Loading...
Planning Commission Agenda Packet 08-06-1996AGENDA REGULAR MEETING - MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMffiMON Tuesday, August 6, 1998 - 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 July 2, 1996. 3. Consideration of adding items to the agenda. 4. Citizens comments. 6. Public Hearing --Consideration of granting a Special Home Occupation Permit to allow a furniture repair and refinishing business in a single family residence. Location: Lot 2, Block 7, Lower Monticello. Applicant, Ronald and Mary Hall. 6. Public Hearing --Consideration of an amendment to the zoning ordinance establishing a new zoning district known as "B -3A", Neighborhood Automotive Related Use District. Applicant, Monticello Planning Commission. 7. Public Hearing --Consideration of an amendment to the zoning map of the city of Monticello rezoning from "PZM" (Performance Zone - Mixed) to "B -3A," Neighborhood Automotive Related Use District. Location: That portion of the present PZM District generally east of the municipal wastewater treatment plant north of County Road 76. Applicant, Planning Commission/Investors Together. 8. Public Hearing --Consideration of a request for a conditional use permit to allow the establishment of an oilAubo service facility in the B -3A District. Location: Lot 3, Block 1, Macarland Plaza. Applicant, Investor's Together. 9. Public Hearing --Consideration of amendments to the Monticello Zoning Ordinance regulating the number, sirs, and use of accessory buildings in residential zoning districts. Applicant, Planning Commission. 10. Consideration of allowing a simple subdivision. Applicant, Phyllis Link. 11. Consideration of allowing a simple subdivision. Applicant, Ron Ruff. 12. Adjournment. MINUTES REGULAR MEETING - MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday, Judy 2,1898 - 7 p.m. Members Present: Dick Frie, John Bogart, Richard Carlson, Members Absent: Richard Martie, Rod Dragsten Staff Present: Jeff ONeill, Joe Merchak, Steve Grittman, Wanda Kraemer Chairman Frie called the meeting to order. •I 1 1 1 J 11=11•f��.l ll>1:l�Fhi�� COMMISSIONER CARLSON MADE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE MINUTES, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER BOGART. MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. Chairman Frie commented on how attractive the new office building for Value Plus Homes, Inc. is and encouraged the Commissioners to visit the site. He also thought the landscaping and pathway along School Blvd was a great addition to the area. 3, VnnFaitipratinn of atiins items to thp agnnelfl. There were no items added to the agenda. There were no citizens comments. � f 1 fl 11 1 1 PRIM:! 1,111 Jeff O'Neill, Assistant Administrator, reported Steve Birkeland was requesting an amendment to a conditional use permit which would allow expansion of the outside storage area at the Custom Canopy facility. The expansion proposed would more than double the existing storage area. The proposed plan would extend the storage area an additional 100 ft to the north and 50 ft to the west. Birkeland would extend the screening fence accordingly. In the past, City staff has noticed and documented the following activities at the site that are not consistent with code. Page 1 0 Planning Commission Minutes - 7/02/96 1. Space necessary for employee parking along the rear of the structure is being used for storage. 2. Vehicles are parking in the ditch or on the rigbt-0f--way due to parking space used for storage. 3. Material is being stored at an 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. b. The gate to the storage area is always open. According to code, the gate should be do" to assure proper screening. O'Neill then listed conditions that needed to be discussed: a benchmark for future construction should be established, the fence style should be enhanced, a guard or protective railing should be added to avoid running into the fence, additional plantings along Fallon Ave, expansion should allow more room for employee parking, gate should be closed or add a partial fence on the inside so storage area cannot be seen. Steve Grittman, City Planner, added there is nothing in our ordinance that regulates the size of outdoor storage. There are many ways to regulate the size of outdoor storage; examples- percentage of the principal building, by the parking demands, type of business, or a combination. Chairman Frio stated if the City can justify parking then outdoor storage should be regulated. O'Neill added when the bridge over Fallon has been completed Custom Canopy will be the entrance to the Industrial Park. Thia is another reason to require the storage area to be well maintained. The Planning Commission should also consider the effect of outdoor storage area in regards to storm water runoff and storm water trunk fees. Chairman Frio opened the public hearing. Steve Birkeland, owner, drew on the overhead where an additional paint building would be added in conjunction with the outdoor storage. He then stated his business had tripled in the last three years and about ten employees work two different shifts. The employees have been instructed not to park in the ditch and with the expansion the parking this should be corrected. He has plans for another building within a year. Page 2 O Planning Commission Minutes - 7/02/96 Commission Bogart added a wood fence will deteriorate faster and require a high amount of maintenance. He prefers slats in industrial storage areas. Joe Merchak, Chief Building Official, stated according to code a fence should withstand 80 m.p.h. winds. Steve Birkeland replied the fence he constructed was supposed to withstand 80 m.p.h. winds but did not. Chairman Frie stated the industrial park is not intended to be Beverly Hills but certain requirements need to be enforced. Every building should be required to have a sign. Chairman Frie asked Mr. Birkeland if he was aware of the conditions on the original cup. Birkeland was aware of the screening and parking conditions but his business has grown so fast he has not kept up with the details. He was not aware of the gate being open all day and the expansion should correct the parking. Chairman Frie Closed the public hearing. The Commissioners discussed the screening and it was agreed a combination of slats and evergreen trees would provide the beat solution. A combination of the two will break the monotony of a large fence along the street and still provide adequate screening of the outdoor storage. COMMISSIONER CARLSON MADE A MOTION, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER BOGART, TO APPROVE THE AMENDMENT TO THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT ALLOWING EMPANSION TO THE OUTSIDE STORAGE AREA BASED ON THE FINDING THAT THE OUTSIDE STORAGE WITH THE CONDITIONS AS NOTED IS CONSISTENT WITH THE CHARACTER OF THE AREA AND CONSISTENT WITH THE PURPOSE OF THE I-2 ZONE: 1. THE ENTIRE FENCE SYSTEM MUST BE REPLACED WITH A FENCE AND TREE SYSTEM THAT ACHIEVES 9D% OPACITY. 2. PLACEMENT OF SUITABLE MATERIALS AS A BASE TO CONTROL DUST, ECT. 3. PLANT ADDITIONAL EVERGREEN TREES TO THE EAST AND NORTH SIDE OF THE LOT IN ACCORDANCE WITH CODE AND APPROVAL OF CITY STAFF. 4. PROVIDE ADDITIONAL PARKING AREA OR ALTER USE OF EXISTING PARKING AREAS NOT BEING USED FOR STORAGE. Page 3 0 Planning Commission Minutes - 7/02/96 REMOVE GATE AND INSTALL A SECTION OF SCREENING FENCE AT LEAST 50 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. OUTDOOR AREAS SHOULD BE USED ENTIRELY FOR STORAGE AND NOT USED FOR PRODUCTION ACTIVITIES. Motion passed unanimously. Steve Grittman, City Planner, reported in review of the City's existing accessory building regulations it is unclear whether maximum area requirements are to include (or exclude) attached garages. Past city policy has been to exempt attached garages from the maximum area requirements stipulated in the ordinance. Thus, the listed area requirements apply only to detached accessory structures. The city policy needs be clarified. The City Council could be asked to established a moratorium on this issue until regulations for accessory structures on small lots can be studied. Grittman gave four possible options: 1. Retain Existing Regulations . clarify the terms accessory building and accessory use. 2. Institute a maximum lot (building) coverage requirement. 3. Relate maximum accessory structure area to a percentage of the principal structure area. 4. Reduce existing rear yard coverage percentage. (rear yard calculation) 5. Prohibit detached accessory structures upon small lots. The Planning Commissioners discussed the report by Grittman and asked Joe Merchak, Chief Building Official, his opinion for enforcement. Merchak requested more time to research the item. COMMISSIONER BOGART MADE A MOTION, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER CARLSON, TO TABLE THE CONSIDERATION TO AMEND THE GENERAL REGULATIONS UNTIL THE NEXT REGULAR MEETING, PERTINENT TO ACCESSORY STRUCTURES UNTIL STAFF CAN FURTHER RESEARCH THE ISSUE. ALSO, RECOMMEND TO THE CITY COUNCIL AN EXTENSION OF THE MORATORIUM FOR 10 DAYS. Motion passed unanimously. Page 4 9 Planning Commission Minutes - 7/02/96 Steve Grittman, City Planner, reported Marvel Trunnel is requesting a simple subdivision that calls for moving the lot line between Lot 2, Block 2, and Lot 3, Block 2, River Terrace toward Lot 3 a distance of 10 ft.. The eastern wall of the existing house on Lot 3 is located directly on the current lot line. Moving the lot line 10 ft. to the east will result in establishment of the property setback for the eastern boundary of Lot 3. The lot width of Lot 2 will be reduced by 10 R to a width of 80 ft, which meets code requirements. In addition to this simple subdivision, a small triangular piece of land between the river and Lot 3 will be separated from its original parcel and attached to Lot 3, resulting in Lot 3 having complete access to the shore line between the east and west boundaries of the property. Chairman Frie opened the public hearing. Casey Fjellberg, realator forTrunnel, explained years ago there was a survey error and the garage is on the property line. A simple subdivision would correct this and allow Maravel Trunnel to have a buildable lot. Marvel Trunnel, owner of property, stated she requested this simple subdivision to allow her to sell one lot and keep the other lot to build on in the future. Chairman Frie closed public hearing COMMISSIONER BOGART MADE A MOTION, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER CARLSON, TO APPROVE THE SIMPLE SUBDIVISION BASED ON THE FINDING THAT THE SUBDIVISION 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. Motion passed unanimously. 8. rnnaidnration of n request for ap public he ring on an ordinance text nmPnAment creating n now •B" Yone anti i`n_cluden menta in the Riverroad Plea am _ Apphennt„ Investors To$n h r Joff O'Neill, Assistant Administrator, reported a few months ago Investors Together had requested 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 Riveroad Plaza complex. The 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 oil/lubo 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 Page 5 Planning Commission Minutes - 7/02196 enforce the condition that customer 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. The Planning Commission is being 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 difficult for Investors Together to get the signature d every potential property owner that might be affected by the zoning map amendment. Planning Commission is asked to discuss the matter and consider whether or not to call for a public hearing on changing map and teat for land use designations and rules for the PZM areas designated on the official zoning map. Staff recommends waiting until the Monticello Community Partners (MCP) receives information on the traffic studies being conducted. Ken Schwarze, applicant, was confused as to why the Planning Commission would pass the request for a Quick Lube 4 to 1 and the City Council would unanimously deny the request. Schwarze added that he had tacked to many of the neighboring property owners and most of them were in favor of the Quick Lube. Dean Hoglund, applicant, stated this impression cuss the City Council thought it was a good idea but not in a PZM zone. O'Neill added there is a considerable amount of discussion regarding the traffic in this area. Would it be better to wait until the MCP studies are completed before continuing the rezoing? Chairman Frie's recommendation was to call for the public hearing and put the issues on the table, open this to the community for discussion. The Commissioners discussed other areas that are pending in this area that could bo affected by this decision: changing Cty Rd 76 to a four lane, using 7th Street as main thoroughfare through town, prohibiting truck traffic on Cty Rd 75, creating a way to slow traffic down on Cty Rd 75 with stop signs. and traffic volumes. CHAIRMAN FRIE MADE A MOTION, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER CARLSON, TO CALL FOR A PUBLIC HEARING ON AN ORDINANCE TEXT AMENDMENT CREATING A NEW "B" ZONE AND INCLUDE ZONING MAP AMENDMENTS IN THE RIVERROAD PLAZA AREA. Motion passed unanimously. The Commissioners discussed the implementation steps addressed in Jeff O'Neill, Page 6 d' Planning Commission Minutes - 7/02196 Assistant Administrator, letter June 19, 1996. The items that should be added to the list of work activities were: discussion on pole buildings, extend pathway system, create a safe pedestrian crossing over I.94 and at a location on West River Street, follow up on conditions that applicants are required to do, and address outside storage. O'Neill would formate the items into a budge form and send to Parks Commission and HRA for their information and feed back. Jeff O'Neill added that it might be beneficial for a representative from the Planning Commission to be on the MOAA, Monticello Orderly Annexation Area. This is an important link in the planning process. 10. A;o_UMMMA. COMMISSIONER CARLSON MADE A MOTION, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER BOGART, TO ADJOURN THE MEETING. Respectfully submitted, Wanda Kraemer Development Services Technician Page 7 Planning Commission Agenda - 8/6/98 Please am the attached planning report from Northwest Associated Consultants, Inc. ��fyJG 01-1996 1509 NRC 612 595 98r P.01/04 INA Northwest Associated Consultants, Inc. C COMMUNITY PLANNING - DESIGN - MARKET RESEARCH PLANNING REPORT TO: Monticello Mayor and City Council Monticello Planning Commission FROM: Madhulika ShVh/Stephen Grittman DATE: 1 August 1996 RE: Monticello - Ron Hall's Home Occupation Permit FILE NO: 191.07 - 96.08 ConsldeMon pf A sneelnl home 2gaiMon oannit for Mr_ Ron Hall to operate a f imth" rmmlr and flnlaMnq office at his noidence at 412 Ir RMer Street. A. __ REcERENCEAN13 BACKGROUND. W. Ron Hail has requrested a special have occupation permit to operate a fumiture repair and finishing office at his reside= at 413 E. River Street The proposed business eouceeds the requirement of a permitted home occupation (by conducting the business in an accessory building mid providing repair services which require equipment oar than customarily found in a home), therefore, the processing of a'special home occupation' is necessary. zoning. The subject property is zoned R-1, Single Family Residential District, vAieh lisle home occupations as permitted aeoeseory uses. Busirms Oosalptlom The proposed home occupation is a fumiture repair and finishing office. According to the applicant, most of the wak is done on site In ft garage located which is an accessory use to the applicant's residence. Use huari ft. The applicant has Indicated that no other person 011ier than the realdont vAll conduct the furniture repair business. No intands to make the furniture pick-up and drop-off himsolf at the customers place of resklenoe. The applicant has not specified any oHiee hams. As a caidMon of home occupation 1 5. 5775 Wayzata Blvd. • Suite 555 • St. Louis Park, MN 55418 - (612) 595 -9836 -Fax. 5998 7 S PLC -01-1996 1509 NAC 612 595 9837 P.02/04 approval, findings should be made by the City that the proposed business use intensity does not constitute the primary use of the property and is consistent with the intent of the Ordinance. Processing. According to Chapter 3-11, (C) 2, of the Zoning Ordinance. special home occupations must be applied for, reviewed and disposed of in acm lance with the provision of Chapter 22, Administration - Conditional Use Permit, of the Ordinance. The planning commission shall consider possible adv6rse effects of the proposed conditional use. Its judgment shall be based upon (but not limited to) the following factors: 1. Relationship to the municipal Cormpreheru" Plan. 2. The geographical area involved. 3. Whether such use will tend to or actually depredate the area In which it is proposed. 4. The character of the surrounding area. 5. The demonstrated need for such use. Craws Plan. The Comprehensive Plan does not include any specific ponies relating to home occupation establishment. It does, however, specifically promote compmble lend use relationships. While the City Zoning Ordinance rm ites allowance for such home occupations In residential areas, it is the dear trtent of the Comprehensive plan to allow such uses to the extent that they do not Jeopardize the health, safety and general welfare of the surrounding neiglIftwhoods. Nuisance C harecWtelllm According to Chapter 3.11 (o) of the Zoning Ordinance, no home ooaipatbrt mey produce light, On, choke, fumes, odor or vibr*n that will in any way have an oboct1woble effect upon adjacent or nearby property. According to the property owner, the proposed furniture repair services will not produce any nuisance ahemctsrtsfim. Non-aompliancs with this provision of the Ordinance will Justify revocation of the special home oaupation permit Building Altorallim The applicant intends to locate their Mw in their garage for storage and repair of Aad4re. Hence, no building alteration Is proposed by the applImm Firo/Building Codes. As a condition of home occupation approval, the applicant must demonstrate compllanas with all applicable local state fire and buMIng codes. This includes machinery and dectrlcal seMce needs, as well as waste dlsV=I. The applicant 0 ALG -01-1996 1510 NAC 612 5% 9837 P.&VU should identify wastes and the methods of handling them. This issue should be subject to future comments by the City Building Inspector. Exterior Storage. There will be no exterior sto-age of materials or equipment used In conjunction with the proposed home occupation. As a condition of home occupation approval. the exterior storage of business related materials shall not be allowed. Slnage. According to the City Zoning Ordinance, the exterior display of signage which is visible from outside the dwelling is prohibited for home occupations. The applicant has not specified whether any business related signage is to be erected as a result of the proposed use. Hours of Operadom The City Ordinance stipulates that no home occupation may by wed between the hags of 10:00 PM and 7:00 AM unless the occupation is contained entirety within the principal building and will not require any off-street parking facilities. The applicant must clearly Identity their business office hours and comply with the Zoning Ordinance requirement. Off -Street ParkinglTrafIie Oeneradom Aeoording to the City Ordinance, no home a= orations may be permitted which results in or generates more traffic than one ear for off-street parking at any given point of time. The applicant has indicated that the customer; will not come to the piece of business and therefore off-sb," parking may not be an Issue. Approve the special home o=pation permit foram year under the conditions laid out in the staff recommendation section of ha report Deny the special home permit request if the Council makes a determination that this activity is not in the character of o residential neighborhood. While special tome occupations are permitted in a R-1 District ft City should make a determination as to the aeeeptabllily of the proposed intensity. If the city judges the Intensity of business use to be acceptable, we would . . J approval of the requested special home oca petion permit for one yaw and subject to the conditions listed below. The applicant would have to reapply for a permit after this period and any renewal shall be processed with the pmoed<ral requirements of the initial special 0 PUG -01-1996 15310 NF1C 612 595 9837 P.04iO4 home occwpartion permit. 1. No home ocxupation shall produce Ilpht glare, noise, odor, or vibmtfon that wM in any way have an objectionable effect upon a4ac ent or nearby property. 2. No equipmant shall be used in the harm coa.ilurtion vhich will create electrical .., . . C to surrounding properties. 3. Any hone occupation shall be dearly inci *ntal and secondary to the residential use of the prandses. 4. No internal or external struchue etteratiaro shall fake place which are not customary to residential dwellings. S. No exterior storage of business related materiels take place on the eft. 6. The spedal home occupation comply with ell applicable fire and buildhg codes. This issue should be subject to fur w con M by the City Building Inspector. 7. There shall be no exterior display or aterlor algns or interior display or interior signs vhc h are visible from outside the dwelling with the w=ptton of the resident Www fintlon sign. S. Moms owupatioh aettvitka occur between the hours of 7:00 AM and 10:00 PK 9. No home occupation shall be penNtted wAdoh results in or generates more traffic than one car for off W" parking at any ghen point of time. 10. The t.:itjr reserves the right to uta o the pi w (within reasonable hours vAftLa notice) to ensure compliance with the conditions of special home ooarpations license �usuanoa. 11. Cornrh wds from other city Stell. il. &o..t,S ,3LL,6--ns�P�ak C. 4.(.-& 4 S M Planning Commission Agenda - 8/6/98 Please see the attached planning report from Northwest Associated Consultants, Inc. PLG -01-1996 1500 NRC 612 5% 9877 P.02i09• JrNNorthwest Associated Consultants, Inc. C COMMUNITY PLANNING • DESIGN • MARKET RESEARCH `- JO MEMORANDUM TO: Monticello Planning Comm"ian Jeff O Neill FROM: Stephen Grittman DATE: August 1, 19% RE: Monticello - Zoning Ordinance Amendment - B -3A District FILE NO: 191.05 -96.08 Conadderation of an Amendment to floe Mor0cello Zoning Ordinance estebilahing anew Zoning Dlatrkt known as "8,1A. Neighborhood Automotive Related Use Dietrict". Applicant • Monticello Planning Conardsslon. A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: The City recently fumed down a request to add Aaomotive Maintenance facilities, such as Oil and Lube shops, to the B-2 or PZM Districts, which would have allowed hvestan Together to construct such a facility rear the Tctel Mart station on east County 76. A follow up approadi berm proposed is the ostatillshrnwn of a limited business district in the area which would permit the type of Commercial estaNshment requested by Investors Together- However. thero was concern that a B-3 District would not be eppropriste in this location, since it would allow the full range of automotive related uses. As a result a modified B-3 Distriq U baied'B.W to proserned for the Citys consideration. This district is anOed to allow limited oommerdal uses which are of a convenlerice nature and compatbb with , � '.. — J residerdial uses. Shos the discussion of this issue was generated by the tnveetore Together proposal for a all/lube facility, stat! !las , .... 1 1. 1 ., J tlds use into the now district, utilizing the criteria which were discussed In the previous text amendment proposal 5775 Wayzata Blvd. • SUte 555 • St. Louis Park. MN 55416 - (612) 595 -9636 -Fax. 5935 RLIG-01-1996 1500 NRC 612 995 9837 P. 03/M The need for this district essentially eines down to whether the City believes that its current zoning districts do an adequate job of providing a full range of business opportunity. Staff has suggested that there is a need for a better definition of downtown commercial in order to accomplish the objectives of the Comprehensive Pian. The oil/lube facility would currently fa within the B3 District along with other auto -related businesses, and the City was not tndhW to change this at the time of the previous request. The Monticello Community Partners have also been studying these issues, pi h,= ly from the perspective of the effect on downtown commercial center activity. The concern which was raised over the 'Automotive Maintenance' use, as distinguished from'Automoth a ReW is that it would be difficult to regulate the maintenance use and keep it dim expandahg into a more Intensive activity. For instance, the ordinance suggests that the intent of the Conditional Use is to allow'whI& you -waif services. Assuming that the business will have busy periods, some stadcmg and parking of vehicles will probably occur. This becomes a problem for the City when the storage Iasis for more then a few minutes. Is one hour too long? One afternoon? All day? The City would be required to monitor how long individual vehicles are being stored on-site to ascertain compliance. Moreover, as the busirms grows and expands its range of services, this problem could became more intense. A second concern to whether or not such facilities we truly 'neighborhood convenience commerciar. It has been wgpeated that neighborhood converderm infers frequent trips, such as the convenience store, the gasoline station, or even the car crash. Under this demotion, automotive maintenance would be excluded since It Is WwIY to attract business from any perticutar consumer at a rete of one trip per every two or three months. With such infrequent patronage, such a use should be located in areas of similar patronage. Approve the Zoning Ordinance Amendment ereaWg a'B-A District, as submitted. Approval of the amendment should be based upon findings which ktW*fy a need for the zoning ditbid to provide adequate business opportunity, in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan. Approve the Zoning Ordinanea Amendment avathng a'B-W District, as amended In discussion. If the city belkrves that the 53A District is an important tool to provide, and control, business opporamty, but that the flet of proposed uses in the draft district ordinance needs to be dhanped, lifts Alternative should be d=en. The City should Included findings as to the need for the new district in achieving the goals of the Comprefhanalve Plan. �01 PUG -01-1996 15.01 NRC 612 595 9837 P. 04/M Denial of the Ordinance amendment aeattkg a'B3A' District. Thls option should be based upon a fu dhlg that the aurerd =ing distrlcLs adeouetely further the objectives of the Connive Plan, at least in the areas which would be affected by this amendment. C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION., Vile recommend denW of the B3A Mid Amendment. In our view. the current 13-2 and B3 DWride do a reasanable Job of d w ft the varbus types of commercial Lives, wMmA a loss d lard use control As we had wed hi dtscussbm i eN cib g knplemertMon of the CornprehermM Plan, the primary c000ern over the City's Zoning Ondine m fin in the need to better address a downtown dWMM Staff bed wo do the dhotbubm between Automotive Repair and Auto Wm K:,, :. could be a legitimate one. However, the prdit ns with tAme growth, and the CvVo rode in a ftoso neo would override fts dletifctbrt VYb do not believe that the City mn What cl a igb oU b f bre, but cl w ghtg beb is not. The City may regulated the knpaote on land use. The attempt to distinguish between the two uses is based on impacts, such 0 the storage of aLgnu* n for service. As noted previously, as the buslnm Wows, Mts blue is likely to beoome more difficult for the Gy to e*m. Prevlou*. Me City hes said that it would not approve the addition of AuutanWw bt:'. ,,: ,:.. ; to ttte R DftK due to these some conn s. VVe here seen no" that would after the City's view d to issue. Wth the B3A Dlatria lea son d bridge between 6-2 and B3 uvea, the issue of erdormwd for the Automo%m Mahtei m mull du be preseft —DA-111•.1"�.',� ' 7 D RJG-Ol-1996 15:01 NRC city of Moaftefflo, MhMmea 612 595 9037 P.OS/W AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TTIIX 10, CBAMMS 4 AND 13 OF THE MONTICELLO CITY CODE, KNOWN AS THE ZONING ORDINANCE, BY ADDING A NEW DISTRICT TO BE MOWN AS -133A, NELGHBOREMOM AMD -RELATED BUSINESS DISTRICT' AS CHAPTER 13A. The City Council of the City of Maedcello hereby ate: Section L ChWw 4, Subd. [B] is hemby ameodad to mad as follows: iB] BUSnMSS DISTRICPS: 1. B-1, neighborhood business district 2. 8-2, limited business district 3. B-3, highway business district 4. B -3A, neighborhood auto -related business district 5. B-4, regional business district Section 2. Cbq=13 is beneby amendbd by adding the following: CBAPTBR 13A -8.3A' NBIGBBOmm AUTO-RBI,ATsD SIIsnma DISTRICT SBCTION: 13A-1: Purpose 13A-2: Permitted Uses 13A-3: Permitted Accessory Uses 13A-41 Conditional Uses 13A-1: PURPOSS: The purpose of the 'B -3A- Neiggbborhood Auto - related easiness District is to establish appropriate locations for neighborhood comsssreial areas slhieh provide convenience or automobile related services for local markets, but not intensive automotive sales or repair. This district should be located in arras of good intra. community access, and may be in close proximity to 0 ciUG�l-19% 15:01 NX 612 595 9837 P.06i09 residential areas where substantial steps are made to mitigate possible adverse effects of cconrcial use on the neighborhood. The B -3A District will be distinguished from the more inclusive B-3 District which will also allow commercial uses which attract a significant level of regional traffic in addition to local markets. 13A-2 : PERMIT= USES. The following are Permitted uses in a 'B -3A' district: (A1 All permitted uses as allowed in a 'B-11 and 'B-21 district. (B) Auto accessory sales store, but not service. (CI Private clubs or lodges as permitted in a 'B-31 district. 13A-3 : ACCESSORY USES: The following are permitted accessory uses in a 'B -3A district: (A) All permitted accessory uses as allowed in a 'B-2' district. 13A-4: CORDITIONAL USES: The following are conditional uses in a 'B -3A' district: [A) COMMBitCIAL RECRUTIOMT USES, PROVZDBD THAT: 1. Setbacks and site design for all buildings comply with the buffer zone requirements of Section 3.3 (01 of the Monticello Zoning Ordinance. 2. Access is provided via a street which does not interfere with residential local street access. 3. No outdoor storage is allowed on the property. a. The provisions of Chapter 32 of the Monticello Zoning Ordinance are considered and satisfactorily met. [81 RESTAURANT, CAPE, OR THA ROOM, PROVIDED THAT: 1. The business meats the definition of restaurant in this ordinance, and is not a 'convenience'. 'fast food', or 'drive through' restaurant. 2. Setbacks and site design for all buildings 0 RUG01-1996 15:01 NRC 612 595 9857 P.07i89 comply with the buffer zone requirements of Section 3-3 [G] of the Monticello Zoning Ordinance. 3. The business is not a tavern or bar. 4. The primary access is from a collector street, or non-residential local street. 5. The provisions of Chapter 22 of the Monticello Zoning Ordinance are considered and satisfactorily met. (C] CARWASHES (DRIVE THROUGH, NECLWICAL, AND SELF SERVICE) PROVIDED THAT: 1. The requirements of Section 13-4 (B] of this Ordinance are met. [D) DAY CAR CBNTERS, PROVIDED THAT: I. The requirements of Section 13-4 [O] of this Ordinance are met. [E) WNMOBILS DULUMUMCE FACILITIES PROVIDED THAT: 1. The architectural appearance and functional plan of the building and site shall not be so dissimilar to the ekisting buildings or area as to cause impairment in property values or constitute a blighting influence within a reasonable distance of the lot. 1. The use of the facility is limited to short term, while you wait, automobile maintenance activities and not automobile repair as defined in this Ordinance. 3. Buffer yard requirements of Chapter 3, Section 3.0 of this Ordinance are satisfied. 4. Each light standard island and all islands in the parking lot shall be landscaped or covered. S. Parking spaces shall be screened from view of abutting residential districts in ccliance with chapter 3, Section 2(G] of this Ordinance. 6. The entire area other than occupied by the buildings or plantings shall be surfaced with material which will control dust and drainage which is subject to the approval of the City 0 AUG -01-1996 1501 NRC 612 595 9057 P.Oa'09 Engineer. 7. The entire area shall have a drainage system which is subject to the approval of the City Engineer. S. All lighting shall be hooded and so directed that the light source is not visible from the public right -of -ray or from an abutting residence and shall be in compliance with Chapter 3, Section 2 [H] of this Ordinance. 9- Vehicular access points shall be limited, shall create a mini— of conflict with through traffic movement, and shall be subject to the approval of the City Engineer. 10. All signing and informational or visual communication devices shall be in compliance with Chapter 3, Section 9 of this Ordinance. 11. Provisions are made to control and reduce noise. 12. The provisions of Chapter 22 of this Ordinance are considered and satisfactorily met. 13. Automobile maintenance facility shall bawe direct access to major thoroughfare via driveway or frontage road. 14. Intormittent sounds produced by automobile maintenance facility shall not be audible to users of adjoining DE! or residential properties. (F] CCHORCIAL FLAMM M= DSVOLO1+Mt@ T, PROVIDED THAT m 1. The requirements of Chapters 20 and 22 of this Ordinance are met. Seth n 3. 'hide 10, Sm dm 2-2 of theMoedmUo City Code (ZMW Dd dmi) [e haft emended to edd the fonowfus: AN (1) AXff* S= MQAI3i'1'ZWLM E FACI=i A business which provides short term, while you wait, automobile maintenance service to automobiles and light trucks o t nine thousand (9,000) GW or less. Service activities include oil changing, lubrication, tics rotation and the like but in no case may include 0 FW -01-1996 1502 NAC 612 S9S 9837 P.09/09 repair activities. Automobile maintenance facilities shall be distinguished from minor automobile repair facilities in that only while you wait service may be provided and vehicular storage shall be prohibited. Sedim 0. Thb ONtaame dmR take effect god be m taU fmm from and after ib pump and pub11cadm plead Pyle. Mayor ATIM: iuk woff dkx. AdMWSUB az AYES: NAYS: 0 TOM P.09 Please see the attached planning report from Northwest Associated Consultants, Inc. . le to a� o I' '*-G 1-19% 1504 NRC 612 595 9837 P.01i07 rFN Northwest Associated Consultants, Inc. C COMMUNITY PLANNING • 092104 • MARKET RESEARCH MEMORANDUM TO: Monticello Planning Commisslon Jeff O'Neill FROM: Stephen Grftlman DATE: August 1, 1996 RE: Monticello - Remit of the PZM District Area at Can* 75, 39, 8118 FILE NO: 191.08 - 96.08 Consideration of Rezoning property currently zoned "PDM" east of the City's M,:,, .,: t ealnu d plan and north of County 76. Applicant - Investors Together and (Monticello Planning Commission. A- REMUtICE AND BACKGROUND: This rezoning request has been initiated by Investors Together to elect their property Wong Cw* Road 75, and has been a tpanded by the City to include consideration of the :,.,. :,,. zona g in the aft area. Linked to fMs request Is the onion of a rww commercial zoning district, and subsexluently,. Investors Togettwfs request for a Conditional Use Permit for an Automotive Maintenance facility. At issue is the current PDN designator of the land in this area The Pal district Is e mined use district which allows a full range of residential uses, from 0*19 family to multiple family, and all of the commercial uses In the 18-1 and 8-2 d dri tt. 83 District Uses are not allowed in the PDN area The flexibility given by the PZM approach also cartes with a certain amount of cohfuslon. Under P1M, neither the City nor the property owner have a dear pft ne of what lend uses should be allowed. Wlth&A fhit direction, the property owner can not know whet the City expects, and the City may be faced with requests for land uses which it doesn't want but cannot reasonably decry. 5775 Wayzata Blvd. • Suite 555 • St. Louis Park. NCV 55416.(612) 595.9636•Fax. 595- 7 7 PAJG-01-1996 1504 NAC 612 595 9837 As a result, we believe that a better definition to the pattern of mnmg in this area would be beneficial. H the City adopts the B -3A District, this would Ikely be the most appropriate cornmercial desigrhatbn for at least a part of the area. if the City does riot adopt the B -3A District, a choice must be made between B-2 and Bim. In either scenario, Cie extent of commercial zoning should be cW hed, so as to better determine the appropriate uses on other area property. The hAre lend use of the aree at to Junction of County Roads 75, 39, and 118 is affected by several Issues, One of Che Comprehensive Plan Issues which received a great deal of attention is the traffic on Coamty 75 between the downtown area and the Interstate. Among the options considered were tret>9c calming efforts abrhg Broadway, potential re- routing of through traffic to ancifrer locatkm and n4auh ng the anent patten In order to benefd downtown business. Monticello Community Partners are currently studying the possible options, particularly in view of the impacts to downtown business. In our view, the network of mpjor transportation outlets in this area jusffy a certain level of commercial land use in this area. The Comprehensive Pian suggests that the City's primary commercial areas will be the downtown area north of W. and the emerging growth area south of W. Mohr mw, limned convenience commercial is importarht in other areas to avoid overritilitatim of mejor commercial zones. The very concept of convenience commercial Is to ahtbw comparatively low volume, short duration trips to occur outside of the main commerciel districts. For many Monticello residents, the area in question is an area which is frequented in daily traffic pattems. This area makes sense as a site for a small conccerhtratlon of cahverhiencce commercial activity. The question becomes whether the appropriate zone should be 8-2 or 8,3 (or B -3A if approved). The B-3 District ab" several automotive related WM uses, including automotive repair, motels, and other similar uses. The B-2 District albws primarily low Intensity retail uses, and some limited convenience uses, Incli4ing carr washes and convenience store/gasoline st0lbns. Essentially, the 8,2 District attempts to capture existing local traffic, whereas the 8.3 District attempts to capture both local and non -local tref ir. With these guidelines In mV4 tthe B,2 District would be arpprapriate C the City believes that the traffic in this area should be either deflected to other routes, or kept tit place. This is because If the traffic Is rerouted, it would be assumed that the purpose was to put to traffic where d can best borhefd the oommerael areas identFM h Che C—., : , :., Ivo Pten. If the tragic is to be MR in place. d would be assumed that the purpose of this choice would be to continue to entourage fist traffic to get to the cow bwrh area as afficiently as possiblo. Under either scenario, a B-3 District would be IntemepWhg a share of the non - local traffic, counter to the objective of the traffic plan. Wille a certain amount of owmarknce traffic Is non -local as well, the primary objective of the 8.2 District is to serve local traffic. Thus, the choice of salving of traffic would be Inalavent to lino success of Che dhtrict and the B-2 uses would 'oanpete' less with other. 0 RLJG-01-1996 15!04 NRC 612 5% 98.37 P. WIM more Intense, commercial districts. As to the e)ft. of the commensal district we have provided a proposed map which would delineate a limited amount of land for commercial rezoning at this time. Since Oils district is not intended to be a primary business zone, regardless of Zoning designation, limiting its size is considered important to helping ensure the success of the other commercial areas in the City. Residential uses are therefore shown for the other PDN zoned land in the area. Due to the high traffic levels and proximity to the Ir terstate (and its associated noise), these areas are not viewed as prime single family development tend. 1Me would recommend that the City consider mid- to high-density residential uses for these pncpertiea. Zoning for these uses would be accomplished at a future hearing. In order to maim i n control of berth density end quality of design, we would recommend consideration of a Planned Unit Development District desonstiom Approve a nsmo it of the subject area, as Muetrated on the attached Map 1, to the new B -3A District. This altemative would be appropriate if the City approves the amendment to the Zoning Ordinance which creates the B -3A DlsM Suggested findings would include the CWe Idem to permit limited convenience and auto4slated commercial uses in this high-volume commuter traffic route. Approve s n3Zof1I1p of the subject area, as illuatrOn on the attached Map 2, to the B-2 Distrlct. This afternsWe would be appropriate if the city believes that limited convenience commercial land use in the area Is needed to provide reasonable commercial opportuNty to the east side of the community, but to avoid competition with the primary commercial areas as designated In the Comprehensive Plan. Findings should Include a statement m to the compatibility of ft proposal with Bre Comprehensive Plan objectives and land uses. Approve a rseacir" of the subject area, as illustrated on the attached Map 3, to the B-3 District This aherneWe would be appropriate if the City believes that due to bastion and traAic CapaCitl. the area ethould :... , , n,,: more Intanshre OOfhmerolel sea than the B-2 orB-3A Districts allow. Suggested findings would Include discussion of raft volumes piwo t in the area due to commuter traft. through treffic, and the proximity to the high Sdwd and Hospital campuses. 0 PUG -01-19% 1505 NAC 612 5% 9637 P.04/W Denial of the rezoning from PZM to any commercial district. This option would be aopn to B the City believes tltet the P23A district provides a ;.:,a,. : &Totem dileoobdity h a000mmodatlr>p various ,I land wm in the area. Staff recommends rmnih.g the area shown on Map 2 to B,2. M now in the previous disarscion, the City has designated other areas. the downt w and the south HWmay 25 cor ift. as the primary commeniel dlstricfa of the commu ft As a msA funned convenience o0mmerdel is the most :,, ., . , `i:.,. comma dal lersd usa of any areas outside of the primary datricfs. The uses h the B-2 District alwW compete any mtidly with this primary dW t ts. **& pmMdbV an impmrIsm >t convenience outlet for beal short - trip business. The B-3 Dtsafct opens the area uses to busbmm whidt are not naoessarly convenience related, and as a remA compete more ditc y with the Primary commercial districts. Although on a IMIted scale. B-3 uses would not Wely rreeta negove Impacts, the 6-2 District Is better mftd to the Intent of the Compmhw*m Plan for this area Map 1 - Draft Zonhq Map Amendment for the B -3A D&kg Map 2 - Draft Zonbtg Map Amendment far the B-2 District Map 3 - Draft Zon" Map Amendment for the B.3 Distrist 0 AUG -01-1996 1505 NAC 612 5% 98-T: P. 051W w Map 1 B•3A District AJG-01-1996 1505 NRC 612 595 9637 P.06/07 R- 1 14 lls;;J Map 2 B-2 District gJG-01-1996 1505 "x 612 595 9837 P.07/07 • D SS�S,S r � \ \ � ` 'ZC b • .,��. ` rl n/ •.Yrs ~„ Map 3 0•3 District 0 TOTAL P.0.7 Planning Commission Agenda - 8/6/98 , , / ! M .! 1 1' x:.:1'.1 • i'1:1 , Please see the attached planning report from Northwest Associated Consultants, Inc. rrRJG-01-19% 15 RC 23 N 612 595 9837 P.01/12 'ryA Northwest Associated Consultants, Inc. I C COMMUNITY PLANNING • DESIGN • MARKET RESEARCH PLANNING REPORT TO: Monticello Mayor and City Council Monticello Planning Commission FROM: Bob Mrmis/Stephen arittman DATE: 1 August 1996 RE: Monticello - Express Lube FILE NO: 191.07.96.03 Mticipating a rezoning of their 37,570 square foot property from a PZM, Performance Zoned Mixed to either a B-3, Highway Business or B -W Neighborhood Automotive Related Use District, Investors Together, Inc. have requested a conditional use permit to establish an 'Express Lube and Detail Cleaning Center upon a 37,560 square foot site located north of County Road 75 and west of County Road 119. Bot. the B-3 and B -3A Districts Ilut automobile maintenance facilities as a conditional use. Previously, the City had turned down a request by the applicant to add automobile maintenance facilities as a conditional use in the PZM District. Spoctfically, the applicants request calla for the construction of a 2,900 square foot Express Lube/Detail Cleaning Center. Such construction will constitute a westerly expansion of a ear wash facility which currently exists on the property. The applicant's previous appicalion identified cleaning Centel component as a Mus phase of the project conditional We Perrrdt As noted previously. the applicante have reed s conditional use penny In anticipation of o 8-3 or B -3A zoning designation being applied to the property. The purpose of the required conditional use permit process Is to enable the City Council to assign dimensions to a proposed use or conditions surrounding it after consideration 5775 Wayzata Blvd. • Suite 555 • St. Louis Perk. MN 55416 • (612) 595-9636•Fax. 595.8 ALr-01-1996 15:24 NRC 612 595 9837 P.02/12 of adjacent uses and their functions avid the special problems which the proposed use presents to provide the City of Monticello with s reasonable degree of diseretion In determining the suitability of certain designated uses upon the general welfare, public health and safety. Procedurally, the Planning Commission and City Council must consider the possible adverse effects of the proposed conditional use. Its judgement shall be based upon but not limited to the following factors 1. Relationship to municipal Comprehensive Plan. 2. The geographical area involved. 3. Whether such use will tend to or actually depreciate the area In which It Is proposed. 4. The character of the surrounding area. 5. The demonstratad need for such use. Neighborhood Character. As noted previously, the Zoning Ordinance directs the Plarmin0 Commission and City Counci I to consider the character of the area In which the use has been proposed. The following Is a Ils*V of uses whish lie adjaeerrt to the property In question: 01 AMC use North MutWe Family Residential (rownhomes) South County Road 7&Rd line East Coif nerdal (Convenience Ston) wow Sings Family Residential Of key importance In determining the compatibility of the proposed use with the neighborhood will be compliance with applicable Mar yard requirements of Section 3- 3.G. Details relating to such buffer yard reWrements are highlighted In the following section of this report. Provided applicable b" yard requirements aro satisfied it is believed the proposed use can compatibty exist upon the subject a@e. fhgfssdfer tarsi Rogtill. mertts. As a condHlon of CUP approval, a landscape plan should be submitted which Identifies the type, location end stse of all proposed site plantings. as well as compliance with the eforervwHoned buffer yard requirements. According to the Ordinance, the following buffor yard rowiraments are applicable to the subject property. asI AUG -01-1996 1524 NRC 612 595 9837 P.03i12 Direction Wtimum Building BLOW Yard Width Number of Plants Per Setback 100 Feet of Property Line• North 30 feet 20 feet so South NA NA NA East Nero None None I{ West 40 feet 30 feet 120 • Location of an opaque fence or earth bene at least fere feet in height within buffer yard shall be considered credit toward plant unit requirement. The number of required plant units may be reduced by 50 percent. Lot Combination. As shown on Exhibit D, the proposed 'detail cleaning center' Is to overlay two parcels of land. As a condition of CUP approval, such lots should be legally combined so as to avoid the possible We of a portion of the subject site. Additionally, the City Engineer should provide comment In regard to any necessary easement vacations. Lot Area Regidremen As shown below, all applicable B,3 District lot area and width requirements have been satisfactorily met. Requited Lot Area 22,500 fast' Lot Width 100 feet • Applicable to auto -repair - minor facilities ••Assume$ lot combination 3 Proposed 37,560 fear• 200 feet" 9 FUG -01-1996 1524 rK 6125% 98.37 P.W12 Setbacks. As shown below, the proposed'Express Lube and Detail Cleaning Cente> does not meet all applicable B-3 Distdd setbacks. As a oatdidon of CUP approval, the site plan should be revised such that now construction meets applicable structure setback requirements. Bulldog Hering lleflals. To determine Compliance with City building height and building material requirements, bkulding elevations (drawn to scale) should be submitted which We" structure height and finish materials. OR -Street Parking. Parking Supply. The Zonir® Ordinance does not provide a specific off-etreet paring standard for eutomobils maintenance facilities. As part of the attached amendment, however, an of-strset parking requirement applicable to the proposed use has been included. Suds standard is referwumd In an American Planning Association (APA) documsrr entitled 'Off -Street Parking Requirements for Oil Change Facilities'. As calculated below, and amming five service bays, the proposed automobile maintenance facility is required to provide twelve of4bost perking stalls. UP Ratio $pautrpn Automobile Maintanam Two spaces plus 12 Facility (five service boys) two spaces per service bay According to the submitted sits plan, a total of seven oft -street parking stalls have been proposed. As a condition of CUP approval, the site plan should be revised to satisfy of -street parking requirements. D Required P Front Yard 30 feet Select Side Yard - East 10 feet 8 feet" Side Yard • Wast 40 feet' 23 feat Rear Yard 30 fear 31 feet • Bufier Yard Setback Requirement «Legal MM -Conformity As a oatdidon of CUP approval, the site plan should be revised such that now construction meets applicable structure setback requirements. Bulldog Hering lleflals. To determine Compliance with City building height and building material requirements, bkulding elevations (drawn to scale) should be submitted which We" structure height and finish materials. OR -Street Parking. Parking Supply. The Zonir® Ordinance does not provide a specific off-etreet paring standard for eutomobils maintenance facilities. As part of the attached amendment, however, an of-strset parking requirement applicable to the proposed use has been included. Suds standard is referwumd In an American Planning Association (APA) documsrr entitled 'Off -Street Parking Requirements for Oil Change Facilities'. As calculated below, and amming five service bays, the proposed automobile maintenance facility is required to provide twelve of4bost perking stalls. UP Ratio $pautrpn Automobile Maintanam Two spaces plus 12 Facility (five service boys) two spaces per service bay According to the submitted sits plan, a total of seven oft -street parking stalls have been proposed. As a condition of CUP approval, the site plan should be revised to satisfy of -street parking requirements. D ALG -01-1996 15:24 NRC 612 595 9837 P.05i12 Dimensional Requirements. All proposed parking stalls and drive aisles have been found to meet or exceed minimum Ordinance requirements. Handicap Stalls. In accordance with State American Disability Ad requirements, one off-street handicap parking stall must be provided upon the site. Curbing. In accordance with Zoning Ordinance requirements, all off-street parking areas must be provided a six inch non -surmountable concrete curb. Surfacing. In accordance with Ordinance requirements, the proposed off-street parking area is to be surfaced in a bituminous material. Curb Cut. In what Is conal In P a positive site design feature, a single 24 foot wide curb from County Road 75 has been proposed An existing sub cut along the site's eastern boundary is to be omitted. As a condition of CUP approval, such county road access must be subject to approval by the Wright County Highway Department and City Engineer. Loading. The Zoning Ordinance does not provide a specific o}ft loading requirement for uses such as that being proposed. As a condition of CUP approval, however, a specific oft -street loading space should be designated upon the submitted site plan. Lighting. it has not been Indicated whether any exterior lighting Is to be provided on ails. Any lighting used to Illuminate off-street parking or outdoor storage are must be hooded and directed to deflect II9M away from adjacent properties and public rights-of-way. Signage. As a condition of CUP approval, all applicable City sign requirements must be satisfied. Grading and Drainage. As a condition of CUP approval, a grading and drainage plan must be submit xi Such plant will be subject to review and approval by the City Engineer. Nolm Intermittent sounds produced by automobile maintenance facilities should not be audible to adjoining residential properties. As a condition of CUP approval, the applicant should provide Information regarding proposed nolle mitigation efforts. Trash. The site plan does not Indicate whether trash is to be stored outdoors. If a trash receptacle is to be atoned outside the principal structure, It must be screened from view of neighboring properties. C� an -01-19% 15:25 NC 612 5% 9837 P.06/L2 B- ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS The applicant has submitted plans to construct a 2,600 square foot automobile maintenance facility. 1. Conditional Use Pond Approval (With CondMons) Tho alternative would allow the of an automobile maintenar= facility upon the eutbjeet property, provided several conditions are imposed to insure use cotr"Wity and proper site but tioning. Findings: 1. The proposed project is coruistent with the spirit and intent of the Monticello ConprehensIve Man tis and policies and In keeping with the intend of the Zoning Ordinance. 2. The proposed project is =mistent with the purpose of the performance sWWards of the Zoning Ordinenee. 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 aurid meet minimum mouthng end landscaping requl WWts as outlined herein. S. The proposed project shall provide adequate parking and loading as outlined herein. 6. The proposed project shall not hnpose any undue burden upon public facilities end services. 7. The proposed project is desiWW In such a manner to form a desirable and smiled environmetd within tis boumdarba which will not be d&Wwtal to Moro lend uses in surrounding areas. Architecture and site treatments shall be compatible with adjacent structures and site plena and shall respect the privacy of nelghboring businesses. 9 RUG -01-1996 15.25 NRC 612 595 9837 P.07i12 Conditions: 1. The City approve a rezoning of the property to accommodate the proposed use (B-3 or &3A District designation). 2. The two lots which underlie the subject property are legally combined. 3. The City Engineer provide comment and recommendation In regard to the need for easement vacation. 4. The site plan is revised to meet applicable setback requirements (buffer yard). 5. Use of the facility is limited to automoblleflight truck oil changes. 6. The applicant Qsmonsuate compliance with City building height and building material requirements through the submission of building elevations. 7. The site plan is revised to Illustrate a total of 12 off-street parking stalls. p.:16 115�"�14 S. One handicap parking stall is provided In accordance with the State American Disability Act requirements. 9. All off-sUeet pae kii areas are provided a sic inch non -surmountable coin curb. 10. The proposed4foot curb out Is subject to approval by the Wright County Highway DepaRment and City Engineer. 11. The site plan is modified to Illustrate an off-street loading space. 12. A landscape plan is submitted and approved which identifies the type, location, and size of all site plantings. Such plan shall also demonstrate eanVilance with applicable buffer yard requirements, 13. All lighting used to Illuminate off-eb l parking be hooded and directed to deflect light away from adjacent properties and public rights-of-way. 14. All City sign requirements aro satisfactorily met. 15. A grading end drainage plan le submitted subject to review and approval by the City Engineer. 16. Intermittent sounds produced by the all change operations aro not audible to adjacent residential properties. 7 kG-01-19% 1525 NRC 612 S95 %W P.08i12 17. All exterior trash handling facilities are screened from view of adjacent Properties and public rights-of-way. 18. Developer agrees that d will be responsible for any reconstruction or restoration in the event that the City needs to do drainage and utility work in the City's easement. 2 Conditional Use Pemdt Denial A second alternative available to the City would be to deny the requested conditional use pemdL tf the City chooses to deny the conditional use pexrrdt, it should be based upon the following findings: 1. The proposed use Is not comistent with the spirit and intent of the Monticello Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Ordinance. 2. The proposed use is likely to ham an adverse Impact upon a<mum ing properties. C, STAFF RECOMMENDATION Provided the City funds the proposed use of the property to be sppropriate (end approves Ow necessary rezoning), staff recornnrends approval of the requested condWonal use permit subject to the h9lbrod of then ti conditions fisted above. 0. SLIPPOR11B10 DATA Attached for reference: Exhibit A - Site Location Ex hibIt B - Detailed Site Location Exhibit C - Previous Site Plan Exhibit 0 - Revised Sie Plan e X5:25 s• s P,p�yi2 •• ted? �'V ' 1 jK tp wrrw .rr ♦ t •~ ' P it i .q rw 4 *4p P,p�yi2 •• ted? �'V I AUG -01-1996 15:26 NF%c 612 595 9837 P.11/12 NZ SITE; L EXHIBIT 8 • DETAILED SITE LOCATION D a'. J .CITY of MONTICELLO womir caum" ruaaow► A Planning Commission Agenda - 8098 Please seethe attached planning report from Northwest Associated Consultants, Inc. C PLC -02-19% 06:07 NRC 612 595 9aV P. e2/17 &p r t h w a s t Aa soeiatad Consultants. In e. MEMORANDUM TO: Monticello Planning Commission Jeff O'Neill FROM: Stephen Grlttman DATE: August 1. 1996 RE: Monticello -Accessory BulldhVe on Small Lots FILE NO: 191.06 96.02 Consideratlon of Arttending the Zoning Ordnance by establishing Unfits for detaehod accessory buildings and garages. Attached to this report Is the information submitted for the July Planning Commission meeting discussing options for the City's reguleHon of aooeasroy buddinps. In that material. staff offered a number of alternatives to dsrlyhV the City's regulations for detached accessory buiWW an small residential Iota. Disoussion at that meeting, and between staff members. has resulted In the attached alternative. This option (Exhibit D) would relate the size d detached accessory buildings to the site of the roar yard (10% as sugpusOed In the previous draft crdrttance EMN C) but drop the relation to the site of the principal building. The building of iciel has suggested 10 this would be cumbersome to adminiater, even though it may be a reasonable measurement of the buildln4s status as accessory to the prindpel use. Based on the Com m anion s discission and otter action taken with previous epplicstions, this alternative also sets a Oveshhold of 400 square feet which all single and two family residential dwellings would be entftie to, regardless of building or lot site. CU a1G02-1996 08:07 NRC 6125% 9837 P.03/17 a. ALTERNATl1 E ACTIONS: 1. Approve an Ordinance amendment (Exh(bit B) which ciarifies the Citys current language as applying exclusively to detached accessory bufktirtgs, and keeps the current size restrictions (1,000 square feet). 2 Approve an Ordinance amendment (Exhibit C) which restricts the amount of accessory building by relating the atze to the size of the rear yard and the size of the principal building. 3. Approve an Ordinance amendment (Exhibit D) which restricts the amount of accessory budduV by retettrq the size to the size of the rear yard, and spedticaly permits all &In& and two family dwellings to have an accessory bolding of at least 400 Square feet 4. Take no action and leave the Ordinance as oarenty written. Staff believes that Alternative 4 Is hMpropriate due to the corAgdon over its application to attached garages. Therefore, one of the tint three alternatives should be chosen, or other language is developed reflecting the Citys concerns h this area. As rested previously, Exhibit C relates the site of the accessory bWWV to both the lot and the tto ses. Plannh RSH believes tact Qts impact of an e=moay building is measured by lts relationship to these conditions. However, Building ,,,, , o stag nates that tying the etre of the accessory buildetp to fie house size would be cumbersome to administer, and recommends altemetive 3. We have included all ift.. ation from the prevbtn patrol to assist In the review of this issue. June 27 Staff Report Exhibit A - Soren Ordinance language Exhibit B- Draft Ordinance ctarUyinp axment policy Exhibit C - Draft Ondhtartee relating to size of kd and size of house Exhlbtt D - Draft Ordinance relating to size of lot with minimum site of 400 square feet LIV ALC -W-1996 08:87 NAC 612 595 9837 P.04/17 rNNorthwest Associated Consultants, Inc. C COMMUNITY PLANNING • DESIGN • MARKET RESEARCH MEMORANDUM TO: Monticello Planning Commission FROM: Bob iannis/Stephen Grittman DATE: 27 June 1996 RE: Monticello - Zoning Ordinance - Accessary Building Requirements FILE NO: 191.06 -96.02 1. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND This memorandum is intended to evaluate the adequacy of the Citys existing accessory building requirements. Of specific Isaw is the adequacy of such requirements as they apply to Iota less than 10,000 square feat in area on which a moratorium currently exits. ISSUES Edsilhsg RegufsUan Appllce6 ty Polley. In review of the City's existing accessory building regulations (see Exhibit A), it is unclear whether maximum area requirements are to include (or exclude) attached garages. Past City Polley has been to exampt attached garages from the maximum area requirements s9pulaated In the ordinance. Thus, the listed ersa requirements appy only to detached accessory struchm. Regardless of whether any charges of 'substance• are proposed it is recommended that the ordinance be revised to clarify City policy. Bullding Ares Requnlnemients. Currently, private garages are listed as permiNed accessary uses In the R-1 and R-2 DiaWas. Garage eros is limited to 1,000 square feet and may not occupy more than 26% of the rear yard. Such requirements raise concern over whether an additional detached double garege is an appvoprfate use of land in association with small slrlgta formly or twinhoome lois, particularly if many such owners take advantege of the current standards. H taken full advantage of, the rear yards of several 40 foot wide twlnhome Iota may appear cluttered and over built. 5775 Wayzata Blvd • Suite 555 • St. Louis Park. MN 35416 • (612) 595-9636•Fax. 595.9837 RJG-02-1996 08:06 NX 612 595 9837 P.05/17 ReguhWon Ilttemadvea If the City wishes to control this potential Intensity of use, the following alternative approaches should be considered: Option 1 - Retain Existing Regulations. An initial option to be considered would be to simply retain the existing accessory building requirements attached as Exhibit A H such option is desired, it is . ..,,,,o,,, ad that the existing ordinance language be amended to Oarify City policy In terms of applicability. As noted previously, it has been past City practice to apply such standards only to detached accessory buildings. Attached as Exhibit B is a draft Zoning Ordinance amendment which simply clarifies the applicability of the current standw 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 City's existing standards: Ease in administrative handling and citizen understanding. May result In scale problems as no relationship to open space or principal building size is required. Option 2 - hnatibite a nuWnun lot (buAding) coverage requirement. A second option would be to impose a maximum lot coverage requirement. For a minimum twinhome tot (40 feet by 150 feet), a 1,2W square foot unit and a typical ettaehod double garage would comprise about 28 percent lot coverage. With a 30 percent maximum, a tool shed sized building would be the only extra lot coverage possible. With a 35 percent maximum, e double garage would be posslble. The 30 percent maximum would permit an additional single car garage. The following is a listing of pros and cons associated with this option: Pros Would ensure proportionate retention of open space on all lots. May encotuage Interior storage (depending upon lot coveree percentage) CU ALC -02-1996 OB: OB MC 612 5% 9B37 P.0 /17 Corte • Principal building additions could be discouraged by such mean• of regulation. • Administrative review of building coverage is necessary. • Larger principal dwelling footprints may prohibit construction of justified amessory storage spa. • May discourage interior storage (depending an percentage). • Inequitable accessory storage allowances. OpIk a 3 - PA10 rnai mtue accessory structure area to a per m sage of the p tneipat sbu t<ue area A second option would be to limit garage and accessory structure square footage to a percentage of the principal strMum For instance, a home of 1,200 square feet could have a detached double garage with an accessory !wilding threshold of 35%. A Minhome would have to contain at least 1,600 square feet to qualify for the equivalent of an additional detached three car garage at the 35% ratio. In calculating the area of the principal structure, it is recommended that such calculation apply to livable floor area (as amently defined wthin the ordinance) so as not to penalize homes which have multiple stories. The following is a listing of pros and cons associated with this option: Pros • Such regulation would establish a fbced relationship between dwelling unit living area and accessory storage space. • A desirable building scale may be maintained. • May encourage Interior storage (dope. rig on lot coverage percentage). Cons • Question arasb as to whether such standads should apply to bung footprint area or total finished square footage. • Administrative calculation of floor areas necessary for all requests. 3 0 ALG -02-1996 08:08 NAC 612 595 9857 P.07.'17 • Larger principal building areas and accessory storage areas would result in loss of open space. Option 4 - Reduce aldsstlng rew yard Coverage percentage. A fourth option is to utilize the same approach being used currently, but reduce the size thresholds. On atypical' twinhome lot, the rear yard might be wpected to be from 2,000 to 2500 square feet in area The cunwd 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 ear garage sized building. Reducing the rear yard lot coverage could reduce the impact of accessory structures In twinhome areas. A maximum of 10% rear yard coverage would limit the twinhome lot to an accessory building 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 ares. • 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 small lots. Finally, the City could choose to alimina0e detactred accessory sbvcbzw upon small lots (i.e., -10,)00 sq.R.). Marry contemporary twinhorns developments may already do so with private covenants. The following Is a listing of pros and cons associated with this option: Pros • Would preserve roar yard ops► speco. • No administrative review. 4 CU AW -02-1996 18:18 NAC 612 595 9837 P.BB/ 17 Cons Equitable "atment of all twinhome residents. May not adequately respond to resident needs. May discourage further property investment. May not sufficiently acknowledge e4stence d single family detached dwellings on small lots. Large Lot Applicability While the focus of this memorandtun is on accessory storage requirements as they apply 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 lot/principal dwelling site may have applicability to all single family residential lots within the City. In this regard, the City may wish to apply such regulation to ell residential zoning districts. While a simple clarification of the existing ordinanoe language would have no impact upon existing accossory building allowances, an amendment such as that attached as Exhibit C would alter 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 e detached accessory structure of 700 square feet (35% of livable area), provided such structure area would not ooeupy more then 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 Distrid (12,000 square foot) lot would be 560 square feet. R. A TERNAT IM ACTIONS. Adoption of amendments to the accessory building and use section of the Zoning Ordinance which clarify the Ordinance language and continue pest 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 proposed Ordinance in attached Exhibit B. Adoption of amendments to the accessory building and use section of the Zoning Ordineneo which plaos restrictions on the amount of detached accessory strucWe which may be placed an 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 AL&e2-1996 08:09 NRC 612 595 983? P.09. -l? 3. Tabling of aebon an any emendrnerds, 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, alternative language should be discussed for future consideration. Such Iswes may include a Change in the City's position on whether both detached accessory structures and attached accessory uses (such as atlacted garages) should be sumjaet to these regulation& Past City practice, and the proposed Ordinances, do not include attached garages in the calculations. If the City believes that some amount of accessory building should be allowed on small lots, we would : .. , :. J a combination of Option 3 and Option 4. This relates the size of the accessory building to both the principal buik k% and the lot, which would help to keep the building in scale with Its neighborhood. By applying the conhbined test of no more Ow 35% of livable area of the princlpal building or 10% of the rear yard, whkihever Is less, a home owner would hem the oppoMA* to construct a limited amount of accessory building, but should not be able to overwhelm the property. A draft Zoning Ordinance amendment reflecting such recomniendetion is attached as Exhibit C. Attached for reference: E)Nbit A - Existing Ordinance Reguletlons Exhibit B - Draft Amendment - Clarification of Existing Regulations Exhibit C - Dreft Amendment - R.... ..,. cad Regulations C ALC -02-1996 08:09 NRC 612 595 9837 P. 10/17 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 meanings 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. 9. 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: J 1. An accessory building shall be considered an integral part of tlfe principal building if it is connected to the principal building either directly or by an enclosed passageway. 2. No accessory building shall be erected or located within any required yard other than the rear yard..; 3. Accessory buildings and garages shall not exceed fifteen (15) feet in height and shall be ten (10) feet or more from cell side lot lines of adjoining Iota, 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, not exceed one thousand (1,000) square feet of floor area. 5. 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) autosobil• per family to be housed in addition to any garage space to be used. (7/22/91, 0211) MONTICRUA ZONING ORDINANCE �EXHOT A 9 RJG-M-1996 08:09 11" 612 595 '#f/ P.111V S. 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 plans 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 ouch 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. (F) GENERAL FENCING, SCREENING, AND LANDSCAPING: 1. 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 proportion by a. retaining wall, the height shall be determined on the basis of measurement from the average point between the highest and lowest grade. 2. No fence, structure, planting, trees, or shrubs shall be permitted within the visibility area of any corner formed by property lines intersecting with a railway right-of-way. (The visibility area referred to above shall be in the form of a triangle with two sides formed by the property lines mentioned and the third side formed a atraiyht line connecting the two (2) twenty- ive (2S) loot points on both sides of the corner.) L210ELLO ZONING ORDINANCE 3/6 RUG -02_1996 06:09 NRC 612 595 9837 P.12/17 DRAFT - DRAFT - DRAFT CITY OF MONTICELLO VWVGHT COUNTY, MINNESOTA ORDINANCE NO. 96 -_ AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 10 OF THE MONTICELLO CITY CODE (THE ZONING ORDINANCE) ADDRESSING ACCESSORY BtU MNGS, USES AND EQUIPMENT. THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MONTICELLO DOES HEREBY ORDAIN: Section 1. Title 10, Section 2-2 of the Monticello City Code (Definitions) is hereby amended to delete the following: (AA) Agan= Buildho or Usa: A subordinate building or use which is located on the same lot on which the main building or use is situated and which Is reasorraby necessary and ftidentel to the onnckd of the primary use of such building or main use. Section Z Title 10, Section 2-2 of the Monticello City Code (Define icns) is hereby amended to add the following: (!W &0j"'BUM P�.:t +_of;Vte prhto l ': ,a'.:deta ed .a�8 dataaged sgt+ca+fe:orltha�mns i�wt�krils:useOXor en.aooaa�r. _usa. ais�omaribi;ano�e�m;tt)e;Ai!`_b_18�a!ta..lgca�d on'ths �came,iot �ritdsugr prindpal'usb, Soctlon 3. Tito 10, Section 3-2.0 of the Monticello City Code (Accessory Building Requirements) is hereby amended to read as follows: (D) ACCESSORY BUILDINGS, USES, AND EQUIPMENT: 1. An accessory building shall be considered an Integral pert of the principal bulWV If it is connected to the Vtrteipel bWldbV 9&ar directly or by an enclosed passageway. EXHIBIT B (D� pXr02-1996 08:10 NRC 612 5% 9837 P. 13/17 2. No ; P90 accessory bldk&V shall be erected or located within any required Yard Other than the rear yard. 3. POWW accessory buil tmp shall not exceed fiReen (15) feet in height and shall be ten (10) feet or more tram all side lot linea of RQmhting bis. five (5) fest or more from the rear lot tine, shallbe ten (10) feet or more from any other b A&V or structure on the same lot, and shall not be wUhin a utility easemerd. 4. No d- 4 accessory bu WbV shall oowpy more then twenty-five (25) percent of the rear yard, nor exceed one thoimend (1.000) square feet of floor area. 5. No permit Shell be issued for the o0rAVLACLiOn Of mors than one (1) ad9lm#" accessory structure for each dwe4hrg. Each applicant for a buMft pwmd to construct any dwellings shall be required to provide off-street parking apace fbr at least one (1) automobile per family to be housed in addition to any garage space to be used. 8. No accessory uses or equipment such as all condittor" cooling shuctures or ovdansers which generate raise may be located In a side yard exempt for We yams ebuW* streets where eqL*. Wit is futiy screened from view. Beetloro 4. This Ordhu= shall become effective Immediately upon Its paw and Ppb^. ADOPTED by the Mordbelb City Coundt, do _ day of 1998. CITY OF MONTICELLO By: Brad Fyle, Mayor ATTEST: By: Ayes: Rick VMolfstsller, Administrator Nays: 2 AUG -02_1996 08:10 NAC 612 595 9837 P. 14/17 DRAFT - DRAFT . DRAFT CITY OF MON7ICELLO WRIGHT COUNTY. (MINNESOTA ORDINANCE NO. 96 - _- AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 10 OF THE MONTNCELLO CITY CODE (THE ZONING ORDINANCE) ADDRESSING ACCESSORY BUILDINGS, USES AND EQUIPMENT. THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MONT (CELLO DOES HEREBY ORDAIN: seetlan 1. Tdle 10. Section 2-2 of the Monboollo City Code (Deflnftlone) is hereby emended to delete fire following: (AA) AMMUO Building or Use: A PAwdinate building or use which is boated on the same lot on which the main building or use is situated and whleh is reasonably necessary and Inciderdel to the conduct of the primary use of each building or main use. SKtIon L Tdle 10. Sectlon 2.2 of the Mordfoello City Code (DeflnWom) is hereby amended to add the foiiowing: (APal `bi!flddlg�ora •.deee4 prrh buUOirrO or Q ed.strijahlre:a't :sen?R1ot, iCf► IS bpd for aneory.uae; (AAI) ?: A_luae'.Q�e'i�rip..ar 0f 4:�bu oY:P9c�v^' ilk �d�t81;�d �bor$ bre.' pttndp?a!'bi�r!0 aiti�.b on:1>�e�s�me�tm;w�f,�such;orkiisb:: Seetlon b. TWe 10. Section 3-2.D of the Monticello Ctly Code (A000ssory Building Reoluiremera) is hereby emended to read as follows: (0) ACCESSORY BUILDINGS. USES, AND EQUIPMENT: An accessory bulWM shall be considered an inVal peri of the principal building N d is wed to ft prtndpel WMirp either directly or by an anebsed panagsway. EXHIBIT C ALG -02-1996 08:10 NAC 612 595 9877 P.15/17 2. No d$aftd accessory Wilft shall be erected or located within any required yard other than the rear yard. 3. De &#W accessory buildings shall not euccee0 fifteen (15) feet In height and shall be Oen (10) feet or mons from all side lot lines of adj&&V iota, five (5) fed or more from the rear lot Ilse. shd be ten (10) feet or more from any other buil ft or structure on the same tot, ar�W"not be bated withnn nia utility easement 4. f�iF,;�i �M.j Jf:�.•vyr�L/.,�.��W'Y�j®�.1p��FIMo.Y�...; .y.:%'.:e�'C!a1:' ir�5,�u'!o.'�.."!'!`FY�+�.���-0!?dC.»!!�!.q(,:u/C•,�!!!o.'Y.�! ��}!FI.'nI.•� 5. No permit shall be issued for the consWclion of mare than one (1) ,j! I iRbMd accessory structure for each dwelft Each applicant for a bukWq perms to oonstruct any dwellinp snap be reguhed to p Wife off-street parkhhg space for at least one (1) automobile per family to be housed in addition to any garege space to be used. 8. No ecoeasory uses or equipment such as air conditioning cooling structures or . , . , , which noise maybe located In e side yard except for side yards ebuWng streets where equipment is fully screened from view. Secdw d. This Ordnance shall become effective immedhately upas its pose and publication' ADOPTED by the Mwdica b City COMA this _ day of 1996. CITY OF MONTICELLO Bred Fyle, Mayor ATTEST: By: Ayes: Rick VVoffsteller, Administrator Nays: 2 D AUG -02-1996 08: 11 NRC 612 595 9837 P. 16/17 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) ADDRESSMG ACCESSORY BUILDINM USES AND EQUIPMENT. THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MONTICELLO DOES HEREBY ORDAIN: Section 1. Title 10, Section 2-2 ddw Monticello City Code (Dentitions) is hereby amended to delete the following (AA) Accessoa Buildino er Use: A subordinate building or use which is bcw'ed on the same lot on O h 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. Section 2 Idle 10, Section 2.2 d the Monticello City Code (DdhRWM) is hereby amended t0 add the following: Ute) RS�ltssoer�t3uiwtea ,',''q':FmlloDeot!t1e Prg!o) "or;.d9teohed pr'cta:?e1�!$�►IQa+t4 oc�emntr!'lf� en ��ooes>fory�vee; hi ;aszd+libor _bD (hA p?ir! !tg b1d Ob d an ;u+e wade ;4 uAUt $LKMW4100-k"-Q Section & Idle 10, section 32.0 of the Mordleallo city Code (Awnsory Bulldirq Requirements) Is hereby amended to read as 10111aws: (D) ACCESSORY BUILDINGS, USES, AND EQUIPMENT: An acoessory baaildinp shall be considered an WDWW part of tho prineipal building N it Is connected to the F"c[Fal DuUding G&W directly or by an enclosed passageway. EXHIBIT D accessory bibuildingshallbe erected or located within any required yard other than the raw yard. 3.aoonsory bui D$glch Wkw shall not exceed rdeen (15) feet in height and shall be ton (10) feet or more from all side lot Urm of adjohtarp lots, fin (5) fest ormore from the raw lot line. shall be ten (10) fee or more ftm any other building or structure an the same lot, and shall not be Ionated within a utilily easement. 4. KP S. Nopermit shatibeissued for the construction of more than one (1) #p4a" accessory structure for each dwelling. Each applicant for a bulkift permit to construct any dwe&W shall be required to provide off4droal pa*kq space for at least are (1) automobile per family to be housed In addition to any garage space to be used. 6. No accessory uses or equipment such as air concidloning cooling structures or condensers which generate riolse may be located in a aide yard except for Side ywft abubV streets where equipmerd is A4 screened from view. Section 4. This Ordhence shall become effective Immediately upon its passage and publication. ADOPTED by the Monticello Cky Council, this _ day of 1995. CITY OF MONTICELLO By: Brad Fyb, Mayor ATTEST: By. Ayes: Rick Vftlfstaller, AfthistraW Nays: 9FIN P.02 Planning Commission Agenda - 6/6/96 10. Conaideration of a_llowLAppl'canL Phyla, UnL AND — 11. lowing a mels subdivision- ARr ica.+L flon Bn Please see the attached planning report from Northwest Associated Consultants, Ina ARU3-01-19% 15:07 NRC 612 595 9837 P. 01/04 RN Northwest Associated Consultants, Inc. I C COMMUNITY PLANNING - DESIGN - MARKET RESEARCH MEMORANDUM TO: MGntkelb Planning Commission Jeff O'Neill FROM: Stephen Grittman DATE: August 1, 1996 RE: Monticello - Ron Ruff/Phyllis Link Subdivision FILE NO: 191.07 -96.09 Conelderadw of Subdivision Approval for Ron Ruff and Phyllis Link creating two buildable Iota} of 12,000 square feet or more for each party. Ron Ruff and Phyllis Link have each requested simple subdivision approval to allow the subdivision of their respective properties Into two buildable lots each. The Link property would Initially be divided trtto three parcels, one of 13,321 square feet (Parcel A). one of 13,201 square feet (Parcel 8), and one of 2,589 aqua ro feet (Parcel C). Parcel C would then be conveyed to Mr. Ruff who would than combine it with his property, and soft his new pop" Into 12,000 square fool lots (Parcels 0 and E). Parcel 0 oonlaina the existing house and garage. At its May 13th meeting, the City Coundl releeted Mr. Rune request to reduce me R,2 minimum M size so he could split his cement land. The only substantia Issue in this request would be the need for any easements (or Ute vacation of any exl9ft easements) to facilitate the new M line locations. The City Engineer should comment on this is". Each of the now We will meet the Ordinance standards for lot size and width. 5775 Wayzata Blvd. - Suite 555 - St. Louis Park. MN 55416 • (612) 595 -9836 -Fax. 595.9837 ALrr--0l-1996 1507 NAC - - 612 995 9837 P.02/04 d IL ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS: `- 1. Approve the Subdivision request for Ran Ruff and PhyUls Link resulting In two new Iota aplece, as submitted. This ahemative dc" be backed by a f nclIng that the proposal Moate aQ requirements for single famiy lob under the am np ordWmm. 2. Derry the Subdivision request for Ron Ruff and Phyllis Unk es submitted. This alt mat" showld Include findings which indicate the Ckys reasoning in denying the mgAsL A suggeNod fiMing might be that the proposed Parcel D includes an existing home which sits acroaa the lot line, and that any a bdWislon should be designed to correct this non-oonfamity. Sten ream mends app" dhe vAdtvlslcn, condbxwW on review of the City Engineer fa utltdy and drelmage eases hent Issues. Each of the ramillard tots will meet d MW*Wn stanroom rde for si ple farniy development The non-oordamity of the house Oft across the lot line is an exletiM condition whlrh cenr>ot be sowed witftout the hvOIV9nerd of another party. SLOW to the Courcy Recorders aoceptartoe of the Ispat de= tptlorts w ftxA a formal plat ft mA&Aslon can be approved as submitted. Survey of Link Properly &nreyOfRuff GD