The URL can be used to link to this page

Planning Commission Agenda Packet 11-04-1997AGENDA REGULAR MEETING - MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday, November 4,1997 - 8 p.m. Members: Dick Frie, Richard Carlson, Rod Dragsten, Dick Martie, Jon Bogart 1. Call to order. 2. Approval of minutes of the regular meeting held October 7, 1997. 3. Consideration of adding items to the agenda. 4. Citizens comments. 5. Public Hearing --Consideration of an application for Americlnn for a variance from the maximum 32 -ft height requirement applied to pylon signs which abut freeways. Applicant, Americlnn. 6. Public Hearing --Consideration of amendments to the City of Monticello Transportation Plan and the Comprehensive Plan for removal for relocation) of the Fallon Avenue/I-94 overpass project. Applicant, Church of St. Henry. 7. Public Hearing—Consideration of proposed zoning ordinance revisions implementing the goals and objectives of the Downtown Revitalization Plan in downtown Monticello. Applicant, City of Monticello. 8. Consideration of calling for a public hearing for an ordinance amendment amending Chapter 3, Section 2, Item [FJ, of the Monticello Zoning Ordinance, establishing regulations for the installation of fences. 8. Consideration of recommending adoption of a resolution supporting cooperation between City of Monticello, Sherburne County, Big Lake Township, and Becker Township in development of the Bridgeview Plat area. 10. Update on National Guard Community and Training Center. 11. Added items. 12. Adjournment. { A,00 t4,0'Vd,w�ltlacos /c.,n A�-3 Vo ,.to, i„ a 00 C R - 1 NOTE: The meeting will take place at 8 p.m. due to the School District elections. MINUTES REGULAR MEETING - MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday, October 7, 1897 - 7 p.m. Members Present: Dick Frie, Richard Carlson, Rod Dragsten, Jon Bogart Members Absent: Dick Martie Liaison Present: Clint Herbst Staff Present: Jeff O'Neill, Steve Grittman, Fred Patch, Wanda Kraemer 1. Call to order. The meeting was call to order by Chairman Frie. ROD DRAGSTEN MADE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE SEPTEMBER 2, 1997 MEETING. SECONDED BY JON BOGART. Motion passed unanimously. i 3. Vnngidpration of adding i pma to tht, awn a. Dick Frie added discussion on the Bridgeview Plat. 4. •itizp a comments. There were no comments. Steve Grittman, City Planner, reported that the applicant has withdrew the request. This item will require a new public hearing and notification of application for a second time. The property was zoned May of 1995 and for three years the zoning cannot be changed. The residents in attendance did state concern over the intersection of Fallon and County Road 117 and inquired as to procedures for a stop sign. They were referred to the public works department for information to petition for a Page 1 stop sign. Planning Commission Minutes - 10/7/97 1, 1 • .: , 1 : 1 U, 1 1 I , ,,, , :, W. :, , 171:11-11M.WRITF.T.Mv. Steve Grittman, City Planner, reported the Monticello County Club had requested consideration of a rezoning of a portion of their property from R-1 to R-2, which would allow a 14 unit townhouse project adjacent to the golf course. However, the Country Club had revised the site plan and eliminated the four townhomes directly in front of the single family homes. (The site plana were distributed to the Commissioners before the meeting.) The site in question is located adjacent to the entrance drive to the clubhouse and would require the relocation of an existing maintenance shed. Only the zoning will be reviewed at this meeting. Pending City action on the zoning, action could be taken at a future meeting with regard to the plat and Planned Unit Development which would be necessary to accommodate the project as proposed. Chairman Frie opened the public hearing. f Gene Fair, property owner, stated he and his wife were opposed to the rezoning of the property. They had purchased one of the first lots from the Monticello Country Club and the new proposal would block his view. Annie Fair, Property Owner, stated she had concerns about the service road not being wide enough to handle the added traffic. Francis Schuelke, property owner, stated when he purchased his lot he thought the golf course was like a park and the zoning could not be changed. Holly Indrelee, property owner, stated the townhouse in the proposed location will depreciate the value of her property. Merle Dahleimer, property owner, stated he had concerns regarding the increase in traffic. Al Stangler, property owner, stated his family bought the house on the golf course because the house had a view Ilrom each window. In his opinion, the townhomes would depreciate his value. Dick Brauch, former president of the country club, stated when you buy property Cyou do not buy the view. Harry Walsh, property owner, disputed the fact that when a person buys a home the Page 2 Planning Commission Minutes - 10/7/97 view can be an influence. Susie Wojchouski had concerns with the drainage and the traffic on the service road. Steve Grittman stated the applicant would be required to handle the storm water drainage. Chairman Frie closed the public hearing. The Planning Commissioners discussed the additional traffic, sight lines and if there would be a loss of value to the property owners. RICHARD CARLSON MADE A MOTION TO APPROVE, SECONDED BY JON BOGART, THE REZONING OF FROM R-1 TO R-2 TO ACCOMMODATE THE DEVELOPMENT OF A TOWNHOUSE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT AS PROPOSED BY THE MONTICELLO COUNTRY CLUB BASED ON THE FINDINGS THAT THE ZONING IS CONSISTENT WITH THE LAND USE AND NOT LIKELY TO DEPRECIATE THE AREA IN WHICTJ IT IS LOCATED. -The. P,�—ngplmnnaly_ Pubbe Hrayna-- .o aid ration of a conditional use permit to allow- 1) the es s+hliahm nt of an a + abode rep irr Rhon and accessory outdoor storage area within a B3j+ Highway Rujainesa. zoning district. 2► in planned unit dee loom nt mn ilio wl I Recmit . (PUD/ TP) o allow s nred +ae of n n + door a oraga area (with adincen auto whop), and.3) n variance from the inim m.30•ft rear yard sethnek ren +„omenta imposed in tho S-.1 20 ing is riet. Applicant. iohn to nso Steve Grittman, City Planner, reported Mr. Johnson has submitted a request to construct an autobody repair facility upon a 14,860 sq. foot parcel of land located south of Interstate 94 and west of Sandberg Road. There are three points to consider. First, the conditional use permit is to allow the establishment of an autobody repair facility (with accessory outdoor storage) within a B-3 Highway Business District. The purpose of the conditional use permit process is to enable the City Council to assign dimensions to a proposed use after consideration of an adjacent land use and their fiulctions. Second, if the planned unit development conditional use permit (PUD/CUP) will be allowed a shared use of an outdoor storage area (by an adjacent autobody repair facility). The applicant is proposing to share an outdoor storage area with an adjacent autobody shop to the north (also owned by the applicant). To accommodate this "shared use” arrangement, the processing of a planned unit development conditional use permit (PUD/CUP) is necessary. The PUD process is intended to Page 3 9 Planning Commission Minutes - 10/7/97 allow certain design flexibility in order to provide a more desirable development product. Aside from the referenced outdoor storage area, the PUD may also accommodate a shared parking arrangement and associated parking lot setback flexibility. Third, a variance from the minimum 30 foot rear yard setback imposed in B-3 Zoning Districts. Chairman Frie opened the public hearing. John Johnson, applicant, explained with the position of the building in relation to the office space and why the variance was requested. Johnson also inquired if Marvin Road would be closed because then a variance would not be needed. Jeb' ONeill, Assistant Administrator, stated the future of Marvin Road has not been determined. O'Neill read a letter from Greg Smith, neighboring property owner against the expansion because of current encroachment on his property. Johnson answered that was not his business but General Rental. Fred Labrum, applicant's future renter, inquired why this expansion was labeled a body shop when it was for a detail shop. Grittman explained the code lists detailing shops under the autobody category. JON BOGART MADE A MOTION TO APPROVE, SECONDED BY RICHARD CARLSON, THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AS PER THE SITE PLAN. MOTION TO APPROVE A PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW AN AUTOBODY REPAIR FACILITY (WITH ACCESSORY OUTDOOR STORAGE) WITHIN A B-3 ZONING DISTRICT, AND SHARED USE OF AN OUTDOOR STORAGE AREA PER THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: THE SUBMITTED SITE PLAN IS MODIFIED TO COMPLY WITH APPLICABLE OFF-STREET PARKING REQUIREMENTS (11 SPACES REQUIRED). CONSIDERATION IS GIVEN TO CONSOLIDATING THE PARKING LOTS OF THE SUBJECT SITE AND ADJACENT NORTHERLY SITE IN A MANNER SIMILAR TO THAT ILLUSTRATED UPON EXHIBIT C. THE CITY ATTORNEY PROVIDE COMMENT AND RECOMMENDATION IN REGARD TO ISSUES ASSOCIATED WITH POSSIBLE FUTURE SALE OF THE SUBJECT SITE OR ADJACENT NORTHERLY PROPERTY. Page 4 0 Planning Commission Minutes - 10/7/97 4. THE OUTDOOR STORAGE AREA IS REDUCE IN SIZE TO NOT MORE THAN 50 PERCENT OF THE AREA OF THE PRINCIPAL BUILDING. 5. THE OUTDOOR VEHICLE STORAGE AREA IS MINIMALLY SCREENED BY A SIX FOOT HEIGHT, 100 PERCENT OPAQUE FENCE WHICH IS DESIGNED TO BLEND WITH THE AUTO BODY SHOP AND WHICH IS CONSTRUCTED OF MATERIALS TREATED TO RESIST DISCOLORATION. 6. THE OUTDOOR VEHICLE STORAGE AREA IS SURFACED IN ASPHALT OR CONCRETE. 7. EXTERIOR FINISH MATERIALS OF THE BODY SHOP COMPLY WITH APPLICABLE ORDINANCE REQUIREMENTS. 8. ALL EXTERIOR LIGHTING IS HOODED AND DIRECTED SUCH THAT THE LIGHT SOURCE IS NOT VISIBLE FROM PUBLIC RIGHTS-OF-WAY OR NEIGHBORING RESIDENCES. 9. ALL SITE SIGNAGE COMPLY WITH APPLICABLE PROVISIONS OF THE ORDINANCE. 10, THE SITE PLAN IS MODIFIED TO ILLUSTRATE AN OFF-STREET LOADING SPACE. Motion based on the following findings: the proposed project is consistent with the spirit and intent of the Monticello comprehensive plan goals and policies and in keeping with the intent of the zoning ordinance, is consistent with the purpose of the performance standards of the zoning ordinance and planned unit development, will not have any adverse impacts as outlined in the conditional use permit section of the zoning ordinance, the proposed project shall provide adequate parking and loading as outlined herein, and shall not impose any undue burden upon public facilities and services. Motion passed unanimously. JON BOGART MADE A MOTION TO DENY, SECONDED BY ROD DRAGSTEN, THE VARIANCE FROM THE MINIMUM 30 FOOT REAR YARD SETBACK REQUIREMENT IMPOSED IN THE B-3 ZONING DISTRICT BECAUSE NO HARDSHIP WAS DEMONSTRATED ON THE SITE PLAN. Motion passed unanimously. Puhli H rino..Gonaideratinn nf- 1) n conditinnnl uan permit to allnw npen/nutdoor s o aue, wale and service and nutemnhib (recreational vehiL.le l n+nnir wi hin w B-'1 zo inB is ri t.nd 21 n v rinnee m Lha minimum B. wetho k im +eon p r in8 areas and associated with commercial uses Awheant Snare Medlock nd Mi hw 1 Vnlnnte on behalf of Mnntieello RV CAnter. Ine- Page 5 0 Planning Commission Minutes - 10/7/97 Steve Grittman, City Planner, reported Bruce Medlock and Michael Galante on behalf of the Monticello RV Center Inc. have submitted a request to establish a recreational vehicle center upon a 4.3 acre parcel of land located north of I-94 and west of Elm Street (former Rolling Wheels Go -Cart and mini -golf site). The proposed RV center would involve the sale, rental, service of recreational vehicles and enclosed utility trailers, sales and installation of RV towing accessories and seasonal storage of recreational vehicles. The conditional use permit would allow the following activities in a B-3 zone, open/outdoor storage, opentoutdoor salea/service, minor automobile (recreational vehicle) repair. A request for a variance to allow off-street parking within five feet of a lot line will be discussed. Chairman Frie opened the public hearing. Bruce Medlock, applicant, stated the site offers freeway exposure, the topography works well with the use and the neighborhood, a chain link fence will be added on the property line, and the site meets current sign codes and lighting. Medlock also added that because of the July 1 storm his current building had extensive damage and time is of the essence to find a new site. Medlock added that the City would be purchasing the current site for the Hwy 25 project. The Commissioners questioned the noise level of this type of business next to a residential area and the condition of the parking area Medlock replied the &eeway produces more noise than their shop will. The dense tree buffer will block the shop from the residential area. The parking lot would not be resurfaced at this time but will be phased in over time. Fred Patch, Building Official, added the site is not being served by city utilities and the well and septic system will need to be certified. Modlock stated this had just been competed and the site had passed. DICK FRIE MADE A MOTION TO APPROVE, SECONDED BY JON BOGART, THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW OPEN/OUTDOOR STORAGE, SALES AND SERVICE, AND MINOR AUTOMOBILE (RECREATIONAL VEHICLE) REPAIR IN A B-3 TONING DISTRICT PER THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: ALL OUTDOOR STORAGE AND SALES AREAS ARE SCREENED FROM THE VIEW OF ABUTTING RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRACTS AND PUBLIC RIGHTS-OF-WAY IN ACCORDANCE WITH APPLICABLE CITY SCREENING REQUIREMENTS INCLUDED A 20 FOOT LANDSCAPE Page 6 0 Planning Commission Minutes -10/7/97 YARD ALONG THE SITE'S NORTHERN BOUNDARY. 2. A LANDSCAPE PLAN IS SUBMITTED WHICH IDENTIFIES THE LOCATION, TYPE, AND SIZE OF ALL SITE PLANTINGS. 3. THE CRUSHED ROCK SURFACING OF THE OUTDOOR SALES AREA IS CONTAINED BY CURBING, EDGING, OR AN ELEVATION CHANGE (LOWER) FROM THE BORDERING OFF-STREET PARKING AREAS AS DEEMED APPROPRIATE BY THE CITY BUILDING OFFICIAL. 4. ALL EXTERIOR LIGHTING IS HOODED AND DIRECTED SUCH THAT THE LIGHT SOURCE IS NOT VISIBLE FROM PUBLIC RIGHTS-OF-WAY OR NEIGHBORING RESIDENCES. 5. THE SITE PLAN IS REVISED TO ILLUSTRATE INDIVIDUAL PARKING STALLS (INCLUDING THOSE DEVOTED TO THE HANDICAPPED). 8. PROVISIONS ARE MADE TO CONTROL AND REDUCE NOISE ASSOCIATED WITH THE PROPOSED RECREATIONAL VEHICLE REPAIR ACTIVITIES. 7. THE CITY ENGINEER PROVIDE COMMENT AND RECOMMENDATION REGARDING DRAINAGE ISSUES. 8. THE SITES PRINCIPAL BUILDING COMPLY WITH APPLICABLE HEIGHT AND BUILDING MATERIAL REQUIREMENTS. 9. ALL SITE SIGNAGE COMPLY WITH APPLICABLE PROVISIONS OF THE ORDINANCE. 10. THE SITE PLAN IS MODIFIED TO ILLUSTRATE AN OFF-STREET LOADING SPACE. The motion is based on the following findings: The proposed project is consistent with the spirit and intent of the Monticello comprehensive plan goals and policies and in keeping with the intent of the zoning ordinance, is consistent with the purpose of the performance standards of the zoning ordinance, will not have any adverse impacts as outlined in the conditional use permit section of the zoning ordinance, shall provide adequate parking and loading as outlined, shall not impose any undue burden upon public facilities and services, the zoning administrator monitors opportunities to phase in improvements over time. Motion passed unanimously. JON BOGART MADE A MOTION TO DENY, SECONDED BY ROD DRAGSTEN, A VARIANCE TO ALLOW AN OFF-STREET PARKING AREA (ASSOCIATED WITH Page 7 9) Planning Commission Minutes - 10/7/97 A COMMERCIAL USE) WITHIN FIVE FEET OF A LOT LINE. Motion based on the findings that a non -economic hardship has not been demonstrated and the property in question can be put to reasonable use if the variance is denied. Motion passed unanimously. Steve Grittman, City Planner, reported Roger Hedtke on behalf of Snyder Drug has requested a variance from the City's off-street parking area setbacks and driveway location requirements. Such variances respond to the applicant's desire to construct a prescription pick-up lane at their existing drug store located north of 4th Street and east of Walnut Street. Specifically, the applicant wishes to reconfigure an existing, non -conforming driveway located south of the drug store such that the westernmost access to 4th Street terminate and a new access to Walnut Street be constructed. The reconfigured drive lane would be used for the pick-up of prescriptions. Grittman added that it was his opinion the request for the variance could endanger public safety specifically at the intersection of Walnut and 4th street. Chairman Frie opened the public hearing. Roger Hedke, applicant, stated a drive up window has been very popular in other business similar to his and he was just trying to research a way to have a window at his present site. Hedke was aware of the intersection and the traffic delays or congestions that could occur. The Commissioners discussed options for a one way enter and exit drive -lane but were still concerned about the safety. In the future if this business moved and the building was purchased by a company with a busier drive up trade (fast food) it would present a very dangerous traffic problem. Fred Patch, Building Official, reported he had been working with Mr. Hedke on other ideas such as the tubes used at most banks. Hodko stated the tube system is too rough for his product. After a lengthy discussion of possible alternatives, DICK FRIE MADE A MOTION TO DENY, SECONDED BY JON BOGART, THE VARIANCE FROM THE MINIMUM FIVE FOOT PARKING AREA SETBACK (IMPOSED UPON COMMERCIAL USES) AND MINIMUM 40 FOOT SEPARATION FROM INTERSECTING STREETS. Page 8 0 Planning Commission Minutes - 10/7/97 Motion based on the findings: a non -economic hardship has not been demonstrated, approval of the variance would increase congestion on public streets and endanger the public safety, an accessory drive-through facility in the city's downtown area is discouraged by the city's downtown plan. Motion passed unanimously. 10. Puh i . H ring-- .o aid ration of a variance from the 30 -ft front ,yard setback imposed 'n R-2 zoning is ricfa Appli n _ Id nd raon. Steve Grittman, City Planner, reported Mr. Gerald Anderson has requested approval of a variance from the City's 30 foot front yard setback requirement to accommodate an expansion of his existing attached garage located at 408 East River Street. The applicant is proposing to expand his existing single stall garage to include a second stall and lengthen the existing single stall (from 17 to 24 foot depth). The expanded garage is proposed to lie 19 feet from the subject property's front lot line. The resident currently lies 23 feet from the front lot line and exists as a legal nonconformity. Chairman Frie opened the public hearing. Gerald Anderson, applicant, stated he requested a variance because to build in the rear of his house it would involve moving a sewer line, extensive replumbing in the house, and creating a long driveway. Roger Olson, neighbor, was not concerned with the setback but was concerned if Anderson built in the rear yard that snow removal would be difficult and would cause problems with Olson's property. The Commissioners discussed the location of the houses on either side of Anderson's, the size of garage that would be needed for today's vehicles, and the added value to the property. Because it would be an upgrade to the property and cause less problems by granting the variance than to build within the setbacks in the rear yard the following motion was made. RICHARD CARLSON MADE A MOTION TO APPROVE, SECONDED BY JON BOGART, A VARIANCE FROM THE MINIMUM 30 FOOT FRONT YARD SETBACK IMPOSED IN THE R2 ZONING DISTRICT TO ALLOW A 19 FOOT FRONT YARD SETBACK. Motion based on the findings: 1 -it allows an addition for a two stall garage; 2- it will appreciato the value of the applicant's property, 3 -it will not depreciate the value of the neighborhood; and 4 -create reasonable use of the property. Motion passed unanimously. 11. Puh ie H ring»Consideration of 11 a zoning o innneo nn amen moot h n� nv the Aiatriet d signation from AO, Agricultural Opn Rpaacn, in 11_'1� High= Pago 9 0 Planning Commission Minutes - 10/7/97 Steve Grittman, City Planner, reported, Gould Brothers Chevrolet had submitted plans to expand its existing automobile dealership structure located south of Interstate 94 and west of Marvin Road. Specifically, the applicant is proposing various additions to it's existing building which total 13,300 square feet in area. Such additions will result in a building measuring 28,100 square feet in size. Grittman added the applicant is requesting a change in district designation from AO to B-3/Highway Business, a conditional use permit to allow outdoor sales, outdoor storage, and automotive body repair, and also a variance from the City's off-street parking curbing requirements. Chairman Frie opened the public hearing. Jay Johnson, general contractor for Goulds, stated that the owners are not opposed to the requirements however are requesting the curbing be phased in over time. Milton Olson, business owner next to Gould's, stated the blacktop area on Gould's property starts on the property line and it does not have the five foot setback. Olson added that he does have a problem with people driving through the Gould's lot looking at the vehicles for sale and turning around on his property. If Goulds is not required to put in curbing then he will need to add a fence. ROD DRAGSTEN MADE A MOTION TO APPROVE, SECONDED BY RICHARD CARLSON, THE REZONING OF THE PROPERTY FROM A-0, AGRICULTURAL OPEN SPACE TO B-3, HIGHWAY BUSINESS SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS. Motion passed unanimously. ROD DRAGSTEN MADE A MOTION TO APPROVE, SECONDED BY JON BOGART, A PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT AND A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW OUTDOOR SALES, OUTDOOR STORAGE, AND AUTO BODY REPAIR IN A B-3 ZONING DISTRICT SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: THE CITY APPROVE THE REQUESTED REZONING OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY FROM AN A-0, AGRICULTURAL OPEN SPACE TO A B-3, HIGHWAY BUSINESS DESIGNATION. THE OUTDOOR VEHICLE STORAGE AREA NOT EXCEED 50 PERCENT OF THE AREA OF THE AUTOMOBILE BODY SHOP. Page 10 Planning Commission Minutes - 10/7/97 3. THE OUTDOOR STORAGE AREA IS SCREENED VIA A SIZE FOOT HIGH, 100 PERCENT OPAQUE FENCE DESIGNED TO BLEND WITH THE PRINCIPAL BUILDING AND TREATED TO RESIST DISCOLORATION. 4. THE OUTDOOR VEHICULAR STORAGE AREA IS SURFACED IN ASPHALT OR CONCRETE PAVING. 6. THE APPLICANT SUBMIT INFORMATION NECESSARY TO DETERMINE THE AMOUNT OF OFF-STREET PARKING REQUIRED OF THE USE. 6. THE SITE PLAN IS REVISED TO ILLUSTRATE INDIVIDUAL OFF- STREET PARKING STALLS (IN COMPLIANCE WITH ORDINANCE REQUIREMENTS) AND VEHICLE DRIVE LANES. T. OFF-STREET PARKING SPACES INTENDED FOR CUSTOMER PARKING ARE DELINEATED VIA STRIPING, LANDSCAPING ALONG CUSTOMER PARKING AREA, AND PERIMETER CURBING ON THE EAST LINE. 8. BUILDING ELEVATIONS ARE SUBMITTED WHICH ILLUSTRATE THE DESIGN OF THE PROPOSED STRUCTURE ADDITIONS AND SPECIFY FINISH MATERIALS (IN COMPLIANCE WITH ORDINANCE REQUIREMENTS). 9. THE SITE'S ADVERTISING SIGN (BILLBOARD) IS REMOVED WITHIN FIVE YEARS OF THE DATE OF PUD/CUP APPROVAL. 10. THE SITE PLAN IS REVISED TO IDENTIFY THE PROPOSED LOCATION OF THE "RELOCATED" GAS TANK. 11. ALL SITE SIGNAGE COMPLY WITH APPLICABLE PROVISIONS OF THE ORDINANCE. 12. THE SITE PLAN IS REVISED TO ILLUSTRATE AN OFF-STREET LOADING SPACE. 13. THE CITY ENGINEER PROVIDE COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATION IN REGARD TO DRAINAGE ISSUES. The motion was based on the findings that the project is consistent with the spirit and intent of the Monticello comprehensive plan goals and policies and in keeping with the intent of the zoning ordinance, will not have any adverse impacts as outlined in the conditional use permit section of the zoning ordinance, shall provide adequate parking and loading as outlined herein and shall not impose any undue burden upon public facilities and services. Motion passed unanimously. Pago 11 0 All �\ W� VP ` G "I 110 A Planning Commission Minutes - 10/7/97 -] ROD DRAGSTEN MADE A MOTION TO DENY, SECONDED BY JON BOGART, ALLOWING AN OFF-STREET PARKING AREA (ASSOCIATED WITH A COMMERCIAL USE) WITHOUT PERIMETER CURBING. Motion based on the following findings: Non -economic hardship has not been demonstrated to warrant approval of the requested variance, the property in questions can be put to reasonable use if the variance request is denied, the curbing will be phased in when applicant improves site. Motion passed unanimously. IM : 14r. . 1 MMT 1 ,1 1 111 1 • M . I ,1 1 1 1 11 .11 71 11, 1 1 "M11 1 1 1 1 1 1 • .1 ' •1 I ,,1 . 1 .11 .11 M=...J 1/ 1T M.I Steve Grittman, City Planner, reported Little Mountain Feed has requested approval of the construction of a loading dock on the south side of its main building. The loading dock would be in violation of the setback adjacent to the Burlington Northern Railroad, and requires approval from the railroad for use of some of its right-of-way for access. Due to the mix of uses on this site (including office, retail, industrial, and warehousing), the most appropriate process is through the rezoning of the parcel to Planned Unit Development District PUD). Grittman added in the PUD District, the underlying Comprehensive Plan manages land use, but conceivably, any mix of land uses is possible. The use of PUD would also be important in this case to manage a staged series of site improvements to the property which includes a number of non -conformities. These include uncontrolled site access, minimal landscaping and buffering, and lack of paving for either retail of industrial traffic. The PUD Zoning process allows the City to approve expansions to otherwise non -conforming land uses, and negotiate a staging of site improvements designed to bring the parcel into conformance. Chairman Frio opened the public hearing. Jeff Burns, applicant, replied there is an 8 foot fence separating his business from the residential area. There are future plans to move the retail area so Burns would prefer not to pave the lot at this time. (The adjacent area and city street are gravel also.) DICK FRIE MADE A MOTION TO APPROVE, SECONDED BY RICHARD CARLSON, THE REZONING OF THE SITE FROM 1.2 TO PUD, PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT. The motion was based on the findings that the PUD zoning district will allow the city to best manage the impacts of the proposed use in conformance with the Pago 12 Planning Commission Minutes - 10/7/97 comprehensive plan, the proposed uses are appropriate in the city's effort to redevelop its downtown area, as identified in the MCP plan, the proposed zoning will not have adverse impacts on the neighboring land uses. Motion passed unanimously. JON BOGA.RT MADE A MOTION TO APPROVE, SECONDED BY ROD DRAGSTEN, THE ISSUANCE OF A PUD PERMIT TO THE SUBJECT PROPERTY, WITH STAGED SITE IMPROVEMENTS TO MATCH EXPANSION OF THE BUSINESS ON THE EXISTING SITE. The motion was based on the following findings that expansion of the business is appropriate, given the proximity to sunny fresh, the addition of the loading dock is an insignificant expansion, and should not key the need to provide other site improvements at this time. Motion passed unanimously. RICHARD CARL -SON MADE A MOTION TO APPROVE, SECONDED BY ROD DRAGSTEN, THE VARIANCE TO PERMIT THE CONSTRUCTION OF A LOADING DOCK WITHIN THE REQUIRED SETBACK AREA ADJACENT TO THE BURLINGTON NORTHERN RAILROAD. Motion is based on the finding that there are not feasible alternatives to the loading dock location on the property, the loading dock is reasonably necessary to permit the continued viability of the business in this location, and the proposed location of the dock will have the least impact on the surrounding neighborhood. Motion passed unanimously. ;In 1 In: .: I 1 1 1:I • —IT". . 11 . 11 . 11 : 1 . 11:1 ,' -)A --I I ON • Y 1 • M t .: 1 '11 •' I 1 4 1 111 11 1 ::1 1 1 Jeff OWeill, Assistant Administrator, reported the Industrial Development Committee has suggested that the City restructure the current Business Campus District in an effort to make the land within the District more attractive to development. The IDC has concluded that the lack of industrial development in the BC zoned areas is attributable, at least in part, to both the perception of the District as unhiendly to development, and the reality of a concern over buildable areas limited by the landscaping requirements. DICK FRIE MADE A MOTION TO APPROVE, SECONDED BY RICHARD CARLSON, THE RENAMING OF THE B -C, BUSINESS CAMPUS DISTRICT TO 1 - IA, INDUSTRIAL BASED ON THE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE'S RECOMMENDATION. Motion passed unanimously. ROD DRAGSTEN MADE A MOTION TO APPROVE, SECONDED BY RICHARD Page 13 Planning Commission Minutes - 10/7/97 CARLSON, THE ORDINANCE AMENDING THE BUSINESS CAMPUS DISTRICT BY CHANGING THE LOT COVERAGE REQUIREMENTS RELATING TO MINIMUM LANDSCAPE AREA BY THE ELIMINATION OF THE PERCENTAGE LANDSCAPE AREA Motion passed unanimously. 14. Zoning rdinan visio a (outline form) for consideration in 'm�lementine tl+ MCP Plan go la and objectives in downtown Monticello. :` 15. Steve Grittman, City Planner, reported the City Council had recently approved the adoption of the MCP plan as an amendment to the City's Comprehensive Plan. This report provides a conceptual outline of a proposed zoning district which would be designed to implement the MCP plan. Rather than attempt to adjust one of the City's current zoning districts, we would propose to create a new district which is specifically tailored to the unique aspects of Monticello's downtown and the Goals and Objects of the downtown plan. We have entitled this district the Central Community district. DICK FRIE MADE A MOTION TO CALL FOR A PUBLIC HEARING FOR CONSIDERATION OF AN AMENDMENT TO THE ZONING ORDINANCE ESTABLISHING A DOWNTOWN ZONING DISTRICT, SECONDED BY JON BOGART. Motion passed unanimously. ROD DRAGSTEN MADE A MOTION TO TABLE, SECONDED BY JON BOGART, THE ORDINANCE AMENDMENT TO TITLE 10, CHAPTER 3, SECTION 2 (G), OF THE MONTICELLO ZONING ORDINANCE RELATING TO REQUIRED FENCING, SCREENING, AND LANDSCAPING BY ADDING TREE PRESERVATION AND REPLACEMENT REGULATIONS. Motion passed unanimously. 16. AdWuMMCAL ROD DRAGSTEN MADE A MOTION TO ADJOURN THE MEETING. SECONDED BY RICHARD CARLSON. Motion passed unanimously. Wanda Kraemer Development Services Technician Page 14 0 piannmg Commisalon Agenda - 1110497 CPublic Nearing- Con+idaraftt of a rmnsest for a variance from the maximum 32 foot hdtahi reeulrMMnt accred to pAgn SIB= WhicMr� h abut frae A Icantc Amedeinn. (NAC) - Background. Amentc Inn has requested appncrval of a variance from the maximum 32 foot heVt requirement applied to pylon signs which abut freeways. Amens. Inn is located east of Highway 25 between 1-94 and 7th Street. Specifically, the applicants wish to replace a prevlously existing legal nonconforming pylon sign which was destroyed in this summer's storm. The reptacemeru sign would measure 55 feet In height and 200 square feet In area The sign would differ slightly from that which previously existed in that a fia�1u .,. l &wisva wraco aeir sign isnot to be attedwd. a.n &0-. Ls" Nonconformity. As noted proviously, the Arnotic Inn sign which praviously existed upon tete subject site was destroyed by Oft summers ata.. Although legally established, the sign did not mnfortn with the Cily s maximum 32 foot height requirement which applies to pylon signs which abut freeways. According to Section 39.0.2 of the Ordinance, non- conforming signs may not be roeatsbllahhad after damage of more than 50 percent of sign r^ reptaaement cost, a to bring (the sign) into compllance. Thus, to accommodate the pylon sign replacement, the processing of a variance is necessary. Area freestanding Sign Heights. In recent year, the City has entertained several requests for sign height variances for businesses In the vicinity of the Amerle Inn (proximate to ft 1.9"ighway 25 interchange). These have included numerous signs %+Kh do not conform to the height requirements of the Ordinance, and were either given Interpretations which did not require varlancos, or were granted variances beyond the allowed height. However, the Planning Commission has recently reaffirmed Its intent to enforce the onrrent Ordinance and an Interpretation of the Ordinance which most closely reftem its Gear maaning. As a result. pylon signs are to granted a height of 32 hot abm the elevation tram which the sign receives its principal exposure, meaning a directly adjacent medway. This interpretation has been applied to ft Perkins sign which was also blown down in the su rfn. Tho sppimabio adjacent roadway etevatlon is the slevatim at a point on the road which is directly perpendicular to the lot lire between road and tlts proposed location of the sign on the property. Soo Exhibit C for an example of this unapt, Variance Evaluation COW& Section 234 of the Ordinantoe states that in considering roquests for variance. the Planning Commission and city staff must met a finding ffhet �., approval of ft variance will not W Mann ft Conradsolen As«wa. - 11Jaear 1. Impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent property. 2. Unreasonably inereooe the congestion in the public street 3. Increase the danger of fire or endanger the public 90sty. 4. Unreasonably diminish or impair astabllshed property values within the neighborhood or in any other way be contrary to the Intent of the ordinance. The ordinance tWther states that a flnding of noneconomic hardship must be made and that the property in question cannot be put to reasonable use If the variance Is denied. MardaNp. The allowance of a pylon sign 32 feet above the adjscant ramp elevation of 1-94 mora than adequately provides an opportun:y for business IdsntKlebtion. As noted above, this Woorprotatlon hos boon applied to other signs. moat recently. the Pertdns sign. Moreover, two Is no demonstration of non -economic hardship, no eonaitions which are unique to the subject property to warrant approval of the requested variance from this standard. � B t TFRNATh/E ACTIONS• 1. Motion to approve the application for a vwlanco from the CIW@ maximum 32 foot height requirement applied to pylon Signe which abut frsaweys based upon the following findings: a. Approval of the vorlar" WHI not: (1) impair an adequate supply of light and air to o0ognt property. (Z) Uroeswnaby, incroase the congestion in the pUbllc arrest. (3) Increase t» dsngsr of fire or ar4"or the public safoy. (4) Unreasonably diminish or Impair estabildod property values within Ow neighborhood In any other way be contrary to the Intont of the Zordng Ordinance. b. The sub{ect proporty cannot be pul to reasonable use if the request Is denied. plw- i comeftalon A6wft - t 110167 2. Notion to deny the application for a vertwm from the City mac t= 32 Mot helpht requ4ement applied to pylon signs whlah abut f emays based upon the following findings: G. Norwocorornia hardship has not been dowAnstroted to wartarrt approval of the requested varve". b. The property in question can be put to reesonoble use If the variance request Is denied. C. The intwpreteft apptled by this report has boon applled to other applicants In the RMadlOto ares, arld represents tlw most equitable method of dotarmining appropriate sign height. In consideration of thb requast @fall .... „ . that the alp height variance not be approved. Use of the thowm ramp Navotiom so the 64mm roadway for height domWnstion should allow the applicant edequaW vWAlty thorn tla tragic an the �. Rotate. To dotennino the oppr, I i@ss halK We egghead should oert!!y both the sign'$ Around elevation and the * way romp elevation. Should the 66 foot @]on oxoeed tho f&MP elevation, the pylon holght should be r duaed to 32 fast above the rernp of tho specified Icntlon. Bldllblt A - Site Location E40it B - Sign Plan Exhlbll C - Sign Location EKW490 Qw-v.010 j07 ' isi. 0 /f ■ axx Wmr srw 2- W.o V V Owe WHrTE COLM BltM X-0" ,r16' f'F� 30, W 0., • GQAD�— R& ixorltM- - o� S;M.T,4f y AK 04Nap r. Cl �I wasw C x �P Chow TOM ..97 4o•. NEW AVENUE CURB IM vkw T a :6— Feneee Pemitted 16ti 100t;oitol lens hakht ......... ' dim . HOUSE 8 GAl1AGE_ :MOUSE 6 GARAGE O PROPEiity usf ate, PMPERTY ME 16' NEW FENCE ORDINANCE EFFECTS NEW AVENUE CURB Cher Vias Triangle 26 _ 1 ' • / No Fences Permitted toJ Ordy d Railroad X-kkq P —,Af, - D. Fences mutt not exceed Il' in height in required yard setback areas. When not in required yard setback areae. fences up 1015 ISM In height may be elected by permit. 25 A; j'MOUSE 8, GABA �j�; •� 8 l3AMGE Wq /GE ,HOUSE q ^I�.l��' •i�:� 1 ..I. ii:li N,' ,r .�jg it n;,il�� !j�' J ill � r"i.i...41u�i 1 1'ii �.n..�i • � I I ..I i.��ii :. 1 - .... ; , 1 d. ................."PROPEATVLINE------------------ 0 Fences owst be eettNek 2 feel hos O Wning property Ilse except when a recorded ileenos agmemenl exists betwan neighboring primp• M O i■ PROPERI V I II* EXISTING FENCE ORDINANCE EFFECTS Pq OCT -31-1997 0920 NRC 612 595 9837 P.02ie7 Pbmft Cammislon Agenda -11/0497 _ Public Himd a: Censideratton of a Mamest for a variangs f rn the maximum 32 foot height reaulrement applied to pylon cions which abut freeways_ Applie nt: Amod nn. (NAC) Background Amerce Inn has requested approval of a variance from the maximum 32 foot heightrequirement applied to pylon signs which abut freeways. Americ Inn is located east of Highway 25 between 144 and 7th Street Specifically, the applicants wish to replace a previously existing legal nonconforming pylon sign which was destroyed in this summer's storm The replacement sign would measure 55 feet in height and 200 square feet in area. The sign would differ slightly, from that which previously existed in that a �Iu ^ALO aewerlevM,'Taco Beir sign snot to be attached. �n Legal N. ,.,- �. „ ly. As. previously, the AmeriG Inn sign which previously existed upon the a, Mad eke was destroyed by this mmrmw n storm. Although legally established, the sign did not center. with the CiVe maximum 32 foot height requirement which applies to pylori signs which Whit freeways. According to Section 3-9.D.2 of the Ordinance, non- cordorning signs may not be re-established W1W damage of more than 50 percent of sign replacement cost except to bring (the sign) into compliance. Thus, to eaommcdate the pylon sign replaoernent, the processing of a variance Is necessary. Area Freestanding Sign Heights. In recent years, the City hes aMertairbd several requests for sign height variances for businesses In the vicinity of the Americ Inn (proximate to the I494/Highway 26 interchange). These have Included numerous signs which do not conform to the height requirements of the Ordinance, and were either given interpretations which did not require varlerees, or were granted variances beyond the allowed height. However, the Planning Commission has recently reef firmed Its intent to enforce the cur wd Ordinance and an Interpretation of the Ordinance which most closely reflects its dear meaning. As a result pylon signs aro to granted a height of 32 fact above the elevation from which the sign receives its principal exposure, meaning a directly adjacent roadway. This interpretation has been applied to the Perkins sign which was also blown down in the storm The applicable adjacent roadway elevation Is the elevation at a point on the road which Is directly perpendicular to the lot line between road and the proposed location of the sign on the property, See E*dWt C for an exarhpie of this concept Variance Evaluation Criteria. Section 23-3 of the Ordinance states that in considering requests for variance, the Planning Commission and City staff must melee a finding that approval of the variance will not: OCT -31-1997 09 20 IW 612 595 9837 P.03/V PtanNna CWwAWW Apaids -11!0497 1. Impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent property. 2. Unreasonably increase the congestion in cite public street 3. Increase the danger of fire or endanger the public safety. 4. Unreasonably diminish or f q)Wr established property values within the neighborhood or in any other way be contrary to the intent of the ordinance. The ordinance Auther states that a finding of nm -economic hardship must be made and that the property in question cannot be put to reasonable use If the variance Is denied. Nardshlp. The allowance of a pylon sign 32 feet above the adjacent ramp elevation of 14% more than adequately provides an opportunity for business identification. As noted above, @ds f :.,:,i has been applied to other signs, most recently, the Pertdns sign. Moreover, there Is no demonstration of non Ic hardship. nor conditions which are unique to the subject property to warrant approval of the requested variance from this standard. B. ALTERNATIVE ACTION8: b 1. Motion to approve the application for a vartance from the City's mwdmum 32 foot height requirement applied to pylon signs which abut freeways based upon the following findings: a. Approval of the variance will not (1) Impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent property. (2) lMreasonaby Increase the coeWstiort in the public street (3) Increase the danger of fire or endanger the public so". (4) unreasonably diminish or impair established property values within the neighborhood In any other way be contrary to the Intent of the Zwft Ordinance. to, The subject propotty cannot be put to reasonable use If the request Is denied. OCT -31-1947 0920 NRC 612 5% 9837 P-04/07 Phiruft COMMMon Agenda - t IM07 2. Motion to deny the application for a variance from the City maximum 32 That height requirement applied to pylon signs which abut freeways based upon the following findings: a. W.... .......Ic hardship has not been demonstrated to warrant approval of the requested variance. b. The property In question can be put to reasonable use if the variance request is denied a The IrterpreteUon applied by this resort has boon applied to other applicants In the immediate area, and represents the most equitable method of determining appropriate sign height In consideration of this request, staff . .... that the sign height variance not be approved. Use of the freeway ramp elevatlon as the atowd roadway for height determination should allow the applicant adequate visibility from the traffic on the Irate. To determine the appropriate height, the applicant should certify both the sign's ground elevation and the freeway ramp elevation. Should the 65 foot sign exceed the ramp elevation, the pylon height should be reduced to 32 feet above the ramp at the specified location. Exhibit A - Site Location Exhibit B - Sign Plan Exhibit C - Sign Location Example (pV-27AW In OCT -31-1997 0921 NRC 612 995 9837 P.06i07 V/ venaim s wo 2'04/f ® m V V 3-0-3/4- t VHrM =MY BRITS F tea. JI) �r) f 35 00 Olt .30' moo" .160 F' Fi; Apt i W10 To Mfg 94,efspy. F 14 OCT -31-1997 09,21 NAC 612 S95 9857 P.07i07 x $+fie CUtga noW YOWL P.m i Planning Commission Agenda - 11/4/97 JeInn died (NAC) Background. AmericInn has requested approval of a variance from the maximum 32 -ft height requirement applied to pylon signs which abut freeways. AmericInn is located east of Highway 25 between I-94 and 7th Street. Specifically, the applicants wish to replace a previously -existing legal non -conforming pylon sign which was destroyed in this summer's storm. The replacement sign would measure 55 ft in height and 200 sq ft in area. The sign would differ slightly from that which previously existed in that a lower level "Taco Bell" sign is not to be attached. Legal Nonconformity. As noted previously, the AmericInn sign which previously existed upon the subject site was destroyed by this summer's storm. Although legally established, the sign did not conform with the City's maximum 32 ft height requirement which applies to pylon signs which abut freeways. According to Section 3-9.D.2 of the ordinance, non -conforming signs may not be re-established after damage of more than 50 percent of sign replacement cost, except to bring (the sign) into compliance. Thus, to accommodate the pylon sign replacement, the processing of a variance is necessary. Area Sign Height Inventory. In recent years, the City has entertained several requests for sign height variances for businesses in the vicinity of the AmericInn (proximate to the I-94/Highway 25 interchange). A summary of the requests and City actions is provided below. Burger ins. In the Summer of 1984, the Burger King restaurant requested a variance from the maximum 32 -ft pylon sign requirement. Specifically, Burger King wished to erect a 50 -ft high freestanding business sign. In reviewing the application, the Planning Commission determined that the sign height would not extend more than 32 ft above the proximate Highway 25/1-94 bridge elevation. Considering that the maximum 32 -ft sign height was determined to be measured from the bridge dock elevation, it was concluded that the processing of a variance was not necessary. Mennaalda. In the Spring of 1994, the McDonald's restaurant requested a variance (from the 324 maximum sign height requirement) to allow the erection of a 60 -ft high pylon sign. In consideration of the request, the City determined that the processing of a variance was not necessary in that the Building Official had Planning Commission Agenda - 11/4/97 issued a permit for the sign with the understanding that the sign height did not exceed more than 32 R above the grade of adjacent Highway 25. WendYs. Also in the summer of Wendy's restaurant requested a variance from the City's maximum pylon sign height requirement. Having affirmed that sign height is to be measured from the grade elevation of the adjacent roadway, it was determined that the processing of a variance was not necessary. Based on the preceding investigation, it is apparent that the height of the Highway 20-94 bridge driving surface has been consistently used as a base elevation in determining pylon sign height compliance in the area. As a result, we feel that the processing of the Burger King application in particular establishes a precedent which should likewise be applied to Americlnn. Should a determination be made that the proposed AmericInn sign extends more than 32 ft above the elevation of the Highway 2WI-94 bridge driving surface, the processing of a variance will be necessary. Variance Evaluation Criteria. Section 23-3 of the ordinance states that in considering requests for a variance, the Planning Commission and City staff' must make a finding that approval of the variance will not: 1. Impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent property. 2. Unreasonably inc►ease the congestion in the public street. 3. Increase the danger of fire or endanger the public safety. 4. Unreasonably diminish or impair established property values within the neighborhood or in any other way be contrary to the intent of the ordinance. The ordinance further states that a finding of noneconomic hardship must be made and that the property in question cannot be put to reasonable use if the variance is denied. Hardship. It is the opinion of our office that the allowance of a pylon sign 32 ft above the deck elevation of the Highway 25 bridge more than adequately provides an opportunity for business identification. It is the opinion of our office that no demonstration of non -economic hardship unique to the subject property has been demonstrated to warrant approval of the requested variance from this standard. Planning Commission Agenda - 11/4/97 Motion to approve the application for a variance from the City's maximum 32 -ft height requirement applied to pylon signs which abut freeways subject to the conditions listed upon Exhibit C and based upon the following findings: Approval of the variance will not: (1) Impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent property. (2) Unreasonably increase the congestion in the public street. (3) Increase the danger of fire or endanger the public safety. (4) Unreasonably diminish or impair established property values within the neighborhood or in any other way be contrary to the intent of the Zoning Ordinance. The subject property cannot be put to reasonable use if the request is denied. Motion to deny the application for a variance from the City maximum 32 -ft height requirement applied to pylon signs which abut freeways based upon the following findings: Non -economic hardship has not been demonstrated to warrant approval of the requested variance. The property in question can be put to reasonable use if the variance request is denied. In consideration of this request, it is the opinion of our office that a precedent has been established in the City's previous consideration of the Burger King sign variance request. Specifically, the Burger King request established that sign height is to be measured from the ground elevation to the Highway 26/ I.94 bridge deck elevation. To determine the need for a variance, the applicant should certify both the sign's ground elevation and the bridge deck clovation. Should the 66 -ft sign exceed the bridge deck elevation, the processing of a variance is necessary. Planning Commission Agenda - 11/4/97 Itis the opinion of our office that genuine non -economic hardship has not been demonstrated by the applicant and that the property in question can be put to reasonable use if the requested variance is denied. As a result, we recommend denial of the requested sign height variance. Exhibit A - Site Location Exhibit B - Sign Plan Exhibit C - Conditions of Variance Approval Z- jMJRID YBJ�� DROP SJ 2 I3J4�. A D) j IV RE COMM BR 11 11 i �II r� M O„ 3C' @� o„ plAt bet �XorlA;4- vfofD nwrtffc f)t- pie Y. (�% EXHIBIT 8 • SIGN PIAN CONDITIONS OF VARIANCE APPROVAL: C 1. All other applicable sign requirements (i.e., area, setback, etc.) are satisfactorily met. The previously attached'raco Bell" sign is not to be attached to the Americlnn Sign except if allowed by variance. Planning Commission Agenda - 11/4/97 Amex tads! lion A' (NAC) The Church of St. Henry has applied to the City for a change in the Comprehensive Plan and Transportation Plan. The proposed change would eliminate the I-94 overpass at Fallon Avenue, either removing it from the City's plans or relocating it to another location. The overpass is planned to cross I.94, intersecting with the proposed extension of 7th Street adjacent to the Church's property. The Church has apparent concern with the visual impact of the overpass, as well as the slopes from the overpass intersection with 7th Street on their property. The Fallon Avenue overpass was designed to serve a number of transportation functions within the community. It connects traffic along the planned 7th Street route with the growth area south of the Interstate. This area includes the Industrial Park, the new school campus, and the significant levels of residential growth along School Boulevard on either side of Fallon. Currently, the primary access for much of this area is via TH 25, requiring a high degree of local and regional traffic mixing. The current alternative is County Road 118, which puts traffic several blocks east of the activity centers, particularly the downtown area. Seventh Street is an important connection through this area, allowing the development of industrial land east of the Church property and a parallel route for traffic currently using Broadway (CSAH 75). Seventh Street and Fallon connect with Washington, which provides access to Broadway near the current high school and hospital sites, as well as the downtown commercial area just a few blocks to the west. Convenient access to the downtown is a major objective of the recently -adopted downtown revitalization plan. The City's Transportation Plan lists the Fallon Avenue overpass as its top ranked project in the 2000-2010 time period. Its benefits include improvements both to local circulation and to reduced congestion on the state trunk highway system. The City's Comprehensive Plan adopts the Transportation Plan recommendations by reference and has developed a land use plan with consideration of the transportation system's long-term development. The significant amount of residential development flanking the Fallon/School Boulevard intersection area will be dependent upon the overpass to provide convenient access to the hospital and the downtown area. Planning Commission Agenda - 11/4/97 Alternative locations for the overpass are either not available or not suitable. Moving the overpass to the east would defeat the benefit of the Fallon alignment by placing it too close to the existing 118 overpass (soon to be interchange). A more easterly location would also reduce the access to Washington via the 7th Street connection. It would cause connection problems on the south side of the freeway as well. A more westerly relocation would not be practical due to the lack of connection to any north/south street south of the freeway. The poor connections for either relocation would substantially inhibit the traffic benefit of the overpass. Motion to approve the application for amendments to the City's Comprehensive Plan and Transportation Plan by deleting references to an overpass of I.94 at Fallon Avenue, based upon the finding that the project is not necessary to achieve the objectives of the City's Comprehensive Plan, and that the pedestrian and vehicular circulation functions of the proposed overpass can be more effectively accomplished through alternative projects. Motion to deny the application for amendments to the City's Comprehensive Plan and Transportation Plan by deleting references to an overpass of I-94 at Fallon Avenue, based upon the finding that the amendment would interfere with the ability of the City's transportation system to handle and distribute both pedestrian and vehicular traffic, and that the land use pattern south of the freeway has developed in anticipatioin of the proposed Fallon Avenue overpass. t:_ STAFF REECOMMF.NDATION- Staff recommends denial of the requested amendments. As noted in the body of this report, the Fallon Avenue overpass has been a key component of the City's transportation planning, both in terms of distributing local traffic, providing pedestrian access, and managing impacts on Trunk Highway 25. Moreover, the high levels of development south of the interstate have been accommodated with the understanding that additional connection to the City's primary service areas (hospital, downtown, etc.) will be enhanced through the Fallon Avenue project. Removing this project from the transportation network would compromise all of these objectives. D_ SUPPORTING DATA: Exhibit A - Transportation Plan Improvement Projects - Table e Exhibit 8 - Area Map Exhibit C - Relevant Comprehensive Plan Text Memo from City Engineer 7th Stmot Extension Alternates 1, 2, and 3 TABLE 6 MONTICELLO TRANSPORTATION STUDY TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENTS RANK I FACILITY I SEGMENT I IMPROVEMENT I TOTAL PROJECT COST D 1994.2000 1 CSAH 75 Hart Blvd. to CR 39/CR 118 Reconstruct to 4 lanes $ 1.000,000.00 (1) 2 CSAR 75 Hart Blvd. to Wling Front. Rd. New 2 Lane Roadway $ 300.000.00 (2)I No. Front. Rd. 3 CR 118 • , 1.94 Interchange Add Westbound On -Ramp and $400.000.00 (3)I Eastbound Off -Ramp 4 TH 25 Oakwood Dr. to CSAR 75 Traffic Signal Improvements and Thft S 100,000.00 (4) 5 CR 118 CSAH 75 to School Blvd. Widen to 4 lanes $ 1.000,00.00 (1) 2000-2010 6 Fallon Ave Chelsea Blvd to 71h Street 1.94 Overpass $1,000,000.00 ' 7 111-125 School Blvd to Oakwood Dr Widen to 4 Lanes with Turn Lanes $1,500,000.00 8 CSAH 75 CSAH 39 to 1.94 Weslbound Widen to 4 Lanes $700.000.00 OH -Ramo 9 CSAH 75 694 Westbound Off -Ramo Troffic Slgnol $100.000.00 10 CSAH 75 Woshinaton Street Traffic Slpnal $100,000.00 11 CSAH 39 Etre Strret Traffic Slpnal 5100.000.00 12 TH 25 School Blvd Traffic Slanal $100,000.00 13 CSAH 39 71h Street Traffic: Slanal $100.000.00 14 CSAH 39 CSAH 75 Trofflc Slpnol $100.000.0[ 15 Cedor Street Dundas Rd. to School Blvd, Now 2 Ione roadway $500.000.Or (1) - City would pay Storm Sower and Curb and Gutter Costs only. (2) - City would pay Total Cost. (3) - City would pay 20%phu Enginooring Costs only. (4) - Mn/DOT may pay Total Cost. I ' OSM Prolect No. 5105.00 Pugo 44 EXHIBIT A - TRANSPORTATION STUDI IWI/M WAM St. Hemy' .. ..... ... 14, EXHIBIT B AREA MAP 7 4 Cotnmutrity Facilities htonticello's Community Facilities include a wide array of physical public services, such as streets, sanitary sewer, water, storm water control, fire response, administrative buildings, senior services, and parks and recreations. This range of services and associated facilities has been made a regular part of the City's review and planning, particularly through capital facilities planning and budgeting on the part of the City Council an Staff. Over the last few years, a significant amount of effort has been directed toward transportation planning, sanitary sewer,water, and storm water control planning, and a major effort is currently underway to plan for the upgrade and expansion of the City's sanitary sewer treatment facilities. Apart from the areas which have been, or are being currently studied, the area of primary comment during the initial Tactics interviews concerned parks and recreation planning. The engineering studies regarding (lie other topics are adopted in the City's Comprehensive Plan by reference, combined with the issues and comments made in this document. Existing Park System The City of Monticello provides as number of recreational facilities within the City limits in addition to facilities located on School District property. Also available to the City's residents is the Montissippi County Park (within Monticello corporate boundaries), operated by Wright County. The State of Minnesota operates Lake Maria State Park, just west of Monticello and Sand Dunes State Forest to the north in Sherburne County. Other regional parks and open space areas near Monticello include Sherbume National Wildlife Refuge, and two Hennepin County Alnntlrrlla cv nprelhrn.dvi Plan Dnrlappnem Frmarunrk D,Mgpm nt irn.--k Page 25 regional parks, Crow -Hassan Park Reserve and Lake Rebecca Park Reserve. These facilities provide a wide range of recreational opportunities and environments. The current Monticello parks system has benefitted by the City's subdivision ordinance requirements for park land dedication or fee payments in lieu of dedication. Further dedication will be necessary as the community grows through continued dedication and monitoring of recreation needs for new subdivisions. t The City has a sufficient amount of neighborhood parks in areas of recent development due the land dedication requirements. However, there is a general lack of neighborhood parks in the older developed portion of the community. This issue will become more important if these areas provide some of the family housing in the community, due to the need for close proximity of park areas for young children. From a policy standpoint, access to possible neighborhood park sites foram these areas of fewer parks will be an important focus of the City's pathway development planning. Bridge Park As noted in the Inventory and Policy Plan, Bridge Park is a strong focal point within the City and important to its neighborhood as well. The park represents the City's entry at the Mississippi River, and is near the major intersection of Highway 25 and Broadway Street, the center of the downtown area. In addition, Bridge Park offers an accessible connection to the river - an amenity that very few cities can match. In its I EXHIBIT C - COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TEXT In an effort to respond to the request of St. Henry's Church to eliminate the proposed Fallon Avenue overpass, we have prepared some visual materials, as well as provided the traffic analysis contained herein: The visual materials that are attached show the three alternatives that were considered for the overpass at this location. John Simota looked at other locations cast of Fallon Avenue, however, not only was the traffic circulation less desirable, the impact to the property on the north side of 1-94 was also greater. Therefore, in February, 1997 we presented Altemative 2 to the church as to what had been originally considered for the overpass and r Street. This option cut into their site significantly and sc they asked urs to study other options. Alternatives I and 3 were then explored, and Alternative 1 was proposed to the church. We decided, from an engineering standpoint, that Altemativo 3 could not be effective and negatively impacted the church site. All of these alternatives resulb:d in reduced visibility for the church, but it was our understanding from our meeting on March 4, 1997 with the church, that Alternative I could be viable. Recently, the church stated that not only was Alternative I not viable, no overpass would be viable from their standpoint. The following discussion will explain from a traffic analysis standpoint why this overpass is accessary. The City of Monticello developed a transportation plan in 1994 which addressed the transportation needs of the City through the year 2015. The Fallon Avenue overpass was identified as an integral part of the future transportation system in the City. The study included numerous alternatives for system improvements. In each transportation system alternative (option) svidied as part of the transpollation plan, the Fallon overpass provided traffic relief to TH 25 and CR 11 B. The purpos o of this memorandum is to expand the analysis conducted as part of the transportation plan and to discuss the impacts of the proposed overpass with respect to the overall owisportation system. r ��rrravaa«uamara. Injrastructure Eoi#nens Plannm EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYED BA. Minduc-4 , P.E. Westwood lake Office 8441 Wayzata Boulevard Bre A W6a. P.E Peer R Wdla,6riny P.E. W458350 Minneapolis, MN 55426 Donald W summa. P.E laonald B. Bray. P.E 612-541.4800 &Associatef, Inc. FAX 541-1700 Memorandum To: JejjO Nelli, Assivant City Adminlstrato r City ojMonticello From: Bret Weiss, Mondcello City Engineer Charles Rlckar4 Transportadon Enginerr Dau: October 30, 1997 Re: Fallon Avenue Overpass WSB Project No. 101OL44 In an effort to respond to the request of St. Henry's Church to eliminate the proposed Fallon Avenue overpass, we have prepared some visual materials, as well as provided the traffic analysis contained herein: The visual materials that are attached show the three alternatives that were considered for the overpass at this location. John Simota looked at other locations cast of Fallon Avenue, however, not only was the traffic circulation less desirable, the impact to the property on the north side of 1-94 was also greater. Therefore, in February, 1997 we presented Altemative 2 to the church as to what had been originally considered for the overpass and r Street. This option cut into their site significantly and sc they asked urs to study other options. Alternatives I and 3 were then explored, and Alternative 1 was proposed to the church. We decided, from an engineering standpoint, that Altemativo 3 could not be effective and negatively impacted the church site. All of these alternatives resulb:d in reduced visibility for the church, but it was our understanding from our meeting on March 4, 1997 with the church, that Alternative I could be viable. Recently, the church stated that not only was Alternative I not viable, no overpass would be viable from their standpoint. The following discussion will explain from a traffic analysis standpoint why this overpass is accessary. The City of Monticello developed a transportation plan in 1994 which addressed the transportation needs of the City through the year 2015. The Fallon Avenue overpass was identified as an integral part of the future transportation system in the City. The study included numerous alternatives for system improvements. In each transportation system alternative (option) svidied as part of the transpollation plan, the Fallon overpass provided traffic relief to TH 25 and CR 11 B. The purpos o of this memorandum is to expand the analysis conducted as part of the transportation plan and to discuss the impacts of the proposed overpass with respect to the overall owisportation system. r ��rrravaa«uamara. Injrastructure Eoi#nens Plannm EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYED Jeff O'NeAI, Assistant City Administrator City o f monticeno October 30, 1997 Page 2 A traffic analysis was conducted as part of the City's Tnnsportation Plan for the entire Monticello area This analysis included development of projected traffic volumes based on proposed future land use in the City and surrounding are is. It also identified roadway deficiencies which lead to the development of proposed • ransportation system improvements outlined in the transportation plan. The transportation plan projected a City population in the year 2015 of 13,300. This assumed an additional 1030 single-family homes, 490 multi -family c nits, and a 2000 -student high school. Three specific improvement options were analyzed as part of the tnmsportation plan. They were: Development of the CR 118 / 1-94 Interchange 2. CSAH 75, Hart Boulevard to CSAH 39, widening to four lanes TH 25, south of 1-94, widening to four lanes In all three of these improvement options, roadway deficiencies were identified on CR 118 and TH 25. Possible mitigation measures for dealing with these deficiencies listed for all options included the completion of the Fallon Avenue overpass. For the purposes of this study, a fourth improvement option was developed and analyzed which assumed that all improvement options 1, 2, and 3, were completed. This option analyzed the transportation system with and without the Fallon Avenue overpass. The results of that analysis are as follows: Without Fallon Avenue Overpass The Average Daily Traffic (ADT) volume on TH 25 at 1.94, in the year 2015, is projected to range fiom 17,500 vehicles per day (vpd) Bouts of 1.94 to 28,500 vpd north of 1.94. 2. The ADT volume on CR 118 at I-94, in the year 2015, is projected to be 13,400 vpd. With Fallon Avenue Ocrpass The ADT volume on TH 25 at 1.94, in the year 2)15. is projected to range Elam 16,000 vpd south of 1-94 to 27,000 vpd north of 1.94. 2. The ADT volume on CR 118 at 1.94, in the year 201 S. is projected to be 9,500 vpd. r urrwiwwaio.r,. Jeff O'Ne114 Assistant City Administrator City ojMondcdlo October 30, 1997 Page 3 The ADT volume on the Fallon Avenue overpass at I-94, in the year 2015, is projected to be 5,800 vpd. Based on the traffic analysis conducted, the following ccnclusions can be made: TH 25 is a regional Trunk Highway serving the area between TH 55 and TH 10. TH 25 is planned for reconstruction in 1998 using Feder al ISTF-A Funding from I-94 south to Kjellberg's Park. The improvement will not impact 1-94 north on TH 25. As traffic increases on this segment, additional improveme its will need to be considered for TH 25 north of I-94. The addition of the Fallon Avenue overpass wou d provide some relief to TH 25, specifically, in that some of the local trips will br removed from the regional traffic on TH 25. MrMT, during the review of the City's Transportation Plan, did react that they were in favor of the Fallon Avenue overpass as a relief to their trunk highway system. CR 118 is a county road that currently temtinatet at CSAH 39 north of 1-94. Currently no direct access exists to 1-94 from the overpass. However, an interchange with access to I-94 is being considered for this location. The traffic on CR 118 over the next 15 to 20 years will increase 2000/a - 300%. This will b: the primary north -south route from the development south of 1-94 to areas north of 1.94. With this increase in traffic, potential major renovations of the CR 118 bridge will be r:quired. By providing the Fallon Avenue overpass, this volume will be significant y reduced by providing for the local trip destined to or from downtown Monticello. This rccess will also provide for commercial and school traffic between north and south Monticello. By providing the Fallon Avenue overpass an additional connection between north and south Monticello can be computed. With the ext:nsion of r Street to CSAH 75 and the fltture extension of Chelsea Road to TH 23, this connection will be a vital part of the transportation system within the City linking the two "frontage roads" of 1-94. The MCP plan identified minimizing the truck traffic on CSAH 75. This overpass, in conjunction with the proposed r Street connecti m to CSAH 75, will provide for a direct link to the City Industrial Park. r ..r.nvra. wuo,pr r Jeff O'Nefi% Amistant City Admieiamor City of MondceUo Ocaaber30,1997 Page I Baud on the analysis of traffic data and the conclusions stated above, it is our recommendation that the Fallon Avenue overpass be developed to provide relief to TH 23 and CR 118, as well as providing for local access between north and south Mom icello. Main IN 4007 7th Street Extension - Alternate Number 1 9 EDGE OF SLA)PE COULD SUBSTITM A WALL 4517 It --.—.—.—.—.—.----------- — `��.—�� - � —_'quo ccs-� � - _-^--�•- I1FAULKON-.-------------------FM 35 NPH DESM ----- sMT![ ..—.—.—.—.—.—.——.—.—.—.—. '• .---------.--------------- ----------- ---_-____----_- --- = _-- --- --_-_-_- _=_ -_ - - -`-_- - _- -_-_- - - - - ol�l I I ADVANTAGES DISADVANTAGES 1 MORE USABLE AREA 1 LESS CHURCH VISIBILITY I 2 PROPOSED CHURCH PARIUNG LOT FROM EAST BOUND 194. AND DRIVEWAY LOCATIONS 2 MORE FILL REQUIRED TO RAISE REMNN MOSTLY UNCHANGED. Ah STREET. I jl 3 LESS DISRUPTION OF PROPERTY. 3 5% SLOPES ON 7111 STREET ON 4 LESS EXPENSIVE BRIDGE EACH SIDE OF FALLON AVE. I I CONSTRUCTION COST 5 LESS TREE REMOVAL REQUIRED. --� -4- ------ Chc1sea Road 4----==_ChcIseaxoaa ------------ M01171CF1J,0------- QIY OF MMIXT]LO MEMA - I PA.9s I M Ioir4.lf�mO MU A m�r.ee�as eri vers erre City of Monticello, Minnesota 0 7th Street Extension - Alternate Number 2 77 i I EDGE OF SLOPEcomp supsyThrm ' --- ` AA RETARdIAiO WAIL �,� 1. �';.I _ • , _ . , .. "" ��" ; �� - �; �� , � ' it FORM NM OTIY OF MONTIm" MEMA I P.O. &WIM I.— afi.Momr Im City of Monticello, Minnesota ..— __— —._ —.— _ —_— -- -- — — _ _ - ___--------- __=___=_= _ -__=_= ==_=- =_-_= -_------=___----=_-------- -==--_=_----------- - _- 1 I ADVANTAGES DISADVANTAGES 1 1 FLATTER STREET GRADES ON 71h STREET. 1 OMPLACES A PORTION OF I 2 LESS FILL REQUIRED FOR OVERPASS. PROPOSED CHURCH PARKIPK3 LOT I I 3 SLKLI- LY LOIAER SHORT TERM COST. AND PROPOSED FUTURE EXPANTION. I 4 MIMMIZES SEPARATE UTILITY EASEMENT LESS USABLE LAND. FOR UTa3TY EXTENTIONS. 2 ACOUIRE MORE STREET RAN ON _ 118LACE 71h STREET. MORE TREE REMOVAL REOUIRED. - 4 MORE NUISANCE CURVES W 71h STREET 13 REDUCES THE EASE OF TRAVEL BY - TRUCKTRAFFIC. - — 1 — - - - - Chelsea Road City of Monticello, Minnesota & -9 7th Street Extension - Alternate Number 3 , 7 EDGE OF 9 OF8'Io a ZREALWX 71h STREET — _ — FOR 33IM H OF_441i CRY OF 1ONRK UD 2%Sa&n q PADM IM Airr.l6mmmm SM _ - \ s ---------------- - - - - - - 453.7 R <I�I �I -_ -J + ----- ----ChelmRoad ADVANTAGES DISADVANTAGES I BETTER NSIBILftY FROM 1 THE GRADE FROM FAL. EAST BOUND 194. TO INPI ACE 7Th STREET 3SE REOUIRWL��STDVE EST OFP POSSIBLEBUILDINGEAST STREETTO OVERPASS AND EAST OF 71h STREET. TO GET d% GRADE 2 HORIZONTAL CURVE OI 9 DISPLACE A PORTION C 4 5 8 7 8 9 COST TO STREET -REDUCES TRUCK TRAFFIC. �wr�od wsr w.. City of Monticello, Minnesota Planning Commission Agenda - 11/4/97 Public Hearin" revision impeme Rmitauzadanyin Monticello. (NAC) The City Council has recently approved the adoption of the MCP Plan as an amendment to the City's Comprehensive Plan. This report provides a conceptual outline of a proposed zoning district which would be designed to implement the MCP Plan. In addition, we have developed ordinance text language for a new zoning district. Rather than attempt to adjust one of the City's current zoning districts, we would propose to create a new district which is specifically tailored to the unique aspects of Monticello's downtown and the goals and objectives of the downtown plan. We have entitled this district the Central Community District. This title was chosen because it is expected that the district will include more than just business that the common title "Central Business District' would infer. Staff has had the opportunity to review the ordinance concepts with MCP representatives and staff. Some changes have been incorporated into the concept reflecting those discussions. Still of concern to the MCP are the sign regulations. Signs are important in this district both from their communication function and their impact on the downtown visual experience. MCP would like to see relaxed sign regulations in the downtown area for certain signs. We have recommended that MCP work to develop a set of sign ordinance changes which would better meet the goals of the Revitalization Plan. However, we do not recommend standards which would be too flexibly applied within the CCD District. CCD - CENTRA. CommuNr" Dismm p� - The purpose of the CCD District is to provide a method of implementing Monticello's downtown development plan goals and objectives. Due to the nature of the downtown plan, some development/redevelopment proposals will require more extensive City review, including Planning Commission and City Council action. However, many activities should be able to develop without public meetings or hearings. Permitted Uaea - The permitted uses listed in the City's current B-1, B-2, B-3, and B-4 Districts aro proposed to be permitted uses in the CCD District. In addition, the Permitted Uses in the Public/Semi-Public District (primary public parks and the city hall) would also be permitted, as well as civic and governmental uses which may be found in a community center. Restaurants and off -sale liquor would be included as a permitted use. Planning Commission Agenda - IV4/97 Permitted uses would also include residential dwellings, provided that such dwellings do not occupy ground floor space of a building. That is, residential units would be permitted as long as they occupy upper floors of otherwise commercially -used buildings. The list of permitted uses would exclude the following from those mentioned above: gas station/convenience store (included as a conditional use); hoteWmotels (included as a conditional use). ASB - Accessory uses are allowed in the district with language such as the following: Accessory uses which are clearly and customarily incidental to the principal use in size, activity, and scope. The primary difference here is that parking (normally listed as an accessory use) is going to get particular treatment in a separate section. - Conditional uses would include gas stations/convenience stores as allowed in the B-3 district, hotels and motels without the 600 sq ft of lot area per unit limitation of the B-3 District, and residential uses which occupy the ground floor of a building. In addition, some of the B-3 and B-4 conditional uses would be included here, such as pet clinics, fast food (but with provisions which manage the auto -orientation of such uses), daycare, outdoor sales, but only as a temporary accessory use to an existing retailer. Intim Usm - The ordinance would be set up to allow for interim uses at this time but would not specify any particular use. Instead, the City could consider individual interim use requests as text amendments as they are proposed by landowners in the district. I&LAm9 - It is proposed that no lot area minimums would be established in the CCD District. Some lot area per unit requirements would be applied based on specific use, however. For instance, we would recommend a lot area per unit requirement of 3,000 sq ft per residential unit be established, except for first floor and single family residential. In these latter categories, we would recommend 8,000 aq ft per unit. We would also recommend a density credit for private "structured' parking. This credit could be written into the ordinance. A credit of 26'% could result in an incentive to avoid open parking lots. Lot Width - Like lot area, we would not envision any minimum lot widths. Minimum widths tend to discourage multiple use of buildings in downtown districts. B 11 tnQ IHelvlrt - A maximum building height of 36 ft would allow for 3 -story buildings. A minimum building height of 16 ft would help to avoid problems with low profile contemporary architecture. We would also recommend that a conditional use permit process be included to allow buildings outside of this envelope. Planning Commission Agenda - 11/4/97 Design Gnidelines - The design guidelines found in the MCP Downtown Plan would be developed in the ordinance as follows: Permitted uses complying with all other standards would be referred to the design sections of the Plan for reference. Conditional and interim uses or developments requesting a variance from the performance standards in the District would be required to comply with the design guidelines of the Plan as reviewed and interpreted by the Design Advisory Team and applied by the Planning Commission and City Council. Developments which receive direct financial assistance from the City or one of its entities such as the HRA or EDA would be required to comply with the design guidelines. Financial assistance could include TIF, tax abatement, revolving loans for rehabilitation, or other types of direct assistance. City assessment of improvements under ¢429 would not typically be considered direct assistance. It is envisioned that the design review process would be administered by a Design Advisory Team. The DAT would prepare a report on design compliance to be submitted to the Planning Commission or City Council (depending on the nature of the project), just as staff reports are prepared by Planning, Engineering, Public Works, or other staff. The applicant could appeal a determination of the Design Advisory Team through the normal zoning appeal process. This process is likely to add 30 days to the review time of CCD applications. Fully - complying, privately -financed permitted uses would receive design review for information and encouragement only under this process. Signage - Signage would be reviewed along with the design review process for both compliance with the City's sign ordinance as well as compatibility with the Downtown Plan's guidelines. The CCD District language would include references to the Plan's signage recommendations. At issue would be whether the DAT could offer greater flexibility to sign sizes or locations than city ordinance would allow. There are two general concerns with this concept. First is the issue of the authority of the DAT, a non. municipal entity, to make zoning decisions. There would little problem with the design review function, where an appeal process exists through the Planning Commission or City Council, to make a fund zoning determination. Giving the DAT final review authority, however, would probably be considered an inappropriate delegation of the City's zoning power. Planning Commission Agenda - 11/4197 A second matter regards the amount of flexibility which the DAT or the City can grant in sign size, area, or location. Since these issues are zoning related, they would be held to the same standards as other zoning actions. Therefore, they must be reasonably related to the furtherance of a legitimate City zoning objective. In sign eases, it is almost impossible to meet this standard when varying the regulations case by case. The standards must be applied evenly in the district to avoid an `equal protection" challenge. If the community would like to expand the allowable signage available to district property owners, the sign ordinance could be amended to effect this change. We would not recommend site -by -site variances within the district, however. ZarkW - The issue of off-street parking is one of the most difficult in a downtown district. Assuming that some of the parking capacity will be accommodated in public lots and on -street, it would be inefficient to require the full amount of parking demand in private, off-street parking lots. Some cities provide for all downtown area parking in public lots, exempting all businesses from any off-street parking requirements. Some cities have developed parking funds to help develop public lots in the downtown. Others reduce the parking supply requirement and provide for public use of private lots as a condition of allowing the reduction in parking area. The following schemes summarize the options: Exempt CCD properties from any private parking requirements. This would put the burden for parking on public lots and on - street parking. Many of these public lots are assessed to the district to finance their acquisition and construction. Maintain the requirement for parking spaces as identified in the City's parking regulations but allow property owners to be exempted from the requirements with the payment of a fee into a CCD parking fund. The fee amount could be established to induce a property owner to forego private parking area in consideration of more building coverage on a lot by discounting the fee as it relates to actual parking lot construction. Allow private parking lots at a reduced rate of parking supply on the condition that the owner make the lot available to other downtown business patrons. This concept is intended to induce cross use of private parking areas and reduced parking area lot coverage. These schemes could be used in combination or provided as options to the property owners. If the City assesses for public parking improvements, it could provide an assessment reduction for participation in any of these programs. The key would be to Planning Commission Agenda - 11/4/97 develop a system which is an incentive to avoid individual private parking lots as would typically be found in a suburban commercial development. Bite Imnrnvements - The Downtown Plan includes a number of site improvement requirements and recommendations for development in the district. Examples of these are rear building treatments, parking lot and entry treatments, and private landscaping and streetscaping elements. These recommendations would be referenced in the CCD District language as baseline requirements for development, similar to the application of the architectural guidelines. Motion to approve the proposed zoning ordinance amendment as presented, creating a "CCD", Central Community District, as a land use district in the Monticello Zoning Ordinance, based upon findings that the amendment would implement the goals and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan. Table action on the proposed zoning amendments at this time pending additional information. Motion to deny the proposed zoning amendments. C. STAFF IZ .O MF.NDATION: Staff recommends approval of the zoning ordinance amendment. The amendment has been subject to the review of the MCP, and we have made alterations to the tort reflecting the input of that group. If the Planning Commission feels that it has inadequate background on the issue, staff would suggest tabling until such time as revisions can be made which better reflect the Planning Commission's intent. Exhibit A - Draft Ordinance City of Monticello Wright County, Minnesota AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 10, CHAPTER 4, GENERAL DISTRICT PROVISIONS, AND CHAPTER 14 OF THE MONTICELLO ZONING ORDINANCE RELATING TO THE ESTABLISHMENT OF THE "CCD", CENTRAL COMMUNITY DISTRICT. THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MONTICELLO, MINNESOTA HEREBY ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Chapter 4-1 (01 is emended by adding Subdivision 4-1 (D) 5. as follows: 41 (D) 5. CCD, Central Community District Section 2. Chapter 14 is amended by adding Chapter 14B as follows: • 00/ CHAPTER 14B "CCD" CENTRAL COMMUNITY DISTRICT SECTION: 14B -I: Purpose 14B -I: Permitted Uses 14B-3: Accessory Uses 148-4: Interim Uses 14B-5: Conditional Uses 148-6: Lot and Building Requirements 148.7: Design Review 148-1: PURPOSE: The purpose of the "CCD", Central Community District is to Implement the plans and policies of the Monticello Downtown Revitalization ? Plan, to that Plan is designed to provide for the establishment and continuation of a traditional downtown area in Monticello's primary commercial core. The • 00/ district will contain a mix of land uses which can compatibly coexist, with requirements based upon enhancement of the district's natural features. and mitigation of lucid use conflicts between differing uses. All proposed uses in the "CCD" District will be evaluated against the goals and objectives of the Monticello Downtown Revitalisation Plan as adopted, and as may be amended, by the City Council. 148-2: PERMITTED USES: The following are permitted uses in the "CCD" district: [A] All permitted uses as allowed in the "B-4" district, except for motor fuel facilities and convenience scorns. and botels/motels. [B] Restaurants, but not fast-food, or convenience type. [C] On- and Off -Sale Liquor establishments. [D] Civic and Governmental uses as a part of a public Community Center. [E] Residential Dwellings which do not occupy the ground floor space of a building. 14B-3: ACCESSORY USES: The following are permitted accessory uses in a "CCD" District: [A] Uses which are clearly and customarily incidental to the principal use in size, activity, and scope, and in accordance with the special provisions of this Chapter. Except for parking, accessory uses shall be located in the same principal structure as that of the principal use, and shall occupy no more than thirty (30) percent of the floor area of said structure. 14B-4: INTERIM USES: The following are allowed as Interim Uses in the "CCD" district: [A] None. 14B-5: CONDITIONAL USES: The following are allowed as Conditional Uses in the "CCD" district: (Requires a Conditional Use Permit based upon the procedures set forth in and regulated by Chapter 22 of this Ordinance). [A] Hotels, subject to the following conditions: 1. The principal building lot coverage is no less than fifty (50) percent of the property, exclusive of easements devoted to public 7 pedestrian use or other outdoor public spaces. 740V ;..,W 2. The building, site, and signage meets the standards for the "CCD" district, and design review approval is granted by the designated Design Advisory Team. 3. The proposed use demonstrates compatibility and consistency with the City's Comprehemive Plan and the Downtown Revitalization Plan. [B] Motor fuel station, auto repair -minor, and tire and battery stores and service, as allowed in the '114' district; and subject to the following additional conditions: 1. The design of the site promotes pedestrian access adjacent to and along the property. 2. No more than two (2) curb cuts of twenty four (24) feet in width or less shall be permitted. 3. Site lighting shall utilize fixtures similar in style to that designated by the City for use in public areas of the 'CCD" district. 4. The building, site, and signage meets the standards for the "CCD" district, and design review approval is granted by the designated Design Advisory Team. 5. The proposed use demonstrates compatibility and consistency with the City's Comprehensive Plan and the Downtown Revitalization Plan. (C] Residential dwellings on the ground floor, subject to the following conditions: 1. The proposed site for residential use is consistent with the goals and objectives of the Downtown Revitalization Plan. 2. The proposed site does not Interrupt the flow of commercial pedestrian traffic in the "CCD" district. 3. Density for ground floor residential units shall not exceed one unit per 9,000 square fat of lot area, exclusive of land area utilized by, or required for, permitted uses on the property. IDI Drive-in and convenience food establishments as allowed in the 'B-3' district, and subject to following additional conditions: 7-3 1. The design of the site promotes pedestrian amm adjacent to and along the property. 2. No more than two (2) curb cuts of twenty four (24) feet in width or leu shall be permitted. 3. Site lighting shall utilize fixtures similar in style to that designated by the City for use in public areas of the "CCD" district. 4. The building, site, and signage rets the standards for the "CCD" district, and design review approval is granted by the designated Design Advisory Team. 5. Drive through facilities comply with the requirements of Subd. 14B-5 ]E] of this Chapter 6. The proposed use demonstrates compatibility and consistency with the City's Comprehensive Plan and the Downtown Revitalization Plan. (EJ Drive through windows accessory to other principal uses in the "CCD" 1 district, subject to the following conditions: 1. Service through drive-through facilities is accessory to interior on-site, or sit-down, service within the same building. 2. Drive through lartes are designed to avoid disruption of pedestrian and vehicular traffic flow, both on and off site. 3. Landscaping and other site improvements are included which screen automobile stacking space from the public street. 4. The principal building occupies no less than forty (40) percent of the property, exclusive of easements devoted to public pedestrian use or other outdoor public spaces. 5. 71te building, site, and signage meets the standards for the "CCD" district, and design review approval is granted by the designated Design Advisory Team. 6. The proposed use demonstrates compatibility and consistency with the City's Comprehensive Plan and the Downtown Revitalization Plan. [F] Animal pet clinics, as allowed in the 'B-3' district. [G] Day-care centers, as allowed in the 'B-3' district [H] Shopping centers, provided that the proposed use demottstttues compatibility and consistency with the City's Comprehensive Plan and the Downtown Revitalization Plan. [I) Buildings of a height greater than the maximum building height as allowed in Subdivision 14B-6 [D] of this Chapter. [J] Planted unit development (PUD) subject to the provisions of Chapter 20 of this Ordinance, and provided that the proposed use demonstrates compatibility and consistency with the City's Comprehensive Plan and the Downtown Revitalization Plan. 1411-6: LOT AND BUILDING REQUIREMENTS: The following requirements shall apply to all properties in the 'CCD' district: [A] Minimum Lot Area: None [B] Minimum Lot Width: None J [C] Residential Density: One dwelling unit per 3,000 square fat of lot area for permitted resideruial uses. The number of dwelling units may be increased by up to twenty five (23) percent over the permitted density for projects which provide at least half of the required parking underground or in above grade structures such as ramps or docks (including covered at -grade parking areas). [D] Building Height: The following height limitations shall apply to all buildings in the 'CCD' district: 1. Minimum Height: Fifteen (IS) feet. 2. Maximum Height: Thiny Five (33) feet, or three (3) stories. which ever is greater. [EJ Setbacks: Building setback minimums and maximums shall reflect the rocommendations for the use and location as listed in the Downtown Revitalization Plan. Where setbacks as discussed in the Downtown Revitalization Plan are not listed or appropriate. there shall be no building setbacks required. In such uses. there shall be no parking allowed In the areas between the front building line and the public street. 7--500' ]F] Site Improvements: All areas of a parcel within the "CCD" district shall be subject to the applicable recommendations of the Downtown Revitaliration Plan. Site Improvements shall be reviewed for compliance by the Design Advisory Team together with other design elements, including architecture and signage. ]G] Parking: Supply: Property owners shall comply with the parking supply requirements as listed in Subd. 3-5 ]H] of this Ordinance. However, property owners may be granted flexibility from a portion of their required parking supply under the following conditions: At the property owner's choice, for each parking space not supplied on-site by the property owner, the owner shall pay into a "CCD" Parking Fund an amount as established by City Council Resolution. Said Fund shall be used for the acquisition, construction, and/or maintenance of publicly owned parking in the "CCD" district. b. In addition to, or as an alternative to, the option listed in Subd. 1411-6IG]I.a., a property owner may supply parking at a rate which is sixty (60) percent of the requirement listed in Subd. 3-3 JHJ, provided that the owner grant an casement to the public for automobile parking use over the subject area. The owner shall retain responsibility for maintenance of said parking area. 2. Location: Parking shall not be located on a parcel between the front building line of the principal building and the public street, except where expressly provided for by the City Council, after recommendation from the Planning Commission. ]HJ Signs: The following requirements shall apply to all sign displays and construction in the "CCD" district: 1. Signs shall comply with the Monticello Building Codes and Zoning Ordinanws relating to signs, including special allowances which may be made for the "CCD" district. 2. All signs in the "CCD" district shall receive review and approval q from the Design Advisory Team. %4P Signs in compliance with applicable ordinances: For signs which meet the regulations of the City's sign ordinances and the goals and objectives of the Downtown Revitalization Plan, such review shall be given the weight of an administrative determination. Appeal of a determination by the Design Advisory Team shall be as provided for in Chapter 23 of the Monticello Zoning Ordinance. b. Signs not in compliance with applicable ordinances: Signs which do not meet the regulations of the City's sign ordinances shall require review by the Board of Adjustment and Appeals, as provided for in Chapter 23 of the Monticello Zoning Ordinance, following Design Advisory Team review and recommendation. 14B-7: Design Review: All development and redevelopment projects in the "CCD' district shall be subject to design review for compliance with the goals and objectives of the Downtown Revitalization Plan. This subdivision identifies the process and application of design review recommendations. [A] The City Council shall designate a Design Advisory Team (DAT) to A carry out the requirements of this Subdivision. The Council may delegate membership determination to another private or public board. Said DAT shall review projects which in the "CCD" which propose new or altered buildings, site improvements, or signs. Site Improvements shall include parking lots. landscaping projects (other than direct replacement of existing landscaping), walkways and open space pla>as, or other outdoor projects affecting the visual impact of a site. 1. Plans shall be submitted to the DAT for review no less than seven (7) days prior to a DAT meeting. An applicant shall submit at least six (6) sets of plans. The DAT meeting shall be open to the public, but shall not constitute a "public hearing" within the meaning of the zoning ordinance. 2. Submitted plans shall be sufficiently detailed to identify proposed materials, colors, locations, and any other factors rehiring to the visual impact of the proposal. Such plans may include: Site Plans, Floor Plans, Building Elevations, Rendered Drawings, Materials Samples, and other appropriate submissions. 3. The DAT shall render its decision for approval or denial of a 7 submitted design review application at the same meeting at which `t a proposal is properly presented. A written report of the DAT's findings shall be forwarded w the Zoning Administrator for y information to the Planning Commission. Upon written request of an applicant, the DAT may table action on a proposal for up to thirty (30) days. If the DAT does not render a decision within the required time frame, an application will be deemed approved. [B] Appeals: Appeals of an adverse decision of the DAT may be made to the Planning Commission the applicant, an abutting property owner, or another property owner within the "CCD" district. Said appeal shall be governed by the process and requirements listed in Chapter 23 of the Monticello Zoning Ordinance. [C) Status of DAT Decision: Decisions of the DAT shall be treated as follows: 1. Permitted Uses which comply with all building code and zoning ordinance standards: DAT decisions shall be advisory to the Building Official. 2. Conditional and interim Uses: DAT decisions shall be given the accents of administrative determinations, to be submitted to the Planning Commission for inclusion in its recommendation to the City Council. 3. Uses requesting variances: DAT decision shall be given the status of administrative determinations, to be submitted to the Planning Commission for inclusion In its recommendation to the City Council. 4. Proposals receiving direct financial assistance from the City or one of its official entities: DAT decisions shall be considered final, subject to the appeal process outlined in this Subdivision. Section 3. This ordinance shall become effective from and after its passage and publication. list/ 7w- 9 Planning Commission Agenda - 11/4/97 :.: „ N, , 1,., •�� , , u The existing fence ordinance is confusing and has created undesirable land use conditions. In addition, the current fence ordinance does not address community aesthetic concerns such as barbed wire installations and exposed structural components. Specific undesirable effects of the current ordinance include: Fences must be set back 2 ft from property lines, or a Beene agreement must be signed by both property owners and recorded at the Office of the Wright County Recorder. These requirements have caused problems between neighbors and have created a condition where usable lot area is unjustifiably reduced. Where two neighbors each want to erect a fence and do not want to sign a license agreement, a 4 -ft unusable and likely unmaintained area would be created between the two fences. If only one property owner erects a fence on his property set back 2 ft from property lines, it is likely that confusion and conflicts regarding location of property lines will eventually occur. This may result in adverse condemnation actions between adjoining property owners whereby portions of one neighbor's land is granted by a Court to the other neighbor. Enforcement of this provision has been unnecessarily burdensome on staff. The current ordinance appears to prohibit the construction of 6 -ft high fences in the front yard setback; however, a 6 -ft fence may be erected at the property line on a side fronting on a public street regardless of the interior lot use. Only fences exceeding 6 ft in height may not be constructed in required setback areas. Unsafe conditions may be created for traffic approaching or leaving an interior lot. A Eft fence erected on a side yard fronting on a public street and adjoining an interior lot will obstruct visibility. The current ordinance does not prohibit undesirable, unsafe, or blighting fences. The proposed amendment will prohibit barbed wire razor ribbon and electric fences, and will require that the salvage end of chain link fences must be turned down. In Planning Commission Agenda - 11/4/97 " addition, where fences have aesthetically objectionable structural components, the finished or "good" side must face outward toward neighbors and public right-of-way. The proposed amendment to the current ordinance will address each of the concerns listed above and provide for safer and more aesthetically pleasing fence installations. Move to call for a public hearing at the November 4, 1997, meeting of the Planning Commission in consideration of amending the current fence ordinance. Move to not call for a public hearing (and provide some further direction to staff). r- STAFF F..O F.NDATION; Staff recommends that the Planning Commission select alternate #1 above. Copy of proposed ordinance with strikeout and underlining to show amendments; Copy of Chapter 3, Section 2 [F], of the Monticello Zoning Ordinance as it will appear if this Ordinance is adopted; Copy of current ordinance; Sketches illustrating the effect of both the current ordinance and the new ordinance; Photographs of various fence installations in the city. H WR �PROPO SCD DkD. 5,�t6 olk) G dMX)GE 5 ORDINANCE NO. CITY OF MONTICELLO WRIGHT COUNTY, MINNESOTA AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 3-2 OF THE MONTICELLO ZONING ORDINANCE BY ESTABLISHING FENCING REGULATIONS. THE CITY OF MONTICELLO DOES ORDAIN: Title 10, Chapter 3, Section 3-2, Item IF] of the City Code is hereby amended to read as follows: ]F] GENERAL ENCING, seREENING, ANB EANE1513APING: A building permit is reou0red for the construction of a No fence or wall that will be more than ,! .::.. ,... J six 16) feet in height above grade, or for the construction of a retaining wall that is more than four 141 feet in height from the bottom of the footing to the too of the wall. Fence and wall heights are to be measured from the adioinino average grade. In the case of grade separation such as the division of properties by a retaining wall, the height shall be determined on the basis of measurement from the average point between the highest and lowest grade. 2. No fence or wall shall exceed eight feet six inches (8'•6") in height exce tp_as approved for commercial and Industrial properties, end tennis courts which may have chain link fences not exceeding ten 1101 feet in height - A It J 8-/ 8-alw n EmeEPTIONS- SiSl-inet oughts 11 . :. : Y) :, .... At thtd'... i. i the ouiming etticlai, 3. Fancea rivate and walls may be constructed anywhere an property except as provided below: 8, Fences and walls_ exceeding 38 inches in height must be setback IS feet of any prapgriv line fron inp on a public street. 8-alw n On corner lots or on double frontage lots. fences and walls must not encroach on the 25 foot clear view triangle area at a public street intersection or within the corner visibility area of any corner formed byrp opgrty lines intersecting with a railway right-of-way. (The clear view visibility triangle area referred to above shall be in the form of a triangle. with two sides formed by the property lines forming the corner. or straight line extensions of the property lines forming the corner, and the third side formed by a straight line connecting the two twenty-five (251 foot points on both sides of the corner as measured from the intersection of the property lines forminc the corner.) fm .11 , J'_.. ._ 1: JI 4a Fences and walls must not be constructed on the public right of way except for retaining walls as aporoved by the City Engineer. Fences and walls ertrees placed upon utility easements are subject to removal if required for the maintenance or improvement of the utility. A Certificate of Survey may be reguired by the Zoning_ Administrator to determine the location of fences and walls an agropettv. $� if the material used in the fence or wall construction is not finished on both sides. the finished side of the material must be on the outside, facing the abutting or adjoining ptooerties. All posts or structures supporting the fence or wall must be an the inside of the fence or wall. All fences and walls must be constructed of durable. weather resistant materials and properly anchored. Every fence or wall must be maintained in a condition of reasonable fepair and shall not be allowed to become and remain in a condition of disrepair or dancer or constitute a nuisance. Fences or walls in a state of disrepair may be removed by the City as provided by Minnesota Statutes. The cost of 1 -3 Z Where least any fence or wall connects to a building used as a dwelling. at one gate not less than 2 feet 6 inches in width shall be required building_ $, to allow All chain at the access around the link fences must have a too rail. barbed ends must be alaced bottom of the fence. $, Electrified on fences. wires. barber wire. razor ribbon and the like are prohibited ]Q, All swimming 24 inches pools. hot tubs. sows and other water tanks exceeding in depth must be completely fenced in. IL Residential Swimming Pool Fences shall be constructed as follows: L Residential swimming pool fences must be at least 48 inches in height. The fence must not permit the passage of a 4 inch sphere through openings in the fence. Fences must be constructed of durable, corrosion and decay resistive materials. Openings below the fence to must not exceed 4 inches. grade iL Where an above ground pool structure has walls that are at least 4 feet in height. the pool wall may serve to meet the fencing requirements: however. the access to the goal mustgrovide equivalent protection to prevent unauthorized entry. This Ordinance shall become effective immediately upon its passage and publication according to law. ADOPTED by the Monticello City Council this day of 1997. CITY OF MONTICELLO ATTEST: By: AYES: NAYS: C By: Rick Wotfsteller, City Administrator Bill Fair, Mayor ''f RbPOsF—b oKD. 4s iT cult L 4ppE4W / F IftPTE b [F] FENCING: 1. A building permit is required for the construction of a fence or wall that will be more than six (6) feet in height above grade, or for construction of a retaining wall that is more than four (4) feet in height from the bottom of the footing to the top of the wall. Fence and wall heights are to be measured from the adjoining average grade. In the case of grade separation such as the division of properties by a retaining wall, the height shall be determined on the basis of measurement from the average point between the highest and lowest grade. 2. No fence or wall shall exceed 8 feet 6 inches in height except as approved for commercial and industrial properties, and tennis courts which may have chain link fences not exceeding 10 feet in height. 3. Fences and walls may be constructed anywhere on private property except as provided below: a. Fences and walls exceeding 36 inches in height must be setback 15 feet of any property line fronting on a public street. b. On corner lots or on double frontage lots, fences and walls must not encroach on the 25 foot clear view triangle area at a public street intersection or within the corner visibility area of any corner formed by property lines intersecting with a railway right-of-way. (The clear view visibility triangle area referred to above shall be in the form of a triangle, with two sides formed by the property lines forming the comer, or straight line extensions of the property lines forming the corner, and the third side formed by a straight line connecting the two twenty- five (25) foot points on both sides of the corner as measured from the intersection of the property lines forming the comer.) 4. Fences and walls must not be constructed on the public right of way except for retaining wells as approved by the City Engineer. Fences and walls placed upon utility easements are subject to removal if required for the maintenance or improvement of the utility. 5. A Certificate of Survey may be required by the Zoning Administrator to determine the location of fences and walls on a property. 6. If the material used in the fence or wall construction Is not finished on a� D both sides, the finished side of the material must be on the outside, facing the abutting or adjoining properties. All posts or structures supporting the fence or wall must be on the inside of the fence or wall. All fences and walls must be constructed of durable, weather resistant materials and properly anchored. Every fence or wall must be maintained in a condition of reasonable repair and shall not be allowed to become and remain in a condition of disrepair or danger or constitute a nuisance. Fences or walls in a state of disrepair may be removed by the City as provided by Minnesota Statutes. The cost of removing fences may be levied against the property as a special assessment. 7. Where any fence or wall connects to a building used as a dwelling, at least one gate not less than 2 feet 6 inches in width shall be required to allow access around the building. 8. All chain link fences must have a top rail, barbed ends must be placed at the bottom of the fence. 9. Electrified wires, barber wire, razor ribbon and the like are prohibited on fences. 10. All swimming pools, hot tubs, spas and other water tanks exceeding 24 inches in depth must be completely fenced in. Residential Swimming Pool Fences shall be consrtructed as follows: Residential swimming pool fences must be at least 48inches in height. The fence must not permit the passage of a 4 inch sphere through openings in the fence. Fences must be constructed of durable, corrosion and decay resistive materials. Openings below the fence to grade must not exceed 4inches. ii. Where an above ground pool structure has walls that are at least 4 feet in height, the pool wall may serve to meet the fencing requirements; however, the access to the pool must provide equivalent protection to prevent unauthorized entry. t iii. Fences for swimming pools must include a self-closing, $-7 self-latching device on all gates. Latches must be installed at least 3 feet 6 inches above grade. Gates must not exceed 4 feet in width and must most the same construction requirements as fences. You must provide temporary fencing during installation if your yard is not fenced. Building permits are required for fences exceeding 6 feet 6 inches in height. b. Commercial Swimming Pool Fences shall be not less than 5 feet in height and constructed as required by the Minnesota Department of Health. Planning Commission Agenda - 1V4/97 9. cooperation between City of Monticello- Sherburne Connty- BIQ L%ke Tomm higL and Becker Township in development of the Bridgeview Plat area- (J.O.) A RRFFRFNCE AND BA .K =RO TND: Planning Commission is asked to consider recommending adoption of the attached resolution supporting cooperation between jurisdictions in the development of the Bridgeview Plat. The resolution outlines reasons supporting preservation of unique natural areas and outlines measures that the City would take to assist preservation. A short slide show will be presented at the meeting followed by general discussion. As you may recall, initiation of discussions with developers and townships was an action item identified in the comprehensive plan. Adoption of this resolution will provide the City with a basis for a presentation at a joint meeting scheduled for November 19, 1997, at 7 p.m. at the River Inn. This resolution, if so recommended by the Planning Commission, will be forwarded to the City Council for consideration on November 10. If the Council adopts it on November 10, the Planning Commission will present the resolution to the developers, town boards, and county and state agencies at the joint meeting. B. A_i TFRNATIVE ACTIONS: 1. Motion to approve or modify and approve the resolution and forward a recommendation of approval to the City Council. 2. Motion to deny recommending approval of the resolution. C. STAFF F .O F.NDATION: Staff recommends alternative 01, D. SUPPORTING DATA Letter of invitation to the joint meeting; Copy of resolution. A slide show will bo presented at tho meeting. TO: Monticello City Council, Big Lake Township Supervisors, Becker Township Supervisors, Sherburne County Board and Planning Commission, Department of Natural Resources, Monticello Community Partners, Bridgeview Plat Developers FROM: Monticello Planning Commission Chair, Dick Frie z DATE: October 29, 1997 RE: Forum on local growth and development issues - Becker Township, Big Lake Township, Monticello area s you know, the Monticello/Becker/Big Lake "community" is one of the fastest growing —dress in the state of Minnesota. Land use decisions made today by each jurisdiction will have far-reaching and lasting impacts on all of us. The Monticello Planning Commission invites you to a special meeting to open a dialogue between neighbors on land use planning issues and to discuss opportunities for State/County/fownship(Developer cooperation in development of the area known as the "Bridgeview Plat." The meeting is scheduled for 7 p.m., November 19, at the River Inn. The discussion will be moderated by Representative Mark Olson. With regard to the Bridgeview Plat, the Planning Commission would like to take the opportunity to review the design of the impending development and propose alternatives for enhancing the development through preservation of unique native woodland and shoreline areas along the north bank of the river. The Planning Commission concepts are consistent with environmental goal p2 of the Sherburne County Plan, which states "Protect land with significant natural features such as the Mississippi River shoreline or areas of native prairie or virgin woodland." Similarly, the Monticello Comprehensive Plan calls for initiation of discussions with other jurisdictions and developers regarding development along the river. On behalf of the Planning Commission, 1 look forward to the opportunity u present and discuss possible strategies for teaming with the developer, Township, and County to accomplish mutual goals. 'hank you for considering attending this important meeting. Pleaso RSVP to Wanda Kraemer at 271.3205. 9-1 Murlladh�Cily Ilall. 2.V1I?. I1n�oJ�uy. 1'n 11w I IN. M�mUccllo. MN 331hL4lJ3.1h121 21517 1 1 • 1•u. 1nIP !vy �JiU I )II.1cc 0 Puhlic work 91H (1011 C'Mrw Rd„ ht,xnwCIh,. MN31.162 -(h Q1 213.11711 • Vim; 161:1171-127! RESOLUTION 87 - RESOLUTION SUPPORTING COOPERATION BETWEEN CITY OF MONTICELLO, SHERBURNE COUNTY, BIG LAKE TOWNSHIP, AND BECKER TOWNSHIP IN DEVELOPMENT OF THE BRIDGEVIEW PLAT AREA WHEREAS, the southern edge of the Bridgeview Plat extends along the northern edge of the city of Monticello; and WHEREAS, according to the Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW), the Bridgeview Plat area is comprised of 213 acres, of which 50 acres has been identified on the Minnesota County Biological Map as "Natural Plant Communities" and are identified as "Oak woodlandtbrushland" forest cover; and WHEREAS, the 50 -acre natural area has been untouched by agricultural or residential development and is the only remaining example of this type of ecosystem in the Monticello area; and WHEREAS, the proposed Bridgeview Plat design is not compatible with the Sherburne County Comprehensive Pian; environmental goal #2 states, "Protect land with significant natural features such as the Mississippi River shoreline or areas of native prairie or virgin woodland"; and WHEREAS, according to the EAW, County Forestor Tim Edgeton states, " It is one of only a few natural areae remaining in Sherburne County that typifies what this county once looked like. These areae should be preserved as much as possible. Platting this particular area into 2 -acre lots will destroy the plants and other features that make this area unique. If a system were in place to acquire and preserve "open space," land such as this would be a top priority"; and WHEREAS, according to the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources Natural Heritage Database, a Bald Eagle's nest was recorded on the site. Mary Miller from the DNR recommends that construction of homes and lawns be confined to areas back from the bluff in the area of the nest and that a buffer of trees be maintained around the site; and WHEREAS, according to Larry Kramka of the DNR, the Wild and Scenic Regulations allow development densities at this location to increase from 83 unite to 240 unite without a variance if developed with public utilities and if the 50- acre natural area is preserved in perpetuity in its natural setting, and WHEREAS, the Monticello Parke Commission supports inclusion of the Bridgeview Plat natural areae in the Monticello Parke system; and WHEREAS, preliminary cost estimates indicate that it is financially feasible to extend utilities from the city of Monticello to the Bridgeview Plat. The cost to provide trunk storm sewer is low as compared to other development property south of the freeway in the city of Monticello; and Resolution 97 - Page 2 _ WHEREAS, the Bridgeview Plat, under Township jurisdiction, will result in 83 private well and septic systems, while the City of Monticello has sufficient sanitary sewer and water system capacity; and WHEREAS, higher density development and associated shared use of natural areas serve to reduce urban sprawl; and WHEREAS, development of homes with high valuation will contribute toward balancing Monticello's housing stock, which is a goal of the Monticello Comprehensive Plan; and WHEREAS, the Bridgeview Plat, if located in the city, will enable Monticello citizens to purchase executive "step-up" housing without having to leave the city limits; and WHEREAS, area Townships and Sherburne County do not have a parks system and may not be equipped to manage natural areas; and WHEREAS, the city park system, including ballfields, trails, park playgrounds, and river parks are enjoyed by Sherburne County citizens; and WHEREAS, the City of Monticello is the logical jurisdiction to provide municipal services. Bridgeview residents will rely on the City to provide parks, library, community center, ice sheets, aquatic centers, etc.; and WHEREAS, future residents of the Bridgeview Plat area will identify their residence with the city of Monticello; and WHEREAS, there are many examples of cities with land areas on both sides of a river and in two counties; and WHEREAS, development of the site under an urban setting provides a larger market base for area businesses and institutions; and WHEREAS, the Monticello Planning Commission has made a finding that development of the plat in an urban setting is consistent with the comprehensive plan for the city of Monticello; and WHEREAS, Monticello Community Partners supporta development of the plat under city jurisdiction for reasons noted in this resolution; and WHEREAS, expected high home valuation resulting from a desirable river setting and associated taxes generated by the site are projected to exceed the cost to provide municipal services, thus serving to justo a city/township tax -sharing program; and WHEREAS, it is projected that the cost to provide services to high value homes under Township jurisdiction is significantly less than the tax revenue generated, thus it is anticipated that annexation of the area to the city of Monticello is not supported by the Township without a tax -sharing program; and 9-3 Resolution 97 - Page 3 �. WHEREAS, there are no pre-existing orderly annexation agreements between the City of Monticello and Becker Township or Big Lake Township governing annexation. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT, contingent on developer, Township, County, and State Agency support: 1. The City will support annexation and creative development of the Bridgeview Plat area as a planned unit development. 2. The City of Monticello supports development of a tax -sharing program that will assure preservation of Township revenue projected had development occurred as originally proposed under the Bridgeview Plat. 3. The City will provide all municipal services enjoyed by city residents. 4. The City of Monticello will seek assistance from the State of Minnesota and/or environmental groups in the form of direct grants to help purchase the natural areas and utilize said funds to help support the cost to extend municipal utilities. b. The City of Monticello will manage natural areas in perpetuity for enjoyment by residents of the Bridgeview Plat/Sherburne County and Monticello residents. 8. The City of Monticello will work cooperatively with the developer to design a site plan that maximizes potential for economic return while preserving natural areas and complying with the Wild and Scenic Act regulations. This includes development of a portion of the lots with private access to the river. 7. The City of Monticello and developer will conduct engineering studies necessary to determine design and feasibility of utility system extension, the cost of said studies to be incorported into the financing of the improvement project. Storm sewer facilities will be designed to assure proper treatment and metering of storm water runoff. S. In lieu of development of the site under City jurisdiction, the City of Monticello supports re -design of the plat under a cluster housing design and requests that environmentally sensitive areas be protected and managed by Sherburne County as a natural area for the Monticello/Becker/Big Lake community to enjoy. Adopted by the City Council this day of ,1897. Mayor City Administrator 9.4