Loading...
Planning Commission Agenda Packet 02-06-1996AGENDA REGULAR MEETING - MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISf3ION Tuesday, February 6, 19M - 7 p.m. Members: Dick Frie, Richard Carlson, Dick Martie, Jun Bogart, Rod Dragsten 1. Call to order. 2. Consideration of approving minutes of the regular meeting held January 2, 1996. 3. Consideration of adding items to the agenda. 4. Citizens comments. b. Public Hearing—Consideration of a variance request which would allow filling of wetlands in the scenic river shoreland district. Applicant, City of Monticello -- WITHDRAWN. 6. Public Hearing --Consideration of a conditional use permit which would allow expansion of a government utility building and structures in a PZM zone. Applicant, City of Monticello. 7. Public Hearing—Consideration of a variance request which would allow construction of a home on a corner lot within the 20 -ft setback requirement. Applicant, Cook Construction, Inc. 8. Public Hearing—Consideration of a conditional use permit which would allow open and outside storage, and a driveway and stall aisle conditional use permit in an 1-1 (light industrial) zone. Applicant, Pipeline Supply/Kant- Sing Partnership. 9. Public Hearing --Consideration of a conditional use permit which would allow expansion of an office building in a PZM zone. Applicant, Ruff Auto. 10. Review Highway 26/Chelsea Road Corridor Study. 11. Review sketch plan of 18 -acre retail/commercial site. Applicant, Bob Abel. 12. Review updates to the comprehensive plan. Consideration of calling for a public hearing on adoption of the comprehensive plan. Discuss development of a 1-5 year work plan. 13. Review Mississippi River Crossing Study. 14. Information item --Land Use Planning Workshops. 18. Adjourn. MINUTES REGULAR MEETING - MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday, January 2,1998 - 7 p.m. Members Present: Dick Frie, Richard Carlson, Rod Dragsten, Dick Martie, Jon Bogart Stall' Present: Gary Anderson, Steve Grittman, Wanda Kraemer 1. Call to order. Chairman Frie called the meeting to order. COMMISSIONER CARLSON APPROVED THE MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING DECEMBER 5, 1995. SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER DRAGSTEN. 3. rnnaideration of adding i ama la.LbaAgamb. Commissioner Bogart added an item for code enforcement. 4, There were no citizens comments. Steve Grittman, City Planner, reported that Gae Veit, owner of the plat, is requesting approval of the preliminary plat of the Shingobee Subdivision, which is a 2 -lot, 2 -acre plat located on the east side of Highway 25 directly south of the Tom Thumb store. The property currently is the site of the Subway Shop. The subdivision would result in the Subway Shop being located on a smaller lot. The now lot created will be the site of a proposed quick lube facility. According to the city code, the subdivision proposed must be handled through the platting process and cannot be completed via the simple subdivision process. This is because the parcel proposed for subdivision results from an earlier 'simple subdivision' which occurred a few years ago. According to code, properties over 5 acres are eligible fbr one simple subdivision; after that, subsequent subdivisions must occur via the platting process. Page 1 0 Planning Commission Minutes - 01/02/96 The final plat process should include a requirement that an easement is prepared which allows access to the Subway Shop across the new lot that is being created. Easements allowing access to the utility lines serving the Subway Shop will need to be prepared and recorded in conjunction with the platting process. The City has authorized the completion of a transportation study of the Highway 26 corridor which will include alternatives for realignment of the Oakwood Drive/Highway 26 frontage. It does not appear at this time that the proposed site of the quick lube facility will be selected as the point of intersection. This is because the Silver Fox Motel serves to block an extension of Chelsea Road from connecting to Highway 26 at the Shingobee plat location. Frie opened the public hearing. Commissioner Dragsten inquired if the lot being sold will be large enough for the quick lube facility. Gary Anderson, Building Official, stated that Linda Milke, potential buyer, had mot with staff and is aware of the requirements. Chairman Frie inquired as to how this can be platted with no public access. Steve Grittman explained that MNDOT controls the driveway permits along Hwy 25 and only a certain number of permits will be granted. The standard approach would be to provide a full frontage road but there is not adequate room for a road. Also, the properties along this driveway do not all have access to Chelsea Road. Chairman Frio stated that he wanted on record that a shared private driveway is usually not allowed but in this case it cannot be avoided. Commissioner Bogart stated that this issue was brought up when the Subway Shop was built. Gerald Hermes, Monticello Housing and RV Center, stated that everyone takes care of their own area for snow plowing and maintenance. It has worked very well in the past. COMMISSIONER BOGART MADE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE PRELIMINARY PLAT OF THE SHINGOBEE SUBDIVISION BASED ON THE CONDITIONS THAT THE REQUEST IS CONSISTENT WITH CITY Page 2 0C.;J Planning Commission Minutes - 01/07/96 ORDINANCES, EASEMENT DOCUMENTATION MUST BE PREPARED PRIOR TO THE FINAL PLAT ALLOWING UTILITY AND DRIVEWAY ACCESS TO THE SUBWAY SHOP, AND THAT SUBWAY HAS A RIGHT OF ACCESS AGREEMENT. SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER MARTIE. Motion passed unanimously. Riverfrontlnowntown Development activity mWd. A Riverfront/Downtown Development Coalition. Chairman Frie encouraged the Commissioners to attend the January 20th workshop regarding RiverfronUDowntown development. The workshop will concentrate on goals and projects for the downtown area. B. Housing and Redevelopment Authority. HRA initiating riverfront/downtown redevelopment planning effort focusing on market and financial analysis and urban design. Steve Grittman, City Planner, explained the HRA is requesting the Planning Commission consider adopting a resolution modifying Central Monticello Redevelopment Project No. 1; modifying TI district Nos. 1-1 through 1-18; and approving the Central Monticello Redevelopment Plan and TIF Plans relating thereto. The existing Project No. 1 did not allow the HRA to acquire parcels outside created TIF Districts located within the boundaries of Project No. 1. By adopting the resolution the following address can be included in the TIF district: 1400 West Broadway, 225 Front Street, 628 East Broadway, 109 West Broadway, and 108 Walnut. COMMISSIONER CARLSON MADE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE TIF RESOLUTION TO INCLUDE THE FOLLOWING PROPERTIES IN THE TIF DISTRICT: 1400 WEST BROADWAY, 225 FRONT STREET, 625 EAST BROADWAY, 109 WEST BROADWAY, AND 108 WALNUT STREET. SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER MARTIE BASED ON THE FINDING THAT THE MODIFICATION OF THE TIF PROJECT IS CONSISTENT WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. Motion passed unanimously. Page 9 1O, T Planning Commission Minutes - 01/02/96 HRA would have authority to use TIFfunds to purchase land once the redevelopment plan is complete. Chairman Frie reported the HRA tabled the purchasing of the property by West Bridge Park until an overall plan for the downtown redevelopment was completed. The Commissioners discussed the action of the HRA and decided that Commissioner Bogart and Commissioner Martie would attend the next HRA meeting for more information. The Commissioners reviewed the schedule for January. The additional meetings in January are: January 18th -Special meeting for City Council and Planning Commission for reviewing the Comprehensive Plan; January 20th -Theresa Washburn regarding River&ont/Downtown Development; January 24th -Special meeting for Parka, HRA, & Planning Commission to review the goals and objectives for 1896. Commissioner Bogart added the item of zoning violations. Bogart stated that there is a resident on West River Street and Chestnut that is manufacturing shedatfish houses in his garage. At times, this resident loads and unloads trailers in the street because his lot is so full of vehicles that there is no room for another trailer. This resident has been informed in the past that this type of operation is not allowed in a residential zone. If the City does not take action it could set a precedent for future problems. Gary Anderson, Zoning Administrator, replied that Jeff O'Neill, Assistant Administrator, had contacted the attorney on this matter. Anderson stated that he would call the resident and visit the site with a deputy. It is very hard to address violations on inside operations but Anderson would take caro of the outside matters. The inside operations would be monitored. Brian Stump, Council Member, stated when this person was allowed to put an addition on his garage it was specified that no manufacturing was allowed on the site. The Commissioners discussed the violation and made a strong recommendation to the city staff to follow up on the zoning violations at Page 4 9 Planning Commission Minutes - 01/02/98 Chestnut and West River Street There should be a report at the next regular meeting as to the progress of this item. COMMISSIONER DRAGSPEN MADE A MOTION TO ADJOURN THE MEETING. SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER BOGART. Respectfully submitted Wanda Kraemer/Development Services Technician Planning Commission Agenda - 2✓6/96 . (J.OJ As you recall, Planning Commission reviewed the wastewater treatment plant site plan and recommended approval of a conditional use permit allowing expansion of the facility. In tum, Council reviewed and approved the same plan, but a few weeks later purchased additional land to the east of the original site which would aDow a redesign of the facility, resulting in short- and long-term cost savings to the City. Due to the fact that additional property had to be acquired and due to the fact that significant site design changes would result, it is necessary that the wastewater treatment plant again go through the conditional use permitting process. The site plan is being prepared at this time and will not be available until the meeting on Tuesday. I have been informed by John Simola that the plan will conform to the conditions noted in the conditional use permit approved a few weeks ago. As a preview to the review of the site plan on Tuesday, the purchase of the Kruse property will result in the facility being recessed into the hill which will reduce the visual impact of the facility as seen from CSAH 76. The extra land will also allow the facility Ube constructed closer to the road to result in a greater setback distance from the river. After additional review, it was found by HDR that the project can be constructed without placement of fill material in the wetland; therefore, a variance to allow filling of the wetland is not necessary. s_ ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS; Motion to approve the conditional use permit which would allow expansion of the wastewater treatment plant in a PZM zone subject to the following conditions: Planning Commission Agenda - 2/6/96 Items required by code. A. Conformity with the surrounding neighborhood is maintained and required setbacks and cited requirements are met. B. Adequate screening from neighboring uses and landscaping as provided in accordance with Chapter 3, Section 2, of the zoning ordinance. C. The provisions of Chapter 22 of the zoning ordinance are considered and satisfactorily met. D. The facility must have direct access to a county or city state aid highway. Installation of odor control measures necessary to maintain or reduce the current problem. No tree clearcutting to occur within 500 ft of the river's edge. City buffer yard requirements must be met on the Hoglund side of the property. The top side of the bank to meet the buffer yard for an institutional/multi-family boundary; the lower valley side to buffer institutional uselsingle family. This motion could be based on the finding that the facility is consistent with the character of the area, and the screening and landscaping is designed to preserve to the extent possible the value of adjoining property; the proposal is consistent with the comprehensive plan for the city; the expansion will not have an appreciable negative effect on the property to the west (Bondhus); screening and buffer yard techniques will be employed to limit the impact on the property to the east; odor control efforts have been designed into the plans. In addition, the site plan as proposed will result in much of the facility being recessed into the side hill, thereby resulting in less of an impact on the view of the facility from the road right-of-way. Motion to deny approval of the conditional use permit which would allow expansion of the wastewater treatment plant in a PZM zone. Planning Commission Agenda - 2!8/96 Planning Commission should select this alternative based on the finding that the facility as proposed is not consistent with the nature and character of the area and will result in depreciation of adjoining land values or is not consistent with the comprehensive plan for the city. It is our view that the site plan as proposed improves upon the site plan prepared and approved a few weeks ago; therefore, it would make sense that the Planning Commission would grant approval of the conditional use permit. As with the previous site plan, odor control measures are being employed that will result in a land use that is compatible with adjoining properties. The odor control measures will actually improve upon the current situation and reduce existing odor problems; therefore, staff recommends approval. Excerpt from comprehensive plan; Site plan to be provided at the meeting. Coale PGfiAV a C4E f T 09P4) UTILITY POLICIES 1. As urban development proceeds, adequate plans will be made for the increased storm water run-off that can be expected; to the extent feasible, such water will be impounded to help recharge the area's ground water supply. Drainage plans will be coordinated on a watershed basis. 2. where on-site sewer and water facilities are to be used, soil percolation tests shall be required when considered necessary and there is evidence to indicate that larger lot sizes may be required or development should be permitted for reasons of danger to the public and health. 3. Attempt to design and encourage the use of gravity flow for sanitary sewer systems rather than using lift stations and force mains for long-term sewage solutions. Lift stations and force mains may be appropriate as interim solutions to sewage problems that may be served by gravity flow at a later date. 4. Select routes for utilities, either above or below ground, with careful regard for the preservation of natural resources, such as wetlands, extreme slopes, water sources, and other wildlife habitat. 5. Restore the "nature" of the land which has been altered by construction work to the extent possible as soon after construction is completed. 6. Prohibit extension of sewer systems into areas where development should not occur, ouch as flood plains and designated open spaces. In certain instances, sewers may, of necessity, have to traverse such areas in order to serve upland areas. However, connection to the line should not be allowed in those areas. 7. Privately owned sanitary sewer systems ahould be prohibited. 8. Under certain circumstances, surface water run-off may require consideration of a treatment system to assure the quality of effluent discharges into water bodies or waterways. 9. Municipal utilities should not be extended beyond the corporate limits of the City. 10. The City shall actively participate in industrial and commercial growth to ensure conformance with treatment and pre treatment requirements, in order to enhance maintenance and operation, and to protect and prolong the life expectancy of the Wastewater Treatment Plan. 11. The extension of privately owned sewer and water lines beyond an individual's property line in order to tie into municipal mains shall be prohibited. -5a- 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 j natural systems 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 space, like the people it serves, is k becoming more directly integrated with its surroundings. Becoming more a part of the.total urban fabric, open space is being more closely integrated into the urban living and working environment. Because of this integrating phenomenon, many of the advantages and responsibilities of open space are equally applicable to public and private lands. :UM 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 a portion of their land for public use; where this is not feasible or desirable, developers will be required to contribute cash in lieu of land, with such money to be utilized for the purchase and development of recreational facilities. 1. School facilities should be fully utilized by making building and land available to the public for use when such does not conflict with normal function of the school facilities. 5. Private developers will not be required to donate land for school sites. 6. Churches should have an ample site for building, landscaping, 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 street$ 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 park 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 j natural systems 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 space, like the people it serves, is k becoming more directly integrated with its surroundings. Becoming more a part of the.total urban fabric, open space is being more closely integrated into the urban living and working environment. Because of this integrating phenomenon, many of the advantages and responsibilities of open space are equally applicable to public and private lands. :UM Planning Commission Agenda - 2096 A. REFRRENrV ANn BACKGROUND: Kevin Cook, of Cook Construction, Inc., requests that the City grant a 15 -ft variance to the requirement that homes be set back 20 ft from the side lot line. When you refer to the attached map, you will see that Block 1, Lot 8, Meadow Oaks Fourth Addition, is on the corner of the intersection of Meadow Lane and Red Oak Lane. As you recall, previous plans for extending Meadow Oak Lane to the Briar Oakes Development were dropped, and instead it was determined that a simple pedestrian path would be extended to connect the two subdivisions in place of the roadway. Kevin Cook requests that a variance be granted to the side yard setback on the pathway side of the property. It is his view that the 20 -ft setback is not necessary at this corner because there will never be a roadway extended to the west at this location. He notes that the 5 -ft setback as proposed allows for sufficient separation between the building and the property line and results in a 35 -ft separation between the building line and the center of the pathway. According to City pathway easement standards, we have required at least a total easement width of 30 R, which results in a minimum of 15 ft on either side of the path. Under this scenario as noted above, the setback distance Brom the center of the line of the path to the home will amount to 35 ft. Along with the 20 -ft side yard setback requirement, there exists a 12 -ft easement, which means granting a 16 -ft variance to the side yard setback would result in a 7 -ft encroachment into the easement. Therefore, no maximum variance that could be granted without vacating the easement amounts to 8 ft as opposed to 15 ft as requested. Of course, the easement area impacted by a variance over 8 R could be addressed via the easement vacation process. B_ ALTRRNATIVE ACTION& Motion to grant a 16 -ft variance and recommend vacation of a 7 -ft section of the side lot line easement. This motion is based on the finding that the variance is consistent with the intent of the ordinance. Tho Hiles regulating setback standards should not apply in this case duo to the fact that the aide yard setback faces a pathway and not a roadway and that them are no viable plans for development of a roadway at this location. Planning Commission Agenda - 216/96 The Planning Commission could select this alternative if it believes that a variance at this location is appropriate due to the fact that this unique situation exists and that it is not likely to set any significant precedent. In addition, the setback that remains between the property line and the center line of the pathway exceeds the current minimum setback standards for pathway width and should not result in the home being located too close to the pathway. As a follow-up to this item, formal standards defining pathway width and regulating pathway/yard setbacks should be prepared and adopted by Council. Presumably, the ordinance created would limit setbacks to b ft when pathways meet or exceed a width of 60 ft. Motion to deny the 16 -ft variance. The Planning Commission could decide that sufficient hardship does not exist with regard to this site, and the best way to handle the situation is to vacate the unneeded portion of the roadway and require the standard 10 -ft setback along the side yards. It should be noted that there could be other roadways in the community that are currently undeveloped which appear to have no development potential. Perhaps allowing an encroachment on the setback at this location opens the door for other property owners to build within setback areas on properties that might have similar corner lot characteristics, or perhaps the Planning Commission believes that a smaller variance (10 ft versus 18 ft) could be justified. To allow a 6 -ft setback as proposed may not be justifiable regardless of the reasoning. If this is the case, perhaps the Planning Commission could support a smaller variance. The applicant would avoid the need to vacate any portion of the easement if the variance is limited to 8 ft. It is the view of City staff that a variance in this situation is justified. By allowing greater use of the side yard saes for construction of the home, more land is available for home construction, thus resulting in a higher home value. It is our view that the land area remaining after a home is built to within 6 ft within the setback is certainly sufficient to allow for public use of the trail and any future additional landscaping that could occur between the home and the trail. Also, there are public utilities that extend through the easement. Maintenanoe activities on these utilities will not be hampered even if the home is built within 8 ft of the setback. Finally, this is an example of a situation where it probably would have been beat to replat the entire line of lots on the west aide of Red Oak Lane so that the "wasted right, of -way' Brom the old Meadow Lane could have been distributed to each lot, Planning Commission Agenda - 216/86 thereby increasing the size of the lot and the developers ability to build bigger homes in the subdivision. Under the variance request as proposed, the benefit of having that additional space will go only to the corner lot, which is better than nothing. Finally, the area of conflict between the existing easement and the new structure will need to be addressed via the vacation process. Location/site plan map. UTILIT L101SW v 7 N N tJ MEADOW OAK 4th ADDITION ; ' O 0 60 120 SCALE IN FEET V AND DRAINAGE EASEMENT I SHOWN dp��. CD i 1 uj ;ply 1 J 1 i Cc THUS: _ .1 BEING 112.0 FEET IN WIDTH AND ADJOINING ALL TMOROUGRFARE LINES AND 6.0 FEET IN WiDT04 AND ADJOINING ALL SIDE AND -REAR LOT LINES AS IN.PICATED, UNLESS OTHERWISE $NOW?. I g'6. 213.01 t.0 ✓ i`D 6 0i � W 1 N93.34' OO'E.... 15ti,,:SP '- '^13 r' Z 576•.. —` r 65• O 125.90 t o t ` 1 � { t°25.00 i 1 r� l .........1 —so-3.{ gi ~1 fro{us © 1 1 .+ ►--C 1 o COOK CONDUCTION i —. J L— r.,..-1--""S3Tl 25 �......• P X34 ih i C9 V AND DRAINAGE EASEMENT I SHOWN dp��. CD i 1 uj ;ply 1 J 1 i Cc THUS: _ .1 BEING 112.0 FEET IN WIDTH AND ADJOINING ALL TMOROUGRFARE LINES AND 6.0 FEET IN WiDT04 AND ADJOINING ALL SIDE AND -REAR LOT LINES AS IN.PICATED, UNLESS OTHERWISE $NOW?. I g'6. 213.01 8. Planning Commission Agenda - 2096 . (J.OJ Planning Commission is asked to consider recommending approval of two conditional use permits relating to development of a wholesale pipe supply company in an I-1 zone. This company provides pipe to retailers for resale and provides pipe directly to contractors. The site is located across from Custom Canopy in the northeast quadrant of the intersection of Fallon Avenue and Dundas Road. The total land area occupied by the site amounts to 2 acres. Of this amount, about 1 acre is dedicated to outside storage. The plan calls for access to both Fallon Avenue and to Dundas Road. Dundas Road is not improved at this time and would be completed as a public improvement project in conjunction with this project. The plan meets all setback and parking requirements. Staff has provided the developer with some direction to assist in preparation of a landscaping plan that will soften the impact of the steel warehouse building as much as possible. No tax increment financing is being used to support this project. Please see the site plan for detail. OUTSIDE STORAGE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT According to the site plan, the storage area will be surrounded by a 6 -ft opaque cyclone fence. Slats will be installed in a basket -weave fashion to assure full opacity. As you know, some of the cyclone screening fences in the industrial area have vertical slats only. We have learned that vertical slats alone do not provide Ibr sufficient screening. Staff has been informed that the materials will not be stacked higher than the height of the fence. It appears that the developer will comply with all ordinance requirements relating to outside storage. STALL AISLE DESIGN CONDMONAL USE PERMIT This site is somewhat unique in that the area used for outside storage is adjacent to a proposed staging area for product pick-up. In the past, the City has required that any area commonly used by the public must be paved. Planning Commission Agenda - 216/96 Under the proposed plan, a relatively large staging area designated as a product pick-up location would be covered with a heavy granular material. The developer notes that this material is preferred because it can stand-up to the weight and turning movements of trucks using the space, whereas a bituminous surface will not stand-up. He notes that they might expect up to ten customers per day to pick up products at this location. In checking with the City Engineer, he agrees with the developer that it is not uncommon to allow gravel surfacing in this type of storage yard. It is likely, however, that bituminous would stand up better to the tight -turning movements necessary for the semi -trailer deliveries. A gravel surface will require regular maintenance even if it is a crushed material. It is likely that there would not be a significant cost savings between a bituminous surface and the proposed gravel surface; however, if there is limited public access to the storage yard, the impact would be mostly internal to their operations. See the site plan for detail. DECISION A. OUTSIDE STORAGE Motion to recommend approval of s conditional use permit allowing outside storage. Motion is based on the finding that the proposed plan is in conformance with outside storage conditions as required by ordinance. In addition, the cyclone screening fence must utilize slate in a manner that achieves 8076 opacity. Motion to deny the conditional use allowing outside storage. This motion should be selected if it is determined that outside storage is not appropriate at the site given the comprehensive plan, character of the area, etc. This alternative does not appear to be appropriate because the plan meets standards required by ordinance and is consistent with what the City has allowed to occur at other sites. DECISION B: STALL AIBI AND DRIVEWAY Motion to approve a stall aisle and driveway conditional use permit as proposed by the developer. Under this alternative, the Planning Commission is comfortable with the plan for not paving the material pick-up staging area. This alternative should be selected based on the finding that the unique Planning Commission Agenda - 2/6/96 nature of the business and use of the area by heavy vehicles requires installation of a heavy granular material. This motion should be subject to the adherence of conditions noted by ordinance and subject to the condition that the developer install the heavy granular base in a manner consistent with recommendations by the City Engineer. The approval could limit the number of public trips to the storage area and require that the surface be maintained to a rut -free condition or the area would be required to be paved. The Commission would have to determine some method of enforcement in this situation. The approval should also include that a staging area be hard surfaced adjacent to the building and including the driveway as directed by staff. As an additional condition, the fence at the entrance to the storage area should be set back far enough to avoid truck parking on the street while the fence gate is being opened. Motion to deny a stall aisle and driveway conditional use permit. The Planning Commission should select this alternative if it feels that a poor precedent is being set by allowing a material pick-up area to be developed without the required paving. Perhaps the Planning Commission wishes to require concrete to be installed at this location or is not convinced that bituminous paving will not work. C_ STAFF RF.COMMF.NDATION; While the argument that bituminous surfacing will not support the anticipated truck traffic is questionable, it is common to allow gravel surfacing of storage areas. If the number of pick-ups is kept to a reasonable level and the staging area is hard surfaced, it is the opinion of the City Engineer that the proposal would be acceptable. Some method of enforcement should be enacted to allow for future hard surfacing if conditions change. D_ SUPPORTING DATA_ Copy of site plan; Excerpt firom zoning ordinance regarding outside storage and drive aisle design conditional use permit. 1 �E 8 OS MC. OF OM a AS IpTCD OTI[=IK. 1C Z. COMTMCfa TO OOMI.CT 'FC1(O STAT[ ONE ML' FOR LOCAt104 nMD DEPTH OF 8U1v OF EXISTING UNKIOMMUTILITITS WORK STMT OF COMS"M IOM j. 2 I 1� a . N roaslm FLOOR E71v - m,ADD I IS --------------- 11 �1 1. KL DI1(MSIOn AM IAC! OF WILDING YLL 8 OS MC. OF OM a AS IpTCD OTI[=IK. 1C Z. COMTMCfa TO OOMI.CT 'FC1(O STAT[ ONE ML' FOR LOCAt104 nMD DEPTH OF 8U1v OF EXISTING UNKIOMMUTILITITS WORK STMT OF COMS"M IOM j. 2 c 15B-4: CONDITIONAL USES: The following are conditional uses in an "I -l" district: (Requires a conditional use permit based upon procedures set forth in and regulated by Chapter 22 of this ordinance). (A] Open and outdoor storage as an accessory use provided that: 1. The area is fenced and screened from view of neighboring residential uses or, if abutting a residential district, in compliance with Chapter 3, Section 2 [G], of this ordinance. 2. Storage is screened from view from the public right-of-way in compliance with Chapter 3, Section 2 (G), of this ordinance. 3. Storage area is grassed or surfaced to control dust. 4. All lighting shall be hooded and so directed that the light source shall not be visible from the public right-of-way or from neighboring residences and shall be in compliance with Chapter 3, Section 2 (H], of this ordinance. 5. The provisions of Chapter 22 of this ordinance are considered and satisfactorily met. 0 8. CALCULATING SPACE: (a) When determining the number of off-street parking spaces results in a fraction, each fraction of one-half (1/2) or more shall constitute another space. (b) In stadiums, sports arenas, churches, and other places of public assembly in which patrons or spectators occupy benches, pews, or other similar seating facilities, each twenty- two (22) inches of such seating facilities shall be counted as one (1) seat for the purpose of determining requirements. (c) Should a structure contain two (2) or more types of use, each shall be calculated separately for determining the total off- street parking spaces required. 9. STALL, AISLE, AND DRIVEWAY DESIGN: (a) PARKING SPACE SIZE: Each parking space shall be not less than nine (9) feet wide and twenty (20) feet in length exclusive of access aisles, and each apace shall be served adequately by access aisles. EXCEPTION: Where desired, up to 25% of the parking spaces may be not less than seven and one-half (7- 1/2) feet in width and not less than sixteen (16) feet in length when served adequately by access aisles to accommodate compact car parking and should be marked as such. (b) WITHIN STRUCTURES: The off-street parking requirements may be furnished by providing a space so designed within the principal building or one (1) structure attached thereto; however, unless provisions are made, no building permit shall be issued to convert said parking structure into a dwelling unit or living area or other activity until other adequate provieione are made to comply with the required off-street parking provisions of this ordinance. (c) Except in the case of single, two-family, and townhouse dwellings, parking aroas shall be designed so that circulation between parking bays or aisles occurs within the designated parking lot and does not depend upon a public street or alley. kORlICELLO ZONING ORDINANCE ® 3/27 Except in the case of single, two-family, and townhouse dwellings, parking area design which requires backing into the public street is prohibited. (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 46.6' 44.5' 40.3' 45 56.6' 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 with the following exception: Curb cut access in industrial and commercial zoning districts may exceed twenty- four (24) feet with the approval of the City Engineer and the Zoning Administrator. Daniel by the City Engineer and Zoning Administrator of curb cut access in excess of twenty-four (24) feet may be appealed following the procedures outlined in Chapter 23 of the zoning ordinance. (10/11/93, 1242) (g) Curb cut openings and driveways shall be at a minimum three (3) feet from the side yard property line in residential districts and five (5) feet from the side yard lot line in business or industrial districts. (h) Driveway access curb openings on a public street except for single, two-family, and townhouse dwellings shell not be located lose than forty (40) feet from one another. (i) The grade elevation of an ` y perking area shell not exceed five (5) percent. MONTICELL40 ZONING ORDINANCE O 3/29 (j} Each property shall be allowed one (I) curb cut per one hundred twenty-five (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. Except in the case of single family and two- family dwellings, driveways and stalls shall be surfaced with six (5) inch class five base and two (2) inch bituminous topping or concrete equivalent. Drainage plans shall be reviewed by the City Engineer and subject to his approval. City staff may waive this requirement if it is determined that the drainage plans do not merit further study by the City Engineer. Staff determination in this regard shall be based on site of parking surface area, simplicity of design plan, and proximity/accessibility to existing storm sewer facilities. EXCEPTIONS s See D. 9 (a) Stall Aisle and Driveway Design Conditional Use Permit. (#192, 7/9/90) (1) STRIPING, Except for single, two-family, and townhouses, all parking stalls shall be marked with white painted lines not less than four (4) inches wide. (m) LIGHTING, Any lighting used to illuminate an off-street parking area shall be so arranged as to reflect the light away from adjoining property, abutting residential uses, and public right-af-ways and be in compliance with Chapter 3, Section 2, (G) and (N) of this ordinance. (n) SIGNS: No sign shall be so located as to restrict the sight lines and orderly operation and traffic movement within any parking lot. (o) CURBING AND LANDSCAPINfi, Except for single, two-family, and townhouses, all open off- street parking shall have a perimeter curb barrier around the entire parking lot, said curb barrier shall not be closer than five (5) KOWTICELW VOWING ORDINANCE V 3/29 feet to any lot line. Grass, plantings, or surfacing material shall be provided in all areas bordering the parking area. EXCEPTIONS: See D. 9 (s) Stall Aisle and Driveway Design Conditional Use Permit. (1192, 7/9/90) (p) REQUIRED SCREENING: All open, non- residential, off-street parking areas of five (5) or more spaces shall be screened and landscaped from abutting or surrounding residential districts in compliance with Chapter 3, Section 2, of this ordinance. (q) ALL DRIVEWAY ACCESS OPENINGS shall require a culvert unless the lot is served by storm sewer or is determined unnecessary by the Building Inspector. Size of culvert shall be determined by the Building Inspector but shall be a minimum of fifteen (15) inches in diameter. (r) CURBING: L. All commercial and industrial off-street parking areas and driveways in commercial areas shall have a six (6) Inch nonsurmountable continuous concrete curb around the perimeter of the parking area and driveways. 11. All off-street parking in the I-1 and I-2 districts shall have an Insurmountable curb barrier which, if not constructed of six (6) inch continuous concrete curbing, shall require prior approval from the Planning Commission and City Council. Driveways In the I-1 and 1-2 districts shall have a six (6) inch insurmountable continuous concrete curb along its perimeter. iii. All curb designs and materials shall be approved by the City Engineer. EXCEPTIONS: See D. 9 (s) Stall Aisle and Driveway Design Conditional Use Permit. (a) STALL AISLE AND DRIVEWAY DESIGN CONDITIONAL USE PERMITt MONTICELLO ZONING ORDINANCE ® 3/30 Stall aisle and driveway design requirements as noted in (k) Surfacing, (o) Curbing and Landscaping, and (r) Curbing, may be lessened subject to the following conditions: I. Any reduction in requirements requires completion of the conditional use permit process outlined in Chapter 22 of this ordinance. Li. Final approval of parking and driveway drainage plans associated with conditional use permit request shall be provided in writing by the City Engineer. Engineering expenses greater than portion of building permit fee allocated for engineer plan review shall be paid by applicant prior to occupancy of structure. iii. A surmountable "transition" curb or cement delineator must be installed as a boundary between an outside storage area and a parking or drive area. iv. Development of a curb along the boundary between a parking area and an area designated on site plan for future parking is not required if said curb line is not needed for drainage purposes as determined by the City Engineer. V. Exceptions to the standard curb requirements do not apply to any parking or driveway perimeter that runs roughly parallel to and within 20 feet of an adjoining parcel. vi. This conditional use permit is allowed only in I-1 and I-2 sones. vii. Drive areas that are secondary and not used by the general public and not used for routine delivery of goods or services do not require hard surfacing or curb unless hard surface and curb is needed for drainage purposes as determined by the City Engineer. Access to such drive areas may be restricted by a gate which must be closed after each use. At such time that routine use is noted, the drive area shall be paved. (#192, 7/9/90) KONTICELLO ZONINGl ORDINANCE ® 3/31 Planning Commission Agenda - 20*96 9. Public Hearing_Co sideration of a con itle Al use hermit which would allamLonanninn of shn efce huilding In a PZM zone. . (J.0.) Please refer to the attached report from Planner Steve Grittman of Northwest Associated Consultants. FEB -01-1996 1548 NORTHWEST ASSOCIATED CONSULTANTS NF -NC COMMUNITY PLANNING - 0E810N - MARKET RESEARCH PLANNING REPORT TO: Monticello Mayor & City Council Monticello Planning Comission FROM Elizabeth Stockman / Stephen GMftm DATE: 31 January 1998 RE: Monticello - Ruff Auto Parts. Inc. - Conditional Use Permit FILE: 191.07 - 9S.02 Backwound Ruff Auto Parts, Inc. Is requesting approval of a Conditional Use Permit to allow mgmnsion of an existing office facility located within the PZM, Mixed Performance Zone. The Ruff Auto Parts operation (auto selvage yard and office) is a legally non-cadorming use within the PZM District which has been In existence in its current loeadonfor many years. The owners wish to add a second story onto the existing strxgle level office building. The following pamgrq is provide an overview of Zonft Ordiru= requirements, followed by analysis of issues end decision options. The applicant has not submitted edequato plan» which meet ft submission regvlrerrtenta outlined in the Zoning Ordtnanee, thus the Conformance with or violation of adopted atandarda Cannot be property evaluated at this time. Attee ted for reference: Exhibit A - Site Location Exhibit 8 - Site Sketch Exhibit C - From Elevation of Second Story Addition Exhibit D - Raw Elevatlon of Second Story Addition 8775 WAYZATA BOULEVARD. SUITE 555 ST. LOU18 PARK. MINN930TA 684 16�T PHONE 6 1 s-50)5.0630 /Ax 01 a•505.0637 //� 1 Zoning Ordinance Reaulremenls Zoning. The Ruff Auto Parts property is zoned PZM, Rest I Mixed Use. The performance of the PZ Districts is to allow for development fleuability and special design control within sensitive areas of the City due to environruental or physical limitations. The PZM District is specifically aimed at creating a transition between residential properties and low intensity business land uses, allowing for the mix of such uses through innovative design and aesthetic controls. The Ruff Auto Parts operation is a legally non-contorrning use within the PZM District. ConnBdona! Use Permit. The a pension of r>oruonforming uses is prohibited within ft City. To facilitate the proposed addition onto an existing office building upon the Ruff Auto Parts pmpwV, the applicants have requested approval of a Conditional Use Permit The Conditional Use Permit process offers f dbitity to the City Council to oulpn dlmem=w or conditions to a project which Uvolves special circumstances. Due to the mix of it on this site, this option was offered to the applicant by City stag because of special, unusual, or extraordinary limitations and special problems of control the use represents. Under the straight Conditional Use approach, the City would consider the office use as a separate land use from the storage use. Since office uses are allowed in the PZM District by Conditional Use Permit, the office could be expanded without affecting the non -conforming ststus of the storage. This approach requires the City to interpret the non-confamtng use language to refer to specific uses only and not to the whole parcel. Procedurally, the Planning Commission and City Council shall consider the possible adverse effects of the proposed conditional use. Its judgement shall be based upon, but not limited to, the following factors: t. Relationship to municipal comprehensive plan. Z The geographical area involved. 3. Whether such use will tend to or actually depreciate the area In which it is proposed. 4. The character of the surrounding wee. S. The dernonstreted need for such use. i M) Adclitionally, In granting a Conditional Use Permit for development within the PDM District, the City Planning Commission and City Council must make the following findings of fact: 1. The proposed project is consistent with the spirit and intent of the Monticello Comprehensive Plan goals and policies and in keeping with the intent of the Zoning Ordinance. 2. The proposed project is consistent with the purpose of the performance zoning ordinance. 3. The proposed project will not have any adverse impacts as outlined in the Conditional Use Permit section of the Zoning Ordinance. 4. The proposed project shall meet minimurn screening and landscaping requirements as outlined herein. 5. The proposed project shall provide adequate parking and loading as outlined herein. S. The proposed project provides a wider range of housing types, price ranges, and styles within the community. 7. The proposed project will provide amenities and facUties and open spaces greater than the minimum requirements under alternative zoning. S. The proposed project shell in no way be detrimental to the environment Scenic aspects and natural features shall be protected and preserved to the extent possible. 9. The proposed project shell not Impose any undue burden upon public facilities and services. 10. The proposed project is designed In such a manner to form a desirable and unified envt onment w&M its bounderles which will not be deMmw tel future land uses in surrounding areas. Architecture and site treatments shall be compatible with adjacent structures and site plans and shell respect the privacy of neighboring homes and/or businesses. Other findings of fact submitted by the Planning Commission and City Council may be required to address additional requiroments necessary to make the project in compliance with the Zoning Ordlnarce where the Planning Commission and City Council feel the proposed project is lacking. M Lot Area, Width 3 t1 IcOng Height. Within the PZM District the minimum required lot area Is 12,000 square feet, the minimum required lot width is 80 feet, and the building height limitation is two (2) stories. Parking & Loading. Applications for a building permit in all zoning districts requires submittal of a site plan drawn to scale and dimensioned Indicating the location of off-street par" and loading spaces V1lithout this data, conformance with these standards eenrwt be verified, however, the parking and loading req nrements have been outlined as follows. All parking areas are required to be surfaced with materials adequate to control dust and drairiage. They must be striped with white painted lines no less than 4 indres wide and cubed around the perimeterwith a six (6) inch nate cortlrwoue concrete sub. All off-street parking areas of five or more spaces must be screened and larxiscaped around the perimeter and within median areas as required by ordinance. One curb art Is permitted per 125 feet of frontage and no such access may exceed 24 feet in width without approval by the City Engineer. Curb cut openings and driveways must be setback a minimum of fire (5) feet from aide yard property lines, be a minimum m of 40 feet apart and 40 feet from the intersection of two or more streets. Partdrg and loading area may not exceed a five (5) percent grade nor may they be used for open storage of equipment or materials. A fifteen (15) Inch culvert is required under driveway access openings unless the lot is served by public storm sower. The minimum number of parking spaces required is twenty four (24) , catadated as follows: Office Buildings Three (3) spaces plus one (1) space for each 200 square feet of floor area a 12 spews (based on a 30 x 60 building) Warehouse, storage Eight (6) spaces plus one (1) space for each two (2) or handling of bulk goods employees on each shin based on maximum planned employment or at a minimum at least eight (6) spaces plw are (1) for each five hundred (500) square foot of flax area a 12 spaces (based on a 30 x 60 building, not IaIO*UQ the nwfflw of employ00f) According to the submitted alts sketch, the property Is short of parking speeoa overall and does not Indicate the proper dbnwu m of parking stalls. u Buildings of 5,000 square feet or more (up to 100,000 sf) require the provision of one (1) loading berth measuring fifty-five (55) feet in length, ten (10) feet in width and fourteen (14) feet in height. All loading berths are required to be screened and landscaped from abutting and surrounding residential uses and surfaced with bituminous paving. They may not be located within the front yard and must be at least 50 feet from a street intersection or from residential areas. The Ruff Auto Parts property is currently short of parking, loading and general storage space. It is necessary at times to utilize the public right-of-way as a holding area for vehicles or equipment when other merchandise Is being moved on or off the site. This raises concertos with public safety and liability and is an indication that the current site is being over utilized. These items also place the site In the non -conforming category. Screening & Landscaping. Screening Is required to buffer all outdoor storage areas to assure an aesthetic urban environment and shall consist of either a fence or vegetative plantings. A required screening fence shall be constructed of masonry, brick, wood or steel and must provide a solid screening effect not less than six (6) and not more than eight (8) feet In height. Buffer yards we required to reduce the negative impacts that result when incompatible uses abut one another. A minimum buffer yard 40 feet in width with building setbadw of at least 50 feet shall be required giver the severe intensity of conff ict between the Ruff Auto Parts property and adjacent low derwity residential neighborhood. The required number, sizes, and species of plantings must meet the minimum standards established. Detailed landscepe plans are required In all cases where site plan approval is specified. Where landscape or man-made materiels are used to provide screening from scipoent or neighboring properties, a cross-section drawing nwst be prodded showing the perspective of the site from the neighboring property line at ft property Ilne elevation. Building Matwialsr. Every building within the City Is required to be finished on all sides with consistent architectural quality, materials, and design, Signage. The type, size, location, height and number of signs wtrtch. "at upon the Ruff Auto Parts property are not indicated on the application. Any signs which exist must be brought into conformance with the Ciys sign regulations, K required by the City Council, as provided in Section 36 of the Zoning Ordinance. Within PDN Districts, the maximum allowable square footage of sign area per lot may not exceed the sum of one (1) square foot per front foot of the building plus one (1) square foot for each front foot of lot not occupied by a building, up to 100 square feet. Each lot Is allowed one (1) pylon sign or freestanding sign and ono (1) wall sign or two (2) wall 9igns total. Regtdred Plans. The City Zoning Ordinance requires that any person desiring to improve property shall submit a survey of the premises and information on the location and dimensions of existing and proposed buildings, structures, easements, and other information which may be necessary to insure conformance to City ordinances. The submitted plans do not provide the necessary detailed information and do not show property boundaries. Additionally, grading, drainage, and utility plans must be submitted to the City Engineer for review and approval. The applicant has not submitted the required site or grading plans which are needed to verify the site and building conformance with established performance standards. Applicarrts are required to submit final building plans to the City prior to the granting of permits. No changes to the plans shall be permitted without consent from the City Council. All requirements as a condition of approval shall be addressed in the final development agreement and Indicated on all appropriate plans. Issues Anatysls Prior to Ruff Auto Parts formal application for Conditions] Use Permit approval, City staff met with the applicant to dI== expansion options. Technical interpretation of the Zoning Ordinance considers the existing office building and auto salvage operation one In the same, the first being the central Control and management point for the later which share the same site and ere physically integrated. Given the legal non-cortformtng status of the business, the Zoning Ordinance would not allow expansion of any aspect of the auto salvage operation If strictly applied. Section 3-1 states that "ran -conforming uses shall not be enlarged or expanded. but may be continued at the size and manner of operation'. The long term status of the Ruff Auto Pans business within Monticello has resulted in the existing condition of the alto and operation which is in violation of numerous Zoning Ordinance regulations and performance standards - some obvious and others assumed (due to lack of plena) - for instance setback, surfacing and screening requirements. Many of these Issues were discussed at the initial meeting with City staff whereupon the Conditional Use Permit alternative was chosen by the applicant. This is only one of multiple options available In deciding the future expansion possibilities of the Ruff Auto Parts property. Individual eltomatives are discussed as follows. Alternative Approach - Pkmed Unit Development. The consideration of the project under tho Conditional Use Permit ab proposed places the City In a difficult position. A finding that the office and storage uses are separate for the purposes of non -conforming use Coafinerd would be a policy position which could have precedent for other properties in the community. The altemativm to this approach would be to rezone the property to a Planned Unit Development District designation. Under a PUD District, tho uses could be considered oonfOrning, and the applicant could be allowed to expand without running afoul of the non -conforming use sections of the Zoning Ordinanco. 9 Moreover, the City and the property owner Could agree to a staging of property improvements wtrich would both permit the expansion of activities on this site (or adjacent available lands), and provide a Gear outline for bringing the business Into Conformance with performance standards including parking, loading, setbacks, and possibly most significantly, screening of outdoor storage. The use of PUD in this situation would be as an au t,al zoning disbic, rather than by Conditional Use Permit overlying the base zoning (as most often applied). In this way, the City can permit the use without risking the opening of the property to other industrial or commercial mr ercial uses. Should the City opt to approve the project via the Conditional Use Permit or via another means as outlined below, some or all of the performance standards may be enforced to either reduce or eliminate the she's rweconformance with established site Improvements. The submittal of required plans is necessary under all scenarios to document both the existing site status and planned improvements as well as potential timing of various phases. A development agreement should also be required to formalize the process. Decision One - Conditional Use Pemdt for an expansion of the Office. This option Involves a less restrictive interpretation of Zoning Ordinance requirements. In this regard, the office portion of the Ruff Auto Pana operation ( the less offensive aspect with regard to Compatibility issues) was conceptually separated from the exterior salvage activities which, most would agree, tend to have a more negative impact on neighboring properties. The separation of the office and salvage yard affects of this operation may allow for expansion opportunities within the PZM District via the Conditional Use Permit process because the office has a low Intensity nahao consistent with the intent of the PZM District. There are no fixed standards for Conditional Use Permits within the PZM District. In their review, the City shell take into account standards that are contained In other sections of this ordinance that most Josey resemble those that would apply to a similar use If R were proposed In a district other than the performance zone, and the neighboring land uses. Altomative A - Conditional Uso Permit Approval Millitourt conditlor s► The alternative would allow expansion of tho existing office building through the Conditional Use Permit process without conditions being placed on the approval. It could be construed that the office facility is th conter of business oporation on site and that without it the auto saNTV opwWlcn could not Rinction. In this regard, the City may vlow, the approves as necessary to preserve a long-Ume co rm wity business. This alternative would require a finding that the proposed office expansion Is separate from the storage/ salvage use, and Is not affected by the nonconforming use Issues on the site. Alternative B - Conditional Use Permit Approval (wh h conditions). This altemative would allow expansion of the existing office building through the Conditional Use Permit prooess but would require other site improvements to progressively bring the business operation Into doser conformity with adopted Zoning Ordinance requirements and performance standards. Both the applicant and the City may benefit from an agreement to expand whereby the appikant gains more space as desired in exchange for the provision of site improvements such as paving, screening and landscaping. This is not only an equitable way to proceed but represents the intent of the non -m. ftming use regulations which state t ud'they not be permitted to continue without restriction and that they will eventually be brought Into eonfortntty'. This is one of the preferred options of City staff, as staff cannot recommend approval without improvement of the site and reductkuVeltmination of incompatible land use relationships and negative outstanding Issues. In this regard, the primary focus is the protection of public welfare and to uphold the integrity of the municipal land use plan. If the City Council chooses this option, ft setbacK density, screening, and submission requirements outlined under the PIRA standards outlined In Section 10.8 should be followed. Alternative C - Denial. As discussed previously, technical interpretation of the CWs Zoning Ordhanco would classify the office facility as a directly related aspect of the auto salvage operation which Is the principal use of the property. In this regard, the entire door storage operation would be considered one in the same as a single non -conforming use. The Zoning Ordinance does not allow expansion of non -conforming uses without bringing the use into conformance with estabMed design and performance standards. Office facilities allowed by Conditional Use Permit under the PZM District are specifically limited to professional and commercial offices which have no storage of merchandise end are service oriented with no retail eels of goods on the premises. The separation of the offwe use from the auto salvage use for purposes of ordinance interpretation and to allow expansion of the facility through other options discussed above, one could cmdude that a negative precedent Is being set which may prompt other property owners to request deviation from adopted ordinance standards. CD Aslan Two - PAzwdM to Ptamred unit OwwWopment This option proposes the reacnirp of the Rif Auto Parts prop" to Planned Unit Development to not only allow the defined dfkm builft eopirisIM but dffdrate the non- conforming status of ft bua ness aperetlai end aooept the current property corfturatten as f wdsts Under th Planned Unit Dembi ment designation, flodbility in setbacks mrkd other perform standards would be at tike ftcretion of the City Council. Tads would allow the City to be as restrictive or as liberal as desired In specifying performance standards to be met. PC Jeff O'Neill � ``��ra C ,�M.aa ��� �Y it ID 10 M 00 R * '-.V-Av4aUIW- �'1.- REFAR 0 A I Planning Commission Agenda - 2/6/96 BACKGROUND: Some months ago, the City Council authorized completion of a transportation study of the Highway 25/Chelsea Road corridor. The purpose of the study was to identify alternatives for relieving congestion at the intersection of Oakwood Drive/Highway 26 and for the purpose of identifying frontage road alignments and future stop light locations. This information would be used to develop an official transportation plan which would legally allow the City to block development where appropriate and acquire properties needed for right-of-way realignments. Development pressure in the area is contributing toward bringing selection of new road alignments to a head. A few weeks ago, a preliminary plat sketch plan for a major undeveloped parcel in the area was presented to City staff which outlines a developer -proposed alignment for Chelsea Road between County Road 117 and Cedar Street. The alignment proposed by the developer is consistent with one of the alternatives that OSM traffic engineers have been examining. The developer cannot proceed with completion of the platting process until the City determines the proper location for Chelsea Road. The purpose of the Planning Commission discussion will be to review the alignments presented in the attached report and make a recommendation to the City Council as to the proper alignment. City Council will then select an alignment on a preliminary basis and request that a public hearing be conducted by the Planning Commission on the road plan. This public hearing would be conducted at the March meeting of the Planning Commission with the goal of adopting the road plan in conjunction with adoption of the comprehensive plan. Final adoption of the selected road alignment would occur at the subsequent meeting of the City Council. Once the formal alignment is adopted, the City has improved authority to withhold approval of building or plat submittals that are inconsistent with the selected road alignment. The Minnesota Department of Transportation will also receive a copy of the report for comment. MN/DOT support must be obtained prior to Council approval of a final plan. Planning Commission Agenda • 2098 Motion to accept the study and recommend alternative #1, #2, or #3 for approval by the City Council. Motion to table reeommendation. This alternative should be selected if the Planning Commission needs additional information prior to selection of an alternative. Alternative #1 does not pull the intersection far enough away from the intersection and has less of a chance of State approval. Alternatives #2 and #3 are both acceptable alternatives; however, staff recommends alternative #3 for the following reasons: Alternative 03 results in developable property on both sides of Chelsea Road between County Road 117 and Cedar Street, whereas much of route 2 runs along the Silver Fox parking lot, thereby adding little value to the property to the north. Such an alignment will add greater value to the property it is crossing. The alignment lines up with Sandberg Road. There is sufficient land south of the Abel site that could be combined with Abel's to satiety a large user's needs. A copy of the Highway 25/Chelsea Road Corridor Study will be mailed to you directly from OSM. Planning Commission Agenda - 2/6/96 A FEREWE AND BA .KGRO IAIII: A sketch plan outlining a commercial subdivision and associated road alignment for an 18 -acre parcel formerly owned by Stuart Hoglund has been presented to City staff by Bob Abel for review. As noted in the previous agenda item, the plat proposes the extension of Chelsea Road along the boundary between the Silver Fox plat and Abel's property. A cul-de-sac would be extended southerly from Chelsea Road allowing access to interior lots. Eight commercial lots would be created under the plan. The cul-de-sac would not be constructed until sale of the interior lots is imminent. This alignment is preferred by the developer because it provides the highest degree of flexibility for development of the land Under this alignment, the cul-de-sac could be vacated in the event a larger single user is interested in the site. Under option p2 of the transportation plan, the Chelsea Road alignment that would swing Chelsea Road south through the interior of the site, the option of selling the property to a larger single user is lost. Please note that I-2 land is available south of Abel's site that, with a rezoning, could be combined with Abel's site to create sufficient space for a single user site. The main purpose of the review of the sketch plan is to analyze the plan in terms of its relationship to the transportation study options and to provide direction to the developer as to which alignment is likely to be selected. Once this information is provided to the developer, then he can complete the detail platting information necessary to do a thorough preliminary plat review. Additional information that needs to be included with the preliminary plat that is not on the sketch plan includes lot dimensions and engineering data establishing the feasibility of development of the plat as proposed. B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS: Motion to approve Abel's proposed alignment, which is option #2 under the transportation study. Under this alternative, it is presumed that under the previous agenda item, the Planning Commission selected option 02 as the favored alignment. 13 Planning Commission Agenda - 716/96 Under this alternative, the developer will be informed that the alternative recommended by the Planning Commission must be reviewed by the City Council and subject to a formal public hearing process. It is, therefore, possible that the alignment ultimately selected could be different than this alternative. Therefore, fiuther work on the preliminary plat under this plan is done at the developer's risk. 2. Motion to recommend that the developer redraft the sketch based on an alternative Chelsea Road alignment. If under the previous agenda item the Planning Commission recommends an alignment (option #1 or /3) that is not consistent with the developer's sketch plan, then the developer will need to adjust the plat accordingly. STAFF F. -O NDATION; See previous agenda item. n. SUPPORTING DATA; Copy of sketch plan. l SITE PLAN METRO COMMERCIAL PARR � IQOi A�t� t ! Q' OMMEgiYAL ! Q �•' , 4. 1 � i POINT `oN J •�1. SIL VER ,�� FOX ��• a� `�� 4 y 4L r �� o..r. �1/7.11Y•Albct.•MI. M✓.aea/aY 1 1OAKWOU 1 i p• H•t !0 1 1 43i 1 1 �� O.Iv a aarm ■ � Q cwwaw IMS I/r1m e—s - r Planning Commission Agenda - 218!96 18. Review updates to the comprehenaive plan_ Consideration of calling for a pmbLic hearing on adoption of the comprehensive plan Discuss develament of a 1-6 ,year work elan (J.0.) The updated comprehensive plan is enclosed for your review. 15 Planning Commission Agenda - 2/6196 18. Beviem Wasisaimd River Crnsaina 9tudv. Jeff will report at the meeting. Please review the attached information regarding the Mississippi River Crossing Study. MEnnefud ftmb m d TtrnWorlillm Cutrfct 3 j Uz9ftW RKw Omp*V ft* I/18180 MISSISSIPPI RIVER CROSSING STUDY OPEN HOUSE AGENDA January 31, 1998 Becker City Hall February 1, 1998 St. Cloud City Hall 5:00 p.m. to 7:00 p.m. ...................................Informal Viewing of Exhibits 7:00 p.m. to 7:30 p.m. ...................................Short Consultant Presentation P. Background ► Analysis ► Findings 7:30 p.m. to 8:00 p.m. ...................................Question and Answer Session 8:00 P.M. to 9:00 P.M. ...................................Informal Viewing of Exhibits 9:00 p.m....................................AdJoumment Written Comments Will Be Accepted Through February 15th J WHY DO A RIVER CROSSING STUDY? ► Improve understanding of issues and problems ► Determine local community concerns and issues ► Coordinate local and regional transportation goals ► Focus financial resources on best solutions ► Prevent/minimize future transportation problems Mississippi River Crossing Study study _ KRAX T pbtrkt g Purpose V1 kALS EMAM"ON L] NEAP "vm—. wrr.wt&01, IM C..d im a" GO.Oftmom Vm Ow $1.w • 0itinrM C..§— ..0 * ewwurr Mississippi River Crossing Study Mn/DM DbUftt 3 Crossing Cori -.,Ars OSt. Claud @clearwater - Expanded OCtearwaler - New Oliasty/Becker (Blinfield/Becker @Monticello (DAlbertville Study SRF ConsubV Group,Im. �25.;M TABLE MISSISSIPPI RIVER CROSSING STUDY COMPARISON MATRIX System Evaluation Benefit Cost Evaluation Travel Congestion Types System Safety Benefits Improvement BenefWCost Corridors Improvemem of Trios ConneMms Benefits WATAPIT Costs No Build O O O 0 O NIA NIA Corridor A 0 • O • • O • (St. Cloud) Corridor B O 0 O • 0 • 0 (Clearwater Exp.) Corridor C 0 • O • til O • (Clearwater New) Corridor D 0 0 46 0 0 O 0 (Nest~84 Corridor 01 0 • O 0 • O • (ErdleWBedre4 Corridor E • 0 O O 0 • 0 (Montloelto) • Good 0 Fair O Poor E41 o�a�Or.6n SRF �6mesW DeMbw at Traupmubm Dianrt 7 MUM RMr Gm g-%* tr2M STUDY FINDINGS ► There are significant seasonal traffic fluctuations to the major highways within the study area. Summer volumes can exceed average annual volumes by 30-40 percent and peak recreational volumes can exceed average annual volumes by as much as 80-70 percent ► River crossing segments of TH 24, TH 25 and TH 101 have accident rates that are significantly above the average rates for similar facilities. P. TH 10 from Big Lake to Elk River has an accident rate that is significantly above the average rate for similar facility. ► If no additional river crossing capacity is constructed, the operational charaderistics on TH 24 and TH 25 will degrade to a point where congestion regularly occurs on weekdays throughout the year by 2015. ► If no additional capacity improvements are made to 1-94 between Monticello and Rogers, the operational charactedstics on this segment of 1.94 will degrade to a regularly congested level by 2015. ► The TH 24 and TH 101 river crossings carry predominately medium and long range trips while TH 25 carries a higher number of short trips. ► The Albertiville c orrtdor was screened from further study because 4 would attract only halt as many of the medium/long range trips as compared to the other corridors. This corridor also would not adequately resolve the congestion on TH 24. P. The study found that the specific alignment within the individual study corridors was a significant factor in determining travel time savings and vehicle operating savings. ► The Monticello and Hasty - Becker corridors did not compare favorably to the other corridors in terms of travel time savings, vehicle operating savings and ardent savings. This resulted In a poor benefit/cost ratio and a recommendation that these corridors not be considered for further study. ► current land use trends Indicate that the Over corridor win continue to develop. If nothing Is done to preserve a future corridor a new Aver crossing location will be difficult to develop. ► The Mississippi River corridor within the study area is designated as a Wild and Scenic River. Any additional crossing will have to conform to the rules and regulations that govern this designation. ► The St. Cloud, Clearwater and Enfield -Becker cortldom have significant benefivcost advantages over other corridors. These corridors are recommended for further M*. Local communities along the study area indicated a desire to have the crossing dose to their municipal limits to gain development benefits. In addition, they also indicated a desire to remove through traffic on congested facilities within their communities. D/3 SRF No. 09522821 OctMW 9.1995 MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION MISSISSIPPI RIVER CROSSING STUDY Comment Form Name: Telephone No. Organization: Address: Please list your concerns or issues that you have regarding the study below. Return your comments to Dave Montebello, SRF Consulting Group, Inc., Suite 150, One Carlson Parkway North, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55447. Comments Due by February 15,1998 Planning Commission Agenda - 7/6/96 14. information item --Land Use planning Wo ah=. Please refer to the attached information regarding the workshops for Planning Commissioners and elected officials. LAND USE PLANNING WORKSHOPS FOR PLANNING COMMISSIONERS AND ELECTED OFFICIALS l FEBRUARY - APRIL 1996 INCLUDES: • ANNUAL PLANNING INSTITUTES • BEYOND THE BASICS Sponsored by: ® GOVERNMENT TRAINING SERVICE NOTE: Let Wanda Kraemer, at 888-306U, know it you are interested in attending one or both of the Land Use Planning Workshops by February 180L The Commissioners that did attend the workshop last year thought it was worth the time. 0 GENERAL INFORMATION We are pleased to once again offer workshops designed especially for citizen planners. Participants will enhance their knowledge of vari- ous areas of planning and, as a result, become bet- ter equipped to make recommendations and deci- sions about the communities in which they live. Program Features Include: An accomplished faculty with extensive backgrounds In both planning and instruction • Presentations focusing on current issues and timely Information Handy reference materials designed to make your job easier If you would like to make your contribution to soty- Ing land use problems as informed and effective as possible ... REGISTER TODAYI THESE PRO- GRAMS ARE FOR YOU. WHO SHOULD ATTEND? Members of planning commissions, boards of adjustmenVappeals and governing bodies In Minnesota cities, counties and townships. Also valuable for members of other advisory commis- sions, housing and redevelopment authorities, staff (especially those without degrees in planning), real estate professionals, and others working In areas related to specialized workshop topics. ATTENDANCE AT THESE WORKSHOPS PRO- VIDES ADDITIONAL BENEFITS FOR CITY ELECTED OFFICIALSI If you are enrolled In the new League of Minnesota Cities Leadership Institute for Elected Officials (or want to bel), these courses count toward the 40 credits required for Certification. Each Land Use Planning Workshop Is worth 7 credits. The Certification Program was inaugurated In January, 1998. Application forms are available by calling Cathy Davidlo at the League offices at (612) 281- 1250. Cell Sharon Klump at (612) 281-1203 with questions about the Leadership Institute program. using the forms in this brochure. Fill out one form for each workshop; duplicate forms if needed. Fees will be refunded less a $15 service fee If the registration Is cancelled 3 working days before the program. Substitutions for registered partici- pants may be made at any time. Should inclement weather (or other circumstances beyond our con- trol) necessitate program cancellation or postpone- ment, registrants will be notified via announce- ments on WCCO radio and other local radio sta- tions. FEES Registration fees for all workshops include a meal, refreshment breaks and handout materials. See Inside for details about group discounts for three or more participants attending 'Annual Planning Institute.' IMPORTANT. To quality for the group discount, reg- Istrations must be mailed in the same envelope) CO-SPONSORS • Association of Metropolitan Municipalities • Association of Minnesota Counties ' Humphrey Institute of Public Affairs League of Minnesota Cities Minnesota Association of Townships Minnesota Chapter, American Planning Association • Minnesota Planning Association • Minnesota Planning FURTHER INFORMATION Contact Barb Wright (Registration) or Vivian Hart (Program) at Government Training Service, (612) 222-7409 or Minnesota Toll Free (800) 652-9719. About Govemment Training Service (GTS) Recipient of Organizational Support for Excellence In Training Award (American Society for Training and Development) REAL ESTATE CREDITS OTS is a public organization whose mission Is to provide Partici ants of 'Annual Planning Institutes' end innovathre' comprehensive, practical training and con- e 9 suiting to address the changing management and lead - 'Beyond the Basics' can earn Continuing Real erstdp needs of policymakere, staff and appointed ofli- Estate Education Credits. clals In publicly funded organizations in Minnesota through educetktnal soMces designed to enhance Indi- REGISTRATIOWCANCELLATION �Aduai c�mpotency arb through organizational services IRegister at least 7 days prior to the workshop date designed to strengthen group eHecth ass, 0 Prwad an rocyolod paper./ ANNUAL PLANNING INSTITUTE: THE BASICS Thursday, February 2F, 8atwdsy, flareh 2 or Saturday, March 23, IM 9.00 a.m. - 4:30 pm. For Nome new to land use plannft andzw*V or Interested In a reW w of Mrdamenmb 1111NTRODUCTION TO PLANNING why Plan? players In the � •cm oUnclefstancift a orfrena} BASIC PLANNING TOOLS — PART k ZONING, VARIANCES, CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS DdnLo-k NaKont Uses. Rationale, �tt0s° How ZONING CASE STUDIES: HYPOTHETICAL PROBLEM SOLVING Parddpants are placed Into small groups In which they work on oral or urban zoning Issues. YOUR LEGAL LIMBS: /OUR ROLE AS A DECISION MAKER • Theudl�mm g amdroent in land use Ugal• Procedures to keep from bekg aced When somcolhing • Conflict of ll who a liable? • ll How your attorney canhelp • • Vkleopresentation: RudehevW NOT ISSUES — PART 1: ANSWERS TO YOUR QUESTIONS (Faculty Peron BASIC PLANNING TOOLS — PART If: SUBDIVISION REGULATION Definition, Rationale, Uses, Content, Procedures, Design Standards, Financial Guaranties. Special Provision. EVALUATION OF A SUBDIVISION PROPOSAL, A SIMULATION Participants work in smell groups to evakuate a develop eh subdMsbn Wan using standard planning tools — the corVrehanslve Wan. ordinances. and maps. MOT ISSUES — PART K: ANSWERS TO YOUR QUESTIONS (Faculty Pont) CORE FACULTY IAN TR AOUAIR BALL, Plattner and Attorney. Rasmussen 8 Ball V � AM ��GqRdIIFFqFrpIITH, Attorney, Larkin, Holtman, ROBERT LOCKYE AR, Director of Planning and Public Alfairs, Washington Catty LOCAMON8 Tlaaadwy, Feb asry IL IM - No Ism Casm. Cd Wp1 •Roan 172 74tI Nin Ave. No, • Ikookltn Pvt IM L40 - (81 Z 424-M Saw"' duh 1,1111-Samakn - Nay. lose. 2701Paw ArwBw-OratedRaPMWI65741-01g72641501 lmft, uwo t& lm - FAIN eM Cann - u d M Si Pal Carpus I= Bubrd AN. - SL PaA MN 65101 • (012) 62r1.7T16 EEB Sell Par Iron or $TO per penal lar 3 or mord people from same )unlsdktion. This courN has been approved far Ox flown of Cordis ulrlp Real Estate Education Credit. BEYOND THE BASICS Thursday, March 7, Thuaradsy, March 28 or Saturday. April 27,1996 9:00 a.en - 4:30 p.m. Learn about prepadng and ushV planning tools to deal wilt a wide variety of development problems, plus an in-depth mW&w of the planning process — from proper legal notice b development of sophlsl - cated llndings of tact PLANNING FOR DEVELOPMENT (OI Any Size) • Some definitions and background • How tools relate to each other • subdivision Mxaclions end dedications • Role of compreher stwe plan: standards • Public and private sector perspectives Legal Issues Piffafthyords to the wise • Adoption requirements BASIC LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS Meeft Law • C Conflof interest • Making findings d last that support your land -use RECENT CASE LAW LIPOATE 'WHAT'S HOT, WHAT'S NOT' • Summary of recall land use caeea • Any proposed new Isolation SURVIVAL SKILLS: COPING WITH THE REALITIES OF THE PLANNING PROCESS •• Howto and Crow not to) conduct public hearings • Legal guidelines • Practical tips from a local elected official ALTERNATIVE URBAN AREA -WIDE REVIEW QUESTIONS AND DISCUSSION OF SPECIFIC SITUATIONS(Facu0y Parol) FACULTY BRUCE MALKERSON. AOomey, Popham, Hack. Schobrich and Kallman JOHN SHAROLOW, President, Dahlgren, Shardlow and Uban. Inc.: planning consultant TERRY SCKNEWER, Camcilmember, Minnetonka LOGAIM TbwWq,itis!7,181-Keayee Rt"231I1hArs.B, •6LOoLAMN18302-(6it)267-0101 T w8diiy, Wrch 41viii • Eahanoan co w - U d M SI. Paw Carpus ON Bloc A.v SL Pao MN 551M • (512) 62472T6 Iabaday, Apt n,11N - Iblfarwt Comm. C*P • Roam N2 711111M Aa No. - Beddp Pah, w ss"5 • (012) 4244M EEB 680 per paten. This ceww has boon approvod for 6.5 flours of wft%dng Roal Estate Education Credit. . M f ........ I . S 211 01 $ $ r O s3z�y CL 5 g� 0a ZZ t0 m m fS v i° N � N LL/�► ° � O Q to .m Qi � oCmm C H i m �o � ° L CL a' m x a S88 �oC0 CD CL of _ Lt. » p d t�cr rl o0, t�ym3w;3m� v2�� cpm m gw3x� $�y� m CD g III =m Nfn°7 log 0.b O N FD' ODD 5 CD41 = A oma;' ONOWm�mtfi �� 1 AND USE PLANNING WORKSHOPS REGISTRATION FORM PLEASE PRINT OR TYPE , This form may be duplicated. Plea ee fill out one form per workshop. 1 None Daytkne Ph—( I 1 Title Now Long In Po.itlon , Jtalamc"VAgency 11118111" Address 1 `� Citylstaoamp 1 Workshop Title workshop oaWl ocarwn Fee 1 g O Enclosed In ! per person payer to Government Tralift 8ervim 1 Check. , O Enclosed is ! per person for 3 or mon people from cams )uMdtcttm Check. (Annual PtannNg Institute Only) 1 O Blame (registration tee pals $8 bill"charge). P.O.. 1 plena mail to Oovwmrwnt Tralvil" Service, Butts 401.480 Cedar Street, SI. Pad, MN , a 66101 or x to (611)1 — at last 7 days prow to wortehop ddel I' -----------------w.-- LAND USE PLANNING WORKSHOPS REGISTRATION FORM 1 PLEASE PRINT OR TYPE 1 This form may be dupiksted Please 1111 out one form per workshop. 1 (fame Daytime Phone( ) 1 Tim Now Long In position 1 JudedkUon/Agency 1 III"" Addna 1 C"Auatamp 1 Workshop Title , wor aAap Oata&oeation Fee � O Enclosed Is { per person payalMe to Government Trair" Saha ' Char. , O Enclosed Is ! per person for 1 or more people from came (ursdi tion Cheek. (Annual PftrdWV Institute Only) 1 O OW no (registration fee plus U bWing drape) , P.O.. Please mac to Governor-- Tnlnkrg Service. SWte 401, 480 Cada StroK SL Paul. UN ' 63101 or fax to (611) 2254 T — at Leet T days prow to workshop datat , � O I . M f ........ I . S 211 01 $ $ r O s3z�y CL 5 g� 0a ZZ t0 m m fS v i° N � N LL/�► ° � O Q to .m Qi � oCmm C H i m �o � ° L CL a' m x a S88 �oC0 CD CL of _ Lt. » p d t�cr rl o0, t�ym3w;3m� v2�� cpm m gw3x� $�y� m CD g III =m Nfn°7 log 0.b O N FD' ODD 5 CD41 = A oma;' ONOWm�mtfi ��