Planning Commission Agenda 07-06-1999
.
.'
.
AGENDA
REGULAR MEETING - MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION
Tuesday, July 6, 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 June 1, 1999.
3. Consideration of adding items to the agenda.
4. Citizens comments.
5. Public Hearing - Consideration of a side yard setback variance from required 20' to
proposed 5'. Applicant: Tom Brion
6.
Public Hearing - Consideration of a preliminary plat and rezoning from Ag to R I & R2
on a 255 acre parcel (Groveland). Applicant: Ocello, LLC
7. Continued Public Hearing - Consideration of a rezoning from PZM, Performance Zone -
Mixed, to I-lA, Light Industrial. Applicant: City of Monticello.
8. Continued Public Hearing - Consideration of a Conditional Use Permit within the B-3
Zoning District to allow an automobile repair facility, and a variance from the City's
Parking supply regulations. Applicant: Royal Tire, Inc.
9. Continued Public Hearing - Consideration of a Zoning Ordinance amendment adding
tatoo parlors as a permitted use in a B-4 District. Applicant: City of Monticello.
10. Adjourn.
.
.
.
1
MINUTES
REGULAR MEETING - MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION
TUESDAY, JUNE 1,1999
Members:
Richard Carlson, Rod Dragsten, Dick Frie, Roy Popilek and Robbie Smith.
Staff
Steve Grittman and Jeff 0' Neill
Absent:
Council Liaison Clint Herbst
1. Chair Frie called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. and declared a quorum present.
2. Approval of the minutes of the re~lar meeting ofMav 4. 1999.
ROY POPILEK MOVED TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE MAY 4, 1999 REGULAR
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING. ROD DRAOSTEN SECONDED THE MOTION.
MOTION CARRIED UNANIM:OUSL Y.
3. Consideration of adding items to the agenda.
Roy Popilek requested that an update on the Danner property be included as item #9b and HRA
request for input as item # 10.
4. Citizen Comments.
There was no one present under citizen comments.
5. Public hearin~-Consideration of a Conditional Use Permit within the B-3 Zonimz District to allow
an automobile repair facility and a variance from the City's parking regulations. Applicant: Roval
Tire.
Steve Grittman presented the staffreport. The property is located along T.R. #25 with access off
of Cedar Street and is currently zoned B-3. A conditional use permit is required to operate a minor
automobile repair in a B-3 zone. Under the ordinance the proposed use of the property would
require 24 parking spaces on site. However, the drawing submitted did not show designated
parking spaces. Steve Grittman pointed out that generally commercial retail uses would require
more parking spaces than the use proposed. He noted that because of the existing building and the
limited property area additional parking spaces could not be had on site. A preliminary review of
the plan showed approximately 19 parking spaces and that would mean that a variance would be
required. In considering a variance the Planning Commission must find that a hardship exists or
that circumstances exist wherein compliance with the provisions of the ordinance would deny the
owner reasonable use of his property. Steve Grittman stated that only a survey had been submitted
for review and not a full site plan so that actual number of parking spaces had not been verified. It
was pointed out that the applicant is currently occupying the building. A letter from an adjacent
property owner expressing concerns about parking and congestion was submitted to the Planning
Commission
2 Planning COmmission Minutes _ 6/1199
.
Chair Frie opened the public hearing. Brett Stinar and Dan O'Neill, representing Royal Tire were
present and submitted a plan which detailed the parking spaces. There would be 16 parking spaces
with an additional 6-8 parking spaces that could be utilized in front of the storage area. Mr. Stinar
noted that the southerly 75 feet of the building is proposed to be used for storage only. Mr. Stinar
also pointed out that some of the problems experienced with parking and congestion was because
of contractors who were working on the building. Dan O'Neill explained that they were not able
to extend their lease at the other location which put them under considerable pressure to get the
other site ready. Scott Hill asked about the number of employees the firm had and how many
parking spaces would be left for customer use. Brett Stinar responded that the firm has ten
employees. Most of the work is by appointment so customers will be dropping off their vehicles
and picking them up within a relatively short period of time. Vehicles left overnight would be
stored inside the building. It was noted that 6-10 vehicles could be worked on inside the building
at one time. There was discussion on what could be done to provide assurance that Cedar Street
would not be used for overflow parking and it was suggested that perhaps some '"No Parking"
signs would be effective. Chair Frie closed the public hearing.
Rod Dragsten asked how many customers a day the business services. Mr. Stinar stated that at the
Monticello site they were averaging 40 customers a day. He noted that most of the work could be
done in 30-60 minutes and that it was done by appointment. For that reason generally there is not
a backup of vehicles. Mr. Stinar did concede that there may be anywhere from 1-5 vehicles that
may be left overnight. Richard Carlson asked about working on commercial vehicles and how ~
would be handled. Dan O'Neill stated that commercial vehicles make up a very small portion oW
their business. The Planning Commission asked whether the applicant had look at acquiring
additional land. Landscaping requirements were also discussed. Steve Grittman explained that the
staff has not reviewed a landscape plan but that no parking spaces would be lost because of
landscape requirements. In addressing the landscape concerns, Mr. Stinar stated that they would
be required to have one tree for every 15 lineal feet and they are proposing some additional
landscaping along the T.H. #25 side of the building.
There was additional discussion on how many parking spaces were available on the site. It was
not clear whether the applicant met the required 24 parking spaces or whether he was short. The
Planning COmmission also discussed the basis for granting a variance. Richard Carlson stated
that the City had allowed parking up to the property line as long as there was sufficient green
space. The Planning Commission questioned whether a variance in the setback requirements for
parking might be more acceptable than a variance in the number of parking spaces required. It
was felt that more review was needed to determine the number of parking spaces available on the
site. Since the applicant is being allowed to operate the business while he is taking the necessary
steps to bring it into compliance with the ordinance, the Planning Commission felt it appropriate to
table action on this matter to allow adequate time for the parking issue to be reviewed and a
determination made if a variance was needed.
ROY POPILEK MOVED TO TABLE ACTION ON THE CONDmONAL USE PERMIT AND
V ARlANCE REQUEST AS PER DISCUSSION DUE TO THE POSSIBLITY THAT THE
V ARlANCE MAY NOT BE REQUIRED AND TO ALLOW STAFF TIME TO RESEARCH ..
lHE ITEM AND BRING IT BACK AT THE JULY PLANNING COM:MISSION MEETING.
RICHARD CARLSON SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED WITH ROBBIE
SMITH VOTING IN OPPOSmON.
.
.
.
3 Planning Commission Minutes _ 6/1/99
6. ontinued Public Hearin - Consideration of amendment to the M nticello -om..rehensive
Plan relating to the land use desig:nation of the property west ofKiellberg West Mobile Home
Park. Applicant: City of Monticello.
Steve Grittman updated the Planning Commission on this item. The Planning Commission had
previously recommended that the land west of the existing Kjellberg West Mobile Home Park
be designated as R42 which they felt was the more appropriate land use and was more
consistent with the City's land use plan. This recommendation was passed on to the City
Council. The matter is now in the hands of the MOAA Board. The property is currently zoned
agricultural under the County's land use plan. The Planning Commission was informed that
the MOAA Board had set a hearing in July to consider land use changes for this area.
Chair Frie opened the public hearing. There was no one present to speak on this item. Chair
Frie closed the public hearing.
ROD DRAGSTEN MOVED TO TABLE ACTION ON THE R-2 ZONING DISTRICT
AMENDMENT FOR KJELLBERG PROPERTY UNTIL THE 1UL Y PLANNING
COMMISSION .MEETING. RICHARD CARLSON SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION
CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
7.
ntinued Public Hearin - onsideration of a Zooin Ordinance amendment addin tattoo
QarIors as a pennitted use in a 8-4 District. Applicant: Citv of Monticello.
Steve Grittman reported that the staff has been working with the county in an effort to put
together an ordinance amendment dealing with the licensing procedures and regulations for
tattoo parlors. It is hoped to have something more definitive by the July meeting.
DICK FRIE MOVED TO CONTINUE THE PUBLIC HEARING ON THE ZONING
ORDINANCE AMEND.MENT TO ALLOW TATTOO PARLORS AS A PERMITTED USE
IN A B-4 DISTRICT UNTIL THE JULY PLANNING CO~1MISSION MEETING. ROD
DRAGS TEN SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
8.
Jeff O'Neill reported that the City Council had reviewed the proposed amendment to the
ordinance and decided to table any action on it until they received additional information.
However, the data requested by the Council has not yet been assembled. The variance request
was continued to this meeting. The Planning Commission couId act on the variance request or
they could continue it until such time as the Council has acted on the ordinance amendment.
Steve Grittman reminded the Planning Commission of the 60 day limit.
ROD DRAGSTEN MOVED TO TABLE ACTION ON THE VARIANCE REQUEST FOR A
PERPENDICULAR SIGN PENDING COUNCIL RECEIPT OF REQUESTED DATA AND
ACTION ON THE ORDINANCE AMENDMENT AND TO HAVE THE STAFF CONTACT
THE APPLICANT INFORMING HIM: TIIAT TIIE CITY IS EXTENDING THE 60 DAY
4 Planning Commission Minutes _ 6/1199
LIMIT ON THIS MATTER RICHARD CARLSON SECONDED TIffi MOTION. MOnO.
CARRIED UNANIM:OUSLY.
Scott Hill asked for clarification of the proposed amendment and whether it would allow for
multiple signs for businesses housed in one building. He felt that the proposed amendment was
open ended and vague. He felt there should be clarification as to whether there was an appeal
process and more ofa definition of the authority of OAT in reviewing the sign applications.
9. Discuss status ofMOAA Land Use Plan.
Jeff O'Neill updated the Planning Commission on what took place at the MOAA meeting of
May 5, 1999. The MOAA Board at this meeting adopted a land use map which had significant
changes from what the Planning Commission and City Council felt fit the Comprehensive Plan.
One area in question was the Gold Nugget property. The MOAA Board adopted the map and
imposed a moratorium. A public hearing has been set for July to consider land use for this area.
There was some question whether a land use map constituted an agreement and there was
concern that the narrative for the map was that of the county's land use plan. Since there had
been significant changes to the map it was felt that there should have been another public
hearing. The Planning Commission discussed the impact that the dissolution of the Municipal
Board will have on annexation issues.
9b. Danner Prooertv Uodate.
Jeff 0 'Neill reported that Danner Trucking entered into a purchase agreement for a triangular
piece of land that the City obtained through eminent domain. The land lies north of Dundas
Road and the acquisition would allow Danner Trucking to meet the requirements of the
conditional use permit which was previously granted.
.
10. The HRA requested Planning Commission input on whether to swap an liRA owned parcel or
hold onto it for future development. Richard Carlson expressed the concern that a developer will
maximize the use of the lot with a building up to the lot line. He felt it should be retained and
worked in with a proposal that would utilize open space. Rod Dragsten who is a representative
of the Planning Commission on the North Anchor Committee felt that since the North Anchor
Committee has not completed the scope of their work it would be premature to sell this parcel. The
Planning Commission feels the parcel is in the short tenn redevelopment stage of the North
Anchor Committee study area. What happens there will affect the whole block. It was also felt
that the potential for the City for open space and development makes the property too attractive to
let go. The Planning Commission's recommendation to the BRA is to retain the parcel in
question.
The City acquired the Ferrell Gas site when they purchased the railroad right-of-way. In the
development plan the core area was from T.R. #25 to Maple Street. With the development afthe
community center the question was raised whether it would be acceptable to allow some retail .
development in the area. Although proposals are being requested there is also an option to keep it as
public space such as library site or open space. The Planning Commission felt that if proposaJs are
being looked at there are two crucial items to be considered; 1) that the community center has
.
.
.
5 Planning Commission Minutes - 6/1/99
Visibility from T.R. #25 and 2) what are the City's long term plans for the liquor store While the
easy access and visibility from T.R. #25 is desirable from the liquor store's point of view it may be a
detriment to those coming out of the community center to see the back side of the liquor store building.
ROBBIE SMITIf MOVED TO AJDOURN AT 9:00 P.M. ROD ORAGSTEN SECONDED THE
MOTION. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
\)(}n~ ~~~~
Recording Secretary
.
.
.
5.
Consideration of a request for a variance from the 20 foot setback requirement within
the R-2 Zoning District to allow a detached eara~e. Applicant: Tom Brion. (NAC)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
Mr. Tom Brion has applied for a variance to allow the reconstruction of a detached garage
to a portion of his single family lot which would reduce the required 20 foot corner lot side
setback to 5 feet. The applicant has suggested that the garage would be in line with the
adjoining neighbor's house setback.
The Zoning Ordinance sets out specific criteria for the review of variance requests.
Essentially, a property owner seeking a variance must show that the variance is necessary to
allow reasonable use of the property, and that there is a physical hardship in meeting the
basic zoning regulations, such as the required setback. In this case, there appears to be a
number of options available to the property owner. The City has granted variances for two-
car garages in the past, but typically these variances have been on parcels where there was
no other reasonable option between the variance or no garage.
The parcel in question appears to have more than adequate rear yard space in which to locate
the proposed garage. A small shed on the property could also be moved to facilitate the
garage location if necessary. With the availability of other optional locations, the
requirement that the City find a hardship is a difficult one to meet. A variance in this case,
based on the materials presented, does not appear to be justified by the requirements of the
Zoning Ordinance.
B.
ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS
1. Motion to approve the variance, based on a finding that other options for the garage
location do not provide a reasonable use of the property.
2. Motion to deny the variance, based on a finding that there are adequate options
available to the applicant in siting a garage, and that the requirement for hardship is
not met.
3. Motion to table action on the variance, subject to further study.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff does not recommend approval of the variance. Although the location proposed by the
applicant may allow greater use of the applicant's property, the standard for hardship and
reasonable use is not met in this application.
D. SUPPORTING DATA
Exhibit A - Site Plan
191.07 - 99.14
612 595 9837 P.10/10
JUL-01-1999 14:29
I
I
: r--- -]
I l-~' "':~
I -~ ~
I :.2....'Q
I I
I 1"'-1-h
-;- ------ --f"-F:--~:-:=r: ·
, .~ I I I
I I I .::: I 1 I
I ~ I ? I I I
I . l' Go- I I I
I I I I I
l ~__--L__~ :
1 . I I
1 'I
I l:
,
,
NRC
L
'.' j
.:::1_ .__
i
.~.
.
Q
- ,
.....
"
~
-:t
d
LX
~
.,
~
~
'(I
....
.'i.
\.U
,
...
o
!!!
i~
!!!
I
I
I
f
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
: ~LJil':
I ~ I
l.__ __ __.__~_. . i
.
I
I
I
. ,)
I~
I IV;
,
I
I
I
I
I
I
,
"'\
"
.:
0:-
..
t;:(
" d
,) ~
s. (
'" ~
.:s
f
~ t
,
lJJ.~
~
M\~
i
-=
5t(
EXHIBIT A - SI~E PLA~l.
TOTAL P.~
-.-~-
.
.
.
Planning Commission Agenda -07/06/99
6.
Consideration of a reQuest for aPreliminan' Plat. Rezoninl! to R-l and R-2. and Final
Plat for Groveland. a Mixed Use Development. Applicant: Ocello. LLC. (NAC)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
Groveland is a 253 acre project located directly west of the City's western boundary and
south ofl-94 along the proposed westerly extension of Chelsea Road. The project consists
ofa proposed 328 single family lots, approximately 10 acres of"multi-family" (townhouse),
12 acres of commercial area along the south side of Chelsea Road, several park and wetland
open spaces, and a proposed "PZM" area on the far southern portion of the project, adjacent
to Kjellberg's Mobile Home Park.
The development anticipates that Chelsea Boulevard will be constructed this year between
its connection to the east and 90th Street on the west. The first phase of development will
include one of the two townhouse parcels and 38 single family lots extending to the south.
The Preliminary Plat is heavily affected by two utility easements which run diagonally
through the property. A United Power Association easement crosses from the cemetery
along 90th Street to the DNR wetland abutting Highway 25. About 800 feet to the
southwest, a Standard Oil easement parallels the UP A easement. Both of these easements
affect the plat design, as well as the public dedication areas.
Land Use. The land use proposed for Groveland closely reflects the City's Comprehensive
Plan for the area, and has been the subject of numerous discussions between City Staff and
the developer. The primary area of difference is in the commercial land use designation
along Chelsea Road. Chelsea Road is shifted to the north in this project, resulting in a
smaller reservation of commercial land than the original planning document for the area. The
Comprehensive Plan does acknowledge the likelihood that such changes may be
accommodated, however, depending upon the ability to attain the City's land use goals which
the maps represent. In this case, the primary objective was thc continuous connection of
Chelsea Road from east to west. Additional objectives included the preservation of
commercial lands along both sides of Chelsea, and creation of attractive open spaces along
the two large wetland areas.
The land usc pattern created by the project is reflective of the City's proposed pattern. The
change in the Chelsea Road location decreased the amount of reserved commercial land, but
had the added benefit of providing new access to existing commercial properties, notably
Gould Bros. Chevrolet. This trade-off should be acceptable, so long as the City reserves the
remaining commercial area available to the south of the project in the "Remmele" site, and
adjoining properties.
Preliminary Plat. The proposed preliminary plat is generally acceptable, although staff has
made a number of comments regarding roadway alignment, cul-de-sac design, and public
.
Planning Commission Agenda -07/06/99
open spaces. 'rhcse are summarized in the comments below, with many illustrated on the
attached Exhibit C:
1. Phasing. The project will be difficult to phase due to the limited access available to
the project area. Only one of the five access roads (Street "A") is able to be
constructed under the current plml and the pattern of surrounding property ownership.
Coupled with the road alignment comments made below, the developer will have to
be aware of the nced for the development of additional access points as early in the
construction phasing as possible.
2. To facilitate internal street development and phasing, staff recommends realigning
the connection to Chelsea Road/90th Street on the west. This plan would route Street
"c" directly into Chelsea Road at the boundary betwecn the single family area and
the commercial area. (See note 2 on Exhibit C)
3. 90th Street would be redirected into an intersection with Chelsea, as proposed by the
developers, but maintaining a 1/8 mile spacing (note 3).
4.
Lot depth in Block 5 is a concern, due to the impact of the UP A power line easement.
The buildable area is very shallow (as little as 30 feet) for many of these lots due to
front yard setbacks and rear yard power line easement. An alternative layout should
be considered which increases the depth of these building pads on both sides of the
power line (see note 4).
.
5. Strcet connection to the south property should be relocated to the west to minimize
the resulting cul-de-sac length, and take better advantage of the likely alignment of
School Boulevard on the "Remmele" propcrty (see note 5).
6. The small cul-de-sac which serves lots in the proposed park area (Outlot .1) may be
eliminated and replaced with lots which front directly onto Street "F". Public Works
staff prefers plat designs which minimize the number of cul-de-sacs (see note 6).
7. The project anticipates the use of entrance monuments at access points to Chelsca
Road/90th Street. City Staff will work with the developer to prepare appropriate
designs for these monuments.
8. One parcel, Lot 2 of Block 5, is shown at 11,900 square feet in area. All other lots
appear to be of standard size or greater. This lot should be increased in area to meet
Zoning Ordinance requirements (see note 8).
.
9.
A buffer yard and planting will be required along the rear yards of Block 1 abutting
the commercial district. The commercial areas will also share in the buffering
requirement according to City code (see note 9).
.
12.
13.
.
Planning Commission Agenda -07/06/99
10.
Two small outlots have been shown in Block 5 between the power line easement and
Street "D". These should be combined into one and located at Outlot H (see note
10).
11.
The lots in Block 15 which back onto the west wetland (Outlot K) should be
extended into the wetland area, reserving drainage easements over the wetland. 'rhis
is to ensure that the City will have no maintenance responsibilities Over the upland
portions of the area (see note 11).
Pathway will be located along the south side of Chelsea Road, the UP A easement,
and along the boundaries of the wetlands as shown on the plat drawing. A short
section of pathway should also be located on Outlot D connection to the commercial
area. The gas line easement crosses proposed lots and pathway connections in three
locations, resulting in difficult building sites. It is recommended that Lot 17 of Block
13, Lot 1 of Block 15, and Lot 9 of Block 16 be dedicated as parkland to provide
greater access to the wetland pathways, and eliminate the difficult building sites (see
note 12).
A rear yard ponding area is proposed in Block 17. Access to City maintenance crews
will need to be preserved in this area (see note 13).
14. Sidewalk will be required along the following street segments, in accordance with
City policy: Street "C" from the UP A easement on the northwest to the wetland
pathway connection at the gas line easement; Street "F" from the western plat
boundary to Street "C"; Street "G" on its north loop between Street "C" and Street
"H"; and Street "H" from the connection with Street "G" and the connection to the
south (see note 14).
15. The plan shows a pathway connection from the southeast corner of the project to
Highway 25. This should be realigned to the south to connect with School
Boulevard, which will have pathway and/or sidewalk connecting to an intersection
with Highway 25 (see note 15).
Final Plat. The proposed final plat for the first phase includes 38 single family lots and an
outlot of 6.1 acres for townhouse development. A rezoning to R-l for the single family area
and to R-2 for the townhouse area will be required upon annexation approval and filing of
the final plat. The final plat lots meet all requirements for approval, and are not affected by
the changes proposed to the remainder of the preliminary plat.
.
.
Planning Commission Agenda -07/06/99
B.
ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS
Decision 1: Preliminary Plat for Groveland
1. Motion to recommend approval ofthe Preliminary Plat for Groveland, and mixed use
development, based on a finding that the land use pattern is consistent with the City's
Comprehensive Plan, subject to the conditions listed in Exhibit Z.
2. Motion to recommend denial of the Preliminary Plat for Groveland, based on a
finding that the development would be premature due to the MOAA's moratorium
on atmexation in the area.
3. Motion to table action on the Preliminary Plat, subject to the submission of additional
i nformati on.
Decision 2: Rezoning to R-l and R-2
1.
Motion to recommend approval of the Rezoning to R -1 for the single family portion
of the first phase and R-2 for the townhouse portion of the first phase, based on a
finding that the zoning would reflect the intent of the City's Comprehensive Plan.
.
2. Motion to recommend denial of the Rezoning, based on a finding that the zoning is
premature due to the MOAA' s moratorium on annexation in the area.
3. Motion to table action on the Rezoning, subject to resolution of other plat and
annexation issues.
Decision 3: Final Plat for Phase I of Groveland
1. Motion to recommend approval of the Final Plat for Groveland Phase I, based on a
finding that the plat is consistent with the Latld Use Plan and complies with the
dimensional and design requirements of the Subdivision Ordinance.
2. Motion to recommend denial of the Final Plat for Groveland Phase I, based on a
finding that the plat is premature due to the MOAA' s moratorium on annexation in
the area.
3. Motion to table action on the Final Plat, subject to additional information.
.
.
.
.
Planning Commission Agenda -07/06/99
C.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends approval of the Preliminary Plat, subject to conditions as stated in
Decision 1, Alternative 1. The plat has been the subject of considerable discussion between
the City and the developer, including a concept plan review by the Planning Commission and
City Council. The proposed plat, with the recommended conditions, closely reflects the
intent of these discussions, and should meet the City's zoning and subdivision regulations,
as well as the Comprehensive Plan and Parks Master Plan.
D. SUPPORTING DATA
Exhibit A - Site Location
Exhibit B . Preliminary Plat
Exhibit C - Staff Issue Areas
Exhibit Z - Conditions of Plat Approval
191.07 - 99.13
<J
612 595 9837
P.02/10
...-. .
..--."... :
. :.......
...... . .. -. - - ....... ....";
... .
.... '''SrrE"--
....,.
.. -. ......
-'-
f
@'
. . .. . . . ~ .~.. .. .. .
. . .. . . . ...
.. - . . ~ . .. ...
....... . ..
........
. .......
. .....;. . . ....
:. t.Il!Illl'l't<CIIq'. : __
. . . . .,.. ~.IeL lIQTl. po ~
--........ ...... : IOt!:'W I .._:
~ j
!0>
,
; t:: __...
: ; ~ --....;.....--.
· : . --.[~. ..--....--........;...........--......--.....i.~I;~..LOCATIOAN
....----......--......]..................... i ~-' EXHIBIT A _ {,
..
s
:;/.
...
JUL-01-1999
14:25
P.03/10
L___
-'-
I II. ______
.... .;:::"~.'=t~.,,;,,::-
-"IIr,,,,..
-.-.".. ':-:.:., -....- ......
..,
"
"
~
o
.... -
... '\ '~ ~I."~, "'~.."'~ 1.\ '.. \\
~~
GENERAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN ... - ;=:-}
'I~OO'--!--'--;---r.. h ,,!::'~...~
. . /") I ~"'II"'~ ~~
.~ J / .....
// // @
I,'
11
~ f/
NORTH / /
~l III
EXHIBIT B - PRELIMINARY PLC"B-A-
'"
.'
-'
F1t1
'-,
"
"
"'''~
'....~ ...
14:25 NAC 612 595 9837 P.12I4/1121
~: ;! ~Jj I] I , i I " II I' :
II ~ : I i
~i 'II ~,~f..; ," i--HII: I'i ! : i ~
~ i,~ 0:: .!
.. - ~.. :;J~ il ,:) :1 ! I, ,j,/t ' i CI) !
lH.. ij , ~~ ~l.;~ 1. i i
J II ~......... "
J UBi. 1 ~ J 11 ;!~ ~~ J I ' J =
.. I
'l~1Il
- _-: -~~. . -1--- --;I" ~~;
ftft[~ I 1/ /
~ ::..' ,j l" /;'
! li~"1 /..
f h~i~,~;...J./
r. ... ,.~:;p:, I
l\..... ......
...
!:l ~
III ..
.. ;;
:,;:,;
....
~1''C',f'
Ia~
~.Il11C;t;t;;
s ~i:l!i!'Ii!'l{
~.. Ui
R ~=:!
~-'i~' il
~
,
I.L.
1'l0l.....
to! ~ !::""'i ~ ~d;!
~iYRW~~~ ~ s~ 7.~~
.... ":'.l!"fli .!!!;:l ~ 1:i."'~S
~~ ~~~ . ~, ~ 'sss
le~lam~i !~~ ~~i~~~
I
I.
I
,1/
.....
I.J
/.J
I'l;:
.0:
.,
~
""-,
',,-
"
"
.
b
flC,
14:26 NAC 612 595 9837 P.05/10
" ::;r i j II ij 'I' 'I";" "T '
~.. 'Ii .~~;.,~ " II ii' i : i : I : : ; ! : : ~ : I : i ~
'~ iC \' ;~' j-tW:.wL;:~Lli
.d11~ ~'i ;;ii ~ /I Tl
~ II -g; 1 , :~ ~* '-,"t' L_ I 1,1 j ....,(1) Ii
Ii ~ .II" J ; . . -I- . ,-i-'-'-~~ H+ '"
,,~ I E.. 'I',. 1., 1 .V......... i
J !~J~ .E J ~.! fiil i" J
~~
.._~
."...
!
Ih;i
.V
~-
:5 ~
a"
..
~:
'....
"'-l_
......-- -.
~W~
.
......
~~~v
.,.,~~
............. ..........
-......, 1-......
........... .......
~: -"-.
l..
................
\ \..,,~~
\ .................... '.
\ .,.~.,
\ " ........
,..\\.\. !~. .' '";''f.....E';'";;.
.IIJj'l: I " 'I': I ..f l'I'N.i:,J
II., '1""'\ ~ ',',' ; IHl ill ~'I";'~ ~~
.1':-1""-' - ~, 1: '" I; ~ q" d..~.. ,,,.
~'"'l\:,! ,~\ ~ !'I;n " illl" 1T!'fi:~I:~, ....
II'Hr' II I r t' I ,,"I 'In "',(}:;,
,.'.i.. r (l , iI' ,I, { '~"' H')~w,~'
l"'jll, J: : · i! r I I,h r,hltl,f~l"f
"'III i' I "j" I . IJ~~ I~.. J,d' i
'r'i!!",J ~ I I IJ. l !;,-,. 1'11?NJ1ii'"
h'l'll" i' lh, I f'il jhi',l ..f.
fWiH !ir~ j m~ J ,I ~lii ,Hl"ift~!~~,
L If;"I'" l,.,,~ ~ I!'~:! . tl." '\':);"'II"!!'
,,. ::"i:;" t: ~,.. , ,,:... ':: , r.,!t f C"~~~v.~ ..::
=r tJ~';~;. aJl1! ll~.j I ~ :J ~ r~..:I;:":~::i~~
~l ~n'"_',t ll~i'; i~I,I, ~ ht! ;.[iiF,';i,rtl:
I l.~~!l:I"I,e'; ]'IHI " :;kt, ;'~;=!]!;l\:'1
J.,.lI.....'~I'..JJ \ ~.l'~ "'~ lI-r.:~.r.\I!
llill!l' .t~l' ~ l'!lll I' 1'1"" ~\.."(iIF,,;"
I -'111I t" li:l .. ~ '.. ..~cz~'F. 1~~..
.)' J;; J.:.~iliJ,~~ ~ iJ'll;: ; :!iP! .Iti.~l;l~!rli~~
· .. 'j)~ 'Ii' J l' · 1'1 r r"'I''''''''''
I' "'~I,!"lt'l1 · ~u.; ~ '/.!'1 }lll,"l'ill:
l~ ll'II"II'I" l.:I ~ulli ; ,i',:~' ~i;!~!!ll;i'l
~. ,J~ r,,'!rJ"ll u ~ ,!I ":T I li'i.l ;'~'l'l'!'(
;~ iHil,I~~!rm H I"~ m:w l~ ;i~:l~: J'!lj:i!%1'
1f' 1'111~1I1'11' .j " lil'l;ii -!II J,.!I' ~l'.,;~I:~..I.1
, IU i;al\~.rf ~,.!I hfl :t ,..;I; l;,:rd\;i~~
:,: :rri'l.-l'~l!!'frli; !ll ~ .,!.i~.; J.~ J.d'I~'1 !lr,!:li!hl'~!
I ' . ",I",' .1 IJ I ")' I, ,.,"!" .
"" ,1.1..I;.il.;C " "1"1 ~ I,! 'J' :.--;'l'"tl;,"j
~; 1:!'h~;c..j~A I~ ~1 iJl . h "I !~\-!"~) :!''It!fi;~I:~~,~
.A h.lf.n,hil ill I. n'.l . II : dllH 1 , .1,..,.1.10
.I "
/ '~t"""'_""'.IIfII......,tII""I~_"__"',1'
I I J PC I
.I "
. I
/ "
" I
/ /
, I
/ ;'
.' I
::'~ "
/i~/
/ /
I
:
,
,
~ ~~,.
.
. '.
"i.: I
I ,,'
~ ~,.
I ~.
t.~
/ /
, I
I '
~
JUL-01-1999
.
/
P.06/10
612 595 _~~~;____ _______~
14:27
lr
...r-
':-'::......
<<~,,,
'~~......
,~
v
~
.l'o. V
~~
""'..~
~ ~~~
. ~ ~,~"
~
<< ~~
~....
~"
Ii
i
--
-
'lilt'
;7
J
-'-~
-~-.......!!... ~-,_,~
... ~~...,
...... ..... ...... .......
"........,...,......::::..............
....">...... . -. .... .....
................. ~~-~":::...... J
---., .........,c-..~ .~..... 1
" ...... ......:..:..........
-. ....... .~..... ~ -....~.. ...... ~...
............ ..... ... -......'k,
....... .....,...
............ ............
..-............ -',
/....
/. .......-
.///
.........-...-..............
".
.
'.
'~............"
"
Ft
o
~E
JUL-01-1999
.
11::;~:.~~~:=-=.....=~
612 595 9837 P.07/10
---I I
----.
'. ' ------
-.~
"'\-:-"
,,-::, .."
f"~il
.
Fkf=l
o 100 ~ <00
"
"
"
~. .........
........... "
""
.-'
\... ,\ "'\ '."', \\ '\\ \ \ t\ " ~~ .~~ ~\ ro."\\ \'.
- ISSuE AREAS
(of
JUL-01-1999 14:28
NAC
612 595 9837 P.08/10
. Conditions of Preliminary Plat Approval
1. Phasing. The Developer must submit a phasing plan which facilitates access to
the westerly point on Chelsea Road as early as possible.
2. The oonneotion to Chel.ea RoadJ90th Str.et on the west should be realigned
oonalstent with Exhibit C.
3. 90th Street should be redirected into an Intersection with Chelsea maintaining a
1/8 mile spacing as shown on Exhibit C.
4. An alternative layout for Block 5 should be considered which increases the depth
of these building pads on both sides of the power line.
5. Street connection to the south property should be relocated to the WQst to
connect to the alignment of School Boulevard on the "Remmele" property.
6. The small cul..de-sac which serves lots In the proposed park area (Outlot J)
should be eliminated and replaced with lots whioh front directly onto Street "F".
.
7.
City Staff will work will the developer to prepare appropriate designs for entry
monuments.
8. Lot 2 of Block 5 should be increased in area to meet Zoning Ordinance
requirements.
9. A buffer yard and planting will be required along the rear yards of Block 1
abutting the commercial district.
1 O. Two small outlots have been shown in Block 5 between the power line easement
and Street 110ft. These should'b$' combined Into one and located at Outlot H.
11. The lots in Block 15 which back onto the west wetland (Outlot K) should be
extended into the wetland area, reserving drainage easements over the wetland.
12. Pathway will be located along the south side of Chelsea Road, the UPA
easement, and along the boundaries of the wetlands as shown on the plat
drawing. A short section of pathway should also be located on Outlot 0
connection to the commercial area. Lot 17 of Block 13, Lot 1 of Block 15. and
Lot 9 of Block 16 should be dedicated as parkland ,to ,provide greater access to
the wetland pathways.
.
13. A rear yard ponding area is proposed in Block 17. Access to City maintenance
crews will need to be preserved in this area.
CDG
JUL-01-1999 14:29
NAC
612 595 9837 P.09/10
. 14. Sidewalk will be required along the following street segments, in accordance
with City policy: Street "C" from the UPA easement on the northwest to the
wetland pathway connection at the gas line easement; Street lip from the
western plat boundary to Street "C"; Street "G" on its north loop between Street
"c" and Street "H"; and Street c'H" from the connection with Street "G" and the
connection to the south.
.
.
15. The plan show. a pathway connection from the loutheaat corner of the project to
Highway 25. Thie ehould be realigned to the south to conneot with School
Boulevard, which will havs pathway and/or sidewalk connecting to an
intersection with Highway 25 (see note 15).
16. Review and approval of the City Engineer.
Exhibit Z - Conditions of Plat Approval
IoH
.
.
.
Planning Commission Agenda ~ 07/06/99
7.
Continued Public Hearing - Consideration of rezoning from PZM. Performance
Zone - Mixed. to l-lA. Light Industrial- Brennan Property - north of future seventh
street between Elm and MN. Aoplieant: City of Monticello. (JO)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
At the previous meeting of the Planning Commission, this item was tabled pending
possible sale of the land in question to a developer interested in development of the land
under the current zoning which includes residential uses. It is my understanding that the
Planning Commission did not want to rezone the parcel to industrial if the current sale
was contingent on the existing zoning. In other words, the merits of the rezoning did not
appear sufficient to ruin a pending land transaction.
It is my understanding that the parcel has been sold, or a sale is eminent. StafT has met
with the developers who are proposing construction of five 12 unit apartment buildings
on the eastern half of the site. The western half (land adjacent to Ruff Auto) will be held
for a future use which is likely to be residential as well. The site plan for the entire parcel
will be presented for Planning Commission review in August.
B.
ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. Motion to withdraw Planning Commission request for rezoning Brennan property
from PZM to I-IA.
2. Motion to table request.
3. Motion to approve Planning Commission request for rezoning.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission withdraw the request ifthe opinion
remains that the benefits of rezoning are not sufficient to justify interference with the
current land transaction.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Previous agenda item on this matter.
.
.
.
Planning Commission Agenda - 05/04/99
11.
Public Hearing - Consideration of a rezonine: from PZM. Performance Zone _
Mixed. to I-IA. Light Industrial. Apolicant: 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 su~ject 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 lmlikely that buffering
will ensure a quality residential land use. In considering alternative uses, staff has
proposed the I-IA option.
I -1 A 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 buffer the impacts of a new, I-I A development from surrounding residential
areas than to buffer the existing industrial from new residential development.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
I. Motion to recommend approval of the rezoning, based on a finding that the land
use pattern created by the rezoning would better ret1eet 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
'1A
.
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
.
.
10
.
.
.
Planning Commission Agenda -07/06/99
8.
Continuation of Public Hearin!!: Consideration of a request for a Conditional Use
Permit within the B-3 Zonin!!: District to allow an automobile repair facility, and a
Variance from the City's Parkin!! sUDplv regulations. ADplicant: Roval Tire. (FP)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
Royal Tire is proposing to occupy the vacated building between Cedar Street and Trunk
Highway 25, formerly occupied by the Automatic Garage Door company. The site contains
a large metal building with two access drives onto Cedar Street. At the June 1, 1999
Planning Commission Meeting, a parking plan had not been completed to the satisfaction of
the Zoning Ordinance and Planning Commission. The applicant was directed hy the
Commission to design a new parking plan that would maximize the parking available on site.
Parking Variance
According to the parking standards of the Zoning Ordinance, Auto Repair facilities require
8 spaces, plus one space per 800 square feet of floor area over 1,000 square feet. The
building consists of 13,500 square feet. This results in a parking requirement for the
proposed use of 24 spaces. Attached to this report is an Exhibit A which illustrates a site
plan providing for 22 parking stalls, including the required handicapped space. A variance
of two (2) spaces would be necessary to accommodate this design.. Several of the proposed
parking stalls will be located in front of existing overhead doorways. Access drives to the
building will be retained in its current configuration with curbing added.
The variance would allow the proposed user to occupy the building, and fit a reasonable
amount of parking on the property in conformance with the setback requirements of the
parking regulations. Variances must be supported by a finding that the property may not be
put to a reasonable use without the variance. In this case, such a finding may be considered
based on the following factors:
a. The building is existing on the site. Due to the configuration of the property and
existing building, it is not possible to meet the parking requirements for any B-3 use.
Other retail uses would require as many as 65 spaces.
b. The property is an existing lot of record which is relatively shallow in shape. There
is no other opportunity to provide additional parking without requiring removal of
a portion of the structure.
c.
The proposed use minimizes the amount of parking actually needed, due to lower
parking needs than other B-3 uses.
With these conditions, the variance may be considered a reasonable accommodation. Due
.
Planning Commission Agenda -07/06/99
to the constrained amount of parking, no outdoor and no overnight storage of vehicles should
be permitted. This will help to enhance the site's aesthetics, and avoid spillage of parking
onto Cedar Street.
Conditional Use Permit
As noted, the proposed use requires a Conditional Use Permit in this district. The Zoning
Ordinance lists 18 special requirements for the issuance of this CUP. A copy of that section
of the Ordinance is attached to this report as an Exhibit B.
Most of the CUP requirements relate to routine standards applied to commercial uses,
including paving and curbing of all parking areas, lighting standards, landscaping and
screening, and drainage, dust, and noise control. All appear to be addressed by the new site
plan.
.
The remaining components of the site and landscape plan would include Engineering mId
Zoning Administrator approval. Staff would encourage additional landscaping on this site
to enhance the visual impact of the building along Highway 25, and provide a light screening
effect of the parking areas along Cedar Street. A sign plan should also be incorporated into
the CUP review, in accordance with condition number 13.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
Decision 1 : Variance to Parking Standards
1. Motion to approve the Variance from 24 parking spaces to 22 parking spaces, based
on a finding that the existing lot of record is shallow in dimension, and the existing
building restricts the ability to add other parking to meet Zoning Ordinance
requirements.
2. Motion to deny the Variance, based on a finding that additional land could be sought,
or building size reduced, to comply with the minimum parking regulations.
3. Motion to table action on the Variance, subject to the submission of additional
information.
Decision 2: Conditional Use Permit for Auto Repair in a B-3 District
1.
Motion to recommend approval of the CUP, based on a finding that parking will be
adequate as proposed, no overnight and no outside storage of vehicles will be
allowed, and on condition that the requirements applying to this CUP listed in the
ordinance are submitted to staff for review and approval.
.
.
Planning Commission Agenda -07/06/99
2.
Motion to deny the CUP, based on a finding that the proposed use can not fit on the
sitc duc to parking and loading requirements.
3.
Motion to table action on the CUP, subject to submission of additional information,
including a more complete site plan and landscaping plan.
c.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff believes that the variance to parking supply is a reasonable request for this use, with
the conditions stated above. Particularly where no overnight storage of vehicles is allowed,
the lesser parking supply would not tend to be encroached upon by vehicles in need ofrepair
being stored for long periods of time. This latter concern is one of the primary problems
with auto repair facilities. The size ofthe building should be able to accommodate inside
storage iflonger term storage becomes necessary.
.
The CUP may be approved, based on the Planning Commission and City Council's comfort
with leaving the remainder ofthe site plan review to staff. Since this is an existing building,
the remaining requirements relate to paving according to the revised parking plan, and
landscaping the site for screening and aesthetics.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Exhibit A - Site Plan & Landscape Plan
Exhibit B - Zoning Ordinance Conditions Applicable to this Land Use
.
.
lU
~
. ..~---------~.---.--~.
.
~
.
J'
)
)
~
~~
",3
-:><'...
G
d
~
d
""""\
11
e'\J
C\I
~
~
l j
, /
..j
~ ,
...
: ~
.
...
: ...
, . ... 110
~ I
...
\ \
I ~ . .
~
1 \
JJ /
I
,
i
,
N 69053'33- W
plat 170 58
m~s. '7032
.
.
I ,
I.c... f>- O#'t
~-.-
J? "
. ~ !/
.~
, I
: I
I '
<:) , I
0 I
~ II i
~ i . ./
~ I 0,;
~ II
~ t~
t I
f~
f2 ~,Il ~~
~
-.... ~ ~
...... "" ~~
.....
~i ~
--~
II
'l>) t
~ 6
I,
-
~
~ , I
..~ v.
~ ~i I k
~ ~
~ ~i
I
~ V
, ,
I
,
., .
\
c,1 c,Q.
l,p?..-
, \ '
JJ
I
I
I
t
......
-
~
~
~
....
,..
......
"
b
,~
~
'-
'\)
~
~
~
Qj
~
:~
j
~
,)
f\
t\y
<.;
~
f2
~
'-
~
/
I
~ a
.
.. - -
-
I ~
". ~ ~
~.
~ ,
\ " .~
......
lor; . ... .
.... \ . /)
:.. .
...... ...
" ,
\ ~
...
~ .
\
.. ..
:-
t
II,:r~ -
r,..,'"
)""
I
--- .
..' ~', -
1
~
\ \
~
,
~
,
I
. ~.-;)
. .
.. I
. ~ ~'I " .
. ~ ~. .
~ .!
\ ,
I
Ii' ,I, ;~
I I ~. ~
V//~///... '//~
C ~ .../J.L.L LL :/1
\: ->::"l! C
&/
1'6
0e-o U/::;'I-~I: --.. .i ,,-\JJ) 8:8
oS' /. OJ~---1
.0/01' 6'6' r",( ~- I
Ss /JJ'6'J'
'.?oSs.:~~~ Exhibit B - Staff Parking I..ayout
\
---
.'.
~~ ~..:~:: -.::
.... J" ~ :
-
.
.
.
9.
Continued Public Hcadn!! - consideration of a Zonin~ Ordinance amendment
adding tatoo parlors as a permitted use in a B-4 District. Applicant: City of
Monticello.
Steve Grittman to provide a verbal report at the meeting.
.
SPEAKER SIGN-IN SHEET
Monticello City C uncil Meeting
Meeting Date:
Please provide your name, address, and the number of the agenda item you wish to discuss with
the~~cil. Thank you.
flann,\itA
~Itt~ OT\..
5~
)"u 5'0 2-3 t-' Jtv (... tv r
SPEAKER.WK4: 08/26/96