Loading...
Planning Commission Agenda Packet 06-04-1996AGENDA REGULAR MEETING - MONTICELLO PLANNING COM(141MION Tuesday, Jug 4,1996 - 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 May 7, 1996, and the special meeting held May 22,1996. 3. Consideration of adding items to the agenda. 4. Citizens comments. 6. Public Hearing --Consideration of approval of a preliminary replat of the Monticello -Big Lake Hospital District and Mississippi Shores property. Applicant, Monticello -Big Lake Hospital. 6. Public Hearing --Consideration of a request for a conditional use permit which would allow operation of a car wash in a B-3 zone. Applicant, Dan and Linda Mielke. 7. Public Hearing—Consideration of a conditional use permit which would allow operation of a coffee shop and delicatessen. Applicant, Sandra Johnson and Marlin Beeler. 8. Public Hearing --Consideration of an ordinance amendment which would allow footing elevations to be placed at an elevation less than 1 ft above the street elevation when positive drainage is achieved. Applicant, Willi Hahn Corporation. 9. Public Hearing—Consideration of an ordinance amendment which would eliminate curb construction requirements where curbing would be impacted by planned parking lot expansion. Applicant, Monticello Planning Commission. 10. Public Hearing--Conaideration of an ordinance amendment that would allow one storage shed per residential property in addition to an accessory building. Applicant, Monticello Planning Commission. 11. Consideration of calling for a public hearing on an ordinance amendment clarifying regulations governing accessory structures. S•.00 -S�•w1< �,��: Agenda Monticello Planning Commission June 4, 1996 Page 2 12. Consideration of setting a date for a workshop on comprehensive plan implementation teak identification (Jeff report). 13. Consideration of appointment to MCP Board (Dick Frio report). 14. Adjournment. M[INUTES REGULAR MEETING - MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMSSION Tuesday, May 7, 1896 - 7 p.m. Members Present: Dick Frie, Richard Martie, Jon Bogart, Richard Carlson, Rod Dragsten Staff Present: Jeff ONeill, Gary Anderson, Wanda Kraemer 1. Call to Order. Chairman Frie called the meeting to order. Approval of minutes for the reo +ter meeting h le d April 2. anti thA apecial meeting held April 8 and April 22, 1996_ COMMISSIONER CARLSON MADE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING APRIL 2, 1996. SECONDED BY DICK MARTIE MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. COMMISSIONER CARLSON MADE A MOTION TO AMEND THE MINUTES FOR THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ADD CURBING ADJACENT TO THE BUILDING AS A CONDITION FOR THE CUP FOR LEONARD HABERMAN AND DEAN RASMUSSEN. COMMISSIONER BOGART MADE A MOTION TO ACCEPT MINUTES WITH THE CORRECTION. SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER CARLSON. MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. COMMISSIONER DRAGSTEN MADE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL MEETING APRIL 22, 1996. SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER BOGART. MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. Vnnaiderainn of adding i e a to he agenda, Jeff ONeill, Assistant Administrator, requested to continue a public hearing to vacate the easement and eliminate lot between Lots 3 and 4, Block 3, Plaza Partners at the City Council meeting on May 13. This items was published in the paper for the Planning Commission meeting but City Council approval is sufficient. COMMISSIONER BOGART MADE A MOTION TO CONTINUE THE REQUEST TO VACATE THE UTILITY EASEMENT AND ELIMINATE LOT LINE BETWEEN LTOS 3 AND 4, BLOCK 3, PLAZA PARTNERS AT THE CITY COUNCIL MEETING MAY 13, 1996. SECONDED BY COMMISSION DRAGSTEN. MOTION PASSED UNANIMOULSY. Page 1 Planning Commission Minutes . 6/07/96 4. Viti7pns corompn1a There were no citizens comments. Steve Grittman, City Planner, reported that Investors Together, Inc. had submitted plans to construct a 1,362 square foot "Express Lube" facility upon a 16,800 sq. R. parcel of land located north of County Road 76 and west of County Road 118. In the long term, the applicant plane to construct a 1,170 square foot building addition which would accommodate minor automobile repair activities. The property is zoned PZM which is performance zone mixed. 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. 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 like car washes, dry cleaning, and retail commercial activities. It is debatable whether a clear distinction exists between an automobile maintenance facility and minor automobile repair facility. Grittman added that the comprehensive plan relates to reducing the traffic volumes on Broadway but this site could be changed to a B•3 location. Jeb' O'Neill, Assistant Administrator, inquired if Grittman would recommend the entire PZM area be changed to B•3 instead of adding 'Express Lube Facility" to the PZM zone? Grittman replied that if the zone was changed it would provide more guidance than in a PZM area. Page 2 Planning Commission Minutes - 5/07/96 Chairman Frio opened the public hearing. There were no comments. Chairman Frie closed the public hearing. Chairman Frie stated that he considered PZM zone sensitive areas and could not see rezoning this to a B-3 zone. The commissioners discussed what services would be allowed in a minor auto repair facility like changing wiper blades, hoses, glass repair, checking the oil and grease, ect. The question was considered if the applicant would request to increase the types of repairs in PZM zone as the competition in B-3 zones increased. Ken Schwarze, Investors Together, stated they would not want to rezone the property. They would be willing to drop the request for minor auto repair if the Planning Commission did not agree with this use in a PZM zone. Dean Hoglund, Investors Together, added the impact on the traffic would be about 40 cars a day at the tube facility compared to 300 cars on a busy day at the car wash. There will not be cars parked for long periods of time. The Commissioners discussed what storage area would be needed. It was not indicated on the site plan if there would be outside storage. Commissioner Dragsten added that a lube would go with a car wash but future demands for services will increase the repairs being done. The whole area should be rezoned to a B-3 zoning. Commissioner Carlson added that the PZM zone is for a reason and he did not agree with this area being zoned B-3. The quick lube would work in this area because the key to the facility is serve people while you wait. The Commissioners discussed the parking lot. Ken Schwarze stated that the curb cut between the car wash and Total Mart would be closed offend the driveway narrowed to 24 feet. This will make it less desirable to cut across the parking lot as many people are doing now. Dan Mielke, approved applicant for quick lube, stated his quick lube facility was recently approved in a B-3 zone. He inquired as to what services the applicant could have and not have, who would monitor the business, and did the same lot size requirements have to be met? Page 3 0 Planning Commission Minutes -5/07/96 O'Neill replied the Mielkes are in a B-3 zone. They met the requirements in this zone and if only an oil lube facility is built a smaller lot requirement would work. They do have latitude to do much more on this site because of the B-3 zoning. Competitively they have full flexibility. Mielke added, in his opinion, there is a real difference between minor auto repair and a oil lube facility. COMMISSIONER CARLSON MADE A MOTION TO APPROVE AN OIL LUBE FACILITY IN A PZM ZONE BASED ON THE FINDING THAT AN OIL LUBE FACILITY WITH CONDITIONS IS CONSISTENT WITH THE CHARACTER AND NATURE OF THE PURPOSE IN A PZM ZONE: SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER DRAGSTEN. BOGART AND MARTIE - APPROVED. FRIE - DENIED. COMMISSIONER CARLSON MADE A MOTION TO APPROVE A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR AN AUTOMOBILE MAINTENANCE FACILITY IN A PZM ZONE, BASED ON THE FINDINGS THAT AN EXPRESS LUBE FACILITY AT THIS LOCATION IS CONSISTENT WITH THE CHARACTER OF THE AREA AND INCLUDE THE FOLLOWING 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 AUTOMOBILE/LIGHT TRUCK OIL CHANGES. 4. THE APPLICANT DEMONSTRATES COMPLIANCE WITH CITY BUILDING HEIGHT AND BUILDING MATERIAL REQUIREMENTS THROUGH THE SUBMISSION OF BUILDING ELEVATIONS. 6. THE SITE PLAN IS REVISED TO ILLUSTRATE A TOTAL OF SIX OFF- STREET PARKING STALLS. 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. Page 4 Planning Commi8sion Minutes - 5/07/86 THE PROPOSED 36 FOOT CURB CUT IS SUBJECT TO APPROVAL BY THE WRIGHT COUNTY HIGHWAY DEPARTMENT AND CITY ENGINEER. (SEE AMENDED MOTION BELOW) 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 RIGHT-OF-WAYS. 12. ALL CITY SIGN REQUIREMENTS ARE SATISFACTORILY MET. 13. ALL 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 RIGHT-OF-WAYS. COMMISSIONER DRAGSTEN SECONDED THE MOTION. BOGART, MARTIE-APPROVED. FRIE-DENIED. MOTION PASSED. COMMISSIONER CARLSON AMENDED CONDITION #8 TO 24 FOOT CURB CUT IN PLACE OF 36 FOOT CURB CUT. SECONDED BY COMMISSION MARTIE. AMENDMENT PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. CHAIRMAN FRIE MADE A MOTION TO DENY THE REQUEST FOR A ZONING DISTRICT AMENDMENT FOR MINOR AUTOMOBILE REPAIR BASED ON THE FINDINGS THAT MINOR AUTOMOBILE REPAIR FACILITIES ARE INAPPROPRIATE WITHIN THE PZM DISTRICT. SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER BOGART. MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. Page 6 O y Planning Commission Minutes - 5107/96 Steve Grittman, City Planner, reported, 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 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. In the R-2 Districts in the original town plat to which the Rub' property adjoins most of the lots are 66 feet by 165 feet and area of 10,890. It would be reasonable to consider a reduction in minimum lot area 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 sq. ft., if the R-2 standard were reduced to 10,890 he would be about 370 sq. ft. short of the area needed to create two conforming lots. Another issue the 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 does not lista not 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 at a 12,000 sq foot standard or less under a revised 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 in 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 sq. ft. minimum. Original plat lots consist of 10,880 sq. ft. Mr. Ruff would need a lot size of 10,700 to permit two lots on his current property, and has requested a standard of 10,000 sq. ft. It was suggested to do something lose than the 10,890 threshold. It is not uncommon to find survey errors in old plat layouts which shave a few tenths of a foot of the stated dimensions. A lot that is 10,000 sq. ft is not unreasonable. This standard would permit some flexibility in the use of previously platted land, but would not permit wholesale resubdivison resulting in a sudden increase in density. Chairman Frie opened the public hearing. Ron Ruff, land owner, stated that when 6th Street was constructed a portion of his property is on the other side of 6th street, so he lost a small piece at that time. Laura Rohland, neighbor to site, showed the planning commission her lot dimensions and inquired how this would effect her property. The Planning Commission explained what was being requested. Page 6 0 Planning Commission Minutes - 5/07/96 Chairman Frie closed the public hearing. The commission discussed the impact on lot size for duplexes. Grittman informed the commission the lot size would not change for duplexes only single family. The commissioners also discussed the past requests for substandard lot sizes which had been denied. Grittman answered that in a PZM district R1, R2, or R3 can be used. O'Neill added this is close to the older part of town and could be appropriate in parts of this area. COMMISSIONER MARTIE MADE A MOTION TO APPROVE 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 BASED ON THE FINDING THAT DEVELOPMENT OF 10,000 SQ. FT. LOTS FOR SINGLE FAMILY USE RESULTS IN A DENSITY THAT IS CONSISTENT WITH THE PURPOSE OF THE R-2 ZONE. SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER DRAGSTEN. MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. ('onaiderarion of a_llnvdnga simples +bdivipion Appli an -. Ron flff. COMMISSIONER MARTIE APPROVED THE APPLICANTS REQUEST OF A SIMPLE SUBDIVISION OF THE LAND UNDER THE NEW STANDARDS. SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER CARLSON. MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. O'Neill requested the Planning Commission to call a public hearing for the consideration of rezoning a PZM area to R2, this would be from the section East of Elm Street to Vine Street, between 5th and 6th Street, COMMISSION MARTIE MADE A MOTION TO CALL FOR A PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER REZONING A PORTION OF THE PZM AREA TO R2. THE AREA IS EAST OF ELM STREET TO VINE STREET, BETWEEN 5TH AND 6TH STREET. Jeff O'Neill, Assistant Administrator, reported Vic Hellman is requesting permission to realign property boundaries for two existing lots at the corner of Broadway and Elm Street. Lots d and 5, Block 45, under the current alignment face Broadway. Heilman's requests that the interior lot line be modified so the front yards face Elm Street. The City had allowed this in the past and for safety sake, it makes sense to make Elm Street the street access point. Page 7 y Planning Commission Minutes - 5/07/96 Chairman Frie opened the public hearing. COMMISSIONER BOGART MADE A MOTION T'0 APPROVE THE SIMPLE SUBDIVISION REQUESTED BY VIC HELLMAN. SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER CARLSON. Motion passed unanimously. Jeff O'Neill, Assistant Administrator, reported that this requests stems from a request by Ron Michalis 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: 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, Michaelia should be required to remove the smaller accessory structure in conjunction with moving the garage. Michaelis wishes to keep the storage building. Many cities do allow a second accessory building as long as it is smaller than 12-0 sq. ft. even thought 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 consider to be personal property, However, most cities do limit the number of small sheds to a single shed in addition to the main accessory structure. COMMISSIONER DRAGSTEN MADE A MOTION TO CALL FOR A PUBLIC HEARING TO ALLOW A SINGLE STORAGE SHED IN ADDITION TO AN ACCESSORY STRUCTURE IF THE SIZE OF THE SHED IS LESS THAN 120 SQUARE SQ. FT. SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER MARTIE. MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. 12, f n aidprw_don of ncemorw ing MCS A m .n nt=_ 'nfn not drwA of mmnrahnnwive 91M• Jeff O'Neill, Assistant Administrator, reported the Monticello Orderly Annexation Board (MOAA) reviewed the plan at their regular meeting on April 3. The MOAA was generally very supportive of the plan. The commissioners discussed the MOAA suggestions and agreed the comments were important but were already in the intent of the plan so no written changes were Page 8 Planning Commission Minutes - 5/07/98 The commissioners discussed the MOAA suggestions and agreed the comments were important but were already in the intent of the plan so no written changes were made. COMMISSIONER DRAGSTEN MADE A MOTION TO SUBMIT THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TO THE CITY COUNCIL. SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER MARTIE. Motion passed unanimm+aly. 13. Co sidaration ofPiatablijahing a date to Aiscuitok eom=henaiye elan img le*nentation Stam The Commissioners discussed establishing a date and an agenda for a workshop. A joint meeting date should also be scheduled after the City Council officially approves the comprehensive plan. Chairman Frie reported to the commission that the MCP was working closely with Michael Schroeder, Hoisington Koegler, and he would keep the Commissioners informed. � 15. Adlnummeut COMMISSIONER BOGART MADE A MOTION TO ADJOURN THE MEETING. SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER DRAGSTEN. Respectfully submitted, Wanda Kraemer Development Services Technician Page 9 O DcaquTES SPECIAL MMnING - MONTICELLD PLANNIIVG COMMISSION Wednesday, May 88.1998 - SM p.m. Members Present: Dick Frie, Rod Dragaten, Richard Carlson, Jon Bogart, Richard Martie Members Absent: None A special meeting of the Planning Commission was held for the purpose of discussing a commission representative to the Monticello Community Partnere (MCP) Board of Directors. Dick Fria resigned Erom the MCP Board effective immediately due to personal reasons. A motion was made by Jon Bogart and seconded by Dick Martie to wait until the June 4 Planning Commission meeting for the members to consider a position on the MCP Board. One alternative discussed was to possibly place on a rotating basis a representative independent of the Planning Commission. Motion carried unanimously. The meeting adjourned at 7:30 p.m. Rod Dragsten Interim Secretary C 0 Planning Commission Agenda - 6/4196 MAW miFFl (J.O.) The Montioello-Big Lake Community Hospital District requests approval of the preliminary plat of the properties owned by the Hospital District, along with the Mississippi Shores property. This is essentially a huge housekeeping item that calls for replatting the existing properties, vacated roadways, and easements into a new plat which more clearly describes the parcels and utility easements. The existing plat under the various parcels originated in 1886 when the original town was platted. Over the years, the hospital, nursing home, garage, Mississippi Shores, clinic, and dental clinic were all placed in locations that are well-suited for operation of the campus but bear little relationship to the underlying lot descriptions on which they are located. What has resulted over the years is a confusing array of legal descriptions outlining odd -shaped parcels and a number of confusing legal descriptions outlining storm water, sanitary sewer, and water easements, etc. The proposed plat consolidates all of the existing parcel and easement data into a streamlined document that could be easily read and interpreted. The main goal for City staff at this time is to make sure that all of the necessary easements required for city utilities are placed on the final plat and that the new lot lines created replicate the original legal descriptions. You may recall that there has been some discussion of vacating Hart Boulevard and dedicating it to the Hospital District so that the District can use this area for expansion of their parking. The intent was to complete this parking lot redesign at such time that Highway 76 is upgraded. As you can see on the preliminary plat, Hart Boulevard and the existing parking area across fi om the hospital is not included in the preliminary plat. It is expected that this area will be platted at such time that the parking lot is redesigned. B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS: Motion to approve the preliminary plat of the proposed Monticello -Big Lake Community Hospital District Campus. Approval is contingent on the following conditions: Planning Commission Agenda - 6/4/96 1. Utility easements along lot perimeters must be provided as required by code. This means that lot lines along the perimeter of the plat must be bordered by a 12 -ft utility easement; interior lot lines must be bordered by 6 -ft easements on both sides. Also, the final plat must incorporate any additional easements found necessary by the City Engineer and public works department. 2. Final plat approval is contingent on vacation of city right-of-way where necessary. 2. Motion to deny approval of the preliminary plat of the Monticello -Big Lake Community Hospital District Campus. C. STAFF RECClI®IENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the preliminary plat. We've had a pretty good look at the plat and found that recorded easements appear to be in place. We will be taking a final look at the plat prior to final plat development to make , doubly sure that all necessary easements are on the plat. D_ SU1PPORTUNC DATA Copy of preliminary plat. s Planning Commission Agenda - 6/4/96 ,+ e r t Please review the attached report from Steve Grittman. MAY -31-1996 1107 NX 612 595 9837 P.02i10 FA�CNorthwest Associated Consultants. Inc. COMMUNITY PLANNING - DESIGN - MARKET RESEARCH PLANNING REPORT T0: Monticello Mayor and City Council Monticello Plan n.Ing Commission FROM: Bob IGrwie/Stephen Grinner► DATE: 31 May 1996 RE: Monticello - Miallm CUP Amendment FILE NO: 191.07-96.05 (BACKGROUND Dan and Linda tl kWw have rued an amermh ed to the previcuay approved corational use permft (EzemAube ale Service facility) to etlow the addition of a mu hanical ear wash component The aka in question Is located south of Oakwood Drive and east of Highway 25 and is zoned 8.3, Highway Business, The 8-3 Dlstrtd lists car washes as a Conditional use. Attached for reference: Exhibit A - Site Location Exhibit B - Sfte Plan Exhibit C - Design Alternative ISSUES ANALYSIS IProjeot History. Several monttu ago, the City approved a conditional use permit to asteblish en a pi" lube %duty upon the vAjact property. Since that time, the deralopmwd plans have dhe»ped such that a medhenleal Car wash , :, , has been proposed. Because the Introdualon of such use subfttislly dtangos the previously approved dovalopment plan, the prooesafrhg of a conditional use permit amerhdmert is wry. 5775 Wayzata Blvd. - Suite 555 - St. Laos Park. MN 55416 - (612) 595.13836 -Fax. 595.9837 1) MAY -31-1996 1107 NAC 612 595 9837 P.03i10 CUP Review Criteria. The purpose of the required conditional use permit process is to enable the City Council to assign dimensions to a proposed use after consideration of adjacent uses. The process provides the City of Monticello a reasonable degree of discretion in determining the suitability of certain designated use upon the general welfare, public health, and safety of its citizens. Procedurally, the Planning Commission and City Council must consider the possible adverse effer, s of the proposed conditional use. Its judgement must be be upon, but not limited to, the following factors: Relationship to Municipal Comprehensive Plan The geographical area involved. Whether such use will tend to or actually depreciate the ares in which it is proposed. The character of the surrounding area. The demonstrated need for such use. While certain concerns exW in regard to site fimctioning, it is believed that through proper site design, the proposed use can compatibly exist upon the subject property. Service Road. As shown on the submitted site pian, the three automobile service bays and car wash are to eodt onto the Highway 25 service road. While the service road Is acknowledged to lie within privately owned property, It does in fact function as a public roadway. In this regard, it Is believed various perbrmance standards which relate to public street rightaof-way should be considered applicable (i.e., curb cut requirements). Of particular concern with the proposed site design Is the proximity of the service bay/car wash exit doors to the service road and the proposed ctxb cut width (85 feet). Such condition raises the following ems: The proposed 65 foot curb cut width is approximately 40 feet greater than that which would be allowed it the site were to access to a'public' service road. The proposed sub cut condition Is less than Ideal in terms of safety and the efficient movement of traffic, it is likely that water from the car wash component will accumulate on the servleo road. Such condition is not desirable. An IS toot driveway wdste between the principal ahucbzo and the service road sub line. Such limited driveway length may result In vehicle encroachment in the service road. MAY -31-19% 11:07 f iC 612 595 9637 P.04/10 4. Traffic visibility concerns may exist for multiple vehicles wishing to access the service road sanultanecusly. To address the aforwmMioned erns, consideration should be phren to shifting or repositioning the building in a mailer similar to that illustrated upon attached Exhibit C. Setbacks. As shown below, the proposed structure masts all appy B-3 District setback requirements. OR.Street PaMng. Pml* Supply. As calallbelow. the proposed use is required to provide nine oM-street perking stall. Required U, Ratio some Automobile Maintenance Two spaces plus two 6 Fatality (3 MMoe bays) spaces per service bay Car Wash* One space for each 1 employee an madmum shift TOTAL 8 Stackft space not applicable to off-street parking supply mquir note. NOTE: One full time emploryee for car wash assumed. With an off-streat parWng supply of ten spaces, applicable off4treet parking requirements have been met DIMnalomal Re*drements. All proposed par" stalls and drive aisles have been found to meet or a COM minimum Ordinance mqulremmite. 3 P Required PropaOd Front Yard 30 feet 4e bet Side Yard 10 feet 1 o bet Rear Vere 30 teat e3 bet OR.Street PaMng. Pml* Supply. As calallbelow. the proposed use is required to provide nine oM-street perking stall. Required U, Ratio some Automobile Maintenance Two spaces plus two 6 Fatality (3 MMoe bays) spaces per service bay Car Wash* One space for each 1 employee an madmum shift TOTAL 8 Stackft space not applicable to off-street parking supply mquir note. NOTE: One full time emploryee for car wash assumed. With an off-streat parWng supply of ten spaces, applicable off4treet parking requirements have been met DIMnalomal Re*drements. All proposed par" stalls and drive aisles have been found to meet or a COM minimum Ordinance mqulremmite. 3 P MAY -31-1996 11:87 MRC 612 595 9B37 P.05/1e Handleap Stalls. In accordance with Arimican Disability Act requirements one oft -street handicap parking stall has been provided upon the subject site. Curbing. In with Zoning Ordinance requirements, all off -WW parking mew must be provided a sic Incl non -surmountable concrete curb. Crab CuL As shown on the submitted site pian, the subpd property is to be accessed via the Highway 25 service road Specifically, a 65 foot wide curb art has been proposed. According to the Ordinance, atrb cut widths within commercial zoning districts may not exceed 24 feet unless approved by the City Engineer and Zoning Administrator. VVtdle it is a*wwWged that the service road lies within private property, the fest that the service road functions as a'publie street in this case makes the City curb cut standards valid. To address this issue, consideration should be given to reducing the sub cut width to comply with City standards. This issue should be subject to further comment by the City Engineer. The proposed repositioning of the building would accomplish this objective. Surfacing. In accordance with Ordinance requirements, the proposed off-street perking area is to be aurkmed in a bituminous material. Loading. The Zoning Ordinance does not provide a specific off-street loading requirements 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. Ligating. tt has not been hndicated whether any eoftior lighting Is to be provided anode. Any lighting used to Muminate off-street parking or ouW= storage area must be hooded and directed to deflect light away from adjacent properties and public rights -o/ -way. Signage. As a condition of CUP approval, all applicable City sign requirements nwst be satisfied. Grading and Drainage. As a condition of CUP approval, a grading and drainage plan must be subrnftd. Such plan will be subject to review and approval by the City Engineer. Trash. In accordance with Ordinance requirement, all trash handling equipment Is to be stored whhtn a concrete block enclosure and screened from view of nelghboring properties. U MAY -31-1996 1108 NRC 612 595 9637 P.06/10 Design Alternative- To address the concerns cited in this report and aid in the development of an Improved site design, a design alternative has been prepared (attached as F.)Qdbit C). Such alternative is intended simply as a reference tool which demonstrates a possible means to resolve various site circulation/service road access concerns. City Action. The applicants have requested a conditional use pemrt amendment to allow the addition of a tsar wash component to a previously, approved automobile service facility. DECWON - CONDITIONAL USE PERMfT AMENDMENT FOR A CAR WASH Alt rnative A - Conditional Use PentUt f v— i. Approval (with Conditions) This alternative would allow the establishment of a car wash facility in corWffction with the previously, approved automobile service center. We :,w J approval of the requested conditional use permit arnardrnent subject to the following findings and conditions: Alternative A Fhuflf s I . The proposed project Is consistent with the spirit and Intent of the Monticello Cornpretwnsive Plan goals and pWdes and in keeping with the intent of the Zoning Ordinance. 2. The proposed project is consistent with the purpose of the perfomnance standards of the Zoning Ordinance. 3. The proposed project will not have any adverse impacts as outlined in the conditional use pwftt section of the Zoning Ordinance. 4. The proposed project shall provide adequate parking and loading as outlined heroin. S. Tho proposed projew shall not Impose any undue burden upon public facilities and services. 6. The proposed project is designed in arch a manner to torn a desirable and unified environment within Its boundaries which will not be detrimental to future land uses In surrounding areas Architecture and ske treatments shall be corrtpetible with adjacant structures and site plans and $hall request the privacy of nelgl6mb.g businesses. S 0 MPY-31-1996 1108 PAC 612 595 9837 PAR/10 Alternative A Conditions 1. Consideration is given to reconfiguring the site's principal structure in a manu�er substantially similar to to illustrated upon Exitibit C. 2. The City Engineer provide comment and recommendation In regard to the acceptability of the proposed 65 foot wide sub cut 3. An off-street loading ape oe Is provided and specifically identified upon the submitted site plan. 4. Any lighting (new or existing) used to iltundnate the off-street partcing area be hooded and directed to deflect light away from ataoent properties and public rightsof-ray. S. Any new signage erected upon the subject site comply with applicable City sign regulatians. S. The Cly Englhaer provide wnunIN and remmandation In regard to gra&V and drainage Issues. Alternafte 8 - Conditional Uso Pe"Wt Antendmont Denial A second aRamative evahleble to the City would be to deny the requested conditional use permit amwonant a the City dhooses to deny the request such action should be based upon the following findings: Alternative B RndhW 1. The proposed use Is not corulxient with the soft and Intent of the MonbcaM Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Ordinance. 2. The proposed use is Idnely to have an adverse MVW upon surrounding properties. pe: Jett O'Neill s 612'595 9837 P•09i18 FqY-31-1996 11:09 we i m .1101 612 6,5f, MMGM"Y 25 SERVICE Ro" �CatM�. E Planning Commission Agenda - 6/4(86 �1 � iT� �'?'T: �TL��?T�t'•.T."i; �TT'7'T'TT tT; �� i"R:T!:T.�T�'S e Please see the attached report Brom Steve Grittman. MAY -31-1996 11:29 NAC 612 595 9837 P. 02/10 JrN Northwest Associated Consultants, Inc. C CON NU NIT• PLANNING - DESIGN - 1AAAKET RLd19Aft CH PLANNING REPORT TO: Mondoello Mayor and City Council FROM: Bob IUrtNaI>>tephen Grbnan DATE; 31 May I S% RE: Mordoello -Total Mart CUP Amendment FILE NO: 191.07-96.06 BACKGROUND Me. Sandra Johnson end W. Marlin Beeler have requested a conditlonal use permit amenctmeM to establish a coffee elhapldelicatessen (with a ciftetrough component) within a portion dt he eodabb Total Mat oonvenienoe gee facility located north of Highway 75 and west of County Road 118. Such apace was previoualy ocapled by a bait shop. The subject properly Is zoned PZM, Petormenoe Zoned Mboad which lista delicatessana and gas d etton/convenieneo stores as conditional uses. Attached for reference: Exhibit A - Site LOaatlon Exhibit B • Site Plan Etftit C - Floor Plan ISSUES ANALYM Use Oetemlln OwL As mentioned previous*, the applicants are MMaing to locate a ooffae shopkIialloftsm within an Qd&Q Tote) Ment convenience ge faclltty. While the applicable PZN toning dasignsUm lisle dellcatMens as C>ondiUonal IAsa, MO -dthre• through vvlr>d*W Component of the Is. however, not Wdflealy mflammed as an allowable use. The PZM District allows only B-1 and W2 District psnNtted used The Cip/s 04, Hommy Bushoss Oidtrict (not aWlcdsle) spedricelly accommodates uses with driva4voto window features. According to the Zoning OrWhhen=, uses not 5775 Wayzata Blvd. - Suite 555 • St. Ltluis Park. MN 55416 - (612) 595.9636 -Fax. 595.9837 MAY -31-1996 11:29 NRC 612 595 9837 P.03/10 specifically listed within a zoning district shall be considered prohibited. it is the opinion of our office that the term 'delicatessen' cermet be construed to automatically Include a drive-through window component The allowance of such feature Is also corm -my to the purpose of the PZM District which is to provide a transition between high density residential uses and low intensity business land uses. An alternative to the omission of the drive-through window is that the City could make a determination that the delicatessen does not In fact constitute a convenience food establishment. The Zoning Ordinance defines a convenience food establishment as: An establishment which exclusively awes food In or on disposal or edible containers in individual servings for consumption on or off the premises. As part of the CUP consideration, a determination should be made by the City as to wenn eet}her the °delicatessen• qualifies as a'convenience food establishment'. H a positive determination is made, removal of the drive-through window will be necessary. CUP Review Cdbwh . The purpose of the conditional use permit process Is to enable the City Council to assign dimensions to a proposed use after consideration of adjacent land uses and their functions. In this regard, the City of Monticello Is provided a reasonable degree of discretion in determining the suitability of eeRein designated uses upon the general welfare, public heatth and safety of Its citizens. Procedurally, the Planning Commission and City Council must consider the possible adverse effects of the proposed oonditional use. its judgement shall be based upon, but not limited to, the following factors: Relationship to the Municipal Comprehensive Plan. The geographical area involved. Whether such use will tend to or actually depreciate tho area in which it is proposed. The character of the surrounding area. The demonstrated need for such use. While the physical limits of the &We principal building will not chime as a result of the proposed use, such activity may result In an Uwaass In alto activity through increased perking generation. The proposed use is rhos, however, expected to greatly atter the Character of the use. In this regard, it is believed that the coffee ahop/delir:ateseen can compatibly exist upon the subject property, provided all applicable performance stendsrds aro met. D PtgY-31-1996 11;29 NAC 612 595 9937 P.04/10 Drive -Through Vtltndow. If the CRY determines that Ute proposed delicatessen doss not constitute a convenience food establishment, Ute drive-through window compm tent may be retained. In terms of design and crmAefion, some concerns do, however, edst with the drive-through window. As aurenty proposed. only three stacking spaces are provided. (Ad Orval vehMes would block Interior site traffic.) If allowed, the drive4mg1h window and site circulation pattern should be revised so that not less than six stacking spaces are provided in a manner which does not dianrpt site circulation. W45treet Parking. Parkdng Supply. As calculated below, the proposed use (including the convenience store) is required to provide 30 oft -street parking stalls. Use Convenience Store Ratio 1 space per 200 SF Requited Boom 14.2 3,152 SF X.9 (2,837 SF) of floor area Dining Area 1 space per 40 SF 9.5 422 SF X.9 (380 SF) of floor area Kitchen 1 space per 80 SF 5.8 497 SF X.9 (447 SF) of floor area — 29.3 NOTE: Pump island spaces do not qualify as off-street parking epeces. With an off-street perking supply of 31 stalls, applicable oif4treet paring requirement have been met. 01nonsional Rocluke nbrns. Nssumtng the proposed 'drive throkgh' tans is to be ornllted, all proposed parking stalls and drive alsles have been found to meet or exceed minimum Ordinance requMment. Handicap Stalls. In aecorderm with American Disability Act roquirernents, two off-sh+eet handicap parldmg stalls have been provided upon the sutoct site. Mub ft In , m m m Ienoe with Zoning Ordinance requirements, all offitreat periling areas must be provided a six Inch mon-sunnamtable concrete curb. 3 MRY-31-1996 1130 NRC 612 5959837 P.05/10 Curb CuL As shown on the submitted site plan, the subject property is to be accessed from the north and west. No changes to the existing curb cut conditions are proposed. Loading. According to the Zoning Ordinance, retail sales activities are regained to provide an off-street loading space. As a condition of CUP approval, an off-street loading R pace should be provided In with Ordinance reqUirements and Illustrated Upon the alto pian. Lighting. It has not been indicated whether any new exterior lighting is to be provided an site. Any fighting used to Illuminate off-street parking must be hooded and directed to deflect light away from adfawd properties and public fthts-0f-sway. Signage. As a condition of CUP approval, the applicants should denuxutrate that all signage on the subject site compiles with applicable City sign requirements. Trash. While the submitted site plan identities two small sheds on the north side of the principal building, the plan does not indicate whe&w they are used for the storage of trash. If a trash receptacle Is to be stored outside the principal strueflne, surds storage location should be illustrated upon the site plan. Additionally, such receptacle must be screened from view of neighboring properties. City Action. The applicants have submitted plans to establish a coffee shop/delicatessen within a portion of the existing Total Mart convanienoe gas facility. DECISION • CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AMENDMENT FOR A DELICATESSEN Alum Mve A • Conditional Use PenTM AMOWMent Approval MM CorrdMNM) This alternative would allow the establishment of a colics shopfdelicatessen within a portion of the existing Told Mart oo mxdence gas fsoi*. We recommend approval of ft requested conditional use permit aLMW to the fWkk tng findings and ooraWns. Alternative A Flndings 1. The proposed pr*xg Is conslatent with the spirit and Intent of the Montloello Compralwaive Plan goats and policies and in keeping with ft Mtat of the Zontng Ordinance. 2. The propOaad praija i is Consistent with fha purpose of the,,- standards of the Zoning Ordinance. D MAY -31-1996 1130 NRC 612 595 9837 P.06i10 3. The proposed project will not have any adverse impacts as outlined in the oonditfwnal use permit section of the Zoning Ongnarne. 4. The proposed project shall provide adequate paMng and loading as outlined herein. 5. The proposed project shell not Impose any undue burden upon public facilities and services. 6. The proposed projed is designed In such a manner to form a desirable and unified environ mend w" Its boundaries which will not be detrimental to future land uses In swmmdmg areas. Architecture and site treaMer a shall be convetible with adjacent structures and site plans and shell request the privacy of neighboring businesses. AttermAlve A CoslxBtto ns 1. The City madoe a do.;. J. ; . as to whether the propxoaed delkatessen constitute a oonvenlence food estabilaltrrrerri'. a e posftW determination Is rade, the drive- through wdr�shall be elim1ry ted. tf o negative detenninaUan is made, the ddve- through wdndorr and site cWcAstion patterns shall be revised such that a minimum of six a tang spaces are provided In a manner which does not disrupt site treflie patterns. 2. An off4trad loading space Is provided and specifically identified upon the submitted alto plan. 3. Any IV" (now or exieft) used to Qhuninste tdhe off-street par" area be hooded and directed to deflect light away hom adjacent properties and public rfp *"-w y 4. Any new aignapa erected upon the subject site comply with applicable City sign regulatlons. S. The sfte plan is revised to Illustrate exterior trash handling loca<forw. All trash handling equipment shall be swooned ham view of adjacent properties. 5 PPY-31-1996 11:30 NRC 612 595 9837 P.07i10 Alternative B - Conmtlonal Use Permit A nendmart Danlal A second atDwative avaUft to the City would be to deny the requested conditional use permit wmn&rant tf the City ficoses to deny the mWest, sumer action should be based upon the fouowing findmps: AlownaUve 8 FhuBnps The proposed use Is not consistent with the q*ft and intent of the Monticello C"et>amsive Pian and Zw&v Ordinance. 2 The proposed use is Daly to haus an adverse ImpW upon aaroundinp properties. pa Jeff O'Neill John Kmmm (via fax 920-2D83) 0 m --- to,31,� 0 MAY -31-1996 11:31 NRC 612 595 9837 P.09i10 EXM3WT 8 - WE PIAN 0 0 :Ills'-II III?I I I'i. Yhill" n� EXM3WT 8 - WE PIAN 0 0 Planning Commission Agenda - 8/4/98 PnhLie Hearing. n ai arwtion of n inw.rew wn+endment w i .h wonld allow footing elevations to be placed at an elevation lase than 1 ft above the street elevation when positive drainage is achieved_ A=IicanL Willi whn Cnrneration (B.G.) Please see the attached report from Steve Grittman. ��MgY-31-1996 0946 4C612 555 983'7 P. 11/13 rNNorthwest Associated Consultants, Inc. C COMM UNITY PLANNING - DESIGN - MARKET R952ANCH MEMORANDUM TO: Jeff O'NeIU FROM: Bob Kmis/Stephen Grittrnan DATE: 30 May 1898 RE: Monticello - Zoning Ordinance - FootiM Elevations FILE NO: 191.06 -96.03 Attached plesfefinda dre to nerdnentto S;ecU 3-2.E cf the Zoning Ordinance relaling to drainage plans_ 0 The dreg anlendrrwd viouild allow the ground elevation of all dwellings and corrintercial and Industriel b"WhVe to exW leas Man 12 Inches above the ftnished street elevation. Such allowance *mkI, however, be contingent upon dernonotration of positive dminege and City EnglnewiBuilding Inspector approval. If you have any gxledlons regarding Mie material, please advise. 5775 Wayzata Blvd - Suite 555 • St. Louis Park. MN 55416 - (612) 595 -9636 -Fax. 595- MPY-31-1996 0946 NRC 612 595 9837 P.12Z13 DRAFT - DRAFT - DRAFT CITY OF MONTICELLO WRIGHT COUNTY, MINNESOTA ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 10 OF THE MONTICELLO CITY CODE, KNOWN AS THE ZONING ORDINANCE, ADDRESSING DRAINAGE PLAN REQUIREMENTS. THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MONTICELLO DOES HEREBY ORDAIN: Section 1. Sec Um 3-2.E of the kiw t Wo Zoning Ordinance (DRAINAGE PLANS) Is hereby emended to read as follows: (E] DRAINAGE PLANS: In the case of all apartment, business, and industrial developments, a minimum of 3 seta of drainage plans shall be submitted to the City Engineer for review, and the final drainage plana shall be subject to written approval. Quwli1►` Except as otherwise appoved by the City Engineer ar&or Building Irygpaslor and upon demonstration of positive drainage, all dwellings and commercial and industrial buildings shall be constructed such that the ground elevation at the building site will be a minimum of twelve (12) inches above finished street elevation at the building access point. The exact elevation will be deterrnlned by the 8 ,`4 t% tN All garages and parking fecil shall be situated such that Owe will be direct and positive drainage to the street access at finished grade elevation. All elevations shall be established prior to of a building permit. Occupancy Ghell not be granted until the bulkier cwdfios confammhce with the grading plan for the lot The developer shall have a registered land surveyor or enghreer certify that the devslcpme d has bean rough graded to within tolerance limits according to the grading plan. Sectlon 2 This Ordinance shall became ~Iva immediately upon its passage and publication. 8 PPY-31-1996 09:46 NRC 612 495 9837 P.13/13 ADOPTED by the Monticello C9y Can dl this day of 1998. ATTEST. m Rlok Wa teller. Admin aVabr CITY OF MONTICELLO or Brad Fyfe. Mayor AYES: NAYS: v TOM P.13 Planning Commission Agenda - 8/4/98 :� V :1 1 11.1 Ilii •, •(1 1 N 1 N� 1 •1� •11 1 Please see the attached report Brom Steve Grittman. FAC rAY 09:45 NRC 612 595 96V P.07/13 Northwest Associated Consultants, Inc. C O N Y U N I T PLANNING - DESIGN . MARKET RESEARCH MEMORANDUM T0: fib Plarnung Commission id O'Neill FROM: Stephen Grubb DATE: May 30,19M RE: Mwdkxtb - Temporary Cudit Requhemerb FILE NO: 191.06-96.05 Staff tae recently been confronted with a number of elluatlons in 0%ich the development of a portion of a larger parcel has resulted in a request to be awAwd from the aabhp requirements of the ZonbV Ordirom. Cunw*, the Zonirp Ordhanae makes the f flowing mgkdemems of panting to for Commercial and h k abut properties: • Qxdt nrow club beater sturounci ft antlre parkhg lot and dWWway • Curb to bo 6 Inch rwmiurmourdeble corlcreta These requirements may be awided In the fouowbq h9wices: • Propm in the trldustrfel lisbids may pet permission from the Plermth Commission and City Co ird for txltft around the paftV bf o* to be of a different desip. • Properties h the b%%n W dstrku may get a CondNbnal Um Permit to vary cite desip oftheirperking end driveway areae, bm*Aing as a pert d Ihie poom. a variation for temporary hada ions. Otherwise. the CUP Is hterded to be a permanent desigm As a resuh, where property owners have wished to ocns5tict temporary improvements pending a later permaro Installation, they have uses the CUP process. The disadvantage of &* process Is that b is burdensomo " Or*-conssrn ft In the 5775 Wayzata Blvd - Suite 555 - Sl. Louis Park, MN 55416 - (612) 595.9636•Fax. 595.9837 d) MPrY-31-1996 0945 PAC 612 S95 9837 P.08/13 aflarrsellve. the burden may adualy disemm ge some of the requests, p ly readtIM in more general compilwce However. aleft is requasttng an Ordinance change which would allow a property owner to tempora* avoid the =a curb requitement, under certain conditbna. with administrative approval only. ALTERNATIVE A Approval of the Zorwrg Ordinance Tend Amendment to perm@ temporary waiver of the conaete cubing requtremerd for trdusirial props HesbyAdmirildragaPermIL The Zoning Ordin m may be amended upon a flndtrg that the proposed 61 is omsisterd wM the Comprehensive Plan. The Cir atfould make this finding as a part of any approval dedsbn. ALTERNAT W B Derdaf d fhe Zmfhrg Ordh wm Ta d Amerdment to permit waiver of the oona ate cuftV reWlrement for btdua riel properties by AdministraM Permit. No specft fhdfng is neoessanr to deny the City's own however a suggested finding waAd be that tfte offard OrdirWM Ionguage requW4 a ConclMortal Use Permlt for such requests better protede the pLdit haaW ad*, and general welfare. J MAY-31-1996 09:45 NRC 612 5% 9837 P.09/13 City of Mandcloo Mbmmwa ordblam AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 10. CHAPTER 3 OF THE MONIICELLO CITY CODE. KNOWN AS THE ZONING ORDINANCE. BY CREATING AN ADMINISTRATIVE APPROVAL PROCESS FOR TEMPORARY CURBING INSTALLATIONS IN INDUSTRIAL DLVMCIS. The City Camil of ft City of MoMWb batt m tum- SMW 1. Satin 3.5. Subd. [D] 9.(r) Li. is hweby amended M rod as MOW ii. All off -Wo *WeMm and p AbS areas in the 1-1 ad I-2 dbuict shall have a coofac ts. oonaae. ... , „ , .,.i, 'e curb beau. Ibis MMMOM affil be modlfiod only by the STALL. AISLE. AND DRIVEWAY DESIGN CONDITIONAL USE PEIRl4T as d=MW is Secdm 3-5, Subd. (D] 9.(s), or. by a pamk ftm de Zoning A,,,.', — for a pordou of the parking and driveway ares *tkb rtteets the following oottdbioro: The am b sbmn by adequaae site plain and fcmoaable growth to be s*m m a forme em -Wo of the driveway aa&or pmddog fres. IU area b shown by a kam dmi=p plans to be able to control dW=ge a ,...,.,,,,,. ' . I by me City I�ineer. The F.egleeer may approve bbumioas cwbfsq ao a mmpomrydrahmge aort>s+A mmm- The area b shotvo by aft= Biro pbm to be able to =wd aim naf6c and ckatlatioa a teoommmded by the Cby E . IU Evaineer may ttppreve movable sub saps M a mummy teafi3e ooatcoi mtxwre ❑p" MAY -31-1996 0946 hm 612 598 9837 P.10i13 SKdm 2. Thb Oedioan= shell take eta and be In fuH U= bom ad ager is pmup and pnbleatioa. ArIIST: Ridgy wwbuder. A.Owsmw AYES: NAYS: t Md Fyfe. Mayor Planning Commission Agenda - 6/4196 Please see the attached report from Steve Grittman. FCAMAY -31-1996 09:44 NRC 612 595 9837 P.02/13 Northwest Associated Consultants, Inc. COMMUNITY PLANNING - DEIIGN - MARKET REaEAACM MEMORANDUM TO: MonttoeW Plarming Commission Jeff O'Neill FROM: Stephen Grittrnen DATE May 30. 1996 RE: Monticello - Storage Sheds and Accessory Building Requiremerns FILE NO: 191.06 - 98.04 Recently, a property owner had A the City for a b dkWV permit to allow the relocation of a detached garage butbtrtg cn hie property. Sten was required to advise the applicant that dere to the a dsterm of a small storage shed in addklon to the detected garage, a Cortddorel Use Permit was necessary prior to the issuance of a building permit Puna.w t to dboAsi n st a recent Planning Commission meeting, staff has proposed the Aft ' d Zor" Ordinance teed amendment which effectively excludes one storage shed from the impositim of Corulborret Use Permit proced m The amerdmeM applies to one data . bund m ecommory to a single family home, up to 120 square bet in floc area. Such bAdkW do rat requite buildit pwnft hollrerer they aro &abject to all other zorM and Cay Coda perbrnance standards The proposed Ordinance mercy axouae& the need for a Cordtkmei Use Permit. This Ordinance has been designed to appy only to thea storage &hods whirlare aooessory to conformhtg abgb famly homes. The, for non4btgie family uses, or for sbrgb family uses wflrch are noncadorlmbV due to mnhq dfaW4 setbedu4 or for Bane other maw% this exrhWw waatd not appy, and all Zonhtg stergerda (kxb brg the reed fora Conditional Use Perna fora second detached eooessory buadbrg) would be In foroe. 5775 Wayzata Blvd. - Suite 555 - SL Louis Park, MN 55416 - (612) 595.9838 -Fax. 595. MPY-31-1996 09:40 NRC 612 596 9837 P.03/13 ALTERNATIVE A Approval of the ZonkV Ordlnenoe Tend Amanamwd to perma a sinal, I A I m d detached accessary structure an cm ft., bV air4ie famty Iota without a Cando W Use Permit The Zorinp Order may be mnended upon a finding that the proposed arna drnent is consIstat with the C. , .:, ., ,it . Plem The City should make ft fbrdb ea a part of "approval deasion ALTERNATIVE B Denial d the Zoning Ordnance Tad NmrWywd to permit a sinal, eeoor>d detached accessary sbucbrre an sWgb family Wt& No spade tt M la rocssary to decry the Ctlys own appBoation, however a a0ea1 1 finding waft be that a Umbdm on the number of -1 w l and aooeaaay atnrctures in res ftntiel areas is rteoesean► to protect the public heats, ediety, and gemm weft 0 MAY -31-1996 09:44 NRC 612 595 9637 P.04/13 City of Moaumn% MW= Nta ♦ . X00 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 10, CHAPTER 3 OF THE MONTICEILO CITY CODE. KNOWN AS THE TONING ORDINANCE, BY EXCLUDING ONE DETACH® FrORAGE SHED PER SINGLE FAMILY HOME FROM CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT PROCESSING REQUIREMENT'S. 7be Cby Counefl of de City of Moatmello hereby ordabs: Svcd=1. Sectbn 3-2, Sabd. IN S. b hereby a xWW to read a foBmL- S. Each applicant for a bnildiog permit to cocur R any dwelling shall be w*dred to provide oH-street pub% space for at Ina ate (1) automobile per family to be homed, is addhba to mW garage space to be used. Subject to tbn following esaeptims. ao permit dwU be owed for the . ., , , , . � . , of mare than ate (1) private, detadrod aaoessary strucme for each dwelih g. cmepC a. By Candltiaaal Use Plrmit, or b. For r 1 ft mI Wm& bmily dweUbW ate (1) detached aaoeum suuewte of an mm than 120 square feet shall be permitted a a second aooesaosy err P op whhan a Condhloaol Use Permh, subject to aH adw applimble coda and standards. Secdox 3. "b Osdhraum shall take dfbm ad be In fill fbroe tines and afar its passage and patblitstim Brad Fyle, Mayor ATrM: Rkk walftle t, Admbgo=or AYES: NAYS: /D MRY-31-1996 e9:44 KiCIt 612 595 9837 p.05/13 measurements of such area or width are within seventy-five (75) percent of the requirements of this ordinance. 4. Except in the case of planned unit development as provided for in Chapter 20 of this ordinance, not more than one (1) principal building shall be located on a lot. The words "principal building" shall be given their common, ordinary meaningj in case of doubt or on any question or interpretation, the decision of the Building Inspector shall be final, subject to the right of appeal to the Planning Commission and City Council. 5. on a -through lot (a lot fronting on two (2) parallel streets), both street lines shall be fro -.It lot lines of applying the yard and parking regulations of this ordinance. R•Z I0) ACCESSORY BUILDINGS, USES, AND EQUIPMM: / 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. 1. 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. S. No- permit Shall be issued for the construction of more than one (1) private accessory structure for each dwelling. 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 apace to be used. (7/22/91, 0211) CURRENT ZONING ORDINANCE LANGUAGE KONTICELW EONING ORDINANCE 1/5 r MAY -31-1996 09:45 NAC 612 595 9837 P.06i13 (H) All detached structures not requiring a building permit that do not conform to the following requirements shall be deemed a public nuisance. 1. All such detached structures shall be constructed of uniform building grade material. 2. All sides, roof, and floor shall be securely fastened to the interior frame of said detached structure. 3. All surfaces of such detached structures shall be stained, sealed, or painted. 4. Exterior metal surfaces shall be treated with materials designed to resist corrosion. S. Structures that do not have slab floors shall have a rodent barrier that extends 6 inches under the surface of the ground along the perimeter of the outside wall of the structure. 6. All such detached structures shall be permanently anchored to the ground. 7. Storage sheds erected after the adoption of the zoning ordinance shall meet district setback requirements. i 8. Detached structures shall be erected in the side or rear yard of any residence. (7/10/89, #178) (4/9/90, #185) 7-1-2: EXCEPTIONS: The provisions of this chapter do not apply to the hauling or accumulation or spreading of manure for the purposes of agriculture, nor to the natural and usual accumulation of rubbish from one residence on the owner's own premises, provided the public health ie not adversely affected thereby. (11/23/61, #109) 7-1-31 PUBLIC NUISANCE: (A) Ifsdemoanogg. Whoever commits any of the following acts is guilty of a misdemeanor punishable by a fine of not more then 8700 and by Imprisonment in the county jail of not more than 90 dayei 1. Consumption of intoxicating liquor or non -Intoxicating liquor In public or in other places prohibitod by law except as provided by law. 2. Strewing, scattering, littering, throwing, or disposing of any garbage or refuse onto any promises except into receptacles provided for such purposes. CITY CODE LANGUAGE XONTICELLO CITY ORDINANCE TITLE VII/Chet I/Page 3 /0 Council Agenda - 6/4/96 • A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: Planning Commission is asked to review a current planning case involving a request to build a two -car detached garage in the rear yard of a zero lot line duplex lot. In addition, the Planning Commission is asked to review the current regulations governing accessory structures and determine whether or not to continue to allow relatively large accessory structures (up to 1,000 sq ft) to be constructed in rear yard areas when an attached garage exists. The application for a building permit that generated this agenda item was a request for a detached two -car garage at 220 Marvin Elwood Road. As you know, the Marvin Elwood Road area is an R-2 district. The duplex is on a zero lot line and is situated on a lot that is less than 12,000 aq ft. We are concerned that the ordinance did not intend to allow a 1,000 sq ft accessory structure to be allowed on lots as small as 6,000 sq ft. By allowing this structure to be erected as proposed, we would be continuing a precedent that would enable other property owners with duplex -size lots to build similar structures. The closer we looked at the ordinance, the more we realized that perhaps accessory structures are not intended to be allowed in either the R•1 or R-2 district when an attached garage is present. As you know from previous agenda items, each residence is allowed one accessory structure. If you review the language in the ordinance closely, you will note that it could be construed that an attached garage could be construed as being an accessory use/structure, which would, therefore, mean that the allocation for a single accessory structure is used up by the presence of an attached garage. For some time, City staff has interpreted the code quite differently in this regard. We have allowed on a number of occasions construction of detached accessory structures even though an attached garage is present. I took a quick windshield survey of the community and found 16 examples of single family residences that had both an attached garage and an accessory structure in the rear yard that was large enough to hold at least one car. Of the 16 counted, there were probably 3 or 4 that were large enough to hold 2 care; therefore, it appears that in the past our interpretation of the code has set a precedent that could apply in this case. Planning Commission is asked to discuss this issue and to determine how to interpret the code as it applies to the R-1 and R-2 districts. Council Agenda - 8/4/98 For your information, Steve Grittman has outlined various alternatives for regulating accessory structures. No specific recommendation is being made by City staff at this time. This is an open item for discussion and continued research. With regard to the Hook request, in order to force a review of this item at Planning Commission and Council level, City staff formally denied the building permit application based on an interpretation that the existing attached garage represents the single accessory structure allowed per property. We recognize that this interpretation is inconsistent with previous interpretations of the code as it relates to accessory structures; however, due to the fact that this particular structure was in an R-2 district and because it may be that staff has been interpreting the regulations incorrectly over the years, I felt that it would be wiser to deny the permit and then allow Planning Commission and City Council to review staff action to deny and, if Planning Commission and City Council desires, can act to override staff denial and award the building permit. Unfortunately for the applicant, the formal appeal of staff denial was not been submitted in time to make the public hearing notice requirement for the June meeting of the Planning Coaunission. Therefore, the formal appeal must occur either at the regular meeting in July or a special meeting prior to City Council scheduled for June 24. Therefore, any discussion relating to the specifics of the Hook matter is for discussion purposes only. No formal action can be taken on this particular planning case at this time. B. AT.TRRNATfVP ACTIONS: Motion to direct City staff to prepare ordinance amendments clarifying regulations pertaining to accessory structures. Under this alternative, the Planning Commission finds that the existing language governing accessory structures is unclear and that modifications need to be made to help direct City staff and the public in this regard. Perhaps there is specific language or regulations that the Planning Commission would like to not only clarity but add to the present ordinance that more clearly reflects what the Planning Commission would like to am happen with regard to accessory structures, etc. Motion to deny authorization for staff to prepare ordinance amendments clarifying accessory structure regulations. I Council Agenda - 6W96 Under this alternative, Planning Commission simply reviews the Dods and informs City staff as to how to interpret the code for specific situations. Perhaps Planning Commission is comfortable with how the language is laid out in the code and simply needs to tell staff how to interpret it. Under this alternative, City staff would be reporting to City Coundl as to the preferred interpretation of the code. F.NDATION: We have had five or six people review the code as it pertains to accessory structures. Each seems to have a different interpretation. Some believe that the code allows development of a detached accessory structure in addition to a garage; others indicate that it's implied that an attached garage is an accessory structure, therefore allowing a second garage in the rear yard violates the requirement that only one acoessory structure is allowed. The bottom line is, what's in the best interest of the R-1 and R-2 neighborhoods? And what does the Planning Commission view as acceptable in terms of accessory structures in rear yards when a garage on a home already exists? Once you've determined what you believe is proper, then it would be our recommendation that the ordinance be rewritten to better reflect your wishes. D. SUPPORTING DATA: Excerpts finm the zoning code; Hoot site plan; Steve Grittman's report. 10 measurements of such area or width are within seventy-five (75) percent of the requirements of this ordinance. Except in the case of planned unit development as provided for in Chapter 20 of this ordinance, not more than one (1) principal building shall be located on a lot. The words "principal building" shall be given their common, ordinary meaning; in case of doubt or on any question or interpretation, the decision of the Building Inspector shall be final, subject to the right of appeal to the Planning Commission and City Council. 5. On a through lot (a lot fronting on two (2) parallel streets), both street lines shall be front lot lines of applying the yard and parking regulations of this ordinance. (D) ACCESSORY BUILDINGS, USES, AND EQUIPMENT: 1. An accessory building shall be considered an /vintegral part of the principal building if It is '0 .1 41 connected to the principal building either directly I.A. or by an enclosed passageway. tiaf /v, 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. 1. 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.iso t shall pe isayedg fEr the c uJ1,1112n oL more then one 1 it ivate ac lMcre {2r Each p can or a uiidi ng 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, •211) MONTICELLO ZONING ORDINANCE '/ 3/5 [FH] FLOOD PLAIN: The areas adjoining a watercourse which have been or hereafter may be covered by the regional flood. [FI] FLOOD PROFILE: A graph or a longitudinal plot of water surface elevations of a flood event along a reach of a stream or river. [FJ] FLOODWAY: The channel of the watercourse and those portions of the adjoining flood plains which are reasonably required to carry and discharge the regional flood. [FR] FLOOR AREA: The sum of the gross horizontal areas of the several floors of the building or portion thereof devoted to a particular use, including accessory storage areas located within selling or working space such as counters, racks, or closets, and any basement floor area devoted to retalling activities, to the production of processing goods, or to business or professional offices. However, the floor area shall not include: basement floor area other than area devoted to retailing activities, the production or processing of goods, or to business or professional of,ices. The floor area of a residence shall be allowed to include thirty (30) percent of the area of attached garages, not to exceed 96 square feet, and fifty (50) percent of enclosed breezeways or porches, not to exceed 96 square feet (48 sq. ft. credit), but shall not include basement area, unless the basement shall be determined to be a story as defined herein. (FL] FLOOR AREA - LIVABLE: The total of all floor areas of a building, excluding equipment rooms, interior vehicular parking or loading, and all floors below the first or ground floor, except when used or intended to be used for human habitation or service to the public. (5/23/944, #251) I (GA) GARAGE - PRIVATE: An accessory building or ecce portion o tho Qrinciee) Py which is intended or Gnu useu�o et are E e prive a passenger vehicles of the family or families resident upon the premises and in which no buelness servico or industry is conducted, provided that not more than one-half (1/2) of the space may be rented for the private vehicles of persons not resident on the premises, except that all the space in a garage of one (1) or two (2) car capacity may be so 1\ rented. (GB) GARAGE - PUBLIC: A building or portion of a building, except any heroin defined as a private garage or as repair garage, used for the storage of motor vehicles or where any such vehicles are kept for remuneration of MONTICELLO ZONING ORDINANCE CHAPTER 2 RULES AND DEFINITIONS SECTION: 2-1: Rules 2-2: Definitions 2-1: RULES: The language set forth in the text of this ordinance shall be interpreted in accordance with the following rules of construction: [A] The singular number includes the plural and the plural the singular. (B) The present tense includes the past and the future tenses, and the future the present. (C) The work "shall" is mandatory while the word "may" is permissive. (D] The masculine gender includes the feminine and neuter. 2-2: DEFINITIONS: The following words and terms, wherever they occur in this ordinance, shall be interpreted as herein defined: (AA) ACCESSORY BUILDING OR USE: A subordinate building or use which is located on the same lot on which the main building or use is situated and which is reasonably necessary and incidental to the conduct of the primary use of such building or main use. (AB] ADDRESS SIGN: A sign communicating street address only, whether written or in numerical form. (AC) ADMINISTRATIVE PERMIT: A temporary permit granted by the Zoning Administrator, after City staff approval, without• a public hearing, granted to a specific individual at a specific location, to address those requests and proposals for specific uses that are not allowed under the strict provisions of this ordinance, but that present no apparent conflict with the intent of this ordinance. An administrative permit may be renewed indefinitely but cannot, under any circumstance, be transferred to another person or location. An administrative permit may be revoked upon ten (10) days' written notice when and if the use evolves into a use determined to be in violation of this ordinance. MONTICELLO ZONING ORDINANCE 0 2/1 I a 0 AL 0 wO ID 0�1 0 4� DI rL MiA. SLAB r) SU EJECT E I TO W INSPECTION N APP OVER one - sigood --. Jennis Hook 220 Marvin Elwood Rd. Monticello. MN 55362 (612) 295-5866 City of Monticello Jeff O'Neil 250 East Broadway PO Box 1147 Monticello, MN 55362 Re: Lot 13. Block 1. The MeadowG Subdivision Ocar Mr. O'Neil: i ( am writing hi response to your latter I receivcd May 25, P?')o. I would like to appeal your decision concerning the denial of n building permit for an accessory building on Lot 13, Block 1. I would like this matter to be brought up at the City Council meeting on June 10, L990 ao please do put this on the agenda. Thank you for takirvj the time to review my reque:;t. Sincerely voura,dvz Oenni3 Hook OH/bh (D 01 MY -23 -19% 16 10 NAC 612 595 9831 P. 021W Northwest Associated Consultants, Inc. COMMUNITV PLANNING • CE61GN . MARKET RESEARCH MEMORANDUM TO: Jeff O'Neill FROM: Stq*mm Grttman DATE: May =1996 RE: MGnUmb-Acceaeory Structures In R-2 DistriGs FILE NO: 191.06 This memorandum sumnsizes the bores aEsodated with a request to construct a detached accessory strucdlae on a zero lot Ilea tv W=e lot According to the Zordng Ordinance, Private garages are permitted accessory uses In the R,2 DWIct where AvbVwmes are permided prildpal uses. Accessory bufidbW are allowed subject to cartein restrictlom. These include at Ilmaatbn Gn the total area of the garage or accessory build (1.000 square feet), end a resbictim to no accessoryhMing will occupy more OW 26% of the rear yard. The cor=m wtddt th appBcetlon raises la whether a double garage (the size of building which would W"be allowed under the anmrri repulstlm) ben ....1- use of Iand I many twlnttome owners decided to take advantage of the Ordbwnce. Rear yards may appowdummed and overbuilt I severe140 foot wide twrinitome lots were developed with •large• accessory etrucam I the Cay fth that this sltueUOn would not likely be a problem, no action would be necessary. On the odw hand. if Na city wishes to deter Oft intensity of use. we have ssggested a few aRemetive In the following paragraphs. (1) Institute a muirnu m lot coverage requirement. For a minbnum brWlome lot (40 feet by 150 feet). a 1.200 sq u e foot unit and a typical double garage would comprise about 28 peroent lot owwaga. Vft a 30 perm, maximum, a tool shed sized buildl;V would be the only extra lot coo rage posslbla. With a 35 percent 5775 Wayzata Blvd • State 655 -St. Louis Park, WN 55416 • (612) 585-9636•Fax. 595- 7