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)