Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Planning Commission Agenda 07-11-2007
AGENDA MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION Wednesday, July 11th, 2007 6:00 PM Commissioners: Council Liaison: Staff: 1. Call to order. Rod Dragsters, Charlotte Gabler, Lloyd Hilgart, William Spartz, and Barry Voight Brian Stumpf Angela Schumann, Gary Anderson Kimberly Holien and Steve Grittman - NAC 2. Approval of the minutes of the Planning Commission meetings of June 5th and June 12th, 2007. 3. Consideration of adding items to the agenda. 4. Citizen comments. 5. Consideration of a request for extension of a Preliminary Flat and Conditional Use Permit for Development Stage Planned Unit Development for the proposed Villas at Elm. Applicant: UP Development 6. Public Hearing -Consideration of a request for a Conditional Use Permit for Opers and Outdoor Storage. Applicant: General Rental Center of Monticello, LLC. 7. Public Hearing --Consideration of a request to amend Chapter 3 of the Monticello Zoning Ordinance regulating the height and area of signs irs a freeway overlay zone within commercial districts. Applicant: City of Monticello Planning Commission 8. Public Hearing - Consideratiors of a request for amendment to the Monticella Zoning Ordinance Chapters 3-2 and 3-S, as related to the exterior storage and parking of vehicles in residential districts. Applicant: City of Monticello a. Rear-Yard Vehicle Storage b. Off-Street Parking Setbacks • 9. Comprehensive Plan Update 10. Adjourn. ~J MINUTES MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday, June 5th, 2007 6:00 PM Commissioners Present: Commissioners Absent Council Liaison Present: Staff Present: Call to order. Rod Dragsten, William Spartz, and Barry Voight Charlotte Gabler, Lloyd Hilgart Brian Stumpf Jeff O'Neill, Ollie Koropchak, Angela Schumann, and Gary Anderson Kimberly Holien and Steve Grittman - NAC Chairman Dragsters called the meeting to order. Chairman Dragsters declared a quorum and noted the absence of Commissioners Gabler and Hilgart. LJ 2. A royal of the minutes of the Plannin Commission meetin s of Ma 1st 2007. MOTION BY COMMISSIONER SPARTZ TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF MAY 1sT, 2007 MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER VOIGHT. MOTION CARRIED, 3-0. 3. Consideration of addin items to the a enda. Commissioner Spartz added the following as item 14: Consideration to reschedule the regular July Flanning Commission meeting date. 4. Citizen comments. NONE. 5. Consideration of a re uest far extension of a Prelimin Plat and Conditional Use Fermit for Develo ment Sta e Planned Unit Develo ment for the ro ased Villas at Elm. A licant: UP Develo meat Planner Grittman presented the staff report, indicating that there are currently nuisance issues on the property proposed for development. Staff has discussed these issues and recommends that the Commission table action on the extension request for 30 days, and request that the applicant work with the property owner to clean up the nuisance Planning Commission Minutes -~ 06/05/07 conditions. Grittman stated that the recommendation would be to table to the next regular meeting, when afollow-up report can be provided. MOTION BY COMMISSIONER SPARTZ TO TABLE ACTION ON A REQUEST FOR EXTENSION OF A PRELIMINARY FLAT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR DEVELOPMENT STAGE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT FOR THE PROPOSED VILLAS AT ELM FOR A PERIOD OF 30 DAYS, TO REQUIRE THAT NUISANCE ISSUES ON THE PROPERTY OF THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT BE ADDRESSED. MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER VOIGHT. MOTION CARRIED, 3-0. 6. Consideration of a re uest for extension of a Prelimin Flat for the ro osed Hidden Forest. Applicant: Monticello 39, Inc. Commissioner Spartz inquired if the adjacent proposed development of Niagara Falls is required to be annexed for this project to move forward. Planner Grittman indicated that it is actually Hidden Forest that needs to come first. Dragsten noted that their plat deadline must also be approaching. Grittman responded that the preliminary plat for that item was approved a bit later. . MOTION BY COMMISSIONER SFARTZ TO RECOMMEND EXTENSION OF THE JUNE .~TH' 2005 PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR HIDDEN FOREST TO JUNE 7TH, 2008, WITH THE CONDITIONS AS NOTED BELOW: a. Anew final plat must be submitted for review and approval by June 26"', 2008. b. Finance plans discussed in relationship to this project will need to be re-evaluated prior to any final plat consideration. c. The applicant shall supply all required easements for onsite drainage and for drainage to the Mississippi River. d. The applicant is required to pay the expenses associated with the review of the preliminary plat, which total $37,682.89. Payment of these funds is required by January 1, 2008, or the preliminary plat shall be considered null and void. These expenses exceed the initial amount on deposit for preliminary plat review. Until the time that the City receives payment to cover expenses, no further review of any portion of the project will comxnence. MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER VOIGHT. MOTION CARRIED, 3-0. 7. Continued Public Hearin -Consideration of a re uest for Conce t Sta a Planned Unit Develo meat Fora ro osed commercial develo ment. A licant: 251 Partnershi /Mike Schneider Prior to the planner's report, the applicant distributed additional information to the Commissioners. Planner Holien presented the staff report. She explained that the applicant had presented a concept plan during the last Commission meeting which included property not under 2 Planning Commission Minutes - 06/05/07 their control. As such, staff and the Commission continued the item, allowing the applicant to revise their plan. The applicant has now provided a plan that has taken all of the property previously shown in the concept plan and shown it as a sketch plan. The concept plan requested for approval now includes only that property under the applicant's control. Holien explained that the Commission had also requested that the applicant provide information describing the buildings. Holien stated that the proposal is for a mixed use commercial site. She stated that upon approval of any concept stage plan, the applicant must submit an application for development stage PUD, a preliminary plat, and request for annexation, as this property is outside of the City in the Orderly Annexation Area. Holien reported that due to the nature of the proposal, a B-3 zoning district appears to be most appropriate. The setbacks have been calculated under that zoning designation. Holien noted that the submitted plan was not to scale, and that all setbacks have been estimated. She indicated that for the most part, it appears that all building setbacks can be met. Once staff has an opportunity to review a plan to scale, setbacks can be verified. Holien stated that perimeter curb barriers are required to be no Glaser than 11.5' to the property line. She indicated that portions of the curb appear to be encroaching onto the setback, which when adjusted, will result in loss of multiple parking spaces. She stated that the revised plan should meet setbacks. Holien stated that access is proposed from two points and that dimensions of internal drive are required to be 24'. The engineer is requesting that the applicant revise the access near Meadow Oak Drive, and has also commented that turn lanes may be required. Regarding building design, the applicant has not supplied any elevations, which the Commission Chair did ask for at the May meeting. Holien noted that the subject site contains dense tree coverage, which staff recommends to be preserved. Holien stated that the site's current configuration will not allow preservations of these trees. Staff would also like a preservation plan, as the trees serve both an aesthetics and noise control purpose. Holien reported that regarding the request, staff does not recommend approval based on inadequate information and other items as noted in the staff report. Holien stated that in relationship to the non-conforming signs on the property, the signs have been removed as of the afternoon of this Commission meeting. Voight asked if the building proposed in the concept plan is a 12,000 single story or 10,000 single-story. Holien confirmed the building to be a 10,000 single story unit. Holien stated that staff has not seen the material passed out this evening, only that which is in the packets. Dragsten asked if it is realistic to have a tree preservation plan with a commercial layout. Planning Commission Minutes - 06/05/07 O'Neill responded that as noted earlier, staff and the applicant are working with MNDoT, with the thought that the development can be pushed forward to save additional trees along the interstate. O'Neill stated that the plan is not intended to increase developable azea, but increase the ability to provide a screen. O'Neill stated that City Engineer Bruce Westby has been working with MNDoT, although he is not sure about a timeframe. Schneider indicated that he has had contact with Jamie Huckby at MNDoT as faz as construction. He stated that he had talked with them today about possibly acquiring land on west end, because MNDoT will need to acquire some land to make a six lane bridge. Schneider said that Huckby had indicated that they are working on the plans right now. Schneider reported that as far as County 75, when MNDoT determines what is needed, that will determine if and when they will vacate the old freeway entrance. Schneider stated that this piece of property is in the township. It is zoned agricultural. He noted that there is no description in comprehensive plan about use. In this concept plan, he commented that they are trying to show what they would like to do, without doing all of the final engineering, because the tenants and occupants may have some changing requests as they go. Schneider stated that they have gone through considerable expense to get some indication of approval. Schneider stated that they need to get some direction. The applicant's engineer, Gary D'Heilly, stated that it is their intent to not request any variances at all. In fact, they chose to remove building four because of possible conflict with right of way. D'Heilly referred to the potential proposed setbacks being larger than required. Dragsten stated that a building schematic is important. Although the Commission doesn't get too detailed, the Commission is looking at where they are going to sit in terms of visibility for the community. Dragsten stated that when the Commission only gets them during the meeting, it is frustrating. Dragsten referred to the functionality of the site, confirming that for concept stage, the Commission is only looking at three buildings. Spartz inquired if the Commission has previously approved something on this site. Staff confirmed that the Commission had not. As far as concept stage, Spartz reiterated the City's concerns and stated that he is also concerned about these items. Spartz referred to signs only being removed that afternoon, which illustrates his frustration. As this is concept stage, Spartz stated that he doesn't see that there is a problem with these three buildings. He noted that a lot of trees have been removed from the site already and that saving any existing trees would be a good thing. Voight stated that he has similar sentiments as Commissioner Spartz. He indicated that as a concept, he thinks this would be a good spat for what is proposed. However, he expressed frustration with the signs and lack of getting materials. 4 Planning Commission Minutes - 06/05/07 Stumpf asked where the solution came from fora 6-lane bridge. Schneider responded that MNDoT had reported that to him during his appointment regarding the land acquisition. Stumpf asked if the City is in negotations fora 6-lane bridge. O'Neill stated that the City has been reacting to what MNDoT wants to do with that bridge for many years. Stumpf asked about a construction timeline. O'Neill replied that it would depend on the bonding bill passing. Stumpf stated that the plans fora 6-lane bridge surprise him in regard to things moving forward that quickly. Chairman Dragsten opened the public hearing. Hearing no comment, Chairman Dragsten closed the public hearing. Schumann requested copies of what was distributed by the applicant for the record. Grittman stated that whatever action the Commission takes, it would be helpful to provide direction to the applicant in order to meet expectation for items of concern. Dragsten stated that if approved, the Commission would use the general concepts outlined in the staff report, which included: • Streets • Trees • Open space • Grading & drainage • Easements • Sanitary Sewer • Curbing barrier • More detailed schematics Setbacks • Circulation Dragsten stated that the Co d~sisi ation. He noted th t thee projectlneeds to be asupenosr appropriate within the PUD gn product. MOTION BY COMMISSIONTAGE APPROVAL, BASEDEON THE FINDINGS THE REQUEST FOR CONCEPT S THAT THE PROPOSED COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT IS CONSISTENT WITH THE INTENT AND PERFORMANCE STANDARDS OF THE B-3, REGIONAL BUSINESS DISTRICT AND END APPROVAL OF CONCEPT STAGE APPROVAL, CONCEPT PLAN RECOMM SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS OUTLINED BY CHAIRMAN DRAGSTEN AND WITHIN THE 06/05/07 STAFF REPORT. MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER SPARTZ. MOTION CARRIED, 3-0. • Planning Commission Minutes - 06/05/07 $. Public Hearin -Consideration of a re nest for Amendment to Planned Unit Develo ment far ex ansion of O en and Outdoor Stara e A licant: Sunn Fresh Foods Flanner Holien presented the staff report, stating that Sunny Fresh Foods is seeking an amendment to Conditional Use Permit to allow expansion of open and outdoor storage on their site. The proposal includes the addition of 8 liquid process silos, which replace some existing tanks on site. Holien stated that the site plan shows 5 existing silos on the north side, enclosed with a ground level screening wall. The 8 silos are proposed to contain a liquid egg product. No changes to signage are proposed. Holien explained that the ordinance outlines criteria that the storage be screened from the public right of way. However, the building will screen some of the view and any screening walls would not screen from adjacent properties. Staff believes that any attempt to screen would be mare obtrusive than the storage itself. Holien referred to the lighting, which is located an the catwalks for connecting silos. Holien stated that the applicant has indicated that they intend to meet lighting standards. Holien reported that staff is recommending approval of the request, subject to conditions outlined in Exhibit Z. She noted that DAT had reviewed the request and has recommended approval, with the recommendation that staff discuss expansion plans with Sunny Fresh. She stated that staff will be setting up a meeting in that regard. Holien commented that the IDC has also discussed the request and recommended approval of the CUF. Holien stated that the applicant has clarified the final height of the silos. Stumpf stated that he had a good idea of where they will be, but asked the applicant to clarify. Applicants Don Roberts and Steve Grinnell, representing Sunny Fresh, addressed the Commission and stated that they can answer any questions or concerns. Roberts indicated that the proposal includes silos along 4a' street, between NAPA and their building, which will be accessed from the existing building. There will be five located there. The other three could be viewed north from the community center. Roberts stated that currently, one silo is visible. Roberts indicated that there are currently three existing silos that will be removed and replaced. Stumpf confirmed that these are new construction and asked for relationship to buildings now. Roberts stated that current height of the building is probably 60'. This will be lower than that. Dragsten asked if Sunny Fresh could illustrate locations an the map. Grinnell pointed out locations of new silos. Dragsten asked which will be removed. Grinnell clarified. Dragsten asked haw tall the tallest building is. Roberts replied that it is probably 4 stories or 60 feet in height, which is the old drying tower. That would be visible looking from Walnut to the middle of the old building. Dragsten sought confirmation that the maximum silo height is 41'8". Grinnell responded that the guardrail around top brings the silo height to 44'3/4". Dragsten asked about a 6 Planning Commission Minutes - 06/05/07 construction timeframe. Roberts replied that they would like to be under construction by the end of June and into July. Dragsten also asked about color. Roberts responded that the silos are purchased as white; as a food business white has an important perception. He stated that they will blend with what is there. Voight asked if there is a security light at the tap of the silos. Robertsytatgid thgat they d Y have lighting around perimeter of building. Voight clarified that safet li tin will onl be turned on when necessary. Roberts confrmed. Spartz asked about the advantages of the new silos. Roberts stated that the new are more efficient and hold more egg product. Dragsten asked Sunny Fresh representatives if they are familiar with Exhibit Z. Roberts confirmed they will meet conditions. Stumpf asked if there is a reason why the silos aren't centralized. Roberts answered that part of the reason is related to the age of the building and its limitations. More importantly, the building is separated between pasteurized and non-pasteurized areas. They are kept in separate tanks in separate sides of the buildings. Dragsten inquired if the interior of Sunny Fresh's Production area is relatively modern. Roberts stated that it is. Various areas of the facility have been remodeled as the intent is • to keep the facility to date. Chairman Dragsten opened the public hearing. Hearing no comments, Chairman Dragsten closed the public hearing. MOTION BY COMMISSIONER SPART DEVELOPMENT FOR EXpOANSLON OF E AMENDMENT TO A PLANNED UN OPEN AND OUTDOOR S IO CONSISTENTDW TH THEDORIG NAL TERMS OF THE PROPOSED EXPANSION PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT FOR SUNNY FRESH FOODS, SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS LISTED 1N EXHIBIT Z AS FOLLOWS: 1. The applicant shall verify the actual height of the proposed silos. 2. All lighting proposed for the site shall be in compliance with the standards of the Zoning Ordinance. MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER VOIGHT. MOTION CARRIED, 3-0. 9. Public Hearin -Consideration of a re uest for Sim le Subdivision Rezonin from B-4 Re Tonal Business to FS Public/Semi-Public Amendment to Planned Unit Develo zr and Variance to si a e hei t and area re uirements. A licant: St. Benedict's Senior Care Facilit /CentraCare St. Henr 's Catholic Church Home De of Inc. 7 Flanning Commission Minutes - 06/05/07 Planner Holien presented the staff report. Holier pointed out the location of the proposed sign. She indicated that the previous sign was displaced with the realignment of 7th Street. She noted that the required approvals to accommodate the new sign proposed include a simple subdivision, amendment to PUD to add the newly subdivided parcel to the existing to St. Henry's property, rezoning of the parcel, a variance for area, a variance for setback, and rezoning. Holien stated that the subject site is owned by Home Depot as part of Lot 1, Block 2 of Union Crossings. St. Henry's owns land to the west. St. Henry's and St. Benedict's are part of the same Planned Unit Development. There is a large drainage pond on the west side of the access drive to St. Benedict's. Holien explained that the site on east was chosen by the applicant due to placement and safety issues associated with the west side, which is owned by St. Henry's. The access drive to St. Ben's is located partially on St. Henry's and Home Depot. The request places the entire driveway on St. Henry's property and accommodates the proposed sign. Holien illustrated the proposed sign. The applicant is entitled to a 50 square foot sign; the proposed sign is nearly twice the size. Holien stated that the property on which the sign is proposed to be located is zoned B-4, and needs to be rezoned to PS, consistent with the balance of the PUD. The setback far sideyard is S', and the sign is proposed to be located at 3'. Therefore, a variance is required for encroachment into the setback area. Regarding the simple subdivision, the applicant is working with Home Depot to subdivide the parcel which can then be combined with St. Henry's. Both actions can be accomplished with the simple subdivision. Holien commented that the PUD amendment is required to allow the off-site sign, the addition of land to the PUD, and the inclusion of the sign in the overall PUD plan. Holien referenced the variance to setback, stating that a hardship was created with realignment of 7th Street. However, she reported that staff does not recommend approval of the variance for the size of the sign, as it is believed that the applicant can make reasonable use of their property with allowed signage size. The ordinance allowance of 50 square feet would put a sign in line with the existing St. Henry's sign, which is approximately 32 square feet, with an 11 square foot message. Holien stated that staff does recommend approval of other processes, subject to the conditions noted. Dragsten asked about the size of their current sign. Holien responded that the proposed sign is much larger than the previous sign. The original sign is more akin to a directional sign. Voight asked about the sign that is already there. Holien replied that it is the original sign. Grittman noted that they didn't move the sign, 7th Street moved. Robin Theis, representative for Centracare/St. Benedict's, gave a brief history of the St. Benedict's organization. They provide a wide range of housing and health care options and provide services far over 500 seniors, both in St. Cloud and Monticello. Planning Commission Minutes --- 0~/OS/07 Theis stated that they feel that the sign proposed is needed for a number of reasons. Theis noted that at the time St. Ben's was built, the road was adead-end and St. Benedict's was the only thing there. However, due to the realignment and new retail development, it is no larger adead-end. Theis referred to a prepared slide presentation. Theis stated that their driveway is adjacent to Home Depot, for whom the zoning designation is business. She commented that the surroundings of a commercial environment make it hard to see their facility, as part of their building is also hidden by St. Henry's. Theis said that a sign of a smaller size than proposed would be hidden by surroundings. She reported that the sign is consistent with all of CentraCare's signs, and is the same sign as what is located at the St. Cloud Facility. Theis explained that the type and size have been studied in relationship to the senior population. Theis presented a slide, showing that the St. Benedict's entrance is on a curve of a road, and that people are missing the turn. Theis also suggested that as the Home Depot landscaping matures, it will be difficult to see a smaller sign. In addition to the St. Benedict's tenants, Home Depot's truck drivers are using their drive. If they are not able to turn around, they are running over curbs and landscaping. Theis illustrated images illustrating damage caused by truck turn_grounds. Voight confirmed that the images showed damage caused by trucks going to Home Depot. Theis stated that the proposed sign is like a mailbox, as it is not only for tenants, but also for guests. Theis showed a computer enhanced image of the sign proposed on . the property. Dragsten noted that far Ryan's development the PUD was allowed to have a larger sign because they had one sign rather than several signs. Stumpf asked, being that there are two separate entities at St. Benedict's, would they be allowed to have separate signs, one for each entity. Grittman stated that typically not; St. Benedict's is a single project. Grittman stated that staff doesn't have a problem with the sign content; staffls contention is that it should meet requirements. Stumpf stated that he thinks the photograph of St. Henry's illustrates that and that he agrees with their points, but believes the sign should meet the requirements. Richard Horan, resident of St. Benedict's, addressed the Commission. Horan stated that he has observed that there are a lot of large vehicles using the access drive, both day and evening. He commented that they even go around the back and need to back out. Horan stated that when they back out, it is a serious problem. He said that he has also seen cars trying to get around trucks. Horan explained that there is nothing better for a driver than landmarks or signs that can be seen at a distance away in order to prepare for a turn. He noted that alignment also requires them to be turning on a curve. Horan read a letter of support from St. Benedict's residents that stated "We, as residents of St. Benedict's, request that the sign be located at end of the driveway at Home Depot. The sign height and size is important to guests and visitors. Since we now live next to a mall environment, there is a need to clearly marls where we live and to prevent semis from damaging lawn and landscaping, and to prevent accidents." 9 Planning Commission Minutes - 06/05/07 Dragsten asked if trucks are corning from 7th Street. Horan confirmed. He stated that he has seen trucks with trailers go through the lawn. Theis mentioned that Home Depot does not hire trucks directly. Instead, their vendors hire the trucks. Therefore, Home Depot doesn't know who is coming and there is no way to notify them of the access conditions. Theis noted that the two St. Ben's facilities do have separate addresses. Dragsten suggested that in relationship to the trucks taming in, perhaps they could work with Home Depot to get a sign that reads "private drive". Spartz stated that part of the problem is that there is no sign there at all; he indicated that he isn't sure that a bigger sign is the answer. He stated that "No truck signage" might be appropriate. Theis responded that they have their own delivery trucks, so they would prefer not to post such signage. Dragsten agreed that that a larger sign may not correct the problem. Voight asked about the memo of understanding, which references that the sign is limited only to St. Benedict's use. Grittman replied that condition is required by Home Depot in order to eliminate the possibility of the sign being used in a commercial capacity. Voight stated that while he thinks St. Benedict's definitely needs a sign, he doesn't know if a larger sign is needed. Voight inquired about what the applicant plans to do with the old sign. Theis stated that they planned to leave the sign and put in a welcome message. Dragsten noted that the Commission has three decisions related to the requests. MOTION BY COMMISSIONER SPARTZ TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE REQUEST FOR A SIMPLE SUBDIVISION, REZONING, AND AMENDED PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT, BASED ON A FINDING THAT THE PROFOSED USE IS CONSISTENT WITH THE INTENT OF THE PS DISTRICT AND THE EXISTING PUD. MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER VOIGHT. MOTION CARRIED, 3-0. Dragsten commented that in relationship to the second decision, it seems that there is a hardship, as the applicant has na control over the road relocation. MOTION BY COMMISSIONER SPARTZ TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE FROM THE SIDE YARD SETBACK REQUIREMENT, BASED ON A FINDING THAT AN UNDUE HARDSHIP EXISTS. MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER VOIGHT. MOTION CARRIED, 3-0. 10 Planning Commission Minutes - 06/05/07 • In reviewing the third decision, Spartz restated that he doesn't know that a bigger sign will make a difference. MOTION BY COMMISSIONER SPARTZ TO RECOMMEND DENIAL OF THE REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE TO ALLOW A SIGN IN EXCESS OF 50 SQUARE FEET, BASED ON A FINDING THAT AN UNDUE HARDSHIF EXISTS. Voight asked if the Commission could put a stipulation of a certain square footage, as he indicated that he would hate let them do something less and then realize they need a bigger sign. Grittman responded that in general, he believes the SO' to be appropriate. He stated that it sounds like the biggest problem is simply not having the sign. . MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER VOIGHT. MOTION CARRIED, 3-0. 10. Consideration of a re uest for Com rehensive Plan Amendment for a chan e in land use desi ation from industrial to commercial and a re uest far Rezonin from I-1A Li t Industrial) to B-4 (Regional Business). (South Side of East Chelsea Road) A licant: Mills Pro erties Inc. Planner Grittman presented the staff report, noting that the item had been tabled from the previous meeting. Grittman indicated that this request has created a number of divergent issues and staff opinions. He stated that staff did not make a specific recommendation, but prepared findings of fact for the Commission for either decision. He explained that this decision is related to land use. Grittman stated that the request for comprehensive plan amendment and rezoning for the 2.5 acre parcel is a separate item, and that the next Tuesday, a separate public hearing far a preliminary plat and series ~of conditional use permits would be held. Grittman reviewed the last meeting, stating that the Commission heard public testimony from neighboring industrial property owners, much of it negative, but also some positive. The City's Economic Development Director addressed the differences between the land use designation as related to taxation and wages. The applicant addressed the Commission and noted the impacts of the new interchange on the surrounding property. The current property owner ofthe subject site also addressed the Commission. Grittman explained that the motion to approve the comprehensive plan amendment and rezoning failed. The motion to deny was discussed, made, and then withdrawn without a vote. Subsequently, a motion to table was approved unanimously by the Commission. Grittman noted that the Planning Commission did close the public hearing. Grittman summarized the exhibits included in the agenda packets, stating that in summary, the Commission is asked to consider the redesignation of the property from industrial to commercial and rezoning from I-lA to B-4. 11 Planning Commission Minutes -~- 06/05/07 Spartz asked about a tinneframe for construction of the Fallon Avenue Bridge. Grittman responded that while there is no specific timeframe, it is included in the City's transportation plan. The City needs to find funding for the project. O'Neill added that the timeline for construction is set by impacts at the CSAH 1$ intersection with 7th Street. When that area is congested, MNDoT will pressure they City to construct the bridge. Spartz referred to the staff report, noting the grading of different roads from A to F. Grittman clarified that designate Bouleva d is.veCxrittmanlexplained thatthe leveEof Spartz asked what grade School service was included as part of the EAW n of Chelseacwas int nded to easestraffic off of is project. Spartz asked if the recon tnxctio School Boulevard. Grittman replied that it is to improve the flow of traffic as part of the interchange project and to aid Chelse ease traffic on Chelsea, although School carries Boulevard was actually developed to much more residential traffic. Spartz inquired if the land remains com manaconfirmed that the zo ng designation and the project does not move forward. Gn would remain commercial in that case. Dragsten asked if the EAW showed any major concerns. Stumpf noted that the EAW is within its 30 day review window by other agencies. O'Neill asked Grittman to discuss the option of zoning to a B-4 PUD. Grittman responded that there was some discussion, about how the property would hed anent code doesnt allow for PUD di tricts~so the e to a FUD district. He stated that t City would need to amend the code. In such case, any use for the site would be required to go through the PUD process, providing impacts and design detail. It was offered as an option, so that if Mills did not complete their project, the City would still have more site control than if it were a straight B-4. Any use on that site would be required to come in under a FUD. O'Neill asked how to initiate the process, as the applicant has not applied for a PUD designation or amendment. Grittman stated that the City has the opportunity to apply on its own for amendment to the district and to initiate the rezoning. Grittman stated that the Chief Zoning Official, the Planning Commission and the City Council are approved to initiate that action. Dragsten asked if the Commissioners wanted to reopen the public hearing. Spartz noted that people had come to address the issue. Dragsten agreed, stating that the hearing would be for additional information only. Chairman Dragsten opened the public hearing. Don Tomann, owner of UMC at 500 Chelsea Road, addressed the Commission. Tomann stated that the only thing he wanted to add was that his intent through this whole process 12 Planning Commission Minutes - Ob/05/07 was not to sway the decision, as it's a difficult decision. Tomann commented that when you fall in love with a car, the salesman has the upper hand, and you have to be willing to walk away. Tomann stated that he has nothing personal against Mills Fleet Farm, or against any individual or anyone who works for or with City. He commented that he thinks it would be an asset to have the business, but the question comes down to the right spot, to previous commitments, and to what is already in the area. He stated that he is trying to give the Commission perspective. In the letter presented to the Commission, he stated that he was requesting some discussion, and instead got a couple of emailed responses that seemed rather definitive. Tomann remarked that it seems as if the whole project is going so fast, the City is not taking time to examine the impacts. Tomann referred to the St. Ben's sign issue, citing it as an example of a consequence on something that wasn't communicated properly. He stated that the bridge created the opportunity, but that doesn't stop us from communicating better today and seeing that everyone gets their questions answered. Tomann explained that he realizes this is a tough decision for both the Commission and Council. Tomann stated that he wanted to add a few points on jobs. He indicated that he thinks he made his point on how jobs make a community in the long term. He stated that he heard the personal pleas from the current land owner about what they've done for the City. Tomann said that the inability to sell the property shouldn't impact this decision. He stated that he feels that there is a lot of discussion needed on what hardships are we creating that can't be answered today. If they are discussed now, maybe there could be a • response. Tomann stated that he didn't have a chance to see the response letter and doesn't know what hardships will be created. Tomann stated that for example, surveyors were out surveying trees on the west side of his property. They didn't ask permission to come on the property. Tomann stated that they drove spikes into his driveway without permission. He reported that the surveyors had said they worked for Mills and that Mills didn't want to put up more trees. Tomann suggested that there continues to be more miscommunications. Tomann inquired that if this is the beginning of it, where are his rights. Tomann stated that he really thinks that the City needs to get everybody involved. The City needs to back away from the decision, whether it is the road improvements or the rezoning, and get a forum together. Tomann stated that he is sure landowners would have been happy to take part in that process. Tomann requested that the Commission find out what's best far the City. Bruce Buxton addressed the Planning Commission, representing Mills Properties and Mills Fleet Farm. Buxton reported that Stu Mills, one of the owners of Mills Fleet Farm, is here because he is interested in this process. Buxton stated that on behalf of his company and Mills, he apologizes to Mr. Tomann and UMC if work was done outside of the property line and ROW. Buxton commented that the surveying was a City requirement, that the ordinance requires all details of topography 200' beyond the boundaries of the subject property. Staff insisted that they do that. Buxton stated that Mills did not and would never say that it would not want to provide more trees. 13 Planning Commission Minutes - 06/05/07 Buxton stated that the Cammission has a narrative that outlines many things. One thing not discussed are the benefits to the City. 'This is a commercial project and obviously a very large facility. Buxton stated that it will add rather significantly to the tax base of the City. Buxton commented that property owner Shawn Weinand has owned and made an effort to market this property for some 20 years, with no interested buyers other than UMC and Twin City Die Casting. The only reason Mills is looking at this site is because of the interchange. As a retailer, there is no job zone, no TIF, no financial support. That is no offense to any industrial business. Buxton referred to information prepared from Owatonna. He stated that in Owatonna, Mills Fleet Farm has a facility that is S years old. Mi11s took a large parcel of land, which had a building on it. That parcel was rezoned to commercial. It was owned by Owatonna Tool and SPX. The building is 1$0,0 FO ~~ • and revenue bonds ended, the industrial revenue bonds and TIF. When the T user moved and left the building sitting empty until Mills came in. Buxton commented that the Commission has aerials of the Owatonna area. It is also near an interstate interchange near and amon~h Owatonna Cit e t ff~Bux~on stated that he brings up discussions staff has had wit Y Owatonna to advise the Commission and to note that in their opinion, there has been no harm to any of the other industrial businesses in that area. Buxton stated that third, he thinks this is a quality project. He commented that it would be a substantial building with quality materials, essentially the same that UMC is built out a£ The building will be own oo the olwner~ who will be herB a long time. that he is not a developer, but rather works f Buxton reported that they expect to have 200 employees and opportunities for young people. Admittedly, he stated that they are not paying the same wages as UMC or TCDC, but that they do offer competitive wages. Buxton stated that one of issues referenced was security. Buxton said that Stuart Mills puts a lot of emphasis on secu stomer~ Mill is v ry spec fic about how he works with the property, rts employees and cu police department for safety and security. Buxton stated that hopefully, there are enough benefits that the Commission can see. They are compatible. They offer benefit to the City. Buxton thanked the Commission for their time, and apologized again to UMC. Dragsten asked haw long Mills has been in Owatonna. Buxton replied it was about five years. The Owatonna information ten askedifBuxton knew haw much industrial and about other similar locations. Drags is currently available. Buxton suggested that about 150 acres was available and a lot more taken. Buxton referred to the aerial of Owatonna, noting the Mills location. He stated that outside of Target and a hotel, all other buildings in the area are industrial. He stated that at the next interchange north are Walmart and Lowes. 14 Planning Commission Minutes - 06/05/07 Voight stated that the Commission had talked at the May lsc meeting about losing some freeway exposure once the north sideowhe north P de. oBU xtton staBd that they expectf that, despite the next request related t those to be smaller buildings, with smaller uses. When built up, Buxton stated that they would already be established and peoplher locat ors. Buxton onfirmed,lgtat ng hat they that they had said that they looked at of have been looking at Monticello and surrounding area all the way to Buffalo. Buxton reported that they had rejected this site a couple of years ago, but the interchange and resulting commercial on the north side of the interstate changed the whole dynamic. Grittman explained that he had a couple of comments. In terms of the requirement for survey data, the purpose of that requirement is to ensure that any drainage is being handled properly, and so that the City knows how it is being handled. Dragster noted that requirement is typical anywhere. Grittman referenced the timing question for this request. He reported that under state statute, the City has 120 days to consider these applications. The City needs to complete City action by the end of June. Dragster noted that the applicant can request an extension. Tomann again spoke to the Commission. He stated that he finds it interesting that City '~ staff is putting emphasis around finding success stories. If the City is going to put tax dollars to support Mills, theyf each of the~lndividua businesseowner sis'also needed. ann suggested that an interview o Tomann commented that he has a 3 year old building, and the Commission needs to think about that. SPX is not a family owned business, they are a corporation, and they close down plants all over the US. Tomann stated that the comparison is not apples to apples. Tomann suggested that the Commission listen to the professionals hired by the city. HKGi, the City's comprehensive plan consultant, has publicly stated that it isn't a good situation. Rusty Fifield's opinion was that he wouldn't have a mixed area here. So, the comparison may not be valid. Tomann recommended that a discussion with two business that are less than 7 years old in the neighborhood. Dragster noted that the Commission had requested comparisons. Tomann stated that it seems that staff are working to promote Mills Fleet Farm. Dragster stated that he can guarantee that the staff report is not swayed one way or the other. He noted that the Commission took two hours of public comment to let everyone speak. There was a lot of information, not to mention the additional information provided with this second hea stated hatsit is importa t that Tomann understand thatg. that is taken lightly. Dragster Tomann stated that he underst h th ntlcls f there wasbrothingl out theretthe decnson Dragster agreed and stated that would be much easier, but the mix of uses makes it quite a bit different. 15 Planning Commission Minutes - 06/05/07 Shawn Weinand, property owner, addressed the Commission. Weinand apologized if the UMC property was infringed on, and stated that all he can do is apologize. Weinand stated that he thinks the point Buxton is making is that they are willing to invest millions of dollars in the City with no risk to the City, without them walking away. Weinand stated that he is very involved with the Brainerd community. He indicated that he recently completed a 3-year project in Brainerd. Out of all the subcontractors used, over half have worked for Mills at one time or another. Mills helps to train the best businessmen and subcontractors. Weinand stated that all of those people attributed their success to Mills. Weinand noted that Mills creates jobs that create skills that will carry on to future jobs. Weinand commented that the City should not let this opportunity pass by. Weinand stated that it is unfortunate that there couldn't have been more meetings. However, he noted that he had four years worth of meetings on the interchange. During that time, there were many opportunities far public input. This was not done quietly, without a lot of public knowledge. He encouraged the Commission not to miss a good opportunity. Tomann questioned whether there was plenty of opportunity over a four year period. He stated that he had asked for announcements and communications notifying the surrounding area. He indicated that nothing has been produced. Tomann stated that he doesn't believe that there was any public meeting or information. If there was a forum put together, someone made a choice not to include certain properties. There was no opportunity to participate. O'Neill explained that there was a decision early on to assess properties that were vacant. There was a complicated but collaborative funding plan for the interchange that was put into place. The City did everything it could to finance the interchange without impacting existing industrial property owners. Shannon Bye, Monticello Township Board, addressed the Commission. Bye stated that her concern is that having been to comprehensive plan update meetings, she would be reluctant to see this decision made without the camp plan being completed. She suggested that to do it all in good faith, perhaps the City should wait until the comp plan is completed. Stuart Mills addressed the Commission as the owner of Mills Properties and Mills Fleet Farm. Mills stated that he, along with his twin brother, Henry Mills, are owners of Mills Fleet Farm, based out of Brainerd. Mills thanked the Commission and staff for their time. Mills stated that they want to be part of the community. Mills stated that he believes it is important for the Commission to get a feeling of what Mills stands for. He said that honesty and integrity have been the motto of the company, which was started by their father. Mills explained that when he and his brother had gotten out ofthe Korean War, they started the Brainerd Mills store, which was 4.000 square feet, and went from there. Mi11s indicated that they have never asked anyone for • any help and feel they have been good citizens. 16 Planning Commission Minutes - 05/05/07 • Monticello is a good spot, Mills stated. He has traveled by Monticello for more than $0 years. He suggested that they feel they would be good for the surrounding community. He noted that they had spent a lot of time looking at Monticello. Other communities have been interested, but Mills has not been intercho en was not an apc dente Itdwas ed that they want to be in Monticello. The location based on access. Mills thanked the Commission once more. Dragsten stated that any decision on the zoning would not be a reflection on Mills in any way. The issues are still a mix of use, traffic, and b nkeanother an hortcomme r ialause to thinks the company is good for the City as rt doe g the City. He noted that it might not bring higher paying jobs, although there is no guarantee on those in any case. Dragsten stated that he thinks the commercial use pressure has resulted from the interchange. Calling for and hearing no other public comment, Chairman Dragsten closed the public hearing. Voight stated that he is not as concerned ambIanu~ aln hen the whole north s de would go issue, as he is that if this 33 acres goes co , commercial. It seems to be a reasonable conclusion. In that case, Voight stated that an island of industrial land would be created for T at he doeDsn't think g a c wM pl Y aght stated that concerns him. Voight commented th significant role, as he imagines that the uses will a sleet Farm lmay cause the ex sting d that he is also concerned that the introduction of property owners to be unable to fully utilize their property Spartz commented that this is not an issue with the Mils family. The story about pounding stakes was probably the first negative artz stat d that he looks at that lanld as a that he just don't know if it is the right spot. Sp piece that takes Monticello out of being a bedraff c o Chelsea andeSchoolt he he still wants Fleet Farm, just not there. In terms of t commented that he doesn't think that is a gone ause he didn~tswant to see industriall up of involved with the comp plan update, it was b against commercial. He got involved because o cation ~ owrong. Spartz restated that he believes Mills xs a good company, but that the la Dragsten noted the benefit of having one user over several users on that site. Dragsten stated that he thinks there are pros and cons down the middle. MOTION BY COMMISSIONER SPAR pL N AMEONDMENDT AND RE ONING, REQUEST FOR A COMPREHENSIVE BASED ON THE FINDINGS FOR DENOIIA OF THE MAYQ1, 2007 O AFF RE ORT. WITHIN THE CONCLUSIONS SECTI MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER DRAGSTEN. 17 Flanning Commission Minutes - 06/05/07 Stumpf commented that it is unfortunate that there is not a full Commission present to make comments regarding the issue. Dragsten agreed, stating it is a very important issue. Stumpf stated that this is also a difficult issue. MOTION CARRIED 2-1, WITH COMMISSIONER VOIGHT IN DISSENT. Dragsten reiterated that the Commission's vote is nothing against Mills or the developer; that he thinks it comes down to mixing of uses. Dragsten asked for clarification on when this will go before the City Council. O'Neill stated that it will be reviewed on June 25th. 11. Public Hearin - Consideration of a re uest for Com rehensive Plan Amendment for a char e in land use desi ation from industrial to commercial and a re uest far Rezonin from I-lA Li t Industrial to B-3 Limited Business . orth Side o East Chelsea Raad A licant: Mills Properties Inc. Planner Grittman presented the staff report. Grittman stated that since the City Council will not have acted on zoning on the south, the Commissian needs to proceed on the request for the north, as they go forward to the Council together on June 25th. Grittman noted that the earlier decision does complicate the analytical process a bit. Grittman reported that the analysis in the staff report is similar to the south 33 acres. He stated that the cumulative traffic from the two sites is the same, as if the larger locates on the south, the traffic splits. Only the traffic pattern changes with the site being split. Grittman stated that when staff looks at this site, the bulk of the comments are the same. The pros that support the comp plan and rezoning are the same, although slightly stronger because of the direct freeway exposure. The cons discussed earlier are also similar. In support of a comp plan amendment and rezoning, Grittman stated that there is an existing mix of uses already in the area. The subject site has features that are consistent with commercial use. Grittman noted that if there were no other uses, direct exposure to freeway is very likely a factor that the City would have considered as a a strong indicator of a commercial area. Grittman commented that the Commissian has reviewed surrounding land uses, although a large number as related to this north parcel are in fact vacant, or have commercial zoning. In support of retaining the current comp plan designation and zoning, the report reflects an expected increase in traffic along Chelsea, which is significant over what it would be under industrial. The reports also cites potential traffic conflicts. Grittman stated that the primary difference or distinction between the two requests is the north parcel's direct freeway exposure, which seems to argue more favorably than the south from that single aspect. 18 Planning Commission Minutes - 06/05/07 Chairman Dragsters opened the public hearing. Don Tomarsn addressed the Commission as related to this request. Tomann noted traffic concerns mentioned in the report. Tomann stated that in relationship to the assessments, Jeff O'Neill had Hated that current property owners were not included. However, Tornarsn stated that they are impacted for road improvements on Chelsea for commercial uses. Industrial users do not need sidewalks and trees, so he would request that the City pick up the tab on those. Tomann stated that he understands that the road improvements and costs are not for the Planning Commission to decide. Tamann stated that he would keep those comments and store that for later rather than here. Calling for and hearing no further comment, Chairman Dragsters closed the public hearing. Spartz stated that if the Commission was to be consistent, it would stick with zoning as is. Voight stated that far him, he recognizes that a commercial use would bring traffic, although he doesn't foresee the significant hardships because of traffic. Voight noted that his "no" vote on the previous item was symbolic because it was such a close decision for the Commission. Voight said that he is more comfortable with this request because it does have direct freeway access. He remarked that the lots are smaller, and wouldn't support a bigger retail user. Voight commented that even if the 33 acres doesn't go commercial, with all of the parcels and uses combined, you might see the same level of traffic. Voight stated that thinks this is more fitting of commercial. He indicated that if nothing was there in terms of surrounding uses, it would not be a difficult decision. He stated that he doesn't want to make changes to the comp plan that impact the way current businesses operate. However, in this area, B-2 is already present. Dragsters stated that in camp plan meetings, there was discussion specifically about this area. There really was not a consensus either way. Dragsters commented that he would see that this area would benefit the City as commercial or PUD. Dragsters asked staff about looking for a zoning designation of PUD. He inquired if they could table or make the decision contingent. Grittman responded that they could send the item forward and then call for a hearing on the PUD zoning issue. He explained that it would benefit the City Council to have the ability to act on the requests with the recommendation forthcoming later on the PUD. However, they won't be able to act on PUD recammendation. Spartz stated that he understands the comments, but wants to discuss traffic whether you take 10 acres, 3 acres, or 33 acres. Spartz inquired how it is not going to affect traffic either way. Dragsters stated his opinion that the north side would be limited to smaller retail. Dragsters also noted that there could also be small industrial businesses that would generate about the same amount of traffic. However, ors the south side, one large single commercial user would seem to generate a much higher traffic volume than a single 19 Planning Commission Minutes -- 06/05/07 industrial user. Spartz clarified that Dragsters believes that the two should be compared separately. The Commissioners briefly discussed whether a PUD district designation would be appropriate for the north side site. Grittman stated that the Commission could motion to call for a public hearing on a new FUD ordinance for the north side of Chelsea Road. MOTION BY COMMISSIONER VOIGHT TO CALL FOR A FUBLIC HEARING REGARDING THE AMENDMENT OF THE MONTICELLO ZONING ORDINANCE FOR THE CREATION OF A PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT FOR THE NORTH SIDE OF CHELSEA ROAD TO FALCON AVENUE. Spartz clarified that this zoning would apply to just this area and asked why this should be different from any other piece of property. Dragsters stated that the designation would give it flexibility. Grittman stated that primary benefit is it allows City to manage what would go on the site, based on the mix of uses currently in the area. Dragsters explained this would be usefiil in relationship to the abutting an industrial use. Spartz stated that he is just concerned about another zoning district. Spartz stated that perhaps if there isn't a district that fits, perhaps it doesn't benefit the City. Dragsters noted that there is a B-2 District in place already on the end. O'Neill stated that the PUD district could be structured so that the B-4 uses would be taken out, but leave in district site design requirements. The Commissioners discussed other possible areas for using a PUD district and the flexibility a PUD District might give. Spartz stated that it provides another layer. Dragster noted that perhaps it could be discussed at Tuesday's meeting. COMMISSIONER VOIGHT RESCINDED OMOTION TO CALL p'OR A FUBLIC HEARING REGARDING THE AMENDMENT OF THE MONTICELLO ZONING ORDINANCE FOR THE CREATION OF A PLANNED UNIT DEVELOFMENT DISTRICT FOR THE NORTH SIDE OF CHELSEA ROAD TO FALCON AVENUE. MOTION BY COMMISSIONER VOIGHT TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE REQUEST FOR A COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT AND REZONING TO ACCOMMODATE MILLS FLEET FARM MOTOR FUEL STATION AND ACCESSORY USES, BASED ON A FINDING THAT THE PROPOSED LAND USE IS COMPATIBLE WITH THE ADJACENT INDUSTRIAL LAND USE DESIGNATION, AND WILL NOT HAVE A DETRIMENTAL AFFECT ON SURROUNDING PROPERTIES. MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER DRAGSTEN. Commissioner Spartz stated that he would perhaps have recommended tabling for more input from the other Commissioners. 20 Planning Commission Minutes - 06/05/07 MOTION CARRIED, 2-1, WITH COMMISSIONER SPARTZ IN DISSENT. 12. Public Hearin -- Consideration of a re uest for Amendment to Planned Unit Develo ment for a retail commercial develo meat at Monticello Travel Center 2"d Addition. A licant: Mielke Bros., LLC Planner Grittman presented the staff report, referencing the provided site plans and information from the staff report. Grittman stated that the Commission is reviewing the last parcel on Monticello Travel Center. The site consists of a 9,000 square foot commercial building which has exposure on all four sides. Grittman stated that the architecture supports the multiple exposures. The building is constructed primarily of EI~IS and block, with awnings provided all around the building. The applicant was encouraged to provide a varying roofline, as with other projects. The building meets those standards. As a development stage PUD, the entire site relies on shared parking, access and signage. This project does include renovation of an existing sign, which provides for fewer free standing signs on that property. The applicant is proposing to utilize the existing Jiffy Lube sign, adding an electronic reader board in lieu of temporary signage. Grittrnan reported that the applicant had requested some flexibility from landscaping standards, including concrete flower planters in lieu of overstory trees. The applicant indicates that they have had success with that design as part of the Loch Jewelers project. The only remaining point of contention relates to wall signage. There are wall signage panels on all sides, for a total often wall signs. The calculation that staff has used allows 5% of facade of any building frontage. Staff has counted both Highway 25 and Cedar Street as frontages, given that this is a PUD. The building is allowed a total of 221 square feet of wall signage. The applicants show 246 square feet. Staff recommends that wall signage be reduced to meet the ordinance requirement. Grittman stated that staff recommends approval, believing the plan to be consistent with the concept PUD. Grittman stated that there are conditions and provided detail. He noted that the photometric plan should be revised to not exceed one foot candle at the property line, that wall signage should meet requirements, and added that it is recommended that the applicant add a crosswalk to the Subway restaurant as there is likely to be some pedestrian access through the site. Grittman explained that the engineers have also made some recommendations for technical changes. Finally, as related to the drive-through, a separate CUP is required. Grittman stated that it is his understanding that the engineer's requests are acceptable to the applicant. As a condition of approval, staff has also requested that the applicant provide additional information regarding tenants. The applicant has asked staff to strike that. Staff believes the site plan sufficient, and is willing to drop the requirement. 21 Planning Commission Minutes -- 06/05/07 Voight asked for clarification on wall signage. Grittman stated that the applicant had modified wall signage on the plans, removing some wall signage and added tenant sign over each corner sign. There is still a total often wall signs with total sign area of about 260 square feet. Grittman noted that channel letters will vary in their actual size. Voight asked about parking requirements, noting that although the site shares parking, this site is 27 stalls short. Grittman stated that the calculation is made assuming the building stood alone. That calculation is based on the maximum use. Grittman explained that the reality is that it is likely to be less, and even with that, cross parking covers the needed parking. Voight noted that it will be a tight block. Grittman stated that the report is based on a worst case scenario. Spartz commented that he is in and out at various times of the day and that in his opinion the shared parking will be more than adequate. Spartz asked about limitations of drive- throughs in terms of the intensity of user. Grittman replied that the ordinance sets no limit; each is examined separately. Spartz clarified that there is no separation between low and high volume users, so normally we would want to know what uses are. Grittman stated that under normal circumstances, that is accurate. Staff is looking at this from the perspective that the very high volume business will physically not be able to locate here, it would be self limiting. Schumann noted that part of the intent of a PUD is to allow property owners to more efficiently use their sites, combining parking and access elements. Grittman also noted that parking needs for uses peak differently, allowing cross-parking to function more effectively. Dragsten commented that there was a condition requiring drainage plan approval. Grittman stated that general drainage was approved, but construction design is based on specifics. Dragsten asked far clarification on monument signage versus the other style proposed. Grittman responded that the code allows a pylon sign for every building and user. The applicant is proposing to transfer some of that area to the existing Jiffy Lube sign, rather than add another sign. The other sign is an entrance monument at Cedar Street. Dragsten asked if the drive-through's total lanes can accommodate somewhere between 5-7 cars. Grittman answered that the applicant believes stacking is adequate. Dragsten asked if stacking would back up into street or private drives. Grittman confirmed that it would be onto private drives. Dragsten also requested clarification on the location of order boards. Dragsten asked what happens if the applicant doesn't meet or follow these recommendations. Grittman responded that substantive changes need to come back to the Commission. Dragsten noted that as part of the recommendation regarding the last drive through, there was no order board. O'Neill commented that he hasn't seen any congestion at that location, with the order board. Dragsten said that the concern is that it wasn't approved that way. Chairman Dragsten opened the public hearing. Dan Mielke addressed the Commission as project developer. Mielke stated that they believe this is a good project. He noted that it is atime-sensitive project. He thanked 22 Flanning Commission Minutes - 06/05/07 staff and consultants for working with them on working through the process. Mielke stated that the pre-design process is productive. Mielke stated that staff recommended approval and based on the report presented, they are okay with conditions, except for the request for tenant mix, which has been addressed. Spartz referenced the tenant mix question. Mielke referenced parking, with 59 spaces shown. He noted that the drive-through stacking was not included in that calculation. There is room for 15 in the stacking areas, for a total of 74 spaces an site. He noted that they are constructing only a 9000 square foot building. They are providing a lot of parking as compared to other projects. Mielke explained that there are also 272 other parking stalls an the site. Mielke commented that the tenants are the best determiners of what works for the drive-throughs. Dragster stated his only concern is what would spill onto the public street. Dragsten referenced to the order board at the Loch Building. Spartz referred to minutes from that meeting, which stated that there would be no order board. Mielke responded that at the time, the given tenant, who didn't need an order board, didn't take the piece. The current tenant asked for order board. Dragsten stated that was the concern. Mielke noted that it doesn't seem to be a problem. Dragsten stated that he just wanted clarification that he is going to build these, rather than something changing. Mielke stated that he is being accusing of lying. Spartz stated that this is a long process, and the Commission is looking to go forward. He indicated that he was frustrated that staff took the condition off, as it is in the Commission's best interest to examine this. O'Neill indicated that perhaps in the event that there are traffic problems, the developer could be subject to lasing the CUP. O'Neill stated that it wasn't meant to betaken off completely, but end up being a compromise. Dragsten stated that this is a nice project, and looks like a very nice building. He stated, however, that there is apprehension in moving forward. Mielke stated that he did not say there would not be a menu board, but rather that the tenant lacking at the site would not need a menu board. Mielke stated that he has read lots of meeting minutes and they don't always accurately reflect what was said and how it was said. Voight stated that he is concerned about two things. He commented that the building looks great. However, there is a limited amount of landscaping. Voight said that what's shown is going to look nice, but it is unfortunate that there can't be mare trees. Voight stated that he is also concerned about the drive-through on Cedar Street as it seems like a point of congestion, especially for people turning off Cedar into Landmark. Mielke referenced that they have 59 parking stalls, with 15 more available on the site. He indicated that is one stall for each 129 square feet of building space. Just south of this 23 Planning Commission Minutes - 06/05/07 development, he cited that the Warnert Building at 17,000 square feet, has anly 54 parking spaces. This building is half the size. So, there is much mare parking available on this site, Mielke reported. In regard to the concerns about drives and congestions, Mielke stated that he could site numerous others that create greater concern and problems. There is the same situation on Warnert. Mielke stated that he thinks this site will work better. He commented that Stumpf has alluded to what makes a difference, as there are actually four access points for ingress and egress. When complete, Mielke noted that the access drive will go through the site so that traffic gets dispersed. Mielke stated that at end of the day, if the tenants don't like the site, it will be he who pays the price. Mielke restated that he thinks the site flows well and that the connecting drive will disperse traffic. He commented that he believes that the bulk of traffic will use the north and south access. Dragsten and Voight stated that they are okay with parking. Mielke explained that in terms of landscaping, they have found that people in this area really like the upscale atmosphere of Maple Grove, and that they like the character of the building. He stated that they have continued architectural detail around all four sides, which adds a lot of extra cost and is appropriate. In terms of landscaping, he commented that instead of doing vld standard, they are trying to create an upscale look with nice planters, each with 50 flowers planted. They will be irrigated, with electricity, as they want to light them for the holidays. Dragsten asked if they will have association dues with the leased building. Mielke confirmed and indicated that they will have a Common Area Maintenance document. Dragsten asked if, as related to the conditions, they are not asking for changes, the trade- off is just allowing them to transfer the requirement to planters. Mielke stated that he thinks it is an upgrade. Mielke stated that he has had a positive working experience with staff for this project, and would like it to continue. Dragsten stated that project seems to be nice and is in focal paint of the City. Mielke commented that the location was part of the reason far on a portion of the architecture. Mielke referred to site signage, noting that the combined revisions to the Jiffy Lube reduce clutter. He said that the low-profile monument helps to identify the entrance. Hearing no further comments, Chairman Dragsten closed the public hearing. Spartz stated that there are twa decisions with alternative action and one exhibit Z. One decision related to the FUD and the other to the drive through. He noted that the five conditions relate to the FUD, and the others relate to the drive-through. Dragsten clarified that the condition relating to tenant mix doesn't need to be there. Spartz stated that he is not comfortable with taking it off. Mielke stated that he didn't believe that was 24 Planning Commission Minutes - 06/05/07 a requirement for any other applicant. Spartz stated that he is entitled to his opinion. However, the request is that the applicant is to provide additional information, and the City can make an educated decision. Spartz stated that while he understands Mielke's argument, he has confidence with staff that they can determine whether the mix is appropriate and that he believes they need that ability. Mielke stated that he would disagree, as he thinks McDonald's knows better than staff about their needs. He reiterated that it isn't fair to put that kind of requirement on one and not the others. Voight asked if the condition is out of the ordinary. Grittman noted that this condition is not atypical; it has been applied to other retail users. The City is not asking for names, only uses so that it can make informed judgements about parking needs. Spartz asked if staff took worst case scenario. Grittman confirmed that they did. . Dragsten noted that the condition related to drive-throughs, not parking. Spartz commented it isn't much better to allow stacking into a private drive rather than a public street. Mielke stated that he has never seen the requirement in any other staff report. Mielke stated that what that condition says is that before he can ink a lease, it has to go to staff Grittman stated that it hasn't typically been a condition because applicants have provided the additional information. Mielke remarked that it puts them in a position to lie to get an approval. Dragsten suggested that perhaps they could define parameters, so that he doesn't have to come in. Mielke responded that their most successful site has stacking for three. Lee Mielke, co-applicant, stated that they think they are already addressing the worst case scenario. The tenants will dictate who will take the space. There isn't a way to have a lease with someone who needs 15 spaces in a space that has 7. The main point is that there is not one person who would sign a million dollar project only to have to go to a third party to get approval for what can be there. Dragsten again stated that some parameters could limit the requirement to come back in, and then they would never have to came in. Dan Mielke responded that their fear is that they have a tenant who they think is going to work, and the City staff say no. Dragsten asked if there is something beyond what site could bear. Mielke answered with the example of a fast food restaurant. Mielke stated that although they liked the building, they didn't like the site. Those users wanted to eliminate the second drive-through. Mielke asked if this exact phrase has been included in other requests. Grittman explained that in most cases, that information has been provided with other application materials. Spartz commented that the City should be able to make sure that it works. Mielke stated that the busiest thing would be sit-down food. Grittman replied that was how staff calculated parking, not drive-throughs. Grittman stated that the site will not work for McDonald's, nor for a coffee shop. They would be fine for asmall-drive up restaurant. 25 Planning Commission Minutes - 06/05/07 r- ~ ICJ Mielke indicated that asit-down restaurant parking space will be used for one hour. For drive though fast food, customers will use drive-thraugh an average of 2 minutes per drive through. Parking far that use will be on average of 20 minutes. Mielke stated that Grittman has previously noted that drive-thraughs tend to reduce parking. Dragsten stated that perhaps the condition should be that the drive-through would nat exceed similar high-volume Burger King or McDonald's restaurants. If so, it would require staff approval. MOTION BY COMMISSIONER SPARTZ TO RECOMMEND TO APPROVAL OF THE DEVELOPMENT STAGE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT, BASED ON A FINDING THAT THE PROPOSED USE IS CONSISTENT WITH THE INTENT OF THE EXISTING PUD AND THE B-3 DISTRICT, SUBJECT TO THE CONDITION OUTLINED IN EXHIBIT Z AS FOLLOWS: 1. The photometric plan shall be revised to reduce the footcandle reading at the property line adjacent to Cedar Street to not exceed one footcandle. 2. The applicant shall submit a revised signage plan, illustrating wall signage not to exceed 221 square feet total. The applicant shall also be required to provide square footage of the proposed pylon sign. 3. A crosswalk shall be provided at the sidewalk separation extending west to Subway. 4. The applicant shall use epoxy orpoly-preformed striping for longevity and reduced maintenance. 5. The applicant shall comply with all recommendations of the City Engineer as outlined in the May 21st memo prepared by Bruce Westby and the May 22nd memo prepared by WSB. MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER VOIGHT. MOTION CARRIED, 3-0. MOTION BY COMMISSIONER SPARTZ TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR TWO DRIVE THROUGH FACILITIES, BASED ON A FINDING THAT THE PROPOSED USE IS CONSISTENT WITH THE INTENT OF THE PUD AND THE USE SATISFIES THE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL, SUBJECT TO THE CO9NDITIONS LISTED IN EXHIBIT Z AS FOLLOWS: 1. A "drive-thru only" sign shall be required at the entrance to the north drive through lane. 2. The use of the either or both drive-through lanes for any high-volume tenant, such as those equal to a fast food user similar to a McDonald's ar Burger King, are subject to a staff review and approval. MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER VOIGHT. MOTION CARRIED, 3-0. 26 Planning Commission Minutes - 06/05/07 13. Public Hearin - Consideration of an Amendment to Conditional Use Permit for O en and Outdoor Stora e O en and Outdoar Sales and Dis la and Automobile R air - Li t in a B- 4 Re ianal Business District. A licant: Moon Mators orts Planner Holien presented the staff report. Holier reported that the original CUP was approved fora 6,400 square foot outdoor storage area, a 10,000 square foot test track, and a 28,000 square foot building. The amended plan reduces the size of the proposed building to 24, 493 square Feet. She stated that the outdoor storage area has been increased to 7,325 square feet, and the test track has been eliminated. Holien commented that the applicant has made an effort to resolve the conditions associated with the previous approval. She noted that the site is consistent with the performance standards of B-4 district. Holien explained that due to the increase in intensity for the outdoor storage area, pavement may be required. A fence will be constructed along perimeter. No outdoor storage will be allowed outside of this area. Holien illustrated locations of display pads and parking areas. She referred to landscaping items, stating that staff is recommending additional plantings on south side of the building fronting Chelsea, as well as the addition of landscaped islands and additional overstory trees. Holien stated that the applicant is proposing monument signage in lieu of a pylon, and four product identification and business signs. She said that signage is well within • parameters. The single access provided is consistent with requirements. However, the applicant has illustrated that the sidewalk is to be constructed by others. Staff recommends the sidewalk to be constructed by applicant. Due to the Chelsea Road exposure, Holien stated that staff has also recommended additional features and glass coverage for that frontage. Holien reported that no foot candle readings were available. As a condition of approval, no light will be allowed to spill on adjacent properties. Overall, Holien reported that the plan is consistent with the previous CUP and staff recommend approval with conditions as noted. Spartz asked about haw large of an area the proposed wooden fence encompassed. Spartz suggested that there are other material options that would be more appealing. Holien responded that the fence surrounds the entire outdoor storage area. Dragsters suggested amaintenance -free vinyl fence. Dragsters commented that it is difficult to see what building will look like, as the Commission can't get a good idea of what it will look like ors all sides. Holien stated that black and white elevation drawings had been provided for all sides. Dragsters stated that he would have liked them in color. Stave Binek, architect with Nelson Building, addressed the Commission. Binek reported that the fence is metal framed, high density polyethelerse. They will have the same material an the trash ersclosure. He indicated that they will comply with the recommendations for landscaping screening for that area. 27 Flanning Commission Minutes -- 06/OS/07 C~ Dragsters referred to conditions. Binek addressed three items. In regard to landscaping and sidewalk along Chelsea, the applicant would request that those conditions be put aside until remainder of Chelsea develops. Binek noted that there is na sidewalk on the north. The other consideration is the requirement for conbit. He stated that they feel that it is far superior to class 5, which was approved as part of the original CUP last year. Binek stated that he major amount of traffic will be forklift traffic moving crates, so you won't see a lat of dust. Dragster clarified that this is in the storage area. Spartz asked how big the storage area is. Binek replied it is 7300 square feet. Dragsters confirmed that it had been approved as class S. O'Neill stated that in regard to trees, the City did not install trees with Chelsea, as it was the intention that as developed, they would be planted. The thinking is that trees would be better taken care of as property developed. O'Neill stated that he presumes it was checked that if the City has sidewalk programmed in, it was recommended that it would be provided incrementally. O'Neill stated that it could be completed as part of an overall improvement, which would need to be put on the plan and assessed. Spartz commented that by the time you get to the end, you would have to come back and do it again. Spartz stated that he agrees with the landscaping, however. Holier restated that the sidewalk condition would be that it will be constructed in the future, possibly through an assessment in one project and paid for by the applicant. Dragsters commented that he didn't have an issue with conbit in lieu of pavement. Vaight agreed, stating that there is no need to create more impervious surface. Dragsters noted it would be when packed. MOTION BY COMMISSIONER VOIGHT TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE AMENDED CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR MOON MOTORSPORTS TO ALLOW FOR OPEN AND OUTDOOR STORAGE, OUTDOOR SALES AND DISPLAY, AND LIGHT AUTO REPAIR, BASED ON A FINDING THAT THE PROPOSED USE IS CONSISTENT WITH THE PERFORMANCE STANDARDS OF THE B-4 DISTRICT AND THE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL, SUBJECT TO THE CONDITIONS OUTLINED BELOW. The landscape plan shall be modified to illustrate that each individual lighting standard is landscaped. 2. The applicant shall provide additional plantings on the south side of the east-west access drive and adjacent to the fence surrounding the outdoor storage area. 3. The applicant shall provide landscaping within the Chelsea Road boulevard, specifically overstory trees. 28 Flanning Commission Minutes - 06/05/07 5. The photometric plan shall be revised to verify that readings at the property line will not exceed one footcandle. 6. All wall pack lighting shall be comprised of full cutoff fixtures to mitigate any glare. 7. The applicant shall be responsible for future cost of construction of a 5-foot wide concrete sidewalk along entire south edge of site within Chelsea Road right-of- way with back of walk 1-foot from property line. The applicant shall add additional aesthetic features to the back side of the building, facing Chelsea. Said features include, but are not limited to, additional glass coverage and vertical details. The applicant shall comply with all recommendations of the City Engineer, as outlined in the memo dated 05/21/07 prepared by Bruce Westby and the consulting engineer, as outlined in the memo from WSB dated 05/22/07. 10. A building permit shall be required for the proposed fence. 11. Wherever fuel pumps are to be installed pump islands shall also be installed. MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISSION SPARTZ. MOTION CARRIED, 3-0. 14. July Planning Commission Date The Commissioners discussed possible dates for the July meeting, seeking to reschedule due to the Faurth of July holiday. MOTION BY COMMISSIONER DRAGSTEN TO MOVE THE REGULAR JULY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING FROM JULY 3RD, 2007, TO JULY 10TH, 2007. MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER VOIGHT. MOTION CARRIED, 3-0. 1 S. Adjourn. MOTION TO ADJOURN BY COMMISSIONER SPARTZ. MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER VOIGHT. MOTION CARRIED, 3-0. • 29 MINUTES MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday, June 12t", 2007 6:00 PM Cammissioners Present: Rod Dragsten, Lloyd Hilgart, William Spartz, and Barry Voight Commissioners Absent: Charlotte Gabler Council Liaison Fresent: Susie Wojchouski Staff: Jeff O'Neill, Ollie Koropchak, Angela Schumann, Gary Anderson Steve Grittman - NAC 1. Call to order. Chairman Dragsten called the meeting to order and declared a quorum of the Commission, noting the absence of Commissioner Gabler. Commissioner Spartz requested that the change of the Cammission meeting from July 3rd to July l Ot" meeting be updated on the cable scroll. 2. Consideration of addin items to the a enda. NONE. 3. Citizen comments. NONE. 4. Public Hearin -Consideration of a re uest for a Conditional Use Permit for Conce t Sta e and Develo meat Sta a Flanned Unit Develo meat a royal For amulti-tenant sho in center a Conditional Use Permit for Outdoor Stora e a Conditional Use Permit for a Car Wash a Conditional Use Permit for a Motor Fuel Station/Convenience Store a Conditional Use Fermit for Minor Auto R air and Frelimina Plata royal. A licant: Mills Fleet Farm. Chairman Dragsten provided a brief update, Hating that the recommendations on the comprehensive plan and rezoning for the north and south parcels had been made at the June 5~" meeting. Planner Grittman explained that this is a request for planned unit development, a request for a series of conditional use permits, and for preliminary plat. The Planning Commission reviewed the land use issues previously, including the comp plan amendment and rezoning request. The Commission had mixed recommendations related Planning Commission Minutes - 06/12/07 to the north and south parcels, which will go forward to the Council an June 25th. Grittman stated that the applicants have proceeded with a site plan request, which has come forward to the Planning Commission for review under the assumption that Council could approve the comprehensive plan amendment and rezoning, although there is no guarantee that they will. With a recommendation from the Commission, this application can then go forward to the Council in a single package. Grittman indicated that if the Council does not approve the comp plan and rezoning, these other applications become moot. So far the June 12th meeting, Grittman stated that the Planning Commission is asked to assume that Mills is successful in their comp plan and rezone request and that Council would then be in need of recommendations on these requests. Grittman stated that it is important to refrain from discussion on the land use issues. Grittman gave a brief overview of the project. The request is for the construction of a retail store south of Chelsea Road, which runs along northern edge of the southern parcel. The south parcel includes the primary retail building and outdoor storage and display. The south parcel also includes a separate lot reserved for future development. A PUD is requested to incorporate a 2.5 acre parcel north of Chelsea. On that site, Grittman said that the applicant would construct their convenience store, gas station and car wash facilities. They have asked for PUD to accommodate joint signage. Grittman indicated that the flexibility of a PUD is that it allows some variation from strict application of the zoning ordinance to allow an exchange in some aspect of the site to offset the departure from the zoning ordinance. Grittman reminded the Commission that with a PUD, the City should see a superior designed project that exceeds standard zoning regulations. In this case, the applicant is seeking flexibility in the signage regulations and proof of parking arrangements. Beyond that, Grittman stated that the applicants have proposed site plan as shown. Grittman indicated that he would highlight a few of the aspects of project, then work through staff recommendations. After that, the applicant may have a number of comments. Grittman pointed out that the south site gains access from two paints at Chelsea to the main parking area. The access goes around the building for trucks and building materials. He stated that the applicant shows a cul-de-sac terminus, indicting that they will not make use of Dundas going through to Chelsea. The applicant is looking for an area of outdoor storage and display, enclosed by a screening wall. Grittman referred to the north parcel, stating that the site includes two full accesses from Chelsea into the convenience store and car wash. They have also provided for parking and stacking for the car wash. As indicated, Grittman reported that the preliminary plat illustrates Lot 1, Block 1 for a primary retail facility, and a vacant Lot 2, Black 1 .The staff report found that a number of zoning conditions have been complied with. Grittman relayed that numerical landscaping requirements have been met. However, there are same circulation elements that have been recommended for change by the City Engineer. Grittman stated that the 2 Planning Commission Minutes - 06/12/07 staff report references other standards that have been applied to other PUD or shopping center designed projects. With that, Grittman referred to the conditions of approval. Grittman commented that staff recommended 18 conditions. Crrittman reviewed the conditions noting that all approvals are contingent on the outcome of the requests for rezoning and comprehensive plan amendments. In terms of condition 2 as related to the signage request, staff s recommendation is to comply with ordinance. Although Ryan Companies received a larger sign, the site included a number of large and small retail sites. In this regard, this site is more akin to WalMart, which was allowed only one sign at a smaller height and area. Grittman stated that a photometric plan is a requirement for verification of conformance to the ordinance. The applicant has provided a photometric plan reflective of other Mill's sites. Condition four requires no racking of materials outside of building or outside of the screening wall. Grittman again referred to the Wal-Mart store, stating that their conditional use permit allowed inside racking, and they needed to remove the racking outside of the iron wall in the exterior storage area. The City worked on enforcement action to move Wal-Mart's racking inside the iron fence. Essentially, Grittman stated that exterior racking has to be enclosed. For condition five, the report identifies a shortage of parking. Grittman stated that staff believes that there is more than adequate parking on this site. The ordinance has a requirement for satisfying demand, which can be rnet by proof of parking. This requires the applicant to document that the actual supply is adequate, after a period of time, that condition can be relieved. Grittman continued to condition six relating to wall signage, he said that the code allows a specific amount with the maximum being 100 square feet, plus transfer from the anything left from the balance of the PUD. The staff recommendation is that the applicant not exceed 133 total square feet for signage on the convenience store. Condition seven requires that the two access points be reduced to one at the north site. The width of that lot is approximately 205', and given traffic volumes and the proximity of the two access points and neighboring access points, the City Engineer has recommended a single access. Grittman noted that staff would support retaining two accesses on the south retail portion. The condition requiring right turn lanes is a standard requirement of any major new site user. Grittman commented that condition nine requires that the temporary cul-de-sac at the east end of Dundas Road shall be reconstructed as a permanent cul-de-sac as part of this project. Grittman explained that condition ten relates to a provision for alternative paving materials, which are recommended to identify pedestrian areas and to avoid additional available outdoor storage areas. Staff have recommended that a similar treatment be utilized for traffic to and from parking areas. As such, Grittman commented that this condition recommends that any additional outdoor storage, sales or display will require a separate CUP. 3 Planning Commission Minutes - 06/12/07 Grittman stated that the engineers have looked at the entrance to the future lot (Lot 2, Block 1) and are looking to identify a future access point, as with the reconstruction of Chelsea Raad, they would like to understand where future curb cuts will be. It is also recommended as condition thirteen that the applicant re-orient fuel pumps. Grittman stated that it is the opinion of the engineers that there is difficulty with stacking space due to access points on Chelsea, particularly with access limited to one point. They have suggested that the applicant flip the building and move it back to provide mare stacking space. Condition fourteen requires that the applicant revise elevations to provide more vertical details in the main building. Grittman explained that the City had required facade improvements at other major retail facilities, and it is staff s opinion that it is appropriate to make same recommendations for this proposal, as well. Grittman commented that condition fifteen is related to the architecture of car wash. Grittman noted that the car wash will have a lot of visibility to the adjacent property and community, particularly given the amount of traffic. Staff are recommending some improvements to that building.. In regard to the silo and condition sixteen, the recommendation of staff is to allow the silo height, but alter the color scheme so that it is less obtrusive and more in character with the area. Grittman noted the Fleet Farm in Lakeville as an example. . Concluding his review of the conditions, Grittman indicated that conditions seventeen and eighteen relate to the City Engineer's recommendations and include techincial engineering points for the site plan. Grittman stated that staff did not make a recammendation. However, he indicated that staff believes that if the Planning Commission recommends approval, the eighteen listed conditions are appropriate. Spartz asked if the access road continues around the whole building. Grittman replied that there is an access drive around whole building. Spartz inquired if there are any drainage ponds associated with these sites. Grittman reported that applicant can address storm water management more directly. Spartz sought confirmation that Council can't take action an land use until after EAW review period. Grittman stated that was correct; Council will also be addressing the negative declaration of EIS as part of EAW on June 25th. If the EAW is relevant, it will be wrapped into Council report as part of their review. Hilgart asked if the reason for PUD is only for the parking and signage. Grittman stated that the primary issue relates to sharing of signage between two sites. If the project were all on one side, or adjacent, and signage were not shared, proof of parking could be done by CUP. Signage is what kicks the PUD into play, Grittman said. He explained that the applicant can develop on two separate sites if each had its own signage. Hilgart questioned how large the Home Depot and Target stores are. Grittman estimated Target to be 170,000 square feet and Home Depot at perhaps 130,000 square feet. He also noted that Walmart was about 215,000 square feet. 4 Planning Commission Minutes - 06/12/07 • Voight asked if the silo were white or cream, would there a decorative orange band. Voight commented that the Commission could still recommend banding, even if recommending a white cap. Grittman responded that stated staff looked at Lakeville as model in that recommendation. He said that the Lakeville silo is a little lower at about 50 feet. Voight stated that in the packet, the report seems to Hate that there is plenty of landscaping. Voight sought verification on the ordinance language. He said that the way he reads the ordinance, 80 plant units are required per 801ineal feet of property line. So, the buffer yard would have 80 plant unit per lineal foot, the landscaping shows 289 plant units. Voight stated that the ordinance fiirther requires that the applicant provides half of the buffer yard. Grittman replied that Voight is correct in the way he is interpreting the ordinance. The applicant is meeting the numerical standard for providing half of the buffer yard. Voight asked if the ordinance always requires half Grittman answered that if the applicant is developing adjacent to what is already a fully developed neighborhood, they would be responsible for a full buffer. Voight clarified that Mills wouldn't have to provide all of the buffer, even with UMC developed adjacent. Grittman explained that UMC has in place a heavily landscaped buffer. Dragsters asked about a public sidewalk for the project. Grittman stated that the sidewalk has been part of Council discussion as related to Chelsea Road. Dragsters asked about the construction and responsibility for the right turn lanes. Grittman indicated that they would most likely be coordinated with the reconstruction. Dragsters asked if colored cement could be used as an alternative to scored concrete. Grittman answered that the intent is to actually provide a tactile difference noticeable to drivers and a textural change for the pedestrian. It serves as a reminder for vehicles to slow down through those areas. Dragsters stated that his concern is that pavers or scored concrete ends up being a maintenance problem. Chairman Dragsters opened the public hearing. Sandy Suchy, addressed the Commission on behalf of the Chamber of Commerce. She explained that the Board of Directors, which is made up of 12 diverse business members, unanimously approved a resolution regarding the item for decision, with 11 of the 12 present for a vote on the resolution. Suchy read the resolution, which stated that the Monticello Chamber of Commerce welcomes Fleet Farm to the community, but recommends to the City Council that current zoning along Chelsea north and south remain industrial and that all conditional use permits be denied. The resolution further stated that the Chamber Board feels it is best in the long term interest of the community to keep industrial focus in this area. Suchy read that the resolution states that the Chamber Board believes that there are other areas in community designated for commercial use business such as the Fleet Farm complex, urged the City to look at these area before making a decision. Perry Sloneker, Best Western Chelsea Inn & Suites, spoke to the Commission. Sloneker • indicated that if he would have been told that the first time he would address the Commission was in support of denying a Mills Fleet Farm, he would not have believed it. 5 Planning Commission Minutes - 06/12/07 • Sloneker stated that he encourages the Planning Commission to deny the request for the CUP proposed on Chelsea Road. He said that although he is delighted that Mills is coming, he is affected by industrial properties and the assumption that it would remain industrial. He reported that this spot zoning would impact his business. He indicated that his business is built on the premise that it would be light industrial, which he stated that he needs to survive. He recommended that the City should find a creative way to bring Mills to town so that everyone can work together. Bruce Buxton, representing Mills Fleet Farm, stated that he would like to present a detailed outline of the proposed use and the Mills project. He commented that Mill's wishes to obtain a recommendation of approval on these requests, knowing that the Commission has already recommended denial of the comprehensive plan amendment and rezone. Buxton noted that their request does ask for PUD flexibility. As part of the plan, they are proposing a retail store with parking, a merchandise yard, gas store, joint signage and car wash. He reported that the site was chosen based on location and access, and noted that the area population in and around Monticello is a draw area for Fleet Farm. There is a supporting transportation system, both on and off the freeway and major thoroughfares. Buxton stated that they have looked for other sites, but because of the size, shape and the site and the interferences present on other sties, none have suited their use. Buxton remarked that in their view, this stare is in line with part of the City's plan with the interchange. He commented that the use is reasonably compatible because of mixed uses present in the area, and noted that the City had already rezoned for Target and Home Depot on the other side of the interchange. Buxton presented a photo of the area, illustrating the project locations with access points. The existing conditions show a wide open and flat site. In terms of architecture and materials, Buxton stated that their construction is exactly the same as some of their neighbors. He indicated that Mills' is an upgrade to many because it is a new building. Buxton reviewed the different uses on the two sites, stating that the project is more like a shopping center without walls. He said that they intend to have a yard entrance to control customer pick up and deliveries. The entire merchandise yard perimeter will include a screening fence. He also noted that the parking stalls provided are sized larger, as most customers drive pick-ups ar have boats. He commented that the landscaping provided is more than complaint with landscape requirements. Referencing the signage proposed, Buxton references again the various site elements in terms of considering the area as a shopping center. Commenting an the building aesthetics, Buxton stated that he had some concern with staff s comments. He said that these are highly detailed architectural pre-cast panels. The wall system is exposed aggregate, in buff and plum tones. The front facade includes three architectural fenestrations with EFIS that is white and chamois in color. The c-store is rock face block, with prefinish grout. Nothing will be painted; the dome and trim will bepre-finish in orange and dark brown. Buxton Hated that the orange has been their corporate color since 1955. Buxton presented a color palette to the Commissioners. 6 Planning Commission Minutes - 06/12/07 • Buxton explained that the Lakeville store mentioned is a remodel and couldn't handle the structural requirements for a taller silo. Buxton remarked that they don't think white looks goad, as everything white gets dirty. He said that white has more maintenance than anything that has color. Orange is the mast appropriate far this site. He stated that the silo is covered in. EFIS with scored joints to make it look like a silo. Buxton reviewed slides illustrating the store layout. He again stated that the building is a mall without walls, which carries many of the same items as many other department stores, and many items they don't. Buxton showed interior pictures of other Mills stores. He stated that the proposed store is 273,000 square feet, with 70% of the footage in retail, with back up for storage that cannot be on the floor. Referring to the convenience stare, Buxton indicated that it includes bulk storage of five grades of fuel and convenience merchandise. Buxton again presented pictures of other new stores. He reported that the car wash is constructed of pre-cast panels because car washes are strong environments where block does not hold up as well as pre-cast. He stated that it is the same architectural pre-case as on the rest of the building. In terms of the storage yard, Buxton showed a typical perimeter view. Exterior backing is two by six treated lumber; the only metal is the roof structure to provide weather protection. He indicated that it is typically white. Buxton reviewed the signage, stating that the main sign is proposed to be located on the north parcel. The retail store has building letters and logos, as does the c-store. The car wash has a menu board and directional signage. Buxton illustrated a typical free standing sign, stating that they do not have a readerboard shown as there is no benefit with the freeway at 70 mph. Gas mart includes a monument sign. Buxton stated that he believes the signage is proportionate to the size and shape of building. Council Liaison Wojchouski left the meeting. Buxton also provided comments on the staff report conditions. Regarding the comp plan and rezoning, he stated that they understand these requests are contingent. For the main sign, he indicated that they are concerned that a lower sign with landscaping will not do the job. Buxton referenced the landscaping requirements. In terms of site design for the north side, he noted that there is an $S foot easement, which they need to keep off of. Buxton reported that Fleet Farm has complied with landscaping requirements. On the submittal, they have provided for 100% of the required plant units without regard for what anyone else has provided. In total on these sites there are 5,198 plant units all the way around the perimeter, Buxton reported. He said that a photometric plan has not been submitted specific to this site, as it changes too many times prior to building permit. However, Buxtan said that they are happy to comply at the time of detailed review. He noted again that the site's stalls are larger than required, at 10' by 20'. He explained that 7 Planning Commission Minutes - 06/12/07 if they were re-striped, they would have made up the deficit in parking. Buxton indicated that there is plenty of room to provide for more parking in the event more is needed. Buxton stated that in relationship to convenience store signage, he believes that they can work with staff to adjust signage as requested. Buxton stated that they do not think one access is reasonable for the fuel station. One access will result in huge congestion and people not getting in and out of the site. Buxton said that they have sufficient turn lanes, which they believe to be appropriate. One access at the c-store site creates a problem for tanker truck maneuvering. Buxton indicated that they concur on the need for right turn lanes and asked for them to be included in the Chelsea Road project. Buxton stated that in regard to the temporary cul-de-sac, they felt like they were doing the City a favor in terms of Dundas Road. He stated that he hasn't looked at the configurations to determine how this condition impacts their site. Buston stated that pavers or scored concrete become on annual maintenance issue. He explained that Mill's puts stops signs in front of every stare. Additionally, there is a snow and ice problem which can causes a lot of slips and falls. He stated that they work very hard to identify traffic control and striping as appropriate. They do have pedestrian ramps, which they think are important. He said that they are willing to work with the City to come up with something. In terms of outdoor sales, Buxton remarked that they haven't identified any specific needs at this time. He noted that they will have things typical to convenience stores, including propane and ice. Other than that, he stated that they don't put things outside as they are used to metro requirements. Dragsten asked about a garden center. Buxton answered stated that they typically have a vendor that provides plants, trees and shrubs. Buxton stated that the parking lot is designed far the Christmas season and that they have typically never had a problem with parking. Regarding the Lot 2, Black 1 access condition, having no idea what will go there, they have no idea where to put it. As an engineer, he said that he can guarantee if is put it in, it will be in the wrong place. When something goes in, he stated they recognize that removal of the curb is part of any approval of the next plan. Buxton stated that they are willing to work with the City on that, but believe it is premature. Buxton indicated that they understand the fuel pump orientation request. He reported that they had looked at the orientation recommended and found it takes up more depth than available. Again discussing the architecture, Buxton referenced the four side elevation rendering. He said that they had worked hard at corners and mid-points to provide differentiation. He commented that he thinks there is a lot of quality color and fenestration. As discussed with the car wash materials, they used the same exposed aggregate and pre-cast for durability and looks. Buxton said that he understands concern about facing the freeway. . However, it is important to note that with the screening around the side, the building size Planning Commission Minutes - 06/12/07 and the traffic speed, it is unlikely that vehicles will even see the building, let alone the doors. Buxton reported that the International Building Code requires maintenance of 60'clear all around building. The back side is controlled by fence with a notch box for fire department access anywhere they want. For drainage, Buxton reported that there are two city ponds, one on west as part of the property, and the other on south side, extending onto school property. They obtained capacity information from the City and provided the City Engineer with storm water calculations to show they will comply. The only item not sized was the earth site, which the City requested to run to pond on west side of building, which is not a problem. Buxton made himself available for questions. Voight inquired about Buxton's position on the cul-de-sac condition. Buxton replied that when they re-oriented the building, they saw na point in preserving that access. He indicated that he had gotten the impression that the City didn't want retail traffic going through the industrial road. Other than that, he stated that he doesn't have any comment at this point. Spartz asked Buxton for confirmation that there is nothing planned for Lot 2, Block 1 at this time. Buxton confirmed, stating that staff recommended that the C-store and car wash go on that site, but the orientation and stacking have not been able to work. In relationship to more parking, Buxton noted that staff has told us them they don't need the stalls. Dragsten stated that showing other stalls in proof of parking would be ideal. Dragsten indicated that he agreed about keeping the two accesses at the convenience store. Dragsten stated that he would defer to engineers on the cul-de-sac issue. Dragsten stated that he agreed with Buxton on the use of pavers and suggested there maybe some sort of alternative that can provide the differential asked for by staff and acceptable to Mills. Dragsten commented that far the design of the car wash, they City has had situations where things that have been put on I-94 have not turned out the way it had expected. Therefore, this issue is taken this very seriously. Regarding the building itself, Dragsten stated that he believes all these materials are high quality. However, it is such a big building, he stated that he has trouble relating in terms of scope and scale. He said that in trying to visualize the building, he doesn't know how it will break it up, and that is a concern. Buxton suggested that if the Commission would like to see a building, they have locations with this building in Appleton and in Rochester. Dragsten commented that speaking for himself, it is a big concern as this is going to be ahigh-profile building. It is going to have a lot of interstate exposure, and so the City needs to make sure that what is represented is what the City will get. Buxton responded that the building is an owner occupied building. Buxton stated that the owners are doing a lot of things to make • this a quality project. Dragsten replied that it is a nice looking store. 9 Planning Commission Minutes - 06/12/07 O'Neill noted that Council Liaison Wojchouski was unable to stay due to prior commitments, but had indicated that she was in favor of leaving the dome the corporate colors. Voight referred to the proposed pylon at 400 square feet and 50' tall. Voight asked if the issue for Mills is complying with the height or area. Buxton answered that it is important that people can read the sign and move over to exit at the appropriate freeway exit. Buxton explained that they think they will draw customers from 50-60 miles away. Voight commented that he is in favor of the silo height and color. He suggested that he agrees that 32' for the sign height may be a little low. Dragsten stated that pretty much everyone else in that corridor is at the 32'. O'Neill stated that while the Ryan sign is higher, it was allowed due to the amount of square footage, and the fact that none of the 7 users have the opportunity to have a separate pylon; they are limited to a monument sign. He noted that other higher signs in other areas have been grandfathered in. Dragsten commented that overall, the City has been pretty consistent in requiring applicant meet the ordinance. Voight noted that Ryan's sign is right on freeway. O'Neill said that from a planning and visibility standpoint, some other formula maybe applicable in terms of distance and landscaping, as there maybe an opportunity to come to another number. Staff hasn't had an opportunity to look at something in between. Dragsten noted that the Commission has been reluctant to approve higher heights and more square footage because everyone wants to be a little bigger. He recommended looking at the ordinance rather than allowing variances and preferential treatment. Voight stated that he is not in favor of a big sign taking up space; he just questions how well it fits this site. Dragsten commented that they have other advantages, including their 67' corporate dome, and the big name on the side of building. Dragsten stated that because we have some success in controlling sign proliferation, there isn't a lot of sign competition in this area. It may not be what they're requesting, but there is not a lot in the way, so it will be prominent even if not quite as big. Stuart Mills, owner of Mills Properties and Mills Fleet Farm, provided comments to the Commission. Mills explained that he and his brother Henry started Fleet Farm in 1955. Mills provided background on the origins of the company, which began as a fleet store, serving the farmer. For years farmers have been very loyal and Mills is recognized as the farm store. Mills explained the silo is important as it represents the basis of their business. Mills stated that part of the reason for choosing Monticello as a site, is because Monticello serves a great farm area, and a great community, Mills stated that he thinks they could be an asset. He commented that when the City opened the interchange, this area became a commercial location; it is no longer an industrial location. He cited Target across the interstate. Mills remarked that Monticello is centrally located, which is a key factor for them. Mi11s stated that he knows the Chamber has reasons for what they have to say, although he disagrees. He noted that this is the first time they have had a Chamber that didn't want Mills to locate in their community. Mills stated that they are not a public company, 10 Planning Commission Minutes - 06/12/07 and that they are honest, fair, considerate, and that they work hard. Mills referenced the variety of goods carried and introduced his wife Sandra, who designed the women's boutique in the stare. Mills thanked the Commission for their consideration and thanked that staff and for their work. He concluded by stating that Mills Fleet Farm would like to be part of the community. Hearing no further comment, Chairman Dragsten closed the public hearing. The Commissioners discussed the items in exhibit Z. Voight indicated that he thought there should be some sort of compromise on the signage. Hilgart and Dragsten stated that they would support striking the requirement for one access an the north site. Dragsten stated that he agreed with Buxton in regard to pavers. Hilgart stated that he likes the orange for the dame and that he did not have an issue with the building design. Dragsten questioned that if going down I- 94, what would the Commissianers want it to look like. He stated that while it looks like it is coming forward and back, it is hard to tell from the pictures. He recognized that there probably isn't a lot more to be done with a building of that size. Hilgart stated that he believes they could strike condition 14 relating to building design. Voight indicated that he would strike 7, number 10, and number 12. He stated that he is unsure on the building design, but is happy overall with the design. He stated that he would also strike the requirement to change the dome valor. He indicated that he is also unsure about the condition relating to the design of the back of the car wash, which is item ~ fteen. Dragsten again cited other projects along the interstate that the City was not happy with and noted that he would rather err on side of caution and leave that in. Spartz stated that the Commission could send 18 conditions forward, and noted that the Council has never been pleased with any conditions, much less with. 18. He stated that if the Commission removes four, that still leaves 14. Spartz questioned whether that gives the City a superior development. He would prefer to make sure that everything is in the right place, especially on a 250,000 square foot building. Spartz stated that while he doesn't have a problem with the four items the other Cammissioners would strike, he noted that they are trying to perform surgery on Exhibit Z. He suggested that perhaps there is an option to table the item to allow a re-draw as same of these are very important issue for bath Mills and the City. Grittman reported that in reviewing the conditions, it appears that Mills and the City agrees on 9 of 18 conditions, which were 1, 3, 4 ,S, 6, 8, 11, 17 and 18. Grittman said that there are some issues to clarify an number 9, which relates to the cul-de-sac. He stated that it looks like the Flanning Commission is at least leaning toward striking 7, 10, 12 and 16. Essentially, Grittman stated that leaves four items yet to resolve 11 Planning Commission Minutes - 05/12/07 Grittman stated that regard to item 2, there is some discussion about some kind of compromise, For items 13, 14, and 15, the discussion has been mixed. Grittman stated that the last four are those that need the most clarity. Dragsten stated that he doesn't recall what was done on other PUDs for signage, but noted that some of those were grandfathered in. Dragsten commented that for him, if there is a reason to make a change, it needs to be an ordinance issue. In relationship to the convenience store orientation and fuel pumps, he would recommend working with staff. For 14, he noted that the same discussion was held with the review of the Wal-Mart proposal. At that time, staff sat down with the architect to make subtle but important modifications. He noted that they didn't create any great hardship for the applicant. Grittman noted that the applicant has also provided more clarity on building materials. Dragsten asked if staff would be comfortable with Commission's direction an the building design. O'Neill stated that staff would keep it even with what has been required on other bix box sites. Grittman noted that the important thing is to carry forward to Council the comments of the Commission. Staff can work with the applicant between now and then to discuss modifications. Dragsten restated that these discussions are all predicated an the land use decisions, which is condition 1 on this list. MOTION BY COMMISSIONER VOIGIiT TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE REQUEST FOR CONCEPT STAGE AND DEVELOPMENT STAGE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT AND PRELIMINARY PLAT APPROVAL FOR THE ENTIRE SITE, BASED ON A FINDING THAT THE PROPOSED USES CONSTITUTE A SUPERIOR PROJECT AS REQUIRED BY PUD AND ARE NOT CONSISTENT WITH THE INTENT OF THE B-4 AND B-3 DISTRICTS, SUBJECT TO THE CONDITIONS OUTLINED IN EXHIBIT Z AS AMENDED. Grittman noted that the motion language should be that the proposed uses "are consistent". MOTION AMENDED BY COMMISSIONER VOIGHT TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE REQUEST FOR CONCEPT STAGE AND DEVELOPMENT STAGE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT AND PRELIMINARY PLAT APPROVAL FOR THE ENTIRE SITE, BASED ON A FINDING THAT THE PROPOSED USES CONSTITUTE A SUPERIOR PROJECT AS REQUIRED BY PUD AND ARE CONSISTENT WITH THE INTENT OF THE B-4 AND B-3 DISTRICTS, SUBJECT TO THE CONDITIONS OUTLINED IN EXHIBIT Z AS AMENDED BELOW: Recommended Staff Conditions agreed to by Applicant and adopted by Planning Commission: 12 Planning Commission Minutes - 06/12/07 1. All approvals are contingent on the outcome of the requests for rezoning and comprehensive plan amendments submitted by the applicant in April, 2007. 3. The applicant shall submit a photometric plan specific to this site, demonstrating readings not to exceed one footcandle at all property lines. 4. No exterior racking shall be permitted anywhere on the site. 5. The applicant shall provide proof of parking for 117 parking stalls. In the event that parking becomes an issue on site, the City may require construction of all or a portion of these stalls. 6. Wall signage for the convenience store shall be reduced to not exceed 133 square feet. 8. Right-turn lanes shall be provided at all access locations on Chelsea Road. 11. No outdoor sales and display is permitted within the PUD without the request and review of a subsequent Conditional Use Permit. 17. The applicant shall comply with all recommendations of the City Engineer, as outlined in his memo dated June 4, 2007. 18. The applicant shall verify the directional arrows and directional labels an all plans. Recommended Staff Conditions deleted by Planning Commission: 7. Only one access towards the east side of the north of Chelsea Road will be allowed. 10. The big box retail site plans shall be revised to include the use of pavers and scored concrete in pedestrian crossing areas and in handicap accessible areas of the parking surface. Fedestrian ramps shall also be provided for the entire PUD site as required by the City Engineer. 12. The entrance to the future lot (Lot 2, Block 1) shall be shown conceptually on all plans. 16. The cap of the proposed silo shall be white or cream in color, as opposed to orange. Recommended Staff Conditions to be resolved as part of Council action: 2. The applicant shall reduce the size of the proposed pylon sign so as not to exceed 200 square feet in area, nor 32 feet in height. 9. The temporary cul-de-sac at the east end of Dundas Road, just west of the Mills Fleet Farm building, shall be reconstructed as a permanent cul- de-sac as part of this project. 13 Planning Commission Minutes - 06/12/07 13. The fuel pumps at the motor fuel station shall be re-oriented to be perpendicular to Chelsea Road to provide more stacking space. 14. The applicant shall revise all elevations for the big box retail store to provide additional vertical details, roofline variations, and materials in contrasting, but coordinating colors. 15. The applicant shall revise the car wash design to provide alternate building materials with more visual detail, or relocate the car wash to Lot 2, Block 1. AMENDED MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER HILGART. MOTION CARRIED, 3-1, WITH COMMISSIONER SPARTZ IN DISSENT. MOTION BY COMMISSIONER HILGART TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR OPEN AND OUTDOOR STORAGE, BASED ON A FINDING THAT THE PROPOSED USE IS CONSISTENT WITH THE INTENT OF THE B-4 DISTRICT AND SUBJECT TO AMENDED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL LISTED IN EXHIBIT Z. MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER VOIGHT. MOTION CARRIED 3-l, WITH COMMISSIONER SPARTZ IN DISSENT. MOTION BY COMMISSIONER VOIGHT TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A CAR WASH, BASED ON A FINDING THAT THE PROPOSED USE IS CONSISTENT WITH THE INTENT OF THE B-3 DISTRICT AND SUBJECT TO THE AMENDED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL LISTED IN EXHIBIT Z. MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER HILGART. MOTION CARRIED 3-1, WITH COMMISSIONER SPARTZ IN DISSENT. MOTION BY COMMISSIONER HILGART TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A MOTOR FUEL STATION/CONVENIENCE STORE, BASED ON A FINDING THAT THE FROPOSED USE IS CONSISTENT WITH THE INTENT OF THE B-3 DISTRICT AND SUBJECT TO THE AMENDED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL LISTED IN EXHIBIT Z. MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER VOIGHT. MOTION CARRIED 3-1, WITH COMMISSIONER SPARTZ IN DISSENT. MOTION BY COMMISSIONER VOIGHT TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR MINOR AUTO REPAIR, BASED ON A FINDING THAT THE FROPOSED USE IS CONSISTENT WITH THE INTENT OF 14 Planning Commission Minutes - 06/12/07 THE B-4 DISTRICT AND SUBJECT TO THE AMENDED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL LISTED IN EXHIBIT Z. MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER HILGART. Dragsten noted that the stated that the motion references B-4, but that the report references B-3. Grittman noted that the B-4 incorporates the standards and uses in the B- 3 District. MOTION CARRIED, 3-l, WITH COMMISSIONER SPARTZ IN DISSENT. Dragsten stated that he believes these decisions are reflective that the Commission does want to see Mills come in, but also gives the staff direction for the site design. 5. Consideration of a re uest to call far a ublic hearin for the ose of amendin the Monticello Zonin Ordinance for the creation of a Planned Unit Develo meat District. Grittman provided an explanation of the staff report, stating that there was discussion about the possibility of creating a separate zoning district for the Mills project. This is an alternative to the PZM district, as the idea is that the City could essentially write a new zoning district for a particular piece of property. The City could relate performance standards and allowable uses to a specific site. Grittman stated that this allows the City to identify specific zoning for a specific development proposal. In that way, the City can tailor special conditions to a site. Grittman commented that these districts are often seen in redevelopment areas, where existing zoning doesn't fit well with redevelopment or the districts are too wide open in terms of use and standards. Dragsten asked if the City would designate areas PUD as on a zoning map. Grittman responded that not necessarily; rather, the City could use the designation on a case by case basis. Grittman stated that Mills maybe one area for this designation, but not necessarily so. The advantage of a PUD district is that occasionally a request for a particular use maybe suitable to a parcel, but may only be allowed by a broad district. However, perhaps the district allows other uses too broadly, and so FUD can allow only that use on that property. In that way, the city doesn't rezone and find that later the broader zoning isn't appropriate. Grittman stated that staff can provide more detail if the Commission would like to call for the public hearing. Dragsten posed the idea that if an area is zoned B-3, and an applicant meets criteria, then there is no reason to came in, but perhaps there are important areas in the City where there should be more review. Grittman agreed, indicated that same cities use FUD districts as a protection zone. However, it is seen more commonly case by case. Grittman stated that the other thing the City would want to consider is more finely tuning the zoning ordinance, which is 25 years old. Dragsten concurred, stating that he doesn't want to add layers of zoning, but to still protect the City. 15 Planning Commission Agenda - 06/05/07 r--. 5. Consideration of a re uest far extension of a Conditional Use Permit for Develo meet Sta a Planned Unit Develo rnent and Prelimina Plat for Villas on Elm. A licant: UP Development (AS) REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND On Jane 5`h, 2007, the Planning Commissioned tabled action on a recommendation to approve a request for extension for Preliminary Plat and CUP for the Villas at Elm project. The action was to provide time for the applicant to work with property owner to remedy blight and nuisance issues existing on the project properties. As such, the Building Department inventoried blight and nuisance items. A letter detailing these items and required remedy was sent to the applicant on June 21st. As detailed in the attached letter, the applicant was given the option of moving the item forward to the July or August Planning Commission meeting, pendxaug the needed time to clean up the site. As the applicant has not communicated with the City on a timeframe for review, staff recommends that the Commission table the item until the August meeting to allow clean-up efforts to continue. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS "~ 1. Motion to table extension of the June 26`", 2006 Conditional Use Permit for Development Stage Planned Unit Development and Preliminary Plat for Villas on Elm to allow the applicant to continue clean-up efforts on the project site as directed by the City of Monticello. 2. Motion of other. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends tabling the item for one additional month. SUPPORTING DATA Exhibit A: Clean-Up Request dated 06/21 /07 Wright County -Property Information Results -Parcel Data Page 1 of 1 DECEIVED ~~.°`" 1001 WRIGH,T COUNTY Off' MINNESOTA Property Information The property information database is updated daily. Last ti~pdated.•6/20/2007 Parcel CM~lt~l .~ ax Statement - ~ ' ~~ .~ Property ID: 1SS-500-10112 Tax Year: 2008 Property Address: Municipality: CITY OF MONTICELLO 601 ELM ST School Dist : 0882- SD 0882 MONTICELLO MONTICELLO MN 55362 . Owner Name: Taxpayer Name & Address: ELM VILLA LLC ELM VILLA LLC 5500 WAYZATA BLVD #1200 MINNEAPOLIS MN 55416 Lot: Section: 10 Plat Name: Black: Township: 121 UNPLATTED LAND Ranbe: 025 Deeded Acre: 0 Legal Description: REV DES NO 6 BK146DDS PG215 New Search :: Parcel Data :: Tax SumtxtarY :: Tax Statement :: Assessment :: Abpraisal :: Sales Detail :: View Map As a public service Wright County is providing access to information maintained by Wright County for individual parcels of property. This information is to be used for reference purposes only. Although reasonable efforts are taken to publish the most current property information, Wright County does not guarantee accuracy of the material contained herein and is not responsible for misuse or misintezpretations. c upy,;yni ©003 w,;~nt County • http://www. co.Wright.mn.us/govpartal/proptax/results. asp?pid=15 5500101412&taxyeai-2... 6/20/2007 CG Gr~rxG 2 ~ f~hvc+S~'ho(~i ~r~~-S/ ~ J~ • • • C C` ~ ~` ~ ~° ~. 0 S' -~- rb A c ~. ~l r ~- - J m Wright County -Property Information Results -Parcel Data Yage 1 or 1 ~~GE{VED JUN 2 0 20Q] ~ ~ ~r 1~1irRIC3HT Gt]UNT'ff O~ L~f11NlVESQTA- Property Information The property information database is ~ipdated daily. Last updated.•6/20/2007 Parcel r3~ita Property 1D: 155-500-101404 Tax Year: 2008 Property Address: Municipality: CITY OF MONTICELLO 601 ELM ST School Dist : 0882- SD 0882 MONTICELLO MONTICELLO MN 55362 Owner Name: Taxpayer Name & Address: CHARLES STUMPF IR SUP NEEDS TR CHARLES STUMPF IR SUP NEEDS TR RANDY W RUFF TRUSTEE RANDY W RUFF TRUSTEE 611 ELM ST MONTICELLO MN 55362 Lot: Section: 10 Plat Name: Block: Township: 121 UNPLATTED LAND Range: 025 Deeded Acre: 0 Legal Description: SWLY80F'T OF TH PRT OF SE1/40F NE1/4BEG AT SE CDR OF LTIBLKIIN BARBUR'S ADD TO TWN OF MONTI TH N14D E AIrG CTR LN OF RD&ELY LN OF LT1FR15RDS TO A PT TH WLY ON A LN PAR TO S LN OF SD BLK22RDS TO A PT TH 514D W ISRDS TO S LN OF SD BLK TH E14D S TO POB EX PRT DES IN BK193-333 New Search :: Parcel Data :: Tax Summa :: Tax Statement :: Assessrrtent :: Aunraisal :: Sales Detail :: View M~ As a public service Wright County is providing access to information maintained by Wright County For individual parcels of property. This information is to be used for reference purposes only. Although reasonable efforts are taken to publish the most current property information, Wright County does not guarantee accuracy of the material contained herein and is not responsible for misuse ar misinterpretations. Copyright ~ 3003 Wright County http://www.co.Wright.mn.us/govportal/proptax/results.asp?pid=1 SSS00101404&taxyear=2... 6/20/2007 • • ~~'~®'/-~ Cor~Gre~z. SI~/~ Ga~G( ~i l~ Gf~t~rirS~~e~i..15'C ~rza~ ~rrr,c'~ ~~+~~~l~n 5~~~ Jn ~C~ClinT ~Q ~ fZ3~r~~ .~-~ ~ 1.5S-,S~-~a/yU`~ ~U~~{~ o~ ~~~~ ~~- ~~~ elm S~. • Wright County -Property Infornzation Results -Farrel Data R~,~;tlb~ge'~'af 1 JUN ~, p 1007 ~.~ .^~ INRIt'3t-~T GOIJNTY Q~' N11NM1~~QTA Property Information The property information database is updated daily. Last updated: 6/20/2007 - . Parcel Ciata ~ ~ ax'Staternetrt ~ - - ~ ~ , ~ . ~ - t - . Property iD: 155-500-101402 Property Address: 701 ELM ST MONTICELLO MN 55362 Ta~c Year: 2008 Municipality: CITY OF MONTICELLO School Dist : 0882- SD 0882 MONTICELLO Owner Name: (OTl-[ER) CHARLES STUMPF IR SUP NEEDS TR RANDY W RUFF TRUSTI~E 611 ELM ST MONTICELLO MN 55362 Taxpayer Name & Address: RANDY W & RONALD H RUFF 611 ELM ST MONTICELLO MN 55362 Lot: Section: 10 Plat Name: 'Block: Township: 121 UNPLATTED LAND Range: 025 Deeded Acre: 0 Legal Description: TH PRT OF SE1/~l NE1/4 TH LIES 1) ELY OF E LN OF COUNTRY CLUB MANOR AS MON 2) WLY OF CTRLN OF ELM ST 3) SLY OF SLY LN OF BLKI GRIEkNOW ADDN AS MON &.ITS WLY &ELY EXTS & 4) WLY &SLY OF W &S LNS OF HAROLD RUFF'S ADDN LY SLY OF THE WLY EXT OF S LN OF HAROLD RUFF'S ADDN New Search :: Parcel Data :: Tax SunTma :: Tax Statement :: Assessment :: Appraisal :: Sales Detail :: View Ma As a public service Wright County is providing access to information maintained by Wright County for individual parcels of property. This information is to be used for reference purposes only. Although reasonable efforts are taken to publish the most current property information, Wright County does not guarantee accuracy of the material contained herein and is not responsible For misuse or misinterpretations. Copyneht ~ '_'003 Wneh[ County • http://www.co.Wright.rnn.us/govportal/proptaxlresults.asp?pid=155500] 01402&taxyear=2.. 6/zo/2oo~ • Wright County -Property Information Results -Parcel Data Page 1 of 1 Property Information The property information database is updated daily. Last updated.•6/20/2007 Bartel Data ' ' • ~~ Property XD: 155054-001020 Tax Year: ' 2008 ___ ~ • Property Address: Municipality: CITY OF MONTICELLO School Dist : 0882- SD 0882 MONTICELLO Owner Nanne: Taxpayer Name & Address: RANDY W RUFF RANDY W RUFF 611 ELM ST MONTICELLO MN 55362 Lot: 002 Section: 10 Plat Name: Block: 001 Township: 121 HAROLD RUFF'S ADDN Range: 025 Deeded Acre: 0 Legal Description: N/A New Search :: Parcel Data :: Tax Summary :: Tax Statement :: Assessment :: Ab~raisal :: Sales Detail :: View' Maw As a public service Wright County is providing access to information maintained by Wright County for individual parcels of property. This information is to be used for reference purposes only. Although reasonable efforts are taken to publish the most current property information, Wright County does not guarantee accuracy of the material contained herein and is not responsible far misuse or misinterpretations. Copyright ©2003 Wright County • http://www. co.wright.mn. us/govportal/proptax/results.asp?pid=155054001020&taxyear2 _.. 6/20/2007 • Wright County -Property InFarmation Results -Parcel Data Page l oi• 1 ~~ ~~" property Information The property information database is updated daily. Last updated.•6/20/Z007 Parcel Data ~` ~ ~ M ~ . ii~ilirl;4~ Property ID: 15S-OS4-001010 Tax Year:', 2008 • Property Address: Nlunicipality: CITY OF MONTICELLO 611 ELM ST School Dist : 0882- SD 0$82 MONTICELLO MONTICELLO MN 55362 Owner Name: Taxpayer Name & Address: RANDY W RUFF RANDY W RUFF 611 ELM ST MONTICELLO MN 55362 Lot: 001 Section: 10 Plat Narne: Block: 001 Township: 121 HAROLD RUFF'S ADDN .Range: 025 Deeded Acre: 0 Legal Description: N/A New Search :: Parcel Data :: Tax Summary :: Tax Statement :: Assessment :: Appraisal :: Sales Detail :: View Ma As a public service Wright County is providing access to information maintained by Wright County far individual parcels of property. This information is to be used for reference purposes only. Although reasonable efforts are taken to publish the most current property information, Wright County does not guarantee accuracy of the material contained herein and is not responsible for misuse or misinterpretations. Copyright ©2003 Wright County • http://www. co. Wright.mn.us/govpartal/proptax/results. asp?pid=15 5054001010&taxyear--2... 6/20/2007 • • ~~ ~( ~ Gr Ind ~,-~~~' v~h~~~es G/IU ~rI I/th%~l~ ~A~/'S~~~r~s rl ~~ Un I~~~Sei Gi ~ p I ~((~~ / j f j,, I f r TfnGIQrS/ G~~/C'S~ ~~~er~~ ~/C~Tf~-r-lC~$~~jLrm~rS~~t~1G~i'n~S~ G,Jl~1GrOla/,Sf~~G. r"s`luS~ ~tC~~~ ~ ~ (f~ff S l~~r ~~^r~%( ~{~~~~1~ ~/~1 ~~IIC~IOS[~J ~f//~I/rIQ. ~~ ~F F ~ ./ .~` ' v~Yl. ,-- ' • r ~ ~,~~~~r; I mus ~ ~~ ~~~~ve-~( c;11~ rS ~ (!-~r''-~?r/ 17~Sh~ ~~ C' SCrr1~ ~ 1 / ~~~~5..s~~ n m~~~f less; ~~~,s~~,~,e~ ~ 5 • • • • C~ • • • • -S~~'-'I r ~ ~i'GcY~z+,~ '17 ~e t!'1 i'i'I US~ f~-~ /~r~et~/P,~J ~,~,-~~r-v~y • L ~jj ' J° cces~v~ ~I' ~vL/S ~c~~~S ~~~~t ~~;~~~~ U ~ f I ~ .Sf-O ~ ~ J~ ~~/'~~ 'f ~ ~ 7" /~,~ ~ 0 !'~Y,rl/[.f'~:~ ~~ 0 r I f, Gan ~~ c ~vf ~~ ~1 S b ~I'Ufn/~/~ J ~/~ ~ /~ ~. r~~'~'l ~~-1~7~7 ETr u~~'l Sl s l ~Y7 ~ ~.ll,rLj ~'1 ~~S/G/n /'/6y /~1 ~'il'j~j ~~•/QlG/ / 1l J 1 / Y , _/ •~y1G r W p~ S I'll Gr~'~= ~`e' Ci t/: S"~~~ ( I'1 i,I~S~;~C'E'. ., ~~ lr.~ ~~UW ~ I ~~'`~W 4'lll G~~~~,~~ y~,~~s ~~~ ~~~~~~ y~,~~s- y ~ • Planning Commission Agenda- 07/10/07 6. Consideration of a re uest for a Conditional Use Permit for O en and Outdaar Stora e. A licant: General Rental Center of Monticello LLC. AC .BACKGROUND General Rental Center of Monticello is requesting a Conditional Use Permit for Outdoor Storage, accessory to a building located at 1260 Edmonson Avenue. The site is zoned I-2, Heavy Industrial and is .76 acres in size. Comprehensive Plan. The site designated for Industrial uses in the Comprehensive Plan. Zoning. The Site is zoned I-2, Heavy Industrial. The purpose of the 1-2 District is to provide for the establishment of heavy industrial and manufacturing development and use which because of the nature of the product or character of activity requires isolation from residential or commercial use ANALYSIS The applicant is proposing to construct an outdoor storage area in the rear yard of the property at 1260 Edmonson Avenue. The site currently contains a 2,400 (60'x40') square foot building with a 768 (24'x32') storage shed in the rear yard. The storage shed will be used for preparation of party rental orders, and maybe expanded as part of the project. The proposed outdoor storage area is approximately 9,280 square feet in area and is located in the rear yard of the site, south of the storage shed. The outdoor storage area will be enclosed with a fence and access will be provided via a gate 20 feet in width. The storage area is intended to be use to store off-season equipment. Signage. No signage has been proposed as part of the conditional use permit. Conditional Use Permit. Open and outdoor storage is allowed as an accessory use in the I-2 District by Conditional Use Permit, provided that: The area is fenced and screened from view of neighboring residential uses or if abutting a residential district in compliance with Chapter 3 Section 2G of this ordinance. Comment: The site does not border any residentially zoned properties. However, the storage area will be screened with a fence eight feet in height. 2. Storage is screened from view from the public right-off way in compliance with Chapter 3 Section 2G of this ordinance. Comment: The applicant is proposing a fence eight feet in height surrounding the entire outdoor storage area. The applicant is proposing to use materials similar to those used for the fence on the neighboring Simonson Lumber site. The applicant has clarified that the fence will be constructed of metal. The proposed fence appears to be beige in color with brown accents. A photo has been included far reference. As a condition of approval, the applicant shall be required to identify the materials of the proposed fence. 3. Storage area is grassed or surfaced to control dust. Comment: In a narrative submitted by the applicant, it is stated that the area used for parking equipment will be dug out and filled with crushed concrete or rock. This material is expected to control dust. 4. All lighting shall be hooded and so directed that the light source shall not be visible from the public right of way or from neighboring residences and shall be in compliance with Chapter 3 Section 2-H of this ordinance Comment: The applicant has not indicated if any lighting will be installed to illuminate the outdoor storage area. As a condition of approval, all lighting shall be required to be full cutoff lighting, in compliance with Chapter 3, Section 2-H. 5. The provisions of Chapter 22 of this ordinance are considered and satisfactorily met. Landscaping. In addition to the outdoor storage area, the applicant is proposing to install landscaping along the front of the building, to be visible from Edmanson Avenue. The applicant is proposing to add four evergreen shrubs within the rocked area on the south side of the building. Some existing vegetation is currently located on the east, west, and south sides of the site. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS Regarding the request far a Conditional Use Permit for Open and Outdoor Storage, the City has the following options: 1. Motion to approve the Conditional Use Permit for Open and Outdoor Storage, based on a finding that the proposed use is consistent with the intent of the I-2 District and the use satisfies the conditions of approval. 2. Motion to deny the Conditional Use Permit for Open and Outdoor Storage, based on a finding that the conditions for approval have not been met. n L _~I RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of the requested Conditional Use Permit for Open and Outdoor Storage, subject to the conditions outlined in Exhibit Z. The proposed outdoor storage will be screened from view of neighboring properties and the public right-af--way by an eight foot fence. The applicant has satisfied all conditions of approval and therefore, the proposed use is appropriate far the site. SUPPORTING DATA: Exhibit A: Project Narrative Exhibit B: Site Plan Exhibit C: Building Photos Exhibit D: Photo of Proposed Fence Exhibit Z: Conditions of approval • Exhibit Z Conditions of Approval 1. Any lighting proposed for the site shall be full cutoff lighting, in cornpliance with the standards of the Zoning Ordinance. • To: City of Monticello General Rental Center is interested in purchasing the .76 acre parcel of land and buildings at 1260 Edmonson Ave in Monticello. We would hope to continue the present leases to the Monticello Schools and the precision machine shop in the building closest to Edmonson Ave. The building in the rear would be used as is or expanded to be used as a servicing and preparation area for our party rental orders. The outside rear area would be fenced, as shown on the plat drawing, and used for storage of off season rental equipment. See attached picture of proposed security fencing as used next door at Simonson Lumber. The proposed fencing would be 8' high for aesthetic and security reasons. The areas used for parking equipment in the fence would be dug out and filled with the necessary crushed concrete or rock for dust control and expanded as needed. There are some trees along the sides and in the back of the lot presently, but in front of the building there is a need for some shrubs or greenery. We are proposing to add some evergreen type shrubs to the rocked area in front of the building. Please see the attached pictures of present view from Edmonson Ave. Please approve the conditional use permit required for us to procure this parcel and make the changes listed. Thanks, j/ h /-_ / `~ Ron Chihos, General Rental Center of Monticello, LLC 216 Sandberg Road Monticello, MN 56362 763-295-2300 or 320-492-2032 • • "t'a: City of Monticello I'lat~ni.rrg General Rental. C'ci~i:er at'Monticello is considering; the purchase of this property for storage of atf se~rsc.~t1 c:cluipr~rcr~t ira the luck end of tlae lot. "I`he ti~ont portion of the property would continue io be letsecl to the schoal district and a machine tool company as at present. We would ptti: Grp art !l' high fence where shown on the plat for security and aesthetic reasons. i~~c: ~~~~ould also acid sornc green shrubbery to tlic rocked <.uea in frant of tlae building. See pictures for present appearance. We wauld taoi. be nao~~irrg ecluipn~ent in oa' ot.tt of the property very frr;quently, especially not during the. school.~e~:tr. Ron Chihos C7eneral Rental Centea• ~~ i • rn r ~ ~ _W O (V~ U H yO O1 y ,, 0 r ~ T ~ y r CY L1J V ~ '7 ~ w n ,., :c7 N ~ T ~ ~' ~' O G ~ CS ~ q ~r ~ ry cam,, ~ i., a y ~ ~ ~ ~A ~ '~ ~. 4 ~ ^ ~ q.~ T ~ b ~.' ~ ~ q n ti k ~ ~ ~p tip.. rip ~ A~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ i Q O j '~ ~ r* ~: X] ~ fQ rat ~ .. ~ 4r ~ ~y -~__ .. . {~ n, ,n. ,r*7 •~ 1 m ~, ~ ~ y~$ a,~,~~:~ -, ,.., o 3.r~p.N D'-~ a ti ~, ,~ r~.~~~y ~.~ ~r..~ ~ 4. ~ a, ,., r w. "'~, tn., , ~ ~ ~' o ~::..~ `~ ;~ a `° ~' ~' "* ,ca 4 ~rj q~, ~.~ ~. \~~ ~~ a ~ .r oo . 03 ~ ~ o ~ ~ ova ~"~a ~~~; ~~ P~ ~~ u ~' .~ so nor ~nr~ rRavsrwssiav ~ ~ -_-. o _. - --- -.-._ i' un~ ~ase~rvr ~ - ---~ ~ •~ ~ 4~ ~~ ~. • <; . ~.` ~• "'~s ~. _~r:.;. . ,;:;r. ~~. ~~: ~,~~: x "; ~' 'tn. S R; .. ,.~a:(kr. ..,Y,, .. ~,r~,. F'~~4x~, {. '~~~~~,1... ,,w,,~ ,': ~r~r=~ rw ~~,: ,' x ~ N .. {~~' ~~ ~~~ y1. Planning Commission Agenda - 07/11/07 • 7. Public Hearin -Consideration of a re uest to amend Cha ter 3 of the Monticello Zonin Ordinance re ulatin the hei t and area of si ns in a freewa overla zone within commercial districts. A licant: Monticello Plannin Commission AS The Planning Commission reviewed and made a motion to recommend approval of an amendment to the sign ordinance as related to the freeway overlay district in October of 2007. However, a property owner an West Chelsea Road was unable to have representation at that meeting and felt strongly that additional discussion was warranted on the sign overlay in this area. As such, a second notice for public hearing on this item was published to allow for additional discussion. Based on the additional discussion, the Commission may feel it necessary to amend their motion, or may choose to send the motion as it stands forward to the City Council. BACKGROUND AND REFERENCE -REPORT FROM 1.0/03/06: The City has recently experienced an increase in the number of Variance requests for larger pylon signs, particularly for commercial businesses attempting to take advantage of freeway exposure. Section 3-9 [B]4(e) of the Zoning Ordinance does provide for a bonus to allow "freeway standard signs" up to 200 square feet in area and 32 feet high. Businesses in any commercial or industrial area located within 800 feet of a freeway, but not directly abutting the freeway, are eligible for this bonus. However, all business outside this bonus area must comply with area and height regulations as determined by the speed limit and road classification of the road on which the building is located. Under this ordinance, businesses on collector streets with lower speed limits are not allowed as much signage as neighboring businesses on roads classified as major thoroughfares ar freeways. In order to address this issue, the Planning Commission directed staff to prepare an amendment, expanding the freeway bonus area. Staff prepared maps for the September Sth Planning Commission meeting illustrating two different options for expanding this bonus district. The Planning Commission chose Option Two, which extended the freeway bonus district south to Chelsea Road, including all parcels with frontage on Chelsea Road. The Planning Commission directed staff to modify this map, breaking down the expansion area into several different zones which could be evaluated on their awn merit. Staff revised this map to divide the freeway bonus district expansion area to include only those sections with commercial zoning designations. Each section has been labeled, and the current zoning of each is as follows: Section 1: B-3 Section 2: B-3 Section 3: B-4 Regarding the expansion of the freeway bonus district, the Planning Commission has the following options: Expand the district to incorporate Sections 2, 3, 4, and 7, excluding all industrial districts. 2. Direct staff to make further modifications to the proposed expansion area. The Planning Commission's motion was to recommend amendment of the sign ordinance to extend the freeway bonus district to include all of the area labeled (Exhibit B), as orange on the freeway overlay district map and to include yellow areas 2 and 3, with the extension of area 2 to Dundas Raad. Exhibit A is reflective of the final sign bonus area recommended for approval by the Commission on October 3ra, 2006. SUPPORTING DATA A. Freeway Bonus Sign Overlay District - As Recommended by the Planning Commission on 10/03/06 B. Freeway Bonus Sign Overlay District -Option Areas Map C. Planning Commission Minutes - 09/05/06 D. Planning Commission Minutes -10/03/06 • • • • • • ~, . • Planning Commission Minutes -10/03/06 MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER SFARTZ. MOTION CARRIED, 4-0. 7. Continued Public Hearin -Consideration to review for discussion an amendment to the Monticello Zonin Ordinance Cha ters 6A R-lA Sin a Famil Residential District and 7A Sin le Famil Residential District . A licant: Cit of Monticello MOTION BY COMMISSIONER SFARTZ TO TABLE DISCUSSION REGARDING AN AMENDMENT TO THE MONTICELLO ZONING ORDINANCE, CHAPTERS 6A (R-1A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT) AND 7A (SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT). MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER HILGART. MOTION CARRIED, 4-0. 8. Continued Public Hearin -Consideration of a re uest to amend Cha ter 3 of the Monticello Zonin Ordinance re latin the hei t and area of si s in a freewa overla zone within commercial districts. A licant: Monticello Planrsin Commission Holien summarized the staff report, indicating that based on the discussion held at the previous Planning Commission meeting, revisions had been made to the proposed overlay map. The revised map allowed the Commissian to select which areas to incorporate into an expansion of the freeway overlay zone. Holiers noted that the red area shown on the map is the demarcation of the current 800' freeway overlay district. Herbst stated that on east side of the City, there may be potential for commercial development, which should be considered in determining the overlay. O'Neill stated that if parcels are within 800', they would still be eligible far the increase. However, only properties zoned commercial would be eligible for the increase. Suchy asked where the area noted as District 2 would stop. Staff indicated that Royal Tire would be the last building eligible. Dragsters inquired about heights allowed if the overlay were extended to any of the additional areas. Holien stated that she believed the height would be extended to 32'. O'Neill stated that they are currently allowed to 22'. Dragsters sought confirmation that all the Commissioners still agreed that to be eligible for the size bonus within the 800', the property must be zoned commercial. Dragsters asked what applies to the Mielke site as a PUD. O'Neill stated that whatever was approved via their PUD would be their allowance. Spartz asked if the orange area would include the Best Western. Holien confirmed. Spartz asked how an amended overlay could impact the north side of interstate. O'Neill referenced that the downtown redevelopment plan would regulate much of the signage to the north of the interstate. 4 Planning Commission Minutes -10/03/06 Dragsten stated that if the overlay included all the noted districts, it would simplify the ordinance. Suchy agreed. O'Neill stated that consistency is important. O'Neill stated that his only concern is that the yellow area seems like it might be more consistent with signage needs on School Boulevard versus freeway exposure. Hilgart stated that he doesn't have a problem with the yellow districts labeled as " 2" and " 3", but he is concerned about the area labeled "1 ", as it abuts residential. Dragsten clarified that he would also favor yellow areas 2 and 3, not 1. Dragsten asked about extensions on the east side to include O'Ryan's. Holien stated that these zones were based on area rather than by districts. Herbst asked how you justify the orange and yellow here, but not there. Dragsten echoed concerns. Herbst stated that if the residential factor on 1 applies to the west, and then it should apply on the east end, as well. O'Neill noted that some areas there stayed PZM. Dragsten inquired if there was consensus on including areas 2, 3 and all of the arange area. Spartz asked if the ordinance could state that the freeway bonus district go to 1000', but not within 300' of residential. Holien stated that could be added. O'Neill stated that by going by property lines or roads rather than distance, we get properties that are more alike. i Dragsten asked how Hilgart felt about 1000'. Hilgart and Suchy agreed on street lines. Dragsten stated that 2 should go all the way to Dundas. He commented that streets are natural breaks, and that there should be some setback from residential area. MOTION BY COMMISSIONER DRAGSTEN TO AMEND THE SIGN ORDINANCE TO EXTEND THE FREEWAY BONUS DISTRICT TO INCLUDE ALL OF THE AREA LABELED AS ORANGE ON THE FREEWAY OVERLAY DISTRICT MAP, AND TO INCLUDE YELLOW AREAS 2 AND 3, WITH THE EXTENSION OF AREA 2 TO DUNDAS ROAD. MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER SUCHY. MOTION CARRIED, 4-0. 9. Consideration to review for discussion a draft framework for an amendment to the Monticello Zonin Ordinance for Planned Unit Develo ments. Holien reviewed the staff report, which summarized the analysis of recent residential planned unit developments based on a theoretical points system. Holien explained that the analysis was completed based on approved plans and site visits. She noted that none studied met the 75% point threshold set. Halien commented on specific categories of deficiencies. Schumann discussed the possibility of a workshop to review the outcomes of the analysis in terms of values and in relationship to the weights assigned to categories. Hilgart 5 Planning Commission Minutes - 09/OS/Ob had paid a premium for that location. He stated that the Commission had recently discussed allowing a sign for a hotel that is not on Highways 25 or 94, but they need a sign that identifies their business. Staff have been trying to find ways to promote businesses downtown. He stated that he thinks it is important to do what we can to help. He stated that he doesn't see how this request is different. Dragsten stated that if height is appropriate, then perhaps we should table for an amendment, as it is precedent setting to start allowing raising sign hieght. Posusta stated that the sign is an integral part of the negotiation on the land trade. Grittman stated that the Commission can split the two variance actions. Grittman stated that they can approve the variance for area and withhold action on the height. That allows them to go ahead and order their wall sign. Posusta noted that the readerboard sign is important. Hearing no further discussion, Chairman Dragsten closed the public hearing. MOTION BY COMMISSIONER SUCHY TO AFPROVE THE REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE TO WALL SIGNAGE REQUIREMENTS, BASED ON A FINDING THAT UNDUE HARDSHIP EXISTS DUE TO THE OUTDATED NATURE OF THE CITY'S CODE AS RELATED TO SIGNAGE FOR LARGE-SCALE COMMERCIAL BUILDINGS, WHICH PROHIBITS THE APPLICANT FROM OBTAINING REASONABLE USE OF THE PROPERTY THROUGH ESTABLISHMENT OF A SIGN SYSTEM THAT IS TO SCALE WITH BUILDING AND SITE. THE APPROVAL IS SUBJECT TO THE CONDITION THAT DIRECTIONAL SIGNAGE INDICATED MEET THE l0 SQUARE FOOT MAXIMUM ALLOWED BY CODE, AND MOTION TO DENY THE VARIANCE FOR HEIGHT BASED ON A FINDING THAT NO HARDSHIF IS PROVEN AND CRITERIA FOR CUP APPROVAL HAS NOT BEEN MET. MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER SPARTZ. MOTION CARRIED, 4-0. 9. Public Hearin -Consideration of a re uest to amend Cha ter 3 of the Monticello Zonin Ordinance re latin the hei t and area of si s in a freewa overla zone within commercial districts. A licant: Monticello Plannin Commission Grittman reviewed the staff report, stating that the City has recently experienced an increase in the number of Variance requests for signs higher and/or larger than what is allowed by ordinance. There have also been frequent circumstances where applicants have used the flexibility granted by a PUD designation for higher, larger or more signage. Grittman noted the recent variance request submitted by the Best Western. The Flanning Commission denied this Variance request, and directed the preparation of an ordinance amendment to link sign size to potential advertising needs. Grittman reviewed the current regulations, under which area and height for freestanding signs are determined based on the speed limit and road classification of the road on which the building is located. Under this ordinance, businesses on collector streets with lower speed limits are not allowed as much signage as neighboring businesses on roads 7 Planning Commission Minutes - 09/05/06 classified as major thoroughfares or freeways. He stated that the ordinance does provide for a bonus to allow "freeway standard signs" up to 200 square feet in area and 32 feet high. Businesses in any commercial or industrial area located within $00 feet of a freeway, but not directly abutting the freeway, are eligible for this bonus. In response to the increasing number of Variance requests has been attributed to businesses trying to take advantage of Interstate-94 exposure, the Planning Commission has recommended altering the freeway bonus district to give more businesses an opportunity for additional signage. Grittman stated that staff had prepared two alternatives for the extension of the district, which were illustrated on a map included in the staff report. Suchy asked if the existing area does extends toward O'Ryars. Grittman stated it goes all the way along City limits. Suchy asked if the commercial area at Cedar and 25 was notched out for a reason on the alternatives. Grittman stated that the boundary was drawn to include only those properties with direct frontage nn Chelsea. Dragsters stated that it doesn't seem to show the car wash area. Grittman stated that it would include the north lot on Chelsea. Schumann asked how any amendment approved would affect existing signs or those approved under PUD. Grittman stated that if a sign is approved in a PUD, it has a separate approval it is required to adhere to. The amendment does not affect existing signage. Hilgart asked how the amendment would impact the Best Western. Grittman stated that right now, their sign is proposed at the allowed 22', it was area that was the issue for them. Hilgart stated that signs should be proportionate to the building. Dragsters asked if Hilgart wanted language included to reflect size of buildings in relationship to the sign. Hilgart was concerned about all of the area included in the second alternative, including all those with frontage on both the north and south side of Chelsea. He stated that if someone subdivided, that is a lot of signage. Suchy asked how the Commission can justify adding a small section to overlay. Grittrnan stated that you the Commission has the discretion in making those decisions. The Commission could decide that anything north of Chelsea is freeway. Chairman Dragster opened the public hearing. Charlie Ffeffer, Pfeffer Companies, addressed the Commission as a land owner in Monticello. Pfeffer stated that he would encourage the Commission to view the sign ordinance to drive traffic and maximize the traveling public's knowledge. He stated that Monticello also has a large amount of freeway frontage. As a property owner with land south of Chelsea ors the east side of town, he would encourage consider the opportunity far frontage an either side of Chelsea. He toted that Ocello also has property on the west side of Monticello that is south of Chelsea. Dragsters asked if most of the Ocello property to the west of Highway 25 is developed. Planning Commission Minutes - 09/05/06 Pfeffer stated that there are some undevelo ed arcels zoned B-3. p p Hearing no further discussion, Chairman Dragsten closed the public hearing. Hilgart stated that he has less of a problem extending the bonus area to the south of Chelsea on the east side of Highway 25. However, he noted that a lot of the west side is residential. Suchy agreed. Dragsten stated that he would also like to have the bonus area include the redevelopment area south of Chelsea on Highway 25. Posusta mentioned that the overlay should encompass any businesses within the notch for Marvin, Highway 25 and Cedar. O'Neill asked about the Otter Creek area. Grittman responded that as it is light industrial, probably may not be as justifiable. He noted that the area is intended to be more of an upscale office park, tending toward more law monument signs. Grittman noted that the Commission could also make this overlay applicable to just commercial zoning districts. Dragsten asked how that affects what's happening downtown. Grittman stated that CCD has its own set of regulations, is not our intent to affect that. Dragsten stated that the best alternative may be to table action to get a new ma based on the p Commissions comments. Grittman stated that what he would do is break yellow into sub districts. Then Commission could discuss each for inclusion. MOTION BY COMMISSIONER DRAGSTEN TO TABLE ACTION ON AN AMENDMENT TO CHAPTER 3, SECTION 9 OF THE MONTICELLO ZONING ORDINANCE ESTABLISHING A FREEWAY OVERLAY DISTRICT TO THE OCTOBER MEETING OF THE COMMISSION. MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER SUCHY. MOTION CARRIED, 4-0. O'Neill talked about signs in general, and the on-going effort to get ordinance up to date. Dragsten stated that it seems that changes in development call for another look at the ordinance. O'Neill stated that some parts can be worked an in the interim, some can wait until the update to the comprehensive plan for direction. 10. A~ ourn. MOTION BY COMMISSIONER SPARTZ TO ADJOURN. MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER HILGART. MOTION CARRIED, 4-0. Angela Schumann, Recorder 9 Planning Commission Agenda- 07/10/07 8a. Public Hearin -Consideration of a re nest for arnendrnent to the Monticello Zonin Ordinance Cha ter 3-5 F as related to the exterior store a of vehicles in rear ards in residential districts. A licant: Ci of Monticello AC . The Planning Commission heard this item at their Apri15, 2007 meeting and recommended approval of the proposed amendment as presented. The Commission was supportive of this arnendrnent and its intent to strengthen blight enforcement within the City. The Commission also recarnmended that staff prepare additional amendments to Section 3-5 of the Zoning Ordinance to address parking in the side yard and the required setback from street surfaces. The current ordinance does not regulate parking in the side yard. The Planning Commission recommended that this issue be addressed at its next meeting to require that any parking in the side yard be on a paved surface. The Commission also expressed concern with Section 3-5 [F] 3, which requires a 15 foot parking setback from any street surface. An amendment addressing this issue has been prepared as a separate report. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND The City recently amended the public nuisance ordinance to address blight issues within the City. In discussions regarding this amendment, concerns were raised regarding vehicle storage in the rear yard of residential properties. As the zoning ordinance currently reads, vehicle parking is allowed in the side yard and rear yard of residential properties. Parking is also allowed in the front yard, provided it is on a designated driveway leading directly into a garage or on one open, surfaced space located on the side of a driveway away from the principal use. Said extra space is required to be surfaced with concrete or bituminous material. The public nuisance ordinance prohibits junk vehicles by classifying them as refuse. Junk vehicles are defined as, "a vehicle without a valid current license, or without a valid current registration (if applicable), or which is apparently inoperable located outside an enclosed building in a residential area including, but rat limited to, automobiles, trucks, motorcycles, snowmobiles, trailers, all-terrain vehicles, and watercraft. Junk vehicles are not allowed to be parked in any portion of the yard on a residential property. In order to further support the amended nuisance ordinance and ease enforcement for City Officials, an amendment to Section 3-5 of the Zoning Ordinance relating to off- streetparking requirements is proposed. This amendment would prohibit vehicle storage in the rear yard, except in cases where a property's only garage is located in the rear yard. Under these circumstances, vehicle parking would be allowed on designated driveways leading directly to the garage, or on one open, surfaced space located on the side of a driveway away from the principal use. This exception is identical to that allowed for vehicle parking in the front yard. Planning Commission Agenda- 07/10/07 ~~ At the previous public hearing on this item, the Planning Commission recommended approval of the amendment, and addressed additional concerns with parking in the side yard. As stated above, parking in the side yard of residential properties is currently allowed. At the direction of the Planning Commission, staff has prepared language to address this issue. Staff has also prepared language to address specific requirements for surfacing of residential off street parking facilities and required setbacks after meeting with the Building Department and other City Officials. Surfacing. Section 3-5 [D] 9(k) relating to surfacing requires all areas utilized for parking to be surfaced. However, the ordinance does not specify appropriate surfacing materials. The current ordinance reads as follows: SURFACING: All areas intended to be utilized for parking space and driveways shall be surfaced with materials suitable to control dust and drainage. Except in the case of single family and two family dwellings, driveways and stalls shall be surfaced with six (6) inch class five base and two (2) inch bituminous topping or concrete equivalent. As the current ordinance reads, Class V or conbit materials may be used to surface residential parking areas and driveways. Staff recommends amending this section to require specific materials for surfacing. Staff recommends that permitted materials for off street parking areas and driveways include concrete, bituminous, concrete pavers, or masonry pavers. This language would not allow condbit of Class V surfacing. A sample ordinance has been prepared accordingly and is attached for consideration. Corner Lots. Due to the unique configuration of corner lots, additional provisions maybe appropriate for off-street parking facilities on single-family residential corner lots. An amendment has been prepared to address parking in the side yard of single- familyresidential properties, requiring that any parking spaces adjacent to the garage in the side yard be surfaced with concrete, bituminous, concrete pavers, or masonry pavers. In a case where this additional space encroaches into the side yard on the street side of a corner lot, this extra space shall also be required to be screened. Required screening must provide 90% opacity year-round, at least 75% of said screening to be of natural materials. Permits. Due to a litany of continuing violations for driveway setbacks and widths, staff recommends that the City begin a process of requiring permits for all driveways and concrete work on residential properties. The best way to manage the information relating to driveway requirements it to require a permitting process. Each permit application would be reviewed by the Building Department for compliance with the off-street parking regulations. Planning Commission Agenda- 07/10/07 The permitting process will provide the City with an opporunity to communicate additional information to applicants, specifically relating to drainage and utility easements. The existing setback requirement for driveways from property lines is three feet. However, drainage and utility easements are typically six to twelve feet in width surrounding residentially zoned properties. Property owners may construct driveways and parking facilities on these easements. However, any utility work within the easement that disrupts a driveway or parking area will be at the owner's expense. This information will be communicated to all applicants as part of the permit. Number of Recreational Vehicles. The City currently has reguatlions in place regarding the required setback from the boulevard for off street parking on residential lots. As stated in a supplemental memo prepared in conjunction with this agenda item, this issue has been difficult to enforce, due to the number of short driveways throughout the City. Many single family homes have limited space eligible for legally parking vehicles in the front yard. In that regard, staff believes it is important to address the number of recreational vehicles that can be parked in a driveway in the front yard of a single family lot. For purposes of this ordinance, recreational vehicles shall include motorhomes, snomobiles, three-wheelers, four-wheelers, and the like. In order to preserve driveway parking For registered vehicles, and limit the view of these recreational items from the public street, staff recommends that the City limit • the number of recreational vehicles. The ordinance currently states, Off-street parking facilities accessory to residential use may be utilized solely for the parking of licensed and operable passenger automobiles, no more than one (1) truck not to exceed grass capacity of nine thousand (9, 000) pounds, and recreational vehicle and equipment. Staff recommends that additional language be added stating that not mare than one recreational vehicle may be parked in a residential driveway at one time. Any additional recreational vehicles must be parked behind the front building line of the principle structure. This would allow residents to park one recreational vehicle in their driveways, while limiting the potential locations far storage of additional vehicles. Any additional recreatianal vehicles would be required to be located behind the front building line, on a surfaced area, as described above. Sample ordinance language has been attached for reference. CONCLUSION The City has asked staff to prepare an amendment restricting vehicle storage in the rear yard of any residential property. The Planning Commission and Council also directed staff to make additional amendments to address parking in the side yard of residential properties, as well as the required setback from the right-of way. The • amendment language prepared proposes two additional paragraphs to the off-street parking section of the zoning ordinance, specifically referring to location. The first Planning Commission Agenda- 07/10/07 section refers to parking in the rear yard, and the second section refers to parking in the side yard. No parking shall be allowed in any area of a residential property other than those specified. Other issues have also been addressed, including surfacing, number of recreational vehicles allowed, and specific regulations far corner lots. Staff is also proposing a permitting process for any concrete or pavement work on residential properties to manage driveway setbacks. A separate memo has also been prepared, addressing the required setback from a street surface and boulevard. These amendments maybe modified at the direction of the City. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS In regard to the proposed amendments to Section 3-5 [F] of the Zoning Ordinance to address parking in the rear yard and parking in the side yard of residential properties, the City has the following options: 1. Motion to recommend approval of the proposed amendments, based on a finding that the amendments are consistent with the intent of the off-street park regulations and will assist in protecting the health, safety, and general • welfare of the community. 2. Motion to recommend denial of the proposed amendments, based on a finding that the amendments are not consist with the intent of the Zoning Ordinance in regard to off-street parking regulations. RECOMMENDATION A number of amendments have been prepared to the existing off-street parking regulations. These amendments have been prepared to assist City Officials in addressing blight issues and enforcing the new nuisance ordinance. Amendments prepared address parking in the rear yard, parking in the side yard allowed on a paved surface, special regulations for corner lots, regulating surfacing materials, additional permitting requirements, and the number of recreational vehicles in a single family residential driveway. Each amendment has been prepared by Staff based on direction from the Planning Commission and City Council, and in collaboration with the Building Department. At this time, unless specified otherwise, the language prepared in each ordinance will apply to single family residential lots only. Additional modifications and restrictions may be required for two-family and townhome units, and these properties will be addressed separately. Planning Commission Agenda- 07/10/07 SUPPORTING DATA A. Proposed Ordinance Language B. Current Off Street Parking Ordinance • • Planning Commission Agenda- 07/10/07 r: ORDINANCE NO. CITY OF MONTICELLO WRIGHT COUNTY, MINNESOTA AN ORDINANCE RESTRICTING THE LOCATION OF OFF-STREET PARHING IN RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS, AMENDING SECTION 3-S OF THE MONTICELLO ZONING ORDINANCE THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MONTICELLO ORDAINS: Section I. Section 3-S [D] 7 of the Monticello Zoning Ordinance is hereby amended as follows: Off-street parking facilities accessory to residential use may be utilized solely far the parking of licensed and operable passenger automobiles, no more than one (1) truck not to exceed grass capacity of nine thousand (9,000) pounds, and recreational vehicle and equipment. Not more than one recreational vehicle ma be arked in a residential driveway at one„time. Anv additional recreational vehicles must be narked behind the front buildin line of the rind 1e structure. Under no circumstances shall required parking facilities accessory to residential structures be used far the storage of commercial vehicles or equipment or for the parking of automobiles belonging to the employees, owners, tenants, or customers of business or manufacturing establishments. Section 2. Section 3-5 [D] 9 of the Monticello Zoning Ordinance is hereby amended as follows: (k) SURFACING: All areas intended to be utilized For parking space and driveways shall be surfaced with concrete, bituminous concrete avers or masonr avers. Except in the case of single family and two-family dwellings, driveways and stalls shall be surfaced with six (G) inch class five base and two (2) inch bituminous topping or concrete equivalent. Drainage plans shall be reviewed by the City Engineer and subject to his approval. City staff may waive this requirement if it is determined that the drainage plans do not merit further study by the City Engineer. Staff determination in this regard shall be based on size of parking surface area, simplicity of design plan, and proximity/accessibility to existing storm sewer facilities. Section 3. Section 3-S[F] of the Monticello Zoning Ordinance is amended to create the . following section in its entirety: Planning Commission Agenda- 07/10/07 7. In the case of sin le Tamil dwellin s arkin shall be rahibited in an ortian of the rear ard. In the case where the onl attached or detached ara eon a ro ert is located in the rear and arkin ma be allowed in desi ated drivewa s leadin directl into a ara a or on one 1 o en surfaced s ace located on the side of a drivewa awa from the rinci al use. Said extras ace shall be surfaced with concrete bituminous concrete avers or masonr avers. Section 4. Section 3-5[F] the Monticello Zoning Ordinance is amended to create the following sections in their entirety: 8. In the case of sin le Tamil dwellin s arkin in the side and shall be allowed on a surfaced s ace on1 . Said s ace shall be surfaced with concrete bituminous concrete avers or maso avers. In a case where this additional s ace encroaches into the side and on the street side of a corner lot this extras ace shall also be re uired to be screened. Re uired screenin must ravide 90% o acit ear-round at least 75% of said screenin to be of natural materials. Section 5. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall be effective immediately upon its passage and publication according to law. Adopted by the City Council of Monticello, Minnesota on the day of 2007. By: ATTEST By: Jeff O'Neill, City Administrator CITY OF MONTICELLO Mayor Clint Herbst 7 °~U ~ sufficient number to bring the total number of parking spaces (public and private) into compliance with the minimum requirements of this section. For each public parking space required to comply with the minimum requirements of this section, an annual fee shall be paid to the City, said fee to be established on an annual basis by the City Administrator. Any variance request to utilize public parking space shall be reviewed in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 23 of this ordinance and shall require final approval of the City Council. Off street parking facilities accessory to residential use maybe utilized solely for the parking of licensed and operable passenger automobiles, no more than one (1) truck not to exceed gross capacity of nine thousand (9,000) pounds, and recreational vehicle and equipment. Under no circumstances shall required parking facilities accessory to residential structures be used for the storage of commercial vehicles or equipment or for the parking of automobiles belonging to the employees, owners, tenants, or customers of business or manufacturing establishments. 8. CALCULATING SPACE: (a) When determining the number ofoff-street parking spaces results in a fraction, each fraction of one-half (1/2) or more shall constitute another space. (b) In stadiums, sports arenas, churches, and other places of public assembly in which patrons or spectators occupy benches, pews, or other similar seating facilities, each twenty-two (22) inches of such seating facilities shall be counted as one (1) seat for the purpose of determining requirements. (c) Should a structure contain two (2) or more types of use, each shall be calculated separately for determining the total off-street parking spaces required. 9. STALL, AISLE, AND DRIVEWAY DESIGN: (a) PARKING SPACE SIZE: Each parking space shall be not less than nine (9) feet wide and twenty (20) feet in length exclusive of access aisles, and each space shall be served adequately by access aisles. EXCEPTION: Where desired, up to 25% of the parking spaces maybe not less than seven and one-half (7-1/2) feet in width and not less than sixteen (16) feet in length when served adequately by access aisles to accommodate compact car parking and should be marked as sueh. (b) WITHIN STRUCTURES: The off-street parking requirements maybe furnished by providing a space so designed within the principal building or one (1) structure attached thereto; however, unless provisions are made, no building permit shall be issued to convert said parking structure into a dwelling unit or living area or other activity until other adequate provisions are made to comply with the required off-street parking provisions of this ordinance. MONTICELI,O ZONING ORDINANCE 3/33 • 960 square feet. (b) 1 1/4 story, 1 1/2 story, 1 3/4 story--1,060 square feet. (c) Two-Story Dwelling--750 square feet per story. NOTE: All square footages are based on finish area above grade. (d) EXCEFTION: The minimum square footage of a one-story may be reduced to 864 square feet if a garage is added with at least 400 square feet. In no case, however, shall the minimum dimension of that garage be less than 16 feet. (7/22/91, #210) (5/23/94, #251) 2. MULTIPLE DWELLING UNITS: Except for elderly housing, living units classified as multiple dwellings shall have the following minimum floor areas per unit: • (a) Efficiency Units 500 square feet (b) One Bedroom Units 600 square feet (c) Two Bedroom Units 720 square feet (d) More than Two An additional 100 square feet Bedroom Units for each additional bedroom 3. ELDERLY (SENIOR CITIZEN) HOUSING: Living units classified as elderly (senior citizen) housing units shall have the following minimum floor areas per unit: (a) Efficiency Units (b) One Bedroom 440 square feet 520 square feet [H] EFFICIENCY APARTMENTS: Except for elderly (senior citizen) housing, the number of efficiency apartments in a multiple dwelling shall not exceed five (5) percent of the total number of apartments. In the case of elderly (senior citizen) housing, efficiency apartments shall not exceed twenty (20) percent of the total number of apartments. • 3-5: OFF-STREET PARKING REQUIREMENTS: [A] PURPOSE: The regulation ofoff-street parking spaces in these zoning regulations is to alleviate or prevent congestion of the public right-of--way and to promote the safety and general welfare of the public by establishing minimum requirements for off street parking of motor vehicles in accordance with the utilization of various parcels of land or structures. [B] APPLICATION OF OFF-STREET PARKING REGULATION: The MONTICELLO ZONING ORDINANCE 3/31 regulations and requirements set forth herein shall apply to all off-street parking facilities in all of the zoning districts of the city. [C] SITE PLAN DRAWING NECESSARY: All applications for a building or an occupancy permit in all zoning districts shall be accompanied by a site plan drawn to scale and dimensioned indicating the location ofoff-street parking and loading spaces in compliance with the requirements set forth in this section. [D] GENERAL PROVISIONS: FLOOR AREA: The ternn "floor area" for the purpose of calculating the number ofoff-street parking spaces required shall be determined on the basis of the exterior floor area dimensions of the buildings, structure, or use times the number of floors, minus ten (10) percent. 2. REDUCTION OF EXISTING OFF-STREET PARKING SPACE OR LOT AREA: Off-street parking spaces and loading spaces or lot area existing upon the effective date of this ordinance shall not be reduced in number or size unless said number of size exceeds the requirements set forth herein for a similar new use. 3. NON-CONFORMING STRUCTURES: Should non-conforming structures or use be damaged or destroyed by fire, it maybe re- established if elsewhere permitted in these zoning regulations, except that in doing so, any off street parking or loading space which existed before shall be retained. 4. CHANGE OF USE OR OCCUPANCY OF LAND: Any change of use or occupancy of land already dedicated to a parking axes, parking spaces, or loading spaces shall not be made, nor shall any sale of land, division, or subdivision of land be made which reduces area necessary for parking, parking stalls, or parking requirements below the minimum prescribed by these zoning regulations. 5. CHANGE OF USE OR OCCUPANCY OF BUILDING: Any change of use of occupancy of any building or buildings, including additions thereto, requiring more parking area shall not be permitted until there is furnished such additional. parking spaces as required by these zoning regulations. 6. PUBLIC PARKING LOTS: In the event of a change of use or occupancy of land and/or buildings where such change shall cause the new use to be in violation of the minimum parking requirements of this section, the Planning Commission may recommend approval of a variance which would grant the use of public parking spaces in a MONTICELLO ZONING ORDINANCE 3/~2 (c) Except in the case of single, two-family, and townhouse dwellings, parking areas shall be designed so that circulation between parking bays or aisles occurs within the designated parking lot and does not depend upon a public street or alley. Except in the case of single, two-family, and townhouse dwellings, parking area design which requires backing into the public street is prohibited. (d) No curb cut access shall be located less than forty (40) feet from the intersection of two (2) or more street right-of--ways. This distance shall be measured from the intersection of lot lines. (e) Except in the case of single family, two-family, and townhouse dwellings, parking areas and their aisles shall be developed incompliance with the following standards: WALL WALL TO INTERLOCK TO TO INTERLOCK INTERLOCK ANGLE MINIMUM MINIMUM MINIMUM 30 4 48.6' ' 44.5' 40.3' 5 56.8 53.4' 50.0' 60 62.0' S9.T 57.4' 90 64.0' 64.0' 64.0' Parallel Parking: Twenty-two (22) feet in length. (~ The nnaximum driveway width between the public street and the property line shall not exceed twenty-four (24) feet with the following exceptions: 1. Within all districts, a five foot radius curb maybe constructed at the public street in addition to the maximunn driveway width allowed. 2. Curb cut access in industrial and commercial zoning districts may exceed twenty-four (24) feet with the approval of the City Engineer and the Zoning Administrator. Denial by the City Engineer or Zoning Administrator of curb cut access in excess of twenty-four (24) feet may be appealed following the procedures outlined in Chapter 23 of the zoning ordinance. (1/10/00,#399) (g) Curb cut openings and driveways shall be at a minimum three (3) feet from the side yard property line in residential districts and five (5) feet from the side yard lot line in business or industrial districts. (h) Driveway access curb openings on a public street except for single, two-family, MONTICELLO ZONING ORDINANCE 3/34 and townhouse dwellings shall not be located less than forty (40) feet from one another. (i) The grade elevation of any parking area shall not exceed hve (5) percent. (j) Each property shall be allowed one (1) curb cut per one hundred twenty-five (125) feet of street frontage. All property shall be entitled to at least one (1) curb cut. Single family uses shall be limited to one (1) curb cut access per property. (k) SURFACING: All areas intended to be utilized for parking space and driveways shall be surfaced with materials suitable to control dust and drainage. Except in the case of single family and two-family dwellings, driveways and stalls shall be surfaced with six (6) inch class five base and two (2) inch bituminous topping or concrete equivalent. Drainage plans shall be reviewed by the City Engineer and subject to his approval. Ciry staff may waive this requirement if it is determined that the drainage plans do not merit further study by the City Engineer. Staff determination in this regard shall be based on size of parking surface area, simplicity of design plan, and proximity/accessibility to existing storm sewer facilities. EXCEPTIONS: See D. 9 (s) Stall Aisle and Driveway Design Conditional Use Permit. (# 192, 7/9/90) (1) STRIPING: Except for single, two-family, and townhouses, all parking stalls shall be marked with white painted lines not less than four (4) inches wide. (m) LIGHTING: Any lighting used to illuminate an off street parking area shall be so arranged as to reflect the light away from adjoining property, abutting residential uses, and public right-of--ways and be in compliance with Chapter 3, Section 2, [G] and [H] of this ordinance. (n) SIGNS: No sign shall be so located as to restrict the sight lines and orderly operation and traffic movement within any parking lot. (o) CURBING AND LANDSCAPING: Except for single, two-family, and townhouses, all open off-street parking shall have a perimeter curb barrier around the entire parking lot, said curb barrier shall not be closer than six (6) feet to any lot line as measured from the lot line to the face of the curb. In addition, no parking area xnay be located upon a public drainage and/or utility easement adjoining a public street. Grass, plantings, or surfacing material shall be provided in all areas bordering the parking area.. An exception to the setback requirement shall be granted in Business Districts where adjoining business provide for private cross access between parking lots. In such cases, driveway curb cuts up to 24 feet in width shall be permitted. Adjoining MONTICELLO ZONING ORDINANCE 3/35 • business properties may share full parking access of more than 24 feet with no curb barrier by Conditional Use Permit provided that: 1. The required landscaping and island areas within the share parking lot meet the combined minimum as required by this Ordinance. 2. The parking lot meets the required setback at the perimeter of the parcels in question. 3. The curb cut access locations to the parking lot(s) are approved by the City Engineer. 4. A shared access and maintenance agreement is provided by the property owners and recorded against all subject properties. (#428, 8/22/05) EXCEPTIONS: See D. 9 (s) Stall Aisle and Driveway Design Conditional Use Perlnit. (#192, 7/9/90) (p) REQUIRED SCREENING: All open, non-residential, off-street parking areas of five (5) or more spaces shall be screened and landscaped from abutting or surrounding residential districts in compliance with Chapter 3, Section 2, of this ordinance. . (q) ALL DRNEWAY ACCESS OPENINGS shall require a culvert unless the lot is served by storm sewer or is determined unnecessary by the Building Inspector. Size of culvert shall be determined by the Building Inspector but shall be a minimum of fifteen (15) inches in diameter. (r) CURBING: i. All commercial and industrial off-street parking areas and driveways in commercial areas shall have a six (6) inch non-surmountable continuous concrete curb around the perimeter of the parking area and driveways. ii. All off-street driveways and parking areas in the I-1, I-1A, and I-2 districts shall have a continuous, concrete, non-surmountable curb barrier. This requirement shall be modified only by the STALL, AISLE, AND DRNEWAY DESIGN CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT as described in Section 3-5, Subd. [D] 9(s), or by a permit from the Zoning Administrator for a portion of the parking and driveway area which meets the following conditions: (#298, 10/13/97) a. The area is shown by adequate site plans and reasonable growth to be subject to a future expansion of the driveway and/or parking area. b. The area is shown by adequate drainage plans to be able to control MONTICELLO ZONING ORDINANCE 3/36 drainage as recommended by the City Engineer. The Engineer may approve bituminous curbing as a temporary drainage control measure. c. The area is shown by adequate site plans to be able to control site traffic and circulation as recommended by the City Engineer. The Engineer may approve movable curb stops as a tempprary traffic control measure. (#280, 6/10/96) iii. All curb designs and materials shall be approved by the City Engineer. EXCEPTIONS: See D. 9 (s) Stall Aisle and Driveway Design Conditional Use Pernnit. (s) STALL AISLE AND DRIVEWAY DESIGN CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT: Stall aisle and driveway design requirements as noted in (k) Surfacing, (o) Curbing and Landscaping, and (r) Curbing, maybe lessened subject to the following conditions: i. Any reduction in requirements requires completion of the conditional use permit process outlined in Chapter 22 of this ordinance. ii. Final approval of parking and driveway drainage plans associated with conditional use permit request shall be provided in writing by the City Engineer. Engineering expenses greater than the portion of building permit fee allocated for engineer plan review shall be paid by applicant prior to occupancy of structure. iii. Only properties which have existing buildings and are being expanded or remodeled for a new use shall be eligible for this conditional use permit. iv. The applicant must show, and the Planning Commission must find, that there are existing non_conformities of the property which are being eliminated by the expansion or remodeling which justify a deferral to the paving, landscaping, or curbing requirements. v. A deferral shall be considered by the City as a part of an application which includes full site plans, drawn to scale, of both the immediate paving, landscaping and curbing improvements and the ultimate paving, landscaping, and curbing improvements. vi. A deferral of paving, landscaping, and/or curbing shall be granted for no more than two (2) years, after which the paving, landscaping, and curbing shall be brought into conformance with zoning ordinance and the approved plans. MONTICELLO ZONING ORbINANCE ~/~7 vii. In all districts other than the A-O District, this deferral shall apply only to the required paving, curbing and landscaping which is applicable to the existing portion of the use and building. Paving, curbing and landscaping attributable to any expansion shall be installed at the time of the expansion. viii. In all districts other than the A-O District, this deferral shall be available only to those properties where the total value of building expansion or remodeling (as determined by the City of Monticello's Building Official) is equal to no more than 25% of the Estimated Market Value (EMV) of the Building as established by the Wright County Assessor at the time of the permit request. Subsequent requests shall use the original EMV as the baseline value. (1/24/00, #341) [E] MAINTENANCE: It shall be the joint and several responsibility of the lessee and owner of the principal use, uses, or building to maintain in a neat and adequate manner, the parking space, accessways striping, landscaping, and required fences. [F] LOCATION: All accessory off-street parking facilities required by this ordinance shall be located and restricted as follows: 1. Required accessory off street parking shall be on the same lot under the same ownership as the principal use being served except under the provisions of Chapter 3, Section 5 [I]. 2. Except for single, two-family, and townhouse dwellings, head-in parking directly off of and adjacent to a public street with each stall having its own direct access to the public street shall be prohibited. 3. There shall be no off-street parking within fifteen (15) feet of any street surface. 4. The boulevard portion of the street right-of--way shall not be used for parking. 5. SETBACK AREA: Required accessory off-street parking shall not be provided in front yards or in side yards in the case of a corner lot in R-1, R-2, R-3, PZ, and B-1 districts. 6. In the case of single family, two-family, and townhouse dwellings, parking shall be prohibited in any portion of the front yard except designated driveways leading directly into a garage or one (1) open, surfaced space located on the side of a driveway away from the principal use. Said extra space shall be surfaced with concrete or bituminous material. [G] USE OF REQUIRED AREA: Required accessory off-street parking spaces in any district shall not be utilized for open storage, sale, or rental of goods, storage of inoperable vehicles as regulated by Chapter 3, Section 2 [M], of this ordinance, and/or MONTICELLO ZONING ORDINANCE 3/38 . storage of snow. [H] NUMBER OF SPACES REQUIRED: The following minimum number ofoff-street parking spaces shall be provided and maintained by ownership, easement, and/or lease for and during the life of the respective uses hereinafter set forth. SINGLE FAMILY, TWO-FAMILY, AND TOWNHOUSE UNTTS: Two (2) spaces per unit. 2. BOARDING HOUSE, FRATERNITY HOUSE, SORORITY HOUSE: At least two (2) parking spaces for each three (3) persons for whom accommodations are provided for sleeping. MULTIPLE FAMILY DWELLINGS: At least two (2) off-street parking spaces per unit with one (1) enclosed space per two (2) units. 4. PUBLIC PARKS, PLAYGROUNDS, AND PLAY FIELD: At least five (5) parking spaces for each acre of park over one (1) acre; two (2) parking spaces per acre for playgrounds; and ten (10) spaces of each acre of play field. When a public recreation site has more than one (1) use designation, the areas must be divided for determining the required parking spaces. 5. MOTELS, MOTOR HOTELS, HOTELS: One (1) space per each rental unit plus one space for each ten (10) units and one (1) space for each employee on any shift. 6. SCHOOL, ELEMENTARY AND JUNIOR HIGH: At least one (1) parking space for each classroom plus one (1) additional space for each fifty (50) student capacity. 7. SCHOOL, HIGH SCHOOL THROUGH COLLEGE AND PRNATE AND DAY OR CHURCH SCHOOLS: At least one (1) parking space for each seven (7) students based on design capacity plus one (1) for each three (3) classrooms. 8. CHURCH, AUDITORIUM: At least one (1) parking space for each four (4) seats based on the design capacity of the main assembly hall. Facilities as may be provided in conjunction with such buildings or uses shall be subject to additional requirements which are imposed by this ordinance. (#186, 4/23/90) 9. BASEBALL FIELDS, STADIUMS: At least one (1) parking space for each eight (8) seats of design capacity. 10. COMMUNITY CENTER, PHYSICAL CULTURE STUDIOS, LIBRARIES, • PRIVATE CLUBS, LODGES, MUSEUMS, ART GALLERIES: Ten (10) spaces plus one (1) for each one hundred fifty (150) square feet in excess of two MONTICELLO ZONING ORDINANCE 3/39 . thousand (2,000) square feet of floor area in the principal structure. 11. SANITARIUMS, CONVALESCENT HOME, REST HOME, NURSING HOME, OR DAY NURSERIES: Four (4) spaces plus one (1) for each three (3) beds for which accommodations are offered. 12. ELDERLY (SENIOR CITIZEN) HOUSING: Reservation of area equal to one (1) parking space per unit. Initial development is, however, required of only one-half (1/2) space per unit, and said nunnber of spaces can continue until such time as the City Council considers a need for additional parking spaces has been demonstrated. 13. DRIVE-IN ESTABLISHMENT: At least one (1) parking space for each fifteen (15) square feet of gross floor area but not less than fifteen (15) spaces. (#190, 5/14/90) 14. OFFICE BUILDINGS, ANIMAL HOSFITALS, AND PROFESSIONAL OFFICES: Three (3) spaces plus at least one (1) space for each two hundred (200) square feet of floor area. 1 S. BOWLING ALLEY: At least five (5) parking spaces for each alley plus additional spaces as may be required herein for related uses contained within the principal structure. 1G. MOTOR FUEL STATION: At least four (4) off street parking spaces plus two (2) off-street parking spaces for each service stall. Those facilities designed for sale of other itexns than strictly automotive products, parts, or service shall be required to provide additional parking in compliance with other applicable sections of this ordinance. 17. RETAIL STORE AND SERVICE ESTABLISHMENT: At least one (1) off- street parking space for each two hundred (200) square feet. 18. RETAIL STORE AND SERVICE BUSINESS WITH FIFTY (50) PERCENT OR MORE OF GROSS FLOOR AREA DEVOTED TO STORAGE, WAREHOUSES, AND/OR INDUSTRY: The number of spaces shall be required by either (a) or (b). (a) At least eight (8) spaces or one (1) space for each two hundred (200) square feet devoted to public sales or service plus one (1) space for each 500 square feet of storage area. (b) At least eight (8) spaces or one space for each employee on the maximum shift. • 19. RESTAURANTS, CAFES, PRIVATE CLUBS SERVING FOOD AND/OR MONTICELLO ZONING ORDINANCE 3/40 Planning Commission Agenda- 07/10/07 $b. Public Hearin -Consideration of a re uest for amendment to the Monticello Zonin Ordinance Cha ter 3-5 F as related to the re uired setback for off-street arkin from Ci streets in residential districts. A licant: Ci of Monticello (NAC). REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND The City recently amended the public nuisance ordinance to address blight issues within the City. In discussions regarding this amendment, concerns were raised regarding vehicle storage in the side yard and rear yard of residential properties. A public hearing was previously held to address ofF street parking, specifically relating to parking in the rear yard of residential properties. During this public hearing process, additional concerns were raised with the existing ordinance language relating to locations for off-street parking. Section 3-5 [F] relating to off-street parking locations currently reads as follows: LOCATION.• All accessory off-street parking facilities required by this ordinance shall be located and restricted as follows: I. Required accessory off-street parking shall be on the same lot under the same ownership as the principal use being served except under the provisions of Chapter 3, Section S [I~. 2. Except for single, two family, and townhouse dwellings, head-in parking directly off of and adjacent to a public street with each stall having its own direct access to the public street shall be prohibited. 3. There shall be no off-street parking within fzfteen (1 S) feet of any street surface. 4. The boulevard portion of the street right-of--way shall not be used for parking. Specific concerns raised related to items 3 and 4. The current off-street parking ordinance prohibits parking within 15 feet of any street surface, as well as parking within the boulevard. Concerns have been expressed with this provision of the ordinance. In terms of parking stall design, the Ordinance states that all parking stalls must be a minimum of 20 feet in length. The stall length requirement, in addition to the 15 foot requirement, would require all driveways within the City to be a minimum of 35 feet in length in order for cars to be parked within the allowed area. There are several instances throughout the City where residential driveways are less than 35 feet in length. While these situations are more prevalent in townhome and two-family units, they do exist on many single family properties as well. Thus, the 15 foot setback requirement ~s difficult to enforce. Planning Commission Agenda- 07/10/07 • The intent of this 1 S-foot setback requirement is to prevent vehicles from blocking public sidewalks and pathways. The prohibition of parking in the baulevard is for similar purposes, as well as preventing parked vehicles from interfering with snow plows. Vehicles parked within the City's boulevard can be a nuisance for snow plow operators and other Public Works officials. In a similar sense, vehicles parked in a manner that obstructs a public sidewalk can be a nuisance for pedestrians. Upon direction of the Planning Commission and City Council, staff has prepared ordinance language to address vehicle parking within 15 feet of a street surface, and vehicle parking within the boulevard. In order to assist the Building Department with enforcing the public nuisance ordinance, some clarity with the ordinance language may be necessary. While the existing language may be difficult to enforce due to shorter driveways and multiple vehicles, the intent of the existing provisions must be recognized. The intent to prohibit vehicles from interfering with public sidewalks and pathways and to prevent vehicles parked in driveways from interfering with snow plows maybe addressed in a manner that does not completely restrict parking within the boulevard. ALTERNATIVE ACTIUNS Staff has prepared three alternatives to address the issues with the current ordinance. Amendment language has been prepared for alternatives 1 and 2, and has been attached for reference. The alternatives are as follows: 1. Amend the ordinance to allow parking within 15 feet of the street surface and within the boulevard in circumstances where vehicles will not interfere with sidewalks or snowplows. 2. Amend the ordinance to prohibit parking within 15 feet of the street surface and within the boulevard for any period of time in excess of 24 hours. 3. Retain the current ordinance language, prohibiting all off-street parking within 15 feet of the street surface and all off street parking within the boulevard for residential properties. Alternative 1 allows vehicles to be parked in the currently restricted areas at all times, so long as they do not become a nuisance for pedestrians or City Officials. The language relating to snowfalls is taken directly from the City's Snow Flowing Policy for the 2004-2007 season. Alternative 2 allows vehicles to be parked in these areas for brief period of time, not to exceed 24 hours. Staff also presents the option of retaining the current ordinance language. Sample amendments for Alternatives 1 and 2 may be modified at the request of the City. Planning Commission Agenda- 07/10/07 SUPPORTING DATA A. Proposed Ordinance Option A B. Proposed Ordinance Option B C. Current Off-Street Parking Ordinance C7 r: Planning Commission Agenda- 07/10/07 C~ OPTIONA ORDINANCE NO. CITY OF MONTICELLO WRIGHT COUNTY, MINNESOTA AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 3-5 OF THE MONTICELLO ZONING ORDINANCE RELATING TO LOCATION OF ACCESSORY OFF-STREET PARKING FACILITIES THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MONTICELLO ORDAINS: Section 1. Section 3-5[F] the Monticello Zoning Ordinance is amended as follows: [F] LOCATION: All accessary off-street parking facilities required by this ordinance shall be located and restricted as follows: 1. Required accessory off-street parking shall be on the same lot under the same ownership as the principal use being served except under the provisions of Chapter 3, Section 5 [I]. 2. Except for single, twa-family, and townhouse dwellings, head-in parking directly off of and adjacent to a public street with each stall having its own direct access to the public street shall be prohibited. 3. There shall be no off-street parking within fifteen (15) feet of any street surface when snow accumulation reaches two 2 inches or more. 4. The boulevard portion of the street right-of--way shall ~ only be used for parking in a manner that does not block an ublic sidewalk or athwa . Section 2. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall be effective immediately upon its passage and publication according to law. Adopted by the City Council of Monticello, Minnesata on the day of 2007. By: ATTEST By: Jeff O'Neill, City Administrator CITY OF MONTICELLO Mayor Clint Herbst Planning Commission Agenda- 07/10/07 OPTION B ORDINANCE NO. CITY OF MONTICELLO WRIGHT COUNTY, MINNESOTA AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 3-5 OF THE MONTICELLO ZONING ORDINANCE RELATING TO LOCATION OF ACCESSORY OFF-STREET PARKING FACILITIES THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MONTICELLO ORDAINS: Section 1. Section 3-5[F] the Monticello Zoning Ordinance is amended as follows: [F] LOCATION: All accessory off street parking facilities required by this ordinance shall be located and restricted as follows: 5. Required accessory off-street parking shall be on the same lat rxnder the carne ownership as the principal use being served except under the provisions of Chapter 3, Section S [I]. 6. Except for single, two-family, and townhouse dwellings, head-in parking directly off of and adjacent to a public street with each stall having its own direct access to the public street shall be prohibited. 7. There shall be no off-street parking within fifteen (15) feet of any street surface for a period of time exceeding 24 hours. $. The boulevard portion of the street right-of-way shall not be used for parking for more than 24 hours. Section 2. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall be effective immediately upon its passage and publication according to law. Adopted by the City Council of Monticello, Minnesota on the day of 2007. CITY OF MONTICELLO By: • ATTEST By: Jeff O'Neill, City Administrator Mayor Clint Herbst