Loading...
Planning Commission Agenda 02-06-2008AGENDA MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION Wednesday, February 6th, 2008 6:00 PM Commissioners: Rod Dragsters, Charlotte Gabler, Lloyd Hilgart, William Spartz, and Barry Voight Council Liaison: Susie Wojchouski Staff: Angela Schumarsrs, Gary Anderson, Kimberly Holien - NAC 1. Call to order. 2. Consideration to approve the minutes of January 2nd, 2008. 3. Consideration of adding items to the agenda. 4. Citizen comments. 5. Public Hearing -Consideration of a request for Final Plat and a request for Rezoning from B-3 (Highway Business to B-4 (Regional Business) District for the proposed JERRY HARTUNG ADDITION. Applicant: SB 22, LLC/Mike Krutzig 6. Public Hearing - Consideration of a request for Preliminary Plat for the proposed UNION CROSSINGS THIRD ADDITION, a commercial subdivision in a B-4 (Regional Business) District. Applicant: Ryan Companies US, Inc. 7. Public Hearing -Consideration of a request for Simple Subdivision, a request for Conditional Use Permit for Joint Access in a B-4 (Regional Business) District. Applicant: Premier Bank 8. Continued Public Hearing -Consideration of a request for Amendment to the Monticello Zoning Ordinance, Chapter 3-5, Off-Street Parking Requirements, as related to the regulation of the size and weight of vehicles parked in residential districts. Applicant: City of Monticello 9. Adjourn. • MINUTES MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION Wednesday, January 2nd, 200$ 6:00 PM Cammissioners: Rod Dragsten, Charlotte Gabler, Lloyd Hilgart, William Spartz, and Barry Voight Council Liaison: Brian Stumpf Staff: Angela Schumann, Gary Anderson, Kimberly Holien - NAC 1. Call to order. Chairman Dragsten called the meeting to order at 6:00 PM, declared a full quorum of the Commission, and noted the absence of Council Liaison Stumpf. 2. Consideration to approve the minutes of December 4th, 2007. MOTION BY COMMISSIONER VOIGHT TO APPROVE THE MINUTES Op' DECEMBER 4a', 2007. MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER SPARTZ. MOTION CARRIED, 4-0 WITH COMMISSIONER DRAGSTEN ABSTAINING. • 3. Consideration of adding items to the agenda. Chairman Dragsten added as item 11 a discussion regarding 2008 meeting dates for February and November. Chairman Dragsten also added as item 12 a timetable for ordinance amendments and as item 13 a Comprehensive Plan update. 4. Citizen comments. NONE. 5. Public Hearin - Consideration of a re nest for Amendment to Conditional Use Permit far O en and Outdoor Storage and Outdoor Sales & Display and a request for Variance to Monticello Zonis Ordinance Chapter 3-9 regulating_bylan si iig sApplicant: Moon Motorsports Planner Holien presented the staff report, stating that Moon Motorsports is seeking approval for an amended Conditional Use Permit and a variance for signage for their Otter Creek location. A Conditional Use Permit was previously approved for the site in May 2006 and amended in June 2007. The subject site is approximately 5.25 acres in area and is zoned B-4, Regional Business. Holien reported that the applicant is now requesting amendments to the Conditional Use Permit to allow for additional signage on the site. The proposed signage exceeds the allotted amount for the use, and therefore a variance has also been requested. Both previous Conditional Use Permit applications illustrated proposed signage that was within the parameters of the ordinance. For businesses in the B-4 District, Holien stated that a combination of wall signs and one pylon sign maybe utilized not to exceed a maximum of 300 square feet of signage per property. The Planning Commission Minutes - 01/02/08 site was previously approved for a single monument sign at the entrance to the site, in lieu of a pylon sign, as well as wall signage. The approved monument sign was eight feet tall with a total face area of 96 square feet. The site was also approved for four product identification wall signs and one business identification wall sign, for a total area of 55.5 square feet of wall signage. Holier explained that the ordinance allows the site one business identification sign per street on which the property has legal frontage, and two product identification signs on the same wall. The total maximum allowable sign area for any wall is determined by taking 10% of the gross silhouette area of the front of the building up to 100 square feet, whichever is less. For Moon Motors, the maximum allowable sign area per wall is 100 square feet. The previously approved CUP allowed five different product identification signs and one wall business identification sign up to a total area of 100 square feet or less. With the revised plans, the applicant is proposing three product identification signs plus one business identification sign, far a total of 194 square feet of wall signage. The proposed wall signage greatly exceeds the 100 square foot maximum allotment per wall. Holier illustrated the proposed signage. Holien reported that the applicant is also proposing multiple freestanding signs. Pylon or freestanding signage in the B-4 District is regulated according to the speed limit of the street on which the property has frontage. In this case, the property has frontage on Chelsea Road, which is a collector with a speed limit of 40 miles per hour. The site is permitted one pylon sign up to 100 square feet in area and 24 feet in height accordingly. Holien stated that the applicant is proposing one freestanding monument sign at the entrance to the site. The monument sign is proposed to be 6 feet in height with a face area of 60 square feet. This sign has been reduced over what was previously approved for the site. This free-standing sign is within the parameters allowed far the district. However, Holien noted that the applicant is also proposing an additional pylon sign at 32 feet in height with a face area of 180 square feet, which greatly exceeds the maximum allowable freestanding signage for the site. The freestanding sign is proposed to be located in the northeast corner of the site, approximately 20 feet from the north property line. Holien summarized that the applicant is proposing a total of 240 square feet of freestanding signage and 194 square feet of wall signage. The total signage proposed for the site is 434 square feet, exceeding the 300-foot maximum allowed far the site. Holien stated that variance requests are considered where it is alleged by the applicant that a non- economic hardship in the reasonable use of a specific parcel of property exists. A hardship exists when by some reason of narrowness, shallowness, or shape of a specific parcel of property ar lot, the strict application of the terms of this ordinance would result in exceptional difficulties when utilizing the parcel or lot in a manner customary and legally permissible within the district In this case, the applicant has cited the depth of the site as the hardship. The subject site is 593 feet deep. Holien commented that lots of this depth are common throughout the City, and that this is not unique to the subject parcel or the surrounding area. In that regard, the lot depth does not create a hardship that is unique to the property. Holien stated that the parcel does not have any unique topographical or water conditions that would create further difficulties in sign visibility or placement. She also noted that due to the layout of the site and the placement of the building, any wall signage would be highly visible from I-94. 2 Planning Commission Minutes -~- 01/02/08 Holier reported that the request would more than triple the wall sigrage that was approved with the previous plan. The layout of the site has not changed, nor has the orientation of the building. Therefore, it appears as though an increase in wall signage, up to the 100 square foot maximum allowed for the site, would adequately serve the needs of the use while staying within the parameters of the ordinance. In that regard, staff again finds that no hardship is present. Holien did note that the applicant can increase the amount of wall signage by up to 45 feet without variance for wall signage. Holien concluded by stating that staff does not recommend approval of the variance as presented. The criteria for variance consideration are detailed in the zoning ordinance, and require that the applicant prove that the strict application of the ordinance would create anon-economic hardship that is unique to the property in question. After review of the proposed plans, staff finds that no hardship exists and the applicant has reasonable use of the property. Additionally, staff believes that approval without sufficient findings of hardship would set a precedent for approval of similar future requests and may impair intent of zoning ordinance. In the event that the applicant wishes to increase the size of the wall signage to be within the parameters of the ordinance, a CUP amendment maybe requested. Gabler asked what was originally approved. Holier responded that originally, the applicant asked for 55 square feet of wall sigrage. They are now requesting to go to 194 square feet. The ordinance allows the applicant to go up to 100 square feet without variance. Chairman Dragster opened the public hearing. Pat Lawrence, SignCrafters, 7775 Main Street, Fridley, addressed the Commission on behalf on Moon Motors. Lawrence stated that the architect did a drawing where the 55 square feet was shown. This was the architect's idea. Lawrence stated that the property owner, Joel Erickson, was not fully aware of signage for that design and that the signage was going to be set by that approval. The owner is trying to represent the manufacturers and the product he is selling. Lawrence stated that the freeway exposure is the best visibility, and Erickson would like to present his name and those of his manufacturers. Lawrence stated that the monument in the back is also needed to let people know where Moon is. Other than that, the only signage is on the front. Lawrence noted that both car dealerships have similar signage and they want stay consistent with that. Lawrence stated that on main wall, they would like to put up four signs with manufacturer names. Lawrence added that in the future, Erickson will have more manufacturers, and down the road will need additional signage. He indicated that he realizes the CUP is set at SS square feet. He also stated that he doesn't feel the ordinance represents them adequately. Lawrence suggested that the two hundred square feet should apply as freeway standard signs. Holien stated that the total number of pylons is allowed at one per ordinance. They are in the freeway bonus district, but need the variance as they are exceeding the total square footage for the site. Schumann explained that the auto dealerships' signage was approved under FUD and by variance. Dragster clarified that the auto dealerships are also multi-tenant buildings, and that some ended up with less signage than what they could have had. 3 Planning Commission Minutes - 01/02/08 Lawrence commented that their request is common sense. He stated that they can't do much with the allowable signage as it doesn't allow people to know what he is and who he is. Lawrence asked if the ordinance is just for this store. Dragsten replied that this is applicable to all businesses. This is not singling out Moon Motors. Dragsten also noted that they are able to put all of their allowable signage in the front for maximum visibility. Dragsten stated the building will be a major improvement over what is there and nice addition. Dragsten stated that he understands where they are coming from, and that if Moon had said they were going to use the fu11300 square feet it would be acceptable. However, Dragsten stated, they are asking to go aver and above what is allowed. Lawrence stated that Erickson's hands are tied, as he buys signs from manufacturers who assign the size. Aesthetically, the size of signs allowed aren't going to look right on the wall space. He commented that the proposed monument is consistent with the neighboring properties. Holien noted that they are 134 square feet over the allowable square footage. They could reduce a combination of wall and pylon signage to meet the required amount. Gabler inquired about Lawrence's comment that the signs are pre-Fabricated. She asked what would occur if a smaller building was being built; wouldn't the signs be sized smaller, as well. Lawrence responded that to put a smaller sign on a building of that size isn't going to look good. Lawrence stated that Erickson needs to let people know what he's doing. He commented that they are building quite an establishment, and if they need to, they'll take the matter to Council. Holien noted for the record that this is not a PUD, it is a Conditional Use Permit only. Spartz stated that Moon had been to Cornxnission twice previously, and neither time was the signage issue addressed. Spartz indicated that the owner is putting lot of money to put into the building and it seems as though the signs are an afterthought. Lawrence explained that Erickson let the architect take the wheel and later found out these things weren't in order. Spartz stated that the applicant is requesting two variances, but inquired whether the applicant had a preference if only allowed one. Lawrence stated that it is up to Erickson. Worst case scenario, the sign that is needed the least is the directional sign in the back. Hilgart asked if the ordinance says a maximum of 300 square feet total in the B-4 District. Holien clarified that the ordinance allows 1$0 square feet of free-standing signage and up to 100 square feet of wall signage based on the building dimension. Hilgart asked how much signage Denny Hecker has. Holien stated that she didn't know. Voight stated that he doesn't have a question, but commented that the amount requested seems to be a gross jump from the allowance. He indicated that there does not seem to be anon-economic hardship. The site is literally on the interstate and with product on display, something could be worked out within the 300 square foot allowance. Dragsten asked if he is in favor of allowing the applicant to use the full 300 square feet, which they could mix and match. Voight stated that he would be mare amenable to that, if they stay within 300 square feet. Voight stated that even though it is a deep lot, it is really not sitting that far off Chelsea. He stated that he doesn't see the need for the excess signs. Holien noted that if the Commission decided to allow the fu11300 square feet, the applicant would still need an amendment to the CUP. 4 Planning Commission. Minutes - 01/02/08 Hilgart stated that the problem isn't that they need zx~ore signs for business, they need it for the products they sell. Grittman noted that they would need a variance to allow two free-standing signs. However, under the CUP they can distribute the 300 square feet between the wall signage and one free- standing sign. Lawrence stated that idea won't work with the sign dimensions for their other products. Lawrence stated that they are not just taking in Monticello business, they are taking in other cities. Dragsten stated that the Commission looks at the ordinance and tries to adjust, especially with the sign ordinance. He indicated that the consensus seems to be that the product will also be on display as a means to advertise. Lawrence remarked that from freeway, signs on the product are not discernable. Hearing no further comment, Chairman Dragsten closed the public hearing. Dragsten asked for discussion on square footage and the additional pylon. Spartz stated that he would prefer one free-standing sign. Hilgart stated that he is unsure. Hilgart asked about approximate square footage. Holier replied that the pylon proposed for I-94 is 1$0 square feet; the sign face is 6' by 30' long. Hilgart asked if the applicant could reduce it to 100 square feet. Lawrence stated that Honda is their #1 brand. Voight referred to the code and stated that he would grant that variance to allow a second directional sign on Chelsea, so long as the total signage doesn't go aver 300 feet. Schumann referred to directional signage allowance within the code, which allowed a small directional sign over and above the allowed one free-standing and wall signage. MOTION BY COMMISSIONER VOIGHT TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE AMENDED CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR MOON MOTORSPORTS TO ALLOW WALL SIGNAGE AND ONE FREE-STANDING SIGN NOT TO EXCEED 300 FEET WITH THE PROVISION THAT THE APPLICANT CAN USE THE 300 SQUARE FOOT ALLOWANCE TN ANY WAY NEEDED. MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER GABLER. MOTION CARRIED, 5-0. Holier clarified that the ordinance allows directional signage at 10 square feet. MOTION BY COMMISSIONER VOIGHT TO DENY A VARIANCE FROM SECTION 3-9 RELATING TO SIGNAGE, BASED ON A FINDING THAT NO HARDSHIP HAS BEEN PROVEN AND THE APPLICANT HAS REASONABLE USE OF THE PROPERTY. MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER SPARTZ. MOTION CARRIED, 5-0. Grittman noted that the applicant does have the opportunity to appeal. The variance will be heard by the City Council in a public hearing. The CUP amendment will ga automatically to the City Council. 5 Planning Commission Minutes - O1 /02/08 6. Public Hearin -Consideration of a re uest for Prelimin Plat Conditional Use Permit for Develo ment Sta a Planned Unit Develo meat Conditional Use Permit for Drive-Throu h Facilit and Conditional Use Permit for Joint Parkin and Access for the ro osed First Federal Addition commercial subdivision m a B-4 Re oval Business District. A licant: First Federal Bank Planner Holien reviewed the staff report, indicating that First Federal Savings Bank is seeking a Conditional Use Permit for development stage Planxied Unit Development, Preliminary Plat approval and a Conditional Use Permits for a drive through lane and joint parking and access. The applicant is proposing a 4,365 square foot commercial building with accessory parking and a drive through lane. Tthe underlying zoning is B-4, Regional Business. Holien reported that the subject site is located north of 7~' Street, east of Highland Way, and southeast of the Hame Depot property. The existing Planned Unit Development contains Horne Depot and Target, a commercial strip center, and additional retail users. An additional pad site is located directly east of the property. The applicant is proposing to plat the site as Lot 1, Block 1 of First Federal Savings Bank Addition. Holien stated that the proposed use requires a total of 20 parking stalls. The site plan illustrates 30 parking stalls, exceeding the minimum requirement for the use. The site plan illustrates one handicap accessible parking stall. However, a minimum of two handicap accessible stalls are required for the use. As a condition of approval, the applicant is required to revise the site plan to designate one additional handicap accessible parking stall. Holien reviewed the site plan, stating that the applicant is proposing a drive through lane on the east side of the bank building with four remote teller lanes. Each of these four lanes is proposed to be 9 feet in width, with the exception of the far east lane, which is proposed to be 10 feet in width. This lane is proposed to contain an ATM machine. A bypass lane is proposed on the east edge of the site, adjacent to the ATM lane, with a drive aisle width of 11 feet. The site plan illustrates stacking space for a minimum of five cars in each drive through lane. Patrons choosing to exit the site without utilizing the drive through may do so via the bypass lane vn the east side of the site or the primary access on the west side of the site. In the future, circulation will also be provided through the adjacent property to the east. Drive through establishments are allowed in the B-4 District by Conditional Use Pernut, provided that the proposed drive through is consistent with the conditions of approval for such uses and appears to function well with the site. Holien indicated that the applicant has met the requirements of the ordinance far landscaping. For commercial sites, a minimum of one overstory tree per 1,000 square feet of gross building floor area, or one tree per 50 lineal feet of site perimeter, whichever is greater, is required. The subject site has 890 lineal feet of site perimeter, requiring 18 overstory trees versus the 5 overstory trees required under the floor area calculation. The applicant is proposing 16 overstory trees, two short of the minimum requirement. Holien noted that the ordinance does allow for the equivalent of up to fifty percent of the required number of overstory trees to be created through the use of overstory trees in combination with other landscape design elements. The applicant is proposing 2 ornamental trees, over 150 shrubs, and perennials throughout the site. As such, the landscaping appears appropriate under PUD, and the additional plantings may serve as credit toward the two overstory trees. Foundation plantings are proposed on the south, west, and north sides of the building. The applicant is also proposing plantings around the monument sign in the southwest corner of the site and a fieldstone rock garden northeast of the building. All areas not otherwise proposed far improvements will be sodded. 6 .. Planning Commission Minutes --- 41/42/08 Holien stated that the applicant is proposing eight freestanding light poles throughout the site, each with full cutoff fixtures. Additional lighting is proposed in the drive through lanes. The provided plan shows readings up to .3 footcandles along the south and west property lines, adjacent to the 7`h Street right-of--way. This is within the parameters allowed. Footcandle readings along interior property lines, specifically the north and east property lines, are as high as 3.5. Holien indicated that this may be due to the existing parking lot lighting adjacent to the site, within the remainder of the PUD. As part of the approval, staff is requesting that the applicant be required to revise the photometric plan to include lighting within the subject site only. The revised photometric shall demonstrate footcandle readings under 1.0 at the property line, as required by the Zoning Ordinance. Any wall mounted lighting not shown on the site is required • to consist of full cutoff fixtures, reducing any potential glare. Holien stated that the approved sign plan for Union Crossings allows a 24-square foot monument sign in the southwest corner of the site. In addition to the approved monument sign, the site is eligible for wall signage. The site has legal frontage on both 7`" Street and Highland Way. As such, wall signage is permitted on two walls of the building. The applicant is proposing two walls signs, one each on the north and west elevations. The proposed sign on the north elevation is approximately 71 square feet in area. The proposed sign an the west elevation is also 71 square feet in area. As such, Holien stated that the proposed wall signage is within the parameters allowed for the site. Holien stated that in terms of directional signage, the applicant is proposing numerous signs throughout the site where appropriate. She said that staff recommends that additional directional signage be posted in the southeast corner of the site, as the drive lane in this location is proposed to come to a dead-end in this location until such time as the site to the east develops. In the interim, the applicant shall be required to provide barricades and directional signage in this location, indicating that the road is a dead-end. The joint access arrangement proposed maybe accommodated by PUD. This drive lane also provides access to the drive through lanes. The primary access into the site is provided via a driveway extending south into the site from an existing private drive on the north side of the site. This private drive is part of the existing PUD. In terms of building design, Holien referenced that the applicant had submitted color elevations for all sides of the building. Holien concluded, stating that staff recommend approval of the request for a Conditional Use Permit for Development Stage Planned Unit Development approval, Preliminary and Final Plat approval, and a CUP for cross access and cross parking, subject to the conditions outlined in Exhibit Z. The proposed use is consistent with the performance requirements for the district, and the intent of the PUD. The applicant has proposed a quality building design with a desirable site layout, justifying the use of PUD. Holien stated that staff also recommend approval of the request far a Conditional Use Permit for a drive through lane,. The proposed drive through is consistent with the conditions of approval, and will function well with the site. Voight asked if the two-way access is too close to the private drive. Holien stated that it appears that there is proper setback, which is 30' from the intersection. Dragsten questioned whether each parking island needs to be landscaped or covered. Holien stated that light standards are all proposed to be sodded; there are no freestanding light structures. Dragster asked what type of barricades would be located in the dead-end area. Holien stated that City has a standard spec. Grittman stated that he believes it is a fence design. Grittman stated that the Commission could recommend something different. 7 Planning Commission Minutes - 01/02/0$ Dragsten asked about the engineer's item referring to plates for grading and drainage. Holien commented that the specifications just need to be updated. Chairman Dragsten opened the public hearing. Sonya Kraft, HTG Architects, 900 Penn Avenue, Eden Prairie, introduced herself to the Commission as the project architect. Kevan Sorenson, President of First Federal Bank, also introduced himself to the Cotntnission. Spartz asked what the tixneframe far the project is. Kraft stated that they are hoping to start construction in April of 2008. Dragsten asked whether the applicants had reviewed Exhibit Z. Sorenson stated that they had no problems with the conditions, but appreciated any comments on the barrier. Dragsten asked if the curbing stopped at the property line near the adjacent parcel. Grittman confirmed that was the intent of the barrier, to make sure that people don't drive onto unimproved property. Gabler noted that sometimes sites such as these have bituminous curb. Grittman noted that others use some kind of temporary sign. Dragsten commented that the landscaping plan shows that the curbed island goes onto the adjacent property and that it seems that some of the landscaping is on the adjacent property. Holien responded that the actual plant units are on the applicant's property. Dragsten confirmed that curbing would just come to a stop and would continue when the property was developed. Holien confirmed. Sorenson stated that they are looking forward to locating in Monticello. Hearing no further comment, Chairman Dragsten closed the public hearing. MOTION BY COMMISSIONER SPARTZ TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE DEVELOPMENT STAGE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT, PRELIMINARY AND FINAL PLAT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS FOR CROSS PARKING AND CROSS ACCESS, BASED ON A FINDING THAT THE PROPOSED USE IS CONSISTENT WITH THE INTENT OF THE EXISTING PUD AND THE B-4 DISTRICT, SUBJECT TO THE CONDITIONS OUTLINED IN EXHIBIT Z AS FOLLOWS, WTI'H BARRICADE BEING AMENDED TO AN ALTERNATIVE DESIGN. 1. The applicant shall submit a revised photometric plan, illustrating footcandle readings no greater than 1.0 at the property line. 2. Any wall mounted lighting shall contain full cutoff fixtures. 3. Any disruption of private structures due to work within the drainage and utility easement would be at the expense of the property owner. 4. The site plan shall be revised to include one additional handicap accessible parking stall with proper signage. 5. The applicant shall provide directional signage in the southeast corner of the site, prior to the dead-end. Flanning Commission Minutes - 01/02/0$ 6. The applicant shall comply with all recommendations of the City Engineer, as outlined in the memo from WSB and Associates dated December 19, 2007, and as amended by the Planning Commission on January 2"a, 2008, in relationship to barricade design. MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER HILGART. MOTION CARRIED, 5-0. MOTION BY COMMISSIONER SPARTZ TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT POR A DRNE THROUGH FACILITY, BASED ON A FINDING THAT THE PROPOSED USE IS CONSISTENT WITH THE INTENT OF THE PUD AND THE USE SATISFIES THE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL. MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER VOIGHT. MOTION CARRIED, .S-0 Public Hearin - Consideration of a re nest for Amendment to the Monticello Zonin Ordinance Chapter 3, regulating Rec,~uired Fencing, Screening & Landscaping, Required Buffer Yards and Required. Screening for Off Street Parking.Applieant: Cit~f Monticello Planner Grittman stated that this axendment rose out of concerns regarding commercial parking areas adjacent to residential properties. Grittman stated that the City reviewed its parking lot screening requirements and determined that the issue is that when installing the required landscaping at an appropriate planting age, it doesn't create an adequate buffer until it matures. Grittman noted that this issue became particularly apparent with the building of the bowling facility. The required landscaping was put in, but clearly headlights were still visible. So staff investigated a number of options to consider how to handle the issue. Grittnnan indicated that it isn't feasible to just plant more landscaping, because it will grow together and die off. The landscaping standards in the ordinance are appropriate; they are just not effective in early years. Lta. considering options, Grittman stated that staff had considered fencing. However, the problem is that there are often a series of different property owners, resulting in different fences, or age of fences. Grittman stated that staff also looked at locations where similar issues might arise in the future. Grittman illustrated areas that would be affected. He cited the area adjacent to the south of the County Road 18 interchange, remaining commercial sites in the Jefferson Conaxnons area, and the large area along south side of Chelsea abutting the north side of Groveland. To address this issue, staff is recommending an amendment to Chapter 3-5 regarding off street parking requirements. Grittman stated that this amendment supports screening and buffer yard requirements already in place. The screening and landscaping ordinances require a specific setback and planting intensity. The proposed amendment would create additional restrictions in instances where non-residential parking abuts residential parking. The proposed amendment is intended to reduce the impact of headlight glare on residential properties and to reinforce the purpose of the buffer yard and screening provisions, which is to minimize other negative impacts, including sound and visual issues. The design includes a retaining wall with half berm, coupled with plantings. Grittman indicated that this design would be an attractive screen that is immediate. Grittman explained that if the City chose a design with a full berm, it would take up more land area. Staff believes that while retaining walls can be expensive to construct, this design leaves more available area for the commercial property owner. Grittman noted that there are alternatives to this design. He explained that this design would only be required where parking is adjacent to residential property. He indicated that property owners can set up parking differently, so that this requirement does not apply. He also noted that where 9 Planning Commission Minutes _ 01/02/08 there are drainage or other site issues, the applicant can propose an alternate design. Staff is proposing to start with this design as the standard, and then require a conditional use permit for design outside of this, so that the Planning Commission and City Council could review an alternate design. Dragsten asked if the applicant would have the option to propose a different style. Grittman confirmed that they could. In fact, they could design their site so that they don't have the issue at all. Voight stated that this requirements is Drily in the case where parking faces residential areas. Grittman confirmed that statement. Voight asked if property owners are required to have a berm under the current ordinance. Grittman stated that they are not. Voight stated that with retaining wall and half berm design, mare usable space is created. Voight asked if this provision reduces the required setback. Grittman responded that it does not. Grittman noted that right now, when applicants put required landscaping in, there is also a distance separation. That distance separation and landscaping are still required. Voight carnrnented that this design seems better than a berm. Voight noted that if there are drainage problems that prevent such a design, the applicant can. come in and get a CUP for different styles. Grittman noted that the north Groveland area already has a full berm in place. He stated that he wouldn't be surprised if there weren't parking facing that area. On the east side of community, Grittman stated that he is not aware that there would be automatic drainage problems. However, in some cases, it may not be practical. Voight stated that this proposed ordinance amendment gives the City a means to satisfy the residents. Voight noted it would be a costly design. Voight asked if this would persuade development to other areas to avoid this expense. Grittman responded that the engineers reviewed the cost of this design versus the cost per square foot of land. In lieu of putting in a full berm, this is less expensive. From that standpoint, staff does not believe there is a cost increase, although it may be more expensive than a fence. In most cases, staff would expect people to just design their site differently. Dragsten stated that if you were to build full four foot berm, you would need up to 30' or more fora 4' high berm, which takes up alot of land. Dragsten asked if the center of the berm would be on the property line. Grittman stated that this design would be required to be all on the commercial property. Dragsten asked about how this would apply to new developments. Grittman responded that the residential side is still required to provide half of the buffer yard and landscaping. The half berm provision is not a residential requirement. Dragsten confirmed that they do not have to build the berm. Grittman concurred. Hilgart canfurned this design is only required where parking is adjacent to residential. Hilgart asked if it would be easier to just put in larger trees. Grittman stated that trees would need to be spaded in very large to get a full screen. In that case, it is very expensive, and the trees do not stand a high chance of survival. • Spartz asked if the retaining wall would be outside of the buffer yard. Grittman stated that the retaining wall would be inside the buffer yard. Spartz asked Grittman if he felt this amendment would have alleviated the issue between Groveland and River City Lanes. Grittman confirmed that he thought it would have. Chairman Dragsten opened the public hearing. _ 10 Planning Commission Minutes _ O 1 /02/08 Charlie Pfeffer addressed the Commission representing Ocello, LLC. Pfeffer stated that this provision would affect some of their property on Chelsea, adjacent to Groveland. He inquired whether this ordinance would require reconstruction of their existing berm. Grittman stated that the City wouldn't anticipate reconstructing any existing berm. Hearing no further comment, Chairman Dragster closed the public hearing. Spartz stated that for the most part, the amendment looks good. He indicated that he did have some concerns about topography. Dragster stated that he would assume that the engineers will look at that when they review the site. MOTION BY COMMISSIONER VOIGHT TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE AMENDMENT TO SECTION 3-S [DJ 9 WITH THE CREATION OF SECTION (T) AS PREPARED, BASED ON A FINDING THAT THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT IS NECESSARY TO ASSIST 1N PROTECTING THE HEALTH, SAFETY, AND WELFARE OF THE CITY. MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER HILGART . MOTION CARRIED, S-0. Public Hearin -Consideration of a re uest for Amendment to the Monticello Zarin Ordinance Cha ter 3-S Off Street Parkin Re uirements as related to the re lotion of the size and wei ht of vehicles parked in residential districts,_Applicant: City_ of _M_onticello Planner Holier presented the staff report, noting that due to recent concerns with parking of commercial vehicles in residential areas, the City has requested an ordinance amendment to increase regulations on commercial vehicle parking in residential areas throughout the City. The potential ordinance amendments would establish restrictions on the weight and dimensions of commercial vehicles allowed to park in residential neighborhoods. Holier indicated that the current ordinance language states that off-street parking facilities accessory to residential use maybe utilized solely for the parking of licensed and operable passenger automobiles. The ordinance goes an to state that no more than one truck not to exceed gross capacity of nine thousand pounds, and recreational vehicle and equipment may be parked in a residential driveway at one time. Holier stated that any additional recreational vehicles or trailers must be parked behind the front building line of the principle structure. Recreational vehicles include snowmobiles, ATVs, campers, trailers, motorhomes, boats, and the like. Holier indicated that the ordinance clearly states that 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. However, Halien stated that it has recently come to the attention of staff that the current ordinance language may not be effective in regulating the parking of certain commercial vehicles. The City has received reports of such vehicles parked in residential neighborhoods throughout the City. As such, staff has researched potential amendments employing more specific parking restrictions. Holier explained that one option for placing further restrictions on commercial vehicle parking is to regulate on the size of the vehicle specifically. The existing ordinance allows vehicles up to 9,000 pounds to be parked in residential off street parking facilities. However, staff performed a code search of neighboring communities and found that the majority of these cities permit 11 Planning Commission Minutes - 01/02/08 vehicles up to 12,000 pounds. This maybe due to the increasing size non-commercial trucks and SW's which exceed the 9,000 pound limit. In this regard, Holier stated that staff recommends an amendment to allow vehicles up to 12,000 pounds as opposed to current 9,000 pound limitation. While an amendment of this nature maybe less-restrictive than the existing language, it is not out of character with the intent of the ordinance and would reduce the number of potential ordinance violations. Holien stated that while such an amendment may allow for a wider array of vehicles to be parked in residential areas, this could be offset by also regulating the actual dimensions of vehicles. Some cities do regulate parking in residential areas by physical size of vehicles. Doing so may preclude most semi-cabs, and extraordinarily large commercial vehicles, but would permit vehicles that are consistent with residential-style passenger vehicles and smaller commercial vans and trucks. The City could exclude recreational vehicles from this prohibition if desired. Holien indicated that based on research of the dimensions of various commercial vehicles, the most appropriate dimensional restriction may be to prohibit vehicles that are larger than 7 feet in height, 8 feet in width, and 2S feet in length. These dimensions will allow far parking of various size pick-up trucks, while precluding most semi-cabs and larger commercial vehicles. Dove trucks, most cutaway vans, straight trucks and other commercial vehicles. Holien stated that under the proposed ordinance, any vehicle larger than the chosen threshold would be required to be kept within a garage, or stored at a location that is appropriately zoned for such use. Another item to consider is the issue of "emergency response" vehicles. In dealing with the issue of commercial vehicle parking in residential areas in the past, concerns have been raised on the potential of precluding emergency response vehicles from parking in residential areas. This issue may again require special consideration as this item is addressed. The City may need to include the most obvious "emergency" vehicles such ambulances and any additional vehicles that meet a specific definition. As such, one rnethvd of enforcement maybe to define "emergency response" vehicles. Based on recent concerns with parking in residential areas throughout the City, it appears as though amendments maybe necessary. Holien stated that the information presented is for the Commission's review and discussion in directing the development of draft ordinance language. She noted that with a.ny amendment to this ordinance provision, a public awareness effort should be undertaken to inform citizens of the change and to provide residents with information on other options far storage of their commercial vehicles. Voight inquired about dimensions for the types of vehicles shown in the exhibits. Holien noted that there maybe some that do slip in under the noted dimensions. Voight asked if the height of vehicles is measured to the top. Grittman stated that the ordinance would be measured against highest point of any vehicle. Voight asked if Holien had reviewed the weight of every vehicle against the dimensions. Holien noted that she did not, as weights vary so greatly. Voight noted that two trucks might have the same dimensions, but the weight could vary. Voight stated that it seems that the current language seems similar to other cities and that the current ordinance seems very clear already. Hilgart asked if the amendment is really necessary and was uncertain about measurements and application of the ordinance. Hilgart gave an example, asking what would happen if someone worked for Joe's Plumbing and had a work vehicle they brought home. Grittman clarified that if you are Joe, you couldn't have one of your employee's trucks parked at your property; you can only park them if 12 Planning Commission Minutes - 01/02/08 they are your personal vehicle and meet the dimension and weight limits. Voight noted that Big Lake's ordinance specifies "not a resident at residential site", which seems to address Hilgart's concern. Voight requested that this language be added. Voight noted that concerns and complaints are n:aost likely not related to weight. Grittman stated that he believes that there are some of the larger pick-up trucks that do exceed the 9,000 pounds. As such, it was felt that 12,000 pounds was about the right number. Public Works did express concern about not having any weight limit, because there is wear and tear on streets, as they are not designed to handle large volumes of commercial traffic. Grittman explained that the other part of this is that rather than trying to estimate weight, the physical size is more enforceable number. It is an easier number to regulate. The size relates to the concerns of residential character and is more easily enforceable. He commented that in the end, they are just trying to eliminate those vehicles that aren't something that you drive to work everyday. Grittman stated that the number one issue is that people are driving their semi cabs home. In that regard, Spartz asked what is making the current ordinance ineffective. Grittman stated that in looking at the way the ordinance worked, it does preclude semis, but it was difficult to be able to apply to a whale other range of other commercial vehicles. It was felt we should make the code more enforceable. Spartz inquired how many vehicles this amendment would affect. Grittrnan stated that he did not know; probably a handful. Dragsten asked if the current ordinance provides an ability to enforce keeping semi cabs out of residential areas. Gnittman stated that there has been difficulty. Gabler asked how a tow truck is considered an emergency vehicle. Grittman stated that discussion was part of creating a definition. for emergency response vehicles. Grittman stated that this ordinance is intended to address all parking in residential driveways, both on and off street. The goal is to make it understandable and enforceable and be able to apply it across the board. Grittman stated that at this point, staff are looking for direction from the Commission in order to craft an amendment. Chairman Dragsten opened the public hearing. Dennis Sullivan, 1201 Golf Course Road, addressed the Commission. Sullivan stated that he has a neighbor who parks his semi truck at his residential property. He stated that his issue is not what is defined as a truck, but enforcing the current ordinance. Sullivan stated that he can see no reason why a deputy can't put a ticket on the vehicle. Dragsten and Grittman confirmed it is a problem. Dragsten requested that enforcement action be taken care of in the morning by the Suildiug Department. Hearing no further comment, Chairman Dragsten closed the public hearing. Dragsten asked if existing companies, such as Ritze Trucking, are exempt. Grittman stated that it depends an the nature of the use. If it is a residential use, this ordinance is effective at the time of adoption; you are not grandfathered in. If the use is a legal non-conforming use, then they are grandfathered in as a commercial use. However, they can't intensify their use. Dragsten stated that the 12,000 pound amendment seems common sense change, but that he does have some concern about regulating size. 13 Planning Commission Minutes - 01/02/0$ Voight stated that he doesn't know how to make it easier, but the size restriction needs to be included. He noted that this can be a safety issue. Voight stated that he would like to see the weights of some of the vehicles included in the dimensional exhibits. It might be easier to compare. Dragsten and Spartz agreed. Grittman stated that weights could be brought to next meeting for further clarification. Spartz stated that in light of Building Official Anderson not being able to be present, he would also like more information on enforcement. Dragsten noted that the Commission doesn't want motorhomes excluded at this time. Hilgart disagreed, stating that he isn't sure what the difference is between looking at a large recreational vehicle versus commercial. Grittman stated that staff would prefer to get commercial vehicles out of the way and then deal with recreational. Dragsten noted that Voight's earlier comment on language clarification should be included in whatever came back to the Commission. MOTION BY COMMISSIONER VOIGHT TO CONTINUE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND COMFLETE FURTHER STUDY ON A FOSSIBLE AMENDMENT TO THE MONTICELLO ZONING ORDINANCE AS RELATED TO OFF-STREET PARKING MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER SPARTZ. MOTION CARRIED, 5-0. 9. Consideration to review a re uest for extension of a Conditional Use Permit for a Conc t Sta e Planned Unit Develo ment for K'ellber Estates a 372 unit mixed-residential develo rnent. Applicant: Ocello, LLC Community Development Coordinator Schumann presented the staff report for the request, stating that on September 6''', 2005, the Planning Commission reviewed and recommended approval of a concept stage planned unit development request for the proposed Kjellberg Estates project, submitted by Ocello, LLC. The City Council approved the concept stage PUD on September 12`", 2005. Schumann reported that the Concept Stage PUD approved for the Kjellberg Estates project is a 372-unit mixed residential development project adjacent to the Kjellberg West homes property and the Jefferson Commons commercial district. The project is proposed to consist of both single-family uses and a znix of townhorne styles. The Planning Commission and City Council's approval of the request was conditioned on a number of items, which were required to be addressed with any development stage application. Schumann stated that due to non-use, the conditional use permit far PUD would have expired on September 12th, 2006. The Monticello Zoning Ordinance requires that conditional use permits expire due to non-use after one year. The Planning Commission requested that staff notify applicants of their expiration and offer aone-time opportunity to seek an extension. Schumann noted that the extension letter sent by the applicant does not reference a specific timeline for the extension period, but rather references the market conditions as a factor in a development timeline. Schumann commented that in considering the request for extension, Commission should consider the surrounding land use context of the proposed plan, and the objectives outlined within the draft comprehensive plan. The plan proposed in 2005 may no longer meet the objectives of the City. 14 Planning Commission Minutes - 01/02/08 However, the plan maybe suitable, given the constraints presented by the surrounding uses. Schumann noted that the withdrawal of the proposed Poplar Hill development may influence this proposal's ultimate design. Schumann explained that if the Commission chooses to recommend denial of the extension, and the Council concurs, the applicant has the opportunity to immediately re-apply with a new concept plan. Schumann reported that staff does not have a specific recommendation for either the approval or denial of the extension. The objectives of the draft comprehensive plan may suggest that a reevaluation of the unit mix and density is appropriate. While a conceptual stage approval grants no development rights, it does infer that the general pattern of development is acceptable. Commission should carefully weigh this in light of recent discussions on the types of housing desired For the community. Chairman Dragsten asked if the applicant had any comment. Charlie Pfeffer, representing Ocello, LLC as applicant, addressed the Commission. Pfeffer stated that both the community and City spent a considerable amount of time to arrive at the concept stage approval. It is for that reasons that they are asking for the extension. Pfeffer stated that they are trying to be very straightforward in explaining the current situation. At the time the project was proposed, they did have buyers for the development. Since then, Pfeffer stated that they would like to preserve for as long as possible, a possibility that the market will came back. Pfeffer stated that they would ask for the extension, to expire at end of calendar 2008. Pfeffer stated that they understand future approvals are required as part of the process. Pfeffer stated that the market is still on the downside in their opinion. Their most optimistic view is some return in 2008. Pfeffer speculated that when the market does start to come back, it will not be in a very impressive manner. He stated that far the first time, everything with exception of retail is at the bottom. He stated that it all comes back to employment. There are homes being sold in other markets. It is very location oriented. Pfeffer reiterated that they request respectfully that the Commission consider an extension until the end of 2008. Dragsten asked if Ocello was requesting the extension of concept far entire 372 units. Pfeffer confirmed. Pfeffer stated that he also understood that all original conditions still apply. Dragsten stated that he had heard that Sherburne and Wright will be one of the better areas when the market does come back as they are growth areas. Pfeffer agreed. Pfeffer noted that there are still uncertainties of preference and price point. Dragsten asked haw long the previous extensions were for. 5churnann responded that they were for one year. Voight asked about price point. Pfeffer stated that originally, the townhomes were in range of $150,000 - 200,000 because of variety of bedroom options. The single-family were $2000,000- 250, 000. He stated that he can't speculate what they might be in the future. Voight stated that we need to consider how this fits with the camp plan, but as long as quality is there, he doesn't see a problem with the concept. Dragsten Hated that this is only a concept. Dragsten stated that if market changes, then the company would change what they do. Pfeffer noted that they were working with an interesting transitional context and trying to site within that. 15 Planning Commission Minutes - 01/02/08 Spartz stated that he believes consideration for Ocello should be consistent with extensions for others. MOTION BY COMMISSIONER SPARTZ TO RECOMMEND EXTENSION OF THE SEPTEMBER 12T", 2005 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR CONCEPT STAGE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT FOR KJELLBERG ESTATES TO JANUARY 2009, WITH THE CONDITION THAT ALL PREVIOUSLY APPROVED CONDITIONS BE ASSIGNED TO THE EXTENSION. MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER HILGART. MOTION CARRIED, 5-0. 10. Consideration to review a re uest for extension of a Conditional Use Permit for Joint Parkin and Drives and a Conditional Use Permit for Drive Throu h-Facilit for a commercial develo ment in the CCD Central Communit District . A licant: Masters 5th Avenue Community Development Coordinator Schumann reviewed the extension request, stating that on September 6t", 2005, the Planning Commission reviewed and recommended approval of a Conditional Use Permit for Joint Parking and Drives and a Conditional Use Permit for Drive- Through Facility, submitted by Masters 8th Avenue. The City Council approved the Conditional Use Permits on September 12th, 2005. Schumann reported that the applicant had proposed a commercial building located within the CCD, Central Community District which incorporated a mix of retail and professional uses. The preliminary proposal also included adrive-through facility. The Planning Commission and City Council's approval of the request was conditioned on a number of items, which were required to be addressed with any development stage application.. Schumann again noted that due to non-use, the conditional use permit for PUD would have expired on September 12th, 2006. Schumann noted that it annust be clear in regard to the extension, that if the applicant seeks to deviate from the plans presented, an amendment to Conditional Use Permit will be required as a separate process. Schumann stated that staff recommends approval of the extension request. The request is consistent with current and proposed objectives for the Central Community District. The project presented illustrates a plan and building which are consistent with standards outlined within the Downtown Revitalization Plan and Zoning Ordinance. Spartz inquired if the parking situation, by which the applicant would build an additional lot if needed, would still apply. Grittman and Schumann confirmed. MOTION BY COMMISSIONER VOIGHT TO RECOMMEND EXTENSION OF THE SEPTEMBER 12TH, 2005 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR JOINT PARKING AND DRNES, AND A DRIVE-THROUGH FACILITY FOR MASTERS 5TH AVENUE TO JANUARY 2009, WITH THE CONDITION THAT ALL PREVIOUSLY APPROVED CONDITIONS AND ADDITIONAL TWO CONDITIONS AS FOLLOWS: a. Disconnection of existing water and sewer connections on vacant lots proposed for development at the direction of the Public Works Director. b. Continued maintenance of the vacant lots proposed for development in accordance with City ordinance. 16 Planning Commission Minutes - 01/02/08 • MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER HILART. MOTION CARRIED, 5-0. 11. Consideration to review and recommend alternative meeting dates for February and November Planet ~n~Commission meetings. The Commissioners reached a consensus to reschedule the February meeting to Wednesday, February 6`". The Commissioners also agreed to reschedule the November meeting to November 5~', 2008. 12. Zoning Ordinance Amendments Schumann reported that as the draft Comprehensive Plan specifically cites an update to the ordinance as an implementation strategy, staff would be requesting that the Commission consider recommending moving forward with an RFP for zoning ordinance at an upcoming meeting. The ordinance amendment process would go through 2008 and into 2009. 13. Comprehensive Plan Update Schumann noted that a community open house had been set for the review of the draft Comp Flan. The date is January 30~', at this time tentatively set for 4-10 FM. Schumann stated that the format would be informal, with the goal of allowing the community an opportunity for feedback on the plan. The goal is to bring a draft plan forward to public hearings by the Commission in April. 14. Adjourn. MOTION BY COMMISSIONER SPARTZ TO ADJOURN. MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER GABLER. MOTION CARRIED, 5-0. 17 Planning Commission Agenda - 02/06/2008 5. Consideration of a re uest for a Final Plat/Re lot of Monticello Business Center Second Addition and Rezonin from B-3 Hi hwa Business to B-4 a final Business for the ro osed Jer Hartun Addition. A licant: Mike Krutzi . (NAC) Background SB 22, LLC/Mike Krutzig has submitted an application far Final Plat/Replat of Monticello Business Center Second Addition. The applicant is also requesting rezoning from B-3, Regional Business to B-4, Highway Business. The subject site is approximately 3.63 acres in area and is located east of Highway 25 and west of Cedar Street. The applicant is proposing to plat the site as the Jerry Hartung Addition. Comprehensive Plan. The subject site is guided for commercial land uses in the Comprehensive Plan. Zoning. The applicant is requesting rezoning to B-4, Regional Business. The purpose of the B-4 regional business district is to provide for and limit the establishment of motor vehicle oriented or dependent commercial and service activities. The site is currently zoned B-3, Highway Business. The purpose of the B-3 District is also to provide for and limit the establishment of motor vehicle oriented or dependent commercial and service activities. Analysis The applicant is requesting Final Plat and rezoning approval for a carnmercial subdivision consisting of two lots. The site is currently platted as Outlot A of the Monticello Business Center Second Addition. The applicant is proposing to plat the site as Block 1, Lots 1 and 2 of the Jerry Hartung Addition. Ta accommodate the proposed uses, the applicant is also requesting rezoning from B-3, Highway Business, to B-4, Regional Business. An additional application for a CUP for joint access and joint parking was submitted, but has been deemed incomplete. Staff expects that the CUP application will came forward at a later date. As such, the final plat and rezoning are to be considered independent of any Conditional Use Permits for future site development. Rezoning. The applicant is requesting rezoning from B-3, Highway Business to B-4, Regional Business. The Comprehensive Plan designates the site for commercial land uses, and the requested B-4 designation is generally consistent with the intent of the Comprehensive Plan. While the purpose of the B-3 and B-4 Districts are identical, the B-4 Zoning District allows for a wider variety of commercial uses. All uses allowed in the B-4 District would again be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan designation for the site. • City Council Agenda - 02/06/2008 The property directly east of the site is zoned B-4. Land to the north of the site and west across Highway 25 is zoned B-3. Lot Requirements and Setbacks. The applicant is requesting rezoning from B-3 to B-4. No minimum lot width, lot area, or setback requirements apply to the B-4 District. For references purposes, the following chart illustrates the proposed lot areas for the site: Area Lot 1 49,468 s uare feet (1.14 acres) Lot 2 107,583 s uare feet 2.47 acres) Cedar Street ri ht-of-wa 8,743 square feet (0.2 acres) Site Total 165,794 s uare feet (3.63 acres The proposed lot sizes appear large enough to support commercial uses, as well as the required landscaping, parking, and drive aisles to accommodate said uses. Access. Curb cut locations have not been illustrated on the proposed plat, but have been shown on the site plan submitted with the CUP application. The applicant is proposing two curb cuts on the east side of the site, off Cedar Street. The first curb cut is located approximately 160 Feet north of the south lot line and will provide access to Lot 2. The second is proposing approximately 480 feet north of the south lot line and will provide access to Lot 1. Each curb cut is proposed at a width of approximately 30 feet. These access locations comply with the minimum setback requirements. Internal traffic circulation will be evaluated as part of a future CUP application. As part of the plat, the applicant has provided right-of--way to accommodate a potential expansion of Cedar Street on the south side of the property, as it extends to the south past Kjellberg's East. As noted on the above chart, the applicant is dedicating 8,743 square feet of right-of way for Cedar Street in the southeast corner of the site. The applicant has inquired about the potential to place parking within this right-of--way with any future development. The applicant shall be required to enter into an agreement with the City regarding the future extension of Cedar Street and potential encroachments as a condition of approval. Grading, Drainage, and Utilities. The City Engineer has reviewed the proposed plat and determined that an additional easement is necessary through the center of the site, over the existing stoml sewer. As a condition of approval, the applicant shall be required to revise the survey to include this easement, as deemed appropriate by the City Engineer. No permanent structures maybe placed within said easement. The applicant shall be required to comply with any additional recommendations of the City Engineer, as they relate to grading, drainage, and utilities. • 2 City Council Agenda - 02/06/2008 ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS Regarding the request a Final Plat/Replat of Monticello Business Center Second Addition and Rezoning from B-3 (Highway Business) to B_4 (Regional Business) to accommodate a commercial plat to be known as the Jerry Hartung Addition, the City has the fallowing options: 1. Motion to recommend approval of the request for Final Plat and Rezoning from B-3 (Highway Business) to B-4 (Regional Business), based on a finding that the proposed plat is consistent with the performance requirements for the B-4 District, the character of the surrounding properties, and the Comprehensive Plan, subject to the conditions in Exhibit Z. 2. Motion to recommend denial of the request far Final Plat and Rezoning from B-3 (Highway Business) to B-4 (Regional Business), based on a finding that the proposed plat is not consistent with the intent of the Comprehensive Plan, and will have a detrimental affect on neighboring properties. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of the Final Plat and Rezoning as presented. The subject request is consistent with the intent of the Comprehensive Plan, and it not expected to have a detrimental effect on surrounding properties. Upon review of the proposed plat, staff finds that it is consistent with the performance requirements of B-4 District, and will adequately support commercial development on the site. Therefore, staff recommends approval, subject to the conditions identified in Exhibit Z Su ortin Data A. Site location map B. Final Plat C. Architectural Site plan Z. Conditions of Approval • City Council Agenda - 02/06/2008 Exhibit Z Conditions of Approval SB 22 LLC/Mike Krutzig 1. The applicant shall be required to provide a storm sewer easement through the center of the property, as determined by the City Engineer. No permanent structures maybe located within said easement. 2. The applicant shall enter into an agreement with the City addressing the future extension of Cedar Street and associated assessments. Said document shall also address an encroachment agreement for the starm sewer easement. ~~ ~_J • 4 .~~. ,~~, CITY OF MONTICELLO at for Final id Rezoning -3 (Highway ess) to B-4 gal Business). • t N • v N NFU WW ~Oj ~ I Nt~i.F y :u- N U Vl y C ~ o ~ W J~j N 7 M a~2 ~ ~ n II Q N wo Z U4# m'~ `v w I` Z ~ e m n ~ ~ °a~N Q %~~o ~ `oN `a r~ I o So mm a Ed ~ x a,~ t5 ~OND ~ O O~ p ~~ ..-.-.'a _.... _.---1 FNaSQj V ~J ~N -~ ~g I ~~~~ ~ vv w aw I ~~~~ `~`a~n °m o ~ o a I ~~wa ~ I ~ ° I ~~~~ . ~ _ ~ ~ ~~~~~ I. p ~~._ ~ ~~ ~~ _ ~__ _ _ ~ _. _ ~ ~~~~ ~ _ •;: / ~~ ~ ~~ ~ / `::::. ~ cg ~~ .t ', _._ ,.:. .... ~ _ m / ~ % / ~ ~ ZS' ~ '' / ~~ ~._ _~ h / _.. ,.a... / / ~_ ° ~ :;. \ ~/ / _ / / ~~ i-~~ / J '~/ / ago / ~~`~~\ ~b ~'~~ ' ` C = ~// /~..., ':a:; ~ spa ~`. "';, ~ O <e~9 ¢` / ~ L: ...~ ~ ~ ~aM a o4 + d\\ nary/ v'~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ _ .. .~ ,,, 4,~ a > F'l.~ '" °I' - ' ~/ v`S/ iU ..:~f. F:' . ~ ~'..:,~ ~~ ~ 3 ..BO ,04,00 5 ' o- - ---- . _ --- -- --- , cz ~i 'rza .dM~ ~i ,a; 6;s Ms aa~ ~,~ r saM.- ,>~ ~ 8Z'69l 3~~80,OYo005 _ ~ Q ~ ~- v ~~ 6 g~ ,,6 v ~ ~ ~ ~'' amt V ~ J "bw I - ~ `" '' d ~, g~~ N o q u ,. S y ~ ~' - d ~ a ~ 6-~ 6 3 E~ r E ~ ono ~ a ~ a ~ r a. ~ _ c ~ i u ~ r ~ v d ~ °~ a $o&o ~v $` E ~ b ~' ~ ~ ~ a ~ ~ aq ~F ~J ~w ~ v S x T `o 3 _ ~ s SE~y ~~ ~ ~ s a x s~ ~ Q ~ ~ I ~~% ~~ ~ ~ s 6 T $ `o ~ C ~ ~ ~%ug ~ ° u d vrg~ r ~ ° a k ~ r ~ ~ o a~ €~F5 ~ ~ ~ 5 E ~ •a g... ~, U ~ g g 3 °~ s ~a~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ o~ g ..v g l P d '' .s C ?:~ c r u U n 5~ ~ ~`go t= aN S a ~ 6 ~ c 3 a ~ ~" w~ ~ t Sao n o o P b a~ ~ g` E E S~g6 ~m } $ 5 S a m - ~ &5 n a c ~~ J o" of $% °s 7 ~ ina o.. -~ b $ H ,~ za ~ -s „ - ~~ o ~ T ,. ~a ~ ~g i n i ¢ .s~ .h far ~~.50 ~ # ~ ~h ~~ d ~~. ~ ~ no w o a a~ ° # ~ y ~ ~~~, rv~v o°~v _ay g a r ~ ~ n r ° ns F~ • • • ~- ~~S cS'y G~J s O~ de ~F `{ ~~Ett6 day tzH `~~~i '~-lb ~S 8Z'896 3~90.ObeDOS `~, ~ ~... / p. %~ N ;v ,D I i ~Z Im` ~ E: I tJ ~,~:: I'' ~AN~1.'~,~, ', ya B Planning Commission Agenda - 02/06/08 6. Public Hearin -Consideration of a re uest for Prelimina and Final Plat for the ro osed Union Crossin s Third Addition a commercial lot in a B-4 e final Business District. A licant: R an Cam anies US Inc. (NAC) BACKGROUND Ryan Companies has applied for Preliminary and Final Plat approval for Union Crossings Third Addition, a commercial subdivision consisting of three lots. The site is located south of 7th Street, west of Highland Way, and east of the St. Henry's Church property. The gross area of the site is 3.85 acres. The subject property is part of the existing Union Crossings Planned Unit Development. Comprehensive Plan. The subject site is guided for commercial land uses in the Comprehensive Plan. Zouing. The site is zoned B-4, Regional Business. The purpose of the B-4 regional business district is to provide for and limit the establishment of motor vehicle oriented or dependent commercial and service activities. ANALYSIS The applicant is proposing a commercial plat consisting of 31ots an a 3.85 acre site. In a narrative submitted by the applicant, it is stated that the platting has been requested prior to any applications for Conditional Use Permits or development stage PUD to facilitate the sale of the lots. The site is part of the existing Union Crossings PUD and therefore, additional applications are expected prior to development. However at this time, only Preliminary and Final Plat approval are requested. Preliminary and Final Plat. The site is currently platted as Outlot C of Union Crossings. The applicant is proposing to plat the site as Block 1, Lots 1, 2, and 3 of Union Crossings Third Addition. Lot Requirements and Setbacks. No minimum lot area, lot width, or setback requirements apply to the B-4 District. Additionally, no structures have been sited an the proposed lots. For reference purposes, the following chart details the dimensions of the proposed lots: Lot De th Lot Width Lat Area Lot 1 272 feet 232.21 feet 1.54 acres Lot Z 215 feet 249.76 feet 1.22 acres Lot 3 226 feet 543.37 feet 1.09 acres Any future buildings proposed for the site shall be evaluated on their own merit at the time of development to ensure that each lot will function properly with adequate space for required parking and landscaping. Access. Access to the lots has not been illustrated on the plat documents. Instead, staff anticipates that access paints will be determined as each site develops. The width of each lot appears adequate to provide a curb cut setback of at least 40 feet from the intersection of two of more rights-of--way, as required in the Zoning Ordinance. Grading, Drainage and Utilities. The applicant shall comply with all recommendations of the City Engineer as they relate to grading, drainage and utilities. Recording. If the final plat is approved by the City Council, the subdivider shall record it with the Wright County Recorder within 100 days after said approval. if the subdivider fails to so record the final plat, the approval shall be considered void, unless a request for time extension is submitted in writing and approved by the City Council prior to the expiration of the 100 day period. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS Regarding the request for Preliminary and Final Plat approval for Union Crossings Third Addition, a commercial plat resulting in three lots, the City has the following options: 1. Motion to approve the Preliminary and Final Plat of Union Crossings Third Addition, subject to a finding that the proposed plat is consistent with the intent of the B~4, Regional Business District, and the Comprehensive Plan. 2. Madan to deny the Preliminary and Final plat, based an a finding that the proposed use is not consistent with the intent of the B-4 District. RECOMMENDATION The applicant is requesting approval of Preliminary and Final Plat for athree-lot commercial subdivision. The subject request is consistent with the intent of the B-4 District and the existing Planned Unit Development. All lots appear to be proposed in a manner that will adequately support commercial uses. Therefore, staff recommends approval of the Freliminary and Final Plat. SUPPORTING DATA: Exhibit A: Site Location Map Exhibit B: Preliminary Plat Exhibit Z: Conditions of Approval Exhibit Z Conditions of Approval Ryan Companies, Union Crossings 3"d Addition 1. The applicant shall record the plat with the Wright County Recorder within 100 days of approval or it shall be considered void. • ~' o ~ U ' O ~ ~ ~ ~ U ` ; ,r G y ~ a~ ~ ~, „r f a ~r a . ~ ,; ~ /. • y~'~ , ~~ ~~' r ~ e' ` r ~~,• ~'rA~, _ ~,~~, a ;~' ~~ ~- ry,fi / .' r'~,N ~ ~~'S ~~I, ;//rr M N ~~, i~ ~,~~f I .''~ %~ \` r~ w i~ ~ ~ ~~ k' 4~ .tip, ~~ ~~~ i`~- i r' / \ y` .+ . .,_ ~`` x.p~ alb to _.. a .~ Sao ~ 4 ra F 3 ~ ~ ~~ y ~ ],~~~Y a~ra~ ~ ~~3 yS R ~q R RVI ~ 13~~iS ~ / \\ utnfw7rJN1W Z47 I',.~L w,bQ w_ d ~~~ sra ~' v a. .~~~ e 3nN~nb N~51 ,~~~ ~ O a,~ h~ r, ~~' • ~; ~ ~ ~~ ~: a x~ .~ E g~ ~f ~ a [ 6 ~ ~ ~ I U ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~. pp~ ~ ~ bKb ~. ~ Q ~~ E ~ ~ fi 3 ~~ ~ r ~~ ~ # E~ ~ ~~~ w ~ ~ ~~~ ~ a ~d~~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ 1 c 5 ~A ~~ RI ~ ~ ~ ~°s Y gym` ~g E 6 a ~¢gg g~ h I X ~ l i ~~ ~~.~~; ~I ~ i ~ g~~~ ' ~ ~ ~~~~ ~ e fi~A b 8 ~ ~~ ~ ~ y ~ $ ~ i . ~ ~ Y i ~ ~ ~ ~ y S X ~ X~~$ ~ ~ ~ ~ 6 ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~i ~ 7 ~ ~ E ~ ~n ~ i ~ a ~, I ~ ~~ ~ 8 4 K yy ~ K ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ u ~ Fn ~ ~ ~ 7 -~ Lr. 4~;• ~~ 4 ~ r ,`f 'y. ~~~~ .~~~ ~~ ~ r~ _ N 4 ~4 w ~ N~~ / ~~* ~, ~* F~ ti ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ / ~/ ! ~1 ~ / ~C ~ i / F_ ! rr' D ~~ l 1` '' ~~ / ~ ! u, / a ~ ~~ ~ `f~ ~~ / ! rye. ,~r ' ! r~ ~3a1y J ~. ~ 1 ~M~/ \' gk ~ ~' l / / ! ~ .y~$ ~ r. ,c~ ~ / ~~ ~ ~ / ^~ 0 5 ~~ ,,~ 6n• / / n~g5k ~` .~ ° . ~~ 0 , ~~~ rM M1 / ~O I~~ V f') bi ` ~ ~•0 ~. / vw / r 4 / ti, / v~• / ~' a ~ / ~i r -cayj / ~ / ~ (i F / ,fie ~ ~~ b / ~ / tl ~ / ~ 1 ~ -. ~'v ~r r~ ~ e / ~~ / ~ '~ .. / ~ _ ~` i s ~~ ~/ ~/ ~p ~ S ~~ S N ~^ ~~ j~W '~~ .. [t ~~ ;,~E~ ~gh r~-0 ~ ~ ~ N U ~ 0 6 ~ b ~~~ \~ ,~ u u •~ a ~~"N ~ s W ~~~ ~~~~ ~~~ o ~ a :p~g i d y ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ b U bWw ~ '~^io ~ ~ ~~ ~ Ib ~ b N_ b ... ... J...._.._-J _ ~~ @ Ti DISC'S ~ y~~ ~ 1 I b 4 +S ~ ! •~ p i ~ 'O ° ~ ~~ " ~ N ~ a ~ g i ~:~ N'4 ~ $ i s ~ s a. l ~ R ~ ~ 0 ~~ 'CY~,~ 'G ~1J,~~ 1. v TV st~yO`~ I N~ G .(i.~ ~~h(yJ 'C ~ O~ ~0 ~ ~O~ c-~ n~ r~ (T1 ~ a ~ ~ ~~ c ~ ~ a ,a y b h •s 0 3~ILON 1(10N1tN 3JNY/p QL 1.71"8115 • • N I R ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ R ~ 1 ~ R ~ R R E a ~~ ~ i ~~ ~ ~~ ~ R 1 ~ I ~ ~I ~ a a ~ I ~ p 6 ~ ~ 4 i ~ ~ E r ~ ~ O ~~ v~ ~` .4 ~I I _"~ - I ~ u I ..~~ ~~ n ~~ a~ ,~~ y"~ p~pY~~ '~~ ~~ ~~~ d ~~ ~ ~~ ~ ~~~a ~ ~N~~~ N ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ n + ti ~ ~ q N~ W ~ ~ b pp \ O ~S ~ ~ ~~11 V~ n ~ N o ~ K 0 ~ e m ~ nl~ n m~ N a ~ ~~ ~ s v~ y a+ y{ ~ ~ m NC j ~ ~ ~ ~ ~r/~y~ p'~1 3 ~ ~ ~ Q O i ~ ~ Z4 a w m a M Q A i ~ \~. ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~_ i /~ i i i'~'~ ~~i zE ~s i 1~~~ ~. r~ ~~ ~~~ "" 3 ~~~ ~ ~~i ~ ~ e O a v 8 N 4 r ~ ~ fy*pypL ~~ ~ rw i ~ N~ tfi ~N ~ N ~! ~~ q~y ~ ~ I p I * O M C 1 ` ~ m I w f •W Y ~ ~3 Flanning Commission Agenda - 02/06/08 7. Public Hearing -Consideration of a re nest for Sim le Subdivision and a Conditional Use Permit for Joint Access for Prairie Ponds Second Addition a commercial lot in a B-4 a Tonal Business District. A licant: Premier Banks. (NAC) BACKGROUND Premier Bank is seeking approval of a Simple Subdivision for their property at 4134 Deegan Court. The property is currently platted as Lot 2, Block 1 of Frairie Ponds Second Addition. The applicant is also seeking a Conditional Use Fermit for Joint Access. The subject site is located north of School Boulevard and east of Deegan Avenue and is 2.71 acres in area. The site is zoned B-4, Regional Business. Comprehensive Plan. The subject site is guided for commercial land uses in the Comprehensive Plan. Zoning. The site is zoned B-4, Regional Business. The purpose of the B-4, Regional Business district is to provide for and limit the establishment of motor vehicle oriented or dependent commercial and service activities. ANALYSIS Premier Bank is requesting approval of a Simple Subdivision to allow for a lot split of their property at 4134 Deegan Court. The site is currently platted as Lot 2, Black 1 of Prairie Ponds Second Addition. The applicant is proposing to subdivide a portion of the lot, 50,712 square feet (1.16 acres) in area. This parcel is identified at Parcel A, and is located on the northeast side of the site, adjacent to the Deegan Avenue cul-de- sac. The parcel containing the existing bank building, identified as Parcel B, is proposed to be 67,313 square feet (1.55 acres) in area after the subdivision. Lot Requirements and Setbacks. No minimum lot area, lot width or setback requirements apply to the B-4 District. For references purposes, this information has been provided for the proposed parcels. No buildings are proposed far Parcel A at this time, and therefore all setback information reflects the existing bank building on Parcel B only. B-3 Re uirement Pro osed Parcel A Pro osed Parcel B Lot Area N/A 50,712 sf 63,313sf Lot Width 100 feet 134.65 feet 83.23 feet Front Yard Setback 30 feet N/A 163 feet Side Yard Setback 10 feet N/A 86 feet Rear Yard Setback 30 feet N/A 75 feet Any future buildings proposed for Parcel A shall be evaluated on their own merit at the time of developrrxent to ensure that each lot will function properly with adequate space far required parking and landscaping. Access. The applicant has requested a Conditional Use Fermit for shared access between the two resulting parcels. The proposed shared access location is located approximately 33 feet from the east side lot line. The curb cut between the two parcels is proposed to be 24 feet in width. No curb currently exists along the property line. Adjoining 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 shared parking lot meet the combined minimum as required by this Ordinance. Comment: The applicant is proposing shared access, but not shared parking. According to the original landscape plan for the Premier Bank site, dated 5/31/2005, the proposed curb cut for the shared access will not interfere with any required landscaping on the existing site. 2. The parking lot meets the required setback at the perimeter of the parcels in question. Comment: The existing parking lot on Parcel B is consistent with the setback requirements. No parking lot has been illustrated on Parcel A at this time. Any future parking area an Parcel A will be evaluated on its own merit at the time of development through the CUP process. The curb cut access locations to the parking lot(s) are approved by the City Engineer. Comment: The City Engineer has reviewed and approved the curb cut location. 4. A shared access and maintenance agreement is provided by the property owners and recorded against all subject properties. Comment: No such maintenance agreement has been provided as part of the application. This document will be required as a condition of any approval, and shall be reviewed and approved by the City Attorney. In addition to the conditions of approval, additional review will be required for Parcel A at such time as the site develops. As no development is currently proposed for Parcel A, full Conditional Use Permit review shall be required to accommodate the shared access arrangement on that parcel with any future user. Said review shall be required as a condition of approval. Snow Storage. The 5/31/2005 site plan for the Premier Bar~lc site illustrates a snow storage area north of the site, on the proposed Parcel A. The proposed share drive will cut through this snow storage location. The applicant shall be required to show an alternate snow storage area on Parcel A, as that site develops. Gradin and Drains e. A adin and drains a plan was approved for the site with g R; 1~ g g the review of the Prairie Ponds Second Addition plat. Recording. In the event the subdivision is approved by the City Council, the subdivider shall record it with the Wright County Retarder within 100 days after said approval. If the subdivider fails to so record the subdivision, the approval shall be considered void, unless a request for time extension is submitted in writing and approved by the City Council prior to the expiration of the 100 day period. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS Regardin~ the request for Simple Subdivision approval for of Lot 2, Black 1, Prairie Ponds 2n Addition and a CUP for shared access, the City has the following options: 1. Motion to recommend approval of the request far Simple Subdivision of Lot 2, Block 1 Prairie Ponds 2"d Addition and a CUP for shared access, based on a finding that the proposed arrangement is consistent with the intent of the B-4, Regional Business District, and the Comprehensive Plan, subject to the conditions outlined in Exhibit Z. 2. Motion to recommend denial of the request for Simple Subdivision approval for of Lot 2, Block 1 Prairie Ponds 2°d Addition and a CUP for shared access, based on a finding that the proposed use is not consistent with the intent of the B-4 District. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of the Simple Subdivision as presented, subject to the conditions outlined below. Both lots are consistent with the performance requirements for the B-4 District. The applicant has not identified a user for Parcel A at this time and as such, further review of that parcel will be required with any future development. SUPPORTING DATA: Exhibit A: Site Location Ma Exhibit B: Site Survey Exhibit C: Landscape Plan 5/31/05 Exhibit Z: Conditions of Approval • . Exhibit Z Conditions of Approval Premier Banks -CUP for Jomt Access 1. Future development of Parcel A shall require full Conditional Use Permit review to ensure compliance with the proposed CUP for shared access. 2, The applicant shall provide asix-foot drainage and utility easement along the interior property lines of both parcels. 3. The restoration of any private facilities disrupted due to work within the drainage and utility easerent shall be at the expense of the property owner. 4. The applicant shall provide a shared access and maintenance agreement and record it against all subject properties. 5. The Subdivision and all necessary easements shall be recorded with the Wright County Recorder's Office within 100 days of approval. • 4 CITY OF MONTICELLO • • ~ N. '~I,fXi~K11 h ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~1 :st for Simple ivision and a Est far Condi- Jse Permit for int Access t N • I -= uW~ ~`~ tN U~; w ~ ,fll'~ux2 ° ~ ~ p O z a ~'~ h~j N ry~ ~~I ni ~ P N M T'I r` .. ~ _. q N Q ~ y gyy^~ .] N C +F O ~c°c ~yb• 9u°u ~N6~ ~ I {-~ ~ S`u~ an (~ ~ ~ ~C~u~ ~ ~ bC~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ WWZ ~ ~p ~2 ~ o -J zzw ~ ~. ~ O 0.? - ~ ~ ~~r~'N 8 ~~zRgN ~`~~ `~J.-~ I J ~~ ~ ~ ~~x W b ~j n ~ ~~y ~ °~ ~~gx 33i~~gxL,$ ~ j lei r ~ l~~ ~-- _- ~ ~,+~r ~' ZZU ~ ~ ~~ "11" ~ ry o y r S F-F' b3 ~ W U ER~ a3~~o~ a g'3uaa~ ~~ ~~ 000 ~ ~ 52c~ 3 W[~SV~~~9n me C`~~'av_gn U FJ. - __~_ J ~ w~/l I x etlll vrC brut ~C 4 brn~ ~._ - ~S (Y a ry W ~p ,..- y ~,w~nn ~~ - OU~~g ~dry~ z~~~~~`N~ ci,I l- ~- C r...~ w ~ tl OU ~bmdo ^~E~~N~b~o ~ ^~~r:v N~ o y ~ m wyC~ ~ c/t~ 04,5~ b • ~~ N7cpa~b~y,,b e'b 1£b~, eti x3.~a'4~h~~° ~C~~~n['1Ma t s~ 4~~~w~w~~n~ ~~~w~w_~~w ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ _- ~ ~, ~~ ~.. - ~ ~~ _ . -~ _ , - ~ ~ ~~ -. ~ ~.: __ ~~ '~=._ -- ~__ __ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ _ ~ '9' `~ 80C._ ~ ,~ - ~ ~ _ _ ~ .w"I (J h- .. ~ "~ -- ~~ `mo`o `,~ T~.~~~ ~~~g my~S `~~.-~~~~6 ~%~~-[ ~ ~, -_ ~ r ~ /o~ ~ ~1 ~~_ f I I ~ ~$q ~I~~ .T. }~ { - Y t k .w-4oc ~B»~Y~~~ s' ~ ___ -~ i ~ ~ -_ __~ t~, / /'~6~0 4°~~p1 LL ~ /. _......... H ~,. yF,~-'-- t) - ff -_ t} 93 _ { / ~~ ` Imo'-«~,~S3M1Y) ~ wo `+~ _ __ ..7. ~j ~n ' ~Y• ~ L~`~ /' `~ L~ ~ _ I F ' ~ _~" L `fir _ ~ [Y~C~ry7S _ [_+ ~ ~ ~ ?ti . u /. I ~ _ w / e ~ ~ Qd / ~ V n doH _ Y ~ +~ ' ~ ~~ / it ~ "_ .a[ __ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ P~~ a%~ ~ T 3ia- e~` ~~ II v; a V~` II I 1 ~ ir.~~ m~~~. .ss 6~~,` _p~^ =~ ~z~~G ice' '°, i• ~. ~ lar ~ ^~,^o • ~.~ ~Y did _e...... ~1 ~ 'sry~ I ~ ~Q~i, ~r I 30~ -- ,-L,C 1 4_.. ~ r ) - ,4 ~ _ , i r~ I I I l~ /~q ~~ ~ Yee, , y y 'I ff r a~ I ~ ~- p I ~ !r U - r,,l ~ aoe -OO9 ' ~i 1-I It[~ 11 1 „~f~ ~-~ I - 1 s ~..,- _. -r$a ~ r .,....A3A~1175....~~ 3111IJI~11'...._._ ....................as-a-are-fie)-~--....-sr~ aet+~{rod-:~w-.. ,,, ~ ..a~,v--~--Q ~a ~.i.... w~ .~ri aax~x~ t:tcss Nn bt~u~s ] ~~: tuc .errs ~+yvo~riow O ?. . ,~ ,. k{~J ~ rune arr., ;; .",t~+o~a r `, ~ ~ z I / Nd1d 3dV~SaNbr'7 ~ 'ONI `M"lyQ8~3J43W ~... ~~ovd xpos ~•. ~~ Js o~i11'aC~ld 31M1P SAMd 0210~lf MaN .{9 Q~N9lS3Q V] o~~~ ° ^~~ ~ x ~ ° " S~INbr9 ~13lW~ad "~' wr7 0 !W A6 haN .1B NMY$(f7 ~ 1 ~ ~ O ~ '+~bs ^ r~i 66rT ~o Its~P a~w >w ~ ~J q ppfauns ao~ Sfua -1 t}aYWyO6OJOUY ,to . W •}www~wduq ,Maya e} }~Od1nE leu asap it LO ~ aO~ _ •MOgo pp•p~Jogp A4e1 oyyyy j0 pp1.Ip ~+Ibp ~ _ , ~,,/ r ., .. CNY1' RWLfARN~/3 i~i.RJP%.. d N ~ ~ ~ M 1C~ ~11aS P o°.n,; o°n ~lMf i°4i.i{77.rw+C9rro4 1 sHa ~p~~s/so ~rvn ~" D Houvae~u~a Banana AavnNnos c~ j ~U m~ ~~ , a~ ~~ .~ j ~ ~~ ~ ~o _ 0,4 ~~ ~ $ cry C N ~ p ~ ~ ~4 Q~ CF ~~ ~ ~"t7 L- pN Fy~ ~ °- o ~ ~ vy w ~ N c c ~ c °-~ ~~ ¢?¢- II Q7 „e ~ ~ ° c ° ~ O ~ F- ~ lad {,N~ w o~ 'So ~~ pip ~a ~w Q c a c~ ~ m z~ ~C~'l ~ Lwi,l ~x.gc~i5~oira- QxU~7 gtpl Q¢ ~?- w o1NG m`~rm tiU wW ~ - z i cal l ea_ l a g a, ~a ®w }-o V ~ ~4 ~ ~D ~. ~N~ ON ~ 1A ~ z U c'~ II a p w w ui o I-. 1,,~ ~~ ~ ti ~x ~ ~4'~OS~d~ ~CVN ~~U]~ DQ .J ~ ~ z wc~ z~ ~ du,t cn~n. ~~ ~~tix ~ q ~ 3 ~ 00. U~ ~~~~., I N~~ ~YLW III Imo, ¢ j I :~: ~ ~ 4t"Q ~~- U~~~~~<LQ 0.Q ~w~~ ~Q ...• I~ ~ I y~ H ~ ^~q ~~ 4~~~ N~4 ~~ w~gUmo~ .. q ,~.m 4 0. ~ O ~.,.,., ~ 1 u„ r. .., .. .. 4 O o~ wT _~ -~__ _L_ r_~'~~n~_ ~r~r~~3a /~ 1~-~~ ~` ,~ a -~_ _ . ..,., ~: ... ,... ~.ar ...,,,.......,._ ........ ........ ~, ...__.,-..........v„....,u,y....,~..,;:~.r,:~.-ubrren~ia~emxr?~:~i~;~s'r'Ts:r~t°.a~:dwts:~xY~":u~+ ~. '• ~ ~ '~ •'~ ''ti ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~'~. ^~ ` ~~ ~ ~ ~` ~ 1~~ ,yyo~ 98 g~~ g~ ~ ' ~ _ ~, ~~r - ~ ,~ ~x 1~ ~7~ N~ ~z~.~S ~ '~, ~ cos ~ '~ .w, t ~ p 'ANN y ~~ a• , ~~ ~ , ~~; ry• ~~•~ ~ ~, // Planning Commission Agenda - 01/02/08 8. Public Hearin -Consideration of a re uest for an amendment to the Monticello Zoning Ordinnance, Chapter 3-5, Off-street Parking Re uirements as related to the re ulat~on of the see and wei ht of vehicles arked in residential districts. A licant: Ci of Monticello. BACKGROUND Due to recent concerns with parking of commercial vehicles in residential areas, the City has requested an ordinance amendment to increase regulations on commercial vehicle parking in residential areas throughout the City. Specifically, potential ordinance amendments may establish restrictions on the weight and dimensions of commercial vehicles allowed to park in residential neighborhoods, while not excluding emergency response vehicles. ANALYSIS The current Zoning Ordinance language related to off-street parking states, Of)`=street parking facilities accessory to residential use may be utilized solely far the parking of licensed and operable passenger automobiles, no mare than one (1) truck not to exceed gross capacity of nine thousand (9, 000) pounds, and recreational vehicle and equipment. Not more than one recreational vehicle or trailer may be parked in a residential driveway at one time. Any additional recreational vehicles or trailers must be parked behind the front building line of the principle structure. For purposes of this ordinance, recreational vehicles shall include snowmobiles, ATVs, campers, trailers, motorhomes, boats, and the like. Under na 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. It has recently come to the attention of staff that the above ordinance language may not be effective in regulating the parking of certain commercial vehicles, and the City has received reports of such vehicles parked in residential neighborhoods throughout the City. As such, staff has been directed to research potential amendments employing more specific parking restrictions. Staff has prepared a number of options for consideration, ranging from specifying vehicle types to regulating by size. Size. One option far placing further restrictions on commercial vehicle parking is to regulate on the size of the vehicle specifically. The existing ordinance allows vehicles up to 9,000 pounds to be parked in residential off-street parking facilities. However, staff performed a code search of neighboring communities (attached as Exhibit A), and found that the majority of these cities permit vehicles up to 12,000 pounds. This maybe due to the increasing size non-commercial trucks and SUV's which exceed the 9,000 pound limit. Therefore, staffrecarnmends an Planning Commission Agenda --- 01/02/08 amendment to Section 3-2 [N] 4 regarding exterior storage and Section 3-S [D] 7 regarding oft street parking to allow vehicles up to 12,000 pounds as opposed to current 9,000 pound limitation. While an amendment of this nature may beless- restrictive than the existing language, it is not out of character with the intent of the ordinance and would ;reduce the number of ordinance violations. While the above amendment may allow for a wider array of vehicles to be parked in residential areas, this may be mitigated by also regulating the actual dimensions of vehicles. Some cities do regulate parking in residential areas by physical size of vehicles. Doing so may preclude most semi-cabs, and extraordinarily large commercial vehicles, but would permit vehicles that are consistent with residential-style passenger vehicles and smaller commercial vans and trucks. The city could exclude recreational vehicles from this prohibition if desired. Staff has researched dimensions of various commercial vehicles, and said research maybe found attached as Exhibit B. Based on this research, the most appropriate dimensional restriction maybe to prohibit vehicles that are larger than 7 feet in height, $ feet in width, and 25 feet in length. These dimensions will allow Far parking of various size pick-up trucks, while precluding most semi-cabs and larger commercial vehicles. These dimensions would also permit vehicles that are consistent with residential-style passenger vehicles and smaller commercial vans and trucks. Any vehicle larger than the chosen threshold would be required to be kept within a garage, or stared at a location that is appropriately zoned for such use. Regulating vehicles by size in this manner would require an amendment to Section 3-S [D] 7. Exceptions for "emergency response" vehicles. In dealing with the issue of commercial vehicle parking in residential areas in the past, concerns have been raised on the potential of precluding emergency response vehicles from pazking in residential areas. This issue may again require special consideration as this item is addressed. The City may need to include the most obvious "emergency" vehicles such ambulances and any additional vehicles that meet a specific definition. As such, one method of enforcement may be to define "emergency response" vehicles. Said definition may include: (a) Ambulance, (b) Police and Sheriff, (c) Fire, (d) Emergency tow vehicles. An exception such as this maybe incorporated as an amendment to Section 3-S [D]. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS Motion to direct staff to prepaze amendments to the Monticello Zoning Ordinance as related to off-street parking, based on the direction outlined by the Flanning Commission. 2. Motion to table for further study. ~....~ Planning Commission Agenda- 01/02/08 RECOMMENDATION Based on recent concerns with arkin in residential areas throu out the Cit , it p g ~ Y appears as though amendments to the Zoning Ordinance may be necessary to further restrict commercial vehicle parking in such areas. Staff has presented information on vehicle dimensions, as well as information on how other cities regulate commercial vehicle parking. The information is presented for the Comxnission's review and discussion in directing the development of draft ordinance language. Staff also believes that with any amendment to this ordinance provision, a public awareness effort should be undertaken to inform citizens of the change and to provide residents with information on other options far storage of their commercial vehicles. Currently, the City allows semi-trailer cabs to be parked in the City commuter lot. A specific area has been signed for such parking. SUPPORTING DATA: A. Vehicle Dimensions B. Matrix of Neighboring Community Commercial Vehicles Sizes • ~~ ~ NORTHWEST ASSOCIATE© CONSULTANTS, INC. 48U~0 Olson Memorial Highway, Suite 2b2, Golden Valley, MN 55422 Telephone: 763.2'31.2555 Facsimile: 783.231.2589 planners@nacplanning.com PLANNING REPORT TO: Angela Schumann FROM: Kimberly Halien DATE: January 28, 2008 RE: Monticello- Vehicle Dimensions In regard to the potential ordinance amendment placing further restrictions an vehicle parking in residential areas in the City of Monticello, I have gathered data on dimensions of various large vehicles. The findings of said research are as follows: Pickap. The largest passenger pickup truck found is an F650 crew cab. The dimensions of said vehicle are as follows: Length: 281 inches (23.4 feet) Width: 97 inches (8.08 feet) Height: 88.3 inches (7.36 feet) Weight: 22,000-26,000 pounds Other large pickups that may be more Gammon for passenger vehicle use are as follows: F350 HD Crew Cab: Length: 258.7 inches (21.56 feet) Width: 95.9 inches (8 feet) Height: 76.1 inches (6.34 feet) Weight: 10,100-13,000 pounds F450 Crew Cab: Length: 262.4 inches (21.84 feet) Width: 95.5 inches (7.96 feet) Height: N/A Weight: up to 16,000 paunds F250 Weight: 8,800-10,000 pounds Dump Truck. A range of potential dump truck dimensions is as follows: Length: 19- 24.5 feet Width: 8.5-9.5 feet Height: 14-22 feet Weight: 18,000-64,000 pounds School Sus. While school buses may vary greatly in size, a range of potential dimensions is as follows: Small Bus (10-20 passengers): Length: 231 inches (19.25 feet) Width: $6.S inches (7.21 feet) Height: 105 inches (8.75 feet) Weight: 9,600 pounds Small Bus (20-30 passengers): Length: 266 inches (22.17 feet) Width: 96 inches (8 feet) Height: 120 inches (10 feet) Weight: 14,050 pounds Large Bus (up to 9 0 passengers): Length: 289-471 inches (24.08-34.75 feet) Width: up to 96 inches (8 feet) Height: 124-127 inches (10.33-10.58 feet) Weight: up to 36,200 pounds Tractor Trailer Cab. A wide range of sizes is available fvr this type of vehicle as well. However, dimensions of a typical cab are as follows: Internationa19900: Length: Width: Height: Weight: Semi-trailer. ~ Length: Width: Height: 119-130 inches (9.92-10.83 feet) 92 inches (7.d7 feet) N/A 52,000-60,000 pounds ~ range of potential semi-trailer dimensions is as follows: 45-53 feet 96-102 inches (8-8.5 feet) 13.5 feet (standard) 2 • ,7 Cutaway Van. A xange of potential dimensions for cutaway vans is as follows Length: 15-1.8 feet Width: 96 inches ($ feet) Height: 84- 90 inches (7-7.5 feet) Weight: 11,500-14,050 pounds Straight Truck. A range of potential dimensions for said venicie is as tottows: Length: 24-26 feet Width: 102 inches (8.5 feet) Height: 102-108 inches (8.5-9 feet) Weight: 25,500-25,950 pounds Walk- In Van. A range of potential dimensions for said vehicle is as follows: +r ~~ ,~~ Length: 16-1$ feet `~"- Width: 86.5-93.5 inches (7.21-7.79 feet) Height: 81-85 inches (6.75-7.08 feet) Weight: 10,000-19,000 pounds 3 ~~ • r~ L` Commercial Vehicle Parking Commercial Code Language Exceptions? Vehicle Size Monticello 1 commercial off-street parking facilities accessory to None in zoning vehicle residential use may be utilized solely for the parking of licensed and operable passenger automobiles, no more than one (1) truck not 9,000 Ibs to exceed gross capacity of nine thousand (9,000) pounds, and recreational vehicle and equipment. Not more than one recreational vehicle or trailer may be parked in a residential driveway atone time. Any additional recreational vehicles or trailers must be parked behind the front building line of the principle structure. For purposes of this ordinance, recreational vehicles shall include snowmobiles, ATVs, campers, trailers, motorhomes, boats, and the like. 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. Buffalo 1 Commercial On and off-street parking facilities accessory None vehicle to residential use shall be utilized solely for the parking of licensed and operable passenger automobiles; no more than one 12,000 Ibs. truck not to exceed gross capacity of 12,000 pounds; and recreational vehicles and equipment. Under no circumstances shall required parking facilities accessory to residential structures be used for the storage of commercial vehicles or equipment or far the parking of automobiles belonging to the employees, owners, tenants or customers of business or manufacturin establishments. Big Lake 1 commercial Off-street parking facilities accessory to Vehicles longer vehicle residential use shall be utilized solely for the than 36 feet parking of licensed and operable passenger require an 12,000 Ibs. automobiles; no more than one (1) commercial vehicle, not to exceed gross interim use vehicle weight rating (GVWR) of twelve permit thousand (12,000) pounds; and recreational vehicles and equipment. Under no circumstances shall parking facilities accessory to residential structures be used for the storage of commercial vehicles, semi trailers, or equipment or for the parking of automobiles belonging to the employees, owners, tenants, or customers of business or manufacturing establishments not a resident at the residential site. • • St. Michael 1 commercial Residential parking use, Off-street parking None vehicle facilities necessary to residential use shall be utilized solely for the parking of licensed and operable passenger automobiles; no more 12,000 lbs. than one truck not to exceed gross capacity of 12,000 pounds; and recreational vehicles 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 manufacturin establishments, Rogers No regulation Parking in residential areas (off-street and on-street) shall be limited to the use of the residents of those homes. Except for short term parking (six (6) hours or less) and guest parking, the number of vehicles parked on or in front of a residential lot shall not exceed double the number of persons residing on the premises and having automobile driver's licenses. Maple Grove 1 commercial Use of parking facilities accessory to None VehlCle residential use. Off-street parking facilities accessory to residential use shall be utilized solely for the parking of licensed and 12,000 lbs. operable passenger automobiles, no more than one truck not to exceed gross capacity of 12,000 pounds, and recreational vehicles 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 manufacturin establishments. •