Planning Commission Agenda Packet 07-02-1996AGENDA
�. REGULAR bIEEMG - MONTICELLO PLANNING COMM188ION
Tuesday, July 2, 1896 - 7 p,m-
Members: Dick Frie, Richard Martie, Jon Bogart, Richard Carlson, Rod Drageten
1. Call to order.
2. Approval of minutes of the regular meeting held June 4, 1996.
3. Consideration of adding items to the agenda.
4. Citizens comments.
8. Public Hearing --Consideration of an amendment to a conditional use permit
allowing expansion to outside storage area. Applicant, Custom Canopy.
Location is Lot 6, Block 2, Oakwood Industrial Park.
6. Public Hearing --Consideration of amendments to general regulations
pertaining to accessory structures. Applicant, Monticello Planning
Commission.
7. Consideration of a request for a simple subdivision. Applicant, Marvel
Tmmnel. Location is Lots 2, 3, 4, and 6, Block 2, River Terrace subdivision.
8. Consideration of a request for a public hearing on an ordinance text
amendment creating a new B" zone and include zoning map amendments in
the Rivenroad Plaza area. Applicant, Investors Together.
8. Review comprehensive planning implementation steps and consider
ibrwarding the steps to Parks Commission and HRA.
10. Adjournment.
Minutes
Regular Meeting - Monticello Planning Commission
Tuesday, June 4,1998 - 7 p.m.
1. CAR to ord r.
The meeting was called to order by Chairman Frie.
2. Approval of minuteg of thp resnihir meeting held May 7 1996: smij Choi gVedal
meeting held May 22. 1996_
COMMISSIONER MARTIE APPROVED THE MINUTES, SECONDED BY
COMMISSIONER DRAGSTEN, FOR THE MAY 7TH MEETING. MOTION
PASSED'UNANIMOUSLY.
COMMISSIONER BOGART APPROVED THE MINUTES, SECONDED BY
COMMISSIONER CARLSON, FOR THE SPECIAL MEETING MAY 22ND
MEETING. MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY.
3. rnnaid rntinn of ad in8 iterng to the a e a.
Bob Grabinaki requested to add a discussion on planting of prairie grass on a
residential lot.
JefO'Neill added a resolution for a TIF district.
4. Ci 'me a co manta.
There were no citizens comments.
g, Public Hearin$ .mnaid ration of flppmoal of a Xcliminary repint of the Monticello.
Rhy qkA Hn W Fkl Dia riot and miggiagisw Shores Appligmt_ Monticnlln.
818 Lake Hospital.
Steve Grittman, City Planner, repotted the Monticello -Big Lake Community
Hospital 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 houmkoeping item that calls for replatting the eidsting 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
1888 when tho 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 fbr 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,
Pagel O
o�-
Planning Commission Minutes - 6/04/96
sanitary sewer, and water easements, ect. 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 the 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.
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 75 is upgraded. As you can see on the preliminary plat, Hart Boulevard
and the existing parking area across from the hospital is not included in the
preliminary plat. It is expect that this area will be platted at such time that the
parking lot is redesigned.
Chairman Frie opened the public hearing.
Barb Schwientek, Hospital Administrator, stated the hospital is working around
Wright County's schedule for the improvements to County Road 75. Until the
improvements are made to Cty Rd 75 the hospital will not be able to complete the
parking lot area. There is money being set aside to construct the parking lot.
COMMISSION DRAGSTEN MADE A MOTION, SECONDED BY
COMMISSIONER CARLSON, TO APPROVE THE PRELIMINARY PLAT OF THE
PROPOSED MONTICELLO-BIG LAKE COMMUNITY HOSPITAL DISTRICT
CAMPUS. MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. APPROVAL IS CONTINGENT
ON THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:
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
ORDERED BY A 12•FT UTILITY EASEMENT; INTERIOR LOT
LINES MUST BE ORDERED 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.
FINAL PLAT APPROVAL IS CONTINGENT ON VACATION OF
CITY RIGHT-OF-WAY WHERE NECESSARY.
Steve Grittman reported Dan and Linda Mielko have requested an amendment to
the previously approved conditional use permit (Execu-Lube automobile service
facility) to allow the addition of a mechanical car wash component. The site in
Page 2 9
Planning Commission Minutes - 6/04/96
question is located south of Oakwood Drive and east of Highway 25 and is zoned B-
3, Highway Business. The B-3 District lists car washes as a conditional use.
Dan Mielke, applicant, stated the application was for the same size lube center but
the building will be moved to the north to allow more room for the tunnel car wash.
There would not be a curb cut because it is on a private road and no other business
along this road have a curb cut. If Highway 25 is changed the access road could
change also, a plan is needed for this.
In a tunnel car wash the cars are actually moved through the building at a
controlled speed. The under carriage wash is the first procedure to allow the most
time for the water to be removed. There is about 8 gallons of water used. 'The last
application of water will be 15 feet from the exit and all cars will be automatically
blown dried. There will be a heated exit pad by the door so ice will not form. The
cars will be moving forward, not backing out, when exiting which helps with traffic
flow.
The commissioners discussed the request in connections with the options to the
changes being studied for the intersection at Oakwood Drive/ Highway 25 and
agreed Mielke's plan should work in either option. Next the unique situation of
requiring a curb cut on a private road was discussed.
COMMISSIONER BOGART MADE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A CAR WASH IN A B-3 ZONE. SECONDED
BY COMMISSIONER MARTIE, MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. BASED ON
THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:
1. AN OFF-SITE LOADING SPACE IS PROVIDED AND
SPECIFICALLY IDENTIFIED UPON THE SUBMITTED SITE PLAN.
2. ANY LIGHTING (NEW OR EXISTING) USED TO ILLUMINATE
THE OFF-STREET PARKING AREA BE HOODED AND DIRECTED
TO DEFLECT LIGHT AWAY FROM ADJACENT PROPERTIES AND
PUBLIC RIGHTS-OF-WAY.
3. ANY NEW SIGNAGE ERECTED UPON THE SUBJECT SITE
COMPLY WITH APPLICABLE CITY SIGN REGULATIONS.
4. THE CITY ENGINEER PROVIDE COMMENTS AND
RECOMMENDATION IN REGARD TO GRADING AND DR,AIIdAGE
ISSUES.
b. ALL CURBING THAT WOULD NOT BE IMPACTED BY HWY 2b BE
INSTALLED NOW. CURBING THAT MIGHT BE IMPACTED BE
COMPLETED WHEN HWY 25 IS COMPLETED OR WHEN FUTURE
Page 3
Planning Commission Minutes - 6/04/96
DEVELOPMENT IS REQUESTED WHICHEVER IS FIRST.
The conditions are based on the following 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 provided adequate parking and loading as
outlined herein.
6. The proposed project shall not impose any undue burden upon public
facilities and services.
6. 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 request the privacy of neighboring businesses.
Steve Grittman, City Planner, reported Sandra Johnson and Marlin Bealer
have requested a conditional use permit amendment to establish a coffee
shop/delicatessen (with drive-through component) within a portion of the
existing Total Mart convenience gas facility located north of Highway 76 and
west of County Road 118. The space was previously occupied by a bait shop.
The property is zoned PZM, Performance Zone Mixed, which lists
delicatessens and gas station/convenience stores as conditional uses. If the
City determines that the proposed delicatessen with a drive-through
component does not constitute a convenience food establishment, the drive-
through window component may be retained. Also, there should be space for
at least six stacking spaces which does not disrupt site circulation.
Commissioner Frie questioned the difference between Liberty Savings, the
property adjacent to Total Mart, having a drive through banking window and
this applicant with a drive through restaurant window.
Page 4
Planning Commission Minutes - 6104/96
Commissioner Frie opened the public hearing.
Marlin Besler, owner of the site, stated this is currently the crave of the
petroleum business to have food and convenience items for people traveling.
We are offering this service now but without a drive-through window.
Sandra Johnson, applicant, stated the average speed per order is 30 seconds
to 2 minutes. She did not foresee a stacking problem because of the speed of
the service. There will be an indoor facility that will use porcelain cups,
plates and silverware so people can come in and order also.
Chairman Frie closed the public hearing.
The commissioners discussed the main use of the site would not change, it
would still be to dispense motor fuel and there was already coffee,
sandwiches and convenience items being sold.
Chairman Frie inquired if the drive-through window was a necessity.
Sandra Johnson answered the drive-through is beneficial as far as dollars go.
Many people are regulars and drive through on their way to work.
Next the Commissioners discussed how people can differentiate the area that
is parking lot from the drive-through lane.
Marlin Bealin stated there has not been a problem with care stacking by the
pumps. They will usually park in a parking space to wait.
COMMISSIONER CARLSON MADE A NOTION, SECONDED BY
COMMISSIONER DRAGSTEN, TO APPROVE THE REQUEST FOR THE
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT IN A PZM ZONE WHICH WOULD ALLOW
OPERATION OF A COFFEE SHOP AN7D DELICATESSEN. MOTION
PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. BASED ON THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS;
THE DRIVE-THROUGH WINDOW AND SITE CIRCULATION
PATTERNS SHALL BE REVISED SUCH THAT A MINIMUM OF SIX
STACKING SPACES ARE PROVIDED IN A MANNER WHICH DOES
NOT DISRUPT SITE TRAFFIC PATTERNS.
AN OFF-STREET LOADING SPACE IS PROVIDED AND
SPECIFICALLY IDENTIFIED UPON THE SUBMITTED SITE PLAN.
ANY LIGHTING (NEW OR EXISTING) USED TO ILLUMINATE
THE OFF-STREET PARKING AREA BE HOODED AND DIRECTED
Page 5
Planning Commission Minutes - 6104/96
TO DEFLECT LIGHT AWAY FROM ADJACENT PROPERTIES AND
PUBLIC RIGHTS-OF-WAY.
4. ANY NEW SIGNAGE ERECTED ON THE SUBJECT SITE WILL
COMPLY WITH APPLICABLE CITY SIGN REGULATIONS.
6. THE SITE PLAN IS REVISED TO ILLUSTRATE EXTERIOR TRASH
HANDLING LOCATIONS. ALL TRASH HANDLING EQUIPMENT
SHALL BE SCREENED FROM VIEW OF ADJACENT PROPERTIES.
6. LANDSCAPING WILL BE INSTALLED TO MEET CURRENT
CODE..
T. DRIVE-THROUGH WINDOW HAS LIMITED CAPACITY AND
PARKING LOT WILL NEED TO BE STRIPPED TO SHOW LIMITS
OF STACKING AREA
THE CONDITIONS ARE BASED ON THE FOLLOWING 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 provide adequate parking and loading as
outlined herein.
6. The proposed project shall not impose any undue burden upon public
facilities and services.
6. The proposed project is designed in such a manner to form a desirable
and unified environment within its boundaries which will not be
determined to future land uses in surrounding areas. Architecture
and site treatments shall be compatible with adjacent structures and
site plans and shall request the privacy of neighboring businesses.
Page 6
Planning Commission Minutes - 6/04196
The amendment would allow the ground elevation of all residential, commercial
and industrial buildings to exist less than 12 inches above the finished street
elevation. Such allowance would, however, be contingent upon demonstration of
positive drainage and City Engineer/Building Inspector approval.
Chairman Frie opened the public hearing.
No public comments.
Chairman Frie closed the public hearing.
The Commissioner discussed this item and agreed in this should be allowed with
the approval of the City Engineer and Building Official.
COMMISSIONER MARTIE MADE A MOTION, SECONDED BY
COMMISSIONER BOGART, TO APPROVE THE ORDINANCE AMENDMENT
WHICH WOULD ALLOW FOOTING ELEVATIONS OF RESMENTIA14
COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL BUILDINGS TO BE PLACED AT AN
ELEVATION LESS THAN 1 FOOT ABOVE THE STREET LEVEL WITH THE
APPROVAL OF THE CITY ENGINEER AND/OR BUILDING OFFICIAL.
MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY.
1.
M M^
401
..1 .
. .....: 11 . K'1MVIUM..I.. .
Jeff O'Neill, Assistant Administrator, reported staff has recently been confronted
with a number of situations in which the development of a portion of a larger parcel
has resulted in a request to be excused from the curbing requirements of the Zoning
Ordinance. Currently, the Zoning Ordinance makes the following requirements of
parlung lots for commercial and industrial properties.
Continuous curb barrier surrounding entire parking lot and driveway.
Curb to be 6 inch non -surmountable concrete.
These requirements may be avoided in the following instances;
Properties in the industrial districts may get peraoission from the Planning
Commission and City Council for curbing around the parking lot only to be of
a different design.
Properties in the industrial district may get a conditional use permit to vary
the design of their parking and driveway areas, including as a part of this
process, a variation for temporary installations. Otherwise, the CUP is
intended to be a permanent design.
Pap
Planning Commission Minutes - 6/04/96
As a result, where property owners have wished to construct temporary
improvements pending a later permanent installation, they have used the
conditional use or variance process. The disadvantage of this process is that it is
burdensome and time-consuming. In the alternative, the burden may actually
discourage some of the requests, possible resulting in more general compliance.
However, staff is requesting an ordinance change which would allow a property
owner to temporarily avoid the concrete curb requirement, under certain conditions,
with administrative approval only.
Chairman Frie opened public hearing.
There were no comments.
Chairman Fria closed public hearing.
The Planning Commissioners discussed the item.
COMMISSIONER DRAGSTEN MADE A MOTION, SECONDED BY
COMMISSIONER BOGART, TO APPROVE AND ORDINANCE AMENDMENT
WHICH WOULD DETER CURB CONSTRUCTION REQUIREMENTS WHERE
CURBING WOULD BE IMPACTED BY PLANNED PARKING LOT EXPANSION.
Motion passed unanimously.
.., .
„e(MI Mu:
Steve Grittman, City Planner, reported recently a property owner had approached
the City for a building permit to allow the relocation of a detached garage building
on his property. Staff was required to advise the applicant that due to the existence
of a small storage shed in addition to the detached garage, a Conditional Use
Permit was necessary prior to the issuance of a building permit.
Pursuant to discussion at a recent Planning Commission meeting, staff has
proposed a Zoning Ordinance text amendment which effectively excludes one
storage shed from the imposition of Conditional Use Permit procedures. The
amendment applies to one detached building accessory to a single family home, up
to 120 square feet in floor area. Such buildings do not require building permits,
however they are subject to all other zoning and City Code performance standards.
The proposed Ordinance merely excuses the need for a Conditional Use Permit.
This ordinance has been designed to apply only to those storage sheds which are
accessory to conforming single family homes. For non -single family uses, or for
single family uses which are nonconforming due to zoning district, setbacks, or for
some other reason, this exclusion would not apply, and all Zoning standard
Page 8
Planning Commission Minutes - 6/04%
(including then need for a Conditional Use Permit for a second detached accessory
building) would be in force.
Chairman Frie opened the public hearing.
There were no comments.
James Kojetin stated he received two different answers from staff on placement of
his accessory building.
Jeff O'Neill replied he would check the code and see that Mr. Kojetin was given the
correct information.
Chairman Frie closed the public hearing.
COMMISSIONER MARTIE MADE A MOTION, SECONDED BY
COMMISSIONER BOGART, TO APPROVE THE ZONING ORDINANCE TEXT
AMENDMENT TO PERMIT A SMALL SECOND DETACHED ACCESSORY
STRUCTURE ON CONFORMING SINGLE FAMILY LOTS WITHOUT A
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT BASED ON THE FINDING THAT THE
PROPOSED AMENDMENT IS CONSISTENT WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE
PLAN. Motion passed ++ eni- usly.
11. Bob .rahingki'g request prairip gmwg for Smund envier on hig regidgntial
1GL.
Jeff O'Neill explained that the Planning Commission and City Council can grant
permission for a homeowner to plant prairie grass for ground cover on a residential
lot.
Bob Grabinski explained the area on the lot he would plant the prairie grass was
adjacent to a field and a drainage ditch.
The Commissioner discussed the request and agreed that because it was bordering
an undeveloped area the prairie grass could be planted.
COMMISSIONER MARTIE MADE A MOTION, SECONDED BY
COMMISSIONER CARLSON, TO APPROVE THE REQUEST BY BOB
GRABINSKI TO PLANT PRAIRIE GRASS ON HIS LOT.
rn gid ra inn of calling for n Auh is hearing on an inanco m adm nt lad6d"
me ,Intinng$nv_ +ming nerraegy a = +rn
Jeff ONeill, Assistant Administrator, reported that Planning Commission was
asked to review a current planning case involving a request to build a two -car
Page 9
Planning Commission Minutes -6/04/96
detached garage in the rear yard of a zero lot line duple: lot. In addition, the
Planning Commission was asked to review the current regulations governing
accessory structures and determine whether or not to continue to allow relatively
large accessory structures cup 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 items 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 sq. ft. Staff is concerned that the ordinance did not intended 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 Planning Commissioner will need to interrupt the code.
COMMISSIONER MARTIE MADE A MOTION, SECONDED BY
COMMISSIONER BOGART, TO ADOPT A MORATORIUM ON NEW
CONSTRUCTION OF ALL ACCESSORY BUILDINGS IN RI AND R2 ZONES,
EXCEPT THOSE THAT HAVE ALREADY MADE AN APPLICATION AND CALL
FOR A SPECIAL MEETING TO DISCUSS THE HOOK APPEAL ON JUNE 24 AT
6:00 P.M.
13 Cnmiderstion of setting a Ante for a won ahore on comp hewhew e„aive plan
Jeff O'Neill, Assistant Administrator, reported that the comprehensive plan was
approved and the next step would be to have a work session to identity and
brainstorm the implementation steps to be accomplished over the next two to three
years.
CHAIRMAN FRIE MADE A MOTION, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER
MARTIE, TO BEGIN THE SPECIAL MEETING ON JUNE 24TH AT 6:00 TO
BEGIN DISCUSSION ON THE IMPLEMENTATION STEPS. MOTION PASSED
UNANIMOUSLY.
13. Ce aid ration of annointmPnt to MGP Boar&
Chairman Fria inquired if anyone on the Planning Commission would be able to
replace him on the MCP board. The Commissioners had been given two weeks to
think about the time commitment and decide if this would tit in their schedule. The
Commissioners were in agreement the Planning Commission should be represented
but could not commit to the time involved.
CHAIRMAN FRIE MADE A RECOMMENDATION, SECONDED BY
COMMISSIONER MARTIE, THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION
REPRESENTATIVE BE JEFF O'NEILL BECAUSE OF HIS WORK WITH THE
Page 10
Planning Commission Minutes - 6/04/96
PLANNING COMMISSION AND HIS INVOLVEMENT IN THE COMMUNITY.
MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY.
Jeff O'Neill replied he was interested in serving on the MCP board and honored to
be considered for representing the Planning Commission but would need time to
reschedule other commitments he had. O'Neill would let the Planning Commission
know his final decision at the special meeting, June 24.
14. CongirlAratinn of adppUng a reaolutien for &= TIF district_
Richard Carlson abstained from discussion as a Planning Commissioner. The
Commissioners were not clear on how the resolution for TIF Plan works with the
Prairie West Development. There was concern that the entire concept plan had not
been reviewed by the Planning Commission.
Jeff ONeill, Assistant Administrator, explained the Commissioners can wait until
more information is presented to make their decision.
CHAIRMAN FRIE MADE A MOTION, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER
DRAGSTEN, TO TABLE THE DRAFT RESOLUTION AND STRONGLY URGE
LINKAGE OF THE PARKS COMML98ION TO THE PRAIRIE WEST PUD. FINAL
DECISION OF THE RESOLUTION WILL OCCUR AT TFU SPECIAL PLANNING
COMMISSION MEETING JUNE 24. MOTION PASSED. RICHARD CARLSON
ABSTAINED.
16. A4aummi=
COMMISSIONER BOGART MADE A MOTION TO ADJOURN THE MEETING.
SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER MARTIE.
Respectfully submitted,
Wanda Kraemer
Development Services Tedmician
Page 11 O
{� I Planning Commission Agenda - 7/2/96
1. Entire fence system must be replaced with a fence that achieves
90% opacity.
2. Development of an interior pe meter guard rail protecting the
screening fence. tfl*;
avow
3. Placement of suitable materials as a base to control dust, etc.
4. Plant additional trees in accordance with code (perhaps
additional trees for supplemental screening would be
appropriate).
6. Provide additional parking area or alter use of existing parking
areas now being used for storage.
6. Remove gate and install a section of screening fence at least
60 ft in length at a right angle to the existing fence, thus
partially screening the opening to the storage area when viewed
from the right-of-way.
7. Outdoor areas should be used entirely for storage and not used
for production activities.
Motion to approve the conditional use permit could be based on the
finding that the outside storage with the conditions as noted is
consistent with the character of the area and is consistent with the
purpose of the I.2 zone in which it is located.
2. Motion to deny an amendment to the conditional use permit allowing
expansion to outside storage area.
This motion could be based on the finding that:
1. Historically, the site has violated the terms of the existing
conditional use permit and has had a blighting influence on the
neighborhood. To allow expansion would amplify the
enforcement problem.
2. The purpose of the industrial areae is to develop industrial
buildings. The outside storage area (accessory use) proposed is
too large relative to the principal use and is thus inconsistent
with tho intent of the 1-2 zone.
Planning Commission Agenda - 7/2/96
107
Steve Birkeland requests an amendment to a conditional use permit which
would allow expansion of the outside storage area at the Custom Canopy
facility. 71he expansion proposed would more than double the existing
storage area. 1be proposed plan would extend the storage area an additional
100 R to the north and 50 R to the west. Birkeland would extend the
screening fence accordingly.
In the recent past, City staff has noticed and documented the following
activities at the site that are not consistent with code.
I. Space necessary for employee parking along the rear of the
sbucture is being used for storage.
2. Vehicles are parking in the ditch or on the right-of-way due to
parking space used for storage.
3. 1Naterial is being stored at as elevation higher than the
screening fence.
4. The existing screening fence is not 90% opaque as required by
code. It has been bent and broken down but is now fixed.
8. The gate to the storage area is always open. According to code,
the gate should be closed to assure proper screening.
Staff is concerned about allowing an expansion of outside storage for a
facility that has shown the pattern above. Furthermore, the expansion as
proposed will result in a storage area that is very large relative to the
principal use.
Motion to approve the amendment to the conditional use permit
allowingexpansion to outside storage area with the following
conditions:
Planning Commission Agenda - 7/2W
3. Excessive outside storage can be unsightly and, in this case,
detracts from the character of the neighborhood.
4. A goal of the comprehensive plan is to target high-quality
businesses. Allowing outside storage as proposed does not
contribute toward achieving this goal and is thus inconsistent
with the comprehensive plan.
(:_ STAFF i+FCOMII�NDATION;
Staff recommends alternative M1.
Copy of site plan; Excerpt from comprehensive plan.
10
.p*Lt
I
C�3-G 35 •
T - - -- - � -i
STARUAFta Z ROA)
CIL- y 1
.VO ACwsn ewMwe A• GwRT .E Ta nAeAr.e , Y
OPM=r.S ALLOWM. D iFI•:= ?ROSSAGE ADA_..ABU
Pa iBZBD ACCESS POml. PAS BOOTH S1F;�a
®aeWs roam r..
OLTsnz
S
l 4„ pp S-,OR"E AREA Nort�
I
PAS G Alit AS I i
=smm CONCRETE SIIR-&C3 Clow -1
1
SCREP MG IC_ 1'
,rmm—
�..e..
FAL OJV Ai7ENVE
d' Teas must eras at e+at#40. 'O Pa.,0f.tvC— ?=2s
Ord ter: resue .1S ZttMu110 .tt weeded A se? � net l�
M*.tI«IIO Cewnw►cCLt Ca..fCR I � f
S
(0-f F, I -f pic"A F,Ie it
r bab and Pohats fat 4
mise concems about their ability to commit to the
community on a long term basis.
Policy: Monticello will target high
quality businesses for Its
economic development
programs -
Quality can be defined in a number of ways. For
the purposes of this policy, "quality" will be those
factors which are likely to result in the
achievement of the City's economic development
goals. 71v furiberahce of the City's goals depend
on the ability to build a community which will
continue to be competitive in economic
development. A prospective business which puts
back into the community more than mere tax
dollars, then, will be a stronger recipient for the
City's investment. As discussed in the goal
statement, Monticello has been successful in this
area due to several factors. Businesses which
enhance of the very factors which brought them
to the community in the first place should be
prime candidates for economic assistance. 'his
is an example of "sustainable' economic
development.
Policy: Investment In the tmdltloaal
downtown should focus on
facilitating a transition to a
recreation and entertainment
based center.
The traditional downtown in Monticello,
spocifically that area in the immediate vicinity of
Broadway and Highway 25, has suffered from the
evolution of shopping patterns to larger, regional
shopping centers. The incrt',asod mobility of the
populaces, as well as the continuing growth of the
Maakiuo cbwehendw P%W
(loaf, and PaWs
commuter resident sector in all Wright County
communities, has resulted in a shift away from
the smaller downtown shopping areas. Several
such downtowns have been able to capitalize on
their charm and ambiance, however, by using
those amenities to anchor entertainment and
recreation facilities. Particularly in Monticello,
where the river and the two Bridge Parks provide
a unique environment, this approach can be a
practical reuse of the downtown area.
'lite City's activities in this area must focus on
stimulating and leveraging private investment to
be successful. Weed, it is the success of private
ventures which, in the long run, determine the
success of the district as a "city center.
However, the City can have a significant role
through its investment in infrastructure, open
space, and site preparation. Redevelopment in
the district should be evaluated toward its
compliance with this land use scheme.
This policy supports the City's Economic
Development Goal statement by creating a
stronger center which can be a focus of the
community's civic activities. By making use of
the natural attraction to the area, and
programming commercial uses which can thrive
under these conditions, an attractive and
srtocesslirl redevelopment of the downtown area is
a real possibility.
Growth Afanagemertt
Goal:
Growth Management can take both active and
passive forts. The use of zoning is typically an
active growth management technique, although
shilling zoning patterns which merely react to
0
Planning Commission Agenda - 7/2/86
8. Pnhli�Aa ming—ConAWkwatinn of smandmantx to 9 ima
mMlatinna rlwinin� to •,..,: �s... . (J.0.)
Please see the attached report from Planner Steve Grittrnan.
��JIN-28-1996 1049 NAC 612 595 9837 P.02i13
rNNorthwest Associated Consultants, Inc.
C COMMUNITY PANNING • DESIGN • MARKET RISEARCN
MEMORANDUM
TO: Monticello Planning Commission
FROM: Bob IGrmis/Stephen Gnttman
DATE: 27 June 1996
RE: Monticello - Zoning Ordinance - Accessory Building Requirements
FILE NO: 191.06 - 96.02
J. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND
This memorandum is intended to evaluate the adequacy of the City's existing accessory
building requirements. Of speeffic Issue is Ute adequacy of such requirements as they
apply to lots less than 10,000 square feet in area on which a moratorium curreniy exits.
ISSUES
&*Ung RegaAmn
APpucaWilty Policy. In review of the City's existing accessory building regulations (am
Exhibit A), it is unrJeer whither maximum area requirements are to Include (or exclude)
attached garages, Past City policy has been to exempt attached gmeges from the
maximum area requirerrlents stipulated in the ordinance. Thus, the listed area
requirements appy only to detached accessory structures. Regardless of whether any
changes of *&Axsfance' are propman , it Is reoommanded that the ordinaries be revised to
Clarify Ctty policy.
Building Area Requirennents. Cuff", private larch are listed as permitted
accessory uses in the R-1 and R,2 Districts. Garego area Is limited to 1,000 square feet
and may not occupy more than 25% of the rear yard. Such raWremer a relso eonoem
over whether an additional detached double garage is an appropriate use of land in
association with small single family or twintaw tote, partiailaAy, If many such ovmns take
advantage of the current standards. 0 taken full advantage of, the rear yards of several
40 foot wide twinitorrm tote may appear cluttered and over built.
5775 Wayzata Blvd.- Suite 555 • St. Louis Park, MN 55416 - (612) 595.9636 -Fax. 595-9037
db
JLPF28-1996 1049 NAC 612 596 SBS? P.W/13
Regulation A/temstfves
If the City wishes to control this potential intermty of use, the following alternative
approaches should be. considered:
Option 1 • Retain Existing Regulations. An Initial option to be considered would be to
surrey retain the existing accessory building requirements attached as Exhibit A If such
option is desired, it is recommended dun the existing ordinance language be amended to
clarify City policy in terms of applicability. As noted previously, it has been past City
practice to apply such standards cny to detached accessory buildings. ABaehed as
Exhibit 8 is a draft Zoning Ordinance .. which simply clarifies the applicability
of the cement standards and provides specific definition of the terms 'accessory building'
and 'accessory use'.
The following is a listing of pros and cons associated with retaining the CWs existing
standards:
Ease in administrative handling and citizen undo, M Ing.
• May result in scale problems as no relationship to open space or prinapel building
size is required.
Option 3 • kwobitie a maximum Wt (building) coverage requlrenrorrt. A second option
would be to impose a maximum lot coverage requirement For a minimum twinhome lot
(40 feet by 150 feet a 1,200 equine foot unit and a typical attached double gerepe would
comprise about 28 percent lot coverage. With a 30 percent maximum, mh, a tool shed aimed
building would be the only extra lot coverage possible. With a 35 percent maximum, e
double garage would be possible. The 30 perom maximum would permit an additional
single car garage.
The following is a listing of pro$ and cons associated with this option:
Pros
Would ensure prWM onate retention of open space on all lot.
May encourage Interior stype (depending upon tot coverage percer1age)
J
JW -2B-1996 1049 NRC 612 595 9&37 P.04/13
Cons
• Principal building additions could be discouraged by such means of reputation.
• Administrative review of building coverage Is necessary.
• Larger prindpal dwelling footprints may prohibit construction of Weed accessory
storage Spam -
May discourage interior storage (depending on percentage).
• Inequitable accessory storage allowances.
Option 3 • Relate ma*n um access" sbucWm area to a pwasrtege of tate principal
sbucbu" area A seio0nd option would be to limit garage and accessory structure square
footage to a percentage of the principal structure. For instance, a home of 1.200 square
feet could have a detached double garage with an accessory building threshold of 35%.
A twirdtome would have to contain at least 1,800 square feet to qualify for the equivalent
of an additional Matched three car garage at the 35% ratio.
In calculating the area of the principal structure, it Is m=nmended that such calculation
appy to livable floor mea (as o rrently defined within the ordinance) so as not to penalise
homes which have multiple stories.
The following is a listing of pros and eons associated with this option:
pros
• Such regulation would establish a fixed relationship between dwelling unit living
area and accessory store" apace.
• A desirable building scale may be maintained.
• May encoutsuge Interior storage (dependit on lot coverage
Cora
• Question wish as to %lathier such standards should appy to b AkMg footprint area
or total finW%W squeno foots".
• Adminlsbif3ve calculation of floor areae necessary for all roquoste.
3
JLN-26-1996 1050 NAC 612 595 9637 P.05i13
• Larger principal building areas and accessory storage areas would result in loss of
open space.
Option 4 - Reduce existing roar yard coverage percentage. A fourth option is to utile
the same approach being used cu rerft but reduce the size thresholds. On a •typicar
twinhome lot, the rear yard might be wtpected to be from 2,000 to 2,500 square few in
area. The current regulation of 25% would allow an accessory building of 500 to 625
square feet in this rear yard a two and one-half to three car garage sized building.
Reducing the rear yard lot coverage could reduce the Impact of accessory structures in
twinhome areas. A maldmum of 10% rear yard coverage would limit the twvtmme lot to
an accessory !wilding the size of a single car garage.
The following is a listing of pros and cons associated with this option:
Pros
• Insures consistent amount of open space in rear lot areas.
• Accessory building size allowance not related to principal building size.
Cons
• Administrative calculation of rear yard area necessary.
• Accessory building size allowance not related to principal building size.
• May result in Increased outdoor storage.
Option 5 • Prohibit detached accessory structures upon mall lots. Finally, the City
could choose to eliminate detached accessary structures upon small lob (i.e., <10,000
sq.fL ). Many contomporary twinhame development may atreedy do so with private
Covenants.
The following is a listing of pros and cons associated with this option:
Pros
• would preserve roar yard open space•
• No administrative review.
4
JUN -2&-1996 1058 NRC 612 595 9837 P.06i13
Cons
Equitable treatment of all tvulnhome residents.
May not adequately respond to resident needs.
May discourage further property investment.
May not fly acknowledge existence of single family detached dwellings on
small lots.
L.aW Lot AppLteabiflly
While the focus of this memorandum is on accessory storage requirements as they appy
to small lots. several issues raised may hold applicability to the City's larger single family
residential lots as well. The concept of establishing a reasonable relationship between
accessory building size and lob"ricipal dwelling size may have applicability to all shpts
family residential lots within the City. In this regard, the City may wish to appy such
regulation to all residential zoning districts.
While a simple darifkatlon of the exlatlng ordinarice language would have no impact upon
existing accessory building allowances, an amendment such as that atlached as Exhibit
C would sitar the amount of allowable accessory building space. For example, a home
with 2,000 square feet of livable area on a 12,000 square foot lot could potentially have
a detached accessory structure of 7W square feet (35% of livable area), provided such
structure area would not occupy more than 10% of the rear yard area. With a typical rear
yard area of 5,600 square feet, however, It can be anticipated that a maximum accessory
building size on a typical R-1 District (12,000 square foot) lot would be 560 square feet
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS -
Adoption of amendments to the accessory building end use section of the Zoning
Ordinance which clarify the Ordinance language and continue past City practice of
permitting a detached accessory building of up to 1,000 square feet on residential
lots, in addition to existing, attached garages. This Alternative Is shown as the
proposod Ordinance in attached WWI: B.
Adoption of amendments to the accessory building and use section of the Zoning
Ordinance which place restrictions on the amount of detached accessory aWature
which may be placed on residential lots. in proportion to both the size of the lot, and
the size of the principal structure. This Alternative is shown as the proposed
Ordinance in attached Exhibit C.
d
JLN-28-1996 1050 hK 612 595 9837 P.07i13
3. Tabling of action an any ta, subject to other issues and policies identified
by the City or public. If one of the two proposed Ordinances do not adequately
address the issues and objectives of the City, af0ernative lard should be
discussed for future consideration. Such issues may Include a change In the Citys
position on whether both detiached accessory structures and attached accessory
uses (such as attached garages) should be subject to these regulations. Past City
practice, and the proposed Ordinances, do not Include attached garages in the
calaxlations.
If the City believes that some amount of accessory building should be allowed on small
WA we would , -. . i. J a combination of Option 3 and Option 4. This relates the size
of the accessory building to both the prIncipal building and the lot, which would help to
keep the building In scale with its naighborFhood By ap* ft the combined test of no mac
Chan 35% of livable area of the principal building or 10% of Me raw yard, whhWvww Is
less, a home owner would have the opporGmity to construct a limited amount of accessory
building, but should rat be able to overwAetm the property. A draft Zoning Ordinance
amerdment reltectng such ,,,:..on is enacted as Exdtibft C.
Attached for reference:
Exhibit A - Existing Ordinance Regulations
Exhibit B - Dreft Amendment - Clartfioation of ExIs" Regulations
Exhibit C - Dmft Amendment - Recommended Regulations
C�
AN -28-1996 10:50
NRC 612 995 9831 P•00/13
measurements of such area or width are within
seventy-five (73) percent of the requirements of
this ordinance.
4.
Except in the case of planned unit development as
provided for in Chapter 20 of this ordirtme, not
more than one (1) principal building shall be
located on a lot. The words "principal building"
shall be given their common, ordinary mBaninqj 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 Ccmdesion and City Council.
S.
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.
—�•Z (D) ACCESSORY BUILDINGS, USES, AND EQUIPMERrs
1.
An accessory building shall be considered an
integral part of the building if it is
•principal
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 buildinge and garages shall not exceed
fifteen (IS) feet in height and shall be ten (10)
feet or more from all side lot lines of adjoining
lots, five (S) feet or more from•the rear lot line,
shall be Un (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-tive (29) percent of a rear yard, not
exceed one thousand (1,000) square feet of floor
area.
6.
No. permit shall be issued for the construction of
more than oae (1) private accessory structure for
each dwelling. Bach applicant fora 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)
XMICBLLO ZONING ORDINANCE iXHW A
JUN -28-1996 10:51 NAC 612 595 9837 P.09/13
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.
(E) DRAINAGE PLANS. In the case of all apartment, business,
and industrial developments, a minimum of 3 sets of
drainage plane shall be submitted to the City Engineer
for review, and the final drainage plans shall be
subject to written approval.
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 determined by
the Building Inspector.
All garages and parking facilities shall be situated
such that there will be direct and positive drainage to
the street access at finished grade elevation. All
elevations shall be established prior to.issuance of a
building permit.
occupancy shall not be granted until the builder
certifies conformance with the grading plan for the lot.
The developer shall have a registered land surveyor or
engineer certify that the development has been rough
graded to' within tolerance limits according to the
grading plan.
(P) GENERAL "AMINO, SCREENING, AND LANDSCAPINOt
I. No fence shall exceed six (6) feet in height within
a required yard; and in the case of grade
separation such as the division of properties by a
retaining wall, the height shall be determined on
the baste of measurement from the average point
between the highest and lowest grade.
2. No tones, structure, planting, troes, or shrubs
*hall be permitted within the visibility area of
any corner formed by property linea intersecting
with a railway right-of-way. (The visibility area
roforred to above shall be in the form of a
triangle with two aides formed by the property
lines mentioned and the third aide formed by a
straight line connecting the two (2) twenty-five
(29) toot points on both sides of the corner.)
"ICELLO ZONING ORDINANCE
JUI4-20-1996 10151 NRC 612 595 4837 P.10i13
DRAFT - DRAFT - ORA"
CITY OF MONTICELLO
WRIGHT COUNTY, MINNESOTA
ORDINANCE NO. 96 -—
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 10 OF THE MONTICELLO CITY CODE (THE
ZONING ORDINANCE) ADDRESSING ACCESSORY BUILDINGS, USES AND
EQUIPMENT.
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MONTICELLO DOES HEREBY ORDAIN:
Section 1. Title 10, Sedan 2-2 of the Monticello City Code (Definitions) is hereby
amended to delete the following:
(AA) Accessory Building r use: A subordinate bullding or un which is located
on the same lot on which the main building or use is situated and which is
reasonably neca=uy and incldantel to the conduct cf ft primary use of
such building or mein use.
eoetlon 2 Tile 10, Section 2-2 of the Monticello City Code (Deffnitions) is hereby
amended to add the following:
^•�•1� .;,::.:ate - _ _ - _ .. ... ., r..: r�Y":(•:t��.. :. _�•'
Section B. Title 10, Section 32.0 of the Monticello City Coda (A=anory Building
Requirements) Is hereby amended to read as follows:
(D) ACCESSORY BUILDINGS, USES, AND EQUIPMENT:
An aeeeawy building shall be eonslderW an Integral part of the
principal Wldling H it is conracted to the prircW building either
directly or by an enclosed passageway.
EXHIBIT B
0
JLN-28-1996 1051 NAC 612 995 99.T7 P. 11/13
2. No accessory building shall be erected or located within
any required yard other than the rear yard.
3. MUM axassory buildups shall riot exceed fifteen (15) feet In
height and shall be ten (10) feet or more from all side lot 11nes of
a4 b*V late, five (5) feet or more from the rear lot line, shall be ten
(10) feet or more from any other building or structure an the same lot,
and shall not be located within a utilky easement.
4. NO accessory building shell occupy more than twenty-five
(25) percent of the rear yard, nor exceed one thousand (1,000)
square feet of floor area.
8. No k shall be issued for the construction of more then one (1)
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 space to be used.
S. No accessory uses or equipment such as air conditioning cooling
structures or .. which gene ste noise may be located In a
side yard except for aide yards abutting streets where equipment is
fully screened from view.
Section 4. This Ordinance shall become eftective Immediately upon Its
passage and publication.
ADOPTED by the Morb;a1lo City CwciL this _ day of 1998.
CITY OF MONTICELLO
Brad Fyle, Mayor
ATTEST:
By: Ayes:
Rids VWstaller, Adminletretor NOW
2
0
JUN -2B-1996 1052 NRC 612 595 98Y P. 12,113
DRAFT - DRAFT - DRAFT
CITY OF MONTICELLO
WRIGHT COUNTY, MINNESOTA
ORDINANCE NO. 96 - _
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 10 OF THE MONTICELLO CITY CODE (THE
ZONING ORDINANCE) ADDRESSING ACCESSORY BUILDINGS, USES AND
EQUIPMENT.
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MONTICELLO DOES HEREBY ORDAIN:
Secdon 1. Title 10, Section 2-2 of the Monticello City Code (Definitions) is hereby
amended to delete the following:
(AA) Accesyopf 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 inadentel to the conduct of the primary use of
such building or main use.
Secdw 2 Tale 10, Section 2-2 of the Monticello City Code (Definitions) is hereby
arnendod to add the following:
., a•m• _ -jai,.:._ r ..
-77
tl:a.•�.:1 :: 1. iia •77•..:J�
Section S. Tim 10, Section 32.13 of the Monticello City Code (Accessory Building
Requirements) is hereby emended to read as follows:
(0) ACCESSORY BUILDINGS, USES, AND EQUIPMENT:
An accessory building shall be considerod an Integral part cf the
principal building H It Is connected to the principal building either
directly or by an enclosed passageway.
EXHIBIT C
J
Jllf28-1996 1052 NRC 612 595 9837 P.13i13
2. No accessory building shall be erected or located within
any required yard other than the rear yard.
3. MlffiW accessory buildinp 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 tot tine, shah be Oen
(10) feet «more from any other building or structure on the same lot,
and shall not be located within a utility easement.
4. zu ;
W��r i.i�kJ
le,�.
S. No it shall be issued for the conswctlon of more than one (1)
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 eddition to any garage space to be used.
6. No accessory uses or equipment such as air conditioning cooling
struom or condensers which generate noise may be located In a
side yard except for side yards abutting alreets where equipment is
fully screened from view.
Section 4. Thla Ordinance shall become effective immediately upon Its
pale and publication•
ADOPTED by the Monticello City Council, this _ day of 1996.
CITY OF MONTICELLO
By:
Brad Fyfe, Mayor
ATTEST:
By: Ayes:
Rids Wolfsteller, Administrator Nays:
2
0
TOT$ L P.13
Planning Commission Agenda - 7/2/96
Consideration of a rearseat for asimgle smbdivisiors_ A lira"
Marvel nnBL Motilnn in Lots 2- L 4,,nnd LBlock 2. diver
Terrace subdivision- (J.OJ
A. AFF. CR AND BA .K .RO DM:
Marvel Tru mel requests a simple subdivision that calls for moving the lot
line between Lots A and B toward Lot A a distance of 10 ft. Currently, the
eastern wall of the existing house on Lot B is located directly on the current
lot line. Moving the lot line 10 ft to the east will result in establishment of
the proper setback for the eastern boundary of Lot B. The lot width of Lot A
will be reduced by 10 ft to a width of BO ft, which meets code requirements.
In addition to this simple subdivision, a small triangular piece of land
between the river and Lot B will be separated from its original parcel and
attached to Lot B, thus resulting in Lot B having complete access to the shore
line between the east and west boundaries of the property.
B_ ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. Motion to approve the simple subdivision based on the finding that the
subdliviaion proposed is consistent with code requirements and will
result in setback conformance for the eastern boundary of Lot B
without creating a nonconforming situation on an adjacent lot.
The proposed subdivision will result in establishment of a proper
setback on Lot B and helps to correct a situation caused by a surveying
error that occurred long ago. As you would guess, the surveying error
resulted in the homes in this area being situated approximately 10 ft
east of the proper location.
2. Motion to deny the simple subdivision.
C_ STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends alternative 01.
M SUPPORTING DATA:
Copy of the certificate of survey.
CERTIFICATE OF
I O
7
sent I,nn..1 i..o,,..lb M'.
.e1 Qn J Survey , divide port o/ Loft Marvel T r u n n e 11
it 41%0" Survey
of idsBlock 2 of the
record plot o1 RlWR TERRACE,
and Port of Gov t. Lot 2 of Dot. 0— q xar I P—$.e n,
C ..qA —11
Planning Commission Agenda - 7/2/96
•
As you recall, a few months ago Investors Together presented a request for a
zoning ordinance amendment and conditional use permit which would have
allowed an oil/lube facility to be attached to the existing car wash at the
Riverroad Plaza complex. Planning Commission approved the request and
recommended approval to the City Council. The City Council disagreed with
the recommendation made by the Planning Commission. It was their view
that establishment of an oiUlube facility in a PZM zone was not appropriate
because the oil/lube facility was not, in their view, the type of facility that is
consistent with the purpose of the PZM district. They were also concerned
that it would be difficult to enforce the condition that customers must obtain
service "while you wait." The concern was that people would drop cars off at
the site for overnight and all -day service and that the use of the facility
would be in a manner similar to a major auto repair site.
City Council also discussed the current zoning designation for the area and
was concerned that perhaps the PZM zoning district designation is not
appropriate for this site. Perhaps a lighter intensity highway business
zoning district is appropriate. Such a zoning district would be very similar to
the S-3 zoning district; however, it would not include uses such as outside
sales lots, outside storage, auto body repair, major or minor vehicle repair,
etc. It could include many of the other uses allowed in the A•3 zoning
district.
Planning Commission is asked by Investors Together to consider calling for
a public hearing on amending the zoning ordinance. The Planning
Commission or City Council must initiate the process because a number of
parcels will be affected by any potential zoning map amendment in this area,
and because it is difTrcult for Investors Together to get the signature of every
potential property owner that might be affected by the zoning map
amendment. Planning Commission b asked to discuss the matter and
consider whether or not to call for a public hearing on changing map and text
for land use designations and Hiles for the PZM areae designated on the
official zoning map.
Planning Commission Agenda - 7/7/96
One of the underlying issues that may need to be resolved prior to
establishing the proper land use in this area is the future nature of County
Road CSAR 75. As you know, one of the goals of the Planning Commission is
to determine a proper level of traffic on this roadway. Under our present
course, traffic will continue to grow at this location; and in the neat few
years, the road will be widened to four lanes, which will further enhance the
road as a high traffic volume corridor. However, the comprehensive plan
does express the need to look at diverting traffic from this roadway to protect
the neighborhoods through which it passes. Currently, the Monticello
Community Partners planning effort does include an analysis of the traffic
patterns relating to the downtown area, and it is very likely that the analysis
will include suggestions for CSAH 75. Perhaps it would make sense to wait
until the MCP planning report is done before additional study of the land
uses along CSAH 75 is undertaken.
Motion to call for a public hearing on establishment of land use
regulations and zoning district map amendments in the PZM zone
located in the area of the intersection of CSAH 78 and East County
Road 39.
Motion to deny calling for a public hearing on establishment of land
use regulations and zoning district map amendments.
City staff recognizes that the current zoning designation and regulations
affecting this particular area need to be re-examined. We have already
identified this as a work plan item in our preliminary list of tasks for the
near future. Similarly, our work plan also includes a close review of the PZM
zoning districts in general, which could result in a consolidation or
elimination of the PZM zones. Such land areas affected by this consolidation
would then be zoned for other commercial or residential uses. The question
one has to ask is should we move forward in analysis of this single area
within the city at this time, or should we wait to include the analysis of this
section with the overall review of the PZM zoning district designation?
Another factor encouraging us to wait relates to CSAR 75 and the future
nature of the roadway. If it appears that there will be an effort to limit
traffic on CSAH 76, then we may want to adjust our land use district
accordingly.
Planning Commission Agenda - 7/2196
In sum, it would be great if we could change the ordinance to meet the needs
of the oil/lube facility; however, changing the ordinance and zoning map
district regulations for such a relatively large area while important issues
remain unanswered could backfire, and we may wish we had waited until we
had all the available information before making the changes. Therefore, it is
staffs recommendation that we continue to study the area and be thinking of
possible land use and zoning district regulation adjustments but withhold
conducting formal public hearings on formal amendments until such time
that the MCP study is complete or until such time that the future nature of
CSAH 76 is better understood.
None.
Planning Commission Agenda - 7!7/96
8.
forwarding the ah= to Parlm Ce (J.O.)
Please see attached memo.
150 Fast Broadway
P. O. Box 1147
Monticello, MN
55361.9245
MEMO
Phone: (612) 295.2711
Metro: (612) 333-5739
Fax- (612) 295.4404
TO: Planning Commission Members
FROM: Jeff O'Neill, Assistant Administrator l,F
IoL
DATE: June 19, 1996
RE: Comprehensive plan implementation steps
Steve Grittman and I developed the following preliminary list of possible work activities
for the next year to two-year time &ame. This list is a starting point for discussion. As
you review it, please gauge each item for relative importance and come prepared to discuss
priorities. And, of course, if you have additional items you'd like added to the list, please
jot them down and we can insert them as appropriate.
MONTICELLO ORDERLY ANNESATION/IDWNS1 M)CIITY PLANNING
Submit comprehensive plan to Monticello Orderly Annexation Hoard for adoption.
Once the plan is adopted, then it can become the ikamework for zoning decisions for
the MOAA.
2. Improve the process for coning ordinance amendments at the MOAA level. Possible
approaches are as follows:
A. Request a change to the MOAA guidelines to provide the City with more
authority in regulating activity in the MOA area and possibly granting the
City veto power over zoning ordinance amendments. Currently, Wright
County administers the zoning ordinance in the MOAA following County
zoning regulations. In many communities, the city actually provides the
zoning administration. and city zoning regulations are followed in the MOAA.
The suggestion that the City babically take over planning and zoning in the
Office ofPaeue www,. bas OWC"m Rd. Ala"Wfa AIN 66Ja • Phan: (612) 295 J170 • Pea: (912) 285,1170. a& yr 1
Memo
Planning Commission Members
June 19, 1996
Page 2
orderly annexation area is relatively extreme, and it is doubtful whether the
Township and County would support this concept when it appears that the
MOAA is working fairly well.
In lieu of taking over administration of planning and zoning in the MOAA,
the City should push for a formal review process of all zoning ordinance
amendments, both text and map amendments, in the MOAA. Currently, all
zoning ordinance amendments in the MOAA require a public hearing, which
the City is notified of in advance. If the item is relatively controversial, it
usually comes before the Planning Commission and the City Council before
the City's MOAA representative votes on the matter. It is proposed that the
process be more structured, which would ntQuim Planning Commission and
City Council input prior to MOAA zoning decisions.
C. The MOAA boundaries have not been altered in over 20 years. Due to the
development patterns that have occurred in that time frame, it may make
sense to redraw some of the MOAA boundary lines. There are large areas
that probably will never become part of the city and other areas that are
relatively close to the city where utilities are available that are not in the
MOAA. Perhaps it is time that the City, County, and Township work together
toward shifting the boundaries to more accurately reflect the true urban
planning area for Monticello.
D. The City needs to work with the Township and County toward revision of the
urban service area boundaries. The urban service area is that area in which
development is likely to occur and where annexation requests would not be
contested. The original urban service area boundaries were drawn in the
early 1990'x; and since then, there has been a significant level of development
in these areas, thus the need to push farther out and identify the next tier of
land ready for urbanization.
ZONING MAP AND TEXT AMENDMENTS
Following is a short list of map and text amendments that should be considered for
adoption or at least review in the next two years.
Vynmine thn •M ..ing is riff d aim+wtion L the area of River Suet and the
downtown am . As you know, the Riverstreet Antiques mall was recently changed
from the PZM zoning to the 8.3 zoning. There was a thought that perhaps the
entire der of lots along River Street should receive the same treatment Perhaps a
new zoning designation will spin out of the MCP planning process.
%,o
Memo
Planning Commission Members
June 19, 1996
Page 3
2. Rezon tg he Fdgar Idnraa prosy from thc, current d aiglaa ion of R -a to R-1 or R-2.
3. Complete MCP/Downtown RedeveInjimpitt zoning gnd district regulation
m2dificaf m. Such modifications could consist of changes to the sign ordinance,
adoption of architectural controls, adoption of land use district designations, etc.
4. Update the zoning district remilationg to iny-luelp a designation snedPically suited ►.,
the traditional downtown area. The current regulations governing the old plat are
the R-2 regulations. These regulations are geared almost more specifically for
urbanizing areas rather than traditional old town areas. Perhaps it would make
sense to create a new zoning district that applied specifically to the original plat of
the city.
6. Too murk PZQ? There has been discussion that perhaps there is too much PZM
property identified in the city. There is a concern that the PZM inventory may
invite apartment building development that is not necessarily desired. There is also
concern that the PZM designation does not provide enough specific direction as to
the type of development desired in the PZM areas and that perhaps the City should
eliminate PZM or reduce the PZM areae.
In a related matter, the Planning Commission needs to look at the lb -acre Gladys
Hoglund property along with the entire area generally located at the intersection of
East County Road 39 and 75 as far west as the wastewater treatment plant.
Currently, this is a P2W area that has some strong highway business attributes, but
yet it may be somewhat sensitive to many of the uses found in a B-3 zone; therefore,
it might make sense to create another zoning district for tine area.
Currently, the zoning ordinance includes four
commercial zones which do not fit the way commercial activity occurs in Monticello.
The City has some highway -oriented commercial, traditional downtown, a non-
traditional downtown expansion area, and some typical suburban shopping areas.
The B-3 district is an adequate highway commercial district, and the B-4 is a good
representation of the suburban shopping district; however, the traditional and non-
traditional downtown areas don't have very good representation in the zoning
ordinance.
Low -Density Reaid n ial ., ing. 'There has been interest given to the creation or
modification of a residential district to encourage larger homes. Providing a specific
zone for high valuo homes supporta the goal statement of high-quality residential
development at all price ranges. We need to determine if the current R-1 district
O
Memo
Planning Commission Members
June 19, 1996
Page 4
standards meet this goal, or should they be modified. Should the City designate an
"R" district which might require 20,000 sq ft lots, and should the City establish an
"R" district which would allow 2 -acre unsewered lots.
General Perfo ancp RfandaUU. General performance standards appear to be
fairly well up-to-date with the exception of the application of the downtown area
currently being studied by the MCP. The areas of concern might relate to sign
standards. What kind of commercial signage does the City want? This philosophy
should be identified and translated to the ordinance. Some cities want to encourage
creativity, some want only to do whatever the commensal businesses want, and
some want to create a consistent theme. In order to limit sign variance requests,
identification of a clear sign regulatioa objective would help result in a sign
ordinance which the City and the businesses understand and support.
119d&t&-Yzc�wce Procedure. Currently, the procedure for processing variances is
not in step with State Statutes and is somewhat awkward and inconsistent in its
application. We would recommend that the variance procedure be reviewed and
brought up to date.
10. R +ainpaa rampim District Rpm ,tatlons. There has been some discussion that
perhaps the requirement that 30% of the land be used for green space is somewhat
extreme and not providing additional value to the business campus area. In
exchange for removing this requirement, perhaps stronger, more clear landscaping
and building facade requirements could be adopted and/or the requirement that
irrigation be included in the code. Also, irrigation requirements could be introduced
in exchange for reducing green space requirement.
11. Pelp SL i=. Regulation of pole buildings was deferred pending completion of the
comprehensive plan. Now that the plan is complete, we need to determine if pole
buildings in commercial and industrial areas should be regulated.
12. ScrapninB Fence S ndard& Screening fence standards need to be reviewed and
modified. The cyclone fence with slats technique currently used by facilities such as
Custom Canopy and NSP Service Center do not appear to meet the intent of a
screening requirement. Perhaps the ordinance should be modified to more clearly
delineate acceptable screening fence design.
Memo
Planning Commission Members
June 19,19%
Page 5
Ct3AH 75
Increases in regional and commuter truck and auto traffic is affecting the value of land on
Broadway and negatively impacting local traffic patterns. As discussed in the
comprehensive plan, the City needs to determine if steps should be taken to quiet traffic on
CSAR 75. A position needs to be established soon.
RUFF AUTO PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMM
City staff and Ruff Auto need to get together to develop a long-term PUD plan for the
facility. This was a condition of allowing a recent expansion to the Ruff Auto office
bmilding.
ADMINISTRATIVE IMES
1. Fee S yg,cbire. The comprehensive plan says that growth should pay for itself in
terms of infrastructure development. The City currently has sewer, water, and
storm sewer access fees that need to be revised from time to time to make sure that
existing development does not subsidize growth. This also relates to park dedication
fees. Perhaps it is time that the Planning and Parke Commissions work together
toward development of a park dedication fee or pathway fee that will enable us to
meet City goals in this regard.
2, Planniner Coat Recovery, Currently, the City attempts to recover costs for consulting
fees from development; however, no cost for other administrative time is recovered.
Perhaps it would make sense to increase the fee structure to allow us to recover
more administrative expense. This additional revenue source could help us justify
an additional staff person to help us complete the ongoing work of planning and
zoning.
g. Code Eahreemant. We do a fairly good job at making sure that all new development
meets code. We are not as good at policing violations to the code by established
property owners. The credibility of the zoning ordinance requires at least some level
of enforcement. At this point in time, our enforcement efforts are very weak.
Without additional stuff, it is not likely that we will be able to do any additional
code enforcement without elimination of other duties.
4, nAnerxi Lntegtation of HRA ftnd Park Planlang. As you know, a few months ago we
met to discuss joint planning between Parks, Planning Commission, and HRA Now
that the comprehensive plan is complete, we can use it as a guideline for developing
specific work plane for the three organizations so that we are all pulling in the same
direction. I would support that the Planning Commission complete its preliminary
0
Memo
Planning Commission Members
June 19, 1996
Page 6
work plan and submit it to the HRA and Parks Commission as food for thought for
both of these commissions as they begin working on their own work plans. At some
point in the next few months, we could bring the plans together, discuss them at a
joint meeting, and come to the City Council with an integrated plan. It is critical
that this integrated plan be prepared in time for budget setting for August 1997.
b. Sung. Accomplishment of the tasks set out in these pages will require a
significant effort. Given the level of day -today activity resulting from ongoing
development pressure, it would be unrealistic to expect that staff at its current level
will be able to adequately support the Planning Commission in completing even the
high priority items. As part of the process of defining tasks and task priorities, we
need to come up with a plan for providing sufficient staffing and our consultant
support. Is it time to hire a planner or increase Steve Grittman/NAC's presence or
shift city staff responsibilities? We need to study the options and make a
recommendation for inclusion in the 1997 budget.
6. Report r.Anaration. Most cities and counties complete annual reports that describe
planning and zoning trends in terms of planning case and building construction
activity. The budgets for the departments from year to year derive from the
statistics/trends defined in the annual report. Unfortunately, we have never done
an annual report. I think it is time that we start. The information could certainly
help Planning Commission and City Council with decision-making relative to
staffing and land use.
7. tio s/fo leas+ and h ap 1 on Our record for providing good,
immediate follow-up with applicants has been poor. We need to do a better job at
summarizing Council action to applicants. For instance, all conditional use permit
conditions should be outlined in writing to applicants immediately after Council
action. This is rarely done.
8. GM. Geographic information systems and computerisation of parcel data needs to
be explored.
9. Internat. nvnlimtionp. There are all sorts of ways that cities are using the internet
to provide better access to city information. Many planning departments have data
available like the subdivision ordinances, zoning ordinances, and so forth. This is
another area that needs to be explored.
Memo
Planning Commission Members
June 19, 1996
Page 7
SUBDPASION REGULATIONS
From time to time there has been talk of looking at our subdivision design standards. It
may make sense to re-examine sidewalk, pathway, and road width standards in new
subdivisions in an effort to make sure that the design of subdivisions encourages the types
of neighborhoods and environment that we want to have developed in the community.
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLANNING
A very important area that has been given very little attention is maintenance of a 5 -year
capital improvement program. A capital improvement program is important because it
identifies the major infrastructure and equipment needs of the City and identifies
appropriate funding sources. To some extent, the success of the comprehensive plan
depends on establishment of financing strategies necessary to support capital
improvements needed to support the comprehensive plan. The City has done a fairly good
job of inventorying major infrastructure needs in the areas of road development, sanitary
sewer system expansion, public works building expansion, and wastewater treatment
plant expansion. We have done a fair job of projecting our needs in the area of park
development. What we don't have is an integrated financial model showing exactly what
money is available to complete which projects by what time period. It is critical that we
begin to identify major projects and agree as to the method for funding these projects so
that in the future we aren't saddled with huge expenses to complete projects done on
almost an emergency basis.
Following are projects that have been identified as necessary improvements but are not
identified on a financial plan. Please note this is only a partial listing.
1. Orchard Roadll-94 interchange
2. Fallon Avenue overpass
3. City park developments in the River Mill, Klein Farms, and downtownt
river area
4. Chelsea/Highway 28 corridor improvements
b. Downtown redevelopment activity, including land acquisition and
demolition
8. Major storm sewer improvements
7. Expansion of city hall
S. Development of ramps at County Road 1184-94
Memo
Planning Commission Members
June 18, 1996
Page 8
The projects identified above are just a beginning to the list that could be assembled of all
the projects that will need to be completed as the city grows. We need to come up with a
statement (capital improvement plan) which identifies how these projects are going to be
funded using sources such as general taxes; tax increment finandng pooled fimds; access
fees, including sanitary sewer, storm sewer, water, etc.; special assessments; and others.
Similarly, we do not have a plan for expansion of manpower needs necessary to meet a set
standard for service provided by various departments. This is not a planning item but is
noteworthy.