Planning Commission Agenda Packet 05-06-1997AGENDA
REGULAR MEETING - MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION
Tuesday, May 6, 1997.7 p.m.
Members: Dick Frie, Jon Bogart, Dick Martie, Richard Carlson, Rod Dragsten
1. Call to order.
2. Approval of minutes of the regular meeting held April 1, 1997.
3. Consideration of adding items to the agenda.
4. Citizens comments.
b. Public Hearing --Consideration of a request for a special home occupation
permit which would allow teaching of more than one pupil at a time.
Applicant, Jill Stark.
6. Public Hearing --Consideration of a conditional use permit allowing a
townhouse planned unit development in an R-2 zone. Applicant, Brendsel
Properties, Inc.
? of n r+ giiPai fnr n znninp map nmendment by
changing zoning district designation from AO (agricultural) to R-1 (single
fam"ly residential). Applicant, John Leerssen.
8. Public Hearing --Consideration of a request for preliminary plat approval of
the Cardinal Pond residential subdivision. Applicant, John Leerssen.
9. Public Hearing --Consideration of a conditional use request allowing
construction of a high school in an R-1 zone. Applicant, Monticello School
District.
10. Public Hearing --Consideration of a conditional use permit allowing a
townhouse development in a B-3 zone. Applicant, Chris Bulow.
11. Public Hearing --Consideration of a variance to the minimum lot width at
water boundary and minimum lot area; and consideration of simple
subdivision request. Applicant, Rick Wolfateller.
12. Public Hearing --Consideration of a request for a zoning ordinance
amendment changing the zoning map from AO (agricultural) to PS (public -
semi public) zoning district which would allow construction of a church
facility. Applicant, Resurrection Church.
Agenda
Monticello Planning Commission
May 6, 1997
Page 2
13. Public Hearing -Consideration of a conditional use permit request which
would allow a church facility in a P3 (public -semi public) zoning district.
Applicant, Resurrection Church.
14. Continued Public Hearing --Consideration of an ordinance amending
Chapter 3, Section 12, of the Monticello Zoning Ordinance establishing
antenna and antenna support structure regulations.
15. Adjournment.
AGENDA
REGULAR MEETING • MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMIMION
Tuesday, April 1, 1897 - 7 p.m
Members: Dick Frie, Richard Carlson, Jon Bogart, Dick Martie, Rod Dragsten
Liaison: Clint Herbst
Staff: Jeff O'Neill, Fred Patch, Steve Grittman, Wanda Kraemer
1. Call to order -
Chairman Frie opened the meeting.
.1 I 1 � 1 .• y . 1 1 11 • 1 ,H
JON BOGART MADE A MOTION, SECONDED BY DICK MARTIE, TO
APPROVE THE MINUTES FOR THE REGULAR MEETING OF MARCH 4,
1997. Motion passed unanimously.
3. Con_aideration of adding itPma to the aeenda-
Rod Dragaten inquired about the status of the prioritization workshop. Jeff
O'Neill stated this would be covered in SB.
4. Citi . na co m nU.
There were no citizens comments.
• 1! 1111 I 1 11 • 11: :t --MM
1 1 1 1
.1.41, mr-1 1 M r. 1 1
,11 •ir,
: 1 1 1
Jeff O'Neill stated that the owners of the building located at 112 West
Broadway aro requesting that a conditional use permit be issued to allow the
erection of four (4) business signs on the front of the building and one (1)
business sign on the rear of the building. The business signs aro need to
advertise three separate businesses cooperating to pro. ide complementing
home interior products and services.
Page l
M)
Planning Commission Minutes - 4/01/97
In the B-4 commercial district, a conditional use permit is required for signs
where there are three or more business uses in one building.
Chairman Frie opened the public hearing.
There were no comments.
Chairman Frie closed the public hearing.
After a short discussion, ROD DRAGSTEN, SECONDED BY JON BOGART,
MADE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE ISSUANCE OF A CONDITIONAL
USE PERMIT FOR THE ERECTION OF SIGNS AT 112 WEST BROADWAY
AS ILLUSTRATED BY THE SIGN PLAN SUBMITTED BY THE
APPLICANT, SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:
ALL SIGNS FOR TENANTS SHALL BE CONSISTENT IN DESIGN,
MATERIAL, SHAPE, AND METHOD OF ILLUMINATION; AND,
PRIOR TO MAKING ANY ALTERATION OF SIGNS, SIGN
LOCATIONS, SIGN SIZE, OR NUMBER OF SIGNS, AT THE
BUILDING OWNER SHALL SUBMIT AN APPLICATION AND
oEVIEED 2!0N nr "! mn THE nrm:• SND REC-EnrE IN
AMENDMENT TO THIS CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT.
The motion passed unanimously.
Jeff O'Neill, Assistant Administrator, reported that this item has previously
been before the Planing Commission in November 27, 1996 and again on
December 24, 1996. Staff has made subutantial revisions to the ordinance
since the last draft that was presented to tho Planning Commission. The
extent of changes made by this draft requires that this new public hearing be
held.
The ordinance appears to address many of the concerns communicated to the
City from the telecommunicati,ms industry representative and provides for
the needs of other users of anG•nnas and antenna support structures.
Page 2
Planning Commission Minutes - 4/01197
Antennas and antenna support structures are allowed as permitted uses
where by design and placement they will most likely not be unsightly or
incompatible with adjoining land uses. Other antennas and antenna support
structures, including those uses for personal wireless communications
services and radio and television broadcast transmission, are allowed by
conditional use permit. O'Neill explained that staff had received a five page
memo from Larken, Hawkins, and Daly but it was not in time to be
distributed to the Planning Commissioners in the April agenda packet.
O'Neill suggested this item be tabled until the next meeting to allow time for
the commissioners and staff to review the changes and comments.
Michelle Johnson, Cellular Realty Advisors Inc., stated she was ready to
address the comments from the Commissioners, however, was prepared to
submit this information in writing.
The Commission discussed this option and decided to table the item so there
would be ample time to study the comments from Michelle Johnson.
DICK MARTIE, SECONDED BY RICHARD CARLSON, MADE A MOTION
TO CONTINUE THE PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER AN ORDINANCE
AMENDING CHAPTER 3, SECTION 12, OF THE MONTICELLO ZONING
11DllihT lATl�P L'C'I`�Or tOL1tArl+ AAfTp*rhT� SND ANTENNA F1'?P, RT
STRUCTURE REGULATIONS UNTIL THE NEXT REGULAR PLANNING
COMMISSION MEETING IN MAY.
Discussion of draft ordinance regliInfinga hi pet rr 1 apiahptieA in dpAign
and exterior facingateri�la.
Jeff O'Neill, Assistant Administrator, reported that this item was presented
for the Planning Commission's review and discussion. This would be the first
partial draft of a possible ordinance amendment that would principally
control the exterior facing materials of buildings constructed in the city.
O'Neill added that there is not a clear definition regulating the architectural
aesthetics in the design and exterior facing materials.
O'Neill went on to note that this effort to regulate exterior facing materials is
based on the city's goal of encouraging and maintaining that quality of
commercial development.
Fred Patch, Chief Building Official, reviewed for the Commissioners a variety
of building photos and stated the ordinance would prevent buildings that are
Pago 3
0
Planning Commission Minutes - 4/01/97
temporary from becoming permanent and specifically prevent the type of
buildings commonly referred to as "pole buildings". Patch went on to explain
this is just the beginning and staff will encourage input from the HRA, MCP
and the IDC on this item.
The Commissioners discussed the fact that this ordinance had met
opposition in the past and it would be important for staff to seek input from
other organizations. It was agreed that staff should move forward with an
ordinance regulating architectural aesthetics in design and exterior facing
materials.
l pdaWa
A. Land Use Planning Workshops - Thursday, April 24, 1997 - Wands
Kraemer, Development Services Technician, confirmed the date of
April 24, 1997 for the Land Use Planning Workshop in St. Cloud.
B. Joint Commissions Meeting - Jeff O'Neill explained that the City
Council had met to review and prioritize city projects. This
information is now being revived by staff for input to the city council.
After the council has had time to meet and review staffs
recommendations a joint meeting will be scheduled for feedback from
MCP/Comprehensive Plan.- Jeff O'Neill reported the MCP
downtown/riverfront development concept has been approved by the
MCP membership and once the final plan has been drafted by
Hoisington Koegler, it will come to the Planning Commission and City
Council to incorporate into the comprehensive plan.
Rita Ulric, MCP Director, confirmed that the final touches are still
being completed but the plan is expected soon.
D. Art Anderson/Orrin Thompson request for amendments to the Urban
Service area boundaries.
Jeff O'Neill, Assistant Administrator, explained that this item was
placed on the agenda at tho request of the Chairman of the Planning
Commission, Dick Frio.
O'Neill continued by outlining the sequence of events. At the regular
meeting of the City Council on March 24, 1997, the City Council acted
Page 4
0
Planning Commission Minutes - 4101/97
to accept the Township's recommendation and deny further requests
for amendments to the Urban Service Area. The reasons for the denial
were based on concerns regarding the capacity of County Road 118 and
concerns about lineal residential development. During the discussion,
it was noted that the denial of the request is not inconsistent with the
comprehensive plan because the door remains open to development in
the area at the later date.
Chairman Frie stated that he did not usually miss the City Council
meetings but was not in attendance when the request for an
amendment to the Urban Service Area was discussed. Chairman Frie
outlined three points to discuss: First, that each Commissioner
reviews the minutes; second, that there is an interpretation of the
motion that was made by Dick Martie; and third, a clear
understanding of the Planning Commission's position on the matter
which was requested by the City Council.
Chairman Frie stated he was under the impression that the
amendment that was recommended for approval by the Planning
Commission would go to the Township for comment, then back to the
Planning Commission before advancing to the City Council. Frie
M#n4-4 ti.. 4.4 ♦{... an,i
the Township damaged, the City and the Township need to
compliment each other and not compete with each other.
Bruce Pankonin, development manger for Orrin Thompson Homes,
stated in the fall of 1994 he met with city staff to explore the
opportunities in Monticello. The staff recommended the southeast
areas for upscale housing. Orrin Thompson then purchased 80 acres
of the Ralph and Naomi Hermes property on County Road 118. The
northern 40 acres is identified in the major growth area and the
southern 40 areas is wooded and identified as agricsiltural. Pankonin
added the drainage in this area is to the north into the city's urban
service area.
Mr. Pankonin added in July 1995, Orrin Thompson petitioned the City
for annexation. A red flag was then raised to review the sewer
capacity and it was determined that the development would need to
wait until the wastewater treatment plant could be expanded.
Pankonin stated the proposed development would bring 185 homes to
Page 5
(D
Planning Commission Minutes - 4/01/97
the community with a value of $110,000 to $160,000 having a positive
effect on the tax revenue of the community. He concluded by adding
that growth is going to happen in Monticello and Orrin Thompson
would like to part of it.
Dan Goeman, Goeman Realty, stated he is representing the Hermes in
the sale of their property. Goeman stated with the City currently
building a new school and a wastewater treatment plant there is a
need for development to relieve the tax burden. This is one of the only
areas that is conclusive to building this type of housing. He made a
strong recommendation to approve the annexation.
Janice DeMars, relator for Art and Darlene Anderson, stated the
people selling the land should be considered. The Anderson had lived
in the township for 30 years and would now like to retire however,
their lives have been put on hold until this issue can be resolved.
Shelly Johnson, Monticello School District Superintendent, was asked
by Chairman Frie for his comments. Johnson replied that the school
district did have this development in their numbers when planning for
the new school expansion and it is hard to adjust plans once the school
h=:! 4. net
Bruce Hammond. Monticello -Big Lake Community Hospital District,
stated that it is difficult to retain physicians or attract new physicians
if development is being stifled.
Chairman Frie inquired if the city anticipated all of the additional
growth when the wastewater treatment plant was approved for
expansion.
Bret Weiss, City Engineer, stated the treatment plant projections were
based on residential, industrial, and also wet industry. Weiss added
exactly how development will occur is not known but there is no reason
to turn away development because of the sanitary sewer line capacity.
There is sanitary sewer capacity in this area. It was his
understanding was that County Road 118 is programmed to be
reconstructed in 1998.
Mayor Fair added utility studies had been completed in this area and
there is service capacity. The issue that was before the City Council
Page 6
0
Planning Commission Minutes - 4/01/97
and Planning Commission was to amend the urban service area. The
land owners have come to the city with this question and Mayor Fair
did not understand why the boundaries have not been changed in
seven years. The entire area, school, churches, city, ect. is
experiencing growth. If the township is surprised that growth is
coming this should be discussed. Mayor Fair would be willing to meet
with the township if needed but stated the request was made to the
City and not by the City.
Ted Holker, Township Board member and land owner, stated the
agreement was for ten years and he did not think it was correct to
change the boundaries at seven years. Holker stated this develop
would boarder his property on two sides and it was hard for a
landowner to plan if the OAA agreement was always changing.
Steve Grittman, City Planner, reported the long range planning
indicated in the comprehensive plan indicated residential growth to
the south and west but it would be foolish to not use the infrastructure
already in the ground. This development was of no surprise; there
have been many discussions regarding it.
F-4: zzhcd
on the amendment.
Richard Carlson, Planning Commissioner, asked the question, What
changed from January 1997 to March 1997 in the hearts of the
Council? He added out of 120 acres only 40 are not in the OAA
boundaries.
Dick Martie, Planning Commissioner, added that this item has been
discussed at length. He felt the Commission acted property at the time
but action should be taken so it does not happen again.
Jon Bogart stated he was in favor of the annexation because there had
been a fair amount of money spent in upgrading the utility in that
area, County Road 118 was scheduled for improvement next year,
Orrin Thompson has missed this years construction season, and this
development request was no surprise to anyone.
Rod Dragsten, Planning Commissioner, stated the owners of the
property want to sell and even though 40 acres is not in the OAA it
Page 7
0
Planning Commission Minutes - 4/01/97
should be annexed
Clint Herbst, Planning Commission Liaison and City Council member,
did not think the council had a change of heart. The motion should
have been sent to the Township Board for a recommendation not the
City Council.
Mayor Fair responded by citing the minutes of the council meeting
which stated that the council recommended approval of the urban
service line boundary adjustment contingent on Planning Commission
approval. The Urban Service Agreement was not intended to set a
fixed boundary for ten years. The line was intended to move when
undeveloped areas within the urban service area became developed.
Chairman Frie stated that the Planning Commissioners have each
stated they are in agreement that the motion to approve the
amendment is correct. He then asked if a Commissioner would like to
make a motion stating the Planning Commissions stand on the
amendment approval.
JON BOGART MADE A MOTION, SECONDED BY RICHARD
n._nr _on•I mn ncnn���nwrn mn mn� n.ma nn.•.`.�:. m..:
THEY RECONSIDER THE DENIAL FOR EXTENSION OF THE
URBAN SERVICE AREA AND ANNEXATION OF THE
PROPERTIES BEING DISCUSSED TONIGHT BECAUSE THE
PLANNING COMMISSION WOULD LIKE TO SEE THESE
PROPERTIES SERVICED AND BECOME PART OF THE CITY FOR
THE FOLLOWING REASONS:
1. TRUNK UTILITIES ARE IN PLACE.
2. IT HAS BEEN DISCUSSED AND PLANNED FOR MANY
YEARS, PER THF COMPREHENSIVE. PLAN. THE PARCELS
ARE AN INTEGRAL PART OF THE PLANNING FOR THE
SANITARY SEWER TREATMENT PLANT AND SANITARY
SEWER LINES THROUGH THE AREA,
3. DEVELOPMENT OF THE AREA IS CONSISTENT WITH THE
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.
4. THIS PROPERTY WOULD ALLOW UPPER QUALITY
Page 8
d
Planning Commission Minutes - 4/01/97
HOUSING, WHICH HAS BEEN IDENTIFIED AS A NEED IN
THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.
MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. Chairman Frie added a
comment that city staff should notice the township of any city action in
the OAA.
10. Added items.
There were no other added items.
11. Adinutn•
A MOTION WAS MADE BY COMMISSIONER DRAGSTEN, SECONDED
BY COMMISSIONER MARTIE, TO ADJOURN THE MEETING. Motion
passed unanimously.
Wanda Kraemer
Development Services Technician
Page 9
W
Planning Commission Agenda - 6/6/97
1
Please see the attached report from Planner Steve Grittman.
FFR -24-1997 08:49 NFL
NORTHWEST ASSOCIATED CONSULTANTS
NF. C COMMUNITYPLANNINO •OE5ION - MARKET RESEARCH
PLANNING REPORT
TO:
Monticello Mayor and City Council
Monticello Planning Commission
FROM:
Bob IGrmis / Stephen Grittman
DATE:
23 April 1997
RE:
Monticello - Lir Red Preschool (Stark) Home Occupation
FILE NO:
191.07 - 97.04
A. iae���-triCE AhQ eiALkJjkQUNu
Ms. Jill Stark has requested a special home�pation permit to operate a preschool at
her residence located at 2910 Oak Street Because the home occupation involves the
teaching of more than one pupil at a time, It Qualities as a *special home occupation'.
According to the Zoning Ordinance, special home occupation applications must be
processed In accordance with the City's conditional use permit provisiom-DThe subject site
Is zoned R-1, Single Family Reslderdial.
Business Desafptlam According to infonnalion provided by the applicant, the proposed
preschool is to be operated from 9:00 AM to 3:30 PM, Monday through Thursday. There
is to be a total of four three-hour preschool sessions as summarized below:
1. Monday and Wednesday Momings: 9:00 AM to Noon
2. Monday and Wednesday Aftemoons: 12:30 PM to 3:30 PM
3. Tuesday and Thursday Mornings: 9:00 AM to Noon
4. Tuesday and Thursday Afternoons: 12:30 PM to 3:30 PM
The applicant has indicated that each session is to have a maximum of ten atudents.
5770 WAYZATA 90ULEYARO, eUITL 1355 ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA 05410
PMONL e1 2.590.0630 FAX 012.506.0037
Sf�
9
L
PPR -24-1997 0850 NAC
Evaluation Criteria As netad previously, special home occupation applications must be
applied for, reviewed and disposed of in accordance with the City's conditional use permit
requirements. In this regard, the Planning Commission must consider possible adverse
effects of the proposed use. Judgement should be based upon, but not limited to, the
following factors:
1. Relationship to the Municipal Comprehensive Plan.
2. The geographical area involved
3. Whether such use will land to or actually depreciate the area in which It is
proposed.
4. The character of the surrounding area.
5. The demonstrated need for such use.
Comprehensive Plan. The City's Comprehensive Plan does not include any specific
policies relating to home occupation establishment it does, however, specifically promote
compatible land use relationships. While the City Zoning Ordinance makes allowance for
such home occupations in residential areas, it Is the clear intent of the Comprehensive
Plan to allow such uses to the extent that they do not jeopardize the health, safety and
general welfare of the surrounding neighborhoods.
Nuisance Characteristics. According to Chapter 3-11.1) of the Zoning Ordinance, no
home occupation may produce light, glare, noise, fumes, odor or vibration that will In any
way have ai Obiectionable effect anon ariiaront nr noarM, nrnnarho
The proposed use is not anticipated to produce any adverse nuisance effects upon
neighboring properties. Non-compliance with this provision of the ordinance will justify
revocation of the special home occupation permit
Building Alteration. According to the applicant, no alteration to the existing residence
is proposed to accommodate the proposed home occupation.
Fire/Building Codes. As a condition of homo occupation approval, the applicant must
demonstrate cornpllance with all applicable local state fire and building codes. This issue
should be subject to further comment by the City Building Inspector.
Traffic Generation. According to the Zoning Ordinance, no home occupation may be
permitted which results In or generates more traffic than one car for off-street parking at
any givon timo.
While the proposed use Is not anticipated to generate any long tens off-street parking in
e literal souse, it will generate traffic. Such traffic would, however, utillzo adjacent Meadow
Oak Court for'on-street parking (west of the applicant's residence. The applicant has
56
RPR -24-1997 08:50 WC
indicated that each preschool session is to have a maximum of ton students. This equates
to a maximum of ten vehicles providing drop-aH/pick-up activities at one time.
Acknowledging that two school sessions per day are to be offered, a total of four drop-
offs/pick-ups are to occur per day, each generating a maximum of ten vehicles. To be
specifically noted is that the preschool sessions have been staggered to conceivably
minimize traffic volumes and vehicle drop-off/plck-up overlap. To further mitigate adverse
impacts resulting from pick-up/drop-off overlay of vehicles, the city may wish to consider
a greater time separation between morning and afternoon preschool sessions (i.e., one
hour).
For reference purposes, a typical single family residence averages ten vehicle trip ends
per day (Institute of Transportation Engineers). In this regard, the proposed use can be
thought of as generating traffic equivalent to four additional dwellings on the Meadow Oak
Court cul-de-sac. Considering that only six residences currently exist along the cul-de-
sac, the addition of 40 vehicle trips per day is considered well within the capabilities of the
street
While traffic generated by the proposed use Is believed to be within the capabilities of
streets serving the property, question exists as to whether the off-street parking
requirements for home occupations can be satisfied (no more than one car for off-street
parking at a given time). Technically, the proposed drop -off -pick-up activities constitute
`on -street' parking, which is not specifically addressed by the home occupation
requirements. As a condition of special home occupation approval, the City should
determine that the proposed use satisfies the intent of the ordinance in regard to traffic
Outdoor Play Area According to the applicant, an outdoor play area is proposed In the
rear yard area of the subject site. This area should be fenced and/or screened in
accordance with the State Department of Human Services to minimize potential adverse
Impacts upon neighboring residences.
Slgnago. According to the City Zoning Ordinance, the exterior display of signage which
is visible from outslde the dwelling is prohibited for home occupations. The applicant has
not specified whether any business related signage Is to be erected as a result of the
proposed use.
Hours of Operation. The ordinance states that no home occupation may be conducted
between the hours of 10.00 PM and 7:00 AM, unless the occupation Is contained entirely
within the principal building and will not require any off-street parking facilities,. As noted
previously, the preschool is to be operated from 9:00 AM to 3:30 PM, Monday through
Thursday in compliance with City requirements.
5b
PFR -24-1957 08' 58 N;C
Employment. The Zoning Oixiinance stipulates that no person other than a resident may
conduct the home occupation except where the applicant can satisfactorily prove unusual
or unique conditions. This employment requirement must be upheld as a condition of home
occupation approval.
Inspection. According to the Zoning Ordinance, the City reserves the right to inspect the
premises in whim the occupation is being conducted to ensure compliance with applicable
ordinance standards.
EL ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS
1. Approve the special occhgation permit for one year under the conditions laid out in
the staff recommendation section of this report 1y pc. ?� C G0 MMcn d -4 i Q ..x
2. Deny the special home occupation permit based upon a fueling by the City Council
that the proposed activity is not in character with the area in which it Is proposed.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION
While special home occupations are permitted in the applicable R•1 Zoning District, the
City should make a determination whether the pLgoosed use satisfies thA intent ofl p pe 40,15
City's Zoning Ordinance, particularly in regard to off-street parking 51MIM FlC generation. p t,
if the City judges the proposed use to be acceptable, we would recommend approval of
the requested special home occupation permit for one year subject to the following
conditions:
1. The applicant reapply for a permft after the initial one year period. Renewal of the
permit shall be processed with the procedural requirements of the Initial special
home occupation permit
2. Consideration is given to expanding the time separation between morning and
afternoon preschool sessions to eliminate or minimize pick upldropoff vehicle
overlap.
3. The home occupation shall not produce light, glare, noise, odor or vibration that will
in any way have an objectionable effect upon adjacent or nearby prop".
4. No equipment shall be used In the home occupation which will create electrical
Interference to surrounding properties.
sD
PPR -24-1997 0851 NAC bid =0 =3-1(
5. No internal or external structure alterations shall take place which are not
customary to residential dwellings.
6. No exterior storage of business related materials take place on the site.
7. No person other than the resident conduct the home occupation.
8. The special home occupation comply with all applicable fire and building codes.
This issue should be subject to further comment by the City Building Inspector.
9. 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 the resident
identification sign.
10. Home occupation activities occur between the hours of 7:00 AM and 10:00 PM.
11. The City reserves the right to inspect the promises (within reasonable hours without
notice) to ensure compliance with the condltions of spedal home occupations
license issuance.
12. All applicable licensing requirements of the Minnesota Department of Health are
6atlafactoriy met.
13. Commants from other City staff.
ba. SUPPORTING DATA
Exhibit A - Site Location
Exhibit B - Detailed Site Location
J
6
lk_
5C
J
CITY of MONTICELLO
Smarr COW" mm usoo
sl
1 n —
RPR -24-1997 08:51 hpc
17
4 � MEI►pdw cak i!(
r1
Nousc
�q 14
gal
w�
OAK R t D&C PRIVG OAK RIDGE DRIVR,
o
Al,
T T
v
M
O 2a
?D q
F' ow o S
£xPEG"r'raD TRA* ! C
ezwerr e
r +�
PETITION AGAINST PROPOSED PRESCI IOOL IN RESIDENTIAL ZONE TO BE
LOCATED AT 2910 OAK RIDGE DR., MONTICELLO MN
Points of concern:
• Adding a pulential ur80 cur trips lhruugh our neigbburhoud, using Meadow
Oak Drive and Oak Ridge Drive as access on a daily basis
• Monetarily devalue our proper lies.
• Linrils piuspective buyers fur resale.
• Sets precedence fur mure piesclwuls in the immediate area.
All those signed below express opposition to lite Lil' Red Preschool being located in our
residential neiglrborhoud. -
NAW nnURESS
.1ak r1rrt(' wte,( /d1Ler /1 rubl'i Ot/( &&Ldr ll'L;di
. A IZSO AkAr9d0L3 QAk SDI rt
la'5�6ffl9 /_w��71
�Q.� •"" � c_ad_r�o.a�— of 8,..
-7-Av
a - .
s�+
PETITION AGAINST PROPOSED PRESCHOOL IN RESIDENTIAL ZONE TO BE
LOCATED AT 2910 OAK RIDGE DR., MONTICELLO MN
Points of concern:
• Adding a potential of 80 ear trips through uur nuighbud hood, using Meadow
Oat. Drive and Oak Ridge Di ive as access on a daily basis
• Monetarily devalue our pwpeiies,
• Limits pruspalive buyers for resale.
• Seta prec deuce fur more pi eschuuls in the immediate area.
All those signed below espiess uppusitiun to the Lil' Red PlesZhoul being located in our
residential neighborhood.
NANIF ADDRESS
OSP -4414-FN
404P 0 1)4e D-
��_Oek
5'X
Planning Commission Agenda - 5/6/97
MM 0
Please see the attached report from Planner Steve Grittman.
NORTHWESTNASSOCIATED CONSULTANTS
INC C OMMUNITY►LANNINO - DESION - MARKCT REDEARCM
PLANNING REPORT
TO: Monticello Mayor And City Coundl
Monticello Planning Commission
FROM: Daniel Ucht ! Stephen Gnttrnan
DATE: 23 April 1997
RE: Monticello - Per West Townhomes: Preliminary Plat
FILE NO.: 191.07 -97.08
A.
Brandsel Properties ft. Is requesting approval of a preliminary plat for a three unit
tow nhome development on a 1.18 acre parcel allrrer dy designated as Lot S, Block 4 of Per
Wast addition located at 202 Jerry Liefert Drive. The skeet parcel Is zoned R-2, Single
end TWc Famiy Residential Distrust Townhouse dwellings are allowed by Conditional Use
Permit Planned Unit Development within the R-2 District due to the unit/base lot
configuration of the plot. As such, approval of the preliminary plat will also require CUP -
PUD approval.
Adjacent Uaem The uses a*=1 to the subject parcel we outlined below for reference:
South:
Golf Course
East:
Townhorns unite
West:
Sinrgle Family units
North:
SbsetlSirgle Family
0776 WAYZATA BOULEVARD, SUITE 000 ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA 00410
PHONE C 1 2.000.0636 1PAX d 12-595-9837
Tii6210d 4M SIBS V9 1 lKl91 JMT-M-6dd
The proposed reMdential townhome development would be similar in character to existing
uses in the area with an existing townhouse development to the east of the vAject parcel.
Special attention will be necessary, however, to insure adequate screening and buffering
of the proposed development from the single family residential use to the west.
Compretronslw Plan. The proposed use Is generally consistent with the provisions of
the Ckys Comprehensive Plan policies In that it promotes the efforts to provide a wide
range of housing cholces.
Zoning. The subject parcel is zoned R-2, Single Family and Two Family Residential
District Townhouses we allowed in this district as a Conditional Use Permit Planned Unit
Development Section 22-1(D) requires the Planning Commission to consider the possible
adverse effects of the proposed conditional use. The judgement of the Planning
Commission shall be based upon, but riot limited to the foltowing factors:
1. Relationship to municipal ComprehenWe Pian.
2. The geographical area involved
3. Whether such use will tend to or actually depredate the area In which It is
proposed.
4. The rharacter of the stmoundin g area.
5. The demonstrated need for such use.
PUD ProcoWng. The applicant is required to request approval of a PUD/CUP for this
towntwme development due to the base lot / unit lot configuration of the development. The
processing of single phase developments occurs in two steges; Development PUD Plan
and Find PUD Plan. The Development PUD Plan of single phase developments requires
sclal oompliertoe with Zoning Ondlnanee provisions on which the Final PUD Plan will
ultimately be based. H the City Council approves the Development PUD Plan, the
applicant will submit a Final PUD Plan along with the final plot that addresses all
outstanding facies or conditions of approval regarding the proposed development.
F i. , , . .. 8. The following table illustrates all lot performance requirements
of the Zoning OMbwm and the proposed devolopmerWe compliance with the applicable
requirements.
MR
TT/W'd in6 565 LT9 OW KOT G66T-M-s*
Lot Area
Lot WPM lot Aim setbecw
Per and
front SW _ Rear
Requbed 12,000
look S.000 30t lot 30 t
sq. R
sq. t
Pmpaed 51.876
Mt 17=5 30t 10 t 11001.
sq. t
sq. t
•88;�I0 diwn0enspahOwderaridwtaRfo►PUD. _
Access. The proposed three townhouse units ere to access Jerry Liefert Drive by
individual driveways. Section 22 -IM requires a mtrdmuan of 20 feet of frontage per unit.
With approximately 119 feet of frontage, the proposed development satisfies this
requirement.
The proposed dnvwvaya aro setback 11rom the aide lot linea of the development property
line over five feet There Is approximately 20 feet of separation between the proposed
driveways intensely. The City Engineer should comment if this is sufficient area to
accommodate snow storage.
I andeesping. The applicant has indicated proposed site landscaping on the submitted
alto planlprellmInary phot end on a landscape plan that illustrates proposed landscaping
around the fokundabon of Qts etrnxtures. Between the single family use tote went end the
subject property, there aro a number of mature oak trees. However, beyond the existing
oak trees, Owe is minimal landsceoV provided along the west property line to screen the
proposed townhome uses from view of the adjacent single family use. The applicant
thou ld be required to provide substantial additional plantings along the length of the west
property line, subject to review and approval of the City, as part of the Final Plan PUD
application.
Building Efevatdow The applicant hes not submitted proposed building elevation plans
to deft. The applicant should be required to submit proposed building elevations as part
of consideration of the PUD Final Plan application. Of note, buildings within the R-2
District are limited to 2 % stories in height.
Protective Covenants. The applicant hes submitted proposed protective covenants to
provide for the maintenance and care of common area In ecoordance with Section 20-
2(E)3, of the Zoning Ordinance. Sold covenants shell be subject to the review and
approval of the City Attorney.
3
W v
IT/60'd li66 S69 ZT9 X1 iX19T 4'66T -M -&b
Gotf Course Access. The City staff has been made aware of interest in presenMg an
access easement ttxough the subject parcel for rt ilo do! od residents to the golf course.
Such an easement should be handled as a private matter between the property owners
and is not an issue for City review.
Park Dedicatlon. The applicant will be required to provide an appropriate cash
conbtK#Jm for park dedication. All park dedication contrlbutlons shall be paid at the time
of final plat approval.
Grading, Dreinage and Utl fty plata. The submitted preliminary plat/site pian includes
proposed grading and drainage as well as proposed utility Imes. Said grading, drainage
and utility plans shall be subject to review and approval of the City Engineer and Public
Works.
i - u�- _ tin,•„
Decision One: Request for a Conditional Use Penult for a Planned Unit
Development.
a. Approval of the Conditional Use Permit for the Development PUD Plans as
Pte•
Potential findings supporting this decision would be:
• The proposal is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan
• The proposal is consistent with the wdsting land use in the area.
• The proposal Is consistent with the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance.
• The proposal Is consistent with the Citys use of Planned Unit Development.
0 Approval of the Conditional Use Permit for the Development PUD Plans, subject to
the following conditions:
1. Suhnisakm d a detailed tandscape plan that includes subatential additional
plantings along the west property line, prior to Final PUD Plan approval.
ii. Approval of street accesses by the City Engineer prior to Final PUD Plan
approval.
Iii. Submission of proposed building elevations for review, prior to Final PUD
Plan approval.
Iv. Approval of grading, drainage and utility issues by the City Engineer and
Public Works.
Potential findings supporting this decision would be:
• The proposal is conalstort with the Comprehensive Plan
e �P
TI/et'd am WS 199 OtH SE191 aST-M-Wd
11'd IU=
• The proposal is consistent with the existing land use In the arae.
• The proposal is consistent with the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance, with
approval of proposed building elevations.
• The proposal is consistent with the City's use of Planted Unit Development
with appropriate landscaping and architectural design.
C. Denial of the Conditional Use Permit PUD.
Potential findings supporting this decision would be:
• The proposal is Inconsistent with the existing single family land uses to the
north and utast.
OWslon Two: Request for a PreUndnery Plat for Par West T. -.
a Approval of the Preliminary Pig for Per West Townhomes as presented, subjW to
approval of the PUD, and comments of the City Engineer and Public Worsts.
Is. Denial of the Preliminary Plat for Par West Town twmes as presented.
C. STA" REUMMENDAWN
The proposed project is generally consistent with the intent of the City's Comprehensive
Plan and Zoning Cidinanao, and it als:, g-m!mr y ccn�:It4 M with "%o rMat" land uses
in the area. However, the tacit of detailed landsMing plane for areas of the site other
than dhectly attjaeeni to the proposed structures raises cotoem over mintmbdng impacts
to the adjacent single family uses. Therefore, it is recommended that the applicant be
required to submit revised landscaping plane that provide substantial additional plantings
along the west property line. As such, stefi approval of both the PUD and
Preliminary Plat with conditions as cited in Decision One, alternative b and Doeislon Two,
alternative e.
• : � i , X7,3 �-1
Exhibit A - Zoning Map and Site Location
Exhibit 0 - Preliminary Plat / Site Plan
Exhibit C - Landscaping Plan
Exhibit D - Proposed Protective Covenants
11111d L1-96 WG t'19 304 5091 4661-M-adtj
L
CITY OF MONTICELLO
WNGKF catwfv mmxls*TA
9
PItIYLIMINARY PLAT of : p _ WESW TOWN_ _H_ _O_ _ _1_V_F_E_ _S__
C77Y OF AiO1V?7CRLL0, Zti.11fi(3T COL+NT'Y, MN.
Q OCIMTY MA?-
DRI
MTV-
/ .' �r •r/i:{ C'zl.st
1 / L.....r r... Tom•- `i/, !- -/; �� G� 1 :'rf �� ._ _ 11 X;,7:C�`
THE CREENS
..�...'�,.-.._ BLOCK
h �. o "bb
tioA-
� ; � :/ 'CJS.�QO�C?.n _..�------.....••' � r�y: rr Com:.. �:-w.� � ;
_'. �-- ----- � 1 .;/`; �.'..._rf�----��}•�-w,.�.-.�_ .- ----' per. v..-..._........_..
L X567 f:6.{�`.A-..'r�,Z. :fl' CJC'��• c�• `�•-:::.C'.:'.:: f: :.. ".:.'l:r urM.:....... ;
—EXHIBIT B
V
yy Planning Commission Agenda - 5/8/97
l_
Public,Hg=Con_aideration of a request for it rn_ in ns m=
ameedmant by ch_nf rn��_inQ dlatrict dea(yasHon Brom AO
(aQrieoIturab to RA (Aingip family residentfah- Applicant_ John
Ism (S.G.) AND
PubLe HaskrinQ-.o_rwidomflon of a request for nreliminor^plat
appmv 1 of the rdi a) pond resideetlal suhdi aio - Applicant
rInbnidslen. (S.G.)
Please see the attached report from Planner Steve Grittman.
NORTHWEST
P...C,N
ASSOCIATeD CONSULTANTS
OMMUNITY PLANNIMO - OKSION - MARKET RES[ARCH
PLANNING REPORT
TO:
Monticello Mayor and City Council
Monticello Planning Coaanisslon
FROM:
Daniel Lich / Stephen Crittman
DATE:
24 April 1997
RE:
Monticello - Cardinal Pond Rezoning and Preliminary Plat
FILE NO:
191.07 -97.03
CONSI12ERMN OFA REZONINIM OF THE LEERSSEN PROPMM FROM A-0.
AGRICULTURAL TO R-1. SINGLE FAIRLY B=0 =6 ANDAPRELIMINARY PLAT
FOR 20 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS
A. 111IFFFROGI AND BACKGROUND
W. John Leerssen is requesting approval of a. sm kV to R-1 of his ten we parcel at the
southwest comer of the Cardinal Hills development, and a preliminary plot approval for a
20 lot subdivision. The parcel Is along the east side of Fallon Avenue, across from the
park area to be dedicated as a part of the i0eln Farms 3rd Addition. The Cardinal Hills
residential area borders the proposed plat on the east and north. Agricultural land in
Monticello Township borders the plat to the south.
Rea ft: The Cardinal Pond property Is zoned A-0. Agricultural upon annexation Into
the City. Romrting to R-1 would be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan's discussion
of doveiopment in this area, as well as with the surrounding land uses. The
Comprehensive Pian cella generally for low densly residential development for land to the
south and wast of two current City boundaries.
Preilndnary Plat:
Plat DeWigm The following comments address Issues relatod to the design and layout
of the proposed plat: 14
6776 WAYZATA BOULEVARO, SUITE see ST. LOUIS PARK. MINN900TA ae I e
PHONE 51 2.595.9838 FAX 191 E•e95.0937
1S/80'd LCai S65 LT9 71iN al9l G66T-pL-tidy
The proposed design of Fallon Court raises several issues. At such time as the
street is extended to the south, the proposed design will leave the dwellings on Lots
13 and 14 sal loads further and perhaps built at odd angles in comparison with other
structures on that side of the street when the ail -de -sac is eliminated. Assuming
the street will be extended south, the cul-de-sac should be modified to be located
entirely within the right -d- way, or psrhW a hemmer head design that would allow
• Section 1153 (B) d the Subdivision Ordinance states that cul -de -secs should not
exceed 600 feet in length. Fallon Coon, as pressr* designed, exceeds 600 feet
In length. If Fallon Court is not to be Wended to the south, the cul-de-sac should
be relocated MOier north, with the iota arranged.in a more typical manner so as to
surmund the cul -dem such that the length of Fallon Court does not exceed 600
feet
• The proposed after, Faller Cour, Is 34 feet wide. This width would mate
tnattic from a kvW number of pottmtial IlAkae lots to the south. We would question
whether a future plaNBtg of the south property dxxdd be designed to circulate much
VWft through Cardinal Pond. Instead, we would envislon a design which allows
a small amount of arxetm to the neighborhood, but discourages significant levels
of through trefflc. As a resulL we believe a 30 foot wide street would be adequate
for Cardinal Pond.
• The rear yard of Late 19 and 20 we cut off by the proposed ponding Areas and
wellanda. To ensune that the ponding area and wetlands are maintained, the
applicant should:
Revise the plot to include the ponding areas and wetlands within the
adjacent lots; or
2. Plat the area around the ponding areae and wetlands as an outlet. A
homeowners association that would own the outlot in common would be
requlred to be formed to provide for maintenance.
All proposed lots meet the minimum lot size and width requirements of the R-1
District and have sLffWert fundable area w ftn requbsetbacks to aaerrunodote
a single family dwelling with the following exceptions:
Lot 13 has a limited buildable area with the power line casement to the
south, the proposed pedostrien path to the north, and the one of the cut-
de4ao to the east
?B
TTife'd LM 965 M XN M9T 4661-M-"
Lot 17 will have little prhate open space as a result of the curve of Fallon
Court and that the rear yard of Lot 17 abuts the side yard of Lot 18. Also,
the configuration of the dwelling with frontage to the east creates an
irwonsistent iront building line with other dwellings to the south.
PedssMan Access. The applicant is proposing to provide a pedestrian trail from the cul-
de-sac to Fallon Avenue between Lots 13 and 14. The width of the proposed pathway is
only ten feet, whereas City policy has required 30 feet in the past The provision of a
pedestrian trail within the power fine easement along the plat's southern boundary is a
better alternative in that it would allow for a 30 !loot wide trail and avoids placing the trail
between two dwellings.
The City should also consider requiring a pedestrian trail along Fallon Avenue from the
power line easement to a school crossing just to the north of the plat it does not seem
ressonable to expect pAdeal lana to aoS8 Fallon Avenue at the power line easement, walk
through the park to the west, than recross Fallon Avenue to get to the school campus.
Wetland After. The applicant Is proposing to atter an existing wetland area to
provide for sWitlonal Iota The applicant is proposing to mitigate the proposed wetland
mitigation by adding additional wetland area In the southwest portion of the plat The City
Engineer should review and approve the proposed wetland mitigation to vertfy a 2:1
mitigation redo, as required by the 1991 Wetlands Conservation Ad
GWadtno, Drainage, and Utility Plana. The applicant has sutunitted grading, drainage
and utility plana for the proposed plat Sold plana will be subject to review and approval
of the City Engineer,
Park Osdica* n. The applicant will be requbed to make the appropriate park dedication
contribution In the form of lend dedication and/or cash contribution. All park land
dedication and/or cash contributions will be rnede at the time of final plat approval.
Decision One: Reaching From A-0, AgdaAtural to R-1, Sbq$o PamOy Residential
Approval of the -atoning *= A-0 to R•1.
Potential findings supporting this decision would be:
Proposal Is consistent with the Con prelnernsive Plan.
Proposal Is consistent with euttoundbng area uses.
11/00'd iMM Slat L19 7qN CL191 4466T -K -a*
b. Denial of the rezoning from A-0 to R-1.
Potential findings supporting this decision would be:
• Proposal is inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan.
• Proposal is inconsistent with the aMing uses in the surrounding area.
• Proposal is premature.
Decision Two: Request for PmUrrdnary Piot Approval of Cardinal Pond
a Approval of the preliminary plat for Cardinal Pond as presented, subject to approval
of the rezoning and comments of the City Engineer and Public Works.
b. Approval of the preliminary plat for Cardinal Pond, subject to approval of the
rezoning and the following conditions:
1. Fallon Court is redesigned with a width of 30 feet, curb to curb.
2. The proposed cul-de-sac street is redesigned In one of the following
menne►s:
• If Fallon Courtis to be w l — ,ed in the future, the cul-de-sac shall be
.. �. ; .Iacid IocaW ordi9ly wititin the pubic dgtd'ofrway adjacent
to the plat's southern botsdery, sub)ea to review and approval of the
City Engineer and public works: or
• If Fallon Court Is to be a purnartent cut -de -sec, it shall be relocated
and designed In a more typical layout with a mwdmum length of 600
feet, subject to review and approval of the City Enginear and public
works.
(Staff recommends that the t aoh-s reet option Is more attractive t0
fseilM to tre is distribution In this plat and for neighboring property)
3. The maintenance of the proposed ponding emu and wetlands be
addressed in one of the following manners:
• The plat be revised to locate the ponding areas and wetlands within
the area of adjaeent lob: or
• The ponding woes and wetlands be platted as an outlot. The
applicant will be required to provids for a hammers association
4
TT/50'd !i'8Ci MS L19 3M H[�9S L66T$-tidy
1
subject to the provlslons of the Zoning Ordinance to ensure
Maintenance of the outlet
4. The proposed pedestrian trail be relocated to a location within the existing
power line easement.
5. The plot be revised to provide a pedestrian trail along the east side of the
Fallon Avenue right-of-way.
6. The City Engineer verify appropriate wetland mitigation at a 7-1 ratio.
7. The City Engineer and public waft review and approve all grading,
drainage, and utility plans.
8. The applicant make appropriate park land dedications and/or cash
contributions If final plat approval is granted.
9. Wright County Sail and Water Conservation District verily the wetland
dellnestion, and the mitigation plan proposed by the epplikxnt.
10. Commards of other City aleft.
Q Denial of the preliminary plat of Cardinal Pond.
C.
The proposed reaontng and preliminary plat is generally consistent with the City's
Comprehensive Plan, as well as existing and planned uses in the surrounding area.
However, a number of significant issues ogm Ing the preliminary plat remain to be
addressed, most ratably the design of Fallon Cour and the maintenance of ponding and
wetland areas within the plat. As such, staff recommends approval of the applicmkt s
request with conditions as cited In Decision One, Alternative a and Decision Two,
Alternative b.
D. ALIPPORTING OAj�
Exhibit A. Site Location Mop
Exhibit B: Preliminary Plat
Exhibit C: Grading, Drainage and U014 Plana
5
74
TT/W'd LM ffi9 219 31 K19r iMT-M-8*
Alkb
Area •
�6,ratrll
0"
>V
•4 T
wo,
ty
00
CO
pRELIMINARY PLAT 010
CARDINAL POND
TV OF MONTICELLO, WRIG"T COEWTV. "Ar. Eln— El r _kn 3;
- .1r- - �. 11" ._-.\_l_._ .. - -," titF�
It
1
IL
L
V,
L
Evv
r
all
az,
EXMIT
Notice is hereby given that public hearings will be held by the City of Monticello Planning Commission
on May 6, 1997, at 7 p.m., in the Monticello City Hell to consider the following matters:
PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of a request for a zoning map amendment by changing
zoning district designation from AO (Agriculturali to R-1 (Single
Family Residential).
Consideration of a request for preliminary plat approval of the
Cardinal Pond residential subdivision. Location: SW V4 of SW 1/4 of
SW 1/4 of Section 13. Applicant: John Leerasen.
April 28, 1997
Dear Mr. Patch,
1 have lived in the Cardinal Hills Addition for 4 years and feel the area is very
congested. I think the Cardinal Pond adds a nice touch to the area allowing the residents
to have a little bit of the country inside the city limits. 1 do not -feel this
particular area can withstand any more homes.
Therefore, 1 recommend the request for preliminary plat approval for Cardinal Pond
residential subdivision be denied.
Sincerely, ll
�...�_ W
s. [bu l� �DDer
9091 Tanager Circle
Monticello, MN 55362
Written and oral testimony will be accepted on above subjects, and all persons desiring to be heard
on referenced subjects will be heard at this meeting.
SaW Decisions of the Planning Commission will be subject to the approval or denial of the City
Council and will be heard on Monday, May 12,1997, et 7 p.m., a the Monticello City Hall.
�14
Fred PatchAdministmlor
Notice is hereby given that public hearings will be held by the City of Monticello Planning Commission
on May 6, 1997, at 7 p.m., in the Monticello City Hall to consider the following matters:
PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of a request for a zoning map amendment by changing
zoning district designation from AO (Agricultural) to R-1 (Single
Family Residential).
Consideration of a request for preliminary plat approval of the
Cardinal Pond residential subdivision. Location: SW 1/4 of SW 1/4 of
SW V4 of Section 13. Applicant: John lAerssen.
l& /f j t "6f1�f/ 6u
al/� A&7U4
jp� �12Ga e a� CQaat o0%aG! mac.
en _4�Cf
�
a'�lL�ii J
Written and oral testimony will be accepted on above subjects, and all persons desigg
to be heard
on referenced subjects will be heard at this meeting.
Jam: Decisions of the Planning Commission will be subject to the approval or denial of the City
Council and will be heard on Monday, May 12, 1997, at 7 p.m., a the Monticello City Hall.
Fred Patch ,Muting Administrator
74 T
Planning Commission Agenda - 5/6/97
k1nA
alari
(J.O.)
Monticello School District requests approval of a conditional use permit
which would allow construction of a senior high school in an R-1 zone. The
40 -acre site is located between the Middle School and Little Mountain
Elementary School. Attached is a copy of the Environmental Assessment
Worksheet, which provides a complete description of the proposed facility
and surrounding land uses. The balance of this report identifies various
issues or unique aspects of this site that may require special discussion.
Buffer Yard Requirements
Hi;h 4rhoo]/Ind .a ria] Bo ,n Ary,, The buffer yard requirement is intended
to buffer incompatible uses and was, in part, developed for the very situation
that is faced today. Under the code, for adjoining vacant properties, both
property owners are responsible for installing one-half of the total plantings
required in the buffer yard. Typically, the plantings are installed when
development occurs. It is somewhat unusual that the School District
landscaping plan satisfies the entire planting requirement for the buffer yard
for both sides of the property line along the high school boundary.
The site plan proposes 200 6 ft -7 ft pine trees planted every 12 ft along the
northern boundary of the site adjacent to the business campus zone to the
north. The tree line is interrupted by the retention pond in the center of the
site.
Little Mountain .I m n ety/InduatriI Bo un ary. The plan also shows the
full buffer yard installed the full length of the Little Mountain Elementary
(LME) School site. This is appropriate because the code says that "now
development" must install 100% of the buffer yard when there is existing
development. It is necessary to install the buffer yard along the elementary
school site at this time because it is currently non -conforming. Thus
installation of the full complement of trees along the LME, boundary places
the LME site in conformance with code.
General Landscaping
Landscaping plan for the balance of the site has not been submitted to City
staff. Staff has some concern that the School District believes that the extra
trees in the high school buffer yard should be subtracted from the balance of
the landscaping requirement for the remainder of the site. Please note that
Planning Commission Agenda - 5/6/97
we have urged the District Site Planner to submit the landscaping plan and
have provided considerable advanced notice of the need for the plan prior to
Planning Commission review. Staff accepted the application based on a
letter from Dan Johnson, site engineer, stating that "Our office will be
working with City staff to satisfy city requirements with respect to
landscaping issues pertaining to the subject site." Later, after the submittal
had been accepted, we received a letter from the same office stating "We trust
the number of trees (over the required minimum) proposed for the landscape
buffer will reduce the internal landscape requirements."
The site plan as proposed, to a great extent, complies with code with regard
to installation of curb and gutter; however, there are a few areas where curb
is not being proposed. Please see the site plan for detail. The areas where
curb is not being proposed will enable water to drain directly into adjoining
swales. As you can ase, curb is proposed for all areas that border play fields
and open spaces. This is intended to discourage vehicles from driving on
grassy areas, which is a common problem today. Please see the attached note
of May 2 from Dan Johnson regarding curb locations.
Curb Island/Parking Stall Alignment Delineators
Referring to the main parking lot at the front of the high school, the site plan
shows development of 224,000 sq ft of blacktop surface, which results in the
need (by code) to develop 7,884 sq ft of island delineator space. The plan as
proposed results in 3,660 aq ft of delineator space resulting in a deficit of
4,224 aq ft. The site plan reveals two sets of curb islands in the center of the
high school parking lot along with sets on both ends of the lot. There is
approximately 400 ft between the center curb island delineators (football
field + 100) and the end delineators, making room for over 40 cars per row. It
is suggested strongly that the Planning Commission look at the amount of
blacktop and the potential need for enforcing the parking island delineator
requirement by requiring additional island delineators at midpoint between
the middle islands and the end dolineators. Adding the additional
landscaped delineators as proposed by staff will help break up the expanse of
black top and provide a guide for parking in the winter months when striping
is covered. If the site plan included 12 small delineators (87151 per unit, the
total square footage of delineators would increase to 5,100, which remains
short of the code requirement.
With regard to the bus loading and parking area to the rear of the site, the
site plan also reveals a shortage of island dolineators. It is suggested also
that this parking lot be redesigned alightly with the goal of adding
delineators to improve identification of parking stall alignment. This is
Planning Commission Agenda - 5/6/97
particularly important in this case because the stall row is over 300 ft in
length and it curves besides. Imagine having to find the proper alignment in
the winter months on a curving stall alignment line without visible striping
or island delineators to go by.
Motion to approve conditional use permit allowing construction of a
high school facility contingent on the following conditions:
A. Submittal of a complete landscaping plan meeting the minimum
landscaping requirements in addition to meeting the minimum
requirements of the buffer yard ordinance.
B. Complete revisions to the site plan as identified by the Planning
Commission that are necessary to improve parking stall
delineation and adequately break up the monotony of the
parking lots. 'This applies to both front and rear parking areas.
Make adjustments to curb locations as determined by the
Planning Commission.
Motion to approve the conditional use permit is based on the finding
that development of the school facility at this location under the
conditions noted is consistent with the comprehensive plan of the city
Motion to deny approval based on the finding that the site plan is
inconsistent with city code and, therefore, the code needs to be
changed or variances granted.
The Planning Commission should select this alternative if the
applicant is unwilling to meet minimum requirements or unwilling to
make adjustments to the site plan as requested by the Planning
Commission.
Motion to table consideration of the conditional use request allowing
construction of a high school in an R-1 zone.
Planning Commission should select this alternative if it desires to
have the School District rodraw the site plan with amendments made
as requested prior to forwarding it to the City Council.
Planning Commission Agenda - 5/6/97
C. STAFF F..O NDATION:
Staff recommends approval under the conditions noted under alternative Ml.
It is our view that the plan needs to move toward meeting the minimums of
the city ordinances with regard to curb island delineators and landscaping.
The requirements of the ordinance make sense and should be applied to this
site plan. Additional trees and improved parking lot design will enhance the
impact of the site in the area and will improve internal traffic flow. If the
Planning Commission feels that the requirements of the ordinance should
not be applied to this site in terms of curb, landscaping, and island
delineators, then perhaps the code should be changed.
D_ SUPPORTING DATA:
Copy of site plan; Copy of Environmental Assessment Worksheet; Copy of
May 2 memo from Dan Johnson.
ANDERSON -JOHNSON
ASSOCIATES,
,l f
INC.— -74i,
L—L.Yv, .4,ck , • S. PIS • Cod En L—iq
APRIL 14, 1997
MONTICE---
HIGH S
cvaed��nes
40 - AUSTRIAN PINE (6' HEIGHT) TIP.
30 - NORWAY SPRUCE (7' HEIGHT)
60 - AUSTRIAN PINE (6' HEIGHT) (SPACE AT 12' ON CENTER - STAGGER ROWS)
70 - NORWAY SPRUCE (7' HEIGHT)
(SPACE AT 12' ON CENTER - STAGGER ROWS) RETENT IO� POND
SOCCER/FUgTBaLL
/ f v
n�I �uBi ; ( EXISTING RETEN IIiN POND
TENN
4ou SOCCER/F❑ TBALL SOFT81 L \T�I I PATNwAY Al.%6*1NEwR$� wa$6 VIPHY. ED.'��. U �OCCER�FO ALI
—M
SCHEMATIC LANDSCAPE BUFFER PLAN
r SOF"TBA_
J /
FXffSSii , / �G Y D
SOFTB L �XFTBI F 'ARK ryLi�i I`.�AR-i;�,_'�
� S S
AFF
Dh.L NEAPORS
SDFTBA1-
1 SEDiI I �QICT'Ny
/ CCAA1 JJ
J I
It�e.+p T T V.
I
APRIL 9. 1996
Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW)
NOTE TO PREPARERS
'his worksheet is to be completed by the Responsible Governmental Unit (RGU) or its agents. The project proposer must supply any
.asonably accessible data necessary for the worksheet, butis not to complete the final worksheet itself. If a complete answer does not
fit in the space allotted, attach additional sheets as necessary.
For assistance with this worksheet contact the Minnesota Environmental Quality Board (EQB) at (612) 298-8253 or (toll-free) 1.800-652.
9747 (ask operator for the EQB environmental review program) or consult'EAW Guidelines'. a booklet available from the EQB.
NOTE TO REVIEWERS
Comments must be submitted to the RGU (see item 3) during the 30 -day comment period following novice of the EAW in the EOB Monitor.
(Contact the RGU or the EQB to learn when the comment period ends.) Comment should address the accuracy and completeness of the
information, potential impacts that may warrant further investigation, and the need for an EIS. If the EAW has been prepared for the
scoping o1 an EIS (see item 4), comments should address the accuracy and completeness o1 the Information and suggest issues for
investigation in the EIS.
1. Project Title P.roposed.Monticello_High.School_
2. Proposer Independent.School.District.No..882_—_. 3. RGU.City_Ot.Monticello—
Contac person Sheldon_D. Johnson_ _ _ - _ _ _ _ Contact person Je1f.O'NeiIL
Address _P.O. Box 897 and title Assistant Administrator
Monticello..MN 55382_ _ Address 250.East Broadway_
Phone _295.5184_ —_ _ __ __— MonlicelW_MN 55362-.9245—
Phone-295-2711---
4.
5382-.9245_Phone_295.271.1 __4. Reason for EAW Preparation
o EIS scoping ■ mandatory EAW O citizen petition O RGU discretion O Proposer volunteered
If EAW or EIS is mandatory give EQB rule category numbers) 44.10.4300, subp. 14,.B. 2
S. Project Location
__ 114 _ _ 114 Section _13_ Township -J21.N_ Range _25W_
County _Wrigh
Crty(Twp _Clty.ol.Monticello ___ __
AffKA MOWS or Nth of tin faft 9 t0 the EAW.
a. a county map showing the general location of the project;
b. copy(ies) of USGS 7.5 minute, 1:24,000 scale map (photocopy is OK) indicating the project boundaries;
c. A site plan showing all signdicant project and natural features.
S. Description Give a complete description of the proposed projoct and ancillary lacdilies (attach additional sheets as necessary).
Emphasize construction and operation methods and features that will cause physical manipulation of the environment or produce
wastes. Indicate !ho timing and duration of construction ecthntios.
Independent School District No. 882 Is proposing to construct a new high school In the City of Monticello. Minnesota. The location
of this project 4 shown on Figure 1. The proposed high school is approximately 282.000 square feet and thus necessitates the
preparation of an EAW.
This project involves the construction of on Institutional building, 2 perking lots, a 2 -lane bitumnous road, storm water rale control and
treatment pond, concrete storm sower pipe, 3 soccorrfootball fields, and 4 softball fields. Also proposed as pan of this site, but 10 be
constructed at a future date are a football stadium, 8 lonnis courts, a softball held, a baseball field, expanded parking areas, and school
building additions. The proposed project is shown on Figura 3. The location of this proposed high school is along School Boulevard
between the existing elementary school to the west and the existing middle school to tho east.
The construction and operation of the proposed Senior High School facility will have physical and environmental impacts. Physical
impacts include a change in land cover from open field to an institutional use with increased Impervious surface area. This change
in surface cover will Increase the rate and volume of storm water runoff which Is generated from the site, as well as increase pollutant
loads in storm walor runoff. There may also be Impacts associated with sir quality from increased traffic.
Prev4e x so or fi a woe sower to cru n Ea9 wonttar not":
7. Project Magnitude Data
Total Project Area (acres) _8n —
_ _ or Length (miles)
Number of Residential Units
Unattach—I
Attached
Commercial / Industrial / Institutional Building Area (gross floor space)
Total ___ 282.DOn
%quare feet;
Indicate area of specific uses:
Of c.
Manufacturinf
Retail
Other Industrial
Warehouse
Institutional _High.Schoo'
Light Industrial
Agriculture
Other Commercial (specify)
Building Height($) _
B. Penults and Approvals Required List all known local, state, and federal permits, approvals. and funding required:
Unit of Government
Type of application Status
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
State Disposal System
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
NPDES
City of Monticello
Building/Grading Permits
9. Land Use Describe current and recent past land use and development on the site and on adjacent lands. Discuss the compatibility
of the project with adjacent and nearby land uses: indicate whether any potential conflicts involve environmental matters. Idenhfy
any potential environmental hazard due to past land uses, such as soil contamination or abandoned storage tanks.
The area of the proposed project has been an open farm field for many years. This area is located between an existing middle school
and elementary school. The land Is currently farmed. This site currently contains a drainage ditch which receives water from
properties located to the south, an0 conveys the water to the north Into an existing storm water pond which will be provided an outlet
in the future to the Mississippi River, In accordance with the City's storm water plan. This ditch is proposed to be replaced with
reinforced concrete pipe of adequate capacity to accommodate the current off-site drainage received by this storm water conveyance
system. The project Is compatible with the City's current land -use plan.
Past lend uses which pose environmental concern Include underground or aboveground storage petroleum tanks at former farmsteads.
as well as any unpemdtted fill and/or dumping. There are currently no known environmental contamination problems on the site.
10. Cover Typos Estimate the acreage of the site with each of the hallowing cover types before and after development (before and after
totals should be equaQ:
Before After
Types 2 to 8 Wetlands _0.0— _0.0_
WoodedtFofast _0.0— _0.0_
Brush/Grassland _0.0— _0.0_
Cropland _80.0— _0.0—
Before After
Urban/Suburban Lawn —0.0 41.3 _.
Landscaping
Impervious Surface _0.0_ _18.3_
Other (describe) r0.0_ _0.0-
11. Fish, Wltdlifo, and Ecologically Sensitive Resources
a. Describe fish and wildlife resources on or near the site and discuss how they would be affected by the projoct. Describe any
measures to be taken to minimize or avoid adverse impacts.
The We currently contains no significant flah or wildlife resources at habitat. Storm water runoff generated from this site will be
treated prior to discharge Into the Mississippi River which is the receiving waters from this she.
b. Are there any stato-listed endangered, threatened, or speciaFcarcom species; rare plant convrxvfts; cobnW waterbird nesting
colonies; native prairie or other rare habitat; or other sensitive ecological resources an or near the site? D Yes ■ No
ff yos, describe the resource and Trow U would be afteded by the purled. Indicate U a site survey of the resources was conducted.
Describe measures to be taken to mintmlze or avoid adverse Lnpads.
The Minnesota Department of Natural Resources Natural Heritage Program was contacted regarding the location of any state
listed endangered, threatened or special concern species, or rare plant communities located at this proposed site. Attached to
this EAW Is a letter from the Minnesota Department of Nat" Resources Natural Heritage Program indicating that to their
knowledge, none of those resources we currently present at the site.
12. Physical Impacts on Water Resources Will the project involve the physical or hydrologic alteration (dredging, filling, stream
diversion, outran structure, diking, impoundment) of any surface water (lake, pond, wetland, stream, drainage ditch)? ■ Yes ❑ No
If yes, identity the water resource to be affected and describe: the alteration, including the construction process; volumes of dredged
or ran material. area effected; tergth of stream diversion; water surface area affected; timing and extent of fluctuations in water surface
elevations: spoils disposal sites; and proposed mitigation measures to minimize impacts.
The site currently contains an open ditch drainageway which will be replaced with a reinforced concrete pipe storm sewer system of
adequate capacity to maintain drainage through this parcel into the Mississippi River. This is not a county ditch system but a local
trunk storm water ditch used for local drainage, which was constructed as a temporary system to serve the property to the south unlit
the school property was developed and a permanent solution constructed. In addition, the project as proposed includes expanding
an existing stone water treatment pond and constructing an additional treatment pond in accordance with the City's storm water plan
for this site. Storm water rate control and treatment will be provided prior to discharge from the site.
13. Water Use
a. Will the project involve the installation or abandonment of any wells? ❑ Yes ■ No
For abandoned wells give the location and Unique well number. For new wells, or other previously unpermilted wells, give the
location and purpose of the well and the Unique well number (d known).
An old farm well on the site was previously abandoned.
b. Will the project require an appropriation of ground or surface water (including dewatering)? ❑ Yes ■ No
If yes, indicate the source, quantity, duration, purpose of the appropriation, and DNR water appropriation permit number of any
existing appropriation. Discuss the impact of the appropriation on ground water levels.
c. Will the project require connection to a public water supply? ■ Yes ❑ No
If yes, identify the supply, the DNR water appropriation permit number of the supply, and Me quantity to be used.
The estimated deity water usage for the proposed school is 36.040 gpd based on ultimate occupancy of 1,632 people using an
average of 20 gpd per person,
Water will be supplied by the City of Monticello. The DNR water appropriations permit number for the City of Monticello well which
serves this site is 841059. Groundwater aquifers are the source of Monticeflo's public water supply.
s. Wator-rolatod Land Use Umnagemont Districts Does any part of the project site Involve a shoreland zoning district. a delineated
100 -year Rood plain, or a state or federally designated wild or scenic fiver land use district? 0 Yes ■ No
If yes, identity the district and discuss the compatibility of the project with the land use restrictions of the district.
15. Water Surface Use tin Me project change the number or type of watercraft on any water body? ❑ Yes • No
If yea, indicate the current and projected watercraft usage and discuss any potential overcrowding or conflicts with other users or fish
and wildllfo resources.
16. Solis Approximate depth (in fact) to:
Ground water. minimum _20'+ average — Bedrock: minimum .20—+ average
Describe the sails on the site, giving SCS classifications, it known. (SCS interprelatlans and Soil boning 1093 need net be attached)
SM - Silly Sand, fine-grained, dark brown to black (TOPSOIL)
SP - Poorly Graded Sand, fine -to medium -grained, with a ilea of Gravel, brown, moist, very boas to medium dense (GLACIAL TILL)
Bored on subsurface envkonmental and geotedmicel investigations, the general toll profile encountered in these borings as 1 to 2 tri
feet of topsoil and underlain by poorly graded sand. Silty Sand was encountered between the topsoil and poorly graded sand in
Borings ST -3, ST -11, AND ST -14, to depths of 3 to 7 feet. Sod boring logs are available upon request.
Neither water nor bedrock was encountered In any SW borings that went to a maximum depth of 20 feet.
17. Erosion and Sedimentation Give the acreage to be graded of excavated and the cubic yards of sol to be moved.-
acres
oved.acres _ 60. _; 132,000 cubic yards o1 cut; 102,000 cubic yards of fill.
Describe any steep slopes or highly erodible Soils and identify them an the site map.
Descnbe the erosion and sodimontalion measures to be used during and after construction of the project.
Temporary oroabn and sedimentation measures to be used during construction include sul fences and possible seeding (depending
on the length of time sou Is exposed) of exposed Soils. Permanent erosion control measures Include sod/seeding or placement of
impervious surfaces over exposed soils.
The City of Monticello win require that the construction contractor comply with applicable codes and regulations. The contractor win
be required to comply with the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) general storm water permit program.
Standard erosion control measures required by the City of Monticello. Wright County and the State of Minnesota will be followed dunng
and after construction of the facility. Final site preparation and erosion control will require repair and re-establishment of vegetation
on all disturbed areas. The contractor will develop a temporary erosion and sediment control plan. These measures wig consist of
the placement and maintenance of erosion and sediment control devices such as sift fences and bate checks.
f. Water Quality - Surface Water Runoff
a. Compare the quantify and quality of site runoff before and after the project. Describe methods to be used to manage and/or treat
runoff.
Currently, the project site is undeveloped and open field. Storm water runoff that is not collected by soil infiltration is collected
in drainage ditches that eventually drain into the Mississippi River. The City of Monticello receives approximately 27 inches of
precipitation annually and the I00 -year, 24-hour rainfall is 5.9 Inches. The volume of runoff generated from this site in the existing
and proposed conditions is outlined below.
Runoff rates and volumes on the project site will increase due to the addition of impervious surfaces,
Volume of Runoff From Site In Acre -Feet
1 -Yr Storm 10 -Yr Storm 100 -Yr Storm
(2.3- in 24 Hrs) (4, 1- in 12 Hrs) (5.9- in 24 Hrs)
Existing Condition 0.70 4.30 9.70
Proposed Condition 4.00 11.00 18.95
Surface water runoff at the project site wig be routed through storm water detention ponds prior to discharge from the project ate.
These ponds will provide both storm water rate control and treatment to NURP recommendations.
b. Identify the routes) and receiving water bodies for runoff from the site. Estimate the impact of the runoff on the quality )f the
receiving waters. (rt the nmorr may~ a tahe wawa -EA W Gudexnei asow "/MW a AWnW Wdprr amoyvs N tilled)
All storm water from the City of Monticello uglmatety, discharges Into the Mississippi River. The project site is located In a
subwatershed of Monticello previously identified by the City. As the subwatershed is developed (this includes the project site),
culverts and ponds will be modified or constructed to regulate the discharge of storm water runoff to the Mississippi River. Storm
water runoff will be treated through the use of wet detention ponds to remove pollutants prior to discharge to the Mississippi River.
The proposed treatment ponds will be constructed to meel NURP recommendations and are estimated to remove 60%-a0% of
total suspended solids and 501/00% of total phosphorus. The proposed storm water treatment methods should fully mitigate
the effects of this development on the quality of water being discharged to the Mississippi River.
19. Wator Quality - Wastewaters
a. Describe sources, quantities, and composition (except nor normal domestic sowape) of ad sanitary and industrial wastewaters
produced or treated of the site.
This site is anticipated to generate normal domestic typo sewage.
b. Doscribe any waste troatmont methods to bo usod and give esfimotos of composition after treatment, or if the project involves
on-site sewage systems, discuss the suitability of the site conditions for such systems. Idenuy receiving watcrs (indudkV ground
watoo and estimato the impact of the discharge on tho quality of the receiving waters. (a Me arthorpo may ahbU • ate conava •EAw
GuiCaWr' about whether a m9nom adW and anaryus b no~)
c. If wastes will be dhschotpad Into a sewor system or protmatmonf system, idenfiy the system and discuss the ability of the system
to accept tho volumo and composition of the wastes. Identify any improvoments ~will be necessary,
City of Monticello Sewage Treatment Plant will have adequate sower capacity to accommodate the anticipated volume of
wastewator generated from this site, at whlch time the school opens. The City is currently undertoking an expansion of the
wastewater treatment plant, which will be fully operational by July, 1998. The City of Monticello sanitary sewer systom was
designed to accommodate the anticipated construction of the high school on this site.
20. Ground Nater — Potsntlat for Contamination
a. Approximate dopth (in foot) to ground water. _29c. _ -minimum: _ avow.
4 qE
b. Describe any of the following site hazards to ground water and also identify them on the site map: sinkholes; shallow limestone
fonnallons1karst conditions; soils with high infiltration rates; abandoned or unused wells. Describe measures to avoid or minimize
environmental problems due to any of these hazards.
There is an abandoned farm well on the site which was abandoned by the school district in accordance with state laws at the time
the property was purchased.
c. Identify any toxic or hazardous materials to be used or present on the project site and identify measures to be used to prevent
them from contaminating ground water.
An exterior 8,000 -gallon underground s2 fuel oil storage lank is proposed. This tank will be equipped with an approved electronic
monitoring system to prevent contamination of groundwater and soils by this system.
21. Solid Wastes; Hazardous Wastes; Storage Tanks
a. Describe the types, amounts, and compositions of solid or hazardous wastes to be generated, including animal manures, sludges
and ashes. Identity the method and location of disposal. For projects generating municipal solid waste indicate if there will be
e source separation plan; list type(s) and how the project wig be modified to allow recycling.
The proposed high school is expected to generale normal municipal solid waste (MSW). MSW will be collected by one private
waste hauler under contract with the City of Monticello and licensed by Wright County.
b. Indicate the number, location, size, and use of any above or below ground tanks to be used for storage of petroleum products
or other materials (except water).
The site is proposed to contain one 8JIDD-pilon 42 fuel oil underground storage tank. The tank is 8'0' in diameter and 18' in
length. The location of this tank can be seen on the proposed site plan, which is attached to this document as Figure 3.
22. Traffic Parking spaces added _822_ Existing spaces (if project involves expansion) _N/A_ Estimated total Average Daily
Traffic (ADT) generated _3100_ Estimated maximum peak hour traffic generated (it known) and its timing: 100., AM.P_eak W.
For each affected road indicate the ADT and the directional distribution of traffic with and without the pr*ct. Provide an estimate of
the impact on traffic congestion on the affected roads and describe any traffic improvements which will be necessary.
It is estimated that, based on a 282,000 square foot high school, the following traffic would be generated:
Time Period
Generation Rate
Number of Trips
AM Peak How
2.34 trips/1000 SF
880
PM Peak Hour
1.94 trips/1000 SF
548
Daily
10.90 trips/10D0 SF
3.074
The estimated trip generation Is based on Information found in the 51h edition
of the Institute of Transportation Engineer's Tnp
Generation Manual.
The primary Impacted roadways adjacent to the she are School Boulevard on the south and Chelsea Road on the north. Access to
the site will be provided by two driveways from School Boulevard and a bituminous service road to Chelsea Road. The site plan
Indicates the location of these silo accesses.
Traffic will be distributed to the local regional roadway system (ie. TH 25 and CR 118) by School Boulevard and Chelsea Road.
Figure 4 in Appendix A illustrates the existing and proposed Average Daily Traffic (AOT) volumes on the Impacted roadways, as well
as the estimated traffic distribution from the proposed site.
There are Critical areas that would Indicate operational problems due to traffie generated from the proposed site of the driveways to
the site and major Intersections. The primary amass driveways to the site are from School Boulevard which Is a two-tane roadway
(one tans In each direction with nine -fool shoulders). The roadway section will accommodate any traffic which would be turning into
or out of the proposed site. The access onto Chelsea Road Is a secondary access and will not be Impacted by the proposed traffic
into or out of the site.
The regional impacts would be at the Intersections of School Boulevard and TH 25, and School Boulevard at Fanning Avenue
(CR 118). The intersection of School Boulevard and TH 25 Is planned for Improvement in 1988. This intersection Is proposed to be
e signalized intersocllon when traffic volumes jut* its Installation. School Boulevard at CR 118 has sufficient capacity to handle the
increase of traffic duo to the proposed high school. However. CR 118 Is proposed in the City's Transportation Plan to be upgraded
from School Boulevard to CSAH 75 around the year 2000.
Based on this data, the proposed site traffic, now and in the future, win terve little Impact or no impact on the existing roadway systems
The only roadway improvements that should be considered is the acceleration of the improvement of CR 118 from School Boulevard
to CSAR 75.
73. Vehicle -related air emissions Provide an estimate of the effect of the project's traffic generation on air quality, inducting carbon
monoxide levels. Discuss the effect of traffic improvements or other mitigation measures on air quality impacts. (rt fin pmov,,Aws
500a mora perluq woes. m zA'EA W Gu,dalnas- aewr wh@M& • drrt&red aur 7vaey analysts isneeded )
The proposed project wdl involve development o1 282.100 square feet o1 building area and the development of 822 new parking
spaces. The development does not require an Indirect Source Permit (ISP) because fewer than 1.000 new parking spaces will be
provided. In addition, a computer simulated carbon monoxide analysis was performed to document compliance with applicable
ambient air quality standards.
To screen the project for potential air quality conformance problems, the Mn/DOT Simplified Analysis procedure was utilized. One
receptor location was used for the analysis. The background carton monoxide levels used for the analysis were non -rural, one-hour
and eight-hour levels indicated in Mn/DOT's guidelines, which are 2.5 PPM and 1.5 PPM, respectively.
The results of the analysis indicate that the roadways adjacent to the proposed site win be within the current MPCA guidelines of 30
PPM for a maximum one-hour reading and 9 PPM for an average eight-hour reading. The following table represents the results of
the analysis for the proposed project.
Year
Period
Estimated Level
MPCA Guidelines
(PPM)
(PPM)
1898
1 Hour
3.8
30.0
1998
8 Hour
1.8
9.0
2000
1 Hour
3.9
30.0
2000
8 Hour
1.8
9.0
24. Stationary source air emissions 1440 the project kwoNe any stationary sources of air emissions (such as toilers or exhaust stacks)?
o Yes ■ No
N yes, describe the sources, quantities, and composition of the emissions; the proposed air pollution control devices; the quantities
and composition of the emissions after treatment and the effects on air quality.
25. Witt the project generate dust, odors, or noise during construction and/or operation? ■ Yes o No
If yes, describe the sources, characteristics, duration, and quantities or intensity, and any proposed measures to mitigate adverse
impacts. Also identify the locations of sensitive receptors In the vicinity and estimate the impacts on these receptors.
Dust: During construction, particular emissions win temporarily Increase due to the generation of fugitive dust. The following dust
control measures will be undertaken as necessary:
1) Minimize the period and extent o1 area being exposed and regraded at any one time;
2) Spraying construction areas and haul roads with water, especially during periods of high wind or high level of construction
activities;
3) Minimize the use of veNdes on unpaved surfaces;
a) Covering or spraying materials piles andlor truck loads.
Odors: The proposed project is not anticipated to involve any processes that would generate any odors outside of the buildings.
Noise: The noise standards applicable to the proposed development are those developed by the Slate of Minnesota In Its Noise
Pollution Control regulations, The following tables outlines these noise standards by land use type.
6 9G
(1) MPCA - 2 Noise Standards; Minn. Rule 7010.0400
The existing and projected 1998 and 2000 noise levels were determined at a receptor adjacent to the site at the Rocky Mountain
Elementary School playground. The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) Level 2 Highway Traffic Noise Prediction Model.
Stamina 2.0, was used for this analysis. The traffic noise model on which this computer was based was developed by the FHWA and
is documented in a report entitled FHWA Highway Traffic Noise Prediction Model (FHWA-R-D-77-108).
The model uses
I ) Traffic volume and type of vehicles on the roadway;
2) The vehicle running speeds;
3) The physical characteristics of the roadway (is. horizontal and vertical alignment); and
4) Any physical features between the roadway and the receptor that may mitigate the noise, such as buildings or noise watts. Output
is issued in a form of Lt' and L5' values.
The noise levels analysis for the receptor indicated that the levels w10 Increase In 1998 and 2001 over what they are today. However,
all levels are well within the noise level standards for an Institutional facility as Indicated In the previous table. The following table
illustrates the results of the existing, predicted, and projected noise levels.
Period
Noise Level Standards - 60nnesota Pollution Control Agency (1)
L5'
1998 Without Site
48
43
Nightime Nobe Level
Category
General Land Use Types
Daytime Noise Level
(10:00 PM to 7:00 AM)
NAC - 1
Residential and Institutional
1.10 of 65 dBA
L70 of 55 43A
L50 of 60 dBA
L50 of 50 dBA
NAC - 2
Commercial and Recreational
L10 of 70 dBA
1.10 of 70 dSA
L50 of 65 dBA
L50 of 65 dBA
NAC - 3
Industrial
L70 of 80 dBA
L10 of 30 dBA
L50 of 75 dBA
L50 of 75 dBA
(1) MPCA - 2 Noise Standards; Minn. Rule 7010.0400
The existing and projected 1998 and 2000 noise levels were determined at a receptor adjacent to the site at the Rocky Mountain
Elementary School playground. The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) Level 2 Highway Traffic Noise Prediction Model.
Stamina 2.0, was used for this analysis. The traffic noise model on which this computer was based was developed by the FHWA and
is documented in a report entitled FHWA Highway Traffic Noise Prediction Model (FHWA-R-D-77-108).
The model uses
I ) Traffic volume and type of vehicles on the roadway;
2) The vehicle running speeds;
3) The physical characteristics of the roadway (is. horizontal and vertical alignment); and
4) Any physical features between the roadway and the receptor that may mitigate the noise, such as buildings or noise watts. Output
is issued in a form of Lt' and L5' values.
The noise levels analysis for the receptor indicated that the levels w10 Increase In 1998 and 2001 over what they are today. However,
all levels are well within the noise level standards for an Institutional facility as Indicated In the previous table. The following table
illustrates the results of the existing, predicted, and projected noise levels.
Period
Lt'
L5'
1998 Without Site
48
43
1998 With Sive
49
44
2000 With Site
51
46
MPCA Standard
58
50
26. Are any of the following resources on or in proximity to the site:
a. archeological, historical, of erchilecturalresoumos7 o Yes ■ No
b. prime or unique farmlands? o Yes • No
e. designated parks, recreation areas, or trails? ■ Yes D No
d. scenic views and vistas? a Yes ■ No
o. other unique resources? o Yes ■ No
If any items ere answered Yes, describe the resource and Identify any knpacts on the resource due to the project. Describe any
measures to be taken to minimize or avoid adverse Impacts.
The school is going to be connected into an existing trod system that currently serves the City of Monticello. Figure 4 shows the
location of this trail system relative to this project.
27. WJ the project create adverso visual impacts? ifisamles kkdo ay+ftm m"M Vms upnrs ws" in wobaar„ pass w bw os" ow"i atm
cddn^p ro and or arnwst stacks) a Yes • No
If yes, explain.
28. Compatibility with plans is the project subject to an adopted local comprehensive land use plan or any other applicable land use,
water, or resource management plan of a local, regional, slate, or federal agency? ■ Yes 0 No
If yes, identily the applicable plan(s), discuss the compatibility of the project with the provisions of the plants), and explain how any
conflicts between the project and the plan(s) will be resolved. If no, explain.
The school site has been included in the City's comprehensive plan and storm water systems have been designed in conformance
with the City's management criteria.
29. Impact on Infrastructure and public Service MY new or expanded utilities, roads, otherirdrasbixture, orpublr services be required
to serve the project? 0 Yes ■ No
If yes, describe the now or addrbonal infrastructure I services needed. !ay r%inwnraure own a •mmaCad acuon• w+h re,pact ro ma pmjw m v
be anessed in av, EAW. res •FAW Goderines for danadi )
Connection to City utilities. The City of Monticello will allow connection of existing utilities and establishment of 2 entrances to School
Boulevard.
30. Related Developments; Cumulative Impacts
a. Are future stages of this development planned or likely? ■ Yes 0 No
If yes, briefly describe future stages, their timing, and plena for environmental review.
The proposed future expansions of the Monticello High School Include expanding the classroom and school portions, as well as
the parking lot, and the addition of a future football stadium, a baseball field, a softball field, and tennis courts.
b. Is this project a subsequent stage of an earlier project? 0 Yes ■ No
If yes, briefly describe the past development, its tinting, and any past environmental review.
c. Is other development anticipated on adjacent lands oroutlats? o Yes • No
If yes, briefly describe the development and its relationship to the present project.
d. If e, b, or c were marked Yes, discuss any cumulative environmental impacts resulting from this project and the other
development.
31. Other potential Environmental Impacts If the project may cause any adverse environmental impacts which were not addressed
by items 1 to 28, identity and discuss them here, along with any proposed mitigation.
None
X02. Summaryof Issuos tnw aaao+naad rqr a compArtad+tM FJ.w a Dnp Oma W Fns atap+9t' nma0. setas Ia.Y.�nt uwa, n fM ay,x S<dOaW Daa,gn
ewumaet wmen mutt accompany tea EAW) Ust any impacts and issues identified above that may require further investigation before the
project is commenced. Discuss any Alternatives or mitigative measures that have been or may be considered for these Impacts and
Issues, including those that have been or may be ordered as pamdt conditions.
None identified.
CERTIFlCA17ONS BY THE RGU (ell 3 certrgcations must be signed fbr EOS acceptance ofthe EAW Por pubticatlon of notke In tha EQB
Monitor,
A. I hereby certify that the Information contained In this document to accurate and complete to the best of my knowledge.
Signature
B. 1 hereby cenify that the project described In this EAW is the complete project and them are no other projects, project stages, or project
components, other than those described In ft document, which aro related to the project as 'connected actions! or "phased actions'
as dented, respectively, at Minn. Rules, pts. 4110.0200, subp. 9b and subp. 80.
Signature
C. I hereby certify that copies of the completed EAW are being sent to all points on the official E08 EAW distribution fist.
Signature
Title of signer Date
i
r.wwwwnnono ;anEAw vnu
reow..eawo.�
wi � of sun
f/j/�Sr.+�sm..rr ae�s
SUN��l.11m
IY M
Monticello Senior High School
EAW
City of Monticello, Minnesota
VANgnwo Wab os renmi� my
Project Location
Figure 1
•'�,,, /i � aai
y�piat 11t�b gcb
MegttcelW �A�AI-�.-.--
110. Minncso�a
Manlicc
USG,.,----'' O, Map
Figure ,-
no
I—E LOC'.11m w
FRI10m, a..DOKD W11
I.M.11W W:
FILL OIL'
rm
FuT
IWIL I.
Ilk,
17-1
qrL
of
to.,
11
11
?;u1m
r1Rv
maptoplaND maX 00 um a Im-
A
Monticello Senior High School
WSA9
EAW
Site Plan
City of Monticello, Minnesota
Figure 3
----t:�.,;y � I � ! • . ` r^�, '.;fir,:: �� •��:%`•'`:�' �-::
36W,
4p 044/
(01
u ai ' L, • '
U�� SrJ1oo1nlvd I " o(7700)—I
- i 1100 (3300)1r�ij'S mo
yLy1�+ xxx 199611
na61n1�
g (xx,n 70161'ra1.nlu( Ilnrd,.
K Ma kdlu l .N. a ", Plan)
I !i) 7rank niaudwioo
wso egad 6b IoW x LIM moo M, 17W
W.SBw—W ft 0 -.U -Monticello Senior I ligh School
""".P""am ""' EAW Traffic Volume & Distribution
all. 6
....... IUMI•Iq City of Monticello, Minncsoln Figure 4
"AW". L.sr t.yt„c.c_,_A=i; ' - 5nf1� ..a' :a ai---- - --_ -—.'-1't(b..�e�...'r
MINNESOT.-k HISTORICAL SOCIETY
March 10, 1997
Mr. Todd E. Hubmer
WSB and Associates
350 Westwood Lake Office
8441 Wayzata Boulevard
Minneapolis. MN 55426
Dear Mr. Hubmer:
RE: EAW for Monticello Senior High School, SI 3, T121, R25
Monticello, Wright County
SHPO Number: 97.1275
Thank you for consulting with our office during the preparation of en Environmental Assessment
Worksheet for the above referenced project.
There are no reported historic properties in the project area, and we feel that the probability of
any unreported properties is low. Therefore, based on available information, we conclude that
project is unlikely to affect any historic properties.
Please note that this comment letter does not address the requirements of Section 106 of the
National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 and 36CFR800, procedures of the Advisory Council
on Historic Preservation for the protection of historic properties. If this project is considered for
federal assistance, or requires a federal license or permit, it should be submitted to our office
with reference to the appropriate federal agency.
Please contact us at 612.296.5462 if you have any questions regarding uur Leview of this project.
Sincerely,
�
Dennis A. Gimmestad
Government Programs and Compliance Officer
aEc��v�u
MAR 1 9 1991
\SSB & p SSCC1ATES
343 XCLLOCC BOCLEtApD REST I S,%I%T PALL, ?11X?ESOTA 55102.1906 1 TELEPIION& 612.296.6126 90
Minnesota Department of Natural Resources
O N
O
Slq Laialeue Rnad
51. PJUI, >tinnu.ma 55153.10_
�Of' n4ruP►`o-
February 11, 1997
Layne Otteson
WSB & Associates
350 Westwood Lake Office
8441 Wayzata Blvd
Minneapolis MN 55426
Re: Monticello High School Construction Project, T12 IN R25W Section 13, Wright County
Dear Mr. Oneson
The Minnesota Natural Heritage database has been reviewed to determine if any rare plant or
animal species or other significant natural features are known to occur within an approximate one -mile
radius of the above referenced project. Based on this review, there are no known occurrences of rare
species or natural features in the area searched.
The Natural Heritage database is maintained by the Natural Heritage Program and the
Nongame Wildlife Program, units within the Section of Ecological Services, Department of Natural
Resources. It is the most complete source of data on Minnesota's rare, endangered, or otherwise
significant plant and animal species, plant communities, and other natural features, and is used in
fostering better understanding and protection of these rare features.
The information in the database is drawn from many parts of Minnesota, and is constantly
being updated, but it is not based on a comprehensive survey of the state. Therefore, there are
currently many significant natural features present in the state which are not represented by the
database. We are in the process of addressing this via the Minnesota County Biological Survey
(MOBS), a county -by -county inventory of rare natural features, which is now underway. Because
survey work is in progress for Wright County, our information about natural communities judged to be
significant by our program is quite good for that county. The MCBS survey work for rare and
endangered animals and plants is less comprehensive; it is therefore possible that occurrences of these
features exis: in the project area for which we have no records. Because there has not been an on-site
survey of the biological resources of the project area, it is possible that ecologically significant features
exist for which we have no record.
Thank you for consulting us on this matter, ,nd for your !merest in minimizing impacts on
Minnesota's rare resources. Please be aware that review by the Natural Heritage and Nongame
Research Program focuses only on rare natural features. It does not constitute review or approval by
the Department of Natural Resources as a whole. An invoice for the work completed is enclosed. You
are being billed for map and computer search and staff scientist review.
DNR Infnrmatinn:61?•]96.61}7.1•900.766•bNIO . rrY:612•:96•SrF41. I.F00•6}7•39:9 {DECEIVED
..r"Ach4.r—rr•TA,., kar.lar.u.,ielnr' FEB 13 1997
9 P wsa U ASSOCIATES
Sincerely,
Sharron Nelson
Endangered Species Environmental Review Assistant
Natural Heritage and Nongame Research Program
612/296.8324, FAX 612/296-1811
nhp #970420
05/02/1997 10:10 5440531
4Ja ASU C. , ira:. —w u.
FAx TRANSMISSION
ANDERSON -JOHNSON ASSOCIATES, INC.
7676 OOLDEW VALLEY R011D. SUM 200
MO MEAPOL IS, 141 86427
O 12.644.7120
►Ax: O 12-544-0531
To: Mr. Jeff O'Neill
City of Monticello
Fax 0- 295-4404
PhoneN: 29S-2711
From: DaWel. L. Jolumm P.E.
Subject: Proposed Monticello High School
CUP Application
� 1315.1 .
Date: May 2, 1997
Pages: 1, including this coves shat.
PURSUANT TO YOUR REQUEST THIS MORNING, PLEASE FIND ATTACKED TWO
REDUCED COPIES (I--=' SCALE) OF THE CURRENT SITE PLAN (2 OF 2.8%": ll").
ON ONE OF THE COPIES I HAVE HEAVILY MARKED THE LOCATION OF ALL
PROPOSED CONCRETE CURBING.
AS YOU VAU NOTE, WE ARE PROPOSING A CONCRETE GUTTFR ONLY (NO CURB)
ALONG THE WEST LIMIT OF THE WEST PARKING LOT. THE REASON FOR THIS
IS TWO FOLD. THERE IS FUTURE EXPANDED PARKING PLANNED WEST OF THE
PROPOSED LOT. ALSO WE WILL NEED A CONCRETE GUTTER TO ENSURE
PROPER SURFACE DRAINAGE OF THE MINIMAL N -S GRADES IN THIS AREA.
IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS, PLEASE CALL ME AT YOUR CONVENIENCE.
CCI PAUL IIAGEN I ARY ARCHITECTS
a
Planning Commiasion Agenda - 5/6/97
10. Puhlic Hearing—Consideration of a conditional use permit
a town_hnu a development in a S.4 zone= AppliennI6 Chris Bnlow-
(S.G.)
Please see the attached report from Planner Steve Grittman.
Fi'R-24-1997 08:U NN- .1......— . — --
NORTHWEST ASSOCIATED CONSULTANTS
NF -k -C COMMUNITY PLANNING • OESION - MARKET RESEARCH
PLANNING REPORT
TO:
Monticello Mayor and City Council
FROM:
Bob IGrmis / Stephen Grittman
DATE:
24 April 1997
RE:
Monticello - Hillside Townhomes Preliminary Plat
FILE NO:
CONSIDERATION
191.07 - 97.07
OF A DEVELOPMENT STAGE PLANNED UNIT DEVE
CONDITIONAL USE
CONSTRUCTION
A. REFERENCE
PERMIT AND PRELIMINARY PLAT IMPLO MA
OF TNRFF TWINNOMES
AND BACKGROUND
Mr. Chris Bulow has requested preliminary plat approval of six unit twinhome development
entitled Hillside Townhomes. The proposed development la to overlay a 1.07 acre tract
of land located north of 7th Street and west of Wright Street. The subdivision will
constitute a mpIM of Lots 1, 2 and 3, Holkers Hillside Addition and require the vacation of
drainage and utility easements which correspond to the existing lot Iayea The subject
site Is zoned R-3, Medium Density Residents]. Because a unit IOU base lot subdivision
design hes been proposed, the processing of a Planned Unit Development Conditional
Use Permit is noeassary.
Zoning. The subject site is zonod R-3, Medium Density Residential which lists 'multiple
family dwelling structures con U- ning twelve (12) or less dwelling units' as a permitted use.
Land Use Compatibility. To determine the compatibility of the proposed use, it is
considered beneficial to Identify the types of uses which surround the subject site. The
following is a listing of uses and toning designations which surround the subject property.
6770 WAYZATA BOULEVARD. 9UIT2 156E ST. LOUIS PARK. MINN990TA 06416
PHONE 61 2.606.9636 FAX 61 2.606.0037 a
,O / ar
APR -24-1997 ae:37 W -C
Direction
Use
North
Rao Une/Single Family
soft
Dwellings
South
Industrial
East
Foot Piexes
West
Apartments
bl[ i70 =J( r.0 N7
Zoning
R-2
i -t
R-3
R-3
As demonstrated above, the proposed townhome development is considered similar to
existing uses in the area and compatible with surrounding developmertL
Comprehensive Plan. The proposed use is generally consistent with the provisions of
the City's Comprehensive Pian in that it promotes an effort to provide a wide range of
housing choices within the City.
PUD Procesaing. The eWlcar t has requested approval of a PUD/CUP to accommodate
the base IoUunit lot configuration of the development The processing of single phase
dovelopments occurs in two stages - PUD Development Plan and PUD Final Plan. The
PUD Development Plan of single phase developments requires substantial compliance
with Zoning Ordinance provisions on which the PUD Final Plan will ultimately be based.
If the City Council approves the PUD Development Plan, the applicant will submit a PUD
j Final Plan along with the final plat that addresses all outstanding Issues or conditions of
approval regarding the proposed development.
Porfamanco Shwdarde. The following table illustrates all lot performance requirements
of the Zoning Ordinance and the proposed developmenfe compliance with the applicable
requirements.
Lot Area
SSoulred
10,000 of
Pmlmsed
48,642 sf
Lot Width
soft
=340 ft
Lot Area Per Unit
6,000 of
7,774 of
Setbacks:
East From Yard
30 ft
30 ft
Northl3outh Side Yards
20 It
20 ft
West Rear Yard
30 ft
20 ft
2
APR -24-1997 08:37 MRC 612 555 9837 P-04109
Recognizing that the three existing parcels of land are to be combined into a single base eb
lot, a 30 foot rear yard setback must be imposed along the west lot line. To comply with IP - vela
applicable periphery setbacks, the southernmost twinhome structure must be shitted to lie 901.
not less than 30 feet from the referenced west lot line.
Should it be determined that a 30 foot rear yard setback cannot reasonably be achieved,
consideration could be given to providing two threeplexes rather than three twinhomes
upon the property. Such akemative Is presented in recognition of higher density
residential uses which border the subject property to the east and west
The Zoning Ordinance does not stipulate a minimum building separation requirement. As
a general rule, however, it is recommended the Interior separations between buildings be
not less than one-half the sum of the building heights of the structures in question. To fully
address this Issue, it is recommended that building elevations be submitted which Identify
proposed building heights.
Access. The proposed three tvvinhome units are to access Wright Street by individual
driveways. Section 20-12 (M) 2 of the Zoning Ordinance requires a minimum of 20 feet of
frontage per unit for townhomes. With each unit lot having 38 feet of frontage, the
proposed development satisfies this requirement.
Landscaping. According to Section 20.2.K of the Zoning Ordinance (PUD general
requirements) a landscaping plan must be submitted which identifies the location, size and
variety of all site plantings. As a condition of PUD/CUP approval, a landscape plan should
be submitted for review.
SuAding Hoight Within R-3 Zoning Districts, a maximum building height requirement of
two stories is Imposed. To demonstrate compliance with this requirement, the applicant
should submit a building elevation (or elevations) as part of the final PUD plan
consideration.
Protoetive Covenants. It has not boon indicated whether arty protected covenants are
to be applied to the proposed development If covenants are to be utilized, they shall be
subject to review by the City Attorney.
UtllitylDralnage Easoment Vacation. As noted previously, the proposed subdivision
represents a replat of throe existing lots of record To accomplish such rephA the vacation
of side lot line drainage and utility easements will be necessary (see Exhibit C). As e
result, vacation of the easements will be made a condition of ultimate final plat approval.
v�
Park Dedication. The City should review the proposed development In regard tc l,-�° r
appropriato park dedication requirements. I. -'o
'O V
FPR -24-1997 08 37 NFC ou '7- -
Grading, Drainage and Ud ty Plana. The submitted preliminary plat (Exhibit B) includes
proposed grading and drainage. Said grading, drainage plans shall be subject to review
and approval of the City Engineer and Public Works.
&AL-TERNAME ACTIONS v&"aPk �� f
9 Q.c W'r
Decision One: Request for a Planned Unit Development Conditional Use Permit
a. Approval of the Planned Unit Development Conditional Use Permit Development
Plan subject to the following conditions:
1. The southemmost twinhome is shifted so as to comply with the applicable\ �-k `4J
30 foot rear yard setback requirement Should it be determined that a 30 5
foot rear yard setback cannot be reasonably achieved, consideration should • k�`
be given to providing two three-plexes rather than three twinhomes on the/ y^
property. C°
2. Building elevations we submitted to demonstrate compliance with applicable P
height requirements and ensure that proper structure separation exists.
3. A landscape plan is submitted which Identifies the location, size and variety
of site plantings.
4. The City approve the vacation of existing side lot line drainage and utility
easements.
5. The City review the proposed development in regard to appropriate park
dedication requirements.
6. Approval of grading and drainage Issues by the City Engineer and Public
Works.
Potential findings supporting this decision would be:
• The proposal is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan
•
The proposal Is consistent with the existing land use In the area
• Tho proposal is consistent with the provision of the Zoning Ordinance, with
approval of proposed building elevations.
• The proposal is consistent with the City's use of Planned Unit Development
with appropriate landscaping and architectural design.
/Ob
RPR -2a-1957 0e 3e HaC - 6;12'595 %Se P.W./W9 �
Mr -
b. Denial of the Planned Unit Development Conditional Use Permit Development Plan.
Potential findings supporting this decision would be:
• The proposal is inconsistent with higher density land uses to the east and
West
Decision Two: Request for a Preliminary Plat for Hillside Townhomes.
a. Approval of the Preliminary Plat for Hillside Townhomes as presented, subject to
approval of the PUD, and comments of the City Engineer and Public Works.
b. Denial of the Preliminary Plat for Hillside Townhomes as presented.
LW -
The
The proposed project Is generally consistent with the intent of the CRys Comprehensive
Plan and Zoning Ordinance. The proposed is also generally compatible with the existing
land uses In the area As such, staff recommends approval of both the PUD and
Preliminary Plat with the aforementioned conditioro.
D. SUPPORTING DATA
�- Exhibit A - Zoning Map and Site Location
Exhibit B - Preliminary Plat
Exhibit C - Site Plan
C
5
/oE
� -V
• �7
x_24_lVir
rte P�`a�aar'LRt
ex++�
Planning Commission Agenda - 5/6/97
1 1 1 r: l V' ,1 Ili/�Illill,ll�ll
1 •./ . r 1 r 7.1 1,
Rick Wolfsteller requests two variances that would allow a lot line to be
moved, thus resulting in the potential for construction of a single family
home at a location between his existing house and Otter Creek. Wolfsteller's
existing lots have sufficient land area to meet many of the requirements for
resubdivision; but because of the awkward shape, variances are needed to
successfully recombine the lots in a fashion that would allow a new home to
be developed. As you recall from a recent Planning Commission meeting, the
Otter Creek shoreland area is governed by the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act
and associated rules within the City's zoning ordinance. These rules, when
applied to Wolfsteller's situation, require the following variances in order for
a simple subdivision to occur.
Variance to minimum lot width at water boundary. According to my
interpretion of the ordinance, any lot created on the shoreland must have a
minimum boundary width of 80 ft. The proposed subdivision will require
creation of a lot with a boundary width of approximately 58 ft. However, it
could he argued that the subdivision will not in reality result in an increase
in the level of non -conformity because the new lot line will not change the
current level of non -conformity. Furthermore, it could be argued that this
rule was not intended to apply in a situation where the boundary is along a
aide lot line where sufficient frontage exists along the front and back lot
lines.
Minimum lot area. According to the rules, lots created that border the
shoreland must maintain a minimum lot area of 15,000 aq ft. The
subdivision design as proposed will result in a 12,058 sq ft lot along the river.
The other lot will be 16,571 aq ft. The combined land area of the two lots
together 128,629 aq ft) meets the combined minimum lot area requirement for
two buildablo lots. Wolfsteller can avoid the variance by simply moving the
lot line inland; however, doing so will make the subdivision boundary line
even more awkward, resulting in mishapen lots.
Setback at ordinary high watermark. Wolfateller has elected to act apply for
a variance to the setback at ordinary high watermark because he feels that
he can construct a home on the lot outside of this setback area. According to
code, no construction is allowed to occur within 50 ft of the ordinary
watermark.
Planning Commission Agenda - 5/6/97
The information provided by Wolfsteller on the site plan does not show
precisely where the ordinary high watermark is; therefore, it is impossible to
tell where the 60 -ft setback line is. Knowing where the 50 -ft setback line
actually is allows one to determine how much buildable land is available. In
addition, the DNR has reminded us that a portion of the lot may also be in
the floodway. According to the code, structures or fill may not be placed in
the floodway. It would appear prudent, therefore, to require a certified
survey showing the precise location of the building pad area relative to the
ordinary high watermark and floodway elevations. This information should
be available and analyzed before the lot line is moved.
I have received one call regarding this matter from a local home owner who is
opposed to the variances based on his view that the parcel was never
intended to be split into two lots. The need for the subdivision is based on
the desire of the land owner to increase the value of the property by creating
two buildable lots. He states that this is not a valid criteria for granting
variances.
R. ALTFRNATIVF ACTIONS;
Decision I --Lot Boundary Length at Shoreline
1. Motion to approve the variance to minimum lot width at water
boundary. Motion is based on the finding that the proposed
subdivision will not result in an increase in the level of non-
conformity; therefore, the variance is appropriate.
2. Motion to deny approval of the variance to the minimum lot width at
water boundary.
Motion to deny is based on the finding that there are no unique
circumstances present to justify the variance and, thus, approval
would impair the intent of the ordinance.
r. ST FF F..OMMF.NDATION••Di+ciaion 1;
Staff recommends alternative 01. It is our view that the variance should bo
approved based on reasons noted above.
B_ ALT . NATIV . ACTIONS;
Decision II••Mlnimum Lot Area
1. Motion to approve the variance to the minimum lot area. Motion is
based on the finding that the subdivision proposed meets the intent of
Planning Commission Agenda - 5/6/97
the ordinance because the total land area encompassed by both parcels
meets the minimum standards, and the lot configuration that remains
is superior to the configuration that would result without the variance.
Motion to deny approval of the variance to the lot area requirement
for properties located along the shoreland. Motion is based on the
finding that the lot area minimum is intended to apply directly to the
lots on the shoreland, and it is inappropriate to justify a smaller
shoreland lot based on preservation of open space on an adjacent
inland lot. Furthermore, the applicant can comply with this
requirement simply by moving the lot line. Granting a variance would
result in a negative precedent.
C. STAFF RF. O MF.NDATION—De 'cion If:
Staff recommends alternative ql. The applicant does not need a variance to
subdivide; however, the variance will enhance the useability of the lot on
which the existing home sits. Therefore, to deny the variance would be
somewhat self-defeating.
Decision M --Consideration of approval of simple subdivision
1. Motion to approve simple subdivision.
Motion is subject to preparation of a certified survey showing adequate
buildable area outside of the floodway and 50 -ft ordinary watermark
setback.
2. Motion to deny simple subdivision.
3. Motion to table approval pending submittal of certified survey showing
adequate buildable area outside of the Floodway and 50 -ft ordinary
watermark setback.
C. STAFF RFCOMMF.NDATION;
Staff recommends approval if the required variances are approved and if it
can be demonstrated that there is enough "upland" available to support a
home.
D. SUPPORTING DATA;
i Copy of site plan; Excerpts &am toning ordinance.
DR.
• �rrr-ur � Ali
�I �1000,
I AMU
si JJ b y � + Y •\
n �
' • 4nla. • N
Y ,b
. A' • O� i 4 .a 4 IO � I .r '
I' s i , r ' '. Q• . �� �,
• I '/. 3 • RI�FR e.
6 ,
Consideration of a variance to the minimum lot width at water '
boundary, and consideration of a variance to the minimum lot
a size requirement for a lot located along a shoreland in the wild` a
and scenic river overlay district. Applicant: Rick Wolfsteller� ,.
.r
I A
f i '
MONTICClLO r `, T L:'
COUBTO, I [IJTLC A o r
COURT �r� � • {,NE$T��`
ppt9. c•��•�.c ` • /;
ICOL — u.
I u _ I ' • _ MY .r.. RO
\ -I , J� IIRK
u O n it NEW
Notice is hereby given that public hearings will be held by the City of Monticello Planning Commission
on May 6, 1997 at 7 p.m., in the Monticello City Hall to consider the following matters:
PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of a variance to the minimum lot width at water
boundary, and consideration of a variance to the minimum lot size
requirement for a lot located along a shoreland in the wild and scenic
river overlay district. Location: Lot 9, Block 1, Creek Side Terrace
Subdivision. Applicant: Rick Wolfsteller.
Written and oral tesUmxW will be accepted on above subjects, and all persons desiring to be heard on
referenced subjects will be heard at this meeting.
N21a: Decisions of the Planning Commission will be final unless appealed by any individual by 9:00
a.m. on Wcdncsdny, May 7,1997. Appeole must be In writing, signed, and must stale reasons
far appeal. if appeal is filed, the City Council shall hear appeal on Monday, May 1'l, 1997 at
7 p.m. at the Monticello City Holl.
Fred Patch, toting Zoning Administrator
Nsassssskaysasssssasassssssavayssssssassssssasss�ssssysvwssvvsyssysvwsvvvs4s0s0•
11,15,96 E 61: .!-/ :+o: ,•...•,•,,;...-.•a. -m
IIS
OUNDARY
\TER MINIAUM 80'
/I
New Lot
/I
I
12,058 sq-ft.j
0.28 acres/
/EXISTING
I
I+r
1 WCH 30 FEET
30
NEN WTI12,058
Sq)
INE
Ft.8e.04
p
�
r
PROPOSED MOT l.I f
ota�
In
L
fs�7
�I
A
\kA
I
I
II
neva Ibt sko 1Q671-
•
I
I
1
17362
IIS
locality. Economic consideration alone shall not constitute a
hardship if a reasonable use for the property exists under terms
of the official controls.
5. LOT: A parcel of land designated by metes and bounds
description, registered land survey, auditors plat, or other
accepted means and separated from other parcels or portions by
said description or the purposes of sale, lease, or separation
thereof. For the purposes of these regulations, a lot shall be
considered to be an individual building site which shall be
occupied by not more than one principal structure equipped
with sanitary facilities.
6./ORDINARY HIGH WATER: A mark delineating the highest
water level which has been maintained for a sufficient period of
time to leave evidence upon the landscape. The ordinary high
water mark is commonly that point where the natural
vegetation changes from predominantly aquatic to
predominantly terrestrial.
7. PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT: A type of development
which may incorporate a variety of land uses planned and
developed as a unit. The planned unit development is
I distinguished from the traditional subdivision process of
development in that toning standards such as density, setbacks,
height limits, and minimum lot sizes may be altered by
negotiation and agreement betwech the developer, the
municipality, and the Commissioner of Natural Resources.
8. PLANNING AGENCY: The Planning Commission or planning
department as created by the municipality.
PUBLIC WATERS: Any waters of the state which serve a
beneficial public purpose as defined in Mlnnesntn SLatuteg 1976,
Section 105.37, Subdivision 6. However, no lake, pond, or
flowage of less than ten (10) acres in size and no river or stream
having a total drainage area less than two (2) square miles shall
be regulated for the purposes of these regulations. A body of
water created by a private user where there was no previous
shoreland as defined herein for a designated private use
authorized by the Commissioner of Natural Resources shall be
exempt from the provisions of these regulations.
The official determination of the size and physical limits of
drainage areas of rivers and streams shall be made by the
Commissioner of Natural Resources. The official size of lakes,
ponds, or flowage shall be the areas listed in the Division of
Water Bulletin 25, and Inventory of Minnesota lakes; or in the
event that lakes, ponds, or flowages aro not listed therein,
MONTICELLO ZONING ORDINANCE I I 2714
official determination of size and physical limits shall be made
by the Commissioner of Natural Resources in cooperation with
the municipality.
10. SETBACK: The minimum horizontal distance between a
structure or sanitary facility and the ordinary high water mark,
or between a structure or sanitary facility and a road, highway,
or property lines.
11. SHORELAND: Land located within the following distances
from public water:
(a) 1,000 feet from the ordinary high water marl: of a lake,
pond, or flowages.
(b) Three hundred (300) feet from a river or stream, the
landward extent of a flood plain designated by o the
on such river or stream)whichever is greater. The
practical limits of shore ands may be less than the
statutory limits where such limits are designated by
natural drainage divides at lesser distances as shown on
the official zoning map of the City of Monticello.
(c) The area included in the recreational land use districts
for the Mississippi River as defined in Minnesota
Regulations NR 2400-2420.
12. SUBDIVISION: Improved or unimproved land or lands which
aro divided for the purposes of ready solo or lease, or divided
successively within a five (5) year period for the purpose of sale
or lease, into three (3) or more lots or parcels of less than five (5)
acres each, contiguous in area, and which are under common
ownership or control.
13. SUBSTANDARD USE: Any use of shorelands existing prior to
the date of enactment of this ordinance which is permitted
within the applicable zoning district but does not meet the
minimum lot area and length or water frontage, structure
setbacks, or other dimensional standards of the ordinance.
27.2: DESIGNATION OF TYPES OF LAND USE
In order to guide the wise development and utilization of shorelands of public
waters for the preservation of water quality, natural characteristics,
economic values, and the general health, safety, and welfare in the city of
Monticello, a shoreland management classification has been given by the
Commissioner of Natural Resources, and uses of shoreland in these classes
are hereby designated by land use districts, based on the compatibility of the
designated typo of land use with the shoreland management classification.
MONTICELLO ZONING ORDINANCE I'r 27/5
(A] SHORE, LAND MANAGEMENT CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM: The
4 public waters in the city of Monticello have been classified by the
Commissioner of Natural Resources as "general development lakes and
streams" which include the Mississippi River and Otter Creek. In
addition, the Mississippi River has been designated as a "recreational"
component of Minnesota's wild, scenic, and recreational rivers system.
[B] SHORELAND OVERLAY DISTRICT: The shorelands of the city of
Monticello are hereby designated as a shoreland overlay district. The
purpose of the shoreland overlay district is to provide for the wise
utilization of shoreland areas in order to preserve the quality and
natural character of the public waters of the city of Monticello.
PERMITTED USES: All permitted uses allowed and regulated
by the applicable zoning district underlying this shoreland
overlay district as indicated on the official zoning map of the
City of Monticello.
CONDITIONAL USES: All conditional uses and applicable
attached conditions allowed and regulated by the applicable
zoning district underlying this shoreland overlay district as
indicated on the official zoning map of the City of Monticello.
3. GENERAL PROVISIONS: The following standards shall apply
to a� shorelands of all public waters within the city of
Monticello. Where the requirements of the underlying zoning
district as shown on the official zoning map are more restrictive
than those set forth herein, then the more restrictive standards
shall apply.
UNSEWEREn AREA GENERA[, DFVEL.OPME-NT WATERS
Lot area (feet) 20,000
Water lkontage and lot width at a
building line (feet) 100
Building setback from ordinary high
water mark (feet) 76
Building setback from roads and
highways (feet) 60
Federal/State/County
20
Municipal/Private
4 Elevation of lowest floor above highest
known water level (feat) 3
MONTICELLO ZONING ORDINANCE 11F
276
UNS .W .RFD AREA (:FNFRAI.D •.V r..OPMLNT WA'l'?IiS
Building height limitation (feet) 35
Total lot area covered by impervious
surface (%) 30
Sewage system setback from ordinary
high water mark (feet) 50
Sewage *system elevation above highest
groundwater level or bedrock (feet) 4
SPWERPD AREA f:FNFRAT. DEVCL•OPVfFNT Wig
All provisions for unsewered areas shall apply to sewered areas except for the
following, which shall supersede the provisions applied to unsewered areas:
Lot Area (feet):
J 4(eo^`l Waterfront lots 15,000
abutting public waters
�r Other lots 12,000 1
not abutting public waters
1
Water frontage and lot width
at building line (feet) 80
Building setback from ordinary
high water mark (feet) 50
[C] VEGETATIVE CUTTING PROVISIONS AND GRADING AND
FILLING (Recreational River):
1. On lands within the building setback from the normal high
water mark, the Mississippi River, and the portion of Otter
Creek within the recreational land use district:
(a) Clear-cutting except for any authorized public services
such as roads and utilities shall not be permitted.
(b) Selective cutting of trees in excess of four (a) inches in
diameter at breast height is permitted provided that
cutting is spaced in several cutting operations and a
continuous tree cover is maintained, uninterrupted by
large openings. In cases where the existing tree cover has
MONTICELLO ZONING ORDINANCE 11 ^ 2717
Planning Commission Agenda - 5/6/97
i 11 1
111 � : !• M 1:11 ��
�� 1 1 :l: �;) 1:i• ._Iii .�li
M I IR Tt�
Please see the attached report from Planner Steve Grittman.
NFNCNORTHWEST ASSOCIATED CONSULTANTS
COMMUNITY PLANNING - DESIGN - MARKET RESEARCH
PLANNING REPORT
TO:
Monticallo Mayor and City Council
Monticello Planning Commission
FROM:
Stephen Grittman
DATE:
April 23, 1997
RE:
Monticello - Resurrecfion Lutheran Church CUP
FILE NO:
191.07 - 97.08
A.
Resurrection Lutheran Church hes applied for a retuning of their parcel at County
Highway 118 and Ferming Avenue (east of the middle school) from A-0, Agriculture to P-
S, Public and Soml-Public DlstrieL The P -S District is intended for land uses which are
institutional in nature, and which have patterns of use which are different from other large
land uses. Church facilities are Conditional Uses in the P -S District and as such, the
Church has requested approval of a CUP as well. All action taken by the City on this
application is conditioned upon final annexation of the parcel Into the City limits.
1. Annexation
The parcel in question is within the Urban Service Area of the Orderly Annexation Area.
As a result, annexation should be a matter only of administrative processing.
5775 WAYZATA eOULQVARD. eUITL 666 6T. LOUIS PARK. MINNC90TA 564149
PNONC 61 t -59e-0630 FAX 61 8.696.0837
/Z -l3 I�
APR -24-1997 WS:45 rv+�.
Rezoning
The purpose of the PS District is to accommodate the unique issues raised by Institutional
land uses. It Is acknowtedged that such uses can occupy single parcels in the midst of
differing land uses. With the opportunity to control the impacts and compatibility of
institutional uses through a separate zoning district, spot zoning need not be a concem.
Indeed, the Resurrection Church property is ten acres In size, permitting adequate area
to manage off-site impacts of the proposed use.
Conditional Use Permit
The P -S District lists four conditions for consideration of a Conditional Use Permit for a
church In the P -S District These are as follows:
1. Religious Institutions on parcels exceeding 20,000 square feet in area shall
be located with direct frontage on, and access to, a collector or arterial
street
2. The buildings are set back from adjoining residential districts a distance no
less than double the adjoining residential setback.
3. Par" areas are developed to accommodate the most intense concurrent
uses of the facility so as to minimize overflow parking onto the public street
4. Compliance with requirements of Section 22 of the Monticello Zoning
Ordinance.
As noted previously, the Resurrection Church site is located at the intersection of County
Highway 116 and Fenning Avenue, across Fanning from the middle school. Both of the
adjoining roadways are considered to be collectors. The Wright County Highway
Department should comment on the locations of the proposed driveways, one of which is
proposed for each frontage. Consideration may be given to an attempt to coordinate the
westerly driveway with other access point In this area of Fenning Avenue, particularly the
middle school.
The only adjoining residential land is to the east of the alto. In all directions, the size of
the site has permitted the Church to locate the building in such a way that setbacks are
significantly in excess of the requirements.
The Church has proposed a 196 stall p L*ft lot to sorve the initial phase, with a 192 stall
expansion available for future phases. The proposed parking area appears to well in
excess of the likely demand of the building. In addition, there would be overflow, on-site
in the driveways during extraordinary peak events. Nonetheless, any approval should
/Z 43,8
allow the City to impose a requirement to expand the parking area based on demonstrated
need, in the event that the current phase of parking construction does not accommodate
the demand. With regard to Improvement of the parking area, the City Zoning Ordinance
requires paved parking and driveway areas, with perimeter concrete curb. The area to the
northwest adjoining the future parking area need not be curbed. Howcvcr, in the event
that runoff or traffic control are an Issue, a rolled asphalt edge can serve as an adequate
interim improvement
Section 22 of the Zoning Ordinance relates the compatibility requirements of the proposal,
as well as the compliance with Comprehensive Plan objectives. The size and location of
the site permits the Church to avoid compatibility problems with the adjoining
neighborhoods. In addition, a portion of the adjacent area (the schools campus) is already
developed for institutional land use.
One issue for the Church and City to consider together is the connection of pathway links
between the residential area to the east, and the School Boulevard pathway to the west
Along the Church's south boundary, a wide power line easement crosses the property.
This easement would provide a natural connecting route, rather than requiring a Jog In the
pathway due to the curve of County Highway 118 as it proceeds east past the property.
Although dedication of pathway easements is a matter for subdivision applications, Staff
would recommend that the City work with the Church to create an attractive routing
solution for both parties.
Finally, the Church has submitted a grading plan, but no landscape plan. Approval of the
CUP should be subject to the Engineer's accoptence of the grading end drainage plan for
the site. With regard to landscaping, there does not appear to be any screening issues
present However, the disturbance of the existing vegetation by construction will require
some landscape treatment The applicant should submit a landscape plan illustrating its
intent prior to development
As notod initially, each of the decisions should be contingent upon the final annexation of
the property into the City.
�
Oeeislon 1. Rezoning of tho suNoa property to PS, Public & Somi-Public Dtstrletx Q Lrfif
Alternative 1. Approve the Rezoning based upon a finding that the proposed use Is
in conformance with the objectives of the Comprehensive Plan, and
Is compatible with the twrroundlng neighborhood.
is -i3 C,4
RPR -24-1997 W:4b r*+1-
Alternative 2 Deny the proposed Rezoning based upon a finding that the proposed
use is not compatible with the area.
Decision 2. Conditional Use Perrnit for a religious Institution in a PS District:
Alternative 1. Approve the Conditional Use Permit for Resurrection Lutheran
Church based upon a finding that the proposed use has met, or will e- "
meet with appropriate changes, the conditions as defined in the `
Zoning Ordinance, Including adequate traffic access and
management, adequate setbacks to protect the neighborhood,
adequate parking to accommodate the proposed use, and
compatibility with the neighborhood and Comprehensive Plan
objectives.
AlMmative 2. Deny the proposed CUP based upon a finding that the proposed use
can not meet the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance or
Comprehensive Plan.
C. STAFF RECOMMENCATION
We recommend approval of the rezoning (Decision 1, Alternative 1) and Conditional Use
Permit (Decision 2, Alternative 1) upon the following conditions:
a. The temporary terminus of the paved parking area Is constructed to control
drainage and traffic to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. A rolled asphalt curb
(as opposed to the required concrete sub) In this area would be an inexpensive
suggestion to provide an Interim Improvernenl
b. The Church agrees to expand the paved parking area prior to building expansion
In the event that domonstrated parking demand exceeds the cunnt supply.
C. The Church works with the City to appropriately route the pathway around and/or
through the property to connect with pathway routes to the east and west.
d. The Church provide a plan Illustrating landscaping Improvements, including the
control of stormwater and erosion after construction
Exhibit A, Site Plan
Exhibit B. Currant Zoning Map
"-24-1997 08:46 ru-
o.— — —
!,
Exhibit A - Site Plan
12-13 E •
..
AZ � rtL"N
. Q0. ....••-l� M!
`a
r—
!,
Exhibit A - Site Plan
12-13 E •
`a
!,
Exhibit A - Site Plan
12-13 E •
a
Planning Commission Agenda • 5/6/97
14. ntinned Pnhlie Hearing aid ration of skn o inAnce amen ino
Chapter 4, Section 12, of the Monticello ZCning Ordinance establidlW
antenna and antenna support structure m"Intionn. (F.P.)
A. RFFERENCF AND BACKGROUND:
This item has been before the Planning Commission on November 27, 1996,
December 24, 1996, and again on April 1, 1997. Staff has revised the ordinance
since the last draft that was presented. At the April 1, 1997, meeting, new
infomation was provided by Cellular Realty Advisors, Inc., and by Larkin,
Hoffman, Daly & Lindgren, Ltd. The attached ordinance has addressed the
concerns communicated to the City from the industry representatives. Changes
made to address their concerns are in italics.
Antennas and antenna support structures are allowed as permitted uses where
by design and placement they will most likely not be unsightly or incompatible
with adjoining land uses. Other antennas and antenna support structures,
including those used for personal wireless communications services and radio
and television broadcast transmission, are allowed by conditional use permit.
This draft is simpler in form and is intended to be more enforceable. Design
and aesthetic concerns are more specifically addressed.
B_ ALT .RNATIV . ACTION :
1. Move to recommend to the City Council that the ordinance establishing
antenna and antenna structure regulations be adopted as proposed.
The motion may be based upon a finding that the amendment is
necessary to manage and reasonably accommodate new wireless
communication technology and the provisions of the 1996
Telecommunication Act.
2. Move to recommend to the City Council that the ordinance not be adopted.
C. STAFF RFCOMMFNDATION:
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend to the City
Council that the ordinance establishing antenna and antenna structure
regulations be adopted as proposed.
Copy of proposed ordinance with striko-out and underlining to show
amendments; Copy of Chapter 3, Section 12, of the Monticello Zoning Ordinance
as it will appear if this ordinance is adopted; Copy of correspondence from
Larkin, Hoffman, Daly & Lindgren, Ltd.; Copy of correspondence from Cellular
Realty Advisors, Inc.
ORDINANCE NO.
CITY OF MONTICELLO
WRIGHT COUNTY, MINNESOTA
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 3-12 OF THE MONTICELLO ZONING ORDINANCE
BY ESTABLISHING ANTENNA AND ANTENNA SUPPORT STRUCTURE REGULATIONS.
THE CITY OF MONTICELLO DOES ORDAIN:
Title 10, Chapter 2, Section 2-2, Item [ECI of the City Code is hereby amended to read as follows:
[EC) ESSENTIAL SERVICES: i7..w i . 1t 1:.m ::_. _ ....5
_..d..e . ...d ..I..:-] Pu lic or private utility glstes "for gas, elechilea!
> ,stearn,sewererNQ _mow L_'ti_::..
.: .. ...,I I I, ..:: r ...� voice_ television and dig[ communications
systems; L. r 11:.
and_ waste disposal and recvcljna services. Wireless radio
fMuencyEption and transmission antennas and support structures shall riot be
considered an essential service
Title 10, Chapter 2, Section 2-2, Items [AI.1I, [AI.21, [A1.31, [AI.41, [A1.51, [A1.61, ISA. 1I and
ISP. l I are hereby added to the City Code to read as follows:
[AL11 ANTENNA A device used for the transmissionand/or recrption of wireless
�� : �IIII��I�I:R;7:317[•7:��1•TII[X1fx�l{Y[�i�iTT•7':�•:•7�`iill;7:\.fy�l(.'f.`1[•)►`i� 1
11 'III 1:111 .111 I1y h: :'1 1111 =1/ 11
1 f 11 11 1
1,: / 14x11 1 I 1 1 11•.yl 1 1 1 .l 1' Y� 1 11111 .1 1 1 I: 1
1111' 1:1 11.; 1 FIT :151111.1
\ \11.: : � t • :.1 y1.1.1 1 111.11+ 1' yl yM
41111 Y IIS ! nl 111Y: 1 1 1 1 1 : 1 1 1
':1: 1 '.1 !111,: 1.1111 1 111111 !411 t .1 :.IN. 11yl 1.' 1�.1 II 111 1
•M 1 11.: 11.4 1.y Hyl yl 41 1 1 :111 1 111 1 1
1111 111 �.`. 11111 1:!i1141' 11: y11 '. tll. .yl 11 11 :1: 11 41 111 II 1
.11'�I 1: 11111111!111 ly !II:' = y: 1 1 '1 11 �; 1 y y1 .111 ly1:y
10-
1q8
Title 10, Chapter 3, Section 12 of the City Code is hereby emended to read as follows:
SECTION 3-12
COMMUNICATION ANTENNAS
3-12: COMMUNICATION ANTENNAS:
y'.I 1 order to accommodate1 .1 11 11 .1 'FmulnAo".
esi -n�' : 1! ' .`nes -> Jnr 4P: gW Ir ' 1+: 1 e V l' Ir .' 11111 I1\ Il ':In rme, t1 . .I.T.'
nce '.:1, I order
(Aal
wireless communications service antennas
mitet1 tm _..d -A.... .,.,.I.
., .... are permitted accessory uses within all zoning
districts provided that they meet the following conditions:
•rr 'r-
_ 11 1 ill.:.: :1.11 I' ' 1' Pn'
1 Y : 11 Ynl .111 a '1 I' 11
I Y 11 '! '..M.l 11 • II 11 f: '.ylll
1 .1111 ' : I,� .1 I 11: n 1 :'1 It, tka
Council-
IqG
2. Yuh: — . .. . :. . :.,—NfWimumsctback=uircmems,
ant;nas and w== sippM structures shall in all uming de stricts be
the same as those for permitted accessory building& uses and
cq� q=(SeeSedionM LDW I A —Z' J.*- f
—J A atenna q
and antenna &am structures dA not be located within a public or
utility easement.
L ad&
—AL" R. :—:'N.
-'z Z
M77MIMICyl
LMII?.IIP.J "I, ffr;F-TIIFI1.�
1.1 16A..m. -
6. N6ghboring EmVcMLjmp=:
even! 'I Fkdls; it Antennas and antenna support itructTress hall
y�D
U21 failure.
will fall on
adjoining property.
j, Design The use of guyed antenna sugport structures is prohibited.
The design and installation of new antenna support structures must
utilize an open framework or monopole configuration. permanent
pl,,ff ,:- a or structures agccu v to the antenna su=rt stnicture or
antero that increase visiWily are prohibited. No part of the antemaa
sport structure shall exceed 500 sZ pare feet in hodzagIAt area
:. .,..., .r.. :.J:� .,,... per.. .. _ ... • ,.......7 .. �, . .... J...:. f. J..
". b:a:._F. :.. _,.. r,...._..._. J..:..,:eSi.e—AA
.r r%'wl.��........., .fit. .% .. �...
8. Color/Content: Z —ft,A* i... . Antennas and
antenna z= m sres shall be cort4wed of a corrosion resistant
material or be paid a rwtral color, and shall not be painted with
scenes or contain letters or messages which qualify as a sign.
2 lllumination- Antennas and antenna suppgrt structures shall not be
artificial4 illuminated unless required by law or by a govemmental
agm�o protect public health and safety
Compliance- Amennaa antenna support structures. electrical
equipment and connections shall be design installed and operated
in conformance with all applicable federal- state and local laws.
IBJ Conditional ll' ,_. 6ti_-
..
Antenna and amem eampart structures not n udjbdnu a.
pcaat tied acoes<aory� es nravided in subdivision I Al 1 through 10 above.
fncludinn but not limited to radio rand-televfslon broadcast transmission
)wE
ISG
This Or&mm shall become effective mmwdm* upon its passage and publication according to law.
ADOPTED by the Monticello City Council this day of 1997.
ATTEST:
By:
AYES:
NAYS:
r
Rick wolfstelkr, City Administrator
CITY OF MONTICELLO
By:
Bill Fav, Mayor
/V#
CITY OF MONTICELLO
WRIGHT COUNTY, MINNESOTA
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 3-12 OF THE MONTICELLO ZONING ORDINANCE
BY ESTABLISHING ANTENNA AND ANTENNA SUPPORT STRUCTURE REGULATIONS.
Title 10, Chapter 2, Section 2-2, Item [EC] of the City Code is hereby amended to read as follows:
[EC) ESSENTIAL SERVICES: Public or private utility systems for gas, electricity,
stem sewer and water, voice, television and digital communications systems; and,
waste disposal and recycling services. Winless radio frequency reception and
transmission antennas and support structures shall not be considered an essential
service.
Title 10, Chapter 2, Section 2-2, Items JAI. I], [A1.21, [A1.3], [A1.41, [A1.5], [AI.61, (SA.I] and
[SP.11 are hereby added to the City Code to read as follows:
(AI.l1 ANTENNA: A device used for the transmission and/or reception of wireless
cone m icatiorm arranged on an antma support structure or building, and consisting
of a wire, a set of wires, or electromagnetically reflective or conductive rods,
elements, arrays or surfaces.
[A1.21 ANTENNA, RADIO AND TELEVISION BROADCAST TRANSMISSION: An
antenna used to transmit public or commercial broadcast radio or television
programming.
[AI.3] AN77sNNA, PPAONAI. 07M.hIMCOAJMII1VICATIONSSPYVICE: Ammitennu
used for the trwwnh cion and reception of wireless • communication radio waves
including cellular, persona/ communication .service (PCS), enhanced .specialized
mobilized radio (7;, WR). pco;W mud similar services.
[AI.4] ANTENNA, SATELLITE DISH: An antenna incorporating a reflective or
conductive surface that is solid, open mesh, or bar configured and is in the shape of
a shallow dish, cone, host, or cornucopia. Such an antenna is used to transmit and/or
receive radio or electromagnetic waves between terrestrially and/or orbitally based
transmission or receiving systems. This definition shall include, but not be limited to,
what areeotmrtordy referred to as satellite earth stations, TVROs (television, receive
only) and satellite microwave antennas.
(A1.51 ANTENNA, SHORT-WAVE RADIO: An antenna used for the transmission and
reception of radio waves used for federally licensed short-wave radio
communications.
[A1.61 ANTENNA SUPPORT STRUCTURE: Airy freestandingpole, telescoping mast,
Iowa mpoQ or odw struchnre which supports an antenna and is not a building or
attached to a building or srnuctwe.
[SA.11 ACCESSORY USE: A use of land or of a building that is subordinate to a primary
use, and not the primary use of the lead or building.
[SP.Ij STRUCTURE, PUBLIC: An building or edifice of any (rind which is owned or
rented, and operated by a federal, state, or local government agency.
I J000
Title 10, Chapter 3, Section 12 of the City Code is hereby amended to read as follows:
SECTION 3-12
COMMUNICATION ANTENNAS
3-12: COMMUNICATION ANTENNAS:
IAAI pyglase. In order to accommodate the communication needs of the
residents and businesses while protecting the public health, safety, and general
welfare of the community, the Council finds that these regulations are
necessary in order to:
1. Provide for the appropriate location and development of antennas and
antetma support structures to serve the residents and businesses within
the city;
2. Minimize adverse visual effects of amerma support structures through
careful design and siting standards;
3. Avoid potential structural failure of antenna support structures and
possible resulting damage to adjacent properties through structural
standards and setback requirementa. and,
4. Maximize the use of existing and approved anterma support structures
and buildings to accommodate new antennas in order to reduce the
number ofanterm support suucttrres needed to serve the community.
(ABI ftirmWed Usm Antenna support structures and antennas of all types, other
than radio and television broadcast transmission antennas and personal
wireless communications service antennas, are permitted accessory uses
within all zoning districts provided that they meet the following conditions:
lett m: Antennar .shall be located on existing buildings and
structures, if possible. Antennas located upon a public buihling or
structure shall require the proceuing of an a0mi istrative permit
issued in complamve with the procedures established by the City
Council.
Where tau mums s>Ippout structure is used to support ametm t the
hatallatiwn of more der one (1) antenna support structure per
property shall require the approval of a crnditioual use permit.
NK
Yards: Minimum setback requirements for ane►nms mx/ antenna
support structures shall in all zoning districts be the sane as those
for permitted accessory buildings, uses mrd equipment (See Section
3-2 /D/).
Anteimas andannenna support structures shall not be located within
a public or utility easement.
3. Height:
a. Aaj=Ltjgjgh{,y: Antennas shall not extend more than ten
(10) feet above the highest part of the building or structure to
which they are attached nor more than ten (10) feet above the
highest roof elevation.
b. Antenna ylWmr Structure Hei: Frcept as permitted by
combiional use permit, antenna support structures shall not
eseeed ten (d0) feet in height above the marimum allowable
building height for the zoning district in which the antenna
support structure is located.
4. : Antenna support structures shall be constructed, fenced or
a secured in such a manner as to prevent unauthorized climbing. No
barbed wire, razor ribbon or the like shall be used for this purpose.
S. Tnamnitring, receiving and switching equipment shall be
housed within an existing structure or screened from view from city
public .street.
6. de(yh_bodn>t Prunes ftm: Antennas and antenna .support
structures .shall be designed and loaned such that in the evert of
structural failure, neither the antenna nor the antenna support
smucture will fall on mifoining pmperty.
7. Qealgn: The use of guyed antenna support structures is prohibited.
The design and installation of new antenna support structures must
utilize an open framework or monopole configuration. Permanent
platforms or structures accessory to the antenna support structure or
antenna the increase visibility are prohibited. No par of the antenna
support structure shall exceed 500 square feet in horizontal area.
S. Color/Content: Antennas and antenna support structures shall be
constructed of a corrosion resistant material or be painted a neutral
4
14L
color, and shall not be painted with scares or contain letters or
messages which qualify as a sign.
9. Illir*nAton: Antennas and antenna support structures shall not be
artificially illuminated unless required by law or by a governmental
agency to protect public health and safety.
10. Compliance: Antennas, antenna support structures, electrical
equipment and connections shall be designed, 'installed and operated
in conformance with all applicable federal, state and local laws.
[B] Conditional U Antenmas and antenna support structures, not qualifying
as permitted accessory uses as provided in subdivision [A] 1 through 10
above, including but not limited to radio and television broadcast
transmission antennas and personal wireless communications service
antennas, are only permitted as conditional uses as provided by Chapter 22
of the Zoning Ordinance.
Such antenna and antenna support structure installations that are subject to
conditional use permits, nest comply with all requirements for permitted Uses
as specified in [A] above, except as specifically provided below, and must
meet the following additional conditions:
I . New antenna support structures allowed by conditional use permit
and exceeding eighty (80) feet in height shall be designed so as to
accommodate other users including but not limited to other personal
wireless communications service companies. The applicant shall
demonstrated to the satisl)u tion of the City Council that opportunities
will be made available for codoeating other antennas on the antenna
support structure.
2. Satellite dish antenna of more than one (1) meter in diameter, but
not larger than three (3) metas in diameter are allowed as conditional
uses within residential zoning districts. Satellite dish antennas of
more than one (1) meter in diameter and used for radio and television
broadcast transrtmission are allowed as conditional uses only within the
Industrial (1-1 and 1-2) zoning districts and aro not limited in size.
3. Antenna support structures for radio and tel vbloo broadcast
transtubsion antennas are allowed as conditional uses only within
the Industrial (1-I and 1-2) zoning districts and shall not exceed one
hundred sixty-five (165) feet in height.
►4M
Antenna support structures used in the federally lieeosed amateur
radio setvioe are allowed as conditional uses within all zoning
districts and may extend a rtmxdnuun of seventy (70) feet above grade.
Antenna support structures for personal wireless communication
systems shall be allowed as cor norml rues provided:
Muamron spacing between persona/ wireless communications
service antenna support structures shall be 114 mile.
Based upon information provided by the opplicamrt, the City
Courvi may grant exceptions if the City Council determines
that wW one of thefoilowing reasons makes it impractical to
lode the plumed personal wireless communications service
equipment ►epos an vatsting antenna support structure within
1/I mUe of the proposed site:
No existing building, structure or antenna support
structure meets the structural or height requirements,
or
No existing building, structure or antenna support
strucawe meets die fmquetrcy reuse and spacing needs
of the personal winless communication s)Vem, or
The location of the proposed new antenna support
structure is necessary as demonstrated by the
applicant, who shall provide to the City Council
evidence demonstrating that the planned equipment
would cause interference, materially impacting the
unbiGly of other erisdng or planed equipment at the
antenna support structure, mid the interference
cannot be pr►rmed at a reasonable cast.
All new antenna support structures for personal winless
communication system antennas shall be a single groused
moused real, concrete or plastic composite (i.e. fiberghus,
gWNte fiber, etc.) pole. Such antenna support structures
shaU not exceed seventy -f ve (75) feet in height in
Agricvlturul-Open Spay (AU), Residei►Hal (R-1, R-2. R.J.
R-1, and R -Pun), Perfarntmnce Zone (PZ -R and PM) and
Business (B-1, B-2. B-3. and 84) zoning districts, and shall
not exceed one hundred sixty-five (163) feet in height in
10
9
r
Business Cmnpus (BC) mrd /ndrrOW (/-/ and /-2) raring
districts,
[C] fit. Every subdivision of this Section is declared severable
from every other subdivision. If any subdivision is held to be invalid
by competent authority, no other subdivision shall be invalidated by
such action or decision. Where an applicant for conditional use
permit demonstrates to the satisfaction of the Council that a
subdivision of this Section interferes with specific rights granted under
the laws of the Federal Conirnurications Commission [FCC], that
subdivision shag be waived; however, the City of Monticello reserves
the right to otherwise regulate in order to mitigate negative impacts
and accomplish the purpose of this Ordinance.
1+o
FROM L R D L LTD.15TM FLOOR 03.20. 199? 121.2
LARKIN, HOFFMAN, DALY & LINDOAaw, LTD.
a Y
Maerma
a
ATTORNEY{ AT LAW
a
-A
�rrw 1
.sa�iaaar
1100 MORMICT POMCIAL Oa11TfR
r'�'a=11�
e'dorr . a'�'ratr
MIN RQRM0 AVON{ IOUTM
e�ilaaa
e k
/LOOIm10TOM, MD00 OTA 1314194
aaa�'in
TELDIIOMe 0110111it00
�a
FAR PM IMM
�OOA,�IYY,
Own WO_ _ tl
f411i/�
OO.�L OOI
�i�
W"a M�a9,aY
SOI •O
O�1I,�
. i.E.Y®
i�aYY
� Ov
� a0a91MT���r
March 29, 1997
Planning Commission Members
City of Monticello
P.O. Dox 1147 VIA FACSIMILE (612-195-4404)
Monticello, Minnesota 55362-9243 ! U.S. MAIL TO FOLLOW
Re: Proposed Telecommunications Antenna and Tower Ordinance
Dear Planning Commission Members:
As you know this firm represents American Portable Telecom ("APT) in connection with Its plans to
develop sites to erect telecommunications antennas and towers throughout the Greater Twin Cities
Metropolitan Region, some of wbich may be located in the City of Monticello (the "City'). On behalf of
APT, we participated in the drafting of the City's initial antenna and tower regulations (the "First
Ordinance'). 'the First Ordlnarue was scheduled to be considered by the City Council on January 27,
1997. However, the First Ordinance was tabled and ultimately rcplaeed by the above-referan ed
ordinance (the "Second Ordinanoc). We undastand that the Second Ordinance will be considered by the
Planning Commission at its meeting on April 1,1997.
On behalf of APT, we submit the following comments and careens regarding the Second Ordinance. All
capitalized terms that ere not otherwise doflned herein have the taeanings attributed to them in the Second
Ordinance. The following comments address substa6ve ictus only.
Antenna SUI.;ort Stnuttme, The current definition Includes my building that supports an
antenna Since, buildings with antonnas and towers Deed to be treated diffuently within
the Second Ordinance, we suggest tW the definition of "Antenna Support Structure" be
revised as follows:
Antenna Support SUWMr& Any ower
or other structure that supports an tmtenns
1410
FROM L H 0 L LTD.15T" FLOOR 63.20.1997 17.43
LARKIN, HOFFMAN, DALY & LINmRBN, LTD.
Planning Commission Members
City of-iMondoello
March til, 1997
Page 2
In addition. add the following definition to the Second Ordinance:
Tower. Any ground or roof mounted pole, spins, strttcmue, or
combination thereof taller than fifteen (IS) feet, including celluUrr,
personal communication services (PCS), specialized mobilized radio
(SMR), enhanced specialized mobilized radio (EMSIX), pagin& and
similar services.
SECTION 3-12: COMMUNICATIONS ANTENNAS
Parmium l ins. This provision establishes certain "antennas, Including satellite dishes of less than
'thirty (30) aqua c feet in surface arca for radio, microwave, and television" and antenna support
structures as permitted aocessory uses in all zoning districts. We believe that the term "antenna
support structure" as used herein, should be replaced with the term "Tower."
A. Subpart 1 (Location). This provision prohibits the installation of more than one (1) support
stnu tura per property. Otherwise, as a consequence of the definition of "antenna support
structure" including buildings with antennas, this provision would: (i) prevent a Tower
from being constructed on a piece of property; and (ii) prevent the use of a second building
on a piece of property, if a building on that property already had an antenna mounted upon
it. This could make it very difficult to f idly utilize a place of property that is uniquely
suited to such uses. Therefore, we request that this pmvWon be removed. or that the term
"antenna support swarm" as used herein, be reseed with the term "Tower."
Subpart 2 (Yards). This provision prohibits antenna support struo x= !}ern being placed
in a front or side yard. We believe that the term "anteans support structure" as used heroin,
should be replaced with the term "Tower." In additi m, we request that this provision be
revised to prohibit Tower from being placed only in fiom yards.
This provision further requires antennas to be at IW five (S) feat ftom rear lot Woos. We
ruquest that this provision be revised to require Towers to be at laud five (5) floor fl!em near
and side tot lines.
Subpart 3 (Height). This provision establishes the mmdmwn height for antennas and
antenna support structures. Once again, we believe that the term "eunenna support
structure" as used herein. should be replaced with the term "Tower."
This provision establishes a maximum height for Towers at the laser of: m thirty (30)
fust above grade; and (ii) ten (10) feet above the maximum allowable building height in the
underlying zoning district. We respectil lly oppose this hctght restriction. Tho technology
used to provide personal communicadenx services is a IUs -of sight technology.
Consequently. remitting the height of antennas and Lowen will have the following of tbcts:
(i) lower elevations result in smaller coverage areas end requires more mtme and Tower
4014
FROM L X D L LTD.15TH FLOOR 83.20.1997 12-13 r.
LARKIN, HOFFMAN, DALY & U=REN, LTD.
Plenmgg Commission Members
City ofMontiocllo
March 29. 1997
Page 3
sites to provide service to a particular area; (ii) lower tower heights will limit or prevent co -
fixation of multiple antennas on a single Tower, and (iii) if antenna elevations are too low,
the signals will be screened by obstacles such as buildings and trees. Therefore, we request
that the maximum height limit be reconsidered, taking into account the discussions
regarding Conditional Uses below.
Subpart 3 (Screening). This provision requites accessory ground equipment to be housed
within an existing structure whenever possible. APT's equipment ent is designed for outdoor
urs. This design, together with the screening and fencing requirements of the Second
Ordinance. eliminates the need to require ground equipment to be housed In a building,
whether existing or new. Therefore, we request that this provision be revised to allow for
placement of ground equipment without the same beiag housed in a building.
Subpart 6 (Neighboring Property Impact). The first sentence of this provision requires
antennas and antenna support stnuuaes to be located so that in the event of structural
failure, neither the anttmna not the antennas support structure will fall on adjoining
Property. Once again, we believe that the term "anteasa support structure" as used herein,
should be replaced with the term "Tows." In addition, we believe that this setback
requirement is excessive and will make siting Towers more difficult because It will
eliminate potential locations that are uniquely suited ibr such use. Therefom we request
that the first sentence of title provision be changed to require a setback equal to the height
of the tower plus ten (10) feet, from the nearest residential structure.
Conditional rises. This provision establishes certain additional requirements for antennas and
amcnna support structures that do not qualify as "permitted uses," including all personal wireless
communications service -antennas. Once again, we belhnro that the term "antenna support
structure" as used herein should be replaced with the term "Tower."
Subpart 1. This provision requires all antem support structures exeeeding thirty (30) tbet
In height to be designed to as to "accommodate other users." We mspectflrlly oNect to this
requirement. The current crate of technology requires (1) antounas to be at least
seventy (70) feet In height to fimetion effectively; and (i) a vertical Wepatation of
approximately twenty (20) feet between snteanes. Tberafbre, we request that this
requirement apply only to towers that aro ninety (90) feet and taller. In addition, we
request that this provision be revised to require s;commodation fbr only one (1) additional
user with antennas comparable In site and weight to the Tower owner's antenna, and that
such accommodation be made only upon the additional user agreeing to reasonable temps
and conditions of such use.
FROM L H D L LTD.19T" FLOOR e:....: »r .. .. _
LARKIN. HOFFMAN, DALY & LINXIM, LTD.
Plartn4 Commission Members
City of;Monticello
March 28, 1997
Page 4'
Subpart 2.
(1) Item (a). This provision requires a one-quarter (1/4) mile separation distance
between antenna support structures. Once again, we believe that the term "antenna
support structure" as used berein, should be replaced with the term "Tower." in
addition, in light of the height limits placed upon personal wireless communications
system Towers (see discussion of Conditional Uses. Subpart 2, Item (b) below) this
requirement will matte it extremely difficult to provide Sall coverage to the City of
Monticello and surrounding areas, without actually placing antennas and Towers
throughout the City at one-quarter(1/4) mile distances Furthermore, this
requirement, when coupled with height restrictions (ILM prevent co -location, would
allow one provider to "tie-up" potentia( favorable locations within the City, thereby
preventing other service providers Brom competing in the City. Therefore, we
request that this requirement be removed.
This provision also allows the City CouncU to grant exceptions to the separation
requirement if two (2) conditions exist. The second of such conditions, requires the
applicant to prove that the Tower site is necessary as demonstrated by a
"coverage terference analysis and capacity analysis prepared by a licensed
professional engineer." As discussed in our previous letters in connection with the
First Ordinance, requiring such analysis be performed by a "licensed professional
engineer" is inappropriate. In addition, the Federal Communications Commission
("FCC") license issued to APT virtually assures non-Interfare>ne, and thus the
interference analysis is unnecessary, until a co -location opportunity is actually
proposed for a Tower or antenna support structure. Moreover, this type of
regulation Is a preempted by Section 704(x) of tba Telecommunications Act of
19% (the "Act') (47 U.S.C. 332(c)(7xiv)). SeWon 704(e) provides that:
No State or local governnumt or iasauzuentality thereof Ma
regillete ht'nleeern M_ wwettieN ..A tie tine of el
uieelea. ee:vi� 1h iHNn en he b de of Ike my1nonmentAl effeetu
of radin 14enu ena emlW= to the extent that such Wilities
comply with the [Federd Communications Commission's]
regulations concerning such emissions.
Therefore, wo request that the two (2) conditions be replaced with the following:
(a) The phuuted equipment would exceed the structural
capacity of an Wring or approved tower or aetenns
support structure within oneluaner (1/4) mile of the
proposed site. u documented by a quellfied anti licensed
professional engineer. and the existing or approved tower
1445
FROM L N 0 L LTD. ISTM FLOOR tls. (tl. lye. •�••• „ „�
LARKIN, ROFFMAN. DALY & LINMEN, LTD.
Plannigg Commission Members
City of Montlocllo
March 28, 1997
Page 5
or antenna support structure cannot be reinforced, modified.
or replaced to accommodate planned or equivalent
equipment at a reasonable cost.
(b) Tho planned equipment would cause Imaderaaee,
materially impacting the usabllity of other existing or
planned equipment at the tower or antenna support
structure within one-quarter (1/4) mile of the proposed site,
as documented by a qualified radio fiequency engi= and
rho interference cannot be prevented at a reasonable coat
(c) Existing or approved town and antenna support shucarres
within one -questa (1/4) mile of Ute proposed site cannot
accommodate the planned equipment at a height necessary
to function reasonably as documented by a qualified
engineer.
(d) In spite of Its best efforts, within sixty (60) days, the
applicant was unable to obtain approval to to -locate on an
existing or approved tower or a mma support structure
within one-quarter (1/4) stile of the proposed site.
(c) Other reasons that nuke it impractical to locate the planted
telecommunications equipment upon an existing or
approved tower or antenna support struotue within one-
quarter (1/4) mile of the proposed aha
(2) Item (b). We request that this provision be revised m follows;
All new eiiwarts mppo armweelum fbr personal
wireless communication system antennes shall be a single
ground mounted metal, concrete or plastic composite (La.
frbaylass, graphite fiber, etc.) pole that shall tat exceed
tlJoctY "(2m feet in height in Ariew wei 0
6peeo (AP), RaidentW (R-1, R-2, 94r064ra nd R -PUD).
Performance Zara (PZ-R-&i64W ad Bwlsesr B t 111-
ir0-iii R 4, and C+=ning dIWICts, In
(117-M)- R ,dy t M.1 A.9 Ra A.d- end AC1- see
Industrial (1.1 and 1.2) toning districts. the ICM=*W shall
not exceed one hundred sixty -Ave (165) feet in height
Tamm msv be of a difRrent dPt16Q . = if d,.. Cl sajaja 71-
14 'r
FROM L M D L LTD. 15TH FLOOR
LAWN. HOFFMAN. DALY & L axmui , LTD.
Commistion Memben
City of to
March 1997
Page 6
dee..ni„e. we enelher e�s�,hvne 61erd. t,etrer jaw—ft
Pleaso make this letter a part of the formal record of the City's delibwWon on its ordlamtce. 1f you Lave
any questions or concerns related to these mattes, please cell me at (612) 896.3214.
Sittceroly,
�F. Almcander, for
HOF FMAN. DALY Qi LINDGM, Ltd.
cc: 'Michelle Johnson
0317167.01
14
00-tKO08* 14-14
Cellular Realty Advisors, Inc.
11-01 E, 79°1 Street. Suft 19
aft trt(-M MN 3&29
arena (ell) asa-c O
FAX: f8 L 218:a410S
Fax
1b, F n& P. me k _it
\
Phoner -9-7
RIM ri &O&'e n u+ - Dogp
C Utgant Q Roe Review Q ►Wase awm"em C p'lemo Reply C Al'aso 1tOCYw*
• Cowntte�
kA.Y. V1%
.oJ�Ja...� we wee. -lv Ieca�e �--
vsr 4AW
100 4A
A . N • A
V)LAIJ
qNj4't' -Yvw" C
10 MVd mamudif'030!! MldtlO TTLLLi[TTTL oL oL L66'/5L/p0
C