Planning Commission Agenda 05-04-2004
.
.
.
AGENDA
REGULAR MRETING - MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION
Tuesday, May 4th, 2004
6:00 P.M.
Members:
Dick Frie, Richard Carlson, Rod Dragsten, Lloyd Ililgart, and David
Rietveld
Glen Posusta
Jeff O'Neill, Fred Patch, Steve Grittman - NAC, and Angela
Schumann
Council Liaison:
Staff:
1. Call to order.
2. Approval of the minutes of the regular Planning Commission meeting held Tuesday, April
6th, 2004 and the special meeting held April 26, 2004.
3. Consideration of adding items to the agenda.
4. Citizen comments.
5.
Public Hearing - Consideration of a request for variance from the 24' maximum
driveway width i'()r single family residences in an R-2 district.
Applicant: Wayne Spicer
6. Public Ilearing - Consideration of a request lor a conditirnal use permit allowing
for a 728 square toot detached accessory use structure in an R-l district.
Applicant: Shawn I ,each
7. Public Hearing - Consideration of a request to amend an existing conditional use permit,
allowing l()r open and outdoor storage space as an accessory use in an 1-2 district.
Applicant: Simonson I ,umber
8. Public Hearing - Consideration of a request for a simple subdivision to create two
buildable lots in an R-I district; a request for a variance to create a singlc-llunily lot of
less than] 2,000 square feet in an R-] district; and a request for a conditional use permit
allowing tor an accessory use structure to exceed 10% of the rear yard area.
Applicant: Darren Klatt
9.
Public Hearing - Consideration of a request for a development stage planned unit
development and preliminary plat in an R-2 district, and a request for variance to the
required setbacks.
Applicant: Richard Carlson
.
.
.
Planning Commission Agenda 04/06/04
10. Public I learing - Consideration of a request for a conditional use permit for a concept
stage planned unit development in a B-3 district.
Applicant: HolidayStation Stores
1 ] . Public 1 fearing - Consideration of a request to amend the R-l A zoning district design
standards.
Applicant: City of Monticello Planning Commission
12. Public Hearing - Consideration of a request to re~zone a 59.14 acre parcel from
Agricultural-Open Space (A-O) to Regional Business (B-4).
Applicant: City of Monticello
13. Planning StafTUpdate - Swan River Montessori School
14. Planning Staff Update - Home Depot
] 5. Planning Commission Vacancy - Applicant Report
] 6. Adjourn.
- 2 -
.
.
.
MINLJTES
REGlJLAR MEETING - MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION
Tuesday, April 6th, 2004
6:00 P.M.
Members Present:
Chairman Dick Frie, Rod Dragsten, Lloyd Hilgart, Rich Carlson,
Council Liaison Glen Posusta
David Reitveld
Jeff O'Neill, Fred Patch, Dan Licht - NAC, Angela Schumann
Absent:
Staff:
1. Call to order.
Chairman Frie called the meeting to order at 6:00 P.M., and declared a quorum. Fric
noted the absence of Commissioner Reitveld. Frie noted that Deputy Administrator
O'Neill had spoken with Reitvcld, who indicated that he would be stepping down from
the Commission. Frie requested that stafT ask felr a formal resignation and move
forward on finding a replacement for the position.
2.
A royal of the minutes of the re ular Plannin Commission meclin held March] st
2004.
A MOTION WAS MADE BY HILGART TO APPROVE 'fHE MINUTES OF THE
MARCH 1st, 2004 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING. MOTrON SECONDED
BY CARLSON.
MOTION CARRIED WlTI--1 FRIE AND DRAOSTEN ABST AININO.
3. Consideration of adding items to the agenda.
Hilgart requested that an update on the Home Depot project and contested case
annexation process be added to the agenda.
4. Citizens comments.
None.
.
.
.
Planning Commission Minutes - 04/06/04
5.
Public Hearin l - Consideration of a re uest for a Conditional Use Permit aUowin l 1()f a
detached accessor use structure in an R-1 district as allowed b the Gcneral Provisions of
the Monticello Zoning Ordinance.
Jeff O'Neill presented the staff'report, indicating that the applicant, Jason
VanderHeyden, is requesting approval of a Conditional Use Permit to allow the
construction of a second garage on his property at 4537 Cobblestone Court. The new
garage would be detached, and totals 960 square teet in area. The existing attached
garage is 544 square feet.
The Zoning Ordinancc permits a total of up to 1,200 square feet of garage space as
permitted acccssory space for an R~ 1 single family home. In addition, no accessory
building can exceed more than 10% of the rear yard area. However, up to ] ,500
square feet of total area can be constructed with a Conditional Use Permit provided
that the accessory building is to be utilized so lely for the storage of resi dential personal
property of the Occupant ol'the principal dwelling, and not for commercial purposes,
that the parcel on which the accessory building is to be located is of sufficient size that
the building will not crowd the open space on the lot, that the accessory building will
not be so large as to have an adverse eHect on the architectural character or use of the
surrounding property, and that the accessory building is constructed similar to the
principal building in architectural style and building materials.
O'Neill indicated that the applicant's rear yard is more than 12,000 square feet in area,
and as such, the] 0% threshold wi/] not be a concern. The total square footage of the
garage space on the property, as designed, would be ] ,504 square teet. By reducing
one side of the new building by a few inches, the building can be made to meet the
standard. In addition, the applicant's plans and application letter indicate an intent to
meet the requirements of the Conditional Use Permit provisions.
O'Neill did note that the rear of the accessory structure would front Edmonson
Avenue. O'Neill indicated that stafTprefer the space in front of building to be usable
space rather than requiring a larger setback from Edmonson. It is also statFs opinion
that the yard is sufficient to handle the proposed structure. O'Neill asked that during
the public hearing the applicant confirm any intentions lor driveway.
O'Neill stated that staff recommends approval of the CUP, based on findings that the
building will meet both the intent and the specific standards of the zoning ordinance.
With the comments that the building will be finished to match the house, and the] ,500
square foot maximum is met, planning stafTbelieves that the building is appropriate
fjJr the site.
Chairman Frie opened the public hearing.
Jason VanderHeyden, 4537 Cobblestone Court, made himself available for questions.
-2-
Planning Commission Minutes 04/06/04
.
Hearing no other comments, Chairman Frie closed the public hearing.
Hilgart sought clarification on the possibility of additional future pavement.
VanderlIeyden stated that he would seek to install a concrete drive connecting to the
new structure. Ililgart stated that if a driveway were constructed, the amount of paved
surface area may be of concern. O'Neill recommended that in such case, appropriate
landscaping should take place. Licht stated that while the impervious surface is not a
major concern with the size of the parcel, adjacent property owners may have concern
over the driveway. The Commission may want to consider requiring a driveway
setback of 6 feet with a landscape bufTer. Dragsten indicated that a concrete pad may
be more desirable than a full driveway. VanderHeyden expressed concern about the
camper making tracks in the green area.
Carlson asked stafl if by pushing the structure furthcr to the rear yard, it is more visible
from 117, which may be a sitc concern. O'Neill indicated that staff thought the bctter
use of the land is usable yard. O'Neill indicated that the right-of-way would also give
it more separation. Licht stated that if it meets thc setbacks, it should be an allowable
use. Carlson also questioned whether granting this request would create a large
number of requests for detached structures.
.
Chairman Frie expresscd appreciation for the applicant's compliance with ordinances
that move toward eliminating yard clutter.
A MOTION WAS MADE BY DRAGSTEN TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF
TIlE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A DETACHED ACCESSORY GARAGE,
WITH TIlE CONDITION TIIAT THE APPLICANT MEET EACH OF THE
REQUIREMENTS OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE AS FOLLOWS, INCLUDING
THE 1,500 SQUARE FOOT THRESIIOLD, WITH THE ADDrrrON OF
CONDITION E.
(a) Accessory building spacc is to be utilized solely for the storagc of residential personal property
of the occupant of the principal dwelling, and no accessory building space is to be utilized for
commercial purposes.
(b) The parcel on which the accessory building is to be located is ofsuftlcient size such that the
building will not crowd the open space on the lot.
(c) The accessory building will not be so large as to have an adverse effect on the architectural
character or reasonable residential use of the surrounding property.
(d) The accessory buildings shall be constructed to be similar to the principal building in
architectural style and building materials.
(e) The applicant is to leave the driveway area as green space and install only a concrete pad in
front of the structure.
.
MOTION SECONDED BY HILGART. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
-3-
.
.
.
Planning Commission Minutes. 04/06/04
6.
Continued Public Hearing - Consideration of a request for a Preliminarv Plat and
Conditional Use Permit for fivc 4-unit townhouse buildinl2:s in an R-2 district.
Licht provided the staff report, stating that the applicant has revised plans for his
proposed townhouse project along Prairie Road, whieh had been tabled for
consideration at the last meeting of the Commission. The City had previously
approved a conditional use pennit for the eight units north of Prairie Road, and the
current proposal includes an additional 20 units south of Prairie Road. The new
portion of the development is a replat of the original "Brothers" plat of7 single family
lots. The zoning designation is R-2, which permits single and two-family homes, and
allows attached townhouses by Conditional Use Permit.
It is the intention of this application and a requirement of the original eight-unit
approval that the two projects be combined for final plat and association purposes.
The final plat must be processed through the City and County prior to occupancy of
any of the buildings in either project. In addition, it is the understanding of staLl that
the developer is required to provide securities and/or a development agreement prior to
beginning construction work on the original 8-unit project. As a result, the plat
request is lor 28 units on seven lots, howevcr, Licht noted that the ConditionalLJse
Permits are needed only for 20 new units.
The zoning ordinance for R-2 areas permits townhouses at a density of one unit per
5,000 square feet oflot area. Each of the proposed lots exceeds 20,000 square feet,
and as such, the density requirement is met. All units would face public streets,
including Prairie Road and a new cul-de-sac extending south from Prairie Road.
In regard to the preliminary plat, Licht indicated that the plat shows 7 total lots - 2 are
located on land north of Prairie Drive, known as "The Meadows", and five are located
to the south. The two lots to the north mirror the previous lot lines, while the five lots
to the south are arrayed both along Prairie Road and around a cul-de-sac. The cul-de-
sac was platted as a part of The Brother's Plat, but never constructed. The proposed
units appear to meet all setback requirements as designed. It should be noted that there
would not be room fix porches on the rear of the Building 7 units due to the minimum
setbacks being proposed. Future owners should be made aware ofthis issue.
With regard to the layout, the units on all buildings appear to be reasonably situated.
On some of the units, driveways would have required turns in the middle of the
driveway for backing vehicles. This has been corrected to result in straight driveways,
with the exception of one unit. The developer's solution provides for a "turn-out"
design that should be made to accommodate a backing vehicle.
Licht stated that staff recommends approval of the plans based on the applicant
meeting the outlined conditions in Exhibit Z, including modilying landscaping plans to
include landscape treatment in the driveway separation areas, and the addition of lilac
-4-
Planning Commission Minutes - 04/06/04
.
hcdge buffer is to the east side of thc northerly eight units, consistcnt with the
landscaping treatment in other areas of the proj ect.
Posusta sought clarification on a comment recorded in the minutes on the Prairie Road
reconstruction costs. O'Neill clarified that the City would contribute a significant
amount to the project in accordance with street reconstruction funding policy, but the
exact amount is not known at this time. Frie asked O'Neill to provide the Commission
with that information once the amount is known.
Chairman Frie opened the public hearing, and asked for the applicant's comments.
Schneider questioned whether sidewalk is needed on both sides of Prairie Road.
O'Neill statcd that this would ultimately be Council's decision, however due to the
comments provided by residents and the fact that Prairie Road is a collector street, it is
a likely possibility. Dragsten whether there are applicable guidelines in making such a
decision. O'Neill indicated that therc arc, and that Prairie Road is just on the edge of
the threshold requiring sidewalk on both sides. Fric asked whether the narrowness of
the road would prevent two sidewalks. O'Neill stated that the reconstruction and right
of way will allow sidewalk on both sidcs. Dragsten asked whether build-out in Timber
Ridge was part of traffic count. O'Neill statcd that it was. Schneider asked if this
requirement was consistent with other residential areas in Monticello. O'Neill
indicated that the City is moving toward morc sidewalks for pedestrians in all new
residential developments.
.
Hearing no further comments, Chair Frie closed the public hearing.
Dragstcn asked if not having the ability to build decks would be a problem for
potential buyers. Frie also requested that a notation to sellers about that limitation be
required. O'Neill clarified that ifthc dcck (or patio) is built at grade level, it would
meet code.
Frie askcd O'Neill to address why thc final plat is required to go through Council and
County. O'Neill stated that staff were trying to provide f1exibility to the developer by
allowing building to procced with development and securities, but maintaining a level
of ovcrsight by withholding occupancy until all conditions are met.
A MOTION WAS MADE BY HILGART TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE
PRELIMINARY PI.AT, BASED ON FINDINGS THAT THE PI,AT MEETS THE
REQUIREMENTS OF THE CITY'S COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND R-2 ZONING
DISTRICT.
MOTION SECONDED BY DRAOSTEN. MOTTON CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
.
-5-
.
I.
2.
3.
4_
5.
6.
. 7.
Planning Commission Minutes - 04/06/04
A MOTION WAS MADE BY DRAGSTEN TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF
TIlE CUPS, BASED ON FINDINGS THAT THE PROPOSED PLANS ARE
CONSISTENT WITH THE R-2 ZONING STANDARDS AND THE
REQUIREMENTS OF THE AREA TO ENSURE PUBLIC SAFETY AND AN
ATTRACTIVE NEIGHBORHOOD.
FRIE AMENDED THE MOTION TO INCLUDE THE REQUIREMENT THAT THE
APPLICANT MEET THE CONDITIONS FOUND IN EXI 11l3IT Z AS LISTED.
Submission of a final plat and execution of a development contract prior to issuance of building
permits.
Establishment of an association to maintain common areas, including the cul~de-sac island
landscaping.
Landscape detail is provided for the separation of combined driveways.
Provide sidewalk along both sides of Prairie Road to connect to Timber Ridge in accordance
with the City Engineer's plans for the Prairie Road reconstruction project.
Provide additional landscaped buffer along the cast boundary of the n0l1h portion of the project
consistent with the rest ofthe project and the recommendations of this report.
Compliance with City Engineer recommendations on grading, drainage, utilities, and street
construction.
Compliance with City Public Works direction for mailbox locations, garbage collection
locations, street lighting, and other requirements.
MOTION SECONDED BY CARLSON. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
7. Continued Public Ilearing - Consideration of an amendment to the Monticello
Comprehensive Plan establishing policy requirements for the development of townhouses
in Low Density Residential land use areas.
The staiT report was provided by loicht, who indicated that the draft language provided
would be a statement of policy rather than an actual text amendment.
Licht indicated that many developers seek to incorporate the highest density possible,
which can create issues for the community in multiple areas. Commission previously
directed staff to draft a statement that addresses the density issue. The proposed pol icy
incorporates the comments provided in previous Commission discussion.
The policy statement requires no more than one townhouse unit per every three R-I
single family units. To make sure that future projects don't attempt to squeeze around
the requirements, the amendment distinguishes R-] A areas from "regular" low density
areas and excludes R-] A areas from density averaging and townhouse development.
.
-6-
Planning Commission Minutes - 04/06/04
.
The policy also added an additional open space element f(x any use of R-2 or R-2A
development, and placed the burden of proving the propriety of anything other than
low density single family on the developer.
Finally, the proposal adds a listing of potential considerations for allowing R-2 and R-
2A housing in a low density project. lnduded in this list is a review of the proposed
project, its building design, and its building sizes in relation to the requirements for R-
1 units. This should help the City leverage larger townhouse units in these areas by
holding out the likelihood that such units will need to be comparable to single family
homes to qualify for consideration.
Licht stated that statT is recommending approval, based on the fact that the policy
provides greater direction to the development community and that the direction is
more consistent with the City's comprehensive plan and development goals.
Dragsten questioned why it would be negative to require that all townhomes would be
in one area. Licht indicated that a balanced mixture of housing also balances the
services needed for development. Licht also suggested that sporadic development
allows development of more high-end townhomes. O'Neill cited Par West as an
example of a development style that would be a likely result of this amendment.
.
Carlson asked what changes would occur under this amendment in an R-2 district.
O'Neill stated that the policy simply identifies or prescribes density fl.)r R-l areas, it
doesn't affect previously designated R-2 areas.
Chairman Frie opened the public hearing.
1 learing no further comment, Frie dosed the public hearing.
Dragsten stressed that he still questions scattering one or two townhomes at a time
throughout the community. O'Neill and Licht clarified that the City would still seek to
locate townhomes in clustered areas within development.
A MOTION WAS MADE BY FRIE TO RECOMMEND APPROV AL OF THE
AMENDMENT, HASED ON A FINDING THAT IT PROVIDES FOR
APPROPRIATE LEVELS OF CONTROL IN THE USE OF TOWNHOUSE
DEVELOPMENT IN CHIIERWISE SINGLE FAMILY DEVELOPMENT
PROJECTS.
MOTION SECONDED BY DRAGSTEN. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
.
-7-
.
.
.
Planning Commission Minutes - 04/06/04
8.
Consideration of a request to call for a Public Hearing regarding: R-l A Zoning District
design standards.
O'Ncill provided the Commission with background leading to the request. Key Land
Homes and Trison Development are seeking a public hearing to address the R-l A
standards as they relate to the Hillside Farm development.
O'Neill indicated that the primary concern is the 1,400 square foot minimum
foundation size requirement. Key Land and Trison have noted that for those who
want to do a straight 2-story, the home ends up at 2800 square feet. This would seem
to push buyers to a modified two-story home. 'fhey are requesting that the
Commission consider a different standard for the two-story design.
From a stafTstandpoint, O'Neill stated that the purpose of the requirement is to create
large, high-end homes. However, it would seem that the loophole in the ordinance
allows 1C)r a modified two-story at 2000 square foot finished, but not 2700 square foot
finished.
Frie reported that he had spoken with builders and realtors on this specific requirement
and had received similar feedback. Howcver, Frie pointed out that Kcy Land was well
aware of these requirements when they bought the property. Frie suggested that
lowering the standard may provide more flexibility and creativity in home style.
O'Neill reminded the Commission that the intent of the R-l A requirements was to
make certain that high-amenity areas that have been waiting for development, arc
utilized for the upper-end homes they are more suited to. The question that is to be
answered is what constitutes a step-up home.
Carlson commented that R-l A zoning requires large lots and large homes. lie
indicated that 1000 square foot foundation is not a large home. Carlson said he is not
averse to adjusting the requirement, but that may mean the Commission needs to then
look at R-l A standard as a whole.
Dragsten stated that by lowering the foundation size requirement, a high-end home
can still be accomplished if the finished square footage is regulated. Hilgart
commented that perhaps each house style should have its own foundation size.
Patch indicatcd that the design that would be most impacted by the requirement would
bc salt-box style housing. Patch noted that another goal of the requirement was to
create more interesting spaces and streetscapes.
Howard Triggs, Trison Development, addrcssed the Commission. Triggs stated that
the intent of the ordinance is good because it requires a hard and fast standard.
However, due to the hict the Hillside Farm is a PUD, there should be more i1exibility
-8-
Planning Commission Minutes - 04/06/04
.
in the application of the code. Triggs cited homes examples requiring 2000 square
foot finished above grade.
Licht clarified that the Hillside Farm PUD was approved with R I-A district zoning
standards and R-l lot sizes.
hie asked Hillside farm representatives for a market rate f()[ the homes proposed for
this area.
Ron and Chris Long, Key Land 1J0mes/Tiffany realty, addressed the Commission,
answering that based on the current market, the homes would be in the range of
$260,000 - $280,000. Ron Long displayed a chart illustrating a list of house
foundation sizes and market price.
frie asked Long how the houses illustrated, which are below 1400 square feet in
f()lmdation size could be built when they don't meet standards. [,ong indicated that
they had been given permits to build these.
Frie recommended that Patch determine why these homes were given permits. Patch
indicated that before any assumptions were made that the homes on the chart were
given permits, he would need to examine the records.
.
Licht indicated that the first question is the clarification of the terms of the Hillside
farm pun. The second, broader issue is the foundation size requirement of the code.
Licht stated that the clarification on both issues has to come from the Planning
Commission and Council. Licht indicated that in the case of Hillside Farm, the
developer and/or builder could seek an amendment to the PUD, which would be his
recommendation.
Posusta stated that the standards were discussed thoroughly in order to come to
requirement conclusions within the R-l A designation. The Commission and Council
are seeking higher standard houses. Posusta commented that he has a problem with
regressing from that goal. He conveyed that perhaps this situation can be addressed
based on the look and feel of this particular case.
Frie indicated that the homes on the graph displayed by Ron and Chris Long do not
reach that next-level intended by R-l A. I,ong stated that the smaller lot sizes are
prohibitive to developing larger homes. Frie clarified that the developer sought higher
density, which was the reason fix the smaller lot sizes.
A MOTION WAS MADE BY FRIE TO CALL FOR A PUBLIC HEARING
REGARDING RI-A ZONING DISTRICT DESIGN STANDARDS AT THE MAY
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING.
MOTION SECONDED BY HILGART. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
.
-9-
.
.
.
Planning Commission Minutes - ()4/06/04
Frie recommended that staff work to resolve the situation with Ilillside Farms and
Keyland Ilomes, noting the strain on building due to a lack of clarification in the
standards. O'Neill indicated that they will check development agreement for the
standard for this PUD and R-IA development. Patch stated they would still need to
apply l()r a PUD amendment in order to vary from the standard.
9.
Consideration of a request to amend the Monticello Subdivision Ordinance.
O'Neill reported that the proposed amendment had yet to be reviewed by the Parks
Commission. O'Neill recommended that the item be tabled and sent back to the Parks
Commission. It will than be resubmitted to the Commission.
Staff withdrew the item for consideration.
10. Agenda Item Addition - Walmat and Annexation Update
O'Neill indicated that representatives from Walmart have spoken to the City about
possible site locations within the community. They are currently in the EA W process
J()r a proposed location. The City is unaware of how this proposal alfects Home
Depot at this time. The City will be prepared to incorporate them ifneeded. It is still
a possible project as far as the City is concerned.
O'Neill reported on the annexation process, stating that the City is undergoing a
mediation process lor the annexation. That process brings both the Township and the
City to the table to discuss the annexation. The process was started due to the 60 acre
incremental annexation, with the County controlling land use, being rejected by the
City due to the demand for development. O'Neill reported that the mediation process
is moving forward and that the ultimate results are unknown at this time. O'Neill
commented that it is important that both sides have input and that a document is
created that works for both parties. Frie inquired about the timeline for the mediation
process. O'Neill indicated that the decision has to be made by November in order to
prepare for a possible trial. O'Neill is optimistic that a decision could come in the
next few months. The next meeting of the task l()fce is on Wednesday.
11.
Adjourn
A MOTION TO ADJOURN AT 9:00 PM WAS MADE BY DRAGSTEN. MOTION
SECONDED BY HILGART.
MOTION CARRIED lJNANIMOUSL Y.
-'-""-"-~----------..-
Angela Schumann, Recorder
-10-
.
MINUTES
SPEICAL MEETING - MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION
Monday, April 26th, 2004
6:00 P.M.
Members Present:
Chairman Dick Frie, , Lloyd Hilgart, Rich Carlson, Council Liaison
Glen Posusta
Rod Dragsten, David Reitveld
Fred Patch, Angela Schumann, Steve Grittman - NAC, Matt Brokl -
Cambell Knutson
Howard Triggs - Trison Development (developer of property), Rod Just
- Tiffany Realty (realtor for property), Chris Long - Tiffany Realty
(realtor for property), Terry Long - Key Land Homes (builder for
property)
Absent:
Staff:
Guests:
1. Call to order.
Chairman Frie called the meeting to order at 6;00 P.M., and declared a quorum. Frie
noted the absence of City Planner Steve Grittman, Deputy Administrator/Community
Development Director Jeff O'Neill and Commissioner Rod Dragsten.
.
Chairman Fried made the notation that there was only one item on the agenda for the
special meeting, indicating that it is not a public hearing.
2.
Consideration of a request for an amendment to an existing planned unit development
agreement for Hillside Farm. Applicant: Trison Development
Chairman Frie asked staIr to provide a clarification on what had been approved by the
Commission and what had been advanced and approved by the Council. Frie asked if
any alterations of the conditions approved differed from the existing planned unit
development.
.
Brokl indicated that the reason for the amendment was unclear language within the
development agreement, which included specific rules which were to apply to the
PUD. Brokl stated that only those RI-A standards that deviated from the normal R-IA
zoning designation were listed. These were identified to serve as examples. Ilowever,
due to gray area in the way the agreement was written, the developer took the
statement to mean that only those standards listed were to apply. As such, the
developer is seeking an amendment to clarify the language in the agreement, which
would allow deviation from R-l A standards regarding to the minimum square footage
required for foundations. Brokl stated that it had been the City's intent to apply the R-
1 A standards for foundation size to this development.
Planning Commission Minutes - 04/06/04
.
Frie noted that Grittman had indicated that this development consisted of R-I A houses
on R-I lots. Patch related that the Planning Commission had agreed to allow R-I lots
areas with R-I A houses in this devclopment, which was zoned R~ 1.
Patch stated that the first building permit had been issued based on the question of the
interpretation of the development agreement. Patch indicated that the City had sought
the R I-A standard in this development to produce a higher value product.
Patch stated that the stafT recommendation agrees with accommodating a reduction in
foundation size from 1400 square feet to allow for a required 2000 square foot finished
space above grade. Patch commented that in reviewing square footages in various
housing styles and accounting fl.)!' the large number of walk-out and look-outs home
lots, at least 75% of homes would end up with more than 2000 finished square feet.
Patch indicated that the planning staff recommended a base home price of $325,000,
which he and the City Attorney do not necessarily agree with.
Prie asked if either of the two homes currently on the plat arc 1400 square foot in
foundation size and whether they would meet the finished size recommendation. Chris
Long, Timmy Realty representative, indicated that both homes were approximately
3000 total llnishable square feet.
.
After visiting with a representative from Tiffany Realty and visiting the site himself:
Prie stated that he personally agrees that a step-up housing option is accommodated in
this development. Frie also astated that he doesn't agree with the $325,000 starting
home price recommendation, although he does expect a $250,000-$300,000 range for
homes in the development.
frie asked Long if he is receptive to that range. Long indicated that most are in that
range or above.
Howard Triggs, Trison Development, referred to the materials on MLS home listings
provided to the Commission. Triggs indicated that the issue of creating higher value
housing is best accomplished by addressing above grade finished footage and housing
style rather than foundation size.
Posusta asked for clarification of what was currently being built in Monticello based
on the information Triggs had provided. Triggs clarified that in the packet, fewer than
a dozen two-story homes fitting 2000 or more finished square feet are in Monticello.
Carlson cited other examples of large two-stories on small lots that arc in a higher
price range. Rod Just, representative of Timmy Realty, indicated many of the higher
priced homes reflect higher land costs.
.
Carlson stated that he doesn't believe $250,000 in an R-I A district represents the jump
to the higher end homes that were the goal of the designation.
-2-
Planning Commission Minutes - 04/06/04
.
Frie inquired how the ordinance language for the R-l A district was developed and
questioned why the issue was coming up. Grittman clarified that this project is
different because the plat was in process when the R-l A zoning was being developed.
The original developer had indicated that higher end homes would be developed on
this property. At the point that Trison Development had acquired the property, the
City was closer to finalizing the R-IA standards. The City agrced to the R-I
designation for the lots and R-IA standards for the housing. Grittman statcd that this
could potentially cause problcms as larger width homes may not fit the smaller lots.
Grittman stated that the cost threshold was introduced in order to accommodate a
compromise in the home size and was an attempt to preserve higher amenity spots for
high cnd homes. The City had developed the R-I A standard with the understanding
that it might not hit today's market, but would wait for the market to come to it.
Carlson agreed with Grittman in his finding that large homes are being built on smaller
lots. It does presents a challenge, but it also presents morc of a neighborhood concept.
Posusta indicated that perhaps the reason for this is again the land cost; smaller lots are
a trade-off for greater or bctter amenities.
.
Triggs indicated that he does not want to size lots small; he stated that he is trying to
accommodate the 80-foot lot size.
Hilgart expressed that he would prefer an 1100 square foot home as a minimum, based
on the type of homes that he secs are needed within the community.
Terry Long, Key Land Homes, indicated that the home plans in the Key Land pOlifolio
that would fit the 1400 square foot foundation requirement wcre actually smaller
homes. The large two-story homcs in the portfolio didn't meet the 1400 minimum.
Discussion commenced regarding the merits of setting a starting home value.
Patch recommended looking at all the R-I A standards and their application. If all
other standards are applied, with the exccption of lot area, setbacks and the
accommodation to above-grade linished area, thcy can assist in producing an R-IA
style development.
.
Posusta indicated that perhaps 1100 is even too small. He commcnted that the homcs
illustrated in the packet contain relatively small living arcas. He stated that thc
Commission and Council considercd this matter very carefully in sctting the design
standards. Posusta said that this had becn in response to builders who started with
high value and went cheap. Triggs stated he would hopefully do the opposite. Triggs
also indicated that as the development is happening in four phases, the City can stop
the development process if the builders deviatc from what is decidcd.
-3-
Planning COlTlmission Minutes - 04/06/04
.
Patch indicated that the motion should be subject to modification to the written
development agreement. Brokl suggested that the motion should indicate that all R-
1 A standards should apply with the exception of the building footprint for two-stories
and modified two-story homes with basements, whieh shall be in the amount of 1100
mmllnum.
Frie questioned whether Posusta is comfortable with this recommendation, as it will
relate to the Council discussion. Posusta stated that he does understand the builder's
concern over size requirement and the modifications that can be completed to increase
values.
A MOTION WAS MADE BY CARt,SON TO APPROVE AN AMENDMENT
PERMITTING ONLY THOSE TWO~STORY AND TWO-STORY MODIFIED
HOMES IN HILLSIDE FARM PLAT MEETING THE REQUIREMENT OF 2200
SQUARE FOOT FINISHED MINIMUM SPACE ABOVE GRADE, 1100 SQUARE
FOOT FOOTPRINTS (FOUNDATION SIZE), WITH A FULL BASEMENT; OR
THOSE HOMES IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE R~IA DISTRICT STANDARDS.
R-I LOT AREA AND SETBACK STANDARDS WILL BE APPLIED. ALL
O'rHER R-IA ZONING DISTRICT STANDARDS WILL APPL Y TO HILLSIDE
FARM PLAT. THIS AMENDMENT IS SUBJECT TO WRITTEN AGREEMENT
BETWEEN THE DEVELOPER AND THE CITY.
.
MOTION SECONDED BY HILGART.
MOTION CARRIED.
11. Adjourn
MOTION BY CARLSON TO ADJOURN AT 9:00 PM. MOTION SECONDED BY
HUE.
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
-'~-------.~-~-------~~-
Angela Schumann, Recorder
~
...
-4-
.
.
Planning Commission Agenda - 5/04/04
5.
Public Hearin - Consideration of are uest for variance from the 24' maximum
drivewa width for sin Ie fami! residences in an R-2 district. A licant: Wa ne
Spicer. (N AC)
REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND
The applicant is seeking a variance from the maximum driveway curb cut width of 24
feet. The applicant has difficulty in negotiating a backing movement to place his boat
in his detached garage. The applicant also has an attached garage which is accessed
by an existing driveway.
Variance requests are to be reviewed as to whether a unique physical hardship exists
that interferes with putting the property to reasonable use. In this case, the property is
otherwise a conforming single family lot, and the City granted a permit to allow a
second garage, consistent with the standards for CUP approval. One of these
standards is the ability to comply with all other zoning regulations, such as driveway
width.
It is noted that the ditliculty with access is related to the backing of a boat trailer,
rather than direct vehicle access. It would appear to be possible to store the boat in
the existing attached garage if more direct access is necessary, and shift vehicle
parking to the detached building. In the alternative, the applicant could shift his 24
foot driveway to the detached building, and curve the driveway to the existing
driveway, reversing the current arrangement. In this way, the backing maneuver
would not raise this issue.
ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS
Variance to permit a driveway curb cut width of approximately 52 feet, in cxcess of
the maximum 24 foot standard.
I. Motion to rccommend approval of the variance, based on a finding that a
unique physical hardship exists in complying with the zoning standard.
2. Motion to recommend denial of the variance, based on a finding that the
property condition do not meet the required hardship test for variance
consideration, and that other alternatives that meet the ordinance regulations
are available to the applicant.
Planning Commission Agenda - 5/04/04
.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends denial of the variance. Curved driveways are not uncommon
where oversized garages have been permitted. The applicant has the option of storing
his boat in the garage where direct access is available, or relocating the driveway to
provide direct access to the boat garage.
SUPPORTING DATA
A. Site Location Map
B. Site Plan
C. Aerial Image
D. Site Images
.
-
-
2
3
3
6
,
7
t
, 4 , 5 ,
~( ~"~- ; -_._-~-----
\~//---,._--:- -.,-----.~. "".j
: .":/ , , " ,
" , " ,
" , \
//: : ~ :
/ : : :
I
\
\
-
1
-- -
-'"
1
- F1Q
I
- E.F 10
2
I 10
- J 14
.15
- F1Q.11
...-
-
~
4
E 9
K 11
G 12.13 H 13
4.-
- ""
. - - - . .~ . .
Cit)
~.,'~
'-<~''1;
"~
Pr-cir-Ie R:Oad
Pr-escott Or-ive
Romse Street
Red OaK C'I r-c I e
Red OaK L:ane
Red RacK lane
River- Far-~st Dr-Ive
River- M t 1'1 Or- I va
River- Rid: e Lane
River- S tr-:eet E
River- Str-eet W
River-side Cir-cle
River-view Dr-fve
Sandber- Road
Sandtr-o Circle
Sand Lane
Savannah Or-lye
School Sou I evord
Service Drive
Service Drive ICR 39 El
-I..... - ...... ,... ~I_ ,... ~ __ I ...
.:_-.Y-..,-,"-,,~
o 4~6
G 7~8
F 11 - G 10
I 14
I HI
I 11
H 14.15
H 14
H 1!l
E 10 - F 10.12
C 4~6 0 6.8-E 8.10
o 8
G 13.14.15 H 14.15
G.H 9
F 8
o 7.8 E 8
H 7.8
I 9.12
I 8
G 13
T ;"
,/j
..... i
\....,-.'\ ...................,...........
, \
\ \
\ .i. ...._
- -r' I
I '
V it
~
,_
.
0)
.~
v
~
'--
u
.
-....)
'-.J
,..~
"'-.)
'0J
"-
T
"'-..)
:""-
'- '.
......,...
.
I
I
\
\
I
I
I
I
(~_e.-"-...-
00'11
.'.'d..._..,.,........
-. - -- ~---~." ~~...~-,
_..--~.-
:'1.,....,_ "..,__._.........-_~"..r--'.
.,~~~
1
<\..~
"-
"
.~...
55
'IIi
h I-
. o.J 'i-- '1--"
"-- .....
.y:::v '>.j
~"~ ~
;:.} J':
....J "
"- I:' ( ()
.~ ~ .....
,,~ :,
..............:", ~
"1--, '1,
11 ..... 'V
(~:'" "
"'l""'f-..
.....
\--.
'..1\) \...
':j. -.:. ."'-
:.s (-.
CS'>J!-..
\ ~~~
\ -~'--
\
,
..)
....I
~ '-." "t:
\ ,;) ('........
~ --1.. \n
.""
'\...
.........
~ 1"
._.~~ ~..,.
"u'-''''-'F''
\
/ '
/- ~}, p/ ("'t) "p A I I Gl ;' - -
" .'1" I ~
I ; ..,) d 11. S' , /.. .J/ /' L... .;)
I ' ~,
"''''-:;,., 7 .~
,.. 1 ",. '"
. ..7'-\; , '3: ,~.~
~~
-,f!
',' ~ ....
~
t
'~ ,< ~
\'1) ~
776'-[;; r _ . <1
.1i',I~/ I ~ \' ~ -
.." 'Ii. ~ &--~~\..---i---:
._..-----=----------~ \'" 'V'- ..,J
,[ . _,.-.,.'7"/.
UA ,1- .6 J\' . "'2'.....7"'..,,.
,.J ",""'1
>.....) .'"C/
'~2- -- ,... 'z
::s ~
-1
r...
."
'-"?
(/
\
\,
,
,
)
II
/
./
/
.'
"
.
,
,
.-1___,
,
,-
"
:1
.
.
5D
.
.
Planning Commission Agenda - 5104/04
6.
Public Hearin 1 - Consideration of a re
for a 728 s uare foot detached acccsso
Applicant: Shawn Leach. (NAC)
uest for a conditional use ermit allowin
use structure in an R-I district.
REFERENCE AND BACKGROlJND
Shawn Leach is requesting approval of a Conditional Use Permit to allow the
construction of a second garage on his propelty at 3657 Brentwood Drive in the
Groveland neighborhood. The new garage would be detached, and a total of 728
square feet in area, reduced from the original application for a 900 square foot
building. The existing attached garage is approximately 720 square feet.
The Zoning Ordinance penn its a total of up to 1,200 square feet of garage space as
permitted accessory space for an R- 1 Single family home. In addition, no accessory
huilding can exceed more than 10% of the rear yard area. However, up to 1,500
square feet of total area can be constructed with a Conditional Use Permit, under the
foJ/owing conditions:
(a) Accessory huilding space is to he utilized solely for the storage of residential
personal property of the occupant of the principal dwelling, and no accessory
building space is to he utilized for commercial purposes.
(b)
The parcel on which the accessory huilding is to be located is of sufficient
size such that the huilding will not crowd the open space on the lot.
(c) The accessory building will not be so large as to have an adverse effect on the
architectural character or reasonable residential use of the surrounding
property.
(d) The accessory buildings shall be constructed to be similar to the principal
building in architectural style and huilding materials.
The applicant's rear yard is approximately 8,300 square feet in area, and as such, the
10% threshold would be complied with. The total square footage of the garage space
on the propeJiy, as designed, would be 1,450 square feet. In addition, the applicant's
plans and application letter indicate an intent to meet the req uirements of the
Conditional Use Permit provisions with regard to materials, use, and location.
Because the building is located at the rear of the lot, it may he appropriate to require
some shrub and ornamental tree planting on the side and rear of the huilding to soiten
its impact on neighboring properties. The plantings would be within the drainage and
utility easements, but should help to mitigate neighborhood concerns over the
proximity of the building to adjoining propelty.
Planning Commission Agenda - 5/04/04
.
Finally, it is noted following a site inspection that the applicant has paved an area
around the side of his home that would appear to violate the 3 foot setback, and may
also have a driveway eurb eut width that exceeds the maximum 24 foot width
requirement. The applicant notes in his application materials that hc does not intend
to provide a driveway to the proposed accessory building. This condition should be
added to any approval, if granted. Moreover, the non-conforming driveway
conditions on the propcrty should be corrected as a requirement of the initial building
permit inspection.
AL TERNA TIVE ACTIONS
Decision J:
1. Motion to recommend approval of the Conditional Use Permit for a detachcd
accessory garage, with the condition that the applicant meet each of the
requirements of the zoning ordinance, including the 1,500 square foot threshold,
and with the condition that landscapc plantings arc added to the southeast and
northeast sides to soJten the impact of the building on adjoining parcels. In
addition, non-conforming driveway conditions should be corrected no latcr than
the time of the initial building pertnit inspcction, and no drivcway should be
extcnded to new accessory building.
.
2. Motion to recommend denial of the Conditional Use Permit, based on a finding
that the building would be out of character with thc neighborhood.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends approval of the CUP, based on findings that the building will meet
both the intent and the specific standards of the zoning ordinance. Thc rear yard for
this parcel is of adcquate size, and thc 10% rule was designed to cnsure that large
accessory buildings do not overwhelm the opcn feel of the lot or the neighborhood.
The applicant meets the threshold with this project. With the comments that the
building will be finished to match the house, landscaping is added on the side and rear
of the building 1~tcing adjoining property, and the 1,500 squarc foot maximum is met,
planning staff believes that the building meets the requirements for CUP approval.
SUPPORTING DATA
A. Site Location Map
B. Lettcr from Applicant
C. Site Survey
D. Project Specifications
E. Site Images
F. Letters from Neighboring Property Owners
2
.
.
.
---0A..
1
1/2
MI LE
1:/4
MILE
o
IF
Oft
o
sri
~
.
3657 Brentwood Dr.
Monticello,MN 55362
04/09/04
Monticello Planning & Zoning
City Hall
505 Walnut St.
Monticello, MN 55362
Planning & Zoning Members:
I would like to request a Conditional Use Permit for my residence in the City of
Monticello. The purpose of the permit is to build a 26X28 building that will be used
for storage of a classic vehicle, boat, riding lawn mower, snow blower, and other
miscellaneous lawn equipment. Currently these items are both in my attached
garage and parked outside on my driveway. I would like to put everything inside,
out of the weather, and not have to give up garage space for my personal vehicles,
ultimately improving the general appearance of my property.
.
The building specifications are as followed:
26X28, concrete floor with a 4ft apron
16.5 feet from the peek of the roof to the concrete floor
Blue shingles, white vinyl siding and 6/12 pitch to match Residence
16X8 Insulated garage door
36 in service door and 4 insulated 36X36 sliding windows.
I have no intentions on putting a driveway to this building. Usage for the building
will be mostly for storage and enabling me to park my personal vehicles in my
attached garage and get everything out of the everyday weather.
Thank you for you consideration.
Sincerely,
Shawn Leach
\: "::.,~ I "~1,.,..~ ft, ' '''A<""
....., .~,.., ."
'iI"....) ','tl
... ".-.. -,. j .~
:~, ';"(', "i~, 4' "~' '<it. .'Ii;l ~,
. 4."1' .:'-~
..~.,.~.
, 'l. ,,',' Wi .~"'..
-, .:~'~
.
'.j 1 ./j
\ (r~"
"" C,.',.,
\. ..'..... '''\,,,4 'Z'. ".'1
f. ' ~"fj:.)I\II'I" ...~!"'.
(. of, ., ""'~ (l
3D R V ~~ofJCi5M~ ANY,
LAND SURVEYORS
REGISTERED UNDER THE LAWS OF STATE OF MINNESOTA
7601 73rd Avenue North (763) 560-3093
Fax No. 560-3522
Minneapolis, Minnesota 55428
g,ur\tryurs Ol.rrlifirntr
LOT
IN'C.
INVOICE NO. 65029
F.B.NO.
SCALE: 1" = 30'_
o Denotes Iron Monument
D Denotes Wood Hub Set
for excavation only
xOOO.O Denotes Existing Elevatio
(Eoo.V Denotes Proposed Elevat
- - - Denotes Surface Drainagi
NOTE: Proposed grades are sur
to results of soil tests.
Proposed building informr
must be checked with Of
building plan and developr
grading plan before exec
and construction.
Proposed Top of Block
Proposed Garage Floor
Proposed Lowest Floor
Type of Building
JANSENlrnES
"AS-BUILT SURVEY" /
/
/
ill)
" /' fl_
/, /
/ /
7"V'/ ///
/
/
/~/
~., //
/'
'/
/~rv
~/~IJ)'
/ /
/
///
Top of Block
(, toto. 1
Design #30667 4/8/2004
. W
*** Take this sheet to the Building Materials counter to purchase vour materials. ***
iou selected a garage with these options:
30' Wide X 30' Deep X 9' High
Gahle roof w/ 6/12 pitch trusses 2' a.c.
2x6 Wall Framing Material
12" gahle/24" eaVe overhangs
7/16" aSB Wall Sheathing
1/2" aSB Roof Sheathing
White VinVI 4" Douhle Lap Siding
30 Vr. Superglass, National Blue Shingles
White VinVI Soffit & Fascia
White Aluminum Regular Roof Edge
White vinV' overhead door jamh
.
Front View
Back View
-----------"........---------------- .-.~
/.-- - .;:/~,
/ ,,~
~1/~ /- ~
1o-~m =lJoo. - J
---~----~-~ 00 -~~-
~-~
----. <7<""
/ ?/ '-~.
// // '-.~'~
// J/~.
./ y::/ ~~
---~~ -~
T odaV's cost 'or materials estimated in this design: $ 6419.83
Base garage without options: $ 3522.15
. *The bate price includes: 0" Eave/O" Gable Overhangs, Framing Materials,
7/16 OSB Roof Sheathing, 20 yr. Fiberg'a.. Classic - Onyx Black Shingles,
Pine Fascia, Galvanized Regular Roof Edge, 8" Textured Vertical Hardboard Siding,
No Service Doors, No Overhead Doors, No Windows, or Any Other Options.
.
.
.
tof
Front Yard View
Rear Yard View
View from Rear Yard
.
.
.
ltf
April 22, 2004
I am writing in response to the public hearing notice for the 728 square foot shed in the
back of property 3657 Brentwood Drive. I am a neighbor to this resident and would
personally not like to see that big of a shed in my backyard. When I look out my
window, I would see the shed. With it being that size, it will look almost the same size as
most of the homes in the area. Most of the homes have approx. 950 square feet above
ground and then the same amount as a basement. I feel if someone wants a shed that size
they should have purchased a home in a more rural area. I moved to a subdivision to
have a backyard, and for my children to be able to play and run throughout the yards of
our neighbors. I have no idea of the intentions of this shed, but I would not likc to have
the operating of heavy machinery and loud tools. That would add to the danger for all the
children in the area, and a noise problem for us neighbors. J understand this is their
property - but J believe it would decrease the property value of all our homes and it
would makc the neighborhood look trashy. It is bad enough this resident has piles of
wood, an old truck, and other trash in his backyard already. Please consider these points
when reviewing his request.
Thank you,
Concerned Neighbor
.
April 22, 2004
Dear Monticello Planning Commission:
I am writing this letter regarding the public hearing for 3657 Brentwood Drive. Please
accept this letter as my formal objection of the construction of a 728square foot structure.
I live very close to the applicant and feel that a POLE BARN of that size has NO place in
a subdivision like this. It is essentially the size of a small house. I do not wish to look out
my windows and see this eye sore. I already have to look at their pile of wood/logs that
are piled into the back of one of two old trucks parked on the side of the house. Careful
consideration should have been taken when choosing a home. Perhaps more acreage
would be better suited for a building of this magnitude. I moved to a subdivision so that
my children could have a nice backyard to play in. Who knows what kind of additional
equipment and noise will result from a detached garage.
My home is an investment. I feel that this obnoxiously large barn will not only decrease
the value of my home, but all the homes in this vicinity. If one person is allowed to build
a barn on our VERY small lots, who's to say that everyone won't want one. Again I
stress that this building DOES NOT belong in our residential neighborhood.
. I strongly urge you to take these opinions into consideration before granting approval.
Thank you for your time,
An unhappy neighbor
V~ILk':plAc.e 0-
~
.......
--
,- , _. . 7/ bs'A )/
~ J_~A2/ vv d.~ /;;# $ ~/
_ uf 7,21' 4 \JI. ~ Jh 57 &u~ fd2
dlvr~ a-Q'ffi ~ ~~
13~ ~,
~_;Z%{ tf244 ~ ~.~ .4~
-10- ~- <;/~ o?(ldY - cif G. 'Od /'~_
~yZrcnJ ~ ~_~
=ti.~ ~" :f0 ~V ~ ~ ~
yc) .P _.~~,/
.
J)j1KaAF~
t1~ A~
.
'..-... ..
.
.
.
Planning Commission Agenda - 05104104
7.
Public Hcarin - Consideration of an amendment to a Conditional Use Permit in
the 1-2 District. allowinl! for Expansion of the Open and Outdoor Storal!e Area
for Simonson Lumber. 100 Chelsea Road. Applicant: Simonson Lumber (FP)
REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND
Simonson Lumber is requesting a 50' X 60' expansion to the open and outdoor storage
area on the west side of their retail bui Iding on the corner of Chelsea Road and
Oakwood Drive. The area for the expansion is presently open lawn area with air
conditioning equipment located against the building. Simonson Lumher has indicated
that they intend to use the expansion area primarily for the purpose of lumber storage
in the summer and snow storage in the winter. The area would be fenced in the same
manner as the existing storage yard to 6' in height.
Building setbacks in the 1-2 District, for permitted accessory uses are:
· 30 feet side yard setback;
· 50 feet rear yard sethaek; and,
· accessory uses must be located behind the front wall of the
huilding.
Simonson's proposes to expand the storage maintaining a fence the same distance
away horn Oakwood Drive and in-line with the existing storage yard. It apPears that
when the original fence was installed, the fence was located on the outside of the
landscaped area, toward Oakwood Drive. Coniferous trees were planted on the inside
of the fence and were to maintain the required 30 feet side yard setback. As long as
the trees and fence remain in place, the required side yard setback appears to be met;
however, if the trees are removed and the material storage is expanded all the way to
the fence, a side yard setback violation would occur. From an enforcement
standpoint, location of the trees inside of the fence is impractical. Landscaping could
easily deteriorate until removed or removed without an understanding as to purpose.
The aesthetic puhlic benefit of the trees is lost within the fence.
Simonson's has not submitted a land survey to verify locations on the property. The
existing fence line appears to be approximately only 15 feet away from the property
line along Oakwood Drive as opposed to the required 30 feet setback.
Open and outdoor storage is allowed within the 1-2 District as an accessory use
provided that
I.
')
the storage is screened from view from the public right-of-way;
the storage area is grassed or surf~lced to control dust; and,
that all lighting shall be hooded and so directed that the light
source shall not be visible from the public right-of-way.
3.
.
.
Z.
A.
B.
C.
D.
E.
F.
G.
II.
I.
.
Planning Commission Agenda - 05/04/04
According to Simonson's, Excel Energy has requested that Simonson's move the 30
trees planted along Oakwood Drive to another location due to power lines along the
west property line. Simonson's has proposed to move the trees and to provide
additional landscaping.
ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS
A.
Motion to:
Recommend to the City Council that the Conditional Use
Pemit for Open and Outdoor Storage Area fiJr Simonson
Lumber, 100 Chelsea Road be amended to allow for a 50' X 60'
expansion subject to the conditions of Exhibit "Z", attached.
B.
Motion to:
Recommend to the City Council that the Conditional Use
Pemit for expansion of the Open and Outdoor Storage Area for
Simonson Lumber, 100 Chelsea Road be denied.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the City Council move Alternative Action A. above.
SUPPORTING DATA
Exhibit "Z" - Terms Of Recommended Approval
Site Location Map
Site Sketch
Written Explanation of Request by Simonson's
Excel Energy Orders For Tree Relocation Or Removal
Copy of Zoning Code Section 15B-4 I A]
Copy of Legal Description - Statement of Property Tax Payable In 2004
Photographs of the Proposed Open and Outdoor Expansion Area
Site Images
Aerial Image
2
.
.
.
Planning Commission Agenda - 5/4/04
EXHIBIT "Z"
To Simonson Lumber Conditional Use Permit
For Expansion of Open & Outdoor Storage Area
I. Screening fence Required: All storage within the area designated for open and
outdoor storage must be screened from view from the public right-or-way by a 6' high
opaque fence;
2.
Dust Control Required:
Dust.
The storage area must be grassed or surfaced to control
3. Lighting: All lighting shall be hooded and so directed that the light source shall
not be visible from the public right-or-way. Any new exterior light fixtures must be
approved by the Building Oflicial prior to installation.
4. Maintain Setbacks: All required landscaping must be located on the street side of
the required screening fence. The fence on the west/Oakwood Drive side of the
property must be moved back to a point at least 30 feet away from the property line
along Oakwood Drive.
5.
Land Survey Required: The applicant must provide a current certificate of
survey indicating the property lines and as-built locations of all structures in the
boulevard adjacent to the property and on the property, including but not limited to
above ground public utilities, drives, parking, buildings, signs and fences.
6.
Landscaping Plan Required: The applicant must provide a plan of all landscaping
proposed to be installed in the event of City Council approval of this Conditional Use
Permit. Such landscaping must be in compliance with the City of Monticello Zoning
Ordinances and must be approved hy the Building Official.
7.
Landscape Surety: A surety such as a letter of credit, bond or cash bond must be
provided in accordance with the City Zoning Ordinances to guarantee installation and
maintenance of required landscaping materials. Such surety must be for a term of at
least one year, self-renewing, and in favor of the City of Monticello.
3
7A
/ ,/"'j
(- '--.......,
'. '\
\ \
.
f>
fJp
o
~LBERG'S HCIlllLE
:1QlE PARl(,~.._.._, -r-",'
- ,
: ~
: ~
, 0
. '"
j
II.E. 85th
STREET
.
6
!
7
<!
8
!
9
!
10
!
11
.
.~)- :
I
.
SIMONSON LUMBER - Monticello, Mn.
1--
I
I
I
-- --
-
0
U"l
'>- PROPOSED 56:x112:x16 .-
with 6' overhang
-product storage-
- ----------------- - - "
-
...-i
rr'r
76:x112
-product storage-
-
0
M
I
,
~_2~_
~ 55
_1'
84:x105
I
-product storage-
~--
9 'I
I
Sf?
'7f: \l
'I'" i'
10S
'I
"._..~---~_..~,_...~_.-
f7
32'0'"
88:xl04
-product storage-
60:v120
-storage-
-retail area-
(..
~-----".._.~.~_._.. .,"...~---, ,., ---- . -, ----,_.~--., .,-_.,.~-~.,.~~.~"..~~..,.
IB
~
, I
I I
~1
G I
/J I
...~.'.
1~~#lI? .
00'0"
-~~-(i
ii /15>7
,
f)
(J
c
e
, i
/7
!
rp
,
p i
0
(!
q
(
p
()
0
t
0
f1
0
0
i?
7G
.
.
Mark Klaverkamp
Office: 1-763-295-2120
Fax: 1-763-295-2970
100 Chelsea Road
Monticello, MN 55362.8917
J-\~,. ~-\~Qkl. . . . . . . .
~ ....... P g,p:N"l~~O .... ; "'9!J:!~jJ'J~",~, .......,
, , .... ,. .. :.... ....._....".~,."".,.. , -..,.i............__... ...1 m_", "."".~_ ,. .... _.,. ...\
,~~~~F~.iE3~Q,
!""."., " ,: , : . , : :
....;. ...........i
i
......-.,j
i
.
! .
i ..._..~. .. . -."",;
; ,i
,.....j
!
,
...-. .......-.1
I
. ..._.~
~-r:- "Bu I~b I ~1 -t>612-YVt iT
,~p~.... :\ :.
, . ......~@~lty'R ... ...~~.., ..... Pu=r-:!I..;,)
u \ 1~~\~1~%:.j. -j~~~JJ~ . ~~
. i
.....'.... ....._...i
Wood - "the renewable resource"
.
70
.
7~t/
146477,
WRIGHT TREE SERVICE is under contract with
, ,~ rt=""L ~I'I ER.~r
to clear dangerous/interferingfoliage from electric
lines serving your area. To perform this service" we
request permission to do the following:
LOCATION OF WORK: ;r7nrJ 4 i r 0 / It)
Sfr- ~1r~3~D
OWNER HOMEADDRESS: ,I 60 cAe 15~A 'A<-)c:...,
PHONE: -?~3-:295*'-'?~I:?V
WTS JOB #
r1IJ.JJ
.
WORK TO BE DONE QTY. SPECIES
Side Trims
Too Trims "
Removals
Brush Soans Cut
Chemically Treat Stumps YES NO
Use TGR YES NO
Brush to be: HAULED I LEFT BLOWN I BURNED
Loas to be: HAULED LEFT
OK to Drive Eauipmenton: YARD DRIVEWAY
Remarks: L.A/U(J ()6JJ.Jf\l w i J f ~ Of:.. Gl II dIAl es -\7,.,ot\'\..
LA .,..,J t.r --+J... DC!'>'" b 'iF I
, , ' f!.., ' ~r-)"""C..;"'I!J~ x1-r; ,^,c.y c../~/
(4'1 eAP"5'). :r:-f?~l/...ty c::\l'e /.J~-t """'0 ~ Ay jltJex7-
f ',J /1," -1.1 ~- LJ]Nl}t)4)i--
'rIM C'lC/~AJe. tAJ) fl, /Y"II'fOV e. Ty..=~1#
AlA:' beeki ,f,;peu ,,'lI'\. btJak crt. trees. St.(;/~b/'<-
-tc> pltl~ t-J~ar rcwt='1' lI~(!'~.
't,5/- 26'i-tl3S-7
Foreman: Date CompleteZ - Z Z-D$
I certify that I a the property owner and have been informed of
tree work to be done.
Print Name: ,~~' y(\lJ1J~b,J /'"4m'b""r'
SiQnature: yY\ \:::.---H i 0 Dale: ~ ?f~
PROPERTY OWNER
-- .., '~._-_..,--_.. ._-~_.,.--_.._-~ .~,,"'.. ._~',-"-"-'-,,'_'- ,-~'_-"_'_~"_'_' _.~~-_._-- -,_..,~~~'-~~--
.
[OJ
. [PI
[Q]
[R]
IS]
[T]
[U]
[V]
[W]
.
.
.
Manufacture and repair of electrical signs, advertising structure, light sheet metal
products. including heating and ventilation equipment.
7~
Blacksmith. welding. or other metal shop.
Laundries. carpet. and rug cleaning.
Bottling establishments.
Building material sales and storage.
Broadcasting antennae, televisi<?n, and radio.
Camera and photographic supplies manufacturing.
Cartage and express facilities.
Stationery, bookbinding, and other types of manufacturing of paper and related
products but not processing of raw materials for paper production.
[X] Dry cleaning establishments and laundries.
[Y] Elecu-ic I ight or power generating stations. electrical and electronic products
manufacture. electrical service shops.
[Z]
Engraving. printing and publishing.
[A~] Jewelry manufacturing.
[BB] Medical. dental. and optical laboratories.
[eel Storage or warehousing.
[DO] Wholesale business and office establishments.
ISB-3: PERMITTED ACCESSORY USES: The following are permitted accessory uses in an "I-I"
district:
[A] All permitted accessory llses as aIlo\ved in the "8-4" district.
15B-4: CONDITIONAL USES: The following are conditional uses in an "1-]" district: (Requires a
conditiollJluse pl'rmit hased upon procedures set forth in and regulated by Chapter 22 of this
ordinance).
@ Open "nd outdoor storage as an accessory use provided that:
J\IONTICELLO ZONING ORDIN..\NCF:
] 58/2
.
.
.
]. The area is fenced and screened from view of neighboring residential uses
or, if abutting a rcsickntial district, in compliance with Chapter 3. Section
2 [G]. of this ordinance. 1$0 L-\ /o..J~ 4/-z....
2.
Storage is screened from view from the public right-of-way in compliance
with Chapter 3, Section :2 [G]. of this ordinance. c:;.~ O~' ~I........
f'At>J-G"L-S,
Storage area is grassed or surfa~d to control dust. ~
c.a.v~ t-l€D l112.A~ l\"'t. - To N.,~":Ic:J-\ E'll"S\\ ~")
All lighting shall be hooded an 0 directed that the light source shall not
be visible from the public right-of-way or from neighboring residences and
shall be in compliance with Chapter 3, Section 2 [H]. of this ordinance.
f.,,)C) ADD \-r\O ~A'-- L-l ~ T\f..::lC'..,
The provisions of Chapter 22 of this ordinance are considered and
satisfactorilv met.
"
"
.J.
4.
)
5.
"
[B] Open or outdoor service, sale. and rental as a principal or an accessory use and
including sales in or from motorized vehicles, trailers. or wagons provided that:
I. Accessory outside service. sales. and equipment rental connected with a
principal use is limited to thirty (30) percent of the gross !loor area of the
principal use.
2.
Outside sales areas are fenced or screened from yicvv of neighboring
residential uses or an abutting residential district in compliance with
Chapter 3. Section :2 lGJ. of this ordinance.
3. All lighting shall be hooded and so directed that the light source shall not
be visible from the public right-of.-way or from neighboring residences and
shall be in compliance with Chapter 3. Section 2 [1-1). of this ordinance.
4. Sales area is grassed or surfaced to control dust.
5. The provisions of Chapter 22 of this ordinance are considered and
satisfactorily met.
[C] Industrial planned unit deyelopment as regulated by Chapter :20 of this ordinance.
[0] Amusement places (such as roller rinks and dance halls) and bO\\'ling alleys.
[E] Consignment sales provided that:
I. Sales and storage are not to exceed 1,000 square feet in area.
')
At least 80% of the sales shall be of consigned merchandisl'.
MONTICELLO ZONING ORDIN.-\NCE
15B/3
From:SIMONSON PROPERTIES
13202529483
a
ERTY TAX PAYADLlt CN 2004
W~H COUNTY
DouglAS M. .. ru f, Auditor/Treasurer
10 Secon SIr t N.W" Room 232
. BU'lo, N 55313-1194
04/12/2004 09:20 #690 P.002
7F
. .
STATE FILING INFORMATION
C~~~CATION Nol R15H18oOO2012 1
If tl1is box i,~ checked. you owe delinquent taxes. D
-
-
ZOO3 1004
Estimotod Mark~r Value: 464,700 471,100
New Improvements:
TalC.:lhle Mllrkct VlIluo; 4&4,700 471,100
M.IPRLino I Amount; $
M-l PR Line 2 AmoUDl: $
Line 6 Am"unt; 16,236,58 1&,217.85
ProperlY Clous; COMM COMM
TAXPAYER
SIMONSON LUMBER OF MONTIINC
100 CHELSEA RD
MONTICELLO MN 553U
TAXPAYER COpy
DETACH HERE AND ENCLOSE'THIS STUB. WITH FORM M.1PFl WHEN F.IUNG FORA REFUND FROM THE MINNe~OTA DePARTMENT OF REVENUE
STATEMENT OF PROPERTY TAXES PAYABLE IN 2004
WRIGHT COUNTY
Douglas M. Gruber. Auditorrrreu':lurer
10 Second Street N.W., Room 232
Buffulo. MN 5531.3-1/94
763-682-7573 or 763-682-7572
SIMONSON LUMBER OF MONTIINC
100 CHE.L8EA RD
MONTIOELLO MN 56362
I.'.'", "11I11.,' '.11I ,.11",.,.1.111111/.1111I.1111,,"1.. 1/
ceo
17""
"tlTY Q...
lJ()~..
~ ~
Z
;tWill
I! II
~ (1
"lr 04'"
1e.UI
N~ tmpro~emems:
Estimated Market YuIlle:
Thxablo! Marker Vi1Iue:
Property Cltlg~:.
" SECT-14 TWP.121 RANGE.Q26
OAKWOOD INO PARK
LOT.OO1 BLOOK-G02
LOT 1 BUC2&.lC PRT LYE OF
l.H331.sFT WOF&PA RATO E LN EX
8100FT OF W386.74FT LT1BLi<20A
K- WOOD INDUSTRIAL PARK
~\ ~"
· i. llmounlon form M- (I ~ce if you'rlt eligible for II proPM)' w refund. File
h)' Ausu. ,.., IX IS checked. YOll owe delinquent rnxes and at'll not eligible..
2. U~e thj.~ amOllnt for tho! $pec:il\1 propcrty tox refund on IlChcduh:.1 of form M-l PRo
Vour Property Thx And How It Is Reduced By The State
3. Your propert)' taX before ro!ductjon bYSllte.paid.llid~ and ct=1I!l;; . . ..
4. Aid puid by the Stute of MinrlllSOUlto reduce your property Islt,
5. A.. HOmcl/lead IInd u:;riculturoi crcdilR p8.ir(6y lhe S.tate of Minnesoiiro..rCduce your propenY lllK.
e. Other 'm::dft.~ pold h)l rhe Stare of Minnesola to reduce YOllr property tm:..
6. Your property tax lifter reduction by ~tllte-plllrl aidil and credits. .. .." .. .
o
Wbere Your Property Tax Dollars Go
WRIGHT COUNTY
$
7. A. Counry.
8.
~. City or Town. MONTICELLO CITY OF. .
9. Stale Oenml TIlx: .
10.. School..Dinricr: 0BI2
A,.. Voter D.pprovc:d..lev les.
.B; : Other local levies."
~.. . HOSPITAL DISTRICT
C.
D.
12, Non-school. vorer.opprovcd referenda .levie8.
13. Towl propeny lilies before SpecllllllSicSluTIi::nrs.
~pecil\lllSgeSSmeJ1lSD.ddlld to this propeny ~x bill:.. .
. PRINCIPAL . 89.31
CO SW DEBT 86000.0 .. . 82.00
WTRISWRlSTR 8OS11A-o 40.35
11. Speciol Th:tins DistriclS: .
INTEREST
$
3.D4
tS, YOUR. ToTAL PROPERTY TAX AND.SPEClALASSEsSMENTS.
$
If you PUY your We! lute, you will bn c:hurced II PCDlllty, PD.Y this 8mounlllO luter thun MAY 15
(!.lII4I. I.......,..'... ,^.... .-^t'... ~\I rhl" ~"""'l'\lInr ,",n I...,.~ rkl'''''
2003
1004
. 454,700
484,700
OOMM
471,100
47'1,100 .
COMM..
.
0.00
$
.0.00
.... '":',.
, ",' .-.:
.
, :H"
..', . . . - .' ,~',
30,005.80
. 13,76a.02..
0.00
.. ,... .0.00
16,236.58
.
. 29,844.22
. ..,: :.::,'3,626.57:...."'.:;..;,
. .0.00....
.. .. ... '., ',. '..'.0;00 ., .,.-,
16,217.&5
$
", , '~. ':',~ :.:. .:.;. "
',..,.'.'
.3,078,10
0.00
. 15,441.79
4,54a.06
2,383,14. .
501,40
2JO.a
0.00
0.00. .
0.00
'0.00 .
16,236.58
77-42.
$
.3,080.82 .
. .0.00.
. .15,413.115 ; - .
4,882.8S
. .2,272~
485.51
2&3,54 .
0.00
....0.00. ...
0:00
., .0;00 .~
16.217.85
'72.35
16,314.00
$
16,asio.00
$
8,145.00
"
en
(j
"TI
o
o
I\)
eN
.
c...
"tJ
G)
-r't
o
en
(j
"TI
o
o
I\)
~
.
C-
"tJ
G)
.
.
,.
.
.
.
7~
.
.
.
Planning Commission Agenda - 5/04/04
8.
Public Hearing: Consideration of a request for a Simple Subdivision.
Conditional Use Permit for an over-sized 2ara2e. and a variance from the
minimum lot size standards. Applicant: Darren Klatt. (NAC)
R~FERENCEANDBACKGROUND
The appl icant is seeking approval of a subdivision of his property at the corner of
Washington and Broadway. The property, a lot of 22,(l61 square feet, is currently
occupied by a single family home and detached garage. The proposal would remove
the existing garage, split the property into two parcels, and add an over.sized
detached garage to the parcel containing the existing home. Because at least one of
the lots would not meet the minimum 12,000 square foot minimum, a lot area
varIance IS necessary.
Variance and Subdivision. '1'0 qualify for a variance, the request is to be reviewed
as to whether a unique physical hardship exists that interferes with putting the
property to reasonable use. In this case, there are a number of single family homes on
lots of 10,890 square feet in the neighborhood - the size of lots in the "Original Plat"
of Monticello. A such, a variance may be appropriate if the City considers that
reasonable use would include a single family lot of this size.
The applicant's proposal, however, includes a lot of 12,030 square feet for the
existing home site, and 10,030 square feet for the new home site. The new site would
be the only lot requiring a variance, but it would not be as large as the original plat
lots.
As an alternative, the applicant could subdivide the property into two 11,000 square
foot lots (each meeting the original plat threshold, but less than the standard 12,000
square foot size). To accomplish this, the lot line would be established about 3 feet
south of the existing deck. This would leave a lot of about 11,100 square feet with
the existing home, and a new lot of about 10,950 square feet. To provide access to
the garage, a common driveway shared by the two parcels could be located across the
common property line. This would limit access to Washington Street (a road that will
become busier over time as the Fallon A venue overpass becomes real ity).
Conditional Use Permit. The applicant proposes to construct a new garage of 30
feet by 40 teet (1,200 square feet) to the west of the existing home. This garage
would be served by a dri veway that wraps around the home and occupies most of the
rear and side yard areas of the lot. The west side of the property would be considered
the rear yard. The area of the rear yard is less than 6.400 sq uare feet. The zoning
ordinance provides for detached garages that cover no more than 10% of the rear
yard, limiting the recommended size of the garage in this case to less than 640 square
feet. While the ordinance allow for detached garages of greater size, one of the
criteria for this allowance is the following:
Planning Commission Agenda - 5/04/04
.
(b)
The parcel on which the accessory building is to be located is of sufficient
size such that the building will not crowd the open space on the lot.
In this case, the rear yard is quite crowded by the proposed structure, and its required
driveway. As with the proposed subdivision, a shared driveway that straddles the
common lot line would allow for less pavement, and a smaller garage building would
allow for more of the rear yard to be preserved for open green space.
ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS
Decision I: Subdivision and Variance from Lot Area to create two parcels from one
existing lot of record.
1. Motion to recommend approval of the subdivision and lot area variance as
proposed, based on a finding that the proposal puts the property to reasonable
use.
2.
Motion to recommend approval of the subdivision and lot area variances for
both lots, with the condition that the proposed lot line is moved to make both
lots more than 10,890 square feet in area, the size of lots in the original plat
area, and a condition that the parcels establish and share a common driveway.
This motion would be based on a finding that reasonable use of property in
this area would be two single family parcels with lot areas consistent with the
predominant lot size in the neighborhood.
.
3. Motion to recommend denial of the subdivision and lot area variances, based
on a finding that no hardship is present in complying with the basic zoning
regulations for single family lots of 12,000 square feet or more.
Decision 2: Conditional Use Permit to allow a detached garage of more than 10%
of the rear yard.
1. Motion to recommend approval of the CUP, based on a finding that the CUP
provides for a garage consistent with the single family use.
2. Motion to recommend approval of the CUP, with the condition that the
applicant minimizes the driveway area to preserve open space on the lot.
3. Motion to recommend denial of the CUP, based on a finding that the
conditions for an over-sized garage is not met due to the requirement that such
garages not crowd open space on the lot.
.
2
Planning Commission Agenda - 5/04/04
.
STAFF I{ECOMMENDATION
Stall recommends approval of the Subdivision and Variances as described in
Alternative 2 - this would mean two lots of more than 10,890 square feet, with the
condition that a shared driveway be required to access the two garages. Because the
applicant does not have 24,000 square feet of lot area, he does not have a vested right
to two separate lots. However, the subdivision may be reasonable if designed in such
a way that it would be consistent with neighboring land use and does not create a
public safety concern. By (I) limiting the driveway access to a single point, (2)
reducing the coverage of garage and driveway in the rear yards, and (3) ensuring that
each lot is at least as large as other lots in the original plat.
Planning staff does not recommend the CUP for the oversized garage. The CD P
provision was added to provide a guide as to when a detached garage would be
considered too large for its proposed parcel. This would be appear to be the case on
this lot, if subdivided. Moreover, the CUP requirement includes a specific clause that
requires the City to find that the proposed building does not crowd the open space on
the lot. Staff docs not believe that this finding can be made as designed.
.
If the applicant desires to have a garage of this size, staff would recommend that no
subdivision be considered. If the parcel is left as it is, the south side would be
considered the rear, and the rear yard area would be 12,200 square feet - an area that
would accommodate a detached garage of 1,200 square feet as requested by the
applicant.
[n summary, planning staff would recommend one of the following alternatives:
a. Subdivision into two lots of at least 10,890 square feet each (with lot
area variances for each parcel), a common driveway providing access
to two garages of size consistent with zoning regulations
(approximately 640 square feet for the existing home site); and denial
of the CUP for the over-sized garage;
or
b. Denial of the subdivision and variance. In this case, the parcel would
qualify for a 1,200 square foot garage on the south (rear yard) portion
of property without the need for the Conditional Use Permit.
SUPPORTING DATA
.
A.
B.
C.
D.
E.
F.
Site Location Map
Site Survey
Proposed Site Plan
Staff Alternative
Aerial Image
Site Images
3
~
1/2
MILE
ClJ'Y HALL PHONE
CITY HAU FAX
(763) 295-2711 :
(763) 29S4404 .
B
II
.
ADDRESS:
505 WALNUI'STREET:
sc.JlTE 1 .
MONTICElLO, MN 5~
, '
HOURS: 8:00 AM - 4:30 PM MON - FRl
. POBUGWORKS PHONE - . - (7.03)295--3170:.. .
PriBUCWORKSFAX: (763) 295-3170;(Ext 1)
~~"';~~,...
"-
g5t~ STRcr'
I
I
i
i
I
I
I
I
J
: ,
\\
.
.
-l
;,....
-<
.-
l
o
;:;0
-
....
~
;:;0
<-
t"t'.l
-<
-
'..,i
:xl
\J)
4
~"""""--'"
Q
'"
/
/
/
/
/
/
-
~
7-
o
'-..,,~--~-,-
,J 'J'..
) -
._~.........~................,
"
~ \ /
O~,\ /
..... -\" "~'~../ /
':' \ / .'-..".~
~ . \ / ?..~~. '-'-..,,~
~ . 1/,,1
; ~ /
~ /
~ /
, i / /
~~- I / ;.~
"~ I\:,
~" . I /
"""'., ". /. /
......~~ .,
'~ <) I
" "0"
" ~~ ~
" ""'" ""
Et 6'8 ""-~'" V.J; 0 ~.
'*t'~ \.~ 0 "..s>..s> o.
~~/ /U-. ~ . "'A\
. 'Ui>; ~" V
Qtt S~ ,_
1p~C',.. "~:::::,_
r '~'" .
~~'" I ~
.....~ J&:i
~", Q,
~~7~J
-
L
"""
\ ,
I\,)
<""-
-,l<,
. $.<"
"S.. .r-
' lI.;
0)
I)
:)
~
"
o
'-~
'...............~.....-
/
I
<./
,'0
,,/
/
~
'98
.><'
/ /
i/
/~ /
/ /
/ /
/
Ol
f
/
/
I
/
.fJ/
~/
/
/
/
.........~-.........~.-
~
~' ~
./).. .>
\
~,
...,~
..:~:;"~.......-......
"
'J
!J
i-
--'1
.
-l
~
~
1"""'0 001',.:
'- 1" 'v
" 1;>" <
t"'" I~ l't
Q" (II, "~I '. "
, /.. J" ""
L ')0 ~< ""
~ Vs .(,
('" '\-
. 't. t
,jo
(f/.
"
~
rrl
,.,.,.
o
"
'J)
.
'-"-"
.0
^"
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
R-
O/2>O.j !
/ ~C}.J
/ · C tLu L
'L 1;/-+ /" rJ) f 01-- i
. tv ,() 3')-- AUL,s.,,,, ' 'f) t
.. (-> " ! I;) I
1, - I ,I
/ I' , L..,~
Q) "'.. ',~l l' G:C(
r"i
o ~_ 'jf?
'q ::54
~ f?olb
, :t I
· I ./ t.. ..
1../ ~ C
I ~ f. r "'r,
t-.,.,
""l
.....
'"
rJ;
-
..'.........--.....-.........-
~:
'.""..,...;
"., /
t;
~, ..;.> ~
""-.~~ . ",J "..-./ /t
~ "O"C-.~' ,,,,, ,/'''''-'~'/'1'/
~, '~ I:_? ..~' """..,.,"
~..,. '&",., 'A'
''''~ I '. ~,." r<f"......
.,. "/~'->""o.. . , ' ""
~" I //' ,,/
^ ~~ :'" ,/' 0.//
If "" % ,,' I
. ~ I q 0"., ",,' ,,,.-/; ("II:)
() / l<'f q, .",/ OJ,.:a.'.
r., I\'$/~" vOo \,>, ....
J '" :'i"_.....:..,
~ -0" $\,
· 9.S r ~"", ~J;>.....'!} /
)((,'1. ..~ u_ I ... 4..,
/., {j j,\.. 'Yll" " . 9
'1.... '~Sll' 'cI,\"" Ik \ f
/L)>S;(;)~Dll \,1;0 ~S'..y/~ f . ",/ ;0"'$$
> cj ., '( ~~.s~ ,. .....,.
Ii '" i/ ~-C-)'- _~~ ~:::., . 0..
(~ :J':" '''",
~ J~' .
J '- q,
;"1 6{" ~
J'- ~ ~ ~'J0/~
....
f\)
';/'
~
........
",
",
'"
".
'''."
f
t Y
<) ~
:::t- . f
~ O'l J. 'If
iio !
:---n I
..............f
l
()
iJ Ib61-.L
OLS('~' ~~
I"
.
.
.' '"
f ~.:
'c
..",i.
'<i'
..grf ,:
jJ'
,.'> ".
,.
t
"
I ~.: .....1/-.. ",.
6,!;'-
1t~...~. It;
"': ~j
"'-l::>-'" Q
,,' .'i.Jl..;
(~,i
(" "',
\~, '.
~
6D
r.",
,..,<J r,J',
J'
~ >':
(,- ..~
a!":~
;:
~."
.......~~,-
<.."T:"i':i ~. ~::-
)'..,
...,~.
r'
,'..,,'.
!\....,
,:"( .,'
J:~~i
t' '''I"
~vy
I
I
2<
.'..,
~~=-:::::l:::J.:::~
i,./.
/~/:~,.
~l'.~., :).;~~'~~ -~'E::-:;:
:.~ ..::. ::'>~
~~--~~...~^..._-'"
[h:';,:<A ,~,~'V
\
_, "\m__"~',~_,'._e"'~
~'~l
.
.
.
6(
>.
C':l
~
'g
:2
o::l
"0
~
6
.....
eIJ
I::
:2
en
ro
~
>.
C':l
~
"0
ro
:2
o::l
S
8
4-<
>.
'5
0..
[
4-<
o
~
t1)
>
.
.
.
Planning Commission Agenda - 5/04104
9.
Public Hearin : Consideration of a re uest for a Prelimina Plat
Develo ment Sta e pun and setback variances for a 3 unit townhouse
bUildinl! in the R-2 District. Richard Carlson. (NAC)
REFERENCE AND BACKGRO()ND
The applicant is seeking a Development Stage PUD approval lor a 3-unit
townhouse project on property at the end of Vine Street. adjacent to the
Burlington Northern RR, south of 4th Street. The applicant is also seeking a
Preliminary Plat to establish the lots and right of way, and a variance to allow the
building to be located within about one foot of the common property line with the
railroad line.
Planned Unit Develooment. The City approved a Concept Plan fix a pun in
2003. The applicant had prepared a sketch plan showing three units aligned
behind the existing single lamily homes, similar to the proposed layout. With the
submission of an engineered plan set, there are a number of items that raise issues
for City PUD approval.
1.
Driveway width. The proposed townhomes are provided access trom
private street that extends east from the Vine Street cul-de-sac. The PUD
section of the zoning ordinance permits private streets, however, the
minimum width of such streets is 20 feet. The proposed width is 16 feet.
In most cases, the City has required private streets to be at least 24 leet in
width, with some wider. The 20 loot minimum would be adequate for this
design, however, the narrow dimension of the property causes a problem
in meeting the standard. It is noted that the driveway is surrounded by
curb, consistent with other previous PUD project requirements.
2. Parking area. For most townhouse PUD projects, the City has required
that each unit include two parking spaces in front of each garage, and in
addition, provide an additional parking space for each three units to
accommodate overflow visitor parking. This project accommodates the
parking in the driveway, however, overflow visitor parking would occur in
the Vine Street cul-de-sac.
3. Rear Yard setback. The easternmost unit extends to within 10 feet of the
east property line. This line is the one opposite the Vine Street frontage,
and would be considered the rear yard. The R-2 District rear yard setback
is 30 feet.
4.
Side Yard setback. The westernmost unit extends to within about one foot
orthe south property line along the railroad. The R-2 District side yard
setback is 10 feet. Staff notes that some flexibility has been considered for
.
Planning Commission Agenda - 5/04/04
other projects near the railroad, however a one foot setback is more than
that considered in other applications. Moreover, the combination of both
side and rear setback variances raises concerns over the intensity of
development on this site. This issue was not previously apparent at
concept stage due to the lack of formal survey data at that stage.
5.
Grading. The applicant is relying on grading improvements on the
railroad land south of the property to accommodate drainage. Because this
land is not controlled by the property owner, it is unclear how this grading
will be accomplished.
6.
Landscaping. The applicant has provided a landscaping plan that
establishes a line of trees along the north boundary (the rear property lines
of the adjoining single family lots), as well as some tree planting adjacent
to the railroad, and a small amount of shrub plantings around the front of
the buildings. As with other PUD proposals, planning stafT would
encourage a greatly enhanced landscape plan as a part of any approval.
7.
Utilities. The City Engineer has some concern related to utilities service
to the units. These items will be included with the Planning
Commission's meeting materials.
Setback Variances. Variances are reviewed as to whether a unique physical
hardship exists that interferes with putting the property to reasonable use under
the strict zoning standards. In this case, while the property is narrow, it could be
designed to serve a single or two f~lmily home without a variance, both of which
are permitted uses in the R-2 District. As proposed, the applicant is seeking to
encroach on both required side and rear yard areas, as well as construct a private
street that is narrower than the pun standard, in order to fit three units on the
property. While the density of the project would be within the allowances, it does
not appear that it is physically possible to maximize the density as proposed.
Because a permitted use could be located on the property in a way that meets the
ordinanee, no hardship exists to support the variance request.
.
Preliminary Plat. The application has raised issues related to the layout of the
plat, due to confusion over ownership of the underlying title to Vine Street, and
the nature of the title transferred to the applicant by the previous owner. Staff
would recommend a plat that clearly establishes the f()lIowing information:
. Lots 1,2, and 3 of Block I (if three units are approved)
. Outlot ^ of Block 2
. Vine Street - dedicated right of way clearly spelled out on the plat - staff
recommends that the City join in the plat to clarify any claim to title in the
land underlying the street.
.
2
Planning Commission Agenda - 5/04/04
.
ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS
Decision I: Development Stage Planned Unit Development for Carlson Estates
1. Motion to recommend approval of the Development Stage PUD, based on
a finding that the project meets the requirements for pun approval as
listed in the zoning ordinance, and that the design flexibility granted by
the use of PUD results in a project of superior design and amenities.
2. Motion to recommend denial of the Development Stage PUD, based on a
finding that the project does not meet the requirements for PUD approval
without significant design modifications.
Decision 2: Preliminary Plat for Carlson Estates
I. Motion to recommend approval of the Preliminary Plat, based on a finding
that the project meets the requirements of the City's Subdivision
Ordinance.
2. Motion to recommend denial of the Preliminary Plat, based on a finding
that the projeet does not meet the requirements of the City's Subdivision
Ordinance.
.
Oecision 3: Setback Variances
I. Motion to approve setback variances for side and rear yards, based on a
linding that the lot dimensions create a hardship in putting the property to
reasonable use under the strict zoning standards.
2. Motion to deny setback variances as requested, based on a finding that the
property could be put to a conforming, reasonable use without the
encroachments into the setback area.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Sta1T does not recommend the PUD as proposed. Due to the extensive
encroachment into the required yards and the reduced private street width
necessary to fit the bui ldings onto the site, it would appear that there is too much
building on the property. As noted, density requirements arc met, but the project
cannot be designed without the significant compromises to setback area and street
width. Moreover, the site plan requires that grading occur on neighboring
property to accommodate the proposal. The City can not approve a project that
relics on the use of adjoining property for grading purposes.
.
3
Planning Commission Agenda- 5/04/04
.
Tn addition, there would not appear to be a hardship to justify the approval of the
setback variances. A single or two-family home (both permitted uses) could be
placed on the property without variance. This strongly suggests that no hardship
exists.
With regard to the plat, it will be important, if the project proceeds, to clarify that
Vine Street is dedicated to the public. There has been some dispute over the fee
ownership of the street - this should be cleared up with the plat.
In summary, planning staff believes that the project should be redesigned for just
two units. A two-unit project with conforming setbacks could proceed as a
permitted use, and the plat would be a simple approval.
SlJPPORTING DATA
A Site Location Map
8. Preliminary Plat
C. Grading and Drainage Plan
D. Utility Plan
E. Landscape Plan
.
.
4
~
;0
G)
I
--I
n
o
c
Z
--I
-<
...
3:
Z
Z
m
en
o
--I
l>
r-o
o "'1
() 0
o ~.
,-+(0
-. ()
o ,-+
:J
G)
J)
)>m
oX ==
__-c~
z (J) J)' n
G)-Im=
w - r
)>z->
zG)~=-=
CC)Z~
cO>n
-IzJ)>-
-0-<
r- ~
--I-C~
-I-r~
-<0)>00
"T'IZ-lO
\J (J)" 1-:31
rw ~
)>
s::
o
Z
-I
-
o
m
r
r
9
~
-
Z
z
m
en
o
-I
)>
m~ --.--.---.1=1 O'99~tOI :'ON 311.J
._--~ lVld-13lJd :311j QMO
_mm...... I___._~.. . .. ------a--.>lr :A8 03>1:J3H:J
.....-.--.-.j : Nr :A8 NMVlJO
-. . . Nr ;A8 NOIS30
'0 -- ~~ vain/to :31VO
'"
~ 15
~I: ~ :
~~~ln
-,~",13
....
~
"
....
z
~
",15
z "
::10
l:J3
1=....
15
ffi ~
~ ~
15 u
" 0
t;j ~
'" ....
o
~
~ i'5
'"' {II
'ON 'ijOlJ
~
z
ii'
o
m
d cl
&1 0.
-J.
l-
t:]
X 8
'" 0 0..
~ ~ ~
~ ~ ~
a ~ ~
'"
"
~ ~
I- 0:
~ ~
~ '" '"
;:: !i !i
~ {;i ~
'" >1 x
o '" '"
J Io~.
\
o @ i ~ ~~ f:3 J. IiII 8
o-<;r
:.\00
..."-~.~-nl 'XV, ~~lill n~"'"\:Ol 'lll
Utl-8OE';; ".. 'w:T.f.i~G ~.l.S: .lSWIJ ,too
ONlddVI"l
O~~H~~J ril:'~~
:pou6!S
'ONI 'Sa.1 YIOOSSY ..
NOSyaaad'.LYVa08
'-1
N.t' i-+-- Gl
'tj; -rnt ~
00 0......
WU-oQ)OIUO
.Q,1:6:5ci:5>.
I.() J: :;;, N -
b::: g-~ -4-' 5 ,~
--Io:C~5...~
"C~TIO~'S~
6~J~-o:a &.~
60ci'~~O~
3Sg~~Bti
:;;!:~olilf1~
g.-.Sow+-,o
~~~~lli!3g
OUOCLI....."tI
0) ..... 0'--
i.::~o..Jg6
~o~:S~o~
~ "g . 0 tI) l.. -c
~ o:&zo Egj
.:JI.~'L~1b8~
g ~ ~~ >. g .
WBo:;;~""&irnn
riti~o.2:5n~
-oc..c;G):;13_
5u5~:l:Z3:2
N:sU't;€ti"g
~-B:5~~E-go
2g'o>~~o~
o ,_..... "t;J........ +-' E
--I"E,,~ ......to
'08c:c50:':u
U 0 g -' :>,:>.,~
.9 ~.5': '5 ] ~ ]
t:.2I..&oQ,.~gJ~
~~-e501~~
b~8:;;E~~~ 0
~ ~ ~ ~.g ~ ~ E ~
0
'" t;;
~
~
~-o- :i
;:; 0
>=
a.
0 5
'"
tI1
W
0
w
--' -'
'" '"
u <.:l
0 '" Ij
~
~.-.
~}~
+
.............
~
~
"<'"
','
"1
..........
~
~
~
~
q;~
~
^'
I
/
I
I
I
/
I
....J
~
~ /,'--
,--' ~--'"
--
--
~-
~
~
/I
:;",//
/" /
<'"()s~l )
/+/
1/
\,
~
~
~
"-, ~
~\...
" Q
i~ 1
......... ,~,. '>
---...'~~\; y'
~'::S
,,~t1;rt.
.,$'),""'<1-<',,,
~.w:$'
* Cf.".'.
".,~'\.~~
~
/ j
/ / /
;---..,.-/ I
, / i/........."
..... OL- /
/", I j
/ "''Y
/ 1/
/ I
I}AL~ /
6' /'<
/- ~.?' -",/
fj I
fj /
"0;
",-
c: 0
Of'-. ~
. "'tJ>
~~.~'L
o~...... >...
{jrndc~
OL-I-'"'O":::
-.- 0 ill C
CO"CID51l::
Lrit) I: 1IJq,J
..... b'~ z~
00::> E 0
-.J cD ~ +->'
"- >. (I) C
:s!c~o~
co::; .
(1)._ 0 >'''0
-g2~~5
"h,~ E
c..f "- 'C IV "
N >.~:5.5
~ ........
tj "u ~ g ~
~~o;;<;
o..lX) l1> 0
ri.....t:4-~
-aeci8'~
C:+-z .~
ortJ+-,~lrI
~.~ ii ~~
":>E",,~
~~goo
.3-c-05vcn
"C g ij QJ'S ti
'0 50 -C .5 t ~
=~~~~~
0........ U 0
Ul1;tt'Ov~
c: N >.,.J:: ~
.2 ~ iU \::.......
~~g'~2~~
~8. c.g ui 50..
... :.1:: G)
2 ] .~ ~ ~ g
1---t-.I~r:::oU
/
(o'n'd) lOld ^JOU!W!I<Ud
UOSIJOJ PJD40!~ .
o
'olla::>!luoV'j JO All::> Z N
S9lDlS3 UOSj.JD:) ~
, UV'j
ci
No!
1"-
tl"
;;
'. .
WQ..
h
-~ ~ g
j ~h.~
b ~ oj;
~ III L a
b ~~ \;
~ ~h
~ i:~ ~
~ =~~
~ l~Q
"""--;;:"
/ ""'6'
/ I-
/
~~ I
/...............
I ~
/
I
I
j:(l
/
....
~ /
"I ~ /
" <:: , <a.,'/.....
", ~" .........
" "'" ---...
" "
'\ ',,- "..
" ",
"
'"
r- '. 6'<9,,-
I , 0/4(.
I r-....... "" '. ~DI .""./;6:
I / ....... "'" ~s. "
I 0<,,1' ....... ........ s
1/6'+ ".......><
I ,_~ _~~<.. ~,.
1/ / .4'~'-.'. "..:::; .,1
If", ,
1/ rh'" ;~~
/ / /~. ~J,~
I / W ,__
'---.., I / /
" I
/ ;-......... s/
/ / ;......
/ / /"0;................
/ / c;\115
/ / / ~
// /
/
(;
Z
~
<
~
N:;j
~T
i... ,,~
~P),
E~~:
o "g
~~h
e;
t
~
~
...............
'f.
/
/
/
~j
/"6'
/ +-
I
/
/
/
~
~
2
Q
~
~~
/
/
/
/
/
/
/'
/'
--
---
---
----......J>,Js:j
~
~
~:i:g~
ill.. 5!
...._" CI
>"'1J
Z::D
em
mt:
:D~
OZ
en>
-::0
000(
ZG)
8~
~z
01i> /
Ie
"'1J ~ /
~z /~
:s
m /
/
/
!
/
/
/
/
/
/
~~
~~
/, ~
,/11 >VlVl
r J::8:Z=i>
' :l>:ZOfTI=e
/ ~~g~g
/ / ~~;:;l!:;;>
/ Vl...."'. :z
::J< OD ~
I ~F ~fll 1\
OJ:: /
f. ~ Rl~/ +)
Ci) rrt rT1 ({s-
f. ~ ~ ~ J '0-,
'" 63r/c,"''O
............... v/
..............."
...............
~~
",. '.....",
.....,., """
~ ....., ""-
............... "'Ijp "'-,
............... /'~o-'
'j-...~
/
/
;,'f
/
I
/
I
I
I
/
"'/~
I "~
I
/
'i;'(,-~ /
. 6~ ./""
--
.J.:'(,-
,?,
',-
6,,\,,~
<S'~0
~ {J~
IJ__........ "(l,.-G,)~,
I 1 '<'.5'
/I z!!l;;j
Vlr-:z
j;!....g
+ :=
~t"
'''0
~...............
'----..
/
+.9u'~
r,,:;,
/
/
/
................1--.....
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
I
............... ---- +.J>,J
-........ 4'~
~ 1I
...............~
/
/
/
.............../~
/
------.....
/'
./'
.............../,/'.
./" ~
r/ ...............
~<o I ............... ...............
" ,,~~~ II
,06, ,,""" -< ~ /
1,~ I
"'" I
~ "'-'" I
............... '.J
..............................
":<c:..~
~.. ,,':~,....................
." . " :0
k l' :y
() .,
,,,
-t;,.,J
".>
.5'
+",-{?
''',,>
~
h~~~"t::~"'-,,~
" ::;;
^:I: "
.\; 0 -0.-
(,0. · ~"'''''\0'''",,,,,,,
':c.;,)" , " "''''':1
-t~~", '" , ""-.,,
~...............
..............................
..............................
';
I
/
/
'i
:O..J~
"'-s;..
..............................
-'-
O'9iH.0 ~ :'ON 3ll.J
:3ll.J ~MO
8>1r :A8 03>1:l3H:l
Nr :A8 NMVljQ
Nr :A8 N~IS30
vo/n/vo :31'1'0
30
l'ON
@!!
31'1'0
c
'" >-
~
c
..
<~ '!:
0
'"
~ ~
; e
iili
III !
~ ~
~a
I!!I~I
~ it;
/
/
~
/
/
/
w
~
o In
'ON '5olj
~~n~;~i\'~t'~]8 ~~'iI.Y~t.~lli
W~dV"8
~NIH33NI~ 11M)
~NIA3^!I1 ONV1
'ONI 'sa~ Yloossy--i
Nosuaaad '~UY008
:0100
:pou5lS
.DIDIiIilUUI~ '0 8\015 '
.J.PQunwJDDUI6U~ 'DUOI'~.IJQJ~4~J:u:~~1 ~~~
JopunQJ~ ~l)~llUl) I,lQISlfdodns lO~~lP .<I,U
j CI plilJDdQiJd 5t). lJOd8J JO
VQng=;l!J!::Iud~ 'IJQld Ul41 10l.l! ~!!:!~ ~~~J~,~
~ . ~
lJ3~~
-li~jJ!i
t'-~id~~!
~ I JI '" ili ., .
IfIllf
X~ 0 IIIII1
1111f',
~ I
~ i
l? ~
w ! ~ j
,~"'''' ' ~
,~~~" ~
i~ "'\~" ,"""", ~
~ ~,' ~ ",~\:.. '-
"~,~" , '~ ''''~ .........
''',,''''~~~'''. ~I ~
",..,,'0.\; ~""""
/:::: ~\::,
"--... ," ig' :Y
~(s: ~ ~\
"--... ,:,,; " " , V
"--... ""'''~)''~~'' .,,~
"--... ""\;r
"--...
"--...
/
~
~
~
"--...
"--...
"--...
..............
"--...
"--...
~
~
"--...
'-' z "--...
0
z i" "--...
1= 0;(
"')- u UN ~~
a~ 0
...J >0
.... "-0 "-0
0- t '" ~'" ~'"
.... ~ F UJ
"- 10
r;"'I1I5Jl, "- iO
R
/
/
/
"--.../"--...
/
/
/
"--...
~
"--...
"--...
"--...
"--...
(:'
"--... ,r\: &
',:\: it
"--... <'''-'' -y'
--::~"l
<<:{l!< '" ~
;Y~_&\'::i; ~ $'
-tf;yy ~ 8 .'v
'''-> I' ,~
u.:~ .f}-
..J UJ? '
::J ~ '?
-....
'UV'j
UDld Al!llln
UOSIJD:) PJD4:)!t1
'OIlBolluoV'j JO Al!J g -.;;t
SBlDls3 UOSIJDJ ~
_ ______ Vl
-----------.
Ii I
&) '0 i ~
h i i!l tIt' i
1i 2 h Ii ~ l;i H
[J1~ ~ '& ,- ~ S i ' li ~ t g
i: i it 1 ~ 1d~ h ~;~
I! i h' ~ l i;;~ il"l-el &:~
:a: !. ~2 ti[:2 ~ .~h'
6 i. -1. fll' - · .! !!
I" III '$ - ~ S . jl - ~ 11,," il ~ .. ~
6" ~1 ~JI! U!!h ~li~: ~~
,,~ tn'":; 9- !fit~ f!..:~i!
&'2, I'" 1=1' f;l J1f5 il;]!;1.!
H~~I ihj i!; ~~Il'!~ ~i!1l f' ~t
IH H ~~2! -IH f:=i~. ij6 ':!l
Vl ~~..~Ii :~~~ iii Ih~l61&1~ j~ III
w Pp t;lj.!: 23 .. -d'! i!ii
.... un,S g€J i l~~ Jift I i !ll= ~j
o ~H8 ~~.~8hH-ifBt- D~
z ~,.l" ...li!.,.,;~~ ,pin' i."l!J8'.
a....... u;I fi,.:l1i ",,"'Ii- S II;i ~ 1;111
"--...
'<0,
o~
/
/
/
'i
/
/
/
.........j
/
/
/
I
/
/
/
/
/
1,----
/ '----
/
/
1,----
/ '----
/
/
!,----
/
/
/
~
/
/
/
'----
~
'----
'----
'----
'----
'--
'----
'----
'----
'----
l}.~
~Cl.;~')
~",,'i
i:::"~~
$' ~'\,~, '----
1" . '::S... ' '--
(j -\l -.......
,) '----
'----
'----
'----
'----
'----
-'----
'----
'----
.........
'----
'--...
'----
/
/
'---- /
'----/,----
/ '----,----
'----
'----
'----
'----
, '----
!:::~f0"'",,,,~0-~~~ '---- '----
~ g ~.
~".. j{j ?:?'.
...,~~'\ ~,
'~ ~~~'\~"
~", " ~"','
'----
i' r I
I... ...._ ___
___ 1 I I 0-9im:O~ :-ON 311J
_mum... I. ..1...__.._1 :311-:1 DMO
___ ---1-------~~:^8 03~:J3H:J
_~..: I .c'."...." .. Nr :),,8 NM'f1la 'tqo';;IuulV~ ID 1I1D15 e4l jg S.OI.~4l
I". . 1 1 Nt :)..8 N::lIS3a J;;:plJn .llil:iUllluJ IOUOllillOOlIj.OJd P;l'U'~:;Ill ,(Inp
I ..- '.-'-""1"'0;-' D \..i.JD I '1)41 pun UDIIlIA.Jlldnll l:)lillJlP J..
31VO ON vO/~ LitO :31Va Jllpun Jg IlIUJ Aq pClJOd'Jd IIDM pod~J Jo
A3~ ____ _." _"." n_.__ 'uonD~!Jl:)~dl 'YOld 'i141 1D41 iimJQ:) ,(q;JDl.I 1
-ON -60!l
:0\00
:pou6!S
.;30
o
~ ~
W
-!
::::J
o
W
J:
U
(f)
w
W
0:::
I-
o
W
(f)
o
0...
o
0:::
0...
~
<~ ~
~
"'
..J
'" ~
~~. "--
t; ~"''\;-,.. "--
(: , "'\~. "--
._~~~ " . ~"'~\"'''''~.~ "--
'-~'-;,\l'~\",~ .......
.~ ~,\:,
~' W.;;
.t::: cl 0-
-, :r:"
.~". ~".' }/
o. "~".. ....'.'.> '~:-. "... ___ -V
-,t,'" -''''.01'
"-- . . ---
"--
"--
"--
"--
"--
"--
d:!tJt~1.v.~ F.~1~.t.1~'~~
~NI~dV"
O~~n~~ O~~~
'ONI 'SEUVIOOSSV .
NOSHaaad'J.lIV008
UDld adO::>SpUDl
UOSIJD:) PJD4::>ICl _
'OllaollUOV'j JO AlIJ g L[)
SBlDlS3 UOSIJPJ ~
Ul
"--
'UV'j
G*
!~ 1
w~ '0 i _ ~
~. ~ .. .s 0 !
a~ II ~ ~ '5" ~
ili e ~ - j h .t l!
..~ .b II t _ '; ~~; ~
.. 6 ~ "Il. ].. 11 ,q i
i j : ~6 - ~ J! 11 f i
11 I H II i~~"II; ill
~ s 1l :I m D Ii i 6'8 ~ f 6
JIll I- h ;- t J!~lr 111;; ~i
?i 1;,- '5 ti . i" -i ~ Jll
~ ~!~lH I fiB H~!~
".s ~ 5 j S' ~ - ~ f 11 -
~'; . :;'0 H'I i I"fi Jill ji~,1
HI ~! j!J! j .rl ~tli"fi~ ~<ll~
i!i'" _5 ":!!i , .,~ "] .j
Ul ~!rl: I~!i Hi dB! I "t~
W jfi<$, ~ltf!H!-..l JI~I
I- Bit,gB I!'f- ~ ~e~ !!hll~ll~
o ~H B~ ~._8 lih B{&.z- h.. "I
z ~_<l..B .;lL ,"i~ "I>U~ ,.:':oJ! ..1
.
o
W
-!
0...
<{
2
m
<{
0:::
U
o
Z
0:::
W
3=
o
~
LL
<{
W
0:::
0...
U)
w
<{
I--
>
0:::
o
m
0:::
<{
"--
/ ~
~
/ "--
"--
/ "--
"-- "--
J,,-- ..............
/ "--
"--
/ "--
"--
/ "--
"--
.,,--
~
"--
"--
"--
"--
"--
"--
\,'
!; {]
"-- ~~ ,~
----;~\~
"--
"--
"--
"--
---$\.~
f fJ .':$'
~'{l
"--
"--
"--
"--
"--
/
"--
/
/
"-- /
'i
/
/
/
--J
.
Planning Commission Agenda - 05/04/04
10.
Public Hearin - Consideration of a re nest for a conditional use ermit for a
Conce t sta e lanned unit develo ment in a B-3 district. A licants: Wend's
International. Inc. and Holidav Companies. (NAC)
REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND
Wendy's International, Inc. and Holiday Companies have requested Concept Stage
POD approval to allow the construction of a Wendy's Restaurant and Holiday
Convenience Gas Facility upon a 1.7 acre site located south of Oakwood Drive
(County Road 117) between Highway 25 and Cedar Street.
The subject site is zoned B-3, Highway Business.
To accommodate the coexistence of the restaurant and convenience gas facility upon
a single lot, the processing of a planned unit development is necessary.
.
Planned Unit Development. In considering requests for planned unit development,
it is important that the City apply the purpose of the Planned Unit Development
approach - allowing flexibility from certain zoning standards to achieve a higher
quality project than what would otherwise be achieved through conventional zoning.
Examples of quantifiable POO design attributes are superior building quality and
extraordinary landscaping details.
Whether or not the purpose of POO has been achieved with this particular project will
become more evident as more detailed project information is submitted, however, the
POO process is not to be applied merely to avoid certain zoning standards.
Property Legal Description. The subject property is presently comprised two
individual lots (an east and a west parcel). Considering that either the restaurant or
convenience gas facility could not function properly if one parcel were sold and
modified/redeveloped, it is recommended that the two lots which comprise the subject
property be legally combined.
Also to be noted is that some excess right-of-way exists along Cedar Street
(approximately 40 feet) which the City may be willing to vacate and convey to the
subject property. Considering that the site is relatively limited in terms of land area,
it is believed such conveyance would be beneficial. Staff has noted that with the new
alignment of Cedar Street, some of the right of way at the intersection of Cedar and
Oakwood may be viewed as "excess" right of way. As part of the lot combination,
the vacated Cedar Street right-of-way should be included. With a POO and a street
vacation, the project should be platted to clarify legal descriptions.
1
.
Planning Commission Agenda - 05/04/04
Access. Access to the subject site is proposed from Oakwood Drive (County Road
117) and Cedar Street. While the general access locations are acceptable, concern
exists in regard to the long-term ability to utilize Oakwood Drive for site exit
maneuvers. At some future point, there are plans to construct a center median within
Oakwood Drive thus eliminating access to the westbound lane toward Highway 25.
This was a part of the negotiation between MnDOT, McDonalds, and SuperAmerica
at the time of the Highway 25 upgrade. With this in mind, the site plan design should
be modified to reflect either a right-in/right-out or right-in only condition as may be
recommended by the City Engineer.
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 variety of features which influence
site circulation. These include limited site access, parking area and gas pump island
access, a drive-through carwash and drive-through window for the restaurant.
Recognizing the existence of these activities, a well-conceived plan for site
circulation is both very important and very challenging.
.
In regard to site circulation, the following concerns exist:
Oakwood Drive Access. As shown on the submitted site plan, the site's primary
access is from Oakwood Avenue. While it is understood that full access presently
exists along the roadway and is desirable from a convenience standpoint, the site plan
should be mindful of the future access restriction to take place along the roadway. In
this regard, it is suggested that the Cedar Street access be given emphasis as a primary
site access point. Perhaps even more important will be Cedar Street's function as an
egress point. Traffic exiting the site along Oakwood Drive would be forced to cross
Oakwood quickly and make a U-turn at Cedar Street to return to Highway 25 and the
1-94 interchange. Focusing this traffic toward Cedar Street would avoid this conflict
in the public right of way, and would also encourage some of the traffic to take a
series of right turns to Chelsea Road and Highway 25, where better traffic control is
possible.
Amz:led Parking. The site plan illustrates angled parking north and east of the
restaurant. As proposed, vehicles traveling to the south in the parking area cannot
access any of the provided parking stalls. Unless a clearly understood one-way
circulation pattern is proposed, it is suggested that 90 degree parking be utilized.
Restaurant Stacking Soace. Approximately 180 feet of stacking space has been
proposed for the restaurant drive-through window. . In our experience in other
2
.
Planning Commission Agenda - 05/04/04
communities, it has been found that similar restaurants typically generate a stacking
space need of more than this length, particularly during peak use periods. Thus, a
likelihood exists that some stacked vehicles may block access to several off-street
parking stalls. Because parking is likely to be at a premium, the site plan should be
designed to avoid conflicts of this sort.
Trash Enclosure Access. As shown on the submitted site plan, a trash enclosurejs
proposed in the extreme southeast comer of the site. The location of the enclosure
near the site access is considered problematic from an access/site circulation
standpoint and also would be highly visible to the neighboring right-of-way. It is
therefore suggested that the enclosure be relocated such that is less visible from the
public right-of-way and more easily accessible to service vehicles.
Setbacks. While the PUD may allow interior setback flexibilities, periphery structure
setback requirements of the base district are considered applicable.
.
As shown on the submitted site plan, the proposed trash enclosure exhibits a front
yard setback of 5 feet (from Cedar Street). While the conveyance of the excess Cedar
Street right-of-way would resolve this setback concern, it is suggested that the
enclosure be relocated to a less visible area of the site. Although not shown explicitly
on the plan, fuel station facilities often propose propane sales and other remote
facilities. Planning staff would recommend that these types of items also be located
adjacent to the building, rather than at the edges of the site.
Building ArchitectureIDesign. As part of the PUD Development Stage submission,
building elevations of both the restaurant and convenience gas facility must be
provided.
As a PUD, the City has the ability to impose design related conditions. While it is
recognized that both Wendy's and Holiday Convenience stores typically utilize
"franchise" designs, it is suggested that the buildings facades be coordinated such that
they relate to each other through building finish materials, color, massing and
possibly architectural features.
.
OfT-street Parking. The site plan identifies a parking supply that relies on a net
floor space calculation for both buildings, and also counts parking spaces at the fuel
pump islands. Neither of these are permissible under the zoning ordinance, nor have
they been used as the standard for other similar uses in the City. The applicants have
argued that the standards are excessive, and that other communities permit these
calculations. Planning staff does not encourage the construction of paved parking
areas that are likely to go unused. However, it has been our perspective that in
observing similar projects in Monticello, as well as in other communities that share
3
.
Planning Commission Agenda - 05/04/04
this zoning standard, rarely do these facilities appear to be "over-parked".
Particularly at a very busy intersection such as this one, planning staff would
recommend adhering to the strict parking requirements to ensure that back-up traffic
does not interfere with travel on the adjoining public streets.
Stacking Space. The ordinance does not provide any specific stacking space
requirements for convenience food drive through facilities. The proposed drive
through lane may be adequate for general use, however, it will definitely result in
conflicts with the parking lot during peak periods. A change to the site plan should
be considered that eliminates this conflict.
In regard to drive through/mechanical carwashes, the ordinance states that stacking
space should accommodate the number of vehicles that can be washed during a
maximum thirty-minute period. According to the applicant, it is anticipated that the
carwash can accommodate 4 vehicles in a half hour period. As shown on the
submitted site plan, stacking space been provided for approximately 8 vehicles.
.
Landscaping. As a condition of Development Stage PUD approval, a landscape plan
must be submitted. Such plan should indicate the location, size and variety of all site
plantings.
Trash Enclosure. As shown on the site plan, a trash enclosure has been proposed in
the extreme southeast corner of the site. The location is considered problematic both
in terms of setback and visibility from adjacent Cedar Street. As a condition of PUD
approval, it is suggested that the enclosure be relocated to a less visible location of the
site, possibly between the two buildings.
Signage. Details regarding site signage have yet to be submitted. As a condition of
Development Stage PUD approval, all site signage must comply with the applicable
requirements of the Sign Ordinance.
Lighting. As part of the Development Stage PUD submission, a photometric lighting
plan identifying illumination levels on the subject site (and including details relating
to fixture type) should be provided.
According to the Ordinance, the Source of lights should be hooded and controlled so
as not to illuminate adjacent properties or public rights-of-way. This is particularly
important for the pump island canopy - these lights should be recessed into the
canopy to avoid glare and visibility issues with traffic at the Oakwood/Highway 25/I-
94 ramp intersection.
4
.
Planning Commission Agenda - 05/04/04
Grading Drainage and Utilities. As part of the Development Stage PUD, a grading
and drainage plan and a utility plan must be submitted. Such plans will be subject to
review and comment by the City Engineer.
Design Alternative. In response to the various circulation related concerns cited in
this report, a site plan design alternative has been prepared. The alternative is
intended to serve as a guide in the preparation of an improved plan. The alternative
shifts the building locations slightly, and relies on a two-way circulation plan in the
main parking area to allow traffic to exit toward Cedar Street. It also increases the
parking supply to meet ordinance requirements.
AL TERNA TIVE ACTIONS
Decision:
1. Motion to recommend approval of the Concept Stage PUD based on the
comments from the staff report for the May 4, 2004 Planning Commission
meeting.
.
2.
Motion to recommend denial of the Concept Stage PUD based on a finding
that the combination of uses on this site can not be supported by the
surrounding street system.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Based on the preceding review, it is evident that several circulation related concerns
exist upon the subject site. Provided such Concerns can be satisfactorily addressed,
our office believes the two proposed uses can compatibly exist upon the subject
property. A site plan alternative has been prepared to illustrate a more acceptable
circulation plan that would meet staff concerns over access, egress, and parking
capacity. The following recommendations are an important part of the staff
recommendation:
1. The City vacate the excess Cedar Street right-of-way adjacent to the subject
property.
2. The two lots which comprise the subject property as well as the excess Cedar
Street right-of-way be legally combined into a single parcel via preliminary and
final plat.
5
.
Planning Commission Agenda - 05/04/04
3. The site plan design be modified to reflect either a right-in/right-out or right-in
only condition along Oakwood Drive (County Road 117).
4. Issues related to site access and curb cut width be subject to additional comment
and recommendation by the City Engineer.
5. Cedar Street access be given emphasis as a primary site access point.
6. Unless a clearly understood one-way circulation pattern is proposed, 90 degree
parking be utilized.
7. The trash enclosure (and any other accessory uses) be relocated to sites adjacent
to the proposed buildings such that they are less visible from adjacent public
rights-of-way.
8. As part of the Pun Development Stage submission, building elevations of both
the restaurant and convenience gas facility be provided. Building facades shall be
coordinated such that they relate to each other through building finish materials,
color, massing and possibly architectural features.
.
9. The site plan be revised to meet the off-street parking requirements of the zoning
ordinance (including use of the gross building size as the baseline for parking
supply calculations and excluding pump island area in the parking supply count).
10. Vehicular stacking space for the restaurant be designed to avoid conflicts with the
parking areas.
11. As a condition of Development Stage Pun approval, a landscape plan be
submitted. Such plan shall indicate the location, size and variety of all site
plantings.
12. All site signage comply with the applicable requirements of the Sign Ordinance.
13. As part of the Development Stage Pun submission, a photometric lighting plan
identifying illumination levels on the subject site (and including details relating to
fixture type) be provided, consistent with the comments in this report.
14. As part of the Development Stage Pun, a grading and drainage plan and a utility
plan be submitted. Such plans will be subject to review and comment by the City
Engineer.
6
.
SlJPPORTING DATA
A. Site Location Map
B. Concept Stage Submittal Narrative
C. Survey
D. Site Plan
E. Site Plan Design Alternative
F. Site Images
G. Aerial Images
.
7
Planning Commission Agenda - 05104/04
:J
.......
.
LF
0/1
U
WLIlERll"S Mll6U
: IDE _ lEAST)
:~
:~
:0::
"
:t
:z:
:8
6
j
1/
<j
N.E. 85th
. -- . .~ -.
..;
;i
..
..
I
I
I
I
I
I
7
8
j
9
j
10
j
1
...
lOB
.
Proposed Holiday Stationstore/Wendy's Restaurant
Highway 25 and Oakwood Drive
Monticello, MN
Conditional Use Permit
Planned Unit Development
Concept Stage
Submittal
.
I
.
.
Wendy's International and Holiday Stationstores are proposing the redevelopment of a 1.65
acre parcel ofland, which is currently occupied by Tom Thurn b, at the Southeast Comer of Highway
25 and Oakwood Drive.
Wendy's International proposes a 2,980 square foot building with 96 seats. The Wendy's
building wi II be predominately constructed 0 fbrick and glass. Hours of operati on wi II be from] 0; 00
a.m. to 10:00 p.m. for the dining room with the drive thru remaining open until 2:00 a.m.
Holiday Stationstores is proposing to construct a 5,411 square foot building. It will operate
24 hours and provide a variety of grocery, health and beauty aid products, as well as prepackaged
sandwiches, baked goods and a wide assortment of beverages. This "state-of-the- art" facility will
incorporate the latest technology in car wash and fueling equipmeut. The iuterior design of our
convenience store will incorporate earth tones and ceramic tile flooring. The exterior of these
buildings will be constructed with brick, EFS and glass.
.
'"
..
..
I f
~;~ .... . ...f--- ,l/~:~(."'}L
l. '" /Y7..". "-
. '. . ''j. i'- ~
/'---~, /~/17" ..;~
{( ~~ 111/ /0/*/j
'" " il ~
'.. \ I! / / I /1 ;L'i../ .
IV _ . , !~(
! - x
I . "-,,-
~ --= t '- ~"-~\-
~ \ "'-'\1' \
~ \
f -= \ ~ ~ \
\, .~ /
~--~ /
'"'x
"
,.
~
Lt
"1\
~
.
.
a.
...,
4.
) --;RI~ -~~ - L-"..ie
( f :\:=::!- ~
I
.:
"I
\
I
-'\)
'0
'~ '"K
~
~
~
(~
'h
"-
~ ~ ", '-
~~L . '-. ~ . ,,~.
. "/ "",..
''>, ". 1:.: /"?f" '>,
./ ", "\ "-. " Q.
<". '., " "."' . c:d
\ ,( '- \ '- " ~
'-.~~ /,,,, \ ' ,.....
I . r /. "- '\",,' '. .", 1'/>--'"
\j; NJ<0:'^ \,' ",'. "... -". .... .. '- ,.:". '.> '- rJT
". '. \ X '",
-\.. · ) . 'Iv'
~ - -- \~\X ~:::::I}>_
! ~ ""~ 1:7'.'
IC-. -::.,. '\/ . .
/"",/ \ ~y::,.!
/ :9\6 '\
. ~
l2~
~~
i\.
~ ~
"-f .J)
'7 ,[\
\'. ~\
~~
-- ~
z ^
\~" 'V"
':1
'c::
3
7X
\" . oj
C(:.-ilJ. y. ,,:.' ,"
i:;'J-{_
.J ["""'.
',_."i
\ '",
/.
~.
"
IDE:
.iJ
j~
.:-.
"f\
T)
/ 5:
\,
7
~
"
, '\1
.
.
.
.
-
""""'I""
JO~
11.
Consideration of a request to amend the R-IA zoning district design standards.
Applicant: City of Monticello Planning Commission. (O'Neill)
.
REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND
Although there has been signilicant discussion regarding this topic as it relates to the
Hillside Farm development, staff has not had the opportunity to meet and discuss this
subject for application on a general basis. As such, there is no draft: language for the
Planning Commission to review at this time. Therefore, staff requests that the
Planning Commission open the public hearing, take any public testimony that might
be forthcoming, discuss the item, and continue the public hearing to the next regular
meeting. At the next meeting we hope to have prepared draft language for review.
ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS
I. Motion to continue the public hearing to the next regular mecting ofthc Planning Commission and
table consideration of an ordinance amendment pending furthcr study.
Under this alternative, Planning Commission could take comments and also make
suggestions as to potential modifications to the code. Staff could incorporate those
recommendations into the draft language.
.
2.
Motion to amend the R] A ordinance regulations relating to single family home building standards.
This alternative could be adopted if specific ordinance amendment language is developed
as a result of the discussion.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends alternative 1.
SUPPORTING DATA
A. R-l A Zoning Regulations
B. Residential Design Standards
.
.
SECTiON:
6A-l:
6A-2:
flA-3:
6A-4:
6A-l:
6A-2:
6A-3:
61\-4:
CHAPTER 6A
lIA
'R-IA"'.SINGLE FAMIL Y RESIDENTIAL DlSTRICT
Purpose
Permitted Uses
Permitted Accessorv [Jses
Conditional Uses
P URPO S E: The purpose of the "R -I A" single family district is to pro vide for low density,
single family, detached residential dwelling units and directly related complementary oses,
The R-l A District is distinguished from the R- I District in that is has more extensive
development standards and is to be located in areas of higher natural residential amenities,
including such conditions as woodlands, wetlands, and significant views.
- . -
PERMITTED USES: The following are permittcd uses in an -R-lA" District:
[A] Those uses permitted in the --R-J" District, under the same conditions as listed in
that district.
PERMITTED ACCESSOR Y USES: The foIlO\ving are permitted accessory uses in an
"R-I 1\'" District:
IA]
Those permitted accessory uses as allowed in the "R-J " District under the same
conditions as listed in that district.
CONDITIONAL USES: "l"he folJovYillg are eonditionaluses in an "R-l A"" District
(requires a conditional use permit based upon procedures set forth in and regulated by
Chapter 22 of this ordinance).
fAJ Those conditional uses as allowed in the "R-IA District under the same conditions
as listed in that district.
MONTICELLO ZONING ORDINANCE
6A/J
..-...-..-.-..-...-...-..-.-...-. ..-.
~~~==~~~~~ e
---"'-'---
;s :Ill :Ill :Ill :Ill :Ill :Ill 5!~
... ~~
:Ill .;. ~ 0 ,
.... ... ~ ...
qri'J
J" ~ ;: >-..1 ;:::; >; >t:J
;g ;g ~~ ~ ~~ 3j ~ ~~
~ '" ~~ '" ~'"
~ -, -, -, " ~
8~ a::
00 > > ~i' ~
~ ~~ ~ t; 0 ~ 8 ~~~
::tl .f!ff ::tl ::tl ::tl ..::tl ~~ ::tl ~ !
"
.... > > il ~
15 --15 15 0 ':J~ ~ -- '" ....
~::tl 0 ~S~ ~
::tl ::tl ::!1 ::tl ~ ::tl ~ ~
'" <;; ~ '" q ~ l! ~
::: W. Z' W. ;;:: Z' ~i
~~ "'.... 0 "" ~ p p. ?
~::tl ::!1 ::!1 I s ( I s (
J'>
~ ~ ,lol
~
.... ~o 15 5 15 ~~ c.... raff
0 lG 0
::tl ~:J;l ::tl !1 !1 ~:J;l ~;:tl
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ L: >1
'" > :>> '" ~ if
.." -,
~ ~ ~ ~ i ~ J",) ~ 0 J" ;i if i
z ~ ;g ;g
~ ~
'" '" '" '" ~ ~ ~ '" '" ~ ... !
.." -, -, .." -, -, i Ii'
~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~l
'" ;:::; ;:::; ;:::; '" '" '" ~
~ Iy - '" '" '" '" '" II ~
! ~.~ 8' '" B. ~ - '" r"
,,' s: 0:' ;; 8. s: .S: >
' '" l:l i;l '" ~
1;j.=1.;~ ~. =:;; en i
~ z f3~!5 1 ~i ~
z Ill" III Z ~
;;; ~ ",g,I;lg' ~ ",g,Slt:ll :>> ~
R "l> - c, ~i05&
8~~1:: o III
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ -..I ~ if. a::
8 > ~
'" ~ ~ '" '" '"
-, -, .." -, I
I~~~ I i8~~ I I
~ z z ~ z I I
III f.i
;;; ;;; [g,~~l ig, ~g. ;;;:
So 'i'~ , ~.. =
f~ ~
"" ~ "" "" "" '" "" f ~
!1 ::tl ::tl !1 :J;l :J;l I
[8
ir
"" z "" "" 'f i
"" "" "" '"' ~
::tl ~ :J;l ::tl !1 ::tl !1 -
oS
[8 ,;
;11 ~iJ.~ ~~'" ~~'" a~'"
'" '" ~ ~"'~ "i ~ ~il
~il [
o .. ;i:::_g, 0' .. 0' '8 p. i..~
-<"> <"> "
~ oon q ~ i~ ~ ~[i ~~N ;:; ~ '" O5~N
~~ ~..~ l~~i ~..~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~$
"'[;;, "'~~ e:~~ "'-~
g,' 0 g, o 1<
!l~ . ~"~ o. !i~ !i~ il~
~
~
'W~~
-- -- --
~~O'~;;-~~~~;:~~~~~~
-, _. fl """ go eo e: '{9, " ., !:l iJ !Ji Q go
M~ ... &l _. ,,:' = El ~ A- " (JQ ii! " _. ~
I :; 8.~'" e; g';.:::" O.B. ~.B. E!' e;.....
. =' I'.'J =:1 ~ (b V ""!I ~ . ('b "~ =:I II""""
=~ (JQ -"'"'0''' ~ &~ 03(JQ '"
>l:tl~l:Z:l~c -1""I-t::L.tD~~ er
('"} g g ., fl s, 0 lit .:.. ~ 1;. ~. ~ A- ~] Q ==
~~~~~w.~~~~~~~~gZ~i
~~!~:.ii:~i!~"'-fi"g&~
R~~~g~~-~~ ~ ~ ~~z
~ ~ ~ S' e.. '>1 n )- :: 'ej - 't- ~ '" CI a
i..," -" C~ c~g e..Ei!:l"" /?lEi
12~r~~~~~..~"g~:~:
.....,e.."'= 5'''[''~--O':;r''CI
- ~ Iii' " = (JQ '" ." .,. "'" '" = = c::
~g38~~ii~~~~e~s.~~g
8. ~ g ~ Sf ;; fl ~. ~ ~ 'Oi ;.= =_: c': <JQ 1> ~
o = e n ~ ~ n ~ a (b ~ n ~ ~ ~-
~1~i~fE~i~I~~~~~g
2: ~ 8" g a :;r " & ~ ~ ?i cn~ Q ~
"1:\.c=.. QSl~ e..R-~g-~:;'Oi ~
C ;Q - ~ =- "'l:)!if (') () ~ ~. a n
""'-~~r 5'=a&~~ - 3Z
!i" W 6- ~ ~ a (JQ ~ g- ~ ~ 1;. =' s. g g a
1={~~12~&:;rr:~~~~~
... = V) (JQ "" =. " ~ "" = !::::l = 8. ."
8. 8: ~ g & ~ W ~ Q ~ ~, e:." ~ ~ i
II;t~:ai'B&'~f<'='1 t
=~II~~gile-Q~af8. .
lOa 3 Ii' r::, ~ ...., ~ ~. ':1 ~ Ii- - g ",' !1
~~~a~3f~~~~~~~~~ ~
~>[Ii'~~~ag,,~~~~~~" t
;.ar Q!-~ei~Es~~ ~
"$rl rQ~A-'3 :;r_..= .
i<.lif"'e 6;8"::':.. = ;.t...,,-~(JQ
Ro lit !Ji. e: Sf = ff ~" \0 0 ~ 2
1:l~13 ~fr f;'R~~ g-!'
2S:'os"~ ~=--'E.. "'"
<~;; [0 2:rl~ :;; "'"::l
t"l " _,::Il 0"'" 00 0'1 .. ~...., Ct.
V)~~a~.. ':10' ~ 0 ~
0.,,'" -<Ii! N-c..., = ~
Itj~ 2: S' g. ~ ~ g. ~ Q ~ ~
~;.~ '.g(JQ f i~ S'
...,~ "... 'ifJ-'" =0 0-
(JQ ;.;. 3 ~ ~ ~~. ~ ~ .2 ~ ~
/?l.,,-c ,,~!i"-!Ji =
~g~~ l~ a~~ ~ [ ~
[~ ~ W~ ~;~ ii"
i~ ~ ~~ 5.j.~ g "A-
[ '" ~ 5'~. a. g r ~ f
-f' i ~& a'.,~ ~ g
:;r .g 8 ~ 2 a"g _. 8-
~ - S' ." !! g; & e- ~
go ~ sf f<' ~ a.:;:' (") ~ ~
fr i ~ .~.' i. ~ a.~ ~ ~:
:.... - ~"'f<''' 3
!:lCt, ...,_ "';<.., ,.,.
Pig N~ ""==-. Q e
Na ~ "g., ~
~~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ a g-
~ -<n ~ R-
=l ~e "'~ '"
" e, e.. '- ;;: N S
a ,... N .... =
~ N ! :;r
"f ~ :9 f
;! g.
~
-
-
::l'
...
8
~
~
~
I.
p
I-
llf?J
s~~
~~~
~~~
9r.nt'fj
~~e:
VltTJo
VI ~
fJ~~
tTJfa
....~
~
~
r-
~
~
rI..l
~
~
Z
rI..l
~
~
>-
~
rI..l
'T1t:Dn
~ r:: .....
:-= "".-<
s:
s. ~
(1q -
.....
::l
~
::to
g
--- --- ---
--.l--.l--.l
0'10'10'1
w w w
'-' '-' '-'
NNN
\D\D\D
VI VI VI
tWN
i2~~
.
.
.
Planning Commission Agenda - 5/04/04
12.
Consideration of a request to re-zone a 59.14 acre Darcel from Ae:ricultural-ODen
8Dace (A-O) to Ree:ional Business (B-4). (O'Neill)
REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND
Planning Commission is asked to consider an amendment to the zoning map that
would change the current designation of a 59.14 acre parcel formerly known as the
"Remmele" property from A-O (Agriculture-Open Space) to B-4 (Regional
Business). The Remmele property, though currently zoned A-O is identified in the
Comprehensive Plan for commercial use.
As the Planning Commission is aware, as boundary lines shift and land comes into
the City, the property is automatically zoned A-O. Subsequently, the designation can
be changed to that which is identified in the Comprehensive Plan.
It is appropriate to consider an update to the zoning district designation at this time
due to a proposal to develop a commercial use on a portion of this parcel. The
proposal has been brought forward by Muller Theatres.
Under the proposal, the City will likely act as the developer by platting the property,
developing the needed infrastructure and selling lots to commercial interests. The
preliminary plat for the site showing road and parcel layout will be reviewed at an
upcoming meeting of the Planning Commission. The plat will illustrate the location
of the theater site and relationship to roadways and other parcels to be developed at a
future time. Please note that a theater is a permitted use within the B-4 district and
thus a specific site plan for the theater is not expected to be reviewed by the Planning
Commission.
For reference, a sketch has been provided in the Supporting Data.
AL TERNA TIVE ACTIONS
1. Motion to recommend approval of the rezoning request for the subject
"Remmele" parcel from A-O to B-4 use, based on the finding that the
proposed district designation is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.
2. Motion to recommend denial of the request to rezone the subject "Remmele"
parcel from A-O to B-4, based on a finding to be determined.
1
Planning Commission Agenda - 5/04104
.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
The Comprehensive Plan clearly identifies the subject area for commercial
development. It is the view of the City staff that the B-4 designation is proper, as the
commercial use is located on the highly traveled Highway 25 corridor, which is likely
to satisfy regional market demands for goods and services. The size of the land area
is large enough to support regional shopping and entertainment facilities. For those
reasons, staff recommends approval of the rezone request.
SUPPORTING DATA
A. Site Location Map
B. Sketch Plan
C. Zoning Map
D. B-4 Regulations
E. Comprehensive Plan Map
F. Aerial Photo
.
.
2
.
[
:]
rF
Of
o
'._,'
' .
: ~
:~
.. . ~ ., . - ~. -
',..
.~
:u
N.r. 85th
-," .,,,-
STRrO' ..
I
I
I
!
6
j
7
8
j
9
j
10
j
SECTION:
.....
...,.
CHAPTER 14
1'2-(7
"B-4" REGIONAL BUSINESS DISTRICT'
14-1 :
14-2:
14-3:
14-4:
Purpose
Permitted Uses
Permitted Accessory Uses
Conditional Uses
14-1: PURPOSE: The purpose of the "B-4," regional business, district is to provide for the
establishment of commercial and service activities which draw from and serve customers
from the entire community or region.
14-2: PERMITTED USES: The following are permitted uses in a "B-4" district:
[A]
[13 J
[C]
[D]
. [EI
IF]
[GI
[HI
[I]
P]
IK]
IL]
1M]
[N]
.
All permitted uses as allowed in a "B-1 ", "B-2", and "B-3" district.
Antique or gift shop.
Amusement places (such as dance halls or roller rinks).
Auto accessory stores.
Enclosed boat and marine sales.
Books. office supplies, or stationery stores.
Bo\vling alleys,
Carpet, rugs, and tile.
Coin and philatelic stores.
Copy service but not including press or newspaper.
Costume. clothes rental.
Department and discount stores,
Dry cleaning. including plant accessory thereto, pressing. and repairs.
Dry goods store.
l'vIONTICELLO ZONING ORDINANCE
14/1
.
.
.
]4-3: PERMITTED ACCESSORY USES: The foJ1owing are permitted accessory L1ses in a
"8-4" district:
[A 1 All permitted accessory uses in a "8-3" district.
14-4:
CONDITIONAL USES: The following are conditional uses in a "8-4" district: (Requires
a conditional use permit based upon procedures set forth in and regulated by Chapter 22
of this ordinance.)
[A] Open and oLltdoor storage as an accessory Lise provided that:
1.
The area is fenced and screened from view of neighboring residential uses
or if abutting a residential district in compliance with Chapter 3, Section 2
[G], of this ordinance.
2.
Storage is screened from vie\v from the public right-of-way in compliance
with Chapter 3. Section 2 [G], of this ordinance.
..,
.J.
Storage area is grassed or surfaced to control dust.
4.
All li!.!htin!.! shall be hooded and so directed that the liuht Source shall not
L L L
be visible from the public right-oF-way or hom neighboring residences and
shall be in compliance \vith Chapter 3, Section 2 [H]. of this ordinance.
5.
The provisions of Chapter 22 of this ordinance are considered and
satisfactorily met.
[B] Open or outdoor service. sale. and rental as a principal and accessory use and
including sales in or from motorized vehicles. trailers. or \\"<lgons. provided that:
I. Outside service. sales. and equipment rental connected "ith the principal
use is limited to thirty percent (30%) of the gross 1100r area of the principal
use. This percentage may be increased as a condition of the conditional
use permit.
2. Outside sales areas are fenced or screened from vie\v of the neighboring
residential Uses or an abutting residential district in compliance with
Chapter 3. Section :2 [G]. of this ordinance.
3. AJ1 lighting shall be hooded and so directed that the light Source shall not
be visible from the public right-or-way or from neighboring residences and
shall be in compliance with Chapler 3. Section :2 [H]. of this ordinance.
4. Sales area is grassed or surfaced to control dust.
MONTICELLO ZONING ORDINANCE
] 4/3
5. The provisions of Chapter 22 of this ordinance are considered and
satisf~lctorily met.
[C1 Custom manufacturing, restricted production and repair limited to the following:
Art, needk\~ork, jewelry rrom precious metals, \\atches, dentures, and optical .
lenses, provIded that:
1. Such use is accessory as defined in Chapter 2, Section 2, of this ordinance
to the principal use of the property.
2. Does not conflict with the character of development intended for this
district.
3. The provisions of Chapter 22 of this ordinance are considered
satisfactorily met.
[0] Motor fuel station, auto repair-minor, and tire and battery stores and service,
provided that:
1.
Regardless of whether the dispensing, sale, or offering for sale or motor
fuels and/or oil is incidental to the conduct of the use or business, the
standards and requirements imposed by this ordinance for motor fuel
stations shall apply. These standards and requirements arc, however. in
addition to other requirements which are imposed for other uses of the
property.
.
2. The arch'itectural appearance and functional plan of the building and sill:
shall not he so dissimilar to the cxisting buildings or area as to cause
impairment in property valucs or constitute a blighting influencc within a
reasonable distance of the lot.
3. The entire site other than that taken up by a building, structure, or plantings
shall be surhlced with a material to control dust and drainage which is
subject to the approval of the City Engineer.
4. A minimum lot area of twenty-two thousand five hundred (22,500) square
feet and minimum lot dimensions of one hundred fifty (150) feet by one
hundred thirty (130) !'cet.
5. A drainage system subject to the approval of the City Engineer shall be
installed.
6. A curb not less than six (6) inches above grade shall separate the public
sidewalk from motor vehicle service areas.
.
IVIONTICELLO ZONING ORDINANCE
14/4
.
7. The lighting shall be accomplished in such a way as to have no direct
Source of light visible from adjacent land in residential use or from the
public right-of-\\-ay and shall be in compliance with Chapter 3. Section 2
[HJ, of this ordinance.
8.
Wherever fuel pumps are to be installed. pump islands shall be installed.
9. At the boundaries ofa residential district. a strip of not less than tl\'e (5)
feet shall be landscaped and screened in compliance \vith Chapter 3.
Section 2 [0 J, of this ordinance.
10. Each light standard landscaped.
11. Parking or car magazine storage space shall be screened from vie\v of
abutting residential districts in compliance with Chapter 3. Section 2 [GJ, of
this ordinance.
12. Vehicular access points shall create a minimum of contlict with through
traffic movement. shall comply with Chapter 3. Section 5. of this ordinance.
Lind shall be subject to the approval of the City Engineer.
] 3. All signing and informational or visual communication devices shall be
minimized and shall be in compliance with Chapter 3. Section 9. of this
ordinance.
.
l~.
Pnnisiolls arc made to control and reduce noise.
15. No outside storage except as allowed in compliance \\ith Chapter 13.
Section 4. of this ordinance.
16. Sale of products other than those specifically mCl1tioned in Chapter 13.
Section ~. be subject to a conditional use permit and be in compliance with
Chapter 13. Section 4 [Fl, of this ordinance.
] 7. All conditions pertaining to a specific site are subject to change when the
Council. upon investigation in relation to a formal request. finds that the
general well~ln: and public betterment can be served as \vell or better by
l11odit)ing the conditions.
18. The provisions of Chapter 22 of this ordinance arc considered and
satisfactorily met.
[E] Machinery sales.
[F] Commercial planlll'd ullit development as regulated by. Chapter 20 of this
ordil1i.lI1cl' .
MONTICELLO ZONING ORDINANCE
14/5
I G] Boarding !-louse, provided that:
I. The building/structure is found to be suhstandard and/or blighted or
contributing to blight and in need of substantial rehabilitation.
a.
The applicant must provide an overall development concept plan.
.
b. The applicant must demonstrate that said rehabilitation is the most
feasible use alternative and that said rehabilitation is not remodeling
or simple structural alterations to accommodate a change in use.
2. Then-: shall be no less than ten (10) units nor more than 18 units, and each
unit shall be of a design considered to be an efficiency apartment.
3. At least one unit shall be on the ground floor fully accessible to handicapped
persons.
4. At least 50(% of the /loor area on the ground floor shall be developed as
complete restaurant t~1Cilities with a minimum seating capacity of two seats
per dwelling unit but in no case less than 25 seats.
a. Restaurant shall not be eligible for licenses regulating the sale of
intoxicating liquors. non~intoxicating malt liquors. vvine. or the
display and consumption of liquors.
b.
The restaurant shall be so equipped to provide food service to the
dwelling units if required.
.
5. The architectural appearance and functional plan of the building and site
shall not be so dissimilar to the existing buildings or area as to cause
impairment in property values or constitute a blighting influence within a
reasonahle distance of the lot.
6. All conditions pertaining to a specific site are subject to change \vhen the
Council. upon investigation in relation to a formal request, finds that the
general welt~lre and public betterment can be served as well or better by
modifying the conditions.
(# 138. 7/23/8-\.)
.
I-V6
~IONTICELLO ZONING ORDINANCE
.
.
.
SECTION:
14B-1:
14B-1:
14B-3:
14B-4:
14B-5:
148-6:
148-7:
148-1:
148-2:
148-3:
CHAPTER 148
"CCD" CENTRAL COMMUNITY DISTRICT
Purpose
Permitted Uses
Accessory Uses
Interim Uses
Conditional Uses
Lot and Building Requirements
Design Review
PURPOSE: The purpose of the "CCO", Central Community District. is to
implement the plans and policies of the Monticello Do\vntovm Revitalization Plan,
as that Plan is designed to provide for the establishment and continuation of a
traditional downtO\vn area in Monticello's primary commercial core. The district
\vill contain a mix of land uses which can compatibly coexist. with requirements
based upon enhancement of the district's natural features, and mitigation of land use
conflicts between ditTering uses. All proposed uses in the "CCO" district will be
evaluated against the goals and objectives of the Monticello Downtown
Revitalization Plan as adopted and as may be amended by the City Council.
PERMITTED USES: The following are permitted uses in the "CCO" district:
[A]
All permitted uses as allowed in the "B-4" district. except for motor fuel
facilities and convenience stores. and hotels/motels.
[B] Restaurants. but not fast-food or convenience type.
[C] On- and off-sale liquor establishments.
[0] Civic and governmental uses as a part of a public community center.
[E] Residential dwellings \vhich do not occupy the ground t100r space of a
bui Iding.
ACCESSOR Y USES: The following are permitted accessory uses in a "CCD"
district:
[A] Uses which are clearly and customarily incidental to the principal use in size.
activity, and scope, and in accordance with the special provisions of this
chapter. Except for parking, accessory uscs shall be located in the same
principal structure as that of the principal use and shall occupy no more than
thirty (30) percent of the floor area of said structure.
MONTICELLO ZONING ORDINANCE
148/1
14B-4:
INTERIM USES: The following are allowed as Interim Uses in the "CCD" district:
[A] None.
14B-5:
CONDITIONAL USES: The follo\ving are allowed as conditional uses in the
"CCD" district (requires a conditional use permit based upon the procedures set forth
in and regulated by Chapter 22 of this ordinance):
.
[A] Hotels. subject to the following conditions:
I. The principal building lot coverage is no less than fifty (50) percent of
the property. exclusive of easements devoted to public pedestrian use
or other outdoor public spaces.
2. The building. site, and signage meets the standards for the "CCD"
district. and design review approval is granted by the designated
Design Advisory Team.
3. The proposed use demonstrates compatibility and consistency with the
City's Comprehensive Plan and the Downtown Re\italization Plan.
[B] Motor fuel station. auto repair-minor. and tire and battery stores and service,
as allowed in the "B-4" district and subject to the follO\ving additional
conditions:
I.
The design of the site promotes pedestrian access adjacent to and
along the property.
.
2. No more than two (2) curb cuts of twenty-four (24) feet in width or
less shall be permitted.
3. Site lighting shall utilize fixtures similar in style to that designated by
the City for use in public areas of the "CCD" district
4. The building. site. and signage meets the standards for the "CCD"
district. and design n:view' approval is granted by the designated
Design Advisory Team.
5. The proposed use demonstrates compatibility and consistency with the
City's Comprehensive Plan and the DowntO\vn Revitalization Plan.
[C] Residential dwellings on the ground noor. subject to the following
conditions:
1. The proposed site for residential use is consistent with the goals and
objectives of the Downtovv'n Revitalization Plan.
')
The proposed site does not interrupt the now of commercial
pedestrian traffic in the "CCO" district.
.
MONTICELLO ZONING ORDINANCE
14B/2
.
.
.
[E]
3. Density for ground Hoor residential units shall not exceed one unit per
9.000 square feet of lot area. exclusive of land area utilized by, or
required for, permitted uses on the property.
[0]
Drive-in and convenience food establishments as allowed in the "B-3"
district. and subject to following additional conditions:
I.
The design of the site promotes pedestrian access adjacent to and
along the property.
')
No more than t\VO (1) curb cuts of twenty-four (24) feet in width or
less shall be permitted.
'"'
-'-
Site liglning shall utilize fixtures similar in stvle to that desil.!nated bv
....... I.,... '" L...
the City for use in public areas of the "CCD" district.
4.
The building. site, and signage meets the standards for the "CCO"
district, and design review approval is granted by the designated
Design Advisory Team.
5.
Drive through facilities comply \vith the requirements of Subdivision
14B-5 [E] of this chapter.
6.
The proposed use demonstrates compatibility and consistency with the
City's Comprehensive Plan and the Downtown Revitalization Plan.
Drive through windows accessory to other principal uses in the "CCO"
district. subject to the following conditions:
I. Service through drive-through facilities is accessory to interior on-
site, or sit-down, service \vithin the same building.
2. Drive-through lanes are designed to avoid disruption of pedestrian and
vehicular traffic How. both on- and off- site.
3. Landscaping and other site improvements are included which screen
automobile stacking space from the public street.
4. The principal building occupies no less than forty (40) percent of the
property. exclusive of easements devoted to public pedestrian use or
other outdoor public spaces.
5. The building, site, and signage meets the standards for the "CCOu
district. and design review approval is granted by the designated
Design Advisory T cam.
6. The proposed use demonstrates compatibility and consistency with the
City's Comprehensive Plan and the Downtown Revitalization Plan.
MONTICEllO ZONING ORDINANCE
148/3
[F] Animal pet clinics. as allowed in the "8-3" district.
[G 1 Day-care centers. as allo\ved in the "8-3" district.
[H]
Shopping centers. provided that the proposed use demonstrates compatibility
and consistency with the City's Comprehensive Plan and the DO\vntown
Revitalization Plan.
.
[I] Buildings of a height greater than the maximum building height as allowed in
Subdivision 148-6 [0] of this chapter.
[J] Planned unit development (PUO) ~ubject to the provisions of Chapter 20 of
this ordinance. and provided that the proposed use demonstrates compatibility
and consistency with the City's Comprehensive Plan and the OO\vntO\vn
Revitalization Plan.
[K] Car Wash. provided that:
1. The car wash building and the principal building must meet the
architectural requirements of the Design Advisory Team (DAT).
") The automobile stacking space area is screened from abutting
property. both residential and commercial.
..,
J.
Noise generated by the use. including vacuums. is mitigated by
location or architectural kature~ from adjoining or nearby residential
uses and pedestrian or outdoor commercial activities. Doors of car
wash must be closed during drying operation. Mechanical interlock
between door and dryer must be employed to assure compliance.
.
4. Lighting on the site is consistent with the City's thcmed lighting
style. whether freestanding or wall-mounted.
5. Signagc meets the requirements of the CCO zoning district and the
approval of the Design Advisory Team (OAT).
6. Drive through traffic does not interfere v,:ith pedestrian routes around
and/or through the property.
7. A minimum of five slacking spaces for car wash customers is
provided that avoids interference with other traffic on the site.
8. Site landscaping is pnwided to mitigate the amount of concrete and/or
asphalt surfacing. The use of alternati\'e paving surfaces is
encouraged.
9. Measures arc taken to avoid freezing and icing from washed vehicles
prior to exiting the site to the public street.
.
MONTICELLO ZONING ORDINANCE
148/4
10. All other applicable requirements of the Citis Zoning Ordinance arc
considered and met.
(#401.10/17103)
14B-6:
LOT AND BUILDING REQUIREMENTS: The following requirements shall apply
to all properties in the ..CCO., district:
.
[A] Minimum Lot Area: None
[B] Minimum Lot Width: None
(C] Residential Density: One dwelling unit per 3.000 square feet of lot area for
permitted residential uses. The number of dwelling units may be increased by
up to t\venty.tive (15) percent over the pt:rmitted density f()r projects which
provide at least half of the required parking underground or in above-grade
structures such as ramps or decks (induding covered at-grade parking areas).
[DJ Building Height: The follo\ving height limitations shall apply to all buildings
in the "CC I)'" district:
I. Minimum Height: Fifteen (15) feet.
2. t\laximum )-Ieight: Thirty Five (35) fcct. or three (3) stories. which
e\'er is greater.
[E]
Setbacks: Building setback minimums and maximums shall reflect the
recommendations lex the use and location as liskd in the Do\\ntown
Revitalization Plan. Where setbacks as discussed in the Downtown
Revitalization Plan are not listed or appropriate. there shall be no building
setbacks required. In such cases. there shall be no parking allowed in the
areas between the front building line and the public stred.
.
[FJ Site Improvements: All areas ofa parcel within the .'CCO" district shall be
subject to the applicable recommendations of the DO\'"l1town Revitalization
Plan. Site improvements shall be reviewed for compliance by the Design
Advisory Team together with other design elements. including architecture
and signage.
reI Parking:
I. Supply: Property owners shall comply with tht: parking supply
requirements as listed in Subdivision 3~5 [1-1] of this ordinance.
/h)\vever. property owners may be granted t1exibility from a portion
of their required parking supply under the following conditions:
a.
Where the City tinds that there \vill be adequatt: opportunity to
provide public parking in vicinity of the subject property. and
at the City's option. the owner shall pay into a "CCO" Parking
Fund an amount as established by City Council Resolution.
Said fund shall be llsed for the acquisition. construction.
.
MONTICELLO ZONING ORDINANCE
/4B/5
and/or maintenance of publ icly-owned parking in the "CCO.,
district. (#535.1019/00)
b.
The City may. in addition to. or as an alternative to. the option
listed in Subdivision 14B-6 [G] 1 a. and at the discretion of the
City. the City may offer the property owner the opportunity to
choose to supply parking at a rate which is sixty (60) percent
of the requirement listed in Subdivision 3-5 [H], provided that
the owner grants an easement to the public for automobile
parking use over the subject area. The O\vner shall retain
responsibility for maintenance of said parking area.
(#355. 10/9/00)
.
') Location: Parking shall not be located on a parcel betyveen the front
building line of the principal building and the public street. except
where expressly provided for by the City Council after
recommendation from the Planning Commission.
[H] Signs: The following requirements shall apply to all sign displays and
construction in the "CCO" district:
I. Signs shall comply with the Monticello Building Codes and Zoning
Ordinances relating to signs. including special allowances yvhich may
be made for the "CCO" district.
2.
All signs in the "CCO" district shall receive review and approval from
the Design Advisory Team.
.
a. Signs in compliance with applicable ordinances: For signs
which meet the regulations of the City's sign ordinances and
the goals and objectives of the OowntO\vn Revitalization Plan.
such review shall be given the weight of an administrative
determination. Appeal of a determination by the Design
Advisory Team shall be as provided for in Chapter 23 of the
Monticello Zoning Ordinance.
b. Signs not in compliance with applicable ordinances: Signs
which do not meet the regulations of the City's sign
ordinances shall require revieyv by the Board of Adjustment
and Appeals, as provided for in Chapter 23 of the Monticello
Zoning Ordinance. following Design Advisory Team review
and recommendation.
14B-7:
DESIGN REVIEW: All development and redevelopment projects in the "eeL)",
district shall be subject to design review for compliance with the goals and objectives
of the Downtoyvn Revitalization Plan. This subdi\"ision identifies the process and
application of design review recommendations.
[A]
The City Council shall designate a Design Advisory Team (DAT) to carry oLlt
.
MONTICELLO ZONING ORDINANCE
14B/6
.
the requirements of this Subdivision. The Council may delegate membership
determination to another private or public board. Said OAT shall review
projects within the nCCO" which propose new or altered buildings, site
improvements. or signs. Site improvements shall include parking lots.
landscaping projects (other than direct replacement of existing landscaping),
walkways and open space plazas. or other outdoor projects affecting the
visual impact of a site.
1. Plans shall be submitted to the OAT for review no less than seven (7)
days prior to a OAT meeting. An applicant shall submit at least six
(6) sets of plans. The OAT meeting shall be open to the public. but
shall not constitute a "public hearing" within the meaning of the
zoning ordinance.
2. Submitted plans shall be sufficiently detailed to identify proposed
materials. colors. locations, and any other factors relating to the visual
impact of the proposal. Such plans may include: Site Plans, Floor
Plans. Building Elevations. Rendered Drawings. Materials Samples,
and other appropriate submissions.
"
-'.
The OAT shall render its decision for approval or denial of a
submitted design review application at the same meeting at \vhich a
proposal is properly presented. A wri tten report 0 f the D A r s
findings shall be forwarded to the Zoning Administrator for
information to the Planning Commission. Upon \\Titten request of an
applicant the DA T may table action on a proposal for up to thirty (30)
days. If the DAT does not render a decision within the required time
frame, an application will be deemed approved.
.
[B] Appeals: Appeals of an adverse decision of the OAT may be made to the
Planning Commission by the applicant an abutting property O\Vller. or
another property O\Vller within the ''CCO'' district Said appeal shall be
governed by the process and requirements listed in Chapter 23 of the
Monticello Zoning Ordinance.
[C] Status of OAT Decision: Decisions of the OAT shall be treated as follows;
1. Permitted Uses which comply with all building code and zoning
ordinance standards: DA T decisions shall be advisory to the Building
Otlicial.
J Conditional and Interim Uses; OAT decisions shall be given the
status of administrative determinations. to be submitted to the
Planning Commission for inclusion in its recommendation to the Citv
~ .-
Council.
"
J.
Uses Requesting Variances: OAT decisions shall be given the status
of administrative determinations. to be submitted to the Planning
Commission for inclusion in its recommendation to the City Council.
.
MONTICELLO ZONING ORDINANCE
14B/7
4. Proposals receiving direct financial assistance from the City or one of
its official entities: OAT decisions shall be considered finaL subject to
the appeal process outlined in this Subdivision.
(#299,11/24/97)
MONTICELLO ZONING ORDINANCE
148/8
.
.
.
! r
l'
v>
~..
p:>.,,,,
~i
'+t
IU-
" . ""'._~~ "-'--'---".
.... ,,-, ,r' -- ~-
,"'.........
MONTICELLO
LONG RANGE LAND USE
~"
'.,
)
c~B C-:
'~, L
~ --..,,' '1=,
J.j=_~.= _,
.ll '\#'"~
,[J ~T I l.~
~I-_- ~ ~ ~~ ~s-A,
;;:...... " "'-
_, .-.... '1--- -- I~ b.. J::.t"-';;: -
~= ,~ ~
R-Ut~ ,,::&: " ~__ I-- ~~
~-' ~ ~>-' I " t:.., l- i=
t -[rT ..',- "; il ~ g r=~
n Tr-- r-. H Ir:~' 'J(\C \ 1IiW,',,' c1~~
~. t9_- ",,' 'Vc,"" .:.j.,.'. "',~::i 1A .. ;;+; '- b..:~1 --
.' ' ....' "', .,e ~ '""" '~ ~. ~
J """'1'1 ,J'"-~~~" F ~'i, "",,!'li r~ ""'-
-:.- 1 lL ~ ",,;I --r--------L"
-- ., ~ -;, I~" ~~.,. )th ~~_
'- I) ~ ~7~JIIU' ~'"/ ,""', -l I'""\~ ~~
V:,____._, .....G ....1.. ~'" ~:, J r:.. pll 1a ",:1' - ;,- I"L rl J "~I.t
~ ~ .'~....... D[ :":11 ~ .,:~ "~ "-
....'--1'27'" P'tr '"J." - ~r; 1 - J'
- - ~ ,....--, f---" , ,_.. , 1 1lIT _ -""I
'L-..-.T---'l r--- !JJll I~
L_ -=--:=irc-,~ ' - ,=-~ =F r-=- W~
__L_lrL.J__LL 0 hclL. . _ -' .
, ",~~I:l
N
w.'
(""
s
(~
I [___",J
i ["--"-"]
I ----------
! ..
:CJ
I..
1-
e/:
~
\... -------
Low o.".1ty Realdentlal
EXplIMion Area
Low Dendy Realdenttal (R-1)
Future Land U.. Objecttves:
Low o.n.tty R-.ldentilll (R-1A)
Medium De,.ity (attached Mg.)
1Ir Allow for. mbt of IIuJd __
1Ir Ptuarve and /NOfeCt ,.,.,.,. ,...."..
.. Provide road.,...", to ..".,,~
1Ir ~In IVIfII C"",..,.nd. .... **" fMI
.. u.. ..... ......... (1.... .... ...... "-J
to fJIJIrencfJ detiwIopmMt
1Ir Prwent.",.." by.......... compaot
deveiopment patfem
Urben Mixed-U..
Commercial
Induetrial
Open SPEfl
MobIle Home Perk
I~f
.
.
.
.
Planning Commission Agenda - 05/04104
14.
Plan nine Staff Update - Home Depot. (O'NciIl)
SUPPORTING DATA
A. Letter from Home Depot
.
233 Washington Street, Suite 216 · Grand Haven, MI49417
(616)844-1387 · Fax (616)8441376
April 16, 2004
~
Mayor Bruce Thielen
Monticello City Hall
505 Walnut Street, Suite 1
Monticello, MN 55362
Project: Home Depot - Monticello, MN
Dear Mr. Mayor,
We appreciate all of the hard work and assistance on the part of the City of Monticello in reviewing
and approving applications for a Home Depot Store at the southeast corner of Cedar Street and
Chelsea Road.
City Staff Members were all cooperative, efficient and easy to work with during the entitlement
process for the Planned Unit Development and Plat.
.
Due to limited visibility of this property from Interstate 94 and Highway 25, it was always a
requirement of The Home Depot that another large retailer also be located within this development.
Co-tenancy on this scale would have helped ensure anticipated customer traffic and projected
sales volumes that were targeted for the project. Unfortunately, the large retailer that Home Depot
had been working with for over a year has decided not to move forward at this location. Therefore,
Home Depot had to terminate their real estate contracts on the property.
The Home Depot would very much like to have a store in the City of Monticello and will continue to
scout for an alternate location.
We would like to thank the members of the City Council, Planning Commission and Staff for their
time and effort during the approval process on this project. We look forward to working with the
City of Monticello in the near future when another property has been selected.
sincere~
f\-~~
\ ~~Iatt .
~."Home Depot Real Estate Manager
.
cc: Jeff O'Neill (Deputy City Administrator)
Fred Patch (Zoning Administrator / Building Official)
Michael Grady (Home Depot Project Manager)
Jennifer Maxwell (GFA - Site Development Coordinator)
USA
Q5e5?usc~
Proud Sponsor
01 Letter 03,14.00 C:IWINDOWSIDesktopILettersIMonijcelloILetter_ Monticello. Doc