Planning Commission Agenda 04-06-1999
e-
.
.
-'---
AGENDA
REGULAR MEETING - MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION
Tuesday, April 6, 1999
Members:
Dick Frie, Robbie Smith, Roy Popilek, Richard Carlson, Rod Dragsten
Council Liaison:
Clint lIerbst
1 . Call to order.
2. Approval of minutes ofthe regular meeting held March 2,1999.
3. Consideration of adding items to the agenda.
4. Citizens comments.
5. Public Hearing - Consideration of a request for a Conditional Use Permit within the 1-2
Zoning District to allow a subdivision and Planned Unit Development for a lot without
public street frontage and CUP to alter the surfacing and curbing materials. Applicant:
Riverside Oil.
6.
Public Hearing - Consideration of a request for a Conditional Use Permit within the CCD
Zoning District to allow a shopping center. Applicant: Amcon Construction.
7. Public I-Iearing - Consideration of a request for a Conditional Use Permit to allow a
convenience gas operation, car wash and restaurant use with drive through window in the
PZ-M Zoning District and variance from the sign provisions for the PZ-M District.
Applicant: MMC Land Company, LLC.
8. Public Hearing - Consideration of a Conditional Use Permit for outdoor storage in an 1-2
zone and consideration of a variance to reduce the five foot (5) setback to the curb to one
foot (I). Applicant: Ebert Construction.
9. Public Hearing - Consideration of amendment to zoning text for floor area and liveable
floor area. Applicant: Zoning Administrator.
10. Public Hearing - Consideration of amendment to City Ordinance Title 10, Chapter 3,
by adding Section 3-6A Grading; and amending Section 3-7 Land Reclamation, and
Section 3-8 Mining. Applicant: Zoning Administrator.
11. Public Hearing - Consideration of rezoning Lots 5-13; Block 2; Hillside Terrace from I-I
to I-I A. Applicant: Zoning Administrator.
12.
Discussion regarding presentation by Planning Commission member to Monticello Area
Chamber of Commerce.
13. Presentation by Kent Kjellberg regarding Mobile Home Park expansion.
.
.
.
Agenda
Planning Commission
4/6/99
14. Consideration of discussion of violations of zoning ordinance regulations - outside
storage and other requirements. Morrell Transfer - SW Comer of Dundas and Fallon
A venue. Applicant: Zoning Administrator.
15. Adjourn
.
.
.
MI NUTES
REGULAR MEETING-MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION
Tuesday, March 2, 1999
Members:
Richard Carlson, Rod Dragsten, Dick Frie, Roy Popilek and Robbie Smith.
Council Liaison: Clint Herbst
Staff: Steve Grittman, Jeff O'Neill and Fred Patch.
1. Chair Frie called the meeting to order at 7 p.m. and declared a quorum present.
2. Consideration of approval of minutes of the regular meeting hcld on February 2. 1999.
and special meeting held on February 8.1999.
ROY POPILEK MOVED AND ROD DRAGS TEN SECONDED THE MOTION TO
APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE FEBRUARY 2, 1999 REGULAR MEETING.
Motion carried with Dick Frie abstaining.
Chair Frie asked for clarification on the minutes for the special meeting of February 8,
1999 as it pertained to the Chadwick/Bohanon property. It was the position of the
MOAA Board that this property should be residential while the Planning Commission felt
it was better suited for light industrial.
ROBBIE SMITH MOVED AND RICHARD CARLSON SECONDED THE MOTION
TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE FEBRUARY 8, 1999 SPECIAL MEETING.
Motion carried with Dick Frie abstaining.
3. Consideration of adding items to the agenda.
Chair Frie asked that Council Liaison Clint Herbst update the Planning Commission on
the MOAA Board action on the following: 1) Gravel pit; 2) Designation of residential
-vs- industrial and 3) Where the MOAA Board is on the land use plan.
Clint Herbst responded that the vote was 4-1 to allow the gravel pit operation on the
Chadwick property to go in at such time as Chelsea Road is in. With no gravel hauling
allowed on County Road 39 or on the township road it is necessary to wait until Chelsea
Road is in. He noted that MOAA Board was unanimous in their designation ofthe gravel
pit site as residential with the side close to the freeway being light industrial. The Gold
Nugget property was determined to be designated industrial and the Bohanon property
was designated as residential. At the present time there is no consensus of the City
Council on the land use plan proposed by the MOAA Board.
-1-
.
.
.
Planning Commission Minutes-3/2/99
Fred Pateh asked that the simple subdivision for Greg Ebert/Russ Martie be added to the
agenda. This was added to the agenda as item # 11.
4. Citizen Comments.
There was no citizen comment.
5.
Continued Public Hearing - Consideration of a request tC)f a Zoning District amendment
from A-O to R-4 to allow the expansion ofKiellberg's West Mobile Home Park.
Steve Grittman gave the staff report reviewing with the Planning Commission the site
plan for the expansion of the park that was submitted by the applicant in response to
comments made at the February Planning Commission meeting. Steve Grittman noted
that an R-4 designation does not require a preliminary plat but does require a site review.
The Planning Commission needs to review the site plan so that it can be passed on to the
MOAA Board for their review prior to annexation. Steve Grittman listed a number of
items that Planning Commission should be aware of. The primary one being a land use
issue. 'rhe Comprehensive Plan calls for this area to be medium to high density housing
(4-8 units per acre). The plan submitted by the applicant for the mobile home park is
more typical of a single family development (3 units per acre) and therefore would be
considered low density.
If the Planning Commission felt that the lot density was acceptable the following design
issues should be reviewed.
1. Access: The staff wanted two additional access points one of which would connect to School
Boulevard. The applicant is asking that only one access point be constructed.
2. Park Dedication: The R-4 district requires a 10% park dedication and does not allow for
cash in lieu of land. The original site plan did not meet this requirement but the applicant
indicated his willingness to work with the City on this point.
3. Pathway Connection: There is a pathway connection from the residential area to the south
into the mobile home park. The staff felt that additional pedestrian access would be
beneficial.
4. Location of School Boulevard: School Boulevard is proposed to extend to T.H. #25 and the
proposed aJ ignment would loop through the corner of the plat. There has also been discussion
of aligning School Boulevard to run north of the plat. Chair Frie asked if the City Engineer
had soil and topography information on the two alignment options.
5. Public Safety Comments: The applicant submitted a summary of police calls that were made
to the mobile home park and how they compared to the number of calls in the City overall.
-2-
.
.
.
.
Planning Commission Minutes-3/2/99
Chair Frie opened the public hearing on the zoning mnendment. Kirk Kjellberg spoke
briefly regarding their request and submitted pictures of the types of housing in the
mobile home park. Jeff O'Neill asked what the typical density is for a mobile home park.
Normally the density would be 5-6 units per acre but in the proposed expansion the
density would be 3 units per acre. Bill Holland 3407 88th Street NE stated that the
pathway referred to by the Planning Commission was not a public pathway but was
located on private property. Mike Quinn, 3485 8gth Street NE noted that there are 200+
homes in the west park, 100+ homes in the east park and a proposal to add approximately
134 additional homes. He was concerned about the traf1ic generated by this
development. Tom Wolfgram, 3424 88th Street raised a question about the proposed
access to the south.
.
Chair Frie then closed the public hearing. Robbie Smith questioned what part of the park
currently is in the City. He was informed that Kjellberg's West has been annexed but the
expansion area has not been annexed. Robbie Smith also asked the amount of the park
land on the south portion of the parcel. Steve Grittman indicated that there was about onc
acre of land but the applicant had indicated that he was willing to acquire additional park
land. Robbie Smith asked about the price of the homes in the existing park. Kirk
Kjellbcrg responded that they ranged in price from $9,000-$45,000. With the lower
dcnsity in the expansion area they would expect to see homes with a price rangc of
$50,000-$75,000. Rod Dragsten asked ifthe developer would bc picking up the cost for
improvements. Steve Grittman indicated that would be the case and pointed out that the
mobile homc park had their own internal collection system for the sewer. Roy Popilek
stated that the City's Comprehensive Plan called for mid-density housing and he did not
feel comfortable with this proposal because it did not comply with the Comprehensive
Plan. Richard Carlson asked how thc existing streets in the west park would tie in with
the streets proposed in the expansion area. Kirk Kjellberg indicated that there were no
plans to improve the existing streets as they were designed to handle the flow from the
expansion area. Chair Frie asked if the Park Commission has had a chance to review the
proposed park land area. Jeff O'Neill indicated the Park Commission has not reviewed
the site plan.
.
Chair Frie statcd that the Comprehensive Plan gives the Planning Commission direction
and provides a guideline. He firmly believes in the purpose of the Comprehensive Plan
and concurred with Roy Popilek that this proposal does not complement the
Comprehensive Plan. Chair Frie felt that an R-2 land use was more appropriate for this
area. Chair Frie also commented on the condition and design of the streets in the existing
park which he felt were inadequate. Chair Frie expressed his concern about the impact
the park would have on the value of the adjacent single family homes and what amount of
tax dollars the park generated. Kent Kjellberg responded that they had designed the
expansion with the belief that less homes and less people would make it more desirable.
He noted that they met with the highway department regarding the access and the
-3-
.
.
.
Planning Commission Minutes-3/2/99
highway department did not express concerns about the access. There was general
discussion on the street design and traffic issues. Kent Kjellberg pointed out that the
streets in the park were 40 feet wide when the ordinance only required a width of24 feet.
In response to the comment about tax revenue generated by the park, Mr. Kjellberg noted
that the park maintained all their own streets including the snow removal, and took care
o[the costs for garbage pickup and street lighting as well. In addition $400,000 has been
committed towards the cost of the sewer.
Chris Scribner, 3456 88th Street NE stated his belief that the bufTer did not provide
adequate screening for the adjacent residential areas. There were additional resident
comments about the traffic generated by the proposed expansion and whether any
expansion should be allowed prior to School Boulevard access being constructed.
CHAIR FRIE MOVED TO RECOMMEND DENIAL OF THE REZONING REQUEST
FOR KJELLBERG'S MOBILE HOME PARK BASED ON THE FINDING THAT
OTHER LAND USES WOULD BE MORE APPROPRIATE FOR THE AREA AND
WOULD MORE CLOSELY CONFORM WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. ROY
POPILEK SECONDED THE MOTION. Motion carried unanimously.
6.
Continued Public Hearing - Consideration of a request [or Conditional Use Permit PUD
and Preliminary Plat - Gold Nugget Development. Inc.
Steve Grittman gave the staffreport summarizing the issues that had been discussed in
previous Planning Commission meetings on this item. The Planning Commission had
tabled this item pending resolution of whether the property should be designated as
residential or industrial. A joint meeting of the City Council and Planning Commission is
scheduled for March 8, 1999 to further discuss the question. The Planning Commission
discussed the position the IDC took that part of the Gold Nugget land should be
designated as commercial/industrial and whether the Mayor took a position on this at the
IDC meeting. The IDC felt that land south of Chelsea Road should be residential and
north of Chelsea Road should be for light industrial.
Chair Frie opened the public hearing. Mike Quinn felt it was ridiculous to put industrial
land that far off the freeway and felt the area should be residential. Horst Graser spoke
to the Planning Commission about some of the issues that were raised at the last meeting
and were addressed in his memo of February 17, 1999. One of the items that was
discussed was the storm water management ponds. Mr. Graser stated that he envisioned
the wetland area as something that would be an amenity to the development. He noted
that the elevation ofthe pond had been changed and it was proposed to include plantings
of native grasses in the area. Jeff O'Neill questioned what assurances the developer could
give to make sure the storm water ponding improvements were implemented. Mr. Graser
indicated they would have a landscape firm do the plantings and maintain them for at
-4-
.
Planning Commission Minutes-3/2/99
least three years. A more detailed landscape plan will be submitted at a later date. Horst
Graser noted that thcre will be entry features that will include plantings as well as signage
identifying the development. Maintenance of the entry monuments was discussed. It is
the intent of Gold Nugget to maintain the plantings for at least 10 years but after that it
was not certain who would be responsible for the entry monuments. Chair Frie closed the
public hearing.
.
Rod Dragsten stated that in Horst Graser's memo on development controls they propose a
range of house values. He indicated that he would prefer to see a square footage
minimum used rather than just a value. Horst Graser said his firm stayed away from
square footage minimums but stated that the homes would exceed the minimum
requirements set forth in the City's ordinance. Roy Popilek asked about the Architectural
Control Committee and how it would work. Mr. Graser responded that the Committee
would be made up of representatives from the firm who would review the applicant's
information and determine whether it met the guidelines. There was some discussion on
outside storage and Mr. Graser stated the restrictive covenants did not address the issue of
recreational vehicles. Chair Frie asked the staff if the design standards set forth in the
February 17th memo complied with city ordinances. It was noted that the Architectural
Control Committee would provide the private effort for enforcement of the restrictive
covenants. The was some additional discussion on when the land use issues with the
MOAA would be resolved and whether the Planning Commission would make a
recommendation at some point in the interim or wait until the land use plan was adopted.
ROD DRAGS TEN MOVED AND ROY POPILEK SECONDED T1IE MOTION TO
RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE PRELIMINARY PLAT AND PUD SUBJECT
TO THE CONDITIONS IN THE STAFF REPORT OF JANUARY 5,1999 AS
FOLLOWS AND THE DEVELOPMENT CONTROLS AS OUTLINED IN THE
FEBRUARY 7,1999 MEMO WITH SQUARE FOOTAGE MINIMUMS TO BE USED
IN LIEU OF HOME VALUES:
.
I. Rezoning of Phase I to R-I, Single Family Residential upon approval of annexation and submission of
final plat.
2. Division of blocks within the Preliminary Plat to meet the maximum 1,320 block length and required
pedestrian access through blocks of more than 800 feet.
3. Verification that all lots meet or exceed the minimum standards of 12,000 square feet in area and 80 feet
in width.
4. Street connections are added to the northwest and southwest portions of the plat to provide greater
traffic dispersal.
5. Submission of a revised plat showing a change to the long parallel street pattern in the southwest portion
of the plat.
6. Additional access is provided to Trunk Highway 25 if approved by MnDot.
7. Consideration is given to the provision of a frontage road connection to the north from the northwest
corner of the plat.
-5-
.
Planning Commission Minutes-3/2/99
8. The street pattern is altered to comply with the standards for street width construction as mentioned in
this report
9. Access is provided to Outlot c.
10. Approval of the landscaped island in Red Pine Way by staff.
II. Park areas are graded and seeded as shown in the Grading Plan.
12. Sidewalks and pathways are constructed in coordination with the development ofthe plat.
13. Pathway is added to the Preliminary Plat along County Road 117 between Red Pine Way and the
northeast comer of the plat.
14. Pathway is added to the Preliminary Plat along 85th Street NE between Red Pine way and the southwest
corner of the plat.
15. Pathway is added to create a parallel pathway connection along Trunk Highway 25, either in the TH 25
right-of-way or within the plat close to TH 25.
16. Submission of a preliminary phasing plan.
17. Additional landscaping is provided along the northern boundary to strengthen and diversify the buffer.
18. ^ landscape plan is provided for Outlots A and C to provide a low maintenance natural wetland
environment.
19. City Engineer approval of grading and utility plans.
20. Consideration of architectural control measures with the objective of limiting monotony in the building
layout.
2]. Submission of additional details for the townhouse portions of the project including building plans and,
where appropriate, intensified landscaping.
.
There was some additional discussion on the merits of using square footage minimums or
home value range. Horst Graser stated that the developer was not in agreement with
items #14 and #15 as they did not feel they could be responsible [or development of
pathways outside their property. Steve Grittman addressed this stating that the least the
City could look at was having the pathways extended to the end of the property. There
was discussion on future connections to the trails.
ROD DRAGS TEN AMENDED HIS MOTION TO STATE THE ISSUE OF 110ME
VALUE RANGE/SQUARE FOOTAGE MINIMUM WOULD BE ADDRESSED BY
THE STAFF AND GOLD NUGGET; THAT ITEMS #14 AND #15 WOULD BE
WORKED OUT BETWEEN THE STAFF AND THE DEVELOPER AND THAT A
DE'fAILED LANDSCAPE PLAN WILL BE SUBMITTED BY TIlE DEVELOPER.
ROY POPILEK SECONDED THE AMENDED MOTION. Motion carried
unanimously.
7. Public Hearing - Consideration of a request for a Conditional Use Penuit PUD and
variance from the lot area per unit standards within the R-3 Zoning District to allow a
subdivision and development of a two family dwelling.
The applicant had requested that this matter be considered at the April meeting.
.
ROBBIE SMITH MOVED AND ROD DRAGS TEN SECONDED THE MOTION TO
CONTINUE THE PUBLIC HEARING ON A REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE
-6-
.
11.
.
.
Planning Commission Minutes-3/2/99
PERMIT PUD AND VARIANCE FROM THE LOT AREA PER UNIT STANDARDS
WITHIN THE R-3 ZONING DISTRICT UNTIL THE APRIL 6, 1999 PLANNING
COMMISSION MEETING. Motion carried unanimously.
Consideration of a request for a Simple Subdivision within the 1-2 Zoning District to
allow the subdivision of an industrial parcel into two lots.
Fred Patch gave the staff report on this item which was considered at the last meeting and
added as agenda item #11. The Planning Commission denied the simple subdivision
request based on finding that it did not meet the setback requirements of the 1-2 district.
Rich Rothstein from Morton Buildings has submitted a revised drawing that would not
rcquire variance in order to develop the parcel. It is proposed that well drilling equipment
would be moved onto the south half of the parcel. The southerly portion of the parcel
would have a gravel surface and the northerly portion would be paved. Since the
Planning Commission had requested that any simple subdivision meet setback
requirements, the applicant was now requesting consideration of request for a simple
subdivision as the redrawn plan met setback requirements. It was the staffs
recommendation that the north/south lot line be kept as straight as possible. The
applicant's drawing showed the lot line jogging out in the arca of the auger equipment
and then jogging back in. The staff felt that thc fewer the jogs in the lot line the less
chance there would be of future problems. It was noted that when the current building is
gone the lot line configuration would remain. Chair Frie noted that the Planning
Commission did not have an opportunity to review the revised plan prior to thc meeting.
There was Icngthy discussion on alternative lot line configurations. The feeling of the
Planning Commission was that the Planning Commission was being asked to bend the
rules to accommodate the fact that the building was placed incorrectly to begin with. The
problem with the development of the property was due to the property owner's error
because he treated the property as a single parcel when placing the structure on it. Greg
Hayes stated that the property owner did not own both parcels at the time the building
was constructed.
ROD DRAGSTEN MOVED AND RICHARD CARLSON SECONDED THE MOTION
TO RECOMMEND ACCEPTANCE OF THE LOT LINE CONFIGURATION
RECOMMENDED BY CITY STAFF WHICH WOULD ALLOW ONE LINE JOG
APPROXIMATEL Y 378 FEET FROM THE NORTH LOT LINE. Motion carried with
Robbie Smith voting in opposition.
8.
Public Hearing - Consideration of a request for an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance to
establish zero lot line subdivision for twin home development.
Steve Grittman presented the staff report. The current zoning ordinance does not provide
for a convenient way to build twin homes on a lot that allows for individual ownership of
-7-
.
.
.
9.
10.
Planning Commission Minutes-3/2/99
the units. The staff was requesting a provision for a zero lot line subdivision where the
twin units and the lots they are situated on could be individually owned. Chair Frie
opened the public hearing. No one was present to speak on the proposed amendment.
Chair Frie then closed the public hearing.
ROBBIE SMITH MOVED AND RICHARD CARLSON SECONDED THE MOTION
TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF AN AMENDMENT' TO THE ZONING
ORDINANCE TO ESTABLISH ZERO LOT LINE SUBDIVISION FOR TWIN HOME
DEVELOPMENT. Motion carried unanimously.
Discussion on five of the most important items to be considered for the North
Anchor/Bridge Park.
Jeff O'Neill submitted a list of the items that were previously discussed by the Planning
Commission. Chair Frie noted that he had been absent when the Planning Commission
set forth their items and that he had prepared a list of items that he felt were priorities. He
will submit these to Jeff O'Neill who will incorporate them in with the list. There was
some discussion on restraining the impulse to do something immediately in the North
Anchor/Bridge Park area just because that is what has been discussed. Good planning
takes time and the City needs to plan this area realizing that the City could change
drastically over the next few years.
Continued discussion on length of terms for Planning Commission Members.
This had been discussed previously by the Planning Commission. Chair Frie asked
Council Liaison, Clint Herbst, ifit was the Council's intent to evaluate all Planning
Commission members each year or only those whose terms were up. Clint Herbst
responded that the Council would be evaluating only those whose terms were up.
CHAIR FRIE MOVED TO HAVE STAGGERED TERMS FOR THE PLANNING
COMMISSION MEMBERS AS FOLLOWS: TWO MEMBERS FOR THREE YEARS,
TWO MEMBERS FOR TWO YEARS AND ONE MEMBER FOR ONE YEAR
EFFECTIVE FOR 1999 WITH DICK FRlE AND ROD DRAGSTEN SERVING
THREE YEAR TERMS; ROY POPILEK AND RICHARD CARLSON SERVING TWO
YEAR TERMS AND ROBBIE SMITH SERVING A ONE YEAR TERM. ROY
POPILEK SECONDED THE MOTION. Motion carried unanimously.
Fred Patch indicated that there are two pieces of property that are moving toward
development and the staff was requesting setting a public hearing to consider the
-8-
.
.
.
Planning Commission Minutes-3/2/99
rezoning of these two areas. One property is located on the north side ofI-94 just to the
east of Fufillment Systems, Inc. and it was suggested that this be rezoned to IlA. The
other parcel is located just to the south of Ruff s Auto and is the north half of the Brennan
property. It is currently in a PZM zone and it is proposed to rezone it to I I A.
ROBBIE SMITH MOVED AND ROD DRAGSTEN SECONDED THE MOTION TO
CONDUCT A PUBLIC HEARING AT THE APRIL 6,1999 PLANNING
COMMISSION MEE'flNG FOR REZONING OF THE PROPERTIES IDENTIFIED
AS LOTS 9-13, BLOCK 2, LAURING HILLSIDE TERRACE AND UNPLATTED
PROPERTY 155-500-104101 AND] 55-500-104103.
ROBBIE SMITH MOVED TO ADJOURN AT 10:30 P.M. AND ROY POPILEK
SECONDED THE MOTION. Motion carried unanimously.
Recording Secretary
-9-
.
.
.
Planning Commission Agenda -04/06/99
5.
Public Hearing - Consideration of a request for a Conditional Use Permit within the 1-2
Zonin~ District to allow a subdivision and Planned Unit Development for a lot without
public street fronta2:e and CUP to alter the surfacin2: and curbing materials.
Applicant: Riverside Oil. (NAC)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
This item is first on the Planning Commission Agenda and also the subject of a special City
Council meeting being held at 7:30 p.m. on the same day. A special meeting of the City
Council will enable the relocation cft()ft to start five days earlier and serve to help keep the
community center project on schedule. Technically, according to the construction contract,
the tanks were to be removed by March 31 st. We need to get the tanks removed as soon as
possible to avoid claims for added expenses associated with the contractor having to work
around the tanks.
Riverside Oil is proposing to purchase a portion ofthe Electro Industries property at 2150
West River Street. The project would divide the south portion of the site, about six acres,
from the north portion which contains the street frontage. The proposed Riverside Oil site
borders 1-94, and would utilize the existing driveways of Elcctro Industries for access via an
easement.
Riverside Oil is proposing this project as a relocation site from its current location in the
downtown area. The community center will require the Riverside Oil property for parking,
necessitating the move. The project sketch site plan consists of two buildings and a service
location for the bulk fuel tanks, as well as a future building pad. The applicant is requesting
a CUP waiver from the curbing and paving requirements as allowed in the 1-2 Zoning
District.
The 1-2 clause allowing the waiver of paving and curbing materials is intended to permit
industrial development to phase in additional site improvements where short-term traffic or
use will not negatively impact the public improvements or the neighborhood. The City
Engineer will need to review the plans to determine that drainage and circulation are
adequately addressed within the development. The Ordinance provides that movable curb
stops may be used in lieu of concrete curbing where additional traffic control is needed. It
would be appropriate to suggest that as expansion occurs on this site, the additional traffic
and intensity of use would trigger the eventual need for compliance with the paving and
curbing standards. Future expansions will require additional City review at which time
paving and curbing will be re-evaluated.
The site will be fully exposed to the freeway along the southwestern boundary. Given the
nature of the use (bulk fuel tanks), and the relatively low level of current improvements to
the site (e.g. paving and curbing), additional landscape screening along the freeway frontage
would be beneficial. The applicant has included a notation on the site plan that a significant
-1-
.
Planning Commission Agenda -04/06/99
amount of grass will be programmed. StatTwould also encourage a planting of trees which
will eventually grow to help buffer the view of the site from the freeway.
One issue relating to future use of this parcel and adjoining development should be raised.
The applicant for this use will be occupying about two acres of the six they are purchasing.
The site in question also abuts a sloping grove of pine trees which divides the subject six acre
parcel in two. The land to the east is zoned R-2, and the east half of the subject site will
more naturally develop as a part of the residential use, due to topography and the pine trees.
Staff has two recommendations in this regard. First, the PUO should ensure the protection
of the pine trees as they create an effective screen between the bulk fuel facility and the
future residential area. Second, the applicant and seller may wish to consider a sale of a
smaller site than six acres. The bulk fuel site appears to fit well on the two acres, including
a significant expansion opportunity. It would be preferable from the City's point of view to
facilitate the transition to residential area by utilizing the slope and the pine trees as a land
use dividing line. A subdivision of land at this time which acknowledges that natural
boundary would be worth considering as a part of this process.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
.
Decision 1: Conditional Use Permit PUD to allow the subdivision of a lot without street
frontage.
1. Motion to recommend approval of the PUD, subject to a requirement that the pine
trees arc retained for future screening and butTering, and that additional landscaping
along the freeway frontage is considered which will help butTer the view of the site
from freeway exposure.
2. Motion to recommend denial of the PUD, based on a finding that a more intensive
use of the site would be possible.
3. Motion to table action on the proposal, subject to additional information.
Decision 2: Conditional Use Permit to allow the modification of paving and curbing
requirements in the 1-2 District.
I. Motion to recommend approval of the CUP, subject to the review of the City
Engineer regarding circulation and drainage, and the notation that future expansion
on the site will require a new City review of curbing and paving requirements.
.
2.
Motion to recommend denial of the CUP, based on a finding that the nature of the
use will justify more extensive paving and curbing improvements.
-2-
.
Planning Commission Agenda -04/06/99
3.
Motion to table action on the CUP, subject to additional information.
C.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of the PUD and the CUP as notcd in the above alternatives.
With the additional tree planting along the freeway boundary, and the preservation of the
pine tree grove, the site should both function well for the applicant, and avoid any significant
visual impacts on surrounding land uses. As noted in the analysis, staff believes that there
is a potential for development of the east portion of this site as a residential use. The
applicant and the seller are encouraged to consider a smaller site, if workable, or a
subdivision arrangement which would facilitate future development of the east portion of the
property.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Exhibit A - Area Location
Exhibit B - Site Plan Sketch
.
.
-3-
12
SITE ~
.
~
.
5/\
EXHIBIT A - AREA LOCATION
, '
BULK TANK RELOCATION SITE PLAN
..
.
. -r-'\=::.~ 3~~ ~ 4- '--- r - " 1\.
-- -- 1
. ~ --~-.. _.._=_~B'2'1-J..
, i 'g6=:J "'~~t~,-'
I III i',
, I . \ I.
. ,
. '
~. .'~
. -;
2C.. N). ;"
~ '\I-~'
,. - .....,....... '
. .' '0
co
C'/
o
~
'" I
I'" '
-
".'" ".
i'.
- .-
'\
\ .
,
~
... ----.."
ll)
<:rl
- .~''''. .~~'.I . ...!~~r;/ /~7 '7' 7r':
/ "t~ I I ~/. ,-.....
\;\ ;. ') / I \,' CD
~_' ~:, i," ~/ ./;" ~..:' ':, '[ ~
~ " //k/~ / / / o'
/ / I .\)
_ BU~, TiNK RE ~CATIPN ~'T7E . ......., .
. '/ . 1/' / ,/ /
~ .. (. ,.
- . -' I
, /
,1/' ,i / I
.j' ii, ,
~'Y~ '<z~>/://'
'\'/, /
I !
'. ../
" ,
/. '
',.
I-
.
~
EXHIBIT B - SIT
I ~/?-
LAN SKETCH I
'"
,....
.-
4....
.
.
.
Planning Commission Agenda -04/06/99
6.
Public Hearing - Consideration of a request for a Conditional Use Permit within the
CCD Zonin!! District to allow a shoppin!! center. Applicant: Amcon Construction.
(NAC)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
Amcon Construction has applied for a Conditional Use Permit to develop a convenience
shopping center in the CCD District at the northwest corner of 7th and Locust. The project
would consist of a 10,292 square foot retail building with space for at least Il)LLr individual
tenants. There is multiple family residential to the west, some residential to the north, and
other commercial uses surrounding the remainder of the property.
Shopping centers arc conditional uses in the CCD, subject to the provisions of the City's
downtown revital ization plan. Retai I uses arc an appropriate use for the proposed site under
the downtown plan. As a commercial site in the CCO which is one block away from Walnut,
the main downtown street, the site should be designed in such a way as to be consistent with
the downtown development pattern and be sensitive to adjoining residential areas. The
proposed site plan sets the building to the back of the property, with parking in front toward
Locust, and to the side, toward 7th Street. It also includes development of a buffer yard
between uses.
As an alternati ve design (Exhibit D), it would appear to be possible to move the building out
toward Locust, and still accommodate some front and side parking areas. The applicant has
indicated that they would not be able to lease the retail space without the site design they
have proposed. Although the revitalization plan does not prohibit it, buildings with parking
lots in front are strongly discouraged as being exclusively auto-oriented, and out of character
with the intent of the downtown revitalization effort. Pedestrian access and buildings with
compatible character are central to the downtown planning concepts adopted by the City.
However. this site is located in a "transition area" according to the Plan which requires
sensitivity to nearby residential uses. The alternative design would force parking adjacent
to residential which may be a poor trade-off for moving the building to the front.
The City Planner has prepared an alternative (Exhibit D) which develops 50% of the Locust
Street frontage, and puts more building front toward 7th Street. The square footage is
approximately the same as the developer's concept. While this plan alters the site planning
concept significantly, it incorporates a number of changes that should be made to any site
design, regardless of the final layout. These include:
~ Relocation of the 7th Street access point farther from the Locust Street intersection.
~ Elimination of the non-parallel parking aisle arrangement.
~ Placement of the trash enclosure in an area which is less visible from the street.
~ Reduction in front yard paving area.
~ Improved circulation through the addition of one access point on Locust.
-4-
.
Planning Commission Agenda -04/06/99
The D AT has recommended that the developer revise certain aspects of the bui ldi ng facade
and revise the circulation pattern as shown in Exhibit E. DA T has not indicated a preference
for a building moved to the front line of the parcel. It is their view that priority should be
given to keeping cars to the street side of development thereby protecting residential to the
West and North.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. Motion to recommend approval of the Conditional Use Permit for a shopping center
in the CCD as presented by the applicant, subject to a revision recommended by the
DA T as described in Exhibit E. The developer support the DA T design (Exhibit E).
2. Motion to recommend approval ofthe Conditional Use Permit for a shopping center
in the CCD as amended in the Planner's Alternative D.
3. Motion to recommend denial of the Conditional Use permit for a shopping center,
based on a finding that the building is inconsistent with the intent of the Downtown
Revitalization Plan.
.
4.
Motion to table action on the CUP, subject to the submission of additional
information.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDA TIO}{:
Staff recommends a revision to the site plan, following the recommendation by the DAT
(Exhibit E).
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Exhibit A - Site Location
Exhibit B - Applicant's Site Plan
Exhibit C - Building Elevations
Exhibit D - Planner Site Plan Alternative
Exhibit E - DA T Site Plan Alternative
Exhibit F - Comprehensive Plan Excerpts
.
-5-
.
.
.
B3
No,
\0/\
SITE LOCATION
EXHIBIT A - _
.
SITE DATA
-- "'lUZ>l!l7Sl1O!(l'
!III: ....
~IV.
(..oI.oD)
"'.5.1.
p:::,
I .~~ lIP;W._ "'.5.1./=.
~ .......................' --I(J).OQ
~r-............ ............~..... =:::IIUlPO<U.
Ie .................................... -"';:-"'~
........... ......
,-" I ~. . ~
I
I
I
I i
I .
- ....
-~
." lP'C:I;S
SI lP'C:I;S
llIlP'C:1;S
ZlP'C:I;S
PROPOSED RETAIL /
6UILDINQ
10,2<1;2 S.F.
/
. /
I /
i I
I /
/
/
/
~
,
~
......
............-
1~h STREET
.
-~
lv~--
@
SITE PLAN
10 0 ":30 ...,
EXHIBIT B ~ APPLICANT'S SITE PLAN
~ ih~ln I il'!!11 rn
~ ~ 511 ~ h""I,.
tt"lll <f.l<El~~4J<EI<f]<EI~'4I!' !ilil
O. --~
V.l083NNlVt 'OT13Ol1.NOri
""'11.38 1.3381.8 1.8nOO.., i I
<l::IO:l 0NlCJ'1lnS "'1lV ~ Cl38OdOl::Kl
l!:
.. C') iI
wI F
! <(
..
~~ zc, <>
E B ~ ~ .~
~~ ~~
Cii ~
..J
W ~ W
~ ~
w
-':2 "-'':2 ....':2
.
I
I
E
.
E
I~ I
8 B~S il~
! I hI ;~
Ilu GII~I S ~i
dg:333H i~i
~~
<'
~~
w
~
~
....':2
EXHIBIT C - BUILDING ELEVATIONS
.
.
\ 1 \ 1
&.'
V\
!
-...j
7~ ~r.
.
\e/~
EXHIBIT 0 PLANNER'S SITE PLAN ALTERNATIVE
.
~)
i
~
I
I
/
/
/
.
n
I I
II , I ~f
I ~ .I~
LEllII
iJ
~
I,RJli:lr&
"'111' ~
. 1,1 ..
: ~ ,
Ii"
. . I
. I
-..
- .. .... ,;c
I I a I "J"
---
---
----
\q /5"
rn ..11' .. r;.1>l'i" r;.l'i"
. 1!lII'O'IIIIIIIIII
;; fl I
.' :g 1M '
h. iii _
.
z:..... :! l:<-< z:~
I
i ~ ~ m
~ i
m m
ii~ Ii! :1
~~ ~i
~; ~
0. q,
, , i
:~ I
, ,
,
, '
:11,11'1" "
.......... , "
. ~ II I I
--
~
z:..,
S
- ~ " -,
~a
~
Iii i I' ii',
I. I I
I I I\A
\Q/'f
EXHIBIT E - DAT SITE PLAN ALTERNATIVE (2 of 3)
It~ijD ~~;;.~~ RETAIL w. i!
. ~ ~ ....JE8OTA
J J J I, 5 I I
~ I ~ I I I I I
I I I J
i I i
I I
I
I
I
.
tleq .i lJo9-9-9-llo>(;J>~9>-~[J> rd.f' .~
f
Ii .fl n~!U
Ii"P!
-.:--
.
~)
~
~
~....:
. .
'.
.
.
{' 1 \ "
I ~
I I I
I
-- -f
I I
I
I.
I 4-1 i~1 ( ('
I I I I
I I I I
~iIi~
~
- f- - --1-- - -I - +- --
I I I ,I
I 1 I I
., I 1/
./ ,I
/
to /1
EXHIBIT E - DATE SITE PLAN ALTERNATIVE (3 of 3)
~ ~~~Dl~~~s7.;';; RETAIL rn
it ~ MONTlCELLO. _ElIOT'"
1~li Ii P>P>~P> rrhf' i~
II · II I"'ll'ltll,
,..r U!!{I
dnlll
.... JII
.~ ....-......---....---
-
~""~--.....-.--""...........-~'~
.,
"
-~
~The plan identifies several basic directions for the design of the downtown and
j riverfront:
.~
Boundaries
In this plan downtown is bounded by the Mississippi River on the
north and Interstate 94 on the south. It generally extends one block
west of Walnut Street and one block east of Pine Street. Areas just
beyond this boundary are considered transition zones, providing a
buffer at the edge of downtown and protecting the existing neighbor-
hoods.
Pedestrian Core
The plan suggests that the downtown is oriented around a pedestrian
core - a zone in which people can move freely to various destinations
without their cars. By following this strategy we can achieve a goal of
"parking once and shopping twice," a critical element of reducing traf-
fic in downtown and encouraging the activity of people on the street.
An average adult can walk about one-quarter mile in five minutes; if a
five-minute walk radius is centered over the downtown area, this
would be the pedestrian core.
Transition Areas
Areas at the periphery of downtown are some of the most fragile in the
area. especially areas oriented to single family uses. As the downtown
is revitalized, the potential for traffic encroaching into neighborhoods
increases. along with noise. lights and other activities that can degrade
a residential environment. The plan stresses the creation of transition
zones at the edges of downtown to yield stability at the edge. Most
often. stability can be created by a less intense commercial or office
use (a use that generates relatively few visits on a typical day such as
an insurance agency or a dental office), or with a more intense residen.
tial use (a rowhouse or small apartment building). To achieve this kind
of use and the associated stability, some existing homes may be elimi-
nated or the use of the home changed.
Downtown Gateways
"*
'. It is important for a person to know that they have entered downtown
Monticello; it recognizes that this area is the heart of the community
and a special place. Entering downtown via Pine Street offers great
long term opportunities for marking downtown; the bridges at the river
and the interstate could be far more significant than they arc today and
might provide an introduction to downtown in a more dramatic way.
· Equally important is the entry to downtown from Broadway. The plan
suggests that the character of Broadway changes at the point where
one enters downtown. providing another opportunity for a gateway to
1 downtown.
1
. Each gateway should be developed around a consistent theme. The
plan suggests a form that is reminiscent of the major forces that have
/ Pit} fl
urI'f J-
eTe ~( f
*'
\o~t
A New ',;dge :L
Revitalizing Montlcello's Downtown and Riverfront ~
PaSt 3.-15
EXHIBIT F
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN EXCERPTS
"Ii.
- ,~,.,..--....-'-,...,.....'.'-;""'"
"
/flAP /:e )
The plan envisions eleven districts in downtown, each with varying targets for
use and character:
-I
'.
-,
\
Riverfront
Specialty retail, eating establishments, lodging, entertainment, multi-
family residential, office; upper level residential or office; two or three
story buildings; river orientation; emphasis on public areas surround-
ing buildings (rather than parking lots)
,
;
~
Broadway: Downtown
Small and mid-sized retail, specialty retail, personal and business ser-
vices, eating establishments, lodging, enteltainment and office; upper
level residential or office; two story buildings; orientation to Broadway
Broadway: East and West
Single family residential; strong emphasis on restoration of existing
older homes
"
"
Walnut
Small and mid-sized retail, personal and business services, eating
establishments and office; upper level residential or office; two story
buildings encouraged; orientation to Walnut Street
Pine
Mid-sized retail and office; two story buildings encouraged; orienta-
tion to Pine Street
Seventh Street
Larger scale retail and service, auto-oriented retail and service, drive-
through restaurants, lodging; orientation to Seventh Street
ptoll
C 6 tl'1 <t
t.T <,",elf
Transitional J!
· Mix of small office, personal and business services, multi-family resi- r
dential and single family homes
~
Neighborhood
Predominantly single family homes following existing neighborhood
patterns
t
-~
Industrial
· Sunny Fresh operations only; transition to CiviclInstitutional, Walnut
or Transitional if Sunny Fresh ceases operation
~\
Park and Open Space
Parks, cemeteries, outdoor public spaces and gathering spaces
-~
Civic/institutional
Municipal and county facilities (except maintenance operations), pub-
lic meeting spaces, community activity spaces, educational facilities,
churches, outdoor gathering spaces
.,
,",,~
~/q
A New .,;dge :I.
Revitalizing Montlcello'r DOWTltOWTl and Riverfront ~",;.
Pagt 3: 1.
"""'l.
"
"::'j
~\~,
,-
_7 -,
..
?\0Y'
r orl'~ .i1~<1
l/ ?rfL
V Districts
organized to create a sense of pieces fitting exactly together. The picture that
results in a built downtown is one that is beautiful and one that functions well
for the community.
Downtown Monticello will always be a mix of uses, ages and patterns, and the
plan recognizes a series of districts formed around basic uses and character.
Therefore, a building near the river will have a character different from a
building near the interstate. A uniform building character across the entire
downtown will never be achieved and would likely be undesirable for tenants
and the community. Within districts, however, buildings would have a strong
relationship to one another and a consistent relationship to the streets of the
district.
-
Ie, Dtnrict
_ ....rIWRONT
E ,AO"'OWA,Y: :c:w~rowP-l
~ 'fll.O"D~"Y: I.ASfAND
~wUt
eJ W"L.NUT
.@'~I!
EE:Jj nVlNTH IT1'IIU
(ll2) =
o N,lCa"'IO"MOOg
~ ~DU,tllll"\.
.,~
........' ~..~~ ',.'..:~t ~..1Il1'; AND C'!H UACI
-A III CIV.,....."'...O... ill,..
~ , 1'", 1'. i ! I
: 'r'1'~
~ Land use; In downtown will be defined according to eleven dls1rtcts, with compatibility and character being the pr1mary consideration lor each designation.
::1\
-' A New Bridge
:::: RfVIl,lllIng Mont/(f!llo's Downtown and Riverfront
;11
~J
~,-
.
.
.
Planning Commission Agenda - 04/06/99
7.
Public Hcaring - Consideration of a request for a Conditional tJse Permit to allow a
convenience l!as ooeration, car wash and restaurant use with drive throul!h window in
the PZ-M Zonin!,: District and variance from the si~n provisions for the PZ-M District.
Apnlicant: MMC Land Companv LLC. (NAC)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
The applicant is proposing to construct a convenience gas and restaurant use at the southeast
quadrant ofTH 75 and CSAH 39. The proposed use also includes a drive through window
with the restaurant use and a detached mechanical car wash. Retail commercial activities
such as a convenience gas station is allowed as a conditional use in the PZ-M District by
CUP under Section 1 0-8[E] as it is a permitted use in the B-2 District. The car wash facility
and restaurant use with drive through services are also al10wed by CUP in the PZ-M District.
Conditional Use Permit
Performance Standards. Stmldards for development in the PZ-M District are to be based
upon those required for a particular use in a similar zoning district where the use is allowed.
Convenience gas stores are a permitted use in the B-2 District, whereas convenience
restaurants and mechanical car washes are conditional uses in the B-3 District. For the
purpose of evaluating this application, the standards of the B-3 District wi 11 be utilized given
the highway oriented nature ofthe project.
Convenience gas uses in the B-3 District require a minimum lot size of22,500 square feet
with a minimum 150 foot lot width and 130 foot lot depth. Setbacks in the B-3 District are;
30 feet for the front yard; 20 feet for the side yard; and 30 feet on the rear yard. The subject
site satisfies al1 of these minimum requirements.
Access. The site will have right-in/right-out access from TH 75 via a private street shared
with the property to the south. As part ofthis access, the applicant is required to extend the
median on TH 75 farther south to ensure no left tuming movements. Access to the site is
also available from the public street to be extended south from CSAH 39.
Parking. Based upon the parking requirements for retail stores and restaurants outlined in
Section 3-5[H], a total of 66 off-street parking stalls are required. The submitted site plan
indicates that 35 parking stalls are provided on site, of which 3 are disability accessible. The
parking is deficient by 31 stalls. Also, no provision has been made for semi-tractor trailer
parking. Given that the facility sells diesel fuel a certain mnount ofthis type oftraffic should
be anticipated. Please note the operator's intent is to service local community needs (diesel
pick-up, delivery vans) and not on the road semi-tractor trailers. It is his view that there will
be but a limited mnount of semi-tractor trailer use. There is a lot of excess surface space on
the site that is not designated for circulation or parking that could be used to meet the stall
requirement with revisions to the site plan.
-6-
.
Planning Commission Agenda - 04/06/99
There are a number of additional issues with the layout of the site and circulation. First, the
location of the canopy is such that it intrudes into the drive aisle where cars exiting the drive
through would be expected to move out ofthe site. The proximity of the pump island to the
parking area does not allow sufficient space for two-way traffic when there is a car at the
pump. There should be a direct drive aisle from the west end of the drive though to the
south exit with islands at the end of the parking stalls for separation. Second, on-site
circulation for semi-tractor trailers, including the fuel supply or delivery trucks, would be
difficult. The site plan will require extensive revisions to address these issues because they
elTect the location of the pump islands, canopy and access designs.
Stacking space for the ear wash and restaurant drive through is also an issue. The car wash
facility has sufficient space to stack approximately seven cars, which should usually be
sufficient for that use. The restaurant drive through, however, has space to stack only one
car behind the ordering board. Any more than one car stacked at the restaurant drive
through, as is likely to occur during peak hours, will extend into the drive aisle or interfere
with the parking adjacent to the east side of the building. This is of particular concern where
use of the car wash may interfere with restaurant drive-through traHic. The two drive
through stacking areas are not well-delineated.
.
Finally, the submitted site plan docs not indicate concrete curb and gutter around all parking,
circulation or loading areas as required. The site plan must be revised to include the required
concrete curb and gutter.
Loading. The submitted site plan does not include any provision for loading areas that are
separated from the drive aisles. Additionally, the location of the gate ofthe trash facilities
is inconsistent between the site plan and the building elevations. The location of the trash
access on the north side of the building abuts the drive though aisle. This location is
problematic in that trash pick-up could interfere with operation of the drive though. The
location ofthe gates accessing the trash area on the building elevations is on the east side of
the building, across from a diagonal parking stall. Given the circulation issues noted above,
the lack of designated loading areas and location of trash storage facilities raises further
concern for on-site congestion.
Landscaping. The landscaping plan proposed for the site indicates general plant groupings
at the corners of the site and adjacent to the carwash facility. Additional landscaping is
provided along the private drive and medians in the parking lot. The amount of plantings
should be increased along the north property line to better screen the stacking area for the
carwash.
.
Building Height. No specific building height limit is imposed in the PZ-M District, except
that the most similar District requirement is to be applied. Using the B-3 District again, the
height is limited to two stories. The proposed building is one story with a raised loft area at
-7-
.
Planning Commission Agenda - 04106/99
the center of the structure, which is within the two story guideline.
Building Materials. The building elevations do not specify the building materials and
colors to be used for the principal building and car wash. The applicant has not provided any
plans for the proposed canopy.
Lighting Plan. No plan for site lighting has been provided by the applicant. A lighting plan
that indicates the location and type of all site lighting, including any lighting installed on the
canopy should be prepared and submitted for review.
Grading, Drainage and Utility Plans. All grading, drainage and utility issues are subject
to review and approval of the City Engineer.
Variance
.
The applicant is requesting a variance from Section 3-9 to allow the signs on the property to
conform to the requirements of the B-3 District versus that ofthe PM-Z District. Uses in
the PM-Z District are allowed one free standing sign and one wall sign or two wall signs.
The total area of signage allowed is equal to one square foot of signage per one foot of
frontage, up to 100 square feet. Under the B-3 District provisions, uses are allowed one
freestanding sign plus one wall sign for each street frontage up to 100 square feet total area.
The sign plan provided by the applicant is a rough sketch that is inadequate for evaluation.
No plans have been provided for directional signs or signs associated with the car wash
facility for evaluation. However, the sketch plan provided by the applicant includes wall
signage on three sides of the building. The property has street frontage on only two public
streets. As sueh, the proposed sign plan does not conform to either the PZ-M District or B-3
District standards. This size of the proposed pylon sign is dependent upon the speed limit
allowed on TH 75 adjacent to the property.
The Planning Commission may approve a variance only if it iinds that there are unique
physical characteristics of the site, which are not economic in nature, that make compliance
with the Ordinance provisions unreasonable. The subject site is not unlike any other site
with frontage on a major traffic route and an access road. Further, the Planning Commission
and City Council specifically considered the appropriate zoning designation for this site,
including PZ-M and B-3 Districts. The City Council determined that the PZ-M District was
most appropriate for the subject site and surrounding properties. Granting variance without
a demonstrated hardship would circumvent the process and decision to apply PZ-M District
zoning to this site.
.
-8-
.
Planning Commission Agenda - 04/06/99
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
Decision 1: Consideration of a Conditional Use Permit to allow a convenience gas
store and restaurant use in the PZ-M District.
1. Motion to recommend approval of the CUP, subject to the conditions outlined in
Exhibit Z.
2. Motion to recommend denial ofthe CUP, based upona finding that the proposed use
is inconsistent with the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance.
3. Motion to table action on the CUP, subject to substantial revisions to the submitted
site, building and signage plans to address the concerns outlined in the staff report
and the submission of additional information.
Decision 2: Consideration of a Variance from the sign area limits in the PZ-M
District
.
1.
Motion to approve the variance, based on specific findings that the criteria for
approval of a variance, including hardship and lack of reasonable use, have been
satisfied.
2. Motion to deny the variance, based upon a finding that the criteria for variance,
including hardship and lack of reasonable use, have not been met and that approval
ofthe variance would be contrary to the intent of the Zoning Ordinance.
3. Motion to table action on the variance, subject to the submission of additional
information.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
.
The site plan submitted for the proposed convenience gas/restaurant use has a number of
issues related to the overall layout of the project. Specific concerns focus on providing
required parking stalls, the design of drive aisles relative to the canopy location, stacking
space for the drive through use, information on building materials, site lighting, the need for
additional landscaping and a signage plan suitable for evaluation. Because these issues will
require extensive revisions to the current site plan and the submission of additional materials,
staff recommends that the Planning Commission table this application to allow the applicant
an opportunity to address the concerns outlined above. Ifthe Planning Commission believes
that the project is acceptable, the conditions outlined in Exhibit Z should be incorporated into
any approval motion. Please note that the applicant received this report well in advance of
-9-
.
Planning Commission Agenda - 04/06/99
the meeting which has allowed time to prepare or address modifications to be presented at
the meeting. It, therefore, may be possible to grant approval contingent on making changes
to the plan.
Staff does not recommend approval of the variance. The City considered zoning the subject
site to B-3 District, which would have allowed for the proposed signage without variance.
The City determined that the PZM District was the most appropriate district to regulated the
development and use ofthis parcel. Most importantly, the applicant has not demonstrated
any physical hardship or a lack of reasonable use under the regulations on signs in the PZM
District. If the Planning Commission believes that the proposed signage is appropriate, an
amendment to revise the sign provisions would be the correct course of action. l-Iowever,
staff does not recommend pursuit of such an amendment.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
.
Exhibit A - Site Location
Exhibit B - Site Plan
Exhibit C - Preliminary Elevations
Exhibit D - Preliminary Floor Plan
Exhibit E - Landscape Plan
Exhibit F - Signage Plan
Exhibit Z - Recommended Conditions of Approval
.
-10-
...
'"
~-~-_ CITy
118. ... ,\~ "'___,LIMITS
~ f{:):lJJ""' -
, .~' .'":/:7:-;:;' 'I.I~.~ 1~., . "
. . ~l.l~ . . w ... '"
..1; · ..' . ... -- - .,..,.
r~ R --
~ 9 r~ - -t.
~n L
O.~" mlJ) ~~1~ \ \' I \-:..J m'"~_:L
\" ~ "" ~ ..iff hn -- Y
s "'~ISITE ~1l1J~ Ii 6"i-5: 'I 11__ "'"
~ '~"-
~,.~~
· ):J~F ~ r ; ~I( ~....~
II rJf;I,'" 'n~
,r 01-....1.\ ~\, .." '\r 1\ ,
· .:, ll~':1I II..... ~ \..; ~
· .,:; oj..t"\'l.l- '\... ~ /?
-wuABI. ... f'I6d 1.7 'lil 1ni*/,' ~ ~
.'---'-(Tl' t.' -rrr'7' If' ~
~ · J ~ --,'" '. \:':lII
--....; ~ .l!I" "\.1.. /- -.
~ .... "EElI"IY. -;-::r" .A ;r~
I ~~",7 ~ .: ~\'
L-I "\ .. ~ ..,.\:) -: '\l'2~. ~
~ " ....,r-o: ~ "
~ '\';r:: j.,.... /' , · ,,,.,.
~ w, ,-y...' '
~.\. / -1 r-r.::
n - ~\ -;. ~\\' .!'
AD ~~ T-
n 1 ~^-
~~'/~~ '"'
. . ~'
~r' ~,
'k~ ~!!.. ~. 'l'~, ,
~~T
............. ",' '" ~
)S
I 1
'i J O.
~
.
SCHOOL
....
~.
~
~<::>
g..<?
~f5S
R1
~~
, ;:r io\ \.~\..~ ~\"l'1.{
._ m.. ~'I'M".~ --/
I" J..!-I\,T,~ ~ ~ f.r.El. . L -
r;+;- 'l' b/o\'. .f:\., ".- ~ r;::1~ ' -
~l-J ~ t ' · ...], " 0\+ ,~~ ";...[''''\ ~ -
'.' .. ';0, r. . '~ ' PI. r.:r, ~.~ :::..
, ~ ".".
...., '.... .1;"1 . .':'Il ' r'TW'". I ~ ~ ,\ . l- , .......
~ ~ .'t. ~.~ ~ 1111 r ~w, 1 \ ~ l.l:l.
'.\",' 'I't.rm r-.. --~ -:...< r
. :\"r~" 1.\.\.' C''' ~7:r.J\1I..1 I
.
:\
f\/\
EXHIBIT A
~;Ij J f,111 ~
I 1,'
,hi'
4'''' f .
iIIU H,t ~
.... e:ll!
CI. .\ h'
~
~
0.:
e-..
::-
~
~
:;"
~
. -- .---...............
---
-.........-
--- "-." ""
-'--.....-
, '. '. . ~.~""..... I .................. ~'.
-f,r:!P.~'/ "'~ '" -- ""
:.::.~r-'",," ~', ~I ~'"
.~ ."; ,~....... ..~.. ./' ...........
-" ~,: ~,~",,;" '''~/~
/ ...... ~'. ~ .
I ,'I'-.~'.... . -'-
f .......' -J,.,,>.....'...... ~ ,~..........~. . ..;')!c.".'to.
I '-:::. /,"- '':-;;... f-~.f7-,-{./',.in Jl~""',
r..:., '" ,. ,~..... "r<l., ~~~,. ;.
,- u__ ---'-l'I>-;, , _ '1... ':.. '-:::...1 , ~.~"
.... ,}~.'I~..,.;"_~p~".~:.t...t. . ...~_. ......J ...,...."' ~.....tt.l~ ......--.
I 4'"'' 1O.lIl, "'~!I"F.' - ,,~... '" . ',,- 'to. "-,
, "" 11'11 " , t.. ", " ;. -......, ______
,. , "If' .~; .............'. \ "'~"
y-., .t;~~~' t~~""7,.
(' 8"~~.t~ I "'1lr--.o.'
j L 0 ~ :' JI :i '::~' l]'rrlf i :,-.,J t '''jl
, IJ_{_1 I" !i!: i~ f r';'f
~ I ~ ~\ IT6! I f 1;/
; ;~: Ii j i, 9 i I I: ~ ~ I
.. ~ Iii 't--li : Il~. EI :~!
n.: J ; I ':1\ it1
, -LIl :. f--- O"! ~ , I" ,. - ;:" 'I )
___U.: i I' : I ~
I I , 'I'!
! I ' -I- n' " "I
.1 ---j--- I
~1~-":-:,,~,)~~'
.,'. '"
J l ,,,t'
..,1",:11 ,....11,.......1\ 1 '
,~,.l) / ~
~- .:. - w -jL;.;
(lll~P~.I"ll.lnl /" \ I"'; "".':
':-:'"'Ln':''L'I'".tl~;-''''I'' , :~:',"',~'fl'"
~11:t~ ! l'frI11--I~:-.;:!.:_!
ii tL. I! I I I 1i;;1' I, '( I;.' ...' 1 1.!" :: ,( ,.
_u__.Jj:L.:"L".LL__--'~~---' ,.. ;/" :,'
\~,
~\ <
:.'i
1J..
~
!,tJ
~i
. _~ n
. r ] .).
"("!i'--, ,
"
,,4:.(1
~--"~---'--
C'I
J,.,
.. "- '
1"11;<:1...4'\0.1__'......
,
'r'....."oWjIO........)
'0:\1
')...M/-I
C]/v
]1.\/1 ~~~
>.
,I, n: "t'
.Y f I.J ~
~~ h ~ s
~u l"'1 t: ,!
. R !or'
III t: ;L'!
,,'{ II ~.~
;r. II: b U
.-:l '" ..~. t.=!
h' ,r, ~"'J\~
'<11 "i ~.. F. ~ ~
.;! l;1 {,I'i (t III 1./)
.,
~1.
"{V
~~
~:
!. I,
J
l)._
'--,1 I
I
,~
I,',
I
/,.1 j'\!r'iCO
i -,"" I
III
I-
m
i:
><
...
'l'?
EXHIBIT B: SITE PLAN
hLJO'~ ",
f L___ D
LJOT5
~D!_~,' ~
L___J ':
0Joe] ~
~D-
~D
I '
-- '
-c
___ '",;,-'i".';. II""' ,-""
~I
-'
, I
.'~. I
.,.;:~ I
.....::.;'
:::;:1
~I
,
;-~ 1
.....1'
[::'. I
~:~'.-i i
--. .
" I
I
(:
~
..
~
'1/3
EXHIBIT C-1:
PRELIMINARY ELEVATIONS
~~i! ~
. Z I'
~:f
:!ll
11111, J ::i "
;. ',' ~ " - - --. 'Iil'
'!!il ; '" !l:'!j
,,' I ! ' "I"
'l:j!i I ~l 'l.l)
f h" . .' I ',.j;
~-'-' __.__.~__ ." _ . _n ._....._._..__
::~:;!~~~~:~L~.~.:_~~,~::l.': .....~.:.
u
....
ii
!;1. "!~J:..!.:.I:_,'!~__._ ~
IlJ
,..r;( 'i! \....- .! i "1
f/]
.....
-<;
~
E-;
"7
,,'
.......
kl
td
~
--.
I.'.....
~
n::
-:or I
- I
u
~,I
'"VI
~-:~ ;
;:,i
:::::
-'" I
----: .
1--=1 ;
k~ i
I,
ct:1
Q..i
!
,\/~
EXHIBIT C-2: PRELIMINARY ELEVATIONS
.
'" --a, _..,_ -.,-..,...,.....,;.. .__
,,0 IV-
,,8
:s
g
z
j' I-'-,...."'T-r--,'-,..-I-'--...,-.--
. " I
'", ~ - - - - - - -
/' '\ ""
,< '\ //
.( '\ //
( '\. /,,""
"
S)
:y (;11
!
S 0]
t
ii ~
~~
. ill
i~
~
a
:z
:1
, n..
S)::l
I
- W
CSl>
'>t"iSi
a
\-
:z
:J
<:
D.l
\-
\!\
W
D.l
.t. ,Sl
.
l\/~
EXHIBIT 0: PRELIMINARY FLOOR PLAN
. t t l.ll! J . f~ -- _'.'V......"'~"tI':l
iil I t.'~ .I.~~ -..' ..~.;; -~~.:~~L_ ___~.-..---.___~.,~,. w
il'l , 'illt, I-
3. {';:I. , ...~. ~.~--............._--'_1!.1!:J'lJ___.~..............._______.._,. -........... CD
, ,J:I ! I II~ Nljl ,." _ _.. _..._... ":i'!l~ ,Q.".I,:'!B?.!J!:IC2!:L~_"__ ~
\ 1.1 )(
, I...~ w
. ..1I ' NV'ld ;:JdV7$GNVl
...... ......
Q. I".. "1.. .-.~.. "
", I """Ii" ", "'. ' ....
' '-!L J '..'''~.:..... "
, t --f--'~. _. _'. -I ............
I ';.......,' 'tI.,!~ ..~.
'{ l"--~~<i{ ',""'..,,,
: II \, '" ih I . .......
i" ..,:~,CI'k '.' '~,J ~.;..' ~" ,. '",
, (", \, ,\ ):=" i C:-/"J ;>.",' . :. :,; '''''':''./~~~'''( ~;~:~'!:.~;_~.) r.,"
j,.;.:;... ,,-,.1, .. "<(J-, , , : ' ~,,,;;n,, --.. '"
1,/ (.. t'!f': ;:;..;4. ,s;~1'i~H;;': .'. ..' .. ..... 1- ~-.....~
.: 'II;.'~". .' .' ~ J~ ......t~ . ..---
, ~'i~.d~.~,'l,+' 4;1(:"'~~'>-'
WP~" ~ -t~,..;",_.~, I --'-~...r-:;\'
'~A" "",;;,'".: .----
.t('(.,('i' ",: .\
'"1..._ ~.'~i.!<./~/ ,":,..,--
1.:...... (', r.'\ ~ I "p~
i ......-' 0'0 ~
IIJ;:}" rQ
;: ('
... I
..
"ll
""
"
:,')
... (/
,:,!, J'
~ .'
i
I i .~'
I' ,i
: : I ~ ..~ .
.~' .',} ~!~ ,_, .'.' ~.i
l ~ ---.; ~~.j I.:.,,.,......,,..\.' ~ ~.. I ". I '.'
,".. :" ,,/ ~
I I ,.,. Ii t! /1' ~
I !. ,~'I I :.:" 1;1' ') II
() ---.-o.'""-;"()~---'('~'-Vh1;); rl
" ,., . l\~" .-.. -'~.r -.,.. r
~;.~~,;~jr ....MA;;r.........~.
"/
-~'... ~
-........
i'P: ,/
'Ii ,i ---- - r II
I'! ,j ~ j j!
I II ~ I
lli :1: ~
! ,'- ',; 1:. : [- :1,
~ ;! _ ~ ~_Ji6;
~
}~
" r- 1.
1'1 "
F 'r;', !1
; : ,}'., II I
,1,.1'" .... I
I "C' J.-..:;.;7-~....
, I ~ - ..'- ,
,!I."j (i
I>-:~
.
r " I .,.
.J::/~~ -1
,
i .1
....
~.,I
~-'
~,
I.""~.~,I.
I.,....."~....'l
~ --~_..._'- .._- _.~
s/..
. C>i',j
',\N.I !
'-I:\i
\
"".
1:1
I~l
!
l~!
,..,
:1
n
?
'fi~
<,
I ~
I" n:
.~
1~
\'U ..~
f -- ;l ',;
1:1: ;./
"";Ilr
'f
I
t~l
!..:..'
.. ,~
I.'
I
_ ,=-='~:::'f.-;l
l~lhU' j".,ijOl) ~ I~\S"H:::O
;.\',Ij ~'I':'tCf"HH~.d :L:..TOJUJ
'.i [.\l!S
A1NnO:J
~
""
it
~
:"l:
~
~
.....
....
-
.. l; .
:fot r\.. 1.:' t' ~
~I: t~ fL ~ ~ ~ :.1
~ r"~,,,~~~
~J ~
F ~
J. ~ .
~,:.' ~ a
:-i~~"~~~~
\li . ,';' ,. '"
~ c~ ~ ; }~ ~
~l ~ ~.. r; ~ ::.
;: ~, ~ : ~~ :~
.~ ).:1 ~J 'll I~
1'.,;; H ~~.
R"~ 1\;) .('1 r,
I" '" ~ ., ,
.,"" I
t;;~m
f, i ..; "'"
" ,':,:i;) ~ f;
. :;
:.'..
,,,
.,-.
i ...;
!
,
..
'" ..
l.t UI
~I;i
r..t'l
~~
~"
"'
"
OJ
...
a\
()
hi
R
[II
~i
'^
1/~
EXHIBIT E: LANDSCAPE PLAN
'I l'~!:~ i ia- "'~-,'."""'" -
211 _uo '~II 1-",... ~ ....
---" ---~J
~Ii'o ,11"1 ' ! .;11 ,,,,:!J~ I-
"to' , is
fr' I I~ "tUJ OT lOP I 11'IOW :;:
(I! " . 5NC'1l't^313 )<
IL
~
~
E...;
;;t:
,..::.
~ ~
~
>...
~' ~
c::r -..::r,
...J <
0-
LLJ ~
e ..s
.........
i\ <C ~
5 2'
~ Cr::;
0 ~ (Ji 0..;
.
~
~
o
" -Ir)
i~
. ~
"
.......
""
.
~
\)
'-..c
~
~
5
~
!l
..
i.O
ill
~
ffiJj
~~ \
.......
~
~
~
,\5\
EXHIBIT F: SIGNAGE PLAN
.
.
.
Planning Commission Agenda - 04/06/99
RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
I. The site plan is revised to provide all required parking stalls based upon the requirements of
Section 3-5[El, subject to approval of City Staff.
2. The site plan is revised to provide 24 foot drive aisles throughout the site, subject to approval
of City Staff.
3. The site plan is revised to provide additional stacking space for the drive through, subject to
approval of City Staff.
4. The site plan is revised to accommodate on-site circulation of semi-tractor trailers, subject
to approval of City Staff.
5. The site plan is revised to indicate concrete curb and gutter around all parking and
circulation.
6.
The site plan is revised to provide a dedicated loading space separated from any drive aisle
or drive through stacking space, subject to approval of City Staff
7.
The landscaping on the north property line is increased to better screen the car wash stacking
space, subject to approval of City StafT.
8.
The preliminary building elevations are revised to indicate all building materials and colors,
subject to approval of City Staff.
9.
The applicant submit a lighting plan subject to review and approval of the City Engineer
10.
All grading, drainage and utility plans shall be subject to review and approval of the City
Engineer.
11.
The appliance submit a complete signage plan that conforms to the requirements of Section
3-9 of the Zoning Ordinance, subject to approval of City Stai1
12.
Comments of other City Staff.
\\(i
EXHIBIT Z
.
.
.
Planning Commission Agenda - 04106/99
8.
Public Hearing - Consideration of a Conditional Use Permit for outdoor stora2:e in
an 1-2 zone and consideration of a variance to reduce the five foot (5) setback to the
curb to one foot (1). Aoplicant: Ebert Construction (J.O.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
Planning Commission is asked to consider granting a conditional use permit allowing
outside storage and a variance to allow a curb set-back less that the minimum allowed by
code. The storage area includes virtually the entire rear yard area. The design is very
similar to the NSP maintenance facility. No landscaping is shown on the plan. It is
suggested that the conditional use permit be approved, with the condition that the
screening fence consist of a material that is truly opaque. In addition, it is suggested that
the screening fence be set-back sufficient distance from the side yard to allow tree
plantings. The rear yard buffer between the residential use to the south and the storage
area should be planted at a density to meet the buffer yard requirement.
With regards to the variance request, it is proposed that the parking lot curb be allowed to
be located inside the five foot setback line adjacent to the Farm Store lot line. According
to the builder, the parking lot can be developed within standards without the variance,
therefore there is no hardship or unique circumstance to justify the variance.
DECISION 1
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. Motion to approve conditional use permit allowing outside storage subject to the
conditions noted in exhibit Z. Motion based on the finding that the conditional
use permit is consistent with the character and geography of the area, will not
result in depreciation of adjoining property and is consistent with the
comprehensive plan.
2. Motion to deny approval of the Conditional use permit based on the finding that it
is not compatible with the area or consistent with the comprehensive plan.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends Alternative 1
-11-
.
Planning Commission Agenda - 04/06/99
DECISION 2
ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
I. Motion to deny variance request due to finding that no hardship exists justifying
the request. To approve the variance would establish a precedent that would
impair the intent of the ordinance.
2. Motion to approve the variance based on a finding to be determined.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends alternative 1.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Exhibit A - Site Plan
Exhibit Z - Recommended Conditions of Approval
.
.
-12-
.
I
I
I
I
~ 1=
~ i:
I ~
~ I I
~ 1=
I ~
I
I
------~-----~~...::=-
DUNDAS ROAD
^&
,.,.... .. 1M '. ~ t __ ,...,..,.
-
""Urf ,...", 11
ri- - - - 223.00- - - -::
.1- , Q
I i VACATION ~
I i LOCATION
/' :
,I ;
~I,' !
~I~I ~
'- ; II
III I"
~ I!
'" 'II
~ ,
~', '
"""I :
, '
, :
I I
I
I" j
I
-
,
.. I
I
I
I
,
I
I
I
I
~I I
4.4 )
.'itf.'f': /
II> 'b (
., ,.,: t
wJ I,
LOT ~
~ :
~ I OUTSIDE STOR~GE
N n'el' 11.' J : I AREA --,
.- - l._iU -';;";;;-IaOt---;;,.-:-- urllm ~ -.. ,
.. -.".H.... """"" /'lAr =-- -==- '" .. :
: '-_...~~i'.:.;~f;..~~ G' f
{i. r BLOCK i
~!II' " ,
a' , I
"'i': ii' I ~
~ I I LIGHTS HOODED .
&;~I I I OR DIRECTEnA i
~~I '-,- -
<3." : " "
~ 1 I I
I I I I
I I L .J:lo1~T.AU.-BllF.l'Ea.'iARDI
1 I ---- .,......
I. ·
0.., I "L _ _ _ _ ~_ _ ~
fIr"'",_ .
-
.
OAKWOOlJ
"
I ..
.
"'
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
,
I
I
,
;ND Sl,Jg~~}NC,
:-. !3P'.I7"
9~-~ ~M .1 ~la-e'~-3~08
rUTlJlE
lJ'r1CE
t.__".
..
..
i;g-e..
'3I},00'"
S 88'37J4'" ~ ~
, -
I
I
I
I '"
An -= J..z ~
: ~
I
I ..
.,
.~"1';:.~.
--
2. 45 ACReS
EXCEPTION
TO DAKVIIID INDUSTRIAL pARK
N 89'21' 1/' II
II'~"U#I. aJ/til,
""",,"I.IIIr~
(U,28
KLEIN
FARMS
OUTLOT
B
INDUSTRIAL
e
'"
".
~
;J:
~
INSTALL
APPROVED
OPAQUE FENCE
3
INSTALL TREES
ALONG PROPERTY
LINE 50' SPACING
MINIMUM?
PARK
,......,;1iII...IIt_~
Nt 1/41.,.,. __;ut.. _.......",.
<6 ..- \
A nM" I
A r~~I
EXHIBIT A - SITE PLAN
.
.
.
Planning Commission Agenda - 04/06/99
RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
1. The area is fenced and screened from view of neighboring residential uses or, if abutting
a residential district, in compliance with buffer yard requirements.
2. Storage is screened from view from the public right-of-way in compliance with Chapter
3, Section 2 [G], of this ordinance.
3. Storage area is grassed or surfaced to control dust.
4. All lighting shall be hooded and so directed that the light source shall not be visible form
the public right-of-way or from neighboring residences and shall be in compliance with
Chapter 3, Section 2 [H],or this ordinance.
5. The provisions of Chapter 22 of this ordinance are considered and satisfactorily met.
6. Development of an opaque screening fence around entire perimeter of storage area.
Material and equipment storage must not rise above the screening fence.
7.
Screening fence detail to be submitted for staff approval prior to construction.
8.
Fence must be setback a distance sufficient to allow tree planting along side yard (not
required by ordinance).
9.
No barbed wire or razor wire per city ordinance.
Cb " d---
EXHIBIT Z .
.
.
.
Planning Commission Agenda - 04/06/99
9.
Consideration of an amendment to the Zoning Code. City Ordinance Title 10.
Chapter 3. Section 2-2. Subsection [FKl and IFLJ modifvin!! the definitions of Floor
Area and Livable Floor Area. Aoolicant: Zonin!! Administrator. (FP)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
The City Zoning Code currently provides definitions of "Floor Area" and "Livable Floor
Area". Those definitions are used in part to determine minimum standards for the
required area of dwellings built in the city.
The current definitions are in conf1ict with each other in that the general definition of
floor area includes portions of the garage, breezeways and porches into the required area
of a residence. The definition of livable floor area is used in the ordinance sections
establishing minimum floor areas for dwellings and that definition specifically excludes
interior vehicular storage/garages and other non living areas.
This conf1ict between the general and specific definitions has caused confusion to both
builders and city staff. The proposed definitions intend to resolve the conHicting
definitions.
A eopy has been attached for your review and consideration.
B. AL TERNA TIVE ACTIONS:
1. Motion to recommend to the City Council that the proposed ordinance be adopted
an1ending City Ordinance Title 10, Chapter 3, Section 2-2, subsections [FK] and
[FL], providing definitions of Floor Area and Livable Floor Area.
2. Motion to recommend to the City Council that the proposed ordinance be adopted
amending City Ordinance Title 10, Chapter 3, Section 2-2, subsections [FKJ and
[FL], providing definitions of Floor Area and Livable Floor Area be denied.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission move to approve Alternative 1 above.
D. SUPPORTING DATA
Exhibit A - Copy of proposed Zoning Code amendment relating to the definitions of
Floor Area. and Livable Floor Area.
-13-
.
.
.
Planning Commission Agenda - 04/06/99
ORDINANCE NO.
CITY OF MONTICELLO
WRIGHT COUNTY, MINNESOTA
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 10, CHAPTER 3, SECTION 2-2, SUBSECTIONS
[FK] AND [FL] OF THE MONTICELLO ZONING ORDINANCE BY ESTABLISHING A
DEFINITIONS FOR FLOOR AREA AND LIVABLE FLOOR AREA.
THE CITY OF MONTICELLO DOES ORDAIN:
Titlc 10, Chapter 3, Section 2-2, subsections [FK] and [FL] are hereby amended to read as follows:
[FK] FLOOR AREA: Thc sum of the gross horizontal areas of the several floors of the
building or portion thereof devoted to a particular use, including accessory storage
areas located within selling or working space such as counters, racks, or closets, and
any basement floor area devoted to retailing activities, to the production of
processing goods, or to business or professional offices. However, the floor area
shall not include: basement f100r area other than area devoted to retailing activities,
the production or processing of goods, or to business or professional ofliees. Bte
f100r area of a residence shall be allowed to include thirty (30) percent of the area of
attached gmages, not to exceed 96 square feet, and fin)' (50) percent of enclosed
breezC'vvays or porches, not to exceed 96 square feet (48 sq. ft. credit), but shall not
include baselnent area, unless the basement shall be detennin;:;d to be a story as
defined herein.
[FL] FLOOR AREA - LIVABLE: The total of all habitable floor areas of a building,
excluding equipment rooms, interior vehicular parking or loading, breezewavs,
porches and and all 1100rs bclow the first or ground floor, except when used or
intended to be used for human habitation or service to the public. basement areas,
unless the basement areas shall be determined to be a story as defined herein.
This Ordinance shall become effective immediately upon its passage and publication according to
law.
ADOPTED by the Monticello City Council this
day of
1999.
CITY OF MONTICELLO
By:
Roger Belsaas, Mayor
ATTEST:
By:
Rick Wolfsteller, City Administrator
q/\
AYES:
NAYS:
EXHIBIT A - PROPOSED ORDINANCE AMENDMENT
.
.
.
Planning Commission Agenda - 04/06/99
10.
Public Hearin~ - Consideration of amendment to City Ordinance Title to. Chapter
3. by addill!! Section 3-6A Gradin2: and amending Section 3-7 Land Reclamation.
and Section 3-8 Mining. Apolicant: Zoning Administrator (FP)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
The City Zoning Code currently provides that a conditional use permit is required for
Land Reclamation and Mining operations. The City has been issuing permits for
grading, land reclamation and mining without sufficient ordinances to support that
regulation. This amendment to the zoning code intends to provide the authority and basis
for the issuance of grading permits by staft~ and retains requirements for conditional use
permits required for land reclamation and mining, but provides a consistent regulatory
framework for their consideration..
The current conditional use permit process for dealing with minor grading permits (less
than 400 cubic yards) is extraordinarily burdensome and would be better considered by
the City Engineer and building official. It is proposed that where grading is on-site and
not to involve in excess of 400 cubic yards of material (about 40 dump truck loads)
grading permits may be issued by staiI without Planning Commission and City Council
consideration.
Conditional use permits will remain to be required for grading of in excess of 400 cubic
yards of material and for land reclamation and mining operations. After the issuance of a
conditional use permit, a grading permit for land reclamation or mining would be issued
by staff.
A copy has been attached for your review and consideration.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. Motion to recommend to the City Council that the proposed ordinance be adopted
amending City Ordinance Title 10, Chapter 3, by adding Section 3-6A Grading;
and amending Section 3-7 Land Reclamation, and Section 3.8 Mining.
2. Motion to recommend to the City Council that the proposed ordinance amending
City Ordinance Title 10, Chapter 3, by adding Section 3-6A Grading; and
amending Section 3-7 Land Reclamation, and Section 3-8 Mining be denied.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission move to approve Alternative 1 above.
-14-
.
Planning Commission Agenda - 04/06/99
D.
SUPPORTING DATA
Exhibit A - Copy of proposed Zoning Code amendment relating to Grading, Land
Reclamation and Mining.
.
.
-15-
.
.
.
Planning Commission Agenda - 04/06/99
ORDINANCE NO.
CITY OF MONTICELLO
WRIGHT COUNTY, MINNESOTA
AN ORDINANCE ADDING SECTION 3-6A AND AMENDING SECTIONS 3-7 AND 3-8 OF
THE MONTICELLO ZONING ORDINANCE BY EST A13LISHING REGULATIONS FOR
LAND RECLAMATION AND MINING.
THE CITY OF MONTICELLO DOES ORDAIN:
Title 10, Chapter 3,Section 3-6A is hereby added to read as follows:
3-6A:
GRADING: Under this ordinance. Qrading is the leveling. smoothing or moving of
soils on-site upon a single parcel of land or within an approved subdivision being
developed subiect to the terms of an approved development agreement between the
developer and the City. Grading shall not include the import or export of soils to or
from such a parcel of land or approved subdivision development and shall not
include movement of soil exceeding four hundred (400) cubic yards (see land
reclamation and mining below).
Grading shall be allowed only by the issuance of a grading permit by the City
Engineer and City Building Om.cial in all districts. Prior to issuing a grading permit
the City Engineer and City Building Official may require the submission ofa surety
by the applicant in an amount determined by the City Engineer to be equal to 100%
of the value of the cost of restoring: land whereupon grading is to occurred. Upon
application for a grading permit. a permit fee shall be paid to the Citv by the
applicant. The fee for a grading permit shall be as determined by City Council
resolution.
Title 10, Chapter 3, Sections 3-7 and 3-8 are hereby amended to read as follows:
3-7
LAND RECLAMATION: Under this ordinance, land reclamation is the
reclaiming of land by the importation. depositing or grading of I'ultterials soils in
excess of 400 cubic yards so as to elevate the grade. Land reclamation shall be
allowed permitted only under the terms of a development agreement for
subdivision or by the issuance of conditional use permit in all districts. Any lot
or parcel upon which four hundred (400) cubic yards or more of fill is to be
deposited shall come under thc controls of Ifllld reclamation. The permit shall
include as a condition~ thereo(
loA
EXHIBIT A - PROPOSED ORDINANCE AMENDMENT
.
.
3-8:
Planning Commission Agenda - 04/06/99
10
a finished grade plan which will not adversely affect the adjacent land,""'ftl'td
as conditions thereof
2.
shall regulate the type of fill permitted,
3.
11 program for rodent control,
4.
11 plan for fire control and general maintenance of the site,
~
controls for vehicular ingress and egress, and for control of material
disbursed from wind or hauling of material to or from the site~
6.
a calendar of specific dates when land reclamation operations will be
conducted. including specific beginninQ and endinQ dates. and:-
7.
the submission of a surety bv the applicant in an amount determined by the
City Engineer to be equal to 100% of the value of the cost of restoring
land whereupon land reclamation is to occurred and repairing the
degradation ofroadwavs used to transport soils.
Subiect to the terms of an approved subdivision development agreement or
conditional use permiC a grading permit allowing land reclamation shall be issued
by the City Engineer and City Building: Official. Upon application for a grading
permit for land reclamation. a fee for grading permit shall be paid to the City by
the applicant. Such fee shall be determined bv City Council resolution.
MINING: Under this ordinance. mining is the:J=fte extraction of sand, gravel, or
other material from the land in the amount of four hundred (400) cubic yards or
more and removal thereof from the site without processing... 3hall be defined as
mining. In all districts, the conduct of mining Mining shall be allowed permitted
only under the terms of a development agreement for subdivision or bv the ttp6fi
issuance of a conditional use permit in all districts. Such permit shall include as a
condition thereot
10 a plan for a finished grade which will not adversely affect the surrounding
land or the development of the site on which the mining is being
conducted, and route of trucks moving to and from the site.
2.
. 3.
4.
shall regulate the type of material mined from the site.
a program for rodent controL
a plan for fire control and Qeneral maintenance of the site.
\ ~'d-
.
.
.
Planning Commission Agenda - 04/06/99
2c
controls for vehicular ingress and el-!ress, and for control of matcrial
disbursed from wind or hauling of material to or from the site,
6.
a calendar of specific dates when mining operations will be conducted,
including specific beginning and ending dates, and:-
1:.
the submission of a surety bv the applicant in an amount determined bv the
City Engineer to be equal to 100% of the value of the cost of restoring
land whereupon mining is to occurred and repairing the dcgradation of
roadways used to transport soils.
Subiect to thc terms of an approved subdivision development agreement or
conditional use permit a e:rading permit allowing mining shall be issucd by the
City Enl-!ineer and City Building Official. Upon application for a e:rading. permit
for mininl-!, a fee for grading permit shall be paid to the City bv the applicant.
Such fee shall be determined bv City Council resolution.
This Ordinance shall become effective immediately upon its passage and publication according
to law.
ADOPTED by the Monticello City Council this _
day of
1999.
CITY OF MONTICELLO
By:
Roger Belsaas, Mayor
ATTEST:
By:
Rick Wolfsteller, City Administrator
AYES:
NAYS:
~)
'\
.
.
.
Planning Commission Agenda - 04/06/99
Ii.
Public Hearin2 - Consideration of rezonin2: Lots 5-13: Block 2: Hillside Terrace
from 1-1 to I-lA. (F.P.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
Planning Commission is asked to considcr rezoning of the land north of the Freeway
bctwccn the new Post Office facility and the Construction Five residential area. The
proposed rezoning would change the designation from I-I (light industrial) to I -I A. The
I -1 A designation allows similar uses to the I-I district. However, building facade
requirements are stricter by requiring facade to partially consist of some material other
than steel. Also, limited wholesale retail uses arc also allowed.
This request comes from the Planning Commission and is due in part from thc impending
development of an industrial development "incubator" that provides some leased space
for both industrial and wholesale retail commercial uses. Technically, without the 1-1 a
designation, the retail uses proposed would be non-conforming. The rezoning of the area
also applies to the FSI site but will not render the site non-conforming.
It would appear to make sense to move to the stricter facade requirements due to the
residential and commercial development already existing in the area. The 1-1 A
regulations will also enable wholesale retail use as contemplated by the proposed
development.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. Motion to approve the rezoning request from 11 to 11 a for the subject area based
on thc finding that the proposed rezoning is consistent with the comprehensive
plan, compatible with the adjoining land uses, will not result in the depreciation of
adjoining land values and there is a demonstrated need for the use.
2. Motion to deny approval of the rezoning request based on the finding that the
proposal is not consistent with the comprehensive plan, not compatible with the
adjoining land uses, will result in the depreciation of adjoining land values and
there is no demonstrated need for the use.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
City staff recommends alternative 1.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Exhibit A - Site map.
Exhibit B - Copy of ordinance amendment
-16-
~j ~
..
" I ..
,.~, .:
~ V.~r.A-rEO
, .t.v_..
. :~ ,..""
: ; ~~
, "
:::\
,.. >- r'" (j
"C 0 0
~ I') ::s
.... ~ ..."
:J:' ~ .... Q.;
0 N n O'
~
f ::s ::s rt>
.,
1II "" f .to. it' ~
~ t""" ....
0 0 o'
'"' - ::s
~ (>l ~ ~ ..."
ill: 0
m :: Ul
.. 0 I ...,
>< ;".n "., ..., - .,
F THOMAS ::~ ~
I CI RC LE l.. 0 =:= 0
- '."r " ::s ::s
CO " .... 0 ....
lo, ; ~ .... ::s
~~ ~ ~ n n(JCl
- "-l !!. ;:r;"
-i ;lI; ;; ~
- N
"" 0 0
)> .0 i N = Sl
- , en 0 ....
I ::I - -
~ ~ - I
Q) S' ..." -
(f) - Q;'
(JCl -
l'l.l 0
- ~f~,.) >-
-t ........D .iI) ~ -
Q. l'll I
m -
~ e ., ?-
.,
0 w S' ~
""0 :E n
r- < )41i'. U' (ii' !tl
fT1 -
)> .,
~
-
Z 0 o'
::s
'"
/
/
/
/
/ -/'
I ~
/
/<D/
-AI
/
/ /
II
I 11/
! / /
~
:u
'"
~
~
.
::
I /
I / ! /
/
IT-I/-
l/ / I
1/ /
1/ :
/ 1/
I 1
/ f
i /
~ ;Jr
N
lH'ZI
",
'"
~
o
~
,'" ("'\ ~-.:
"',
. ~
'..jn
". ..~
,,t -....~ ';
, -<.
.... ,
.::!... 116:''':19 'I
:::
I
"
~ I
".Of
'0' s
J"'"iO.,.31
Z", 'z.
~
.~;" .
00. ~
. '
",-
..
OJ
I
I
".f""1..t'S"
II
:.
"
~
o
" ~
N 8 :
..
-A
I 1""
,;, '" ..
I ~ "
)> ..
OJ ..
Ul <
.... " "~":r'~
I l:l '::l
(\) ;"- '" ,.
'.. "0 "
..
I
~ ~
(Jl
"'''0 ,,, l...
.
.
.
ORDINANCE AMENDMENT NO.
City of Monticello
Wright County, Minnesota
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MONTICELLO, MINNESOTA, HEREBY
ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS:
The Official Zoning Map ofthc City of Monticello is hereby amended by rezoning the following
parcel(s) from 1-1, Light Industrial District to 1-1 A, Light Industrial District.
Lots 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, and 13, Block 2; Hillside Terrace
This ordinance shall become effective from and after its passage and publication.
Adopted this 6th day of April, 1999.
Mayor
ATTEST:
City Administrator
\Vd-
EXHIBIT B - ORDINANCE AMENDMENT
.
.
.
Planning Commission Agenda - 04/06/99
12.
Discussion re~ardine a presentation bv a Plannine Commission member to the
Monticello Area Chamber of Commerce on June 17. 1999. (J.D.)
See Attached letter.
-17-
.
Monticello Area Chamber of Comrnercn
. 1 r '\ "', r'"\, I ; , ' -, I ~. (" I
I "l\ 1 ~ \ i ;" I'.;.
MONTICELLO
FiJ.,\ {~,.,J ~ (.~I ;;":~J~~"'-I:~'~~U:j
-
o ~~~n~~r5"
- MAR 3 0 1999 ~
I::.J
March 29, 1999
Planning Commission-City of Monticello
Attn: Jeff O'Neill
PO Box 1147
Monticello, MN 55362
Dear Jeff,
I spoke with Dick Frie with regards to a small presentation by a Planning Commission
member at our June member meeting. He suggested that this request should be put on
their next agenda so the entire commission would be aware of the request and have an
opportunity to participate ifthey desired.
.
Our June meeting is on Thursday, June 17, 1999 at 11:50 a.m. at the Silver Fox
Inn. I would like the presentation to last approximate five to seven minutes. The
presentation should include a brief history of the commission, the goals and objectives of
the commission, and if they provide any specific service or programs for existing
businesses. It would also be interesting to know the process if a business is planning to
relocate or expand.
I also plan to invite someone from the HRA to make a similar presentation at the same
meeting. The rest of the program will be taken up by the presentation of the Miss
Monticello candidates to the business community. I anticipate the agenda to be as follows:
. Chamber business
. Presentation by:
. Miss Monticello
. Planning Commission
. HRA
. Adjourn at 12:50 p.m.
Please call to confirm your attendance to 295-2700. Thank you for your consideration on
this.
~') I
/l /2JiL ~-,.V-A----
\J---'\
.
.
.
Planning Commission Agenda - 04/06/99
13.
Presentation bv Kent Kiellberg regarding Mobile Home Park expansion.
Mr. Kjellberg has requested to make a presentation before the Planning Commission
regarding the expansion of the Mobile Home Park.
As you recall, Kjellberg's request for rezoning from AO to R4 failed due to inconsistency
with the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Kjellberg will be present to discuss concepts for
development of his land.
-18-
.
.
.
Planning Commission Agenda - 04/06/99
14.
Consideration of discussion of violations of zonin!! ordinance regulations - outside
storage and other requirements. Morrell Transfer - SW Corner of Dundas and
Fallon Avenue (J.O.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
This short memo is written to inform the Planning Commission of general violations of
the outside storage requirements by Morrel Transfer. As you may know, some of
violations of the zoning ordinance relating to site design and operation predated the
zoning ordinance. Others violations have developed over time. As you may know,
Morrel recently purchased the lot west of the original site which is now being used as a
storage area. This use is in violation of code due to the fact that it is occurring without a
conditional use permit. As with every non-conforming development, according to code, it
must be upgraded to meet code in conjunction with expansion.
There is concern that left unchecked, the site may develop in a manner that will unduly
hurt the value of the adjoining residential and industrial property. Following are a few of
the issues.
1.
Buffer yard. The development of a buffer yard is necessary to assure
compatibility between uses. The expansion area should be developed with
sufficient buffer yard development.
2. Lighting. Visit the site at night and you will see bright security lights shining
from the building outward across the storage area and spilling into the residential
area. These lights need to be redirected.
3. Outside storage. The storage areas are not screened sufficiently.
4. Parking lot design. There is no curb or paving in certain areas used routinely by
the public and employee vehicles.
5. There are a number of other site design violations that need to be inventoried and
possibly corrected in conjunction with any expansion.
-19-
.
Planning Commission Agenda - 04/06/99
B.
AL TERNA TIVE ACTIONS:
Staff presents this information to the Planning Commission to determine Planning
Commission level of concern regarding violations.
1. Motion to direct city staff to update the City Council on the violations and take
action to inventory violations and proceed with an effort to gain compliance.
2. Motion to ignore violations.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Due to the magnitude of the development and the large potential expansion area and the
potential negative impact on the residential area to the south, it is recommended that staff
move forward by preparing an inventory of violations, followed by discussions with
Monel and take other actions as necessary to achieve compliance.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
.
None
.
-20-
.
.
.
Planning Commission - 04/06/99
MOAA UPDATE
Planning Commission should know that the MOAA will be discussing the City Council
Compromise at a meeting scheduled for April 7, 1999. As you recall, the Compromise was
based on input from the Planning Commission.
Your input and City perspective could help the MOAA better understand the rationale behind the
City Plan.
.
.
.
AGENDA
SPECIAL MEETING - MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION
Monday, April 26, 1999 - 6 p.m.
Members:
Dick Frie, Rod Dragsten, Richard Carlson, Robbie Smith, Roy Popilek
1. Call to order.
2. Continued Public Hcaring--Consideration of a request for a conditional use permit to
allow convenience store/gas operation, car wash, and restaurant use with drive-through
window in a PZM zoning district. Applicant: MMC Land Company.
3. Adjournment.
.
.
.
Special Planning Commission Agenda - 4/26/99
2. Consideration of a reQuest for a conditional use permit to allow convenience
store/gas operation. car wash. and restaurant use with drive-through window in a
PZM zonin!! district. Applicant: MMC Land Company. (1.0.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
At the previous meeting of the Planning Commission, Planning Commission reviewed
the site plan and tabled approval of the conditional use permits pending amendments to
the site plan. As you recall, the applicant identified a number of changes to the site plan
that will be made as requested by the City Planner. Due to the number of changes, it was
suggested by the Plmming Commission that the item be tabled until a formal site plan
could be prepared which identifies each change. Subsequent to the meeting, the applicant
has provided a revised version ofthe site plan with changes made as requested. Attached
you will find a list of conditions that have been responded to by the applicant with the
new site plan.
B. AL TERNA TIVE ACTIONS:
1.
Motion to approve conditional use permit request subject to remaining conditions
noted in Exhibit Z. Motion to approve conditional use permit is based on the
finding that the proposed development is consistent with the comprehensive plan,
consistent with the character and geography of the area, and will not result in
depreciation of adjoining property values.
2. Motion to deny the conditional use permit.
C. ST AFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends alternative # 1. The applicant has reviewed the comments by the City
Planner and the Planning Commission and made the necessary changes to the site plan.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Copy of revised site plan; Original planner's report for initial Planning Commission
review; Original Exhibit Z containing original conditions of approval; Updated Exhibit Z
containing proposed conditions for approval.
. .:
~ ~hH~
\ ~ nl; ~io.'"
~~ . r t j . ..
\~ .o~
~ h ~ ~ H~ ~
''\.)~ ~ t~ l:
.. ~g ~~<t~!r "
. ;II:
f 0 \ ~ 81 8 ~ ;iiii ~~
~ Ill; t: <. ~, ~ .~
-.l ~ .( it! ~~
.. It.
~ ~~~
w ~ lfj ~ ~ 2UH~
~
... ~ s ~ l~~~
:I: I~ :fi ~rr
..
~t! -.l
~Ir " 111M!
t; i! Ie
"'"
U .......-............ ..~~~H&
I
-, ~ ;,ell
-.
'~
M:.I", iIl~ j
II ..,cl._.__.._J
ij
I ~ll
~a ~
dtl.I.,
&:ot;a
''f~
E ~,
.,..~
~~h~
M.B]
r I
I I
,
!
.......
".
I,"
I'
II
~
I
!~
1(\
i'l'
- ro'.
,~
...
~~
IlU
1--
<1"
,...;
,.
ft
'n
.~
~~..J
,., I
~~~....-
.\.""...JI'
...\1'......
n "-..
~W:.,,~:lI~j
~-_.'.~~.oIX,1
.'.':, -."..-.-...--.---
r'j
:.1._
'01']
::U v 18
.~ l ~\j 'i')r)
"".1 I k.
. )J0.1- I
UI\i
J--\
.
.
.
Planning Commission Agenda - 04/06/99
7.
Public Hearine: - Consideration of a reauest for a Conditional Use Permit to allow a
convenience ~as operation. car wash and restaurant use with drive throueh window in
the PZ-M Zonine: District and variance from the sien provisions for the PZ-M District.
AQplicant: MMC Land Company LLC. (NAC)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
The applicant is proposing to construct a convenience gas and restaurant use at the southeast
quadrant ofTH 75 and CSAH 39. The proposed use also includes a drive through window
with the restaurant use and a detached mechanical car wash. Retail commercial activities
such as a convenience gas station is allowed as a conditional use in the PZ-M District by
CUP under Section 1 0-8[E] as it is a permitted use in the B-2 District. The car wash facility
and restaurant use with drive through services are also allowed by CUP in the PZ-M District.
Conditional Use Permit
Performance Standards. Standards for development in the PZ-M District are to be based
upon those required for a particular use in a similar zoning district where the use is allowed.
Convenience gas stores are a permitted use in the B-2 District, whereas convenience
restaurants and mechanical car washes are conditional uses in the B-3 District. For the
purpose of evaluating this application, the standards ofthe B-3 District will be utilized given
the highway oriented nature of the project.
Convenience gas uses in the B-3 District require a minimum lot size of22,500 square feet
with a minimum 150 foot lot width and 130 foot lot depth. Setbacks in the B-3 District are;
30 feet for the front yard; 20 feet for the side yard; and 30 feet on the rear yard. The subject
site satisfies all of these minimum requirements.
Access. The site will have right-inlright-out access from TH 75 via a private street shared
with the property to the south. As part of this access, the applicant is required to extend the
median on TH 75 farther south to ensure no left turning movements. Access to the site is
also available from the public street to be extended south from CSAH 39.
Parking. Based upon the parking requirements for retail stores and restaurants outlined in
Section 3-5[H], a total of 66 off-street parking stalls are required. The submitted site plan
indicates that 35 parking stalls are provided on site, of which 3 are disability accessible. The
parking is deficient by 31 stalls. Also, no provision has been made for semi-tractor trailer
parking. Given that the facility sells diesel fuel a certain amount of this type of traffic should
be anticipated. Please note the operator's intent is to service local community needs (diesel
pick-up, delivery vans) and not on the road semi-tractor trailers. It is his view that there will
be but a limited amount of semi-tractor trailer use. There is a lot of excess surface space on
the site that is not designated for circulation or parking that could be used to meet the stall
requirement with revisions to the site plan.
-6-
?/d-
.
Planning Commission Agenda - 04/06/99
There are a number of additional issues with the layout of the site and circulation. First, the
location of the canopy is such that it intrudes into the drive aisle where cars exiting the drive
through would be expected to move out of the site. The proximity of the pump island to the
parking area does not allow sufficient space for two-way traffic when there is a car at the
pump. There should be a direct drive aisle from the west end of the drive though to the
south exit with islands at the end of the parking stalls for separation. Second, on-site
circulation for semi-tractor trailers, including the fuel supply or delivery trucks, would be
difficult. The site plan will require extensive revisions to address these issues because they
effect the location of the pump islands, canopy and access designs.
Stacking space for the car wash and restaurant drive through is also an issue. The car wash
facility has sufficient space to stack approximately seven cars, which should usually be
sufficient for that use. The restaurant drive through, however, has space to stack only one
car behind the ordering board. Any more than one car stacked at the restaurant drive
through, as is likely to occur during peak hours, will extend into the drive aisle or interfere
with the parking adjacent to the east side of the building. This is of particular concern where
use of the car wash may interfere with restaurant drive-through traffic. The two drive
through stacking areas are not well-delineated.
.
Finally, the submitted site plan does not indicate concrete curb and gutter around all parking,
circulation or loading areas as required. The site plan must be revised to include the required
concrete curb and gutter.
Loading. The submitted site plan does not include any provision for loading areas that are
separated from the drive aisles. Additionally, the location of the gate of the trash facilities
is inconsistent between the site plan and the building elevations. The location of the trash
access on the north side of the building abuts the drive though aisle. This location is
problematic in that trash pick-up could interfere with operation of the drive though. The
location of the gates accessing the trash area on the building elevations is on the east side of
the building, across from a diagonal parking stall. Given the circulation issues noted above,
the lack of designated loading areas and location of trash storage facilities raises further
concern for on-site congestion.
Landscaping. The landscaping plan proposed for the site indicates general plant groupings
at the comers of the site and adjacent to the carwash facility. Additional landscaping is
provided along the private drive and medians in the parking lot. The amount of plantings
should be increased along the north property line to better screen the stacking area for the
carwash.
.
Building Height. No specific building height limit is imposed in the PZ-M District, except
that the most similar District requirement is to be applied. Using the B-3 District again, the
height is limited to two stories. The proposed building is one story with a raised loft area at
-7-
d-/3
.
Planning Commission Agenda - 04/06/99
the center of the structure, which is within the two story guideline.
Building Materials. The building elevations do not specify the building materials and
colors to be used for the principal building and car wash. The applicant has not provided any
plans for the proposed canopy.
Lighting Plan. No plan for site lighting has been provided by the applicant. A lighting plan
that indicates the location and type of all site lighting, including any lighting installed on the
canopy should be prepared and submitted for review.
Grading, Drainage and Utility Plans. All grading, drainage and utility issues are subject
to review and approval of the City Engineer.
Variance
.
The applicant is requesting a variance from Section 3-9 to allow the signs on the property to
conform to the requirements of the B-3 District versus that of the PM-Z District. Uses in
the PM-Z District are allowed one tree standing sign and one wall sign or two wall signs.
The total area of signage allowed is equal to one square foot of signage per one foot of
frontage, up to 100 square feet. Under the B-3 District provisions, uses are allowed one
freestanding sign plus one wall sign tor each street frontage up to 100 square feet total area.
The sign plan provided by the applicant is a rough sketch that is inadequate for evaluation.
No plans have been provided for directional signs or signs associated with the car wash
facility for evaluation. However, the sketch plan provided by the applicant includes wall
signage on three sides of the building. The property has street frontage on only two public
streets. As such, the proposed sign plan does not conform to either the PZ-M District or B-3
District standards. This size of the proposed pylon sign is dependent upon the speed limit
allowed on TH 75 adjacent to the property.
The Planning Commission may approve a variance only if it finds that there are unique
physical characteristics of the site, which are not economic in nature, that make compliance
with the Ordinance provisions unreasonable. The subject site is not unlike any other site
with frontage on a maj or traffic route and an access road. Further, the Planning Commission
and City Council specifically considered the appropriate zoning designation for this site,
including PZ-M and B-3 Districts. The City Council determined that the PZ-M District was
most appropriate for the subject site and surrounding properties. Granting variance without
a demonstrated hardship would circumvent the process and decision to apply PZ-M District
zoning to this site.
.
-8-
;;y~
.
Planning Commission Agenda - 04/06/99
B. AL TERNA TIVE ACTIONS:
Decision 1: Consideration of a Conditional Use Permit to aHow a convenience gas
store and restaurant use in the PZ-M District.
1. Motion to recommend approval of the CUP, subject to the conditions outlined in
Exhibit Z.
2. Motion to recommend denial of the CUP, based upon a finding that the proposed use
is inconsistent with the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance.
3. Motion to table action on the CUP, subject to substantial revisions to the submitted
site, building and signage plans to address the concerns outlined in the staff report
and the submission of additional information.
Decision 2: Consideration of a Variance from the sign area limits in the PZ-M
District
.
1.
Motion to approve the variance, based on specific findings that the criteria for
approval of a variance, including hardship and lack of reasonable use, have been
satisfied.
2. Motion to deny the variance, based upon a finding that the criteria for variance.
including hardship and lack of reasonable use, have not been met and that approval
of the variance would be contrary to the intent of the Zoning Ordinance.
3. Motion to table action on the variance, subject to the submission of additional
information.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
.
The site plan submitted for the proposed convenience gas/restaurant use has a number of
issues related to the overall layout of the project. Specific concerns focus on providing
required parking stalls, the design of drive aisles relative to the canopy location, stacking
space for the drive through use, information on building materials, site lighting, the need for
additional landscaping and a signage plan suitable for evaluation. Because these issues will
require extensive revisions to the current site plan and the submission of additional materials,
staff recommends that the Planning Commission table this application to allow the applicant
an opportunity to address the concerns outlined above. Ifthe Planning Commission believes
that the project is acceptable, the conditions outlined in Exhibit Z should be incorporated into
any approval motion. Please note that the applicant received this report well in advance of
?-~~
-9-
.
Planning Commission Agenda - 04/06/99
the meeting which has allowed time to prepare or address modifications to be presented at
the meeting. It, therefore, may be possible to grant approval contingent on making changes
to the plan.
Staff does not recommend approval of the variance. The City considered zoning the subject
site to B-3 District, which would have allowed for the proposed signage without variance.
The City determined that the PZM District was the most appropriate district to regulated the
development and use of this parcel. Most importantly, the applicant has not demonstrated
any physical hardship or a lack of reasonable use under the regulations on signs in the PZM
District. If the Planning Commission believes that the proposed signage is appropriate, an
amendment to revise the sign provisions would be the correct course of action. However,
staff does not recommend pursuit of such an amendment.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
.
Exhibit A - Site Location
Exhibit B - Site Plan
Exhibit C - Preliminary Elevations
Exhibit D ~ Preliminary Floor Plan
Exhibit E - Landscape Plan
Exhibit F - Signage Plan
Exhibit Z - Recommended Conditions of Approval
.
-10-
")/V
"
"
~" '"""
'.. "
.. i .. ..................""'" l:ITY
,f. .'~ ....--- LIMITS
. rr;y.~ '
, .....U'1:kJ........ --
." · .. AA '.. '," rn:r.~',
., ~ -~...."
~ 9 i R · ~'/~" ....-----~
f'... IIJ'I; ~' ' , "1, ~
s K ~ISITE~~~ ~~~;~}:Y' -
L ~I~~~~ ~~~ ",
~~ '"<~,' '
.,;.<> ...,':- . ......'..11 ~~ ~
is!' ' II \ .7 .....).:L... ~ .. t-=:.:-
~'.J.., · 1\ lil".'
j'" '0 ,.. jO' ~I , ) ~
0> ~ 5 .i, ~ .\~ -;:"'~ 1'\ "
11 ~l : ',,:; 'lJ.~'t,..- '-.:; ~~
l 'I-....\\\~ 'j. I'
~., 1-... L,f. I J.p;r.~ 1+ \" I' 1.1 ~ ~,\:),,~, -7 r\. \ -wiID.' t"1
'It1fIl I R"'!:]. , 'if"1..... - - / ,. ~ -.., ,
''-'--L'rt"'".._'\'"''_ .., .1, _ 1iO....7-I..~..J+/.~..- _ l.-
___ .....,..I~ '^' r.., - ~'~~a;urr. . C .-
., ,'v.y.,"\,..' .1 .:.-o~ l~ ~ ~ .jP\.........7:AI". ~\ ~
.....>,.",j ~.~' I:::l.1 . 'or. ,~,.J , · rLJ ..-- · Y., r- ,~
I ' , , .,.. I' · r.' - ......... ~M ,~., ~ ~\
-'r.. .1 .' ~1I["l 1Ii.'~
. "I"L./J. La .:.. . '.1.1. .... r. ~.~.,., iiliil-l..
~ ,_ .. _ '''J' ~,..,--., · I
", .J,. .... ..~'el('l!!l, ,..m ..I-r.~'" . - . ""'_ -- ;,j'\' '!r':'"
~,-"''''''_ .. ~.. .1"""
-. :--.i~: ~.'C~ 1. T r I ro...:',.L] .. .L.....c :rrTl \' e "CI... ~ . \ ' ...... - .'
"ti:I ;....; ~"I.. ",.Iooj r- 'T '--
-;;;: " I. I .,., 'yo AI' 'lTTTl' bJ".:t1:J'\1 F.r 1 \ ~ ;\-.. 1......... I I -
l ,......- \ ~ ~.\ 1I I"! I
~ )\1 ..Ja
A 0 ~~..'""I' "F -
n1 ~^
~.H/~~ ""
~ _~~ o;~~',
'k.~ ~ t/ .//;: ,
y iii: ~ 7"'''
Jl ,~
~~
...............
)5
"""'IIlIiii;
,~
I 1
Q.
A
.
SCHOOL
R1
.
;;v1
EXHIBIT A
,I I
~ii
!u
"'.
Q,
i'!!:; ~
,hi I' :
ti;'f: "
,.:11 :
.hll'
-~
!~i 11'/11-1 -1'1'"
f~'. ! ....... I H!j
,~! I I . I '~"l
!/ (~f I I I' 11 ,Iq!
It, _. , I ",11'
'1:0<" I I I .
._J.:_t.'..LnL.... ,
..'.....!'.:.- ..:.-."":
'..~,~,"_ J"Ir,""L ~ __. ,_
&~...,.,
. (:; ~ ,..t l I:.!. \, :,:' ,~. :. J
..~ ". : f' i, J
l"7wl
III
... i
iii
:E
...... ..
1-. u.I
".1
>
j
~
~
~
~
, ~
~
\ " ."
.,' JJ '; ~. ~
. :~ i; I '- "I
:-... 'u r, ~ E
<!\ '. ~ ~.~
:..: .~ H. :q!l
:; ,\. b il
U/j ~tL ~~
'.~-.............. ~..
---.~."
'- ...., ............. '.
- - '~"-..... I .'...........~.
:::fk.:~-""":'~', ,,"->"
-- 'j.. / ....... If. '/ .....
-. -: ''i--.... "'. ~. , .
-'- ., : ..:...:.. '~'i '~,' .
.. / .........:,;:~. ."0.',. "'~' .. ., '. .........
' ''!'-'" ~. .... ", '" "-r,,.
I I, .....'1 .'. "'~'....,...:. ,,,..... ./.....-.f.;)',~1'"
I. ~........ "/' I;,,' ',>. . '~'. .17':-, Y ';i~i"""'" '"
-..... I ...... ''::::~ ',,=1..'61., ~\i .V',.,
I -1".' <. ... "'; ,. -:--:-.... i' ~....,.
/- ;..- .... .",,,-;;-l'l/:.:{ . '. / __ ...~.~: ....~-."." _ ''-'"
- ~;-'lII'.".,'.' "'C1.' ~. ......~. ~
' - 4- ~'c -,,1<, U~., . ""f 0:.. '. "
f "'f' '......... \ _ _ .
' ""~''''''f'
t CO, . I.O.~""""~",_
I'. /It 1"1.. -., I. <nrr--",,=
i . ... _."... . "'~ . ,.'......:;,.~ ~
'I ; .~lUr I'~I ~: ~ Jj.lfl!j': t".>:r--~ ~;-u .;: I
1 .. I I '1 ~ I:. .. I
i 1- III . ;;'1 ~ 1) Ji1i : 11'~ ;1. "'.'r ~I
. . .. I ,:.. l ~ 'I~J ! I ; ii,... I
~,y " ~" '''''.It><:::r '. I
;;.~ 'I' : I',:: " I I .' ;;! !
": '" I I..... !, I . ;._/ ",
t& 'I: I I :l t I I I: ,-. .\.i !
511!' .. ~l~' ~:.~
:,; J:l : ! . ';:: 11 :;\1
. L\1;: r-I o-!~. . ..1 ') 'f I I,.,l
.-.--l!.., 1 I I .r 1"
\1- . -.. H" ". I'.. . ~: ':
.1 :'::"./'._.. I ".: ~ <~-
L .' i- -..., : ) .'. ,~." "" ~ :r-
,.' ~C._ ......-i _ J. ._ ......1 '. ; I..
I L. '-".' ..... ./" \ ~: :
........:--.--1-__ """ -.....-."'.,..,.:...-....-- I:.. I
.\'. ..-.- .. .:;' - i' i
J ' \ .,;t'
'" ,.a _rll,.H'. J .
or'/ / I."
~_....._:.,,~..----~ :~ ,,' n"
I..... '.
'''.'..~I''.::)..:.~~,~ '.::~~: ,;:.~..:..:.:
~lL\j.1 :~~ :"JI,f".J:::>
"
il!j'.
~..1: ; ,
'~1
\.....,
:i~
III . ~
)
!
-..........,...-
~.-"~-J..~ . '" "
",:.r " "".~"'^.I_-...
~"tt ....__- ~ .':~.......n:-~.~
~---. _.~._ "W
9/
'or\1
'}..MI'I
(lIV
d-/~
EXHIBIT B: SITE PLAto;
.
ORIGINAL CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
CONDITIONAL USE REQUEST
MMC LAND COMPANY
Planning Commission Agenda - 04/06/99
RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
I. ~e ~ite plan is revi~ed to provide all req~ired parking stalls based upon the requirements of
SectIOn 3-5[E], subJcct to approval of City Staff. Ol:>oI\!.. 5'3 -r 10 i.sI",,,,,.J
2. ~e site plan is revised to provide 24 foot drive aisles throughout the site, subject to approval
of City Staff. Do"" e
3. ~he site plan i~ revis~~ to provide additional stacking space for the drive through, subject to
approvalofCltyStaU. Do""~ _J:o/1L,fec,t,-;ecl -10 <6'
4. vA-he site plan is reviscd to accommodate on-site circulation of semi-tractor trailers, subject jJ
toapprovalofCityStafT. N01: &c/\e" 8v.."'r 'St~ft A'D/tes~ /),,-/ d.:'<;/5-..ll
10 ~llovJ ltu..<:.kC-<tM;) t/c...('fl( ('(Ji 0 r~o ~a/\ .
v'fhe site plan is revised to indicate concrete curb and gutter around all parking and
circulation. ~ O,l\ -e
vfhe site plan is revised to provide a dedicated loading space separated from any drive aisle
or drive through stacking space, subject to approval of City Staff. 00 t"I €. -
5.
6.
.
7. ~he landscaping on the north propelty line is increased to better screen the car wash stacking
space, subject to approval of City Staff. 001'\ e
.
8. V!.he preliminary building elevations are revised to indicate all building materials and colors,
. subject to approval of City Staff. po .l' .e
. .
The applicant submit a lighting plan subJect to re~ew and approval of the City Engineer
~~bM.\tt(.U' - W,{, t"?l ~'61 A re(o-.ja. I
10. All grading, drainage and utility plans shall b~ subject to review and approval of the City
Engineer. ~ ul.o ~ '1 \4-J WO i ~ rOl ^ pp/O\Jo. \
II. ~e appliance submit a complete signage plan that conforms to the requirements of Section
3-9 of the Zoning Ordinance, subject to approval of City Staff. 001 e
12. ~mments of other City Staff.
9.
n e- LV {:. ')( \;-', \', 1- z ~ 0 l/l I.. WO-o
q ~/O ~
I ~ ~ + 1 D f\,,~ \
~o..^ &. SC-G pi 0 f \Q'\ .:) v.. ) t <..
"'-ff(ClUc.\ !Do c.~ '5<1c,t-+.
; ttM ~
y~
EXHIBIT Z
.
.
.
REVISED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
CONDITIONAL USE REQUEST
MMC LAND COMPANY
as of 4/23/99
1.
The applicant submit a lighting plan subject to review and approval of the City Engineer.
2.
All grading, drainage, and utility plans shall be subject to review and approval of the City
Engineer.
3.
Landscaping plan subjec to final approval by City staff.
/\0
REVISED EXHIBIT?