Planning Commission Agenda Packet 02-04-1997AGENDA
REGULAR MEETING - MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION
Tuesday, February 4, 1997 - 7 p m.
Members: Dick Frie, Richard Carlson, Jon Bogart, Dick Martie, Rod Dragsten
1. Call to order.
2. Approval of minutes of the regular meeting held January 7, 1997.
3. Consideration of adding items to the agenda.
4. Citizens comments.'
b. Public Hearing --Consideration of a variance request to the minimum lot
width at water boundary, minimum lot area and minimum setback between
the normal high watermark and building setback. Applicant, Rick
Wolfsteller. (WITHDRAWN)
6. Public Hearing --Consideration of a request for preliminary plat approval of
lUein Farms III residential subdivision. Applicant, Tony Ernmerich/E & K
Development.
7. Public Hearing --Consideration of an update to the zoning ordinance which
would include mortuaries as a permitted use in a B4 zone.
8. Public Hearing --Consideration of a variance to curb cut location and parking
lot setback standards as requested by City staff, which would allow a
mortuary facility to follow proposed Monticello Community Partners
redevelopment design guidelines. Applicant, City of Monticello Planning and
Zoning Department.
9. Public Hearing --Consideration of an ordinance amendment to Chapter 23 of
the zoning ordinance governing the variance process. Applicant, Monticello
Planning Commission.
10. Continued Public Hearing --Consideration of ordinance amendments
governing fence design and location. (no report)
11. Consideration of review and prioritization of planning department projects
and activities.
12. Consideration of recommending amendments to subdivision design
guidelines.
Agenda
Monticello Planning Commission
February 4, 1997
Page 2
13. Review of Cardinal Ponds sketch plan.
14. Updates:
A. MCP - Jeff
B. Parking on Broadway at Pinewood
C. Highway 26/Chelsea Road realignment project
D. Bridge View plat - see attached
15. Adjourn.
Cr < " r, /.f C. /it. ,.l (, .,..1 Of, -IIe-
14-1r ---4
-.a•......r...,_..4 �� L'rb�+• ,c/.ten A ao a c
MINUTES
REGULAR MEETING PLANNING COM31MION
Tuesday, January. 1987 - 7 p.m -
Members Present: Dick Frie, Richard Carlson, Jon Bogart,
Richard Martie, Rod Dragster►
Staff Present: Jeff O'Neill, Steve Grittman, Wanda Kraemer
1. Call to order
Chairman Frie called the meeting to order.
2. Approval of in itpa of the mgular m ing hold Decpmher � 1996.
COMMISSIONER DRAGSTEN MADE A MOTION SECONDED BY
COMMISSIONER BOGART TO APPROVE THE MINUTES FOR THE
MEETING OF DECEMBER 3,1996. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
3. Co aid ration of adding items to the sagenAa.
Commissioner Bogart requested items 8 and 9 be switched in order.
4. ri izena cornments.
John Leerssen, developer, requested the Planning Commission to review his
sketch plan at the February meeting. He stated his plan is to have the
preliminary plat ready for the March meeting but wanted the Planning
Commission to review the sketch plan first.
Chairman Frio suggested Mr. Leeresen first meet with staff and discuss the
sketch plan. After meeting with staff an agenda item for the February
mooting could be prepared.
Mr. Leerssen was in agreement with this suggestion.
Steve Grittman, City Planner, reported Daniel Lynch has requested a
varianoo from the minimum 60 foot building setback required from the
ordinary high water mark (OHWM ) of Otter Creek. Specifically, the
applicant wishes to replace a deteriorating'walk-out' deck (which currently
0
Planning Commission Minutes - V07/97
lies 36 feet from the OHWM) with a new "screened -in" deck which would he
35 feet from the OHWM. As noted previously, the applicant's existing deck
lies 36 feet from the OHWM of Otter Creek. Because such deck (as well as
dwellings in the area) were constructed prior to the adoption of the City's
Shoreland Management Ordinance and the imposition of the 50 foot building
setback, it holds legal grandfather rights. If such non -conformity is
completely removed, however, it many not be placed in its previous "non-
conforming" location without the processing of a variance.
Grittman recommended the deck would be approved but did have concerns
regarding the enclosure.
Chairman Frie opened the public hearing.
Daniel Lynch, owner of the house, stated the deck was unsafe and in need of
repair. He had decided to screen in the porch instead of just repair the deck
to make it more useful. Lynch explained he discovered when the permit was
applied for that the law was changed two years after he bought the house
requiring a 50 ft. setback. When the building permit was applied for the
building official explained that a permit could not be issued without a
variance from the planning commission. 'rhe creek winds through this area
so all of the setbacks vary but his porch would be in sight line with his
neighbors.
Chairman Frio closed the public meeting.
The Commissioners discussed the fact that the creek does wind around in
this area and the porch would be in line with the neighbors. There was a
concern that the porch would eventually become more of a year round
addition than a porch. It is common to keep improving a porch and soon
there is no way for the City to protect the shoreline.
Jeff O'Neill, Assistant Administrator, cautioned the Commissioners if they
were leaning towards granting the variance to clearly identify the reasons
that the porch is being placed over an existing structure and the site lines aro
not being interrupted. This will be needed incase there is a similar request
in the fhture.
COMMISSIONER DRAGSTEN MADE A MOTION, SECONDED BY
COMMISSIONER MARTIE, TO APPROVE THE VARIANCE BASED ON
THE FINDINGS THAT THE EXISTING STRUCTURE IS IN CHARACTER
0
Planning Commission Minutes - 1/07/97
WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND IT DOES NOT INTERRUPT THE
SITE LINE BECAUSE THE CREEK WINDS BACK AND FORTH IN THIS
AREA. Motion passed unanimously.
Continued Puhl4c Hea_rinp--CorLaideratinn ofo inanre a.nandmems
guyp.ming fence and location.
COMMISSIONER MARTIE MADE A MOTION, SECONDED BY
COMMISSIONER BOGART TO CONTINUE THE PUBLIC HEARING TO
THE FEBRUARY MEETING. Motion passed unanimously.
Continued Puhlie Hearin$-- .o ii-rqtinnnfaTnpndmentatothpznnil2g
ordinance envvorgin+ radio/cell phone coom_Lnication towers.
Steve Grittman, City Planner, reported at the last Planning Commission
meeting, a representative of one of the wireless communications licensees
was present to suggest possible changes to the City's Ordinance amendment
regulating antenna towers. Grittman added that he had conducted additional
research and provided the following responses to the letter presented at the
meeting.
A suggestion was made that the Ordinance's requirement for registered
professional engineer supervise construction be dropped, relying on the
requirement that such a n engineer would be supervising design. This
language came from similar Ordinances which have been adopted both
in the Twin Cities and other parts of the country. It is intended to
supplement the City's inspection by certifying that the tower was in
fact constructed in accordance with design.
A change to the Ordinance's requirement for registered engineers to
design the system coverage was proposed, substituting 'qualified radio
fhequency engineers' as registration may be irrelevant to this aspect of
the industry. This change would appear to be a positive amendment to
the proposed ordinance.
The letter suggested that the requirement for screening of ground
equipment was adequate to hide undesirable aspects of the tower
installation, and that the restriction of such equipment to rear yards
should be removed. What the language does is allow such equipment
to encroach into rear yards, but front and side setback must be
O
Planning Commission Minutes - 1/07/97
adhered to, as with any other land use. Since the purpose of this
clause is to enhance the effect of any screening, we would not
recommend any change.
4. The letter requested that the Ordinance dispense with the requirement
be housed in a building, since it is weatherproof If the equipment is
adequately screened this would be acceptable.
5. A request to increase height limitations to 165 feet in the industrial
areas and 100 feet in the residential areas. A higher tower limit in the
industrial area may be appropriate if the Ordinance includes a
requirement that upon reconfiguration of the cell area, the
unnecessary tower height is removed. In residential areas, the
Ordinance is designed to discourage towers and raising the height
would make it more feasible to locate Sowers in those areas.
6. If was suggested that more flexibility be built into the Ordinance,
particularly in non -industrial areas. As noted above, such areas have
been designed to discourage tower location.
7. The letter discussed a modiCcation to the tower setback language. As
proposed in the draft ordinance, a tower must be setback from adjacent
buildings a distance equal to its height. However, this may be reduced
upon a certification that the tower is designed in such a way as to
avoid collapse which would endanger nearby property.
Chairman Frie opened the public hearing.
There were no comments, Chairman Frio dosed the public hearing.
The Commissioners questioned Grittman as to how the ordinance was
developed and also to explain what the equipment on the ground looks like.
Grittman stated that he has worked with and reviewed many cities
ordinances and used a variety of them. The equipment resembles a
weatherproof cable or electric box.
COMMISSION CARLSON MADE A MOTION SECONDED BY
COMMISSIONER BOGART TO APPROVE THE DRAFT
COMMUNICATION TOWER ORDINANCE AND SEND TO COUNCIL TO
BE MODIFIED ACCORDINGLY. Motion passed unanimously.
J
Planning Commission Minutes - 1/07/97
Review multi -family doAtrict. lora .in a gndennAidpr Airecting staff toSm9 rr
amen m nits consolidating m l i4nmily diRtrieta
Steve Grittman, City Planner, reported an issue which has been discussed by
the City over the past several years, and was addressed both in the
Comprehensive Plan and the subsequent implementation list, is that of the
"appropriate° level of multiple family zoning in the ammunity. How higher
density housing fits within the mix of residential uses has been a concern of
the City, which it has attempted to control by Zoning District.
One of the issues raised is the effectiveness of the current Zoning District to
adequately plan for both number and location of higher density housing. The
City's zoning ordinance allows multiple family housing in the R-3 District as
a permitted use. In addition, such housing is allowed in both the B-2 and
PZM Districts as conditional uses. The Monticello Community Partners,
MCP, is researching increasing the density of the downtown area.
Jeff ONeill, Assistant Administrator and member of the MCP board, added
the goal of the MCP is to create a high level of density in the downtown area
with a mixture of residential and business uses. There is not an ordinance
yet to support this goal but the Planning Commissioners will need to set
some guidelines. There are many multiple housing areas on the fringes of
the City. The Commissioners discussed the current PZM zoning and agreed
that these areas needed more direction. Commissioner Bogart mentioned Elk
River had developed a system for underlying zoning to allow more specific
direction but also allow some flexibility to areas similar to PZM
Dan Goeman, relator, stated he liked what he was hearing, the PZM zones
are creating more questions and problems than its worth. If there is more
direction from the City on the uses it would be very helpful.
Todd Larson, resident, expressed concern regarding the PZM zone across
from the public works building and next to his property. He did not want
multiple housing in this arca and was interested in having this zone defined
in more detail.
COMMISSIONER BOGART MADE A MOTION SECONDED BY
COMMISSIONER CARLSON TO DIRECT STAFF TO PREPARE AN
AMENDMENT TO CONSOLIDATE MULTIPLE FAMILY HOUSING
DISTRICTS AND TO RESEARCH THE CURRENT PZM ZONING
DISTRICTS FOR ADJUSTMENT THAT SHOULD BE MADE. ALSO TO
oaal
Planning Commission Minutes - 1/07/97
INCORPORATE SUGGESTIONS MADE BY THE MCPS PLAN. Motion
passed unanimously.
Congideration of callong for a n +hh e hearing on modifiCatinnFa to tho v rianon
VZOGM&
Steve Grittman, City Planner, reported that staff has briefly presented this
issue in the past, and it was identified as an item for action out of the
implementation discussions of the Comprehensive Plan. To recap the current
procedure, the Planning Commission sits as the Board of Adjustment to
decide variance requests from zoning standards. A person who objects to the
Board of Adjustment's decision has five days to file an appeal to the City
Council. A notice must be published giving four days notice prior to the
Council hearing the appeal. The City has attempted to accommodate
appellants by placing them on the nest City Council agenda. This required
that notices to the newspaper are actually filed prior to the Board of
Adjustment's decision, or that adequate notice is dispensed with. Either of
these approaches could give the City problems in the event of a contested
decision which winds up in court. There are three options to consider to
modify the variance process: 1 -Change Board of Adjustment designation to
the City Council; 2 - stick to the regular schedule; or 3 -drop the notice and
publication requirement for initial appeals.
Mayor Fair, who was observing the meeting, stress the fact the Planning
Commission is the expert on the ordinance.
Jeff O'Neill, Assistant Administrator, explained the Planning Commission
would still send their recommendation to the Council. The variance decision
would be added to the consent agenda and the Council would not be required
to comment unless a ceuncilmember asked for the item to be removed from
the consent agenda or the decision was appealed. The Council is now
receiving this information in their agenda packets as an update item.
CHAIRMAN FRIE MADE A MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER
DRAGSTEN TO CALL FOR A PUBLIC HEARING TO REVIEW THE
VARIANCE PROCESS. Motion passed unanimously.
10. li XhLLO:
A. Wastewater treatment plant project -
Jeff O'Neill, Assistant Administrator, reported the bids were awarded
oa-L
Planning Commission Minutes - 1/07/97
and the wastewater treatment plan project would be started soon.
B. Highway 25 Project/Chelsea realignment project. -
Jeff O'Neill, Assistant Administrator, reported January 15, 1997 the
City Council was holding a special meeting to provide information on
the selection of a design option for the Highway 25 Project.
C. Parking on Broadway at Pinewood -
Jeff O'Neill, Assistant Adminstrator, per the Planning Commissions
direction sent letter to school requesting a meeting regarding the
safety of parking along West Broadway in front of the Pinewood
Elementary School.
D. MCP Workshop q4 -
The Commissioners were reminded of the Downtown/Riverfront
Development Workshop on January 8, 1997, at 6:00 p.m. At this
meeting preliminary financing options will be discussed.
E. Commissioner Frie inquired about the status of City liquor licenses. If
there are any available and at what population does this change.
11. A;o , wnMLL
COMMISSIONER BOGART MADE A MOTION SECONDED BY
COMMISSIONER MARTIE TO ADJOURN THE MEETING.
RespectfWly submitted,
Wanda Kraemer
Development Services Technician
C
0
Planning Commission Agenda - 2✓4197
THIS ITEM HAS BEEN WITHDRAWN BY THE APPLICANT.
8. Consideration of a variance request to the minimal lot col
water boundary- minimnm lot r sk and inimum setba -1
the ordinary high waterm rh and hail ing setback- AND
Consideration of a simple eubdivLon request.mquest. Applienn
Wolfsta ler. (J.0.)
Rick Wolfsteller requests a series of variances that would allow a lot line to
be moved, thus resulting in the potential for construction of a single family
home at a location between his existing house and Otter Creek. Wolfsteller's
existing Iota have sufficient land area to meet many of the requirements for
resubdivision; but because of the awkward shape, variances are needed to
successfully recombine the lots in a fashion that would allow a new home to
be developed. As you recall from the previous Planning Commission meeting,
the Otter Creek shoreland area is governed by the Wild and Scenic Rivers
Act and associated rules within the City's zoning ordinance. These rules,
when applied to Wolfsteller's situation, require the following variances.
Variance to minimum lot width at water boundary. According to my
interpretion of the ordinance, any lot created on the shoreland must have a
minimum boundary width of 80 R. The proposed subdivision will require
creation of a lot with a boundary width of approximately 58 ft. However, it
could be argued that the subdivision will not in reality result in an increase
in the level of non -conformity because the new lot line will not change the
current level of nun -conformity.
Minimum lot area. According to the Hiles, lots created that border the
shoreland must maintain a minimum lot area of 15,000 aq ft. The
subdivision design as proposed will result in a 12,058 aq ft lot along the river.
The other lot will be 16,671 sq ft. The combined land area of the two lots
together ( 28,629 sq ft) meets the combined minimum lot area requirement for
two buildable lots. Wolfateller can avoid the variance by simply moving the
lot line inland; however, doing so will make the subdivision boundary line
even more awkward, resulting in mishapen lots.
Setback at ordinary high watermark. According to code, no construction
is allowed to occur within 60 ft of the ordinary watermark. Although
Wolfateller has not identified the precise location of the now home relative to
the ordinary high watermark, it appears that it will be difficult to construct a
home at this location without encroaching on this setback minimum.
Planning Commission Agenda - 214/97
As you recall from the previous meeting, the City has failed in the past to
enforce the rules along Otter Creek due to ignorance of the law. A number of
decks and three season porches have been allowed by the City to be
constructed without proper planning and zoning approvals. Recently, City
staff became aware of the zoning code requirements in this area and has
become active in enforcing the code as it is written, which has resulted in one
recent precedent -setting decision at the previous Planning Commission
meeting. As you recall, Planning Commission allowed a three season porch
to be constructed on the footprint of an existing deck. The variance was
granted based on the finding that sight lines would not be interrupted, and
the three season porch does not result in an increase in the level of non-
conformity. In the Wolfsteller situation, the new home will result in a
significant increase in the level of non -conformity; therefore, the precedent
set at the previous meeting might not necessarily apply here. The analysis of
the Wolfsteller application is somwhat hampered by incomplete site plan
data. The actual extent of the variance is not well understood because the
watermark from which to measure the setback has not been noted on the
survey, thus the precise level of the variance needed in order to create a
buildable lot is not known. The lb -R variance request is based on an
estimated amount.
Finally, according to the Department of Natural Resources, our current
ordinance was not updated properly in 1978 to include provisions for
notifying the DNR of variances to the code. Thus, City staff did not notify
the DNR, which is a requirement of State Statutes. Therefore, in order to
properly process this application, the item will need to be tabled, and a new
notice sent out that includes the Department of Natural Resources.
I have received one call regarding this matter from a local home owner who is
opposed to the variances based on his view that the parcel was never
intended to be split into two lots. The need for the subdivision is based on
the desire of the land owner to increase the value of of the property by
creating two buildable lots. He states that this is not a valid criteria for
granting variances,
Decision 1 --Lot Boundary Length at8horellne
Motion to approve the variance to minimum lot width at water
boundary. Motion is based on the finding that the proposed
subdivision will not result in an increase in the level of non-
conformity; therefore, the variance is appropriate.
Planning Commission Agenda - 214197
Motion to deny approval of the variance to the minimum lot width at
water boundary.
Motion to deny is based on the finding that there are no unique
circumstances present to justify the variance and, thus, approval
would impair the intent of the ordinance.
Motion to continue the public hearing and direct staff to provide
proper notice to the Department of Natural Resources.
Staff recommends alternative Q. If the proper notice had been sent, staff
recommends alternative #I. It is our view that the variance should be
approved based on reasons noted above.
Decision 11-hUnimum Lot Area
Motion to approve the variance to the minimum lot area. Motion is
based on the finding that the subdivision proposed meets the intent of
the ordinance because the total land area encompassed by both parcels
meets the minimum standards, and the lot configuration that remains
is superior to the configuration that would result without the variance.
Motion to deny approval of the variance to the lot area requirement
for properties located along the shoreland. Motion is based on the
finding that the lot area minimum is intended to apply directly to the
lots on the shoreland, and it is inappropriate to justify a smaller
shoreland lot based on preservation of open space on an adjacent
inland lot. Furthermore, the applicant can comply with this
requirement simply by moving the lot line. Granting a variance would
result in a negative precedent.
Motion to continue the public hearing and direct staff to provide
proper notico to the Department of Natural Resources.
Staff recommends alternative Q. If the proper notice had been sent, 1 would
be recommending approval of this variance. The applicant does not need a
variance to subdivide; however, the variance will enhance the useability of
the lot on which the existing home sits. Therefore, to deny the variance
would be somewhat self-defeating.
Planning Commission Agenda - 2/4/97
Decision III--15-ft Variance to the Setback Minimum at the ordinary
Watermark
Motion to approve granting a 15 -ft variance to the 50 -ft setback
minimum based on the ordinary high watermark.
Motion is based on the finding that the proposed home will not result
in an encroachment on sight lines. Granting the variance will enable
reasonable use of the property. Without the variance, the applicant is
denied use of his property customary to the R-1 zone.
Motion to deny the variance request to the minimum setback
requirement. Motion is based on the finding that previous action by
the City staff to allow porches and decks to encroach in the minimum
setback areas without proper review by planning and zoning was done
my mistake and does not constitute a precedent that should be applied
in this case. Also, previous formal action by the Planning Commission
to grant a variance allowing encroachment on the setback applied to
replacement of an existing deck, which did not constitute an increase
in the level of non -conformity, as opposed to the current request, which
will result in anew level of nonconformance. Finally, there are no
unique circumstances that would warrant granting the variance, and
granting it would be precedent setting, and the property owner is now
enjoying use of the property in a manner that is customary to the R-1
zone.
Motion to continue the public hearing and direct staff to provide
proper notice to the Department of Natural Resources. Also, Planning
Commission may wish to request more detailed site plan information
on the survey showing the actual setback distance from the shoreland
rather than basing the variance on an estimated distance.
1 recommend alternative 43. However, if the proper notice had been sent, I
would be recommending denial of the variance request based on the finding
outlined in alternative q2,
The original lot was set up for one single family home; therefore, denial of a
variance to create an additional lot is not denying the owner reasonable use
of his property. It is clear that up until recently, the City has not enforced
the code properly. However, this lack of enforcement was admittedly due to
ignorance of the law, To now follow the precedent set under ignorance is
tantamount to throwing the code out the window.
Planning Commission Agenda - 2/4/97
The precedent set by granting the variance to allow a three season porch to
be placed in the footprint of an existing non -conforming deck maintained an
existing level of non-conformance. Whereas the proposed variance will result
in a new level of non-conformance; therfore, the previous action does not set a
precedent that should be applied in this case.
Copy of site plan; Excerpts from zoning ordinance.
Consideration of a variance to the minimum lot
width at water boundary, minimum lot area and
minimum setback between the normal high water
t' mark and building setback. The variances would
/ enable a simple subdivision of a residential lot
tf1 \ along Otter Creek. Applicant- Rick Wolfsteller
s�
p /
T E ftZ
�p r r• ,
LLD
OAS
I •>•E •/� • qYn -
I~ G •••• + • .
r
1
11115,76 15.51 E 611 4./ i4Vl--
/FXISTING
UNDARY \TER MINItNM 80'
/I
New lot% I /s,
12,058 SOL/ VARIANCE
0.28 oeree/
INCH - 30 FEET I 30 a
NEW LOTI12,058Sql Pt.G.Di E_
L-..^ — - — — �' n
PROPOSED
� •tat. �,�
I I o
A
\164 I Iig
neva' bt s�o 18671 "
• I
17162 `�
iW
Notice is hereby given that public hearings will be held by the City of Monticello Planning Commission
on February 4, 1997 at 7 p.m., in the Monticello City Hall to consider the following matters:
PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of a variance to the minimum lot width at water
boundary, minimum lot area and minimum setback between the
normal high water mark and building setback. The variances would
enable a simple subdivision of a residential lot along Otter Creek.
Location: Lot 9, Block 1, Creek Side Terrace Subdivision.
Applicant: Rick Woltsteller.
Written and oral testimony will be accepted on above subjects, and all persons desiring to be heard on
referenced subjects will be heard at this meeting.
I3= Decisions of the Planning Commission will be fiml unless appealed by any individual by 9:00
a.m. on Wednesday, February B, 1997. Appeals must be in writing, signed, and must state
reasons for appeal. if appeal is filed, the City Council shall hear appeal on Monday. February
10, at 7 p.m. at the Monticello City Hall. Notice of appeal shall appepr in the Monticello Times
on Thursday, February 6, 1997. / 1
Fred Patch, Acdng Zoning Administ.rntor
scoo-o
1 - fit 1toil111i•t1�R����1•
locality. Economic consideration alone shall not constitute a
hardship if a reasonable use for the properly exists under lernis
of the official controls.
5. LOT: A parcel of land designated by metes and bounds
description, registered land survey, auditors plat, or other
accepted means and separated from other parcels or portions by
said description or the purposes of sale, lease, or separation
thereof. For the purposes of these regulations, a lot shall be
considered to be an individual building site which shall be
occupied by not more than one principal structure equipped
with sanitary facilities.
6. RD
INARY HIGH WATER: A mark delineating the highest
water level which has keen maintained for a sufficient period of
time to leave evidence upon the landscape. The ordinary high
water mark is commonly that point where the natural
vegetation changes from predominantly aquatic to
predominantly terrestrial.
PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT: A type of development
which may incorporate a variety of land uses planned and
developed as a unit. The planned unit development is
distinguished from the traditional subdivision process of
development in that zoning standards such as density, setbacks,
height limits, and minimum lot sizes may be altered by
negotiation and agreement between the developer, die
municipality, and the Commissioner of Natural Resources.
PLANNING AGENCY: The Planning Commission or planning
department as created by the municipality.
PUBLIC WATERS: Any waters of the state which serve a
beneficial public purpose as defined in Minnesota Statutes 197
Section 105.37, Subdivision 6. However, no lake, pond, or
flowage of less than ten (10) acres in sizo and no river or stream
having a total drainage area less than two (2) square miles shall
be regulated for the purposes of these regulations. A body of
water created by a private user where there was no previous
shoreland as defined herein for a designated private use
authorized by the Commissioner of Natural Resources shall be
exempt from the provisions of these regulations.
The official determination of the size and physical limits of
drainage areas of rivers and streams shall be made by the
Commissioner of Natural Resources. The official size of lakes,
ponds, or flowage shall be the areas listed in the Division of
Water Bulletin 25, and Inventory of Minnesota lakes; or in the
event that lakes, ponds, or flowages aro not listed therein,
MONTICELLO TONING ORDINANCE 27/4
official determination of size and physical limits shall be made
by the Commissioner of Natural Resources in cooperation with
the municipality.
10. SETBACK: The minimum horizontal distance between a
structure or sanitary facility and the ordinary high water mark,
or between a structure or sanitary facility and a road, highway,
or property lines.
11. SHORELAND: Land located within the following distances
from public water:
(a) 1,000 feet from the ordinary high water mark of a lake,
pond, or flowages.
(b) Three hundred (300) feet from a river or stream r the
landward extent of a flood plain designated by o inance
on such river or stream'tvhichever is greater. The
practical limits of shore -lands may be less than the
statutory limits where such limits are designated by
natural drainage divides at lesser distances as shown on
the official zoning map of the City of Monticello.
(c) The area included in the recreational land use districts
for the Mississippi River as defined in Minnesota
Regulations NR 2400.2420.
12. SUBDIVISION: Improved or unimproved land or lands which
aro divided for the purposes of ready sale or lease, or divided
successively within a five (6) year period for the purpose of sale
or lease, into three (3) or more lots or parcels of less U►an five (5)
acres each, contiguous in area, and which are under common
ownership or control.
13. SUBSTANDARD USE: Any use of shorelnnds existing prior to
the date of enactment of this ordinance which is permitted
within the applicable zoning district but does not meet the
minimum lot area and length or water frontage, structure
setbacks, or other dimensional standards of the ordinance.
27.2: DESIGNATION OF TYPES OF LAND USE
In order to guide the wise development and utilization of shorelands of public
waters for the preservation of water quality, natural characteristics,
economic values, and the general health, safety, and welfare in the city of
Monticello, a shoreland management classification has been given by die
Commissioner of Natural Resources, and uses of shoreland in these classes
aro hereby designated by land use districts, based on the compatibility of the
designated typo of land use with the shoreland management classification.
MONTICELLO ZONING ORDINANCE 27/5
(A] SHORELAND MANAGEMENT CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM: The
4 public waters in the city of Monticello have been classified by the
Commissioner of Natural Resources as "general development lakes and
streams" which include the Mississippi River and Otter Creek. In
addition, the Mississippi River has been designated as a "recreational"
component of Minnesota's wild, scenic, and recreational rivers system.
(B) SHORELAND OVERLAY DISTRICT: The shorelands of the city of
Monticello are hereby designated as a shoreland overlay district. The
purpose of the shoreland overlay district is to provide for the wise
ufalization of shoreland areas in order to preserve the quality and
natural character of the public waters of the city of Monticello.
PERMITTED USES: All permitted uses allowed and regulated
by the applicable zoning district underlying this shoreland
overlay district as indicated on the official zoning map of the
City of Monticello.
2. CONDITIONAL USES: All conditional uses and applicable
attached conditions allowed and regulated by the applicable
zoning district underlying this shoreland overlay district as
indicated on the official zoning map of the City of Monticello.
3. GENERAL PROVISIONS: The following standards shall apply
to a, shorelands of all public waters within the city of
Monticello. Where the requirements of the underlying zoning
district as shown on the official zoning map are more restrictive
than those set forth herein, then the more restrictive standards
shall apply.
UNfi .WRRF.D RFA
Lot area (feet)
Water frontage and lot width at a
building lino (feet)
Building setback from ordinary high
water mark (feet)
Building setback from roads and
highways (feet)
C:FNERAI. DEVELOPMENT WATERS
20,000
100
75
s0
Federal/State/County
20
Municipal/Private
4. Elevation of lowest floor above highest
known water level (fact)
1
MONTICELLO ZONING ORDINANCE 27/6
TNS .W mn MEA GFNFI L D ' V .0P14 EN1' WA'1' HS
Building height limitation (feet) 35
Total lot area covered by impervious
surface 1[% 30
Sewage system setback from ordinary
high water mark (feet) 50
Sewage system elevation above highest
groundwater level or bedrock (feet) 4
SF. .RFD AREA rPNF.RAi. D r.OP_ ENT WATERS
All provisions for unsewered areas shall apply to severed areas except for the
following, which shall supersede the provisions applied to unsewered areas:
Lot Area (feet):
Waterfront lots 15,000
abutting public waters
�r Other lots 12,000
not abutting public waters
Water frontage and lot width
at building line (feet) BO
Building setback from ordinary
high water mark (feet) 50
(C) VEGETATIVE CUTTING PROVISIONS AND GRADING AND
FILLING (Recreational River):
1. On lands within the building setback from the normal high
water mark, the Mississippi River, and the portion of Otter
Crock within the recreational land use district:
(a) Clear-cutting except for any authorised public services
such as roads and utilities shall not be permitted.
(b) Selective cutting of trees in excess of four (4) inches in
diameter at breast height is permitted provided that
6 cutting is spaced in several cutting operations and a
continuous tree cover is maintained, uninterrupted by
large openings. In cases where the existing tree cover has
MONTICELLO ZONNO OR NMNCE 2717
C
Planning Commission Agenda - 2/4/97
Please see attached report from Planner Steve Grittman.
JM-31-1997 09: 48 t1m 612 5% %T? P.01
NORTHWEST ASSOCIATED CONSULTANTS
NFN.Ccommu NITY PLANNING - OCSION - MARKET RHBEARCH.
MEMORANDUM
TO:
Jeff O'Neill
FROM:
Bob Kimkis I Stephen Grfttman
DATE:
31 January 1997
RE:
Monticello -Klein Farms 3rd Addition - Preliminary Plat
FILE NO:
191.07.97.01
A.
E and K Development has requested preliminary plat approval of a 132 lot single family
residentia: subdivision entitled Klein Fauna 3rd Addition. The proposed subdivision
overlays a 91.2 acre tract of land located south of School Boulevard between Oakwood
Drive and Fal Ion Avenue.
The subject site is zoned R-1,Single Family Residential.
Blacks. According to Section 115-1 A of the Subdivision ordinance, blocks should not
exceed 1,320 feet in length unless WOW by unique conditions. At 21,450 feet In length,
Block 7 oxceeds the ordinance requirement So as to conform to ma)dmum btocK length
sMrd'rrds and provide convenient pedestrian acoeae to the proposed park, it is suggested
that a 30 foot wide pedestrian way (outlet) be provided now the intersection of Farrn teed
Drive and Street F (between Lob 9 and 10, Block 7). This pathway locatbn would overlay
a proposed storm sower easemont
Altetrtathrety, pedestrian aecesees to Mie park could be provided along the UPA easement
and School Boulevard. This option Is illustrated on Exhibit E with a redesigned street plan,
and discussed below in the'StralW section.
6778 WAYZATA DOULEVA110. SUITE e65 ST, I.OUIS PARK, MINNESOTA 55416
PHONE OI 2-505.0630 VAX OI 2-606.9637
a
JAN -31-1997 0948 NAC 612 595 9837 P.02
Lots. All lots have been found to comply with the following minimum lot area and width
requirements imposed within R-1 Zoning Districts:
Lot Area - 12,000 square feet
Lot Width - 80 feet
While technically meeting ordhtance lot width requirements, some concern exists over the
actual buildable width provided to lots which abut the UPA easement along the plat's
southern property line. For Instance, Lot 17, Block 7 is provided a 40 foot wide building
width. Such width is inconsistent with most other subdivision lots which provide 60 foot
building widths. Builders should be cautioned that setback variances are not likely to be
approved on newly platted lots.
Streets.
Riahtaf-Wev. As required by ordinance, proper right-of-way width and cul-de-sac radii
have been provided. Additionally, all cul -de -saes comply with maximum S00 foot length
requirements.
Layout. Generally speaking, the proposed street layout appears acceptable. Some
concern does, however, exist In regard to the 200 foot offset of streets'S' and 'F*. While
the off -set does comply with the minimum 12S separation required by ordinance, such
condition and the awkward turning maneuvers which result should be avoided if possible.
One means to address such conceal would be to simply shift Street F approximately 250
feet to the south to align with Street B. If such alternative Met alignment is pursued, it
Is suggested that a 30 foot wide pedestrian park aceessloutlot be located near the
Intersection of Street F and Farmstead Drive. This alternative also solves the lot width
issuos adjacent to the UPA easement by reorienting lots so the power lines are In the rear
yards. It further reduces the number of cul -de -saes in the plat
Access- As shown on the attached preliminary plat, access to the subject property is to
be provided via two points from School Boulevard. Orta Issue worthy of discussion Is the
neod for a street access from the west (via Oakwood Drive). While the subdivision's park
certainly must be considered a primary area destination, it should be recognized that
veNculw access to the park Is to be provided only via the north (from School Boulevard)
and the east (from Fallon Avenue). Thus, a westerly street access would not offer any
additional convenience in regard to park accessibility. This is not to say that a future
westerly street access from Oakwood Avenue (provided as part of southerty development)
would not be desirable. A pedestrian access from Oakwood Avenue is considered
appropriate for the current development area.
JRN-31-1997 09:48 NAC 612 595 9837 P.03
Setbacks. All proposed lots demonstrate an ability to comply with the following R-1
District setback requirements.
Front Yard
30 feet
Side Yard
Interior
10 feet
Street Abutting
20 feet
Rear Yard
30 feet
Parka. As shown on the attached preliminary plat, a 16.2 we park (excluding wetland)
has been proposed along the subject site's eastern boundary. Such location provides full
exposure to Fallon Avenue and School Boulevard and overlays significant stands of
mature oak trees and other vegetation. While the proposed park location is considered
highly positive. TWo Roma of =noerrn exist as highlfghtad below.
As shown on the attached grading and erosion control plan, Lot 8, Block 7 abuts
a ponding area. Such owdtion will prohibit park patrons from encircling the parks
porldlw edand area As a cmditleon of preliminary plat appnovel, the pond should be
designed so as to allow full pedestrian passage alongi the ponds westem boundary.
2. A number of structures exdst within the designated park area The Parks
Commission should provide recommendation whether such structures should be
removed or adapted for park use,
Sidewalko/Peahways. According to Section 11.7-2 (H) of the Subdivision Ordinance,
sidewalks of standard design may be required by the City Cosuhcil. Consldering that the
subJect subdivision Incorporates a significantly sized park a provision for sidewalks and/or
pathway is considered )ustlfled, In this regard, it is suggested that a five foot concrete
sidewalk be constructed along the south side of School Boulevard. Additionally, it is
suggested that the followtt sidewalk/pathway options be conaldored:
Five foot wide concrete sidewalks along Country Lane and Farmstead Drive (both
sides of street).
2. An eight foot wide bhuminws pathway along Country Lane and Farmstead Drive
(one side of street).
It is the opinion of our oRks that in this etbmtlon, tho construction of sidewalks on both
sides of Country Lane end FerrWmd Drive represent a preferred. more equltable option
by accommodating pedestrian dreulatim on both sides of a obsot (thereby avoiding
'unsafe• street crossings). Additionally the use of concrete represent a preferred
construction material In terns cfpenwW appesranoe and maintonmtce.
to f,./
JAN -31-197? 09:49 NAC 612 595 9237 P.04
It is anticipated that such sidewalks or pathways could be extended Southward at such time
as the adjacent property develops.
While areas to the south of the subject property currently are undeveloped, it is likely that
future area residents will desire convenient pedestrian access to the proposed park To
ensure such access, the following Is recommended:
A 20 foot wide pathway easement be established along the southem border of
Block 1 (within UPA easement). Future pathway construction would occur within
the adjacent southerly property upon development.
A 30 foot wide outlot is established along the southern boundary of Block 3 to
accommodate future pathway construction.
ScreentrMA.andlamOng. As shown on the attached pretiminary plat, double frontage lots
have been provided additional depth to accommodate landscaping and/or screen
plantIngs. Rather than rely on Individual property owners and the resulting ma of rear yard
treatments, It Is suggested that the developer be made responsible for such screening
efforts. Such responsibility would ensure a constant and functional lanciscapo design
along the School Boulevard and Oakwood Drive corridors. Specific methods of screening
should be stipulated in a landscape plan submission.
Ore aing and Drainage. In conformance with preliminary plat submission mquiraments,
a prelimftry grading and erosion control plan has been subnyftW for review (see Exhibit
C). As shown on such plan, a significant amount of existing vegetation/nature trees exist
in the eaotem one-third of the site. To the extent possible, all significant v eee (as
determined by the City) should be preserved. The grading and erosion control plan should
be subject to review and approval by the City Engineer.
Utllides. In conformance with preliminary plat submission requirements, a preliminary
utility pian has been submitted for review (attached as Exhibit D). Such pian should be
subject to review and cornment by the City Engineer. Such review should Include specific
comment as to easement acceptability.
[13�3i i :i:i; r_` ii1"'I dRhiT•7F]
Approve the prellminary plat subject to the foltowing conditions:
A 30 toot wide podosblen park eooesa/outlot is providktd between Late 9 and
10, Block 7. If, however, a revised street plan Is pursued (as illustrated on
Exhibit C), an alternative access location upon the UPA easement be
provided.
GD
JAW31-1997 0949 t1K 612 595 9637 P.05 A
B. Conskleratiort is given to shining Street B southward in a manner similar to
Owl illustrated upon Exhibit E.
C. Five foot wide concrete sldowalks are provided along both sides of Country
Lane and Farmstead Drive.
D. Sidewalks are provided along the south side of School Boulevard.
E. The pond which lies within the park is designed and configured to allow
pedestrian passage between such pond and the adjacent residential Iota
which Ile to the west
F. The Parke Commission provide recommendation as to the removal or
adaptation of existing structures which Ile within the designated park ares.
G. A 20 foot pathway easement is provided along the southern boundary of
Block 1.
H. A 30 foot wide cutiot is established along the soulhem boundary of Block 3
to aeeommnodate Mrs partway construction.
I. To the extent possible, all significant trees (as determined by the City) are
preserved.
J. A landscape plan is submitted which specifies rear yard landscaping
screening mett cls along School Boulevard and Oakwood Drive.
K The submoted grading end erosion control plan Is subject to review and
approval by the Coy Engineer.
L. The submitted utility plan is subod to review and approval by the City
Engineer.
2. Derry the preliminary plat.
C.
Based on the preceding review, we recommumd approval of tho Mein Farms 3rd Addition
preliminary plat under condition that the items highlighted In this memorandum are
addressed to the satisfadion of the Clty.
s
�6
J(#h31-1997 09:49 FAC 612 595 9837 P.06
Attached for refenume:
Exhibit A - Site Locatlon
Exhibit B - Preliminary Plat
Exhibit C - GradhV and Erosion Control Plan
Exhibit D - Udllty Plan
Exhibit E - Subdivision Design Alternative
16 F
1Y.«:v
.ice ,•nk. �" }""'• `..�....a. � -- _� 1' � � : iv :i�' / ♦.�'. ,�� - ,�..,',•, !{ p;f .. ••.,�
'1 l �+.�wlit :\r.w v.� .` ./ .Yrlt. '�•� � `.R+u 1 � i.. •1+� •'.{t }• .S t__ `i�,h _�. � y i:1-=:
� ''° � r,3t )1' 1 ,, ,,aira¢ . 4:` �.L»tt• i i alr�,•�•�• �o::.:: T..-1'
U� {�yj _ :j ' aasra%. � ./ '� �ar �+^' T'"T.,.j.._,.: ,�'•_
�+V i, i... rf+ n (. twr: n. ••? .-��''Yr;! iiuv .IyM�,• ',_' /1: j' ..
it-.ri•' i .yd4v.: ++af•� `ti. ;ii 1. � q: N'`( ci \ � �.. � , ". .., �' S';; �?
I "�• ,•�•�' 1iT -:fib. ,' ,f` 1 ti1.'•' rtir'�:
�{ j • 1�•• �' � \ � ir. �';'�� .1�t-'i `a+-�'�':�'eij' } � r'! t � rt t 'j. ..4 1. �. - '
v l • . �'{+ " •c + T � �. �' . � � ' � t___-��+�+{' I>s ,Y. ,t�Y iJj. Y. � '� Yom• 3 .r ir'�'�,` / r � , . t.
� i :\.- u ` _i,. � �.r. y1}w•� w �'- i »' .r' f `a: . 1 j'ir r }�' ..`
'"tom �pt'•`'',�i ..i�, "` a v �♦' h.i o» 4 Iv,,.y,.. it. Y. � 1tyj �'' w+T, �. I
-'Q � ...;., a "••:.• '• a,�d ( .:"•_. 1 ' '' t f •`', *. s ti.'
,iI'+ � ,arly /. V . ./ K�; r,_ ,�v '!u� .li+ utw N. �"~ • tl l I �'r'
i �,'• , L,�IV.i 'fir few ♦ _-: _. t�` i, �
Is t 1 ' 1 �*^•i�T�£f3i^� r i.rrq � ,.. ,, �.... � + , ` - i
to , - av�v M •/ rir -� i. u. uir u S \ `••t,^-__.._`. ... • i +! : \
i �p '''��j'�"•� i- i• +• '• %�/ I. ;.1'�' a-^ �o i ,w if .r: r ,.,. •., _ . it .... � ti.�..�
rTraiCk R.
'- I • � ..st o •;n.�r7'( ^Sr � �+.� . ie•,et amly�! '., r'."`,;.r.M'r�. •1 '':.. m
c; - .+s'.— . Cr • yS.�. ."L +T' � i '�1 , •�F L...:.... �� ' 1..... • _ Iv
t4-SiiJ-k[}/',,�it ne•�r �` M Yrr • w y Mf.i r� .. (� t ..�, o. ,w 1 _ 1�
7�1�r�
' MMJr..F.. llOfllltM!
I
Ne
KLEIN FARMS 3RD ADDITION
PfttWIItI61F CRADIM 6 til1 M CC,IPTW PIAN I
I
1 6 Ile.
nu� in -
Mir
U U,
EM --z— nu",
91
Ig
Mir
U U,
EM --z— nu",
"1"
*412
I/((1hil
.+w�
Mir
U U,
EM --z— nu",
KLEIN FARMS 3RD ADDITION
rgri.onuor unun vux i
I,.S) Mu/lcytq marti.
t :.) i, �; r.:'I �at u �aec •cr• nce is tf
��i • I�t;r I���li It�i,• • � ` -' v�. t�.i ,l t - r f i
t
ni �' 1�i , ' 1 �' ra � , v MIt •� , �r't �
���+i �t7 "u r1:•,rj•. a;Y � '\ : r { N '�S �' 6 �s#ti;� +i
_{• -,M. "i.. '�.. ,'tet �'" i �•� `�/ DQ'—r={ _s�E-'� t' .I .
_L I , ~ _,ter•,...,. � �. �'
ra
fiF
w
f
8 [ • Y orator of. ac
• 1 tuari i o wShn
rak.t� u� rif. rfry1isu}»s Ws55413
t lJ`t +
.•J ._'- —r'. _--Y. - r 1 ' t�q'' _\� w�v.w:.. _.r '.: ' wlo ,� v ,�:w ''\•. _ ._. ' .�I J
•`�.`� r � ��_�.— —� �'••r— gar; t '\'. ..�::, a'•�.,
/ ..i -a) \ ��F r ate' a� �i •'� ♦• A. ...' ••�\`.:I..i.1�. .. ••i,
-Irr, F�.,',1 .. /•�"yii� ..\� '•����]' `tl�L�j� f.�Ri' •�+• ' •`r\ per..:, a 4\' .'.0 .. :�
I 1y �S+v. 1"n �\ '.:�..w 1•.. .. i.i�.iJ� I .a• _ .t�r•^!i't_f::'.%
`• i .: � 1 ."'.ilN' '��r,r,y1: •unJ -� , r•, -- 5 �i_ a' (�, �..�`�;:.::.IG�,��: r
1- � 1 'b' +lii.'.'e' }• ';'wr � /1 • l ..1_ •�.. 1 �'^.. \ - �,� /:.:q, 1 � :!'°• . ''..'
v, T ,'lu--�. '•
1 -�o �II C.'' ;D �y 1..-. �� .`.• � •' i!.5.. w�:. I .IZ' .lr. ,. i .t 1 / � / \.. �o `�•') r 1 ;,I /l i�'1
q' .T �, ,�. �RW� ./•�•^��..� Lr, '1•r v� C ��n!. Nrl + f,� 1
T ('� ; � �. ` . `+GT ERR -A • 77ff �.•' i r ! l • ,—� rt: \ . n r 1.F - I r ��
V1
ru
r� ^ , � •... ) , ' , • •. R 1 � h: 'ter a Jr •._,. ,, `�._._• � .. II
• '. per. 7 ar 1. -r . {� .y � µ ,��' w...•`,_.l.(._. �\... ., �
I, '• ... ,.....Y:' :� : ' ;. / _ i i • �J _.l. ;f PEDESTRIAN ACCESS 0
Prr'!-,`.!_41".M'"On
E=ux.., v
r � �L�''. a r w W r ww 1�.1.rr1J1Y.rL ' fyyyi � II� ' •
� ... 1� r M 41Y a.J. M �.—�•Y ar .w 1 �„
y—,... • ���4yar�.rrr
Planning Commission Agenda - 2/4/97
ni0g
tla1R
(J.0.)
After reviewing the zoning ordinance in its entirety, we found that
mortuaries are not identified anywhere in the zoning code as a permitted
use. Other uses that are similar to a mortuary such as a chapel are allowed
in the public/semi -public zoning district. According to Steve Grittmian, a
mortuary is similar to a chapel type of use; however, there are some
significant differences. Therefore, typically mortuaries are identified
specifically as a separate and unique use. Obviously, this question came up
in conjunction with a request by the Peterson-Grimsmo Funeral Home to
develop a mortuary in the B-4 district on Block 14 of the Original Plat of the
city. According to Steve Grittman, mortuaries are typically found in or near
commercial areas. The type of impacts that a mortuary presents for an area
are more aloin to commercial impacts; therefore, this type of use is best
located near a commercial area.
In addition to Steve Grittman's input, Michael Schroeder, the planner
working on the MCP/HRA redevelopment study, indicated that mortuary use
is consistent with the uses identified in the B-4 district and, furthermore,
development of a mortuary as proposed on Walnut Street is consistent with
the plans that are emerging from the downtown redevelopment study. It,
therefore, appears that identification of a mortuary in the B-4 zone
represents a housekeeping matter that, when completed, will enable
construction of the Pete rson-Grimsmo Funeral Home as proposed. In
addition, the area identified in the proposed redevelopment plan for civic and
institutional uses is directly adjacent to the site of the proposed mortuary.
The location of a mortuary at this spot fits neatly into the plan for
development of civic and institutional uses in this portion of town. A
mortuary, in a sense, is a semi-public or civic use; therefore, the location of
sucii a facility at this location will integrate well with future development.
Please note that we have not identifted a mortuary as an allowable use in the
3-3 zone or in other commercial districts due to the view that this type of use
should be limited to the downtown area to the greatest extent possible.
Planning Commission Agenda - 2/4/97
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. Motion to adopt an ordinance amendment including mortuaries as a
permitted use in the B4 zone.
Under this alternative, a mortuary would be added to the list of
permitted uses in the B-4 zone. This motion could be based on the
finding that mortuary use is consistent with uses identified in the B-4
zone and is consistent with the purpose of said zone. Establishment of
mortuary uses in the B-4 zone is consistent with the character,
geography, and nature of the B-4 zoning district; therefore, such uses
will not tend to depreciate or negatively impact adjoining properties.
Therefore, the ordinance amendment is consistent with the
comprehensive plan for the city.
2. Motion to deny adoption of the ordinance amendment including
mortuaries as a permitted use in the B4 zone.
This alternative should be selected if the Planning Commission
believes that mortuary use is not appropriate in a B4 zoning district.
r STAFF RE .O END TION:
Staff recommends alternative pl.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Copy of proposed zoning ordinance amendment; Copy of statement of purpose
of the B4 district.
C
ORDINANCE AMENDMENT NO.
THE CITY COUNCIL OF MONTICELLO, MINNESOTA,, HEREBY ORDAINS
THAT CHAPTER 14, SECTION 2, OF THE MONTICEIAD ZONING
ORDINANCE (TITLE 10), PERTAINING TO PERMITTED USES IN
THE B-4 REGIONAL BUSINESS DISTRICT BE AMENDED BY ADDING
THE FOLLOWING:
14-2: PERMITTED USES: The following are permitted uses in a
" B-4" district:
[JJJ Mortuaries
Adopted by the City Council this day of , 1997.
Mayor
City Administrator
CHAPTER 14
"B-4" REGIONAL BUSINESS DISTRICT
SECTION:
14-1: Purpose
14-2: Permitted Uses
14-3: Permitted Accessory Uses
14-4: Conditional Uses
<14-1: PURPOSE: The purpose of the "B-4," regional business, district is to provide
for the establishment of commercial and service activities which draw from
and serve customers from the entire community or region.
14.2: PERMITTED USES: The following are permitted uses in a "B-4" district:
[A] All permitted uses as allowed in a "B-1", "B-2", and
"B-3" district.
[B] Antique or gift shop.
[Cl Amusement places (such is dance halls or roller rinks).
[D] Auto accessory stores.
[E] Enclosed boat and marine sales.
[F] Books, office supplies, or stationery stores.
[Gl Bowling alleys.
[H] Carpet, rugs, and tile.
[1] Coin and philatelic stores.
[J] Copy service but not including press or newspaper.
[K] Costume, clothes rental.
[L] Department and discount stores.
[M] Dry cleaning, including plant accessory thereto, pressing, and
repairs.
[N] Dry goods store. -76
MONTICELLO ZONING ORDINANCE 14/1
Planning Commission Agenda - 2/4/97
..., =..
M� •1 LII
A RFFFRFNCF AND BA .K .RO TND;
The Peterson-Grimsmo Mortuary site plan was developed jointly by the
architects representing Peterson-Grimsmo and City staff with the goal of
developing a plan that meets the needs of a modern funeral home and fits
with the proposed design guidelines being developed by the HRA through the
Monticello Community Partners (MCP). Ironically, the existing ordinance
limits the site plan design in a fashion that results in the need for variances
in order to achieve the goals of the proposed redevelopment design
guidelines.
PROPOSED REDEVELOPMENT DESIGN GUIDELINES
The proposed urban design guidelines being prepared by Hoisington Koegler
at the direction of the MCP design committee have been reviewed by the
MCP Board and members of the community at various workshops. The
design guidelines, although not adopted formally by the City via the
comprehensive plan, call for development of Walnut Street as a pedestrian -
friendly retail/service area. Elements of the design include introduction of
on -street head -in parking and minimal or zero setbacks of buildings at the
street. Over ti►e long-term, it is hoped that the development of Walnut Street
will feature buildings and storefronts facing Walnut, resulting in a classic
downtown main street look and appeal. In order to accomplish the design
goals, Walnut Street will need to be widened, which will require that the City
acquire 7 ft of property from private property owners along the full length of
Walnut Street on both sides of the street.
DESIGN GUIDELINE DWACT ON FUNERAL CHAPEL DESIGN
City staff and Michael Schroeder met with the architects designing the site
plan on two separate occasions and developed a site plan that strives to
accomplish the goals of the design guidlines. Tho situ plans shows sidewalk
on Walnut Street and connecting sidewalks, thus creating pedestrian links to
the street. It also includes modifications to the architecture of the structure
that lend a colonial look to the facility, thus following potential guidelines
that we may institute for public or civic uses. The site plan also includes the
provision for providing the City with the 7 R of land area needed to
accomplish the head -in parking design goals.
Planning Commission Agenda - 714/97
Please note that the actual development of the head -in parking off of Walnut
Street will not occur until such time that Walnut Street is rebuilt. The
parking identified on the site plan itself is sufficient to handle the parking
required by the funeral home.
VARIANCE REQUESTS
The first variance will allow access to the small parking lot in the front of the
property to front 5th Street. According to existing code, the access at this
location should be no closer than 40 ft from the right-of-way. The proposed
access point will be inside of this 404 minimum at a distance of 30 ft. This
variance request will enable the shifting of the access point from Walnut
Street to 5th Street, which benefits the City by placing the private access on
a quieter side street versus having the access dump onto busy Walnut Street.
In addition, pedestrians using Walnut Street will have one less driveway to
negotiate when walking along the Walnut Street sidewalk.
The second variance calls for an encroachment on the side yard setback on
Che fire hall side of the facility. As stated earlier, the City is acquiring 7 ft of
property from the land owner on the east side, which reduces the usable size
of the property, thus having the potential of limiting space for building and
parking. Originally, it was intended that the parking on the Walnut side of
the facility be placed directly next to the sidewalk extending along the
Walnut Street right-of-way. This would have required a 5 -ft variance along
the Walnut Street side of the parking lot and resulted in cars parked directly
next to the sidewalk. At the request of City staff, the owner has agreed to
shift the parking and building 5 ft toward the fire hall to create separation
between the Walnut parking and the sidewalk. However, this shift results in
the need for a variance on the west side of the property. Although it is too
early to tell, it is possible that in the future, the right-of-way between the fire
hall and the mortuary could be converted to additional parking for future
civic uses in the area. If that is the case, then the mortuary parking lot could
be expanded and a larger joint parking area could result.
R ALTFRNATrVE ACTIONR;
Decision A
1. Motion to approve the variance request allowing a curb cut inside of
the 40 -ft minimum standard at 5th Street.
This motion could be based on the finding that the proposed ordinance
amendment does not impair the intent of the zoning ordinance and
results in a safer and more convenient access. It also enhances
pedestrian use of the Walnut Street right-of-way.
Planning Commission Agenda - 2/4/97
Motion to deny the variance request to allow a curb cut inside of the
40 -ft minimum standard at 5th Street.
If the Planning Commission is not comfortable with the work being
prepared and the design guidelines being established by the MCP, the
position could be taken that the proposed variance is not necessary,
and the site can be developed under existing code. Therefore, the
variance should be denied.
I recommend alternative til.
Decision B
Motion to grant the variance allowing a 5 -ft setback variance to the
parking lot setback requirement on the western boundary of the
mortuary site plan.
Motion is based on the fording that the setback variance is necessary
to accommodate the design guidelines of the Monticello Community
Partnere' proposed development guidelines. Furthermore, long-term
parking lot plans could include enlargement of the proposed parking
lot as a joint public/semi-public lot to be developed at some point in the
future in conjunction with expansion of civic uses in the area.
Motion to deny the variance allowing a 54 setback to the parking lot
setback requirement on the western boundary of the mortuary site
plan.
Planning Commission could select this alternative if it is not
comfortable with the design guidelines being prepared by the MCP.
Perhaps you'd prefer that the guidelines be incorporated into the
comprehensive plan prior to making variance decisions.
Staff recommends alternative 01. It is our view that the design guidelines
have received a considerable amount of review by both the MCP and
members of the Planning Commission. We have an opportunity at this time
to make changes to a site plan that will allow it to be better integrated into
the Ihture design of the Walnut Street corridor; therefore, it is recommended
that the variance be granted to allow integration to occur.
n SUPPORTING DATA:
Copy of site plan; Copy of draft design guidelines.
612-835-3160 FID ISINGTON KOEGLER 350 P82 HW 22 '96 14: QP
e- 4 Yo e_ 42AJ_A� Z
1;1.4
4
Mantioallo, Downtown and Rive from FieviWization PIM
Destgn Guideftes
DY0,21NOWMber 1996 71'
I.Z
1.0 The Structure of Downtown
1.1 Create a downtown,and riverfront-arca for Monticello that'has a SUMS relationship to
community patterns, features, and the idea of asmall town in the country.
• Development doll occur aitlda cite esiuiag grid of eb rani save_ n.
• The INSIdulypfitivar SW to oneW the paramiy focal points of downtown. with elernents of the river
draw.n.ftatiodowntow to to the river.
FOM OnA SiSafficant built err adural ficattire,(abuildin& pavitinn. Swdenj the
river: trot a parking lm). '
Community andclviclacilitles
1.2; Create a variety of uses to attract people throughout the day and night, for activities of
commerm culture, community, and civics.
• A range of dies and w6vitles khall-mvw- in dowmtw&m, including cornntarcimilrenfil, offim pubUckivic,
housing and racrestWeawrtainment uses.
• A guide for,um shall be established,' but flaxibility,sbould be allowed far uses that enhance the goal of an
active and vital downtown environment.
1.3 Develop a downtown and riverfrom area that is compact and walkable, with a density of
develolin= and a level of activity that set it q= from the rest of the community.
- Buildings shall be placed near the ww tn ereste a mr" edge to the one. a wrim that ynwarp pwAng
tornilithi& and an opportunity to m Into a bulldft Qom the sidewalk or am (he activity of the Wert ftom
ft Wilding.
- Land mources OWI be shared whenever possible to allow for a greater amount of development Ina limited
lipme.
- Clustering of buildlujis shall be encoontsed to allot.people to walk casily from out use to another. stand.
'r alone um and aseti that am oriented rtroWy to the automobile ftH be ditcompod.
- Downtown shall be as comfortable for pedwariant an It Is convenient for cut. rw4nizing Otat. ante the cur
Is puked the driver I acnes a pedestrian.
- A pedestrian aystcm shell be developed to reach all usn in downtown and Imm u strrml; ennnectino to
—T-mdkig nalffi6whoods.
1.4 Structure the street system to accommodate downtown traffic and "through" traffic, to
businesm. Improve circulation, and maintain a "downtown" character.
• Sum and "Ierm streets "I be urinated to pohmalana but shan accommodate vchicle, trunk.
• Pine SUM shall be orkatee to vehicles but ftU accommodate pedestrians.
• Broadway dtall be balanced in its adwastion to,wdaw so and vd*te tratit .
be utarited to Announce one's arrival In downtown.
1 11 1.3 fkxootearaqp.oftmnsportotlonrr4datomanage udflcindowmmnMondcello.
'f PASWArly ac�lite' community "CirrWitar"Mr4ce spall tis explored &S a way of nwving people into and
r A".
A trollay.on me railroad trults shoald beconsucred to provide for aunique attraction and as a raeftid of
community transportation.
LO
W-835-3160 wtsllprat KDEMER
350 Pea HW 22 •% 14t04
MOftC ftIDaWWowe eon IU 1110 a ore. tm Fun
D*dP cnlddlnaa
P•a3
1.6 Pecogulz a patterns that = Vproprlm to vssyhlg downtown "district" In an effort to create
dwetoptneat that "lit" the cadet of each district.
11 'District" halt be e,mbthhee to sW& Oro goad ase and ttMinetet of a vckvnt ,t to the dowacows led
dvee400t area
�y' r • The folloateS "dWW eWd be tatblished: Alva DbakC Swad-" Disvke ;Wdtmt Dlstrke: � V
r avidlmat DhOlM Sevml Seat'OW*t: lada trid Mid= and TraAddaod Dhalet.
2.0 The Destan of Mile Spaces
2.1 Develop a NMetatpe that
eats word those on foot)q�eltls a 6totatrhy:sad downtown downtownn streets- flat
gexsates orad atttbenttc Idead�ty, and result in as attractive enviromrneat forpeopie (those iia
.
• thu acme awn sUsen vaW be tirkmed to vellCle traffic, Ent sum aUl seeosrtnodsce
;,r' psdartdom,dttaummeiCeetswBlOeo�eatedoDpeOesaimltglstUl .....,...,,.•,.aMda.
W '
—twin tha teDea 1mg eitnons and cabeto provide the sane of blon iedW In every sneer 4',
• Uee skmeab dw yield a viae pedes ala stat even a nares thm are orierded m vaNckv ipade,alartaafs
street Matti: far vuatq el.
• Devekp aof ata use ptsaft for ap doeewae areae to creat �entlty and catokm cy In
dovvaowo' lip_ st am sDoring for divot" to the sltrer e
r i`a. �• PmvW pcdab1, anmhlea sub es I and vwb texpoift at moot iesaval and ka W&dOaa a OU
downtown anee I
ty • . • PrOv* do iota . tha why Y. eveati and hWen1W In tW M.n*c.W w•"-.w.ny a:
r tote, tt•t>tefta tom+
es . • Dsva my of cotahmat malmnasea for ptt
off ldk and privae spores In downtown ('adgm than
siop
mlylsg art tie tndtvtdttal pwM ty or budsaa owaas o beep 6sir tddarolia sad rhes andmdad).
Y'
2.2 Build a complete network of sidewalks In downtown aad extend sidewalks into nearby
ndghboth ods to aeate a walkhMOMMDing 4Daatoaa eaviroAMent•
i '- Band ddewdke Wuh Wields to bveh of p sodsa udrk .
: I `, r ' l .• Build sltlewatll tmmasdotq bora the d0esvalt m tie Qeast door td twy t>tdWlty fn dotrumtm, eq,eefntly , Z � '
,. Rosa dart we 1laiwata0 tram the riders by PWWq ata
• • Dato hal ddu of all don num niters and to a tela one We of ser araeu kadt a tsar
2.3 Embfish Wmforcommunitygetteftftmodenti4whr-vatant civla community and
tom -_Develop Wlsa BtWp PMt a eoma+modsts dpakm =6 scheduled dowstm �atep, ksvtne Haat Pt),. �
p . • ' a-� • . 1364p Paft b bmoma a viaapatdve atatps Dorm ms WtIvhb ofd,trarotva.
0.. ( • DovdopapdmftayaaeaamCIO RAUtohwdmasMmductin tasesquive
4:• .• De"kPagwNindowmau'edmCOnvoommodamsasertsmaI .
r'" r • 1111or fbr arta dOratotva tttrea to bselond far dept y p>hr:rtap sad rumor
n• it UtlUn sbunor paratm orad ma ntmh In tits PIbW tttT> n "am" food in dr arab to maks" 1
ls�, � R° P' ' ' attahah{g tpttoes 6>at like a ttstmld tsamtttioe o! the mai. A.n
2.4 Develop a 9UW system to approydate to a doaatowa emiromrsent.
612-839-3160 HOISINGTON KOEM" 350 Pe4 NDJ 22 '96 14:04
Mandalle Downtowe and Rlvtrham Redtalaatton Plan
Dalge Guldetlan
Pegs 3
• Maintain a regular spacing of sweats and a grid patterns of streets and blocks In dnn9nowe.
h w- • use traffic ealmiy taclmigaes to keep speech of traffic, at Lh
at safe levels and to ea use of "areear by
kr.
f pedotrima.
`� �i • Allow and sawnrnge on -tweet prating on downeh+n stnx4 to achieve traffic ea}ming, to crate a mitre
t active sheet environment. and to make a bean transition between traffic and pedestrians.
i'a •,. 3.0 The Configuration of Sites
3.1 Establish cotmam setback and.lot .covenge standards for each "district to ensure compatible
and maedi hnrn development in downtownMonticello.
„ — • Setbacks ad tsdid-w lines far every daanto an " ttisaic' le"
i �. • Standards for tainjMum lot coverage to cr wen the bast use of Dmited avellable load in drnwatown (civic and
+! r 1, /, -'�` instltutk+nel taalulki attempt or 6 diHierort standard used to ensure these buildings can remnin prominent)
yt sn "-. �• Street tYoetege'build.oW ,
• etlaimhrm building dee fat primary bdik8ng an each site IV •. '
4 _ • Plash. outdoor gadxft or Mamma ON Inc in Walmum coverage calculation
3.2 Make buildings the to= of Monticello's downtown and riverfront, not parking areas.
• t.ocato parking behind or beside buildings. with no roma than 25% of required parking In aside yard (Pine
Strew district exempt).
• Prohibit Perking ams at Intersections.
• Require soon of parkixtg meat from buildings and public sidawalb for lmulscvfiq and buffering.
Separation between parting areas and public rlghts-of way shall use land.enpa awuials or ot=nC=l
feats (no berms)• I „ a .. . _ s , t ....., r ►, :. / L r .. :. , ,p.. i!.•.
1.:.. tr•
3.3 Create parkin to accommodate anticipated and realistic demands, W tiiottt overbuilding
parking facilities.
v. P,neoaraga develapsnent of joint user phnttng faeUltes. balaadttg use on a daytaday had —4o -hour basis
to achieve the highest passible We of each parking space crestal.
• Cram pausing for office ad retail uses at rates between S and 4 spaces per tWO square tbet gross floor area.
• Discourage development that would exceed m require animal peak parking demand to ordet.to keep
developmeoldcositylatents I
• todWe oo•aueat patting mat baa each she in the calculation of parktng provided for dot alto.
I • provide employee MAft In reaherta areas to allow eaaxomar parking mum to the destlnntlon; prohibit
empwyen from Parting aro downtown Savo.
• C+eaoe l � Paklnit saw In udgltttorbocds tf oeoesmy.
3.4 Develop each site to ilteillude traM movement and reduce corMlet points.
• Provide full 0=00 to silos untag t' ' MUM: Limit teats ro Sita on Pine Strew to right inlata.
• Allow Ilmitad patting ten access ham Wata n and Riva Sbut.
• Allow pelting lotdtenWbn at endsof pa►bhE alsles to W111m cron meets. If oamtay.
3.3 Establish continuity in the patterns of site development to maintain coherency and
cohnivettess in downtown.
617-635-3160 1ot61PmN K013L.ER 350 POS roll 22 196 141m
Maakem Dowztm and Idol toot ROAULUn ion Plan v
Dolga Gsldeltess
PWa'
• BmbIbb a common parade of makdals for sites in dowmown (ti gag• pa"b+i,Flandscam slams em.)
h' ', a • • Ptapi:e Aad parking Ion brt25% sbaded by,trom wgbb !0 yeah of dewloptrom.
• Uro Itmdmggna crammed fen ft to bkck rkw ot6umpm and {alts of rasa parked to loo adjacent to
fY� cgpublic , I
_ • the ludigesms at proven ustive pleat materials, tomelag on spocim ralacd to the Avtr or eovaans
. Wbonmeats.
r. _. 1` • Emoaaaga egos robe s pat of tla tmCdlag ether gmtho sits; Wow
Pytoa sign for dewlopmeat on Pies
y 8aeet and bmu m lib Sum and 144 mb'.
4.0 Th Deafge otBtdidinge
VIC
4.1 Develop a unified character for all bullt demean of downtown to yield the Sense of a nue
Omtown distrla.
�•• Rmud, sed bmporaa'rtob WcW-..^, aaoddm Warms cad bWWI p dor m dedpW as sip. dmU be
p ddbWt. building dodge •ball s* m " lotmd' eitaaetrr atha dtan laroduced eluascmx
.91 Beldkp wham be wIft emeb d1a t. hPW almilar scale, mmsLq, back and deWL
r
• OdIdhip dran be argndmd w'lde nn perpwtdleala to , x .
I
• Pa:h boO ft da be eaemrg;ed a auptm some low of h divktue enpmmion in order m to ftm the seam
r'
of a dowatmo dlmtSuadte than s a dp eenum
�'
• Onrcldb.ommmaddbldldroptampand olikeUses) thou hovefWmnfa.
' )
• No btdidipg shall aacmd a beigla gpum an Ibtw storks plus rhe roof. except tlm busldi tp in to
dvlcArtatfmtiond dlsufet tttey bawelemeem tlm axeasd arse ttorier.
• Awnless shall to allowed to be cantlawas a*'UmbonW occupied by a eing% tams. awnlap sW
.1 '
cot be allowed to e:na ' aaosa las face of more than on bailmng, awe It the bWkUep am ooa;W by me
- auow ramal.
r, • ' ' Wy:�oU ftll�be la"M to the hWId M as elemems that am/ applied m a aaadad buTI&S"(such a a
4.2 Require Ibe use of quollty building materials and methods to create an enduring stock of
downtown buiM(ngi
• Matxetials shop be dwable curly mdm &bid ad amecd. at abate dLtmn (for pniple walking an
ddarwalts or ddvlag skwly on the dram, f r sx&TgK
—• tdatertale dWl hen atmactivnpamria, tesbale aM datapkg
� t -
i„ , as prollp
,' .. Brlcb atoms. wood. WS at b:gbiaahly Otee , COMM we axle t9nldt tnrmttabr hlgti gosllty cant
(
.
f
o (crams fWsh pteteaed) or synsstak aWnS may to setepNbb if cad In cambmatloa web can a cceatib
mixes (eluwood Mass atmnaagwamWIMIsaCWAb
'
r• r r
' • Ttampwt Stan dmO bs used at the mbmfy of and kwl windows: mb*oted glassa area brel b cot
' <r�i �• Cmvm 4WAMP or amtalon of the roof muerW far awdW b encamp dt nykm swairga or o0wr
614
i t j •
gnlbak m abdail. a weft m thoaa awaing stet cwu swans to be itkidnated foam w>utla, an not
al
aoraptibia
4.9 Develop bulldiogs that relate to people at all publicly viBIWe sides. eltmfmme a "back door"
appeareaoe for cervica a mm and gear emom ftmn parking lou.
01,. + 1%_ • paeadat fades. or publk v.%&waya dWI be w m windows cad dour multing m a
mialdona of_dte�atr amt window m dam Macrae hwl (sidewalk tirade m nre
to two; •endows aMba
' '
aSgumny a�ar
�'
• B shallaha h of Ora bnitdiug.
" '
i` • Maehtolal kysmtef ftD be intgtau0 (aro ma design d ®e buiMM.
VIC
612-635-3160 IOISIMGTW KIIEGLER
MoWeellp Downumm and Riwertrom RoMallsasim Pin
Design CatWhm
Page 3
350 P06 FOU 22 '96 14:06
• Tenth amsags neat andl be mmaaty pieenclosed and ed as a yah of the,ta�g.
L Slgm shall be lom-; ,ate I bmo the baihNng facade, windows or awalnas up to a em rhu m of _ alnma
I.O a ' r . -fen perfl I - sips Das extend Mndm 12' beyond the pbae offt building facile or dtm that extend
l4'` `• + -.'`�y btytmd the roof line aro tat allowed, except dim dam dw ptgjeet tares dm ddewalk we allowed up to a
. • _ mazin om sin of nix square text (rnagala excepted), sign it of aro within ora pan of a wdadow toast n
< <� matnw- _ pesoms ekar sea In the tafaee of the.window one ceach an will be allowed for eausable public ��
envy (slam &Uare a pan of as awning ocr Wo a, para of a window" robe wormed 1st dctcmmining
do wznbaof nista etkn ".
rt
i }I �
�L
C
Planning Commission Agenda - 214197
,, , : 1 , �•
Please see attached report from Planner Steve Grittman.
c
JRN-31-1997 09:25 NfaC 612 5% 9837 P.01i07
9
NFNCNORTHWEST ASSOCIATED CONSULTANTS
COMMUNITY PLANNINO • DESIGN - MARKET HESEARCM
MEMORANDUM
TO:
Monticello Mayor and City Council
Monticello Planning Commission
FROM:
Stephen Grittman
DATE:
January 30, 1997
RE:
Monticello - Variance Processing
FILE NO.
191.08 - 88.14
Constdoiation of an A
changing she "=aste
A. fV,=RQUNQ
Attached to this memorandum is a dre t Zoning Ordinance Amendment which chrnges the
Zoning vsriance Process by redesignating the Zoning Board of Adjustment anc Appeals
from the Planning Commission to the City Council. Under the proposed pm;ess, the
Planning Commission would act In an advisory rola, conducting the public hearing on
Zoning variances, but recommending action to the City Council. Tho City Council's
decision would be final on a Zoning Variance.
The advarrtagos to this process are primarily procedural. An appiicart will automatically
go on to the City Council with a variance requesi. but will receive the same hearing and
consideration at Planning Commission level as the current Ordinance provides. However,
under the currem Ordinance, the applicant or Interested third parties must wait until the
Plw lith Commission acts before they know to file an appeal. Unnecessarydelays have
resulted from this wail which the Cky has attwnp led to rectify by autometka y forwarding
an appeal. a can beoorno contusing as to whether an application forwarded to Council has
actually been appealed or not.
5770 WAYZATA BOULEVARD. SUITE 000 OT. LOUIS PARK. MINNESOTA 06416
PHON[ 61 2.500-0636 PAX 61 2.000.0637
9�
JAN-31-199? 0926 NX — 612 595 9837 P. 02/9?
To soba this pioblam, the new pmosss would be idaltioal to the process used for Zoning
amendmerus and Corsdltional use Permits. The My Cormdl could droose to wnelder the
Zoo* g items as consent Verde issues, unless Couna7 or members of the public ask for
further considamtion of an item forwarded tram the Planning Commission.
B. ALUBHUBMAMM
1. Approve the proposed amersdtnerd chmfging the designetlon of the Zoning Board
of Adjustmerna and Appeals from the Pkn*V Commission to the Cay C.amcil,
based on a f dit that the process prcW a clearer and smoother path for both
applim , the City, and Interested third parlim in backing verim= requests.
2. Deny the proposed amendment
C. STAFF RECOMMENDAMON.
Stag ,.. . , is approval of the mem dim to the vmtarme pro0eetirg 1MEI believe that
the dlarge gDM bsaer darigr for erg ingested peon Le. std is can0i0jfrt wlth the other
nx" . . , acted an by bre Rim" Commbdon. In addl lon, MArQe the Pkn*V
Commission's eetim is no longw'finaf in the Wd nieal sones, the roWne appeal issue
under the current Ordinance remitted in latle fhrmlity. It Is noted that under any zoning
action, the Cay Council has Mal appeal authortly, mprdleae of which group Is designated
as the Board of Adjustment and Appeals Therefore, It is possible eW the Cay Council
may Sid lueff re-co miring a reaquest m appeal ltom M on dedebn when 4 aced as the
Board of anent and Appeals. Mk have found these cocaslons to be errtrem" rare
however
ik4-31-1997 0926 NRC 612 595 9637 P. 031M
DRAFT - DRAFT - DRAFT
1/13/97
CITY OF MONTICELLO, MINNESOTA
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 10, CHAPTER 23 OF THE MONTICELLO CITY
CODE, KNOWN AS THE ZONING ORDINANCE. ESTABUSHING THE MONTICELLO
CITY COUNCIL AS THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AND APPEALS.
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MONTICELLO HEREBY ORDAINS.
Section 1. Chapter 23 is hereby amended to read as follows:
CHAPTER 23
ADMINISTRATION - VARIANCE AND APPEALS
SECTION:
23-1: Board of Adjustment and Appeals
23-2: Ptanning Commission Recommendations and City Staff Reports
23-3: Finding of City Council and City Staff
23-4: Non -Economic Hardship
235: Appeals
235: Proceduras
23-7: Lapse of Variance or Appeal
23-0: Performance Bond
23-1: BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AND APPEALS: The City Council shall ami as a Board
of Adjustment and Appeals.
23-2: PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATIONS AND CITY STAFF REPORTS:
AU written staff reports end recommendations of the Planning Commission shall be
entered in and mads part of the permanent written record of the City Council's
meeting.
MJ
J44-31-1997 09:26 NX 612 595 9&37 P. 04,V
23-3: FINDING OF CITY COUNCIL AND CITY STAFF: In considering all requests for
variance or appeal and taking subsequent action, the City staff and the City
Council, serving as the Board of Adjustment and Appeals, shall make a finding of
fact that the proposed action will not:
[A] Impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent property.
[B] Unreasonably increase the congestion in the public street.
[C] Increase the danger of fire or endanger the public safety.
[D] Unreasonably diminish or impair established property values within the
neighborhood or in any other way be contrary to the intent of this ordinance.
23-4: NON -ECONOMIC HARDSHIP: The City Council, serving as the Board of
Adjustment and Appeals, shall, after receiving the written reports and
recommendations of the City raft and the Planning Commission, make a finding of
fact and decide upon requests for a variance by approving or denying the same, In
part or in whole, where It is alleged by the applicant that a noneconomic hardship
in the reasonable use of a specific parcel of property exists. A hardship that by
some reason of nartarriess, shallowness, or shape of a specific parcel of property
or rot existing and d record upon the effective date of this ordinance or that by
reason of exceptional topographic or water conditions of a specific paroei of land
or it L the strict application of the terms of this ordinance would result in exceptional
diff lculties when utilizing the parcel or lot In a manner customary and legally
permissible within the district in which said lot or parcel is located, or wouwd create
undue hardship upon the owner of such lot or parcel that the owner of another lot
or parcel within the same district would not have if he were to develop his lot or
parcel in a manner proposed by the applicant. Should the City Council find that the
conditions outlined heretofore apply to the proposed lot or parcel, the City Council
may grant a variance from ft strict application of this ordinance so as to relieve
such difficulties or hardships to the degree considered reasonable, providing such
relief may be granted without Impairing the intent of this Zoning Ordinance.
23-5: APPEALS: The City Council, serving as the Board of Adjustment and Appeals,
shall, after receiving the written report and necommendatlon of the City staff, and
City Council, make a finding of fact and make a decision on appeals where it Is
alleged by the applicant that error has occurred in any order, requirement, decision,
or determination made by the Building Inspector In the enforcement of this
ordinance. However, said appeal shall be filed no later than ninety (90) days after
the applicant has received a written notes from the Bcrilding Inspector or said
appeal shall be considered void.
JAN -31-1997 0926 NRC 612 595 4337 P.05/07
23.6: PROCEDURES;
[A] Request for a variance or appeal shall be filed with the Zoning Administrator
on an official application form. Such application shall be accompanied by a
fee as outlined in Chapter 26 of this ordinance. This fee shall not be
refunded. Such application shall also be accompanied by written and
graphic materials necessary for the explanation of the request.
(0) Upon receiving said application, the Zoning Administrator shall refer the
application, along with all related information, to the City Planning
Commission for public hearing.
[C] The Planning Commission shall consider the variance or appeal at its next
regular meeting unless the filing date falls within fifteen (15) days of said
meeting; in such a case, the request would be placed on the agenda at the
regular meeting following the next regular meeting. The Zoning
Administrator shall refer said request along with all related information to the
Planning Commission at least ten (10) days prior to the regular meeting.
This meeting shall be a public hearing, notice of which shall be mailed at
least ten (10) days prior to the meeting to all owners of property, according
to the Wright County assessment records, within three hundred fifty feet
(350') of the property to which the variance relates. When a variance
request pertains only to yard setback requirements, only abutting property
owners creed be notfFled. Notices sent shall also Indicate the appeal process
in Section 23-8, Subdivision [IQ.
(D] Failure of a property owner to receive said notice shall not invalidate any
such proceedings es set forth within this ordinance.
(E] The request shall be referred to the City staff for a report and
recommendation to be presented to the Planning Commission and City
Council. A preliminary draft of the City staffs report and recommendation
shall be given to the City's Planning Commission and City Council at least
ten (10) days prior to the meeting at wttifi said report and recommendations
are to be presented. The final report and recommendations of the City staff
are to be entered and made part of the permanent written moord.
[F] Upon completion of the report and recommendation of the Planning
Commission, the request shall be placed on the agenda of the City Council.
City staff reports and recommendations of the Planning Commission shall be
entered in and made pelt of the pornarwnt wrlttam record of the City Council
mooting.
9E
J4UV-31-1997 09:27 NRC 612 595 9837 P. 06/07
(G) The City Council shall review the application and may at its option conduct
a public hearing on the request
11-11 ff, upon receiving said reports and recommendations of the Planning
Commission, the City Council finds that specific Inconsistencies exist in the
review process and thus the final recommendation of the City Council will
diver from that of the Planning Commission, the City Council may before
taking final action, refer the matter back to the Planning Commission for
further consideration. The City Council shall provide the Planning
Commission with a written statement detailing the specific reasons for
referral. This procedure shall be followed only one (1) time on a singular
request
Iq The City Council shall make a finding of fed and approve or deny a request
for variance within surly (60) days atter receipt of the Planning Commission's
recommendation.
IJ) A variance of this Chapter shall be by four -fifth's (4/69) vote of the entire
City Council.
IK) AD decisions by the City Council involving a variance request shall be final
except that an aggrieved person or persona shall have the right to appeal
within thirty (30) days of the decision to the Wright County District Court.
IL) The Zoning Administrator shall notiy the originator of the variance request
or appeal of the City Count,, serving as the Board of Adjustnwnt and
Appeals, decision in writing.
23-7: LAPSE OF VARIANCE OR APPEAL: Whenever, within one (1) year after granting
a variance or appeal, the work as pamlitted by the variance or appeal shall not
have been completed, then such variance or Appeal shall become null and void
unless a petition for extension of time in whish to complete the work has been
granted by the Cly Courx5l. Such extension shall be requested in writing and filed
with the Zoning Administrator at least thirty (30) days before the expiration of the
original variance or appeal. There Mall be no dlarge for the filling of such petition.
The request for odenslon shall stato tette showing a good faith attempt to complete
the work permitted in the variance or appeal. Such petition shall be presented to
the City Councl for a decision.
23-8: RECONSIDERATION: Whenew an application for a variance has been
considered and denied by the City Council, a similar application for a variance
affecting substantially the acme property shall not be considered again for at least
six (6) months from the date of Its denial; and a subsequent application affecting
9P
JAN -31-1997 09:27 PAC 612 5% 9857 P.07/W
1
substerniaiiy the same property still likewise rot, re considered again by the City
Council for an additional six (6) months from the tate of the second denial unless
a decision to reconsider such a matter is made b} the City Council.
Section 2 This ordinance shall take effect and: s in full force from and after its
passage and publication.
Brad Fyle, Mayor
ATTEST:
Rich Wolfsteller, Adminlsbatm
Ayes:
Nays:
9G
TOTAL P.07
WE
Planning Commission Agenda - 2/4/97
10. QmtjnjmjPnbLc Hearing=CmAderation of ordinance skmencliments
oo =Ing fence designnd�locetlm (J.O.)
No additional report to be made.
Planning Commission Agenda - 214/97
11. Consideration of review and prioritization of Zdanning department
prDjects sand activities, (J.0.)
A. RRFRRFNVR AND HACK(:ROumn;
City staff is currently working with the City Council and all of the
departments and commissions on development of a list of projects that need
to be completed in the near future_ As you will see by the list of planning
items, there is a considerable amount of work to be done. City staff requests
that you review the list of planning projects and come prepared to rate them
for level of importance. Also, you may wish to be thinking about other
projects that you feel are important that could be added to the list and rated
as well at the meeting. You will see that the projects do not include day-to-
day work on processing projects that are the result of development pressure.
Once the individual commissions have all provided their projects and
rankings, then the City Council will take the entire group and build a list of
priorities and time lines for completion of each project. City staff will be
responsible for identifying resources necessary to get the work done within
the time frames desired by the City Council. it is hoped that this entire
process can be completed by early April.
Please review the planning -related projects highlighted on pages 9
and 8 and score them on a scale of 1.10, with 1 being low importance
and 10 high importance. Just jot your score to the left of the far left
column. I will tally the scores and submit it to the City Council for
their Information as they establish city-wide priorities. If you have
additional project Ideas, bring them to the meeting, and I can add
them to the ust.
Planning items selected Brom the 1997 priorization worksheet.
1997 PRIORITIZATION WORKSHEET
Planning/Building/Econoxnic Development Depts.
A e Development driven or mandated by State --projects that require attention.
B o Project recently identified as needed - in budget
C a New project idea
Please note that day-to-day workload is not included in this listing.
tWn.
Budget
Dent
Cate""
Amt.
AMC Peofect Desolation
Admin
Admin
B Remodel and/tarbegin planning for relocation ofcity hall.
Admin
Finance
Budget review pns.ess - assemble budget data A give to Council.
Admin
Finance
Direct City staff to survey other communities - fees.
Admin
Finance
NA
C Prepare capital improvement plan(citywide)
Admin
Finance
NA
C Research financial impact of tramitinn from NSP to non -NSP tax base.
Admin
Finance
NA
A Resnlve storm sewer trunk fee program.
Admin
Finance
NA
C Revisit and/or revise fee structure associated with development all fees.
Admin
Personnel
NA
C Oinsider merging EDAMRA.
Admin
Personnel
C Gmtinuing education plan— Council, commissions, A stag'.
Admin
Personnel
NA
C Define proper level of MCP support from City staff.
Admin
Personnel
NA
C Evaluate performance appraisal to'stom.
Admin
Personnel
$25,000
B Stafl support - Park administratiwi and maintenance.
Admin
Personnel
B Stafi'wpoort- planning&building dept. '
Admin
Personnel
Stafsupport--additional clericalstafisupmot needed.
Admin
Pub info
NA
C Assemble data for internet applicatiuns.
Admin
Pub info
C Install voice mail.
Admin
Pub relations
NA
C Develop customer service feedback survey sheet.
Admin
Pub relations
NA
C Develop Priorities for service delivery.
Admin
Pub relations
NA
A Develop service level measures in accordance with State of MN requirements.
Admin
Records
Add specific record eategiaies to retention schedule.
Admin
Records
Begin records destruction at publicworlis.
Admin
Records
Combine basement administrative records into one system telltode•tabi.
Admin
Records
Gmtinue inventory of basement records.
Admin
Records
Create and Implement records management olon.
Admin
Records
Create economic duvelnpmont filing system.
Admin
Records
Inventory records at public works.
Admin
Records
Records destruction for I9D7 (city hall).
Admin
Records
Reduce amt of raced storatse nee lad.-mirrotlehe Process.
Admin
Records
Runrganize HRA and EDA recnrds.
Admin
Records
Research data privacy art. -distribute info to deical support staff
Admin
Records
Review all rocurds from OSM (311bntesi--copy those needud--fila conies.
Building
Admin
1112,000
B Develop plan fur computerization ol'buildirvt panni U.
Building
Admin
NA
C Enhance cmtmerriattindustnalbig permit infiodesign standards/proms.
Building
Admin
A Gain compliance with ADA guidelines.
wk1997.wk4: 01/28/97 Page 1
Building
Admin
NA
B
Improve zomng ale enfurcement - perhaps hire intern.
Budding
Admin
NA
A
Maintmn building permit moratorium in the cure area.
Building
Admin
NA
C
Standardize addrerr system.
Building
Housing
NA
C
Develop and implement rental housing code and licensing progrom.
Building
Project
NA
A
High Sch... I building construction project.
Computer
NA
C
Organize internet development - process for updating data.
Computer
NA
C
Update 5-year plan for computer application development.
Computer
Admin
$7,000
B
Explore CIS options - develop a 5-year plan - budget item in 1990. not done
Ecnn Dev
NA
C
Assemble data for internet appl inthms.
Ecnn Dev
C
Dev, proactive mrklg network - elected afllcials, realtors, builders, indust land ownerrv.
Econ Dev
C
Update intinmationbrochures.
HRA
Resolve pint ofl3ce access problems.
HRA
Econ Dev
NA
B
Develop TIF application guidelines.
HRA
Econ Dev
A
Lake T-I TIF prided monitoring.
HRA
Housing
C
Dan Reed - home relocation.
HRA
Housing
A
Prairie West 11 TIF project monitoring. I
HRA
Housing
NA
B
Scattered h,asingsite program.
HRA
MCP
C
Armory development downtown or at high school.
HRA
MCP
C
land acquisition activities to carry nut downtown river fnmt redevelopment. I
HRA
MCP
C
Punch BN ROW in c orecity area. Refine rules liar using 6th Sl ROW. I
HRA
MCP
C
Relocate Ferrellgas.
HRA
MCP
C
Relocate JM Oil and Riverside Oil.
HRA
MCP
C
Store Inmt redesign/revolving Iran fund.
Parks
Admin
NA
C
Assemble data for internet applications.
Parke
Dev
$12.000
B
Freeway Park - concession area. ,
Parks
Dev
$15,000
B
Implement shade tree planting program.
Parks
Dev
$2,000
B
Meadow Oak Park basketball.
Parka
Dev/MCP
$20,000
B
Bridge Park improvements. 11I
Parke
Maint
NA
C
Adj uet mowing practices - intnduce native grasses when appropriate. I
Parks
Maint
$10,000
B
Playground equipment maintenance.
Parks
Maint
NA
B
Snowmobile ordinance amendments.
Parks
Pathway
NA
B
Apply Ibr ISTEA funds fur funding of uedestrmn overpass at County Rd I IN.
Parks
Pathway
$60,000
B
Construction along $;SAH 119 cimnating Sch-I Blvd to CSAR 75.
Parks
Pathway
$00,000
B
Construction along river - Mississippi Dr. ti Ellison Park.
Parke
Pathway
$10,000
B
Construction from Middle School b. Meadow Oak.
Parke
Pathway
Investigate re-opening 4athway for winter use.
Parke
Pathway
TIF
B
Mississippi Shores fsd bridge.
Parks
Pathway
{2,600
B
Montiesippi Park/NSPIDNR Pathway - Park and Prairie development.
Parts
Plan
R
IUcat inn of City/Lions Club park days I tip ment.
Parks
Plan
C
Playgnwndequipment- additiunofhandicapaccessibleequipment.
Parks
Tres . -
NA
D
Tree or mace update and implementation.
Planning
Admin
NA
C
Asasmble data for Internet applications.
Planning
Admin
NA
B
C sit recovery - increase planning fees and commitment to rucimonno costs.
Planning
Admin
C
Downtowntriverfhmt redevelopment efforts.
Planning
Admin
NA
C
,
Improve tidlow-up.mindividual coo". 1
Planning
Admin
NA
C
Parking along CR 75 acnes them Pinewood Srhoid.
Planning
Admin
NA
C
Particlpats In regional planning initiatives,
wk1997.wk4: 01/28/97
Page 2
Planning
Admin
NA
C
Prepare Annual Planning Report.
Planning
Admin
NA
C
Ranch stylesoial service center coitperotive effort- D inna Mueller/Bohannn sludge wit
i Planning
Ann"
NA
B
Amendments it, City/Township Urbnmzntinn Agreement & map.
Planning
Annex
NA
B
Amendments to MOAA guide] inew/boundaries.
Planting
Annex
NA
A
An Hill - 30-acre residential development
Planning
Annex
NA
A
John Leerss m - 10-acro residential project.
Planning
Annex
NA
A
Orrin Thompson - 80-acre residential project.
Planning
Annex
NA
A
Resurrection Church - site review/annexation/rezoning prows.
PlanN
Annex
NA
B
Submit comp plan to MOAA fur final ratification.
Planning
Ord
NA
B
Adjust business campus - change name - reduce 30% requirement.
Piannina
Ord
NA
B
Development of low density housing standards? > 12,000 square foot/lot?
I Plan ins
Ord
NA
B
Outside storage - Regs. limiting outside storage as a % of principal use.
I Planning
Ord
NA
C
Pude buildi ng regulations.
Planning
Ord
NA
B
Screening fence standards- improve definition of minimum standards. I
Planning
Ord
NA
C
Subdivision design standards - examine for pnsiblo amendments.
Planning
Ord
NA
A
Telecommunication tower ordinance amendments. I
Planning
Ord
NA
B
Variance procedure.
Planning
Ord
NA
C
Lining decisions on strip retail smith id freeway.
I Plann-In n
Ord/MCP
C
Act on future MCP initiatives. I
Planning
Ord/MCP
NA
B
Analyze multi-family - pneiblo zoning ordinance amendments to map. I
Planning
Ord/MCP
NA
B
Oommerciai pining districts - proper mix of uses identified?
Planning
OnVMCP
NA
C
Ordinance amendment - architectural standards. I
Planning
Ord/MCP
NA
C
Ordinance amendment - housing. I
Planning
Ord/MCP
NA
C
Ordinance amendment - signage.
Planning
OrOICP
NA
B
PZM dwrictlduwntuwn designation • possible amendments along River St.
Planning
Plat
NA
A
Close out Brier Oakes &late li improvement pr4iject
Planning
Plat
NA
A
Close out Klein Forms Estates.
Plannina
Plat
NA
A
Close out Meoduw, Oak 4th impmvemont prilret.
Planning
Plot
NA
A
Closeout River MBI iwniect.
Planning
Plat
NA
A
Finalize Monticello Business Center plat.
Planning
Plot
NA
A
Kmvitalplat uudateand record.
Planning
Plat
NA
C
Raplut Meoduw Oak Ints into Eastwood Knoll development.
Planning
N,,d
NA
A
Dave Peterson Monticello Ford v,p*nsiun - Process CUP,
Planning
Project
Dundas RoatUHighway 25 realignment. I
Planning
Pruject
NA
A
Gould Onto. aaaanslm- Pnrcoss,CUP.
1 Planning
Project
NA
A
Odmmmo/Patersim Funeral Hums - Process CUP.
Planning
Project
NA
A
High Schosil building environmental assessment and CUP pruceu.
Planning
Prosect
$100.000
C
Hwv 2NChelsea Rd Improvements and all associated land transactions.
Planning
Pried
NA
A
Wellburg East sanitary sewer connection - cumplute the project.
Planning
Ned
NA
C
Kjellberg West man. sower connection - develuoment agreement.
Planning
Pndect
NA
A
Klein Forms III - Plat approval and public improvement prcems. !
Planning
Prijea
C
Mallredovelopmunt. 1
Plennln¢
Pruden
C
Opun up acrems to Ltnn Street fur wrot otlico.
Planning
Pmjvd
NA
A
Ruff Auto Planned Unit Development - Complete the oro+eat. I
Planning
Pnpact
NA
A
Rt. Henry's -determine min. for 7th St. - CUP and public imp. proses. ;
Planning
Streuts
NA
B
Dstummnudosiunfor CSAH7a.atop%tip taketit manage tmBla t
PW
Build and ralucate dim pound.
V\l J c, \TVT1.-) , ., 6 , sA, ICA
wkl997.wk4: 01/28/97
{�,a. ,e , . IN l\ 'Zo•�e , - Q- — j'� L Page 3
116
PW
Downtown
Develop comprehensive maint. program & priorities for streetscape landscaping. I
PW
Downtown
Inspection and repair of downtown lighting system.
PW
Ord
Draft new rate structure and ordinance fir sanitary sewer user charge. ,
PW
Ord
Revise on-site sewage treatment ordinance (assist Building Official).
PW
Parking
Plan, develop plans & specs for parking lot overlays in downtown parking lots.
PW
Parks
Clean up Battle Rapids Park.
PW
Parks
Clean uv Otter Creek Park.
PW
Parks
Establish comprehensive park maintenance program.
PW
Parks
Establish summer recreation program and use system for city facilities.
PW
Parks
Park improvement protects as per Parks Commission.
PW
Pathway
Bridge over storm sewer at Mississippi Shores pathway.
PW
Pathway
Develop summer pathway maintenance program to cunform with MN/DOT side.
PW
Planning
Develop capital improvement program for 5-10 years.
PW
Policy
Draft new snowplowing/snow removal policy.
PW
Purchasing
Joint venture with Buffalo & Elk River for bituminous add planer attachment.
PW
Purchasing
Purchase and install lube rack at PW shop.
PW
Purchasing
Specifications. bids, and purchase new air compressor for street dept.
PW
Purchasing
Specifications, bids. & purchase 4 s 4 vehicle fior Construction Inspector.
PW
Purchasing
Specifications, bids, & purchase new paint striper.
PW
Purchasing
Specifications, bids, & purchase small loader and trailer for parks dept.
PW
Recycling
Revise recycling prettram with Superior Services.
PW
Refuse
Develop contract with Elk River Landfill.
PW
Refuse
Integrate 30 -gallon garbage cart info newsletter & garbage pickup system.
PW
RR
Railroad crossing upgrade at West Co. Rd. 30 and Walnut.
PW
Site
Complete fencing. lighting, and screening at PW facility. ,
PW
Site
Regradu and restore West Cu. Rd. 30 ditch nt PW facility.
PW
Site
Specifications & obtain quotes for nvd'repair to Office of Public Works.
PIN
Streets
Draft comorehsruive sign maintenance and replacement pnytram.
PW
Streets
Obtain NSP funding for conversion of traffic lights to LED.
PW
Streets
Plan, spocs, bids or quotes on pavement replacement on mime 7741 ntersections.
PW
Straws
Sealant program • 10911.
PW
We for Dept
Bloch repair to pump house 11.
PIN
Water Dept
Cumplate fencing of 800,000 gallon above•grinind water tank.
PW
Water Dept
Complete water tuwor painting project.
PW
Water Dept
Drain underground reservoir, clean, & inspect.
PW
Water Dept
Leak detection testing of various water mains.
PW
Water Dept
Spedfleallone, bids, and refbrbish well 11.
PW
WWTP
Clean up steel & litter from Lindberg & Kruse pnmpvrties at WWTP.
PW
WWTP
Trot planting, building floor, and entry Wads oro btwidids site.
PIN
WWTP
Wastewater treatment facility expansion.
tfvk1997.wM: 01/28/97 Page 4
JW -31-1997 0923 Ax 612 5% %37 P. 01/95
NFINCNORTHWEST ASSOCIATED CONSULTANTS
COMMUNITY PLANNING . 09810M - MARKET R986ARCH
MEMORANDUM
TO:
Jeff O'Neill
FROM:
Bob IQrmis / Stephen GriGman
DATE:
31 January 1997
RE:
Monticello • Residentlal.Sirest Width Standards
FILE NO:
181.08 - 97.02
BACKGROUND
The City a Wdeelb currently requires all residential streets to have a curb to club width
of 38 feet The Park Camrdsslon has reined the Issue that this width reWremen • may be
ezmasive end has requested that the Cipr consider a lesser width requirement paticularly
for low vouune nasidentlal dreete. The purpose of this memormutum Is to provide a baste
of information regarding the street width Issue and speolticaily highlight the advantages
and disadvantages of wide (i.e., 36 feet) and narrow (i.e., 28 to 32 feet) roadway widths.
ISSUES ANALYSIS
ExMV R0gd moats. Sedion 1153.1 of the City's Subdivision Ordinar= establishes
minlmum ri2h!-af-"y and pavement widths for the City's various street dassihcations.
These minlmurn dimensions ere listed below..
$776 WAYZATA BOULEVARD. BNITE see or LOU15 PARK. 04INN930TA 83410
PHONE 612.005.0636 FAX 612.506.0037
,;-
I
JPN-31-1997 0923 NPC
612 S95 9237 P.02/M
Right -of -Way Pavement WWI
Width (Face to Face of Curb)
Arterial Street 100 feet 52 feet
Collector Street 70 feet 44 feet
I` Minor Streel so fast 36 feet
Cul -da -sac or Marginal s0 feet 32 feet
Access Service Streets
AOey 30 feet 1 20 feet
Pedestrian Way 10 feet I N/A
Private Common Access 30 foot 20 feet
Alleys in Industrial or 24 feat 20 fest
Commercial Area
One-way Alleys, Residential 18 fess 12 feet
I Tw"M Alleys, Residential 20 kat 1s feet
As shown above minor streets, (which indude many local residential streets) require right-
of-way widths of 60 feet and pavement widths of 36 feet As noted previously, the City
Parks Commission has raised issue that the 36 pavement width may be excessive. This
position is related in part to a desire to expand boulevard widths,wdtin which doewalks
may be constructed.
Width Analysis. There are advantages and disadvantages to both the existing 36 foot
Pavement width requtrmnent and a lesser width (I.e., 28 feet). The following Is a ilsting of
advantages and disadvantages associated with each alternative.
36 Foot Pavemard Width
Advantages:
• Pavement width Is highly coruluctive to onestreat pertdng on both sides of the street
• 36 foot wig street widths are able to aeconunodate on-streat paCwop, a typically
cheaper atternstive to off-stroet sidewalks and trails.
• 36 foot wide streets are less likely to experience vehicle congestion than 28 foot
wide stroots.
2
lm$
JW -31-1997 0923 NPc 612 595 96_.'7 P.03i05
Disadvantages:
• 36 root streets generally promote higher traffic speeds than 28 root streets. Such
vehicular speeds may raise pedestrian as" concerns.
36 foot wide streets are more eopaensive to constrict and maintain than 28 foot wide
streets. These increased costs may (or may not) be passed onto the consumer.
• 36 toot wide streets prnducs greater amounts of storm water runoff than narrower.
28 foot wide streets. i
• Often times 36 foot wide streets represent an 'overbuilt I condition in low traffic
volume neighborhood settings. I
• On -street paths provided within 38 foot wide streets are ge�ly considered less
safe than off-street sidewalk/pathway alternatives.
• The existing 38 foot wide pavement width requirementtot local streets exceeds
width requirements of most area communities. 11
t
• within the -9 l nid of a residentlai nsighborhooQ wider streets may be considered
less visually appealing than narrow streets.
28 Foot Pavement Width
Advantages:
• Narrower street widths generally promote slower traffic speeds. As a result, such
streets are considered eater from a pedestrian standpoint.
• Narrower (28 foot wide) Create aro loss costly to construct and maintain (lesser
street area) than wider 36 foot streets. A developer may (or may not) be able to
pass such cost savings on to the consumer.
• Such streets produce Issaru amounts of stormweter runoff than wider 38 foot wide
streets.
• Narrower Greet widths In combination with 60 foot menta -of -way provide greater
amounts of boulevard (green apses) than 38 foot wide streets.
•
Arguably, 28 foot wide streets more aoairatsy reflect howdonal meed (vehleular
capacity) than 38 foot wide streets in low densly residential areas.
3
IZC.0
JRN-31-1997 09:24 NRC 612 595 9837 P.04/05
28 foot wide street widths would provide additional boulevard area within which off.
street sidewalks or trails may be consMed. Off-street sidewalks/paths are
generally considered safer and more visually appealing than on -street facilities.
Minimum lot widths in Monticello (80 feet) provide adequate frontage for off-street
parking. Thus it is contended that congestion resulting from narrowed street widths
would be minimal in new development.
• Generally speaking, fire safety is not jeopardized by narrower street. In some
cases, cities have posted 'no parking' signs on one side of a street to ensure fire
vehicle aocess.
• Narrower streets result in less snow to plow, thus les snow storage area is
required.
• Narrower streets are often considered more aestl*catry pleasing in e
neighborttaod setting than wider streets by allowing additiPnsl 'green area'.
• Narrowed (i.e., 28 foot wide) residential streets are recoriranded by numerous
engineering and planting reference documents, including but not limited to the
following:
1. Rasldenba/ Streets, Second Addition, American Sociey of Civil Engineere, 1
National Association of Home Builders and the Urban Land Institute.
2. Residential Street Design and Traft Control. Instihrte of Transportation
Engineers (ITE).
3. Traffic Engineering for Neo•Tradivonal Neighborhood Design, An
Informational Report ITE Technical Committee. 1994.
4. Traffc Calming • Ideas Into Pracdce. ITE 1993 Compendium of Technical
Papers.
S. The SubdWhon and Sde Plan Handbook. Ustokin and Walkor. See
Attached right-dAvay profiles.
Disadvantages:
• 28 foot wide street Cannot slmuRaneously accommodate twoaway vehicular traffic
and parking on both sides of a street
4
IZD
JAM -31-1997 0924 _ rpC - � - 612 995 9837 P. 05/05
I
• Narrow, 28 foot vvide streets may have a result of being more 'congested' than
wider 36 foot wide streets.
Fu bne Action. The initial question i to be h this matter is whether or not the
Planning Commission wishes to oorWder a dhange tQ the existing pavement
standard for minor (locel) streets. If a determinefi made th4the exihsting standard is
excessive. such issues as approprlate width (l. 28 feet), parking restrictions and
sidewalk policy should &w be addressed.
Based on infomumorh highlighted in ft it is the oWW of oar office that the
existing 36 foot street (pavement) width for minor itree�ts is excessive.
Provided proper ah-sdreet parking requirements ae ' we a 28 foot wide street
can adequately AM a function of safely channeling c through low density residential
neighborhoods. Reoogniang, however, that'mi collector !rests have a. different
function than •mtnoe streets (carrytrhg higher volumes of traffic) we suggest a minimum
pavement witch of 32 feet for such street
b
CZE
TOTAL P.05
P
Council Minutes - 9/12/94
Consideration of amendine minor and mareinal access/cul-de-sac street
width reouirements.
Assistant Administrator O'Neill reported that the request to amend street
width requirements for minor and marginal access/cul-de-sac streets comes
from developers who believe that Monticello street width requirements are
extreme when compared to contemporary standards. O'Neill explained that
a marginal access or cul-de-sac street serves a limited number of properties
and that a minor street is typically a street that serves numerous properties
within a residential area and provides a local "collector" function. The
minor street width requirement in Monticello is 36 ft. The marginal access
street width requirement is 32 ft. Research by the City Engineer's staff
shows that Monticello does require wide streets when compared to other
cities. Of the cities surveyed, 8% had 36 -ft wide minor streets and 2% were
greater than 36 ft. For marginal streets, 28% of those surveyed were at our
standard of 32 ft, with 6% greater than 32 ft and another 7% greater yet.
In his report, ONeill reviewed reasons to continue the present standard
such as safety, easier plowing, better maneuverability, additional area for
pedestrian movement, and availability of parldng on both sides of the street.
He also outlined reasons in favor of narrower street widths such as a
limited need for off-street parking, creation of a neighborhood atmosphere,
likelihood of slower speeds, lower maintenance and replacement costs, less
run-off, and less environmental impact.
O'Neill went on to report that the Planning Commission reviewed the
matter at its September 6 meeting, and they felt that the reasons for
amending the street widths outweighed the reasons for maintaining the
existing requirement; therefore, Planning Commission favors amending the
ordinance as proposed. ONeill added that as another alternative, the
variance process could be used to handle special circumstances that might
justify narrower road widths for a particular subdivision.
During discussion, Councilmembers noted that they favored the wider
streets because it is easier to see children, wider streets are safer, and it
affords a place for pedestrians in lieu of sidewalks. Allowing narrower
streets could result in the need for sidewalks, which places an unfair
expense to homeowners on the side chosen for placement of sidewalks.
Shirley Anderson stated that she supports the current ordinance.
John Simola, Public Works Director, noted that he also prefers wider
streeta, and the added expense associated with sealcoating and overlaying is
minimal. Simola and the City Engineer noted that the right-of-way
requirement should be increased to from 60 ft 60 ft for marginal access
streets to provide sufficient area in the boulevard for placement of signs.
IzF
Council Minutes • 9/12!94
Jon Bogart, a current member of the Planning Commission, agreed with the
60 -ft right-of-way requirement but noted that he disagreed with
maintaining the wider street requirement. He pointed out that wider
streets promote children playing in the street, on -street parking, and higher
traffic speeds. In addition, the cost to plow wider streets is higher, and
eventually, in an effort to reduce pollution of lakes and streams, the PCA
will awl down on the water quality and amount of run-off from streets.
The Mayor noted that he would not have a problem with alternative #3,
which would maintain the current ordinance of 36 ft for minor street width,
but Council would review all proposed roads to determine which category
each would faII under. Councilmember Herbst favored the idea of
developers obtaining a variance, provided that the street width is never less
than 32 ft.
After discission, a motion was made by Warren Smith and seconded by
Shirley Anderson to deny amendment of minor and marginal accesdcul-de-
sac street width requirements, but approved an amendment of the right-of-
way width from 50 ft to 60 ft for marginal access roads. Motion carried
unanimously. SEE ORDINANCE AMENDMENT NO. 255.
IZ
Planning Commission Minutes - 9/6/94
13. Consider reauesting the Citv Council to consider amendments to the
subdivision standards relating to width of minor anti marginal cul -lie -sac
strgets. minor streets 36 ft to 32 ft. marginal access/cul-de-sacs 32 ft to
28 ft.
Assistant Administrator O'Neill explained the River Mill residential
developer's request to have the City Council consider amendments to
subdivision standards relating to width of minor and marginal access cul-
de-sac streets, minor streets 36 ft to 32 ft, and marginal access/cul-de-sacs
32 ft to 28 ft. ONeill requested that the Planning Commission members
consider this completely separate from the River Mill subdivision.
Discussion amongst Planning Commission members centered around the
widths of streets in relationship to the proposed River Mill plat as an
example.
With there being no further discussion, the consensus of the five Planning
Commission members present was to recommend that City Council consider
street widths apart from the River Mill subdivision.
It tf
Copy Council Agenda - 9/12/94
7. Consideration of amending minor and marginal access/cul•de-sac
street width requirements. (J.O.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
City Council is asked to consider amending road width design standards as
outlined in the subdivision ordinance by reducing the "marginal access"
street width requirement from 32 ft to 28 ft and by reducing the "minor"
street width requirement from 36 ft to 32 ft. A marginal access or cul-de-
sac street serves a limited number of properties. A minor street is typically
a street that serves numerous properties within a residential area and
provides a local "collector" function. In terms of street hierarchy, a
marginal access street is typically connected to a minor street, which is then
connected to a collector road such as School Boulevard or a County
Highway.
A 36-R wide road provides for on -street parking on both sides of a street
plus pedestrian space. A 32 -ft wide street provides ample room for parking
on one side of a street plus pedestrian space.
The request to examine the existing standards originally stems from
requests from developers. Developers of the Oak Ridge, River Mill, and
Mein Farms subdivision have noted that the city design standards are
extreme when compared to requirements in other communities. In response
to developer claims, City staff and the City Engineer surveyed other
communities and checked planning and engineering journals. The research
generally confirmed that Monticello's street width design standards are
greater than the norm. It, therefore, appears justified that Council review
the matter. Please review the following information and determine if it is
appropriate to modify current standards.
Following is information that was provided to the Planning Commission on
the matter. Planning Commission recommended approval of the proposed
amendment for reasons outlined below.
Following are arguments to maintain existing standards:
Wider roadways provide additional room for on -street parking and
provide a safety zone for pedestrians and bikers walking on the
street.
IZy
Council Agenda - 9/12t94
In the winter, city plows can efficiently remove snow from the
roadway areas used by pedestrians. There are no sidewalks that
need snow removal.
The wider streets allow us to keep the utilities such as sanitary
sewer, storm sewer, and water mains within the confines of the
blacktop portion of the streets. What this means is that during
replacement or repairs to our infrastructure system, it is generally
not necessary to remove curbs and work in the boulevards. We are
able to organize our other utilities such as gas, telephone, electric,
and cable so they provide the least interference with our utilities and
the individual services to the homes. By making streets narrower in
the newer developments with numerous change in direction of streets,
including sharp hairpin curves and cul-de-sacs, the sanitary sewer,
storm sewer, and water mains sometimes get placed outside of the
existing blacktop surface in the boulevard and, in many instances,
underneath the other utilities such as gas. Homeowners may find
their services lie in locations under the curb and other utilities which
can result in higher repair costs to the homeowner in the future.
Wider streets allow for the "less -maneuverable" garbage trucks,
recycling trucks and trailers, and moving vans to access properties
within the community safely and without blocking street access. In
addition, this gives the fire department access and setup areas to
fight fires. In the winter time, narrower streets give less room for
such activity.
If streets are narrowed under the premise that sidewalks are
provided in the boulevard, it should be recognized that youngsters
and pedestrians will not use the sidewalk exclusively. Room should
be provided for pedestrian movement as well as room in the
boulevards for sidewalks. Current design standards allow for
sidewalks, entries, and utilities to be placed behind the curb in an
efficient manner.
During the times when street use has to be disrupted for some type of
utility construction, narrower streets provide less room for traffic to
pass around the construction zone. This may not be a problem in
some areas, but in the newer developments where long single access
streets appear to be coming more into play, it can disrupt the lives of
numerous residents if they are without their street access for a day or
two, and it is often not practical to install bypass routes around the
construction on boulevards and finished lawns.
IZr
IZK
Council Agenda - 9/12194
Streets such as tho4e fund in Monticello allow parking on both sides
with very little restrictions other than those found during the normal
snow removal activities. Narrower streets that provide parking only
on one side or with total restriction on parking require someone to
police the parking so that the streets are maintained in a passable
and safe condition.
Arguments against the wider road sections are as follows:
Monticello's roadway width requirements are archaic. Monticello's
standards are greater than most other communities and exceed
standards identified in engineering and planning journals. City road
width standards have not been updated since 1975 (see attached
survey). Although this is certainly not a reason for changing our
street width requirements, it is justification for examining our
standards.
The need for wider roadways to accommodate off-street parking is
diminished due to the fact that limited off-street parking occurs in R-
1 areas. It is rare to find off-street parking on both sides of the street
at the same location. This is because all homes must have a two -car
garage and paved driveways. Off-street parking that does occur
happens during special events such as parties, neighborhood get-
togethers, etc. Requiring wider streets for off-street parking on both
sides of a street for such intermittent use could be considered
overkill, especially if a sidewalk is provided.
Scientific data has shown that vehicle speeds are affected by roadway
width in combination with other factors. An argument could be made
that a narrower street in combination with curves and grade changes
will create more of a neighborhood atmosphere and slower speeds,
thereby improving safety and liability.
Maintenance and replacement costs are impacted by the width of the
roadway in terms of snowplowing, sweeping, sealcoating, sand/salt,
replacement expense, etc. It should be noted that placing a sidewalk
on the boulevard in lieu of a wider road offsets maintenance savings
gained through reducing the roadway width.
In the River Mill situation, the through -road within the subdivision
could become a route for travelers seeking a shortcut through the
freeway access and 39 East. A wider, straighter road provides less
resistance to cut -through traffic.
IZL
Council Agenda - 9/12194
6. Storm sewer sizing and associated expenses are affected by street
width. Narrower streets create less impervious surface and produce
less run-off. The reduction is offset if a sidewalk is installed when
the street is narrowed.
The original roadway design standards were conceived in an era of
1975 when the new power plant played a strong role in providing the
financial muscle to build and maintain wider road sections. In 1975,
we could afford wider streets. As the capacity of the plant to provide
revenue diminishes over time and as maintenance expenses grow, the
City needs to find ways to reduce maintenance, repair, and
replacement expenses. Allowing narrower roads may be a reasonable
step to take to reduce costs. It is estimated that there is a 9%
difference in cost associated with a 32 -ft versus a 36 -ft road section.
Streets wider than necessary create a corresponding unnecessary
impact on the environment. Wider streets increase areas disturbed
by grading resulting in greater tree removal. Wider streets add to
polluting storm water run-off, which affects water quality in rivers,
streams, lakes, etc.
Planning Commission believes that 28 -ft and 32 -ft roadways provide
sufficient space for maneuvering utility vehicles; therefore, wider
streets are not justified based on this criteria.
10. Planning Commission believes that street and utility related repairs
are not common enough to justify a wider street to allow traffic to
maneuver around repair vehicles.
Prior to discussion of this matter, I strongly recommend that you visit areas
noted below to help you gain perspective on this topic. Following are
streeta/subdivisions and associated street widths at various locations within
the city. As you will note, there are streets within the city that do not meet
existing standards because they were originally built under township
standards. They now provide a reference point that may assist you in your
decision making.
Existing
Subdivision Street Name Clana/Width Width
Hillcrest Hillcrest Rd. marginal access 24', no curb
1Zftl
Council Agenda - 9/17/94
Existing
Subdivision Street Name
ClassoVidth
Width
Creekside Sandy Lane
minor
24', no curb
Old Monti most streets
minor
36'
Palm Street
minor
36'
Cardinal Hills all streets
minor/marginal
36'
& cul-de-sacs
River Street River Street
minor
24', no curb
Near Cemetery
River Street, River Street
minor
36'
Old Monti
Meadow Oak Meadow Oak Ln
minor
32'
Meadow Oak Dr.
minor
36'
Briar Oakes all streets &
minor/marginal
36'
cul -desacs
Oak Ridge all cul-de-sacs
marginal
32'
Oak Ridge Oak Ridge Dr.
minor
36'
Par West Kevin Longley
minor
36'
Jerry Liefert
minor
36'
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. Motion to amend the ordinance as determined by Council based on
the reason outlined above:
It is the view of the Planning
Commission that
the reasons noted
above support changing the minor street width
requirement from 36
R to 32 R and supporta changing the marginal
street width
requirement from 32 ft to 28 R. Council may wish to adopt this
recommendation as is or modify and adopt.
Council Agenda - 9/12/94
The Planning Commission also suggested that sidewalks be required
along minor streets when the right-of-way connects populated areas
to a trail system or to other significant points of destination. Also,
sidewalks should be installed when traffic volumes on the minor
street justify separation of pedestrian traffic from vehicular traffic.
Under this alternative, traffic volume criteria supporting the need for
a sidewalk will need to be developed.
Motion to deny suggestion to amend the ordinance based on the
reasons noted above.
Motion to adjust the manner in which the ordinance is applied by
establishing a higher standard for defining what constitutes a minor
street. In other words, apply the ordinance in a manner that places
more "minor" streets in the marginal access road category.
Under this alternative, no changes would be made to the ordinance;
however, the manner in which the ordinance is applied would be
changed. Street width requirements could be reduced for some
streets simply by liberalizing what is defined as a marginal access
street. This option would bring the benefits of street width reduction
where appropriate and also give the latitude to require a 36-R wide
residential roadway where necessary. Under this alternative, a
better working definition of what constitutes a minor versus a
marginal access street will need to be developed.
Similarly, a more liberal use of the variance procedure or use of the
PUD process could be employed to address special circumstances
where particular difficulties exist when applying the ordinance as
currently written. For instance, the River MilArautbauer property
possesses certain features (gravel pit, river bluff) that make it
particularly difficult to develop under existing standards. Perhaps a
variance to the standard design requirements could be justified for
properties like this one which are difficult or impossible to develop in
the existing code.
As is found in other cities, Monticello City staff is split on this issue. John
Simola and Bret Weiss support continuation of the existing standards.
Roger Mack supports narrower roads to discourage higher speed. He also
notes that maintenance expenses associated with sealcoatag, etc., are less
with narrower roads. The planning consultant and I support a reduction in
Council Agenda - 9/12/94
the minor street width requirement; however, we are hesitant to provide
complete support to the reduction in the marginal street access width to 28
ft. It is our view that sidewalks be developed in conjunction with 32 -ft
minor streets when traffic volumes justify separation.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Summary of survey of road width requirements in other cities; Excerpt from
subdivision ordinance pertaining to roadway width requirements;
Residential Streets article firom American Society of Civil Engineers; Memo
from traffic engineer, Stgar-Roscoe-Fausch, detailing street width issues;
Article from newspaper on non -point pollution; Information on subdivision
design for planning periodicals.
W 5 S J7
�1
1r I Z P
7? '54 O?:45 CSM rP S. "7+
t
•— —
I
� I
7129/94
��� ResuM of Street Width Survey by Population
.I1•
CS£y of Monticello
�V
great wlfu amo tome -t j=e
and
12D -23124-25126-27129-29130-3113Z3313&,351
36 1 38 144&31 44 1 > I
i
Skaldord raildonfld s ibdvhdw
4
1
1
4.
12000,70000 J�aM1
1
1 �'
�'
12
I
1 1 ;1 6
7
2 I
Pi '
' TOTALS
1 4_ 5 6 25
30 8
8 2 89
mm" aral-&sae
<18\ 1 28\
34% 9%
9% 2.2\
1 -doom
2
3
&
3
J.
6
3
3
I120OM-30000
I
I
1
2 ,)
1
;
1
TOTALS
3 39 9 I 14.•
28. 6
7 79
calendar
8\ it! 11\ 18)
40% 8%
2%
1<10000
2 2
1 1 2
S1
6
1
5
lSFaSC
2
3
1
3
3
1i1i�'�
,
Pmwim raqulrements for cofactor meet 1
Yet No
<10000
6 �!
1000420000
7 0
2MM-30000
8 6
�30C<10
11 6
1
Eoc!) poPukOlon came up vMn ,rlmfar raspown when ®ked undat what ctraarotance+ a #*&w c or
paTnww wmAd be Vatdlod h o raslaenttat aAXDvhlGn:
m part of trop system arnoud of ftff c/pedogrlam by a park or ¢deo l by
pennon doclslorl by count or adowdks or panways are muss to rcw.
Moss C.TIet eornocfad responds 0 that tha plans I Qd argheaft dopwft aNt Ogee with ft
above M4WdL and thou that dtd not mWnded Vd to ptafrll q dopa l a d waitod ocorowar
spam and trcrab or that tha a*=oru vroro I by The city wind and rot enptwahp at pi n*V.
Of the remondurplcnte2 63 dtd dWw p We en0►'loafd proal ! to a cWdn acem and 21 did not.
Total nunbar of mgxxum e7
�1�1e•18,�» '
1
i I
Subd . dr4 . Ekcerp+
(G) Alleys shall be provided in commercial and industrial districts,
except that this requirement may be waived where other definite and
assured provision is made for service access such as off-street
loading, unloading, and parking consistent with and adequate for the
uses proposed. Except where justified by special conditions such as
the continuation of an existing alley in the same block, alleys will
not be approved in residential districts. Dead-end alleys shall be
avoided wherever possible; but if unavoidable, such dead-end alleys
may be approved if adequate turn -around facilities are provided at the
closed end.
(H) Dedication of half streets will not be approved except where it is
essential to the reasonable development of the subdivision and in
conformity with the other requirements of these regulations, where it
is found that it will be practical to require the dedication of the
other half when the adjoining property is subdivided, or where it
becomes necessary to acquire the remaining half by condemnation so
that it may be improved in the public interest.
(I) For all public ways hereafter dedicated and/or accepted, the minimum
right-of-way and paved width for streets, thoroughfares, alleys, or
pedestrian ways included in any subdivision shall not be less than the
minimum dimensions for each classification as follows:
Where the existing or anticipated traffic on primary and secondary
thoroughfares warrants greater widths of rights-of-way, these shall
be required.
y
Iz
MONTICELLO SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE TITLE XI/Chpt 5/PAee=F
PAVED
RIGHT-OF-WAY (face
to face of curb)
Arterial Street
100
feet
52 feet 4:9U.Ced {r
Collector Street
70
feet
44 feet
-ir Minor Street
60
feet
36 feet --,r 3p
Cul-de-sac or Marginal
Access Service Streets
50
feet
32 feet—* ;�i
Alley
30
feet
20 feet
Pedestrian Way
10
feet
N/A
*Private Common Access
30
feet
20 feet
Alleys in Industrial or
Commercial Areas
24
feet
20 feet
One-way Alleys, Residential
16
feet
12 feet
Two-way Alleys, Residential
20
feet
16 feet
*The City Council may choose
to approve
private
common access for
P.U.D., townhouse development,
etc.,
where appropriate. Standards for
said access, however, shall comply with minimums as
outlined for minor
streets (except ROW) and all other
provisions
as required by the City
Council.
Where the existing or anticipated traffic on primary and secondary
thoroughfares warrants greater widths of rights-of-way, these shall
be required.
y
Iz
MONTICELLO SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE TITLE XI/Chpt 5/PAee=F
SE21-09-19134 1.1:e3 NAC
fees��-�=sem
identia
P,
ri
Second Edition
Amikan W* of CA tairmr,
NdaW Aee�knAramwlWders
ULI-the Ur6A,
61d 16tituto
4-e - - -
kt.
SEP -09-1994 1104 NAC oic » ZC-)( r.—w
Figure 2.11: Paired one -my
streets serving as a
subcollectaz
in the width of the moving lane is not necessary. where moving
lanes arc bounded by a vertical curb, the width should be increased
to 11 feet since drivers tend to shy away from the curb and drive
toward the center of the street.
Residential streets can be divided into two separate one-way
streets to preserve a desirable natural feature, minimize other-
wise necessary grading of steep terrain, or provide an attractive
entryway (Figure 2.11). Planners must account fur nighttime vis-
ibility and rapid perception of the traffic division puint. Paired
one-way residential streets, even single fruntage, may be nucessary
in areas characterized by steep terrain.
Pavement Widths
Decisions regarding pavement width have significant conse-
queaces for a number of characteristics, including resultant ve-
hicle speeds, visual scale, and the cost of constructiun and main-
tenance, and, therefore, are of great importance in designing a
residential community. The width of a street shuuld be based
upon both the volume and type of expected traffic and the amount
of on•strcet puking that will be generated as well as upon the
place of the street In the street hierarchy (access street, subcollec-
tor, collector) (Figure 2.12)•
Residential street pavement width practieeshave evolved largely
from traditional rowing lute, puking late, and design speed con-
cepts. Kstoricallg widths were linked to etmsiderations of con-
venience for the largest vehicle that might use the street. Such
design approaches are appropriate for arterial streets but are dif•
ficult to Itutify for residential streets that serve a small number
r of homes.
i
36 itssidentlai Streets ,
SLP- 1994 11:05 N:.= o:: SS-- 9677 P_04/0S
1 Figure 2.12: widths .should be
consistent with traffic needs.
Figure 2.13: Owdesign: a nn•
wide street encourages faster
speeds and is unattractive.
The selection of appropriate pavement widths must account for
proluble peak traffic volume, parking needs and controls, likely
vehicle speeds, and limitariuns imposed by sight distances, cli-
mate, terrain, and maintenance requirements. Designers should
select the minimum width that will reastnutbly satisfy all real-
istic rinds, thereby minimizin; construction and average annual
maintenance costs. The tendency of many communities to equare
tv tier screen with better streets and to design traffic and parking
lames as though the street were a "micrefreeway" is a highly
questionable practice. Certainly the provision of two 11- or 12 -foot
clear traffic lanes is an open invitation to increased traffic speeds
iFtgun 2.131.
Design Catsufuratituss 37
SEP -09-1994 11:06 NFC 612 595 9837 P.05/05
parWV (parking On subcollectors, a 26-foe:-wideeat
lanes and a m lug provides either two
tamI Lamparkingmoving or traffic lane or one parking lane and
I two moving lanes. (In the absence of adequate off-street parking,
a 28 -foot pavement may be preferable if continuous on -street park.
(mwtna ing is expected along both sides of the SUM) For a cul-de-sac or
tens other access street, a 22- or 24 -foot -wide pavement is adequate.
II Widening the access street a few more feet does not significantly
61-71to, 61-7" increase capacity but does permit wider moving lanes that, in
( I turn, tend to encourage hi h;x-speed driving (Figure 2.141. A wide
access street also lacks the mare intimate scale that otherwise
makes it an attractive setting for housing.
Once the traffic from tributary local streets has reached suffl-
access tient volume so that two clear traffic lanes are needed, the street
becomes a collector street. A collector stmt should be designed
as a higher -speed traffic artery that permits relatively swift and
I unrestricted automobile movements. Collector streets with a
parking Parting pavement width of 36 feet provide for adequate traffic movement
one+ tans and two curb parking lanes (Figure 2-14). Where houses do not
have access to the collector street and parking is not normally
needed, two moving lanes of pavement are adequate, with shoul-
ders graded for ernagency parking. Ideally, homes should not front
(MOW[" on a collator street in order to avoid the multiple traffic hasards
In. of street parking, automobiles catering the street from driveways,
and children who may dart unseen into the roadway (Urban Land
ICY I s� institute, 1967). Table 23 summarizes the pavement width rec-
ommendations:
I Table 1.3
ltecotumended Paveteew Widths
subcoPutor Street Type Pavemat Width ((t.l
Access Street (place nr lane) 12.14
Subealleetor 26'
I I I Collector 36"
it -**N /.WNh-m ImA Jl+,l,lr Nn 1am�rwt} Is*— r_"mn A. 1'K*•aNe.
a. I ICY + ICY I A' "If mArl"16--1- wuk-dksM.r 14• 1"-. N.,ms"h�b=hknnwith tree.
Mking
I Right -of -Way Widths
snOwna Ian" I lite right of way width should be mtly as wide as necessary for
10
1 I the street pavanent and other facilities and uses, including side-
walks, utilities, drainage, street trees, stow storage, and grading.
I lllanket requirements for rights-of-way of 50 feet or more, often
Parking mandated by ordinances, are seldom justified for subcollectors and
I 1 lane access streets.
edbeur A right-of-way width allowance fur future street widening is
F4ura 2.14: Numbar and unnecessary in well-planned residential neighborhoods that are
width of lames. designed to discuutsge through traffiL on residential streets. Since
38 Residuaral Stmats 70V
1
TOW L
r My N 1- ;. 's W K 1 ,. H I l, i ✓ W M r y
SAFSTRGAR ROSCOE-FAUSCH, INC.
rCONSULTING ENGINEERS PLANNERS
TKWS?ORTATION • CWIL 9 SMCMM ■ 00=NKNTAL s auwNG
SRF No. 0942098
A, 5
MEMORANDUM
o
Y IG
eo
5d ,Lt TO: David K Montebello, P.E.
�o Q Assistant Hlgtrway Engineer
Wright County Department of Highways
FROM: Nancy Heuer, P.E.
DATE: August 2, 1984
SUBJECT: TRAFFIC STUDY FOR THE KRAUTBAUER
PROPERTY IN MONTICELLO
This memorandum provides a brief summary of preliminary information for the
"utbauer property traffic study. It provides an estimate of the number of trips
generated by the proposed devebpmant and a discussion of approprlete street
widths for the subdivision.
Trio Generation
The proposed site plan, dated July 27, 1994, includes 87 single family dwelling
units, 94 twin home dwelling units and two cammeraal lots. Trips generated by
Hawks Bar will also contribute to traffic levels on proposed and existing streets.
The number of daily and peak Hour trips have been estimated using either the
Institute of Transportation Enginewt (ITE) Trio Generation manual or recent
articles In the ITE na . The estimated trip generation for each land use Is
summarized In Tablo 1. The proposed development is expected to generate a
total of 3.640 daily and 940 P.Mr peak hour trips. M estimate of the number of
trips generated by Hawks Bar will be made following field observations.
The estimated trips will be assigned to the street system according to a
directional distribution assuuned to be similar to the distribution of existing tragic
on the streets around the project. Based at 1993 traffic volumes, forty percent
of the site -generated traffic would be assigned to the west on C.8AH. 7S and to
Suitt 154 One Galton Pakway North, Mkuinpolier Minmrm a ss a4m (Z
16121 O$4m FAX (624 03.2429
David K Montebello, P.E. .2- August 2, 1994
the east on 1-94, and ten percent would be assigned to the south on County
Road 118 and to the east on C.S.A.H. 39. When completed, the trip assignment
will include appropriate trip reduction factors to take Into consideration the
effects of multi-purpose and pass-by trips.
Street Widthq
There are several factors which should be considered in the determination of
residential street widths. These include:
• The overall function of the street in providing for access and mobility
• The need to provide for pedestrian and non -motorized vehicle traffic
• The need to provide for on -street parking
Most of the streets in the proposed development are residential in nature and
none of them form a part of the city collector street system. Since they are being
constructed to serve the proposed neighborhood, they have been designed to
minimize through trips and vehicle speeds through the use of curvilinear
alignment and the use of T -Intersections. Since providing access Is the primary
function of these streets, high mobility and high speeds are toss of a concern.
Wider streets tend to increase vehicle speeds; narrower widths tend to reduce
speeds.
Another Important factor in the determination of street width is the need to
accommodate pedestrians and non-motorizod traffic. The preferred method of
accommodating this traffic is to provide complete separation by using sidewalks,
bikeways and/or trails where pedestrian traffic Is likely to be prevalent. For the
proposed development, most pedestrian activity would be along the streets
approaching the park and the coinineiclal area.
The third Important fedor In the determination Of street width Is the need to
provide on -street parking. In the proposed development, commercial and
resident parking will be provided off-street; only residential visitor parking would
overflow to ft street.
The following text describes the way in which these needs are addressed by
various street wldths.
A Wfoot wide streot provides excess width for two lanes of moving traffic and
for parking on one side. This street width also allows for some separation of
pedestrian and vehicle traffic where separate pedestrian facilities are not
ZX
?y f`701J 1 3 :54 W R I G H T C T Y P W B P- qy�
David K Montebello, P.E. - 7 - August 2, 1994
provided. Because a street of this width would generally provide more than
ample clearances where relatively little pedestrian activity and parking occur on
the street pavement, veh� r speeds tend to be higher.
A 32 -foot wide street provides for two lanes of moving traffic and for pjjtg on
one side. Where on -street panting is limited, this width also provides for some
separation of pedestrian and vehicle traffic, Complete separation through the
use of sidewalks is, however recommended. Again, vehicular speeds tend to be
somewhat higher where relatively little pedestrian activity and parking occur.
A 28 -foot wide street provides for two lanes of moving traffic or for one lane of
moving traffic where parking occurs on both sides. This street width does not
allow for much separation of pedestrian and vehicular traffic, hence the Drovision
of separate pedestrian facilities is strorwly recommended whom -Reds ►ians_a[e
6a>ta7enr. r nrs more restricted width tends to reduce vehicle speeds.
Based on this information, appropriate residential street widths this development
could be either 28 or 32 feet wide with sidewalks provided on one side on the
streets approaching the park and the commercial area Parking prohibitions on
one side should be established at the time of consUuction. The street looping
around the commercial area, which will eventually serve additional commercial
development to the west, should be 36 feet wide because of higher traffic
volumes and the higher level of truck activity expected in the area.
Additional Street Width References
The Institute of Transportation Engineers provides a table of local street design
guidelines in its Traffic knoineerino Handbook This recommends pavement
widths of 22 to 27 feet In tow density areas and 28 to 34 feet in meditun density
areas. A 36400t width Is only recommended in high density areas.
Other recommendations for residential street widths are found in Residential
Streets: Obieciives. Principles and Desian Considerations, published juhUy by
the Urban Land Institute, the American Society of Ergineers, and the National
Association of Homebuildem. This report discusses advantages and
disadvantages of various street widths, ranging from 16 feel to 36 feet. A 38 -
foot street width, providing two traffic lanes and omstreet emergency parking
lanes, is recommended for collector streets. The report Indicates that 26 -fool
wide streets, providing one traffic lane where parking occurs on both sides of the
street, are typical in many cities. Street widths less than 26 feet have derinile
limitations.
NH: bba
cc: Robert Murray, Residential Development, Ina.
�zY
Report calls
for saving
Mississippi
from tainted
runoff water
By Tom hteenman
Staff writer
The upper Mississippi River between
Bemidji, Minn., and Minneapolis
needs major protection from polluted
runoff water, atcordin to a report
released Thursday by Citizens for a
Better Environment(CBEI.
Amy Middleton. Mississippi River
project coordinator for CBE, said
that cities and industries alorr{ alae
river are doing a better job of fpm•
plying with pollution laws, but that
loo many contaminants are still en•
tering she river from other sours.
"We see plowed (kids and feedlou
next to the river in some plate!, and
v n std Ter in ritth
u los gen the river In o rxr
aces;' aid Middleton, who works
m CAE s Minneapolis oll}ce. "Pollul•
ed runoff is the next frontier we need
to tackle for water quality."
Middleton also reviewrd dischaige
permits for the 23 fadlities a the
Mississippi between Bemidji and the
drinking water treatment plant In
Fridley. Similar reviews by the MI&
western environmental group be-
lween 1986 and 1991 showed fie-
aagent violations, but now many of
the problems have been corrected,
she said.
Middleton lined several fictism as
contributing to the Improvements,
including lowauitt or threats of suits
from environmental groups, better
enforcemeat of lows by the Mintsoo-
a Pollution Control Agency and
changirsg utitudn among same urn.
n. ortklah about the imp, 11
of protecting the environment.
Article from Star Tribune
September 9, 1994
Patty Burke, water quality division
director at the Minneaoa Pollution
Control Agency, said she is pleated
with the report, and excited that eo-
vironmenal groups are Vowing
more concerned about polluted mo-
off water. She said the Mississippi
and other bodies or water ittt
four times more pollution by weight
from runoff than from point sources,
or discharges from the end of pipes.
Burke diapeM with the report's ret-
ommendatnon that companies pmt
signs near discharge pipes that lin the
Pollutants being emitted into the fir.
er. "We think that posting is probe.
bly an olsrmin mechanism that will
not inform. but will misinform the
public about what the permittee is
realty doing," she said.
Burke said posting the pollutants
might give the Impression that
there's something wrong with the
Clean Water Act, which allows the
release of certain chemicals at tped&
is levels, depending apon the quanti.
ty orsurfkce water astd the amount of
Protection it needs,
17,1"
1
A complete revamp of residential
street standards is under way in
this Colorado college town.
ouUer, Colorado, has a prob.
lean shared by cities across
the country. Too many of its streets
divide rather than integrate. They
are single -purpose arteries, em.
phasizing cars over people. They
despoil the environment with their
-cpansive impervious surfaces.
ley encourage speeding. And
.ney support faceless suburban develop-
ment pattems guaranteed to worsen tmf-
fic congestion.
Residential streets are key de:ermi-
nanta of neighborhood quality. They of-
fer a place to walk, to play—and of course
to park. Yet ever since the start of the
post -World War II housing boom, msi.
dential streets have become increasingly
devoted to traffic movement. The wide
lanes required by today's codes lead to
higherapeeds, more accidents, and getter
urban fragmentation.
In recent years, many planners—and
even some traffic engineers—have begun
to question whether wider streets ars as
functional as their advocates claim. In.
creasingly, designers, public officials, and
developers—often spurred by neighbor-
hood activists—are considering the vir.
tues of a hierarchical street classification
that would provide for a variery of resi.
dential atreet types, each reflexing dif.
ferent traffic conditions.
Boulder Brings Back the
Neighborhood Street
Local history
f Ike many western cities, Boulder was
Aid out. in 1889, on a grid based o n a 4.00.
foot block and 25 -foot lots, a pattern
admirably suited to speculation. It should
be noted. however, that the Boulder City
Town Company set high rates for town
lots. up to 51.000 for a 50 -by -140 -foot
building site. Ev en :hen, it appears. Boul-
der favored slower growth.
The post•'.\'orid War 11 subdiv;sions
dtsrupttd the grid pattern, w•tth Ear;er
lots and Mocks se: cion g cvrvilinear sces:s.
and no alleys. In :he 1960s and 1970s.
more cul -de -tan appeared, with :ewer
connections to adjacent deveiopment.
Today, the :icy is : tazacter.:ed by a high
rate of car ownarship (two vehi::es for
every three peoplel and a significant jobs.
to -housing imbalance. Boulder's employ.
ment-to-popuia::cn ratio is 0.83, more
than 40 percent higher than the .figure for
the eight -count' Denver met.opefi:an re-
gion. 11 current trends continue. total
employment will exceed population by
2010.
Boulder also has several recent es.
ampiesof more sensitiveresiden::a: plan.
ning. In 1983 a focal developer built :he
Cottages, a 37.un:: affordable housing
project, or. a woone-sryle stmt: The
8.3-a; a site abuts:ityawned open s^,ate
on the north side. And in 1990, anther
local developer. William Coburn, buil:
Walnut Hollaw, a high-end i.^.!ill proje::
consisting of ntr a Victorian-sryla houses—
with detached garages—arrayed Along an
18 -foot -wide street Just east of eown.
town.
By John M. Femande:, Ate?
But these projects, both
planned unit developments, re-
sulted largely from individual
initiatives and not from a
communitvwide vision of what
connitutes better urban devel-
opment. Moreover, neither
would be allowed under the cur-
rent regulations. In the past,
the city's planning department used the
PUD ordinance to vary street standards.
Butas concerns grew over liability, policy
makers were unwilling to grant individual
waivers in the absence of new citywide
street standards.
For the mon pan, recent new subdivi.
sions have complied absolutely with the
letter of the Boulder rules, laid down in
the zoning erode and subdivision regula.
tions adopted in 1971. The result: three.
car garagempe uniformity. the 'loops
and lollipops' pattern exhibited so well
in the city's expanding northeast quad-
rant.
In 1992. thxplanningdepartment.swun
of the community's growing unhappi.
ness with the look and operation of the
now subdivisions. decided to take a more
aggressive role in neighborhood design.
The staff noted that the city's 1989trans.
ponation master plan called for new real.
dential street guidelines to enhance neigh-
borhood safety and livability.
M It happened. a large new project
had just been proposed for the northeast
edge of the city—the 140 -ern Four Mile
Creek. The planning department hired
Peter Brown, AMP. an urban designer in
Houston. to conduct a design charette
before the project entered the develop.
ment review phase. Brown toured tor.
i
Q000 173
q❑ _ as � 1
I� rQ4� �QQ'�❑ ��I
aemwm0 Gnry
.lar aoaa l Mhw Amro"
PI� q�ope
- atam Stmt I a A
aaametmel C
Street
emm"
r"=U*sknxa r.nu /
site and interviewed the developers, ■
consortium of local builders. Thea. working
with other team members, he compared
construction costs for both a conven-
tional subdivision and a neotraditional
desip, complete with narrow streets and
pedestrian paths, and drew sketch plan
alternatives,
Tae plan that resulted was then pre -
aerated to the developers, and they used
many of the nontraditional design sis-
ments in their annexation application.
)The annexation ordinance was the legal
device used to vary the city's street a=.
dards.) The 309 -unit project is now under
construction. Its gridded street plan in-
cludes both boulevards and narrow streets.
It also features short blocks; motor courts
)oblong cul-de-sacs with central landaup-
ing and parking); a ralsed intersection
)road surface matches elevation of cross-
walk); traffic circles; and an alley. There
Is also an extensive bicycle and pedes-
trian path network.
The Four Mile Creek exercise was con•
sidered a success in that it convinced the
raaae
j JMAO
Ilewopetete
t lc�
L__—_—:i___—_, g
ram
city to move beyond simply responding
to proposals to assuming a leadership
role in defining a visica for development.
Under the leadership of its new planning
director, Will Fteissig, Houlder is now
attempting to relate its street design tram-
dards to an overall community planning
and urban design program.
Complete overhaul
The vehicle for this new approach is the
Residential Access Project (LAP), which
was Initiated jointly in the spring of 1992
by the city's planning and public works
departments. The impetus was the in-
creasing restiveness of neighborhood real•
dents concerned about traffic congestion.
At that point. the planning staff proposed
to broaden the residential street guide•
fines to include the entire movement
network in residential areas and to create
urban design guidelines.
The entire project is being carried out
in house. with no special funding except
for a small graphics budget. Both the
public works staff member—a tran.*e -
talion planner—and I de..c:e about a
of our :ime tow. We. ercr: to an zter-
dena—.mental s:ee^•:ng
The rst par: of the :,,o-:'-.aseproject
was aimed a: devising a s:atemeat of
purpose and a riche: mien u o: street stars.
dards. The prole^ staff has spent :he las;
two vears researching s:anda. ds in other
cities and invoh^'g residr..:s -.14i
n a co
laborative pianr process. A spino.,
effort, the ne!Shbcrhooc :rafflc rrursa-
non program, wi_11 encourage :ne use o:
traffic Calming "measures.
In March of :his year, ;he plarming
board endorsed the naf?'s reco^-tenV
tion that the city's one•size-'::s-all srree-.
standard be r cisced. The :y:rent sum-
dard requires :2 -foot :raveilanes, six•
foot parking lanes, cur; gaiter, and side•
walk in a s&•foot sigh:-oi•way. The new
standards would offer four ::assiftcatjors.
all ai then narrower t er. :he rare-:
requirement.
The two lowest. classi ica:ions would
be low speed ;:'-20 m.p.=.i 'queuing -
streets. 'rbev could be as narrow as :0
fee:, and theywouidallow or.•s:tee pn:k•
ing. To mollify fire offi.
cials, the standards pro-
vide for fire set-up areas
(pads long and wide
enough to accommodate
fire trucks and close
enough together so fire
bases can reach the back
of all dwellings I.
The standards would
also allow alleys, which
are officially discouraged
is the current subdivision
regulations. The planners
noted that Boulder resi-
denuconsistently rate tra.
dltioaal neighborhoods
with alleys as most liv.
able.
The planning board also
endorsed the stotfs rec.
ommended street pur-
poses statement. A clear
definition of intent Is ex-
pected to guide all tnose
involved in administer-
Ing the new regulations.
The final proposal for phase one is to
be presented to the planning board this
month. The mein step is to translate the
proposal Into an ordinance for consider-
ation by the dry council. That's expected
to be done this summer.
Pbasetwoof awrwanaddress the broader
topic of residentialvea design, includ-
ing the building -sweet relationship, net-
work standards. nad'shued' streets (such
as the Dutch woonerfl. A set of perfor.
mance-baud standards will parallel the
new prescriptive standards.
The plemming department Is putting
the drab u,ndtards to the test In a sub -
community plan now being prepared for
northBoukiar. With 9,200 residents spread
over 2,300 acres. 'NOBo' is the least
developed of the city's nine subcommu-
nities. It war an nand four yearsago, and
its many vacant and undarutillted par.
cels are considered ripe for redevelop-
ment.
At a 8ve4sy public chorette held the
first week of May in the National Guard
Armory, more than 300 citizens suggested
ways of intensifying the movement grid
and reconnecting streets. Their recom.
mendaticas included both boulevards and
skinny street. A Miami -based urban de-
sign consulting firm, Dover, Kohl & Pan-
ner, is incorporating their recommenda-
tions and many of the RAP concepts into
the pian being prepared for city council
consideration in July.
Searching out models
Them seemed to be few models when
Boulder started this project two aum-
mersago. Most jursdictfons still use some
variation of the highway -oriented street•
standards that arose in the late 1930s
with the creation of the Federal Highway
Administration and the 'Green Book'
published by AASHTO, the American
Association of State Highway and Trans.
porution Officials.
Recently, designers associated with the
movement coming to be known as 'the
new urbanism' -Andres Duanv, Anton
Naluaen, mCP, Peter Calthorpe, and oth-
e.s-have received considerable media
attention. But most of their work has
bean on large trans of raw land, not the
infill projects that are typical of places
like Boulder.
There are othr,. modes with broader
applicability to the situations in which
most planners find themselves: Will. re-
development. and fringe -area develop -
meat.
One such example is an early one, the
'performance meets' standard adopted
by Bucks County. Pennsylvania, in 1980.
It provides a model ordinance that in-
cludes a rich hierarchy of street types.
although its use as a model is limited by
the emphasis on cul -de -saes and loop
streets, and iu lick of attention to alter-
native modes of travel.
The performance streets concept is also
the basis of a new set of supplemental
standards for residential neighborhood,
stow being considered by the city of How -
tom and surrounding Harris County. The
city currently has only two types of reai-
dentlsl streets: a 28 -foot pavement sec•
tion with a 50 -foot or 60 -foot right-of-
way. The new standards would create
eight street types and allow narrower.
Greet, In new subdivisions, with such de•
sign elements as'chicanes' jjogs to slow
traffic) and flare -outs. The standards were
prepared by Pater Browry�g eollsbo�
1ZC-c®
`-rte'')
�~
Ing the new regulations.
The final proposal for phase one is to
be presented to the planning board this
month. The mein step is to translate the
proposal Into an ordinance for consider-
ation by the dry council. That's expected
to be done this summer.
Pbasetwoof awrwanaddress the broader
topic of residentialvea design, includ-
ing the building -sweet relationship, net-
work standards. nad'shued' streets (such
as the Dutch woonerfl. A set of perfor.
mance-baud standards will parallel the
new prescriptive standards.
The plemming department Is putting
the drab u,ndtards to the test In a sub -
community plan now being prepared for
northBoukiar. With 9,200 residents spread
over 2,300 acres. 'NOBo' is the least
developed of the city's nine subcommu-
nities. It war an nand four yearsago, and
its many vacant and undarutillted par.
cels are considered ripe for redevelop-
ment.
At a 8ve4sy public chorette held the
first week of May in the National Guard
Armory, more than 300 citizens suggested
ways of intensifying the movement grid
and reconnecting streets. Their recom.
mendaticas included both boulevards and
skinny street. A Miami -based urban de-
sign consulting firm, Dover, Kohl & Pan-
ner, is incorporating their recommenda-
tions and many of the RAP concepts into
the pian being prepared for city council
consideration in July.
Searching out models
Them seemed to be few models when
Boulder started this project two aum-
mersago. Most jursdictfons still use some
variation of the highway -oriented street•
standards that arose in the late 1930s
with the creation of the Federal Highway
Administration and the 'Green Book'
published by AASHTO, the American
Association of State Highway and Trans.
porution Officials.
Recently, designers associated with the
movement coming to be known as 'the
new urbanism' -Andres Duanv, Anton
Naluaen, mCP, Peter Calthorpe, and oth-
e.s-have received considerable media
attention. But most of their work has
bean on large trans of raw land, not the
infill projects that are typical of places
like Boulder.
There are othr,. modes with broader
applicability to the situations in which
most planners find themselves: Will. re-
development. and fringe -area develop -
meat.
One such example is an early one, the
'performance meets' standard adopted
by Bucks County. Pennsylvania, in 1980.
It provides a model ordinance that in-
cludes a rich hierarchy of street types.
although its use as a model is limited by
the emphasis on cul -de -saes and loop
streets, and iu lick of attention to alter-
native modes of travel.
The performance streets concept is also
the basis of a new set of supplemental
standards for residential neighborhood,
stow being considered by the city of How -
tom and surrounding Harris County. The
city currently has only two types of reai-
dentlsl streets: a 28 -foot pavement sec•
tion with a 50 -foot or 60 -foot right-of-
way. The new standards would create
eight street types and allow narrower.
Greet, In new subdivisions, with such de•
sign elements as'chicanes' jjogs to slow
traffic) and flare -outs. The standards were
prepared by Pater Browry�g eollsbo�
1ZC-c®
tion with Patricia D. Knudson & Assod•
aces and Terra Assotnates, both of Hous.
ton.
Portland, Oregon's 1991 'skinny streets'
ordinance applies to residential blocks
where lots are over 3.000 square feet. It
allows 20 -foot -wide streets with parking
on one side, or 26 -foot -wide streets with
parking on both sides—thus overturning
the long -entrenched idea that all streets
must provide at least two through lanes
of traffic. City engineer Terry Bray re-
ports that 30 blocks of skituty streets
were built in the first two construction
seasons.
Olympia, Washington's state capital.
hos approved transportation policies that
prohibit new cul•de•sacs. The policies,
adopted in 1992, are an outgrowth cf a
visual preference survey and urban de-
sign plan undertaken with the help of
New jersey consultant Anton Nelessen.
Nelessen also prepared the urban de•
sign guidelines now being reviewed in
Santa Fe, New Mexico. The guidelines
offer 16 distinct land -use and circulation
prototypes. Widths range downward to
IS fee:, sometimes with no building set.
back requirement, and curb radiuses as
tight as four feet. F. ank Diittnio, the city's
newly appointed .`ire chief, says he sup-
ports the standards provided that new
streets 'pretty much' keep a 20 -foot clear
meaning eaning that no parking rules
must be s-. icily enforced.
L- Squirt. Washington, a retirement
community on the Oh•tnpie Peninsula, a
'block standard' includes a 112 -foot allev
in a 20 -foot easement. Public works di-
rector %chard Parker says the alleys work
well for utility placement and the city's
automated garbage collection system.
Another model is the west end of
Vancouver. Brirsh Coiumbia. wheretrat.4c
calming measures have proven to be an
important adjunct :o street standards.
Street closures and diverters have cre-
ated a pleasant waiking environment in a
high-rise district tanked by busy shop-
ping streets.
But the most promising :nodel is an
Australian one: the code for residential
development prepared in 1.992 by the
planning and housing department in the
state of Victona. This exemplary docu•
ment covers the entire residential envi-
ronment, from lot orientation to regional
street networks, and it defines a broad
hie, archvof local streets.
The Victoria code inc!udes both per.
formance-based and prescriptive standards.
and is specific about details like deflec.
tion angles Ifor speed contrail. It also
requires that all dwellings be located no
1 ,tet.. •i Irl.. 3�: � � ,
G
i
a
aarltrntenaW to predums
a' I- scut.k o/ strrerm d
wratrix. The nar.owgt b t
I I Iaee iwU.
"'rrV� s- iE � t r 8'.'a3r��,ilS1.t1,.dil � •7L I Ill :Q
�II l.,v i,cr�J��;i ��AmotrtaribH loo '• rax
�._6 a ft tido "tide it
6a8ft 26h'••"bomOdes- -rewired • 'I
�?�� blit I
• _ .. •r•_�.q,• ?', =•�? •..n `'32 ft 'both tides
of the solution. In Feb-
ruary the institute's tech•
nical committee on
aeotrsditional town de-
sign issued an'infonaa-
,aawn to Ods
tional report' entitled
he amss Traffic Engineering for
Neotmdinonal Neighbor-
hoods Frank Spielberg,
a traffic engineering cbn-
sulu nt in Annandale.
Virginia, who chain the
committee, says mem•
ben hope that ITE will
endorse the 'recom-
mended practices.',
which include narrower
streets in some cases,
�°tsa I'D- within the nest year.
0 aide As to liability, the
bugaboo of cin officials.
Ease. one member of the ITE
homotrb committee, Walter
ICulash—a traffic eagi-
neer in Orlando—con-
tends that "legal obstacles
to narrow streets are a
red herring.' He notes
that a 1493 study he co-
authored for the National
Conference on Tort I.I.
ability and Risk Man-
agement for Surface
Transportation concluded that tort cases
'invariably have to do with high speed.'
not street width.
Finally, for those ready to change, a
few basic reminders:
The public interest requires safe, liv.
able, and attnetive streets that conMb-
ute to the urban fabric.
Streets should be designed to suit their
function. Many streets, especially local
ones, have purposes other than vehicular
traffic. Some local residential weets should
be designed for speeds of less than 20
m.p.h. Remember that the general popu•
lation is aging, with the cohort over 85
growing fastest of all.
A hierarchical street network should
have a rich variety of types, Including
bicycle, pedestrian, and transit routes.
Reid Ewing believes the 'overall sys-
tem design has fallen into the cracks
between the planning and engineering
professions.' The entire movement net.
work should be eoaddered, with connec-
tivity given prominence.
Standards should be developed to
hence local streeti contribution+ to
1 �E E teams
Y��mn eWtc�dht a wr
34ft '"both sides from WO '
x''= '�'RSR:�illhy`aT•a�+tii�-�`r�L'K::i.a.r� �iLa
more than 700 meters iabout 2,300 feetl
and three 'junctions.' or intersections,
from a major street to balance the amount
of time motorists are forced to spend in
low•tpeed environments.
Most Important, the code requires de•
velopment planners to plot out pedes•
trian and bicycle lanes as well as the
usual environmental constraints and op
pommitin— before the street system 4
laid out. In this, the Australian planners
echo the advice of California architect
Christopher Alexander, who rays that in
urban design. pedestrian spaces should
be designed first, then the buildings, then
the roads.
Wendy Morris. the senior urban de•
signer in the deparment's Melboume
offices, desc. ibed the code in Alexandria,
Virginia, lay: October at the fiat Con•
las on the New Urbanism She said a
.y to nuking It effective has been inter•
disciplinary workshops, 'We found that
to make real change in buildiag patterns,
thou who hake design. permitting, end
development decisions must be involved
and retrained.'
Ready for change
Back in the U.S., the Florida Depar-ment
of Community Affairs has un_artaken an
ambitious project to develop 'comma•
niry design guidelines' for everything
from energy conservation to affordable
housing to streets. The project's princi•
pal researcher, Reid Ewing, of the joint
Center for Environmental and Urban Prob-
lernsatFlorida Atlantic Univet tityMorida
International University in Fort Lauder-
dale. says the 'overriding rationale is to
make the street more livable, less en.
ergy-consumptive, and environmentally
sound.' His team has proposed a 20 -foot
wide standard for all local streets.
Ben Starrett, the director of strategic
planning and poll -.v coordination for the
community affairs department, says he
expects the guidelines to bre published
soon.
Even the Institute for Transportation
Engineers, long a holdout against alter•
native street standards, is becoming pan
n: K'G�J.'.1'^=�•---��>cap�� 111�� 7Ss1''�F�'. ,
,:J.�•.:l!.v,.
./ell..'
bd i:01.,.1'.
Cu 1:'flc -aIII ilt.;,r
P L A N N I N G
'' R A C T I C E
4
of through traffic through the
pear to be feasible. Where no
cessivestreet design standards
thrnu-_-4 dciiher.
subdivision.
vehicular connection isfeasible.
had created virtual raca.•nysarch
d, ,i.r,:aliu and
In areas lacking any existing
provision should definitely be
through residential neighbor.
thcCnne.!>;�•:_...m.
or planned streets with which
made for at lean a bikeway
hoods. These potential :act.
Traf::- sv:v :an As. be
to connect. the cul-de-sac should
and footpath connection.
ways can be easily avoided by
cunfro;iun: :•r.% t"t-c:ivetyby
include stubs extending to ad,
It should be noted that the
ciesigningshonerstreet lengths
pusunc a .. _:' stop signs.
joining parcels in locations
tendency toward cul-de-sacs
with numerous three-way'-'
notor.i.: e. ,: -::a: inte:sec-
where future connectionssp•
originally arose because ex-
intersections to discouraee
::cns:_,u:a:soa::-::--.vayones.
a
When snide -mss aro
um 'I bit. their turoing loop
slrouW be desiarted M ,nrerprtad
llwpes. Arendt mys, not prfarl
drclas. and Ideally they should
nutain a quartardcm Waud of
,Ihw elpar, rams.
gD'
`-r.•. a
•_
A.
17.
+f'1.
-a•
N
He hasjust finished another manu-
' . ' h
script—a handbook for designing
open apace subdivisions—so it's too
soon to declare that Rural by De.
t9
sign is Randall Arendt's magnum
-
opus. But it does meet most of the
..
basic criteria. It's big (sal pages),
It's sophisticated (covering every-
thing from aesthetics to zoningi.
ht�
and It's copiously illustrated (200
drawings, over 150 photos).
It also has earned the stamp of
approval of someone whose own
magnum opus has become • clas-
sic. '1 view Rural by Design as an
ideal complement to Design IMrh
Nature. in tune with the tenets of
ecological planning planning that I defined
25 years ago,' asys Ian McHerg,
the Scottish -born, Philadelphia.
�.
based landscape architect.
Arendt's four coauthors contrib-
Arendt an flat,S•annd, of Hwtdacy
ute chapters on implementation.
F-.. th.nafnrt pr......,hn$
Two of them, Christine Reid and
,.r.a as fir, hn,dana•mr, tai fh.
Robert Yard, were colleagues at
Nnnool Land, True m .11cJm
the Center for Rural Massachusetts
Panmdrnnw me rru,f m,n, ss
at the University of Massachusetts
proverffa, m sift PDdnuvimon nreo.
In Amherst. Reid U still there, while
Yarn Is now executive director of
Ashfieid. Alaseaa:::e:a=::gabeth
the Regional Plan Association in
Brobec is pnnvpa; if Lona Ethics.
New York. Arendt himself is now
located in %Vasnmzc zn
vice-president for conservation plan.
Ru a: br -,as ^,. ; ;s,ied in
ning at the Natural Lends Trust in
Apri: by the Arte -:nn ?::r • :nt As.
Media. Pennsylvania.
so: anon an! sata..aar .:-: ?Ian.
The other two authors are land.
nets 5ouKstc•e .r.: : rr. ^: Sc? 95
agape architects. Harry Dodson to
for APA memrers aro P ac s: scab•
principal of Dodson Associates in
ers SS. ?F--
IZ40'
h.
.r P!+nn s
as is done in many new subdi
visions in Chester County,
Pennsyivar.ia.
Adopting the design recon
mendations in :his chapter will
bnng the desired level of saiety
and quiet back to all new su-r
division streets, rendering :he
cul-de-sac form unnecessary
in the maionty of instances.
The developer s frequent de•
sire to se: -its or her housing
group apar•. for marketing rea-
sons, on a separate cul-de-sac
or nonconnecting loop, is es-
senuafly an anusoetal te^.:wioue
and should not be condoned.
There isaireacy enough st-.ati•
fieauon in soc;ery today, with-
out unnecessariiy reinforcing
it through strac:ural mrategems
suehasexclusive neignoorhood
road system^,
S,,..„.anis L.. m.tum
Vitt .ii ..,. Ii, ,Ih tet �ut�t'Ir......
in..... are unci hosed nn
I'll urban •,u innate F•u cs-
amp,e the umq.,wut, 600-
ioot rule • i;:cn is pervasive
amongsuber::sion regulations
in many communities lack.
ing cen.e: +.ater dtsinbmion
systems wasangu+ally based
on :he fact taut, historically
fire :rucks tamed 600 lent of
hose line to:onnec: hydrants
tvpitally located at cul-de.
sac enlraii:es
This stancard make little
sense tit most rural settings A
more soos,bie rule would be
base.. upon :ne number of [am,.
lies chat woulo be at nse it
their volsac:ecs road were in
hc•_umc i,vd dumi- an
clue•;: nc•. In \lame the swe
.wide: cwvr:,tun reculatiun
n y out,}.,. til ynl Li n�t•J(
icy to, ulte-nth dwelling unn
1.111 a far..: stanaard is sug
ae�Ied m ^r• aeanm 51r,es tsec•
and rdwor p,mitsned to :990
by the stational Assariavon of
Home Bauaats, availac-e lot
P L A N \ I N
P R A C T I C
S00 from .APA's Planners Book-
store;. based upon a maximum
traffic load of 200 vehicles per
day lot 'average daih• traffic•.
ADT), 25 dwellings, with a
maximum cul-de-sac lengin of
1,000 feet.
Turning areas at the end of
cui-de-sats may take many
fortis. The most common one
should probably be allowed
only as a last resort: the huge
paved circle of asphalt. typi•
cally measuring well over 100
feet in diameter. For streets
with up to a dozen homes, a
simple'hammernead• or •tum-
Ing•Te Is suincient.
When a arger r.-ce: m
homes and veh+e!es are
volved, tummgloocsare ❑tear:
recommended. For
teres:, these loops snou.c oe
almost any shape ex:ec• c
fectly circular luniets n.
feet of a flying-save..:ace':aa
pad is desued!. T•hc- s;,Q .
contain.wn-repossime aoua:
ter -acre island of und:s: _tent
native vegetation.
In village settincs..more ;c• -
mal arrangements s:::n as
grassy tree -lined writ:.:!
would be more arrr:L.:a:e
In New England, :At a:• -race
size of central to-t=MMC:,.
.r roc: :•No ares: buy
roint In outlying s
"a half-acregreer,
'XI'l -:and uata pre-
..._ nex:,o-last :csor: s:'
3 cul-de.sa-
:a :•a :•ed, with a ract
su:..
.:.a::e cars and mcicuc •.
aucks and fire e::_
;teed to execute a :
..t ^it -r. but :hat wo;:,
r3t%:nduehardshms as
... c :witt:s it small I,,,
nrec to dash away tt•
..-•:s ir..mec:atny aite! e
. _.sn:n; int nrst one
Thr hra.onr I.o.nes ar Yrrcrarrtrn.er Snt,o�. n .,, n , .t .... 11. in ..rare l.r .n•.
alanx rlv :rn rat ,ire n. lhn Law relan�r„.,, a, , .,., tn..nh
rl,r n1Jr•. ewer. nl !-rwn.
!7- T T_,
7
RESULTS OF STREET WIDTH SURVEY BY CITY SIZE
ttONTICEU"S CURRENT STANDMW IS 100tiLIGF M IN YELLOW
Mlnw Strout Street Widths Iteey fats to faces
2622 24 -20 28 27 2829 3D-31 32-33I 34-3,9
38
40 J: 44
.10
%8-Y Stan
I�
Jpto10K 1 4 2 4 7 9 81 4
/
2
10 K to 201', 1 5 8 2
20 /
kto30N 1 7 5 11
5vw 30 K 2 1 8 7 2 1 1/
I
Totals 1 4 5 8 25 30 8 8
0
0 2
0
percent 1%a 8% 7% 28% 34%
0%
0% 2%
0%
-leroei of oWn weh nanowsr minor stream. 89%
-Iwcwd with minor etnsts of egad wklh. 9%
?ercent of Was w11h vMw mkwr strssm.
Marginal or CuMmi: Street Wldtltsface to face
12622 24 -2.128-27 2820 3631 32-134-35 38 38
40 41 44 .44
I
l
JptotOKl 2 3 4 3 3 8 9 3
-
h
10Kto20N 1 2 4 4 2
i_
20kto30M 1 2 3 5 1
�er30K 1- --2 �4 8' /-i—
Totals 3 3 9 9 /4 28 8 7 0
0 0 0
NKCW" 4% 4% 1/% 11% 18% 35% 8% 9% 0%
0% 0% 0%
3aroerlt d diet vAh narrower mar" stream. 48%
�smeM vm mew" stream of egad wkt1A. 35%
?eroent d CIU" v*h *Mw meminel street 18%
Lollsetw 6 h a 0 Wldtlts pno face to hes
2623 24=2f 28-27 2829 30-31 32_33 34-39 38 38
40.4' 44 +44
..^asin
Bl
-
' --1—
Jp to 10_N
2__ 2. 2�8 1 8 - T
W-6 --
10Kto26'.
_
_ 3 _ /
2 v5 1
2011 to 30 _ _ M 2 3 1
-7 5 3
aver 30 K - - 1 1. 1 2 - -
— - 2
Tot" 2 2 0 1 3 11 2 12 8
10 19 8
�eroeM 3x Sx Ox 1% 4X 14x 3% 10% 11%
'loco
12% 25% 8%
t d din weh nemAw teMctor shads 87%
Aercant vM Cals" str"b of spud wl@h. 25%
40cm 1 of CIU" wMh WMOLQIW.W strssh 8%
`1
Planning Commission Agenda - 214197
John Leerssen has requested that the Planning Commission conduct a sketch
plan review of his site prior to preparation of the preliminary plat.
SEWWH REVIEW
The lot and street configuration proposed is simple and straightforward. The
only item of any controversy is whether or not to allow the street to extend
through the development. Currently, the sketch shows a cul-de-sac. Staff
strongly recommends that the plan be designed to enable the street to be
connected to the south and that the cul-de-sac be removed. Also, we
recommend that a pathway easement be granted along the power line
easement.
Finally, Leerssen must understand that sketch plan review is based on no
knowledge of the best method for serving the site with sanitary sewer. New
information regarding utility service has some potential to impact the design.
W ALTERNATIVE. ACTIONR;
Discussion only. No action requested or recommended.
It is important that the Planning Commission discuss only and make no
approvals or decisions until subsequent meetings.
Copy of site plan, Copy of recent letter to Leerssen.
16
250 East Broadway
P. O. Box 1147 Memorandum
Monticello, MN
55362.9245
Phone: (612) 295.2711
Metro: (612) 333.5739
Fax: (612) 295-4404
TO: John Leerssen
FROM: Jeff O'Neill, Assistant Administrator
DATE: January 28, 1997
RE: Summary of our meeting on January 21. 1997
The following is a summary of our discussion on January 21, 1997 regarding your ten acre
development:
Sketch Design - We reviewed the sketch design and it was determined that the street
would connect all the way through the development to the property to the south. It was
not determined whether or not to create a permanent cul-de-sac at this location or to build
a straight street with a temporary turn -around. This question will be resolved during the
site review process.
Sanitary Sewer, Water and Storm Sewer Service - I noted that the method for
serving the site with sanitary sewer, water and storm sewer service has not been
completely established. The city will complete the necessary study which will be funded
via city trunk fee revenue. Once this information is available, your utility systema can be
designed accordingly.
Trunk Storm Sewer Fee - As part of the preliminary design of the site, the city engineer
will calculate the pond area and improvements provided with your development and
determine the credits that should be provided against the residential trunk fee of $4,502
per acre.
Park Dedication - It would appear that a park is not appropriate at this location and
Of kv of ftbUc Warta, 909 Gott Cour" Rd.. MonticrUo, MN 66J62 - Anne: 1612/ 295.3170 - Faz (612) 295.3170, rrt. 1
/36
Memo to John Leerssen
January 28, 1997
Page 2
therefore you will be responsible for providing a park dedication fee of 10% of the land
value in its undeveloped state.
Schedule - We discussed scheduling of the process. It was noted that the Planning
Commission will review the sketch plan on February 4, 1997. A complete preliminary plat
application along with the appropriate fee should be filed by February 11. Please note that
it's incumbent upon the city engineer to make sure that the engineering data supporting
the preliminary plat is understood and incorporated into the preliminary plat layout.
The Parks Commission will review the plat on February 20,1997.
The city staff' will send notices and provide a staff report to the Planning Commission. On
March 4 the Planning Commission will meet to review the preliminary plat, followed by
City Council review on Marsh 10. Upon successful completion of the preliminary platting
process, it is expected that the completion of the development agreement will be initiated
along with the road and utilities design in construction process.
Platting Fete - The cost for a preliminary plat review application is $300, which is non-
refundable plus $100 per acre up to 10 acres. In this situation the fee amounts to $1,300.
Any expense over $1,300 the developer must pay. If the city uses less than $1,000 towards
plat review by consultants, then that amount will be reimbursed to the developer.
Security for Public Improvements - Please note that under a city improvement
project, the developer is required to provide 60% of the cost to install utilities to the city in
the farm of a letter of credit which is held by the city as long there are assessments that
remain to be paid against developed lots. This letter of credit amount can be reduced from
time to time to reflect lot sales.
Thank you for your interest in developing the property. City staff looks forward to
working with you and completing this project.
JO/glk
cc: Rick Wolfsteller, City Administrator
John Simola, Public Works Director
Fred Patch, Building Official
Bret Weiss, WSB & Associates
Wanda Kraemer, DST
Steve Gri Urnan, City Planner
Filo
/3u
/34
so 9s 66 96 90 131
ILS
r--I F-
-7�---,
7 1 1,
J
L_J L—_I L
os 61 a
N i
FALLON COURT
I' I
I �
9s 90 80 ►J
i I
Z
—
L J
a I la
/I
�
r 1
I
'
-T7f
-
L i
J
r �
L J
/ /----r
�
r---�
/
I
L--J
L
I 1
i I
i NORTHERN NA 1 GAS Q UNITED
POWBR
ASSOCATION 95MY
8411
/rte
/34
C
Planning Commission Agenda - 714/97
14D. Update and General Discusalon - Bridge View plat (J.0.)
At a recent meeting of the City Council, staff was authorized to prepare
information for the Council to assist Council in determining to what extent it
would like to be involved in determining the feasibility of urbanization and
annexation of the Bridge View plat. This is an item that was discussed at
length at previous Planning Commission meetings. In December, it was
determined by the Planning Commission earlier that there is support for
annexation of the property and associated connection of the site to city
services. The City Council has not adopted a formal position on this matter.
Perhaps at the meeting we can discuss the item further, and the Planning
Commission can determine to what extent it wishes to provide a
recommendation to the City Council on this matter.
Please review previous Planning Commission agendas for more information
regarding the proposed Bridge View plat.
17