Planning Commission Agenda Packet 04-04-1989AGENDA
REGULAR MEETING - MORTICE= PLANNING COMUSSION
Tuesday, April 4, 1989 - 7:30 p.m.
Members: Richard Carlson, Cindy I.emm, 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 March 7,
1989.
7:34 p.m. 3. Public Hearing - Oonsideration of amendments to Section
3-91814 and 3-91E14(c) of the Zoning Ordinance pertaining to
the regulation of pylon sign height, sign area, and the
number allowed per business along the Highway 25/
Interstate 94 corridors in the city of !Monticello.
Applicant, City of Monticello.
7:59 p.m. 4. Public Hearing - A variance request to allow additional pylon
sign height and sign area. Applicant, Security Financial.
8:19 P.M. 5. Public Hearing - Consideration of amendments to Section
3-21G13(b) i, Si of the Zoning Ordinance pertaining to
regulations of comnarcial/industrial property landscaping.
Applicant, City of Monticello.
8:34 p.m. 6. Public Hearing - Consideration of preparing an amendment to
the Monticello Zoning ordinance which would allow auto body
shops as a conditional use within a business zone.
Applicant, City of Monticello/Monticello Auto Body.
9:04 p.m. 7. consideration of a preliminary plat approval, proposed
expansion of East Rjellberg Mobile Home Park, and
consideration of amendments to the City of Monticello zoning
map. Applicant, Rent Rjellberg. •�`
ADDMONAL INFORMATION ITEMS
9:34 p.m. 1. Rezoning request to rezone R-2 (single and two family
residential) unplatted residential land to R-3 (medium
density residential). Applicant, Heat Prairie Partnere.
Council action: Denied as per Planning Ooamission
recommendation.
9:36 p.m. 2. Conditional use request to allow a daycare group nursery in
an R-2 (single and two family residential) zone. A variance
request to allow no parking lot herd surfacing, no concrete
curb around parking lot perimeter, and no landscaping
requirements. Applicant, Peggy Hanewalt. Council action:
Approved the oonditional use request an per Planning
Commission recomzmerdetion. Approved variance request with
conditions.
Planning Commission Agenda
April 4, 1989
Page 2
9:38 p.m. 3. Consideration of preparing an amendment to the Monticello
Zoning Ordinance to allow auto body shops as a conditional
use within a B-3 (highway business) some. Consider granting
conditional use permit to Monticello auto body and allow an
auto body shop to operate at Lot 4, Block 20 Sandberg South
Addition. Applicant, Monticello Auto Body. Oouncil action:
No action needed, as request did not Dome before the City
Council.
9:40 p.m. 4. Rezoning request to rezone R-3 (medium density residential)
residential platted land to R-2 (single and two family
residential). Applicant, Dan Prie. Council action:
Approved as per Planning Commission recommendation.
9:42 p.m. S. variance request to allow an additional pylon sign an an R-1
(single family residential) unplatted lot. Applicant,
Monticello Country Club. Council action: No action needed,
as the request did not coos before City Council. Applicant
withdrew request.
9:44 p.m. 6. Set the next tentative date for the Monticello Planning
Commission meeting for May 2, 1989.
9:46 p.m. 7. Adjournment.
MINUTES
PJWL AR MEETING - MOMTICELLO PLANNING O"IrSSI0N
Tuesday, March 7, 1989 - 7:30 p.m.
Members Present: Richard Carlson, Cindy Lemur, Richard Martie, Mori Malone,
Den McConnon.
Members Absent: None.
Staff Present: Gary Anderson, Jeff O'Neill, John eimola
1. The meeting was called to order by Chairperson Richard Carlson at
7:30 p.m.
2. Approval of Minutes.
Motion was made by Cindy I.emm, seconded by Mori Malone, to approve the
minutes of the regular meeting held February 7, 1989, as presented.
Motion carried unanimously.
3. Public Hears - A rezoninj rest to rezone R-2 (single and two family.
reslcentlai) Up tatted resldefiElal land to R-3 (meOlum aensitt
residential). Appilcant, West Prairie Partners.
Mr. Jeff O'Neill, Assistant Administrator, explained to Planning
Commission members and members of the public the applicant's rezoning
request its relationship to the Monticello Comprehensive Plan.
Chairperson Richard Carlson then opened the meeting for input from the
public. Mr. J11e Metcalf, partner in west Prairie Partners, explained to
Planning Commission members and members of the public that their request
to rezone the property is a joint venture with two adjoining property
owners, Mr. and Mrs. Dan Reed, and Mr. and Mrs. Pred.Gille. Mr. Metcalf
indicated he not with City staff several times and also with members of
the Housing and Redevelopment Authority to explain their rezoning request
and the total coat that would be involved with the acquisition of the
land, plus the demolition of the existing house and existing building of
Mr. Gilles, and some possible site cleanup from underground field
storage tanks on the Gille property.
Mr. Dan Reed, adjoining property owner to the West Prairie Partnere'
property and also a co -applicant of the rezoning request, explained to
members of the public and the Planning Commission that he would like to
see the property rezoned or the property could be redeveloped into
another user or if the property could not be rezoned and the zoning
remains is Is, he has a potential buyer to utilize the existing mchine
shop on his property to be grandfathered in as a use of his property.
Concerns that were brought up from members of the public which were
present at the meeting were as followas
Planning Commission Minutes - 3/7/89
•
Is this rezoning request consistent with the ream ieg which was
already done in 1986 on the property, and is it consistent with the
Monticello Comprehensive Plan?
•
Possible depreciation of home values of neighboring properties in
this area if the rezoning is approved.
•
Wby is the developer allowed to ask for rezoning without some type of
redevelopment plan?
•
The total number of single family residential housing units and the
number of single family residential vacant lots in relationship to
the total number of multiple family units as they exist today has
exceeded the 458 ratio.
•
There are 10 areas already existing in the city limits for some type
of multiple family housing, either in an R-3 (medium density
residential) or PZM (performance zone mixed) zoning.
•
If there is substantial cost to cleanup the cille site where the
underground tanks are existing, where are the findings that there are
contaminated soils which exist in the area of the underground storage
tanks?
•
Concerns with regards to liability if multiple family housing units
are constructed and once they are occupied if children would be
playing on the existing Monticello Country Club golf course.
•
Questioned the adequacy of the B -inch sewer line that is laid at a
minimal grade to handle any increase of usage to this line with some
type of multiple family development as proposed.
•
Since some of the new homes were built, the zoning has changed once
and is being proposed to be changed a second time.
•
A signed petition was received from a member of the public signed by
residents in the affected area of the rezoning request.
Chairperson Richard Carlson then closed the public hearing portion of the
rezoning request. Comments raised from the Planning Commission members
were as follows:
•
Has the staff researched the actual percentage of multiple family
units in comparison to the number of single family units and single
family vacant lots?
•
Questioned if there were any numbers known an the percentage of
vacancy which is occurring in our existing multiple family housing
units.
•
The property does need some type of sprucing up.
9
Planning Commission Minutes - 3/7/09
• Has there been any research done to we if there is actually some
contaminated soil present in the underground fuel storage tank
facilities on the Gille property? Jeff O'Neill indicated that there
might be some potential City involvement if the zoning stayed R-2
(single and two family residential).
With no further input from the Planning Commission members, motion was
made by Mori Malone, seconded by Dan MCConnon, to deny the rezoning
request to rezone R-2 (single and two family residential) unplatted
residential land to R-3 (medium density residential). Motion carried
unanimously. Reason for denial: There already exists an oversaturation
of multiple family units in the city relative to single family units,
the developer has sham no plan for proposed use of the land; there
already exists sufficient land within the city for multiple family
development in R-3 (medium density residential) and PZM (performance zone
mixed) zoning; Chapter 21-D-4 of the City Zoning Ordinance was not met.
1. Public Hearing - A conditional use regmt to allow a daycare-qro
nursery in an R-2 (sin%e and two ramlly resioential) zone. A variance
Ulure9uesE Eo aiLB no Qarilnj toc naR eurracifijt no cmmcrete Qirolnq
tfie ark iioE peter, and no lanascaping requlreeenfe.
[lcanE 6aU"H.
Zoning Administrator, Gary Anderson, explained to mehmere of the Planning
Commission and uaemI re of the public which were present the conditional
use request presented by the applicant, Peggy Hanaralt. Zoning
Administrator, Gary Anderson, outlined the conditions which are attached
to the conditional use application under the R-2 (single and two family
residential) zoning. The applicant has demonstrated that the minimum
requirements would be met in numbers 1-7. Conditions number 8 and 9 will
be dealt with in her application process to the Department of Public
Welfare prior to building permit application.
Chairperson Richard Carlson then opened the meeting for input from the
public. Mr. Dave Anderson, partner in Century 21 Home Rey Realty, was
present to explain to Planning Commission mesdere the applicant's request
for no concrete cubing around the parking lot perimeter, no hard
surfacing of the parking lot, and no landscaping requirements. The
realtor indicated that there has been a considerable amount of money
expended to date to go through the process of licensing this proposed
daycare facility, let alone the equipment necessary to operate a daycare
facility.
Questions raleed from the public dealt with why the applicant should need
a variance for the hard surfacing, the concrete cub and gutter around
the parking lot perimeter, and the landscaping requirements when we
already have a daycare facility which had to meet than minimum
requirements prior to it opening for business. The members of the public
had no objection to the actual daycare facility but were concerned about
the completion of the facility prior to it being ready for occupancy or
some sort of guarantee that within a certain period of time the hard
surfacing of the parking lot, the curb and gutter around its perimeter,
and the landscaping would be completed.
0
Planning Commission Minutes - 3/7/89
Chairperson Richard Carlson then closed the public hearing portion of the
conditional use and variance requests. Mr. Carlson then opened the
meeting for input from the Planning Commission members. Questions were
raised by the Planning Commission members that 1) there is a need for
another daycare use within this community, and 2) the existing daycare
facility does already have a waiting list of people needing daycare uses
at this current facility.
With no further input from the public, motion was made by Cindy Lem,
seconded by Dan McOonnon, to approve the conditional use request to allow
a daycare roup nursery in an R-2 (single and two family residential)
zone. Motion carried unanimously.
Motion was made by Cindy Lemur, seconded by Mori Malone, to deny the
variance request to allow no.parking lot hard surfacing, no concrete
curbing around the parking lot perimeter, and no landscaping
requirements. Motion carried unanimously. Reason for denial: The
applicant's failure to demonstrate a hardship other than monetary as
being their hardship.
5. Consideration of preparing an amendment to the Monticello Zoning
ordinance to allow auto boat sho�s as a conditional use within a B-3
i6i"nw business) zone. conilaei graneinq conditional use Qe?mit to
Monticello Auto Body and aiiw an auto body shop tooperate at Lot 4,
5166E z, SA5)er9'$ouiF: Adaition. Appiicant, FwnEice-llo Auto Wiody.
Mr. Jeff O'Neill, Assistant Administrator, explained to Planning
Commission mmnbera and members of the public Monticello Auto Body's
ordinance amendment request. Under the current text of the ordinance,
auto body shops are only allowed in an industrial type of zoning. Even
though the body shop is a service related type of business, the only area
where we allow these are in the industrial type of zoning. Even with its
business type use similar to other uses within "B" type zoning, as there
are many business type uses within our B-1, 9-2, and e-3 zonings, how
would a proposed body shop look in relationship to an existing dental
clinic building just three lots away from the proposed site?
Chairperson Richard Carlson then opened the meeting for any input from
the public. There being no input from the public, he turned the meeting
over for any input from the Planning Commiaeion mambere. Input from the
Planning Commieeion mambere was as follows:
• Would you, Mr. Johnson, have any fuel diapansing performed on your
site? Mr. Johnson replied there would be no dispensing of fuels at
all.
•
How would you propose to handle the fumes which are dispensed from
your business? The fumes from painting done in the body shop are
filtered out through a filtering system which goes through a second
filtering system before entering the exterior of the building.
Mr. Johnson indicated he also intended to install charcoal filtering
as an additional process prior to dispensing of fumes to the outside
of the building.
0
Planning Commission Minutes - 3/7/89
• Do you, Mr. Johnson, own the property? Mr. Johnson responded that he
does have the property on a contingency subject to the approval of
his conditional use request.
• The question was also raised regarding the possibility of creating a
special zone just to allow body shops and other types of automotive
related businesses within a new zone.
With no further input from the public, a motion was made by Dan McOonnon,
seconded by Richard Martie, to deny preparing an ordinance amendment to
the Monticello Zoning Ordinance to allow auto body shops as a conditional
use within a B-3 (highway business) zone] and to consider the possibility
of creating a new zone within B-3 (highway business) zoning to allow such
uses as auto body shops within them. Motion carried unanimously.
6. Public Rearin2re
- A rezoning r est to rezone R-3 (medium density
resiaeltiaLl reelaential piattea Lana to R-2 (single ana two ramify
reslaefiEial$. AppiicanE, ban Prig.
Mr. Jeff O'Neill, Assistant Administrator, explained to Planning
Commission members Mr. Prie's request in that he was not present at the
meeting. Mr. O'Neill indicated to Planning Commission members and
members of the public Mr. Prie's request to down zone from R-3 (medium
density residential) to R-2 (single and two family residential) zoning.
The proposed down zoning to R-2 (single and two family residential) is
consistent with the existing zoning that is adjacent to the area that is
proposed to be rezoned.
Chairperson Richard Carlson then opened the meeting for input from the
public. There being no input from the public or the Planning Commission
members, motion was made by Richard Mattie, seconded by Cindy Lamm, to
approve the rezoning request to rezone from R-3 (medium density
residential) to R-2 (single and two family residential). Motion carried
unanimously.
7. Public Hearing.- A variance request to allow an institutional eiTn to be
Larger tnan allowea Dy OraLna ii. Applicant, MmlticeLLo Country Club.
Mr. Jeff O'Neill, Assistant Administrator, explained to Planning
Commission members and nemI to of the public the Monticello Country
Club's request to allow an additional institutional sign. The definition
of the institutional sign is "A sign which identifies the name or the
name and other characteristics of public, semi-public, or private
institution on the site where the sign is located. This institution
shall include churches, hospitals, nursing homes, schools, and other
non-profit and charitable organizations."
Chairperson Richard Carlson the opened the meeting for input from the
public. Mr. Car Holley, representing the Monticello country Club, was
present to explain the variance request to put up an institutional sign
near the entrance to the Monticello country Club. They had no problem
9
Planning Commission Minutes - 3/7/89
with the proposed location of the sign, even though the previous sign
which was taken down as part of the construction of the Floyd Markling
townhouses was up toward the road from where the proposed sign would be
located now to meet the minimum requirements.
Mr. Floyd Markling indicated to Planning Commission members that this is
not a charitable organization, that they do pay income taxes, therefore,
the Golf Course should not be allowed to have an institutional sign.
Markling went on to suggest that the sign be moved to a different
location which would best serve the entire Monticello Country Club.
With no further input from Planning Commission members, motion was made
by Mori Malone, seconded by Richard Martie, to table the variance
request. The motion carried unanimously. Reason for tabling: A
clarification from the City Attorney, Tom Hayes, as to whether or not the
Monticello Country Club is a nonprofit corporation.
8. Review sign ordinances used by various communities and discuss potential
amenmmnts to the Monticetto Sign Orainance.
Mr. Jeff O'Neill, Assistant Administrator, indicated to Planning
Commission members some information he had gathered from neighboring
communities and also some information that he had received from
representatives of the First National Hank that they had received from
other communities. The information received dealt with the amount of
ti sign height and sign area and number of pylon signs that would be allowed
in business areas and also in areas adjacent to the freeway.
Under the current text of our Sign Ordinance, in our business zoning
under the speed limit of 30 mph, we would allow a maximum sign height of
18 feet and a maximum square footage of 50 aq ft. Under the bonus for
being near the freeway, we would allow a maximum of 32 feet in height and
200 maximum sq ft of sign area. Other communities ranged from a low of
48 eq ft in business zoning away from the freeway to a maximum of
250 mq ft of sign area, with the maximum sign height from 18 feet to a
maximum of 50 feet, and additional sign square footage over 200 eq ft.
With no further information from the Planning 1, iesion members, it was
their suggestion that Mr. O'Neill continue with hie research and come up
with a possible sign ordinance amendment and schedule the public hearing
for it at their next regularly scheduled meeting for April 4, 1989. Some
suggested recommendations would be to go up to 22 feet in height for the
maximum sign height and 100 aq ft for the maximum sign square footage in
business. zoning off of the freeway, and with the areas next to the
freeway stick with 32 feet maximum height and the 200 sq ft of maximum
eign areal and that we go back to the total number of pylons that would
be allowed in any business type zoning be a maximum of one pylon sign per
lot.
Planning Commission Minutes - 3/7/89
" Additional Information Items
1. 1989 goals and membership: The Housing and Redevelopment Authority, the
Industrial Development Committee, and the Camber of Coometee.
2. A simple subdivision request to subdivide an existing I-2 (heavy
industrial) lot into two industrial lots. Applicant, Oakwood Industrial
Park Partnership. Council action: Approved as per Planning Commission
recommendation.
3. A simple subdivision request to subdivide an existing unplatted
residential lot into two unplatted residential lots. Applicant, West
Prairie Partners. Council action: Approved as per Planning Camnission
recommendation.
{. Request for final plat review of a proposed new subdivision plat.
Applicant, Charles Ritxe. Council action: Approved as per Planning
Commission recommendation.
S. Consensus of the Planning Commission meabete was to set the next meeting
date for the Monticello Planning Commission meeting for April 1, 1989,
7:30 p.m.
G. Motion was made by Dan McConnon, seconded by Cindy I.emm, to adjourn the
meeting. The meeting adjourned at 11:17 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Gary 4Mrson
Zoning Administrator
c�
Planning Commission Agenda - 4/4/89
3. Consideration of amendments to Section 3-91E14 and 3-9(E14(c) of the
Son in9_OLG1nanOB p@[tainln9 to the ref�lllatlon of pylon sign height, sign
area, and the number allowed per business alongt Highway 25/
Interstate 94 corridors in the city of Monticello. Applicant, City of
Montidelio. (J.O.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
In response to recent sign ordinance variance requests pertaining to sign
height and size limitations, the City Council directed staff and the
Planning Commission to examine the sign ordinance and consider making
recommendations to Council which would modify the ordinance. Two variance
requests were tabled pending the outcome of the deliberation over
amendments to the sign ordinance. The first variance request involved
Pirst National Bank, which desired to place a pylon sign with a sign area
that is slightly more than twice as large as that which is allowed in the
30 mph zone. The other variance involved the Tam Thumb Store, which
desired to place two pylon signs on the Tom Thumb property. Following is
a review of the major sign related issues that the Planning Commission has
grappled with to date, a review of research done on other communities,
treatment of such issues, and also included is an assortment of proposed
changes to the existing sign ordinance.
POUR MAJOR ISSUES
The Planning Commission did not attempt to direct and rewrite the entire
sign ordinance$ rather, four areas were singled out for analysis and
review. They included sign height and sign area, restrictions in the
Highway 25 corridor, the number of signs allowed, and sign height and size
limits for signs located near the intersection of Highway 25 and I-94 were
examined.
In conducting our research In this matter, the City collected six sign
ordinances from various communities in the metro and outstate areas and
also obtained seven sign ordinances from various communities as chosen by
First National Bank. Each ordinance was reviewed in terms of the four
issues noted above. An abbreviated version of how those ordinances treat
those issues can be found on Exhibit A. Exhibit A lists each community
roughly on the basis of most liberal to most restrictive. Following in a
quick review of Exhibit A in terms of the four issues studied.
Maximum Height
In the 30 mph zone in a business district, sign height in Monticello to
limited to 16 feet. Sign heights in other communities in business zones
range from a low of 18 feet in Monticello to a 36 -foot maximum allowed in
Plymouth. There are a number of communities such as Vaconia, Elk River,
Lakeville, Chaska, and Mound which limit sign height to less than 25
feet. It, therefore, appears that relative to other communities, limiting
sign height to 10 feet in the business zone is relatively restrictive.
Planning Commission Agenda - 4/4/89
Maximum Square Foot Area Allowed.
In the 30 mph zone, sign area is limited in Monticello to 50 sq ft. The
research shows that sign area allowed in other comaamities ranges from
48 eq ft allowed in Mound to 250 sq ft allowed in Anoka. This particular
regulation was difficult to get a handle on, relatively speaking, because
each community tends to apply the maximum square foot area allowed for
pylon signs in a slightly different manner. However, generally speaking,
it appears that the average maximum square foot area allowed tends to fall
somewhere around 80 eq ft for Signe located in a business area similar to
the Highway 25 corridor.
Number of Pylon Signs Allowed Per Property.
In looking at the research, you will note that most communities limit
pylon signs to one pylon sign per property. However, some communities do
allow more than one pylon sign as long as certain conditions are met. For
instance, Minnetonka allows one pylon sign per every 200 feet of frontage
that a property might have on a corner lot. Minnetonka also restricts
pylon development to the extent that the pylon signs on a corner lot must
be at least 200 feet apart. The City of Fairbault allows more than one
pylon sign but limits the total sign area of all the signs to the same
area allowed for a single sign.
Freeway Sign Height and Size Limits. sk, e — Re
As you know, the City of Monticello has provided variances to this section
of the ordinance on numerous occasions. unfortunately, on acme occasions,
a hardship or special circumstance was not clearly defined when granting
the variance, thus setting a precedence which has, in effect, raised the
sign height and site maximum allowed in the unity. The Planning
Commission desired to look at this issue and determine if it wishes to
change the ordinance to reflect the variances, or if it would rather
reaffirm the pre-existing ordinance and hold firm on variance requests
until sufficient hardship can be presented to justify individual variance
requests.
The Monticello Zoning Ordinance allows a 32 -foot sign to be placed in the
freeway bonus area, which is within 800 feet of the freeway. The maximum
sign area allowed for the freeway signs is 200 aq ft. Due to the granting
of variances, the sign height maximum has been indirectly set at
approximately 50 feet. Many of the communities noted in this survey do
not have a freeway passing through the community. Therefore, their sign
ordinances are not as applicable. However, it appears that for those
communities that do have freeways passing through their oomaunities, it
generally appears that the sign height limitations range between 30 feet
in Coon Rapids to 36 feet in Plymouth. It appears then that the
Monticello maximum of 32 feet Is reasonable relative to how other
communities limit sign height along freeway areae.
.2.
Planning Commission Agenda - 4/4/89
PROPOSED CHANGES TO THE SIGN SECTION OF THE MONTICELLO ZONING ORDINANCE
The survey noted above has been shared with the Planning Commission, and
the Planning Commission has provided staff with some input prior to
development of the proposed changes to the sign ordinance. The following
outlines proposed changes in terms of each of the four issues noted
above.
Pylon Sign Height
The ordinance amendment proposes that the pylon sign height along Highway
25 be increased from 18 feet to 22 feet. Twenty-two (22) feet happens to
be the sign height maximum for the 35 mph and seems to be an appropriate
height relative to height restrictions found in other communities. In
addition, if the pylon sign area allowed along the Highway 25 corridor is
allowed to increase, then the sign height should be allowed to increase as
well in order to maintain the proper sign height and size proportions.
Maximum Square Foot Area Allowed.
At the last meeting of the Planning Commission, the Commission directed
staff to apply the 35 mph restrictions to the Highway 25 corridor, which
would have allowed all signs along the Highway 25 corridor to have a
maximum sign area of 100 eq ft. There was some concern, however, at the
time that we needed to look at some of the smaller lots on Highway 25 and
possibly develop some kind of formula that would limit pylon sign size on
smaller lots to avoid the potential of "stacking" 100 sq ft signs. In
response to that concern, staff put together an inventory of properties on
Highway 25 which included the existing front footage of those businesses.
We then started to work with numbers to try to establish a formula that
would on the one hand allow properties with significant frontage to have a
100 eq ft sign, but on the other hand limit properties that are stacked
together to signs of a lesser size. Exhibit A-1 reveals the property
Inventory and outlines a proposed formula for calculating sign area
allowed along Highway 25. The basic formula is as follows: 10 sq ft of
sign area would be allowed per every 3.03 lineal front feet with the
following exceptions: a) All properties would be allowed a minimum of a
50 eq ft sign, which is consistent with the existing ordinance. This sign
area allowance of 50 eq ft would be provided regardless of the lineal
front feet owned by a business along Highway 251 b) The maximum size
allowed would be capped at 100 aq ft regardless of the lineal front
footage of the business along Highway 25. The impact of the proposed sign
ordinance on individual properties can be found in Exhibit A-1. In
summary, those businesses with 330 feet such as Security Financial, First
National Hank, and Wright County State Bank would be allowed to place
signs with a total sign area of 100 eq ft. On the other hand, numerous
properties possessing 165 lineal front feet (one city block) would not be
impacted by the proposed change, as those properties would be allowed a
50 sq ft sign. Under this ordinance, properties such as Royal Tire with
254 front feet would be allowed a sign that is greater than 50 aq ft but
leas than 100 aq ft, as 254 X 3.03 - 77 aq ft allowed. Businesses ouch
-3-
Planning Omission Agenda - 4/4/89
as the Plumbery, which only has 122 lineal feet, would still be allowed to
have a 50 sq ft sign. Businesses such as Monticello Ford, with 646 lineal
feet, would not be allowed to have a 196 aq ft sign, as this ordinance
calls for capping the allowable sign area at 100 aq ft. Planning
Commission and Council may want to insert an adjustment which might allow
a business with a very long frontage to install more than one pylon sign.
This has been done in other communities such as Minnetonka.
The formula, along with the maximums and minimums provided, will result in
a potential increase in sign area along Highway 25 of 31 percent.
Number of Signs Allowed.
It is proposed that the number of pylon signs allowed remain at one sign
per property. It is the view of staff and the Planning Commission that
this is reasonable given the practice of other communities and given the
character of the community.
Sign Height and Size Limitations in the Freeway Bonus Area.
The Planning Commission recommends to Oouncil that no changes be made to
this section of the Zoning Ordinance and that the 32 -foot height maximum
in the freeway bonus area be reaffirmed. It is also the view of the
Planning Commission that future variance requests should be required to
show unique circumstances associated with the development which require
that variances be granted.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. Motion to recommend adoption of proposed amendments.
2. Motion to modify and adopt proposed amendments.
3. Motion to deny adoption of proposed amendments.
C. STAPP RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends adoption of the ordinance amendments as presented. It is
staff's view that the amendments as proposed do comply with Section 22 of
the Zoning Ordinance: 1) The proposed amendments are consistent with the
Municipal Comprehensive Plant 2) The proposed amendments will not
negatively affect the character of the surrounding area or geographic area
involvedt 3) The amendments as proposed will not tend to or actually
depreciate the area in which the amendments will take effects 4) The
demonstrated need has been sufficiently demonstrated.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Exhibit A, comparison of freeatanding/pylon sign regulations administered
by various comrnunitiesi Exhibit A-1, proposed elements of sign ordinance
amendments pertaining to pylon signs located along Highway 251 Proposed
amendment to sign ordinance, Section 3-9-4(c).
Era
1
COMPARISON OF FREESTANDING/PYLCN SIGN REGULATIONS
CITY
ADMINISTERED BYVARIOUSCOMMUNITIES
,3/„10/89
1. 2. 3.
4.
IMAX IMAX I NUMBER
IFREEWAY SIGN HEIGHT
COM4E'NTS
1HT. ISO FT I ALLOWED
I IAREA I
1AND SIZE LIMITS
I
BROOKLYN CENTER
I I Imo` �}•
SIGN HEIGHT & AREA
132 I 160 E PYLON PER 600'
1N0 SPECIAL
LIMITATIONS BASED ENTIRELY
I I I OF FRONTAGE. GAS
(CONSIDERATION
ON SIZE OF BUILDING.
► I I STATIONS ALLOWED ONE
I I I ADDED PUMP PYLON
I
1 1 I MAX HEIGHT 15'
1
ANOKA
I I I MAX AREA 20 SQFT.
1
TOTAL SIGN AREA
I I I
135 1 250 I TOTAL SIGNS NOT TO
I
INOT APPLICABLE
IS LIMITED TO 250 SOFT
I I I TO EXCEED SQ FT MAX.
I
INCLUDING WALL SIGN
I I ►
I
FARIBAULT
I I I
I I I
I
1
2 SO FT OF SIGN AREA
I I 125 I NOT TO EXCEED THREE
155 FEET HIGH/SIGN
ALLOWED PER LINEAL FT
I I I WITH TOTAL SIGN AREA
IMESSAGE LIMITED TO SIMPLE
OF BUILDING FRONT UP
I I I ALLOWED NOT TO EXCEED
(IDENTIFICATION
TO 125 SO FT. INFORMATION
I I I SUM OF INDIVIDUAL SIGN
1
SIGNS SEPARATE
ri
I I I AREAS
I
'ASKA
► I i
I I I
I
y 2 SO FT SIGN PER FRONT FT
1 24 1 100 ► MORE THAN ONE WITH
INOT APPLICABLE
OF BUILDING PLUS 1 SO FT
I I I SIGN AREA LIMITED
SIGN AREA PER LOT FRONT FT
I I I
I
NOT TO EXCEED 100 SO FT
I I I
I
LAKEVILLE
I I I
I I I
I
I
SIGN BEGS ESTABLISHED
1 20 1 100 1 ONE
IVARIAIBLE-BASED ON
BY ZONING DISTRICT -
I I I
ICONDITIOrAL USE PROCESS
NOT BY SPEED LIMIT
I I I
►
OF ADJOINING ROADWAY
I I I
I
OWATONNA
I I 1
( I I
t
I
SIGN SIZE REGULATED BY
135 I 100 I TWO PYLONS ALLOWED
ISIGN OVERLAY DISTRICT
DISTRICT. OWATONNA
1 1 I ON CORNER LOT
► 35' MAXIMUM HEIGHT
8-2 DISTRICT IS EQUAL
I I I PROVIDED TOTAL SIGN
1 200 SQ FT MAX SIZE
TO OUR 8-4 DISTRICT.
I I ( AREA DOES NOT EXCEED
(ADDITIONAL 1 SQ FT
I I MAXIMUM ALLOWED AND
IS1GN AREA ALLOWED
I I ( EACH CORNER HAS MIN
IFOR EVERY ADDITONAL
1 I 1 OF 75' FRONTAGE
1 100 50 FT OF BUILDING
I I 1
(OVER 2.000 SO FT.
I I (ICOND
USE PERMIT NEEDED
FOR LARGER SIGNS W/1 500'
11
COON RAPIDS
30 1 100 1 SIGN PER FRONTAGE
II NO SPECIAL CONSIDERATION
I I WITH LIMITS
IFOR HIGHWAY 10 SIGNAGE
I I 1
1 30' MAX HEIGHT
-YMOUTH
1 36 1 96 1 ONE
IND SPECIAL CONSIDERATION
1
RECOMMENDATION I I I I
CONSIDER ADOPTING FORMULA 1 22 1 50 TO) ONE IREAFFIRM MAXIMUM SIGN
FOR SIGNS ALONG IHWY 25 1 1 100 1 (NO CHANGE) IHEIGHT OF 32' FOR
PROVIDING MAX OF 100 50 FT/ I I I 1PRUPERTIES IN BONUS AREA.
MIN OF 50 SQUARE FEET AND I I I I C NO CHANGE)
10 SO FT SIGN AREA PER 3.031 1 1 1
LINEAL FEET FOR OTHERS. I I I I
See cr/,L.t A II I I II
I I I I
I I I I
z
COMPARISON OF FREESTANDING/PYLON SIGN REGILATIONS
CITY
ADMINISTERED BY VARIOUS COMMUNITIES
1. 2. 3.
A.
IMAX IMAX I NUMBER
IFREEIHAY SIGN HEIGHT
COMMENTS
IHT. ISO FT I ALLOWED
I IAS I
NAND SIZE LIMITS
I
I�I I
I I I
I
IM's HEIGHT IS 36'
WACONIA
1 20 1 80 1 ONE
INOT APPLICABLE
HOPKINS
I I I
I I
I
I
APPLICATION OF SIZE LIMITS
1 35 1 60-80 0. TOTAL SIGN AREA
IND SPECIAL
DEPENDS ON WHICH ZONING
I I I OF BOTH NOT TO EXCEED
IPROVISIONS NOTED
CATAGORY SIGN IS PLACED IN
I I I MAXIMUM SIGN AREA
1 35' MAX HEIGHT APPLIES
ALLOWED
1
BUFFALO
I I I
1 25 1 64 1 ONE
I
INOT APPLICABLE
ELK RIVER
I I I
( I I
I
I
SIGN REQS. BASED ON
1 20 1 64 1 ONE
1NNOT APPLICABLE
DISTRICT REQS
I ( I
I
MINNETONKA
I I I
I I
I
TOTAL SIGN SURFACE PERMIT-
1 32 1 60 E PER 200
IZONIN3 DISTRICT
ED WALL/PYLCN COMBINED
I I I FOOT FRONTAGE.
IRU LES APPLY - NO
( IASED ON BLDNG FRONTAGE
I I I TWO PER CORNER
ISPECIAL CONSIOERATON
OF STRUCTURE - OR 15% OF
I I I LOT I F MORE THAN
1 32' MAX HEIGHT APPLIES
JUILDING FACE - NOT TO
I I 1 200 FEET APART
1
EXCEED 300 SO FEET.
I I I
I
MONTICELLO
I I I
I I I
I
I
SIGN REGS BASED ON
1 18 1 50 1 ONE
IBY ORDINANCE -32' MAX
WALL SIZE/ROAD CLASS/SPEED
I (30 MPH ZONE)
IME INT & 200' MAX AREA
F 1 RST NATIONAL BANK/
I I I
IBY VAR I ANCE - 50' MAX
TOM THUMB ON MAJOR
I I OR I
IME IOHT S T7' MAX AREA
THOROUGHFARE - POSTED SPEED
1 22 1 100 1 ONE
1WITHIN 800' OF FREEWAY
OF 30 MILES PER HOUR.
1 (35 MPH ZONE)
I
MOUND
I I I
1 25 1 48 1 ONE
1-1 —1
I
INOT APPLICABLE
1
RECOMMENDATION I I I I
CONSIDER ADOPTING FORMULA 1 22 1 50 TO) ONE IREAFFIRM MAXIMUM SIGN
FOR SIGNS ALONG IHWY 25 1 1 100 1 (NO CHANGE) IHEIGHT OF 32' FOR
PROVIDING MAX OF 100 50 FT/ I I I 1PRUPERTIES IN BONUS AREA.
MIN OF 50 SQUARE FEET AND I I I I C NO CHANGE)
10 SO FT SIGN AREA PER 3.031 1 1 1
LINEAL FEET FOR OTHERS. I I I I
See cr/,L.t A II I I II
I I I I
I I I I
z
EY 1";6,
W20POSED ELEMENTS OF SIGN ORDINANCE AMENDMENTS PERTAINING TO THE FOLLOWING:
PYLON SIGNS LOCATED ALONG HIGHWAY 25 IN THE 30 MILE PER HOUR ZONE.
MARCH 27, 1989
1. REGULATIONS:
1. TEN SQUARE FEET OF SIGN AREA PER 3.03 LINEAL FRONT FOOTAGE WITH
FOLLOWING EXCEPTIONS.
A. ALL PROPERTIES ALLOWED A MINIMUM OF 50 SQUARE FOOT SIGN
REGARDLESS OF LINEAL FRONT FEET ON HIGHWAY
25.
B. MA)V" SIZE ALLOWED -100 SQUARE FEET REGARDLESS OF
LINEAL FRONT FEET ON HIGHWAY 25.
II. IMPACT OF PROPOSED SIGN ORDINANCE ON
INDIVIDUAL PROPERTIES:
1EXISTINGIFORMULA = 101CJRRENT (ALLOWABLE IRESULTINGIRESULTING
I FRONT ISQ.FT.
SIGN IMAX SIGNISIGN
AREA/IINCREASE IPERCENT
IFOOTAGE 1
3.03 1
AREA 1PROPOSED IPER SIGN (INCREASE
I ON 25 IFRONT
FEET I
IOROINANCE I
I
1 NORTHWESTERN CLINIC
1-1
1 191 1
1---1
58 1
50 1
I
58 1
_-I
8 1
16%
2 MAXWELL REALTY
1 139 1
42 1
50 I
50 1
0 1
0%
3 HISTORICAL SOCIETY
1 90 1
27 1
50 1
50 1
0 1
0%
4 CHARLES FISCH/DENTIST
1 75 1
23 1
50 1
50 1
0 1
0%
5 FLICKER' TV
1 165 1
50 1
50 1
50 1
0 1
0%
6 SECURITY FEDERAL
1 330 1
100 1
50 1
100 1
50 1
100%
7 FIRST NATIONAL BANK
1 330 1
100 1
50 1
100 1
50 1
100%
8 MUNICIPAL LIQUOR STORE
1 165 1
50 1
50 1
50 1
0 1
0%
9 SUBURBAN GAS
1 100 1
30 1
50 1
50 1
0 1
0%
10 DAIRY QUEEN
1 165 1
50 1
50 1
50 1
0 1
0%
11 HOLIDAY GAS/STORE
I 165 1
50 I
50 1
50 1
0 1
0%
12 KENTUCKY FRIED
1 165 1
s0 I
50 1
50 1
0 1
0%
13 MALL/COUNTRY KITCHEN
1 165 1
50 1
50 1
50 I
0 I
0%
14 FREEWAY/COMMUTER LOT
I I
I
I
I
I
16 MONTICELLO FORD
1 646 I
196 1
50 1
100 1
50 I
100%
17 VACANT
I I
I
I
I
I
18 GENERAL RENTAL
1 128 1
39 1
50 1
50 1
0 1
0%
19 THE PLUMBERY
1 124 I
38 I
50 I
50 1
0 1
0%
20 ROYAL TIRE
I 254 1
77 1
50 1
77 1
27 1
54%
21 MARTIES FEED
1 122 1
37 I
50 1
50 1
0 1
0%
22 WRIGHTY COUNTY STATE
1 330 I
100 1
50 1
100 1
50 1
100%
23 BAKERY/PIZZA
1 165 1
SO 1
50 1
SO 1
0 1
0%
24 AV ROOM
1 165 1
50 1
50 1
50 1
0 1
0%
25 BRIDGEWATER
1 330 1
100 I
SO 1
100 1
50 1
100%
26 CLIFFORD HOUSE
1 165 1
50 1
50 1
50 1
0 I
0%
27 MOM MOTORS
1 165 1
SO I
50 I
80 1
0 1
0%
28 6TH STREET STATION
1 330 1
100 1
50 1
100 1
50 1
100%
29 PERKINS
1 330 1
100 1
50 1
100 1
s0 1
100%
30 MCDONALDS
1 280 1
85 1
50 1
85 1
35 1
70%
31 TOM THUMB
I 275 1
83 1
SO 1
83 1
33 1
(o%
32 VACANT
I I
I
I
1
1
33 GLASS HUT
1 104 I
32 1
50 1
50 1
0 1
0%
34 VACANT
I I
I
I
I
I
36 BIO A AUTO
1 110 1
33 I
50 1
50 1
0 1
0%
37 CARMASH
1 264 1
80 1
SO (
80 I
30 1
6096
38 PET HOSPITAL
1 181 1
55 I
50 1
55 1
5 1
10%
39 AUTOMATIC DOOR
1 234 1
71 1
50 I
71 I
21 1
42%
TOTAL
I 6947 1
2105 1
1650 1
2159 1
509 1
31%
4. Pylon Sign: The erection of one (1) pylon
sign for any single lot is allowed under the
following provisions:
(a) Location: No pylon sign shall be located
in a required yard area. In the case of
a corner lot, both sides fronting on a
public right-of-way shall be deemed the
front.
(b) Parking Areas, Driveways: No part of the
pylon signs shall be less than five (5)
feet from any driveway or parking area.
(c) Area, Height Regulations:
SPEED AREA HEIWr
ROAD CLASSIPIMTION (MPH) (SO.PT.) (FEET)
collector 30 25 16
34 SO 20
40 100 24
Major Thoroughfares 30 SO 18
35 100 22
40 125 24
45 150 26
50 175 28
Preeways and
MWessways 55 200 32
and
above
Highway 25 NA 50- 22
100
1. In the case of subject pro4ertJ(
oiractiyi enuttin8 _ tate Ni fiway 25,
ppyylon oign area may range Ham
bo eq rt Eo luu eq ft aeQanding on
Ental Kneel EeeE W&EinI
Hipwa{ YO. Ten square Leet of
Vion ofln area ie ailowea per every
3.UJ r•eeE or lineal frontage with
tna rOLIOW" excaPt Lonsf A11
prrEies Ly er-ecR a 17Ylon sir
viffi a at(� area of w r.9ardlese of
front rootage aCUttinq MlpnwaY 25,
end E4 mein -m !on e1q—n 'area
mall not a coed loo e9 fE
reerOlesa Or total 11;041 footage
or Droperty aoutting Hlgnway 25.
0
M Definitions: Definitions of road
classifications apply as defined by the
official Comprehensive Plan as adopted.
(e) Application: The level at which the sign
control system applies is determined by
the type of road, as defined above, which
directly abuts the subject property.
i. In the case of subject property
directly abutting more than ate (1)
road, each designated by a different
road classification type, the less
restrictive classification shall
apply in determining sign area and
height.
ii. Actual sign height is determined by
the grade of the road from which the
sign gains its principal exposure.
iii. Area as determined by the formula
under 3 (c) above, applies to one
(1) face of a two (2) faced pylon
sign, or two (2) faces of a four (4)
faced sign, etc.
iv. A bonus allowing "Freeway Standard
Signs" (200 sq ft in area and 32'
high) in a ommrcial or industrial
area is available to all businesses
located within 600 feet of a freeway
but do not abut a freeway.
G
PROPOSED ELEMENTS OF SIGN ORDINANCE AMENDMENTS PERTAINING TO THE FOLLCWING:
PYLON SIGNS LOCATED ALONG HIGHWAY 25 IN THE 30 MILE PER HOUR ZONE.
MARCH 27. 1989
I. REGULATIONS:
1. TEN SQUARE FEET OF SIGN
AREA PER THREE FEET FRONIFOOTAGE WITH
FOLLOWING EXCEPTIONS.
A. ALL PROPERTIES ALLOWED A MINIMUM OF 50 SQUARE
FOOT SIGN
REGARDLESS OF CALCULATED SIGN AREA
ALLOWANCE.
B. M4M1MUM SIZE ALLOWED 100 SQUARE FEET REGARDLESS OF
CALCULATED SIGN AREA ALLOWANCE.
11. IMPACT OF PROPOSED SIGN ORDINANCE ON INDIVIDUAL
PROPERTIES:
I EXISTING I FORMULA - 101CURRENT (ALLOWABLE I RESULTING I RESULT ING
I FRONT 1SQ.FT.
SIGN IMAX
SIGNISIGN AREA/11NCREASE
IPERCENT
(FOOTAGE (PER
3.03 1 AREA 1PROPOSED IPER SICU
IINCREASE
I ON 25 IFRCNT
FEET I
(ORDINANCE I
I
1 NORTHWESTERN CLINIC
I -- I
I 191 1
58 1
I
50 I
_________I_1
1--l-
58 I
8
1 16%
2 MAXWELL REALTY
1 139 I
42
50 I
50 1
0
I 0%
3 HISTORICAL SOCIETY
I 90 I
27 1
50 I
50 1
0
I 0%
4 CHARLES FISCH/DENTIST
I 75
23 I
50 I
50
0
I 0%
5 FLICKER' TV
1 165 I
50 I
50 I
50 I
0
1 0%
6 SECURITY FEDERAL
I 330 1
100 I
50 I
100 I
50
I 100%
7 FIRST NATIONAL BANK
1 330 I
100 1
50 1
100 I
50
1 100%
8 MUNICIPAL LIQUOR STORE
I 165 I
50 I
50 I
50 I
0
1 0%
9 SUBURBAN GAS
I 100 1
30 I
50 I
50 I
0
I 0%
10 DAIRY QUEEN
I 165 I
50 1
50 1
50
0
1 0%
11 HOLIDAY GAS/STORE
1 165 I
50 1
50 I
50 I
0
1 0%
12 KENTUCKY FRIED
I 165 I
50 I
50 I
50 I
0
I 0%
13 MALL/OOUNTRY KITCHEN
I 165 I
50 I
50 1
50
0
I 0%
14 FREEWAY/COMMUTER LOT
I I
I
I
16 MONTICELLO FORD
I 646 I
196 (
50 I
100 I
50
I 100%
17 VACANT
I
I
I
I
18 GENERAL RENTAL
I 128 1
39 I
50 I
50 I
0
I 0%
19 THE PLUMBERY
I 124 I
38 I
50 I
50 I
0
I 0%
20 ROYAL TIRE
1 254 I
77 1
50 I
77
27
I 54%
21 MARTIES FEED
I 122 1
37 I
50 I
50 I
0
0%
22 WRIGHTY COUNTY STATE
I 330 I
100 I
50 I
100 I
50
I 100%
23 BAKERY/PIZZA
I 165 1
50 I
50 I
50 I
0
I 0%
24 AV ROOM
1 165 1
50 I
s0 I
50 I
0
I 0%
25 BRIDGEWATER
1 330 I
100 1
50 I
100 I
50
1 100%
26 CLIFFORD HOUSE
1 165 I
SO I
50 I
50 I
0
I 0%
27 MOON MOTORS
1 165 I
50 I
50 I
50
0
I 0%
28 6TH STREET STATION
I 330 1
100 I
50 I
100 1
50
I 100%
29 PERKINS
I 330 I
100 I
SO I
100 1
50
I 100%
30 MCDONALDS
I 280 I
85 I
50 1
85 I
35
1 70%
31 TOM THUM6
1 275 1
83 1
50 I
83
33
I 67%
32 VACANT
I I
I
(
I
I
33 GLASS HUT
( 104 I
32 I
50 I
60
0
0%
34 VACANT
I I
I
I
I
I
36 BIO A (WTO
I 110 I
33 I
50 I
50 I
0
I 0%
37 CARWASH
I 264 I
80 I
SO I
80 I
30
I 60%
38 PET HOSPITAL
I 181 1
55 1
60 1
55 1
S
1 10%
39 AUTOMATIC DOOR
1 234 I
71 I
80 I
71 I
21
I 42%
TOTAL
I�I
( 6947 I
ISI
2105 1
1650 I
I��I�
2159 1
509
I 31%
Planning Commission Agenda - 4/4/89
a 4. Public Hearing - A variance request to allow additional pylon sign height
anc sign area. Applicant, Security Financial. (G.A.)
A. REFERENCE AMID BACKGROUND:
Security Financial is proposing to be allowed to change the existing
two-sided faces on the existing pylon to incorporate their new new
change. Also, they would like to be allowed to add additional pylon sign
area to allow additional 25 aq ft of sign area to the existing pylon
sign. The existing pylon sign area is approximately 50 eq ft in excess
of the maximum amount of sign area allowed.
Under the proposed sign ordinance amendment, the maximum sign area will
be increased from 50 aq ft to a maximum of 100 sq ft of pylon sign area.
The location of the existing Security Financial building complex would
have sufficient land front footage on Highway 25 or Pine Street to be
able to obtain the maximum 100 eq ft of sign area.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. Approve the variance request to allow additional pylon sign height
and sign area.
2. Derry the variance request to allow additional pylon sign height and
sign area.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
With the proposed sign ordinance amendment to be considered prior to this
variance request public hearing, if the total pylon sign area is
increased to 100 aq ft of pylon sign area, we feel that the additional
25 eq ft of sign area which the applicant is requesting should be
denied. The sign faces could be reworked to incorporate the 25 aq ft of
additional sign area as requested for the express teller into this
10 x 10 existing sign area. with it being incorporated into the existing
10 x 10 sign area, there should be sufficient room to acooxplish the aame
message incorporating the new name, Security Financial, and the express
teller sign area also.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Copy of the location of the proposed variance request: Copy of the site
plan for the proposed variance request: Copy of the proposed sign
ordinance amendment.
C�s
9
Er
L l a -W
SCAMP
I"i eauK -III � L eel
{I 1
Tia LOIS 00 PM-tV of
I
Cumom %"AIIY FIM44CIAL
��r1EW
�rTF'OFIT fLY.x f•AI-�
.
'SIyH PAM5(1) W/'TIaAHS-
Spp�����'���'''y�
L1/[.t{i'f imp (p.m. -s- Zoo
VLrL{11Ly
TT``■■ da
Bkj IJHITB SPY•
��
n��g ee
I= CO IK
I 1 1 1 .moi YELLCow QHS (09 G.
DrsLrr 6POWH-PHS W I C
AWHABLE 24 HOURS exlslr Cn61Mf;t a wPrb�75,
RWHT Pr -Is 411.
",_,OPAwie PHS -151G
p' -o• � TELLER slyns-'TVPe lII'
4LVIJ. CAT. C.ALHEI'(f:,Ira
c,"y PHS 411G) W/ 3-wu-;L
A{•1U7P•F- off W uHrre AKP•YLK-
4760 PO4-"-
OMI.
?
SCAMP
f wom
Tia LOIS 00 PM-tV of
3
Cumom %"AIIY FIM44CIAL
hyMDODIST
AAfm
I= CO IK
uory
MGMTICELID
sOyr�r�eeOpen
IaL4
QMWM
AFpOM DAM Mftwpcft MNmm
stw HH
I-w•e�
elie:lTta
c
4. Pylon Sign: The erection of one (1) pylon 10' A
sign for any single los is allowed under the
following provisions:
(a) Location: No pylon sign shall be located
in a required yard area. In the ease of
a corner lot, both aides fronting on a
public right-of-way shall be deemed the
front.
(b) Parking Areas, Driveways: No part of the
pylon signs shall be less than five (5)
feet from any driveway or parking area.
(c) Area, Height Regulations:
SPEED AREA HEIGHT
ROAD CLASSIPICATICN (MPH) (SO.PT.) (FEET)
Collector 30 25 16
35 50 20
40 100 24
Major Thoroughfares 30 50 18
35 100 22
40 125 24
45 150 26
50 175 20
Freeways and
Expressways 55 200 32
and
above
Highwa9 25 NA 50- 22
100
i. In the rectiycase of subject DrgmrtX
ppa_yyllon iiana eiee� ma§" titiSe n A Wi 25,
Eata-i eq ft Eo LOO 9q ft dinA on
EoIineel ieeE rionEinv
Hignway 25. Ten square feet of
ppyylon alln area le ellowea per every
Y.ui feat of lineal frontage with
the following ezC.?tions: 1.ALI
pr rties my erect a eyion sign
v1Efi a sign area or ou r raless of
front foota abutting Hiway L5,
r%iErl wAximum vylon nip area
a fall not excess 16u act ft
regardless of total lineal footage
or property =Uttinq Htgnway 2§.
0
E
l
M Definitions: Definitions of road
classifications apply as defined by the
official Comprehensive plan as adopted.
(e) Application: The level at which the sign
control system applies is determined by
the type of road, as defined above, which
directly abuts the subject property.
i. In the case of subject property
directly abutting more than one (1)
road, each designated by a different
road classification type, the less
restrictive classification shall
apply in determining sign area and
height.
U. Actual sign height is determined by
the grade of the road from which the
sign gains its principal exposure.
iii. Area as determined by the formula
under 3 (cl above, applies to one
(1) face of a two (2) faced pylon
sign, or two (2) faces of a four (6)
faced sign, etc.
iv. A bonus allowing "Freeway Standard
Signs" (200 aq ft in area and 32'
high) in a commercial or industrial
area is available to all businesses
located within 800 feet of a freeway
but do not abut a freeway.
0
Planning Commission Agenda - 4/4/89
5. Public Hearing - Consideration of amendments to section of Zoning
ordinance perEaining to ianascaping. 1J.0.1
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
Following is a final draft of a proposed amendment to the landscaping
portion of the Zoning Ordinance. This proposed amendment stems from
discussions conducted at the joint meeting of the BRA, Planning
Commission, and Industrial Development Committee. It also stems from
discussion conducted at subsequent meetings of the Planning ownission
and Industrial Development Committee. Highlighted on the attached pages
are proposed additions/amendments to the ordinance. The proposed
amendments are designed to accomplish the following:
1. Provide flexibility by allowing landscaping to be expanded as a
perimeter of a developed area expands. The current ordinance
requires that an entire property be expanded even if the development
only encompasses a small portion of the property.
2. Provides Council with the option of allowing landscaping to be phased
in for those developments that occur in the industrial zones. This
reduces the initial cost of industrial development in Monticello
while providing assurances that proper landscaping will occur in
industrial areas.
The ordinance amendments as proposed do not attempt to accomplish the
following:
1. The proposed amendment does not reduce landscaping requirements.
2. The ordinance amendment does not establish criteria for determining
which industrial developments will be allowed to phase installation
of landscaping over the three-year period.
In order to give you the total picture regarding the landscaping
requirements found in the ordinance, I included the entire section
pertaining to landscaping requirements. sections of the ordinance
proposed for amendment are underlined.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. Motion to approve the proposed amendments.
2. Motion to deny approval of the proposed amendments.
]. Motion to modify and approve the proposed amendments.
C. STAFF REOOM ENDATIONt
Staff reoa®ends alternative 11 or N. The landscaping ordinance
amendments presented to you result from considerable input from Planning
Commission and the Industrial Development Committee. It is our view that
the proposed amendments provide a mechanism for the coat effective
-a.
Planning Commission Agenda - 4/4/89
installation of business and industrial development landscaping. The
ammedments will guarantee that adequate landscaping is completed, while
at the same time reducing the initial financial impact to industry
desiring to locate in the community.
D. Nax A -w DATA:
Dopy of the landscaping portion of the Zoning Ordinance, along with
proposed amendments.
-7-
3. In all zoning districts the lot area remaining after
providing for off-street parking, off-street
loading, sidewalks, driveways, building site and/or
other requirements shall be planted and maintained in
grass sodding, shrubs, or other acceptable vegetation
or treatment generally used in landscaping. Fences
or trees placed upon utility easements are subject to
removal if required for the maintenance or
improvement of the utility. Trees on utility
easements containing overhead wires shall not exceed
ten (10) feet in height.
(G) REQUIRED FENCING, SCREENING AND LANDSCAPING:
The fencing and screening required by this subsection
shall be subject to Subsection (F) above and shall consist
of either a fence or a landscaped planting plan.
1. PURPOSE AND OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this policy is
to establish minimum requirements and standards
relative to landscaping, buffering, and screening to
be implemented concurrently with site plans approved
by the CityN the standards and criteria shall be used
by City staff, Planning Coatmtlesion, and City Council
in the review and evaluation of such plans and
development proposals.
The objectives of these requirements are to establish
and maintain forestation of the CityN to provide
appropriate ground cover vegetation for controlled
soil erosionN to enhance when necessary the natural
environment particularly in instances where the
natural environment is disturbed during the course of
developmentN and to establish standards for
utilization of natural materials to achieve desired
screening and buffering.
This policy sets forth minimum requirements of
landscaping, reforestation and technical limitations
to assure that the result is consistent with
reasonable maintenance requirements on a long-term
basis and to assure that the results provided an
aesthetic urban environment.
2. DETAILED LANDSCAPE PLANS: Detailed landscape plane
shall be required in all cases where site plan
approval is specified by the Zoning Ordinance and
Subdivision Ordinance. Site landscape plan should be
based upon the alto plan designs submitted for
approval and, to assure clarity, it is required the
plan be produced on a separate sheet from that
containing grading, drainage, and utility plana.
0
Detailed landscape plans shall include the following
information:
(a) GENERAL:
I. Name and address of developer/owner.
ii. Name and address of architect/designer.
iii. Date of plan preparation.
IV. Dates and description of all revisions.
V. Name of project or development.
Vi. Scale of plan (engineering scale only,
at 1 inch equals SO feet or less).
vii. North point indication.
(b) WE SITE ANALYSIS:
I. Boundary lines of property with
dimensions based upon certified survey.
11. Name and alignment of proposed and
existing adjacent on-site streets.
iii. Location of existing and proposed
utility rights-of-way, easements and
lines (water, gas, electric).
IV. Location of existing and proposed
building.
V. Topographic contours of the minimum
interval of 2 feet, extending at least
100 feet beyond the site boundaries.
vi. Location of existing and proposed
parking facilities, including curbing
detail and traffic island -delineators.
vii. Location of existing and proposed water
bodies.
viii. Location of existing and proposed
sidewalks, trail corridors, and fire
lanes.
is. Other existing or proposed conditions
which would be expected to affect
landscaping.
X. Percentage of gross site area not
covered by structures and pavement.
0
M LANDSCAPE DATE:
I. Planting schedule (table) containing
symbols, quantities, common names,
botanical names, sizes of plant
material, root specification (b.r.,
B i B, potted, etc.), and special
planting instructions.
ii. Existing trees and shrubbery, locations,
common names, and approximate size.
iii. Planting detail (show all species to
scale at normal mature cram diameter or
spread for local hardiness zone.)
iv. Typical sections in details of fences,
tie walls, planter boxes, totlots,
picnic areas, berm, and the like.
V. Typical sections of landscape islands
and planter beds with identification of
materials used.
vi. Details of planting beds and foundation
plantings. 1
vii. Note indicating how disturbed soil areas
will be restored through the use of
sodding, seeding, or other techniques.
Viii. Delineation of both sodded and seeded
areas with respective areas in square
feet.
ix. Coverage plan for underground irrigation
system, if any.
X. Exterior lighting plan.
(d) spec AL CONDITIDNss Where landscape or man-made
materiels are used to provide ordinance or
policy -required screening from adjacent and
neighboring properties, a cross -through section
shall be provided showing the perspective of the
site from the neighboring property at the
property line elevation.
V
(e) COPIES: The following copies shall be provided
in the following format:
i. Blue prints at full-scale and size as
the site plan.
ii. one 8-1/21 by 11" photopositive
reduction or one B-1/2" x 11"
reproducible drawing which will provide
legible copies clearly representing all
details and design an the plan.
Otherwise, to assure legibility, 30
copies of the proposed landscape plan,
folded to approximate 9" x 12", shall be
submittedt petitioners may submit both
reduced and larger size legible copies
to assure such plans are available to
Planning Commissioners and Council
Members.
3. ELEMENTS OF LANDSWE DESIGN AND MINIM NUMER OF
TREES:
(a) Elements of landscape design may include:
i. Existing topographical and vegetative
features;
ii. Berming
iii. Planting, including the required minimum
number of overstory trees, understory
trees, shrubs, flowers, and ground cover
materials.
(b) The minimum number of major or overatory trees
on any given site shall be as indicated below.
These are the minimum substantial planting, in
addition to other understory trees, shrubs,
flowers and ground cover deemed appropriate for
a complete quality landscape treatment of the
site.
i. Commrcial, Industrial, Institutional
sites shall contain at a minimum the
greater of one (1) tree per 1,000 square
feet of gross building floor area, or,
one 11) tree per 50 lineal feet of site
perimeter. When total property area far
exceeds building or developed area, site
perimeter snail be aerineo as tnat ares
aicn extends !U• beyond aide and rear
pard setback or parking areae and/or Al
beyond arae Ina regi Yard setback or
pi mery or accessory structure.
ii. Multi -residential sites shall contain at
a minimum one (1) tree per duelling
unit.
(c) An equivalent of up to fifty percent (504) of
the required number of overstory trees may be
created through the use of overstory trees in
combination with other landscape design elements
as listed in 3 (a) above.
In no case shall the number of overstory trees
be less than fifty percent (50%) of that
appropriate formula. The burden shall be upon
the developer to demonstrate by narrative and by
graphics how the equivalent effect is provided.
The equivalent effect shall be subject to
approval by the City Council.
4. MINIMUM SIZE OF PLU?rrNC9:
(a) Required trees shall be of the following minimum
planting sizes
1. Deciduous trees - 2.5 inches diameter as
measured six inches above the ground.
11. Coniferous trees - 6 feet in height.
l
(b) A minimum of fifteen percent (154) of the
required minimum number of trees for
multi -residential developments shall be
long-lived hardwood deciduous trees, 3.5 inches
in diameter as measured six inches off the
ground.
(c) Evergreen shrubs used for screening purposes,
including those used in conjunction with
berming, shall be a minimum of 24 inches in
height.
5. SPECIES:
(a) All trees used in site developments shall be
Indigenous to the appropriate hardiness zone and
physical characteristics of the site.
(b) All deciduous trees proposed to satisfy the
minimum requirements of this policy shall be
long-lived hardwood species.
(c) The complement of trees fulfilling the
requirements of this policy ahall be not less
than 25 percent deciduous and not less than
25 percent coniferous.
0
6. SODDING AND GROUND COVER: All areas not otherwise
improved in accordance with approved site plana shall
be sodded. Exceptions to this criterion may be
recommended by the Planning Commission and approved
by the City Council as follows:
(a) Seeding of future expansion areas as shown on
approved plane.
(b) Undisturbed area containing existing viable
natural vegetation which can be maintained free
of foreign and noxious plant materials.
(c) Areas designated as open space or future
expansion area properly planted and maintained
with prairie grass.
(d) Use of mulch materials such as bark, rock mulch
over 4 mil poly, and wood chips in support of
shrubs and foundation plantings.
7. STAPES AND BERN:
(a) Pinal elope grades steeper than the ratio of
3.5:1 will not be permitted without special
approval treatment such as terracing or
retaining walls.
(b) Berming used to provide required effective
screening of parking lots and other open areae
shall have elope ratio of 3:1.
8. WOODLAND AND PRESERVATION POLICY AND CREDIT:
(a) It to the policy of the City of Monticello to
preserve the natural forest and woodland areae
throughout the City, and with respect to
specific site developwent to retain, as far as
practicable, substantial tree stands which
should be incorporated into the site.
(b) Credit for the retention of existing trees which
are of acceptable species, sire, and location
may be given to satisfy the minimum number of
requirements set forth in this policy and in the
City Ordinances.
(c) Where conventional multi -residential projects
clearly demonstrate affirmative design efforts
toward the preservation and enhancement of
desirable natural site characteristics, up to
500 square feet per dwelling unit may be
subtracted from the minimum area requirements,
so as to allow up to not more than one dwelling
unit per acre.
05-
(d) Where commercial, industrial, and institutional
uses clearly demonstrate affirmative design
efforts toward the preservation and enhancement
of desirable natural site characteristics,
ordinance required paved parking spaces may be
reduced and installation deferred until such
time as the need for the full complement of
parking. The need shall be determined in
conformance with the 'proof of parking" plan so
approved by the City.
USE OF LANDSCAPING FOR SCREENING: Where natural
materials such as trees or hedges are approved in
lieu of required screening by means of wall or
fences, the density and species of such plantings
shall be such to achieve 90 percent (901) opacity
year -around.
10. USE OF LANDSCAPING FOR SCREENING - IRrERSfATE HIGHWAY
EXPOSURE:
(a) The City of Monticello recognizes the value of
Interstate Highway exposure to commercial and
industrial developers. The City also wishes to
avoid the undesirable monotony of fully exposed
building sides and rears, and wishes to provide
natural visual variety to the travelers on the
Interstate. Natural visual variety will
alleviate the boredom for travelers and will
project a clean and pleasant image of the City
of Monticello. ooxamrcial and industrial
developers of lots/parcels having substantial
exposure to the Interstate shall be required to
landscape/screen to provide sixty percent (601)
opacity year -around, at least eighty percent
(801) of said screening to be of natural
materials.
(b) Residential development on lots/parcels having
substantial exposure to the Interstate shall be
required to landscape/screen to provide ninety
percent (9(1) opacity year -around, at least
seventy-five percent (751) of said screening to
be of natural materials.
(c) All landscape/screening plans for lots and
parcels having substantial exposure to the
Interstate Highway must give design
consideration to the differences in elevation
between the Interstate and the parcel subject to
development, understanding that parcels lower
than the Interstate necessarily require taller
screening to be effective in providing visual
variety and the required percentage of opacity.
0
3-2 [Gill
3-2 (G]13
11. PARKING U)T LANDSCAPrNG: To avoid the undesirable
monotony, heat, and wind associated with large
parking lots, such lots stall have a minimum of one
internal landscaped area/island-delineator, in
addition to any required traffic safety island, for
each additional 5,000 square feet of off-street
parking space after the first 5,000 square feet: such
islands shall be equal in size to a single parking
space and shall be bounded by concrete curbing.
Trees may be installed in approved traffic safety
islands used to delineate parking spaces from driving
aisles and in other area. The internal landscaped
island(s) required above may be deleted if the
aggregate area and trees of individual traffic
islands meets or exceeds the above requirement.
12. AGREEMENT AND BOND:
(a) An agreement will be signed between the City and
the owner which states that in exchange for
issuance of a building permit, the owner will
construct, install, and maintain all items shown
on the approved plan and that he will replace
and/or correct any deficiencies or defaults that
occur in the plan for a period of one complete
year or two complete growing seasons subsequent
to the installation of the landscaping plan. A
landscaping performance bond will be submitted
along with the agreement at this time. For
developmente in I-1 and I-2 zones,uuppaons petition
F
ve .perS the City Council may a11ow
nq-in oL instelletion o! requsrea
caplW1 over a perico or three yeirs in
orcer to recuce initial oevetopment costs.
Terme or the phases installation R ianascaping
to oe incorporatea into the agreement.
(b) If after one complete year or two growing
seasons all the commitments are mgt, then steps
may be taken to release both the bond and
contract agreement.
According to ordinance, the developer/owner is
responsible for maintaining the landscaping in a
neat and proper fashion.
Further, the screening is expected to remain
effective continually, so any plant material
which dies or ceases to function as a screen
shall be replaced or reinforced immediately to
conform to City Ordinance.
13. A required screening fence shall be constructed of
masonry, brick, wood, or steel. Such fence shall
provide a solid screening effect and not exceed eight
(8) feet in height or be less than six (6) feet in
0
height. The design and materials used in constructing
a required screening fence shall be subject to the
approval of the Planning Commission based upon a
recommendation by the City Engineer and Building
Inspector.
(e) GLARE: Any lighting used to illuminate off-street parking
area, sign, or other structure, shall be arranged as to
deflect light away from any adjoining residential zone or
from the public streets. Direct or sky -reflected glare,
where from flood -lights or from high temperature processes
such as combustion or welding, shall not be directed into
any adjoining property. The source of lights shall be
hooded or controlled in soma manner so as not to cast
light on adjacent property. Bare incandescent light bulbs
shall not be permitted in view of adjacent property or
public right-of-way. Any light or combination of lights
which cast light on a public street shall not exceed one
(1) foot candle (meter reading) as measured from the
center line of said street. Any light or combination of
lights which cast light on residential property shall not
exceed 0.6 foot candles (meter reading) as measured from
said property.
(I) SMOKE: The emission of smoke by any use shall be in
compliance with and regulated by the State of Minnesota
Pollution Control Standards, Minnesota Regulation APC
1-15.
W) DOST AND OMER PARTICULMED MATTER: The emission of dust,
fly ash, or other particulated matter by any use shall be
in compliance with and regulated by the State of Minnesota
Pollution Control Standards, Minnesota Regulation APC
1-14.
(R) NOISE:
1. All noise shall be muffled so as not to be
objectionable due to intermittence, beat frequency,
or shrillness, and as measured at any property line
shall not exceed the following intensity in relation
to sound frequency.
0
Planning Commission Agenda - 4/4/89
6. consideration ofer ring an amendment to as a the Monticello Zoning
hibeaineee e. elnan Aipppplicant, City orMontice
u�y s ol16)MMonticel o Auto
within
a
Bo J.O.(
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
As you recall, this item was continued to allow time to explore the
possibility of creating a modified B-3 zone which would allow operation
of an auto body shop. Creating a modified 9-3 zone with auto body as a
condition would serve the dual purpose of allowing the use to occur and
also limit auto body shop activity to a limited area south of the
freeway. After closer scrutiny of the situation, it appears that
limiting development of auto body shop activity as a conditional use in
the B-3 zone can be accomplished without creating a new zone. Rather,
auto body shop activity can be kep n t e area south of the freeway
simply by adding a condition which requires that auto body shop activity
be located no closer than 600 feet from a residential or PEM zone. If
the Planning Oommission wishes to adopt auto body shop activity as a
conditional use in the B-3 zone, then it should add the aforementioned
condition to the list of conditions already reviewed.
The remainder of this memo contains same repeat information on this topic
which I included in order to brief the Oouncil on the topic.
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 8-3 zone. If the Planning
Ooamission 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 4, 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.
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, ommrcial recreation uses, motels, restaurants,
cafes, printing office. There is also potential for development of 9-1
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 e-3 location and had a negative
view of the proposal. This particular proposal is otherwise unrelated to
the issue addressed in 1986.
-e-
Planning Commission Agenda - 4/4/89
ANALYSIS
The Zoning Ordinance requires that the Planning Commission review
amendments in terms of the amendment's consistency with the Comprehensive
Plan, co Wtibility 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.
Character and Geographic Area Involved
There are a number of allowable uses in the B-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 shop adheres to strict conditional use
permit terms, 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 I1 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 0-3 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
areas 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 shops 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 9-3 location provides. Furthermore, the
existence of an auto body shop in a "retail" area will not likely
contribute to development of a cohesive commercial or highway service
area.
The major benefit to a shop located in the e-3 Lome is the advertising
value created by proximity to highway traffic areas.
Whether Such Use Will Tend to or Actually Depreciate the Area in Which it
to Proposm
This particular decision factor generates a potential argument against
the proposed amendment. It may be that a well run, clean auto body
513
Planning Ocmeission Agenda - 4/4/89
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 B-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) zone,
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 shop as a conditional use in the B-3 zone.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACPIONS:
1. lotion 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 301 of the floor space of the
structure housing the auto body shop.
3. All vehicles being serviced and all vehicle parte 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 -Loot high, 1001 opaque fence
designed to blend with the auto body shop structure and
consisting of materials treated to resist discoloration.
S. Ploor 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-vay shall consist of
no more than 401 metal material.
S. 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.
10. No conditional use permit shall be granted for an auto body shop
within 600' of a residential or PZM zone.
-10-
Planning Commission Agenda - 4/4/89
Motion based an the finding that amendment is consistent with
Comprehensive Plan, amendment and conditions results in auto body
shop activity to be compatible with the character of the surrounding
area.
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 B-3 zone and there is no demonstrated
need for establishing the proposed conditional use in the 9-3 zone.
3. Motion to establish new district - 9-3-A.
C. STAFF RBOOt9ffiNDATIONs
Honing Amendment Issue
ibis is a difficult recommendation to make, as auto body repair as a use
of property seems to fall somewhere between B-3 and I-2 use. From a pure
planning sense, a case could be made to discourage development of this
type of activity in a high traffic or retail area. 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 a strong negative
effect an surrounding property if conditions are adhered to. Then again,
a final recommendation will be made after I visit a few auto body shops
this weekend. Monitoring compliance with the numerous conditions will
present an ongoing burden.
ONSIDERATION OF CONDITIONAL USE REQU'i_4T
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. However, 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 is a vacant lot. It is my understanding that
the structure will be set back 10 feet from this lot line. In addition,
It to 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 aide lot line.
To the south of the site is the tire dealership. The proposed
development, it done properly, should not have a negative impact on this
neighbor.
IM
Planning Oommission Agenda - 4/4/89
To the east is Sandberg Road, and across the street is the General Rental
operation.
To the west is Marvin Road, which is an undeveloped right -of -ray. It is
a oonoern that the back of the steel structure planned say not enhance
the view along this street and the existence of an auto body Shop may
inhibit development of the area. An effort should be made to landscape
the rear of the property in anticipation of this right-0f-4ay being
developed in the near future.
In addition, a recent planned unit development called for the rezoning of
adjacent land west of Marvin Elwood Road from B-4 to a residential zone.
Future rezoning of this property combined with existing conditional use
terms as proposed would then result in the auto body shop becoming
not -conforming.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. Motion to approve conditional use permit request contingent an
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 zone.
_ 2. Motion to deny request.
C. STAFF R80OM@ffiIDATION:
Staff recommendation is pending. Between now and Monday I plan on
visiting a few auto body shops to get a feel for the inpact created on
adjoining properties. I will have my video camera along and hope to
share the video with you at the meeting.
D. SUPPORTING DATAt
Oopy of commercial policies in Cosprehensive Plano Copy of letter from
Central Minnesota projectional Copy of site plan, location map.
-12-
COMMERCIAL POLICIES
1. Commercial development in general and successful retailing
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
areas foc highway oriented commercial develooment requiring
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 new shopping areas 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 Q
commercial acnes ace particularly advantageous for retail uses,
as 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,
'otcip' and •spot' commercial developmant should not be
permitted.
6. Highway oriented uses along Interstate 94 should be concentrated
to the greatest extent possible so as not to waste prim*
commercial land nor spread the uses so as to not be definable as
a 'viable commercial area•.
7. Puture commercial areas should be based upon the concept of the
integrated business center developed according to a specific
site plan and justified by an economic analysis of the area to
be served.
S. All major commercial areas shall be pre -zoned based upon the
Comprehensive Plan. No areas shall be ce-zoned to commercial
use unless they are shown to be properly located in accordance
with the policies and standards of the Comprehensive Plan.
9. Boundaries of commercial districts shall be well-defined so as
to prevent intrusion into residential areas; residential areas
must be properly acceaned from the associated ill effects of
adjacent and nearby commercial area.
-48-
February 28. 1989
Planning Commiaalon
City of Monticello
250 East Broadway
Monticello, MN 55362
Dear Planning Commisalon 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 _a 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 conelderation.
AL M NF�QTA PROJECTIONS
Jamea P. P star, Partner
r• � Q'tll� .a�•i. '`�.,J (�•.T�t4� ;;7. _`+a i�
�r ;fir. •p, �.! '�. r� •�, a• �•%�!! +~i •1 'r ,. T'".;Y+• �.
'� i�;.t.�, a i j,. ` ,.,�, '` f• � 1...,,, �` ` 1 '�i �. y ; >",1;0.'
n Oneto r ;
t
H 1 GM WAY Conside=atlon
of ooi yGlt7d NIS-
the
I
111 the Monticoilo�itiona ab t
�s _ °hoD° as °tineas) LOnO�utA
(tsi9 way bus�ntiCello N0. 9q
• y !� 462CANI' i
It
.�;
I r r'S � �''� fit/ / � �� • �4 • �" 1 • ' !rr i/ r�,�.
Consideration of i�ng ;an iamendment
it I the Monticello Zoni Y�[atice 'to/aJ1jimuL—auto
shops as a conditions 6 ,within 1 y '✓. `' /
+,' (highway business) zone.
�� .�..�L `i.M.�•,' ti �PLICANT: Monticello Auto
I - 1
otai
1 �u A
1 ��IIt ML�1 1 I y T
dA$ �
PA -
If MUM— —PARK
L /
Dental
;'T 'r�Oftca
..-Vacant lumbing
-Vacant
I General Rental
1
vi
1 . I
1 1 1 1
L ,
17
• 4 '�_%'tet'` _i^�- .•'•��:?�-��•-- -�-: y�-RS,.. •,--------�•-'b-
AO
H1 +lot HJ
. , . '•� - ;,�. p'•q`:.: it
02
0-3
City of Monticello
Wright County Minresota
Existing Zoning � ,_ c � c i.
(�'�� NY1 Me.iClNitw.wNttOM .."/ � �• , � � '� '� 'i a ..
YiYiifliii � t•�t"^"ttMC��+"rt��. ,w0
h
Planning Commission Agenda - 4/4/89
Consideration of Prelimina.Y Plat approval of the "evergreens" subdivison
Phase Ii COnClCeration of an amendment to the rezonin of Ever(jreens
aevel.pment area Pnse I-V tram "rlcultural to R-1 Jiow aensit,�(
resitlentl81)r and consioeration of R3ellberg East Molls Hama Park
expansion pians. (J.O.f
A. REPEHEN4CE AND BACKGROUND:
On May 10, 1988, the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing at
which time many of the Rjellberg development issues were addressed. At
that time, the Planning Coamisson elected to table any recommendation to
Council pending resolution of certain issues, pending development of
additional engineering data, and pending a plan for resolution of an
on-going pollution hazard presented by the Rjellberg East Mobile Rome
Park. After considerable study and negotiation, staff submits the
following update to the meeting held May 10, 1988.
Engineering Issues
According to the City Engineer, engineering issues associated with the
design of the sanitary sewer system, water system, and storm drainage
system have been resolved. See the letter submitted by eadalich to City
for more information. The initial design of the sewer system has included
development of a series of expensive lift stations. The new plan does not
require installation of lift stational however, 23 lots of the 236
proposed will not be able to receive gravity service at the lower basement
level.
The Storm (later Management Plan calla for establishment of numerous
holding pond areas located throughout the development area. According to
the City Engineer, the holding pond areas will be sufficient to handle
100 year flood levels. It is ov understanding the holding pond areas will
not retain run-off for extended periods.
General Development Plan
The development plan reviewed previously by the Planning Commission called
for a three phase development, with the initial phase starting on the
Highway 25 side of the development area. The new plan calls for five
phases of development, with the first phase located in the northeast
corner of the development. The first phase will consist of 41 Iota.
Phase I will access City services via lateral extensions of sewer and
water trunk lines connecting to the existing trunk line at the corner of
Dundas and Cty. Rd 118. Extension of an expensive deep trunk line from
Its present location is not contemplated at this time. Rjellberg East
Mobile Home Park will be required to connect to the city system at the
south and of Phase II prior to issuance of occupancy permits associated
with Phase 1I. This provides additional assurance to the City that the
pollution problem created by the mobile home park is ultimately resolved.
If the PCA or State Health Department requires that Rjellberg connect to
city systems prior to development of Phase II, the City has the option of
exercising its authority to connect the mobile home park to the city
system and asaess the costs accordingly.
-13-
Planning Commission Agenda - 4/4/89
Years from now when Phase V is proposed for development, the serer service
demand created by Phases I-V and the mobile home park will require that
the deep trunk line be extended to the area. The City will reap
significant savings by delaying the extension of the trunk line until such
time that Phase V develops. Furthermore, delaying the extension of the
trunk line will improve the timing of the trunk line development relative
to future development expected on adjoining properties. In other words,
the City saves money by delaying installation of the trunk line until it
is necessary.
:riLT���iL':'?
Street Names
The amended preliminary plat reveals a new system for naming streets which
is consistent with the existing city System.
Park Development
After considerable negotiations, the developer agreed to relinquish two
additional lots along the previously identified park area which results in
an increase in the proposed park area to a level sufficient to meet the
dedication requirement outlined by ordinance. The park area proposed
consists of 9.1 acres, which exceeds the minimum requirement of 8.6
acres. Of the total park area, 57% is within the power line easement and
431 is not within the easement area. It is proposed that the developer
provide a warranty deed for the entire park area at the time of plat
approval of Phase I.
Developer Agreement
Attached is a copy of the Developer Agreement which outlines terms and
conditions associated with the "evergreens" development. For the most
part, the Developer Agreement outlines financial agreementas however,
there are sections that detail planning related issues which you may be
interested in reviewing. I recommend that you review this document and
note any questions that you might have.
Subsequent to the Planning Commission review in May of 1988, the City
Council approved development of an assesstent policy which would require
that developments support the coat to extend ewer and water trunk lines.
The area assessment amount was established at $2,500 per acre for sewer
and water. '!Itis particular project will not require the extension of
trunk lines immediatelyt however, in time, a trunk line will be needed in
part to relieve demand created by the development. The Developer
Agreement includes a finance method designed to provide assurance that the
Evergreens would financially support its fair share of the cost to develop
future trunk lines. The Development Agreement outlines what I feel is an
Innovative approach to payment of the "area assessment", which calls for
development of a "sinking fund" which is required to be created as
followes each home will be charged an additional $200 hookup tee which
will be placed in the trunk line fund. In addition, each homeowner
-14-
Planning Commission Agenda - 4/4/89
utility bill will include a quarterly surcharge of $12 per quarter. The
funds created will be sufficient to finance the Evergreens' portion of the
trunk line at such time that the trunk line is needed.
Rjellberg East Mobile Hama Park will also contribute toward this sinking
fund, as the extension of the trunk line will also be caused in part by
the demand created by the mobile home park. Please review the Rjellberg
East Mobile Home Park development agreement for details on the mobile home
park participation in the trunk line development sinking fund.
REZONING ISSUE
In order for the Evergreens plat to be viable, the development area mist
be rezoned from agricultural to R-1. If the Planning Commission is
satisfied with the preliminary plat, then a motion should be made to
recommend rezoning of the Evergreens development area.
The as holds true for expansion of the mobile home park area. If the
Planning Commission is satisfied with plane for expansion of the mobile
home park, then a motion should be made to rezone the entire Rjellberg
East Mobile Home Park area from Agricultural to R-4.
CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF MOBILE HOME PARR EXPANSION
As noted in the May 10, 1989, supplement, the plan meets all minimwm
requirements in terms of lot size and configuration. However, it to
proposed by Rjellberg that the development be allowed to utilize the same
construction standards found throughout the remainder of the development
and that Rjellberg be required to meet the requirements of the State
Health Department in terms of the design of any on-site sewer facilities.
It is the view of staff that Rjellberg'e proposal to not ideal.
Ordinarily, the City would be in a position to review and approve the
sewer planar however, the sewer system has already been installed in
response to PCA pressure to resolve an immediate problem associated with
sewage created by the existing mobile homes. At a minimum, the City
should receive plans describing the system and receive a letter from the
State Health Department that the system Is operational.
The City is also asked to ignore requirements associated with placement of
curb and gutter. Rjellberg requests that the City dismiss this
requirement, as his pre-existing park area does not have curb and gutter.
It is the view of staff that the provision of curb and gutter in the area
proposed is not critical to the success of the development.
It to recommended that the Park be allowed to expand contingent on
Rjellberg gaining approvals from appropriate state agencies.
0. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. Motion to reco®erd approval of Evergreen preliminary plat, rezone
Evergreens development area from agricultural to R-1, rezone
Rjellbergs East Mobile Home Park area to R-4 (mobile home
residential), motion to approve plana to expand Rjellberg East Mobile
Hose Park contingent on state agency Approval.
planning Commission Agenda - 4/4/89
2. lotion to recommend denial of said approvals.
C. STAFF RBOOMMENDATCH:
Staff recommends alternative 1.
D. DATA:
Preliminary plat of the Evergreen; Letter from City Engineer regarding
statue of design plans; Copy of Developer Agreement! Copy of letter to PCA
regarding proposed development plan.
.16-
Orr
March 29, 1989
City of Monticello
250 East Broadway
Monticello, MN 55362
Attn: Mr. Jeff O'Neill
Assistant City Administrator
Re: Evergreen Development
Monticello, Minnesota
OSM Comm. No. 1748.56
Dear Jeff:
2071 Fast Menneprn Avenue
Winneapolis. MN 55413
612-331.6660
FAX 331-3806
Sunryors
Planners
Since about April of 1988, we have been working with you, Kent Kjellberg, and
Kjellberg's Engineer Bill Block, on the referenced subdivision. I believe we have
finally arrived at a point where Kjellberg, through his Engineer, can develop final
plans, specifications and bidding documents for the project. We have received his
many submittals and re -submittals for sanitary sewer, watermain and storm water
drainage, and have found them to be satisfactory in concept and preliminary design.
More specifically, the following outlines some of the details we will be looking
for in the final plans and specifications when they are submitted.
SANITARY SEWER
Our latest submittal to you dated March 27, 1989 indicates that the final con-
ceptual plan layout for sanitary sewer for the project is in compliance with the
City of Monticello standards and final construction plans can be prepared. The
sewer grades are minimal and in some areas of the subdivision will require split
level entry residential construction due to the minimal sewer depth in the street.
WATERMAI
The conceptual layout was reviewed some time ago and found to be in general
agreement so that final construction plans can be prepared. We will again review
these plans in their final stage to see that hydrant spacing and location of gate
valves meet the City requirements.
GRADINO
The overall grading plan and preliminary street grading plans are in order and can
be developed through final construction plans. Special attention must be exercised
in the overall grading plan to see that all lots are graded out to their entirety
so as to prevent any lots from not draining properly to the street or along the lot
line easements.
N-WOFP.ftpaca0�0
�r Page Two
Mr. Jeff O'Neill
March 29, 1989
STORK MATER DRAINAGE
The overall drainage plan and hydrological studies were reviewed by my staff and
found to be satisfactory. In my August 29, 1988 letter to you on this subject,
along with an attached interoffice memo, I noted that specific storm sewer systems
were not shown as to how runoff from the streets and lots was conveyed to the
ponding system. Also, the interconnecting piping between ponds and/or drainage
ditches of highway and county roads will have to be designed. We are assuming that
this information and design will be forthcoming at the time the final construction
plans are prepared.
In summary, the conceptual and preliminary plan layout of these utilities and
grading work is recommended for approval providing all the comments noted above are
incorporated in the final plans which will also be reviewed by the City.
If you may have any Questions in this regard, please give me a call.
Very truly yours,
ORR-SCHELEN-MAYERON
;Cairtyy
C AT 1NC.
. Badalich, P.E.
Engineer
JPB:mlJ
cc: Melchert/Block
2071 East Hennepin Avenue
Orr
BOntleapolb. MN 55113
612-331-8660
FAX 331.3806 F�neen
Sun�ws
Plannet3
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mr. Jeff O'Neill
Assistant City Administrator
FROM: John P. Badalich, P.tn
City Engineer
SUBJECT: Sanitary Sewer ConceKjellberg's •Evergrevision
Monticello, Minnesota
OSM Comm. No. 1748.56
DATE: March 27, 1989
We have reviewed the revised Conceptual Sanitary Sewer Plan for the Kjellberg
"Evergreen' Subidivision as prepared by Melchert Block Associates, Inc. and dated
17 March, 1989. All of the corrections based on my memorandum to you dated March
15, 1989 have been completed. The sanitary sewer schedule still contains one
typographical error. The sanitary sewer depth for Manhole 17 should be 11.9 feet
instead of the 11.4 feet as shown on the plan. This is not critical but should be
corrected on the final conceptual plan. The conceptual plan layout is in
compliance with the City of Monticello standards and can be used to prepare final
construction plans. A red lined copy of the plan is enclosed.
JPB:lmt
Enclosure
cc: Mr. 8111 Block, Melchert/Block Associates, Inc.
COw t7lpon.ry rapb)c,
O
Revised 3/21/89
KJELLBERG'S MOBILE HOME PARR EAST
DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT
THIS AGREEMENT, made this day of ,
1989, between the CITY OF MONTICELLO, hereinafter referred
to as the "CITY" and KJELL,BERG'S, INC., a Minnesota
Corporation, its successors and assigns, hereinafter
referred to as the "DEVELOPER".
WHEREAS, the DEVELOPER has submitted a written request
to the City as outlined in the Preliminary Plat Application
entitled "EVERGREENS", a residential subdivision contiguous
on its proposed southerly boundary line with the existing
mobile home park development within the CITY commonly known
as KJELLBERG'S MOBILE HOME PARK EAST, hereinafter referred
to as the "EAST PARK";
WHEREAS, the parties and certain other governmental
agencies desire the East Park utilise CITY sewer service;
WHEREAS, the DEVELOPER has requested the extension of
trunk sewer service to the EVERGREENS;
WHEREAS, the CITY desires that trunk sewer facilities
be extended from its present termination point at Dundas
Road, to a position in the County Highway #117 right of way
at the northeast corner of the EVERGREENS;
WHEREAS, the DEVELOPER will act as part of the utility
Improvements to EVERGREENS FIRST ADDITION to extend at its
expense the sewer laterals through anticipated public
right-of-ways not within EVERGREENS FIRST ADDITION, to a
point where it can hook up EAST PARK to CITY sewer.
WHEREAS, Minnesota Statute 462.358 authorizes the CITY
to require execution by the DEVELOPER a contract secured by
financial consideration and guarantees that insures that the
improvements described will actually be constructed.
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual promises
of the parties, made herein.
IT IS AGREED BY AND BETWEEN THE PARTIES HERETO that the
DEVELOPER, pursuant to financial guarantees not forth in
that certain contemporaneously executed companion agreement
hereinafter known as the "EVERGREEN DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT"
will forthwith employ at its expense a contractor or
contractors approved by the CITY and pursuant to plans
approved by the City, to install without the
v
borders of proposed EVERGREENS FIRST ADDITION the necessary
sanitary sewer laterals, lift stations and monitoring
devices necessary to put the EAST PARR on CITY sanitary
sewer.
IT IS ALSO AGREED:
1. That the agreed $50,000 cost of extension of
the municipal trunk sewer line from its present
termination at Dundas Road to a position in the
County Highway 117 right-of-way at the northeast
corner of EVERGREENS FIRST ADDITION shall be
credited against the EAST PARK AREA ASSESSMENT FOR
TRUNK SEWER AND TRUNK WATER.
2. That the EAST PARK shall be subject to an AREA
ASSESSMENT FOR TRUNK SEWER AND TRUNK WATER
equivalent 35 acres times $2500 per acre equalling
$87,500. The balance of $37,500, after the credit
set forth at paragraph one, shall be payable at
the rate of approximately $2872. annually,
including interest at 6.50. DEVELOPER hereby
consents to certification by the CITY as
prescribed by law to the Wright County Auditor of
an amount not to exceed $37,500, as herein
calculated at an interest rate not to exceed 6.5%
annually, based on a 30 year amortization, subject
to Developers right to prepay before interest
accrues as provided by law.
3. That the EAST PARK sewer access charge and water
access charge shall be $225 per mobile home pad.
This SAC/WAC fee (123 pads x $225) of $17,675
shall be payable annually over five years plus
6.5• interest.
4. At such time as a trunk sanitary sewer line
becomes available easterly of the EAST PARK in
County Highway 117 right-of-way DEVELOPER may hook
at his expense without further fees or charges.
S. The parties acknowledge that EAST PARK is serviced
by a private common water supply. At such time as
municipal water may become available or necessary
DEVELOPER may hook up to the municipal water
system at its expense. Developer may hook up at
the then prevailing fee based upon pipe size, not
a fee based upon inhabitants or the number of
mobile home pads. The parties acknowledge that
the current hookup charge would be approximately
$1,500.00, it being the intent of the parties that
the methodology of calculating the hookup fee not
be changed.
6
6. LAST PARR shall be charged a user fee for sanitary
sewer service and water service if and when
connected at normal residential rates based upon a
flow meter installed at Developer's expense.
7. CITY agents are hereby granted the right to come
upon the premises for purposes of periodic meter
readings.
8. The parties acknowledge and agree that the East
Park has been and shall continue to be subject to
the licensing and jurisdiction of the Minnesota
Department of Public Health.
9. It is anticipated that the EVERGREENS proposed
plat will develop consistently with its
Preliminary Phased Plan. The City shall not issue
any Certificates of Occupancy for residences in
PHASE II until such time as the EAST PARK is
hooked up to City sanitary sewer service on a
temporary basis. The permanent sewer hookup of
EAST PARR shall occur at the time that PHASE V
underground utilities are installed from the
permanent lift station site as reflected on the
February 6, 1989 Revision of the utilities plan.
In the event the temporary and permanent sanitary
sewer hookup from the EAST PARR do not occur the
City is hereby granted a temporary easement for
sanitary sewer installation one rod wide
consistent with the proposed road layout as
outlined in yellow on the attached Exhibit A. The
temporary easement shall terminate as the roads
within PEASE II and V are accepted by the City and
it shall provide a Quit Claim Deed extinguishing
the easement as to that Phase. The temporary
sewer line shall be a private line installed and
maintained by the Developer.
The City shall have the right to utilise said
temporary easement and hookup the EAST PARK,
charging Developer therefore, upon the occurrence
of one of the following events:
(a), Failure of Developer, his succossors and
assigns to hook up the EAST PARK when
installing underground utilities for PHASE II
of "THE EVERGREENS"i OR
(b) In the event a state of federal regulatory
agency imposes pecuniary sanctions or
limitations upon the City or Developer, OR
0
(c) Thirty days after commencement by a state or
federal regulatory agency of administrative
or judicial proceedings against City or
Developer to force sewer hook up of the EAST
PARK.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have set their
hands the day and year first above written.
CITY OF MONTICELLO
By
Its Mayor
By
Its Administrator
KJELLBERGS, INC.
By
Kent Kjellberg
CITY OF MONTICELLO)
i STATE OF MINNESOTA)
COUNTY OF WRIGHT )
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this
day of , 1989, by Ken Maus,
Mayor, and Rick Wolfateller, Administrator, on behalf of the
City of Monticello.
KJELLBERG, INC.)
STATE OF MINNESOTA)
COUNTY OF WRIGHT)
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this
day of , 1989, by Kent
KKelMberg as President of Kjellberg, Inc. on behalf of
Kjellberg, Inc.
0
THIS AMUM2MM, made this day of ,
1989, by and between the CITY OF MONTICELLO, MINNESOTA,
hereinafter referred to as the "City" and KJELLBERG'S, INC.,
a Minnesota corporation, its successors and assigns,
hereinafter referred to as the "Developer".
WHEREAS, the Developer has submitted a written request
to the City as outlined in the Preliminary Plat Application
entitled "EVERGREENS" for the platting and development,
hereinafter referred to as the "Development", of the
following described property located in the City of
Monticello, County of Wright, State of Minnesota,* to -wit:
WHEREAS, the parties additionally desire a permanent
resolution to utility issues associated with Kjellberg's
Mobile Home Park East. That Kjellberg' Mobile Home Park
East shall be the subject of a separate development
agreement.
WHEREAS, the parties desire that the Development, known
as "EVERGREENS", utilize city sewer and water service.
WHEREAS, the Developer has requested the extension of
sewer service to the Development.
WHEREAS, the City desires that sewer facilities be
extended from its present termination point at Dundee Road
to a position in the County Highway 117 right-of-way at the
northeast corner of the Development.
WHEREAS, the Developer will act to extend the sewer
factility as desired by both parties to said point at the
northeast corner of the Development at his expense which
construction cost of 150,000.00 will be credited against
other fees which are the subject of the Kjellberg's Mobile
Home Park East Development Agreement.
Whereas, the parties desire that municipal water lines,
sanitary sewer lines, concrete curb and gutter, bituminous
surfaced streets, and other improvements hereinafter
described, be constructed within "EVERGREENS" development
phased in five ADDITIONS.
WHEREAS, the City Council by resolution adopted
has granted final approval
to the preliminary subdivision and EVERGREENS FIRST through
FIFTH ADDITION on the condition that the Developer enter
V
into this agreement to provide for the installation of
street, water, sewer, and other improvements hereinafter
described on the terms and conditions hereinafter set forth.
Each ADDITION shall meet the conditions of this agreement
independent of the other ADDITIONS.
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual promises
of the parties made herein,
IT IS AGREED BY AND BETWEEN THE PARTIES HERETO that the
Developer will forthwith employ at its expense a contractor
or contractors, approved by the City, who will construct
municipal water line and sanitary and sewer lines, concrete
curb and gutter, and bituminous surfaced streets within the
Development.
IT IS ALSO AGREED:
ARTICLE ONE - PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS
The Developer shall, at its own expense, forthwith,
construct the improvements mentioned above. Before the work
is commenced, the Developer shall obtain written approval of
the City Staff and Engineer of the plans and specifications,
including landscape plans, for the work which shall be
prepared by the Developer, at its own expense, in accordance
with the City's Engineering guidelines as outlined in the
Monticello Design Criteria Manual. Soil borings shall be
provided as recommended by the City Engineer and the
Developer's engineer jointly
After completion of the work, the Developer's engineer,
under the direction of the City Engineer or his assignee,
shall prepare all As -Built drawings of the improvements
mentioned above in the original mylars. In case of any
dispute as to what is meant by the plans and specifications,
the decision of the City Engineer shall control. one set of
reproducible plans (mylars) and three (3) sets of the
As -Built blue line plans shall be delivered to the City by
the Developer's Engineer. The Developer shall notify the
City of the names and addresses of all the engineers who
assist the Developer in the project.
All plans for connection to City water service shall be
approved by the City Engineer prior to construction of
connecting water lines.
ARTICLE TWO - BUILDING CONSTRUCTION
Developer shall not commence construction of any
building on a lot in the Development until all bonds or
security agreements required by this Development Contract
have been filed and accepted by the City, and until all
legal, administrative, and engineering expenses then due
7
w
have been paid, and also until the final plat of the
Development has been filed, along with all restrictive
covenances and conveyances, with the Wright County Recorder
or Registrar of Titles, as the case may be. A copy of all
conveyances and restrictive covenants shall be sent to the
City Attorney by the title company, if any, as proof that
they were *filed or recorded. Developer shall provide a copy
of the approved Final Plat and a copy of the updated
abstract for the City Attorney to complete a title search.
Five copies of the final plat shall be submitted to the City
at the time that the plat is signed by the City for filing
at Wright County.
NO CONSTRUCTION SHALL COMMENCE AND NO BUILDING PERMIT
SHALL BE ISSUED BEFORE PLAT OF RECORD AND ALL FINANCIAL
CONSIDERATIONS ARE IN PLACE.
The f inal design cross-section of each class of street
or roadway is to be in conformance with the requirements for
each class or roadway as contained in the Monticello Design
Criterial Manual.
ARTICLE THREE - INSPECTION
The City will provide full-time inspection of the
improvements during the time the work is being performed.
The City will charge against the escrow for these and other
services at an hourly rate of f Total cost of
inspection of project improvements is dependent on the time
to complete such inspection. It is recommended that
detailed work schedules be provided so that the inspection
costs can be kept to a minimum.
ARTICLE FOUR - CONSTRUCTION GUARANTEES
This agreement is conditioned upon and subject to the
Developer posting with the City a financial guarantee in an
amount equal to one hundred twenty-five percent (1251) of
the total estimated construction cost for the improvements
and the estimated indirect costs in the form of a cash
escrow outlined in Article Six as to each ADDITION.
The financial guarantee has been determined for all
improvements included in this contract as set forth in
Exhibits 1 through 5 for each ADDITION which exhibits are
incorporated herein as if set forth in full.
The financial guarantee may be in the form of a cash
deposit, a bond, or irrevocable letter of credit approved by
the City. If cash, deposited in an interest bearing account
in favor of Developer and City under Developer's social
security number. A financial guarantee shall be written in
favor of the City and be used for or to provide for the
0
payment, as payments become due, of all just claims for
work, tools, machinery, skill, materials, insurance
premiums, equipment and supplies for the completion of the
work and for saving the City harmless from all costa that
may accrue on account of the doing of the work by the
Developer or its agent or to pay the City in the event the
City must complete such work, to also insure that the
improvements function as intended for their purpose in
accordance with the standards established by the City
Engineer and for the costs of enforcing the standards
established by the City Engineer and for the costs of
enforcing the terms of the bond if action is brought
thereon, including reasonable attorney's fees.
ARTICLE FIVE - RELEASE OF GUARANTEE
The City Council shall not accept dedication of
required improvements, nor release, nor reduce financial
guarantee until the City Engineer has submitted a
certificate stating that all required improvements have been
satisfactorily completed and until the applicant's engineer
or surveyor has certified to the Engineer, through
submission of detailed "as -built" plans, survey plat of the
subdivision, indicating location, dimensions, materials, and
other information required by the City Council or Engineer,
that the layout of the line and grade of all public
improvements is in accordance with construction plans for
the subdivision and that the improvements are completed, are
ready for acceptance by the City, and are free and clear of
any and all liens and encumbrances. Upon such approval and
recommendation, the City Council shall thereafter accept the
improvements for dedication in accordance with the
established procedure.
Upon the request of the Developer, the amount of the
guarantee shall be reduced in a sum equal to the estimated
cost of the improvements so completed prior to acceptance of
the final plat. The financial guarantee shall be reduced
upon actual acceptance of the portion of the improvements
completed upon recommendation by the City Engineer, and then
only to the ration that the cost of public improvement
dedicated bears to the total cost of the public improvements
for the plat. For purposes of showing payment, the
Developer's engineer shall submit to the City payment
estimates, along with lien waivers, for the work done. All
reductions of the financial guarantee must also be
authorised by the Developer or its agent and the financing
institution, if any.
In no event shall the City release an amount equal to
or greater than 2S% of project costs prior to the expiration
of the warranty period unless the project is fully completed
and bonded in an amount equal to the full cost of the
project.
07
Developer agrees to furnish to the City a list of
developer contracts being considered for retention by the
Developer for the performance of the work required of the
contractor.
Any changes to the approved plans and specifications
shall be approved by the City Engineer in writing before
they are made.
The Developer will be responsible for not only plans
and specifications preparations, but also for providing
construction staking of said improvement.
All sanitary sewer and water main testing shall be
completed and copies of service ties submitted to the City
prior to issuance of any service connection permits.
ARTICLE SIX - WARRANTY
After acceptance by the City, the Developer warrants
and guarantees that the improvements constructed will be
free from defects in materials and workmanship that may
occur within one (1) year from the date the City accepts
them. WARRANTIES AND BONDS PROVIDED BY SUBCONTRACTORS [OUST
IDENTIFY THE CITY AS A THIRD PARTY BENEFICIARY. Twenty-five
percent (25%) of the total construction cost shall be held
by the City until all items to be corrected have been
satisfied under warranty or until expiration of the
warranty, whichever occurs later.
Guarantee Period: If within the time prescribed by law
or by the terms of any applicable special guarantees
required by the Contract Documents any of the work is found
to be defective or not in accordance with the Contract
Documents, the Developer shall correct it promptly after
receipt of written notice from the City to do so unless the
City has previously given the Developer a specific written
acceptance of the particular defective or nonconforming
condition. The City shall give prompt notice to the
Developer after discovery of the condition.
)ARTICLE SEVEN- DEPOSIT
The Developer shall, prior to the commencement of the
work, deposit with the City separate cash deposit for the
following items:
A. Engineering construction review and
warranty inspection computed at
1-1/2% of construction cost (fixed fee)
B. City Staff Administration
It of construction coat Ifixed fee)
67
C. Construction inspection and
plan review (hourly)
D. Geotechnics (hourly or 1/2t whichever is less)
E. City Attorney (hourly)
F. $1,000.00 cash for Erosion and Siltation
Control (on deposit)
If, as the work progresses, the cash escrow becomes
depleted, then Developer shall deposit additional funds in
the escrow account as directed by the City. The City
reserves the right to raise the fees for Items A, C, D, and
E if final construction costs are above the original
estimate. City shall document costs associated with A, C,
D, and E and any surplus shall be refunded to Developer.
The separate cash deposits shall be set forth in Exhibits 1
- 5 for each ADDITION which exhibits are incorporated herein
as if set forth in full.
ARTICLE EIGHT - PARR COMMITMENT
Prior to the time of recording the final plat of
"EVERGREENS FIRST ADDITION" Developer shall tender a
Warranty Deed free of any liens with easement of ingress and
egress lying westerly to County Highway 117 for permanent
park purposes. The park area shall be described in a manner
consistent with the Preliminary Plat. This park dedication
shall be in lieu of any and all other park ordinance
requirements.
The City is hereby granted a one rod wide walking and
bicyle easement contiguous and parallel to County Road No.
117 having as its most northerly point the southeasterly
termination of the southeast corner of Phase I with County
Road No. 117. At such time as Phase II and V roads are
accepted by the City it shall provide Quit Claim Deeds
extinguishing the easement to that phase. Said easements.
if ever improved, shall be at City expense. The easement
shall not be considered in calculating any setbacks.
ARTICLE NINE - cowryANCB AND RESTRICTIVE COVENANTS
The Developer shall, at the same time the plat of the
Development is filed with the Wright County Recorder, file
with such office a Declaration of Protective Covenants and
Restrictions pertaining to "EVERGREENS", covenant attached
as Exhibit 6. Said covenants may include additional
restrictions inconsistent with those in Exhibit 6 and the
applicable ordinances of the City of Monticello.
ARTICLE TEN - DURATION OF CONTRACT
0
See Exhibits 1 through S which are incorporated herein
as if set forth in full.
ARTICLE ELEVEN - CLEAN-UP
The Developer shall keep the premises free from
accumulation of waste materials, rubbish, and other debris
resulting from the work; and at the completion of the work,
it will remove all waste materials, rubbish, and debris from
and about the premises as well as all tools, construction
equipment, machinery and surplus materials, and will leave
the site clean and in a condition as approved by the City
Engineer.
ARTICLE TWELVE - OTHER GOVERNING BODIES
No utilities and street work shall be done until the
Minnesota Health Department approves watermain plans and the
Minnesota pollution Control Agency approves the sewer plans.
The plans and specifications shall be approved by state and
local agencies as required (i.e. as Department of Natural
Resources, Wright County Highway Department, Minnesota
Department of Transportation, Watershed Management
Organisations, etc.)
The Developer shall pay for all costs of temporary and
_ permanent relocations of public utility facilities while
constructing any portion of the improvements.
ARTICLE THIRTEEN - CITY DISCLAIMER/LIABILITY INSURANCE
The Developer shall indemnify the City against any
loss, including suit costs and reasonable attorney's fees,
incurred on account of injury or death of persons that may
have been related to the work mentioned in the agreement, on
account of damage or destruction of property that may have
been related to the work mentioned in this agreement. The
Developer, at its expense, agrees to repair or replace
property damaged, by reason of the work, that belongs to
others.
The Developer shall provide to the City, at the
Developer's expense, general public liability and property
damage insurance, protecting the City and the Developer from
all claims for personal injury, including death, and all
claims for destruction of or damage to property, arising out
of or in connection with any operations under these contract
documents, whether such operations be by the Developer, its
contractor, or by any subcontractor, or anyone directly or
indirectly employed by the Contractor or by a subcontractor
under him. Insurance shall be written with a limit of
liability of not less than $600,000 for all damages arising
out of bodily injury, including death, at any time resulting
therefrom, sustained by any, one person in any one accidents
and a limit of liability of not less than $1,000,000.00 for
any such damage sustained by two or more persons in any one
accident. Insurance shall be written with a limit of
liability of not less than $300,000 for all property damage
sustained by one person in any one accidents and a limit of
liability of not less than $600,000 for any such damage
sustained by two or more persons in any one accident. The
insurance policies shall accompany the contract for its
execution by the Developer and the City of Monticello. The
above insurance policies shall be in full force"and effect
during the life of this contract whether or not the
improvements have yet been accepted and any warranty
periods.
ARTICLE FOURTEEN - STREET LIGHTING
The Developer, at his own expense, shall install street
lighting in accordance with Northern States Power
requirements, City policy, and specifications at the City's
direction.
ARTICLE FIFTEEN - TRAFFIC AND STREET SIGNS
The Developer, at his own expense, shall install
traffic and street signs as directed in writing by the City
Public works Director. No Occupancy Permits are to be
issued until street signs have been installed. Within
forty-five (45) days of signing the agreement the City shall
provide written specifications for said signage.
ARTICLE SIXTEEN - MONUMENTATION/WARRANTIES OF TITLE
The Developer shall place iron monuments at all lot and
block corners and at all other angle points on boundary
lines. iron monuments shall be placed after all streets and
lawn grading has been completed in order to preserve the lot
markers for future property owners. The Developer shall
also provide a minimum of one monument within the
Development, set in concrete, for horizontal and vertical
control for the City's benchmark system. More monuments may
be required by the City Engineer to serve the area. The
Developer's land surveyor shall furnish the City an
affidavit that all iron monuments were placed as stated
above.
Developer warrants marketability of title to all real
estate interests conveyed or to be conveyed hereunder. A
title opinion shall be submitted with final plat of
Evergreens First Addition as to the condition of title along
with a Warranty Deed for park land transfer.
ARTICLE SEVENTEEN - CERTIFICATION OF SITE GRADING
Prior to the acceptance of the completed subdivision by
8
-07
the City, the Developer's engineer shall furnish an
affidavit stating that the site grading was done in
accordance with the grading plan as approved by the City
within limits acceptable to the City Engineer.
ARTICLE EIGHTEEN - BINDING EFFECT
The terms and provisions hereof shall be binding upon,
and inure to the benefit of the heirs; representatives,
successors, and assigns of the parties hereto and shall be
binding upon all future owners of all or any part of the
subdivision and shall be deemed covenants running with the
land. References made herein to the Developer, if there be
more than one, shall mean each and all of them. This
Agreement, at the option of the City, MAY be placed on
record so as to give notice hereof to subsequent purchasers
and encumbrances of all or any part of the subdivision and
all recording fees, if any, shall be paid by the Developer.
ARTICLE NINETEEN - ISSUANCE OF OCCUPANCY PERMITS PRIOR TO
ACCEPTANCE OF STREET
The purpose of this article is to allow issuance of
Occupancy Permits prior to acceptance of the streets.
The City agrees to issue Occupancy Permits upon
acceptance by the City of the sanitary sewer and watermain
and the required Class 5 gravel and first lift of bituminous
being placed on the streets in the Development so long as
the following conditions are met:
1. The Developer shall maintain and snow plow the
streets until they are accepted by the City and all
homeowners shall be notified of such. Any cost incurred by
the City shall be paid out of escrow. The homeowners shall
be given a phone number of Developer or its agent to contact
in the event that there is a problem with the street. A
phone number of the person who will be maintaining the
streets and storm sewer shall be provided to the City. This
person shall be on twenty-four (24) hour call.
2. The Developer agrees to place street and traffic
sign at each intersection within the Development. The signs
are to be furnished by the Developer. If Certificate of
Occupancy Permits are needed prior to availability of signs,
then the Developer shall provide temporary signs that 2 feet
long by 6 inches high, with 7 -inch letters. The base of the
signs are to be placed in the ground a minimum of 2 feet.
The signs are to be 6 -foot high to the bottom of the sign.
3. In the event that the Developer does not maintain
the streets or keep fire hydrants free of snow in a manner
satisfactory to the City, the City will do what maintenance
it deems necessary and charge labor and equipment back to
V
the Developer as follows:
Snow Plow Operations $80.00 per hour
Maintenance Work $35.00 per hour
Materials At Cost
4. The Developer agrees to place $50.00 per lot
contained in each ADDITION of the Development on deposit
with the City to cover any and all costs incurred by the
City under Article Nineteen. This includes snow plowing and
maintenance cost for any equipment damage sustained by the
City in the course of maintaining streets that have not been
accepted. If additional funds are needed to supplement the
amount of deposit, the Developer agrees to place additional
funds into this account. This fee shall be applicable until
the improvements are accepted by the City.
ARTICLE TWENTY - ACCEPTANCE OF PROJECT
Upon completion of all the work required, the City
Engineer or his delegated representative, a representative
of the Contractor, and representative of the Developer's
engineer, will make a final inspection of the work. Before
the final acceptance is made by the City Council for
perpetual maintenance, the City Engineer shall be satisfied
that all work is satisfactorily completed in accordance with
the approved plans and specifications and City Standards.
Final acceptance of said work for perpetual maintenance
shall be made by resolution of the City Council upon the
recommendation of the City Engineer.
ARTICLE TWENTY-ONE - PAYMENT OF AREA ASSESSMENT FOR TRUNK
SEWER AND TRUNK WATER
The Development shall be subject to the area assessment
policy of the City for trunk sewer and trunk water which,
according to the present policy and formula for calculating
the area assessment, requires the payment of an area
assessment amount equal to a $2,500.00 per acre fee times
the approximate number of acres benefitted by potential
municipal service. The approximately acreage includes
residential lots, park lands and streets. Said assessment
shall be paid by the collection over time of a $200.00 per
residential lot fee. It shall be collected prior to the
issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy by the City. The
parties hereto acknowledge this $200.00 per lot fee is
inadequate to pay the AREA ASSESSMENT FOR TRUNK SEWER AND
TRUNK WATER and the balance shall be collected by the City
as a designated TRUNK USER FEE SURCHARGE, collectable
periodically at such rates and terms as the City deems
appropriate on a per single family residential household
basis.
ARTICLE TWENTY-TWO - PAYMENT OF CITY COST RE PRELIMINARY
20
PLAT FEE PAYMENT
Developer shall pay to the City i as the
preliminary plat application fee which covers City review
costs determined to be in excess of fee paid by Developer at
time of preliminary plat application. The final plat of
each ADDITION is subject to normal final plat fees in
existence at time of submission.
ARTICLE TWENTY-THREE - EAST PARR SANTIARY HOOKUP
It is anticipated that the proposed plat will develop
consistently with its Preliminary Phased Plan. The City
shall not issue any Certificates of Occupancy for residences
in Phase 2 until such time as the East Park is hooked up to
City sanitary sewer service on a temporary basis. The
permanent sewer hookup of East Park shall occur at the time
that Phase 5 underground utilities are installed from the
permanent lift station site as reflected on the February 6,
1989 Revision of the utilities plan. In the event the
temporary and permanent sanitary sewer hookup from the East
Park do not occur the City is hereby granted a temporary
easement for sanitary sewer installation one rod wide
consistent with the proposed road layout as outlined in
f shallwon the terminat attached
the roadsiwithin Phase 2 and g easement
accepted by the City and it shall provide a Quit Claim Deed
extinguishing the easement as to that Phase. The temporary
sewer line shall be a private line installed and maintained
by the Developer.
The City shall have the right to utilise said temporary
easement and hookup the East Park, charging Developer
therefore, upon the occurence of one of the following
events:
(A) Failure of Developer, his successors and assigns
to hook up the East Park when installing
underground utilities for Phase II of "TBE
EVERGREENS"i or
(B) In the event a state or federal regulatory agency
imposes pecuniary sanctions or limitations upon
the City or Developeri or
(C) Thirty days after commencement by a state or
federal regulatory agency of administrative or
judicial proceedings against the City or Developer
to force sewer hookup of the East Park.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have set their
hands the day and year abovementioned.
CITY OF MONTICELLO KJELLBERGS, INC., a
Minnesota corporation
Kenneth Maus, Mayor Rent Kjellberg, President
Rick Wolfateller, City Admin.
( CITY)
STATE OF MINNESOTA )
) as.
COUNTY OF WRIGHT )
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this
i 1G Wolfsteller, City of Adminis1989 tratorneth of the City
and
Monticello, Minnesota, on behalf of the City.
Notary Public
(DEVELOPER)
STATE OF MINNESOTA )
) sa.
COUNTY OF WRIGHT )
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this
day of , 1989 by Rent Kjellberg, President
�Kjellberg's, Inc., a Minnesota corporation, on behalf of
the corporation.
Notary Public
THIS INSTRUMENT WAS DRAFTED BYt
METCALF i LARSON
Attorneys at Law
213 West Broadway
Monticello, MN 55362
'12
250 Eur Broadway
Monrim[4 MN 55362.9245
Phone: (612) 295.2711
Metro: (611) 333.5739
,r...
K nnrrh \Los
C. Q_'1
Mr. Did: Clark
Dan Bk,nitm
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
Fon Fan
520 Lafayette Road
Shinn Ankm'
St. Paul, MN 55155
i 4mn Smkh
"''m'"'"m""
RwkuSdjrr UB
Dear Mr. Clark:
"'""°"' D.Aj""e
a..mw.r o..aw..m
The following letter is intended to provide u with an to
9 P you update
h(lo"vot
regarding the development of the Evergreens Subdivision in
P.R. W".
Monticello and to outline the latest plan for connecting the
fohnsim.6
Rjellberg Hast Mobile Home Park to the city system. Enclosed
e..um,oro.d
you will find pertinent sections of a proposed Evergreens
Gary AnJn
Development Agreement and the Kjellbergs Mobile Some Park East
ec--D.,Aj—
Development Agreement. Please review the Strategy as outlined
OLIWKn pchak
in she enclosed agreements and contact me with your oommente.
Also, additional copies have been provided that I would like
you to send to the proper State Health Department Official
responsible for licensing the Rjellberg East Mobile now
Park. It is very important that the Health Department
Official in charge of licensing this facility is coordinated
with the PCA'a efforts to monitor any potential ground water
contamination.
An you will note in the enclosed documentation, it is proposed
that the City allow the expansion of the mobile home park east
development if the developer can obtain the proper licensing
from the governing state agencies. If Rjellberg cannot obtain
the proper licensing required, and if state agencies take
action against the City or Kjellberg because of pollution
problems that might be occurring, the City can exercise its
option to install a force main and assess the coat back to
Mr. Rjellberg.
0
Mr. Dick Clark
March 30, 1989
Page 2
Finally, thank you for contacting the appropriate State Health
Department official regarding this matter. Please copy me any
correspondence you may have with that person.
Yours truly,
CITY OF mmaicmLo
-rA- '
Jeff O'Neill
Assistant Administrator
JOAd
Enclosures
cc: Pile
Planning Commission Minutes - 5/10/88
Provisions for full-time inspection of all work and a clear understanding
that the City will not accept dedication of utilities until such
improvements are completely inspected and approved.
Provision for an easement for the extension of water and sewer to Phase I
of the project which crosses outlot that may someday become part of
Phase II.
Then the alternatives were outlined, and they are as follows:
1. Developer -,at complete sewer, water, and storm sewer feasibility
studies which address all phases of this project. Such studies must
be signed by the registered engineer and signed by our City
Consulting Engineer.
Preliminary park plan must be redesigned based on input from the
Planning Commission at its May 10 meeting.
7 Preliminary plat street names be amended to match the Evergreens
theme.
/Clovenance must be amended through the deletion of Section 26 which
references to septic systems on subject props-ty. Each deed must
refer to presence of the Amoco pipeline if said pipeline is within
100 feet of any portion of the deeded property.
% Developer to complete Environment Assessment Worksheet and receive
. approvals from the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency.
2. As stated earlier, the Planning Commission does have until June 20 to
ke a recommendation regarding this plat. Planning Commission can
discuss this plat and table it pending further investigation
regarding the hazards associated with the Amoco pipeline.
]. The Planning Commission could recommend denial of the plat based on a
finding that the public safety hazard would be created by a proposed
establishment of building sites so near to the Amoco pipeline. The
Planning Commission could direct the developer to redesign his plat
and incorporate a setback requirement on the pipeline that the
Planning Commission would be more comfortable with.
Staff recommendations regarding the zoning issue.
Planning Commission act to recommend to the City Council that the
subdivision area be zoned as follows: Pointe north of Rick Lane to be
zoned as R-2 residential district[ Cutlota A and 0 to be zoned R-] with
the exception o"e corner lots to be created at the intersection of 25
and Mae Drive. LThe tla corner lots at this site to be zoned for highway. .
commercial activiiiEEy.� The balance of the property now being subdivided
should be zoned as R-1 residential district.
^� -
Planning Commission Minutes - 5/10/88
and the ordinance was amended in February of 1986 to allow encroachments
within the front yard to get closer to the front yard minimum setback
when adjacent structures are placed in excess of the minimum front yard
setback, as is the example in this case.
Cindy Lemm questioned if the existing garage would be removed.
Mr. Theisen indicated their intention was to leave the existing garage
and use it for storage. Mr. Richard Martie questioned if the existing
garage could be renovated or enlarged to accommodate a two -car garage.
Mr. Anderson indicated to Planning Commission members that Mr. Theisen
had looked at that as an alternative; but due to the narrowness of the
lot width of this particular lot, when a two -car garage would be
constructed, a good portion of the view to the rear yard would be
obstructed by this garage. Richard Carlson questioned the need for a
variance request if the garage could be created without a need for a
variance request. Zoning Administrator Anderson indicated to Mr. Carlson
that yes, the garage could be constructed to be of less depth. Instead
of 30 feet, a garage could be constructed of 26 feet. But to allow
turning radii and movement of a vehicle from the driveway into this
garage and back out of the garage onto the driveway if it was placed
within the sideyard setback, 10 feet would not leave enough room to
accommodate the maneuvering opt of the garage on their driveway, as they
would have to back out onto a portion of their neighbor's driveway to get
entirely out of the garage.
With no further input from the public or from the Planning Commission
members, motion was made by Dan McConnon, seconded by Richard Martie, to
deny the variance request to allow construction of an attached garage
within the front yard setback requirement. Motion carried unanimously.
Reason for denial: The applicant's failure to demonstrate a hardship
other than financial for the variance request.
S. Public Hearing - A prelimdna.y plat request= proposed ex$ansion of East
K ellberq Mobile Homme Year and consideration or amenOments to the citir
o Ffonticello Toning map. Applicant, Kent Klellberg.
Assistant City Administrator, Jeff O'Neill, opened with narrative
comments on the text of the preliminary plat. Mr. Rjellberg asked to
interject with some information of his own prior to Mr. O'Neill
proceeding with hie narrative comments. Mr. Kjellberg wanted the
Planning Commission members to understand the adversities that this
project has had to overcome to get to where it is tonight. The property
consists of two Northern States Power Company easements and also an Amoco
Oil Company gaaline easement. Mr. Kjellberg indicated that he, along
with his registered land surveyor, Mr. Dennis Taylor, has been working an
the development of this plan since August of 1986. Be also indicated he
would like Planning Commission members to seriously consider his
preliminary plat request in that timing is of the essence to hopefully
get some houses constructed within this construction season, as the
interest rates have started to climb and he has already loft soros •.� _ ...
potential home buyers because of that. -
- .� LLT:` y'......�.�aZ, 1. ., _a1.: i.,, �.n �- q....... -a:' -. •' .'_• '
Planning Commission Minutes - 5/10/88
Mr. O'Neill started out with his opening comments on parts of the
Subdivision Ordinance in regards to the preliminary plat with which the
developers have not complied in its entirety, and his comments are as
follows.
As noted an the site plan, there are streets which actually dead end at
the property line of this development. Within our ordinance, we require
that temporary cul -de -sap or turn-arounds be constructed at these
points. The lots adjacent to County Road 17 actually have a double front
which are not suggested within the Comprehensive plan. The length of the
streets are very close to the 1300 lineal foot maximum. All the
residential lots are in conformance with the minimum of 12,000 aq ft,
although there may be trouble with one of the lots being able to put a
1000 sq ft house an it. The street names are not within the general
nature of the name of the development, The evergreens Addition. The area
for park dedication is not of sufficient amount to incorporate what City
staff feels is enough of a land area to accommodate the ballpark, picnic
area, and/or warming house for a proposed skating rink. The staff feels
that the two adjoining lots to this park dedication land should also be
dedicated to the City for park land. On the Amocro pipeline easement, the
current setback as shown by the developer is 25 feet, with a possible
mandate by the State being as porch as 50 feet: or it could be at a
projected maximum of a 200 foot building setback from the actual pipe
itself. The drainage area under the north power line easement is not
sufficient to handle the 100 year flood event, and it should be extended
into more of the power line easement area and the depth be shortened up.
With the depth of the bottom of the sewer pipe being at a 6 -foot depth,
the sewer line may have to be insulated up to the homes from the main
line and also maybe some of the main lines would have to be insulated
with this shallow of depth of the sewer line. With the short depth of
the sewer, it may be limited to the type of housing which could be placed
on there, that being of the split level or split entry type design.
Otherwise, if a rambler is to be constructed to allow plumbing fixtures
to be in the basement, a lift pump would have to be installed to lift the
sewage up to the main sewer line coming into the house.
Possible items which would be related to a developer's agreement that
would nave to be establisneo prior to approval or a ring plat.
(free planting plan.
Cluster mailbox plan.
Sod establishment plan.
Specifications for turn-arounda.
Provisions for City acquisition by warranty deed of all park property and
walkways.
Financial guarantees and security bond relating to or integrated with the
timing of the coMletion of the improvements.
Paying for and installation of the street signs.
Development of landscaping and buffering between Outlots A and B from
Highway 25 and also plans for grading and seeding of the park land and
buffering of park land from adjacent lots.
7
Planning Commission Minutes - 5/10/88
Orr-Schelen-Hayeron. Upon review and completion of the feasibility study
showing how the water and sewer and storm sewer would be laid out to
interface with the future developments of Phase II and Phase Iii in
relationship to the original development of Phase I, it was the
consensus of the Planning Commission members to set a special meeting for
Tuesday, May 17, 7:30 p.m., to consider lir. Rjellberg's preliminary plat
request, proposed expansion of the east mobile home park, and
consideration of the amendments to the Monticello Zoning trap. This time
and meeting date would be conducted hopefully after the final hearing and
orders are sent down from the Municipal Board in relationship to the
proposed areas to be annexed into the city of Monticello.
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION ITEMS
1.
variance request to allow a loading berth to be constructed in the public
right-of-way setback requirement. Applicant, Automatic Garage Door.
Council action: Denied variance request as per Planning Commission
recommendation. Approved variance request with a loading berth to be
constructed in part of the building.
2.
A variance request to allow construction of a garage addition within the
sideyard setback requirement., Applicant, Harvey Rendall. Council
action: Planning Commission's recommendation stands approved, as there
was no variance appeal.
l 3.
Zoning Seminar Information. Zoning Administrator Anderson commended the
Planning Commission members on their decisions that were completed on the
three public hearing agenda items before them tonight. The three
Planning Commission members who were in attendance at this zoning seminar
in St. Cloud, Richard Carlson, Cindy Lemm, and Dan Mcconnon, a lot of
information that was received from there carried through in some of their
questions and as part of their decisions which were rendered here this
evening. 'The two City staff members that attended this, Mr. Jeff
O'Neill, Assistant City Administrator, and Mr. Gary Anderson, Zoning
Administrator, felt it was a very worthwhile session and a lot of items
that were brought up referenced to requests which we have been dealing
with here in Monticello, not in much as name but in the similarity of the
applicants requests that were presented at this meeting.
d.
Municipal Board Final Hearing Information. Mr. Jeff O'Neill indicated
that Tuesday, May 17, the Municipal Board will be reconvening to make a
final action on their findings for the areae to be annexed into the city
of Monticello. Mr. O'Neill has not heard of any additional lands or any
changes in the boundaries which they have come up with, and he felt that
final approval would come off of the same original findings of the area .. .
:' . '
that was previously approved.
Planning Commission Minutes - 5/10/88
had a problem with a good share of the portion of the power line easement
being used for the actual construction of a proposed ballfield as part of
the park dedication land area. He saw a problem with the activity of
softball and/or baseball with the balls hitting the power lines which
would be running overhead. Mr. Ejellberg responded that if the people
playing ball, whether it be softball or baseball, could hit those power
lines, the Minnesota Twins should come out and take a look at these
players that would be able to do this. He then asked the City staff if
the City Attorney had rendered his opinion in that there is a gas line
running through this plat and if that should be in a recordable form with
the lots which would abut this gas line easement. Mr. O'Neill indicated
a probable type of document which would be recorded against the lots
which would be affected by the gas line easement. Mr. Richard Carlson
questioned who would take care of the mobile home park within this
development when it would occur. The developer indicated that would be
his responsibility to take care of the development of this park as part
of his mobile home park expansion.
Some closing comments were then entered in, and Mr. Jeff O'Neill wanted
to reiterate that the parks are very important for good quality
residential development. In Mr. O'Neill's opinion, in looking at the
existing parks within the city, they do lack significant good developable
parka on the land which was dedicated for park dedication. Mr. Rjellberg
indicated that, yes, lots are needed in the city that would be of a low
cost and affordable for the proposed home buyers of which there is a need
which is not provided within the city currently. Mr. Rjellberg felt that
the park area was sufficient with the easements under the power line and
the gas line would more than accommodate the park area that would be
needed for this. Be did, however, indicate that he would give up Loi 4
south of the Terry Lane cul-de-sac to the City for additional park land
dedication. Mr. Dan McConnon questioned on how the value of the land is
established for park land dedication. Mr. Jeff O'Neill responded that
the park dedication is 10 percent of the raw land coats. Chairperson
Richard Carlson then closed the public hearing portion of this and asked
for any further comments from the Planning Commission members.
Mr. Richard Carlson questioned the park land dedication, in which phase
would the park be developed. Gary Anderson responded that it would be
developed as proposed in Phase III. Dan Mcdonnon questioned who is doing
the EIS, Environmental Impact Study. That would be done by the
developers on or before approval of the final plat.
With no further input from the public, motion was made by Richard Martie,
seconded by Joyce Dowling, to table the proposed expansion of the east
Rjellberg Mobile Hage park and to table the consideration of amendments
to the Monticello Zoning Map. Motion carried unanimously with Cindy Lees
absent. Cindy Lem had left the meeting at approximately 10:00 p.m. The
reason for tabling the request is that they felt that all the information
was not presented to demonstrate that the feasibility study had been
conducted and had been sent to the City staff for their review other than _.
the approval that was given by our Consulting Engineer, John Badalich, of
Planning Co=dasion Minutes - 5/10/88
require that the mobile home park have a laundry facility available for
the tenants of its mobile home park. Mr. Kjellberg indicated all the
mobile homes within his mobile home park have their own laundry
facilities within each individual mobile home.
In summation, Mr. Kjellberg indicated he would like the Planning
Commission to consider his proposal for the preliminary plat, as time is
of the essence. Be has already lost some of the potential buyers due to
the increase in the interest ratesl and to get anything started to be
built in this construction season, he would have to get started very
soon. In talking to other home builders in the Monticello area, they
have told him that there aren't any good lots left in the city to build
on.
Mr. Kjellberg then turned it over to his registered land surveyor,
Mr. Dennis Taylor of Taylor Land Surveyors, for any additional comments
he may have in regards to the plat. Mr. Taylor indicated that
Mr. Kjellberg and Mr. O'Neill had pretty well covered the layout of the
preliminary plat with its requirements. He did, however, indicate the
following items. The two lots near the park which the City staff is
proposing also be dedicated for park dedication have a possible selling
value of $18,000 per lot, which times two would equal S36,000 in
potential income and is lost to the developer because of these lots going
for park dedication. When the park was laid out, it was laid out with
the City's inputs and now they are coming back requiring more land than
what he felt was necessary for that with having substantial land
underneath the easements to also use for biking trails or whatever in the
nature of park development. In questioning about the depth of the sewer,
Mr. Taylor indicated that at building permit applications, a certificate
of survey would have to be supplied; and at that time, the Building
Official could determine if the lines would need to be insulated from the
service to the house. Be saw no problem with this entire development
having all full basements in them.
Chairperson Richard Carlson then opened the meeting for any discussion
from the- Planning Commission members. Joyce Dowling questioned the
developer of the street names within his preliminary plat not coinciding
with the theme of the name of hie development plat, the Evergreens
Addition. Mr. Kjellberg said these were original names that he thought
would be unique for recognizing this development within the area. Be had
trouble coming up with street names that would be associated with the
Evergreens plat.
Mr. Dan McConnon questioned the need for the north power line easement
area that is to be used for ponding for a storm sewer pond and the need
for a 6 -foot cut. Be indicated that in all likelihood, with the depth of
the poles being only 10 feet, they have Boma problems with excavations }n
or near these power line poles. Mr. Rjellberg responded that they are
proposing to extend the ponding area further east under the north power
line easement to accoamodate a shallower depth with a larger ponding _
�i area. Mr. McConnon also agreed with the developer in part that some of
the power line easement area should be considered for park dedication but
._ ;.i .. � tai, ---i-• _ � .r +'a. a -t`: .+�, 3� T3: �.�: a.. s—..:. _ ' In+�,-•�n•a
Planning Commission Minutes - 5/10/88
Mobile Some Park
The lots as shown in the proposed expansion of the existing mobile home
park do exceed the minimum lot square footage required. The rest of the
design for the mobile home park expansion will meet all of the minimum
requirements for the expansion of this park in regards to our mobile home
park ordinance development requirements.
The meeting was then turned over for the developer's response. Mr. Rent
Rjellberg's response was as follows.
The developer will create a cul-de-sac read at the dead ends or a
turn -around, whatever is needed.
Mr. Rjellberg reiterated they had been working on this development since
last August and the need for the Planning Commission members to seriously
consider his preliminary plat tonight so that he can get on with the
further development of his plans to complete this project.
Mr. Rjellberg felt any ponding and required depth of the storm sewer pond
questioned under the north power line easement would be not needed in
that the area had had many wells drilled and there is approximately over
100 feet down of all gravel surface. However, he would intend to extend
the ponding area underneath the north power line easement further east to
accommodate more area and thus be able to shorten up the depth of the
pond itself. He intends to install the water lines at a minimal depth,
with the sewer being at a depth of 6 feet, which would be to the bottom
of the sewer pipe. Mr. Rjellberg also indicated that he wouldn't have
any problem with the individual home with the water and sewer lines run
to them having them being insulated from the home to the sewer stub. The
developer agrees to adhere to whatever setback that is established from
the Amoco gas pipeline within the Amoco easement. On each of the
development plats, it will show an Amoco gas line easements and it will
also show up as a separate agreement on each of the lots to be recorded
with each of the lots once this entire plat is platted.
Park dedication.
The developer would rather pay the cash and let the City develop the park
but recognizes a need for a park for hie proposed development. He would
like the Planning Commission to seriously consider the area that he has
provided for it and the additional land which is under the power line
easement also to be incorporated as part of the minimum land area to be
dedicated for park dedication. Mr. Rjellberg still contested that there
was sufficient land area there for the development of the ballfield,
skating rink, warming house, and picnic area and that they would not need
two additional lots as propesed by the City staff. In the mobile home
park eipansion or development, Mr. Rjellberg indicated he will adhere to
all of the minimum City requirements with the exception of the laundry
�� facilities. Within the text of our mobile Goma ordinance, it does ..