Planning Commission Agenda Packet 02-10-1981AGENDA
REGULAR MEETING - MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION
Tuesday, February 10, 1981 - 7:30 P.M.
Chairman: Jim Ridgeway
Members: John Bondhus, Bill Burke, Dick Martie, Ed Schaffer, Loren Klein (ex -officio)
1-A. Approval of Minutes - January 21, 1981 Regular fleeting.
1. Consideration of a Simple Subdivision Request - Roy Carlson.
2. Public Hearing - Consideration of an Application for Rezoning -
Northern States Power.
3. Public Hearing - Consideration of a Conditional Use Request - Monticello
Public Library.
4. Public Hearing - Consideration of Amendments to Subdivision Park
Dedication Ordinance.
S. Review of Entire Zoning Ordinance (Title 10).
Unfinished Business -
New Business - - J
Planning Commission - 2110/81
AGENDA SUPPLEMENT
Consideration of a Simple Subdivision Request - Roy Carlson.
Mr. and Mrs. Roy Carlson, who own Lots 2 (66' wide), and Lots 3 and 4
(33' wide each), of Block 46, Townsito of Monticello, would like to
divide Lot 2 away from Lots 3 6 4, to make a separate buildable lot.
In order to do this, a simple subdivision approval is required. One
item of concern, would be the setback of the house on Lots 3 d 4,
making sure it is 10' or more away from the easterly line of Lot 2 .
if that distance were 10' or more, there would be no problem. However,
if that distance were less than 10', a variance hearing would be required
if a new lot were to be created as proposed.
According to the present Monticello Ordinance, in a new subdivision, a
lot must be 80' or wider to be a buildable lot. However, there is a provi-
sion which allows a lot of 75% of that 80' requirement, or 60' wide, to
be built upon in the case where the lot was in existence prior to the
initiation of the ordinance in 1975. That is the case here.
It would be a staff recommendation to approve this request, contingent upon
a certificate of survey being provided, showing that the present structure
on Lots 3 8 4 is 10' or more from the easterly line of Lot 2. If that
dwelling were less than 10' to the easterly line of Lot 2, then a variance
should be required before a building would be allowed on Lot 2.
POSSIBLE ACTION: Consider recommending approval or denial of this
simple subdivision request.
REFERENCES: liap showing the location of those three lots and a small
diagram showing the layout of the building on Lots 3 8 4 of those three lots.
APPLICANT: Mr. 6 Mrs. Roy Carlson.
Planning Commission Agenda - 2/10/81
2. Public Hearing - Consideration of an Application for Rezoning - Northern
States Power Company.
NSP, who owns the land north of River Street, across from Electro Industries,
is proposing rezoning that property from R-1 to 1-2. The reason for
proposing this rezoning, is so that they may be enabled to build a new
22,000 square foot office building/training center. This property is
commonly known as the "Dick Brooks Farm".
Although the rezoning request from NSP is only to rezone that parcel
of property which is commonly known as the Dick Brooks Farm, it would
be a staff recommendation that in addition to recommending rezoning for
that parcel of land which was the Dick Brooks Farm, that the Planning
Commission consider recommending rezoning for all of the land north
of River Street and south/west of County Road 75 (West Broadway). By
rezoning that entire parcel, as shown and suggested on the map which is
enclosed with your supplement, it would leave that entire area on the
west end of town zoned I-2. By being zoned I-2, that properties zoning
would then be conducive to the zoning of the rest of the property which is
also owned by NSP, and would not leave any areas of spot zoning, but
rather would leave one large area of the same or similar zoning. For
your information, those residences located near the Power Plant between
the railroad track and Highway 75, are owned by NSP.
Electro industries is located immediately to the southwest of the area
requested for rezoning, and owner Bill Seefeldt is in favor of the
rezoning. Although there has been no opposition to the rezoning, there
has been concern from Edgar Klucas and Mel Wolters (The Meadows), who
own property to the south and southeast, relative to improvements for
sewer and water and streets petitioned for. It should be pointed out
that the two issues of zoning and improvements are separate, and in fact,
NSP has indicated they would install their own private system if the
City did not extend the services.
POSSIBLE ACTION: Consider recommending approval or denial of this
rezoning request.
REFERENCES: Enclosed map depicting the area for which rezoning is
requested and recommended.
APPLICANT: Northern States Power
-2-
Planning Commission Agenda - 2/10/81
3. Public Hearing - Consideration of a Conditional Use Request - Monticello
Public Library.
In order to build the new public library on the property given by the
School District to the City for that purpose, along with additional property
added to that, which was purchased from Robert Dowling, it is necessary to
obtain a conditional use to build in an R-2 zone. Regardless of what the
zoning, a conditional use would be required for a public library.
In the case of this new public library building, the total number of parking
spaces required would be provided and all other zoning requirements would be
met.
POSSIBLE ACTION: Consider recommending approval or denial of this conditional
use request.
REFERENCES: Map showing location of the property within the City of
Monticello.
APPLICANT: City of Monticello
- 3 -
Planning Commission Agenda - 2/10/81
4. Public Hearing - Consideration of Amendments to Subdivision Park Dedication
Ordinance.
At the last Planning Commission meeting, the following ordinance amendments
were discussed:
A. Change the park dedication requirement to 5% of the final plat gross
area .
B. When the park dedication is proposed in cash, the City would 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 5% of the land area to discourage the
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 this is
ultimately saving the developer money because storm sewer would not be
needed and the City still does not have any additional parks because
the area is for ponding purposes.
It was decided that the proposed ordinance amendments, as presented, should
be the subject of a public hearing with the exception of changing the park
dedication requirement to 5% instead of 10%. Additionally, there was a
feeling that the City of Monticello should not only have the choice between
a cash contribution and a land contribution, but should be able to indicate
the specific parcel of land. As a result of the January 13, 1981 meeting,
and the input from the Planning Commission, the following proposed amendment
has been advertised for a public hearing:
11-6-1: PARK DEDICATION REQUIREMENT
A. Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes 462.358, Subdivision 2, the
City Council of Monticello shall require all developers requesting
platting or replatting of land in the City of Monticello to con-
tribute ten (10) percent of the final plat gross area to be dedi-
cated for use as either parks, playgrounds, public open space,
or linear park and trail systems or to contribute an equivalent
amount of cash, based on the conditions outlined below. The form
of contribution (cash or land, or any combination thereof) and
the specific area in case of land contribution, shall be decided
by the City Council based upon need and conformance with approved
City plans.
D. In order to determine the park dedication requirement, an
appraisal of the market value of the subdivision shall be _provided
by the oevoioper. finis appraisal snaii incivae the appraisal of the
entire subaiv Sion, plus an appraisal or_tne area proposea in
lana it appilcabie. im s appraisal snail oe basea on market value
or the landd as tnougn it were aireaay oiattea,
4 -
Planning Commission Agenda - 2/10/81
C. City Council may accept appraisal ordered by the developer
or may order own appraisal to arrive at the fair market value of
the subdivision and any land proposed for park dedication. In
either case, the developer is responsible for the costs of such
appraisals. jP'Jj
•
0. Park dedication credit f-< not include a wetland or ponding
area necessary for the drainage plan of the particular subdivision.
Underlined portions above indicate additions to present ordinance.
POSSIBLE ACTION: Consideration of adoption of amendments to park dedication
ordinance for subdivisions as indicated above.
- 5 -
Planning Commission Agenda - 2/10/81
5. Review of Entire Zoninq Ordinance (Title 10)
PURPOSE: At a previous meeting, it was decided that the Planning Commission
should periodically review various sections of the City of Monticello's
Ordinances. Reasoning behind this periodic review would be to simplify
the process if the Ordinance itself were unduly bureaucratic, keep abreast
of changes in the posture and philosophy of City government, and consider
additions to the ordinances themselves to better serve the public.
For those of you who have misplaced your zoning ordinance, please contact
City Hall to get an extra copy.
One thing that might possibly be helpful in the review of the zoning ordin-
ance, is some of the specific requirements, which in the past have required
variances. In order to get a handle on the number of variances that have
been requested, enclosed you will find a list of variances by category
for the years 1918, 1979 and 1980. You will note that during these three
years, the most requested type of variance involves setbacks and temporary
variances for curbing and landscaping. It should be pointed out in the
case of setbacks, provision for a variance has somewhat already been
simplified to the extent that instead of property owners being notified
within 350', only abutting property owners must be notified of public
hearings. In respect to the request for temporary variance from the provi-
sions of curbing and landscaping, this aspect covers obtaining a certificate
of occupancy to use the structure without having the curbing or landscaping
completed immediately. An example of this is when a structure is completed
in the middle of winter and obviously would be very hard to have the park-
ing lot completed. This process has been somewhat simplified in that variance
only has to be sought through the City Council and a hearing is not necessary.
However, 1 think this procedure could be further simplified due to the fact
that the City already requires a bond to insure that these items will be done,
and this procedure could be merely handled by the Building Official as opposed
to requiring this type of variance even to come back to the City Council.
For your information, over 809 of the variances requested were approved.
in reviewing the zoning ordinance, 1 have the following comments:
A. Section 10-3-5-0-8-(A) Parking Space Size - A provision could possibly
be added to allow compact car spaces to comprise 509 of the required
spaces needed. This size could be 8' x 16' instead of 9' x 20' with
the provision that the area is marked compact cars only.
B. 10-3-5-0-8-(R) Curbing - If curbing is intended only to resolve drain-
age problems rather than require a continuous concrete curb around the
perimeter of the parking lot, the Planning Commission may want to con-
sider an amendment which would indicate that such curbing was required
unless a plan was presented by the developer and approved by the City
Engineer which would adequately resolve the drainage problem. In this
way, it would not be necessary every time for a developer to come back
to the Planning Commission if drainage were the only question. However,
- 6 -
Planning Commission Agenda - 2/10/81
my personal feeling is that a curb barrier serves a purpose other than
merely to control drainage, that is, it specifically delineates a parking
area, preserves landscaping, and has some aesthetic value. However, my
point is that if all variances are going to be approved with the only
question being drainage, then we might as well change the ordinance.
C. 10-22-3-(D) and 10-23-8 Performance Bonds, Variances and Conditional
Use Permits - Both of these provisions and the underlined subsections
should be eliminated. We do not require a performance bond everytime
somebody gets a variance, and I think it is unreasonable to do so.
D. Entire Section 10-20 Planned Unit Development - I think this entire
section is too lengthy (18 pages) and too hard to understand. I have
enclosed a sample ordinance suggested by the League of Minnesota
Cities that would cover approximately four (4) pages if it were typed
up in our zoning ordinance book. It should be pointed out that the
League of Minnesota Cities has suggested both a more lengthy Planned
Unit Development ordinance and a shorter ordinance, and this particular
ordinance is actually the more lengthy or detailed ordinance on Planned
Unit Development, and the shorter one would probably only cover about
two (2) pages. i think the version that 1 have enclosed suggested by
the League of Minnesota Cities covers the major portions of what is
intended to be covered by the more lengthy version that the City of
Monticello has adopted. There may be some areas where we have to
tailor-make planned unit development to fit the needs of the City of
Monticello, but in my estimation, the version enclosed by the League
of Cities is preferahln.
E. Additionally, I have some other minor comments as they apply to the
number of copies an individual has to produce to have something
put on the agenda, etc.
One general comment in light of the fact of the number of variances requested
and approval granted, seem to indicate that either the ordinances should be
amended not to be so stringent, or a different posture taken in reviewing
variances. You will note that in Section 10-23-4 entitled "non -economic
hardship" as it relates to variances. there is a pretty narrow explanation
of the purpose behind a variance. If we would go strictly by that particular
premise, many of the variances that have come before the City of Monticello
would not be approved.
POSSIBLE ACTION: One possible way to proceed might be to go through the
zoning ordinance on a page-by—page hasis without necessarily dwelling on
each particular section, but only those sections that a particular Plan-
ning Commission may have comment or input on. Notes can be made on each
particular section that the Planning Commission, as a whole, feels should
be amended, and a public hear ing could be scheduled for these amendments.
Also, Planning Commission members may be thinking in terms of additions to
the zoning ordinance itself, either to clarify or to add particular provisions.
REFERENCES: Zoning Ordinance (Title 10 of which you should have a copy or
contact City Hall for a copy) , list of variances issued from 1918 thru 1980,
and copy of proposed ordinance by League of Minnesota Cities on Planned Unit
Developments.