The URL can be used to link to this page

Planning Commission Agenda 06-01-2004 . . . AGENDA REGULAR MEETING - MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday, June 1st, 2004 6:00 P.M. Members: Dick hie, Richard Carlson, Rod Dragsten, Lloyd Hilgart, and William Spartz Glen Posusta Council Liaison: S taiT: Jeff O'Neill, Fred Patch, Steve Grittman - NAC, and Angela Schumann I. Call to order. 2. Approval of the minutes of the regular Planning Commission meeting held Tuesday, May 4, 2004 and the special meeting held Monday, May 24th, 2004. 3. Consideration of adding items to the agenda. 4. Citizen comments. 5. Public Hearing - Consideration of a request for variance to the minimum setback requirement for fence placement. Applicant: Aaron Quinn and Tylee Sylvers 6. Public Hearing - Consideration of a request for a conditional use permit for a development stage planned unit development and a request for a preliminary plat for a residential development in the CCD district. Applicant: Landmark Square 7. Public Hearing - Consideration of a request for a conditional use permit allowing for drive-up retail sales; motor fuel dispensing; light automobile service, including tires and batteries; open and outdoor sales; convenience foods; joint parking and drives; sign plan; and a request for preliminary plat for a commercial development in a B-3 district. Applicant: Wal-Mart 8. Public Hearing - Consideration of a request for a conditional use permit for a concept stage commercial planned unit development and a request to re-zone from I-I and 1-2 (Light and Heavy Industrial) to BA4 (Regional Business). Applicant: Ryan Companies, U.S., Inc. . . . 9. 10. Planning Commission Agenda 04/06/04 Public Hearing - Consideration of a request for a conditional use permit for a concept and development stage planned unit development in a B-3 district to allow for the interim use of an existing facility for open and outdoor sales. Applicant: Jacob Holdings of Monticello/Denny Hecker Consideration to call for a public hearing on an amendment to the Monticello Zoning Ordinance regarding minimum fence setbacks and maximum fence heights on parcels with multiple street frontages. 11. Public Hearing - Consideration of a request for a conditional use permit fl)f a multi-tenant building directory sign as allowed by the Monticello Zoning Ordinance. Applicant: John Komarek 12. Continued Public Hearing - Consideration of a request for a conditional use permit for a concept stage planned unit development in a B-3 district. Applicant: HolidayStation Stores/Wendy's 13. Continued Public Hearing - Consideration of a request to amend the R-I A zoning district design standards. Applicant: City of Monticello Planning Commission 14. Adjourn. - ~ - . . . MINUTES REGlJLAR MEETING - MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday, May 4th, 2004 6:00 P.M. Members Present: Chairman Dick Frie, Rod Dragsten, Lloyd Hilgart, Rich Carlson, Council Liaison Glen Posusta David Reitveld JefT O'Neill, Fred Patch, Steve Grittman - NAC, Angela Schumann Absent: S tafT: 1. Call to order. Chairman Frie called the meeting to order at 6:00 P.M., and declared a quorum. Chairman Frie noted the absence of Commissioner Reitveld and noted that no formal resignation has yet been received from Reitveld. 2. Approval of the minutes of the regular Planning Commission meeting held APRIL 6TH. 2004. A MOTION WAS MADE BY HILGART TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE APRIL 6TH, 2004 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING. MOTION SECONDED BY DRAGSTEN. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. A MOTION WAS MADE 13 Y CARLSON TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF 1'1 IE APRIL 26TH, 2004 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING. MOTION SECONDED BY HILGART. Chairman Frie requested the motion to approve the minutes of April 26th be amended to include his statement that should the developer and builder not meet the parameters of the amended PUD as approved by the Commission, they will not be allowed to proceed with their development process. MOTION TO APPROVE THE AMENDED MINUTES BY CARLSON. MOTION SECONDED BY HILGART. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Posusta requested clarification of the motion approved at the April 26th meeting regarding the amendment to the Hillside Farm PUD. Posusta questioned whether the motion was accurate in listing requirements specifically related to the modified two- story. Frie indicated the motion was correct as stated. Planning Commission Minutes - 05104104 3. Consideration of adding items to thc agenda. . Chairman Fric rcquested that duc to the agenda length, only urgent items bc added. 4. Citizens comments. None. 5. Puhlic Hearing - Puhlic Hearing - Consideration of a request for variance from thc 24 ' maximum drivcway width for single family rcsidences in an R-2 district. Applicant: Wayne Spicer. Grittman revicwed the staff rcport, stating that the applicant is seeking a variance from the maximum driveway curb cut width of 24 feet. The applicant has difficulty in ncgotiating a backing movement to place his boat in his detached garage. Thc applicant also has an attached garage which is accessed by an existing driveway. . Grittman stated that variance requests are to be revicwed as to whether a unique physical hardship exists that interferes with putting the property to reasonahle 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. Grittman notcd that the standard limiting driveway width provides for snow removal storage at thc cul-de-sac an is therefore an important standard to uphold. It is the staff's view that conditions do not exist that would meet the need f()r a variance as outlined in the ordinance. It is notcd that the difficulty with access is related to the backing of a boat trailer, rather than direct vchicle access. Grittman recommended other alternatives, stating that it would appear to be possible to store the boat in thc existing attachcd garage if more direct access is necessary, and shift vehicle parking to the detached building. In the alternative, the applicant could shin his 24 foot driveway to the detached building, and curve the driveway to the existing driveway, reversing the current arrangement. Chairman Frie opened the public hearing. Wayne Spicer, 111 Crocus Circle, addressed the Commission, indicating that the boat is too large to fit in the attached garage, which is why it was intcnded to go into the detached garage. Spicer indicated that because of limited vision in one eye, he is requesting the variance. . Spicer stated that he hadn't considered the option of putting the 24' driveway into the -2- Planning Commission Minutes- 05/04/04 . detached and then curving into the attached garage. He indicated that it would be easier and less expensive to proceed as indicated on the plan. Frie noted that it would appear Spicer does not meet the first prerequisite for variance, which is hardship. Frie asked if he understood both options outlined by Grittrnan. Spicer indicated that he did understand, although only one option is viable due to the size of the boat. f rie asked Spicer if had been contacted by any neighbors regarding this request. Spicer stated that he had not. frie asked if there were any property line issues. Grittrnan indicated that the request meets the minimum required setbacks. Dragsten inquired where the curve could begin in the applicant's front yard. Grittman stated that distance is normally 10 feet back from the curb, based on the size of most cul-de~sacs. Spicer inquired whether he could put crushed rock in the area he had proposed to be paved. Patch stated that all parking areas should be surfaced, which generally means paved. Patch stated that gravel would also be considered driveway, which wouldn't meet the ordinance. Grittman further clarified that the boulevard needs to be landscaped or green space by ordinance. llearing no other comments, Chairman Frie closed the public hearing. . A MOTION W AS MADE BY HILGART TO DENY THE VARIANCE, BASED ON A FINDING THAT THE PROPERTY CONDITIONS DO NOT MEET THE REQUIRED HARDSHIP TEST FOR VARIANCE CONSIDERATION, AND THAT OTHER ALTERNATIVES THAT MEET THE ORDINANCE REGULATIONS ARE A V AILABLE TO THE APPLICANT. MOTION SECONDED BY DRAGSTEN. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. frie requested that the two alternatives presented to the applicant be reflected in the minutes and the applicant consider those as his options. 6. Public Hearing - Consideration of a request for a conditional use permit allowing for a 728 square foot detached accessory use structure in an R-I district. Applicant: Shawn Leach Grittman provided the staff report, stating that the applicant is seeking a conditional use permit to construct a second garage on his property at 3657 Brentwood Drive. 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. . Grittman stated that the request for accessory use is within the requirements for approval of a conditional use permit in the R -I district. In addition, the applicant has -3- Planning Commission Minutes - 05/04/04 . indicated intent to meet materials, use, and location requirements. Grittman commented that because the building is located at the rear of the lot, it may be appropriate to require additional landscaping on the side and rear of the building. l'he plantings would help to mitigate neighborhood concerns over the proximity of the building to adjoining property. Grittman noted that during a site inspection, it appeared that the applicant has paved an area around the side of his home that violates the 3 foot setback, and may also have a driveway curb cut width that exceeds the maximum 24 foot width requirement. The applicant noted in his application materials that he does not intend to provide a driveway to the proposed accessory building. Grittman recommended that this condition should be added to any approval, if granted. Grittman also recommended that the non-conforming driveway conditions on the property should be corrected as a requirement of the initial building permit inspection. Chairman Frie opened the public hearing. . Shawn Leach, 3657 Brentwood Drive, made himself available to answer questions from the public and Commission. Frie inquired how long Leach had lived on said property. Leach stated approximately 11 months. Frie asked if Leach was aware that he had violated that ordinance for driveway width and possibly for minimum setbacks. Leach stated that he was not made aware of the violation before reviewing the staff report and that he did not believe that the minimum driveway width had been exceeded. Hilgart asked if the driveway around the house had been added after moving in. Leach stated that it had been part of the home's initial construction. I1ilgart asked the applicant what would be stored in the garage. Leach stated that personal property would be stored. Dragsten inquired about the height of the building. Leach stated it would be 9' with an 8' garage door. Frie asked if neighbors were present to address the commission. Barry Spears, 3623 Brentwood Drive, indicated that he supports the request as long as the applicant meets the standards outlined in the ordinance. Christopher Principalli, 3669 Brentwood Drive, also spoke in support of the project. Frie stated that if the motion to approve prevails, the applicant will need to finish the building in the same style as the house, with landscaping as required. . Carlson indicated that he is in favor of applicant putting materials in garages. However, he asked Grittman if it was acceptable to push it to the back of properties, referencing the CUP approved for a similar request at the April meeting. Leach stated that he had positioned it to make full use of the back yard. Frie inquired whether planning staff had requested the garage be pushed back. Grittman indicated that -4- . . . Planning Commission Minutes - 05/04/04 request hadn't bcen made, but leaving as much usable yard space is preferred. frie thanked the applicant for conforming to thc commission's dcsire to clean up clutter. Hearing no further comments, Chair frie closed the public hearing. A MOTION WAS MADE BY DRAGSTEN TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL Of A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A DETACHED ACCESSOR Y GARAGE, WITH THE CONDITION THAT THE APPLICANT MEET EACH OF TilE REQUIREMENTS OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE, INCLUDING THE 1,500 SQUARE FOOT THRESHOLD, AND WITH THE CONDITION THAT LANDSCAPE PLANTINGS ARE ADDED TO THE SOUTHEAST AND NORTHEAST SIDES TO SOFTEN THE IMPACT OF THE BUILDING ON ADJOINING PARCELS. IN ADDITION, NON-CONFORMING DRIVEWAY CONDITIONS SHOULD BE CORRECTED NO LATER THAN THE TIME OF THE INITIAL BUILDING PERMIT INSPECTION, AND NO DRIVEWAY SHOULD BE EXTENDED TO NEW ACCESSORY BUILDING. MOTION SECONDED BY CARLSON. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 7. Public llearing - Consideration of a request to amend an existing conditional use permit, allowing for open and outdoor storage spaec as an accessory use in an 1-2 district. Applicant: Simonson Lumbcr Patch provided staff report, stating that Simonson Lumber is requesting a 50' X 60' expansion to the open and outdoor storage area on the west side of their retail building on the corner of Chelsea Road and Oakwood Drive. Patch notcd that the area for thc expansion is presently open lawn area with air conditioning equipment located against the building. Simonson Lumber has indicated that they intend to use the expansion arca 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. Patch cited the building setbacks in the 1-2 District, which are 30 feet side yard setback; 50 feet rear yard setback; and accessory uses must be located behind the lront wall of the bui Iding. Patch indicated that the ordinance also allows for open and outdoor storage within the 1-2 District as an accessory use provided that the storage is screened from view from the public right-of-way; the storage arca is grassed or surfaced to control dust; and that aU lighting shall be hooded and so directed that the light source shall not be visible from the public right-of..way. Patch reported that Simonson's proposes to expand the storage maintaining a fence -5- Planning Commission Minutes - 05/04/04 . the same distance away from 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. 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. Patch stated that 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 the aesthetic purpose. According to Simonson's, Xcel 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. Patch stated that this is an issue all the way down Oakwood. Patch asked O'Neill whether the trees were planted before or after the power lines placement. O'Neill stated that he was unsure of the order. Patch stated that in any case, trees need to be transplanted and Simonson's still needs to provide the minimum number of tree plantings as required by ordinance. Patch indicated that there are alternate locations for the plantings. Simonson's has agreed to move the trees and to provide additional landscaping. . 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. Patch stated that statT is recommending approval based on the conditions as outlined. Frie asked how it was that Simonson's was able to place the trees inside the fence. O'Neill indicated that the location of plantings is their choice. There is no ordinance that requires the trees to be planted on the outside of the fence; the only requirement is that screening of the stored materials is provided. O'Neill indicated they had complied with the original CUP allowing outdoor storage. Frie noted that Simonson's had no representative present. He asked if the motion would be considered withdrawn or inapplicable if the conditions were not met. Grittman stated that a discussion could be held with the applicants in that case, or that Commission could approve the CUP as recommended, at which time Simonson's could than address the Commission if they did not agree with the conditions. Patch indicated that Planning Commission could layout the parameters of the fencing expansion and then staff could oversee how that is carried out. . Frie inquired whether Patch had met with Simonson's. Patch stated that he had not personally met with representatives on this application, but he had spoken with them. Patch recommends that for any request, a land survey should be provided. He -6- Planning Commission Minutes -- 05/04/04 . commented that the Commission could choose to table the item unti I a land survcy is provided. Frie indicated he is not comfortablc granting the request with the weight of the conditions without Simonson's input. Chairman Frie opened thc public hearing. Hearing no further comment, hie closed the public hearing. Dragsten inquired why Simonson's would need to provide a surcty for landscaping. Patch statcd that a letter of credit is required by ordinance in a form that would renew every year until landscaping is complcted so that if the landscaping is not installed, the City can draw on the letter of credit and install it. Carlson asked if conditions encompassed the entire area. Patch re-stated that a lack of survey makes a dccision as it relates to the entire property difficult. Posusta indicated that all the applicant really wants to do is expand outdoor storage. He stated that he did not understand the need for all the landscaping and screening. . O'Neill stated that staff is simply following the code. Specifically, the code requires a planting every 50 lineal feet. O'Neill recommended that if there is an issue with the code, it should be addressed separately. O'Ncill stated that there is a problem with the trces being cut by the powcr company. Although staff likes trees outside of fence, it does result in placement in the area of the power lines. O'Neill indicated that staff does not want to tell the applicant exactly where to put the fence. posusta inquired about the condition that the applicant must setback the fence. Posusta wondered whether thc fence can be right on property line as thcy are in other areas. O'Neill stated that if this fenceline is on a right of way, and thus the ordinance may be more restrictive with regards to setback and height. Frie stated that the Commission is not trying to stymie growth or expansion, they are just seeking clarification on those items that do not meet the ordinance in order to resolve procedural issues. A MOTION WAS MADE BY TO FRIE TO COnrINUE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND DIRECTED STAfF TO CONTACT' SIMONSON LUMBER IN ORDER TO WORK TOWARD RESOLVING THE CONDITIONS LISTED IN EXIIIBrr Z FOR THE JUNE MEETING AND FOR THE APPLICANT TO APPROACH THE COMMISSION AT TI IA T TIME. . MOTION SECONDED BY DRAGSTEN. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. -7- . . . Planning Commission Minutes - 05/04/04 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 single-family lot of less than 12,000 square feet in an R-I district; and a request for a conditional use permit allowing for an accessory use structure to exceed 10% of the rear yard area. Applicant: Darren Klatt. Grittman provided the staff report, explaining that the applicant is seeking approval ofa subdivision of his property at the corner of Washington and Broadway. The property, a lot 01'22,061 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. Grittman noted that to 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 original plat lots. Grittman provided an alternative, by which the applicant could subdivide the property into two 11,000 square foot lots. To accomplish this, the lot line would be established about 3 feet south of the existing deck. 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, which would be more likely to be supported by the City Engineer. Grittman stated that the applicant also proposes to construct a new garage of 1,200 square feet, served by a driveway that wraps around the home and occupies most of the rear and side yard areas of the lot. The area of the rear yard is less than 6,400 square 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. One of the criteria for this allowance is that 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. Grittman recommended reduced size due to the size of lot. In summary, Grittman recommended that the minimum lot standards for the older part of town, at 10,890 square feet, should be met. Additionally, a CUP would be appropriate t(H 720' if the applicant were to move the existing garage. If the -8- Planning Commission Minutes 05/04/04 . applicant did not subdivide, the 1,200 square foot garage would be consistent with the ordinance, as an alternative. Frie asked what would have been the applicant's preference. Patch indicated that they were open to reducing the size of the garage. The applicants also indicated to him that they could only shift the lot line a small amount due to the house and garage placement. Patch stated that their preference seemed to be to maintain two separate driveways as they sought to avoid property disputes that may be at issue with common driveway. Carlson inquired whether separate driveways would work with a subdivided lot. Grittman indicated that it would depend on the lot lines. Grittman commented that it appeared that the only way to accomplish the 10,890 was to establish a common driveway. Grittman also recommended a driveway easement for both properties and a maintenance agreement recorded against both lots. Posusta asked how they would be assessed with two driveways. Grittman stated that with two parcels, even though there is one driveway, both would be assessed. Chairman Frie opened the public hearing. . Darren Klatt, 742 E. Broadway, addressed the Commission, atIirmed that his first preference is separate driveways, due to access and maintenance issues. Harry Klatt, applicant's father, addressed the Commission, stating that the main concern seems to be the lot area. He indicated that their proposed plan averages out to 10,890 each lot. Carlson noted averaging isn't applicable, each lot needs to be 10,890 square feet. A discussion commenced on alternatives to achieving needed lot areas. Hearing no further comment, Frie closed the public hearing. Dragsten commented that the shared driveway is an alternative if they cannot get two driveways and meet still meet the minimum lot size. Hilgart questioned whether hardship had been demonstrated. Grittman stated that the standard for approving variance is that the physical condition creates the hardship. Grittman noted that reasonable use in this neighborhood was deemed by staff to be that lot size is consistent with the neighborhood. If this is a reasonable use, it would be a hardship to not allow him to utilize the property as such. Hilgart indicated that in that case, he prcfers that the minimum 10,890 is required. . Darren Klatt asked if property line needed to be straight. Grittman indicated that because Washington/Broadway is angled, there is an opportunity for the lot line to be -9- Planning Commission Minutes- OS104/04 . angled as well. Grittman also noted that the driveway can be shifted to whatever works for the property; its area docs not need to be divided equally. Posusta suggested that for the proposed home, by flipping garage to the back, the property owners could use one another's driveway for backing purposes. A MOTION WAS MADE BY DRAGSTEN -1'0 RECOMMEND APPROVAL Of THE SUBDIVISION AND LOT AREA VARIANCES FOR BOTH LOTS, WITH THE CONDITION THAT THE PROPOSED LOT LINE ]S MOVED TO MAKE BOTH LOTS MORE THAN] 0,890 SQUARE FEET IN AREA, THE SIZE OF LOTS IN THE ORIGINAL PLAT AREA, AND A CONDITION THAT TlIE PARCELS SHARE A COMMON DRIVEWAY, OR T.WO SEPARATE DRIVEWA YS, PROVIDED THAT THE MINIMUM LOTS AREA OF 10,890 SQUARE FEET IS RETAINED FOR BOTH LOTS. 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 -rIlE PREDOMINANT LOT SIZE ]N THE NEIGHBORHOOD. MOTION SECONDED BY CARLSON. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. . Grittman noted that as the existing garage appears to be 720 square feet, they would need a conditional use permit to move that garage. He recommended that eh CUP appro va] contain a contingency for the re-use. MOTION BY DRAGSTEN TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE CUP TO ALLOW A DETACHED GARAGE NOT TO EXCEED 720' SQUARE fEET, BASED ON A FINDING THAT THE CUP PROVIDES FOR A GARAGE CONSISTENT WITH THE SINGLE fAMILY USE. MOTION SECONDED BY CARLSON. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 9. Public Hearing - Consideration of a request for a development stage planned unit development and preliminarv plat in an R-2 district, and a request for variance to the retluired setbacks. Applicant: Richard Carlson Grittman provided the stafYreport, relating that the applicant is seeking a Development Stage pun approval for a 3-unit townhouse project on property at the end orVine 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. The variances were identified during a statY review of the plan. . Grittman noted that the City had approved a Concept Plan fCJr a PUD showing three -10- Planning Commission Minutes - 05/04/04 . units aligned behind the existing single family 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. Grittman outlined those issues. He stated that the proposed townhomes are provided access from a 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 due to the narrow dimension of the property. It is noted that the driveway is surrounded by curb, consistent with other previous PUD project requirements. Grittman noted that due to lower density in this project, it is not likely to cause traflic issues and therefore does not need the recommended two parking spaces in front of each garage, as weIl as an additional parking space for each three units to accommodate overflow visitor parking. . [n addressing the variance request, Grittman referred to the setback issue. Grittman indicated that 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. The westernmost unit extends to within about one foot of the south property line along the railroad. The R-2 District side yard setback is 10 feet. Grittman indicated that flexibility has been considered for other projects near the railroad, however a one foot setback is more than that considered in other applications. Grittman stated that because a permitted use could be located on the property in a way that meets the ordinance, no hardship exists to support the variance request. Grittman noted that a PUD may flex internal setbacks, while respecting external setbacks. Grittman explained that the applicant had provided a landscaping plan which staff would encourage be greatly enhanced as a part of any approval. Grittman stated that the application has also raised concerns related to the layout of the plat, due to confusion over ownership of the underlying title to Vine Street. lIe recommended a plat that clearly establishes Lots 1,2, and 3 of Block 1 (if three units are approved), Outlot A of Block 2 and dedicated right of way clearly spelled out on the plat for Vine Street. Grittman recommended that the City join in the plat to clarify any claim to title in the land underlying the street. Grittman indicated that the City Engineer has also provided additional comments on utilities and drainage, whieh had been provided to the Commission and applicant in a letter that evening. Those comments should be incorporated into terms of approval. For reasons related to setbacks, Grittman stated that staff is not comfortable recommending development stage PUD approval at this time. . -11- Planning Commission Minutes - 05/04/04 . Frie asked Grittman if prior to concept approval, the City had stubbed in sewer and water for three units. Grittman stated that when the City stubs in connections, that is an estimate based on what may be placed on the site. O'Neill asked Grittman to discuss briefly the uniqueness of this site in terms of front and back yards. For instance, could this site be treated as if it had 3 side yards in order to accomplish a reduced setback? Grittman stated that the ordinance is distinct in that the portion that fronts on public street is the "front". The property line opposite the "front" is the rear. What is len over is the side yard. In stairs view, that requires 30 foot front and rear yards. Grittman noted the only time that is flexible is when there is more than one street frontage. O'Neill clari1ied that the presence of the railroad and building orientation doesn't have anything to do with definition of yards. O'Neill also asked Grittman if he knew of any cases where they city allowed flexing of setbacks for pun. Grittman indicated that Emerald Village was given 20 foot instead of 30 on a corner lot due to street frontage. Chairman Frie opened the public hearing. Syble Bondhus, 624 4th Street West, inquired how far from property line the applicant has to stay back from property line and inquired about staking on or near her property. . The applicant, Richard Carlson, 532 West Broadway, addressed the Commission. Carlson clarified that the surveyors had found a previously existing iron marker, which is what the stake identi1ied. Lynn Becker, Bondhus' daughter, asked Carlson to clarify drainage. Grittman indicated that drainage should go down the driveway, to Vine Street and then be picked up by a catch basin or swale. It would not impact Ms. Bondhus' property. Dennis Licciardi, 606 4th Street West expressed concerns over how close the proposed project is to his property. Frie asked if Lieeardi' s lot is vacant or developed. Licciardi indicated that it is currently vacant, but he wants to develop. Discussion commenced on L,icciardi's property. Licciardi indicated that he had not received a public hearing notice. Frie directed staff to look into the matter. Frie asked Carlson how the proposed preliminary plat differs from the concept in addressing issues present at that time. Carlson stated that initially the abstract stated that the City of Monticello and railroad had vacated Vine Street. At that time, three detached units were being looked at. The current proposal is very similar to what was considered when detached was determined to be infeasible. . Fried asked if this would be an association development. Carlson stated it would be. -12- Planning Commission Minutes ... 05/04/04 . Carlson indicated that he had completed an informal survey of setbacks on other City approved projects. Carlson specifically identified what appeared to be deviations of the setback code for the Hans Hagen, MLC, Emerald Village and Central Minnesota Housing Project developments. Carlson stated that he chose the property specifically because the closest property that would be directly impacted by his development would be approximately 175 feet away. Carlson reported that he has not seen the City Engineer's comments. After a brief discussion on drainage, O'Neill stated that the engineer's comments seem to be routine and can be resolved. Posusta asked if Carlson paid for storm drainage. Carlson indicated that he will pay for those improvements and the three uti I ity stubs. Hearing no further comment, Frie closed the public hearing. . Hilgart asked for Grittman and O'Neill's comments on the setback variations on other City approved projects outlined by Carlson. Grittman clarified Hans Hagen has no setback requirements by code for the Central Community District. The CM)!P is in an R-3, not R-2 district, and was done as zero lot line project. Emerald Village's setback variations were allowed due to public frontage, and they maintained other setbacks. Grittman stated that staff had worked with the developer on the MLC project to get all the units to fit within setbacks. At this time, staiTis not aware that it . . does not. Grittman cannot comment on the Front Porch project. Hilgart does not see a hardship for the project, but does think that other items can be resolved. Dragsten indicated that the rear yard setback is an issue, and also bclieves that all other issues can be resolved. Posusta stated that he thinks the project would be a worthwhile addition to the area. Carlson indicated that he had not had an opportunity to revise plans based on these comments, but is willing to do so. Frie indicated that project could work with the exception of the setbacks. Frie asked what direction staff can provide to make the project work. Grittman answered that the Commission should indicate whether they would agree to a setback variance and if so, how much. Dragsten said he is receptive to a 20' rear and 5' side yard setback. Frie asked what the intent of Outlot A is. Carlson stated that the Vine Street conveyance has still not been resolved. Frie asked if it would be an issue for approval. Grittman stated that if it is portrayed as right of way on the revised preliminary plat, it will be resolved. . A MOTION WAS MADE BY DRAGSTEN TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE DEVELOPMENT STAGE PUD, BASED ON A FINDING THAT THE -13- Planning Commission Minutes -- 05/04/04 . PROJECT MEETS THE REQUIREMENTS FOR PUD APPROV AI, AS LISTED IN THE ZONING ORDINANCE, AND THAT TI IE DESIGN FLEXIBILITY GRANTED BY THE USE OF PUD RESULTS IN A PROJECT OF SUPERIOR DESIGN AND AMENITIES. MOTION SECONDED BY FRIE. MOTION CARRIED 3-0, WITH CARLSON ABST AINING. A MOTION WAS MADE BY DRAGSTEN TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE PRELIMINARY PLAT, BASED ON A FINDING THAT THE PROJECT MEETS THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE Cn'y'S SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE. MOTION SECONDED BY HILGART. MOTION CARRIED 3-0, WITH CARLSON ABSTAINING. A MOTION WAS MADE BY DRAGSTEN TO APPROVE A REAR YARD SET BACK OF 20' ON THE EAST SIDE, AND A SIDE YARD SETBACK OF 5' ON THE SOUTH SIDE, BASED ON A FINDING THAT THE LOT DIMENSIONS CREATE A HARDSHIP IN PUTTING THE PROPERTY TO REASONABLE USE UNDER TI-IE STRICT ZONING STANDARDS. MOTION SECONDED BY FRIE. . Grittman, on behalf of public works, appealed for a 6' foot side yard set back DRAGSTEN AMENDED THE MOTION TO REQUiRE A REAR YARD SETBACK OF 6'. AMENDMENT SECONDED BY FRIE. Carlson asked about north side setbacks. Grittman clarified that the north side requires 10' setback for buildings, and 3' setback for drives. MOTION CARRIED 3-0, WITH CARLSON ABSTAINING. 10. Public Hearin _ Consideration of are uest for a conditional use ermit for a conce t sta re lanned unit develo ment in a B-3 district. A licant: Holida Stationstores/W endy' s Grittman requested tabling this item based on a request from the applicant, stating that it is staffs understanding that Holiday will be submitting a revised plan for an upcoming meeting. MOTION BY DRAGSTEN TO CONTINUE Ti IE PUBLIC HEARING TO THE JUNE MEETING. . MOTION SECONDED BY HILGART. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. -14- . . . Planning Commission Minutes - 05/04/04 11. Public Hearing- Consideration of a request to amend the R-l A zoning district design standards. Applicant: City of Monticello Planning Commission O'Nei II requested tabling this item, as staff continues to research the standard in order to develop a recommendation for the commission. MOTION TO CONTINUE THE PUBLIC HEARING TO THE JUNE MEETING BY DRAGSTEN. MOTION SECONDED BY HILGART. MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. 12. Public Hearing - Consideration ofa request to re-zone a 59.14 acre parcel from Agricultural-Open Space (A-O) to Regional Business (B-4). Applicant: City of Monticello. O'Neill provided the staff report, asking the Commission to consider an amendment to the zoning map that would change the current designation of a 59.14 acre parcel fom1erly 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. O'Neill indicated that 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. O'Neill stated that under the proposal, the City willlike1y act as the developer by platting the property, developing the needed infrastructure and selling lots to commercial interests. O'Neill stated that a preliminary plat for the site showing road and parcel layout will be reviewed at an upcoming meeting ofthe Planning Commission. The plat will illustrate the location of a proposed theater site and relationship to roadways and other parcels to be developed at a future time. Chairman Frie opened the public hearing. Sarah Seidenkranz and Aaron Cahill, 3786 Heyward Court, addressed the Commission, expressing their concern about the proposal zoning designation for regional business. They had been told at the time they purchased their property that the land was owned by the city and could be used for schools and parks. Both indicated that they did not want commercial and regional business directly behind their home. hie asked for dari fication of where their home is. Cahi II indicated that their backyard is adjacent to Remmelc property. They also indicated that they had not received a public hearing notice. -15- Planning Commission Minutcs- 05/04/04 . O'Neill stated that due to the growth and development in the area, the County may not have the updated their information, which is where the City gets their notice information. O'Neill referred to the significant buffer zone code requirements between residential and commercial areas. O'Neill stated that money is held from the Groveland developer for the buffer and that there wi 11 be buffer requirements on the developers side, which is the City. Cahill questioned how close the commercial development would to the homes. Grittman stated that there is a 50 foot setback and 40 foot landscape requirement as buffer. Frie stated that the Parks Commission would take the park request into consideration. Frie indicated that resident input was appreciated. Carlson stated that they should connect with City on getting their address information listed for public hearing. Hearing no further comment, Frie closed the public hearing. Dragsten commented that the requested zoning designation has been in comprehensive plan for a number of years. . frie questioned the City's role as a developer. O'Neill stated that the land was acquired as a result of the sale of the Remmele Engineering project. The City agreed to take land to purchase the land in order to encourage Remmele to locate to a more desirable location. O'Neill indicated that the City had considered how best to handle the development of the property. It is staffs perspective that the City would be most responsible developer of this property. O'Neill commented that the funds from this project could offset other projects. Carlson, hie and Posusta expressed concern over the City's role as developer. A discussion commenced on the procedure of the City acting as a developer. O'Neill indicated that Council has encouragcd staff not to allow piecemeal development. Acting as a developer on this piece would prohibit disconnected development of that nature. O'Neill stated that the motivation of the City is not to make money, but to create a better development. O'Neill clarified that there was no potential buyer until now. Frie indicated that he hopes the Council will have a discussion on this topic. MOTION BY HILGART 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. MOTION SECONDED BY DRAGSTEN. MOTION APPROVED UNANIMOUSLY. . -16- Planning Commission Minutes - 05/04/04 . 13. Planning Staff Update - Swan River Montessori School O'Neill stated that Patch is working with Sunny Fresh to move the old Methodist Church to the west side of Community Center grounds, in conjunction with a proposed charter Montessori school. This proposal has been reviewed and approved by Council. A school use is a permitted use in the CCD and therefore there will be no required review by Planning Commission. Sunny Fresh has agreed to pay f.x the move, with the City holding the building on the foundation until the establishment of the Charter school and associated funding. Ultimately, the ehurch will remain a public building with City having first right if the school doesn't succeed. Carlson questioned the City's investment. O'Neill c1aritled that it is a pubic school; the city is not investing any funds, only land. All applicable fees would still be charged. 14. Planning Staff Update - Home Depot O'Ncill referred to a letter provide by Home Depot, indicating that they are no longer seeking to build on the previously proposed site. They are optimistic about finding another location within the City. 15. Planning Commission Vacancy - Applicant Report . MOTION BY FRIE TO SCHEDULE A SPECIAL MEETING ON MAY 18th WITll PUBLIC HEARING FOR THE SUNNY FRESII PUD BEGINNING AT 6:00 PM, WITH INTERVIEWS OF PLANNING COMMISSION CANDIDATES IMMEDIATELY FOLLOWING THE PUBLIC HEARING. MOTION SECONDED BY DRAGSTEN. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 16. Adiourn A MOTION TO ADJOURN AT 9:00 PM WAS MADE BY DRAGSTEN. MOTION SECONDED BY CARLSON. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. -". " Angela Schumann, Rccorder . -17- . MINUTES SPECIAL MEETING - MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION Monday, May 24th, 2004 5:30 P.M. Staff: Dick Frie, Richard Carlson, Rod Dragstcn, Lloyd Hilgart, Glen Posusta JefT O'Neill, Matt Brokl - Campbell Knutson, and Angela Schumann William Spartz, Planning Commission member nominee Members: Council Liaison: Guest: 1. Call to order. Chairman Frie called the special meeting to order at 5:30 PM. Chairman Frie stated that an error had been made on the Agenda cover, indicating a start time of 6:00 PM. In that regard, Chair Frie noted the absence of liaison Glen Posusta and the absence of Sunny Fresh representatives. . Chair Fire also noted the prcsence of William Spartz, the Planning Commission's nominated candidate for the vacant Commission seat. His nomination is subject to Council approval. frie indicated that Spartz would be able to add input, but is not a voting member until Council approval. 2. Public Ilearing - Consideration of a request for concept and development stage PUD allowing expansion of an office/industrial use in the CCD district. Applicant: Sunny fresh Foods. To allow time for Sunny Fresh represcntatives to arrive, Frie recommended that staff provide an overview of the report in order for Commission to proceed with questions for staff. O'Neill reviewed the staff rcport, stating that Sunny Fresh is seeking approval of a PUD to allow expansion of their site onto the Methodist Church property and former Little Mountain Feed site. O'Neill stated that thc applicants propose to construct a new office building on the site, and add parking space to the area. Because the site use is complicated by a mix ofhcavy truck traffic, employcc parking, pedestrian circulation on and around the site, a power substation in the middle of the site, and a partially constructed City street (Linn Street), the site development plans require careful examination. . O'Neill commented that in the past, Sunny Fresh operations have raised issues with parking supply and parking distribution, light glare onto adjacent properties, con11icts betwecn pedestrian and vehicular traffic, general sitc improvements and conditions, . Planning Commission Minutes OS/24/04 and aesthetic issues related to exposure of mechanical equipment to the City's retail and civic core area. O'Neill indicated that staff has considered these issues as a part of this request. O'Neill indicated that one of the primary issues is parking. The applicants suggest that employees must use the east side of the facility for employee entrances due to security and sanitation reasons inside the plant. As a result, getting employees from parking lots on the west to entrance points on the east is a concern. This issue should be resolved as a part of this expansion. Overall, the parking supply is estimated to be anywhere from 13 spaces to more than 157 spaces deficient, depending on whether an employee count or a square footage count is used to estimate parking demand. The actual deficiency is probably in the range of 40 to 60 spaces, based on observations by City staff, and assuming that all on-site parking is utilized. O'Neill relayed that staffs recommendation is that Sunny Fresh work toward resolution of this issue by encouraging the full use of their existing lots as well as looking for other parking alternative. If parking demands can not be met, Sunny Fresh should be prepared to pay into the City's parking development fund if current City-provided space is relied on. . O'Neill outlined staffs recommendations to enhance the facility's compatibility with the surrounding business and residential neighborhoods. Some of these items include improved screening; increased landscaping; paving of the gravel trailer storage area, which would improve aesthetics and site organization and would minimize dust created by a significant amount of vehicle traffic; and improvements to existing lighting. The City Planner has also requested modifications to the expansion building design which may be a point of discussion l(H the Commission. O'Neill noted that OAT had reviewed has reviewed this request and provided recommendations very similar to those of the City Planner. With these improvements, O'Neill indicated that the City should be able to find that the intent of its PUD ordinance - flexibility in application of zoning standards resulting in a project that is a substantive improvement over the basic zoning regulations. In this case, O'Neill cited that the applicant has received flexibility in parking requirements, waivers of building and parking lot or driveway setbacks in several areas, open truck and trailer parking in the midst of a residential area, use of City right of way for private parking and circulation, and minimal use of curb and other parking lot improvements otherwise required by the Zoning regulations. . frie inquired whether Sunny Fresh was made aware of all of the conditions outlined in Exhibit Z, which vary slightly from those in the actual stall'report. O'Neill indicated that Sunny Fresh had been provided with the full report. ~ . Planning Commission Minutes OS/24/04 Frie questioned whether Sunny Fresh would be receptive to all office persons utilizing the Methodist and Little Mountain sites to park at that end. O'Neill indicated that would be most likely. Carlson inquired whether a conversation had ever taken plan regarding a possible move of Sunny Fresh from the existing site to an industrial area in the City. O'Neill noted that this area was always noted as industrial, noted on zoning plan. Sunny fresh has continued to make improvements and invest in the site. hie asked if Sunny Fresh would consider shuttling as a solution to parking issues. O'Neill stated that should congestion occur, that would be an option. However, it currently appears that there is enough parking available, but management of those spaces is key. Frie questioned if grandfllthering resolves any issues indicated by staff. O'Neill stated that due to the new application, Sunny Fresh is required to comply to the best of the existing use, although in some instances, staff has accommodated their existing site constraints. . Carlson asked if concrete paving is necessary. Carlson suggested crushed granite as a compromise due to cost prohibitive nature of paving such a large area. O'Neill indicated it could be if it is maintained. Carlson stated that he feels it is important for the City to be a good neighbor, as well. Carlson indicated that the City could partner with Sunny fresh to improve landscaping on both sides and to utilize the west end of community center lot. Chair Frie welcomed arriving Sunny Fresh representatives and Council Liaison Posusta. Frie opened the pubic hearing. Don Roberts, Sunny Fresh Foods and David Linner, project architect, addressed the Commission. Roberts stated that Sunny Fresh agrees with the report and conditions as listed for the most part. Some area, however, are a concern. Roberts indicated that Sunny Fresh continucs to work on providing accessible parking options for staff and utilizing all of their parking areas. Frie recommended that Sunny Fresh administration could direct employees to use underutilized parking areas. . Fric asked Sunny Fresh about the possibility of implementing a shuttle service. Roberts indicated that it was definitely an option that they had in fact bccn considering. Posusta asked staff how the proposed Montessori school would impact parking potential on the Community Center lot. O'Neill stated it would have a minimal parking nced and that other nodes of parking in the area exist for consideration. A brief discussion occurred :1 . Planning Commission Minutes OS/24/04 regarding the Walnut Street area as an option for parking. Linner stated that Sunny Fresh is also concerned about the condition that they screen the air condenser. It may not be feasible due to operation and safety reasons, to do so. However, Roberts stated that if there is a way to screen it, they will do so. Roberts indicated that Sunny Fresh would prefer not to pave the truck parking area due to the signilicant expense involved. Frie noted that the Commission had discussed this and are receptive to a crushed granite alternative, pending Council's approval on that matter. Roberts also noted that the City Planner had recommended an architectural style to match the original building. It is their preference to match the existing building. O'Neill and Commission agreed that allowing the expansion to match the existing building is the more reasonable and appropriate option. Roberts agreed that measures would be taken to eliminate light glare onto the street or adjacent properties. . In regard to the landscape requirements, Linner stated that there may not be enough room to add two rows of trees. O'Neill suggested that in that case, a row could be shifted to the City side or the tree rows could be staggered. Hearing no further comments, Chair Frie closed the public hearing. Hilgart requested O'Neill's opinion on screening of mechanical equipment per outlined conditions. O'Neill indicated that DAT had made a similar recommendation. O'Neill stated that options for screening are available and that staff would work with Sunny Fresh to accomplish acceptable screening measures. Frie asked O'Neill if Sunny Fresh should be prepared to pay into city fund for parking, and whether that process had been done before. O'Neill stated that City would like to sit down and really determine the exact deficiency before setting that number. A MOTION WAS MADE BY DRAGSTEN TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, BASED ON A fINDING TlfA T THE INTENT OF THE PUD ORDINANCE IS MET THROUGH IMPROVEMENTS TO THE SITE AND BUILDING PLANS, JUSTIFYING THE FLEXIBIIXfY FROM THE STRICT ZONING REGULATIONS AS NOTED IN THIS REPORf. THIS RECOMMENDATION IS SUBJECT TO THE CONDITIONS LISTED IN EXHIBIT Z, MODIFIED AS FOLLOWS; . ,t . l. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. . Planning Commission Minutes OS/24/04 Addition of parking spaces, or payment into the City's parking fund flJr a space deficiency to be determined. Development of a reasonable screening measure on the east wall in order to screen roof-top equipment from the view of traffic on Walnut Street. Development of a pedestrian circulation pattern on the site, or on adjoining path and sidewalk, to increase the efficient use of west parking areas. Crushed gran ite on the semi-trailer storage area west of Linn Street to improve aesthetics, minimize dust, and improve site organization. Architecture on the new building that reflects the architectural style of the existing building. Replacement of lighting fixtures around the site to ensure that no light sources are visible from neighboring property or public rights of way. Double or staggered row of Coniferous trees screening trailer storage area per previous PUD approval. Adherence to applicable conditions from previous PUD approvals. Additional landscape plantings or trees buffering view of truck and vehicle parking from 4th street and adjoining residential neighborhood. MOTION SECONDED BY HILGART. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 3. Adjourn. MOTION TO ADJOURN BY CARLSON. MO'flON SECONDED BY DRAGSTEN. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. . !) . . . Planning Commission Agenda- 6/0]/04 5. Public Hearine: Consideration of a request for a variance from the fence setbacklheieht standard in a front vard. Applicant: Aaron Quinn and Tvlee Svlvers. (NAC) REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND The applicants are seeking approval of a variance from the zoning regulations that limit the height of fences in the 30 building setback adjacent to the public street. The parcel is located at the corner of Savannah and Park Place Drive in the Groveland neighborhood. The property owners' house faces Park Place Drive, and they wish to construct a fence along the side lot line adjacent to Savannah. The zoning ordinance regulates fences as follows: · Fences that are within the buildable area (meeting normal building setbacks) of a lot can be up to 6 feet in height, or 8 feet, 6 inches with a building permit. · Fences within the 15 feet of the right of way line of any street may be no more than 36 inches in height. The applicants wish to construct a 4 foot high fence within 5 feet of the property line, and are seeking a variance to permit the additional one foot of height. When reviewing a variance request, the Zoning Ordinance requires that applicants must demonstrate a unique, physical hardship that interferes with putting the lot to reasonable use. Variances are intended to alleviate unusual conditions, must be non- economic in nature, and must not be used for the mere convenience of the appl icant. In this case, the applicants have a fully conforming lot that can be put to its normal, single family use. The applicants argue that the 15 foot setback unduly limits the use of their back yard, however, the applicants have alternatives within the current ordinance that would resolve this issue. Within the 15 foot sethack, it is permissible to construct a 3 foot tall fence without any further regulation. Such a fence could be placed along the right of way line, or at the 5 foot setback line they have proposed. If screening is desired (although the proposed fence is shown as an open picket design), landscaping could be used to effect a screen for the rear yard area. In planning staff's view, no hardship is present that would warrant a departure from the ordinance standard. Planning Commission Agenda - 6/0 1 /04 . AL TERNA TIVE ACTIONS Decision I: Variance from fence height/setback regulations. 1. Motion to approve the variance, based on a finding that a true hardship is present that interferes with putting the property to reasonable use within the required zoning regulations. 2. Motion to deny the variance, based on a finding that no hardship is present, and that the applicants have options within the zoning regulations to make reasonable use of their property. STAFF RECOMMENDATION StaiTrecommends denial of the variance. As noted, no hardship is present to justify the variance. While the applicants desire a different fence than that permitted by the zoning ordinance, they can put their property to reasonable use within the current regulations. Variances are intentionally difficult to get because the presumption is that the regulations are appropriate for the typical property, and that only unusual circumstances should require departure from the standards. The parcel in question is typical in every respect: newly platted, conforming in size and use, and one of hundreds of corner lots in Monticello. . SUPPORTING DATA A. Site Location Map B. Site Plan C. Applicant Narrative . 2 V -., - ~ .. " ~ - - . . .,.. .., 8A ---- o 1:/4 MILE I 1/2 MILE . t.._. _ " . ." ~/ I c_ \ it {f {J/i' D ~ MlllllLE . ", : . tOtE PMK lWn _ 0>' . . . " . - C .nnnn_un, . ~i" -_____ HY-LAND SURVEYING . . . TEL:763-493-5781 Feb 19.01 10:11 No.UU2 P.02 .. ...':2' -.J) ~ ~ Q o Q ..)q:: cO -!j cD 3" ... w o ~ -3 ~ \.!J 6'e> / / ,u ( .. \J \)' . Q..., ~trY ,~,iV'~ '. oS' ;v ?, -c Mr..,J' f~ '~ "". r. . .Q1l 8l 81 I".' .' Y'. 'fi ~"CD ::J '... :Jl <Dc> .:...~'8igC", 'I ,"'~ Cl'@l; .$ ~CD .j;$liJ.U 'SGt.... Jli.ii!j..dl~i I Nt:: ~i.K,,:t:,~, 'l-E '.. . ........ ...>.'!:~.:e. ..''''.''0. 'I!' III. . 'iii.'iijl~' '" '.' !::ji D .... ,~==fl!:: -a..... :cJ! ~t 511141 . :: ~g~ ~=1. ::J.,.e occ!.' f8'I'l. I ~ U ,~ ~ .\ r:" 't -tl ;:, ~ :;' u:- .J I ';.<, ~" ,\l ..) 'l : '"" ~~ , :r- ~: -.&:. .....r,.. _ ..J" '->, , "", 2'~ ~~i L.~ 1h." :-::;.1] ,.':',~.~'f.,:':'.',~.'~~h..,~"'.i."~..'\'j,' 'l,,:..,";""l.ir~p .:~ l' .'~ ." "~',lfil . \ ~ . . ~ \ To Whom It May Concern, In regards to a request for variance we have a number of unique property conditions that would justifY granting the variance. Our lot is a very unique almost pie shaped lot. It is wide in the front (80 feet) and narrows in the back (21 feet) with the boulevard and sidewalk running the entire length. Also, it slopes to the street. If we were to set our fence back 15 feet from the existing sidewalk, it would render a great deal of our yard useless. For instance the width at the back of our lot would go from 21 feet to 6 feet. There would be a large gap where the street ends and our fence begins, which would be 30 feet from the curb. It would be an eye sore for our neighbors and us. With this being our first home, if we ever decide to move I believe that the set back for the fence could potentially inhibit the sale. We understand your reasons for the set back, to avoid causing visual impairment. If we place the fence 5 feet in from our property line it would still maintain 20 feet from the curb, and would still be 5 feet more than what is required for property without a sidewalk. Weare not requesting to put in a 6 foot privacy fence, but only a 4 foot fence that would be used to enclose the back of our yard. This would also make it safer for children and pets. We would appreciate your consideration of our request. We have also attached the layout of our lot. Thank You For Your Time, Aaron Quinn & Tylee Sylvers . . . Planning Commission Agenda - 6/01/04 6. Public "carin!!: Consideration of a request for a Preliminary Plat and ConditionalLJse Permit for a Planned Unit Development for an 11 unit townhouse project in the CCD District. Applicant: Landmark Square. (NAC) REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND The applicants arc seeking Development Stage PUD approval and a Preliminary Plat for the second phase of the Landmark Square project. This phase consists of 11 residential units that would replace existing single family homes, and complete the parking lot construction that is intended to lessen the congestion on the Phase I site. The applicants have made a number of amendments to the original concept plan, based on discussions with stai1 These include the following: a. Modification of entrance driveway from Locust Street to increase width and improve circulation. b. Modification of the central parking area to add green space, and increase drive aisle widths. c. Relocation of the buildings to avoid encroachment of stairways onto public right of way. d. Removal of non-conforming obstructions in the first phase parking lot. e. Redesign of Units 1 and 2 to increase building separation and accommodate vehicular circulation and utility access. There are still a few issues that need to be dealt with on the current submission. first, the driveway extending to the east property line does not show a curb termination. This should be added to the site plan. In this area also, a hydrant is to be located that has protection from traffic. This should be accomplished by placing the hydrant in a curbed island. The building plans have been revised to improve the garage exposure on Units 3 and 4. Steps should be taken to ensure that no parking occurs in this driveway, since a vehicle would be parking on the public right of way, and would hang into the street if parked in this location. I'he applicants provided a landscape plan that includes just 11 trees around the site (mostly on public right of way), and shows other undesignated green space. For Planned Unit Development, the City commonly requires an enhanced landscaping scheme. These plans must be developed and provided to the City for review prior to the City Council consideration of the project. Because of the tight development Planning Commission Agenda - 6/01/04 . pattern and significant shade areas, landscaping should be designed by a qualified landscape architect. There are other utility and engineering issues that will need to be addressed by the appropriate staff as a part of the City's consideration of this project. AL TERNA TIVE ACTIONS Decision t: Preliminary Plat and Development Stage Planned Unit Development for I,andmark Square II. 1. Motion to recommend approval of the plat and PUD, based ona finding that the project meets the City's intent as expressed in the concept plan approval. Proposed conditions are attached as Exhibit Z. 2. Motion to recommend denial of the plat and PUD for Landmark Square II, based on a finding that the project is inconsistent with the City's redevelopment plans for the area. STAFF RECOMMENDATION . Staff recommends approval, but only with the conditions noted. Because the landscaping plan is deficient, the positive aspects of the project, including architecture, are more difficult to appreciate. The applicant should be required to prepare professional landscaping plans for staff review at least 7 days prior to the City Council meeting in order to ensure that the project will meet the City's redevelopment goals. SUPPORTING DATA Z. Conditions of Approval A. Site Location B. Site Plan C. Preliminary Plat D. Grading Plan E. Utility Plan F. Landscape & Lighting Plan G. Elevations H. City Engineer's Comments . 2 Planning Commission Agenda ~" 6/01/04 . Exhibit Z - Conditions of Development Stage PUD and Preliminary Plat approval for Landmark Square II 1. 'fhe driveway extending to the east property line must terminate in a curb line at least five feet from the property line. 2. A hydrant is to be located near the east garage building that has protection from traffic. 'fhis should be accomplishcd by placing the hydrant in a curbed island. 3. Steps should be taken to ensure that no parking occurs in thc driveway for Units 3 and 4. The applicants should provide a professionally prepared landscaping plan that enhances the project and helps justify the use of PUD on this block. 5. Public works and engineering issues are addressed by the appropriate staff. . . 3 ft (jJA ~ o I 1/2 MILE ..'.r._ 'I 1:/4 M.t LE . '" af? J 'VG\ 1 0319LS2\Current\A01-13.dwg, Layout1, 05/07/2004 02:32:38 PM, sta26a , SEE 2/A3.1 FOR STREET ELEVATIONS , ........ ~ u / 511'''''' C 4O'-ll' Locust Street - I '" I ~~~:~-J- - . ~~ --1-_- ~_~~~ ~gd~-: 1<\:',:;><> I --i ~_ on; -- - - nj "- '"Ili:I' -" I I G:l I ',:,~ ..;" ~ ___. _ _ ~ 1 ,\~.:~~::?~ I - ---=~F-~ - - - T -.------+----. -- - - --I ~>--j)> VlgO;;:! I'l - ,.. ';1;::::0 :::: ml'l ~ ~ Z o .- ...........::.c.__.___'. .. .. \:0-OZ'9\:1> ~ ;'ON 3lL:l XXXXX oN 'D.~~ :0\00 ... V!N :311J lX31 xxx X 'X XXXX P,........}JI' .~I...;} U/If'f"""'1f pup .--- .'P'I.I.O~-9O'1;31L:l ~MO :pOUD!S .1ll".....nQ' ...."}ll .'IlK :U} ""1110 anuaAV 4U!.:l SJ<q ~ 6tOS-t6B(XY.l) 9tOS-t6ll(;r96) ~'" ;~Oj :AS Q3)j:J3H:J all 'AS NMIIlJO -D\OCi~UU!W JD ~lDlS .l.tl }O I!iMDI Q-Ljl lSS99 NJI' ."II,........nQ' Nrl ',(\uno:J \4D!JM 'Oll;;! -... .. ... j~pun .HiillgU!DU) IDUO!I5Sg.JQ.Jd pasua-:)n oo;r "nns 'p"'-J: &<OJ 0""'" 'J( /o;r OMr ;AS NDISJO ,.(Inp D LUb I l041 pUD UO!G!N.dnB II 3SVHd 3C1VnOS >lCl 0 31110 'ON to!OI!e; :3.1110 P.JIP ,(W J.pun JO oW ,(q p.JodoJd _01 ....., ._ ....., .-- ...., lVld AClVNIV'l1l3 .-. /13~ SOM UOld 0141 1041 ,(111'.. ,(q.J.4 I 'OUf 'S8J8!OOSSV 5' J8A!lO UIIOr SDV'l :lI\UOrl V l^lO N'v C1d 3 ." 8 ~~~ ~ ~ t ....~ :J g,~~ - " .;:;-" ,~ :Eu {5 ,l! ~E ';i tl~ b ~ "a ht <Ii I':~ ~o '" i 5 ~ ~ '" '=''' '" " ~- ~ 2 s iJlt 1; '* 0 ~;S1t ~ ~ ~ ,<'" ~ "~ ~-2 ~ >,,$; ;;; 5 "< r'''' '" l1: ,. '" -~~ ~ ..." ~ ... .0 0- 0 0 ,,~ ~. -" ~ '" b ~ ci ~~t: " Z ,g .~ a.~ i;:; <J ~ ~ ~ 0; :t u> <::;, ~""'~ -' " " ~ :t ;;.; h~ 5-8 . ~ S l-- > > I>: ~ ~<l." ~ i;:; " ~ i5 I>: I>: ~ uJ ::; X ~ " ." 0 · -.; " 0; b '" ~ ~ '" z ':J I Z 0 S8 .~ ::> ;; ;; ~ u> 0 z :J '" '" -" ,);; '\l lj;! en ~ ~~:r " :s . z uJ uJ < I < U uJ ~ is:::; " '" ~ 0 0 '" '" VI >- Z l-- ~ m z '" jg u tJ :! ::> ::> '" ::J < .~i & II -0 ~ ~ >5 z ~ 5 5 ~ If ~ 12 0 '" '" < I '" ~ i5 '" II ~ l- I>: ~ '" F! ~ " i3..::t: ~ ~ Cl B B 12 z Ii" ~ '" VI l:I :J !l tEl., -" II r5 < ~ < < ~ uJ uJ uJ " 0 '" 0 u VI u> I " " VI ;t ~ -Q1:; r~] " ~ l-- uJ ~ <5 ... <h " " 5- :6 ~ VI l-- " '-' '-' uJ >- 0 VI Z .~ ~ -J ~ '" '-' " '" < u 0 <I- 0 ~~~~ ~ ~ .,,; ~ 5 0 z z Z Z Z Z '" uJ 0 ~ 0 '-' "- w oJ! ., ., g E 0 fO F !;i F F F '" ~ J: <l- I Z ~ '" i ~ z "- VI VI VI VI '" I>: Z '" u "- F l-- ;j; u .>? ~- ~ ~ .i'1 Q uJ 13 >< 13 >< >< >< ~ ~ (5 d ~ VI I >- i; <:: ~i ';j CJ~ ~ .. 0 ~ - < 13 " 0 ::> ..I:: ,~ ~ ~ '" E w uJ uJ uJ VI VI 0 en I!! ::J "- " !;i ~8~ ~ ,5 II ~,J. '" 2 ~ ~ " ~ .r; ."", b 0 . I I t~z .~ ~ ~(;::~I,/') 5 :>:~ ..,"'''' g 0""'1:'" ~ ~ ... f ~~: 6~ ~,,~.!. ... .... .,,; 0 0 " " ~ 0 I I ill ~~ ....-Sa::) ~ ~ <l " ~ 2 ,2 e !l:: '" '=' flj .. ~'" - 3 5~ 0 ~ <:> u. ~I-. .~~ ..,- <:~ "b"i 1; il I I p lOll @'O. 1 '0 -sw 5'0';'6 ~ " i ~ ~ ,,'" '" <>" 5 't.2~ ~ ~ ",a~t:!'-'" ~iS:<:i" ~ ~ ~ .~.....: I I ~<>"<"W" <i ~~~ " ~ t t ~ ~ -J~'" ~~ ~ q.ll3~ .~ .i'1 " ~ ~(!;:'5~it~ -. 2~ <D ~50' 0 0 g t .... ~j S!:-C;\l~ 'S 'S " '" "''''::::; " -1l ,~ u In Ib ~ ~ 15 ] ! ~ ., 0 ~ Ii ~ -J <'5"'" ~o;-,,- ~~ 00 _.", '" '" " "'-, \ \. / -. \~ / ~ ',~ ~, '" \ -............... '& " \ '" " " " ~, .......... 'to ~"~'.'.\. .. -'-. ............... \('" , ! / / / ;i" ig ~~ ~d :h q, 'E" I I I .. I \ I \ I I I I I I I I I I I I I ~ I Q \ I \ I I I I lrJ I ...... ..., I <1l I <1l ...... I I I I \ I I I I I I I I I \ I I L____ -+ . I . I ~ ~ Locust Street .. ""~L r t ~ r , -oil; L-"..':----,......,. . ''"!r- "', ~- -. ---..-......0 . '" t~ '\, Q'r<' . """C ~r".,I . "L, .. .52 .. """""""'-"""""""''-1' __ Cl C; I, J> '" ..' l> I' " ~;;;-~t;;;;; I, C1 ... C1 I' fTI ~fTlJ, ~ " ,~ PA~EL J,7P4 sq, fl. ," ;' IlJ..i_J I -t--~--"t!r{)--- \1 "":lJ~ '" I~ ~ I \0 l>~ ~ 111 fi1i <> Ii I i --I I , ~i I b;;;' ill---L---I'. :;:1i i '~I :~?;;, 1,/', .,.;;\' I \ I ~ J>; e Ii ,..... ft I C1: 0 I: ~\ ~ '". ", i 0 Ii " ~ , "'."! '_.,._~~ ---'., .._\ "". --:-L 5- f- .~ -"."~, ..,~:--~: l N28"P!?..'OO'C 166,31'1 ' I .. 1 I 11 II .. I I ? I :- . [I I ,J 1 r -",- '''-. I I '1 1 I , ~ t-I J.. --------T.---.-=-..::~__________ --------------------------- ---------------1;-------1-- .. 1 I....: i i __n - --- ~ -P'- ----- I :: i I I.. I i ~----O~~O~~OO~C-----~---- I . I I -- ~. .Im .~ , , I.;~' l" r:-" -., - -'T' -:J II I ih II 1" I I ..: (j;..., L .1.1 I '" :lJ_ .. r--------tl~~ I ....f.l I L",---' (/) J 2,62' ... f. P~fr-.3~. . ""--- -,~ '", \1 ----:::l 2,6'2~, tr, \...\ 1 PARca'---2 r . ___....._.~____ ....-1 ~~ : 'PAR ~,_._~_l___i_,_J. 3,061 IJ. (, : I /,____ I' I /' / .,~ ", "" ....,- L_. t I. .O-O~'lI.vl :'ON 31lJ . :311.:1 lX31 DMa-ULO :31lJ DMa 83P :AlI a3~33H3 QMP :AS NMV~Q aMP :AS NDIS3Q ~~ to/Ol/g :31va ..I""....".W ....1...' .""."0....11 pull OI~nl1 .....".11 'IlM "'. ..lJ}//0 .. 6tOS-t6B(xroL) YtOIl-tsB(lrP6) ~SSPP N1f '"Il)ll8'Ufi11 00' onns 'J}""J; """Iom>J,L "./l J 0' ~t6g~ ON 'Da~ ::l>a ,uo'.a 'II. U40P 0 ~\I\\,\ UDIS 'OIO'.UU~ri I~S~ .41 jO .Mol 041 Jop~n IDUO!..OjOJd po.u'~n I 0 I 1041 puo uo,.!",odno l~ Japun JO oW ,(q paJodoJd UOld '!4\ \D41 ,(jljJ.~ ,(qaJa4 I -., P-r '_ JI'M"1 ............... ""'" .OU/ 'S9lB!OOSStI f J9111/0 Ul/Or "3a 31va .... '" i5 0: Z , , ~~ i= ::i 0: ". tl >- w w w ~ I- '0 "' "" z z \!! z ". ::i :J :J w z z ~ ZI 0 "' <<~ ~~ I ,.. /: :J I- W <i: z 0:,,- :i w"- ~ ~ ~ f5 '" 15 z >-~ ,. m, << ~ ::l 0: ~;. ;. 00: i= I 0 ::Ii << ~ "~ w,,- Z 1-"2; ~ ~ m I-I "'x ~ /;! 0:- <( a:: ZZ "".e;. ili50: ::J <<<< << O:::J << <<w 0: Ii m "- '" u "'''' ". rL<< ('J u"' 1;',. '" I I I I r I I I I I.') I I i z 1<1 F (J1 I. I I i 1 " x 1 I w I I I I ~\ r I I r T . I~ I , 1 1 * I I I ; ~ ~ I I ~ 3 ~ '! :1 ~ 5 ~ ~~ !'4 J;; J;; ill a !:: ;:; 'J :l ;t ~ ; ,,;: !1 1I1 ~ ~ 1-i 1-i ~ ~ ~ 1-i 1-i .. .. .. .. .. .. ;r; aa ~ ~ ~ I I Ie ill J!1 J!1 Ie Ie Ie ~ ! ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ .! I : ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ I ~ I i i i i i i i ~ ~~ I ~ I I ; i ~q ; ; i i . \: \: \: E E ~ ~ ~ e \. \. \. \. \. ... ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 8 ~d 5 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~I ~ ~ ~ ! ~ i ! ! ! ! ; ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ I ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 0- ~ d n ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ .. " " " " " n .. .. .. .. ~~ .. .. ~to~ ~i ill "~ . .... ~ll }Ill 1l1ll:1 ! ;: ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Pi B 6 ~ 5 i~ 19 g 12 12 g g g g 12 g g i:Hi IHi ~ 8 ~ Pi 110 m 2 I'll'll!l J~~JJS JnuJDM i ;--- I T---~------l I ! I , I ..: I -----------c-::,,,.-.."~T:._:,....,.".:::_:.,,,.----i I , I : !. i I : t ~~~~---------~T--~:---:+---------------l---------------------------~ . i I . I ~ I ~. ~"n: ~ -=-__ _~~~__ J ~~ i ;c~b~ ~~~rQ ::I:~CIO....t5 z .. 73::>~V d \;'> ,.=- "jJ'~ ZJ9"Z '. ~I . "" --', f:M~~d "lJ .~ IZg"Z ~,-;" 0.'991 OO/;;OofJZN r VI "l I t!J "1 I I---",,,,,,g: -- - .-----1 II, , ~ 0> I ,II I I' 1.:1 I: I [;. ..l.'_ L:._----'-'-_.J '" :J: 2 ~-- . -,:..,- -- - ".- ... .... -... ~~~.. -,- Nltld ..(!Ilun 'JNI '3nN3^'v' H1..:lI..:l S,Cl31S" :~O.:l V lOS3NNIV'l 'Ol13JIINOYi Z 3SVHd 3~YnOS ~~V~ON\ .. ...P -+- I I I I I I I I I I I I IQ; I~ I I I I I~ I I: ' ----r---------------T--------l--------------- I I ~, 1 I I I I I 1 I I I I I: : ~-------~~--~-~--------~- I I I I , , L ---~ . I . Street I -10-0 Locust I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I "=~i Ii Ii I' Ii :i Ii I :1 ': ,.L"'I"''''''''''''''''i''1Y.--r.'''ffi I b lJ 10 cD Ii. I 'I]:> 1(>) J> Ii 1r--t-fi\~-fii41 II I I If , -:'-T=C:=i:~-:=f-:=::~', -'--,- I I I * I I I I '8- I I I i LJ: ~i 0:::0, --..jl~: ft'!: d ]:>' Q-:::(I. co 1>' C\; ~I --.., Cl. If) ..-..- --, Cb l1J I I I , - --~ f-~-(l---O--~ I: :! III 11 !l ,"" ..! '?i; II "1 r"-" ."."" ........1 I :;j I L_____'2____J N28D05 'OOT lIi8..30 ~"'tJ o Ol >gr l":I ~ I I I f---- I I (jr' II II IL-- I I I I I I // In 1/ I / 1/ 1,/ / i ////'/, 0\ L__~':" -l / ~ ..:/ .,~~.,'''''''' / /C/' ;, // ~ // / .. ~/:/ ---- ./>. --/~- ,~~- A" /l'" -", //( :7 / ,/ ~fft<Y;! -_?::... 4~,l!i '>-, ", / , ..Q ...- --."'.. , .....-.""'...."..-. ....".. -_._--_.~".~"-~-~....._...._--_........ -------- r li1 ~~ - _.~~,.-....---- -- I, ~~~ '"1:11 ~ Vl I"') :z ~ - ~.-....cl U II !lil! 8ELJ.J:z ~ , ..-IJ-.~~ if A~~ i Ua:lOE-i ~liU if ~<t::o . ~Vl~ ~ . 0 l:q:i3 il! l,i!I! ~ II ~g~ LJ.J 0 I ] mu ~s II - ~ all!" I il - -- , ~~----~-_..- ~ d!~_. .,.___n__._...' ". _______ __ . ---- - _ ~Ii -::------ -----:-:---:::=~---=---~---='::::r':c:::1----:~~~;\ _ ____ .~~J ~~ i - -- ---~~-~:-:~~~-~~CJt--~:-~-. ....n____ -=~- \ // . "===--=-=--= :',=-..:---.--::::~:''::=:~::.==-=- -I.. C-.), JAOR'i II ~Cl IINr-i 11~Jr~1 ,.-.. 1 --,----- -..' ~. r-" /1.... // '" " C{j'" L '..' '. ~1~:1 V t:j \;I ~UJ '''''''' -_..::;~:_-==_::::::::_:-::.:_:::::::::=_~-~~_I -- k __n -,,-'- - - " ,/ 17l_ - /_______ -...1 C)\-i\.I\-li"},. ll... \ (...1 v,..., '" "" " :~] -',., - In _I l----- -- --.---.- .__. ~~.~_..~..J'_._.~"",, .n. -~~ll N ___~u -.------------- ~n---c----ri<~--T-/l\======~==::.ll I- W W 0:::: I- Ul I- Ul ~ .------.-....... L)' o --.J , '-I ; \ t: ~~ I i I~i ~liil ~ ';\10319LS2\Study2\A02-1.DWG, Layout1, 111071200312:07:34 PM, 5ta26a 1 "'f-(r r- ~n q: ~18 ~ I ~ <!i ~ . 1 ~H J ~ ,..,..... j. ~ ,..,..... .. e~ 1 ""II' i' - t ~II Ii ~ - t r------, 11 ~I ~ ~ MAY-28-2004 10:25 ~i~':?;i'\ ~ _ :?:'WSB _OdOIU, PIc. W'i;, .. ,. ~~.,.:" ,/;'. \' /'~,: ':':1:","}' I . .' ,I:~!; :: .. : .' ..( ~:~:': . ",', I, :~ .' J~ '~~ '~, ' , '''''i",i " :i ii, 1 ~1 ;:i '~l,'," ~:; .'1. . .':,',f', . i< {.H:,(',:: ,~1 ;'~/,: '" <j~;' ~1-'~'i':; ~ ~;;~,,,~+ r'" '''p,. " 1?:,.:j~1li<;l" : ..~'" ill'il' .~" ~:~;415~,~:1~f: ~T:: t:~~1' 'sf, ," " ..'~ ~ 'I" "T_ .. ?' Mem~: tillway I~\ . . ..'~f:W.I~' I ~\ SY~3;,,',r"~i': WSB & ASSOCIATES INC. 7632877170 P.02/03 lIH May 28, 2004 Mr. Jeff O'Neill. Deputy City Administrator City of Monticello SOS Walnut Street. Suite 1 ~onticcllo.~ 55362 Re: Review Comments Preliminary Plat Landmark Square Phase n City of Monticello Planning Project No. 2003..Q42 WSB Project No. 1488-35 Dear Mr. O'Neill: We have received the preliminary plat documents unsigned and dated May 10. 2004 and would offer the following comments: Gradinl! Plan 1. Existing contours outside of the plat boundary (preferably 200 feet) are not provided. The street elevations should be better identified. Unit 03/04 appears to be at or below the street elevation. 2. The driveway onto Third Street should be shown as removed. 3. No proposed contours or spot elevations are shown. 4. The parking detail and stalls to the north have changed to angled parking. It is difficult to see the curbing proposed in this area. A detailed design of this area needs to be provided. What is proposed and what can be constructed? s. Include details (spot elevations and grades) for the parking lot and drainage. 6. How will the low area east of the garages be addressed? 7. The grass area between the garages and units appears to have limited drainage. How will this area drain in the winter when the stonn sewer system is frozen? 8. Is the island expected to be an infiltration area? If so, it is a concern that unfiltered surface water will be directed to the under drain. These pipes wil1likely clog very quickly. Explain the design. MinnNpolis . st. Cloud, Equal Opportunity Employer I'I\WI'WIlN481J..1NS2WJt1-- . . . MAY-28-2004 10:26 WSB & ASSOCIATES INC. 7632877170 P.03/03 Mr. Jeff O'Neill, Deputy City Administrator May 28, 2004 Page 2 9. Please provide details on the runoff directed to each catch basin for the lO~year event including pipe flows and velocities. The plans should include runoff from the existing lot to the east. 10. The rear yard catch basins are very shallow and have PVC pipe. How will this work? 11. The west sanitary manhole is not numbered and is inaccessible for Public Works. The manhole must be in a paved area. 12. Provide elevations on the utilities. 13. The sidewalk should have one pedestrian ramp in the comer, not two. 14. The footings for Units 1, 3. and 5 may need to be lowered to allow for utility construction. Once these items are addressed we can complete a more thorough review. Please contact me at 763-287-7190 if you have any questions on the above comments. Sincerely, WSB & Associatel, Inc. ~h~ Bret A. Weiss, P.E. City Engineer cc: Fred Patch, City of Monticello John Simola, City of Monticello Ollie Koropchak, City of Monticello liRA John Desens, John Oliver 8r. Associates, Inc. (Bumsville) sb ,."WPrmN.lB8JNmfJ4.Jo.d<< TOTAL P.03 . . .a.. y Planning Commission Agenda - 6/0 1/04 7. Public "earine:: Consideration of a request for a Conditionallise Permit for drive-up retail sales; motor fuel dispensine:; light automobile service ineluding tire and battery service; open and outdoor sales; convenience food service; joint parkine: and drives; and common sie:nae:e plan; and request for a Preliminary Plat. Applicant: Wal-Mart. (NAC) REF'ERENCE AND BACKGROUND Ocello LLC., in cooperation with Wal-Mart, are requesting conditional use permit and preliminary plat review and approval for a 203,091 square foot commercial retail building to be located on lot 1 block 1 of the Monticello Business Center 3rd addition plat. The proposed Wal-Mart application includes conditional use permit approval for the following; motor fuel dispensing, tire and battery service, open and outdoor sales, convenience food service, joint parking and drive aisles, and common signage. The subject site is located southeast of the Cedar Street and School Boulevard intersection. The site is approximately 32 acres in area and is zoned B-4, Regional Business District. Commercial retail is an allowed use within the B-4 district. Preliminary Plat. The proposed plat consists of two parcels. Lot I of Block 1 is a 27.3 acre parcel of which will include the proposed Wal-Mart building. The second parcel is a 5 acre outlot located to the cast of Lot 1 of Block 1. Outlot A shows a ghost plat of what appears to be an oHice use to the north and town home units to the south of the outlot. Staff did not review these uses or the layout as part of the proposed plat. The purpose of the illustration is to demonstrate potential use of the remnant parcel. It should be noted that two issues would affect this aspect of the potential subdivision: 1. The site is zoned commercial, however, the concept plan shows a residential use on the southern portion of the outlot. No rezoning of this property is contemplated by the subdivision. If the only future use is residential, the City may wish to consider whether the subdivision is appropriate. 2. The subdivision results in the need for access to the outlot, however, Engineering staff is concerned that access to School Boulevard in this location would be unsafe due to the series of potential left-turns from west-bound traf11c on School Boulevard in this area. A condition of the subdivision should be a requirement that access to this parcel is gained through a shared driveway from the Wal-Mart property. CUP Review Criteria. The purpose of the conditional use permit process is to provide the Planning Commission and City Council a reasonable degree of discretion in determining the suitability of certain uses to the surrounding area. Procedurally, the Planning Commission and City Council must consider the possible adverse effects Planning Commission Agenda - 6/01/04 . of the proposed conditional use. Its judgment shall be based upon, but not limited to, the f()llowing factors: 1. Relationship to the Municipal Comprehensive Plan. 2. The geographical area involved. 3. Whether such use will depreciate the area in which it is proposed. 4. The character of the surrounding area. S. The demonstrated need for such use. Drive-through retail sales ClIP. The proposed plans show a two lane drive- through pharmacy on the south side of the building. Both drive-through lanes can stack approximately six cars each. Staff is comfortable with the design of the drive- through itself in terms of providing adequate circulation. Staff does have some concern with the two-way aisle circulation directly to the east of the start of the drive- through. Vehicles driving west along in the subject drive aisle will need to cross over the vehicles entering the pharmacy drive through. This circulation should be subject to further study. . Motor fuel expensing ClJP. The proposed plans show a canopy over a fuel expensing area at the northwest corner of the site. Plans have not been submitted for the canopy above the pump islands at this time. The architectural design, materials, and color of the canopy should be compatible with the principal bui Iding. The face of the canopy should not be illuminated and should not include extensive color banding that contrasts with the building color. Lighting from the canopy area must not exceed 1 foot candle as measured from the centerline of an adjacent street. These plans must be submitted and will be subject to final review of City staff. Minor auto service and tire and battery store ClIP. The proposed plans show a six stall tire and lube express center at the northeast corner of the building. The area is accessed via the east access drive on School Boulevard, which also serves as the primary truck area. Provisions must be made to control noise and no outdoor storage is to be allowed for this use. Open and outdoor sales ClIP. The proposed plans show a fenced-in seasonal garden center at the northwest corner of the building. Chapter 3, Section 2 (F) of the Monticello ordinance requires that outdoor sales areas not exceed 30 percent of the gross floor area of the principal use. Outdoor sales areas must be fenced and screened from surrounding residential districts, they cannot take up required parking stalls, and all lighting must be hooded so as not to negatively affect surrounding right-of-way. ...... .".. Although a floorplan has not been submitted, the proposed open and outdoor sales area identified as the seasonal garden center does not exceed 30 percent of the floor area of the principal use. The applicant must identify any other locations that are planned to be utilized for outdoor seasonal sales. Planning staff would recommend that fencing for this area be painted or coated with a black or dark-green color to avoid a galvanized-steel exposure. 2 Planning Commission Agenda - 6/01/04 . Convenience food service CUP. The proposed building will include a convenience food service area. 'l'he food service area will be contained within the principal building, without the driveway circulation issues commonly raised by these types of facilities. No separate site planning issues are apparent with this aspect of the project. Joint parking and drives CUP. The City Council, upon recommendation ofthc Planning Commission, may approve a conditional use permit allowing joint parking bctween uses where the total number of spaces provided are less than the sum 0 f the total required. At this time, the applicant has not submittcd an interior layout of the building. As such, only a general parking calculation, using the total gross floor area of proposed building, could be used to calculate the required number of parking stalls for the site. The required numbcr of parking stalls was determined as follows; E .. Use Requirement Number of Stalls tail Store and Service I per 200 square feet (less 10% 914 Establ ishment for storage, etc.) Motor Fuel Station 4 stalls plus 2 per each service 20 sta II ~ _. Total: 934 - Total provided: 1,032 . The proposed plans demonstrate a total parking amount of ] ,032 parking stalls, including handicapped spaces. The site should easily handle the required parking on site, an important factor for areas that are bounded by collector~status streets. For uses such as this, there is typically a great excess of parking throughout most of the year. Two changes are recommended by planning staiT, in addition to those comments of the City Engineer. First, staff recommends that the islands located off of the central entrance from Cedar Street be extcnded to the east, allowing for adequate stacking area as well as visual appeal to the entrance, eliminating approximately 22 parking staBs. This will permit traffic entering the site to avoid conflicts with backing cars in the main entry aisle. It also permits a large extension of the landscaped area into the central portion of the parking lot, breaking up the expanse of asphalt that would otherwise result. The second change would be a limitation in thc length of the access to the fuel station from the common drive aisle. As designed, there is no break, resulting in a chaotic circulation pattern. Specific entry and exit points should be designed to manage traffic patterns in this busy area. ..... Commons signage ClJP. Chapter 3, Section 9 (E)3. b allows shopping centers to be approved for an overall signage plan via a conditional use permit if it meets the iollowing requirements; ...... 3 Planning Commission Agenda - 6/01/04 . 1. Wall signage is not to exceed 5% of the gross floor area of the silhouette of the principal building and is to be equitably distributed among the uses. Shopping centers greater than 150,000 square feet of aggregate building square footage and 20 acres in site area are allowed two pylon style signs in conformance with the ordinance or one pylon sign and one monument sign that meet the following requirements; · Monument sign cannot exceed 18 feet in height . Monument sign cannot exceed 100 square feet in area . Pylon sign cannot exceed 60 feet in height . Pylon sign cannot exceed 400 square feet in area 2. The applicant has submitted a signage plan for staff review. The front fayade (Northwest) is approximately 19,000 square feet in area. This fa<;:ade includes a mixture of wall signage totaling 910 square feet or 4.8% of the gross floor area, consistent with the maximum 5% requirement. There is minimum signage on the remaining facades which are well under the 5% requirement. . The signage plan includes three freestanding signs, one of which is a pylon sign and the other two are kiosks. The total square footage of the two freestanding kiosk signs are within the maximum square footage requirements for the allowed monument sign. Being as the proposed building is such a large complex, with multiple users, and the proposed kiosk signs are to he used as directional and information signs, the City may consider allowing the proposed freestanding sign as long as the overall square footage docs not exceed the allowed 100 square feet. The proposed pylon sign is 30 feet in height with 160 square feet in signage area. These dimensions are well within the height and square footage allowance as previously descrihed. As a condition of approval, the applicant must submit plans for any signage to he located on the canopy over the motor fuel expensing area. . Access/Circulation. The site consists of two access points off of School Boulevard and three access points off of Cedar Street. The plans show a future traffic signal to be installed at School Boulevard and Cedar Street intersection. It is staff's opinion that this will not happen as the intersection is too close to Highway 25. Planning staff is reasonably comfortable with the overall circulation of the site with the recommendations noted above relating to the entry aisle. The plans show a four foot wide sidewalk running north-south along the east side of Cedar Street and an eight foot sidewalk running case-west along School Boulevard. The plans must be revised to make the sidewalk along Cedar Street five feet in width and both of the sidewalks at least one foot off of the property line. The sidewalk along School Boulevard must he extended the length of the plat and is to he constructed at the time of development. As a condition of approval, an escrow for future street, sidewalk, lighting, and utility extension along Cedar Avenue, the length of the plat, is to be suhmitted to the City. Staff also suggests that the City require as a condition of approval an alternative paving surface (ie. stamped concrete) in front of the Wal-Mart main entrance as opposed to the painted crosswalk as shown on the plans. This is 4 Planning Commission Agenda - 6/0 1/04 . intended to highlight the high-traffic pedestrian area with both color and texture, as well as to enhance the aesthetic conditions in this area. The preliminary plat/site plan shows three access points on School Boulevard. Two exist for the Wal-Mart site and one for Outlot A. According to the traffic engineer, three access points will create a problem. Thus, the engineer is recommending that one of the Wal-Mart access points be shared with Outlot A. Loading. According to the Zoning ordinance. retail sales activities arc required to provide an off-street loading space. The proposed site plan shows six separate loading docks at the rear of the site. Building Design. A majority of the proposed building is approximately 30 feet tall. The plans show a number of dormers at the entrances to the building at a peak height of 42 feet. The City may consider requiring the applicant to add color detail to the rear fa<;:ade with the eastern exposure. In the alternative, additional landscaping along the east property line would keep this area screened from the view of traffic along School Boulevard. ..... Landscaping. Monticello's landscape ordinance requires at a minimum the greater of] ovcrstory tree per every 50 lineal feet or ] overstory tree per every 1,000 square feet of gross building floor area for commercial developments. In the proposed project, the later is required and the site is subject to 203 overstory trees. Overstory trees are defined as 2.5 inches in diameter (measured six inches above the ground) fDr deciduous trees and 6 feet in height for coniferous trees. - The applicant has submitted a detailed landscape plan induding a mixture of overstory trees, ornamental trees and shrubs. StafT has calculated the number of overstory trees to be 205, consistent with the City's ordinance requirements. The plans show an adequate amount of landscaping along the eastern lot line, meeting the buffer yard requirements fDr either an office use or higher density residential. Staff has some conCern with regards to the tree heights of the proposed landscaping under the overhead powerline casement. As a condition of approval, staff recommends Xccl energy review the landscaping within the powerline easement. If trees are to be removed as a result of this review, they must be replaced elsewhere on the site to meet the zoning ordinance standard. It is also suggested that overstory trees be plated in limited areas between the building and parking areas. Lighting. The applicant has provided stafT with a photomctric plan that is consistent with the City's 1 foot candle requirement as measured from the center line of the adjacent road right-of-way. As prcviously stated, the photometric plan does not show any lighting undcr the canopy area. Lighting in this area should be canister spotlights with no portion of the light source or fixture extending below the bottom 5 Planning Commission Agenda - 6/01/04 . face of the canopy. As a condition of approval the photometric plan is to be revised and resubmitted for staff review. Hours. It is stair s understanding that the proposed uses within this site, including the convenience gas use, are proposed to be operated 24 hours a day. The Planning Commission and City Council should discuss proposed hours of business operation ifthere arc any concerns. Trash. The site plan must be revised to identify a trash enclosure constructed of similar huilding material as that of the principal structure and must he screened from view from neighboring properties with adequate access for garbage trucks. Grading. Plans have been submitted for site grading and drainage and are subject to review and approval of the City Engineer. Utilities. Utility plans are subject to review and approval of the City Engineer. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS Decision I: Preliminary Plat for Monticello Business Center 3rd Addition . 1. Motion to recommend approval of the Preliminary Plat for Monticello Business Center 3rd Addition based on a finding that the land use pattern is consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan, subject to the following conditions; a. The applicant is to submit revised plans showing the sidewalk along Cedar Street to be five feet in width and both of the sidewalk along Cedar Street and the sidewalk along School Boulevard 1 foot off of the property line. b. The sidewalk along School Boulevard is to be extended to the cast, the length of the plat. c. An escrow for future street, sidewalk, lighting, and utility extension along Cedar Street the length of the plat is to be suhmitted to the City prior to final plat approval. d. An alternative paving surface shall be used in front of the Wal-Mart main entrance in the areas shown in the May 181h set of plans as painted crosswalk. . e. Color detail or additional landscape screening is to be added to the rear facyade . 6 Planning Commission Agenda - 6/0 I /04 . f. Xcel Energy must review all landscaping within the overhead powerline easement. The landscape plan must be revised as necessary. g. The photometric plan is to bc revised to show any lighting within the canopy area. h. Lighting within the canopy area shall consist of canister spotlights with no portion of the light source or future extcnding below the bottom face of the canopy. l. The sitc plan is to be revised to identify a trash enclosurc constructed of similar building matcrial as the principal structure, screen cd from view of neighboring propcrties, with adequate access for garbage trucks. An intcrior or attachcd trash room is the prefcrred design. J. The site plan is to be revised to reduce the number of access points onto School Boulevard and Cedar Street from the site from three to two. k. The submitted grading plan is subject to review and approval of the City Engineer. . I. Utility plans are subject to review and approval of the City Engineer. m. Additional comments from City Staff. 2. Motion to recommend denial of the Preliminary Plat for Monticello Business Center 3rd Addition based on a fInding that the proposed plat is not consistent with the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance or the intent of the Comprehensive Plan. Decision 2: Conditionallise Permits for Drive-through Retail Sales; Motor Fuel Dispensing; Minor Auto Service; Open/Outdoor Sales; Convenience Food; Joint Parking and Drive Aisles; Common Sign Plan 1. Motion to recommend approval of the request for CUP allowing drive - through retail sales, based on the finding that it is consistent with the criteria for CUP approval as described in the ordinance, subject to the following conditions: a. The entrance to the drive.through is to be revised as shown in the attached exhibit. . b. The applicant must submit detailed plans of the canopy. 7 . . . Planning Commission Agenda - 6/01/04 c. l'he architectural design and color of the canopy must be similar to that of the principal building. d. The face of the canopy must not be illuminated and shall not include extensive color banding that contrasts with the building color. e. Lighting from the canopy area must not exceed 1 foot candle as measured from the centerline of an adjacent street. f No outdoor storage is allowed for this use. g. Adequate provisions must be made to control noise generated by uses on the east side of the building. h. The applicant must identify any additional locations planned to be utilized for outdoor sales. I. The island partitions located off of the main entrance off of Cedar Street are to be extended to the cast allowing for adequate stacking area and visual appeal to the entrance, eliminating a total of 22 parking stalls. 1. The applicant must submit plans for any signage to be located on the canopy over the motor fuel expensing area. k. Compliance with recommendations of the City Engineer. 2. Motion to recommend denial of the request for Conditional Use Permits, based on the finding that the use is not consistent with the requirements for approving a CUP as described in the ordinance. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of the preliminary plat and conditional use permits with the conditions listed within this report, and as reiterated in Exhibit Z. With the modifications to the plans as required by the conditions, the overall site plan layout and use will comply with the intent of the Comprehensive Plan and the general requirements of the B-4, Regional Business District. 8 . SIWPORTING DATA z. Conditions of Approval A. Site Location Map B. Site Plan C. Grading Plan D. Utility Plan E. Landscape Plan F. Lighting Plan G. Sign Plan H. Building Elevation I. Building Elevations: Alternate Examples J. Citizen Comment Letter . . Planning Commission Agenda - 6/01/04 9 Planning Commission Agenda - 6/01/04 . Exhibit Z - Wal-Mart Preliminary Plat and Conditional Use Permits Preliminary Plat: a. The applicant is to submit revised plans showing the sidewalk along Cedar Street to be five feet in width and both of the sidewalk along Cedar Street and the sidewalk along School Boulevard 1 foot ofT of the property line. b. The sidewalk along School Boulevard is to be extended to the cast, the length of the plat. c. An escrow for future street, sidewalk, lighting, and utility extension along Cedar Street the length of the plat is to be submitted to the City prior to final plat approval. d. An alternative paving surface shall be used in front of the Wal-Mart main entrance in the areas shown in the May 18th set of plans as painted crosswalk. e. Color detail or additional landscape screening is to be added to the rear fac;ade. f. ..-.. ..... g. h. Xcel Energy must review all landscaping within the overhead powerline easement. The landscape plan must be revised as necessary. The photometric plan is to be revised to show any lighting within the canopy area. Lighting within the canopy area shall consist of canister spotlights with no portion of the light source or future extending bclow the bottom face of the canopy. 1. The site plan is to be revised to identify a trash enclosure constructed of similar building material as the principal structure, screened from view of neighboring properties, with adequate access for garbage trucks. An interior or attached trash room is the preferred design. J. The site plan is to be revised to reduce the number of access points onto School Boulevard and Cedar Street from the site from three to two. k. The submitted grading plan is subject to review and approval of the City Engineer. 1. Utility plans arc subject to review and approval of the City Engineer. ~ . 10 . . -. Planning Commission Agenda - 6/0 1/04 ConditionalLJse Permits: a. The entrance to the drive-through is to be revised as shown in the attached exhibit. b. The applicant must submit detailed plans of the canopy. c. The architectural design and color of the canopy must be similar to that of the principal building. d. The face of the canopy must not be illuminated and shall not include extensive color banding that contrasts with the building color. e. Lighting from the canopy area must not exceed 1 foot candle as measured from the centerline of an adjacent street. f. No outdoor storage is allowed for this use. g. Adequate provisions must be made to control noise generated by uses on the east side of the building. h. The applicant must identify any additionalloeations planned to be utilized for outdoor sales. 1. The island partitions located off of the main entrance off of Cedar Street are to be extended to the east allowing for adequate stacking area and visual appeal to the entrance, eliminating a total of 22 parking stalls. J. The applicant must submit plans for any signage to be located on the canopy over the motor fuel expensing area. k. The applicant shall include additional architectural improvements as requested by the Planning Commission 1. Additional tree plantings are required in the areas between the building and parking areas, as well as locations suggested by the City Planner. II 4.6 7~8 H - G 10 14 1!1 1 4.15 14 1!1 10 - F 10.12 4;6 0 6.8-E 8.10 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' I 13 I 11.12 I 11 I 11 I 10.11 I 11 H 8 G 8 I 12 H. [ 10 I 11 G 11 G 10 G 10 I 13 J 14 J 14 E.F 9 .10 - E 10 " 11 G 7.8 H 8 I 14 I 12 J 13 J 13 J 13.14 E 8 H 8 U 7 fA uu,- ~ o 1:/4 MILE /"'\ ,/" ( (" "-- \ -,\ \ 1 .'-uu.. ..___\..-)_ I . L,/~ ::J (f Op o . ~~ ~.. .. .e '" ';;1 "'''' "'''' Cl'" "'''' OJ -:: :>I :>I ~ '" "-;:I./> DWCUJ <='" n"'l:l :I :T C" W ..... Z ~g r .:.... ii"g. p- .. OJ li"U'I .:- " ;S::OJ .:.... :0:- 8':"" ~~~v ~0 ~~3t:'<5~ iD ~ 0 ~~ Ii ~ OJ 0 0<= .. .. d:() 0 -? m S;iru;~~~g ~ g' ;!- )(~ N ~ ~c.:>I n -'0" ClI g ~ ,..... ~o (j) ~~~g~2'Q~ ~o~ ,,[<; 8;18 g9'3~ 3'~ 00 I!! ~'<;+~ .. 0 Q.~~ .='g -i g';~ ~ or ~ g z5'"G 00 " ........ cr g ~ Ul ;:I 2:"<; ct -1120....,..,...::;:10 ~. o ~ <T 0 '<.01- 300 s-p.-..J~gg~ m )> I CD o~ a; - "m '!'! <=.0 <T ! or 00000 .... n", r1- m ,... _. :J 0.... II g d II iH' II ~~3 3 ., 0 !'! 00 Q 00 "" r ~ [ -- ~ [ ~ Q.~ ~~;S; ~ ~ \j, II ~.g '< ~ .0 i'li <= <= 00" <= ~. 0 o 0 ~~ : [ g en o. ~ 1l1[~ ",5 8~ 0 :>I t;r--., !l ."." C> 3H: ~~H g~ Co:; 0 <tfi E O~g!. . (1l;;"~ 1l1~0 ",~<T 0 <= ., ~ C> ~l;ig~gg z!f .!...~SQ.S-o~ 0 moCf 0 ~ Q'g ~.g~g <Too S'~ ::!:::l !!i .....,- "'3.- (h.-t---I~ 3. ~ " 5!1;ftIn- .g ~ g :E m ~~ :glna;g: {)1C .. -, 3 (') 0... oz<=m"io mP-n- g--ll . ....c. :i' of'" " en g ~~~ -. 01" .... 01~ -. :i' .0 .. (D Q 0 rn ~ "" "", ~ 5 5] ~ ~~- ~~ :::: q'< ~ l:' 0 '" .g '" " Q~ ..., 00 ~ ih- '" N ;+ g= ~ ~ II :.~~ ~:S"Q.~ ~g] () " i~ o[ tj;'< :r ~ 3. ~ ~ ",'" g '< g; g- = =:!. 0: ~ <if " <if (tg-l'Tt (;'.fIocn " ;,- -. 0 .,"" UI " .."- o C. Q....... ~a3- fflo ;:Q :: ~tO ~. 3 ~ 0 -. " " ? "'" :J~ ia g'otl) UI <T ~ ~ ~ ~ CII """ -. ~o'" Q .0 iii' X'" 1"- ~. g.8 x.... ~ " g:m '" ~ 'f" ~!!i" Ii! ~~ ,,0 " 0 ;'-0 OJ N ~5t~~ !D.?'< 0;>- 00' :lE3n~ "U '" "- .+'" 2, 2, '" "- T ~" I ~. 3 c ~r;l ~5~5(t~L ....c '" ~r .. --.:1' :;:'" II c. 0 ;:Ii ~'f g.~ "- :: .. <T ./> " o N......-:- g~! >I!l -i .+ s: " " " ~ oo " 3 II II c:;j 000 g~ I:,,-oggj Z ~ g ;,- ~.. " " "'3 " c. 8.~ -6 ~ !. -." ~ "- Cl 6 ofloN --f::E .. .. . 0 ~" ::I. ~ ~~:::.l! a~ .+ ~ ~ a " !t ~ --. m Hg: .", ~~ag~g.., Vl Z :I' '" .0 ~ II I 5'~ Z .. "0 S a: a ;,- .... ~. ./> ::J >' ffi 5 .." n tt~2..,:s.g ~ " -ll " " .. 3 t;r " 3'0 " ~~~ > m"-S~~5- " 0" '" 0 a:~ " " ~ ~~~ --'N F Z ;;: ;+Q '" ~ !'!. ;l- ~ " 0 !!_'< s: s.-B.,a.li'~ ~ ~ Q ;+ '" ~ .. " .. !'! :1' [ " '" t;l:r " " ::1- ':< "3 '" ;,- 0"- '" .2 all {I)_ :;: .. ~f:(Il ~!!i""",,,, 0" c. ;,- ~ " -- o' oof> S,[!" '" ~~~ ~e-i ~ " " " ~ 0 ""3 '" e. " ~g-go Q ~ '" ~rt 2' a [ iD ::I. i) e. (t -, Q -, ...~ 9-.-t-::....<Gm n " '9-'" ~ .. " &:I -, CD I n 3 " 2- ~ 2, ~ m ,,-"" ;s::~ "", ./> ~-.... 0 " '" .. 3. -"'" 2&.: B g~'i oo 0 ~~ " ~!li'~ .g~ t 0 ~ .. " 0 .. g: S ~ ,,- '1,,-_ ~g:o~o:J Z " ..:l Q g:o~o "- ~ .. z~ <= g: m n2, ~ ::f." g (l)fUIogo::r " '" 2, " 9;'- ;:. 5' .. ~ ~~ Q ~ 3 ~o" S l:OctQ3m <3 :0:- 2, S- ",2, '< 0 <t."~ ::::Io"o2:~ ~ ~o~m 3 :l' c!:~ !~ g>~ ~J ~ n n :I' !"~ n !i "o~ ~ :i!. " 8 53 .. "- :I' ::I. 08", S: "- ~ S' .. 3. ii' ; ::;:9- S' g: d: @ ~-g. ~ ~r D '" ~ .. S' ~ ....08 '<", ~o= " 3~~o;f~ oo ,,' ".... ~ ;;: ~ .. l> ~~" "'0 --. .. ~ ~ 9- ,,1:"'~9'Q ~. i 2, ~ .. 2, "000 88. g lIJ · iii' ,<tQ8"c ~ " .. ~ ~ o;,-~ " " Q -, " ~5' ~ " .. " Q ~.g;lIJo~ ii ~ " <!. '" g ~ ~ g g' '< R z~ .. ""03 fl.-. is p' ;,- ~ " Hg' it "'gHg:~ ." ::;: s: .g: 2- i ",,, > " ,,--. ;:f:g~ 0- <~n~mit .. [ '" o~ " ~.aJ~:og-g .... [ 2 .;;' .. tii ~ ? !! :0:- ~o j,...~ :i!. .. :r " " .... g' '< a:~,o'< s: o' ~ ~ Z .+ cg!" g :r " Q 0" ~~rC:~ g .. '< 0 Od: S1 ih' 2, '" .. ~. !> ~g cQ.......c-OCl.. ~ 0: 0: :>: ~~ '"<s:~ " .. .1: p " 2- p>- ~o ~11l 2- 00 '" '" .... '" '" ./> ", '" ~ '=i iii iii n n Sl ~ uJ :... '" - '" '" ~ J:: > r;: c !&l !!! ~ oj - ~ Z Z oj > r;l J:: ~ ~ 5ojoo ~ ~ 1:1 ~ ~ ~ ~ " " r;: > ~ !;; ~ ~ ~ > " Z ~ 8 0 <:> " Z r;: n < ~ > Z '" " Ie oj I 2': Z ~ ~ iii oo '" iii "" --< ~ n ." r;: z en ::J: m ~ iEB z:=;; OQ ~z ~- ~=< s: )> "U N > ." j6 :::l !f !;l :;:I '" ZO ~m Q~ C ~G; >- !;l.... JJ ""~ en !foo ~~ -I F!;l JJ o m ':;:1 m g", -t c'" :>:8 ..... :l:i!. :=i !f;i!1 3i ~ en 0)0 0 :!i; J: ~~ 0 >'" 0 r;l!f; r- lill<1 tIJ ~g 0 z51 C Cl_ r- "'1.... m '"<3 < ~ )> ~ JJ ." C ;:i z o m X IVWII!T ~~~ N~, 111 --,.._~"-~-- oo '" Z ~ '" '" ;~ '.- _tilfnH1!l1B 'S10 NYi 'Ol13011NOYi NOlll00V Ollt 1131N30 SS3NIsoa Ol13011NOYi NVld 3115 SNOISIA311 00 \ \ '\\ \ - - \\" , \\\ Y ~~\\ -Q~~i-~_n \ \ \ .,' JOnllO '0:-..;.\ !if -.cj : \ ";\ ' lXlIU' NNIlJIlY ~;\\ \ (.:~ Iii_?d:" \ \ \ \\ 5'f18'n..".,0~0 \0:-;.'\ \ \-;:~.~ C;};! I~' \' \' L. ',/;'/~ I v;,~\';\, ..\'V' \ '" ':).r \1- ~ 1/ \ \, '.. -L:J.J u.D~WL..... - - - ' ,;: f"\' >-d/'1 :;,,'" . \ \ \ C/' - .. ..,- - .- .<,'" ..".".'" .- ," ' ,,'. \ \ .__ _ .- .L{ __'( - o.j ,- - I I .~~\ ' _ _,,\0:<""'...' _ ..- - _.-...-- rr-- .~" -0 ~ t-I! ~ ~ ~,' \ _ " ...'- .." /,. q- -1 \ I~- ~ J 1 \ ,\ ',_ " - .- - .. .- - .- - .- L I ~ '/ ~ *\ ~ ~ -\ \ ,I II \ \ _ _ _ _ _ _, ,<{ , 4 h ~~ \-- ---I \ I h .1 ',' cT _ _ _ __ \ ~ L' (5 I-- ~ \ I ~ \ '" __---- f1._- _Jl 'b~ LU- ~fl'~ .1.-y," I '. ~^P'- "'l'-,~9) U U \ --'8 "..J ~!i: ~i. C, - I " I " n n ih "Ii I n_ _ _ _51 ,,~~ \ '. ~ ::~\) a r--,'/\ ~ i __-;> U U ~_I U U P \\~a~!!:\: r~,,~ L-c: 1\,' \ \ \;< f::! ~ Q ~ 1-- -j I ii I [.n_/'---L \1- T l--l J-j \ \--- --~ c:5 Q I I _ _ ,_ ' "c J ' _ _ _ ___- 'i'\ "'" -~, I I I _' 0-. Ll.(h - _u I I ~~=.r:1 Cl I I T='::=": ".J : ")", " '"A " I ./\~ I / ",.\J \\~ 1':- ,I\"tf,0I,915 I I I I I 1 I II I iill 11:11 I.nl :'1' I I t:..:> E-. a ~ b -:::- 0 I':! q ..... .., ~ ~B' III ii ~l ~~ -o:~ ~~I!l ~h li~ (15-0: ;;!~!< iJjl~~13 ~!U a I ~ i I I ! I ~ ~ II I ~ @@@@, i I ! n ,.I .!1 /"/ /// / ,., r c_ I -f"~ <.> I "^ " c, I ,> I "~I I I I I I I I I I I I' I' 1\ I \ I ;I~ ~ I I " -m -I 8 ~ I 'I !; ~ 5 I \ ; ~ ~ (, r 0 I I .. z I I ~ ~ g I \ . ~ > I . -i r > I ~ I '~hi I' t ~ I , ~ I I I I IV) \ .I~ ,I' Ilrl~ ~l ill I ~I w U~ " .' \ ~~I ~.~ icl~ ---. "\.. ~~I \ iil ". " -"." \, '. .... c to .... .... .... c t, ~ L.. '-- t- t. L o c:::: ~ o '-3 C"'"::.l _ ,~- -I- '26-~' .....- --', fto'"'I\I- . \ :"~n':""':: : r::.~~:_I:".:_~'"~':------t-- 'lCA\ u- """L( .rl~ .. II ~~I ~rti--~\'h.C~------;:'---'" J1T-""~r -_~c..'+ --- -E-) ~.( ~ 1 )It ~-~,~}~~~\~, '. ~~v~' "n~~t. ~-". ~ - ~~~ iJ '8";~ . - ~1 "' \ ~ / _ 1/1-'-1 "f~1lj~' J,.\ \U1C\___U "~~L,t'--'k~~ \ m "!, )"1 1 r ~ ~ ! \--.., 0-1, -fl- t \ '." --4 ~ I 2;1 , I - - !;i;l ~\<:::' il:.., \.\ or \ n' n_ _- - __, _ __ -0 - ..."'::: \~. \ \ -~NItIN3 SS10 SNOISI^311 Nt'l 'Ol13::l11NOt'l - NOI1IOO"l' Oll~ .... 1I31N3::l SS3NISne Ol13::lIlNOt'l N"I'ld AlIllln =- 'K!"IIDIL ~ Ul ~h to ~ I! N !! ~ II II 11,111 II III! ~ ~dls~;li~!s I~I~ hl~ ~ IobhL~ Io~ml ~~ i~~t.; \ \ \ ~ IImmnilmiinih \\'\_\ \ e ,".,..."",", """'" / . \ // , . \\ _ \:!? \ - - 'Q,T-;- \ \ \ \\ _ v, JO'UilO 1 t::~ \ /;-" 2;;, 1 \,,:\ i:"OOI/l NJYflJDV \0~ \ cf? ~;?j i : \ \ \ \ \ \ I ,,!Jr:r-c, r:c,,\?\'-ffi 80 \ 'I.:~, ,~\ /';f~2:! I. \ \ , ., \ 1 "-ct '1'1' J \; I;', '" I" \ =- ~--'" \ ~ ( -~ - ,I . \ \ \ " \', cw:J 8~LcJ _' _ - -- /-- --cc?" ,/<1- -- , ',0 ", . \ ._ _ _ __ _ __ __ __ __ "", ..",01.'" - \; 8 -:.. \ \ I ~ .,;,. -- - -- -- ~ -" - - - 1 C ~ ~ ~ ,'I __ __ __ __ /__ -' _........,." -- -- -- --- /- -- e- J1 -- -j' '1' 1 _-OJ \' \' " ~,i1'~ ,,-\1, n ~u \ 'i \~-i--J/----_//L. <( l:iH~ ~~ \=_--~\\lll ~I r ~ ~ __ ~______------------~ \ M 1"3 \ <li _ __ __ __ __ __ __, n [1 1-0 I~ ~ I ~-- -J. \ I l<j , \, ,\ ,'\ "'''" 'l"- ""'-- _ 1 U -- - -- U '\ 0'1 :S-..:;-tT c:-~ __L __U II Iif! I' ~ -. I"''' r ..10 <0"'''- \ / C, I I,', ' \ I J. n n",""'" 11 11 II-:;j "Hi'" _~711 ~ ," \ ' \ c..,. LJ u~- __ -- - --- ~ \::>....... 51 ~ ~ "- V I 1/ I ~ " \) ,,'-.; ,,_ I U u,o ~ '-' _Oc~ 1'--1/ ,f ~~~I ' L_--"'.... LLi'r "1. "-c ," 2~lj'~ t-l/ II~ t...:> ~::;;<;;' I j - -- ,J.- -11" ~~": ' _ _'_ ':'::~ "-- LJ " 8 I.' I' i _ ,~~ - MM";;" =""'''' ~ 1 , ..., :' .,...11 E--. ,,' " ::0 " - o I !"1:' i' "-. I ,t:..~i;" _" '__ "" 'I::q I I NQ' '0 ~i I ~'o! I ! I~' --------I /, / //~/ ,I' rfi~ia1 CQ' . i!;: }J ..' .~ ~ tI'/' ',/ ~ ~ ..hili .../. ~ Iii i . '.'.' I /..... './'/. 'I !if . /' i ~fl "/ ,/ ,'i ' II "j'I',:/ . ~i( '< " ,/<'0 . I /\~ I . '.". I '\'" i\ . , I I I I II !ill IIi I ~~ I I: !II ___}______ nn'___._. , 'I, .R I ') 'J" " to ~ " ... -. ~ / r I O~ \ , ~;:o ',.1 " , 2 (0 -.l __l<{1m " ~(I)C '. <--I ~ Gru , r;-m i> I O~ '. .. . J rm Z ..,.,/ _.- m I ';:0 I c ~ E " c t ( , 0 c:::: c ~ ~ 0 '-3 ~ ~ PRODUCED UV AN AUTOOEIK EDUCA.TION~ PRObUCT - ~ SNOISI^311 IFOOll Nri 'Ol13011NOri . ... -'" NOIllOay all~ 1131N30 SS3NISna Ol13011NOri oj S10 t NVld Olll13riOlOHd aNY ~NIlHDIl i ; - -- S ~~ ",i H - : J ,11111111 ;: ~I '. i ' I ~. > :: i ; {l r. 'I t ~ I G! I!: Ij !fl; H I i!& I: I:,;; t,': @)lili I I II I hit i i J111!H1 i i, II Ii mlJ I Idl jIIJUit'! I Jr')i III, fifIJilllllfil!II!1 , )1 i11~ ~I I I i H L--' ~ I' ~"O @wi I I If I Jlil C'.., " I I II II IrtS ..""""". . I Ii ~::i';:;!1i~11~ I I! I i.I::' : '.~tl I I {I tJ I'll f I It it 'il .hll !: I t II I Iii I j:, I II I ,Ii i:!: f ; Ih 'fl!HII'j fJfllilIIl1 Jlfll!i :f I~ ~III ; : I"{' I I ;; l~ ( l ~;} =i 1~' II .1 ! I I: d ", II ! ! 1 : I ': I ill I · II i I. i', d ,. 11:1 t m ! I I i ! i i I m -0' i .. "rn['~ll li,1 i.! i I LhllU Wi J m i:. ~~::~ ~-'~1 I[' J' Y!F[; i'__] m~ J ____H J______ __ f-o--i r--'u-oj f-<---j !~.~'! , ,I i " ~ \ \\, , I , \-;:~\ /::;----~i I " \ \\ ......- V _ ~07,lflO \ I tf~ \ 09 !;;::z: ' \ \ \ \\............. _ 3[)arU '- NWP.LDV ' ~'''~ \ ~,~\ /2/$: ,',' \. .Y. \.., ~ K"'ej h~t,_ ~\ r--I ~ __'I oor90 \ \. J;-:'r--r: :-;;:r;q:_.1 \~ c.--- tt ';~ \ ~ d -- - ',' , \' '\ :,.\\ I'h' ',; I~: 0.8 rJJJ~ 1 ',~ IU ~ __ ___ __ \- _~;:-_f--~-'\ -\ ,- ---- __ __ -r / , \.......... "\" cr. L. n.. "". QI)~ -- -- -- M'~..Lf';JI.9IS _ __ -Etr -\:;':-~::: -Tl I I . \ \ ~---- --/ ,rt9.L --------- r--E .--11 II \' \ \ L.- -- -- -------__------ - -- -- -- -- "- r~~r ~ n \- -1 \ I I '. \..... .... ------. IIjC ~ !n / .---\ \-- -\ \ I ~ ~~~ ........ '\ ,--- ---- -" - -.-' - - -- -- -- -- "-- -- ..- - L_1\ <(~ I ~!~ ~I \?] ~-l-- -t: :~ - -.. \. ) I-u lD "':}~I 1---, --- - I J!,U ..... ---------. - . n \ 0 >::t.t:;t . c_ I \ -- -- -- \ t_- -- -u 4= '" q- ~\ ) 1 -T/I ~ - - - -- - --- \ \ 1 \...Jg \f"_~ bJ "'- ,- "1 ~ \ R7ij'l1\-AJ7'-- ---'W1.1f'!<l'4i1 r - \1 \ ~e \...~~ ~ \j t- '7 / : ~ \ L_]\ n. n. lb::-~ljj \ \ 1_ -- "---U '0 ~@ ~ Q:: 1-- ~ I I I", \ ,( lJ IJ ~ \ U ~ !:;\Cli--~\o.: !- --u 1 I l:'c:; 7- 1\ r:::::tL L ,_ J a l:1--.J:(l fL- -LJ I I : LrL_,J"""LLII T --'l j L -- -- -- -.- ~ JJ I : ---- ~ T ., ,'\ I /. . ..' "\. ,,' "', \.1 . \'\!\ I' " I 't I : j~ ~ !~ I l:jk. :;~. b 1 ~;H ~ IH;; ~ Jj : : c lId k J ~!hJ : h J I ~ ~ut l ~nq ~ ~~ l I...J ;j -~,,$ ;f -~,,~ ~lil~~1 : ~ ;~Ji~~i ~~Wl~ ~iW'; i~ 'l~~! 'I~i~ll'~i~ :~ I!!n~ t!!fI~ It!!ft I ' "5;:; ,~ I I I I I I I I I I I Ii Ii I I I I I "1"1 ----I I UI b'J1 I ~! I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I g I ~ I I It I~ ItJ I ~ I I I I I I I I I I I I " I I .I r (I : I lt~ I I "oj 11'<'" \:'., '1\ Ii,' . "j ~hl' ~~;j ; ~ ~nfi ~ --- ;ff' '#t:L'- 3;;fJ t;Kl;~zr.t- ~ I! ' L~~~ I '~/~, ifi]JI & : ------I.r ~I I I 1 iJ ' : / 1',,2;//-$ ')51 i I Ii}] /.~ ~ ,.~_______w I- Z w u--' 0::0 w~~ 0..(9 ::>00 00 J-J I I-Ol~ 0::'- <{' ~u ~ <( ~/ ~,~~~,,~~~.~~ .. . ~ . b. ~. . .~ , ._ _'n .n .'. '.. L .... _"." ... __ ~ n. ~ . b . . .~. 2'-0" VI '0> ___} 1. " I.~--.~~) /~\=.-\ .....'" (~~) "U(/)-' fTlr........... ::oo~ "U " ...., fTl o o -l m > o A ...., F (:;:') '>_.../ o fTl -l > j= "UU)(/)"U~ "U-' -' -c"Ur ::0........... 0 ~"U>>(/) rr1N .. Z "Uor;1"U ~.. 2 ;; CrrI(/)> [!]CJ n r"U > VJ ...,r 7' Ii::- OO~ J;j~-, (/):::l........... z~ G') fTl~ F;; X" O~ ::a " _L OC >z rO o:::l 00 ZZ Om !:O -IX (f:) ,-<.j ::Ei::~ ........... rrI I (/)~i:: ::cr(;) _ r ITl I I b>~ (/)Co ..J _ ~ i:: ," N I o 1Tl::!J ~ " )> XOJ o~o I:;:o< (/)1'T1 _(/) o / .1"'1 ~j-------:r (/)(/)ON r;1 ;a;;: .. I"'1c3l:z rolTl(/) "U~M6 =O::o::Ol'Tl l'TI)> r (~ ITl -I ~ r ~83!0;a roz~j$ji: o ::0 (/)fTl-lr(/) J>OJ>I r "U 0 )> -' c r or r ..0 "U il Oz' ~ a(/) =OJ> fT1 rr13:(/)bC fTl- 0 (;)"U -lZ~~ ~ r;1~ OCD( fTl ::0 - ~ f; ~ rA fTll ~-I:'- L ::0 rr1l ~h :::0 -Ie 01; o " 2 )> i:: ...., r;1 ::0 Z ;-l VJ -' I m " .,. ~lr ~.... ~I ~~ u ~,.. ~ 0; ~ ~ ~ ~~ g;~ w. j ~ jil ~~ l;j~ l~ :tl!! t;;:l; '" g ~s ~~ ZI< ~El Ill~ ~uj ~i n w~ ~~ ~Q II ~li: I .!::l ~i i~ ul< ~S WU U ~~ ~~ ~I< Ill. ~; ~I-' ~~ !::l ti 5~ ~~ ~~ ~w 5;~ J ~ !O:S ....!Ii' ~ ~ !(S ;Ii H n ~I-' ~~ Ii,,' ll!ffi ' ;it Q .', ~! ~) ~~ ~i w~ ~I< u..U ~~ ~~ u ~~ ~l ~~ ~~ ::l!!;> ~li! .j:j t:~ "iii ~~ ~I< ~! l!l~ ,!::l ~i i~ ul< ~iu if t: Ii:' Ill. III ~i ,,~ :lb ~::l ~w u..!l! ~~ j ~I ~~ il ~i :I . ~ al '" '" .. ,Ii; t~ ,,' is!l! ~i U ~~ al r ~ 1 1 I: I'" " :;- "Y' ~ -^ ~ ::,."\ ~ i ~ll'" ~ -:-4 ~ "",,:.,..; ~ '." :1i . ~;;.",,~....: .;. :z [ i I ii ...\ .~. .... . . . r \...0.. 1\ "" I ~ \:., \. ~ 'be It ~ 0 l L\ To: Monticello City Council and Mayor Re: Wal Mart Super Store After reading the article in the Monticello Times this week I felt I must respond to your approval of allowing a Wal Mart Super Store into Monticello. I don't object to Wal Mart totally. What I do object to is the lack of foresight you seem to lack regarding the existing businesses that have been here for many years. The small in- dependent businesses that will die quickly after you allow Wal- Mart in. It has been shown over and over again that Wal Mart destroys small businesses. The same businesses that have supported their respective towns for manyyears. We already have 2 big grocery stores in Monticello. Why do we need groceries at Wal Mart? We already have 9 gas stations in Monticello. Why do we need more gas at Wal Mart? We already have at least 3 too many gas stations. Between the 2 grocery stores already in town and the 9 gas stations you can also count K-Mart and the Dollar Store in the list of potentially doomed businesses. I fail to see the point of allowing ONE business to come in, at the expense of ruining maybe 12 plus businesses. Maybe your Wal Mart should be just a regular store like they used to be and not encroach on your core businesses. Please read this enclosed article about Wal Mart. IT IS AN EYE OPENER. Perhaps you will rethink what you may be allowing them to open up here in Monticello. Will they contribute tax money? Of course. Will they contribute the same if they don't have groceries and gas? I believe they would. What are your small businesses going to contribute if they are run out of business? NOTHING. There are other additional businesses that will suffer too - Loch Jewelers, Classique Jewelry, The Dollar Store and your new Walgreens that was recently proposed. After many of these businesses are closed Wal Mart will do what it always does - raise prices. Then there will be no alternative or choice for the consumer. Please open your eyes to what you are doing to our Monticello businesses. They deserve your loyalty. Too many jobs and lives will be affected negatively. Wal Mart is not good for Monticello. Name Withheld /VAL * MART WANTS J~s AI.~ . . ~~ (/) u ~ ftJ' ~ ~,., loW ~~;".' . '~'..;f.,. .' '~<"~,/. "4;: . By Paul DeDlko S~after7lllO....._a~ cold January morning. thll parking lot of thlllnvllr Grovll Hllights Wal- Mart is packlld with VIlhicles. Inside the store, several hWldrlld people are gathered bllneath the fluorescent lights and red, white, and blue balloons. The shelves arll freshly stocked with$2boxes of Chips Ahoy cookillS and$2.7712-packs ofAngll1 Soft toi- let paper. Veterans of Foreign Wars, Post 295, of South St. Paul, has just prllSented the coun- try's colors. Now store manager John Hamm steps up to the microphone and begins tick- Ing olb list oflocal organizations thet have received donations from the Bentonvillll, Arkansas-based rlltaillng behllmoth in eelll- bration of the store's opening: the SimlllY Theatllr Guild, the Eagan Heights Figure Skating Club, local police and fue depart- ments, the Inver Grove Heights School Dis- trict. The contributions total $24,OOo-or raugh!ythll amoWlt Wal.Mart takes In Ilvery . thrllll seconds. Mllr Inver Gravll Hllights Mayor GeOrgll Tourville dllClares ite "great day," thll SlmIey High School dance team takes the floor. A dozen or so girls In black tights and glittery tops perform a high-stepping roUtinll to some Mellencarnpesque rock music. Then it's time for the ritual that culmi- nates the opening of every Wal.Mart storll around the world: the Wal-Martcheer. Led by Hanun, several hundred anthusiastic adults shout out a call-and-response salUtll to the mighty retailllr: GivIlmeaWIWI GivIlmeanAIAI Give me an Ll L! Give mil a Squigglyl Squigglyl GivllmeanM!MI GiVll me an AI A! GivllmeanR!RI GlvemeaTITl What's that spell? Photo. by .faille. Olif'tOD _..;.;.'!:_'~,'-f,'_~\ll< . Wal"Mart! Whosll Wal-Mart is it? My Wal-Mart! Who's number one? The Customer! Always! And with that, Wal-Mart has established another outpost in its rlltailing empip, Therll are roughly 3,500 Wal-Mart store, across the country-more than twice ", many as thOSIl oHts dosllst competitor. Til'- gilt Corporation-with new stores laun(;h- ingat a rate of nearly one pllr day. The lnw, Grove Heights opening marks the com- pany's 59th outlet in Minnesota. But until recently,thllgloriesof$3 gallon jars of pick- les and 01' Roy dog food (namlld after \\'d.I- Mart founder Sam Walton's English S!'ttf'" have only been available in outer-ring sub- urbs and rural Minnesota. Now Wal-Mart is set to Gonqu'" tb' 1\vin Cities. New stores are slated for Wo"d- As the Retailing Behemoth Prepares to OpeD Its I'irst Stort in the TwiD Oities Metro, Neighborhoods and Workers Brace Themselves for the WaJ-Mart TreatmeDt: Low Wages, UniOD Bustiag, and a Big, I'rieDdly Smile bury and West Sl Paul. There's talk of a WaI- Mart anchoring the redevelopment of Apache Plaza in SI. Anthony, and oakdale has been courting the retailer. In May WaI- Mart is supposed to take over the former Kmart location in SI. Paul's Midway Shop- ping Center, marking its first foray inside the 1-494 corridor. The reason for the company's rapid ur- ban expansion is simple: It's the last segment of the retail market left to conquer. "That's a new frontier for all oftbese blgretail compa- nies," says Stacy Mitchell, aresearcher at the Institute for Local Self-Reliance who has studied WaI-Mart extensively. "They've sat- urated the suburbs and small towns. This Is where they have to grow." WaI-Mart is, by far, the IlIIllest corpora- tion in the world, with sales last year of $244.5 billion--(lr more thim five times those ofTll1llet. It employs 1.3 million peo- pie and is thelll1llest employer in ahnost half the states in the country. The company eWl- i1y sells more detergent, dog food, tooth. paste, shampoo, deodorant, and diapers than any other retailer and operates the llll8est fleet of lnlcks in the country, In fact, according to Fortune magazine, WaI-Mart is now responsible for 2.3 pe~t of the co~- try's ~oss national product, a figure ap- proiic Ing ilie domiiiiliiC8Of U.S. Steel during World War I and General Motors in the 1950s. The growth ofWaI-Mart has long been mythologized as some kind of modem-day corporate Horatio Alger story, with Its folksy founder transforming a humble Arkansas re- tail operation into a multi-billlon.dollar cul- tural phenomenon, In the last few years, however, the facadll--ilymbollzed by the company's ubiquitous yellow smiley face leon-has begun to crack. Stories of WaI- Mart's dreadful treatment of its emplo'y'~l!!. ~d ru~~l~ have be. come too U6lqwtous to ignore. The com. pany's relentless emphasis on cheap prices Is driving manufacturers to open plants o~~~acaUlm-gcompelln-.S.~t~e;:~I.e__. Gut employee Wi1geiand benents. ---"-xCaSem poiiitTsTargetCorporation. Starting this month, Tlll8et employees who work less than 20 hours per week are no longer eligible for paid vacation and health care coverage. The Minnesota-based retailer has also joined WaI-Mart in relentlessly pressuring manufacturers to lower costs: A racent UBS survey found that Target has suc- cessfully narrowed the pricing gap so that its prices are now just 4 percent higher than those of Its gargantuan rival. Another illustration of Wal-Mart's im- pact on other retailers Is the protracted labor dispute that recently ended in southern Cal- ifornia. From last October to February, some 60,000 supermarket employees were either on strike or lockedoutoftheirjohs. The com- pames successfully demanded concessions on wages and benefits in order to better compete with Wal-Mart. The fallout from that strike could have profound ramifica- tions for workers in the 1\vin Cities and across the country. "If they can do it to us here, then Katie. berthe door," says Michael Straeter. president of United Food and Commetcial Workers. Local 1442,oneofthe affected unions. [See WAL-MART page 20] < ,Uttto~" I 'f<;;'~O~OW . W4.G~ ~ j; \ ,~~ .. - Mr;lrch 17, 2004 CITY PAGES ~~ ~ " .' o SH AWn zra~~>~ ,. . ~ HE AMERICA'S #1 ,auE! VJARRAHlV l.t " ,._...... H..... . ~.,P You! : " ~~Hro_ ;: UZUKI '~ 1, wing ,au wlIllI J!M Will II II! ._...... tIIIII!IIII&iI. ......._IIIIMI...... Scfwofs II Cfi"ic.s of :Mas~"!Jt Introduction to Swedish Massage Classes: , DI..lllnl. J"klDn. . IIrvl" mlnlUlr .t Rainbow Food.: HW.I-Mlrtl Irl III oVlr thl nltlon. Ilks cockrolch..: WAL-MARTfrompog819 4/12/04 - 4/22/04 Monday - Thursday 9am4pm I............,.aooo,tbe~ department at a Wal-Mart Supercenter in Jacksonville, Texas~l?~A!l!E.-in the UFCW. It marked the first time since Ille company was founded in 1962 that employ. ees had opted for collective bargaining. The re8"'p_onse from Wal.Mart was extraor~. liatliartliwlliilij"-afilWillilliijliiii-Toees;-"the compllIlYchosetoeliJiilii8le-all!~tting departments natioiiWide:lifaddffloii;Tolirof tliewoik8iifWnO'ii-volild to join the union were fired. Since then Wal-Mart has only sold pre-packaged meat. The compllIlY's animosity toward OrgllIl- ized labor is practically pathological. New hires ere shown a video laying out the eVllsof OOIIilciivl'-1iiiiii~wiQIliicoiii-Wi-o 'Ui;" atBSa24:nou?imlonnotline'-'"fo~~rs- tolilfiTtlleyaoiij(;iUiiion actfvity. At the first whiff of organizing, a team from corporate headquarters is dis.-El!!~ tl!~uell th~~ rIEPA' Bernie Hesse, lIIl orgllIlizer with UFCW Local 789 in South St. Paul, says that the fear of unions is so pervasive among em- plciye8slliBlWli'iiri lie Sl.leriipfito--en-ijO fheiri-1Ilconversiitioniheii-i-esponsa- ~ to- sifupTysllffifiilt!ui1l?illf:"Tlial"-saciiltW'e'Fvo' neveri88il'68fOi'B;n-Hesse notes, Of course, Wal-Mart is far from alone in being virulently lIIlti-union.1n recent years, it's become a stllIldard business practice to thwart organizing efforts by lIIlY means nec. essary, particularly at large retailers such as Target lIIld Home Depot. But as the episode in Jacksonville shows, the characteristic that separates WaI-Mart from oi1l.ar-comparues is its willingiliiss toemploy-(n:creiITblii;-milStic maasiiI6S1iiOroerlo-eii$W'eThillIafior-cosls i!.iijarullsTowiiii~s~!?Jf'-""--"---~---'--- Tllilre ere currently lawsuits pending in 25 states, including MiIiilaSolil--;crllirging that Wal-Mart sysTeiiilificwlylfaprived employ- ees of overtime pay. in the first case to go to trial, in December 2002, a federal jury in Port- lllIld, Oregon, unllIlimously roled that WaI- Mart was guilty of withholding overtime pay at its 18 stores in the state. A judge is currently deciding how much the compllIlY should pay in penalties. Other class-action lawsuits have not been as successful: In JlIIluary a Floride judge dismissed a similar claim. Mill the iIltuHot1oJVlocationwhere our bike deI1verer II ill WI picture IDll wiD . Puce Oolfee bib b., patcbl ..man your gueu '" b~otfea.coini Pedal Not Petrol. 100% I'llii' Traclll, Or,llDia, 8haclll Growu Place Coff.. la available at all Twin ClUe. Natw-al1'004 Co-op., Whol.l'ooda, KowalaJd'. an4local oat... The Minnesota case was filed in Dakota County District Cowt in 2001 by four former WaI-Mart employees. They allege that the compllIlY engaged in "a scheme of wage abuse lIIld fraud" and that employees were routinely required to work off the clock and denied breaks. "The mllIlagers are under these strict rules not to allow overtime," savs Jonathan Parrilz. the attorney represent~g the plaintiffs. "That forces these mllIlagers into these practices of basically [taking] time from the employees." On November 3. Judge Thomas Lacy issued lIIl order certifying the classllIld allowing the lawsuit to proceed. It could potentially affect some 65,000 people who have worked at Minnesota Wal-Marts since 1998. Failing to pay workers the wages they're due is not the only nefarious practice that Wal-Mart has been accused ofin recent years. There have been dozens of complaints of sex- ual discrlnlination lodged against the com- pany. According to figures Wal-Mart provided to the Equal Employment Oppor- tunity Commission, 72 percent of the com- PllIlY's employees are female. but two-thirds ofmllIlagement positions ere held by men. in addition. female employees make, on aver- age, 34 cents less an hour thllIl their male counterparts in identical positions. In De- cember 2002. the compllIlY agreed to pay $220,000 to a Phoenix womllIl who'd been turned down for a job because she was preg- nant. Last September. Wal-Mart settled an- other lawsuit by shelling out $150.000 to a Dallas employae who allged she was pun- ished after complaining of sexual harass- ment by a bakery lllllIlager. Those payouts pale in comparison to whet could be in store for Will-Mart, how- ever.1n ZOOl. a class-action. sexual-discrim- ination lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Cowt in northern California bv six femele employees, If the class is certified. it could become the largest such suit ever, poten. tially affecting Z.5million women who ha\'e worked for the company. But perhaps nothing has dllIllaged Wal- Mart's wholesome, all-American reputation like the revelation that it relies on scores of il- legal immigrants to dellIl its stores. In Octo- ber, federal agents raided 60 Wal-Mart stores in 21 statesllIlcl picked up more thllIl250 iJ- . legal immigrants. This followed similar raids in 1998 and 2001 that netted a total ofl02 il- lega1warkm. Thllllmployllll8hadbeenhiIed by outside companillS that the retailer con- tracts with for cleaning aervi.cll8. Following th6Qctoberanests, workmcomplained that they were danied overtime pay, l'lIl'9ly al- lowed time oil, and paid as little as $2 a day. Nine of the fonner c1eanen have filed ..rack- etoorlnglawsuitagainBt Wal-MartinNew Jer- PlY State CourtchargiDg that their civilrtghts were violated. Wal-Mart bas repeatedly in- sisted that it had DO idea illegal immigrants were being employed to clean its stores. Stacy Mitchell argues that this explana- tion doesn't make sense, considering Wal- Mart', reputation for exacting control, right down to setting Individual store tempera- tures. ''They can tell you bow many tubes of Qest toothpasteweresoldatstorenumber 851 yesterday and yet they clai.m. they bad no idea that theircontnlctorswere using illegal.immi- gnmts and mistreating them?" Mitchell asks. Wal-Mart's most profound impact on the l&bormarket.bowever,basnothingto do with how the company treats its own workms. Be- (aWIII the retailer wialds such tremendous buying power and controls such alaIge share ofth6markstforsomanyproducts, it exerts in- aedibleiniluenceoversupplien. Com!::llS need to do buslnllSS with Wal-Martln to Siilvive.~i1i8~1iave litti;-ai'OiceliUf ...- ---~,-_._-_..--.---- tOBCcede to the retaller's demands for lower 8Dd1owerpncos]o]imi,ptii8iUiiis like thllSe lead manufacturers to look for cheaper labor OVllrll8ll8, often under wretched working con- ditions. A recent story in the Washington Post detailedbowworkmsatChinesemanuIactur- Ing plants that supply Wal-Martare paidas lit- tle as $75 a month and sometimes work upward of 80 hours per week. Allegations of child labor abuses are rampant. "They force their suppliers down to the lowest penny, and to make any money off of it they have tooutsource it to China orwher- ever:' says Ken Stone, a retired professor of economics etIowaState University who bas researched Wal-Mart. It's llStimated that 80 ~t ~~e co~i!.Prod~t.!.1II1! no~ mani:i1acitiilid1iiCliliili, accounting lor one- 81gliiliOftlUi U .S.'s trade with the country. in the last three years, the U.S. bas lost more than 2.8 millionmanuIacturingjobs. In the end, 'YlI!:~s!Duch balll!100.~ 10w_E.~_ll8 exact a hea~ to1f,"The reaIfty is 1liat we ciiiID afford ~aine that are at Wal-gart,"saySQIfclie . "__!!lm-i!!!~:- aolls pncewe pay_for evernl.enny we spend atWal-Mart." --- -----..-,,-~-- reluctantly agreed to a new three-yeer con- tract at fue and of February. It was the 1argllSt andlongll8t strike in the histQry of the UFCW, the primery union that rapresants groceryworbrsnationwide. The stoppage is estimated to have cost the stores more than $1 billion In lost aales, but the companillS ramained resolute in their de- DlllDQ. that employees eccept lower wages and diminished benefits. "This was an em- ployer-initiated evant," says Ruth Milkman, director of the University ofCaliforniaInsti- tute for Labor and Employment. "The union never wanted this strike. They weren't well prepared for it." The contract thet workers finally agreed to grants significant concessions to the gro- cerycompanillS. Existing employellS will_ calve no raises over the life of the contract and could have to pay for health insurance af- ter two yeers. Most significantly, the settle- mentallows for the Introduction of a two-tier labor system whereby new hires willrecoive significantly lower pay and benefits than currant workms. Milkman lWlnts out that it won't take long for the lower-tier jobs to dom- inate the workforce. "Given thet there's so much turnover In this kind of industry, in a deCade that will be everybody, pretty much." she says. "The big picture is very bleak in terms of what it means for the long term." Th\l not-so-secret X-factOr in the strike was Wal-Mart. Southern California-most notably the urban centers of Los Angeles and San Diego-is an untapped market for the retailer. Naturally, Wal-Mart intends to chang;e that. The company plans to open 40 Supercenters, equipped with full-service grocery StorllS, In fue collling years. With this threat tosales looming, Safeway, Albertsons, and I40ger demanded major concessions from their employees in order to cut costs. "They ~~e Supercentersout up until this time,~' notes lowa""Sfiltli econonUstSi'Oiie. '~it's agivanfact thatWal-Mart iscpmlng In. The 1l!:.000000storesEW see th!~~ the wall. as can ilie Unions." ~ Outside southern California, the strike generated little publicity, but it could have .~iQ!~i!!1plicatiQ.ns ~'?f w!l!~~~SS the ~.!rY, particulsrly sl!E~ket ~p'I~ uas. Grocery clerks have long been practi. &illy the only retail employees thet get paid someUilng resembling a living wage. Theav- erage g\cocery worker Involved In the south- ern ci.lifornia strike-at least for the foreseeable future-makes $13 an hour and receives free health insurance. By contrast, the median hourly wage for retail aales jobs " ", .,~,~;':,.,:,',':\" ',.. ,i.,,;'~,~,,<""~~~>:', ;<.,:,..,,\;~,f" ,,' :,:.~"":,'.<",/<,,,\t,:,;' :,:,,' ',:,'1 1".~f~..t.~,~,J,gr~~~~.'{'M,~~~;) p&'OdaoU'~.'~j~,~,~~.t.~~'.~~~." ...foaoo.....,.W.~t'~~.,...~,...~~."-.. .tn". tbo . .......................... '. ' . ... ..' ..'" Ia laat~l~~~!J,~,;~~.~.a:etJaaa U_n1fOll~Job.., o:....d,-eo,oooamoa- . dgroceryworkersat852storasln southern California went on strike or were locked out of their jobs. The dispute in- volved supermarkets owned by thrae com- panies-Safeway, Kroger, and Albertson&- that currently dominate the market in thatre- gion of the country. After a more than four- month work stoppage, employees nationWide In 2002, the most recent yesr for which data is available, was $8.51, according to the:Bureau of Labor Statistics. The stakes become even higher when you consider that r.etail i~~ the only sr.:__ eas where job growth iSoc:currmg: AccortlIilg toUiillJL5:"~oo sucli Jobs will be created I by 2012, a projected increase basted only by growth in nurs- [SeeWAL-MART page 22] CITY PAGES March 17, 2004 Meet Up to 10 People in 90-Mir Safe, Secure and Casual Envir }THE TWIN CITIES MOST CRf DATING SERVICE For Information Phone: 763.546 Emall: Robert@Quikdatz.cc www.Qulkdotz.com flim-flam me BY CITY PAGES MANAGING EDITOR JENNIFER !!.. ~:!. 'lW ',r "[AJ heart.......... hNd-boIled memoir..." ""..it_wit h1~ MIl hNrtbreaI<lng," . T "M.. .tory, . urto: 81'10111, '."i...t..:' One frO$l)' winter morning, Jennifer Vogel QPt;'ni.'d th, ~ that her father had gone on \ht run, John Vogd. f1f~~ ,\, ed fo, single~hlindedJy counterfeiting nt'arlr S:W mil'. _ the fourth~lIrgest 5utn ever $riz.ed hy fl'd\'f .I.] .~- released pendinJ trial. Frirn~ around the <j.ix TTlll;n\. lIuthoritic$, Jennifer'~ memoir docum('nts thl' r{'lill ( '. \ ddector testsl even iii sc=gment on Unsall'l!J ,'"f.\'stfl'li'.\ id~s her tumultuoulIi c.hildhood while f;xart'lImnl.: ht.. ' l"..&':"'~ -- IN BOOKSTORES NC ICITY PAGES! NOW WD.D ..tl ..OUIriI!; - film-flam m.n .t""'."".I.,.... CONTEMPORARY MEN S fASHION (l}UTUII;~ {lmHIfHI ((I.' f'Ml'R of "I"" ~ i,lO:11 fS(N Ij,HERMA.N . Fk~NfH (uIlNlCIIUt4 . 1~)t1N1~'1 ~~i>.'': VlHl~' P"~"'S~ltO' ~r.NtHTH ({Jll r\tlOh. tj'r ll.A.~lfn SIEVr: MA.DIH:N ~1.tl)I',I.,. Jt.IF fRUlr.11l1ul.\;. ~lwr~\'JA~ ITSlJS' 6R"'V~ L.f.ATHlR' {J1,~'f - \ION t\\JHlI- t-lJ.v; .\[~~.:i OUl,{[ O( lt~Hf' CUST!)' P~PORl. Willi:). HAl:'. ,1M":..ri DIVISION ( . '~ OlA.MONDS ' [JlI~'1l Ii v!r.Hl' ToliN f '. 'j:)': 8~ll'[' (V'.t:li' ~~'lI'i!\' ~jl::_'. (',;, !"~",l.J1 .. $1 Enrollment on 011 n- 'n Buy 6 months get 1 month free (;, Buy 12 months get 2 months free It): Buy 24 months get 3 months free " 20% off olllolions $ I1'C'A'C-<- ~. 1612 Harmon Place' Minneapolis 612.332.2021 Hours: Tues- Sat tUm . 8pm Sun llam ~ 6pm . dos.ed on MOl1dI1Y~; 22, WAL-MART from page 21 . and college instruction. &. 1l\.IUlufactur. . continue to migrate o_v~!i!:~_~ 'ciiusaOfllleouymgpowerofWiif-M8it,reilill i<m-creas!iigfyoneof veryIiW opuOIl8aviif.. 'aEIef6"wOfflii'iWJiOuoo'fliive collagen&:- grees:'W61OOfai the future ofrelllil basically being the future of tJieAmeriCllIl middle cTass7 says-eJii1i1::iiiiiY:-an----oIgWiiiiirwflli UFCW, Local 789, in South St. Paul. Twill Cities grocery workers have 80 far avoided a fate simi.\m-to thet of their counter- parts in California. UFCW, Local 653, which represents about 14,000 workers in the west metro area of the Twin Cities,recentlynegoti- dted a new three-yearcon\nlcl for its workers, March i7, 2004 CITY PAGES \.......u., -'j .tl;',~:j..;:'I, . .,\\',~l.i' , ~ ','" ..' ::'.: :, ' ~ ., ..:h~!Jutde"". of .1t~,~.tJ&ena ~';"'.T<"'. y..... ,.,..~Job.. The companies IlglOOd to continue paying employee health insurance costs and prom- ised that workers who have been on the job for atleast five years w;ill receive regularraises of 80 cents per hour over the life of the con\nlcl. Part-time workers didn't fare as well: They no longer will receive automatic annual raises, Next year the three-year contract for members of Local 789, which covers St. Paul and the surrounding suburbs, will expire. L0- cal 789 president Don Seaquist says that Twin Cities grocery workers are in II stronger position than their counterparts in southern California because the local market isn't dominated by huge chains like AIbertsons and Safeway that can weather a protracted la- Everything you need to make it Perfect. . . to AAake it MagiC. . . to Make it your Own . . . It's All Right Here F,,,,,, '"" publi.ne" of IH[ illUDinG DIRHlORY" III IIIIIH 111100'" - ~ - - -, ~$":' ,.... I- , 'I Coli for your Free Copy Todoyl iJ!t;JJ~. March 21, 2004 10am-Spm ~Touchstone Eners.'Y' Place --- _RIVIRCINTRR" Tickets $10 in advance $15 at the door Call 952.WEDDING Vi$it twincitybridal.com PIODUm H ~II~ TWIN CITY BRIDAL -ASSOCIATION- , ~ ~n~A""di~ . - - D.:...,. j;j 1:0\1" Minn~ G/.&N~ FWl<AL T.nT~.nn ~~~~: PID91J!.~" 't~'{' ri.tIl!l~llW ~ ~;~~ dfn9"U'IUl" ~ bor dispute without suffering serious ''', nomic consequences. But he worries thai ., unioni;zed supermarkets continue to 10," market share it will eventually lead to an en sion of employee wages and benefits. "It's n, lust Wal-Mart," he notes. "It's eveD'bod' that's selling groceries, from SuperTargel : Wal-Mart to AIdi'sto the SuperAmericas tJ ,.. sell bread and milk. WaI-Mart's JUSt t Ii. biggest guy." The southern California labor displll. has financially crippled the UFCW. Th. union spent hundreds of millions of dollal' to support its Califomia workers and some), ,- cal unions were forced to mortgage their oj- fices in order to raise cash. "Their treasUlT " gone," notes Milkman. "They had built a "-,,, chest but it's gone." The California strike could prove to 1-",. watershed moment for grocery workers' \I,' as the failure of the Honnel strike in .-\u,"': Minnesota, in the mid-'80s symbolized ,I;. demise of the ooce-powerfui meatpaclJ n. unions, the southern California work "np- page may be remembered years from no\\' ci C portending the end of decent retail jobs. "Em- pIoyers in the unionized private sector ".I. definitely paying attention," savs Milkmal' noting that less than 10 percent of non-go\- emment employees are now organiz,"! "Companies ara clearly going to use this ii' " ,template for demands elsewhere." 05tb111...,.attbIIIWllWlIIan~ . Inver Grove Heights. as hundred, ofshoppers line up inside to ~!', "". tographs from Minnesota Wild center Ser~.'. Zholtok, UFCW Local 789 is staging a pro!,." It's a bone-rattling cold afternoon. with tho wind chill dipping to minus 25 degrees. "'Hi just six people have shown up. They stand,,! the intersection of Cahill Avenue and Con. cord Boulevard, in the shadow ofWal-Mart. with signs that read "Welcome to Lo\\' Wages" and "What Cost to Neighborhoods"" Most cars passing by simply ignore tllem. ;\ few honk. One guy in a pickup pulls over and chides tham for criticizing Wal-Mart. Local 789iswagingalonelybattle.ltisat. tempting to educate the public about Wal- Mart's pernicious impact before the company can swallow all of its members' jobs. Since November, in anticipation of the opening of the Midway store, the union has been organizing meetings of concerned citi- zens and door-knocking in the neighbor- hood. Basidesconcern that Wal.Mart will kill off the crop of small. ethnic retailers that has popped up along nearby University Avenue. union members are particularly distressed because both a Cub and a Rainbow outlet op- .erate in the sarne shopping complex where the.new store will open. The f1edglinggroup has put together a sort ofWal-Martmanifesto. calling on the retailer to regularly meet with Midway residents, hire a majority of its em. ployees from the surrounding naighborhood. and pay wages of no less than $9.50 an hour. among other things. The goal is to convince politicians, area businesses, and residents to endorse these principles and then pressure Wal-Mart to embrace them. Local 789 has no illusions that Wal-Mart will actually agree to such demands, but it hopes to gather enough support to get the company's attention and perhaps spur .0Ille organizing activity. "At the end oftheda)' w,' don't sea Wal.Mart as exclusivelv a union is- sue," says Chrls Conry, who is leadlng the cam- paign. "Wal-Mart bas an impact on everybody." Coury and others argue that Wal-Mart will dedmate smaller bUBinesses &long the tJDiVeiSiijAVoD1ie"Camdor, ~viDg_ ~~.~~,-~~_~~~eJ~ lealf-to ...... SIlt! pnCBli wr9V8l')'OIl9. ........18 SOIIlgeviaence to baciUjillil$-iiiiiieiiIon. 10waState's Ken Stone recently completed a study of the economic impact ofWal-Mart Suparcenters on exiating bUBinesses in Mississippi, whare the retailer has long been a dominant presence. Analyz- ing wes tax data, he and two other re- searchers determined that 5lLi!l!~~~ grocery !!~!ell~9.p&8iit in the fiVe yearsiiftiii a w81-Mart Supercenter opened, while business atgenera1-merchandise stores dropp8(lli- f~faUi'iiig1Iuitsamefune- penod:"~en wal-Martcomes in and plants a Supercenter andit does $70 milIiona year, it doi$ii'ioomeout OfilimBir, "StonoDoteS. "It ~E!!!~~somebodyelse's~ter.;; The city ofSL PaUl has IiffI8jiOWerto in- fluence the company's business practices. Because Wal-Mart is not seeking any subsi- dies for the store, it's mostly free to operate as it pleases. "They won't put their handout be- ceusethey know that itcmnes with strings at- tached," notes Sevanth Ward City Council member Kathy Lantry. In July, three council members, including Lantry, sent Wal-Mart a . letter asking the company not to sell guns at the Midway store, to equip its shoppingcerts with technology that will prevent them from leaviDg the parking lot, end to pay a IiviDg wage. Wal-Mart acceded to the first two re- quests and ignored the last. Some anti-Wal-Mart activists have taken matters into their own hands. In mid-Febru- ary, the ahell of the Midway store was ven- dalized. According to the St. Paul Police Department, somebody entered the building by kicking in a window. Then they pro- ceeded to throw paint all over the walls and sabotage tools and equipment. According to the St. Paul Police Department, more then $10,000 worth of damage was done. "Right now the case has no mejor leads," 8IIysCom- mender Mike Morehead. An e-mail meB8llge Ant to City Pages and other local med!a outlets on February 20 claimed that the destruction was politically motivated. "This action was neceasary In the face of Wall- mart's (sic) extreme oppres- sion of Its workers and total disregani for conununity," the note read. "Wal-mart is a key playerin corpomte dominance of people worldwide. Wal-mart is not welcome in our conununity: Wal-mart is not welcome any- whare. We will not stop thesellCtions." Although Local 789 doesn't endorse such measures, it shares the saboteurs' fear of the retailing behemoth. Wal-Mart does not presently bave any Superoenters in the metro area, and therefore no full-service grocery stores, but UFCW members believe that at $Orne point In the not-too-distant future the retailer will become a direct competitor. "Wal-Marts are all over the nation, like cock- roeches," says DesBlliines Jackson, a nine- year employee of Rainbow's Midway store. "It's just a matter of time before they expand into grocerias." Daniel Swanson, who works In the pro- duce department at Cub Foods In the Mid- way, 8IIYs that he refuses to shop at Wal-Mart, but that many ofhis colleagues patronize the company. "I hear people in the break room say, 'I wenl to Wal-Mart and 1 got a great deal on tires,' and all this othercrep," scoffs Swan- $On. "I lell them, 'Hey, you're feeding the cof- fers of the people who are eventually going to take our jobs.' They're monsters." IIlI CITY PAGES March 17, 2004 :11 , II: C/o{,(/" cfatt~fa(}t;()1( I~ #11 ~()al./ GET BORN ~ REMAX A-1iW'Mfl)( EXCELLENCE T ii V'l$it Kathy's booth at the Wedding fair March 21st at the . ExtaI EneIV)' Canter. CRI THE ACCLAIMED ALBUM FEATURING ARE YOU GONNA BE MY GIRL AND COLD HARD B**** ~ML'I. FACT: The ,verage failure rata of dlaka and tape drive. 1.100 percent, o ..'4 FACT: Mo.ti.mall bu.lneese. don't have . backup plan that fully protacta th.m. Many go out of bu.ln... within one y.ar after a cats.trophic 10.. of data. l.PUrthl" Jel', Ilbum GET BORN wilhln one week of their Au..le Invo.ion To 2.Send in your receipl \0 receive a FREE BONUS CD of live and rare JET MUSIC l.Enler for. chlnee 10 win tlekeu 10 .ee JET althe FUJI Fe5livII in JAPAN Go to www.jetkidcedmyass.com for complete detail. and rules FAC.T: It takea19 days and co.ta $17,000 to re,type 20 megabyte. of data. Vi.1t our web.lta for more Info: wWw.thebackupvault_com SEe .JET NOW ON THE AUSSIE INVASION T' WWW.JEnHEBAND.COM WWW.ELEKTRA.cor PIIODUCED BV D. SAIIDV 'HE BACI(UPVAULT, Ll~ MCIADI. Bad..., Sel'\'ktll'ot 5...11 a.II"'NI I 952-469-2010 SImple Secure Affordable Reliable Available at Target When you wlnllo rock. we know you have many choices. Thank you to, ,. o--l",",~ ,,,,,,,,,,",'1 p'~' ~JOOoIll,o.l" l~1t'1.,.....t, . '.I I f . . . Planning Commission Agenda - 6/01/04 8. Public "earinl!: Consideration of a request for a Conditional Use Permit for a concept stal!e Planned Unit Development for a shoppinl! center, and a rezonine from 1-1 and 1-2 to 8-4. Applicant: Ryan Companies. (NAC) REFERENCE AND BACKGROlJND Ryan Companies is seeking a concept PUD approval to accommodate a shopping center development west of County Highway 18 along the easterly extension of th Street. Several transportation improvements are necessary in the area to allow this project to proceed, including the following: a. Construction of a new interchange at CSAH 18 and Interstate 94 b. Extension of th Street to intersect with CSAH 18 c. Connection of the th Street extension across the railroad to intersect with County Highway 75 (Broadway). The City is currently working with MnDOT and the County on thc interchange project, and the railroad crossing concept is in progress as well. The developer would be responsible for extending th Street through the project area. The project itself consists of three large retailers, including "General Merchandise", "Retail", and "Home Improvement". The building sizes are 174,000 sf., 86,584 sf., plus expansion, and 102,513 s.f., respectively. In addition to these larger occupants, as many as 7 additional freestanding retail and/or restaurant buildings are shown on the plan. Four of these are located adjacent to County 18, and the other three are at the west end of the development. Uses include restaurant, retail, and banking, for a total of an additional 36,000 square feet. The concept plan provides a basic layout f()r the development, identifies access driveway locations, and suggests parking lot size and circulation. No details are provided with respect to building elevations, utilities, landscaping, or other development particulars. From a general layout standpoint, the site would appear to function reasonably well. Planning staff would offer the following comments to guide discussion and considerations for the more definitive design at the Development Stage pun level. 1. The parking lots contain more than 2,100 parking spaces, 1,800 of which are contained in the three principal lots serving the large stores. Planning staff would suggest more landscaping within the parking fields, as well as a consistent line of tree planting along the fronts of the buildings. 2. Landscaping along the north, "back", walls of the primary buildings will help to enhance the view of the project from Broadway. Although the center is designed to face the interstate, significant attention should be paid to . . . Planning Commission Agenda - 6/01/04 landscaping and building design on thc north exposure due to the high visibi lity of this wall, and high levels of traffic on this route. 3. Also along the north wall, a significant amount of service use and truck circulation will be located in this area. Screening of these activities will be important. 4. Pedestrian acccss through the site should be considered carefully. Sidewalk appears to be shown along 7lh Street, but pathway on this route, as well as along County 18 should also be examined. 5. Comments of City Engineering and Public Works staff. AL TERNA TIVE ACTIONS Decision 1: Concept Stage Planned Unit Development for a shopping center 1. Motion to recommend approval of the Concept Stage PUD for Ryan Companies, based on a finding that with the required infrastructure improvements, the use would be consistent with the land use recommendations for this site. This action should be limited to general site planning comments, and subject to more detailed analysis upon presentation of Development Stage PUD plans. 2. Motion to recommend denial of the Concept Stage PUD, based on a finding to be developed at the hearing. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of the Concept PUD, with the limitations noted above. Because the plan is essentially a general layout, there will be a significant amount of detail to review to ensure that the project fits on the site. In addition, the City has the opportunity to ensure a high quality project at this prime, visible site. Attention to architecture, site landscaping and open space, pedestrian access, and building views from the north will be considered carefully at the timc of the Development Stage revIew. SlJPPORTING DATA A. Site Location Map 13. Monticello Concept Plan Submittal Narrative C. Monticello Retail Concept Plan 2 PUBliC WORKS FAX : (763) 295-3170:(Ext 1) 2P..1 95th STREET ---- i -~--.........._. -.- j Z , I I I i :! I : I LL- I " 4150 Olson Memorial Highway Suite 300 Minneapolis, MN 55422 763-541-4800 ~ Associates, Inc. FAX 763-641.1700 INFRASTRUCTURE ,A. ENGINEERS "- PLANNERS 11 12 13 14 15 I~ -r I F ........",':,. G ~ I ~-,'~. T j I ..; K SB . Monticello Concept Plan Submittal- Narrative Ryan Companies US, Inc. and Ken Streeter are submitting the attached materials for a development concept staging plan review on the Monticello retail site (known as the Dahlheimer and Bondhus properties) and bounded by CSAH 18 North, CSAH 75 and I 94, and bisected by East 7th Street. The submittal includes the information and fee requested by the City. On the 47.7 acre site, it is proposed to develop approximately 400,000 square feet of retail, consisting of softlines, general merchandise, home improvement, restaurant and a variety of small shops. The developer will work closely with the City to deliver the necessary infrastructure components to serve the development as suggested within this strategy. Information provided to the City with regards to this proposed development is as follows: . Planned Unit Development Application Form · $250.00 rezoning fee . Five (5) full sized sheets of the Concept Site Plan · One (1) 11 x 17 Concept Site Plan . The following entities contributed to the application package: . Ryan Companies US, Inc. 50 South Tenth Street Suite 300 Minneapolis, MN 55403 · WSB & Associates, Inc. 101 Roosevelt Office Parkway 600 - 25th Avenue South St. Cloud, MN 56301 The proposed development will require the removal of the existing Dahlheimer Distribution facilities (the Bondhus property is raw land). The developer will coordinate with WSB Professional services and MNDot on the construction and configuration of the 1-94 exit to County Road 18. The 47.7 acre retail development area will be traversed by East ih Street, an anticipated public road, from the new County Road 18 exit ramp to St. Mary's Church. It will also be bisected in the north south direction by an access drive from 7th street to county Road 75. This roadway is also anticipated to be public and will include a railroad crossing adjacent to county road 75. As part of the roadway planning activities, a detailed traffic study will be completed. . Site stormwater infrastructure will be conveyed along East ih Street to the southeast to the proposed 1-94 and County Road 18 exit ramp area. MNDot will be constructing stormwater management pond for the 47 acre development site, and the associated drainage areas surrounding the development. Sanitary utilities on the site will be conveyed to the northwest to the anticipated relocation ofthe MCES sanitary trunk line. . Development Scenarios: 400,000sf of retail development on 47.7 acres: Description of Land Use Development Density · Horne Improvement site 95,000sf · Retail Commercial 86,500 · General Merchandise 174,000sf · Small shop Retail 15,600sf · Two (2) outlots *5,600sf ea. (proposed sit down restaurants) · Two (2) outlots *3,200sf ea (fast food proposed) · One (1) outlot * 4,200sf (proposed bank) *Subject to change prior to development stage based on user demand and marketplace . Conclusion: The Ryan-Streeter development group is anxious to begin the approval process for the development of the 47.7 acre property on CSAH 18 North and Interstate 94. The material contained in this packet is presented to convey the concept that is contemplated on the Dahlheimer and Bondhus properties. Ryan's objective is to bring a viable, well planned and aesthetically pleasing development to the City of Monticello. Ryan's projects consistently deliver a strong, high quality design and construction standard. The Ryan Design group will be happy to collaborate with the City and prepare any additional material needed. Thank you for the opportunity to present this strategy to you. . ... ~ -~ ~ _L~ T--J:; ~ ~ ~ ~ n tI1 r r o ~ ~ ~ r - / / ' I! !I' , / , / t / / , vi 'I / I v tl ~ ~ ~ L I I · 0 r j! ['- I - \ -] :;0 , - ---~ ['-' " ,/ Ii. . ~ \I~,_ ,~, / . ~ ~ );..ff I"' ~);,...v~- ~r{f $1 ~rt Jo..:t' . . . Planning Commission Agenda - 6/01/04 9. Public Hearing:: Consideration of a request for Conditional Use Permit for a conce t sta e Planned Unit Develo ment for an automobile dealershi as an interim use in the B-3 District. A licant: Jacob Holdin s/Denn Hecker. (NAC) REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND Jacob Holdings/Denny Hecker is seeking approval of a PUD approval that would permit the establishment of a Kia automobile dealership on the former D&D Bus property next to the Monticello Dodge property on Chelsea Road. The area is zoned B-3, Highway Business. Automobile Dealerships are allowed uses in the district, but have a specific set of criteria for lot coverage, building size and ratio, site improvements (such as paving, curb & gutter, landscaping, etc.). The applicant is proposing to use the site with the existing pole buildings and an expansion of the paved area, but without any other substantial site improvements at this time. The developer requests use of the facilities on a temporary basis pending development of a modern dealership facility within three to five years. Bill Rambo noted that the price of the land to some extent dictates the need to develop the site in a manner consistent with the Dodge Dealership. Thus economics will ultimately result in development of a facility that meets code. Until a dealership or franchise is found, it is requested that the existing site and buildings be utilized. The applicant proposes to use the PUD allowances of the City's zoning ordinance to permit an interim use of the property as a new car dealership. The applicant suggests that he would improve the property at some future date, which would be established by PU D development contract. The purpose of the PUD allowances in the zoning ordinance are to accommodate flexibi lity in the application of zoning standards when the t1exibility leads to a higher level of site design and development quality. It is not clear how that requirement would be met by this request. The City developed the current language applying to automobile dealerships in response to concerns that large areas of unimproved (or poorly improved) property could be put to car storage with few building standards, minimal tax base, and negligible employment. Since that time, the Monticello Ford, Gould Chevrolet, and Monticello Dodge dealerships have been built to the new standard. It would appear to be inconsistent with both the common application ofthe City's standards and the intent of the PUD language to abandon those requirements and permit a substandard project (even on an interim basis) to occupy such a prime retailing site between Chelsea Road and 1-94. If the City believes that this project should be accommodated, there are topics to be addressed relating to the interim use on the proposed site plan. Planning Commission Agenda - 6101/04 . There are also a few questions with regards to the management of the project. These include the following: a. Timcframe for the interim use. Staff suggests allowing the interim use f(Jr a period of three years with the option of requesting a renewal at five years. b. Amount and type of security if any to be posted to ensure removal of non- conformities at the termination of the interim use. c. Drainage concerns as currently drawn - the site is proposed to drain the new paving area onto open space north of the buildings. d. Use of unpaved areas. c. Site lighting. f. Organization of customer and employee parking, and acceptable areas for vehicle display. g. Utility service issues to be identified by Public Works and Engineering staff. h. Potential signage size and location, and enforcement provisions for illegal temporary signage. . 1. Provision of a "Future Development Plan" illustrating the conversion of the site to a confemning development at the end of the interim period. The developer has noted that development of a legitimate plan is not possible as the design will be dependant on the dealership or franchise developing the site at that time. There may be a number of other items that would need to be addressed as a part of a PU D proposal. The current plans need additional information prior to City approval. Planning Commission will be asked to review items a. through i. above and provide direction accordingly. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS Dccision 1: Concept Stage Planned Unit Development for Automobile Dealership as an Interim Use. . 2 Planning Commission Agenda - 6/01/04 1. Motion to recommend approval of the Concept stage pun allowing the interim use, however the use is subject to the submission of interim use development plans including information relating to a. - i. above. Those plans are subject to review and approval by the City Planner. . 2. Motion to table action on the Concept Stage pun allowing the interim use subject to the submission of interim use development plans including information relating to a. - i. above. 3. Motion to recommend denial of the Concept Stage PUD allowing the interim use, based on a finding that the development proposal is inconsistent with the City's PUD standards and automobile dealership standards. ST AFF RECOMMENDATION City staff recommends approving the interim use with conditions as noted, or to table the request until the applicant provides a comprehensive plan and timeline for the development of the site in a manner more consistent with the City's P1JD and automobile sales area standards. . In the past, the Planning Commission has allowed existing facilities to be used on an interim basis in anticipation of future development. For instance, Hoglund Transportation was allowed to build a new garage but not required to meet all development standards for the site based on the argument that the site would likely be redeveloped in its entirety relatively soon. Also, Dave Peterson was allowed to expand the Ford Dealership PUD to include interim use of a parking area for a specified time period. It is our view that the investment in land at the site is too great to support use of the facility with the current buildings. As such, the site will likely be redeveloped relatively soon, so there is limited risk to violation of the intent of the ordinance by allowing the present buildings to be used on an interim basis. If the Planning Commission believes that the site should not be allowed to be used on an interim basis as a dealership due to concern that an approval will slow down or inhibit development of the site in a manner consistent with code, then the Planning Commission should recommend denial of the request. SUPPORTING DATA A. Site I,ocation Map B. Concept Plan . 3 0A /"'7 c, ',~ \ . "" -- . f> (J/1 D ~'S IQlILE . : . PARI( lEASTl __ _ _ fP . . . 'fOE.... ..". ~ . - .',- : ~ : a{ . <> . : !ijl . 0 :0:: :~ z :g . > H.E. ~th STREET . )\Q:il.~,Y~12-o1- i.Oc5 ._.___~_NlO/200!. i 00 ~ a c~o z: aa ~ ~ OO"tJ~ Ci1i ~~ ~6a ~ ~ 0- ~ -<~3: ~ moo c- ms;1 r~ 2S c~ z: (I) ~~ 3D ~ . . .. .. .. .... .... <0 N (7IJ .... N .... - OJ> .... .... -ljO. CD ~-- ~ ~~~ 008 ~ ~~ 000000 ::n IH:c.l0" _ "' "' N o z z G) "" i ~f""1 ex ZVi ~~ <L... JTl0 ,- ~,::J Planning Commission Agenda - 6/01/04 . 10. Consideration to call for a public hearine to consider an ordinance amendine Chapter 3. Section 2 Item I FI of the Monticello Zonine Ordinance. establishine reeulations for the installation of fences. (FP) REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: For corner and double fronting lots, the current fence ordinance appears to unreasonably limit usable yard area by imposing a 15 foot street side setback on all sides abutting a property line for fences exceeding 36 inches in height. The 15 foot setback for tall front yard fences is intended to improve front yard aesthetics and provide for public safety by prohibiting obstructions to sight lines adjacent to driveways. The suggested changes to the fence ordinance will provide a reduced setback of six feet (6') for tall fences on yards other than the front yard. This will add 9 feet to the useable yard area inside a fence on a corner or double fronting lot, while providing a 6' landscaped yard on the outside of the fence to bufTer the fence from the public street. . Along the double fronting lots on School Boulevard and elsewhere around town, there are many existing fences constructed along the rear and side property lines abutting public streets. Those fences have not been observed to be obtrusive or blighting; however, they do not provide for a setback area that will allow landscaping to soiten the appearance toward the public street. It is suggested that Commission Members observe School Boulevard fences between Edmunson Avenue and Fallon Avenue. Over the past several years many homeowners with double fronting lots have chosen to build tall fences toward School Boulevard. The fences are varied and generally attractive. In addition, they appear to be logical, and belonging in the landscape due to the large width of the boulevards. The suggested ordinance change will provide a landscaped area toward the public street to help reduce the wall elTect created by connected tall fences along the street, providing for safer and more aesthetically pleasing fence installations. AL TERNA TIVE ACTIONS 1. Motion to call for a public hearing for an ordinance change amending Chapter 3, Section 2 Item [F] of the Monticello Zoning Ordinance, establishing regulations for the installation of fences be approved. 2. Motion to not call for a public hearing. STAFF RECOMMENDATION . Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommends Alternate "1" above. 1 Planning Commission Agenda-06/0l/04 ....... ....... 11. Public "earine -- Consideration of a request for a Conditional Use Permit within the CCD Zoning District to allow a sign plan to include a monument style building directory sign at the Prairie Professional Center, 118 West 6th Street. Applicant: John Komarek (FP) REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND Section 3-9[E] 3. of the Monticello Sign Ordinance provides that a conditional use permit shall bc issucd to a building containing three or more business uses. The purpose of the section is to provide aesthetic control to signage and to prevent a proliferation of individual signs on buildings with three or more business uses. The ordinance further provides that the City shall encourage the use of single sign boards, placards, or building directory signs. The permit applicant proposes to construct a monument sign utilizing the existing pole structurc from the former pylon sign. The new monument sign would be approximately 12 feet in height and 9 feet 8 inches in width. The total area of sign placards on the monument sign would be approximately 23 square feet. A concrete landscape block planter consistent with the planters constructed on Walnut Street will surround the base of the sign. - The overall area of signs on the monument sign is within the allowable area for pylon signs but in the monument sign format is slightly larger than would otherwise be allowed. As a concession to allow the slightly larger monument sign and take advantage of the existing sign structure, the applicant has indicated that no other signs including wall signs will be erected on the property. The applicant will be required to install address information on the building. - The existing sign poles provide an outline of the size of the proposed monument sign. The scale of the proposed sign appears to be reasonable. Sign materials are aesthetically consistent with the newly remodeled building. AL TERNA TIVE ACTIONS Decision 1: Conditional Use Permit for sign plan to include a monument st~hilding directory sign within the CCD district. I. Motion to recommend to the City Council that the issuance ofthc conditional use permit be approved for the erection of a monument style building directory sign 118 West 6th Street subject to the following conditions: ..... I. 2. The owner of the huilding shall apply for a sign permit and pay all associated fees. No tenant shall be allowed more than one sign on each side of the proposed monument sign. ..,.. . . Planning Commission Agenda-06/01!04 3. No individual business sign board/placard shall exceed twenty-five percent (25%) of the total allowable sign area on the monument sign. 4. In the event that one tenant of the building does not utilize the full allotment or allowable area, the excess may not be granted, traded, sold, or in any other way transferred to another tenant for the purpose of allowing a sign larger than twenty- five percent (25%) of the total allowable area for signs. 5. Any sign that is shared by or is a combination of two or more tenants shall be considen:d as separate signs for square footage allowance and shall meet the requirements thereof. 6_ All signs shall be consistent in design, material, shape, and method or illumination. 2. Motion to recommend to the City Council that the issuance of the conditional use permit be denied for reasons to be determined by the Planning Commission. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends issuance of a conditional use permit for 118 West 6th Street according to Alternative "1" above. SUPPORTING DATA A. B. C. Site Location Map 1 mage of the proposed sign Plan of proposed monument sign ~. v ----- o :/1 A - -,---- . 1:/4 MILE I 1/2 MILE ... / -- /") C , \ '-', \ \ \ _. _/i_ - -- r I _____ 1/ '~ (f {J/l U " - . ....... - RANDY SAW IIKJr/ Ik_lm Avt Nil' ~kl'\IIIUlIl ~IIN.~NnA )\~,2 "/fi:HrlB-21.f2 llB . ------ ~ JoJdl""" Lettering '7 "7 ~ 9"x 86" 77Li { 8"x 84.5" G,do -~6'o 7.5"x BO" 6.25"x 79.25" C ~1e- 8"x 83.75" " :3 . S?--Z-- t:l . I _-=~ . ( - -' ~-~"''''' ~-~ ~~/:;;:>"'-" ~ --- (~ --- ."' - ~--<.:.:-..:~---"---- --, - 36" Paltinum panel 18"x 96" Panels ( 12"x 96" 96" - 5"X 113.75" 116.75 ~~~~)l'- RANDY SAUl II)"irl 1/!I!'IiI, MI 11'!(JXIYi.l,III, MI!\\I\/iV. I Hi') 11'/1)2142 I \C / \ \ \ ""'-. I'" --~1~'= ~~t~r: ~ c-- D~r- .- _ ---,. (~1.1 rJ'C-f ,v- .... ..... Planning Commission Agenda - 05/04/04 12. Public Hearin!! - Consideration of a request for a conditional usc permit for a concept sta!!e planned unit development in a B-3 district. Applicants: Wendy's International, Inc. and Holiday Companies. (NAC) The current request has been withdrawn. Wendy's International and I loliday StationStore Companies previously submitted an application for a CUP for concept stage planned unit development. It has been relayed to staff that an opportunity for joint development with an adjacent parcel is now be available. As such, the applicants have requested that this item be removed from consideration. At this time, it is stairs understanding that applicants may re- submit as part of a new application process. The new submittal will consolidate the former Tom Thumb site with the Mielke site. Staff will provide further information on this project as it becomes available. No action required at this time. . . . Planning Commission Agenda - 6/01/04 13. Public Hearine:: Consideration of a request to amend the buildine: size standards of the R-IA Zonine: District. Applicant: City of Monticello. (NAC) REFERENCE AND BACKGROlJND In working on the Hillside Farm project, the City negotiated a requirement for R-IA homes that would require a minimum above-grade finished square footage of2,200 square feet. The current regulations require at least 1,400 square feet of loundation size, and 2,000 square feet of finished floor area, some of which may be a part of a walk-out or look-out basement space. If the Planning Commission is interested in carrying the above-grade standard over to other R-IA lots, we have prepared a draft amendment that would accomplish this objective. As a general rule, planning staff believes that this issue would not become a concern, but for the unique character of the Hillside Farm plat. This plat was permitted to proceed with R-I sized lots, but with a requirement lor R-l A sized homes. The required home size outgrew the lot dimensions, and the developers suggested that higher valued homes could be built on the smaller lots if they were permitted to reduce the foundation size, but increase the above-grade square footage. The amendment would add some protection from any residual concern there may be that split entry homes would be constructed on (presumably expensive) R-I A lots. But there could be a down side to the concept. The 2,200 (or 2,400) square fiJot above-grade standard really only works if the City permits a reduction in the foundation size for two-story homes. The change could result in a dominance of two- story homes on smaller f()Undations, a change that the City should be comfortable with before making the change in the language. AL TERNA TIVE ACTIONS Decision 1: Amendment to the R-IA Zoning District 1. Motion to recommend approval of an amendment to the R-IA zoning district building sizes, based on a finding that the amendment will add needed flexibility to the building sizes in the district, and wi11lead to achieving the City's goals of higher value housing. 2. Motion to recommend denial of an amendment to the R-IA zoning district building sizes, based on a finding that the current regulations should serve to achieve the City's objectives in higher-valued housing in the district. Planning Commission Agenda - 6/0 I /04 . ST AFF RECOMMENDATION Staff believes that the agreements made with Hillside Farm are probably appropriate, given the unique nature of that project. However, we have some discomfort in changing the requirements at this stage when no true R-IA projects have been implemented as of yet. The amendments are quite new, and only the Hillside Farm project is building houses to the R-IA standard (even as moditled). Carlisle Village has a larger component of true R-IA land. The City should carefully consider whether a change is appropriate at this time. If a change is to be considered, staff has attached a proposed ordinance that would accomplish the objective. SUPPORTING DATA A. Proposed Ordinance . . 2 . . . City of Monticello, Minnesota Wright County Ordinance No. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 3-2 [B] OF THE MONTICELLO CITY CODE, KNOWN AS THE ZONING ORDINANCE, BY PROVIDING FOR The City Council of the City of Monticello hereby ordains: Section 1. Section 3-2 [B]3.e is hereby amended to add the following: 3-2 [B]3.e.1. Notwithstanding the above requirements, in the R- 1A zoning district, single family buildings may be constructed in a two story or modified two story design which have a foundation size of no less than 1,100 square feet, and 2,200 square feet of finished space above grade. For the purposes of meeting the requirements of this section, finished space below grade shall not be counted. Section 2. This Ordinance shall take effect and be In full force from and after its passage and publication. , Mayor ATTEST: , Administrator AYES: NAYS: