Loading...
Planning Commission Agenda 08-03-2010 AGENDA MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday, August 3rd, 2010 6:00 PM Mississippi Room, Monticello Community Center Commissioners: Rod Dragsten, Charlotte Gabler, Lloyd Hilgart, William Spartz, and Barry Voight Council Liaison: Susie Wojchouski Staff: Angela Schumann, Ron Hackenmueller, Steve Grittman – NAC 1. Call to order. 2. Consideration to approve the Planning Commission minutes of July 6th, 2010. 3. Citizen Comments. 4. Consideration of adding items to the agenda. 5. Public Hearing - Consideration of a request for Amendment to Conditional Use Permit for Planned Unit Development for Towne Centre Signage Plan. Applicant: Silver Creek Development 6. Public Hearing – Consideration of an Amendment to Conditional Use Permit for Planned Unit Development for Union Crossings and consideration of a final plat for Union Crossings 5th Addition. Applicant: Ryan Companies US, Inc. 7. Public Hearing – Consideration of an Amendment to Conditional Use Permit for Joint Parking for a commercial restaurant use. Applicant: Warnert Development 8. Public Hearing – Consideration of a request for Rezoning from B-4 to I-1A, I-1 or B-3, a Request for Text Amendment and a request for Conditional Use Permit for Auto and Truck Repair Major. Applicant: Hoglund Bus & Equipment 9. Consideration of a request for extension of Conditional Use Permit for Planned Unit Development for a multi-tenant commercial development in a B-3 (Highway Business) District. Applicant: Cornerstone/DOJO LLC (AS) Continued . . . 10. Consideration of a request for extension of a Conditional Use Permit for a Bank Facility with Drive-Through Facility, Joint Parking and Joint Access. Applicant: Broadway Market Investors, LLC 11. Consideration to call for a Public Hearing on amendments to the 2010 City of Monticello Zoning Map. Applicant: City of Monticello 12. Community Development Director’s Report. 13. Adjourn. Planning Commission Minutes — 7/6/10 MINUTES MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday, July 6, 2010 6:00 PM Mississippi Room, Monticello Community Center Commissioners Present: Rod Dragsten, Charlotte Gabler, Lloyd Hilgart, William Spartz, Barry Voight Council Liaison Present: Susie Wojchouski Staff: Angela Schumann, Ron Hackenmueller, Steve Grittman — NAC 1. 2. Call to order. Chairman Dragsten called the meeting to order, noting the full complement of commissioners present. Consideration to approve the Planning Commission minutes of February 3rd 2010, May 4th, 2010, June 1 st 2010 and June Stn 2010 MOTION BY COMMISSIONER SPARTZ TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 3, 2010. MOTION WAS SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER VOIGHT. MOTION CARRIED 5-0. MOTION BY COMMISSIONER SPARTZ TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF MAY 4, 2010. MOTION WAS SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER VOIGHT. MOTION CARRIED 5-0. MOTION BY COMMISSIONER HILGART TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF JUNE 1, 2010. MOTION WAS SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER SPARTZ.MOTION CARRIED 5-0. MOTION BY COMMISSIONER VOIGHT TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF JUNE 8, 2010 AS AMENDED BY THE CORRECT SPELLING OF GABLER. MOTION WAS SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER HILGART.MOTION CARRIED 5-0. 3. Citizen comments. None. 4. Consideration of adding items to thea eg nda. Planning Commission Minutes — 7/6/10. Commissioner Spartz would like to discuss the special meeting of June Stn, 2010. 5. Consideration of a request for Amendment to Conditional Use Permit for Planned Unit Development for Open & Outdoor Storage for Car Rental Facility. Enterprise Leasing Company of MN, LLC Steve Grittman of WSB introduced a request for a Conditional Use Permit by Enterprise Leasing to use their existing auto rental facility site in Groveland Center differently than had been established in the original development plan. He stated that the applicant proposed to occupy a portion of the facility and use a portion of what was developed as a parking lot to store rental vehicles available for customers of the business. He noted that the site is fully developed for commercial use and summarized the six specific zoning standards that would apply to the use of outdoor storage: 1) the area must be screened from view of neighboring residential uses; 2) storage must be screened from view of the public right of way; 3) the storage area must be paved; 4) lighting must meet current code requirements; 5) the storage area must not take up parking space; and 6) the provisions of Chapter 22 must be met. Grittman indicated that there are no neighboring residential uses and that the storage of autos would be indistinguishable from other parking. He noted that the storage area is paved and the facility is already developed. He suggested that staff verify that the parking lot meets lighting code requirements. He pointed out that there is a significant surplus of parking on this site. He cited that the application has met the conditions of a B- 3 District and would be appropriate for amendment. The engineer also has recommended approval as submitted with verification of the lighting. Commissioner Spartz asked if the business was moving or if this involved a new business. Grittman stated that the business is now located on Sandberg just southeast of this site and noted that the existing site is tight for their current business needs. Commissioner Dragsten asked if the car wash was already in the facility. Grittman suggested that the applicant could speak to specifics. Chairman Dragsten opened public hearing. Paul Hodge, representing Enterprise Rental Center, was available to answer questions. Commissioner Gabler asked if the applicant was looking to grow the business and noted that this site would be more visible. Hodge stated that, with the closing of their Buffalo site, Enterprise is looking to consolidate services in a larger facility. He responded to the questions about the car wash by specifying that they use a bucket wash process and would be making minor modifications in the wash bay area to reduce overspray and a sloping condition. He indicated that there is a flammable waste trap as required. Hodge clarified that this would be strictly a rental facility. Commissioner Dragsten asked how the number of cars in lot was determined. Hodge indicated 2 Planning Commission Minutes — 7/6/10 that the estimate of 23 cars in the lot would be a maximum if all cars were returned at the same time. Enterprise would anticipate that most of the cars would be rented and on the road most of the time. He pointed out that the fleet moves around transitioning to different locations depending on customer need. Grittman stated that the applicant would be in substantive compliance and would not need to come back for an amendment should the need for more storage space come about. The applicant indicated that Enterprise is expected to move into this facility in September. Council Liaison Susie Wojchouski asked Hodge about signage. He pointed out that there is a 3x15 area located on the building already wired for LED and a 3x5 blank spot on the marquee for the Enterprise logo. Chairman Dragsten closed public hearing. MOTION MADE BY COMMISSIONER SPARTZ TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE CUP, BASED ON FINDINGS THAT THE PROPOSED STORAGE AREA COMPLIES WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE CUP FOR OUTDOOR STORAGE IN THE B-3 DISTRICT, THAT THE PUD PROVIDES ADEQUATE FLEXIBILITY TO ACCOMMODATE STORAGE OF VEHICLES IN THE PARKING LOT WITHOUT ADDITIONAL SCREENING, AND WILL ELIMINATE ISSUES WITH STREET TRAFFIC CONFLICTS AT THE CURRENT LOCATION. MOTION WAS SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER HILGART. MOTION CARRIED 5-0. 6. Consideration of a request for extension of a Conditional Use Permit for Amendment to Planned Unit Development for a retail commercial development at Monticello Travel Center 2nd Addition Applicant: Mielke Bros LLC Community Development Director Angela Schumann presented the Mielke Bros. request for extending their CUP for amendment to the PUD for a retail commercial development for one year. She noted that this application was originally approved by the Planning Commission in 2007 and that staff would recommend approval of this request assigning all previously approved conditions. She summarized that this project is for the Landmark Center which is the one remaining vacant lot in the Monticello Travel Center 2nd addition adjacent to Hwy 25, Cedar, Oakwood and Chelsea. Commissioner Dragsten asked if there had been any luck in getting the site occupied. Schumann indicated that there have been inquiries but no formal requests. Commissioner Voight noted the increase in the number of requests for extensions of projects overall and wondered how the zoning code revision would treat these decisions to extend once it was in place. Schumann indicated that the new code would have a specific section about how previously approved conditions would 3 Planning Commission Minutes — 7/6/10 be handled. He asked the Planning Commission to consider, perhaps at an upcoming Steering Committee meeting, how many extensions in general would be granted before it would be required that a project be resubmitted based on new conditions and/or requirements. Schumann suggested that may be something that the Commission would want to think about with Planned Unit Developments. She noted that it would be important to consider the new code objectives especially with those proposals submitted for extension which are still at a concept stage. Commissioner Dragsten stated that an option may be that once the new zoning ordinance is completed that the Commission compare it to projects as they are presented for extensions. Schumann suggested that staff make a list of all of the extensions, the number of years extended, and the status of each in the development process. Council Liaison Wojchouski asked if there is a fee for extensions. Schumann indicated that there is not. MOTION BY COMMISSIONER VOIGHT TO RECOMMEND EXTENSION OF THE JUNE 11TH, 2007 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR AMENDMENT TO PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT FOR A RETAIL COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT AT MONTICELLO TRAVEL CENTER 2N1) ADDITION WITH THE CONDITION THAT ALL PREVIOUSLY APPROVED CONDITIONS BE ASSIGNED TO THE EXTENSION. MOTION WAS SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER SPARTZ. MOTION CARRIED 5-0. 7. Monticello Zoning Ordinance Revision — Comment Review and Update Schumann summarized the work involved thus far in preparing the zoning code ordinance revision noting the participation of the steering committee, the IEDC Task Force, and input from staff, Council Member Tom Perrault, WSB and Campbell Knutson. She noted that the process of compiling and reviewing has proceeded more slowly than anticipated but that such an extensive process would result in a more thoughtful code. Schumann provided this information for Planning Commission review and input. She asked that the Steering Committee meet for number of lengthy sessions to determine which comments to incorporate into the code revision. She indicated that it wouldn't be an option to use the August Planning Commission meeting for this purpose as there are upcoming public hearings scheduled for that meeting. The Commission agreed to meet as a Steering Committee on Tuesday, July 27th and again on Tuesday, August 17th at 5 p.m. to review comments and provide input. Schumann also suggested increasing the public hearing schedule to three meetings rather than two in order to address the in-depth nature of the document. Chapters 1-3 would be reviewed in the first hearing, Chapter 4 in the second hearing, and Chapters 5-8 in the third hearing. She stressed that it would be worthwhile to have a thorough public discussion on these proposed revisions. She noted that she'd ensure with MFRA that there would be sufficient budget to accomplish this change and bring that information back to the Planning Commission. C! Planning Commission Minutes — 7/6/10 Schumann stated that staff would still host one public forum in addition to the public hearings. Commissioner Gabler asked if there would be an opportunity to offer some working examples of how these zoning revisions would apply to citizens. Schumann agreed that it would be a good idea to provide that option at the public forum and perhaps use some of the illustrations during the public hearings. Commissioner Gabler had asked about changes to telecommunications policy, and in particular, provisions related to wind policy. Schumann suggested that it might worthwhile to bring in experts to talk about such regulations, trends, and current technology. She noted that the Economic Development Director was considering attending a Renewables conference. She stated that, in the last year, staff had received requests from citizens seeking to put up small turbines for residential use. Schumann suggested that it would be useful to have regulations in place to address such questions. The Commission agreed that they'd like to have a report on this topic. Council Liaison Wojchouski asked if WSB was also considering wetlands at the Bertram Chain of Lakes property when reviewing the ordinance. Schumann stated that WSB had recommended following the County's lead in drafting wetlands regulations but that staff had determined that the County did not have such a provision. The City's wetland ordinance would address all of the properties in the annexation area. The most recent draft combines shoreland and wild and scenic regulations because the state is looking at combining them. The City would likely need to adopt both a local ordinance and the State ordinance when that is completed. The number of overlay districts may stay the same in this case. Schumann stressed that it was very useful to have such local measures in place because issues do more frequently come up within the community. She told of the homeowner who had recently gotten a grant to do a restoration along the banks of river to remove invasive species. The City often uses exactly the same language as the State does when adopting ordinances. Some State standards apply no matter what. Some have greater flexibility. Grittman stated that the City can negotiate with DNR to adopt more flexible or restrictive local standards based on the State's modeled mandates. Council Liaison Wojchouski asked Building Official Ron Hackenmueller for an update on the Building Department. He stated that the department is focusing on commercial remodels and build -outs, and a number of decks and basement finishes. He mentioned that one developer in particular wanted to finish out four units to help get them sold. A few months ago there were 22 units finished and 20 sold - 12 in Sunset Ponds and the remainder in Spirit Hills. He indicated that it is really encouraging that units started are finally selling. 5 Planning Commission Minutes — 7/6/10 8. Community Development Director's Report. Schumann indicated that she had not prepared a written Director's Report. She noted that the Semper Development application request was approved at City Council and that staff is working on preparing the development agreement. She reminded the Commission that there would be two public hearing applications for next month including one new project and one amendment to a project. She mentioned that a film crew in was in town to do six one minute spots for community promotion on topics such as economic development to real estate and education. These spots would be primarily viewed through the City's web site, linked to Facebook and U -Tube and digitized for distribution. Commissioner Hilgart noted that he saw a sprinkler system watering during the storm and stated it seems that sometimes lawns are getting watered either during or just after a rain. Hackenmueller stated that the city does require automatic rain sensors that should shut system off if it is raining when scheduled to water. He noted that the sensors will not shut off though if it has recently rained. He said he'd talk to the Water Superintendent and the school to find out if they have sensors. Council Liaison Wojchouski asked if there is a watering ban in effect. Schumann noted that the odd -even ban is posted in the e -news and on the website scroller. Commissioner Hilgart requested an explanation as to where the Tax Increment Financing (TIF) funds come from. Schumann explained that TIF District 1-22 is an older district within the core downtown and subject to pooling requirements under TIF law. She noted that there is a surplus of a million dollars generated from financing of businesses within that district. The EDA authorized a preliminary spending plan to fund the approximately $400,000 City share of infrastructure improvements for the NE quadrant related to the Walgreens project through this surplus. The EDA authorized the use of these funds because the project would ease congestion in the downtown and provide long-term vitality for the area. If the money isn't spent by the time the district is decertified, the money has to be sent back to Wright County and the City would only receive 40% of that money back. Funds are available due to a specific change in the TIF law which allows use of surplus funds for infrastructure supporting private redevelopment when it creates jobs. The funds come from the increment generated by redevelopment in that district. The excess tax revenue is captured and held in that district until the district is decertified. 9. Consideration of added items. Commissioner Sparks had asked to talk about the June 8ffi Special Meeting. He asked if there was any requirement that meetings be held in a certain room. Schumann indicated that, although there is no particular room requirement, Planning Commission Minutes — 7/6/10 meetings are usually held in the Mississippi Room so that the proceedings can be recorded. She noted however that the minutes are considered the official meeting record. She pointed out that meetings are held in other locations when a change in the schedule is required and no other rooms are available. He recommended that meetings in which citizens may like to be involved be held in the Mississippi Room to take advantage of the ability to use technology to reach out to citizens. Schumann confirmed that it is a priority to be able to provide that access whenever possible. Schumann suggested that she'd make a note that if meetings cannot be recorded that they perhaps be rescheduled. Commissioner Gabler asked if that would be something that could be put it in the bylaws. Schumann agreed to talk with the City Administrator and City Attorney to see if it need be in the bylaws. Commissioner Gabler also asked about a web chat. Schumann stated that City Attorney has advised against it because of the statutes governing public hearings. She noted that comments need to be made a public forum rather than by an anonymous comment. Grittman reiterated that a formal public hearing is essentially like a court hearing for facing people and legal issues directly. Commission Gabler asked staff to review the Planning Commission bylaws to determine if there is a provision for 5 or 7 members. In addition, she asked that the Commission consider a provision which would require members to maintain 75% meeting attendance within the year. Schumann noted that the new Deputy City Clerk has recommended that overall city code have an administrative update at some point to improve outdated and inconsistent provisions. Angela Schumann stated that staff could ensure that all commissions are considered as administrative points of review. She noted that the matter would be brought before the Planning Commission prior to review by the City Council. Schumann reported that the Planning Commission agendas are currently posted on the Public Access Channel 12 bulletin board. 10. Adjourn. MOTION BY COMMISSIONER SPARTZ TO ADJOURN. MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER VOIGHT. MOTION CARRIED 5-0. The meeting was adjourned at 7:08 p.m. h Planning Commission Agenda – 08/03/10 1 5. Public Hearing - Consideration of a request for Amendment to Conditional Use Permit for Planned Unit Development for Towne Centre Signage Plan. Applicant: Silver Creek Development A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND The applicant has requested a continuation of this item to allow time for additional resource information and plan adjustment. Planning Commission Agenda – 08/03/10 6. Public Hearing - Consideration of a request for a Final Plat for Union Crossings 5th Addition and amendment to Conditional Use Permit PUD for Union Crossings. Applicant: Ryan Companies. (AS) A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: The applicant is seeking a subdivision of the existing Union Crossings 4th Addition Lot 2, Block 1 to create two parcels from what is currently one. The purpose of the subdivision is to separate the property occupied by the PetSmart building from the easterly remainder of the property. The PetSmart parcel will be Lot 1, Block 1 Union Crossings 5th Addition, and the remainder will be Lot 2. Lot 2 will be set up to accommodate future development. Union Crossings was developed as a Planned Unit Development to provide for a variety of retail buildings in a shopping center arrangement. The zero-lot-line subdivision in this case does not raise any issues from a planning standpoint, since the site was developed to provide utilities and stormwater control on a comprehensive basis, rather than lot by lot. As such, the engineering staff recommendations are limited to verification that the proposed 30-foot easement running roughly east-west through the middle of the site is adequate to maintain the deep sanitary sewer trunk line. Similar to the last subdivision for Union Crossings 4th Addition, the lot subdivision does represent an unusual lot configuration. The unusual lot configuration is due to the need to attain a certain amount of square footage for the property sale. The PUD covers cross easement for parking and access between all lots in the Union Crossings development, and as such, the configuration shown raises no issues. Lastly, although the reconfiguration of the lot requires an amendment to the PUD, an amendment to the development agreement is not necessary. B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS Decision 1: Final Plat and Amended CUP-Planned Unit Development for Union Crossings 5th Addition 1. Motion to recommend approval of the Plat and PUD Amendment for Union Crossings 5th Addition, based on a finding that the applications are consistent with the original PUD approvals for Union Crossings, with the recommendations of the City Engineer. 2. Motion to recommend denial of the Plat and PUD Amendment. C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval as submitted, subject to the comments of the City Engineer as related to the sanitary sewer trunk line. The proposal is intended to accommodate the expansion of the retail project as anticipated with the original PUD. Planning Commission Agenda – 08/03/10 D. SUPPORTING DATA A. Final Plat – Union Crossings 4th Addition B. Approved Preliminary Plat C. Certificate of Survey D. Final Plat – Union Crossings 5th Addition Planning Commission Agenda - 8/03/10 7. Public Hearing- Consideration of an amendment to a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) to allow joint parking for a commercial restaurant use. Applicant: Warnert Development (NAC) A. BACKGROUND The applicant has requested a Conditional Use Permit Amendment to allow joint parking for an approximately 5,000 square foot Pizza ranch Restaurant, which is proposed to occupy a portion of an existing 17,297 square foot retail shopping center located south of Chelsea Road between Highway 25 and Cedar Street. The building in which the restaurant is to be located was part of a two building/lot retail commercial development approved by the City in 2006 as a planned unit development. The subject building (Building B) was constructed as part of the development’s first phase and occupies the southern portion of the property. The second retail building (Building A to the north) has yet to be constructed. The restaurant is proposing to occupy the northern-most portion of Building B, and will construct additional parking to accommodate its proposed use. The property is zoned B-4, Regional Business District which lists “restaurants” as a permitted use. A1. ANALYSIS Planned Unit Development. This project was originally processed as a planned unit development (PUD) in 2006. Since that time, the Zoning Ordinance has been modified such that the PUD classification is no longer necessary. As a condition of CUP approval, the prior PUD currently applied to the property should be terminated. This issue should be subject to further comment and recommendation by the City Attorney. Parking. As part of the previous PUD review, the following off-street parking supply analysis was conducted. Required Spaces Proposed Spaces Difference Building A 66 76 +10 Building B 78 62 -16 Total for site 144 138 -6 Note: The restaurant is proposed to occupy a portion of Building B. As noted above, Building B (in which the restaurant is proposed) is currently deficient in regard to its provided off-street parking supply. Moreover, the original parking supply analysis presumed retail use of the building now to be occupied by Pizza Ranch. Restaurants generate a significantly higher level of parking demand than general retail. 2 The new plans now show 11,943 square feet of retail in Building B, and 5,000 square feet for the Pizza Ranch restaurant. The Retail parking requirement would be 1 space per 200 square feet of net area (90% of gross area), resulting in a requirement of 54 spaces. For the restaurant, the requirement is one space per 40 square feet of dining area, and one space per 80 square feet of kitchen area. Planning staff has estimated the dining area to comprise 2,100 square feet. Kitchen area has been estimated at 2,270 square feet, excluding the walk-in cooler area at the rear of the building). We have also counted the buffet serving areas at the kitchen standard, rather than the dining standard, leaving corridor and other space of 630 square feet out of the equation. The parking requirement for the 216 seat restaurant thus calculates to be 81 spaces. As configured, the parking requirement for Building B would be 135 spaces for the retail and restaurant. The parking supply on this parcel is proposed to total 79 spaces. To meet the parking demand for Building B, the applicants would need to construct 56 additional parking spaces on the future phase lot (site of Building A). The revised site plan showing a reconfigured Building A illustrates a building of 8,285 square feet on a parcel with 118 parking spaces. Of those spaces, 37 would be dedicated to Building A, leaving a surplus of 81 parking spaces. Fifty six spaces need to be allocated to Pizza Ranch’s demand, meaning that the two parcels together could easily accommodate the increased demand created by the Pizza Ranch, with an potential surplus (under full development) of 25 parking spaces. Provided that at least 56 spaces on the Building A parcel are constructed with the Pizza Ranch project, there should be no issue related to parking supply now or at the time of future second phase retail development. The applicants’ plans show a parking lot construction area on the future lot adding 71 spaces, easily meeting the demand generated by the restaurant at the current time. As part of the original PUD review, it was determined that parking stall and drive aisle dimensions met the minimum requirements of the Code. Setbacks. As previously indicated, the restaurant is proposed to occupy a portion of the existing retail building. In conjunction with the restaurant’s occupation of the existing retail center space, three relatively minor structure alterations are proposed as listed below: 1. A carry out entrance and associated vestibule is proposed on the north side of the building. 2. A cooler/storage area is proposed in the east side of the building. 3. A canopy is proposed along a portion of the north façade and entire west façade. Each of the preceding structure additions will extend approximately 8 feet beyond the existing building line. While the B-4 District does not impose any building setback 3 requirements, it is important that a finding be made that such expansions/additions will not adversely impact site circulation, parking etc. As shown on the submitted site plan, parking lot drive aisles and spaces have been adjusted to accommodate the proposed building additions. In this regard, the proposed building modifications are considered acceptable. Truck Circulation and Loading. No changes to the site are proposed in regard to truck circulation and loading. Trucks will continue to utilize the one-way drive aisle on the east side of the property (along Cedar Street). Building Finishes. As shown on the submitted building elevations, the exterior of that portion of “Building B” devoted to the restaurant use is to be refinished. The north and west sides of the building are to be finished in a combination of glass, manufactured stone and horizontal and vertical siding (brown in color). Wall signage is also proposed on the north and west facades. The east building façade (along Cedar Street) is to be finished in vertical siding with varied patterns to add visual interest. The submitted building elevations should be modified to specify finish materials. Landscaping. The submitted landscape plan calls for a variety of plantings upon the subject property, along both the perimeter of the site(s) and individual buildings. As part of the original PUD, it was stipulated that the previously submitted landscape plan needed to be revised to include additional trees and shrubs at the perimeter of the buildings and site to meet code requirements (32 trees). According to the submitted landscape plan, the following plant quantities have been proposed: Phase 1 (Building B) Phase 2 (Building A) Trees 20 12 Shrubs 36 59 Total 56 71 As demonstrated above, the proposed plant quantities exceed the minimum requirements of the original PUD approval. As a condition of CUP approval, all landscaping areas should be irrigated and a minimum one year landscaping guarantee should be provided. Signage. No changes to the previously approved sign plan have been requested by the applicant. Trash Enclosure/Handling. No changes to the location of the trash handling enclosures (on the east side of the “Buildings A and B”) have been proposed. 4 Lighting. It has not been indicated if any changes to the previously submitted photometric lighting plan have been proposed. If any changes are proposed, particularly in the area of the previously proposed drive-through lane, they should be identified on a revised photometric plan. As a condition of CUP approval, the photometric plan will be subject to the review and approval of the Building Official for conformance to the Zoning Ordinance lighting requirements. Grading, Drainage, and Utilities. Issues related to grading, drainage, and utilities should be subject to the review and comment of the City Engineer. Specific comment should be provided in regard to stormwater drainage issues associated with the joint parking area (north of the restaurant). The City Engineer has provided the following preliminary review comments that should be incorporated into the Planning Commission’s recommendation by reference:  Sheet 3 of 9 - Add the following text to the end of note 8: "... and shall comply with the current edition of the City of Monticello's Standard Specifications for Street and Utility Construction."  Sheet 4 of 9 - Add inlet protection to the second CB at the low point on the west side of Cedar Street.  Sheet 5 of 9 - Add information for City Engineer to bottom line of contact information table.  Sheet 9 of 9 - Replace the construction entrance detail with the City of Monticello's standard detail for rock construction entrances. B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS 1. Motion to recommend approval of the Conditional Use Permit, based on a finding that the proposed plan is consistent with the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. This motion should be made contingent on compliance with the conditions listed in Exhibit Z. 2. Motion to recommend denial of the Conditional Use Permit, based on a finding that the proposed uses are inconsistent with the intent and requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of the PUD Amendment based on the comments provided in this report. 5 D. SUPPORTING DATA Exhibit A: Site Plan Exhibit B: Site Plan Detail Exhibit C: Floor Plan Exhibit D: Landscape Plan Exhibit E: Construction Plans, including: Removal Plan Paving Plan SWPPP/Erosion Control Plan Exhibit F: Building Elevations Exhibit Z: Conditions of Approval 6 Exhibit Z: Conditions of Approval - Pizza Ranch 1. The existing PUD applied to the property be terminated. This issue should be subject to further comment and recommendation by the City Attorney. 2. At least 56 parking spaces on the north, Phase 2 site are constructed at the time of the Pizza Ranch construction. 3. The use and associated business hours of “Building A” be examined at the time development to ensure an adequate off-street parking supply (for the entire development). 4. An agreement be executed by the parties involved in the cross parking and cross access arrangement. Such agreement shall be subject to review and approval by the City Attorney, filed with the City and recorded with the County. 5. The submitted building elevations be modified to specify finish materials. 6. The following landscaping-related conditions be satisfied: A. All landscaping areas shall be irrigated. B. A minimum one year landscaping guarantee shall be provided. 7. Site signage comply with the conditions of previous City approvals. 8. If any changes to the previously approved photometric lighting plan are proposed, particularly in the area of the previously proposed drive-through lane, the changes be documented upon on a revised photometric plan. Such revised photometric plan (if necessary) will be subject to the review and approval of the Building Official for conformance to the zoning ordinance lighting requirements. 9. Issues related to grading, drainage, erosion control, and utilities are subject to the review and approval of the City Engineer, including the preliminary comments identified in this report. DATE: BRH PROJ. NO. A-1 1/12/10 I hereby certify that this plan, specification, or report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly Licensed Architect under the laws of the State of MINNESOTA. REVISIONS __________________________________ Signature : Reg. No. : MO N T I C E L L O , MI N N E S O T A 55 3 6 3 Date : JAN 12, 2010 SHEET NO. DRAWN BY: WA R N E R T R E T A I L SI T E P L A N P R O P O S A L HI G H W A Y 2 5 SHEET TITLE Site Plan 1'' = 40' 1 SITE PLAN 12'- 1 1 " 13 ' - 0 " 9'- 6 " 13 ' - 7 " 35'- 5 " 162' - 0 " 7'-6 " 16'- 0 " 7'-6 " 27'- 0 " 20 ' - 0 " 24 ' - 0 " 20 ' - 0 " 6" 6'- 6 " 12'-0 " 6" 20'- 0 " 24'- 0 " 20'- 0 " 8'-0" 16' - 0 " 8'-0" 82'- 0 " 26 ' - 5 " 84'- 5 " 10 8 ' - 1 " 45'- 0 " 12 ' - 6 " 24 ' - 0 " 90 ' - 0 " 9'- 0 " 90 ' - 0 " 9'- 0 " 90 ' - 0 " 9'- 0 " 90 ' - 0 " 9'- 0 " 11 7 ' - 0 " 36 ' - 0 " 108 ' - 0 " 63'- 0 " 8'-0" 90'- 0 " 9'-0" 23 1 ' - 0 " 6'- 6 " 24 ' - 0 " 6'- 6 " 17 1 ' - 0 " 10 ' - 0 " 81 ' - 0 " 8'- 0 " 72 ' - 0 " 6'- 6 " 24 ' - 0 " 20 ' - 0 " 8'- 0 " R 19'-6" R 20'-3 1/4" R 15'-0" R 10'-0" R 25'-0" R 41'-0" R 15'-0" R 20'-0" 85.09° 86.06° CH E L S E A R O A D 12 ' - 0 " P A R K I N G SE T B A C K BUILDING 'A' FUTURE RETAILER PHASE II 18 S P A C E S @ 9 ' - 0 " e a . 12 ' - 0 " P A R K I N G SE T B A C K EXISTING CROSS-DRIVE APPROACH FU T U R E S I D E W A L K ( B Y C I T Y ) CE D A R S T R E E T 10 S P A C E S @ 9 ' - 0 " e a . 10 S P A C E S @ 9 ' - 0 " e a . 10 S P A C E S @ 9 ' - 0 " e a . 13 S P A C E S @ 9 ' - 0 " e a . 12'- 0 " P A R K I N G SET B A C K 10'- 0 " B U I L D I N G SET B A C K 30 ' - 0 " B U I L D I N G SE T B A C K 30 ' - 0 " B U I L D I N G SE T B A C K 5 SP A C E S @ 9 ' - 0 " E A . 3.00 N 00° 2 6 ' 3 3 " E (P R O P O S E D W I D T H B Y C I T Y ) PR O P O S E D P R O P E R T Y L I N E 24 S P A C E S @ 9 ' - 0 " e a . T 10 S P A C E S @ 9 ' - 0 " e a . 12 ' - 0 " P A R K I N G SE T B A C K EX I S T I N G B I K E P A T H 19 S P A C E S @ 9 ' - 0 " e a . PHASE II 12 S P A C E S @ 9 ' - 0 " e a . 12 ' - 0 " P A R K I N G SE T B A C K 30 ' - 0 " B U I L D I N G SE T B A C K ON E WA Y TRASH CONC. FINISHED FLOOR ELEVATION: 962.0 208.25 S 87° 57' 22" W 61 4 . 5 8 N 1 8 ° 3 3 ' 2 0 " E 81 . 3 7 N 2 7 ° 3 8 ' 2 0 " E 145. 5 6 N 6 6 ° 3 2 ' 2 6 " W 75.1 4 S 6 6 ° 3 2 ' 1 0 " E FU T U R E S I D E W A L K ( B Y C I T Y ) 0.56 N 88° 43' 03" E 55.3 7 N 6 6 ° 1 7 ' 4 9 " W 2.0 4 S 8 7 ° 5 7 ' 2 2 " W 10'-0" BUILDING SETBACK 12'-0" PARKING SETBACK 44 0 . 8 7 S 2 7 ° 4 6 ' 2 3 " W EXISTINGRETAIL 11943 SF ON E WA Y PHASE I PHASE I PHASE II T ST A T E H I G H W A Y 2 5 PYLON SIGNLOCATION 5000 SF PROPOSED RESTAURANT 19 S P A C E S @ 9 ' - 0 " e a . 9 S P A C E S @ 9 ' - 0 " e a . 8 S P A C E S @ 9 ' - 0 " e a . 10 7 SP A C E S @ 9 ' - 0 " e a . 3 S P A C E S @ 9 ' - 0 " e a . 8285 SF 10 S P A C E S @ 9 ' - 0 " e a . 10 S P A C E S @ 9 ' - 0 " e a . PARKING SCHEDULE EXISTING RETAIL - 90 % OF 1 STALL/ 200 SQ. FT. 11943 SQ. FT. = 54 STALLS TOTAL = 54 STALLS PROPOSED RESTAURANT - 1 STALL/ 40 SQ. FT. OF DINING/BAR + 1 STALL/ 80 SQ. FT. OF KITCHEN 4000 SQ. FT. DINING/BAR = 100 STALLS 1000 SQ. FT. KITHEN = 12.5 STALLS TOTAL = 113 STALLS FUTURE RETAIL - 90 % 1 STALL/ 200 SQ. FT. 8285 SQ. FT. = 38 STALLS TOTAL = 38 STALLS TOTAL PARKING STALLS REQUIRED = 205 TOTAL PARKING STALLS SHOWN = 197 / Ilk pJy �I �� - i r • tl •/ l 1rF f DVA PRSF L INR y7X( lY •l l hr y byr/' f ' EVOTING CK055-DRIVE APPROACH lr� ilI LANDSCAPE PLAN 1 A -LK Landscape Plan: Plotted o0 12/4/06 at 9:57 AM by Arin Slovick. File Path: tiraparsons:Miller Projects:35121 - Wamert Retail: Wmking Drawings:Wamert Retail - CD.Ibk )p 11 PRUNE OUT MISDIRECTED BRANCHES - LEAVE LEADERS INTACT GUYINGAND5TAKING150PTIONAL: WRAP TRUNK FROM GROUNDL'NE UPWARD TO FIR5T BRANCHES -- _ SAFETY FLAGGING TAPE DOUBLE -STRAND 10 GA. GALV. WIRE MIN. WFEE GUY51` TREE SPREAD 20 DEG. APART 4" BARK MULCH - DUE D AVER 13EPM DO NOT PILEAl 5TTRUN BAoCgKFILL WRR/gqTOP501LppAND PEAT MIF75'WATE11 EACH LAY�R UMTISL• -.ETRED - DDOO NFT --- SIZE EXCAVATION TO DIAMETER OF EXISTING CANWY - SCARIFY 519E5 AND BOTTOM OF HOLE - -- PLANTING SCHEDULE I REY I1•l1ASE / PHASE In QTY, QTY. ! COMMON BOTANICAL NAME St". i RP.6LIRRS TREES BACKFILL W1 TOP501L AND PEAT MO �S 3.1 TIO BY VpLUME IN 9" , LI Y5,''��yATpp.R EACH LAYER UNTIL At J 2 AGER PLATAiOIDF5 -CRIMSON KV49 (CH.- King Mapb) 25 H. B d B - - AA 2 1 ? FRAONU5 AMERICANA'AUTUMN PURPLE'(Asp;mn Fwple Ash) 251.. B&B KA S �7 5ORBU5 ALNIFOLIA (Kor M . i A -A) 251n.88 B -- O 1 , IQUERC115 ELLIP50 DAL5(Norchar Fin Oak) 251n.6S5 �-- PICEA GI AUCA DENSATA (BI ck Hu, 5pn ) 251n. B d B - R '! o rICEA P0NGEN5'6AKERP (B ker 56a Sp.vice) SHRUBS :VSY I _ 7 7 VIBURN M LANTANA WOHX;AN(MON-Yhmuv) 2Gal I-_ D DS III 18 22 DIEt7LLA IONICERA (P-rf ll .h Ho ey kk) 2 Gal 1 -- 1 - - 11 SPIRAEA JAPONICA VAR. ALPINA ID ph Sp red) 2Gsl Cg o 7 AFONIA MELANO:J.PRPA ELATA (L sk berry) _ 2 Gal - --- --- - -_---- -- NOTES: 1. ALL AREAS WITHIN PROPETY LIMITS TO RECEVE 511155URFACE IRRIGATION 2 TWO (2) EXISTING DECIDUOUS TREES TO REMAIN 3. SEE SITE PLAN AND LANDSCAPE FOR LIMITS OF CON57RUCTION OF PHASE 1 AND PHASE II LANDSCAPE BOUNDARIES PLANTING NOTES 1. CONTRACTOR SHALL PROVIDE TWO YEAR GUARANTEE OF ALL PLANT MATERIALS. THE GUARANTEE BEGINS ON THE DATE OF 5UI35TANTIAL COMPLETION. REPLACEMENT PLANT MATERIAL5 SHALL ALSO HAVE A TWO YEAR GUARANTEE COMMENCING UPON PLANTING. 2. ALL D15TURBEO AREAS TO BE SODDED UNLE55 OTHERWISE NOTED: 50D TO BE STANDARD MINNESOTA GROWN AND HARDY BLUEGRASS MIK ALL SOD AREAS SHALL BE PREPARED WITH 4' OF TOPSOIL AN RAKED TO REMOVE DEBRIS AND ENSURE DRAINAGE. SLOPES OF 3:1 OR GREATER SHALL BE STAKED. 5EEDED AREAS TO BE SEEDED WITH MNDOT SEED MIX 50A. 3. ALL PLANT5 TO BE SPECIMEN GRADE AND SHALL ADHERE "0 BUT ARE NOT LIMITED BY THE FOLLOWING STANDARDS: ALL PLANT TO BE MINNESOTA GROWN AND/OR HARDY. ALLPLANT5 SHALL BE FREE FROM DISEASE, PESTS, WOUNDS. 5CAR5, ETC. ALL PLANTS SHALL BE FREE FROM NOTICEABLE GAPS, HOLES, OR DEFORMITIES. ALL PLANT5 SHALL HAVE HEAVY, HEALTHY BRANCHING AND LEAFING. CONIFEROU57REE5 SHALL HAVE AN ESTABLISHED MAIN LEADER AND A HEIGHT TO WIDTH RATIO Or NO LESS THAN 5:3. 4. PLANTS MUST MEET AMERICAN STANDARD FOR NURSERY STOCK REQUIREMENTS FOR SIZE AND TYPE SPECIFIED. 5. PRUNE PLANTS AS NECESSARY - PER STANDARD NURSERY PRACTICE AND TO CORRECT POOR BRANCHING. 6. PLANTS TO BE INSTALLED AS PER STANDARD AAN PLANTING PRACTICES. 7. USE MINIMUM 12" LOAM PLANTING 501L ON TREES AND 6" ON 5HRU55 (SIDES AND BOTTOM OF HOLE). 8. STAKING OF TREES OPTIONAL; REPOSITION IF NOT PLUMB AFTER ONE YEAR. 9. WRAP ALL 5MOOTH-BARKED TREES -FASTEN TOP AND BOTTOM. REMOVE BY APRIL 1. 10. OPEN TOP OF BURLAP ON BB MATERIALS; REMOVE POT ON POTTED PLANTS; SPLIT AND BREAK APART PEAT POTS. 11. PLANTS SHALL BE IMMEDIATELY PLANTED UPON ARRIVAL AT CITE. PROPERLY HEEL -IN MATERIALS IF NECE55AKY. TEMPORARY ONLY. 12. 2-6" DIA; FOUR INCH D. CYPRESS MULCH SHALL BE USED AROUND ALL TREE5 AND 5HRUB5 WITHIN SODDED AREAS. 13. ALL SHRUB PLANTING BEDS (WITHIN 50POEV AREAS) SHALL HAVE *'OF CYPRE55 MULCH (EXCEPT A5 NOTED) AND VALLEY -VIEW BLACK DIAMOND (OR EQUAL) POLY EDGING. THE EDGING SHALL BE PLACED WITH SMOOTH CURVESAND AT LEAST 4' FROM THE CENTERS OF EVERGREEN TREES. UTILIZE CUR55 AND SIDEWALKS FOR EDGING WHERE POSSIBLE. 14. ACTUAL LOCATION OF PLANT MATERIAL 15 SUBJECT TO FIELD AND SITE CONDITIONS. 15. LANDSCAPING CONTRACTOR SHALL CONTACT GOPHER STATE "ONE CALL' (1-800-252-1166) TO VERIFY LOCATIONS OF ALL UNDER6KONID UTILITIES. 16. LANDSCAPING CONTRACTOR 5HALL PROVIDE NECESSARY WATERING OF PLANT MATERIALS UNTIL THE PLANT 15 FULLY ESTABLISHED. OWNER WILL NOT PROVIDE WATER FOR CONTRACTOR 17. IRRIGATION PLAN WILL BE PROVIDED BY OTHERS (LANDSCAPE CONTRACTOR). ALL SIGNIFICANT LANDSCAPED AREAS OF THE SITE WILL BE IRRIGATED. THIS INCLUDES ALL PLANTED AREAS. INCLUDING THE MEDIANS M THE PARKING AREA. COORDINATE INSTALLATION AND SCHEDULING WITH GENERAL CONTRACTOR. "-" I PRUNE OUT MISDIRECTED BRANCHES - LEAVE LEADERS INTACT GUYING AND STAKING 15 OPTIONAL . WRAP TRUNK FROM GRoUNDLINE UPWARD TO FIRST BRANCHE5 SAFETY FLAGGING TAPE DOU5LE-5TRAND 10 GA. GALV. WIRE MIN. THREE GUYS PER TREE SPREAD 20 DEG. APART D p� B ERMRKDMO NQi PILES AGAINSR .- TRUNK - -' / j �a BACKFILL W1 TOP501L AND PEAT MO �S 3.1 TIO BY VpLUME IN 9" , LI Y5,''��yATpp.R EACH LAYER UNTIL }--� '- I 5EITLED DO NOT TAMP ---- �!" ' i 'h �'ir 517.E EXCAVATION TO DIAMETER OF EXISTIryG CANOPY - SCARIFY SIDES AND W6M OFI HOLE --- ODETAIL @ CONIFEROUS TREE N0TT05CAR .. DOOR LATCH MECHANISM TO BE INSTALLED IN THIS MANNER 8"SPLIT-FACE CMU TO MATCH BUILDINGCMU-I y - D v f t E L �'.tl711I j 8"SMO0TH CMU TO MATCH aI COLOR OF CMU -44 I �i e 1P 8"SPLIT-FACE CMU TO MATCH BUILDING CMU -1 CMU -9 E30TTOM OUNDATIONOTD SE �i F � CMU 1. EAST ELEVATION FR05T DEPTH WEST ELEVATION OTRASH ENCLOSURE 1-11.1. - - REMpp��yyppEE�N.��� NTAINER SET SOIL MATCHING�5HKU135N ATURALOUND CG+R&PLINE WITH FIN15HED SITE PApLLgPLA MUGc DER O V EIVE 4" EDG ALL PLANTING BEDS WITH SPE-IFIED EpGE MAIL. WHERE ADJACENT TO LAWN AREAS BACKFI L W/ TOPSOIL AND PEAT / / % / MC551 RAT10 BY VpLUMF IN g• \� LIFTS'WATFR EACH LAYER UNTIL SETTLED -DO NOTTAMP >ly: 5 1 �E 70FP07 __ 5 ARIFY SIDES AND MOF H LE O DETAIL @DECIDUOUS TREEO DETAIL @ SHRUB PLANTIIVG NOTTOSCe--- ------ .. NOTro3CALE .. _.- .-+y GATE CONSTRUCTION: 2'-0"L_7�8.. 2'-O" 2x4511. TUBING I GATE FRAME - WELDED AND PAINTED ATTACH 2x6 CEDAR BPS, VERT. TO 5TL. TUBING I 6" DIA. METAL 80LLARD W/ °----- -- --- 2COLLAR-5TYLE GATE HINGES T. CONC. SLAB C" ON 6" GRAN. FILL 0 CONTAINER '? FNCL05URE _ CI. a PLAN LUCITE PANELS (6 THUS) EXTRUDED ALUMINUM FRAME TUBULAR STEEL SIGN P05T RETAIL SIGN 100.125 eq ft CONCRETE -- BY 51GN SUPPLIER 6 RETAR, SIGN ELEVATION L1Y� 1'0" M11hr 'ARCHIT'E47'@_AHi7rLI)ER9 320NZ51A109 ' 320\240. Mri;x 3335 West St. Germain Street PO Box 1726 St Cloud, MN 56302-1228 I hereby certify that this plan, Specification, or report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly Licensed Architect under the laws of the State of _e ------ - Stuart J. Racy Reg. No.: 17978 Date : SEPTEi1BER 22, 2006 0 �a M H� as � �z o FA F REVISIONS 0 10/25/06 NEW PLAT 12/01/06 FREET TITLE rndocape Plan )RAWNBY: DATE: TJP / AE5 12/4/06 ,MEET NO. A -2R I C2010 Westwood Professional Services, Inc. Call 48 Hours before digging: GOPHER STATE UNE CALL Twin City Area 651-454-0002 Mn. Toll Free 1-800-252-1166 CONTRACTOR TO VERIFY STORM PIPE AND STRUCTURE ARE INSTALLED. IF THE ARE NOT INSTALLED, CONTRACTOR SHALL CONNECT TO EXISTING 12" RCP AND EXTEND 12" RCP CL5 1.10%. CONTRACTOR SHALL INSTALL 2'X3' CS AS SHOWN, RE=959.30, IE=956.30. RC PIPE SHALL BE PER ASTM C76 WITH R-4 GASKETS AND SHALL HAVE GASTIGHT OR WATERTIGHT AS REQUIRED BY MINNESOTA RULES, PART 4715.0700. ADJUST CASTING 0 EXISTING STRUCTUR RE=959.3 6 -FOOT WIDE CONCRETE VALLEY GUTTER. / (SEE DETAILS) ..-.. ...., .. .... ..'.. HIT PROPERTY LINE --- ----- -- -- _- — CURB AND GUTTER N - MAINTAIN DRAINAGE TO E ff30 EXISTING STRUCTURE: / ADJUST CASTING AS 0 / CONCRETE SIDEWALK ,NEEDED. SEE EROSION HEAVY DUTY BITUMINOUS PAVEMENT 20. ,.. ,. CONTROL PLAN- s9sa eo.r-. SPOT ELEVATION FUTURE WALK ELEVATIONS / FLOW DIRECTION - SHOWN FOR REFERENCE ONLY,, / HYDRANT (TYP.) '.. .....'.. - ........ ........ BIT . SANITARY SEWER MANHOLE .-.. FFE = 9625 66:ii Paving Legend EXISTIN PROPOSED PROPERTY LINE --- ----- -- -- _- — CURB AND GUTTER TIP OUT CURB AND GUTTER -- -- --- FUTURE PARKING LOT FUTURE BUILDING CONCRETE SIDEWALK HEAVY DUTY BITUMINOUS PAVEMENT NORMAL DUTY BITUMINOUS PAVEMENT SPOT ELEVATION FLOW DIRECTION - LIGHT POLE HYDRANT STORM SEWER CATCH BASIN SANITARY SEWER MANHOLE Paving Notes 1. LOCATIONS AND ELEVATIONS OF EXISTING TOPOGRAPHY AND UTILITIES AS SHOWN ON THIS PLAN ARE APPROXIMATE. CONTRACTOR SHALL FIELD VERIFY SITE CONDITIONS AND UTILITY LOCATIONS PRIOR TO EXCAVATION/CONSTRUCTION. IF ANY DISCREPANCIES ARE FOUND, THE ENGINEER SHALL BE NOTIFIED IMMEDIATELY. 2. REFER TO ARCHITECTURAL PLANS FOR EXACT BUILDING DIMENSIONS AND LOCATIONS OF EXITS, RAMPS, AND TRUCK DOCKS. 3. ALL CURB AND GUTTER SHALL BE 8612 UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED. 4- ALL DIMENSIONS ARE TO FACE OF CURB/OUTSIDE OF BUILDING UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE, 5. BITUMINOUS PAVEMENT SECTIONS TO BE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER, 6. SPOT ELEVATIONS SHOWN INDICATE FINISHED PAVEMENT ELEVATIONS & BACK OF CURB UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED. 7. SEE SOILS REPORT FOR PAVEMENT THICKNESS AND HOLD DOWNS. 8. ALL EXCAVATION SHALL BE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CURRENT EDITION OF "STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS FOR TRENCH EXCAVATION AND BACKFILL/SURFACE RESTORATION" AS PREPARED BY THE CITY ENGINEERS ASSOCIATION OF MINNESOTA. 9. ALL CONSTRUCTION SHALL CONFORM TO LOCAL, STATE AND FEDERAL RULES INCLUDING THE NATIONAL POLLUTANT DISCHARGE ELIMINATION SYSTEM (NPDES) PERMIT REQUIREMENTS. 10. PRIOR TO PLACEMENT OF ANY STRUCTURE OR PAVEMENT, A PROOF ROLL, AT MINIMUM, WILL BE REQUIRED ON THE SUBGRADE. PROOF ROLLING SHALL BE ACCOMPLISHED BY MAKING MINIMUM OF 2 COMPLETE PASSES WITH FULLY -LOADED TANDEM -AXLE DUMP TRUCK, OR APPROVED EQUAL, IN EACH OF 2 PERPENDICULAR DIRECTIONS WHILE UNDER SUPERVISION AND DIRECTION OF THE INDEPENDENT TESTING LABORATORY. AREAS OF FAILURE SHALL BE EXCAVATED AND RECOMPACTED AS SPECIFIED HEREIN. 11. EMBANKMENT MATERIAL PLACED BENEATH BUILDINGS AND STREET OR PARKING AREAS SHALL BE COMPACTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE SPECIFIED DENSITY METHOD AS OUTLINED IN MNDOT 2105.3F1 AND THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER. 12. EMBANKMENT MATERIAL NOT PLACED IN THE BUILDING PAD, STREETS OR PARKING AREA, SHALL BE COMPACTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH REQUIREMENTS OF THE ORDINARY COMPACTION METHOD AS OUTLINED IN MNDOT 2105.3F2. 13- ALL SOILS AND MATERIALS TESTING SHALL BE COMPLETED BY AN INDEPENDENT GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER. EXCAVATION FOR THE PURPOSE OF REMOVING UNSTABLE OR UNSUITABLE SOILS SHALL BE COMPLETED AS REQUIRED BY THE GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR COORDINATING ALL REQUIRED SOILS TESTS AND INSPECTIONS WITH THE GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER, 0' 30' 60' 90' wimtWood Westwood Professional Services, Inc 3701 12th St N., Suite 206 St. Coud, MN 56303 PHONE 320-253-9495 FAX 320-253-8737 TOLL FREE 1-800.270-9495 wwwwestwoodps.com Degped: WRH Checked: WRH Drawn iAH Record Drawing by/date: Revisions I b -by -tify tbn W. pl- — prep..d by >u o< onda my db.R wp mid® and that I - .duly 11-. PROF769IONAL Israrra m —A kb. Lnn of aw d he�so a William R. Huston Due 7/06/10 L,m .e No. 44984 Prepared for. Warnert Commercial Real Estate 1203 33rd Street South St. Cloud, Minnesota 56301 Pizza Ranch Monticello, Minnesota Paving Plan Date 7/06/10 sheet: 3 OF 9 20085091.20D TF04.d wg . x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x Planning Commission Agenda - 08/03/10 8. Consideration of a request for (1) a Rezoning from B-4, Regional Business to I-1, or I-1A, Light Industrial, (2) a Zoning Ordinance Amendment establishing “Major Automobile and Truck Repair” as a conditional use in the I-1 or I-1A, Light Industrial District and (3) a Conditional Use Permit to allow a major truck and automobile repair facility in an I-1, or I-1A, Light Industrial District. Applicant: Hoglund Body and Equipment. (NAC) A. BACKGROUND The applicants are seeking to establish a repair facility in an existing building at 307 Chelsea Road on the north side of the roadway. The parcel is zoned B-4, which was a result of the rezoning of the Mills Fleet Farm for commercial uses. The rezoning that is part of this application is intended to correct that zoning action and restore this parcel to its intended industrial classification, and properly zone the subdivided Mills Fleet Farm lot on the north side of Chelsea Road. A part of the analysis below includes an examination as to the boundary between industrial and commercial land uses along Chelsea Road in this area of the City. Once the appropriate zoning designation is chosen, the applicant further intends to properly establish the use in the zoning district (presumably as a Conditional Use), and then to process a CUP for the activity. The applicants describe the activity as “Body Repair and Painting, Sandblasting, and Customer Fabrication for all makes of vehicles”. It is expected that will include primarily buses and trucks, although automobiles could conceivably fit into this description. A1. ANALYSIS Rezoning Some question exists in regard to the most appropriate zoning for the subject property. Of specific question is whether or not a commercial or industrial zoning designation is most appropriate. In consideration of this matter, the following should be noted: Comprehensive Plan. The subject site is guided (by the Comprehensive Plan) as “a place to work”. As the reference implies, such designation is intended to accommodate uses which are primarily places to work rather than shop. The present B-4 zoning designation is primarily a retail commercial district intended to draw customers on a regional scale. It could be argued that the subject site’s present B-4 zoning designation is inconsistent with its directed land use. Properties to the east of the subject site (including the future Mills Fleet Farm convenience gas station) are guided as “places to shop”. Appropriately, such Planning Commission Agenda - 08/03/10 2 properties would be expected to hold B-4, Regional Business zoning designations. I-1A District. The subject site is bordered on the west by properties guided as “places to work”. Such properties are appropriately zoned I-1A zoning (to implement their guided use). In contrast, properties to the east of the subject site are guided as” places to shop” and hold B-4 zoning designations. In this regard, the subject site serves as a transition point between “places to shop” and “places to work”. A rezoning of the site from B-4 to I-1A would re-establish a consistent zoning pattern west of the subject site and possibly resolve an existing Comprehensive Plan inconsistency. According to the ordinance, the purpose of the I-1A, Light Industrial District is to provide for the establishment of limited light industrial business offices, limited light manufacturing, wholesale showrooms and related uses in an environment which provides a high level of amenities, including landscaping, preservation of natural features, architectural controls, and other features. While the proposed I-IA District does not presently make a specific allowance for “major automobile and truck repair”, it is believed the proposed use has similar characteristics (in regard to impacts) as light manufacturing uses which are allowed. Also to be noted is that the applicants wish to occupy an existing 33,000 square foot building which was originally designed to accommodate a light industrial user. In this regard, the site layout, off-street parking supply, loading area and building type all are characteristic of a light industrial, rather than commercial, use. Conversion of the site and building to a “place to shop” would likely be problematic. Based on the preceding analysis, it is the opinion of staff that the I-1A, Light Industrial zoning designation is most appropriate for the subject property. The I-1, Light Industrial designation would also meet the “places to work” designation, and would include many of the characteristics for land use on this site. Staff examined the possibility of I-1 as an alternative for this use. However, I-1A is being recommended for two primary reasons. First, the I-1A District was established to provide for industrial uses similar to the I-1, but on sites requiring higher-level site development in areas of more visibility or exposure. The parcel in question is one such parcel, with exposure both to I-94 and Chelsea Road, a major collector between County 18 and TH 25. Second, industrial zoning to the west and south also utilizes the I-1A designation. Thus, an I-1A designation on the subject parcel would be most consistent with the adjoining parcel zoning. Planning Commission Agenda - 08/03/10 3 Text Amendment The I-IA, Light Industrial district does not presently make an allowance for the repair of trucks or automobiles. Bus terminals and maintenance garages (as accessory activities) are permitted uses in the I-1A, as well as in the I-1 district. Also in the I-1 district, both Major Automobile Repair and Truck/Heavy Equipment Repair are listed as Conditional Uses. Finally, Trucking and Truck Service is allowed in the B-3 District as an Interim Use. In the B-4 district (the current zoning), only minor automobile repair is allowed by Conditional Use Permit. As a result, an amendment to the district provisions is recommended to provide an appropriate transition between these types of uses. The recommended amendment would establish Major Automobile Repair and Truck/Heavy Equipment Repair use as a permissible activity. In this regard, it is suggested that the activity be established as a conditional use. As a companion recommendation, it would be appropriate to remove bus terminals and maintenance garages from the I-1A, leaving them more appropriately restricted to the I-1 District. The following list of conditions would be recommended for inclusion under a CUP and are taken generally from the conditions currently applied to major automobile and truck repair in the I-1 zoning district. Bus, major automobile, truck, and heavy equipment repair provided that: 1. The entire site other than that taken up by a building, structure, or plantings shall be surfaced with a material to control dust and drainage which is subject to the approval of the City Engineer. 2. A drainage system subject to the approval of the City Engineer shall be installed. 3. The lighting shall be accomplished in such a way as to have no direct source of light visible from adjacent land in residential use or from the public right-of-way and shall be in compliance with Chapter 3, Section 2 [H], of this ordinance. 4. At the boundaries of a residential district, a strip of not less than five (5) feet shall be landscaped and screened in compliance with Chapter 3, Section 7 [G], of this ordinance. 5. Parking or car magazine storage space shall be screened from view of abutting residential districts in compliance with Chapter 3, Section 2 [G], of this ordinance. Planning Commission Agenda - 08/03/10 4 6. All signing and informational or visual communication devices shall be minimized and shall be in compliance with Chapter 3, Section 9, of this ordinance. 7. Provisions are made to control and reduce noise. 8. The provisions of Chapter 22 of this ordinance are considered and satisfactorily met. 10. Any outdoor storage of vehicles awaiting repair or pick-up shall be contained within an enclosure, and shall be screened and landscaped to meet the requirements and intent of the I-1A zoning district. Conditional Use Permit Setbacks. As shown below, the existing building meets applicable I-1A District setback requirements: Required Existing Front Yard 55 feet 120 feet Side Yard 30 feet 30 feet Rear Yard 40 feet 125 feet Parking. While the submitted site plan identifies an off-street parking “area” upon the subject property, individual parking stalls have not been delineated. As a condition of CUP approval, the site plan should be revised to illustrate all off- street parking stalls including those dedicated for use by the disabled. Loading. It appears a loading area exists on the west side of the building and that service activities (i.e. trash handing) occur on the north side of the building. As a condition of CUP approval however, proposed loading areas should be specified on the site plan. Further, all loading areas should be screened from view of adjacent rights-of-way. Landscaping. To date, a landscaping plan has not been submitted. As a condition of CUP approval, a landscape plan illustrating the location, variety and size of all site plantings should be provided. Such plan shall be subject to review and approval by the City. Signage. The applicants wish to erect a 180 square foot business on the north side of existing building. The sign would measure 25 feet in height. In addition to the freestanding sign, a 64 square foot wall sign has been proposed on the building’s south façade. Planning Commission Agenda - 08/03/10 5 According to the ordinance, the maximum allowed signage on the property may not exceed 15 percent of the total building façade fronting not more than two public streets. Since the property is in the Freeway Bonus District for freestanding signs, the proposed pylon sign is consistent with the sign ordinance regulations. The north and south facades of the building (facing Chelsea Road and Interstate 94) measure a combined 4,992 square feet. Thus, a total of 748 square feet of signage are allowed upon the subject site. Obviously, the proposed 244 square feet of signage is well within maximum area requirements. As a condition of CUP approval, the freestanding sign location should be depicted upon the site plan. Building Design. The existing building in question measures 33,463 square feet in size and measures 24 feet in height. The building is constructed of pre-cast concrete panels with an entrance on the south (along Chelsea Road). The building finish material is permissible in the applicable I-1A zoning district. While it is believed no exterior modifications to the building are proposed, this should be confirmed by the applicant. Trash. The handling of trash and recycled materials (including, but not limited to automobile/truck repair activities) has not been addressed. As a condition of CUP approval, this should be addressed by the applicant. Grading, Drainage, and Utilities. It has not been indicated whether any site modifications are proposed which may impact site drainage. As a condition of CUP approval, the City Engineer should provide comment and recommendation in regard to grading, drainage and utilities. Outdoor Storage. The applicants indicate in their letter that “vehicles being worked on with be stored inside the building, as well as the on the pavement near the freeway”. As noted previously, the I-1A district was established for higher levels of site and building improvements. As such, the staff’s recommended allowance for any outdoor storage includes a requirement for screening and landscaping. If this clause is adopted with the amendment and outdoor storage is allowed, as part of this application approval, the applicants will need to define the nature of their enclosure and landscape screening. B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS Decision 1: Regarding the rezoning of the subject site from B-4, Regional Business to I-1A, Light Industrial, the City has the following options: Planning Commission Agenda - 08/03/10 6 1. Motion to recommend approval of the rezoning, based on a finding that the action is consistent with the land use directives of the City’s Comprehensive Plan and that the current B-4 zoning designation was applied in error. 2. Motion to recommend approval of a rezoning to a different zoning district, such as I-1, based on findings to be identified at the public hearing. 3. Motion to recommend denial of the rezoning, based on a finding that the proposed use is not compatible with planned commercial uses east of the subject site. Decision 2: Regarding an amendment to the I-1A District establishing “Bus, Major Automobile, Truck, and Heavy Equipment Repair” as a conditional use, with a concurrent deletion of bus terminal and maintenance garage from the I-1A District, the City has the following options. 1. Motion to recommend approval of the amendment, based on a finding that the amendment is consistent with the intent and purpose of the I- 1A District, and that the use would be consistent and complementary to similar light industrial uses. 2. Motion to recommend denial of the amendment, based on a finding that the proposed use is not consistent with the intent of the I-1A zoning district. Decision 3: Regarding a Conditional Use Permit for “Bus, Major Automobile, Truck, and Heavy Equipment Repair” in the I-1A District, the City has the following options: 1. Motion to recommend approval of the CUP with conditions as noted, based on a finding that the proposed use will meet the conditions of the zoning ordinance and will be consistent with the intent of the I-1A District and the Comprehensive Plan. 2. Motion to recommend denial of the CUP, based on a finding that the proposal for the use cannot meet the conditions of the zoning ordinance. 3. Motion to table action on the CUP subject to submission of detailed plans consistent with plan submission requirements of the ordinance. Planning Commission Agenda - 08/03/10 7 D. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Hoglund Body and Equipment wishes to establish a bus and truck repair facility within an existing building originally designed for light industrial use. Considering the subject site is guided for industrial use (a “Place to Work”), is bordered on the west by similar intensity uses and that the existing B-4 zoning designation was applied in error, Staff recommends approval of the rezoning and I-1A District text amendment. Obviously, approval of the rezoning of the subject propert y (from B-4 to I-1A) and the text amendment (to establish “major automobile and truck repair” as a conditional use in the I-1A District) must precede action of the conditional use permit. In regard to the conditional use permit, the applicants will need to provide a greater level of detail as related to outdoor storage compliance. Should the Planning Commission wish to recommend approval of the CUP, it is recommended that such approval be contingent upon the fulfillment of the conditions outlined in Exhibit Z, and that the applicant is given a deadline to submit the documentation, such as prior to City Council consideration. D. SUPPORTING DATA Exhibit A: Site Location Map Exhibit B: Applicant Narrative Exhibit C: Sign Plan Exhibit D: Building Elevation Exhibit E: Site Plan Exhibit F: I-A Zoning District Regulations Exhibit G: I-1 Zoning District Regulations Exhibit H: Zoning Map – Existing Exhibit I: Zoning Map – Proposed Exhibit J: Text Amendment Ordinance – Proposed Exhibit Z: Conditions of Approval Planning Commission Agenda - 08/03/10 8 EXHIBIT Z Conditions of Approval Hoglund Bus & Equipment, 307 Chelsea Road 1. The site plan be revised to illustrate all off-street parking stalls (including those dedicated for use by the disabled) and designated loading areas. 2. The applicant address, to the satisfaction of the City, the handling of trash and recycled materials. 3. The entire site other than that taken up by a building, structure, or plantings shall be surfaced with a material to control dust and drainage which is subject to the approval of the City Engineer. 4. A drainage system subject to the approval of the City Engineer shall be installed. 5. The lighting shall be accomplished in such a way as to have no direct source of light visible from adjacent land in residential use or from the public right-of-way and shall be in compliance with Chapter 3, Section 2 [H], of this ordinance. 6. The site plan be revised to illustrate the location of the proposed freestanding sign. 7. Provisions are made to control and reduce noise. 8. Any outdoor storage of vehicles awaiting repair or pick-up shall be contained within an enclosure, and shall be screened and landscaped to meet the requirements and intent of the I-1A zoning district. 9. Loading areas be screened from adjacent rights-of-way. 10. A landscaping plan be submitted which illustrates the location, variety and size of all site plantings. The landscaping plan shall specifically identify the proposed screen plantings for any approved storage area. Such plan shall be subject to City review and approval. Consideration of a Request for Rezoning from B-4 to I-1A, I-1 or B-3, a Request for Text Amendment and Request for Conditional Use Permit for Auto and Truck Repair Major CHAPTER 15A "I-lA" LIGHT INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT SECTION: 15A-1: Purpose 15A-2: Permitted Uses 15A-3: Permitted Accessory Uses 15A-4: Conditional Uses 15A-5: "I -IA" Design and Site Plan Standards 15A-1: PURPOSE: The purpose of the I-lA, Light Industrial District is to provide for the establishment of limited light industrial business offices, limited light manufacturing, wholesale showrooms and related uses in an environment which provides a high level of amenities, including landscaping, preservation of natural features, architectural controls, and other features. (#298, 10/13/97) 15A-2: PERMITTED USES: The following are permitted uses ina I-lA District: (#298, 10/13/97) [A] Radio and television [B] Research laboratories [C] Trade school [D] Machine shops [E] Paint mixing [F] Bus terminals and maintenance garage [G] Warehouses [H] Laboratories [I] Essential Services [J] Governmental and public utility buildings [K] Manufacturing, compounding, assembly, or treatment of articles or merchandise [L] Manufacture of musical instruments, novelties, and molded rubber products [M] Manufacture or assembly of electrical appliances, instruments, and devices [N] Manufacture of pottery or other similar ceramic products using only previously pulverized clay and kilns fired only by electricity or natural gas [O] Manufacture and repair of electrical signs, advertising structure, light sheet metal products, including heating and ventilation equipment [P] Blacksmith, welding, or other metal shop [Q] Laundries, carpet, and rug cleaning [R] Bottling establishments [S] Building material sales and storage [T] Broadcasting antennae, television, and radio [U] Camera and photographic supplies manufacturing [V] Cartage and express facilities [W] Stationery, bookbinding, and other types of manufacturing of paper and related products but not processing of raw materials for paper production [X] Dry cleaning establishments and laundries [Y] Electric light or power generating stations, electrical and electronic products manufacture, electrical service shops [Z] Engraving, printing, and publishing [AA] Jewelry manufacturing [BB] Medical, dental, and optical laboratories [CC] Storage or warehousing [DD] Wholesale business and office establishments [EE] Commercial/professional offices [FF] Wholesale showrooms [GG] Conference centers [HH] Commercial printing establishments 15A-3: PERMITTED ACCESSORY USES: The following are permitted accessory uses in a "I -IA" District: (#298, 10/13/97) [A] Commercial or business buildings and structures for a use accessory to the principal use but such use shall not exceed thirty (30) percent of the gross floor space of the principal use: The parking requirements of Chapter 3, Section 5, are complied with in full. 2. The off-street loading requirements of Chapter 3, Section 6, are complied with in full. 15A-4: CONDITIONAL USES: The following are conditional uses in a "I-lA" District: (Requires a conditional use permit based upon procedures set forth in and regulated by Chapter 22 of this ordinance.) (#298, 10/13/97) [A] Open and outdoor storage as an accessory use provided that: The area is fenced and screened from view of neighboring residential uses or, if abutting a residential district, in compliance with Chapter 3, Section 2 [G], of this ordinance. MONTICELLO ZONING ORDINANCE 2. Storage is screened from view from the public right-of-way in compliance with Chapter 3, Section 2 [G], of this ordinance. 3. Storage area is grassed or surfaced to control dust. 4. All lighting shall be hooded and so directed that the light source shall not be visible from the public right-of-way or from neighboring residences and shall be in compliance with Chapter 3, Section 2 [H], of this ordinance. The provisions of Chapter 22 of this ordinance are considered and satisfactorily met. [B] Industrial planned unit development as regulated by Chapter 20 of this ordinance. [C] Indoor limited retail sales accessory to office/manufacturing uses provided that: 1. Location: (a) All sales are conducted in a clearly defined area of the principal building reserved exclusively for retail sales. Said sales area must be physically segregated from other principal activities in the building. (b) The retail sales area must be located on the ground floor of the principal building. 2. Sales Area. The retail sales activity shall not occupy more than fifteen (15) percent of the gross floor area of the building. 3. Access. The building where such use is located is one having direct access to a collector or arterial level street without the necessity of using residential streets. 4. Hours. Hours of operation are limited to 8:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m. The provisions of this section are considered and satisfactorily met. 15A-5: "I-lA" DESIGN AND SITE PLAN STANDARDS: The following minimum requirements shall be observed in the "I-lA" District subject to additional requirements, exceptions, and modifications set forth in this chap*k298, 10/13/97) MONTICELLO ZONING ORDINANCE [A] Lot Coverage. There shall be no minimum or maximum lot coverage requirements in this district. (#298, 10/13/97) [B] Building Type and Construction and Roof Slope 1. Any exposed metal or fiberglass finish on all buildings shall be limited to no more than fifty (50) percent of anyone wall if it is coordinated into the architectural design. Any metal finish utilized in the building shall be aluminum of twenty-six (26) gauge steel, the roof slope shall be limited to a maximum of one (1) in twelve (12) slope. 2. In the "I-1 A" District, all buildings constructed of curtain wall panels of finished steel, aluminum, or fiberglass shall be required to be faced with brick, wood, stone, architectural concrete case in place or pre -case panels on all wall surfaces. (#298, 10/13/97) [C] Parking. Detailed parking plans in compliance with Chapter 3, Section 5, shall be submitted for City review and approved before a building permit may be obtained. [D] Loading. A detailed off-street loading plan, including berths, area, and access shall be submitted to the City in conformance with the provisions of Chapter 3, Section 6, for review and approval prior to issuance of a building permit. [E] Landscaping. A detailed landscaping plan in conformance with Chapter 3, Section 2 [G], shall be submitted to the Council and approved before a building permit may be obtained. In addition to the requirements of Chapter 3, Section 2 [G], all parcels developed along the boundary between the I I zone and a residential zone shall include planting of evergreens as a screen between 1-1 A and R- 1 uses. The evergreens planted shall be planted every 15 feet along the property boundary. (#298, 10/13/97) [F] Usable Open Space. Every effort shall be made to preserve natural ponding areas and features of the land to create passive open space. [G] Signage. A comprehensive sign plan must be submitted in conformance with Chapter 3, Section 9. Lot Requirements: Lot Area - 30,000 sq ft MONTICELLO ZONING ORDINANCE Lot Width - 100 feet Setbacks: Front Yard - 50 feet Side Yard - 30 feet Rear Yard - 40 feet (#221, 2/24/92) MONTICELLO ZONING ORDINANCE MONTICELLO ZONING ORDINANCE CHAPTER 15B "I-1" LIGHT INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT SECTION: 15B-1:Purpose 15B-2:Permitted Uses 15B-3:Permitted Accessory Uses 15B-4:Conditional Uses 15B-5:Interim Uses 15B-1:PURPOSE: The purpose of the "I-1," light industrial, district is to provide for the establishment of warehousing and light industrial development. 15B-2:PERMITTED USES: The following are permitted uses in an "I-1" district: [A]Radio and television. [B]Research laboratories. [C]Trade school. [D]Machine shops. [E]Paint mix ing. [F]Bus terminals and maintenance garage. [G]Warehouses. [H]Laboratories. [I]Essential services. [J]Governmental and public utility buildings. [K]Manufacturing, compounding, assembly, or treatment of articles or merchandise. [L]Manufacture of musical instruments, novelties, and molded rubber products. MONTICELLO ZONING ORDINANCE [M]Manufacture or assembly of electrical appliances, instruments, and devices. [N]Manufacture of pottery or other similar ceramic products using only previously pulverized clay and kilns fired only by electricity or natural gas. [O]Manufacture and repair of electrical signs, advertising structure, light sheet metal products, including heating and ventilation equipment. [P]Blacksmith, welding, or other metal shop. [Q]Laundries, car pet, and rug c leaning. [R]Bottling establishments. [S]Building material sales and storage. [T]Broadcasting antennae, television, and radio. [U]Camera and p hotographi c supplies manufactur ing. [V]Cartage and express facilities. [W]Stationery, bookbinding, and other types of manufacturing of paper and related products but not processing of raw materials for paper production. [X]Dry cleaning establishments and laundries. [Y]Electric light or power generating stations, electrical and electronic products manufacture, electrical service shops. [Z]Engraving, p rinting and publishi ng. [AA]Jewelry manuf acturing. [BB]Medical, dental, and optical laboratories. [CC]Storage or wa rehousing. [DD]Wholesale business and office establishments. 15B-3:PERMITTED ACCESSORY USES: The following are permitted accessory uses in an "I-1" district: MONTICELLO ZONING ORDINANCE [A]All permitted accessory uses as allowed in the "B-4" district. 15B-4:CONDITIONAL USES: The following are conditional uses in an "I-1" district: (Requires a conditional use permit based upon procedures set forth in and regulated by Chapter 22 of this ordinance). [A]Open and outdoor storage as an accessory use provided that: 1.The area is fenced and screened from view of neighboring residential uses or, if abutting a residential district, in compliance with Chapter 3, Section 2 [G], of this ordinance. 2.Storage is screened from view from the public right-of-way in compliance with Chapter 3, Section 2 [G], of this ordinance. 3.Storage area is grassed or surfaced to control dust. 4.All lighting shall be hooded and so directed that the light source shall not be visible from the public right-of-way or from neighboring residences and shall be in compliance with Chapter 3, Section 2 [H], of this ordinance. 5.The provisions of Chapter 22 of this ordinance are considered and satisfactorily met. [B]Open or outdoor service, sale, and rental as a principal or an accessory use and including sales in or from motorized vehicles, trailers, or wagons provided that: 1.Accessory outside service, sales, and equipment rental connected with a principal use is limited to thirty (30) percent of the gross floor area of the principal use. 2.Outside sales areas are fenced or screened from view of neighboring residential uses or an abutting residential district in compliance with Chapter 3, Section 2 [G], of this ordinance. 3.All lighting shall be hooded and so directed that the light source shall not be visible from the public right-of-way or from neighboring residences and shall be in compliance with Chapter 3, Section 2 [H], of this ordinance. 4.Sales area is grassed or surfaced to control dust. MONTICELLO ZONING ORDINANCE 5.The provisions of Chapter 22 of this ordinance are considered and satisfactorily met. [C]Industrial planned unit development as regulated by Chapter 20 of this ordinance. [D]Amusement places (such as roller rinks and dance halls) and bowling alleys. [E]Consignment sales provided that: 1.Sales and storage are not to exceed 1,000 square feet in area. 2.At least 80% of the sales shall be of consigned merchandise. 3.No auctions shall take place on the premises. 4.There shall be no outside storage. 5.The provisions of Chapter 22 are considered and satisfactorily met. 6.The parking requirements of Chapter 3, Section 5, are complied with in full. [F]Automobile repair - major and/or minor: 1.The entire site other than that taken up by a building, structure, or plantings shall be surfaced with a material to control dust and drainage which is subject to the approval of the City Engineer. 2.A drainage system subject to the approval of the City Engineer shall be installed. 3.The lighting shall be accomplished in such a way as to have no direct source of light visible from adjacent land in residential use or from the public right-of-way and shall be in compliance with Chapter 3, Section 2 [H], of this ordinance. 4.At the boundaries of a residential district, a strip of not less than five (5) feet shall be landscaped and screened in compliance with Chapter 3, Section 7 [G], of this ordinance. 5.Parking or car magazine storage space shall be screened from view of abutting residential districts in compliance with Chapter 3, MONTICELLO ZONING ORDINANCE Section 2 [G], of this ordinance. 6.All signing and informational or visual communication devices shall be minimized and shall be in compliance with Chapter 3, Section 9, of this ordinance. 7.Provisions are made to control and reduce noise. 8.No outside storage except as allowed in compliance with Chapter 13, Section 4, of this ordinance. 9.All condit ions perta ining to a sp ecific sit e are subject to change when the Council, upon investigation in relation to a formal request, finds that the general welfare and public betterment can be served as well or better by modifying the conditions. 10.The provisions of Chapter 22 of this ordinance are considered and satisfactorily met. [G]Truck/heavy equipment repair 1.The entire site other than taken up by a building, structure, or plantings shall be surfaced with a material to control dust and drainage which is subject to the approval of the City Engineer. 2.A drainage system subject to the approval of the City Engineer shall be installed. 3.The lighting shall be accomplished in such a way as to have no direct source of light visible from adjacent land in residential use or from the public right-of-way and shall be in compliance with Chapter 3, Section 2 [H], of this ordinance. 4.At the boundaries of a residential district, a strip of not less than five (5) feet shall be landscaped and screened in compliance with Chapter 3, Section 7 [G], of this ordinance. 5.Parking or car magazine storage space shall be screened from view of abutting residential districts in compliance with Chapter 3, Section 2 [G], of this ordinance. 6.All signing and informational or visual communication devices shall be minimized and shall be in compliance with Chapter 3, Section 9, of this ordinance. MONTICELLO ZONING ORDINANCE 7.Provisions are made to control and reduce noise. 8.No outside storage except as allowed in compliance with Chapter 13, Section 4, of this ordinance. 9.All condit ions perta ining to a sp ecific sit e are subject to change when the Council, upon investigation in relation to a formal request, finds that the general welfare and public betterment can be served as well or better by modifying the conditions. 10.The provisions of Chapter 22 of this ordinance are considered and satisfactorily met. 11.A specific area shall be designated for the exterior storage of semi- truck trailers and/or other vehicles and/or equipment accessory and incidental to the truck which is being repaired/serviced. [H]Prototype rubber burning furnace incidental to principal use provided that: 1.Furnace must meet all existing or future air emission standards as established by federal or state pollution control agencies. 2.Stack height must be high enough to eliminate potential of stack gases being trapped at ground level by the effect of wind flow around buildings. 3.On or before a date determined by the City, furnace owner will complete all emissions testing on prototype furnace and will apply for an air emission permit from the PCA even if exempt from PCA regulations. Furnace design must meet or exceed proportional requirements for a 1 million BTU furnace as required by the PCA. Failure of emission tests during prototype development or failure to obtain permission to sell this product in Minnesota shall terminate conditional use permit. 4.Regular use of the furnace shall be limited to the heating season. Non-heating season use of the system shall be limited to testing and demonstration. Furnace shall not by operated for the sole purpose of reducing waste tires. 5.A 6-foot, 90% opaque fence shall be used to screen waste tire storage areas. No waste tires shall be in plain view. 6.Complaints made by area property owners about the furnace MONTICELLO ZONING ORDINANCE emissions may be sufficient cause for the City to withdraw the conditional use permit and therefore halt furnace operation. 7.If it is determined by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency that waste ash is hazardous waste, it shall be disposed of in a manner approved by the City of Monticello and the Minnesota Pollution Con tro l Age ncy. (#188, 5/14/90) (#222, 2/24/92) [I]Outdoor go-cart tracks provided that: 1.The proposed use must meet all conditions of Chapter 3, Section 4[A]. 2.The conditional use permit will be reviewed yearly to determine whether or not it is compatible with neighboring properties and in conformance with conditions of the conditional use. 3.A solid wood, six-foot high fence must be part of the screening required when the adjacent property is residential. 4.Dust and noise (70DB at residential property line) must be controlled at a ll t ime s to the sat isf act ion of t he C ity. 5.The provisions of Chapter 22 of this ordinance are considered and satisfactorily met.(#313, 6/8/98) 15B-5:INTERIM USES: The following are interim uses in an I-1 District (requires an interim use permit based on the procedures set forth in and regulated by Chapter 22 of this ordinance): [A]Public educational institutions, limited to schools for elementary, junior high, and senior high aged students, provided that: 1.A specified termination date is documented. 2.The proposed parcel has adequate improved parking to acco mmo dat e th e st ude nt c apac ity. 3.The proposed building is constructed or altered only in ways which do not interfere with future refitting for industrial use. (#295, 9/8/97) MONTICELLO ZONING ORDINANCE City of Monticello, Minnesota Wright County Ordinance No. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 15A-4 OF THE MONTICELLO CITY CODE, KNOWN AS THE ZONING ORDINANCE, BY PROVIDING FOR BUS, MAJOR AUTOMOBILE, TRUCK, AND HEAVY EQUIPMENT REPAIR AS A CONDITIONAL USE IN THE I -1A DISTRICT. The City Council of the City of Monticello hereby ordains: Section 1. Section 15A-4 is hereby amended to add the following: 15A-4 [D] Bus, major automobile, truck, and heavy equipment repair provided that: 1. The entire site other than that taken up by a building, structure, or plantings shall be surfaced with a material to control dust and drainage which is subject to the approval of the City Engineer. 2. A drainage system subject to the approval of the City Engineer shall be installed. 3. The lighting shall be accomplished in such a way as to have no direct source of light visible from adjacent land in residential use or from the public right-of-way and shall be in compliance with Chapter 3, Section 2 [H], of this ordinance. 4. At the boundaries of a residential district, a strip of not less than five (5) feet shall be landscaped and screened in compliance with Chapter 3, Section 7 [G], of this ordinance. 5. Parking or car magazine storage space shall be screened from view of abutting residential districts in compliance with Chapter 3, Section 2 [G], of this ordinance. 6. All signing and informational or visual communication devices shall be minimized and shall be in compliance with Chapter 3, Section 9, of this ordinance. 7. - Provisions are made to control and reduce noise. 8. The provisions of Chapter 22 of this ordinance are considered and satisfactorily met. 9. Any outdoor storage of vehicles awaiting repair or pick-up shall be contained within an enclosure, and shall be screened and landscaped to meet the requirements and intent of the I-lA zoning district. Section 2. Section 15A-2 [F] is hereby deleted, and amended to read as follows: 15A-2 [F] Reserved Section 3. This Ordinance shall take effect and be in full force from and after its passage and publication. Clint Herbst, Mayor ATTEST: Jeff O'Neill, Administrator AYES: NAYS: Planning Commission Agenda – 08/03/10 1 9. Consideration of a request for extension of Conditional Use Permit for Planned Unit Development for a multi-tenant commercial development in a B-3 (Highway Business) District. Applicant: Cornerstone/DOJO LLC (AS) REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND Cornerstone Development/DOJO LLC is requesting an extension of their conditional use permit for its planned unit development project. On August 4th, 2008, the Planning Commission reviewed and recommended approval of a Conditional Use Permit for Planned Unit Development for a multi-tenant commercial development in a B-3 (Highway Business) District submitted by Cornerstone/DOJO LLC. The City Council approved the Conditional Use Permits on August 11th, 2008. Due to non-use, the conditional use permit for PUD will expired on August 11th, 2010. The Monticello Zoning Ordinance requires that conditional use permits expire due to non-use after one year. As such, the applicant has requested a one-year extension. All previously approved conditions will apply to any extension of the permit. The planning report for the original item has been provided for reference. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS 1. Motion to recommend an extension of one year for the August 11th, 2008 Conditional Use Permit for Planned Unit Development for a multi-tenant commercial development in a B-3 (Highway Business) District for Cornerstone/DOJO LLC, with the condition that all previously approved conditions be assigned to the extension. 2. Motion to recommend denial of an extension of the August 11th, 2008 Conditional Use Permit for Planned Unit Development for a multi-tenant commercial development in a B-3 (Highway Business) District for Cornerstone/DOJO LLC, based on a finding to be made by the Planning Commission. 3. Motion of other. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of the extension request. The request is consistent with current and proposed objectives for the B-3 (Highway Business) District. It should be noted that the applicant has not yet submitted record drawings reflecting adherence to all approved conditions. These documents are required prior to any further development reviews or approvals. SUPPORTING DATA Exhibit A: Staff Report for August 11th, 2008 Exhibit B: Conditional Use Permit Plan documents Planning Commission Agenda — 08/05/08 8. Public Hearing — Consideration of a request for Conditional Use Permit for Planned Unit Development for a multi -tenant commercial development in a B-3 (Highway Business) District. Applicant: Cornerstone/DOJO LLC. (NAC) BACKGROUND Cornertsone/DOJO Properties, LLC is seeking a Planned Unit Development Conditional Use Permit (PUD/CUP) to allow the construction of two retail commercial buildings upon a 1.7 acre site located south of Dundas Road and east of State Highway 25. The processing of a PUD is specifically necessary to accommodate the location of two principal buildings upon a single lot of record. The underlying zoning of the subject property is B-3, Highway Business. ANALYSIS Planned Unit Development. As shown on the submitted site plan, the applicant wishes to locate two principal buildings upon a single lot. To accommodate this condition, the processing of a PUD/CUP is necessary. A Planned Unit Development allows for flexibility in performance standards with the understanding that the development will be held to higher standards of site and building design than would ordinarily be required. It is the responsibility of the applicant to design the development with significant benefits and communicate those benefits to the City as a basis for allowing a CUP/PUD. Comprehensive Plan. The City's Comprehensive Plan directs commercial use of the subject property. Thus, the proposed use of the property is consistent with the land use directives of the Plan. Zoning. The subject site is zoned B-3, Highway Business. The purpose of the 13- 3, Highway Business District is to provide for and limit the establishment of motor vehicle oriented or dependent commercial and service activities. The B-3 District allows a wide array of commercial activities. As a condition of PUD approval, uses within the two commercial buildings will be limited to those allowed in the B-3 District. Access. Access to the site is provided from two points long Cedar Street. Considering there are no access points along the east side of Cedar Street, there are no alignment issues that need to be considered. However, the south access location may raise concerns as it relates to the future commercial development of the adjoining parcel. Along Cedar Street, the City has required commercial projects to minimize access locations for traffic safety. This southern access point should be designed in such a way as to permit cross access with the adjoining future development. This may include either an agreement to provide access to the proposed location, or (preferably) a joint location straddling the property line. Planning Commission Agenda — 08/05/08 Parking. The parking requirement for retail and service establishments is one off-street parking stall for each 200 square feet of net floor area. Using this "net area" calculation, 10 percent of the total building area is presumed to be reserved for hallways, restrooms, utilities and the like. As a result, the parking requirement for the proposed commercial use is as follows: Square Feet Ratio Required Spaces North Building 9,504 gsf 8,553 nsf) 1 space per 200 nsf 43 spaces South Building 5,472 gsf 4,925 nsf) 1 space per 200 nsf 24 spaces Total 14,976 gsf 13,478 ns 67 spaces Note: Parking ratio applies to retail and service establishments As calculated above, a total of 67 off-street parking spaces are required of the proposed commercial use. In satisfaction of this requirement, a total of 69 stalls have been proposed on the amended plan. In accordance with ADA requirements, three of the proposed stalls have been designated as handicapped stalls, although it would appear that these may be better located near building entrances to meet the intent of the handicapped parking regulations. It should be noted that the required off-street parking supply assumes retail use of the two buildings. If, at some future point, a restaurant use (which has a greater parking supply requirement) is proposed, it will likely be necessary to increase the site's existing off-street parking supply. This could only occur via a PUD amendment. As part of the processing of such amendment, the applicant would need to demonstrate compliance with applicable off-street parking requirements. All proposed parking stalls and drive aisles have been found to meet the minimum dimensional requirements of the ordinance. With one exception, the parking lot design is considered well conceived. To better accommodate vehicular backing maneuvers, it is recommended that the parking stall in the extreme southwest corner of the site (along the site's southern boundary line) be eliminated. Building Design. As shown on the submitted building elevations, the proposed commercial buildings are to be finished in horizontal cement board siding with manufactured stone provided on the front elevations. Building colors have not been noted. As a condition of PUD/CUP approval, building colors should be specified and subject to City approval. The proposed buildings measure 27 feet in height and satisfy the maximum two story height requirement imposed in the B-3 zoning district. With the exception of the front entrance canopies, a hip roof design is proposed. All roof areas are to be finished in asphalt shingles. Planning Commission Agenda — 08/05/08 While the proposed buildings meet applicable building height and material requirements of the ordinance, staff has some concern in regard to the "back of the building" appearance provided along Highway 25, Dundas Road and Cedar Street. These areas will be highly visible to passersby. With previous retail projects along Cedar Street, the City has required "four-sided architecture" to enhance the views of the projects from all sides, particularly given the high visibility of these buildings. Upgraded materials on exposed walls have been required of the Monticello Travel Center project, the Warnert retail project, and the retail buildings along Cedar Street west of Wal-Mart. Staff has recommended that the walls exposed to the public streets on this project be improved with additional stone detailing, particularly around the door areas, including some of the same column architecture which is proposed for the entrance side of the buildings. Setbacks. As shown below, all applicable setback requirements of the B-3 zoning district have been satisfied: Front Yard Side Yard Rear Yard Required Setbacks 30 feet 20 feet 30 feet Proposed Setbacks 32 feet feet 71 feet Note: 30 foot setback amlied to side vards which abut nublic rights-nf--wav Landscaping. A landscape plan was submitted as a part of a recent addition to the application packet. The landscape plan shows a total of 23 trees, meeting the minimum requirement for a commercial site with a site perimeter of approximately 1,100 linear feet. The landscaped parking islands meet the minimum area for such islands. Staff would comment that while the landscape plan meets the minimum, it could be enhanced through additional plantings along the perimeter of the site, particular along Highway 25 and the south boundary. Lighting. To date, a lighting plan has not been submitted. Prior to the City taking official action on the application, it is recommended that a photometric lighting plan be submitted in accordance with ordinance requirements. Signage. The applicants have proposed a freestanding sign as a recent submission, reducing the parking supply in the front of the building to accommodate the sign location. The proposed sign is 20 feet in height and a total sign exposure of approximately 128 square feet in sign area. The sign is mounted on two poles with a stone base, presumably matching the stone on the building. This sign is the only freestanding sign on the project, and appears to meet the City's sign requirements within a PUD. The submitted front building elevations identify wall sign panels for the individual building tenants. The total maximum allowable sign area for any wall Planning Commission Agenda — 08/05/08 is determined by taking 10 percent of the gross silhouette area of the front of the building up to 100 square feet, whichever is less. The subject site has legal frontage on Highway 25, Dundas Road and Cedar Street making the north building eligible for wall signage on its north, east and west sides. The south building is eligible for wall signage on its east and west facades. As a condition of PUD/CUP approval, all site signs must meet applicable location and dimensional requirements of the ordinance. Trash. As shown on the submitted site plan, trash enclosures are proposed on the east side of the site near the two Cedar Street access points. To be specifically noted is that both enclosures are located in front of the building line, making them highly visible to business patrons. While the location of such enclosures (near site entrances) is understood from a functional standpoint, the locations are considered less than ideal from a visual perspective. To address this concern, consideration should be given to attaching such enclosures to the principal buildings. Considering the proximity of the enclosures to the adjacent principal buildings (approximately 7 feet), attached enclosures would reduce site clutter and minimize the visual presence of the trash handling areas. Such enclosures or "wing walls" should be finished in materials similar to those used on the principal buildings, including the stone elements. Loading. It assumed that loading and deliveries will occur through front entrances to the various commercial tenants. While service or fire doors are provided on the "back" side of the two buildings, such doors are not.accessible either by driveway or sidewalk. As a condition of PUD/CUP approval, the handling of loading activities should be addressed by the applicant (to the satisfaction of the City). Engineering Issues There are several details identified by the City's Engineering staff relating to utilities, grading and drainage, and related items. The staff met with the applicants as a part of the project review and have agreed to address those issues pursuant to the discussions at that meeting. A copy of the engineers report is included with this packet, and its recommendations are included here by reference. The comment letter does not incorporate the results of the staff discussion. Grading and Drainage. Issues related to grading and drainage should be subject to comment and recommendation by the City Engineer. Easement. As shown on the submitted site plan a United Power Association (UPA) easement is proposed in the southwest corner of the subject site. The easement area is overlaid by off-street parking. The acceptability of this 4 Planning Commission Agenda — 08/05/08 condition should be subject to comment and recommendation by the City Engineer. Utilities. Issues related to utilities should be subject to comment and recommendation by the City Engineer. Right -of -Way Dedication. Consistent with the recommendation of City staff, the northeast corner of the subject property should be dedicated as public right-of- way. Such dedication (as depicted upon the submitted site plan) will better accommodate necessary street turning radii and provide additional area within which utilities may be installed. It is recommended that such dedication occur prior to building permit issuance. This issue should be subject to additional comment by the City Engineer. Dundas Road Vacation. As a condition of PUD/CUP approval, it is recommended that a narrow strip of the Dundas Road right -of way (as depicted on the submitted site plan) be vacated and combined with the subject property. To be noted is that such strip of right -of way was originally owned by the property owner east of the subject site. Upon its vacation, such right-of-way would thus be conveyed to such property owner. Thus, the adjacent property owner will need to convey the vacated strip to the subject site. Such vacation/conveyance should occur prior to building permit issuance. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS Regarding the request for a for Planned Unit Development Conditional Use Permit (PUD/CUP) approval, the City has the following options: 1. Motion to recommend approval of the. PUD/CUP, based on a finding that the proposed use is consistent with the intent of the B-3 District, subject to the conditions outlined in Exhibit Z. 2. Motion to recommend denial of the PUD/CUP, based on a finding that the proposed use does not satisfy the intention of planned unit development by providing higher development standards than would normally be required. RECOMMENDATION The proposed use, a Planned Unit Development Conditional Use Permit (PUD/CUP) for two retail commercial buildings, appears to be consistent with the intent of the B-3 District and compatible with existing and anticipated future Planning Commission Agenda — 08/05/08 surrounding uses. To qualify for PUD consideration, a project must demonstrate that it exceeds the minimum standards of the zoning ordinance. Staff has made a series of suggestions in this regard related to access, landscaping, and building materials. With these improvements, staff would recommend approval of the PUD. SUPPORTING DATA Exhibit A: Location Map Exhibit B: Application Package, including: Title Sheet Site Plan Grading Plan SWPPP SWPPP Details Utility Plan Water & Sanitary Details Storm, Sidewalk & Street Building Plan —North Elevations Landscape Plan Landscape Detail Monument Sign Detail Exhibit C: City Engineer's Comments Exhibit Z: Conditions of Approval 6 Planning Commission Agenda — 08/05/08 EXHIBIT Z Conditions of Approval 1. The proposed site access point locations be revised subject to review and approval by the City Engineer. 2. Any future proposal to accommodate uses which generate a greater off-street parking demand (i.e. restaurants), the processing of a PUD amendment and additional parking shall be required. 3. To better accommodate vehicular backing maneuvers, the parking stall in the extreme southwest corner of the site (along the site's southern boundary line) be eliminated. 4. Building colors be specified and subject to City approval. 5. The applicant revises the building materials as discussed in this report, particularly as related to the building facades facing the surrounding streets. 6. The landscape plan be amended to increase planting on the site, particularly along the south and west boundary areas. 7. A photometric lighting plan be submitted, in accordance with ordinance requirements, subject to City approval. Consideration be given to attaching the two trash enclosures to the adjacent principal buildings. Such enclosures or "wing walls" should be finished in materials similar to those used on the principal buildings. 9. Requirements of the City Engineering staff are complied with, as agreed to at the staff -applicant meeting on July 29, 2008 10. Right of way dedications and vacations are finalized prior to final building permit approval. N LU a �1 j� .N1 O �. a W o � �� Z � W d{ � O N N M.: r F}{yNWz O FY2F-2F- �,,. z d 'fi y� �N�2�►W JLU aw pj } p,=Qg00drNN z WZQ^ N ti t7 t7 c7 =gzo,c� zO_zzz W W fL 6 .1 lW. } J}�� QF»» F'VlC7NN��SNLO�6,,1jj6161 N �'"C�VGVC�1Vt�Qd<G 40 J NJ C CL W z Z ccLLI � N Z0 0LL Z O CCmi 2 0 mi 0 cW m LLI 0 020 Z ,� 0 0 J WN �K am �y g >x yx r Of O S lu �o a 12 i°Z d n d z H71 v so—zz—c 9ZbZZ 'ON '93?J -31tla aOZz-ta (Oz£) ,oj SH"d NO113IltliSNO3 AHVNlW113tld l.a a3WJ3NJ IMI -00 (OW) -Wd lu•x.a +00 ZO£55 NW 'a�opuouuy NV'Id 3115 _ .�awm m atvas MI xOS '0'd = r U xu A ser au mann xaYox9 a nxssoae arl -Aa NMvaa '3 US W13 05Z V1O53NNIW `OT3JIiNOW x aaxnn aYro m I tvlu axr xoslntl3ers t is I b V !,! [Q 3 II! H,Q JUI man as AB C3Wmtld SYM tMadlY k0 ��u �50SS 6U 89u Bu 8 -SNOISU3tl 31va YloLLYaala3d Tv'id 4fLL1YHl AlLLN.L AiplpN I 0lJ103N71530 VZ"d Sa3Na00oroa p _ `S -- �7-vc Y a a , U U a� a all 5 �o ro zw �V 0 f R `S -- �7-vc 5 �o ro zw �V R �9 3'y i — g � dw o�Z v5 N VaS N j O r m A mm w 2 aW WO $?� `S -- �7-vc 0.na 'CN on attic QOZZ-i'4%(OZQ).°d SNVld NOI1.0f1N1SN00 AUVNI691'13fld -AB OXON* Wzt-c°1 (OZ£) ..4d ZO£SS NA alOpuouuy r,T NVId DNIUVIUD •rtannHmwatr3 CM Xce '0'd t'ZlI/ N aw w •..n a.• .aa.n m+:— -.1 am : G Nwaac '3 '1S Wl3 OSZ °z U msr vn AXW m�ivw mry nsanx+••at�o tl1O53NNIW'O'113011NOW AN low MAs�lw.u ..wtwa°.o '9Uj •oossy 6UiJe8UjBU3 ��JleFI,Q ' =sNoisin t Stan '°duwt�aae v+rw sDLL 1vw AlllYif t®uaN i TO tMM SM VZVld SU 3 N HOO OPO® a 0 IE U E s � � 1 .�...r �'._�'tte�' L a if `..--...,,rti•.... Iry ,_zzz 1 ag ---------- -------------- --� y ,,J���^��`� - 4 Y. x � �• Fes/ � � \ / ...� 1 j� % �.�0 n(� 00 P96� f � �� '%Jl � �' �..I J �� +1 -. � ` \^ � j �- .^,1 „tl,�! am / l I /!Y �Q � ,Ir �`'�•"�JJ� >S t + �. � �' Oki i AArv, j�l rrd• �r � � \�, �,, /��,.�GF�ab\�,,. 'yt� [� I t o 42 Wo At �l ) �'TI F l ) •1 \� Q r_ < \ ` 1 T ' \ ` �.'t:�ls ._.A.�µ�° ' i`lr� 1 -mow � ! \ } , e+ � �\�--�:;:= '��\:'?� °,� '� .� ,, ^ ,''• , w � \ ii I W 15 .F j, �� ,.%'•^�M �� `�ff'"e 19, at —41 itai A j OZ;ZZ-CN '033 Mv0 aOZZ-YZrazf)vj SNV'Id N0110nUISNO0 AUVNIW113ad '— 'AS ())MHO IM-Oft DOLL) me4d %-H'a360- ZO£55 NW 'OIDPUDUUV NV-1d dd,MS riceaaat io 3n3s £Zll X '0'd o M 3xi m sMn 3w aacrl m 3 r' Brom Cal uB W"C '3 "1S K13 05io U �Naan AIM Ov I JV av naswnd,R A�3ea V10S3NNIW `O1130l1NOW � an—M. MA aaNmm emA aw W'�U� 'OOSSt/ )p6U�J 69{a(6U3 AIUaH,Q �./-yy./ Cly ®e �,a /y^ � w 'NOL'fJIaT 'Wd SRI[ 1VN4 A&= 4300 I VZY'ld JQ3H1HUVo or®u =sNaisNaa 31YO Ql'J :03NOISM a a lm, � � g 8 5 a€ �� B g pig � �@a��a �� 'g � � � �a � a ~ es 19 WO, 10 11il 18� 95 115� Ito; g5p at Via 6 1551- Jell ne I Hill 14 901": 39� 4�pts j y ® Ril @� 'jwm i�q §3 a� •-� � �3 ���� 235 swr MN MN mvu 9OZZ-4LZ IOZZff--J SNVId NOnu.LSNOa AVmimid MO +Afl ODO O 1ZZY-O84 O) oupVd !y yA IH°N� 0 ZOM NW QIDPUDUUV S ny I V�s IRG ddMS u' Y�16CpiNN lO OLV15£ZL L x0e 'O'd am Jo scn au xmm w ara ruocssfaua DOl W3 NMYNO '3 '1S M3 09Z mmmnAti�p w+tArtiu cx+nasMu�au AmueV1OS3NNIW 'O174O11NOW z AN 9iSNO Y03N Ap pTNJIW SYN 1YDiSY MC -Ju' 'OOSed V BuIJ86u.l5u3 AIIleH2Ou p� W SNCI51A3tl 31tl0 'M MJJZdS'HYb' SIIC IVHL kiILM A=& I 0'D 43N9630 VZV-1d SH3NHOO or`® d{ b iM � W m N L. ,y axe W 0 JR e < N a Z��6i� ❑ B� � GJ tF4�`.�' �iilFS LU 1.9 All 8 / oe� r �!g fit X Ei ff I's a d� 2 3. \ �b� 0. N / Ab Oa Zco = o \ w 0 $�F 9-5 121 azTzx'ax 03a avo sou-5[z(oZE)soj I SNVIdNOUOf1M13NOOAUVNIWll3Ud M 03M03H0 ut-08i L0Z£) >'.s 4d uvN,a �.0 ZOES4 NN 'aIopuouuy NV ld WIlln szu xae a d rn ra®YnT w 3p�sx V aui w w.n au vsawr ma+a+3 waoas3road m'r ue wntlaa '3 -1S W13 09Zz "r'"°oaeasa lq •out •oossv V 6uPaeuI8u3 AlllsH,d VtosaNNlw°oa13�11NOW ° M W— uo arae oamrud PA aro" w�y 3 S=SK3a 3atl0 'AOLLMlllCl3ds 'XYld sru auto AdLLkTl a6niMl (no :03asm ���� uCb�l'i��`J orOV g � -•__^-----=a"="*��„zt -- ,'may i -�\ I 'i 4 , •'* `ti p r```tlR r � 9Z*ZZ'ON -734 :31YO sezz-.cz (oz€) .ca SNV'Fd NOLWFIELLSNOO J.°FVNIWI13FFd 'AE mN33N0 IM—Oft (OZ£J W4d aawa 33 ZO£SS NN 'alopuouuV SilVb3a AHViiNvs le H31vm ip ML xog 'O'd rAas3N+w a 4) '3 x U 34l ao a+n 3w �9xn uiwnN3 irxoncvoxd m1 Aa wnvi.n '3 '1S W13 OSZ vrslmn mn xamnurns yVSOS3NNIW `07'73�I1NOW AIN W 111. wo � An 93axn ao as A. mw _,.sw.lwn. a9 •auk 'aOSsy 7g 6ui1e0LijBU3 �llleFl,d SNOISN3a 3LV0 %WVOUQ3di'XYidB4LLAVWA;uu�oIW" I OM -03Na6.30 VZV"Id SUMHO9 OrOGgm F 3 8 i Q !� y ee yy F F: 11 la Ig Ni 4A g sksa Fl N gQ ♦i � ��FJ �� S '40 N ry A� O O F y yse 5 � s! F � 9 r7 o F F ° F a�° Wg w 0 ■py �6 � O O B { I i •e� p a 2 a g C J; 2 8p -1 gFiF Q !� y ee yy F F: 11 la Ig Ni 4A Fg 1 n QP gQ ♦i � ��FJ �� S '40 N ry A� O O M 91.411 9 w r7 o w 40 OWZ'ON 939 :3LY0 9OZZ-+0(OZ¢) xod SNVId NDf.i.SnuisNOa ANVNIW193bld AG 4aXJ3h'0 «+-Oft COif) suoVd nfmxNo3l�o anus ZONG NA CM X 6 IO'd uL1y D 133il1S '8191VM3aIS °6N51d)tS t, a1(L so cur sw s;oa� u3nava iruocs3aoue m'I ue nxY113 '3 '1S Wl3 OSZ . U AN Waun�V. a AQ WWI=+ sr3J.2. u�o -oul -oossy V 6uueau15u3 AIIJOH,C tl1DS3tdNIW `0713DI1NOW 5NOI5N3Zl 3LY0 1lOIL3➢In: S'K( SINL AVK Ada="3h 1 Q1D :G3N:1530 VZV1d SU3HUO* OPOG � a41Ila FROM ' g a �g g 9 A sa vv I_ i RM F as as®sae o >, a pggg Ly "J LCC��R ' yA t 1 �m •e',•,` ..1 i 4 e� U Y1 h I_ i RM F 9wz t3N '93ll 3LVa 8990-"9 (199) XYzf3Nom SNV-1d ONI011(ig AIiVNIWll3Ud A^ -A3 03NJ3FiJ ti0I99 NA '7nVd ANS _ 7-m-. . ..w mN?nv aNCJVI i:ZL NINON) NVId ONla"une � a vta3uen �0 3Aru i .—nAin9 wri iv mir rna�e3ms is as °On As vaa `�1/�y/��p1�I��a� g10S3NNIW '0113011NOW AA 1tl-. 311A0 -3Y SU IaUNS A3)IOVW wir 31VUVM OPOCI � Sh'015N3a 31tlU 'mmr0I993d3 INM SGC IWI A&M Anum QIP :43N9634 0 4 yS 5 5 4 . r' �I W El it �a�mk� E E 3" r3 � y3Wb� u 3 Li W S P k k 1 E d 5 4 . r' �I W Q O W 0 Q N y� W :g1 9 Y A A yyA kIk.® is� N of 8 42 lu p W V N ggra dI u c W O oI a ui T d- i t a O .ad IL LL WNO o T CF• Q ¢ iY .d LLIV _ LL _s fA r N O 0) r Q N 5 :g1 9 A A yyA kIk.® is� 9 8 42 p N ggra �V N twll 6990-"9 (199) XV1/3NO14d rr a9 a3Xa3ND 401S4 NN 'If)Vd 1NIVS a+pow v savor 3(1N3AV ONO-AVI £ZL( w io sa , tovaaw rcap�o� a0l :�a NMvaO 1O31�Haan mswzm x va m, I ivwrw mw NomWarls t]3Aq xn A3M3 V W w'r W=3 tp 3n xe a3Armaa SaM :aAma a0 MVid 'S1.trNl xILLYD xYdLLiH I ala :03NOS30 SHVId 4 ValB INOIJLVA313 V10S3NNlW AO"193JI1NOfW 3JLVU" WOO i Q lz F m U z m� w zcJJ �Y IZj LL '. i n y`\ bza Z O 4�7 �----- — — -- o # a wW cn Q wa2B�i PIP U9 03NO361;0 d>aary w W tivaauuw :o yvss a,u w mn 3XL cowl �av[Nan -�vNozs,,..�, 033 :AR wxvaa 035NL"1 ATO fYv 14a. UNY XOISW3d161a o t00N0 1Yl hM c] AM SVM 1Yfd:H 110 'N�LLY]a03dS 'AYid S.XL lYdL Ailtd3'! Ad74 N i 010 A3h'0@30 8990-469 (199) XY-V3NONd 5NVId 9Nlamn9 AHVNIWIl6 boss NK Indd tNYS 3nNanv 0,,\OJVI Czc( (HZnos) NVId aNiallne .L03j.] H:) H V A2313VW wir Vios3NNIW'01130jtNGW a.Lvavx oroa 0 0 ❑1 M Q UV VV N LL WW Ww M N LLLL LLLL N II NO h�Ni II bQ MM NN Q W h� h Il jn II II� � Q IW QQm UUh V QQ M Z Z W U Q CZA (Z7 2 Q� Z Vlfn � V11n N Zo -1-Q z." m �o ¢z2, Fzz< QJ >»Z Q»Z Z LL=�- 0 (yy��1t o s Q ZQ W+iIN� w.,-, Z z � So z m m� LL o 0 11111i1�r'� f ��7Tl. 6980-"q (l59) XV.i/aN Ad VII' -Aa avo0 H0 KL99 VIOS3NNIN 'lf1Vd 1NIVS 3nN3AV ONO-�V7 £ZLL mi 'Ae wvaa A JL3311HOUV 010:03.N963a A3)IDnW wir Ndl� NV7d NOILVA313 HIMS Q 0 ViOS3NNIW `07130UNOW z 31VamlOroa w 013 Exclusive Landsc,&Z219hL peS Professional Landscape, Landscape Management & Irrigation Services 11' Landscape Design for Dojo Corners Plaza Prepared by: Thomas G. Maas Dojo, Corners Plaza Planting Schedule Common Name Size Qt Colo. Blue Spruce 8` B&B 12 Autumn Spire Maples 2" 7 Patmore Ash 2" 2 Spring Snow Crab 2"E13 Gold Mound Spireas 18"Red Barberries 18"Miss Kim Lilacs # 5 Pot Stella Day Lillies #1 Pot 76 Boulders 18-24" 10 Notes: 1. 1.5" River Rock typical in all shrub beds and ground cover areas. Edger typical where planting bed interfaces with lawn. 2. Planting beds edger to be Balck Diamond or equal. 3. All Sodded areas to be Irrigated 4. Plants count per thius sheet only. 5. All Trees to hard a hardwood mulch ring. .._�._ __-.��„.�... M1..�..�......��_�`...r..w..r�va...-.w��:e.�''M4..•.x..i.ae r�-',��-�+w.:r.-...:w..-...�.....�_..—..�._�._.. �..w._. : ._..-w...r-n...n.._..—........_`--. �...�e+.._ 1. SCARIFY BOTTOM AND SIDES OF HOLE Iv'0 E E: GUYASSEIvIDLY OPTIONAL PRIOR TO PLANTING BUT CONTRACTOR ASSUMES FUS I j 2. TRIM OLB DEAD WOOD AND WEAK ANC/OR RESPONSIBILJTY FOR MAINTAINING DEFORMED TWIGS. �Qj CU i A LFA[IER. �`� • TREE ICS! A PLUMB POS!7!0N POR ! T PAINT CHI'S. SEE SPECS REGARDING \ THE DURA -110N OF THE s PRUNING of ALL OAKS. � GUARANTEE PERIOD 3. SET PLAINT ON UNDISTURBED NATIVE ` �, CU_ ASSEMBLY- 16" POLYPROPYLENE SOIL OR THOROUGHLY COMPACTED ` OR POLYETHYLENE (40 MIL) 1-1/2" BACKFILL SOIL, INSTALL PLANT SO THE ' f WIDE STRAP (TYP) DOUBT E STRANG 10 ROOT FLARE IS AT OR UP TO 2" GA. WIRE, 2-7" ROLLED STEEL POSTS ABOVE THE FINISHED GRADE. (MnDOT 3401) 0 180' G.C. (S[ -'E 4. PLACE PLANT ILS PLANTING HOLE �� � 1 _ STAKING DIAGRAM) WFH BURLAP AND WIRE BASKET, -. (IF USED), INTACT. BACKFILL. WTTHIN APPROXIMATELY 12" OF THE TOP OF RC-7iHALL WATER PLPit_ REE. lVEE_ TDP 1/3 OF THE BASKET OR THE TOP TWO HORIZONTAL RINGS, WHICHEVER IS GREATER. REMOVE ALL BURLAP AND NAILS FROM TOP 1/3 OF THE BALL. REMOVE ALL TWINE. 5. PLUMB AND BACKFILL WITH BACKFILL SOIL. 6_ WATER TO SETTLE PLANTS AND FILL VOIDS. 7, WATER WITHIN TWO HOURS OF INSTALLATION. WATERING MUST HE SUFFICIENT TO THOROUGHLY SATURATE ROOT BALL AND PLANTING HOLE. 8. PLACE MULCH WITHIN 43 HOURS OF THE SECOND WATERING UNLESS SOIL MOISTURE IS EXCESSIVE. DECIDUOUS TREE PLAINITIN DETAIL N4T Tfl SCALE 1. SCARIFY BOTTOM AND SIDES OF HOLE PRIOR TO PLANTING 2. TRIM OUT DEAD WOOL) AND WEAK AND/OR DEFORMED TWIGS. DO NOT CUT A LEADER. DO I <! PAINT CUTS, 3. SET PLANT ON UNDISTURBED NATIVE SOIL OR THOROUGHLY COMPACTED BACKFILL SOIL, INSTALL PLANT SO THE ROOT FLARE IS AT OR UP TO 2" ABOVE THE FINISHED GRADE. 4, PLACE PLANT IN PL.A14TING HOLE WITH BURLAP AND WIRE BASKET, (IF USED), INTACT, BACKFILL WITHIN APPROXIMATELY 12" OF THE TOP OF ROOTBALL, WATER PLANT. REMOVE TOP 11/3 OF THE BASKET OR THE TOP TWO HORIZONTAL RINGS, WHICHEVER IS GREATER. REMOVE ALL BURLAP AND NAILS FROM TOR-,"- 113 OP1/3 OF THE BALL. REMOVE ALL TWINE. 5. PLUMB AND BACKFILL WITH BACKFILL_ z. SOIL. 6. WATER TO S-FITLE PL.AN`3S AND FILL VOIDS. 7. WATER WITHIN TWO HOURS OF Ir 7S AI ►ATION. WATERING BUST BE SUFFIJ" ENT TO THOROUGHLY SATURATE ROOT BALL AND PLAN TING HOLE. 8. PLACE MULCH WITHIN 48 HOURS OF THE SECOND WATERING UNLESS SOIL MOISTURE IS EXCESSIVE. C -IFERO S 'FREE PIAS Y IN! , J)ETAIL T COORDINATE STAKING TO INSURE UNIFO!,)M /12d12 • ORIENTATiOh� +3F r,, I LINES AND STAKE. STAKING QNGRAM TREE WRAF' FROM BELOW MULCH LINE TO FIRST BRANCH OPTION PERFORATED SLIT PVL COLLAR 4"-6" SHREDDED BARK MULCH EXISTING GRADE PLANTING SOIL MIXTURE (SEE c --.PEC.) MINIMUM 1/2 WIDTH OF ROOT 3ALL UNDISTURBED OR STABILJZED SUBSOILS NOTE- GUY ASSEMBLY OPT10N�� BUT C014TR4CTOR ASSUMES FUL(, RESPONSIBILITY FOR MAINTAINING. TREE IN A PLUMB POSMON FOR THE DURATION OF THE GUARANTEE FIERIOD _t. GUY ASSEMBLY-- 16" POLYPROPYi_ENE OR POLYETHYLENE (40 MIL) 1-1/2- WIDE -1!2"WIDE STRAP (TYP) DOUBLE STRAND 10 GA. WIRE, '9--7" ROLLED STEEL- POSTS (MnDOT 3401) Cit 180' O -C_ (SEL STARING DIAGRAM) TCOORDINATE- STAKIN`7 TO INSURE UNIFORM z 1 ORIENTATION OF GUY LINES AND STAKES 12 = .�0 JIAlC114L, UIRUMAM GUY WIRE WITH WEBBING FLAGGING- ONE. PER Wir'.E 4"-6" SHREDDED BARK MULCT; F- ---EY,ISTINIG GRADE MINIMUM 11/2 WIDTH OF ROfvl' BrsL PLANTING SOIL MDTURE (SEE C.) UNDISTUR,1 ED OR STABIL 17ED SUBSOILS INCHES MULCH �f ( SEE LANDSCAPE NOTES FOR TYPE OF MULCH IF SHRUB IS B & 8, THEN i- REMOVE BURLAP c- ROPE _ FROM TOP 1%3 OF BA, t BACKFILL MIX UNDISTURBED SUBSOIL SHRUB & CONTAINER PLANTING DETAIL NOT TO SCALE W 144" TOP SECTION i 2a' OVERALL HEIGHT" 54"x`I44" °14" deep 8,Xl o1 12" deep 9IT7xio" poles 26NI30" 24" deep base A. WSB MENOMONIE & Associates, Inc. Infrastructure I Engineering I Planning I Construction July 23, 2008 Mr. Gary D'Heilly D'Heilly Engineering & Assoc. Inc. 250 Elm St. E. P.Q. Box 1123 Annandale, MN 55302 Re: Dojo Corners Plaza ---- Preliminary Construction Plan Review City of Monticello Planning No. 2008-020 WSB Project No. 1627-94 Dear Mr. D'Heilly: 701 Xenia Avenue South Suite 300 Minneapolis, MN 55416 Tel; 763-541-4800 Fax: 763-541-1700 We have reviewed the preliminary construction plans dated June, 2008, for the above -referenced project and offer the following comments. Sheet C1 — Site Plan 1. Consider providing a future access to the south and/or moving the southerly access to the south property line to act as a joint access to the property to the south. Is a car wash still proposed for the South Building? Previous discussions with City staff indicated that the southerly access was needed to allow for cars to exit the car wash. 2. Show a concrete driveway apron at the site entrances per City Standard Plate No.5007, 3. The proposed sidewalk along Cedar Street should be 6 -feet wide as per City standards. 4. Truncated dome pedestrian ramps are also required at the driveway entrances. 5. Add the removals to the grading or utility plan. 6. Note a bituminous pathway along TH 25, instead of a sidewalk as noted. 7. The pathway removal is on the incorrect location. Signs indicating that the pathway is closed will need to be provided until the bituminous pavement is replaced. 8. The striping on Cedar Street may need to be revised with the proposed access points. 9. Revise the parking lot dimensions to indicate the standard 20 -foot long parking stalls and 24 -foot driving lane. 10. Explain why the handicap stalls are not included in the parking spaces in front of the building. Minneapolis I St. Cloud K_1016?7-4414d+ui+rlQoexii.TR-gd7jaNy0720S..dw. Equal Opportunity Employer Mr. Gary D'Heilly July 23, 2008 Page 3 7. Watermain bends should be called out in standard sizes: 11 114, 22 %s and 45 degree bends with blocking as per City detail plates. 8. The existing sanitary sewer stub extending to the South Building is 8 -inch PVC and extends 50 feet from the manhole as per City as-builts. Please note the % grade of the service pipe. 9. A sanitary sewer sampling manhole is required for each service to the building if it is a food -service type use. 10. Label where the sanitary sewer and water service connection points are. 11. Add a legend indicating standard line types for each utility and revise the plan as such. 12. A utility excavation permit must be obtained from the Public Works department prior to commencement of utility connections. 13. Provide an as -built plan once construction is complete. Sheet C4.,C6, C7 Details All detail plates should be revised to reflect the current plates from the City General Specifications dated May 2008. These can be found on the City's website. 2. The plans should include a note indicating that construction shall conform to the most recent addition of the City of Monticello General Specifications and Detail Plates. Please provide a written response addressing the comments above. Final construction plans wfll need to be submitted, reviewed, and approved prior to building permit approval. In addition, the final plat must be recorded prior to building permit approval. Please give me a call at 763-287-7162 if you have any questions or comments regarding this letter. Thank you. Sincerely, WSB & Associates, Inc. Shibani K. Bisson, PE Project Manager C cc: Bruce Westby, City of Monticello John Simola, City of Monticello c.-A,n.-gela--SOhr�ri ai mv-E­ity of Monticello Steve Grittman, NAC skb K:10 1 6 27-94Wd1WnIDacsILTR-gd'1icilly 0722OSdv Planning Commission Agenda – 08/03/10 1 10. Consideration of a request for extension of a Conditional Use Permit for a Bank Facility with Drive-Through Facility, Joint Parking and Joint Access. Applicant: Broadway Market Investors, LLC (AS) REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND Broadway Market Investors and M & I Bank are requesting an extension of their conditional use permit for commercial development project at Broadway Market. On September 2nd, 2008, the Planning Commission reviewed and recommended approval of a Conditional Use Permit for a bank facility at the corner of CSAH 75 and CSAH 39. The site is one (1) acre in size and is zoned PZ-M, Performance Mixed District. The City Council approved the CUP on September 22, 2008. Due to non-use, the conditional use permit for the CUP will expired on September 22, 2010. The Monticello Zoning Ordinance requires that conditional use permits expire due to non-use after one year. As such, the applicant has requested a one-year extension. All previously approved conditions will apply to any extension of the permit. The planning report for the original item has been provided for reference. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS 1. Motion to recommend extension for one year of the September 22nd, 2008 Conditional Use Permit for Planned Unit Development for a Bank Facility with Drive-Through Facility, Joint Parking and Joint Access for M & I Bank with the condition that all previously approved conditions be assigned to the extension. 2. Motion to recommend denial of an extension of the September 22nd, 2008 Conditional Use Permit for Planned Unit Development for a Bank Facility with Drive-Through Facility, Joint Parking and Joint Access for M & I Bank with the condition that all previously approved conditions be assigned to the extension. 3. Motion of other. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of the extension request. The request is consistent with current and proposed objectives for the PZM District. SUPPORTING DATA Exhibit A: Staff Report for September 2nd, 2008 Exhibit B: Conditional Use Permit Plan documents Exhibit C: September 2nd, 2009 Planning Commission Minutes Exhibit D: September 22nd, 2009 City Council Minutes Planning Commission Agenda – 09/02/08 6. Public Hearing - Consideration of a request for Conditional Use Permit for a Bank Facility with Drive-Through Facility, Joint Parking and Joint Access, and a request for Final Plat for Riverview Square Second Addition. Applicant: Broadway Market Investors, LLC (NAC) REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND M & I Bank is seeking Conditional Use Permit and Final Plat approval to construct a bank facility at the corner of CSAH 75 and CSAH 39. The subject M & I site seeking approval with this application is one (1) acre in size and is zoned PZ-M, Performance Mixed District. This site is part of a previously approved multi-tenant shopping center development called Broadway Market. At time of approval in August of 2006, the submitted materials indicated that the subject commercial site would be subdivided at a future date. The applicant is proposing a 4,557 square foot bank building on the northwest corner of the Broadway Market development. This application requires conditional use permits for a drive through lane and to allow a bank facility in the PZ-M District. In addition, the applicant is seeking final plat approval, as preliminary approval was granted with the initial Broadway Market application in 2006. ANALYSIS The subject site is located within the existing Broadway Market shopping center on the northeast corner of CSAH 75 and CSAH 39. Comprehensive Plan. Monticello’s 2008 Comprehensive Plan currently guides this site’s land use as Places to Shop. Zoning. The purpose of the PZ-M District is to provide a land use transition between high density residential land uses and low intensity business land uses, as well as the intermixing of each such land use. The proposed bank facility application satisfies the intention of the zoning district. Land uses which have no storage of merchandise and are service oriented (bank facilities) are allowed by Conditional Use Permit, provided that: When abutting R-1, R-2, R-3, or PZR district, a buffer area with screening and landscaping in compliance with Chapter 3, Section 2 [G], shall be erected. Staff Comment: The adjacent land uses are not residential in nature. Planning Commission Agenda – 09/02/08 2 Final Plat. The applicant has requested final plat approval in conjunction with this application. Final plat approvals are subject to Council decision. A copy of the proposed final plat has been included in the supporting data for reference. The subject M & I site is platted as Lot 1, Block 1 of River View Square Second Addition. Lot 1, Block 1 is one (1) acre in size and located on the southwest side of Hart Boulevard. The remaining acreage of the Broadway Market development is now platted as Lot 2, Block 1 of River View Square Second Addition. Access and Circulation. Access to the bank site is provided via internal parking lot access with adjoining commercial uses. Entrance into the Broadway Market development is from CSAH 39, and more specifically Hart Boulevard. As a condition of approval, carried over from the Broadway Market approval conditions, the owners of the M&I Bank and Broadway Market will be required to execute a cross-parking and access agreement for the property. A draft of a cross-easement for this purpose had been prepared by the applicant and is included as supporting data. Internal drive lanes throughout the parking lot are a minimum of twenty four (24) feet in width; wide enough for two (2) lanes of traffic. The drive through lane, located at the northwestern edge of the site measures twelve (12) feet wide at its narrowest. Pedestrian access through the site is provided by hardscaped plaza surface adjacent to the building. No sidewalk connections have been shown. Lot Requirements and Setbacks. Setback requirements are based upon the zoning requirements of the district for which the project would be zoned if conventional zoning was applied as described in Chapter 3, Section 3, of the Ordinance. The following chart demonstrates the applicable performance requirements of the B-3 Highway Business, as well as what is proposed for the site: Required Proposed Compliance Minimum Lot Area 12,000 s.f. 43,692 s.f. Compliant Maximum Building Height 2 stories 1 story Compliant Lot Width 80 feet 260 feet Compliant Front Yard Setback (Hart Blvd.) 30 feet 83 feet Compliant Rear Yard Setback (Southwest) 30 feet 101 feet Compliant Side Yard Setback (CSAH 39) 30 feet 34 feet Compliant Side Yard Setback (Southeast) 10 feet 53 feet Compliant Drive Through Lane. The applicant is proposing a drive through in the northwest side of the site, adjacent to CSAH 39. As proposed, the design provides a 12 foot wide drive lane with approximately 140 feet of stacking space. The submitted application materials indicate accommodations for four bank-teller bays, with one fourteen (14) foot drive lane open for pass-through circulation. With the driveway length provided, the drive through Planning Commission Agenda – 09/02/08 3 would provide stacking space for up to twelve (12) vehicles at peak periods. The site plan illustrates signage directing vehicles to the drive through banking and ATM services. Drive through bank buildings are allowed by Conditional Use Permit. The Zoning Ordinance contains the following requirements for such uses: The architectural appearance and functional plan of the building and site shall not be so dissimilar to the existing buildings or area as to cause impairment in property values or constitute a blighting influence within a reasonable distance of lot. Staff Comment: The building elevations indicate a four (4) sided architectural treatment which are cohesive with surrounding buildings. At the boundaries of a residential district a strip of not less than five 5 feet shall be landscaped and screened in compliance with Chapter 3 Section 2 G of this ordinance. Staff Comment: The adjacent land uses are not residential in nature. Each light standard island and all islands in the parking lot landscaped or covered. Staff Comment: The applicant does not indicate any light standard islands specifically, but the perimeter and space adjacent to the building is being landscaped or sodded. Parking areas shall be screened from view of abutting residential districts in compliance with Chapter 3 Section 2 G of this ordinance. Staff Comment: The adjacent land uses are not residential in nature. Parking areas and driveways shall be curbed with continuous curb not less than six 6 inches high above the parking lot or driveway grade. Staff Comment: The parking areas and driveways are specified with a continuous curb and gutter. Vehicular access points shall be limited shall create a minimum of conflict with through traffic movements shall comply with Chapter 3 Section 5 of this ordinance and shall be subject to the approval of the City Engineer. Staff Comment: Access points and circulation comply with Ordinance standards, and vehicular conflicts appear to be minimized. All lighting shall be hooded and so directed that the light source is not visible from the public right of way or from an abutting residence and shall be in compliance with Chapter 3 Section 2 H of this ordinance. Staff Comment: According to the photometric, all site lighting not associated with the building is tilted 15 degrees below horizontal position. The entire area shall have a drainage system which is subject to the approval of the City Engineer. The City Engineer’s report is included for reference. The comments are primarily detail and follow-up requirements. No design or layout changes are required. Parking. The applicant is proposing a bank facility, and has been reviewed as a “service establishment.” The following chart demonstrates the minimum number of parking stalls Planning Commission Agenda – 09/02/08 4 required for the site: Tenant Area (90%) Requirement Required Stalls Proposed Stalls Bank 4,557 s.f. 4,101.3 s.f. 1 space/200 s.f. of floor area 21 stalls 31 stalls The site plan illustrates thirty one (31) parking stalls for the bank facility, including four (4) parking stalls located west of the southwestern dividing median. The proposed project exceeds the required parking stalls for this type of use. The Zoning Ordinance requires that each parking space be not less than nine (9) feet wide by twenty (20) feet in length. An exception is allowed for up to twenty five (25%) percent of the required parking spaces to be not less than seven and one half (7 ½) feet in width by not less than sixteen (16) feet in length when served adequately by access aisles. These compact parking stall should be marked as such. The proposed application indicates four (4) parking stalls that measure eight (8) feet in width by twenty (20) feet in length. These parking stalls are acceptable, but must be marked as compact parking. ADA compliance requires a parking lot of this size to provide two (2) accessible parking stalls, of which one (1) must be van accessible. The submitted plan indicates two (2) ADA parking stalls, one measuring eight (8) feet in width and the other seven (7) feet in width with an eight (8) foot van aisle. These ADA parking stalls should meet Zoning Ordinance minimum standards for non-compact parking requirements and must be adjusted. As noted in the access comments above, the Broadway Market project includes a joint parking and access agreement between this parcel and the planned retail center. The parking on the site is more than adequate to meet the requirements, particularly since the pad site to be occupied by the bank was considered a potential restaurant location which was considered when planning for parking supply on the property. Lighting. A lighting photometric plan for the site, excluding building lighting, has been submitted for the proposal. The photometric does indicate readings exceeding one (1) footcandle at the front and southwest side yard property lines. These property lines are internal to the Broadway Market development, thus they are acceptable. The photometric indicates the use the following: Light Type Number Proposed Recessed Commercial with Specular Louvers 6 16” parking roadway optic with one 400 watt metal halide tilted 15 degrees below horizontal position (40,000 lumens, 450 watts). 1 16” parking roadway optic with one 400 watt metal halide tilted 15 degrees below horizontal position (40,000 lumens, 900 watts). 1 16” parking roadway optic with 400 watt clear metal halide tilted 15 degrees below horizontal position (25,000 lumens, 450 watts). 5 Planning Commission Agenda – 09/02/08 5 Signage. The applicant has submitted a signage plan, detailing proposed signs for the bank facility. Based on staff calculations, the maximum allowable square footage of sign area is one hundred (100) square feet. The following signs are proposed: Sign Type Number Allowed Size Allowed Number Proposed Size Proposed Compliance Directional Sign A – Two Sided N/A No larger than ten (10) s.f. 1 10.31 s.f. No, variance required Directional Sign B – One Sided N/A No larger than ten (10) s.f. 1 10.31 s.f. No, variance required Informational ADA Parking Accessible Sign N/A No larger than ten (10) s.f. 2 1.78 s.f. Compliant Informational Do Not Enter Sign N/A No larger than ten (10) s.f. 2 1.78 s.f. Compliant Informational Drive Through N/A No larger than ten (10) s.f. 5 10 s.f. Compliant Freestanding Monument Sign* 1 One hundred (100) s.f. 1 47.19 s.f. of sign face No, variance required Building Wall Sign* 1 3 50.21 s.f. total Window Wall Sign* 5 10 s.f. total *Maximum allowable square footage of sign area per lot shall not exceed the sum of one (1) square foot per front foot of the building, plus one (1) square foot for each front foot of lot not occupied by a building, up to one hundred (100) square feet. Screening and Landscaping. Commercial sites require a minimum of one (1) tree per 1,000 s.f. of gross building floor area or one (1) tree per fifty (50) lineal feet of site perimeter, whichever is greater. For this proposed project, the lineal site perimeter measurement was utilized, which equaled seventeen (17) overstory trees. The submitted landscape plan indicates seventeen (17) overstory trees, with sixty five (65%) percent deciduous and thirty five (35%) coniferous which complies with Ordinance. The size requirement of said overstory trees also complies with Ordinance standards. As a note on overall landscaping, staff would recommend irrigation of all boulevard areas. Building Materials. The submitted application materials indicate that all four (4) exterior elevations will be treated with the same degree of architectural integrity. Building materials include modular face brick, stone caps and panels, glass, concrete Planning Commission Agenda – 09/02/08 6 slate roofing tiles and manufactured cut stone. The application also includes illustrative building elevations and photographs of existing similar M & I bank buildings. Each building elevation appears to contain a balanced mixture of the aforementioned building materials. The rear elevation of the building does front on the well traveled CSAH 39, but due to the balanced mix of architectural treatments the otherwise “back” side of the building is aesthetically pleasing. Grading, Drainage, and Utilities. The City Engineer and consulting engineer from WSB have reviewed the grading and drainage plans, as well as the utility plans for the project. As noted above, their comments do not require changes to the overall site layout or use, relating instead to detail and plan set standards, as well as follow-up requirements of the project’s construction. Copies of the engineering comments are included with this packet. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS Decision 1. Regarding the request for a Conditional Use Permit to allow a bank in the Performance Zone Mixed District (PZ-M), a Conditional Use Permit for a drive through lane and Final Plat approval, the City has the following options: 1. Motion to approve the request for Conditional Use Permits and Final Plat approval, based on a finding that the drive through lane and proposed use are consistent with the intent of the PZ-M District and underlying B-3 District, as well as the requirements of the Broadway Market approval, subject to the conditions outlined in Exhibit P. 2. Motion to deny the request for Conditional Use Permits and Final Plat approval, based on a finding that the drive through land and proposed use does not meet the requirements for Conditional Use Permits and are not consistent with the intent of the PZ-M District and underlying B-3 District. RECOMMENDATION M & I Bank is requesting Conditional Use Permits and Final Plat approval. Conditional Use Permits requested include a drive through lane and to allow a bank facility where the requested zoning is PZ-M Performance Mixed District. The drive through lane and bank facility use generally meet the requirements for the requested Conditional Use Permits and staff recommends approval. Regarding the request for Final Plat, the overall site plan appears to be consistent with the requirements of the respected district. Planning Commission Agenda – 09/02/08 7 SUPPORTING DATA Exhibit A: Final Plat Exhibit B: Civil Title Sheet Exhibit C: Site Demolition Plan Exhibit D: Site Geometric and Paving Plan Exhibit E: Grading and Erosion Control Plan Exhibit F: Utility Plan Exhibit G: Civil Detail Sheet Exhibit H: Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan Exhibit I: Landscape Plan Exhibit J: Floor Plan Exhibit K: Exterior Elevations Exhibit L: Existing M & I Photographs Exhibit M: Illustrative Exterior Elevations Exhibit N: Photometric Site Plan Exhibit O: City Engineers Memo Exhibit P: Draft Cross-easement Agreement Exhibit Q: Broadway Market Site Plan Exhibit Z: Conditions of Approval EXHIBIT Z Conditions of Approval M & I Bank Conditional Use Permits and Final Plat Recommended Staff Conditions agreed to by Applicant and adopted by Planning Commission: 1. The applicants execute a cross-parking and access agreement with the Broadway Market property owners to ensure proper access and shared parking. 2. The applicant shall comply with all recommendations of the City Engineer. Planning Commission Agenda- 08/03/2010 1 11. Consideration to call for a Public Hearing for the adoption of the 2010 City of Monticello Zoning Map. (AS) BACKGROUND The Planning Commission is asked to call for a public hearing for a revised 2010 City of Monticello Zoning Map. In addition to the zoning map adjustment required for 307 Chelsea Road (please refer to the Hoglund application), staff has found other portions of the map that require additional clarification. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS 1. Motion to call for a public hearing on September 7th, 2010 for the adoption of the revised 2010 City of Monticello Zoning Map. 2. Motion to recommend tabling of action on the 2010 City of Monticello Zoning Map for further study. 3. Motion of other. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends calling for the public hearing on the City of Monticello Zoning Map as proposed. SUPPORTING DATA None. A revised map will be provided with the September report on this item. Planning Commission Agenda – 08/03/10 1 12. Community Development Director’s Update. (AS) Building Department Report Building Activity The New River Professional (Zumbrunnen) building demolition has been completed and Kraus –Anderson has the wound center open for business. The remodel of the common areas of the main and upper level has also been completed. We are working with Xcel energy on the submittal of their plans for the next addition. The permit for IRT’s first addition on their property west of Fallon should be ready by the end of the week. We expect another permit application on a new addition on their property east of Fallon to be submitted in the near future. Rental Units Staff continues to work with landlords to complete their inspections and issue their rental licenses. In the next week we will be sending reminder letters to property owners who have not had the required inspection. We will also be sending the third and final notice to the properties that have not applied for their license. The next step for delinquent applications would be a letter from the City Attorney. Staff has also been reviewing the information we have collected (number of applications, number of inspections, hours spent, reasons for failed inspections, etc.) since the inception of the rental licensing program in August of 2007. This information will be presented to the Council at a future meeting to discuss the status of and any possible changes to the rental program. Community Development MN Supreme Court Variance Ruling Enclosed for the Planning Commission is detailed information on the recent Minnesota Supreme Court ruling relating to variances. NAC has prepared a memorandum providing analysis of what the ruling means for Monticello’s application of variance standards. Also included is the actual case summary and a League of MN Cities bulletin. Additional discussion on this case is planned for the August 3rd meeting. Website and Service Desk Report Attached are graphs providing information on to-date usage of www.ci.monticello.mn.us. Some year-end 2009 information is also provided on the charts for comparison purposes. Charts include: Total Number of Page Views: Tallies the total number of views for every page of the website. Total Number of Home Page Views: A page view gets attributed to "Home" each time a visitor clicks the "Home" button on the website. Planning Commission Agenda – 08/03/10 2 Unique IP Address Visits to Home Page: An IP address is a number which identifies the location of a client (web surfer) on the Internet. In theory this is a unique number which can be used to identify separate visitors. Help Desk (CSD) Visits: Totals the number of page views for each type of Help Desk inquiry. Most Visited Pages - 2nd Quarter: Provides numbers for the top five pages viewed each month. Total Number of Help Desk (CSD) Inquiries: Totals actual emails received. Help Desk (CSD) Inquiries by Type: Totals actual emails received by category. Overall, the graphs illustrate that usage of the website continues to increase month to month and year to year. Use of the online Help Desk continues to grow, as well. The most frequently visited section of the Help Desk (Also known as the Citizen Service Desk or CSD) is the “Ask a Question” page. Council will note that the number of web page visits and the number of inquires are not the same. The goal is to provide instant web information on frequently asked questions or service requests. The gap between the number of page visits and the number of inquires received indicates that goal is being achieved, with many users finding the information they need right at the desk, eliminating the need to email for further assistance. Also find enclosed an attachment graphic for a home page change. A new bar has been added to the home page for quick links to recently added features such as Facebook, RSS feeds and online utility payments. Council has seen demonstrations of both the Facebook and utility billing options. RSS feeds allow users to set up instant news “feeds” so that when RSS-enabled pages of www.ci.monticello.mn.us are updated, they receive instant notification. CGI Community Videos On-site filming is complete for Monticello’s community videos. CGI filmed at a variety of locations on July 6th and 7th. Local talent played a big role in both on-camera and voice-over work and testimonials from local businesses and residents were also filmed for inclusion. Staff should see a first cut of the 6-one minutes videos in late August. We’ll keep Council posted on other project developments. Engineering & Public Works Notes 2010 Street Reconstruction Project This project is progressing according to schedule, which shows the project being completed by mid-September. Newsletters summarizing the work completed to date, as well as work scheduled to be completed in the coming weeks, are being distributed to area residents and businesses in the project area on a regular basis. Planning Commission Agenda – 08/03/10 3 The existing pavement section has been milled and reclaimed from all streets in Phase 1 of Area 4A, including West River Street and adjacent side streets between TH 25 and Maple Street. The Walnut Street parking lot is being used as the stockpile location for the pavement millings to avoid the need to shut down any streets during construction. The trunk utilities work is essentially complete in this area, as are dewatering operations. Only service line work remains to be completed, which may or may not require intermittent dewatering operations. Work on Prairie Road will soon be underway. Crews will begin work by milling and reclaiming the existing pavement section, which will be followed by storm sewer work. Pelican Lake Restoration Project Update The following update was received via e-mail by City staff on Monday, July 19th. Pelican Lake Work Group Members: Progress continues with the Pelican Lake Restoration project. I am working on acquiring easements/fee title for lands within the St. Michael Meadows restoration area (Phase 1) and we (DU/DNR) have completed construction plans for the Regal Creek Erosion abatement work (Phase 2) with the hope of construction next summer. I am also working towards securing land control/ownership (WMA) for Phases 3-4. Project completion is 4-5 years from now. We have been quite successful in adding new WPAs and WMAs to our Pelican Lake complex thanks to various funding sources as you can see from the BAWA invite. The Pelican Lake Working Lands Initiative is also going well. Through this program we have been able to accelerate CRP enrollment on and near the lake, as well as involve landowners in other conservation programs. Two drier than normal years and improved lakeshore habitat have resulted in noticeable water quality improvements. Last year we documented many native (and non-native!) submerged aquatic plants growing in 5-7 feet of water. The lake level has come down about 2 feet since 2006, but remains about 2 feet above the OHW. Game fish are still abundant in the lake and it remains a popular fishing destination. Support for the project continues with our Department and the public. Ducks Unlimited has been an outstanding supporter of this project, securing funding and providing engineering assistance. Hope all is well and your work is going well! Fred Bengtson Area Wildlife Manager Minnesota Dept. of Natural Resources Planning Commission Agenda – 08/03/10 4 City Compost Facility The City went from a “key” lock at our compost facility to a lock with a combination in the spring of 2009. The feedback has been wonderful. The residents have found it very convenient to be able to stop in or call our office to get the combination for the facility. Earlier this month we had a resident suggest that we somehow put the combination on the City’s website. Since our facility is only for City residents we needed to find a place on the site that would be available ONLY for our residents. The best spot we found was to place it under the on-line payment section for utility billing. Our residents, if they have not done so already, can set up an account for their property using their utility billing number. Once the account is created, the dashboard screen -near the comments area - will show the weekly compost combination code. (See the screen shot below.) This will allow for our residents to gain access to the code at their convenience and will reduce the number of calls to Public Works. NORTHWEST ASSOCIATED CONSULTANTS, INC. 4800 Olson Memorial Highway, Suite 202, Golden Valley, MN 55422 Telephone: 763.231.2555 Facsimile: 763.231.2561 planners@naeplanning.com MEMORANDUM TO: Monticello Planning Commission FROM: Stephen Grittman DATE: July 28, 2010 RE: Monticello — Variance Review Standard NAC FILE: 191.06 This memorandum is intended to update the Planning Commission and other City officials on the requirements for the consideration of variances to specific zoning standards. Variance review has often been a topic of discussion, and the City's zoning ordinance includes specific language relating to the requirements for variance approval. That language, based generally in Minn. Stat. 462.357 Subd. 1, is found in Monticello City Code Chapter 23-4, and reads as follows: 23-4: NON -ECONOMIC HARDSHIP: The Planning Commission, serving as the Board of Adjustment and Appeals, shall, after receiving the written reports and recommendations of the City staff, make a finding of fact and decide upon requests for a variance by approving or denying the same, in part or in whole, where it is alleged by the applicant that a non -economic hardship in the reasonable use of a specific parcel of property exists. A hardship that by some reason of narrowness, shallowness, or shape of a specific parcel of property or lot existing and of record upon the effective date of this ordinance or that by reason of exceptional topographic or water conditions of a specific parcel of land or lot, the strict application of the terms of this ordinance would result in exceptional difficulties when utilizing the parcel or lot in a manner customary and legally permissible within the district in which said lot or parcel is located, or would create undue hardship upon the owner of such lot or parcel that the owner of another lot or parcel within the same district would not have if he were to develop his lot or parcel in a manner proposed by the applicant. Should the Planning Commission find that the conditions outlined heretofore apply to the proposed lot or parcel, the Planning Commission may grant a variance from the strict application of this ordinance so as to relieve such difficulties or hardships to the degree considered reasonable, providing such relief may be granted without impairing the intent of this zoning ordinance. We have commonly interpreted this clause to the Planning Commission by noting that the applicant must first show generally that their proposed use is necessary to make reasonable use of the property, given the requirements of the zoning ordinance and the context of the neighborhood, and then that the code requirements prohibit reasonable use of the property in some way. We have noted that this is a rigorous standard — variances are intended to be applied only where somebody cannot put their property to a reasonable use. Therefore, on a residential lot, a typical single family home together with the common accessory uses to such a home would constitute reasonable use. This is not always the property owners' desired home or uses, or the most convenient. The traditional standard required a finding of an undue hardship in putting the property to any reasonable use. Under the older formulation, an applicant had to show that they had no reasonable use of their property unless the city granted a variance. In such a situation, the City would be virtually compelled to approve a variance, or entertain the possibility that the regulations had created a case of "regulatory taking" or "inverse condemnation" — basically regulations that prohibit any use at all. After a series of Minnesota Court of Appeals cases in the late 1990s (Rowell v. City of Moorhead, Sagstetter v. City of St. Paul, Nolan v. City of Eden Prairie), it had become easier for cities to grant variances when their finding was that the applicants use was reasonable, and only that practical difficulties stood in the way of such a reasonable use. Some cities followed this approach and loosened their variance approval standards, either through practice, or ordinance, or both. Recently, the Minnesota Supreme Court issued a decision in Krummenacher v. City of Minnetonka which restated the standards that control when cities may consider variance approval. This case involved a neighbor who challenged the City's approval of a property owner's request seeking a setback variance to expand an existing garage. The City granted the variance, based on a determination that the applicant proposed to use the property in a reasonable manner. This standard for variance approval had been evolving in many cities over the past 10 to 15 years, loosening the review from "any reasonable use" to "use in a reasonable manner", and from "undue hardship" to a focus on "practical difficulties". In Krummenacher, however, the Supreme Court stated that the plain reading of the statutory language compels a return to the traditional way of reviewing variances. That language is as follows: To hear requests for variances from the literal provisions of the ordinance in instances where their strict enforcement would cause undue hardship because of circumstances unique to the individual property under consideration, and to grant such variances only when it is demonstrated that such actions will be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the ordinance. "Undue hardship" as used in connection with the granting of a variance means the property in question cannot be put to a reasonable use if used under conditions allowed by the official controls, the plight of the 2 landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner, and the variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. Economic considerations alone shall not constitute an undue hardship if reasonable use for the property exists under the terms of the ordinance. Undue hardship also includes, but is not limited to, inadequate access to direct sunlight for solar energy systems. Variances shall be granted for earth sheltered construction as defined in section 216C.06, subdivision 14, when in harmony with the ordinance. The board of appeals and adjustments or the governing body as the case may be, may not permit as a variance any use that is not permitted under the ordinance for property in the zone where the affected person's land is located. The board or governing body as the case may be, may permit as a variance the temporary use of a one family dwelling as a two family dwelling. The board or governing body as the case may be may impose conditions in the granting of variances to insure compliance and to protect adjacent properties. The Krummenacher Court rejected the transition to the "practical difficulties" and "reasonable manner" standards as being inconsistent with the statute. For Monticello, the new court ruling require a more rigorous review than has sometimes been given. The City's ordinance uses the terminology of "exceptional difficulties", similar to the "practical difficulties" test that the Court rejected. The Court's decision leaves open the idea that reasonable use still has a relationship to the "character of the locality" as it is stated in the statute. Instead, the City must work to assure that variance requests accomplish the objectives noted above — reasonable use and undue hardship — in keeping with the findings of the Supreme Court in Krummenacher. In Krummenacher, the Court reminds cities that there are three general conditions to be met when evaluating the existence of "undue hardship, according to the applicable statute: a. The property can not be put to a reasonable use under the standard zoning regulations; and b. The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property, and not created by the landowner, and c. The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood. All three of these conditions must be met to qualify for variance consideration. Therefore, an applicant for a variance has a steep burden — they must show that it is necessary to build what they are asking for to make reasonable use of the property, and then they must show that there is no way to build such a use without a variance. Therefore, if the applicants are able to construct something on the property that is allowed by the zoning ordinance without a variance, they are likely to have a difficult showing in proving their hardship. The fact that they wish to have something of a different design, or something that is located more conveniently is technically not relevant to the City's consideration. It is also important to note that the City's 3 description of "reasonable use" in most cases will be what is allowed or required by the zoning ordinance. Thus, a home of 1,200 square feet in a residential district is, in most cases, going to be considered "reasonable use", even though something larger might be preferred. As an example, envision an R-1 zoned parcel that has an existing 1,200 square foot home and an attached 2 -car garage. The applicants have acquired a small camper and wish to add on to their garage to store their equipment. Due to the location of the existing home, however, they need a side -yard setback variance to expand. There is no doubt that a 3 -car garage is more desirable, and in many cases, the garage would be preferable to storing the camper outdoors. Unfortunately, they are currently making reasonable use of the property — it cannot be argued that they need the variance to make reasonable use of a parcel that is already in compliance with the code standards. There can be some exceptions, however, and those could come in the form of defining reasonable use for a particular neighborhood. In the example above, imagine that virtually every other home in the neighborhood has a 3 -car garage on lots of similar size — the City may determine that in this unique situation, a 3 -car garage is necessary to make reasonable use of the property due to the character of the neighborhood. Assuming that it is not possible on the subject parcel to construct a 3 -car garage anywhere and still meet setback requirements, a variance may be justifiable on those grounds. It is important to remember that variances are intended solely to correct for the rare occasions when unique circumstances exist that interfere with property owner's attempt to make any reasonable use of their property — in such cases, a variance may be necessary to allow that use. Where the City decides that the situation is not unique, or that there is no hardship, but the request seems reasonable, the appropriate path would be to amend the ordinance rather than attempt to justify a variance. As a final note, the Court observed that this interpretation of the statute must prevail unless the legislature decides to change the standards listed in 462.357 Subd. 6. We will continue to monitor any pending legislative changes in forthcoming sessions. rd Court of Appeals Beat L. Krummenacher, vs. City of Minnetonka, JoAnne K. Liebeler, STATE OF MINNESOTA IN SUPREME COURT Appellant, Respondent, Respondent. Gildea, J. Took no part, Dietzen, J. Filed: June 24, 2010 Office of Appellate Courts Paul W. Chamberlain, Ryan R. Kuhlmann, Chamberlain Law Firm, Wayzata, Minnesota, for appellant. George C. Hoff, Shelley M. Ryan, Hoff, Barry & Kozar, P.A., Eden Prairie, Minnesota, for respondent City of Minnetonka. James M. Susag, Larkin, Hoffman, Daly & Lindgren Ltd., Bloomington, Minnesota, for respondent JoAnne Liebeler. Susan L. Naughton, St. Paul, Minnesota, for amicus curiae League of Minnesota Cities. 1 SYLLABUS 1. Although Minn. Stat. § 462.357, subd. 1 e(a) (2008), restricts the ability of property owners to expand their nonconforming uses, subdivision 1 e(b) authorizes a municipality to allow an expansion pursuant to ordinance. Because the legislature gave the municipality discretion to authorize the expansion of a nonconforming use, the decision to allow respondent to seek a variance under the ordinance to expand a nonconformity was consistent with Minn. Stat. § 462.357, subd. le. 2. Under Minn. Stat. § 462.357, subd. 6, to establish the "undue hardship" required for a variance, a variance applicant must establish that "the property in question cannot be put to a reasonable use" without the variance. 3. Because the municipality applied the wrong standard, a remand for reconsideration of respondent's variance application under the correct standard is appropriate. Reversed and remanded. OPINION GILDEA, Justice. This case involves the decision of respondent City of Minnetonka to grant a variance to respondent JoAnne Liebeler so that she could expand her nonconforming garage. Appellant Beat Krummenacher is Liebeler's neighbor and he challenges the City's decision. The district court upheld the City's variance, and the court of appeals affirmed. See Krummenacher v. City of Minnetonka, 768 N. W.2d 377, 384 (Minn. App. 2009). Because we conclude that the City applied the wrong standard to Liebeler's Pa variance request, we reverse and remand to the City for reconsideration under the correct standard. Liebeler owns property located in Minnetonka. Krummenacher is Liebeler's neighbor to the west. Liebeler's property consists of a 2.4 -acre lot, which contains a 2,975 -square -foot home and an attached two -car garage. The property also contains a detached flat -roofed garage that a previous owner constructed sometime in the 1940s. The City has an ordinance requiring that the detached garage be set back a minimum of 50 feet from the property's boundary line. Minnetonka City Code § 300.10. Liebeler's garage was constructed before this ordinance went into effect, and it does not satisfy the setback requirement. Specifically, the garage is nonconforming because it is set back only 17 feet from the front yard lot line. Because the garage was constructed before the ordinance became effective, however, the garage is a permissible nonconformity. On March 31, 2008, Liebeler applied for a variance to expand the detached garage by adding a pitched roof and a second -story room above the garage that could be used as a yoga studio and craft room. Liebeler's proposal was to renovate the garage itself, both to fix its leakage problems and improve its appearance, and also to expand the garage by adding a living space above it. Because adding a second story to the garage would result in a vertical expansion of a nonconforming structure, Liebeler was required, under the Minnetonka City Code, to apply for a variance from the City.' See Minnetonka City ` It appears that Liebeler did not attempt to move the garage to a conforming location because the unusual characteristics of the lot made relocation impracticable. Liebeler's lot is L-shaped with only 45 -feet of frontage on the road. Moreover, there is a (Footnote continued on next page.) 3 Code § 300.29.3(g). Liebeler's proposed addition would not alter the footprint of the garage and would comply with the City zoning requirements for a detached garage with respect to maximum height and size. The City's Planning Commission held a public hearing on May 15, 2008, to consider Liebeler's request. Both Liebeler and Krummenacher had an opportunity to present their arguments at that hearing. Liebeler explained that she believed that the flat roof was causing leakage problems and that the structure itself needed to be updated. Krummenacher objected to Liebeler's proposed project, explaining that the added height of the garage would obstruct his view to the east. The Planning Commission approved Liebeler's request for the variance. The Planning Commission based its decision on the following findings: (1) the denial of a variance would cause "undue hardship" because of the "topography of the site, width of the lot, location of the driveway, and existing vegetation"; (2) the preexisting nonconforming setback was a "unique circumstance"; (3) Liebeler's proposal would comply with the "intent of the ordinance" because it satisfied the "zoning ordinance requirements for a detached garage for maximum height and size" and did not alter the footprint of the garage; and (4) the proposal would not alter the "neighborhood character" because it would "visually enhance the exterior of the garage" and because there was (Footnote continued from previous page.) significant slope immediately behind the garage, making it difficult to move the garage back. 12 another detached garage on a nearby property that was also set back only 17 feet from the road. Krummenacher appealed the Planning Commission's decision to the Minnetonka City Council. The City Council held a public hearing on the variance request on June 30, 2008, at which both sides presented their arguments. After an examination of the record, the City Council upheld the Planning Commission's decision and findings. The City Council found that Liebeler's "proposal is reasonable and would meet the required standards for a variance." The council listed four requirements and found that the variance satisfied those requirements as follows: (1) Undue Hardship: there is an undue hardship due to the topography of the site, width of the lot, location of the driveway and existing vegetation. (2) Unique Circumstance: The existing, non -conforming setback is a circumstance that is not common to every similarly zoned property. (3) Intent of the Ordinance: The improvements would not increase the footprint of the garage, and would comply with the zoning ordinance requirements for a detached garage for maximum height and size. (4) Neighborhood Character: The garage improvements would not alter the character of the neighborhood. The improvements would visually enhance the exterior of the garage. There is also a detached garage on the property to the east that is set back 17 feet from [the street]. Krummenacher then brought suit in district court challenging, among other things, the City's finding of undue hardship. Krummenacher served discovery requests asking for additional documents from the City, but the City objected to providing more than the City's record on the grounds that the case was properly subject to record review. The court declined to order the City to produce the additional documents, and affirmed the 5 City's decision to grant the variance to Liebeler, concluding that the City's decision was not "arbitrary and capricious." Krummenacher appealed to the court of appeals. On appeal, he raised three issues. First, he argued that Minn. Stat. § 462.357, subd. le(a) (2008), prohibits the City from granting a variance to allow the expansion of a nonconforming use. Krummenacher, 768 N.W.2d at 380-81. Second, he argued that the City's approval of the variance request was "arbitrary and capricious" because Liebeler had failed to meet the "undue hardship" standard of Minn. Stat. § 462.357, subd. 6. See Krummenacher, 768 N.W.2d at 382-84. Last, he argued that the district court erred in refusing to compel additional discovery by the City. See id. at 384. The court of appeals affirmed the district court's decision in all respects. We granted Krummenacher's petition for review. On appeal to our court, Krummenacher advances the same three arguments he made to the court of appeals.2 I. We turn first to Krummenacher's argument that Minn. Stat. § 462.357, subd. 1 e, prohibits a municipality from granting a variance that allows for the expansion of a nonconforming structure. Section 462.357, subdivision le, provides in relevant part: (a) Any nonconformity, including the lawful use or occupation of land or premises existing at the time of the adoption of an additional control under this chapter, may be continued, including through repair, 2 On January 26, 2010, Liebeler filed a motion to dismiss, arguing that we should dismiss the case on the grounds that construction of the expanded garage has been completed, rendering Krummenacher's claims moot. The motion to dismiss is denied. 0 replacement, restoration, maintenance, or improvement, but not including expansion .... (b) A municipality may, by ordinance, permit an expansion or impose upon nonconformities reasonable regulations to prevent and abate nuisances and to protect the public health, welfare, or safety. (Emphasis added .)3 Krummenacher argues that because the plain language of paragraph (a) of subdivision le prohibits the expansion of any nonconformity, the City's decision allowing Liebeler to expand her nonconforming garage must be reversed. The City argues that subdivision le(a) restricts the ability of property owners to expand nonconforming uses, but that under subdivision 1 e(b), a municipality is permitted to allow an expansion pursuant to ordinance. The construction of a statute is a question of law that we review de novo. Clark v. Lindquist, 683 N.W.2d 784, 785 (Minn. 2004).4 To interpret a statute, we first assess 3 In its brief, the City cites the 2009 version of section 462. 357, subdivision le(a) which reads: Except as otherwise provided by law, any nonconformity, including the lawful use or occupation of land or premises existing at the time of the adoption of an additional control under this chapter, may be continued, including through repair, replacement, restoration, maintenance, or improvement, but not including expansion .... Minn. Stat. § 462.357 (Supp. 2009) (new language in italics). The "except as otherwise provided" language in this version of subdivision le(a), however, did not become effective until May 22, 2009, which was after the City granted the variance. See Act of May 21, 2009, ch. 149, § 4, 2009 Minn. Laws 2025, 2028. We therefore do not rely on this version of the statute. We apply the 2008 version of subdivision le, the version of the statute in effect when the variance was granted. 4 Liebeler did not propose to expand the footprint of her garage, and it is undisputed that even as remodeled the garage would still be 17 feet from the yard line. In other (Footnote continued on next page.) 7 "whether the statute's language, on its face, is clear or ambiguous." Am. Family Ins. Group v. Schroedl, 616 N.W.2d 273, 277 (Minn. 2000). If the law is "clear and free from all ambiguity," the plain meaning controls and is not "disregarded under the pretext of pursuing the spirit." Minn. Stat. § 645.16 (2008); Phelps v. Commonwealth Land Title Ins. Co., 537 N.W.2d 271, 274 (Minn. 1995) ("Where the intention of the legislature is clearly manifested by plain unambiguous language ... no construction is necessary or permitted."). The legislature has also stated that it intends the entire statute to be effective. Minn. Stat. § 645.16 ("Every law shall be construed, if possible, to give effect to all its provisions.") This case is about a structure that does not conform with local land use restrictions. We have recognized that a local zoning ordinance "may constitutionally prohibit the creation of uses which are nonconforming." County of Freeborn v. Claussen, 295 Minn. 96, 99, 203 N.W.2d 323, 325 (1972). As to "existing nonconforming uses," however, these "must either be permitted to remain or be eliminated by use of eminent domain." Id. But a local government "is not required" to permit the expansion of such nonconformities. Id. Subdivision le is consistent with these principles. We read the subdivision in its entirety and give effect to both paragraph (a) and paragraph (b). Minn. Stat. § 645.16; (Footnote continued from previous page.) words, the scope of the nonconformity would not be expanded if Liebeler's request were granted. The City nevertheless concedes that the variance sought an "expansion" for purposes of Minn. Stat. § 462.357, subd. le, and we treat it as such for purposes of this opinion. see also In re Kenney, 374 N.W.2d 271, 274 (Minn. 1985) ("A statute will be construed so as to give effect to all of its parts."). In paragraph (a), the legislature, with certain exceptions not relevant here, prohibits a municipality from ordering the removal of nonconformities.s Further, the legislature has given property owners the right to repair or replace a nonconformity so long as they do not expand the nonconformity. In other words, as long as the property owner does not expand the nonconformity, she does not need municipal approval to take corrective or remedial action on the nonconformity. But under paragraph (b), if the property owner seeks to expand the nonconformity, the municipality may, by ordinance, permit the expansion. Consistent with the authority the legislature granted to it in paragraph (b) of subdivision le, the City has an ordinance that addresses the expansion of nonconformities. See Minnetonka City Code § 300.29(g)(1). This ordinance provides that "an expansion of any non -conforming use may not be done without first obtaining a variance." Id. Liebeler's proposed addition to her detached garage required a variance because she proposed to "occup[y] space within a non -conforming area that was previously not occupied... vertically." Id. Krummenacher argues that because state law is superior to municipal law, the City cannot grant a variance pursuant to its own ordinance if that variance violates state law. 5 The statute allows the municipality to require a nonconformity to be discontinued when it "is discontinued for a period of more than one year," or "is destroyed by fire or other peril to the extent of greater than 50 percent of its market value, and no building permit has been applied for within 180 days of when the property is damaged." Minn. Stat. § 462.357, subd. Ie(a)(1) and (2). 0 See Denney v. City of Duluth, 295 Minn. 22, 26, 202 N.W.2d 892, 894 (1972) ("It is fundamental that a municipality's power to regulate land use by zoning exists by virtue of authority delegated to it by the state."). But Minn. Stat. § 462.357, subd. le(b), grants the City the discretion to permit the expansion of a nonconformity by ordinance. The City provided a mechanism for expansion in section 300.29(g)(1), through a variance application, and Krummenacher makes no argument that Liebeler's request for a variance did not satisfy that section of the City Code. Because the legislature gave the City discretion to authorize the expansion of Liebeler's nonconforming garage, we hold that the City's decision to allow Liebeler to seek a variance under the ordinance to expand a nonconformity was consistent with Minn. Stat. § 462.357, subd. le. II. We turn next to Krummenacher's argument that the City's decision must be set aside because it was arbitrary and capricious. Municipalities have "broad discretionary power" in considering whether to grant or deny a variance. VanLandschoot v. City of Mendota Heights, 336 N.W.2d 503, 508 (Minn. 1983). We review such decisions "to determine whether the municipality "was within its jurisdiction, was not mistaken as to the applicable law, and did not act arbitrarily, oppressively, or unreasonably, and to determine whether the evidence could reasonably support or justify the determination." In re Stadsvold, 754 N.W.2d 323, 332 (Minn. 2008) (internal quotation omitted). 10 a Krummenacher argues that the City's decision was arbitrary and capricious because the City did not apply the proper standard to determine whether Liebeler demonstrated "undue hardship" as defined in Minn. Stat. § 462.357, subd. 6. This provision allows a city to grant a variance "from the literal provisions of the ordinance in instances where their strict enforcement would cause undue hardship because of circumstances unique to the individual property under consideration." Minn. Stat. § 462.357, subd. 6. Minnesota Statutes § 462.357, subd. 6, provides a definition of "undue hardship," and that definition requires that three factors be met. Specifically, the statute defines "undue hardship" as meaning, the property in question cannot be put to reasonable use if used under conditions allowed by the official controls, the plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner, and the variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. Id.6 To receive a variance, the applicant must show that he or she meets all of the three statutory requirements of the "undue hardship" test. Id. In addition to satisfying the "undue hardship" requirement, the statute allows municipalities to grant variances only 6 The Minnetonka City Code has almost identical provisions. Minnetonka City Code § 300.07.1(a) ("A variance may be granted from the literal provisions of this ordinance in instances where strict enforcement would cause undue hardship because of circumstances unique to the individual property under consideration and when it is demonstrated that such actions would be consistent with the spirit and intent of this ordinance. Undue hardship means the property in question cannot be put to a reasonable use if used under conditions allowed by this ordinance, the plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner, and the variance, if granted, would not alter the essential character of the neighborhood."). 11 "when it is demonstrated that such actions will be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the ordinance." Id. Krummenacher argues that Liebeler's application does not meet any of the requirements for "undue hardship." The first factor a variance applicant must establish to satisfy the statute's definition of "undue hardship" is that "the property in question cannot be put to reasonable use if used under conditions allowed by the official controls." Minn. Stat. § 462.357, subd. 6; see also Minnetonka City Code § 300.07.1(a). Krummenacher argues that based on the plain and unambiguous language of the statute, a municipality may grant a variance only when the property cannot be put to any reasonable use without it. According to Krummenacher, Liebeler had a reasonable use for her garage without the addition of a yoga studio and craft room—its current use as a storage space for vehicles. Krummenacher argues therefore that the City did not have the statutory authority to grant the variance. The court of appeals rejected this argument, relying on its decision in Rowell v. Board of Adjustment of Moorhead, 446 N.W.2d 917 (Minn. App. 1989), rev. denied (Minn. Dec. 15, 1989). The court in that case interpreted the "undue hardship" section of Minn. Stat. § 462.357, subd. 6, as requiring a variance applicant to show that the "property owner would like to use the property in a reasonable manner that is prohibited by the ordinance." Id. at 922. The City urges that we should embrace the interpretation of "undue hardship" from Rowell, and it appears from the record that the Rowell "reasonable manner" standard is the standard the City used in evaluating Liebeler's request for a variance. The City 12 determined that the expansion of the garage was a reasonable use of the property and that the request met the other requirements of the statute. Specifically, as reflected in the City Council Resolution, the City found that "the proposal is reasonable" and with respect to "undue hardship," that "[t]here is an undue hardship due to the topography of the site, width of the lot, location of the driveway and existing vegetation." The plain language of the statute and our precedent compel us to reject the City's invitation to adopt Rowell's interpretation of "undue hardship." The statute provides that to prove "undue hardship," the variance applicant must show that "the property in question cannot be put to a reasonable use" without the variance. Minn. Stat. § 462.357, subd. 6. Notwithstanding this language, the court of appeals concluded that "[t]his provision does not mean that a property owner must show the land cannot be put to any reasonable use without the variance." Rowell, 446 N.W.2d at 922. The court of appeals essentially rewrote the statute to mean that a municipality may grant a variance when the "property owner would like to use the property in a reasonable manner that is prohibited by the ordinance." Id. at 922. Although the Rowell "reasonable manner" standard has been used for over 20 years, we simply cannot reconcile that standard with the plain language of the statute. The Rowell standard is also inconsistent with our precedent. In support of the application of a "reasonable manner" standard for determining "undue hardship," Rowell cites Curry v. Young, 285 Minn. 387, 173 N.W.2d 410 (1969), for the proposition that a variance is "required where a setback requirement would force a property owner to build a much smaller structure." Id. at 922. The version of Minn. Stat. § 462.357 in effect 13 when Curry was decided did not contain the definition of "undue hardship" that is in the current version of the statute. See Minn. Stat. § 462.357 (1969). Moreover, while we discussed in Curry the dimensions of a structure that could theoretically be built to comply with the statutory requirements, we based our determination that the variance was properly granted on the municipality's ordinance. That ordinance required a showing of "particular hardship," and we concluded that the standard was met because the "plaintiffs' lot, in the absence of a variance, would be unusable for any purpose." Curry, 285 Minn. at 388-89, 396, 173 N.W.2d at 411, 415. The standard we applied in Curry is more rigorous than the "reasonable manner" standard adopted in Rowell, and appears consistent with the plain language of the first part of the "undue hardship" definition that is in the current statute. See Minn. Stat. § 462.357, subd. 6. In addition, in formulating the "reasonable manner" standard, the court in Rowell appears to have relied on the "practical difficulties" standard. See Rowell, 446 N.W.2d at 922. But we have made a clear distinction between the "practical difficulties" standard and the "undue hardship" standard. See Stadsvold, 754 N.W.2d at 328-31. As we explained in Stadsvold, the "practical difficulties" standard applies to review of county decisions to grant area variances, while the "undue hardship" standard applies to all 7 In support of the application of this standard, the court of appeals cited Merriam Park Community Council, Inc. v. McDonough, 297 Minn. 285, 289-90, 210 N.W.2d 416, 419 (1973), overruled on other grounds by Northwestern College v. City of Arden Hills, 281 N.W.2d 865, 868 n.4 (Minn. 1979). As in Curry, the version of Minn. Stat. § 462.357 in effect when Merriam Park was decided did not contain the definition of "undue hardship" that is in the current version of the statute. See 297 Minn. at 289-90, 210 N.W.2d at 418-19 (quoting statute). 14 municipal decisions to grant variances. Id. at 327-28 & n.2. Compare Minn. Stat. § 462.357, subd. 6, with Minn. Stat. § 394.27, subd. 7 (2008).8 In Stadsvold, we interpreted Minn. Stat. § 394.27, subd. 7, which sets forth the statutory standard for county variances. This statute contains both the "practical difficulties" standard and a "particular hardship" standard. Specifically, section 394.27 authorizes a county to grant variances from "the terms of any official control" but only when the property owner would face "practical difficulties or particular hardship" in meeting "the strict letter of any official control." Minn. Stat. § 394.27, subd. 7.9 We distinguished the "less rigorous `practical difficulties' " standard that applies to area variance applications from the more rigorous "particular hardship" standard that applies to use variance applications. Stadsvold, 754 N.W.2d at 330-31." 8 While Minn. Stat. § 462.357, subd. 6, and Minn. Stat. § 394.27, subd. 7, both set forth standards for granting variances, section 462.357, subdivision 6, applies to municipalities and section 394.27, subdivision 7, applies to counties. 9 The same dichotomy of language at issue in Stadsvold existed in the predecessor to the municipal zoning statute, section 462.357. Until 1965, section 462.22 (enacted in 1929, repealed in 1965) granted municipalities the power to vary or modify the application of a zoning regulation where there were "practical difficulties or unnecessary hardship" in complying with the strict letter of the regulation. Minn. Stat. § 462.22 (1961). In 1965, the legislature replaced Minn. Stat. § 462.22 with Minn. Stat. § 462.357. Act of May 22, 1965, c. 670, § 7, 1965 Minn. Laws 995, 1000-03. The new statute replaced the "practical difficulties or unnecessary hardship" standard with the current single "undue hardship" standard. Id. "Undue hardship" was undefined in the statute until 1982, when the legislature, borrowing the definition of "hardship" from the county variance statute, Minn. Stat. § 394.27, added the current definition of "undue hardship" to the statute. Act of Mar. 22, 1982, ch. 507, § 22, 1982 Minn. Laws 592, 593. io As we discussed in Stadsvold, "[t]here are two types of variances: use variances and area variances. `A use variance permits a use or development of land other than that (Footnote continued on next page.) 15 Adopting the Rowell "reasonable manner" standard would be inconsistent with the distinction we made in Stadsvold between the "practical difficulties" and "hardship" standards. The legislature defined the "hardship" standard in the county statute the same way it defined the "undue hardship" standard in the municipal statute." Because the legislature used the same language in both the county and city variance statutes when defining "hardship," our analysis in Stadsvold requires us to conclude that the "undue hardship" standard in Minn. Stat. § 462.537, subd. 6, is more demanding than the "practical difficulties" standard the court of appeals appears to have relied on in Rowell, 446 N.W.2d at 922. Moreover, with respect to the "practical difficulties" standard, we identified in Stadsvold several factors the county should consider in assessing whether that standard was met: (1) how substantial the variation is in relation to the requirement; (2) the effect the variance would have on government services; (3) whether the variance will effect a substantial change in the character of the neighborhood or will be a substantial detriment to neighboring properties; (4) whether the practical difficulty can be alleviated by a feasible method other than a variance; (5) how the practical difficulty occurred, including (Footnote continued from previous page.) prescribed by zoning regulations.' ... An area variance controls `lot restrictions such as area, height, setback, density and parking requirements.' " 754 N.W.2d at 329 (quoting In re Appeal of Kenney, 374 N.W.2d 271, 274 (Minn. 1985)). ' 1 " `Hardship' as used in connection with the granting of a variance means the property in question cannot be put to a reasonable use if used under the conditions allowed by the official controls; the plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner; and the variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality." Minn. Stat. § 394.27, subd. 7. 16 whether the landowner created the need for the variance; and (6) whether, in light of all of the above factors, allowing the variance will serve the interests of justice. 754 N.W.2d at 331 (footnote omitted). Rowell's interpretation of the "undue hardship" standard, requiring only that the proposed use be "reasonable," would render the "undue hardship" standard in section 462.357 less stringent than the "practical difficulties" standard and much less stringent than the "particular hardship" standard in the county variance statute, which the "undue hardship" standard appears to parallel. See Stadsvold, 754 N.W.2d at 331. In short, our analysis in Stadsvold simply does not leave room for the Rowell "reasonable manner" standard. 12 12 The City argues that, even if Rowell was based on an erroneous reading of the text of section 462.357, subdivision 6, the standard in Rowell has been used by municipalities for many years in determining whether to grant a variance. See, e.g., Mohler v. City of St. Louis Park, 643 N.W.2d 623, 631 (Minn. App. 2002); Nolan v. City of Eden Prairie, 610 N.W.2d 697, 701 (Minn. App. 2000); Sagstetter v. City of St. Paul, 529 N.W.2d 488, 492 (Minn. App. 1995). The City suggests that, because the legislature has amended section 462.357 many times since Rowell and has not disturbed the court of appeals' interpretation of the "undue hardship" standard, we should treat the legislature as having ratified the Rowell standard. But the legislature has provided that "[w]hen a court of last resort has construed the language of a law, the legislature in subsequent laws on the same subject matter intends the same construction to be placed upon such language." Minn. Stat. § 645.17(4) (2008). The court of appeals is not "a court of last resort." See Anderson-Johanningmeier v. Mid -Minnesota Women's Or., Inc., 673 N.W.2d 270, 276 (Minn. 2002) (stating that the court of appeals is not the court of last resort with respect to statutory construction). Nor does the denial of a petition for review give a court of appeals decision more precedential value than a court of appeals decision from which no review was sought. Murphy v. Milbank Mut. Ins. Co., 388 N.W.2d 732, 739 (Minn. 1986). We therefore reject the City's argument that the legislature has ratified the Rowell standard. 17 We recognize that the standard we apply today, while followed elsewhere, is not the universal rule.13 For example, in Simplex Technologies, Inc. v. Town of Newington, 766 A.2d 713 (N.H. 2001), the New Hampshire Supreme Court provided a thorough and insightful review of the development of land use variance law, and its practical construction in modern times. The New Hampshire statute did not contain a specific definition of "unnecessary hardship," like our statute does, and the court concluded that its prior definition of the statutory term "unnecessary hardship" "ha[d] become too restrictive in light of the constitutional protections by which it must be tempered." Id. at 717. The New Hampshire Supreme Court framed the issue in the following terms: Inevitably and necessarily there is a tension between zoning ordinances and property rights, as courts balance the right of citizens to the enjoyment of 13 While most jurisdictions use the phrase "unnecessary hardship" rather than "undue hardship" as the applicable standard, many jurisdictions appear to require that the variance applicant establish real hardship if the variance is denied rather than simply requiring that the applicant show the reasonableness of the proposed use. See, e.g., Larsen v. Zoning Bd. of Adjustment of Pittsburgh, 672 A.2d 286, 290-92 (Pa. 1996) (holding that the "mere desire to provide more room for a family member's enjoyment" is insufficient to constitute "unnecessary hardship" under the statute and requiring applicants to show that, if the variance request is denied, the property will be "practically useless"); OK Properties v. Zoning Bd. of Review of Warwick, 601 A.2d 953, 955 (R.I. 1992) ("The court has determined that unnecessary hardship exists when restricting the property to the permitted uses within the zoning ordinance will deprive the property owner of all beneficial use of the property and that granting a variance becomes necessary to avoid an indirect confiscation of the property."); Cochran v. Fairfax County Board of Zoning Appeals, 594 S.E.2d 571, 577 (Va. 2004) ("[T]he [Board of Zoning Appeals] has no authority to grant a variance unless the effect of the zoning ordinance, as applied to the piece of property under consideration, would, in the absence of a variance, interfere with all reasonable beneficial uses of the property, taken as a whole.") (internal quotation marks omitted); 3 Anderson's Law of Zoning § 20.16 (Kenneth H. Young ed., 4th ed., 1996) (describing different states' approaches to the "unnecessary hardship" standard and suggesting that most states give the term a fairly restrictive construction). private property with the right of municipalities to restrict property use. In this balancing process, constitutional property rights must be respected and protected from unreasonable zoning restrictions. Id. at 716-17. In light of these considerations, the New Hampshire Supreme Court said that "unnecessary hardship" would, in the future, be established when a landowner showed that (1) a zoning restriction as applied interferes with a reasonable use of the property, considering the unique setting of the property in its environment; (2) no fair and substantial relationship exists between the general purposes of the zoning ordinance and the specific restriction on the property; and (3) the variance would not injure the public or private rights of others. Id. at 717.14 Had the Minnesota Legislature not defined "undue hardship" in Minn. Stat. § 462.357, subd. 6, we might consider the approach articulated in Simplex.15 A flexible variance standard allows municipalities to make modest adjustments to the detailed application of a regulatory scheme when a zoning ordinance imposes significant burdens on an individual, and relief can be fashioned without harm to the neighbors, the community, or the overall purposes of the ordinance. See David W. Owens, The Zoning Variance: Reappraisal and Recommendations for Reform of a Much -Maligned Tool, 29 Colum. J. Envtl. L. 279, 317 (2004) ("If the variance power is to be used both as a 14 These standards were subsequently codified. See N.H. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 674:33 (Supp. 2009). 15 The factors set forth in Simplex are not dissimilar to the factors we embraced in Stadsvold in construing "practical difficulties." See 754 N.W.2d at 331 (discussing factors for consideration under the "practical difficulties" standard). 19 constitutional safeguard and as a tool for flexibility, zoning enabling acts and local ordinances should be amended to delineate these two purposes and set different standards for each. The failure to make such a distinction underlies much of the past controversy regarding variances. Courts and commentators have traditionally viewed the variances as the former—a very limited tool for avoidance of constitutional infirmity in extraordinary cases. Most variance petitions, and consequently most board of adjustment decision- making, have viewed the variances as the latter—a tool to provide flexible implementation rather than constitutional inhnnity.") We recognize that the Rowell "reasonable manner" standard represents a longstanding interpretation of the undue hardship standard in Minn. Stat. § 462.357, subd. 6, and that Minnesota municipalities have been granting variances under the "reasonable manner" standard for many years. We also recognize that our decision will result in a restriction on a municipality's authority to grant variances as compared with the "reasonable manner" standard. But whatever value we may find in a more flexible standard, particularly with regard to area variances, we cannot ignore the plain language of the statute. See State v. Peck, 773 N.W.2d 768, 773 (Minn. 2009) ("We have no opportunity to ignore part of the legislature's definition."). We are unable to interpret the statutory language to mean anything other than what the text clearly says—that to obtain a municipal variance, an applicant must establish that "the property in question cannot be put to a reasonable use if used under conditions allowed by the official controls." Minn. Stat. § 462.357, subd. 6. Therefore, unless and until the legislature takes action to provide a more flexible variance standard for municipalities, we are constrained by the 20 language of the statute to hold that a municipality does not have the authority to grant a variance unless the applicant can show that her property cannot be put to a reasonable use without the variance. Based on the plain language of the statute, and our precedent interpreting language similar to "undue hardship" in the context of a local government's authority to grant variances, we reject the "reasonable manner" standard from Rowell. We hold that the City inaccurately applied the first factor in the "undue hardship" definition of Minn. Stat. § 462.357, subd. 6. Our resolution of this issue makes it unnecessary for us to resolve the other issues Krummenacher raises on appeal. Having concluded that the City applied the law incorrectly, we must address the remedy. In cases where a variance has been denied, the general rule is that "[i]f the zoning authority's decision is arbitrary and capricious, the standard remedy is that the court orders the permit to be issued." Stadsvold, 754 N.W.2d at 332; see also In re Livingood, 594 N.W.2d 889, 895 (Minn. 1999). But there is an exception to this general rule "when the zoning authority's decision is premature and not necessarily arbitrary." Stadsvold, 752 N.W.2d at 333 (internal quotation omitted). For example, in Earthburners, Inc. v. County of Carlton, where it was unclear whether the zoning authority had applied the relevant statutory provisions, we remanded to the zoning authority for "renewed consideration" under the appropriate standard. 513 N.W.2d 460, 463 (Minn. 1994). 21 Similarly, in Stadsvold, we remanded a variance application to the county board because the board applied the wrong standard: The Board, using an "adequate hardship" standard, did not consider practical difficulties. The Stadsvolds argue the Board's decision was therefore arbitrary and capricious. The Board did not have the benefit of our holding in this case regarding "practical difficulties." We cannot tell whether the Board's decision was arbitrary and capricious. Therefore, remand is required to allow the Board to consider the Stadsvolds' variance application in light of our holding that applications for area variances are to be considered using the "practical difficulties" standard in Minn. Stat. § 394.27, subd. 7. Stadsvold, 754 N.W.2d at 332. Our precedent therefore supports the conclusion that a property owner is entitled to have his or her variance application heard under the correct legal standard, which supports a remand in this case. A remand is particularly appropriate in this case because a property owner seeking to utilize her property should not be penalized due to the City's application of the wrong legal standard. We reverse and remand the matter to the City for renewed consideration of Liebeler's variance request in light of our rejection of the "reasonable manner" standard from Rowell. Reversed and remanded. DIETZEN, J., took no part in the consideration or decision of this case. 22 State Supreme Court Narrowly Interprets Variance Authority LEAGUE aF MINNESOTA. CITIES State Supreme Curt Narrowly Interprets Variance Authority Pagel of 2 The court ruling holds cities to a much stricter standard, which considerably limits variance opportunities. (Published Jul 21, 2010) The Minnesota Supreme Court recently issued a decision that changed the longstanding interpretation of the statutory standard for granting zoning variances. In the case of Krummenacher v. City of Minnetonka, the Supreme Court narrowly interpreted the definition of "undue hardship" and held that the "reasonable use" prong of the "undue hardship" test is not whether the proposed use is reasonable, but rather whether there is reasonable use in the absence of the variance. This is a much stricter standard, which considerably limits variance opportunities. The decision The City of Minnetonka issued a variance to a residential property owner permitting the expansion of a legal, non -conforming garage. The city, relying on a 1989 Court of Appeals decision, concluded that the grant of the variance was reasonable. The city's decision was challenged by an adjacent property owner. Both the District Court and the Minnesota Court of Appeals agreed that the city's decision was appropriate. On June 24 the Minnesota Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals and found the city's decision impermissible. The Supreme Court examined the statutory definition of "undue hardship" in Minnesota Statutes, section 462.357, and concluded that city authority to issue a variance is limited to those very rare cases where the property cannot be put to "a reasonable use" without the variance. This establishes a high threshold for both the city and the property owner when considering variance requests. The Supreme Court reviewed the parallel county authority that allows for a variance in situations of "practical difficulties" or "hardship." The Supreme Court found that the city authority was more limited because it did not contain the "practical difficulties" provision. The court explicitly recognized that it was changing a longstanding standard that cities have relied on in considering variance requests. In particular, the court specifically rejected a 1989 Court of Appeals interpretation of the phrase "undue hardship," which allowed for the grant of a variance in circumstances where the "property owner would like to use the property in a reasonable manner that is prohibited by the ordinance." The Supreme Court stated that "unless and until the Legislature takes action to provide a more flexible variance standard for municipalities, we are constrained by the language of the statute to hold that a municipality does not have the authority to grant a variance unless the applicant can show that her property cannot be put to a reasonable use without the variance." Impact of the decision Because of the far-reaching nature of the decision, there are probably at least four responses that cities should think about—at least until a legislative correction can be achieved: . The city should re-evaluate the criteria that it has historically used in deciding whether or not to grant http://www.Imc.org/page/l/varianceruling.jsp 7/22/2010 State Supreme Court Narrowly Interprets Variance Authority Page 2 of 2 a variance. The Supreme Court's decision limits a city's discretion. The ruling limits the authority to circumstances where the property owner can demonstrate that there is not a reasonable use of the property absent the variance grant. In circumstances where the city council believes the grant of a variance is appropriate, the city should take great care to make detailed finding describing why the grant of the variance is necessary to provide the property owner with a reasonable use of his or her property. What constitutes a reasonable use of property is not defined and may differ depending on the unique circumstances of the property and attributes of various communities. . If a city routinely grants variances, this may be an indicator that it may want to re-examine its zoning code to ensure that standards, setbacks, uses, and other requirements are consistent with the city council's current vision for the community. In short, the court's decision should act as an encouragement to cities to review their land use practices. . Cities may want to build greater flexibility into their existing conditional use permit, planned unit development, and setback regulations to explicitly afford greater latitude to allow "variance -like" approvals under the zoning code. For instance, a city might establish alternative setback requirements to allow for construction that is consistent with neighborhood attributes. Legislative action The restrictive court decision has caused a number of League members to call for a legislative response. The decision, its impact, and a possible legislative response will be discussed in the League's Improving Service Delivery Policy Committee this summer. It is anticipated that the League will support a legislative change to provide cities with greater flexibility—perhaps something similar to the county authority. Read the current issue of the Cities Bulletin Your LMC Resource Contact Tom Grundhoefer General Counsel (651) 281-1266 or (800) 925-1122 tgrundho@lmc.org Copyright 02010 League of Minnesota Cities, 145 University Ave. W, Saint Paul, MN 55103-2044 1 Phone: (651) 281-1200 1 Toll -Free: (800) 925-1122 http://www.lmc.org/page/l/varianceruling.jsp 7/22/2010 CHAPTER 23 ADMINISTRATION - VARIANCES AND APPEALS SECTION: 23-1: Board of Adjustment and Appeals 23-2: Planning Commission and City Staff Reports 23-3: Finding of Planning Commission and City Staff 23-4: Non -Economic Hardship 23-5: Appeals 23-6: Procedures 23-7: Lapse of Variance or Appeal 23-8: Performance Bond 23-1: BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AND APPEALS: The Planning Commission shall act as a Board of Adjustment and Appeals. 23-2: PLANNING COMMISSION AND CITY STAFF REPORTS: All written reports and recommendations to the Planning Commission serving as the Board of Adjustment and Appeals from the City staff shall be entered in and made part of the permanent written record of the Board's meeting. 23-3: FINDING OF PLANNING COMMISSION AND CITY STAFF: In considering all requests for variance or appeal and taking subsequent action, the City staff and the Planning Commission, serving as the Board of Adjustment and Appeals, shall make a finding of fact that the proposed action will not: [A] Impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent property. [B] Unreasonably increase the congestion in the public street. [C] Increase the danger of fire or endanger the public safety. [D] Unreasonably diminish or impair established property values within the neighborhood or in any other way be contrary to the intent of this ordinance. 23-4: NON -ECONOMIC HARDSHIP: The Planning Commission, serving as the Board of Adjustment and Appeals, shall, after receiving the written reports and recommendations of the City staff, make a finding of fact and decide upon requests for a variance by approving or denying the same, in part or in whole, where it is alleged by the applicant that a non -economic hardship in the reasonable use of a specific parcel of property exists. A hardship that by some reason of narrowness, shallowness, or shape of a specific parcel of property or lot existing and of record upon the effective date of this ordinance or that by reason of exceptional topographic or water conditions of a specific parcel of land or lot, the strict application of the terms of this ordinance would result in exceptional MONTICELLO ZONING ORDINANCE 23/1 difficulties when utilizing the parcel or lot in a manner customary and legally permissible within the district in which said lot or parcel is located, or would create undue hardship upon the owner of such lot or parcel that the owner of another lot or parcel within the same district would not have if he were to develop his lot or parcel in a manner proposed by the applicant. Should the Planning Commission find that the conditions outlined heretofore apply to the proposed lot or parcel, the Planning Commission may grant a variance from the strict application of this ordinance so as to relieve such difficulties or hardships to the degree considered reasonable, providing such relief may be granted without impairing the intent of this zoning ordinance. 23-5: APPEALS: The Planning Commission, serving as the Board of Adjustment and Appeals, shall, after receiving the written report and recommendation of the City staff, make a finding of fact and make a decision on appeals where it is alleged by the applicant that error has occurred in any order, requirement, decision, or determination made by the Building Inspector in the enforcement of this ordinance. However, said appeal shall be filed no later than ninety (90) days after the applicant has received a written notice from the Building Inspector or said appeal shall be considered void. 23-6: PROCEDURES: [A] Request for a variance or appeal shall be filed with the Zoning Administrator on an official application form. Such application shall be accompanied by a fee as outlined in Chapter 26 of this ordinance. This fee shall not be refunded. Such application shall also be accompanied by written and graphic materials necessary for the explanation of the request. [B] Upon receiving said application, the Zoning Administrator shall refer the application, along with all related information, to the City Planning Commission. [C] The Planning Commission shall consider the variance or appeal at its next regular meeting unless the filing date falls within fifteen (15) days of said meeting; in such a case, the request would be placed on the agenda at the regular meeting following the next regular meeting. The Zoning Administrator shall refer said request along with all related information to the Planning Commission at least ten (10) days prior to the regular meeting. This meeting shall be a public hearing, notice of which shall be mailed at least ten (10) days prior to the meeting to all owners of property, according to the Wright County assessment records, within three hundred fifty feet (3501) of the property to which the variance relates. When a variance request pertains only to yard setback requirements, only abutting property owners need be notified. Notices sent shall also indicate the appeal process in Section 23-6, Subdivisions [G] through [I]. [D] Failure of a property owner to receive said notice shall not invalidate any such proceedings as set forth within this ordinance. MONTICELLO ZONING ORDINANCE 23/2 [E] The request shall be referred to the City staff for a report and recommendation to be presented to the Planning Commission. A preliminary draft of the City staff s report and rec ommendati on shall be given to the City's Planning Commission at least ten (10) days prior to the meeting at which said report and recommendations are to be presented. The final report and recommendations of the City staff are to be entered and made part of the permanent written record of the Planning Commission meeting. [F] The Zoning Administrator shall notify the originator of the variance request or appeal of the Planning Commission, serving as the Board of Adjustment and Appeals, decision in writing. [G] Decisions of the Planning Commission are final unless an appeal is filed within five (5) days of the decision with the Zoning Administrator. [H] Appeals of the decision of the Planning Commission, acting as the Board of Adjustment and Appeals, are made to the City Council and must be in writing stating the basis for appeal. [I] Such an appeal shall be placed on the City Council meeting agenda for a public hearing within thirty (30) days after it is received, and notice of an appeal shall be published in the official newspaper at least four (4) days prior to the hearing. 23-7: LAPSE OF VARIANCE OR APPEAL: Whenever, within one (1) year after granting a variance or appeal, the work as permitted by the variance or appeal shall not have been completed, then such variance or appeal shall become null and void unless a petition for extension of time in which to complete the work has been granted by the Planning Commission. Such extension shall be requested in writing and filed with the Zoning Administrator at least thirty (30) days before the expiration of the original variance or appeal. There shall be no charge for the filing of such petition. The request for extension shall state facts showing a good faith attempt to complete the work permitted in the variance or appeal. Such petition shall be presented to the Planning Commission for a decision. 23-8: RECONSIDERATION: Whenever an application for a variance has been considered and denied by the Planning Commission or City Council, a similar application for a variance affecting substantially the same property shall not be considered again by the Planning Commission or the City Council for at least six months from the date of its denial; and a subsequent application affecting substantially the same property shall likewise not be considered again by the Planning Commission or City Council for an additional six months from the date of the second denial unless the decision to reconsider such a matter is made by the Planning Commission. If such a request is denied by the Planning Commission, the applicant may appeal this decision to the City Council. MONTICELLO ZONING ORDINANCE 23/3