Loading...
Planning Commission Agenda 12-06-2005 . . .. ., AGENDA MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION TUESDAY, DECEMBER 6th, 2005 6:00 PM Comm issioners: Dick Frie, Rod Dragsten, Lloyd Hilgart, William Spartz, and Sandy Suchy Council Liaison: Glen Posusta Staff: JeffO'NeilJ, Fred Patch, Steve Grittman - NAC, and Angela Schumann 1. Call to order. 2. Approval of the minutes of the regular Planning Commission meeting of Tuesday, November 1st, 2005. 3. Consideration of adding items to the agenda. 4. Citizen comments. 5. Introduction of new city staff. 6. Public Hearing- Consideration of a request for Variance from the Monticello Zoning ordinance to allow an 11,760 square f(Jot detached accessory structure in an 1-2 district. Applicant: Wallboard, Inc. 7. Public Hearing - Consideration of a request for Rezoning from PZM (Performance Zone Mixed) to B-3 (Highway Business) and consideration ofa request for a Zoning Text Amendment to allow a Tire Sales and Service as a Conditional Use within a PZM district. Applicant: Kean of Monticello 8. Public Hearing - Consideration of a request fi>r Rezoning tfom PZM (Performance Zone Mixed) to B-3 (Highway Husiness) or B-4 (Regional Business). Applicant: MMC Land Company 9. Public Hearing - Consideration of a request for Development Stage PUD for a retail/commercial development on Monticel1o Travel Center 2"J Addition. Applicant: Mielke/Loch Retail Development I O. Public I leaJ-ing -. Consideration of a request for Preliminary Plat and Variance to the R-I Zoning District Standards fiJr lot width for Pine View, a 5-unit single-family development. Applicant: West Side Market 11. Public Hearing - Consideration of a request for Preliminary Plat and an Amendment to PUD for Poplar Hill, a 298-unit single-family residential subdivision. Applicant: Insignia Development ] 2. Public Hearing - Consideration of an Amendment to the Monticello Zoning Ordinance f(>r setbacks in the 1- J (Light Industrial) and 1-2 (Heavy Industrial) Zoning Districts. Applicant: City of Monticello 13. Public Hearing - Consideration of a request f(>r an interim lIse permit for the relocation of a billboard within the River Street right of way. City of Monticello J 4. Adjourn. . MINUTES MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 1,2005 8:00 PM Commissioners Present: Dick Frie, Rod Dragsten, Lloyd Hilgart, William Spartz Commissioners Absent: Sandy Suchy Council Liaison Present: Glen Posusta Staff Present: Fred Patch, Angela Schumann, and Steve Grittman ~ N AC I. Call to order. Chainnan Frie called the meeting to order at 8:00 PM and declared a quorum, noting the absence of Commissioner Suchy and Deputy City Adnlinistrator O'Neill. 2. Approval ofthe minutes of the regular Planning Commission meeting held Tuesday, October 4th, 2005. . MOTION BY COMMISSIONER SPARTZ TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF TUESDA Y, OCTOBER 4th, 2005. MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER DRAGSTEN. MOTION CARRIED, 4-0. 3. Consideration of adding items to the agenda. NONE. 4. Citizen comments. NONE. 5. Introduction of new city staff. Chairman Frie noted that the introductions of new City staH would be tabled to the December meeting due to the special time of the Novelnber meeting. 6. Continued Public Hearing - Consideration to amend the Monticello Zoning Ordinance relating to Open and Outdoor Storage. Applicant: City of Monticello . Grittman explained that a meeting ofthe open and outdoor storage ad hoc comlnittee had been scheduled for Tuesday, November 81h, to continue the discussion as previously requested by the Commission. Chairman Frie inquired about the time ofthe meeting. Grittman replied that the meeting would be . held at 2:30. Chariman Frie asked if staff would recommend that the Commission be in attendance. Grittman stated that while staff did not have a particular recommendation, it is beneficial for members to hear the discussion themselves. MOTION BY COMMISSIONER DRAGSTEN TO CONTINUE THE PUBLIC HEARING REGARDING OPEN AND OUTDOOR STORAGE TO 'THE JANUARY MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION. MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER HILGART. MOTION CARRIED, 4-0. 7. Public Hearing - Consideration ofa Request for rezoning from A-O (Agriculture-Open Space) to R-I A (Sing,le-Family Residential). Applicant: Shadow Creek Corporation Grittman provided the staff report, explaining that the rezoning action represents the last piece of platting process. Typically, the final rezoning of a parcel is approved by the City Council concurrent with the approval of the final plat for the appropriate phase. Grittman stated that the rezoning is from A-O to R-I A and noted that if the plat is in conformance with that zoning designation. Dragsten asked it~ in that case, it would make sense to withhold the rezoning by Council until the final plat. Schumann indicated that the final plat for the 41h Addition had already been approved. She stated that the rezoning for the entire plat of Carlisle Village was previously considered by the Commission as part ofthe original preliminary planning process. However, duc to an incorrect legal dcscription of the parcel on the original notice, the Planning Commission is asked to open the appropriate public hcaring and providc a rccommcndation. . Chairman Frie opened the public hearing. Hearing no further comment, Chainnan Frie closed the public hearing. Chairman Frie asked Council member Posusta to react to any concerns about drainage and erosion control, as that had bcen an itemmcntioncd in prcvious Councilmcctings rclated to this plat. Frie asked if they would influence the decision. Posusta noted that the erosion issues were in a different area of the plat. Posusta noted that the Council's concerns had to do with the condition ofthe devclopmcnt. Posusta asked Patch to provide greater detail on that item. Patch updated the Commission, providing history regarding Carlisle Village. Patch explained that there is clay soil on the site and as it beCOlnes saturated, it becomes difficult to clean. He also noted that the R-2A sites are tight and difficult to work in. Residents living in the development are also affccted by this problem. Patch indicated that the Building Department is changing the way that it is handling erosion control; becoming much more restrictive in terms of builder rcquirements. Patch commented that there are 10 stop work orders out, which require that erosion control to be in order prior to further construction. T'he developer is also being held to more stringent requirements. Frie indicated that as a Council member had noted the state of the development, he wanted to bring the Planning Commission up-to-date. MOTION BY COMMISSIONER HILGART TO RECOMMEND APPROV AL OF THE REZONING, BASED ON A FINDING THAT THE REZONING MEETS 'fHE INTENT OF THE CITY'S COMPREHENSIVE LAND USE PLAN FOR THE AREA. . MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER DRAGSTEN. MOTION CARRIED, 4-0. 2 . 8. Consideration of a Request for rezoning from PZM (Performance Zone Mixed) to 13-3 (Highwav Business). Applicant: Kean of Monticello Grittman provided an overview of the staff repol1, discussing the nwnerous sites involved in the rezoning. Grittman noted a correction on the acreage amount from what had been listed in the staff report. The area is currently zoned PZM and the applicant is seeking a rezoning to B-3, which is intended to allow more motor-vehicle oriented activities. Griuman noted October's consideration of rezoning for the MMC parcel and the subsequent recommendation to deny. Grittman explained the differing purposes of the two districts. He stated that staff's concern is that in consideration ofthe surrounding uses, it seems as though the PZM designation is the best district for this property. Grittman stated that it is staff's view that the PZM zoning district, if not designed for these areas, is ee11ainly appropriate for these types of areas. Grittman stated that it is the applicant's intent to establish an automobile service use on the site, which is not allowed as either a permitted use or by CUP in a PZM. However, Grittman noted that there is an overlap in SOlne types of uses between the two districts. For example, Inost retail strip center uses would be allowed by CUP in a PZM. In summary, primarily based on the purpose statements for the two districts, Grittman said that staff bel ieves the current zoning designation is appropriate and docs not recommend the rezoning requested. Hilgart asked whether the automobile sales use currently on-site was grandfathered in. Griuman confirmed it had been there for some time. Grittlnan stated that he believed it Inay have pre-dated the PZM district . Chairman Frie opened the public hearing. Maxine Lilja, 149 Riverview Drive, a resident ofthe townhouses on Riverview Drive, addressed the Commission. She asked Grittman to explain further what a conditional use permit would allow. Griuman and Posusta responded that CUP uses could be allowed under certain conditions. Dean Hoglund and Ken Schwartz, representing Kean of Monticello, spoke to the Commission. Hoglund stated that they have a business who would like to purchase a property within the proposed rezoning area to build a retail strip center. Hoglund indicated that one ofthe uses would be a tire store. 1I0glund referred to some ofthe site's previous uses up until about 1987. Hoglund stated that since that time, it has been used car sales. Hoglund eXplained that when they built the townhouses, they were built facing north, away from the automobile sales use. The attached garages for the units, as well as detached garages, separate the two land uses. Hoglund indicated that those create what he thinks is a good buffer. In f~lct, Hoglund indicated that the car wash and convenience store may be more intense than what the prospective buyer would like to build. Hoglund stated that he feels that B-3 is the proper zoning with new interchange and traffic light. Frie asked Hoglund to clarify what parcels would be included in the request for rezoning, noting the letter of suppol1 from the bank. Frie asked if the intent is to rezone over 6 acres. Hoglund confirmed that acreage. . Lilja asked the applicants to explain what area would be converted to an autocenter. Schwartz stated that it would be the used car lot and where the big white house is. Lilja asked about entrances and exits to the site, noting it is already a high traffic area. IIoglund stated that the proposed uses would not be as high traffic as the convenience store or car ,., .) . wash. Lilja then asked ifthe service road would stay and be used as the site entrance. Grittman confirmed. Lilja stated that the garage shouldn't be considered a buffer, as they do not belong to the applicants. Hoglund noted that they would not be used to meet the buffer yard requirement. Lilja asked about buffer yard requirements. hie clarified that if the rezone were approved, it would call for extensive buffering between the uses which could include berms, shrubs, and trees. Lilja asked if it would include fences. Frie stated that it may. Frie asked Iloglund if the used car lot would be removed. Hoglund confirmed. Frie noted that there is a concern that there are too many cars on the lot currently, in violation of what was approved. Frie stated he bel ieve twenty cars were approved. Frie asked ifthe house would be removed. Hoglund confirmed that it would be. Frie stated that if the rezoning were approved, the house removed and the auto sales ceased, there is no guarantee that the proposed tire sales use would occur. Hoglund noted that an application to allow the lube had been requested and denied previously. Frie stated that it seems that the request is being made to accommodate the auto repair facility. Hoglund and Schwartz confirmed. Walter Albold, 149 Riverview Drive, Unit I, noted that this change would also allow restaurants. Dragsten commented that restaurants would also be allowed in a PZM. Dragsten explained that there would be a process to follow for any conditional use permit, and even if the applicants did not need a CUP. Lilja asked if there are differences between auto repair and other uses in terms of the districts. Grittman explained that in the B-3, the tire sales and repair use would be allowed by CUP. It would not be allowed in the PZM at all. . Frie stated that the applicants are aware that full site plans for the proposed use would need to be submitted, even if rezoned. Scott Zierden, 220 Mississippi Drive, inquired whether the applicants could turn the car wash into a tire sales facility. Hoglund clarified that their prospective buyer is looking at building a retail strip center with the tire store as one user. Zierden asked whether the existing tree line would stay. Schwartz stated that they are a natural butler and would stay. Schwartz stated that outside of residential area to the north, when looking at the 6 acre site, one can make a case that it already fits B-3 better than PZM with what is there or proposed. hie asked about the MMC property zoning. Grittman noted that they are coming back for a rezoning request. Lilja commented that it seems like there is a lot of pressure to rezone for one potential buyer. Hoglund noted that the proposed building would be located close to Highway 75 with a large rear setback. Zierden commented on children in the area, noting that increased trattic would be a safety factor. Zierden conceded to the property owner's right to be in business, but conlll1ented safety. Zierden stated that the frontage road is not very well paved and is narrow. Posusta noted that fronting businesses would need to pay for that. GriUman clarified the frontage road is Halt Roulevard. Hearing no further comment, Chairman Frie closed the public hearing. . Ililgart asked what the reasoning is to rezone the gas station area. Grittman stated that the whole area was considered, due to the fact that if one parcel was rezoned, it could be spot- zoning. Hilgart stated that this request seems similar to the B-3 request from MMC. 4 . Commenting on the potential for higher traffic, 11ilgart stated that he is hesitant to allow B-3. Frie noted that the City would have more control if they left it PZM. Hilgart stated that in order to allow the tire use within the PZM, the City would have to go back and indicate that auto sales would be allowed in a PZM. Grittman confirmed, stating that the applicants could instead seck an amendment to the ordinance to allow that type of use within a PZM. Hilgart stated he was more open to that idea. Dragsten commented on the staflreport listing comparable uses between the two districts, noting that most B-3 uses would blend well to the area, with the exception of perhaps hotels and motels. He cited that at the last meeting, the Commission recommended B-4 rezoning next to St. Ben's, and that was close to residential. Dragsten also referred to the Ryan retail site directly across I Iighway 75. Frie asked Dragsten's opinion of rezoning such a small site. Dragsten stated that his bclicf is that makes more sense to rezone. Spartz indicated that he was concerned about rezoning the entire 6 acres. Eventually, this area may be more conducive to B-3 with the new development. However, he is concerned about traffic on the scrvice road. Spartz stated that he would rather look at it on a case-by- case through the conditional use process. Posllsta referred to the citizen's COlmnents. Posusta stated that the lay of the land will dictate that the use will not be pushed back any further than it needs to be. In rcgards to redoing the road, the businesses would pay for the majority of the upgrade, ifnot all of the road. . Frie asked Grittman whether when staff presented its original recommendation, was it based on the 3.1 or 6 acres. Grittman stated that his original understanding was based on the 3.1 acres. Frie asked Grittman if he would retract his recommendation against rezoning based on a larger area. Grittman stated that he would not, as the concern is still the proximity to residential neighborhoods. For example, on the tire and battery use, the largest problem is air wrenches, and tools, which are a noise issue. Frie asked how many townhouses or condos are in the area. I ,ilja stated that this request would affect 30 units. Frie asked if the residents present are speaking for themselves or for all residents. Lilja stated that they have notified residents by letter and stated that she did not find anyone in favor of these changes. They all think this type of operation also entails large delivery trucks, and constant traffic. Lilja stated that she believes that the rezoning would create a busier area than the current use. Frie asked if residents are concerned about the rezoning itself or what is proposed to go in. Residents stated that their concern is what is proposed to go in. MOTION BY COMMISSIONER DRAGSTEN TO RECOMMEND APPROV AL OF TI IE REZONING FROM PZM TO B-3, BASED ON ^ FINDING THAT THE PROPOSED B-3 HIGIIWAY BUSINESS DISTRICT, IS THE MOST SUITABLE ZONING DISTRICT FOR TIlE SITE. MOTION FAILS FOR LACK OF SECOND. Chairman Frie stated that the reason he did not second the motion was due to thc likclihood of a 2-2 vote. Dragsten noted again the rezoning near St. Henry's as a similar case. . Hilgart stated that he doesn't have a problem with a tire store, but he does with a potential hotel/motel and perhaps even a restaurant, which would potentially create more traffic. 5 Fric asked about the process for permitted uses. Grittman confirmed that permitted used go to City staff to confirm zoning, and then are subject only to building permit. . Frie noted that with the PZM, there is more flexibility and more control for the Commission. Frie inquired about an amendment to the district. Grittman noted that another public hearing would be needed for that request. Iloglund suggested continuing until sth Commissioner was available. Schwartz asked ifthey could table. Frie confirmed that they could do so. Patch noted that the applicants could apply for an amendment to PZM, so both could be held at next meeting. Lilja stated that it seems as though Commission is trying to enable this use. Dragsten stated that something is going to happen on that property as a matter of economics. Lilja commented that it doesn't appear to matter that 30 residents are opposed. Dragsten noted the value of land and stated that the applicants arc looking to change the land use to accommodate the value of the property. MOTION BY COMMISSIONER DRAGSTEN TO CONTINUE THE HEARING ON THE REZONING REQUEST TO TI-IE DECEMBER MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION. MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER HILGART. MOTION CARRIED, 4-0. Posusta commented that because of uses across I lighway 75, the property taxes for these parcels will increase, forcing this type of development. . 9. Adiourn. MOTION BY COMMISSIONER DRAGSTEN TO ADJOURN. MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER SPARTZ. MOTION CARRlED, 4-0. . 6 . . . Planning Commission Agenda - 12/06/05 6. Public Hearim~: Consideration of a request for a Variance from the Zonin!! Ordinance to allow a 11.760 square foot detached accessory buildin!! in an 1-2 District. Applicant: Wallboard. Inc. (NAC) REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND The applicant is seeking a variance to permit the construction of an accessory building that would significantly increase the accessory building area beyond the maximum 30% regulation. The 30% regulation relating to pcrmitted accessory uses is outlined within the ordinance as follows: Commercial or business buildings and structuresfor a use accessory to the principal use, hut such use shall not exceed thirty (30) percent qlthe gross floor .space oj'the principal use. This type of regulation is intended to accomplish two primary goals. First, accessory buildings are often granted leniency in several zoning regulations, including setback regulations, how parking standards apply to them, building materials rcquirements, and others. Second, distinguishing between principal and accessory uses can be important for certain uses. Because the City's purpose for providing for industrial development usually includes economic activity and job creation, there is often an interest in promoting an employmcnt-creating principal use, and limiting uses that do not create employment, such as cold storage. As such, the 30% threshold rcgulation is a common component of a City's set of industrial zoning performance standards. To justify a variancc, the applicant must show (and the Planning Commission must find) that a special condition exists, unique to the property, that creates a hardship in putting the property to reasonable use under the basic zoning regulations. In addition, the special condition may not be economic in nature, nor may it be created by the owner. In this case, no such condition is apparent. The applicant has options that would be allowable without a variance. For one, in this particular case, the applicant has the opportunity to expand the principal building. The size ofthe principal building on an industrial parcel is limited only by setback regulations, and the ability to provide parking supply fen' the building or that size. The applicant could also combinc an expansion to the principal building with additional accessory building space since thc larger principal building would create a higher threshold for accessory building size. Moreover, the applicant has only recently occupied the site, and as a parcel and building that conform to the zoning ordinance, there are no conditions that would have arisen that would create a new hardship in complying with the general ordinance terms. Finally, the most common purpose for constructing accessory building space as opposed to principal building expansion relates to lower costs of construction. As an Planning Commission Agenda - 12/06/05 . economic rationale, this type of situation is specifically excluded from variance consideration by the language of both the Zoning Ordinance and State Statute. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS Decision 1 : Variance from Accessory Building Size. 1. Motion to approve the Variance, based on a finding that the applicant has demonstrated a unique hardship condition necessitating that to put the property to reasonable use, the variance to accessory building size must be granted. 2. Motion to deny the Variance, based on a linding that the applicant currently has reasonable use of the property without a variance, that the variance is grounded in economic concerns, and that other expansions can be constructed on the property without variance. STAFF RECOMMENDATION . Stail recommends denial of the variance, based on the findings noted in Alternative 2 above. SUP])ORTING DATA A. Aerial Map B. Site Survey and Plan C. Application Narrative D. Variance Ordinance . 2 . http:// 156.99 .28 . 84/serv let/com.esri .esrimap.Esrimap ?ServiceN ame=CustomParcel&Client V ersion=3.1 &... 12/1/2005 SITE '. ~'<"~~.~"~ UTILI:. MOUN rAIN ELEM EN TAllY MONrlCELLO HIGH SCHOOL STREET ~0l- \ NE. 85\M STRf . LIMITS t/ I I CURRENT ZONING: o Agricultural/Open Space o Residential o Business Industrial RI PZM 1-1 fie, (CHECK APPROPRIATE BOX & CIRCLE APPROPRIATE DISTRICT) AO RIA Rl RlA R3 BI ~ B3 B4 I.IA '-!.D R4 CCD R.PUD PZR FOR ZONING MAP AMENDMENT Proposed Zoning: FOR SIMPLE SUBDIVISION Size of Parcel to Be Divided: Total Acres in Parcel to be Platted: FOR SUBDIVISION PLA T ONLY Proposed Name of Plat: Name of Firm Preparing Subdivision Plat: Address: City: Primary Contact Name: Day Phone No.: State: Zip Code: E-Mail Address: FAX No.: DESCRIBE REQUEST: m'~'~_~"""'_""""~''''''~___~~_ ~~ iV~ q.jK.\~$ '~r c... ()Cfl-;"';ce ~ ,i t'lC'1'e4~ CJ.,Jr pe~r.Q(\ ~ o~ ~i-\V"'-Oi'1 S:+~.;c~~~,.f... C;U~~oI1 ShlI.H\vre. 'TvCV"" 3c/:6 Jp'1or9:b O-.Ji pr\Y'-"4:) bkis I~ (u(a..(J'~ ... 5 '-IW8'P - t.vQ ~~ p., b/d.~ 1\I)bq,K t~t- j~ ~30.tbi 4N- &if€.... CC)V\:S~Ji.XI-,~'i q bldf) ,it,q.I-,) IS4)(60whl'<..~i) . rue eucre\/(\ \';'M:~ -W-'L ('\lO..ild hK'L~1- bld~,-hb 196;"60.:;., ..,ddff~~'\'1'/ ~S.;c,1:;6,_l?r8<fe "p,,,'{1"'-<. q}/o...,:;J:k .3:>. -QYX\ UP"'/) <'pf'{(..\)<'d (l(xf ~;v'3 -cCl/l"5)-.r~ nt"l<J1f....tv IF'2)<'YO !J1d:J "f" a...t:ld{h/-,c","~ J% I FOR VARIANCE ONLY: Please identify the unique property conditions or hardships that justify granting of a variance. (1.,: C \,-"<::f"..A.., j:!. if) ,tk (t'V\1<",r ,,",fik :1'- L ~ fr,'c-l- -,ttv..~(~.(L bfcfs 'J.gre ffrI&}1 1'(~"J~j,.""C. ..fe ,-fk t;'~+ i U'~ ,~ Ffrtf'(~ fl',^< .-6 ,-ft-.,c_ .?cvf1.-.. , CV.. Npr'f6~i~ ANlC4,'lS/Sf.s t:~ ~'(9;1lt;:r c:(it(~L ~11cwt?(\'o"1 "1 n ;t J,f\- b~r....'" - 0:.; r € I'n>>- ..c.'c<~q"...;; ......fJ I t1I- - "''''''Vb, i ....'~t"jfJ&'{' ie!, '!kc'~. blc.~5 l..V"vlc~ I>c.. Ci<:",J,1tv.~l..JI~ ~$ ;....5 .'b 1~f- ,1'JClvs+,r;",/ fk'..j(~1'/tw'14.J"tJ,r~t,oIb)oc/(.qn'jJ,,)kf:d~ ctAb.1 ek",a"d we-\J\~ b.e"'ofl~+v",,(t-t'd Q; hl:'d N,rLWfJ"d ~i/I(e-_t,;: JIt'c.h ("I 1~~cL/J6" . be h:,,!C.\ '1~ '~<2.. "f-,1kf['i~ olc":;.'1'lh-s t/o::r~I>'\!';.~t""""i.A(~ 9Jllk! uS ,i'~'Ctf4 -t.-11t:iY11d,.,h.,S(' cJ~ ~1cI4'bk h APPLICA TIONS WILL ONLY BE ACCEPTED WITH ALL REQUIRED SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS - - -- - - - ~". ---- ~ ~ ~~ .~"~ "" ~- - - - . . . - - -., , j FOn. OFFICE USE ONLY I DEADLINE FOR AGENCY ACTION o 60 Days: o 120 Days: .10 Waiver Received: o NOTICE SENT: HO\/ ,- 7 ?CO~5 i,_/ DA TE APPLICA TION REC~IY~J:): "...' , .",.~.,,,u._,,,,.., ,'~" ..~." .^,_,~..,.,m,.."_ !' FEE RECEIPT NUMBER: APPLICA TION DEEMED COMPLETE BY: DATE: CASE ASSIGNMENT: . . . CHAPTER 23 ,(DO ADMINISTRA TION - V ARIANCES 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 oflight 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 ofland 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 MONTICELLO ZONING ORDINANCE 23/1 . 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] Applications for a variance from the terms ofthis ordinance shall be due no later than four (4) weeks plus one (1) day prior to the Planning Commission meeting at which the item is to be considered. Applications that are deemed incomplete as of that date shall be returned to the applicant in accordance with the requirements of Minn. Stat. S 15.99. The Zoning Administrator shall refer said request along with all related information to the Planning Commission at least five (5) 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 (350') 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]. (#426,7/11/05) . [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 recommendation shall be given to the City's PI arming Commission at least five (5) 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. (#426, 7/11/05) . [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 ofthe Plarming 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. [1] 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 Plarming 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 Planning Commission Agenda - 12/06/05 7. Public Hcarin!!: Consideration of a request for a Rezonin!! from PZM to B-3 and consideration of a request for a Zonin!! Text Amendment to allow a Tie Sales and Service as a Conditional Use Permit in the PZM District. Applicant: Kean of Monticello. (NAC) REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND The applicants had previously requested a rezoning for property along the north side of County Highway 75, west of the MacCarlund Plaza retail center. The Planning Commission tabled action on the rezoning due to concerns over the appropriateness of the B-3 District on this site, and based on input from the adjoining residential neighborhood. The applicant has included an alternative request that would add Tire and Battery auto service ("Minor Auto Repair") to the list of potential PZM uses. With this alternative, the PZM district would remain in place on the subject site, hut the auto service use would become a potential use of the properties in this district. /---... Planning staff was not supportive of the original rezoning request due to the impact on the adjoining residential area. As noted in our original staff report for the Planning Commission's November 2005 meeting, the PZM purpose statement identifies the purpose of the district as being for transitional purposes between residential and low- intensity business uses. The rationale of the PZM district acting as bulTer between the higher intensity use of the Ryan site to the south and the residential uses to the north makes these particular parcels an important transition area. The PZM district would appear to he the proper zone for this site, based on the district's purpose and the existing land use pattern. Amending the PZM District would result in the same issues raised by the rezoning. 8y allowing an auto service use in this district, even by CUP, the objectionable impacts of such uses would be permissihle in this location, defeating the intent of the zoning district's design to establish a land use transition. Perhaps most importantly, this allowance would then be applicable to other locations in the City where PZM zoning is in place. Many of the residential areas surrounding the CCD are zoned PZM, locations where auto service and the potential impacts of the use would also not be appropriate. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS Decision t: Rezoning from PZM to B-3 1. Motion to recommend approval of the rezoning, based on a finding that the proposed B-3, Highway Business District is the most suitable zoning district for the site. Planning Commission Agenda - 12/06/05 . 2. Motion to recommend denial of the rezoning, based on a finding that due to the boundary with residential uses and the cont1icts that could be created by B-3 uses, PZM is the most suitable zoning district for the site. Decision 2: Zoning Amendment allowing Minor Auto Repair in the PZM District by Conditional Use Permit. 1. Motion to recommend approval of the amendment, based on a finding that Minor Auto Repair is a use that meets the intent and purpose of the PZM District. 2. Motion to recommend denial of the amendment, based on a finding that Minor Auto Repair is a use that does not meet the intent and purpose of the PZM District. STAFF RECOMMENDATION . Staff recommends denial of both the rezoning and the amendment. Since the result of either action would be the potential use of the property for auto service use, the issue is whether auto service is a compatible use adjacent to residential property. Planning stall believes that the noise and activity levels of such a use would not be compatible with the residential neighborhood. As such, neither application would be supportcd. If thc Planning Commission belicves that the auto service use is compatible with adjoining residential neighborhoods, the better option would be rezoning, since it would have the least impact on other PZM areas. SUPPORTING DATA A. Acrial Image B. Site I,ocation Map C. 11101/05 Planning Commission Report D. Public Comment Lettcr . 2 ,.., A Page 1 of 2 . file://C:\DOCUME-l \ANGELA-l.CI\LOCALS-l \Temp\CH8A2WPY.htm 12/1/2005 '~:"" :>',>, >_>- (1/1;"'\;,''-'""" M~~T1~~~I[OI / f,'; :~C>'v""-, -'~>, COMM I-IUSPITAI. J ;),;' '" ,01,"",,_ '>, -- DI'eTRI!;T ('AMI'!)'- ,Q' II-' 'i'~"",-., "" ~ " 0 r/"'~t~<-'::: ;"'+;';f~~'(<~'>':,>>;, q ~ '''''~' 1" A, '~ :~i~~E[L,I;gHOOl".:':~\_ ~,,<~'\'<,~ 'fii+i;---~-~ ,,'>,-~it>'>0'-' ~~~"" ~"~~"::>~""" ,$?- 8(j'"i~FiTrr~I ----, --(i;,,:"~,'r? """,", " ,/",--!>" "4If' "'"",,,,>" -""'''=='~=" )) , ..... \\-'11 '-:,' ''''';'1')- Jf -~-,-: 'rr- ~___ -"Ih ,_ / '/01 ,'{ --"A~ RIVEW-;IOE - <:--:--'- I'ARK , ______________ '~A'I'(-T tll;" ,,' \,-- _--==---=-- I'AI'K ~(Ii1IVH', I AN>:__('~-=--- " ", /Yo_'ln -::~;~ [~_..~--:)' ~i"Y;1t.0~';~U~'7"2::_~~f()~ :- ~);~:~J ~r:;';l' ~ 1r., \ (il'l) "- - ~;,\,~~~\,,- ~TC)!'6 _8~LO L'~ -, , U>>;: ,~,-'-_,\ \,,\l,,'I-<' , iii=_)'_AIU~, [." IVI) . _ _ __ II:; " -'" I<e--- CT 3 }, ~__71 __A'-_~I-t/. IIVr(~\_'< lANe ~ , __ ~ li.-h 1;/1 -, ,- r. ~__ /~ -____~./'I':. ~- r "., '-"::::::::"'" [-FREEWAY -J;:.1)ltl-';; " -----, - "'l- ' TH....:iL------1 ; FIElD~ (;AL~/t/', $(t('~ --', --'. ' j ,P.~J5K.- ~ PAI<K ;; m G Eo~~~'S~ i;~~?;>" ", '\ /:><)4[H c,r-m:-"', ~~'iJ'L~ MEeDSJJ!~/I,.. .:;'" CIA' (', fb. '. \\(~ <~-_.~ 0 [} Vl_( t3i" \ 'o.(~ ", \~(, \(1o;~'<~ 8 ~15 EASTVIEW '-~" -1 ( 0<A' YQ ,~--"' '='" (" fF nO ~ ;<~Po MEAOOy\ ~/: .....,...\;.'j~ \,'/' ..rl::T) ?6 )I~~~K Hille; __ SCHOOL El:~~~flTAflY ~ :,~____ y,@ . '" rO:trq~ \~~VK /~~'~ \" c:; :~~~ ~ L--_lj:;~~>- .t;~?~~L------ O~ ' ~ 1'~ <>~~"'JY '1-'~" / a'g A; dlR ::~&I" ,\'91-:LD, ER8E~:~S],0,,__~~,",N~f ; ~ ;:~u g)___ z !. ~ ~~ 6 f!.~JI~ "" f;&g~K ~ 8:!~ ~~ "?I;: ".~(~>___..r,"~.-11 ~ -" "2 /_ '" \0;;>1-:", lD '" lAEiS! _- ",u '&;: ".1' ~- ((0 ,. i~fRIVI'. :r-- ;;-r;~~\ ~ ~ "PIRIT HILLS RD \<1'0-, t--" ~\I~1O g <3~ ) ~--$x'V;'I/'\!:~:~/\- "' 1\11~~ , ~ ~~lf<:__~~t:.J~G ~ SUMMlf PT RD \3R\r.~\~/~~ f:J'illO'flLANE ~ ~URTI'I,:y0'';~'<:~S "(', M -4::ir-;;:~\."-1' 'v~p=--' \~.,,':> '" "'jEASIOAKDKIVflI ">>:' '", ,/:-0,,' I ~ ~ 'l- r--::--: ' ~'" ;'v ! -WilifwOOD ~ ~ '"t 'f''J(:l-' ORIVE j~~~OOW .- CARDINAL Bl VOl e:.I. (~ :". CT HILLS ( _ ~?: /;\\0).. \ r:J . PARK '~ (-\~...,I '" WlLDWQOD"1~ f"~01-r " '" __ ; 111-", = J \ \"'J I .~J~>1,>;;~~'" tr ~; --::::-:'(1',<, ) W A :: :;'<'" ~ ',--'('I' r- DEER ST, "ill -1,~~",- 1.\ '>\~'" w II 0 w~:>- Cd ~ 6 /,-I'r/r, '1i:i.> .f' z: I I ~ <( --I ~~ ftv (, ;-.... '..., 86TH sr 1------, '" <>: r'"' f5 i!-t--?'<:;.~ J I~\J/ - d ~ []" t:J 8AK~tilEET 5fL~~I(J';;'~;'--"<>',- , l.t.. g: lI.J(t-~,......(J ....,'..... ....... I.f) Jo-..t..:) L.-v(f .......... N.E_ 85th STREET 'SAOGU~ ISTREET Il8AiGER.I J"l 86Tl-r'I6 ~------, CIR ;/ I STREET '16 . PROPOSED AREA OF REZONING ::;.:~~ :..":)~?( .:f.~'i CTLE. )1)~HAIN _EM ENT ARY MON nCELLO HIGH SCHOOL ",... ..... - / . . . Planning Commission Agenda - II/OliOS 7(, 8. Public Hearinl!: Consideration of a request for a rezoninl! from PZM (Performance Zone Mixed) to B-3 CHil!hwav Business). Applicant: Kean of Monticello. (NAC) REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND The applicants are seeking a rezoning of their property from PZM to B-3. The parcel is 3.1 acres in size, and abuts a mixed variety of land uses: West: Monticello Waste Water Treatment Plant North: R-I, Single Family Residential (Mississippi Drive) East: R-2, Townhouse Residential East: Vacant PZM zoned land South: Broadway (CSAH 75) and the Target/Horne Depot project The applicants wish to construct a strip commercial center, a portion of which would include an auto repair business that the buyer of the property would operate. It should be noted that if the rezoning is approved, the applicant would need to submit plans for the approval of a Conditional Use Permit authorizing the use. The two zoning districts are described hy their purpose statements as listed below: "PZ-MIXED USE ZONING DISTRICT": The purpose of the "PZ- Mixed Use Zoning District" is to provide a land use transition hetween high density residential land uses and low intensity husiness land uses, as well as the intermixing of each such land use. B-3-- HIGHWAY BUSINESS: The purpose of the "B-3," highway husiness, district is to provide for and limit the estahlishment of motor vehicle oriented or dependent commercial and service activities. The PZM District is established to provide for transitions between high activity and low activity locations. The B-3 District, on the other hand, is designed to focus on, and capture, high volume traffic. The parcel in question would appear to he a typical location for the PZM District. In this area, both commercial and residential land uses abut the site. If a B-3 District were to be considered, including the establishment of an automobile repair facility, buffering both the activity and the noise generated by these uses could he diflicult. The retail commercial strip center could be established on the site under the PZM zoning, however, the automobile service would not be allowed. Planning staff believes that the PZM District does the best job of addressing the various land use constraints flJr this site. In a previous rezoning application on a nearby site, we had summarized the differences hetween the PZM and B-3 Districts. That summary is repeated below: Planning Commission Agenda -- 11/01/05 . T e of Use PZM B-3 Barber/Beauty Permitted Permitted Governmental Buildings CUP CUP Multiple Family Buildings CUP CUP Commercial Offices Permitted Permitted Convenience Grocery Permitted Permitted Laundromat CUP CUP Art/School Su plies CUP Permitted Bakery/Grocery/lee CUP Permitted Banks CUP Permitted Cand/Ice Cream CUP Permitted Camera/Electronics CUP Permitted Dry Cleanin r CUP Permitted Drug Store CUP Permitted Florist CUP Permitted Gift/Novelty/Hobby CUP Permitted Hardware/Paint CUP Permitted Professional Offices CUP Permitted :Mos ital CUP NA Locksmith/Glass Service CUP Permitted Plumbing/Electrical Sales CUP Permitted . Shoe repair CUP Permitted ./ewelry CUP Permitted Gas/Convenience CUP CUP Club/Lod e - no food Permitted Permitted Restaurants CUP Pennitted Car Wash CUP CUP NA Permitted NA Perm itted NA Permitted NA Permitted NA Permitted NA CUP NA CUP NA CUP NA CUP NA CUP NA CUP NA CUP CUP CUP NA CUP NA IUP . 2 Planning Commission Agenda - 11/01/05 . This list is a summary of the uses in the two districts. Uses which are allowed in one, but prohibited in the other have been highlighted. AL TERNATIVE ACTIONS Decision 1: Rezoning frorn PZM (Performance Zone-Mixed) to B-3 (Highway Business 1. Motion to recommend approval of the rezoning from PZM to B-3, based on a finding that the proposed B-3, Highway Business District is the most suitable zoning district for the site. 2. Motion to recommend denial of the rezoning, based on a finding that due to the boundary with residential uses and the conllicts that could be created by B- 3 uses, PZM is the most suitable zoning district for the site. STAFF RECOMMENDATION . Staff recommends denial of the rezoning, based on the linding PZM zoning district is acting as it should in this circumstance, by providing a valuable buffer between more intense commercial uses to the south and the residential uses to the n011h and east. The PZM is intended to provide a transition between those types of uses. Although some automobile uses have become "cleaner" and therefore less detrimental to adjoining uses, it is stairs view that this area is too small and too close to residential uses to SUppOl1 these more intense uses. Staff s recommendation is also based on the fact that as noted above, a number of retail and commercial uses arc allowed as either permitted or conditional uses in the PZM district, allowing the applicants flexibility in the use of their property. SUPPORTING DATA 1. Site Plan 2. PZM Zoning District Provisions 3. B- 3 Zoning District Provisions . , ., . . . /ZIo V,;ll 0.5- / LO" 1)/ ' /f '. . - .. ----.--__.____~--a,-1111lLl_?----u.~ 1!l-~--'-S.:JL_dR1_L-- __nul! ~_~______ ,ff__--1___~_q n ~-(]cT----tc;LP:f!.'C-----c-. _y..c:._____________________ _____m_ ....-~--l;k'__:€___.l~.. . {'da_cA.I / uL1_L__e(?(?_~__J_________..... .. _.___________ ------....---:I--Itt'I!1_____c:J-#_a/l'lJ~_t_t:._~ ~~tLL~__LJz~___n? t--___fLft!-L -----iir_ tt.. J-ept.t._t"r----.GL(&t_Q___ll1:S"nf~~_~____k~_~_~_IJ_i___ O__~t:.'t_ _.~ "<L<-LfL4(dl!...~1Ii-.u::_~~)-.rkd.. _'-t[~-e...___ _ --.--bui-fl---T d (__..........~.___JLtL~"-__...2--0/1... .~:_~_________........ ............___________________..m.........m. . -------- ..........._______-.-:L.. .t2l11----i&.?ULZi&__ILil___YL.......'hc__i:.f ~_t!_'?t1.~______ ________411 d__(_tl .t1I'J(J_t----d-_tte. ~~__tb.€:___J2e~_,_~l..,./-I!~.L2'J t:?~(1:f-_--- IS . ---------j_t:7-y_a...d_dteJ s 4-?i,t---- / '! 9____ ....~.~. i/ €I ~~~:~~_IJ.r.__~_L.z_u_____________ .__________l h____lJ!lfL~kt /u_&d____l! I.It. _~~_____To..~ '1____t!dJ'?1 ~~_=_______________ . ..- ----..-----........".- ,0)-........---;; --- ----=-=--~~-=-=-- . "" , """' ' .._____________ n._~ . ..._....._ "":'--,",~,~~., ._,~:::.' 7:-.:::.......::...:.:_~._'---"'...'~._"..".."h~~_---"---__". ,,".. ". .."' ~'" _.....__..__._n.' ,,".,._____.___.____....''''., ,1"\,,__~.':,,',_~,,_.______,_.,__,_,~,.',..,_,.._._,,,._.____."",.,'_._;;,,,...,_~._____.,_..__,.,_..___....._,.,..'"',""."." ,',_.,."'__.___,___.... ,~._.. .: ~ .~1,,,,.-~--~~~~'..j, ,.,-".~=-.-.2~bA>:.~,- . . \~l, --'-_.._--_...,-""',,.~._----_._---,. \ e '>>-4 71:> . . . Planning Commission Agenda - 12/06/05 8. Public Hearine: Consideration of a reQuest for a rezonine from PZM (Performance Zone Mixed) to B-3 (Hiehway Business) or B-4 (General Business). Applicant: MMC Land Company. (NAC) REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND The applicant is seeking approval ofa rezoning from PZM to B-3 or B-4 of the property north of County Highway 75. The property currently includes the O'Ryans gas/convenience store facility, and two other parcels. The applicant had previously requested the rezoning of a larger area, including land along County Highway 39 which abuts a residential zone. The Planning Commission did not recommend the larger area due to concerns over compatibility between the commercial zoning designation and the residential zone. The applicant has amended its request to retain the PZM zoning along the northern boundary with the residential district. The primary concern with the original request related to issues raised by the potential for auto-related uses adjacent to the residential properties. As now configured, the proposed commercial zoning would only abut other commercial districts, and the PZM bulTer along the north side of I I art Boulevard would remain. It would appear the intent of the PZM as a transition district would be retained with this arrangement. Moreover, the exposure of the commercial districts along the easterly extension of County I lighway 75 would suggest that commercial zoning would be appropriate, as it is to the east (Hawk's Bar), and to the west (Liberty Bank). There are a number of auto-rclated uses that are allowed in the B-3 District, but not in the PlM District. The most likely to be requested in the subject area would be Motel/Hotel and rast rood. The B-4 District provides for a broader range of commercial uses, and would reflect the B-4 District designated for the Target/Home Depot project south of County Highway 75. AL TERNA TIVE ACTIONS Decision 1: Rezoning from PZM to B-3 or B-4 1. Motion to recommend approval of the rezoning to B-3, based on a finding that the most appropriate zoning for the area (due to highway proximity and traffic volumes) is the B-3 District. 2. Motion to recommend approval of the rezoning to B-4, based on a finding that the most appropriate zoning for the area (due to highway proximity and traffic volumes) is the B-4 District. 3. Motion to recommend denial of the rezoning, based on a finding that the most appropriate zoning fi)l" the area (due to proximity of extensive residential uses) is the PZM District. Planning Commission Agenda - 12106/05 . STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval ofthe rezoning to B-4. The area was zoned PZM due to the extensive boundary with residential. The original rezoning request was rejected due to this concern. However, the revised request changes the dividing line to retain the PZM transition to the residential zoning. As a result, planning staff believes that a rezoning of the property along County Highway 75 to B-4 would be consistent with the policies of the Comprehensive Plan. SUPPORTING DATA A. Aerial hnage B. Staff RepOli for Planning Commission 10104/05 C. Minutes of Planning Commission 10/04/05 D. PZM Zoning District Regulations E. B-3 District Regulations F. B-4 District Regulations . . 2 . file://C:\DOCUME-l \ANGELA-l.CI\LOCALS-l \Temp\QS6KUML.htm 12/1/2005 ~ /jl-.~O~?).~~, 1~~/)~"1l.i::~~~ '; fl//t'li ~~\{5?k1~ ~~" --i/ 11- '%C'~"'--~ . ,/es,,; " '?/:"v;:};:;~:,:~~ ,:~ \~~, "JI- 'sr/z '-Jtfi?;i: &Rtor; '~~""~~" );"~{)r< J( 'j ;:: ~~R~ "<~S~~ '<~~" _f'- I"~ } r --- -.'! j~--" "~ ~'<" ~.; , . ~,j/,f!-!:J:) li:-:Af '<-' :~fJ,;;" ,/;--. ~ ,,~~~._-~'~ ~~-:~ - ~OtV;' <. I.i[f It''.' Ir-,,0' iC---1-... ~- "'" MON[[CEI,O/ _ C(tr{Ct;<I':', l/t,,:::.j/ ///',:~-&' 4;",ql/~'~, "~, 81GIAKC . -0 *ljlJ.r'I~(;io. - - /.": }e-'.>/I I/">.:,'.f / ;;::::."'.""1 *-~'" r;OMM HOSPITAL ,j~') / 1 i4f.: /('<,' ~-;;' c~____ jl, It',>J /-""</ /I<:'~'"!rr.~:"-~", /DISTRICf CAMPUS ~",'F"-l' 0,j[ ," ~-~!. ,f /1"c}>~! /;0'''~~v, "~ ,>"~ ~- ~,} ~1~L~~~~~~ %J,flJt/~T;' i..' f:/~:Jf ),: ~~' '. -I;.~~ """: if ]~--~.<: J!Q;; If /d:,,7" MONT:CEL~O ',-- '<::JC{~ "- "~, I;"h~" JI ~IJr''l'f~~?~LE oCHOOL,--"",,~ ~.," , '0-" /~. '~~--- ) 0;t~ ~.~ '_, '< >1 ::J 'C! "( eUflllJti::J-l] ------,' ~ti {(J . '''-, '--..~ NO 9. ----..,-___________ j ___,X\ t. <<FALlo~N(;Tt)N~.J:~",-:~'\ i;:qf/~'''''' .,--"''''- -____ ,/ ...............-~ :: ----"(/1-"""'-_.. ---- -____ \.......:.-"""""---__ PARk 'Rtl-I ~", ", 'isi;;..........:.~/SSII_)---.- ------ ~ ~-=-~~~ -.".,,:~~!/ n rt: .{ ____ --..... ~_ ... ''-. ...."\ -.l,Sj; - -.... 'PI 0----' --:.~, -~"/"" ":"i" ~ '~-I", ---------__1-_ -~--,- _ /;\\ ~;ji.:>> '.C;;-;'<::--P...f!..-;;--S"~ --- -~~~ :J;--' / :::~~o ~ [frl~"Alfu;<J' / --_~~'l~~"C'" I[ ;Y^,*~ '\, ,;~~:~- -~, l~:~~:=--"~===- /::i' ! ~'" ~ 0 / ~-....... ~-~~ ~(I t.;iv' 70..~-// )c ...._- -:rrc------.........., ...-::;-::7 ,)0 '!l -', --::----.-~->, / tv"1';:__'// &/ ~I -'~-~---- '~ ~~7 ==--i>" [-~- ('~:L',r;- ROAI) ---~', -, '~, -' --~~;,-:~ /~~tJ (j ~\ ~~llcj/;;:~~--=;-)B--;A=:I~J/~/ \~ _ : _ 0. ~ ~ Sf, -.....\..... I.f I ----=-- -----~_.:-.!L~ oR\IJ~) '" -~:'''!..~'-'I - ~rr- ~-:rh Sth (1/Y) '''-W~ r,IVEW,lllC -~[-b--'CC- PA~~__ ,:;; '_ _', -', -<:retf -o/r--. ~\ ,--'--:::=---, PARK:=- RIVER I Al::!V: ?--- , _,_ -_ "_, 'f-?Q'0~PI ))a ,- RIDG-""< !<>-OSPR,""- ~ J0~ ~ '", >:: 100 "" - ^rIG::-::] ~'-')"\ ~~fS"~~:'i(,(>-=-'1f-"i'; ~~;f\dl~) ClR ~ '<;' J lL-:1 "'> ~O -"', ~J.- ",~, - '-" I'I)~ ' ---:~ I\. CHJ'!i'- BALD L~ IQ.A~, ,.~ iu..;~~)AI)" ~ ~--=-:-- -l " '------- < ~--..J ~-,. ;;;; '--''-. -~ -f?4>~- "">.'t- \~:~' - &=--}AGE~ z d ..J I- w LITTLe 0 )....." 'il1 ---.~- ~~ ;Vt(-?~.... LAN[ ~ z ~~~ti~(;OtD(N g MOUN rAIN --- Z ____,.:...______ :$'" 8/1.,.......,.... ~--"l ~ ~~ z ~f~~~E JTONCRll1GE 5," ELEMFflTAR'( -; I=>F~~EWAY ~---~r;;~'CC',,-_____<r "_, -- ,._,il2lli w ~;fiE1icACLE RIDGE LANE LANF 2'-') ; l~lLDS ,~IL--''t/~'<W~''" "" ~~I _~:f<} )II!J:< _~)) s,T~ iXJVj'\ I t H~g~r~cc~~~gL if> PA"K :f'-"--....-a~~V<\'II~t.j~<'~ ~ '- '\ ~/d)4"rH---q:Nr " ~~-l..j ~OUNfRY \ -; IJ( ( \()"'~~1!!;' ~ (~_~fAOOW_~J 7}. B~ QtiR(A- (----"~~",'~ (;.~" '. . ~ ~ ~ I(~!L~) '?-~_ ~ ~ -\\) \Q\~~ ~ - l..-------'-~- ~l ~~;;. - \~",-(<< \("10 ( ; " C, r 12';--"f~/-~" c, _~\? .J LA~rVlrW C'''~ '" "Ie MF-.ADO <$(~ --.. ,O~t \ '1" '~, ~i. 0 ('( :t.......v&.' "'"S-: :A (- \ " FLEMFNT RY (1 nO l -:-( ~_0""\) ()~ ~ .('. ,t- .. '______. _ ~~"I~'~/(~:;fo'~,'~''''" ~~":I~:~t: ~~~~~ -8LVD_ ~_" _-::-~f;t, ,uB ~;L~?-(I'?~;_\O~~~~ ,,~,"~~-\\ ELDER8~~ --{!f- [- \\['~BB'::mB.ill2Ii_\~ c tAP.fJt:L....-- ,6>-~1- ,ALCON DRIY<:-_JjJ~ - ~ & $("~~If5 ". ",y (-Ie 3HAiJY-.,.J Q~~~Jr'f\\ M W~^^ '<>, ~ 5'ir''''~j ~>'\\-m:vo I f\-'.'- (l- (}RI\IT)) fr;;"~ \-j'---=>-- '~l~~-' ~'~5 _ek~~R/)[I!E~~ "- :J"\r,,>,;y;~rt{ ~~ 0 ;k'C\:'M \ > ~,~'~~*^ 4Q,~\ all \ -'~U; ~.!j.E;,t:EN2\"\ _~) ~[ I~ Z If' B ~---=-- r:..,n :g'-ilj~...J \/-1 M[.~..OQ":N-- ~ rr.:..J -'<:( 's-t:;......-_ ~-:r~__ I ~'J Rw CC::JCT PIONFTR~' (RiVEi'--=---=-:~j-L--f~\-'J & W -F- ~PIRIT HilL:; RD \,,(:, ",,- [Il . ~l ~~\C~}~-l ~ ~:~ ('<<~~D'(;' ~L\_}-_:--... :)I'u Vl"J PARI< ~ALl()N 0 0 1d:J _ l1J .....I - 'R '.\.lB- --,\\0 u.......j ~i\,. J 'i>(;.;~;; i~ ^yJ.'J ['-=1'\0 "'~ _--=L: (;,<c i"c:bING ~ ';UMMIT PT RD \l,,\A\~--\'\---' (-.d2 ::-:::"CANfJ '" jOAKLEA-F ih.. ,; '''- 1-), ",' Af'- e! , ~ ~ /..--:-Q" {: -, L a \" "'J' ,!:j\'-~ , COIIRT,,%. f- Sth C~)J;;BLld~~::~r')'~~:zrc:~~-"' ~ ~r;~"i~~'-\.~I' ~ 1~<=- Ir~=- 1 ~'-=, ~ ~~~1 $' ~"~I~~~D~:Sl OAKO~~~ 'f'(Cf i' _~ _-::=-.: ~--.. - Nil DWOOD \-r\ ';L~ (J OAK ~::/-=:' T j /r ;-ll ',__ CARDINAL GLVDI'- 1:> I,- CI (/--- 'I~~ -",' /"'?<f~l." Jl ,''"r- HILL'; - r"'~ //\\0- ,\ 0" ';:,D ~ \! 'k,,^ - ',:. &, PA"K '-" (( -\ '-=-:;--c:-, I 0 WlL.Q!YOOD \~ -' ('~'==.::, O"1t- ~ 1 ~ \j! __ __ o.iZ;i '::! ~~(.j ~ Ii J "'n ere_'ll WlLD'~J\.VDVD'<- ,,0i?C'1' 0 ii'1 ) -- _,' ,_ ",' , ~ ,. --C:- ,,- \ -0 ----.J 1< r. " ~ ~ ;z ,=-3 II IAII~f[II::;:-'laz '--,'.z8J )1 - - V WA;. ,~'" \\~ ~ 2 L-<'~~::'IF'?O'l)~]T ~~I:l,,\? ~ "<~:",_~___. ~ I~ ~;_~~D;ER[S~_Jl! ~ ~i;:J~))-~ I II -) ~ -' II ~ 86TH ST ! '" ~(- --= r:; r:/i.",!/ "~, : ~ ':J- J r~\ /1 Y,~ ~ >Ix ~ tJAKt~EET ii~C'" 0. -::::,--..--..--.. J ~ '. VI ( 2 ~ 4J1S:' ) I 1-(1 -,,<:'-. '1,,1 Ii w '.....< Ul :;J~ --.11 1::'tJ' -"'<..' EET W I'.. N,- 85th ~TREET BADGEiillsrREETllBAOGER / '-" B6TH(!C~ ">-, __, __ ,. "_~_ "I CIR/ . STREf;T - II ROI.LING -- s'ffit&il W~~2~ -_~ STREET PROPOSED AREA OF REZONING . . . . Planning Commission Agenda ~ 10/04105 86 10. Public Hearine: Consideration of a reQuest for a rezonine from PZM (Performance Zone Mixed) to B-3 (Hiehwav Business). Applicant: MMC Land Company. (NAC) REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND The applicant is seeking approval of a rezoning from PZM to B-3 of property between County Highway 75 and County I Iighway 39. The property currently includes the O'Ryans gas/convenience store facility, and three other parcels. The purpose of each district is listed below: "PZ-MIXED USE ZONING DISTRICT": The purpose of the "PZ-Mixed Use Zoning 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. PURPOSE: The purpose of the "B-3," highway business, district is to provide for and limit the establishment of motor vehicle oriented or dependent commercial and service activities. In the following table, we have listed the potential land uses and compared cach district to highlight how the rezoning might change the development of the area: Type of Use PZM B-3 Barber/Beaut y Permitted Permitted Ci-overnmental Buildings CUP CUP Multiple Family Buildings CUP CUP Commercial Offices Permitted Permittcd Convcniencc Grocery Permitted Permitted l,aundromat CUP CUP Art/School Supplies CUP Permitted Bakery/Grocery/Ice CUP Pcrmitted Banks CUP Permitted Candy/Ice Cream CUP Permitted Camera/Electronics CUP Permitted Dry Cleaning CUP Permitted Drug Store CUP Permitted Florist CUP Permitted Gift/Novelty/Hobby CUP Permitted 1 lard ware/Paint CUP Permitted Professional Offices CliP Permitted ~ CUP NA Locksmith/Glass Service CUP Permitted Plumbing/Electrical Sales CUP Permitted Planning Commission Agenda - 10/04/05 . Shoe repair Jewelry Gas/Convenience Club/Lodge - no food Restaurants Car Wash CUP CUP CUP Permitted CUP CUP NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA CUP NA NA Permitted Permitted CUP Permitted Permitted CUP Permitted Permitted Permitted Permitted Permitted CUP CUP CUP CUP CUP CUP CUP CUP CUP IUP . This list is a summary of the uses in the two districts. Uses which are allowed in one, but prohibited in the other have been highlighted. There are a number of auto-related uses that arc allowed in the B-3 District, but not in the PZM District. The most likely to be requested in the subject area would be Motel/} lotel and Fast Food. There are some uses in the B-3 district that would likely be objectionable in the subject area, including auto body repair, trucking, outdoor storage, and outdoor go- karting. Automobile sales would also raise some concerns related to the highest and best use of this property. It would be helpful if the applicffilt would identify which of the B-3 District uses they wish to add to the potential occupants of their development property. It may be that a better approach would be to specifically add that use, with appropriate conditions, to the PZM District. In considering this request, staff would encourage the Commission to also provide direction f()r the entire PZM corridor in this area in terms of zoning. Recognizing that the CSAH 18/1-94 Interchange will create a new factor in the land use requests f(Jr the area, and the influence of the Ryan retail development at Union Crossings, staJf anticipates similar requests in this area in the future. It would be helpful if Commission could generally set boundaries or prescribe the acceptable limits of commercial development versus transitional of buffer zoning areas (PZM). 2 Planning Commission Agenda .~ 10104105 . ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS Decision 1: Rezoning from PZM to B~3 I. Motion to recommend approval of the rezoning, based on a finding that the most appropriate zoning for the area (due to highway proximity and traffic volumes) is the B-3 District. 2. Motion to recommend denial of the rezoning, based on a finding that the most appropriate zoning for the area (due to proximity of extensive residential uses) is the PZM District. STAFF RECOMMENI>A TION . Staff recommends denial of the rezoning. Ifthere are specific uses that the appl icant is seeking, a potential amendment to the PZM District might be more appropriate. The area was zoned PZM due to the extensive boundary with residential. There are a number of B-3 District uses that could conflict with the residential neighborhoods iacing the area. An amendment incorporating specific uses into the PZM district could be designed to address specific issues raised by those uses without opening the area to objectionable land use conflicts. Staif also believe that if Commission is inclined to consider recommending rezoning on this site, it could consider rezoning only those parcels not directly adjacent to residential neighborhoods. SUPPORTING DATA A. Site Plan B. Ariallmage C. PZM Zoning District Standards E. B-3 Zoning District Standards D. CSAH-18/1-94 Interchange Map . .., -, Planning Commission Minutes ] 0/04/05 . THAT ALL LOTS IN THE PLAT WILL CONTINUE TO MEET THE CITY'S ZONING REQUIREMENTS. 8" MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER SPARTZ. MOTION CARRIED, 5-0. Grittman reviewed the statf report, noting the location of the request. Grittman eXplained that the PZM district, which is the current zoning for the property, provides for and limits commercial service activities. Grittman referred to the chart in the staff report, which compares and contrasts the allowable uses and regulations in both districts. Grittman stated that because the site is adjacent to single family llses, staff would suggest instead aJnending the ordinance to determine each proposed use's compatibility on its own merits. Grittman stated that staff's recommendation is to deny the request. . John Ryan, property owner, stated to the Commission that they would specifically seek to allow fast food and auto accessories. They do not necessarily need rezoning. Ryan noted there is no allowance in the PZM for auto service. Grittman stated that there is a clause for motor service within the code, that could be added by amendment to the PZM district as permitted by CUP. Ryan also noted that hotel/motel is not allowed in a P7M. Ryan stated that most of the adjoining properties are commercial and most residential uses do not directly abut their property. Ryan stated that he docs not think we need to rezone, if may they have the opportunity to seek the CUP under an amendment. Ryan referrcd to their assessment for interchange. Frie askcd if Ryan got the table outlined in the staff report. Ryan stated that he did. hie reviewed CUP uses within the B-3. Grittman stated that none of the uses Frie stated are allowed in the P7M. Frie stated that may be why the applicant is seeking the B-3. Grittman stated that the amendment Inay be acceptable as well. Frie asked if that option was made available to the applicant. Patch stated that he didn't believe so. Chairman hie opened the public hearing. ..... ..., Dan Gassier addressed the Commission, representing A Glorius Church. GassIer stated that he noticed that the church wasn't considered in potential rezon ing impacts. Gassier stated that the church owns the parcel with the largest amount of lineal footage directly abutting this property. Gasslcr clarified that he doesn't want anyone to think of the church as a buffering area between commercial and residential uses. GassIer stated that he drove through town looking at B-3 districts, which includes uses such as General Rental and McDonald's. Gassier stated that he doesn't th ink that is really the type of use we want to see next to the church. GassIer also noted the clause allowing adult uses within the B-3 district. Gassier stated that it was interesting to him that adult uses are permitted without even the need for conditional use permit. Gassier stated that they want to protect the quality of their property. Additionally, he stated that the types of uses allowed in a B-3 are not compatible next to R-] areas. He indicated that when the church searched for property, they were discouraged from siting in a location that was incompatible with their LIse. GassIer stated that the church is against this rezoning. 11 Planning Commission Minutes 10/04/05 . Frie asked what GassIer's attitude is towards the PZM district. GassIer stated that with limited knowledge, he is satisfied with what is there now. Albert Blasovieh, also a property owner, addressed the Commission, asking Gassier to provide them with information on what types of uses might be acceptable, as it would help them in who they would invite in and determine what is acceptable. Frie stated that is really a separate issue from the rezoning. Blasovich stated that he would like to go on record that they would at least like to see the portion adjacent to Hart Boulevard rezoned. Posusta agreed that might be more acceptable. GassIer stated that seems more favorable, athough it seems as though the applicants are still moving toward other uses. David GassIer, resident of the Mill Run development, stated that he shares his father's concerns. He added that he represent the residents of MilJ Run area. He noted that he did not receive a mailing because he is outside the 350' area. GassIer stated that he was also made aware of the adult uses allowed in the B-3, and as a nearby resident that concerns him. He mentioned his children and stated that it is a concern, even if only allowed on paper. Gassier stated the residents arc also concerned about noise. He stated that the compromise in zoning only a portion of the property may be a favorable option. Gassier indicated that in his opinion, all are residents should have been notified, noting the nearby child care facility. . Grittman stated that while the zoning district does alJow adult uses as permitted uses, there is a spacing requirement between the adult LIse and residential areas, parks and churches. None oftllis area would be eligible for adult use because of its proximity to those areas. Frie asked about whether adult uses are permitted uses in a B-3. Grittman stated as long as they meet code requirements, they are permitted uses. Posusta clarified that the City is only required to notify property owners within 350 feet and also posts notices on the website, as well as newspaper. A citizen asked whether the Commission could address the issue of AST Sports being allowed to park a mobile home on their property. Frie asked him to address his concern at the Council meeting. Grittlllan also recommended a call to staff during the day. If there is a violation, they can follow up on it. Hearing no further cOlllment, Chairman Frie closed the public hearing. Hilgart stated that he agrees with keeping the lot next to church PZM and possibly rezoning the others. Dragsten, Spmiz and Suchy agreed. MOTION BY COMMISSIONER DRACiSTEN TO RECOMMEND DENIAL OF THE REZONING, BASED ON A FINDING THAT THE MOST APPROPRIATE ZONING FOR THE AREA (DUE '1'0 PROXIMITY OF EXTENSIVE RESIDENTIAL USES) IS THE PZM DISTRICT. MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER IHLCiART. -. MOTION CARRIED, 5-0. ~ 12 . . . until such time as the applicant or City staffhas prepared the necessary studies. s" 3. Surrounding Property Owners: Surrounding property owners shall be notified in writing of any proposed developments. Applicants shall be encouraged to meet with property owners prior to public hearings or whenever such a meeting will allow better involvement of neighbors in the review process. While complete consent of adjacent property owners shall not be mandatory for approval of projects developed under the PZ-Residential zoning, involvement with adjacent owners shall be encouraged through all steps within the approval process. 4. Submission Requirements, Amendments, and Special Requirements: (a) All applicants shall submit final building plans to the City prior to the granting of permits. No changes to the plans shall be permitted without consent from the City Council. All requirements as a condition of approval shall be addressed in the final developers agreement and indicated on all appropriate plans. City staff shall inspect the work during construction to assure that such plans are followed. (b) The City Council may at its discretion place special requirements that will ensure the complete construction of all requirements. Such conditions may include performance bonds, time limitations for commencement of the work, and limitations on the hours of construction. (c) When areas are to be preserved by the developer, the City may require that such areas be fenced during construction to assure that equipment will not damage preservation areas. 10-6: PERFORMANCE ZONE-MIXED (PZM) PERMITTED USES: Only the following uses are permitted uses within a PZM district: "PZ-MIXED ZONING DISTRICT" [A] Those uses listed as permitted uses within the R-3 zoning district subject to the standards contained therein. [B] (#226, 6/8/92) Club or lodge without the serving of food or beverages. [C] A permitted use shall be regulated and controlled by the terms, conditions, and provisions of this ordinance as they pertain to an R-3 district. 10-7: PZM: PERMITTED ACCESSORY USES: Only the following uses are permitted MONTICELLO ZONING ORDINANCE 10/7 . . . accessory uses within a PZM district. [A] Those uses listed as permitted accessory uses in the R-3 zoning district. [B] A permitted accessory use shall be regulated and controlled by the terms, conditions, and provisions of this ordinance as they pertain to an R-3 district. 10-8: PZM: CONDITIONAL USES: Only the following uses are conditional uses in a PZM district. [A] Those uses listed as conditional uses in the R-3 zoning district and as regulated therein except as modified in this chapter. [B] Hospitals, medical offices and clinics, dental offices and clinics, professional offices and commercial (leased) offices (limited to appraisers, architects, attorneys, certified public accountants, clergymen, dentists, engineers, manufacturers representatives, physicians, real estate agents, and other similar uses which have no storage of merchandise and are service oriented with no retail sale of goods on the premises), and funeral homes and mortuaries provided that: 1. When abutting R-l, 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. [C] Nursing homes and similar group housing, but not including hospitals, sanitariums, or similar institutions, provided that: 1. Side yards are double the minimum requirements established for this district and are screened in compliance with Chapter 3, Secii1;>~ 2 [G], ofthis ordinance. ':~-.- ....~------.....~ 2. One (1) off-street loading space in compliance with Chapter 3, Section 6, of this ordinance is installed. [D] Parking facilities for adjacent commercial or multiple dwelling establishments provided that: 1. Screening of abutting residential uses and landscaping is provided in compliance with Chapter 3, Section 2 [G], of this ordinance. [E] Retail commercial activities as listed in Chapter 12, Section 2, of this ordinance, provided that: I. Merchandise is sold at retail only. 2. The procedures outlined hereinafter are complied with in full. 3. Accessory production or processing activities provided that: MONTICELLO ZONING ORDINANCE 10/8 . . . a. The production activities are accessory to a permitted retail use in the PZM District. b. The building and site plan are designed to be compatible with architecture in the adjoining neighborhood. c. The production activity shall not exceed twenty-five (25) percent of the gross floor area of the building. d. When abutting a residential district, a buffer area with screening and landscaping in compliance with Chapter 3, Section 2 (0) shall be erected. e. The site is served hy a collector street with access that avoids mixing of residential traffic with truck traffic generated by production use. (#415,10111/04) [1'] Buildings combining residential and non-residential uses allowed in this district provided that: 1. Residential and non-residential uses shall not be contained on the same floor. 2. The procedures outlined hereinafter are complied with in full. [0] Senior citizen housing provided that: 1. Not more than ten (10) percent of the occupants may be persons sixty (60) years of age or under (spouse of a person over sixty (60) years of age or caretakers, etc.). 2. Except for caretaker units, occupancy shall be limited to man and wife, blood relatives, or a single man or single woman. 3. To continue to qualify for the senior citizen housing classification, the owner or agent shall annually file with the City Administrator or the Building Inspector a certified copy of a monthly resume of occupants of such a multiple dwelling, listing the number of tenants by age and clearly identifying and setting forth the relationship of occupants sixty (60) years of age or under to qualified tenants or to the building. 4. One (1) off-street loading space in compliance with Chapter 3, Section 6, of this ordinance is installed. 5. Elevator service is provided to each floor level. MONTICELLO ZONING ORDINANCE 10/9 . . . 6. Usable open space as defined in Chapter 2, Section 2, ofthis ordinance, at a minimum, is equal to twenty (20) percent of the gross lot area. 7. The site ofthe main entrance of the principal use is served or is located within four hundred (400) feet of regular transit service. 8. The site of the main entrance of the principal use is within four hundred (400) feet of commercial shopping development or adequate provision for access to such facilities is provided. [H] Restaurants and private clubs and lodges serving food and beverages, provided that: 1. The proposed use complies with applicable screening and buffering standards in compliance with Chapter 3, Section 2[G], of this ordinance. 2. Service of prepared food or alcoholic beverages shall be in compliance with all federal, state, and municipal regulations. 3. Offices of such use shall be limited to no more than twenty (20) percent of the gross floor area of the principal structun(;#318, 10/12/98) [I] Bed and breakfast facilities provided that: 1. Bed and breakfast operations shall be limited to residential structures existing prior to the date of this ordinance. 2. When abutting R-1, R-2, R-3, or PZR district, a buffer area with screening and landscaping shall be provided in compliance with Chapter 3, Section 2 [G], ofthe Monticello Zoning Ordinance. 3. Adequate off-street parking and an access shall be provided in the form of one parking space per rental unit plus one space for each ten rental units and one space for each employee on each shift. 4. Food served on the premises may be served only to overnight guests of the bed and breakfast. 5. The owner, operator, or manager ofthe bed and breakfast shall reside on the premises. 6. Activities shall be limited to those customary to the operation of a bed and breakfast facility. Commercial use of the property for other activities not normally associated with the operation of a bed and breakfast such as wedding receptions, parties, etc., are not allowed under this conditional use permit. MONTICELLO ZONING ORDINANCE 10110 . . . 7. Material used for the parking area shall consist of dust and erosion resistant materials that will not cling to vehicle tires and track onto public streets. The materials used shall also be capable of supporting vehicular traffic. 8. Operation of the bed and breakfast facility shall comply with all state regulations governing such facilities. (#180, 8/14/89) [J] Dry cleaning processing provided that: 1. Dry cleaning operation must meet all OSHA safety standards. 2. Dry cleaning operation shall be self-contained in terms of noise and fumes with no venting to outside of building. 3. Dry cleaning facility shall have direct access to major thoroughfare via driveway or frontage road. 4. Screening of abutting residential uses and landscaping must be in compliance with Chapter 3, Section 2 [G], of the zoning ordinance. 5. Voice amplifiers used in conjunction with drive- through process shall not be audible to adjoining residential areas. [K] Car wash activity provided that: 1. 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 the lot. 2. Magazining or stacking space is constructed to accommodate that number of vehicles which can be washed during a maximum thirty (30) minute period and shall be subject to the approval of the City Engineer. 3. 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. 4. Each light standard island and all islands in the parking lot landscaped or covered. 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. The entire area other than occupied by the buildings or plantings shall be surfaced with material which will control dust and drainage which is subject to the approval ofthe City Engineer. MONTICELLO ZONING ORDINANCE 10/11 . . . 7. The entire area shall have a drainage system which is subj ect to the approval of the City Engineer. 8. 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], oftms ordinance. 9. Vehicular access points shall be limited, shall create a minimum of conflict with through traffic movement, and shall be subject to the approval of the City Engineer. 10. All signing and informational or visual communication devices shall be in compliance with Chapter 3, Section 9, of this ordinance. 11. Provisions are made to control and reduce noise. 12. The provisions of Chapter 22 of this ordinance are considered and satisfactorily met. 13. Car wash facility shall have direct access to major thoroughfare via driveway or frontage road. 14. Intermittent sounds produced by car wash operation such as the sound of a vacuum or warning signal shall not be audible to users of adjoining PZM or residential properties. (#181,9/11/89) [L] Radio antennas and other communication transmission devices provided they meet the following conditions: 1. Height: A ground-mounted communication device height shall not exceed 60 feet when fully extended. 2. Yards: The communication device shall not be located within a front yard setback, a required side yard, or any side yard abutting a street. Communication devices shall be located five (5) feet or more from rear lot lines and shall not be located within a utility easement. 3. Roofs: The communication device may be placed on the roof of any authorized structure on the premises. The height of the communication device shall not exceed 20 feet above the peak of the roof or roofline. 4. Neighboring Property Impact: The communication device shall be so constructed and located that in the event it falls, it will not fall on adjoining property. The communication device may be set back from adjoining property at a distance that is less than the height of the communication device if a certified engineer certifies that the device as constructed will not fall on adjoining property. MONTICELLO ZONING ORDINANCE 10/12 . 5. Building Pennits: A building permit shall be required for the installation of any communication device which requires a conditional use pennit, or for any device which has a structural surface exposure of greater than nine (9) square feet. Building pennit applications shall be accompanied by a site plan and structural components data for the communication device, including details of anchoring. The City Building Official must approve the plans before installation. 6. Color/Content: Communication devices shall be of a neutral color and shall not be painted with scenes or contain letters or messages which quality as a sign. 7. Lightning Protection: Each communication device shall be grounded to protect against natural lightning strikes in conformance with the applicable state and local codes. 8. Electrical Code: Communication device electrical equipment and connection shall be designed and installed in conformance with the applicable state and local codes. . 9. Use or the physical presence of the communication transmission device shall not interfere with the operation of electronic equipment, including televisions, radios, computers, etc. (#224, 4/13/92) [M] Governmental and public utility buildings and structures necessary for the health, safety, and general welfare of the community provided that: 1. Confonnity with the surrounding neighborhood is maintained, and required setbacks and side yard requirements are met. 2. Adequate screening from neighboring uses and landscaping is provided in accordance with Chapter 3, Section 2, ofthis ordinance. 3. The provisions of Chapter 22 of this ordinance are considered and satisfactorily met. 10-9: APARTMENT DENSITY BONUS: When multiple family structures often (10) units or more are approved, a maximum of ten (10) percent reduction in the lot area per unit as regulated in Chapter 3, Section 4, may be allowed. The reduction in lot area shall be detennined based upon the following table: 4. The facility must have direct access to county or city state aid highway. (#225, 6/8/92) Condition to Earn Bonus Lot Area Reduction (per unit) MONTICELLO ZONING ORDINANCE 10/13 . . . 1. Type two (2) construction. 1 00 sf. 2. Elevator serving each floor. 50 sf. 3. Transit service available within three hundred (300) feet of entrance. 50 sf. 4. Two-thirds (2/3) of the required fee, free parking underground or within principal structure (not including attached or detached garages). 150 sf. 5. Indoor recreation and social rooms equal to twenty-five (25) square feet per unit or seven hundred fifty (750) square feet total, whichever is greater. 50 sf. 6. Major outdoor recreation facilities such as swimming pools, tennis courts, or similar facilities requiring a substantial investment equaling at minimum five (5) percent of the construction cost of the principal structure. 20 sf. 10-10: FINDINGS OF FACT: Prior to granting of a conditional use permit, the City Planning Commission and City Council shall make the following findings of fact. In the event that the applicant shall submit insufficient materials for the City to make informed findings of fact, the City staff and Planning Commission shall request additional information pursuant to Chapter 22 of this ordinance. 1. The proposed project is consistent with the spirit and intent of the Monticello Comprehensive Plan goals and policies and in keeping with the intent of the Monticello Zoning Ordinance. 2. The proposed project is consistent with the purpose ofthe performance zoning ordinance as outlined in Section 1 of this chapter. 3. The proposed project will not have any adverse impacts as outlined in Chapter 22 ofthis ordinance. 4. The proposed project shall meet minimum screening and landscaping requirements as outlined in Chapter 3, Section 2 [0]. 5. The proposed project shall provide adequate parking pursuant to Chapter 1, Section 5, of this ordinance and off~street loading pursuant to Chapter 3, Section 6, of this ordinance. 6. The proposed project shall provide a wider range of housing types, price ranges, and styles within the community. MONTICELLO ZONING ORDINANCE 10/14 . 7. The proposed project will provide amenities and facilities and open spaces greater than the minimum requirements under alternative zonmg. 8. The proposed project shall in no way be detrimental to the environment. Scenic aspects and natural features such as streams, trees, topography, and geological features shall be protected and preserved to the greatest extent possible. 9. The proposed project shall not impose any undue burden upon the public services and facilities such as fire, police, schools, streets, water, sanitary sewer, and storm sewer. 10. The proposed project is designed in such a manner to form a desirable and unified environment within its own boundaries, and also which will not be detrimental to future land uses in the surrounding areas. Architecture and site treatments shall be compatible with adjacent structures and site plans and shall respect the privacy of neighboring homes and/or businesses. 11. Findings of fact submitted by the Planning Commission to the City Council shall address additional requirements necessary to make the project in compliance with this chapter in all areas where the Planning Commission feels the proposed project is lacking. . 10-11: STANDARDS: Except as specifically provided herein, there shall be no fixed standards for conditional uses within the mixed performance zoning district. In their review, the City shall take into account standards that are contained in other sections of this ordinance that most closely resemble those that would apply to a similar use if it were proposed in a district other than the performance zone. lO-12: PROJECT REVIEW PROCESS: The following are guidelines for reviewing projects within the PZ-Mixed zoning district. Procedures for the review of such proposals shall be as outlined in the PUD section of the Monticello Zoning Ordinance. The City staff and Planning Commission shall review the project and give recommendations so as to permit the City Council to make informed findings of fact as outlined above. Variance from these guidelines may be permitted when site specific conditions and specific proposal elements show that a strict interpretation of the guidelines will either place undue hardship on the developer or will be detrimental to adjacent properties. In no case shall standards be reduced so that the findings of fact outlined above carmot be achieved, AND in no case shall the guidelines prevent the City from requiring greater standards when specific conditions outlined in above must be satisfied. 1. Setback Guidelines (a) Setback requirements shall be 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 this ordinance. . MONTICELLO ZONING ORDINANCE 10/15 BE CHAPTER 13 . "B_3" I IIGI-IW A Y BUSINESS DISTRICT SECTIUN: 13-1: Purpose 13-2: Permitted Uses 13-3: Permitted Accessorv {)ses 13-4: Conditional Uses 13-5: Interim Uses 13-1: PURPOSE: The purpose of the "B~3," highway business, district is to provide for and limit the establishment of motor vehicle oriented or dependent commercial and service activities. 13-2: PFRMITTFD I J~FS: The following arc permitted uses in a "B_3" district: fA] [BJ . fCJ IDJ All permitted uses as allowed in a B-1 and B-2 district. Auto accessory store. Commercial recreational uses. Motels. motor motels. and hotels provided that the lot area contains not less than five hundred (500) square feet of lot area per unit. r EJ Restaurants. cafes. tea rooms. taverns, and off-sale liquor. provided that the use is not located within 300 It of a residential zone. (#258. 09/26/94) [FJ Private clubs or lodges serving toad and beverages with use being restricted to members and their guests. Adequate dining room, kitchen, and bar space must be provided according to standards imposed upon similar unrestricted customer operations. The serving of alcoholic beverages to members and their guests shall be allowed. providing that such service is in compliance with applicable federaL state. and municipal regulations. Offices of such use shall be limited to no more than twenty (20) percent of the gross floor area of the building. IG] Taxi terminals. stand. and offices. . Ill] Small printing or publishing business employing six (6) or less persons. MONTICELLO ZONING ORDINANCE 13/1 . 13-3: PERMITTED ^CCESSOR Y lJSES: The fol1O\ving are permitted accessory uses in a "B-3" district: [A] All permitted accessory uses as allowed in a "B-2." limited business. district. [B] Adult Use/Accessory (#217. 0 I /13/92) 13-4: CONDITIONAL USES: The following are conditional uses in a "B-3" district: (Requires a conditional use rcrlllit based uron procedures set forth in and regulated by Chapter 12 of this ordinance.) fA) Drive~in and convenience food establishments provided that: 1. 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 rea.sonal'>le distance of lot. 2. At the boundaries of a residential district a strip of not less than five (5) feet shall be landscaped and screened in compliance \\ith Chapter 3, Section:2 IG]. of this ordinance. . ., _J. Each light standard island and all islands in the parking lot landscaped or covered. ,t Parking areas shall be screened from vicw of abutting residential districts in compliance \vith Chapter 3, Section :2 IG]. of this ordinance. 5. Parking areas and driveways shall be curbed with continuous cllrb not less than six (()) inches high above the parking lot or drive\vay grade. 6. Vehicular access points shall be limited, shall create a minimum ofcontlict 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. 7. All lighting shall be hooded and so directed that the light source is not visible from the public right-of-\vay or from an abutting residence and shall be in compliance \vith Chapter 3. Section:2 [H]. of this ordinance. 8. The cntire area shall have a drainage system \\hich is subject to the appro\'al of the City Engineer. ..... 9. The entire area other than that occupied by buildings or structure or plantings shall be surfaced with a material which will control dust and drainage and \\hich is subject to the approval of the City Engineer. ...... MONTICELLO ZONING ORDINANCE 13/2 . . . I n, All signing and informational or visual communication devices shall be in comrliance with Chapter 3, Section 9. of this ordinance. II. The provisions of Charter 22 of this ordinance are considered and satisbctorily met. [I31 CARWASHr::S (DRIVE THROUGH. MECHANICAL AND SELF- SER VICE) PROVIDED THAT: I. 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 int1uence within a reasonable distance of the lot. 2. Magazining or stacking space is constructed to accommodate that number of vehicles which can be washed during a maximum thirty (30) minute period and shall he subject to the approval of the City Engineer. 3. 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 [Cil. of this ordinance. 4. l:ach light standard isl:lIld and all islands in the parking lot landscaped or covered. 5. Parking or car magazine storage space shall be screened from view of abutting residential districts in compliance vvith Chapter 3. Section 2 [ClI. of this ordinance. (J. The entire area other than occupied by the buildings or plantings shall be surfaced with material which will control dust and drainage which is subject to the approval of the City Engineer. 7. The entire area shall ha\'\;:~ a drainage system which is subject to the approval of the City Engineer. 8. All lighting shall be hooded and so directed that the light source is not visible frolll the public right-of-way or from an abutting residence and shall be in compliance \vith Chapter 3. Section 2 fH]. of this ordinance. 9. Vehicular access points shall be limited. shall create a minimum of connict with through traffic IlW\ement and shall be subject to the approval of the City Engil1l'er. 10. All signing and inf'(xmational or \'isml comlllunication (k\'ices shall be in compliance with Chaptt:'r 3. Section 9. of this ordinance. MONTICELLO ZONING ORDINANCE 13/3 . . . 11. PrO\isions arc made to control and reduce noise. 12. The provisions of Chapter 22 of this ordinance are considered ano satist~lctorily met. [C] MOTOR FUEL STATION. MOTOR FUEL STATION/CONVENIENCE STORE. AUTO REPAIR-MINOR. AND TIRE AND BATTERY STORES AND SERVICE PROVIDED THAT: 1. Regardless of whether the dispensing, sale, or offering for sale of motor fuels and/or oil incidental to the conduct of the use or business. the standards and requirements imposed by this ordinance for motor fuel stations shall apply. These standards and requiremcnts are. however, in addition to other requirements whieh are imposed for other uses of the property. ") The architectural :l.ppearnnce :l.nd functional rl~lI1 or the building and site shall not be so dissimilar to the existing bui ldings or area as to cause impairment in property valucs or constitute a blighting intlucnce 'vvithin a reasonable distance of the lot. -. .J. The entire site other than that taken up by a building. structure. or plantings shall be surbeed with a material to control dust and drainage which is subject to the approval of the City Engineer. 4. A minimum lot area ort\\'l:nty-two thousand fin: hundred (22.500) square fed and minimum lot dimensions of one hundred titly (150) feet by one hundred thirty ( (30) feet. 5. A drainage system subject to the approval of the City Engineer shall be installed. 6. A curb not less than six (6) inches above grade shall separate the public side\valk fro 111 motor vehicle service areas. 7. 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 1,'om the public right-of..\\'ay and shall be in compliance \vith Chapter 3. Section 2 [HI. of this ordinance. 8. Wherever fuel pumps are to be installed. pUl11p islands shall he installed. 9. /\t the houndaries of a residential district. a strip of not less than fiw (5) feet shall be landscaped and screened in compliance \\ith Chapter 3. Section 7 [G I. of this ordinance. MONTICELLO ZONING ORDIi"..\NCE 13/4 . . . 10. Each I ight standard landscaped. II. Parking or car magazine sturage space shall be screened from view of abutting residential districts in compliance 'vvith Chapter 3. Section 2 [G], of this ordinance. 12. Vehicular access points shall create a minimum of conflict with through traffic movement, shall comply with Chapter 3, Section 5, of this ordinoncc. onc1 shall be suhject to the apprm'a] of the City Engineer. 13. All signing and informational or visual communication devices shall be minimized and shall be in compliance with Chapter 3, Section 9, of this ordinance. 14. Provisions are made to control and reduce noise. 15. No outside storage except as allowed in compliance with Chapter 13, Section 4, of this ordinance. 16. Sale of products other than those specifically mentioned in Chapter 13, Section 4, he subject to a conditional use permit and he in compliance with Chapter 13, Section 4 [FI, of this ordinance. 17. All conditions pertaining to a specific site 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. 18, The provisions of Chapter 22 of this ordinance arc considered and satist~lctorily met. [0] New and used automobile/light truck sales and display provided that: 1. The minimum building size for any auto sales use shall comply with the following standards: Parcel Size Lot Coverage Percent* Minimum Building Size* Up to 2 acres 5% 2.500 square feet More than 2 acres to 4 acres 10% 10,000 square feet More than 4 acres 15% 40.000 square reet *Whichcver n;quires the larger building. (#351,8/14/00) MONTICELLO ZONING ORDINANCE 13/5 . . . 2. Outside sales and display areas are fenced or screened from view of neighboring residential uses or an abutting "R" district in compliance with Chapter 3, Section 2 [GJ, of this ordinance. 3. All lighting shall be hooded ami 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 vvith Chapter 3. Section:2 [H]. of this ordinance. -.1-. The outside sales and display area shall be hard surfaced. 5. The outside sales and display area does not utilize parking spaces which are required for conformance with this ordinance. 6. Vehicular access points shall create a minimum of contlict with through traffic movement, shall comply with Chapter 3. Section 5. of this ordinance. and shall be subject to the approval of the City Engineer. 7. There is a minimum lot area of twenty-two thousand five hundred (22.500) square feet and minimum lot dimensions of one hundred fifty (150) feet by one hundred thirty (130) feet. 8. A drainage system subject to the approval of the City Engineer shall be installed. 9. All signing shall be in compliance with Chapter 3. Section 9. of this ordinance. 10. The provisions of Chapter 22 of this ordinance are considered and satisfactorily met. [E] Open and outdoor storage as a principal or accessor).' use provided that: 1. The area is fenced and screened from view of neighboring residential uses or if abutting an "R" district in compliance with Chapter 3. Section 2 [G], of this ordinance. ') Storage is. screened from view from the public right-of-\\ay in compliance with Chapter 3. Section:2 [G]. of this ordinance. 3. Storage area is grassed or surfaced to control dust. -.1-. All lighting shall be hooded and so directed that the light source shall not be visible from the right-of-way or from neighboring residences and shall be in compliance with Chapter 3, Section 2 [HJ. of this ordinance. MONTICELLO ZONING ORDINANCE 13/6 . . . 5. Docs not take up parking space as required for conf()l"mity to this ordinance. 6. The provisions of Chapter 22 of this ordinance arc considered and satisfactorily met. fF] Open or outdoor service. sale. and rental as a principal or accessory use and including sales in or from motorized vehicles, trailers, or wagons provided that: I. Outside services, sales and equipment rental connected with the principal uses is limited to thirty (30) percent of the gross floor area of the principal use. This percentage may be increased as a condition of the conditional use permit. 2. Outside sales areas are fenced or screened from view of neighboring residential uses or abutting "R" district in compliance with Chapter 3, Section:2 fG J. 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. 5. Does not take up parking space as required for conformity to this ordinance. 6. The provisions of Chapter 22 of this ordinance arc considered and satisfactorily met. [G] Accessory. enclosed retail. rental. or service activity other than that allowed as a permitted use or conditional use within this section provided that: 1. Such use is allowed as a permitted use in a "B-1" or "B-2" district. 2. Such use does not constitute more than thirty (30) percent of the lot area and not more than fifty (50) percent of the gross floor area of the principal use. 3. Adequate off-street parking and ofl.street loading in compliance with the requirements of Chapter 3, Sections 5 and 6. of this ordinance is provided. 4. All signing and informational or visual communication devices shall be in compliance with Chapter 3. Section 9, of this ordinance. MONTICELLO ZONING ORDINANCE 13/7 . . . 5. The provisions of Chapter 22 of this ordinance are considered and satisfactorily met. IH] Shopping Center. [/l Animal Pet Clinics. ] . Annual inspection by City's health officer at owner's expense. 2. All pets must be leashed. 3. Treatment to be limited to household pets. [J] Pet hospitals with the following condition: 1. No outside pens or kennels. 2. Annual inspection by City Health Officer at U\vner's expense. 3. All animals must be leashed. 4 Treatment would be limited to small domesticated animals. 5. No outside storage of carcasses. (#364.9/10/01) I K I Commercial storage contained entircly within a building. [/-1 Commercial planned unit development as regulated by Chapter 20 of this ordinance. IMj Consignment auction sales and/or auction sales. I. The architectural appearance and function plan ofthc building and site shall not be so dissimilar to the existing buildings or area as to cause impairment in property valucs or constitute a blighting influence within a reasonable distancc of the lot. ! At the boundaries of residential districts, a strip of not less than 5 feet shall be landscapt:d and screened in compliance with Chapter 3. Section 2 [0]. orthis ordinance. ]. Any light standard islands and all islands in the parking lot shall be landscapt:d or covered. MONTICELLO ZONING ORDINANCE 13/8 . . . 4. Parking areas shall be screened from view of abutting residential districts in compliance with Chapter 3, Section 5 [G], of this ordinance. 5. Parking areas and driveways shall comply with Chapter 3. Section 5 [DI. 6. Vehicular access points shall be limited, shall create a minimum of conflict through traffic Illovements, shall comply with Chapter 3. Section 5. of this ordinance, and shall be subject to the approval of the City Engineer. 7. 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. 8. The entire area shall have a drainage system which is subject to the approval of the City Engineer. (). All signing and information or visual communication de\ices shall be in compliance with Chapter 3, Section 9. 10. 'T'he provisions of Chapter 22 of this ordinance are considered and satisfactorily met. II. All conditiolls pertaining to a specific site are subject to change when the Coullcil. upon investigation in relation to a formal request tinds that the general welbre and public betterment can be served as well or better by Illodi lying the conditions. 12. Outside sales areas arc fenced or screened ii'om view of neighboring residential uses or abutting residential districts in compliance with Chapter 3. Section 2 [G], of this ordinance. 13, Outside sales connected with the principal use is limited to 30% of the gross Iloor area of the principal building, This percentage may be incrcased as a condition of the conditional use permit. 14. Outsidl' sales may not take up parking space as required for conformity to the ordinance requirement. 15. No pets or livestock may be sold at this auction sales facility. 16. Pmvisions must be made to control and reduce noise when adjacent to a residential znning district. 17. All outside storage shall be effectively screened from public view in necord:lI1cc \\ith Chaptcr 3. Section 2 [GJ. and limited to 10% of the gross floor arl'a of the principal use building. I\IONTICELLO ZONING ORDIN.\NCE 13/9 . . . [N] Outdoor go-kart tracks provided that: 1. The proposed use must meet all conditions of Chapter 3, Section 4 [AJ. 2. The conditional use permit 'vvill be reviewed yearly to determine whether or not it is compatible \vith neighboring properties and in conformance with conditions of the conditional use. ~. i\ solid wood. six-foot high fence must he pmt of the screening required when the adjacent property is residential. 4. For dust and noise (70D8 at residential property line) must be controlled at all times to the satisbction of the City. 5. The provisions of Chapter 22 of this ordinance are considered and satisfactorily met. [0] Day-care centers provided that: 1. No overnight facilities are. provided f()r children served and that said children are delivered and removed daily. / An outdoor recreational facility shall be appropriately separated from the parking lot and driving areas by a wood fence not less than 4 feet in height or Council approved substitute, and shall be located continuous to the day-care facility, and shall not be located in any yard abutting a major thoroughLue. and shall not have an impervious surface for more than one- halfofthe playground area, and shall extend at least 60 feet from the wall of the building or to an adjacent property line. \vhiche\"t:r is less. or shall be bound on not more than t\VO sides by parking and driving areas. A minimum size of the outside recreational h1eility shall be 2J)00 sq. ft., or in the alternative 75 sq. ft. per child at licensed capacity. \vhichever is the greater figure. 3. The regulations and conditions of the Minnesota Department of Human Services and Department of Health, Public Welfare l\tIanual 11-31-30 as adopted. amended, and/or changed. are satisfactorily met. 4. A written indication of preliminary. pending. or final license approval from the regulatory agencies is supplied to the City of l\tlonticello. (# 152.9/22/86) [P] Auto hody shop repair provided that: 1. Door opening to service area garage must not t:lce strect frnntage. I\-IONTICELLO ZONING ORDINANCE 13/1 0 . . . 2. Vehicle storage area limited to 50% offioor space of the structure housing the auto body shop. .., .:J. All vehicles being serviced and all vehicle parts must be stored inside or in vehicle storage area. 4. Vehicle storage area shall be enclosed by enclosure intended to screen the view of vehicles in storage from the outside. Enclosure shall consist of a si\-fnnt high. 100%1 opaque fence designed tn hlend with the auto hody shop structure and consisting of materials treated to resist discoloration. 5. The floor 0 f the vehicle storage area shall consist of asphal t or concrete pavmg. 6. No work on vehicles or vehicle parts shall be conducted outside the confines of the auto body shop. 7. The advertising wall facing the public right-of-way shall consist of no more than 50% metal material. R. The secondary or non-advertising wall facing a public right-of-way shall uti I ize a combination of colors or materials that serve to break up the monotony of a single color flat surt~lce. 9. The development shall conform to minimum parking and landscaping requirements of the zoning ordinance. 10. No conditional use permit shall be granted for an auto body shop within 600 feet of a residential or PZM zone existing at the time the conditional use permit is granted. (#175,4/24/89) rQI Restaurants, cafes, tea rooms, taverns. and off-sale liquor located within 300 ft of a residential zone provided that: I. Primary access must not be through residential street(s). (#258,9/26/94) [RJ Governmental and public utility buildings and structures necessary for the health, safety, and general welfare of the community provided that: I. Conf()J"Inity with the surrounding neighborhood is maintained and required setbacks and side yard requirements are met. ') AdcquJte screening from neighboring uses and landscaping is provided in accordance vvith Chapter 3, Section 2, of this ordinance. MONTICELLO ZONING ORDIN,-\NCE 13/1 1 . . . 3. The provisions of Chapter 22 of this ordinance arc considered and satl sf~lctori Iy met. (# 300. 12/8/97) 13-5: INTERIM USES: The following are interim uses in a "B-3" district (requires an interim Lise permit based upon procedures set I'orth in and regulated by Chapter n or thi::, ordinance ). lAj Trucking and Trucking Service provided that: 1. The architectural appearance and functional plan of the building and site shall not be so dissimilar to the existing, conforming buildings or areas as to cause impairment in property values or constitute a blighting influence within the district in which the proposed use is located. 2. Parking areas shall be screened from view of abutting residential districts in compliance with Chapter 3, Section 2, of this ordinance. 3. The entire site, other than that taken up by a building, structure. or plantings, shall be surfaced with a material to control dust ancl drainage, which is subject to the approval of the City Engineer. 4. The site shall meet minimum lot dimension requirements of the District. 5. No outside storage except as allowed in compliance \vith Chapter 13. Section 4[EI, or this ordinance. 6. Parking arcas accessibk to the public, including customers and employees shall be paved in compliance \\lith Chapter 3. Section 5. of this ordinance. 7. No more than six thousand (6.000) square feet of the site shall be devoted to the storage. parking. and/or circulation of semi-tractors and trailers. as illustrated on a site plan submitted in connection with an application for a conditional use permit. 8. All service activities shall occLlr within the principal building or approved accessory buildings. 9. The provisions of Chapter 22 of this ordinance are considered and satisfactorily met. (#30-+'1/12/98) MONTICELLO ZONING ORDINANCE 13/12 Cl-IAPTER ] 4 &F "13-4" REC,IONAL BUSINESS DISTRICT . SECTION: 14-1: Purpose 14-2: Permitted Uses 14-3: Pl:rmitted Accessory Uses 14-4: Conditional Uses 14-1: PURPOSE: The purpose of the "B-4," regional business, district is to provide for the establishment of commercial and service activities which draw from and serve customers from the entire community or region. 14-2: PERMITTED USES: The following are permitted uses in a "B-4" district: IAI All permitted uses as allowed in a "B-1 ", "B-2", and "B-3" district. [BJ Antique or gift shop. [eJ Amusement places (such as clance halls or roller rinks). . IDI Aulo accessory stores. [E] Enclosed hoal and marine sales. WI Books, office supplies, or stationery stores. [G] Bowling alleys. [llJ CarpeL rugs, and lile. [II Coin and philatelic stores. [.I] Copy service but not including press or newspaper. [K] Costume, clothes rental. [L] Department and discount stores. [M] Dry ck:aning, including plant accessory thereto, pressing, and repairs. . [NJ Dry goods store. MONTICELLO ZONING ORDINANCE 14/l . . . 101 Electrical appliance stores, including incidental repair and assembly hut not bbricating or manufacturing. I PI Employment agencies. [Q] Finance companies. JR.] Furniture stores. l U] Haberdasheries and ladies ready-to-wear. [V] Insurance sales, claims and branch offices. lW] Jewelry stores and watch repair. IXI Leather goods and luggage stores. I YI Record - music shops. III Restaurants. tea rooms. cafes, taverns, ancl off-sales liquor stores. IAA[ Sewing machine sales ancl service. I BB I Shoe stores. I eel Tailor shops. [DD] Theatres not or the outdoor drive-in type. [EE] Toy stores. IFF j 'rravel bureaus. transportation ticket offices. [GG] Variety stores. 5 & 10 stores, and stores of similar nature. JHll] Wearing apparel. Ill] Government and public utility buildings. 1.1.11 Mortuaries [KK] Body Piercing Establishments [LL] Tattoo Parlors (#286.2/1 0/97)(#330.9/1 3/(9) MONTICELLO ZONING ORDINANCE 14/2 . . . 14-3: PERMITTED ACCESSORY USES: The following are permitted accessory uses in a "BA" district: [A] All permitted accessory lIses in a "B-3" district. 14-4: CONDITIONAL USES: The following are conditional uses in a "BA" district: (Requires a conditional use permit based upon procedures set forth in and regulated by Chapter 22 of this ordinance.) [AJ 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 [GI. 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 frol11 neighboring residences and shall be in compliance with Chapter 3. Section 2 [HI. of this ordinance. s. The provisions of Chapter 22 of this ordinance are considered and satist~lctorily met. [B j Open or outdoor service. sale. and rental as a principal and accessory use and including sales in or from motorized vehicles. trailers. or wagons. provided that: I. Outside service. sales. and equipment rental connected with the principal use is limited to thirty percent (30%) of the gross noor area of the principal use. This percentage may be incrcased as a condition of the conditional use permit. 2. Outside sales areas are fenced or screened from view of the neighboring residential uses or an abutting residential district in compliance with Chapter 3. Section 2 [GJ. of this ordinance. 3. All lighting shall be hooded and so directed that the I ight source shall not be visible from the public right-of-way or from neighboring residences and shall be in compliance \vith Chapter 3. Section 2 [H]. of this ordinance. 4. Sales area is grassed or surfaced to control dust. MONTICELLO ZONING ORDINANCE 14/3 . . . 5. The provisions of Chapter 22 of this ordinance arc considered and satisbctori I y met. [C] Custom manufacturing. restricted production and repair limited to the following: Art, ncedlcvvork, jc\\\;lry frllln precioLls metals, 'v'vatches. dentures. and optical lenses. provided that: I. Such use is accessory as defined in Chapter 2. Section 2. of this ordinance to the rrinci pal use of the property. 2. Does not contlict 'vvith the character of development intended for this district. 3. The provisions of Chapter 22 of this ordinance are considered satisfactorily met. [OJ Motor fuel station. auto repair-minor, and tire and battery stores and service. provided that: 1. Regardless of whether the dispensing. sale. or offering for sale of motor fuels and/or oil is incidental to the conduct oCthe use or business. the standards and requirements imposed by this ordinance for motor fuel stations shall apply. These standards and requirements arc. however. in addition to other requirements which are imposed Cor other uses or the property. 2. The archili.:ctural appearance and functional plan of the building and site shall not be so dissimilar to the existing buildings or area as to caLise impairment in property values or constitute a hlighting intluence within a reasonable distance oCthe lot. 3. The entire site other than that taken up by a building. structure. or plantings shall be surbced with a matcrial to control dust and drainage which is subject to the approval of the City Engineer. 4. A minimum l(lt area of twenty-two thousand five hundred (22.500) square reet and minimum lot dimensions of one hundn:d fifty (150) feet by one hundred thirty ( 130) feet. 5. A drainage systcm subject to the approval of thc City Engincer shall be instalkd. 6. i\ curb not less than six (6) inches above grade shall separate the public sidewalk Crom 1110tor vehicle service areas. rVIONTICELLO ZONING ORDINANCE ]4/4 7. Thc 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-\vay and shall be in compliance \'vith Chapter 3. Section 2 [l-lJ, of this ordinance. . 8. Wherever fucl pumps are to be installed. pump islands shall be installed. 9. At the boundaries ofa residential district, a strip of not less than five (5) feet shall he landscaped and screened in compliance with Chapter 3. Section 2 [GJ, of this ordinance. 10. Each light standard landscaped. 11. 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. 12. Vehicular access points shall create a minimum of conn ict with through traffic movement. shall comply with Chapter 3. Section 5. of this ordinance. and shall be subject to the approval of the City Engineer. 13. All signing and informational or visual communication devices shall be minimized and shall be in compliance with Chapter 3. Section 9. of this ordinance. . 14. Provisions arc made to control and reduce noise. 15. No outside storage except as allowed in compliance with Chapter 13. Section 4. or this ordinance. 16. Sale of products other than those specifically mentioned in Chapter 13. Section 4. be subject to a conditional use permit and be in compliance with Chapter 13. Section 4 [F], of this ordinance. 17. All conditions pertaining to a specific site arc subject to change when the Counci L 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. 18. The provisions of Chapter 2:2 of this ordinance are considered and satisfactorily met. [E] Machinery sales. . fF] Commercial planned unit development as regulated by Chapter 20 of this ordinance. 14/5 MONTICELLO ZONING ORDINANCE . . ~- ,.' [G) Boarding House, provided that: 1. The building/structure is found to be substandard and/or blighted or contributing to blight and in need of substantial rehabilitation. a. The applicant must provide an overall development concept plan. b. The applicant must demonstrate that said rehabilitation is the most ('ensihle use alternrttive ,1nd that said rehahilitntion is not remodeling or simple structural alterations to accommodate a change in use. 2. There shall be no less than ten (10) units nor more than 18 units, and each unit shall be of a design considered to be an efficiency apartment. 3. At least one unit shall be on the ground Hoar fully accessible to handicapped persons. 4. At least sm10 of the tloor area on the ground 1100r shall he developed as complete restaurant facilities with a minimum seating capacity of two seats per dwelling unit but in no case less than 25 scats. a. Restaurant shall not be eligible for licenses regulating the sale of intoxicating liquors. non-intoxicating malt liquors. \vine. or the display and consumption of liquors. b. Thc restaurant shall be so equipped to provide rood service to the dwelling units if requirecL 5. 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 the lot. 6. All conditions pertaining to a specific site 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 \,vell or better by modifying the conditions. (#138,7/23/8'+) f'vIONTICELLO ZONING ORDINANCE 1'+/6 . . . SECTION: 148-1 : 14B-2: 14B~3: 148-4: 148-5: 14B~6: 148-7: 148~l: 148-2: 14B-3: CHAPTER 148 ;'CCD" CENTRAL COrvIMUNlTY DISTRICT Purpose Permitted Uses Accessory Uses Interim Uses Conditional USl.:S Lot and Building Requirements Design Review PURPOSE: Thl.: purpose of the -'CCO", Central Community ~istrict. is to implement the plans and policies of the iVIonticello OO\vnto\vn Revital ization Plan. as that Plan is designed to pro\'ide for the establishmem and continuation of a traditional downto\vn area in Monticello' s primary commercial core. The district \vill contain a mix of land uses which can compatibly coexist. with requirements based upon enhancement of the district" s natural features. and mitigation of land use contlicts bet\veen differing uses. All proposed uses in the "CCD" district will be evaluated against the goals and objccti\t~s of the Monticello Downtmvn Revitalization Plan as adopted and as may be amended hy the City Council. PERMITTED USES: The following arc permitted L1ses in the "CC[T district: [A] A]] permitted uses as allowed in the "B-4" district. except f(Jr motor fuel fi:lcilities and convenience stores. and hotels/mokls. r8] Restaurants. but not fast-food or convenience type. [C] 011- and off-sale liquor establishments. [DJ Civic and govcrnmental uses as a part of a public community center. IE] Residential dwellings which do not occupy the ground noor space of a building. ACCESSOR Y USES: The t(\lltming are permitted accessory uses in a "CCD" district: [A] Uses \\hich arc clearl~ and customarily incidental to the principal use in size. activity. ~ll1d scupe, and in accordance \\ith the special pm\'isiol1s of this chapter. Except for parking. accessory uscs shall be located in the same principal structure as that of the principal use and shall occupy 110 more than thirty (30) percent orthe tloor area of said structure. MONTICELLO ZONING ORDINANCE 1-+8/1 . . . ]4B-4: ]4B-5: INTERIM USES: The following are allowed as Interim Uses in the "CCD"' district: [A] None. CONDITIONAL USES: The folIo\ving are allowed as conditional uses in the "CCD" district (requires a conditional use permit based upon the procedures set forth in and regulated by Chapter 22 of this ordinance): [A] Hotels, subject to the follo\'.:ing conditions: I. The principal building lot coverage is no less than fifty (50) percent of the property, exclusive of easements devoted to public pedestrian use or other outdoor public spaces. 2. The building, site. and signage meets the standards fix the "CCD" district, and design review approval is granted by the designated Design Advisory Team. 3. The proposed use demonstrates compatibility and consistency \vith the City's Comprehensive Plan and the Dowl1tO\vn Re\italization Plan. [B) Motor fuel station. auto repair-minor, and tire and battery stores and service, as allc)\\;ed in the "B-4" district, and subject to the following additional conditions: 1. 'fhe design of the site promotes pedestrian access adjacent to and along the property, ') No more than two (2) curb cuts of twenty-four (:24) feet in width or less shall be permitted. ], Site lighting shall utilize fixtures similar in style to that designated by the City for use in public areas of the "CCO" district. 4. The building. site, and signage meets the standards for the '.ccrr district. and design review approval is granted by the designated Design Advisory Team. 5, The proposed use demonstrates compatibility and consistency with the City's Comprehensive Plan and the Downtown Revitalization Plan. [C] Residential d\vellings on the ground Ooor. subject to the following conditions: I. The proposed site for residential use is consistent with the goals and objectives of the DowntO\vn Revitalization Plan. ') The proposed site does not interrupt the flow of commercial pedestrian traffic in the "CCD" district. MONTICELLO ZONING ORDINANCE 1413/2 . . [EI 3. Density for ground tloor residential units shall not exceed one unit per 9.000 square feet of lot area. exclusive of land area utilized by. or required for. permitted uses on the property. [0] Drive-in and convenience food establishments as allmved in the "B-3" district. and subject to following additional conditions: 1. The design of the site promotes pedestrian access adjacent to and along the property. 2. No more than t\VO (2) curb cuts of t\venty-four (24) feet in width or less shall be permitted. 3. Site lighting shall utilize tixtures similar in style to that designated by the City for use in public areas of the "CCO., district. 4. The building. site. and signage meets the standards for the "CCD"' district. and design revie\v approval is granted by the designated Design Advisory Team. 5. Drive through t~lCilities comply with the requirements of Subdivision 148-5 [E] of this chapter. 6. The proposed use demonstrates compatibility and consistency with the City's Comprehensive Plan and the Downtown Revitalization Plan. Drive through windows accessory to other principal uses in the "CCD" district. subject to the f()/Iowing conditions: I. Service through drive-through facilities is accessory to interior on- sileo or sit-down. service within the same building. 2. Drive-through lanes are designed to avoid disruption of pedestrian and vehicular traffic tlcl\v. both on- and off- site. 3. Landscaping and other site improvements are included \vhich screen automobile stacking space from the public street. 4. The principal building occupies no less than fCJrty (40) percent of the property. exclusive of easements devoted to public pedestrian use or other outdoor puhl ic spaces. 5. The building. site. and signage meets the standards for the "CCO" district. and design re\'iew approval is granted by the designated Design Advisory Team. 6. The proposed use demonstrates compatibility and consistency with the City's Comprehensive Plan and the Omvntown Revitalization Plan. MONTICELLO ZONING ORDINANCE 14B/3 . . . [F] Animal pet clinics, as allowed in the "'8-3" district. [G] Day-care centers, as allo\ved in the "'8-3" district. [H] Shopping centers, provided that the proposed use demonstrates compatibility and consistency \\lith the City's Comprehensive Plan and the DO\vntown Revitalization Plan. [I] Buildings of a height greater than the maximum building height as allowed in Subdivision 148-6 [0] of this chapter. [l] Planned unit development (PUD) subject to the provisions of Chapter 10 of this ordinance, and provided that the proposed use demonstrates compatibility and consistency with the City's Comprehensive Plan and the Downtown Revitalization Plan. [K] Car Wash. provided that: 1. The car wash building and the principal building must meet the architectural requirements of the Design Advisory Team (OAT). 2. The automobile stacking space area is screened from abutting property, both residential and commercial. .., J. Noise generated by the use. including \'acuums. is mitigated by location or architectural katures from adjoining or nearby residential lIses and pedestrian or outdoor commercial activities. Doors of car wash must be closed during drying operation. Mechanical interlock bet\veen door and dryer must be employed to assure compliance. 4. Lighting on the site is consistent \vith the City's themed lighting style. whether freestanding or wall-mounted. 5. Signage meets the requirements of the CCD zoning district and the approval of the Design Advisory Team (OAT). 6. Drive through traffic does not interfere with pedestrian rouks around and/or through the property. 7. A minimum of five stacking spaces for car wash customers is provided that avoids interference with other traffic on the site. 8. Site landscaping is provided to mitigate the amount of concrete and/or asphalt surfacing. The use of alternative pa\'ing SurLlCCS is encouraged. 9. Measures are taken to avoid freezing and icing from washed vehicles prior to exiting the site to the public street. MONTICELLO ZONING ORDINANCE 148/4 . . . ]4B-6: ] O. All other applicable requirements of the City's Zoning Ordinance are considered and met. (#402. ] 0/27/03) LOT AND BUILDING REQUIREMENTS: The following requirements shall apply to all properties in the "CCO"" district: fA] Minimum Lot Area: None [B] !vlinimum Lot Width: None [C] Residential Density: One dwelling unit per 3.000 square fed of lot area for permitted residential uses. The number of dwelling units ma,y be increased by up to t\venty-five (25) percent ovcr the permitted density for projects which provide at kast half of the required parking underground or in above-grade structures such as ramps or decks (including covered at-grade parking areas). [D] Building Height: 'rhe follO\ving height limitations shall apply to all buildings in the ""('CD"" district: 1. Minimum I-Ieight: Fifteen (15) feet. 2. :vfa.ximum Height: Thirty Five (35) fed. or three (3) stories. \\hich ever is greater. IE] Setbacks: Building setback minimums Jnd maximums shall rctkct the recommendations for the use and IlKation as listed in the DO\\I1LO\\ll Revitalization Plan. Where setbacks as discussed in the DowntO\vn Revitalinltion Plan are not listed or appropriate. there shall be no building setbacks required. In such cases. there shall be no parking allO\ved in the areas bet\\een the front building line and the public street. [F] Site Improvements: All areas of aparcel \vithin the ""CCD" district shall be subject to tht? applicable recommendations of the DowntO\\ll Revitalization Plan. Site improvcments shall be reviewed for compliance by the Dcsign :\dvisory Team together with other design clements. including archikcture and signage. [Gl Parking: I. Supply: Property O\\l1ers shall comply with the parking supply requirements as listed in SubJivision ]-5 [H] of this ordinance. lltmewr. property owners may he granted tlexibility li'om a portion of their required parking supply under the 1()lIo\ving conditions: a. \Vhere the City linds that there will be adequate opportunity to provide public parking in vicinity of the subject property. and at the City's option. the o\\ner shall pay into a "CCO"" Parking Fund an amount as established b_ Citv Council Resolution. Said fund shall be useJ for the acquisition. construction. MONTICELLO ZONING ORDINANCE 1-+8/5 and/or maintenance of publicly-owned parking in the "CCO" district. (#535. 10/9/00) . b. The City may. in addition to. or as an alternative to. the option listed in Subdivision 148-6 [GJla. and at the discretion of the City. the City may offer the property owner the opportunity to choose to supply parking at a rate \vhich is sixty (60) percent of the requirement listed in Subdivision 3-5 [HJ. provided that the owner grants an easement to the public for automobile parking use over the subject area. The owner shall retain responsibility for maintenance of said parking area. (#355. 10/9/00) "') .:.... Location: Parking shall not be located on a parcel between the front building line of the principal building and the public street except where expressly provided t()r by the City Council after recommendation from the Planning Commission. [H] Signs: The following requirements shall apply to all sign displays and construction in the "CCO" district: I. Signs shall comply with the Monticello Building Codes and Zoning Ordinances relating to signs. including special allowances which may be made for the nCCD" district. . 2. All signs in the "CCO., district shall receive review and approval from the Design Advisory Team. a. Signs in compliance \vith applicabil' ordinances: For signs \vhich meet the regulations of the City's sign ordinances and the goals and objectives of the OO\vntown Revitalization Plan. sLlch review shall be given the weight of an administrative determination. Appeal of a determination by the Design Advisory Team shall be as provided for in Chapter 23 of the ivlonticello Zoning Ordinance. b. Signs not in compliance \'lith applicable ordinances: Signs \vhich do not meet the regulations of the City's sign ordinances shall require review by the 80ard of Adj L1stment and Appeals. as provided for in Chapter 23 of the Monticello Zoning Ordinance. following Design Advisory Team review and recommendation. 148-7: DESIGN REVIEW: All development and redevelopment projects in the "CCD"' district shall be subject to design review for compliance \\ith the goals and objectives of the DowntO\vn Revitalization Plan. This subdivision identifies the process and application of design re\'iew recommendations. . [AI The City Council shall designate a Design /-\d\'isory Team (DA T) to carry oUt MONTICELLO ZONING ORDINANCE 148/6 . . the requirements of this Subdivision. The Council may delegate membership determination to another private or public board. Said OAT shall review projects within the "CCD"" \vhich propose new or altered buildings. site improvements. or signs. Site improvements shall include parking lots. landscaping projects (other than direct replacement of existing landscaping). walkways and open space plazas. or other outdoor projects affecting the visual impact of a site. 1. Plans shall be submitted to the OAT for review no less than seven (7) days prior to a OAT meeting. An applicant shall submit at least six (6) sets of plans. The OAT meeting shall be open to the public. but shall not constitute a "public hearing" \vithin the meaning of the zoning ordinance. "') Submitted plans shall be sufficiently detailed to identify proposed materials. colors. locations. and any other factors relating to the visual impact of the proposal. Such plans may include: Site Plans. Floor Plans. Building Elevations. Rendered Ormvings. ivlaterials Samples. and other appropriate submissions. ., j. The OAT shall render its decision for approval or denial of a submitted design review application at the same meeting at which a proposal is properly presented. A \\Titten report of the OAT's findings shall be forwarded to the Zoning Administrator for information to the Planning Commission. Upon \vritten request of an applicant. the DA T may table action on a proposal for up to thirty (30) days. If the OAT docs not render a decision \vithin the requin:d timt~ frame. an application will be deemed approved. [B J Appeals: Appeals of an ad\'l:rsc decision of the DAT Illay be made to the Planning Commission by the applicant. an abutting property o\\'ner. or another property owner \vithin the ""CCO"" district. Said appcal shall be governed by the process and requirements listed in Chapter 13 oCthe Monticello Zoning Ordinance. [CJ Status of OA T Decision: Decisions of the OAT shall be treated as foUmvs: I. Permitted Uses which comply with all building code and zoning ordinance standards: DAT decisions shall be advisory to the Building Official. ') Conditional and Interim Uses: OAT decisions shall be gi\'en the status of administrative determinations. to be submitted to the Planning Commission for inclusion in its recomlllcndation to the City Council. . ., j. Uses Requesting Variances: OAT decisions shall be given the status of administrative determinations. to be submitted to the Planning Commission for inclusion in its recommendation to the City Council. MONTICELLO ZONING ORDINANCE 14B/7 . . . 4. Proposals receiving direct financial assistance from the City or one of its official entities: DA T decisions shall be considered final. subject to the appeal process outlined in this Subdivision. (#299,1 ] /24/97) MONTICELLO ZONING ORDINANCE 14B/8 . . . 9. Public Rearin!! - Consideration of a reQuest for conditional use permit and development sta!!e cuP/pun for Mielke- Loch Retail Development (NAC) REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND Backzround and Existinz Conditions. The applicant has applied for a Development Stage CUP/PUD to allow for the development of Lot 4, Block 1, Monticello Travel Center 2nd Addition. The subject site is .77 acres and is located west Cedar Street and east ofT lighway 25. The property is zoned B-3, llighway Business District. Adjoining commercial land uses within the block include a proposed Wendy's Restaurant, existing Dairy Queen, and a proposed Holiday Station Store. The proposed plan calls for the development of a retail shopping center with multiple tenants. The proposed building will be a total of 10,700 square feet. Shopping centers are allowed by ConditionallJse Permit within the B-3 District. Performance Standards' and ,')'etbacks. Below are the setback requirements for the B-3 District and that which is proposed by the developer. B-3 Standard Proposed by the Developer Front yard Setback 30 feet 14 feet (Cedar Street) Side yard Setback 1 0 feet 41 feet Rear yard Setback 30 feet 40 feet As part of the CUP/PUD the developer is seeking l1exibility from the front yard setback requirement of the Ordinance. The building is oriented with its fayade directed toward the inward part of the site area. Because of this orientation the rear of the building will be facing Cedar Street. Two options exist for resolving this issue. The building could be oriented to face the public street or the building elevations could be similar throughout the entire building with fake fa<;ades and false windows at the southern, eastern, and nOlihern portions of the building. The applicant has provided awnings along the Cedar Street exposure, and has agreed in meetings with staiTto add false windows to create the impression of a building front. These improvements should minimize the impact of the rear building exposure along Cedar Street. Buildinz Plan. The developer has submitted building elevations. The City should comment on the building design and orientation in relationship to Cedar Street as indicated above. The building includes a combination of stucco/EIFS, decorative tile bands, aluminum and glass and a tile and masonry base. The developer is proposing a concrete walk throughout southern, western, and northern portions of the building. As part of the pun l1exibility, the City may require that the concrete walk connecting the parking area to the building include a mix of decorative pavers. Additionally, the developer is proposing to connect the existing . walk on the eastern portion of the site along Cedar Street. This suggestion is offered to mitigate the highly limited landscaping area on this portion of the PUD. Parking. Required and proposed parking is identified below: Use Office Buildin As a condition of approval, a shared parking agreement and access easement will be necessary for the access and remaining parking stalls. The parking stalls proposed by the developer meet the minimum length and width requirements of the Ordinance. Access and Circulation. The overall access and parking design is a concern. The parking area located in the northeastern portion of the site is a concern as there is little stacking space for vehicles exiting the area. Cars backing out near the curb cut will impede the general traffic flow within this area. While this will not prohibit the overall traffic flow into or out of the site, it may impede the overall circulation pattern at times. The applicants should consider signing or other warnings to address this Issue. . LandscClvinl!. Roughly 10 percent ofthe total site area is landscaped. The landscaping plan is minimal, with a total of 11 trees and 35 shrubs throughout the site. The zoning ordinance requires one tree per 50 feet of perimeter lot line. This site contains approximately 850 of lot perimeter, requiring a total of 17 trees. As a condition of approval, additional plantings should be considered, particularly in the rear of the building that faces Cedar Street. Staff would recommend that the striped areas be raised with landscaped islands to incorporate additional landscaping throughout the site area. Si}.!naze. Section 3-9rE12. (b)ii of the Zoning Ordinance states that single or double occupancy business structures shall have two options for permitted signs. The first option allows for wall signage only. The second option allows for a combination of wall signage and pylon signage. The applicant is proposing the following signage for the site: Wall Si~nage Monument Sil2:naee 7 wall signs 1 monument sign 8 signs 240 square feet 120 square feet 360 square feet · The Zoning Ordinance statcs that the total sign area shall bc 300 square feet. 'rhe applicant is proposing 360 square feet. As part of the CUP/PUD the developer is seeking 11exibility with the overall sign square footage allowed under Ordimll1ce. . Li.l!htin.l!. As a condition of approval, the photometric plan will be subject to the review and approval of the Building Official for conf<')J"lnance to the Zoning 2 . Ordinance lighting requirements, The I ight fixtures proposed by the developer will match the light fixtures already found within the surrounding site area, Trash k'nc/osure. A trash enclosure is proposed on the eastern portion of the building. The trash enclosure will be located within the building and will comply with the Ordinance. Gradinz Drainaze and Utilities: The applicant has submitted grading, drainage, erosion control and utilities plans which are subject to the review and comment of the City Engineer. Development Agreement: As a condition of approval, the applicant will be required to enter into a development agreement with the City. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS Development Stage PlJ D 1. Motion to recommend approval of the Conditional Use Permit and development stage PUD based on a finding that the proposed plan consistent with the goals of the Comprehensive Plan, subject to the applicable conditions of Exhibit Z. . 2. Motion to recommend denial of the Conditional Use Permit and development stage PUD based on a linding that the plan is not consistent with the intent of the Comprehensive Plan. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS StalTreeommends approving the Conditional Use Permit and development stage PUD application subject to the conditions outlined in Exhibit Z. It should be noted that stafl makes this recommendation with noted concern regarding traffic circulation in the drive aisle located on the north portion of the lot SUPPORTING DATA . A. Aerial Tmage B. Site Plan C. Exterior Elevations D. Site Photometric Plan E. Grading & Utilities Plan F. Landscaping Plan Z. Exhibit Z - Conditions of Approval " -, . . . Exhibit Z: Conditions of Approval Mielke-Loch Retail Development I. A shared access easement and shared parking agreement shall he prepared and approved hy the City. 2. The striped area within the southwest portion of the site shall be raised and replaced with landscaped islands. 3. The applicant shall revise the landscaping plan to include additional trees and shrubs at the perimeter of the building and site area as noted in this report. All landscaping areas shall be irrigated and provide a minimum of a one-year landscaping guarantee. 4. The photometric plan shall be subject to the review and approval of the Building Official. 5. The building elevations shall be similar throughout the entire building, with false windows at the southern, eastern, and northern portions of the building. 6. The concrete walk connecting the parking area to the building shall include a mixture of decorative pavers. 7. The grading, drainage, erosion control and utility plans are subject to the review and approval of the City Engineer. 8. The applicant shall enter into a development agreement and PUD agreement with the City to he drafted by the City Attorney. 9. Additional comments from City Staif, Planning Commission or City Council. 4 Page 1 of 2 . http://156.99.28.84/servletlcom.esri.esrimap.Esri map ?ServiceN ame=CustomParcel&Client V ersion=3.1 &... 12/112005 ~ PROPOSED PROJECT SITE LITTLE MOUNTAIN ELEMENTARY MONTICELLg, HIGH seHO . CARDINAL HILLS PARK SCHOOL FALCON 01 . 10. . . Planning Commission Agenda - 12/06/05 Public Hearin : Consideration of a re uest for a Preliminar Plat and Variances to the R-l Zonin District standards for lot width for Pine View as unit simde family develoument. AuuJicant: West Side Market. (NAC) REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND The applicants are seeking a Preliminary Plat for the property occupied by the closed West Side Market. The property is zoned R-l, Single Family Residential. This property has been the subject of previous development requests, including a small-lot single family plat (R-2A) of 7 lots. Some members of the adjoining neighborhood to the north had objected to the smaller-lot plat based on their concerns regarding screening of the rear yards and a proposed common private driveway that would have served the rear-loaded garages. The current proposal consists of 4 lots in the current phase, with one additional lot to be added upon the vacation of a portion of Otter Creek Road, which currently intersects with County 75 at an angle. The City has just recently come to an agreement with an adjoining property owner that would allow the vacation. As a result, the plat could proceed with 5 lots when properly drawn (with the 5th lot at the location of Outlot A and the Otter Creek Road vacated land). A 5th lot is only possible in an R~ 1 district should the Commission approve variances for lot width. Variance to Lot Width Regulations. For R-l lots, the Zoning Ordinance requircs a minimum lot width of 80 feet. The proposed lots are less than 74 feet in width. To consider a variance, the Planning Commission must make some specific fmdings. In essence, the Planning Commission must find that a special condition of the property exists that creates a hardship in putting the property to reasonable use under the regular ordinance requirements. This special condition can not be economic in nature, nor may it be a condition of the making of the owner. This is an important point, in that one of the main reasons for the developer requesting an additional 51h lot relates to the economics associated with redeveloping the site, which was formerly an active business. As noted in the regulation for variances, economic factors are not grounds for granting a variance. In this case, there would not appear to be any hardship-based grounds for a variance. On new plats, the owner is charged with the responsibility to work with the land he has _ reasonable use is presumed to be defined by the basic zoning regulations. As such, variances to basic zoning standards are almost never provable for new plats. With this situation, thc maximum capacity for R-l lots on this property would be four, rather than the anticipated five. Preliminary Plat. The proposed plat relies on shared driveways that would access County Highway 75 for four of the units, with the fifth unit having a side-loaded driveway access to Otter Creek Road. The proposed driveway accesses onto Highway 75 raisc scvcral safcty concerns. first, the Comprehensivc Plan discourages Planning Commission Agenda - 12/06/05 . direct access onto arterial routes such as this. Where there is no other option, access must be granted to allow use of the property, however, this site also has access to Otter Creek Road. Direct driveway access onto a major roadway such as Highway 75 is a very dangerous design, and should not be permitted for new plats. Moreover, the driveway locations proposed by this plat access into a right turn lane. This condition further complicates the danger of access in this location. The County Highway Department has stated that they would grant these access permits, however, they do not recommend this design, and encourage the developer and the City to work together to develop a "backage" road design (private drive) as previously contemplated. City staff believes that the common driveway design is a far superior solution to the development of this property, and would not recommend approval ofa plat with direct access to Highway 75. If, despite staiT and County objections, the direct access is to be considered, stafT would recommend the following minimum changes to the project design: a. Addition of a paved 1 O-foot wide shoulder adjacent to the turn lane to allow garbage, recycling, mail, and other service vehicles to stop out of the travel and turn lanes on Highway 75. Without this additional width, these vehicles will interfere with Highway 75 traffic by causing turning traffic to weave back into the travel lane. . b. Addition of a 5-foot wide sidewalk for the length of the development to provide pedestrian access to the future pathway at Otter Creek Road. Without this sidewalk, residents of this plat would have to walk in the traveled portion of the County Highway and/or turn lane, a condition that the City routinely avoids with the installation of sidewalks and/or pathways along roads of higher traffic volumes. c. Addition of public sidewalk easement along the front lot lines of the individual lots to accommodate the sidewalk noted above. The width of the right of way in this location, together with the drainage ditch and uti I ities, does not provide adequate room for the addition of the sidewalk within the existing right of way area. d. Additional setback for the proposed houses to accommodate hoth the sidewalk easement, and turn-around pads for vehicles exiting the individual driveways onto Highway 75. These turn-around areas should be required to avoid vehicles needing to back out onto this roadway. e. Establ ishment of cross easements allowing joint access to shared driveways. . As noted, staff does not believe the direct access design is appropriate in this location. The recommendations above are intended to mitigate the negative impacts of that design, but still result in an inferior plat. Planning Commission Agenda - 12/06/05 . With regard to the rear-loaded design and the common driveway, this plan was dropped by the applicant following neighborhood objections to the 7-10t R-2A design and fears that the back driveway area would become a maintenance issue. Staff continues to support this design, bclieving that with property landscaping along the common property line, the concerns of the neighborhood are unfounded. Single~ family neighborhoods have residential development along their rear property lines in all sorts of situations with no screening whatsoever, and without concern over rear- yard maintenance. The driveway and landscaping discussed previously for this project is more than most residents can expect, and should not raise the fears expressed by the adjoining neighbors. This is especially important in that the alternative to the rear-loaded design results in severe compromises to traffic safety on the l-lighway 75 side. With no other options, the City must choose between a perceived, but manageable, aesthetic impact on adjoining neighbors, or the significant safety impact on the adjoining highway. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS Decision 1: Variance from the lot width requirements ofthe R-l District . 1. Motion to approve variances for lot widths less than 80 feet, based on a finding that thc applicant has shown a hardship to be identified by the Planning Commission in complying with the R-l standards. 2. Motion to deny the variances, based on a fmding that the applicant can put the property to reasonable R-1 use without the need for variances by platting the project into four, rather than five, lots, and that no hardship exists to support the requested variance. Decision 2: Preliminary Plat for Pineview 1. Motion to recommend approval of the Preliminary Plat as proposed, with the conditions listed in Exhibit Z. 2. Motion to recommend denial of the Preliminary Plat, based on a finding that the plat does not comply with the applicable requirements ofthe R-l Zoning District, and would create an unsafe condition by providing direct access to County Highway 75. . 3. Motion to table action on the Prcliminary Plat, subject to redesign, including the land acquired through vacation of Otter Creek Road, and any redesign issues raised by the Planning Commission, including changes to access or other items identified in Exhibit Z. Planning Commission Agenda ,.- 12/06/05 . STAFF RECOMMENDATION Planning Staff docs not recommend approval of the variances. There does not appear to be any justification for the variances based on the Zoning Ordinance requirements for hardship or special conditions, As an R-l plat, there would appear to be adequate frontage for just four lots of at least 80 feet in width, rather than the five proposed by the applicant. If the plat is redesigned to permit the rear-loaded common driveway, staff would recommend a landscaped area to provide some screening of the driveway, and the sidewalk casement in front, but without the need to construct the sidewalk at this time. The driveway would provide room for residents of the plat to carry garbage containers to Otter Creek Road, and to access the pathway system without using the County Highway travel lanes. Planning staff would continue to support previous consideration of the R-2A concept where smaller lots would be acceptable with the conditions and requirements ofthat district, particularly as a rcar-loaded design. Stalf further recommends tabling the Plat at this time, providing the applicant the opportunity to redesign the plat drawing to reflect thc comments raised in this report and at the public hearing. ---. SUPPORTING DATA A. Site I,ocation Map B. Preliminary Plat C. Letter from Wright County Highway Department D. Diagram of Otter Creek Road Realignment Z. Exhibit Z - Conditions of Approval ~ . http:// 156. 99 .28.84/serv let/com.esri .esrimap.Esrimap ?ServiceN ame;;;;CustomParcel&Client Version;;;;3.1 &... 12/1/2005 . ONTlSSIPPI ~OUNTY PARK ---~------------""--............,~., PROPOSED PROJECT AREA ~, "" -............ -'" "--v' \ ~L~' ~-, rllGHWA Y jg -COlJNIY 5rAfE . ~- //' /' /' ------ / /------,;;:?,,/! (F,1115T/" LAKE ~ (MUD /' LAKe / \[ " --~--"-......----......_~ \S .------- .// . V~TV Ok .~\. J.. 1- I Z Cl il~;' m ~.- ! ~ -4')' 7S56 lOG WRIGHT COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF HIGHWAYS Wright County Public Works Building 1901 Highway 25 North Buffalo, Minnesota 55313 Jet. T.H. 25 and C.R. 138 Telephone: (763) 682-7383 FAX: (763) 682-7313 WATh'E A. FINGALSON. P.E. Highway Engineer (763) 682-7388 VIRGIL G. HAWKINS. P.E. Assistant Highway Engineer (763) 682-7387 RICHARD E. MARQUE'ITE Right of Way Agent (763) 682-7386 October 20, 2005 Honorable Mayor, City Council & Planning Commission City of Monticello 505 Walnut Street, Suite 1 Monticello, MN 55362 RE: Pine View Preliminary Plat Review CSAH 75, City of Monticello - Plat Review No. 05-26 Honorable Mayor, City Council Members, and Planning Commission Members: . We have reviewed the proposed Pine View preliminary plat prepared by Dennis Taylor Land Surveyors, Inc. The proposed development consists of four (4) single-family homes facing County State Aid Highway (CSAH) 75 (West Broadway Street) and one (1) outlot 'A' at the NE corner of the intersection of Otter Creek Road and CSAH 75 (West Broadway Street). We have reviewed the.preliminary plat with regard to access and right-of-way issues along County State Aid Highway CSAH 75 (West Broadway Street) only. Aspects of internal drainage, and grading internal to the development should be reviewed by the City Engineer for conformance to city standards. We offer the following comments. 1) If possible, we would like to see access for all four (4) of these homes come from Otter Creek Road, in the form of a "backage" road system. This would remove all accesses from CSAH 75 coming out into the right turn lane for Otter Creek Road, which is not desirable from a safety standpoint. We understand that this may require some discussion by the City and developer and could involve some sort of screening for the homes located to the north of this development. We encourage the City and developer to explore this option in the interest of safety for future residents of this development, as well as the traveling public that uses West Broadway Street. 2) If a "backage" road system cannot be agreed on by the City and developer, we will allow two (2) shared driveway accesses along CSAH 75 centered on the shared property line for lots 1 & 2, and 3 & 4, respectively. In accordance with our access permit policy, the residential driveways would only be 16 feet in width measured at right angles to the "center of the driveway, with 25 foot radii. An access permit will be required for the new accesses proposed for CSAH 75. The access permit application should be sent to the attention. of Bruce Leinonen, Permit Technician, of our office. . . Page Two Pine View Preliminary Plat Review October 20, 2005 3) Outlot 'A', if/when it develops into a future building lot with the proposed realignment of Otter Creek Road, would not have direct access to CSAH 75. Access for this future lot would be required to be directed to Otter Creek Road. 4) A utility permit will be required for any utility work within the CSAH 75 right-of-way. This will cover any sanitary, watermain, or storm sewer work within the CSAH 75 right- of-way. Specific requirements will be identified at the time more detailed plans are submitted with the utility permit application. No open cutting of CSAH 75 will be permitted for utility crossings, in accordance with the County's utility policy. Utillty permits should be sent to the attention of Bruce Leinonen, Permit Technician, of our office. We trust that this information is helpful to you and if you have any questions or concerns regarding the above comments please call me at 763-682-7387. ~~ Virgil G. Hawkins, P.E. Assistant County Engineer . cc: Wayne Fingalson, County Engineer Steve Jobe, County Surveyor Bruce Leinonen, Permit Technician Steve Meyer, Maintenance Superintendent Tom Holthaus, Applicant Bruce Westby, City of Monticello John Simola, City of Monticello Plat Review Rle No. 05-26 . C:\Documents and Settings\vgh7387\My Documents\WPWIN\PLAT\ACCESS\2005\Pine View C$AH 75 MonticellO,doc . Cll:.f.'HIC !U:ALE " I ( lJj rEET ) I IRen - $0 IL ~ '0 I , ~-------~ ------~ ~~ ~ ------- ~- .~ ---- ------ --...................... --------------- ~------------ REMOVE ExiSTING BITUMINOUS PAVEMENT ~--------- S4Nb~> I ~------~- --~'J N", ------___ ---------..~ ---........ .....................- ............... ---.................... ~ ---- --~- .~~- ---.---- -~ ~ .....-..........-......-.......-- - 8' WAlK 6' al"VO CREEK-SID. T<RRACE ". RIVER T<RRACE 2ND ADDITION . ~ CRFF!;' - SIDE T,RRACE LO, 8. PARCEL A R - 200' l - 100' ~ ~ ""--- ~ ~ RIVER TERRACE LOT " BLOCK 4 . "~ '" ~""---"""---:::< ~ '............ ..,.~, ----- --'~-'" ~-;. ~ -~.: '~~--, -'---- ~""---..... .....~. Co , ~- (-'i\'l' - "" )> I( - ~ ""---..... q.,O -'- "'0 ~ ''::-,' '---- ""--- <-l7 ~--~---,-- ~ ',-~~-,.-- ~ el)'U~"'G -....,-,. ~ ""---......:-,.....-- ''''OUS'O; -. , -", '. --, ".... --.......... ! .....~, ~ fly ......, ""--- "" '~ -. .~ ~-''''-- ---~ ~ ----<'., '-.~ '---.. ~ '-""""--- ~"'-' '...., ~ ~CREE:K~SIDE TERRACE LOT 8. PARCEL B 2370 SF PRQPOSW BUILDING 20' AA,() .. PROPOSED RIGHT-Of-WAY VACA TlON ~ ~ ~ ~l~~IJ'\lm~II!O'1~I'"lliYII\\~. ~~II'I~ 300 SB M"''''!.''''',:'I.. MN O~12~ o/r .....~K, I.... '" :~~'; :i;:.i~.";j a.;a.:r.Mlaf..ll.l....._.~,~~_~:1~ CIlV 0' Monticello WSB Project No. 014SS-001 Dole: Decemoef 6, 2002 Otter Creek Road Figure No.1 Alignment 1 WSI!I fllE; M~ \OI262-01\OIlM~fftl\rOOd~R[ 1;hrg . . . Planning Commission Agenda 12/06/05 11. Public Hearinl! - Consideration of a request for a pun Amendment and Preliminarv Plat approval for Poplar Hill. Applicant: lnsil!nia Development. (NAC) REFERENCE ANI> BACKGROtJND Insignia Development is requesting a PUD Amendment and revised Preliminary Plat approval for a development to be known as Poplar Hill. The subject site is 230 acres in area and is located south of 90th Street Northeast and west of the Groveland Development. The project. which went through concept review in October of2004 and Rezoning, PUD and Preliminary Plat review in April 01'2005, is being amended to eliminate the multifamily component proposed in April. The PUD amendment being requested by the devcloper would remove the entire apartment and townhome components and replace them with single family detached lots. Those lots will consist of either R.-2A or R- I lots. Issues including site design, long term use of the existing excavating business, access and circulation were discussed during concept and preliminary plat review. The developer has revised plans to deal with such issues. The following report includes planning staff's analysis, review, and recommendations regarding the revised plans dated October 3nl, 2005. Land Use: The land uses proposed for the Poplar Hill development are reflective of the City's Comprehensive land use plan. 'fhe project proposes that the subject site be rezoned from its current A-O designation to a mixture of land uses including R-l A (single family residential), R-l (single family residential and R-2A (Single Family Residential). The Comprehensive Plan language calls for mixed use in this area, including park land, residential, and commercial uses. The only change represented by this proposal is to the mix of residential units. The park land and commercial areas remain a part of the ultimate land use mix. The bulk of the overall plat design will remain the same from that which was proposed in April. However, the plat has changed significantly in the northwestern portion of the site. The plat proposcd in April included a total of 180 town homes within the R-3 district. A total of four 75-unit apartment complexes (300 units in total) were proposed under the PZM (Performance Zone - Mixed district) requirenlcnts. These multifamily components have been eliminated and replaced by single family lots. The following table illustrates the lots proposed as part of the PUD amendment compared with that which was proposed in April. . Lot Summary A ril 2005 102 Lots 53 Lots 70 Lots 180 units Planning Commission Agenda 12/06/05 Lot Summary PU [) Amendment November 2005 102 Lots 146 Lots 50 Lots R-3 Town homes -180 units 300 units PZR Apaliments TOTAL: 705 Lots -300 unit" TOTAL: 298 Lot Lot Difference -IA -1 -2A o Lots +83 Lots -20 Lot -180 units -3 Town homes ZR Apartments -300 units Difference -407 The overall density has been reduced as well. The gross area density calculation of the plan proposed in April was 3.07 un./ac. The density of the current plan will be 1.29 acres. Lot Standards: The iollowing table illustrates the lot requirements for the proposed zoning districts: . Lot ^rea ot Width "ront Setback e Setback Hous "ide Setback - Garage Side "inished Size Foundation Size Jarage Location Favade Detail :;,lrage Frontage Landscaping . R-IA 16,000 sf avg, ()O fCetavg. 35 feet avg, 15 feet 6 feel 30 feet/usable 6/12 700 sf 2.000 sf 2.000 sf 1,400 sf No closer than:> n, in /I'ont of front building line of living space 20'};, brick/stone or 10% if 70% is covered with wood or stucco 40% of bldg, width in Ii'ont-Elcing Sod & two trees per lot in new subdivision or four trees for corner lots R~I 6 fcet 30 feet/usa 5/12 450 sf 2,000 sf 1,050 sf rambler(I,400 sl) None Std. setbacks None None Sod and two trees per lot and four trees for corner lots 2 R-2A 7,500 sf avg. 45 feet 1 0 feet 6 feet 6 feet 10 feet 5/12 450 sf 1.200 sf I. 200 sf None No closer than fi'ont building line of living space 20'% brick/stone or IO'Yc, if70% is covered with wood or stucco 50'Yc, of bldg, width in fronl-nleing Spe<:ial requirements for front yard landscaping Planning Commission Agenda 12/06/05 . The developer is requesting flexibility with regard to the lot sizes, lot setbacks, and some of the R-lA building size requirements. This flexibility is in exchange for development amenities that include greater design amenities in homes and lot layout and includes items like landscaped private open space, common berm and fencing areas, and other amenities. The R-l A, R-l and R-2A districts allow for an averaging oflot sizes. As seen in the following table, each of the proposed districts is consistent with the average lot area requirement: District Average lot size R-lA district 16,566 sf R-l district 20,104 sf R-2A district 10,042 sf Within all residential areas all other performance standards will be required to be met. This will include adequate ovcrstory trees for each residential lot and the setbacks as outlined within the requested PUD information. Circulation! Access: . The overall circulation and access plan remains the same for the majority of the plat. The private drives that existed as part of the first preliminary plat submission have been eliminated. The right-of-way width for most public streets is 60 feet with 30 feet of paved surface. A small portion of the southern plat will have 52 feet of right- of . way with a 32 foot paved surface. As a way to continue the overall design ofthe plat, staff would recommend that the cul-de-sac in the northwestern portion of the plat become a secondary access off of Road KIt. The intersection of K/L could be curved in a manner that is consistent with the majority of the plat. · The City Engineer must review and approve the final street plans. Park I Trail: The overall park and trail plan has remained the same for the plat. The Ordinance states that one acre of park land should be dedicated for each 75 persons in a subdivision. To estimate the population, a household size of 3.5 persons per unit for single family homes is established. ..... Unit Type Number of Units Persons Per Total Persons Acres Required IIousehold (I per 75 persons) Single family homes * 298 3.5 per unit 1,043 14 Total 14 acres ....... A total of 14 acres of parkland is required. During the concept review and preliminary plat stage the developer showed a 39.37 acre park. The amended plat " .J Planning Commission Agenda 12/06/05 . shows the same 39.37 acre park in the central area of the plat. A large portion of the proposed dedicated park lies within the transmission line casement or delineated wetland. The 14 acres of required park land must be usable area, which generally does not include land eneumhered by utility lines easements unless the land is deemed to he a public benefit. Based upon the proposed park layout, approximately 17 acres lies within the power company easement leaving 23 acres available for park exclusive of the easement or wetland. The overall layout of the park includes two football fields and 3 soccer fields. The acceptability of the park land improvements, which at concept level included four soccer fields and three baseball fields, as well as the proposed trail system, are subject to comment and recommcndation of the Park Commission. As mentioned previously, a total of285 parking spaces are identified within the park area. The parking spaces are located within the powerline easement area, with the fields located outsidc ofthe casement. According to the City's Zoning Ordinance, at least 1 parking space is rcquired for eight scats of design capacity. Based upon the review of American Planning Association (AP A) guidelines, parking stalls required for athletic fields range from 10 spaces per field to 1 space per 5,000 square feet of parkland area. If both of these calculations are applied, the applicant would be required to provide a total of either 50 parking spaces (10 spaces * 5 fields) or 148 parking spaces (5,000/17 acres). . Rased upon AP A standards, it is apparent that the applicant has over parked this area. Statl would recommend that the parking plan be revised to 100 spaces with the rest remaining as open space within the easement area. The developer will he required to designate handicapped accessible parking on the plan as a condition of approval. Outlots: There are a total of 13 outlots proposed for the entire site. The following table illustrates the acreage of each outlot and its function related to the plat. As a condition of approval, the developer must identify the proposed use and ownership of each outlot. Below is a review ofthe proposed outlots. . Outlot Acreage Function Outlot A .68 Buffer Arca Block 2 Outlot B .14 Buffer Arca Outlot C 1.0 Huffer Area Outlot D 14.63 Wetland North of Street G OutlotE .15 Buffer Outlot F .40 Outlot for play lot and gazebo Outlot G .28 Buffer Outlot H 1.48 Wetland 4 Planning Commission Agenda 12/06/05 . Outlot 1 2.46 Wetland Outlot J .73 Swimming pool area / basketball court Outlot K 3.28 Future development Outlot L 39.37 Future Park Outlot M .32 Buffer The City must determine which outlots will be maintained through the City and which will be maintained by the Homeowners Association (HOA). There are a total of 5 oIl-street parking stalls identified adjacent to Outlot J. This should be adequate to serve the immediate neighborhood. Building stvle: As a PUD, the City has the ability to impose design-related conditions related to building styles. The developer has submitted elevations for the various housing styles. The exterior materials will include brick, cultured stone, and shakes. The single family homes must meet the performance requirements as defined in the zoning ordinance and outlined in this report. As a condition of approval no more than twenty-five (25) percent of all homes shall be split-entry design in the R-l and R-2A areas. This shall become a requirement of the private covenants. . Landscaping: The applicant has submitted a landscape plan. The overall plan lacks a diversity of plantings within the overall area. Staff would recommend that Norway Maple and Ci-reen ash replace white ash or silver maple as these species are overplanted and are considered invasive. Cockspur Hawthorn are susceptible to fireblight and should be incorporated with other species. Blue Beech and Amur Cherry are effective when used in clumps. It is unclear as to how these pmiicular species are to be planted. Additionally, Amur Cherry should not be planted on the edges of unprotected land areas (they are currently identified near the future business area) as they are susceptible to being overturned in the wind due to a shallow root system. Finally, the developer has identified a row of evergreen trees along School Roulcvard, however, staff would recommend that this section include a mix of deciduous shrubs to supplement the evergreen tree planting. A buffer yard is required between the commercial areas and the low density residential areas that meet the following standards: . A minimum landscape yard of 30 feet . 120 planting units per 100 feet of property line . It should be noted that only half of the required landscaping within this buffer area needs to be planted at this time as the commercial area will remain vacant. The single 5 Planning Commission Agenda 12/06105 . fami Iy residential lots within the development require two overstory trees per lot with the exception of corner lots which require four. As a condition of approval, the homeowners association will be responsible for landscaping maintenance in the yard yards of all R-2A homes. Trail System: The applicant is proposing an eight-foot bituminous trail on the eastern portion of School Boulevard. Additional sidewalks and trails are proposed throughout the site as well the northeastern portion of the plat along 90th Street. As a condition of approval, the trail system will be required to be completed during the first phase of the development. The City Engineer shall comment on the sidewalks proposed as part of the street plan, as it was noted that there are locations where sidewalk needs to be added. SiQnage: Detailed signage has not been submitted at this time. As a condition of approval, the City will require a detail of each proposed entrance monument sign structure. Wetlands: . Issues related to the three wetland areas on the site arc su~ject to the review and comment of the City Engineer. Grading Drainage and Utilities: The applicant has submitted grading, drainage, erosion control and utilities plans which are subject to the review and comment of the City Engineer. AL TERNATIVE ACTIONS pun Amendment and revised Preliminary Plat approval of a development to be known as Poplar Hill. I. Motion to recommend approval of the PUD Amendment and revised Preliminary Plat based on a finding that the proposed PUD is consistent with the goals of the Comprehensive Plan, subject to the applicable conditions of Exhibit Z. 2. Motion to recommend denial of the PUD Amendment and revised Preliminary Plat based on a finding that the proposed PUD is not consistent with the intent of the Comprehensive Plan. . 6 Planning Commission Agenda 12/06/05 . STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS Stail recommends approving the rezoning, development stage pun, and preliminary plat applications subject to the conditions outlined herein. SUPPORTING DATA Exhibit A -~ Site Location Map Exhibit B - Applicant Packet Including: Cover Sheet Existing Conditions Preliminary Plat & pun Street Sections Preliminary Grading, Drainage and Erosion Control Plan Preliminary Utility Plan Preliminary Landscape, Trail and Amenities Plan Street Profiles Exhibit C - Project Narrative Exhibit D - Typical PUD Home Designs & Standards Packet Exhibit Z - Conditions of Approval - Poplar Hill . . 7 . . . Planning Commission Agenda 12/06/05 Exhibit Z - Conditions of Approval Poplar Hill PUD Amendment and Revised Preliminary Plat 1. All lots and proposed units, with the exceptions of Lots 17 and 18 of Block 5 "flag lots" shall meet the performance standards per the zoning ordinance, unless otherwise noted within the application PUD narrative and exhibits. 2. The shared access for the commercial area shall be shifted to the south and shall be utilized as a single-loaded access. 3. The development of the commercial area shall require a separate site plan review. Approval of the Poplar Hill PUD shall not be considered an approval for any business use within the site until additional plans are submitted and approved by the Planning Commission and City Council. 4. Access onto Lot 1-5, Block 17 shall come off of Weston Drive only. 5. The City shall need to determine if a portion ofthe easement area is acceptable to be included in the park land dedication. 6. The applicant shall limit the parking stalls within the park area to one hundred (100) parking stalls within the easement area. The remaining land area shall remain open space. The applicant shall identify handicapped accessible parking stalls within the park area. 7. The final street plans shall be subject to the review and approval of the City Engineer. 8. The single family homes shall meet all performance requirements of their associated districts as defined in the zoning ordinance and outlined in the planner's report. 9. Outlot J shall have a minimum often (10) parking off-street parking stalls. 10. All single family residential lots within the development shall contain the required two overs tory trees per lot with the exception of corner lots which require four. 11. No more than twenty-five (25) percent of all homes shall be split entry design in the R-l and R-2A areas. This shall become a requirement of the private covenants. 12. All lots within the R-2A district shall be required to have no less than 60% of the front yard designated as landscaped garden areas. The City has prepared a site example and narrative information regarding this requirement which will be applicable to this site. 13. The homeowners association will be responsible for landscaping maintenance in the yards of all R-2A homes. 8 Planning Commission Agenda 12/06/05 . 14. The applicant shall revise the landscaping plan based upon the conditions and recommendations found in the planner's report. 15. All landscaped medians and BOA common landscaped areas shall be required to be irrigated. 16. All site signage that will be used in the residential development must be submitted prior to final approval and must meet the requirement of the sign Ordinance. 17. Issues related to the three wetland areas on the site are subject to the review and comment of the City Engineer. 18. The grading, drainage, erosion control and utility plans are subject to the review and approval of the City Engineer. 19. The applicant shall enter into a development agreement and PUD agreement with the City to be drafted by the City Attorney. 20. The applicant is to prepare a PUD standards guide which is to contain PUD information specific to each zoning district within the development. 21. A copy of the HOA documents shall be subject to the review and approval of the City. . . 9 . http:// 156. 99 .28. 84/serv letJcom.esri .esrimap.Esrimap ?ServiceN ame=CustomParcel&Client V ersion=3.1 &... 12/1/2005 . Poplar Hill City of Monticello, Minnesota Monticello is among of the fastest growing communities in the Northern Metro Area. Monticello's location on the Interstate 94 corridor between the Twin Cities Metro and St Cloud provides an economical and attractive living environment for families looking for significant community amenities, schools and services all available in Monticello. Insignia Development received PUD/Preliminary Plat (PPP) approval unanimously at Planning Commission and by majority at City Council during the Spring of 2005. Since that time, Insignia has evaluated the proposed housing mix in regards to the current market conditions and upon review, propose the following amendment to the existing PPP approval; . . R3 lots (townhomes) decreased from 250+ to 0 . RIA lots remain at 102 lots IJ"':' . Rllots increase from 53 to 146 lots . R2A lots decrease from 70 to 50 lots With tbe proposed amended PPP, housings densities arc reduced from the approved 605+ unit count to 298 whi'le neighborhood amenities are relatively the same with Insignia providing; . Park land dedication and grading . R2A area tot lot . RIA/Rl/R2A area pool with play area . Trails and sidewalks Insignia provided infrastructure improvements are significant and will include; . Construction funding of School Blvd extension through the development . Escrow for future 90th street improvements . Water main over sizing . Storm water control . Wetland preservation At this time, Insignia requests City Staifs acceptance of the Amended PUD/Preliminary Plat application for Poplar Hill with tbe following PPP waivers and/or vanences. . 1. Zoning of RIA, Rl and R2A areas consistent with the amended plans as presented for the following reasons; a. Removal of the apartment component IIG . b. Removal of the townhome component c. Neighborhood mix of single family lots d. Density calculations have been reduced 2. RIA zoning reduction to 1200 square feet for the minimum square foot foundation size for 2-story and modified 2-story for the following reasons; a. Consistent with waivers previously supported by staff and council b. Provides a high-end home solution that does not create a cost barrier to the homebuilder/owner c. Garage, fayade, roof and setback requirements and variation will provide a mix in home designs as presented d. Ramblers would be increased to a 1600 square foot minimum 3. Rl A front yard setback reduced to 30' consistent with Rl zoning for the following reasons; a. A vcrage lot sizes exceed minimum zoning ordinance standards b. Developer provided amenities as renected above . 4. R1 A and Rl side yard reduction to 16 feet overall (excluding corner lots) while meeting side yard minimums for the following reasons; a. Average lot sizes exceed minimum zoning ordinance standards b. Provides for minimum setbacks as required per zoning ordinances c. Developer provided amenities as reflected above 5. Parking reduction at the pool to 5 parallel stalls along a recessed curb area for the following reasons; a. The pool, playground and basketball court are centrally located to 90(Yr) of the homes in the development with access by trails and/or sidewalks and within easy walking/biking distance b. We believe we have created an area large enough to support the development and off-street parking may turn into a skate board or other nuisance for adjacent residents c. Insignia has developed projects with pool/play areas with the proposed 5 parking spots successfully and has not to date had any resident complaints. l-rome plans arc attached for each zoning area. Home plans exhibit requirements of City Zoning Ordinances with square footages adjusted per the above waiver request. The following summary lists each home style concept and presented for examples as follows; 1. RIA - Single family a. Plan A - 2-story - 1200 square foot foundation b. Plan B - 2-story - 1290 square foot foundation c. Plan C - Ramhler - 1700 square foot foundation . 2.R 1 - Single family a. Plan D -- 2-story - 1080 square foot foundation h. Plan E -- 2-story - 1 190 square foot foundation . c. Plan F - Rambler ~ 1650 square foot fOlmdation 3. R2A - Single Family a. Plan G - 2 story - 1200 square foot minimum finished b. Plan H - Rambler - 1200 square foot minimum finished lnsignia Development is committed to Monticello, Poplar Hill and this amended PUD/Preliminary Plat application. The amended PPP as presented exhibits a positive neighborhood experience for both adjoining property uses and future residents. We anticipate your support. Thank You. . . ZONE R-1A PLAN "A" , - ~., ... ~ ' ~ - - - ---=-.., - - --=- =--",.~... - -=----=-=- ~.,' ----=- --=- .=..---=-=- =- - ----=-----=- .'~- - - - - -~~ - - - -. .. - - - ~ - - ~ ~ - -~,'. - - .- --- -,-- --- ----- --~',- --- --- ~-- _ =-=--=- =,_--=-M-:_-=--_-____=_ --=--=~,~ --=- -=-="'" :=.:..':' -=-_---=--_.~_ -=-:::.:: -=- -= ...=: - - -- -.. ...-- - --."'. - -- - ~~-- - -,..- -~'- -- --=:::-- ~"';'_.::..=~:=-~ --'~..=-' -=~ ~~;~-=-.:-=-~.:...----=':'.:::.:"'-::-..=:"-:;:.=--~ - ==-... ===".-=:.=- ....:'. -=---. =--~~~ -;. -~,=-:. -=.::: :~_~ ~ -=--==-----:. -~~~.~-:_=_ - ~-:'7~:~ -=--- --..;;;:::-;:.=-- --== ,-;:,' ~ - -~.,'->~.-:-=- -==,.~- "=---- ---=---;:".;.- .'= =----._---=-~ -= -=--=---;;-~~--= -=---=--.;:;;;:-'~ ._--=- = -- =-- - - - """""" ,." - - - - --"" - - - -~, - - - -'''- - - ~.' - - .-'-- - -.,-. - -~.' - -~" -~- .~. ,'~':;""_-_- _----=- -=- .--;=--=----=---_-_J,~:"'~ =- -=-";.=..- -=------:=.....:;:::- --~ ... ._ J . - 6/12 ROOF PITCH (MINIMUM) - . ... . . 20% BRICK OR STONE ON FRONT ELEVATION, 10% BRICK OR STONE IF FRONT IS AT LEAST 70% WOOD OR STUCCO GARAGE DOOR SIZE NOT TO BE MORE THAN 40% OF FRONT ELEVATION I II II II II ,.,J ~ ~ ~ ,'- ~ ~ ~ --II II II II II II II II II - I o 1-' I I I GARAGE NOT TO PROTRUDE MORE THAN 5' IN FRONT OF HOUSE 1200 SQUARE FEET ZONE R-1A PLAN "B" 6/12 ROOF PITCH (MINIMUM) ~. w" -~,.~ - - --..-- - _.~- - ~- - ~- ~"- - ~.' - - - ~ - - - - ~ - - -. - - - ~,..-- - - ".-- - -~- - --- - ---,.. - -- - - - -.'. - - - -- - - - ~ - - - .,-- - - - - - ~ .,'-- - -- - ~- - _.~- - ~~---- - -. .- - - - ~- - - - - - - -. ,- - - - - - - -- - --"- - - - - - - - ~~~ - - ~,','"'' - - ~ ~- - -- -.." - - - ~,. - - - - - - .- .'" - - - ',- - - ~,,'^ -."- - ~~- - -.- - -.---- - -~-- -,~ -_..'------ --,---_.----'---~- - -" -- - - ~ - -" - - - - - - ,,~ - - ~~~- - - - - -. - -, - - -~. - - - -~-'- - - -. - - -- "n..~ ~'-'-' ~ -. ,. -"- -, .~'- ,_.' -" - ..,- ~ '." ~ . ..- .. n ... __ ,,"~ --- "n ..."-- "' - .~ - , -- -- - - -. - -- --- - -".- - -~- - --.. - ---. - -- - -~- - --- -- -'~' --- -'-- --~~ ---" --- ,,~-- ~--- ---- --. .- .- -- ~".. -- .-.....' -- -... --~, -- --~ --., - _..- - -...'.- - -..... ".--- - -- -- - -- - - -- -' -- - ~..-'- - --,. - -- .,.,.~ -- -. -- - ~"- ~ - -- - ...._-,. - -- - -- ," -- - ~~- - -~- - ~"."- - --~ - --,"- - ._,_ - - - - ". "_.._ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - n' _ _ _ ". - -.,- - -_.- - ~-"'- -- _.._~, -- ~_., -- -'.~ -- - -,~ - _.,~-- ---- -.------.--------- ----_.'------- - - -- - - ~~- - ---,-, - -- - -- - - - -'.',-- - ~- - ,.,,'--- - - - - - - -~".". - - ~" - - - - ~,.- - - - - - - -, - - -.." - - -,,~ - - . .'-- -- - - --.,'-- - ~~ - - --"~' - - - - - -,~- - .'~ - -',,,- - -~" - ~. - - - -, --'... - - -~, - - - _.,.~ - - - -- - - -. - - -. ~ - - -. - - -,- - - - ",. _ . .".... ,- - .. 20% BRICK OR STONE ON FRONT ELEVATION, 10% BRICK OR STONE IF FRONT IS AT LEAST 70% WOOD OR STUCCO GARAGE DOOR SIZE NOT TO BE MORE THAN 40% OF FRONT ELEVATION ~ o E3] @] @J r-------~---, I I I I I I I I 1--- ~ ---~-------------I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I J) ._-".,"- / 1290 SQUARE FEET GARAGE NOT TO PROTRUDE MORE THAN 5' IN FRONT OF HOUSE ........ / ZONE R-1A PLAN "e" 6/12 ROOF PITCH (MINIMUM) - ~~. - "'. '~ ~,' . __ -;::......=".--=-.~--=- = "-;" '"==-..-__- ___.=::-=--=. ~'~ -=--=----_--.-----Z..-.~ =--_-=.., :i:::..:.:..----=- =----_.=-".,-_---= ~ --'"" -=--="" >=:~:~ =- - '"~.:.~'~ ~~,,":;E" =-.... ~~~~~~==-~-:,,' -=~ ~~~:~=--~ =-= ~"';?~-~--c-=--=--~;:-.::-=-.--.~. --:::::;:. - -=-~ =-::- '"'-~_-::_=:;;.;::=~ =-===-.~~-=--= --'---~=-..:.""':.~:::...--"==--.=-- -~~ ~-~=-~- ~~ _.~..,~. --- -,,~- --,- ~-- ---~' --- ~,-- --- - ~- --- --- ---. --- --~ --- ~--- --~ -- ~- -"::=::'7-.-'=...:. ~'__ _ -=-: ~_.:...----:::.~'~~'"""=::... --= ~ .~=...::... ==.::::: -:-::-::: - _ _ ..::- _----=-. ~-=- -=-:-:. -.,.=.. """=-- ~". - ':':""" =' ~~. -- - .. .- .~.- ~ -- - ~~ 20% BRICK OR STONE ON FRONT ELEVATION, 10% BRICK OR STONE IF FRONT IS AT LEAST 70% WOOD OR STUCCO GARAGE DOOR SIZE NOT TO BE MORE THAN 40% OF FRONT ELEVATION f.,.------.-/I I '[ - -( I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I )- - -. l I L m. ___ _ OJ "----.. ~ ~I. I . I L/ 1700 SQUARE FEET I- I 1 I ---I I I I 1----- I I I . GARAGE NOT TO PROTRUDE MORE THAN 5' IN FRONT OF HOUSE ZONE R-1 PLAN "0" 5/12 ROOF PITCH (MINIMUM) _'0"' ~.. ~ ~~ _.".,~ " ,.-- 15% BRICK OR STONE ON FRONT ELEVATION, 5% BRICK OR STONE IF FRONT IS AT LEAST 70% WOOD OR STUCCO -- ill--- 111- -- -- '::::::=1:::= III IIL,,_ Iii"'"'. IIIII II1II III Iii -',_J III III 1080 SQUARE FEET ZONE R-1 PLAN "E" 5/12 ROOF PITCH (MINIMUM) CJ 15% BRICK OR STONE ON FRONT ELEVATION, 5% BRICK OR STONE IF FRONT IS AT LEAST 70% WOOD OR STUCCO ~ 1190 SQUARE FEET / I ZONE R-1 PLAN "F" ."., .-...- - - ., ....,. --,-;;;;::;:::: -,~ - ---;:;:;::::::--.- ,..'. ~ .,-'- . -- 5/12 ROOF PITCH (MINIMUM) -...., ". ~, . -""'~'" . 15% BRICK OR STONE ON FRONT ELEVATION, 5% BRICK OR STONE IF FRONT IS AT LEAST 70% WOOD OR STUCCO D 1650 SQUARE FEET ( -- _.._'~ . - .- -...- ". . ZONE R-2A PLAN "G" u.,'..." ,..' _._ J. _ ' - - -- . ,.,...-.-- -'-- - - - ~ - - - - - -. ..- - - - - - ...,--- - --- ...'~ - - - ---=--=- --". -=--=------=-~-:- -=- =_.'.:........:..- =-- - - - -- - - - - - -. ,.-- ..---------- --- =---_., - --=..= -= -=--""='- -=---= ....:..........:-- -=-'--="~~_. --..;:;......=_.~- - - ,-- - - - -, - - --. ~". ~-- - -- - ."'",'-- -- -- -~._- --- --.". . ----~,.,.._- - .,...--~' -~-- --- -"..~ ~M_ _ _ __ _ __~," - --- _.--- --- - -.. - -- - -_..,-- - - - -- -..,., -- -- -~-------,..- --",- ---~~. --- _n"__ _ __ __._ - - - - ~ "" -.. - - - -," - - --,-- - - - -" - - --- ...---- ~,.. - -----,-,--- - ---.. ----,,---.-".----- -.' - - - - - - ..~. - - - -," -- - - ~-----,. - - - -.. ,., - - - _...u__" _ __ __ - - - - -. .','''- - -, --- ___ ___ __m' _ --. ---- .-- "' 5/12 ROOF PITCH (MINIMUM) 20% BRICK OR STONE ON FRONT ELEVATION, 10% BRICK OR STONE IF FRONT IS AT LEAST 70% WOOD OR STUCCO GARAGE DOOR SIZE NOT TO BE MORE THAN 50% OF FRONT ELEVATION I" I --, I ! . -- - -iL _ __ GARAGE NOT TO PROTRUDE IN FRONT OF ANY PART OF HOUSE 1200 SQUARE FEET (MINIMUM) . ZONE R-2A PLAN "H" - .. - - - - -,. - -'- -~::....- -,'.- - -,~- ."- :,,- -" - _.'= - - .- ~'~ -, ~- _.- - -~ - - -, - - . - -- _' r ~~,~. ~ M:' .. , " 5/12 ROOF PITCH (MINIMUM) 20% BRICK OR STONE ON FRONT ELEVATION, 10% BRICK OR STONE IF FRONT IS AT LEAST 70% WOOD OR STUCCO Ot-11=1 ~_I_J 1- - - - -- - - - - --- -- - - - ---I I 1 I I I I 1 I 1 I I 1 I I I 1 1200 SQUARE FEET (MINIMUM) GARAGE NOT TO PROTRUDE IN FRONT OF ANY PART OF HOUSE GARAGE DOOR SIZE NOT TO BE MORE THAN 50% OF FRONT ELEVATION ~ ZONE R-1A PLAN "A" , .~" ~' . " ,.- _.~.... ,.. .-- . --- =-":;:=-= ::;:;::'-- ---==---~.: -=-- ~~=- ----=.:?:'~'--=--:.....;~~ - ~ - -= ~ - -,,-'- --."- -=- ~~.:~ =- ~i-~- ~ ~-- -~.::~~::-- --~::,~~.~ _-.~~~:= ~~~--=- ~-- - ~-=----;:.:~, ~ ~~t~ ~-- - ~~--::-2~=-~ ~c:~~_--~~~:-~ :;~~ f~-~;~; ~~~:~ ,,;,-- _ ~:=-:: ~ =_.:;;-~-="~ ~-- =-:<--=-~~--='- :.:;.~~~~~t=~ - 6/12 ROOF PITCH (MINIMUM) " .. .. ."~ ." ,.- - - - - ~'- - _...' - - .,,- - - _ _ ___ _ _,'W"'_ _ ___ -- - - _~' - - ~ - "., - n.'_ ~,"-- - ~~- ,.,'- _.,- - ~'_ - .~ - _.. - - n.,,' _ ,,-~,.,,- _.--- --",'-- .- - --'- _.." - ~,._- .- - ~--," -- ~ .- - '.'~ - -. - - .,. - - ~ - _.'--- - - -- ,-~ -.- - -.-- -' ."-- -- - . - .~- - , ., ~ ,,"- ----- --- _...-- ,-- ~', - --.'- - --,.~ --,--- - ~" - - ...,- - .'. ---~-_.-_.. ._-~~'-- "'.----.--- ~ -~- ----- .'___ __~,~_ __n ~"- - ~~ _.",- ~. '. 20% BRICK OR STONE ON FRONT ELEVATION, 10% BRICK OR STONE IF FRONT IS AT LEAST 70% WOOD OR STUCCO GARAGE DOOR SIZE NOT TO BE MORE THAN 40% OF FRONT ELEVATION D --- ~-...;::,::-=:::....- I II II II II _,-- ~ ~ ~ ==ll II II II II II i- 1I I II I Ii I I . l I I I I \ \ GARAGE NOT TO PROTRUDE MORE THAN 5' IN FRONT OF HOUSE ,.,..~... 1200 SQUARE FEET ZONE R-1A PLAN "B" 6/12 ROOF PITCH (MINIMUM) -" .~-" . .. -- -" ."" . - ~'~-- -- ~-- - ~--_..' - -,'--~-- -.,"- - -. - - - - - - _..~ - - - -.. - ~,- - -. - ~ .. .__ _ _,'_ _ ._ _ __ _ _ __ _ _,_ _ . _ .r'~ _ -" - - - - ~ -,~ - - - ~~ -, - - - - ..- -,,'- _..,.__ __ ___ - ~_ - _n__." _ ,~- ----...---.---------------- -. ,.- - ~'-- - - - - -~ - -""- ... --~- - .,-- _. - - - - ~_ - - - - - - - _n _ ',"" - - - - - . -",",-~' -.- -. --~' -,""'- ~'- -- -- ~~ - _.'- - ,"'-- ~'- - ~'- - -- - --'" - ~-'-- -- --"' - -'- - ,,' - -'~ - - ."' - - - .-.- - - ~ - ~ - -"- -. - ---- - -- __nO ,'-'- -- .- -".-- N .,. ,~ .,..- . -~ . - " .." - - - -- '.'-"-- -_.'--~-- -- ~.- ---- -- 20% BRICK OR STONE ON FRONT ELEVATION, 10% BRICK OR STONE IF FRONT IS AT LEAST 70% WOOD OR STUCCO GARAGE DOOR SIZE NOT TO BE MORE THAN 40% OF FRONT ELEVATION ~ @] r----------~"l I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1----- ------ ----------1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1290 SQUARE FEET GARAGE NOT TO PROTRUDE MORE THAN 5' IN FRONT OF HOUSE / (" ZONE R-1A PLAN "e" 6/12 ROOF PITCH (MINIMUM) DD D[] DO 20% BRICK OR STONE ON FRONT ELEVATION, 10% BRICK OR STONE IF FRONT IS AT LEAST 70% WOOD OR STUCCO GARAGE DOOR SIZE NOT TO BE MORE THAN 40% OF FRONT ELEVATION r -- - -.. Jl 1'1 -- --( I I 1 I I 1 I 1 I I I I 1 1 1 1 I 1 I I I 1)-- --\1 v_ u'__' " '''~.-' ~- ; ~.'" I' I . I () /// '. // ";'//1 - / - :LJ ~ 1700 SQUARE FEET 1- -- --- -- 1 I I --- --I I 1 1 , 1- -- - --I 1 I 1 1 . GARAGE NOT TO PROTRUDE MORE THAN 5' IN FRONT OF HOUSE ZONE R-1 PLAN "0" 5/12 ROOF PITCH (MINIMUM) . . _.,.._-~--~-- ., - . ,-- .- -,- .. ,. ~ - :~ . -" .' .' -. -- --- -_.~ -- ~ .~,.- - _.- ~.,- -,~- - ~~ -- -- --~-- ---- --,.- -~--- --~--"--~'---- ." - - - - - - ~- - .'. ~ ~,- ~ -^ -.,-- , -----~--'-- --..-----..-- -- - -,"- --- --. ~----~._-~ - ~'- - - ~. - --- - .- - ~- - - -'" - - ~ - - ~ 15% BRICK OR STONE ON FRONT ELEVATION, 5% BRICK OR STONE IF FRONT IS AT LEAST 70% WOOD OR STUCCO '" .J 1080 SQUARE FEET ZONE R-1 PLAN "E" 5/12 ROOF PITCH (MINIMUM) ~--=,..... 15% BRICK OR STONE ON FRONT ELEVATION, 5% BRICK OR STONE IF FRONT IS AT LEAST 70% WOOD OR STUCCO ~ 1190 SQUARE FEET 1__ __ - --- - ZONE R-1 PLAN "F" 5/12 ROOF PITCH (MINIMUM) -- DD - DD DO 15% BRICK OR STONE ON FRONT ELEVATION, 5% BRICK OR STONE IF FRONT IS AT LEAST 70% WOOD OR STUCCO D 1650 SQUARE FEET ~ ZONE R-2A PLAN "G" ---=-- --". - ~ ---:...- --=--- -.".-'.'''::'' --= -. -'. ---- ~--' --- --- -~ ....:..::~ ~~ ~~ -==- ~'===:::::::=-.:.~= --=----7:::=:... =:.:-= ~,=--"'---~-=----- -~;::=-- :.....= =--~- ~-~;o-_--=-=""':":":' -;:--...=:.:....-"'7:::'_-".,= .--='- _ ,. -=- _ ~-=- ----=-......_ ~ __" __-"-=--"7"'=" _ --::.'=- -,~ ----=-- .=-:- -=- -=---=--.:--:, ---=- ..:;=- =- . =-' -,- ~._- -_.~- --- - -,-.,...- ~ -^,- - ~.- ,-,.- - - -. - - ,- - .... -.. - --. -_.~ - ~- ,'. -,- -, --~ --- --_.'- - -- -- ~- ".- -~- ."- _.,- - ~-- -- -- - =-=- == ----=-~~ "=--:::-:-----=-- -=- - -,~.~- ~ ~.-_.-- ___ __'n __.,__~_ -=--"""""=- ~- ~ --:::""_"'_-::-- =-::. - ~..:::::: ~~~-==-;:::..-::=-.:.... -_ ~s.. -~--~---- -,- ....,... --- --. -- - --' - ~,_..._..- -~.---,,-- ~- ---=-==-- -=",,=- ~- ----_..__.~ -- --~._- -- - - _.- . 5/12 ROOF PITCH (MINIMUM) , ,1..:1 :r 20% BRICK OR STONE ON FRONT ELEVATION, 10% BRICK OR STONE IF FRONT IS AT LEAST 70% WOOD OR STUCCO GARAGE DOOR SIZE NOT TO BE MORE THAN 50% OF FRONT ELEVATION -.'- -'I . Ti GARAGE NOT TO PROTRUDE IN FRONT OF ANY PART OF HOUSE 1200 SQUARE FEET (MINIMUM) \ , -----,,-J I I ZONE R-2A PLAN "H" 5/12 ROOF PITCH (MINIMUM) - --- -, ---_..'~-- -., -- - _.~ -- -- ~ ~~- . ..~'-- ~.- _.~. -.--" - ,.- .-- .~_.__. -- - ------ - -- -'. -- ~- ~-- - - - ~ .,- - - - - - - &,'. - - - - - -,~ - - - ~ ~ ~-- -- - -.". ~- - - - ~._....,'"' - -- - ~,-,- - -- ~ - - - - - -- - - - - - -.. - - - ~ -.,..,. -- - - . - - - - -,_.~ - - -~" _ _ , _ _ _ _ _ _.,w _ _ _ _ .- ---- .,. - -- - -- ., -- - _._,,'~ - - - -- ". .... .., - - - - -- - -- - - -- -- - - _~~~ - _n__ ._~~._ _ _ -~ ---- ----- ---------_.---- - - - - - - - .,~ '-"~ - - - .,- - -- - - - - ,.. -- - - --" --- - - - ~..",.. - - --~".. - -- - -- ~~ -- - -,..'~ - ~.~----~--- - ~,-_., - - - - - - - - . -_.,-~ - - ~.,~'~. - - - ~~.,...' - -- - ~---- - ._......... - - - _n._'., _ - - - "~' - - - -. -.-. - -..""-- - - ~ - - ~- -- -,,-- 20% BRICK OR STONE ON FRONT ELEVATION, 10% BRICK OR STONE IF FRONT IS AT LEAST 70% WOOD OR STUCCO 0---1 -Ci lluJ uJ 1- - - -- - - - - ~ - --- - - -- - ~-I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 I 1 1 I 1 I 1 1200 SQUARE FEET (MINIMUM) GARAGE NOT TO PROTRUDE IN FRONT OF ANY PART OF HOUSE GARAGE DOOR SIZE NOT TO BE MORE THAN 50% OF FRONT ELEVATION ~ . . . Planning Commission Agenda - 12/06/05 12. Public Hearin2;: Consideration of an amendment to the Zonin2; Ordinance for setbacks in the I-I and 1-2 Districts. Applicant: City of Monticello. (NAC) REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND The City has encountered issues related to the current side yard setback requirements in the 1-1 and 1-2 Districts. The standards require 30 foot setbacks along all interior lot lines. This has raised issues for some property owners related to the use of the property. In these wider setback areas, the space tends to be occupied by additional paved area and/or outside storage, since it is not usable for any other purpose. The original intent of the wider side setbacks would likely have been related to additional green space, however, this result has not materialized on most lots. Planning staLl recommends a reduction in the interior side yard requirements tol5 feet, while maintaining the wider 30 foot setback along the street side of corner lots. This reduction will permit more intensive use of Industrial lots, and may result in more landscaping area in those side yards, since the 15 foot dimension docs not accommodate driveway or storage uses. This amendment would not affect fire code requirements Lor additional setback based on building type. Architects will have to account for fire code when they design buildings with lesser side setbacks. In this way also, the City may see upgraded buildings based on construction type. The 30 foot setback accommodates the lowest grade of building materials. This reduction in setback requirement is also subordinate to the buffer yard setback standard. In cases where an II or /2 parcel is adjacent to a residential area, the wider setback standard and landscaping requirement would apply. AL TERNATIVE ACTIONS Decision 1: Zoning Amendment reducing interior side yard setbacks in the I-I and I~ 2 Districts from 30 feet to 15 feet. 1. Motion to recommend approval of the amendment, based on a finding that the amendment will grant greater use of industrial property, and may also result in upgraded site and building plans. 2. Motion to recommend denial of the amendment, based on a finding that the long-standing 30 foot setback serves the Industrial District well by requiring additional spacing between industrial buildings. Planning Commission Agenda - 12/06/05 . STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the amendment for the reasons noted above. SUPPORTING DATA A. Proposed Amendment . . 2 11A . City of Monticello, Minnesota Wright County Ordinance No. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 3-3 [C] OF THE MONTICELLO CITY CODE, KNOWN AS THE ZONING ORDINANCE, BY PROVIDING FOR AMENDED SIDE YARD SETBACK REQUIREMENTS FOR THE I-I AND 1-2 ZONING DISTRICTS. The City Council of the City of Monticello hereby ordains: Section 1. Section 3-3 [C] is hereby amended to read as follows: All setback distances as listed in the table below shall be measured from the appropriate lot line and shall be required minimum distances. Front Yard Side Yard Rear Yard A-O 50 30 50 R-1* 30 * 30* . R-1Ak 3S * 30* R-2* 30 10* 30 R-2A* 15 6-k 20* R-3 30 20 30 R-4 30 30 30 PZR See Chapter 10 for specific regulations. PZM See Chapter 10 for specific regulations. B-1 30 15 20 B-2 30 10 20 B-3 30 10 30 B-4 0 0 0 1-1* 40 15 40 1-2* SO 15 50 I-IA 50 30 40 P-S See Chapter 19B for specific regulations. Section 2. Section 3-3 [C] is hereby amended to add the following: . 3-3 [C] 5. *1-1 and 1-2 District Setbacks: Within the I-I and 1-2 Zoning Districts, side yard setbacks for corner lots . . . shall be no less than 30 feet for a side yard adjoining a public street right of way. Section 3. This Ordinance shall take effect and be in full force from and after its passage and publication. I Mayor ATTEST: I Administrator AYES: NAYS: . 13. . . Planning Commission Agenda 12/06/05 Consideration of a reauest for an Interim Use Permit allowin2: relocation of a billboard displaced bv a City oroject. (JO) REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND City Council is requesting that the Planning Commission conduct a public hearing and provide a recommendation regarding relocation of one of the two billboard signs displaced by the interchange project. As you know, billboards are not an allowable sign in the City, However, billboards may be relocated on an interim basis due to a city project. The location proposed for the billboard is where River Street intersects with 1-94 adjacent to the Xcel ballfields. The billboard height will be set at the minimum necessary to allow maintenance vehicles to pass underneath. It will be constructed using the single pole design and will actually be smaller than the sign that it is replacing (36' versus 48' wide). It does not appear that the location proposed will interfere with the potential interchange slated for construction in this area. The location is within the 1-2 district. To the east of the site is a vacant parcel currently owned by Electro Industries. The ballfield parking lot and associated open space is located to the west. It is not expected that the presence of the sign will negatively affect the value of the Electro property. The term of the interim use will be set to match the years remaining on the original land lease agreement between the sign company and A VR. It is estimated that there were 13- 14 years remaining on the lease that was interrupted by the City project, thus the interim use would be good f(Jr the same time period. Once this time period expires, then the City would have the option of req uiring that the sign be removed. Please note that the price paid to A VR for the land includes the value of the revenue from the remaining term of the land lease. This City will be recovering this expense over time through development ofa similar lease agreement for use of the River Street right of way. Also, under State law, the eity would be obligated to pay an amount equal to the loss of revenue to the sign company associated with the term of the lease. Over 13-14 years this would amount to hundreds of thousands of dollars. The billboard constructed at this location results in a slight complication f()r extension of watermain across the freeway at this location which can be resolved by installing a carrier pipe in advance of construction of the sign. Planning Commission Agenda 12/06/05 View to East (Electro) V iew South View West . AL TERNA TIVE ACTIONS 1. Motion to grant Lamar Sign Company and interim use permit allowing relocation of a sign tram the A VR site to the River Street location. The term of the interim use pennit to match the time terms identilled in the original Lamar/A VR lease agreement. 2. Motion to deny approval of said interim use agreement. . If Planning Commission believes this is a bad location or ifit believes that the City should pay Lammar sign company the lost revenue associated with removal of the sign then this alternative should be selected. ST AFl-- RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends alternative 1. There are few alternatives along the Highway 94 corridor where the sign can be relocated in a spot where the City can recover the cost. This spot is acceptable to Lamar and will result in minimal intrusion on adjoining property. SUPPORTING DATA A. Site Location Map B. Interim Use Ordinance. . . - - - I I 1 81 ;u ~I )> ---j 1"11 I I . ~I I I BA MONTICELLO COMPOST FACILlW SITE " /.. ./ /' /~. / /-"-C~/J ( F'~;Zi /- c:/ --1 ---.J /- .--/ (- MIIDE l.AK \-=::>