Loading...
Planning Commission Agenda Packet 03-07-1995AGENDA REGULAR MEETING - PLANNING COMIbIISSION Tuesday, March 7, 1998 - 7 p -m. Members: Dick Frie, Rod Dragsten, Richard Carlson, Jon Bogart, Richard Martie 1. Call to order. 2. Consideration of approving minutes of the regular meeting held February 7, 1995. 3. Discuss "off-site" outside storage in I-1 and I-2 zones. 4. Update on Council action on ordinance regulating steel and pole buildings in commercial and business campus zones. 6. Discuss options for maintaining appearance of boulevards along double - fronting lots. 6. Consideration of a request to allow off-site parking in a business zone. 7. Report from commissioners orirecent training. 8. Comprehensive Plan update. 9. Assistant Administrator report on various projects. Meadow Oak Storm Sewer Outlet Eastwood Knoll River Mill Pathway Project Cardinal Hills V Gould Brothers Cheverolet Sanitary Sewer Extension Klein Farma/School Boulevard Meadow Oak Park Public Works Building Expansion Mississippi Shores Orrin Thompson 10. Parka Commission activity update. ll. Mo... I� - haA c� �� —7..�.n1.�1,.,�,.��-� Ms.A6� Q\ls—� (�.,�� a•�cOr+M,1� I1. Sc•+d.,l� V�. r io Or.� ; �.rto.. MINUTES REGULAR MEETING•MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday, February 7, 1998 Members Present: Richard Carlson, Jon Bogart, Richard Martie, Dick Frie, Rod Dragsten Members Absent: None 1. The meetine was called to order by actin chairperson Jon Boeait at 7 n.m. 2. fgpnsideration of aDpointine a chairperson for 19Qli. The commission decided to wait on appointing a chairperson until the end of the meeting. Jon Bogart would be acting chair for this meeting. 3. fpnsideration of anproval of minutes for the regular meeting held January 3. 1996• RICHARD CARLSON MADE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE JANUARY 3, 1996 MEETING. DICK FRIE SECONDED. 4. Consideration of n. ?,oninC ordinance amendment regulating Dole building construction. Aonlicant Monticello Planning Commission. Jeff O'Neill, Assistant Administrator, outlined concerns presented by various organizations with regards to pole construction. The Industrial Development Committee (IDC) has expressed concern but did not develop a consensus as to the level of regulation that is appropriate. There is the concern that polarization of pole buildings can result in general loss of tax revenue potential and tend to result in depreciation of land values and not are not appropriate in commercial districts. There has recently been inquires in the commercial districts for pole building construction. The Planning Commission could decide to regulate the business district and study industrial areas in the comprehensive plan update. Steve Grittman noted that regulation of pole buildings in commercial areae is common in most cities. Since there does not appear to be a consensus on whether or not to regulate pole construction in the industrial zones, the questions should be reviewed in conjunction with development of the comprehensive plan. Page I E Planning Commission Minutes - 2/07/95 Jeff ONeill stated that there are no permits for pole construction that have been applied for now but he anticipated applications soon based on recent contacts from the public. Acting Chairperson Jon Bogart opened the public hearing. Glen Posusta, owner of mini storage business in the B-3 zone, was interested in how a new restriction would affect his mini storage business which is a pole building. Posusta thought the city allowed pole buildings in certain areas and stated that mini storage buildings are almost always pole buildings. If a storage business had to build a concrete or brick construction it would be very expensive to operate. If pole buildings are regulated in the future, what will happen to his business? He has built one storage unit but has long range plans for more buildings. Steve Grittman, City Planner, stated that Posusta could continue to build because his original Conditional Use Permit would still apply. If regulated pole buildings that are destroyed can not be replaced as pole buildings because they are a non -conforming use. Glen Posusta asked what would happen if he sold the business? Grittman replied that a purchaser of the property can take over your Conditional Use Permit, unless the person changes the use of the permit. The business would have to stay the same. Posusta's long range goals would be to have an on-site office as part of one of the unite. He inquired if that would be allowed. Grittman said each individual permit and property would have to be looked at to see if it would comply with the ordinance. Gary Anderson, Building Official, added that steel buildings can have an added facia like brick or veneer but pole buildings are not strong enough to support this. Grittman was concern that if the city made allowances for pole buildings with added facia each building would have to have an architectural review to review each structure. Simply banning pole construction would simplify the review process. Page 2 Planning Commission Minutes - 2/07/96 Acting Chairperson Bogart closed the public hearing The planning commission discussed which areas should have restrictions on pole buildings. While Posusta's mini storage was acknowledged it was agreed that the ordinance had to concentrate on the city as a whole not one or two business. A MOTION WAS MADE BY DICK FRIE TO APPROVE THE ORDINANCE AMENDMENT AMENDING SECTION 3.2 OF THE MONTICELLO ZONING ORDINANCE WITH THE EXCEPTION OF ALLOWING PRE- ENGINEERED STEEL BUILDINGS IN THE BC ZONE. SECONDED BY DICK MARTIE. Motion based on the following findings: 1. Consistency with the comprehensive plan. 2. Compatibility with the geography or character of the area. 3. Effect on land values. 4. Demonstrated need for the amendment. Motion carried unanimously. Consideration of zoninff ordinancq amenjiments regulating placement of LqgWory slrl►ctureq (Qlor a sheds) ir% the rear veer of double fronting Iota. egplicant Monticello Planning Commission. Jeff O'Neill, Assistant City Administrator, explained that at the previous meeting of the Planning Commission, the Commission heard a report from City staff and called for a public hearing on adoption of an ordinance amendment that would regulate placement of accessory structures, namely storage sheds and kennels for properties that have road frontage on both the front and the rear of the property. Double -fronting lots are an unavoidable result of development of collector roads such as School Boulevard that extend along the perimeter of development areas. When subdivisions are designed, efforts are made to limit the number of double- &onting lots and to provide for extra lot depth in an effort to buffer the impact of having a busy road as a rear yard boundary. A side affect of double -fronting lots that has become a problem in the recent past is the proliferation of storage buildings and kennels that are placed at the 6 -ft setback minimum on rear yards of double -fronting lots. Examples of this practice can be found along School Boulevard on the west aide of Page 3 0 Planning Commission Minutes - 4J07/95 Cardinal Hills subdivision. Planning Commission is asked to review this practice and consider adopting an ordinance amendment that would change the setback requirement to 30 R. Steve Grittman, City Planner, explained that this is a difficult issue because it is a hard ordinance to enforce. Dick Frie, Planning Commissioner, asked the building official if a 30 R setback would create a hardship for any homeowners. Would their backyards be large enough that a 30 R setback would be reasonable? Gary Anderson, Building Official, stated that on some lots there might be a problem. The Planning Commission determined that a greater setback distance would still not totally eliminate the clutter seen from the road. It was suggested that requiring landscaping would be a better approach. Frie suggested that the city should look into putting more trees on School Blvd and developers could be required to plant trees on the rear yard lots. Acting Chairperson Jon Bogart opened the public hearing. There was nobody present so Bogart closed the hearing. DICK FRIE MADE A MOTION TO TABLE REGULATING PLACEMENT OF ACCESSORY STRUCTURE IN THE REAR YARDS OF DOUBLE - FRONT LOTS AND AUTHORIZE STAFF TO CONTINUE TO RESEARCH. Seconded by Richard Carlson. Motion to table was unanimous. Cons)deration of zonine ordinance gmgndments gstabljshine buffer vard peauirements. Aanlioant: Montioello Planning Commission. Jeff' O'Neill, Assistant Administrator, explained that in May of 1994 the City Council asked the Planning Commission to develop a buffer policy for residential land adjacent to industrial districts. This was in response to the development of the zoning district alignment adopted with the Klein Farm addition. The purpose is to establish landscaping and screening requirements designed to separate incompatible land uses. Steve Grittman, City Planner, referred to the diagram and chart showing how the buffer yard ordinance is organized. Rod Dragsten inquired if one side of the property line is developed and a Page 4 0 Planning Commission Minutes - 2107/95 new owner moves in who picks up the cost of the buffering? Grittman stated according to the chart the new property owner would be responsible for the development of the buffer until such time as the existing development is significantly changed, alter;, or expanded. O'Neill asked if berming is used for security or is security the owners responsibility. Grittman stated that berming regulations are built to give an incentive to install a fence because by fencing it reduces the amount of plant material that is needed. But the security of the area is the property owner's responsibility and is not included in the buffer yard requirements. Acting Chairperson Jon Bogart opened the public hearing. Jay Morrell, owner of M & P Transport expressed support of the ordinance and approved the trees and berm combination. Acting Chairperson Jon Bogart closed the public hearing. DICK MARTIE MADE A MOTION TO ADOPT THE ORDINANCE AMENDMENT CHAPTER 3, SECTION 3, OF THE MONTICELLO ZONING ORDINANCE PERTAINING TO YARD REQUIREMENTS. The motion was seconded by Dick Frie. The motion was based on the following findings: 1. Consistency with the comprehensive plan. 2. Compatibility with the geography or character of the area. 3. Effect on land values. 4. Demonstrated need for the amendment. The motion passed unanimously. :onsideration of aoorovine thq preliminary plat of phase V of the Cardinal dills subdivision. Anolicant. Value Plus Homes. Jeff O'Neill, Assistant Administrator, reported on the development for Phase V of the Cardinal Hills Development which is completely consistent with the development plan previously reviewed and approved by the City therefore approval of this phase is virtually a housekeeping matter. There Page 8 9 Planning Commission Minutes - W07/96 will be 34 lots, the street name that was Falcon has been changed to Blue Bird, and the pathways are now shown on the plat as outlots. Acting Chairperson Jon Bogart opened the public hearing. Tom Holthaus, developer of Cardinal Hills, was in attendance but had no comments. Acting Chairperson Jon Bogart dosed the public hearing. Dict Frie inquired if the park would be a kiddie park and with what phase would this be completed. Tom Holthaus said that it will a kiddie park and would be completed with Phase V. The pathway from Phase V to Phase VI will also be completed DICK FR1E MADE A MOTION TO APPROVE PHASE V OF THE CARDINAL HILLS SUBDIVISION. Richard Carlson seconded the motion. The motion passes unanimously. R. Conaigeratioq of alterjWatives for 4etvelqument of a zoixine ordinance #men4ment that would alloty vehicle storaee or mrkine at it locatieu lithos than the arin©oal use. Auulicant: Jav Morrell. Jeff O'Neill, Assistant City Administrator, gave a history on the properly ilk the industrial park that is being used for vehicle storage. Jay Morrell, owner of M & P Transport, was using a vacant lot for parking somi-trailurs on. Morrell does own the lot but according to present ordiaunco outside storage is only allowed as an accessory use. O'Neill explained this meeting is primarily for the Planning Commission to provide guidance to Morrell in dolining what approach to take in requesting a coning ordinance amendment. There would he three ways to amend the current zoning ordinance that would allow outside storage: Re4uost that outside storage he redoflnod as an ullowuhlo principal use regulated under the condition use permit procoss. Request that the definition of accessory use he modified to allow outside storage as an accessory use M occur on a different lot firm the main building or use. Page 6 0 Planning Commission Minutes - 2107/95 Create an Interim Permit that could be used with the agreement that there is a date of completion. This can be a useful way to use land that there is no immediate use for but can also create the problem of discouraging a long term use on the site. Morrell stated that he doesn't consider his outside storage but a parking lot. All the vehicles are licensed and movable and he owns and pays taxes on the land. His business is growing and he does not have room for all the semi -trailers this time of year on the business site. He also could understand the need to make it look presentable and would be willing to plant trees and gravel the lot if necessary. Gary Anderson, Building Official, stated if the ordinance is going to be changed to allow outside storage on vacant lots then there should be screening requirements that apply. Jon Bogart recommended researching the following items before the next meeting: What land is available in the industrial park? If the interim permit is appropriate, what would be the length of time a permit would be granted? How would we enforce the deadline when the interim use is over? DICK MARTIE MADE A MOTION TO HAVE STAFF LOOK INTO THE ISSUE OF OUTSIDE STORAGE IN MORE DETAIL IN THE INDUSTRIAL PARK FOR A REVIEW AT THE NEXT MEETING. Rod Dragsten seconded the motion. Motion passes unanimously. M-1 . zrm t 1 11 : 1. .af.a! -:M \!N Loi—IJT;l r, ri 9 \ �;r: : t! :l �f 1 �.i' t � • 11' 1 tea! k`I \ } � � 1 i .�, '.% ! .1 Jef074cill reported that the Planning Commission previously approved the conditional use permits allowing for the development of a 48 -unit, 3 -story senior horsing facility and allowing for development of a joint parking lot Page 7 0 Planning Commisyian Minutes - 31);,115 shared by the Hospital District and the Housing Allianco, The appn+vals were granted based on the finding that the propostd is anisistunt with the comprehensive plan. Although the budget within the TIF flan for TIF District No. 1-19 may need to be modified, the Planning Commission ie request to adopt the resolution in order to kap the pnUk t on at timely schedule. RICHARD CARLSON MADE A MOTION TO APPROVE RF:`0I.U'rI0N FINDING THE MODIFIED REDEVELOPMENT PLAN FOIL REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT NO.1, AND TIF PLAN FOH TIF DIN'19t1(7 NO 1-19, LOCATED WITHIN REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT N0. 1. TO BE CONSISTENT WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE: PIAN FY)H TIIF: VITY. (RESOLUTION 95-1). Seconded by Dick Frio. Motion passed unanimously 10. Review time line for utxlating comarehensive olon fig the he cam. Jeff O'Neill, Assistant Administrator, provided an update to the Plonniug Commission on the comprehensive plan schedule. Thu city cvnu►cil hod authorized an expenditure of $24,000 toward completion of an uixluto to the comprehensive plan for Monticello. Steve Grittman, City Planner, explained that the it would Iw is vary aggressive schedule to complete the update by October. It is reforrod to ns an update but it is in reality a now plan. Gritttnun would he working closely with the Planning Commission. The process would he started by interviewing a variety of community members that are involved in n wide range of business, commissions, and organizations. 'Phis will give the consultants an understanding of Monticello and a place In Wart to fiirn►ulato and focus on community long range planning. The Idea is to have is document that the city residents have produced and use the nuisultnut. only for guidance. 11. Review sketch plan outlining residential develoemmtt of the John bierssen nrone ty. Jeff O'Neill, Assistant Administrator, reviewed the skuteh plan Pier the Leersaen property. It is a 10 acro parcel with 10 lots. Thoro is only an access on Fallon Ave so an additional access is needed. It was suggested that the road should not and in a cul-de-sac and should he dosignod Uj extend into the property to the south. The Planning Commission thought this plat should be referred to the Park's Commission for feedback ns tA) the design of the park area. Page 8 (D Planning Commission Minutes - 2/07/95 12. Qgsideration of aanoiB&S a chairwmn for 1995. After discussion, Dick Frie was appointed as chairperson of the Planning Coanmission. 13. DICK FRIE MADE A MOTION TO ADJOURN THE MEETING. Seconded by Richard Carlson Meeting adjourned 9:45p.m. Respectfully submitted, Wanda Kraemer Development Services Technician L C Page 10 Planning Commission Agenda - 317/95 & Discuss "oK-elle" onteide storage in I-1 and I.B_MMM. (J.O.) At the previous meeting of the commission, the commission tabled action providing specific direction to Jay Morrell with regard to designing an ordinance amendment that would allow off-site outside storage in an industrial zone. For the sake of efficiency, I am copying the same information that was provided in the February meeting agenda packet. Staff has no additional information on the topic. the alternatives remain the same. Planning Commission Agenda - 2/7/95 /� c®G =J Consideration of alternatives for ¢gvelooment of a zoning ordinance amendmens th$t would allow vehicle storage or narking at q location other than the urincinal use. Anniicant. Jav Morrell. (J.OJ A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: A few weeks ago, City staff discovered that Jay Morrell, owner of M & P Transport, was parking/staring vehicles and trailers on property recently purchased from the Oakwood Partnership. The lot purchased for vehicle parking is located some distance from the M & P offices or "principal use." This practice is not allowed under our current ordinance. Under the current ordinance, parking and/or storage is allowed as an accessory use. An accessory use is not allowed without a principal use. In other words, parking lots and storage areae cannot be developed without an associated business operation on the same site. Morrell was notified of the violation accordingly. In response to the notification, Morrell has requested that the City consider amending the zoning ordinance in a manner that would allow storage to occur at a location other than the location of the principal use. Morrell has not offered a specific ordinance amendment because there are a number of approaches that could be made to accomplish Morrell's goal. It, therefore, makes sense to review the various approaches with the Planning Commission to determine the best approach prior to submittal of a formal application request for a zoning ordinance amendment. Planning Commission will be provided with a verbal report from Steve Grittman regarding possible alteratives for development of zoning ordinance amendments that would allow storage or parking of vehicles at a location other than the principal use. Jay Morrell will be applying for an ordinance amendment based on the Planning Commission conversation and discussion of the matter. Following are different approaches that will be reviewed at the meeting in more detail. Adopt an ordinance that allows outside storage to occur as a conditional use in an I-2 zone (currently it is allowed only as an accessory use). Adopt an ordinance amendment that allows outside storage as an accessory use on a parcel other than the parcel on which the principal use is occurring. 0 Planning Commission Agenda - 2/7/95 3 Adopt an ordinance that allows outside storage as an interim use. Under this alternative, an ordinance amendment would need to be developed that would allow short-term or interim use of land in a manner that is not consistent with the zoning ordinance. Morrell would be allowed to use the property for storage for a limited number of years and be required to screen the storage area 4. Other alternatives??? 5. Planning Commission may decide that the ordinance is fine the way it is and reject the notion of providing any guidance to Morrell to assist him in designing an amendment to the code. Under this alternative, Morrell would prepare a zoning ordinance amendment for review at the next meeting of the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission would review and make recommendation to Council for review at first meeting of the City Council in March. Enforcement action would be initiated at such time that the Council acts to deny the ordinance amendment necessary to legally support Morrell's use of the land. Please note that enforcement action has been delayed based on the advice of the City Attorney. It is his view that the City should first determine whether or not to change the ordinance to allow the use before taking legal action. He has noted that the culmination of the legal action will occur after the decision on the zoning ordinance amendment is made; therefore, it would be premature to take legal steps at this time. Planning Commission is asked to review Grittman's report and the options above and provide Morrell with guidance as to development of a zoning ordinance amendment. The ordinance amendment would be reviewed at the meeting in March. C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff has no firm recommendation at this time. We do believe that the existing ordinances limiting off-site storage and parking are important. Changes to it should not be taken lightly. Copy of all correspondence with Jay Morrell regarding this situation. D3 250 East Broadway P. O. Bar 1147 Monticello, MN 55362.9245 Phone: (612) 295-2711 Metro: ((�66612) 333.55773394 Mrl 2)Jay M. orrell MP Transport Boz 477 1401 Fallon Avenue Monticello, MN 58382-0477 RE: Stomp of Semi -Trailers an Block 3, Lot 2 Oakwood Industrial Park Addition, City of Monticello Dear Mr. Morrell, December 22, 1994 I noticed today that you have created a driveway access to Lot 2 and are currently storing some semi- trailers in the back soatheaat comer of Block 3, Lot 2, Oakwood Industrial Park Addition in the City of Monticello. The nae of this lot fbr outside storage of these semi-troilm in not an allowable use within the zoning district designation for this lot, I-2 (heavy indastriaD zoning withaat a principle use, that being some type of a building. If a building was constructed there first then outside storage is only allowed as a conditional use in the I-2 (heavy indnsaw) caning. You have two options with regards to addresdag this matter. They are as follows: A. Remove the atisting semi -trailers and remove the culvert fbr the driveway with a fill material over iL This work is to be completed within 10 days upas receipt of this letter or this matter will be corned over to the City Attorney for further action. Submit a completed applimtion fbr an ordinance amend -am to allow outside storage in an I-2 (heavy industriaD using as an allowable age without a principle ase. (a building mss) on the site. Use of the pop. for ouw l storage would depend ® the results of the zoning ordinance amendment promm Remove the eAsdng semi -trailers and remove the culvert (br the driveway with a fill material over iL This work is to be completed within 10 days upon receipt of this letter or this matter will be tamed over to the City Attorney fbr fW,ther eetion. 0 Mr. Jay Morrell December 22, 19% Page 2 B. Develop a principal an on site and sembit a regneat for a Conditional use permit allowing open and outside storage. In oogjmWon with peepartion and review of building plan4 sebmft an application for a Conditional on request to allow open and outdoor gasp in an I-2 (heavy iadua tel) sone. Alan, The metal culvert which is currently placed in the right-of-way Sir the driveway access to this lot must meet City design criteria. You will have 10 days upon receipt of this letter to remove the existing semi�trar7ere and the metal culvert with the SD material veer it 6om Block 3. Lot 2, Oakwood Industrial Park Addition in the City of Monticello. FaiZrue to remove both 6om this lot will result in tuning this matter over to the City Am mey 1br flasher --tion If you should have my Questions please %el 6 se to Contact me. Sincerely. CITY OF MONTICELLO G (Anderson GAO ee Bich Wol6teller, City Admlaistmtor Jeff O'Neill. Assistant City AdminiftUar John Slmols, Public Works Director Paul Weingardsn, Ciq Attorney Bret Wein, City EogSnsar Brad Pyle. Mayor 14 A December 27, 1994 Gary Anderson, Zoning Administrator City of Monticello 290 East Broadway PO Box 1147 Monticello, MN 99362-9249 I am in receipt Of your letter dated December 22, 1994 regarding our use of Block 3, Lot 2, Oakwood Industrial Park. I am in disagreement with you regarding your interpretation. We are now a current building owner in the Industrial Park which we occupy and I feel we are in compliance to the current ordinances. I also believe if you were to check the minutes Of past meetings you will find that I have received permission to store trailers outside the facility. However, since you have raised an issue we would very much like to comply with all of your wishes. Therefore, please send us an application of ordinance amendment form as you have suggested in 1H. I would also ask that the City Join me in this request since it would obviously promote and encourage expansion within the Oakwood Industrial Park. H mealy. ay torr 1;0 JCMIJO ccl Rick wolfstaller, City Administrator Jeff O'Neill, Assistance City Administrator John Himola, Public works Director Paul Weingarden, City Attorney Bret Weiss, City Engineer Brad Pyle, Mayor i e a P 7Y000Q. OL ALDAN= COIIQRI CIL sum FIW4 Q cmclm am ar COIRam &now WL g16 ar.401610. ik R.O. soar 477 P.O. so 066 P.O. Ewa a 17600 N&V. 23 KL 1200 Pblb Avenue MWAgtlA MN 60702 AMunmis, MN 66706 WPOPnR MN Sam Now Latdm MN 00273 MOnM, MN 06207 0 M & P TRANSPORT, RNC. CONCRETE PHOOUCTS OF NEW LMMN, INC. *Aa +y Ph" - (012) 853122 Phot» - (6121 ]042711 Mom - (012) 772.4740 Fn .(812) 3724]60 CONCRETE OF MGM INC. Phone - (012) 0!0 7700 r� ALE MORIA CONCRETE CO. WADENA READY41DI _ Phan -(612) 7034=Photr - (21a! 671.1600 s a P TRAs7PORT. OIC Rut - (512) 763-4676 FU - (6121 7674676 December 27, 1994 Gary Anderson, Zoning Administrator City of Monticello 290 East Broadway PO Box 1147 Monticello, MN 99362-9249 I am in receipt Of your letter dated December 22, 1994 regarding our use of Block 3, Lot 2, Oakwood Industrial Park. I am in disagreement with you regarding your interpretation. We are now a current building owner in the Industrial Park which we occupy and I feel we are in compliance to the current ordinances. I also believe if you were to check the minutes Of past meetings you will find that I have received permission to store trailers outside the facility. However, since you have raised an issue we would very much like to comply with all of your wishes. Therefore, please send us an application of ordinance amendment form as you have suggested in 1H. I would also ask that the City Join me in this request since it would obviously promote and encourage expansion within the Oakwood Industrial Park. H mealy. ay torr 1;0 JCMIJO ccl Rick wolfstaller, City Administrator Jeff O'Neill, Assistance City Administrator John Himola, Public works Director Paul Weingarden, City Attorney Bret Weiss, City Engineer Brad Pyle, Mayor i e a P 7Y000Q. OL ALDAN= COIIQRI CIL sum FIW4 Q cmclm am ar COIRam &now WL g16 ar.401610. ik R.O. soar 477 P.O. so 066 P.O. Ewa a 17600 N&V. 23 KL 1200 Pblb Avenue MWAgtlA MN 60702 AMunmis, MN 66706 WPOPnR MN Sam Now Latdm MN 00273 MOnM, MN 06207 0 250 Eau Broadway P. O. Box 1147 Mondcdlo, MN 55362-9245 Phone: (612) 295-2711 Meso (612) 333-5739 Fax: (612) 2954404 Jay 0. Morrell M d: P Transport, Inc. PO Boz 477 Monticello MN 68382 Dear Jay Morrell: Enclosed is the rezoning application you requested. Please complete the application and return the application and the $260.00 to City Hall by January 20th, 1996. The Planning Commission will meet an February 7th, L996. If you have any questions, please give me a call. Sincerely, CITY OF MONTICELLO weN"j-, Jeff ONeiII Assistant Administrator JOhvk Enclosure cc: File NI & P TRANSPORT. INC. CONCRETE PFWtICTS OF NEW LONDON. INC. Ph" • (81Z n5.3122 Aa - (512) 356011 1 , - - (512! 3324710 Fax • (5121 332.2355 CONCRETE OF N0 OIC. P+�• • ro+� eeaa75o / 1 A'EXANOFDA CONCRETE CIL WADENA REAOY4IHX Plan. • (812) 7534550 Pla - (21a) 53+-1655 r a P TaANl W. 5R. Fa • (612) 7834575 Fa - 012) 7814575 January 6, 1995 Jeff O'Neill, Assistant Administrator City of..Monticello 250 East Broadway PO Box 1147 Monticello, MN 55362 In regards to our recent correspondence regarding my ordinances, would you please send to me. complete any and all ordinances that would apply to the rezoning application the City is requesting. If you have any questions please give me a call. Sincerely, v CMorrell M P Transport JCM1/e t ■ • P TPAt51OAT. Sae. AIS COat M C0. WUM ATM40 am PNWJMwe Ulm `a P.O. sa 477 P.0.5m 555 P.O. an M 17850 N1a7. 13 "a Mondor". MN am AlasaMAL MN 55355 WaaanL MN 5515= NW LamdM MN SIM Y L COrQtta Ot• 11651W, alt 12M Paplb AV~ MOM MN 552x7 Z50 East Broadway P. 0. Box 1147 January 10, 1995 Monticello, MN 55362.9245 Phone: (612) Z95-2711 lderro: (612) 333-5739 Fax. (612) 2954404 Mr. Jay Morrell 10054 Ickler Avenue NE Monticello, MN 55362 Dear Mr. Morrell: In regard to the zoning ordinance violation at Lot 2, Block 3, Oakwood Industrial Park, and per your request for additional information, enclosed are sections from the zoning )rdinance that apply. As you will note, in the I-1 and I-2 zones, outside storage is allowed as an accessory use and regulated under the conditional use permit process. According to the ordinance, "an accessory use is a subordinate u$e which is located on the same lot on which the main building or use is situated and which is reasonably necessary and incidental to the conduct of the primary use of such building or main use." Therefore, an accessory use without an associated principal use on the same property is not a )awful permitted use. Following are ideas for ordinance amendments that, if adopted, would accomplish your goai of using said property for outside storage. Please review the ideas below and contact me to set up a meeting to discuss the matter further. Again, the deadline for submittal of your formal application is Monday, January 23, 1895. Request that outside storage be redefined as an allowable principal use regulated under the conditional use permit process. OR Request that the definition of accessory use be modified to allow outside storage as an accessory use to occur 6n a different lot from the main building or use. 030 Mr. Jay Morrell January 10, 1996 Page 2 Thank you for reviewing this information; I look forward to your ealL Sincerely, CITY OFM� ONS JTIICCE,LLO Assistant Administrator JO/kd Enclosures ec Paul Weingaeden, City Attorney Gary Anderson, Building Oficial File Planning Commission Agenda - 3/7/95 Update an Council action on grdinance reQulatlna steel and oSl buildings in commercial and business camnua zones. A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: Planning Commission is not asked to take any formal action on this matter pending additional input from business owners that attended the previous Council meeting on February 27. The following is provided as an update in anticipation of the item being placed on the agenda for formal consideration at the regular Planning Commission meeting in April. At the Council meeting on February 27, 1995, the City Council reviewed the Planning Commission recommendation which called for prohibiting pole and steel buildings in commercial districts and prohibiting pole buildings in the business campus district. Council acted to refer the matter back to the Planning Commission for further review. At the meeting, a number of business owners were in attendance voicing concerns about the ordinance amendment. Their concerns related to the costs associated with construction and associated higher taxation resulting from conventional construction. The City Council was somewhat supportive of the ordinance amendment regulating pole buildings but seemed to lean toward regulation through control of exterior treatment of steel and pole structures. See the attached excerpt for the business campus zoning district regulations on how the City currently regulates facade design in the business campus zone. The idea would be to use specific language similar to language used in 15A - 15B to regulate exterior wall design in the commercial districts. Unfortunately, the Planning Commission did not have benefit from the input from the business owners that attended the Council meeting. This is a classic example of what happens when the public does not attend the formal public hearing on the topic conducted by the Planning Commission and instead goes directly to the Council with concerns. Does anyone have ideas on how to assure good public attendance at the Planning Commission public hearing to avoid this situation in the future? In this case, we only provided a notice in the paper, which met the minimum requirements of the law. It is obvious that in this case, we should have sent a notice to every business that uses pole construction. 5. The provisions of Chapter 22 of this ordinance are considered and satisfactorily met. [B) Industrial planned unit development as regulated by Chapter 20 of this ordinance. (C) Indoor limited retail sales accessory to office/ manufacturing uses provided that: 1. Location: (a) All sales are conducted in a clearly defined area of the principal building reserved exclusively for retail sales. Said sales area must be physically segregated from other principal activities in the building. (b) The retail sales area must be located on the ground floor of the principal building. 2. Sales Area. The retail sales activity shall not occupy more than fifteen (15) percent of the gross floor area of the building. 3. Access. The building where such use is located is one having direct access to a collector or arterial level street without the necessity of using residential streets. 4. Hours. Hours of operation are limited to 5:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m. The provisions of this section are considered and satisfactorily met. 15A-5: "BC" DESIGN AND SITE PLAN STANDARDS: The following minimum requirements shall be observed in the "BC" District subject to additional requirements, exceptions and modifications set forth in this chapter: (A) Lot Coverage. Not less than thirty (30) percent of the lot, parcel, or tract of land shall remain as a grass plot including shrubbery, plantings, or fencing and shell be landscaped. G Building Type and Construction and Roof Slope O1 Any exposed metal or fiberglass finish on all buildings shall be limited to no more than fifty (50) percent of any one wall if it Is coordinated into the architectural design. Any metal finish utilized In the building shall be aluminum of twenty-six (26) gauge steel, the roof slope shall be limited to a maximum of one (1) in twelve (12) slope. NONTICELLO ZONING ORDINANCE 15A 3 I OIn the"BC" District, all buildings constructed of curtain wall panels of finished steel, aluminum, or fiberglass shall be required to be faced with brick, wood, stone, architectural concrete case in place or pre -case panels on all wall surfaces. (C] Parking. Detailed parking plans in compliance with Chapter 3, Section S, shall be submitted for City review and approved before a building permit may be obtained. (D) Loading. A detailed off-street loading plan, including bertha, area, and access shall be submitted to the City in conformance with the provisions of Chapter 3, Section 6, for review and approval prior to issuance of a building permit. [E] Landscaping. A detailed landscaping plan in conformance with Chapter 3, Section 2 [G], shall be submitted to the Council and approved before a building permit may be obtained. In addition to the requirements of Chapter 3, Section 2 (G), all parcels developed along the boundary between the BC zone and a residential zone shall include planting of evergreens as a screen between BC and R-1 uses. The evergreens planted shall be planted every 14 feet along the property boundary. (F] Usable Open Space. Every effort shall be made to preserve natural ponding areas and features of the land to create passive open space. (G] Signage. A comprehensive sign plan must be submitted in conformance with Chapter 3, Section 9. Lot Requirements: Lot Area - 30,000 eq ft Lot width - 100 feet Setbacks: Front Yard - SO feet Side Yard - 30 feet Rear Yard - 40 feet (02/24/92, #221) MONTICELLO ZONING ORDINANCE POLE BUILDINGISTEEL•BUILDINGICONVENTIONAL CONSTRUCTION TAX IMPACT ANALYSIS POLETAX.WK4:02/MS 0 Same StnxxuelSame Market Valuer Exlstin I Stnxture/Markst Value/Taxes P84 Conventional Consirction Market Percent Taxes I Current Market Value Increase Const Square Market Valuer Taxes Convert- with Com Comen- Tvoe Feet Value So Ft Current tlonal Const. tional Mortticeflo RV Pole 3240 $75,800 $23 $2.609 $156.100 205.94% $6.402 Rolling Wheels Pole 1,920 $34,900 $18$1,201 $71,900 208.02% $2.474 Glass Hut Pole 5,472 $31200 $6 $1,0741 $64200 205.77% 52209 General Rental Pole 2,400 $53,300 $22 $1,634 $109,700 205.82% $3,953 Fair's Garden Pole 6,494 $87,700 $14 $3,018 $180,600 205.93% $7,694 Subtotal 19,528 $282,900 $14 $9,736 $682,500 205.88% $22,732 Harry's Auto Steel 13200 $200200 $15 $8.729 $280.300 140.01% $12,956 VFW Steel 6,650 $124,300 522 $4,724 $174,000 139.98% $7,348 Automatic Garage Steel 13,500 $232,200 $17 $10,417 $326.500 140.61% $15,394 Champion Auto Steel 5.400 $85.700 $16 $2.949 $120,000 140.02% $4,500 Royal Tim steel 12,000 $167,200 $14 $8017 $234,100 140.01% $10.518 ThePtumtlery Steel 3,600 $85.800 $18 $2258 $91,800 139.94% $3.159 +.arsons Ace Hrdwam Steel 8.630 5136,100 $15 $5.294 $189,100 139.97% $8,143 bptal 62,180 $1.010.3op $181 $41.368 $1.415,800 140.08%1 582.018 (Totals 1 1 81.7081 $1 293 2001 1 $51.0% $1.998.300 1 $84,7481 Construction costs per square toot: Pole wwnga (817, sloes strut re Conventional t3 ' It aaiaa� much to DunO a pole bu8dlnp ee ft does to bund a eortventlonai buBCing. • The ted by a pole bu0dlrtp ere erre hart the amount genmated by a WWerttlWW buedinp. • The cost to gravida wvlo a to a pole tal6dtng or steal Witt ro Is the same as the coat to provlde services to a Conventional building. POLETAX.WK4:02/MS 0 Planning Commission Agenda - 3/7/95 Discuss options for maintaining ggnearance of boulevardsla o un double- t3rontina lots. W.O.) A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: At the previous meeting, the Planning Commission reviewed the proposed ordinance amendment that would regulate placement of accessory structures in rear yards. In response to the draft ordinance, the Planning Commission indicated that this measure would not likely solve the problem. It was suggested that perhaps additional landscaping or berming could be employed to create a visual separation between the boulevard and the back yard areas. Under this alternative, the developer of the private lots would be required to build a low berm and plant at least two trees along the rear yard lot line on each private lot. This planting would be in addition to the two trees that are already required by ordinance in the front yard area. The City could match the tree planting done by the developer by planting at least two trees along the boulevard as part of the construction project. The cost of the trees could be incorporated into the public improvement costs which are paid by the developer as well. For existing boulevards, the City could etablish plantings along such boulevards as a priority area for tree planting. The plan above for enhancing boulevards would not screen the view of rear yards but would serve to enhance boulevard areas at a relatively low cost. The berm requirement would need to be somewhat flexible to accommodate drainage concerns. B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS: Motion to direct City staff to prepare amendments to the subdivision ordinance requiring tree planting in rear yards of double -fronting Iota for review at the next meeting of the Planning Commission. Under this alternative, City staff will prepare the text amendment and will notify developers that would be affected by the proposal. Developers would be invited to the next Planning Commission meeting to provide input to the Planning Commission prior to consideration of a formal recommendation. Motion to table the matter and seek additional alternatives. The plan outlined above is relatively simple and may not adequately address the problem. Perhaps additional research on what other communities have done is appropriate. 'mac t �.,..P�n�.•,,./ Planning Commission Agenda - 3/7/85 C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends alternative 01 as a reasonable step toward improving boulevard areas where double -fronting lots exist. Staff would like to move forward on this topic at this time so that the ordinance amendment can be in place prior to completing the development agreement governing the Mein Farms. D. SUPPORTING DAA: None. Planning Commission Agenda - 3/7/95 8. Update on reauest Wdgvelon ^og-site" uar><ina. (J.O.) A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: No action is requested at this time. The following is a brief update on an item that the Planning Commission may be formally addressing at an upcoming meeting. Bridge Water Telephone is considering an expansion of their facility on Highway 25. The problem is that there is not enough room on site to accommodate parking requirements, and it may not be possible to purchase adjoining property for development of the parking area. Property may be available nearby but separate from the building site that could be developed for parking in conjunction with the expansion. Here is the problem: According to my preliminary review of the ordinance, it is not possible to develop a parking lot at a location apart from the business that it serves. To do so would be to allow a parking lot as a principal use of a parcel. The ordinance is designed to assure practical use of the parking lot by the business that is expanding, and it assures the City that the two uses (business and parking) remain connected. In other words, if the parking lot and business aro located on the same parcel, it is not possible to sell off the parking area once the building has been constructed. An exception to this rule is the case of a joint parking arrangement between two businesses that operate at different/opposing hours. An example of this situation is the arrangement between the Muller Theater and Marquette Bank. In this situation, the Muller Theater parking is provided by joint agreement by the bank. This situation was allowed under a conditional use permit process. You also are probably aware that Maus Foods has a parking lot apart from the store. In this case, the parking lot was not needed to meet the minimum requirements of the ordinance. However, the problem remains that the parking lot represents a principal use which, according to my interpretation of the ordinance, is a violation. By tho way, for any cynics in the audience, the lot was developed before Maus became Mayor. If the presence of this lot violates the ordinance, it was allowed by mistake. Please note that my interpretation of the ordinance in this regard is preliminary. I have asked Steve Grittman to review the situation in detail and elaborate on what I have prepared above. I will be providing additional information to the applicant regarding a possible need to amend the ordinance regarding this situation based on information from Grittman. Planning Commission is likely to be addressing the request in the near future. planning Commission Agenda - 3/7/95 7. Report lY+om Commisei no eta+ on recent nin . (J.O.) Dick Frie and Rod Dragsten will report on the training program that they attended in February. 7 Planning Commission Agenda - 3/7/95 ComorehensLyL,glan update. (J.OJ Staff has collected the information requested by the Planner and submitted such to the Planner for review and incorporation into planning activities. The attached list reveals the data that will be reviewed and incorporated into the report. Grittman will be reporting on his progress on development of the "tactics" report and will be answering any questions that you might have at this point in the process. CITY OF MONTICELLO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN INVENTORY INFORMATION REQUIREMENTS The following is a listing of information required to complete the Inventory portion of the comprehensive planning process. The information required is available to the City or can be obtained through various government agencies. Copies of the following: Area aerial photographs Building permit data (1980 to current) City base map DNR wetlands map FEMA Flood Plain Map Sanitary Sewer System Plan Soils survey map Storm Water Control Plan Subdivision Ordinance U.S. Fish and Wildlife protected waters map U.S.O.S.topography map Water/sewer system maps Water System Plan Zomig map Zoning Ordinance Identification of the following: Administration - system of government - government unit staffing - government unit boards and commissions Assessed valuation of property County road improvement plans Current subject unit tax rue - comparison tax rate Financial report Fire insurance rating Fire protection - equipment - personnel Planned roadway improvements (State, County, local) Public buildings Public recreational facilities Public works department - staffing - equipment - improvement plans - linear miles of roads percent paved map identifying paved/unpaved roads Police protection Retail Sales Data - subject unit and surrounding area - NAC information library Roadway functional classification system School district enrollment - resident/total - capacity Semi-public buildings/areas Water/sewer system designs and capacities Required Census Data - Assumed to be 1990 for Monticello only, unless noted. Population last 4 census counts (minimum) • surrounding communities/county (past and present) - Big Lake (City) - Big Lake Township - Monticello Township - Wright county State Demographer's current estimate - byagegroup Household - last 4 census counts (minimum) - surrounding communities/county - Big Lake (City) - Big Lake Township - Monticello Township - Wright County - State Demographer's current estimate - Household types (family, w/ child, etc.) Average household size last 4 census counts surrounding communities - Big Lake (City) - Big Lake Township - Monticello Township - Wright County - State Demographer's current estimate Commuting time of residents Employment by occupation J Education attainment levels Median family income - surrounding communities Big Lake (City) - Big Lake Township Monticello Township - Wright County Per capita income -surrounding communities Big Lake (City) - Big Lake Township - Monticello Township - Wright County Low income population - Total number of low income persons/ % of population - Total number of low income families/ % of population - sunounding communities Big Lake (City) - Big Lake Township - Monticello Township - Wright County Housing units - year built - SF housing unit value - median horsing value - surrounding communities Big Lake (City) Big Lake Township - Monticello Township - Wright County 01 Planning Commission Agenda - 3/7/95 I plan on giving a very brief report on the various prejects planned for the summer of 1995. As you already know, it is going to be a very busy and exciting summer. (letting the comp plan updated and keeping track of the projects below will be a challenge. Meadow Oak Storm Sewer Outlet Eastwood Knoll River Mill Pathway Project Cardinal Hills V Gould Brothers Cheverolet Sanitary Sewer Extension Klein Farms/School Boulevard Meadow Oak Park Public Works Building Expansion Mississippi Shores Orrin 7bompson Planning Commission Agenda - 3/7/95 10. Parke Commission activity nodate. (J.OJ Parks Commission is requesting City Council to complete detailed facilities study in conjunction with the comp plan update. 9