Loading...
Planning Commission Agenda Packet 11-08-1995AGENDA REGULAR 1VIEE MG - MONTICELLO PLANNING COBUGMON Wednesday, November 8, 1995.7 p.m. Members: Dick Frie, Richard Carlson, Jon Bogart, Dick Martie, Rod Dragsten 1. Call to order. 2. Approval of minutes of the special meeting held September 26, and the regular meeting held October 3, 1995. 3. Consideration of adding items to the agenda. 4. Citizens comments. 5. Public Hearing --Consideration of an amendment to the zoning map which would change the zoning district designation of Part of Lot 4, Block 1, Lauring Hillside Terrace Addition, from R-3 (multi -family residential) to PZM (performance zone mixed). Applicant, Vaughn Veit. 6. Public Hearing --Consideration of an amendment to a conditional use permit which would allow full use of the Hillside Partnership mall. Applicant, Hillside Partnership. 7. Consideration of a request to subdivide a portion of Lot 4, Block 1, Lauring Hillside Terrace, which would be combined with the Hillside mall property. Applicant, Vaughn Veit. 8. Public Hearing --Consideration of a request for a variance to the maximum pylon sign size (60 sq ft) requirement. Location is Lot 1, Block 1, Oakwood Industrial Park. Applicant, Monticello Recreation Inc. 9. Discuss draft of comprehensive plan development framework. 10. Review planning and zoning application materials. 11. Review downtown redevelopment activities. Downtown redevelopment meeting with downtown redevelopment specialist - November 16, 1995, 7 p.m., High School Arena Entrance. 12. Adjournment. NaNU TES REGULAR NIWMG - MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday, October 3, 1995 - 7 RX Members: Dick Frie, Richard Cartson, Jon Bogart, Dick Martie, Rod Dragsten Staff Present: Jeff O'Neill, Gary Anderson, Wanda Kraemer 1. Call to order. Chairman Frie called the meeting to order. Chairman Frie stated that Jeff O'Neill, Assistant Administrator, would be late but the meeting should start. Chairman Frie reported that last week he and Jeff O'Neill had attended the State Planning Commission meeting in Alexandria. The meeting was very beneficial and should be highly recommended to every commission member and staff. One of the main ideas he would like to see carried out is a procedure manual for applicants applying for new plate. 2. Approval of *nutL9 of ChA regular me roar held September A nnA the aneciial meeting held September 19- 1996, COMMISSIONER MARTIE MADE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE MINUTES FOR THE SEPTEMBER 6TH, 1996 MEETING. SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER BOGART. MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. COMMISSIONER DRAGSTEN MADE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE MINUTES FOR THE SEPTEMBER 19,1996 MEETING. SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER BOGART. MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. 3. ri ize a co menLs+ petition_a_ req uey�ynnd mmplwin There were no citizens comments. 4, Rhli Hp ring ..Cnnaideratinn of preliminwr^ntpt of Monticello Ge�e+rs+ renter 2rd Addition. Appliranf Mee 3celle Ind uttaint P rk_ In _ Jeff ONeill reported that the Monticello Industrial Park, Inc, is requesting approval for a preliminary plat of the Monticello Commerce Center 3rd Addition. The plat consists of two industrial lots separated by the future Page 1 G). Planning Commission Minutes - 10/03/95 extension of Dundas Road. Both lots front Fallon Avenue to the east. The entire platted area amounts to 7.47 acres. Lot 1, north of Fallon Avenue, consists of 4.6 acres, and Lot 2 consists of 2 acres. Each lot meets the minimum requirements of the ordinance in terms of lot size, depth, and width. Both lots are served with sewer and water service that is located in the Fallon Avenue right-of-way. Storm water drainage from the site is intended to flow easterly to land currently owned by Monticello Industrial Park, Inc. As part of the platting practice, the City will be obtaining storm water easement areas in an area east of the plat. Acquiring the ponding easement areas is necessary to assure the City that adequate ponding areas will be available in the fature. The preliminary plat is very simple and straight forward. There do not appear to be any planning or significant utility issues relating to the site. Chairman Frie opened the public hearing. Charlie Pfeffer, developer, did not have any comments to add to ONeill's report. Chairman Frie closed the public hearing. Chairman Frie asked why the entire parcel is not being platted at one time and who is paying for the Dundas Road extension. Charlie Pfeffer replied that in an industrial park each site will vary in the size depending on the need of the customer. If an entire parcel is platted before knowing what will be built there more time is spent on replatting than simply platting each lot as the Commerce Center develops. Pfeffer went on to add that Dundas road is the responsibility of the developer and he is aware of that. COMMISSIONER BOGART MADE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE PRELIMINARY PLAT OF THE MONTICELL0 COMMERCE CENTER 3RD ADDITION SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: 1. A 12 -FT DRAINAGE AND UTILITY EASEMENT MUST BE PROVIDED AROUND THE PERIMETER OF EACH LOT AND PLACED ON THE FINAL PLAT. AN ADDITIONAL 1247 EASEMENT LOCATED ALONG THE OUTSIDE OF THE EASTERLY BOUNDARY OF THE PLAT, ALONG WITH A 12 -FT EASEMENT Page 2 0 Planning Commission Minutes - 10/03/95 ALONG THE PROPERTY LINE SEPARATING THE MONTICELLO INDUSTRIAL PARK, INC. PROPERTY FROM THE SCHOOL DISTRICT AND THE CITY, SHALL ALSO BE PROVIDED TO THE CITY. REQUIREMENTS FOR PRELIMINARY UTILITY PLAN ARE WANED. PRELIMINARY PLANS ADDRESSING DESIGN OF DUNDAS ROAD WILL BE REQUIRED AND COMPLETED IN CONDUCTION WITH THE DEVELOPMENT OF FALLON AVENUE, WHICH IS SET TO OCCUR IN THE SPRING OF 1996. SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER CARLSON. MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. Jeff O'Neill, Assistant Administrator, noticed a few weeks ago that NSP was working on expanding the outside storage area located to the rear of their main structure. In response to this observation, they were informed that they would need a conditional use permit allowing expansion of the outside storage area. In turn, NSP has submitted an application for a conditional use permit and has also written a letter to the City indicating that they are planning to move forward with installation of a perimeter fence and noted that it was their intention to frilly satisfy the City on what needs to be done according to ordinance. Due to a staff mfetake, the existing outdoor storage area was not approved via the conditional use permit process and is not screened from view from the public right-of-way and is, therefore, a nonconforming use. This expansion represents an opportunity to correct the nonconforming aspects of the site. Chairman Frie opened the public hearing. Darren Lahr, representative from NSP, stated that at first NBP was concerned that duo to the screening the Sheriffs Department might have trouble policing the area at night but that has been worked out. NSP has agreed to comply with all city ordinances. Chairman Frie closed the public hearing. Page 3 0 Planning Commission Minutes - 10/03/95 Chairman Frie commented that he had discussed this with the Wright County Sheriff Don Hozempa and Hozempa would be willing to meet with NSP and discuss security issues. Next, the Commissioners discussed the landscaping issues. O'Neill stated that there is one tree needed for every lineal foot, thirty feet beyond the area being used. In the past, the outside storage area had included the building, parking, and storage lot areas. It was decided that stair would work with NSP on amount of landscaping needed. COMMISSIONER BOGART MADE A MOTION TO APPROVE OPEN AND OUTDOOR STORAGE AS AN ACCESSORY USE IN THE I-2 ZONE WHICH WOULD ALLOW EXPANSION OF THE STORAGE AREA AT THE NSP SITE AS PROPOSED PROVIDED THAT: 1. ALL REQUIREMENTS OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE REGULATING OUTSIDE STORAGE IN AN 1.2 ZONE BE MET. 2. THE GRADING AND DRAINAGE PLAN FOR THE OUTSIDE STORAGE AREA IS REVIEWED BY THE CITY ENGINEER. 3. MEET WITH CITY STAFF ON THE LANDSCAPE PLAN. 4. MEET ON THE SECURITY ISSUES WITH THE WRIGHT COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE. SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER MARTIE. MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. Cnnaideration of mA�:nQ a m .nen otion fn .he Ho ain8 and Redevelnnment Atithority and QtX rguncil to piirchnAn a resident weet of Bridge Pack. Commissioner Carlson abstained from discussion and voting. Jeff O'Neill, Assistant Administrator, reported that Planning Commission and the Parks Commission are requested to consider making a recommendation to the HRA and City Council regarding the potential purchase of river -f cont real estate located directly west of Bridge Park. A few days ago, Richard Carlson, acting in his capacity as a Realtor, informed me that the owners of the property are interested in moving and that they are Page 4 0 Planning Commission Minutes - 10/03/85 willing to provide the City with the first option to buy the property. The property consists of a house built near the turn of the century, along with the remains of a garage that was severely damaged in a wind stone a few months ago. A key attribute of this property is the length of river frontage that comes with it. The property is located directly adjacent to an existing park and extends along the river to the west a distance of over 300 feet. Purchase of this property would be a key component of an overall long -tens plan for redevelopment of the Front Street area, which has been talked about and contemplated from time to time. Also, O'Neill listed the other factors supporting the consideration of purchasing this property: 1) The Monticello area continues to grow and expand, and with this expansion comes an increase in demand for park space, especially park space along the river, 2) Purchase of this property is consistent with preliminary comprehensive plan policy and goal setting; 3) The present owner is considering rebuilding the existing garage and it makes sense to buy the property before more investments are made; 4) Two properties immediately south and across Front Street are in sad shape and would be prime candidates for future acquisition; 5) If purchased today the cost would probably be lower than in the future; 8) This property is a prime candidate for acquisition because it is needed under any plan for river -front redevelopment. Chairman Frie opened the public hearing. Bruce Theelin, Chairman Parks Commission, stated that he thought that river frontage is going to be harder and harder to come by and the City would be amiss to let it go. Larry Nolan, Parks Commission, this has been discussed in the park plan and the direction the city should be going. This plans certainly includes the river and this is an opportunity we should be investing in. Fran Fair, Parks Commission, stated that the Parks Commission appreciates being asked for their input. This is the first step in a dream to redevelop the riverfront and its reassuring to see things start. Earl Smith, Parks Commission, stated that in his opinion this was a rare opportunity to pick up property and this was a chance to make a statement for generations to come. The Planning Commissioners discussed if not knowing the selling price should be relevant. Page 5 0 Planning Commission Minutes - 10/03/95 O'Neill stated that it will be the responsibility of the HRA to negotiate a price. It is the Planning Commissioner's position to recommend the action. The Planning Commissioners also discussed the perfect opportunity of having a willing seller at the game time as the redevelopment of the river property is being get as a priority. COMMISSIONER BOGART MADE A MOTION TO SUPPORT THE RECOMMENDATION THAT THE HRA AND CITY COUNCIL SUPPORT THE PURCHASE OF THE RESIDENTIAL SITE WEST OF BRIDGE PARK. THIS MOTION IS BASED ON REASONS FOR PURCHASING THE PROPERTY AS: 1. THE MONTICELLO AREA CONTINUES TO GROW AND EXPAND, AND WITH THIS EXPANSION COMES AN INCREASE IN DEMAND FOR PARK SPACE, ESPECIALLY PARK SPACE ALONG THE RIVER; 2. PURCHASE OF THIS PROPERTY IS CONSISTENT WITH PRELIMINARY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN POLICY AND GOAL SETTING; 3. THE PRESENT OWNER IS CONSIDERING REBUILDING THE EXISTING GARAGE AND IT MAKES SENSE TO BUY THE PROPERTY BEFORE MORE INVESTMENTS ARE MADE; 4. TWO PROPERTIES IMMEDIATELY SOUTH AND ACROSS FRONT STREET ARE IN SAD SHAPE AND WOULD BE PRIME CANDIDATES FOR FUTURE ACQUISITION; b. IF PURCHASED TODAY THE COST WOULD PROBABLY BE LOWER THAN IN THE FUTURE; 6. THIS PROPERTY IS A PRIME CANDIDATE FOR ACQUISITION BECAUSE IT IS NEEDED UNDER ANY PLAN FOR RIVER -FRONT REDEVELOPMENT. SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER DRAGSTEN. MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. Page 6 0 Planning Commission Minutes - 10/03/95 7. ad=. Commissioner Bogart commented to the Parks Commission members at the meeting that during the tour of parks in August boulevard trees were discussed. He would like to we this item pursued Hither. The Commission members discussed the advantages of a boulevard tree policy. Gary Anderson, Building Official, requested a list of suggested trees and size of trees that could be given out to residenta and builders. Chairman Fria suggested that the Parks Commission review the present tree ordinance and current information. Tben he would like them to present a new ordinance to the Planning Commission in the near future. Jeff ONeill, Assistant Administrator, gave an update that the City Engineer Bret Weiss resigned from OSM to start a new engineering firm named WSB. The City is negotiating contracts with WeisMB and OSM at this time. 8. AWMMMML COMMISSIONER DRAGSTEN MADE A MOTION TO ADJOURN THE MEETING. SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER MARTIE. MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. RespecdWly aubmitted, Wanda Kraemer Development Services Technician Page 7 0 Planning Commission Agenda - 11/8/95 Id f1 N". 7 -F -T �r Most of the Planning Commission and City Council members are familiar with recently land use decisions relating to the development of the Hillside mall. The action requested by the applicant stems from previous decisions relating to this property. Specifically, on February 28, 1994, the applicant failed to obtain sufficient votes necessary to get the zoning approval needed which would allow expansion of the PZM site and subsequent construction of additional parking necessary to accommodate the expansion of a restaurant within the mall. However, the developer was able to obtain an amendment to the conditional use permit which allowed the expansion of the restaurant in the mall subject to a number of stipulations and conditions. One of the conditions required that 9,100 aq R of the space available for occupancy within the mall be left vacant for the purpose of maintaining a parking demand that matches the existing capacity of the parking lot. This option was selected by the City Council at the request of the Hillside Partnership. The attorney representing the Hillside Partnership suggested that by leaving 9,100 sq ft of retail space vacant, the site as it now exists could accommodate the restaurant use along with existing uses on the site. He also noted that this alternative would allow the restaurant facility to be established, which would result in a better understanding of parking demand and patterns. This practical information regarding parking demand would be useful when addressing full utilization of the structure at some point in the future. It is now nearing two years since the conditional use permit was awarded with the stipulation restricting use of the facility. The developer is now requesting that the original request, which was denied in 1994, be brought up again for reconsideration so that the building can be put to full use. The specific requests that the developer is making today are identical to the Planning Commission's most recent recommendation to Council. For your information, I have copied excerpts Brom previous meeting minutes and agenda packets regarding this issue. Please review this for additional detail regarding the site. S. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS; Motion to approve an amendment to the zoning map which would change the zoning district designation of a portion of Lot 4, Block 1, Lauring Hillside Terrace Addition, from R-3 to PZM. Planning Commission Agenda - 1118/95 Under this alternative, the lower section of the property would be merged with the Hillside Partnership property, which would result in a land area sufficient to accommodate future parking spaces. This alternative could be selected based on the finding that the proposed rezoning is consistent with the character and geography of the area and that the proposed rezoning is consistent with the comprehensive plan. If the Planning Commission and Council select this alternative, then it can allow the intensification of the use of the Hillside mall site through development of the retail space that has been left unoccupied. This is the alternative that the Planning Commission selected in 1994. This motion could be based on the finding that the proposed amendment placing PZM/parking behind the R-3 uses will not resultin a negative impact on the R^3 uses. This is because the conflicting uses can be adequately separated by differences in grade and via landscaping. Motion to deny the request for rezoning as proposed. Planning Commission and City Council could select this alternative based on a finding that the proposed rezoning is not consistent with the nature and geography of the area as was the finding by one Councilmember in 1994. It could be concluded that the parking area associated with the commercial use should not be allowed to extend into the rear area of the Lauring Hillside lots that were originally intended for multi -family development. Allowing tWe type of encroachment could be construed as being inconsistent with the comprehensive plan. Please see the attached excerpts from the comprehensive plan for detail. C. 6T FF O F.NDATION: Staff concurs with the Planner's analysis and the previous recommendation by the Planning Commission, which basically supporta the concept of allowing the rezoning to occur as proposed. The rezoning request does not appear to significantly impact the adjoining properties. In addition, the conditional use process is in place, which requires landscaping and screening of parking areae and thus gives the City some measure of control in mitigating conflicts between the residential use on 7th Street and the commercial use proposed. As you will note on the conditional use permit as recommended by the Planning Commission in 1994, there are conditions listed that are designed to assure harmony of land use between the multi-kmily and the intensified mall use. D_ sUPPORTINn DATA: February 28, 1994, staff report to Council which includes previous Planning Commission recommendation, comprehensive plan excerpt, Planner's report, and area map; City Council minutes of 2128/94; Correspondence from developer; Application. � �� Post Council Agenda - 2/28/94 Consideration of an amendment to the zoning mat) which would change the zoning district designation of a Dortion of Lot 4. Block Laurine Hillside Terrace Addition. from R-3 (multi -family residential) to PZM (performance zone mixed). At)nlicant. Vaughn Veit. (J.O.) A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: In conjunction with the proposed establishment of a restaurant at the Hillside mall (otherwise known as Sixth Street Annex), Vaughn Veit requests that the City allow rezoning of a portion of Lot 4, Block 1, from its present zoning designation, which is R-3, to PZM. The rezoning is needed to accommodate additional parking needed for a proposed restaurant replacing PJ's Pizza. As you recall, some months ago the City Council approved an amendment to the original conditional use permit which allowed establishment of PJ's Pizza. As one of the conditions of operation, the developer was required to guarantee that an additional 18 parking spaces would be developed in the event that the parking demand created by PJ's Pizza warranted additional parking. As it turned out, the parking demand never reached a critical point; therefore, the additional parking was not required. The present request differs from PJ's Pizza in that the entire restaurant space will be used for seating and kitchen facilities, whereas the PJ's Pizza proposal used much of the space for arcade machines. Additional parking needed under the new proposal amounts to 56 parking spaces versus 18 parking spaces under the PJ's Pizza proposal. It is obvious that the existing site cannot accommodate 56 additional parking spaces; therefore, the parking area must be expanded onto adjacent property (Lot 4, Block 1). In order for parking to occur on Lot 4, Block 1, it must be rezoned to match the Hillside mall zoning designation. At their special meeting on Tuesday, February 22, the Planning Commission reviewed the case and recommended that the rezoning he allowed to occur but limited the rezone area to the perimeter of the additional parking needed in conjunction with expansion of the restaurant use. In addition, it was required that the lot lines be adjusted so that the parking lot area would be combined with the Hillside mall property and taken away from Lot 4, Block 1. The developer was present at the Planning Commission meeting and was satisfied with the Planning Commission's recommendation. Please review the Planner's report for additional insights into this matter. srT Council Agenda - 2/28/94 B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS: Motion to approve rezoning request contingent on realignment of lot lines, which would result in the additional parking area being added to the Hillside mail site. This alternative could be selected based on the finding that the proposed rezoning is consistent with the character and geography of the area and that the proposed rezoning is consistent with the comprehensive plan. If Council selects this alternative, then it can consider intensification of the Hillside mall site through development of the restaurant facility as proposed. Please note that the City has received no formal objections from the neighborhood regarding the rezoning proposal. 2. Motion to deny request for rezoning as proposed. City Council could select this alternative based on a finding that the proposed rezoning is not consistent with the nature and geography of the area. Perhaps City Council does not like the idea of the parking area encroaching into the rear area of the lots originally intended for multi -family development. Perhaps there are conflicts between the parking area and the mall site that could arise. After reviewing the excerpts from the comprehensive plan, perhaps Council feels the proposal is not consistent with the plan because of the encroachment into the multi -family residential area. C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: City staff concurs with the Planner's analysis, which basically supporta the concept of allowing the project to expand as proposed. The rezoning request would not appear to significantly impact the adjoining properties. The conditional use process is in place, which requires landscaping and screening of parking areas and thus gives the City some measure of control in mitigating conflicts. As you will note under the conditional use permit as recommended by the Planning Commission, there are conditions listed that are designed to assure harmony of land use between the multi -family to the south and the intensified mall use. D. SUPPORTING DATA: Excerpt from comprehensive plus; Planters report; Area map. Sia COMMERCIAL POLICIES 1. Commercial development in general and successful retailing functions should occur both in the central business district and the shopping center area contiguous to Interstate 94. 2. The Comprehensive Plan, the Zoning Ordinance, and other measures and procedures will be modified in realistic recognition of the needs of contemporary commercial enterprises and the need to properly control such enterprises at the local community levels commercial development policy will not be rigid and inflexible, and neither shall It be indiscriminately permissive. 3. Adequate provision should be made for expansion of suitable I areas for highway oriented commercial development requiring large acreages for use such as motels, auto and implement dealerships, and lumber and building supply yards. These uses ' should be encouraged to develop in new locations along Interstate 94 at Highway 25. 4. The location of new shopping areas should be justified by an adequate market study (market radius, customer potential, suitable location in the market radius, etc.) and consideration for the neighborhood, land use, and circulation pattern. ' S. Commercial areas should be as compact as possible. Compact commercial areas are particularly advantageous for retail uses, as they concentrate shopping and parking. A community is benefited by reducing exposure to residential areas and having a better control over parking and traffic needs. For this reason, 'strip* and 'spot' commercial development should not be permitted. 6. Highway oriented uses along Interotate 94 should be concentrated ' to the greatest extent possible so as not to waste prime commercial land not spread the uses no as to not be definable as a 'viable commercial area'. ' 7. Future commercial areas should be based upon the concept of the integrated business center developed according to a specific site plan and justified by an economic analysis of the area to be served. 8. All major commercial areas shall be pre -zoned based upon the ' Comprehensive Plan. No aroaa shall be ce-soned to commercial use unless they are shown to be properly located in accordance with the policies and standards of the Comprehensive Plan. 9. Boundaries of commercial districts shall be well-defined so as to prevent Intrusion into residential areas residential areas muot be properly screened from the associated 111 effects of adjacent and nearby commercial area. -48- ^ , 1V I FHFJ -2m -94 TUE T : 1'-1 0 P . O 1Z 1 NA Northwest Associated Consultants, Inc. C URBAN PLANNI NG • 0 S S I B N• MARK S T R E S! ARC N lu'IyuCO) ARRWO ui TO: Jeff O'Neill FROM: Stephen Grittman DATE: 22 February 1994 RE: Monticello - Hillside Partnershipp - Sixth Street '21 Annex Parking Expansion PILE NO: 191.07 - 94.05 This report outlines the procedural steps necessary for the expansion of the parking facilities for the Sixth Street Annex Shopping Center. The proposed parking Mould be located on a parcel adjacent to the current shopping center, however it is currently a separate lot of record. The moat desirable processing is to permit a subdivision of the new parcel and recombine the parking expansion area to the existing parcel containing the shopping center. Once this to accomplished, the Honing of the newly split lot would seed to be addressed, since the parking expansion area would still be zoned R-7, Multiple Family Residential. There are two options for the City to pursue. The entire parcel, prior to subdivision, could be zoned PZM to accommodate the shopping center's parking, or the PZM zone could be extended only as far as the newly created lot line. In the latter case, the remaining land not being utilized for parking would stay R -D, consistent with the land uses on the surrounding lots. If the PZM zone were extended to encompass the entire subject property, future land uses would be controlled by the Comprehensive Plan. To the extent that the primary surrounding land use is multiple family residential, the City would have adequate controls in place to restrict any expansion of commercial Uses. D S PED -22-91-4 T U E T: I'S O P . 0-3 It would not appear that either proposal would have distinct advantages over the other. Whereas the PZM designation would infer other potential land uses beyond multiple family, any such use would be subject to public hearing and extensive review. This review would also occur if the R-3 designation were retained, but a landowner proposed a zoning change to allow a different use. This review would not occur, however, if the landowner proposed to construct a multiple family project under the R-3 zoning Is permitted uses. Regardless of the zoning on the residual parcel, this proposal would appear to be positive in that parking supply has been an issue in previous reviews of the Sixth Street Annex. it could be expected that without additional facilities, parking will continue to cause problems for occupants of the cent®r. 6C '54'tA ek + OiZ` r Council Agenda - 2/28/94 s. Consideration of an amendment to a conditional use permit which would allow expnnsion of an existing restaurant in a PZM (performance zone mixed) zone. Ao_ alicant. Hillside Partnershin. (J.O. ) A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: As noted in the previous agenda item, Hillside Partnership requests an amendment to their conditional use permit which would allow intensification of the use of the Hillside mall through development of a restaurant replacing PJ's Pizza. The new restaurant proposal results in the need for an additional 56 parking stalls. It is proposed that the parking spaces be located in the rear of the structure as proposed under the attached site plan. The Planning Commission reviewed the proposal and recommended approval of the conditional use permit with a number of conditions as noted below under alternative #I. B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS: Motion to approve conditional use permit which would allow intensification of the restaurant use at the Hillside mall subject to Val%, the following conditions: 1. The developer shall provide a parking, grading, and drainage plan supporting development of an additional 56 stalls. Prior to the City granting an occupancy permit to the new restaurant, the developer shall obtain written approval of the parking, grading, and drainage plans from the City Engineer. 2. The developer shall not be required to install the parking area d prior to occupancy of the restaurant, however, a financial guarantee and associated agreement shall be established that would allow the parking lot to be installed at the discretion of the City and at the full cost of the developer. 3. The portion of Lot 4, Block 1, needed for parking shall be split away from Lot 4. Block 1, and added to the Hillside mall property. 4. Prior to the City granting occupancy of the restaurant, the developer shall provide a landscaping and screening plan that meets the requirements of the City as approved by City staff. SG Council Agenda - 2/28/94 5. To improve security, windows shall be installed in the rear of the structure facing the expanded parking area to improve visability of the parking area. 6. All other conditions as noted by ordinance. The motion to approve the conditional use permit is based on the finding that the expansion completed with the required conditions will result in a use that is compatible with the area and will not result in the depreciation of adjoining land values. Although on paper the site falls far short of the parking requirements (56 stalls), the Planning Commission felt that it was prudent to not require that all of the parking be installed prior to opening of the restaurant. It was felt that the 40 open stalls in the rear that currently exist might be sufficient and it was worth the risk to allow the project to proceed as is on a test basis. At the meeting on the 22nd, the developer noted that he has no problems with meeting any of the conditions identified by the Planning Commission. Planning Commission was somewhat concerned about security and crime problems in the rear of the structure. As you know, the rear of the building is isolated from a public right-of-way and protected from view, thereby creating some questions about security. The following steps have been taken or will be taken to improve security in the area. 1. Tree cover on Lot 1, Block 4, was removed. 2. Additional lighting has been installed. 3. Under the conditional use permit, windows will be open to the rear, which will give restaurant management and patrons a view of the area. 4. Additional traffic in the rear of the building may result in additional security. 2. Motion to deny conditional use permit as requested. 7� Council Agenda - 2/28/94 This alternative should be selected if the developer is unwilling to meet the conditions as required by Council. Vaughn Veit has indicated that he supports the conditions as noted under alternative #1. Perhaps Council will find additional alternatives that Veit may not be willing to support. If so, this alternative should be selected. If Council selects this alternative, it should make a clear finding of fact as to why the conditional use permit as designed has been denied. C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff supporta the recommendation of the Planning Commission, which is to select alternative 111. We are somewhat concerned that the "proof of parking" area or a portion of it will need to be constructed immediately and that perhaps parking problems will be evident soon after the facility opens. On the other hand, it does appear to make sense to hold off on development of the parking until it is clearly known that the parking is truly needed. If the developer is willing to tie up the land for parking and provide the City with an agreement and bond necessary to install the parking at a later date at the City's discretion, it appears reasonable to withhold the requirement that the parking be installed immediately and just see what happens. In conjunction with expansion of the parking area, the landscaping and screening on the perimeter of the site will need to be extended and blended with the existing site. As a final note, the developer has complied with all previous conditional use permit requirements. D. SUPPORTING D&M: Copy of site plan showing proposed parking expansion area (not delivered as of 2/25). l FILE G�p� Council Minutes - 2/28/94 Consideration of all amendment to the zonine mail which would chaneo the zonine district desienation of a portion of IAIt 4. Block 1. Laurine Hillside Terrace Addition. from R-3 (multi -family residential) to I ZM (performance zone mixed). Auolicant. Vauehn Veit. Assistant Administrator O'Neill reported that in conjunction with the proposed re-establishment of a restaurant at the Sixth Street Annex, Vaughn Veit requests that the City allow rezoning of a portion of 1w)t 4, Block 1, from its present zoning designation (11-3) to 1''LM. 'rbe rez ming is needed Co accommodate additional parking for a proposed restaurant at the Sixth Street Annex. According to the city ordinance, an additional bG parking stalls will he needed to accommoduto Lite new restaurant facility. There is not enough room on the Sixth Street Annex parcel for Lite 56 spaces; therefore, the spaces must be developed off site on an adjoining parcel. O'Neill reported that at a special meeting on February 22, Cue Planning Commission reviewed the colic and recommended that the rezoning allowing parking area exponsion ho allowed to occur. The Planning Commission recommended that the area rezoned Ilio limited to Clio perimeter of the parking lot expansion area. In addition, it was recommended Chat Cho lot lines be adjusted so that the parking area would be combined with Cho Sixth Street Annex property and taken away from Lot 4, Block 1. Council discussion focused on site plan issues relating to parking. 'There was a concern that restaurant customers would and park in Cho rear of tlhe facility as proposed under (lie site plan and, as a result, parking problems would then be created in Cho front of Cho building and along Cedar Street. Brad F'yle noted that we should be very careful not U, approve a site plan or rezoning that would result in on -street parking on Cedar Street. Ken Maus noted Chat he has a problem forcing people to Cho rear of tie facility. In response, it was noted by Judy Leming that the rear of the facility would be modifiod to include glass windows and double doors to encourage people to use the rear entrance of the facility to enter Clio restaurant. John Purnort, owner of the Depot in Elk Itiver and owner of Clio proposed restaurant, indicated that die restaurant includes on-sulo liquor sales. plc noted that no minuet are allowed in the restaurant after 9 p.m. withnut a parent or guardian. The restaurant luatures at (around hound type menu. It will employ 30 puu•t•tinho residents. It is hoped tett too restaurant will become a gathering spot atter sporting events. Purmort also notal, as he has done in Elk River, that ho plans on becoming involved in the community and will be spmsoring various youth athletic programs. SK Council Minutes - 7/204 After discussion, a motion was made by Brad Nyle and seconded by Ken Maus to approve the rezoning request contingent on realignment of lot lines which result in additional parking area being added to the Sixth Street Annex. Motion based on information contained within the City Planner's report and on the finding that the rezoning is consistent with the character and geography of the area and is consistent with the comprehensive plan. Voting in favor: Brad Nyle, Ken Maus, Shirley Anderson. Opposed: Clint Herbst. Abstaining: Patty Olsen. In citing his reasons for voting against the rezoning, Councilmember Herbst noted the potential negative impact on Lite shall tenants that could he created by parking conflicts between restaurant parking and retail shop parking. Herbst also noted that the proposed parking area located toward the rear of the facility will encroach on the reaidentiul zone to the rear and could have a negative effect on Lite residential uses. The boundary of Clic district as proposed will not be well defined and will result in intrusion into the residential area, which is inconsistent with Che comprehensive plan. At this point in the meeting, John Cries, representing Cho Hillside Partnership, requested Chat tie City Council consider approval of Lite conditional use permit allowing expansion of the Hillside mall (ilei► 5): Considerul.ion of unhendnront to it conditional use nermit which would allow exaansion of an exisonMstaurant in a PLM lrrerformance zone anixedh 7.o o nliconl. Hillside Partnership. In his proposal, Cries suggested that the Hillside Partnership would lie willing to allow u portion of Lite Sixth Street Annex to remain vacant in order to keep the parking stall requircnnent at a level that the site, r►s it now exists, could acconunodatc. Cries suggested that by leaving!),itH) sq fl of retail space vacant, lite site as it now exists could acconunodato the restaurant use along with Clio existing uses on site. It wits noted Clint this alternative would allow Cho restaurant facility to be established, which would result in a better understanding of purking demand and patterns. This practical information regarding parking demand would be useful when addressing full utilization of the structure at somo point in the future. Clint Herbst indicated that the alternative proposed is a gaugl solution us long as the developer is willing to leave a portion of Clio building vacant. Rick Wolfsteller was concerned that the short-term solution as proposed will not solve the problem and that it was unrealistic to expect that thu developer would he supportive of leaving 9,11111 sq ft of building vacant for any la» gth of time. It is likely that as soon as u tenunt is interesta:d in filling tho space, another amendment request to the zoning urdinanco will be forthcoming. 514 Council Minutes - 2/213/94 After discussion, a motion was made by Shirley Anderson and seconded by Clint Herbst to approve a conditional use pennit allowing expansion at a restaurant in a commercial mall in a I'ZM zone. Approval of the conditional use permit subject to the following conditions: 1. 9,100 sq ft of space available for occupancy within Clio mall shall be left vacant for Lite purpose of maintaining a parking demand that matches the existing capacity of the parking lot. 2. To improve security and to create an appealing entrance point., windows and double doors shall be installed in tine rear of the structure facing the parking area. 3. Additional lighting shall be provided in Clio rear of the facility to improve security. 4. Parking along the front of the building shall be limited to lb -minute parking only and signed accordingly. 5. All other conditions noted by ordinance and noted in previous conditional use permits. Motion to approve the conditional use permit based on the finding that Clio expansion of the restaurant is incidental to Cho commercial use of Cho structure and is acceptable in a PZM zone when operated in a commercial mall setting. The operation of the restaurant, under conditions as noted, will result in a use that is compatible with the area and will not result in a depreciation of adjoining values. Voting in favor: Clint Herbst, Shirley Anderson, Ken Maus. Abstaining: Patty Olsen. Absent Brad Fylo. Shirley Anderson was concerned that Clio absence of Brad Fylc would have an impact on Cho validity of the vote and requested that staff research the matter. SM FOSTER. WALDECK. LIND b GRIES. LTD. ATTORN(T! AND COUNf.LOU AT LAW T.a... A. FC..T[. 2300 M.'"" "T.. C..— T..or.T W. W AW C. 333 5ouT.. S-9— ST.a aT Pa•w E. L— M1..urou.. M..Naw•. 66402 Jo.. R. G-3 16121 37}1330 Ro.T. E. So. -6P. F—(6121375 -064 u 16121 373-0647 J.-- D.v10 J. La......+ 100 E..+ CC— A-- BTroN M. ft"no. 51, M.C.-I. M...awr. 33376 ST -c. E. To...t.a 16121 497.3099 G.Caon J. V.. Naa.T F.. 16121 497.3639 JC...— L. VC,06 May 24, 1994 P.-..). D..+a. RmlY to: RIn1.e®11. Mr_ Jeff O'Neill Asaistant Administrator City of Monticello 250 East Broadway Monticello, Minnesota 55362 met Hillside partnership and minutes of February 26, 1994 City Counoil meeting Dear Mr. O'Neill: Thank you for sending me a copy of the February 28, 1994 Council Minutes. In regard to those minutes, I have the following comments: 1. At the end of item 4 at the top of page 3 of the minutes, you have recited reasons given by Mr. Herbst as to his negative vote on the rezoning. It is my opinion that the last sentence contained in that paragraph relating to the boundary not being well defined, the intrusion into the residential area, and the inconsistency with the comprehensive plan were not mentioned by Mr. Herbst at the meeting as part of his reasons for voting against the rezoning. 2. In regard to item 5 which appears on pages 7 and 8 of the minutes, I made it clear that the suggestion for obtaining the conditional use permit by leaving space available was only a temporary solution until the zoning issue was resolved. It was obviously not a permanent solution and was only intended for purposes of obtaining the conditional use permit until there was a reconsideration of the denial of the zoning amendment. In addition to the changes in the minutes, I would encourage you and the City to find an acceptable solution to the situation that does not involve leaving a substantial part of the shopping center vacant. From all practical and legal standpoints, the 4..0..... Lw......o P......... ...... . 511/ rezoning of the lot as requested by the applicant is not inconsistent with the comprehensive plan. Also, the terrain and accessibility to the part of the residential lot to be used for parking would not be practical. Damages to the applicant for leaving the shopping center vacant will escalate and thus it is important for all parties concerned that either the number of parking spaces required at the center be changed or that the zoning amendment allowing additional parking space be granted. I would hope this matter could be worked out. I look forward to hearing from you. Very ly , J [� GRIBS JRG/kls cc: lir. Vaughn Veit Kr. David Lenhardt PTO] CITY OF MONTICELLO Planning COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Case 0 280 E. Broadway, PO Box 1147 Monticello, MN 68362 (612)296-2711 PUBLIC BEARING APPLICATION Check Requested Action: _ CONDITIONAL USE - $125.00 + all necessary consulting expenses* _ ZONING MAP/ TEAT AMENDMENT - 11210.00 + necessary consulting expenses* _ SIMPLE SUBDMSION • $60 _ SPECIAL PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING -$250 _ SUBDMSION PLAT - $300 i 11100laero up to 10 acres; $25/aere after 10 acres + expenses. City will reftmd excess of per -acre deposit. _ VARIANCE REQUEST - SW for setbacI4121 for others + sec. eonsult expenses* _ OTHER - Fee ! • NOT& Necessary consulting floes Include cost to have City Planner analyze variance, rezoning, 9 conditional use permit requests at the rate of $76lhr. The Deed for City Planner assistance is determined solely by City staff, Applicant Name: Hillside Partnership. a Minnesota general partnership Address; 14000 Veit Place, MN 55374 Phone: Home: Businew 612/428-2242 P>ropertyAddress: 510 Cedar St.. Monticello Current Zoning: (Lot 4 R31 I-Agal Description of Property: Proposed Zoning PZM Lot. 4 Bloch: 1 Subdivision: Lauring Hillside Terrace Addition Off; unplatted Part of NWl/4 of SE1/4, Section 11, Township 121, Range 25 Describe Request avail aihle t0 the parcel LOCaten Sn the tiWl/4 OY the SE1/4 Wnlcn is a anopping center for additional narking. The portion of Lot 4 to be rezoned is not practically useable with the upper Part of Lot 4 because of the terrain, This fxi%nr a ed on provviae�y"�e applicant on this form is true and eorreet naIr rfr Date /)dCY Date Property Owner Signature C � Applicant Signature (if applicable) (CONTINUE ON BACK-) Data Received/Paid: /o ,e? -7 -9,V- Receipt 9, - VCUSBAM.APP: 9/00//01 Public Hen mbar. c3.S ') Dow FOR ZONING MAP AMENDMENT ONLY: Proposed Zoning. PJM FOR SIMPLE SUBDIVISION ONLY: Size of parcel to be divided: See attached c FOR SUBDIVISION PLAT ONLY: Size of Parcel to be Platted: Acres Name of Firm Preparing Subdivision Plat Street Address: City: State: Zip: Phone: POA-Please���epe*tseendNiene�herdeir�see:iee�etyueti6es gFwAinsa�ee.-►hardolriP eFproper"►warwrwmees;ahelkwmi asrehgm r or6oweptionaL topogrephlebrwetw-ce"tieW., i.'... '%: oftielapPhestionoflheMrms•eF4h&eedinmree-resslt4ireteeptionwF dlfc:dti... �..... ,.: h .,: 1.. pe eel dredietrictin wl ich the -I6He- continued from front... was previously approved and recommended by the Planning commission, in total the request is for an amendment to the Conditional Use Permit. Amendment to the Zoninq Map and a simple subdivision. That part of Lot 4 to be rezoned is the North 100 feet. Applicant proposes that the parkin lot on Lot 4 not be constructed until the Citv determines that it is needed under some criteria. w (For City Use Only) CON M &NTS: VCUSSAM.APP: 2/08//88 SQ Planning Commission Agenda - 11/8/95 La" BOLE' W.O.) As noted in the previous agenda item, Hillside Partnership requests an amendment to their conditional use permit which would allow utilization of 9,100 aq R of available retail space which has previously been withheld from use due to noncompliance with city parking requirements. Under the site plan as proposed, the additional parking spaces needed to meet code would be located in the rear of the structure. The parking area would be constructed at such time that it is demonstrated that the need for the parking spaces exists as noted in the attached outline of the conditions associated with the permit. B_ ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS: Motion to approve the conditional use permit which would allow full use of the Hillside Partnership mall subject to the following conditions: 1. The developer shall provide parking, grading, and drainage plans supporting development of an additional 66 stalls. Prior to the City granting an occupancy permit to any of the retail area previously off-limits, the developer shall obtain written approval of the parking, grading, and drainage plana from the City Engineer. 2. The developer shall not be required to install the parking area prior to occupancy of the new retail area; however, a financial guarantee and associated agreement shall be established that would allow the parking lot and associated required landscaping to be installed at the discretion of the City at the full cost of the developer. 3. The portion of Lot 4, Block 1, Lauring Hillside Terrace, needed for parking shall be split away from Lot 4, Block 1, and added to the Hillside mall property. 4. Prior to the City granting occupancy of the unused retail area, the developer shall provide a landscaping and screening plan that meets the requirements of the City as approved by City staff. Planning Commission Agenda - 11/8/96 b. To improve security, windows shall be installed in the rear of the structure fading the expanded parking area to improve visibility of the perking area. 6. All cther conditions as noted by ordinance and included in previous conditional use permits issued. 7. Parking along the front of the building shall be limited to 15 - minute parking only and signed accordingly. 8. Additional lighting shall be provided in the rear of the facility to improve security. y 9� To improve security and to create an appealing entrance point, �J windows and double doors shall be installed in the rear of the structure facing the parking area. The list of conditions above combines recent Council and Planning Com Basion suggestions. 2. Motion to deny the conditional use permit which would allow full use of the Hillside Partnership mall. This alternative should be selected if the Planning Commission or City Council do not approve the rezoning request and thus make land available for the proof of parking area. C_ STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff concurs with the recommendation made by the Planning Commission in 1894, which is alternative Hl. It is our view that alternative pl and the associated conditions will not result in a negative impact on the adjoining residential area and, thus, the plan is consistent with the character of the area and comprehensive plan. D_ 811PPORTINQ DATA; Seo previous agenda item. Planning Commission Agenda - 11/8/95 In Of dnedm . (J.0.) If the Planning Commission and City Council approve of the concept of allowing the lower portion of Lot 4, Block 1, Lauring Hillside Terrace, to be used for perking in conjunction with the Hillside mall, then it should support the proposed subdivision. If, on the other hand, the rezoning and conditional use permit request are not approved, then this agenda item need not be considered. B. ALTERNATWE ACTIONS; 1. Motion to approve the request to subdivide a portion of Lot 4, Block 1, Lauring Hillside Terrace. Planning Commission and Council will be asked to consider approval only if the other two items are approved. It is likely that the applicant will withdraw the request to subdivide the property as proposed if the rezoning and conditional use permit requests fail. 2. Motion to deny the request to subdivide a portion of Lot 4, Block 1, Lauring Hillside Terrace. This alternative is not likely to be considered under any circumstance because it would not make sense to deny this alterative if the conditional use permit or zoning ordinance amendments are approved; and if they are denied, then the applicant will likely withdraw the request, and the item will not be under consideration. (:. STAFF O F:NDATION; Staff recommends alternative 01. D. SUPPORTING DATA; See the previous two agenda items. Planning Commission Agenda - 11/8/95 The applicant has requested that this item be tabled. Planning Commission Agenda -11/8/95 See attached information. Monticello CortpmhensNe Plan - Tactics The Monticello Comprehensive Plan is a compilation of Plans and Programs affecting every function of municipal activity. The determination as to which Plans and Programs will be funded is a routinely difficult decision for the City Council, forcing it to balance public desires, limited budgets, extra -governmental mandates, and constantly changing requests. In order to facilitate the process of choosing the appropriate options, the Comprehensive Plan can serve as much more than a guide for future land use. Instead, the Comprehensive Plan can provide direction against which all of the City's decisions can be measured. This direction is given in the Plan's establishment of Goals, Objectives, and Policies. Any program which the City undertakes, or request which the City is faced with, can be examined as to its ability to further City objectives, whether or not the City has previously mapped the proposal. Goals and objectives must be truly compre- hensive and interrelated. Clearly, a land use decision affects utility services, and a transportation issue impacts upon community facilities maintenance. Economic development projects have various effects on City financing decisions, and each of these affects the others, whether directly or indirectly. Where these interrelationships are riot acknowledged, or the policies guiding them have become stale, controversy can envelop nearly every Council decision. When municipal Rands are directed toward a particular activity, how can those interested in other activities know that the decision is in the best interests of the community? Only when the Goals of the City are clear, and clearly supported by the DRAFT community members will competing projects peacefully coexist. So. where do such Goals come from? The initial phase of the Comprehensive Plan Update process is referred to here as "Comprehensive Plan Tactics". This effort is essentially a series of interviews with a cross-section of community members who live. work, and/or own land in the Monticello area. These interviews were conducted with local business persons. City staff and officials, owners of vacant land, owners of newly developing Land, owners of land in need of redevelopment, people involved with various community activities including boards and commissions, school officials, Township officials, and others. A complete list of the interviewees is included in an appendix to this report. It is important to rote that the primary purpose in the interview process was to mise issues which are important to the community. The interviews were not necessarily conducted to elicit specific solutions to concerns the intcrviewees expressed, although solutions were discussed. Neither should the Tactics report issues be characterized as any sort of survey of the community. Many of the issues discussed may be important, or evident, to only a few. The process by which the Comprehensive Plan is undertaken develops the issues raised in the Tactics and formulates policies in which the community concurs. These policies are grouped according their subject matter, out of which groups are drawn general goal statements which reflect the kind of community the "stakeholders' in Monticello wish it to be. The issues are then addnwW by the familiar physical planning tools: Land Use Plans, Park and Recreation Plans, Tactics Pate 1 9-4 Monticello Comprehensive Plan - Tactics Natural Resource Plans, etc. These plans are designed to address the issues important to the community within the context of the Goals and Policies in which the community believes. The information in the Tactics repmt is delivered in aggregate, broken down by general category. Every attempt is made to accurately relate the concerns made in the discussions. With each group of comments, a Conanitmu's Comment is included to distinguish it from the community portion of the discussion. At this point in the project, analysis is conducted only to the extent that it is necessary to relate the character of an issue. The bulk of the analysis is withheld until the full extent of the inventory data is collected. Tactics Pate 2 f Monticello Comprehensive PW - Tactics Housing Due to the rapid pace of growth in and around Monticello over the past few years, there was a significant amount of discussion about the housing market in the community. Those developments consisting of moderately priced single family housing were the subject of concern, insofar as the concentration of the community's housing market in this range could have negative tax return effects. A second concern raised in this regard was that of community image. It was felt by some that too much exposure for entry level housing could discourage a higher end housing market. Others suggested that the City should take an active role in slowing the growth of the entry level housing market. At the very least, it was suggested that the City should carefully review modest cost housing proposals for location, fiscal and visual impact, and their fit within the overall housing market. Other opinions focussed less on the lower end of the value scale, more concerned over the lack of higher end housing development in the City limits. Those expressing this sentiment offered the rationale that high end housing mom than pays for itself in taxes versus City services, and that it could be a positive economic development tool in attracting higher paying jobs to the community. A third group differed with those expressing doubts about the entry level housing growth. This group suggested two primary arguments in support of their position. First, affordable housing is the market into which most of the local employment sector falls. An ample supply of entry level housing is critical to continued success in the City's economic development efforts. It was noted by some with business interests in the community that the current labor market is tight, and a constriction of housing in the community would serve to limit expansion of existing business. The second rationale offered by this group was that affordable single family housing was preferable to multiple family housing in most situations. This argument suggested that the more affordable single family housing in the community, the greater the likelihood of home ownership. Employees which owned single family homes are more likely to he stable employees for local business. A final note on the housing market issue was given in support of additional multiple family housing. Again in support of the labor market, this argument suggested that only multiple family housing could be affordable enough to house the bulk of the labor in the community. Consultant's Comment The Monticello new housing market is currently dominated by low to modest cost single family homes. This is clearly being driven by demand, based both in local employment growth and commuter home buyers in search of affordable single family housing unavailable closer to the Twin Cities area. The management of this housing market could take many forms. On one extreme. the City could act to limit, by number the quantity of homes built in any particular Tactics Pare 3 0 Monticello Comprehensive Plan . Tactics market range. On another track, the City could indirectly affect this market by creating zoning restrictions which result in higher housing costs, such as larger or wider lots, required minimum square footage, or other means. A caution should be mentioned, however, in reacting to market conditions which occur over a short time period. The City would be best served by making sure that a full range of housing opportunities are available within the community, rather than artificially attempting to restrict only a portion of the market. As noted by some of the interviewees, a restriction at the lower end of the scale could do harm to the City's economic development market. This harm would fall most heavily on existing local businesses attempting to expand. New businesses, while sensitive to labor supply Economic Development - Industrial There was an overwhelming support of the City's objective in pursuing new industrial development for the community. This support ranged from the City's used of economic incentives to building restrictions. There was, despite the City's efforts in economic development, some comment about an impression that thele is a lack of appreciation on the part of the City officials for the industrial sector's concerns. On the other hard, it was suggested by some that the welcoming atmosphere created by City Staff for new industrial development contributed greatly toward the success the City's efforts. This was contrasted with the difficult economics and bureaucracy with which the businesses must deal prior to their move to hionticello. While economics drives the businessperson's decisions, atmosphere often pushed the decision point. With regard to the City's marketing efforts toward new industry, some comments were aimed at encouraging a focus on skilled labor issues, often bring a significant portion of their labor with them. In its consideration of housing policy, the City should take care to consider two important aspects of the housing market. First, housing is a component of other activities in the community. Job creation, commercial market. and many other aspects of Monticello as a city are affected by the housing supply. Second, housing is a discrete economic development sector in itself. A substantial number of the people moving to Monticello are moving for housing only, after which a commercial market may follow. and professional job creation. It was further mentioned that the City's freeway access and visibility should be able to attract high quality industrial growth which can afford to pay the higher costs associated with these amenities. With regard to the City's zoning criteria, comments were made encouraging a market msponsive approach. These comments reflected a concern that zoning criteria are too artificial, and that market demand more properly dictate the private investment in the industrial area. Then; was comment as to the benefit of the use of Tax Increment Financing for new industrial development. This argument suggested that a more focussed use of TIF would be appropriate. This focus could he toward specific sector job creation, or for those businesses which made additional investment in their property, beyond minimum requirements. It was also suggested Taettcs Paas 4 62 Monticello Comprehensive Plan - Tactics that the long-term financial impact of development incentives is not known, and may not be positive. Concern has also been expressed over the inflationary effect TIF can have on true land values. The City's Industrial Development efforts have been aimed primarily at absorbing the existing industrial land supply. As the City gets closer to filling existing space, it was suggested that the City actively seek new industrial locations. This effort was supported strongly by some, to the point of encouraging the City to own and develop a new industrial park. For many, the use of City funds should be prioritized toward industrial development efforts of all kinds. This sentiment spilled over into the concern over access to industrial areas. There was comment which expressed an apprehension over the ability for the existing transportation network to handle the traffic on which industrial development thrives. Planning for new industrial areas needs to take transportation into account for the long tern. Consultant Comment The City's economic development efforts are aggressive, and obviously successful. The local network of industrial contact through community efforts such as the Industrial Development Committee are especially viewed as positive in the retention of existing businesses. However, it would appear that the industrial development efforts of the City are often conducted as an end in themselves, rather than as a means to other ends, such as tax base or job creation. This concern is evidenced in two general ways: first, comments varied widely regarding the extent to which industrial development efforts should be funded; and second, the objectives of the community's industrial development have not always been clear in the context of other projects. The value of the Comprehensive Planning process to the City's various functions can be one of coordination, and helping to aim those functions at common goals. Industrial development is not an end in and of itself. Rather, it is a means by which some particular community goal is realized. For instance, if a community goal is to increase the commercial market for local retailers (current and future), an objective which may lead to that goal might be a [eduction in its relative level of commuter residents. A program which could lead to such a reduction would be an increase in local jobs, thus justifying industrial development efforts which create jobs. If this were the only goal relating to industrial development, there would be no further discussion necessary. However, the City may also have as a goal an increase in local disposable income, which would mean that there are specific jobs which would fill both goals. An economic development program which takes into account only one of the two goals may attract several new industries, but few of them may be paying off in context of the community's goals. Of course, many of the City's goals, not just one or two, are likely to relate to industrial development efforts. With each additional goal, the more complex the issue of meeting them becomes. It is not too difficult to envision a scenario in which a program furthers one goal perfectly, but defeats another equally well. This conflict can only be resolved through coordinated programming, with well defined goals and objectives against which every City function in evaluated. This is the true role of the Tactics Pen S 9e Monticello Comprehensive Plan • Tactics Comprehensive Plan. Economic Development - Commercial This category of comments includes discussion regarding commercial development in general, as well as issues relating specifically to the downtown, Highway 25, and Interstate 94 frontage. As with Industrial Development, the interviewees expressed interest in City involvement in commercial economic development across the full range of possible support levels. These included full scale financial involvement in redevelopment projects to little mote than aliinnation of the private development market's efforts. Indeed, there was some expressed condemnation of the City's use of Tax Increment Financing for past commercial Projects. As wide ranging as were the comments regarding commercial development generally, so too were those relating to the Central Business District, or downtown am. Many of the comments reflected a belief that the downtown was no longer likely to function as an effective retailing center, given contemporary commercial shopping patterns. If this litre of thought were to prevail, then a reuse of the CBD must be identified, in order to effect a long team transition in land use, and the attendant community facilities decisions surrounding that transition. Future uses contemplated by these interviewees included specialty retailing. such as gifts and antiques. Other suggestions included a concentration on entertainment related facilities, such as restaurants and bars, together with the theater. It was also suggested that the downtown, especially the area along Broadway, would function as primarily a convenience center in the future, providing local market goods and services, particularly the latter. The gradual shift of the comparison shopping market to the south was foreseen in this scenario. Some comments reflected the opinion that the downtown area did not treed to disappear in order to facilitate the southward shift of the commercial district. This thinking suggested that the existing downtown serve as a northerly anchor to a shopping district which encompassed most of Highway 25 to the southern boundary of the City. Finally, there were comments which suggested that the City has to take a much more active role in the complete redevelopment of the Central Business District. This view considers the geographic area of the downtown to be a long term viable commercial center, although the building stock is currently inadequate to accommodate the activity. As a result, the City would need to assist financially in the replacement of those buildings in order to bring the costs of redevelopment into a competitive range compared to raw land development. More generalized comments included a concern for the competitiveness with surrounding communities, not just within the City limits. Coupled with this view was an interest in intensifying the commercial development in the area of the Monticello Mall and K -Man. While commercial development was supported by this group, most seemed to suggest that an active City financial role would be inappropriate. Coordination with the Chamber of Commerce in activities and programming was seen as critical by most of those making comments in this category. Consultant Comment Tactics Page 6 9F J Monticello Compmhewive Plan • Tactics As with Industrial Development activities, it is important for the City to define its goals for commercial land uses. And, more than many others, commercial land use is less within the City's ability to influence. Since so much of the decision making about retail location is controlled by market demographics, Cities often end up responding to commercial development requests than actively seeking them. This reality is one of the factors which can cause reluctance to spend City funds seeking retail development. In many ways, the City can spend with no apparent likelihood of success. A Social Demographics The issues raised in this category centered primarily around a belief that the housing development in the City was leading to young families of modest incomes, as well as an increasing level of elderly. Regarding the former, concerns involved a high demand on public services, especially schools, and long tens concerns over housing maintenance. These concerns were coupled with the view that the majority of this demographic was sheltered in relatively low tax yielding housing. The interviewees were largely accepting of the growth in the senior age categories. This acceptance has translated into an assumption of City responsibility for providing programming, facilities, and a certain level of transportation for this gawp. Apart from these two areas, a few comments were made as to the lack of facilities in the community for youth. This comment reflected the concern that youth problems of the metropolitan areas could follow to Monticello, without the City's involvement. s Consultant Comment In some ways, concerns over housing diversity is a chicken -egg dilemma. Is the housing being built creating a specific market out of which no one dares to venture? Or is the market clearly competing reality, however, is that commercial market tends to follow population. As a result, Monticello has to be in a position to absorb future commercial growth in an attractive, convenient, organized manner, or risk fitting it in wherever there is room left over. Clearly, the latter choice would not be beneficial to either the community or the business. defining the kinds of housing development which can be successfully built in Monticello? In all Hkelihood, it is probably something of both. The market for new housing in the Monticello area is, in part, being driven by home buyers who can not, or choose not to, afford new homes in more expensive areas in the metropolitan arta, such as Maple Grove. Arguably, the City is powerless to significantly affect this market. On the other hand, as these homeowners mature in Monticello, the moderately priced move up market will become in demand, the dynamics of the area's real estate market will change. As noted in a previous section, the City needs to take a long term view of its growth, and try not to be Named while market forces play themselves out. This may mean that the City needs to pay attention now to how it will house this move up market in the next ten years or so. The other side of this equation is that the real estate market can acquire a bit of inertia. By this it is meant that proven products are attractive to Tactics Pap 7 U Monticello Comprehemive Plan . Tactics real estate developers, and the City can play a role in massaging the interest in previously unexplored housing markets. What this role is will depend upon the City's overall goals, and the interplay with the other programs the City involves itself in. Growth Management Issues There were numerous opinions expressed regarding the need for the City to manage its current and future growth rates. This concept means different things to different people. For some, it is important to develop, or at least plats for, the City's infrastructure on the front end so as to be able to handle effectively handle the new development as it comes to Monticello. In this way, it is expected that the City will be able to manage the location of new growth in the most efficient manner, without having to try to moderate its pace. Another growth management idea was to carefully screen the developers who work in the conmunity. This idea crossed over to thoughts relating to the strong enforcement of the City's development controls. It was noted that growth should not take a single form, however. Growth in all categories of land use are important to the long tern health of the community. Apart from the "manage by preparation" approaches to growth control were comments suggesting a mom active management of the pace of development, particularly in certain categories. Probably most notable of these was the suggestion that lower cost housing growth be limited in favor of' other housing types, or other land uses in general. A second aspect of growth management was the physical dimension of growth and its impacts. These comments related to the idea that the community will need to address the physical direction of its expansion, and how that expansion compares to the boundaries of the Orderly Annexation Area. Comments noted the need to continue the positive relationship which the City enjoys with the Township officials in this regard. At the same time, some felt that the City is too constrained in its ability to direct its long tens future due to potential Township development just beyond the City's borders. Past Township development to the east has limited expansion of City service anis in that direction, and there is concern that the same could happen to the west, where many believed the bulk of Monticello's growth could occur, particularly in the area of industrial land use. In that the Township's objectives are largely centered around agricultural land preservation, it was hoped that any development could occur in a compact enough fashion to facilitate urban service expansion when prudent. These comments related to control of land use type in the extra -territorial areas. Some dissatisfaction was expressed with the joint planning efforts of the City and Township, due to the fact that County land use planning controls in those areas. Consultant Comment Growth Alanagemem efforts can take on "active" or "passive' characteristics. Active characteristics would include control of rates and management of economic cost and benefit. Passive efforts include more of the directional management through urban growth boundaries and the like, Either is possible, but they reflect different philosophies about growth in general. Tactics Pape a 9Y J Monticeao Comprehensive Plan - Tactics Active management requires a much more aggressive control of the types of land use, to the extent of limiting development in certain valuation ranges. This approach assumes that a relatively predictable balance of land use types will be achieved, by restricting growth of some land use types, and allowing or encouraging growth in others. A complex organization of the costs and benefits of all types and ranges of development is necessary to be able to direct, and monitor the effectiveness of, the City's efforts at active management. Passive management is more familiar to the City in that its past planning and zoning efforts fall into this category. Here, the community identifies its growth objectives, establishes the parameters under which growth can occur, then processes development applications as they come in. Each method has its supporters and detractors. Naturally, active management can be problematic in certain contexts. Where the community's growth is not oocauring in all categories, balanced management would require a near complete halt in development until the slower categories of growth can "catch up' to the faster. In Monticello, where the recent development Community Facifides Community Facilities include all of the physical products and services provided or maintained by the City. Such things as sanitary sewer collection and treatment, water supply, stornwater collection, struts, sidewalks and pathways, and parks, as well as administrative and maintenance facilities and fare protection. Most of the comments received were in regard to the City's recreational facilities. Comments regarding the other areas were almost entirely related to the need to plan adequately for their maintenance and expansion as the community's growth warrants. With regard to Parks and Pathways, many of the interviewecs indicated a feeling that the park system has been neglected, at least in comparison to other community facilities. Comments made in this regard suggested that while there were adequate park sites, there has market has been dominated by moderately priced housing, a near development freeze could be necessary to 'balance' the housing market. If the upper end housing market failed to materialize, expectations for commercial growth would likely dissolve, since it is so sensitive to demographics. Passive management, on the other hand, requires solid planning on the front end, but a less intense monitoring. This is not to say that the City can drew up the plat[ and sit back to watch it unfold, of course. Regular evaluation of the plan's effectiveness is important so as to be able to keep it current once it is established. A Comprehensive Plan which is updated bit by bit over time maintains its relevance without requiring major fund outlays every ten years. been too little development and a lack of coordination in their location, function, and priority. Whereas the City has spent considerable amounts of funds on sewer, water, and transportation, parks funding has been lett behind, in this view. Another aspect of the parks development was related by some to the use and attention to the river. This amenity, which is such a great Tactics pate C 9s Monticello Comprehensive Plan - Tactics poternial attraction, has been ignored in the City's recreation planning and development. Suggestions to overcome these past "failings" include the location of a comprehensive community center on the riverfrom, and extensive retrofitting of the riverfront with trails, or trail accesses. Some expressed the view that the City's relationship with the school district, in the area of recreation facilities and programming could be enhanced. Interviewees suggested that too much? duplication of cost and land use must occur without better coordination in the future. Coruulmnt Comment Clearly, the comments reflected a positive view of Monicello's willingness and ability to plats for its physical infrastructure. The only disagreements were in form rather than in substance. For instance, some believed that the severtreatment plant should be moved to free up rive:zfiatt, whereas others expressed the view that costs could not warrant such a move. Similarly, comments regarding transportation differed only on the location of major improvements, rather than the need. Primary among these comments which were communication issues. These comments included suggestions that the City is perceived to be difficult to work with by the business community. Some of these comments were based in the perception that the City requires one standard at one point, then changes the objective later in a project. In this regard. there were numerous comments received which indicated a frustration with the system is treated as a mere adjunct to the / development process, the amenity pan of community facilities suffers. In this view, the park system should be looked at as an equally vital component of the City's Wit swcture. Indeed, where the City's goals are 1 to attract a higher level of development than it has before, it may be necessary to place park �Idevelopment at the top of the priority list. Of all the services the City provides, parks and streets are the two most visible. In terms of encouraging elopment of higher value, this aesthetic omponent is a critical factor in success. Park system planning and development is an investment toward that goal. Paris development seems to be a different animal, The attention to, and public use of, the riverfront however. Tb= is no doubt that a City cannot be is similar in its impact. Few communities have run without efficient sewers, and effective fere such an amenity, and the river provides righting. It is said, though, that the difference Momicello with a potential competitive advantage between merely "surviving" and "living" are the in attracting quality development. Only where amenities. Where the park / that amenity is available to the public, however, is the advantage realized. Adritinfattrotive Issues Sorin comments were made which related to the adnninistrative aspects of running a municipality, rather than any particular function the City has. inability to ascertain the City's intentions with Tactics Para 10 9T Monticello Comprehensive Plan - Tactics regard to a particular project. It was suggested that the most important thing for many of those dealing with the City was to know what the City expected of them. This theme was present on many levels in the interviews. Consultant Comment 1 The communication issue is often an area where "perception is reality'. Even though the City officials may feel that they are consistent, and making significant efforts at communicating the City's activities, stmcess can only be measured by the reaction of other party. With regard to the consistency of City policy, a significant role of the Comprehensive Plan update is to consolidate City objectives and policy. As a result, whether current perceptions of inconsistency have any basis or not, future actions will be able to point to common goals to tie them together. Planning Issues This category of comment related to concerns about the City's planning efforts, and the frame of reference within which the City thinks about its planning activities. There was considerable comment encouraging the City to think about its place in the region. This regional analysis includes impacts of the City's role with the Township, as well as the larger region of Wright and eastern Sherburne Counties. Finally, regional thinking to some includes Monticello's place within the Twin Cities to St. Cloud corridor. Also related to the City's planning role were comments regarding the meed for a common community mission statement. What such a mission statement might mean differed somewhat. depending upon the interviewee's perspective, However, maintaining Monticello's small town atmosphere was a regular theme throughout the interview sessions. It was acknowledged that much of Monticello's growth has been attributable to its favorable comparison with more urbanized areas and the problems that often accompany urbanization, including crime and congestion. It was suggested that growing into a place like those which others are fleeing would be an inappropriate result of growth. On this latter point it has been our observation that while the activities of various City representatives may not have been inconsistent, they often have seemed highly compart- mentalized. To those unfamiliar with the workings of Monticello's government, this lack of common objective can appear to be conflicting royuiremeuts. A more specific issue which the City needs to prepare for is the possible decertification of the NSP power plant. This issue is actually two issues in one. According to NSP repre- sentatives, federal regulatory changes will cause the power company to search for cost saving measures to bring the Monticello plant more into litre with its other generating facilities. One cost which they will attempt to reduce will be real estate taxes. At the same time, several interviewees noted that the City has an opportunity over the next seventeen or eighteen years to capture a share of a revenue source which may not be available after that time. This revenue source could be utilized to fund City capital facilities which would be Tactics Page t I gK Monticello Comprehensive Plan - Tactics much more difficult thereafter. An additional aspect of the City's planning activities was related as concern over the ability to control or direct growth beyond the City's current boundaries. It was suggested that the City's linear shape, and the barrier created by the Mississippi River makes the impact of non -City development that much greater in Monticello. 'This issue again relates to the interaction the City maintains with the Township and the County. Consul= Comment The ability to grow, yet retain the advantages of the smaller community, is a classic dilemma for communities such as Monticello. The issue which makes the dilemma unique for the com- munity, is the Mortification of the attributes which make Monticello's particular version of a "small town' special. The foregoing sections of the Tactics Plan Report provide a partial answer to that analysis. The remainder of the Compre- hensive Plaut process is designed to add detail, leading to a Plan which appropriately programs the City's activities. How the City chooses to "exploit" the property tax revenue it receives from NSP will have a significant impact on any cost -benefit analysis of the City's tax structure. This will be a policy issue which the Comprehensive Plan process will have to resolve early in order to deal appro- priately with the prioritization of the City's goals. The need for the City to think regionally is important to almost all aspects of Monticello's growth and development. Any private decision to develop or locate in the community is made in the context of "competition" with other optional locations. The City needs to maintain its competitiveness, but at the same time, needs to be sure that it competes for those developments which allow it to meet its ultimate objectives. This can only be assured if the City regularly reconsiders its goals and objectives; annually at least. Without an adequate level of review, the objectives may become out of date. Since mapped plans grow stale even mote quickly, the Comprehensive Plan can loses its relevance, and the difficulties which the City encounters now, as reflected by the concems stated in the previous sections, will reappear. Tactics Pace I: 9L The maps will be reviewed at the meeting copies in the draft area not clear. 1090 Development Framework The Development Framework establishes a series of plans and programs which build on the Goals and Policies of the City to guide Monticello's future planning activities. Although this section of the Comprehensive Plan breaks the plans and programs into categories related to those utilized in previous chapters, most of the plans set out here will affect issues other than the specific category in which it is described. The Plans and Programs established in this chapter aro not implementation programs. Instead, they are guides which translate the statements which the community makes in the Goals and Policies secfm. These guides have varying levels of specificity. In some ways, a Plan element can be quite broad, hMimri patterns of development, or highlighting approaches to generalized planning issues. In others, a Plan element can be very detailed, defining certain characteristics of acceptable land uses in the identified area. However specific the Plan, implementation occurs through other city tasks, such as Zoning for land use control, or prioritizing property &CgdS t M for the development of a community facility improvement. I. yr ;.....:� steps are the actions of the City, whereas Plan elements illustrate the City's Policies. A(aadci0o C.Av'40"W rout Drwlaratrar iroavrori 9M D,vdup—t Frmnrwr 0 Pagr 2 Growth :Management This element sets the groundwork for the land use planning to follow. One of the primary issues which the City must face is rate and type of growth in the Monticello market, as well as how to approach the accommodation of that growth. Growth has many impacts, some good. some not so good. Among the attractive aspects of growth are increased tax base, job opportunities, new shopping choices, and more subjectively, a tangible community vitality. Less attractive impacts include increasing service costs, new school development, congestion, noise, and inconvenience. The City of Monticello's chosen approach to growth management is one of monitoring growth to be able to address issues and needs, but not to attempt to pace it. On the other hand, the City is committed to directing the physical location of the market-driven growth in order to effectively plan for the impacts. The purpose of the Growth Management element, therefore, will be to attempt to forecast the level of growth expected over the next several years. In addition, this section will estimate the impacts of that growth to enable City officials to address those impacts in an active manner. Growth Projections The following data is a compilation of demographic and development activity, including census counts, building permits, previous population projections, land usage, and commercial activity. This information is utilized to develop a picture of future growth in the Monticello area, translating that growth into a gross demand for Lard over the next twenty to thirty years. A range of growth projections has been utilized, due to the myriad of possible events which could affect the rate of growth, over both the short and long term. Ironically, long term growth often results in a more confident projection, due to the fluctuations which can so dramatically affect short term development. These fluctuations will tend to even out over the longer term. Many factors will combine to create the actual growth and development scenario eventually played out in Monticello. To a large extent, rote and national economic conditions will dictate construction activity and relative prosperity, obviously affecting growth on a local scale. Interest rates are one manifestation of national policy which can depress or accelerate growth from month to month. The economy of the Twin Cities will also affect Monticello development, to the extent that many of Monticello's future residents are likely to be employed in the metropolitan area. These potential residents are directly impacted by gasoline prices as to their decision to seek housing near their work, or are willing to commute longer distances. As a result. a population projection can only reflect reality when placed in the context of a set of assumptions. For the purposes of the following forecasts, assumptions include relatively stable growth and economic conditions over the term of the projection, and no unforeseen departures from current technology or lifestyle, other than those'miscd in other places in this Plan. Aronncelh, C,"Prrbnwcr Plu D—r6,pmrw Fr 0-4 9N DewhTmew Fra r—rl Paqe i Population Projection through 2020 Acres Needed 2000 - 2010 320 P Projection Scenario 2<� oiection Year :411! Z02S! 35 Slow Growth 6.060 7,200 8,320 255 Midpoint 6,390 7,940 9,580 Fast Growth 6,720 8.680 10.830 This projection provides a range of population growth figures, depending upon the circumstances which occur over the projection time period. The slow growth figure assumes a resumption of pre -1990s growth rates, which were lower than current development activities. The fast growth projection assumes a continuation of the more recant growth rates, which are at historical highs. Indeed, a slight uptick is assumed at the beginning of the projection period. The midpoint would b�r� average the slow and fast figures to account for fluctuations over the period. This projection may be the most accurate for projection purposes only. However, it would be prudent to plan for the ,a` fast growth scenario in the event that growth did not slow over the period, and infraswctum Y improvements were required sooner. The following table estimates the land necessary to support a population as forecast under the midpoint growth projection from the table above. Iand Absorption Land Use CQreeoN LAW Density Residential High Density Residential Commercial Industrial Institutional 1995 - 2000 155 Acres Needed 2000 - 2010 320 2010 - 2020 305 20 40 35 Total Net Acmage Absorption Gross Acreage Absorption* Total, Cumulative Acres: 35 60 55 30 SO 50 15 40 35 255 510 480 335 670 630 335 103 1,635 'Accounts for Streets, Ponds. Wetlands. Parkland. Other public Lands, plus an "overage" to account for faster than expected growth during the period. Manatrlh o Camprrh~ yr Mh Drwhp.eml Fea O—t L GO Dr hp—ri, F,—,—,,k Poe, 4 These figures apply a formula which translates expected population growth into a gross land demand by land use category. The residential numbers assume that 25 percent of the residential growth will occur in multiple family dwellings at an average density of 8 dwelling units per acre. Single family growth is calculated a 2 dwelling units per acre, slightly lower than current assumptions to account for larger lot sizes accommodating a growing move -up housing market. Commercial acreage is tied to the growth in population, and industrial acreage is projected from the City's records of recent industrial land absorption. As the land absorption figures demonstrate, the City may be expected to increase its developed land as much as 1,600 acres or more over the next twenty five years, assuming the midpoint growth forecast. It should be noted that there are a number of members of the community who feel that these projections are significantly underestimated, and that much more land may be necessary to accommodate a development boom over the next several years. Regardless of the estimate used, Monticello is expected to require additional land supply for the growth of both residential and commercial/industrial land uses in the hear future. In order to accommodate this activity in an efficient and compatible manner, it will be necessary to be active in land use management in the area where the growth will occur, whether those areas are in, or out of, the City limits. As will be discussed in the following Lund Use element, revisiting the Orderly Annexation Agreement with Monticello Township will be an important step in the growth process for the City. Efficient, orderly growth will depend on the staging of land uses and developrnem in the Orderly Annexation Area, however that area is to be configured. Fiscal Impacts of Growth In order to evaluate the type of development which the City will want to encourage, and to maimain a fiscal balance as growth occurs, one of the tasks of the Monticello Comprehensive Plan process has been to evaluate the costs and benefits of different land uses. The following paragraphs provide a brief summary of the findings of an analysis of the service costs and tax benefits of different styles of development. The scenario utilized in the fiscal impact analysis was that of a mythical 10 acre parcel which is developed under any one of four possible land uses. A proportionate cost -of -service expense was applied to each of the four developments, with an assumption that the basic service package offered by the City would not change. Therefore, no attempt is made to determine a threshold whereby the City would hire a police force, or would have to add an additional fire truck. Even though the addition of a new fire rig would be a large expense, this analysis assumes a is possible to add a fraction of a rig (essentially, the 10 acre parcel's proportionate share of the City's entire fire fighting expenses). In addition, no attempt is made to determine excess capacity in current City facilities. In reality, it may be possible to handle significant new growth without commensurate cost increases due to the M,vmerU„ 6n,npyhrn,rnv Min D—A pnew Franrwvi' D ­*gyp—: F,—, -.k Pnre 1 existence of such capacity. The summary is that capital cost increases do not occur in smooth straight-line patterns. but jump incrementally as the capacity of a department is exceeded. From the cost of service estimates. a development capacity estimate was calculated which identifies the potential size and quantity of land uses which the 10 acre parcel can handle. This estimate factors in the reality that commercial and industrial land uses lose more of their gross acreage to public facilities, due to increased street needs and additional stotmwater control. As a result. the net developable area left for private development is greater for residential uses than for commerciallindustrial uses. By calculating the net development capacity, an estimate can be made of the tax capacity of the parcel, and thus, the property tax revenue generated. By adjusting the value of the building, an equilibrium can be estimated between the cost of service and tax revenue. A major caution must be added to the evaluation of these figures. This is that the property taxes paid by a parcel of land are made up of more taxing jurisdictions than the City, the primary one being the school district. School revenues and costs are directly affected by residential growth, of course, but are also indirectly affected by commercial or industrial development in that the creation of new jobs results in an increase in the demand for housing, housing which will occupied by residents earning industrial labor and commercial/retail wages. These residences may be built in either the City or elsewhere in the school district, but they will result in the need to build new schools, hire new teachers, and cause other school cost increases. These costs, and their ramifications for school property taxes, were not a part of this analysis. Generalized Fiscal Impacts of Growth by Land Use Single Multiple IAnd Use Type: Family Family Commercial Industrial Net Developable Acreage 7.8 Net Bldg Size/# of units 22 du Square Feet/# units per net acre 2.8 Cost of Service per net acre $830 7.6 6.9 7.1 66 du 60,000 sf 77000 sf 8.7 8,700 10,800 $1,600 $2,510 61,990 Bldg. Value for equilibrium S125K/du S551K./du $50/sf S40/sf The results of this analysis illustrates the approximate 'equilibrium" point at which a development project would create a "zero sum" of property taxes paid versus City costs to provide services. It excludes costs that would generally be considered assessable. As rioted, this analysis excludes M .t7c,11" C,"P"h,".,AO M.m Drwhy—,w P" ­ ,k 0 Dowbpmew Fra,ww rk Page 6 impacts on other taxing jurisdictions, and is a broadly based estimate. Several factors will vary the actual results of a project, including proximity to services, efficiency of land use (such as street layout, topography, etc.), and excess service capacity in the system. In addition, rounding of numbers lowers the precision of the estimates, but is necessary due to the level of the other variables. Due to the sanrcmre of the MIMeSM property tax system, an increase in value of a project above the equilibrium often increases revenue faster than a decrease below the line lowers revenue. Thus, a higher valued project will often offset the City tax impacts of more than one lower valued pmojecx However, government aid formulas and City financing of projects can alter the overall scheme, so these numbers should be used for the purpose of general planning rather than detailed project review. Alariceuo CAW'ekwfw P7on Dewlnpn,ow Frowe.ort Diwhrp—w F, --,,k Par, 7 Land Use Plan The Land Use Plan guides the various land use decisions which the City makes over the time horizon of the Comprehensive Plan. Most often and directly, these decisions are zoning related. A particular area of the community must be zoned to a certain district, and a particular zoning district must contain, or not contain, certain land uses within it. Land use decisions also include Conditional Use Pennits, and whether a development application is consistent with Comprehensive Goals and Policies. Lauri use can also affect City spending decisions, such as in the area of economic development. Often, economic development activities can seem separate from land use impacts. However, the City's investment in infrastructure, or redevelopment programs, are largely fueled by an underlying land use theme. As noted in the previous chapters, Monticello's theme has, in recent years, been its furtherance of industrial development. This section lays out a land use plan which is reflective of the several goals and policies identified in previous chapters. The land use plan draws on many of the goal categories for its guidance, rather than being specific to any one land use. Land use patterns may be the result of only one Issue, depending on the area involved, however, the overall plan attempts to connect as many of the goals and policies as possible. Finally, the plat discusses land use by general district of the community. In this way, the land use issues unique to each district can be attended to separately. Where there are issues common to more than one district, the plan may refer to another section of the land use element. Downtown The Plan for the traditional downtown arca is based upon the City's interest in three primary objectives: (1) Maintaining the downtown's influence in the community as a major activity center, particularly in commercial and community services; (2) Increasing the City's use of, and exposure to, the Mississippi River; and (3) Enhancing the downtown's ability to attract users which, over the long term. will support the natural market which exists in the district. The realization of these objectives results in a plats which considers land use on a more specific scale than is typical of other districts. First, the marketplace for commercial services has changed significantly over the last ten to twenty years, and even more dramatically since the Monticello downtown was first established. Shopping Center development, and a rapid rise in the mobility of shoppers has resulted in shopping trends which pull buyers of comparison goods out of the downtown area. In addition, a recent trend toward catalog merchandising has made many downtowns similar to Monticello's realize a need to change. Mnnneellu Compr�hrmv* Plan D•wlopww Frame ,k 95 h"P4 ally 4. 1 WA-e-,olm � _1por�II1111111r1 I• r iillllrii irlr,, '.Qi , go 999W�4�eiallliF'r N JB � pLAfle> 'A.4?5 97- m T m Drl note form date; to; Bob Erickson re; Lakeville - Zoni Administration (336. ) I thought you might be interested in viewing,procedures which the Plymouth Planning Commission utilizes for their standard ra�on and approach to public hearings. The one noted advantage of the Plymoutj� oath is that it tends to minimize emotion and argument between staff and the applicant and the audience. 9u � TW`1) ', lom.A-P —i S "f , i i, m;t MPar 0 1V +iTT1TTTTTTIIL�wi�y�'Li'.�� �C- � i — i*W f m� 9V •- Discuss Plan G Graphics v/ Staff 26 •n••••l :Rockford•TA•g • - Coffee Shop CUP 22 • • - Senior Rousing Report/ Findings 5- :81 • • - Zoning Ordinance Amendment b) ■• •• • a - Sign Ordinance Report 3• loll••■ go • •LC TAW • - Shoreland Ordinance ••along n lluffalo Tall n - Eastwood Subdivision •l n • n■ • • TOTAL In •n • l totherl nn0 nsells n •6 ll '•Stanton Provo Interuiw Prep! I g •g lGo6dhd* Township Workshop be S62ision Plat Reui 9A) D—flop—i F.om -,A Page 1! Northeast Monticello The "Northeast" portion of Monticello consists of a mix of the community's older traditional housing, some new development. and large area of institutional use. including the City's sanitary sewer treatment facility, the hospital campus. and the senior high school. The area is bounded by the barriers of the river and the interstate, and is bisected by County Highway 75, Broadway Street. Broadway is the traditional traffic carrier into the community. and over the years has been widened and improved to handle increasing levels of automobile and truck traffic. Prior to these improvements, relatively large homes were built along Broadway in the northeast quadrant. However. the traffic has increased to a point where a transition is occurring in land use from single family residential to more intense land uses. As a major collector, direct exposure to residential properties has reduced interest in continued single family use along the street. At issue for the City's land use plan is how this transition in use will be addressed. Options include continuation of the single family pattern, conversion of the existing structures into a higher density residential use, such as duplexes or triplexes, or conversion of the land into a form of commercial use, whether in the existing structures or in new buildings. Each option has its own unique impacts and complementary actions. n Retaining the single family pattern would infer some sort of revised transportation system which would reduce the impacts of traffic along Broadway. In this pattem. Broadway would be reduced from a major collector to a minor collector, with a role of local traffic dispersion, rather than `0 carrying of through traffic to imer-regional arterials. As a result, the major collector route would have to be replaced by another roadway. This option could be accommodated by relocating the major collector traffic to the north frontage road/7th Street route between County Road 118 on the east to Fallon Avenue, and eventually as far as County Road 39 on the west. This option is illustrated in the Northeast Option A graphic on the following page. Option A permits the current land use pattern to remain in place, and has primary impacts for p'�L�,+" other systems or neighborhoods. The location of the high school (as well as its future reuse) and t' ,, •�'` the hospital campus will assure that Broadway will continue to carry relatively high levels of 1 F f traffic, although the through traffic would be eUminated. The relocation of the major collector ° traffic to the freeway fromage area would benefit the downtown redevelopment by removing some of the congestion problems at the intersection of Highway 25 to a point nearer I-94. This option may have some impact on the commercial development areas near the freeway as well by increasing the gross traffic counts in those areas. Option B would alter the Lund use pattern only slightly by permitting the existing (or replacement) residential buildings to increase their land utilization by remodeling for apartment units within the buildings. Some of the buildings could likely accommodate two to four dwelling units if remodeled. This option would continue a reasonable transition to the single family residential Munni rtl„ compnhm-, Pam De,,A,pmm1 Frwe —A, 9X D—A,p—w F,—,-.•4 Page 11 neighborhoods. while continuing Broadway Street's role as a major collector transportation route. The pros of this Option would be the least disruption to the existing pattern of the built environment. This environment includes the street improvements which the County has made on Broadway. and the homes and other structures along the roadway. The cons to this option would be the continuation of the heavy traffic through the downtown area, and some concern over the maintenance of the existing structures if merely converted to multiple family structures. Some form of multiple family housing maintenance program may need to be formulated to combat this latter concern. Option C would be the eventual gr redevelopment or removal of the existing structures, in an effort to effect a transition to commercial use along Broadway Street. This option would allow the property owners to take advantage of the traffic volumes along the street, and would retain the current =nspormtion function of Broadway. Possible commercial uses which could be considered in such locations, given the proximity to the residential neighborhoods, would include primarily service related business and office uses. There are advantages to this option in that as with Option B, the street improvements made to Broadway would be utilized to their full capacity by retaining the major collector road function. Moreover, property owners affected by the improvements, and the increase in traffic, would be able to recoup some investment in their land by allowing a conversion to commercial land values. Concerns would relate to three primary issues. First, there is a limited market for commercial nal estate in Monticello, and the addition of another potential commercial district would compete with the other planned or established areas, including the downtown, Highway 25. and 7th Street. Second, commercial land uses often require more Land than the single tier of residential lots along Broadway would provide. Thus, a conflict would occur when a potential commercial development wished to extend further into the adjacent residential area that the immediate strip along Broadway would otherwise permit. Finally, there would be an inherent tension between the developing commercial strip and the existing residential neighborhoods. Lights, traffic, noise, and other potential conflicts with residential lifestyle could impact the viability of the remaining blocks of single family homes. These Options ate illustrated in the composite maps on the following pages. The bulk of this Plan is structured to favor Option A. by retaining the current land use pattern, and altering the support systems, primarily transportation, to accommodate the land use. Under Option A, a relocation of the major collector traffic to the frontage road/7th Suva route would remove some of the heavy traffic from the single family areas, ease congestion at the Broadway/Hwy. 25 intersection in downtown, and promote traffic nearer to the true center of commercial activity. Traffic congestion at the 7th Street/Hwy. 25 intersection could become a concern, but by splitting the east -west traffic between 7th and Broadway Streets, good management should be able to handle it better than leaving the bulk of the volume on Broadway. 1{ —nCelk, Gnep•rh a I -r Plan Drurdpii ' irnmrw�•l 9 y Pewlopum Framewort rage (J q Whether the 7th Street/frontage road alignment is designated as a minor or major collector, the land use in this area is programmed for commercial office park, due to it high level of freeway exposure, and its positive access upon the construction of the front* road. IL Moadcono Cowprdmd re Man D~Zop.nu Fftm-wt 9z VA1611111 Wit It Recommendation Based on the following review, our office recommends approval of the requested building relocation. Approval is, however, contingent upon the fulfillment of the following conditions: 1. The relocated residence comply with the applicable requirements of the State Building Code\This item should be subject to further comment by the City Building Inspector. 2. The relocated stru re is ready for occupancy within six months from the date of location on the site. 3. The City Engineer provicomment/recommendation in regard to drainage and utility easement establish I. 4. The City Engineer provide recommendation in regard to well and sewage treatment issues. 5. The applicant provide proof to th City that the house move is performed by a licensed mover in accordance with Zpplicable State requirements. 6. The applicant notify the City of the route and exact timing of the move. 7. The site's existing sh4sre is removed from the subject property prior to occupancy of the relocated building. S. A performance security is posted in an amount determined appropriate by the Zoning Administrator. The security should be reQective of anticipated improvement costs (foundation work, etc.). 9. Comments from other City staff. ISSUES ANALYSIS CUP Judgement Crlterla. In consideration of conditional use permit requests, Section 20-4-2.F of the Zoning Ordinance directs the Planning Commission and City Council to consider possible adv rse effects of the proposed conditional use. Judgement must be based upon, but not ' ited to, the following factors: 1. The propo d action's consistency with the specific policies and provisions of the official City Comprehensive Plan. M-1 4000 got" b94 flax -,r Invoice submitted to: October 18, 1995 CITY OF ALBERTVILLE City Administrative Offices P.O.Box 9 Albertville MN 55301 In Reference To: Invoice p Fee for professional services rendered during the month of September 1995 with regard to TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE - CITY PROJECTS 95.01 IENCO CONSTRUCTION PUD 10118/95 Follow up to staff meeting - Sub -Total: C --- 85.02 PARKSIDE CONCEPT PLAN 10/17/95 Cell from City regarding adjacent communities Sub -Total: For professional services rendered rs/Rate Amount 0.50 42.50 85.00/hr 1 ( 0.50 42.501 1.50 75.0MV 112.50 ( 1.50 112.501 2.00 $155.00 0 -Q� th R HOP4-H�r 6;,Pl LOW Pj!:rJej" OK R t C ITY OF ALBERTVILLE Page 2 Additional charges: Amount 95.01 KENrO CONSTRUCTION PUD 1018/95 Mileage 0.35 Total costs $0.35 Total amount of this project $155.35 Balance clue C $155.35 9Ff L Drveh.pmew Framt:..,.1 P(qe 17 ,Northwest Monticello In some ways. "Northwest Monticello" is a mirror of Northeast Monticello, particularly with respect to Broadway Street and the adjacent single family homes. Instead of the hospital and the high school. Large masses of land area consumed by the Monticello Country Club golf course and Montissippi Park, eventually terminating at the NSP nuclear generating facility and its buffer zone property. Under the Northeast Monticello Option A. major collector traffic is relocated from Broadway to the 7th Sheet alignment. The completion of 7th Street between Minnesota and Elm Streets would allow this collector traffic to flow from County Road 39 on the west to County Road l 13 on the east without the need to utilize Broadway. Connections to Broadway could still occur, although traffic bound for I-94 would be able to access the freeway at Highway 25 and County 118. Pursuant to the land use plan and transportation improvements in Southwest Monticello, discussed below, the major collector traffic would be able to continue to parallel the interstate on the south side of the freeway to a new connection at County Road 75/Broadway near the NSP property. As with the Northeast neighborhood, Broadway serves primarily single family area and through traffic. The preservation of these single family areas would be addressed by avoiding the likelihood of increasing traffic levels. Attempts to reduce traffic on Broadway could be made through the collector street improvements noted above, as well as speed control, and "traffic calming" efforts within the Broadway Street roadway. These latter steps might include additional street tree planting, and even stretches of landscaped medians which would result in a more attractive "boulevard" look, rather than a wide, higher speed through street. This effect is illustrated on the following page. One of the primary land use issues in the Northwest Monticello neighborhood will be the re -use of the NSP property in the event that the plain loses its license in 2012 and is not recommissioned as either a nuclear or coal-fired facility. The City of Monticello cannot know the outcome of any recommissioning efforts at this time, and regular monitoring of the events will be necessary. However, it is important for the City to consider the possibility that a future re -use of the land in that area, particularly the buffer zone, but possibly the plant site itself, will be developable at some point in the future. The buffer zone land surrounding the plant facility is a high amenity landscape of oak woods and Mississippi River frontage, with direct proximity to the Montissippi Park site. This area could be a prime residential development property, both for single family and higher end townhouse uses. The plant site itself would be an appropriate long-term expansion site for industrial use, due to its heavy road and rail access, current infrastructure, and direct access to a future interchange site at I-94 and County 75. As noted, regular attention to the fate of the NSP property will be needed over time, and adjustments to land use planning in this area are likely. M. mncdlu C. -p ehe—v, P!.m D~bpmrnt Pm r—t qGG V. tRd t1 N I Dwdrrpr w Frnrnr.....k t'nge 19 Southwest Monticello Currently anarea comprised primarily of farmland and wetland, it is the "Southwest Monticello" neighborhood which the Comprehensive Plan programs for the dominant portion of the next twenty years' growth. Retail and service commercial. office commercial, a full ranee of residential densities, and industrial development are all proposed in the land use plan. These land uses are supported by a system of infrastructure which can be constructed incrementally as land areas develop, rather than requiring large capital outlays dependent upon prospective development. There are a series of interrelated reasons for pursuing growth in this area. The first reason is one of financial management. As already suggested, the area can be served with City services in manageable phases. The advantages of incremental growth cannot be over -stated. By avoiding large capital projects built long in advance of development pressure, the City saves interest costs, thereby reducing the cost of improvements both to the new development and existing taxpayers; the City preserves bonding capacity for other projects, sometimes resulting in lower interest costs; and the City avoids the risk that prospective development fails to materialize, leaving the City to pay the costs of un- or under- utilized infrastructure. A second advantage to growth in this area is social in nature. The natural attention of new residents is to the east. Most of them will commute to the Twin Cities or its northern and western suburbs. Permitting, or encouraging, growth to the south and east builds in a generation of residents who have few natural ties to the Monticello community, and no physical tie either, as a result of their already eastern location. On the other hand, new residential development to the west will have a built-in tie to the Monticello commercial community by virtue of their routine use of the Highway 25 commercial arm, and their easy access to downtown via County Road 39. The third benefit to growth in the Southwest neighborhood is that it permits the eventual extension of roadways and utilities to a western industrial park site. This site could be developed in a way which does not conflict with school and residential development, either directly or indirectly. In addition, industrial uses in this area can be programmed to coincide with an interchange access to I-94 at County Road 75. This interchange location is better spaced than other locations to the east, and would potentially provide a greater return by freeing up many more acres of industrial development than other easterly locations. As the Policy Plan section pointed out, continued industrial development is a prime objective of the Monticello community. Finally. growth in this neighborhood promotes a more compact community than growth to the east. The more compact the community, the more efficient will be the long term delivery of services per capita, such as street and utility maintenance, public safety and emergency response time, and other public services. Linear development exacerbates both development and maintenance costs, an issue which will be critical to Monticello over the long term as it moves away from dependence on the NSP property tax generating capacity. U—nCell,. G-P"h,nn" A% In Dwvhrpr -1 F,"—."k 9=r In a general perspective, a lowering of area property values is not anticipated if 1. The subject structure is structurally sound and well kept. 2. The building's placement is compatible with area residences. 3. Foundation work is professionally done. 4. Aesthetically pleasing landscaping is provided. While a firm determination cannot be made in regard to property valuation consistency, the City can take steps toward providing an assurance against neighborhood depreciation via its performance standards. Building Code Requirements. As a condition of CUP approval, the subject structure must comply with the applicable requirements of the State Uniform Building Code. This item should be subject to further comment by the City Building Inspector. Structure Occupancy. Section 20-19-2.E of the Zoning Ordinance stipulates that a relocated structure must be ready for occupancy within six months from the date of location on the site. This item may be of particular relevance to foundation modification work which may be subject to climatic limitations. Drainage and Utility Easements. In review of the submitted site plan (site survey), it does not appear that any drainage or utility easements exist upon the property. According to Section 21-7-15.A of the Subdivision Ordinance, easements a minimum of 10 feet in width should be provided along rear and other lot lines for drainage and utilities. The City Engineer should provide comment in regard to-easement�abli� ent. Well/Sewage System. According to the information submitted by the applicant, the existing drain field upon the subject lot is failing and needs to be replaced. While the submitted 'site plan' (Exhibit'C) does not identify the site's sewage treatment system location, septic tank and drain field locations are illustrated upon an alternate plan provided by the applicant (Exhibit D). The City Engineer should provide comment/recommendation in regard to well and sewage treatment issues. Building Height Within the combination R-2/Shoreland Zoning District, no single family residence may exceed two and one-half stories or 45 feet. The proposed residence conforms to the maximum height requirements stipulated by Ordinance. Moving Permits. Prior to relocation of the single family residence. the applicants should provide proof to the City that the move will be performed by a mover licensed by the State of Minnesota and that all applicable State requirements have been complied with, including all necessary local permits. The applicants must also notify the City of the route and exact timing of the move. 9KK D,.h,pmrnr Fr e—k Pw, Sl A generalized land use and transportation concept is illustrated on the previous page for the Southwest neighborhood. To serve new development in the Southwest neighborhood, the Comprehensive Plan proposes a system of street development which includes a major collector along the south site of the interstate. This strut would not necessarily be a traditional "frontage" road, in that development access would be available to both sides to get the greatest benefit from it. At County Road 39. the extension of the 7th Street collector from the Northwest neighborhood would intersect with the new south side collector road. Connection to Highway 25 would be made through the development of two new intersections there at School Boulevard and the extension of Chelsea Road. These improvements are illustrated by the concept plan on the previous page. Almost all of the Southwest Monticello neighborhood will need to be annexed from Monticello Township. While much of the area is not within the currerm Orderly Annexation Area, amnexatiom are likely to be required regardless of their location. Indeed the OAA agreement and boundaries should be reviewed with the Township as an implementation phase following adoption of the Comprehensive Plan. Appropriate revisions will be necessary to accommodate orderly growth over the next several years. It is not necessary for the City to annex all of the growth area at once if the OAA is appropriately located and planned. Instead, annexations can be staged to coincide with the westerly spread of development into the Southwest area. The success of the OAA amendment process will direct the City's stance on additional annexation efforts. The ability to protect the Southwest Monticello arca for the uses shown in the long term land use plan is critical to the success and implementation of Comprehensive Plan. Southeast Monticello The remaining neighborhood arca is "Southeast Monticello". This area is characterized by a mix of land uses, including strip, or highway related, commercial, industrial, the Monticello school campus property, and Lege areas of more recent single family development. There is a relatively significant amount of undeveloped land in this area, and will likely see much of the infill development activity for the next few years as infrastructure is being prepared for the Southwest area. As identified in the discussion of Southwest Monticello, the Comprehensive Plan suggests t limitation on the amount of growth to be continued in the Southeast. The reasons are explored in the previous section, and include financial management issues, social or community issues, and efficiency issues. This is not to say that development is halted in this district, but that the extent of the current serviceable area be used as an urban growth limit line for the purpose of consideration of new utility and other infrastructure investments. Mmu,rrlln Cmprrknu,vr Phu, D—h,pmrnr Framrr,nl qLL 90 CITY OF ALBERTVILLE Page 2 Additional charges: Amount 95.01 KENCO CONSTRUCTION PUD _10/18/9 J5 Mileage 0.35 Total costs Total amount of this project Balanoe due $0.35 $155.35 $155.35 0 fW/ De.rl,.p.nrnt F,unr.....t Pner 23 The result of this policy would be "infill" development of the existing service area. Infill is often thought of as lot by lot building on overlooked parcels. Here the term is used to suggest the site by site development as yet undeveloped land which is capable of being served by existing infrastructure. The first tier of lands within this area contain approximately 8 to 12 years of residential land supply, based on the Comprehensive Plan's slow and fast growth rates. respectively. Industrial laird supply is approximately 15 to 20 years, base on current consumption rates, however, heavy industrial (as opposed to light industrial) land is likely to be consumed in less time. Much of the available industrial land supply is programmed for light industry. due to its exposure to the freeway and its proximity to the school campus. Commercial land is less susceptible to land absorption analysis due to changing market forces and Monticello's place in the regional marketplace. Based upon the current population/commercial land ratios, available commercial land as defined in the proposed land use plan should be adequate for more than twenty years. While this may seem overly cautious, it is important to reserve adequate commercial lands in appropriate locations for the long term. Commercial viability, at h= in contemporary markets, is highly location sensitive. Therefore, it is critical to make sure the development of incompatible land uses does not encroach into the areas which will be needed for commercial land use well into the future. The Highway 25 corridor from just beyond School Boulevard to the existing shopping areas north of I-93 is piamnxl to provide the primary commercial center for Monticcllo and the surrounding areas. This area can take the best advantage of contemporary shopping patterns and commercial center development, as well as the access to the interstate and traffic volumes along Highway 25. Fine-tuning improvements to internal circulation will be necessary, as will two or three major intersection improvements at Highway 25, to accommodate current and projected traffic. The development of a convenient second-tier commercial area which makes use of frontage or other parallel roads in the commercial center will help the district Flourish. The increased traffic resulting from the residential and commercial growth in this area points to the need for a new industrial park arra which is not dependent upon Highway 25 for access. Truck access to the freeway must be convenient and uncluttered to promote successful economic development. As Highway 25 traffic increases, and signals become more common, the attraction of the current developable industrial area will lessen. A concept land use plan is provided on the previous page which shows land use patterns and transportation improvements necessary to accommodate the pattern. Like any concept plan, it is imended to illustrate land use relationships rather than specific land uses for specific parcels. It should be used as a guide for the application of mote detailed land use implementation techniques, such as zoning or subdivision regulations. ArunnrrNn Gwprrhe.1- Pl.m Drvrh.p.ern� Frawuwork Dev lopm .t Fr—.,k Pngr ]C Land Use Summary Land use and Transportation improvements go hand in hand as the community grows and evolves. The land use plans and discussions above focus on transportation as much as land use in order to test the viability of various land use schemes, as well as to identify needed infrastructure to support the plans which are identified. The plans shown above identify the following major programs and issues as those which are necessary to carry out and implement the City's Goals. Objectives and Policies. These items are not listed in order of priority. • Redevelopment of the Downtown from a traditional shopping center to a civic and community center, through the encouragement of public uses, entertainment uses, recreation uses, and tourism related uses. • Lttcltded in the downtown redevelopment will be significant area of usable and attractive open spaces for the purpose of both formal and informal public gatherings. • Efforts aimed at reducing the levels of traffic congestion at the intersection of Broadway Street and Highway 25 will serve to facilitate the redevelopment program. • Public acquisition of lattd parcels will be considered to implement both pubic and private aspects of the downtown plan. • Broadway Street will be preserved as a local access street througbout the length of the community. Reduction in traffic levels on this street will allow the retention of the traditional single family neighborhoods along the street. • Rerouting of major collector traffic will result in a shift of traffic from Broadway to the 7th Street alignment between County Road 118 and County Road 39. This route will be constructed between Minnesota and Elm Streets, as well as Fallon Avenue and County Road 118 to complete the major collector roadway. • Street tree planting along Broadway will be used to enhance the aesthetics of the sweet as a village main street. Additional efforts, including consideration of landscaped center islands, will be use to crate a "boulevard' environment for Broadway, rather than a wide. four lane through route. • Vacant land north of the interstate near County Road 118 will be programmed for the development of a commercial office patio. • Long term land use on the NSP property, In the event of decommissioning of the power generating plant. will be higher end residential in the oak woods and along the Mississippi River, and industrial in the arca of the current plant. mo..ncd4a C'"p"hmnw Phan D•whr~Al FAVr Wk 0 Develupmew Frmn—rk Pare 25 A new industrial park will be programmed for development south of the freeway between .y County Road 39 and County Road 75. A new interchange at County Road 75 will 1 facilitate this development. • The commercial comer of the community will be concentrate in the two or three blocks on either side of Highway 25 between the current downtown and the intersection of School 9` s Boulevard on the south. • The commercial area south of the interstate will be complemented by commercial access streets running parallel to Highway 25, and new intersection improvements to{r accommodate higher levels of traffic. • The primary growth area for the community will be to the west, south of I-94. This area will accommodate a full range of land uses, including residential, commercial, andl industrial, as well as support public facilities. • The development staging for this arta will begin near Highway 25 and grow westward, y incrementally. Annexations will occur on an as needed basis, assuming adequate land use i control under the OAA. • A major collector street facility will connect the new Highway 25 intcmcctions with the future County Road 75 interchange to the west. • Sensitive environmental lands, particularly those adjacent to wetlands and bikes, will be preserved for protection and public use. Growth in the southeast area of the community will be permitted to the extent of existing mfrastructure. These areas will be able to 'infill', however, new infrastructure facilities yrs VO / &aLaddiUauLI gn wth will be programmed for the southwest neighborhood. Industrial areas in the southeast will infill, with a continued focus on higher quality light industry near the school campus and with exposure the interstate. Development requiring investments in new regional infrastructure will not be considered in the southeast neighborhood. Growth which utilizes existing utilities, or no utilities, win be considered. Clustered residential developments in rural residential patterns may be considered in areas where traditional utility infrastructure is unfeasible, or significant environmental protection measures warrant it. MOMMI., comp'A~"e PLm De,elopmew Fr4.o—rk Y,r D—Op—t F- --k Page :A Community Facilities Monticello's Community Facilities include a wide army of physical public services, such as struts, sanitary sewer, water, storm water control, fire response. administrative buildings, senior services, and parks and recreations. '!tris range of services and associated facilities has been made a regular part of the City's review and planning, particularly through capital facilities planning and budgeting on the part of the City Council and Staff. Over the last few years. a significant amount of effort has been directed toward transportation planning, sanitary sewer, water, and storm water control planning, and a major effort is currernly underway to plan for the upgrade and expansion of the City's sanitary sewer treatment facilities. Apart from the area which have been, or are being currently studied, the area of primary comment during the initial Tactics interviews concerned parks and recreation planning. The engineering studies regarding the other topics are adopted in the City's Comprehensive Plan by reference, combined with the issues and comments made in this document. Existing Park System The City of Monticello provides as number of recreational facilities within the City limits in addition to facilities located on School District property. Also available to the City's residents is the Montissippi County Park (within Monticello corporate boundaries), operated by Wright County. The State of Minnesota operates lake Maria State Park, just west of Monticello and Sand Dunes State Forest to the north in Sherburne County. Other regional parks and open space areas near Monticello include Sherburne National W iW fe Refuge, and two Hennepin County regional parks, Crow -Hassan Park Reserve and lake Rebecca Park Reserve. These facilities provide a wide range of recreational opportunities and environments. The current Monticello parks system has benefitted by the City's subdivision ordinance requirements for park land dedication or fee payments in lieu of dedication. Further dedication will be necessary as the community grows through continued dedication and monitoring of recreation needs for new subdivisions. The City has a sufficient amount of neighborhood parks in areas of recent development due the land dedication mquiremems. However, there is a general lack of neighborhood parks in the older developed portion of the community. This issue will become more important if these areas provide some of the family housing in the community, due to the need for close proximity of park areas for young children. From a policy standpoint, access to possible neighborhood park sites form these areas of fewer parks will be an importust focus of the City's pathway development planning. U—nC111✓ C.m P,*h~w Ph. D~h,pmnv Fra w,k DevrG,pmrnt Framr�n.k Page :i Bridge Park As noted in the Inventory and Policy Plan. Bridge Park is a strong focal point within the City and important to its neighborhood as well. The park represents the City's entry at the Mississippi River, and is near the major intersection of Highway 25 and Broadway Strut, the center of the downtown area. In addition, Bridge Park offers an accessible connection to the river - an amenity that very few cities can match. In its planning for the redevelopment of the downtown, the City needs to focus attention on the potential of Bridge Park, both as a neighborhood park facility for surrounding residential areas, but also as a community asset which can help anchor downtown redevelopment activity. Sowh Highway 25 There is a relative shortage of park and open space along the South Highway 25 corridor. As part of a future phase of the Klein Farms development west of the School campus, a community facility has been programmed. As development spreads west of Highway 25, additional park facilities and pathway connections will be critical planning issues to adequately serve this area of the community. The attraction of the School campus as a recreation center will also focus attention on pathway development in the south portions of the community. Apart from the active recreational aspects of the park system, one of the opportunities in the South Highway 25 area would be sueetwape work and attention to intersections. In addition, thinking of Highway 25 as a gateway from the south can enhance the entry into Monticello from this direction, much as Bridge Park has the potential from the north. Attention to streetscape along Highway 25 is particularly important at the interchange with I-94. Travelers to the community will experience Monticello primarily as they relate to this immediate area. Development of the open spaces, boulevards, and intersections in this area, while not serving as active recreational areas, can greatly benefit the community's image. Fixture Park Planning In considering future park facilities, two primary issues arise. First, an active community playfield area in the south portion of the community is an important component for future growth in the area. One solution to the lack of such facilities in this arta would be to work cooperatively with the School District to utilize school property where feasible. Although some overlap will occur naturally, City and School programs can often operate independently, increasing the efficiency of public property use. Communities in other areas have successfully operated ballfields, indoor ice, lighted tennis courts. and several other recreation elements with schools under cooperative construction, maintenance, and scheduling efforts. MPnnirrk- G,n,prrhmnvr Plan Dr'rhT.rw F.arnrw,4 9ss CROP ! ?+A LLO I ti .r �;fsr� 9rr �l E 1?4rik Dr krprntm Frnmrw.rk Pagr 29 + The pressure for active community recreation facilities will increase rapidly during the next several years as the majority of new growth occurs in this area, both east and west of Highway 25. A site of significant acreage should be sought and identified prior to the area being eclipsed by new development. If acquired by dedication, the City should consider the site's access to the pathway system and surrounding development, as well as the potential to acquire additional land adjacent to the new park as the City continues to grow. The second issue for future park planning is the provision of neighborhood parks for small, int'onmal recreation. These parks are typically no more than an acre or two in size, and provide park service to a surrounding area of less than a quarter mile in distance. One of their primary roles is the provision of "tot -lot" playground equipment to nearby residents. Neighborhood subdivision planning should take the location of such facilities into account during the preliminary design stages. Three general types of park facilities are considered to be a part of Monticello's park system. These facilities and their role in the system are summarized below: Cnms"-'ly Parks & Mayfielda These parks provide facilities for intensive recreational activities on a community -wide basis. They are typically large and level, and include such facilities as tennis courts, ball fields, skating rinks, arsd other programmed activities. These parks require parking lots, and sometimes include shelters for the administration of activities in the park. Typical users of community parks include families, older children, and adults. Neighborhood Parka & Plnygmunds Neighboriaood parks are typically much smaller in size, rarely exceeding five acres, and usually much lay. These parks provide informal recreation opportunities, including small practice fields, multi-purpose court games (both hard surface and sand courts), playground facilities, and other activities for younger aged users. These parks are typically set in areas of the community when: sensitive environmental features would Iimit development, or unique physical attributes make the area worth preserving for the entire community. Montissippi Park provides a significant atm of this type in Monticello. Some discussions have occurred as to the potential for the City's purchase and operation of this park toward the goal of more active use and management of the facility. Typical users include families and adults, with hiking and picnicking being predominant uses. M—flub-- Cnnprrhrnvw Plan De,A-p and Fra ,-t 9 V✓ Dewlopmew Frain k Page 30 .1 Trail/Pathway Planning The City of Monticello has prepared a master plan for pathway development in the City,. Generally, the pathway plan, illustrated on the following page, is well conceived and comprehensive. A primary goal for the continued expansion of the pathway plan should be a concentration on the linkage between community activity and residential cettters, particularly though activity areas with a recreation aspect. Schools, major parks, and the downtown are primary trail nodes which increase the utility and interest in the City's pathway program. Future connexions to growth areas will be critical, in that retrofitting pathways onto an existing development pattern is more difficult than identifying new corridors for new development. Therefore, an effort to identify connection points to existing development should be considered prior to additional new growth. The current pathway plan's primary deficit is in connections to the southwest arca, due to a previous focus on growth in other directions. Trail and pathway development should consider pedestrian crossing options to both Highway 25 and I-94, since these barriers will define the ability to connect one quadrant of the community with another. AloxncrGo C kv% weke" w Plan Dewbpmnv Fftn"%Wt 9wcJ IPWENTORY DATA The purpose of the Data section of the Inventory is to provide a condensed summary of the existing conditions, services and trends in the City of Monticello. This information is intended to represent a database to be utilized in the comprehensive planning process to identify issues affecting the community and formulating policies to address these issues to the benefit of the City's residents and long age plannin8 gam• This summary is the result of a comprehensive planning assessment completed in the Spring of 1995. Detailed data collection and field surveys were the primary methodologies utilized in the compilation of data for this section of the Inventory. Some of the data included in this section is evaluated on general dnraaeristics, some on an area wide basis, while other data is evaluated strictly within the City's corporate limits. The data contained within this section has been oroken down into the same categories or profiles, which the Comprehensive Plan Tactics have been ordered. These profiles encompass or contribute a wide range of information and am as follows: I. Housing 2. Industrial Economic Development 7. Commercial Economic Development 4. Social Demographics 5. Growth Management Issues 6. Community Facilities 7. Planning Issues Each profile is in essence a summary of the raw data collected for the Inventory in an organized format. ,t 1mentunc Page 1 1. HOUSING A. Existing Residential Development The Existing Land Use Map at the end of this section and Table I depict existing development within the City of Monticello. Older area residential development is organized in a traditional grid type pattern oriented toward the direction of the Mississippi River. More recent development has occurred along the periphery of the City and Interstate 94 in a more modem subdivision pattens. Aside from agricultural land uses, residential land uses are the most predominant within the City, representing appro:otnately 595 acres or 18.1 percent of the total lard area. as shown in Table 1. In terms of housing units, single family detached dwellings matte up over two- thirds (68.5 percent) of Monticello's existing housing as shown in Table 2. The next largest group of housing types is multi -family, representing 20.8 percent of the total housing stock. Although not the sole determining factor regarding physical deterioration, structure age can illustrate whether problems are likely to occur. According ro Table 3, over 70 percent of Monticello's housing stock was constructed after 1970. During field surveys conducted for the Inventory, several scanered umctures in poor condition were noted. These properties can have negative impacts on surrounding properties and the community in general. Monticello eomprehrWAT Pfau Intrwory &M Inventory Page Land and structure values influence the way The intent of the R-2, Single and Two in which individuals use land. Table 4 Family Residential District is to provide for shows the housing unit values of detached housing types that develop at higher single family homes within Monticello. To densities than single family dwellings to assure consistency, the U.S. Census provide for a diverse housing market to information includes only single family meet demand and promote efficient units on tots less than 10 acres in size, utilization of land resources. Permitted without a business on the premises. The uses in this district include single family table also excludes mobile homes. detached dwellings, duplexes, townhouses (minimum two units), other uses allowed in As the table indicates, a large percentage of the R-1 District. The R-2 District is homes within Monticello (85 percent) are designated over approximately 258 acres or valued under $100,000, with only 18 7.8 percent of the City's total arta. homes valued over $150,000. Although these values have lilmly gone up since The R-3, Medium Density District seeks to 1990, they indicate a housing supply of accommodate market demand for affordable homes. apartments, condominiums, and multiple family dwellings up to 12 dwelling units. The median housing values of Monticello Permitted uses include multiple family and several surrounding communities are dwellings with four or more units per compared in Table S. Montitello's median structure and customary accessory housing value is slightly above the Wright structures. A conditional use permit is County median housing value. required for a multiple family structure containing 13 or more dwelling units. This district has been designated over B. Residential Land Use Contmis approximately 79 acres or 2.4 percent of the City's total land area. The R-1, low Density District, designated over approximately 806 acres or 24.4 The Manufactured Housing Residence (R-4) percent of the total City arca (Table 6), is District has been adopted to regulate the intended to accommodate low density placement and use of manufactured housing residential areas and public and semi-public within the City. This district has been uses. Permitted uses in the R-1 District established over approximately 70 acres or include detached single family dwellings 2.1 percent of the City's total arra. and customary accessory uses. home occupations (subject to further regulation), The PZ -Residential and PZ -Mixed Zoning licensed day care or residential facilities Districts purpose is to allow for and essential structures and uses. Public development flexibility and special design and semi-public uses are a conditional use control within sensitive areas of the City within the R-1 District. due to environmental or physical Monticello Comprehensive Plan lnsenrory 9 yy limitations, and to provide a transition or intermixing between residential and business land use. The two performance zones make up approximately 172 acres or 5 percent of the total City am. C. Residential Land Demand and Absorption As stated previously, aside from agricultural land use, residemial development is the most predomimnt land use within the community. This trend is expected to commue thmuo the decade and into the next century. Population projections and land absorption projections will be made part of the land use element of the Development Framework in the Comprehensive Flan. 2. INDUSTRIAL ECONOMfIC DEVELOPMENT A. Existing Industrial Development As indicated in Table 1, existing industrial lard use within Monticello represents 180 acres or 5.5 percent of the total land area. These uses are scattered throughout the City, but generally are located along Interstate 94 or Highway 25. The City's largest industrial park, Oakwood lttduatrial Park, is approximately 160 acres and is currently 26 percent vacant and is toned I- 2. The Chelsea Road area industrial site is mostly vacant and zoned I -I and B -C. (memory: Page 3 B. Industrial Land Use Controls The City of Monticello has two industrial zoning districts; light Industrial District (I- 1) and Heavy Industrial District (I-2). In addition, there is a Business Campus District (BC) that allows for limited light industrial business offices and limited manufacturing. The I-1, Light Industrial District accommodates the establishment of warehousing and light industrial development. Approximately 199 acres or 5.7 percent of the City's total area has been established as an I-1 District. The L-2, heavy Industrial District provides for the establishment of heavy industrial and manufacturing development and use. This district requires isolating from residential or commercial use. The I-2 District encompasses 693 acres or 19.9 percent of Monticello's land use. The BC, Business Campus District provides for the establishment of light industrial business offices and limited light manufacturing in an environment that provides a high level of amenities. The Business Campus District has 113 acres or 3.2 percent of the City's total land use and has been set aside for business campus development. Motuitrrlo Compnhemitr Pion Intrwory 9ZZ. Inventory: Page J C. Industrial Land Demand and Absorption customers from the entire community. The permitted uses include barber shops, beauty Projecting future industrial demand and parlors, and essential services. land absorption projections will be made part of the land use element of the The B-2 or Limited Business District is to Development Framework of the provide for low intensity retail or service Comprehensive Plan. outlets that are located in areas that are well served by collector or arterial street facilities at the edge of residential districts. 3. COMMMCIAL ECONOMIC One hundred thirty-five acres or 3.9 DEVELOPMENT percent of the City's total arra has been designated for this district. A. I'.uistiag Commercial Development The B-3 or Highway Business District has A000rding to Table 1, commercial land use been established to provide for and limit the within Monticello accounts for 83.9 acres establishment of motor vehicle oriented or or 2.6 peromt of the City's total area. This automobile dependent commercial and development is concentrated primarily in service activities. These uses are not the Central Business District loaned at the necessarily compatible with the desired center of the City along the Mississippi character of the downtown area. The B-3 River and along Interstate 94. District has been established over approximately 307 acres or 8.8 percent of the City's total area. B. Commercial Land Use Controls The B-4, Regional Business District, The City of Monticello has four established over approximately 113 acres or commercial or business zoning districts; the 3.2 percent of the City's total area, is B-1, Neighborhood Business District; the intended to provide for the establishment of B-2, Limited Business District; the B-3, commercial and service activities which Highway Business District; and the B-4, draw from and serve customers from the Regional Business District. entire community or region. This district occurs most commonly in Monticello's The B-1 District, a zoning district that is recognized Central Business District. not currently established in the Monticello zoning map, is intended to provide for The BC or Business Campus District has neighborhood type, convenience goods been established in Monticello not only to retail locations serving the City's residents. provide light industrial offices and tight These centers are to provide services and manufacturing, as previously noted in the goods only for the surrounding Industrial section. but also sale of supplies neighborhoods and are not intended to draw and wholesale showrooms. Monticello ComprMenrire Plan Imentory / / / C. Commercial Iand Demand and Absorption The land use element of the Development Framework of the Comprehensive Plan will identify future demand for retail locations and land absorption. 4. SOCIAL DEMOGRAPHICS The following is a summary of demographic data collected for the Invenory to illustrate existing aspecu and chamicte istics of Monticello's population. A. Age Characteristics The 1990 Census provides age characteristics of Monticello residents as illustrated in Table 7. The City's largest age group is the labor force age group (age 20 to 64) represatting 54.2 percent of the City population. The next largest age group it the sc ihool age group (ages 0 to 17) representing 35.3 percent of the City population. T1te neumd age group accounts for the final percent of the City's population. These figures ate generally consistent with the age characteristics of Wright County is a whole, In Wright County, the (labor force age, school age, and retired age groups represei 55 percent. 35.2 percan, and 9.8 percent of the overall County population. The predominance of individuals in the labor force age group is typical of communities to rated proximate to the Twin Cities, due to an increasing flow of young !menton. Page S families to rum] areas. The significant labor force and school age population in Monticello is a major factor in planning for the future of the community due to increased demands for facilities and services. Not to be overlooked is the retired age population. Although relatively small, it is anticipated that this population will likely be growing in the next decade and beyond. This age group requires special attention during the planning process due to its specialized needs. B. Education Table 8 illusrates the 1990 education levels of Monticello residents over the age of 25. As the table indicates. nearly 80 percent of Monticello's population has attained a high school degree or higher. This figure includes 13.8 percent of Monticello's population which has obtained a college bachelors degree or higher. For comparison purposes, 80 percent of Wright County's 25 and over population has attained at least a high school degree. C. Employment Characteristics Information from the 1990 Census illustrating occupation characteristics of Monticello residents is depicted in Table 9. The table demonstrates that of the City's labor forte, the largest occupation group is service occupations (33.7 percent), followed closely by administrative support occupations (28.8 percent). ManageriaU professional make up 19.7 percent of Manairello Compnlunsive Plan Inventory � i r !menton:- Page 6 Monticello's work force, while operators, fabricators, and laborers make up the final 17.8 percent. The majority (58 percent) of Monticello's labor force travels 15 minutes or more to work according to 1990 Census data, illustrated in Table 10. The average commuting time of Monticello residents in 1990 was 22.5 minutes. This information suggests that Monticello is a 'bedroom' community for the majority of its labor force. Residents most likely commute from their homes in Monticello to their place of work in the suburbs of the Twin Cities. D. income The 1990 Census data regarding median family income and per capita income for Monticello and several surrounding communities is illustrated in Tables 11 and 12, respectively. In 1990, the median family income in Monticello was 333,202, while the per capita income was $11,907. These figures for Monticello are lower than similar data for surrounding communities. with the exception of Buffalo's median family income and Big Lake's per capita income, which are lower than that of Monticello. These figures can most likely be attributed to the high percentages of service or manufacturing employees living in Monticello. The numbers and percentages of individuals and families for which low income status had been determined for the 1990 Census is illustrated in Table 13. The average poverty threshold for unrelated individuals Momicella Cwxprehensae Plan 1AWWOry in 1989 was 56,310. These people may require public assistance to meet their housing needs. As such, they are an important consideration in the planning process. As Table 13 illustrates, the percentages of low income individuals and families in Monticello is higher than those of several surrounding communities. In general, an analysis of Monticello's median family income, per capita income and low income statistics reveals a population with income averages lower than those of surrounding communities. S. Growth Management Issues The following is a summary of growth related data collected for the Inventory to document existing aspects and treads of the Monticello population. The population projection section in the Development Framework section in the Compmbensive Plan will attempt to analyze future trends which will aid policy makers in planning for the future needs of Monticello's growing population. A. Population Growth The statistics depicted in Table 14 illustrate the population growth trends within the City of Monticello as compared with adjacent communities and Wright County as a whole. The conversion of population counts into annual increases. and percentage changes and rates, facilitate analysis of population growth by creating an equal scale to evaluate this growth against. 9aGC� The communities illustrated in Table 14 each demonstrate growing populations over the 30 year period. This growth can be attributed to a number of factors affecting communities in this region: c Close proximity to the Twin Cities Metropolitan Area. Expanding regional growth had' resulted in population increases in Monticello and surrounding communities. o Access to metropolitan employment opportunities and cultural activities. The proximity of Monticello and surrounding communities to the Twin Cities and the St. Cloud Metropolitan Anis allows individuals to choose to live in Monticello, while maintaining convenient access to employment opporninities and cultural activities. Monticello's population has grown rapidly since 1960, with a steady growth occurring from 1970 to 1990 (73 percent from 1970- 1980; 74.6 percent from 1980-1990). In comparison, the nearby City of Buffalo has also experienced recent growth. but at a slower rate than Monticello, as illustrated in the table. Fuaue population growth in Monticello will be made part of the land use element of the Development Framework in the Comprehensive plan. Inwnton - Page 7 B. Elousehold Growth Household growth in Monticello is illustrated in Table 15. The 1990 average household size in Monticello was 2.78. This figure has been decreasing slowing since 1970, from a high of . This figure is also slightly lower than the 1990 Wright County household average of 2.98. This difference could be attributed to the larger household in tural homesteads in Wright County. The 1990 Census provides a demographic profile of the households living in Monticello. Table 16 illustrates the number of households, family households and households with children. According to the table, in 1990 there were 1,775 total households in Monticello. Of these, 1,273 ('71.8 percent) were families, the majority of which were married couples with children. Only 28.2 percent of Monticello's households were non -family, without children. This information suggests a population of young married couples with children. C. Fiscal Data TIft intent of this section is to provide insight into the economic health of the City and determine the ability of the City to accommodate future growth with necessary services and facilities. The fiscal data presented In this section includes assessed valuation, tax rates, bonded inciebtedness, imetgovemmental aids and current financial reports. Montinllo CoVrehetuive Plan fnventary Invenroty Page 4 According to the Wright County Assessors Office (Table 17), the total market valuation of property within the corporate limits of Monticello for 1995 is S . In terms of valuation for tax purposes, property within the Monticello corporate limits had an assessed valuation of S for 1995. As seen in Table 18, the City tax rue of Monticello was percent in 1994. For comparison purposes, the 1994 City tax rates for the nearby cities of and were percent and percent, respectively. The City of Monticello had a total bonded debt of $ as of January 1, 1994. These bonds were used to fund several capital improvement and economic development projects undertaker by the City during a period of 1983 to 1992. The City of Monticello received a total of S in intergovernmental aid during 1993. The amount of the various aids received is illustrated in Table Finally, the 1994 Combined Statement of Revenues and Expenditures has been included for reference as Table 19. As the table indicates at year end 1994, the City had a total of $6,844,162 in revenues and expenditures of 57,311,402. The majority of the City's 1994 expenditures ($ ) were related to outlays for capital improvement projects. The difference in January 1, 1994 total balance compared with the December 31, 1994 total balance was ($467,250). Monticello Camprehewi,e Plan lnvenron An analysis of the information in this section suggests that Monticello is relatively financially stable and has the necessary financial resources to support future growth and development. D. Population Projections The City of Monticello is likely to experience continued strong population growth into the early portion of the next century. Table 14 illustrates the City of Monticello's past and present population from 1960 through 1990, and compares growth with other cities in the area. Populatom projections will be made part of the land use element of the Develpomemt Frameowrk of the Comprehenisve Plan. 6. COMMUNITY FACIIITJES The following section serves to document the community facilities available within the City of Monticello. These facilities range from City parks and open span, to government buildings and services, such as schools and police and fine protection. This section of the Inventory will discuss the following: A. Parks B. Government Buildings C. Schools D. Water/Sanitary Sewer Information regarding police/fire protection, public works, administration. library, utility service, recycling, liquor store and churches have been included within the Appendix in Table 20. 99-691 I A. Parks The Cay of Monticello contains 18 parks located throughout the City. These parks have a range of equipment and services, from open space to softball/baseball diamonds. In total, parks and open space account for 193 acres or 5.9 percent of the total City area One of the most recognizable of the City's park space is Fast and west 'Bridge' Park located on both sides of State Highway 25 at the north edge of town. along the banks of the Mississippi River. This area is seen as a major community amenity which needs to be developed in a manner that promotes the natural value of the area and also creates a connection with the nearby Central Business District. As a developing community, Monticello will need to acquire additional park land holdings in a don of growing demand for recreational space and facilities. To address this issue. the Monticello Subdivision Ordinance establishes a public land donation requirement for new subdivisions equaling at least 10 percent of the subdivision's total area. A payment equal to 10 percent of the total valuation of the subdivision may be required in lieu of a dedication. B. Government Buildings Government buildings within the City of Monticello include a City pttblic works building and yard, four school buildings, a senior center, a fire station, a municipal 1m nron^ Page 9 off -sale liquor store, a community service building (old Fire Hall), a M:nDOT truck station, a library and a United States Post Office. The current location of City Hall offices is at 250 Fast Broadway. C. Schools Children in Monticello attend schools in District 882. The district has four buildings, two housing the elementary grades (pre-scbool-5), one junior high school (grades 6-8), and one high school (grades 9-12). Table 21 tists the student enrollment at these schools. These figures include children who live in outlying township areas, as well as children living within Monticello's corporate limits. As Table 21 indicates, there is a need for additional building capacity for the middle school aged children. It is likely that the high school will need to be updated or replaced in the near future due to its age. These issues need to be addressed when planning for the future of Monticello. In addition to the public schools in Monticello, them is a private, church affiliated school. River Crest Christian School has a total enrollment of 40 students in grades pre-school through 6. The school serves students in both Wright and Sherburne Counties. Moatimto CompreAnuiw Plan Immmy 9FFF lnvenronc Page 10 D. Water and Sanitary Sewer The City has adopted a Comprehensive Sewer and Water Plan which identifies how all areas will be serviced within the corporate limits. The City is currently conducting a study that will result in the expansion of the sewer ummient facility. The design of the new facility is expected to accommodate population growth through the year 2020. PLANNING ISSUES The following profile is a summary of the physical conditions existing in the City of Monticello at the time this Inventory was conducted. The topics discussed in this section span a wide range of physical characteristics, such as soils, floodplain, xisting land use, zoning, physical barriers, transportation systems, and traffic levels. This section is divided into three distinct categories of information: A. Natural Eavironmeat B. Transportation C. Land Use Each of the categories are further subdivided with specific information relating to that section. Maps have been included with the text to further illustrate the existing conditions. A. Natural Environment The Natural Fmironiteat of the Inventory is intended to document conditions associated with the physical area the City of Monticello Comprehrnrive Plan lnvrwon Monticello occupies. Aspects of Monticello's natural environment described in the paragraphs which follow, include topography, soils, protected wetlands/ watercourses, floodplain, vegetation, and pollution. 1) Topography The topography within Monticello can be characterized as fairly flat to rolling. There are very few area that are considered steep for development purposes. The topography of Monticello has been indicated on a map at the end of this section in 50 foot intervals, which provides for a general interpretation of such conditions. 2) Soils While it should be recognized that any large scale mapping of soils results in an extremely generalized graphic statement, the map at the end of this section illustrates areas with soils determined to be poor for supporting development. This map was created using a United Stam Department of Agriculture Soil Conservation Service inventory of soil types in Monticello. The areas depicted are considered poor for urban development purposes due to factors such as soil strength, drainage and frost characteristics. Areas of poor soils within the City of Monticello are concentrated primarily within the Mississippi River floodplain. as well as in scattered wetland areas. Other areas of poor soils exist sporadically throughout the area. Carefltl consideration must be given throughout the planing process to limiting future 9GGG development in areas of poor soils to avoid property and/or environmental damage. Wetlands/Pretected Watercourses The map included at the end of this section illustrates DNR protected wetlands located in and around the City of Monticello. As shown by the map, there are relatively few Fouad wetlands in or attwnd Monticello. However, the 1990 Wetland Conservation Act requires protection of most of these wetlands. The Mississippi River is the only DNR protected waterway within the City. Shoseland regulatict s should be adopted to control development along the river to protect and maintain its natural aesthetic value for the City. Ihe 100 year floodplain boundaries, as defined by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), am shown on a map following this section. The City of Monticello minimally affected by Flooding from the Mississippi River, wbos s waters generally follows its shoreline. However, there is a portion of the City, long the river, which is within the floodplain. Monticello has an established Floodplain Management Ordinance which regulates development within the floodplain area. 'Kris ordinance is discussed further in the land use section of the Inventory. brveniory: Page 11 S Vegetation The vegetation map following this section depicts vegetation masses located in and around the City of Monticello. large vegetation masses in the City are concentrated exclusively around the banks of the Mississippi River. In addition, large vegetation masses exist to the northwest and southeast of the City. 'Ibe statural vegetation along the river enhances the area's unique character and adds substantially to the desirable qualities of the City. 6) Pollution The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPGA) has not identified any significant pollution issues within the City. Personnel at the MPGA indicated potential pollution problems associated with septic system failures exist, as some housing units still utilize these systems despite the existence of city sewer service. 7) Physical Barriers Natural environmental features, such as bodies of water or abrupt changes in topography, as well as man-made elemenu of urban development, often act as influents which can constrict land use and access. In dividing and distinguiahiag subareas within a community, such barriers become a vital consideration for logical planning. Major physical barriers in Monticello include the Mississippi River, which determines the City's northem boundary and Interstate 94 which bisects Monticello Comprehensive Plan fetwuory 9##N 1r niorv: Page I ? the City. These barriers are illustrated on the map following this section. The impact of these physical barriers should be approached with an awareness of the potential positive and negative impacts of existing (or planned) barriers on possible use. land use patterns which can take advantage of potential beixdicial aspects, while mitigating negative impacts, should be encouraged. B. Transpormtion The following paragraphs are a brief summary of the transportation modes available in Monticello. Several transportation modes are discussed, including sueet and highway networks, airports. public transit services. and railways. 1) Street and Highway Network In Monticello, interstate, state and county highways provide vital links to regional activity and employment teeters such as St. Cloud and the Twin Cities. The City is currently served by two regional highways. I-94 and TH 25, and four county roads. CSAR 75, CR 118, CR 117 and CSAH 39. As determined in the 1994 Monticello Transportation Study done by Ort Schelen Mayercm and Associates, there are two general areas of roadway deficiencies. The roadway segments that are approaching or exceeding typical roadway capacity are on CSAH 75, from Hart Boulevard to CSAH Monticello Compmhenrim Plan Inoenrun 39/CR I I8: and on TH 25, from Oakwood Drive to CSAR 75. The study indicates that the problems on CSAR 75 aro reduced speeds, unstable flow and potential safety problems due to traffic volumes exceeding capacity. CSAR 25 problems are due to large daily traffic volumes and closely spaced intersections resulting in traffic delays and congestion. Traffic issues and future transportation planning will be made a part of the Development Framework in the Comprehensive Plan. 2) Airport Facilities The City of Monticello is served by the Minneapolis -St. Paul Intemational Airport for its primary air carrier service. In addition to the Minneapolis -St. Paul Airport, Pilots Cove Airport is located ten miles away in Shmbume County. 3) Public Transportation The Monticello Heartland Express operates within the City limits of Monticello and the Annandale Heartland Express services locations within a 15 mile radius which includes much of the western part of Monticello Township. The service operates on a reserve ride list schedule. Murphy Med Cab provides transportation service for the public but is primarily utilized by the physical disabled, elderly and individuals with special medical needs. Health One -Active Ride provides similar service for residents in Monticello but only 9=r = for medical appointments. 4) Trains Monticello is serviced by Burlington Northern Railroad. Usage is on a demand basis. C. Land Use 1) EAsting Land Use As pmviously noted, Table 1 shows the existing land uses currently in Monticello. Agricultural uses and rural open space represent Monticello accounting for 861 acres or 26.2 percent of the City's total land area. This land use is comprised of lands tilled for agriculture production, pasture and general open space. This category does not include vacant platted land, which is included separately in Table 1. Thele are approximately 574 acres of vacant platted land within the City, representing 17.5 per= of the City's land area. Housing (low, medium and high density residential, and mobile home units) uses apptoximmely 606 acres or 18.1 percent of Monticello's current land use. Public and quasi -public buildings and areas account for approximately 258 acres or 7.8 percent of the City's total land area. This land use grouping includes schools, public works buildings, community centers, a post office, a water tower, churches, and cemeteries. !m-enio v- Page 13 Separately, parks and open space account for approximately 193 acres or 5.9 percent of the City's total area. As noted perviously, industrial and commercial take up 5.5 and 2.6 percent, respectively, of Monticello's land use. Public rights-of-way (City, County, State, interstate, and railroad right-of-way) represent the foal 16.4 percent of the City's total land area, equal to approximately 539 acres. 2) Land Use Controls The City of Monticello is responsible for the admiaistration of the Subdivision and Zoning Onfinances. These ordinances are discussed in detail in the paragraphs which follow. Monticello has adopted a Subdivision Ordinance that, along with the Zoning Ordinance, determines standards for the development of undeveloped lands. The intent of the Subdivision Ordinance is to ensure that new subdivision requests am conceived, designed and developed in accordance with tested criteria and pedomunce standards. land use in Monticello is regulated by the adopted Zoning Ordinance. The Monticello Zoning Ordinance establishes adminis- nation procedures, general performance standards, and zoning districts and their specific standards. The City maintains a zoning map in accordance with the current Monticello Comprehensive Plan Inventory 9J.r�r brvenro.v: Page IJ City Comprehensive Plan and amendments. A zoning districts map included at the end of this section, and Table 2 illustrate the current zoning district locations and breakdown in terms of area and percentage of the total City area. A brief explanation of zoning districts for residemial, industrial, and commercial use and development have been discussed in previous sections of the Inventory. While thele are large areas of existing agricultural land use areas, the A-0, Agricultural -Open Space District has not been included within the current zoning map. Whets land is annexed, it is automatically zoned A-0 pending fiuture rezoning for development. The intent of the district is to provide for an orderly transition from urban uses to rural uses, and specifically to prevent premature and scattered development until such time as necessary and services can be provided. Permitted uses include all agriculmtal operations, subject to Minnesota Polhutiom Control Agency standards, single family farms, and public parks and recreational areas. The PUD, Planned Unit Development District purpose is to provide for the integration and coordination of land parcels as well as the combination of varying types of residential, commercial. and industrial uses. Permitted uses include all previously listed land uses for residential and business. The P -S, Pubtic/Semi-Public Use District Monticello CornprehritsAv Plan Inventor provides for the unique locational and development needs of public and semi- public uses. Permitted uses include public parks and recreation areas, cemeteries, governmental administrative offices and pedestrian trails and pathways. Educational and religious institutions are a conditional use. In addition to the these zoning districts, the City of Monticello has also adopted a Floodplain Management Ordinance to regulate the use of land within the floodplain. This ordinance establishes special zoning overlay districts and is consistent with those areas designated as being within the 100 year and 500 year floodplain by the FEMA Flood Insurance Rating Map. It is the intent of this Ordinance to prevent potential damage to persons or property resulting from flood hazards by limiting uses within the floodplain to those that do not present such a hazard. The City has completed updates of the Subdivision and Zoning Ordinances, thus it is anticipated that these ordmmarces are adequate for regulating current urban development patterns within Monticello. SUMMARY The information in this section and the related tables give the City a picture of the community at a point in time. This picture provides the base line from which the community will move toward the goals and objectives found in the following Policy Plan section. The Inventory data does not include 9,1kC.< policy stn nems, but Cather, suggests issues which the Policy Plan and the rest of the Planning process will teed to address. lnvenmrv: Page /S Moakevo comvrehewiw Pfau dwucry 91 -LL Goals and Policies D7,AF i This section is structured to state an overall goal for each category of planning issues. then provide policy direction which helps apply the goal. The goals and policies are compiled from the various discussions between staff, Planning Commission, City Council, joint meetings between various groups in the City (including both municipal and non -municipal groups), as well as a series of meetings with community residents and business people. The application of the following policies will often mean a change in the way the community reviews its new development proposals, or in the activities which the City undertakes itself. The explanation under each policy statement is not intended to cover all of the possible applications of the statement, but rather, is provided to illustrate how the policy would apply in a particular circumstance. The City will find other applications in its routine activities, and must make policy review a part of those activities in order to keep the policies fresh, as well as to be confident that the City's activities are in line with a consistent policy direction. When the City finds that its activities do not coincide with the policy statement, this is a signal that either the policy is no longer valid and should be changed, or that the activity should be reevaluated. Regular policy review is an important part of the City's routine decision making process. Housing Goal: Housing in Monticello has traditionally provided shelter for members of the local community in the fullest sense. In its role as a sub -regional service center, local residents were primarily employed locally, and these resident/employees provided commercial services to a relatively well defined market area. Since 1980, the City has seen dramatic housing growth. much of which has been for commuter residents seeking less expensive land, small town environment, but convenient access to the Twin Cities employment centers. This demand has resulted in a significant level of moderately priced housing which has the potential to strain the City's services at relatively low tax rates. Moreover, commuter residents are more likely to have commence attachments to non -local businesses. When the business community does not expand commensurate with the residential community, the City does not capture the full range of tax revenue envisioned by the State's property tax stnrctttre. As a result. Monticello s goals for j uum housing provision wiU be to work toward housing projects which are designed to better integrate the new residents into the Jldl community. This does not mean that commuter residents will be discouraged, but that the neighborhoods in which all residents live are designed to preserve the benefits of the small town environment which has contributed to the attraction of Monticello's growth. 9MMM Policy: Housing is a support system for the primary City functions. The application of this Policy means that City decision making will review housing proposals, and land use planning relating to residential use. as to how they relate to the City's primary goals and objectives. When housing is viewed as a support system, as opposed to an essential function of active City involvement, housing projects much show that they help implement, or at least fit into, the City's planning and development enviromnent. In Monticello, a few of the primary goals are efficient and effective public service delivery, and active promotion of business and economic development. To meet this Policy in light of these goals, a prospective housing project should be able to show that it furthers these goals. These may relate to project quality or subdivision design which affects public services, or a consideration of the future residents of the project as both (1) customers of the Monticello business community, and (2) labor supply for local business. Policy: The City should monitor housing development in an effort to provide a hull range of housing chokes. An unbalanced housing supply leaves gaps in the community's social structure, whether it is in affordable units housing the City's irdi serial labor supply, moderate family housing, or higher end housing providing move -up opportunities for maturing families and residents. The City has historically supplied the lower two-thirds of the housing market, leaving the upper -end market to other locations, commonly rural large la 'development". This gap results in the loss of community members just as they begin to accumulate wealth and leisure time, a significant impact m the demographic make up of the City. At the same time. artificial limits on other housing opportunities can have impacts which are felt by other community goals. One of the primary components of a strong economic development program is the ready supply of well educated workers, and appropriate housing for the expansion of that labor resource. This does not mean, however, that housing may be made affordable by lessening the quality of its design or construction. Therefore, it is the policy of the City of Monticello that housing programs, projects, and developments will be reviewed with an eye toward how the market is addressing all levels of housing. The City will take creative steps to attract high quality development in all ranges, and the review of development proposals will include this criterion. Policy: Monticello will actively utilize its zoning power to accomplish Its goals. Monticello will apply many tools in order to accomplish its goal of housing which builds community, rather than merely building population. Among these, zoning is one of the most comprehensive and powerful. Through zoning, the City can be a partner in the provision of housing which meets its goals and policies. Creativity in housing design and construction can be encouraged through flexible zoning appnxichn. The establishment of zoning standards which ate 9NNW rigorous and detailed will permit housing developers to know on the front end what is expected of them. Flexibility means that the City will encourage creative approaches to housing development. But it also means that any modification of its zoning standards will be more than offset by an improvement in the quality of a proposed project. This policy states that the City is confident of its zoning standards, and flexibility will be applied when the end product is measurably better at achieving the communities housing goals and policies than the strict application of the zoning regulations. Flexibility will not be considered as a mere trade off of quality "A" for quality "B". Economic Development Goal: A source of pride in the community, economic development has been a successful element of the community's efforts for several years. This includes both public and private ventures, separately and in partnership. The City has been able to take advantage of its access to the Interstate highway system, the Twin Cities metropolitan area, quality labor supply, solid infrastructure, and affordable land without the negatives of metro -tike congestion and costs. As the community grows, the successful continuation of these programs will depend on the City's ability to avoid these negatives, and continue capitalizing on the positives. One of the primary goals of the City of Monticello is the continued emphasis on economic development programs. Successful economic development enhances the City's industrial diversity and strengthens the City's tax base. These are critical advantages for the community as the City looks down the road at an uncertain future for the NSP nuclear power plant. The achievement of this goal will depend upon the achievement of several smaller steps. As noted above, a successful economic development program relies on many factors. The failure of any of these can cripple the overall program, particularly in an environment of stiff competition for industrial development. As the financial tools which cities may use for economic development purposes are limited by the state, the differences in the other factors will become even more important in industrial location decisions. Thus, successful economic development is much more than arranging financing, but begins by keeping Monticello strong in all areas. Policy: The purpose of the City's economic development activities is to broaden the City's tax base. This is a policy which requires a long term view when considering assistance to a particular industrial concern. Under current tax increment financing programs. the City does not realize a net tax gain from a new business until ten years after construction. During that ten years, the City carries the cost of infrastructure and other City services. Thus, it is critical that businesses which locate in the community utilizing tax increment financing will be strong in the years following the ten year time horizon, in order for the City to realize a return on its investment. It is not possible to predict with certainty how a business will be doing ten years from now, however. so it important to reduce the risk by attracting the highest quality industries. It is the policy of the City's economic development programs. therefore, to seek and assist those businesses which are financially strong, show signs of growth. and contribute to the diversity of the City's economic base. Businesses which are under -capitalized, or are merely hopping from one building to another raise concerns about their ability to commit to the community on a long term basis. Policy: Monticello will target high quality businesses for its economic development programs. Quality can be defused in a number of ways. For the purposes of this policy, "quality" will be those factors which are likely to result in the achievement of the City's economic development goals. The furtherance of the City's goals depend on the ability to build a community which will continue to be competitive in economic development. A prospective business which puts back into the community more than mere tax dollars, then, will be a stronger recipient for the City's investment. As discussed in the goal statement, Monticello has been successful in this area due to several factors. Businesses which enhance of the very factors which brought them to the community in the first place should be prime candidates for economic assistance. This is an example of "sustainable" economic development. Poficy: Investment In the traditional dowratown should focus on facilitating a transition to a recreation and entertainment based center. The traditional downtown in Monticello, specifically that area in the immediate vicinity of Broadway and Highway ZS, has suffered from the evolution of shopping patterns to larger, regional shopping centers. The increased mobility of the populace, as well as the continuing growth of the commuter resident sector in all Wright County communities, has resulted in a shift away from the smaller downtown shopping areas. Several such downtowns have been able to capitalize on their charm and ambiance, however, by using those amenities to anchor entertainment and recreation facilities. Particularly in Monticello, where theriver and the two Bridge Parks provide a unique environment, this approach can be a practical reuse of the downtown area. The City's activities in this area must focus on stimulating and leveraging private investment to be successful. Irtdeed. it is the success of private ventures which, in the long nun. determine the success of the district as a 'city center". However, the City can have a significant role through its investment in infrastructure, open space, and site pteparttion. Redevelopment in the district should be evaluated toward its compliance with this land use scheme. This policy supports the City's Economic Development Goal statement by creating a stronger center which can be a focus of the community's civic activities. By making use of the natural �i attraction to the area, and programming commercial uses which can thrive under these conditions. an attractive and successful redevelopment of the downtown area is a real possibility. Growth Management Goal: Growth Management can take both active and passive forms. The use of zoning is typically an active growth management technique, although shifting zoning patterns which merely react to development proposals suggest a more passive use of zoning. The results of well managed growth are a more efficient utilization of scarce community resources. and a more attractive and self- sufficient community. The goal of Montioello's growth management activities will be to plan for development in a long term fashion which results in a community in its truest sense. For Monticello, this means a plan for the community's land use and development which encourage an increase in community members, rattier than mere residents. Since an appropriate land use pattern must go hand in hand with infrastructure development, it is important to develop long term plans for both which coordinate with each other, and which work to achieve the community's common objectives. Insofar as the infrastructure plans can respond to changes in land use pattern and market, and such changes must be evaluated as to their effects on the overall community goals. Policy: Monticello will direct the pattern of growth through land use planning and infrastructure development. Infrastructure useful life is often 30 or 50 years or more. As a result, decisions on the location and installation of new investments in infrastructure have long lasting effects. It is difficult, and costly, to change course once pipe is in the ground, and streets and built. Thus, the City must develop comprehensive and long tern guides for land use, since infrastructure investments ars dependent upon land use panem and intensity. In addition, the City must regularly monitor its land use plans in view of the market so any changes can be programmed as early as possible. Naturally, the better the land use plan reflects the actual growth, the more efficient the City will have been with its infrastructure development. The community invests large sums of scarce resources in providing services to the land uses it foresees in its plan. Thus, changes to the plan should be scrutinized thoroughly, and any increased costs which result from a change should be allocated to the parties which will benefit. Policy: The City will monitor, but not pace, growth and development. W♦ o The marketplace is the most efficient allocator of new development. When viewed over a long time period, different land uses will predominate during different years. 'Rhe primary role for the City in planning for new development will be to provide properly zoned and serviced land to accommodate current needs. This policy states that the desired balance will be achieved as the market acts to meet needs and demands. Community Facilities Goal: A City exists to provide a defused range of governmental services to its residents and property owners. The issue related to these services is one of scope. The physical aspect to the scope issue is referred to here as 'community facilities'. In other words, what facilities does the City have to build in order to provide the palette of services demanded by the community members? The answer to this question mast begin with a definition of the scope of the City's services. Clearly, that scope includes sanitary sewer and water provision, streets, fire protection, pants. and various administrative services. Recently, that menu has been expanded to include more comprehensive storm water control and pathways as a component of the parks system. The City needs to understand the demands of its citizens in order to provide the services effectively. Monticello's goal in the area of community facilities will be to address the community's demand for services in an efficient manner, balancing these demands with the community's demand for low cost. policy: The City of Monticello will develop community facilities which serve to enhance and achieve the community's other goals and objectives. One of the ways which an investment in community facilities is made efficient is to achieve multiple goals. Thus, projects to be considered by the City should be evaluated as to thein effect on the community's needs as a whole, not just on cost. This places a premium on thinking about infrastructure as an "investment' rather than as a "cost'. If a project enhances the City's ability to do its job, and adds to the attraction of Monticello as a community, it may very well be worth the expense, both from a tangible and an intangible viewpoint. This view requires the City to broaden its definition of infrastructure. Often, infrastructure is thought of as sewer pipe and streets. However, infrastructure includes park lands and improvements, pathways, and community buildings. These latter facilities ars as important to the City's `quality of life" as are the former, yet may be relegated to an inferior status as non- essential. The need for a park or community building should be evaluated, however, as to whether it efficiently furthers the community's goals, and provides valuable benefits commensurate with its costs. Table 1 1994 Land Use Breakdown Land Use Acres Percent l.ow Dmsuy Residcnrial 520 15.8 Medium Deoisry Residential 38 1.1 High Density Residennal 28 0.9 Mobile Home Part 10 0.3 Commercial 84 2.6 tnmkstnal 180 5.5 Public 191 5.8 Quasi -public 67 2.0 Put 193 5.9 vacant • Plamed 574 17.5 AV -1t rrewodeveloped 861 26.2 Public Rig n-of•Way 539 16.4 TOTAL. 32" 100.0 Source: Northwest Associated consultants. Inc. Table 2 1994 Total Housing Units Type Number Percent Single Family (clenched) 2199 Single Family (maebed) 134 Mulri•Famiy 668 Mobile Hume/Other 209 TOTAL 3310 Source: U.S. Census. 1990 Monticello Building Permit Data 1990-1994 68.5 4.2 21.8 6.5 100.0 A-1 9 TTT Table 3 Number Age of Structures Itss than 530.000 (Total Housing Units) 8.2 Year Ba0t Namber Ptrsert 646 1990-1994 316 14.6 1990- 1989 747 34.6 1970.1979 303 23.3 1960-1%9 129 6.0 1930.1939 142 6.6 1940.1949 63 3.0 1939 - Earlier 237 11.9 TOTALS 2161 100.0 Source: U.S.Census, 1990 Monticello Building Permit Data Table 4 Detached Slagle Family Hottstug VWm (Owner Occupied) Yaloe Number Percent Itss than 530.000 68 8.2 530.000 to $99.999 646 77.6 $100.000 m $149.999 101 12.1 $130.000 to $199.999 16 1.9 $200.000 to 5299.999 2 0.2 5300,OU0 of torte 0 TOTAL 933 100.0 Source: U.S. Census. 990 A-2 44(m Table S 1990 Median Housing Values AMenvilk 80.300 Big Lab 66.600 B hao 72.100 Mami ew 76.200 Momice0o Tap. 93.200 omp 76.900 Wright Co. 73.000 Source: U.S. Census. D90 A-3 9 vvv ,-4 Table 6 1993 Zoning Breakdown A-0. Ag=WM - Open Space 0 R-1. Single Family Resk1wriel 1068.67 30.6 R-2. Single & Two Family Residential 259.81 7.4 R-3. Medium Dewily Residential 78.84 2.3 R-4. Mobile Home Part 70.35 2.0 R -PUD, Residenrial - Pla®ed Um[ Development 198.35 3.7 PZ -R, Pe fomtaace Zone - R -id -tial 5.51 0.2 PZ -M. Performance Zane - Mined 166.29 4.8 B-1, Neighborhood Business 0.00 B-2. Limited BusiDM 135.48 3.9 B-3, Highway &uicess 307.45 8.8 B<, Regmml &-int 192.97 5.5 BC, Business Campus 113.49 3.2 t-1, Light ludnsuial 199.01 5.7 I-2, Heavy lnbstrial 692.84 19.9 TOTAL 3489.06 100.0 Wild ad Semc Overlay lent mchWed m mW above) 411.88 11.8 Source: Northwest Associated Consultants. 11x. UAW Age G—v School Age 1}4 SA 10-14 15-19 Sub -Total Lab" Force 20-24 25-34 35.44 45-34 534 Sub-T.W RenfW Table 7 1990 Population According to Age Group Maatleft % WHO t Coin 63-74 75-84 83- TOTAL 3+TOTAL Source U.S. Census. 1990 501 6.209 483 6.768 397 6.182 355 5.000 1.742 35.35 21.159 M.2% 422 923 569 495 271 L68D 5"% 4,139 12,296 10,328 6.759 4,317 37J39 55.05 237 3.555 192 2.350 90 808 519 10.55 6.713 9.8% 4941 100.0% 68.711 100.0 A-5 9xxx Table 8 1990 Eduction Levels Age 25 and Over IA-WEI Atlairred mbodn0o Prrcem Wrlghr County Pei cc > 9tb Gide 282 8.3 3.814 8.2 9th to 12th 410 12.3 3457 11.8 (m dgftma) High Spool Gfb&= 1,409 43.6 20.171 43.6 Same College 327 13.9 8.149 17.6 (no degree) Amciam Degrm 191 3.8 3540 7.7 Bachelors Degree 321 9.7 3.881 8.4 Grsd= 138 4.2 1,229 2.7 Degree Total Ower 21 3,318 100.0 46,?41 100.0 % High School 2,676 79.1 36,970 80.0 SW or higher % Bachrlms 439 13.8 3.110 11.1 Degme/Hou Source: U.S. Cemus, 1990 9yyy A-7 9z Z -Z Table 9 Occupations (age 16 and over) Monticello %. TOTAL Wright Co. 17. TOTAL Managerial/ Professbnal 19.7% 18.8% Executive. 133 7.3 3,009 8.8 Adminis mum and Mamgeriat Professional 249 12.2 3.408 10.0 Teehd®L Sala and 28.8% 28.79E Admhttstrstive Sttttport Technical 80 3.9 1,106 3.2 Saks Orxxgmm 210 10.3 3.494 10.3 AQministtatn Suppon 295 14.3 5.166 13.2 Servke 33.7% 32.3% Private Houssebold 4 0.2 144 0.4 Protective Service IS 0.7 257 0.9 Otber 310 13.2 3.901 11.3 Farm. Forest. Fishing 36 1.8 1,48: 4.3 Precision Product. 322 13.8 5,247 13.4 CrattaW Repslr Operstom Fabricators and Laborers 17.8% 20.0% %Wture Opemors, 157 7.7 3.439 10.1 assentiers, inspectors Handlers, egApmem M 4,3 1,689 4.9 cleaners. belpers. Wwrers TmnWmmm and 117 5.7 1,708 5.0 marecul Moving oc TOTAL L036 100.0 AND 100.0 Source: U.S. Census. 1990 A-7 9z Z -Z Table 10 Travel Time To Work Time Tmvlmg Number Percem Less than 3 mia. 178 7.7 l m 9 mm. 362 24.4 10 to 14 tin. 224 9.7 15 to 19 min. 269 11.7 20 to 29 mice. 240 10.71 30 m 39 mm. 314 13.61 40 m 59 ttriu. 370 16.0 60 m 89 tam. 90 3.9 90 or mm mm 43 1.9 WoA¢d at home 10 0.4 TOW 2300 100.01 Source: U.S. Census, 1990 1 Table 11 Median Fan* Income 40.202 Big LAM 34,197 &dy& 32.675 Mom umlo 33.202 Moaaiallo Twp. 42.366 Otsego 39.912 W ttgd Cottmy 36.981 Source: U.S. Census, 1990 904#0414 Table 12 1989 Per Capita Income ABtcrrvilk 12.330 Big Lice 11.888 Buffalo 13.198 Motniceilo 11.907 Mon ice0o Twp. 12.396 Otsego 12.2% Wright Country 12.687 Scum: U.S. Census. 1990 Momice8o 737 11.2 Table 13 Low Income Population s InInvidmb Pesam hmBie Amesville 33 2.8 Peteem 3 1.6 Big Late2".2 7.3 43 7.7 I` Whit) 488 7.4 86 4.9 Momice8o 737 11.2 126 9.9 Mo=cdb Tttp. 337 8.3 68 6.7 Otsego 209 4.0 49 3.6 Wtigat County 4.613 6.8 936 3.3 Source: U.S. Census. 1)90 t A-9 1960 AMerty& 279 1970 451 1980 564 1990 1.251 1993 Eu. 1,547 Over a period from 1960.1970 18 1970.1980 II 1980.1990 69 1960.1970 61.6 1970.1980 25.0 1980.1990 121.8 Table 14 Population Growth 1960-1990 NOW - Big hake Bd Wo Moatkello 2.321. 1.477 3.275 1.636 2.210 4. YO 2,830 3.113 6.856 4,941 3.331 1,578 5-193 Areriv Aemml PbpWROM Growth 95 16 127 119 89 230 211 Pere Grown 41.0 10.8 39.2 73.0 40.9 50.4 74.6 Mum (Compounded) Gmwth Rates Nbod"00 Owego Twp. 1.088 1.080 2,240 1.526 3.588 4.769 3.981 5.219 4,007 5.689 1,152 45 1308 324 393 45 105.9 41.2 60.2 212.5 11.0 9.4 1960.1970 4.91 ).49 1.02 7.48 3.51 1970.1980 2.26 3.36 5.63 4.73 12.06 1980 19911 8.29 3.48 4.16 5.73 1.04 0.90 Source: U.S. Celsus. 1960, 1970.1980. 1990 State Demographer's Office 9c�cc. Table IS HoasdmM Growrb Taal/ Moatleeno Momieft Twp. We*I Coam 993 Of HH / of HH 0 of HH Howe fter HH Slu HH She ® Size 1980 958 2.93 020 3.31 18 .426 3.18 1990 1,775 2.78 1,160 3.34 23.013 2.98 1993 1,920 2.75 1,220 3.32 24,587 2.96 (esr.) 25.3 Surra: U.S. °enan 1960. 170,1980 & 990 Taal/ of HH Family- 993 Married Cade I Family- Male 74 Howe fter Perera Family- Fetmk 214 Householder Total HH Tani Fsmilks 1273 NonFamily 502 Households 3.7 TOTAL HOUSEHOLDS a 1,775 0.3 Source: U.S. Cemus, 1990 10.2 t Tahb 16 1990 Homebold Types Peram HH w/ Pei am Fam07es Perera Taal HH CMldren Taal HH w/o ChOd Total HH 56.1 $73 32.4 420 23.7 4.2 66 3.7 8 0.3 11.5 181 10.2 23 1.3 71.8 822 46.3 431 25.3 A-1 I I?bbbb Table 17 Building Permit Data 1980-1994 Year Single Muldple Coammercial Industrial Public/ Family Family Quasi -Public 11980 23 8 13 0 1981 25 1 3 3 11982 7 7 3 2 1983 23 8 7 1 1984 29 4 14 2 1985 40 13 9 0 1986 50 20 7 2 1987 35 9 4 2 1988 26 20 7 2 1989 23 7 l 0 1990 27 3 7 4 1991 30 2 4 2 1992 50 4 3 3 1993 73 10 6 6 1994 111 6 I 4 TOTAL S72 122 89 33 Source: Monticello Building Permit Data 9E -EEE ,I II 0 2 l 01 .I _I 8 A•13 9FF,4FF T" l8 Budget Samrmr7 Fmd 1994 1994 EgmWitum 1995 199! Reveme Revenue (badged Espendinw- Mudse0 General 52.4112.985 $2.402.985 5:.436.785 S.2.4%.783 Library 31,333 31.333 31.863 31.865 TrampoRadaa 70.647 70.547 67,479 6:.229 Shate Tree 26.160 26,160 32.960 32.960 UDAG 10,843 83.000 11,695 0 IOAA 29.8W 29.800 29.800 =9.800 HRA 352,210 272.035 414,700 321.771 EDA 218,710 2,110 118,770 201,440 SCERG 8.343 0 63.100 33.3011 CMIF 0 0 13.320 !3.320 Debs Service 1,261,U20 1,423,350 1,266.113 1419,712 Liquor 1,487,123 1,479,495 1.540.901) 1,483.623 Water 174.280 '332,905 182.350 •411,000 Sewer 464.785 ••812,985 503.900 •'862,575 Capimllmp. 278,190 282,195 493.468 493.468 Water Access 13.530 28.000 24.400 U Sewer Access 14,675 35,000 33.350 0 TOTAL 56.814.162 U J11,402 $7.287,157 1 $7,859.850 • lmk du 5165.930 Dq=iadon - Comdvuted Arrests •• ta,hrda $367,730 Depreciadw • Cumnvumd Assess Source: 1995 MoM=W Aomrsl Budges A•13 9FF,4FF Planning Commission Agenda - 11/8!95 10. Review planntnQ .. -a. (J.0.) Please see attached information for discussion as requested by Chairman Dick Frie. CITY OF MONTICELLO Planning COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Case s _ 230 E. Broadway, PO Box 1147 Monticello, MN 35362 (612)295.2711 PUBLIC HEARING APPLICATION Check Requested Action: _ CONDITIONAL USE - $123.00 + all necessary consulting expenses* _ ZONING MAP/ TEXT AMENDMENT - $250.00 + necessary consulting expenses* _ SIMPLE SUBDIVISION - $30 _ SPECIAL PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING - E230 _ SUBDIVISION PLAT - $300 + 8100/acre up to 10 acres; $=acre after 10 acres + expenses. City will refund excess of per -acro deposit. _ VARIANCE REQUEST - $50 for setback/5125 for others + nee. consult expenses* _ OTHER - Fee $ • NOTE: Necessary consulting tees include cost to have City Planner analyze varianne, rezoning, & conditional ase permit requests at the rate of $7&hr. The need for City Planner assistance is determined solely by City •ta& Applicant Name: Address: Phone: Home: Business: Property Address: Current Zoning: Legal Description of Property: 1 Lor Block: Subdivision: Other. Describe Request: Information provided by the applicant on this form is true and correct Date Property Owner Signature Data Applicant Signature (if applicable) (CONTINUE ON BACK—) Date Received/Paid: Receipt Number: VCUSSA.,l.APP: 2/06//95 Public Hearing Date: IN-, FOR ZOMUNG MAP AMENDMENT ONLY: Proposed Zoning: FOR 804PLE SUBDIVISION ONLY: Size of parcel to be divided: FOR SUBDIVISION PLAT ONLY: Size of Parcel to be Platted: Acres Name of Firm Preparing Subdivision Plat: Street Address: City: State: Zip: Phone: FOR VARIANCE ONLY: Please identify the unique property conditions or hardship that exist that justifies granting a variance. A hardship exists when by reason of property narrowness, shallowness, sihepe , or exceptional topographic or water conditions, combines with strict application of the terms of the ordinance result in exceptional diff collies when utilizing the parcel in a manner customary and legally permissible within the district in which the lot is located I tq�tt/�ptpgtttgtttgqtYt� gttttgttqqttttqtttqtqttqttttqtM tggttHitgq�tqqttttqtt tttgtttlt (For City Use Only) VCUSSAM.APP: 2IM/B6 MONTICELLO COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT OFFICE PROCEDURES FOR VARIANCES, CONDITIONAL USES, SIMPLE SUBDIVISIONS, l AND REZONING APPLICATIONS AnDlication Procell 1. Applicant contacts city hall to obtain an application Development Services Technician (DST) provides application form and information pertaining to specific request. (Applications and handouts are located in vertical files located on pla.+ning/building department counter.) 2. Applicant submits completed application, required documentation and information, and fee. DST reviews application for completeness using checklist. If a meeting with the Assistant Administrator is necessary due to complexity of request, DST wM accept application without payment at this time. If complete, DST proceeds (go to 03) If application not complete, DST informs applicant of deficiencies—process stops. Once additional information is received, the application will be processed accordingly. 3. If application is complete and DST determines that payment can be accepted at this time, applicant is directed to finance to pay application fee. Finance collects fee, issues receipt, records date paid and receipt number on application, and returns application to DST for further processing. 4. Applications will be kept in a folder by the DST until the public hearing review meeting scheduled for 2 p.m. the day after the application deadline. 5. After the public hearing review meeting, DST will notify those applicants who have not paid that either additional information is necessary or the application is complete and payment must be made prior to the public hearing being published 6. DST creates formal application file and records on inventory list located at beginning of formal application files. Record file number on application. 7. Assistant Administrator or Zoning Administrator will give DST written description and/or location map to be included on appropriate public hearing form. Zoning Administrator signs public hearing forma. S. DST then faxes or brings a copy of the public hearing forma to the Monticello Times for publication. If public hearing includes a map to be published, the form must be hand -delivered to the 31M. Other public hearings may be fazed to the Times. Planning Commission public hearings must be published twice, VCUSSAM.PRC: 1/30195 Page 1 I(A DST posts copies of public hearing notices on bulletin board at city hall (cut off "instructions" first). 10. Make individual copies of each public hearing notice for mailing procedure. Original public hearing notices are filed in administrative files located in J supply room (PLANNING COMMISSION, Public Hearing Notices). Public Hearine Mailine Procedure 1. Application should include a county listing and mailing labels of property owners and addresses within 350 ft of boundaries of property (exception: yard setback variances - abutting property owners only). Application should also include a location map. 2. DST counts number of labels + 1 to attach to affidavit of mailing. Record this number at bottom of listing. 3. Attach labels to envelopes. Run proper number of copies of location map and public hearing notice. Stuff envelopes and mail. Notices must be mailed at least 10 days prior to and not more than 30 days prior to meeting date. Record date mailed in upper right-hand corner of property owner list. 4. Type affidavit of mailing for each public hearing item requiring property owner notification. Staple copy of public hearing notice and location map to the affidavit. Affidavits of mailing are filed in administrative files located in supply room (AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING). The list of affected property owners and individual copies of public hearing notices are filed in appropriate formal application file along with application. 5. If a notice of public hearing is returned by the post office for some reason, try the local phono book to see if there is a different address. If not, staple envelope and public hearing notice to the affidavit of mailing to show that the City tried to notify the property owner. If you do find a different address, type a new envelope and remail notice. Staple returned envelope to affidavit of mailing to show why notice was mailed less than 10 days prior to meeting. Apreal Process for Variance Reauests Decisions of the Planning Commission are final unless an appeal is filed with the Zoning Administrator within 5 days of the decision. Appeals of the decision of the Planning Commission may be made to the City Council and must be in writing stating the basis for appeal. Such appeal shall be placed on the City Council meeting agenda for a public hearing within 30 days after it is received, and notice of an appeal shall be published in the official newspaper at least 4 days prior to the hearing. VCUSSAM.PRC: 1/305 Page 2 CITY OF MONTICELLO COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT PO Box 1147, 250 E. Broadway Monticello, MN 55362 (612)295.2711 One complete site plan no larger than 11" x 17". Complete application form, signed by property fee owner and applicant. Fee per current City of Monticello Fee Schedule. 1. Application, required information, and payment must be submitted no later than 21 days prior to the regularly -scheduled Planning Commission meeting. 2. Applications will be reviewed by planning staff.. Applicants will be notified as to any additional information or modifications needed. Items will be scheduled for Planning Commission public hearing when it has been verified that the application is complete. 3. Planning Commission public hearings are conducted at 7 p.m. on the first Tuesday of each month. 4. A Planning Commission agenda will be mailed to the address on your application. 5. Special meetings of the Planning Commission may be scheduled with the approval of the Planning Commission Chairperson and Assistant City Administrator. The charge for a special meeting is $250 in addition to the base charge of the request. S. Planning Commission provides a recommendation to the City Council. Council consideration usually onus the Brat meeting after Planning Commission review. Council meetings are held the 2nd and 4th Mondays each month. CONDU8E.HAN: 9/03/95 inG CITY OF MONTICELLO COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT PO Bo: 1147, 250 E. Broadway Monticello, MN 55362 v (612)295-2711 ZONING MAWMT AMENDMENT CHECKLIST AND INFORMATION MAP AMENDMENT: Location map. Complete application form, signed by property fee owner and applicant. Fee per current City of Monticello Fee Schedule. TEXT AMENDMENT: Complete application form, including description of requested language change, signed by applicant. Fee per current City of Monticello Fee Schedule. 1. Application, required information, and payment must be submitted no later than 21 days prior to the regularly -scheduled Planning Commission meeting. 0 2. Applications will be reviewed by planning staff. Applicants will be notified as to any additional information or modifications needed. Items will be scheduled for Planning Commission public hearing when it has been verified that the application is complete. 3. Planning Commission public hearings are conducted at 7 p.m. on the first Tuesday of each month. 4. A Planning Commission agenda will be mailed to the address on your application. 5. Special meetings of the Planning Commission may be scheduled with the approval of the Planning Commission Chairperson and Assistant City Administrator. The charge for a special meeting is E250 in addition to the base charge of the request. 6. Planning Commission provides a recommendation to the City Council. Council consideration usually occurs the first meeting after Planning Commission review. Council meetings are held the 2nd and 4th Mondays each month. REZONE.HAN: 3/03193 IN) CITY OF MONTICELLO CONLMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT PO Boa 1147, 250 E. Broadway V Monticello, MN 55362 (612) 295-2711 Five (5) assembled sets no larger than 24' a 36' for staff review. Current certified survey (within 6 months) showing existing conditions and structures. Certified plan showing existing and proposed lot lines; including all dimensions, area in square feet, and complete legal descriptions (may be same sheet as survey). Supplementary plans as follows: (Note: may be on same sheet with certified survey and plan as above.) Grading and drainage Utilities (water, sewer, storm sewer, and service connections) All Existing and proposed or required easements Minimum building setback lines including accessory buildings Curb cuts Sidewalks/Pathways Location map Complete application form, signed by property fee owner and applicant. Fee per current City of Monticello Fee Schedule. SUBMITTAL OF THE FOLLOWING WILL BE REQUIRED AFTER THE INITIAL STAFF REVIEW WITH THE COMMENTS THAT HAVE BEEN INCORPORATED INTO THE PLAN SET. 15 updated sets of plans no larger than 24" x 36": Certified survey Supplementary plans One (1) set of 11" x 17" plans. Application, required information, and payment must be submitted no Inter than 21 days prior to the regularly scheduled Planning Commission meeting. Applications sill be reviewed by planning stall Applicants will be notified as to any additional information or modifications needed. Items will be scheduled far Planning Commission public hearing when it has been verified that the application is complete. Planning Commission public hearings are conducted at 7 p.m. on the Brat Tuesday of each month. SSUBD.fiAN: 3/03/95 Page 1 I©G A Planning Commission agenda will be mailed to the address on your application. Special meetings of the Planning Commission maybe scheduled with the approval of the Planning Commission Chairperson and Assistant City Administrator. The charge J for a special meeting is $280 in addition to the base charge of the request. Planning Commission provides a recommendation to the City Council. Council consideration usuaAy occurs the drat meeting after Planning Commission review. Council meetings are held the 2nd and 4th Mondays each month. SSUSDJUN: 3/03105 Page 2 CITY OF MONTICELLO PRELI.NL`tARY PLAT REVIEW WORKSKEET r FOR CITY USE Staff involved in review process Date Filed Date of Review Copies Filed Fee Instructions to Applicant: This review workaheet is intended to assist an applicant In preparing a preliminary plat, and the City in doing a thorough, impartial review of a proposed preliminary plat. The Checklist contains all data required by City Ordinance. A preliminary plat will be considered incomplete if all required information is not submitted. NOTE: This is a worksheet, not a section of the ordinance. Applicants may request copies of the ordinance text. Please feel free to contact City staff if there are questions on the requirements. Applicant Name Phone Subdivision Name For For Design Standards Applicants City Non - Use Use Conforming Conforming 0 Q 1. Abstractors certificate, properly certified, identifying owner of property, and owners of all properties within 3501 of boundary of subject property. 0 2. Proposed name of subdivision. 2. Location of boundary lines in relation to s known section, quarter section or quarter - quarter section lines comprising a legal description of the property. •. Names and addresses of the record fee owner. 0 0 S. Scale of plat, not less than one (1) inch to one hundred (100) feat. r7 0 6. Data and northpoint. U Q T. Boundary line of proposed subdivision. O 0 6. Existing zoning classifications for land within and abutting the subdivision. . 2. IOj Design Standards For For Applicants City Non - Use i Use Conforming Conforming v O 9. Approximate acreage and dimensions of lots. O10. Location, rlgnt-of-way width, and names of existing or platted streets, or other public ways, parks, and other puiblic lands, perma- nent buildings and structures, easements, school districts, section and corporate lines within the plan and to a distance three hundred fifty (350) feet beyond shall also be indicated. Q11. Boundary lines of adjoining unsubdivided or subdivided land, within three hundred fifty (350) feet, identified by name and ownership, including all contiguous laid owned or controlled by subdivider. QO 12. Topographic data, including contours at vertical intervals of not sore than two (2) feet. Mater courses, sershea, rock outcrops, power trannmisnion poles and lines, size, location, and elevation of all appurtenances of existing public utilities and all quasi -public utilities, including the name and operating authority of each utility, and other significant features shall be shown. U.S.G.S. data shall be used for all topo- graphic mapping where feasible. (1929 sea level data shall be used for all topographic mapping. ) The flood elevation of all lakes, rivers, and watlands aheill also be shown. a a 12. An accurate soil survey of the subdivision prepared by a qualified person. a a 14. Sawar and water feasibility study completed by a registared civil engineer. a a 15. A survey prepared by a Qualified parson identifying tree coverage in the proposed subdivision in teras of typo, weakneas, maturity, potential hazard, infestation, vigor, density, and spacing. Q a 16. A copy of all proposed private restrictions and covenants. Q 17. A proposed grading plan shoving the present and existing contours aL a two (2) foot ( contour interval. . 2. IOj For For Design Standards Applicants City Non - Use Use Conforming Confor=ing r7 r_1 18. Layout of proposed streets showing the _ sight -of -way widths, center line gradients, i— typical cross sections, and proposed names of Streets. Q Q 19. Locations and widths of proposed alleys and Pedestrian ways. i— MQ 20. Layout, numbers, preliminary dimensions of lots and blocks, and dimensions of Street -- —r frontage. 0 r721. Minimum front and side street building setback lines. When lots are located on�— curve, the width of the lot at the building setback line. 0 Q 22. Areas, other than streets, allays, pedestrian ways and utility easements, intended to be dedicated or reserved for public use, in- cluding the size of Such area or areas in acres. r7 23. A statement of the approximate square footage and dimensions of the individual lots. 26. Statement of the proposed use of lots Stating _- type of residential buildings with number of —� proposed dwelling units and type of business or industry, 90 as to reveal the affect of the development on traffic, fire hazards, and congestion of population. 0 Q 25. Provision for surface water disposal, drainage, and flood control. Q r726. If any zoning changes are contemplated, the _ proposed zoning plan for the areas. �— 0 r727. A plan for soil erosion and sediment control both during construction and after develop- ment has boon completed. The plan shall include gradients of waterways, design of velocity and erosion control measures, and landscaping of the erosion and sediment control system. Q a 28. A vegetation preservation and protection plan that shows those trees proposed to be removed, those to remain, the types and locations of trace and other vegetation that are to be planted. -3- Statement of Planning Consultant attached? yes no Statement of Engineering Consultant attached? q yen no 10( Design Standards Por For Applicants City Non - Use Use Conforming Conforming v Q 0 29. Where the subdivider owns property adjacent to that which is being proposed for the subdivision, the Planning Commission shall require that the subdivider submit a sketch plan of the remainder of the property so as to show the possible relationship between the proposed subdivision and the future subdivision. a30. Where structures are to be placed on large lots (over thirty thousand (30,000) square feet), the preliminary plat shall indicate placement of structures so that lots may be further subdivided. where potential sub- division and use of excessively deep (over three hundred (300) feat) lots exist, the preliminary plat shall indicate placement of structures so that lots may be further subdivided. Q31. Other information requested by Engineer, Surveyor, Planning Consultant, Planning Commission, and/or staff. (Attach additional sheat(s) if necessary) QQ 32. A brief narrative statement describing the development plan for the subdivision. Such a statement should address, but not necessarily bs limited to, the following: 1) whether the applicant will be the builder or if the land will be sold to other developers; 2) the time table for the making of public improvements; 3) the phases, if any, of site development and construction; 4) whether or not the project requires an Environmental Assessment worksheet (MAW) or an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS); 9) plans for a Neighborhood (owners) Association; 6) snow removal policy (where common parking lots and/or driveways are proposed); 7) architectural standards, if any, and 6) possible negative Impact on surrounding property and proposed actions to mitigate any negative effect. Statement of Planning Consultant attached? yes no Statement of Engineering Consultant attached? q yen no 10( Staff recommendation to Planning Commission. (attach separate sheet(s) if necessary) Planning Commieeion recommendation to City Council. -S. IDJ ICK I CITY OF MONTICELLO SUBDIVISION DESIGN STANDARDS The following is a general checklist for design standards for subdivisions Within Monticello. In all cases, the Monticello Ordinance should be referred to for more detailed aspects of each design standard. Design Standards For For Applicants City Non - Use Use Conforming Conforming 11-5-1: BLOCKS a Q A. BLOCK LENGTH. The maximum block length is 1320 feet. Special considerations nzy be needed, however, in any blocks greater than 800 feet. a S. BLOCK WIDTH. A minimum of two lots shall be provided between streets. Business aWor industrial blocks shall provide space for parking and shipping and receiving. 11-5-2: LOTS Oa A. The minimum lot area shall conform to the current zoning standard. _ a a B. Corner late shall be slightly larger to allow for proper setbacks. a Q C. Side lot lines should be at right eagles to streets. 0 0 D. Every lot must have a minimum frontage as currently required by the Zoning Ordinance - 0 Q E. Setback or building lines shall be shown on all plats and shall be as required by the Monticello Zoning Ordinance. 11-5-3: STREETS AND ALLEYS 0 a A. Whenever possible, streets should aoraelly project through a subdivision to ai 1gn with existing streets. Special consideration should be given to street alignment . The maximum number of lots should not b = the only determining factor. Q 0 S. Minor streets should not be used as collectors. While dead-end streets are prohibited, cul-de-sacs may be usedl. A maximum length is 600 feet with a 60•foot radius for the right -of -ray. ICK I For For Design Standards Applicants City Non - Use Use Conforming Conforming QQ C. when only a portion of a piece of property is developed, a plan for the proposed future street system should be provided. Cj 0 D. Future street needs should be add eased in subdivisions having extremely large lots. O 0 E. Streets should be laid out as to intersect at right angles. -- "— Q a F. On subdivisions adjacent to state highways or _ main thoroughfares, service roads should be considered. Q Q G. Allays shall be provided in commercial and _ Industrial districts but should not be provided in residential districts. Q Q H. Dedication of hair streets will only bs approved under special conditions. Q 0 1. The minimum right-of-ways and paved surface for each street shall conform to that which is 1 - outlined in the ordinance. Greater widths of right-of-way may be required in some special instances. O Q J. STREET GRADES. The�_ +mum grade on all _ thoroughfares shall be 6e, all other streets �— St. Minimum grade on all streets is .5t. Q Q x. STREET ALIGNMENT. The horizontal and vertical _ alignment standards shall be as those sat forth in the ordinance. 0 0 L. CURB RADIUS. Curb radii shall be as shown in the ordinance. �— 11-5-4: EASEMENTS Q 0 A. Utility and drainage easements shall be _ provided on all lots. Six (6) feet shall r— be provided along side lot lines, and twelve ()2) feet shall be provided along the front and rear of each lot. Special cases in some instances may require greater widths. -_- lb- D For For Design Standards Applicants City Non - Use Use Conforming Conforming F7 a B. Utility easements shall connect with ease- ments established in adjoining properties. Once approved, eas amants shall not be changed without the consent of City Council. F7 F7 C. Additional easements should be provided at the outside of turns for utility pole guys. 11-5-5: EROSION 6 SEDIMENT CONTROL F7 A. The ordinance provides for specific construction requirements during development to control erosion and sediment. When top soil is removed, 1-t shall be replaced after excavation. The soil shall be restored to a depth of four (6 ) inches. Refer to the ordinance for specific: requirements in the area of erosion and sediment control. 11-5-6: DRAINAGE aa A. Where municipal et otm sever systems du not exist, ponding facilities shall be designed and provided. QB. No existing ditch. stream, drain, pond, or drainage canals shall be deepened, widened, rerouted, or fillesd without permission' from the City Council. ra C. If artificial charsnsls must be constructed, they may be planned as part of a recreation system. QD. The drainage systata shall be constructed and in operation durirsq the initial phases of construction. 11-5-7: STEEP SL40M M A. Maximum slope is 1 St. 11-5-8: WETLAND SYSTEMS O A. In some instances . there may be land containing drainage ways, wa tar courses, floodable areas, or wetlands which ars unsuitable for development. Please refer to tSre ordinance for specific ways in which these area" may be handled. DE 01) CHAPTER 6 PARKS, OPEN SPACE, AND PUBLIC USE For For Design Standards Applicants City Non - Use Use Conforming Conforming 11-6-1: DEDICATION REQUIRL+ENT aF7 A. The City requires that all developers requesting platting or replatting of land in the City of Monticello contribute 10% of the final plat gross area to be dedicated to the City for recreational purposes. The City can require a cash dedication in lieu of the land or any combination thereof. 11-6-2: CASH CONTRIBUTION QM A. All cash contributions collected are placed in a special fund to be used for park and raereation purposes. 11-6-J: DELAYED DEDICATION PAYMENT a a A. The City may approve a dolayod dodicstion payment. Hovever, interest to due and payable on such delayed payments. 11-6-6: PURCHASE OR CONDEMNATION OF LANDS Q A. This portion of the test refers to proposed parks, playgrounds, or public grounds vhlch have been indicated on official maps or master plans. This part of the ordinance provides protection for those areas. 11-6-5: LOCATION AND CONTIGUAATION OF DEDICATION 0 0 A. The City Council reserves the right to determine the geographic location and configuration of said dedication. -<- IC�� 11-7-i R.E_-UIRED BAS:C LMPRCVL4E:rS V SEC"ICN : 11-7-1: General 11-7-2: Street Improvements 11-7-3: Sanitary Sewer and Water Distribution Improvements 11-7-4: Public Utilities 11-7-1: G=MRAL. (A) Before a final plat is approved by the City Council, the owner or subdivider of the land covered by the said plat shall execute and sub- mit to the Council an agreement, which shall be binding on his or their heirs, personal representatives and assigns, that he will cause no pri- vate construction to be made on said plat or file or cause to be filed any application for building permits for such construction until all improvements required under this Ordinance have been made or arranged for in the manner following as respects the streets to which the lots sought to be constructed have access. (B) Prior to the making of such required improvements, the City Council shall require the Owner or Subdivider to pay to the City an amount equal to a minimum of 25% and up to 100 of the estimated total cost of such improvements, including not only construction but all indirect costs. The actual percentage to be determined by the City in each case based on its review oft 1. The financial background of the developer. 2. The normalcy of the unit charge for putting in the improvement. 3. An evaluation of the coat recovery potential through the Bale of the land. 4. The likelihood of success of the development. 9. Bao the developer defaulted on any outstanding assessment pay- ments in the past twelve (12) months. This payment must be made to the City prior to the City Council adoptinq the resolution ordoring the project. The balance of the total project coot will be aososood 100% against the benefited property, payablo in not more than tan (101 annual installments with interest at a rata of at least 1.5% (rounded up to the nearest .25%) over the rate paid on bonds issued to finance the improvements, or, if financed internally, over the then equivalent rate the City determined it would have to pay on bonds issued at that time: provided, however, that the entire assosomant balance out- standing against a given parcel is to be paid in full prior to the issuanco of a certificate of occupancy permit for principal use of new construction on that parcel, or within 190 days after a building permit for new con- otruction is issued, whichever comes first. In the event a building per- mit in applied for prior to completion of installation of tate imprcvementa, the payment to the City shall be in an amount equal to 125% of the esti- mated total assessment. Upon completion of the project and determination of the actual coot to be assessed, any overcharge will be ref,mded and any additions: coot will be due the City within 30 days of notifi:stion Tar 11-7-i 11-7-i of such additional cost. If, for any reason, subsequent to ha•:ing made such adrarce payment to the City, the developer should withdraw from the project, the City is entitled to retain an amount equal to the City's cost related to the project to that time, and the balance shall be re- funded to the developer. (Ord. am. 3/26/79 466) (C) No final plat shall be approved by the City Council withcut first receiving a report from the City Engineer certifying that the improvements described herein, together with the agreements and documents required herein, meet the minimum requirements of all applicable ordinances. Draw- ings showing all improvements as built shall be filed with the City Clerk. (D) No final plat shall be approved by the City Council on land subject to flooding or containing poor drainage facilities and on land which would make adequate drainage of the streets and lots impossible. How- ever, if the subdivider agrees to make improvements which will, in the opinion of the City Engineer, make the area completely safe for residential occupancy and provide adequate street and lot drainage, and conform to applicable regulations of other agencies such as the U.S. Corps of Engineers or the Department of Natural Resources the final plat of the subdivsion may be approved. In addition, such plats may not be approved if the cost of providing municipal services to protect the flood plain area would impose an unreasonable economic burden upon the City. (E) All of the required improvements to be installed under the provisions of this Ordinance shall be inspected during the course of their construc- tion by the City Enq'_neer. all of tho inspection costs pursuant thereto shall be paid by the owner or subdivider in the manner prescribed in Pars - graph (e) above. (F) Water, sanitary sewer and storm sewer, lateral lines shall be assessed 100% against the benefited property within the proposed subdivision. These assessments shall be made on a residential housing unit basis. (G) Water, sanitary and storm sewer, trunk Linea shall be assessed 100% against the benefited property, whether or not the services are made im- mediatoly available to the property, on a net platted area basis. The assessments will utilise a per acre unit for large undeveloped areas and a per square foot unit for platted properties. (H) The coat of constructing permanent streets, including curb and gutter, will be 100% asaeaaed against benefited property based on front footage. Corner Iota shall be aaaeased for frontage only with no charge made for the, long aide lot footage. Costs resulting from intersections and aide lot footago shall be included ii the total amount to be assessed and ap- portioned over the not assessable footage. In the cane of off-ahaped lots, the footage shall be as measured at the building set -back linai how- ever, in no event shall the assessable footage be lase than the minimum lot width as required by the City. 7 V 11-7-1 11-7-2 (I) At the request of the owner or subdivider, the City may agree to spread all of the assessments against the subidivlsion on a -per lot or residential housing unit basis, rather than an the various methods set forth in (e^), (G) or (H) above. (J) In all cases, the procedure for local improvements prescribed in Minnesota Statutes Chapter 429, shall be followed. (K) The requiramant3 of this ordinance are intended to be compatible with the assessment polio ordinance 13-1-1 through 13-1-3. (6-12-78 #57) (L) The City Council retains the option of allowing a subdivider/developer to install all required public improvements at the subdivider's/developer's own axpenae provided that plans and specifications have first been approved by the City Engineer, and further, that all improvements installed by the subdivider/developer shall be inspected during the course of construction by the City Engineer. All plan revew and inspection costs pursuant thereto shall be paid by the subdivider/developer In the event that the City Council allows a subdivider/developer to construct/install improvements, and said improvements may at soma future time be utilized by subsequent subdividers/developers, the City shall not rebate, refund, reimburse or in any manner offer payment or repayment to the subdivider/developer who originally const--uctad/insta_ said improvements. Nothing in this section shall prohibit or prevent the City from establishing a fee, charge or assessment against the subsequent subdividers/developers which benefit from said prior improvemer.:. for the purpose of maintaining or upgrading the public improvements. (9-9-85 #149) b 11-7-2: STREET IMPROVEMENTS: (A) The full width of the right-of-way shall be graded, including the subgrade of the areas to be paved, in accordance with standards and specifications for street construction as required oy the City Council. (B) All streets shall be improved with pavement In accordance with the standards and specifications for street construction as required by the City Council. (C) All streets to be paved shall be of an overall width in accordance with the standards and specifications for street construction as required by the City Council. (D) Curb and gutter will be constructed as required by the standards and specification for street construction as required by the City Council. (2) Storm sewers, culverts, storm water inlets, and other drainage facilities will be required where they are necessary to insure adequate storm water drainage for the subdivision. Where required, such drainage facilities shall be constructed in accordance with the standards and opacifications for street construction as required by the City Council. � fPl Street traea and boulevard sodding shall be planted in conformance with the standards and specifications ss required by the City Council. IC, w (G) Street signs of the standard design as may be required by the City Council shall be installed at each street intersection. r' (H) Sidewalks of standard design as say be required by the City Council. 11-7-3: SAKI=ARY S'ZdM AND WATER DIS:4ISUTIOH IMPRCVEMITS: (A) Sanitary sewers shall be installed as may be required by standards and specifications approved by the City Council. (8) City water facilities, including pipe fittings, hydrants, etc., shall be installed as may be required by standards and specifications approved by the City Council. Where City water facilities are not available for extension into the proposed subdivision, the Cipt Council may by ordinance grant a fraachise for such water facilities, to serve all properties within a subdivision where a complete and adequate neighborhood water distribution system is designed in conjunction with the subdivision, and complete plans for the system are submitted for approval of the City Council. (C) Where City sewer and water facilities are not available for extension into proposed subdivision, the Council may permit the use of individual water and sewer systems in accordance with appropriate State regulations. 11-7-6: PUBLIC UTILITIES: (A) Where feasible, in the opinion of the Engineer, all utilities lines for telephone and electric service shall be placed in rear Line easements when carried on overhead poles. (8) Where telephone, alectric and/or gas service lines are to be placed underground entirely, conduits or cables shall be placed within easements or dedicated public ways, in such • mannor so as mpt to conflict with other underground services. All drainage and other underground utility installations whlch traverse privately owner property shall be protected by easements furnished by the subdivider. (C) Each public utility company installing underground facilities must file with the City an as built drawing within one hundred eighty (180) days of installation, indicating the location of the utility in relation to the property lines, elevation of the facility, and the ground elevation at each service or at each one hundred (100) foot interval. The type, size, voltage, or pressure of this facility including location of appurtenances along the lines for shut off control shall also be included. Iry CITY OF MONTICELLO COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT PO Box 1147, 250 E. Broadway Monticello, MN 55362 (612)295-2711 VARIANCE CHECKLIST AND INFORMATION One complete site planmo larger than 11" x 17". List, mailing labels, and map from Wright County of names and addresses of ALL current property owners of record within 350 feet of the boundaries of the property (exception: yard setbacks - abutting property owners only - 10: 23AC]) (see form letter attached). Complete application form, signed by property fee owner and applicant. Fee per current City of Monticello Fee Schedule. Zonae Ordinance Criteria 23-3: FINDING OF PLANNING COMMISSION AND CITY STAFF: In considering all requests for variance or appeal and taking subsequent action, the City.staff and the Planning Commission, 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 Planning Commission, serving as the Board of Adjustment and Appeals, shall, after receiving the written reports and recommendations of the City staff, 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 non -economic hardship in the reasonable use of a specific parcel of property exists. A hardship that by some reason of narrowness, shallowness, or shape of a specific parcel of property or lot existing and of record upon the effective date of this ordinance or that by reason of exceptional topographic or water conditions of a specific parcel of land or lot, the strict application of the terms of this ordinance would result in exceptional difficulties 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 would 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 Planning Commission find that the conditions outlined heretofore apply to the proposed lot or parcel, VARIANCEI AN: 00/95 page I 105 the Planning Commission may grant a variance from the 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. 1. Application, required information, and payment must be submitted no later than 21 days prior to the regularly -scheduled Planning Commission meeting. 2. Applications will be reviewed by planning staff. Applicants will be notified as to any additional information or modifications needed Items will be scheduled for Planning Commission public hearing when it has been verified that the application is complete. 3. Planning Commission public hearings are conducted at 7 p.m. on the first Tuesday of each month. 4. A Planning Commission agenda will be mailed to the address on your application. 6. Decisions of the Planning Commission are final unless an appeal is filed with the Zoning Administrator within 6 days of the decision. 6. Appeals of the decision of the Planning Commission may be made to the City Council and must be in writing stating the basis for appeal. Such appeal shall be placed on the City Council meeting agenda for a public hearing within 30 days after it is received, and notice of an appeal shall be published in the official newspaper at least 4 days prior to the hearing. City Council meetings are held the 2nd and 4th Mondays of each month. 7. Special meetings of the Planning Commission may be scheduled with the approval of the Planning Commission Chairperson and Assistant City Administrator. The charge for a special meeting is $250 in addition to the base charge of the request. VARIANCE": 1/30/83 Page 2 CITY OF MONTICELLO COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT PO Boz 1147, 250 E. Broadway Monticello, MN 55362 (612) 295-2711 ADMIIVISTRATIVE PERMIT --HOME OCCPPATION CHECKLIST AND INFORMATION Complete application form, signed by the property fee owner. Fee per current City of Monticello Fee Schedule. A home occupation permit allows certain commercial use of residential land that is clearly incidental or secondary to the principal residential use of the property. The purpose of the permit process is to protect the value of residential property by assuring that commercial use of residential land is properly regulated and conducted in a manner consistent with rules governing the operation of home occupations. The information required with this application will assist the City in determining if a permit may be issued directly by staff, if a special permit is necessary, or if the proposal does not meet the minimum requirements of the special permit. PROCESS After the City receives your application, the following steps will be taken: 1. City staff will review the application and determine that the home occupation meets the requirements of the ordinance. If so, City stag will issue a permit directly. 2. Home occupations not eligible for a permit may qualify for a "special permit." If so, the applicant must pay a special permit fee in the amount of $125. The matter will then be reviewed by the Planning Commission and City Council via the public hearing process. 3. City staff is responsible for rejecting home occupation proposals that do not meet the minimum requirements for a permit or special permit. FOLLOWING IS SECTION 3.11 OF THE MONTICELLO ZONING ORDINANCE PERTAINING TO HOME OCCUPATION PERMITS: 3.11: HOME OCCUPATIONS: (Aj Pumfle. The purpose of this section is to prevent competition with business districts and to provide a means through the establishment of specific standards and procedures by which home occupations can be conducted in residential neighborhoods without jeopardizing the HOMEOCC.HAN: V=95 Page 1 health, safety, and general welfare of the surrounding neighborhood. In addition, this section is intended to provide a mechanism enabling the distinction between permitted home occupations and special or customarily "more sensitive" home occupations so that permitted home occupations may be allowed through an administrative process rather than a legislative hearing process. [B] AnDlication. Subject to the non -conforming use provision of this section, all occupations conducted in the home shall comply with the provisions of this section. This section whall not be construed, however, to apply to home occupations accessory to farming. [C] Encedures and Permits; Permitted Home Occupation. Any permitted home occupation as defined in this section shall require a "permitted home occupation permit." Such permits shall be issued subject to the conditions of this section, other applicable city code provisions, and state law. This permit may be issued by the Zoning Administrator or his agent based upon proof of compliance with the provisions of this section. Application for the permitted home occupation permit shall be accompanied by a fee as adopted by the Council. If the Administrator denies a permitted home occupation permit to an applicant, the applicant may appeal the decision to the City Council acting as the Board of Adjustment and Appeals, which shall make the final decision. The permit shall remain in force and effect until such time as there has been a change in conditions or until such time as the provisions of this section have been reached. At such time as the City has reason to believe that either event has taken place, a public hearing shall be held before the Planning Commission. The Council shall make a final decision on whether or not the permit holder is entitled to the permit. 2. Special Home Occupation. Any home occupation which does not meet the specific requirements for a permitted home occupation as defined in this section shall require a "special home occupation permit" which shall be applied for, reviewed, and disposed of in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 22 of the zoning ordinance. 3. Declaration of Conditions. The Planning Commission and the Council may impose such conditions of the granting of a "special home occupation permit" as may be necessary to carry out the purpose and provisions of this section. HOMEOCC.HAN: 1/30/96 Page 2 m 4. Effect of Permit. A "special home occupation permit" may be issued for a period of one (1) year after which the permit may be reissued for periods of up to three (3) years each. Each 4 application for permit renewal will be reviewed by City staff. City staff will determine whether or not it is necessary to process permit renewal in accordance with the procedural requirements of the initial special home occupation permit. Staff determination will be made based upon the manner of operation observed by staff and based upon the level of complaints made about the home occupation. 5. Transferability. Permits shall not run with the land and shall not be transferable. 6. Lapse of Special Home Occupation Permit by Non -Use. Whenever within one (1) year after granting a permit the use as permitted by the permit shall not have been initiated, then such permit shall become null and void unless a petition for extension of time in which to complete the work has been granted by the Council. Such extension shall be requested in writing acid filed with the Zoning Administrator at least thirty (30) days before the expiration of the original permit. There shall be no charge for the filing of such petition. The request for extension shall statc facts shooing a good faith attempt to initiate the use. Such petition shall be presented to the Planning Commission for a recommendation and to the Council for a decision. Reconsideration. Whenever an application for a permit has been considered and denied by the Council, a similar application for a permit affecting substantially the same property shall not be considered again by the Planning Commission or Council for at least six (6) months from the date of its denial uxiless a decision to reconsider such matter is made by not less than four-fifths (415) vote of the full Council. Renewal of Permits. An applicant shall not have a vested right to a permit renewal by reason of having obtained a previous permit. In applying for and accepting a permit, the permit holder agrees that his monetary investment in the home occupation will be tally amortized over the life of the permit and that a permit renewal will not be needed to amortize the investment Each application for the renewal of a permit will be reviewed without taking into consideration that a previous permit has been granted. The previous granting or renewal of a permit shall not constitute a precedent or basis for the renewal of a permit. HOMEOCC.HAN: V3Q% Page 3 IC� ED] Reauirements; General Provisions.. All home occupations shall comply with the following general provisions and, according to definition, the applicable requirement provisions. VI. 1. General Provisions. a. No home occupation shall produce light glare, noise, odor, or vibration that will in any way have an objectionable effect upon adjacent or nearby property. b. No equipment shall be used in the home occupation which will create electrical interference to surrounding properties. C. Any home occupation shall be clearly incidental and secondary to the residential use of the premises, should not change the residential character thereof and shall result in no incompatibility or disturbance to the surrounding residential uses. d. No home occupation shall require internal or external alterations or involve construction features not customarily found in dwellings except where required to comply with local and state fire and police recommendations. e. There shall be no exterior storage of equipment or materials used in the home occupation, except personal automobiles used in the home occupation may be parked on the site. C The home occupation shall meet all applicable fire and building codes. g. There shall be no exterior display or exterior signs or interior display or interior signs which are visible from outside the dwelling with the exception of an identification sign which is limited to idenWng the name of the resident only. h. All home occupations shall comply with the provisions of the city code. i. No home occupation shall be conducted between the hours of 10 p.m. and 7 a.m. unless said occupation is contained entirely within the principal building and will not require any on -street parking facilities. HOMEOCC.HAN: OW05 page 4 � � �— j. No home occupation shall be permitted which results in or generates more traffic than one (1) car for off-street parking at any given point in time. V [E] $gpuirements: Permitted Home Occupations. 1. No person other than those who customarily reside on the premises shall be employed. 2. All permitted hone occupations shall be conducted entirely within the principal building and may not be conducted in an accessory building. 3. Permitted home occupations shall not create a parking demand in excess of that which can be accommodated as defined in Section 3.6 [F] 6, where no vehicle is parked closer than fifteen (16) feet from the curb line. 4. Permitted home occupations include and are not limited to: art studio, dressmaking, secretarial services, foster care, professional offices and teaching with musical, dancing, and other instructions which consist of no more than one pupil at a time and similar uses. 6. The home occupation shall not involve any of the following: repair service or manufacturing which requires equipment other than found in a dwelling teaching which customarily consists of more than one pupa at a time; over-the-counter sale of merchandise produced off the premises, except for those brand name products that are not marketed and sold in a wholesale or retail outlet. [F] Reauirementa: Special Hnme Oecuoations. 1. No person other than a resident shall conduct the home occupation, except where the applicant can satisfactorily prove unusual or unique conditions or need for non-resident assistance and that this exception would not comprozziee the intent of this chapter. 2. Examples of special home occupations include: barber and beauty services, photography studio, group lessons, saw sharpening, skate sharpening, small appliances and small engine repair and the like. 3. The special home occupation may involve any of the following: stock -in -trade incidental to the performance of the service, repair service or manufacturing which requires equipment KOM6000.HAN: vaasa Page 5 other than customarily found in a home, the teaching with musical, dancing, and other instruction of more than one pupil at a time. 14- 4. Non -Conforming Use.. Existing home occupations lawfully existing on the effective date of this section may continue as non -conforming uses. They shall, however, be required to obtain permits for their continued operation. Any existing home occupation that is discontinued for a period of more than 180 days, or is in violation of the provisions of this chapter under which it was initially established, shall be brought into conformity with the provisions of this section. 17 6. Inspection. The City hereby reserves the right upon issuing any home occupation permit to inspect the premises in which the occupation is being conducted to ensure compliance with the provisions of this section or any conditions additionally imposed. HOMEOCC.iiAN: LISM Page 6 IA" GyF- v Applicant Name: Address: CITY OF MONTICELLO COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT PO Boz 1147, 250 E. Broadway Monticello, MN 55362 (612) 295-2711 ADMRQSTHATIVE PERMIT • HOME OCCUPATION APPLICATION/PERM 17 Phone: Home: Business Name: Business: Planning Case #_ 1. Please describe the proposed home occupation activity in general terms and location within home. WILL THE HOME OCCUPATION INCLUDE ANY OF THE FOLLOWING? "'ircle your response) 2. Retail activity? Yes No 3. Manufacturing or repair activity? Yes No 4. Inventory to be kept on the premises? Yes No 5. Any person other than those residing on the premises employed in the home occupation? Yes No 6. Use of mechanical equipment not customarily found in the home? Yes No 7. More than one room devoted to the home occupation? Yes No 8. Outside storage of materials? Yes No 9. Signage? Yes No 10. Internal or external alterations involving construction? Yes No 11. Will the home occupation be conducted in a garage or accessory building?. Yes No 12. Will the home occupation result in more than one customer's car being parked on the premises at any given point in time? Yes No 13. Describe the entrance to the space devoted to the home occupation: HOMEOCC.APP: L1305 Page 1 ICr. Please provide detail for all YES answers above: I have reviewed the regulations associated with operation of a home occupation, and I have reviewed City staff comments. I do hereby agree to abide by all City of Monticello home occupation regulations. Date Applicant Signature FEE: $10 / $126 Receipt 0 J t►►i�tt►►tNigi►►►►►►t►t N tt►t►►►t►tN►t►tt►qt►N►►q►►N►►tt►►ttt►►►►t N►►Nt►►►►►q►►q (For City use only) It has been determined by staff that this home occupation permit is: j roved ) Denied [ ] Special Permit Needed STAFF COMMENTS: Assistant Administrator Zoning Administrator Date Approved Date Approved Public Hearing Date: N/A HOMEOCC.APP: V30W Page 2 CITY OF MONTICELLO CONMUNI TY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT PO Boa 1147, 250 E. Broadway Monticello, MN 55362 V (612) 295-2711 ANNUAL PORTABLE SIGNBANNER CHECKLIST AND INFORMATION Complete application form, signed by property fee owner. Fee per current City of Monticello Fee Schedule. The following information and associated form is used to assist City staff in administering City regulations with regard to portable signs and banners. Please review the following information and complete the form accordingly: 1. Each permit is valid for remaining length of the calendar year. 2. The "Applicant" is defined as: in the case of a single business located on a single property, the applicant must be the business owner or property owner. In the case of multiple businesses located on a single property, the applicant must be the owner of the property or the association of businesses located on the property. The owner or association is responsible for distributing the 40 available days for display to the individual businesses located on the property. In the case of a single business and associated parking located on. multiple parcels, the days available for display of temporary signs shall be limited to 40 days. 3. The log sheet on the back of the application/permit must be used to identify actual days that a portable sign or banner is displayed. For each day that a banner is displayed, a corresponding entry on the log sheet must be made. No contact with city hall is necessary when changing banters. Simply identify each banner and the days displayed throughout the course of the year. 4. All portable signs and banners must be well maintained and kept in good repair at all times. The Building Official shall order the immediate removal of any device considered to be damaged or in poor condition. Non-compliance shall be just cause for revocation of the permit without refund. 5. No placement shall be allowed on public rights-of-way. 6. All portable signs shall be on ground level except that banners may be afiized to a building, facade, permanent pylon sign, or other permanent flxttue. 7. Not more than two (2) portable signs shall be displayed at the same time per day. 8. Permit fees shall be set by the City Council and shall be payable upon application for said permit. 8IGNBAN.HAN: 2/06/98 CITY OF MONTICELLO Permit o COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT PO Bo: 1147, 250 E. Broadway Monticello, MN 58362 (612) 298-2711 v ANNUAL PORTABLE SIGN/BANNER APPLICATION/PERMIT [ I New Application [ I Renewal Applicant Name: Address: Phone: Home: Businee� LOCATION OF PORTABLE SIGN/BANNER. PropertyOwnerName: Phone: Home- Busiaese This form must be kept in an seem, Is place and available for review by City staff at any time during normal working hours. Failure to maintain an accurate log sheet may result in the City rescinding the annual permit. ,*—.t such time that 40 days have been used or at the end of the year, PLEASE RETURN TEAS FORM OR A COPY OF IT TO C1TY STAFF FOR OUR FU.M tttttttlbtttttbttttatbttt ........ .... ttpttl» I have reviewed city regalatioae pertaining to portable signs and banners. I recognize that this permit allows me to display a portable signor banner on my property for a maximum of 40 days per calendar year. Furthermore. I hereby agree to maintain a daily account of the use of banners on my property. If I fail to keep such an accounting. I will not object to the City rescinding my permit, and I will not object to having a City employee enter my property to remove banners or portable signs. Date Applicant Signature FEE: $8.00 Receipt A tt t HtttttlttttttttttbttlbtbttpltbttttbbttttlHtlttlHttlt ttHHttttt4tlttttttlHtlttittt (For City Use Only) It has been determined by staff that this permit is: I I Approved I I Denied Date Approved Building Oficial SIGNBAN.APP: 1/30/98 PflQe I Il CITY OF MONTICELLO PORTABLE SIGN/BANNER LOG SHEET J Permt t oar I Gare I a mer/so mwrtpnm I Infirm SIGNBAN.APP: 01/250 CITY OF MONTICELLO CONMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT PO Boa 1147, 250 E. Broadway Monticello, MN 55362 (612)295-2711 ATTENTION -GETTING DEVICE CHECKLIST AND INFORMATION Completed application form, signed by property owner. Fee per current City of Monticello Fee Schedule. 1. The temporary use of a decorative attention -getting device and searchlights shall require an annual or daily permit. 2. A permit for decorative attention -getting devices shall be issued for a marimum period of ten (10) days, with a minimum period of one hundred eighty (180) days between consecutive issuance of such permits for any property or parcel. 3. All attention -getting devices must be well maintained and kept in good repair at all times. The Building Official shall order the immediate removal of any device considered to be damaged or in poor condition. Non- compliance shall be just cause for revocation of the permit without refund. 4. All attention -getting devices shall be allowed only on the property or site where the business or enterprise is situated. No placement shall be allowed on public rights-of-way. 8. All attention -getting devices shall be on ground level except that banners and streamers may be affixed to a building, facade, permanent pylon sign, or other permanent fixture. Airborne inflatable devices shall be tethered on site. 6. No more than two (2) attention -getting devices shall be permitted to be displayed in conjunction with any portable sign. 7. A decorative attention -getting device may bear the name of the business but shall not bear any service, product, price, etc., advertising message. 8. Permit fees shall be set by the City Council and shall be payable upon application for said permit. AGDEVICE.HAN: 1/30/95 Ur. . CITY OF MONTICELLO Permit p COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT PO Boz 1147, 250 E. Broadway Monticello, MN 55362 (612) 295-2711 ATTENTION-GETTING DEVICE (AGD) APPLICATION/PERMIT Applicant Name: Address: Phone: Home: B+�*�_: AGD Location: AGDDescriptior- FIRM OR INDIVIDUAL RESPONSIBLE FOR AGD INSTALLATION AND REMOVAL: Name: Address: Phone: Home: Business: D Date to be installed: Date to be rammed. Ij ROTE: AHD's are to be removed within 10 days of date installed.) Applicant hereby assumes all responsibility and liability for the AGD to be installed and agrees to maintain the AGD in good condition. If repairs are necessary, they shall be made by the applicant immediately after notification. If it becomes necessary for the City of Monticello to repair or remove the AGD, the applicant agrees to reimburse the City of Monticello for these coats. Date Applicant Signature (For City Use Only) It has been determined by staff that this AGD permit is: [)approved (1 denied Building Official FEE: 95,00 C :eipt 1 Data Approved AGDEMCEAPP: 1/30/98 PagelI AGD FOLLOW-UP INSPECTION AGD Inspection Date: [ 1 Removed [ 1 Not Removed J If not removed, action taken: AGDEVICE.APP: IM0195 Pop 2 CITY OF MONTICELLO COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT PO Box 1147, 250 E. Broadway .� Monticello, MN 55362 (612) 295-2711 AD1VIIIv_IFTRATIVE —45 PERMPL--S0-NAL SALES, CHECHIAST AND INFORMATION Application and fees will be accepted only if all materials are submitted. Sketch plan of the site, noting all locations of ALL customer parking at the site and location of product displays and structures to be placed on the site in conjunction with proposed use. Complete application form, signed by the applicant. Fee per current City of Monticello Fee Schedule. An administrative permit allows certain uses such as seasonal sales that are not specifically addressed within the terms of the zoning ordinance but which present no apparent conflict to the intent of the ordinance. The information required with this application will assist in determining if the proposed use conflicts with the intent of the zoning ordinance. It' PROCESS After City receives your application, the following steps will be taken: City staff will review the application and determine that the seasonal sales proposal meets the requirements of the ordinance. If the seasonal sales proposal meets the minimum requirement of the ordinance, City staff will issue a permit directly. 2. City staff is responsible for determining whether or not seasonal sales proposals meet the minimum requirements for a permit Staff rejection of seasonal sales proposals may be appealed to the Planning Commission or may be processed under the zoning ordinance amendment process. SEASONAL. HA.v: 1/30/85 low, CITY OF MONTICELLO Planning COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Case p _ PO Boz 1147, 280 E. Broadway Monticello, MN 88362 (612) 298.2711 ADMIMSTR4TLV A PERMIT • SEASONAL SALES APPLICATION/PERMIT [i New application [ ) Renewal (see back of form) Applicant Name: Address: Phone: Home: Busime.■• Business Name: Business location: Describe existing business or use at the site: Describe the proposed use of the property conducted in addition to the existing use of the property: Start Date: End Date: Will parking spaces used in conjunction with existing use be displaced by the proposed use? Yes No If so, how many? How many additional parking spaces will be needed? PERMITS MUST BE RENEWED ANNUALLY. Date Applicant Signature ,�FE: $10 ceipt • SEASONAL.APP. 1/80198 Pie 14 If renewal, have there been any changes made to the site since previous permit? [ ] yes [ ] no If yes, describe changes: ttgtpf H tqt tttHtgtgtqtN gfltttq HtgtttfittgtqH tttgtgttqHtqtHttqHtqtttttMtqtt (For City Use Only) It has been determined by stag that an administrative permit is: [ I Approved [ I Denied Approval is granted with the following conditions: CITY OF MONTICELLO CITY OF MONTICELLO Assistant Administrator Zoning Administrator Date Approved Date Approved SEA90NAL,APP: U3M Page 2 CITY OF MONTICSLLO SIG1 PERMIT APPLICATION 1f 1f 111 11ffff1l♦fffl♦/f1.1ff.111.1ffff 1f 11111♦11.f1f1.1f 1f 1f 11111111 111 1111.11 111 1111 111 1/1♦�• NAME BUSINESS ADDRESS PERMIT NUMBER LEGAL DF-712TICN: LOT BLOCK ADDITION SQ FT OF FRONT SIGN AREA SO FT OF FRONT SILHOUETTE AREA OF BLDG SQ FT OF SIDE SIGN AREA SO FT OF SIDE SILHOUETTE AREA OF BLDG SQ FT OF REAR SIGN AREA SO FT OF REAR SILHOUETTE AREA OF BLDG SQ FT OF PYLON SIGN AREA SO FT OF PORTABLE SIGN AREA 11.1.1..111.1....11.1.1..........••.•111 1f1..11f1f1.1.111f1.1f 11fH •1.111.11.... INSTRUCTIONS TO APPLICANT For new and existing buildings, provide the tollowxng Laformation: location of existing and proposed new signs on building or building lot. Show building front, side, or rear dimensions and square footage. Show dimensions and square footage of building siqn(s) and/or pylon sign(s). Specify the use of each building and each major portion thereof. PERMIT FEE 0 RECEIPT i INDICATE NORTH IN CIRCLE Each grapn square equald 1-01, oy 1-0' i/Me certify that the proposed construction will conform to the dimensions and uses shosm above and that no changes will be made without first obtaining appcoval: Signature of Applicant •..1.••11111•�...•1••1111��•...1..........................• N.....1.�11.111.1111f (For city ase only) ZONED APPROVED BY lj^TE: DATE V4 CITY OF MON'fICELLO LAM ALTERATION PERMIT NO OPERTY ADDRESS ZONED LEGAL+ LOT BLOCR TRACT OWNER ADDRESS PHONE CONTRACTOR ADDRESS PHONE DESCRIBE WORK TO BE DONSt .................................................................................................. M0NTICELLO Z0NING ORDINANCE FM ATIMO TO LAMD ALTERATI0N Section I-7 LAND RECLAMATION: Under this ordinance, Land Reclamation is the reclaiming of land by depositing of materials so as to elevate the grade. Land reclamation @hall be permitted only by conditional use permit in all districts. Any lot or parcel upon which 400 cubic yards or more of fill is to be deposited shall come under the controls of land reclamation. The permit shall include, as a condition thereof, a finished grade plan which will not adversely affect the adjacent land, and, as conditions thereof, shall regulate the type of fill permitted, program for rodent control, plan for fire control and general maintenance of the site, controls of vehicular ingress and egress, and for control of material disbursed from wind or hauling of material to or from the site. Section 3-8 MININGS The extraction of sand, gravel, or other material from the land in the amount of 600 cubic yards or more and removal thereof from the site without processing shall be defined as Mining. In all districts the conduct of mining shall be permitted only upon issuance of a conditional use permit. Such permit shall include, as a condition thereof, a plan for a finished grade which will not adversely affect the surrounding land or the development of the site on which the mining Is being conducted, and route of trucks moving to and from the site. .................................................................................................. I hereby certify that I have read and examined this application and find the same to be true and correct and agree to comply with the zoning ordinance a@ adopted and in effect at the time of this application. OATS SIGNATURE (for office use only) THIS PERMIT I8 GRAMTSD UPON THE EXPRESS CONDITIONS THAT SAID OMMER AND HIS CONTRACTORS, AGENTS, WORKMEN AND EMPLOYEES, SHALL COMPLY IM ALL RESPECTS WITH THE ORDINANCES OF THE CITY OF M0NTICELLO. GIVEN UNDER THE HUM Of THE BUILDING OFFICIAL OF THE CITY OF MONTICELL40 THIS DAY OF , 19_ Building Official City 165 Date Permit Issued Plat Receipt Number Parcel Permit Foe LAND-ALT.PSRi 5/14/97 i V CITY OF MONTICELLO APPLICATION FOR GRADING PERMIT The undersigned hereby applies for a permit to grade for the purpose of in the city of Monticello for the term of from the date hereof. (days or months) Restoration must be completed in (days or months) APPLICANT AND/OR COMPANY: ADDRESS: PHONE NO.: LOCATION OF THE GRADING: PURPOSE OF THE GRADING: CUBIC YARDS OF MATERIAL TO HH GRADED: EROSION CONTROL HEASURES: Applicant shall submit plana indicating the existing and proposed elevations of the site as well as the acurce and disposal areas of borrow or fill and Proposed haul route for fill or excavated materials. Sureties in the amount of $ required.* • Amount and type of sureties to be determined by the City of Monticello upon the coWletion of the review of the application. Sureties shall be submitted prior to issuance of a grading permit. DATED: it DATEDs GRADING.APP: 3/24/83 Signature of Applicant City of Monticello CITY OF ROSEVILLE PROCEDURES MANUAL rL �� i Frank Rog, Mayor James DeBenedet, Chairperson Joanne Cushman John Goedeke Dean Maschka Katie Harms Vem Johnson Edward Roberts Brenda Thomas Philip Stokes Cynthia Thomas Keith Wietecki Steve Sarkozy, City Manager Steve North, Assistant Manager Craig Waldron, Community Development Director Rick Jopke, Assistant Community Development Director Steve Gatlin, Public Works Director Karl Keel, Assistant Public Works Director Edward Burrell, Finance Director Bob Bierscheid, Parks and Recreation Director Craig Waldron, Community Development Director Rick Jopke, Assistant Community Develop hent Director John Shardlow, City Planning Consultant Charlene Finberg, Secretary Rick lopke, Assistant Community Development Director Karl Keel, Engineering Gordon Beseth, Chief Code Enforcement Officer Bob Rosenquist, Code Enforcement Officer Marty Hansen, Code Enforcement Officer John Shardlow, City Planning Consultant Gordon Beseth, Chief Code Enforcement Officer Bob Rosenquist, Code Enforcement Officer Marty Hansen, Code Enforcement Officer Frocadores Manual Pogo 1 GENERAL INFORMATION d (A) Pre -Application Meeting with Staff: Applicants are encouraged to arrange an informal discussion with the City Planning Staff prior to filing an application. This helps avoid delays and almost always results in a more efficient processing of applications. It is also advised that applicants stay in close contact with the City Staff while their applications are being processed. This has been found to expedite the review of applications since it provides for a timely exchange of information. The staff holds office hours as explained below. (B) Office Hours: The Roseville City offices are located at 2660 Civic Center Drive, Roseville, Minnesota 55113 and are open from 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.; phone number is 490-2200. (C) Develppment Review Committee: In order to insure internal coordination and provide efficient and timely processing, the City of Roseville utilizes a Development Review Committee to determine compliance with code related items. The Committee reviews all development related submittals and forwards data to the Parks Commission, Planning Commission, and City Council. The Committee may authorize building permits for all projects that involve permitted uses and meet all of the requirements of the zoning ordinance. Projects involving platting or subdivisions. zoning amendments, special use permits, variances, and vacations of public easement all require review by the Planning Commission and the City Council. The Development Review Committee is appointed by the City Manager and consists of members of the Community Development, Public Works, and Protective Inspections departments and the City Fire Marshal. The Committee shall determine technical conformance of proposed development with the requirements of the City Code. (D) Planning Commission Meetin The Roseville Planting Commission holds its regular meetings on the second Wednesday of each month at 7:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers at City Hall. The City Planner is the designated liaison between the Planning Commission and the City Council. He/she will attend the City Council meeting to report on Planning Commission actions. (E) Parks AdvisolX Com_miasion Meetings,: The Roseville Parks Advisory Commission meets at 7:30 p.m. on the second and fourth Tuesday of each month. Items requiring Parks Advisory Commission review will be considered three (3) weeks prior to the first Planting Commission meeting to consider the item. (F) Ciily Council Meetings: The Roseville City Council meets on the second and fourth Mondays of each month at 7:30 p.m. These meetings are held in the Council Chambers at City Hall. Action on development applications is generally limited to the meeting on the fourth Monday. Pro"dam Msnard Plage 3 IC* (G) AgcIIdas: Planning Commission, Parks Commission, and City Council agendas are normally available at the City offices at least one (1) week prior to the meeting. (H) Notification of Meetings: The applicants will be notified of the date and time of meetings. It is the responsibility of the applicants to stay informed of meeting times and dates. Failure of the applicants to appear when scheduled on a given agenda may cause the item to be • continued by the Planning Commission or City Council. (1) Accurate Information: The applicants are solely responsible for providing correct and complete information for staff review. Although this is generally true of all information related to the application, it is especially true of boundary surveys, legal descriptions, and information related to the control of land. Inaccurate or incomplete information can not only delay the processing of a petition, but can also negate action taken by any of the City governmental bodies. The fact that City staff accepts an application does not imply that is accurate or complete. That determination is only made after a thorough review by the Development Review Committee. Applicants are responsible for providing the City with a list, including two sets of mailing address IabeL of adjacent property owners within 350 feet of the subject property (250 feet for certain items). The list and labels must be included in the submission packet. Failure to do so may cause delays. Applicants are also responsible for providing plans that are well-designed and prepared by professionals. Failure to do so may again cause delay. SUMMARY OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PROCESS (A) The applicant obtains a copy of the application, required submittals, and the development process schedule. The applicant then discusses the proposal with a Planning Staff member. All applicants aro advised to schedule a pre -application conference with the staff. If appropriate, the applicant will also be directed to contact other governmental agencies, such as Ramsey County, Minnesota Department of Transportation, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (M PCA), etc. (B) During this time the applicant will be preparing the necessary information and plans for a formal submittal to the Planning Staff. am=. Failure to provide a complete and/or accurate package may result in delays of one month or more. (C) Once the applicant has submitted the necessary information and prepared the required plans, formal submittals will be accepted by the Planning Staff. The applicant is responsible for submitting two complete Poll size sets of plats and 26 reduced sets (page -size, 8-1 /2" z Procedurn Manual Page 3 11" or I l" x 17") to the City. The City Planner will distribute copies to the members of the Development Review Committee. The Development Review Committee will review the final plans for completeness. Should alterations or additions be required, the applicant will be contacted and informed as to the nature of the requested changes and the reasons that have led to them. The applicant will then have until 4:00 p.m. on the Friday of the first week to submit revised plans and materials. If there are alterations to the proposal prior to the Planning Commission meeting, additional full sets of plans and 26 full sets of reductions will be delivered to the City within the week. In order to allow time for staff review, the complete application must be filed with the Community Development Director by the Friday submission deadline. This entire process is graphically illustrated on Figure 1. (D) The Development Review Committee completes review of the project. Upon satisfactory review, the Community Development Director places the item on the Planning Commission agenda and the City Planner prepares a written report to the Planning Commission. (E) A copy of the planning report is sent to the applicant. The applicants are urged to meet with the City Staff to clarify issues and identify possible solutions to any problems that are identified in the planning report at least 24 hours prior to the meeting. This will allow staff the time needed to review the new information and to check with other departments if necessary. (F) The item will then be considered by the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission may take one of the four actions regarding a project. These four actions and the applicants' responsibilities in each case are outlined below: 1. Item is A, proved as Presented: If the Planning Commission recommends approval of the proposal exactly as it is presented, it will be considered by the City Council at their next regularly scheduled meeting to occur after the required ten-day public notice period. 2. Item is Approved by the Planing QMMiLlign.0d Referred to the City Council. Pending Additionpl or Revised Submittals. Occasionally, items are approved and referred to the City Council, pending the revision of portions of the proposal, the submittal of additional information, or staff or consultant's approval of revised plans. When this occurs, it is the applicant's responsibility to submit all the necessary plans and information no later than the two weeps prior to the meeting at which the item is to be heard. Failure to meet this deadline will mean that the item will not be considered at the next City Council meeting. 3. Planning Commission Continuation of Cortsiderntion of the Item Pending Submittal of Additional Information or Revisions in the Pingwall. Items may be continued by the Planning Commission pending the submittal of additional information or the revision of portions of a project. In this case, it is the responsibility of the applicant to make all of the necessary submittals no later than the two weeks prior to the next meeting. Procedures NMnusl Polls 4 4. Plannine Commission Recommendation of Denial of the Proposal as Presented: Items automatically go to the City Council with the Planning Commission's recommendation of approval or denial. If the Planning Commission's recommendation is for denial, the City Planner will be called upon to introduce the item and summarize the Planning Commission's findings that led to that recommendation. The petitioner will then be given an opportunity to present his/her case to the City Council. A list of Required Submittals for each type of proposal is attached to the application. If additional information is traded or requested, the applicant must supply the City with the information so that a thorough review of the project can be accomplished. PROCEDURE FOR PROCESSING A SUBDIVISION PRELIMINARY PLAT APPLICATION The procedure for processing a Preliminary Plat is essentially the same as that which is outline under the Development Review Process above. The applicant should begin by contacting the City Plattner to arrange an initial meeting, the applicant will receive a copy of the application and will be introduced to the staff representative who will review the project and prepare the staff report. The applicant must also begin preparation of the adjacent property owner list, if not already underway. Following the initial meeting, the City Staff member who is designated as responsible for presentation of the project to the Development Review Committee will become the applicants contact with the City throughout the remainder of the process. When, in the opinion of the Development Review Committee, the submission requirements have been satisfied, the City Planner will place the item on the agenda. The approval of the Preliminary Plat requires a minimum of one (1) meeting with the Planning Commission and one (1) meeting with the City Council. A summary of the basic submittals required to complete the Preliminary Plat application are attached to the application FINAL PLAT REVIEW The final plat will be reviewed by the Development Review Committee and, if found substantially similar to the preliminary plot, will be placed on the City Council agenda for final plat approval. The final plat documents (hardshells) will be executed by the City officials and released to the applicant following satisfactory completion of contracts, payments of all fees and assessments, posting of bonds, etc. Duting this process, the applicant should be submitting the plat to the County. This must be completed prior to the City's release of the hardshells. PROCEDURE FOR PROCESSING A REZONING APPLICATION When a proposed use is not permitted at a certain location by the Ordinance, the only way it can ` be allowed is through a rezoning. The applicant should begin the application by contacting the Procedures Manual Page S btit City Planner. The applicant must also prepare the list and one set of labels of adjacent property v owners. The City Planner will be responsible for making the presentation to the Development Review Committee. The applicant should meet with the City Planner to discuss the necessary submittals for project review. The City Planner will then refer the application to the Development Review Committee. All of the required plans and information must be submitted before the application is considered complete. The completed applications must be submitted to the City no later than the designated submission deadline for the Planning Commission meeting at which it is to be considered. The City of Roseville has been developing according to a Comprehensive Plan since 1959. In 1959, the entire City was zoned according to the Comprehensive Plan. Consequently, requests for rezoning should be discussed in terms of their affect on the purpose and intent of the Comprehensive Plan for the area, as well as their affect on the general health, safety, and welfare. PROCEDURE FOR PROCESSING A SPECIAL. USE PERMIT A Special Use is a use that would not generally be appropriate within a given zoning district, but which, if controlled as to number, area, size, location, or relationship to the neighborhood, could promote public health, safety, and welfare. Although the specific submittals required to complete the application for a Conditional Use Permit will vary with the specific use and the district in which it is located, all applicants should begin by contacting the City Planner. The City Planner will refer the application to the Development Review Committee. The applicant shall submit the list of adjacent property owners and one set of labels, if that has not already been provided. The City Planner will become the applicant's contact with the City. All plans and information required to complete the application must be submitted to the City no later than the designated submittal deadline for the meeting at which it is to be considered. When the planning report has been prepared, a copy will be sent to the applicant. The applicant should make every attempt to contact whomever prepared the planning report. Approval of a Conditional Use Permit requires two (2) public hearings, one each at the Planning Commission and City Council. PROCEDURE FOR PROCESSING A VARIANCE In cases where the Planning Commission finds that extraordinary hardships or practical difficulties may result from the strict compliance with the performance standards contained in the Zoning Ordinance, a variance may be granted. In order to recommend approval of a variance request, the Planning Commission shall have considered the evidence presented to it and found that: a � (A) The granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, and welfare: Procedures Manual Page 6 (B) The conditions upon which the request for a variance are based are unique to the property for which it is sought and are not generally applicable; (C) The conditions that create the need for the variance are due to the particular shape, topography, or other natural characteristics of the land and aro not due to action taken by the applicant; (D) The variance will not in any way adversely affect the purpose and intent of the Comprehensive Guide Plan or Zoning Ordinance. The variance procedures are intended to allow some relaxation in the application of the performance standards within the zoning district, such as arca, location, height, or setback. They are not intended, nor shall they be applied to either establish or enlarge a use that is not otherwise permitted in the zoning district. Applicants should begin by contacting the City Planner to discuss their proposal. The City Planter will then refer the application to the Development Review Committee. The Development Review Committee shall then forward a report to the Planning Commission and City Council. NOTE: The submission requirements for a special use permit, variance, or a zoning amendment may include information required for a building permit or for a subdivision application or a combination thereof, developed to portray a clear representation of the proposals. The applicant should review the requirements for these applications in the Zoning Code. PROCEDURE FOR PROCESSING A PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (A) Preliminry Conference: Approval of a Planted Unit Development (PUD) required presentations with the Planning Commission and with the City Council. The petitioner should begin by contacting the City Plasm to arrange an initial meeting. At this initial meeting, the applicant will receive a copy of the application and will be introduced to the Staff representative who will review the project. The same procedure as required for platting holds tete for submission to the Parks Department. The applicant will prepare the list and one am of labels of adjacent property owners. (B) Sketch Plan Review: After the applicant has prepared the necessary submittals to complete the application, the City Planner will place the item on the Planning Commission agenda for a Sketch Plan Review. The Sketch Plan Review allows for an informal discussion of the project to identify and clarity key issues affecting the proposal, before the developer has invested a great deal of money in the preparation of plans. The Sketch Plat Review is not a mandatory part of the PUD process, but has generally been found to both expedite the review and improve the final product. Procedures Manual Page 7 The following information should be prepared for discussion at the Sketch Plan Review: 1. Existing topography and significant existing features (wooded areas, wetlands, development opportunities, and constraints); 2. Surrounding land uses; 3. Conceptual development plans (proposed densities, floor area ratios, and land uses); 4. Conceptual traffic circulation; 5. Areca that depart from City standards or necessitate the use of the PUD process. Because the Planned Unit Development process may be very complicated and encompass a number of planning issues, the applicant is directed to consult Chapter 17 of the Zoning Code. Section 17.100 outlines in detail the steps and required submittals for Planned Unit Development Review. AMENDMENT TO A PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT Substantial departures from the approved plans will require an amendment to the Planned Unit Development, in accordance with Section 17.070 of the Roseville Zoning Cade. Failure by the Developer to commence development activity, in accordance with the final development p1m, within one year following the final approval of its Planned Unit Development, will necessitate the approval of an extension of the development schedule by the City Council. If an extension is not applied for an approved. the zoning on the subject property shall revert back to its original zoning designation before the PUD was requested PRESENTATION OUTLINE For Planning Commission and City Council n=tings, all applicants or their representative are required to attend the Park Commission, Planning Commission, and City Council meetings on the nights that concern their project. When called on, the applicant may present a succinct description of the project, using the following outline as a guide, where appropriate. A. WHO YOU ARE I . Company name, development experience. 2. Type of company. 3. Location of other dhcilities. 4. Number of employees. Procedures Manual Pette B Ic"qq B. WHAT YOU DO i. Kind of service performed. 2. Unique characteristics of company or land use . open storage, hours of operation, traffic needs, etc. 3. Special needs (nail, etc.). C. WHERE YOU ARE LOCATED (Proposed) I . Relate location to streets or (mown landmarks (buildings). 2. Identify access points to the property. 3. Identify peculiar features on property - dopes, wooded areas water bodies, ravines, etc. 4. Existing zoning district and those abutting the project S. Site area in acres/square feet, lot size. D. DESCRIBE PROJECT 1. Number of units, buildings, building square footage, etc. 2. Describe site circulation and parting. 3. Explain green areas, landscape plan, species, sizes, etc., and relationship to structures, natural features, and visibility. 4. Review building materials, architectural features, design amenities, handling of problems. rooftop units, overhead doors, screening of trash handling equipment S. If appropriate, discuss interior pleas. 6. Describe signage and site lighting. E. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS F. QUESTIONS Procedures Mama! Paas V r, I-