Planning Commission Agenda 07-06-2004
.
.
.
AGENDA
REGULAR MEETING - MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION
Tuesday, .July 6th, 2004
6:00 P.M.
Members:
Dick Frie, Richard Carlson, Rod Dragsten, Lloyd Hilgart, and William
Spartz
Glen posusta
Jeff O'Neill, Fred Patch, Steve Grittman - NAC, and Angela
Schumann
Counci 1 Liaison:
Staff:
1. Call to order.
2. Approval ofthe minutes of the regular Planning Commission meeting held Tuesday, June
1,2004 and the special meeting held Monday, May 18,2004.
3. Consideration of adding items to the agenda.
4.
Citizen comments.
5. Public Hearing _ Consideration of a request for amendment to the Monticello Zoning
Ordinance regarding minimum fence setbacks and maximum fence heights on parcels
with multiple street frontages.
Applicant: City of Monticello Planning Commission
6. Continued Public Hearing - Consideration of a request for variance to the minimum
setback requirement for fence placement.
Applicant: Aaron Quinn and Tylee Sylvers
7. Public Hearing _ Consideration of a request for a comprehensive plan amendment and
zoning map amendment to accommodate a change in land-use from Light Industrial
(ll-A) to Regional Business (8-4).
Applicant: Ocello, LLC
8. Public Hearing - Consideration of a request for a zoning map and comprehensive plan
amendment to accommodate a change in land use from Light Industrial (J I-A) to a
Commercial/Industrial P1JD.
Applicant: Otter Creek, LLC
.
9.
10.
11.
.
-,~
.
Planning Commission Agenda 04/06/04
Public Hearing _ Consideration of a request to approve a preliminary plat for Jefferson
Commons, a commercial development in a BA district.
Applicant: City of Monticello
Public Hearing _ Consideration of a request for Conditional Use Permit for a concept
and development stage Planned Unit Development.
Applicant: Muller Theatres and the City of Monticello
Public Hearing _ Consideration of a request for a Conditional Use Permit allowing for a
convenience food establishment in a B-4 (Regional Business) district.
Applicant: Culver's of Monticello
12.
Public Hearing _ Consideration of a request for a Conditional Use Permit for a concept
stage Planned Un;t Development for 41 detached townhomes in a PZM (Performance
Zone - Mixed) district.
Applicant: UP Development
13.
Continued Public Hearing _ Consideration of a request to amend the Monticello
Subdivision Ordinance regarding:
a. Topographic survey requirements
b. Tree survey requirements
c. Final plat submission requirements
d. Park dedication requirements
Applicant: City of Monticello Staff and the Parks Commission
14. Adjourn.
- ~ -
.
MINUTES
REGIJLAR MEETING - MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION
Tuesday, May 18th, 2004
6:001>.M.
Members Present:
Staff:
Chairman Dick Frie, Rod Dragsten, Lloyd Hilgart, Rich Carlson
Jeff O'Neill
I. ~illLtQ ordt;:.L
Chairman Frie called the meeting to order at 6: 10P.M., and declared a quorum.
hie noted the purpose of the meeting was to interview candidates for the vacant Planning
Commi"ion position and to provide a candidate recommendation to the City Counci\. There
will be no public hearings.
2.
~and idat~1!tterviews.
The Commission held four interview sessions with potential candidates as folloWS:
William Spartz, 1450 Oak Ridge Circle, Monticello; .Ion Morphew, 5 Fairway Drive,
Monticello; Victor Kylochko, 2577 99th St. NE, Monticello; and Douglas Dickie, 3739
Brentwood Drive, Monticello. During the interview process, it was determined that Victor
Kylochko was unahle to be considered for the position, as he was not a cmrent residcnt of
the City of Monticello.
Upon completion of the intcrviews, thc Commission membees discussed the mcrits of each
candidate in terms of fulfilling the duties of the Commission.
The Commissioners noted that all the candidates were excellent prospects for the position.
The Commission directed staff to contact the candidates when positions on other City
committee and boards became available.
The Commission requested that staff prepare letters to applicants informing them of the
Commission's decision on the vacant seat. The Commission also suggested that the
recommended candidate attend the special meeting on May 241h as a non-voting member to
familiarize themselves with Commission process.
A MOTION WAS MADE BY DRAGSTEN TO RECOMMEND WILLIAM SPARTZ TO
FILL THE VACANT PLANNING COMMISSION SEAT.
MOTION SECONDED BY HILGART. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
.
3. t..diourJ!
A MOTION TO ADJOURN AT 9:00 PM WAS MADE BY DRAGSTEN.
MOTION SECONDED BY CARLSON. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
.
-,._---,-"-,--'-"-'-~--'---
Richard Carlson, Recorder
.
MINUTES
REGULAR MEETING _ MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION
Tuesday, .June 1st, 2004
6:00 P.M.
Staif:
Dick Frie, Richard Carlson, Rod Dragsten, Lloyd Hilgart, and William
Spartz
None
Jeff O'Neill, Fred Patch, Ollie Koropchak, Chuck Rickart - WSB &
Associates, Steve Grittman - NAC, and Angela Schumann
Members Present:
Absent:
1. Call to order.
Chair Frie called the meeting to order at 6:00 PM, noting a full quorum of the
Commission. Frie also welcomed and introduced oew planning Commissioner William
Spartz.
A roval of the minutes of the re'nlar Plannin' Commission meetin' held Tuesda
4 2004 and the s ecial meetin T held Monda Ma 24th 2004.
2.
.
MOTION BY HILGART TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF MAY 4"',2004.
MOTION SECONDED BY DRAGSTEN. MOTION CARRIED WITH SPARTZ
ABSTAINING.
In reviewing the May 24'" minutes for approval, Dragsten questioned coodition number 6
in the motion for approval, referring to lighting requirements for Sunny Fresh Foods.
Dragsten inquired whether the motion had required that lighting be replaced or instead
evaluated for replacement. O'Neill clarified that the condition indicates that
lighting will only be replaced if necessary to meet the code.
MOTION BY DRAGSTEN TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF MAY 24TII, 2004, WlTl1
CONDITION 6 AS NOTED.
MOTION SECONDED BY CARLSON. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
3. Consideration of addin T itemS to the a Jenda.
Frie requested that an update by staff on zoning and design standards for the Sunset Ponds
development be added to the agenda as Item 14, should time permit.
.
.
.
.
Planning Commission Minutes~06/01/04
4.
Citizen comments.
None.
5.
Grittman reviewed the staff report, indicating that the applicants are seeking approval
of a variance from the zoning regulations that limit the height offences in the setback
adjaccnt to thc public street. The parcel is located at the comer of Savannah and Park
Place Drive in the Grovcland neighborhood.
Grittman stated that the applicants wisb to construct a 4 foot high fence within 5 feet
ofthe property line along the side lot line adjacent to Savannah. They are seeking a
variance from the required 15 foot setback to permit the additional one foot of height.
When reviewing a variance request, the Zoning Ordinance requires that applicants
must demonstrate a unique, physical hardship that interferes with putting the lot to
reasonable use.
Grittman explained that the applicant's lot is a fully conforming lot that can be put to
its normal, single family use. The applicants argue that the 15 foot setback unduly
limits the use oftheir back yard. Grittman noted that the applicants have alternatives
within the current ordinance that wonld resolve this issue. Within the IS foot setback,
it is permissible to construct a 3 foot tall fence without any further regulation. Such a
fence could be placed along the right of way line, or at the 5 foot setback line they
have proposed. Landscaping could also be used to effect a screen for the rear yard
area. Grittman stated that it is planning staff's view that no hardship is present to
warrant a departure from the ordinance standard.
Hilgart asked bow close to the property line applicants could place a three foot fence.
Patch indicated that they could go rigbt to property line, provided they do not interfere
with line of sight requirements for the adjoining streets.
Chair Frie called the public hearing to order.
Aaron Quinn, 9893 Park Place Drive, inquired whether the City had any applicable
ordinance relating to requirements for comer lot widths and depths. Patch stated that the
City had ordinances relating to minimum lot width and area, but nothing speci!ic to comer
lots. Quinn stated that he had researched sucb ordinances within other commnnities and
found that corner lots required greater widths to accommodatc the narrowing of comer
lots. Quinn indicated that under the current fence setback requirements, they would lose
about 3000 square feet of their lot. Quinn stated that they had chosen thc four foot fence
as a compromise between a full privacy fence and the three foot fence allowed by code,
2
.
.
.
Planning Commission Minutes-06/01/04
though they preferred a privacy fence. Quinn also noted that the ordinance previously
allowed four foot fences and was unsure why it changed.
Patch stated that the applicant was correct in that the fence ordinance was originally
proposed at 4 feet in front yards within 15 feet of the property line. However, the
Planning Commission had discussed potential impacts to the streetscape visibility. Patch
recommended the Planning Commission look at this topic again, specifically due to the
fact that a public hearing for an ordinance amendment is being proposed later in the
agenda.
Frie encouraged the applicant to either stay for the agenda item related to the fence
ordinance or to contact staff to discuss how the decision could impact their property.
Hearing no further comments, Chair Frie closed the public hearing.
MOTION BY FRIE TO CONTINUE THE PUBLIC I-mARINO ON THE VARIANCE
REQUEST BASED ON THE OUTCOME OF DISCUSSION ON ITEM NUMBER 10
RELATING TO A REQUEST FOR PUBLIC HEARING ON AN AMENDMENT 1'0
TIlE FENCE ORDINANCE. THE APPLICANT IS DIRECTED TO WORK WITH
STAFF PENDING THE RESULTS OF THAT AMENDMENT.
MOTION SECONDED BY DRAGSTEN. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
6.
Grittman presented the staff report, stating that he applicants are seeking
Development Stage PUD approval and a Preliminary Plat for the second phase of the
Landmark Square project. This phase consists of 11 residential units that would
replace existing single family homes, and complete the parking lot construction that is
intended to lessen the congestion on the Phase I site.
Grittman indicated that the applicants have made a number of alterations to the
original concept plan, based on discussions with staff. These include the modification
of entrance driveway from Locust Street to increase width and improve circulation;
changes to the central parking area to add green space and increase drive aisle widths;
the relocation of the buildings to avoid encroachment of stairways onto public right of
way, the removal of non~conforming obstructions in the first phase parking lot; and
the redesign of Units 1 and 2 to increase building separation and accommodate
vehicular circulation and utility access.
Grittman noted that a lCw issues remain on the current submission. Grittman stated
3
Planning Commission Minutes-06/01/04
.
that the driveway extending to the east property line should show a curb termination.
A hydrant is also needed in this area. Placing the required hydrant in a curbed island
would protect it from traffic.
Grittman commented that building plans have been revised to improve the garage
exposure on Units 3 and 4. He recommended that steps should be taken to ensure that
no parking occurs in this driveway, since a vehicle would be parking on the public
right of way, and would hang into the street if parked in this location.
Finally, Grittman stated that for a Planned Unit Development, the City commonly
requires an enhanced landscaping scheme. The current landscape plan includes just
11 trees around the site (mostly on public right 0 f way), and shows other undesignated
green space. Enhanced plans must be developed and provided to the City for review
prior to the City Council consideration of the project. Grittman also recommended
that landscaping should be designed by a qualified landscape architect.
Grittman also noted that there are other utility and engineering issues that will need to
be addressed as a part of the City's consideration of this project.
Grittman stated that with those modifications and resolution of engineering and utility
issues, this request is consistent with the previous concept plans. Staff is
recommending approval.
.
Chair Frie called the public hearing to order.
Dragsten expressed concern regarding the garage for Units 3 and 4. Dragsten inquired
whether thc City normally requires stacking for a garage fronting a public street. Grittman
answered that normally the City doesn't accommodate this type of arrangement.
However, this specific design was approved as part of the concept stage approval
considering there was no other way to provide access that garage.
Brad Johnson, Masters 5'" Avenue, property developer, displayed project elevations for
the Commission. Johnson stated that they would comply with recommendations as noted
and made himself available for questions.
Doug Schneider, property owner to the east ofthe proposed project, addressed the
Commission. Schneider commented that the City of Monticello's downtown
revitalization project focused on business growth in the area. Schneider stated his concern
that this residential growth may prohibit other business growth in that location.
Frie asked if the proposed plan is in compliance with CCO goals and requirements.
Grittman indicated it is; the downtown revitalization plan encourages a mixed-use concept
including both commercial and residential growth.
.
4
Planning Commission Minutes-06/0 1/04
.
Hearing no further comments, Chair Frie closed the public hearing.
Dragsten noted again his concern on allowing a garage on a public street without stacking.
Dragsten stated he would I ike to see a re-design of that area.
Carlson inquired whether at the time the north section was developed, if additional
parking was discussed. Carlson referred to the plan, which seems to reflect a line between
residential and commercial parking due to the island placement. Grittman indicated the
design is consistent with code. Johnson responded that the relocation of the large power
pole created the design, as landscaping around the pole was needed. Johnson stated that
they want to encourage parking.
Johnson also clarified the note on the plan indicating that the applicants are "attempting to
acquire easements", stating that there is a small area that they need to discuss with an
adjacent property owner. They are waiting for development in that area to address that
issue. Johnson indicated it doesn't affect this project.
posusta expressed concern about the possible encroachment of vehicles onto the public
right of way. Grittman indicated that staff knew it could be a potential issue, however the
plan represented is the perhaps the best arrangement of units and garages on the property.
.
Frie inquired whether the Monticello Community Partnership is still active and whether
they have looked at the plan for compliance. O'Neill indicated that first-floor residential
is allowable in the CCD by a conditional use permit. The concept was reviewed some
months ago by the Design Advisory Team. Design recommendations were made at that
time. O'Neill stated that planning statT and the Commission should keep Schneider's
comments in mind in determining an appropriate mix of uses in the downtown area.
Frie asked whether the units would be for sale or rental. Johnson said that 7 will be
owner-occupied townhomes with upper and lower living, two other units are duplexes
with the lower level owner occupied and the upper unit rental. Frie also asked Johnson
for approximate values. Johnson stated that as part of HRA agreement, the townhome
units will sale at $170,000+ and the duplexes will be sold at $330,000 for each building.
Frie noted that the parking lot completion will help alleviate parking congestion in the
area. Frie inquired if the barriers in the alley would be removed. Johnson stated the
barriers were put there by another property owner for reasons that were believed to be
related to a water main. Johnson indicated that they would encourage their removal.
Johnson stated that parking and stacking for the Unit 3 and 4 garage could be addressed in
the association documents, which could require no parking in the area of that garage.
.
Schneider asked what type of residential is allowed in the eCD. O'Neill answered that a
conditional use permit is required for first floor residential, as in this case.
5
.
.
.
Planning Commission Minutes-06/0 1 /04
Grittman noted that there are first phase remaining street improvements whieh still need
to be completed as part of conditions. He recommends their completion as an additional
condition as part of exhibit Z.
MOTION BY HILGART TO RECOMMEND APPROV AL OF THE PLAT AND PUD,
BASED ON A FINDING TlIA l' THE PROJECT MEETS THE CITY'S INTENT AS
EXPRESSED rN THE CONCEPT PLAN APPROVAL, WITH CONDITIONS AS
NOTED, WITH COMPLETION OF FIRST PHASE STREET IMPROVEMENTS AS
ADDITIONAL CONDITION 6.
I. The driveway extending to the east property line must terminate in a curb line at least five feet
from the property line.
2. A hydrant is to be located near the east garage building that has protection from traffic. This
should be accomplished by placing the hydrant in a curbed island.
3. Steps should be taken to ensure that no parking occurs in the driveway for Units 3 and
4. The applicants should provide a professionally prepared landscaping plan that enhances the
project and helps justify the use of PUD on this block.
5. Public works and engineering issues are addressed by the appropriate staff.
MOTION SECONDED BY CARLSON.
Dragsten added that the applicants should seek a possible redesign as notation to the
motion. Frie asked Johnson if working with staff on a redesign would be considered.
Johnson indicated that it would be.
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
7.
Grittman presented the staff report for the request. The applicants, Ocello LLC., in
cooperation with Wal-Mart, arc requesting conditional use permits and preliminary plat
review and approval for a 203,091 square foot commercial retail building to be located
southeast of the Cedar Street and School Boulevard intersection. The proposed Wal-Mart
application includes conditional use permit approval for the following; motor fuel
dispensing, tire and battery service, open and outdoor sales, convenience food service,
joint parking and drive aisles, and common signage. Grittman indicated that statl felt that
6
Planning Commission M inutes-06/0 1 /04
.
the conditional use permits fit the site without a PUD designation.
Orittman indicated that the proposed plat consists of two parcels on an approximately 32
acres site that is zoned B-4, Regional Business District. Commercial retail is an allowed
use within the B-4 district. Lot I of Block I is a 27.3 acre parcel of which will include
the proposed Wal-Mart building. The second parcel is a 5 acre outlot located to the east
of Lot I of Block I. Grittman noted that the proposed site is oriented to Cedar St. and
Highway 25, with three access points on School and three on Cedar.
Orittman stated that the preliminary plat includes a concept for Outlot A of what
appears to be an office use to the north and townhome units to the south of the outlot.
The purpose of the illustration is to demonstrate potential use of the remnant parcel.
Grittman explained that the concept is not part ofthe approval of the preliminary plat.
The proposed uses shown would be part of a separate application process.
Staff has met with Wal-Mart reps to work on resolving some of the staff conditions and
recommendations. Grittman summarized some of the resolutions from the conditions of
Exhibit Z for both the conditional use permits and the preliminary plat.
.
For the preliminary plat portion, the applicants will provide revised plans illustrating the
proposed sidewalks on Cedar S1. and School Blvd. Applicants have also agreed to
provide an escrow for future sidewalks and lighting projects based on future alignments.
Those projects will not be constructed until final alignments have been prepared. ^
discussion of timing for escrow is being worked out with statT.
Grittman recommended an alternative paving surface rather than asphalt for the front
entrance area. He stated that the applicant is not in favor of an alternative surface. The
applicant is agreeable to east side landscaping and elevation improvements in order to
improve School Boulevard site lines. Orittman noted that the Commission's packet
included alternate examples of architecture for Wal-Mart stores. Orittman stated that
there are a number of ways to improve the look of the building, included brick accents and
other minor additions. Applicants have stated they are amenable to design improvement
suggestions. The applicants have also agreed to provide a seasonal sales plan.
Grittman noted that landscape plans were very well done and detailed. A significant
amount oflandscaping was provided. The plans require Xcel Energy's review, which
applicant has agreed to.
Applicant is willing to comply with the other recommendations of staff relating to the
plat, including providing a photometric plan for the gas station canopy approved by staff,
and appropriate garbage screening.
.
Grittman stated that the Outlot A access point causes issucs related to traffic and safety.
Chuck Rickart, traffic engineer for WSB, will address that issue. The applicants have
7
Planning Commission Minutes-06/01l04
.
cxpressed willingness to work with staff to resolve access issues, whether through
medians or other alternativcs approved by stafT. Grittman notcd that grading and utility
plans arc subject to the approval of the City Engineer, who has provided comments.
Details on those issucs will also bc outlined and resolved in the construction plans.
Grittman reviewed the conditions for approval of the CUPs. Grittman recommended that
an in- and out-bound access lane should be provided at the drive-through pharmacy for
safety and traffic flow purposes. Applicants have indicated a willingness to work with
statIto accomplish this. The recommendations on canopy design requirements and canopy
signage are also agreeable to the applicants.
There is some concern about noise and lighting should the City approve residential use
adjacent to the property. Grittman stated those items will have to be considered in future
approvals for development on Outlot A. Grittman relayed that the applicants believe that
buffer landscaping (which exceeds the requirements for high density
commercial/residential) will mitigate this. Thc applicants would like the Commission to
accept the buffer as submitted.
Staff has recommended that the Cedar Street center aisle island extend deeper into parking
area, due to concern about backing traffic. Grittman's primary concern is entering traffic
as this access will be a heavily used entrance. Grittman stated that the current design
could create trank back-ups onto Cedar.
.
Finally, staff recommended tree plantings bctween the building and parking areas.
Grittman explaincd that the applicants are suggesting planters, which staff feels are an
acceptable enhancement. Those improvements should be shown on the plan.
It is stafT s recommendation to approve the request for preliminary plat and conditional
use permits, with conditions as noted and with deference to the plan approval by the City
Engineer on access, utility and storm water considerations.
Chair frie called the public hearing to order.
Darcy Winter, D.E.Winter Associates, commercial real estate broker and Well-Mart
representative, addressed thc Commission. Winter introduced Aaron Thompson and Jered
Morris of Olssen & Associates, civil engineers for the Wal-Mart project, and Michael
Semrick of Boice Radl Rhea Architects, project architect.
Winter stated that she would agree with Grittman's comments as stated. Winter affirmed
that thcy will continue to work with staff between now and Council to resolve the issues
as outlined.
.
Winter indicatcd that the north face (elevation facing School Blvd.) and entry areas will
be improved. Winter noted that the garden center's location on this side will help
improve the look of the building. Winter explained that the elevation proposed had been
8
Planning Commission Minutes-06/0 I /04
.
developed specifically for Monticello. They are open to discussion on other
improvements recommended by staff.
Winter recognized that the outstanding issue is the access points to the Wal-Mart, Outlot
A and Autumn Ridge areas. The applicants will work with statIto come to an acceptable
conclusion on this issue. However, Winter indicated they are seeking approval in order to
move the project forward.
Chuck Rickart, WSB Engineering, responded to the access concerns. Rickart stated that
the primary issue is that there a total of four access points into School Boulevard are
shown on the plan. Three of these points are less than 250' apart. Increasing traffic and
turning movements from future accesses from the north side become a huge safety issue
due to the 15,000 vehicles per day projected to travel School Boulevard. Rickart's
recommendation is to eliminate the Outlot A access completely, and space the other
access points fairly evenly apart.
Frie inquired about Exhibit Z, which requests that the number of access points on both
Cedar and School be reduced from three to two. Rickart stated that reference was related
only to the three access points from the Wal-Mart site.
.
Winter explained to the Commission that the east access point to School Boulevard from
the Wal-Mart site is to be used solely for truck access. Wal-Mart prefers that a separate
entrance is providcd for truck traffic, keeping public traftic separate. Winter indicated
that the traffic conflicts would be less due to limited truck access. Winter stated that the
other potential use for the access is the Tire and Lube Express. However, in Winter's
experience, the north entrance will be the most used for those customers. Wal-Mart
representatives and staff have discussed median as a control measure.
Frie asked if truck traftic comes during off-peak hours. Winter stated that it does. Frie
also inquired what the project timeframe is. Winter indicated they arc moving toward
opening 9-12 months from governmental approval. She noted that they are completing
EA W work. Wal-Mart would like to be in ground late summer, early fall.
Hearing no further comments, Chair Frie closed the public hearing.
Hilgart asked Grittman what the recommended alternative paving surface would be.
Grittman stated there are a number of options including concrete. He stated that it is
staffs position that these arc more evident and attractive. Also, cars tend to slow for
those types of surfaces. Winter replied that Wal-Mart is very safety conscious and would
have a concern about concrete. They feel the bituminous that they use is suitable and
there is a potential liability with any other surface.
.
Dragsten inquired who controls the Outlot A. Grittman stated that Shawn Weinand,
Ocello, Inc., still owns the property. Dragsten inquired whether Autumn Ridge, as
9
Planning Commission Minutes-06/0l/04
.
indicated on the plans, is already constructed.
Shawn Weinand, Ocello, Inc., answered that the entrance stubbed in from Autumn Ridge
to the residential area shown on the plat is currently there. Weinand indicated that it
doesn't work for Outlot A to share an entrance point with Wal-Mart. Weinand clarified
that Autumn Ridge as shown has been constructed. Weinand stated that Wal-Mart did not
want to purchase Outlot A. Dragsten noted that the elimination ofthe Outlot A access
could impact the usabi lity of that parcel.
Frie indicated that due to the need for resolution of the access items and the need for
revision in other plan areas, revised plans should be submitted. frie asked staff if those
issues could be resolved and plans submitted prior to Council. Grittman stated that it is
common that not all recommended alterations are portrayed, in trying to accommodate
developer's schedule. However, Grittman noted that any items on which staff and
applicant disagree will be resolved before going to Council. Frie inquired whether that
also applied to grading, drainage and utility issues. Grittman stated that the City Engineer
has reviewed the plans and has made comments as part of an on-going process.
Frie asked Winter about the proposed hours of operation. Winter indicated that they
would seek to be open 24 hours and she didn't see anything in code to prohibit this. Patch
indicated that was correct.
frie inquired how the escrow for the sidewalk would be determined. Grittman replied that
the engineers had done an initial estimate. The final estimated costs still need to be
determined. Winter stated that they have requested that the condition requiring escrow be
revised to require the security at the time of building permit rather than at final plat. Frie
wondered if staff was comfortable having a set amount for escrow on record. Grittman
stated that number couldn't be provided without input from the City Administrator and
Engineer.
Carlson questioned whether the turn-around for truck traffic shown helps prevent vendors
from using an alternate route through the site. Winter stated that it does; store managers
are firm on that point. Additionally, there is directional signage at all truck access points.
Spartz inquired whether measures had been taken for leakage purposes in regard to having
a storm water pond located near the gas station. Jared Morris, project engineer, stated
that no specific environmental design had been put in place specifically for leakage. As
significant leakage is unlikely. Winter added that Murphy Oil, who will be operating that
station, will have to answer that question during review of drainage plans.
.
.
Spartz requested feedback from the applicant on staff's recommendation to extend
parking delineators at the Cedar Street center entrance. Winter proposed extending only
the in-bound island ten spaces, as that was the area of concern. Grittman stated that is
satisfactory. Frie clarified the resulting loss would be 10 spaces rather than 22 spaces.
10
Planning Commission Minutes-06/01/04
---
Spartz also expressed concern about the future proposal for Outlot A. Spartz stated that
the proposed residential use may conflict with a 24 hour operation and that off-peak truck
shipments could be a coni1ict. Patch indicated that the 50 foot landscaped buffer
standards would help ease the conflict. Patch stated that the trailer walls are also screened
with masonry walls for a visual and noise barrier.
posusta questioned why Wal-Mart would be responsible for the extension of Cedar Street.
Grittman clarified that Wal-Mart is responsible for the extension only to the south portion
of their property. The alignment for the street has not been finalized yet.
posusta inquired what other measures could be taken to improve aesthetics on the School
Boulevard elevation. Winter stated that they could change entry features, adding more
detail similar to front entrances. They are also open to adding paint detail. Michael
Semrick, project architect, replied that there would also be a significant amount of
landscaping present on that side. posusta indicated that he would like the store elevation
to be more similar to Inver Grove Heights example provided. Winter stated they are
willing to work with City on elevation.
posusta also noted the concern about noise issues for the existing Autumn Ridge
development. Winter responded that the development is 360 feet from the Wal~Mart
property. Additionally, the property is and was zoned for commercial nse. Winter stated
that a minimal number of trucks, estimated at only 10-12 per day, combined with
landscaping and wall screening does mitigate the noise. Weinand also noted the existing
berm along the Autumn Ridge development.
frie inquired if the Inver Grove store was a SuperCenter. Winter indicated it was not.
Frie asked about truck traffic concern in that example. Winter stated they had not heard
any negative comments.
posusta stated that he believed that right and left turn lanes with islands were needed on
School Boulevard. O'Neill indicated that a median is an option being considered by staff
and the applicant, in conjunction with limiting truck traffic to one entrance. posusta
indicated that it is important that access points and trafflc issues be addressed.
posusta questioned whether once the population of the City reaches 1 0,000, Wal-Mart
would be able to sell liquor. Winter stated that they believe that option is governed by
state law. O'Neill stated that he believes there is also some measure ofloeal control, due
to the City being given the authority under legislation to issue permits for off-sale liquor.
.
.
MOTION BY HlLGART TO RECOMMEND APPROV AL OF THE
PREUMINARY PLAT FOR MONTICELLO BUSINESS CENTER 3KD ADDITION,
BASED ON A FINDING THAT THE LAND USE PATTERN IS CONSISTENT
WITH THE CITY'S COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS AS
NOTED BY STAFF; RECOMMENDING REMOVAL Of LETTER 0:
1\
.
d.
e.
f.
u
o'
h.
I.
.
j.
k.
I.
Planning Commission Minutes-06/01/04
a. The applicant is to submit revised plans showing the sidewalk along Cedar Street to
be five feet in width and both of the sidewalk along Cedar Street and the sidewalk
along School 80ulevard 1 foot off of the property line.
b. The sidewalk along School Boulevard is to be extended to the east, the length of the
plat.
c. An escrow for future street, sidewalk, lighting, and utility extension along Cedar
Street the length of the plat is to be submitted to the City prior to building permit
approval.
An alternative paving surface shall be used in front of the Wal-Mart main entrance in
the areas shown in the May 18th set of plans as painted crosswalk.
Color, detail or additional landscape screening is to be added to the rear and School
Boulevard fayade .
Xcel Energy must review all landscaping within the overhead powerline casement.
The landscape plan must be revised as necessary.
The photometric plan is to be revised to show any lighting within the canopy area.
Lighting within the canopy area shall consist of canister spotlights with no portion of
the light source or future extending below the bottom face of the canopy.
The site plan is to be revised to identify a trash enclosure constructed of similar
building material as the principal structure, screened from view of neighboring
properties, with adequate access for garbage trucks. An interior or attached trash
room is the preferred design.
The site plan is to be revised to reduce the number of access points onto School
Boulevard and Cedar Street from the site from three to two.
The submitted grading plan is subject to review and approval of the City Engineer.
Utility plans are subject to review and approval of the City Engineer.
m. Additional comments from City Staff.
MOTION SECONDED BY DRAGSTEN, WHO AMENDED THE MOTION TO
INDICATE THAT LETTER J IS TO BE REVISED TO INCLUDE THE ADDITION
Of DELINEATED TURN LANES IF THREE ACCESS POIN'rS TO SCHOOL
BOULEVARD ARE TO BE ALLOWED.
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
O'Neill clarified that Cedar Street would retain three access points from the site.
MOTION BY DRAGTSEN 'fa RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE REQUEST
FOR CUP ALLOWING DRIVE THROUGH RETAIL SALES; MOTOR FUEL
.
12
Planning Commission Minutes-06/0 1 /04
DISPENSING; MINOR AUTO SERVICE; OPEN/OUTDOOR SALES;
CONVENIENCE FOOD; JOINT PARKING AND DRIVE AISLES; COMMON
SIGN PLAN, BASED ON THE FINDING THAT IT IS CONSISTENT WITH THE
CRITERIA FOR CUPAPPROV AL AS DESCRIBED IN THE ORDINANCE,
SUBJECT TO THE CONDITIONS IN EXHIBIT Z AS OUTLINED BY STAFF:
.
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f
"
o'
. h.
I.
The entrance to the drive-through pharmacy is to be revised to show both an in- and
out-bound lane.
The applicant must submit detailed plans of the canopy.
The architectural design and color of the canopy must be similar to that of the
principal building.
The face of the canopy must not be illuminated and shall not include extensive color
banding that contrasts with the building color.
Lighting from the canopy area must not exceed 1 foot candle as measured from the
centerline of an adjacent street.
No outdoor storage is allowed for this use.
Adequate provisions must be made to control noise generated by uses on the east side
of the building.
The applicant must identify any additional locations planned to be utilized for
outdoor sales.
The southern island partition located off of the main entrance off of Cedar Street is to
be extended to the east allowing for adequate stacking area and visual appeal to the
entrance, eliminating a total of 10 parking stalls.
J. The applicant must submit plans for any signage to be located on the canopy over the
motor fuel expensing area.
k. Compliance with recommendations of the City Engineer, City statT and Council
member Posusta, noting the items relating to enhancement of architectural design.
MOTION SECONDED BY HILGART. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
8. Puhlic Hearin l- Consideration of are uest for a conditional use ermit for a conce t
sta~e commercial planned nnit development and a ,request to re:zone from 1- ~ and 1-2
(1.I-,ht and Heavy Industnal) to BA (RegIOnal Busll1ess). Applicant: Ryan Compames,
U.S., Inc.
Grittman reviewed the statl report, stating that Ryan Companies is seeking a concept
PU D approval to accommodate a shopping center development west of County
Highway 18 along the easterly extension of ih Street.
.
13
Planning Commission Minutes-06101I04
.
Grittman noted that several transportation improvemcnts are neccssary in the area to
allow this project to proceed, including the construction of a new interchange at
CSA H 18 and Interstate 94, the extension of ih Street to intcrsect with CSAH 18, and
connection ofthc ih Street cxtension across the railroad to interscct with County
Ilighway 75 (Broadway). Grittman stated that the City is working with MnDOT and
the County on the interchange project, and the railroad crossing concept is in progress
as well. The devcloper would be responsible for extending ih Street through the
project area.
Grittman revicwed the concept plan components, indicating that the project itself
consists of three largc retailers and as many as 7 additional freestanding retail and/or
restaurant buildings. Grittman relayed that the potential uses for these properties
ineludc restaurant, retail, and banking.
Grittman stated that the concept plan provides a basic layout for the development,
identifies access driveway locations, and suggests parking lot size and circulation.
From a general layout standpoint, the site would appcar to function reasonably well.
.
Grittman explained that more significant detail will come at development stagc.
However, Grittman outlined commcnts in considcration tcx the Developmcnt Stagc
PUD. These comments included a notation that the parking lots contain more than
2,100 parking spaces, 1,800 of which are contained in the three principal lots serving
the large stores. Grittman commented that Planning staff would suggest more
landscaping within the parking fields, as well as a consistent line of tree planting
along the fronts of the buildings. Additionally, staff would encourage landscaping
along the north, "back", walls of the primary buildings will help to enhance the view
of the project from Broadway, due to the high visibility of this wall and high levels of
trafIic on this route.
Grittman also recommended that the developer carefully consider pedestrian access
through the site, noting that pathway along ih Strcct, as well as along County 18,
should be examined.
Grittman also stated that the comments of City Engineering and Public Works staff
would be important as the development moves forward. The engineers will look at
this project very carefully in terms of future interchange plans.
Staff recommends approval with comments as noted and the understanding that further
comments will be fiJrthcoming from stafT and the Planning Commission. Grittman
reported to the Commission that the applicants have communicated well with stail on this
and the 1-94 interchange project.
Chair Frie called the public hearing to order.
.
14
Planning Commission Minutes-06/0 1 /04
.
Ken Streeter, Winnetka Circle, Brooklyn Center, addressed the Commission on behalf of
the Dahlheimer and Bondhus properties. Streeter noted the presence of both John
Bondhus and Joe Dahlheimer and representatives from Ryan Companies, the developer.
Streeter expressed that his only concern was that there was no formal report from Public
Works and the City Engineer. O'Neill explained that due to the close working
relationship on the interchange project, the City Engineer and Public Works Director had
indicated that they conceived the concept plan to be feasible.
Sandy Hagerty spoke to the Commission on behalf of the St. Ben's Senior Center.
Hagerty requested that if the concept plan is approved, the Planning Commission be
cognizant in future considerations of St. Ben's status as a senior center. Hagerty
specifically requested that the developer consider a tree line between the properties.
Streeter responded, stating that they would be sensitive to that. Streeter noted that the
concept plan shows an orientation that has the least amount of impact on neighboring
properties. Streeter also commented that in response to the Church's request, they had
modified the drive aisle as requested. They would like to stay in contact with neighboring
property owners throughout the process to address any possible issues.
Frie asked if the developer was aware of that responsibility for ih Street construction
costs. Streeter indicated that the ih Street alignment and finance details are understood.
.
Dragsten inquired about the timeframe for the interchange and ramps. Streeter deferred to
City staff, stating that it was his understanding that construction scheduled to commence
2005 and complete as late as early 2006. Streeter explained that they would time their
construction with interchange. Dragsten asked who would be responsible f(x the cost of
the interchange construction. O'Neill indicated that the goal is to present a finance plan
for the project at the June 281h Council meeting. He stated that the primary developers
around the project have agreed to pay their share. Dragsten asked if there would be any
federal funding. O'Neill indicated that the funding would be state and local.
Frie inquired about the shape of the interchange and the curve and grade changes that had
been originally proposed. Posusta indicated that straightening the curve had been
eliminated from the plan. Posusta remarked that the "folded diamond" shape proposed for
the interchange results in more developable land and less required funding.
Hilgart asked if the developer could comment on those businesses proposed for the site.
Streeter indicated that he is unable to comment on that matter at the present time.
Frie expressed appreciation for the detailed development plans, noting that the issues
outlined by staff would need to be addressed at the next stage. Streeter agreed and stated
they would work with stafT on the rear fac;ade with the understanding that the steep terrain
may prohibit some landscaping.
.
15
Planning Commission Minutes-06/0 1/04
.
Posusta inquired whether the City had gained access across the railroad tracks. O'Neill
stated that an agreement is being prepared predicated on the closure of another access. A
verbal agreement had been reached and the actual contract is being drafted.
IIearing no further comments, Chair Frie closed the public hearing.
MOTTON BY SPARTZ TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE CONCEPT
S'fAGE PUD FOR RYAN COMPANIES, BASED ON A FINDING THAT WITH
THE REQUIRED INFRASTRUCTURE IMPROVEMENTS, THE USE WOULD BE
CONSISTENT WITH THE LAND USE RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THIS SITE.
TIllS ACTION SHOULD BE LIMITED TO GENERAL SITE PLANNING
COMMENTS, AND SUBJECT TO MORE DETAILED ANALYSIS UPON
PRESENT ATTON OF DEVELOPMENT STAGE PUD PLANS.
MOTION SECONDED BY CARLSON. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
O'Neill also clarified that a motion for re-zone on this item would also need to be made.
O'Neill stated that the motion to re-zone the parcel from 1-1 and 1-2 (Light and Heavy
Industrial) to B-4 (Regional Business) is consistent with the comprehensive plan.
O'Neill wanted to go on record to support re-zoning as it pertains to this particular
matter.
.
MOTION BY DRAGSTEN TO RECOMMEND REZONING THE PARCEL FROM
FROM 1-1 AND 1-2 (LIGHT AND HEAVY INDUSTRIAL) TO B~4 (REGIONAL
BUSINESS).
MOTTON SECONDED BY SPARTZ. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
9. Puhlic Hearing - Consideration of a request for a conditional use permit for a concept
stage planned unit development in a B-3 district to allow for the interim use of an existing
facility for open and outdoor sales. Applicant: Jacob Holdings of Monticello/Denny
Hecker
Grittman reviewed the staffreport, indicating that the applicant is seeking a PUD
approval that would permit the interim use of the former D&D Bus property for the
establishment or a Kia automobile dealership.
Grittman explained that the area is zoned B-3, Highway Business. Automobile
Dealerships are allowed uses in the district, but have a specific set of criteria for lot
coverage, building size and ratio, site improvements (such as paving, curb & gutter,
landscaping, etc.).
.
Grittman stated that the applicant is proposing to develop the site with the existing
16
Planning Commission Minutes-06/O 1 /04
.
pole buildings and an expansion of the paved area, but without any other substantial
site improvements at this time. The developer requests use of the facilities on a
temporary basis pending development of a modern dealership facility within three to
five years. Grittman noted that the developer has indicated that price of the land to
some extent dictates the need to develop the site in a manner consistent with the
Dodge Dealership.
Grittman stated that the purpose of the pun allowances in the zoning ordinance are to
accommodate flexibility in the application of zoning standards when the flexibility
leads to a higher level of site design and development quality. Grittman indicated that
it is not clear how that requirement would be met by this request. The City developed
the current language applying to automobile dealerships in response to concerns that
large areas of unimproved (or poorly improved) property could be put to car storage
with few building standards, minimal tax base, and negligible employment.
However, Grittman did note that since modification of the code language, other area
dealerships have been built to the new standard.
.
Grittman expressed that if the City believes that this project should be accommodated,
there are topics to be addressed relating to the interim use on the proposed site plan.
These include the term of interim use, proposed site plan and consideration of the
north side of the property for future redevelopment of site.
Grittman noted that in this case, the PUD approval would be contingent on a finding
that future redevelopment will be consistent with PUD goals. Grittman stated that
sta1T recommend approval with the conditions as outlined, or tabling the request until
a with long-term redevelopment plan is submitted
Chair Frie called the public hearing to order.
Bill Rambo, representative of Denny Hecker Automotive Group, addressed the
Commission. Rambo stated that Denny lleeker fully intends to build a store at this
location in the future. However, Rambo stated that there are currently no franchises
available; they expect there will be within 3-5 years. For now, Rambo stated that they are
seeking this approval in order to utilize the space. Rambo clarified that there will be no
automobile service on the site.
Frie inquired about the original intent to operate a KIA dealership on the site. Rambo
stated that although that is what was originally intended, the site will most likely serve as
an extension of the current Dodge dealership.
.
Frie stated that he is uncomfortable with approving the interim use, especially as related to
the current building facilities. If an approval is given, Frie indicated he would recommend
an interim use for a period of 1-3 years.
17
Planning Commission Minutes-06/01/04
.
Hearing no further comments, Chair frie closed the public hearing.
Hilgart indicated that he would also like further definition on the terms of an interim use
permi 1.
Dragsten commented that requiring a security for non~c(mforming use may encourage
development.
Patch stated that the Commission could consider an interim use permit on a 30 month
term, with one renewal option to be granted at the discretion of the City. A condition of
this permit term would require security. Rambo indicated he is agreeable to that proposal.
Carlson asked Grittman if it would be allowable for any other auto sales firm to open a
used car lot in the proposed location. O'Neill clarified that only the existing use would
have been allowed. Grittman stated that the request is a non-conforming use for this zone.
Carlson asked if the buildings can be made to conform. Neither staff nor Rambo consider
this a possibility.
Spartz also expressed concern regarding the non-conforming use and the time frame for
an interim use approval.
.
Frie asked if the property had been purchased based on the decision of the Commission.
Rambo stated that it had not.
Posusta stated that utilizing the current structures for automobile sales isn't conducive in
today's sales market. Therefore, the applicants will most likely make improvements in a
relatively short matter of time. Posusta also noted that Denny Hecker would be
constructing a new building in an area where it is needed.
Patch and Frie briefly discussed a 30 month term versus a 3 year term. Frie also asked
if a performance bond or security amount needs to be set. Patch stated that under the
conditions as listed, the amount could be determined by staff.
MOTION BY CARLSON TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE CONCEPT
STAGE PUD ALLOWING THE INTERIM USE FOR A PERIOD OF 30 MONTHS,
WITH AN OPTION OF AN ADDITIONAL 30 MONTH EXTENSION, SUBJECT
TO RESOLUTION OF AND ADHERENCE TO TilE CONDITIONS AS LISTED.
PLANS ARE SUBJECT TO REVIEW AND APPROVAL BY '1'1 IE Crry
PLANNER.
Dragsten amended the motion to remove Condition I, which requires the submission of a
future development plan.
.
18
.
.
.
Planning Commission Minutes-06/O 1 /04
a.
Timeframe for the interim use.
b. Amount and type of security to be posted to ensure removal of non-conformities at the
termination of the interim use and to assure completion of interinl improvements such as
landscaping and paving.
c. Drainage concerns as currently drawll - the site is proposed to drain the new paving area onto
open spacc north of the buildings.
d. Provide definition of the use of unpaved areas.
e. Site lighting.
f. Organization of customer and employee parking, and acceptable areas for vehicle display.
g. Utility service issues to be identified by Public Works and Engineering staff.
h. Potential signage size and location, and enforcement provisions for illegal temporary signage.
AMENDED MOTION SECONDED BY DRAGSTEN. MOTION CARRIED
UNANIMOUSLY.
10.
Consideration to call for a public hearing on an amendment to the Monticello
Zoning Ordinance regarding minimum lenee setbacks and maximum fence heights on
parcels with multiple street frontages.
Patch provided the staff report, indicating that as exampled this evening, there are
problems with fencing on lots with double frontages. Patch explained that the 15' setback
requirement consumes a lot of land as it relates to the construction of a privacy fence.
Patch believes that it may be unnecessary to require a setback on both streets. Patch
indicated that the setback could possibly be reduced to 6', with a requirement that
additional landscaping be provided on the side facing the public strect. In any case, Patch
stated that the fence may obstruct view. Patch noted that a provision for this situation
could be written in to the code, allowing a case by case consideration.
Frie commented that adjusting the ordinance could help eliminate similar cases as the
Quinn request from being brought before the Commission.
Dragsten stated that fence height should also be considered as it relates to safety concerns.
Posusta asked how far sidewalks would be set inside from the curb. Patch responded that
in most cases it is 10' from the back of curb to the inside of sidewalk.
Patch cited School Boulevard as an example of a location where the fences exceed the
ordinance for setback and height.
19
.
.
.
Planning Commission Minutes-06/0 1 /04
Posusta inquired whether the City could require maintenanee-free fencing for those that
front streets. Patch stated that all fenees are subject to a eertain amount of degradation.
However, the homeowner is responsible for area all the way to the back of curb. Patch
stated that imposing material requirements on homeowners is most likely not an option.
Dragsten stated that controlling landseaping height due to visibility issues is critical.
I liJgart agreed, noting that landscaping can also cause a visibility problem.
MOTION BY DRAGSTEN TO CALL FOR A PUBLIC l-IEARING FOR AN
ORDINANCE CHANGE AMENDING CHAPTER 3, SECTION 2 ITEM [F] OF
THE MONTICELLO ZONING ORDINANCE, ESTABLISHING REGULATIONS
FOR THE INSTALLATION OF FENCES.
MOTION SECONDED BY HILGART. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
11.
Public Hearing - Consideration of a request for a conditional use permit for a multi-tenant
building directory sign as allowed by the Monticello Zoning Ordinance. Applicant: John
Komarek
Patch reviewed the staff report related to the request, noting that the application had been
accepted although it had come in a bit late. Patch noted that any approval is subject to
review and approval by DAT.
Patch stated that the applicant proposes to construct a monument sign utilizing the
existing pole structure from the former pylon sign. The new monument sign would be
approximately 12 feet in height and 9 feet 8 inches in width. The total area of sign
placards on the monument sign would be approximately 23 square feet. A concrete
landscape block planter consistent with the planters constructed on Walnut Street will
surround the base of the sign.
Patch reported that the overall area of signs on the monument sign is within the
allowable area for pylon signs but in the monument sign format is slightly larger than
would otherwise be allowed. Patch related that as a concession to allow the slightly
larger monument sign and take advantage of the existing sign structure, the applicant
has indicated that no other signs including wall signs will be erected on the property.
The existing sign poles provide an outline of the size of the proposed monument sign.
Patch stated that as such, the scale of the proposed sign appears to be reasonable and
that sign materials are aesthetically consistent with the newly remodeled building.
Chair Frie called the public hearing to order.
20
.
.
.
Planning Commission Minutes-06/0l/04
Hearing no further comments, Chair Frie closed the public hearing.
Dragsten questioned why staff recommended not allowing the tenant additional signagc.
Patch stated that restriction had come directly from the ordinance.
Carlson asked what would happen to the sign in the scenario that one tenant took two
spaces in the building. Patch stated that matter would have to be addressed separately; it
currently is not the situation for this request.
O'Neill inquired about lighting request for the sign. Patch stated that the applicant hasn't
specified any special lighting needs, so Patch is assuming that external lighting will be
used. It may be the case that the sign is not lighted at all. Frie asked Patch to follow up
on the lighting matter, especially for DAT.
MOTION BY HILGART TO RECOMMEND TO THE CITY COUNCIL THAT
THE ISSUANCE OF THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT BE APPROVED FOR
THE ERECTION OF A MONUMENT STYLE BUILDING DIRECTORY SIGN 118
WEST 6TII STREET SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:
I. The owner of the building shall apply for a sign permit and pay all associated fees.
2.
No tenant shall be allowed more than one sign on each side of the proposed
monument sign.
3. No individual business sign board/placard shall exceed twenty-five percent (25%) of
the total allowable sign area on the monument sign.
4. In the event that one tenant of the building does not utilize the full allotment of
allowable area, the excess may not be granted, traded, sold, or in any other way
transferred to another tenant for the purpose of allowing a sign larger than twenty-
five percent (25%) of the total allowable area for signs.
5. Any sign that is shared by or is a combination of two or more tenants shall be
considered as separate signs for square footage allowance and shall meet the
requirements thereof
6. All signs shall be consistent in design, material, shape, and method of illumination.
7. Subject to the recommendations and approval of DA T.
MOTION SECONDED BY SPARTZ. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
12.
Continued Public Hearing - Consideration of a request for a conditional use permit for a
concept stage planned unit development in a B-3 district. Applicant: IlolidayStation
Stores/Wendy's
No action required as the item has been withdrawn.
21
.
.
.
Planning Commission Minutes-06/01l04
13.
Continued Public Hearing - Consideration of a request to amend the R-I A zoning district
design standards. Applicant: City of Monticello Planning Commission
Grittman provided the staff report, stating that in working on the Hillside Farm
project, the City had negotiated a requirement for R-I A homes that would require a
minimum above-grade finished square footage of 2,200 square feet. The current
regulations require at least 1,400 square feet of foundation size, and 2,000 square feet
of finished floor area, some of which may be a walk-out or look-out basement space.
Grittman indicated that if the Planning Commission is interested in carrying the
above-grade standard over to other R-IA lots, staf1has prepared a draft: amendment
that would accomplish this objective.
However, Grittman stated that for the most part, planning staff believes that this issue
would not become a concern. Grittman noted the unique character of the Hillside
farm plat, which was permitted to proceed with R-l sized lots and R-I A sized homes.
In this case, the required home size outgrew the lot dimensions, and the developers
suggested that higher valued homes could be built on the smaller lots if they were
permitted to reduce the foundation size, but increase the above-grade square footage.
Grittman stated that the amendment would add some protection from concern that
there may be split entry homes constructed on R-IA lots. However, Grittman noted
that the 2,200 square foot above-grade standard really only works if the City permits a
reduction in the f()Undation size for two-story homes. The change could result in a
dominance of two-story homes on smaller foundations, a change that the City should
be comfortable with before making the change in the language.
Overall, Grittman indicated that staff is reluctant to recommend an amendment without
allowing a "true" R-IA development to progress under the current standards.
Chair Frie called the public hearing to order.
Hearing no further comments, Chair Frie closed the public hearing.
Frie also agreed with Grittman's analysis on having not yet dealt with true R-IA
developments. Frie noted that in fact, when the regulations were adopted, no one argued
them or objected. frie stated that an amendment may be premature.
Ililgart disagreed on the basis that he believes there are loopholes in the code that would
allow split level homes that are 1400 square feet upstairs and 600 square feet downstairs.
Hilgart commented that perhaps splits should not even be allowed in an R-IA
development. Grittman replied that the market will guide R-IA areas in terms of the type
and value of homes built within the zone due to the cost of development and
corresponding lot costs. Grittman noted the likelihood that a $150,000 home would be
22
.
.
...-..
~
Planning Commission Minutes-06/0 l/04
bui It on a $100,000 lot is slim. Frie asked Hilgart how he would change the code. l-lilgart
stated that perhaps each type of home needs a finished square footage requirement.
Dragsten agreed that he would like to see how the code truly works before amending it.
Carlson also stated his belief that the code should remain as written for now. Carlson
asked if there is a demand from developer to get more lots. For example, Carlson cited
newer neighborhoods where the houses of high value are on smaller lots. Grittman stated
that the market is somewhat limited for those types of developments, which is why the
code outlines the large lot R- I A designation.
Spartz stated that he sees both sides of the issue, but he would like to see in reality what
the ordinance wi II do, and where the loopholes actually appear.
Frie asked if this item can come back for re-examination by the Commission. Grittman
stated that it could; Carlisle Village will be the first test of a true R- I A development. Frie
inquired whether there were any other R-I A developments in progress. O'Neill replied
that Spirit Hills and the Paumen East property were R- I A developments.
No further action taken.
14.
Update on Sunset Ponds Building Standards
Frie stated that agents had come to him with photographs oftwo~ear garage homes in
Sunset Ponds. Frie requested clarification on zoning for the development and whether 3-
car garages were required. O'Neill stated he didn't believe 3-car garages were required,
although it was approved as a PUD, which may have set up some separate building
requirements, especially in the R-2A district. Grittman responded that the development
contains R-l and R-2A single-family designations, which allow for 2-car garages.
15. Adjourn.
MOTION TO ADJOURN AT BY DRAGSTEN.
MOTION SECONDED BY HILGART. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Respectfully Submitted,
-.,~'-,._"---""~--._.,'--"-
Angela Schumann, Recorder
23
.
.
.
Planning Commission Agenda - 07/06/04
5.
Public Aearin!! -- Consideration of an ordinance amendin!! Chapter 3. Section 2
Item rFl of the Monticello Zonin!! Ordinance. establishin!! re!!ulations for the
installation of fences. (FP)
REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND
For corner and double fronting lots, the current fence ordinance appears to
unreasonably limit usable yard area by imposing a 15 foot street side setback on all
sides abutting a property line for fences exceeding 36 inches in height. The 15 foot
sethack for tall front yard fences is intended to improve front yard aesthetics and
provide for public safety by prohibiting obstructions to sight lines adjacent to
driveways.
'fhe suggested changes to the fence ordinance will provide a reduced setback (6') for
tall fences on yards other than the front yard. This will add 9 feet to the useable yard
area inside a fence on a corner or double fronting lot, while providing a 6 foot
landscaped yard on the outside of the fence to buffer the fence from the public street.
Along the double fronting lots on School Boulcvard and elsewhere around town,
there are many existing fences constructed along the rear and side property lines
abutting public streets. Those fences have not been observed to be obtrusive or
blighting; however, they do not provide for a setback area that will allow landscaping
to soften the appearance toward the public street.
It is suggested that Commission Members observe School Boulevard fences bctween
Edmunson A venue and Fallon A venue. Over the past several years many
homeowners with double fronting lots have chosen to build tall fenccs toward School
Boulevard. '['he fences are varied and generally attractive. In addition, they appear to
be logical, and belonging in the landscape due to the large width of the boulevards.
The suggested ordinance change will provide a landscaped area toward the public
street to help reduce the wall effect created by connected tall fences along the street,
providing fc)r safer and more aesthetically pleasing fence installations.
ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS
Decision 1:
1. Motion to recommend to the City Council that this Ordinance amending
Chapter 3, Section 2, Item [1"] of the Monticello Zoning Ordinance, establishing
regulations for the installation of fences be approved.
Planning Commission Agenda - 07/06/04
.
2. Motion recommend to the City Council that this Ordinance amending Chapter 3,
Section 2 Item [F] of the Monticello Zoning Ordinance, establishing regulations
for the installation of fences be denied.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend Alternate I above.
SlJPPORTING DATA
A. Copy of proposed Ordinance with strike-out and underlining to show amendments.
B. Copy of Chapter 3, Section 2, [FI of the Monticello Zoning Ordinance as it wi II
appear if this Ordinance is adopted.
C. Photographs of various fence installations in the City.
.
.
2
[F] FENCING:
.
.
.
BA
1.
A building permit is required for the construction of a fence or wall that will be
more than six (6) feet in height above grade, or for construction of a retaining
wall that is more than four (4) feet in height from the bottom of the footing to the
top of the wall.
Fence and wall heights are to be measured from the adjoining average grade.
In the case of grade separation such as the division of properties by a retaining
wall, the height shall be determined on the basis of measurement from the
average point between the highest and lowest grade.
2. No fence or wall shall exceed 8 feet 6 inches in height except as approved for
commercial and industrial properties, and tennis courts which may have chain
link fences not exceeding 10 feet in height.
3. Fences and walls may be constructed anywhere on private property except as
provided below:
a. Front Yard Fences: In front yards, fences renccs and walls exceeding
36 inches in height must be set back at least 15 feet from the front
property line. 15 i-ect uf any pl0pGlty lillC tiollting on d pllblic stlCC:t.
b.
Corner Lots and Double Frontine: Lots: In yards other than the front
vard which abut a public street, fences and walls exceeding 36 inches in
height must be setback at least six (6) feet from property lines. Such
setback area is to be landscaped on the street side with trees, shrubs
and other permanent landscaping materials.
c. Clear View Triane:le: On corner lots or 011 doubk it olItagc lut~,
fences and walls must not encroach on the 25-foot clear view triangle
area at a public street intersection or witbin the corner visibility area of
any corner formed by property lines intersecting with a railway right-of-
way. (The clear view visibility triangle area referred to above shall be in
the f(mn of a triangle, with two sides formed by the property lines
forming the corner, or straight line extensions of the property lines
fcmning the corner, and the third side fiJrmed by a straight line
connecting the two twenty-five (25) foot points on both sides of the
corner as measured from the intersection of the property lines forming
the corner.)
In no case shall a fence be constructed in such a manner as to obstruct
traffic visibility.
4.
Fences and walls must not be constructed on the public right-of-way except fix
retaining walls as approved by the City Engineer. Fences and walls placed
upon utility easements arc subject to removal if required for the maintenance or
improvement of the utility.
5. A Certificate of Survey may be required by the Zoning Administrator to
determine the location of fences and walls on a property.
.
6.
lfthe material used in the fence or wall construction is not finished on both
sides, the finished side of the material must be on the outside, facing the abutting
or adjoining properties. All posts or structures supporting the fcnce or wall
must be on the inside of the fcnce or wall.
All fences and walls must be constructed of durable, weather-rcsistant materials
and properly anchored. Every fence or wall must be maintained in a condition
of reasonable repair and shall not be allowed to become and remain in a
condition of disrepair or danger or constitute a nuisance. Fences or walls in a
statc of disrepair may be removed by the City as provided by Minnesota
Statutes. 'fhe cost of removing fences may be levied against the property as a
special assessment.
7. Where any fcnce or wall connects to a building used as a dwelling, at least one
gate not less than 2 feet 6 inches in width shall be required to allow access
around the building.
8. All chain link fences must have a top rail, barbed cnds must be placed at the
bottom of the fence.
.
9.
Electrified wires, barbed wire, razor ribbon, and the like are prohibited on
fences.
10. All swimming pools, hot tubs, spas, and other water tanks excecding 24 inches
in depth must be completely fenced in.
a. Residential swimming pool fences shall be constructed as follows:
I. Residential swimming pool fences must be at least 48 inches
in height. The fence must not permit the passage of a 4-inch
sphere through openings in the fence. Fences must be
constructed of durable, corrosion- and decay- resistive
materials. Openings below the fence to grade must not
exceed 4 inches.
11. Where an above-ground pool structurc has walls that arc at
least 4 feet in height, the pool wall may serve to mcet the
fencing requirements; however, the access to the pool must
provide equivalent protection to prevent unauthorized entry.
.
[F]
FENCING:
.
.
.
SF?
I.
A building permit is required for the construction of a fence or wall that will be
more than six (6) feet in height above grade, or for construction of a retaining
wall that is more than four (4) feet in height from the bottom of the footing to the
top of the wall.
Fence and wall heights are to be measured from the adjoining average grade.
In the case of grade separation such as the division of properties by a retaining
wall, the height shall be determined on the basis of measurement from the
average point between the highest and lowest grade.
2. No fence or wall shall exceed 8 feet 6 inches in height except as approved for
commercial and industrial properties, and tennis courts which may have chain
link fences not exceeding I 0 feet in height.
3. Fences and walls may be constructed anywhere on private property except as
provided below:
a. Front Yard Fences: In front yards, fences and walls exceeding 36
inches in height must be set back at least 15 feet from the front property
line.
b.
Corner Lots and Double Fronting Lots: In yards other than the front
yard which abut a public street, fences and walls exceeding 36 inches in
height must be setback at least six (6) feet from property lines. Such
setback area is to be landscaped on the street side with trees, shrubs
and other permanent landscaping materials.
c. Clear View Triangle: On corner lots, fences and walls must not
encroach on the 25-foot clear view triangle area at a public street
intersection or within the corner visibility area of any corner formed by
property lines intersecting with a railway right-of-way. (The clear view
visibility triangle area referred to above shall be in the form of a triangle,
with two sides formed by the property lines forming the corner, or
straight line extensions of the property lines forming the corner, and the
third side formed by a straight line connecting the two twenty-five (25)
foot points on both sides of the corner as measured from the
intersection of the property lines forming the corner.)
In no ease shall a fence be constructed in such a manner as to obstruct
traffic visibility.
4.
Fences and walls must not be constructed on the public right-of-way except for
retaining walls as approved by the City Engineer. Fences and walls placed
upon utility casements are subject to removal if required for the maintenance or
improvement of the utility.
5. A Certificate of Survey may be required by the Zoning Administrator to
determine the location of fences and walls on a property.
.
6.
If the material used in the fence or wall construction is not finished on both
sides, the finished side of the material must be on the outside, facing the abutting
or adjoining properties. All posts or structures supporting the fence or wall
must be on the inside of the fence or wall.
All fences and walls must be constructed of durable, weather-resistant materials
and properly anchored. Every fence or wall must be maintained in a condition
of reasonable repair and shall not be allowed to become and remain in a
condition of disrepair or danger or constitute a nuisance. Fences or walls in a
state of disrepair may be removed by the City as provided by Minnesota
Statutes. The cost of removing fences may be levied against the property as a
special assessment.
7. Where any fence or wall connects to a building used as a dwelling, at least one
gate not less than 2 feet 6 inches in width shall be required to allow access
around the building.
8. All chain link fences must have a top rail, barbed ends must be placed at the
bottom of the fence.
.
9.
Electrified wires, barbed wire, razor ribbon, and the like are prohibited on
fences.
10. All swimming pools, hot tubs, spas, and other water tanks exceeding 24 inches
in depth must be completely fenced in.
a. Residential swimming pool fences shall be constructed as follows:
I. Residential swimming pool fences must be at least 48 inches
in height. The fence must not permit the passage of a 4-inch
sphere through openings in the fence. fences must be
constructed of durable, corrosion- and decay- resistive
materials. Openings below the fence to grade must not
exceed 4 inches.
11. Where an above-ground pool structure has walls that are at
least 4 feet in height, the pool wall may serve to meet the
fencing requirements; however, the access to the pool must
provide equivalent protection to prevent unauthorized entry.
.
.
.
.
E:c;
~
~
J.-
T
~
V\
<^
~
o
o
~
(
.
.
.
50
.
.
.
5C
.
.
.
Be-
.
.
.
Gc;
.
.
.
'St::
.
.
. ~'--..."
-
Planning Commission Agenda - 07/06/04
6.
Continued Public Hearine:: Consideration of a reQuest for a variance from the
fence sctback/heie:ht standard in a front yard. Applicant: Aaron Ouinn and
Tvlee Svlvers. (NAC)
This item was discussed by Planning Commission at the June meeting. It was
decided at that time to table a decision pending the result of discussion on a possible
fence setback amendment. The decision of the Planning Commission on this request
depends on the outcome of the preceding item. In fact, as a result of the decision of
the Commission on that matter, a variance may not be required.
The staff report from June's Planning Commission agenda is included below for
reference in relationship to the Quinn's request.
REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND
The applicants are seeking approval of a variance from the zoning regulations that
limit the height offences in the 30 building setback adjacent to the public street. The
parcel is located at the corner of Savannah and Park Place Drive in the Groveland
neighborhood. 'rhe property owners' house faces Park Place Drive, and they wish to
construct a fence along the side lot line adjacent to Savannah.
The zoning ordinance regulates fences as follows:
- Fences that are within the buildable area (meeting normal building setbacks) of a
lot can be up to 6 feet in height, or 8 feet, 6 inches with a building permit.
-Fences within the 15 feet of the right of way line of any street may be no more
than 36 inches in height.
The applicants wish to construct a 4 foot high fence within 5 feet of the property line,
and are seeking a variance to permit the additional one foot of height. When
reviewing a variance request, the Zoning Ordinance requires that applicants must
demonstrate a unique, physical hardship that interferes with putting the lot to
reasonable use. Variances are intended to alleviate unusual conditions, must be non-
economic in nature, and must not be used fiJr the mere convenience of the applicant.
In this case, the applicants have a fully conforming lot that can be put to its normal,
single family use. The applicants argue that the 15 foot setback unduly limits the use
of their back yard, however, the appl icants have alternatives within the current
ordinance that would resolve this issue. Within the 15 foot setback, it is permissible
to construct a 3 foot tall fence without any further regulation. Such a fence could be
placed along the right of way line, or at the 5 foot setback line they have proposed. If
screening is desired (although the proposed fence is shown as an open picket design),
landscaping could be used to effect a screen for the rear yard area. In planning staff's
Planning Commission Agenda - 07/06/04
.
view, no hardship is present that would warrant a departure from the ordinance
standard.
AL TERNA TIVE ACTIONS
Dccision 1: Variance from fence height/setback regulations.
1. Motion to approve the variance, based on a finding that a true hardship is
present that interferes with putting the property to reasonable use within the
required zoning regulations.
2. Motion to deny the variance, based on a finding that no hardship is present,
and that the applicants have options within the zoning regulations to make
reasonable use of their property.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
.
StatT recommends denial of the variance. As noted, no hardship is present to justify
the variance. While the applicants desire a different fence than that permitted by the
zoning ordinance, they can put their property to reasonable use within the current
regulations. Variances are intentionally difficult to get because the presumption is
that the regulations arc appropriate for the typical property, and that only unusual
circumstances should require departure from the standards. The parcel in question is
typical in every respect: newly platted, conforming in size and use, and one of
hundreds of corner lots in Monticello.
SUPPORTING DATA
A. Aerial Image
B. Site Plan
C. Applicant Narrative
.
2
.
.
.
Planning Commission Agenda - 7/06/04
7.
Public Hearin2:: Consideration of a request for a Comprehensive Plan
Amendment and Rezonine for Outlot C of Monticello Business Center, from
Industrial to B-4. Commercial Business. Applicant: Oeella. LLC. (NAC)
REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND
Ocello, LLC, is seeking approval of an amendment to the City's Comprehensive Plan
and a rezoning that would accommodate a proposed change in future land use from
industrial to commercial. Outlot C is an unplatted parcel north of School Boulevard
between Cedar Street and Fenning A venue NE. The parcel is currently guided for
Industrial land uses and zoned 1-1, Light Industrial. The applicant proposes a
commercial land use designation and a zoning of B-4, General Business.
The area is subject to significant levels of commercial development pressure at the
current time. To the west of Cedar Street adjacent to Highway 24, two new
commercial projects have recently been constructed and a second phases of both are
currently under way. Wal-Mart is processing approvals for a SupcrCenter south of
School Boulevard from the subject property, and Outlot A, adjacent to the west
boundary of this site, is zoned commercial and has been identified as a potential site
for other "big-box" retailers.
From a land use compatibility standpoint, the commercial use would fit well on this
site, and would be consistent with the other development activity in the area. The
primary issue would relate to the City's inventory of industrial land, and the
relocation of future industrial development in this area to other areas of the
community.
In concept, planning staff believes that the re-designation to commercial is positive,
and represents the true highest and best use of this land. For some time, we have had
concerns over the continued emphasis on industrial in the Highway 25 corridor and/or
the attraction of the coming CSAH 18-Interstate 94 interchange for industrial traffic.
IIowever, as a part of this amendment, the City should continue to focus its attention
on the identification of future industrial development. The Comprehensive Plan calls
for the bulk of the City's future industrial area to be located west of the community.
This location emphasizes the need to plan and actively work toward the development
of a third interchange in the Orchard Road area to handle future industrial traffic.
In recent years, the City has removed the land north ofI-94 along ih Street from its
industrial land inventory, and will likely be asked to consider additional commercial
land around the 18/94 interchange. Planning staff notes that these changes are
appropriate, given the long term view of the City's development. However, these
changes accelerate the need to find replacement developable industrial land soon, and
Planning Commission Agenda - 7/06/04
.
also emphasize the need to begin active attention to the Orchard Road project to
ensure that this territory comes on line in a timely manner.
ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS
Comprehensive Plan Amendment from Industrial to Commercial, and Rezoning from
I-I to B-4 for Outlot C, Monticello Business Center.
I. Motion to recommend approval of the Comprehensive Plan Amendment and
Rezoning, based on findings that commercial land use is the most appropriate
and compatible use for this site, and that the City's long-range development
best supports the concentration of commercial uses in this area.
2. Motion to recommend denial of the amendment and rezoning, based on a
finding that the City's land use policy discourages conversion of industrial
land to other uses.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
.
Staff recommends approval of the amendments, consistent with Alternative 1. It is
noted, howevcr, that due to significant costs and obstacles in the development of
future industrial land, implementation steps should be taken immediately toward
planning [or additional future industrial development locations.
SUPPORTING DATA
A. Aerial Image
B. Long Range Land Use Map
C. Letter from the Industrial Development Committee
.
2
1\)
!l
.
-f~
L,.",,,,,,,.. """'-" .'~"--t".",.".."
i-l-r'
. ,..L~
~ r'~'"
IE
.
..
r---I
'.'_."'.'~.""_,,, I
..
..
..
7'0-
MONTICELLO
LONG RANGE LAND USE
N
w.'
s
I
l ~-1
l'-'-'i--'~4
'--1 i I
1t., rn
~ --->"'~'J
r ..: I -1"';--""-'
C"_'_"\_..' .....r~--.. ,-
-- F'--J
: >----- .,-
- - '-~-:r: .::---f-'
.... ..Jh\;l':~J ....r----t._
,
_..J:J
low Density Residential
ElCP4Inalon Area
low Density Residential (R-l)
Future Land Us. Objectives:
low Denalty Residential (R-1A)
Medium Density (attached ~_)
...
Allow for. mix of IIInd ua..
PreHrve Md pt'Otect tlfltuR/ ~
Provide road eyatwn to auppott gtOWth
Retain rutrII C"""""".nd . .",.1/ **'" fMI
UN ..,." .",.1tIea (I... view&, ..... ow.)
to enlNlnee dfMJ/optrNInt
Prwent apnIW/ by eneoutrlfllng compect
development ".".,."
...
Urban MilC~.U.e
...
*
Commercial
...
Induetrl.'
...
Open Space
MObile Home Pari<
7C,
.
FROM IDC
TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION
July 6, 2004 Planning Agenda
Public Hearing - Consideration of a request for a comprehensive plan amendment
and zoning map amendment to accommodate a chan2e in land-use from Light
Industrial (Il-A) to Regional Business (B-4). Applicant: Ocello, LLC
At the IDC meeting of June 1,2004, the members were unaware of this request corning forward.
Therefore, since the IDC does not meet in July, no recommendation from the IDC is brought fiJrward.
As Economic Development Director, I believe I'm correct in saying that it was the assumption of the
IDC that this parcel would be re~zoned in the future resulting in a reduction of industrial land fiJr sale
within the City and attributed to the ]DC and HRA continued request for support to encourage the City
to acquire land for industria] development.
Respectfully submitted by
. D~ ~d)~-D~
Ollie Koropchak
Executi ve Director to the I IRA and I DC
.
.
.
.
Planning Commission Agenda - 7/06/04
8.
Public Hearine: Consideration of a request for a Comprehensive Plan
Amendment and Rezonine to support additional commercial development in an
Industrial/Commercial PUD. Applicant: Otter Creek LLC. (NAC)
REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND
The applicants are seeing a rezoning of their property from A-a, Agricultural-Open
Space to 8-4, General Business or PUD, Planned Unit Development. If necessary,
the applicants are also seeking approval of a Comprehensive Plan Amendment to
facilitate the zoning change.
In 2002, the City granted the applicants a tiered land use approval for this area,
accommodating industrial uses to the southwest, with a mix of industrial and some
commercial uses between Chelsea Boulevard and Interstate 94. The range of
commercial uses was limited for a number of reasons, summarized as follows:
1. The City's commercial zoning districts support a broad range of uses that
were not well-suited to a parcel that has high freeway exposure but only
distant freeway access.
2. Second, the City has planned for a concentration of its commercial uses along
Highway 25, both north and south of the freeway, and intensive commercial
use of this land would compete with the planned commercial districts [we are
currently seeing the commercial districts begin to develop intensivelYI.
3. Third, the City has had a long-standing policy of preserving and promoting its
industrial development. Because there has been so much demand for the
conversion of industrial-zoned land to other uses, the long-term supply of
well-situated industrial land continues to be an issue.
Staff recommendations for the addition of commercial uses to Tier A of the
applicants' property included limiting the types and number of commercial uses to
just a few, increasing the building materials standards, and eliminating outdoor
storage as an allowed use in this tier. These recommendations were made as a part of
a proposed concept plan for a PUD, and were addressed in the f()fm of an amendment
to the Comprehensive Plan.
In order to put the property to this use, the property must be rezoned to reflect the
approved plans. Planning staff recommends that a PUD zoning district be established
that provides for the specific uses and performance standards applicable to the new
district. Thus, instead of choosing an industrial or commercial district, the zoning
map would reflect a PUD, and the City would adopt an ordinance describing the
appropriate zoning regulations specific to this site. Also important to note is that the
City is currently negotiating with the applicants to purchase the remaining land fDr a
City-developed industrial park. This purchase excludes the southwestern-most
Planning Commission Agenda - 7/06/04
.
portion of the site, which the applicants have reserved for future development. While
the plat submitted by the applicants label this portion "Residential", its future land use
has not been finally determined.
The developers have stated in correspondence that they are expecting a particular mix
of commercial and industrial use in the subject area. It appears that this mix (70%
commercial, 30% industrial) is a product of the concept PUD application in which
there were more industrial uses allowed than commercial uses. It is staff s position
that this mix would be the result of the marketing of the property, and that the list of
uses merely serves as the potential range of uses without strictly limiting the actual
mIX.
We would anticipate the PUD zoning ordinance to bc written as follows:
PlJD Zoning District, Otter Creck
The intent of this district is to permit a mix of specific commercial and industrial Llses
along Interstate 94 and Chelsea Road, suhject to higher sitc and huilding design
standards. The use of Planned Unit Development in this district is for the purpose of
providing for a mix ofland uses, rather than vary from other standards of the
Monticello Zoning Ordinance.
.
A. Provisional PUD Uses
1. All permitted uses as allowed in the I-IA zoning district.
2. The following commercial uses, as allowed in the B-3 or B-4 zoning
districts, as applicable:
a. Enclosed Boat, Marine, and Recreational Equipment Sales
b. Books, office supplies, stationery stores and copy services
c. Furniture, carpet, rug, tile, glass, paint, wallpaper, hardware
and electrical appliance stores
d. Motor fucl station, car wash, auto body shop, tire and battery
stores and service
e. Machinery sales, indoors
f. New and used automobile/light truck sales and outdoor
display
g. Day care centers
B. Prohibited Uses
I. Open and/or Outdoor Storage
.
C. AccessoryU ses
I. All accessory uses as allowed in the 8-4 zoning district.
2
Planning Commission Agenda - 7106/04
.
D. Minimum lot dimensions and standards
1. Lot Area - 60,000 square feet
2. Lot Width -. 150 feet
3. Chelsea Road Setback - 50 feet
4. Side Setback - 20 feet
5. Interstate 94 Sctback.- 50 feet
6. Parking Lot and Driveway Setback - 20 feet
7. Minimum Green Space - 20% of Net Lot Area*
8. Minimum building coverage - 20% of Net Lot Area*
*Nct Lot Area Oeo Gross Lot Area less wetlands and stormwater treatment ponding
areas.
E. Building design and materials standards
1. Buildings shall be constructed of 100% masonry and glass exterior.
EIFS may be used up to a maximum of 15% of total exterior wall. No
metal siding may be used.
.
2. Buildings shall provide for decorative features including cornices,
pilasters, parapet walls, or other similar treatments. Prel~lbricated
concrete panel walls may be allowed but shall include additional
ornamental features enhancing the architectural appearance.
3. Mechanical equipment shall be screened hom view of all adjoining
roadways.
r. Site design standards
1. Landscaped areas of at least 15 feet shall separate the building from
the parking lot and all driveway areas, with the exception ofloading
docks.
2. Loading docks shall be screened from view of all adjoining roadways,
and no loading zones shall be located within any required building
setback area.
G. General zoning regulations apply.
1. Except where specifically listed in this ordinance, all other regulations
applicable to development in the 13-4, General Business District, as
may be amended, shall apply.
.
3
Planning Commission Agenda - 7/06/04
.
H.
Processing.
1. Unless otherwise determined by the Zoning Administrator, all
development within this PUD Distriet shall be subjeet to review and
approval of the Planning Commission and City Council, and shall be
proeessed according to the Conditonal Use Permit provisions of
Chapter 22 of the Monticello Zoning Ordinance. The Zoning
Administrator may determine that due to the complexity of the
proposal, the PUD processing requirements of Chapter 21 shall be
f(Jllowed.
2. It is not the intent of this PUD District to provide for flexibility in lot
dimensions or other dimensional standards listed in this ordinance.
Developers wishing to vary from the dimensional standards applicable
to this district shall pursue separate variance of PUD applications, and
shall be subject to the procedural requirements applying to all SLlch
applications.
AL TERNA TIVE ACTIONS
.
Decision I: Rezoning from A-O, Agricultural-Open Space to PUD, Planned Unit
Development for Otter Creek.
1. Motion to recommend approval of the rezoning to PUD, subject to adoption of
an ordinance detailing uses, standards, and procedures as detailed in this
report, based on a finding that the use of PUD zoning will result in a higher
standard of development and take best advantage of the visual exposure and
transportation accessibility of this site; and based on the finding that the
rezoning is consistent with the comprehensive plan. Under this option the
Planning Commission formalizes the standards approved in the concept some
time ago.
2. Motion to recommend an amendment to the comprehensive plan resulting in
an increase in the level of commercial use and to adopt PUD standards
accordingly; or recommend rezoning the site to 8-4 (Regional Business).
This alternative should be selected if the Planning Commission believes that
the subject area should include more commercial uses or a higher intensity of
commercial uses than identified under Option #1. This is the alternative
requested by the applicant.
.
3. Motion to recommend denial of the rezoning, based on a finding that the site
should be zoned industrial due to the need for the City to preserve its
industrial development land supply.
4
Planning Commission Agenda - 7/06/04
.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends approval of the rezoning as noted under Alternative I, under the
guidance of the rezoning ordinance provided in this report. A zoning district that
provides for a mix of industrial and commercial uses requires a PUD approach.
Because the City must rezone by the adoption of an ordinance, we have prepared an
ordinance which would spell out the allowable uses and standards applicable to future
development in this district. The uses have all been made subject to the processing of
a Conditional Use Permit to allow City officials to determine that the intent of the
PUD district is being met.
SUPPORTING DATA
A. Aerial Image
B. Preliminary Parcel Sketch
C. Long Range Land Use Plan
D. Letter from the Industrial Development Committee
.
.
5
.
......
>
"
,
.....""....
I~ ~~~~
~ ~~~~~~ ~;'I
...................... #-'i
................... ~-
...........""....
\
--i .> -\
;\) ),>
)> II
0 \
--i -.
,-
-
),>
\'\
" I
.- / ~
,> / )>
~~'b-
~-\)>
-~I.U.1~-- / ~ ~
i m <-1- 7.-------
~J' i I /.,,*.t~ ~ /
,/ i\~" /Q/
v..~ / /~
\, ,..,,.. /..... /' -:.
.)";r /: "'/
. '-;;j / '" .. \(\
~: .:~/ <,,~P' ,~_
....~ / ..~,. ~...
"- \ .... /. .;f-'
,\ / ><!t.. _ _>;;.- \
// / I ':'
'"'y.// / L'
,'I / /
....., / /
." #y /
;,<'~~;p- ----T--nn'OO- - - / ___.......:.- --.--------,"'..
· ~':# / i It i , f H i l -
, ~. / ~ l~! .~ )~ / ~!ill!l!im > Ij:!!:~ I" mli!!!I!i1!!!!li!I U . !
4-~." t\'\.~,~/ '. II~ ~l I/t' / /i ~!JhIHlil,B; fl.I~~fl Iii ! [~hllllni!ifiiH~I;1 'il~ i
\ \ I \. ~ \ If r I '11~~llrrr i '.." I , 1!l'irh~~1 filfil l
\~. ~/ / /;l ~~ ~!I! ~~~Iiril ;I'h III I ~I'lih{i!H.fJIIIlll(lh H ~
I / I ~I fil r;I"J/ljj I a" (II I I 1'1;(11 [I I f" -I ~
;/ / I :~: < IIII UWI!t: if [1~. It~~ ,Hl!~~f!H~! ~!( !
I ~. \\ >, ~ /t / .' ,. l'li!j"li\ll Iii! II ! li!l!!4"j'i"I"'d. !
I~' l' '. ~- /1 / ~ l.ljl'li i..r', I IlfrJU:llillll'ilji I: !
-- !. J '-1 ~ ~ ~}.."~ I / I: U~il ~11!hl (:11 h ~ i~StUi!f!f!!diill~ll~ !
~} It -". \:1 \~ ~ >'~( / / ;;$fJ J!I1( ~!if II J (181~IIp~i~I:IIIIUf I~ I
/J7 I,~\. I / '"', / / iil!lrt!Hi il!~f Ii ! i ld!~hnh!&[![!i II a
:.- I'L 7. ~ \ \7 J~Ui"l~f;; ill,. J II ~'Iflf GUI$tl,! II '
),> /1/ - - I,! / \/ fl'hlihl~l'" IhJ f~ i lal~.I~jiflnl. ~1~~tJII~i I
'/" / / -:.,\ a l1h~~1 il ...., 'IP [ ~ 'l'il.9. I"l:i II I
Iii ! lV' i / \r, ;,Iri 11 ~~ (fl! if ~ ~h! liH~Hltllll9.' f
/ I / ~ I / ,~- 11-..1 A'h~rJ d;~~!i I II,g~lf 1l1-llfll t,tlllll I !
Ii' I / :.. .. IhB~tllli lICI J . ,"I.. 9.1 fr I lK" ,
I ! y-' I~ :! l;lil;:!jlj lll\ i! ! !lih!.I;,id;!!'ll!
1-{~\:,!?~1- : :1 J.h!h!hJ! !~h IJ ~ IHI,~Hh~HH'hf f
t.>
(f)
I~I
rI~
I
~=I
;~I
.~
u
~) NUfI\f,'otIlII
-~~-~.....,.,,1i;4~ui
I
I
,
I
I
.. I
" I
I
c\r.. I
"'11I"1l
>
c._
h
~
"I
~~
:1
-
t
,a.l~
,lQ
~;\
>
\)
\
~;'I
\
"
:\~
':..,' ''': ~
~,;,
r~~~~
I 1-,-""
""-1"",',,' "'---,",,',
r "
I-,--f .- ,
&.., i',-V~:',,', '
1JII"1IfIII ~. - '"
, T
I ,_L '
MONTICELLO
LONG RANGE LAND USE
N
w+,
s
~ "..
!
',-
11;',,,
, " ","',''','
, ,\,
Low Oen.lty Rnjdential
Expansion Area
Low Density Re$identiel (R.1)
Future Land U.. Objectiv..:
Low Density ReSIdential (R-1A)
Medium Density (attached heg,)
*
Allow for a mbc of land ....
PrNerv8 and ptOt8Ct 1HItul1l' ~
Provide road ay8Cem to IIUppot't IIfOWIh
RfWaln rurel cIMnK:t.w and a .",." .." feel
UN exIatIntIamenJtIM (1.8. vIewa, Ie,.., "-J
fO enhance dfweIopnIent
Pnwent .prawi by WlCOU,.prg CompIICt
development pIIttem
..
*
Urban Mlxed-U.e
*
.
.
..
..
..
Industoe'
Commerc~1
.
.
Open Space
Mobile Home Park
.
.
.
8D
RECOMMENDA TION FROM THE IDC
TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION
July 6, 2004 Planning Agenda
Public Hearing - Consideration of a request for a zoning map and comprehensive plan
amendment to accommodate a change in land use from Light Industrial (llA)
to a Commercial/Industrial PIJI>. Applicant: Otter Creek, LLC
At the IDC meeting ofJune 1, 2004, the members approved the following motion of recommendation.
"Recommends the 472: acres of Otter Creek Crossing located to south and adjacent to 1-94
and to the north of the proposed Chelsea Road West be re-zoned from Industrial to
Commercial. Although the IDe recognized the recommendation decreases the amount of land
zoned industrial, they supported the use of commercial as a better use maximizing the exposure
and visibility of the freeway." The recommendation does not identify the use or type of
commercial nor a percentage of commercial within a PUD.
Respectfully submitted by
,~L~~~
'rom Lindquist
2004 IDC Chair
TL/ok .J'Y
.
.
.
Planning Commission Agenda - 7/06/04
9.
Public "earin!?;: Consideration of a request for a Preliminary Plat for Jefferson
Commons. a commercial development in a B-4 zoniD!?; district. Applicant: City
of Monticello. (NAC)
REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND.
The City is requesting approval of a preliminary plat for Jefferson Square, commonly
referred to as the "Remmelc Property" along the west side of Trunk Highway 25 at
the intersection with School Boulevard. The property would include the extension of
School Boulevard right of way to the property's west boundary, and the platting of
approximately 55 aeres of eommereialland. The plat will create three development
parcels at this time.
The corner of School Boulevard and the frontage road (called "Deegan ^ venue NE)
will be the site of the proposed Culver's Restaurant, for which a CUP request is also
on this Planning Commission agenda. This parcel is approximately 1.5 acres in area.
The second parcel is a lot of more than 8 acres, planned for the Monticello Muller
Theatre project, also on this agenda. The third lot will consist of the relocated
commuter parking lot, owned by the City. T'he commuter parking lot will be moved
to the Highway 25 frontage under the Xcel power line casement, and will serve the
joint purpose of commuter parking and overflow parking for new businesses in the
area.
The remainder of the property will be reserved for future commercial use, with the
exception of required ponding and the potential reservation of space for a future fire
station location. All lots meet the zoning standards, and will require more substantial
review as part of the specific commercial development process.
ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS
1. Motion to recommend approval of the Preliminary Plat, based on a finding
that the application meets the City's requirements for subdivision in a 13-4
zoning district, and is consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan.
2. Motion to recommend denial of the Preliminary Plat, based on findings
presented at the public hearing.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends approval of the plat as discussed in Alternative]. The property is
guided for commercial use, and the proposed plat meets the requirements of the B-4
zoning district. Additional parcels will be subdivided as users are identified and
specific property dimensions can be determined.
.
SUPPORTING DATA
A. Aerial Image
B. Site Location/Title Sheet
C. Existing Conditions
D. Preliminary Plat
E. Grading Plan
F. Utility Plan
G. Erosion Control and Landscape Plan
.
.
2
Planning Commission Agenda - 7/06/04
~~
Oz
j
tu '~
Ww
g:o
~~ -~ ~
Ol[ ~
Il.-
J:~
1111
IIi
A I
a
,.
vI I vl
:3
N
f}
"'x
~
;
.
!
"
~,,~s
II
.
L_
/ I
\....
~
U~
3;;
H
.~
~m
0-"
"':;;
0::1:; ""Ik
~"~~
~u~.~'~
:;;
uB
~
m
~~~ '
na~
o
z~
o
,-
i3
0'
<C
. I-
't
o
z
-------.:r-~
...J
'w
>
o
-~-~
\
\
\
_1Il....-- ~ - - - - .... ~ - ~
/....
I ....
I
"
~_~M-----........~_
. 'OCELLOLCC- .... ....
1875 COMMERCIAL BL\71r
ANDOVER, MN 55304
........
'"
c"
I I
I "
....-
\,
"
:)~
'yf
./ ,-
I
0-\/
1\.}
I I "
I I
f (,,"
\ \)
)/"
oC
(
"-0
z<Do
"
"
!:l "
r-"
~I
~I
,
,
/
,./
'"
/ -?.~~~~
/ I r-,
I \~
....
....
...1I/r5.........
....,
,
\.._-~
\
f"'-5~]----I
I ~"'~
I hl~i'i
I ~.L1
I p~~ /"
I " ...5l/
f z;, r
/ ~ h
/'"
"
/
I
I
!
I
)
\
\
\
'9:;--
.
I ..
~~
--- _____ I 1;l
___ ~~;JO
__ I "
""r--____ ~
______ 8 I
j-"--------/
-, ~-
III ...
II
III
II
II
II
-=1
I
I : I #~/ /
.11 / r"'/
!: i I /~". I /
III 1\1 14' I
a...: L' I
I' fl'l --.J
~ I /
I I
/--tl/
/1 1:/
-_,____)__-,'~ L_
._~.~
.....
"
~~
--~
----
~
...
'OM ,. t ~ ----r:--- ~ ~
,I /
/ I 1--,,----
/ CI! .~;'..i...I.NSIlII ,
WIMN_", MII.lIIjl........M.... II
II I I
/ r-
J/ I:
I
__-~I
---='""'.------Nl I
r ,-; ~llT
L _ ---.J :
r ~- -111
'. ~ I
L_ ~ ~ J~:
~:
L '., ! II:
r~iJI'
, ---ff'
L ;~, ! 1:
r 2:2 0- LUI
"" ~ -J ':
L ," I~I
--~_ h
~......~ II
-....;:: 0-./ L
:>
./' :/1
./'
" ./'
'v"- /'
(' n, I
L _.-=~_
r -- -"l
L )lJ
, l.-~tr
~:o= -r~:;;
11~ ~:/l
Ii:;!" ;::,', J
t)~..!.- ....:.:.:
!i 0;- ~ l
;:: -l ~ 0 .~. ~.:
." ~ r- Ll ;.:" J
.;; ~ $..~ ~
!!' r J
.,. L ~.:: i ;;:
_I~;
r- -r~ 4
c
~
N
'"
:J\
j ~
"
8 'I
e~o
o...v~
wX~
ggi=
.. "
"'00
Q."-::>
\
\
\
\
\
\ '
\ [~
\ .
\
\
I
I
I
1-
j
\
!IIl:"'IU'.I."I~'J11I'1I:i1I1*'aIQ'n)N"'_.J i-
1q'l!ll:l~~~~"US'~-~.e--';~~~-----l
i
I
I
1
1
1
I
I
I
1
1
I
I
I
1
1
1
1
I
I
I
I
I
\
,
I
\
,
\
\
\
\
" .
,
,
,
,
y
r 1
" I
'" I
~ '
Vl I
.. I
~ :
'" 1
'" 1
"
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
!;is!
~ "
:!{;
~ .5
J" /
;;: I
OJ /
J' I
Q) I
8' /
if I
--- '" /
-------1....
",
.........
I
~.
...i, .-
I
~~
I
! iI~
I i L
I W t~~
~ !~!:
i ~;.I !
~ M; ~ i
_ . ~Iii ~ ~
1i.1i! dl ~
~~ r~ ~
.................. ;i ~h h
--"'IJ! ~U dUll
II N ~~~~ ~>~~h
~ u'rnt~~in
... ......................
'.. f;'~ ,
.. ... <\'l&'t ------ , __
..., 171v~~ '"
~/l19 A.1J.jQ ..........___"--
:1$111 lit -"___".
... .........~ .}J ~"S '" '"
'"'''' f '" '" '" '" J.}J'
~ ,:.,.....
..... -:.... .........
'"
~- - - ....--~.. ~
'"
"',
'"
"'"
'"
I
/ ~'-I
I "'
- -lJ
1=-11
"'~,_I
I
,oj
u-:~
o-~
"''''l)
o 0
F~o
Elri::
;;;
s
~,
0-:-
. "
.C <f."
II?'?(;
k'" 0
(j;Y /:J
,..-... Cy
fj-
~'i
i~
~!
I~
p
;
i h
I ~~
~ I ~~
~ I ~~;I ~
g~! ~I ill i
~ai h iu ~
I Ill.. 'f
)Jifh1lhh
"hf~IIUI !
,'!ta h.g -Ii
JlfnlUl1h
Pflll iuln
Jfll~fflll111
Ilfijli)IJI' ~i~t
~t hJ!:t .. I
'I'~"i II)'
~. ir'p'h I.
Ijiih;illh!
IIBfl ~Hl~'J
· tli'f II.
). l'lf.a~flig
,'I,J~fI! t~1
HiliHUlnh
'i"l ~ J ji I~I
I~JI }'J '~'J ~j
Zu !! I~J 1-
'11111 I!J~ t
111'llt~itIJj I I
~phl!l~lJh
!!lII~i!~IHI
thf IfilljL
~ihHllfllll
jlUII .11.11
.li~I.HIp'5
)1 i~fl$JJUI
JI-i,ihHlil!
!~liUi~l!iltt
i!IBlr'~!liIH~
Jdl udoah.~
r
t
<lII~
. "
~ "
m . ~ I
bl;fg/I i
F:::J", 1
'OJ- <0 I
5:i"" f
- /
. If
................
"
N
"1
I
I
1
,
I
1
I
,
I
1
1
1
I
Y
('
I
1
1
1
I
I
I
1
1
I
1
I
1
+
( I
J.
~I ./
",'
/fH].
,,1
01
~: /
>1
f5 ~/
0::::'"
o c:T ~
...J",l)
m 0
.:::)0
N",O
...r--:N
0<0
-'
\
\
\
~ _._ ~ _ __ ~ut'-- -~ - - -. -
-.- .-"~........
\
\
~
._~-----
" I
tl )
",I
I~
I
I
~-_.......--
~ --' __ __ _,.IIlI~ .". ...
:r
;>,
'-
>'
.__--tM--.........
~~
OCELlOlil:- ~
lB75 COM ~~
ANDOVER llERCIAL BLVD- - - - - - -
_ . llN 5530<4 '
I 1"-
, j
~~y"yy'Y:
_"_ "_" I
,,""---{"-"-Y~"
""
t
/
'1
<:::
'--.,
,
\
"
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
,
\
"t
\
\
\
"
\
\
,
\
)
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
I
, I
'/
\-',
\ "
\ "
\ \
\ \
\ \
\ \
, I
',,'
~
"
"
"
,
\
"
\
\
\
,
"-
\
\
\
\
\
\
J
I
\
~
~
~
~
~'-
.-~ ~ - ~.......
"
\
,
~
\
\
\
\
,
"
,
"
\
\
,
\
\
'.....
"
,
,
"
,
"-
\
\
,
,
,
,
\
I
I
I
I
I
I
,
"
,
,
"-
,
\
\
\
,
,
,
\
\
\,
I
I
\
"
" \
; )
,j
I / .....
I I ..... .....
I -........
\ I .....
\
I ,
\ I "
I
\ \~1~
tl'l ,
\ ~n I
I
\ ,
\ ,
,
\
\
~
N
,
\
\
\
\
.~ \
~Ht
~S ~r~
/ ~~it,
7.........-' .......
'Y---'-"-
I'
I
n
o
'"
."
!6
~
I -0
:---~~
c...
m
rr-
--I
00
~
i
V UE .- ---.. [ ---
.'''" ~ ~ - - -~~~-~-EElUfJ~~I!IN-.Ii:\IE,.tt~~~ ~_ _ ~~*
.(\[J]m m-~ ~ -1----1 I----TT---'-I i--U-'
.
10.
.
.
Planning Commission Agenda - 7/06/04
Public Hearin2;: Consideration of a request for Conditional Use l>ermit for a
concept and development sta2;e Planned Unit Development. Applicant: Muller
Theatres. (NAC)
REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND
Muller Theatres is seeking approval of a Conditional Use Permit for a PUD that
would allow the development of an 8+ acre parcel, part of the "Remme Ie Property" -
now being plattcd as "Jefferson Square". The intent of the PUD is, essentially, to
allow the applicants to create a freestanding sign pad on a separate parcel along
lIighway 25. Except for limited PUD applications, ofT-site signs are not permitted.
The PUD also accommodates the applicant's intent to provide parking at a slightly
lower rate than the basic zoning standard, relying on overflow use of the City's
commuter parking lot during peak periods. Finally, the PUD allows for the use of a
common service alley along the north (back) side of the building that will be shared
with future commercial development. The common service alley and the shared
parking both serve to significantly reduce the amount of land necessary to
accommodate the project.
The proposed sign is 22 feet in height, and consists of three separate message panels.
The larger, upper panel identifies the name of the facility. The middle panel consists
of an electronic message board. The lower panel identifies the site as the Park and
Ride Lot.
The project itself is proposed to consist of a 14 screen theatre complex, with a shell
building constructed that would allow an expansion for 4 additional screens. During
the interim period, the applicants propose to rent the future theatre space for retail
uses.
The use of PUD is intended to allow for flexibility in the application of zoning
standards where the flexibility results in a project of superior quality. PUD is
expressly not intended merely to get around the basic zoning requirements. In this
case, staff has suggested to the applicants that enhanced landscaping and building
detail could be provided in exchange for the relaxation of the setback, parking supply,
and ofT-site signage allowances. The applicants had originally provided plans
showing a basic tip-up concrete panel structure with significant features over the main
entrance.
Staff has asked the applicants to add some architectural features to the roofline, such
as decorative cornice, and additional detailing at some of the building corners to
emphasize the articulation in the building wall. The architects have been working on
the plans and have provided additional infl)fmation within the past few days.
Architecturally, the building design relies on an extensive entry treatment as the focus
of the building's detailing. The remainder of the structure is a "raked" finish concrete
panel, with colored cornice cap, and an alternative horizontal striping pattern.
Planning Commission Agenda .- 7/06/04
.
Additional colored diamond-shaped elements have been added to a few of the front
wall panels
The landscape plan appears to address the green space and planting requirements of
the zoning ordinance reasonably well, given the limitations of the Xcel power line
along the south boundary of the site. It is noted that the front planting beds provide
for shrub massing and ornamental (crabapple) trees. Due to the height of the
building, planning staff would recommend a larger tree selection in these beds to help
soften the series off1at surfaces of the building. Oak or a larger evergreen tree would
be recommended.
The following additional issues will need to be resolved as part of the final plan
approval for the project:
I. Parking lot construction. The plans appear to envision that no curb line is
constructed delineating the south edge to the parking area. The zoning
ordinance requires that all parking lots arc surrounded by a continuous
concrete curb barrier to control traffic and drainage. The existing curb
surrounds the current commuter parking, and must be modified to meet the
requirements of the zoning ordinance.
.
2. Parking lot construction. The west boundary of the parking lot anticipates
future expansion of the lot to the west. In such cases where future
expansion is planned, the City has permitted a temporary asphalt curb or
other measures that control drainage as interim improvements pending the
permanent expansion. It is noted that while the theatre is not occupying
the entire building, the space will be used by retail tenants. As such, the
City should reserve the right to require full parking lot construction prior
to the theatre expansion in the event that overflow parking conf1icts
become a problem for either the street or the commuter parking lot.
3. South boundary buffer yard. The zoning ordinance requires a butTer yard
between commercial and residential uses. The applicant is required to
install one-half of the buffer yard requirements due to the mature
landscaping in place along the residential boundary. This would require a
buLTer yard width of 15 feet and 60 "plant units" per 100 linear feet of
common boundary. Essentially, this will require an open planting of
evergreen trees, or preferably, a continuous screen planting of larger
evergreen shrubs such as junipers.
4. Landscape materials sizes. The zoning ordinance requires that 1 5% of all
trees are planted with a caliper size of 3.5 inches. There are 66 proposed
deciduous trees on the plan, 10 of which should be identified for 3.5
caliper inches in size.
.
2
Planning Commission Agenda "-- 7/06/04
.
5. Pylon signage for the theatre site is limited to a single sign as proposed,
not including directional signs.
ALTERNATIVI~: ACTIONS
Concept and Development Stage Planned Unit Development Cor Muller Theatre
1. Motion to recommend approval of the PU D, based on a finding that the
use of PUD results in superior land use and efficiency of site design and
usage. The PUD accommodates an off-site freestanding sign, shared
parking with the City's commuter parking lot, and setback flexibility
accommodating a common service drive along the north side of the
building. This recommendation should be based on conditions that
include enhanced architectural detailing and compliance with the zoning
ordinance standards, including those listed above.
2. Motion to recommend denial of the PUD, based on a finding that the plans
do not justify the use of PUD in the proposed manner.
ST AFF RECOMMENDATION
.
Staff recommends approval oCthe PUD with the listed conditions, pending final
review of the building plans. Allowing an off-site freestanding sign should he an
accommodation only permitted with tangible improvements to the site and/or building
plans. With the architectural detailing suggested by staf1~ we believe that the City can
make this finding, and distinguish this proposal from other applications that may
come forward. Too often, pun is used to circumvent ordinance requirements without
a commensurate exchange of benefits. When this happens, the City's zoning
regulations become useless, rather than important expressions of the City's land use
goals.
SUPPORTING DATA
A. Site Plan/Sign Plan
B. Landscape Plan
C. Lighting Plan
D. Grading and Drainage Plans
E. Utility Plan
F. Building Elevation Plan
.
"
-,
I / /
; I /
/ t /' I
I
f I
f / I
I
I
I
'" I
. I
... ... / /f
f
, t
-...........
~
"
Q.
Q.
~
<eo
;j c;~ 0"1-
o O;lM .~~
"i;1 -...J gU")
55 f;~ og
es ;o~ "'::::
~ ,mil ";z
V) L-I ~
~ ~ ~
r lJ> ;0
'" '" fT]
...
~
;'1
~~-
~'"
c:~
"'fT]
"."
Q~
g~
".
;0
!i!
.0~:Oi .0 0<
'"
yo
'"
...
------------
,0-
- ,
,
-();o
b~iJ
'" -
" r
I
I
.. '---j
u ~
h !
I R. I I I I I I I II I
~ <<'I<(J~lIl1~<(JlI<<J41
~ '.,
~ I !!:Ii
h 'itl~
..11'
o ,I'
'1::10::1 A.l.flIO'9'::l M3N
'9'.LOS3NNI~ 'OTl30LLN0~
3tLL'13Hl. ^ -'1V'J'1::::1 1::J3-,-,nV'J
g
t ~
~~
~.
~ :
..,io
111111 i! 1
III
" c.:
is <Ii
-' 0
- 0
~~~
o:u_ ,
>
~-
.,.--..---------
f /
~ /'
" ,~
c.: L 1 ~ ~
<Ii ! ;! :[ 1
.. ~
<Xl
'" ~~~: JD1~ I
<0 ., I
<Xl I
..., Ul ~ ~ ,I)',,~ I
II'U) '" "'< 'I" I
w Z I
i5~ " I
0: I
"'<( ri I
<(
"
~, <Xl 2
>- . ~
Vi~ "
IJ I
! II IJ,j
III !
I . ) I
II jlJ F I
IL IIi. Ii
1111 .!~.
.1,1,11'" ~!!i
,
" -
, ' I
, I,'"
P .,
i I,! ,.
Ii' I ~
1111"
f ..
I 'III j!
IIj"
1'1- IIi
II' .
Iflf I :1
· 'I r
· il, i
II"~ I .
I"' :'1
: :11:1 ;t
C!
'0
Ul -g
c, "
~ I ~
.
I 3 i N
I I
<0
~
Is ~
\. ~!
C
tit
>
UJ
U
W
0:
''------
/
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
,I.
~ . ~ "" ~
~. -~ t ! i
'!PI
i III I
ij' ~ ~ ~ ~
l j i
p,
,.
, i
, !
~ ~
, ,
; ;
d
I'
f!
: !
Ii
"~1." J
I II
~~~~~ji~,l, ~~ .~~III':l 1I~15~ ~'i-.~~"l.ir~t~lI Ii ~~. ,"" .~'~.'~'--,rl1
, , t " ," ',- t- ,. '. . t t t , ," "" i 1:; .I: : I -, i i.,. r" 'Il .. ~ l: ~ -]";' j. "l: 'f ,t t t '<I II t -:I ~ ~ ~ ;, .~ ! ~
"i ,1, i:~ Ii'i --ok,! ~ Y. --- Iio~' 4D.~~$'.,
! I
j!
l
! '
i
1 ! j ! , l ! i, ! ! ! I ! I ! I ! ! ! ! ! ! I ! ! ! I ! ! ! ! ! ! I I ! II ! ! 1111 Ii!!! ! ! ! ! ! I 1
! ! ! ! ! Ii ! ! ! ! ! ! ! i i ! ! II ! ! i ! ! ! ! I! ! ! ! II ! ! ! ! ! I ! ! I ! ! ! ! I ! ! I!! II i
, !
i I
t-;r
~ ," ~ ~ ~ :I 'I 'I 81';' 1I II :w 1I :I 'i' 'ii" ,. ;. II II II I i 'I Ii 81 ~ " II :II M 1I I i -i 'I 'I ~ ~ ~ I 81 I 'I II
, lil:nHnHnnulnnHll:llll dIlH!IlHHIl:lIl1l!
. . - ~ ~ - - .;." ":;' '~ . + . ~
, I
'I
I r
I
-
,rv
III ! I
~n I
l~~
\ \
2~ ~~~
2~"l~~d~
Vi c ..... Q I I
~~~Rg~
8:i:z:,,'f,
.~ 3i ~ ~ ~
1::))( iii ~
.~~ ~ i ~ ~
D~ EQ..l.o....
o.~.n.~_
,
,
\
\
"--
"\.
1
I
0,
~.
\
\
I
I
I
N
0.: 35
"'",
~~
In ~
q::~
LL-~
~I:
::).....-.
0,"
''''
~~
I.;J
U
z
<<:
fE:
z
I.;J
z
~~
U ,^
~~
f-
(f)
Z
o
U
'"
U
o
rr
t..
OJ!
~~;I
~ho
I"~
I
"'1
l i
r~nf
m
g
~ ~
o~o~
~~~ Z
~~ I~~
~ ~w 0
:~~g ~ G
w
~~,.- ~ U1
. ~...J:::II! ~ Z
" \.u~~ ~ w
~_~_..J . is In '"
"U '" w
.J ~ ~
'., j'::
::>
0
~
:L
"'
0
'"
!i~!ii
~"'~~
~~"
~~I ~
~lt!~~ ~ z
~~~i~ 0
F
~~ w 0
fi!i w
U1
: . :8i:.~ ~ ~
Z
. "~" W
'"
. : "~ W
:;,:
<L
: ~ j'::
." J :::0
'"
l-
I
c>
:J
~"
. .'
. .
~':'::': .
. ~ ....
~'.'.\
, i\
\
\
\
\
\
z _~j
_~--a
,--
"w
"'''
<r'"
t=~~
60z
<rcow
[:
\
\
I
I
I
/
/
/
~~
\
'I,
.-
0
F
U
:J
<l:
f-
j vl
Z
8 0
.; u
III f-
i o ~ VI
d Q
~!, i!; Il
0
,;1i E i ~ III 0
"'W' 0
~~ E!! 3:
>IF!~
1, '"
~~ ' ~I'l L.J
i,~~~~~j u
S' '7
E~ W
1~ \>.
,-
-- ./
! ,. (/1
,H
~~""""..................
..........,.,
~""..................
................
........
"-
"
I(!]
"
"1:;Q
-:----
",
..............
-"
-<:::._---
I'l
(ji
I
co
~ "
0..
" u'
" "
"'",
en",
"'z
000
co
x"
"',
--<
~r")
~~j~-'~
~r;::111
cn,OO":::~
~;~;
0"'lJ.l' .
/
///
------I
~~i
~:=~
~.~~
.0
~
-?
,-no
~...... .......~~
_~~0 ~ (")
~ ~ ~'-:O"~'
L~(~~~~~
~~i.")!.J_-4I::
~~ ~ ':j.~,::.:
.f~,," J (.-='
~ ~ ~.~..~.
~0&(I"I
~;:2~ lD 7;:'~
~C;;~~a
~ u~
,':'1 -...J
<.J>n~
;3:U~
L-.
,~.
"'"
" '"
,
/
I
/
---------
---------
:jG"5
~cr-~.~
:E~ ''''1
:.:,rQ;;Q
B --I
III!:;,
h ..ll;
1.1:1
.. ,DI"
~6~
1$,
-!ill!
U..
;!
!
I I I I I I I I I I
<81111<<l~1I~1I<641
;~- ~
: ~t t
'1 "
;';J
-:0,)
L...__
;';J
eJ
L.--,
c0
A
-~-J
~
G-'
c")
---:)~
-~)
A
8
~~~-_..
r=J
H
~C:.-
~-~---
\f.lOS3NNIr4 'O""'301J.N~ ~ .., !
/j '1111
3tU. \7'3H1- OiI3811-NOV'J ~ 'I.t J I
0: ' 5111'1 Ii
~ 'I' ' I
'Id~ A.JJ,IO\f:::l M3N ~ ~ II!; I
~
C?_
~2...
~-~--~
~2...___,
A
J
~
~
...J
UJ
I
8
CI)
()
~---:-=
~: ~ ~~?
~ ^ "8
Q. ~ 0 ~
~ d P d
~
,
f ~
<II',' ~
~~ ~~ ,,-
ff~
~I~ "-....; i'>d
o I.!
~
9 ,
~.....-.......:~
~ 7~
C3l
.(-,.._---~
'"
,
-~
-~-
~-----~==-- --
,~,
c?__
is
F
~
>
~
~
z
a
F
~
UJ
b;
~
UJ
N
(')
Q-----
C"J
"---
-l
(':',
y
-._""""'"""-
---_.~".,--.
L
I;;)
y--
CSJ
-c
(~~
'"
o.
Ii,
~:
'"
(
-811
~
~
~
~
~
~"'
~~
~~
~~
n
00000000
~ ~
~ e
~ ~
~ ~
s ~
~ I
6. ! W
~
o
z
~
~
n
tn
~t""'1
t""'1
o
~
~
~
~
-;
.
.
.
Planning Commission Agenda - 07/06/04
11.
Public "carine:: Consideration of a Conditional Use Permit ClJP application for a
Culver's Restaurant. Applicant: Culver's of Monticello. (NAC)
REFERENCE AND BACKGROLJND
Culver's of Monticello has requested a conditional use permit to allow the construction of
a Culver's restaurant on a 1.38 acre site located at the southwest intersection of State
l-:lighway 25 and School Blvd. The site location is Lot 1, Block of the proposed "Jefferson
Commons" plat. The subject site is zoned B-3, Highway Business.
Access. Access to the site is proposed from a single point on Deegan Avenue NE that
runs parallel to Highway 25. Deegan A venue N E intersects School Blvd west of Highway
25. Issues related to site access and curb cut width should be subject to additional
comment and recommendation by the City Engineer.
Circulation. The proposed development includes a sit down restaurant and a drive
through facility. Traffic for each of these functions is well separated to minimize conflict
and congestion. The plan shows a 34 foot wide entry drive providing access to a parking
lot and the drive through facility. The drive through aisle wraps around the building on
the side opposite the parking lot and exits on the north side of the lot. A 24 foot drive
wraps around the perimeter of the parking lot and connects drive through traffic back to
the main entry drive at the site's exit. Planning staff would recommend that an aisle be
striped along the south curb line for traffic that is waiting in line for the order board to
avoid circulation conflicts with parking lot traffic. There is adequate room to
accommodate a 9 or 10 foot widc aisle and two-way traffic for the parking lot.
In regard to site circulation, the following concern exists:
Pedestrian Access to Site. Sidewalks are included per city requirements along the
frontage of both School Blvd and the Access road; however, there is no connection
of these sidewalks to the restaurant other than at the vehicle entrance. A sidewalk
connection from the sidewalk on school Blvd to the patio dining area would
provide adequate pedestrian access and is recommended.
Restaurant Stacking Space. The ordinance does not provide any specific stacking
space requirements for drive-through l~lcilities. Approximately 180 feet of
stacking space has been proposed fi:)r the restaurant drive-through order board. In
addition, space exists between the board and the drive-through window, and Jive
spaces arc provided for drive-through customers waiting for food delivery. This
design provides service space for as many asl5 vehicles, adequate fin the nature
of this use.
.
Planning Commission Agenda -- 07/06/04
Setbacks. The design meets all applicable setback requirements.
Off-street Parking. The site plan identifies 70 parking spaces; the requirement is f()r 68
spaces.
Landscaping. A landscape plan as been submitted providing details of the type and size
of plant material being proposed. The plan provides for adequate screening of the drive-
through facility from Highway 25. The outdoor paved patio surface and public sidewalks
should match that of the City's Plaza concept for School Blvd.
Sign age. All site signage appears to comply with the applicable requirements of the Sign
Ordinance.
Lighting. A photometric lighting plan identifying illumination levels on the subject site
shows the source of lights to be hooded and controlled so as not to illuminate adjacent
properties or public rights-of-way. The lighting plan does not show street lighting within
the public right-of-way. The plan should be reviewed to show such lighting for
conformance with city plans for School I3lvd.
.
Grading Drainage and Utilities. A grading and drainage plan has been submitted. Such
plans will be subject to review and comment by the City Engineer.
AL TERNA TIVE ACTIONS
Decision:
1. Motion to recommend approval of the Conditional Use Permit based on a finding
that the project is consistent with the goals of the City's Comprehensive Plan
2. Motion to recommend denial of the Concept Stage PUD based on a finding that the
project is not consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Based on the preceding review, the applicant's proposal meets the requirements for a
conditional use permit tor the Highway Business District B-3. Statfrecommends approval
subject to:
.
1. Adding a pedestrian sidewalk connection to the restaurant from the sidewalk on
School Blvd.
2
.
.
.
Planning Commission Agenda - 07/06104
2. Work with the City to ensure that street lighting will be in conformance with city
plans for School Blvd.
3. Plans showing the proposed paving design for the outdoor patio and public
sidewalks as coordinating with the paving design for the City's plaza concept for
School Blvd. City staff is currently developing this design, and will work with the
applicant on this project.
4. Review and approval of grading, drainage and utility plans by the City Engineer.
SUPPORTING DATA
A.
n.
c.
D.
E.
r.
G.
H.
Site Location Map
Site and Signage Plan
Utilities Plan
Grading Plan
Landscaping Plan
Building Elevations/Plans
Photometric Lighting Plan
Signage Illustrations
3
/
/
/
I--
I
150 ---;
/
/ '" ,
~...
/ I r~ PEET )
( l ln~p :c 100 tl
/ .....................
/ SC-4 ..............
L OO{ ...........
r....... EtOiJ(E:v -..
/ .................. ~r?D
/ ....................
/ ~ 6--1:- -..~
/ _L~b6~
, t
/ DII~ NIP l,lnun' ~A$I;IIIEIII-r.;: AllIE 5H(I'IIIN lH\,t5:
I(N: & fU"l .,. 'Il1O'81, ~ I;)ntUhIj~ ~C)CA.1U'i,
-1 MtO ~IO LOT ~:I. -0 12' IN wD1'I1. UM.lSS
O~It'M!iE *DeAJS), AMI) M1.llIINING PLAT NIQ
thO: 1IIMI1' or _v UlfCt, ..s ~ ON TIC ~f.
IIII'!.I:~: C1'N~ MONTaUO
~'~:~~=~:LY__~
~~OSCJu1ttR""Ml)Bl....I!:ttOMI!fY.M.
/~iT8~ M"O~
/ FRDNTY,vIDOF,;;1;T
/ aIDl;YARtlD~ET
R~ yARtl 0 FeST
AREM ADJOINING R.1 "III) R-oI NEED AM;! FOOT ~ $;'I1IAQ(
/ AN030IIOOT8lJ11'FEAV'ARO
/
/
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
150 I
'-....,1
I
I
I
I
~~\:
I I .'
I
I,
"
I ir
{
I
I
I
. r- I
"1 I
, I
"g: " f".
~I', I ',i.. .WNI~1iwo
~ ~ _ n\ ~4;. ~.~n~
"
"
"
"
" .
'I
f,
" .
'. ,,~~
,"
~r
..
\
4
'I~
-~G_ (/
....--11
1 II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II I
J L.______...J
--,
I
I
f
i
I
"
" "
"/~"
"t. - "',' "
...... "-'1;"....',
"" 5"~ t--
~.... ...,.,""'"
......." ......" I
............. ., '....... I
"', I ~<I'
" I "l;
~=::::=:---
fH or EA5EMt:NT 192297 .q It
f.Rf;A NORTH OF EAseMENT
: JO' StRIP
TH or EASEMF;NT 20228 sq fl
, BLOCK 2
;47 sq_ It.
17 acres
.
Il
,
/ ~
.1 '"
$"
g;
;ii
)---------....
----....
~
-----........
J..
ff
if
J:
'----
-..........~
~
,'t
",'
-................
'----
----"
".~........----------....
I
/
/
I
I
I
'____ I
'1---.,
I --....,
I ''j
-.......
'"
GRAPHic SCALE
,"
['00
TQTAl.l.QTNEA:
~.~/lt;.
"'COfT~ ACflIj,.OES S!-tOWN ON PLAt
FLOOD ZONIi STATB6:NT:
NOT IN 'lOOD ZON!
Be~:
TNH.."" OUAO .!JCHOOI.BLVD. AND~MW) lO~& RiDI"'.73
TNH~~ seRVICE;: ROAD TO PNU< alllmE "l 1'I1I!SN'I'I!IIWI/Ci mS1
l.IiG.AJ.. Da;CRIPTION:
SoKiIoI\1.LIIOII
n.p.n~_NllfUlwMtOlaM...ufllw~~~_~.""~
COI'I'IIfOl '"" &ouIt\iMll ~..t1f ~ 111; rn.r-1DIh1llblq-' 1M 1t70.1..It-.ttII....
....wIh MUU\ 11M 123 fMl to ~or~ tt.-~__~wihMlUltl N
1M1t.40 fMt 10"'''' ngne Dl'Wfl'fe(HWM-f iilo,;It.-~IIiIIIIlMaIIIJ83~ 11
mInutW.JO MCOftdt '-fI: HIfIg 1M ~OI..., _1I1',:/:1 fMI:"___~nIIIttwMtwrIy...~
~,...,IIIIIDtJa~CW\It~__~ltIIIMnI.MftnII...utlJ~42"*UM2.lI
.--..... .Jadlusvf61..5......,...III,1tIMl;:~~~....oI--t
~lolllt~04,42...1D_~wIIh.....MIII;...nclMlll'lllnlllltl~CMftIiI'ot
5ouitwt1nt CWftIr: In.r.c."" NwIU MIld...... ~ 1DIh44;.ioO ....mw.l ~ uf SauIt-*
0uiIrWr1DlllrMrlgw..t~'MInMftnIlMCII'~Q..w1ll'~1o, __1twIOI1Wd1
~wIIh...cllnllolSDlllhMlllltCNllllMt.,.~__f!6~~__..~
IIIlIrItIIM 1I1lif,~,",IQ.1M ~.......wm-.MII(fjI~..IM:lhlfaIOUlnIlonD_
~_t47.,.51,....topo4ntl:ll'~WOIJIfIIIhllIIm~m~f7fiMiI7.
S~16~
ThIiIp-'utIMSUWlHlllltOiaMlt'aI'itdIcWI'5.T~12'1.....~~.
tnI~tcorrMr.tMnoIfIPItI.......w. ~ tt70."'IMt~e.t~'tIIIIIh_1IIuItI
11M 123 ,1Nt to....1l'ClIrM 0I'~: __~ t-t~-...SlUhh t..A....~
w......,l'IIIhI-uf..., ut"~ 25: ~~...~sa-..- "Jnft.DI.~......
...ftlllDlg'*"-of...,.....4111.21fMt~lr\IIIMIt~~...~MInU~
mJnIIII~lDrKWttrMIlIl..~II~__~.......~mlrMM24~"~oi
574:1.44 'MI 189.19 11lio1ii1: 1t'Ma coNlIM ~~.mng .....~~ III IBt CWft 54.42
f'lltll 111 1I11t1 ~I wllh.mi Mo IMt..CIUIt\ of.,.. ~ IlrIIIDI-.., ~ ou.n.rl;li' IhII Soult-.t
QlMIttlruf!hl;llDn j;.~ IMI'Ii;.liN...lalMDt* ~1lIIII44'.'D"'tDIMWBllNlollhI~
QuMtE": IhtInIo4IgxJfl~~ p~'II1ihNoftllllMeelMt~NI;w1I1~wIIt!.e_lIIIIIcI
SIIUIMBI Ou.ttIr ttli in( ID nUI11'1 IlrMII of ~ 0UIMr...,., w.MMInCI NIl!ttIIIM 11K17.&tI1llrrt1lJ
lIM......wlt/l.endn3 flM! EN'III WMlIIIw;...... ....IIIIm1DHid,........1.7a.&1 fMl:lIlIpcMnl
oI'btOIMlnI.IitC4P'11fKt~"",~711f11!14);..~InII;I~mDarouMtll
..""
W~B
'-~N:.
"'1~o.n~~
.... >00
~.MN *Z2
......-
~,tI"IC *-641-1n>>
SHEET.J OF If SHEEZS'
.~~~ I~' t
J(ill' 1:1 ~~ }
", z~ "t
>> "'IE
!~~ B ; fi
IR! ~ ~,.t
~~ ~ d
!I
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
z z en
" " " "
~ ~ ~ ; ~ ~ I i ~ ~ ~
tI ~ m
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ !Ii
~ ~ '" '" '" '" '" .. 0
~ !I! ~ ~ 'il ~ ~ i: m
J ~ 111 ~ l!! ~ ~ I J !: ril
i ! ~ I z l'l
! g Q'
i ::D ~ '" ~ ~ r
.. ^ ~ !2 i ~ 0
" ~ i
~ i z ! " "lJ
j G) i ~ g I s:
s m
(j) ~ ?I - ~ a z
c ?I ~
s: ?I -l
s: Z
~ II
0
-< ::D
s:
UU ~
0
z
---
~ :
...
n
'"
~
~I
Iq-
~G)
Q:!l
<3
r
m
~
en-
m I
~
g
ill
2<G'
c
~
~
~
o
~
()
i l ~
~ :t"
; ~I
~ :~
~ <i~
i
i
!I"MIN,
."~'.. .~
, 1:""',-:
"I
,.
~ I~
n
~
~
R
iii r~
~ ~I \!~ iC
~ ! l~ 1m
~ K~ ~ ~ i
~ 0 ~ il ~ ~
q C -" _ _
! I II
~ ~
)> ~
r r-
en g
~
:~: ~.(.~~
~,"<:'~
~:-. '.....
~ I!
11"_,
a>!JIaJTINm'I_an-o-ACCESS ROAD
I.ICJNI7a'I1D. AM
!4;" 1M'
\
--;en
ti-i
qm
Ji':'
~
G)
~
m
1]
~
~
I i I II
I : I II R~
I II ~ ~~
I : I 15~
II~
I' I
I I ~ 1/T1/JTY~
I
III
I : I
I It'" IIN~' 27'....
I : I
_I II
....
""
~
,.
Il
~
!ll~,:"un881B ~
I I 1D1 I I I I I I I Ii)
~~I~U~U~H I
, .I _ QI Ji; ~ at iii I; e 1.. .- rn
DNotlNd
ON
@....
....
~~ Ui i
'~ !i~ !
~ ~~ !
~ ~/
(lJ
:':{:i, \
.", .
'-:I~~.
\,-~
,}.~I
,.,:.:,
:":"i"
i~D
IZ8f>8vf>809- I tm:>'d!"opAU.........
ISNO;)SLM. 'g:'T1IA'iI.llV'ld :!IJlSS!IA\
3JJH;)lIV I S1I33NIDNH
lOSSY
z~, 1'61 '0T1Z>U.~
0'fl2X.lN0III JO ~N' "1.WA}K)N
lllVO <li:lll".llll lIWUAO
'v'lOS;lNNIV>l 'OlU:>11NOV>l
'OA1Q lOOH~S' 52 'H'l'S dO ~;JN~O~
O~V1C;nJ N;!ZO~d G~;!^lnJ
"'- ;lN~n'v'lS;J~ mSOdO~d
=""
"
i :1 H H~
~llhln}Hn
i~til!t~jh,!
iJillU It"l
"Oitli'~hE~;l
lBhHHHn
\ 9G "H"J.:S
II . II
'ii, />c"S;~=-~~c,==~~~'==~===c=-~=~~~=' I 'I 'I 'I
\ //l~ ~ I! h I!
. ./11-_/ ~ nnn
';j; liil! ,I · - . . .-. H - -.. ~ . -. -' -- .---. T ; IPi Ii
~\~ \1 i ~ r ~ ~~=~~~C= - c= - ~~ - 1 I r ~ ! II II II
;~\ "\, i l\'/ <b (II /......,__.n....n.,._.n "-'J.. \-~~r-cc==~, \, I : I ~ I II Ii Ii
I, I I~ il,.'............. : : I. ' .-.------....... -c-..-.-...-....-...-..-..-..-...--.--..-. ". ..."'........'...... .......\" I ~!I..!I~!IIi!l~
~ ~ Iii \;1 /f/~3~=~"'~ --~-'-!~~""\\;~j\ I i I ! ~i ~i ~i ~
ro\\ \ I...!.? ii . i./ I nrcrn~.i Jill ! I
....I \\1 I (i !,f Q, ;~ J 1\ 1 I i I n
8~\ : fl' D;P'G),,~" ~'i-' ':" !iil, c----;:,? "Ii ',I \ ! \ ~II
:c Iii \ :;f [/\-1.- -- L_,- .. , .. .~/ ..' / I i 111~i
%'it;. '\.\ "\ " 1\1 (..\f'.:....~I:'.1 4 l i ill i i I ;J ~ ',:'1;-1"'"1 I.' 1'1 I' \ I, ~
<II \1, ~ ' I',' 1 , (s;s' .., 'I.. I l'lt Ii ,~;
" , I \" , 1 I " i' 1,1
\'\~ ',if\ \ \,- - ~i !--- I '",-r-I:j 1:1\ 111 : I ~ ~
\'~~\ Iii/' \ \' i.l I ~\ \ !'" ~ i .' ~~\\ 1,. ~~ Iii \ 0 UJ
\\ " ~ ~ \\ \ " ! ~ 'r;1~ I. i ~! ' 8" -'"' i i ~ I.: \ !: I ~
,\' ,;J "', Ill"' ~ ~ '< ~.. ~ rl \ I' I..J
\\ \ '- " ' \ __ ~ ~ ~ m g ~ ~~ ~ ~ !I I n..
\,'0. \ \ \", \i:~l\i"\ \ \~~\ J \~~\ !~~\ \ \ Iii i~ "1'\\ ~ n III' \~
, ~\ \ \ '" \ \\ 1\ I i~~' ~I' i~~Ill! ~..' I I 'I'H\'''' I ~ l1il.:: \ i !::
\ \ \ Vi \\ \ \ : 61 S I I 1 I: /.. (6.... '1 ' ~ I?
, ., \, \ I \\ J:: \ 1-- - - i ~ ~ i -- '--1 .. '\-- 1- - \ n_ - -1 ~ --' ~ ~ :', \ i I ~ ~
\,:, \ '-, \;\ \ '-\,li~il' I \'gti i I I \ \1 \1 :51!'V~~ III ' :J ~
\,,): ',\\ \\\ ~_ '; ~~I:g 1 I,! \~~'~'" a~ lid I I $ i~
\.,'{}.~\ \ \,\ ~.. 1 i; ~ \li\1 \ ~~
';:, \ ':, \~~ ~ 5 ~.. II 1 ~ III
\~\.. \, ..\'. '''~~...-~':--=== -~--' ~ ----.,:;;;::=--=--.;';-,.-::::;.-.. , JL i L _ ~I ii1~
\,,', ' ',' " S> s, -:::t...=-
(55:;;. (55 (55 0 (55n----- ~
_~ ~.' ~~ <PVOl::J ~S300~5 ~::'i, <5 <5 (55 <5-.--
"',
\
~
\
~
\ ~
~
\X\
\\\
i~
i~
_n.
-I Ii
a!9
~ u~ a
I r~ · It
D ~i 2~ ~I
d~~ ~~ Ii
r~h h
~ !lsJ
;l;
.n
~ -I
~ !9 n al
f;l IliI II il
z
0
I 1; i~1!! IIU ~~
~ i" II
~14i I II
~ r h h;
~ ~ Uil
~
9
~ ~
.
~
"
i i
~e ·
1m I
iu
~I
I!!
i;i .
a
n
~~
.,:.\
~_______---------~:~---..---, //' ///'\,__---- , ~\)1
/ / "\ I"~
/ / \
~ ~ ~ - ~ - ~ - - -=--.......-..---==...:=:- - - -"'-- ~ -----.- ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~\..- - ..../,
----~~~~--~-~---~-- // ,-~~--~-
_/\
-".:~-~=2?~,=-,~:~~~~~;;~~-=~~~:c::=,.......=,,=-==~~::~~~::::::;~:,~c~-~-~::-,~::::;::-=~~~-~~.~::.~l... '\
'- \ I
.... I \ I
I \ I \
\ ACCESE;\ ROAD '~-....,............~
---! -- \'
~:,..,::."O'~.:~::;:z--...:::.:,:c:;..:.::.:...;c:,----.- ------ ..- ..,--,,,. 't ""
ges =:c::.;.: ::-__ :-..:':':" ..,....,----'-,::::..-=-~=-==:=:::~~:=~~~-~~'=-:~'=:;::~'~::.:~"~~~~=-]~.;;--'~>>
I
~ N i~~
~ 0 a~~
~ 0 h
q ffi ~"
-t ~15
o ~Q
:0 ~~
< ijlS
m -;;
o a~
~
r
~
g-,
w
;zm
~:o
o
Q2
o
z
o
o
~~
r
fA
z
o
z
G)
~
~
~~
I~ :>j
'11:
h
. .
. . !i
4'
. .
I!f'
. .
. .
. . .
. .
. .
" ","" ..If.
\.
"
"
" :
" I
" I
"" I
".,I
--...~---
---
il tl 3 "t I
U II; ~~ ! ~ G) I
il ! i~ !I! ~ ~I
I f I: I qo
~ ~ ~~ 2 ~I
Ii Ii Ii!
~I
~ i~ h ~ z
I ~~ Qi '" J
~ m! ~ Cil
-:
n III
, , I\'J
" , ~
....
, ,
, $1
,
,
-'
I
I I : I
I
, I II
I
I
I I I I
I
-----____J ..
\\\
''\\
',:\\
\";,.\
'\\
\\\
\\"
"\
'"
':'\
\',\
N
\>
" \\
", \
1,',\ \
" "
1\'\ ,
\i,1 ,
\\\ '\
IIi.'.' \
\\ \
t\
1'. I
1\ \
I, \
II \
.... : \
i \
I \
\ "II \
1\ \ '.
\\ 1\ \-\\
\\ 1\ I 1\
II hI
l\:\
) :
'~ I ,\
\\ I \ ~\\I'~
II \ I
I \
II I \
~ \ ';\\
~--~~
\
I
\
\
I
\
I
\
I
I
\
\
I
\
'-
--
---
--
c . /.Jxrll~l~~rrrl
-:
-....
G
~~
~~
~~
. .
. .
I
WI
0/
--
!:10SSV
V10S;:INNI~ '01UJI1NO~
.OA19 1001-DS:I' 5(': .f-JTS:10 ~JN~O:)
G~\:;I1SnJ N;IZO~d S,~;I^lnJ
:lN~(lV1S;:I'i!I mSOdO'i!ld
J;)ll(Olld
.OOlS\hml
i!.':~II'P NV'4 'OTl2)U~
OTD::itJ..NOi't.lO :;INI '2N\i^,~N
_0
128(-817(-809-1 """.02!"""...........
.JISNO:JSIA\ '3:TTIA3:11V'1d ~
)'3..LllI:nw I S"}{'3'3N10N3:
9G "H"l:S
._,__,;;:;;;"~;;-=;;o,~.::::=~..~~--.:;-...:;~~;:-~=::::::.=.:;:--~,.:::=,:=c::;:;:-~--=-==:;c:,;:::~~~--;=-.=~~--;::;;;-;;:;,;;:';"C;~:;;;;d;,;:;;:::;-.;;,:::=::;;;;::::.:;.;;;;~_':;~_____=:=;.:.:c-
-'- """",,:,--- ':;::"'.~
~
<II
II
5
III
\\,
17/
c'
I':
", ',:~::,-=;,.~::==-=:::::":::::'::'~_'-:':::"'-=':;::::"::-,"::"::;=::::::.::,,-:":~--=='=C""'::".2:,"c:=-,,:=,::=--",:::::::::::"':L:;:.~:.- ----..-
\
.__._. ...__________~,~~:c~==_~:-"_:=~:::'
\
0\108 883C>OV
i ~i Ii H~
~'iIHliIHH
H~q1 ItJ"f
jiHifftHih
-illlz&uz'H
i!!lHi ~d~..
HIIHHHH
i I!~ I
h 1!l2 I
~j J;~~ II
~~ ~8!,( ~
-.J
~
o
C)
Z
I-
Z
~
.s 0-
Wl?
W:'-
~;
(II(h
o
[
~
~
lL
o
~
; ! II I
CJ
o
-!
m
o
w
m
CJ
z
~
~~
O-~
<t
...~
--..
I!l ; ; ; ~ ; ~ ~ ~
m ~ ~C :! ~
.. .. r;; ; ~
W
...J
:>
0 i i
w I I
I ~ I i I i !
0
en t ~ I i
w i · ~ ! ~ i ~ ~
0- J ~ ~ . ~
<3 Ii J .
E ~ ! I J I
en i ~ I f i Ii i 1
0 1d
Z . j
:5 E I
:s.
g " " .... - " 1Il 'It ~ ~
II .. OJ 0 0 w "" ~FF
........n_.. . ., ,-
~~ .~- ~~. ~ ~. f
;~;~f:~==~
. -- .--- .-
I ~ I -
illi..~!~
~~~iIL
~;il ~;
iI m ~ Z ~:
!I~~ti.
~Il~~.:
i~ilii
I
r;r;r~l:!l~ I~-I
I :1~1.-,1~1 ~l~l
~
: ,- ~~
~ .'-
,...... -1~~~r-1I, I'..... .....
- w~ "'" ~ __
~ ,- -=;-. I \!j' ~_
Q:i: 01; III ~II 8 0 I
· ,i~rf;' [~, ~~\~' I - 1
-;;0:-0 C~ ~ f=- 0 l
~ M &> rk> ~
o <;><> ~r<> r k> ~ I
~ M.&> ,k) ~-:r-
- ~ <;><>111cr<t> · k;>. f - 0
" M!I!<:k) <0 _ __
o _ ~ ~lll~~~~~:g == --j -1
- 0 <X> .-$1 - _ III
- - ~> q -c, c; Ill'
J -"~ _ _ _ = --j II
-' -/=r 0 ~IT ~ ~ - _' iU
~II~ ~ ilLl," 0:= ir - "=i III;' ;- ~ l g" - -1A J'J ~
8 I , - "1 I =I ~',<U
II' - ! i= }1' I I L --j, ~(_ y
iii - I ":1" = - 1, ~ i= 0- ~l" \' __
" s~d~ r-.:rt ~~ = ~ ~l~' ...... J- ~
~ qli J==~ l I~ [1 ____..4-.l,- v 1-. ~ ~I~ 10 1 !
I ,";"" ~ 'I.... II "". 6'#':=f-- r.:\ _
I I.",.." '" ''- I, -" - 'I ~ A
+-1, ~_J ~~ l" ~ L==t;;" -' -. "j , ~ I i
I> ll~ I. ';. - " I. ~--"",- _ _"" _ Gl~
1 'I,,' 'Iiiil ,,~ _
',... , - f--- _
J ~" , ollbl': ~ -r'==============J M~ _'
.. 1 1 ~"' ~~ 1liil! . -', I I 1IiIf1,.~,1 L.....- I---J .. _
- ., . ,[]./-_v M: I 0
l " i', I - ,g ~ ' IJI j I ~- 'I ~. I' .
I h I l "l' ~ . Go-, .L.,_~ -l'* III
' I J..,. - , I ] : ..r. .
"I .1I ! .;:: f:{?"~: I '~~--Ik-~Il II. Ii
' ! !I <. k) b., :;> in' "- ~ """I!". __ ~l __ ii
'Ii ,,- / ~ I- --...., - :c ~. l "
~ n -, ~ ~ " 'L~ }, - r---=__".':; _ -:"_1 ~ ,,<<] ~
--~i ~Irl ~~~::t~." i - ]IH=:~r,;,n$" ~
51 I 0 ~= \ _"""',,_ l.. <'_ _ J ~ ~
.. <b" = ~l -""I -~-=-_ --j -I '>.
! . - "\U I I,. i!i:J ,.., II"" _ i
ILliJ- : I I I >-::: \:1.1\1 0~ r-:.jJ I == _'If "'= 1"<
~ L'D q r d!\ I "" I _ 1\ ] r "ror, r
Il~ I n ~ [ L-- 11E1~";' I, C ~'~..~ ~f~~i ~ ~
r -').I!II:.I 'IrI~ -J. '/~' _ 'hd _ I
I . ~"'""~" 1_ I I
iT ~: -~~ --~w_ r\ I 1:11 In0T ~ II
I '18r.\.-- :~il~ . ".F~ II
I'V/ :11 lihl~
I
U~11
I
IN
II
gt!
Iii 0
Q< i.! 0
.0 c;;:O
+ m _
'i- IS II. "tJ
~C ~!j;
:n~ .z
5 .
2 3:
~ ...~
~ ~ ~
~ f~
iii j' ~
-r-
1:
i!
ij
~
~
! -
~
i
~
,.....
-
~
ft
r
I
t I
~
i
-
t
t-
I
lZ8€-RVE-809-1 ""','1IlIl'op.o.<..........
!lSNO:JSIA\. 'HTTIAHl..L V'ld :IU1SIIHM
)3.LIH;)W I S"H3HNIDN3
~OSSV
i
i
I
I
I II II
I
\ I
I
I
j I
I
I
oow
o
...,.
l~
I ~I ~
! II ~
~ iI c( ~
iI ~ > I
~ ~~ il ~
~ a W";; ~
I I!Z~ ;b
o Jij il~
a: a!
u...~
_I
I
I
.J
._.J
I
1
~,
-'
I
.,
1
I
]
I
1
--'
j
I
I
'\
I
~~
~~
i
_ F
I
i
f~[lL II f-
h -/ II
I
1~1 i
1"- J
f '" ~
f ...-
... r
~
I I
~ I
I
11
t: ~
\ 7' ~
'7 I J
'\ '7
/ tB
7"
/
7#
i~~ ~
~g ~ l
d~
E
i
i
iI
z~~G ,.,.V1I 'OTC:JL1NOVi
CJT'Q:JU.N~.I0 "':;JNI 'ZNVNdON
s..,"'L\lIll lIaIL\lO
V'lOgNNII^l 'OlU:J11NOI^l
.O^19 1001-.oS t SZ -I-lTS dO ~;JN'Ci0:J
Cl?l'v'lSn:J N;IZO~d s,~;I^ln:J
:lN~n'v'l~ O;ISOdO~d
DiIlOU
I
I
!
il
Ii
~
~
~
U)
Z
o
I ~
fi _ ~.~ >
i ~I, .,.-.w ~
i ~ _~, ~
I ~I UJ
... .61.~1 U)
~ I ~ h U ,,-= fil 9 ~
~ ii !!JOn
t a:~
. UJ"-
.. ~ I-Ui
<C~
~~
11~
~!I d
~~!S II
~ I ~ I i~- ~ Ii1
I i ~1\iJ
=-~
--
.9
.. s
!sln-R~ ~-~
i i ~;j-h==i a;
l< 5i! ~ J ~
d ~~ 8~ ~ ~
~hJ ~J ~ ~
F
-Z-S
.DhZ i
''-J~i!s
ddi
=1
II
8~ ~
;. ..-
In i
z
! S
~ ~:
w5'
....I";;
Wio
a:~
c(~
We:(
a:~
f
I it!4 s!l~
~I h Ijnuutl
f;hIhh1h
"i'll:~hi~~i
!lhHHiHi
~
I-
Z
UJ
CJ
z
z
a
I
z
o
~
>
UJ
~f;.
0:';;
o.
-~
a:~
~~
_&1
I~
..
l
_J~
~
i
"'Ii
If .~
T2-~~
... ,
- ..
I l:: '"
- n
.r~1
~I~~
-0.................,,01""\.......]>
oruruw............t:l
r"""''''''''>J'-''-'''~
(T1 "'ll-O....
"O"O"'llJ>V1;:J
~777.!.t;~
t:lCl'>mmJ>ruJ>
~ruw""""U1r
"' "" """ "'" t,..1
X~~~!:2-H'1
---i......._...,ztI1~
c: CINe:
;lJ -lOr ....
(T1-l;lJe:f'1rn~
(T1~'O~-lx';l
~ _ r .u'"
cO
~
e"
e"
po
JU
P"
w
~ ~
~ r:
~.
po
...
po P"
w m
e" E"
eD
e'
E"
e"
E"
ru"
po
w
po
W
'"
...
rull WO
~ g
.,..11 ~
:.., '"
....
'"
"'.
'"
....
'"
hi
l^"
....
""
'"
-.
m
W
,..'
JU
",'
...
",'
fu
9"
lO
....
c
ru'
...
....
in
;:!II
m"
...
-.
:..,
ru'
'"
r: ~ i;D ~ii ~II
....
10
t: ~ b:1I bD ;';11
... ...
fu W
... pO
fu '"
po
...
0"
1..1
po
lO
~.
po
W
cO
...
if.'
lr
...
w
~.
....
_II I\Ifr
.. (n w
;;;'
!:D
..'
:..,
IJl"
,.
g'
JU"
0.
t.D
(JI'
'"
"'.
fu
.....
<>
JU'
fu
go
-'
;"
pO
....
-.
:...
.....
10
"'"
'"
.....
:;...
....
10
JU'
e.
'"
e.
(JI
lr
t:1III
ru.
'"
1".
...
.....
...
....
fu
e"
e'
-t-
...
w
...
w
III
:...
....
....
~
"'"
fu
!!.'"
....
w
,.,.
fo"
,.,.
(oJ
...
fu
...
;"
...
'"
...
'"
1'"
m
~ ~
I}!' r;
!!.'"
...
;"
f:.1I
1'1"
lO
1".
lO
8'
III
....
'"
eO
po
JU
<>"
fu
pO
...
po
...
po ...
<n '"
....
;.,
fu '"
.....
....
"'" ....
....
lO
r:'
\.t'
<n
"'"
III
...
fu
...
....
...
...
...
f:'
1'"
'"
",.
:,..
"'"
'"
f ~
1'1"
<JI
IJl"
(JI
w
10
p
...
!:"
ru"
b
....
irI
P"
JU
~.
c'
fu
p'
JU
<>"
Iv
eo
b:.
b
l
...
in
""
hi
&-
c
:..,
p
'"
",'
fu
;!.Q
!;:
",'
w
.,c
'"
lO.
b
.,.
in
:,..
'"
s,nD .,.,._
'" fu
hI!. ~
1'1"
m
(JI.
(n
",'
'"
",.
w
to
...
i.J
[;. F.
....
in
,."
'"
IV'
:..,
....
..
h;"
c"
'"
g'
P"
'"
po
(JI
<>"
hi
P"
m
~
po
'"
.....
<>
pO
...
'"
'"
'"
...
-.
:..,
p.
...
i;.
1".
'"
w.
..
1;;'
1;:.
po
<JI
E"
.
::---f
co~
-
><.n
c
- .ii
~E
~
Q.
,
o
C~
cn2
.- "..
.' (I) t
"lI'
~
cO >
cO ~
...
c C-
at E
'ii cC
.. CO)
..
;: ........ I
S~
..~
Clan
1.,)(
'ift
..
co
N
.
V1
.
:..';".7......... .
.,_._..~.,;..~'--,.."..."-1
2
.,,, ~~
Lficb
m >
.i5
~ u_u ,. :! 16
~~-_.., b)>
",___m'~ . , es.o
--- 'C i
"'.-"-- .! ~
:, ..'-'.'''''. I~
c1B
-6
JOR.
L_~~~
..". "10 'is
: .c (t)
, ,.'I..~.i
'. J: .2'
; (/) 0
~...~~,. ~"_~ _~_:~~_~.~ J
11H
:I I 11
1_"11
~ilh
~ I !i
l~l.. !~
!il". 1..t~
~ =
.-'
t--'
.
to
C"!
--
""
.
~
~
--
-
(I)
Q)- CD
c::J 0
.- C ca 5i
(I)-Oc
.m~.9 :0
~ .:"' ...
io~$tEo
~ -....
!
.c
I:
i=
-1ft
Ie
I~
0.8
e-
=
c
'~
:a:
Q;
tf..
eu
~~
0"'0
cn__
Lt>--
(0.
. Q.
Ne
ec:t:
tOm
(/)....,.
c '
,2> ~
(/)....
mo
(/)
~
I-
ca.S )(
,- c: Q)
u~'-
m 'C Ji .E
ii~'CQ) ,
.5 m fiLe :!
.e>-U)~'C
.cco&:
(I) ~ i .2>> ft 8
~ 3==CI)CDo
VJ 0.>-...._
g ~g.:!~
o aJenCD_'C
'-;'g':t::!ogs
- -:;.fi _(/)
'S ~ c c: .s,~ 'S; Ou
'C '0.:J 0 '" ~ ;;:.
c: >- ~ U._
,8 F--
~\
-
. i
II h
, ~"
, I ~J
.. ~ :; I, i
... I. ir
N: ~ U
\ I~c>
~ , .. ~:
II II
III ""
i
J\
(... ("'\
.,'
lCOW ROllbAcl lII'.; N.lllOUBlrialPmlc
RICHLAND CENTER, WI. 53581
.....7... 'ax ....74020
t............
ft '" un.lBWIUl to_,.. dr....ll wtlhOUIlhe_
ptl1I'llnlOn d JIfn Greeley 89'S elltlAwnlnIl'. inc.
.
Scale 1/2"=1 (01~'9-2000)
No Scale on Photograph
46.58 Square Feet
Large Outdoor Menu Board
S\G~ F~
t.....'.-:....~' .
I ,: .l~r'
'. ~'
More
Menu
Items
...
F;\\'Odll1::c
C;',:::-;~'~:,:i't:'~-'!,:~..
""".,1,.'".., 1Ioto.., ,
't~1"~iIII'.'11,1_,~I<''K'I
lrljl,"..""'",\.Y.</.','....
More
Menu
Items
78-
i
1111
II
ORDER
HEllE
14"
~..
86"
~
.
.
.'
S\(,N
1-\\4
'" ."
100W, FlDbbAd "I. N.llld..,..Parlc
AICHlAND CENTER. WI. 53581
8OIW47-2828 Fax 808,/847-2020
1.aoo.......GNs
· II uWawtullll_" ChwlIlg >dllOuI......
~ 01.- GoMlIly 8lgJ!eaJlll """*"'" ..
S\~'N
""'fV\
.
12.
Public "earine - Consideration of a request for a conditional use permit
allowin conce t sta ~e lanned unit develo ment for 41 detached townhomes. In
a PZM district. Applicant: U.P. Development (NAC)
REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND
U.P. Development is requesting approval of a conditional use permit allowing concept
stage planned unit development for 41 detached townhomes to be located on a site
within a PZM- Performance Zoned Mixed Use District. Permitted uses and standards
of the R-3 Medium Density Residential are generally applied to the PZM district. The
subject site is 6.7 acres in size and is located at the southeast corner of West 6th Street
and Elm Street.
Comprehensive Plan: Monticello's Comprehensive Plan designates this area for
performance zoning of mixed uses.
Zoning: The subject site is zoned PZM, Performance Zoned Mixed Use District,
which allows for development flexibility and special design control within sensitive
areas of the city due to environmental or physical limitations.
.
CUP/PUD: A Planned Unit Development allows lor flexibility in performance
standards with the understanding that the development will be held to higher
standards of site and building design than would ordinarily be required. It is the
applicant's responsibility to design the development with significant benefits and
communicate those benefits to the City for allowing a CUP/PUD.
Site Design & Standards: The following table illustrates the applicable
performance requirements for the proposed use in the PZM/R-3 district; the applicant
is proposing significant variation from the standard requirements.
R-3 Standard Rcquirement~
__5,000 sfper unit
30 feet
~~,~_.
30 feet
-~----------._,-,-,._-
30 feet
82
~-----!,ro~~___
1,930- 2 182 siR~nit
20 feet
10 - 20 feet
'~-'~.~----------,-.------,~
5 - 25 feet
~~~._--.......--.-.~,
88
..~---~
'--'--'~'~-"--------.
21
-'-"-.~,_.,--"._,-
63
_.'-,-,~-
20,500 SF
~----'~-'--'-,-,,-------,
25,796 SF
~~~'~'-'-"'-"
.
The intent of the PZM/PUD district is to encourage creative and innovative design
approach to commercial and housing developments. The district provides flexibility
from standard controls to allow thc creation of common open spacc, wetlands and
1
.
recreational facilities as well as mix of housing types and styles and commercial uses
where feasible. Due to the flexibility of perfonnauce standards, a pun is required to
be held to higher standards of design and site amenities.
Design Overview: Forty one alley-loaded detached townhomes are proposed on 6.7
acres for a gross densi ty of 6 uni ts per acre. West 6 Y, Street is extended west to Elm
Street and provides public access to and throngh the development. Units front on both
Elm and West 6'" Street as weH as on two internal open areas and a stonnwater pond
in the southwest COmer of the site. Vehicular access to aH units is via alleys and most
of the units are within five feet of the alley. The site plan shows that garages face the
alley and that the units have a similar foot print and massing along the alley frontage.
Site Design: The proposed site plan lacks a unifying use of open green space. The
proposed open spaces appear as outlots leftover after maximizing the site's housing
capacity. This development presents an oPportunity to Use tbe open space to define its
character and organization. Tbe open space can also be used for stonnwater retention
as an amenity and to provide pedestrian connections through the development and to
adjacent neighborhoods. Attached is an example of how the opeu space could be
reconfigured to define the space and provide connectivity.
.
Design Alternative Exam pIe: Staff has prepared an ill ustrati on of an al temati ve
option for consideration by the applicants. The example shows a 40 unit project with
the centtal open space designed as a long community green. The fonnal rectangular
shape and the site lines it creates unities the development which is bisected by West 6
y, Street The space also provides a clear community center or focus. At the uorth end
of the green, a pedestrian trail provides a Conn ection to West 6'" Street. At the south
end, the formal green gives way to a natural edged green space separating the project
from the adjacent development.
West 6 Y, street is configured with wide set backs to Contain a green boulevard
connecting tbe community green to Elm Street. The example also shows the green
space containing the stonnwater pond thus exposing more of the development to this
amenity. In this example, the pond and community green give the development a
strong sense of character and identity, thus enhancing the overall quality of the
project. Engineering of the pond may result in the need to adjust unit locations for
grade, however, the intent would be to retain the City's minimum 30 loot deep usable
open space area for each unit.
Staff believes that this layout aCcommodates the applicants alley-design by creating a
more consequential open space, truer to the requirement that pun design inemporates
amenities not found in standard zoning.
-
Parking/Access to Individual Units: Each unit bas an attached two-car garage,
however, only three units provide a driveway large enough on wbich to park cars.
Stalf believes this scenario is acceptable only if the lost parking space creates more
open space rather than more density. The Current concept plan does not seem to make
-
2
.
that accommodation. It should also be noted that allowing outdoor parking provides
for such conveniences as car washing and case of loading and unloading passengers
and materials.
A separate and more serious issue is the location of most street parking to be used by
public visitors and guests. Nearly 2/3 of the 63 street spaces are in the private alleys.
The utilitarian design of garage doors facing the alley does not present an inviting
public image to visitors and guests. More parking that enables public access to
individual units via the open green space or public streets would substantially enhance
the quality of the development.
Building Design/Massing: The applicant is proposing 41 units with identical
footprints. Staff is concerned that unit design and massing provide sufficient variation
expected of a PUD and to fit in with the small lot single family structures to the west.
The applicant should consider adding variation to the plan. Re-orienting structures
and introducing some attached units are options to consider. Elevations and HOOf
plans should be submitted for the proposed buildings.
.
Stormwater Management: One purpose of "PZM" performance zoning is to
encourage designs sensitive to the environment. Creation of a storm water filtration
pond with a permanent water level and within an integrated open space plan would
provide an attractive and ecologically sound amenity for the entire development. The
site contains Hubbard soils (loamy coarse sand) which provides good infiltration and
drainage qualities. A clay liner could be used to permanently hold water up to the
desired level. The Hubbard soils would allow stormwater infiltration for water rising
above the designated permanent water level. A more centrally located stormwater
pond would also reduce the amount of storm water sewer pipes required for the
development.
Lighting: ^ photometric plan displaying any exterior lighting should be submitted.
ALTERATIVE ACTIONS
I. Motion to recommend approval of the Concept Plan for U.P.
Development, based on a finding that the project is consistent with the
goals of the City's Comprehensive Plan.
2. Motion to recommend denial of the Concept Plan, based on a finding
that the project is not consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan.
3. Motion to table the request subject to additional information and
project redesign.
.
3
.
STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS
The concept plan review is the Planning Commission and City Council's opportunity
to provide feedback to the developer regarding a wide variety of issues prior to the
preparation of a detailed development proposal. Issues may include morc dctailcd
design concerns that the City may believe are critical to further consideration of the
project, or may also be related to more general land use and development planning,
including the staging or direction of future City growth.
Staff has concerns about the design in its current conceptual form and believes that
revisions are important to achieve the quality of development necessary to walTant the
f1exibility of a cuP/pun. Planning staff believes that working the design to integrate
opcn spacc into the development is critical. Additionally, redesigning the parking plan
in order to present visitors with the public front f~lce of the development is also
important. This should be more easily achieved within the context of an integrated
open space plan. This will also give the project the impression of a more traditional
site design, and emphasizes the residential character of the use, rather than the
automobile functions. Staff also encourages the applicant to incorporate a permanent
stormwater pond with infiltration and to create variation in the front elevation of the
housing units through LIse of different styles and massing.
.
Staff cannot yet rccommend approval of a conditional use permit for conceptual stage
development of a planned unit development. The applicant should be requested to
redesign the site plan incorporating staff recommendations and rcsubmit a new plan.
SUPPORTING DATA
A. Aerial Image
B. Concept Plan
C. Schematic Utility Plan
D. Existing Site Conditions
E Staff Illustration of Integrated Open Space Design
.
4
I
I
I
I
I
""" '" I" f' ,..,.~ -i"" ~
' . ! .. ~ 3::
~ i 8 ~ ~;;! ! ~
~ ~ i I;l Ii; ~~ ~~-<
h i~ $ ~ ~'3 ! i~ ~
. ':>;;1 ~ ~ "'I ~
~ ;;; ~.. i ~. h r,;
;! ~ ~i ~ "!i t~ '"
i: ~ ~ -~. ~ ~ ~~
~~If~~~
e "'... ~;> J
I ~ J ,,~ "
!;> ! t> ~
~ i" ~ ... e ,..
~ ~ ~ 8 ~
~.. . ~
I J
~
!
l'
I
..
~
Ii
/j
~
.........
h
~
~
Q,
a
~
~
~
~
Q
1..
.
Q,
.
~
I/J
iJ
wI
~;
~l
ij/i:
I!iJ , H
K:i ~ H
~.. j .
~~
;; .
l>i l' i ~
,II Ii !i ill
ti JI .3
.... .l!
i .. I
~ I ~t ! 5 .
ffi 1h Pl!~t ~ j
~~j~j~ lilu~ : ~
'IIi"~ do-. ~ ,; p
..~[., U"~6 ~ u
~!!ll:~ ,...0..
J
if
"..
~~ '"
h t
If ~
<I
~~
h
h
~&
~I
i~
ai
..Ii
h!
~ i~
~1Il
h
~
w ~i z
~!l!zi~...~
":J""!:!i:i
!:!i "I" '= !Ii ~
~~-4:~~~~
~ hUUI
Ill@0~1I
t II
15 1\ 1l
.. b
] ~~ Vl Vl
g.:P~ E E
:;; a....-. W w
~-ci"i E ." 't>
.!ihs 13 15
" .. ~ '" .t:. :5
c....oc: ;: to
(.I 0 iii 0 "C
].e~b ~ -g g
Elig:S-g <3 0
0') E ~ 1,1) III ....... c;i
O~oti:c ~ c
..c: coo >-. g Ill)
~~!!-", :5 :f
"",:p~E ~ "'...
C:5~{j "'~ ~~
Vle~>.5 1:~ 6......
'6~"61A E",,-g,""
.5': g )) ~ ~ II :I: II
~ Ii 6 ."" ~ co ~ 6
-o-gli 31: :ig~-;;;
.. .." E co " \1 <:>-\1
Vl c..a..:t-8 t Q.CI) o.!
I=' ,," u'5" "'w.......
o J:~Ii..o t-:
z .....~ M
-'
:il
~o
;!;
:il ~
/
/
(
I
I
I
I
I
I
G:::;
~IJ'_.--
r
I
.l"
~
~
(f)
;d
fT1
fT1
--I
[j
FROM :NAC FAX NO. :9525959837 Jul. 01 2004 11:28AM P2
E,d'lb,t ~. 5.-\Aff IIIvs,,(o.T"()f\ u' -If\'~fl).~,",' V\",,\Y\. .)~"'\~ r~
.
rE~ ~'1"RIAN
C ONHrC''''{I 0 N 1"0
w. c..~ sT.
:.::l~~~$C~t>~:~?:,;::,";:::t
'~Ivcl C'OH~
C'-:N"t'RAL O'Pf'H
"'::s\)llC E "TO
fIi '('1\ ..T.
. ",,'
, ~. " . '
D\lpLEX
':P~,::~~":,:",,,:,:
--- eeH"fJ\A'L.
07e:N
slAU:-
.
S1OR~WA1ER
INfl~D~
~ON~
I.{ D tJ N \1 5
.
.
.