.!) ; I ~ @ ~ ~ I
i I ! I ~ ~ i ~ ~
n... 11 .. .. o Q '" ... <> :c - ... " -'
S NJ'l'oiv ddOIl
'3 ~3311,LS NOISIMO Z
.
BUU~-!iiO-~~~
jlJI.lit jiO
~lhH ~~ d1i
hnid!pt~
g ~ ~ U~ U' ;;" H"
V,10S3NNIW'OTI3:JI.LNOW
KOS'"JalN:".1
'l8!MMIJ~
D1\'41
f/qq 7~
f}J.q[f:JA'
'~O.)
V'".lzlly.u.;:V.i "0
:!.ICK)
H::I,L)J:!IO"l.\\."U
~ltiIt\YIICI
S~)lOdS1IO.LOW NOOW
.__ I,
OlO-~O-.N:d
~ "
!! i ii i]I'
I ~ i I~ t.
I h {, ~i HI
~~ I. U 11
~ ~ ~i ~= ~~ ~ 111
!
. ~'-:"':':':-. I I I.
hll" -- -,'C" - d,ri! ~I!'
. - il Ill!'!"
_______..'____ !_~.'...m.___.___:...___..:.__"f lH~ '..~
_~""'II-"- I 1!"I'..,~Ii~...~ I
:" ' . . , . .: {II I :'-' -' - . . ': III II' ijr
~ II:.: i~ j 1'11- . lib ~ t lilt
h- " ill i r : II Ii I
;: .' ~!lla" ..:Ilt Boql,
31 ..___._ 11 .....Ii! .
I --'-'-- I H II'
:" d - . . ": Ii :"" . . "" ': 1[, ~ Ii i
IIII t.: ill ~ 1:11: ~i 11 ~u..tli !
I f~l: : fIlii: : filII JI illt II
! I!" ..,., i a" ." 1.1 J fd im L
DNI.LH:
~
,
,
.
I
II!
j 1~1
II jll,
hUll
1,1
L
~J
J Q 1~lf 1"~~1 i
1:2 i~,I~ ~ -I e
J I~. ; i
l'l (tJ~j ~: i
_' \ ..li!
" 'I"
r I "\ ~_II~hn
Ii ill ~ :1.111 '~I!,! i
f h 11 II.;, ~1'lJll >.
· If 1,I,!I,., t,', ,It',flR,If lid,i,lln
~ I ti,il II" . tlutH'
I'" ~, ."', f,I"n"hIi,lIl!~,I~, i,', d i!
,,1 1t..tH ,.tl!l,d"II,'
. i~, ~i!i H ~ 11:,1 ~:Iitll ~i
~l ~Ijl~nhh:lijmd,h,
-11th! IJJlll.~ ! m~
l,i,',III,I.IiI,J,n bu I" , , U
HII .1 limn lllll ;
~ .J ilm-
...1 iH hi ) Ill,; m: Ill!' n J
inIHr1If'd!JI ml;~ ili m
ItMddhl~llhuii I II'!"
I.. 15~'U 1ft ~ .H' Ui!
f I ~.
t It tH ~H J
tl · " .H ;.~ IIflI. . I
l-tl U I .1 It ·
11 'fllU nhBliluH ! I I
Ii III In III II it : ti I' I
II,' r-" t 'jll I' I
I Imm~ '" , ,l,litl.
i,L..m u1 n, I '1 t,~, If. .rf1l, :,
!!!llllHhiUJ 'I."il' t
IIII-.num j IHH1m llHtHI JII
lil r.lnuuu m ....}ullh!h.!!!I!! J
~ IfN
~ Ii
SS NYil '01Vtltll1\l
'3 .L3311.LS NOlSlhlU l
,
~,I,IOIW~JIhI
I
JLJ
~1.
- U- l l ..~_.n.
D-," 1 ,D-.QI1 ,D-,VI 1 (1. .0-011 )1.. 1 ,g""l
L .o-,V' .0-,,," ~to-,E
~l ~.C.-- .0':::. ..1.0-,'1
i 2~
.0-.0...
Di\rI4J
Vqq IV;
12J.r/[f;)
'!yo;)
! 'dlllt aE~
~lsHlbRt aj
clH~ ~1Idlii
hni~HH~~
d~~{u~HU
S~~OdS1IO~OW NOOW
V~OS3:NNIW 'OTI3:::>I~NOW
~
I I
--1---
-J~ ~
I
.o',,,~ t
1
I
~
,D-,~6
1
1
I
,D-D'
l
1 .o-,O€
,
.o..~~1
~
6
OOOO-il'O-~~w
~08'131\:'tl
~~J~~
VZZllY.LN:V.a: "0
"'-
H:!I.LlI:!IONI.\\.'(I
I '
610"~m~NlI
iIIMMft1~:II'01I4
NVr"JdNO'
:H:O N:H:H:H:.:
w,
~
~
.
~
t
!~
j.
~
D~
lIqcr:t!l;
f)J.q[j:)^ ,
'vO:)
j " )I~ t Ii 15
i}hH~~hh
! ~ n~ ~j! Ii f ~
~L~~HHaU
z
o
~
~
IU
o
z
G
ll:
~
z
o
~
:J ~ ~
f 8" ~
~... ~j1il U
~~ U~ ~
I-
:::)
~
VLOSRNNIW'OTI3:0I.LNOW:
S~([OdS([O~ON NOON
f f
N
jot t
c '" 8
... ! ~ ~
~
.
liil
~H
I '
AfMMti~1I0.g0
"".
.s:O~J:!I~'d
~J-:l:llOlllj
YZznY~".a: Ot)
:&glllllol3
Ua:,LH30~l.\\ "(1
Ol()'-gO-Nd
SNOIlLV A
z
o
~
~
IU
o
Z
~
~
<'I)
~ tzt'"
~ ~ ::
, , ,
d d d
.
..
..
.
.
.
I
Planning Commission Agenda - 5/02/06
7.
Public Hearin2: Consideration of a reauest for an amendment to the ZoninlZ
Ordinance relZdIatine: identification sips for institutional uses in the p-S. Public
Semi-Public District. Applicant: Resurrection Church. (NAC)
REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND
The applicants are proposing an amendment to the sign ordinance that would permit
them to make permanent the location of two "temporary" signs that are currently
located at each driveway entrance location to the Church property. The signs are
each a total of 36 square feet, with interchangeable banners comprising the center 24
square feet of the sign area. From grade, the signs are approximately 8 feet in height.
The current sign regulations require the following for uses in the R-I District (this is
the district in which churches were allowed prior to the establishment ofthe P-S
District):
· Each property is allowed one identification sign of 2 square feet.
· Informational/Directional Signs of up to 10 square feet (which directional
information and name of owner only - no other messages).
· Institutional identification sign of up to 18 square feet and 8 feet in height.
· Signs of more than 2 square feet (in all districts) must be set back 50% of the
building setback (the front setback in the P-S District is 40 feet).
The signs being requested would require that the City amend either of two
regulations. The first option would be to amend the restriction on sign size for
Information/Directional signage to allow larger such signs (up to 36 square feet,
instead ofthe maximum 10 feet). The second option would be to amend the
Institutional identification sign requirement to allow 3 such signs, or one sign plus
one additional sign for each primary street frontage, for instance.
Planning staff is not aware of other communities' sign ordinances that grant this
number of signs for institutional uses. However, we would note that the current sign
area restriction (18 square feet) is smaller than what most communities permit.
As a general comment, staff would not encourage an amendment that increases the
number of signs on an institutional parcel - the size of the site and the building itself
provide most of the communication that is necessary to passing traffic. However,
sign requirements such as these are policy decisions for the City. Once any proposed
change is agreed upon, staff will develop the ordinance language for the amendment.
1
I
Planning Commission Agenda - 5/02/06
AL TERNA TIVE ACTIONS
.
..
Decision 1: Zoning Ordinance amendment allowing two additional 36 square foot
signs for institutional uses in the P-S zoning district.
1. Motion to recommend approval of an amendment, allowing an increase in the
size of informational/directional signage to _ signs at a maximum of
square feet each.
2. Motion to recommend approval of an amendment, allowing an increase in the
number and size of institutional identification signage to _ signs at a
maximum of _ square feet each.
3. Motion to recommend denial of the amendment, based on a finding that the
current ordinance provides for adequate communication of such
properties.
ST AFF RECOMMENDATION
As noted above, staff would not recommend an increase in the size of signage such as
that requested by the applicant, although a larger identification sign allowance would .
be common as compared to regulations in other communities. If the City decides to
approve an amendment, alternative number 2 above would appear to have the least
impact on other sign regulations.
SUPPORTING DATA
A. Sign Ordinance
B. Applicant Sign Concept
.
2
.
.
.
I
7}.
3~8:
MINING: Under this ordinance, mining is the extraction of sand, gravel, or other
material from the land in theamount of four hundred (400) cubic yards or more and
removal thereof from the site without processing. Mining shall be allowed only under
the terms of a development agreement for subdivision or by the issuance of a conditional
use pennit in all districts. Such pennit shall include as a condition thereof:
,
1. a plan for a finished grade which will not adversely affect the surrounding land
or the development of the site on which the mining is being conducted, and
route of trucks moving to and from the site,
2. shall regulate the type of material mined from the site,
3. a program for rodent control,
4. a plan for fire control and general maintenance of the site,
5. controls for vehicular ingress and egress, and for control of material disbursed
from wind or hauling of material to or from the site,
6. a calendar of specific dates when mining operations will be conducted,
including specific beginning and ending dates, and
7.
the submission of a surety by the applicant in an amount determined by the City
Engineer to be equal to I OQ()lo of the value of the cost of restoring land
whereupon mining is to occur and repairing the degradation of roadways used to
transport soils.
Subject to the terms of an approved subdivision development agreement or conditional
use pennit, a grading permit allowing mining shall be issued by the City Engineer and
City Building Official. Upon application for a grading permit for mining, a fee for
grading permit shall be paid to the City by the applicant. Such fee shall be detennined
by City Council resolution.
(#322,4/12/99)
3-9:
SIGNS:
[A] PURPOSE: This subdivision is established to protect and promote health,
safety, general welfare, and order within the city of Monticello through the
establishment of a comprehensive and impartial series of standards, regulations,
and procedures governing the type, numbers, size structure, location, height,
lighting, erection, use and/or display of devices, signs, or symbols serving as a
visual communication media to persons situated within or upon public right~of-
ways or properties.
The provisions of this subdivision are intended to encourage opportunity for
effective, orderly communication by reducing confusion and hazards resulting
from unnecessary and/or indiscriminate use of communication facilities.
MONTICEl.LO ZONING ORDINANCE
3/46
I
[B] PERMITTED AND PROHIBITED SIGNS:
1.
PERMITTED SIGNS: The following signs are allowed without a permit
but shall comply with all other applicable provisions of this subdivision:
.
(a) Public signs
,
(b) Identification signs: There may be one (I) per premise not to
exceed two (2) square feet in area. If the sign is freestanding, the
total height may not exceed five (5) feet.
(c) Integral signs
(d) Political campaign signs: Shall not exceed twelve (12) square feet
in all other zoning districts. Every campaign sign must contain
the name and address of persons responsible for such sign, and
that person shall be responsible for its removal. Signs shall
remain in place for no longer than five (5) days after the election
for which they are intended. All signs shall be confined to private
property. The City shall have the right to remove and destroy
unsightly signs or remove signs after the five (5) day limit and
assess a fee of five dollars ($5.00) per sign for removal.
(e)
Holiday Signs: Displayed for a period not to exceed thirty (30)
days.
.
(f)
Construction Signs: Such signs shall be confined to the site of the
construction, alteration, or repair, and shall be removed within two
(2) years of the date of issuance of the first building permit or
when the particular project is completed, whichever is sooner as
detennined by the City Building Inspector or his agent. One (I)
sign shall be permitted for each major street the project abuts. No
sign may exceed fifty (50) square feet.
(g) Individual Property Sale or Rental Signs: Signs must be removed
within fourteen (14) days after sale or rental of property. Signs
may not measure more than four (4) square feet in "R" districts,
nor more than twenty (20) square feet in all other districts. There
shall be only one (I) sign per premise. Corner properties,
however, may contain two (2) signs, one (I) per frontage.
(h) Infonnation/Directional Signs: Shall not be larger than ten (J 0)
square feet and shall conform to the location provisions of the
specific district.
(i) Portable Signs (as defined i Section 3-9.(B).2.(e).i) Such signs
shall be subject to the following requirement:
MONTICELLO ZONING ORDINANCE
.
3/47
I
.
.
.
1.
The signs shall be allowed only within the CCD, Central Community
Zoning District.
2. The signs shall occupy the public or private sidewalk area within five (5)
feet of the entryway of the business it serves.
3. The placement of the signs shall not impede pedestrian or vehicle
circulation. If on the public sidewalk, such signs shall be placed so that
no less than six feet of sidewalk is available for passing of pedestrians.
4. The signs shall display messages oriented toward pedestrians.
5. The signs shall not have electrical connections, nor include any lighted or
moving component.
6. The display of such signs shall be limited to the hours of the business it
serves.
7.
The signs shall be constmcted of wood or other materials detennined
acceptable by the City. Color and design shall meet the design guidelines
for the CCD zoning district, and shall not be composed of "f1ourescent"
colors.
The maximum size of such signs shall be no greater than five (5) feet in
height and six (6) square feet in area and must comply with all other
regulations of this ordinance.
8.
9. Any sign placed under this section shall infer an indemnification of the
City of Monticello by the owner of the sign for any liability or claim made
involving the sign or sign location.
10. No such sign shall be connected or attached to any public structure,
including light poles, traffic control devices, public street furniture, utility
equipment, or other such facility. (#403, I III 0/03)
2. PROHIBITED SIGNS: The following signs are specifically prohibited by this
paragraph.
(a) Any sign which obstmcts the vision of drivers or pedestrians or detracts
from the visibility of any official traffic control device.
(b) Any sign which contains or imitates an official traffic sign or signal,
except for private, on-premises directional signs.
(c) Any sign which moves or rotates. Exempt are time and temperature
infonnation and barber poles.
MONTICEllO ZONING ORDINANCE
3/48
I
(d) Any sign which contains or consists of banners, pennants, ribbons,
streamers, strings of light bulbs, spinners, or similar devices, except in
case of Subsection [C], Paragraph 4.
.
(e) , Portable signs as defined in i below and other attention-getting devices as
defined in iii-v below, except as allowed in Section 3-9.(B). 1 (i) and as
provided for in Subsection [C], Paragraph 4. (#403, 11/10/03)
I. Portable signs shall be defined as an advertising device not
pennanently attached to a building, facade, or pylon.
II. Banners shall be defined as fabric, paper, vinyl, or similar material
which carries a specific message and which can be hung on a wall,
facade, awning, canopy, suspension cable or wire, etc.
Ill. Streamers/Pennants shall be defined as flags, triangular pennants,
spirals, spinners, etc., attached in series to a single cord or support
line which is then strung or suspended from point to point.
IV. Inflated devices shall be defined as inflatable devices which may
be stationary or airborne (but tethered) which arc intended to
attract attention to a specific location or site.
v. Searchlights - self defining. (# 150, 5/27/86)
(f) Signs which are attached in any manner to trees, fences, utility poles, or
other such pen11anent supports, except for those signs found on fences
(inside) of baseball parks.
.
(g) Adve11ising signs of 200 square feet or more in place on or before June
23, 1980, and which are the principal use of the lot of record as of the
above date and which have an agreement on file with the City on or
before August 23, 1980, in the form so designated by the City
Administrator, which is signed by the property owners and the advertising
sign owners and all signatures notarized, may continue as a non-
eonfonning use until such time as the lot of record above is developed or
improved, in which case, the non-conforming adve11ising sign must be
removed within 60 days after written notice from the Building Official.
(h) Advel1ising signs as defined in Chapter 2 of this ordinance of 199 square
feet or less in area, except that those signs which were in place on or
before 8/15/75 may continue as a non-eOnf0n11ing sign.
(i) Except for Electronic Message Board Signs as allowed in Section 3
[E]4.(f). No sign shall display any moving parts, nor shall it be
illuminated with any flashing or intermittent lights, nor shall it be
animated. Exempt are time and temperature infonnation and barber
MONTICELLO ZONING ORDINANCE
.
3/49
.
.
.
I
poles. All displays shall be shielded to prevent light to be directed at on-
coming traffic in such brilliance as to impair the vision of any driver. No
device shall be illuminated in such a manner as to interfere with or
obscure an official traffic sign or signal. (1/10/00, #340)
,
(j) Roof Signs.
(k) Projecting Signs except as hereinafter provided. (#334, 9/13/99)
[C] GENERAL PROVISIONS:
I. All signs shall comply with Maintenance Section 5-305 of the 1970
Edition of Volume V of the Uniform Building Code as promulgated by
the International Conference of Building Officials.
2. When electrical signs are installed, the installation shall be subject to the
City's Electrical Code.
3. No signs other than governmental signs shall be erected or temporarily
placed within any street right-of-way or upon any public lands or
easements or right-of-ways.
4. The temporary use of portable signs, decorative attention-getting devices,
and searchlights shall require an annual or daily permit.
(a)
An annual permit for pOliable signs, as defined herein, shall be
granted for a maximum period of forty (40) days per calendar
year. As a condition of the annual permit, applicant shall maintain
a daily record of the use of portable signs on a fonl1 provided by
the City. (#238,6/14/93)(#150,5/27/86)
(b) A pennit for decorative attention-getting devices shall be issued
for a maximum period often (10) days with a minimum period of
one hundred eighty (180) days between consecutive issuance of
such permits for any property or parcel.
(c) All portable signs and attention-getting devices must be well
maintained and kept in good repair at all times. The Building
Official shall order the immediate removal of any device
considered to be damaged or in poor condition. Non-compliance
shall be just cause for revocation of the pennit without refund.
(d) All portable signs and attention-getting devices shall be allowed
only on the property or site where the business or enterprise is
situated. No placement shall be allowed on public rights-or-way.
(e) All portable signs and attention-getting devices shall be on ground
MONTICELLO ZONING ORDINANCE
3/50
I
level except that banners and streamers may be affixed to a
building, facade, permanent pylon sign, or other pennanent
fixture. Airborne inflatable devices shall be tethered on site.
.
.,
(f)
Not more than two (2) p0l1able signs shall be displayed at the
same time.
(g) Not more than two (2) attention-getting devices shall be pennitted
to be displayed in conjunction with any pOltablesign.
(h) A decorative attention~getting device may bear the name of the
business, but shall not bear any service, product, price, etc.,
advertising message.
(i) Permit fees shall be set by the City Council and shall be payable
upon application for said permit. (#150,5/27/86)
(j) Public banners may be hung from city street light fixtures for a
period of up to one (I) year. Design and placement of the public
banners shall be consistent with the following standards:
I.
Design and placement of public sign/decorative banners
must first be approved by the City Council and annually
thereafter. Prior to Council consideration, applicant shall
submit a banner placement plan which shows proposed
banner design, size, pole location/elevation, duration, and
proposed manner by which the banners shall be hung.
Banner placement plan shall also describe financing
sources for purchasing and installing public banners.
.
2. Public banners may be hung from parking lot light
fixtures or from other structures on private property only
in conjunction with a City Council approved public
banner system. Except for requirements outlined in
section 4.(j) of this ordinance, said banners are exempt
from sign regulations. The City shall not participate in
financing any portion of the cost of public banners placed
on private property. City crews may assist with the
installation of public banners placed on private property
if compensated at actual cost to install banners.
3. Except for Christmas banners, all banners shall contain an element
of the City colors and/or City logo. No private advertising may be
allowed on any banner hung in conjunction with a public banner
system.
4. Public banners hung from streets cape fixtures shall be no larger
MONTICELLO ZONING ORDINANCE
.
3/51
.
.
.
I
than 14" by 45", Banners hung from standard street lights shall be
no larger than 28" by 80". '
5.
Public banners shall not be hung in a position that will cause a
substantial obstmction of visibility from the street to advertising,
,
traffic, and directional signs and shall not be hung in a position so
as to intermpt corner sight lines.
6. Public banners may be hung only on alternate streetscape fixtures
unless otherwise approved by Council.
7. Banners placed on City fixtures shall become the property of the
City. If damaged or in need of repair, banners may be removed by
City statT. The public banner systel11ll1ay be discontinued, and all
banners, including those on private property, may be ordered
removed at the discretion of the City Council.
8. The bracket system used to hang banners shall be of sufficient
strength to withstand strong winds and shall be designed in a
manner that allows easy installation and removal of banners.
5. All signs shall display in a conspicuous manner the owner's name, permit
number, and date of erection.
6.
All height restrictions on signs shall include height of sign structure.
7.
In any district, any portion of any sign exceeding two (2) square feet shall
be set back a distance equal to fifty percent (50(Yo) of the required building
setback for that district as defined in Section 3-3 [C] of the Monticello
Zoning Ordinance, as may be amended. (#269, 5/8/95)
8. Any sign now or hereafter existing which no longer advertises, or
identifies a bona fide business conducted, or a service rendered, or a
product sold, shall be removed by the owner, agent, or person having the
beneficial use and/or control of the building or structure upon which the
sign may be found within ten (10) days after written notice from the
Building Inspector.
9. The City of Monticello or its agent is authorized and required by this
ordinance to enter into an agreement with the United States or any of its
agencies or departments to the end that the objective stated in Title 23,
United States Code, Section 131, Section 319, or any other applicable
federal statute to obtain non-conforming signs along the Great River Road
within the city of Monticello. However, the City of Monticello or its
agent shall not be required, nor allowed, to expend funds for the
acquisition of non-conforming signs or advertising devices under this
chapter until federal funds in the amount of 75% or more to his
MONTICELLO ZONING ORDINANCE
3/52
acquisition cost are made available to the City of Monticello for the
purpose of carrying out this ordinance. No sign nor advertising device
legal under Laws 1971, Chapter 883, shall be required to be removed or
relocated until payment, as provided in Laws 1971, Chapter 883, is
tendered by the City of Monticello.
.
10. Signs may be located on confonning fuel station pump island canopies.
Such signs shall be considered as wall signs, and shall be regulated in the
same manner as any other wall signs on the property. (#247,3/14/94)
[0] NON-CONFORMING SIGNS:
I. The following are non-conforming signs:
(a) Off-premise signs, except signs located inside ball parks and on
bus benches.
(b) Prohibited signs.
(c) All other signs not expressly prohibited but which do not COnfOnll
to the provisions of this subdivision.
2. A non-conforming sign may not be:
(a)
Changed to another non-conforming sign.
.
(b) Structurally altered except to bring into compliance with the
provisions of this subdivision.
(c) Expanded.
(d) Re-established after its removal for thirty (30) days.
(e) Re-established after damage of more than fifty (50) percent of sign
replacement cost except to bring into compliance.
3. All non-conforming and prohibited signs shall be removed or brought into
confomlity with this ordinance after notification in writing within the
following time period.
(a) Any sign in violation of the prohibited signs as defined in [8] 2:
Thirty (30) days (exception: advertising signs, five (5) years).
(b) For all other non-conforming signs: five (5) years.
4. Notwithstanding any other requirement in Section 3-9 of this Ordinance
to the contrary, ofl-premise or advertising signs may be relocated as
MONTICELlO ZONING ORDINANCE
.
3/53
.
.
.
I
follows:
(a)
This section shall apply exclusively to off-premise advertising
signs of 200 square feet or greater that have a specific, written, fee
or leasehold interest in the property on which they are currently ..
located, and which are required to be removed pursuant to City
acquisition as part of a City utility or road project.
(b) Such signs may be relocated to another part of the same parcel on
which they were located at the time of the acquisition by City
Council resolution.
(c) Such signs may be relocated to another vacant parcel subject to
the application for and approval of an Interim Use Pennit per the
requirements of the Monticello Zoning Ordinance.
(d) In addition to any other requirements or restrictions deemed
appropriate by the City Council, the owner of such relocated sign
under (b) or (c) above shall not enter into any lease that extends
the duration of such sign beyond the soonest termination date to
which the sign is subject at the time of the relocation. Upon such
date, the relocated sign shall be removed and shall not be re-
established within the City I imits of the City of Monticello.
(e)
The owner of any sign relocated pursuant to this section shall
enter into an agreement with the City of Monticello providing for
the date of removal and the tcons of any lease or other contract
governing the relocation.
(#423, 4/11/05)
[E] DISTRICT REGULATIONS: The following sections concern signs which
require application and permit.
I. Within the A-O, R-I, R-2, R-3, R-4, and PZR districts, signs are subject
to the following size and type regulations:
(a) Institutional or area identification signs, provided that the gross
square footage of sign area does not exceed eighteen (18) square
feet, and if the sign is freestanding, the height does not exceed
eight (8) feet.
(b) Public signs, including public signs that display infom1ation
electronically, provided that the gross square footage of sign area
does not exceed sign height and size requirements identified in
Section 3-9[E]4c of the Monticello Zoning Ordinance
(#314,8/10/98)
2. Within the PZM, B-1, B-2, B-3, B-4, CCD, 1-1, I-lA, and 1-2 districts,
MONTICELLO ZONING ORDINANCE
3/54
,
I
signs are subject to the following size and type regulations:
(#298,10/13/97) (#334,9/13/99)
.
(a) Within the PZM and B-1 districts, the maximum allowable square
footage of sign area per lot shall not exceed the sum of one (I)
square foot per front foot of the building plus one (I) square foot
for each front foot of lot not occupied by a building, up to one
hundred (100) square feet. Each lot will be allowed one (I) pylon
or freestanding sign and one (I) wall sign or two (2) wall signs
total.
(b) For buildings in which there is one (I) or two (2) business uses
within the B-2, B-3, B-4, CCO 1- I, I-I A, and 1-2 districts, and for
buildings used for commercial retail activities located within a
PZM district and located on property adjacent to B-2, B-3, B-
4,CCO, I-I, I-I A, or 1-2 districts, there shall be two (2) options for
permitted signs, as listed below in 2(b)i and 2(b)ii. The property
owner shall select one option, which shall control sign
development on the property.
(#298, 10/13/97) (#334,9/13/99)
1.
Option A. Under Option A, only wall signs shall be
allowed. The maximum number of signs on any
principal building shall be six sign boards or placards, no
more than four (4) of which may bc product
identification signs. Signs may be displayed on at least
two walls, or equal to the number of streets upon which
the property has legal frontage, whichever is greater.
Each wall shall contain no more than two product
identification signs and two business identification signs.
The total maximum area of wall signs shall be
determined by taking twenty percent (20%) of the gross
silhouette area of the front of the bui lding up to three
hundred (300) square feet, whichever is less. If a
principal building is on a corner lot, the largest side of
the building may be used to determine the gross
silhouette area.
.
For purposes of determining the gross area of the
silhouette of the principal bui Idi ng, the silhouette shall be
defined as that area within an outline drawing of the
principal building as viewed from the front lot line or
from the related public street(s).
11.
Option B. Under Option B, a combination of wall signs
and a maximum of one (1) pylon sign may be utilized.
The total number of business identification signs
MONTICELLO ZONING ORDINANCE
.
3/55
.
.
.
I
allowed (whether wall or pylon) shall be at least two (2),
or equal to the number of streets upon which the
property has legal frontage, whichever is greater. Only
two product identification signs shall be allowed, and
these wall signs may be only on one wall. The total
maximum allowable sign area"'for any wall shall be
determined by taking ten percent (10%) of the gross
silhouette area of the front of the building up to one
hundred (100) square feet, whichever is less. The
method for detennining the gross silhouette area shall be
as indicated in Subd. 2.(b )i. Above. Pylon signs shall be
regulated as in Subd. 4 below. For single or double
occupancy business structures, the total maximum
allowable signage on the property shall be three hundred
(300) square feet. For multiple occupancy structures, the
total maximum allowable signage on the property shall
be as detemlined under Subd. 3 below.
(#272,06/26/95) (#230, 06/22/92)
(#247,03/14/94) (#265,12/12/94)
Conditional Uses in Commercial and Industrial Districts: The purpose of
this section is to provide aesthetic control to signage and to prevent a
proliferation of individual signs on buildings with three (3) or more
business uses. The City shall encourage the use of single sign boards,
placards, or building directory signs.
3.
(a) In the case of a building where there are three (3) or more business
uses, but which, by generally understood and accepted definitions,
is not considered a shopping center or shopping mall, a
conditional use shall be granted to the entire building in
accordance with an overall site plan under the provisions of
Option A or Option B (described in 2 (b) i and ii above) provided
that:
I. The owner of the building files with the Zoning
Administrator a detailed plan for signing illustrating
location, size in square feet, size in percent of gross
silhouette area, and to which business said sign is
dedicated.
MONTICELLO ZONING ORDINANCE
I!. No tenant shall be allowed more than one sign, except
that in the case of a building that is situated in the interior
of a block and having another building on each side of it,
one sign shall be allowed on the front and one sign shall
be allowed on the rear provided that the total square
footage of the two signs does not exceed the maximulll
3/56
allowable square footage under Option A or Option B
described in 2(b)i and ii above.
.
III. No individual business sign board/placard shall exceed
twenty-five percent (25%) of the total allowable sign
area.
IV. An owner of the bui lding desiring any alteration of signs,
sign location, sign size, or number of signs shall first
submit an application to the Zoning Administrator for an
amended sign plan, said application to be reviewed and
acted upon by the Zoning Administrator within ten (10)
days of application. If the application is denied by the
Zoning Administrator, the applicant may go before the
Planning Commission at their next regularly scheduled
meeting.
v. In the event that one tenant of the building does not
utilize the full allotment of allowable area, the excess
may not be granted, traded, sold, or in any other way
transferred to another tenant for the purpose of allowing a
sign larger than twenty-five percent (25%) of the total
allowable area for signs.
VI.
Any building identification sign or building directory
sign shall be included in the total allowable area for
signs.
.
VII. Any sign that is shared by or is a combination of two or
more tenants shall be considered as separate signs for
square footage allowance and shall meet the requirements
thereof.
VIII. All signs shall be consistent in design, material, shape,
and method of illumination.
(b) In the case of a building where there are two (2) or more uses and
which, by generally understood and accepted definitions, is
considered to be a shopping center or shopping mall, a conditional
use permit may be granted to the entire building in accordance to
an overall site plan indicating their size, location, and height of all
signs presented to the Planning Commission. (#396,7/28/03)
A maximum of five percent (5%) of the gross area of the front
silhouette shall apply to the principal building(s) where the
aggregate allowable sign area is equitably distributed among the
several businesses. In the case of applying this conditional use
MONTiCELLO ZONING ORDINANCE
.
3/57
.
.
.
I
permit to abuilding, the building may have one ( I) pylon or
freestandi)1g sign identifying the building which is in confonnance
with this ordinance. For purposes of determining the gross area of
the silhouette of the principal building(s), the silhouette shall be
defined as tl)at area within the outline drawing of the principal
building(s) :s viewed from the front lot line or from the related
public street(s).
For shopping centers of greater than one hundred fifty thousand
(150,000) square feet of aggregate building square footage and
greater than twenty (20) acres in site area, two freestanding signs
may be permitted under this section. The applicant may constmct
two pylon-style signs in conformance with this ordinance, or in
the alternative, may constmct one pylon-style and one monument-
style sign. When this latter option is chosen, the monument sign
shall be no greater than eighteen (18) feet in height nor more than
one hundred (100) square feet in area, and the pylon may be no
greater than fifty (50) feet in height and four hundred (400) square
feet in area. (#396, 7/28/03)
(c)
Signs for promoting and/or selling a development project: For the
purpose of promoting or selling a development project of three (3)
to twenty~five (25) acres, one sign not to exceed one hundred
(100) square feet of advertising surface may be erected on the
project site. For projects of twenty-six (26) to fifty (50) acres, one
or two signs not to exceed two hundred (200) aggregate square
feet of advertising surface may be erected. For projects over fifty-
one (51) acres, one, two, or three signs not to exceed three
hundred (300) aggregate square feet of advertising surface may be
erected. No dimension shall exceed twenty-five (25) feet
exclusive of supporting stmctures.
Such signs shall not remain after ninety-five (95) percent of the
project is developed. Such sign permits shall be reviewed and
renewed annually by the City Council. If said sign is lighted, it
shall be illuminated only during those hours when business is in
operation or when the model homes or other developments are
open for business purposes.
4. Pylon Sign: The erection of one (I) pylon sign for any single lot is
allowed under the following provisions:
(a) Location: No pylon sign shall be located closer to the property
line than as allowed in Section 3-9 [C] 7. In the case of a corner
lot, both sides fronting on a public right-of-way shall be deemed
the front.
(#269, 5/8/95)
MONTICELLO ZONING ORDINANCE
3/58
(b)
Parking Areas, Driveways: No part of the pylon signs sha!l be less
than five (5) feet from any driveway or parking area. '
(c) Area, Height Regulations:
."
SPEED AREA HEIGHT
ROAD CLASSIFICATION (MPH) (SQ FT) FEET
Collector 30 25 16
35 50 20
40 100 24
Major Thoroughfares 30 50 18
35 100 22
40 125 24
45 150 26
50 175 28
Freeways and Expressways
55 200
and
above
NA 50-
100
32
Highway 25
22
1.
In the case of subject propeliy directly abutting State
Highway 25, pylon sign area may range from 50 sq ft to
100 sq n depending on total lineal feet fronting Highway
25. 3.03 feet of pylon sign area is allowed per every 10
feet of lineal frontage with the following exceptions: I)
all properties may erect a pylon sign with a sign area of
50 regardless of front footage abutting Highway 25, and
2) the maximum pylon sign area shall not exceed 100 sq
ft regardless of total lineal footage of property abutting
Highway 25. (#173,4/1 0/89)
(d) Definitions: Definitions of road classifications apply as defined by
the official comprehensive plan as adopted.
(e) Application: The level at which the sign control system applies is
determined by the type of road, as defined above, which directly
abuts the subject property.
l.
In the case of subject propeliy directly abutting more than
one (I) road, each designated by a different road
classification type, the less restrictive classification shall
MONTICELLO ZONING ORDINANCE
I
.
.
.
3/59
.
.
.
I
apply in determining sign area and height.
11.
Actual sign height is detennined by the grade of the road
from which the sign gains its principal exposure.
.,
111. Area as determined by the fonnula under 3 (c) above,
applies to one (I) face of a two (2) faced pylon sign, or
two (2) faces of a four (4) faced sign, etc.
IV. A bonus allowing "freeway standard signs" (200 sq ft in
area and 32' high) in a commercial or industrial area is
available to all businesses located within 800 feet of a
freeway but do not abut a freeway.
(f) Electronic Message Boards may be allowed in the B-3 and B-4
Zoning Districts and on those parcels within the CCD Zoning
District which have direct frontage on Trunk Highway 25 south of
4th Street, as a part of the freestanding or pylon sign display
provided that:
1. The sign complies in all other respects with the sign
regulations of the Zoning Ordinance.
II.
The sign does not create a traffic hazard or a nuisance.
Ill.
The sign does not flash its message, although continuous
scrolling text is allowed.
IV. The sign meets all requirements of the City's Building
and Electrical Codes.
v. The sign does constitute a separate or additional
freestanding sign support structure. The sign must be
otherwise allowed under this ordinance as a pylon sign or
must be a part of an allowed pylon sign plan as defined
herein.
VI. The electronic message board portion of the sign does not
constitute more than fifty percent (50%) of the allowable
pylon sign area, or seventy (70) square feet, whichever is
less. (#340,1/10/00)
(g) In the B-3 Zoning District only, certain parcels may be allowed to
construct a second freestanding sign on the propel1y when the
following conditions are complied with:
MONTICELLO ZONING ORDINANCE
3/60
I
I. The property directly abuts lnterstate 94 and one other
collector (or higher) status street. .
The property in question is no less than two (2) acres in
II.
area.
,
Ill. The second freestanding sign shall be located no closer
than three hundred (300) feet from the first freestanding
sign on the same property.
IV. Only one of the two freestanding signs may be located
within any yard (front, rear, or side) of the property. This
clause shall be interpreted to mean that each sign shall be
required to have a separate roadway as its primary
exposure.
v. Where two freestanding signs are allowed, the sign that
fronts on the road which serves as the primary access
shall be ofa monument design, with a maximum height
of ten (10) feet and a maximum square footage of sixty
(60) square feet.
VI. Where two freestanding signs are allowed, the sign that
fronts on the freeway exposure shalt confonn to the
provisions of Section 3 [E] 4.( c) above. .
This section shall not be applied to the calculations for
VII.
signage when an applicant is seeking development design
flexibility under the City's Planned Unit Development
provIsIOns.
VIII. Both signs allowed under this subsection shall meet all
other applicable provisions of the Monticello Zoning
Ordinance.
(6/] 1101, #361)
5. Address Numbers Sign: A minimum of one (I) address number sign shall
be required on each building in all zoning districts.
(a) Location: The address numbers shall be so placed to be easily
seen from the public street.
(b) Size Regulations: The address numbers shall not be less than
three and one-hal f (3-1 /2) inches in height.
(c) Material Regulation: The address numbers shall be metal, plastic,
or wood.
MONTICELLO ZONING ORDINANCE
.
3/6]
.
I
(d)
CQlor Regulation: The address numbers shall be in a contrasting
color to the color of the building/dwelling.
(e) Enforcement Regulation: The Building Official or Zoning
Adn~nistrator or their authorized representative shall:
1. Assign all new building/dwelling address numbers.
II. Approve type of material and color of all
building/dwelling address numbers. (#158,9/14/87)
6. Projecting Signs: Projecting signs shall be permitted within the CCD
Districtbut only in the "Broadway Downtown District" thereof as defined
by the Monticello Downtown and Riverfront Revitalization Plan. Only
one ( I) projecting sign may be erected per business, with no more than
two (2) such signs erected per building, subject to the following
conditions: Projecting signs:
(a)
(b)
(c)
. (d)
(e)
(f)
(g)
(h)
Shall be only business identification signs.
Shall be fronting on a public street.
Shall not exceed six (6) square feet in area.
Shall be considered a wall sign for the purposes of maximum
allowable sign area.
The edge of the sign closest to the building mllst be no faliher than
12 inches away from the building.
May extend over the public sidewalk, but shall not extend closer
to the public street than to within 3 feet from the backside of curb.
Shall be at least 8 feet but not more than 12 feet in height above
walking surfaces or sidewalks.
Shall not be internally illuminated, but may be extemally
illuminated.
[F) FEES AND LICENSE:
(#334, 9/13/99)
1. FEES:
.
MONTICELLO ZONING ORDINANCE
(a) Payment Fees: The permit fee and other fees and charges set forth
in this ordinance shall be collected by the City before the issuance
of any permits, and the City Administrator, Building Inspector, or
3/62
I
.
,.
.
.
.
.
.
't'"""
.
.
.
N