Loading...
Planning Commission Agenda 10-03-2000 . Memhers: l. 2. ., -) . 4. 5. . 6. " AGENDA REGULAR MEETING - MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday, October 3,2000 7:00 P.M. Dick Frie, Rohhie Smith, Roy Popilek, Richard Carlson, Rod Dragsten Council Liaison: Clint IIerbst Staff: Jell O'Neill, Fred Patch, Steve Grittman and Lori Kraemer Call to order. Approval of minutes of the regular meeting held September 5, 2000. Consideration of adding items to the agenda. Citizens comments. Consideration of a request for a simple subdivision requesting that Lots 6 and 7. Manhattan Lots. 321 Riverview Drive, he split into two separate parcels. Applicant: Michael and Pamela Wigen. Public Hearing - Consideration of a Conditional Use Permit allowing a shopping center development in the CCD, Central Community District and a Subdivision dividing the new development parcel from the municipal liquor store. Applicant: Silver Creek Real Estate Development. 7. Public Hearing - Consideration of a request f()f a variance to the setbacks for installation of pylon for signage. Applicant: Automaxx 8. Public J-Iearing - Consideration of a request for a conditional use permit allowing an auto body/repair shop in the B-3 district. Applicant: John Johnson, Monticello Auto Body 9. Puhlic Hearing - Consideration of an amendment to the parking regulations in the CCl) District. Applicant: City of Monticello 10. Consideration to call for a public hearing establishing building and architectural design standards in the business district. 11. Verbal update on gross vehicle weight standards and Council action to deny. 12. Adjourn. -1- . . . MINUTES REGULAR MEETING - MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday, September 5, 2000 7:00 P.M. Members Present: Dick Frie, Robbie Smith, Roy Popilek Richard Carlson. Rod Dragsten and Council Liaison Clint Herbst Staff Present: Jeff O'Neill, Fred Patch, Al Brixius and Lori Kraemer 1. Call to order. Chair Frie called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. 2. Approval of minutes of the regular meeting held August 1. 2000 and the special meeting of August 14, 2000. A MOTION WAS MADE BY ROBBIE SMITH AND SECONDED BY RICI-IARD CARLSON TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE AUGUST 1,2000 REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING. Motion carried unanimollsly. A MOTION WAS MADE BY ROY POPILEK AND SECONDED BY ROD DRAGSTEN TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF AUGUST 14,2000. Motion carried unanimously. .... j. Consideration of adding items to the agenda. Clint Herbst asked to discuss a Used Car Lot on Highway 25. This was placed as Item #14 JefT O'Neill asked to provide an update on the ]Ill Street strip mall. This was placed as Item #15. 4. Citizens comments. None 5. Public HearinQ. - Consideration of a request for a variance to the side vard setbacks to construct a Q.anwe. Applicant: Edward & Marla Hughes Jeff O'NeilL Deputy City Administrator. advised the Planning Commission that they are asked to consider granting a variance request to the side yard setback which will allow development of an attached garage. The setback proposed under the request is 8 feet which results in a variance of 2 feet. -1- . . . Planning Commission Minutes - 09/05/00 O'Neill noted that variances are regularly granted in this neighborhood due to the fact that the homes were situated on lots in a fashion that does not allow development of a two car garage without a variance. Also, this pmticular request is a repeat of an identical request submitted and approved earlier by the Planning Commission. This item is back before the Planning Commission because the applicant did not build the garage within one year of the granting of the previous variance. Chair Frie opened the public hearing. Marla Hughes, applicant, addressed the commission stating the reason for this request is to update their home. Hughes eXplained that they did not build the garage when the variance was previously granted as they were contemplating whether they would stay in Monticello at that time and there were also some financial issues. Chair Frie then closed the public hearing. Hughes notes that there was a previous issue in the past regarding some trees located on the property and she noted that they arc in compliance. Hughes also noted that there is a natural barrier between their home and their neighbor which includes a fence as well as trees. Rod Dragsten stated he continues to disagree with the variance as he does not believe it constitutes a hardship. A MOTION WAS MADE BY ROBBIE SMITH AND SECONDED BY RICHARD CARLSON TO APPROVE THE VARIANCE BASED ON THE FINDING THAT THE VARIANCE IS NECESSARY TO ALLOW CUSTOMARY USE OF THE PROPERTY WHICI-I INCLUDES DEVELOPMENT OF A TWO CAR GARAGE. APPROVAL OF THE VARIANCE REQUEST DOES NOT IMPAIR THE INTENT OF TI.IE ORDINANCE. Motion carried 4 to 1 with Rod Dragsten opposing. 6. Public Hearing - Consideration of a request to amend the conditional use permit for Monticello Auto Body to add a parcel of land to the planned unit development for future development. Applicant: John Johnson (Monticello Auto Body) Fred Patch, Building Official. advised that Mr. Johnson came into the office earlier that day and asked that this item be withdrawn, but that this was not in writing. Staff therefore recommends that this item be denied. Chair Frie asked if this item can come back if the applicant so chooses. Patch noted that the applicant will be installing a fence and is cleaning up the debris on his property. Patch also noted that this parcel will.be developed independent of the other parcel. Frie wished to continue the public hearing rather than denying it and Brixius. NAC, questioned how far the applicant was into the 60 day review period. Staff advised it \vas approximately 20 days would not exceed by the next planning commission meeting. -2- . . . Planning Commission Minutes - 09/05/00 Brixius suggested that this item be continued to the next regular Planning Commission meeting rather than denying it. A MOTION WAS MADE BY DICK FRIE AND SECONDED BY ROY POPILEK TO CONTINUE THE PUBLIC HEARING TO THE OCTOBER 3, 2000 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING BASED ON THE APPLICANT NOT BEING IN ATTENDANCE. Motion carried unanimously. After further discussion it was noted that the applicant's previous item was tabled and therefore the Planning Commission may wish to act on Mr. Johnson's tIrst application. Brixius stated the Planning Commission should get a letter of withdrawal for both applications. 7. Public IIearing - Consideration of a preliminary plat for right-or-way and commercial lots known as the 90th Street Addition. City of Monticello Al Brixius, NAC, provided the staff report stating the City had finalized acquisition of the land for the construction of Chelsea Road West, including negotiation with the Township and County for the disposition of the former 90th Street right-of-way along Interstate 94 which will be transferred to the adjacent private property owners. A plat of the area is necessary to clarify title and allow the distribution of the parcels. The City Engineer prepared the plat, which was attached as an exhibit to the report. In order to proceed with development in this area, approval of the 90th Street Addition plat is required. Also. on a related matter it was discovered that the annexation of the Hoglund land on which the plat is located was only partially completed. Only the Hoglund land that included the original Groveland Plat was included in the recent annexation. Therefore. a joint resolution supporting the annexation of the 90th Street Addition needs to be processed via City/Township joint resolution. It was noted that the MOAA Board had already approved the annexation of the entire Hoglund parcel. There was discussion regarding the land involved and how it was to be transferred. There are items related to this project such as special assessments which \vill be paid by the property owners. Chair Frie opened the public hearing and hearing no response. the public hearing was closed. Chair Frie stated that this was a specific instance where the City and Township Board had. worked together. Clint Ilerbst. member of the MOAA board. stated this item really was a cut and dried issue. -3- . . . Planning Commission Minutes - 09/05/00 A MOTION WAS MADE BY ROY POPILEK AND SECONDED BY RICHARD CARLSON TO APPROVE THE PRELIMINARY AND FINAL PLAL BASED ON A FINDING THAT IT IS CONSISTENT WITH THE DEVELOPMENT PLANS FOR THE AREA AS DESCRIBED IN THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. Motion carried unanimously. 8. Public Hearing - Consideration of a request for a CUP for new and used automohile/light truck sales and displav in the B-3 District. Applicant: Jacob Holdings of Monticello. LLC (Dennv Hecker's Automotive Group) Al Brixius, NAC, provided the staff report advising that the Goldridge Group applied for a Conditional Use Permit to establish a new automobile dealership to be known as Monticello Dodge between Interstate 94 and the extension of Chelsea Road West. The property is zoned B-3, General Business, and guided for commercial use in the Comprehensive Plan. Automobile Sales is a Conditional Use in this zoning district. Brixius also noted that the conditional use permit section of the zoning ordinance was recently amended to require that on parcels of this size (5.8 acres) a building must be built which is at least 15% of the lot area. In this case, a building of at least 40.000 square feet is required. The proposed building appears to be at least 42,000 square feet, in compliance with the standard. Staff will verify compliance as more detailed building plans are developed. Brixius also noted other requirements such as outside sales area to be screened from neighboring residential districts, although it was noted the property will be surrounded by commercial land or the Interstate; lighting is to be hooded so that the light source is not visible from residential areas or the public right of way; Outside sales area is hard surfaced; Adequate parking is provided apart from the area utilized by outside sales; Vehicular access points do not create traffic conflicts, and are approved by the City Engineer; Lot dimensions are at least 22,500 square feet; Drainage is subject to the review and approval of the City Engineer; Signs are consistent with the City's sign regulations. Brixius also noted the applicant submitted a landscape plan which appears to be in conformance with the City's requirements for site and parking lot perimeter landscaping. It was asked of Mr. Brixius to explain the required lighting. Stafl also verified that the applicant met the new requirement regarding the square footage of their building. Brad Coats. Goldridge Group, addressed the commission stating the delay in the signage was due to them not meeting the City code and he explained that initially they had proposed roof signs. Fred Patch. Building OfficiaL advised that this has been corrected. Chair hie opened the public hearing. Brad Coats again addressed the commission advising that the square t()otage of the building is actually bet\veen 41.000 and 42.000 sq. -4- . . . Planning Commission Minutes - 09/05/00 ft. with room enough to accommodate approx. 500 cars including employee vehicles. He pointed out their new signage which projects from the front of the building as well as directional signage for Chelsea Rd. Coats also explained that the light poles will have tilt canopies to direct the lighting. The public hearing was then closed. The commissioners asked if staff felt the applicant would meet the new architectural and building code standards, if approved, which are listed in item #12 of this agenda. Patch did ask the applicant what types of materials they were intending to use they seemed to be in compliance. Curbing was also addressed and Brixius stated there was sufficient parking, but that staff may want to ask the applicant to specifically mark the parking for customers and employees. A MOTION WAS MADE BY ROD DRAGSTEN AND SECONDED BY ROBBIE SMITH TO APPROVE THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR MONTICELLO DODGE, SUBJECT TO THE CONDITIONS LISTED IN EXHIBIT Z. Motion carried unanimously. 9. Consideration of an amendment to a planned init development in a B-3 District to allow the expansion of an auto sales and storage lot. Applicant: Dave Peterson's Monticello Ford. Jeff O'NeilL Deputy City Administrator, provided the staff report adding that there was additional information submitted regarding engineering and that is being reviewed at this time. He also noted that the information was not pertinent to the planning commission's decision. O'Neill gave a brief review of the planning commissions decision to deny this item and send it on to City Council at which time the Council remanded it back to planning commission because the necessary site plan data was then available for review. O'Neill also advised that storage/sales lots and employee parking at Monticello Ford are not allowed by code without the presence of a principal use on the site. In this case, the PUD is employed to link the Ford Dealership and its operation to the use of the nearby, but separate, property. O'Neill advised that the PUD does meet code in regard to the 15% ratio of the total building to area. O'Neill gave a summary of certain site plan elements and possible concerns of staff and planning commission as follows: Landscaping/Buffer Yard Screening - did not appear to meet the mini m um requirements of the code in terms of creating separation betvveen the parking area and the daYC<-"1re facility. He noted the need for a 10' butTer yard, according to staff interpretation. \,,-hen located next to a commercial use. It was also discussed vvhether the daycare was classified as a commercial use or not. Also noted was the fence between the daycare ancI parking lot \vhich provides a complete screening effect. -5- Planning Commission Minutes - 09/05/00 . Lighting Plan - It was discussed that lighting from the original Ford dealership may be used but that the Building Official vvould have to review and a plan had not yet been submitted by the applicant. It was suggested that a photometric plan be submitted for this site. Storage Area/Screening Fence - The planning commission may wish to discuss the method of screening for this significa-'.lt storage area in addition to the landscaping. Drive Access Points - There was a concern by the Public Works Director regarding the two access points not lining up with access point across the road which could result in an indirect route for vehicles moving from one side of Sandberg Road to the other. It should be determined by the planning commission whether or not to require cross street access points to line up. . Signage - O'Neill noted there was no signage plan submitted and therefore this PUD amendment will not include changes to the sign plan. There was a great deal of discussion regarding the banners being displayed on the light poles on the site which staff and the City Attorney feel are in violation of the City code. However, the applicant believes the banners to be directional signs. O'Neill and Brixious expressed the need for this issue to get resolved as there has been pressure on staff from a nearby used car dealership who wants to display similar banners. It was also noted that failure to enfcJrce the code in this instance could lead to a proliferation of banners. Chair Frie asked staff if the City had been in receipt of a legal interpretation regarding the banners and it was stated that they had been in contact with the City Attorney, who would also be in contact with the attorney for Peterson Ford. Frie also asked Mr. Peterson ifhc was in receipt of the conditions listed in Exhibit Z and he stated not prior to this meeting. Chair Frie opened the public hearing. Dave Peterson, Monticello Ford, addressed the commission. Frie asked if he had been in contact with his attorney regarding the banners and he stated there had been discussion, but that he did not feel they were related to this particular item. Again it was noted that it is now the time to address the rules that were initially imposed but are not being followed. Peterson again stated that these were directional signs directing customers where the used cars/trucks are located. lie also stated that he vvas not willing to remove them at this time. . O'Neill stated that the City was sympathetic to 1'v1r. Peterson's situation, however the problem the City faces is the pressure from other dealerships to also install banners and they will proliferate and end up everyvvhere. He stated that possibly start:could work with Mr. Peterson on a solution. Fred Patch. Building Official. advised that the code allows for 10 sq. ft. maximum directional signs and also noted that the previous signage that \Vas approved was within that plan and these arc not. Patch also stated that these banners are -6- Planning COll1mission Minutes - 09/05/00 . too large and the material they are constructed of falls into the definition of banners. It was staff s perspective that if approval \vas granted on this item, it should include that the signs on the existing site need to be in compliance. Mr. Peterson asked that this item be continued due to the fact that he did not receive information on the conditions in Exhibit Z prior to this meeting. Robbie Smith stated his aggravation regarding continuing this item again and felt that the planning commission had already spent too much time on this item. Chair Frie asked Mr. Peterson which conditions, other than the signage, he was uncomfortable with and Peterson stated item 1 with the additional trees noting he would have to bring this back to his architect to have re- done. Peterson also added that he \-vas not aware of the fees listed in the conditions. O'Neill address this issue stating that this is a long standing policy for the City and that he had discussed this issue with Steve Johnson of Monticello Ford as well. There was further discussion on the engineering data still needed and O'Neill again stated that this was not pertinent to the planning commission's decision, but that City Council had also addressed this need for the appropriate data to Mr. Johnson. . There was further discussion regarding the additional 5 ft. requested in the conditions and Mr. Brixius stated that narrowing the drive stalls could provide this additional 5 ft. and Peterson \vOllld not lose any parking stalls. It was again noted that this type of information cannot be determined until a complete site plan is submitted by applicants. There was also a question by the commission as to who determines if the daycare site is commercial or institutional and O'Neill advised that it is difficult to determine by looking at the code, but that according to the City Planner it \vould be commercial, although it seems the intent of the code would be institutional. D. Mandel. Playhouse Childcare, also asked who determines the classification of their site and how this would atTect them. It was noted that this was really not a concern to them as it was not the height of the fence, but the space between the properties where the fence would be located. Ms. Mandel also stated their concerns with the parking issues and security and that there had been no contact with Peterson or Dunlo Motors, the auto dealer on the other side of the childcare, regarding these issues. Melody Peterson. Playhouse Childcare, also addressed the commission stating the lack of communication between Peterson. the Playhouse and Dunlo Motors. It was noted that a meeting had taken place with the three parties, but that Ms. Peterson was not able to attend. O'Neill a(hised that he had sent Ms. Peterson pictures and notes regarding that mecting and he would get them to her again. . Clint Herbst. Council Liaison, asked the commission why Peterson ford would nced to ahide with a 5 ft. setback only hecause there is a daycare next to them. This site could be something entirely different ii'om a daycare at some point in time. He did not feel it was - 7- Planning COl11lllission IVlinutcs - 09/05/00 . the responsi bi lity of the t\VO car dealerships to put up these fences and lose 5 ft. of their parking availability. Chair Frie noted that Dunlo Motors was an entirely separate issue and would be followed up on by staff. Dave Peterson did note, however that they and Dunlo Motors would be installing the fencing once Peterson is ready. Melody Peterson asked Dave Peterson of his time frame on this item and he stated that it was his intention to start sometime this fall. Patch asked Mr. Peterson to establish a specific date that the work would be completed and Peterson said he could not do that. Patch advised that the use is already there and that they are in violation as they are non- conforming. Mr. Peterson stated he was not prepared to establish a date until his attorney had worked \vith the City Attorney regarding the sign issue, stating it could be June of 2001. Peterson did state that this was his major concern regarding the conditions of the approval. Chair Frie then closed the public hearing. Popilek stated he concurred with Smith in that this issue needed to come to an end and that the applicant is not in compliance with City code. Planning Commission would like a date established. Dragsten stated he concurred but that the condition regarding the setback should remain at 5 ft. . A MOTION WAS MADE BY DICK FRIE AND SECONDED BY ROBBIE SMITH TO APPROVE THE AMENDMENT TO A PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT IN A B-3 DISTRICT TO ALLOW THE EXPANSION OF AN AUTO SALES AND STORAGE LOT, CONTINGENT UPON THE COMPLETION OF THE ITEMS LISTED IN EXHIBIT Z, WITH THE CI-IANGE IN ITEM #1 TO A 5' SETBACK. ITEM #4 TO BE DETERMINED AND DECIDED UPON MUTUALLY BY THE CITY ATTORNEY AND THE ATTORNEY FOR PETERSON FORD, AS WELL AS THE ADDITION OF ITEM #7 STATING A COMPLETION DATE OF DECEMBER 1. 2000. There was further discussion with Dragsten not being comfortable \-vith the completion date and commissioners not being comfortable with having the attorneys for both parties decide on the banner issue stating they felt this would set a precedence for future issues. Mr. Brixious stated his opinion regarding the signage/banners would be to concur with stafl and remain with conditions listed. CHAIR FRIE AND ROBBIE SMITH THEN RESCINDED THEIR MOTIONS. . A MOTION WAS MADE BY ROBBIE SMITH AND SECONDED BY DICK FRIE TO APPROVE THE AMENDMENT TO THE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT IN A B- 3 DISTRICT TO ALLOW THE EXPANSION OF AN AUTO SALES AND STORAGE LOT. CONTINGENT UPON THE COMPLETION OF ITElVIS LISTED IN EXHIBIT L WITH TI--I[: CHANGE TO ITEM #1 TO A 5' SETBACK AND THE ADDITION OF ITElVl #7 FOR /\. COMPLETION DATE OF DECEMBER 1.2000. -8- . . . Planning COlnmission [\;Iinules - 09/05/00 There was furthcr discussion on the completion date regarding landscaping due to weather conditions and perhaps it should be stated that the completion date to be December I, 2000, weather permitting, and that statT and Peterson Ford would work out a satisfactory date. Patch suggested the applicant put up a bond for the landscaping. It was suggested to possibly amend the motion to add the language of weather permitting to item #7, but after further discussion on the matter, and Mr. Peterson leaving the meeting, the motion stood as stated and carried unanimously. 10. Public Hearing - Consideration of an ordinance amending the Monticello Zoning: Ordinance. Chapter 3. Section 3-5. rDl 7. bv adding subsections (a) and (b). establishing: regulations for commercial vehicles in residential district. Applicant: Monticello Citv Council. Fred Patch, Building Official, provided the report advising that this zoning ordinance amendment coupled with a proposed amendment to the traffic ordinances of the City of Monticello. is intended to allow enforcement of ordinances restricting commercial vehicles from residential districts. The current ordinances intend to disallow commercial vehicles in residential district (with some exceptions). however, alone the 9.000 lb. gross vehicle weight restriction is insufficient to enable enforcement. This ordinance amendment. along with amendments to the traffic ordinances (on-street parking ordinances) will help to preserve the character of our residential districts while not limiting necessary commercial vehicle traffic serving those districts. There was discussion whether this amendment would have any effect on recreational vehicles and Patch stated it would not. Chair Frie opened the public hearing, and hearing no response, the public hearing was closed. A MOTION WAS MADE BY ROD DRAGSTEN AND SECONDED BY RICHARD CARLSON TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL TO THE CITY COUNCIL OF AN AMENDMENT TO THE ZONING ORDINANCE. CHAPTER 3, SECTION 3-5. [D] 7, BY ADDING SUBSECTIONS (A) AND (B). AND ESTABLISHING REGULATIONS FOR COMMERCIAL VEHICLES IN RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS. Motion carried unanimously. -9- . . . Planning Commission Minutes - 09/05/00 11. Rcview status of public nuisance ordinance enforcemcnt. Fred Patch, Building OfficiaL provided an update regarding a clarification on the previous discussion regarding this issue. He noted a small percentage of the non- compliance issues have now been referred on to the City Attorney to proceed in court. Patch also explained that the statl forwards these on to the City Attorney approximately every six months. There was further discussion on handling the non-compliance issues and the members asked if a fine could be placed on these before forwarding them on to the City Attorney. Patch stated that fines don't seem to work, people just would not pay them. leiJO'NeilL Deputy City Administrator, advised the members that Patch, Roger Belsaas, and he had toured the City previously to prioritize the public nuisances. O'Neill also stated that a pamphlet could be put together for residents that explained what the process is for public nuisances, as well as advising them that a nuisance could be reported anonymously. It was also asked if this information could be put in the City Newsletter and to bring this item back to the planning commission in six months. 12. Draft Ordinance establishing building and architectural desi!2:n standards in the business district. Monticello Plannim~ Commission. Al Brixius, NAC, provided the stafTreport regarding the Planning Commission's request to establish building materials standards in the Business Districts with the opening of the expanded commercial area on Chelsea Road West. The discussion focused on the establishment of minimum materials requirements, but without architectural or design review, such as is applied in the CCD District. Language was provided by NAC which is utilized in other communities to raise the level of building materials above the pole building construction style, and does not permit the metal siding typical of such buildings. While "pole" buildings are technically allowed, they are often disqualified because of their inability to support the required finish. Brixius advised that. as stated in the ordinance, this language would only apply to the B-1, B-2, B-3 and B-4 districts. There was discussion as to whether this would exclude metal roofs and Brixius advised that it does not. Brixius also advised that any of the specifics could be modified. The members discussed whether there would be percentages applied to item C in the ordinance and Brixius explained that these could be looked at on a case-by-case basis. They also felt that item D needed to be more specific. and that possibly 15% of the total building \vas too low. Brixius stated they could leave it open or the City could be more restricti ve. -] 0- Planning Commission Minutes - 09/05/00 . It \vas agreed that NAC would come back to the planning commission with more information at it's next meeting. A MOTION WAS MADE BY DICK FRIE AND SECONDED BY RICHARD CARLSON TO TABLE ACTION ON THE AMENDMENT. PENDING ADDITIONAL INFORMATION. Motion carried unanimously. 13. Consideration to call for a public hearing on amendments to parking requirements in the CCD District. lefT O'Neill, Deputy City Administrator. provided the staff report advising that City staff requests that the Planning Commission review the current City ordinance allowing developments in the CeD District to opt for payment of a fee in lieu of parking. O'Neill advised that the CCD ordinance was set up to encourage on-street and centralized public parking in part by allowing businesses to pay into a fund for development of street and centralized parking. Staff believes that the goals of the CCD District regarding parking remain, however there is some concern that the language of the ordinance gives the developer too much latitude in selecting whether or not to pay the fee or create parking. . Staff suggests that the Planning Commission look at allowing this provision to be employed at the discretion of the City. Factors used in making determination as to whether or not a business could pay the fee in lieu of creating parking would include proximity to available public parking and the number of parking stalls needed. As an alternative and possibility in addition to giving the City more discretionary authority, the City could consider increasing the fee which would make this option less desirable. O'Neill also stated that the CCD district is in a TIF district where parking related expenses arc eligible for coverage via TIF funding. Therefore, deficiencies in the parking fund could be supplemented by TIF funding. After further discussion it was noted by Mr. Brixius that this was the first City he has seen propose this but that he wished more cities would look into implementing something similar. It was agreed that the fee should be discLlssed further. A MOTION WAS MADE BY ROD DRAGSTEN AND SECONDED BY RICHARD C^RLSON TO CALL FOR A PUBLIC HEARING ON AMENDMENTS TO PARKING REGULATIONS IN THE CCD DISTRICT AT THE OCTOBER 3.2000 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING. Motion carried unanimously. . - I 1- . . . Planning Commission Minutes - 09/05/00 14. Used Car Parking Lot. Council Liaison Clint Herbst ask the commissioners about the TDS parking lot that is being used on weekends to display vehicles for sale. He advised that he had asked Rick Wolfsteller. City Administrator, to put this item on the next City Council agenda as well. It was stated that this is in violation of City Ordinance and the Planning Commission advised staff to contact TDS Telecom asking them to cease this use. It was also pointed out that there have been no complaints or problems in the past with this use. Chair Frie did advise however that a resident living adjacent to the TDS lot had advised that she 'vvas uncomfortable with this use and the number of people coming and going from this lot during the weekends. However. she did not contact the City about this issue. 15. 7'h Street Strip Mall Update. Jeff O'Neill, Deputy City Administrator, provided an update regarding Barry Fluth's 7'h Street Mall project noting that they were deficient in their parking requirements due to the City not having previous knowledge that a restaurant would be occupying some of the mall space. O'Neill stated tbey are 22 stalls short and there is not sufficient room for more parking. He also advised that the developer was upset with this increase in fees to cover the parking deficiency as well as other fees and that this item may come before City Council at it's next regular meeting. 16. Adiourn A MOTION WAS MADE BY ROBBIE SMITH AND SECONDED BY ROD DRAGSTEN TO ADJOURN THE MEETING AT 9AO P.M. Motion carried unanimously. Recording Secretary -12- . . . Planning Commission Agenda - 10/03/00 s. Consideration of a request for a simple subdivision requesting that Lots 6 and 7. Manhattan Lots, 321 Riverview Drive. be split into two separate parcels. Applicant: Michael and Pamela Wigen. (FPl A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND Lots 6 and 7, Manhattan Lots are currently recorded under the same Property Identification number I PID I and as such are a single parcel ofland. City approval of a simple subdivision is required to enable each of the lots to be considered independent tax parcels with independent PID numbers. Mr. and Mrs. Wigen have started construction on that portion of the parcel described as Lot 6. The attached land survey reflects that development. After the simple subdivision is approved, the Wigen's residence will be fully conforming to the Zoning Code upon only Lot 6. Lot 7 will be returned to the party who intended to sell only Lot 6 to the Wigens , and will remain undeveloped at this time. B. ALTERNATIVE ACTION 1. Motion to recommend approval of the simple subdivision of that parcel described as Lots 6 and 7, Manhattan Lots, to created two parcels to be known as Lot 6, Manhattan Lots; and Lot 7 Manhattan Lots. 2. Motion to recommend denial of the simple subdivision. C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends Alternative 1 to the Planning Commission. D. SUPPORllNG DATA . Copy of land survey describing Lots 6 and 7, Manhattan Lots. -1- ----~ IV J5.1~ ~ I IO"'~ 0 ~! .) " . ~ 908 0 ~, EASEMENT ",. '> 1 EXIsrrNIJ I/tM5l :L ~ I '/-=r--;::--_~__ I 9051 ~ s 7".~0 '04~:---- ___I / S~y LINE" 99. 8$ ----- I--- /0 / / / 10 'lOSS qoS,' / 905.7 905.5 I I f ~05'.9 5 6 / / / I 907,7 I I !/ /:i/ ~ '. ~ I 0) I ~.I.tj 908 0 l!i? / 0 / ~ I CI) .~I 7 . ~ 0;' "1 .o.~.. So , ".,.~- '~"'l!!" ~ LI:S,J 907.2 915 5 / / / / / / / / / / -- -- ----- -- / 5' A ( '/",,? -'~ -- ____ I ~---- -u ----... -, . ~->- -- - 912.5 ___ . ~-e...,.,......... . __ - -0-<,..-- >...4:1'~ · -:., ~'C''''''____.v- ~&:'"~~._ 0" ,---~........:;:lo..... -- --- tJ/ i!/ ~~ W .::;/ ~i q y '---- ""-. 906 5 I / I --, --- '__ .~ J /0 f _~,_ / ,', ~ = -.. f 1107 I, ;;.: _____~~~ -- "1 l " ~~ C/;>r~~. '" \ / ......-.~"..."5 ~N 76026 '09 9019 ~~~( W /;:.0--"""9: \ \ \ _\~ . ~ C.S.A.N. J,t,qICl-q COUNT.... . "'Iv,.. At? Jig . . . Planning Commission Agenda -10/03/00 6. Consideration of a Conditional Use Permit allowinf.!: a shopping center development in the CCD, Central Community District and a Subdivision dividing the new development parcel from the municipalliclUor store. Applicant: Silver Creek Real Estate Development. (NAC) A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: Silver Creek Real Estate Development is proposing to construct a shopping center on a parcel bounded by the I3urlington Northern Railroad/5th Street on the north, Walnut Street on the west, the municipal liquor store site on the south, and Ilighway 25 on the east. The project includes 15,500 square feet of retail/commercial use, and has eliminated the original plans for 12 second Hoor residential units of 1-2 bedrooms and an underground parking garage for the residential tenants. A future commercial space on the liquor store side of the property includes approximately 9,000 square feet, in addition to the existing liquor store space of 6,480 square feet. The site is zoned CCD, Central Community District. The downtown revitalization plan encourages the use of mixed use design, and urban building styles in the corridor along Walnut Street. The proposed project would maximize the amount of Walnut Street frontage for commercial development, with the exception of access to 5 Y2 Street (to be developed as an internal access drive). The shopping center meets the downtown's commercial development goals, although it has abandoned the mixed use concept encouraged by the Revitalization Plan. The project would provide 44 at-grade parking spaces north of 5 Yz Street. South of 5 1/2 Street. a redesign of the parking lot would be proposed that would provide 71 parking stalls for a total of 115 stalls between the two properties. The parking lot revisions would he concurrent with the development of the new commercial space. Height. Setbacks. Density. The CCD requirements require building heights of hetween 15 and 35 feet and zero setbacks. The proposed building is now one story in height, with elevations yet to be submitted to verify the dimension, and is located with zero setbacks along north, east, and west lot lines. At-grade parking lots arc required to maintain the five t"Jot setbacks where practical. It would appear that there is room to accommodate this standard, and the site plan should reflect this. Parking. The first phase of retail space requires a total of 70 spaces at one space per 200 square feet of net retail area. With 44 supplied on the north side of 5-1/2 Street, this leaves a deficit 01'26 spaces. The CCD permits such shortages where the developer agrees to pay into a parking fund for puhlic parking in the district on a per space basis. The 9,000 square foot retail addition to the municipal liquor store would generate an additional demand for 41 spaces. The liquor store property is currently developed with a surplus of parking, a portion of which may be made available to the developers. This issue has heen addressed by the purchase agreement and will be further defined by the development contract as a part of the Conditional Use Permit and the sale of the land. -1- Planning Commission Agenda -10/03/00 . The site plan does not provide any dedicated loading areas. The applicant's anticipate using front of store loading. This does raise issue with circulation within the parking lot unless deliveries occur before or after store hours. Pedestrian Access. The CCD and the downtown revitalization area arc intended to promote pedestrian access and pedestrian-based business interchange. The development block will be adjoined by public sidewalks along Walnut Street, 61h Street and Highway 25. Sidewalks are also shown to connect Walnut and Highway 25 in front of the retail storefronts along the new building. A pedestrian connection has also been provided for across 5-1/2 Street to connect the new retail building with the existing liquor store. Signs. The Monticello Sign Ordinance applies to all development within the CCD, subject to Design Advisory Team (DAT) review. The project has not shown any sign detail, with the exception of two freestanding sign locations - one along Highway 25 and one along Walnut. The sign along Highway 25 would be acceptable under the revitalization plan as an area with more of a highway conul1ercial focus. However, the Walnut Street frontage is expected to have pedestrian scale signage, mounted on the building facades, including projecting signs over the sidewalk where appropriate. Additional sign detail will be necessary to permit complete review. . Streetscape/Landscape. Streetscape and landscape details have not been submitted \vith this plan set. The revitalization plan encourages the use of urban design materials including planters and furniture, site and parking lot lighting consistent with the City's standard, and alternative paving materials for walkways and other locations. 'fhese details should be submitted to staff and the Design Advisory Team for review. An emphasis on "hardscape" materials would be beneficial for this site, given the minimal area for landscaped green area. Planning staff would encourage pedestrian walks with alternative paving materials, such as the pavers planned for the Walnut Street improvements, as well as other similar and complementary materials. Building Design. The applicants had prepared an early rendering of the proposal, but no building plans have been subrl1itted at this time. The OAT has reviewed these preliminary building plans and given conceptual approval. The OAT noted specific concern for the building materials to be utilized on the htcade of the building facing the Burlington Northern right-of-way. Prior to final approval of the project, the applicant is to submit detailed building and site plans for OAT review. Site Coordination. Details regarding shared use of parking between the Liquor Store and the development site have been identified and are included in the terms of the purchase agreement. . -2- . Planning Commission Agenda -10/03/00 Liclllor Store Expansion. Please note that the Liquor Store expansion area identified in the plan will need to be increased from 2, I 00 sq. ft. to 3,000 sq. ft. which 111ay result in the loss of the head-in parking along the north side of the Liquor Store. Staff is working with the developer to determine if it is feasible to make necessary shifts in the building walls that would allow the head-in parking to stay in the plan as identified. Planning Commission is asked to approve this site plan knowing that it might be necessary to remove the handful of spaces along the north side of the Liquor Store building. B. ALTERNATIVE ACflONS Decision I. Conditional Use Permit for a .",'hopping Center in the CCD District. I. Motion to recommend approval of the Conditional Use Permit, based on a finding that the proposed use is consistent with the revitalization plan and the CCD zoning requirements, with the condition that the applicant prepare site landscaping, signage, and building plans for review and recommendation of the OAT prior to final approval. 2. Motion to recommend denial of the CUP. based on a finding that the inadequate parking supply creates the potential for public street congestion in this location. . " -) . Motion to table action on the CUP, pending the submission oflandscaping, building, and signage plans. Decision 2. Suhdivision ol1he sltly'ect property into two parcels. 1. Motion to recommend approval of the Subdivision, based on a finding that the subdivision will facilitate development consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. 2. Motion to recommend denial of the Subdivision, based on a finding that the lot to be created cannot be adequately served with parking as proposed. 3. Motion to table action on the Subdivision, subject to additional information. c. STAFF RECOMMENDATION . Staff believes that the proposed use for the site is consistent with the intent of the revitalization plan and with the CCD District although the loss of the residential component is viewed as unfortunate. Based on this finding, CUP and Subdivision approval is recommended, subject to suhmission and review of the landscaping, building, and signage -3- . Planning Commission Agenda -10/03/00 plans, as well as engineering review of the utilities and drainage. The planning commission should consider whether any of these additional plans should he submitted t()[ its review prior to final approval, or if they may be submitted to the OAT and then directly to the City COllnei I. D. SUPPORTING OAlA 1. Site Plan 2. Elevation drawing . . -4- . . .... i dnOtJ~ ~NIOlln8 VtJ.LJ3dS I 'J'Tl 'S311tJ3dOtJd INN3tJ8 ...... V lOS3NNIV'l 'Oll3JIINOV'l j lN3~dOl3^30 NM01M3N i , ;Ii "' "' '" ~ ~ I i~ ~i ..- ~ I ~ ~I ~ I i V1 n f@~ <t ,.. ~~ ::t>l E- ~i HI Z ~: I~~ 0 1_, V= 1 ~ 8 5 1 ..._ jO....:l <3 j ,". "- JE~ '" ;!; I ~: I~ I~ J~ '" " / i j i J ij' J l j /-1. /7 I -I. , ~\ f.. b.o, ~~'" "at" ~JQ :r~t" --- j t; .? . UCL <t~~ If-. 0 O~O:::: \ GJ - u IzGJC) Z-z ~-t-- J2CL: 0 W.---J -CL - JOO:=J .---Jo::::CD .---J WCL<t - u IV ./ - U- ~7l-- :\ It,' l ~Sl ~~ 8 -I l:R!rIl ;; ;J::; '" .. l<:~ '" ;l':~ ':';!>- ! n ~~ ~~ ~ 1 if. 1 t:<1 : i3: Z~ I.,:. ,~; 11~3 1 1\ . f-o t:<1 I ~: I~&j I ' . '\ . \. -l - I ,- 1 Planning Commission Agenda _lO/03/00 . 9. Consideration of an amendment to the City of Monticello. (NAC) \icant: ;:... REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: Staff has raised concerns that the language developed for the CCD parking requirements gives the developer or landowner the choice between providing the required number of off- street parking spaces according to the zoning ordinance, or choosing to "overhuild" the site and pay into a parki ng fund which the City would use to provide puh 1 ic parki ng at the City's discretion. The City assigned a parking fee of $1,025 per stall as the requisite figure if a choice is made to provide less than the required amount of parking. At issue is whether thc City has given a developer too much latitude to avoid parking req uirements without the C it y' s ability to acq u i re and develop adequate puhli e parki ng in the arca. It is currently helieved that the cost of acquisition aod construction of parking would cost approximately $3,000 per stall or more. The design of the ordinance was intended to encourage a maximi,ation of use of the downtown land through a concentration and joint provision of parking areas. Thc Revitalization Plan encourages a reduction in overall parking supply due to the tendency of large parking areas to disrupt business interchange and interfere with ease of cross-pedestrian business patronage. Therefore, the level of the fce charged for parking deficiency was set low as a sort of "suhsidy" to encourage a more downtown-like built environment. It was envisioncd that surplus tax increments or other funds, such as assessments, would be available to till the gap hetween the $ 1,025 fee and the actual cost of public parking. There are at least two options the C i t Y could pursue if it hel ieves that a change is nccessary. The first would be to increase the fee. The $1.025 is set by City Council resolution and docs not require an ordinance amendment to change it. The ramifications of this type of change may be to discourage the use of thc tool, however. Most business operators arc concerned about parking supply, and would typically choose to provide it if there were tuo little incentive to do utilize the fee option. This in turn would likely rcsult in defeating the purpose 0 f the i nccnti ve by encouraging standard, " suburban" , site p lann ing. A second option waul d be to mai ntain the current fee \eve I, but change tbe ord i nanee to make the use 0 fthe fee in lieu of parki n g a cbo i ee of the City. This option would req ui re that staff work with ind i vi dual property owners to negotiate the level 0 f parking to be supplied, and would also infer that for some developers, the option might not be offered. A set of ob j ceti ves 0 r po Ii e i cs wo uld be advi sab let 0 guide staff in 0 ffcri ng, or no t offering, the fee- in- lieu option. Draft amendment language is attached to this report. . . -1- Planning Commission Agenda -10/03/00 . B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS 1. Motion to recommend approval ofthc change in fee amount, with no change in the text of the zoning ordinance. 2. Motion to recommend approval of the change in text giving the City the option of offering the fee-in-lieu of parking option. 3. Motion to recommend no changes to the CCO parking regulations. 4. Motion to table action on the CCD parking issue, subject to additional information. c. STAFF RECOMMENDATION . Staffrecommends that the fee remain as is to aet as an incentive to make use of the fee for parking option. Actions which encourage full off-street parking lots would be counter to the intent of the Comprehensive Plan, and would negatively impact the revitalization of a true downtown. The ohjective of the Revitalization Plan is to avoid suburban commercial development which is characterized by a dependence on large parking supplies and a disincentive to pedestrian interaction. As such, staff would recommend either no change (Alternative 3), or the change in text giving the discretion to the City (Alternative 2). D. SUPPORTING DATA Exhibit A - Draft Ordinance Amendment . -2- . City of Monticello Wright County, Minnesota AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 10, CHAPTER 14B, SECTION 6 IG), OF THE MONTI CE LLOZON ING OROIN ANCE RELATING TO PARKING REQlI1 REMENTS IN THE "CCO", Cf~NTRAL COMMllNITY DISTRICT. THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MONTlCELLO, MINNESOTA HEREBY ORDAINS ^S FOLLOWS: Section 1. Chapter 14B, Section 6 [Gl is amended to read as follows: [Gl Parking: I . S u pp I y: property owners shall comply wi th the park i ng su ppl Y req ui rements as Ii sted inS uhdi vis ion 3 _ 5 \ HJ 0 f th is ordi nance. However, property owners maybe granted \1exibility from a portion of their required parking supply under the fullowing comli tions: . a. Where the Cit flUds thatthere will be adec uate 0 ortunit to rovide ublic arkin' in the vieinitv of the sub' ect ro crt . and at the Cit " s 0 J!iillh-the j)Iopert.Y owner shall pay into a "COY' Parking Fund an amount as established by City Council resnlution. Said fund shall be used for the acquisition, construction, andlor maiotenance of publicly-owned parking in the "cco" district. h. The City may, in addition to, or as an alternative to, the option listed in S ubd i visi on 14 B-6 l G J La., 0 lTer the ro ert owner the 0 ortuni t to choose to a p.-aperty ""ncr may supply parking at a rate which is sixty percent (60%) 0 f the req uirement I isted in S ubd i vi si on 3 - 5 I HJ, provided tbat the owner grants an easement to the public for automobile parking use over the subject area. The owner shall retain responsibility for maintenance of said parking area. Section 2. This ordinance shall become effective from and aiter its passage and publication. I I sl I . q A . EL . . Planning Commission Agenda - 10/03/00 CONSIDERATION TO CALL FOR ^ PUBLIC HEARING FOR AMENDMENT TO THE ZONING ORDINANCE ESTABLISHING BUILDING MATERIALS STANDARDS IN THE "B", BUSINESS DISTRICTS. APPLICANT~ MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION. (NAC) A REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND The Planning Commission has raised the concept of establishing building materials standards in the Business Districts with the opening of the expanded commercial area on Chelsea Road West. The discussion focused on the establishment of minimum materials requirements, but without architectural or design review, such as is applied in the CCO District. The attached language is utilized in other communities to raise the level of building materials above the pole building construction style, and does not permit the metal siding typical of such buildings. While "pole" buildings are technically allowed, they are often disqualified because of their inability to support the required finish. As stated in the ordinance, this language would only apply to the B-1, B-2, B-3, and B-4 districts. Application of similar restrictions in the industrial districts has met opposition in the past. B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS. I. Recommend approval for calling for a public hearing on the proposed ordinance amendment. If this ordinance is ultimately adopted, the action could be based on a finding that the restriction of building materials in this manner is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and the City's development goals in the business districts. 2. Recommend denial of calling for the public hearing on the proposed ordinance amendment, based on a finding that the restriction on building materials in this manner would unduly interfere with business development. 3. Table action. C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staffrecommends approval of calling for a public hearing on the amendment. It is believed that the City of Monticello is well-situated to grow without fear of stopping development with enhanced development regulations. However, it is not uncommon to see some types of development make the least investment possible. This can actually interfere with high-investment businesses in some cases. Increasing building materials standards should help to ensure that high-quality, and highly valued. businesses located within the City. D. SUPPORTING DArA Draft Ordinance Language - Exhibit A - 1- . . . Exhibit A - Draft Ordinance Language A. No galvanized or unfinished steel, galvalum or unfinished aluminum bui ldings (walls or roofs), except those speci fically intended to have a corrosive designed finish such as corten steel shall be permitted in the B-l, B-2, B-3, or B-4 zoning districts, except in association with legal farming activities. B. Buildings in the "l:f', Business zoning districts shall maintain a high standard of architectural and aesthetic cornpatibility with conforming surrounding properties to ensure that they will not adversely impact the property values of the abutting properties and shall have a positive impact on the public health, safety, and general welfare. C. In the "If', Business districts, exterior building finishes shall consist of materials comparable in grade and quality to the following: 1. Brick. 2. Natural stone. 3. Decorative concrete block. 4. Cast in place concrete or precast concrete panels. 5. Wood, provided the surfaces are fll1ished for exterior use and wood of proven exterior durabi lity is used, such as cedar, redwood, cypress. 6. Glass curtain wall panels. 7. Stucco. D. Metal exterior finishes shall be permitted only where coordinated into the overall architectural design of the structure, such as in window and door frames, mansard roofs or parapets, and other similar features, and in no case shall constitute more than 15% of the total building exterior finish. Source: Zoning Ordinance Effective Date: 8-23-85 EXHIBIT A . . . LL Planning Com 111 ission Agenda - 10/03/00 'ross vehicle wei ,ht standards and Council action to den . Fred Patch will provide a verbal update/discussion at Planning Commission meeting. -1- .. ~ 1. Public Hearin' _ Consideration of a rec uest for a variance to the selbaeks for installation of l!Ylon for signage. Aill'licant: Automaxb (FP) Planning Commission Agenda - 10/03/00 A. jiEFERENCE AND BACKGROUNQ On September 27, 1999, the City Council approved a Conditional Use Permit for AutomaXX to operate an Auto Sales and display business at 1205 and 121 9 Hi ghwa Y 25 Sooth. At that time, the City Council allowed signs on the properlY "in accordancc with City standards". AutomaxX is noW requesting that the City alloW a variance to reduce the required front yard setback of 15 feet to I foot from the front propcrlY line for thc erection of a pylon sign. The height and design of the proposed sign are otherwise regulated by ordinance. Automaxx currently has tWO wall signs erected on the building, one facing Highway 25 and one facing Sandberg Road. The sign ordinance would allow one (I) pylon sign and tWO (2) wall signs with 300 square feet as the maximum total allowable sign area on the property. The area of signs currently ereeled on the properlY are as followS: . Automaxx sign on North Wall Automaxx sign on East Wall Professional Approach TOT AL EXlSTING SIGN AREA 98 S.F. 98 S.F. ~ 236 S.F. . . As this is a double occupancy building, the maximum allowable sign area on the property is 300 square fee\. Aller subtracting the existing sign area, the maximum allowable area for thc pylon sign is 64 square fce\. The proposed sign is 48 square feet in area. If a pylon sign were setback the required 15 feel from the front pToperty line it would be locatcd in the auto sales display aTea (because the parking lot is built only I foot away from the front propeTty line on Highway 25). Installation of the pylon sign in the display parking lot area could be accomplished by construction of a landscaped peninsula into one of the parking stalls. The landscaped area would break up the line of vehicles and pTovide an aTea upon which the sign could be placed in conformance with the zoning code. One major concern fOT allowing a variance j(Jf the pylon sign is that all of the aotomobile dealers look to one another fOT sales and promotional ideas. This variance may initiate future similar requests from the other local dealers. B. AL TERNAnVE ACTIONS- \. Motion to recommend approval of a variance from the requiTed 15 j()ot front yard setback requiTement for installation of a pylon sign co a height and area as permitted by the zoning code. -\- . . Planning Commission Agenda - 10/03/00 2. Motion to recommend denial of the Variance Request. C. ST AFf RECOMMENDATION StalT recommends Alternative 2 to the Planning Commission.. D. SUPPORTIN(J DAT 60 . Copy of land survey describing Automaxx site. . . -2- .-.. ... ~ . . Planning Commission Agenda - 10/03/00 Public Hearin' _ Consideration of a rer uest for a conditional use ermit allowin' an auto bod Ire air sho in the B-1 district. A licant: John Johnson Monticello Auto Bod A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND .Iohn Johnson proposes to relocate his auto body shop to the adjacent lot. The neW site is located at the corner of Sandberg Road aod the newly constructed Chelsea west. A conditional use permit allowing an auto body shop is needed for this to occur. .Iohnson's plan call s for devd opment of a 10,275 square foot structure. Fa 1I0wi og is site review followed by a review of the project in terms of standards identified by code that auto body shop operations must meet. The site meets the literal requirements of the code however the proposed setback along the Chelsea side is only 10'. In Zoning Districts R-I through B-2 a minimum ono' is required on the side lot line for a corner lot. A minimum of 20' is not identified by code therefore this site plan meets tbe mioimum. Planning Commission should discuss tbis item and determine if a 20' setback should be required. It is staffs view that the Planning Commission/Council has autbority to increase the setback to 20' via the cooditiooal use process if desired. In separate action, Planning Commissioo may wish to call for a public hearing on an ordinance amendment requiring a 20' setback on a corner lot in a B-3 district. Sethacks The parking lot is located on tbe southern boundary oftbe parcel facing the existing body shop. Uodeveloped Marvin Road runs along tbe northern boundary of the site. The building docs not encroach along tbe required 30' setback at this location. The front of the building faces Sandberg Road and is set 30 back wbich also meets code. I'ollowiog are code requirements for auto body sbops followed by staff comments. Tbe site contains 19 parking spaces wbich meets tbe minimom defmed by code Dlrking "Door opening to service area garage must not face street frontage." Plan complies as door openings face adjacent lot to the south. Qoor Openings -1- . . . Planning commission Agenda - 10/03/00 "Vehicle storage area limited to 50% of no or space of the structure housing the aUto hudy shoP."Also," All vehicles being serviced and all vehicle parts must be stored inside or in vehicle storage area." This project docs not contain outside storage therefore it complies wi th this requirement. 1t is hoped that the operation of the facility wi II assure com pi iance with the requirement that vehicles be stored in containment area. Past practice has shown that this is not always the case. J0;hic/e Stora,\[.f.. "No work on vehicles or vehicle parts shall be conducted outside the confmes of the autu body sboP." Site plan complies. This is an operational requirement. Repair O/Jeratio!N- "The advertising wall facing the public right.of.way shall consist of no more than 50% metal materia\''' Compliance is unknown as a building plan has not been submitted. Hili/dine/Wall materialli. "The secondary or non.advertising wall facing a public right.of.way shall utilize a combination of colors or materials that serve to break up the monutony of a single color nat surface." Compliance is unknown as a building plan has not been submitted "The development shall conform tn minimum parking and landscaping requirements of the zoning ordinance" The site plan shows eleven trees. The minimum required by code is twelve. The plan needs to be updated to shoW that the tree size meets code requirements. Lp ndscaoi ng f.roximitv /0 Residential Arei{ The ordinance says "No conditional use permit shall be granted fur an aoto body shop within 600 feet of a residential or PZM zone existing at the time the conditional use pennit is granted." The site is more than 600' from the Grovcland residential area. Doc to the fact that this project does not propose outside storage, the rulcs governing the design of the outside storage area do not apply. Qutside Storcl,\[.f.. -2- . . . Planning Commission Agenda - 10/03/00 B. ALTERNA lIVE ACTIONS \. Motion to approve the site plan suhject to conditions identiJied in exhihit Z. or modifIed by the Planning Commission. Motion based on the finding that the site plan if compliant with ordinance requirements as identiJied in exhibit Z. meets the standards for the district and therefore is consistent with the comprehensive plan. 2. Motion to table approval subject to modifications requested by the Planning Commission or subject to suhmittal of complete information in building materials. 3. Motion to deny conditional use permit based on the finding that the proposal is not consistent with the comprehensive plan. C. ST AFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval subject to conditions noted in exhibit Z. Staff also supports tabling the item pending revisions to the site plan that would be reqoired. \t is not known at this time if .Iohn .Iohnson will be sopportive of adjosting the site plan to achieve the 20 setback on Chelsea Road. D. SUPPORTING DATA Conditions of Approval - Exhibit Z Copy of Site Plan -3- . . Exhibit Z 1. Shift wall along Chelsea Road to achieve 20' setback 2. Advertising wall facing the public right-of-way shall consist of no more than 50(Xl metal material." Compliance to be determined by City statT 3. Secondary or non-advertising wall facing a public right-of-way shall utilize a combination of colors or materials that serve to break up the monotony of a single color tlat surface." Compliance to he determined by City statT 4. The development shall conform to minimum parking and landscaping requirements of the zoning ordinance. In this case a minimum of 12 overstory trees is required. 5. The drainage and grading plan must be reviewed and approved hy the City Engineer. . b..h"\ 6'\t Z '11 ~ ~~ ... -. V, '-I- ... ~ -.J~ <:1.... 0"" ~l:; ""Q ~~ I- <tc:: <::I" Ole- I- ~2' ~s <Il... ... :.. \tj" >- ~ :n 0' ... ....... I"J I'I:'J '-.. C. \...,l 11] 'b 0 ~ '" "" '" " t; - .S :5 -LJ ; :t:... WI h- Q <:: '" '" ~ 011 <:l '" ~ I.:l .c:: Vl)(-t-.I-i.JO t'" 11) C. t.... ......J - ...... 0 CI: .; <:l <: ." 4.t "'"" Q .~ ~ <:l '" '" '" ~... -C III ... ~ Iii: ..... ....... <f) <:: ~ l!! <:l . i....., ~ l\.l f"T) C\J ~....:::: c "-' 4(~"""" ."0 t.,J -4..,l iJ .c:: ......... ...J o 3 ""-JI 40J :;..~ """'-t I::) <n ::J """'"-I 0> ro",,~~~1.. l"Yj~i.oL'~~ 0'1 lU c.. f.... ...., ."'"'1' "' CU 0 t) ~~-6""'c:v o - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- ~ ~ -----------------.-- OWJIJ ~ ~ -----.~.-- ~.- ---.,.-'---.o-.........~~ ..... ~ ~-.-1K"-~71i II \ \ .. I ~ I I LIt"J!;J /11 .Oe.6J.L S !.'I .f:" ; , , .~ ----4 ____ 'n-. .' (; -., ) ~~ -----...--.,. ------- l!I I Ii ~ - - - '" ~ - -, "-~. ..,.,.....~....:>./ "- <> ., -;.;... 1(- 1----......:. }. ~ u___ _____ ............... __.~ Cj I~ f:l ~ . k Q" I~ I ~. ~ ~ I .... ~ 3" I / ~ i ~ 4J , . i ~ 'll.' I '\ .. ~f ~ " I , ~ ~ I i I .~ " , f I ~~ r:.:: 'I ~\) ICI) I h ~ I - ~ I I l ~~ ~, I , ,,' v I ~ ~ ~ I f0t ~ , I It I ~ I .! I :il 1_ "l~ _ ~ , <:Jl IAA;./ '1 .!:J t ... , ~ ~ I k' I \ ~ ~ ,\l 0 (l " \<,1; I 0;\,. . ~:~ ,. ~' I .~' : ) v, ~ o , ~ ~ I::) t:) ~ ...... "~ a :3 J,,____ -. t- I I I , \) , '-.-._-.~- I '\ : , I I I ~ I I I I I \.. '! I Y/J, III "'" ", " ""1/ -- 11 ...---l'\j ill -ii I 9 i) , \' '" -k c. 3t: ~ ~ no, ..... . lB <t " " . f. -- I I ~. ~, " ~ ~ ~" l ,', ~. "!. c.'\a ' : ~'a.~ ~R ... ~ ~ " I \ ( \ \ -' --- ..- , IN€~ __....lel< l.:- -.'-- . "