Loading...
Planning Commission Agenda Packet 01-13-1981AGENDA REGULAR MEETING - MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday, January 13, 1981 - 7:30 P.M. Members: Jim Ridgeway, John Bondhus, Dick Martie, Ed Schaffer, Bill Burke. Loren Klein (ex -off 3cio) 1. Public Hearing - Ordinance Amendment for Signs. 2. Public Hearing - Ordinance Amendment - Simplification of the Variance Process. 3. Public Hearing - Consideration of Conditional Use for a Planned Unit Development. 4. Consideration of a Variance Request - Decorative Services. 5. Consideration of Possible Amendment to the City of I-Ionticello's Park Dedication Ordinance Requirement. 6. Approval of Minutes - November 11, 1900 Meeting. Unfinished Business - New Busineun - Planning Comimission - 1/13/81 AGENDA SNPPC.BMENT 1. Public Hearing - Ordinance Amendment for Sians. The City of Monticello has been notified that it has been selected to receive a grant from the Federal Highway Administration for the improve- ment of Ellison Park along the Mississippi River, because it lies adjacent to the Great River Road. The Great River Road goes through Monticello beginning at Halligers Tree Farm and following West on County Road 39 to the Intersection by Curtis Hoglund's and then follows Highway 75 west through town until it exits the community near the nuclear power plant. However, in order to be eligible for these funds, it in necessary that the City of Monticello have an ordinance that indicates that the City would be willing to enter an agreement with the Federal Government which would enable the City, in the future, to purchase non -conforming signs along the Great River Road. The money for the purchase of these non -conforming signs along the Great River Road would come from the Federal Government. Although the Federal Government would not provide necessarily 100% of these funds, the agreement would not be able to be affected unless the Federal Government provided at least 75% of the funds for purchasing the non -conforming :signs. The agreement with the Federal Highway Administration that would allow Monticello to receive. 75% reimbursement of the acquisition co::tn wou Lt M- entered into nt a later date. However, an agreement would not be made unless highway beautification funds were available. The availability of those funds depends on congressional action during the next two years. The Federal Highway Administration has stated that all coats (including appraisals, purchase, removal and condemnation proceedings) associated with the acquisition cost of the non -conforming signs are 75% reimburrable should that money become available. POSSIBLR ACPIONi Consider recommending approval of a sign ordinance amendment which would allow the City of Mvnticullo to enter an agrccmunt with the Federal Highway Administration to purchase non -conforming aigna along the Great River Road whenever funds would hecome availably from the Federal Government. REFERENCES Enclosed copy of the proposed Ordinance 010 . -3-9-C-7. 43", J4 - 1 - Planning Commission - 1/13/£31 2. Public Hearing - Ordinance Amendment - Simplification of the Variance Process. As previously discussed at two Planning Commission meetings, it was decided to hold a public hearing at which time the possible amendment to simplify the variance process should be oonsidered for recommending to the Council for approval. Enclosed, you will find copies of the Minutes of the previous meetings at which this subject was discussed. We will discuss those items in further detail for the possible consideration of this Ordinance Amend- ment. POSSIBLE ACTION: Consider recommending this ordinance amendment to the Council for their approval and inclusion in the City Ordinances. REFERENCES: Those pages of the minutes from previous meetings which would give you background information as to the standing of this ordinance amend- ment proposal. (Note, Item 5 of I1/11/80 Minutes enclosed for approval) . 3. Public Bearing - Consideration of Conditional Use for a Planned Unit Development. Robert and Marion Jameson, who own a parcel of land on the south side of the Monticello Junior -Senior Hiqh School, have made application for a conditional use to develop a Planned Unit Development on their property which in located in an R-3 Zone. If this new Planned Unit Development were approved, it would allow three or more log cabins to be moved onto the property and restored and used as displays of the last for public observation on a limited basis. By doing this proposal as a planned unit development, it. would give flexibility to the developers of this project, the Jamesons, or, far an A an historic community layout, or historic neiyhburlwoml layout, as oppuned to adhering to strict orelinanco regulations, which may not have leen in \�St effect at the time that an historical community worn develope.l. Also, thio would give the Council a handle on the develolunent of this proposed historic neighhorhood, and any development within that historic nuighhor- hood devolopmtunt would require Council approval. POSSIBLE ACTION: Consider recommending approval or denial of this conditional use for a Planned Unit Development. v� (l fUih'tiPL'NCF.Si Enclosed map of the Jameson property uhuwing their pn>ponnl .a with thene antique, or historic, buildings. Vy APPLICANT: Robert aid Marion Jameson. A. �. Planning Commission - 1/1.1/B1 ACF.NDA SUPPIS•.MENT 1. Public Hearing - Ordinance Amendment for Signs. The City of Monticello has been notified that it has been selected to receive a grant from the Federal Highway Administration for the improve- ment of Ellison Park along the Mississippi River, because it lies adjacent to the Great River Road. The Great River Road goes through Monticello beginning at Halligers Tree Farm and following West on County Road 39 to the Intersection by Curtis Hoglund's and then follows Highway 75 west through town until it exits the community near the nuclear power plant. However, in order to be eligible for these funds, it is necessary that the City of Monticello have an ordinance that indicate:: that the City would be willing to enter an agreement with the Federal Government which would enable the City, in the future, to purchase non -conforming signs along the Great River Road. The money for the purchase of these non -conforming signs along the Great River Road would come from the Federal Government. Although the Federal Government would not provide necessarily 100% of these funds, the agreement would not be able to be offected unless the federal Government provided at least 75% of the funds for purchasing the non -conforming signs. The agreement with the Federal Highway Administration that would allow Monticello to receive 75% reimbursement of the acquisition costs would be entered into at a later date. However, an agrcemcnt would riot be made unless highway beautification funds were available. The availability of those funds depends on congresnional action during the next two years. The Federal Highway Administration has stated that all costs (including appraisals, purchase, removal and condemnation proce6dings) associated with the acquisition cost of the non -conforming signs are 75% reimburnablc should that money become available. POSSIBLE ACTION: Consider recommending approval of a sign ordinance amendment which would allow the City of Monticello to enter an agreement with the Federal Highway Administration to purchase non -conforming signs along the Great River Road whenever Funds would become nvailablo from thu Federal Government. REPERENCESr Enclosed copy of the proposed Ordinance 010-3-9-C-1. - 1 - Planning Commission - 1/13/81 2. Public Hearing - Ordinance Amendment - Simplification of the Variance Process. As previously discussed at two Planning Commission meetings, it was decided to hold a public hearing at which time the possible amendment to simplify the variance process should be considered for recommending to the Council for approval. Enclosed, you will find copies of the Minute, of the previous meetings at which this subject was discussed. We will discuss those items in further detail for the possible consideration of this Ordinance Amend- ment. POSSIBLE ACTION: Consider recommending this ordinance amendment to the Council for their approval and inclusion in the City Ordinances. REFERENCES: Those pages of the minutes from previous meetings which would give you backgroune3 information as to the standing of this ordinance amend- ment proposal. (Note, Item 5 of 11/11/80 Minutes enclosed for approval) . 3. Public Hearing - Consideration of Conditional Use for a Planned Unit Development. Robert and Marion Jane --on, who own a parcel of land on the ,outh side of the Monticello Jun ior-Senior High School, have made application for a conditional use to dove lop a Plannud Unit Development on their property which is located i n on It -3 Zone. If this new Planner -d Pnit Devolopment were approved, it would allow three or more leg cabin;; to Ix moved onto the propurty and restored and used as displays of the fast for public observation on a limited hisis. By doing thin ptolxsal as a planned unit dovelo)nnvilt, it would give flexibility to the developers of thin project, the Jamesona, as far an an historic common ity layout, or historic neight.,onhoal layout, nu opposr-d to adhering to str ict ordinance regulations, which may not have been in effect at the time that an historical community were developed. Also, this would give tl-ioCouncil a handle on the development of thio prolored historic neighhorhood, and any development within that historic neighbor- hood development t.vould require Council approval. POSSIBLE ACTION: Conoider recommending approval or* denial of this conditional use for a Planned Unit Development. REFERENCES: Enclr ved map of the Jamoaon property showing their proposal with these antiqut-,or historic, Iwtldinqu. APPLICANT: irobert and IMrion Jamcaon. II Planning Commission - 1/13/81 4. Consideration of a Variance Request - Decorative Services Decorative Services of Monticello has requested a variance to eliminate the curb barrier around their parking lut and driveway to their new facility they are proposing to build on the lot east of the Independent Lumber Company and on the south half of that particular lot. Their reason for requesting that variance is that the back half of that lot is lower than the surrounding area, and by constructing a holding pond on the lot, they could contain the runoff water in that lot and also could use that pond a: a part of their landscaping, hopefully to enhance their property. The plans for their request have been sulmitted to John Badalich, the City Engineer, and he has recommended that the Planning Commission and City Council consider granting this variance request. Mr. Badalich did, however, point out a couple of items of concern that he has with this project. One item would be that at the road ditch where the driveway crosses onto Chelsea Road, that the 28" proposed culvert be changed to a 30" culvert. Also, Mr. Badalich is recommending that the developer couaidur a manhole at the point where the sanitary sewer connects with the City's main sewer in tho street on Chelsea Road. Although these last two items are not items that Mr. Badalich says that this variance should be contingent ulx n, he makes them as suggestions for possible methods to better facilitate the construction of this proposal. This parcel which is proposed for construction on is the southerly lmrl of the easterly part of Lot 1, Block 2, Oakwood IndunLrial Park, mid is zoned I-1. At the time of thin writing, there have been no comments submitted, ciLh,-r pro or con, on thin variance propo::al as adv,vLisod. POSSIBLE ACTION: Consider recommendiny approval or denial of thin vari,,ncc request. REFERENCES: Enclosed copy of the site layout for this project APPLICANT: Decorative Services of Minuenota, Monticello. - 3 - Planning Commission - 1/13/81 5. Consideration of Possible Amendment to the City of Monticello's Park Dedication Ordinance Requirement. Currently, the park dedication for the City of Monticello requires all developers requesting platting contribute 10% of the final plat gross area to be dedicated to the public for their use as either parks, play- grounds, public open space, or linear park and trail systems, or to contribute an equivalent amount in cash and the form of contribution, whether cash or land or combination thereof, shall be decided by the City Council based upon need and conformance with the City's approved plans. In the past, the City of Monticello has determined that the cash equivalent would be equal to 10% of the assessor's fair market value of the property. The assessor's fair market value of the property is determined to be as of January 2nd the preceeding year, and this market value determination is very low. The value per acre historically has been anywhere from $ 1,000 to $4,000 per acre when, in fact, after development has occurred, residential property, for example, could be in the area of $24,000 per acre. This $24,000 is just an estimate, and based on four 1/4 acre lots selling; for $6,000 each, not including assessments. If a developer proposes to pay the amount in cash, he is a lot better off than dedicating land which is worth quite a bit more than the assessor's fair market value. As a result, it would seem that the City of Monticello should consider the following: A. Change the park dedication requirement to 5X of the final plat gross area. D. When the park dedication is proposed in cash, the City wou ld obtain an appraisal of the market value of the property based on a final plat on a per acre basis. C. When the contribution is in land, the City would obtain an opinion from an appraisal firm that the park dedication is equivalent to a 5% value of the total plat, as opposed to 52 of the land area to diucour age Elie developer from granting poorer land for park and receiving the same credit as a developer who offers good land. D. Park dedication should not include a wetland or ponding area, as thin is ultimately saving the developer money because storm sever would not be needed and the City utill does not have any additional parks because the area is for ponding purposes. In light of the above prueedureu bring implemented, the City could reduce the park dedication requirement to 52 from 101 and still be better off than now because of the following: J - 4 - Planning Cosnnission - 1/13/81 in case of land dedication, only quality land will be received, or if substandard land is offered, it will take more land to equate to 5% as indicated in Item C above. In case cash is offered, a more equitable method, as indicated in Item B above, will be used. POSSIBLE ACTION: Consideration of amending ordinance on park dedication requirements (if it is determined what amendments might be made, it will be necessary to hold a hearing on these). 6. Discussion on Scope and Purpose of Planning Commission. John Bondhus, who had previously written a letter that was sent out to Planning Commission Members on October 3, 1980, indicated a concern with the purpose and duties of the Planning Commission. Specifically, he felt that in some areas there might be some redundancy for reviewing variances, etc. He felt an effort should be made to streamline some of these duties, and wondered if some of these matters could not be taken directly to the City Council. Administrator Wieber explained that because of legal requirements contained in the Minnesota State Statutes, it was necessary for a City to have a Board of Appeals that was separate from the governing body itself, or the City Council. However, Cary Wieber indicated that he would look into the possibility of having less members serve on a board of appeals specifically for variance requests in order that this might be able to streamline some of the work done by the Planning Commission. Additionally, other areas were discussed on how the Planning Commission could better serve. Various members felt that the Planning Commission was already serving its assigned function, but felt that Mr. Bondhus's comments were worth considering and in the future, at the end of each agenda, a particular area would be discussed to see how it could be streamlined. For example, one possibility was discussed to take each section of the Ordinance Planning Commission - 10/14,80 , and review it in detail to see if any changes should be made. A motion was made by Ed Schaffer, seconded by Bill Burke and unanimously carried to adjourn. W i ary cr City A^C1ym�i�nistrator CW/ns ti)