Loading...
Planning Commission Agenda Packet 07-09-1991AGENDA REGULAR MEETING - MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday, July 9, 1991 - 7:00 p.m. Members: Dan McConnon, Richard Martie, Jon Bogart, Cindy Lemm, and Richard Carlson 7:00 pm 1. Call to order. 7:02 pm 2. Approval of minutes of the regular meeting held June 4, 1991. 7:04 pm 3. Public Hearing --A variance request to allow the driveways of a zero lot line duplex to be constructed up to the side yard property line. Applicant, Don and Joan Doran. 7:20 pm 4. Public Hearing --A variance request to allow a pylon sign to be placed within the sign setback requirement. Applicant, Wright County State Bank. 7:44 pm 5. Public Hearing --A preliminary plat request entitled Phase I of Cardinal Hills residential subdivision. Applicant, Value Plus Homes. 7:59 pm 6. Public Hearing --A request to rezone 10 acres of unplatted land from AO (agricultural) to R-1 (single family residential). Applicant, Value Plus Homes. 8:19 pm 7. Public Hearing --A request to amend Section 3-2s General Building and Performance Requirements, by adding the following provision to the list of the dwelling unit restrictions: 5. In the R-1 (single family residential) and R-2 (single and two-family) district, all single and two-family dwelling units constructed after July 22, 1991, must include development of an attached or detached garage. Minimum size requirement for garage floor is 440 eq ft. 8:39 pm 8. Public Hearing --A request for a conditional use permit which would allow public school use in an R-1 (single family residential) zoning district. Applicant, Monticello School District 1882. 8:54 pm 9. Public Hearing --A request to rezone 120 acres of land from AO (agricultural) to R-1 (single family residential), which would allow development of an elementary school facility as a conditional use. Applicant, Monticello School District 0882. 9:16 pm 10. Review Chelsea area concept plans and determine if further changes need to be made prior to development of detailed plans. 9:36 pm 11. Consideration of establishing a recommendation to Council regarding outside storage of construction equipment. Applicant, Floyd Kruse. 9:54 pm 12. Review a proposal to establish a mobile treatment unit. Planning Commission Agenda July 9, 1991 Page 2 10:09 pm 13. Continued Public Hearing --Consideration of establishment of regulations governing adult land uses. Applicant, City of Monticello. 10:11 pm 14. Consideration of approving a resolution finding the HRA': TIF plan associated with pre -planning for the Shingobee, Inc., industrial development to be consistent with the comprehensive plan of the City. Additional Information Items 10:20 pm 1. Public Hearing --A preliminary plat request of Outlot I, Meadow Oak subdivision, to be entitled Briar Oakes Estate. Applicant, Prestige Builders of St. Cloud. Council action: Approved as per Planning Commission recommendation. 30:22 pm 2. Public Hearing --A rezoning request to rezone Outlot I, Meadow Oak subdivision, from R -PUD (residential planned unit development) to R-1 (single family residential) zoning. Applicant, Prestige Builders of St. Cloud. Council action: Approved as per Planning Commission recommendation. 10:24 pm 3. Continued public hearing on establishment of regulations governing adult land uses. Council action: No action required, as the request did not come before them. 10:26 pm 4. Continued Public flea ring- -Cons Lderation of an ordinance amendment which would allow the City to withdraw a conditional use permit due to violations of permit conditions. Applicant, City of Monticello. Council action: No action required, as the request did not come before them. 10:28 pm 5. Consideration to approve a resolution finding the HRA'8 modified Redevelopment Plan for Redevelopment Project No. 1, modified TIP plan for TIF Dietrict Nos. 1-1 through 1-11, and TIP plan for TIF District No. 1-12, all located within the Redevelopment Project No. 1, to be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan for the City. Council action: No action required, as the request did not come before them. 10:30 pm 6. Set the next tentative date for the Monticello Planning Commission meeting for Tuesday, August 6, 1991, 7:00 p.m. 1002 pm 7. Adjournment. MINUTES REGULAR MEETING - MONTICELLO FLAMING COMMISSION Tuesday, June 4, 1991 - 7:00 p.m. Members Present: Dan McConnon, Richard Martie, Jon Bogart, Cindy Lamm, Richard Carlson Members Absent: None Staff Present: Gary Anderson, Jeff O'Neill 1. The meeting was called to order by Chairperson Dan McConnon at 7:02 p.m. 2. A motion was made by Jon Bogart and seconded by Richard Martie to approve the minutes of the regular meeting held May 7, 1991. Motion carried unanimously. 3. Public HearinQ -A preliminary plat_reguest of Outlot I, Neadow Oak subdivision, to be entitled Briar Oakes Estate. Applicant, Prestige Builders of St. Cloud. Chairperson Dan McConnon opened the public hearing. Jeff O'Neill, Assistant Administrator, reviewed the design of the plat, including proposed lot sizes, park and trail systema, street systems, storm water management, water and sewer line access, and pipeline easements. O'Neill also outlined items that needed to be resolved prior to final plat approval as follows: 1. City Engineer approval of the grading and drainage plan. 2. The Army Corps of Engineers approval of the grading and drainage plan. 3. Wright County approval of the location of the Briar Oakes Estate boulevard access point to County Head 118. 4. Preparation of engineering data showing the proposed Briar Oakes Estate preliminary plat is feasible in terms of street, sewer, water, and storm sewer service. S. The preliminary plat currently shows a block overlapping into two separate phases. Block overlap of two separate phases should not occur, as the second phase will originally be platted as an outlot with a final plat approval of phase II coming at a later date. Pago 1 9 Planning Commission Minutes — 6/4/91 6. A separate document identifying walkway easement areas must be prepared and recorded against lots that abut the walkway. There being no input from the public, Chairperson McConnon asked for comments from the Planning Commission members. Comments from the Planning Commission concerned the bike path locations and surfacing. They questioned whether housers could be built on Lote 28, 29, and 24 of Block 1, and Lot 30 of Block 2. Because the minimum front yard setback is 40 feet, Mr. McConnon felt that it might be a little close to build a house on these lots. A question also was raised on park land dedication. There will be no park land dedication with this plat, as the park land has been previously deeded to the City from Farm Credit Services. The location of this park land is west of Meadow Oak Avenue in the Meadow Oak Estates addition. There being no further input from the Planning Commission members, a motion was made by Cindy Lemm and seconded by Richard Carlson to approve the preliminary plat request subject to the following conditions: 1. City Engineer approval of the grading and drainage plan. 2. Army Corps of Engineers approval of the grading and drainage plan. 3. Preparation of engineering data showing the proposed Briar Oakes Estate preliminary plat is feasible in the terms of street, sewer, water, and storm sewer service. 4. Preparation of a tree preservation plan to be reviewed by the City Engineer and Building Official prior to final plat approval. 5. The preliminary plat currently shows a block overlapping into two separate phases. Block overlap of two separate phases should not occur, as the second phase will originally be platted as an outlet with a final plat approval of phase I1 coming at a later date. 6. A separate document identifying walkway easement areae must be prepared and recorded against late that abut the walkway. Page 2 Planning Commission Minutes - 6/4/91 Motion carried unanimously. Motion was based on the finding that the preliminary plat is designed in a manner consistent with City ordinances and design requirements, and the preliminary plat is consistent with the comprehensive plan. 4. Public Hearing --A rezoning reouest to rezone Outlot I. Meadow Oak Subdivision, from an ii -PUD (residential planned unit development) to an R-1 (sinole family residential) zone. Applicant, Prestige Builders of St. Cloud. Chairperson Dan McConnon opened the public hearing. Jeff O'Neill, Assistant Administrator, reviewed the request to rezone the existing platted Outlot I from an R -PUD (residential planned unit development) to an R-1 (single family residential) zone. The rezoning would bring the proposed development of Outlot I under the City zoning guidelines for R-1 development. There being no input from the public nor from the Planning Commission members, Chairperson Dan McConnon then closed the public hearing. A motion was made by Jon Bogart and seconded by Cindy Lemm to approve the rezoning request to rezone Outlot I, Meadow Oak subdivision, from an R -PUD (residential planned unit development) to an R-1 (single family residential) zone. Motion carried unanimously. Motion was based on the finding that the rezoning is necessary to allow residential development to occur, as the PUD concept has failed. The R-1 is adequately integrated with the remaining PUD uses via trails, streets, etc. The rezoning is consistent with the comprehensive plan. •• Prior to proceeding with agenda item #S, the following resident was allowed to present a request before the Planning Commission members as follower Mr. Ben Smith of 112 East Third Street requested Planning Commission members' input on a request to rezone the land on which his house is located from B-4 (regional business) to R-1 (single family residential). Mr. Smith indicated that when he purchased the property, only Lots 1 and 10 on his block, which faced Highway 25, were zoned B-4. But when the zoning map was revised in 1986, adjustments were made in the zoning of Mr. Smith's land from R-1 to B-4, which he appealed but to no avail. Mr. Smith indicated that due to his wife's failing health, he would like to build a new one-story house, as his current residence does not have a bedroom on the main floor. Mr. Smith is quite confident he can purchase a portion of the adjoining property owner's lot to the east of his property. Page 3 Planning Commission Minutes - 6/4/91 This purchase would result in a developable lot with a 66 -foot width, which is the former standard width of a city lot. It was the consensus of the Planning Commission members to take his request under advisement. They informed Mr. Smith that if he wanted to pursue his request, he could come back before them at their next regularly scheduled meeting in July. *• Prior to proceeding with the next agenda item, the Planning Commission was presented with another request as follows: Simonson Lumber Company, represented by their yard foreman, Tom, was present to request a special meeting of the Monticello Planning Commission for consideration of a reduction in the minimum hard surfacing requirements. Tom went on to explain Simonson Lumber's proposed expansion, which would involve moving building materials inside which are currently stored outside. The only materials then being stored outside would be the standard dimensional material, which is stored in the northeast corner of the property, and some culverts and plastic perforated drain tile, which is stored on the westerly side of their property. The rest of the building materials would all be inside under cover. Tom went on to explain the resurfacing that has taken place in the area inside the fence. Approximately three years ago, Simonson Lumber trucked in a 6 -inch base of a crushed granite material. Since the installation of this granite material, Simonson Lumber has had very little, if any, problems with the material becoming soft in the spring or granite chips being tracked onto their bituminous parking lot. It was the general consensus of the Planning Commission members to set June 17, 1991, for a special Planning Commission meeting date contingent upon the applicant submitting the special meeting fee of =490. 5. Continued vublic hearing on the establishment of re4ulations aovernino adult land uses. Jeff O'Neill, Assistant Administrator, asked that the public hearing be continued. It was the consensus of the Planning Commission members to continue this public hearing until the next regularly scheduled meeting in July. Page 4 Planning Commission Minutes - 6/4/91 6. Continued Public Hearinq--Consideration of an ordinance amendment which would allow the City to withdraw a conditional use permit due to violations of permit conditions. ADDlicant. Citv of Monticello. Dan McConnon re -opened the public hearing continued from the previous meeting. Jeff O'Neill, Assistant Administrator, reviewed the proposed ordinance amendment which would allow the City to withdraw a conditional use permit due to violations of the permit conditions. O'Neill explained that some of the conditions attached to conditional use permits in the past have either not been adhered to, have simply not become a problem, or maybe at the time approval was given for the conditional use permit the condition was appropriate but now is not. To handle any reduction of conditions within the conditional use process or the termination of a conditional use permit requires an ordinance amendment. There being no input from the public, he turned the meeting over to input from the Planning Commission members. Planning Commission members questioned the process and the time frame to go through each conditional use permit and the process it would take to either bring a permit into conformance or terminate it. There being no further input from the Planning Commission members, a motion was made by Richard Martie and seconded by Richard Carlson to approve a zoning ordinance amendment allowing the City to withdraw a conditional use permit due to violations of conditions associated with the permit. Motion carried unanimously. Motion was based on the finding that the amendment will provide a necessary enforcement tool that will result in improved administration of the zoning ordinance. Additional Information Items 1. Consideration of an ordinance amendment allowing limited open sales and rummage and garage sale activity as an accessory use in an R-1 district. Applicant, City of Monticello. Council actions Approved as per Planning Commission recommendation. T. Consideration of an ordinance amendment which would allow the City to withdraw a conditional use permit due to violations of permit conditions. Applicant, City of Monticello. Council action: No action required, as the request did not come before them. Page S 0 Planning Commission Minutes - 6/4/91 3. Continued public hearing on the establishment of regulations governing adult land uses. Council action: No action required, as the request did not come before them. 4. Review of a sketch plan submitted by Prestige Builders of St. Cloud. Council action: Approved sketch plan request per Planning Commission recommendation. S. Planning Commission review --proposed rental housing ordinance. Council action: No action required, as the request did not come before them. 6. Planning Commission review --proposed fence ordinance amendment. Council action: No action required, as the request did not come before them. 7. Set the next tentative date for the Monticello Planning Commission meeting for Tuesday, July Z, 1991, 7:00 p.m. Due to the current time table for the Briar Oakes Estate project of Prestige Builders and the Cardinal Hills project of Value Plus Homes, Assistant Administrator O'Neill requested that the Planning Commission set the second Tuesday in July for their next meeting date, which would be July 9, 1991, 7:00 P.M. It was the consensus of the Planning Commission members to approve Tuesday, July 9, 1991, 7:00 p.m., as the next regular meeting date. 8. A motion was made by Cindy Lemm and seconded by Richard Martie to adjourn the meeting. The meeting adjourned at 9:13 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Gary Anderson Zoning Administrator *NOTE: The tape recorder In the Council Chambers did not work on the evening of this meeting; therefore, there Is no taped record of this meeting. Page 6 O Planning Commission Agenda - 7/9/91 3. Public Hearing --A variance request to allow the drivewava of a aero lot line duplex to be constructed uv to the side vard nronerty line. Aoolicant. Don and Joan Doran. (J.O.) A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: Nr. and Mrs. Doran are requesting a variance which would allow zero lot line duplex driveways to connect along the side lot line. Essentially, they are asking for a zero lot line driveway. A variance is needed because the ordinance requires a 3 -foot separation between driveway and property line. In addition, curb cut widths are limited by ordinance to 24 feet. Under Doran's plan, a 48 -foot curb cut and driveway surface would be created. Planning Commission is asked to review the intent of the ordinance and determine how to apply the 3 -foot driveway setback rule. What is the purpose for the 3 -foot setback requirement for driveways along side yards? The 3 -Loot area provides sufficient separation between driveway and adjoining property to allow for driveway snow storage. In addition, it provides green space and eliminates the potential conflicts that could arise with vehicles being parked right on the property line. For instance, to get out of a vehicle parked on the property line, one must open the car door over the neighbor's property and then exit the car onto the neighbor's property. what happens if two neighbors want to park their vehicles right on the property line? If this occurred, there would not be enough door -swing space to allow access to one side of both vehicles. Finally, the 3 -foot side yard setback has the positive effect of limiting the ability of most homes to use their side yard next to their house for driveway parking space. The question Planning Commission needs to answer is how should this rule be applied to zero lot line duplexes? Is there a unique situation that justifies a variance? Precedents There are no clear-cut precedents where the Planning Commission and Council granted a variance allowing sero lot line driveways; however, on past occasions the City has mistakenly allowed aero lot line driveways to be constructed without going through the variance process. This occurred prior to Gary Anderson's time when Nal Wolters developed five duplexes In the Meadows development area. Allowing this to occur with sero lot line driveways did not create a "pure" precedent, as formal approval was never given and technically the sero lot line driveways are non -conforming. Planning Commission Agenda - 1/9/91 The townhomes developed by Jay Miller in the Par hest development area feature two 2 -car garages using the same driveway. In this case, however, maintenance of driveways Is covered by an association, and driveways are constructed in a "common" area. B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS: e 1. Approve the variance request allowing a zero lot line duplex to be constructed with a zero lot line driveway. Under this alternative, the Planning Commission would recognize the unique nature of the zero lot line townhome and determine that under this type of development,a zero ye' lot line driveway is acceptable. The potential finding L `>j for the variance could read as follows: The 3 -foot setback requirement was not meant to apply to zero lot line townhomes; therefore, this case is unique and will not set a precedent that could be applied elsewhere. Under this alternative, Planning Commission may wish to direct staff to amend the ordinance exempting zero lot line townhomes from the driveway setback provision. 2. Notion to deny the variance allowing a zero lot line duplex to be constructed with a zero lot line driveway. This motion could be based on the finding that: 1. The reasons behind the need for a 3 -toot separation between driveway and side lot line apply to zero lot line townhomes. No hardship has been demonstrated; therefore, to grant the variance would set a poor precedent. Although both properties are under common ownership at this time, and it may make sense to allow a common driveway, at some point the parcels will be under separate ownership. C. STAPP RECO;INENDATION: It is the view of staff that previous City action allowing zero lot line driveways by mistake does not constitute a precedent; therefore, Planning Commission's analysis should rely on the merits of this particular case. We empathize with the property owner, and it seems to make sense that the driveways should be allowed to connect, especially when both townhomes are under common ownership; but at the same time, Planning Commission Agenda - 7/9/91 there are good reasons for a 3 -foot setback requirement for driveways. Some day unrelated parties will control each half of the common driveway, and at that time conflicts could arise which would have been prevented had the ordinance been followed. D. SUPPORTING DATA: Copy of the location of the variance request= Copy of the ordinance section pertaining to the minimim setback separation between side property line and drivewaysi Copy of the site plan. (d) No curb cut access shall be located less than forty (40) feet from the intersection of two (2) or more street right-of-ways. This distance shall be measured from the intersection of lot lines. (e) Except in the case of single family, two- family, and townhouse dwellings, parking areas and their aisles shall be developed in compliance with the following standards: WALL WALL TO INTERLOCK TO TO INTERLOCK INTERLOCK ANGLE MINIMUM MINIMUM MINIMUM 30 48.6' 44.5' 40.3' 45 56.8' 53.4' 50.0' 60 62.0' 59.7' 57.4' 90 64.0' 64.0' 64.0' Parallel Parking: Twenty-two (22) feet in length. (f) No curb cut access shall exceed twenty-four (24) feet in width. (q) curb euti oneninga and driveways ahali ba ar a fiv,=(F) cuthree t1)�eq� he aid a d ins in reaideiatr ete and feet from the side yard lot line in iness or Sttduetrial districts. (h) Driveway access curb openings on a public street except for single, two-family, and townhouse dwellings shall not be located less than forty (40) feet from one another. (i) The grade elevation of any parking area shall not exceed five (5) percent. (�) Each property shall be allowed one (1) curb cut per one hundred twenty -Live (125) feet of street frontage. All property shall be entitled to at least one (1) curb cut. Single family uses shall be limited to one (1) curb cut access per property. (k) SURFACING: All areas intended to be utilized for parking space and driveways shall be surfaced with materials suitable to control dust and drainage. O KOUTICELL0 ZONING ORDINANCE 3/25 y 94 � i c p � �'r _ _ — - iC/90 moo :Sb � �.� ;',•',��. /G.�O.f• t � r 4 a a. ` •r.. M. ar. � � i �__. �•d4 �IIK r � GitR, w,• �._.c_::{✓.ems__ .'.= t..• � ® •, �s.. '% auksL I ✓. • o.e.e�o..e�a .w�.r rrw.ry e'.easr...�..ir..•' I �••---i � : �.Y. t.wl ..► seiY, ItC iI, •-/IPo/'•«io� / *1 ' 7DP' C.CCs'7b./.r rflt� fJl..t/ i1a1/ C.Y rrtr .Tic e.•%O �'iM/ a fi�..s � /.ra.NCO r Planning Commission Agenda - 7/9/91 4. Public Hearinq--A variance request to allow a Pylon sign to be placed within the sian setback requirement. A»plicant, Wriaht Countv state Bank. (G.A.) A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: With the redevelopment of the former National Bushing and Stokes Marine building sites into additional off-street parking, Wright County State Bank is requesting a variance to place a pylon sign within the pylon sign setback requirement. The hardship that is created by placing the sign at the required 15 -foot setback is the inability to see the sign while traveling southbound on Highway 25 due to the location of the building relative to Highway 25. The proposed placement of the sign will not encroach into the public right-of-way, and the sign will not obstruct other signs in the area, as there are no other signs on this block from East Broadway to East River Street. If the pylon sign is placed at the minimum 15 -foot setback, it would be located in the driving lane of the proposed off-street parking spaces. B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS: 1. Approve the variance request to allow a pylon sign to be placed within the sign setback requirement. c <<' Notion is based on the finding that a hardship exists in that 1' the sign is not as easily visible from southbound Highway 25 if it is set back the full 15 feet due to the curve in the road and location of the bank. Placement of the sign at this location owill not illcthe ability to see right-of-way. the street. (j The sign wnthang ovethe street 2. Deny the variance request to allow a pylon sign to be placed within the sign setback requirement. Planning Commission could take the position that a hardship has not been sufficiently demonstrated and approving the variance would impair the intent of the ordinance. C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: City staff recommends approval of the variance request to allow placement of this pylon sign within the pylon sign setback requirement. Due to the angle of the bridge across the Mississippi, people driving southbound on Highway 25 would be unable to see the pylon sign if placed at the minimum setback requirement. It is our view that the hardship has been demonstrated sufficiently to avoid establishment of a precedent. D. SUPPORTING DATA; Copy of the location of the proposed variance requests Copy of the site plans Copy of the proposed pylon sign; Excerpts from zoning ordinance. tte­ �' O(P V , or m ,� �IJ.M•�.f1 s��. existing apron and extend curb Install 10 lin. feet Brldve RaU . .y' 5 18 14'10' ter —J per detail 1 .. q.. T 'highway ley sawcut conc. walk a lmtkU C,new 4' conc. walk r detall,77 Wo "1U PL -C nstruct handica ,tea rampjte Jppreerdetail y�t. 1ti / r� fii(f i •. 0�00'�' " _ r •,�� a Aote 8 t�tl lata ng jra k t \ 1Y \ 1S 6:1006.0% pot leplace exist. curb & gu QM+, w/ new B6.1$ cutb & .r^ �b•Ip acaping with rock rl C �. t', ✓�1%Pro ^d 1191i •.• 1 �� I 4e• �ti (�.O { v. �' 1JY � I •/ 7uttwcl . %i..•V Qle � 7� � I T t •, P I M 1 '•++� j/ emove light ata derd • I lot as shown "' 111 �­to J tti�,st t Rebull handitah e4rhP� fR OU al&, • Install expansion material n dimer �Ra.WW. q. �taCI Nl00w wIDr6 �...WWOR rIC _ right Rim j tytate Bank !ae raa or •easO"L aeav= ISI 9 gaar, 1 gataLyl� 41. aa•r. �r rMi1 i�L�•\Yb�oq YaY OawW _Yaar.aawaaa�a�w.a�.. �daa. •�raa�+aa. r�W Cam.. tillial ti 1r.u� aw awl I Ian Yaa�aalaa► J tr aw a aa.a o..roa..... �01a Y0YI aI�.Y�AIti� —ti4au .Y1 Yaa. �� �raY aw aaaa _w�Ma.�10r —I�Ial�lrr aana.a.ar aa.rrla...a..a aalnamw r"'."". awaaa llrr rn am YI. I rp.i 1..0 lain cuwAW MMwjw .'N mwSOM AMM 7. Banners placed on City fixtures shall become the property of the City. If damaged or in need of repair, banners may be removed by City staff. The public banner system may be discontinued, and all banners, including those on private propertyp may be ordered removed at the discretion of the City Council. The bracket system used to hang banners shall be of sufficient strength to withstand strong winds and shall be designed in a manner that allows easy installation and removal of banners. S. All signs shall display in a conspicuous manner the owner's name, permit number, and date of erection. 6. All height restrictions on signs shall include height of sign structure. 7. �n anv district. env_nortion�i anv elan eacceed�ng� two 2 ere feet shal,� ep apt t+nck fifteen (15] ee �^�--aw r�aht-oiT wav 1_ine and ten (10) feet from eny reaidentiel (zoned) property line. B. Any sign now or hereafter existing which no longer advertises, or identifies a bona fide business conducted, or a service rendered, or a product sold, shall be removed by the owner, agent, or person having the beneficial use and/or control of the building or structure upon which the sign may be found within ten (10) days after written notice from the Building Inspector. 9. The City of Monticello or its agent is authorized and required by this ordinance to enter into an agreement with the United States or any of its agencies or departments to the and that the objective stated in Title 23, United States Code, Section 131, Section 719, or any other applicable federal statute to obtain non -conforming signs along the Great River Road within the city of Monticello. However, the City of Monticello or its agent shall not be required, nor allowed, to expend funds for the acquisition of non -conforming signs or advertising devices under this chapter until federal funds in the amount of 759 or more to his acquisition cost are made available to the City of Monticello for the purpose of carrying out this ordinance. No sign nor advertising device legal under Laws 1971, Chapter 887, shall be required to be removed or relocated until payment, as provided In Laws 1971, Chapter 983, is tendered by the Citty of Monticello. MONTICELLO ZONING ORDINANCE 3 Planning Commission Agenda - 7/9/91 5. Public Hearing --A preliminary plat reouest entitled Phase I of Cardinal Hills residential subdivision. ADDlicant. Value Plus Homes. (J.O.) A. REFERENCE AND RACKGROUNDt Planning Commission is asked to review the preliminary plat of phase I of the Cardinal Hills residential subdivision. Phase I includes development of 94 lots on 10 acres of land located directly south of the proposed elementary school site and adjacent to Fallon Avenue. Phase I represents 10% of the total area to be developed by the Value Plus developers. The remaining 90% of the Cardinal Hills subdivision area will be platted at a later date. A sketch plan has been provided, however, that shows a possible layout for the future development area. The focus of Planning Commission review at this time will be on phase I. The developers have requested that the development pattern proposed for the balance of the property will be refined with the help of the Planning Commission during the winter months. The City Engineer and City staff are making sure that the utility installations associated with phase I will integrate with any potential design that might be proposed for future plat development. The Value Plus development plan calls for marketing homes to the first-time home buyer market. It is likely that a large number of the homes developed at this site will be financed through the PHA housing program, which limits the value of homes to $70,000. If the City passes the ordinance amendment which requires two -car garages, the minimum value of the homes through the FHA program will likely be adjusted to exceed $70,000 by an amount equal to the cost to add the additional garage space. It is hoped that the garage upgrade to FHA funded homes will contribute toward making the development area attractive to home owners that do not qualify for the FHA program. SITE PIAN REVIEW City staff has reviewed the lot configuration and found that all lots meet the minimum lot size and lot frontage requirements. There are, however, a number of lots that have street frontage on both the front and rear yard areas. Given the configuration of the original parcel, it does not appear feasible to develop this property at an acceptable density level without having lots with street frontage on both sides. The City Engineer will be making an effort to devise a grading plan that mitigates the impact of the collector road abutting the rear lot lines. Planning Commission Agenda - 7/9/91 ADJOINING LAND USES To the north of the site is the proposed school boulevard, which will become the major east/west artery along the southern section of the community. This boulevard will become a buffer between the school use to the north and the residential use to the south. The first phase of Cardinal Hills will not have a direct pedestrian route to the elementary school to the north. It is proposed that as part of subsequent development a pedestrian crossing be developed at some location east of phase I, which would tie into a sidewalk system running along the north side of the proposed school boulevard. Unfortunately, until subsequent phases develop, pedestrian access to the school from phase I residences will be indirect and require walking on Fallon Avenue or will require cutting through lots that make up the northern border of the development. To the south of the site is the John Leersen property, which appears to consist of a small dairy farm. It is hoped that the potential conflict between residential uses and farm uses will be minimal. To the east of phase I is the balance of the Cardinal Hills residential subdivision. As noted earlier, the sketch plan has been prepared; however, this sketch plan provides a very preliminary concept on how the balance of the property should be developed. Planning Commission and the Parks Commission will be working closely with the developer toward completion of a sketch plan that is consistent with the City's plans and integrates with school district facilities planning to the north. To the west of the site is the Francis Klein property, which is located in the township. There do not appear to be any land -use conflicts associated with the agricultural uses at the Klein site. PUBLIC UTILITIES Storm hater Management The storm water and grading plan calls for maintaining all storm water run-off on the property owned by the Value Plus developers. Phase I storm water will be conveyed to the pond system located southeast of phase I. The added run-off created by this development will not impact the pond on the John Leersen property; therefore, there will be no impact on township property associated with storm water run-off with phase I development. Planning Commission Agenda - 7/9/91 Sanitary Sewer A lift station will be installed that will pump sewage to a gravity system that serves the school district property. The sewer system will be set at an elevation that will allow future connection to a trunk line that will be extended at some point in the future. The Value Plus developers are paying the full cost to install what should be considered to be a short-term utility system. In addition, with each building permit issued, the Value Plus developers will be paying a surcharge of approximately $500, which will be deposited in a fund to be used to assist in financing the future trunk line. Water System The development will gain access to the water system via a 12 -inch water line being extended along with the Fallon Avenue Improvements associated with the development of the elementary school. The water line will be extended the full length of the western boundary of phase I. Streets The internal streets named Kartin and Starling will be designed to meet all City standards. Fallon Avenue will not be improved with phase I; however, it should be noted that it Ls likely within the next five years that Fallon Avenue will be upgraded. At this time, a small knoll north of the entrance to phase I will be removed, which will improve eight lines. If you visit the site, you will note that the visibility of the entrance to the development could be improved by reducing the grade of Fallon Avenue at a point just north of the entrance to the development. School boulevard will be extended along the northern boundary of the property. This project is planned for the spring of 1999. Parks and Trails It is proposed that the developers pay cash in lieu of land for park dedication. This cash will then be used to help pay for park land that could be developed with subsequent phases. For the short term, the elementary school facility will provide park area for the residents of phase I. one of the goals of the Planning Commission should be to determine to what extent the City should be relying on school district property in this area for park resources. Perhaps active playground area and the demands for balltields, playground equipment, etc., may be satisfied by school facilities. Planning Commission Agenda - 7/9/91 Planning Commission may wish, however, to require picnic or other passive park areas to be developed somewhere within the Cardinal Hills residential subdivision. It is my hope that we can establish a formula that identifies how much of the Cardinal Hills development should be acquired for park land given the availability of school district property for park use. This is one of the issues that the Planning Commission will be addressing when we review the development plan for the balance of the property. Sidewalks As you may recall, in the concept plans developed by the planner, it is proposed that a pedestrian walkway be extended along the north side of the school boulevard. A sidewalk from Cardinal Hills leading to a controlled crossing needs to be developed with subsequent phases. It is suggested that the Planning Commission recommend that the school boulevard sidewalk be placed on the City's sidewalk development grid and to incorporate a pedestrian crossing and associated sidewalk into design work for future Cardinal Hills development. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN I have reviewed the comprehensive plan and found that the proposed development is consistent with almost every aspect of the comprehensive plan. It should be noted, however, that the plan does suggest that the City should avoid leapfrog development. This particular development could be construed as leapfrog development; however, the cost to install utilities that allow development far removed from existing utilities is being paid up front entirely by the developers. Therefore, the financial impact of leapfrog development is mitigated. The plat otherwise complies with the comprehensive plan of the City. B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS: 1. Notion to recommend approval of the preliminary plat of phase I of the Cardinal Hills residential subdivision. Notion is based on the finding that the preliminary plat is consistent with the comprehensive plan and meets the requirements of the zoning ordinance and utility design standards. Under this alternative, the Value Plus developers would move forward to submit the preliminary plat and final plat to the City Council for review on July 27, 1991. If approvals are forthcoming at that time, then the stage would be set to order the project, as the public Planning Commission Agenda - 7/9/91 improvement portion of the project has been moving ahead simultaneous to the plat development process. Completing the public improvement portion of the project prior to plat development was possible only because the developer provided the cash up front necessary to move forward on design of plans prior to approval of the plat. 2. Motion to recommend denial of approval of the preliminary plat of phase I of the Cardinal Hills development. If the Planning Commission does not agree with the finding noted above, then this alternative should be selected. 3. Notion to table approval of the plat pending submittal of additional data. If the Planning Commission is not satiefied with the plat and wishes to see revisions made, or if there is other additional information that may be necessary prior to a recommendation, then Planning Commission could table the matter pending completion of data gathering. Under this alternative, the Planning Commission would need to convene again prior to July 22 in order for the developer to meet deadlines associated with the actual public utilities improvement project. C. STAFF RECOWENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend granting approval of the preliminary plat. It is our view that the preliminary plat should be approved because it meets all City code requirements and is consistent with the comprehensive plan. Phase I is designed in a manner that provides the City and developer with flexibility in determining how the subsequent phases should be developed. D. SUPPORTING DATA: Copy of the preliminary plat of phase I of the Cardinal Hills residential subdivisions Excerpts from comprehensive plan. SUBDIVISION POLICIES 1. All subdivisions should conform to the Comprehensive Plan (land use, transportation, and community facilities) of the community. �e�l•s 2. All land developments should be controlled in a logical and practical way through the planning process so as to gradually develop the land utilizing its advantages yet being sensitive to Ce..fl.es existing natural features worth saving for the future. 3. Emphasis shall be given to contiguous development accentuating the homogenous nature of the community rather than a patchwork of localized and unrelated projects, and discourage the extension of public utilities to this non-contiguous development, thereby discouraging •leap frog' development. 4. All subdivisions, no matter how small, should be planned in such a manner as to allow proper subdivision of surrounding land at a future date; a preliminary plan for the potential subdivision of the surrounding sites should be prepared regardless of ownership L•-.r/'e4 involved to assure that the smaller subdivision will not conflict with future development potential. Where a subdivision is surrounded by previously platted land, said subdivision should be related to the existing conditions. 5. Land platted into larger lots should be so planned and developed as to permit proper re -subdivision in the future oven in x, -10/%e 5 situations where further re -subdivision may not appear likely. 6. The subdivision regulations should contain adequate provisions for deviation from the strict application of the regulations to allow reasonable flexibility and imaginative site design within the intent and purpose of zoning and subdivision regulations. to—fl-'es W44 7. All lots should abut an a public street; access via private streets or easements should not be permitted except where • r ( e S absolutely essential to the enjoyment of property rights. i S. Street names should be in accordance with a uniform street �e•A naming and numbering system adopted by the City. a esf.e� 9. All lots and streets should be arranged no as to avoid inefficient land shapes (ouch as triangle) and sizes (ouch as —1P Ge S very narrow outlets). 10. All subdivision propoaalo should be complete; that is, they C•.-P(;s6 should have paved streets, curb and gutter, all utilities, and public areas ouch as parks and playgrounds. 11. overhead utility lines and poles should not be permitted. All utilities should be placed underground and should be along rear or side lot lines when feasible. -02- 1 0 12. Subdivisions should be physically develored in full, urban density areas should be provided sanitary sewer, paved streets, 4._, //e,5 curb and gutter, public water and other isprovemente deemed necessary. 13. In the case of small subdivisions or multiple ownerships, the complete subdividers or developers may not be required to install complete facilities provided it is demonstrated that this is clearly not feasible or practicable. Prior to final approval of all subdivisions, however, it shall be determined A,4 what improvements may be added by the community. When substantially developed, full facilities (sanitary sewer, public water, paved streets, etc.) should be added through action Initiated by the community and assessed against the benefited properties . 14. Future subdivisions, whether residential, coamercial, or Industrial, shall be required to set aside public green space (parks, playgrounds, etc.) or cash in lieu of land for public �•-�P�•'s recreation in accordance with a uniform set of standards. -43- P GENERAL HOUSING POLICIES In Monticello, urban planning should be designed to promote high standards for residential development and help to assure the best C • -y !!t S possible living environment. 1. The Planning Commission, in coordination with the Housing and Redevelopment Authority, will be advocates for reform of land use controls, increased housing funding, governmental and legislative changes, and in general, act to increase public awareness of housing problems and solutions. The Commission will evaluate the City's regulatory codes and ordinances to insure that these regulations provide maximum opportunity to develop a range of housing types at various income levels and permit utilization of innovative site development and construction techniques. I. Attempts will be made to develop and implement affirmative programs for open housing. Open housing Is housing that is available to all persona without regard to race, creed, color, sex, or ethnic background. ). New housing areas shall be provided utilities as they expand /6, toward the perimeter of the City. 0. Residential uses should be permitted to mix with commercial or industrial uses unless it can be demonstrated that the C. —ries residential and non-residential uses will be in conflict. 4. Developments shall be designed to respect the natural features F:ry �K•x� of the site to the maximum extent feasible. C• 6. Development proposals will be evaluated with respect to their potential effect upon adjacent and nearby developments and their Cfo,y/.vs effect upon the public welfare of the City and adjacent communities. 7. Developments must be developed according to well conceived plane that tend to unify and relate to each otherl developments that Le...� /ie y are a hodge-podge and ill-conceived will be disapproved. S. Within the OAA, a density of 10,000 to 11,000 square feet of lot area per dwelling unit will be promoted in the areas of utility service contiguous to tho present city and in those areas where central utility service construction is contemplated within five years. 9. Although anticipated densities in areas capable of utility service within five years may be designed at 10,000 to 12,000 square feet of lot area per dwelling unit, building permits (oti,P/.eI shall not be Issued for a density of more than one dwelling unit per 2.5 acres with on-site sewer systems based upon percolation teats. Single Familv 1louainq Policia e ■ ■ I 1. Rome occupations will be- permitted proarided such activities are conducted in a manner wtaich assumes that evidence of such sl occupation to not preser-at. 2. Single family housing sk rind not be allowed individual access to major thoroughfares but will orient toward minor residential Coy y/.em streets. Multiple Familv Housing Policleo 1. Multiple Family wellir:ge are recognised as being a worthwhile addition to the urban etndronment and tax base under conditions as established in the Comprehensive Plan and by zoning, subdivision, and other codes and ordinances. However, the Planning Comiesion will look with disfavor upon projects with design f©sturea that are considered inappropriate, such as architectural deeigns that are incompatible with existing and proposed denlopmonto and unimaginative site designs. 2. Multiple Dwelling proj acts shall be encouraged to develop as "Planned Units* with mpecific piano submitted for structures, architectural design, landocaping, circulation, open apace, recreatlun facilitiso. anA any other features that may be proposed. O 10. The existing density requi resent (land area per dwelling units) ae outlined in the zoning -ordinance shall be continually reviewed to determine theLr appropriateness for adoption to N changing times and condlticns. 11. Appropriate urban renewal measures will be taken to assure maintenance of the existirmg housing supply in good to excellent condition. Suitable standards for structure and yard maintenance will be developed and enforced to help assure N� maintenance of resldentialneighborhoods in a Bound condition. 12. All types of housing will be permitted including apartment structures, townhouses, a - dothers, provided each is properly located according to the Cmprehensive Plan, the site plans and structural quality (mater ials, workmanship, and design) are In : /;C structural accordance with the highe—st feasible standards, and each is in conformance with the prowielons of the zoning ordinance. 13. where provisions for saniLtary sever are not contemplated in the near future (within five years). the density shell not exceed one dwelling unit per foacty acres. The actual lots size per unit, however, may be as small as 2.5 acres subject to the provision of an approved individual on-site sewage system based upon percolation Nets. Single Familv 1louainq Policia e ■ ■ I 1. Rome occupations will be- permitted proarided such activities are conducted in a manner wtaich assumes that evidence of such sl occupation to not preser-at. 2. Single family housing sk rind not be allowed individual access to major thoroughfares but will orient toward minor residential Coy y/.em streets. Multiple Familv Housing Policleo 1. Multiple Family wellir:ge are recognised as being a worthwhile addition to the urban etndronment and tax base under conditions as established in the Comprehensive Plan and by zoning, subdivision, and other codes and ordinances. However, the Planning Comiesion will look with disfavor upon projects with design f©sturea that are considered inappropriate, such as architectural deeigns that are incompatible with existing and proposed denlopmonto and unimaginative site designs. 2. Multiple Dwelling proj acts shall be encouraged to develop as "Planned Units* with mpecific piano submitted for structures, architectural design, landocaping, circulation, open apace, recreatlun facilitiso. anA any other features that may be proposed. O Planning Commission Agenda - 7/9/91 6. Consideration of a request to rezone 10 acres located south of the proposed elementary► school site and adjacent to County Road 117. Reguest Is to rezone from AO faaricultural) to R-1 (sinale family residential). Anolicant. Value Plus Homes. (J.O.) A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: In order to develop the property associated with the preliminary plat of Cardinal Hills residential subdivision, the land area involved needs to be rezoned from agricultural to an R-1 designation. It is proposed at this time to only rezone that portion of the land area developed with phase I of Cardinal Hills Estates. B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS: 1. Notion to approve proposed rezoning of N 1/2 of the SM 1/2 of the SW 1/4 of Section 13, Township 121, Range 29, in the city of Monticello from AO (agricultural) to R-1 (single family residential). Notion is based on the finding that the proposed zoning district is consistent with the comprehensive plan of the City, it is consistent with the geographic area, and there Is a need for establishment of an R-1 zone in this area. As noted in the proposed finding above, the use of this property for residential purposes is completely consistent with the comprehensive plan of the City. Residential development of this location will serve to complement the proposed school district development to the north. 2. Notion to deny proposed amendment to the zoning map. If the Planning Commission is not comfortable with the proposed rezoning, then this alternative should be selected. C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the proposed rezoning request, as the proposal is consistent with the comprehensive plan of the City, and the proposed plat complements the school development occurring to the north. D. SUPPORTING DATA: Map showing zoning district boundaries) Excerpts from the comprehensive plan (see ttom 15 excerpt•). 10 � rye; - • �i, t�i�' 1. ` - -,.. I � I 1 3 'I2 12, B2', I � Middle; Elem. -- School lezone to -1 Sch60 -R 'ha sp.1 AP cardinal - AO I Il E Planning Commission Agenda - 7/9/91 Public Hearin --Consideration of a request to amend Section 3-2: General Buildina and Performance Recuirements„ by addina a Drovision reguirinq a two -car garaue be established with construction of each sinale family dwellina unit. P.O.) A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: Planning Commission is asked to consider recommending the adoption of a zoning ordinance amendment which would require that all new single family homes include development of a two - car garage. The proposed amendment stems in part from concerns voiced by homeowners in the Meadow Oak neighborhood regarding development of homes via an FHA housing program. Of concern to the neighborhood was the fact that the FHA program did not allow the development of two -car garages. The homeowners in the area felt that development of lesser valued homes (=70,000 maximum) with single -car garages would result in the depreciation of neighborhood land values. It was asserted that a one -car garage is not sufficient area to store a vehicle and other items commonly found in most homes such as bikes, lawn mowers, lawn chairs, grille, etc. It was suggested that most of these items would need to be stored outside, which would be unsightly and ultimately result in the depreciation of the existing home values in the neighborhood. Within the past month, City staff has been informed that the same FHA program will now fund homes that have a two -car garage as long as two -car garages are required by ordinance. It is, therefore, proposed then that the ty adopt an ordinance requiring a minimum garage size of 4d0 eq ft. This new requirement is significant when one co ere that the Cardinal Hills development will include many homes built through the YHA program. By amending the ordinance as proposed, we have an opportunity to assure development of two - car garages at the outset of the development of Cardinal Hills, and thus avoid problems the City hes had in the past in other neighborhoods where garages were not constructed with the original dwelling. In addition, the two -car garage requirement will enhance the value of the FHA homes constructed during early stages of the Cardinal Hills development and could thereby improve the potential of development of higher valued homes through other loan programs. Planning Commission Agenda - 7/9/91 B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS: 1. Motion to recommend approval of the ordinance amendment requiring that all single- family dwellings be constructed to include a garage with a minimum floor area of 440 sq ft. Under this alternative, Planning Commission would make the finding that a minimum requirement of garage area of 440 sq ft is reasonable and proper given the preponderance of two -car families, and the added storage area provides space necessary to store household articles Inside rather than outside, thereby improving the appearance of neighborhoods and contributing toward maintaining property values. It is important to note that both the Value Plus developers and the Good Value (Evergreens subdivision developer) developers are aware that the City is considering making the proposed amendment, and they have made no objections to this new requirement. In addition, except for the special program that formerly required that all single-family dwellings be built with a one -car garage, there have been no other requests in the last five years for a building permit from anyone wishing to build a home with anything less than a 440 eq ft garage. Therefore, this additional requirement does not appear to create a hardship for the type of homeowners that have been constructing homes in Monticello in the recent past. Z. Motion to deny approval of said ordinance amendment. Planning Commission could take the position that the facts do not support the need to require that all homes be built with a garage. Planning Commission could take the view that homes built without garages will not necessarily result in the depreciation in value of adjoining properties. Perhaps the Planning Commission would be uncomfortable in requiring a two -car garage knowing that doing so would eliminate the homeowner's option of staging the development of their residential Property• STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the ordinance be adopted as proposed. It appears that universally homeowners are building homes with at least a two -car garaged therefore, it does not appear that the City will remove the opportunity for individuals to build a home by adding this provision. In addition, the two -car Planning Commission Agenda - 7/9/91 garage requirement will lessen outside storage problems in residential areas, which will serve to preserve property values. D. SUPPORTING DATAt Copy of proposed ordinance; Survey of garage requirements noted by Elk River, Big Lake, Maple Grove, Buffalo, Maple Lake, and Annandale. 11 ORDINANCE AMENDMENT M0. THE CITY COUNCIL OF MONTICELLO, MINNESOTA, DOES HEREBY ORDAIN THAT CHAPTER 3, SECTION 2, OF THE MONTICELLO ZONING ORDINANCE PERTAINING TO DWELLING UNIT RESTRICTIONS BE AMENDED BY ADDING THE FOLLOWING: 0J*s 3-21 GENERAL BUILDING PERFORMANCE REQUIREMENTS: 6.1{ jj/ & lot [B] DWELLING UNIT RESTRICTION: 1j� , e04A 5. In the R-1 (single family resident al) and V2 (single and two-family) districts, all single and two-family dwelling units onstructed after July 22, 1991, must include evelopment of an attached or detached garage. Minimum size requirement for garage floor is A" aq ft. %ill%% • 1�►'illiMY/� I II1 dOOA. yet Adopted this day of 1991. Mayor City Administrator / iW o s6 got 0 GARAGE RECUIREMENT Q SIZE SURVEY 0 CITIES SURVEYED Elk River ENO take Maple Grove Buffalo Maple Lake Annandale Is a garage Yes Yes Yes No, minimum No No required with setback for each new home? future garage requirement Yoe. No garage min. Is there a 22' wide No Dbperda on No Minimum house No minimum, zonhtp district size is 800 Sq It garage oize? without basement 1,000 sq R Is there a storage 12 x 20 R. Storage b10g Storape bldg No No No bldg. requirement? storage bldg can satisfy can satisfy ' meets garage garage garage requirement requ remont requirement Is there a minimum One -Stan minimum Double -stall No No No garage size? garaga 300 sq ft garage 300.sq ft 14 x 20 Approx. 400 w rt 0 Planning Commission Agenda - 7/9/91 Public Hearing --A request for a conditional use Dermit which would allow Dublic school use in an R-1 (sinqle family residential) soninot district. Aoalicant, Monticello School District #882. (J.O.) A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: Planning Commission is asked to review the site plan associated with the conditional use permit application submitted by the school district. As you know, the proposed development of an elementary school at this location is one of the factors that caused the City Council to conduct a planning study of the southeast quadrant of the city. One of the mayor issues to be addressed by the study is the potential problem created by development of a school facility in close proximity tb the industrial areas. According to the consulting planner, there are methods to mitigate the potential negative impacts of the two uses, and the school can actually act to become an excellent buffer zone between industrial uses and residential uses to the south. The remainder of this memo will focus on the actual site plan itself and will end with a short list of conditions that the Planning Commission may want to attach to the conditional use permit. SITE PLAN RIVIRV The proposed elementary school is designed to handle a total capacity of 725 students. The optimum number of people accommodated in the gymnasium at any one time is 435 people. Parking Parking does not appear to be a problem. According to the City Planner, the proposed parking arrangement will satisfy parking demands created by the proposed use. In addition, the site is configured so as to allow for expansion of parking areas in the event the structure is enlarged. Setbacks The elementary school is located on the southwest corner of the property and is relatively far removed from the industrial property to the north. The structure meets all setback requirements and appears to be placed strategically to allow for future expansion of the facility to the north. Planning Commission Agenda - 7/9/91 Loadina and Unloading Areas The site plan calls for a service drive entering the northwest portion of the building. The original plan does not show sufficient space for a turn -around near the loading berth area. This requires that the driver back his vehicle a significant distance to the service area. It is proposed that this portion of the plan be amended to show the addition of a paved surface necessary to allow vehicles to turn around at a point near the loading berth area. Sidewalks The plan shows an ample system of sidewalks for on-site pedestrian use. It is proposed, however, that the plan be amended to show a sidewalk extending from the southerly most sidewalk along the driveway entrance to the location of the future school boulevard sidewalk. It is suggested that this additional sidewalk be installed with the initial development of the structure, as it is likely that the school boulevard sidewalk will be installed in a relatively short time. It is also proposed that the conditional use permit require that a sidewalk be installed along side the driveway that provides access to Fallon Avenue. This additional sidewalk, however, need not be installed immediately and should be installed at such time that pedestrian access is necessary, which would likely occur when the Klein property develops. Landscavinq Although a final landscape plan is not available at this time, the concept plan shows ample over -story plantings. There is one area where the landscaping plan could be improved, however, and that would include planting of evergreen trees at 15 -foot intervals along the northern boundary of the property. This would provide the school district's portion of the screening requirement necessary to separate the industrial uses from school uses. At such time that the industrial land develops, it will be a requirement that a similar planting be installed so as to complete the screening affect. The additional screening would be completed by the industry developing at this location. I have been informed by the school district that the school district's portion of the industry/school screen will be met. Sewer/hater The school district will be financing the full cost to extend sewer service the full length of the school district property along Fallon Avenue and will also be paying for the cost to Planning Commission Agenda - 7/9/91 bring sewer from its present position at Dundas to the northwest corner of the site. In addition, the school district will be paying a trunk charge associated with the cost to extend the deep trunk line to the southwest corner of the site at some point in the future. The sewer line will be extended along the east side of the Fallon Avenue right-of- way. The water line will also be extended along the east side of the Fallon Avenue right-of-way, the cost of which will be financed entirely by the school district; however, the City will be establishing an agreement which would allow fees obtained from future users of this water line to be passed through to the school district, thereby allowing the school district to recover some of their cost associated with Installing the water line. Unfortunately, most of the trees that you see along Fallon Avenue will need to be removed with the development of the sewer and water lines. On the other hand, most of the trees being removed are Elm trees. CO3ORERMSIVE PLAN As noted earlier, the City has undertaken an effort to update its comprehensive plan. This effort will be completed in conjunction with development of the school facilities. It appears that school development as proposed dovetails nicely with the overall development pattern. In sum, the conditional use permit as requested is consistent with the comprehensive plan of the City. B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS: 1. Notion to recommend approval of the conditional use permit which would allow school use in an R-1 sone subject to the following conditions: 1. The site plan should be amended to show a sidewalk along the driveway providing access to the school boulevard. 2. The school district agrees to install a sidewalk along the driveway providing access to Fallon Avenue at such time that residential development adjoining the site warrants development of the sidewalk. 3. The drive leading to the service dock and loading areas should be modified to include epaco for a i turn -around near the dock area. 16 Planning Commission Agenda - 7/9/91 4. A landscaping plan needs to be prepared which shows ,� F placement of coniferous trees at 7 -foot intervals iso along the northern boundary of the property. 5. Prior to issuance of a building permit, all grading plans must be approved by the City Engineer. Under this alternative, Planning Omission would make the finding that development of a school facility as proposed is consistent with the comprehensive plan and compatible with the character of the existing and future neighborhood. This alternative is supportable, as it has been well established that the school use at this location is proper and represents a positive development factor in this area. T. Notion to deny said conditional use permit. This does not appear to be a reasonable alternative, as the school district has indicated a willingness to comply with any reasonable conditions that the City might impose. C. STAFF RECONNENDATION: City staff recommends that Planning Commission select alternative •1. D. SUPPORTING DATA: Copy of elementary school site plan; Copy of landscape plan. 17 )GG C ���. * rte••`• �,. 0. OroC8 /. CSG O �� ! FUTURE ROAD CID I 0 b tt tjqA)bSC#qP6 PL .JN' `� r v r e s r r v r r r r r • • U • • •r• • •rir• •r•�• • • •r• • i • i� • • • i, t t r I _ © 00 Ma+ o,.crtsle,,a ji�t S I � t t- IS t Q ------------------- s Planning Commission Agenda - 7/9/91 9. Public Rearing --A request to rezone 120 acres of land from AO (agricultural) to R-2 (single family residential). which would allow development of an elenrontary school facility as a conditional use. Applicant. Monticello School District 0862. (J.O.) A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: Planning Commission is asked to conduct a public hearing and respond to the Monticello School District's request to rezone 120 acres of land zoned for agricultural uses to the R-1 (single family residence) zoning designation. The 120 -acre section consists of the middle school site (40) acres, the elementary school site (40 acres), and 40 acres of vacant land between the two school sites. This vacant area will be developed for School uses at some point in the future. The rezoning to R-1 will enable the site to qualify for a conditional use permit at this location. In response to the potential development of school facilitiee at this location, and in response to other related issues pertaining to development of industrial land in the area, the City Council authorised a planning study. The preliminary results of the study indicate that school uses in this area, though in close proximity to industrial uses, is proper and represents a positive element in the continued development of this portion of the community. Following is a summary of the planner's comments as they pertain to the rezoning request. SCHOOL/ INDUSTRIAL USi CONFLICTS The planner has noted that certain measures need to be taken to mitigate the potential conflicts between uses, which could Include the followings 1) Requiring development of shared evergreen screen along the school district/industrial area boundary (included in conditional use permit requirements). 2) Modify industrial site development standards in areae adjacent to the school in a manner that will assure compatability. SCHOOL/CARDINAL BILLS DBIRL0PMW The school and residential areas are compatible) however, a few design issues deserve close attention as both areas develop in the future. 1B Planning Commission Agenda - 7/9/91 1. It is important that the two areas be designed in concert in terms of street and sidewalk access to school boulevard. 2. It is anticipated that the football field may someday be relocated somewhere between the elementary and middle school sites. Site design, including parking and lighting, should be designed in a manner that minimizes impact on the Cardinal Hills development area. A separate conditional use permit will be required at the time the stadium is developed, at which time site plan issues would be addressed. SCHOOL/KL.EIN FARM DEVELOPMENT Representatives from the Klein family have reviewed the land use concepts in detail and agree with the concept that the farm will ultimately become a residential area, with the north half medium density and the south half strictly single-family density. Again, residential and school uses are compatible. GENERAL TRAFFIC CIRCULATION It is likely that intensification of school uses and the development of the Cardinal Hills subdivision will place additional pressure on the Chelsea Corridor/Highway 25 intersection. Ultimately, this added pressure will create the need to extend the proposed school boulevard from the school site to Highway 29. This boulevard would provide the school property and nearby residences with direct access to Highway 25 and would serve to relieve congestion at the intersection of Chelsea and Highway 25. B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONSs 1. Motion to approve rezoning of 120 acres of land from AO (agricultural) to R-1 (single family residential), which would allow development of an elementary school facility as a conditional use. Notion in based on the following findings 1. The rezoning is consistent with the comprehensive plan prepared by the City and is consistent with recommendations made by the consulting planner. 2. The rezoning is consistent with the character and geography of the area. 19 Planning Commission Agenda - 7/9/91 3. The need for the rezoning has been demonstrated, as It will enable development of a needed school facility at this location. Planning Coscmiss ion should select this alternative if the facts support the finding above. 2. Motion to deny the rezoning request. Planning Comor.ission should select this alternative if the facts do not support the finding above. C. STAFF RECOMMIMATION: Staff supports alternative tl for reasons noted in the diacussion above. D. SUPPORTING DATA: Kap showing proposed rezone area; Excerpt from comprehensive plan; Please see land -use concepts prepared by the planner under supporting data of item #10. 20 ' 82 ----w. / � r -IR Elim• '� lwtone to /•• _.. A ' phas�.l Asti cards'�'. I f 4. School facilities should be fully utilized by makine building and land available to the public for use when such does not conflict with normal function of the school facilities. S. private developers will not be required to donate land for school sites. 6. Churches should have an ample site for building, landscaping, I potential expansion, and off-street parking. Parking should be provided on the maximum design capacity. Churches should be located adjacent to a thoroughfare or collector street and have easy access to the area served. They should not be located on minor residential atreete and in the midst of residential neighborhoods. 7. The City should not accept substandard lands such as swamps, power line easements, etc., for the development of perk lands. This shall include lands laid out In subdivision plans. Open Space Policies Before delineating open space policies, a definition of the term is necessary. Traditionally, open space has been primarily defined as that area which is retained in or restored to a condition where natural systema predominate and which may be used for recreation, or preservation purposes. Open space was often regarded as a separate and contained entity usually under the ownership of a governmental jurisdiction. Recent trends indicate that open apace, like the people it serves, is becceting more directly integrated with ito surrounding@. Becoming more a part of the total urban fabric, open apace is being more closely integrated into the urban living and working environment. Because of this inteyiating phenomenon, many of the advantages and responsibilities of open space are equally applicable to public and pr lvato lands. °' 0 9 , COMMUNITY FACILITIES POLICY 1. Presently, the development of land for public facilities such as , parks and playgrounds is considered more important than the acquisition of such land. However, with respect to acquisition, Land must be purchased before proper sites are usurped by private developments or high land prices make acquisition ' unfeasible. It is a desirable goal of the City to balance acquisition and development efforts. ' 2. All public facilities are to be developed according to generally accepted standards and the results of thorough study. 3. Where feasible, private developers will be required to set aside f a portion of their land for public user where this is not feasible or desirable, developers will be required to contribute cash in lieu of land, with such money to be utilised for the I purchase and development of recreational facilities. 4. School facilities should be fully utilized by makine building and land available to the public for use when such does not conflict with normal function of the school facilities. S. private developers will not be required to donate land for school sites. 6. Churches should have an ample site for building, landscaping, I potential expansion, and off-street parking. Parking should be provided on the maximum design capacity. Churches should be located adjacent to a thoroughfare or collector street and have easy access to the area served. They should not be located on minor residential atreete and in the midst of residential neighborhoods. 7. The City should not accept substandard lands such as swamps, power line easements, etc., for the development of perk lands. This shall include lands laid out In subdivision plans. Open Space Policies Before delineating open space policies, a definition of the term is necessary. Traditionally, open space has been primarily defined as that area which is retained in or restored to a condition where natural systema predominate and which may be used for recreation, or preservation purposes. Open space was often regarded as a separate and contained entity usually under the ownership of a governmental jurisdiction. Recent trends indicate that open apace, like the people it serves, is becceting more directly integrated with ito surrounding@. Becoming more a part of the total urban fabric, open apace is being more closely integrated into the urban living and working environment. Because of this inteyiating phenomenon, many of the advantages and responsibilities of open space are equally applicable to public and pr lvato lands. °' 0 9 Planning Commission Agenda - 7/9/91 to. Review Chelsea area concept plans and determine if further chances need to be made prior to development of detailed plans. (J.O.) A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: As you recall, on June 3, 1991, a joint meeting of Council and commissions was held, at which time the group reviewed various land use issues associated with community growth in the southeast quadrant of the city. Subsequent to the meeting on June 3, City staff received numerous comments regarding the plans and submitted these comments to the planner. The planner reviewed the comments and incorporated many of the ideas into the attached, updated plan. City staff requests that the Planning Commission review the updated plans and comment accordingly. Following is a brief outline of the next steps in the planning process: 1. Once final comments have been obtained from the various commissions, the concept plans will be finalized. 2. After concept plans are finalized, a detailed land use and circulation layout will be prepared, which will include the following: a) site plans that will demonstrate land use divisions and relationships. Site plane depicting lots, streets, and typical site development in the industrial area will be prepared. These will provide refined direction for future private development proposals. b) The storm drainage pattern will be established and incorporated into the land use plans. C) Area site amenities or area enhancements such as pedestrian/bikeway routes, open space areas, industrial park screening, and other such details which are required and will enhance the area's land use activities will be formulated, addressed, and presented in preliminary plan format. FI] Planning Commission Agenda - 7/9/91 Once the information above is prepared, the information would be presented to the Planning Commission and to other City commissions in addition to being presented to the City Council. Following possible revisions, a public information meeting would be held to provide the general public, property owners, township officials, and others with plan information and the opportunity to comment. 3. Once the detailed plans and circulation layouts are prepared, then the planner will begin preparation of ordinance and comprehensive plan amendments necessary to implement the plan. In addition, a capital improvement program will be prepared, which would address the method of financing the various improvements associated with the plan. B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS: Planning Commission is simply asked to review with City staff the various components of the plan and make any comments that you feel are appropriate. Your comments will then be conveyed to the planner, and the plans will be adjusted accordingly. D. SUPPORTING DATA: Copy of latest version of the concept plans prepared by Northwest Associated Consultants. 22 ........... City of Monticello Wright County, Minneiota W. -O" NX, w _. .. . ....... Chelsea y Area City of Monticello Chelsea Area Land Use and Circulation Study ExistingZm"\mg L City of Monticello I Chelsea Area Land Use and Circulation Study Physical Issues Orderly Amesation Meas® Pote,dW Redesidan TraBs•*• City of Monticello Chelsea Area Land Use and Circul at ion Study Proposed Land Use tow Densly Roti& -mW rM lnslhutioj.® ` Medim Den%Hy Resl mW ® Reighbs>tho d Csrnmmw Iligh Density Resldrnllal ® 1 bghway C.—mial Atdsk Mame Prl ® I ighl hsdusirul Q Resld-11,1 XN��1'4med 14sI1 DevelopmeN Ileavy bvA�sliwl F -I `" , . , '.. I - .. - " -, , � r a 4 a y J City of Monticello Chelsea Area Land Use and Circulation Study Proposed Transportation Mnpata rrtewq® ` n — Planning Commission Agenda - 7/9/91 st. Consideration of establishina a recommendation to Council regarding outside storage of construction sauloment. Applicant. Flovd Kruse. (J.O.) A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: As you may have already noticed, a collection of construction equipment and other materials is being stored on a vacant parking lot across from the Bondhus Manufacturing facility. The site, formerly known as "Dino's Other World," is being used as a staging area for an asphalt paving company. The office for this business is being operated out of a residence In the community. A few weeks ego the City Council was informed that this operation is in violation of the City zoning ordinance, as outside storage of equipment is not allowed in the PSM zone. Incidentally, outside storage of equipment without a principal use such as an office building Is not allowed in any district. In reviewing the matter, Mayor Maus noted that the property is located next to a wastewater treatment plant, thereby reducing Its value for residential uses, and commercial use at this time does not appear to be viable. The site features a blacktop surface that is well suited for storage of this type of equipment, and it probably is possible to screen the equipment sufficiently. In response to the information presented, Council requested that the Planning Commission review the matter and provide a recommendation to Council regarding the matter. Attached you will find the information that was given to Council prior to their decision to bring this matter before the Planning Commission. Following are possible general alternatives that the Planning Commission may wish to consider. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS Perhaps the site could be rezoned from its present PSM use, which is a low -intensity commercial/residential use, to an industrial use (I-1), which would be consistent with the industrial use across the street at the Sondhus Corporation. In addition, an ordinance amendment would need to be developed that would allow outside storage without a principal use in an 1-1 zone. City staff has reviewed this matter in some detail, and we have found that it may be very difficult to allow this type of use to occur at this site without creating a 23 Planning Commission Agenda - 7/9/91 negative precedent. For instance, if the property is rezoned from PEI! to I-1, and if the I-1 zoning regulations are adjusted so that outside storage of equipment is allowed without a principal use, then this opens up the door to outside storage in other 1-1 areas. Creating the opportunity for use of property for outside storage without a principal use would result in an under utilization of land which would threaten the potential tax base or tax revenue that would normally be derived from the site. It does not make sense to provide the opportunity to tie up industrial land for outside storage when such use of the land will generate minimal taxes and could result in depreciation in adjoining land values; therefore, this particular option that would enable the outside storage to occur at this site and all I-1 districts does not appear desirable. 2. Another option might be to amend the regulations pertaining to the PEM zoning district, which would allow outside storage of equipment as a conditional use in the PSM zone. Again, although outside storage of equipment may not appear entirely objectionable at this location, in other PEM zones any other outside storage of any sort could prove to be very objectionable to neighbors and could result in reduction in land values, etc. It is, therefore, recommended that the Planning Commission not adjust the PEM zoning regulations so as to allow this type of use. 3. If it appears reasonable to the Planning Commission that the current use of the land for outside storage is reasonable in the short term under certain conditions, then the Planning Commission may wish to consider enacting an amendment to the zoning ordinance which would allow for interim uses of the land. Under this alternative, a zoning ordinance amendment would be adopted that would allow land to be used in a manner that is not consistent with the zoning district in which the use is occurring. This "non -conforming" use of the land would be an "interim" or short-term use that is limited in terms of the length of time that the non- conforming use would be allowed to operate. In addition, the non -conforming interim use would need to comply with conditions or performance standards defined by the City. Establishing an ordinance allowing for interim uses of the land is a fairly standard component of zoning 24 Planning Commission Agenda - 7/9/91 ordinances adopted by other cities; therefore, establishment of this provision in the ordinance would not be unusual. Under this alternative, the applicant would apply for permission to use the land as proposed on an interim basis. An agreement would then need to be struck between the City and Kruse regarding the interim use. This agreement would include terms that we often associate with conditional use permits; however, under this situation, the interim use would terminate after a pre- established date. 4. The other alternative, of course, would be to hold firm to the existing zoning ordinance and enforce the rules and regulations in place, which would ultimately result in the removal of the equipment. If the Planning Commission does not feel that there is sufficient merit in the case supporting continuation of the use of the property as proposed, then this alternative should be selected. C. STAFF RECON14ENDATION: Staff recommends that an ordinance amendment be adopted allowing for interim uses of land which would enable the property owner to use the property for outside storage of equipment. This recommendation is made only under the following conditionsi 1) complete screening of the site must be achieved through a combination of fencing, landscape plantings, or berming. If the property owner is not willing to provide the screening material necessary to adequately shroud the site from the right-of-way, and if he is unwilling to comply with other requirements noted, then Citystaf t would recommend that the zoning ordinance be maintained as is and that the Planning Commission recommend to the City Council that it take legal action to remove the equipment being Illegally stored on the site; 2) No dumping or fi111ng would be allowed without a separate excavation permit; 1) No sale of vehicles would be allowed from the site; 4) The interim use should be allowed for a period of one year with annual renewal considered thereafter. D. SUPPORTING DATAt Staff supplement to City Council; Council meeting minutes of the meeting held May 28, 1991; Copy of proposed ordinance amendment. 25 Council Agenda - 5/28/91 8. Consideration of authorizing legal action to remove construction eguipment illegally stored on property located in a PEN zoninq district. (J.O.) A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: As you have probably noticed, a large collection of construction equipment related to the asphalt paving process is being stored on property along Highway 75 across from Bondhus Corporation. Equipment repair, oil changing, and vehicle sales are also being conducted at the site. The site is zoned for PEN uses, and in the PEN zoning district there is no provision for outside storage of construction equipment. City staff has taken the initiative to bring this item before Council because the activity is in violation of the ordinance and because the City has received complaints regarding the presence of the construction equipment at one of the major entrances to the city. City staff discussed this matter with Floyd Kruse, the property owner, and Lee Larson, the owner of the equipment. Larson indicated that he needs 60 days to relocate the equipment to another site. Floyd Kruse indicated that he has allowed the equipment to be stored there because he was informed by the Building Inspector some time ago that it would be okay to locate a single truck and trailer on the site; and because the Building Inspector allowed placement of a single small storage shed on the site, apparently Kruse and Larson interpreted this approval as the okay to store numerous pieces of construction equipment. Obviously, the Building Inspector's Informal approval of a short-term use of the property for parking of a truck did not constitute an approval to place numerous construction vehicles on the site. B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS: 1. Notion to authorize City staff to take legal action to force removal of equipment stored illegally on a site located in a PEN zone. Action is to be taken if the equipment is not removed within 60 days. Under this alternative, Council would grant the property owner time necessary to find another parking spot for the construction equipment. As was noted earlier, the Building Inspector did provide a limited approval allowing storage of a single vehicle at the site. If Council is concerned that this approval did somehow cause Kruse and Larson to think that numerous vehicles could be parked on the site, then Council may wish to grant Larson 60 days to find a new place to park his equipment. (0 Council Agenda - 5/18/91 Mr. Larson did indicate that he would be able to relocate the equipment in 60 days. If he is true to his word, the City may save legal expenses associated with taking legal action sooner. If Council selects this option, we should get Larson's 60 -day commitment to remove the equipment in writing. 1. Motion to authorize staff to take legal action if the equipment is not removed within 15 days. Under this alternative, Council could take the position that the presence of the vehicles at this site is in violation of the ordinance, and there is no reason to delay enforcement; therefore, the City should take legal action immediately. 3. Encourage the contractor to apply for a zoning ordinance amendment which would allow the placement of vehicles at this location. If Council feels that the storage of vehicles at this location does not present a blighting influence or would not create a problem in other PZM areas in town, then the applicant should be encouraged to obtain a :toning ordinance amendment which would allow the present use of the property to continue. This does not appear to be a feasible option, as to allow vehicles to be stored at this site would open the door to similar uses in other PZM areas. STAFF RECOMNENDATIONt Staff recommends that City Council give Kruse/Larson 60 days to remove the equipment from the site. It is our view that the storage of construction equipment in the PEN zone should not be allowed; however, requiring the immediate removal of the equipment may not be necessary, as the presence of the vehicles at the alto does not create a health and safety problem. Also, there is evidence that the Building Inspector did not completely discourage the use of this site for storage of equipment; therefore, we may have led the applicant to believe that this property could be used for storage of vehicles. Finally, the applicant has indicated that he would be willing and able to remove the equipment in 60 days. If the applicant Is true to his word, the City can save legal expenses associated with taking legal action immediately. D. SUPPORTING DATAt Please refer to your zoning ordinance if you would like more Information on uses allowed in the PEN stone. (D Council Minutes - 5/28/91 8. Consideration of authorizing legal action to remove construction equipment illeaalfv stored on crooerty located in a PZN zoning district. Assistant Administrator O'Neill reported that a large collection of construction equipment related to the asphalt paving process is being stored on property along Highway 75 across from the Bondhus Corporation. Equipment repair, oil changing, and vehicle sales are also being conducted at this site. O'Neill noted that the site is zoned for PZM uses. In the PZM zoning district there is no provision for outside storage of construction equipment. In addition, O'Neill noted that the City has received complaints regarding the presence of the construction equipment at one of the major entrances to the city. O'Neill went on to ask the City Council to consider further action regarding the matter. Floyd Kruse, owner of the property, indicated that he has leased the property to Lee Larson and has allowed the equipment to be stored there because he was informed by the Building Inspector that the property could be used for such purposes. O'Neill noted that the Building Inspector may have given approval to store a single dump truck at the site some time aI o; however, this informal approval should not be construed ns approval to store the numerous vehicles and other equipment at the site. Mayor Maus noted that the site may be difficult to develop under the PZM zoning district because of its nearness to the wastewater treatment plant. In addition, it might be possible that this area might be better zoned for industrial uses. Maus also suggested that some type of screening could possibly be used to obscure the view of the construction equipment from the street. After discussion, a motion was made by Shirley Anderson and seconded by Dan Blonigen to submit this item to the Planning Commission for further review. Motion carried unanimously. 0 QL�e 6 v✓� RDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE MUNICIPAL CODE OF THE CITY OF SOUTH ST. PAUL BY ADDING SECTION 315.12 AUTHORIZING INTERIM USE PERMITS AND AMENDING SECTION 315.11 BY PROVIDING THE FEE FOR AN APPLICATION FOR AN INTERIM USE PERMIT. .The City Council of the City of South St. Paul does ordain: Section I. That the Municipal Code be, and hereby is, amended by adding Section 315.12, as follows: '315.12 Interim Use Permit. (1) Definition. Interim use: a temporary use of property until a particular date, until the occurrencL of a particular event, or until zoning regulations no longer permit it. (2) Permit. The City Council may grant an Interim Use Permit for the interim use of property if: (a) the use conforms to the zoning regulations; (b) the date or event that will terminate the use can be identified with certainty; (c) permit of the use will not impose additional costs on the City if it is necessary for the City to take the property in the future; and (d) the user agrees in writing to any conditions that the City Council deems appropriate for permission of. the use. (3) Hearing. Upon receipt of an application for an Interim Use Permit from the City Clerk, the Planning Commission shall hold a public hearing on the application following notice of the time, place and purpose of the hearing published in the official newspaper of the City at least ten days prior to the day of the hearing. Following the public hearing, the Planning Commission shall forward its recommendation to the City Council. (4) Application. An application for an Interim Use Permit shall be on such form as prescribed by the City Clerk; filed with the City Clerk; and accompanied by payment of the applicable fee. (5) Permit Termination. An Interim Use Permit may be terminated by a change in zoning regulations which prohibits the interim use.' Section II. That Section 315.11 of the Municipal Code be, and hereby is, amended by adding subsection (4 ), as follows: (4) Application for Interim Uso Permit . . . $75.00.1 Section III. This ordinance shall be in force and effect after its passage, approval and publication. ID13561M 2 Planning Commission Agenda - 7/9/91 12. Review a Dr000sal to establish a mobile treatment unit. (J.O.) A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: Please review the attached proposal submitted by Orthopedic Sports Center requesting permission to operate a mobile physical therapy unit in Monticello. The zoning ordinance does not identify this type of land use. According to the zoning ordinance, "whenever a use is neither specifically permitted nor denied, the use shall be considered prohibited." Therefore, in order to allow this use to occur, a zoning ordinance amendment will need to be adopted. Planning Commission is asked to review the proposal and discuss the pro's and con's associated with allowing this type of use. Please note that the transient merchant's ordinance does not apply to this type of use; however, it could be amended to address this type of operation. Possible reasons supporting an amendment allowing operation of a mobile care unit: - This type of service may be needed in the community. - It may not be legal for the City to completely prohibit the activity. Possible reasons against an amendment allowing mobile care unit: - The proposed operation may undercut local providers of similar services. - Although a fee could be required, no tax revenue is generated by the proposed operation. I will be seeking legal advice regarding the limits of ability of the City to regulate this type of use. This item is on the agenda for discussion only. No formal action is requested. D. SUPPORTING DATA: Letter outlining proposal; Excerpt from zoning ordinance. 26 ORTHOPEDIC SPORTS CENTER f 1555 NORTHWAY DRIVE - (612) 259.4141 • 1.800.397-2160 ST. CLOUD, MINNESOTA 56303 !YF) David R. Gilchrist. M.D. Tom Jensen, R.P.T.. A.T.C. Medical Director Director June 12, 1991 Jeff O'Neil Assistant Administrator City of Monticello 250 East Broadway Monticello, MN 55362 Dear Mr. O'Neill As follow up to our phone conversation on June 12 1991, I am writing a letter regarding the Mobile Unit our clinic has purchased. The Orthopedic Sports Center is developing a new program that we hope to offer to St. Cloud and outlying areas. This program will be staffed by Orthopedic Physicians, Registered Physical Therapists, and Athletic Trainers from St. Cloud Orthopedic Associates Ltd. The mobile unit will be a customized Winnebago In which x rays, BIODBX testing, castingg splint fabrication, therapeutic modalities, etc. will alb be done. One of the areas we hope to reach is the Monticello area. Our plan is to rent space froma commercial property somewhere in Monticello so that we could park and provide services for our established patients from the Monticello area. The Orthopedic Sports Center specializes in care of the injured athlete or physically active individual. Our goal is to work in conjunction with the Monticello physicians with the patients primary care to continue with their family physician. By coming to the Monticello area we are hoping to provide more accessible caro for these individuals whom are currently driving to St. Cloud for our care. We are requesting from you any necessary requirements regarding zoning regulations, special licensing or permits that would be required by the City of Nonticollo. Ifyyou have any further Questions please call either myself, Orog Maurer, Administrator, or Tom Jensen, Director of the Orthopedic Sports Center at (612)259-4100. If you could respond by June 30 1991, as to any necessary requirements we would appreciate it. Sincerely, — Julia Laudenbach Administrative Asaistant 9 The Council recognizes the Comprehensive Municipal Plan as the policy for responsibility to regulate land use and development in accordance with policies and purpose herein set forth. 1-4: STANDARD REQUIREMENT: Where the conditions imposed by any provisions of this ordinance are either more or less restrictive than comparable conditions imposed .by other ordinance, rule, or regulation of the City, the ordinance, rule, or regulation which imposes the more restrictive condition, standard, or requirements shall prevail. 1-5: MINI14UM REQUIREMENTS: In their interpretation and application, the provisions of this ordinance shall be held as the minimum requirements for the promotion of public health, safety, and welfare. 1-6: CONFORMITY WITH PROVISIONS: No structure shall be erected, converted, enlarged, reconstructed, or altered, and no structure or land shall be used for any purpose nor in any manner which is not in conformity with the provisions of this ordinance. 1-7: CONFORMITY TO REQUIREMENTS: Except as herein provided, no building, structure, or premises shall hereafter be used or occupied and no building permit shall be granted that does not conform to the requirements of the ordinance. 1-8: USES NOT PROVIDED FOR WITHIN ZONING DISTRICTS: Whenever In any zoning district a use is neither specifically permitted nor denied, the use shall be considered prohibited. In such case, the City Council or the Planning Commission, on their own initiative or upon request, may conduct a study to determine if the use is acceptable, and if so, what zoning district would be most appropriate and the determination as to conditions and standards relating to development of the use. The City Council, Planning Commission, or property owner, upon receipt of the staff study, shall, if appropriate, initiate an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance to provide for the particular use under consideration or shall find that the use is not compatible for development within the city. 1-9: AUTHORITY: This ordinance is enacted pursuant to the authority granted by the Municipal Planning Act, Minnesota Statutes, Sections 462.351 to 461.363. 1-10: SEPARABILITY: It is hereby declared to be the intention of the City that the several provisions of this ordinance are separable in accordance with the following: (A] If any court of competent jurisdiction shall adjudge any provision of this ordinance to be invalid, such judgment shall not affect any other provisions of this ordinance not specifically Included in said judgment. MONTICELLO ZONING ORDINANCE /2 Planning Commission Agenda - 7/9/91 14. Consideration of approvina a resolution findinq the MRA's TIF plan associated with Dre-Dlanniny for the Shinacbee, Inc. „ Industrial deveiooment to be consistent with the comprehensive plan of the Citv. (O.K.) REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: The HRA requests that the Planning Commission review the Shingobee, Inc., project plans and associated land use for consistency with the City's comprehensive plan. City staff has reviewed the site plan and land use and found it to be completely consistent with the existing zoning ordinance and comprehensive plan; therefore, staff recommends approval of the attached resolution. The remainder of this memo provides detail regarding the development idea and concepts behind the Shingobee project. Please remember Planning Commission is not asked to approve the TIF plan; rather, the Commission is asked to review the proposed industrial use in terms of the comprehensive plan. TIP District No. 13 is being created by the HRA as an Economic District (10 -year district) for the developer, Shingobee, Inc. This project idea was initiated by the Industrial Development Committee as a creative marketing tool to industries that would locate in Monticello if leaseable space was available. The City of Monticello currently has only 7,100 eq ft of leaseable industrial space (M 6 P Transports, Inc.) and the City receives inquiries for larger amounts of leaseable industrial space. In response to this problem, the idea to complete the pre -Diane necessary for a development project was born. Under this concept, the development project does not include actual construction of a building to sit vacant in t 1e industrial park in anticipation of a tenant, but rather it reduces the preplan work time for the project by 60 to 90 days, which enables us to market a new facility ( three optional sizes) at a reduced rental cost available within a time period of actual construction. The building plane of a 25,000 eq ft, 20,000 eq ft, or 15,000 eq ft manufacturing/ office facility and the landscaping/drainage site plane have been reviewed and approved by the Building Inspector and 0SN and the TIP creation process will be completed to the point of holding the City Council public hearing. The actual adoption of the TIP plan and District No. 1-13 by the Council will not occur until a qualified leasee is found. The use of TIP is not and must not be a benefit to the developer but is used Te- a carry through to the leasee in the form of a rental reduction coat. Rental reduction is approximately x.75 per square foot. The City and Shingoboe, Inc., will jointly market the pre -planned project in hopes of finding a qualified Planning Commission Agenda - 7/9/91 leasee. The developer has a commitment on Lot 8, Block 2, Oakwood Industrial Park, from the Oakwood Partnership for one year. Initially, the HRA advertised a request for proposals and selected Shingobee from the submitted proposals. The HRA has received a commitment fee of $5,000 from the developer, the Letter of Intent which was drafted by the City Attorney and executed by the developer, and the developer's financial statements, and the building and site plans have been approved. The City virtually has no risk in the project and feels confident that the project will be successful (a qualified lessee will be found); however, the City has made no guarantees to the success of the project. The development agreement will not be executed until the time a qualified leasee is found. The Council public hearing and thereafter consideration of approving the TIF district for Shingobee, Inc., (Gee B. Veit) is scheduled for Monday, July 22, 1991. Again, the recommendation will be for the City Council to close the public hearing and to table the approval the TIF district. B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS: 1. Approve the resolution stating the Shingobee, Inc., project plan is consistent with the City's comprehensive plan. Notion is based on the finding that the projoct is consistent with the comprehensive plan of the City. The property is properly zoned and well suited for the proposed use; therefore, it appears reasonable to support this alternative. 2. Deny adoption of the resolution. This option does not appear reasonable. 3. Table adoption of the resolution. C. STAFF RECONNENDATIONs Recommendation Is to adopt the resolution (alternative •1) upon project plans being consistent with the comprehensive plan. D. SUPPORTING DATAs Nap indicating proposed project location; Copy of the resolution for adoption. Staff will present the proposed building plane at the meeting. 28 ��- �w , ■� • Iy�� t P�k241 t • � L O ' PAA l�.r � � 'IOMII � tIjC1 ' ICIJSt CAT � • MAtt CITT OJ / A,.. � JAItt JIIIS i SdCtAM TIIC ILLI i try.7 SC6tb CO. Q SORT[ � 1 p t C"An i •Ulir� tlJ%T ,i4 \\ A -ta.+ A• ~• 4 �SiFt +"'+ t+t t�TA t i.J jm IAM t4AJt• R • . � JJ./J acre. i.i ' ',It1AtCtOM AaI {tan M ALttr[Lt lanso r101TSAb J•• tAtr /.., x.011 � . T (INCL . 1 M 142 •, a 1 F sxJV'iJ4 • VVV \ `P t i r h 1 g,�Q^ Un ` sT "ICU s9 w atl 14"Are. / W13 2.31 Ar w Atra 1111 1R �Zab oAr.00A OUVL® a•CSCDCN C•rIOM�� tIMITUAt IONST" 1 tbaA" Court rA1Tclrsru€ rAS"MM; u a T {.T Mcrn S.1 un/a •• n it t III11 OitQLIUM 04'VOtr ' LnNJ11CR10 J7d10M naar-yon MMIIt • I- IAL in. IrMTtl Car rAATr ttr ram.►n t _ � . A.0 arxn s I sr F F Las 4.6 arV 4.6 NN, C z PLANNING COMMISSION COPY RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION OF THE MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION FINDING THE HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY'S MODIFIED REDEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT NO. 1, MODIFIED TAX INCREMENT FINANCING PLANS FOR TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICTS NOS. 1-1 THROUGH 1-12, AND TAX INCREMENT FINANCING PLAN FOR TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT NO. 1-13, ALL LOCATED WITHIN REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT NO. 1, TO BE CONSISTENT WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN FOR THE CITY. WHEREAS, the Housing and Redevelopment Authority's Modified Redevelopment Plan for Redevelopment Project No. 1, Modified Tax Increment Financing Plans for Tax Increment Financing Districts Nos. 1-1 through 1-12, and the Tax Increment Financing Plan for Tax Increment Financing District No. 1-13 (the "Plans"), all located within Redevelopment Project No. 1, have been submitted to the Monticello Planning Commission, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.027; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed said Plans to determine the consistency of said Plans to the Comprehensive Plan of the City. NOW, THEREFORE. BE IT RESOLVED, BY THE MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION, that the Plans are consistent with the Monticello Comprehensive Plan, and the Commission recommends approval of the Plans to the Monticello City Council. Adopted: —Mv 9. 1991 Attest: Chairman