City Council Agenda Packet 10-10-1994AGENDA
REGULAR MEETING - MONTICELLO CITY COUNCIL.
Monday, October 10, 1994.7 pm
Mayor. Brad Fyle
Council Members: Shirley Anderson, Clint Herbst, Warren Smith, Dan Blonigen
1. Call to order.
2. Consideration of minutes of the regular meeting held September 26, 1994.
3. Consideration of adding items to the agenda.
4. Citizens comments/petitions, requests, and complaints.
�i( Consideration of amendments to the zoning ordinance establishing zoning
/ district designation entitled "Public and Semi -Public Uses (PS)". Applicant,
Monticello Planning Commission.
6. Consideration of amendments to the Monticello Comprehensive Plan which
would allow public and semi-public uses at the western portion of the
Gladys Hoglund property.
7. Consideration of amendments to the official zoning map of the city of
Monticello. Proposed is a change from I.1 (light industrial) to PS (public
and semi-public uses). Applicant, St. Henry's Church/Gladys Hoglund.
8. Consideration of amendments to the official zoning map and consideration
of establishment of zoning district designations and boundaries in
conjunction with annexation request. Proposed is a change in zoning
district designations from AO (agricultural) to R-1, R-2, and R-3 zoning
district designations. Applicant, E & K Development.
9. Consideration of approval of "l4ein Farms" preliminary plat.
Applicant, E & K Development.
10. Consideration of extending transportation service contract with Hoglund
Coach Linea for 1995 (Jeff will report at meeting).
11. Adjournment.
MINUTES
REGULAR MEETING • MONTICELLO CITY COUNCIOL
Monday, September 28, 1884 -7 p.m.
Members Present: Brad Fyle, Clint Herbst, Shirley Anderson, Warren Smith, Dan
Blonigen
Members Absent: None
ADDroval of minutes of the reeular meetine held September 12. 1994.
Mayor Fyle requested that item #7 on page 4, first paragraph, be amended
to include detail on what alternative #3 states regarding street width
requirements.
After discussion, a motion was made by Warren Smith and seconded by Dan
Blonigen to approve the minutes of September 12, 1994, as amended
Motion carried unanimously.
Consideration of adding additional agenda items.
No agenda items were requested to be added to the meeting.
Citizens comments/uetitions, requests, and comnlainta.
Dave Gilles, owner of the residence at 212 East River Street, explained that
the driveway of this home adjoins the driveway of the neighboring property
at 206 East River Street. There have been problems with the neighbor's car
being parked directly on the property line, which has created difficulties
with snowplowing. Gilles noted he would like to install a divider in the
driveway to separate the two and asked for Council's input on how he can
solve this problem.
After discussion, it was the consensus of Council that staff should meet with
Gilles and obtain the necessary information, review and define the issues,
and bring this item back for Council review at a subsequent meeting.
Consideratioq of anneal of Planning C;ommispion depial of yariance to hh
)_ nt vard setback renuirement, 60licnnt. General Rental.
Assistant Administrator O Neill reviewed the variance request appeal by
Ron Chihos of General Rental to build a 50'x 66' cold storage building on
the west side of his existing 40'x 60' building. The building as proposed
would intrude 12 ft into the 30 -ft setback requirement, leaving only 18 ft
from the Sandberg Road right-of-way.
Page 1 0
Council Minutes - 9/26/94
O'Neill went on to note that the Planning Commission denied this request
at their September 6 meeting with the finding that no unique hardship or
circumstance existed. He also noted that letters have been received from
Dr. Erlandson, Hart Clinic, and Minnesota Land Partnerships, all stating
opposition to this variance request.
Ron Chihos, owner of General Rental, explained that he would like to store
items inside rather than stacking them higher outside. He also noted that
the new building would reduce the amount of snow to remove, and since
customers stay only a short time, there is not much congestion in the area.
Chihos added that he is willing to install additional parking as required.
After discussion, a motion was made by Dan Blonigen and seconded by
Warren Smith to deny the variance request appeal. Motion carried
unanimously. Reason for denial: No hardship has been found, as a suuiller
building could be constructed within ordinance requirements, and approval
of the variance would set a precedent that would impair the intent of the
ordinance.
6. Consideration of amepdments tq the official zoning man changing zoning
district desionelions from a combination of R-1 jand Agricultural to a
combination of R-1, R-2, B-3. anis PZM zonine district designations.
AnDlicanL Robert Krauthauer. Rick Murray. and Joe Abbot. AND
7. Consideration of an amendment to Chanter 13 of the Monticello Zoninq
Ordinance which would establish restaurants. taverns. cafes. tea rooms. and
off jade liouor as a conditional use irk a B-3 zone if located within 300 ft of a
Mpidential district. Applicant. Monticello Plannine Commissiq AND
8. f"ideratjorl of approval of nreliminary plat of the River Mill subdivision.
,Anplicant. Robert Krautbauer. Rick Murray. Joe Abbot. AND
9. QisideKatioq of concept approval to gtilize ta3r increment financing in
coniBnetion with reclamation of gravel pit and development pf the River Mill
residentinl ntibdivioion. Applicant. Rick Murray. Residential Development,
Assistant Administrator ONeill reviewed the two ordinance amendment
requests and noted that they are proposed in conjunction with development
of the River Mill subdivision. The current zoning of the property within city
limits is R-1 (single family residential), and the property located in
Monticello Township is zoned Agricultural. Proposed is a zoning map
amendment changing the R-1 and Agricultural areas to a combination of
R-1 (single family residential), R-2 (single and two-family), B-3 (highway
business), and PZM (performance zone mixed) zoning districts, which would
be contingent on annexation of the township area to the city.
Page 2 \`
Council Minutes - 9/26/94
O'Neill went on to explain that the second ordinance amendment Council is
asked to consider would add a provision allowing restaurants/taverns as a
conditional use in a B-3 zone if located within 300 R of a residential district.
Currently, taverns are allowed as a permitted use at any location in the B-3
zone. The reason for the amendment is to provide additional site control
over Hawks Bar, which, when it is annexed to the city under the B-3 zoning
district designation, will be located near the proposed residential area.
Councilmember Herbst asked if the ordinance amendment allowing a tavern
in the B-3 zone required a distance of 300 ft from the property or a
residential building. Assistant Administrator ONeill stated that the tavern
use must be 300 R from the property to be a permitted use, and would need
to obtain a conditional use permit if it is located within 300 ft.
Rick Murray, developer of the River Mill subdivision, reported that Joe
Abbot, owner of Hawks Bar, recently told Murray that he would like to
move the existing Hawks Bar kitchen and add on to the building in a
northerly direction; however, Abbot would like to know if a parking lot
would be allowed in the PZM zone. Assistant Administrator O'Neill
responded by stating that he would talk to the City Planner and get back to
Murray regarding parking lot development in a PZM zone.
Assistant Administrator O'Neill went on to review the zoning plan and
proposed preliminary plat of the River Mill subdivision. A PZM zone is
proposed to surround the B-3 area where Hawks Bar is located. Forty-eight
(48) twin home lots are propused for the R-2 area surrounding the PZM
zone, and 10 single family (R-1) dwellings are proposed tc 5e constructed
next to the R-2 zone and adjacent to the gravel pit area. Due to extreme
grade separation, Outlot D is proposed to be developed when the Norell
property develops. Street access to Outlot D will be gained through the
Norell property and will remain undevelopable until the Norell property is
developed.
O'Neill noted that a study completed by the developer and reviewed by the
City Engineer indicates that it is acceptable to provide frill access to CSAH
76 as proposed; however, a median will need to be installed to limit access
to right tum in and right turn out at such time that the frontage road (Hart
Boulevard) is extended westerly to connect the River Mill area to County
Road 39, or the median would be installed if five or more accidents occur at
this location in one year.
Assistant Administrator O'Neill also informed Council that Lot 6, Block 2,
would need a variance or the plat would have to be adjusted to meet
conformity, as the plan as proposed shows only 26 ft of right-of-way
frontage, and the ordinance requires 64 R. of right-of-way frontage. It was
Page 3 co-?--�
Council Minutes - 9/26/94
noted by the developer that this lot contains 22,000 aq ft, which is almost
the size of 2 lots. He stated that he could adjust the road design to meet
code and not lose any lots; however, doing so would require building a
longer road, which would result in the home pad areas shifting into the
wooded hillside area. He preferred to preserve the wooded hillside if
possible.
O'Neill then reviewed the proposed park area for the River Mill subdivision.
The park as proposed by the developer is a total of 7 acres, with almost 2
acres being relatively flat. There is a slight grade change separating the
park from homes on the north. A storm water pond is located on the east
side of the park but is not included in the park dedication requirement. A
trail system is also proposed to lead from the cul-de-sac area in the R-2 zone
to the park area and to the Norell property. O'Neill noted that the Parks
Coauniasiou reviewed the park plan and recommended that some of the
sloped trail area be combined with abutting lots, as the trail system would
not require the amount of unusable sloped area as proposed. Parks
Commission also recommended that Lots 18-21 located north of the park be
converted to park area to allow for 510 ft of right-of-way access to the park.
They felt this change would reduce the sense of the park being "private."
This configuration would also provide land area that would allow
development of both a soccer and baseball field.
Councilmember Smith stated that he didn't believe that converting the four
residential lots to park area would change the perception of the park from e
neighborhood park only to a city park available to all residents.
Councilmember Anderson noted that a sign should be installed stating
"Monticello City Park," which would help make it known that everyone is
welcome to use the park.
Ray Erickson, resident at 401 Riverview Drive, stated his concerns
regarding the number of driveways this development will create on County
Road 39, who will pay for installation of larger sewer and water lines if
necessary, and the fact that one of the proposed roads accessing County
Road 39 is directly across from his residence, which will result in headlights
aimed directly at his house.
Erickson was informed that only two streets will access County Road 39,
the developer would be required to pay any additional cost relating to larger
sewer and water lines, and that the proposed roadway across from
Erickson's residence was designed to line up with the lot line in order to
avoid headlights being aimed directly at homes.
At this point, it was the consensus of Council to discuss item 09 of the
agenda prior to voting on items 6.8.
Page 4 0
Council Minutes - 9/26/94
Administrator Wolfsteller explained that in conjunction with the River Mill
residential preliminary plat approval, Council is being asked to consider
providing conceptual approval for the use of tax increment financing to
assist in the soil correction cost for reclamation of the gravel pit area prior
to the developer continuing with the project. He noted that the developer
has estimated the additional grading cost associated with the gravel pit at
an additional $132,000; however, the previous landowner (Krautbauer) has
agreed to lower his price of the land by $30,000 to cover some of the general
grading cost, which would bring the total TIF request to $102,000.
Wolfsteller went on to note that the requested tax increment assistance
would he a pay-as-you-go plan whereby payments to the developer would
only occur if the homes are actually built; however, Council was also
informed that tax increment assistance to the developer will result in a loss
of City HACA aid equal to approximately 25% of TIF assistance given the
developer. In this case, the general fund of the City would lose an
anticipated $26,000 in state aid. Wolfsteller also informed Council that
this information has been presented to the HRA, and the HRA has given
preliminary approval for use of TIF to help defray the additional cost of
reclamation of the gravel pit.
Developer Rick Murray noted that correcting the soils in the gravel pit area
would be an amenity for the city rather than a distraction. He stated that
Krautbauer had offered to correct the area but agreed instead to a $30,000
reduction in the purchase price. The developer would then correct the
gravel pit area. Murray noted that the purchase price of the land is
approximately $4,200/acre.
Councilmembers Herbst and Blonigen stated that they didn't agree with
using TIF for this type of project, as it was their view that Krautbauer is
obligated by the permit issued by Wright County to return the area to
usable land after excavation is complete. It was also noted that the City if
not obligated to annex the gravel pit area until it has been restored.
Murray responded by saying any grading done to create a 3-1 slope at the
gravel pit per the restoration plan will actually add to the eventual cost of
developing the plat for residential use.
Mayor Fyle noted that after reviewing the information provided with the
agenda, N felt the development, including reclamation of the gravel pit,
would be good for the city. He noted that the park and homes constructed
in the gravel pit area would improve the image of the city from the freeway
and would generate tax revenue, and it could cost the City more if
reclamation of the pit occurs later.
Pago 5 0
Council Minutes - 9126/94
Public Works Director John Simola reported that he supports TIF
assistance to regrade the gravel pit and noted that the City was involved
with this type of project when the area at the end of Lauring Lane was
developed. TIF was used to install utilities and regrade the area so that
apartments could be constructed. Simola also stated that there would be an
approximate $26,000 loss to the developer if Lots 18-21 are given for
additional park land as requested by the Parks Commission, and the City
would lose approximately $25,000 if the soils correction TIF district is
established.
James Casserly, Economic Development Consultant representing the
developer, noted that the soils correction district was created to assist with
substantial filling or grading of an area with unusual terrain, which is what
this project entails.
City Engineer Bret Weiss noted that it may not be easy to develop only the
property located in the city limits, as soils from other areas of the site
would be used to correct the gravel pit area.
Councilmember Anderson asked the developer to explain what year each
phase would be developed. Rick Murray responded by saying that the first
phase, which would include 30 single family homes, the access onto
CSAH 75, and 48 twinhomes, would begin in November 1994 and be
completed in early 1996. The second phase would include continuation of
the road system, completion of the R-2 area, and continued construction of
single family homes. Grading would begin in late 1995 with utilities
construction in 1996, and construction would continue into 1997. Rick
Sathre, engineer for the developer, added that much or all of the park
grading would be done with phase I but woulddt include street aaess to
the park.
Councilmember Anderson asked if any restrictions could be placed on the
quality of the housing constructed in this development. Assistant
Administrator O'Neill noted that in order to obtain TIF pay-as-you-go fluids,
the developer must build homes to a pre -determined value.
O'Neill also noted that the City now has a trunk access fee for city services,
which would more than likely be charged to the township parcel once it is
annexed. If this property is eligible for this fee at $1,250/acre, it would
amount to approximately $42,000.
After further discussion, Mayor Fyle asked for motions to be made on each
of items 6.9 separately.
Page 6 9
Council Minutes - 9/26/94
ITEM #6: A motion was made by Shirley Anderson and seconded by
Warren Smith to approve an ordinance amendment to the official zoning
map changing zoning district designations as requested from a combination
of R-1 and Agricultural to a combination of R-1, R-2, B-3, and PZM zoning
district designations. Voting in favor: Shirley Anderson, Warren Smith,
Brad Fyle, Dan Blonigen. Opposed: Clint Herbst. Motion is based on the
finding that the rezoning is consistent with the comprehensive plan.
SEE ORDINANCE AMENDMENT NO. 257.
ITEM #7: A motion was made by Shirley Anderson and seconded by
Warren Smith to approve an ordinance amendment to Chapter 13 which
would establish restaurants, cafes, tea rooms, taverns, and off -sale liquor as
a conditional use in a B-3 zone if located within 300 ft of a residential
district. Motion is based on the finding that there is a demonstrated need
for the ordinance amendment which provides land use controls over
tavernstrestaurants located in close proximity to residential areas. Voting
in favor. Shirley Anderson, Warren Smith, Brad Fyle, Clint Herbst.
Opposed: Dan Blonigen. SEE ORDINANCE AMENDMENT NO. 258.
ITEM #8: A motion was made by Warren Smith and seconded by Shirley
Anderson to approve the preliminary plat of the River Mill subdivision
contingent on the cul-de-sac lots being brought into conformance with the
ordinance or the developer obtaining a variance, contingent on the developer
redesigning the park area by shifting Lots 18-21 in Block 2 to the east of
the park area as proposed by the developer in order to allow right-of-way
frontage for the park, and contingent on approval of the utilities plan by the
City Engineer. Voting in favor. Warren Smith, Shirley Anderson, Brad
Fyle, Clint Herbst. Opposed: Dan Blonigen. Blonigen stated that he was
opposed to the density of the R-2 area proposed in the preliminary plat.
ITEM #9: A motion was made by Clint Herbst and seconded by Dan
Blonigen to deny the request for tax increment financing in conjunction
with reclamation of the gravel pit and development of the River Mill
residential subdivision. It was Herbst and Blonigen's view that that
restoration of the gravel pit should be negotiated between the owner and
the developer. Voting in favor of the motion: Clint Herbst, Dan Blonigen.
Opposed: Warren Smith, Shirley Anderson, Brad Fyle. Motion did not
pass.
Councilmember Smith noted that the long-term benefit to the City of
developing the entire project is significant. Councilmember Anderson stated
that she would vote to approve tax increment financing for this project, as
there appear to be more advantages than disadvantages to development of
the entire area.
Page 7 9
Council Minutes - 9126/94
After discussion, a motion was made by Warren Smith and seconded by
Shirley Anderson to approve the request for tax increment financing in
conjunction with reclamation of the gravel pit and development of the River
Mill residential subdivision. Voting in favor: Warren Smith, Shirley
Anderson, Brad Fyle. Opposed: Clint Herbst, Dan Blonigen.
10. Consideration of an offer on oronerty in the Oakwood Industrial Park 2nd
Addition - H -Window.
Administrator Wolfsteller reviewed the offer recently received from Miley
Gjertsen for the purchase of a 2.3 -acre lot (Lot 4) in the Oakwood Industrial
Park 2nd Addition for $36,000. He noted that this is one of six lots owned
by the City along the cul-de-sac off of Dundas Road between Standard Iron
and H -Window Company. At the last meeting held on September 12,
Council agreed to accept the otter but agreed to give H -Window Company 10
days to exercise the right of first refusal on this lot, which would expire on
September 26.
Wolfsteller went on to note that he had a telephone conversation with Steve
Lemme, President of H -Window Company, who indicated that their main
interest is in Lots 1-3, and they would like to have some type of
cvaunitment from the City to continue holding these lots for H -Window's
future expansion. Wolfsteller asked Council for direction on whether the
City should continue holding these lots for the H -Window Company or
whether the City should begin to actively market the lots for sale.
After discussion, a motion was made by Shirley Anderson and seconded by
Clint Herbst to accept the offer of $36,000 Brom Miley Gjertsen for Lot 4 in
the Oakwood Industrial Park 2nd Addition, and to authorize staff to draft a
new right of first refusal agreement for Council consideration in the next
few weaks. Motion carried unanimously.
11. 92n_Ai:deration of renewal of contract with PSG. Inc.. for operation of thq
W)WP•
John Simola, Public Works Director, reported that he and the City
Administrator have met several times with Professional Services Group,
Inc., to negotiate a new 5 -year contract for operation of the City's
wastewater treatment plant. The new contract amount is proposed at
$395,113, an increase of $10,588. He also noted that Paul Weingarden, City
Attorney, has reviewed the proposed contract and submitted comments for
staff review. All items of concern noted in the City Attorney's letter have
been taken care of with the exception of item #3 relating to uninsurable
events and item #5 relating to PSG self-insuring for workman's
compensation and liability. Staff will need to consult with Weingarden to
review these two items of concern in order to make any necessary changes.
Page 8
Council Minutes - 9/26/94
Mayor Fyle noted that he recently toured the wastewater treatment facility
and found it to be a well-run operation. He noted it is possible the City
could operate the facility slightly cheaper, but there is no guarantee that
this would be the case.
Councilmember Herbst added that since the City is discussing expanding
the wastewater treatment facility, it would be wise to maintain the current
operation during this transition.
After discussion, a motion was made by Shirley Anderson and seconded by
Clint Herbst to approve the 5 -year contract at the proposed amount of
$395,113, contingent on staff first consulting with the City Attorney
regarding his items of concern. Mayor Fyle noted that once the treatment
plant has been expanded, it may make sense to consider having City
employees manage operations of the plant if it could be done less
expensively than PSG. Motion carried unanimously.
12. Consideration of proclamation declaring October 1? -25. 1.994, as Monticello
Manufacturine Week.
After discussion, a motion was made by Shirley Anderrnn and seconded by
Warren Smith to declare the week of October 17-25, 1994, as Monticello
Manufacturing Week for the city of Monticello. Motion carried
unanimously.
13. Consideration of adopting a resolution nroclaiming October 7. 1994. as Lmn
Smith Day.
In January of this year, it was recommended by Councilmember Anderson
that one of the days during Riverfest should be proclaimed as Lynn Smith
Day in honor of his campaign against amoking that ultimately went world
wide. Council approved proclaiming a day as selected by the Riverfest
Committee to be Lynn Smith Day in Monticello.
Councilmember Anderson reported that she received a call from Lynn Smith
requesting that the Council not adopt a resolution proclaiming October 7,
1994, as Lynn Smith Day, as he felt it might be more appropriate to
recognize January 7, 1999, which would be the 25th anniversary of his
campaign against smoking.
After discussion, it was the consensus of Council to not proclaim October 7,
1994, as Lynn Smith Day and wait to recognize his efforts in 1999.
Page 9 COD
Council Minutes - 9/26194
14. Consideration of bills for the month of September. 1994.
After discussion, a motion was made by Shirley Anderson and seconded by
Clint Herbst to approve the bills for the month of September, 1994, as
presented. Motion carried unanimously.
16. Other matters;
A. Council reviewed the staff update on the Cardinal Hills pathway
system. It was the consensus that any cost to acquire easements as
required under the development agreement should be paid by the
developer.
There being no further business, the uiee" was adjourned.
Karen Doty
Office Manager
Page 10 9
Council Agenda - 10/10/94
Consideration of amendments 0 the zoning ordinance egtablishdnq
zoning district dejanation entitled "Pubic and Semi -Public Uses
(PSr. Anolicant. Monticello Planning Commission. WA.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
At their meeting on September 6, 1994, the Planning Commission
authorized preparation of an ordinance amendment that would establish a
zoning district specifically designed to regulate public and semi-public uses
(church uses, etc.) which were previously allowed as a conditional use in the
residential zoning districts (R-1 through R-3). One of the reasons for
establishing this zoning district is to allow a property to be zoned
specifically for a church use without the risk of the property being used for
residential uses if the church use fails to develop. In other words, the
zoning ordinance amendment proposed would allow a church to be located
at the Hoglund site but would not allow the potential for residential uses
under the "R" district designation.
It is proposed that the PS zoning district designation be established in
conjunction with the St. Henry's Church/Gladys Hoglund rezoning
application. At some point in the future, it may be necessary to review
other existing institutional uses currently in operation and consider making
a zoning map amendment that would place such institutional uses in the PS
zoning district designation. Of course, such uses could include the Little
Mountain/Middle School area, Pinewood School, Hospital District, and other
church uses. Please note that institutional uses now operating in
residential districts under existing conditional use permits would remain as
conforming uses. Establishment of the new zoning district regulations
regulating institutional uses will have no effect on existing schools,
churches, etc. All existing rules governing such uses as located remain in
effect.
Please review the memorandum from the City Planner regarding this topic
and study the draft ordinance carefully.
On October 4, 1994, the Planning Commission reviewed the ordinance,
found it to be consistent with the comprehensive plan, and recommended
approval of the ordinance accordingly.
Council Agenda - 10/10/94
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
Motion to approve establishment of the PS (publictsemi-public) zoning
district based on consistency with one or more of the five factors
below:
Relationship to comprehensive plan
Geographic area involved in the request
Tendency of proposal to depreciate the area
Character of the surrounding area
A demonstrated need for the use
Motion to deny establishment of the PS (publictsemi-public) zoning
district. Motion to deny the proposal should be based on one or more
of the five factors to consider when analyzing a zoning amendment
request.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
According to the City Planner and according to my experience with other
communities, it is very common for cities to have a special zoning district
regulating public and semi-public uses. As noted in Steve Grittman's
memo, institutional uses which are now allowed in a variety of zoning
districts should be regulated separate from other district designations which
have operational characteristics that are distinct from either residential or
commercial land uses. It is our view that it makes sense to establish this
new zoning district designation for the purpose of addressing the Hoglund/
St. Henry's Church situation and for the benefit of the community as a
whole.
Memo from Steve Grittman; Draft ordinance.
;5th' -1y-1774 �Ob�[� nw. o.� .... ............
I N Northwest Associated Consultants, Inc.
Cj URBAN PLANNI N O - DESIGN • MARKET RESEARCH
MEMORANDUM
TO: Jeff O'Neill
FROM: Stephen Grittman
DATE: 29 September 1994
RE: Monticello - 'P -S', Public/Semi-Public Zoning
District
PILE NO: 191.06 - 94.13
This memorandum forwards a draft of a new zoning district entitled
IP -S", Public/Semi-public District. This district is proposed to
be established in those areas where institutional land uses are
proposed which were previously addressed by Single Family Zoning.
This district is designed to accommodate the unique needs of
institutional uses which have operational characteristics which are
distinct from either residential or commercial land uses.
only a few uses were placed is the permitted Use section of the new
district, reserving moot of the primary uses for the Conditional
Use section. This is to permit the City to considerspecific sites
for institutional uses which seem to be appropriate, but which may
not have strict land use plan support. In many cases, the 'P -S'
District will appear as a 'spot sone' on the Zoning Map. However,
if the City considers the required factors for zoning Amendments,
and the particular conditions for the proposed use, such 'spot
zoning' should not be considered negatively.
The five factors which the zoning Ordinance lista for Planning
Commiesion consideration in amendments are summarized as follow:
i. Relationship to the Comprehensive Plan.
2. Geographic area involved in the request.
3. Tendency of the proposal to depreciate the area.
4. Character of the surrounding area.
5. Demonstrated need for the use.
5775 Wayzata Blvd. • Suite 555 • St. Louis Park, MN 55416 • (612) 595.9636•Faz. 595.9837_a
In consideration of the Public/Semi-Public District, we believe
that it permits more effective implementation of the Comprehensive
Plan Goals and Objectives 13y avoiding the location of institutional
uses in areae which are ill suited for the intensity of activity
which such uses can generate. As a result, the Planning Commission
should be able to make a finding of fact that through the adoption
and application of the P-S Sowing District, each of the five
a-e- -at factors will result in more effective land use regulation
and eampatibility.
ORDINANCE AMENDMENT NO.
THE CITY COUNCIL OF MONI'ICELLO, MINNESOTA, HEREBY ORDAINS
THAT THE ZONING ORDINANCE BE AMENDED BY CREATING THE'P4r
ZONE (PUBLIC/SEMI-PUBLIC USES) AS FOLLOWS:
1. ADD THE FOLLOWING CHAPTER:
CHAPTER 19B
'P -S"- PUBLIC/SEMI-PUBLIC USE DISTRICT
SECTION:
19B-1:
Purpose
19B-2:
Permitted Uses
19B-3:
Permitted Accessory Uses
19B-4:
Conditional Uses
19B-6:
Lot Requirements and Setbacks
1911-1:
PURPOSE: The Public/Semi-Public Use District is established to
provide for the unique locational and development needs of public
and semi-public uses. These uses have operational characteristics
which can be as intense as commercial uses and which can impact
residential areas but have varying peak periods of activity. In
addition, they may comprise a single parcel in an area of other
land uses, requiring special treatment. This District establishes
standards which the City can apply in the consideration of new
Public/Semi-Public use proposals.
19B-2:
PERMITTED USES: The following uses are allowed as permitted
uses:
[A]
Public Parka.
[B]
Public regulated, unoccupied utility buildings and structures
necessary for the health, safety, and general welfare of the
community.
[C]
Cemeteries.
[D]
Governmental administrative offices.
Ordinance Amendment No. _
Page 2
1913-3: PEIMITTED ACCLSMRY USES: The following uses are
allowed as accessory uses:
[A] Recreational buildings and facilities accessory to Public Parka.
[B] Parking lots and garages for temporary parking of licensed,
operable passenger vehicles.
[C] Public pedestrian trails and pathways.
19B-4: CONDITIONAL USES: The following uses are allowed as
conditional uses. Where not designated, the uses are allowed as
either principal or accessory uses.
[A] Storage of such vehicles, equipment, materials, and machinery
which are accessory to permitted or conditional principal uses in
the Public/Semi-Public Use District, subject to the following
conditions:
1. Such storage is fully screened from neighboring properties
and the public right-of-way.
2. The storage area is treated to control dust, drainage, and
maintenance of ground cover vegetation.
3. The storage area is set back from adjoining residential
districts a distance no less than double the adjoining
residential setback.
4. Compliance with the requirements of Section 22 of the
Monticello Zoning Ordinance.
[B] Public and Private educational institutions, subject to the
following conditions:
1. Educational institutions on parcels exceeding 20,000
square feet in area shall be located with direct frontage on,
and access to, a collector or arterial street.
2. The buildings are set back from adjoining residential
districts a distance no less than double the adjoining
residential setback.
0
Ordinance Amendment No. _
Page 3
3. Parking areas are developed to accommodate the most
intense concurrent uses of the facility so as to minimize
overflow parking onto the public street.
4. Accessory outdoor recreational facilities provided with
lights for night use shall be located no nearer than 600 feet
from a residential district.
6. Compliance with requirements of Section 22 of the
Monticello Zoning Ordinance.
[C] Religious institutions such as churches, chapels, temples, and
synagogues, subject to the following conditions:
1. Religious institutions on parcels exceeding 20,000 square
feet in area shall be located with direct frontage on, and
access to, a collector or arterial street.
2. The buildings are set back from adjoining residential
districts a distance no less than double the adjoining
residential setback.
3. Parking areas are developed to accommodate the most
intense concurrent uses of the facility so as to minimize
overflow parking onto the public street.
4. Compliance with requirements of Section 22 of the
Monticello Zoning Ordinance.
19&6: LOT REQUIREMENTS AND SETBACKS. The following
minimum requirements shall be observed in a Public/Semi-Public
Use District, subject to additional requirements, exceptions, and
modifications set forth in this Ordinance.
[A] Minimum Lot Area: None
[8] Minimum Lot Width 160 feet
[C] Setbacks:
05-
Ordinance Amendment No. _
Page 4
1. Front Yards: Not less than forty (40) feet.
2. Side Yards:
(a) Not less than ten (10) feet when abutting non -
residentially zoned property.
(b) Not less than twenty (20) feet when abutting
residentially zoned property.
3. Rear Yards: Not less than thirty (30) feet.
2. AMEND CHAPTER 3. @E-9171QN 3 [CJ ES'IABLISWNP JrARD
REQUUJEMEN79 FOR THE VARIOUS LAND USE ZONING DISTRICTS
TO READ AS FOLLOWS:
LCl All setback distances as listed in the table below shall be
measured from the appropriate lot line and shall be required
minimum distances.
3 AMEND 9;RM9B 3.4 fAl ESTABLI9MG LOT SIZER FOR TIIN
VARIOUS LAND USE ZONING DISTRICTS TO READ AS FOLLOWS;
(A] PURPOSE: This section identifies minimum area and building
size requirements to be provided in each zoning district as listed
in the table below.
0
Front YardiS de Yard
Rear Yard
A-0
60 30
60
R-1
30 10
30
R-2
30 10
30
R-3
30 20
30
R4
30 30
30
PZR
See Chapter 10 for specific regulations.
PZM
See Chapter 10 for specific regulations.
B-1
30 16
20
B-2
30 10
20
B-3
30 10
30
B-4
0 0
0
I-1
40 30
40
I-2
60 30
60
B -C
60 30
40
P -S
See Chapter _ for specific regulations.
3 AMEND 9;RM9B 3.4 fAl ESTABLI9MG LOT SIZER FOR TIIN
VARIOUS LAND USE ZONING DISTRICTS TO READ AS FOLLOWS;
(A] PURPOSE: This section identifies minimum area and building
size requirements to be provided in each zoning district as listed
in the table below.
0
Ordinance Amendment No.
Page 5
DISTRICT LOT AREA LOT WIDTH BUILDING HEIGHT
A-0
2 acres
200
N/A
R-1
12,000
80
2-1/2
R-2
12,000
80
2-1/2
R-3
10,000
80
2
R-4
48,000
200
1
PZR
12,000
80
2-1/2
PZM
12,000
80
2
B-1
8,000
80
2
B-2
N/A
100
2
B-3
N/A
100
2
B4
N/A
N/A
2
I-1
20,000
100
2
I-2
30,000
100
2
B -C
30,000
100
2
P -S
N/A
160
50 Feet
4. CHAPKER 0, SECTION 4 W RELATING TQ ALLOWANCE OF
RT TtUT1OLWLL USES IN WE Ii-1,.WCjLE g,AKILY REqNDL9NIM
STRICT. HY CONDITIONAL U8E PERMIT IS HEREBY REPEALED.
This ordinance shall become effective immediately upon passage and publication.
Adopted this 10th day of October, 1994.
Mayor
City Administrator
Council Agenda - 10/10/94
6. Congideration of amen jiments to the Comorehensiye Land Use
Guide Plan which would designate nubBe and semi-uublic uses at
the western go acres of the Gladva Hoglund orouerty. (J.O.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
In conjunction with the review of the request to rezone the Gladys Hoglund
property from I-1 to PS (publidsemi-public use), it was recognized that the
land use guide plan in the comprehensive plan designates the entire
Hoglund parcel for indusrial uses; therefore, the land use guide plan is not
consistent with the rezoning proposal. In conjunction with the discussion of
the merits of the zoning ordinance amendment establishing a public and
semi-public zoning district, and in conjunction with discussing the merits of
the zoning map amendment, the City Council should review the existing
guide plan. If it is the view of the City Council that church uses at this
location meet the criteria for amending the comprehensive plan and the
zoning ordinance, then the land use guide plan should be amended
accordingly.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
Motion to amend the land use guide plan in a manner allowing public
and semi-public uses as requested. Motion is based on the finding
that the amendment is appropriate because it is consistent with
geography and character of the adjoining area, there is a
demonstrated need for the use at this location, and the use will not
result in a depreciation of adjoining land values.
The Planning Commission recommended this alternative based on
reasons outlined in the next agenda item.
Motion to deny amendment to the land use guide plan as indicated.
Motion is based on a negative finding relating to amendment criteria.
X
It is important that the land use guide plan be consistent with decisions to
amend the zoning ordinance. Therefore, the land use guide plan should be
updated if Council believes that the proposal to develop the church campus
as proposed satisfies the basic criteria for amending the comprehensive
plan. See the next agenda item for more detail regarding Lite merits of the
zoning ordinance amendment question.
D. SUPM-RTINQ DATA:
Copy of land use guide plan.
�r �161?zp
10
10
10
to
10
to
go
10
10
10
so
go
wo
V-2
\7 ..........
Council Agenda - 10/10/94
Consideration of amendments to the official zonine man of the city,
of Monticello. Pronpsed is a chane from I-1 (lidxt industrial) to P'S
(public tlnd semi-public uses). Anuticant. St. Hennes Church/Gladvs
Hoglund). W.O.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
At the September 6, 1994, meeting of the Planning Commission, a public
hearing was held at which time a request was made to rezone 35 acres of
the western portion of the Gladys Hoglund property from I-1 uses to a
residential district designation which would allow future development of a
church campus. As a result of the discussion, it was determined that
perhaps it is not appropriate to rezone the property for residential uses,
thereby opening the door for the possibility that residential uses rather than
a church use would ultimately develop at this location. In an effort to block
this possibility, it was determined that the Planning Commission would look
at establishing a public and semi-public use district and consider zoning the
area under consideration accordingly.
Subsequent to the meeting in September, St. Henry's Church was contacted
by the Malone family regarding the potential sale of the Malone property to
the church. This is significant because the Malone property is located
directly to the northwest of the Hoglund property. The Malones own
approximately 7.5 acres of land zoned under the R-2 designation. Purchase
of the Malone property by the church reduces the church's need for
industrial land and results in a reduction of land proposed to be converted
from industrial uses to PS uses from 35 acres to 30 acres. Please see the
map information for detail. For your information, I have included a copy of
Steve Grittman's report relating to the issue from the Planning Commission
information packet for the meeting of September 6, 1994. As always, review
Grittman's document; and in your motion for approval or denial of the
zoning map amendment, relate your decision to:
Relationship to the comprehensive plan
Geographic area involved
Tendency of proposal to depreciate the area
Character of the surrounding area
Demonstrated need for the use
The Planning Commission recommended approval of the rezoning request
based on consistency with the comprehensive plan and consistency with
other rezoning criteria. In the Planning Commission discussion, it was
noted that St. Henry's rezoning proposal is much different than other
rezoning requests made recently by other churches. For instance, you might
recall that the Covenant Church request was denied because it would have
replaced a land use (&2) at a location spedfically suited for &2 uses where
Council Agenda - 10/10/94
there was no option for providing for B-2 uses at another location. A
Glorious Church requested churches to be allowed as a Vonditional use in
industrial districts. This was rejected because it would have opened up too
much industrial land for such a use and resulted in conflicts associated with
churches being able to locate within an industrial area. The Planning
Commission also noted the benefit of having a church in close proximity to
Little Mountain Settlement and adjacent to the Rand Mansion. It appeared
to the Planning Commission that these uses were highly compatible and
desirable.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTQM-
Motion to approve request to rezone the 30 -acre Gladys Hoglund site
from I-1 to public and semi-public uses.
Assuming that the City Council amended the comprehensive plan
accordingly as part of the previous agenda item, the Council could
make its finding of approval of the rezoning request based on
consistency with the comprehensive plan. In terms of geographic
area involved and character of the surrounding area, the church use
would be consistent with the Little Mountain Settlement area, the
Rand Mansion, and would not result in severe conflicts with the
industrial area if the site and internal roadway systems are
configured properly.
In terms of the demonstrated need for the use, as you know, the City
has a relatively large supply (235 acres) of industrial land to satisfy
industrial development needs for the neat 18-20 years; therefore, the
proposed rezoning should not have a short-term impact on industrial
land inventory. At the same time, however, the City should not
remove land from the industrial land supply without recommitment
to the goal of finding a suitable industrial area at a new location at
an isolated location west of Highway 25. As you recall, the goal of
finding an alternative industrial site was established in conjunction
with the decision to maintain residential uses as designated with
regard to the lGein Farms comprehensive plan decision.
Motion to deny request to rezone the 30 -acre Gladys Hoglund site
liom I-1 to public and semi-public uses.
Under this alternative, the City Council could make a finding that it
is not appropriate to rezone the area for PS uses due to the fact that
the proposal is not consistent with the comprehensive plan.
Arguments could be made that although the proposal is consistent
with the geography and character of the surrounding area, a
demonstrated need for the use has not been established. It could be
argued that there is sufficient residential land inventory throughout
Council Agenda - 10/10/94
the community that would allow for space necessary for the church
use. Why remove revenue-producing industrial land from the city
inventory when other residential land for church uses is available?
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
It is our view that a good case can be made for each side. From a land use
standpoint, the request is reasonable and workable. From a narrow
economic/t%x base standpoint, it would appear that it's best to leave the
property industrial. From a "community development" standpoint, the
development will provide subjective societal benefits that could exceed the
concrete economic benefits that the higher tax base would provide. It's your
can.
P. SUPPORTING DATA:
Copy of previous report from City Planner, Copy of church site plan; Copy of
public hearing notice; Copy of Planning Commission item from 9/894.
rN
M.D.) Iw,l O,C 12, w - Northwest Associated Consultants, Inc.
C URBAN PLANNING • S E S I R N• MARK E 5 RESEARCH
MEMORANDUM
TO:
Jeff O'Neill
FROM:
Stephen Grittman
DATE:
1 September 1994
RS:
Monticello - St. Henry's Church Zoning Amendments
PILE NO: 191.07 - 94.07
This memorandum is intended to summarize our comments regarding the
St. Henry's Church proposal for the vent portion of the Hoglund
property. The request is to rezone a certain portion of the
Industrial acreage to R-1 to accommodate the insticucional land
use.
1. Effect of Rezonina. One concern relates to the possibility
that the property may be rezoned, but never utilized as a
church facility, after which a developer may attempt to plat
a single family subdivision in accord with the new R-1 zoning.
It would be possible for the City to rezone the land back to
I-1 if it believed that the church development were not likely
to take place. In addition, the underlying Comprehensive Plan
land use would not support single family, a possible reason to
deny any single family plat proposal, although the courts have
been trouble for cities whose zoning is too far at odds with
the land use plan.
A second option would be to rezone the land to planned Unit
Development, rather than A-1. Under pun zoning, the City
could permit a church facility/complex, but not give up
control to a potential single family plat. In thin way, the
underlying land use plan and policies would control any plat
proposal more positively.
2. Conai tenav vitb camrshensive Pian. Anothor concern relates
to tho use of the property by the church facility when the
Comprehensive Plan calla for Industrial. Since the land use
plan does not specifically identify areas for new
institutional use location, it is often left to the policy
5775 Wayzata Blvd - Suite 555 - St. Louis Park, MN 55416 • (612) 595-9636'Fax. 695.9837`��
section of the plan to determine when a church proposal is
consistent with the plan. Just as when a church develops on
&-1 land guided in the plan for single family, the permit for
the church should identify Comprehensive plan policies which
support the decision.
3. Znduntrial /Institutional Land Use Compatibility,, The
utilization of existing Industrial land supply for non-
industrial uses is an issue which was discussed as•a part of
the Klein-8mmerich proposal. It is our opinion that the
eastern area of the community is of much higher value as non-
industrial land use, particularly where the transportation
system does not support the truck traffic to be generated. on
the property in question, the eastern portion could reasonably
develop industrially, due to its potential access to the area
of the intersection with County 117 and County 75.
However, the westerly portion is adjacent to residential
neighborhoods, through which some truck traffic may be
encouraged to travel. The location of the church facility on
the west end of the property may mitigate this concern
somewhat. To be recognized is the fact that churches,
particularly large ones, can generate significant levels of
traffic throughout the week.
4. industrial LayA Uses. generally. This proposal again raises
the issue of industrial land supply on a community wide basis.
As we had advocated in the previous Emmerich/Klein proposal,
and as supported in the Chelsea Corridor study, the City would
be well served to proceed to establish an alternative location
for industrial land uses which will not conflict with existing
commercial and residential traffic or land uses.
since the location of the School complex is a fact,
residential development will continue to follow the school,
and the 25/94 interchange area is already congested with
commercial traffic, our recommended location for future
industrial expansion is to the west of the City. The St.
Henry's proposal would fit well with these plans. If this is
not the intent of the City, and industrial uses are desired
for tho easterly and southerly portions of the community, the
City should immediately seek alternative areas for commercial
and (especially) residential growth. The current growth areas
will rapidly lose their attractiveness for residential
development as industrial land uses expand in the current
locations.
v
6�TOTAL P.03 �
I
„s�"•'
Volp "'
fir•, \, ..- �
.•�•'•, �QA.�S per`; --� °'�� ,.
z; o
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
Notice Is hereby given that public hearings will be held by the City of
Monticello Planning Commission on October 4 , 1994 , at
7 p.m., in the Monticello City Hall to consider the Following matters:
PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration or amendments to the zoning ordinance establishing
a zoning district designation entitled "Public and Semi -Public
Uses (PS)•.
APPLICANT: Monticello Planning Commission
PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of amendments to the Monticello Comprehensive Plan
which would allow Public and Semi -Public Uses in the area noted
on the map below.
APPLICANT: St. Henry's Church
PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of amendments to the official zoning map or the city
of Monticello. Proposed in a change from I-1 (light industrial)
to PS (public and semi-public uses). Location: See map below.
APPLICANT: St. Henry's Church
Written and oral testimony will be accepted on above subjects, and all
persons desiring to be heard on referenced subjects will be heard at
this meeting.
NOTEI Decisions of the Planning Commission will be subject to the
approval or denial of the City Council and will be heard on
Monday, OrLtober 10 , 19 94 , at 7 P.m-, at the
Monticello City Hall.
bey- erso on n etrator
CO)
Planning Commission Agenda - 9/6/94�ip
Ppblic Hearina—Consideration of an amendment to the zoning man
changing zoning district designation from I.1 to R-1 zonina district
designation. Annlicant. St. Henrv's Catholic Church. (J.OJ
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
According to Jim Ridgeway, representing St. Henry's Church, St. Henry's
Catholic Church proposes to develop the 72 -acre Gladys Hoglund property
jointly with Bondhus Corporation and Dahlheimer Distributing. In
conjunction with development of the property, St. Henry's Catholic Church
would acquire the easterly half of the property (approximately 35 acres); the
balance of the property would be divided between Bondhus Corporation and
Dahlheimer Distributing. The land area provided to Bondhus and
Dahlheimer would give their organizations the potential to expand their
businesses near their present locations. According to Jim Ridgeway of St.
Henry's Catholic Church, an arrangement has been made between the three
property owners which calls for simultaneous construction of utility systems
serving the site with all property owners participating to be initiated at
such time that any one of the three parties desires extension of utilities.
According to Jim Ridgeway, the first phase of the development of the church
property is likely to occur in approximately three years.
City Planner Steve Grittman has been asked to provide a report on this
matter. Please refer to this report for pro's and con's relating to the
proposed rezoning. Information contained in his report will help you
determine to what extent the proposal meets the standards associated with
obtaining an amendment to the zoning ordinance.
As you will note, the request does not provide a clear demarcation of the
zoning district boundaries. City staff has not received a development plan
which would clearly identify the proposed alignment of 7th Street or the
proposed property subdivision locations; therefore, it is very difficult to
identify the precise location of the zoning district boundaries. In essence,
the Planning Commission is asked to give conceptual approval of a zoning
district boundary change in anticipation of development of a more precise
development plan. To what extent the City can establish a zoning district
boundary without a precise land mark or property line among issues is
addressed in Steve Grittman's memo.
Motion to approve the rezoning request based on one or a
combination of the following findings:
The amendment is consistent with the comprehensive plan.
Planning Commission Agenda - 9/6/94
2. The amendment is compatible with the geographic area
involved.
3. The amendment will not result in a depreciation in adjoining
land values.
4. The amendment is consistent with the character of the area.
5. There is a demonstrated need for such use.
Under this alternative, Planning Commission is asked to identify
which of the criteria above are met by the request and cite Grittman's
report and comprehensive plan excerpts where applicable.
2. Motion to deny the rezoning request based on the finding that the
proposal:
1. is note consistent with the comprehensive plan,
2. the proposal is not compatible with the geographic area
involved,
3. the proposal will tend to depreciate the area in which it is
proposed,
4. the amendment is not consistent with the character of the
surrounding area,
6. there is no demonstrated need for such use.
As with alternative #1, cite sections of Grittman's memo and excerpts
from the comprehensive plan supporting selected criteria.
C. STAFLMCOMMENDATION:
From a compatibility of land use standpoint, the proposal appears to have
merit. Development of an institutional use on the west half of the property
between industrial and residential uses makes sense. In addition, further
refinement and implementation of the buffering and screening requirement
will help to mitigate negative impacts between the church use and the
industrial uses; therefore, it is our view that the proposal is consistent with
the geography and character of the neighborhood.
On the other hand, conversion of 35 acres of potential revenue -bearing
industrial land for an institutional use is an important factor to consider.
Perhaps the Planning Commission would prefer that the industrial land
Planning Commission Agenda - 9/6/94
remain preserved for such use, thereby encouraging the church campus to
be located in an existing residential area. According to estimates made
during the EmmerichMein rezoning issue, the city has approximately 23
years worth of industrial land if land develops at a rate of 9 acres per year.
Conversion of the 35 acres from industrial to residential use will remove
about 4 years worth of industrial land inventory. Approval of this request
should further motivate the City to identify a future industrial area.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
City Planner report; Excerpts Brom comprehensive plan; Public hearing
notice; Site plans to be presented by St. Henry's if available.
v
10. Nov forms of family structure, such as
- Single Parents
- Same Sex Couples
- Growing Elderly Class
will continue to increase and must be addressed with respect to
housing needs.
11. The following trends can be anticipated for the future private
economy of the county.
- Expanding and changing housing base
- Less dependence upon the agricultural economy (decreasing
number of farms but larger farm acreages)
- Expending employment opportunities
- Increasing family income
- Increasing numbers of women in the labor force
- Increasing proportion of residents commuting outside the
area to places of employment
- Service industries should continue to increase in total ,
numbers and dollar sales
- Continued induotrial growth
- Continued manufacturing trade expansion
12. Anticipated population growth and changes in the private economy
will result in the cocresponding changes in the public economy%
- Continued ciao in aooeeoed valuation
- Continued rise in cost and expenditures tot public services
- Nora emphasis upon financial as well as physical planning
- Crowing need for changes in the tax structure and sources
of revenue
- Possibility of higher per capita public service costs
- Additional full-time public employees
COKKUNITY DEVEI.CPMENT GOALS
Por the Comprehensive Plan to validly function, It must be based on
an understanding of the aepicationo held by the citisens for their
-»-
•-- _— ._ -
10. 1b make major public expenditures according to a capital
improvements program and budget which establishes priority
schedules for live or six years in advance based on projections
of need and estimated revenues.
11. 1b encourage suitable housing in good living environments for
people of all ages, incomes, and racial and ethnic groups
throughout Monticello.
12. To allow development of new housing only where it is in harmony
with the natural environment and where adequate services and
facilities ace available.
tie r
L' •)t.. 13. 7b eliminate all instances of housing blight (dilapidation, poor
maintenance, etc.) as rapidly as possible.
Y C 16. 1b concentrate commercial enterprises into relatively compact
1�0M1,`h and well-planned areas by discouraging "spot" and 'strip'
business development.
�oyl �m 15. To encourage the development of a strong industrial employment
base so that persons can live and work in Monticello.
16. To develop high quality industrial areas which are free from
nuisance characteristics such as noise, smoke, odors,
vibrations, glare, dust, and other objectionable features.
17. 1b purchase recreation sites for long-range needs at an early
date in order that proper sites can be obtained before urban
development or land costs render acquisition hopeless.
18. 1b develop public utilities and services that are well planned
and cost-effective for present and future needs at the lowest
possible operating and maintenance costs.
19. 1b evaluate present and future traffic flow volumes in order to
develop various land use strategies to prevent congestion on the
public streets.
20. 2b protect residential areas by channeling major traffic volumes
onto a relatively few major streets.
f�-39-
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT POLICIES
A 'policy' is an official course of action adopted either
legislatively or administratively and followed by local government in
striving to attain the desired community goals. The following policy
statements ace suggested for the City of Monticello.
1. The Comprehensive Plan is considered to be a flexible guide to
decision making rather than an inflexible blueprint foc
development. The Plan will be continually reviewed and amended
as necessary in the light of changing conditions and needs
consistent with the aspirations of the citizens. Any proposed
amendment of the Plan, however, must be equal to or an
improvement over prior plans.
2. Broad citizen interest and participation in the planning process
will be encouraged.
3. The principle of representative government will be maintained in
the local neighborhood sentiment but will not be the sole factor
considered in evaluating development proposals. Sound planning
principles based upon factual evidence will be the primary
consideration.
e. The function of the Planning Commission shall be tot maintain
the City Plan; make recommendations on development proposals
(private and publics serve to provide the general public with
information necessary to intelligent decision making; consider
aesthetic as well as dollar costs and values; and serve in an
advisory capacity to the City Council.
S. Urban development guides and controls shall be efficiently and
properly administered by City staff and/or consultants.
6. Any proposed change in zoning, subdivision practice, or other
development, but which is not consistent with the City Plan,
shall not be considered until there has been an amendment to
that Plan, said amendment to be reviewed and noted by the
Planning Commission.
7. All land uses should be located so as to relate properly to
surrounding land uses and the general land use pattern of the
urban area. In general, similar type land uses should be
grouped to serve as functional units.
B. The guiding factor in land use control should be the
consideration of density. Such standards ace to be incorporated
in the zoning regulations and govern dwelling unite permitted
per acro; traffic generation elements, and the like. the
control of density is the key factor in planning for utilities,
streets, and other facilities which have a relationship between
capacity and demand.
e0
9. Aesthetics and good urban design shall be an important factor in
evaluating development proposals although these will not be the
sole determinants leading to rejection or aoproval of proposed
projects. In the making of urban development decisions, many
` factors will be taken into consideration including the
following: (a) effect on adjacent and nearby property values;
(b) safety factors; (c) health consideration; (d) landscaping;
(e) light and air space; (f) traffic generation and flow
patterns; (9) density and intensity of use; and (h) other items
affecting the public welfare.
10. Encourage the preservation of special scenic and/or historical
interest sites in their original state, if at all practicable
and feasible.
11. The tax structure must be a factor in planning the industrial
and commercial uses permitted by the City.
12. Flood plain zoninq should be considered for areas subject to
excessive water and run-off or potential flooding. The
objective is to preserve space for proper storm drainage, avoid
property damage, prevent soil erosion, and preserve scenic and
recreational values.
13. The development and maintenance of public buildings and land
should set a high standard and good example for private property
owners to follow.
14. All land should be free from noxious weeds, litter, debris,
inoperative vehicles, junk, hazards, and other undesirable
influences.
15. Require precautionary measures to insure that soil erosion will
be minimized to the greatest extent possible during development
construction.
16. Smoke, noise, dust, litter, vibrations, weeds, soils, erosion,
junk, and other undesirable elements must be controlled by
'performance standards* in the zoning regulations and other
codes and ordinances.
I�
17. Adopt an Official Map designating proposed major public spaces
•f and corridors.
i
INDUSTRIAL POLICIES
1.
All land suitable for industrial development in the City should
be zoned to preserve it for said use ani to avoid needless harm
to homes which might develop in potential industrial areas.
Land used by industry is entitled to protection against
I
residential encroachment.
2.
Through proper land use planning, certain types of industry can
J,S
be good neighbors with areas used for residential and other
purposes; the type of industry, screening (green planting,
Z�r0�1
fencing, etc.), cequired building desian, and other factors
greatly affect the compatibility of such uses.
VVI.; 3.
Industries which produce undesirable affects injurious to the
I
public health, safety, convenience, and general welfare will be
t�
discouraged.
4.
Excellence of site and building design will be a major factor in
I
approving or disapproving industrial development proposals
within the City.
S.
Performance standards will be utilised to judge industrial
'
proposals rather than the more rigid policy of judging
industrial uses by types any industrial type use will be
permitted provided it can prove compliance with standards
'
governing smoke emission, noise, odors, vibrations, and the like.
6.
Encourage design and development of industrial parks with
exposure to Interstate 91 rather than scattering such uses
indiscriminately through the community.
7.
The City Public Mocks Division shall review, with respect to
sewer and water use, the impact each particular industry has on
those utilities and their expected life.
A
-9o-
in the Sherburne County and Wright County area. It is
important not to alienate the commuter. Although they may
not shop during the time that they are commuting and
working outside of the City of Monticello, they and their
families may likely live in the Monticello trade areal and,
therefore, it is important for them to have a positive
attitude toward the Monticello Shopping District.
To alleviate the problem, the City has worked with the
County to provide a special 'park and pool" commuter lot.
The park and pool lot is located between the Bard
Dealership and Interstate 44 directly off Highway 25. The
commuter lot is easily accessible by Oakwood Drive and
provides more than 150 parking spots. This lot should be
able to handle the growing number of commuters for many
years. Considering the great success of handling the
commuter problem along with clearing the way for greater
consumer parking at the shopping areas, the City should
continue the park and pool commuter lot.
Because of ever changing transportation needs, the City is
well aware that it needs a continuous evaluation and
development program. one major project that will be
affecting traffic flow within Monticello in the next few
years is the upgrading of Highway 25. Also, with the
refurbishing of Highway 25 will cane a new four -lane
bridge. It will replace the present two-lane bridge that
links Monticello with communities to the north. Realising
the importance of travel along Highway 25 and over the
bridge. construction crews will keep the roadway open as
much as possible minimizing delays. Along with these vast
and present improvements, the City will continue to budget
funds for the ongoing public works programa dealing with
transportation needs.
1. Industrial Development
The City has in the pact taken steps to encourage
development of its industrial potential. The policies of
the Guide plan represent the City's commitment to
induotrial development. The overall policy is one of
encouraging industrial base in the community foe job
opportunities so so to prevent the City from becoming
simply a 'commuter bedroom city'. We feel that the
strategic location of Wonticello, being some forty-five
minutoo drive from the Twin Cities, offers the unique
opportunity toe perpono who wish to be close enough to the
metropolitan area to enjoy its benefits, but not have to
live in the metropolitan area. Industrial sites of the
community have good visibility, public utilities available,
and the community otters the necesoary amenities to attract
industry, including an excellent school system, an
excellent hospital, a friendly environment, a strong
ahoppin9 districto and complete City services. The City is
well locatod with regard to nearby recreational amenities.
-60- 0
Industrial development is proposed in the Guide Plan for
the area southeast of the nearest interchange between
Highway 25 and Interstate 94, known as the Oakwood
Industrial Park. In addition, the area directly east of
the Oakwood Industrial Pack and west of County Highway 118
t -'a monded for -industrial develonent. .ne area north
f Inter
ostate 94 -between Highway 25 anc Washington is also
recommended for industrial development becLuse of exposure
to Highway 94 and 25.
Future industrial development should be governed by high
development standards including construction codes, proper
road access, adequate off-street parking, adequate loading
space, proper site and architectural design, and adequate
landscaping. These are not unreasonable requests to make
of new development. Some marginal industrial developers
may object to such high standards and therefore they may
refuse to locate in Monticello. However, good industrial
development will abide by such high standards if they are
assured that other industrial development will abide by
similar standards. The well designed and well maintained
industrial park will maintain its value not only to the
property owner but to the City. The City's consultants
have met with the owners of the Oakwood Industrial Park and
produced revisions in the original plat plan which will
allow greater flexibility in lot sire opportunities for
potential industrial developers.
The Northern States Power Generating Plant has proven to be
a good neighbor for the City of Monticello both in the
sense of its tar base and its cooperation with the
Community. Portions of the NSP land are utilised for
recreational purposes near the Wright County Montissippi
Park. The Guide Plan recognizes the need on the part of
the City to maintain a good relationship with the NSP
Plant. One of the features of the (Lida Plan is the
proposal to ultimately construct a full interchange between
Intecotate 94 and County Highway 75 to serve the plant
directly off of the Interstate. This is recommended for
two reasonst first, it will avoid unnecessary routing of
traffic to and from the NSP Plant via County Highway 75 and
State Highway 25 through the center of the community)
secondly, from a safety standpoint, direct access to the
freeway should be advantageous in time of major emergency
at the NSP Plant (See Figure 10).
If the Interotate 94 interchange io constructed near the
NSP Plant, industrial development potential will develop
for the land near the interchange. Industrial development
of the property is dependent upon the construction of the
interchange.
Mother type of development that io possible if the
intersection in constructed is the usual interchange
commercial enterprises, such as restaurants, service
stations, and quick stop stores. Considering the success
and expansion of the fun market, this may be the most
likely type of development.
B. Transportation
The road system of the City consists of various streets and
highways, each performing specific tasks. Road systems are
grouped into a number of different classifications for
administrative, planning, and design purposes. The Federal Aid
financing system, State -County -City's administrative systems,
and commercial -industrial -residential -recreational systems are
examples of the variety of highway classifications. These
classifications usually carry with them a set of minimum design
standards which are in keeping with the importance of the system
and are governed by the specific transportation services the
system is to perform. The principal consideration for
designating roads into systems are the travel desires of the
Public, land access requirements based on existing and future
land use and the continuity of the system. Four basic purposes
of the street system eras
1. Expressways Provide for expeditious movement of large
volumes of through traffic between areae of the City and
within the region and not intended to provide land access
service.
2. Arterial Systems Provide for through traffic movement
between areas of the City and direct access to abutting
propertyi subject to necessary control of entrances, exits,
and curb use.
3. Collector Syetems Provide for traffic movement between
major arterials and local streets and direct access to
abutting property.
4, Local, Svetems Provides for direct access to abutting land
and for local traffic movements.
The principal arterial of the region is Interstate 94 which
connects the City with the Twin Cities forty-five miles to the
coutheaot, and St. Cloud thirty miles to the northwest. The
Interstate system is a national system connecting Monticello
with the state and the nation. (see rigure 8)
State Highway 25 is the only intermediate arterial of the area
connecting Big rake and Buffalo. The Sighway 25 Bridge crossing
of the Missisippi River establishes Monticello as a crossroads
of the region between Sherburne and Wright Counties.
The minor arterial system includes the County Highways 75, 39,
117, 106, 118, and Township highways. Included is the proposed
frontage road oyotem which parallels the Interstate. The minor
arterials provide a grid network which are appropriately located
-62-
/ U
INv
w
on
r
r
r
r
U t -4
Single Fe ijly<
10u1tiple milt:
_I_l,`>. U o ` "' I�lul� , :� .��"�I a• ' v' Coinmerc al !I
J '1 1Y'+ : �<, , ; ` `. .3? •I �,\ ." . ., —Public/Ouael-Publi
Proposed Perk i
.. e
Wrght County Minnesota -�• "I ...: _ ' _ .... _ ., _ i. -_. .� •., ly'^'•-`, _1 1 f.
Anticipated Future Land Use 1' 0 . �� 6'� r
From 1978 Comp, plan 1. P'; : x ; • :r t. c e L L . ', y
I � " t Y 1 Q�r� �•,
NOTICE OF PUBLIC NEARING
Notice Is hereby given that public hearings will be held by the City of
Monticello Planning Commission on September 6 , 19 94 , at
7 p.m., in the Monticello City Hall to consider the following matters:
PUBLIC BEARING: Consideration of amendments to the official zoning map and
consideration of establishment of a zoning district designation
and boundaries. Proposed is a change in zoning district
designations from 1-1 (light industrial) to H-1 (single
family residential) zoning district designation. SEE MAY BELOW.
APPLICM: St. Henry's Catholic Church.
Written and oral
testimony will be accepted on above subjects, and all
persons desiring
to be heard on
referenced subjects will be heard
at
this meeting.
NOTEi Decisions
of the Planning
Commission will be subject to the
approval or
denial of the
City Council and will heard on
Monday,
September 12
, 1994 , at 7 p.m., at the
Monticello
City Hall.
ea
4dda
croon,-U5nlnrA n etrator
7
Council Agenda - 10/10/94
8. Consideration of amendments to She QfficW zoning man and
consideration of establishment of zoning district designations and
boundaries in coniunction with annexation request. Proposed is a
change in zoning district de$ianations from AO (aeriepItural) to R -Is
R.2. 4nd R-8 zoning district designations. Applicant. E & S
Development. (J.O.)
REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
In conjunction with development of the Klein Farms preliminary plat and
associated annexation request, E & K Development is requesting
amendments to the official zoning map as noted on the attached copy of the
preliminary plat. The zoning map amendments requested are identical to
the land use designations approved during the review and update of the
comprehensive plan completed in conjunction with the associated rezoning
of the land to the west previously owned by Kent Xjellberg (see attached
Council meeting minutes from 6/9/94).
As you know, when property is annexed to the city, it is annexed under the
agricultural uses unless specific action is taken to bring the property into
the city under a different zoning designation. The petition for annexation
submitted by the applicant is contingent on the approval of the preliminary
plat and associated zoning district boundaries.
Please note that in conjunction with the rezoning request, City Council will
soon be reviewing a zoning ordinance amendment requiring establishment
of a buffer yard between industrial and residential zoning districts. A copy
of the first draft of the buffer yard ordinance specifically tailored to buffer
industrial and residential uses is provided as a Council update for your
review. The Planning Commission tabled action on the buffer yard
ordinance pending further review. It is hoped that the Planning
Commission review will be completed at the November meeting of the
Planning Commission and then forwarded to the City Council accordingly.
B. ALTERNATIVE. ACTIONS
Motion to approve Cho rezoning request in conjunction with the
preliminary plat and petition for annexation of the Klein property.
Under this alternative, the motion could be based on finding that the
rezoning as proposed is consistent with the comprehensive plan and
is consistent with the geography and character of the area given the
Council Agenda - 10/10/94
presence of the Little Mountain School and the impending
establishment of a buffer yard requirement. The finding could also
refer to the demonstrated need for the land use involved.
Motion to deny the rezoning request in conjunction with the
preliminary plat and petition for annexation of the Klein property.
This alternative should be considered if the City Council believes that
the zoning map amendment as presented is not consistent with the
comprehensive plan, or denial could be based on a finding relating to
geography and character of the area,—demonstrated need for the
amendment, or the likelihood of depreciation of adjoining land values.
Under this alternative, a companion motion to call for a public
hearing to amend the comprehensive plan designating other land uses
at the Klein property would be appropriate.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
It is the view of City staff that the zoning district alignment was reviewed
at great length only a few months ago. It was determined at that time by
the City Council that the zoning district designations as requested by the
developer were appropriate for the area. Little has occurred in the past few
months that would appear to justify a change in the City's position with
regard to proper land use in this area. Therefore, City staff recommends
approval of the rezoning request as proposed.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
See preliminary plat which outlines proposed zoning district designations;
Copy of comprehensive plan excerpt; Copy of 6/8/94 Council minutes.
NOTES: on lack of map
RCUTLOT S
I
Al
r�V r
fL Y.
W
1
OUTLOTy C
+L
MII�WF-(1
RI SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL.
QA)
R2 SINCI.E 6 2 PAMILY RESIDENTIAL
113 Ml'.'DI11N DENSITY RESIDENT11.
KLEIN FARMS
(PROPOSED ZONING NAP)
bw
KLEIN FARMS
PRELIMINARY PLAT
PLAWILOG CUMMLSSION HECWth EiilN:i LQU - Land use dects Lviis and pian u1 ICL 1011
1. Green Area - Emmerich rezoning request (Recommendation - Adopt)
2. Yellow Area - Klein Comprehensive Plan (Recommendation - Adopt)
3. Blue Area - HoglundlLundsten rezone (Recommendation - Table for further study)
PLAN OF ACTION:
a. Complete comprehensive plan update - Identify future industrial areas.
b. Update coning district regulations - Maintain diversity of industrial land.
c. Develop plan for extending utilities to Hoglund site.
d. Update district regulations governing development in Regional Commercial District.
e. Require intense berming by ordinate to separate industrial from residential uses.
f'Transportation system design/ subdivision design to separate conflicting uses.
g. Improve linkages between commercial areae.
1. Improve traffic flow on Hwy 25 via improved signal timing.
Z. Re -align Cedar Street to improve land utilization.
3. Pursue development of Fallon
FalloonAvenue overpass
N I1 'b5�/m.J. }� Xa I� \
4
', "TI `f I•w1w
Regional
Commercial_ _
LST NG-` D STAIAl
A
50% Multiple Pamily i•1y i'
11 50% Two Famii�.
I
�.� Single family homes tittle Note
School.
;,•. .` � __Sr•henl Bol L�vM1td
I �
Single family homes "
Perfortnance
Zone z.
Multi Cam o?
�• Commercial --s
A
in
Council Minutes - 51,
10. Consideration of Emmerich/HIein rezonine/comorehensive plan amendment"
request
Assistant Administrator O'Neill reviewed the steps leading to Council
consideration of this matter. He noted that the Planning Commission
conducted a public hearing on March 3, which was continued to April 5 and
to May 3. This provided a good opportunity for information and issues to be
reviewed and addressed. In addition to the three Planning Commission
meetings, there was a joint meeting held on March 30, at which time
information regarding the request was provided to various commissions and
local organizations.
In his presentation, ONeill noted that the plan calls for placing residential
uses next to I-2 uses, which appear to create a conflict in land uses. ONeill
noted that the Planning Commission researched this issue with other cities
and determined that a practical level of isolation can be achieved between
these two uses through installation of berms and landscaping and by
separating residential and industrial road systems. He also reported that
the Planning Commission looked carefully at the need to preserve additional
industrial land for future development. The Planning Commission
examined the option of developing at least 60 acres of the 10ein property for
industrial development, with the balance being developed for multi -family
and single family uses. As a result of their review, it was their finding that,
given the present absorption rate of industrial land, the present supply (235
acres) is adequate to address our short- and medium-term needs, and that
time is available that will allow the City to explore industrial development
in areas currently located in the township or located on the NSP property in
the city.
O'Neill went on to review a finance plan associated with installation of
utilities to the lGein site and described costs associated with preserving the
northern half of the 1Qein site for industrial uses. In order to develop the
southern half of the 1Qein property for residential use, utilities will need to
be extended through the northern half of the property, and Fallon Avenue
and School Boulevard will need to be installed. According to the City
Engineer, the cost for improvements associated with extending utilities and
roads through the industrial area are over $400,000. O'Neill went on to
outline the Planning Commission's recommendation, which was to approve
both the Emmerich rezoning and the Mein comprehensive plan
amendments. Reasons for support of the proposal are as follows.
Industrial Land Inventory. Currently them are 235 acres of
industrial land in the city. In addition, the City owns 60 acres of
prime industrial land currently located in the township. The rate of
absorption of available industrial land provides sufficient time for the
City to develop industrial sites at a more isolated location.
Pago 6 v
Council Minutes - 6!9/94
2. Proper transition and a practical level of isolation from I-2 and R-3
uses can be achieved through installation of berming and landscaping
and through separation of roadway systems.
3. The City needs to provide land to serve needs of regional commercial
enterprises. The plan proposed will provide the land necessary and
will encourage development of School Boulevard, which will support
development of a regional business district at the location as
proposed.
4. Utility/Road System Financing. The plan as proposed will encourage
developer financing of School Boulevard, Fallon Avenue, water main,
and trunk sanitary sewer systems.
5. The Emmerich site is currently zoned for single family uses, which is
inappropriate given the location on Highway 25 and the presence of
pipeline and power line easements. The highest and best use for this
land area is for commercial purposes as proposed.
6. The Township generally supports the plan as presented.
7. The developer supports the modifications made to the plan by the
Planning Commission.
ONeill went on to note reasons for possible denial of the request.
1. Industrial land in the city is finite. Despite the fact that a good
supply of industrial land is available to handle our short-term needs,
we still may want to hold onto this area for long-term considerations.
2. There are no guarantees that the City will be able to work with the
Township in development of the industrial area for the future.
3. The Housing and Redevelopment Authority has expressed an interest
in establishing a finance plan to support the preservation of
industrial land. This is an option that has not been fully explored.
Council may wish to table the matter to provide time for the
developer and the HRA to come to terms on a possible method for
preserving the industrial land on the 10ein site.
Finally, OTieill went on to outline important steps that the Planning
Commission recommends in an effort to address the city-wide land use
issues that have been raised during the process of reviowing the request.
The list of follow-up activities include:
Page 7 A
Council Minutes - 5/9/94
a. Complete comprehensive plan update. Identify future
industrial areas. Work closely with the Township on this
matter.
b. Update zoning district regulations. Maintain diversity of
industrial land types for various industrial/office uses.
LT".. )
C. Develop plans for pending utilities to existing industrial lands,
including the Gladys Hoglund site.
d. Update B4 district regulations governing development in
regional commercial district.
e. Require intense berming by ordinance to separate industrial
from residential uses.
f Complete transportation system designs and subdivision
designs in a manner separating conflicting uses.
g. Improve linkages between commercial areas
1) Work with the State Highway Department to improve
traffic flow on Hwy 25 via improved signal timing.
2) Realign Cedar Street to improve land utilization.
3) Pursue development of Fallon Avenue overpass.
Clint Herbst mentioned his concern regarding the planning process used. I
was his view that too many long-term issues regarding future development
of industrial areas remain unanswered and that the City would be wise to
table the matter pending completion of an update to the comprehensive
plan. Brad Fyle indicated that he supports the work done by the Planning
Commission. In his view, R-1 development at the Nellberg site is a bad
idea; development of regional commercial at this location is more practical
as proposed in the plan. He also noted that Planting Commission did a
thorough job of researching methods of separating industrial from
residential uses through buffering systems.
Patty Olsen explained that she intends on voting on this matter due to the
fact that she has no conflict of interest. She informed Council that her
involvement in the property ended when she was paid for her work as real
estate agent when the land closed two months ago. If the vote would have
come up before the closing, she would not have been able to vote at that
time. She also mentioned that she is a salaried employee of a company
other than Emmerich's company and in no way directly benefits from any
decision to approve the request.
Page 8 (D
Council Minutes - 6/9/94
Shirley Anderson indicated that the Planning Commission made a strong
attempt to satisfy the concerns of all those that provided input, and it was
her view that the plan as proposed is the best alternative available. She
also noted that the City Attorney has reviewed Olsen's participation in the
matter and, given the facts as presented, has determined that Olsen is
eligible to vote.
After discussion, a motion was made by Shirley Anderson and seconded by
Warren Smith to adopt the Planning Commission recommendation to accept
the rezoning request as submitted based on the finding that the rezoning is
consistent with the comprehensive plan, consistent with the character and
geography of the area, will not result in depreciation of adjoining land
values, and there is a demonstrated need for the types of land uses
proposed as opposed to the existing zoning which is currently R-1. Voting
in favor. Brad Fyle, Shirley Anderson, Patty Olsen, Warren Smith.
Opposed: Clint Herbst. SEE ORDINANCE AMENDMENT NO. 249.
At this point in the meeting, a &minute recess was taken.
When the meeting reconvened, discussion ensued regarding the 10ein
property. 011ie Koropchak noted that during the past week she received a
number of contacts from various industrial users interested in Monticello.
She also reminded the Council that the HRA is interested in working with
the City and the developer toward development of a finance plan that would
support preservation of the Klein property for industrial use. She also ,
&J i
noted that the Chamber of Commerce met on Friday to discuss the matter,
b,�V .
and the Chamber recommended that the item be tabled to allow time for
development of a plan to allow use of TIF to preserve the 10ein property for
industrial uses.
r•"
After discussion, a motion was made by Shirley Anderson and seconded by
Patty Olsen to amend the comprehensive plan as recommended by the
Planning Commission by specifically identifying land uses as requested by
1Qein with the exception that the R^3 uses proposed to the north and west
sides of the property be reduced to a 60/60 split between R-3 and R-2 uses.
Voting in favor. Shirley Anderson, Patty Olsen, Warren Smith, Brad Fyle.
Opposed: Clint Herbst.
Council then reviewed the important planning tasks listed by the Planning
Commission that need to be completed in the near future to address
concerns voiced by various organizations that have provided input on this
matter.
After discussion, a motion was made by Shirley Anderson and seconded by
Patty Olsen to authorize City staff to address the items as follows.
Page 9 g
Council Minutes - 6/9/94
a. Complete comprehensive plan update. Identify future
industrial areas. Work closely with the Township on this
matter.
b. Update zoning district regulations. Maintain diversity of
industrial land types for various indust nallof ace Hees
C. Develop plans for pending utilities to existing industrial lands,
including the Gladys Hoglund site.
d. Update B4 district regulations governing development in
regional commercial district.
e. Require intense berming by ordinance to separate industrial
from residential uses.
f. Complete transportation system designs and subdivision
designs in a manner separating conflicting uses.
g. Improve linkages between commercial areas:
1) Work with the State Highway Department to improve
traffic flow on Hwy 26 via improved signal timing.
2) Realign Cedar Street to improve land utilization.
3) Pursue development of Fallon Avenue overpass.
4) Pursue upgrading Highwy 26 to a 4 -lane highway.
Motion carried unanimously.
®r.
Council Agenda - 10/10/94
Consideration of aonroval of"Wein Farme" oreiindnary plat.
ADDlicant E & K Develooment. W.O.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
The Planning Commission re-, io-wed a sketch plan at their September
meeting and conducted a public hearing on the plat at their meeting on
October 4. The Planning Commission recommended approval of the plat per
alternative Ml. Following is a brief review of the plat along with
identification of issues that the Council should be aware of.
The Klein Farms preliminary plat encompasses 80 acres and is located
north of the future School Boulevard and between Fallon Avenue and
Edmundson Avenue (County Road 117). The plat calls for development of
107 single family dwellings in the area designated for R-1 uses. The
residential development will occur in two or three phases, with the first
phase consisting of about 40 lots.
Oudot A (7.8 acres) is designated for R-2 uses. It is proposed that 48 units
be developed at this location creating a density of 6.2 units/acre. Outlet B
(10.3 acres) is also designated for the R-2 zoning district and will contain 80
unite creating a density of 7.8 units/acre. Gutlot C (8.2 acres) is proposed to
be designated under R-3 uses, which will net 44 units or 6 units/acre.
Lying to the north of the property is the Oakwood Industrial Park.
According to the proposed buffer yard ordinance, it will be required that a
buffer yard be built along the northern boundary of Outlots B and A to
mitigate conflicts between residential and industrial uses. The construction
of the buffer yard in this case is the responsibility of the Klein/Emmerich
development. Emmerich has indicated that the buffer yard will be
constructed simultaneous to development of the single family residential
area and will not wait until development of the two R-2 outlots adjoining
the industrial area.
To the east of the site is Little Mountain School. An effort will be made to
make sure that a crosswalk to the school property is situated at a logical
location. It is likely that the crosswalk will be located at the point where
the Klein Farms' access drive meets Fallon Avenue.
To the south of the property is School Boulevard, which will be constructed
simultaneous to development of the first phase of development of the Klein
Farms property. According to Emmerich, the full length of School
Boulevard from Highway 26 to Fallon Avenue will be constructed next year.
Construction of this roadway will greatly relieve traffic congestion at the
intersection of Oakwood Drive and Highway 28 and divert residential/school
traffic away from Oakwood Park industrial areas. According to the
Council Agenda - 10/10/94
information provided, School Boulevard is constructed to state aid standards
for a 35-40 mph road. It includes development of an 8 -ft off-road
bituminous pathway, which is consistent with the pathway plan for the city.
To the west of the site is Edmundson Avenue and a business campus zone.
The roadway separation between R-3 and BC uses helps to mitigate
negative impacts between the two. It appears, therefore, that a logical
transition in land use is accomplished at this location.
The development of the property is somewhat hampered by the presence of
a Northern Natural Gas Company pipeline extending through the property
from north to south. The alignment of the lots and roadways are somewhat
dictated by the presence of this pipeline. There are a few double -fronting
lots on the plan along School Boulevard that are relatively short (145 ft).
The developer has made an effort to mitigate this problem by proposing a
4 -ft berm along the School Boulevard right-of-way to mitigate the impact of
School Boulevard on such lots. There are also double -fronting lots along
Fallon Avenue that have a depth of 165 ft, which is about 26 ft deeper than
the double -fronting lots at the Cardinal Hills subdivision.
UTILITIES
The utility plan is currently under review by the City Engineer. According
to the City Engineer, development of the property appears feasible. It is not
likely that further analysis of the utility plan and adjustments made will
result in substantive changes to the plat. Therefore, it appears appropriate
to review the preliminary plat prior to approval of the utility plans as
presented.
It has also been determined that an environmental assessment worksheet
will need to be prepared and submitted to the Environmental Quality Board
for review and comment. This requirement will delay approval of the final
plat at least 45 days.
MANCING
According to the developer, he is open to financing the project using private
funds as done with the Oak Ridge project, or he is willing to develop the
site as a City project. He has also noted that he is willing to follow the
precedent for funding School Boulevard set by the School District and Value
Plus Homes, which calls for the developer funding approximately 80% and
the City funding 20% attributable to oversizing the road to serve city-wide
needs.
10
Council Agenda - 10/10/94
PARK DEVELOPMENT
The developer is required to provide 8 acres of park land with this 80 -acre
plat. In addition, another 8 acres will need to be provided with
development of the area south of School Boulevard. The Parka Commission
has met on two separate occasions regarding the lUein Farms preliminary
plat. It is the view of the Planning Commission that the entire 160 -acre
site, including the north 80 acres and south 80 acres can be best served by
developing a single relatively large centralized athletic complex to be located
at a position adjacent to and south of School Boulevard. The precise
location for the park has not been established at this time; however, the
developer has agreed to provide 16 acres of park land at a location outside
of power line easement areas. It is the view of the Parks Commission that
short-term development of park area on the 80 acres north of School
Boulevard is not necessary at this time due to the fact that Little Mountain
School is available to provide for necessary open space for the short-term.
In addition, the Monticello Zoning Ordinance requires private park facilities
for multi -family developments that could occur in Outlot C. Outlets B and
A are medium density developments, and it is not likely that such
developments would provide private park areas.
FALLON AVENUE
Redevelopment of Fallon Avenue should be considered to coincide with the
development of phase I. It is anticipated that the cost to upgrade this
roadway will be shared by the adjoining property owners. As with School
Boulevard, it is likely that the City will need to consider fuuuuang
oversizing expenses.
PATHWAYS
As mentioned earlier, the School Boulevard pathway will provide the major
east/west pathway corridor for residents living in the subdivision. Points of
destination include the school campus to the east and the future commercial
area to the west. The internal road system will be built with a 36 -ft wide
road surface, which will enable safe movement of pedestrians from within
the subdivision to the pathway alongside the heavily -traveled School
Boulevard. In addition, it is suggested that a pathway be constructed at a
location connecting Blocks 4 and 3. Such a pathway would connect the west
half of the development area to the internal road system linking the west
side of the subdivision to Little Mountain School. Such a pathway would
allow people living in the western half of the plat to walk to Little Mountain
School without having to walk all the way down to School Boulevard and
back up Fallon Avenue. It should be noted that there may be a problem
with establishing this pathway duo to limitations in grading and crossing
the Northern Natural Lias Company pipeline.
Council Agenda - 10/10/94
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
Motion to recommend granting approval of the preliminary plat of the
IOein Farms subdivision. Motion is contingent on 1) approval of the
utility plana by the City Engineer, 2) developer making modifications
to the plat as suggested during the course of the meeting;
3) developer entering a development agreement guaranteeing
development of the park area south of School Boulevard; 4) negative
declaration of environmental impact resulting from the EAW process;
6) approval of final plat from the County and affected oil and power
companies; and 6) finalization of description of project phasing and
associated financing.
Motion to deny approval of the preliminary plat of the IUein Farms
subdivision.
Tide alternative should be selected if the developer is not willing to
make requested and reasonable changes or unwilling to satisfy
contingencies.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff has reviewed the preliminary plat in some detail and can generally
confirm that the preliminary plat meets the minimum requirements of the
subdivision ordinance. It is suggested that the City Council review the plan
in detail with the developer, make suggested changes where appropriate,
and unless major modifications are needed, it appears appropriate to
recommend approval of the preliminary plat with contingencies as noted.
Copy of 10ein Farms preliminary plat.
NOTES:
TOTAL AREA - 00.77 ACRES
Lm
101 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS
1OUTLCT - FUIURE SINGLE FAMILY
7 oUTI.OTS - MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL
EXISTING
ZONING
THE NORTH HALF OF SOLMEAST QUARTER OF SECTION le
IS CURRENTLY
OUTSIDE OF THE CITY LIMITS OF MONTICELLO.
PROPOSED ZONING '
pAual Area laeresl proposed
Outlet A7.BIN.wl.:a—ft tl
Zonilw
0.-t
Mit for B 10., -W.- ':—/-.1
A -t
outlot c 0.21..r1b.l..Qw...1
0.-1
Outlet D 2.e
R•1
8ingle Pamlly 44.71Wr,.unt e.r�/.c.l
R-1
School Blvd. 1.e
Edeonson Avenua 1.3
Falloi] Avenue 1.5
MTR
MINIMUM R-1 REOUIREM
MINIMUM IAT AREA - 12,000 SQ. PT.
MINIMUM FRONT SETBACK - 10 FEET
MINIMUM SIDE YARD SETBACK10 FELT
MINIMUM REM YARD SETBACK - )o FEET
MIN1MU11 LOT WIDTH AT SETBACK - 00 FEET
pEQIRIPTIDN Of PROPERTY
The North halt of the Southeast Quarter of Bactlon
le. To.me�Ip
121, Range 25, Wright County. Minnesota.
Klern, Frms
NOTES:- , back of map
KLEIN FARMS
OUTLOT' B Qom"
r
jj
4
OUTLO C,:
vw
FIT--
------ SCH)DL
TOM .1
KLEIN FA MS
PRELIMINARY LAT
PARK [A)GATION T17 HE DETUMINFI)
OUTL�T A
r X -W LK
'3
A-
A
2
OOULE%APD
A w4
zwi
0
COUNCEL UPDATE
October 7, 1994
Undate on River Mill subdivision, (J.OJ
During the discussion of the preliminary plat of the River Mill subdivision, there
was a question relating to the developer's proposal to build twin homes under a
zero lot line concept. The question is whether or not "zero" lot line two-family
dwelling units are allowed as a permitted use under our current ordinance.
Did the City Council approve a development concept that cannot be achieved
under our current ordinance? Attached is the City Planner's response to this
question.
If you should have any additional questions regarding this matter, or if you would
like additional information regarding the design of the twin homes, please let me
know and I will set up a meeting with the developer accordingly.
Also, the Monticello Township Board has reviewed the development plan and
tabled action to approve or comment on the plan. It is my understanding that an
official position on the matter will be taken by the Township at their next meeting
scheduled for October 17, 1994.
OCT -06-1994 15:52 NRC 612 595 9837 P.02/02
IRAC Northwest Associated Consultants. Inc.
URBAN 0 LAN N 1 N G • DESIGN • MARIEST a s s 6 A N C N
M MORAMUM
TO: Jeff O'Neill
FR0M:
Stephen Grittmaa
DATE:
6 October 1994
as:
Monticello - River Mill 'Mn Hoare "Zero Lot Lineal
FILE NO:
191.06
I reviewed the Zoning Ordinance at your request in an effort to
determine the impact of the City Council's approval of the
Preliminary Plat with the aero lot line configuration in the R-2
District area. In Section 3-3 (81, the Ordinance reads as follows:
Lots of multiple housing unit structures may be divided
for the purpose of condominium ownership provided that
the principal structure containing the housing unite
shall meet the setback distances of the applicable zoning
district.
In addition, each condominium unit shall have the minimum
lot area for the type of housing unit and usable opaa
space as specified in the area and building else
regulations of this ordinance. Such lot areas may be
controlled by an individual or joint ownership.
This language is commonly interpreted to mean that individually
owned housing units which are attached to other housing units may
be subdivided as separate units without special zoning action, so
long ae the minimum lot area per unit requirements are maintained.
Assuming that the base late were plattod at a size of 12,000 square
feet, the twin homes in River Mill would meet thw Zoning
Ordinanco'e requirement of one unit por 6,000 square feet, thus
meeting the procedural standards, and validating the Council's
action on the preliminary plat. No separate Planned Unit
Devolopment or lot variances are necessary in such a case.
Let me know if you have further questions in this regard.
5775 Wayzata Blvd. • Suite 555 • St. Louis Park, MN 55416 • (612) 595.9636'Fax. 595-9837
T79L P.02
COUNCIL UPDATE
October 7, 1894
Update on buffer vard standards. (J.OJ
Following is a preview to an upcoming agenda item pertaining to establishing a
"buffer yard" requirement. The Planning Commission reviewed the ordinance at
the public hearing on October 4, 1994, and tabled action pending further review.
It is hoped that the proposed ordinance will be on the October 24, 1994, Council
agenda. See me if you have questions or comments.
®0
Planning Commission Agenda - 10/aj
Public H_paring-Considgra#on of amendments to the Monticello
Zonina Ordinance establishina bu>1°er vard standards for the
puraose of seuaratina residentiaL commerciaf and industrial land
vises (J.OJ
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
In conjunction with the establishment of the residential uses adjacent to the
Oakwood Industrial Park as envisioned under the Klein/Emmerich plan in
May 1994, the Planning Commission and the City Council authorized
development of an ordinance buffering industrial and residential uses. The
first draft is now complete and ready for formal review. Please see Steve
Grit—an's memo and associated draft ordinance for further detail.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
Motion to adopt or modify and adopt proposed regulations
establishing buffer yard requirements. Motion is based on the finding
that the proposed ordinance is consistent with the comprehensive
plan, consistent with the geography and character of the areas
involved, will not result in depreciation of adjoining land values, and
there is a demonstrated need for the proposed ordinance.
Under this alternative, if the Planning Commission adopts the
ordinance as presented, the ordinance will apply not only to buffering
industrial and residential uses, but also commercial and residential
uses. Please note that the ordinance does go beyond merely buffering
the impacts between the industrial and residential uses and is meant
to apply to other areas where it may make sense to create buffer
yards between districts.
If the Planning Commission believes that this ordinance goes beyond
the scope of the original request, then it could simply be scaled back
to include only areas between industrial and residential uses. Staff
hopes to have some examples of how the buffer yard requirement
would affect development in time for presentation at the meeting on
Tuesday. We would like to be able to show you some case examples
of existing development in Monticello to show how the buffer yard
requirement might have been employed
Planning Commission Agenda - 10/4194
2. Motion to deny proposed regulations establishing buffer yard
requirements.
If the Planning Commission believes that the regulations do not make
sense and do not accomplish the goal of buffering industrial and
residential uses, etc., then this alternative should be selected.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
It is the view of City staff that, at a minimum, the regulations buffering
industrial and residential uses should be established. Perhaps the buffer
yard requirements affecting other districts should be put on hold until we
have had a chance to review the proposed ordinance amendment in more
detail. One item of controversy that you may wish to consider is the height
of the berm separating land uses. Please note that Jay Morrell, owner of
M & P Transport, would desire a higher berm (13 R) than that which is
identified as acceptable in the buffer yard requirement (B ft). Please see his
attached letter for detail on his request. Perhaps the Mrffer yard berm
between residential/industrial should be increased?
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Memo from Steve Grittman; Buffer yard requirement ordinance; Letter from
Jay Morrell.
10
FAC
SEP-e8: 23 NFC 612 595 9837 P.e2i16
Northwest Associated Consultants, Inc.
0 0 0 A M PLANNING • DESIGN • MARKET RESEARCH
TO: Jeff O'Neill
FROM: Dan Licht/Stephen Grittman
DATE: 29 September 1994
RE: Monticello - Huffer Yard Ordinance
FILE NO: 191.06 - 94.11
BACKGROUND
0
Recently, the City has considered adopting a buffer yard ordinsace
requiring buffer yards separating incompatible uses. This
memorandum Will outline the current Zoning Ordinance standards for
separating incompatible uses and outline the components of as
attached draft ordinance ameadmeat requiring buffer yards.
Attached for reference:
Exhibit A - Draft Ordinance
ANALYSES
erw/wiw&a 2MLL ■m■a ■. The current Monticello Zoning
Ordinance does not establish specific requirements for abutting
incompatible uses regarding setbacks or landscaping. Section 3-2
(G] of the Zoning Ordinance specifies the required screening and
landscaping standards. This is a blanket ordinance which does not
take into consideration adjoining uses and potential impacts. Like
the required landscaping ordinance, the setback ordinance is a
blanket ordinance with standards that do not increase dependent on
the adjoining use, such as when an industrial use abuts a
residential use.
5775 Wayzata Btvd. - Suite 555 ' St. Louis Park, NN 55416 • (612) 595.9636'Fax. 595.9837
Draft Buffer Yard Ordinance. The draft ordinance establishes a
matrix of land use interfaces and applies a specified buffer yard
requirement based on the degree of conflict. The concept of a
buffer yard involves a horizontal component and a vertical
component. The horizontal component of a buffer yard involves the
use of setbacks to separate incompatible uses. The vertical
component of a buffer yard is the landscaping and screening used to
separate the incompatible uses. The draft ordinance has lour
buffer yard types which are defined by the width and intensity of
landscaping required. This system of having buffer yards is
intended to accommodate different types of conflicts by
anticipating all possible combinations of conflict.
rn terms of required vegetation, the draft ordinance requires a
number of plant units. A plant unit is simply a measurement that
translates the amount of vegetation required into a quantitative
unit. Various types of vegetation have been assigned a plant unit
value. Under the draft ordinance, evergreen trees are assigned a
plant unit value of 15. Thus, in a Type A buffer yard, where 40
plant units per 100 feet of property line is required, three pine
trees would be required per 100 feet. However, because the
ordinance does not specify what types of trees must be planted, the
developer is free to create a unique landscape plan. The only
requirement is that the plant unite of the proposed landscaping
must equal or exceed the number required for the type of buffer
yard.
The number of required plant units may be reduced two ways. The
first involves the preservation of existing vegetation. The number
of plant units will be reduced proportionately to the number of
trees and shrubs preserved. The second reduction of plant units
and buffer yard width as a credit for berms or fences. plant units
may bo reduced to 75 percent or buffer yard width may be reduced to
50 percent of the ordinance requirement if a fence or berm in used
to screen the incompatible uses.
The draft ordinance is written so that in areas of vacant land, the
required landscape yard is overlaid on the abutting property line,
with half of the area on each aide. The property owners on each
side are responsible for 50 percent of the required planting units
for the required landscaped yard. To protect existing developments
from undue hardship when a new development establishes on an
abutting property, the draft ordinance has a provision which
exempts existing development from the requirements of the ordinance
until such time as the existing development is significantly
chargod, altered, or—
. In addition, the draft ordinance
requires that where a developer of vacant land must install a
buffer yard adjacent to property which is 50 percent developed (by
footage), tho new developer must install the entire buffer yard on
tho now property.
The draft ordinance is designed as an ■-dmant to Section 3-3,
Yard Requirements, of the Zoning Ordinance. The amendment involves
adding the buffer yard language as additional yard requirements.
The draft ordinance uses the current required landscaping
ordinance, Section 3-2 (0) for regulating the area designated to be
landscaped. Therefore, the landscaped portion of the buffer Yard
can be regulated and administered as would any other required
landscaping.
CONCLUSION
In response to the City of Monticello's interest in a buffer yard
ordinance, cur office has drafted such an ordinance. This
ordinance seeks to anticipate negative' Impacts that may arise
between adjoining uses. To reduce those impacts, the draft
ordinance assigns one of four buffer yard requirements based upon
the intensity of conflict between the uses. The City should
consider how the ordinance will offset each land use interface, and
whether the intensity of the buffer yard should be increased,
decreased, or left as proposed.
Under the City's Zoning Ordinance, the Planning Co=ission is to
consider five factors in its consideration of an amendment. The
Planning Commisaion Is to then make a finding of fact and
recommendation to the City Council regarding the proposed
amendment. The five factors are as follows:
Relationship to the Comprehensive Plan.
Geographic area involved in the request.
Tendency of the proposal to depreciate the area.
Character of the surrounding area.
Demonstrated need for the use.
In this case, the intent of the Ordinance amendment is to effect a
compatible transition between differing (and potentially
conflicting) land uses. This action should have the effect of
enhancing the subject areas, rather than depreciating them. Ia
addition, a major concern of the Comprehensive Plan is appropriate
land use transitions, and concern over tbis possibility in the
Klein Parms/Oakwood industrial Park area gave rise to the need for
tho Ordinance. The Planning Commission may make a f inding of fact
that the buffer yard ordinance positively impacts the affected
areas and complies with the intent of the Comprehans ive Plan goals
and objectives.
SEP -29-1994 08:24 NRC 612 5% 9837 P.05/16
DRAFT - DRAFT - DRAFT
ORDINANCE NO.
CITY OF MONTICELLO
AN oaDSxzWCB AXMXKG TM YARD CBD222aHCH BY ADD=
RSQUxammm T8 An STAT ARDS FOR BUFFER ORDS.
TIB CITY COONCIL of TER CnT of 10GlPPICBLL0 Doss R83MY ORDAM:
Bectioa i. Section 3-3, Yard Requirements of the Monticello
zoning Ordinance is hereby amended by adding the following:
3-3 YARD RSQUIRBbDEM
[G) Required Buffer Yards
1. Purpose: Buffer yards are required as to reduce the
negative impacts that result when incompatible uses abut
one another.
2. The following table lists the minimum buffer yard
requirements dependont upon the intensity of the conflict
of the abutting uses:
Intensity Minimum Minimum No. Plant Units
of Building landscape Required -100 Feet
C921L= Z= Yard o! Pzonerty Line
Minimal A 30 fast 10 feet 00
Moderate B 30 feet 20 feet so
Significant C 00 feet 30 feet 120
Severe D 50 feet 40 feet 160
(a) Mini- building setback measured from the abutting
property line.
(b) Ninim— landscaped yard measured as autanding
perpendicular from the abutting property line and
exteIIdiagg al length of property line. Half of
the required distance on each aide of the property
line and extendiag the length of the property line.
(c) Plant units are •a quantitative maaiure of the
required plantings for the minim= landscaped yard.
SEP -29-1994 08:24 NRC =__ 595 9837 P.06/16
3.
Uee
Low Density
Residential
High Density
Residential
Institutional
Commercial
Industrial
i) Plant unit value shall be assigned as follows:
Plant
VegetAtiMMI IIait Value
Evergreen Trees 15
Deciduous Tree 10
Evergreen/Coniferous Shrubs 5
Sbrubs/Bushes 1
ii) The number of plantings required shall equal
or exceed the number of required plant unite
based upon the values assigned in Section 3-
3.2.(c) of this Ordinance.
iii) The property owners on both sides of the
abutting property line for which the buffer
yard overlays shall each be responsible for
fifty (40) percent of the required planting
required for the length of the abutting
property line.
Kin4-- Required Buffer ]lard: The following table
represents the type as specified by Section 3.3 (P) 2 of
buffer yard required for abutting incompatible uses:
KZffnWK RSQUIM MMM TUD
Low -Density High-Deneity insti-
ReewdDtnal $agid$n= t►t"MI 90marAl61 LZQUQLLW
None
A
B
C
D
A
None
A
8
D
B
A
None
A
C
C
B
A
None
B
D
D
C
B
None
6. The size and type ofrequired plantings shall be
according to Section 3.2.(G).4 and Section 3-2.(01.3 of
this Ordinance.
2
Existing trees or vegetation within a required minim—
landscape yard preservation may substitute for required
plants. The number of plant unite required shall be
proportionately reduced according to the number of trees
or vegetation preserved.
The location of an opaque fence or earth beim of at least
5 feet in height within a required landscaped yard shall
be considered credit toward the plant unit requirement.
The number of required plant units shall be reduced by
fifty (50) percent.
i) All fences shall be subject to the requirements of
Section 3-2.[G) of this Ordinance.
ii) All berms shall be subject to the requirements of
Section 3-2.[G] of this Ordinance.
1) Development of a Vacant Property. The owner of a
vacant property which would require a buffer yard
under the terms of this Ordinance shall be required
to install one-half of the width and intensity of
the required buffer yard along the entire length of
the abutting property line in all cases except for
the following:
ii) Where development of abutting property exceeds
fifty (50) percent of the length of the abutting
property line by footage, the owner/developer will
be required to install the entire width and
intensity of buffer yard as determined in this
Ordinance.
9. Existing Development. Any existing development adjacent
to property developed in accordance with Section 3-
3.(G].7.1) shall be considered exempt from the provisions
of said ordinance until such time as the property or
development is substantially altered, remodeled, or
expanded. At such time, the existing development shall
�provide the remaining one-half of the buffer yard
rovemtent .
9. The criteria for the aubmission requirements and approval
of a buffer yard landscape plan shall be according to
Section 3.2.(G] of this Ordinance.
SEP -29-1994 08:24
Section s. This ordinance shall become effective mediately
upon its passage and publication.
ADOP= by the Monticello City Council this day of
1994.
ATTEST:
CITY OF NOMCELLO
By:
Clerk
n
AYES:
MYS:
Mayor
S
L-
1e
M 8 P TRANSPORT. INC.
CONCRETE PRODUCTS OF NEW LONOON,INC.
;`�11ee�i,4
Plow • (612) 29"122
Plans • (E12) 754-2311
Metro • (912) 332.1740
•
Fax • (812) 332.2389
CONCRETE OF MORRIS, INC.
Phone - (912) 5597790
DO.
Oro
ALEXANDRIA CONCRETE CO.
WADENA READY -NIX
Plane • (812) 763+eDo
Plow - (218) 531-1559
M A P TRANVW. uC
Fax • (812) 7634579
Fax • (512) 793-4878
September 15. 1994
Mr. Jeff O'Neill
Asst. City Administrator
City of Monticello
250 Broadway East
Monticello, MN 55362
Dear Jeff:
After sitting through the "Work Shop/Hearing" regarding the zoning
change requested for the Klein/Emmerich development on Tuesday,
September 6, as an interested party I would like to make the
following observations and recommendations:
It would appear that this development will achieve the zoning
change and will proceed in placing multiple family dwellings
adjacent to the I-2 zone/Industrial Park. With this in mind, it is
essential that requirements be made Lt the time of rezoning so as
to minimize problems both for the present and the future.
The requirement of berm barriers is essential: however, it can only
be effective if it is maintained at a minimum of Al feet in height.
The suggestion of a 6 foot berm is ludicrous if it is believed to
be of any value in separating these two non -conforming zoning
districts. If plantings are required, a minimum height of 7 feet
at the time of planting would be necessary to address the issues of
separation immediately. I would like to suggest that if a 6 foot
high berm is still found to be essential, the developer should be
required to place an 6 foot high cyclone fence on top of this berm
permanently separating the R-3 zone from the I-2 zone. It would be
unjust to ask current and future I-2 occupants to construct a fence
of this nature for security and safety purposes when it is the R-3
non -conforming zoning making the request of a change for their
accommodation.
The suggestion of placing the east/west street on the north side of
the R-3 buildings, I believe is a very sound idea. This would
create somewhat of a natural division line and boundary between the
two conflicting zoning districts. I believe this should be
mandatory for any site plan that would be approved. regardless of
which berm configuration io required.
M • ► TNANIMM". INC. ALEUS010A Cowin CO. MADENA REM4 O! COIN; I FRODIM OF COACIIETI OF MONNq. DIC.
NEW I 0=111 x
P.O. am 477 P.O. Bo. 595 P.O. Bo, 6a I nw Ne7. 23 N.E. 1200 Padtk Avenue
montleow. MN 55792 AlnanOr4. MN 5630a WedenL MN 564112 Now LWOW. MN 59273 Monte. MN 5a2a7
Page 2
September 15, 1994
Mr. Jeff O'Neill
I would like to emphasize the responsibility each of you has in
approving this zone change. While we all like to have growth and
expansion, it is of the utmost importance that we look at potential
problems which will occur now and in the future when making zoning
changes. I would suggest that the requirements be made as strong
as possible regarding the berm, density, and street locations so
that we will not be trying to close the barn door after the horse
has escaped 5 or 10 years from now.
Sincerely,
M & P RANSPORT
J C Morrell
e dent
JCM/lj
COUNCIL UPDATE
October 7, 1884
Uadate on variance request to setback requirements—Jeff h ichaelis/Riverside Oil.
(J.O.)
This is to inform you that the Planning Commission approved the Michaelis
variance as requested. If you feel that the variance should be reviewed by
Council, then note your concern, and the item will be placed on the next Council
agenda.
Planning Commission Agenda - 10/4/940Q
Public Hearin—Consideration of a variance to the yard setback
requirements which would allow construction of a temoorary
structure in an 1.1 zone. Aouticant. Jeff Michaelis. Riverside Oil
(J.0.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
Jeff Michaelis is requesting permission to build a temporary structure
which would allow him to enclose his fuel transport truck. In order to
obtain a building permit, he needs a variance to the front yard setback
requirement. Michaelis has noted that his vehicle has suffered damage
when parked outside at this location due to vandalism. In addition, being
able to park the vehicle on site next to the fuel depot is the appropriate
location for this vehicle. In the past, you may remember that Michaelis has
parked his vehicle at his residence, which is not allowed by ordinance.
Michaelis also proposes to build a screening fence to screen materials
currently stored on site. If the area Michaelis is now screening has always
been used for storage even prior to inception of the zoning ordinance, then a
screening fence can be installed without further permission by the City
Council. If, however, the area proposed for outdoor storage represents a
new use or an expansion of the existing use, then a conditional use permit
allowing outside storage would be necessary. In order to obtain a
conditional use permit allowing outside storage, a principal use must be
established. Unfortunately, a fuel depot is not considered to be a principal
use; therefore, unless the zoning ordinance is amended, Michaelis will be
unable to store material on site.
In terms of the temporary structure that Michaelis proposes, it may make
sense to allow Michaelis to build the structure if it is agreed that the
structure will be used temporarily and that there is no guarantee that the
site will be used in the long-term as a fuel depot. Planning Commission
may take the view that a variance is acceptable in this situation due to the
fact that it is temporary and, perhaps, because reasonable use of the
property does include allowing construction of a storage building, which
cannot be achieved without a variance due to the dimensions of the
property. On the other hand, Planning Commission could take the view
that if it is the long-term goal to eliminate the Biel depot use on site, then
no actions should be taken to encourage investments in the site, thereby
making the site a more desirable place for Michaelis to be located. Even
though the storage building proposed will be relatively inexpensive, the
funds used to build the temporary structure could be better spent on
helping fund relocation efforts.
Planning Commission Agenda - 10/4/94
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
Motion to grant a variance to the yard setback requirement which
would allow construction of a temporary structure in an I-1 zone.
Motion is based on the finding that a garage is necessary in order for
Michaelis to have reasonable use of the property. Due to the
dimension of the lot, it is impossible to build a storage building at the
location without a variance. Furthermore, the structure is temporary
in nature and will be removed at such time that the fuel depot
operation is relocated.
Under this alternative, placement of the storage building on site
would not be considered an expansion or intensification of the use;
therefore, there would be no upgrades made to the site such as
development of paved areas, curb and gutter, landscaping, etc. If it is
determined that it is likely that the fuel depot will remain on site for
years to come, then perhaps the Planning Commission should grant
the variance contingent on Michaelis complying with all other aspects
of the zoning ordinance, including providing landscaping, a paved
service area, curb and gutter, etc. In addition, a separate zoning
ordinance amendment should be drafted which would enable outside
storage as proposed by Michaelis.(U..144S if i 5 dek4w+iA9J Imot f& arc4
h'bolwa s leases used fort o0+side sler. •-A--'#s nt
a 1004.1 nea„i.
Motion to any the variance to the yard setback r4quirement. use)
Under this alternative, Planning Commission could make a finding
that reasonable use of the property can be achieved without the
variance. In addition, there are numerous zoning ordinance
violations and problems with soils that would need to be corrected
before or in conjunction with development of the storage building.
Furthermore, this alternative would seem to make sense if it is the
goal of the Planning Commission to ultimately relocate the fuel depot
to another location. Also, if Planning Commission deems the
development of a storage building as an expansion of a current non-
conforming use, then at a minimum, even with the variance, all other
aspects of the site would need to be brought up to code.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommendation is withheld pending review of associated Sunny Fresh
planning study.
A. SUPPORTING DATA:
Copy of site plan prepared by Jeff Michaelis.
I S�.sY
Ls+dr�� boa c,.dl Doc
Q�ip
y
J e��1cF�da
\J vvr- \.
yvoc gQ �. 4%,
g° P
110 A
V�4
�:�d Sc,.... F• ••c�
COUNCEL UPDATE
October 7,1994
Undate to building uermit fee structure. (J.0.)
This is to inform City Council that information from various cities regarding
single family building permit fees has been collected and ready for review in
conjunction with updating city fees; however, consideration of the matter by the
City Council has been delayed. At the request of the Industrial Development
Committee, we are preparing additional information regarding sewer and hookup
fees charged by other communities for indusbial/commercial users. The IDC
wanted additional comparative data on sewer/water hookup charges required by
other cities because any changes to the formula for charging sewer and water
hookup fees for residential development will also have an effect on the induatrial/
commercial hookup fees. Unfortunately, unless we bypass the IDC, the
information and fee recommendations will not be available until the Council
meeting scheduled for IONA194. I would also like to note that John Simola is
helping me out greatly by completing the survey pertaining to industrial users.
In addition, the City Attorney has assured City staff that necessary ordinance
amendments supporting the storm sewer access charge program will be presented
for consideration at the first meeting in November.
s
COUNCEL UPDATE
October 7, 1894
Ululate on variance reauest to yard setback-Sunnv Fresh Foods. (J.0.)
For your information, I have provided the agenda supplement provided to the
Planning Commission regarding a variance request submitted by Sunny Fresh
Foods. Please note that the Planning Commission tabled action on this matter
pending further review of the attached planning study. I have attached the
information at this time as a preview to an upcoming agenda item.
Planning Commission Agenda - 10/4/94CO
o�
6. Public Hearing—Consideration of a variance to the vsrd setback
reoufrement. AnoHcant. gunny Fresh Foods. (J.OJ
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
Sunny Fresh Foods proposes to build a refrigerated warehouse facility
directly adjacent and south of the existing complex. This facility is proposed
to be constructed up to the property line boundary between 5th Street and
Sunny Fresh Foods. As you know, 5th Street is currently occupied by
Burlington Northern Railroad. Under normal circumstances, a request to
build up to the property line would not even be considered; however, in this
case, due to the uncertain future use of the 5th Street right-of-way, it
appears that granting the variance has some merit. In response to this
request, I asked the City Planner to work with Sunny Fresh to 1) define the
long-term development plan for Sunny Fresh, 2) how Sunny Fresh plans
will impact the area, 3) to assist the City in defining the best use of the 5th
Street property for the long-term, and 4) provide a plan for achieving this
goal. Sunny Fresh is cooperating in the study by providing the funds
necessary to complete the study ($2,800).
The report will be provided at the meeting on Tuesday.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
Motion to grant the variance to Sunny Fresh, which would allow a
30 -ft encroachment on the setback requirement.
Under this alternative, the motion could be based on information
identified in the Planners report.
2. Motion to deny the variance to Sunny Fresh.
Under this alternative, the motion could be based on an alternative
identified in the Planners report.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
At this point, the planning study is being finalized by the City Planner and
Sunny Fresh Foods; therefore, City staff has not had access to the
information. Staff looks forward to reviewing the report and the
alternatives contained therein at the meeting on Tuesday.
None.
rNNorthwest Associated Consultants, Inc.
C U R B A N PLANNING DESIGN MARKET RESEARCH
PLANNING REPORT
TO: Jeff O'Neill
FROM: Bob Rirmis/Stephen Grittman
DATE: 4 October 1994
RE: Monticello - Sunny fresh Area Plan
FILE NO: 191.06 - 94.12
BACKGROUND
At the City's directive, we have proceeded to analyze land use and
transportation related issues which impact the area of the
Sunnyfresh facility. From analysis, draft land use and site
specific development plane have been prepared. The specific area
under study includes lands west of State Highway 25 between Third
and Sixth Streets. Issues under examination include internal
neighborhood traffic (both automobile and truck), external traffic
along Highway 25, land use conflicts between industrial and
residential uses and area identity.
Attached for reference:
Exhibit A - Study Area Location
Exhibit B - Existing Land Use
Exhibit C Existing Zoning
Exhibit D - Site Photographs
Exhibit E - Sunnyfresh Site'Plan
Exhibit F - Land Use Concepts
Exhibit G - Sunnyfresh Development Concept
ISSUES ANALYSIS
The area under study holds a number of unique characteristics which
establish land uee/design parameters. Specific issues worthy of
examination are summarized below.
5775 Wayzata Blvd. - Suite 555 - St. Louis Park. MN 55416 • (612) 595-9636•Fax. 595.9837
Sxistina Land pie As shown on Exhibit B, the subject site
includes a wide variety of uses including single family
residential, commercial, industrial, public and vacant properties.
Low Density Residential Uses. Low density residential uses
exist in the western portion of the study area. Specifically,
ten homes of varying condition are present. The four homes
located south of Fifth Street are generally considered to be
in poor condition. The six homes lying north of Fifth Street
are considered to be in fair to poor condition.
Commercial Uses. Commercial uses are generally found in the
eastern portion of the study area. The said uses are
responsive to visibility and high volume traffic provided by
Highway 25. Specific uses include three banks, a liquor
store, a hardware store, a fast food restaurant, a dime store,
and an auto parts store.
Industrial goes. The primary industrial use in the area is
the Sunnyfresh facility, one of the City's largest employers.
The study area also includes a power sub -station and outdoor
storage of propane tanks.
Public goes. Public uses are scattered throughout the subject
area. In the northern one-half of the area, two churches, a
library, and a school are present. In the southern one-half
of the study area, a fire station and public garage exist.
Vacant Land. A considerable amount of vacant land exists in
the southern portion of the site on both sides of Fifth
Street. A significant area of this lies adjacent to
Burlington Northern Railroad and the rest is located in Block
13, which is predominantly wetlands, and subsequently contains
little buildable area.
Industrial District Comuatibility. Given the existence of the I-2,
Heavy industrial District within the study area, question can be
raised as to the appropriateness of such use in close proximity to
public and residential land uses. One of the City's largest single
family residential neighborhoods abuts and extends to the west of
the study area.
Additionally, the recent adoption of a land use plan -by the City
for the Chelsea Area south of Interstate 94 and the existence of
large concentrated areae designated for industrial use along the
interstate, makes the need and desire for expansion or long term
maintenance of a small pocket of industrial uses elsewhere in the
City nearly obsolete.
The Chelsea Area Plan provides for the inclusion of heavy and light
industrial as well as business campus uses in a unified manner,
compatible with surrounding area uses and served appropriately by
essential transportation routes and other services. In addition,
the designation of a large portion of heavy industrial land in the
northern most portion of the City along I-94 and light industrial
land between I-94 and Highway 25 on the east end of the City
provides space enough to satisfy the current demand and future
industrial expansion needs in the City.
$eed for Fifth Street. In looking at the overall orientation and
layout of blocks, lots, and streets in the study area, question can
be raised as to the need for Fifth Street between Maple Street and
Highway 25. Currently, the street's function is to provide access
to the tank storage lots to the north along the railroad tracks.
Land uses on the south side of Fifth Street can obtain access off
of Sixth Street.
The location of Fifth Street at a point midway between the railroad
and Sixth Street poses several concerns. The long and narrow
parcel of land formed adjacent to the railroad is awkward and not
large enough for the establishment of industrial facilities given
the depth of the parcel(s). The parcels are also not satisfactory
for use as commercial sites due in part to the lot depths and poor
visibility of the area, but primarily based on the City's desire to
maintain commercial focus along Highway 25. Furthermore, the
parcels) adjacency to the railroad renders the site undesirable as
low density residential land due to the noise and inability to
provide the desired setback to the structures.
Another concern related to the location of Fifth Street at a point
between the railroad and Sixth Street relates to the functioning of
traffic circulation. Fifth Street is in opposition to the standard
330 foot block length in the City, thus creating intersections in
unsafe proximity to one another, especially in situations where
vehicles are attempting to enter and exit off of busy Highway 25.
Aesthetic Quality of the Area. As was mentioned earlier in this
report, several homes are in poor condition at the intersection of
Maple and Fourth and Fifth Streets. The less than optimum quality
of these residences in association with the existence of the fuel
tanks being stored adjacent to the railroad along fifth Street
emanates a negative view as area residents and customers utilizing
commercial facilities/services access the neighborhood. The
aesthetic quality of the entire area can be improved with land use
changes and transition from the tracts mentioned.
Land Una Transition. The existing land use relationships within
the study area do not provide the desired transition toward the
surrounding residential area land uses. Currently, industrial uses
directly abut single family residences. Ideally, transition from
industrial to single family residential areae should include a
progression of commercial, high and/or medium density residential
land uses.
Sunnyfrqsh Sfte. As noted previously, the study area is dominated
by the Sunnyfresh facility, one of the City's largest employers.
Currently, the Sunnyfresh facility measures over 76,500 square feet
and has plans to construct a 13,550 square foot freezer building
addition.
Obviously, the Sunnyfresh facility has a significant impact upon
neighborhood identity, traffic patterns and land use compatibility.
Considering the historical growth of the Sunnyfresh facility and
its pending desire for future expansion, it is important for the
City to first establish the study area's development objectives
(i.e., land uses) and secondly, devise a Comprehensive Plan for the
Sunnyfresh facility which will allow the City to meet its
objectives. Specific issues relating to site development will be
addressed in a latter section of this report.
CONCEPT PLANS
Land Use Contents. In response to area development parameters and
opportunities, three conceptual land use plans for the subject area
have been prepared. The concepts are intended to result in
functional, aesthetic, and economic improvements to the area. The
following paragraphs summarize the referenced concept plans.
Concent A. (See Exhibit F1 for reference) Concept A recognizes
existing street rights-of-way in the area and a desire by the
Sunnyfresh facility to provide a rail crossing at Linn Street.
To provide a logical transition in land use, Concept A suggests
that a linear park be provided between Fifth Street and the rail
line with medium/high density residential development proposed
south of Fifth Street. Such a linear park not only would fulfill
the recreation needs of adjacent multiple family development, but
would provide for a logical transition in land use as well. To
prompt redevelopment of the bulk oil storage site, it is
recommended that the City discourage any further investment in the
property. Such investments would only serve to make business
relocation more difficult.
Concept A also suggests that properties south of Fourth Street
between Maple and Linn Streets be developed as medium or high
density residential development.
Concent B. (See Exhibit B2 for reference) As noted in previous
discussion, some concern exists in regard to the need for Fifth
Street. Recognizing that such street limits the buildability of
area vacant land, Concept B ouggests the full vacation of Fifth
Street between Maple Street and Highway 25. The vacation of such
street is viewed as positive for the following reasons:
1. The street vacation would eliminate existing double frontage
lot conditions.
2. The street vacation would render the J and M Oil site a
"buildable" piece of land.
3. The street vacations would have very little negative impact on
area transportation movement.
4. The street vacation would lessen City maintenance costs.
As shown on Exhibit F2, Concept B proposes medium/high density
residential development between Sixth Street and the Burlington
Northern Rail line. As in the case of Concept A, a rail crossing
at Linn Street has also been proposed.
Concent C. (See Exhibit F3 for reference) Concept C is basically
a hybrid of Concepts A and B, with only a partial vacation of Fifth
Street being proposed. In acknowledgement of anticipated truck
traffic patterns, only that portion of Fifth Street between Maple
and Linn Avenues has been proposed. Such concept would route truck
traffic away from medium density residential development along
Sixth Street.
Sunnyfresh Development Concept
In addition to the previously described concept plan alternatives,
a specific site development plan has been prepared for the
Sunnyfresh facility (attached at Exhibit G). The following
paragraphs provide a summary of the development concept.
Site Context. As shown on attached Exhibit B, the Sunnyfresh
facility is bounded by a variety of uses, including an established
residential neighborhood to the northwest. Recognizing the
existence of neighboring low density residential uses, future
expansion of the Sunnyfresh facility must provide design
sensitivity to such uses.
Expansion Potential. As shown on the existing Sunnyfresh Bite plan
and site photographs, a limited amount of land area exists to
accommodate facility expansion (building and parking). While it is
acknowledged that a large undeveloped strip of land lies south of
the subject site, is separation via the Burlington Northern Rail
line make it an appropriate site for Sunnyfresh facility expansion.
According to Sunnyfresh representatives, the Methodist Church,
which lies went of the Sunnyfresh facility, may relocate. If ouch
relocation does take place, the site would provide for a logical
expansion of the Sunnyfreah facility. If expansion does occur upon
the church site, it in rocommended that use of the corner be
limited to low intensity use activities and that a landscape/buffer
be provided in the area (see Exhibit G).
J?reeaer ;Lddition,, As shown on Exhibit E, Sunnyfresh has proposed
a i 13,500 square foot freezer addition in the southwest corner of
the site. Sunnyfresh representatives have proposed that such
structure be allowed to encroach into the adjacent rail right-of-
way currently leased to Burlington Northern. While the need for
the cited freezer addition is not questioned, some concerns exist
in regard to the structure's configuration as currently proposed.
Specific concerns relate to the following:
1. The need for variance essentially confirms that Sunnyfresh has
outgrown its site and cannot manage facility growth upon its
own property.
2. Justification for necessary variance approval would likely be
difficult.
3. Such addition may have a negative impact upon area truck
circulation (eliminate circulation along the site's southern
border).
4. The erection of such structure as currently proposed sets poor
precedent in regard to rail line setback and may pose a safety
problem.
In response to the aforementioned concerns, it is recommended that
the freezer addition be reconfigured to accommodate a truck service
drive along the site's southern border (see Exhibit G). Such drive
would allow negative truck related impacts (i.e., noise views) to
be screened from single family residences to the north.
Linn street Rail Croeeiaa. Sunnyfresh representatives are
currently involved in discussions with Burlington Northern
officials regarding the future construction of a rail crossing at
Linn Street. From a site circulation and land use compatibility
standpoint, the construction of such crossing is considered
positive by removing significant truck traffic from Fourth Street.
The construction of such crossing is, however, supported only upon
a finding that the crossing will not pose an unsafe condition.
Summary of Recommendations
Considering the availability of vacant industrial land
elsewhere in the City, the location of new industrial uoes
within the study area should be discouraged.
2. Homes within the study area which lie in poor condition should
be considered for redevelopment.
3. A transition in land use should be promoted within the study
area.
4. The City endorse a new rail crossing at Linn Street.
S. The City vacate Locust Street between 5th and 6th Streets.
6. The City discourage any further investment in the bulk oil
storage site. Such investments would only serve to make
business relocation more difficult.
7. The City promote medium/high density residential development
south of 4th Street and west of Maple Street.
8. The City endorse one of the following land use concepts for
the area:
a. Concept A
0 Utilizes existing 5th Street right-of-way.
0 Suggests linear park between 5th Street and the
Burlington Northern Rail line.
o Suggests medium/high density residential uses south
of 5th Street.
b. Concept B
o Proposes the vacation of 5th Street for the
following reasons:
1) The street vacation would eliminate existing
double frontage lot conditions.
2) The street vacation would render the J and M
Oil site a "buildable" piece of land.
3) The street vacation would have very little
negative impact on area transportation
movement.
4) The street vacation would lessen City
maintenance costs.
0 Due to the creation of *buildable" land parcels, no
park land has been proposed.
0 Suggests medium/high density residential use south
of the Burlington Northern Rail line.
7
o Creates large commercial parcel south of the
Burlington Northern Rail line between Walnut Street
and Highway 25.
C. Concept C
o Proposes partial vacation of 5th Street (between
Maple and Linn Streets).
o Suggests medium/high density residential use south
of Burlington Northern Rail line.
o Retains linear park feature.
9. The City discourage additional semi-truck traffic upon 4th
Street.
10. The City deny the Sunnyfresh request to construct a freezer
addition within the adjacent rail right-of-way.
11. A truck service drive be provided along the southern boundary
of the Sunnyfresh site.
12. New loading activities upon the Sunnyfresh site take place in
the southwest corner of the site as graphically illustrated on
Exhibit G.
13. Only low intensity components of the Sunnyfresh facility be
allowed to expand onto the Methodist Church site.
14. Extensive landscaping/buffering be provided along the
northwest and eastern borders of the Sunnyfresh site.
8
S U N N Y F R E S H A R E A P L AN EXISTING LAND USE
[ToI I I I r,.i i i i,J s, . rT.l I I I,.I ::
3RD STREET C, LOW DENSITY
6 1 .. .. ,. .. .. .. W.
s o e b e �0 / oU e -- RESIDENTIAL
MEDIUM DENSITY
3 RESIDENTIAL
i 4TH STREET PUBLIC/
:6' ID -
W --
:6; ?Q• \. , tit G T. , ,'{i 0i _' _
`;` , ic` .}• •: ?: • ,. $ „� ,> ,> , , = _ _ SEMI PUBLIC
:::;};C 1 �. }.: v'ti 'rti titi Z� �'�; ..•'��`� ,� ; ,�,�,� � �� --_-_. Q 3"-r:
cn -_ _ COMMERCIAL
_I_ u
' — h ' " +— — INDUSTRIAL
El VACANT
1 -6TH STREET-------------------------------------+ s
.. .e .°, �� ':.a .e .. :-n_ .0 u r .. -_
"AN
Q:r', .. 1a•' �, V - J _ 0C108ER iSpa
/ . - O �' e+ 3 • n` 1 y MOATMWEST ASSOCIATED COMewt.Y,e, WC
EXHIBIT B
SUNNYFRESH AREA PLAN
r.J I I I I
3RD STREE
6� �o 6 10 to
4TH STREE
2" 10
17
I H
0
5-1
W etvtvcm
z
CL
IEXISTING ZONING I
R2 SINGLE & TWO-
FAMILY RESIDENTIAL
R3 MEDIUM DENSITY
RESIDENTIAL
PZ -M PERFORMANCE
ZONE -MIXED
B-3 HIGHWAY
BUSINESS
B-4 REGIONAL
BUSINESS
12 HEAVY INDUSTRIAL
.Ah
iA-mar —_lmm_w
OCTOBER 1 0 9 4
"DATHWEST ASU)CIATCD COS"TAN111, WC
EXHIBIT C
LOOKING SOUTHWEst
k00%ING SOUTH—ST
rA
I it ifl'i I I I �
'71
SUNNYFRESH AREA PLAN I I
0 4'
PROPOSED •:�" .........�;�,..�� �, .. '--� ITS.
FREEZER ADOTiON : I ---•- I dl I I I i
.......•96..•.•....00 'Oev
_ ._ _ _ iT�r�r� - -- ntwnuuucuuuuunmunlnlnnnlmnnnnuiul
SUNNYFRESH
SITE PLAN
OCTOBER 199+
MO•IMW191 •SSOCIATrO COnsw1.1119, I.C.
1
EXHIBIT E
a
SUNNYFRESH AREA PLAN LAND USE PLAN
I I I I ['J ' CONCEPT A
3RD STREET C,
H 11 ./ /• /. of 11 .. ./ 1.
° • 10 '° ❑ LOW DENSITY
¢
' N " RESIDENTIAL
2e,—
a ° _ =1' ` • '• • �1 • _� • 3 ,1 ❑ MEDIUM/HIGH
--" f •O _--.• /1 = '�— DENSITY
=4T STREET �. A--� RESIDENTIAL
• f q • 10 •rr' yy1 I o. • 10 • F 10
_ —t9 ---K f 1 C] HIGH DENSITY
J ? -- RESIDENTIAL
-•— — 1 r � — �- — ❑PUBLIC/
i...,..�.... SEMI-PUBLIC
❑ COMMERCIAL
lo. Gi lo.❑INDUSTRIAL
'-6TH STREET---------------•---------------------� s
;1.O .. .. .. .. .. .. 1• .. .. ..
• W r • ro • ►- w • .o T
J N C
r a: f Z W ctrcTc•
<O • 7 f V , •„ Q OCTORflR 1991
r '1 • d
NVOTIM[•T .••oeuriO CO••utu111, w
EXHIBIT F-
SUNNYFRESH AREA PLAN I LAND USE PLAN
D.I I I CONCEPT A
3RD STREET G
' ;° ;; ' ' ; ' I'° ❑ LOW DENSITYsn
.
a RESIDENTIAL
�1 a� • �� e 3 =, C3MEDIUM/HIGH
— '4TH STREET = DENSITY
.. .. .r--= RESIDENTIAL
• io • �o • I w to i w ,o
1 i =_ i9 -i Cr- ❑ HIGH DENSITY
91 RESIDENTIAL
LIL as
�s SEMI-PUBLIC
` 1 I 1 I i ❑ COMMERCIAL
I!J -h i J;
t h+ .. 1 14
-6TH STREET•'-••-••••-•---------- ❑INDUSTRIAL
to ••.. "It
.o .. .o .. .. .o ..
to
to
10
Q a sZ i Z u�utt• tt • U J
• % i p �� t� 3 �� • a OCTOOER 1904
Md/MMltt •te0Clufto ComaxTAMre, M
EXHIBIT F2
a
SUNNYFRESH AREA PLAN LAND USE PLAN
F'•I I I �''J !•`+� e• CONCEPT A
3RD STREET G
• 10 ` 1D • p ' 1O ' 'O ❑ LOW DENSITY
} N RESIDENTIAL
❑ MEDIUM/HIGH
e° _ �� � e • �' • ±� • 3 ,ai.� DENSITY
1,4TH STREET
a
to 1� I** L 4; W w.-- RESIDENTIAL
�II A z?
i _❑ HIGH DENSITY
RESIDENTIAL
see ee i
LL A
-- PUBLIC/
� ' PU /
SEMI-PUBLIC
i❑ COMMERCIAL
- ❑INDUSTRIAL
4 -13TH STREET-------------------------------------• s
C JIA.
' t • 0 . Q — OCTOBER 1994
J i 3M011tI W91T .tc°cn16 CONtULI.N•t, M
EXHIBIT F3
J
SUNNYFRESH A R E A P L A N SUNNYFRESH
DEVELOPMErJT CONCEPT
LANDSCAPE, BUFFER 4TH STREET
Lli
LLJ
LIJ I I ------ ELATE ;
LL I (/)CC FUTURE
F—+-�� BL%D;VG PARKWG F—
(n <'� EXPANSpN EXISTING z
$t�WYFRESFi Q
zF I"66fvW" EMST"G i
J ` �uo•STAt pIv PARKING
JLCADWC
FREEZER AOO11pN
--�
cF.RVICE_dRIVE
_
I:Tii s7i�1�t�—aTl�]Jt7p......'+)Uf117IUJ:U•••••---�n..«.,..:.......—^+irtuuAY-u.um
NEW RAG CrGSCCNG
OCTOBER 1 9 9 a
NORTNweST .eeoeuIeO CONsun>H+S.AHC
EXHIBIT G
U
5
CITY OF MONTICELLO MONTHLY BUILDING DEPARTMENT REPORT
Month of August, 19%
PERMITS 8 USES
This
'Same Month
Low Yaw
ThsYaer
PF RMITS ISSUED
Month AUDUST
Last Year
To Data
To Dam
RESIDENTIAL
Number
27
16
117
149
Valuation
$1,211.000.00
S325,300.00
$3.290.300.00
$5.053.100.00
Fen
$6,803.02
$2,592.75
$x,058.46
$37.017.22
Suchar0ea
$603.75
$160.65
$1,634.05
6250629
COMMERCIAL
Number
4
7
30
24
ValuatlOn
$66,600.00
$1.019.600.00
$1.170.700.00
$709.600.00
Fees
$626.95
$7.041.92
$11,026.66
$7,31603
Surcharpn
$43.30
$509.60
$728.10
$363.30
INDUSTRIAL
Number
1
3
12
Valuation
SM.=.00
$2915&1.00
$1.659,600.00
Fan
$160.35
$2.210.15
$11.771.98
Surth"-
$14.00
$145.76
$82855
PLUMBING
Number
20
6
44
76
Fees
$188.00
611600
$1237.00
$1273.00
Sumhargm
$10.00
$3.00
922.00
$36.00
OTHERS
Number
2
4
5
Valuation
90.00
968.900.00
$0.00
Fan
920.00
$759.02
950.00
-%ffaws
91.00
928.20
$2.50
TOTAL#PERMITS
54
29
IRS
266
TOTAL VALUATION
91,323.600.00
91.344.800,00
$5.109,483.00
97.022900.00
TOTAL FEES
110.709.32
98.790.67
$40,311,53
95&16621
TOTAL SURCHARGES
9672115,
_SO 345
92560.13
t3.741.64
CURRENT MORN
EES
I
N4AMBEfi TO DATE I
PEgMIT NATURE
Huff"
Pemml
Sr1rvMroc Vahretl T" Yum In Yea•1
Smgb Fam4
19
96.674.02
$59520
91.100.400.00
62 36
OuWe4
0 0
MuM.Foml17
1 2
CommorcLw
1 2
ItNu6ulal
1
$46035
$14.00
$29.000.00
3 1
Ras, Germs
5 4
Sero
0 0
Pumbe map.
0 2
ALTERATIDWREPAIR
Dwo&W
9
$169,00
$8.55
914.60000
62 56
CommaGal
4
$626.95
$43.30
$96.600.00
23 29
PLUMBING
AN Trym
2D
$496.00
1110.00
$000
78 44
ACCESSORY
STRUCTURES
Swo" Paa1a
0 0
Docks
4
$60.00
$200
98.00000
19 10
TEMPORARY PERMIT
0 0
DFMOUTION
2
117000
111.00
10-0
9 2
TOT48
64t10.7fI8az_
ie
. $1__ �S.6Qf10g
2B0 In
MOWHEILX,WKI:0$47.074 r
1994 MASTER INSPECTION RECORD
iNSPREC: 08/28/86
y
1994 MASTER INSPECTION RECORD
INSPREC: 08QW4
1994 MASTER INSPECTION RECORD
R - ABftDK W NB�O�tl
T I PENW1 CONTRACTOW
INSPREC: 06/2SM4
`7