Planning Commission Agenda 05-04-1999
.
.
.
AGENDA
REGULAR MEETING - MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION
Tuesday, May 4, 1999
Members:
Dick Frie, Robbie Smith, Roy Popilek, Richard Carlson, Rod Dragsten
Council Liaison:
Clint Herbst
1. Call to order.
2. Approval of minutes of the regular meeting held April 6, 1999.
3. Consideration of adding items to the agenda.
4. Citizens comments.
5. Public Hearing - Consideration of a request for Conditional Use Permit for a Planned
Unit Development within the B-3 Zoning District and a Preliminary Plat to allow outdoor
vehicle sales and associated automotive service uses, as well as variances to the City's
Sign Ordinance. Applicant: Monticello Ford.
6.
Public Hearing - Consideration of a Conditional Use Permit for a Planned Unit
Development in a R-2 District and a simple subdivision. Applicant: Little Mountain
Limited Partnership.
7. Public Hearing - Consideration for approval of Conditional Use Permits for joint parking
and building height in excess of two (2) stories. Applicant: Comfort Inn Motel.
8. Public Hearing - Consideration of a rezoning and concept site plan approval from AO to
R-4, Mobile Home Park District. Applicant: Kjellberg, Inc.
9. Public Hearing - Consideration of a zoning text amendment to allow externally
illuminated projecting wall signs. Applicant: City of Monticello.
10. Public Hearing - Consideration of a sign variance request for perpendicular professional
sign. Applicant: Metcalf, Larson, & Muth.
11. Public Hearing - Consideration of a rezoning from PZM, Performance Zone - Mized, to 1-
lA, Light Industrial. Applicant: City of Monticello.
12.
Public Hearing - Consideration of an amendment to the Monticello Comprehensive Plan
relating to the land use designation of the property west of Kjellberg West Mobile Home
Park. Applicant: City of Monticello.
.
.
.
13.
14.
Planning Commission Agenda - 5/4/99
Public Hearing - Consideration of a Zoning Ordinance amendment adding tatoo parlors as
a permitted use in a B-4 District. Applicant: City of Monticello.
Public Hearing - Consideration of an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance which allows
Essential Services as permitted uses in the R-1 Zoning District. Applicant: City of
Monticello.
15.
Update on MOAA Land Use Plan.
.
.
.
MINUTES
REGULAR MEETING - MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION
Tuesday, April 6, 1999
Members:
Rod Dragsten, Dick Frie and Roy Popilek
Staff:
Fred Patch, Steve Grittman and leffO'Neill
Council Liaison:
Clint Herbst
Absent:
Richard Carlson and Robbie Smith
1. Chair Frie called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. and declared a quorum present.
2. Consideration of approval of the minutes of the regular meeting held March 2, 1999.
The Planning commission reviewed the minutes of March 2, 1999. On the conditions
listed for preliminary plat approval for Pine Meadows it was clarified that the lots must
meet the minimum lot requirements which includes lot frontage of 80 feet.
ROD DRAGSTEN MOVED TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF MARCH 2, 1999 ROY
POPILEK SECONDED THE MOTION. Motion carried unanimously.
3.
Consideration of adding items to the agenda.
Roy Popilek requested that an item from MCP (Monticello Community Partners)
regarding Sunny Fresh Foods and United Methodist Church be added as item #15.
4. Citizen Comment.
There was no citizen comment.
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 Develo?ment for a lot without
public street frontage and CUP to alter the surfacing and curbing materials. Applicant:
Riverside Oil.
Steve Grittman presented the staff report on the applicant's request. The applicant is
proposing to purchase approximately 6 acres of the Electro-Industries parcel for use as a
bulk oil business. The lot split would make the southerly portion of the parcel available
for the bulk oil operation. The southerly portion of the property, however, would not
have street frontage but would have access by way of Electro-Industries driveway to the
public road. The zoning ordinance allows creation of a lot without street frontage only as
-1-
.
Planning Commission Minutes - 4/6/99
public road. The zoning ordinance allows creation of a lot without street frontage only as
a Planned Unit Development and all PUD's require a conditional use permit. The
ordinance also specifics that in an 1-2 Zoning District deviations from the paving
requirements also require a conditional use permit. Steve Grittman then reviewed the site
plan sketch with the Planning Commission noting that the driveway would be extended
from Electro-Industries to provide access to the property occupied by Riverside Oil.
There is a stand of pine trees located on the property which serves a buffer and screening
function for the bulk oil facility. The staff recommended that these trees remain and
recommended that landscaping be placed along the freeway frontage. This would
improve the aesthetics of the project. Provisions are set forth in the 1-2 Zoning District to
allow for the phasing in of curbing as a project develops. This is done under the
conditional use permit process. The staff recommended approval of the conditional use
permit to waive the curbing requirements subject to additional review by the City if there
is further development on this site. It was noted that since there is no curbing proposed,
the City Engineer will review the site plan and address drainage concerns.
.
Chair Frie opened the public hearing. Rosemary Prudhomme, 235 Crocus Lane,
expressed her desire that the pine trees remain and asked about the level of noise and the
amount of traffic that would be generated by the facility. Jeff Michaelis, 630 East 4th
Street, who is the applicant, spoke to the traffic issue stating that generally there is only
one delivery a day and only occasionally is there a delivery in the evening. The storage
tanks arc 2500-3000 gallons in size and would be 25'-30' in height. The facility would
comply with all Pollution Control Agency standards to protect the area from
environmental hazards. Jeff Michaelis further explained that they have attempted to
screen the tank from visibility from the freeway as well as from the residential area. The
applicant was questioned about the number of buildings proposed for the site, lighting for
the area and fencing. Jeff Michaelis responded that of the three buildings being located
on the site only one is being built. The other two buildings will be moved in from
another site. It is the intent of the applicant to have security lighting in place and they
will at some point in the future be placing fencing around the tank area. Jeff Michaelis
also stated all areas other than the driveway would be in grass which would minimize the
areas of exposed soil. The question was raised about access to the site by emergency
vehicles such as fire trucks. Jeff Michaelis replied that the Fire Department has adequate
equipment and sufficient water supply to protect the property. Fred Patch added that the
applicant had agreed that within five years a fire hydrant would be brought to within 300
feet of the facility and Fred Patch recommended that this be included in the conditions of
the conditional use permit. The Planning Commission questioned what would trigger a
review of the curbing. Steve Grittman responded that sale of the property, or further
development on the site would bring about a review.
Tom Moores representing Edgar Klucas, who owns 15 acres adjacent to this site
.
-2-
.
Planning Commission Minutes - 4/6/99
addressed the Planning Commission making the following points: I) Before the Planning
Commission acts on the CUP request, a site plan should be submitted. The drawing
submitted by the applicant was a sketch and not a site plan; 2) Fire protection for the area
should be reviewed. Fred Patch stated that Scott Douglas, the Fire Chief, was satisfied
that there was sufficient water supply for fire protection purposes. Steve Grittman
explained the buffer requirements of the ordinance. The stand of pine trees provides an
adequate buffer for the proposed activity. If future development takes place on the site it
may necessitate additional buffering. It was noted that additional uses or a change in use
would require an amendment to the PUD and an amendment would require Planning
Commission review. Tom Moores asked whether the site was served with utilities. Jeff
Michaelis said utilities would be extended to the site. Tom Moores asked if a PUD was
normal in an 1-2 Zoning District. Steve Grittman responded that while it wasn't typical to
have a PUD in an 1-2 zone it was not unheard of. Tom Moores questioned whether the
City was trying to put this proposal through because of the need to have this business
relocated from the community center site. tIe wanted to make sure the City wasn't trying
to just put this business anywhere. Tom Moores stated that the Klucas property had
earlier been rezoned by the City to R-2 and that perhaps an 1-2 zoning would have been
more appropriate for the Klucas property. Chair Frie closed the public hearing.
.
Chair Frie asked if the applicant understood that at some future point curbing/paving of
the site may be required Jeff Michaelis replied that he understood that eventually the
curbing and paving would go in but he questioned whether the entire area would need to
be done.
ROY POPILEK MOVED AND ROD DRAGSTEN SECONDED THE MOTION TO
RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT PUD TO
ALLOW THE SUBDIVISION OF A LOT WITHOUT STREET FRONTAGE SUBJECT
TO A REQUIREMENT THAT THE PINE TREES ARE RETAINED FOR FUTURE
SCREENING AND BUFFERING AND THAT ADDITIONAL LANDSCAPING
ALONG THE FREEWAY IS CONSIDERED TO HELP BUFFER THE VIEW OF THE
SITE FROM FREEWAY EXPOSURE AND THAT WITHIN FIVE YEARS A WATER
HYDRANT WILL BE BROUGHT TO WITHIN 300 FEET OF THE BULK OIL
FACILITY. Motion carried unanimously.
6. Public Hearing-Consideration of a request for a conditional use permit within the CCD
Zoning District to allow for a shopping center. Applicant: Amcon Construction.
Jetf 0' Neill gave the statf report on the proposal for a shopping center to be located at
Locust and 7th Street. Because the site is in the CCD District DA l' is responsible for
reviewing the proposal and making a recommendation to the Planning Commission.
Some concerns that were noted were I) Lack of a landscape plan for the rear side, and 2)
.
-3-
.
.
.
Planning Commission Minutes - 4/6/99
Parking concerns and a lack of traffic circulation. DA T made several recommendations
which were accepted by the developer and included development of a buffer yard, placing
of ornamental lighting on the site and bringing the structure closer to the property line.
DA T recommended the site layout shown as Exhibit E to this agenda. Other suggestions
by DAT included I) Cornice detail carried all around the building and not just on the
back; 2) Enlarge the landscape island in the parking lot; 3) Additional plantings on the
southeast corner of the building; 4) Decorative lighting be added to complement the
lighting on Walnut Avenue; and 5) Other lighting around the building should be shielded.
Chair Frie opened the public hearing. No one spoke for or against the proposal. Chair Frie
closed the public hearing. Chair Frie asked if the developer had any concerns with the
DA T recommendations. Scott Quiring of Amcon indicated that they did not and added
that Amcon is aware that this site is in a transition area. Scott Quiring could not give the
Planning Commission a definite timetable as to when work on the project would
commence.
ROD DRAGSTEN MOVED AND ROY POPILEK SECONDED THE 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 DAT AS SHOWN IN EXHIBIT E
(6-2E OF THIS AGENDA) WHICH THE APPLICANT SUPPORTS. Motion carried
unanimousl y.
7.
Public Hearing - Consideration of a request for a conditional use permit to allow a
convenience 2:as operation, car wash and restaurant use with drive through window in the
PZM Zoning District and variance from the sign provisions for the PZM District.
Applicant: MMC Land Companv, LLC.
JefT O'Neill presented the staff report stating that the Planning Commission has
previously approved the preliminary plat for River View Square and that the proposed car
wash/restaurant operation is the first development within the plat. Commercial activity in
a PZM District requires a conditional use permit. Because the car wash/restaurant utilizes
a drive through it also requires a conditional use permit. In their review, the stafTfound a
number of items that the developer has responded to which include: I) Stacking space at
entrance to the drive through - The developer moved the drive through to the end of the
restaurant which created an additional 2-3 stacking spaces for a total of 8 stacking spaces;
2) Car wash - There was a concern that traffic would cut through and create problems
with the drive through canopy. The developer redesigned this making a 24' wide drive
which should improve the circulation; 3) Parking stalls - Original plan had 35 stalls and at
least 66 stalls would be needed. The developer redesigned the parking layout and came
up with 60 parking spaces; and 4) Island delineator for each 1000 square feet of parking
-4-
.
Planning Commission Minutes - 4/6/99
area. The developer added this. There was also some question on the interpretation of
the sign ordinance as to whether 100 sq. or 300 sq. ft. was the maximum signage allowed.
Jim Coen from MMC reviewed a couple of items with the Planning Commission:
Semi- Trailer Circulation - It is not the applicant's intent to develop a truck stop.
Because they are not encouraging semi truck traffic they don't feel the circulation
question is pertinent to the design. Building Materials - It is a steel frame building
with brick on the lower 36" of the building. Lights - Lights are Richmond design canopy
lights which do not create a glare.
.
Chair Frie noted the importance of the Planning Commission getting the drawings in
advance of the meeting so that there is adequate time for review. In looking at the plans
it was noted that no plans had been submitted for the canopy. Jim Coen responded that
the canopy plans are normally submitted at the time of the building permit application.
the Planning Commission asked whether it would be appropriate to table this item to the
next meeting or did the staff feel that all the items in Exhibit Z had been addressed. Steve
Grittman responded that he had not gotten the revised plans in time to do more than a
cursory examination but it did appear that the applicant made an attempt to address the
issues raised in the staff report. Roy Popilek stated that he was uncomfortable with the
number of changes to review on such short notice. He would prefer tabling this to the
next meeting or conducting a special meeting so that there was adequate time to review
the changes. Jeff O'Neill pointed out that the development agreement is being considered
at the April 26th council meeting. Dan GassIer from A Glorious Church, which is just to
the east of the property felt that the signage and lighting should be looked at. He believes
the signage should be minimized and that no variance should be granted on the signage
requirements. He also asked about screening. The Platming Commission responded that
a landscape plan had been submitted but there had not been adequate time for review.
Jim Shun, 109 Mississippi Drive, asked about the entrance to the property and was
informed it was a right-in/right-out. city staff requested that the applicant also submit a
photometric plan for the lights and cut sheets as well as design specifications. Chair Frie
then closed the public hearing.
DICK FRlE MOVED TO TABLE ACTION UNTIL A SPECIAL MEETING ON
APRIL 26,1999 AT 6:00 P.M. ON THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW A
CONVENIENCE STORE AND RESTAURANT USE IN A PZM ZONE SUBJECT TO
SUBSTANTIAL REVISIONS TO THE SITE, BUILDING AND SIGNAGE PLANS TO
ADDRESS THE CONCERNS OUTLINED IN THE STAFF REPORT AND THE
SUBMITTAL OF ADDITIONAL INFORMATION AS REQUESTED BY STAFF.
ROD DRAGSTEN SECONDED THE MOTION. Motion carried unanimously.
.
-5-
.
.
.
Planning Commission Minutes - 4/6/99
Based on the staff s interpretation of the ordinance that the sign provisions would allow
up to 300 sq. 1'1. of signage, the applicant withdrew the request for a variance from the
sign area limits in the PZM District.
DICK FRIE MOVED AND ROD DRAGSTEN SECONDED THE MOTION TO
TABLE ANY ACTION ON THE REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE FROM THE SIGN
REQUIREMENTS IN A PZM DISTRICT. Motion carried unanimously.
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 setback to the curb to one
foot. Applicant: Morton Buildings.
leffO'Neill gave the staff report. The Planning Commission earlier approved a change
in the alignment of the lot line and this change was also approved by the City Council.
The applicant was coming before the Planning Commission for a conditional use permit
to allow for outside storage. The staff was recommending approval of the conditional use
permit with the conditions noted on Exhibit Z which are standard conditions for outside
storage. leilO'Neill suggested that the fence be pulled off the property line to allow for
plantings. The applicant indicated that the open areas would be grassed and the driveway
areas would be Class II or Class V material. the applicant is requesting a variance from
the 5' setback from the placement of the curb. The staff felt that the lot could be
developed and meet ordinance standards without a variance so they did not recommend
granting of the variance.
Chair Frie opened the public hearing. Richard Rothstein from Morton Builders explained
the reason they are requesting a variance stating that by moving the curbing to I' from the
property line it would allow them to place rock and decorative shrubs along the building.
The applicant believed that by going with a wood fence of slatted design instead of a steel
fence the City would not require additional plantings. If the City requires the plantings,
the applicant will install steel fencing. There was a review of the lighting for the
property. Mike Thein, 1322 Barry Avenue NW, Buffalo, owner ofthe well driilling
business proposed to move to the site spoke regarding the variance. There was discussion
on whether it would be better to have a variance from 30' to 25' on the building setback or
from 5' to I' on the curb setback. Steve Grittman felt it would be better not to change the
building setback. The applicant stated that they had made efforts to fit the building to the
lot. The building size was reduced from 82' to 66' but they couldn't reduce it further
because they are trying to keep three 14' bays as part of the building. It was suggested
that the driveway width be reduced from 24' but the applicant felt that less than 24' was
not adequate. Richard Rothstein brought up the possibility of a 30' easement from Russ
Martie to be used for additional parking. It was suggested as an option that the applicant
might want to consider a conditional use permit for joint parking. Chair Frie then closed
-6-
.
Planning Commission Minutes - 4/6/99
the public hearing.
Rod Dragsten commented that he felt that the plantings would look better on the building
side than on the curb side and also brought up snow removal concerns. Roy Popilek
asked ifthe proposed lighting would affect adjacent properties. The Planning
Commission then discussed on what basis a variance could be granted.
ROY POPILEK MOVED AND DICK FRIE SECONDED THE MOTION TO
APPROVE A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR OUTDOOR STORAGE IN AN 1-2
ZONE SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS AND BASED ON THE
FINDING THAT THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT IS CONSISTENT WITH THE
CHARACTER AND GEOGRAPHY OF THE AREA, WILL NOT RESULT IN THE
DEPRECIATION OF ADJOINING PROPERTY AND IS CONSISTENT WITH THE
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.
I. 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 the 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 from the
public right-of~way or from neighboring residences and shall be in compliance with Chapter 3,
Section 2(H) of the ordinance.
5. The provisions of Chapter 22 of this ordinance arc considered and satisfactorily met.
6. Development of an opaque screening fence around the 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. No barbed wire or razor wire per City Ordinance.
Motion carried unanimously.
It was noted that the condition on Exhibit Z dealing with the fence setback was omitted
from the motion. Jeff 0' Neill informed the Planning Commission that the ordinance
requires one tree for each 50' of property and there arc also buffer yard requirements.
There was discussion on where the required number of trees could be planted on the site.
H was noted that 50% credit for the trees can be given for plantings around the building.
Based on the lot dimensions approximately 30 trees would be required. lithe 50% credit
.
-7-
.
.
.
Planning Commission Minutes - 4/6/99
is given for building plantings they would still need 15 trees on the site. Mr. Rothstein
felt they could meet this requirement.
ROD DRAGSTEN MOVED AND ROY POPILEK SECONDED THE MOTION TO
APPROVE A REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE IN THE CURB SETBACK FROM 5' TO
l' BASED ON THE FINDING THAT A HARDSHIP IS DEMONSTRATED WITH
SNOW REMOV AL BECAUSE OF THE LENGTH OF THE BUILDING WHICH WAS
DESIGNED IN ORDER TO MEET ALL SETBACK REQUIREMENTS AND TO
MEET THE LANDSCAPING PROVISIONS OF THE ORDINANCE. IT WAS
FURTHER NOTED THAT ALTHOUGH THE LOT IS A CONFORMING LOT, THE
LOT IS MORE NARROW THAN MOST INDUSTRIAL LOTS AND THE BUILDING
AREA IS MORE RESTRICTED. Motion carried unanimously.
13. Presentation by Kent Kiellberg regardinf? mobile home park expansion.
This item was moved up on the agenda. Kent Kjellberg and Brian Southwell, his legal
counsel, made a presentation on the request for expansion of the mobile home park which
was denied earlier by the Planning commission because it did not comply with the
mid-density zoning shown on the City's Comprehensive Plan. The proposed mobile
home park expansion had a density of 3 units per acre. Mid-density zoning would have
4-10 units per acre. The property has been surveyed and designed to accommodate 8
units per acre which would address the concerns of the Planning Commission and City
Council as far as compliance with the Comprehensive Land Use Plan. Complying with
the mid-density use would change the number oflots from 136 to 358. Chair Frie stated
that traffic concerns were also a factor in the Planning Commission's decision and
requested a copy of the traffic counts and MnDot's findings on the traffic issues. Mr.
Kjellberg stated that he would submit this information. There was general discussion on
traffic issues, park dedication requirements and the City's desire for higher scale housing.
Mr. Kjellberg stated that the proposed expansion of the mobile home park was something
that had been on board for 25 years and would be an expansion of an existing business.
The Planning commission informed Mr. Kjellberg that the appropriate step would be to
submit the revised design to the Planning Commission. Mr. Southwell stated that he
purpose in coming before the Planning Commission at this point is to address the issue of
density so that when another application is submitted this topic will not need to be
addressed. Chair Frie suggested that Mr. Kjellberg may wish to attend the MOAA
meeting on April 7th since this item would be on their agenda.
9.
Consideration of an amendment to the Zoning Code, City Ordinance Title 10, Chapter 3,
Section 2-2, Subsection (FK) and (Ft) modifying the definition of Floor Area and
Livable Floor Area. Applicant: Zoning Administrator.
-8-
.
.
.
11.
Planning Commission Minutes - 4/6/99
Fred Patch provided the background report explaining that the definitions as they stand
now are cont1icting and the proposed amendment would resolve the conflict. Rod
Dragsten questioned the floor area definition noting that if some use is there it is counted
as floor space but if nothing is there it is not counted even though at a later date
something could be added. Chair Frie opened and closed the public hearing.
ROY POPILEK MOVED AND DICK FRIE SECONDED THE MOTION TO
RECOMMEND AFFROV AL TO 'fHE CITY COUNCIL OF THE PROPOSED
ORDINANCE AMENDMEN"f TO CITY ORDINANCE TITLE 10, CHAPTER 3,
SECTION 2-2, SUBSECTION (FK) AND (FL) PROVIDING DEFINITIONS OF
FLOOR AREA AND LIVABLE FLOOR AREA NOTING THAT THIS AMENDMENT
SHOULD RESOLVE THE CONFUSION OF REAL TORS, DEVELOPERS,
BUILDERS AND STAFF WITH CONFLICTING DEFINITIONS. Motion carried
unanimously.
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.
Fred Patch gave the staff report on this item. It is felt that there is a need for the ordinance
amendment to give authority for procedures the staff has been utilizing. The City
Council had earlier established fees for grading permits. A grading permit would be
required if 400 cubic yards or less of material was being moved. Anything in excess of
400 cubic yards would be covered in the mining/land reclamation portion of the
ordinance amendment and would require a conditional use permit which requires
Planning Commission approval. Chair Frie opened and closed the public hearing. Chair
Frie questioned whether requiring a conditional use permit for mining or land reclamation
was consistent with what the county requires and he asked if the staff felt comfortable
with issuing grading permits. Fred Patch responded that the City Engineer is more than
qualified to make the decision on grading permits covering 400 cubic yards or less.
ROD DRAGSTEN MOVED AND ROY POPILEK SECONDED THE 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. Motion carried unanimously.
Public Hearing - Consideration of rezoning Lots 5-13. Block 2. Hillside Terrace from I-I
to I-1A.
Fred Patch gave the staff report. There is a proposal for industrial and wholesale business
-9-
.
.
.
Planning Commission Minutes - 4/6/99
uses. The I -I zoning does not allow wholesale business such as an outlet store but the
I-IA does. Changing the zoning trom I-I to 1-IA allows basically the same uses as before
but the I-I A district has stricter requirements on building facades. Fred Patch stated that
the City had received comments in favor of the zoning trom Ken Maus who owns
property in the area affected by the zoning change.
Chair Frie opened and closed the public hearing. Rod Dragsten questioned what type of
development was being proposed. The staff responded that it was an "incubator"
development which they likened to a spec commercial building that would lease space to
both commercial and industrial uses.
ROY POPILEK MOVED AND ROD DRAGSTEN SECONDED THE MOTION TO
APPROVE THE REZONING REQUESTED FROM I-I TO I-IA FOR LOTS 5-13,
BLOCK 2, HILLSIDE TERRACE BASED ON nm FINDING THAT THE
PROPOSED ZONING IS CONSISTENT WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND
COMP ATIBLE WITH THE ADJOINING LAND USE AND WILL NOT RESULT IN
DEPRECIATION OF ADJOINING LAND VALUES AND THAT THERE IS A
DEMONSTRATED NEED FOR THE USE. Motion carried unanimously.
12.
Discussion regarding a presentation by a Planning commission member to the Monticello
Area Chamber of Commerce on June 17" 1999.
The Planning Commission discussed the request to have a Planning commission member
make a presentation to the Chamber of Commerce. Chair Frie felt that Richard Carlson
because of his experience and longevity in the area of planning would be a logical choice
to make the presentation. If Richard Carlson is unable to do so another Planning
Commission member will make the presentation.
14. Consideration of discussion of violations of zoning ordinance regulations - outside
storage and other requirements - Morell Transfer - SW corner of Dundas and Fallon
A venues.
Jeff O'Neill reported on the violations on the property owned by Morell Transfer and
asked for Planning Commission comments and direction as far as bringing the property
into compliance with ordinance requirements.
DICK FRIE MOVED AND ROY POPILEK SECONDED THE MOTION TO DIRECT
CITY STAFF TO UPDATE THE CITY COUNCIL ON THE VIOLATIONS, TAKE
ACTION TO INVENTORY THE VIOLATIONS, DISCUSS THE VIOLATIONS WITH
MORELL TRANSFER AND PROCEED WITH AN EFFORT TO GAIN
~ 1 0-
.
.
.
Planning Commission Minutes - 4/6/99
COMPLIANCE. Motion carried unanimously.
15. MCP Update
Roy Popilek reported on an MCP meeting where there was a discussion on the United
Methodist Church site. Sunny Fresh would like to purchase the property and the church
would like to see the building preserved since it is a registered historical site. Roy
Popilek felt the City staff should be aware of these discussions.
Chair Frie asked Clint Herbst, council liaison, to inform the Planning Commission on the council
action on the Riverside Oil conditional use permit approved earlier in the evening by the
Planning Commission. The City Council at their special meeting approved the conditional use
permit.
The Planning Commission discussed the proposed zoning for the area of the Kjellberg mobile
home park expansion. The City's Land Use Plan would need to be amended to R-2 which would
be mid~density and would be consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan. Steve Grittman
noted that mobile home parks are allowed in R-2 Zoning District as a conditional use permit
ROY POPILEK MOVED AND ROD DRAGSTEN SECONDED THE MOTION TO
CALL FOR A PUBLIC HEARING TO DISCUSS THE LAND USE PLAN FOR THE
PROPOSED KJELLBERG PARK EXPANSION. Motion carried unanimously.
Fred Patch informed the Planning Commission that the recording secretary for the Planning
Commission had submitted her resignation and he thanked her for her work with the Planning
Commission. Chair Frie added his thanks as well. He suggested that perhaps even though she
was no longer an employees of the City something could be worked out where she could
continue to take minutes adding that he appreciated having someone doing the minute who could
spell.
ROD DRAGSTEN MOVED TO ADJOURN THE MEETING AT 10:35 PM ROY
POPILEK SECONDED THE MOTION. Motion carried unanimously.
Recording Secretary
-11-
.
.
.
Planning Commission Agenda -05/04/99
5.
Public Hearing - Consideration of a reauest for Conditional Use Permit for a Planned
Unit Development within the B-3 Zoning District and a Preliminarv Plat to allow
outdoor vehicle sales and associated automotive service uses. as well as variances to the
City's Sign Ordinance. Apolicant: Monticello Ford. (NAC)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
Monticello Ford Mercury has requested approval of appropriate zoning permits to allow the
expansion of the Peterson Ford site at the southwest corner of Trunk Highway 25 and
Interstate 94. A Planned Unit Development is applied here as the existing building will be
remodeled for use as an auto body service facility, perhaps an independent operation. The
new building will house the expanded Ford dealership operations, as well as other related
uses which may also include contract or leasehold businesses, such as rental or some type
of auto services. All of the proposed uses are traditional automobile dealership uses.
The applicant's site plan illustrates a much larger building south of the existing building.
The site would be extended to the edge of the new Chelsea Road extension, and would
include a new vehicle display area on the south third of the property. With the acquisition
of the new parcels, a Preliminary Plat is also required to combine all ofthe properties into
a single parcel.
The third category of zoning review is for variances to the City's Sign Ordinance. These
variances are detailed in the discussion below.
Planned Unit Development - Land Use
The proposed land use is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, and is in conformance
with the B-3 Zoning designation applicable to this parcel. The site plan indicates that there
will be display area throughout the site. However, separate areas have been set aside for
customer parking adjacent to the new building, and employee/customer parking along the
west border of the property (Sandberg Road). Both the display and the parking lots are to
paved with bituminous surface, and surrounded by curb.
The Zoning Ordinance utilizes a minimum tree planting requirement based on the greater of
(I) one tree per 1,000 square feet of building area, or (2) one tree per 50 feet of perimeter lot
line. This results in a minimum tree planting requirement of approximately 48 trees, half of
which may be credited by applying other landscaping elements such as shrubs and flowers.
The landscape plan illustrates 2 existing trees and 24 new trees, as well as shrub planting
areas around the building and in the most prominent locations around the site, such as
entrances and display areas. The City Council is to consider the adequacy of the materials
proposed in place of the 22 additional trees.
-1-
.
Planning Commission Agenda -05/04/99
Sign Variances
The Sign Ordinance section ofthe City's Zoning Ordinance establishes a maximum number
of signs on a multiple tenant commercial building to be equal to the number of streets fronted
by the commercial use. In this case, that number would be four, one of which may be a
pylon sign. Two "Product Identification Signs" are also allowed, and all signage is not to
exceed 300 square feet in total area.
The proposal from the applicants includes four pylon signs along Highway 25 (one of which
is existing). In addition, a company name (Monticello Ford Mercury) is proposed on three
of the building walls, including logo graphics. Finally a monument entrance sign and "Quick
Lane" entrance signs are located at the entrances from Sandberg Road. Other wall signs
which may be considered directional are also shown on the plans. Proposed signage on the
existing building is not shown, but the proposal suggests 200 square feet of wall signage on
each building face.
.
The total area of the three new pylon signs and the three wall sign installations is more than
600 square feet in area. One of the pylon signs is an electronic message center sign, which
would require a separate approval. These signs are currently prohibited in all commercial
zoning districts. The City could consider these to be allowable under a generous
interpretation of the PUD rules, or an amendment would be necessary. The City would need
to be prepared for several requests for such signs. Ifan amendment were to be considered,
it could apply to specific zoning districts, if desired. According to the Ordinance, pylon
signs are to be set back a distance equal to 50% of the building setback ~ 30 feet in the front,
10 feet on a side, and 20 feet in the rear. According to the Zoning Ordinance, Chelsea Road
would be defined "frontage". However, frontage on public streets require a 30 foot building
setback regardless of the defined front yard. None of the proposed pylon signs appear to
meet this standard.
Finally, Pylon sign height is related to the classification ofthe road frontage. For properties
abutting 1-94, this height may be 32 feet. The primary "Ford" brand sign is more than 36 feet
in height. Other signs appear to be less than the 32 foot maximum.
In summary, Sign issues are as follows:
Number of Freestanding Signs
Square Footage of Site Signage
Setbacks
Number of Signs, Total
Allowance
I
300 s.f.
15 ft.
4
Proposed
4+
600 s.f.+
5 and 7 ft.
9+
.
The sign proposal requires the City to consider variances which would be a significant
departure from its Ordinance. Variances are to be reviewed as to whether reasonable use of
-2-
.
Planning Commission Agenda -05/04/99
the subject property may be made ifthe requirements of the Ordinance are adhered to. There
must be a physical hardship present to justify the variance. As with many sign variance
applications, it is difficult to perceive of a hardship which makes reasonable use of the
property impossible without more, taller, or larger signs. It is understood that businesses will
often seek as much sign exposure as possible. Nonetheless, the City is required to apply its
ordinances equally between all properties in the same zoning district. This amount of
sign age is not consistent with other sign plans considered by the City in the recent past.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
Decision 1: Planned Unit Development
1. Motion to recommend approval of the Conditional Use Permits for a PUD and
outdoor sales, based on a finding that the site plan meets the intent of the Zoning
District, and all performance standards of the Ordinance are complied with.
2. Motion to recommend denial ofthe CUPs, based on findings to be established at the
hearing.
3.
Motion to table action on the CUPs, subject to additional information.
.
Decision 2: Preliminary Plat
1. Motion to recommend approval of the Preliminary Plat, based on a finding that the
proposal is consistent with dimensional requirements ofthe B-3 Zoning District.
2. Motion to recommend denial of the Preliminary Plat, based on findings to be
established at the hearing.
3. Motion to table action on the Preliminary Plat, subject to additional information.
Decision 3: Sign Variances
1. Motion to approve the Sign Variances and Sign Plan as proposed, based on a finding
that the site and land use are unique, and that the variances are necessary to preserve
reasonable use of the property.
2.
Motion to deny the Sign Variances and Sign Plan as proposed, based on a finding that
the signs are not in conformance with the Sign Ordinance, and that there is no
hardship present which would justify approval.
.
3.
Motion to approve a modified Sign Plan and Variances, based on findings made at the
-3-
.
Planning Commission Agenda -05104/99
hearing, including uniqueness of the needs of the business, the impact of the road
project on the business operation.
4. Motion to approve a Sign Plan and Variances, based on an anticipated amendment to
the Sign Ordinance which would accommodate the approved level of signage.
5. Motion to table action on the Sign Variances and Sign Plan, subject to additional
information.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff believes that the site improvements shown on the applicant's submission illustrate an
appropriate level of development for the site and the lIse. Subject to the review comments of
the City Engineer and other City staff, the Conditional Use Permits and Preliminary Plat are
both recommended for approval.
.
However, the Sign Plan is significantly beyond the allowances of the Sign Ordinance. To
consider a variance, the City is required to identify a unique physical condition which makes
reasonable use of the site impossible without the variances. As is often the case for sign
variance requests, staff docs not see such conditions present with this property. The parcel
has a high degree of exposure to both the freeway and TH 25. Approval of sign variances as
proposed would be difficult to distinguish from other properties along the TH 25 corridor.
As such, the Sign variances are not recommended.
Ifthe City believes that the proposed signage, or some modification of the sign plan in excess
of the maximum regulations, is appropriate, we would recommend a change to the Sign
Ordinance language. The applicants have suggested that if the property were a series of
smaller individual parcels and businesses, each of the other businesses would be permitted
its own pylon and associated wall signage. As a result, the Sign Ordinance structure has a
negative impact on the flexibility for mixed business projects such as this one. This "defect"
should be corrected by amendment rather than variance.
.
The applieanthas also suggested that the loss of the Oakwood Drive access, coupled with the
requirement that all access occurs "behind" the building from Sandberg Road, is one of the
factors which supports their request for additional signage. The applicant's contention is that
some costs related to the road project have gone uncompensated, and the applicant's business
has suffered a significant economic impact. Whether this is the case or not, economic impacts
are excl uded from consideration of variances. Therefore, staff would again suggest that any
additional signage beyond the Ordinance maximums be expressly addressed through an
amendment.
Finally, the applicant is anticipating the need to move quickly with his project, and is
-4-
.
Planning Commission Agenda -05/04/99
concerned that the time necessary to amend the City's Sign Ordinance would cause too much
of a delay. They have requested that the Planning Commission grant variances to
accommodate an increased level of signage in anticipation of a later amendment. Staff
believes that this approach can be taken, but not without some risk. If the Ordinance is later
amended, the variance would be eclipsed and would have no precedcntial efIect. However,
if no amendment is subsequently adopted, staff would be concerned about the grant of a
variance on B-3 zoned projects in the Highway 25 corridor.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Exhibit A - Site Location
Exhibit B - Site Plan
Exhibit C - Grading Plan
Exhibit D - Building Elevations
Exhibit E - Landscape Plan
.
.
-5-
#
7'
?
.
.
~
.....
.......
. ,.... "
Or;
o
b/\
LOCATION
EXHIBIT A .. SITE
n , 1~
, : I ~.
ji. 0('
:C~
d " :.e
~ i ~,
H .'
- ... ...
t.,'
'j ,.
II ' . '0(.
'. 1 '-'
n ..'
, ~~ '
.. , :t,
.. j'
j i : I
t i
- : i
S ;
I' I:
51 ;
(~'
'I,*~ \1 ,I 1 ;
I.', I
'.. H~I it ! :
. .j 'I I ; ,
. h) :
j. i
't ~ : :
Ii "11 ! :
III ' ,
:, i).
III "
ill C~J: l:
I , .
Ii ! II . ! :
II 1 '~ff : :
!! I III 1'1
(I '. ;. 'I
I '. .J~i R
.~,.
f r-~ ; s ,
~ '1I1"~~ ; I:
,~:;,~~;! ~ t I
. ..' .
r.,~' '
"
. , :
t;
I ~ ~
i '!i t:
1 --
'....l . ..!
I~ -= ,"
. t .
\~.
S\e d81
~,~:dl
..:
d'
'"
~
i
!i
;;I'"
~rI
::--
d
".. S'lil
i:; ~ S~
..' '" i= I",
Cl t: ..Cl
i
~
s
Sa
:t..
ia
~~
i~ :.
i < ;.
If),jl'
: f;! ~ :
::Ii ;,
..
I
~
Ii
i
~!
... !OE
. ~
..,'I.
!: -I:
-"--------1
!
i
I
i.
r
Ulil
: i
,.
g~ ;i ii
11;8; iju uu
l!.~ iit ="S
i.'
150, M>-I !
:>.. t1~'C I
g~.. ~Il;" ..
liii;l~g~
~.!!~~ii~
\
I ~
I'-
r :' i
tJ1~1
I
I:
il ! it9 j
tl I'
:1 ~ ~ I;
~I : !~!
I ; 3;.
I': II
I" II
: ': I'" "it~
I! I \' 1111~. ......
j : j: I. I 1
:' : I BY"
. f[ = !' .' '" ,.. !i. \. I
: r' P'(" .," \..r l\'~ \ \
't~ .. " \ . '. ._II~ ",~ ,:~ \ \~'\
~~~~\ '." .. ". &e:: \~...
2lb ,''''' ". " ~~ . ,
. '~\ ' ."" \. '''''''\ <,
t. '. WI '\ ..... d~ \ \. \
~\.>\:.~ .. \, '.~. '- ~" \
. ;\\.......~. '\ \,>.11I111I/'< \\ '\'" \
i~"~ '..... ... 't. '. ';... \..
v~ . '. . , \ \ " '. -: , \
\ ~". . '. '. ll" ,),.... \,..... \. I
: '" ~. '" ' \.~ " \. .' .... V' ~t
. .... -~.. " l, ,I '.' ~r.
"-. ..... '\' (l. '. ,,," " '
>'-'_' ,~"I" '.... 'D....
.....~.i ~..:........ '. .
t~h. -...;:
1m ...-....~....... --.....:; ,'..' '",,:.
-...........~ ,J'"
- '.-...~ ..;-.;:;.. ,:
. -...._...~~.......~. <<v~ 000'- \
. "'';:'-'' " 14j..~o ' , ,....,...
.........~.. ,
"--,
I:
I'
"
I'
,
$:
lh
Oot.
~;s i
2~ ~
~i I
, ,
,." " '~"'"
'. t ..
~' . ~
i.
",
,
'. ,
......
. ';:::
ao.__.....
". ..~
......., "'"",:~
.':.:...>,........ .~
..."
......--...
~:~.:: ..~I....... . . ::::-~..;.;. .t" --.,
-....
........
.....
... .........".
. ..\.. .n on
I
I
I
\ \
: I
i '
i
1
\
I I
\ \
I ,
I \
I I
I I
\
i
\ \
I :
I \
I \
II
\~;I
J -,
...
EXHIBIT B - SITE Pi. ~I\l
5-';}...
~ 11
~II
,\
I \
, 1
i ~ I
, I
i" I
i
II
I
!
I
',I
'i
I!! 11
~ II
il
II
It
,I
11
;1
:;" i I
i Ii
II
II
- \I
II
~
jf
lI!..9
li ; ~~ -
i go,:..,
i -=i l':i
III "''0... ':t
II.:lS~\l'I
n~r;.
i.r, u
u
<.I
:1\ I
})
~-,'
, . I:
I. !;l i
n. ,
:q
,,11] S
~.I:; ~
i i; ~
. i
, i
1, I
~ Iii
i:l I!
lit, II
;b Il'
,"I I
'll'
!;i: I
'\
1'1
.\
. \
:.; . ~ \
\
I
I
I
\
,
I
I
,
.
.\
,'t~, ,
to ".
)
,
I
,
,
,
.~
,
,
EXHIBIT C - OR A.DING PLAN
~-3
I .. .~n:lillll'lllll!Il~:.li:~,ftO!I!I..~ ~~ ~~i~~~~ ~~ l~d\I\I\\I~lWi! 'Ill" i ~-~ ff~l-\
. lf~ll ~ llIOlI ~"" .-IJ01YH Q~" ~ I IIII111 "~ !nll, 1 6 ~ ill 11 I
... t....c~ .-'''''''.....- ....... -....
.
.. I~.'~
I : .~ ttttI
I mli.
i"
~f,
,,~
"
.
! Ui
llif
(S
[' '.T1111
"
U! e
!!.
'"
!!, ~. Ii'
ll! '" l~.
. ~,
'@
.~ III
i
~
.
.. i
, ! II,
I /I'
, I I
, II. .
I II! ., ... - - --
I ; _ ..,
i
~
1i,
~,
,,~
"
I, '
I" 1
.~ :
ii :
is! :
: .'
! 1:
.8'
l~
, ,
i ':"I\I-! ~
m ! ~I.J,
JI!!I!
Ill' \ ~j I
'1.1,1 t Jl"
"~
, IV:
, I'
! II." .
: ~i :
, ,
: i: $'"
~ r" ,i. '
'n', i .
," ,11 .
. I, A' j
:'1 ri. I'i
l j ; ~ ~l. ~
'II': to'" '
I ~'r .
, .
, '
: "@
i rJ.. ;...,......" :':~.
,
~~
~.
~
, I
! '\ ~'~"T~:--::~-"':'--
! l1;l ~\I ,'-'=-~Tl'''''T
, , ..
, I. :
" f!
JI ."
1'1 i
1L.1,g. .
" '
: !
i
, i
I' , lim
Ii.
~ I . I,
\ '
~: : w" I;
:, '
" ,
:1 ' j\'
II
it
~ '
i, ;
Ii! 8
,I,
1: 'I , :
j
Ii' I ' I l ~ I
,I I! l'wi l
1.1 k
11'i]1
"i, ,11.
111"1'11'
III L
! I i!li I
I ~ !,
(, ,
r-
~ I
'1 '
.. ,
~. :
~ ; i
H
i
'Ii'
:~ i
!~I '
I_ i
'iP .
i ~ l i
1m: i
'!- , ~
; I ~ I
..,
EXHIBIT 0 - BUILDING ELEVA.!JO~
S~'1'
1
i~
",
t;1
"
~ :H_il!l~ml~ill" \...:'~ A.UfB~Ji!SlW / CI/'lIO~~~ '~JII\IIr;m~fl;IllJ1 :'lf~i:-lf' 't;:::'C'--11 ---
n" !lll ,Il.,.~".l ~ Oil1iJ:NJ.ltfjOW -' 1"11' - , =!t ~ · ,..,..,!)
1c I 5~i!i!llii t !IIO" ,U,IDY" _R1YiQ <un'" .i, II,~I.~!;.:~.:.~.}" I 9".~.~ ..:~ "'," I
.
!
9
""rom c:~.J.'1,:r:~.". ,.,),""
EXHIBIT E .. LANDSCAPE PL~
So
.
.
.
Planning Commission Agenda - 05/04/99
6.
Public Hearin~ - Consideration of a Conditional Use Permit for a Planned Unit
Development in an &-2 District and a Simple Subdivision. Applicant: Little
Mountain Limited Partnership. (NAC)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
Little Mountain Limited Partnership has applied to develop the north 4.8 acres of the
"Klucas" property along West River Street. The proposal consists of28 townhouse units,
allowed in the R-2 District under the Conditional Use Permit process. Because the units
will gain access via private driveways and not direct public street frontage, the Planned
Unit Development process is required. The project is being reviewed as a concept stage
PUD. The intent of concept stage review is to raise issues and provide public comment,
facilitating more detailed design on the part of the applicant.
Marvin Elwood Road provides access to the property along its northeast boundary. The
development plans illustrate a new City Street intersecting with Marvin Elwood Road and
extending to the south into the remainder of the property. The townhouse project is
proposed to have two driveway access points, one from this new street and one from
West River Street. Internally, the private driveway loops around three fourths of the
project, providing access to the individual building unit clusters.
The development itself consists of four 6-unit row house buildings, and one 4-unit
building. This results in a gross residential density of about 5.8 units per acre, or about
7,500 square feet per unit. This is in excess of the minimum lot area per unit requirement
of 5,000 square feet per unit. The units are arrayed around a central courtyard within
which the developer proposes a play area and sidewalk.
The units themselves consist primarily of three bedroom apartments. One of the units is
developed to serve as a live~in management office, as well. The 1100r plans submitted
with the project indicate single car garages are attached to each unit, with an additional
outdoor parking space for each unit outside of the garage. In addition, there is a supply of
visitor parking spaces scattered throughout the project.
J<;sues
1.
The proposed City Street will intersect Marvin Elwood Road at a curve. The City
Engineer should comment on the acceptability of this location. This street will
also necessitate a unique additional screening requirement. Its location borders
the rear lot lines of an existing single family neighborhood. The proposal
illustrates a berm with evergreen trees planted to help buffer this new street from
the existing homes. More detailed landscape plans will be reviewed to ensure an
adequate screen.
-6-
.
2.
.
.
Planning Commission Agenda ~ 05/04/99
Development of the remainder of the parcel is also an issue. The new public
street would provide access to the south portion of the property. It would appear
that the new street could eventually loop to connect with Prairie Road which is
platted, but unbuilt, on the south boundary of the property. A concept plan
illustrating a reasonable development of the remainder of the parcel would be
advisable to ensure that this development will not leave inadequate access to the
undeveloped portion.
Although not part of this same property, an illustration which shows how this
project might be integrated with development on the property to the west would
also be beneficial. Although land to the west is zoned industrial, there is a natural
grade and tree buffer which separates the actual industrial development and an
area of open land adjoining the subject property. It is conceivable that
development on that open land would be better suited as residential. The
illustration suggested here would be to show how that open land might be
integrated with this development in the future.
3.
The project preserves a significant amount of open space, primarily in the interior
ofthe development. There would be an excellent opportunity to provide an
attractive landscape treatment to the front boulevard areas along West River
Street. As a PUD, this is an area where the City may request an enhancement to
the project design.
4. It would not appear to be necessary to require sidewalks along the driveway
access within the project. However, a sidewalk along Marvin Elwood Road and
the new public street would appear to be a positive element with this project.
5. The property requires a simple subdivision which will create a new parcel
containing the PUD. Since these are proposed to be rental units, no plat of the
underlying townhouse lots is necessary. Therefore, simple subdivision is
appropriate.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
Decision 1 - Simple Subdivision
1. Motion to recommend approval of the simple subdivision for Little Mountain
Limited Partnership, based on a finding that the proposal does not require a plat at
this time.
2.
Motion to recommend denial of the simple subdivision based on a finding that the
platting process is most appropriate for a development of this type.
-7-
.
Planning Commission Agenda - 05/04/99
3.
Motion to table action on the subdivision, pending additional information.
Decision 2 - Concept Stage Planned Unit Development
1. Motion to recommend approval of the concept stage Planned Unit Development,
subject to consideration of the issues mentioned in this report and others identified
at the public hearing.
2. Motion to recommend denial of the concept stage PUD, based on findings
developed at the public hearing.
3. Motion to table action on the concept stage PUD, subject to additional
information.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
.
Staff recommends approval of the PUD concept plan, with the comment that the issues
mentioned in this report, as well as others identified in the City's review process, are
addressed in the next submission stage. For Development Stage PUD, the applicant will
need to submit full grading, drainage, and utility plans, and a well-developed landscape
plan for the project. The area-wide concept plans mentioned in this report should also be
forwarded at that time.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Exhibit A - Site Location
Exhibit B ~ Site Plan
Exhibit C . Building Floor Plans
Exhibit D - Building Elevations
.
-8-
'" ',~:: -~
. \\.:'
. . '
. . , .. . --. .............,............ ..... -- .. . . . .. . .. .. .. . . .. :\..... . -- -- .. . .. .. . -- . .. . ~. , .. . . .. ' .. . . .. .. .. . .. . .. . .:.. . . . . .. ,
. , .
.
,~
........ ,. .:., ......... .... ..
,", ...................... .......... .....- . .---.-".
'7
. . . . .. ~... - . . . ~ . , .. . " - - . . . . .
.. ~ - . . . . .
. ,
.
EXHIBIT A - SITE LOCATION
10./\
.....1'. ...
.... ~..-.-
..-~
~, ---- ... y.
~.II"'~""'"
. -::-_i_P-
-,.,.,...
Q
II l
i i ·
i i II'
ii fL.'
i i I ! I
ii l III ~;r- I
J I ..t r~, · ....\.-
. , / / ,_. ..".'-'--'--
i i ./' t....- · - - .. 1'--
ii / I - - - h.
i I ~;-c- )---;~;;//- --'-- ~~t)-:--l '- -----,----
ii I (d fa) i
i i
ii' -.- ~~.. I
ii !.... I
il ] ~ ,. I
ii i ..... I i
ii ~ ....' 11., Ii
ii T ./
i i I ,) I
I' I' " . '-'" . ," I
I ~,'
_ ~I j,i .i !OJ
F i'i li. ...
;!i iT.... I.
~P! i e .... I
II ! i
i i i
ii ~ i
~ i~j ,
! i!1 . i
l] I I ;;;;!!-~ I i
1] T '::1L. . ,n. - i I
!! I. \. .-=\ll-T-'\ riT- j ) !
!! --,__ \ I \ \ II '-- - -- -------- -' !
!! " ~.. __ ./ I
!] I ,_ ._ _..----t~--;-,=-"'~,r-""~----==,,-d- ~
I i+ __f5!~ .!~_ ._?_~_.. .!' _!!,!_Jf.._~_~,_~rj
I --
1// d--
EXHIBIT B · SITE PLAN
..--~
~..
,pm~
I
~h!lphl' i
" I" j I- r." 1 ·
, II I
tli,'] C
. I . I i.
%
I
'III" ... .....
-~
~'f"" =
~;
z
<9
~ \)
u... ..,
..
UJ":..
1-<"
_t
1.0 ~
1
I
I
"1'... ....-...~-- ....-..- -:-:-I-:'.-91"-:~'ir-:f'~'
I I r ..:L.A~'" 1
\. " ',: \:r- . \ .-
11, .rt II
I. ' ! ~~ 1'-.
, ~ ,~l I: I L.. :.:.. ~:_. -:::''='-
; 1 l ;'1' :!. ~.~' ,_~~I '[,. '\
i I I : :: ;"1 . .:' 'l'" ,'1rrl"\I....1 "'j
\ I Ii, l~~~: I f: ' I . I I . I ...1'"" _. _:-_."'_:-,--_.._:.._,-~
, \ 1\.__..i: ij'" ;::;.~jillit~\lUll.. ~I-~J~\
: ~ . ~l. ~ ,J:.n :~. ( \
I I ., l~ il .'~ It':'.. .\'
"
" . .00 . "I I II I
" I l~j"i~"'1 . l'" , _00'
I i I ,I :r __.
il' I I I....~
\ . 1 I L I II -. J I
I . _..... ___...1 I L - - .... .
f-- r"'~~. r---rj3r'~, i -lJl~'
;.; '~-',' ". \1\1 .rf~:~:J ".\>~ .-,
" ~';r,=;t ,.. IIC f(
I Ii , ~.~ I(:jxri'l"rrr'j' ~'~4'l
; . !il\i I~~\~, _7.. _...._~.,_.="-'.. ,.
. - - ,1- .'~. . --.: . '~-;- "~ri \ f';'~J;~I~~lt-"':--=1[
\ \ I I . I . U>>l..lm1.L. 'h
,\: ;1" ~";(~'l~" :I'{ i
~\ ~J l -;._
~:1 · ~l"'~-_l ?J i I' !'. "\rTTI I
~ "1\ : \ f'1I\ :~1 ":' :: . ".._L_.l. .------"
~ I I II I
I 'tl; I '11~.3'".:.J I
I l .--. - 1';:;"1' ~...'---'-'- ~ - -~~jolr''''I~lj''-~lt-:-:- +-...,
I r-' :: .. ,..- i I I ~r::~' ~ :
, , I 'I . I
I I I 1 I, ., "J-r
\ I J r'~'. ~ 1\ ~~u.!, I b~'-'" .J.
ih: \ ~1\ ~ . 'n 1:;] :, .(
., l' \1 ,'. - " '('
(" i . '-.: \" --i'
~::" \ I .. .1l!J~}l~~ ;J.;=~~=-~
I - - -: . "'.- :~..;.. . ll[t'i ( ]'1' L___1F~
'; I : 11...~.I.\/J. .. tr
.'j I I q ~,,:i',' IIJ
! .
,- L...~. -. ~.l I rr I" t:'_[N' "iI'~r-
I, I i: ._.J I .(j I ~';"-'il . ' !~~ . LJ-L-
I I : I: I "';.'-"
I , I I I" - I
.~ I I :I~. ... .\. :~.l.ll:~:ml:~,,: -.-.. -----
'11 il'.' ---.' ......- r' . r ,r
'I ~I -- . -. \ \~;4i '..,
\ ~ -.~_. \ I
I 1,.,_.. --..,..:.......1__-; I:_.~.-.:.I \--- EXHIBIT C - FLOOR PLAN5
. ,
, .
r
:....",
".(
.. ......
,'--
"\.....
. . ,'. . '.:, .~
. ..l.,"!,,":::.':'
",,'. .
. '.
'.
",. .
,.:.' ..
:. \~f~, "
. ':: '. /.{~);'"
. ......
, .
" "f'
. .
" .
. .
. ','.
.... ..
, ....J.
:.'1", . I
".:. "
I' "
. .
. .,',
.:'
; " .
. .... f.
'..
...
.....
r";~
~~!}
i d~'
.J...
J
9
~,
~
~
.
"
..
.,
S\
I
I
II
"
"
C'l
ft
\!)
z
5 OJ
.J ~,
:::;'
[Q ,I.
:z ,~:
~ "'l'"
~ .rs
r.
It 'r'
0"
o ~,
.J.
LJ.. :
'4 \-:r.,
~ tl)~.
~ i
il:~
~
:I
~3
..
" I
.. ~I
.. . :~~ ~ I
--t ~~
:: t.!' "~~
:: ~ ~.~iJ~':
:: (',.{ 'jlif.~
._~ ~. ~ -I';
'J::
It
U
il
I
\.
--on
"
"
'.
'1
"
..:11,
"
"
"
"
,.
"
"
"
"
"
,I
"
"
"
"
" ; I~I
:.
"
"
,.
':
~ :
"
::
'"
"
,.
"
"
"
,.
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
- -,~'
"
"
"
: l
"
"I
:: ,t
"'"/
: ; ~~,
..Lh
II
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
, ,..1111
I,
"
"
"
"
"
"
,.
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
..
" "'\
"
"
"
"
"
.. - "I.t
. .
'II
."
"
,
'II
"
'II
'I'
'"
"
'"
'II
",
'11
'"
."
..
"
."
."
:II
,"
."
~H ~','"
',tl
'II
'"
,,'
'"
,"
. ,
,: ;(
, ,
'I I
: 1 "> ~
:~ ~!:: ) !'
': tr'., ,~
J i ~ t~
EXHIBIT 0
. !
11"--'-'
[---'}' ...., i
.. t.
, ,1....., .I._...J
~ I' 'T'T':"
I l:0js'~ I
I 111 ~
l ~.~; I~
<~ :/'~~1
h ;,
\. .,"",' 1
. '1,,1. I ~I _I I I .
"~'~~' '. :~f,t ~
~~, I '~IJ:#J:~~~ ~l ~
~'1"~:~.."",~,,, '
, \ 'X,"" "'F<-',\",',', "j ...
":: \..: !~
.....1""1
I 'I" '~," I "
!'f, ~,~! '.'
~If. ',I:, " I' \
it,I.....I,
I', :~! ~::.:~}i ~
t~11!:1
\ . I
\
"j
\~~
~~
~
, ,
.(1 ,~
~:
t~ .
,,~ "
l>~
"~ ..
~
!
" l!:Fi,"l~~....."
11~;'.'. ',~'i1;,
. .' ..1'
1~",1" ,i:: ,
/""~!~~~~':-.1 .; k-~'
,'1'1 '", '" ! J
. ~t.~:ro. ;1r:'i'~:I
.~" "1:<
,I ...
~li
I ,!~
'[QJ ~. I i!
I . " '
L._.. ItCr
Fffl! IttHl::::~ I':
~;l"!"
. ~ I .
i .. _.
~~! : ~ .
IiIIIilI
I
j'''' .
ian
" .I
~; I' P.rn
~\. i~
1- I
-i /,........
:l~
,\/ ~
'y l.i=W
I ~< F.ffl
\ \ ~4;!
r '
!~ "I!m
.I
'.'
,,'
,
"1
I
,
,
. .
,
,
,
, ~,
, M
, ,
. ..
: I (l
:, II
, i ,"
: ik~~
'. ~
.'
~: ~'
."
"
" .
" '"
" '>
.:: l!J
,ll iil
.,' I
" c~
;: ~
... ~M
; ,
~~
~~
.~
.n
,"
,01
,01
."
."
"
"
"
.H
II
'.
.,
"
"
'il
Il
"
,"
'"
'"
'"
'01
'"
"
:11
'"
~/. \. I
\ ' .!
. F,'I"I"i. \J~' ." 'j
\io6:i.I 'I
It ~.:...\.i~..~...1
I
\'"'' _..,
I
'l
:: "I
I I ~~
1\'
,
II \L'l
II II
II /!
:: \">.
I' II
~~ :t: I~
I' I.';.
II \,...
. I' I, ~
\.I"l
II ~l
I I ~'I', II'
,.
iI,
";
tJ
. .
;:.
.~ ;
'.
"
,.
f
I
1')
.1
,
I.
I
,
"
"
-jLI
"
.'
.'
: ~
j~
1.'\"
i:':
"
.. Il
:. II ~
. I "II
;: (1'
:. Ill.
:1 ':
I' "
II,
I'
of'
.' .....'11
III' .
" to.
101
I . . ,,~
" 'I
. / tol
:: ~ l rti'
" (::
J ,
,
,
,
,
I.
:;
: .:.
~'.~
"
"
,"
"
..
"
"
II ~I
"
, ,.
,I'
,
. I
"
"
.,
,
"
\o,y
~~..::
11:1
-i:I.:C
~'"'' : [~;, '~I
[lil' :.. "
.."ILi":l': . I .
~UILDINC ELEVATIONS
I, ,.~
"'~)
"':1.
.ji:
. I-;~~
~
. ~ r...:....:.:J..::
I ,.
; ~
l!'~;::;r.q"
! ",:~~~'~~ .
!"~-if;
"/'!':"~"... !.~ r:
',", " ,,'.,' . "rr:J .
, ."",'~' . I d ".,
A:'j~I~, . : 1 \~: l' ,\
';' ~", '. I', :; i'1
;....'tJ.." ,..",.
';:;i:i1:,i\ "ill::i ,.,:. r.!
'~I;!""; I,ll,l.
.. ' ,,~;.:t
; 1'!'ffl ,::' :'
;~ .0.. ;~.
I ':'
I, Ji ~:i
;' ~..., 'tfJ''''r-' ,"
~ b~ : ,: ;',
, .. ' ',' .1' ,. ,',
en. IIi
· ~i l~il.
" '~1~4
:',m~:';:~I8E :.
:: (:::~: ~ :,:
~I~ !: c~:~I~r:~; ill
"t: :-I:I'!'r.'" 'I'l
~oI., "~'II""",
~r~ I, I"' " j: I .~
; ': rJri!' i~1
. -: Jilij \1'
i: : .:' '! ~ ij' ~l'
~ -'. ii;'!"':'l ~ht1!
j,J-J It; I,.li:
~tl"l'H
: Q)'! 'aT:
'." :'
.
j
~ ".,
I; "1'
" ,
~ .1
I.
~ '.
I
(
i.
i.'"
~ ~.,
~. I
, ,
~ ", "
.
.
.
Planning Commission Agenda - 05/04/99
7.
Public Hearine - Consideration for approval of Conditional Use Permits for ioint
parking and building heieht in excess of two (2) stories. Applicant: Comfort Inn Motel
(NAC)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
Comfort Inn has submitted an application for approval of two conditional use permits (CUP)
for property located at Lot 3, Block 1 of the Silver Fox subdivision, which is at the corner
of Chelsea Road and Oakwood Drive. The subject site is zoned B-3, Highway Business.
The proposed development of a 52-unit hotel is a permitted use within the B-3 district. The
first CUP is to allow joint parking with the adjoining hotel (Best Western) to the west. The
second CUP is to allow the building height to exceed the maximum height of two stories.
The proposed building is three stories in height.
The proposed development is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, calling for
commercial use. The hotel is a permitted use provided there is a minimum of 500 square feet
per unit oflot area, or 26,000 square feet. The lot area of the subject site is 71,932 square
feet, thus being a permitted use. Setbacks in the B-3 District are thirty (30) feet front and
rear yard, ten (10) side yard. The proposed setbacks indicated in the plans appear to be in
compliance with the B-3 District.
As stated above, the applicant is requesting approval of a CUP to allow joint parking
between the Comfort Inn and Best Western (adjoining property). The combined parking
totals 191 spaces. Based on the parking requirements for hotels and for restaurants
established in the Zoning Ordinance, the two sites require a total of 180 parking spaces,
therefore, meeting City requirements. Under Section 22-1 [0] of the Monticello Zoning
Ordinance, the Planning Commission shall consider possible adverse effects of the proposed
conditional use, based on the following criteria:
1. Relationship to municipal comprehensive plan.
Comments: The proposed development is consistent with the Monticello
Comprehensive Plan, calling for commercial development in the area.
2. The geographical area involved.
Comments: The joint parking would be advantageous to the site and adjoining site
3.
Whether such use will tend to or actually depreciate the area in which it is proposed.
Comments: The proposed joint parking request, along with the proposed hotel
development will not depreciate the value of the site and surrounding areas. One of
the criteria required of all commercial development is the planting of trees. The
-9-
.
standard requires one tree for each 50 feet of perimeter lot line. A revised landscape
plan should be required illustrating compliance with this requirement.
4.
The character of the surrounding area.
Comments: The proposed development is consistent with the existing character of
the surrounding area.
5. The demonstrated needfiJr such use.
Comments: The area to be converted on the existing hotel/restaurant property is not
intended or required for any other use. The proposed hotel property needs the
additional parking to meet minimum parking requirements. The applicant could have
the existing hotel/restaurant property split and transfer the title to the proposed hotel
property, however, for the convenience of the applicant, ajoint parking CUP is being
requested and essentially accomplishes the same thing.
The maximum building height for buildings in the B-3 District is two stories. Section 3-4
[A] 1 of the Zoning Ordinance, a three story building may be allowed as a conditional use
contingent upon strict application of a requirement that fire extinguishing system be installed
throughout the building. The CUP is based on procedures established under Section 22-1
[D] of the Monticello Zoning Ordinance.
.
The Zoning Ordinance indicates that a three story building may be allowed through a CUP
provided the entire building is equipped with a fire extinguishing system. As a condition of
approval, occupancy of the building is contingent upon compliance with all building and fire
codes including a fire suppression program.
B.
ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1.
Motion to approve the CUP to allow for joint parking between the two facilities and
the CUP to allow for a three story building. This motion should be supported by a
finding that the is consistent with the direction of the Comprehensive Plan and
complies with the criteria approving a CUP found in the Monticello Zoning and
Subdivision Ordinance.
2.
Motion to deny the CUP to allow for joint parking between the two facilities and the
CUP to allow for a three story building. This would be supported by a finding that
the Platming Commission does not feel the criteria to approve the CUP is
satisfactorily met.
.
-10-
3.
Motion to table action on the CUP to allow joint parking between the two facilities
and the CUP to allow for a three story building, subject to the submission of
additional information.
.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Stall recommends Alternative 1, approval ofthe CUP to allow for joint parking between the
two facilities and approval of the CUP to allow for a three story building, based upon the
following conditions:
1. The Planning Commission finds that the criteria for each separate CUP application
is satisfactorily met.
2. The applicant submits a Landscaping Plan the indicates the type and height oftrees
to be used on the site, subject to the review and approval by the City.
3. The proposed cul-de-sacing of Oakwood Drive is subject to the review and approval
by the City Engineer.
4. Occupancy of the building is contingent upon compliance with all building and fire
codes including a fire suppression program.
.
D.
SUPPORTING DATA:
Exhibit A - Site Location
Exhibit B - Site Plan
Exhibit C - North and South Exterior Elevations
Exhibit 0 - East and West Exterior Elevations
.
-11-
.
0 :s
0
..J ...
...
~ lI!
'"
U.I i
(.)
-
l-
Z
0
::z
u..
o 1>-
;
=>
> ~
~ ~
..
() t
. "
'~.I:.' I.
..... ." '1'; . ,
,I. . .
-:;t'.~
,"
" ' :j
_.....,--l~......,. ':":r:.'')o: , :t
';1 1" ...:...... '" ~
1 1 J.~:-~~
1-.,
.:
.
II
~
~H
. f1 ,,1
EXHIBIT A: SITE LOCATION
ColOl
:''''''''''1$
'''1\1 -,!I'1I
'''III(J
AU.VNIW1'I~md . NV'ld 3~lS
:'/I1.L
I r t;:"'c 1-.1: ~'\ !".,"
..~. ~IN":'~~.~"1.J lbf
IInl tI( ..'HI ...,-n..
.....U!,.IlI...'" It"
Slr..c:l'llnll >Il~'.:a'JtOlV
:tJflI ""1~'lI.
J" ..1tI$ .q. JO ''''III'''' ""pl/n
~'lfPIy p;u'I"lll'o1l .(Inp .. WO
I 1111' pu' II"'SJA.tadnt p.t.l,p
IIII ...pUn "O'W .cq p:l.lnd:ud
_ l.Iod....... ""Il,,,.!!!,,,.d.
',ICld "'I' 1111(' .(J!\J;U .('.....111
VJ..)$iIi'li'l'" 'll...''';)lJJIl(II~
NNI1MO.:lWO~
,."mN ,:J,'f"J"
.IIIIIIAI
It::
~~E
~.~
cg~
" ,
?L:1iJ
= I!;
~~
'"=\1,i)
d!:'
~1!.1\~
rp
L"":' c;.'
@:., ~1
!!:
Q'
;,0::
i
~
~
::t:
l..l
E HII B: SITE PLA~
~
~
~
~ '1 /d-
E-cq
~~
oo.~
c.lQa
:'0" ,.a.,s
.
.
""~J,
~~ ~~~~ 1~;Y:~
Et"'..-;__=r=N}I~'d ...c)'~
II!....I~) 1'" _...:J<<C
'C1N';!all
; "IIIU
SNOIJ.VA313 UOUl:il.LX~1
lllI"IO"llt1\1 ~ SL"lilIJtDIV
JO al'lS ~"I' J" ....1 ~'ll J.1pun
I>>I!I(.UV ~15l~),I ~lllP n .....
1111'11 pUll u"!'!^".dm 1.".lP
Alii ~"pan.M) alii "'I ...."l1.>Jd
.... ),Iodu JO 'un!JI::l!J?>lh
'uerd "Il1llmrl.(JlloJ>> "q~'lf r
'l'J.O~"3NNII1 'In'llI:"IU.Nm~
NNI J,MO,iWO:)
:ilU"N p.(Ul.'
.IIIIIIM
, ~
M
~.I
~H
-11
"
"
: " "
"
"
-"I -f!
'I
II
"
"
"
"
"
\:
"
I:
"
'I
II
I'
Ii
I,
-1
I,
II
..J.Lf1
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
Ii
"
"
"
1\
.'
"
"
,
,
"
::1
,
,
,
11
, \i
I "
, "
~.,..;J
II Z
"
, ..1
"
'~11 0
"
" ~
"
" ~
"
"
" -< 1
"
" ~ ~
" >- ,,'
iI ~.
~l
I! ~ I~
~I
,I ~...,
,I ,d
" ~
"
"
"
"
" :c
"
II
-..,1r. ~
II
"
"
II ~
I'
" Z~
"
" "
"
"
--;J
--n
"
II
II
:1
"
\1
~l~
I'
,I
"
"
:1
"
"
I'
,I
'I'
!1
Ii
II
"
:1
..H
I'
'I
'[
I,
it
"
il
J1
:==>J
"
-~},
.J"
- ::
:1
11
:~h
':rO
il
1:
"
:1
"
"
"
'I
-~
It!.
I~ ~
iC~
I~ rl
!~"Vl:r
"
"
);1
I:
:1
.1-:
"
II
I,
II
'oV
(;;:
I~~~
('..'.....
f.:':"""<':""'
\!;II" S
rS1:~
~"'-,
r-:. if;,
.--::-ti;::
r=.::;(o?)
~@
~~&.
\~\jJ @
(U~i1I\:'
......'
" (b\
.- r.r;;
:)
EXHIBIT C:
"
z
o
~
~
<
>-
~
~
==
~
;:J~
02
.
...
16
l:~l:
:"ON P'IIS
.
,-
'ON "3D
1~I"a
JIl ~1.lS ~1I1 JIl ,All.' ~Il ~~pUl\
pII1f'P.IV p:u;fJlo'Ia,~ "I'" d w.
I )11111 pu. UOIIJU"'M 1''1.1'1'
"Ill ~,ptll\ ... 'w "'I p~.d~"
..... ,.IId~ ... 'lI"!I~!I!""d~
'lIllld $11(11"'" "J1~ ,(q....'ll
S~~J.L V ^lI"IR 1l01~;~~ I
::'/'I,L
-'';~_.:.~i:~~I~.~a;;':;'''' .
"'I~~ ~;I~~.ISfn
~nn >It $1;:alJ1-Cl11/
IIU1Sl11li'/l" 'l)"T1:i:lI.l.l\lOtol
NNI ~HO.!lWO::>
..~mnN Ij~.rnJrl
.IIIIIIM
...
"]
-11\1
,I _
-..... !
,i
"
H
"
-,
I:
!i
ii
I'
-r
-~
. -~
,: ',', :: " II
. ' -~
'. '.;. on
. ...' II
:< .~~ .;.: II
,,: '; . -p
:..., II
'. '.' ..H
ii
-1i
-~
" I":~: q
,d ~ I!
", " II
:::: p
'f: ;' II'
. " " ,~
. ,. :.~
-...
,
,!
'I
,
:11 j J
Jl
~: , 11
';: 1,' '''!!I
'i .
C'. " J
-,'
....,' i!
.. II
. :~
Ii
1\
-n
.... Ii Z
-~ 0
I Jt-ooC
-,1 ~
:: -<
!i ~
Iljlll""'"
.j~ ~
Ii ~
Ii r.....'
I, ~
;1 E-c
I.
"
HOO
Ii ~~
o"li! ~~
Lil II
-....:' ,
d ..
:'
......,
""
:::u
,I
,I
'i
---"
.....v
--....
"
...,.
'. ,
,
,
,
Z i
0 c
. ,
11-1 . ,
E-c
-<
>
~
~
~
E-l
<i
~~
--n
--....
:J J Jj
IS
~~
@5'@
~&!
~~
=r-::
rs~'
2:@J
~~
;:r,M..
(ii~~
~ it)
~
'\~~
EXHIBIT D: EAST & WEST EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS
.
.
.
Planning Commission Agenda - 05/04/99
8.
Public Hearing - Consideration of a rezoning and concept site vlan avoroval from
AO to a R-4. Mobile Home Park District. Applicant: Kjellber~'s. Inc. (NAC)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
Kjellberg's, Inc., has requested approval of a rezoning and concept site plan approval for
a mobile home park with an R-4, Mobile Home Park zoning district designation. A
previous request for a rezoning to R-4 was found to be inconsistent with the City's
Comprehensive Plan, as well as with the pending MOAA draft land use plan. The site
plan which accompanied the first proposal indicated a low density residential pattern,
whereas the land use plan indicates a medium density pattern. For Monticello, this
pattern has typically meant twin home or townhouse development.
The applicant has submitted a new site plan which illustrates a much more densely
developed mobile home park. This proposal would be consistent with the density
recommendations ofthe City's Comprehensive Land Use Plan. However, it would
continue to be inconsistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan objective of encouraging
higher-valued housing. Moreover, the land use objectives envision that mid-density
housing will consist primarily of attached housing, such as townhouses or twinhomes.
This type of development pattern can be distinguished from mobile home park
development of similar density in its ability to preserve common open spaces within the
development.
With regard to the housing value objective, this current proposal would be less desirable
than the first plan due to its smaller lots, and generally more congested layout. Thus,
neither proposal entirely meets the direction of the Comprehensive Plan. The second plan
better matches the proposed density, however, it sacrifices housing value as compared to
the first.
If the City supports the annexation at this time, it may also consider a zoning district
recommendation for R-2, a district which supports both single and two-family residential,
as well as townhouses by Conditional Use Permit. It should be noted, however, that state
law also includes Mobile Horne Parks as a Conditional Use in Multiple Family Districts.
The applicant indicates that they would pursue the expansion of the mobile home park
under the County's jurisdiction.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1.
Motion to recommend an R-4 Zoning District amendment, based upon the second
plan, supported by a finding that the second plan provides for a development
density within the range envisioned by the Comprehensive Plan of the City of
Monticello.
-12-
.
.
.
Planning Commission Agenda - 05/04/99
2,
Motion to recommend an R-4 Zoning District amendment, based upon the first
plan, supported by a finding that bctween the two mobile home park plans, the
first plan better meets the objectives of the City Comprehensive Plan with regard
to housing value,
3,
Motion to recommend an R-2 Zoning District amendment, based upon a finding
that this district is most consistent with all of the objectives of the Comprehensive
Plan, including land use and housing value.
4.
Motion to recommend denial of the rezoning, concurrcnt with denial of the
petition for annexation, based upon a finding that considcration of the rezoning is
premature pending resolution of the land use plan issues in thc Monticello Orderly
Annexation Area.
5,
Motion to table action on the rezoning, pending the submission of additional
information.
c.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
If the City believes that a mobile home park expansion on this site will be a compatible
land use, staff would recommend a rezoning to R-4, with a preliminary approval of the
previous site plan (Alternative 2). A finding which supports the lower density mobile
home park development in a medium density land use district could be made to include
references in the Comprehensive Plan regarding housing value, and incorporation of the
existing Kjellberg's mobile home parks in the density calculations,
In the alternative, a rezoning to R-2 would be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan,
both in regard to land use and to housing style. It should be noted that under state law,
the applicant may be able to request a Conditional Use Permit for a mobile home park in
the R-2 zoning district.
D. SUPPORTING DATA
Exhibit A - Site Plan No.2
Exhibit B - Site Plan No, 1
Exhibit C - Area Location Map
-13-
.
.
.
l
I
J
';.
(
,
\
--... -
"
..."..'
--.
~ '
"r
---~~,"':
-...~
t
~
" ,
......1..._
a
,*
" ~
.
~
~
;;;
"
I
I
1
.'
--'?#'- -.:.
l~
:" :..::......_ t,.. .
~~
EXHIBIT A
SITE PlAN #2
'1 ' . '. --. \ r;- ~/.")S.t7 :-"\~/fl~J-l~:~t#I?)-,. I rlT ,/~-~~4.~~-;~,J~ /', -
... ~. \ . I~ ~.~ (I '" / ": " ,"".. , ,,. ,':S;n,~' , "
I ii'll .. df I 0" \ .-...:.J...'.. / ' .1" I I .1 lIlI 'li , ..,
.... fII1IIrl~,,""'J"""N' . I .",,- ~'.> .. 't\ ,..../t..:.i...,tl\.<r.l'. t,...".. - ,..-""~h'tJ.~,,. ~)\#'
11(1?l1I'II""""""'.. I. II) II .l. ...~il~. ",,,.:r "'A.'
__~~'~--'''''':~--'.'''-:\';''"7'_._''', ' i$Jj.\ ,I l"~1~ ~ --::-., .,\v._~P(./~"":r;..-"o)" 10'
. ' ~_ . _- , 7"~u ,* S' -. 'ilJJ9'1/I"Qrllf :-0&.07 \\~ :. ..-,,' ",'"
"tJ--~"" ~ '-:f'-'-~l-' ''';.,'~'''\'I " " hi #'\~ll'~" ..'fr" "\ \ /'\"~'''/' ,///,'/,.1'.
_rtl"," _.._.~-- ---..""'_..._...._ ..... ....\.. 1 ~~ 1IIIi. ~ \iII' /1:,,1 . I \ ' I I " ","/ /, "r
-:,/' ..-- r - ..- ..~~~.. ~ .. '. .;: ~~~~"i~~\ '~:il. ....~[l~.". IT~ :/{.; I; '''_/ ~/ ~/'// ,/ /' "I
~ ./' I". -- .... I ""'. f; , I~~I "'.... ........ J ' ""r ", , ~ ;
. ."".'\ '. .~,. . '" .". '. ", "," , ',/ ." ..
~. .. I ry; ~ . ,., \ 'II . "~.,. ... 1 I : ,.#>~. .... ....", I ...... '" '" tI' ,. ~ ...I;..L
.' . ,,": f'" ..' . r;.~-<'. ~~; J '- l) I I .t ~I ' !;.-..1 .' ..!~ i1 ,._-~.- .'" 'jt' / ' ,"-
/",,, _ .. Y . III t~ ... . \. : r~ I,..:" .il.. I '/i'~ .'. ~."';:. -::-'<:---:1.-""'...,,,/ ,/ I,~~J
._..... ., '" ~..._.._,' '\.,:/~..., ~:, ,t; (. ~II' .... _I' . /H/'" ' // :
.~I .=: ,) -/- . 1\ . '9;..~, .' .-, - \'~'l~1j~,i!' "::::!' \ ....' ~/ --:" .; , .'" 1 , .
;: 11~p,~" '01- ~ :.. : .\;.. I. 'I~.II I~t'./~r~ 1tJi~ ,IJ. ~...__' ...fI'!!'.J..o:a,~"""'/ ~/~,# ~
I,'. . , ,;,.;:.; ';f./tI: :.,. " . ~'.' /i' '. ..~~(J' i "'.1,,.. )', :~ 1-;' .'--:' ='=". t.;~l~"'/ ... / ... -... '..'
. ," -t..-i ".....\ ,\ =-... .IJ.':1....r. ",\ p. ,,, .,"" /.
;, ~.:....~. ~. },....', '#.~,' . '.': .' '''-)lIl'''':J~ I .'i" /"q.~.:ft......,'~ .. ,'I' '1
. ...._'" 'i'~, , ..._ .. ,~', ,,,.... 1t';;I<:' ~",. ~i.-.., ""..I'.....:"'" / f'- '
.~. .', ":!~ ~" -'\'.\ , .".. J:.' 'tz :.~, ilIA ". Ti'"t · I .-:;; ......... · " ,.
.s""''''''.....j .-.....ct ~ g""". '.,~' ~ ~'r~'" ~l~ :111 "'*'''''....~~.'.i...~.....4.",. ,
. -"t - ',V. '..:1;: J" r '.~.."),lY. ....... , -' ,,1 tl...-,..:a ''''} y;t' .... -:<-,,"'.'" ":'(... ,.
"II" .:., ...,.::'.!.I:l~:;":;t':~"!_ ~.. t. *'~..j,. ."'~ ''1:'' .' '1"1 -. aa ",.... ,
-I__ __~. _n._ ' jo" . . ....., . ,... "/."'",' >". ~r~'"'' ~ I ,.- -... ~., '.
, , -. - . '". ,,; ~ "":3- ~' ,.... .'
..~.~, ';': -'" I ..', :-'''11:,' /~~' ".,' '. '''':.J"/, /':?,''It.:~ . ,,,.ti.: I ~ ,',.- ';,";. ~ ,--, ~
~_..~.~ " ..~ 1.""0"" t~: .' .....;; >... :.....-,. ':: . ~\\~ ;. ,I ~1f.r~",' ~I /~. - ~ "- \ ,
...~~. ....~'... /:;! :' i,- "".\~" .:-~: ,.." '~1i;': "J T..' ;;-"1 '. l' ',-ri';~'! .' ~ " '" ..:
.:.... -...=.- ',-'''.. . ',,",'. t-i ,\ I ',/.,& . / ',I ' 7. 4~' ~"~"Vx:~' " ~\ ' \ ... ::
. _ /' _ .:... ~ .1:" .~ . I. \'1' ' ,~.!/' Ir...," .......... ',\ I 1 ~ T- ~ --T"' ,.......lP~ I
. _ I ." -~, ~ ,;~ -- -'lil ..l;tJ _.1,. ....,... - . ..,... - - .....,.. - - - - .,'" .. "
~. . ".l\t ,,'.. '-"'" ~.:,\ "':,:-,' ",' · ~r; ..t'''-l''-ElJ''- " ~~ :U~', .\' ..\~ ':lp, 't. I
,~ ....... ~"" ',~, ',,: -_ ,.' ", ' ", '~. .' .',' II" ,.,
, .. ,'.:... '" ~.._ ,.... " '. r-.. ... :..., . ,.. . ........ ,
"" . .I. ... ,'. I ...."iO". 1t..1"i'.... '" ~. II J'II:"" \
,/ .......~ .; :, -i:- 1 ;.~ ' ." .. .,:-' '. '.. .. I 0;,;, \ \.' , Oil ' I "
"/ ." ..-1" ~';:' ('>4:' , (:. . .~. ~I':"""";" I' '. . I /y ".
,'" .:::,., _.; (' -../ I'I":~Y-:',' _: ~;o-.J,,, .i I" I J......, ~{!... , ,"11: ~ ,1. · ~" ". ~).
I.... I... '" ~ .. ~ .... . . . " "... , ./ \ \ (\.,",.~\".,
. ..~-- _. Q '_ ~""..' ,,,.-.'~,, .,.......-., 7. .. r ,.... ,,: Y"~ ~., \ '\' .....,
/~ ~~ :~~_.. ."_"'~~I-:"'/ ,.\. .....: """:"'" ;~' ,'..'" ;g' ~":'i 'Jtt.;/"'A ~~ ..~ ,-,. .:.-~__-.L_' n,
,#"," I~ .-:.....:.. '_-;...:.." ..~.. '\ -:..~ ", '.. '''"!'4.~J I) . ,....: :,.' .......:. ~ .J .~..;" ..~......./ ~ ~ . ,...:-----' ><
~n~ . ": "'.!_" , .' ". '.~, 1_..,.... ~ ~ ..' ~<.., --: . ,,~ j....... "r-:.-~:. -'~ 1;,.\ ......- --.------ ~
\l"I~ {__ !.",.""'.. '. ....~... I ,'. , '~r ~~ .":'; )l:/."', e'l ,,~;.. ......-- -..oj
"f . > ~ ' ,. 0.'. ._.~. .: "..f. . --- . III .- ! I' "'~I " / ""'.... r '"
1IIi" ..."'.' . ~ ,'" "I ~/'" . :-'j'--- .. '" ~. ...,..'" ~ "'" ""'~"'I '" I
~ ~ Ii .' ,.....~,. /. :, i;- . ,',1.. '\ 1/, .', ,'''' I,""", 1 ,.... /'" -'
APt' ), .::i:;..','-~:~~ ,..,,~,.,;~ '. "<(" :~-~i'~~' I .-; ...: '/: 5Jl~'i'~~'~~: ~ \ \~~ ,1 I ~
~ _, .. -.' , ' , ..... " .. 'I.' ..' _~. " , · , .' " ,( c-.
, /'~',: A ';.::~.~ .~. 4' ci ~ ~'';: .:1: ,,~ '\,' \;, ~'r :~,.. .'f"', . ---.-.--:')
: n ~ A,_ 1_-,;: ..,.. ~,' 1.1, ! · lJ-ft' i' ;.. ' " \ ....;
,\ ."',..~.+----:- .. .' ~/,. '.. ~ I ." ...'\ ..---...- 7,
; ~ ~;..'.,. :.."'i' "-. .~""'R. . \ .. - '. ~..l 1.' '.'- I ~ . ," ~ ........ ..;;:'".,..;--- c....
." ~~,'v; -}.:;' '-~".;", I I :i',' \ ': I 'I' 'r\~:J 1\ ~:v"'-i", --....'/ rr
" . ,,3 \' ....::_ - - ,'" ,~J:.;-, .'~ . lLL- ":--~''''.' ',~\r:....- i .} 1..... ~
'. ',n':~~,: " =::- -. -. '~.~. '~ . ..~ '-.:-)....::'-:""'''....t!;'.,'! ...L. r-.
, "..,,':ii ..' ,I '.,~ ~~: )Sl..... ~ d", I.~,)_ , to
.,....:~..:.,......,...",...... I' "~a, -~-'., -. .~'--~":'::I"hi.;"~..t...-..lI j'l ' n
..s.'. .... . ,..~..' {I \~_ ....\-I~' . ~ ,:.. . ~i~t '.> . 1
~ ._,,\:,' ..~~.! i '.' ~... \ 'l,.~ .l"'l..'....-.~. 1....'Li'l.'..~.r' , :-0
X '...., .-:i''';'~;''-:~'-: ":"~~~('\ :p. ~~~'~~f ff'''''' ""I;J:~'~r;7I'~-'" ~J ~J
:'...-_..,:.;. " \ I.~', ",~...' --'... '?l 'I: ',,, ,~I....I:o;:JII,..r:. . ..,...------
$. .... ;' ~.i.~W""':'\ ;,'...~.'''' 1(1,' 'I"~'';':' '. .,r......... f'",t., / "...-__ .......- _0-
"::.~'I '~"-~"~'<:"'/~" '~~1-- :~. (' ~'~.': ~((r ---- ~
Iii ..' -'. . ~, .. . .. '. , 1- -+-- . !.: -- ':"r - '''! :tJ
._ __,,' .~.~ . \,\ .... '.. .~ . .' I -' I ...,..
..~ ../.........:... ..":~ ~_': -~ -~.. . :;: '.b '5.'t ~., "~'. .::: "~\ ,hl\ ~ \ I .......
~_.~ " ., ~. ~ 1\.... '\.. ..Y>\ ..... ..\." ,>!; .~ 111
',.). ,. ~ '';'' " ,:;.;. -. .; '. !, , . 1- JL_-~-m;::;,'""" .... ~
",", r .~ I! --" 3:~--------' c.n
;:j~ -:'.... , I-' -,.1.../ "I .............. .... .....
i '.' --,.... ._"-, . L-. ." ( t' -';'~';'I'-C-'/ / .. ....-..:'
.. j~ ~ " ""I ." :... '\, " .' 'CIroI" '-. ""/ ~.~
'_ _' '_ . _ -, ":"',.,',1- -:- ' .' ""
__ ,'s-..-.. :s.._ _!!I_. .'>1.'" c- "I 'C; '" .... ~"/ I
7 :: 1111 . .~; It lIJII."
~g
, . ~'
~i
I~ ~
t\
tt
~ l~
l
;'\ : ~.{ .'
~ I)
r
I t
~ j ., r
" ;: ~".
" "
, \.,
'" i t t
\~ .jbt
I, ~~ "n
",'. N
, ~
.'
. \i
{~
~ ~l ~ ;
1, 'I L~ -a.. l'
\10 r ~,. ,. J
t
.: \'. ....
~
H.
~l
"
,. .
~
i
i
?
.'ml''; ".,., ""''I ~ ,.I" C" lP! b' .,.. II'
:111'.:':11- ...
i ". \
"I "it; I'll " Io' ~
· , , I 1. t
~ rt... ~ III"
~~lll~~~
:\ P ~ ~
~ .\\,H ~
~
a
q-
=-::!
~~~
,::
:~i
!~~
,. 5
l~;
~; :
t~~
l"
.H
I \
"
'I H)
! h~ ~ l,
iPH' J
11 .u.--=l~.~
I' ..........-.=.:.::::1- ' "
,j _.....+,.,.u..(_~ _).~
,\ ! ,0
... \. . : _ ~I:i ~
~ t + . ~ "
I · - t
~ \ .'~'~. \ t\
\ ' -. ~~q
.. ., ~. liS'
, I"' Q.....-.'\l...- - . ~
,t'. --.' . r~
~t . . , t
!;!
~
e I [ ~ .~
Il
~.n' 1 I
~,,~ ~
~li I ;
" . . ~
~~ 1:
~ "'::0.'
\ ", ~
~ , III :,
'i ~ l
iq
~ ~ ~
. ~ ~
. .
.:I..
'" <n
t.. ~..
~ i;l
~ ~ ""0
" :!Ii 1'"
$01 b
:;;::
~ ?~l ,.~
~ ,'~ I ~ ~
~ ;:~. . ;
~;d ~;
\; !; \
,\ II ~,'
L r " .1
~ :~ ~ ~ .~
i I~ ~ I
~
~;}.
EXHIBIT B - SITE PLAN # 1
~:
I
".
I
I
;=...,..-1--.,", _ "-..-+--.-- ---- ?~=-~w~-w::::-
~.......~ ,--",.-.. -.....". ;
\l ~
. ~~J
~) I
I
I
I
l
'"
!
!
I
---..
----!"'"".----
~ - -
--...-.,.--.-- -----,,--...
: I \
. I .
iiii . ...
I
I
1
I
r
I
I
I
I
.- -,t: -- -t. wO'. u7- -
I
I
I
I
, I
__""'iiii'II-.-":'
.
EXHIBIT C -
1a
AREA LOCATION MAP
.
.
.
Plmming Agenda - 5/4/99
9.
Public Hearing - Consideration of a zoning text amendment to allow externally
illuminated projecting wall sig:ns. Applicant: City of Monticello (F.P.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
The Design Advisory Team for the City has recently considered an application for a
projecting or overhanging wall sign Central Community District for 313 West Broadway,
Metcalf: Larson & Muth. The DAr has reviewed the sign for design compliance with the
Monticello Downtown and Riverfront Revitalization Plan and found that the sign appears
to be consistent with the goals of that plan. The Monticello Downtown and Riverfront
Revitalization Plan encourages the design mId installation of signs of up to 6 square feet
in area that project over sidewalks.
The Monticello Downtown and Riverfront Revitalization Plan Design Guidelines are
inconsistent with the general regulations of the Zoning Code Chapter 3 (sign ordinance)
which specifically prohibits projecting signs. The attached suggested amendment to
Chapter 3 would allow externally illuminated projecting wall signs only in the Central
Community District. Such signs would have to be erected at least 8 feet above grade and
must not exceed 8 square feet in area.
B.
AL TERNA TIVE ACTIONS:
1. Motion to recommend to the City Council that the ordinance amendment allowing
projecting wall signs in the CCD District be approved.
2. Motion to recommend to the City Council that the ordinance amendment allowing
projecting wall signs in the CCD District be denied.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommends Alternate 1 above.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Exhibit A - Copy of proposed Ordinance with strike-out and underlining to show
amendments.
-14-
.
.
.
Planning Agenda - 5/4/99
ORDINANCE NO.
CITY OF MONTICELLO
WRIGHT COUNTY, MINNESOTA
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 3-9 OF THE MONTICELLO ZONING
ORDINANCE BY ESTABLISHING REGULATIONS ALLOWING PROJECTING SIGNS IN
THE CCD ZONING DISTRICT.
THE CITY OF MONTICELLO DOES ORDAIN:
Title 10, Chapter 3, Section 3-9, Item [k] of the City Code is hereby amended to read as follows:
(k) Overhanging Signs other than in the Central Community District ICCD1.
Title 10, Chapter 14B, Section 14B-6, Item [HI 1. of the City Code is hereby amended to read as
follows:
1.
Signs shall comply with the Monticello Building Codes and Zoning Ordinances
relating to signs, including special allowances which may be made for the "CCD"
district.
a. Proiecting Signs: Externally illuminated proiecting signs not exceeding 8
square feet in sign area and erected at least 8 feet above grade shall be
allowed.
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:
EXHIBIT A
q.ll
.
.
.
Planning Agenda - 5/4/99
10.
Public Hearing - Consideration of a sign variance request for perpendicular
professional si~n. Applicant: Metcalf. Larson. & Muth. (F.P.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
The Design Advisory Team for the City has recently considered an application for a
projecting or overhanging wall sign Central Community District for 313 West Broadway,
Metcalf, Larson & Muth. The DAT has reviewed the sign for design compliance with the
Monticello Downtown and Riverfront Revitalization Plan and found that the sign appears
to be consistent with the goals of that plan. However the general regulations of the
Zoning Code Chapter 3 (Sign Ordinance) specificaJly prohibits projecting signs.
The aesthetic appeal of the sign proposed for 313 West Broadway encouraged the DA T to
recommend to the Planning Commission to allow a variance for the erection of this sign.
The sign would have to be erected at least 8 feet above grade and must not exceed 8
square feet in area.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1.
Motion to recommend to the City Council that a variance be allowing for erection
of an internally illuminated projecting waJl sign at 313 West Broadway in the
CCD District subject to the sign not exceeding 8 square feet in area and at least 8
feet in height above grade, finding that the Monticello Downtown and Riverfront
Revitalization Plan encourages the design and installation of such signs projecting
over sidewalks..
2. Motion to recommend to the City Council that the variance be denied.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommends Alternate 1 above.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Exhibit A - Copy of proposed sign plan.
Exhibit B - Copy of Monticello Downtown and Riverfront Revitalization Plan Section
4.3 relating to signs in the CCD District.
-15-
,:- . .
"
.
~
.
I
/ t
;
.
-"..f~....,.,~~~:~"':.::::':'~
r
--f~ ~ ~l
~ F> . I
ft} &r:;) ~~ . II
"-" (~ /--:) - I
~~ ~~ S1i:j ~I '
., < f,.. "~..Jl
~ t: """ '0 .
~"i~ I
i Z ". i ?--- - i
b<; ~~ ~~ :
'--...- -
: ~ "--"1 -
;;:.> ;""". '" ~... "5 ~
......... 'b. ~ ."., -': ',~ ,
~"T. ~, 1-- """21 I
l,.l (i:~, : -:c1 fie I
~) \;..1 "7.....~. ~.., I
. :'" (~ .t;:.---.; <'<'
. ~ ~'g
L, ~1 il
~~"~" ~~; j 1-
to>
...
EXHIBIT A
"'-'-- -_.~
---'..---. --:---r r-p
/
l
I
(
/
,
,
I
/
,
/
/
/
/
,
,
I
(
\)~\
\
'.
.
Montlcello Downtown and Riverrront Revitalization PI:m
Design Guidelines
Pqe7
(malle finisb preferred) or synthetic siding may be acceptable if used in combination with other acc~ptable
materials; wood frame or masonry construction is ncceptable.
· Transparent gla&s shaJl be used at the majority of street level windows; mirrored glass at street level is not
ac.ceptable.
· Canvas awnings or extension of the roof material for awnings is encouraged; nylon awnings or other
synthetic materials. as well as those awning structures meant to be illuminated from within. are not
acceptnble.
4.3
*'
Develop buildings that relate to people at all publicly visible sides; eliminate a "back door"
appearance for service areas and rear entrances from parking lots.
· Facades facing streets or public walkways shall be articulated with windows and doors resulting in a
minimum of 40 percent window or door arta at street level (sidewalk to 12 feet high); windows shall have a
generally vertical orientation.
· Entries shall be the highlight of the building.
· Mechanical systems shall be integrated into the design of the building.
· Tra&h storage areas shall be completely enclo~d and incorporated as a part of the building.
· Only thole entrances that are unlocked during regular busIness hours may be consi~ercd public entrances.
Signs shall be incorporated into the building fllcade, windows or awnings up to a maximum. of 1 square foot
of sign area per linear foot of street facade (at lhe front yard); signs that extend more than 12" beyond the
plane of the building facade or sigrls that ex.tend beyond ~ mof line are not 3n~wed. except that sipftC Ih..t
pro' eel over the sidewalk are allowed u to a . size of six s uare feet (marquis excepted); signs that
are n or a p 0 a Win mamtaln 70 percent c ear m e s ace of the window; one sign
wiJI be allowed for eacb usable pubUc entry (signs that ate a part of an awning or within or part of a
window are encouraged and shall not be counted in detennining the number of signs allowed).
· Thnaat .!lignage for multi-tenant buildings shall occupy an area no l3Tger than 3 square feet per tenant at each
public entrance.
· Nonwilluminatl!d temporary sign age shall be permined for any tenant of a buildioi up to 6 squllre fl!et of
sign face per tenant. Temporary signage shaH not be anac:hed to the building and, if placed in a public
riibt-of-way, shall maintain a minimum of 6 feet clearance for pedestrians. Such temporary signage shn11
be placed only during operating hours.
· Thmporary signaie may be attached to the in.~ide face of any window at street level, provided that such
sign age does not obscure more than 50 percent of the total window area and does not remain in place longer
than 21 days (leasing or for sale signs e~mpt from time Hmiwions).
· All buildings must be identified at each public entrance with its full street address. In numbers and l~tt.ers no
smaller than 2 inches in heiiht and no larger lhan 4 Inches In height This signage shall not be included in
the total signage allowed.
.
5.0 The Re-use of BUildings
5.1
The Department of Interior "Standards for Rehabilitation:' which are universally recognized
as guides for the conserva.tion and preservation of the heritage of a place. shall apply to the
re.use of any structure within the downtown area. The Ie-use and rehabilitation of a structure
shall be measured for appropriateness by means of the following tests, and may apply
equally to the development of new buildings in downtown:
.
· Use; A propeny should be used for it,; historic pwposes, or a re-u~ which requires minimal c:hnnee to its
Character defining elements.
· Character; Historic character' should be preserved by retaining hisloric architectural features. rother than
altering or l.eplacing them.
EXHIBIT B
,\~~
.
.
.
Planning Commission Agenda - 05/04/99
11.
Public Hearin~ - Consideration of a rezonin!! from PZM. Performance Zone -
Mixed. to I-IA. Light Industrial. Applicant: City of Monticello. (NAC)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
Several months ago, the City considered a concept plan for townhouses on a parcel of
land between Elm and Minnesota Streets, south of the Ruff Auto property. The parcel is
bordered by the future extension of 7th Street. The 7th Street alignment runs along a ridge
line above the property, with the subject parcel at an elevation gently sloping toward the
Ruff Auto area.
That application appears to be no longer active, however other residential concepts have
been discussed. While in many cases, a buffer zone and screening can help to mitigate
the impacts of industrial uses on residential projects, staff became concerned that the
nature of the Ruff Auto use and the lay of the land will make it unlikely that buffering
will ensure a quality residential land use. In considering alternative uses, staff has
proposed the 1-1 A option.
I-lA zoning would allow industrial and office uses, with some additional site and
building improvement requirements. It would also allow for a reasonable transition
between the Ruff Auto area and the commercial uses south of 7th Street. It would also be
easier to butTer the impacts of a new, I-IA development from surrounding residential
areas than to buffer the existing industrial from new residential development.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. Motion to recommend approval of the rezoning, based on a finding that the land
use pattern created by the rezoning would better reflect the intent of the
Comprehensive Plan in encouraging high quality residential and industrial
development.
2. Motion to recommend denial of the rezoning, based on a finding that the current
PZM District offers adequate protections with regard to residential development
and buffering.
3. Motion to table action on the rezoning, subject to additional information.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff believes that the rezoning has some merit, given the existing land uses in the area
and the future construction of 7th Street. If Ruff Auto were viewed as a more temporary
or interim use of the land, industrial uses on the subject site may not be as acceptable.
However, it is assumed that Ruff Auto is a long-term use, and that a high-value
-16-
.
Planning Commission Agenda - 05/04/99
residential development adjacent to that boundary is unlikely. Moreover, the commercial
uses allowed in the PZM District are not likely to materialize, given the lay of the land
and lack of exposure of the site.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Exhibit A - Zoning Map
.
.
-17-
.R
SITE
.<~E R
", lj~p
E
~
~
.
\ ,,,\
ONING MAP
EXHIBIT A .. Z
.
.
.
12.
Planning Commission Agenda - 05/04/99
Public Hearin1! - Consideration of an amendment to the Monticello Comorehensive
Plan relatin1! to the land use desi1!nation of the pronerty west of Kiellberg West
Mobile Home Park. Aoolieant: City of Monticello. (NAC)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
The City has been considering the land use designation of the property directly west of
the Kjellberg West Mobile Home Park. The current Comprehcnsive Plan guidcs this area
for Medium to High Density Residential. With the Kjellberg's application for an
expansion of the Mobile Home Park, there has been discussion as to whether the land use
designation is appropriate. As discussed in the report on the proposed expansion, staff
has noted that the lower density of Kjellberg's original application would be preferable if
a mobile home park is in fact the eventual development.
However, the City has been reluctant to bring suggested changes to the MOAA Board.
Even though the Land Use Plan is thought to best be the province of the City, some
MOAA Board members have criticized the City for amendments to the Plan. The
advantages of changing the designation to a lower density would be to avoid a densely
developed mobile home park, such as the design which was proposed by Kjellberg's for
this agenda. However, the change would then support a lower density mobile home park
such as the design previously rejected by the Planning Commission.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. Motion to recommend approval of an amendment to the City's Comprehensive
Plan changing the land use designation on the subject property to Low Density
Residential.
2. Motion to recommend denial of an amendment to the City's Comprehensive Plan.
3. Motion to table action on any amendments, pending additional information.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff believes that a change should not be made at this time. As discussed in the Mobile
Home Park expansion item, there are other sections ofthe Comprehensive Plan which
also apply to the consideration of the appropriate development patterns. Staff would
recommend tabling action on this item.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
None
-18-
.
.
.
13.
Planning Commission Agenda. 05/04/99
Consideration of a Zonine Ordinance amendment adding tattoo parlors as a
permitted use in a 8-4 District. Apolicant: City of Monticello. (NAC)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
Recently, the City was approached with regard to the opening of a tattoo parlor.
Currently, tattoo parlors are not listed in any zoning district within the City. StaiTis
investigating the options available to the City in establishing this use based on an
understanding that it is not likely that the City can prohibit them. Without any regulation,
such businesses would be able to open anywhere without restriction. There is currently
no state licensing of tattoo facilities which has raised a concern over public health. The
County has been working toward a health department regulation of tattoo and body
piercing businesses. Staff is still working on getting details of the County's proposed
regulations, but is not prepared to recommend any ordinance changes at this time.
Therefore, we recommend that the issue be tabled until the next regular Planning
Commission meeting in June.
D. SUPPORTING DATA
None
-19-
.
.
.
Planning Commission Agenda -05/04/99
14.
Consideration of an amendment to the Zonine: Ordinance which allows Essential
Services as permitted uses in the R-l Zonine: District. Applicant: City of Monticello.
(NAC)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
In conjunction with the discussion of booster stations as essential services, it was further
discovered that essential services are not currently listed as a permitted use in the R-I Zoning
District. This is clearly an oversight ofthe ordinance as written, since no development or use
could be made of any property without essential services, and the City has routinely
permitted the construction of such utilities in all past development. Staff is proposing the
attached ordinance amendment as a housekeeping matter.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. Motion to recommend approval of the amendment, based on a finding that it reflects
the intent of the Zoning Ordinance.
2. Motion to table action on the amendment, subject to additional information.
C.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Stall recommends approval of the amendment.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Exhibit A - Proposed Amendment
-20-
.
City of Monticello
Wright County, Minnesota
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 10, CHAPTER 6, SECTION 6-3, OF THE
MONTICELLO ZONING ORDINANCE RELATING TO THE ALLOWANCE OF
ESSENTIAL SERVICES IN R-l ZONING DISTRICTS.
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MONTICELLO, MINNESOTA HEREBY ORDAINS
AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1.
Chapter 6, Section 6-3 is amended to add the following:
[E] Essential Services
Section 2.
. This ordinance shall become effective from and after its passage and publication.
.
/ /s/ /
\~/\
.
.
.
15.
Planning Commission Agenda ~ 05/04/99
Update on MOAA Land Use Plan.
Jeff and Clint will give an update at the meeting.
-21-