Loading...
Planning Commission Agenda Packet 05-07-1996AGENDA REGULAR MEETING - MONTICELLO PLANNING COMNIISSION Tuesday. May 7, 1896 - 7 p.m. Members: Dick Frie, Richard Martie, Jon Bogart, Richard Carlson, Rod Dragsten 1. Call to order. 2. Approval of minutes of the regular meeting held April 2, and the special meetings held April 8 and April 22,1996. 3. Consideration of adding items to the agenda. 4. Citizens comments. 6. Public Hearing --Consideration of an ordinance amendment establishing an oil/lube facility (auto maintenance facilities) as a conditional use in the PZM zone. Applicant, Investors Together. 6. Public Hearing --Consideration of granting a conditional use permit which would allow operation of an oil/lube facility (auto maintenance facilities) in a PZM zone. Applicant, Investors Together. 7. Public Hearing --Consideration of an ordinance amendment establishing minor auto repair as a conditional use in the PZM zone. Applicant, Investors Together. 8. Public Hearing --Consideration of an ordinance amendment reducing yard size requirements for single family detached structures in a PZM zone. Applicant, Ron Ruff. 9. Consideration of allowing a simple subdivision. Applicant, Ron Ruff. 10. Consideration of allowing a simple subdivision. Location is Lots 4 and 6, Block 46, Original Plat. Applicant, Vic Hellman. 11. Consideration of allowing residential property to have one small storage shed (less than 120 sQ ft) in addition to an accessory structure. Applicant, Ron Michaelis. 12. Consideration of incorporating MOAA comments into final draft of comprehensive plan. 13. Consideration of establishing a date to discuss comprehensive plan implementation stops. Agenda Monticello Planning Commission May 7, 1996 Page 2 14. Update on MCP activity -Hoisington Koegler planning effort (Dick Frie report). 16. Adjournment. MINUTES SPECIAL MEETING - MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday, April 2,19M - 7 p.m. Members Present: Dick Frie, Richard Martie, Jon Bogart, Richard Carlson, Rod Dragsten, Staff Present: Jeff O'Neill, Gary Anderson, Wanda Kraemer Call to order. The meeting was called to order by Acting Chairman Martie. Approval of ManuteFi of ChA regular meeting held March 5 nrid thp con in , d mppfiny hPld Marrh R,- 1498 Commissioner Bogart and Commission Carlson discussed a motion regarding the Conditional Use Permit for Ruff Auto. It was agreed the motion was made by Bogart not Carlson. COMMISSIONER CARL SON MADE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE MINUTES, WITH THE ABOVE CHANGE, OF THE MARCH 6TH MEETING. SECONDED BY COMMISSION BOGART. Motion passed unanimously. f'oneideration of adding i a a to Cho affenda, There were no addition to the agenda. 4. Citizens comments. Thera were no citizens comments. Jeff O'Neill, Assistant Administrator, reported Dan and Linda Mielke requested a conditional use permit which would allow development of a 3 -bay quick lube oil change facility at the new parcel created directly south of the Subway Shop. In the B-3 zone, motor fuel station, motor fuel station/convenience store, auto repair minor, and tire/battery stores are allowed in the B-3 zone as a conditional use. City Staff would interpret a quick lube oil change facility as falling into this general category. As you will see in the attached section of the code, there are 18 conditions. However, we do not have enough information to determine if the site will moot condition 02. Since we have not seen actual building plans at this point, it is not possible to determine if the facility mecta condition 02, which states that Page 1 Planning Commission Minutes - 4102-96 the architectural appearance and functional plan of the building and site shall not be so dissimilar to the existing building or area as to cause impairment in property values. The plain's consistency with this requirement will need to be evaluated after building plans are submitted. It is not suspected that this will be a problem. Development of this site plan presented some interesting complications due to the potential that the Chelsea Road extension to Highway 25 might touch the southern boundary of the property making it a corner lot. If this parcel does become a corner lot, the access will be lost at its present position and must be moved to another location on the property. The Mielkes' are aware of this potential and have established their building alignment and site plan accordingly to allow them enough flexibility to take advantage of the future potential of this site becoming a corner lot. Acting Chairman Martie opened the public hearing. Dan and Linda Mielke were present but did not have anything to add. Acting Chairman Martie closed the public hearing. The Commissioners inquired if the alignment was shown on the site plan. O'Neill added the alignment of Chelsea Road has not been determined. The Mielkes are aware of this study and have put together a site plan that would not result in a problem if the access changes. The commissioners also had questions on the type of building that would be built. Dan Mielke stated that it would be a steel structure with a nice decor on the outside. It would be comparable to the Subway Shop. COMMISSIONER DRAGSTEN MADE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT ALLOWING A 3 -BAY QUICK LUBE OR. FACULTY PROVIDED THAT THE FACILITY MEETS ALL THE CONDITIONS OUTLINED BY ORDINANCE AND SUBJECT TD THE FOLLOWING ADDITIONAL CONDITIONS: 1. COMPLETION OF A LANDSCAPING PLAN THAT IS CONSISTENT WITH CODE REQUIREMENTS. 2. COMPLETION OF SITE GRADING AND DRAINAGE PLAN THAT IS ACCEPTABLE TO THE CITY ENGINEER AND STATE OF MINNESOTA. 3. THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT IS SUBJECT TO STAFF REVIEW AND APPROVAL OF THE ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN OF THE STRUCTURES. Paso 2 O Planning Commission Minutes - 4/02-96 IF STAFF BELIEVES THAT THE DESIGN DOES NOT MEET THE REQUIREMENTS OF CONDITION q2, THEN STAFF IS DIRECTED TO BRING THE MATTER BACK BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMISSION FOR ADDITIONAL REVIEW. SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER BOGART. Motion passed unanimously. Jeff O'Neill, Assistant Administrator, reported that in conjunction with the conversion of the old Pitt Funeral Home to an office building, Steve Conroy is requesting a conditional use permit which would allow development of a sign with more than three business names. This sign is necessary because the new office use will likely result in multiple tenants at the site. The location of the sign is at the location of the pre -Busting sign. The sign as proposed has been reviewed by City staff and meets code requirements. In a related matter, City staff has been working with Steve Conroy on development of a long-term parking plan for the site. The current level of parking and parking lot design is adequate to support a fair amount of activity in the structure; however, as the intensity of the use of the facility grows, it is likely that additional parking will be needed. Steve Conroy understand that when 3/4 of the building is occupied, he will likely need to expand his parking. Acting Chairman Martie opened the public hearing. Steve Conroy was not present and there were no other comments. Acting Chairman Martio closed the public hearing. Commission Carlson inquired if the signage would be adequate when the building is maxed out? O'Neill stated that it would be. COMMISSION BOGART MADE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT WHICH WOULD ALLOW THREE OR MORE BUSINESS SIGNS ON A COMMERCIAL BUILDING BASED ON THE FINDINGS THAT THE PYLON SIGN IS CONSISTENT WITH CITY CODE. SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER CARLSON. Motion passed unanimously. Page 3 9 Planning Commission Minutes - 4/02-96 Jeff O Neill, Assistant Administrator, reported Lenny Haberman, operator of Lenny and Jim's Bait Shop, and Dean Rasmussen, owner of the Glass Hut property, request permission to allow Haberman to sell up to 6 boats which would be displayed outside of the structure. The existing structure currently houses Glass Hut's operations and is being subdivided internally to house both the Glass Hut and Lenny's Bait Shop. The request also includes permission to have outside storage. The site as itis currently operated is a lawful, nonconforming use. The parking lot, landscaping, and outside storage arrangement currently are in violation of the city code. However, due to the fact that nonconforming aspects of the site were established before the development of the code, they are "grandfathered -in". As with every other nonconforming site, when there is a request to intensify the use, such as in this case where the request is to allow outside sales of boats, the various nonconforming aspects of the site need to be brought up to code. It was noted earlier nonconforming aspects include absence of bituminous paving, no curb and gutter, no landscaping, and the outside storage to the rear of the structure is currently unscreened. The Planning Commission might want to allow phasing of the improvements over time. The storage area cannot be seen from Highway 26 but when Marvin Road develops this area will be visible. There should be a right of access that is documented between the Glass Hut, Lenny's Bait Shop and Royal Tire. The businesses are all using the entrance and parking lot area. There would need to be a written agreement. Typically between properties a five foot buffer area and curb is required. Acting Chairman Martie opened the public hearing. Dean Rasmussen, owner of the Glass Hut, stated that a written agreement for use of the parking lot could be acquired. Glass Hut owns the majority of the parking lot area and there is a good working relationship with Royal Tire. Lenny Haberman, operator of Lenny and Jim's Bait Shop, stated that he would like to start out small with only six boats just to test the market. When there is a need to expand he will move to a larger site. O'Neill inquired what portion of the improvements could bo done in the first phase? Page 4 O Planning Commission Minutes -4/02-96 Mr. Rasmussen stated that they would add landscaping, concrete sidewalks from one end of the building to the other, fence the outside storage or remove the outside storage and use this space for staff parking. Lenny Haberman added the sign for the business is in the front and it will be moved to south of the existing concrete to direct customers to Marvin Road instead of the Royal Tire entrance. O'Neill added that there should be a site plan showing both facilities, tnuffic patterns, outside storage, and parking. COMMISSIONER BOGART MADE A MOTION TO TABLE THE ITEM UNTIL A REVISED SITE PLAN HAS BEEN PREPARED AND UNTIL AN AGREEMENT BETWEEN ROYAL TIRE AND GLASS HUT CAN BE ACQUIRED FOR A SHARED PARKING EASEMENT. SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER MARTIE. Motion passed unanimously. The Commissioners discussed if there were similarities between this request and the Ruff Auto request. It was agreed that this is different because Ruffs are going to look at a PUD. O'Neill suggested if the item is tabled it could be scheduled for 6:00 p.m. April 8th before the City Council meeting then the additional information could be obtained and not slow down the applicant. The Commissioners requested the applicant to draw on the overhead where Royal Tire curb and gutters are, the sign, and the parking lot. Dean Rasmussen demonstrated on the overhead the answers to their questions. Commissioner Bogart stated the City requires the same rules and regulations for everyone. He added that he did not want to discourage the business because it is good but there was just not enough information to make a valid decision. Chairman Frie arrived at the meeting. Dean Rasmussen inquired as to the length of time to complete the improvements? It was decided that one year would be the allowed time. O'Neill would meet the applicants at the site and go over what was needed. COMMISSIONER BOGART MADE A MOTION TO TABLE THE REQUEST Page 6 O Planning Commission Minutes - 4/02-96 UNTIL APRIL 8TH, AT 6:00 P.M. BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL MEETING. SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER MARTIE. Motion passed unanimously. Chairman Frie added the City needs to put some teeth into the ordinance and procedures in regards to properties in violation of their conditional use permits. Gary Anderson, Building Official, reported there has been no activity on this site and it appears the construction site of the sheds has been moved JefO'Neill, Assistant Administrator, reported that this agenda item represents what could be the final step for the Planning Commission in the process of updating the comprehensive plan. As you know, since February of 1995, the Planning Commission, with input from various individuals, city commissions and organizations, has been working toward an update of our comprehensive plan. The input came in the form of individual interviews with community leaders, neighborhood discussions and through general discussion at Planning Commission, HRA, and City Council levels. Tho township was comfortable with the comprehensive plan but the Monticello Orderly Annexation Board (MOAA) will be reviewing the plan the day after this public hearing. If the MOAA has any questions they will go directly to the City Council. Chairman Frie emphasized he has received feedback on the stop lights on Highway 75. Chairman Frie opened the public hearing. Charlie Pfeffer, developer, stated there has been a tremendous effort put into this plan. His main concern was in the wide range of housing section. The main item industry looks for is a range of affordable housing and rental property. He was concerned the comp plan was trying to micro manage the housing market and this would cause the market to slow down. He also thought the city should have a transportation plan that would tie all the studies together. O'Neill noted that a transportation plan adopted in 1993 is in place that was utilized in preparation of the comp plan. Chairman Frie agreed, stating that everything is not in concrete, The plan is Page 6 Planning Commission Minutes -4/02-96 meant to be back to the table. Chairman Frie closed the public hearing. Jeff ONeill reported that there should be a meeting scheduled to write the implementation steps before the next joint meeting. 10. Adiaum COMMISSIONER MARTIE MADE A MOTION TO ADJOURN THE MEETING. SECONDED BY CARLSON. Respectfully submitted, Wanda Kraemer Development Services Technician Page 7 O Minutes Special meeting - Monticello Planning Commission Monday, April 8, 1898, 8 p.m. Members: Dick Frie, Richard Carlson, Jon Bogart, Richard Martie, Rod Dragsten Staff: Gary Anderson, Wanda Kraemer 1. Call to Order The special meeting was called to order by Chairman Frie. 2. Co aid ra inn of con i io nl use permit rem+ at which Would allow outside salPA of boats sand o + .side oragrR=Applicants- Leonard lHaherman and Dpan Rea_ mUM=. Gary Anderson, Building Official, explained that this item was tabled until further information could be obtained for the Planning Commissioners. Lenny Haberman and Dean Rasmussen had revised the site plan as the Planning Commission had requested and obtained the added information. The site plan now indicates where the employee and customer parking would be and a written agreement for the shared parking easement between Royal Tire and the Glass Hut was completed. There will be a pylon sign on Hwy 25 close to the Marvin Road access to encourage customer to use the entrance at Hwy 25 and Marvin Road. Anderson added that the second part of the request is to not put in the hard surfacing and curbing at this time. They would like to use crushed granite surface in conjunction with the gravel surface on Marvin Stead. When Marvin Road develops a hard surfaced parking area will be completed. The Commissioners questioned if MNDOT would require Marvin Road to be improved when the new intersection on Hwy. 25 was established. Lenny Haberman stated there is only a place for selling 6 units. If at some point the business grows he would look for a larger area. He requested to sell fish houses in the winter in the same location. Commission Frie closed the public hearing. The Commissioners then discussed the storage area Commissioner discussed the connection between the Ruff site and Glass Hut. Both sites are grandfather in and street improvements adjacent to the site will need to be completed in the next 3-5 years. 3. s„J ti -°p-"° I (_Q d Lu 1 b Special Planning Commission Minutes - 04/08/96 (PE N BOGART MADE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE CONDITIONAL USE RMIT ALLOWING OUTSIDE STORAGE AND OUTSIDE SALES SUBJECT COMPLETION OF A PLAN FOR PHASING IN ALL IMPROVEMENTSQUIRED BY CODE, WHICH INCLUDES: a. BITUMINOUS PAVING AND PARKING IMPROVEMENTS, INCLUDING CURB AND GUTTER, MUST BE COMPLETED ON OR BEFORE JULY 1, 1999, OR WHEN MARVIN ROAD IS IMPROVED. b. IMMEDIATE INSTALL TION OF REQUIRED LANDSCAPING. C. (INSTALLATION OF A SCREENING FENCE AROUND THE PERIMETER OF THE STORAGE AREA. d. CRUSHED GRANITE APPLIED TD ALL DRIVE AREA. e. LIMIT OF 6 PARKING STALLS TO BE USED FOR OUTSIDE SALES. SECONDED BY DICK MARTIE. Motion passed unanimously. A&Q ,tUMMQ&ec. 1) COMMISSION MARTIE MADE A MOTION TO ADJOURN THE MEETING. SECONDED BY ROD DRAGSTEN. Respectfully submitted Wanda Kraemer Development Services Technician 0 Minutes Special Meeting - Monticello Planning Commission Monday, April 22,1996 - 6 p.m. Members: Dick Martie, Richard Carlson, Jon Bogart, Rod Dragsten Absent: Dick Frie Staff: Jeff O`Neill, Gary Anderson, Steve Grittman, Wanda Kraemer 1. Call to order. Meeting was called to order by acting chairman Dick Martie. t: • , ., w„ , e„ n, u Steve Grittman, City Planner, reported that Mike Zieska was requesting approval of a conditional use permit to allow the establishment of an auto body repair shop on a 40,000 square foot parcel of land located south of Interstate 94 and west of Sandberg Road. The subject property is zoned B-3 Highway Business which lista auto body shop repair facilities as conditional uses. In addition to the requested conditional use permit, the applicant has also requested a variance from the City's surfacing requirements for vehicle storage areas associated with the proposed use. There is not a noneconomic hardship that had been shown to grant the variance. The location of the properties around the request are as follows: to the north -commercial child care, south -office, east -car dealership, west -agricultural. Grittman recommended a high quality fence material, such as wood, be used to screen the outdoor storage. The exterior of the building is very bold, it might be suggested that the developer consider an alternate color scheme which would be more compatible with the surrounding neighborhood commercial uses. The building itself becomes a sign because of the bright colors. Acting Chairman Martio opened the public hearing. Mike Zieska, own of Carstar, stated that he has a similar business in Annandale and his building sites are not like typical auto industry sites. He Page 1 (S Special Meeting Planning Commission Minutes - 4/22/96 has added landscaping, ponds, and grass area. Zieska invited the Planning Commission to call the City of Annandale if there were questions on his business there. Duane Schultz, owner of child care facility to the north, stated he is concerned about the dust because of the children playing outside. He also owned a building in the Thomas Park Addition and was forced to do extensive landscaping and screening because the building neat to him was allowed to use a chain link fence for screening. There were many cars parked outside all the time and he is concerned about that next to the child care facility. Zieska replied that he could relate because he had a similar situation at the site in Annandale. The area that is not paved would have granite chips until the addition is completed. Zieska stated this would not create a dust problem. Acting Chairman Martie closed the public hearing. The Commissioners questioned Zieska on storage of cars waiting for repair. Zieska replied the cars with extensive damage will always be inside. If the car has minor damage it might be outside but those care would be in the rear and in a fenced in area. I would like to construct the fence from the same material as the building. Jeff O'Neill, Assistant Administrator, stated the storage area is limited to 50'% of the auto body shop and the Carstar meets this requirement however, the entire storage area must be screened from view. Next the Commissioner discussed the noise because it could be a sensitive issue at this site. Zieska answered the heavy duty work will be done in the back area. The doors will be kept closed most of the time. There will be a fence and spruce plantings. The building will have a nice panel system. COMMISSION BOGART MADE A MOTION TO ALLOW THE THE CONDITIONAL USE REQUEST WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: 1. TWO ADDITIONAL OFF-STREET PARKING STALLS ARE Page 2 O Special Meeting Planning Commission Minutes - 4/22t% PROVIDED TO COMPLY WITH APPLICABLE OFF-STREET PARKING SUPPLY REQUIREMENTS (16 TOTAL SPACES REQUIRED). 2. ALL CITY SIGN REQUIREMENTS ARE DETERMINED TO BE SATISFIED. 3. A GRADING AND DRAINAGE PLAN IS SUBMITTED AND SUBJECT TO REVIEW AND APPROVAL OF THE CITY ENGINEER 4. ALL EXTERIOR LIGHTING IS HOODED AND DIRECTED TO DEFLECT LIGHT AWAY FROM ADJACENT PROPERTIES AND PUBLIC RIGHTS-OF-WAY. b. THE PROPOSED 30 FOOT WIDE CURB CUT IS SUBJECT TO APPROVAL BY THE CITY ENGE9EER. 6. THE APPLICANT DEMONSTRATE THAT NO ADVERSE NOISE IMPACTS WILL BE IMPOSED UPON SURROUNDING PROPERTIES. 7. ADDITIONAL LANDSCAPING IS PROVIDED ALONG PROPERTY BOUNDARIES. SPECIFICALLY, CONIFEROUS PLANTINGS BE PROVIDED ALONG THE NORTHERN PROPERTY LINES TO PROVIDE AN EFFECTIVE YEAR ROUND SCREEN. 8. HIGH QUALITY FENCING (I.E. WOOD OR STEEL) IS USED TD SCREEN THE SITES OUTDOOR STORAGE AREA. 8. ALL OTHER CONDITIONS AS IDENTIFIED BY THE ORDINANCE ARE COMPLIED WITH. The Commissioners discussed the short term non conforming aspects of the vehicle storage area. Steve Grittman explained the parking for the site is adequate but the B•3 district provisions state that the floor of the vehicle storage areas for the auto body repair shop must consist of asphalt or concrete paving. The applicant has proposed a'clean gravel' surfaang of the Pago 3 J Special Meeting Planning Commission Minutes - 4P22/96 vehicle storage area. The Commissioners discussed the situation and agreed because the parking was adequate and a future addition is being planned the storage area could remain unpaved for a limit of time. COMMISSIONER BOGART MADE A MOTION TO ALLOW THE EXPANSION AREA TO REMAIN UNPAVED UNTIL (OCT. 16, 1997) AT WHICH TIME THE CRUSHED GRANT SURFACE MUST BE PAVED. COMMISSIONER CARLSON AMENDED THE MOTION TO ADD: IF THE EXPANSION IS COMPLETED BEFORE OCT. 1b, 1897 THE PAVING ALSO BE COMPLETED. SECONDED BY ROD DRAGSTEN. Motion passed unanimously. COMMISSION DRAGSTEN MADE A MOTION TO ADJOURN THE MEETING. SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER CARLSON. Respectf0y submitted, Wanda Kraemer Development Services Technician C Page 4 Planning Commission Agenda - 5/7196 . „..,..:.:,1 , MMM,:: •., . •, , • Win•, ,•. The entire staff report for items 5, 6, and 7 have been provided by Northwest Associated Consultants as attached. N NORTHWEST ASSOCIATED CONSULTANTS INC COMMON I TYPLANNINO - DESIGN - MARKET RESEARCH PLANNING REPORT TO: Monticello Mayor and City Council Monticello Planning Commission FROM: Bob IGrmis/Stephen Grittman DATE: 2 May 1996 RE: Monticello - Express Lube - Zoning Ordinance Amendment/CLIP FILE NO: 191.07 - 96.03 BACKGROUND Investors Together Inc. has submitted plans to construct a 1,352 square foot "Express Lube' facility upon a 15,800 square foot parcel of land located north of County Road 75 and west of County Road 118. In the long term, the applicant plans to construct a ± 1,170 square foot building addition which would accommodate minor automobile repair activities. The subject property is zoned PZM, Performance Zone Mixed. To accommodate the applicant's immediate and long range development plan, the following approvals have been requested: 1. Zoning Ordinance amendment to establish 'automobile maintenance facilities' as conditional uses in the PZM Zoning District, 2. Zoning Ordinance amendment to establish 'minor automobile repair' as a conditional use In the PZM Zoning District, 3. Conditional use permit to allow an automobile maintenance within a PZM Zoning District. 5775 WAYZATA BOULEVARD. SUITE 555 ST. LOUIS PARK. MINNESOTA 55416 PHONE 61 2.599.963e FAX 61 2.595.9037 6-,7 Attached for reference: Exhibit A - Site Location Exhibit B - Detailed Site Location Exhibit C - Draft Zoning Ordinance Amendment Exhibit D - Site Plan ISSUES ANALYSIS PZM Distrfct Amendments Automobile Maintenance Facilities. To accommodate the proposed 'Express Lube" facility an amendment to the PZM District provisions is necessary. Specifically, the establishment of 'automobile maintenance facilities' as a conditional use in the district has been proposed. In consideration of such amendment, the City should make a determination as to the acceptability of such use within the PZM District. According to the Ordinance, the purpose of the PZM District is to provide a land use transition between high density residential land uses, as well as the intermixing of each such land use. In some respects, an automobile maintenance facility is considered comparable in intensity to several existing conditional uses in the PZM District, including car washes, dry cleaning and retail commercial activities (a car wash facility currently exists to the east of the subject property). Alternatively, it is debatable whether a clear distinction exists between an "automobile maintenance facility' and 'minor automobile repair facility' While justification for approval of the requested amendment may exist, a decision regarding the appropriateness of such amendment is considered a policy matter to be determined by City officials. Attached. as Exhibit C is a draft Zoning Ordinance amendment which would establish automobile maintenance facilities as conditional uses In the PZM, Performance Zoning Mixed District. Such amendment Includes various conditions intended to mitigate potential adverse impacts. In review of the draft amendment, it should be noted that 'automobile maintenance facilities' are referenced as Section 10-8.K.1. While less than Ideal, such formatting responds to an existing formatting error in the PZM section and Is intended to expedite the amendment process. Under the current Ordinance format, the following are listed as conditional uses in the PZM District: 5,-7 N. Apartment Density Bonus O. Findings of Fact P. Standards O. Project Review Process Rather than reformat extensive volumes of Ordinance material at this time, a simple reference to automobile maintenance facilities as item K.1 under PZM conditional uses is considered appropriate. Minor Automobile Repair. In the long term, the applicant has expressed a desire to provide minor automobile repair activities through a future building expansion: To accommodate such activities, an amendment to the PZM District provisions has been requested which would establish such activities as conditional uses The Zoning Ordinance defines minor automobile repair as: (AO) AUTOMOBILE REPAIR - MINOR: Minor repairs, incidental body and fender work, painting and upholstering, replacement of parts and motor services to passenger automobiles, and trucks not exceeding nine thousand (9,000) pounds gross weight, but not including any operation specified under 'automobile repair - major.' This business performs mechanical and electrical repairs to autos, light trucks, and equipment 9,000 pounds GVW and less. Allowed: Tune ups and adjustments, replacement of pails (excluding body and frame), rebuilding of parts or components when installation is available, wheel alignment and balancing, tire repair, radiator repair, washing, cleaning, and polishing. Currently, minor automobile repair facilities are listed as conditional uses in the B-3, Highway Commercial; B -A, Regional Business; 1-1, Light Industrial; and 1-2, Heavy Industrial Districts. Considering the innate characteristics of minor automobile repair facilities (i e., noise, outdoor storage, etc.), it is the opinion of our office that such use does not satisfy the purpose of the PZM District and is more appropriately allowed in higher intensity districts. An ultimate decision regarding the acceptability of such activity within the PZM District is, however, considered a policy matter to be determined by City officials Should the City feel that minor automobile repair is an acceptable use of the property, we would suggest rezoning the property rather than pursue a PZM District amendment It is the opinion of staff that alternative zoning districts exist which are better suited (and specifically intended) to accommodate uses of the intensity of minor automobile repair facilities. Conditional Use Permit CUP Review Criteria. As mentioned previously, an amendment to PZM District requirements is necessary to accommodate the immediate development plans of the applicant. In this regard, a draft Zoning Ordinance amendment has been prepared which would establish 'automobile maintenance facilities" as conditional uses in the PZM District. Per the attached ordinance amendment (Exhibit C), a'automobile maintenance facility' is defined as: Automobile Maintenance Facility. A business which provides short tern, while you wait, automobile maintenance service to automobiles and light trucks of nine thousand (9,000) GVW or less. Service activities include oil changing, lubrication, tire rotation and the like, but in no case may include repair activities. Automobile maintenance facilities shall be distinguished from minor automobile repair facilities in that only while you wait service may be provided and vehicular storage shall be prohibited. The purpose of the required conditional use permit process is to enable the City Council to assign dimensions to a proposed use or conditions surrounding it after consideration of adjacent uses and their functions and the special problems which the proposed use presents to provide the Qy of Monticello with a reasonable degree of discretion in determining the suitability of certain designated uses upon the general welfare, public health and safety. Procedurally, the Planning Commission and City Council must consider the possible adverse effects of the proposed conditional use. Its judgement shall be based upon but not limited to the following factors: 1. Relationship to municipal Comprehensive Plan. 2. 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 area. 5. The demonstrated need for such use. Neighborhood Character, As noted previously, the Zoning Ordinance directs the Planning Commission and City Council to consider the character of the area in which the use has been proposed. The following is a listing of uses which lie adjacent to the property in question: s-7 Direction Use North Multiple Family Residential (Townhomes) South County Road 75/Rail Line East Commercial (Car Wash) West Single Family Residential Of key importance in determining the compatibility of the proposed use with the neighborhood will be compliance with applicable buffer yard requirements of Section 3- 3.G. Details relating to such buffer yard requirements are highlighted in the following section of this report. Provided applicable buffer yard requirements are satisfied it is believed the proposed use can compatibly exist upon the subject site. ScreeninglLandscaping/Suffer Yard Requirements. As a condition of CUP approval, a landscape plan should be submitted which identifies the type, location and size of all proposed site plantings, as well as compliance with the aforementioned buffer yard requirements. According to the Ordinance, the following buffer yard requirements are applicable to the subject property. Direction Minimum Building Buffer Yard Width Number of Plants Per I Setback 100 Feet of Property une' North 30 feet 20 feel 80 South. NA NA NA East None None None I` Wait 40 feet 30 feet 120 Location of an opaque fence or earth bene at least five feet in height within buffer yard shall be considered credit toward plant unit requirement. The number of required plant units may be reduced by 50 percent. Lot Area Requirement There are no specific lot area or width requirements Imposed in the PZM District. 5 S- Setbacks. As shown below, the proposed 'Express Lube" facility does not meet all applicable PZM District (B-3 District setbacks applicable). Required Proposed Front Yard 30 feet 88 feet Side Yard - East 10 feet 45 feet Side Yard - West 40 feet* 18 feet Rear Yard 30 feet' 32 feet ' Buffer Yard Setbadc Requirement As a condition of CUP approval, the site plan should be revised to meet applicable structure setback requirements. Building Height(Bugding Materials, To determine compliance with City building height and building material requirements, building elevations (drawn to scale) should be submitted which identify structure height and finish materials. OH -Street Parking. Parking Supply. The Zoning Ordinance does not provide a specific off-street parking standard for automobile maintenance facilities. As part of the attached amendment, however, an off-street parking requirement applicable to the proposed use has been included. Such standard is referenced in an American Planning Association (APA) document entitled 'Off -Street Parking Requirements for Oil Change Facilities'. As calculated below, and assuming two service bays, the proposed automobile maintenance facility Is required to provide six off-street parking stalls. Spaces Ups Ratio Bggttjred Automobile Maintenance Two spaces plus 6 Facility (two service bays) two spaces per service bay According to the submitted site plan, a total of four off-street parking stalls have been proposed. As a condition of CUP approval, the site plan should be revised to provide six off-street spaces. Dimensional Requirements. All proposed parking stalls and drive aisles have been found to meet or exceed minimum Ordinance requirements. 6 1 Handicap Stalls. In accordance with State American Disability Act requirements, one off-street handicap parking stall must be provided upon the site. Curbing. In accordance with Zoning Ordinance requirements, all off-street parking areas must be provided a six inch non -surmountable concrete curb. Surfacing. In accordance with Ordinance requirements, the proposed off-street parking area is to be surfaced in a bituminous material. Curb Cut In what is considered a positive site design feature, a shared 35 foot wide curb from County Road 75 has been proposed. As a condition of CUP approval, such curb cut access must be subject to approval by the Wright County Highway Department and City Engineer. Loading. The Zoning Ordinance does not provide a specific off-street loading requirement for uses such as that being proposed. As a condition of CUP approval, however, a specific off-street loading space should be designated upon the submitted site plan. Lighting. It has not been indicated whether any exterior lighting is to be provided on site. Any lighting used to illuminate off-street parking or outdoor storage areas must be hooded and directed to deflect light away from adjacent properties and public rights-of-way. Signage. As a condition of CUP approval, all applicable City sign requirements must be satisfied. Grading and Drainage. As a condition of CUP approval, a grading and drainage plan must be submitted. Such plan will be subject to review and approval by the City Engineer. Noise. PZM District provisions (proposed) state that intermittent sounds produced by automobile maintenance facilities must not be audible to users of adjoining PZM or residential properties. The applicant will be required to provide information regarding proposed noise mitigation efforts. Trash. The site plan does not indicate whether trash is to be stored outdoors. If a trash receptacle Is to be stored outside the principal structure, it must be screened from view of neighboring properties. Future Building Addition. The submitted site plan conceptually Illustrates a future 1,200 square foot structure addition which would connect to the adjacent easterly car wash. It is the desire of the applicant to use such addition for 'minor automobile repair' activities. Consideration of such addition relates directly to a decision regarding the S- 7 proposed Ordinance amendment to establish minor automobile repair facilities as conditional uses within the PZM District. While staff holds some concern in regard to the intensity of such a use in the PZM District, an ultimate decision regarding land use appropriateness is considered a policy matter to be determined by the City. CITY ACTION The applicant has submitted plans to construct a 1,352 square foot automobile maintenance facility with long range plans to construct a ± 1,200 square foot building addition In which 'minor automobile repair' activities would be conducted. DECISION ONE - PZM ZONING DISTRICT AMENDMENT - AUTOMOBILE MAINTENANCE FACILITIES Altemative A - Amendment Approval Approval of the requested amendment would establish automobile maintenance facilities as conditional uses in the PZM District. Provided various conditions are implemented, it is the opinion of our office that such use can compatibly exist in the PZM District. It should be noted, however, that some question does exist in regard to a Gear distinction between 'automobile maintenance facilities' and 'minor automobile repair'. Should the City choose to approve the requested amendment, such action should be based on the following findings: s 411 -'1411 -'The proposed amendment and resulting use is consistent with the spirit and intent l o of the Monticello Comprehensive Plan and goals and policies. The proposed amendment and resulting use Is consistent with the general intent of the zoning district purpose of the PZM District. Alternative 8 - Amendment Denial A second alternative available to the City would be to deny the requested amendment to conditionally allow automobile maintenance facilities within PZM Districts. Such denial would also have the effect of denying the simultaneous CUP request as the mechanism to receive such CUP would not exist. Should the City deny the requested amendment, it should be based upon the following findings: The proposed amendment and resulting use is not consistent with the spirit and intent of the Monticello Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Ordinance. 2. The proposed amendment and resulting use is likely to have an adverse impact upon surrounding properties. 3. The proposed use is not consistent with the purpose of the PZM District. DECISION TWO - PZM ZONING DISTRICT AMENDMENT - MINOR AUTOMOBILE REPAIR Alternative A - Amendment Approval Approval of this request would establish minor automobile repair activities within the PZM Zoning District as a conditional use. It is the opinion of our office that such use lies in conflict with the purpose of the PZM District and is more appropriately provided for in business and industrial zoning designations. Should the City find that minor automobile uses are acceptable upon the subject property, we would suggest that the City consider a rezoning of the property rather than a PZM District amendment. Alternative B - Amendment Denial A second option available to the City is to deny the amendment request. If such action is taken, it should be based on the same findings of denial for Decision One. While denial of this request will establish minor automobile repair facilities as inappropriate within the PZM District, such decision is considered independent of the immediate *Express Lube' propose U -development plan (amendment and CUP). DECISION THREE - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR AUTOMOBILE MAINTENANCE FACILITY Alternative A - Conditional Use Permit Approval (With Conditions) This alternative would allow the establishment of an automobile maintenance facility upon the subject property, provided several conditions are imposed to Insure use compatibility and proper site functioning. Should the City approve the requested amendment to allow SP -7 such uses in the PZM District, we would recommend approval of the requested conditional use permit be approved based upon the following findings and conditions: Findings: 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 standards of the 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 minimum screening and landscaping requirements as outlined herein. 5. The proposed project shall provide adequate parking and loading as outlined herein. 6. The proposed project shall not impose any undue burden upon public facilities and 1 services. 7. The proposed project is designed in such a manner to form a desirable and unified environment within its boundaries which will not be detrimental to future land uses in surrounding areas. Architecture and site treatments shall be compatible with adjacent structures and site plans and shall respect the privacy of neighboring businesses. Conditions: ' 1. The City approve the requested PZM amendment to accommodate automobile maintenance facilities. 2. The site plan is revised to meet applicable setback requirements (buffer yard). 3. Use of the facility is limited to automobilenight truck oil changes. 4. The applicant demonstrate compliance with City building height and building material requirements through the submission of building elevations. 5. The site plan Is revised to illustrate a total of six off-street parking stalls. Eel 6-7 6. One handicap parking stall is provided in accordance with the State American Disability Act requirements. 7. All off-street parking areas are provided a six inch non -surmountable concrete curb. a`i 8. The proposed 333 foot curb is subject to approval by the Wright County Highway Department and City ngineer. ti 9. The site plan is modified to illustrate an off-street loading space. 10. A landscape plan is submitted and approved which identifies the type, location, and size of all site plantings. Such plan shall also demonstrate compliance with applicable buffer yard requirements. 11. All lighting used to illuminate off-street parking be hooded and directed to deflect light away from adjacent properties and public rights-of-way. 12. All City sign requirements are satisfactorily met. 13. A grading and drainage plan is submitted subject to review and approval by the City Engineer. 14. Intermittent sounds produced by the oil change operations are not audible to adjacent properties. 15. All exterior trash handling facilities are screened from view of adjacent properties and public rights -&-way. Alternative 8 - Conditional Use Penrrdt Denial A second alterative available to the City would be to deny the requested conditional use permit. if the City chooses to deny the conditional use permit, it should be based upon the following findings: 1. The proposed use Is not consistent with the spirit and intent of the Monticello Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Ordinance. 2. The proposed use is likely to have an adverse impact upon surrounding properties. pc: Jeff O'Neill 11 5-7 SITE* AP r-, i '� r'•. n—���•' •:•iz �4 iii '.la�q• =•r' �'+1'�r,1�\!..� .. , �• '�8iir`• ' EXHIMT B • DETAILED SITE LOCATION S- 7 DRAFT - DRAFT - DRAFT CITY OF MONTICELLO WRIGHT COUNTY, MINNESOTA ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 10 OF THE MONTICELLO CITY CODE (THE ZONING ORDINANCE) TO ACCOMMODATE AUTOMOBILE MAINTENANCE FACILITIES AS A CONDITIONAL USE IN THE PZM DISTRICT. THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MONTICELLO DOES HEREBY ORDAIN: Secdon 1. Title 10, Section 202 of the Monticello City Code (Definitions) is hereby amended to add the following: AM(1) AUTOMOBILE MAINTENANCE FACILITY: A business which provides short term, while you wait, automobile maintenance service to automobiles and light trucks of nine thousand (9,000) GVW or less. Service activities include oil changN, lubrication, tire rotation and the like but in no case may include repair activities. Automobile maintenance facilities shall be distinguished from minor automobile repair facilities in that only while you wait service maybe provided and vehicular storage shall be prohibited. Section 2. Title % Section 3-5.H of the Monticello City Code (Off -Street Parking Requirements) is amended to add the following: 28. Automobile Maintenance Facilities: Two (2) spaces plus two (2) spaces per _ service bay. Service bays or pumping areas shall not be considered off- street parking space. Section 3. Title 10, Section 10-8 of the Monticello City Code (PZM Conditional Uses) is hereby amended to add the following: K.1 Automobile Maintenance Facilities provided that: The architectural appearance and functional plan of the building and site shall not be so dissimilar to the existing bulldings or area as to cause impaim►ent in property values or constitute a blighting Influence within a reasonable distance of the lot. EXHIBIT C - DRAFT ZONINOORDWANCF AMENDMENT 47 + 2. The use of the facility is limited to short term, while you wait automobile maintenance activities and not repair. 3. Buffer yard requirements of Chapter 3, Section 3.G of this Ordinance are satisfied. 4. Each light standard island and all islands in the parking lot shall be landscaped or covered. 5. Parking spaces shall be screened from view of abutting residential districts in compliance with Chapter 3, Section 2[G] of this Ordinance. 6. The entire area other than occupied by the buildings or plantings shall be surfaced with material which will control dust and drainage which is subject to the approval of the City Engineer. 7. The entire area shall have a drainage system which is subject to the approval of the City Engineer. 8. All lighting shall be hooded and so directed that the light source is not visible from the public right-of-way or from an abutting residence and shall be in compliance with Chapter 3, Section 2 [H] of this Ordinance. 9. Vehicular access points shall be limited, shall create a minimum of conflict with through traffic movement, and shall be subject to the approval of the City Engineer. 10. All signing and informational or visual communication devices shall be in compliance with Chapter 3, Section 9 of this Ordinance. 11. Provisions are made to control and reduce noise. 12. The provisions of Chapter 22 of this Ordinance are considered and satisfactorily met. 13. Automobile maintenance facility shall have direct access to major thoroughfare via driveway or frontage road. 14. Intermittent sounds produced by automobile maintenance facility shall not be audible to users of adjoining PZM or residential properties. Section 4. This Ordinance shall become effective immediately upon its passage and publication. ADOPTED by the Monticello City Council this day of 1996. ATTEST: By: Rick WoHsteller, Administrator CITY OFMONTICELLO By. Brad Foe, Mayor AYES: NAYS: S- 7 p' S#rf PIA. -7 S� 0 A. n, p' S#rf PIA. -7 S� 0 Planning Commission Agenda - 5/7/98 %I �1')t�� :l: �=1 111 i Il 11• � N 9. .maiderationet�lMwlag a n+ple enlydlvLaion A��Licant>Bv Bai:_ (J.OJ The entire staff report for these items hes been prepared by Northwest Associated Consultants as attached. r N NORTHWEST ASSOCIATED CONSULTANTS INC COMMUNITY PLANNING - DESIGN - MARKET RESEARCH MEMORANDUM TO: Jeff O'Neill Monticello Planning Commission FROM: Stephen Grittrnan DATE: May 2, 1996 RE: Monticello - Ron Ruff Subdivisionlrext Amendment FILE NO: 191.07 - 96.04 D BACKGROUND Mr. Ronald Ruff has submitted a request which would propose a reduction in the minimum single family lot size for the R-2 Zoning District from 12,000 square feet to 10,000 square feet. The R-2 District permits both single family and two family homes, currently both on 12,000 square foot lots. This amendment would affect only the lot size for single family. ANALYSIS - Text Amendment For single family horses, the R-2 District is most commonly applied to the original town plat to which the Ruff propeRy adjoins. In this area, the great majority of lots are 66 feet by 165 feet, an area of 10,890 square feet. For the original plat area, it would be reasonable to consider a reduction In minimum M area (as well as other lot standards) so as to avoid the problems created by non -conformities to a zoning standard which was designed for newly platted lands. The applicant's total property area consists of about 21,412 square feet. If the R-2 standard were reduced to 10,890, he would be about 370 square feet short of the area 5775 WAYZATA BOULEVARD. SUITE 555 5T. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA 55416 PHONE 61 2.595.9636 FAX 812-505-9837 J needed to create two conform ing lots. Thus, the applicant has requested an amendment to 10,000 square feet. Another issue which this application raises is the zoning of the subject property, and the surrounding land. The R-2 Zoning designation ends at the Railroad to the north of the Ruff property, which is zoned PZM. As a result, a zoning issue would arise under the PZM District in which the City would have to determine the appropriate single family lot size standard to apply. The PZM District language lists no specific lot sizes, deferring to the district in which the use is permitted to define lot area. Since a single family use would infer either a 12,000 square foot standard, or less under a revise R-2 District, a conflict could arise. One possible resolution of this issue, presuming a lot size change is approved, would be to rezone this land (and perhaps adjacent lands h similar circumstances) to the R-2 District. Finally at issue is the appropriate lot size to consider, if it were to be reduced from the current 12,000 square foot minimum. Original plat lots consist of 10,890 square feet. Mr. Ruff would need a lot sae of 10,700 to permit two lots on his current property, and has requested a standard of 10,000 square feet. We would suggest something less than the 10,890 thresholi it is not uncanmon to find survey errors in old plat layouts which shave a few tenths of a foot off of the stated dimensions. We believe that 10,000 square feet would not be unreasonable. This standard would permit some flexibility in the use of previously platted land, but would not permit wholesale resubdivision resulting in a sudden increase in density. Subdivision With regard to Mr. Ruff's request for a subdivision of his land, his survey shows two lots, one of 12,243.99 square feet which contains the existing house and garage, and a second of 9,167.61 square feet which would front on Elm Street. N the lot area standards were reduced to 10,000 square feet, this lot would need to be inaeased in area by over 800 square feet. The current lot width standard is 80 feet, barring any changes to the R-2 standards. Were Mr. Ruff to increase the width of the proposed southern lot to 80 feet, it would resuff in a parcel of approximately 10,240 square feet, leaving 11,171 squafe feet for the northern parcel, and would retain a setback to the existing deck of more than 50 feet. With regard to Mr. Ruffs request to split the lot by simple subdivision, this is a policy issue for the City. The land Is technically unplatted land at this time. However, this request creates only one additional building site, and no further subdivision would be possible, with the exception of small land trades between the current neighboring owners to accommodate the confusing pattern of lot lines. We would recommend approval of the subdivision, subject to the following conditions: g - s (1) Amendment to the R-2 District reducing lot area for single family homes to 10,000 square feet. (2) Rezoning of this parcel, as well as adjoining original plat parcels to R-2 from the current PZM district. (3) Revision of the proposed subdivision to provide the minimum 80 feet of frontage on Elm Street. (4) Review by City staff for engineering, utility, or drainage issues and necessary easements. It is possible to proceed on the Ruff request without the rezoning occurring first. The City could take a policy position for the purposes of this application that the R-2 single family lot size will be the standard applied to single family lots in the PZM District. A subsequent rezoning of this land to R-2 would then remove PZM development constraints from a lot which is only able to be developed in a single family manner. Further issues that the City may wish to address would be possible adjustments to setbacks and other standards which apply to single family uses in R-2 Districts. The City has struggled with variance Issues for past applicants in these situations. Any further changes would not be necessary to accommodate the Ruff request. Decision One The City must decide whether it will reduce the minimum lot size for single family homes in the R-2 District. Staff suggests that this is an appropriate proposal, considering that the R-2 District is Intended to permit a slightly increased density, and that much of the single family use in the R-2 is located in the original townsite plat on lots of 10,890 square feet. Altemative A. Approval oT the Zoning Text Amendment to reduce minimum lot sizes for single family uses only in the R-2 District from 12,000 square feet to 10,000 square feet. Approval of this alternative should be based upon a finding that the R-2 District in intended to permit single family homes at a slightly higher density, and that much of the current R-2 District applies to single family homes on smaller lots. Alternative A. Denial of the Zoning Text Amendment to reduce minimum lot sizes for single family uses in the R-2 District. Denial should be based upon a finding that the City believes that 12,000 square feet is the ,L appropriate minimum size for single family lots, and that adequate controls and flexibility are in place in the Ordinances to accommodate the original town plat areas. Decision TMro If the City approves the reduction in the R-2 District lot size, the applicant is requesting approval of a simple subdivision of his land under the new standards. Staff recommends approval, subject to conditions listed above on pages 2 and 3 of this report. Aftemative A. Approval of the proposed subdivision, 94W to the four conditions fisted above, including Ow zoning amendment approval, rezordng to R-2, revision of the subdivision to create adequate width, and City stat? review. This approval should be based on a finding that the subdivision is in conformance with all pedorrrhance standards, and meets the City's goals as stated through its Comprehensive plan and Ordinances. Venial of the proposed subdivision. A Denial should be be on a flndng that the subdivision results is not consistent with the CWs standards (especially K no lot size amendment is approved), and that current non- aadorrnitiies on the property should be cleared prior to additional development is approved for the area. Please refer to the following exhibits for illustration of the issues in this request. Exhibit A - Area Location Exhibit B - Zoning Exhibit C - Site Survey Exhibit D - Proposed Subdivision Revision by Stall 1-94 P TM � R.OZA T K ' fig 3 i J ' t Exhibit A - Area Location 1• elf / 9-1 : � Consideration of an amendment `` \•'= to reduce the minimum lot si:e,7 ... � ••^ ,` -"'k•-• in R-2(tvo-family) residential/ district from 12,000 to 10,000 ' feet. tyts�' square -r—, WIS ' f2E Dlica t: Ron Auff 4. est _.. ... .. _.. RD 1-94 P TM � R.OZA T K ' fig 3 i J ' t Exhibit A - Area Location 1• elf / 9-1 : � i r: /r..��tltlt •i,���� 1E jt�•tt� Ll 1.. = - �' . aocar2p elm as 0 \ S64- 8. 1 0 `.. \\. N, / � b / W • W aar trN i%JWI CO \J WAX ,u, ! b o A to; y y �:: tPPaC 9 So. FS • o �,�, 1 + l 3 N &17013'�y `� -v 0� kPAaCE%- SOF 9167 6� o he ok a�•Io,�CMNgag„a`s�rr hrtrfth 13.64SO.FT. �►ur�el .. ocu w n• w wawa I uaa rt. I . uaao - • • N 1iW V Y0'oT4a*or co It �Xhr ' w WN Comm Of LOT t0 -4tjSt.�� . t 40 ' /SE 1/4 0 DETAIL. j sej j i 4'�R,,,9 a `'r► : ,�. CO ; Aft �o e of t !0. so m . �'e�hSEb l laic Lourrlo (PARCEL A) m 'MON T J r (PARCEL 0) \ $ c8 i r M Iry ap 'C "-(PARCEL C) _ 4 t J Exhibit D - Revised Subdivision S -y A 11 Planning Commission Agenda - 5/7/96 10. Congidpratinn of alinwing,a Aimnle anhdiviaion_ d=tIon is i_._.ta 4 e d s; Block 41, Original Plat Ap In iannL Vic Hallman- (J.O.) A F.FF.RF.NCF. BA . (;RO TND; Mr. Vic Hellman requests permission to realign property boundaries for two existing lots at the corner of Broadway and Elm Street, Lots 4 and 5, Block 45, under the current alignment face Broadway. Hellman requests that the interior lot line be modified so that the front yards face Elm Street. The City has allowed this type of simple subdivision on numerous occasions. In this situation, for safety sake, it makes sense to make Elm Street the street access point. B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS: 1. Motion to approve the simple subdivision of Lots 4 and 5, Block 45, Original Plat. 2. Motion to deny approval of the simple subdivision. C. STAFF RECO F.NDATION: I recommend approval. D_ SUPPORTING DATA: Site plan information. a 1 SI M AGE 5u�1U Isiot� 45 % 7 Y xrst. ARAM o EXZS1 r .fir r ����� •fit -------- M Planning Commission Agenda - 5/7/96 This request stems from a request by Ron Michaelis to move an existing detached garage (accessory structure) from its existing location to a new location on his property. Michaelis plans on moving the structure to a position within proper setbacks. Michaelis does not have an attached garage along with the detached garage. The problem is that Michaelis also has a small 8 x 12 storage shed on the property. According to code, it is not lawful to have more than one "accessory structure" on your property. Therefore, technically, Michaelis should be required to remove the smaller accessory structure in conjunction with moving the garage. Michaelis wishes to keep the storage building. Planning Commission is asked for assistance in interpreting the code as it applies to this situation. Should a second 96 sq ft "accessory building" be allowed? According to Steve Griuman, many cities have made a policy decision to allow a second accessory building as long as it is smaller than 120 sq ft, even though the ordinance states that only one accessory building is allowed. This is because structures that are less than 120 sq ft in size are not covered by the building code and are, therefore, not considered to be structures. Structures less than 120 sq ft are considered to be "personal property." However, these ©ties do limit the number of small sheds to a single shed in addition to the main accessory structure. It should be noted that although small sheds do not require a building permit, they must be placed within the required setbacks. From time to time, City staff finds sheds placed on or very near the property line, whereupon the property owner is asked to move it accordingly. Motion to allow a single storage shed in addition to an accessory structure if the size of the shed is less than 120 sq ft and call for a public hearing on a zoning ordinance amendment clarifying this interpretation. Under this alternative, Michaelis would be allowed to proceed and City staff would prepare an ordinance amendment accordingly. Planning Commission Agenda - WIN Motion to deny allowing a single storage shed in addition to an accessory structure. Under this alternative, Michaelis would be denied bis request to obtain a building permit to move his garage until the storage shed is removed. C. 41` FF RFCO FNDATION: I recommend that the Planning Commission follow the trend set by other cities in this regard and select alternative #1. A small storage structure in addition to an accessory building would not appear to create problems for adjoining property owners. It is my view that each property should be allowed to have one small shed in addition to an accessory building. Excerpts from the city code. ID] ACCESSORY BUILDINGS, USES, AND EQUIPMENT: 1. An accessory building shall be considered an integral part of the principal building if it is connected to the principal building either directly or by an enclosed passageway. 2. No accessory building shall be erected or located within any required yard other than the rear yard. 3. Accessory buildings and garages shall not exceed fifteen (15) feet in height and shall be ten (10) feet or more from all side lot lines of adjoining lots, five (5) feet or more from the rear lot line, shall be ten (10) feet or more from any other building or structure on the same lot, and shall not be located within a utility easement. 4. No accessory building or garage shall occupy more than twenty-five (25) percent of a rear yard, nor' exceed one thousand (1,000) square feet of floor area. 5. No permit shall be issued for the construction of more th¢q one (1) private accessory structure for each dweiiing. Each applicant for a building permit to construct any dwellings shall be required to provide off-street parking space for at least ' one (1) automobile per family to be housed in addition to any garage space to be used. (7/22/91, 0211) 6. No accessory uses or equipment such as air conditioning cooling structures or condensors which generate noise may be located in a side yard except for side yards abutting streets where equipment is fully screened from view. MONTICELLO ZONING ORDINANCE (9 Planning Commission Agenda - 5/7/96 The Monticello Orderly Annexation Board (MOAA) reviewed the plan at their regular meeting on April 3, one day after the Planning Commission public hearing. The MOAA was generally very supportive of the plan. Pat Sawatzke in particular had very positive comments. County Planner Tom Salkowski also provided a written review of the plan for the OAA, which included a number of insightful comments. Please review his memo for more detail. As you will note, he does have a concern about an apparent inconsistency in our approach to shaping development. At the Planning Commission meeting on the 2nd, the Planning Commission approved the draft for forwarding to the City Council with the condition that the document be returned for additional review in the event the OAA Board had any major problems with the plan. At the MOAA meeting on the 3rd, there were no objections to the plan, but there were numerous useful comments that the Planning Commission may want to review before sending the final document to Council. Therefore, I am withholding placement of the item on the Council agenda until the Planning Commission reviews the MOAA comments on the draft document. Following is a summary of the comments made by the MOAA. The maps do not show a clear delineation between city and township boundaries. It was requested that the maps be updated if possible. Pat Sawatzko noted that the plan indicates that industrial and residential uses are planned for the NSP property after power plant decommissioning. Sawatzke suggested that a major portion of the site, especially areas along the river, should be earmarked for park use. Residential development should only be allowed along the hinges of the park area. Industrial uses should be located on the opposite side of the fireeway from the river. Sawatzko was supportive of continuing to establish strategies for encouraging homes with values equal to or higher than the laein Farms subdivision, Some of tho ideas or strategies discussed include: Planning Commission Agenda - 5/7/96 Continue to maintain a city service connection fee structure that results in development paying its way. Develop and maintain quality schools and park system. Consider establishing larger house and lot size minimums. Motion to modify the draft document based on MOAA input and further Planning Commission discussion and authorize submittal of the comprehensive plan to the City Council. Motion to accept MOAA comments but make no changes to the plan. C. STAFF IZCOMMF.NDATION: I recommend alternative 01. The MOAA was in support of the plan. Most of the points made by the MOAA are points of clarification and not objections to the plan. I recommend that the Planning Commission review the MOAA comments and update the draft accordingly. Specifically, I think Tom Salkowski's comments regarding the apparent inconsistency in the stated role of the City in shaping development needs to be addressed. Also, the plan for future use of the NSP property should be discussed farther. Letter ftm Tom Salkowski. April 1, 1996 Office of PLANNING AND ZONING WRIGHT COUNTY GOVERNMENT CENTER 10 IV. W. Second Street. Buffalo. AIN .55313-1193 (612) 682•7338 To: Monticello Orderly Annexation Board From: Tom Salkowski Re: Comments on Monticello Comprehensive Plan o�y Staff at the County Office of Planning and Zoning have reviewed the City Plan in light of both County goals and policies and the Orderly Annexation Board's adopted plans. we would not presume to offer advice to the City on any internal matters, and in fact find, overall, that the City Plan coincides very well with County and Township plane. We believe that the consultants have taken a realistic and practical approach to planning for the City of Monticello, and congratulate the City for their efforts in this regard. The following comments are offered as food for thought in regard to certain sections of the Plan, and certainly not as any criticism of what we found to be a commendable effort. Goals and Policies chanter. pfae 5 The discussion under the policy "The City will monitor, but not pace, growth and development" seems to run counter to the thrust of much of the rest of the plan. We understand that this is a market economy, and any City has limited ability to "pace" development, but we must question the intent of the discussion beginning with 'The marketplace is the most efficient allocator of new development..." It is possible that this paragraph will be thrown in the face of the City Council every time you try to control development in any way in the future. For example, if Monticello Township and Wright County took to heart the statement about the marketplace and had left development decisions to the "wisdom" of the market for the past 15 years, then the entire township would probably be one -acre lots by now, and the Monticello City Plan would have far fewer options available. we believe that this paragraph needs to be expanded and clarified to avoid leaving the wrong impression. A better explanation is found later, in the second paragraph of page 2 of the Development Framework chapters • .. the City is committed to directing the physical location of the market-driven growth...' pnntrdan rnyrled paps. Egwl Oppwunetr Afinmanne Action F.mplu,e, XOA -City Camp. Plan. y.7 Development Framework chaotgrt oaae$ 3 6 4, It is not clear how the need for industrial land in the future is determined, other than "recent industrial land absorption". However, based on the lengthy discussion elsewhere in the plan on the need to attract commercial activity that will pay a living wage for residents of the City (building a sense of community), the figures for new industrial land in the future seem conservative. The plan proposes a new industrial area in the "southwest sector" which is dependent on the construction of a new freeway interchange, and this makes sense to us. However, since there has already been some residential growth in this area, and it seems unlikely that this freeway interchange will happen anytime soon, it is necessary to take action in cooperation with the Township or through the MOA, to preserve this area for this future use. Development Framework chapter. Pages 18-22 Clearly, the plans for the southern parts of the City are most important to the Township and MOA. We think that the consultant has done a very good job of spelling out the future, sensible direction of the City in this regard. The County P&2 Office would like to emphasise the need to get services to the southwest quadrant, especially in light of the "threat to public health" declared by the Mn. PCA several years ago concerning the mobile home park sewer on the west side of Hwy 25. We understand that the City cannot be expected to fully finance the solution to the problem at the park. However, the Plan notes that this area will provide "the dominant portion of the next twenty year's growth" for the City. We hope that the need to solve the problem at the mobile home park may also give the City the opportunity to plan for service provision in this area. We agree wholeheartedly with the Plan's recommendation that the linear growth to the southeast needs to be curtailed in order to invest to the eouthwent. Among the numerous good reasons that the Plan lists to support this policy, we would add the severe stormwater runoff and drainage problems which already exist in the southeast sector. Page 20, paragraph 3 of the Development Framework states that "much of the (southwest) area is not within the current Orderly Annexation Area..." We disagree. The Plan fails to note the extensive YMCA holdings in this area, which are not likely to be available for development anyway, and can serve as a valuable open space buffer between the City and rural area of the Township. Moot of the area planned for future development in the Southwest is in the MOA, except for a small area surrounded by YMCA land. 0 Planning Commission Agenda - 5/7/96 18. Connideratinn of estahliahing a data to discuva n_+ -mm n&j con implamontatinnfitgML (J.0.) As you recall, some months ago the HRA, Parks, and Planning Commission had a joint meeting to discuss goals and objectives. It was determined that the group would reconvene to discuss individual group goals once the comprehensive plan has been updated. The thought was to have each group establish a set of implementation goals using the comprehensive plan as a guide. These goals would be shared at the next joint meeting. Now that the plan is near adoption, it may make sense to establish a Planning Commission goal -setting session. As an alternative, a committee of the Planning Commission could meet to develop goals, which could then be reviewed by the Planning Commission at the next meeting. How do you wish to proceed?