Loading...
Planning Commission Agenda 08-05-2008AGENDA MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday, August 5th, 2008 6:00 PM Commissioners: Rod Dragsten, Charlotte Gabler, Lloyd Hilgart, William Spartz, and Barry Voight Council Liaison: Susie Wojchouski Staff: Angela Schumann, Gary Anderson, Steve Grittman - NAC Call to order. Consideration to approve the minutes of June 3rd, 2008 and July 1 S`, 2008. Consideration of adding items to the agenda. 4. Citizen comments. Public Hearing -Consideration of a request for Conditional Use Permit for Comprehensive Sign Plan for amulti-tenant retail facility in the Central Community District (CCD). Applicant: Scenic Sign 6. Public Hearing -Consideration of a request for Variance to Sideyard Setback for Driveway Encroachment in an R-2 (Single and Two-Family Residential) District. Applicant: Posusta, Glen 7. Public Hearing - Consideration of a request for Amendment to Conditional Use Permit for boundary adjustment and sign relocation in a B-3 (Highway Business) District. Applicant: AMAX Storage Self-Storage Public Hearing - Consideration of a request for Conditional Use Permit for Planned Unit Development for amulti-tenant commercial development in a B-3 (Highway Business) District. Applicant: Cornerstone/DOJO, LLC Public Hearing -Consideration of request to approve the 2008 City of Monticello Zoning Map. 10. Adjourn. MINUTES MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday, June 3rd, 2008 6:00 PM Commissioners: Rod Dragsten, Charlotte Gabler, Lloyd Hilgart, William Spartz, and Barry Voight Council Liaison: Susie Wojchouski Staff: Angela Schumann, Gary Anderson, Steve Grittman - NAC Call to order. Chairman Dragsten called the meeting to order and declared a full quorum of the Commission. 2. Consideration to approve the minutes of May 6th, 2008. Commissioner Spartz noted that on page 7 of the minutes, the second bullet point should have read 12'. Wojchouski noted that item was corrected at Council meeting. Voight noted that on Page 13, under item number 7 a piece was missing from the item title. MOTION BY COMMISSIONER SPARTZ TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF MAY 6th, 2008 AS AMENDED. MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER HILGART. MOTION CARRIED, 5-0. Consideration of adding items to the a eg nda. Commissioner Spartz requested an update on how temporary signs were addressed per ordinance requirements after the recent storm. 4. Citizen Comments. NONE. 5. Public Hearing -Consideration of a request for Variance from Chapter 3, Section 9 of the Monticello Zoning Ordinance reQUlating Signs. Applicant: Scenic Sign • Planning Commission Minutes - 06/03/08 Community Development Coordinator Schumann indicated the staff is still completing research related to this request. Staff is requesting that the Planning Commission open and continue the hearing on this item. MOTION BY COMMISSIONER VOIGHT TO CONTINUE THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR CONSIDERATION OF A REQUEST FOR VARIANCE FOR SCENIC SIGN. MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER SPARTZ. MOTION CARRIED, 5-0. 6. Public Hearing -Consideration of a recLuest for Variance from Chapter 3, Section 5 of the Planner Grittman presented the staff report, stating the request is for variance from parking requirements within the Central Community District. The code allows for a reduction to 60% of regular parking requirement regulations in the event that the applicant opens their parking for cross-parking to the public. As individual property owners provide public parking in this manner, the theory is that parking becomes available throughout the CCD, and the total amount of parking need is then reduced. Grittman explained that in this case, the applicant has a shopping center which includes a mix of uses. This request is being made to accommodate the expansion of an existing restaurant, which requires higher amount of parking. This potential use increases seating requirements by 14 spaces over the amount currently provided. Grittman reported that the result after the 60% allowance is a net deficit of 8 spaces. Grittman noted that the CCD also offers a provision to allow property owners to acquire rights to off-site parking through cross-easement or to pay into a public parking fund for the purpose of constructing public lot. This final option allowed property owners to over-develop but provide payment to account for future construction of needed parking. The applicant is seeking a variance from both the required amount of parking and from the requirement that in lieu of parking, the payment to the public parking fund. Grittman stated that in looking at variances, the City is required to find a hardship in putting the property to use if regular standards applied. In this case, Grittman indicated that staff believes there is no hardship. The applicant is able to utilize the space as retail without the variance. If the space is converted to a restaurant, the applicant has the opportunity to pay into the public parking fund. Staff does not recommend approval of the variance. Hilgart inquired whether the total facility is 1200 square feet, or the expansion area is 1200 square feet. Grittman responded that he believed the expansion area is 1200 square feet, with about 485 of dining and 750 of restaurant. 2 Planning Commission Minutes - 06/03/08 Hilgart asked if the library parking could be used. Grittman responded that the • library is a public lot, has been provided at public expense. He noted that the library parking lots if an example of the purpose of the public parking fund. Hilgart asked if this location has an even greater deficit over what was originally approved. Grittman stated that there was one restaurant space planned. for this site. Dragsten inquired if when calculating for space, does it include the total site or the expansion area only. Grittman stated that it was calculated using the expansion space, which represents a net increase of 14 spaces in converting from retail to restaurant. Then, that number is discounted by 60%. Spartz asked if within the whole site, the shared parking is in deficit, or the expansion. Grittman stated that if this space were leased for retail, the amount of parking on site would be adequate. It is the change in the use that results in the need for additional spaces. Chairman Dragsten opened the public hearing. Barry Fluth, applicant, thanked the Commission for their time. Fluth explained that their existing business is seeking to expand. He stated that he appreciates staff and the consultant, as they had been very helpful and that he respects their thoughts and recommendations. He stated that the planner did a good job of interpreting guidelines to letter of the law. However, Fluth indicated that he thinks this situation has things that may cause the Commission to look at the issue differently. Fluth explained that the shopping center has been there since 2000, and has been fully occupied most years. When built, it was determined there was a parking deficit and at that time, he was required to pay in for a certain number of parking spaces. Fluth noted that that amount doesn't provide any more parking specific to that site; it just goes into the fund. Fluth noted that a few years later, about 7-8 angled parking were added, which made the situation better than it was. Fluth commented that even though there weren't any spaces created through the fund, the businesses all did very well and there were no parking issues. Fluth noted that the consultants and staff can give provide the letter of the law, but he wanted to take the opportunity to explain why he believes there is not a problem. While the site is 8 spaces short, there is a simple solution in that there are plenty of parking spaces within 1 block of this facility. Fluth stated that there is average of 10-12 employees at any one time within this building. If it was required that employees park off-site, that would make up the different. Fluth cited the example that on the biggest day in history of Rancho Grande, Cinco de Mayo, there was 30-45 minute wait to be seated. However, everyone found a place to park. Also, Crostini Grille was required to provide additional 3 Planning Commission Minutes - 06/03/08 parking when they expanded into the banquet facility. On Mother's Day Crostini had their biggest Day in their 5 year history, with again an hour wait much of the time. Fluth stated that he talked with staff and no one said that parking was problem. Fluth indicated that when customers come to a downtown business, they don't expect to park in front of the door. They understand that they are not at a big box facility. Fluth noted that parking downtown is perhaps even closer than if you are at Kmart or Target. Fluth commented that he hopes that Commission would agree that the Pizza Man expansion will work. Their desire to expand in this economic time shows their faith in Monticello and he stated that he hopes that the Commission rewards their optimism. Hilgart inquired if Fluth knows hours of the surrounding businesses. Fluth responded that most are open until ? or 8. Hilgart confirmed that there are four businesses in the facility. Dragsten asked if Rancho Grande replaced the China Buffet. Fluth confirmed. Fluth stated that China Buffet was doing well but wanted a bigger store. Dragsten inquired if Rancho Grande took the same amount of space. Fluth confirmed. Dragsten asked if Pizza Man is taking the Curves location. Fluth confirmed. S artz stated he would like to see the business move forward, but he is stru led p gg with the fact that by bringing more people, it will bring more cars. As far as moving employee parking to the library, the concern is making sure it is lighted and safe. Spartz noted that there was a mention of cross-parking up the hill, but that option doesn't seem to make sense. Fluth agreed that the Cub lot is not practical. Fluth stated that perhaps by moving employees off-site, they effect is to create more available parking. Dragsten asked where the employees would park. Fluth stated that employees could park in Cub or Kmart lots, oroff-street, or in the library lot. He explained that the previous payment into the parking fund probably helped pay for that lot. Gabler asked if Fluth is worried about liability for those parking off-site. Fluth stated that they would be concerned. However, by, I having the employees park off-site would allow patrons to park on-site. Gabler asked about additional angled parking. Fluth noted that area is developed, and that he had previously tried to purchase apartments. Grittman stated that current angled parking area is maxed out. Wojchouski asked if there is any consideration of adding steps out of the Cub parking lot. Fluth replied that he is not opposed to something like that. 4 Planning Commission Minutes - 06/03/08 Voight asked Grittman to confirm that the decision is not determining whether they can put expansion in, but whether they need to provide the required parking, or pay into fund. Grittman confirmed that the only issue is how the parking gets taken care of. Voight stated that it sounds like the only consideration is that the applicant does not want to pay into the parking fund, which is economic and can't be part of the hardship. Hearing no further comments, Chairman Dragsten closed the public hearing. Spartz noted that parking is always important. He commented that he recalled occasions in the winter when after a good snow, parking on the site was a little tight. Dragsten. stated that if there was a problem, he could see allowing employees to park off-site. However, the other issue is paying into the fund. Hilgart stated that regardless of the Commission's decision, ultimately, it is going to be the customers who will decide whether to do business there. If it is a pain to park, they're not going to go again. Whether he pays or doesn't pay into the fund won't create more parking for the site. Hilgart asked Grittman if there are any other businesses that have paid in. Grittman responded that it hasn't been an issue for some time. Hilgart stated that if the City requires property owners to pay in, and there are no immediate plans to purchase or construct a parking lot, then what is the point of paying in. Grittman responded that from a staff standpoint, he would encourage the Commission to apply the ordinance standards evenly whether parking plans are imminent or not. Secondly, while there aren't any imminent plans, this is reimbursing the creation. of existing public parking areas in a way. Dragsten noted that even though there isn't a problem at this time, the idea is to have funds to acquire a site at a future date. Hilgart asked if there will be parking available behind Crostini. Grittman noted it as a second phase of Landmark. That may have rectified some of the parking issues with first phase. Voight asked if the payment to fund is continual or a one-time payment. Grittman stated that it is a one time payment set for those who want to build and do not meet requirements. Voight asked what happens if Fluth goes back and provides the spaces retroactively. Grittman sated that the city doesn't have any program for reimbursing, but that Fluth wouldn't be charged for any future expansions equal to that amount. Hilgart asked what would happen is Fluth pays and then 5 Planning Commission Minutes - 06/03/08 Pizza Man goes out of business. Grittman stated that the City would note that the store would be marked as available for restaurant use. Hilgart asked if it is possible to put a timeframe on the variance allowance, such as Pizza Man is trying to compete and if it is still in business, then something would have to be paid. Grittman stated that it is difficult to do with a variance. If approved, the issue is done. There is no mechanism that necessarily provides a way to go back and require payment. However, the Commission could recommend to Council that they defer application of the fee for some time period, in essence denying the variance but deferring payment for some time period as a separate action. MOTION BY COMMISSIONER DRAGSTEN TO APPROVE THE REQUESTED VARIANCE TO THE PARKING REGULATIONS IN THE CCD ZONING DISTRICT, BY ALLOWING A RESTAURANT EXPANSION WITHOUT THE REQUIRED PARKING CONSTRUCTION OR FEE-IN-LIEU. MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER HILGART. MOTION FAILS 2- 3WITH COMMISSIONERS SPARTZ, GABLER, AND VOIGHT IN DISSENT. MOTION BY COMMISSIONER VOIGHT TO DENY THE REQUESTED VARIANCE TO THE PARKING REGULATIONS IN THE CCD ZONING DISTRICT, BASED ON A FINDING THAT THERE IS NO CONDITION OF THE PROPERTY THAT CREATES A HARDSHIP IN PUTTING THE PROPERTY TO A REASONABLE COMMERCIAL USE ACCORDING TO THE REGULATIONS. MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER GABLER. In discussion, Chairman Dragsten confirmed that by approving this motion, the Commissioners believe the applicant should pay the fee. MOTION CARRIED 3-2, WITH COMMISSIONERS DRAGSTEN AND HILGART IN DISSENT. Grittman clarified that the Planning Commission is the decision-making body for variances. Mr. Fluth can appeal the denial to the City Council. Public Hearing -Consideration of a request for Conditional Use Permit for Amendment to Planned Unit Development for a Comprehensive Sign Plan Applicant• Monticello-Big Lake Community Hospital District Grittman explained that the hospital is seeking a Planned Unit Development Amendment. When the PUD was processed originally for a clinic expansion, it was approved pending a future sign package application. At that time, the district anticipated that they would want to resign the entire complex. 6 Planning Commission Minutes - 06/03/08 Grittman noted that the property itself has number of different uses, hospital, clinic, nursing home and a significant amount of parking. The campus gains access primarily from Broadway, County 75 and from River Street Grittman explained that when evaluating the proposed signage against the current ordinance, staff is struck by the fact that the ordinance does not apply to this mix of uses. In fact, the hospital is allowed 100 square feet of wall signage for the entire complex. The applicants are proposing a significantly greater amount than what has been allowed under ordinance. However, Grittman reported that staff are recommending approval based on the size of the property and buildings, as the signs are appropriate in relationship to buildings and uses. Grittman indicated that the nature of the use is relatively unique, even within the PZM district. The setback requirements and sign code allowance do not seem to directly apply. As a result, the City is able to evaluate signage within the PUD. For a PUD, the City needs to determine whether the design is superior from that allowed under the base ordinance. Grittman commented that the applicant has submitted a very thorough package. In relationship to the hospital's proposal, the hospital's site plan sheet basically identifies all the identification signs, wall signs and free-standing signs. The largest free-standing sign is the monument sign located on Broadway. Other free standing directory signs are used primarily to direct traffic and for traffic flow purposes. A number of wall signs are proposed, some of which label facilities. Staff believes the package proposed is appropriate for the use, size of buildings, and the property, Grittman stated. He indicated that the proposal had met the test for planned unit development, allowing flexibility from the ordinance sign allowances. Grittman reported that staff believes that the sign system proposed actually enhances the property. As a result, staff recommend approval based on a few recommendations which are listed in Exhibit Z. Most of the conditions are related to working with the City Engineer to determine the appropriate setback and if necessary, work to secure a license for placement within drainage and utility easements. Spartz asked if there is any additional lighting. Grittman responded that as part of this project, there is not. Parking and building lighting were approved with the building expansion. Gabler asked if the lettering proposed is appropriate given that the City does not allow internally lit signage. Crrittman noted that those restrictions apply in the CCD. Most of the signs proposed for the hospital are internally lit, Dragsten questioned the 100 square feet requirement and the proposal. Grittman clarified that they listed max that they could ask for in each application. In some, they were provided for information purposes only. Dragsten asked if they could 7 Planning Commission Minutes - 06/03/08 make them bigger. Grittman confirmed that the PUD approval would be for the signs they are asking for with this package. Dragsten commented on the size of the building. Grittman noted that this is also a multi-story building. Dragsten noted that if these were each separate building on separate parcels, the number of signs allowed would be much greater. Dragsten inquired about the drainage and utilities easement sign placements being subject to recommendation of City Engineer. Grittman stated that is the only remaining issue and that the hospital district is aware of this issue. The conditions requires that the hospital go through the formal process on ensuring sign locations are appropriate. Chairman Dragsten opened the public hearing. Lynn Olson spoke on behalf of the hospital and introduced Richard Lang with. Visual Communications. Olson clarified that the approval they are asking for would allow them up to 100 square feet as opposed to 28 square feet. Olson stated that request is because the hospital is looking at long-term master plan, they are looking for maximum flexibility. Spartz asked is the existing entrance sign is being moved. Olson responded that the hospital is looking to do a totally new sign on the opposite side of Hart. Spartz asked if the heli-pad would remain. Olson confirmed that it would, as there was still plenty of room. Dragsten commented that Exhibit Z requires the preparation of a license agreement for signs within easements. Grittman stated that since City has control for public purposes, the proper process would be to issue a license. Dragsten inquired whether they were proposing any additional new signage on Rive Street. Olson noted that the sign placements are relocations. Lang noted that those new signs are low to the ground, and are non-illuminated reflective signs. The nursing home signs include illuminated letters. Hilgart asked if there are other structures in drainage and utility easements. Grittman responded that Steiner's sign was located in a D & U easement, and the City required a license. Dragsten commented on the nature of the total request sign size. Grittman explained that if what is brought in via permit exceeds what is shown on the illustration, staff would ask that they come back to Commission for review, as some of those sizes requested could be a pretty significant change. Dragsten commented that is a good point, especially within the residential neighborhood. • 8 Planning Commission Minutes - 06/03/08 Voight asked if Grittman is recommending a percentage of leeway. Grittman stated that if the Commission is willing to give staff some discretion, staff could work with applicant. Voight stated that rather than approving signage as requested, he would then add a condition that if adjusted, staff would review the adjustment. If significantly outside the bounds, staff would then bring it back. Spartz asked if that would be an amendment to motion or to Exhibit Z. Grittman responded that it would be added as a condition, and may not need a public hearing, but that the City may need to notify neighbors if affected by the proposed change. Olson. stated that they are comfortable with that condition and comfortable working with City staff. MOTION BY COMMISSIONER SPARTZ TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT AMENDMENT, BASED ON A FINDING THAT THE PROPOSED SIGNS ARE CONSISTENT WITH THE INTENT OF THE CITY'S ZONING ORDINANCE AND THE EXISTING PUD, SUBJECT TO THE CONDITIONS OUTLINED IN EXHIBIT Z BELOW. 1. Based upon recommendation by the City Engineer, City Officials determine the acceptability of the proposed placement of permanent signs within required drainage and utility easements. A license should be prepared specifying the conditions for occupancy of the easements by the hospital/clinic signage. 2. The setbacks of all directional/informational and freestanding tenant signs be specified. 3. The heights of the proposed light standards (to which parking lot identification signs are to be affixed) be specified. 4. Any signs which are to be illuminated from the exterior be arranged in a manner such that the source of the illumination is shielded from view of neighboring properties and rights-of--way. 5. The existing PUD agreement (for the hospital) be amended to incorporate the approved sign plan. This issue should be subject to further comment by the City Attorney. 6. In the event the applicants seek sign one or more sign permits that are significantly larger than the sign listed as "SHOWN" on the approved plans, approval of said permit shall require additional Planning Commission review and City Council approval. 9 Planning Commission Minutes - 06/03/08 MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER GABLER. MOTION CARRIED, 5-0. Public Hearing - Consideration of a request for Variance from Chapter 8 of the Monticello Subdivision Ordinance regulating Simple Subdivision recLuirements for fronts eg on a public street. Applicant: City of Monticello Schumann presented the staff report, stating that the City is seeking a subdivision. and variance from the subdivision ordinance to allow for the subdivision of the Fiber Head-End building parcel from the City's water tower property. Schuman indicated that the Fiber building parcel would not have separate frontage on a public street, and as such, requires a variance to allow the subdivision. Schumann noted that the subdivision itself does not affect the arrangement of the property, and is being done to allow a separation of financing for the Fiber project from other Monticello public works facilities. C Schumann stated that when considering a variance, the City is required to find that the variance is necessary to allow a reasonable use of property that would otherwise not be allowed. Such situations focus on identification of a unique hardship that prevents the reasonable use. Schumann commented that in this case, the use would not be possible due to the configuration of the existing parcel if the street frontage requirement were to be applied. Commissioner Hilgart asked about the purpose of the subdivision. Schumann clarified that the fiber building would be placed on a separate parcel. As Fibernet Monticello is a separate entity. Spartz asked if there were any other possible uses for the site. Schumann stated that most likely not, due to the site's current use for public utilities. Dragsten inquired whether the Council had looked at any other uses. Wojchouski clarified that the Council did review this and sees this site as the best possible for this building and is appropriate for the site. Schumann noted that any building would also need to be placed a specific distance from the water tower. The configuration of the simple subdivision maximizes the use of the property. Schumann noted that the use if also permitted by the ordinance. Hilgart noted that the application is acceptable, but it does seem to be economically related. Chairman Dragsten opened the public hearing. Hearing no comment, Chairman Dragsten closed the public hearing. 10 Planning Commission Minutes - 06/03/08 MOTION BY COMMISSIONER VOIGHT TO APPROVE THE REQUESTED VARIANCE, BASED ON A FINDING THAT THE VARIANCE WILL ALLOW AN IMPORTANT PUBLIC USE OF PROPERTY WITHOUT THREATENING PUBLIC HEALTH, SAFETY, OR WELFARE, AND THAT A HARDSHIP EXISTS IN PUTTING THE PROPERTY TO REASONABLE USE WITHOUT THE VARIANCE. MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER HILGART MOTION CARRIED 5-0. 9. Consideration of a request for extension for Conditional Use Permit for Concept Stage and Development Stage Planned Unit Development approval for amulti-tenant shopnin~ center, a Conditional Use Permit for Outdoor Storage a Conditional Use Permit for a Car Wash, a Conditional Use Permit for a Motor Fuel Station/Convenience Store, a Conditional Use Permit for minor auto repair and Preliminary Plat approval Applicant: Mills Fleet Farm. Schuman reported that on June 12"', 2007, the Planning Commission reviewed and recommended approval of a concept and development stage planned unit development and preliminary plat request for the proposed Mills Fleet Farm project, submitted by Mills Properties, Inc. The City Council subsequently approved the requests on June 25~', 2007. Due to non-use, the conditional use permit for PUD and preliminary plat will expire on • June 25th, 2008. The Monticello Zoning Ordinance requires that conditional use permits expire due to non-use after one year. The Subdivision Ordinance requires that all preliminary platted property be final platted within 1 year. Schumann noted that the extension letter sent by the applicant does not reference a specific timeline for the extension period. The extension letter states that no changes are proposed to the approved plan. Schumann commented that staff recommend approval of the extension request. Spartz clarified that this extension request is for the conditional use permit only, it does not impact the land use issue. Schumann stated that was correct. Spartz inquired about the duration of the extension. Dragsten commented that the recommendation is for one year, but the Commission could elect to do something else. Spartz stated that his only concern is a specific date for the project. Chairman Dragsten noted that it is most likely that the City would know by February or March of next year whether they would build in 2009. Hilgart asked what would happen if Planning Commission recommended denial. Schumann noted that Council still has to act on the recommendation. If denied by Council, they would need to reapply. MOTION BY COMMISSIONER VOIGHT TO RECOMMEND EXTENSION OF THE JUNE 25TH, 2007 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR CONCEPT AND DEVELOPMENT STAGE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT AND PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR THE PROPOSED MILLS FLEET FARM TO JUNE 25`i', 2008 WITH THE 11 Planning Commission Minutes - 06/03/08 CONDITION THAT ALL PREVIOUSLY APPROVED CONDITIONS BE ASSIGNED TO THE EXTENSION. MOTION SECONDED BY HILGART. MOTION CARRIED 5-0. 10. Consideration of a request for extension for Conditional Use Permit for Amendment to Planned Unit Development for a retail commercial development at Monticello Travel Center 2"d Addition Applicant: Mielke Bros., LLC Schumann provided the staff report, indicating that on June 5th, 2007, the Planning Commission reviewed and recommended approval of an amendment to Planned Unit Development request for the proposed Landmark Center project, submitted by Mielke Bros., LLC. The City Council subsequently approved the requests on June 11th, 2007. Due to non-use, the conditional use permit for amendment to PUD will expire on June 1 lth, 2008. The Monticello Zoning Ordinance requires that conditional use permits expire due to non-use. after one year. Staff recommends approval of the extension. MOTION BY COMMISSIONER SPARTZ TO RECOMMEND EXTENSION OF THE JUNE 11TH, 2007, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR AMENDMENT TO PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT FOR A RETAIL COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT AT MONTICELLO TRAVEL CENTER 2ND ADDITION FOR A PERIOD OF ONE YEAR WITH THE CONDITION THAT ALL PREVIOUSLY APPROVED CONDITIONS BE ASSIGNED TO THE EXTENSION. MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER VOIGHT. MOTION CARRIED, 5-0. 11. Temporary Signs Schumann indicated that the Building Department has been ramping up to address the tremendous demand that will be created by the extent of storm damage. As part of those efforts, the Department held a meeting with all contractors who had posted signs as of the Monday after the storm. There were approximately 85 attendees. The Department will follow the code and remove any signs in the right-of--way and allow one sign on private property with a building permit. 12. Adjourn MOTION BY COMMISSIONER SPARTZ TO ADJOURN. MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISSION VOIGHT. MOTION CARRIED, 5-0. 12 MINUTES MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday, July 1st 2008 6:00 PM Commissioners Present: Rod Dragsten, Charlotte Gabler, Lloyd Hilgart and William Spartz Commissioners Absent: Barry Voight Council Liaison Absent: Susie Wojchouski Staff: Angela Schumann, Gary Anderson Call to order. Chairman Dragsten called the meeting to order, declared a quorum and noted the absence of Commissioner Hilgart and Council Liaison Wojchouski. 2. Consideration to approve the minutes of Apri130th 2008 and June 3'~, 2008. MOTION BY COMMISSIONER SPARTZ TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF APRIL 30TH, 2008. MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER HILGART. MOTION CARRIED, 4-0. 3. Consideration of adding items to the a eg nda. NONE. 4. Citizen comments. NONE. 5. Continued Public Hearing -Consideration of a request for Variance from Chapter 3, Section 9 of the Monticello Zoning Ordinance regulating Signs. Applicant: Scenic Sign Schumann reported that the applicant has withdrawn their request at this time. The applicant's request for variance related to the Liberty Tax wall sign, which was placed on the building located at 141 E. Broadway. The sign was originally recommended for approval by DAT. Schumann noted that the applicant placed the sign, based on a miscommunication that they had received approval. However, upon application for sign permit (after the sign was already placed), it was determined that based on the total existing building signage, the new sign may have required a variance for excess square footage. It was believed that there was an existing CUP for comprehensive sign plan and that this sign exceeded the amount allowed. Upon further research, Schumann reported that staff could find no record of an existing CUP for the building. For that reason, a new CUP will be processed in August. Planning Commission Minutes - 07/01/08 Schumann stated that in a preliminary review of application materials, it has been determined that no variance for sign size is required with the Conditional Use Permit. No further action was required. 6. Public Hearing -Consideration of a request for Amendment to the Monticello Zoning Ordinance Section 3-9 re ug lating si~nage for the purpose ofpromoting or selling a development project. Applicant: City of Monticello Schuman presented the staff report, stating that City of Monticello staff is requesting that the Planning Commission consider a request to amend the sign ordinance for the purpose of adjusting the permitted versus conditional nature of development signage. Currently, the ordinance requires a conditional use permit for "signs for promoting and/or selling a development project" for commercial and industrial developments as follows: Essentially the ordinance allows one or more signs based on the amount of acreage and then sets specifications for timing of removal. Schumann indicated that staff believes that this type of use is actually more appropriate as a permitted use. Construction and individual property sale signs are already allowed under permitted uses. The use of signage for the sale of development properties use would be consistent with those provisions, based on the size and scale of typical development projects. Amending the code to allow these types of signs as permitted uses streamlines the process for those seeking to promote or market their development project. Schumann noted that signs of this nature exist in many locations throughout the community without conditional use permits, as many developers are unaware of this requirement. Staff is suggesting a move of the clause to the permitted section of the ordinance, 3- 0[B] 1.(j) to make the adjustment from conditional to permitted use. Schumann indicated that staff is also recommending one change to the ordinance language itself, which would delete the requirement that these signs be reviewed and renewed annually by the City Council; they would instead be subject to an annual review by the Zoning Administrator is appropriate for a permitted use activity. It should be noted that these signs must still be processed through the City's sign permit application through the Building Department. The Building Department will be working to permit those signs already in existence, many of which have never received sign permits. Hilgart asked if the City would work with developers and builders to make sure signs will be appropriate. Schumann indicated that the Zoning Administrator would have ability to review and comment on that matter and on overall maintenance. Schumann noted that using semi-trailers as signage is not permitted as a stand-alone use. 2 Planning Commission Minutes - 07/01/08 Spartz asked about signs in existence already. Schumann stated that they would work on those to ensure that permits are obtained. Gabler asked about the 90% specification. Schumann explained that as this is commercial/industrial, it would be percentage of land developed. Gabler asked if City would ask for sign plans. Schumann stated that formal sign plans are only required with conditional use permits. Dragsten asked about illumination. Schumann stated that these signs would be required to follow lighting provisions of the code. Dragsten also clarified where the amendment would be placed within the code. Spartz asked if this is supported by staff as consistent with current regulations. Schumann stated that it is consistent with the individual property sales signs, it is just on a larger scale. Schumann also noted that the Commission will want to be sure to wrap this discussion and amendments into the overall sign ordinance amendment. Chairman Dragsten opened the public hearing. Hearing no comments, Chairman Dragsten closed the public hearing. MOTION BY COMMISSIONER HILGART TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE AMENDMENT TO THE MONTICELLO ZONING ORDINANCE, SECTION 3-9 AS PROPOSED, BASED ON A FINDING THAT SIGNAGE FOR THE PURPOSE OF PROMOTING OR SELLING A DEVELOPMENT PROJECT IS CONSISTENT WITH PERMITTED USE SIGN ACTIVITIES. MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER SPARTZ. MOTION CARRIED, 4-0. 7. Public Hearing Consideration of a request for Conditional Use Permit for a Sign Promoting or Selling a Development Proiect Applicant• Nelson Building & Development Schumann explained that in the previous item, the Planning Commission was asked to consider an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance which would allow signs for the purpose of selling and/or promoting a development project as a permitted use. Should the City approve the proposed amendment, the following item becomes void. Both of the requests will be forwarded to the City Council for final decision, but the Planning Commission is asked to review and recommend on this item, should the Council deny the first item. Schumann provided the report on the request, stating that Nelson Building & Development is requesting a conditional use permit to allow the placement of two 100 square foot development sale signs on the privately-owned commercial development portion of Otter Creek Crossings. • Planning Commission Minutes - 07/01/08 As noted previously, the type of sign requested is currently allowed by conditional use permit for commercial and industrial developments pursuant to terms described in the ordinance. Schumann explained that the two signs proposed by Nelson Development meet the maximum square footage requirements based on the total acreage of the development property (38.17 acres). Up to two signs totaling a maximum of 200 square feet are allowed by ordinance. Schumann noted that the ordinance requires that the signs be set back half the distance of the required setback provisions for the district. In this case, the property is zoned B-4. The B-4 District has a zero setback requirement. Therefore, these signs will be required to be setback equivalent to the drainage and utility easement in place at those locations. If the ordinance amendment or conditional use permit is approved, the applicant will be required to apply for a sign permit through the Building Department. Chairman Dragsten opened the public hearing. Hearing no comments, Chairman Dragsten closed the public hearing. MOTION BY COMMISSIONER SPARTZ TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A SIGN PROMOTING AND/OR SELLING A DEVELOPMENT PROJECT FOR NELSON BUILDING & DEVELOPMENT, CONTINGENT ON THE CONDITIONS LISTED IN EXHIBIT Z, BELOW, BASED ON A FINDING THAT THE PROPOSED SIGNAGE MEETS THE ORDINANCE REQUIREMENTS. The development signs proposed shall be setback equivalent to the drainage and utility easement. 2. The applicant is required to apply for and receive a sign permit for the proposed signage. 3. In compliance with the provisions of the code, the signage is to be removed after 95% of the project is developed. MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER HILGART. MOTION CARRIED, 4-0. 8. Adjourn. MOTION BY COMMISSIONER SPARTZ TO ADJOURN. MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER GABLER. MOTION CARRIED, 4-0. • 4 Planning Commission Agenda- 08/05/2008 i 5. Public Hearing -Consideration of a request for Conditional Use Permit for Comprehensive Sign Plan for amulti-tenant retail facility in the Centxal Community District (CCD). Applicant: Scenic Sign (NAC). BACKGROUND Scenic Sign, in conjunction with property owner Seven K-P Properties, is seeking approval of a Conditional Use Permit for a comprehensive signage plan for its retail shopping center located at 141 Broadway Avenue. Section 3-9.E.3.b of the Zoning Ordinance states that in the case of a building where there are two (2) or more uses and the building is considered to be a shopping center, a conditional use permit maybe granted to the entire building for an overall signage plan. The subject site is approximately 0.25 acres in area and is zoned CCD, Central Community District. ANALYSIS Signage. For buildings having multiple businesses and considered to be shopping centers as defined by Section 2-2 of the Zoning Ordinance, a maximum of five (5) percent of the • gross area of the front of the building shall be allowed for Signage. The building may also have one (1) pylon or freestanding sign. The front of the retail shopping center building totals 4,150 square feet in area. Five (5) percent of that area is 208 square feet. As such, the shopping center is allowed to have up to 208 square feet of signage distributed amongst its tenants. The proposed signage for the shopping center is broken down as follows: Sin Area Tennant Si #1 28 s uare feet Tennant Sign #2 30 s uare feet Tennant Sign #3 30 s uare feet Tennant Sign #4 20 s uare feet Tennant Sign #5 24 s uare feet Tennant Si #6 24 Square feet TOTAL 156 s uare feet The proposed signage for the retail shopping center is consistent with Zoning Ordinance requirements. • Planning Commission Agenda- 08/05/2008 ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS i Regarding the request for a Conditional Use Permit for a comprehensive signage plan for a shopping center located at 141 Broadway Avenue, the City has the following options: 1. Motion to recommend approval of the Conditional Use Permit for a comprehensive signage plan based on a finding that the proposal is consistent with the Zoning Ordinance. 2. Motion to recommend denial of the Conditional Use Permit for a comprehensive signage plan based on a finding that the proposal is inconsistent with the Zoning Ordinance. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of the conditional use permit subject to the condition that a sign permit must be applied for and approved for any new signage, including the Liberty tax sign. SUPPORTING DATA • Exhibit A: Location Map Exhibit B: Shopping Center Signage Plan Exhibit C: Building Elevation Photo _ • ca -~ ~ /~ /"~ ~ a~ ~ ~ rn ~ ~ _ = O U 00 N r N M I` d7 ~ ~ ,~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ O J ~ ,,, y , ~,,,~.. i+~ ~ ~~ M ~ F R~ rI s yl;? ~w« ~ i:M ~~.r +' t i yr ~ 'h ~~ .,• r 'SEti fv' `~ ", ~,yl - .~~ "- `~ ~,a ~ ~. :s~~.. " ~ 4r ~j.,. 4'w: r» K1. ' ~~c 1 ~ ~. J ~' n,c •. ~'' >r/ .. ~~+.. ',f rte. // `"t`~4k ~ ~ '.. i ~ ~7~ '"1y~ 1 t ~ ~3G~~~,r .~ ~r#.J~"a ':.t''t,Yq ~„\ ~ Y+ ,r _.~ ''. ~ Cn a~-..w;.~ ~~"4 }1~ n r 'S'wy`"~t~, ~~~ J ~n w~ 7 w ~~ ' ~ 1f~~ ~? J~. ,~L a '., cp~~ xy~, e ..fr u,: ~ i '~~~ ~f` ,ti ~ -fir "~tv, ~^~ ~ I _Y,, rv ~~ ~ .Jib ~ ,~`,~r 4w 4. sir 1 = -r x 'f) y, ~. f J. .m - rr ~ ~. I ..,. _. ~~.J{,l ` - ~ ~ ~ q ~~ ~U ~ a Ir ~ r 7 ,. ~ ~ ~, . / ~ - r . ~,•~ ~ ~~, ~ rtek.'^ Y,f.` ,`~~: L ,y wkl,1 ~~._ ~NI. f ,ti ' ~. ~ liZr r "` ~' .~~~ "'r.S.~C. ~ ,~, ~ 7 ~ . ~s 1 - r , !+ ~~ t ~~-~' ~ dye - ° T [ 1 I ` ~ I f T~ # ,x r 1 ~~ .~ ~. ~ ~>•+v ~ F r `l~l h I T 1~ -~ ~ /r n/~,. 4r5`~j ~ .~ d y ~~ ~t f ~' t i~„ ~ -w ~" ' ~~N. Y `.w 6L'+wb~""°- ~ ~ ~^- .Y;jw~~ y ~„ ~M ate:. ^ ~~ ~+ f "'/ ~ _' - t ~~ t'44v' tip. ~, .r . ._r,. ...i e.. y~ ,'?7 ~ ~,.~ ~. J ~~~ - _ ~ ~ ~ Hi J , ~~ ~~, ~ d Jam. ! }moo .. >~ ~~ r ~ f ~ i ~;~,FJiu ~ ~>, . ~ ~qj~,y ~': ~ '~'_ 1 1C S3NNIYJ ~ r?'r 3~, ~J } ~a.~ ' ~ r..~ r.i - ~ y''. .'a ~ i ~ _ r3 '?' ~.h .'R ~ :' i 0.\ f 'Rs~a F ~S ~ ~y~y .w[J' ~ ~ W. d~ ~i.:.., y ~., ~ 1 ~ ~ ~, ~ t t ::~ 3 ;nw - ~ - {~ { F C W % ;~ ! r-~2 --~~ .~ ---~ • c J {{.~.-~ -L-= u /~ / [ ~' i 1~~~ r r ' ~~ `~S~'l 1~b^-rt~4,1 ~~ / ~~ 1 ~ Tv~t: - ~l ,I\ ~~ t P~ • • • • \~1 r C (5 c 8 ~~ g4~ ~ ~ ~ti~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ s ~~~~ ~~N ~ 5 '~ a J J g 42 e b 2 ~ ~ ~ 4 ~ ~ ~r V ~z H J_ ~, ~, ~~ ~ N _O ~ L(7 p ~ N ~ ~~ W .,., ~ c c x ~ (~ ~ m ~[\~ V ~~ ~~ ~J (tl ~,I ~_~ M S D Y ~_ ~ ~' N W ~ Q O ~Id ~ _~~ 6 ~~ w_1 J w O UO~n ~ wLw7 ~ Z - W - U~r V U ~' vir~N ins 0 ~JZ(W ~NwLI ~ K Q Y ~ ^ c wp~r x s a inw~LL ~Z ~z °=o~ocnU_ a F = U - U ~ W ~ ti ' V ~mp0?~= ~n~~n w0~ ~V1W~~1- v0~`_SSmC S wir`iaox- w_ w Boa n~ O UwwlO=Z N ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 00 w~^w 4 '~ lea; Ow°,<i~ LLia°NOp~w 0 wr~~w= n <a ~Tln din - V O~ ~j-` (~~tn O-~ ~e~lo~~~u O U O b O~~ fnd~[P ~Z w~-Q: W W ~~?xc?~o~oa.. UI I- ~- (n W O V I i I - i _ ~ I _ _- _ it ~ ~ ~ S s 5~ I Planning Commission Agenda- 08/05/2008 • 6. Public Hearing -Consideration of a request for Variance to Sideyard Setback for Driveway Encroachment in an R-2 (Single and Two-Family Residential) District. Applicant: Glen Posusta (NAC). BACKGROUND The applicant is seeking approval for a variance from parking setback requirements to allow for additional off-street parking at 403 Elm Street. The subject site is approximately 0.3 acres in area and is zoned R-2, Single and Two-Family Residential. ANALYSIS The subject site currently contains a single family home with atwo-car attached garage and driveway extending east onto Elm Street. The applicant is proposing to add additional off-street parking to the site by expanding the existing driveway adjacent to the attached garage and into the side yard on the north side of the garage. To the north of the property is the right of way for 4`h Street. This street is an un-built right of way that is currently occupied by private driveway and landscaping improvements under a license granted to the townhouse project to the north. • The applicant states that the garage currently sits approximately eight (8) feet from the side property line. Section 3-S.D.9.g of the Zoning Ordinance requires at least a three (3) foot setback from the side yard property lme for driveways m residential districts. In order to construct a driveway extension wide enough to allow for parking of vehicles, the applicant would have to encroach into the required side yard setback. The applicant is requesting a variance from the three (3) foot driveway setback requirement. Under standard conditions, such parking areas are allowed in a corner side yard, with the requirement that they meet the setbacks and are screened with landscaping and/or decorative fencing. The applicant has begun a portion of the improvements. As proposed, the parking area will extend to the lot line, and the short retaining wall supporting the driveway extends onto the 4~' Street right of way. If approved as proposed, the applicant would need a license agreement with the City to occupy this portion of the right of way. Variance. 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 means that by some reason of narrowness, shallowness, or shape of a specific parcel of property or lot existing and of record upon the effective date of the Zoning Ordinance, or that by reason of exceptional topographic or water conditions of a specific parcel of land or lot, the strict application of the terms of the Ordinance would result in exceptional difficulties when utilizing the parcel or lot in a manner customary and legally permissible within the district. Should the Planning Commission find that the conditions • , Planning Commission Agenda- 08/05/2008 outlined heretofore apply to the proposed lot or parcel, the Planning Commission may • grant a variance from the strict application of this ordinance so as to relieve such difficulties or hardships to the degree considered reasonable, provided that such relief maybe granted without compromising the intent of the Zoning Ordinance. In this case, the applicant has cited the width of the side yard as a hardship. The applicant maintains that the existing two car garage and driveway do not provide adequate off-street parking for vehicles owned by the occupant. He has also indicated that due to traffic levels on Elm Street, and due to the limited visibility in the area when cars are parked on the street, the variance for additional off-street parking is proper to maintain traffic safety. Section 3-S.H of the Zoning Ordinance requires that all single family uses provide at least two off-street parking spaces per unit. The subject site provides two off-street parking spaces within the attached garage as well as additional off-street parking within the existing driveway. The subject site is an existing lot of record and does not have exceptional size, topographic or water conditions that would warrant hardship. The subject site currently has adequate off-street parking as required by the Zoning Ordinance for single family uses. In this regard, staff finds that no hardship is present. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS Regarding the request for a variance from Section 3-S.D.9.g of the Zoning Ordinance • relating to off-street parking at 403 Elm Street, the City has the following options: Motion to approve a variance from Section 3-S.D.9.g relating to off-street parking, based on a finding a hardship exists which prohibits the applicant from having reasonable use of the property. This finding should be supported by specific conditions (traffic safety, visibility, etc.) that create the required hardship. 2. Motion to deny a variance from Section 3-S.D.9.g relating to off-street parking, based on a finding a hardship preventing reasonable use of the property does not exist since adequate off-street parking already exists on theproperty. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff does not recommend approval of the variance as presented. The criteria for a variance consideration are detailed in Section 23 of the Zoning Ordinance, and in part, require that the applicant prove that the strict application of the Ordinance would create a non-economic hardship that is unique to the property in question. After review of the proposal, staff finds that no hardship exists and the applicant has reasonable use of the property. 2 • Planning Commission Agenda- 08/05/2008 • • • SUPPORTING DATA. Exhibit A; Location Map Exhibit B: Aerial Site Map Exhibit C: Site Image Exhibit D: Letters of Public Comment 3 ____ _ .~ ~.~ ~ _ ~~~~ ~ ~~ ~~ y'~ i~51„ - ~ ~ •V f J ~. ~`' ',', 1f \ il~r 96 g ~ •15, °p~ / -v Or,' ,, c .~~" e ~t ' 4 r l~ ~r it ~~1~4„-J,. ~~~~"1 ~w++~ ,a~-z, ~ `''~:.. G ~~,"'.. a,T ,, . une- .tr. '~. s' j{~- ,. ~ t Y s r r -'~ rtp ~ l~~ ~. N •~.. ' a~~ ~~. ^'hr ~e~I ~~~} # ~~ ~'ri ~~ ~X Hwy ~~~ .~ ''vr '/ ~ r f+r aY- ~s" ~ ~` ~ +ti. ~~'~` 0. ~ ~,Y~rr r~ ~ ~' t ~ ~ ~?"~~ ~ ~ ~* ~{~ i ~ /f~ ., -_~ ale ' IF'S' ~{~' xu r~ eC~~~ + ~ u rA'! ,c ~c~~ +:~ if .~ ~r~ 'Cry -y~ ~ Iy ~7p''-' ~ / ,, j, -~i ~gg ;~ ~ w: fir,. ~~ ,~ '^^'~• ~ -ti!o ~~.4 i s .I ~ f .:fig ~ _..a`~-.~~ ~ ~ .. r u ~~r1 ~ .r i'Y -... ,iY t a ~ yy~,yy \ ~+'`..i1~ ~' ~- _ ``„ . y r74L~ '"t! ' „R+r~ '.~ t, Fri ^ "`!'r,1, ~ - ~~7~'~' .F iw'1/5~~~'n~T ~~~ ~~^. PI~ T.~.. ,! ~4'4t i ..^. Y ~~~ a M'., rF~ 1~c.., t f W -I..J''~'r .. t J~, ~,r ~ ^ ! `~ ' ~, a/ F ~'~/~~ i;°R~~'ti^ ~ 9 it ~,"l ra.s i.!' I r :4 ~ ~/ 1 a r S. ~" ~ : ~1` i -~ati ~C~ ~~ ' ~ t7 ~~-,yam y''~ ~'y.,~_ {~, ! - ~ ~ ~x~y„w ~r fir? . _ ~ ~ ~ r 1 l.q ~~ r ~ ~ _ _....._ + ~y.. M ,,yy 7 % ~ f ~Y':'. rye r'`'r~ ~r~ rfy~.-fin Jr. % ~ . ~ :~ ~ `'?~..'1 i , ~ 1 I .. ~ - l / ~ / ., 1 .~ /:' `~` 'mo't ~ .,.. -.. -r ~ . ~1 ¢x q / it r t aac ~, _ . 1: r Ifs r .._ ,~.. ~ - r I f •j ~ _ t,. ti~z ~ p-, ~ N r. -.+ ~.,~: ti ~` ~` '~,'~ j ~ ~ ~ I ' ~ I yr , 1'I ~ ~-~: ~ n ,~t~r~ -~ ~ , ~,+ ~ w. ' t a r 1 .` ` 1?-j .. ~ ~ "` ~'t~ ~ ~~ a~R~l' ~.: ~,!/~ ej,%~~,Rt~'r , S.\~ *{, ~ rr _...~ 9 r nr k. r~ ~s.,:. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~r r ~.. ~ ~ ~~I ~ ,~~ `w ~~~ i~_'f:•- ~~ +&+. l~~ ,., :. _. ~ GAR ,~~¢ ,"°3 .~+ y~ /y;~ t _ ~~ ,.~ ~.~ ... ~ R~'jT~+~r' F"':~ti't ~~,,~~ 1S'~idy -tit ~~.,'r~yF~ci -: 1 ~{ 'I I ..,...~.,. .. ~g~,t ~wp' > 't~,.. r~.,~~ ~ ''x.y y ~ ~~ L ~ ~ ,~ .: rl~1D rh ~ ier ! { ~ r ~ ~ ~ I I o° , ' ~yT~I 7~ ~" ~~~.~ ~rl ` ,y~~~~~ ~~~~' '~i ~•.r it ~~`a ,;:~ ~` .f r` ae„e..~ b 4 ~f'.~ y ~: p~ _ p ~ ~,. ~' ~ +~~ ~' r, ~S,~ '~~°'~ ~ f `~ `fib ~~ ?~ ~ j / }~. a ~ ,$ r r _. _ ,rns,RViN ~. ~ ~ ` X15 f - ~ ~~ _ [~ ~. ;.. . C'~i{~` j~` t k w"~ `~1'_; '~:.~'+>, ~k~r~w ~ n~'r-•+f~ •,~~~. J., s'a°l~"'.'~., ~ +;w,,, ~~!tY' ~~ ' y~ - s.'; t~..~{ ~ U ht. ~a.y ~ ~~~ ~ , ,, ~, ~r<lsviosaHHiw r~Px~ w 'p~, ~ .,> , ~ i .~ 'A t ~, ++~ +n r ~~ 4"'+~ W=as ~ ~~ ~ %k ~~ :' ~ '~' e, ~~ a'~y ~~?~~, Yp',:iw,,~;.c~ ' ~ '~,~ *~ /¢ Z'w ~ ~ 1 \ ' ~ / ~ +, : 6~`+~ ~ r• ' , ,....~ C~ ~ 4 ~ y +` ~ ~~~ a Y }`". -. ' ~ 'ors iN "'W~'° i~MM ~~ , ~3~ <eA ~,.~ ~ R / ~'~ ~ ° r ~ ~ ,:-' ~ ~ f ~,,,.. ,, ~ '~ - ~ ~, w- - ~a, ~ ~ u t'.~ ,+.r ~, ,t kj ~+ ~~ .~ f' ~- ` `~ ~.. ~, ~ o ~ ,~- o _~ ~ /,~ ,. :~1'`~_. _ . 2 'r ~~. ~. .« .~ .... _ _.. ~~~ • • • a" U . ,.., it ~-+ ~-.+ C/~ w M O ~' ~b(i ~2~ ~~ ~ g ~~ .. .. r . - ~ ~ r~ _. ~ ~~. ~. _ __ f ~ ~'i ' h r j i_" .~ t L- r ` C- _. ... / l A/ °n .. ] / f ,~iA .~, 7 • cod<z> • July 8, 2008 Mr. Gary Anderson Chief Building Official 505 Walnut Street, Suite 1 Monticello, MN 55362 Dear Mr. Anderson: There has been an ongoing parking problem at 403 Elm Street, Monticello, MN. They continue to use the street for parking of a flatbed towing truck and a construction trailer. Their overflow of cars are now parking on other streets not in front of their residence. This makes it difficult since Elm Street is a busy road for cars and large trucks usage and someday a very serious accident will take place. Plus the street cleaner cannot do his job properly. Please do something about this. Thank you. Carol Nelson Monticello resident cc: Mr. DJ Hennessey Building Inspector • Planning Commission Agenda- 08/05/2008 7. Public Hearing -Consideration of a request for Amendment to Conditional Use Permit for boundary adjustment and sign relocation in a B-3 (Highway Business) District. Applicant: Amax Self Storage (NAC). BACKGROUND The applicant is seeking approval of a PUD Amendment to allow for relocation of an existing sign for his business, Amax Self Storage, located at 36 Dundas Road. ANALYSIS The applicant is proposing to move the existing Amax Self Storage Sign from anoff--site location at the southeast corner of Highway 25 and Dundas Road to the southeast corner of Cedar Street and Dundas Road, which will be located on the same parcel as the self storage business. The sign was allowed at the current location through a Planned Unit Development, which incorporated all of the applicant's properties east and west of Cedar Street, along Dundas Road. The relocated sign will remain the same in terms of size and illumination. The applicant has indicated that the overall height of the sign may be reduced somewhat as a result of re-mounting it in its new location. The applicant is proposing to place the sign within the • stone wall/fenced area that surrounds the property. No sign setbacks were established as apart of the PUD and, as such, the proposed new location for the sign is compliant with Zoning Ordinance requirements. Additionally, the applicant is seeking to remove the parcel west of Cedar Street, Lot 1, Block 1 of the recently approved plat of Amax Addition, from the original Amax Self- Storage Planned Unit Development. Any required conditional uses for that parcel would then be reviewed through the appropriate process at the time of development. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS Regarding the request for an amended PUD for sign relocation and boundary adjustment for Amax Self Storage, the City has the following options: Motion to recommend approval of the PUD amendment based on a finding-that the request is consistent with the Zoning Ordinance and appropriate to the B-3 District. 2. Motion to recommend denial of the PUD amendment based on a finding that the request is inconsistent with the Zoning Ordinance and appropriate to the B-3 District. • Planning Commission Agenda- 08/05/2008 STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of the PUD amendment as presented. The boundary line adjustment for the PUD is appropriate, given the recent patting of the western parcel for the future sale and development of that property. In regard to the sign replacement, the sign will remain the same in terms of size and appearance and the proposed relocation will eliminate anoff--site signage situation. Moreover, the relocation of this sign was anticipated as a part of the plat which separated the AMAX property from the Highway 25 frontage, and the City's construction of Cedar Street in this area. SUPPORTING DATA Exhibit A: Location Map Exhibit B: Preliminary Plat -Amax Addition Exhibit C: Sign Relocation Illustration Exhibit D: Sign Image • • _ ~ ~~ uu! .Y ~~ o m ~rYO ill '39Ya015 ~l3$ XtlWV ssr,n-n, ri sr,r-r»-na MN OTI3(lIlNON ~ ~ „„Y.~,....,.x....:~«,.s ..,...o.. I, °i°, ~~^~ •~•rr •re 1Y'id A2lYNIWI'13ad wn aY..+n m~ .°..el..~ane r...r.~r •w~.....r •rw...w iw NOLL1O0Y 1(YWY anooY w ,~„'.~m'e'~d ~. ~pY„ a •ou( sete/aoesy 4 ~enpp l+4oP Youean6n ]nY nn alY +~d x... 4Y1 w,l AN~ra (a,wu I A3Y p ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~" Y~ gti~ ~ ~ ~ € t s arr+ 1 ~ °~~ k~~i crs fie ~~~~~~ ~~" ~f ~~~B g~E y~e's j$~,f A( },~t~~:$$gp, ~l yg6 ~ ~ 13~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ 6g~' AvR 4£ S ~~3 ~~ ~YR ~ t ~ ~ ~ ~ i ~ 8 '~ ~ ` ~ ~ 8 ~ €t ~ F ~ 8 17 6 d x ~ ~ ~ ~R > g§ ~ -S5~ . , , ~ ~~ g ~~~~ ~g~ ~~~ ~ ° g qp r z €€ g .F ~ 3s r Z r gg ~ 8 r gg ~ g s >; b° ° e» "~~" ~g Y ~~ ' ' e~ ~ 4J 3~t5338~$3~5~ ~ 5 83u~33 e;A ~~ ~ ~ ~ .~$ P ~~ so ~ i?`s~ ~ §§ a a~i a~'te ,~ dOi 4'f~.1.a°abi.~:~~~cC~3I ~ 116', j ~, lad ~ ~~s~~ ~ ~>>~i 1 f$ c I t ~ ~ * i i 1 I i ,i, _ 1 - ir'e`-J ~r-~-----..--~-~h ,Y ar nr/rsau ro ? s { 1 - ; ; r r 1 r' ~~ r S I t - i---~ ~ 1 i Il i ~'' ` is ~ i I I ` .1 ~~1E ~ s AY ~~' ~ ~j •~~~ ~ i . [h ~~ d i ' i `- wa .om~l ~ i ' ~ i i r ~~ ~ .,~ d~f~ '~~~~ ~tF ~ i~t I1 ~ tl ~` I_~ c~'~= ,~ ~ ~, . _ _ " :'_ ° ~ ,.yt:: ~~~ \~: \~ 1. ~~/. t •'''~ .: __ .. a>~~~:=. •t ~ ~ ~ , ~. ±r • ..4F _ .. .' ~. ai I I r ~I „~ t6 ~g ~i~t 1 ~1rY~ #''k d ~lr MMI ~: ~ t ~ i ~~~ te; ~S~F 1~`k~l~ifats~F•a ~ ~1 I ~ y `V ~ ~ ~ i ~ ~S ~2`{f ~~~ ~il~e~^d~~i 41 ~d ~1 ~Ir' E U # ' ~ I I ~ yYYl ~~]^( ) ~j i¢ 1~#3 F1111"~a~ ~ ~~ ~~ 4 ~~ ~ ~ C J~1 a~sd ~e28i^~~ll~~~s 9~ a I If$, -.A r~ _ ~ I ~~ z a e yy t ~aa~j o 1 '_ m; r O _ ~ ~ r~~l ~) ~~ F~~ 1 Ea~i ~3x~i~~I~H~~Je 'F ";'.`~'-=' ~'~ ~ ~ `fin -_:_ , --'--~. ~'----. ~ t v , r "'°"`~,-- ~ J7dm.Y.: . ~~ ` .. a ..~ r V ~ I 11 O ~ ,`,~ °°"'~~! •~ `~ -~~~:~,~_ ~I m ~ '~! r ~., \ ~ .~ \ a ~ rte. ` 1 ~ `~ I ~ \ 1 't'i !.' \~ ~ I~ ~J 1 t \ T3. i t i ~ tt'1, ~~_p s~~'~ `~i9i~41iFF;~~ ~ ~Y t'}~3F3 ii~~~tt~fl~fi~ ~ tR~ I~a+~t 6a;~ ~f~t~~~ 3 ~~ 1~~;~~ j,~#~s:~ ~a6 ~ ;i ~;.~ ~a1*`~j~i:~ji~ 1~ ~}~ jt~jR~j ~~ f:Ease jv~ I it E , 1 ~ 1j 1 ~jf ~ ~~~~'~~;~~~~~ ~~~ pit ~~ ~r~ ;<v~t>i ad dY ~~D~kl~~~~ e~~ ,! ~~~~~ - ! 4~4~ ••~ , r~ ~~ € ~ SEA &x~ . ~ ~~ r,_- ~• \ i~ ~ ~i ® tf I ~ - r r P I '~ t.~ . is ,:\ t5. r I f~~ ~__ ~ti•~ t 8F r I 1 1 1 1~ } 3 ¢ ! d~ ~~; ~ E1 ~f~~ # ~~ ~e~~ ~ ~~ d 1~s 1Ft`~ 1 ~~ tlZi ~ C~ ,~~~~~ ~~~~ E d: c ~~~ ~ ~~ 4~IaoxJf •Wd c'O~f;£~£ B067dOlJE • llnn,{el '~•+^P'OL-EEBBt~MP1EE99t~Bloid P~IVFJ 7 OWN ~ Y V , O (~ D ~ C \ _ ~ n / i ` ~ ' ~ ~N~ ~~ ~ ~ i~, L ,a ~'~t~ACAr 4?t y ~ ~iztN~r I 'a r.. ~ i~~ ~ ~ ~ J __ ~i~ a> '~hzFi~tsC'~ K 5.4 r ~,.r j ' ~f ltA .~,, M t ~ Ql ~ " ~ `* y < $r ? ~~,( Jai f' ~ ~ ~ t 3 , k a~ ~ r ~ j ~ ~ ~ ~~~.. , \ Y ~ .d~{, ~'j, !,Ft~'~~' Z~ ~}'t~e~ ~'. i~~~~4-' ~ c e `i,5,'~T `` 1. ~ ` Ii ~ „, ~ ----,~ , ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ N~ y I ` ~' . / ~ ~ I I I r,.~ o ~ ( ~ z_ o ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ I D ~ ~ m p ~ N z ' ~ , f ~ ~ _' a' ~ N ~ ~: ~ Z N N ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~~ ~~ f ° l f ~N { - o ~; I ~ f z v o ~ f c i ~ gg ~ r f f { 1 •,~ `~ f A j ~ f Na I ' ~ ~ m f a f m ~ ~ f f Jt o ; K E 339.23 f `x Deed ' ( f f / .. ~, •~~ ~ ~ f I O /~ f ~ ~~ ° f ~ ~ I _ t _m ~ ~~~ v( ~ 1 1 O_ f ~ ~ I ~ ' f , 1 t ,~~x f ` ~ / ~ f ~ , f ~ , ~ ~sr~;',~s f ' ;?Y{ / I ~ / ~, ~m ~~u~' ;,~.v,A 1.: q+~ 4 O ~ ~~ ~~ ^Y~ G - ~~ 77 • „ ~ ~ -'T,~ +^ , ~~I R~ DO 'Y ;{;_ ~ \~ pig , , ~V`,,,~ ~ F~ 4 y ~~~~ ~ • mm J ,.~..Y, m~~~N ~V ~•T xs~~ . ' \ ~ ~t~ i{ l fM ~ ~,y h r r' ~ - ~- ° ~ . x~~ dttxZg'~~'y~'t,~,~vtit~ 1~ ~~x. „yJ,~, II P~r~~ i,r, Yttwt ~~ ~~$ ..T ~ ~ ° ~ ,3~~ Sk3~j~•c1' y'1 r \ ~ O ~'~:~Y` i , ~ .~ ~ ~ ---- }~r ~ ~~~ ~ « ! ~i 1. J i ,•Y: ~ Y />~ ~. ~~ 1 ,a ~ f .p ~~1 ` / ~ -- ~- i a, i~ -- `-",. '~ ~yfJ~; xY~.~~ x oN rs~„ ~~.c„:~ TI <. ~., •~, ~; ~ ;_ , ~ `; ..a o f(4 t "'J n ~ y ",~,;,".,, ~• d i 1'a`•Yr~' i~~µ(j7 `tS~l ~.N Ai;~: ~+E~;,.y ~f;! '..fit:.},~> ~; t ,~' ~~. ~:~N . ti ,~~r ` M: '~~ r\rd 4~1' 4 i£jt ~~~Y ~J rJ / 'i r, ""' /. / t-. ~ r c r ~ ~~ v e ~ x.~ z'FE_:. ,~(, rY ~~~~. ~_.. Planning Commission Agenda - 08/05/08 • 8. Public Hearing -Consideration of a request for Conditional Use Permit for Planned Unit Development for amulti-tenant commercial development in a B-3 (Highway Business) District. Applicant: Cornerstone/DOJO LLC. (NAC) BACKGROUND Cornertsone/DOJO Properties, LLC is seeking a Planned Unit Development Conditional Use Permit (PUD/CUP) to allow the construction of two retail commercial buildings upon a 1.7 acre site located south of Dundas Road and east of State Highway 25. The processing of a PUD is specifically necessary to accommodate the location of two principal buildings upon a single lot of record. The underlying zoning of the subject property is B-3, Highway Business. ANALYSIS Planned Unit Development As shown on the submitted site plan, the applicant wishes to locate two principal buildings upon a single lot. To accommodate this condition, the processing of a PUD/CUP is necessary. A Planned Unit Development allows for flexibility in performance standards with the understanding that the development will beheld to higher standards of site and building design than would ordinarily be required. It is the responsibility of the applicant to design the development with significant benefits and communicate those benefits to the City as a basis for allowing aCUP/PUD. Comprehensive Plan. The City's Comprehensive Plan directs commercial use of the subject property. Thus, the proposed use of the property is consistent with the land use directives of the Plan. Zoning. The subject site is zoned B-3, Highway Business. The purpose of the B- 3, Highway Business District is to provide for and limit the establishment of motor vehicle oriented or dependent commercial and service activities. The B-3 District allows a wide array of commercial activities. As a condition of PUD approval, uses within the two commercial buildings will be limited to those allowed in the B-3 District. Access. Access to the site is provided from two points long Cedar Street. Considering there are no access points along the east side of Cedar Street, there are no alignment issues that need to be considered. However, the south access location may raise concerns as it relates to the future commercial development of the adjoining parcel. Along Cedar Street, the City has required commercial projects to minimize access locations for traffic safety. This southern access point should be designed in such a way as to permit cross access with the adjoining future development. This may include either an agreement to provide access to the proposed location, or (preferably) a joint location straddling the property line. Planning Commission Agenda - 08/05/08 Parking. The parking requirement for retail and service establishments is one off-street parking stall for each 200 square feet of net floor area. Using this "net area" calculation, 10 percent of the total building area is presumed to be reserved for hallways, restrooms, utilities and the like. As a result, the parking requirement for the proposed commercial use is as follows: Square Feet Ratio Required S aces North Buildin 9,504 gsf (8,553 nsf) 1 s ace er 200 nsf 43 s aces South Buildin 5,472 sf (4,925 nsf) 1 s ace er 200 nsf 24 s aces Total 14,976 sf 13,478 nsf) 67 s aces Note: Parking ratio applies to retail and service establishments As calculated above, a total of 67 off-street parking spaces are required of the proposed commercial use. In satisfaction of this requirement, a total of 69 stalls have been proposed on the amended plan. In accordance with ADA requirements, three of the proposed stalls have been designated as handicapped stalls, although it would appear that these may be better located near building entrances to meet the intent of the handicapped parking regulations. It should be noted that the required off-street parking supply assumes retail use of the two buildings. If, at some future point, a restaurant use (which has a greater parking supply requirement) is proposed, it will likely be necessary to increase the site's existing off-street parking supply. This could only occur via a PUD amendment. As part of the processing of such amendment, the applicant would need to demonstrate compliance with applicable off-street parking requirements. All proposed parking stalls. and drive aisles have been found to meet the minimum dimensional requirements of the ordinance. With one exception, the parking lot design is considered well conceived. To better accommodate vehicular backing maneuvers, it is recommended that the parking stall in the extreme southwest corner of the site (along the site's southern boundary line) be eliminated. Building Design. As shown on the submitted building elevations, the proposed commercial buildings are to be finished in horizontal cement board siding with manufactured stone provided on the front elevations. Building colors have not been noted. As a condition of PUD/CUP approval, building colors should be specified and subject to City approval. The proposed buildings measure 27 feet in height and satisfy the maximum two story height requirement imposed in the B-3 zoning district. • • With the exception of the front entrance canopies, a hip roof design is proposed. All roof areas are to be finished in asphalt shingles. i Planning Commission Agenda - 08/05/08 • While the proposed buildings meet applicable building height and material requirements of the ordinance, staff has some concern in regard to the "back of the building" appearance provided along Highway 25, Dundas Road and Cedar Street. These areas will be highly visible to passersby. With previous retail projects along Cedar Street, the City has required "four-sided architecture" to enhance the views of the projects from all sides, particularly given the high visibility of these buildings. Upgraded materials on exposed walls have been required of the Monticello Travel Center project, the Warnert retail project, and the retail buildings along Cedar Street west of Wal-Mart. Staff has recommended that the walls exposed to the public streets on this project be improved with additional stone detailing, particularly around the door areas, including some of the same column architecture which is proposed for the entrance side of the buildings. Setbacks. As shown below, all applicable setback requirements of the B-3 zoning district have been satisfied: Front Yard Side Yard Rear Yard Re uired Setbacks 30 feet 20 feet 30 feet Pro osed Setbacks 32 feet feet 71 feet • Note: 30 foot setback applied to side yards which abut public rights-of--way Landscaping. A landscape plan was submitted as a part of a recent addition to the application packet. The landscape plan shows a total of 23 trees, meeting the minimum requirement for a commercial site with a site perimeter of approximately 1,1001inear feet. The landscaped parking islands meet the minimum area for such islands. Staff would comment that while the landscape plan meets the minimum, it could be enhanced through additional plantings along the perimeter of the site, particular along Highway 25 and the south boundary. Lighting. To date, a lighting plan has not been submitted. Prior to the City taking official action on the application, it is recommended that a photometric lighting plan be submitted in accordance with ordinance requirements. Signage. The applicants have proposed a freestanding sign as a recent submission, reducing the parking supply in the front of the building to accommodate the sign location. The proposed sign is 20 feet in height and a total sign exposure of approximately 128 square feet in sign area. The sign is mounted on two poles with a stone base, presumably matching the stone on the building. This sign is the only freestanding sign on the project, and appears to meet the City's sign requirements within a PUD. The submitted front building elevations identify wall sign panels for the • individual building tenants. The total maximum allowable sign area for any wall Planning Commission Agenda - 08/05/08 is determined by taking 10 percent of the gross silhouette area of the front of the • building up to 100 square feet, whichever is less. The subject site has legal frontage on Highway 25, Dundas Road and Cedar Street making the north building eligible for wall signage on its north, east and west sides. The south building is eligible for wall signage on its east and west facades. As a condition of PUD/CUP approval, all site signs must meet applicable location and dimensional requirements of the ordinance. Trash. As shown on the submitted site plan, trash enclosures are proposed on the east side of the site near the two Cedar Street access points. To be specifically noted is that both enclosures are located in front of the building line, making them highly visible to business patrons. While the location of such enclosures (near site entrances) is understood from a functional standpoint, the locations are considered less than ideal from a visual perspective. To address this concern, consideration should be given to attaching such enclosures to the principal buildings. Considering the proximity of the enclosures to the adjacent principal buildings (approximately 7 feet), attached enclosures would reduce site clutter and minimize the visual presence of the trash handling areas. Such enclosures or "wing walls" should be finished in materials similar to those used on the principal buildings, including the stone elements. Loading. It assumed that loading and deliveries will occur through front • entrances to the various commercial tenants. While service or fire doors are provided on the "back" side of the two buildings, such doors are not accessible either by driveway or sidewalk. As a condition of PUD/CUP approval, the handling of loading activities should be addressed by the applicant (to the satisfaction of the City). Engineering Issues There are several details identified by the City's Engineering staff relating to utilities, grading and drainage, and related items. The staff met with the applicants as a part of the project review and have agreed to address those issues pursuant to the discussions at that meeting. A copy of the engineers report is included with this packet, and its recommendations are included hereby reference. The comment letter does not incorporate the results of the staff discussion. Grading and Drainage. Issues related to grading and drainage should be subject to comment and recommendation by the City Engineer. Easement As shown on the submitted site plan a United Power Association (UPA) easement is proposed in the southwest corner of the subject site. The easement area is overlaid by off-street parking. The acceptability of this • 4 Planning Commission Agenda - 08/05/08 • condition should be subject to comment and recommendation by the City Engineer. Utilities Issues related to utilities should be subject to comment and recommendation by the City Engineer. Right-of-Way Dedication. Consistent with the recommendation of City staff, the northeast corner of the subject property should be dedicated as public right-of- way. Such dedication (as depicted upon the submitted site plan) will better accommodate necessary street turning radii and provide additional area within which utilities maybe installed. It is recommended that such dedication occur prior to building permit issuance. This issue should be subject to additional comment by the City Engineer. Dundas Road Vacation. As a condition of PUD/CUP approval, it is recommended that a narrow strip of the Dundas Road right-of way (as depicted on the submitted site plan) be vacated and combined with the subject property. To be noted is that such strip of right-of way was originally owned by the property owner east of the subject site. Upon its vacation, such right-of--way would thus be conveyed to such property owner. Thus, the adjacent property owner will need to convey the vacated strip to • the subject site. Such vacation/conveyance should occur prior to building permit issuance. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS Regarding the request for a for Planned Unit Development Conditional Use Permit (PUD/CUP) approval, the City has the following options: 1. Motion to recommend approval of the PUD/CUP, based on a finding that the proposed use is consistent with the intent of the B-3 District, subject to the conditions outlined in Exhibit Z. 2. Motion to recommend denial. of the PUD/CUP, based on a finding that the proposed use does not satisfy the intention of planned unit development by providing higher development standards than would normally be required. RECOMMENDATION The proposed use, a Planned Unit Development Conditional Use Permit • (PUD/CUP) for two retail commercial buildings, appears. to be consistent with the intent of the B-3 District and compatible with existing and anticipated future Planning Commission Agenda - 08/05/08 surrounding uses. To qualify for PUD consideration, a project must demonstrate • that it exceeds the minimum standards of the zoning ordinance. Staff has made a series of suggestions in this regard related to access, landscaping, and building materials. With these improvements, staff would recommend approval of the PUD. SUPPORTING DATA Exhibit A: Location Map Exhibit B: Application Package, including: Title Sheet Site Plan Grading Plan SWPPP SWPPP Details Utility Plan Water & Sanitary Details Storm, Sidewalk & Street Building Plan -North Elevations Landscape Plan Landscape Detail Monument Sign Detail Exhibit C: City Engineer's Comments Exhibit Z: Conditions of Approval • • Planning Commission Agenda - 08/05/08 • EXHIBIT Z Conditions of Approval 1. The proposed site access point locations be revised subject to review and approval by the City Engineer. 2. Any future proposal to accommodate uses which generate a greater off-street parking demand (i.e. restaurants), the processing of a PUD amendment and additional parking shall be required. 3. To better accommodate vehicular backing maneuvers, the parking stall in the extreme southwest corner of the site (along the site's southern boundary line) be eliminated. 4. Building colors be specified and subject to City approval. 5. The applicant revises the building materials as discussed in this report, particularly as related to the building facades facing the surrounding streets. 6. The landscape plan be amended to increase planting on the site, particularly along the south and west boundary areas. 7. A photometric lighting plan be submitted, in accordance with ordinance requirements, subject to City approval. 8. Consideration be given to attaching the two trash enclosures to the adjacent principal buildings. Such enclosures or "wing walls" should be finished in materials similar to those used on the principal buildings. 9. Requirements of the City Engineering staff are complied with, as agreed to at the staff applicant meeting on July 29, 2008 10. Right of way dedications and vacations are finalized prior to final building permit approval. • 7 N __ W ~, a s 3 i ~ 1 1~ ~, ~ ~~~`~~~` _ o W H°n a _ , ..,,, ~ ~ ~ a rt~ ~ ~ ~ ~, ~ ~ ~ o o~ a ~n WZ ~, r z ri1 r o n~WHWZ a 5 ~ Q°~ZF=Z~ ~~ a ~a ~~:., ~ z yy aaeez~'~~ gNLJZyW.JW6W ~; FF azagnnarNN n WZt7~Wn'QNC7C9C7~7 z =gzdn~~gzzza a Ndcad Wacocn a ~~ ~ W ~ dd~~..Q.1..1..1..1 (j o r z ~ ~33 a~.»» z z ~ ~ W f'Nt7NN~~Nmmmm _ ~rN1^7'd'~t1{CPrNMO ~ W ~ ~' N ~~~onn~~aaaa ~ a z o = ~o~~~, HaZr ~ e nn~r~ ;,z-a;u °' J~~~ y =~v~V N 0 0 .1 ~ ~ N q 0. W ~ ° _ ~ r .1! r a o ~m~ j W O ~ _ W 0. z n z N ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ r ~ 0 i Wya~ CQ7 ~. O W ~ o =,Wa~~ W z o C ~ ~ N W nNa~u Z ~ ~ W o Z o ~~ or ~ F ~ r W = z of ~ W ~ ~W" ao~o g Wz.io ~ ~ VLLa'~ ,~ a~a~ v ~ g _ R i r ~ a ~ gN-o = _ Q 7 r H v V Z o y ~ ~~ ~ W N O _ _ F~~oN W~~°= r ~ W ~ ~~~ 3 t~iW~"':° m e ~~"' „ O Yam~u :~ .l ,f ``.. ¢¢ j V W „ F lJ ~ L~ R g J ~ ~~~ ~l aN a y ~ ~; ; U N o0 ,q- _~ ~~~ ~w 8 e 'a., ri ~~,ti. H m~ ~~ o w O g ~ b~ ,~ Z ~~ ~< `s ~ qw, Y~~ ~ If! ~i ~~ Jm m ~ ~~J 5~ G K N «< W n / W ~~ W ~S 6 ~ Q~ J K JJ r ~ ~y O ~ ~c ~ =wx ~{~ x N F 3 z aim sv ~~ ~ a. ~d o W z N >O a < F 9 j ~ 6 -~.~ W ~ W ~~ WriC ~ 4 O y a ~ ~ ~a zg~.7 S, ~ ro a , • • • N~IS a3aov eo-zz-c 9Z4ZZ 'ON '032! ~31v0 90zz-4LZ (OL£) =oe SN111d NO119f1lI1SNO0 AdVNIWll3!!d lZZ4-064 (OZf) oLLO4d v ~AB 03N~3FYJ 10£69 NW 'alopuouuy NV~d 311S ~ t- IIPH,0 +~0 £Zll X~8 '0'd =~ U tilos3~wm eo azrls 3Hl Ap SMrI 3w tf30Nf1 a37HON3 1rN06s3doad ao~ ~A6 NMVaa '3 '1S Wl3 09Z VlOS3NNIW pO113O11NOW v Z a3sH3~n Alna m 11rHL OHV Ho6NM3dfK 1J3tlp Aw M30N11 :p 3w AB UIDIrd3Md SYM lilDddM MO •~u~ •oossb ~ Bu~~eeulBu3 ~IIleHpa vzv~a sa3Nao~ oroa ~ cuniei.~v ~I Vn 'NULL1VIi~3d5 'NYM SIHL 1rHl AdLLtl3~ A83M3H 1 OYJ ~03N'JIS30 _ _ a N a d 7 U ~ ,, p ~ N ~j „y ~ ~.1 i ' I I II -I-~-~-ITT .~ ~ 1 ~l ,, , a ~\ ® / ~~` ~~ ne /j 1~ a __ ~s33 ~~; is r ~ ~ a .o. N^\_ To~ •e; ~~ w U O N ~ U aa >O a ~ a u ai n N ~ U ~ u Z <Q o ~~ N ~ J ~ ~ w W ~ 'S Z H ~ N 9 w ww a~ m ~ « NN L! ~ NF ~ tD~ h01 XW U ~ n p ~O ~C W ~ ~ ~m { ~ N ~k' i p,o DO ~ ¢`~ Q ~~~ o x a am rc° ~ ~o rca => ~Gi < ~ a ~j ~ Cl ZU O W / ~/ ~, ~\ ~ ~ N ~ ~ L ^ ~,\ y~~ \ ~ .. a. ^~~ ~\ ` W ~ I Y \. 2 d' \\ ~ ~ ~~~ ~ ~ a ~~; ,~~ w i ~~__ i _„_,,.__~_~` lam' ~ ~_```~, I I I ~_ `~~~J • • • BZ4ZZ 'ON 'D3tl :31VD Yozz-acz Coz£) •o.~ YO SNVId NO11.O11lI1SNO0 A1ltlNIW11311d ue a3ND31iD 4d lZZ4-084 (OZ£) o uouuy D 'a N1/~d JNIaVa'J nwNA ~°o p l ZO£SS NW ' ND ' ~ N NW !0 3LV13 0 d 8 £ZLL ' ' z Y1~3N aNl w cMn 3u aaaNn a~Yx+3 ~vNOCS~oYa m~ .Ae wvvaD 1S Wl3 OSZ 3 ~/lOS3NNIW `Ol'13O11NOW _ aasN~n a'Ina wv I lvw aNV Nasina3ens la3ua ]Yd SVM 1Y0d3Y LO •~UI 'DOSS`(/ 1Q Bul~eaul6u3 ~IIl8H,0 riza-->td sa3Naoo oroa AW Y3UNN YO 3N AG d3F(Id 'NOLLWJaD3dS 'NY1d STILL 1VML AlLLiW AB3tl3H I ~~ :p3NU1530 a ~SNOISIA3a 31v0 0 ~ I-~~ 4 a J Q $ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ - ~ Z ~a7 ~ tll z ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 1% ~ ~ yg W U Y U ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ry Q ?p y~ y~ 3 ~J{ ~ $ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ A ~ IX ~ ~ ~ F C C ~E F! vl ~ 3 3 ~1 it ~ m ~ F' ~' C~J x S a~ $~~~~~~e~ ~H~~~~~8~S~8~S~~~`d~~ > via • rJ^ ~ ~ ~~ ctie II ~I I l i l 8~~3~~~i~~ I R~~~ ~~ ~: _ ~~O(~~~~4h ~ ~ n I ~ ~ ~ I ~ I I ~ I ~x~ - -.... -~_1_ _~ I' -'"-,-'" ,~ ., e ; ~; ~, t i r~ .. kJ ~' ~j 1 / ~ ~/ 1-. / ;I I I ~~~~ i~ ,,~, , , , I '~ ~~ ,, . .~, ,, I r _, ~ 1 ~t ~.~~, ~~ ~~, ~.,. W ,~. .~.. ":;. __ .... f .. 4. i ~ ,! '~S [~ f~ n ~+ f4 1 ~. rJ iJ ,r , i' ., ~~~ a R r~~ Q7'REi .C%.~ . i`~~ i • • • BZiZZ 'ON '03tl ~31r0 IIIoH,O ~~9 Y1053NNW 10 3LY1S 3HL M SMYI 3LL tl30Nf1 tl331k1Nd IYNOK53fOtld adsNdsn Aina Irv 1 irNt aNr xaslntlaans ~noa AW YlONfI YO 3N AG 43NIdiYd SVM 1Y0d3Y YO 'NOILWJaC13d5 'NYId YIHL 1VHL AlLLtl37 A®iI3N I U F ~ ^ ~ ~ ~ a ~ Nf. m~ ~~ 'J` N m z vii 0 oe ~<~ w az mho F ¢my <~~ ~~ Z g~£ "~~ o «~ ~i`~ FF a-UI~ oann 23 ~ a w a 90ZZ-4LZ (OZ£) Nnj lZZ4-084 (OZ£) oLLO4d UB 03N03Fq ~~£~~ NW •a~DP UDUU\( ~7 £ZU Nab '0'd ,~F-1{f.-/`' a.~~ :A6 NMraa '3 '1S W~3 OSZ •ou~ •oossy ~g Bulaeeu~Bu3 ~II18H,a Ol0 :03N01530 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~~~ ~€ ~~ ~ ~~ ~~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ a ~~ ~~ ~~ ~ dd~ ~~ ~p ~~~ ~~~ ~K ~IE ~ g~~ ~ QQ ~ g~ } 8 ~~~8q~~ ~{{ ~ 3~ F' ~ ~~= D SDI ed dd Y•+s SNtl'Id NOIlOfl1l1SNO0 A!lVNIW1~3!!d Ntlld ddMS V1OS3NNIW `O113O11NOW vz~r-~d saaNaoo oroa >; ~ ~ ~~$ ~ ~~ a as ~~ ~ € ~ ~ a ~ ~ : yy B8 ~~F q ~ g ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Y ~~~~ ~~~~ &€ Bli a ~~; ~ ~~~§~ g~ ~~ Eg ~ ~~ _~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~ u~ ~fi ~ ~~ ~~ ~~b ~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~ ~~ ~ g~ ~ ~~ @@ ~'~ ~n 8 N f d d n d m 4~ ~I U Q N ~o ~aS N `~ ~_~ a O ~d ~~ ~~,, s ~ Q ~ ~~ i ~ ~ ~ ~ ~„~0in~"i i1`'4 f ~ ~ .. g ~R~~~ ~~ ~~~~ ~ gg E ~~~~~~~~sgs~~~~~s~~~~ I ~ ~Q~rt~.~~a.V.f~ f~ ~j TT I~I~~I ;. ~~~ ~ ~ ~~jY 9$ ~~~ ~~a `~ ~QB~ a~ ~~~ ~e ~~a 5 ~ • • BZ4ZZ 'ON 'J3tl ~~V~ sozz-btz (ozf) =od SNtlld N0110f1!l1SN00 AtIVNIW113!!d IZZb-O84 (oZf) auoyd ~ a» :Ae a3a~aHO ZO£94 NW 'a~opuouuy SlIV13a ddMS moHA ~~ ~Zlt xo8 '0'd ~ ZN V ti1~3NNw l031Y15 ~~ ;Ae wvvaa '3 '1S W~3 09Z ° 3xt eo sN.n nu toaNn N33lNN13 ~vNOCC3+oaa V10S3NNIW 'O~13011NOW oasNVn xina HV ~ lnu auv N06Ni[idfi8 ~~a •~UI '~OSS'd 7g BUlJ®CUjBU3 ~~~18H,4 AW YlaNfl MO 3N AB U]Wd3W SVM 1LOd3Y tl0 vzvid sa3 Nao~ oroa a 'NOLLY~lip3d5 'Ny1d SIHL 1VHL AlLLN3~ A63iCiH I ~~ :p3NJ1530 :sNOis~naa 31do r m8 U 1 bQ GWl W~Wa £Q U~ R v ¢< F O~J 1 ~~uai ~ J L m ~ ~ 2 ~~Z W S N Z Qr0 ~ ~ r i. d~ S ~ N ` ~ ~ Zm r W„ Arc 2~ ion 7oF i° S a ~~ a ~x~ ~ ~ e<gb~`~'~WZ ~I~J 'S ~ ~ `~'~i'~jTF W ~ U~ ~ ~ U` r ~ U ~ W U ~ ~n i - 8 ~i~a 'oU < m~ oO~hzF °~ `~ ~ ae~~bZ ~Q ° ~$ ~ gW?~~~ d ~ ~ 2 8 ~~ g ~ < ~ ~ ° Nr O ~ F ~ W a ~ Q 3 ~~o°w~ ~W ~ ~ z ~<wx r c~ v 25Z~W m ~ ~ ~~~~~i~'~~~p b ~Q ~ <B~<~ NO K }J I<i. ~ 21-2 W Yp ~ ~ KQ°~ a b ~ d ~~zwwr~} Uoa ztj ~ a~~r~ W N < ~ ~ y 5~ O 1a°W1 .WKW 2 yWJ N ~~~pQ Cd'1~ W 2 W WN~< J F NY F ~ Nw WQ N~ yl~~(~~rZ~ O JJm ~~ ~ <U'~~dt N ? ~ W ~~OWg m~ ~(yX~~ ~so~Z~S =~ Q ~p4~ ~ ~<m Rr X ° WWO ~W ~~ ~~ e.40J zO fSJ y1F~W~ ~~ ~ K V ()W ~U< N Y ~x~U~ O~ ~LL ~wF~~WmIAS ~o ~ <~ ~ am ZOZ~~e W U m 6h d N ~ N K < yNj = J ~O ~ m~y~ ~ ~ O 2 W N ~ W,l W ~o N~°j~orF o~ o~ a~~iw~m ~-zi~ 4a °z g~ ~ w~oua ~~;; o a ~ ~~w or rcm~ ~_~ ~ O o ~ ~rco?~~y~a xr~ i~ 28i~c~~~ e~`~' ® °o~ ~ ~~s~usi ~ U F ,~® ~~ ~WmpOm }3~o a~a ~~ U ~ Z r0 ~ ~~y p f 3W `~ ~ 0~p~y F ~+ r 3 Y 3V (~ J~~b aO •rf~ _ ~' m J ~ _ _______ - _-_ m ~ ~ ~<. c~ b ~" a ~ OF ~ ~ < F 0197 ~ .i;., .;~ _ <j W W J F j U~' ~ 4 U 1 • , U' a~ z r !~ i~+ a ~ W J Z v ~~~ y~p~ g €~ ~~ ~~ ~~$ ~~~ rm ~~~ ~~~ ~' q q ~~ ~8~~ mm~ W < m ~ ~ ~~ ~~ '~ ~~a ~~a~ d ~~ ~ ~ ~ . ~ ~~ ~~ 6R~~ ~~~ ~~~ ,~ ~~€~ ~~~ ~~ 6k~~ ~~ ///'' 4 ~ tlSg ~ (ey( y o r~ ~~ ~ ~ ~~~~ ~~s~ ~° m ~~~ ~~~~ ~~~~ a~°aa ~ \ ~ ~O ~? o~~~ ii p V ~~ ~a~~ Jf o_& ~~ {~~ ~~ ~~ 8m OW ~~o~ \\ / Z~ bn oFe~ ~J p aomao: ~n 8~~~ ~ ~ 8 f ~ q ~~ ~ \ ,+.~"OO d. ~ f,. Rio `8 s o 2~ ~~ ~ ~ z } ~ d ° W ~ < ~ ~ ~~ ~~ ~ LL3Ne~ ~~ ~e W yW~ ~ 77 r 1-IWiI ~~ oFVIZ ~~ O~ ~ N '$ ~ smug ~e ~ ~~ w~U~z ~~ o~ ~ r ~4, ~k„^8~ ~w o~ m ~~~~~ ~~ ~<W ~ ~~~~~ ~~ ,ea ~° y< zz 8 w~R 7 ~~~ OO ~ ~~~ ~~~ G=omsLL ~o~ ~ W Z p N ~ O wa " „ „ Z a o_ 0 W N , a o g o o N ~ >W> X1.1 \ M\I v~1 Z 2 Z Z • • • s d ~ R ^8 ~A .. U' 1 I I ~~ ~I~ ~~I-~-1-~rt'T !! ey ~ t ! f i t ~~~~ .._ ~ BZ4lL 'ON '03U 31V0 IIIoN,O ~0 Y1053NNW !0 31Y1S 3N1 !0 SMYI 3111 Y30W1 Y33NION3 T/N016S3WYd a3sN3;ln Aina Nv 11vN1 aNV Nobva3dns to3uw AW Y30Nf1 YO 3N A6 03Wd3Yd SYM lYDd3Y YO 'NOLLY~Il4~3d5 'NYId SINL 1VNL AlLLtl30 A93Y3N I sozl-4a (oz£> xoj SNtl1d NOI,L~fI!l1SN00 A!lVNIWIl3tld LZZ4-084 (oZ£) auoyd + ~AB 03N03N0 Zp£~5 Nw ~a~°puouuy ~ N\/7d All'Illfl £Zll XO8 '0'd °z U ao~ U9 NMVaa DUB •oossb ~gsBul~aeul6u3 ~IUeH,o V10S3NNIW `O'1~3011NOW 3 = vz~or-~d sa3Naoo oroa a Q10 ~03NOIS30 -~ _~~ ......I I -f..G.L,<s 90f1 h8-:i:J ._........ ~ .. -., e_v+~4 >!.".:~w.i 1 _ '~~ _._.... ,., ,~,.~„ i r~, ,. _. ~ __. I ._.___.. - ~ . i' "--__.~, } `_~Y ?t`:._ F ___.~ 1 NIVNtl~LYM dll{ .Ll 15~C(3~"^-~m ~1,-.. 1 _~ 1 ~__ 1 ~„_ ~ Y+1+F'~{ " ~. ~ z ~N '...... i ..2., s`~~ "Y 'c"~•-.... ~ ~ .. _ ~`~~~~ vd °'~ w. „._.. Li~a~ T - ~: z `~ ,/ u.l r v.~: '\ I .1 -1.,,... 1 It ~~ I ~~"" :1..~ F'; . . ~,. ~_ . sr . _, ~~, "~ e f 1 F g a 0 h • • • 9Z4ZZ 'ON '03Y 31V0 {ZZ4-084 (OZ£) oY~4d :ae a3H03H0 ZO£SS NW 'a~opuouuy ~7.~~ xOe .O.d a~, ue NMVaa oul .oossy ~gs6u! eeulBu3 ~II18H,4 SNtl'Id NOIlOfld1SNO0 A!lVNIWI'13iid S~i1/13a Ak!\/lINVS '8 k131VM co z~ U V1OS3NNIW `O~~3O11NOW vzv~a saaNaoo oroa ~ ,~ IIIYH,0 ~0 'V10S3NNV1 !0 31Y15 aNl eo sYn au Y3aNn a33t+wN3 ,YNOCS~oYY aasN3on vino Nd I !vw aNV NOISNY3915 l03aRa AW Y34Nn YO 3N AS Q31fVd3Yd SYM 1YOd3Y Yb YYIILYOIlw3dS 'NYL, SW. 1VHl /.1LLY3:1 AS3YdN I ei Y9 ~ !®tl i Ri sO C N 1 { Y Y 1 ~ Ip~ ! I ! I ip ~ R ~1; 1lYI 1i ~~ 1 1`~ ~ ~~~ 1°.it S~ >I ~ Ik 9:~L 9ggi it ~ $ ~ V) o o ~ Yi 0 0 ~ 9 1 1~,~ 11~ ~ Op E19I it - ,~ 1 ~ 1 ° ~i ~ ~ ~ ~ ilk yk §61 N ¢8 1 YY Rj '~ i 1 ~ ' 1 ~ I Y ~ ~~ ! O O o ~ ~q 1 R ~ ~ ~i .`e •pq • 1 p E ^ ~ a 1 i g ~1 I~ ~ { pk~pg~ A0 ~p{iB ~ e ~ 0 ~ M $ e ~i e1BR! s~~ Rip 5pl "~~ : W X o 0 k 1R 6p ~~~ i@~ ~! ;19YI a r ~~ R .1 ~ 1 0 0 k ~ 1 ~I I ~ ~tl ~i s p®,$ '~ .~ ~ .~ P 1I R 1 ~' o y~y N S gig 16 1 ~E6~ ~~ e ~ !~~ 11 !p ip, ~ ~ 0 ~ 0 gi R qN~~ ~ !YI f i R ~@ q ~e ~~IIE li Y yy p{ { q 1~7~11Y! ~ ~~ ~ 1 ~' ~~ i g` i e ~ 1~1 e.~! ~ li3 a A fl9 @i .@ 'Y i~ ~ ~ ~ `I O10 -03NJS30 pg; `i ~+ Es3$'f O ~ o ~ !. yy ~ R 1 ~~ ! Y PI 1 RI 1 ~i it ~ ~~ 1! ~1 i ~ 11 1 ~ 0 O 0 O 1 YR ~: d~, Y l ~ `ayl~ { ~n~{ y ~ i 5 1 ! ~ ;e e a WWW ~I~y 4p !IR 1l ~ b ° ~~ ~ o ~~ i pl; ~~ y dl~X^~ MYO~ " Y i 1Y1 .~{! IYyyIy; 1 ; Ye j~p ii~ YgYtk iE~ tld~ BS ~ iYi' ~ ~~~77U11 ~ ~ .E ,n M C .n O A Y ~,g € ~ ~ !~ L ~ ~ y b r6 9 1 y ~ ~i p J4 1 J I ~ ~i~ d ~~ ~~ i 1 ~~ ` WAy~ b R ~R ~~~ ~ ~ ~~~ ~ ~1 d ~ ~ 11 o 1 ~ ~1~ FI~ y~ , W q e 1 ~'kil ~1 ~dlli~.b Ry ~ 1; { ~ 7~ Sd M O ~ N !` lI~ E ^ . ~ n N 1 1~ pp 1 E ~ 0 0 '~ Y ilY p~~ ~ ~~ ~i ~ 1 b ~ 1` ~ ~ -cddAl~$v i • • • azazz ~aN ~o3e :era eozz-acz (ozc) xo3 SN1/ld N011.Ofltl1SN00 A!lVNIWIl3!!d IZZa-084 (OZ£) auoyd =tie aaHO3NO ZO£94 NW •a~opuouuy 133~I1S'8 ~I11/M3aiS `Wk101S uloN,a ~o ~ ~ £Z l l Xo8 '0'd i ~ U n~xaw .so Avis d alu so cwvi ~u tnaNn a~Pxa ivNOCSiioua m~ :we NMraa 3 '1S Wl3 09Z V10S3NNIW PO'113011NOW w Z msNaan aina wv I lulu aNV NOISLWSdfIS ~nPa •~U! •~ossd ~ 6ulaeaulBu3 ~IIleH 4 AW IDON/l LO 3N AS 43Wd3tld SVM 1NOd3Y ra ~~ ;03N`JIS30 ` tlZV"id sa3 N aoo oroa 'NOLLV'Jal~3d4 'NVId SIHL 1VW A~LLN37 AB3lON I ~SNOISIA3a 31V0 a N o P ~g y ~ '1 ~ ~ ~ ~ s d¢.~ ~q~ 1 ~jgq~ ~ 1~ B~ ~~E P Y V O Y ~ ~ Ip6 ~. g I~ F~ ~ ~ ~I 9$ kl k ` Imo: °~~ ~~ 1~ ~!li I~~ ~~ 0 4 ~ ~ g ~~EI o I I '~ I I Ix~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ rf ~~~ Pa PIS ~ ~ 1~~ ~~ <J ~ x ;~ ~ Ie~ ~ rii;'.n i 8 ~~ ~~~ ~ a:. .: w. `'' Y ~ e m •:_:' ~ ~ ~ ~ s W `m ~ Yv b Bi W R S W ~~ ~ Q a ~ ~~ e d k i kY ~ O O ~r,\ ~~ !~ Ia ~ ~ ~ li ~: ~ ~ 1 ~~~ \\\ ~ ~~ .~ ~ i~ 9 ~\ ~ ~.~ ! ~ ~~ I , ~`~< ~ ' 1 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~a ~ i P ~IP ~ ~ ei ~ 1! y Y ~:M l3 "e_ t ~ C ~ 1 u ~ S ~ 0 ~ ~ yy 8 •• • • i ~ ~ ~ ~j~~~ ~ ®~ ~ O` $ • ~ p p 1 i' ~ ~ y ~~ ~i ~ ~ '@'~ i $ 1 ~ ~ 'o o \ ~` ~ g ~(~I~1~~~99 ~ ~ ~ o p~py Bib 1 ~ b e~ .L '• 6yb x~ ti ! ~ ~ g$ ti~ ~ ~X~ y~P ~~ 9 pp/ i ~ k' ~ ' ~ t ti ~IF ~P LL g~ ~ iPj e ~i~ ~ ! ~ ® ~ 1 ~~ ~ + ~ ~~ ~~`I F ~ ~ b ~ ~~oi~~l ~~~ !~ ~ ~ i ~ E '/ ~ 0 e! .b ~ 1~~ ~~~ ~~~P~~~~ ~ ~ ' 11 i~~ i3~~ ~~i ~~14 ae 0ae®®~ ~\ b 0 o ~ ~ C"~i ~ n o O o L ~ >r ~ ~Ib~ I ~~ ,. ~ g 11 ^ ~ ~ ` ' ~ c ~B•' H b ~ ~ ~ m ~- ~::'y ,.. ;• ~' ', < ~ O Q ti ~ 8 : Q ~ ~ h ~ ''`'°' ~ ~~ ..~''~~:~ ~€ g m iS ~~.S~ ~ Fg ~~s ~ ~~ ~ @~i • • • 0-4b9 (l59) Xtlj/3NOHd SNtlld °JNIC11fl8 ASiVNIWIl3Nd 9l0£Z 'ON '93N 31V0 898 wr =Ae 43M~3FI~ 40195 NW 'lf)Vd 1NIb'S aHaoW y wwor V I £ZLl d 3f1N3AV aNO (H1LiON) Ntl'ld 9N1a'll(19 ~ Q ' /^ u ~ a Z Y1053NNW1 !0 3~Y15 aNi ao cwri yu u3ann io3uNOw irNO~ssvoaa N' l ~A8 NMtltlO 1V ~~' H V ~ Y tl10S3NNIW `O113011NOW ~ i msNVn Anna WY i inu aNV Ng5Ntl3dN8 iosaa b 3Y LO A3)I~n W W ~ P ro a .'..^, ,..., ~ v~ d AW lO4N(I LO 3N AG U~dd3lld Srh lt 'NOUVOU~3as 'NYId siw. ivtu wuu~ AeamN i p~9 ~03N91S30 _ 31da~1 o _. a N yj t a<i ~ ~ ~ e Y~ g ~ ~~~ ~ ~ ~ ' ~~~ ~~~~~ ~~g ~ s ~ ~ i "' ~ a ~ ~~ ~8 ~w 7 R~~ ~ ~g ~ j ~ ~~'~~8 ~~~ I ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ to ~ ~ s ~ ~ '$g~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ a ~ff~ ~~~~~ie ~~ ~ <~ ti ~ a ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ g ~ 3 ~ ~ ~ a m Y N of i d d r of a N _ ~ ~~g ¢ ~~~~ em~~ ~ ~ ~~~~ ss 5 5 ~ ~~ ~d~~ ~ ~~ ~~~ e ~~~~~2~~ ~ ~~~ ~ ~i~~~~~t ~~ ~~ g~, ~,~ ~ ~~~ a~~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ i~~ ~~~ ~~ a g ggg ggggggg ~$$Rs ~RFiR~ ~ ~ ~~O ;~a ~~aii?4.- IY ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~= $ ~r F~ Z X~~ 2S~ ~b ~ s ~~<~~~ ~~ ~ ~~~a~3~i6 ~ ~ y c ; ~_ ; ~~ ~ ~g2S ~F "~ k S ~ ~~ ~~ i n~ 8 a ~~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~~ $. ~~ ~~ O O O ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ \a ~ ~~ :g ^ b b~ -: 6~ A ~ ~~ A ~3 >~ s~ ®~ S .., N w~~ F h k~~ ~ ~ °~ ~' ~ ~ 3a 5m 5N " ~o O • • • 810£Z 'ON '03a 31V0 6980--49 (tS9) XYj/3NOHd SNV~d JNIa~lA9 AdVNIWll3kld tiOISS NW 'lflb'd 1NIVS . Wf ~A8 03N03H0 ` N a~laoy~ ~y wwor 3f1N3NV ONOd dl £ZL l L Ja~9 NOIIVA3~3 0 Q YlOSDlNIN !D 31Y15 3W !0 sMr, aw laaNfl lavlNaav T'N0653iDMd a~~ ~ae NMVaa 1~311H9aV Z C) QiSNiNI Avq m 11VNl uNV No6NM3df5 1J3aq V u V1053NNIW `Oll3~I1NOW ~ Z W All N30N11 NU 311 AB 03lIYd3tld SVM lafld3l a0 'NOLLY~Li~3d5 'NYId SaLL 1VHl Ailu3J A®H3H I A3~~~W W Ir A 311'/tl~i O^ OQ ~ SNOISIA3N 31V0 OYJ A3N01530 a 1i ~ UU UU L 'r ~O QQ ww QQ r ww a N y II W W NO r W W nM ~ a Q MM W NN W , W N~ II III 11 IIM ~ a ww ~ ww Q II U QQ p QQ 6 ~ , tl C9UQ C9UQ L U _ ~ Q ZIn tNW NNW _ (!) Z U~ O I- ~ a aZZ ~I- F Q C ZZ ~ Q~ F >»Z F F 6»Z F Z li ~ m w- Jlp~~ WlO ~r~ C Q Z W W M N li w M N W , J o0 J z a o ~ < _ o m mo ~ ~ F J C7 Z N Q x Q 0 w U to z ~~ = J Zp Q U ~w z XO ~~ W Z O H N ~Z W p ~~ W U p Q Z ~a Z J Q J ~ VI i Z O '"' Q o I W li J °D W ~ F w Z J Q U ~. y .~ ~~ E~ ~~ )~ ra co J CO Z 0 O a' II J ~ W '" ~i J a¢ W v, ~' _~ 0 a 0 m Z O F a. W J u W m W ~ w N a ti w W .~ _~ O Q O m • • ~d 8 C 3 zO w a w qU' 7 ~Q_ 9 Z _~ F Q o I W li m W ~ D `" fA a E" U N ~i • Z Q ~ mU W [] Z ~ 0] N w~ 1-< v~ w~ Y ~ IL 9 L0£L 'ON '03H 31V0 8980-449 (l49) Xtl~/3NOHd SNn~d JNI4'IIAB AanNIW I'13ad ti01S4 NW '~(1Vd 1NIVS rn wr ~Ae mX03H:1 1N3AV 4NOdVl £ZLl 3 a ,~„w .~ a,w,l, f (H1t10S) N~/1d rJNl4lif18 ~ Y1063NNw J03LY13 1~311H~an 0 Z ' 3Nl !0 GMV7 3LL tl30Nf1103UK1W 1VN01GS3i0Nd an sae wnvaa V10S3NNIW `Oll3~I1NOW ~ Z 035N30I1 A1110 YIV 11VHL QNY IIOLSV~U3df18 j03NU A3~IOnW wlr ' ~ ~LLM 1 ~ ~ N H ~ ' ~ ? d S H Y 3inaml oroa :SNOI51A321 31V0 3 l 1Y1LL A M3 7 Afi 3 1 NOLL LiD3d3 N I I Q70 ~03NOLS30 a ~d E x> i ogo ~~rc~ a~8~i I sk g a ', il ~ -- ~ °¢ W ~ ~ ~ ¢ x O (~ ~} N s, ~ ~l Y Q. K Z6~~ ,i ~ b ~ O g m s w y ~5 ~ ~ ~~ i~ +~ O ~~~ 0~0 ~ 3~~~ . -, ~ Z B ~ W ~ ~ s!: Q N .I - i = ~~ Z g °' ~ O O ~~ a~ ga 3 ~~ ~~ ~y -' ~i 3 B C vii ~~ ~~ ~~ x ~~ ~~ ~m ~ O •I O O N •S ~a -. O I II 6 G 8- J LL a C O .~ J a 7 t~ 0 } ,~ • • • Bl0£Z 'ON '0311 ~31tl0 6990-f49 (lS9) XV~/3NOHd ti016S VlOS3NNIW 'lf)Vd 1NIVS wr axe a3 X~3H~ NV7d NOI1VA373 H1AO S Q o~~f,~ ro ~ILf,~ 3()N3~b' ONO~VI £ZLL ~ ° 31LL !0 sMr vlos3+fmv do vrls i 3Hl 1139Nf11J3l6gar 1rN06Silf)Md Oil ~A9 NMtlHO ` 035H3Jf1 Alfa NY 11rLLL ONr N06NM3df6 1~3N0 1~311H~aV tl10S3NNIW O'173~I1NOW w .„ tl30Nf1 :b 3/1 AB 03tlrd371d SYM 1NOdltl NO 'NOUr~111~3as 'Mrtd sWl 1rH1 xsls3l ti97r1~~ I A3~~VW war 31Vd~1 OPOO ~SNOISIA321 ~tl0 Ol`J ;03N01530 a N xx UU ¢ ¢ WW xx wl UU ~ ¢ ¢ M WW ~p 11 It W II I(10 11 lL nM II Q ¢ M]I'7 1J rNjW II IIN 1 NN ¢ II IIN ~ . ~ "¢ wwm wwf'~. ¢ ¢ ZZ II ZZ II Z (' a'W tnNW 2 z ¢ 0 V1 VlW J (n ¢Z Of-I-¢ Wp FZZ Z~~Q m OZZ UJ ¢»H f` F»I- ~ ~ Z z m ~ioa~ WM i0a~ O WM O Q ZW NIL NIL 2 F J 00 Z Q J fY Q Q a ~ O m mo ~ o ~ o o J I I W m W 0 iv N a ~ ~ ~~ U ~ y w ~~ W J F- ~ ¢ N W O 0] W ~ H ~ ¢ U- Z- 00 a~ ~~ mZ x W ~- o \~ UO' wtn fo¢ as ~a xo xo w¢ Nm N07 UJ W O ~ U N ¢Z w~ ¢ °ma J U Z U O = N ~ W ~ Z N U U O S to J Nm Nm1Ji W Z a w ¢ ^~ a N Z H Z ''n O ~ W ~ Q I ~ i U~ aF- t J ~ Z au W ~. ~~ a m J ~ W J cn ~ N m z HO ~ o ~ 1 w ¢ ~ n ¢ a z ~ Fo Q c .1 ~ w ? N ~ a v ~ .Wj ~ W ~' ~ W F W '. ~ ~ ~ S ~i J rn ~w ¢ >Z a a ~ ^ ~~ ~ ~Q Q a ~ W N w ~ w ' Q~ U ~ N J ~ N , X O N m O Z J Z (=/1 ¢ a I- J w V. ¢ = ¢ Z O N ¢ ~ o o F- W~ ~~ W O U ~ V ¢ XO N 0] O fY a mQ ~ U ~ Z W W ~ Z Z U~~' ~ X¢~ N m J ¢ a O r• Q ¢ O ~ I W , W nr W ~~ 8 y r a ¢ =N ~W ~ a a j. , B • • • --~ J .y u~ f ~" ..-~ ~I~ I~I~ i _~ !~- ~d i~ ~ 8 ~~~ ~~L~~ ' 1 ,~ 0 c 3 K ~_ J ~ •~ s °~ ty. „~ .J .R `~ 1 ~_ .~ a e s N~ N ,; C/~ • • Egrlusive Landsca~gs 2000 Landscape Design for.• Dojo Corners Plaza Prepared by: Thomas G. Maas • Professional Landscape, Landscape Management & Irrigation Services Dojo Corners Plaza Planting Schedule Common Name Size Q Colo. Blue Spruce 8' B&B 12 Autumn Spire Maples 2" 7 Patmore Ash 2" 2 Sprin Snow Crab 2" 2 Gold Mound Spireas 18" 33 Red Bayberries 18" 12 Miss Kim Lilacs # 5 Pot 5 Stella Day Lillies #1 Pot 76 Boulders 18-24" 10 Notes: 1. 1.5" River Rock typical in all shrub beds and ground cover areas. Edger typical where planting bed interfaces with lawn. 2. Planting beds edger to be Batck Diamond or equal. 3. All Sodded areas to be Irrigated 4. Plants count per thius sheet only. 5. All Trees to hard a hardwood mulch ring. • • S,.ARi~"` 90TTOM .4N1:, 'DE. C- Hd<~". PRIt)F;: T~~ F'LAP~fTiN 2. TRIM OLr DEAD WOOD AND WEAK. AND,~OF DEFORMED TWIGS. '% d T CiJ~ A LEADEF:. IV T PAIr1T CUTS. SEE SPEC:: P.EGARDING PRUNING= OF ALL OA.kS. 3. SET PIAnR UN UNDISTURBED NATIVc SOEL OR THOROUGHLI' COMPACTED BACKFiLi SOiL. INSTALL PiANT SO THE. ROOT FLARE IS AT OR UP TO 2" ' ABOVE THE FINISHED GRADE. 4. PLACE P'iANT IN PLANTING HOLE ~ Wf(H BURLAP AND WIRE BASKET, `~. (fr" USED), INTACT. BACKFILI WiTHiN APPROXIMATELY 12° CAF THE TOF OF ni; ~'i F.CALL. :'~41 C.t'. Pi_..., h;tN,JY=. Tl~'--' 1/3 GF TI1~ BASKET OK THE TOF TWO HORIZONTAL. RINGS, WHICHE~~R !S GREATER. REMOVE: ALL BURLAP AND - NAILS FROM TOP 1 /3 OF THE BALL. REMOVE.SLL TWINE. 5. PLUMB AND BACKFIL WffY BACKFIi SOIL 6. WATER TO SETTLE- PLANTS AND FfLi VOIDS. 7. WATER WITHIN TWO HOURS OF _ INSTALLATION. WATERING MUST BE SUFFICIENT TO THOROUGHLY SATURATE ROOT BALL AND PLANTING HOLE. 8. PLACE MULCH WTCHIN 48 HOURS OF THE SECOND WATERING UNLE55 SOIL MOISTURE IS EXCESSIVE. ~`1 n~cl~vo€~~ ~~E~ ~T~~~a~ ~~~r~~ t -~- 1 NOT TO SALE 1. SCARIFY BOTTOM AND SIDES OF HOLE PP,IOR TO PLANTING 2. TRIM OUT DEAD WOOD AIVD WEAK AND/OR DEFORMED TWIGS. DO NOT CUT A LEADEP.. DO N T PAINT CUTS. 3. SET PLANT ON UNDISTURBED NATIVE SOIL OR THOROUGHLY COMPACTED BACKFILL SOIL . INSTALL PLANT SO THE R00T FLARE IS AT OR UP TO 2" ABOVE THE FINISHED GRADE. 4. PLACE PLANT IN PLANTING HOLE WITH BURLAP AND WIRE BASKET, (IF USED), INTACT. BACKFILL WITHIN APPROXIMATELY i 2° OF THE TOP OF ROOTBALL, WATER PLANT. REMOVE TOP 1;'.', OF THE 9ASKET OR THE TOP TWO HORIZONTAL RINGS, WHICHEVEP. IS GREAT~"R. REMOVE ALL BURLAP AND NAILS FROM TOP~;r_ 1 /3 OF THE BALL. REMOVE ALL TWINE. 5. PLUMB AND BACKFiLL WITH BACKFIL:~ S01 L. 6. WATER Tv SE i ~ LE PLAiJT~ .ANC; F;L'.- i~01DS. .. WATEr ~"`iTHih~ TWi:' r-i0l!R~ 0= . INST ~ s TIOrE. WATERING Mt1ST BE SUFFICIENT TO THOROUGHLY" 5ATURAATE z R00' BALL ANC+ PLANTING HOLE. ~ c 8. FLACE MULCH Yr'fCHIN 48 HOURS OF ~ THE SECOND WATERING UNLESS SO!i ~` MOISTURE IS EXCESSI\':. '~ ~ j tttrv TO sc,wre ~. NOt~. ~U1 ASSEMt•L. OF'T',{?~Ai BU i CONTRACTOR RSSt1MES ~"L ~! RESPONSI81~ FOk'. MAIhTAINf~;i ~ TREE Ih' F, PLUMB POSFTi01V F:>R ~ THL DURATION OF ?N~ ! i GUARANTEE PER{OC' GUI' ASSEMBLI- 1e" PULI'PROF'1`LEN OR POLYETFIYLENE. ~ 40 MIL) i -- [ l1'" WIDE STRAP i1YP ~^~~li~~ c STF?4ND tip GA. WIRE, 2-?" ROLLED STEEL PO:'Ti> _ (MnDOT 3401 i ~ 180' Ci.C. {S . STAKING DIAGRAM] -(' i,00RDINAT:_ S?AKI'vi _ Tv INSURE ~.iP~iFi)~:M ~!'Gi`i2(.' ORiENTrT~'~~ti; ~c LtNE_ AND 51n~r~=; ~12 " STAKING DIAGRAM TREE WRAP FROM BELOW MUL~'4i L{NE TO FIRST BRANC`r~ UPTIOfv PERFORATED SLIT PVC: COLLAR "-v" SHPEDDED BARk: MULCH ~'""-EY.ISTiNG GRADE PIANTING SGiL Mli(TIJRE {SEE `_-PEC. i MINIMUM i j2 W{GT}-i OF ROOT 3ALC ~ .-UNDISTURBED OR STABILIZED / SUBSOILS ~r- NO'CE~ GUY ASSEMBLI' OPTIONt~ BUT CONTRACTOR ASSUME`_"; FULi_ RESPONSIBILITY FOR MAHJTAININC' TRr.E j IN A PLUMB POSITION FOR THE. I DURATION OF THE GUARANTEE F'=RIOD Gt1Y ASSEMBLY- 15" POLYPftOP`; LENS OR POLYECHYIFNE (40 MILT 1-1 '2" WIDE S7nAP (TYP`' DOUBLE STRAFiD 11; GA. WIRE, '-'" RULLEC STEEL POST {MnGOT 34.?1) C~ 180` O.C. (SE'L STAKING DIAGRAM] COORDINATi~ STAKIN' TO INSURE UNiFORP4 ~ '' 1 ~~, GRIENTATIOPv OF GU Y l.1NE5 ANC STAk;ES \ 12 '~ STAKIN% DIAGRAM -GUY WIRE WiTH WEBBING: 4.AGGlNG- ONE PER W'ii i._ 4"-6" SHREDDED BARK Mi1L.CH '.-EXIST!Nv GRADE MINIMUM "s 12 VJlDTH OF ROQ~i B~,L Ji iL MI?i TUR~u ! ~t~ v. } UNDISTURBEi OF' STABiLi~ED SUB~OILC _ r --.~ INCHES MULCH ~,~_, ,~~ { SEE LANDSCkPE NOTES - FOR TYPE Or MUL~~1 ttTT}~; ~~ •n~~`~~-~-1F SHRU@ IS E F.-. n, THE7i ~~~ REMO~t 9URLAP a: c:OPE ~. ~ m~ ~ FROF1. TOP ~,~~. 0-~ BA'`. ^~ ' ~ ~., ~_`~--HACKFiLL MIS ~.. UNDiSPJRBEL} _~'.USSOIi. NOT TO SCALE • • U~'J 54"144" TOP SECTION 54"x144" 14" deep x10' 2" deep 1 Q"x10" poles __._ F ' .. ~ e i 6 s f -~ ~-- __,_ r_ _ _., -------F , , i + ~~ ~ ; •` ~ ~ i ____---_ - --- -- ~ a 20' OVERALL HEIGHT 26"x130" 24" deep base wsB & Associates, In~ Infrastructure 1 Engineering 1 Planning 1 Construction July 23, 2008 Mr. Gary D'Heilly D'Heilly Engineering & Assoc. Inc. 250 Elm St. E. P.O. Box 1123 Annandale, MN 55302 Re: Dojo Corners Plaza -Preliminary Construction Plan Review City of Monticello Planning No. 2008-020 WSB Project No. 1627-94 Dear Mr. D'Heilly: 701 Xenia Avenue South Suite 300 Minneapolis, MN 55416 Te1:763-541-4800 Fax:763-541-1100 We have reviewed the preliminary construction plans dated June, 2008, for the above-referenced project and offer the following comments. Sheet C1 -Site Plan 1. Consider providing a future access to the south and/or moving the southerly access to the south property line to act as a joint access to the property to the south. Is a car wash still proposed for the South Building? Previous discussions with City staff indicated that the southerly access was needed to allow for cars to exit the car wash. 2. Show a concrete driveway apron at the site entrances per City Standard Plate No.5007. 3. The proposed sidewalk along Cedar Street should be 6-feet wide as per City standards. 4. Truncated dome pedestrian ramps are also required at the driveway entrances. 5. Add the removals to the grading or utility plan. 6. Note a bituminous pathway along TH 25, instead of a sidewalk as noted. 7. The pathway removal is on the incorrect location. Signs indicating that the pathway is closed will need to be provided until the bituminous pavement is replaced. 8. The striping on Cedar Street may need to be revised with the proposed access points. 9. Revise the parking lot dimensions to indicate the standard 20-foot long parking stalls and 24-foot driving lane. 10. Explain why the handicap stalls are not included in the parking spaces in front of the building. Minneapolis 1St. Cloud Ki016?7-94UdminlDxa'ILTR-g d'heilly 0T7gA.da Equal Opportunity Employer Mr. Gary D'Heilly July 23, 2008 Page 3 • Watermain bends should be called out in standard sizes: 11 '/4, 22 '/z and 45 degree bends with blocking as per City detail plates. The existing sanitary sewer stub extending to the South Building is 8-inch PVC and extends 50 feet from the manhole as per City as-builts. Please note the % grade of the service pipe. • 9. A sanitary sewer sampling manhole is required for each service to the building if it is a food-service type use. 10. Label where the sanitary sewer and water service connection points are. 11. Add a legend indicating standard line types for each utility and revise the plan as such. 12. A utility excavation permit must be obtained from the Public Works department prior to commencement of utility connections. 13. Provide an as-built plan once construction is complete. Sheet C4.,C6, C7 Details All detail plates should be revised to reflect the current plates from the City General Specifications dated May 2008. These can be found on the City's website. 2. The plans should include a note indicating that construction shall conform to the most recent addition of the City of Monticello General Specifications and Detail Plates. Please provide a written response addressing the comments above. Final construction plans will need to be submitted, reviewed, and approved prior to building permit approval. In addition, the final plat must be recorded prior to building permit approval. Please give me a call at 763-287-7162 if you have any questions or comments regarding this letter. Thank you. Sincerely, WSB & Associates, Inc. Shibani K. Bison, PE Project Manager C ~~ ~~~ cc: Bruce Westby, City of Monticello John Simola, City of Monticello ~A~gelu~~liumann,-~~ity of Monticello Steve Grittman, NAC skb K:1016'Z94UrIrniMDocs1LTR-g d'heilly rl7"0.9.dwr Planning Commission Agenda- 08/05/2008 9. Public Hearing Consideration of request to approve the 2008 City of Monticello Zoning Map. (AS). BACKGROUND The Planning Commission is asked to review and approve the 2008 City of Monticello Zoning Map. The City Attorney has recommended that the City adopt an official zoning map each year. The draft attached as supporting data has been reviewed by the Community Development Coordinator, City Administrator, and Consulting City Planner for accuracy. The Deputy City Clerk has also reviewed this map in detail. The Clerk maintains records of all official boundary adjustments, annexations and rezoning actions. Therefore, we believe the map presented is an accurate reflection of all zoning action. It should be noted that there are some circumstances in which rezonings should have occurred concurrent with final plats, but were not included with the plat approval. The rezoning would have been consistent with the preliminary plat documents and approvals. These occur primarily within Carlisle Village. With the adoption of the zoning map, those zoning designations become official. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS 1. Motion to recommend approval of the 2008 City of Monticello Zoning Map. 2. Motion to recommend denial of the 2008 City of Monticello Zoning Map. 3. Motion to recommend tabling of action on the 2008 City of Monticello Zoning Map for further study. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of adoption of the 2008 City of Monticello Zoning Map as proposed. this draft represents an accurate picture of Monticello's zoning based on a review of all available records, SUPPORTING DATA Exhibit A: Draft 2008 City of Monticello Zoning Map