Planning Commission Agenda Packet 07-01-1997AGENDA
REGULAR MEETING - MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMUMION
Monday, July 1, 1997 - 7 p.m.
Members: Dick Frie, Jon Bogart, Richard Carlson, Rod Dragsten, Richard Martie
1. Call to order.
2. Approval of minutes of the regular meeting held June 3, 1997
3. Consideration of adding items to the agenda.
4. Citizens comments.
5. Public Hearing --Consideration of a variance request to yard setback
requirements which would allow a simple subdivision. Applicant, Diane B.
Casey/Decker. S
6. Public Hearing --Consideration of a special home occupation permit which
would allow therapeutic massage in an R-1 zone. Applicant, Linda Lovejoy.
1
7. Public Hearing --Consideration of a conditional use permit allowing a planned
unit development in an R -PUD zone. Applicant, E & K Development.
8. Consideration of a preliminary plat request for Klein Farms Estates 2nd
Addition. Applicant, E & K Development.
9. Consideration of calling for a public hearing on adoption of amendments to
the comprehensive plan affecting the Monticello Downtown/Riverfront
District --MCP.
10. Preliminary review of design guidelines --MCP Design Committee, Pam
Campbell.
11. Review of the Wright County Planning Commission Report.
12. Discuss review process and information submittal requirements and follow-
up procedures for variances, conditional use permits, zoning ordinance
amendments, subdivisions.
13. Update on IDC interest in modification of business campus standards and
title. (verbal report)
14. Adjournment.
L 1
MINUTES
REGULAR MEETING . MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION
Tuesday, June 3, 1897 - 7 p.m.
Members Present: Dick Frie, Rod Dragsten, Richard Carlson, Dick Martie, Jon Bogart
Staff Present: Fred Patch, Wanda Kraemer
1. Call to order.
Chairman Frie called the meeting to order.
•, or
The Commissioners discussed item number six, Brendsel Properties townhouse
development easement agreement for the golf cart path being on file at the City.
Chairman Frie inquired why this was not included in the motion? Fred Patch, Chief
Building Official, stated the city can request a copy for the file but this is a private
agreement filed at the Wright County Courthouse and should not be required as
part of the motion.
There was also discussion on item number eight, Cardinal Ponds, that Section 3A
should be deleted from the motion. Section 3-A and Section 3-B referred to the
wetland area; however, 3-B was the choice that should have been in the final
motion.
DICK MARTIE MADE A MOTION TO APPROVE, SECONDED BY ROD
DRAGSTEN, THE MINUTES AS CORRECTED. Motion passed unanimously.
3. Cn sideration of adding i ems j) thp. nannein
A. Chairman Frio requested a discussion on applicant submittal requirements
and city staff policy and procedures.
B. Richard Carlson requested an update on annexation meeting status.
4. ritizena eomments.
None
Page 1
(Da
Planning Commission Minutes - 6/3/97
Continuation of public hgaring for consideration of a variance to the miniminn lot
width at water ho ndary anti minimum lot,area- and consideration of a simple
suhdivision req + a . ARWicant is mqueating mares'continuance of the p +hli . hP.Arine
gen ins, collection of required survey data_ pp icant. Rick Wolfateil_ler,
JON BOGART MADE A MOTION TO APPROVE, SECONDED BY DICK MARTIE,
THE CONTINUATION OF THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR RICK WOLFSTELLER'S
VARIANCE; HOWEVER, ALL PROPERTY OWNERS WITHIN 350 FEET SHOULD
BE NOTIFIED AND THE NOTICE BE RE -PUBLISHED IN THE CITY
NEWSPAPER WHEN THE ITEM IS ON THE AGENDA. Motion passed
unanimously.
A. National Guard Training Center - Chairman Frie explained he had received a
letter from Mayor Fair requesting a member of the Planning Commission
serve on task force to investigate the possibility of a joint facility for a
National Guard Training Center and community center. The first meeting
will be June 24, at 4:00 p.m. at city hall. Commission member Richard
Carlson was selected with Rod Dragsten as an alternate, if Richard Carlson
was not available.
7. Added items.
A. Applicant submittal requirements and city staff policy and procedures - the
Commissioners discussed the handout information given to applicants and
inquired if correct procedures were being followed when accepting the
applications. There was concern that the agenda items were not complete at
the time the Planning Commission was reviewing the items and being asked
to make decisions without sufficient information. Chairman Fria requested
this be an item at the next meeting and Rick Wolfsteller-City Administrator,
Jeff O'Neill -Assistant Administrator, and Steve Grittman-City Planner attend
the meeting.
Annexation procedures - Fred Patch, Chief Building Official, reported a sub-
committee of three council members (Clint Herbst, Brian Stumpf, and Roger
Carlson) would be meeting with a subcommittee from the township. Rick
Wolfsteller, City Administrator and Karen Doty, Office Manger would attend
the meeting for city staff. Patch added the Planning Commission will be kept
current on the annexation status.
Page 2
Planning Commission Minutes - 6/3197
RICHARD CARISON MADE A MOTION, SECONDED BY DICK MARTIE, TO
ADJOURN THE MEETING.
Wanda Kraemer
Development Services Technician
Page 3
D
u
Planning Commission Agenda - 7/1/97
5. Public Rearing—Cnnaideration of a variance ranoest toy .�.t� k
lNnirementn which wonid allow a simple snhdivgion. Ap ican
Wane 8- Casey/Decker. (S.G.)
Please see the attached report from Planner Steve Grittman.
JUN -25-1997 14:37 NRC 612 595 9837 P.02i10
NORTHWEST ASSOCIATED CONSULTANTS
INC COMMUNITYPLANNINO - DESIGN - MARKET RESEARCH
PLANNING REPORT
TO:
Monticello Mayor and City Council
Monticello Planning Commission
FROM:
Bob Ifirmis / Stephen Grittman
DATE:
25 June 1997
RE:
Monticello - Decker Setback Variance
FILE NO:
191.07 - 97.10
Consideration
whleh rmtoblishea
foot rear yard
DhikaL
of a variance from Section 3.3 rel of the CIA's Zoning Ordinance
a minimum side Xord setback of 20 foot (for comer tots) and a 30 1
setback for Iota yMI -2. Single and Two-Faml(y Residential Zoning
1. Application Summary. Connie Decker has requested a variance from the
minimum 20 foot side yard and 30 foot rear yard aide yard sotback requirements
Unposed in the R-2 zoning district. The requested variance is being processed in
conjunctlon with the replatting of two existing Iota located south of 5th Street and
west of Minnesota Avenue (Lots 8 and 7, Block 9, Monticello). As s result of the
subdivision, the proposed lots would be reoriented from a north -south to an east -
wast configuration (see Exhibit B).
2. Existing Lepel Nonocontonttities. As shown on attached Exhibit B, the residence
currently located upon Lot 7 (westerly lot) Ilea ± 18 feet from the 5th Street rightof-
way. Boeause such setback does not comply with the Citys current 30 foot front
yard setback requirement, the structure is considered legally iron-crWarming'.
Also to be noted is that the driveway which serves the non -conforming structure
overlays a side lot line and encroaches upon adjacent Lot 6. The encroachment of
such drivwray Into the adjacent property further represents a non -conforming
situation.
5778 WAYZATA BOULEVARD, SUITE 855 ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNEBOTA 55416
PHONE 612-505-0636 FAX O I t•eoe•Pa37
Std
JUN -25-1997 1437 NpC 612 595 9837 P.Wie
3. Variance Evatuadon CdbwhL Chapter 23 of the City Zoning Ordinance
establishes a set of criteria from which variance applications are to be evaluated
The ordinance states that when considering requests for variance, the Planning
Commission must make a finding that the proposed action will not
a. Impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjjacer t property.
b. Unreasonably increase the congestion in the public street.
a Increase the danger of fire or endanger the public safety.
d. Unreasonably diminish or impair established property values within the
neighbatrood or in any otherway be contrary to the Intent of this ordinance.
The ordinance turttter states that a rommona le hardship should be demonstrated
to justify approval of variance requests.
In consideration of the regm setback varlanee, it is the opou m of our office that
such request can be justified for the following reasons:
a. Approval of the subdivision will result in the creation of lots which comply
with minimum 80 foot lot width requirement imposed In the R-2 District. At
66 feet In width, the Iota represent a rat -conforming conditlon.
b. The existing residence currently faits to meet required R-2 district setback
requirements. Approval of the variance will not serve to allow an increase
of the degree of nonconformity.
C. Approval of the variance request will not adversely impact surrounding
properties, as no physical changes to the existing structure will result.
d. The proposed aLdxW tlon (which has prompted the variance request)
represents a preferable lot arrangement
4. Easements. It has not been indicated whether any utility or dmmepe easements
currently "sting along the shared side lot Itrho of Lots 6 and 7. N such easements
do presently exist their should be formally vacated in conjunction with the proposed
subdivision. This issue should be subject to fuller comment by the City Engineer.
6. Setback& The following is a aomparaWa listing of mWrsd, existing and proposed
sinxture setbacks applicable to the subject property.
S,B
JUN -25-1997 1437
NRC
612 595 9837 P.04/10
Required
Existing
Proposed
Setback
Setback
Setback
Front Yard
30 feet
18 feet•
78 feet
Side Yard
Existing
Orientation
10 feet
10 feet
Proposed
Orientation
20 feet
18 feet,
Rear Yard
30 feet
120 feet
18feet
'Ncn v.=,fonnity
Note: See Exhibit B for reference
As indicated above, the site's existing structure fails to meet the applicable 30 foot
front yard setback As a result of the proposed subdMsbm the horns would comply
with applicable &cM yard sertDadm but would fail to end* R-2 District side and rear
yard setbacks. 1
6. Property Rights. Of some concern in regard to the requested variance are the
rights afforded to the property d it is approved. Specifically, concern exists that the
'legalization' of the residence's nonconforming setbacks could be translated to
future re0evelapmentfoonstruction upon fhhe property. In this particular instance, the
unique circumstance which may jus* approval of the variance Is in fact bad to the
pre-existing structure. Thus, discontinuance of the svucturo would eliminate the
'unique condition' which possibly warrents variance approval.
As a condition of variance approval, it should be specifically stipulated that rights
Wanted by the variance shall cease at such time as the justification for Its approval
(the structure) to removed or damaged beyond 60% of its estimated value as
determined by the County Assessor. Recognising that adequate buildable land
does exists to allow compliance with applicable R-2 distric setbacks, it is
recommended that any new home constructed upon the property comply with
applicable R-2 Distriet setbacks.
7
Sc,
JU4-25-1997 14:37 NRC 612 5% 9837 PAS/10
1. Approve the proposed setback variance and subdivision subject to the following
findings.
a. The existing nonconforrning residence and Its associated setbacks
represent a unique crcu mstanee.
b. Ample buildable land exists upon proposed Lots A and B to allow a newly
constructed homes to meat applicable R-2 District setback requirements.
e. Approval of the variance will rec*11 gauze an eodsting driveway
encroachment.
Should the City choose to approve the variance and subdivision requests. it is
L J that such approval be contlrWM upon the fulfillment of the following
conditions:
8. If the eodsbng structure is removed or damaged beyond 50 percent of its
value as determined by the County Assessor, now const uction be sited
consistent with all applicable R-2 District setback requirements.
b. If necessary, utility and drainap easements are vacated to accmrumodate h
the proposed skrbdlvislon. This Issue should be subject to commend by the
City Engineer.
2. Deny the variance based on the following finding:
9. NoMeconomie undue hardship has not been demonstrated to jusdfy
approval of the variance request
Staff reeomrtrends approval of the requeeted setback variarua subject to the preceding
conditions. We foal approval Is justified as the Weeds" structure represents a unique
condition which predates the current City ordinances. Such variance approval Is also
necessary to accommodate a preferable subdivision design and lot layout
4
sD
JUN -25-1997 14:38 NAC 612 595 9e37 P.06/10
W4)o
Planning Commission Agenda - 7/1/97
n
Please see the attached report from Planner Steve Grittman.
J Lr1-.=-177! I. -J
T
NFPCNORTHWEST ASSOCIATED CONSULTANTS
COMMUNITY PLANNING - DE610N - MARKCT RG86:ARCH
PLANNING REPORT
TO:
Monticello Mayor and City Council
Monticello Planning Commisslon
FROM:
Daniel Udd / Stephen Griuman
DATE:
25 June 1997
RE:
Monticello - Lovejoy Special Home Ocapatian Pem h
FILE NO:
191.07-97.12
AREF CE AND BACKGROUND,
AND BACKGROUND.
R9*mL Ms. Linda Lovejoy hes requested approval of a Special home ocouWan permit
for a f wapeulic massage therapy business at her Single fainly residence Ioeeted at 122
Balboul Estates.
Procossing. Section 3-11 (C) 2 of the Zoning Ordinance requires that appy for
special home ooarpation per d be considered with regard to Section 3-22 cf thie Zoning
Ordinance (Conditional Use Permit).
The Planning Ca m*slon and City Coiunll shall consider possible adverse effePIN of the
proposed special horns 0=4mdm pwft Their Judgement shall be based upon (but not
limited to) the following factors:
1. Relationship to Municipal Comprehensive Plan.
2. The geographic area Involved.
3. Whether such use will tend to or actually depreclata the area in which it is
proposed.
4. The character of the cur miing area
6778 WAYZATA EOULCVARO. SUITE see ST. LOUIS PARK. MINNESOTA 606 16
PHONE 612-606-0630 FAX 61 2.005.0637
The demonstrated need for such use.
Comprehensive Wan. The Comprehensive Plan does not contain specific policies
regarding home occupations. Compatible land use relationships are specifically promoted
however. Although the Zoning Ordinance makes allowance for home occupations In
residential areas, the intent of the Comprehensive Plan that such uses only be allowed
where they do not jeopardize the health, safety and general welfare of the community.
Zoning. The subject property is zoned R-1, Single Family District, the purpose of which
is to provide for areas of low density single family residences and related complimentary
uses.. Home occupations are a permitted accessory use within this District
Business Description. Section 3-11 [Dj 1.a requires all home occupations to be dearly
secondary to the residential use. The proposed special home occupation is to be a
therapeutic massage business. The applicant intends to provide % to 1 hour therapeutic
massage sessions for the purpose of relaxation, pain control and Injury recovery. A
bedroom within the dwelling has been remodeled to provide an area to conduct therapeutic
massage. The applicant will be the only employee of the therapeutic massage operation.
Building Alteration. The applicant has modified a guest bedroom to accommodate the
therapeutic massage use. Section 3-11 [Dj t.d. prohibits modification not customarily
found in dwellings. The applicant shall need to specify what modifications were made.
The applicant has also indicated an Interest In providing direct exterior access to the room
In the future. The direct future access would require approval of an amended special
home occupation permit
Hours of Operation. The applicant has not klantilled the buslness hours of the operation.
Section 3-11 [D] 1.1 states that no home occupation that generates off-street parking will
be permitted to operate between 10 pm and T am. The hours of operation will be subject
to City Council approval.
Ci fSbvW Perking. Section 3-11 [0] 1.j, states that no home occupation that generates
more than one vehicle for off -abed parking will be permitted. As such, the applicant will
be required to schedule appointments so that titers is no potential overlap of patron. and
thus more than one vehicle needing off-street parking.
Signage. The applicant has stated that no alWuW klentHying the therapeutic massage
business is to be used
Other AppRaWs Code Requfromorft The applicant will be required to comply with all
building and fire codes as well as other applicable City or state codes Including those of
the Department of Health regulations.
& e)
Ju -25--1597 14:Jy MR- .— — —I , ....... -
Nulsanae Factors. Special home oecupadM are prohibited from producing eny glare,
roles, odor, vibration or electrical Interference that would Impact adjacent properties per
Section 3-11 (D) 1.a. and Section 3-11 [D] 1.b. The Planning Corr mkWon and city Council
will need to determine it the proposed use presents any of these potential Impacts.
B. ALTERNATNE ACTIONS
1. Approve a special home occupation permit for the period of one year subject to the
conditions specified in the staff recommendation section of this report
2. Deny special home occupation permit request used upon a finding that the activity
is not compatible with the character of a residential neighborhood
Special home occupations aro penrtibed a0oessory uses within the R-1 District In
considering ragvesffi for Special Hare Ocarpabat Perna the City Is required to make
e determination as to the appropriateness of the proposed use in the area it Is to be
boated.
H the City fines that the proposed therapeutic massage business Is compatible within a 1
residential area at the intensity proposed our office would recommend approval of a
Special Home Occupation permit subject to the followAng moons:
1. The applicant shelf demonstrate that all trdernal structure alterations that have
taken place are customary to residartlal dwellings.
2. The spedal home occupation comply with all applicable City and State Codes
Including Departrmerd of Health regulations.
3. Hours of operation shall be subject to City Council approval.
4. The oMWUCdM of a direct exterior entrance to the Special home occupation area
of the buildft will require approval of an amended special have occupatlon permit.
b. Comments from other City W.
3
TOW& P. to
Planning Commission Agenda - 7/1/97
PublicPublic He rinring=C sideration of a conditional use ne irm t allnwing
a planned unit development - AppLi_cannt, E & g
Develnnment- AND
Please see the attached report from Planner Steve Grittman.
NFNCNORTHWEST ASSOCIATED CONSULTANTS
COMMUNITY PLAN MING - 0E510H - MARKET RESEARCH
PLANNING REPORT
TO:
Monticello Mayor and City Council
Monticello Planning Commission
FROM:
Bob KMs / Stephen Grittmen
DATE:
26 June 1997
RE:
hkwd M - Kleln Farms Esmtes 2nd Addition
PUD/CUP and Preliminary Plat
FILE NO:
191.07 -97.11
1
E and K Development, LLC has subnftd a request to esteblsh a bwmhome development
upon a 9.7 acre parcel of land located north of Farmstead Drive and east of Edmmmn
Avenue. The deveioprant plan calla for the construction of 79 Individual Uwftme units
dispersed within twfnhomo, tri -play, and Wadmminium structures resulting in a gross
density of 6.1 dwaft units per cue. This compares to a gross density of 6.2 units within
the Klein Farm Estates tet Addition.
Zoning. The subject site Is coned R -PUD. Such zoning designation providas tlsodbility,
from the M t terns of the Zoning Ordinance and is corwonly applied to townhomo
I. ,. which Include private sheets and basoUnit lot platting ted III For the
purposes of appilaatlon, allowable uses upon the subject property must be consistent with
the requiremente of ft Citys R,2, Single end Twofamily Restdm+tial Distrlcl.
-7-s A-
5770 WAYZATA BOULEVARD, SUITE 656 ST. LOU -O PARK, MINNESOTA 554 1 0
PNON! O 1 2.605.0030 FAX a$ 2-006.0837
Pt2a'd LIM 615 M xw GZItt akt-W-Nnf
PrelUninary Plat
Street ConflguraHon The street configuration of the preliminary plat indudea two loop
streets and a culdo soc attending nodwAud from Farmstead Drive. Generally speaking,
the proposed street configuration Is considered acceptable. Of particular concern,
however, Is the off -sat intersection condition near the Country Lane/Farmstead Drive
Intersection. According to Section 11-6-3.E of the Subdivision Ordinance, street
intersection jogs with an off -set of less than 125 feet should be avoided. With an offset
of ± So feet to the east of Country Lane, the subdlvlalon's sleet design fails to meet this
requirament. To resolve this Wow, consideratf , should be given to ccnaolidating the two
seem points pioxh. to to Country Lane into a single access which is in direct alignment
with such sleet This issue should be subject to further comment by the City Engineer.
Setbacks. The front and side yard restrictions at the periphery of a planned unit
development site shell, at a minimum, be the some as Imposed in the respective districts.
The respective district most similar to the proposed land use is the R-2 District. The
required minimum setback dlstanoes within this district are as falowa:
Required Setback
Front Yard 30 feet
Side Yard 10 feet
Rear Yard 30 feet
All structures have been found to comply with the preceding periphery setback
requirements.
Via the PUD, tiexib Uty from internal setback requlremenhi may be permissible. Internal
setbacks of 20 feet have been proposed from the subdivision's private streets. Such
setbacks are considered acceptable.
Building pians have not been submitted in order to allow a determination of building
separation new ptabHilly. Building separations aro shown as varying fFom 17 to 66 feat
BLAIbrYard R , —6 Buller yard requhertents areImposed to reduce the negative
tmpaaa that result when k oompatible uses abut ane another. In the case of a residential
use area abutting an Industrial use area, the intensity of corfiict Is considered severe or
Type D. As a result, the f loWng buffer yard roqulrements we Imposed:
ZT/M'd UM6 569 ZT9 xW M31T akT-9t-Mf
Minimum Minimum No Plant Units
Intensity Building Landscape Required -100 feet
of Conflict Type Setback Yard of Property Line
Severe D 50 feet 40 feet 160 •
'Reduction possible vie installment of fence or bene.
The subject propertys northern property line (which abuts the Industrial use) measures
1,380 feet in length. Thus, a total of 2,208 plant units are required to most the
aforementioned requirement.
With building setbacks of only 30 feet along the rear lot line, the proposed townhome
development fails to most required buffer yard setback requirements (similar setback
imposed in Main Farms Estates 1st Addition).
The developmanes landscape plan cells for the planting of 88 new evergreen (pine) trees
along the site's northern and western boundaries. This translates into a total of 1,320
plant tante. In addition, a total of 55 existing trees (variety not specified) will be retained
along the site's northern boundary. Because the type of existing trees have not been
specified, a determination of plant density compliance cannot be made.
As a condition of prelhNnay plat approval, alba structures should be shifted to comply with
the 50 foot buffer setback requirement Additionally, a finding must be made that ail
minimum planting density requirements have been met
Grading Plan. In accordance with preliminary plat submission requirements, a grading
and erosion control plant has been submitted for review. As a condition of CUP approval,
the pian must be subject to review and approval by the City Engineer.
LandsmWng. The landscape plan for the proposed protect has bean superimposed on
the grading and erosion control plan (E)hibit C). In addition to buffer yard plantings, the
plan calls for an interspersing of V to 17 pine trees and 7' caliper shade trees (Ash,
Maple, Lindon) twokghout the alta. Additionally, a pis dh detell hes been provided which
specifies various foundation plantings.
While well intended, it is believed the plan specifleaftu end quantities need to be
developed flrther and refined prior to Cly acceptance. To be roeognlsed Is that intense,
higher gushy landscaping is viewed as a Veda off for the various Wbilities premed via
the PUD. For Instance, the l0ein Farms Estate First Addition was required to plant
intensive front yard garden areas to mitigate lesser internal setbacks.
ZV00'd 4rB6 S65 ZT9 O1 Kill aAT-W-Mr
In this regard, It Is recommended that the landscape pian be revised to address the
following:
1. Buffer yard rewirements (irtdudIng planting quantities and compliance with 60 foot
setback requirement),
2. of individual unit plantings (similar to that utilized for Uro Klein Fauns
Estates 1st Addition). Such pian should respond to varied building orientation.
OWkUM Plana As part of the pr=essing of a PUD, typical building plans (floor plans and
elevations) should be submitted. Such plans should be submitted prior to final plat
approval.
Snow Storage. One item of concern which relates to the proposed private street is that
of snow storage. As a condition of subdivision approval, the developer should identify
snow storage area upon the submitted site plan or agree that all snow will be hauled to
an off4dreet location.
Alvate Street: According to the ordinance, the minimum width of a private driveway in
a PUD development Is 20 bet. The proposed development has drives that measure 24
feet in width and are viewed as acceptable.
Driveways: Each unit has a proposed driveway not less than 20 feet in length. Such
driveways will provide sufficient space for two additional parking R per unit.
Perking: The proposed developmertt meets and eocoeedS eu applicable off-street perking
eupply and dimeralanal regrdrements. While no specific visitor stalls have been included
within the development, it may bo desirable to include such stella In recognition of the
development density. To ...........:ate two-way traffic upon the projed's prtvato street,
ormMeet paridng should be prohibited.
Development AWmv=t As a condition of final plat approval. Ute applicant should be
required to enter Into a development agreement whh the City and post the necessary
securities required by it.
Homeowner Ruin and Bylaws. As a condition of final plat approval, the applicant
should submit a copy of all rules and bylaws to be utilized by tho development's
homeowners association for City review. The rules and bylaws should address such
issues as maintenance of common open space, snow removal, stc.
Utttitlon. A Utility Plan has been submitted that addresses the proposed water. Sanitary
sewer
No storm sewer. This plan Is to be reviewed and approved by the City Engineer.
IMM'd =6 56S ZT9 XN M: TT iMT- - rif
Signage. h has not been IrKU,P e, whether a development identification sign is to be
provided on site. If such a sign(s) Is to be provided, plans should be submitted in
accordance with the City Sign Ordinance. The plan(s) should specify the location, type
and dimensions of all slgnap.
Relics. The location of refuse cominers must be Indicated on submitted plans. The
containers must be fully screened it they are not going to be located within the individual
units.
Easements. The City engineer should provide eoen.m. and recommendation in regard
to easement establishment.
Park Dedieattom Park 4 R S, n applicable to the development was made as part of the
IUein Farms Estates First Addition and rem Red In the dedication of land located along
Fallon Avenue, south of School Boulevard.
Debtsbn One. Cartditior al use permit to allow a residential pienned unit development In
an R -PUD Zoning District.
1. Approve the conditlorW use permit subjed to the approval of the preliminary plat.
Potential findings supporting this decision would be:
Proposal is conaWAM with the comprehensive plan.
Proposal Is consistent with surrounding area uses.
2. Deny the cornditlonal use pannR.
Potential findings supporting this decision would be:
Proposal Is Inconsistent with the ... :: ,:..,.Ive pian.
The proposed resider" density is incompatible with erasUng uses in the
surrounding area.
3. Table request pending submission of additional Information.
b
074 9'
Dedeloe Two. Request for preln*wy plat approval of Mm Forms Estates 2nd Additton.
1. Approval of the prelirninzy plat as presented subject to approval of the conditional
use permit and cornmenta of the City Englneer and Director of Public Works.
2 Approval of the preliminary plat subject to epproval of the corWitional use permit
and the following condition:
a. Consideration Is given to consolidating the two access points prwdmate to
the Country Lane/Famudead Drive intat on
b. Building elevations are submitted to determine height and std a
separation acceptability.
C, Site structures ere s;hJW so as to comply with the applicable SO foot buffer
yard setback requirements.
d. The landscape plan is revised so as to dernongb'ate compliarmce with the
city's banter yard requirements pcRio+l" plant quantity standards. such
plan shall be &*d to review by City staff and approval by the city Council.
e. Typical building plans (Noor plane elevations, details, eta) are submitted for 1
review.
t. The preliminary grading plan is subject to the review/approval of the City
Engineer.
g. The preliminary utility plan is subject to the review/approval of the City
Engineer.
h. On -street pari ft along the wWMslon'e private atresia is prohibited.
I. Proper fthage and utility easements we proved between all buildings as
required by ordinance.
j. The applicant submit a copy of all rules and bylaws to be utilized by the
developmerWe homeowners auccietion for City rwAsw. The rulesWaws
should address such Issues as maintenance of common open space, snow
removal, etc.
k The applicant Iden" erose to be used for snow storage or agree to haul
snow off -ate.
8
?4F
21/12'd im Ms C19 MW MIT 4661 -AM- nr
I. If development Identl wUcn signage Is to be provided an sive, a sign plan
in accordance with Ordinance speciffeation313 submitted.
M. A IV" plan Is submitted for review by the City.
n. The applicant enter Into a development agreement with the City.
o. Comments from other City stag.
3. Denial of the preliminary plat
4. Table aedon on preliminary plat request pending submission of edddional
infomhation.
The proposed use is genarraly consistm with the Cttya Comprehensive Pian and may
ccm7p0by odst upon the subject site. However, a number of significant issues warrant
Imrnodiate attention which I& y will significw* influence the design of the plat. These
include the consolidation of two farmstead Drive mom points and the shffift of
structures so as to campy with the 50 foot butler yard requirement. As such, staff 1
recommends a tabling of both 60ons until such time as the various outstanding issues
IdrehtlRed In this report, including the submission of a revised landscape plan, have been
sa dectoriy addressed.
n-- 6UPPOINTING DATA
Exhibit A - Site Location
Exhibit B - Preliminary PIaNMRy Plan
Exhibit C 4Mdirh &Andecape Plan
Exhibit D - Unit Lsndac:2ptng Detail
LT'W-d L[8G 962 L19 �M Trott LWT-W-Wr
N
r 110
7S V E R
SiR
�
INTERSTATE WY, NO. 94TO M N, NF s
y CHELSEA Pp.
DUNDAS RD.
WE
ar
�t �► +UCS. BLVD. I
Iz
j N.E. 85TH SIR.
VICINITY MAP
NOT TO SCALE
Cl/W*d iAM 569 819
?-g#
EXHOT A + We LOCATION
�!!J 1tt�T L66t-9Z-N1f
I
KLEIN FARMS ESTATES 2ND ADDITION
PRCu14IHARr your Putt
of JIM ctry
YaNn1,21..�� InNot p'IA.
i i
! !
! r•
1wl
,
�„,�y
tS.�S�VY
�.
'
•..Li..i
I,4 (i iii}
YYf
plw.asrar. �
ntret! tpw OfTA//,
...�y�f . . 17 • ! : i ,
Y YIYY .YYQ! w..►+.. Wi.
• i.lcltan s • rav % r a�uulllsrr
I,4 (i iii}
Y YIYY .YYQ! w..►+.. Wi.
• i.lcltan s • rav % r a�uulllsrr
KLEIN FARMS ESTAT19S 2ND ADDITION
PRGUWWY CRAOINC: AND EROSION CONTROL
IN list Qfy
of
140mca", "Itinsism
OW . . — .—.-
'A U"Ulr
two. tIrmw—- 1 6
hit,
el— I•I--
I'VIVAL 101' WAIL
a A 14-
I
W"*WAo%V4sA%WANU* of—.% fall; ... t. 0—
ftoI,lftm
6
DO
14
ZT'd -bMl
zt 1 AT NEWAY
t t
,o
• 2 Y • p , C
TYPICAL LOT DETAIL
C
shR V (� s
0 14uItiEs
( Sep C AWI+%i 3vntQ
y, * _plFtic C 019 NttvATS
pu a p4z rteU, CAEA K y
G or ,J?rLtn
(A) lk%GE ; lr'-'V4y'-oS
SvoRy +10io otpyw"o
A.W. S P+aeA
leg k
LT/ET •d 4M 95 LT9 ow"aff M . Way I ANOSCAPOILi DETAM
J!!i tittT t6fiT-9Z- 4
Planning Commission Agenda - 7/1/97
8, Consideration of calling for a mibLc hearing on ado on of
amendments to the comnrehen_slve plan affecting the
Downtown/Riverfrnnt District. -MCP- (J.O.)
A- REFERENCE AND RA .K .RO 1ND:
Planning Commission is asked to consider calling for an amendment to the
comprehensive plan affecting the downtown/riverfront area of the
community. The amendment is in the form of the'MCP" plan which has
been under development for a number of months and is the result of
considerable input and discussion. The full text of the plan is not available
at this time. It will be provided to you immediately upon approval by the
MCP Board of Directors.
The need for the detailed downtown/riverfront plan was originally identified
by the Planning Commission in the 1996 comprehensive plan revision. The
Housing and Redevelopment Authority responded to the 1996 comprehensive
plan revision by authorizing and funding the study. The need for the study
was also driven by "opportunities" for property acquisition in the downtown
and riverfront areas. The plan will provide the HRA with a basis for decision
making with regard to future land acquisition.
The MCP acted as the HRA's instrument for providing community feedback
and information to the Planner. The HRA will be in attendance at the
hearing and will be considering approval of the plan in conjunction with
Planning Commission adoption. It is important that the HRA grant approval
because much of the plan includes ideas for financing various activities.
Much of the financing must come from the HRA.
A preview of the concepts contained within the plan can be found in the
design guidelines which are being reviewed under agenda item #10.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS;
1. Motion to call for a public hearing on an amendment to the
comprehensive plan affecting the downtown and riverfront areas of the
community.
2. Motion to deny calling of a public hearing on an amendment to the
comprehensive plan affecting the downtown and riverfront areas of the
community.
Planning Commission Agenda - 7/1/97
9m 1j, I wo(In
It is the recommendation of the Assistant Administrator to call for the public
hearing to be held at the regular meeting in August (8/5).
Full teat of the comprehensive plan update will be delivered once approved
by the MCP Board.
Planning Commission Agenda - 7/1/97
10. Preliminary review o
Pam CAMPWIL (J.OJ
The design guidelines are a very important portion of the MCP Downtown
Redevelopment Plan (comp plan update) that the Planning Commission will
be asked to evaluate at the public hearing in August. The design guidelines
are important because the document gives specific guidance in development
of legislation and physical improvements affecting the redevelopment area.
The guidelines will be referred to closely in the process of development of
ordinances relating to signage, architectural standards, landscaping, etc. It
will also be used as the City develops plans for streetscape and park design.
The design guidelines are in draft form but have been approved for submittal
to the Planning Comission by the MCP Board. The purpose of the review is
to provide the Planning Commission with an opportunity to review the
document in some detail a full month before full consideration of approval.
Pam Campbell, Chair of the MCP Design Committee, will be present to
review the document in detail. She will be providing an overview of the
concepts supporting the guidelines as embodied in the MCP plan, and she
will be reviewing the guidelines in some detail. Jon Bogart also serves on the
design committee.
Please review the document closely and come with questions.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. Review and discuss design guidelines.
C. STAFF O MF.NDATION:
None.
Copy of guidelines.
612-035-3160 HOISIN6TON Kt7tr-ER 127 P02 JUN 12 '97 10:51
Monticello Downtown and Riverfiont Revitalization Plan
Design Guidelines
Drat 10 May 1997
1.0 The Structure of Downtown
1.1 Create a downtown and riverfront area for Monticello that has a strong relationship to
community patterns, features, and the idea of a small town in the cawtry.
• Development shall otatr within the existing grid offt foal uvea.
• The Miadalppi River shall be one of the primary focal points of downtown, with dements of the river
drawn through downtown to strengthen dowatowa t emrrcona to dw rivet
• Terminal sued vlow a d all focus on a significant built or —we] frame (a building, pavillon, garden the
river; not a pocking lot}
• Community and civic facilities shall be ptomineat ekmenu of the downtown.
1.2 Create a variety of uses to attract people throughout the day and night, for activities of
commerce, culture, community and civics.
• A range of uses and activities shat) occur to downtown, including ooarmccdeVreWl. odea publkkivie,
housing and recreatkawtincrudmaeat uta.
• A galde for ars &hall be established, but ftaaiWIlty should be allowed for mm that eaham the gal of an
active sod vital downmwn eoviromneot
1.3 Develop a downtown and riverfront area that is compact and walbble, with a density of
development and a level of activity that set it apart tiom the rest of the community.
• Buildings shall be placed new the strut to create a Wong edge to dr area. • arose than you aro passing
somed"S. and an oppmtuulty to ses Guo a building from the sidewalk or acs tlr activity of the saes from
fie buildiag.
• Land resources that! be abated whereverpoadbb to allow fora greater amount of development in a I'm'ted
apace (for exempla providing for joint use parking, shared loading and service ase- and 'regional"
etnrmwdu manageatnq.
• Clustering of bWldlap dull be encouraged to allow people to walk euUy from oro use to another, used -
zinc uses and uses that aro orkm strongly to the autamablte than be discouraged.
• Downtown shall be as comfortable lir pedestrians u It Is cpm foram recognizing.hal, on tho tar
Is parked, tar driver becomes o pedestrian.
• A pedestrian system dull be developed to reach all uses in dowamwtr and farm a area consent to
surrounding neigheorhoods.
1.4 Structure the street system to accommodate downtown traffic slid "through" traffic, to
support businesses. improve circulation. and maintain a "downtown" character.
• VVeleut Saw and "cross" streaa shell be uxieted to pedestrians but dsfi accommodate vehicle traffic.
• Pine Strad shall be oriented to vddeles but &ban accommodate pedestrians.
• Broadway shed be bdaaad in its orleastloo to pedestrian and vehicle traffic.
• Tito entrances to dowamwn shall be matted to announce oWs arrival in downtown.
1.3 Explore a range of transportation modes to manage traffic in downtown Monticello.
• VAtklea and biking chats be accommodsted In downtown and d every the in downtown.
• Regularly schedule community "circulator" service shall be explored u a way of moving people kto and
our of downtown withal their ccs.
• A trolley an die railroad tracts should be considered to provide fir a un" anactin sad a a mathod of
community transportation.
/o #4
Monticello Doworowa and Riverhoet ReAtatindon Pim
Dniga Gaidd Ines
Page 2
1.6 Recognize pattens that are appropriate to varying downtown "districts" in an effort to create
developtnrnt that "fits" the conbmtt of cub dIstria.
• "Diatrfees' shall be eaabiLlied to guide the gcned me and character of devekpme d In the downtovo and
riveraont ata.
• 11be foaovFng -dLnieW might be emblisbed:
Mmdway-"batt and Vksr District
Phe District
Seventh Street District
7tmddood District
Nelghbodsood
mevaaw District
Park ad Open Space District
QvkJlepitudood DistoW
2.0 The Desip of Public Spaces
Specialty retail. eating establishments, lodging, entertainment,
moGldamUy, resi I tUL office: upper level eesideatW or offka;
two story buildings; river orientation; emphads on ptrblk areas
contending tnWdtogs (rather thea parting ion)
Small and told -sized mail, specialty rote% Personal and business
services. eating esnbllshntems lodging, entertainment and of le -
upper Wd roideadal or of oo; two story bwldiags; orientation to
Breodwq
Single family, residential; strong emphasis on restondon of
cauda; ower homes
Small and mid-sized revel. personal ad business services, eating
establisl menu and offfee; upper level residential or of ice. two
story boildmp encouraged; orientation to Vlhlaut SUM
Mid-sized retail and once; two story buildings aw uraged;
orientation to Pine Suva
Lrgv sub rstai! sad service. aumoriemed rend std aervie4 ddvo-
through rcsuasni , lodging; orientation to Seventh SUM
SrttaU UMM personal end business services. multi -family
residential sad do& 15tai1y bums
Predominantly dosis family hmtw &Uowlag existing pattern of
the as
Sunny Presb operation only; transition to uvkAnstitatlond.
%Wnut or Transitional If Surrey Fresh canes operation
Parks, aactaim tsredoer P AU spacer sad gsttsartng SPOM
Municto and County f miles (""opt mdas.moos opagkts).
Public mmlq Spaces, community activity spmtaueadnad
facpldp I atttdoa Pd -ft spaces
2.1 Develop a sitreetscape that yields a hierarchy and organization of downtown streets, that
gerimics and atuhenfie identity, and results in an anractive environment for people (those in
cars and those an foot.
• Downtown ween shall be designated vim hoot yards wcwdh* the IWWOlag hierarchy'
tlredwy
River Shot
VHlmq Street
Plan Sugar
aevmtb Sum
Class goats
(Por etemple, a building at the eotnct d Broadway and Vddrmt Saar would have Broadwyy a lir 6trat
/08
J
Monticello Downtown and Riverfmm ReviuUmioo Plan
Design Goldellaee
Pate 3
yard. n dw street is listed higher in the list. TWs shmW not be ewrudued to taeso tam a building cannot
be designed to address two saeets.)
• Recognize tact some downtown tu" will be oriented to vehicle traf e, but will still a000mmodate
pedestrians: and that some streets will be oriented to pedesaiw but mill accommodate vskides.
• UdUn matetials than reflect local elemem s and culture to p uvide the sense of Mao In every street.
• Use elements drat yield a more pedestrian rule, oven at rases d»t no oriented to vebicies (pedesuiawscate
street ughts, for example).
• Develop a pattern of sweet Use planting for all downtown streets to create Identity and consistency in
downtown. but still allowing for divaNry in the sueetst"
• PnrA&,edetate anremitiea soca n Oeaeaes and vats receptade, an regular iMaval ad key locations at all
downtown steeexs.
• Provide elements that inform the community of events sad hWpeoings in the Monticello community at
Hwy tethering places.
• Develop a system of consistent maintenance for W public and private spaces In downtown (railer than
relying on tae Individual propeny or basions owners to keep their d tew&s and situ maintained)
2.2 Build a complete network of sidewalks in downtown and extend sidewalks into nearby
neighbahooda to create a waUdnWgmUing downtown environment.
• Build ddewsiks with widfs appropriate to levels of Pedestrian tr dS—
• Build sidewalk connection from the sidewalk to tiro (mat door of every building in downtown. especially
these elm we separated horn the sidewalk by parking sten.
• Develop sidewalks on bah aides of all downtown ween and on at lean toe side of all meets leading Into
ndobothoods
2.3 Establishespaces arl for community ptEaing re that aoriuued to important civic, community and
• Develop West Bridge Park to accommodate sipaif)am and ubeduled downtown 11111IM" a locos efiaro nt
Eau Bridge Park an becoming a mor passive escme hum de sedvidn of dowomwm.
• Develop a gadxring span at a new Qty Nall to Naetion as a Moodmilo'town quare"
• Develop a span in downtown that can accommodate a hkmn MOUL
• Allow for some downtown atresia to be doted for target ewmnamdp gatbaioss and areomt
• Utilize similar patterns and tllaYtWs In do public ganhetiq apace u Mund In the streets to make the
lisaw lag spam fad lib a annual extension of tae street.
2.4 Develop a street system to appropriate to a downtown environment.
• Maintain a regular specing of streets and a VM patterns of sum and bloeb to dowatowe.
• Use addle calming tech*M2 to keep speeds of Mffik at uG lavels and to em000age oro use of Woad" by
• Allow cnc*wge orowenn par" an downtown W" to schleve trafno calming. to creme a mon
active toed environment. and to make a better v added haeme, hilt and pedestrian s
3.0 The Confiaaration of Sita
3.1 EstablM common wlbclt and lot coverage standards for emb "district" to ensure cmV aaiblo
and maximum development in downtown Mondalla
l0 Ci
612-835-3160 FDISINSTON KoEra ER
Monticello Downtown and Rlva& W Rarltalltadoa Piro
Daslaa Oaldellau
Pap
12'1 P05 AN 12 '97 10 r 53
• Setbaela (minimum dW&nw Som a riSht•of--war in which no suucros may encroach) and bttl" hoes (a
Um am omd from do ti&of-way which at Ian 70 patent of the primary snckn must much) for
dmnaswo "dlsokt we etubl}thed as follows
Riverhm District BviM-w fi= 0 feet
Broadway -'Downtown' Dismin But" Wte: 0 fea
amdwsy - "Fm and Wes" District Satbsele Avaap of adjacw gummum, but oo lets than
23 feet
Waham Murict Build -o line: 0 feet
Pine DLaict Setback: 20 fent
Savcatb Street Dimia Setbac¢ 20 feet
7tamidooal Dhmkt Setback: Avmp of aq)soem saucmm but no len than
20 ftt
Ndwimbood scowk Averap of adjacw snuctum but oo Im am
20 fent
Indmtriel Dimia Se&=L. 20 feet for office me rdaad to it &=W use: So
fent for all ether on and strumm
Park and Open Space DWrkt does nm apply
OhiOng itudmal Dimia aw" Ons: 23 flea
• Shea ftmp "b%Moat' (that portion d the primary street hmtap which must be =upled by the
primary struetum a do build -to Oro or which mum have a portion of any bdWay thal meoa the whack
Ihte) Is establlshed for each duftict as follows.
Riverhom District
75 pe=
Bmdwq - - Dowmowe Dam
100 PC. C=p dtu pc + Pan" nd sm spaces
davdopal in coo= with bdldiap am esempt
Bm@daay • "Em and Wed' Diaakt
don m apWy
1141=Dishier
60paeem
Pim Dhfota
20 panni
Saveath Saar Dladet
20 f ,
Tmoddead DbWd
does no gply
Ndabbodood
dm=goy
lod=trw Disala
don ma apply
Pack and Open Space DWzict
does not apply
C YMnnhttdonal Dhxdct
e0 paoat
• Sudatds for mlalaurm la eovaage by stmema. la osda m am= the ben use of lhnj ej available Ind
to downtown. we eaablisbed as follows (plates, outdoor Rnhaltll or whet soca w nol hnlodW in
mldmum mvarap ulwlalm):
itivefiea District
so,
&oadaAy • "Dowvtmwo"District
10 parcm4 czew that pedasain P -6u -d P- ap—
davalapM to torrent w0h bit wwp we ettemtpt
Bmdwq -'ism ad Wad' District
dans as apply
V61MDWrfet
30paom
Plan Diatrkt
20 paam
Seveoih Santa photo
20 ptram
7haddoad Diana
dors ant tpply
Ndabbodood
dont aottpply
/ob
612$35-3160 FOISINGTON KOEU LR
Mootfeetto Downtmn and Rlvmfmnt RavitWadoa Plan
Darden Guldelloss
Page 3
127 P06 JUN 12 '97 10,53
Industrial District
25 pdoent
Pack and Open Spasm District
does act apply
Civiennstionional Disvict
exempt (to sasute rices buildup can remain promlaeat relative to
other downtown development and to allow outdoor public spaces to
be ceded on these sites)
' Building footprint sin and "bay width" (the width of a storefcoat or ergot m of a continuous facade at
wbi h building mus be divided) for the primary 6uuame an tach aloe Is as Ibllowc
Rlverftom Dittrlct
2.000 square fed mm—; 7.000 square pow maximum
25 foot to 40 foot bays
Broadway .'Downtown" Dab et
2,000 square fed minim®: 10.000 square feet maximum
20 foot to 50 foot bays
Broadway -'Fast and Vide District
does not apply
VM= District
2,000 square fen minimum. 8.000 square fed --I-
25 foot to 50 foot bays
Plan District
3,500 square feat mWmum: 7.000 squan fed maximum
towlstmew for bays does nor apply
Seventh Steed Distrid
3.500 square fed miairam: 65.000 squaw, feat ttraxiau®
requhcmcat fat bays does sot apply .
ltansIdonai District
maximum rotuprim no hrgcr than 130 parcat of the averap of
odwr strucmtes WMn 230 rad of am
Nelobesbood
mWinum footprint so larger than I IS pe>aot of am average of
other saucsup winds 230 feet of dm
Industrial Disaln
does cot apply
Park end Open space District
don not apply
civiMmsdunland D4vkt
does not apply
3.2 Make buildings the focus of Monticello's downtown and rivedmnl. sot parking areas.
• Ucde pttrklag bdbiad or beide buikings. Was no more than 23 peteem of mqubed parklog is a aid, yard
In the Walnut. Broadway - "DowuWW and Riverboat Dlmi" and no more then 73 puncta In a feat
yard in the Ptsa sad Sevoth Street Dlsvkv).
• Prohibit parting amara adjacent to instructions of screen
• Require separation of pu lting was bora buildings ash public ddeealks for landscam, ash btcSaing.
• Msual eparadon between parking arm and public slgbuaf•way shall use landscape materials or
ornamental fa m (no berms such that a screen that is at lea 50 opaque is present In all seasons to a
belgla of 28 hrdte to 36 inches).
3.3 �gpaddag to accommodate anticipated and realistic demands. without ovefbullding
[ocuitics.
• Encourage development of jolat.we padaq faclllam, balandeg use on a day -today sad born-tobarr bade
to wbim the bigsto powbl, uo of cwb parklal spam swarms.
• Create per" for office use as ram beta 1 3 and 4 space per 1000 square Gans gtas Ooar ams; crease
parking for sdW uw airow betwam 4 sed 3 spaces per 1000 square Ret grow Doorarm
• Discourage development the would aatmed or require normal peak parking demand R order to kap
davelaptr" dash), Intense,
• taelude orraea parking afar boon ask alts Ice tlm akWatbs d puking pdorFded for rtes tits
• Provide easploye parldag in snore rcas to allow customer parklug wheal to do des doulm- prohibit
1097
612-835-3160 MD I S I NGTON KOEGLER 177 Pfit RN 12 "Y? 10: 5$
Mardeallo Downtm and RI.arGom RerUaaaadoo Plan
Design Guidelines
Page 6
employees from parting on downtown streets
• Gears Peal Wig nines In sdghborbood% if owessary.
3.4 Develop each site to faaUtate traffic movement and reduce conflict points.
• provide fall access to sites ming am streets; limit stress to sites on Pine Street to right idaut
• Allow limited parking lot access Gum Walnut and River Street
• Allow parking lot cheaIstion at cads of parking &Isles to utilize eras etreeu. Ifoem-ary.
3.5 Establish continuity in the patterns of site development to maintain coherency and
cohesiveness in downtown.
• Faubllsh a Common palm of materials for size Is downtow (ligh ft pav4 landscape, sivm ere.)
• Requite, mat parking lou be 23 percent shaded by lean within 10 yen of development.
• Use Imdsaping or araammnl fsneiog to block view d lwm, gad pith of tars puked int lou agleam to
any pablic and.
• Use indigenous or proven native plant ouderl" focusing on species related to the river or savmm
avbommrm.
' Encourage sign to be a pan of the building rather dust de sits allow pylon signs for development on Pine
Strut and between Seventh Suck and 144 only.
4.0 IMe Dedp of Buildings
4.1 Develop a unified character for all built elelarots of downtown to yield the sense of a true
downtown district.
• rearming and "corpoato" architecture. franchise patrems and buildings zest as designed a sips "be
pohibit4 building dedp shad rely an " larmd-' eharwa rather than introduced duncvn
• New development stew be compatible with the Invention of die pidetines for each diWiet achieving
compatibility though similat ante, musing, talk anddettil.
• Buildings stall be orgaalted with use perpendiudar to atrt em .
• Each building shall be encouraged to explore an= level of individual expression in order to reflect me same
of a downtown district either then a strip center.
• Qenc ally. cornmercial buildings (recall and office uses) in the Riverftont Broadway -"Downtown" and
Walnut Districts shall have flat roofs
• No building shall exceed a bright greater than thea smtia plus the roof. except cut buildfsgs is to
civiclinniwional district may have extrienu that mcced three nein
• Avmings toll be allowed to be omtlisuau only "stmnfroets" occupied by a single waaett swalags shell
not be allowed to extend aron ms face of more stun aro budWag, sae, If me building& are occupied by the
came tensaL
• Detail cul) be lategral to mo building, not elemeota that am applied to a aundard building dull inch a a
dock tower or domues with no usable space heh' d
4.2 Require the use of quality building materials and methods to crew an endurins stock of
downtown buildings.
• MnafaIs shall be ductule, easily myr■l, .n &ttracda n.1 close dlsuete (for peop4 walking oo ddewalks
or driving slowly on the serest for env*%); materials shat be stated to pedestrians who smxmu are
within 10 fast of a public righsof-way, or a walkway mal is Intended for public un (avoiding the an of
Jumbo" brisk in these circumstances).
• Bdek stone, wood. MFS or With quality pmeaat tbrkerat a are aMahle finish materials: high guaUp metal
/OF
oirn.=—Zinn rUASlNt. i Vt4 rutu..c.K let t'M Jw 1t '7e 1b:7�
Monticello Downtown and alw,rfrom tta•itatimlmt Plan
Design Guidelines
Par
(.mare finish preferred) or synthetic aiding may be acceptable if used in combination with other aeeepahk
maesials; wood flame or masonry wnmuctlon Is s oceptalft
• 7tansperes t glen shall be used at the majority of stmt level windows; minced glace at wm level is net
acceptable
• Canvas awnings or extension of the roof atuuial for awnings Is encouraged; oylen awnings or other
syothado materials, as well as those awning structures meant to be Illuminated from widd& we not
4.3 Develop buildings that relate to people at all publicly visible sides: elisnitrate aback door
appearance for service areas and tear entrances from parking lou.
• Facades facing stress or public walkways shall be adntlated with windows and doors ranking in a
mintsnem of 40 percent window or door arra at street level (sidewalk to 11 fat hlghy, windows shall have a
generally vesical orimtadom
• Entries shall be the bightight of the building.
• adechasloel systema shall be integrated into the design of the building.
• 'hash aterage areas strap be oompy eaeloaed and incorporated in a pert of the building.
• Only Thom enaaow that we unlecrud during regular budms haat may be coasidered public estraooes
• Sips shag be Incorporated Into on building facade, wind m at awnings up to a taaximuoa of 1 equre foot
of sign area per HOW foot of sweet facade (a the front yard); sign that extend term thin 12" beyond the
place of the building facade or signs that extend beyond the roof llaa am not allowed, except obi signs that
project ova the sidewalk am allowed up to a maximum sim of rix square feet (marquis excepted); dgm that
are within or a pan of a window mune maintain TO percent clear area in the surface of the window; one sign
will be allowed for each usable public entry (signs that am a pan of an awning or within or part of a
window ere encouraged and dull ort be counted la ttetetrnining sloe n,muber of slgna allowed}
• Tment signage far muld4enam buildings sball occupy as an no larger than 7 square feet per aeartt as each
public entrance.
• Mm-(llmith=d temporary signage Unll be permitted for any -a— of it building cep to 6 square tea of
sign face per tenant. Unporary signage shall am be s ached m the building and, if placed is a public
dgbcobway, shall maintain a minimum of 6 fen clearance for pedestrians. Such temporary signage shall
be placed only during operating hour.
• T mporary signage may be attached to the Inside two of any window at street level, prodded that such
signage dem we obscme,n= than SO percent of she mal window sea and does not remain to Osten loager
than 21 days (leasiag or for sale sips exempt from these llmimioml
• All buildings must be idemill at each public eatram with its NII street address. In mmmben and letters no
sau(Iar Nan 2 inches in height and so larger true 4 Inehn in height. Ilds d&nW .lull not be Included in
the total dgnage anotrod.
3.0 The Route of Buildings
5.1 The Department of Interior "Standards for Rebabilitation." which aro universally recognized
os guides for the conservation and preservation of the heritage of a place. gW apply to the
reuse of any structure within the downtown area. 7be re -use and rehabilitation of a sm drum
shall be meatumd for appropriateness by means of the following tests, and may apply
equally to the development of new buildings in downtown:
• Use: A property should be used for to historic pmposa, at o mum which requ4a mlaim-1 chop to its
character defining claimants.
• Character. Kkwde character should be preserved by retaining historic architectural feaaoas, rather than
-bad, g or replacing dram.
/06s
612635-3160 HO I S I NGTON KGE.i.ete 177 P09 AIN 12 '97 10;5T
Mondeello Downtown sed Ithertroa Revirotltatien Plan
Design Guldellws
Papa
• Authenticity. Changes that create a fain ease of WsmM or copy elements from nearby or similar
buildings shall Ina be undertaken. Each property h a unique ex -re of physical testrrtes, dee and tree.
• Evolution: Changes thea have acquired historic significma in teh own doss span be retained and
I
• Distinctive traturm finishes and aaftsmwhip that eharaeter m the ptopetty shall be prennui.
• Pnmervadoo: Deteriorated feanaas shell be repaired raew than replaced. If replacement Is neccssay, it
dnould be sdative raA than soul. acrd he subsenthted by documented evidence of whet was authentically
• Cleaning: Use the gentlest mans possible, avoiding chemical tteatmeats and absolutely avoiding any
• Archeological retonrces shall be pots and preserved, with midgadnn U&*ues employed if rraocsca
must be &durbed.
• Now work Addiliow or eheration shall one destroy the hitowi materials that characterise the property.
and shall be diffaemlat<d flout the old, anti yet be temQatnbb with the mosdog, slat, scale and acbiteao al
featorm of dr odgiml structure.
• Reversibility: New wort shell be applied meb thea, U removed in the Ntum the easatiial form and
Integrity of the historic property and environment will be maintained.
5.2 The Department of Interior "Standards for Rehabilitation" and the Guidelines which
accompany them are the starting point for storefront and downtown building design
However, in terms as approach (for example, "where does one sW7"), a proems might be
defined for re -nue. Restoration and renewal work shall follow these steps:
• Fnstotic pictures alder research to determine authen, lis of work Is the most important uartiog point.
thus avoiding guesswork, false apprceien of history or a restoration theme. It also helps all parties
vhuarze what is possible.
• In some asp, apply for Hiswrle Smsetmes Report great to do a eompiwe s *dL
• Study and articulate what is original, what is not. what should be retained and what is rhe character of the
am
• Develop a destp concept based an tib data and the uehe•uss.
• Dal with code and technical matters a required ushg the appropriate speeiAul
5.3 In downtown. the two-level. two -use nature of some buildings is important, thus eacb can be
thought of as a "attlydmat" and an "upstairs," which may, require dual re -use considerations,
aceenibility solutions and other factors that might affect the re -use. Frequently the second
level Errata oto less changed or easier to restore than the aomfionts below.
• Image: The whole building works u the signature of the tadneWes) present and Is one lop 'blgo" of be
presence. elms and viability.
• Storefronts: Maximize trampuency. remembering that this h the advert log of the Inside. it Is invltag
acrd provides tight utaward is the evenings.
• Signboards: 't ictily dg aboardz aro loaned Just above the trwparat storefronts. Small hand bntmalny
Is bow with small spotlights for nMu.itudo No baeWglaed plaale allies shall be allowed. Pr*cdod
signs (those dot overhang the sldewdlc) are weep" described in Section ♦.).
• Awnings: Real. operable, fabric (coves at stabilised aaewl Gbsk) ere encouraged if or(glmlly present or
on new construction. They pmvWo shsda. ran protection. assist in staNhasitsss reeolleddoo and dga
locatim and are a variable that Is visually I-eming. AwabW muss net be regularized too touch► nor
becom fixed or backrg6tieg. AwWW on m-;= p o*ts shall conform to is description In Section 4.1
and 1.2.
• Upper feeds: Ram typical historic window pastas discovered in old photos, testae top of well detell
/0 #
612-835-3160 MOISINuTON KOEGLER 177 P10 JUN 12 '97 10:56
Momiceto Downtown std Rive ire RavitaUndan Pt=
Duro Goidelic=
Age 9
or overhanging comlas work which acts as die eyessachloy finale to the storefront
• Wlndowr Reston anginal (in whole or in put) or tepllcaud windows by conforming to ums, profiles and
divisions as observed ham hfsmaic phouWaphs or dnwinga
• Backsides of buildings The outheal Is diffaem hom the Runt but no fess Lnpmtant Uaraly simple and
direct, this took, when carefully maiauined. provides tcore of scutpard Interco and intrigue (with moray
ups and downs, ins and outs) dun the scat skb.
• Energy conservation: Much restoration Is also good for unUry reasons a wall as for energy eooservuroo.
Window work is a flat priority. especially to reduce kraky conditions (infiltration). Frequently, existing
windows can be rebuilt and refined with wetahamippisg and will have yeas of goad service. Atdc or root
specs are the other high Fixity. wall areas may no have a Nab proportion of exposure to the ouuidn, oro
may not require o much attention.
• AhWckhvstWules: these we good for energy conservation and comfort reasons. but can be poorly design
with the facade or arae M rtntomboo. Alrimb and vestibules; require, aura case and oaasidaatoa.
• A.u6emle materials: 'lite vary eeum materials as used originally aro bet. but door and window materials
mit be painted ureal Instead of wood so long as the size, shape sad placement In opening are kept as
original. this Is not automatic, and shouM be reviewed critically Dor approval.
• Palm colors: Even though chanSuble. colon aghr to be selected Rom historic analysis of what 4 found
at each site and architectural tcame If not, thea downtown treads will develop. or It will become only a
maria of "victual (or committee) taw. rather then beteg based on understandable paitrci m It Is
passible to develop a downtown 'palate" of =tan, from which owners an make selections (thus being
,pe.gprmven
5.4 In the event that a historic buildingg L relocated into downtown. care should be exercised to
make it fit the patients of its new district
• Downtown should neva become the home for any old Wilding hum the an which mlgbr fees astlactioa
Buildings to downtown must tit ahs use and character of downtown; Owdon the too affect" of woo aid
buildings must be avolded
• If baildlaga aro relocated into downtown. they shall conform site the patents of the underlying district (as
described above).
6.0 Ovenight of Design Guidelines
6.1 In order for time Design Guidelines to be effective in malatsining conshtency with the
community's visions for its downtown and tiva llmt, a body must be charged with their
oversight.
• The MCP Design Committee (or a subcommittee of the Design Committee) is moat knowledgeable about
these Design Guidelines as it is the group charged wM eresrlag them. It Is Ioglcal to a sum that Thein
continued Input is a bnetlt to the downtown ad rivaf)oot a Me area moves lhrorrgb mvlullratlat dhwm
• An an advisory commi=e this MCP Design Commtttse could report to site Plenndng Contmiaaloo relative
to any prg)eci undautm lo dw downtmm and tive7Ran ansa this procto should be Identified a a nguw
pan of the plaaning review process for prcPco widin dowamww
• As the Qty considers assistance to developers of projects widdn downtown, the MCP Design committee
could act as an advisory commit= to the Proramic Development Authority (the city body haviag
Jurisdiction over the assbunu that might be provided to developers). Assistance should be tied to
sadifectim of the Dodge Ghdd t, iam (n wall a codarman e to do vision and guIding lxincipla for the
downtownandrimb stn).
/0=
612-035-3160 FD1SI GTON IOFB" 1Z7 Pll JW 12 'W 10157
Mondccib Downtown and Riveefram ltevf nafm Plan
Dalao Cold -
11 -Pap 10
6.2 Developtneat Projects need to be signaW early enough for the MCP Committee to
meet potential potential developers to review the mentions of the Design Guidellaft.
• The Cipti development procae daodd include crepe ielaed w the Involvement of the MCP Dedsr
Conuniaaee for mvlew of a I - '. plan.
• Alestings with developers should owz as one of the tart awn in the development process, allowins me
developer to crab plansthe g I ahs direction of the dedp soideliam
' Par any pmjea that reTAres review by the Planting Commission. the MCP Desiyo Commune dwa
prepare a written review of the pito, idearifyins emu of casformanta ardlar soncufan asoe wins the
dulp adwim
' For any protea that rawolrn autumn from the HDA, the b C Delos Comm'aee shadd prepare a
wdttso tw ave of the pian, idea hying meas of conformace aadfar 000waformaaee wlih she dedp
gdddb-
6.3 The MCP Design Committee should establish a subcommittee that is appointed by the City
Council for a designated !de legitimacy. txediblUty Dada lllty for
Lron of
• In addition to the MCP Darr touanbe, members of a subcommium tier chips revlew dMM include
Net from the Plenmq Commipton and the Eeooamio Development Audmfgc
• Tams of ... ......... '..,. , members deodd coincide wish Most of the Plaantpg Commission ad EDA, wins
mmlmme oettns of two fare and a me0lmum of thme ywa. Tams of she members of me abramodtbe
should be aawm . Por d t subcommWee, there should be no limit to rise musba of agars a Individad
mq serve.
to Z'
Planning Commission Agenda - 7/1/97
11. HAmdaw of the Wright Counntyplanning Commi_Qelon BepgXj, (J.O.)
Attached you will find a copy of the Wright County Planning Commission
Report. This document is provided to you for information only. No specific
action is requested.
Office of
PLANNING AND ZONING
WRIGHT COUNTY GOVERNMENT CENTER
10 Second Street .YW. Rm 140. Buffalo. MN 5.5313.1185
161 21 682-7338
Fax d (612) 682-7872
May 27, 1997
To all Town Boards and City
Councils in Wright County
Enclosed is a copy of
the
1996 Annual Report of
the
Wright County Office
of
Planning and Zoning. If
you
have any questions about
the
report, or suggestions as to
how we might improve it
for
your use in the future,
please contact Nancy Kopff
at 682-7337.
Si e ly,
k� ki
• a ,
Planning and Zoning Admin.
Pn4W a ,vcX1.d ow,,.
Equal oppmu wy , Af nftt(u. Action EMPLOYE, //
WRIGHT COUNTY
Office of Planning and Zoning
ANNUAL REPORT
1996
116
Office of
PLANNING AND ZONING
WRIGHT COUNTYGOVERNMENT CENTER
10 Second Street NIV, Rm 140, Buffalo. 3IN 5.5313. 1 IS5
(612I682-7338
Fax - !612168_'-787^
To: Wright County Board of Commissioners
From: Tom Salkowski, Planning and Zoning Administrator
Re: 1996 Annual Report
Attached please find the 19% Annual Report of the Wright County Office of Planning and
Zoning. There was a significant increase in the numbers of all types of permits issued by
the office over 1995. Our records show an increase in 14% for new homes, 11% for sewer
permits issued and 15% for the total of all permits issued.. Sewage treatment system
permits continued to climb in number, In part due to the County's new Point of Sale
Certification Ordinance, which was in operation for the first full year in 19%.
The passage of the Federal Telecommunications Act of 1996 resulted in a nationwide effort
by several companies to construct a new wave of communications systems. The County did
not have up-to-date regulations to regulate towers which are used by many companies to
support antennas for the new types of phone systems (and other new "high tech" uses).
Faced with several new applications for towers, and simultaneously facing several other new
issues in the Agricultural districts of the County, the County Board adopted a moratorium
on several issues in the Agricultural zone (see detail later in this report).
Staff had to quickly learn about this new communications technology, and fortunately, were
able to also learn what other communities around Minnesota, and the nation were doing.
Working with the Planning Commission, and Industry representatives, a new set of antenna
regulations for the County zoning ordinance was developed, and adopted early in 1997.
Considerable effort was also spent assisting Rockford Township complete an update to their
portion of the County Land Use Pian. After an informational hearing at the Town Hall. and
before the Town Board took formal action on the plan, it was decided to table the issue
until final decisions were made regarding the provision of sewer services to the Lakes
Charlotte and Martha area.
The moratorium and Issues surrounding the future of the Agricultural District In Wright
County promises to continue to be a major Item into 1997. As the County continues to
grow, it Is apparent that planning, zoning and environmental health Issues will continue to
be controversial. and vitally important to our future.
Pnnted on "cycled paper.
Equal Opportunity : Affirmative Aetu,n Employer
L
- MEMBERSHIP -
Franklin Denn (Chair)
Bob Adams (Vice Chair)
Jack Russek
Ralph Douglas
Roger Millner
Lawrence Bauman
George Bakeberg
I/D
The Wright County Planning Commission held 21 regular meetings in 1996. The
meetings were scheduled to hear rezoning requests, conditional use permits (C.U.P.),
and other matters specified by the County Zoning Ordinance. The Commission heard
89 agenda items during the year. In addition to the regular meetings the Commission
conducted 21 site inspections on 8 field outings. The Planning Commission hears nine
types of requests:
1. Home extended Business & Home Occupation Conditional Uses
2. Land Use Conditional Use Permits
3. Land Alteration and Mining Permits
4. Rezoning Requests
5. Plat and Subdivision Conditional Use Permits
6. Transfer of "1 per 40" entitlements
7. Relocating or "move -in" structures
S. Farm Accessory Mobile Homes
9. Miscellaneous
The chart on the next page indicates by township the number and type of requests.
These numbers reflect original requests. Agenda items continued from a previous
meeting were not recounted, while multiple requests within a single agenda item were
counted appropriately.
Over the past decade, land uses propose to the Planning Commission have expanded
from predominantly agriculture to a wider range and in some cases, more intensive
uses. As a result, the current land use planning and regulations which were enacted
when Wright County was primarily rural and 'the dominent land use was family
farming, no longer provide adequate guidance and controls in light of the changes
character of land uses in Wright County. This is a serious concern since many of the
new land use proposals could have long range impacts on the overall quality and
growth of Wright County if not properly managed.
In response to this concern, the Wright County Board of Commissioners decided in
1996 to authorize a study of the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Ordinance in relation
to the changing land uses in the general agricultural zone of the County. These new
and changing land uses included! farm accessory mobile homes, livestock feedlots,
livestock processing plants, resorts, landfills, essential public services, and commercial
outdoor recreation. It was decided that each of these uses needed to be studied and
appropriate changes made to the Zoning Ordinance and Plan necessary to protect the
health, safety and welfare of the present and future citizens of Wright County.
/IF
In order to allow for such a study, staff recommended that an interim moratorium be
imposed upon the most intensive or nontraditional land uses so that the status quo
could be preserved while a sensible and comprehensive study was conducted. On
November 5th of 1996 the Board accepted that recommendation and imposed a
moratorium on the following land uses in the agricultural zoning district:
a) the establishment and construction of communication towers;
b) the establishment, construction or expansion of any animal feedlot with over
300 animal units;
c) the establishment and construction of any livestock processing plants;
d) the construction of any facility for storage or of processing hazardous waste;
e) the construction or expansion of any landfill, any solid waste processing or
management facility, or any solid waste transfer or transportation facility;
f) the opening or construction of any new commercial resort;
g) the establishment of any junkyard or salvage facility;
h) the establishment of any tire recycling or processing facility;
i) the placement or installation of any more than one farm accessory mobile
home per farm as otherwise regulated under Wright County Zoning
Ordinance 604.04;
j) the establishment or installation of essential public services, including only
those which require a conditional use permit under the existing ordinance.
The goal of the moratorium is to have a minimal effect on routine activities in the AG
district, but to give the County a chance to carefully study and review its ordinance
in order to better respond to today's needs and concerns. The interim ordinance will
be in effect until November 4, 1997 or until the final adoption of appropriate zoning
ordinances or amendments to the existing ordinance can be completed. The
moratorium will be lifted on a use by use basis as studies are completed and
appropriate zoning amendments and land use controls are enacted for each use. The
study began with review of communication towers and feedlots. Over the next twelve
months research will begin on the other issues. Once changes are completed the
Planning Commission will again hear requests for these items.
The chart on the next page Indicates the number of requests originating from each
township. Agenda items continued from a previous meeting were not recounted,
while multiple requests within a single agenda Item were counted appropriately.
//F
1996 PLANNING CL-AMISSION REQUESTS J
' TOWNSHIP -a- V ...,� �.�, II ". II ", II .�.... II .�.. u TOTAL A
ALBION
0
0
0
2
2
0
0
0
4
BUFFALO
0
4
0
3
3
1
0
0
11
CHATHAM
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
11
CLEARWATER
0
2
0
2
2
1
0
0
71
COKATO
0
2
0
3
2
0
0
0
7
CORINNA
0
1
0
1
1
0
0
0
3I
FRANKLIN
1
10
4
6
4
1
1
t
27I
FRENCH LAKE
1
1
0
3
1
1
0
1
e
MAPLE LAKE
0
1
6
0
0
1
0
0
7
MARYSVILLE
0
6
1
0
0
4
0
0
10
MONTICELLO
0
2
0
0
0
1
0
0
3
ROCKFORD
1
3
2
3
3
1
0
0
131
SILVER CREEK
0
2
0
4
3
t
0
0
10
SOUTHSIDE
t
3
0
1
1
1
0
0
7I
VICTOR
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
WOODLAND
1
0
t
1
1
0
0
0
4
. .
TOTAL 1998
5
36
13
�
28 ii
I
23
to I
1 I
2 �
122,
_ ...,..... . ........ .. „
TOTAL 1998
„,
I 7
_..,,., ,,.
28
1 t l
2 t�_,,,
_,__,.1
2 t
1811
If
3
1191
l�i
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT 1998
- MEMBERSHIP -
Judy Weldele (Chair)
Dave Zylstra (Vice Chair)
Don Rosium
Lawrence Bauman
f
`' Bob Schermann
The Wright County Board of Adjustment (BOA) held 20 regular meetings in 1996 and
reviewed 149 agenda items, for 245 variance requests. In addition, the Board
conducted 14 site inspections on 11 outings.
The Board of Adjustment hears a wide variety of requests, as indicated below:
1. Entitlement transfers and interpretation of residential entitlements.
2. Requests for development on undersize lots
3. Variances for setback distances from roads, lakes and property Ones.
4. Lot line adjustments to after property lines.
5. Appeals of administrative interpretation of Zoning Ordinance
6. Temporary Use Permits IT.U.P.) for mobile homes.
7. Miscellaneous requests Including variances for oversized buildings, over
15% lot coverage, and replacement or expansion of nonconforming uses.
S. Requests for nonconforming division in agricultural areas.
While each variance request is individually considered, the Zoning Ordinance provides
five basic criteria which the Board of Adjustment must operate under. These
considerations are as follows:
e. The granting of the variance will not be In conflict with the County's Comprehensive Plan.
b. The property will not yield a reasonable return If used In compliance with the Zoning Ordinance.
c. The conditions causing the hardship are unique and are not shared by adjacent properties.
d. The granting of the variance will not essentially alter the character of the neighborhood.
e. The granting of the variance will not adversely effect the environmental quality of the area.
Defining and addressing each of these criteria is often a difficult task, since so many
of the properties reviewed by the Board are located in old subdivisions but undergoing
new development or redevelopment at this time. This is an increasing trend in the
lakeshore areas where property values are climbing, but existing structures were, for
the most part, seasonal cabins in need of considerable remodeling or replacement. As
year-round homes take their place, the limited lot sizes result in difficulty meeting
setback, coverage and sewage treatment standards. Balancing the current
performance standards against the existing lot situation is difficult for homeowners,
staff and Board members alike. In addition to this case by case review, the Board
must also consider neighborhood precedents that may have been set into place by
past BOA action. Often times, the Board conducts on-site inspections of properties
in order to make a first hand assessment of all of the variables at hand. As requests
become more complex, this practice is Increasing, and of course, does add to the cost
of BOA proceedings. However, in the best interest of the applicants and their
neighbors, site inspections are a useful tool in order to assure that "due process' is
given to each variance proceeding.
The chart on the next page indicates the number of requests originating from each
township. Agenda items continued from a previous meeting were not recounted,
while multiple requests within a single agenda item were counted appropriately.
//X
1996 BOARD OF AD 'USTMENT REQUESTS
TOWNSHIP
Appeal
Undersized
Setback
per 40
Lot
Entitknnt
Temporary
Misc.
TOTAL
I
Lot
I I
Variance 11
Division
I
-Line I
Adjust
Transfer
I
Mobile
I
I
ALBION
1
1
5
0
0
0
0
0
7
BUFFALO
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
2
CHATHAM
0
0
2
0
1
0
0
0
3
CLEARWATER
1
3
2
2
2
0
0
0
10
COKATO
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
CORINNA
0
11
40
1
1
0
0
0
53
FRANKLIN
1
0
3
2
2
0
1
0
9
FRENCH LAKE
0
2
6
0
8
0
1
0
17
MAPLE LAKE
0
5
16
0
2
1
1
0
25
MARYSVILLE
0
2
11
0
0
0
0
0
13
1
MONTICELLO
0
0
3
0
1
0
0
0
4
ROCKFORD
0
1
9
1
2
0
0
0
13
SILVER CREEK
2
3
10
1
2
0
1
0
19
SOUTHSIDE
1
8
40
4
6
0
0
0
59
VICTOR
1
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
2
WOODLAND
0
0
1
6
1
0
0
0
8
TOTAL 1996
8
36
160
17
29
1
4
0
245
TOTAL 1996
11
34
1001
9
19
2
5
16
196
�y
1
WRIGHT COUNTY
OFFICE OF PLANNING AND ZONING
1996
PLANNING AND ZONING ADMINISTRATOR
Tom Salkowski
ADMINISTRATIVE STAFF
Terris Pirem, Administrative Assistant
Nancy Kopff, Assistant Planner
Jennifer Klein, Senior Clerk
Renee Broadhead, Senior Clerk
ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH OFFICE
Chuck Davis, Environmental Health Officer
Willie Gibbs, Assistant Environmental Health Officer
Sean Riley, Assistant Environmental Health Officer
Bill Stephens, Assistant Environmentel Health Officer
Val Donahue, Recycling Coordinator Ithru June)
Thomas Kresko, Intern
BUILDING INSPECTION
Craig Schulz, Building Inspector
Gary Lebovsky, Assistant Building Inspector
//K
Staff at the Office of Planning & Zoning assist the public in drawing building permits
and public hearing requests, by both processing applications and explaining the
applicable zoning standards. A breakdown of the number and types of permits issued
in each Township is displayed on the next page. Comparing the totals to those of last
year reveals a 14% increase in dwelling permits, an 11 % rise in sewer permits, and
a 23% jump in residential additions. The rise in residential permits is due to overall
growth in the County, as well as low interest rates over the past several years.
Increases in sewer installation relate to increased building as well as the County's
point of sale ordinance which requires that septic systems be upgraded at the time of
a property sale if not already meeting sewer code.
Over the past year, a lot of staff time has been utilized researching and determining
building entitlements in the general agricultural zoning district. While the residential
density standard has remained the same in this zone since 1978(1 house per 40 acres
or quarter -quarter section), ordinance amendments made late in 1995 have altered the
way in which such entitlements are determined. Basically, the ordinance which only
allowed quarter -quarter sections with road frontage to be eligible for an entitlement,
was changed to allow for one building entitlement per 40 acres, regardless of where
the road frontage was located. Entitlement divisions must meet the minimum road
frontage standards as always, but the change did increase the overall number of
dwelling that will be allowed in the agricultural zone, since entitlements for back
forty's are now recognized. Accordingly, landowners have made many requests over
the past year to have their property researched to find out if it qualifies for additional
building sites.
i.
Office staff also worked on producing publications of the updated Zoning Ordinance
and Land Use Plans. These books used to be printed and bound off-site, which was
quite expensive. During 1996 a binding machine was purchased by the Department
so that the books could be made in the office. As well as saving printing time, this
resulted in almost a 50% cost reduction, and allowed for the price of ordinances and
plans to drop by $10. Now, additional copies can be made as needed, saving mass
production costs when small amendments or changes are made to either of the books.
Another item which was purchased for the Department in 1996 was a fax machine.
This has also resulted In overall reduction in expenses by cutting down on staff time
and postage fees when releasing information to residents.
Databases in the office continue to be expanded. All files, Including those from the
early 1970's have been researched and cited in the AS400 property database. Sewer
certifications, which have increased dramatically due to the Point of Sale Ordinance
are also being tracked and recorded on every property. Even though workloads
continue to increase year by year, the ability to keep detailed records in a convenient
and accessible format has allowed for continued improvements in office efficiency and
accuracy.
11L
PERMITS ISSUEC JY WRIGHT COUNTY
- 1996 -
J
TOWNSHIP I
°"'m e' I
e..... I
I
G."" I
S I
nmxbn. I
�. � I
eI
2
ALBION
4
13
0
5
7
7
0
0
BUFFALO
10
27
0
5
18
9
0
3
(CHATHAM
8
15
0
4
4
11
0
0
I CLEARWATER
9
24
0
5
14
7
0
2
3 141
0 3S
COKATO
8
19
0
4
8
6
0
0
CORINNA
20
88
0
10
10
17
4
1
FRANKLIN
17
46
1
8
27
8
0
1
FRENCH LAKE
14
21
1
5
7
5
1
0
MAPLE LAKE
16
43
0
8
17
17
0
2
i MARYSVILLE
6
24
0
14
17
6
0
0
MIDDLEVILLE
1
3
0
0
0
1
0
0
MONTICELLO
23
49
0
12
23
8
0
2
I` ROCKFORD
17
45
0
4
17
9
1
1
SILVER CRK
29
53
1
12
18
5
0
3
I` SOUTHSIDE
18
86
0
20
7
13
4
1
VICTOR
4
14
0
2
12
2
0
0
I WOODLAND
7
20
0
2
13
8
0
0
`
I TOTAL 1996
211
847
3
121
219
137
10
18
TOTAL 1996 1
186 1
4921
4 I
1001
189.1..
t t 1 I
- 12 I
11 J
J
6uumn I
Rff�d I Tout
1
0
0 37
3
2
1 79
4
2
0 48
4
0
3 68
2
2
0 49
6
4
4 142
2
8
1 119
1
3
1 69
9
2
3 117
7
3
1 78
1
0
0 6
4
6
3 127
4
4
2 104
3
3
1 128
8
1
2
0
3 141
0 3S
2
62
0
40
1 53
24 1390
54
31_1
18 1207 I
J
Environmental Health Office
Below are selected statistics which display a breakdown of the Environmental Health
workload by general categories.
SELECTED STATISTICS - ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTI{
1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 5 -YEAR TOTAL
Sewer Permits
443
437
480
492
542
2394
Sewer Installer Licenses
52
69
87
61
0
269
Sewer Certifications
230
265
195
137
104
931
Shoreland Inspections
66
71
92
108
113
450
Building Site Inspections
258
260
217
230
208
1 173
Complaint Investigations
182
191
147
142
154
816
Floodplain Investigations
3
4
10
7
8
32
Hazardous Waste Invst.
3
5
8
6
9
31
Land Alteration Inspections
20
23
25
26
10
104
Landfill Inspections
12
12
12
12
16
64
Well Water Tests
167
172
110
163
182
794
The end of 1996 brought closure to an interesting year for the environmental health
office. There was a large increase (10% in one year) in the number of onsite septic
systems installed. Staff feels this is due in pert to the first full year implementation
of the point of sale ordinance. It should also be noted that staff has noted very few
problems associated with the point of sale ordinance.
h
The County lost its ability to license onsite sewage treatment professionals In 1996.
This was due to legislation enacted by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency that
prevents local units of government from issuing and charging for sewer licenses.
Although this did result in loss of revenue to the County it was nearly offset by the
increased amount of sewer permits Issued. The State of Minnesota, not Wright
County is now responsible for ensuring that contractors remain licensed and bonded.
This could result in confusion and enforcement problems in the future.
Education of the public continues to play a major role in the duties of the
Environmental Health staff. This role is an important one since expanding the
knowledge base of experts and the public at large helps to create a larger web of
individual Interest, which works to protect environmental quality in Wright County.
Additional job duties of the Environmental Health Office include Water Planning and
Solid Waste Management for the County. These efforts are described next.
!I N
Water Management Planning
The Wright County Water Management Task Force held four regular meetings in 1996.
One area of focus this year was on the progress of the point-of-sale certification
ordinance for on-site septic systems. 1996 was the first full year of this programs
implementation. The new County ordinance requires that upon the sale or transfer of
all improved properties the on-site septic system must be found conforming or be
brought into conformance. Sewer compliance forms must accompany all deeds filed
with the County.
As the program ran through its first full year, the number of compliance forms filed
progressively increased during the spring and summer months. The majority of those
deeds lacking the forms came from real estate or title companies outside of Wright
County. In such situations, staff do follow-up on the properties, determining why the
compliance was not done and enforcing the ordinance when necessary. However,
problems such as this are lessening. Overall, very few significant difficulties have
occurred to date. The Auditors Office has been extremely helpful, assisting both the
public and the Office of Planning and Zoning with implementation of the program.
Another issue that the Water Management Task Force (WMTF) began to address was
stormwater management. Presently, there are no existing guidelines available for
municipalities to follow concerning stormwater management. The WMTF felt that
existing problems within municipalities must be dealt with on a case by case basis due
to their varying nature. However, new development should be able to follow
established criteria, or 'guidelines% that could be applied throughout the entire
county. This would provide some assurances that minimum standards would be
followed as new development occurs within the county. The initial drafts of these
guidelines have been developed and will continue to be revised in 1997.
The State of Minnesota is in the process of enacting the Well -Head Protection Program
which will address potential pollution and protection of public water supplies. Wright
County's first involvement with this program began in 1995 when the cities of
Albertville, St. Michael, Hanover and the Township of Frankfort started conducting a
well head protection plan for the water system serving that area. The City of Buffalo
is also proposing to construct new municipal water supply wells which will require the
City to conduct a well head protection plan also. The Water Management Task Force
is keeping abreast of these projects in order to assist these cities and also to develop
a general frame of reference for other public water suppliers in the County which will
be required to develop such plans in the future.
Feedlots was an issue that took up a great deal of discussion time at all of the WMTF
meetings in 1996. The consensus of the members was that the MPCA was not
capable of enforcing the Feedlot Program at its current staffing level. It was felt by
the members that this was an issue that was going to have to be addressed by the
county at some time in the near future. To what extent that may be was not
determined in 1996.
A review of the Comprehensive Local Water Plan priority actions by the WMTF was
the first step in the revision of the CLWP which is due by the end of 1997.
/10
Solid Waste Management
1996 SCORE Recycling
The following pages display household recycling totals for 1996. The estimated rate
of recycling for 1996 was approximately 35%, exceeding the mandated 25% goal of
the State. According to records a total of 5,048 tons of waste was recycled during
the year through city and township efforts. In addition to this, over ten community
clean up days were held during the year to help residents dispose of difficult waste
items, such as appliances, tires, scrap metal, and junk. Amnesty days like this are
valued by residents, whom increasingly want to dispose of such items in an
appropriate manner.
Val Donahue, the County's contract recycling coordinator since 1986, resigned from
her position in June of 1996. Her expertise has helped Wright County achieve above
average recycling rates and convenient recycling opportunities throughout the County.
Vel worked with cities and townships, recyclers, schools and businesses to develop
and improve recycling activities over the years. She will be missed by all who worked
with her over the years and deserves much thanks for all of her efforts.
Household Hazardous Waste Collection
Hazardous waste collections were held for Wright County residents to aide in the
efficient and safe disposal of commonly used, yet potentially hazardous materials. The
two collection locations this year were in the cities of Monticello and Coksto. In total,
335 residents utilized the collections. The following is a breakdown of materiels
collected at the sites.
Acids and bases
2,350 pounds
Aerosols
232 gallons
Flammable Products
1,290 pounds
Fluorescent Lights
2,946 bulbs
Household Pesticides
850 pounds
Oil-based points
535 gallons
Used Motor Oil
1,430 gallons
Used oil filters
930 filters
//P
I CITY
ALBERTVILLE
ANNANDALE
BUFFALO
CLEARWATER
COKATO
I DELANO
HANOVER
fl HOWARD LAKE
1 MAPLE LAKE
MONTICELLO
MONTROSE
OTSE00
IROCKFORD
I SAINT MICHAEL
SOUTH HAVEN
WAVERLY
TOTAL TONS
- 1996 HOUSEF,)LD RECYCLING - -1
TONS RECYCLED BY CITIES OF WRIGHT COUNTY
I NawapapwI
Gluaa I
Ah.�i aaa I
.1old.d I
Raatic Inn
I
Mad I
Texidn I
TOTAL
& Tin92.80
C
27.28
8.91
6.65
6.98
0.00
0.00
0.00
142.62
82.70
23.91
16.59
1.23
12.23
0.00
0.00
0.00
136.88
392.68
121.02
44.43
38.52
55.96
32.60
0.00
7.78
692.99
41.90
10.88
4.65
2.15
3.77
0.00
0.00
0.00
63.13
121.95
25.49
6.88
4.62
6.57
0.00
0.00
4.27
171.66
273.87
40.70
47.15
34.90
20.39
0.64
0.00
0.00
417.66
31.14
13.79
4.23
3.39
2.88
0.46
0.00
0.00
65.89
54.47
16.95
4.73
2.03
3.35
0.12
0.00
0.00
81.65
61.28
17.88
12.71
0.00
8.93
0.00
0.00
0.00
100.80
404.13
43.63
70.64
18.57
40.69
7.41
4.37
0.00
587.44
49.16
8.92
3.87
1.08
4.14
0.00
0.00
0.00
67.17
114.64
38.97
25.15
0.00
2.03
0.68
3.00
0.00
184.35
108.36
28.74
17.28
5.03
8.08
0.95
0.00
0.00
168.44
313.76
91.37
27.18
18.44
22.24
1.63
0.00
0.00
474.52
6.65
3.36
1.87
0.12
1.36
0.00
0.00
0.00
12.26
18.76
9.07
4.18
6.42
4.46
16.10
1.25
1.69
60.02
2,187.04 1821.74
3 02.23
141.18
204.06
8.62
13.74_-
3,417A5_I
„69.37
WRIGHT COUNTY COMPOST & RECYCLING PLANT
Faced with the prospect of dwindling waste supplies for the compost facility, the
Wright County Board of Commissioners decided to close the Wright County Compost
& Recycling Facility. The facility had been in operation since 1991. The decision to
close the facility came last fall in response to court rulings which struck down the
ability to designate the flow of solid waste. Waste designation ordinances allowed
counties to determine where local solid waste should be disposed of or processed.
During the last several years, such ordinances were struck down by court rulings
which applied the rules of interstate commerce to waste management.
In order to have kept the plant in operation, the county would have had to lower the
tip fee (the fee charged per ton of solid waste brought to the facility by garbage
haulers) in order to compete with fees charged at landfills, local and out-of-state. This
would have required an increase in the amount paid by taxpayers in order to subsidize
the operation. The Wright County Board opted to shut down the plant and keep it in
a "ready state" for possible reopening. Changes in legislative laws could potentially
allow for reinstating of waste designation and reopening of the facility.
The compost plant quit receiving municipal solid waste on January 31 at of this year.
The municipal solid waste compost that was made at the facility had been used by
county homeowners and farmers, and for parks, golf courses and road projects.
Demand for the compost had steadily increased over the last five years, and it will be
missed by those who had used it.
Various options are now being considered to utilize the facility after shut -down.
Possible uses included, a drop-off center for recyclables and problem materials, such
as tires, oil, and household hazardous wastes.
�iR
- 1996 HOUSEFI)LD RECYCLING -
TONS RECYCLED
IN TOWNSHIPS
OF WRIGHT COUNTY
TOWNSHIP
I HawspepmI
Glass I
AWmhuim I
Cmrgtd. I
Mastic I
MegeNnes I
Mei I
Temiles
I TOTAL
8 Tin
Cmdhomd
ALBION
50.08
12.43
8.94
0.49
7.45
0.00
0.00
0.00
79.39
BUFFALO
34.02
13.46
16.64
0.00
21.99
0.00
0.00
0.00
86.11
CHATHAM
30.98
15.23
4.63
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
61.04
CLEARWATER
23.82
4.50
1.96
1.87
1.81
0.92
0.00
0.00
34.88
COKATO
11.88
6.34
1.88
0.36
1.29
0.00
0.00
0.39
21.92
CORRINA
73.85
25.45
6.61
0.00
4.93
0.74
0.00
0.00
111.48
FRANKLIN
124.32
41.29
17.03
6.98
8.88
0.00
0.00
0.00
198.50
FRENCH LAKE
14.70
10.94
3.74
0.41
1.85
0.00
0.00
0.00
31.64
MAPLE LAKE
62.15
20.10
5.43
1.16
4.10
0.60
0.00
0.00
83.54
MARYSVILLE
75.66
24.13
•8.18
1.91
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
109.77
MIDDLEVILLE
46.40
10.15
8.10
0.42
6.24
0.00
0.00
0.00
71.31
MONTICELLO
134.90
41.33
16.08
6.48
7.76
0.00
0.00
0.00
208.98
ROCKFORD
146.28
49.03
13.03
7.69
8.12
0.00
0.00
0.00
224.16 `
SILVER CREEK
96.50
28.13
20.24
2.41
13.77
2.35
0.00
0.00
169.40 Ij
SOLITHSIDE
15.29
6.01
3.09
0.21
3.38
0.00
0.00
0.00
28.67
STOCKHOLM
18.48
7.90
2.16
0.30
1.94
0.00
0.00
0.46
28.20
VICTOR
31.28
18.90
4.84
0.79
1.98
0.26
0.00
0,00
68.041
WOODLAND
29.80
0.36
2.83
1.70
1.65
0.00
0.00
0.00
42.44 k
TOTAL TONS
1007.24
341.66
149.29
33.18
97.14
4.89
0.00
0.8416M.23
'w�
V!
1996 REVENUE
A.
Building Permits
8235,421.00
Sewer Permits
39,225.00
(less Township reimbursements)
-5,405.00
(less State surcharge)
. 451.50
8268,789.50
B.
Planning Commission Fees
11,050.00
C.
Board of Adjustment Fees
11,325.00
D.
Monticello Orderly Annexation Fees
150.00
E.
Miscellaneous Fees
886.75
F.
Water Tests
3,325.00
G.
Sewer Certifications
2,055.00
H.
Administrative Orders/Deed Restrictions
2,100.00
I.
Community Health Grant
47,500.00
J.
State Shoreland Grant
10,716.00
K.
Water Management Grant
18,750.00
L.
Agricultural Preservation Program
220.00
M.
Zoning Ordinance & Land Use Plan Books
684.00
N.
Platting Fees
1,095.00
Refunds
and Reimbursements (not Including Township reimbursements) - 3,364.00
TOTAL REVENUE $375,282.25
// or
Planning Commission Agenda - 7/1/97
12.
1r can
use permit& zoning ordinance and subdivisl
Planning Commission is asked to review the following information and
discuss ideas for improving the submittal and processing of planning
applications. Land use applications that regularly come before the Planning
Commission include:
VARIANCE REQUESTS
CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS
SIMPLE SUBDIVISIONS
SUBDIVISION/PIATS
ZONING ORDINANCE TEXT OR MAP AMENDMENTS
City Staff has identified some opportunities and strategies for application
and process improvement:
Subdivisions and Conditional Use Permits Approved with
Contingencies:
Members of the Planning Commission have expressed concern
regarding the processing of conditional use permits and subdivision
plats with too many contingencies. Such contingencies have included
"approval subject to review by the City Engineer"; "approval subject to
review of landscaping plan by City staff," etc. Approval of planning
applications with contingencies is not preferred but occasionally occurs
when the need for additional information arises through the staff
review process and/or when the needs of the developer to expedite the
project exceed the need to determine all details prior to final approval.
Strategies—
We are doing a much better job of "gate keeping" since the
development of the Development Services Technician (DST) position.
Applications aro thoroughly screened for completeness prior to
placement on the Planning Commission agenda. User friendly forms
and informational handouts aro available to developers to assist in
preparation of their planning applications and submittals.
Planning Commission Agenda - 7/1/97
On occasion, certain requirements may be administratively waived by
staff in order to provide necessary bureaucratic flexibility to an
applicant; however, for the most part, applications move forward only
when application submittals are complete.
From time to time, information contained within an application needs
to be supplemented in order for the Planning Commission to make an
informed decision. That need for additional information or detail often
arises due to a unique circumstance relating to the site. The
information may be specific to engineering and completely unrelated to
planning, or it may be an engineering issue that does impact planning
decisions. Unfortunately, it is not always possible to project every
detail that could be included with each application.
We have identified three opportunities to address this issue:
J
We will again thoroughly review application submittal
requirements for each type of planning case and add any
previously unspecified submittal to our informational
public handouts and applications.
Such items may include specific detailed information
e regarding trees and landscaping to be identified on the
preliminary plat, or detailed utility system designs.
Currently, we are requiring that it be determined that a
project iR "feasible' from an engineering standpoint. The
Planning Commission is not normally provided with
information on specific engineering designs.
2. The City Engineer and public works department will
provide at least one review of each application prior to
entering the application on the Planning Commission
j agenda. We will ask the applicant to consider an update
'V to their original application submittals based on the
review by the City Engineer and the public works
department.
This strategy would require that the application be
submitted a lull month earlier to allow for a staff review
and plan revision cycle prior to Planning Commission
consideration. Adding a month at the front end of City
review time may not necessarily add a hill month to the
process because currently there is considerable review by
the City Engineer after the Planning Commission has
reviewed the plan. This idea makes sense because it
Planning Commission Agenda - 7/1/97
would provide the Planning Commission with a more
refined product and allow the Planning Commission to
review specific areas of contention between the private
engineer and the City Engineer when they arise.
The Planning Commission may at its discretion table any
item that it believes needs additional study or
information. If the Planning Commission is
uncomfortable with approving a project with
contingencies, then it may table the matter pending
collection of additional submittals or data.
The strategies above apply only to conditional use permit and
subdivision plat applications. Ordinance amendments and variances
do not typically result in significant contingencies; therefore, we do not
recommend extending the development cycle for review of variances
and zoning ordinance amendments. However, on occasion a zoning
ordinance amendment or variance may be linked to a conditional use
permit or subdivision approval. In such cases, the review cycles would
be linked automatically.
Documentation of Engineering Construction Design �.
Standards:
Currently, developers are introduced to and provided with engineering
construction standards only verbally in a meeting format. Meetings
are helpful but do not provide the developer with a comprehensive
written outline of design requirements. This appears to result in
submittal of plan sets that require significant revisions after the first
draft.
Strategies—
Provide developers with clearly written engineering construction
design standards and other vital information to assist them in
development of their initial submittals, r 5- �„ I..- I
Follow-up and Documentation of Planning Commission and
City Council Decisions and Actions:
Applicants are not always aware of the action by the Council, which
can result in unintended non-compliance.
Planning Commission Agenda - 7/1/97
Strategies --
Create a simple form and a routine process for summarizing action on
planning cases.
Complicated Zoning Ordinance - Difficult to Interpret When
Developing Site Plans:
Strategies --
Provide applicants with an abbreviated version of the zoning code
requirements along with a full copy of the text. Currently, only the
landscaping ordinance, setbacks, and other certain land use standards
are provided in a shortened, easy -to -understand -and -apply format. A
hazard of providing code requirements in a summary format is that
the developer may miss certain detailed code requirements due to
focus on the more general requirements outlined in summary.
Please review and discuss ideas and make recommendations for change as
appropriate.
Some of the ideas involve changes in process that will not result in added
workload for staff such as the idea to add a month to the subdivision review
cycle. Other ideas require additional staff time and resources that are simply
not available. Given the present workload, it is not realistic to expect
significant change to occur until City staff has the resources necessary to
follow through. The last thing we want to do is raise expectations of
improved performance, then fail to deliver. Please note that the City
Administrator has been reviewing the staffing situation and will likely be
making staling recommendations to allow us to make improvements
necessary to adequately support the Planning Commission's decision making.
Specific forms and development timelines associated with the development
process are available for your review.