Planning Commission Agenda Packet 04-01-1997AGENDA
REGULAR MEETING - MONTICELL0 PLANNING COM LIMON
Tuesday, April 1,1997.7 p.m.
Members: Dick Frie, Rod Dragsten, Richard Carlson, Dick Martie, Jon Bogart
1. Call to order.
2. Approval of minutes of the regular meeting held March 4, 1997.
3. Consideration of adding items to the agenda.
4. Citizens comments.
b. Public Hearing --Consideration of a request for a conditional use permit to
allow three or more business signs on a commercial building at 112 West
Broadway. Applicant, Karen Schneider.
6. Public Hearing—Consideration of an ordinance amending Chapter 3,
Section 12, of the Monticello Zoning Ordinance establishing antenna and
antenna support structure regulations.
7. Discussion of draft ordinance regulating architectural aesthetics in design
and exterior facing materials.
8. Updates.
A. Land use planning workshop - Thursday, April 24, 1997. g%
B. Joint commission meeting. --> 9rir i; f; -v ► , ��=��
C. MCP - comprehensive plan.
D. Art Anderson/Orrin Thompson request for amendments to the Urban
Service area boundaries.
9. Added items.
10. Adjournment.
Ff;..;1.t
Minutes
Regular Meeting - Monticello Planning Commission
Tuesday, March 4,1887 - 7 p.m.
Members: Dick Fire, Richard Carlson, Jon Bogart, Dick Martie, Rod Dragsten
Liaison: Clint Herbst absent
Staff : Jeff O Neill, Fred Patch, Steve Grittman, Wanda Kraemer
I. Call to order.
CHAIRMAN FIRE CALLED MEETING TO ORDER AND NOTED
PRESENCE OF MAYOR FAIR.
ROD DRAGSTEN MADE A MOTION, SECONDED BY DICK MARTIE, TO
APPROVE THE MINUTES. Voting in favor: Dick Fire, Richard Carlson,
Dick Martie, Rod Dragsten. Abstained: Jon Bogart was absent
3. Consideration of ad inc► items to the agenda"
There were no added items.
4. Citizens comments.
There were no citizens comments.
Jeff O'Neill, Assistant Administrator, reported the preliminary plat of phase
VI of the Cardinal Hills subdivision represents the final phase of the
Cardinal Hills residential subdivision. The plat consists of 36 lots located on
the easterly boundary of the property. There does not appear to be any
unresolved land use or subdivision design issues associated with this
preliminary plat; therefore, consideration of this matter is virtually a
housekeeping matter. This plat also features double -f ont.ing lots on Fenning
Avenue and School Boulevard. Following the Klein Farms III precedent, a
landscape plan should bo developed for the back sides of doublo-fronting lots.
Page I
COZ
Planning Commission Minutes - 3/4/97
With regard to the Klein Farms III precedent, at the City Council meeting on
February 24, 1997, the City Council approved the Klein Farms III
preliminary plat. One of the contingencies of the approval was a
requirement to develop a coordinated developer/city landscaping plan for rear
yards and boulevards of double -fronting lots. The coordinated landscaping
plan would incorporate the tree requirement for the individual lots with a
boulevard tree planting program administered by the Parks Commission.
Jeff O'Neill explained the pond boundaries are across the water from the
home and the people that live across the pond are required to maintain the
property. The residents must drive around the pond to get to their property
to mow the grass. If the area is not mowed the City then sends blight letters
to the property owners to maintain the area. Historically, the City has not
taken pond area as city property, unless connected to a park area, because it
can not be used for anything and requires the City to maintain it. However,
this has become very time consuming and a public relations problem. The
Planning Commission may wish to consider requiring special seeding of
native grasses along the School Boulevard and Fenning Avenue side of the
ponds developed with phase VI. Under this concept, low growing native
grass and flower species would be planted in areas that are diMcult to mow
due to poor access and steel slopes.
Chairman Fire opened the public hearing.
Steve Holker and Matt Holker, developers, stated the trees along the
boulevard will need to be the right type because of all the snow. They also
inquired as to the maintenance of the native grasses. Would that be their
responsibility to keep the area mowed or just to put the seed in?
O'Neill responded the seeding is already a requirement but this will be a
policy decision as to the maintenance of the area.
Steve Holker stated that clover was best ground cover they had used. It only
grew to about 16" and looked beautifLl.
Chairman Fire closed the public hearing.
Jeff O'Neill, Assistant Administrator, this is not intended to be a big expense
for the developers. Seeding has always been a requirement but we are
looking for creative ways to keep the street side of ponds from being a
nuisance. This will be a major intersection in the City because of the location
Page 2
0
Planning Commission Minutes - 3/4197
by the Monticello Middle School and along School Boulevard.
Fred Patch, Chief Building Official, stated a landscape easement would be
needed from the developer. A drainage easement can only be used if it
involves drainage issues.
The Commissioners discussed a number of ways in which this area could be
managed:
1. The developer plants the area in low growing grasses but the property
owner still maintain it.
2. The developer plants the area in low growing grasses and the
developer maintains it for three years before requiring the property
owner to maintain it.
3. The developer plants the area but the City maintains it until it is
established.
4. The City plants the area and maintains the area under a landscape
easement.
After the Commissioners discussed each option, the consensus was to use this
area as a "pilot project" area. A landscape plan and seeding mixture could be
coordinated with the Parks Commission. This would give the City the option
to monitor the project expenses and time against the time spent on public
nuisance complaints. If there is an interest this would be a project that could
involve the students from the Middle School.
ROD DRAGSTEN MADE A MOTION, SECONDED BY DICK MARTIE, TO
APPROVE THE PRELIMINARY PLAT OF CARDINAL HILLS PHASE VI
CONTINGENT ON DEVELOPMENT OF A COORDINATED
LANDSCAPING PLAN AND TO WORK WITH THE PARKS COMMISSION
TO DEVELOP A SPECIAL SEEDING PLAN AS A PILOT PROJECT FOR
THE STREET SIDE OF THE PONDS. Motion passed unanimously.
1. . H 1 1 .. . .: 1 1 1 1, 1 11 1•. t 1 1 1 11 t
u 1 1 h I t 1 1 :1 1 .1 M\: I U 1,� t .i 1 1 1 1 1
1 1 1 11 1 1 11 1 1 1 11 1 1 ,1 1.1
.t,• 6 I .1 1 1 1
Page 3
rol
Planning Cummissiun Minutes - 3/4/97
Jeff O Neill, Assistant Administrator, reported the Planning Commission was
requested to adopt resolutions for TIF No. 1-17 and TIF No. 1-22.
O'Neill explained TIF District No. 1-17 is an economic district and was
approved in 1994 and certified in 1995 for Fay -Mar Tube & Metal
Fabricators. Phase I included the construction of a 15,000 sq. ft
manufacturing/office facility at a minimum estimated market value (EMV) of
$400,000. Project employment is 30 new jobs. In 1996 the company
employed 35.
Next O Neill explained the TIF District No. 1-22 is a redevelopment district
and is proposed for establishment to support the Downtown/Riverfront
Revitalization Plan. It is being proposed to remove blighted buildings or
improve marginal land to induce redevelopment. The life duration of a
redevelopment district is 25 years. The development of the TIF plan is a
direct result of problems and issues identified in the Comprehensive Plan
update completed in 1998.
JON BOGART MADE A MOTION, SECONDED BY DICK MARTIE, TO
ADOPT THE RESOLUTION FINDING THE MODIFICATION OF
CENTRAL MONTICELLO REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT NO. 1, THE
MODIFICATION OF TIF DISTRICT NO. 1-17, AND THE
ESTABLISHMENT OF TIF DISTRICT NO. 1-22 CONFORM TO THE
GENERAL PLANS FOR THE DEVELOPMENT AND REDEVELOPMENT
OF THE CITY. Motion passed unanimously.
Fred Patch, Chief Building Official, stated he had revised the radio and cell
phone communication ordinance amendment and combined the revisions
with the work done by Steve Grittman, City Planner. He reviewed the
changes with the Commissioners and requested the Planning Commission
call for a public hearing for the April meeting.
DICK MARTIE MADE A MOTION, SECONDED BY RICHARD CARLSON.
TO CALL FOR A PUBLIC HEARING ON THE RADIO AND CELT. PHONE
COMMUNICATION TOWER ORDINANCE AMENDMENT AT THE NEXT
MEETING. Motion passed unanimously.
Page 4
0
95
Planning Gtmmissiun Minutes -3/4/97
M tl .i -f milt' zoan_o_.
Steve Grittman, City Planner, reported the Monticello Community Partners,
MCP, will have a formal report on the Riverfront/Downtown Development
project after the March 12 city workshop meeting. The April meeting would
be a better time to discuss multi -family zoning.
The Commissioners agreed to wait until for a future meeting to discuss the
Multifamily zoning because the MCP report would be completed.
.o sideration of nuhlic hearing on ordinance amendments regrulming Rplr
hu a ld w riffs•
Fred Patch, Building Official, reported one of the biggest problems in
regulating pole buildings is developing a clear definition of a pole building.
Jeff O'Neill, Assistant Administrator, added regulating pole buildings was
reviewed a few years ago. The idea was stalled over the definition of a pole
building. During the first review the Industrial Development Committee,
IDC, was split on the subject.
After a short discussion, the Commission directed staff to prepare a more
detailed report that would include an ordinance amendment regulating pole
buildings.
10. Q tnrtc rIX meeling
Jeff O'Neill, Assistant Administrator, reported the list of projects the
Planning Commission ranked is being complied with all of the other
commission and staff projects. The Council will meet with staff on March 15
to start prioritizing the lists. There will be a meeting set with all of the
Commissions in the near future for this project.
The Commissioners discussed the section of the agenda item that staff
recommends approval or denial of an application. The question was if the
commissioners just agree, or rubber stamp, staff's suggestions. After
Page 3
0
Planning Commission Minutes - 3/4/97
` discussion, the Commissioners agreed each member does state their own
opinion and use staffs recommendation only as a guideline.
12. �Updatea
A. Vacate Locust Street. - Jeff O'Neill, Assistant Administrator, reported
the City Council, in conjunction with the variance request, suggested a
vacation of Locust Street. This will be discussed at the next City
Council meeting.
B. Street widths - Commissioner Jon Bogart reported the street
committee has completed their study and the next step would be to
place this on the Council agenda. The request will be to change the
minimum street to 28 ft.. The width of the street will be determined by
the volume of traffic in the area. There was also a landscape portion
allowing trees withing 6 feet of the curb.
C. National Guard Training Center - Jeff O Neill, Assistant
Administrator, reported a group is touring other training centers in
the metro area on March 26, 1997. This tour %%ill help to identify types
of uses for the center.
D. MCP Workshop - Jeff O Neill, Assistant Administrator reported on
March 12, 1997, at 7 p.m., in the High School Board Room, the
Monticello Community Partners will present the Downtown/Riverfront
revitalization Plan. O'Neill added this has involved a great deal of
community input and there will be a vote to determine if the
community is in favor of going forward with the plan. If the plan is
approved, it will be brought to the Planning Commission for public
hearing before being adopted into the comp plan.
E. Parking on Broadway - There has been no further information on the
parking on Broadway. O'Neill will call Mr. Johnson, superintendent,
and act up an appointment.
13. Adinurn-
DICK MARTIE MADE A MOTION, SECONDED BY ROD DRAGSTEN, TO
ADJOURN THE MEETING. Motion passed unanimously.
Pulte 6
0
Planning Commission Agenda - 4/1/97
.- 8. 1?uh i . He ring- Con_aideration of a reanest for so conditional vaaa
permit to n1low three or more b +aineas sigm on a commerchal
b inb in!dng nt 112 West Broadway- Applicant� Bs.+pe Schnaidar. (F.P.)
The owners of the building located at 112 West Broadway are requesting that
a conditional use permit be issued to allow the erection of four (4) business
signs on the front of the building and one (1) business sign on the rear of the
building. The business signs are needed to advertise three separate
businesses cooperating to provide complementing home interior products and
services.
In the B-4 commercial district, a conditional use permit is required for signs
where there are three or more business uses in one building.
The sign plan for the building has been reviewed and found to be in
compliance with the required conditions for the conditional use permit.
Move to approve the issuance of a conditional use permit for the
erection of signs at 112 West Broadway as illustrated by the sign plan
submitted by the applicant, subject to the following conditions:
All signs for tenants shall be consistent in design, material,
shape, and method of illumination; and,
2. Prior to making any alteration of signs, sign location, sign size,
or number of signs, the building owner shall submit an
application and revised sign plan to the City and receive an
amendment to this conditional use permit.
C. STAFF RF. A MRNDATION:
Staff recommends issuance of a conditional use permit for 112 West
Broadway to allow signs to be erected as illustrated by the sign plan
submitted by the applicant and subject to the conditions required by
ordinance and provided in the motion below.
Copy of applicable ordinance, Section: 3.9 (El 3; Copy of sign plan for 112
West Broadway as submitted by applicant.
whichever is less. The method for determining
the gross silhouette area shall be as indicated in
Subd. 2.(b)i. Above. Pylon signs shall be
regulated as in Subd. 4 below. For single or
double occupancy business structures, the total
marimum allowable signage on the property shall
be three hundred (300) square feet. For multiple
occupancy structures, the total maximum
allowable signage on the property shall be as
determined under Subd. 3 below.
(#272, 06/26/95)
(#230, 06/22/92)
(#247, 03/14/94)
(#265, 12/12/94)
3. Conditional Uses in Commercial and Industrial Districts: The
purpose of this section is to provide aesthetic control to signage
and to prevent a proliferation of individual signs on buildings
with three (3) or more business uses. The City shall encourage
the use of single sign boards, placards, or building directory
signs.
(a) In the case of a building where there are three (3) or more
business uses, but which, by generally understood and
accepted definitions, is not considered a shopping center
or shopping mall, a conditional use shall be granted to the
entire building in accordance with an overall site plan
under the provisions of Option A or Option B (described
in 2 (b) i and ii above) provided that:
i. The owner of the building files with the Zoning
Administrator a detailed plan for signing
illustrating location, size in square feet, size in
percent of gross silhouette area, and to which
business said sign is dedicated.
ii. No tenant shall be allowed more than one sign,
except that in the case of a building that is
situated in the interior of a block and having
another building on each side of it, one sign shall
be allowed on the front and one sign shall be
allowed on the rear provided that the total square
footage of the two signs does not exceed the
maximum allowable square footage under Option
A or Option B described in 2 (b) i and ii above.
MONMELLO ZONNO ORDINANCE 3/48
iii. No individual business sign board/placard shall
exceed twenty-five percent (25%) of the total
allowable sign area.
iv. An owner of the building desiring any alteration
of signs, sign location, sign size, or number of
signs shall first submit an application to the
Zoning Administrator for an amended sign plan,
said application to be reviewed and acted upon by
the Zoning Administrator within ten (10) days of
application. If the application is denied by the
Zoning Administrator, the applicant may go
before the Planning Commission at their next
regularly scheduled meeting.
V. In the event that one tenant of the building does
not utilize the full allotment of allowable area, the
excess may not be granted, traded, sold, or in any
other way transferred to another tenant for the
purpose of allowing a sign larger than twenty-five
percent (25%) of the total allowable area for signs.
vi. Any building identification sign or building
directory sign shall be included in the total
allowable area for signs.
vii. Any sign that is shared by or is a combination of
two or more tenants shall be considered as
separate signs for square footage allowance and
shall meet the requirements thereof.
viii. All signs shall be consistent in design, material,
shape, and method of illumination.
(b) In the case of a building where there are two (2) or more
uses and which, by generally understood and accepted
definitions, is considered to be a shopping center or
shopping mall, a conditional use permit shall be granted
to the entire building in accordance to an overall site plan
indicating their size, location, and height of all signs
presented to the Planning Commission.
A maximum of five percent (5%) of the gross area of the
front silhouette shall apply to the principal building
where the aggregate allowable sign ams is equitably
distributed among the several businesses. In the case of
applying this conditional use permit to a building, the
building may have ono (1) pylon or fieestanding sign
identifying the building which is in conformance with this
MONTICELLO ZONING ORDINANCE 'f15 3/50
GENERAL COMPUTATION SHEET -
ti,,,,,b„en IW 4W Northern States Power Company
�
�y,ENO
PRO"," �`` //I
G s'- �, e1kria— _/ a /, /w.rt✓a.c� 6NEEr NO OF_
Wll. r -5eh istr— o?yr- ¢ t/s/L�,�9�-��0 COU
/ / colla BY _ cxv BY
T hG
�Gu%Lter, a-,
i�,� • I / lDnt%GeJ�D l.4rp�Fi�.S IL, I/�c.�+ss s� 'iQ'l��^.s�4e..eo,w c�sr�nu � t�'.'
. 1 '
I
go eX
yo
d ---v
74 I i
.� j wl I Ti4
z, '040", *.0.0 Damp"
D.cr An. r
1 , r
i l ! r ,
Planning Commission Agenda - 4/1/97
& Public Hearing—.C&n_oi_deration of an ordinance amending h F or a -
Section 122, of the Monticello Zoning Ordinance establishing ante
send antennst support structure n=IsktJon& (F.P.)
A. RF.F .RF.N .F AND BA .K .RO TND;
This item has previously been before the Planning Commission on November 27,
1996, and again on December 24, 1996. Staff has made substantial revisions to
the ordinance since the last draft that was presented to the Planning
Commission. The extent of changes made by this draft requires that this new
public hearing be held.
The attached ordinance appears to address many of the concerns communicated
to the City from telecommunications industry representatives and provides for
the needs of other users of antennas and antenna support structures. Antennas
and antenna support structures are allowed as permitted uses where by design
and placement they will most likely not be unsightly or incompatible with
adjoining land uses. Other antennas and antenna support structures, including
those used for personal wireless communications services and radio and
television broadcast transmission, are allowed by conditional use permit.
This draft is simpler in form and is intended to be more enforceable. Height
limitations are identical to those seen in the previous draft. Design and
aesthetic concerns are more specifically addressed.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. Move to recommend to the City Council that the ordinance establishing
antenna and antenna structure regulations be adopted as proposed.
This amendment should be based upon a finding that the amendment is
necessary to manage and reasonably accommodate wireless
communication technology and the provisions of the 1996
Telecommunication Act.
2. Move to recommend to the City Council that the ordinance not be adopted.
C- iT FF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend to the City
Council that the ordinance establishing antenna and antenna structure
regulations be adopted as proposed.
Copy of proposed ordinance with strikeout and underlining to show
amendments; Copy of Chapter 3, Section 12, of the Monticello Zoning Ordinance
as it will appear if this ordinance is adopted.
ORDINANCE NO.
CITY OF MONTICELLO
WRIGHT COUNTY, MINNESOTA
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 3-12 OF THE MONTICELLO
ZONING ORDINANCE BY ESTABLISHING ANTENNA AND ANTENNA
SUPPORT STRUCTURE REGULATIONS.
THE CITY OF MONTICELLO DOES ORDAIN:
Title 10, Chapter 2, Section 2-2, Item [EC] of the City Code is hereby
amended to read as follows:
[EC1 ESSENTIAL SERVICES: gl._
L.— .... .: 1._ J Public or private . ili v
Ryatema for gas, eleetrinal Electricity, steam, sewer or and water;
voice, television and di¢i al cornmimientinng
l,�l ,,,,t ;,,,1„�;,,d E�:]_:„d,,, and waste diaTfps�l and rer♦•rht a nZ V�a_
Radio frLquimey re ration nnd trtLnamiaai_on nntennng nnd a +n-mrt
at_niet urea shall not he ennaidered nn PigRpnfinl a rvi
Title 10, Chapter 2, Section 2.2, Items [AL1], [AI.21, IAI.31, [AL4], IAI.51.
1AL61, ISA.11 and ISP.1] are hereby added to the City Code to read as
follows:
[AU ANTENNA- A device uged for thp t_rnnamiaaion nd/nr rnrnntim
1:L2j 7:`:i1Tig3*5PJ>; . : ; : t : `9
11 • . : 1 1 . 1 1 1 :.4•too trangmitcommercial
•1 1 . ! : 1 . 1rLelevig4nng•1 l..1 !
the irnnsmowtinn and reception of wirelog
.,1mmoiniCafinn radio w1 1doirlone cellular persnnni
curnmunicatoonrl r). onhnnced..l..i 1 , 1 1 y. .1 . 1
11: X14 ,! 11.aomflnr aorvicot-anti.!1•
• M •l 1 •ll
lALAI ANTENNA, SATTEIATE DISH: An antenng incorp ra in Fa
reflective or conductive stirface thatig 6o Id, oven mesh. or bar
confietred and ig in ie shape ofa shallow dish_ cone• horn, or
cornucopia. S t h n n e ng ig taed o rangmi and/or iv ra io
or electromagnetic waves between terregLrial(,y and/or orbiWly homed
tranamiggion or recei 'ne gvste s. Thig definition g all include. 6 2t
not be imited to, what are m mo ly referred to ag sa a li a earth
stations, TVROA (televigion, receive only) and satelfi a m6mmway
gn a naa
LAW ANTENNA. SHORT-WAVE n10: An antenna stsed for thp.
tr na igaion nd reveption of radio waves Led for federally licensed
ahort-wav rad6ns&njMUnjCaUQ2L
LAW ANTENNA SUPPORT STRUCTURE- Any fret -gangling nole-
tel ampine mga .. w rt tippd, or o h r g ru tre which g t ,+ n
ante na And to not ata -h d to a h til ine or gtruetLre_
LSA•I I ACCESSORY IS .: A uw. of land or of a h lil ing, that. i g IM ina
to a prignsiayse, and not t1_+e primary tise of h land or6 +il ina
ISP -1 f STR U .T URE.. P TR .1 AhuildinggrMifice of ny kind which
is
owned or rented and Dperated by a f d r , g a n, or loeal anyprn_ment
tiCC>iCl.
Title 10. Chapter 3. Section 12 of the City Code is hereby amended to read
as follows:
SECTION 3-12
COMMUNICATION ANTENNAS
3•12: COMMUNICATION ANTENNAS:
J � 1,1 1 1 1 1. 1 11 11 1,1 1 I t •;I 11 • 1 I 1 1 1 4': 1 I I
fl I t { 1 1 I• 11 1
It t 1 1 1• ;,i � 1
1 1 1 1 1 : 1• I• 1 1 1 •,1 . M 1 11
\1 1 11 1 • / I 111M 1 t 1 . 11 : 1,1• y
1 •1 1 1 1• : 111 11• t l• {.
ANTNORD3 FRU: 3rd"? Page 2
Myr -I M:
[AB] Permitted I Jae . Antenna Ruppart. Anartureg nnA antennai; of R11
tMs other than radio smd televigion broadcast trangmimdon
nntennng and personal mdreless communications service
permitted accessory uses within all zoning districts provided that they
meet the following conditions:
2. Yard 9: Tl- ;: -. It,:., Ann nap and antenna
Ftuppart i;trurtures shall not be located within a front yard, side
yard, or any side yard abutting a street. 2,.,
Antennas shall be located rive (5) feet or mom from rear lot lines
and shall not be located within a puhhe n utility casement.
!.' . — -0 k. rL —i - d._ ..f„?
7L. J I A
it .: 11 .:.,,___'_80-7.A A
ANTNOR03 FRM. MAW Pape 3
the city 3 .. i r W ....: Ehapber 22 of „'..,.. ....�
orditranee.
Height: AntenRhall no extend more an en (10) feet
aboveh highest pert of the Fitructure to whi h thpyn
attaphed
Ann naa 1 a ed upon chiiFifing h uil ings shall not, Patent] more
than ten (10) feet above the highest roof elevation.
Antenna anDport strUctures shall not exceed ten (101 feet in
height abovo the maximum Alownhip h ail ing height for th
Inning district in who ch the antenna support, st meture is
located,
Neighboring Pr t)z Impact:
U. X. , : Antnnnaa and antenna Mood gtrnctures
g all be so located= in the ownt of a runt ur 1 ail aro, n i h r
the antenna nor the n n nh a appar. structure will fall on
adjoining property. F•x y to a y he _rra�,h„ the City
Council if a licensed 1profegsio al Pnoinepr certiCiPA in wri ins
that nny structural ChHure of the antenna and antenna g Inmrt
structure will occur avittiin a lesser efistnnee uncler nil
foreseenblp circurutnneea
ANTNORD3 FRY. 3,2897 pap 4
2
eatel than rin. (9) ;�Me feet. Btrildi ir,
A
...... ....... —
L.*' E%:, Ei-4
9. - :--r, A
t.
1-2
. ...... . ..
8. CQlQdrW9MA: Antenna
and antenna supart structures sh%411 he constructed of
carrosinn resistant material or be painted a neutral color, and
shall not be painted with scenes or contain letters or messages
which qualify as a sign.
Ithiminntinn- bmtonnng and ani ennn auprort gtrurtureg sh.-Al
not be arfifirially ill uminatA2d ujol- R —Quired by lam a
governmental girency to protect SUblic health ands fe v_10.
Antennns- antenna suWart structures- P.Jectrical
CQuilimpnt and connections shall be dPsigned..jnajaUadrad
nUcrat,ed in conformance mdthall allikhenhin federal state and
lQMULIWL
lBl Conditional Uses X—"l—a1
Lj jitairtel
Antenna sup rtstrurturesan-inntennng
net qunIif)dnff as permit ted accessory R as Praided in suhrliviginn
lAl I through TO nbovp,6 netuding hut not limited to radio and
teloylulan hrondrmod tynngimbudangntennna and p wanal
Mirel"j, communtentinna mervice notenna% ar"nly permitted RA
conditional uses ah pro'der hy ChaVUr 22 of the Zoning Ordinance.
Slorh ant nnn and antenna suppurt structure instnUntinng that am
Rulaiect to conditional use Vermits. must comply wa nil MQuirgments
for Permitted URPs as spWrIed in I A I above- excepIA&SUCCifically
pruvided holow- nod millit meet the following additional =nditian&-,
ANTNOR03,FRM 3/26191 Page 5
This Ordinance shall become effective immediately upon its passage and
publication according to law.
Adopted by the Monticello City Council this day of
1997.
Mayor
ATTEST:
City Administrator
6G
ANTNORDIFRM: 9FM? page 7
ORDINANCE AMENDMENT NO.
CITY OF MONTICELLO
WRIGHT COUNTY, MINNESOTA
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 3-12 OF THE MONTICEL LO
ZONING ORDINANCE BY ESTABLISHING ANTENNA AND ANTENNA
SUPPORT STRUCTURE REGULATIONS.
Title 10, Chapter 2, Section 2.2, Item [EC1 of the City Code is hereby
amended to read as follows:
[ECJ ESSENTIAL SERVICES: Public or private utility systems for gas,
electricity, steam, sewer and water; voice, television, and digital
communications systems; waste disposal, and recycling services.
Radio frequency reception and transmission antennas and support
structures shall not be considered an essential service.
Title 10, Chapter 2, Section 2-2, Items (AL1], [AI.21, [A1.31, (ALQ, [AL81,
(AL61, [SA.11 and (SP.1], are hereby added to the City Code to read as
follows:
[AI.11 ANTENNA: A device used for the transmission and/or reception of
wireless communications, arranged on an antenna support structure
or building, and consisting of a wire, a set of wires, or
electromagnetically reflective or conducive rods, elements, arrays or
surfaces.
[A1.2J ANTENNA, RADIO AND TELEVISION BROADCAST
TRANSMISSION: An antenna used to transmit public or commercial
broadcast radio or television programming.
[A1.31 ANTENNA, PERSONAL WIRELESS COMMUNICATIONS SERVICE:
An antenna used for the transmission and reception of wireless
communication radio waves including cellular, personal
communication service (PCS), enhanced specialized mobilized radio
(ESMR), paging and Limilar services, and including the support
structure thereof.
(AIA J ANTENNA, SATELLITE DISH: An antenna incorporating a
reflectivo or conductive surface that is solid, open mesh, or bar
configured and is in the shape of a shallow dish, cone, horn, or
cornucopia. Such an antenna is used to transmit and/or receive radio
or electromagnetic waves between terrestrially and/or orbitally based
transmission or receiving systems. This definition shall include, but
ANMRO3 NEW. WM7 Page t
not be limited to, what are commonly referred to as satellite earth
stations, TVROs (television, receive only) and satellite microwave
antennas.
[AI.bl ANTENNA, SHORT-WAVE RADIO: An antenna used for the
transmission and reception of radio waves used for federally licensed
short-wave radio communications.
[AI.61 ANTENNA SUPPORT STRUCTURE: Any freestanding pole,
telescoping mast, tower, tripod, or other structure which supports an
antenna and is not attached to a building or structure.
[SA.11 ACCESSORY USE: A use of land or of a building that is subordinate
to a primary use, and not the primary use of the land or building.
[SP.11 STRUCTURE, PUBLIC: A building or edifice of any kind which is
owned or rented and operated by a federal, state, or local government
agency.
Title 10. Chapter 3, Section 12. of the City Code is hereby amended to read
as follows:
SECTION 3-12
COMMUNICATION ANTENNAS
3.12: COMMUNICATION ANTENNAS:
[AAl EutRnae. In order to accommodate the communication needs
of the residents and businesses while protecting the public
health, safety, and general welfare of the community, the
Council finds that these regulations are necessary in order to:
1. Provide for the appropriate location and development of
antennas and antenna support structures to serve the
residents and businesses within the city;
2. Minimize adverse visual effects of antenna support
structures through careful design and siting standards;
3. Avoid potential structural failure of antenna support
structures and possible resulting damage to adjacent
properties through structural standards and setback
requirements; and,
6t
ANTOFDI.NEW: MM? Page 2
4. Maximize the use of existing and approved antenna
support structures and buildings to accommodate new
antennas in order to reduce the number of antenna
support structures needed to serve the community.
(ABI Permitted Uses. Antenna support structures and antennas of
all types other than radio and television broadcast transmission
antennas and personal wireless communications service
antennas are permitted accessory uses within all zoning
districts provided that they meet the following conditions:
1. lacatim: Antennas shall be located on existing
structures, if possible. The installation of more than one
(1) antenna support structure per property shall require
the approval of a conditional use permit.
Antennas located upon a public structure shall require
the processing of an administrative permit issued in
compliance with the procedures established by the City
Council.
2. yam: Antennas and antenna support structures shall
not be located within a front yard, side yard, or any side
yard abutting a street. Antennas shall be located five (G)
feet or more from rear lot lines and shall not be located
within a public or utility easement.
3. Heiaht: Antennas shall not extend more than ten (10)
feet above the highest part of the structure to which they
aro attached.
Antennas located upon existing buildings shall not extend
more than ten (10) feet above the highest roof elevation.
Antenna support structures shall not exceed ten (10) feet
in height above the maximum allowable building height
for the zoning district in which the antenna support
structure is located.
4. $erurit : Antenna support structures shall be
constructed, fenced, or secured in such a mannor as to
prevent unauthorized climbing. No barbed wire, razor
ribbon or the like shall be used for this purpose.
5. &p mWW: Transmitting, receiving, and switching
equipment shall be housed within an existing structure
whenever possible or screened from view firom any public
street
u+roaa+NEv+, VMT Pap 3
6. Neighboring Property Imps : Antennas and antenna
support structures shall be so located that in the event of
structural failure, neither the antenna nor the antenna
support structure will fall on adjoining property.
Exceptions may be granted by the City Council if a
licensed professional engineer certifies in writing that
any structural failure of the antenna and antenna
support structure will occur within a lesser distance
under all foreseeable circumstances.
Resign: The use of guyed antenna support structures is
prohibited. The design and installation of new antenna
support structures must utilize an open framework or
monopole configuration. Permanent platforms or
structures accessory to the antenna support structure or
antenna that increase visibility are prohibited. No part of
the antenna support structure shall exceed 500 square
feet in horizontal area.
Color/Content: Antennas and antenna support structures
shall be constructed of a corrosion resistant material or be
painted a neutral color and shall not be painted with
scenes or contain letters or messages which qualify as a
sign.
9. jjlumingtinn: Antennas and antenna support structures
shall not be artificially illuminated unless required by
law or by a governmental agency to protect public health
and safety.
10. Comp n o: Antennas, antenna support structures,
electrical equipment, and connections shall be designed,
installed, and operated in conformance with all applicable
foderal, state, and local laws.
IBJ Conditional Lyse, Antennas and antenna support structures,
not qualifying as permitted accessory uses as provided in
subdivision [A] 1 through 10 above, including but not limited to,
radio and television broadcast transmission antennas
and personal wireless communications service antennas,
are only permitted as conditional uses as provided by
Chapter 22 of the Zoning Ordinance.
Such antenna and antenna support structure installations that
am subject to conditional use permits must comply with all
requirements for Permitted Uses as specified in [A] above,
except as specifically provided below, and must meet the
following additional conditions: c,
ANTORD3 NEW: MM? P890 4
1. New antenna support structures allowed by conditional
use permit and exceeding thirty (30) feet in height shall
be designed so as to accommodate other users including
but not limited to other personal wireless communications
service companies. The applicant shall demonstrate to the
satisfaction of the City Council that opportunities will be
made available for co -locating other antennas on the
antenna support structure.
Satellite dish antennas of more than one ( l) meter in
diameter but not larger than three (3) meters in diameter
are allowed as conditional uses within residential zoning
districts. Satellite dish antennas of more than one (1)
meter in diameter and used for radio and television
broadcast transmission are allowed as conditional uses
only within the Industrial (I.1 and 1-2) zoning districts
and are not limited in size.
3. Antenna support structures for radio and television
broadcast transmission antennas are allowed as
conditional uses only within the Ine+ustrial (1.1 and 1-2)
zoning districts and shall not exceed one hundred sixty-
five (165) feet in height.
4. Antenna support structures used in the federally
licensed amateur radio service are allowed as
conditional uses within all zoning districts and may
extend a maximum of seventy (70) feet above grade.
5. Antenna support structures for personal wireless
communication systems shall be permitted provided:
a. Minimum spacing between personal wireless
communications service antenna support
structures shall be 1/4 mile.
Exceptions may be granted by the City Council if
the City Council determines that both of the
following conditions exist:
1. No existing building or antenna support
structure meets the height requirement and
frequency rouse and spacing needs of the
personal wireless communication system;
and, I
&V
ANMR09 NEW: 9/2697 Pago 5
2. The location of the proposed new antenna
support structure is necessary as
demonstrated by the applicant, who shall
provide a coverage/interference analysis and
capacity analysis prepared by a licensed
professional engineer.
All new antenna support structures for personal
wireless communication system antennas shall be a
single ground mounted metal, concrete or plastic
composite (i.e. fiberglass, graphite fiber, etc.) pole
that shall not exceed seventy-five (76) feet in
height in Agricultural - Open Space (AO),
Residential (R-1, R-2, R-3, R-4, and R -PUD),
Performance Zone (PZ -R and PZ -M) and Business
(B-1, B-2, B-3, B-4, and BC) zoning districts. In
Industrial (I-1 and 1-2) zoning districts, the pole
shall not exceed one hundred sixty-five ( 166) feet in
height.
[C] Severability, Every subdivision of this Section is
declared severable from every other subdivision. If any
subdivision is held to be invalid by competent authority,
no other subdivision shall be invalidated by such action or
decision. Where an applicant for conditional use permit
demonstrates to the satisfaction of the Council that a
subdivision of this Section interferes with specific rights
granted under the laws of the Federal Communications
Commission [FCC], that subdivision shall be waived;
however, the City of Monticello reserves the right to
otherwise regulate in order to mitigate negative impacts
and accomplish the Purpose of this Ordinance.
(0 M
ANTORDINEw: UAW Pape 6
M
Planning Commission Agenda - 4/1/97
-, - .1.: M
A RFFRRRNCF AND BA .KORO TNn:
This item is presented for your review and discussion. This is a first partial
draft of a possible ordinance amendment that would principally control the
exterior facing materials of buildings constructed in the city. It is intended that
the ordinance would prevent buildings that are impermanent from becoming
permanent and specifically prevent the genera of buildings commonly referred to
as "pole buildings' (see attached photographs for reference).
None required.
C. 417AFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission provide further direction to
stRff regr+rding the control of architectural aesthetics in design and exterior
building materials.
Copy of first dg& of possible ordinence amendments; Photographs of various
buildings.
A It
- mc?. atkt L5
ORDINANCE NO.
CITY OF MONTICELLO
WRIGHT COUNTY, MINNESOTA
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 3-2 OF THE MONTICELLO ZONING ORDINANCE BY
REGULATING ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN AND EXTERIOR FACING MATERIALS.
THE CITY OF MONTICELLO DOES ORDAIN:
Title 111, Section 3-2, GENERAL BUILDING AND PERFORMANCE REQUIREMENTS, is hereby
amended to read as follows:
3-2: GENERAL BUILDING AND PERFORMANCE REQUIREMENTS:
JAI PURPOSE: The purpose of this section of the zoning ordinance is to establish general
development performance standards. These standards are intended and designed to ussure
compatibility of use and to enhance the health, safety, and general welfare of the residents of
the community.
11 is not the intent of the City to unduly restrict design freedom when reviewing pn►ject
architecture in connection with a site and building plan. However. it is the nature of
buildings to have a life expectaney beyond that of the dn•igit►al tenant. If is desirable
then to have buildings that maintain their appearance and remain attractive both lo►
current residents and in potential tenants. The ordinance fulfills this purpose by
requiring minimum standards for high -Quality, hong-lasting construction materials
while preventing impermanent cunstructhut and use of materials that rapidly
deteriorate, contribute to depreciathm (if neighborhood property values, or cause or
contribute to urban blight.
iAAJ GENERAL ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN AND EXTERIOR BUILDING FACING
REQUIREMENTS. No building pennh shall be issued for uny building or adhdition that
violates the intent of this ordinance. Violations of the intent of the ordinance include, but ore
not limited to, construction of buildings or additions using materials or architectural styles
thus do not complenu nt Monticello s unique sense of place or urc not compatible with the
neighborhdmxfs character, or that utilize exterior facing materials of a type or quality that do
not meet all the minimum standards outlined in this ordinance. This includes the following
restrictions:
The architectural design of u principal building. udditiun, or accessory structure Stull
not be substantially different from the architectural character of the district in which it
is heated. Further. all facades of new additions and accessory structures visible form
public streets or residential urcus shall be cawirdinated with the facades of the principal
building that are visible from a public street or residential ureas by integrating the same
muteriuls, textures, and /or colors.
2. All exterior surface materials must be finished with the appropriate seal, stain, paint, or
tither process (to manufacturers specifications) to withstand the elements and prevent
fading, chipping, chalking, cracking, peeling, warping, rot. rust, water damage, or
tither natural degradation process, with the exception, at the Zrming Administrator's
die retiun. of those materials like copper where the degradation process is
architecturally desirable. 'iiris includes the following pmhibidoris:
any metal facade that has exposed fasteners, semi-cornroaled fasteners on a
facade visible from public streets or residential areae, or any fastener system
that does not adhere directly to the support system, is not of a high-quality
commercial thickness/weight (fur example, the minimum for architectural steel
panels. is .1124 thickness, archita-tural aluminum panels is .032 thickness, and
architectural copper panels is 16 ounce sheets, and the equivalent in other
metals), has not been treated with a crating system of AISA G-90, Kynar SIM),
or the equivalent or better, that is warranted to a minimum of 25 years against
any applicable (degradation listed above: and
any conercre or grourul stone face material that is not of grate N- I quality or
better.
Excepthotts to the requirements of items a and c. abtrve may be granted by the
City Council In amwdance with Setihm X. Interim Use Permits Gar Detached
Accessmy Buildings.
ADDITIONAL RESTRICTIONS:
a. Residential Exterior Building Facing Materials. In all residential districts, all
buildings shall be finished on all sides with consistent architatural quality,
materials, and design, and the following additional restrictions apply:
All nwintenance-free metal siding must adhere to the traditional lap
design styles or its close variations such as dutchlap or shiplap. No
metal siding shall be permitted wider than 12 inches or without u one-
half (oh) inch or more overlap and relief.
All accessory buildings must be residential in character and huve the
sane textures, materiuls, anti colors of the home. Pre-fubricated
storage sheds with less than 120 square feet of projected roof arca do
nig require a building permit anti are ullowcd provided they are
maintained to withstand the degradation processes listed ubove and in
accordance with Section X. Excepiltins to this requirernent maybe
granted by lily Council In amrrdance with Sectirm X. Interim
Use Permits Gtr Detached Accessttry Buildings
iii. 11te exterior materials of ull existing residential buildings, ax:eswiry
buildings, and additions must be finished with the appropriate seal.
stain, paint. or other pr Less to withstund the elements and prevent the
degmiatitut processes listed above until in accordume with Section X.
M11-
Commercial Exterior Building Facing Materials. In commercial district~ and
commercial areas of mixed-use districts, the following additional restrictions
apply:
i. All facades visible from a public street or residential area must
incorporate recessus and projections along at least 21) percent of the
length of any facade over IW horiuntal feet
ii. The design of all facades visible from public streets or residential areas
shall incorporate the primary facade materials, textures, and/or colors
along their entire length to provide breaks in the visual surface.
iii. All cement products must be integrally colored and sealed, glazed, or
painted with an elastomeric coating system, the equivalent or better,
warranted for a ntinunum of 11) years against any applicable
degradation listed above and applied to manufacturer's specifications.
iv. 71te exterior materials of all existing commercial buildings, accessory
buildings, and additions must be finished with the appropriate seal,
stain, paint, or other pnaross to withstand the elements and prevent the
degradation processes listed above.
V. All rodding materials must be wamnted for 25 years or more against
the degradation proa.-asses listed above.
C. Industrial Facing Materials. In industrial districts anti industrial areas of mixed-
use districts. the following additional restrictions shall apply:
i. Prohibited Materials: woad as the primary facade material, or asphalt,
woad shingles. or asphalt shingles as roofing materials visible from
public streets or residential areas.
ii. The design of all facades visible from public streets or residential areas
shall incorporate the primary facade materials, textures, and/or colors
along their entire length to provide breaks in the visual surface.
iii. All cement products must be integrally colored and %ruled, glazed,
painted with an elusaomeric coating system, the equivalent or better,
warranted for a minimum of It) years against any upplicuble
degradation listed above anti applied to manufacturer's specifications.
iv. 'Rte exterior nateriuls of ull existing industrial buildings, accessory
buildings, and additions must be finished with the appropriate seal.
stain, paint, or other process to withstand the elements and prevent the
degradation pnKt:sses listed ubove.
7
V. All roofing materials must be warranted for 25 years or more against
y the degradation processes listed above.
4. APPEALS. Any person aggrieved by a decision of the Zoning Administrator
regarding architeLtural design standards or the use of certain exterior materials may
appeal the decision to the Board of Zoning Appeals.
JBL DWELLING UNIT RESTRIC ION:
No cellar, basement. garage, tent. lx accessory building shall at any time be used as an
independent residence or dwelling unit, temporarily or pennanentdy.
2. 'Rte following urchitecturul controls shall upply in R -I, R-2, R-3, and PZ -R Districts:
(a) Minimum building width of 24 feet.
(b) Minimum 3:12 roof pitch with minimum six (6) inch soffit
(c) Building must be anchored to u penrwnent concrete or treated wood
foundation.
(d) Minimum floor area shall be I.IMM) square feet.
3. In all residential zoning districts, all single utul two•fumily dwelling units constructed
after July 22. 1991. must include development of an attached or detached garage
with a floor area of at least 0) square feet and at least one garugc donor with an
opening of at least 16 feet in width.
U? to
ORDINANCE AMENDMENT NO.
CITY OF MONTICELLO
WRIGHT COUNTY, MINNESOTA
AN ORDINANCE APPROVING
ORDINANCE AMENDMENT NO.
AMENDING SECTION 367.23 OF THE CITY CODE
TO ALLOW FOR A COMPLETE CHANGE
OF THE ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN AND
EXTERIOR FACING MATERIALS SECTION
UPON APPROVAL FROM THE CITY COUNCIL
The City of Monticello does ordain the following code amendment:
Section 367.23, Architectural Design and Exterior Facing Materials, is amended to
read as follows:
SECTION 367.23: Architectural Design and Exterior Facing Materials
A. PURPOSE. It is not the intent of the City to unduly restrict design freedom
when reviewing project architecture in connection with a site and building
plan. However, it is the nature of buildings to have a life expectancy beyond
that of the original tenant. It is desirable then to have buildings that
maintain their appearance and remain attractive both to current residents
and to potential tenants. The ordinance fulfills this purpose by requiring
minimum standards for high-quality, long-lasting construction materials
while preventing impermanent construction and use of materials that rapidly
deteriorate, contribute to depreciation of neighborhood property values, or
cause or contribute to urban blight.
R. GENERAI, REQUIREMENTS. No building permit will be issued for any
building or addition that violates the intent of this ordinance. Violations of
the intent of the ordinance include, but are not limited to, constructing
buildings or additions using materials or architectural styles that do not
complement Monticello's unique sense of place or are not compatible with the
neighborhood's character, or that utilize exterior facing materials of a type or
quality that do not meet all the minimum standards outlined in this
ordinance. This includes the following restrictions:
1. The architectural design of a principal building, addition, or accessory
structure shall not be substantially different from the architectural
character of the district in which it is located. Further, all facades of
new additions and accessory structures visible from public streets or
residential areas shall be coordinated with the facades of the principal
ARCHITEC AMD 326187 07L
building that are visible from a public street or residential areas by
integrating the same materials, textures, and/or colors.
All exterior surface materials must be finished with the appropriate
seal, stain, paint, or other process (to manufacturer's specifications) to
withstand the elements and prevent fading, chipping, chalking,
cracking, peeling, warping, rot, rust, water damage, or other natural
degradation process, with the exception, at the Planning Director's
discretion, of those materials like copper where the degradation
process is architecturally desirable. This includes the following
prohibitions:
any metal facade that has exposed fasteners, semi -concealed
fasteners on a facade visible from public streets or residential
areas, or any fastener system that does not adhere directly to
the support system, is not of a high-quality commercial
thickness/weight (for example, the minimum for architectural
steel panels is .024 thickness, architectural aluminum panels is
.032 thickness, and architectural copper panels is 16 ounce
sheets, and the equivalent in other metals), has not been treated
with a coating system of AISA G-90, Kynar 500, or the
equivalent or better, that is wan -anted to a minimum of 25 years
against any applicable degradation listed above; and
any concrete or ground stone face material that is not of grade
N-1 quality or better.
C. ADDITIONAL RESTRICTIONS:
R. id n int Fa inC Mntgri la, In residential districts and residential
areas of mixed-use districts, the following additional restrictions apply.
All maintenance -free metal siding must adhere to the
traditional lap design styles or its close varintions such as
dutchlapor shiplap.
All accessory buildings must be residential in character and
have the same textures, materials, and colors of the home. Pro -
fabricated storage sheds with less than 120 square feet of
projected roof area do not require a building permit and are
allowed provided they are maintained to withstand the
degradation processes listed above and in accordance with
Section 319.50. Exceptions to this requirement must be in
accordance with Section 365.09A, Interim UFty Pernite for
n he Acc s ani 13 ail inns,
The exterior materials of all existing residential buildings,
accessory buildings, and additions must be finished with the
ARCHITEC AMD 3125197 07 F
appropriate seal, stain, paint, or other process to withstand the
elements and prevent the degradation processes listed above
and in accordance with Section 319.50.
2. Com.nereini Facing Materials. In commercial districts and commercial
areas of mixed-use districts, the following additional restrictions apply:
a. All facades visible from a public street or residential area must
incorporate recesses and projections along at least 20 percent of
the length of any facade over 100 horizontal feet.
b. The design of all facades visible from public streets or
residential areas shall incorporate the primary facade materials,
textures, and/or colors along their entire length to provide
breaks in the visual surface.
C. All cement products must be integrally colored and sealed,
glazed, or painted with an elastomeric coating system, the
equivalent or better, warranted for a minimum of 10 years
against any applicable degradation listed above and applied to
manufacturer's specifications.
d. The exterior materials of all existing commercial buildings,
accessory buildings, and additions must 1w finished with the
appropriate seal, strain, paint, or other process to withstand the
elements and prevent the degradation processes listed above.
e. All roofing materials must be warranted for 25 years or more
against the degradation processes listed above.
3. Ind est ial Facing Materials, In industrial districts and industrial
areas of mixed-use districts, the following additional restrictions shall
apply:
a. Prohibited Materials: wood as the primary facade material, or
asphalt, wood shingles, or asphalt shingles as roofing materials
visible from public streets or residential areas.
b. The design of all facades visible from public streets or
residential areas shall incorporate the primary facade materials,
textures, and/or colors along their entire length to provide
breaks in the visual surface.
C. All cement products must be integrally colored and sealed,
glazed, painted with an elastomeric coating system, the
equivalent or better, warranted for a minimum of 10 years
against any applicable degradation listed above and applied to
manufacturer's specifications.
ARCHITEC AMD: =W7 76
,
L
d. The exterior materials of all existing industrial buildings,
accessory buildings, and additions must be finished with the
appropriate seal, stain, paint, or other process to withstand the
elements and prevent the degradation processes listed above.
All roofing materials must be warranted for 25 years or more
against the degradation processes listed above.
D. APPEALS. Any person aggrieved by a decision of the Director of Planning
regarding architectural design standards or the use of certain exterior
materials may appeal the decision to the Board of Zoning Appeals.
ARCHITEC.AYD. 325*7 ? H
11
W- if ix
7,
MONDAY I Uj�,s7j)'AY
_17
= THURSDAY
FRIDAY
13
t i
Y
I Pl
7�1
o
MON[DiTY-1 TUl-.'-M)AY I WI:I)Nl-.SI)AY THUWSDAY
iimwm
FRI DAY
3
n
v t t % 1
11 1 It It 14 l
,1
4-1
most
`'•�i � '� 'r�,j' � � '.. � .. ' .. �'.�":%`...•�'. ^lam ..
r,'�.. ',' �� I.I ..,• - .� P c %/ t J 'tit I
•, j� � 1 ; ' .. Com_ T LF � It ' It ' It ' n ��
MONDAY I TUFSDAY _ FRIDAY
ji It
K IS
��„y��� j ,{n, ;•' ,(' e
Is
4 F7
Vii— ., . 'C^�. • t..: • ..•.:.• ",. �s .. }� ,?t,4s:;. ' �'
E#•'� �) 5� a4,: 'w1 �{; _., R'�rl�ya V7` '`"��,a.�'. y'�`
.. :l' .. .�yj.�{',"' u �+!M i'–'rrt V ,y `i j�1ry d.� }'.,." ' ' ' `.fl,_'t: ;:•..��st��� .: +:li .r+'.' •_ '.
.{:
"OA-T. •.?"'..'iR .. ,,9ht;`:3;t4i-.:;.:r^ Y. t'•`+'": ;c:t"5�•,,'�r:^{'(.' f:"X' +: G^.'
,Y � ••1',': •t,". k • ytt;,1� '�•�'+.:'_ ' „�c:. , `y..,•. :?�4.^;C+'-:�'��. jr'��,'�;lf:. `' ys- : f♦'r��;'�:i�'1f.•a K »♦+
�y:;t�w.Y� i�;. .-` "'i'i+ ty"• ...d '•"•`'t• :'4�i"".;: SiS�.S",.. r}.I :,'y(4
ONJ
Planning Commission Agenda - 4/1/97
81).:,.:., �.., Y, ;:�
Service
A RPFFRENCR AND BACKGROUND:
This update is placed on the agenda at the request of the Chairman of the
Planning Commission.
At the regular meeting of the City Council on March 24, 1997, the City
Council acted to accept the Township's recommendation and deny further
requests for amendments to the Urban Service Area. The reasons for the
denial were based on concerns regarding the capacity of County Road 118
and concerns about lineal residential development. During the discussion, it
was noted that the denial of the request is not inconsistent with the
comprehensive plan because the door remains open to development in the
area at a later date.
As part of the report to Council at the meeting of March 24, meeting minutes
were presented from the Planning Commission meeting of February 4, 1997.
In addition, a letter from the Township recommending denial of the
amendment to the Urban Semice Area boundaries was provided. The staff
report included a recommendation that the item be tabled for further
discussion.
During the Council discussion on March 24, 1997, there appeared to be
confusion regarding the Planning Commission's true view of the matter as
expressed on February 4, 1997. Due to this confusion, the Chairman
requests dialogue and discussion among Planning Commission members
regarding the matter. He wants to know if the Planning Commission desires
to clarify the Planning Commission position on the matter.
Fallowing is a chronology of events:
City Council reviews request by land owners for amendments to the
Urban Service Area. Council action according to 1/27/97 meeting
minutes: AFTER DISCUSSION, A MOTION WAS MADE BY
BRUCE THIELEN AND SECONDED BY ROGER CARLSON TO
APPROVE THE REQUEST TO AMEND THE URBAN SERVICE
AREA BOUNDARIES CONTINGENT ON APPROVAL BY THE
PLANNING COMMISSION. Motion Is based on the finding that
said properties now have immediate access to city utilities and
thus most the criteria for annexation. Motion Is also based on
the finding that the proposed development Is consistent with
Planning Commission Agenda - 411/97
the comprehensive plan. Voting in favor. Brian Stumpf, Roger
Carlson, Bruce Thielen, and Bill Fair. Opposed: Clint Herbst
Motion carried
amu: . . , , mk:
Planning Commission reviewed the request and made the following
motion: COMMISIONER MARTIE MADE A MOTION,
SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER DRAGSTEN, TO SUPPORT
AN ENDMENTS TO THIE URBAN SERVICE AREA BOUNDARY
BY INCLUDING THE ORRIN THOMPSON AND ART
ANDERSON PROPERTIES. Motion based on the findings that
such action is consistent with the comprensive plan. Motion
passed unanimously (Bogart absent).
3. Township Action:
On March 17, 1997, Monticello Township acted to recommend denial of
the amendments to the Urban Service Area boundaries based on
concerns about lineal development and that there is undeveloped land
remaining within the it-banization area.
4. Staff report submitted to City Council which recommends that the
item be tabled pending further discussion with the Township. April 1,
1997 (Planning Commission meeting), is suggested as a meeting date
for dialogue between Township and City.
5. City Council accepts Township recommendation based on the concerns
regarding capacity problems on County Road 118 and due to concerns
over lineal development. Planning Commission position on the matter
not understood.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
City Council meeting minutes --1/27/97; Planning Commission meeting
minutes --2/4/97; Staff report to Council --March 24, 1997 )includes Township
letter).
Council Minutes • 1/27/97
Consideration of request to amend Urban Service Area boundori s.
Applicants. Orrin Thompson Homes and Art Anderson.
Assistant Administrator O'Neill informed the Council that it is asked to
consider support for modifications to the Urban Service Area boundaries,
which would enable annexation of the Orrin Thompson and Art Anderson
properties. O'Neill noted that according to the agreement with the Township,
the two development areas cannot be annexed until such time that both the
City and the Township agree that the properties should qualify to reside
within the urbanization area boundaries. O'Neill noted that development
has occurred since 1990, which now places the properties adjacent to city
utilities. The properties, therefore, meet the criteria for placement in the
urban service area because they have full and direct access to city utilities.
Clint Herbst was concerned that the City is not following the comprehensive
plan by allowing development to the southeast. O'Neill agreed that the
comprehensive plan does state that development should be encouraged to the
south and west, which in this respect is inconsistent with this request;
however, the plan also states that existing capacity should set the boundaries
for development to the east. The development proposals would use existing
sewer capacity, and no new trunk lines would be needed to support it. The
comprehensive plan also calls for encouraging step-up housing, which will be
achieved with the proposed developments.
O'Neill noted that the next step is to present the request to Monticello
Township.
AFTER DISCUSSION, A MOTION WAS MADE BY BRUCE THIELEN AND
SECONDED BY ROGER CARLSON TO APPROVE THE REQUEST TO AMEND
THE URBAN SERVICE AREA BOUNDARIES CONTINGENT ON APPROVAL BY
THE PLANNING COMMISSION. Motion is based on the finding that said
properties now have immediate access to city utilities and thus meet the
criteria for annexation. Motion is also based on the finding that proposed
development is consistent with the comprehensive plan. Voting in favor:
Brian Stumpf, Roger Carlson, Bruce Thielen, and Bill Fair. Opposed: Clint
Herbst. Motion carried.
Planning Commission Minutes - 214197
Jeff O'Neill, Assistant Administration, reported the council has responded to
requests from Art Anderson and Orrin Thompson to expand the urban service area
and annex the properties. The Council tabled action until the Planning Commission
could review the request. The 80 -ace site for Orrin Thompson development is
located in a position adjacent to the location of city utilities. Sanitary sewer could
easily be extended to this area. In addition, the Meadow Oak truck storm sewer
system was sized to handle this are, however, special efforts will need to be made in
order to divert flow from the Orrin Thompson development area to ditch 33. It is not
known that this time what exact method or cost is involved in diverting the flow. In
addition, half of the development site is located within the planning area for the
city and township know as the Orderly Annexation Area. The other half is located
entirely in the township and outside of the planning area. The planning area was
established in the early boundaries of the city. This is a very clear and distinct line
for planning purposes, which the City, Township, and County manage cooperatively.
There is no rule, however, that says that the City cannot annex land outside of its
Orderly Annexation Area.
Also there is a request for the Art Anderson property to be in the City. When the
Urban Service Area boundaries were established in 1990, the Art Anderson property
was not eligible for inclusion in the Urban Service Area because sewer and water
scn-icc was nowhere near a.o property. As a result of the development of the Oak
Ridge subdivision and due to Meadow Oak storm sewer improvements, the Art
Anderson property now meets the criteria for placement in the Urbanization Area.
N fact, it has the advantage of being located entirely within the City's Meadow Oak
storm sewer watershed. The Anderson property is also entirely within the Orderly
Annexation Area.
Ken Scadden and Ted Holker, Monticello Township, stated they read about the
council action in the paper and thought the township should have been made aware
of the annexation requests. The township and the city have an agreement as to what
parcels can be annexed. The current requests are not in this area and there is still
available land that has not been annexed.
Steve Grittman, City Planner, stated he did not think that anyone could expect that
the lines of the agreement will never change but the City is not trying to exclude the
township.
O'Neill stated that the big picture needs to be reviewed because there is only sewer
capacity for a set amount of land to be developed.
Bruce Pankonin, Orrin Thompson Homes, stated he had met with the City staff in
1894 and identified potential areas of growth, petitioned in 1995 to the council and
township, and had to wait until the new wastewater treatment plant (WWTP) was
started. The WWTP has now been started and Orrin Thompson can see a need for
"move -up" homes. Pankonin stated they have been patiently waiting and would like
to move forward on this development. ID8
Planning Commission Minutes - 2/4/97
COMMISSIONER MARTIE MADE A MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISSIONE:
DRAGSTEN TO SUPPORT AMENDMENTS TO THE URBAN SERVICE AREA
BOUNDARY BY INCLUDING THE ORRIN THOMPSON AND ART ANDERSON
PROPERTY. MOTION BASED ON THE FINDINGS THAT SUCH ACTION IS
CONSISTENT WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. Motion passed
unanimously. (Bogart absent.)
Council Agenda - 3124197
•
City Council is asked to review the decision by Monticello Township and
consider further action on the matter. At the Township meeting on
March 17, 1997, the Supervisors voted unanimously to deny approval of
amendments to the Urban Service Area boundaries. The reasons for the
denial were based on the following according to the Township letter of
March 18, 1997:
"Considerable undeveloped land is in the urbanization area that
is also in the City plan."
"This type of linear development of residential area is simply
not good land -use planning, and would encourage growth in a
direction other than the City land use plan identifies."
"The southern portion of the projected area is not in the Orderly
Annexation Area boundaries and should not have been
considered for annexation"
To some extent, the Township is treating the urban service line boundary as
the limit to city growth when, in fact, it was meant to be a fluid line that
moves with the incremental pace of development.
At the meeting on the 17th, the property owners implored the Supervisors to
reconsider, arguing that the properties meet all of the criteria for inclusion in
the Urban Service Area. Their pleas fell on deaf ears. Subsequent to the
meeting, we received a letter from Bridgeland Development Company
requesting that the City exercise its annexation powers granted under Skiff®
qtatnte. Council is thus placed in a position where it must choose among the
following options:
Motion to accept the Township's recommendation and deny further
requests for amendments to the Urban Service Area boundaries.
Under this alternative, the City Council agrees with the Township's
view that the City should not develop to the south and east despite the
fact that the utilities are available and the style of housing in this area
will result in higher value homes.
Council Agenda - 3/24/97
Conduct a special meeting with the Township regarding the Urban
Service Area boundaries with the goal of coming up with a new overall
boundary line.
Under this alternative, the entire Urban Service Area and adjoining
agricultural areas along the boundary of the city would be reviewed for
inclusion in the Urban Service Area. Given the level of development of
available Urban Service Area land in the city in recent years, it would
make sense to make a wholesale adjustment to the boundaries. The
Art Anderson and Orrin Thompson land areas would be evaluated for
inclusion in the Urban Service Area as part of this process. Factors
favoring this option include the following
A. Lines of communication will be further opened. Perhaps
common ground can be found.
B. The urbanization plan will be maintained, which in the past has
served us well in guiding development.
This alternative is on the Planning Commission's work plan for
1997.
Utilize authority to annex the property by ordinance. Notify the
Township that it plans on withdrawing from the agreement.
Under this option, the City may annex the land after a public hearing
process. Township has an opportunity to comment via a public
hearing process but does not have veto power to stop the annexation.
Under this alternative, the Council does not desire to deal further on
the matters of annexation with the Township and is content to utilize
the powers given to the Council by the State. Under this alternative,
the City Council would provide the Township with a notice that it
plans on withdrawing from the agreement. In the meantime, the
process of annexation by ordinance could begin, which is a 60 -day
process. It should be noted that when the original urbanization
agreement was adopted, the City did not have the power that it has
today to force annexation. The agreement's value to the City has,
therefore, diminished sincd 1990 as a tool to expedite the annexation
process. In fact, the presence of the agreement is actually now making
the annexation process more difficult.
15 gib 6
Council Agenda - 3124197
It is the recommendation of the City Administrator that the City Council or
Planning Commission schedule a meeting with the Supervisors to discuss
amendments to the Urban Service Area boundaries. Efforts need to be made
to continue with the agreement, as good relations with the Township are
important. Perhaps common ground on identifying growth areas can be
found. In addition to the discussion on the Urban Service Area, it would be
important to include a review of the Orderly Annexation Area boundaries
and associated regulations. Perhaps it is time to look at some changes to the
OAA rules and boundaries as well.
For the sake of reducing night meetings, it is suggested that the City Council
meet with the Planning Commission and Township on April 1, 1997, as part
of the regular Planning Commission meeting. If this option is not acceptable,
the Planning Commission could meet with the Township on the topic on the
1st of April, then any recommendation could be brought to the City Council
for discussion with the Supervisors at the next regular meeting of the City
Council . As another alternative, the City Council could meet directly with
the Township Supervisors and not include the Planning Commission.
The laity is currently in the process of developing expensive sewer treatment
capacity that is predicated on growth. It is, therefore, important that
artificial barriers to growth where capacity exists be examined closely,
especially barriers to high-end housing. It is hoped that the Township would
understand these concerns and work with the City accordingly.
D. SUPPORTING DATA
Letter from the Township; Trunk fee revenue table; Area map; Sanitary
sewer feasibility study - Anderson property.
SDF
Monticello Township
County Road 117
Montolo, Minnesota 55362
TO: Honorable Mayor and Monticello City Council Members.
FROM: Monticello Township Board of Su_pervio
Darlene Sawatzke, Clerk. N �,(�'OLw
DATEt March 18, 1997
REt Reply to request for changes in the boundaries of
the Urban Service Area in the Urbanization Plan.
Two persons have approached the Township in regard to their
parcels being annexed into the City of Monticello. Mr. Leereen
owns one of the parcels and Mr. Shermer the other.
The 1990 Urbanization Plan was reviewed and updated in 1995.
Resolution A95-15. The Monticello Comprehensive Plan was
published in March of 1996 by Norwest Associated Consultants,
Inc.; and it clearly states the intent of the City of Monticello.
Development determined to be to the south and west down the
Highway 25 corridor area.
In the past the City requested annexation of DSD Bus, Gould
Brothers, 160 acres of the Klein properties, Hawks Bar and
Krautbauers, as they complied with the plan. We signed these
parcels over to the City. We have no objections to the City
annexing the John Leersen property, as it is proper planning
and squares up city limits.
On March 17, 1997 the Monticello Board of Supervisors voted not to
approve the requested change of the boundaries of the Urbanization
Area for the following reasoner
Considerable undeveloped land is in the Urbanization
Area that Is also in the City Plan.
This type of linear development of residential area is
simply not good land-uae planningi and would encourage
growth in a direction other the City Land Use Plan
identifies.
The southern portion of the projected area is not in the
Orderly Annexation Area boundaries and should not have
been considered for annexation.
The Town Board realizes that if the growth continues in the
future years, the Urban Service Area of the Urbanization Plan
will need reviewing.
cc: Rick Wolfeteller, City Administrator.
Dick Fria, Chairman Monticello City Planning Board.
Dan Gooman, Realtor.
8DG
Orrin Thompson/Art Anderson - Trunk Fee Potential
March 24, 1997
OHrn Thompson Property
Watermain
sanitary sewer
Storm Sewer (Fee based on net aeras)
Sub Total
Anes (Trunk Fee Tnmk Fee
per sere Collected
so $660 ssz000
e0 $1,250 $100,000
Bo $4.900 $294.000
— I $440.0001
Art Anderson Property 40
Watermain $660 $26,000
Sand" Sewer $1,250 $60.000
Storm Sewer�ee based an net a«eaL 30 $4.900. $147 000
subtotal i 11M.000
Grand Total I $e69,9001
Notes:
• The City oversized the Meadow Oaks Storm Sewer outlet project to accomodate the Orin Thompson
development. This Investment will allow the dNmalon of water from the Ooo1i g Dltdr 33 system Into the
City system which has the effect of helpinp the Towrshlp propertles along NO 33.
The oversizirg expense amounted to 580,1100
• Sanitary sewer and watermain trunk lees wiit assist In f uding future development of deep
trunk line.
• Potential storm sewer fee credits may be assinged deperbinp on extent of on-site pording.
Pro -trunk expenses for exterding sardtery sewer funded directly by developer.
I
CURRENT OgZtn't AWSUTION SWIMART
CA vo"iAww, skaviccAlK
Whig URUM-85RUCE "tR90""W
NAtpum clit I=Tfi'
ART
AliDERSOM
PROPERTY
OR,
ToompsoN
6
Mar -21-97 13:52 law a financial services 612 432-8011 P.02
RICHARD K. HOCKMG. P.A.
LAW OFFICES
APiOFfiSSWVALAssaaATM
7570 WEST 117TH $TIM TELF7IMM (611)43Y6139
APPLE VALdiY. MN 51131 PAX (611)472-4011
VIA FACSIMILE AND U.S. MAIL
March 21, 1997
Jeff O'Neill
City of Monticello
Assistant Administrator
250 East Broadway
Monti:ello MN 55362-9245
Re: My client, Bridgeland Development Company
Art Anderson Property
Dear Mr. O'Neill:
It is my understanding that the annexation issue has been placed on
the Citv Ccuncil calendar for March 24, 1997. I will be unable to
attend that meeting, but I did want to express more clearly the
position of Bridgeland Development Company in regard to this matter.
I had previously obtained and reviewed the urbanization plan of 1990
between the City of Monticello and the Town of Monticello. Further,
I had also reviewed the Monticello Comprehensive Plan dated March
19, 1996. As I am sure you are aware, my client has been on hold on
this matter pending the resolution of the issue concerning treatment
plant expansion. Now that that matter has been resolved, it was my
client's anticipation that this procedure would move forward
consistent with the comp plan and orderly annexation documents.
Frankly, I was very surprised by the action and the attitude of the
Town Board of the Town of Monticello. If their action was not a
violation of the actual wording of the urbanisation plan, it clearly
violated the spirit of that plan. Further, it seemed to be very
confrontational toward the City of Monticello, in an apparent effort
to exercise oomo political powr over the City. Also, it seemcd
highly illogical to me, since there is no sense in leaving a
significant amount of sewer capacity unused on the east side of the
City. I know that the City has made a substantial financial
commitment to the treatment plant expansion, and I am sure that the
Mar -21-97 13:63 law a financial services 612 432-SO11 P.03
Jeff O'Neill
March 21, 1997
Page 2
developments proposed on the east side will contribute significantly
to costs associated with the expansion. Further, there are
significant ongoing real estate tax dollars that would be
anticipated from the construction in that area.
Since the Town Board meeting, I have reviewed the requirements of
Minn. stat. Chapter 414. Specifically, 414.031, subd. 4, seta forth
a number of considerations in the determination of annexation. It
would be my position that the property in question is well within
the guidelines set forth in Chapter 414. On a point by point basis,
the factors in favor of annexing are quite consistent with the
request in regard to this parcel.
Frankly. I heard nothing at the Town Board meeting that could
dispute the annexation of the proposed parcel. The Town Board,
after some discussion, essentially admitted that they simply were
not in favor of any further development. That obviously ignores the
reality of the market place. It further ignores the language of the
urbanization agreement. The Anderson property is within the orderly
annexation area, and is logically in line for extension of the urban
services. It is now seven years since the creation of that
document, and the nature of that document assumes that the urban
service area will be extended through the orderly annexation area
when the municipal services are available. Clearly. there would be
no intent to place property within the orderly annexation area
unless it was anticipated that futuro development would logically
bring it within an expanded service area in the future.
Based upon all of the factors cited above, and including the policy
behind Minn. Stat. Chapter 414, my client would respectfully request
that annexation of the property to the City of Monticello be carried
out.
Very truly yo re
Richard K. Hock
RKH: cko
cci Neal Krsysaniak
VbY,
END
1, the undersigned an employee of Mid-America
Business Systems hereby certify that the microfilm
images ending with i J ql/ ICY2
are complete and 'accurate reproductions of the
original records of
as accumulated during the regular course of
business, and that it is the established policy
and practite of Mid-America Business Systems
-to microfilm records for permanent file.
It is further certified that the photographic
process used for microfilming the above records
were accompl fished fn a manner and on microfilm
which meets the recommended requirements of the
National Bureau of Standards of permanent micro-
graphic reproduction.
Name Date