Planning Commission Agenda Packet 03-07-1989AGSM
REGULAR METING - MDRrICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION
Tuesday, March 7, 1989 - 7:30 p.m.
v
Members: Richard Carlson, Cindy beam, Richard Martie, Mori Malone, Dan
McConnon
7:30 p.m.
1. Call to order.
7:32 p.m.
2. Approval of minutes of the regular meeting held Pebruary 7,
1989.
7:34 p.m.
3. Public Rearing - A rezoning request to rezone R-2 (single and
two family residential) unplatted residential land to R-3
(medium density residential). Applicant, West Prairie
Partners.
8:04 p.m.
4. Public Bearing - A conditional use request to allow a day
care -group nursery in an R-2 (single and two family
residential) zone. A variance request to allow no parking
lot hard surfacing, no concrete curb around parking lot
perimeter, and no landscaping requirements. Applicant, Peggy
Hanawalt.
8:24 p.m.
S. Consideration of preparing an amendment to the Monticello
Zoning Ordinance to allow auto body shops as a conditional
use within a 9-3 (highway business) zone. Consider granting
conditional use permit to Monticello Auto Body and allow an
auto body shop to operate at Lot 4, Block 2, Sandberg South
Addition. Applicant, Monticello Auto Body.
8:44 p.m.
6. Public Bearing - A rezoning request to rezone R-3 (medium
density residential) residential platted land to R-2 (single
and two family residential). Applicant, Dan Prie.
8:59 p.m.
7. Public Bearing - A variance request to allow an additional
pylon sign on an R-1 (single family residential) unplatted
lot. Applicant, Monticello Country Club.
9:14 p.m.
B. Review sign ordinances used by various communities and
discuss potential amendments to the Monticello Sign
Ordinance.
ADDITIONAL
INFORMATION ITEM
9:39 p.m.
1. 1989 goals and membership: The Housing and Redevelopment
Authority, the Industrial Development Committoe, and the
Chamber of Commerce.
9:44 p.m.
2. A aiaple subdivision request to subdivide an existing I-2
(heavy Industrial) lot into two industrial Toto. Applicant,
Oakwood Industrial Park Partnership. Council action:
Approved as per Planning Commission recoumdation.
Planning Mesion Agenda
March 7, 1989
Page 2
9:47 p.m. 3. A maple subdivision request to subdivide an existing
unplatted residential lot into two unplatted residential
lots. Applicant, West Prairie Partners. Council action:
Approved as per Planning Commission recommendation.
9:49 p.m. 4. Request for final plat review of a proposed new subdivision
plat. Applicant, Charles Ritxe. Council action: Approved
as per Planning C®Lesion recommndatlon.
9:51 P.M. 5. Set the next tentative date for the Monticello Planning
Commission meeting for April 4, 1989, 7:30 p.m.
9:53 p.m. 6. Adjournment.
C
MINUTES
REf'0, lAR MEETING - MMMCELLO PLANNING 0014QSSION
Tuesday, Pebruary 7, 1989 - 7:30 p.m.
Membera Present: Ricard Carlson, Cindy Lamm, Richard Martie, Mori Malone,
Dal: MaConnon.
Members Absent: None.
Staff Present: Cary Anderson, Jeff O'Neill.
1. The meeting was called to order by Chairperson Richard Carlson at
7:33 p.m.
2. A,)proval of Minutes.
A motion was made by Cindy Leon, seoa:ded by Dan MoConnon, to approve the
minutes of the regular meeting held January 3, 1989, as presented.
Motion carried unanimously.
3. Approval of Special Minutes.
Motion was made by Richard Martie, seconded by Cindy Lemm, to approve the
minutes of the special meeting held January 17, 1989, as presented.
Motion carried unanimously.
0. Public Heart - A simple subdivision request to subdivide an existing
I-2 (heavy 1 etrlail lot into two u kcnisMal tots. AWLIcant, OakwOd
fnaueEisel RH f0aitiherenip.
Zoning Administrator Gary Anderson explained to Planning commission
meabere and members from the public in attendance the Oakwood Industrial
Park Partnership's request to simple subdivide Lot 6, Block 1, Oakwood
Industrial Park. The applicant's lot subdivision, which is called
Parcel B, meets or exceeds the minimum lot square footage and the minimum
lot width requirements under 1-2 (heavy industrial) zoning.
Chairperson Richard Carlson then opened the meeting for input from the
public. Comments from the public included a question as to whether there
was sufficient room to the west of the proposed subdivided Parcel B to
accommodate any type of building immediately west of Parcel B on
Pagel A. Zoning Adminiatrator, Gary Anderson, indicated to the public
that the intent of the area to the west of Parcel a was to allow for
ingress and egress and also to allow the water and sewer service to be
extended up to a proposed location of a building in the area north of the
Parcel B.
Chaicperaon Richard Carlaon then closed the public hearing and opened the
meeting for input from the Planning commission members, oomeents from
the Planning Commission members included what the lot frontage width was
along Chelsea Road and also along Fallon Street. commission mea+Dera also
asked Zoning Administrator, Gary Anderson, to explain the proposed
drainage and utility easements surrounding the perimeters of Parcel A and
Parcel B.
Planning Commission Minutes - 2/7/89
With no further input from the Planning Commmission members, a motion was
made by Dan McConnon, seconded by Mori Malone, to approve the simple
subdivision request to subdivide an existing 1-2 (heavy industrial) lot
into two industrial lots with the following condition: 1) the drainage
and utility legal descriptions be drafted and recorded as sham on the
enclosed drainage and utility easement plan. Motion carried unanimously.
S. clic Hearirhg - A eimq�le subdivision to subdivide an existing
lattea resiaentiaL lot into twoun
iattea resiaentiai lots. A
rezoning request to rezone R-2 csingle_enu two Yamiiy residential)
urplaetea cesiaential lana to R-3 Zmeoium censity iesiaeneiab .
Applicant, West Prairie Partners.
Assistant Administrator, Jeff O'Neill, explained to Planning Commission
members that the applicant would like to consider only the simple
subdivision request to subdivide an existing residential lot into two
unplatted residential lots. The applicant, West Prairie Partners, has
indicated to Mr. O'Neill that they would like to withdraw their rezoning
request to rezone R-2 (single and two family residential) unplatted
residential land to R-3 (medium density residential). The applicants
would like more time to work with the City staff to come up with a
development plan for their unplatted residential land.
Chairperson Richard Carlson then opened the meeting for input from the
public. home of the comments from the public included questions
regarding what would be the proposed use of the simple subdivided lot.
The Partnership indicated that currently they have a proposed daycare
center use for that propertyr but if the use would become a reality, it
would require a separate public hearing on this proposed use. other
comments raised were what the total amount of land area that was included
with the West Prairie Partnership's property was, with that being a total
of 2.7 acres in size. with the 12,000 aq ft lot proposed to be
subdivided off, they would have a total of 2.44 acres of land left for
proposed development. A question also raised was if the property was
subdivided and west Prairie Partners would come back and find that they
are short on square footage to develop the property, what would happen?
Would they be granted a variance to fully develop their property if they
were short on the amount of land area needed to develop the rest of the
unplatted property?
Zoning Administrator, Gary Anderson, explained to Planning Commission
members and members of the public that were preuent the procedure for the
simple subdivision request and how the rezoning request cams before them
this evening through a public hearing process. In his explanation, he
explained that the west Prairie Partners were joined in a joint
application with Mr. and Kra. Fred Gills and Mr. and Mrs. Dan Reed's
properties. If the three properties were combined, it would consist of
approximately a little over 6 acres of land on which the west Prairie
Partners, it they were able to exercise an option to purchase the Gills
and Reed properties, would develop this land.
With no further input from the public, Chairperson Richard Carlson turned
the meeting over to additional input from the Planning Commission
members.
9
Planning Commission Minutes - 2/7/89
With no further input from the Planning Coaanission members, motion was
made by Dan MaComm, seconded by Cindy Lamm, to approve the simple
subdivision request to subdivide an existing unplatted residential lot
into two unplatted residential lots. Motion carried unanimously.
6. A [sweat for a final plat review of a proposed new subdivision plat.
Applicant, Cnarles Ritze.
Zoning Administrator, Gary Anderson, indicated to Planning Commission
members and members of the public that Mr. Ritze was back before them
with his final plat request for hie proposed new subdivision plat. The
proposed subdivision plat is of irregular shape in that the consensus of
the City Council was to approve the variance request to allow only
25 feet of frontage on a public right-cf-way to serve Lot 1 of this
proposed plat. Zoning Administrator Anderson also indicated that
Outlot A was created to dispute between Mr. Ritze and the adjoining
property owner to the north, Mr. Reinhold Yager.
Chairperson Richard Carlson then opened the meeting for any input from
the public. Input from the public came from the adjoining property owner
to the west of Mr. Yager, Mr. Dave Nicholas, who indicated he felt his
south property line extended to the north property line of the adjoining
property owner to the west of Mr. Ritxe's subdivision plat, William R.
Douglass. Zoning Administrator, Gary Anderson, indicated to Mr. Nicholao
that according to his abstract, that's where the property owner was. But
If his abstract would have been updated, it would have showed "except
that part dedicated to the City of Monticello for street right*f-4ay
purposes."
With no further input from the public, Chairperson Richard Carlson then
opened the meeting for input from the Planning Commission eexbers. With
no further input from the Planning Commission members, motion was made by
Richard Martie, seconded by Cindy Leine, to approve the final plat request
for a proposed new subdivision plat. Motion carried unanimously.
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION ITfM9
1. variance request to allow additional pylon sign square footage and pylon
sign height. Applicant, First National Bank/Attracta Sign. Council
actions Tabled the variance request.
2. variance request to allow an additional pylon sign on a e-3 (highway
business) unplatted lot. Applicant, Tom Thumb Store. Council action:
Tabled the variance request.
3. Replotting request to replat an existing lot into six townhouse lots and
one common area lot. A variance request to allow a replotted lot to have
less than the minions lot width requirement. A replotting request to
replat an existing lot into four townhouse lots and one common area lot.
Applicant, Jay Miller/Fairway Court. Council action: Approved with
conditions.
-3-
O
Planning Commission Minutes - 2/7/89
4. Simple subdivision request to allow an I-2 (heavy industrial) lot to be
subdivided into two lots. Applicant, Oakwood Industrial Park
Partnership. Council action: Approved as per Planning Commission
recommendation.
S. variance request to allow a residential unplatted tract of land to be
subdivided by a metes and bounds description. Applicant, Tom Holthaus.
council action: No action needed, as there was no appeal.
6. Replatting request to replat an existing residential subdivided
residential subdivision plat. Applicant, Dan Frie. council action:
Approved as per Planning Commission reoo mendation.
7. Consideration of adopting a resolution finding the Housing and
Redevelopment Authority's Modified Redevelopment Plan for Redevelopment
Project No. 1, Modified Tax Increment Financing Plane for Tax Increment
Financing Districts Nos. 1-1 through 1-7, and Tax Increment Financing
Plan for Tex Increment Financing District No. 1-8, all located within the
Redevelopment Project no. 1, to be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan
for the City. Council action: Approved as per Planning Commission
recommendation.
B. It was the consensus of the Planning Commission members present to set
the next tentative date for the Monticello Planning Commission meeting
for March 70 1989, 7:30 p.m.
9. Motion wag made by Dan No0onnone es -'In by Richard Martie, to adjourn
the meeting. The meeting adjourned at 8:54 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Gar wftLf
Ecnirg Administrator
C
Planning Commission Agenda - 3/7/89
3. Public Rearing - A rezonineat to rezone R-2 (single and two family.
residential( Tatted residential lana to R-3 (medium densitlr
residential). llcant, pest Prairie Partners. (J.0.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACRGROUNDt
West Prairie Partnere have requested that their application for rezoning
be placed on the docket for a hearing by the Planning Commission. Please
refer to the attached letter from (fest Prairie Partnere for more
information regarding the request for hearing.
So additional information is available regarding this matter. Please
refer to last month's agenda for support documentation.
As a final note, West Prairie Partnere has rwt submitted any additional
information to City staff to support their contention that it is not
economically feasible to develop the property under existing R-2 housing
density.
QC
M,1 'a 11 V —."..
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
P.O. Bm Ne
M wa., Broad—Y
YonticNb. MimaaOU 517624"6
JAMES G. METCALF
TELEPHONE
BRADLEY V. LARSON
(812)285-327$
METRO
(614421-3393
February 10, 1989
Mr. Gary Anderson
Zoning Administrator
Monticello City Hall
250 East Broadway
Monticello, MN 55362
RE: Application of west Prairie Partners, Dan Reed and
Fred Gille Concerning Rezoning Their Respective Parcels
of Property To R-3
Dear Mr. Anderson:
I am writing to confirm our telephone conversation of today
concerning the above -captioned matter. I requested that the
matter be taken off the table and placed on for hearing by
the Planning Commission, and I understand that it will be
scheduled for a hearing by the Planning Commission on March
7, 1989.
As I indicated to you today, and also to Mr. Kenneth Maus in
my telephone conversation with him, we have reviewed the
numbers and have determined that there is little use in
further proceeding if the premises are not rezoned. That is
not to say that the project can be completed if it is
rezoned to R-3, but it is clear that it cannot be done if
the property remains zoned R-2.
We had agreed that tho matter should be tabled and continued
indefinitely. Upon further consideration, we have an option
with Mr. Rood, and Mr. Reed consented to sign a request for
rezoning since we asked him to and Mr. Gille accommodated us
and signed a request for rezoning because we asked him. I
don't believe it is accomplishing anything as far as we are
concerned to place the matter on hold, and it seems to be
particularly unfair to Mr. Reed and also to Mr. Gille, not
to have the matter concluded. If it is rezoned to R-3,
everyone can act accordingly. If it is not, thon Mr. Reed
and Mr. Gille must determine what other prospects they have.
C A
Mr. Clary Anderson
February 10, 1989
Page Two
We will look forward to meeting with you and the Planning
Commission on March 7. If you require further information
before now and then, please advise me.
Sincerely,
METCALF O
N
BY:
J es alf, Esq,! "
JGMs
pc: a eth Maus
Reed
Fred Gille
N
Planning Commission Agenda - 2/7/89
5. Public Fearing - A simple subdivision request to subdivide an existing
unPlatted residential lot into two unpla ted residential lots. A rezoning
reglleaC to [@ZOne R-2 (917151@ and two ramliy residential) un
piatted
residential land to P-1 imeaium aensity residential). APPlicBnt, west
Prairie Partnere. (J.O.)
A. REFERENCE AMID BACKGROUND:
West Prairie Partners submits to the Planning Commission a request to
subdivide an existing unplatted residential lot into two unplatted
residential lots and also submits a rezoning request to rezone same R-2
(single and two family residential) unplatted property to R-3 (medium
density residential). The property proposed for rezoning by pest Prairie
Partners consists of the land once owned by the Temple Baptist Church
congregation. Property owners to the west of the property arced by west
Prairie Partners include Daniel Reed, Fred Gille, and Ratzmarek. Reed and
Gille have submitted petitions for rezoning, while Ratzmerak has not
petitioned for rezoning.
In the request for the subdivision, west Prairie Partners proposes to
subdivide the property so as to create a large lot on which tamhomes or
multi -family structures will be placed and create another standard
residential lot for the existing building (former Temple Baptist Church
building). west Prairie Partnere proposes to plat the entire area,
including the single family lot, at such time that the nature of future
development is known.
The following report consists of a review of the proposal, an analysis of
the proposal in terms of its consistency with the Comprehensive Plan and
Zoning Ordinance. Finally, a series of alternatives and potential
"findings" are provided to you.
BITE PIAN/PROPOSAL
\y
0 eta The entire area petitioned is somewhat triangular consisting of
approximately 6 acres of land. Existing on the site from east to west is
a church building/residence, a residence (Reed), and a residence/used car
dealership (Lille). 7%e used car dealership is a non -conforming use in
the R-2 district and could be construed as a blighting influence in the
area.
The area surrounding the site consists of a railroad track and golf course
to the south, State Highway 75 and single family (R-1) residences to the
north, ballfields/Pinewood Elementary school to the east, and a single
family residence to the went (Ratzmarek).
Nest Prairie Partners have indicated a desire to develop townhoees and/or
multi -family structures on the site they now control and eventually
purchase the adjoining property and develop more of the same. Nest
Prairie Partners do not wish to enter into an agreement prior to the
Planning Commission Agenda - 2/7/89
rezoning which would in any way limit the use of the property once it
becomes zoned R-3. Por the purpose of this analysis, it must be assumed
that the property, if rezoned, will develop to its maximum density as R-3
property.
According to Gary Anderson, rezoning the subject area will create the
potential of 508 more housing units on the parcel than would otherwise
have been possible under the R-2 zone. Attached for your review are two
J� potential site plans for the former Temple Baptist Church property only,
�k one shows an R-3 development, the other an R-2 development.
ZONING ORDINANCE AMEMK NP RBOUIREMENfS
Prior to amending the zoning district map, the Zoning Ordinance requires
that the Planning Commission analyze the proposed amendment in terms of
the following: F._ _ 1 ', , t. - Z a
1. Relationship to Municipal Comprehensive Plan
2. The geographical area involved
3. Whether such use will tend to or actually depreciate the area in which
it is proposed
4. The character of the surrounding area
5. The demonstrated need for such use
This section of the report reviews the proposed zoning amendment in terms
of its consistency with the oonprehensive Plan.
1. RELATIONSHIP TO MUNICIPAL COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
A number of land use policies adopted by the City via the Comprehensive
Plan provide excellent reference when analysing the proposed amendment.
+b Of the policies that apply, some seem to support an argument for rezoning
while other policies are not consistent with this proposal. Below are
Cmprehensive Plan policy statements that appear to be consistent with the
proposed amendment, followed by policy statements that do not seem to be
consistent with the amendment proposal.
The Comprehensive Plan states the following in the Miltiple Family Musing
r Policies number 5, page 16. "The Planning Comalesion will recommend
1: denial of any proposed multiple dwelling project that falls within any of
s the following oonditionsm a.) There is factual evidence to indicate that
there will be a definite and significant depreciation of property values
,C or detriment to single family residential living in the surrounding area
directly attributable to the proposed multiple dwelling structures." In
researching this potential grounds for action, I contacted Mike Ams of
8t. Cloud Appraisers for information regarding the potential 1"ct of an
R-3 developoent on the property values of the residences located in the
nearby R-1 area. It was his view that there would be no measurable
Planning commission Agenda - 2/7/89
negative impact on the R-1 residences created by an R-3 development as
proposed. He rent on to say that the proposed R-3 area will not
negatively impact the property values in the R-1 area because there will
be minimal interaction between areas due to the fact that children living
in the R-3 area will recreate at the park to the east and because traffic
from the proposed R-3 area will enter directly onto State Highway 75 and
will not enter R-1 neighborhoods. Due to the input received from
Mr. Amo, it appears that the Planning Commission should not deny this
amendment based on a finding that R-3 development at this site will reduce
adjoining property values.
5. b. of the Housing Policy states that denial should be recommended when
"there is factual evidence to indicate a potential hazard to the public
safety or health that would not be present if the land were to be utilized
�•° for any other permitted land use." There is ro factual evidence that
would indicate that the proposed amendment will create such a hazard.
p Policy No. 6 states that "multiple family dwelling developments shall
+Y°�tiaccess only to collectors or thoroughfares to prevent an excess amount of
Lm\tcconsistent traffic o epolicy. streets." This proposal is
ons
J, Policy No. 9 states, "Multiple family dwellings should be located in close
aproximity to public open space such as parks, playgrounds, schools, and
similar uses. In lieu of this, the multiple dwelling project should
o� include adequate open recreation space on the site." This proposal is
r consistent with policy no. 9, as the bellfields and school playground
adjoin the area proposed for rezoning. c + • .. O ..
Following are sections of the Comprehensive Plan that do not appear to be
consistent with the proposal.
Policy No. 2 states that "multiple Dwelling projects shall be encouraged
d to develop as "Planned Unite" with specific plane submitted for
structures, architectural design, landscaping, circulation, open space,
recreation facilities, and any other features that may be proposed." The
applicants for the rezoning indicate general ideas or goals for
development of the property but have not committed to a density or design
for the development. city action to approve the proposed amendment
without first requiring a commitment from the developers regarding
development design and density might not be consistent with the policy
stated above.
Policy No. 3 states that "Multiple dwelling projects should not cause the
number of existing and/or approved public and private dwelling units in
the community to exceed forty-five percent (151) of the existing single
family building Bites located within the city of Monticello." As you
know, the city has surpassed or to near surpassing the forty-five percent
threshhold for multiple family development. Some months ago, the Planning
Commission reviewed this matter as it pertained to the subsidized
multi -family development proposed by Dave Hornig, Planning Cxmmission
allowed this development to proceed because the financing entity (PMHA)
indicated that financing for the downtown elderly housing project would be
denied if the City did not allow the Hornig development to proceed.
Planning Commission Agenda - 2/7/89
Approval of this rezoning request provides the opportunity for an
additional encroachment into the 458 multi -family housing maximum.
It is clear that recent construction patterns have caused multi -family
housing stock to increase beyond the 458 threshold; however, the degree by
which the threshold has been violated is not possible to determine at this
time without a clearer definition of the policy. Depending on how you
interpret the policy above, the current percentage of multi -family
dwellings to single family dwellings ranges from 458 to 938 Yee, the high
end of the range is 938.
After closer scrutiny of the language in policy no. 3, it became evident
that the total of all single family buildings and sites rather than the
total of all housing stock was intended to be the base number used when
calculating the percent of multi -family dwelling Bites. Owing the
existing single family housing stock and buildable sites rather than the
total housing stock as the base number by which the percentage of multiple
housing stock is calculated makes a tremendous difference in the
percentage generated (938 versus 458). This is not the only problem in
interpreting and applying the policy.
Policy No. 3 is difficult to apply because definition of what constitutes
"single family sites and multi -family developments" is not provided.
Without a clearer definition, it is difficult to inventory both categories
for purposes of applying the formula. Por example, what is an "existing
single family building site?" Does this group include only sites with
water and sewer? Does it include platted lots that do not now have
service? Does it include numerous lots platted in concept plans but
legally identified as one large outlot? Does it include all of the lots
that could be created when annexed farm land becomes dotted with single
family Iota? And also, what constitutes a "multiple dwelling unit?" Does
this group include anything but a single family dwelling, including owner
occupied town)wmas? And in what category does one place mobile homes?
Again, the degree by which the City is encroaching on the 458 threshold
varies depending on how the questions above are answered. lost it suffice
to say that no matter how you interpret the policy above, the City is at
least at its maximum for multi -family development. Staff will be working
with the consulting planners to refine the intent of the policy and to
define housing categories in order to effectively apply mmulti-dwelling
housing policy no. 3 in the future.
2. TOE awcRAPNIC AREA INvoLvm
Factor no. 2 used when considering a zoning district amendment includes
the geographic area involved. As noted earlier, this particular site has
characteristics that suit it well for multi -family development. The site
is buffered from R-1 uses by a major highway on the north. Tb the south
is a golf course and to the east to Pinewood Elementary School which
provides the proposed area with recreation facilities. To the west is the
Planning Commission Agenda - 2/7/89
Ratzmarek property which to an R-2 use that should be rezoned to R-3 if
the Planning Commission elects to rezone the subject property. In
summary, the geographic area involved is suitable for rezoning from R-2 to
R-3.
3. WHETHER SUCH USE WILL TEND TO OR ACTUALLY DEPRECIATE THE AREA IN wHICH
IT IS PROPOSED
As stated earlier, the presence of the county highway buffer and
recreation area directly to the east of the development serve to buffer
potential negative impact on the property values in the R-1 area. This
factor does not appear to be reasonable grounds for denial.
4. THE CHARACTER OF THE SURROUNDING AREA
Rezoning the property as proposed does not appear to inconsistent with the
character of the surrounding area for reasons similar to those noted in
number 2 above.
S. THE DEMONSTRATED NEED FOR SUCH USE
It is impossible to demonstrate a need for additional R-3 land in the city
of Monticello. As noted in the review of the Comprehensive Plan policies,
the City has recently experienced fast growth in its multi -family housing
stock inventory. In fact, in the last 6 years, multi -family dwelling units
ti have been constructed at a rate of 1.25 multi -family to 1 single family
unit. Given the ratio outlined in the comprehensive plan there should be
.5 multi -family units constructed for every single family home
constructed. In terms of the comprehensive plan, Monticello has reached
its capacity for multi -family development without more growth in the
single family housing stock. Furthermore, there are numerous other R-3 or
PEM areas that are available for R-3 development.
However, in terms of this particular blighted area, the potential for
removal of the used car dealership along with cleanup of the area in
general may be enhanced if the property is rezoned from R-2 to R-3. This
is because the rate of return for the developer to greater if the property
can be developed at a higher density. Also, if major soil corrections are
necessary prior to development of the Gille property, it is possible that
the use of tax increment financing will be needed. If this is the case,
then R-3 development will provide a greater contribution toward retiring
debt associated with the cleanup. In the final analysis, it may very well
be that the Gille property will not develop soon if it remains as R-2
property. Of course, these are economic issues and not land use issues.
Although staff is sensitive to particular economic problems this site
presents, I would hesitate to recommend that the City approve the proposed
awmdment based on economic issues without a full accounting of the
project costa involved.
a. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. Motion to recommend approval of the rezoning request and call a public
hearing on the rezoning of the property owned by Ratzmarek located to
the west of proposed amendment site.
Planning Commission Agenda - 2/7/89
This alternative should be selected if the Planning commission makes
the following finding:
1. The rezoning request, though not consistent with multiple family
policy no. 3, has sufficient merit and consistency with the
Comprehensive Plan to warrant rezoning. The benefit of
encouraging redevelopment of a blighted area by rezoning outweighs
the negative effect of adding to percentage of city housing stock
made up of multiple dwelling housing units.
2. Given the geographical area and character of the surrounding area,
the proposed zoning amendment is acceptable.
3. It cannot be factually demonstrated that the proposed amendment
will depreciate the area in which it is proposed.
4. The high coat of redevelopment of the blighted area makes
redevelopment of the area more possible if the area is zoned R-3.
The developers have indicated that they will attempt to create an area
redevelopment plan that incorporates the entire area and not just the
property they own. According to the developers, the rezoning will provide
the flexibility to develop a plan that is cost justifiable given the
expected high cost of land and soil correction in the area.
2. Motion to recommend denial of the rezoning request.
This alternative should be selected if the Planning Commission makes
the following finding:
1. The rezoning request, being inconsistent with multiple family
policy no. 3, has insufficient merit and consistency with the
Comprehensive Plan to warrant rezoning. The benefit of
encouraging redevelopment of a blighted area by rezoning is not
documented and does not outweigh the negative effect of adding to
percentage of city housing stock made up of multiple dwelling
housing units.
2. Tire high coat of redevelopment of the blighted area should not be
a factor in determining whether or not to rezone the subject
property. ;�,.•,i,.. X1.61
3, Y.—,,i A,10-r„_.� „r:,n•.�, ., d', ,r, ,ru s�rf.,� RO
Metcalf and Larson will likely develop the property they own per the c wd
R-2 regulations. They have indicated that they will not pursue
development of the Gills property if it is not rezoned. Tore potential
for clean up and redevelopment of the Gills property without a major
subsidy from the City is diminished with this alternatives likewise,
the chance that the Gills property will develop in the near term Is
decreased with this alternative. It is very difficult to know to what
degree redevelopment of the Gill* property will be encouraged with a
q change in zoning.
Planning Oammission Agenda - 2/7/89
3. !lotion to table the matter with an expression of primary support for
redevelopment of the area under a R-2 concept with the understanding
that if it can be demonstrated that the property, from an economic
standpoint, cannot be developed feasibly then Planning Commission
gives general support of a planned unit or R-3 development concept.
Approval of the toning amendment pending generation of additional
information regarding the proposed development and area redevelopment
costs. Direct City staff to seek Council authorization to take
appropriate steps to determine the extent of soil contamination at the
Gille property and request that the Monticello HRA work closely with
the developer to establish a site development and financing plan for
the entire area proposed for rezoning.
This alternative should be selected if the Planning Commission makes
the following finding:
1. The rezoning request, though not consistent with multiple family
policy no. 3, has sufficient merit and consistency with the
Comprehensive Plan to warrant rezoning only if it is determined
that R-2 land use is not feasible given the potential costs of
soil correction.
2. The potential benefit of encouraging redevelopment of a blighted
area by rezoning outweighs the negative effect of adding to
percentage of city housing stock made up of multiple dwelling
housing units.
2. Given the geographical area and character of the surrounding area,
the proposed zoning amendment is acceptable only if the R-2
alternative is not feasible.
3. It cannot be factually demonstrated that the proposed amendment
will depreciate the area in which it is proposed.
4. The potential high cost of redevelopment of the blighted area may
enhance the possibility of redevelopment of the area if the area
is zoned R-3. However, since the redevelopment costs are not
known, approval of a rezoning decision based on this factor is not
appropriate at this time.
The developers have indicated that they will attempt to create a
redevelopment plan that incorporates the entire area and not just the
property they own. According to the developers, the rezoning will provide
the flexibility to develop a plan that is cost justifiable given the
expected high cost of land and soil correction in the area.
Staff is excited about the prospect of development of this blighted area,
and the City has no reason to doubt the word of the developerer but at the
same time, it might be prudent to gain a better understanding of the
development costs involved prior to making a decision based on economics.
This alternative may be reasonable in that it provides the developers with
incentive to continue work an redevelopment of the entire area and will
also result in a rezoning decision based on a full understanding of the
economics involved.
Of course, the developers may decide that general support is not
1 sufficient and they may elect to abandon any notion of further development
l of the Gille property. It could then be expected that the developers will
Construct tomhomes on the property they now own.
C. STAFF REOOMMEN RTION:
Staff recommends alternative 3. Staff recognizes that there is merit in the
proposal to rezone said property, however significant questions should be
answered and coanittments from the developers should be forthcoming prior to
City action to rezone. The economic justification for rezoning should be
examined closely prior to a decision based on economic hardship. Is it truly
not feasible from an economic standpoint to develop the entire area as R-2? If
so, what level of subsidy would be required via TIP in order to develop the
property as originally planned? Staff is not convinced, at this point that an
economic hardship exists associated with development of the property under R-2
regulations. Furthermore, after examining the revenues created by the
development of tamhomes versus apartment dwellings it appears that townhomes
could generate a sufficient revenue stream to retire significant debt
associated with soil correction. It is highly likely that the Monticello RRA
would work with the developer to create a plan to redevelop the area utlixing a
Planned unit Development or R-2 concept. If after further study, it is found
that R-2 development Is not feasible, even with City subsidy, then R-3
development could be looked at, or R-2 development could be deferred pending a
reduction in the price of land.
In a related matter, it is recommended that the Planning Commission approve the
subdivision of the property for the purpose of creating a standard City lot for
use by the existing structure.
1. Motion to approve the simple subdivision request to subdivide an
existing unplatted residential lot into two unplatted residential
lots.
o..e s ..%.. o. DATA
Copy zoning map, proposed amendment, Public hearing notices available and on
file.
C
{ i tiL c
TZE
r � ♦ ' y' • 11 � ttlK M�1.rlali+ ° r r r r
+ +�.r • Z O • � ¢.'• •'t :+ r ` ' � ;` a »` � � -•,y '1.. _ / Rryl q l.. 11�
.� 9 �. .t pG N y' M�sx 4,� So.^c. 'r. `` Vy, O A �}• ��• j7"' R .5, �0..
Opp„�t` M 111111 1 •!, h .�' j i +' -'�
i�l ti
f0'�..,..
4 Q tcs�{e
SCH(
G4lF
C ttRSF ... • �,,,.
a
HOUSING AND BUILDING SITE INVENTORY - FEBRUARY 1, 1989
IINON-
SNGL
SINGLE FAMILY
IISNGL
FAM FAM
IIUNITS
UNITS
�ILDABLE SITES/NO HOME
86
4%
II
86
PLATTEO/UNSERVICEO SITES (44)
0
0%
!I
0
UNPLATTEDAINSERV ICED (43)
0
0%
II
0
RECTORY
1
0%
I I
1
PARSONAGE
2
0%
II
2
EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY (PLATTED)
870
45%
II
870
EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY (UNPLATTED)
36
20
II
36
TOTAL SINGLE FAMILY SITES
995
52%
II
II
NON -SINGLE FAMILY 4
U TOT
% IMKT
II
SUBS MHT SUBS 1!
S
N U
S
IRATE
RATE RATE RATE II
T
I N
T
IFAM
FAM SR SIR 11
F.
T I
0
!LMIITS
UNITS LIN ITS UNITS!!
C.
S T
CK I
II
DOWNTOWN UNITS
32 1
32
I
2%1
II
1!
32
MOBILE HOMES 185
1
185
101
II
185
DUPLEXES
30 2
60
3%1
II
60
TRIPLEXES
5 3
15
1%1
I!
15
FCURPLEXES
13 4
52
3%1
52
II
52
SIX UNIT TOWNHOME
5 6
30
2%1
!1
30
SIX UNIT APT (Ridgovicw)
2 6
12
1%1
12 II
12
rXWVENT
1 8
8
OSI
I I
8
EIGHT UNIT TOWNHOME
5 8
40
2%1
II
40
-,HT UNIT APARTMENT
4 8
32
2%1
32
!I
32
' ..ELVE UN IT
I
! I
Lau ring lane
1 12
12
1%1
12
1)
12
Torr -ace Sir
1 12
12
1%1
12
I!
12
Mont. Manor
1 12
12
1%1
12
I I
12
Wc-;t Colla
4 12
48
3%
48
I I
46
SIXTEEN UNIT APARTMENT
I
II
Ridfloviow
2 15
30
2%1
30 11
90
EIGHTEEN UNIT
1
II
[incoln Eat.
1 18
1R
1%1
18
11
1R
TWFNIYFOUR UNIT
I
! I
Riverview
1 24
24
1`b1
24
II
24
bLlchinOtan Gq
1 24
24
Iv1
24
! 1
24
M'1ry Wxui
1 24
24
1z1
24
! I
24
Ut Mr
1 24
21
1%1
24
1!
24
R ItI1 to
1 24
24
1 1
24
! !
24
TWFN11`,11X IRNA
!
! I
Hugo Hoven
1 26
26
ml
26 II
26
TWNTYEIGHT UNIT ([xnding)
I
!!
L1-Awntown Elderly
0 20
0
0%1
0 ;1
0
TH 1 IRTY UN I r
1
11
D1uffc
1 CO
30
2%I
"TI
11
30
TH I N YUNK LIN I T
1
11
Rivcr Port VILv
1 31
:)1
ro
31 II
11
THlkrf,,31X UNIT
!
I !
I caar rc ;t
1 A6
36
201
s6 1 I
iG
Ili llTcrr,ro
1 36
36
2`yI
36 I!
'36
LIk7YFIG41` LIN1T
k-it:,;LruJta
' 4'I
4.`1
ivI
24 ?4 I I
40
-- ---------- -- —1
HOUSING AND BUILDING SITE INVENTORY - FEBRUARY 1, 1989
RATIO OF 14JLTI-FAMILY HOUSING TO SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING SITES
EXISTING SINGLE FAM HOMES
909
47%
EXISTING SINGLE FAM HOMES & SITES
995
52%
NON -SINGLE FAMILY UNITS
925
48%
TOTAL HOUSING UNITS
1920
100%
AND BUILDABLE SITES
TOTAL EXISTING HOUSING UNITS
1834
96%
IMKT SUBS MKT SUBS JINON- SINGL
IRATE RATE RATE RATE IiSINGLE FAM
IFAM FAM SR SR JIFAM UNITS
jUNITS UNITS UNITS UNITSIIUNI1S
I - I
TOTAL MULTI FAM HOUSING UNITS' 555 i 336 128 0 91 (i
Ii 925 995
PERCENT OF TOTAL HOUSING 29% I 19% 7% 0% 5%11 48% 5n
LWLNI OF 7UTAL MULTI FAMILY i{ 614„ 2i% 0% 16°,I{1
)
Nall TIPL6 HDUSINtr r, 5 o
PLRGENT OF iINv1EFh;�
"
101alLT1-FAMILY INCLUDES ALL UNITS LOCATED IN STRUCTURES
WITH FOUR OR MORE UNITS q3%
r. lY;hld �lzv 2.9
-,t icwted pop. 5319
4Y1 11 ATION PROJECTIO`1 OAS, 0 ON FULL O=lPAA!CY
Planning commission Agenda - 3/7/89
4. Public Hearing - A conditional use recpest to allow a daycare -groin
nursery in an R-2 (single ana two ramify residential) zone. A varxanoe
r.quea to ai.L& row Barking lot naia surraciAg, no concrete curb aiouna
Perlot perimeter, ane no lanascaping requirements. Applicant, Peggy
Banawiiat. 4G.A. )
A. REBERENM AND BACRGROM:
Kra. Hanawalt is proposing to remodel the old Baptist Churg structure
into a daycare center.
Daycare -group nurseries are allowed only as a conditional use in the R-2
(single and two family residential) zoning district. There are nine
conditions that are applied to the conditional use section under the
daycare -group nursery subsection. The site plan, which is enclosed with
your agenda supplement, will demonstrate how some of the conditions apply
to this enclosed site plan.
1. Under the conditions as submitted in f1, there will be no overnight
facilities, as the children are delivered and removed daily.
2. As the enclosed site plan shows, the minimum lot front yard depth
exceeds the minimum, which is 35 feet.
3. Adequate off-street parking to provided as shown on the enclosed site
plan.
4. Adequate off-street loading and service entrances is not applicable in
this case.
5. The daycare site and its related parking is served by a major
collector street and is of sufficient capacity to accommodate the
traffic which will be generated from this site.
6. No sign plane have been submitted as of yet, but they will be in
conformance.
7. The conditional use process that we went through that has been
considered.
S. The regulations and conditions of the Minnesota Department of Public
Welfare are to be satisfactorily met and will be followed up by a
written approval prior to its licensure from the Regulatory Welfare
Agency prior to submission of a building permit application.
The applicant is proposing not to have the hard surfacing done for the
parking lot with no concrete curbing around the parking lot perimeter and
doesn't intend to install the minimum landscaping requirements at this
time. The applicant has indicated she has expended a considerable amount
of money for the creation of this proposed daycare center and would like
acme time to complete the parking lot hard surfacing, curbing around its
perimeter, and the landscaping requirements to be deferred until a later
date.
B. ALTEMTIVE ACTIONS:
1. Approve the conditional use request to allow a daycare roup nursery
in an R-2 (single and two family residential) tone.
-2-
Planning Commission Agenda - 3/7/89
2. Deny the conditional use request to allow a daycare -group nursery in
an R-2 (single and two family residential) zone.
3. Approve the variance request to allow no parking lot hard surfacing,
no concrete curb around the parking lot perimeter, and no landscaping
requirements.
4. Deny the variance request to allow no parking lot hard surfacing, no
concrete curb around the parking lot perimeter, and no landscaping
requirements.
C. STAFF RBMMKE DATION:
City staff recawends approval of the conditional use request to allow a
daycare -group nursery in an R-2 (single and two family residential) zone
with the conditions ;8 and f9 be submitted to the City of Monticello prior
to building permit application. City staff recommends denial of the
variance request to allow no parking lot hard surfacing, no ooncrete curb
around parking lot perimeter, and no landscaping requirements. We feel
the applicant, in the expenditure of money to make this project possible,
should be able to expend the money to complete the entire project by
installing hard surfacing in the parking lot with the concrete curb and
gutter around its perimeter and also meet the minimum requirements of our
landscaping ordinance, as we have another daycare center in this community
which was required to do these variance requests prior to their
application for a certificate of occupancy.
D. w..vtw 4.~ DATA:
Copy of the location of the proposed conditional use and variance
requestsi Copy of the site plan for the conditional use request: Copy of
the nine conditions under the R-2 (single and two family residential)
zoning district.
-3-
E
0
. � M�yt�
I�"' •fes•
�' `�� W
Q4/ ! /
ae�r
�,,, T� y -...�' � r..,. .
_,, •,y .r ����
.t,_,
''�.- -,
!t,. �
��
r
r
i
r
1
i�
C`
[R] Two family dwelling units.
7-3: PERMITTED ACCESSORY USES: The following are permitted
accessory uses in a "R-2" District:
(A] All accessory uses as allowed in an "R-1" District.
7-4: CONDITIONAL. USE: The following are conditional uses
in an "R-2" District: (Requiaea a condi.tionaC uae
peamit baaed upon paocedunea aet 6oath in and aegutated
by Chapteit 22 o6 Vtia Oadinance).
(A] All conditional uses, subject to the same conditions,
as allowed in an "R-1" District.
Is] Townhouses an defined by Chapter 2, Section 2 (TS]
of this Ordinance provided that the regulations
and requirements of Chapter 20 are satisfactorily
completed and met.
(C] Four family dwelling unit.
(D) Day Care - group nursery provided that:
1. No overnight facilities are provided for
the children served. Children are delivered
and removed daily.
2. The front yard depth shall be a minimum
of thirty-five (35) feet.
3. Adequate off-street parking and access
is provided in compliance with Chapter
3, Section S of this Ordinancc.
® a. Adequate off-street loading and service
entrances are provided in compliance with
Chapter 3, Section 6 of this Ordinance.
S. The site and related parking and service
shall be served by an arterial or collector
Street of sufficient capacity to accommodate
the traffic which will be generated.
6. All signing and informational or visual
communication devices shall be in compliance
with Chapter 3, Section 9 of this Ordinance.
7. The provisions of Chapter 22 of this Ordinance
ars considered and satisfactorily mat.
6. The regulations and conditions of the Minnesota
Department of Public Welfare, Public Welfare
Manual 11-31-30 as adopted, amended and/or
changed are satisfactorily mat.
9. A written indication of preliminary, pending
or final license approval from the regulatory r
welfare agency is supplied to the City.
1
Planning Commission Agenda - 3/7/89
5. Consideration of pr ring an amendment to the Monticello Zoning Ordinance
to allow auto oocy s_ as a conditional use witnln a B-3 (nl L
6usiMse) zone. conal r granting co:witional use permit to 2Eicello
Auto and allow an auto body snap to operate at Lot 4, BLOCK 2,
Sandberg Soutn A<lon. Applicant, Monticello Auto Body. lJ.c.i
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
John Johnson, operator of "Monticello Auto Body", requests that the City
consider adopting an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance that would allow
the development of auto body shops in the B-3 zone. If the Planning
Commission approves the concept of establishing auto body repair as a
conditional use in the B-3 zone, it is then asked to consider Johnson's
request for such a permit. Specifically, Johnson wishes to develop a
facility at Lot 40 Block 2, Sandberg South. The proposed facility would
have exposure to two right-of-ways including Sandberg South Road on the
front and undeveloped Marvin Road in the rear. It should bre noted again
that the amendment would allow the potential for future development of
auto body shops in all 9-3 areas of the community. Please refer to the
attached zoning map for an outline of those areas which extend the length
of Highway 25 from 4th Street to the city limits on the south side.
The proposed amendment would allow auto body repair shop activities to be
intermingled with the following permitted land uses in the B-3 area: auto
accessory store, commercial recreation uses, motels, restaurants, cafes,
printing office. There is also potential for development of B-1 and B-2
permitted in this area which include retail sales, plumber, repair shops,
insurance sales, hardware, grocery store, and other similar uses.
Please note that the City Council in 1986 reviewed the concept of
developing an auto body shop at a nearby 9-3 location and had a negative
view of the proposal. This particular proposal is otherwise unrelated to
the issue addressed in 1986. Please review the section of the meeting
minutes pertaining to the discussion conducted in 1986.
ANALYSIS
The Zoning Ordinance requires that the Planning Convelasion review
amendments in terms of the aaendment'e consistency with the Oonprehensive
Plan, comparability with the characteristics and geography of the area,
and the demonstrated need for such use.
Comprehensive Plan
Please review the attached commercial policies outlined in the
Comprehensive Plan. You will note that the policies do not seem to give
clear direction either for or against the proposed amendment. It does not
appear that this proposal is in direct violation of commercial policies
outlined in the Comprehensive Plan.
.4-
Planning Commission Agenda - 3/7/89
Character and Geographic Area Involved
Tonere are a number of allowable uses in the Br -1 through B-3 zone that may
not mix well with an auto body shop operation. For instance, approving
this amendment establishes the potential for development of a restaurant
or motel next to an auto body shop. One can easily see potential
conflicts between the two uses. on the other hand, if the shop is
properly monitored and if the stop adheres to strict conditional use
permit ter®, there might not be any problem mixing the uses. Of greatest
concern is the potential negative impact on surrounding properties due to
unsightly storage of damaged vehicles, excess noise, and fumes that may
result from the auto painting process. In alternative +1 below I have
outlined a number of conditions that could be attached to the conditional
use permit that could act to mitigate the potential negative impacts.
The title for the 5-3 area is "Highway Business District" and its purpose
is to provide for and limit the establishment of motor vehicle oriented or
dependent commercial and service activities. In other words, the B,-3 area
is intended for uses that are oriented to or rely on highway traffic areae
where high volumes of traffic or "customers" exist. The Planning
Commission must ask itself if an auto body shop should fall into this
category. It could be contended that auto body stops should not fall into
the highway business district category because the auto body business, to
be successful, does not rely on large volumes of walk-in business traffic
which the B-3 location provides. Purthermore, the existence of an auto
body shop in a "re►.ail" area will not likely contribute to development of
a cohesive commercial or highway service area.
The major benefit to a shop located in the B-3 zone is the advertising
value created by proximity to highway traffic areae.
Whether Such Use Will Tend to or Actually Depreciate the Area in Which it
Is Proposed.
This particular decision factor generates a potential argument against the
proposed amendment. It may be that a well run, clean auto body operation
will have a positive effect on the neighborhood. On the other hand, it
may be that even a well run operation may have a negative effect on the
ability of nearby land owners to develop land for uses normally associated
with B~1 through 9-3 uses. If this happens, the value of the surrounding
property depreciates in value.
The Demonstrated Need for Such Use
Auto body repair is a permitted use in the I-2 (Light Industrial) sone and
property is available in this area for development of an auto body shop.
It is. therefore, difficult to demonstrate the need for establishing an
auto body atop as a mWitional use in the 9-3 zone.
-5-
Planning Commission Agenda - 3/7/89
T
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. Notion to amend the Zoning Ordinance to include auto body repair as a
conditional use, including but not limited to the following
conditions:
1. Gate opening to vehicle storage area must not face street
frontage.
2. Vehicle storage area limited to 30% of the floor space of the
structure housing the auto body shop.
3. All vehicles being serviced and all vehicle parts must be stored
in vehicle storage area.
4. Vehicle storage area shall be enclosed by an enclosure intended to
screen the view of vehicles in storage from the outside. The
enclosure shall consist of a 10 -foot high, 100% opaque fence
designed to blend with the auto body shop structure and consisting
of materials treated to resist discoloration.
S. Floor of vehicle storage area shall consist of gravel or other
material designed to inhibit generation of dust.
6. No work on vehicles or vehicle parts shall be conducted outside
the confines of the auto body shop.
7. The exterior wall facing a public right-of-way shall consist of no
more than SO% metal material.
8. Development shall conform to minimum parking and landscaping
requirements of the Zoning ordinance.
9. The side of the structure containing exhaust vents shall be set
back a minimum of 30 feet from adjoining property. '
Notion based on the finding that amendment is consistent with
Comprehensive Plan, amendment and conditions causes auto body shop
activity to be compatible with the character of the surrounding area.
1�
2. Motion to recommend denial of the proposed amendment based on the fact
that auto body repair activity is not compatible with permitted and
conditional uses in the a-3 zone and there is no demonstrated need for
establishing the proposed conditional use in the e-3 zone.
3. r,,k:,,, t.� b'r,i.k,I..t, .tr:. 0..4. 1-d'3A.
C. STAPP RWOM!U2=TIONx
Zoning Amendment Issue
This to a difficult recommendation to make, as auto body repair as a use
l of property seems to fall aomewhere between 0.3 and I-2 use. From a pure
planning sense, a case could be made to discourage development of this
f -M
Planning Commission Agenda - 3/7/89
type of activity in a high traffic or retail area. In addition, the B-3
area is rather large and the proposed amendment would create the
opportunity for development of a similar facility in established areas not
suitable for development of an auto body shop. On the other hand, the
activity does have some retail characteristics, and it is probable that a
facility could be developed that would not have an strong negative effect
on surrounding property. After weighing the pros and cons, staff
recommends denial of the proposed amendment.
CONSIDERATION OF CONDITIONAL USE REQUEST _ G a�� _ -
If the Planning Commission recommends approval of the proposed amendment,
then it must make a recommendation to Council regarding the request
submitted by Monticello Auto Body. Following is a brief review of the
site plan and subsequent recommendation.
Site Plan/Development Area
Unfortunately, at the time of this writing, the final site plan was not
available. Bowever, the developer has indicated verbal acceptance of the
conditions noted above, with one exception. The 30 -foot side yard setback
requirement has not as yet been discussed with the applicant.
To the north of the site to a vacant lot. It is my understanding that the
structure will be set back 10 feet from this lot line. In addition, it is
likely that fumes will be vented from this wall. Planning Commission may
wish to recommend that the structure be placed with the north wall at
least 30 feet from the side lot line.
To the south of the site is the tire dealership. The proposed
development, if done properly, should not have a negative impact on this
neighbor.
To the east to Sandberg Road, and across the street is the General Rental
operation.,
To the west is Marvin Road, which Is an undeveloped right-of-way. It is a
concern that the back of the steel structure planned may not enhance the
view along this street. An effort should be made to landscape the rear of
the property in anticipation of this right-of-way being developed in the
near future.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. Motion to approve conditional use permit request contingent on
development of an approved site plan and contingent on all conditions
being met that are associated with operation of an auto body shop in a
B-3 cone.
2. Motion to deity request.
-7-
Planning Commission Agenda - 3/7/89
C. STAFF RBIbl4KEtID11TI0N:
Staff recommends alternative fl. If Planning Commission viers that an
auto body shop operation is an acceptable conditional use in the 8~3 zone,
then we see no reason why the applicant should be denied so long as all
conditions are met.
D. DATA:
Copy of commmercial policies in Comprehensive Plan: Copy of letter from
Central Minnesota Projectional Copy of site plan, location map.
-6'
f, •-J S'\••Hai �[/" /, �- •`�• • ` \,;�< /• �/ ,•/ `//
� ;`moi• !r � '..• f ��r/f ,
Consideration or " i g ;an amendment t f �'G .•
` the Monticello Zoni O�rdfnahce �'toj' a:I;, mento
shops as a condition a2J sh :rlrithin a BT -1 •;/, ;f f
'
(highway business) zone.` '�
�,.�. &h1vi0.2• /.' ;TEF
.�,..,� �,•.r•',' PLICANT: Monticello AutoJvO
BO ,/': � .•v
,�,y t. sl r .,•.
9 Its
PLAZA•/ �.
TIL4S
� � a
1PAR K`•
' ,i � 1 ' 1 I • -.r
^�— �— _ tl_ yr'�r .�I�•7WM•!— —P'6NM 91---_—tom.:—�_
f4,l
Dental.
fice
Vacantlumbing
• � I I � 1� I I �I
vacant
General Rental '--- c"c11i• RD
IIr
1
y�• I 1 1 VIII
lu y .. Ly�o11 s0 1 DURDI! RD
yy . 1 it
1
Is
r . / i 0. 0 s • 1 1 INI ty l
S
(D
COMMERCIAL
POLICIES
1.
Commercial development in general and successful retailing
1
functions should occur both in the central business district and
the shopping center area contiguous to Interstate 94.
2.
The Comprehensive Plan, the Zoning Ordinance, and other measures
and procedures will be modified in realistic recognition of the
needs of contemporary commercial enterprises and the need to
properly control such enterprises at the local community level]
commercial development policy will not be rigid and inflexible,
!!�
and neither shall it be indiscriminately permissive.
3.
Adequate provision should be made for expansion of suitable
p�
areae for highway oriented commercial development requiring
a
large acreages for use such as motels, auto and implement
dealerships, and lumber and building supply yards. These uses
should be encouraged to develop in new locations along
Interstate 94 at Highway 25.
4.
The location of now shopping areae should be justified by an
adequate market study (market radius, customer potential,
suitable location in the market radius, etc.) and consideration
for the neighborhood, land use, and circulation pattern.
S.
Commercial areas should be as compact as possible. Compact
commercial areas are particularly advantageous for retail uses,
ae they concentrate shopping and parking. A community is
benefited by reducing exposure to residential areas and having a
better control over parking and traffic needs. For this reason,
"strip" and *spot" commercial development should not be
permitted.
6.
Highway oriented uses along Interstate 94 should be concentrated
to the greatest extent possible so as not to waste prime
commercial land nor spread the uses so an to not be definable as
a 'viable commercial area".
7.
Future commercial areas should be based upon the concept of the
integrated business canter developed according to a specific
site plan and justified by an economic analysis of the area to
be served.
8.
All major commercial areas shall be pro -zoned based upon the
Comprehensive Plan. No areas shall be ro-zoned to cor=ercial
use unless they aro shown to be properly located in accordance
with the policies and standards of the Comprehensive Plan.
9.
Boundaries of commercial distcicto shall be well-defined so as
to prevent intrusion into residential areael residential areas
must be properly screened from the a000ciated ill effects of
adjacent and nearby commercial area.
i
-48-
(D
February 28, 1989
Planning Commission
City of Monticello
250 East Broadway
Monticello, MN 55362
Dear Planning Commission Members:
Central Minnesota Projections, a Minnesota partnership, owns Lots 2 and 3.
Block 2 and Lots 1, 2 and 3. Block 1, Sandberg South. It recently sold Lot 1,
Block 2, to Dr. John Erlandson who has constructed a combination dental Clinic
and residence.
The other lot is occupied by General Rental and The Plumbery. We oppose the
application of Monticello Auto Body for any change in existing permitted uses
under present zoning. We believe the future development of Sandberg South
should be more in keeping with profit—retail trend and would discourage any
move towards light industrial.
Thank you for your consideration.
RAL mqNESQTA PROJECTIONS
/James P. F ter. Partner
14
C5)
R-3,e,�e F.�t•d ��1 IJ 12 .
City of Monticlz,llo
Wright County Minresota
Existing Zoning
ni♦n a••.¢.uu•+•.pro.
•o-n� uo,�n••n. �c
� I
RA
LO
--. ---- -- • -�j - -- --:.
�C
Planning Coxmission Agenda - 3/7/89
s. Consideration of a rezoningre
.guest to rezone R-3 (medium densitpVY
residential) resicentialatEea lane to R -z taingle anc two ramily
residential). Applicant, Dan Frle. (J.O.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
As you recall, Planning Commission gave preliminary approval of the
replatting of a portion of "The Meadows" subdivision contingent on the
developer rezoning the property from R-3 to R-2. This application for
rezoning is submitted by the developer in response to the rezoning
requirement outlined by the Planning Commission and by the City Council.
The proposed rezoning consists of a "down -zoning." Therefore, it is not
likely that the matter will be controversial. Following are factors to
consider in making your finding.
1. RELATIONSHIP TO MUNICIPAL COMPREHENSrVB PIAN.
The proposal to rezone is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.
2. THE GEOGRAPHICAL AREA INVOLVED AND CHARACTER OF AREA.
The area involved consists primarily of single family dwellings and
some two family dwellings which 1s consistent with the district
regulations noted in the R-2 zone. In fact, rezoning the area from
R-3 to R-2 would represent an inprovement given the R-2 nature of the
existing neighborhood. By rezoning the property, future conflicts
between R-2 and R-3 land uses will be avoided.
3. WHETHER SUCH USE WILL TEND TO OR ACTUALLY DEPRECIATE THE AREA IN WHICH
IT I8 PROPOSED.
This rezoning will not tend to depreciate the area in which it is
proposed.
d. THE DEMONSTRATED NEED POR SUCH USE.
Given the recent predominance of R-3 development, it can be
demonstrated that there is a need for additional R-2 land.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. Motion to approve rezoning of said area from R-3 to R-2.
Motion based on potential findings above.
2. Motion to deny rezoning.
C. STAFF RECONKENDATIONt
Staff recommends alternative 1.
I D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Copy of public hearing notice and site location map.
-9-
J NOTICE OF PUBLIC NEARING
V,
Notice is hereby given that public hearings will be hold by the City of
Monticello Planning Commission on March 7 , 1989 , at
7:30 p.m., in the Monticello City Ball to consider the following matters:
PUBLIC NEARING: A rezoning request to rezone R-3 (medium density residential) resident
platted land"to R-2 (single and two family residential). Location
is Block 1, Lot 1, The Meadows Second Addition; Block 1, Lots 1-3;
Block 2, Lots 1-10; Block 3, Lots 1-9; Block 4, Lots 1-11; The Meadows
Addition in the city of Monticello.
APPLICANT: Dan Fria
I
Written and oral testimony will be accepted on above subjects, and all
persona dooiring to be heard on roforonced oubjecto will be heard at this monting.
NOTE: Decisions of the Planning Commission will be subject to the approval
or donlal of the City Council, and will he hoard on Monday, March 13 ,
19AU—, at 7:30 p.m., at the Monticello City Nall.
i
Cscy Sidor on, Eoning Administrator
to YOZ°ro to tdoo toot16Y
P =oyoai do�� R d rk 1 Flo o06 Ivo
ImBdi ' -a,16 to
sg81dor . Doo gsio
�YLSCOT .
4
:�,j fff y, a� �'�• .1� „\,, "�.a . • � • a�, �., M.� b.`�.° :.�:w / — �' M i ... , , \ •
•t:�` iv
ry
s.:;;�ty};yi,��,� `yi\�:ii, crl�tf, s� �z;, t' ' , `� \ • �.•'�tAN,f'`��•'C'1'� �i °nom r'`) t .� 6Z���;.
..4f. �i• °°./ `' ,% `� amt. �••,-�,'��,/.�., i • !��_� ± .._s'"� j.� � l.:•� 1`y�;+�';,,,. '''r'•'`+�``-:
Planning Commission Agenda - 3/7/89
i
` 7. Public Heariths -Consideration of granting Monticello country Club a
variance to lnstitution sign size requirements in an R-1 zone. (J.0.)
A. REPERENC8 AND BACRGROUM:
The Monticello Country Club requests permission to construct an
institutional sign with dimensions in excess of the maximums allowed by
Ordinance. Pollwing is a table which outlines the variance request based
on two proposals submitted.
Institutional sign regulations in the R-1 zone.
Ordinance Proposal Variance Needed
A or B A B
Size in sq ft 18 eq ft 48 -�% 30 X*
Height 8 feet 10, 10, 2' 2'
It is proposed by staff that the sign be located per the attached map
which places it 10 feet from the property line and 15 feet back from the
frontage road.
S. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. Approve the variance request or approve a reduced variance request.
The applicant is proposing a rather large variation from the Ordinance
which may be herd to justify. on the other hand, the placement of the
sign 15 feet from the frontage road creates a significant distance
between the sign and County Road 37. It may be that a variance is
justified for a slightly larger sign than allowed by Ordinance.
2. Deny the variance request.
Planning Commission has strong grounds for denial, as the applicant
fails to demonstrate significant hardship associated with the
request. Granting this variance as requested could sot a negative
precedent.
C. STAPP RECOMMENDATIONt
Due to the distance between the sign and the county road, and due to the
fact that the sign will have a minimal impact on eight lines in the area,
staff recommends approval of a sign with dimensions slightly larger than
allowed by Ordinance. Staff recommends a sign with the following
dimensions:
-10-
Planning oo®ission Agenda - 3/7/89
�- Ordinance Staff Proposal variance
Size 18 26 it 6.
Height 8 10 2
D. DATA:
Sign site plan] Proposed dimensions of eigni Site plan for Markling
developoenti Excerpts from sign section of Honing Ordinance.
M
y' m$cCD
Ci
?E
i�
o k >
o. ;3 z
C
e
(CS.A.H. NO. 39 i
GOLF COURSE ROA
SES LEFT
D
:::: ,.T
_' �i'�',<'; )�V�'L'" /�: /✓ =DACE f c uch
C, \�
IC'�L (vC•.c''v �!dW3TINUCIIdZ IJA IUTEL `rAJJEL:, (C4o�cE of ceoo?'� J� Jl y j�TR[A7E
)EL, i (L-orrWor ;"f@N it., Gula.') /NsrAt.e W/ NS' IAnJcac-
I F'
n
„%— 4. 1="i 'L IJIDTP-
iar-r
51 Mc wcprN
$ Fr.
II�IDNf�
�/ F7,
HIiFHT
3 Fr.
ToTOL SIGIJ —
IC
Tout 1%dcE/-`
1 OFT,
'd/-//S
y
14'�
1,as0
,"!'I
w
i
I
I2111-0 1-
i PUBLIC wELCOMQ
.-ERAC7ICE RANGE a PA1271 • 18 HOLESaGOLF LESSONS
2-2 [HS)
2-2 (IG)
•
There shall be no exterior storage of equipment or
materials used in the home occupation. No home occupation
shall be permitted which results in or generates more
traffic than one ( 1 ) car for offstrest parking at any
given point in time. Permissable home occupations include,
but are not limited to the following: art studio, dressmaking,
special offices of a clergyman, lawyer, architect, engineer,
accountant, or real estate agent or appraiser, when
located in a dwelling unit occupied by the name; and
teaching, with musical, dancing and other instruction
limited to one (1) pupil at one time.
[HC)
HOTEL: Any building or portion thereof occupied as
the more or less temporary abiding place of individuals
and containing six (6) or more guest rooms, used, designated.
intended to be used, let or hired out to he occupied,
or which are oeeuoled by six (6) or more individuals
for compensation, whether the compensation be pail directly
or indirectly.
[IA)
IDENTIFICATION SIGNS: Signs in all districts which
identify the business or owner, or manager, or resident
and set forth the address of the premises where the
sign is located and which contain no other material.
(IS)
ILLUMINATED SIGN: Any sign which is lighted by an artificial
light source either directed upon it or illuminated
from an interior source.
(IC)
IMPERVIOUS SURFACE: An artificial or natural surface
through which water, air, or roota cannot penetrate.
(ID)
INDIVIDUAL PROPERTY SALE OR RENTAL SIGNS: Any on -promise
sign announcing the name of the owner, manager, roaltor,
or other person directly involved in the sale or rental
of the property , or announcing the amount for which
it is being offered.
(IE)
INPORMATIONAVOIRECTIONAL SIGNS: Any on-promine sign
giving information to employees, visitors, or delivery
vehicles but containing no advertising. May includo
name of busincoo but must predominantly represent a
directional cr information masoage.
[IF)
INSTITUTIONAL SIGN: A sign or bulletin board which
Sdontifiao the name and other characteristics of s public,
Oemi-public, or private inatitution on the Oita where
the sign is located. Institutions shall include churches,
hospitals, nuraing homes, schooLo, and other non-profit
and charitable organizations.
(IG) INTEGRAL 51G.15: Names of buildings, data of construction,
commemorative tablets and the like, which are of a permanent
typo of construction and which are an integral part
of the building or the structure.
3-9 (C)4(e)
I
3-9 (C)B
(f) Not more than two (2) portable signs shall be
displayed at the same time.
(g) Not more than two (2) attention -getting
devices shall be permitted to be displayed
in conjunction with any portable sign.
(h) A decorative attention -getting device may
bear the name of the business, but shall not
bear any service, product, price, etc.,
advertising message.
(i) Permit fees shall be set by the City Council
and shall be payable upon application for
said permit. (Amendment No. 150)
5. All signs shall display, in a conspicuous manner,
the ovner-s name, permit number, and date of
erection.
6. All height restrictions on signs shall include
height of sign structure.
7. In any district, any portion of any sign exceeding
two (2) square feet shall be not back fifteen (15)
feet from any right-of-way line and ton (10) feet
from any residential (zoned) property line.
6. Any sign now or hereafter existing which no longer
advertises, or identifies a bona fide business
conducted, or a service rendered, or a product
sold, ■hall be removed by the owner, agent, or
person having the beneficial use and/or control
of the building or structure upon which the sign
may be found within ten (10) days after written
notice from the Building Inspector.
3-9 (D13 3-9 (E]2(b)
3. All non -conforming and prohibited signs
shall be removed or brought into conformity
with this Ordinance after notification
in writing within the following time period.
(a) Any sign in violation of the prohibited
signs as defined in (B] 2: Thirty (30)
days (exception: Adve2.ti6tng 4.igna,
dive (5) yeaRa).
(b) For all other non -conforming signs:
five (S) yearn.
IEJ DISTRICT REGULATIONS: The following sections
concern signs which require application and
permit.
1. Within the A-0, R-1, R-2, R-3, R-4 and
PZR districts, signs are subject to the
following size and type regulations:
(a) Institutional or area identification
signs, provided that the groan square
footage of sign area does not exceed
eighteen (18) square feet and if the
sign is freestanding, the height does
not exceed eight (8) feet.
2. Within the PZ -M, 8-1, B-2, B-3, B-4, I-1
and I-2 Districts, signs are subject to
the following size and type regulations:
(a) Within the PZ -M and B-1 Districts,
the maximum allowable square footage
of sign area per lot shall not exceed
the sum of one (1) square foot per
front foot of the building plus one
(1) square foot for each front foot
of lot not occupied by s building,
up to one hundrod (100) square fact.
Each lot will be allowed one (1) pylon
or freestanding sign and ono (1) wall
sign or two (2) wall signs total.
(b) tror buildings in which there in one (1)
or two (2) business useo within the
8-2, B-3, B-4, I-1 and I-2 Districts,
there shall be two (2) options for
permitted oigns. The property owner
shall select one option which shall
control sign size on each lot.
Planning Commission Agenda - 3/7
`- S. Review sign ordinances used by various communities and discuss potential
amanamente to tine Monticello Sign Orainance. ti.O.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
The purpose of this discussion is to establish some direction with regards
to development of potential amendments to the Sign Ordinance. As you
recall, Council recently acted to table two variances and referred the
matter back to the Planning Commission for further review. One issue
involves the height and size requirements associated with free-standing
(pylon) signs along Highway 25. This issue stemmed from the First
National Bank request for a sign that exceeded the 50 square foot
maximum. Another issue pertains to establishment of the number of free
standing signs that should be allowed per frontage. This question stems
from the recent request by the Tom Thumb store to develop two pylon signs.
It is my plan to take the results of your discussion of this matter and
prepare amendments to the ordinance accordingly. At the next meeting of
the Planning Commission, the formal public hearing will be conducted with
Planning Commission action following.
In preparation for the discussion, I prepared a table which outlines
treatment by various communities of certain sign related issues that the
City has recently been dealing with. At the end of the table I have
(, submitted a tentative recommendation regarding each issue. The
communities selected for comparison were derived from First National Bank
sources and City sources, and I believe they represent a fair
cross-section of the sign ordinances now in use in the area.
Finally, I will be giving a verbal presentation of the information an the
the table and will outline potential alternatives regarding sign
amendments at the meeting.
N
-12-
7Y
COMMENTS
BROOKLYN CENTER
SIGN HEIGHT 6 AREA
LIMITATIONS BASED ENTIRELY
ON SIZE OF BUILDING.
ANIOKA
TOTAL SIGN AREA
IS LIMITED TO 250 SOFT
INCLUDING WALL SIGN
FARIBAULT
2 SO FT OF SIGN AREA
ALLOWED PER LINEAL FT
OF BUILDING FRONT UP
TO 125 SO FT, INFORMATION
SIGNS SEPARATE
UAw
2 SO FT SIGN PER FRONT FT
OF BUILDING PLUS 1 SO FT
SIGN AREA PER LOT FRCNT FT
NOT TO EXCEED 100 SO FT
LAKEVILLE
SIGN REQS ESTABLISHED
BY ZONING DISTRICT -
NOT BY SPEED LIMIT
OF ADJOINING ROADWAY
ONATONNA
SIGN SIZE REGULATED BY
DISTRICT. OWATONNA
B-2 DISTRICT IS EQUAL
TO OUR 9-4 DISTRICT.
RAPIDS
PLYMOUTH
OOMPARISON OF FREESTAANDINO/PYLON SIGN REGULATIONS
ADMINISTERED BY VARIOUS OOP"ITIES
1. 2.
IMAX IM
IHT. ISO FT
I IAREA
I�I �
I I
1 32 1 160
I I
I I
I 1
35 1 250
I
I
I 125
I
I
I
I
I
I
24 I 100
I
I
I
I
I
20 I 100
I
I
I
I
35 1 100
30 1 100
96 1 96
3.
NUMBER
ALL04EO
ONE PYLON PER 400'
OF FRONTAGE. GAS
STATIONS ALLOWED ONE
ADDED PUMP PYLON
MAX HEIGHT 15'
MAX AREA 20 SQFT.
4.
IFREEWAY SIGN HEIGHT
1AND SIZE LIMITS
I
I
I
INO SPECIAL
(CONSIDERATION
133' •J w.wy
I
TOTAL SIGNS NOT TO INOT APPLICABLE
TO EXCEED SQ FT MAX. I
NOT TO EXCEED THREE
1 55 FEET HIGH/SIGN
WITH TOTAL SIGN AREA
IMESSAGE LIMITED TO SIMPLE
ALLOWED NOT TO EXCEED
(IDENTIFICATION
SLIM OF INDIVIDUAL SIGN
I
AREAS
1
I
MORE THAN ONE WITH
I
INOT APPLICABLE
SIGN AREA LIMITED
I
I
I
ONE
I
I
(VARIABLE -BASED ON
ICONDITIONAL USE PROCESS
I
I
TWO PYLONS ALLOWED
I
I
ISIGN OVERLAY DISTRICT
ON CORNER LOT
1 35' MAXIMJM HEIGHT
PROVIDED TOTAL SIGN
1200 SQ FT MAX SIZE
AREA DOES NOT EXCEED
(ADDITIONAL 1 SO FT
MAXIMUM ALLOWED AND
ISIGN AREA ALLOWED
EACH CORNER HAS MIN
IFOR EVERY ADDITONAL
OF 75' FRONTAGE
( 100 SO FT OF BUILDING
OVER 2,000 SO FT.
ICONO USE PERMIT NEEDED
IFOR LARGER SIGNS W/1 500'
1 SIGN PER FRONTAGE
I
IND SPECIAL CONSIDERATION
WITH LIMITS
IFOR HIGHWAY 10 SIGNAGE
1 30' MAX HEIGHT
ONE
IND SPECIAL CONSIDERATION
COMPARISON OF FREESTANDING/PYLON SIGN REGULATIONS
TY ADMINISTERED BY VARIOUS COMMUNITIES
IZONING DISTRICT
1. 2. 3.
4.
IMAX IMAX I NUMBER
FREEWAY SIGN HEIGHT
COMMENTS IHT. ISO FT I ALLOWED
I IAREA I
1AND SIZE LIMITS
I I I
IMAX HEIGHT IS 36'
WACONIA 120 1 80 I ONE
I
INOT APPLICABLE
I I
HOPKINS I I I
I
I
APPLICATION OF SIZE LIMITS 1 35 1 60-801 TWO. TOTAL SIGN AREA
IND SPECIAL
DEPENDS ON WHICH ZONING I I I OF BOTH NOT TO EXCEED
IPRONISIONS NOTED
CATAGORY SIGN IS PLACED IN I I I MAXIMUM SIGN AREA
1 35' MAX HEIGHT APPLIES
I I I ALLOWED I
I I I I
BUFFALO 125 1 64 I ONE INOT APPLICABLE
I I I I
ELK RIVER I I I I
SIGN REGS BASED ON 1 20 ( 64 1 ONE INOT APPLICABLE
DISTRICT REGS
I I I I
MINNETONKA I I I I
TOTAL SIGN SURFACE PERMIT- ( 32 1
60 1 ONE PER 200
IZONING DISTRICT
ED WALL/PYLON COMBINED I I
I FOOT FRONTAGE.
IRULES APPLY - NO
USED ON BLOND FRONTAGE I I
I TWO PER CORNER
ISPECIAL CONSIDERATON
JF STRUCTURE - OR 15% OF 1 I
I LOT IF MORE THAN
132' MAX HEIGHT APPLIES
BUILDING FACE - NOT TO I I
I 200 FEET APART
1
EXCEED 300 SO FEET. I I
I
I
I I
MONTICELLO I I
I
I
I
I
SIGN REQS BASED ON 1 18
50 1 ONE
IBY ORDINANCE -32' MAX
WALL SIZE/ROAD CLASS/SPEED 1 (30
MPH ZONE)
IHEIMT & 200' MAX AREA
FIRST NATIONAL BANK/ I I
I
IBY VARIANCE - SO' MAX
TOM THUMB ON MAJOR I I
OR I
IHEIGHT & 77' MAX AREA
THOROUGHFARE - POSTED SPEEDI 22 1
100 1 ONE
IWITHIN 800' OF FREEWAY
OF 30 MILES PER HOUR. 1 (35
MPH ZONE)
I I
MOUND 1 25 I
I
48 1 ONE
I
SNOT APPLICABLE
I�I
RECOMMENDATION I I
I
I
I
I
CONSIDER APPLYING REDS 1 22 1
100 I ONE SIGN PER 200'
(AMEND ORDINANCE BY
GOEVERNING SIGNS IN THE 35 I I
I LOT FRONTAGE. MORE THANIRAISING MAXIMUM TO 35'
MILE PER HOUR ZONE TO SIGNSI I
I ONE SIGN TO BE PLACED
ITHEN HOLD FIRM ON
LOCATED ALONG HIGHWAY 25 I I
i MORE THAN 200' APART.
IFUTURE VARIANCE REQUESTS
I I
I SIGN AREA OF ALL SIGNS
IUNLESS HARDSHIP CAN BE
I I
I NOT TO EXCEED MAXIMUM.
ALSO
1DEMONSTRATED
I I
I I
I GAS STATIONS ALLOWED ONa
I I
( ADDED RW PYLON SIGN
1
n I
I WITH MAX HEIGHT OF 15'
1
LLS,'
TO: Monticello Planning Commission
FROM: 011ie Koropchak, Economic Development Director
DATE: March 3, 1989
SUBJECT: 1989 Coals and Memberships
The Housing and Redevelopment Authority, the Industrial Development
Committee, and the Chamber of Commerce each establish annual
goals which are periodically reviewed during the year. These
goals are submitted between the three organizations, for the
Planning Commission, and for the City Council to insure greater
communication for a united community. Also. enclosed is a list of
the organizations 1989 members or officers. we look forward to
a successful 1989. Please loin us at one of our meetings.
1989
MONTICELLO HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY GOALS
MEMBERS: Al Larson, Chairperson
Ben Smith, Vice Chairperson
Lowell Schrupp
Everette Ellison
Tom St, Hilaire
011ie Roropchak, Director/Executive Secretary
GOALS: A. To establish guidelines/policies for the use of
Tax Increment Financing.
B. To research the housing stock and assist in the
provision of adequate numbers and types of housing.
1. Higher quality elderly housing close to downtown
with a townhouse concept.
2. Elderly housing with total full services available.
3. Rehabilitation of existing low income homes.
C. To research and designate neighborhood substandard,
blight, or deteriorating areas for redevelopment.
D. To Continue the joint meeting between the IDC,
the HRA, the EDA, the Planning Commission, and the
City Council.
E. To adhere to the Joint Powers Agreement between
the HRA, the EDA, and the City Council.
F. To Consider a 1990 limited mill levy for redevelopment
project and planning activities; and/or for inform-
ational and relocation services.
3/2/89
I
MONTICELLO INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE
1989 MEMBERSHIP
NAME
Sheldon Johnson
IDC Chairperson
Donald Smith
IDC Vice Chairperson
Lovell Schrupp
IDC Treasurer
Kenneth Maus
Monticello Mayor
Rick Wolfeteller
Dale Lungwitz
Arve Grimsmo
Jay Morrell
Ronald Hoglund
Harvey Kendall
Dennis Taylor
OCCUPATION
Superintendent,
Independent School
District 0882
Editor/Publisher,
Monticello Times
Owner, Golden Valley
Furniture
Owner, Maus Foods
Administrator, City
of Monticello
President, Wright
County State Bank
Owner, Peterson-
Gricasmo Funeral
Chapel
Owner, M 6 P Transport
Agency Owner, American
Family Insurance
Plant Office Manager,
NSP Nuclear Plant
Owner, Taylor Land
Surveyors, Inc.
Linda Miolke
Branch Manager,
Chamber Chairperson
Security Financial
Savings and Banking
James Kruger
Manager, National
Chamber Vice Chairperson
Bushing, Inc.
011ie Koropchak
Economic Development
IDC Executive
Director, City of
Secretary
Monticello
ADDRESS
District Office
P.O. Box 897
Monticello, MN 55362
P.O. Box 548
Monticello, HN 55362
P.O. Box 515
Monticello, MN 55362
508 Highway 25 South
Monticello, MN 55362
250 East Broadway
Monticello, MN 55362-9245
106 Pine Street
P.O. Box 729
Monticello, MN 55362
530 West Broadway
P.O. Box 815
Monticello, MN 55362
P.O. Box 477
Monticello, MN 55362
204 West 3 Street
P.O. Box 291
Monticello, MN 55362
108 Hillcrest Road
Monticello, MN 55362
219 West Broadway
P.O. Box 179
Monticello, MN 55362
307 Pine Street
P.O. Box 70
Monticello, MN 55362
P.O. Box 8
Monticello, MN 55362
250 East Broadway
Monticello, MN 55362
L
I
1989 IDC Membership
Page 2
NAME OCCUPATION ADDRESS
Dale Pogatchnik President, First 707 Pine Street
National Bank P.O. Bax 239
Monticello. HN 55362
Dave Peterson Owner, Dave Peterson/ I-94 and Highway 25 South
Monticello Ford -Mercury P.O. Box 68
Monticello, KN 55362
1989
MONIICELLO INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE GOALS
A. To host or visit at least ten new business/ industry prospects
during 1989.
B. To continue working with existing industries in Monticello.
1) To establish Business Retention Survey Teams.
C. To obtain propsects from existing industries/businesses.
D. To attract one or more industries during 1989 that will be placed
on the tax rolls of the Monticello community.
E. To revise and update promotional and advertising literature
including pamphlets or brochures, and a video tape.
F. To create effective ways of using the Labor/Market Survey Data.
G. To continue our study of sewer and water hook-up charges and
rates, with the ultimate goal of recommending to the City
Council appropriate changes in order for Monticello to compete
with other communities, within the state of Minnesota, when
recruiting business and industry.
H. To finalize the financial incentives package that can be made
available, either in total or in part, to prospective businesses
and industries. This package will include:
e Tax Increment Financing (Housing and Redevelopment Authority)
+ State Programs
• Federal Programs
Greater Monticello Enterprise Fund (Economic Development Authority)
e Loans and Grants from Other Agencies:
Central Minnesota Initiative Fund
Others
I. To continue a positive, cooperative working relationship between
city staff and the Industrial Development Committee.
J. To continue the "Star City" program.
K. To encourage a developer to construct a speculative industrial
building.
L. To enhance our committee's relationship with personnel of state
agencies that aro involved with industrial development.
1) To host a joint meeting between the IDC officers. the City
Mayor. City Administration. and Bill Coleman. Development
Resources, MTED. Deadline April. 1989.
M. To continue monthly Industrial Development Committee meetings and
to schedule special meetings as needed.
1989 IDC Goals
Page 2
i
N. To continue the annual Industrial Development Committee Banquet.
1) To continue with a fall banquet date.
2) To continue with three local industrial testimonies on the
program.
3) To continue with the local industrial displays after research
to determine no competition with Expo.
0. To continue utilization of the sub -committee structure within
the Industrial Development Committee.
1) Recommend for appointment as need be.
P. To continue researching the airport issue for Monticello.
Q. To hold a joint meeting between the local Minnesota Legislators
and the IDC.
R. To continue the implementation of extended area metro services
to Monticello.
S. To continue the point meeting between the Planning Commission,
the NRA, the BDA, the IDC, and the City Council. Deadline
before June, 1989.
T. To continua a positive relationship with the Chambcr of
Commerce.
U. To establish authorised co -signatures for all Industrial
Development Committee financial holdings on deposit and to
establish an annual audit of the IDC financial books by
City Administrator Rick Yolfsteller.
3/2/89
I- - - - ...-
I
1989
HONTICELLO CHAMBER OF COMMERCE BOARD MEMBERS
CHAIRPERSON
LINDA MIELRE
SECURITY FINANCIAL BANKING AND SAVINGS
307 Pine Street
P.O. Box 70
Monticello, PLM 55362
295-4500
VICE CHAIRPERSON
JAMES KRUGER
NATIONAL BUSHING AN'D PARTS COMPANY
P.O. Box 8
Monticello. M!N 55362
295-2916
EXECUTIVE SECRETARY
OLLIE ROROPCHAR
MONTICELLO CHAMBER OF COMCBRCE
P.O. Box 192
Monticello, MN 55362
295-2700
TREASURER
CANDY BENOIT
MONTICELLO COMMUNITY EDUCATION
P.O. Box 897
Monticello, MN 55362
295-2915
PAST CHAIRPERSON
DAN CARLSON
FOSTER. FRANZET 6 CARLSON AGENCY
P.O. Box 188
Monticello. MN 55362
295-2614
BOARD MEMBERS
JOHN MICHAELIS TERM EMPIRES
GOULD BROTHERS 12/31/89
I-94 and Highway 25
Box 368
Monticello, Moi 55362
295-2911
LINDA SMITH TERM EXPIRES
LITTLE MOUNTAIN FLOWERS 12/31/90
P.O. Box 695
Monticello. Poi 55362
295-4040
TOM MCDERMOTT
DAVE PETERSON'S MONTICELLO FORD - MERCURY. INC.
I-94 and Highway 25 TERM EXPIRES
Box 68 12/31/91
Monticello, PLN 55362
295-2056
CHAMBER MAILING ADDRESS: P.0- Box 192, Monticello, MN 55362
CHAMBER OFFICE LOCATION: 250 East Broadway. Monticello, MN 55362
CHAMBER TELEPHONE NUMBER: (612) 295-2700/
1989
MONTICELLO CHAMBER OF COMMERCE GOALS
1. To continue and to research potential ways for greater
exposure of the Chamber of Commerce and its members.
2. To research the feasibility for the establishment of an
Executive Director for the Monticello Chamber of Commerce.
3. To increase the 1989 Chamber of Commerce membership by
twenty percent.
4. To establish a line of communication to inform Chamber
members of current political issues.
S. To draft and to adopt By-laws for the Monticello Chamber of
Commerce.
6. To continue and to enhance the relationship between the
Industrial Development Committee and the Chamber of Commerce.
7. To continue with and/or to expand upon current Chamber of
Commerce activities:
a) Chamber/Educator Breakfast
b) Expo '89
c) Chamber Recognition Banquet
d) Senior Achievement Awards
e) Monticello Riverfest Celebration
f) Boy Scouts of America (Monticello Pack 270)
g) Mise Monticello Pageant Committee
h) Mies Monticello Float Maintenance Fund
i) Christmas Lighting Fund
J) Chamber newsletter and programs
k) Gift to now businesses
3/2/89