Loading...
Planning Commission Agenda Packet 03-03-1994AGENDA REGULAR MEETING - MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION Thursday, March 3, 1994 - 7 p.m. Members: Cindy Lemm, Richard Carlson, Jon Bogart, Brian Stumpf, Richard Martie 7:00 p.m. 1. Call to order. 7:02 p.m. 2. Approval of minutes of the regular meeting held February 1, 1994. 7:04 p.m. 3. Approval of minutes of the special meeting held February 22, 1994. 7:06 p.m. 4. Public Hearing --Consideration of a conditional use permit to allow open and outdoor storage and consideration of a parking lot and drive aisle conditional use permit in an I-2 (heavy industrial) zone. Applicant, Sunny Fresh Foods, Inc. 7:26 p.m. b. Public Hearing --Consideration of amendments to the zoning map and to the comprehensive plan for the City relating to rezoning of the property known as 'The Evergreens." Applicants, Kim Kjellberg, Kjellberg, Inc.; and Tony Emmerich, Tony Emmerich Construction, Inc. 8:06 p.m. 6. Public Hearing --Consideration of a conditional use permit allowing open and outdoor storage and consideration of a parking lot and drive aisle conditional use permit in an 1-1 (light industrial) zone. Applicant, SMA Elevator. 8:26 p.m. 7. Public Hearing --Consideration of an amendment to Section 3-9: (E) of the zoning ordinance regulating the definition, size, number, and location of premise and product signs allowed within the PZM, B-1, B-2, B-3, B-4, 1-1, and 1-2 districts. Applicant, Monticello Planning Commission. 8:46 p.m. 8. Public Hearing --Consideration of a variance request to allow replacement of an existing non -conforming pylon sign with o now non -conforming pylon sign and reader hoard sign. The replacement pylon sign to be more square footage than the 200 sq ft maximum and taller than the 32.11 maximum allowed. Applicant, McDonalds Corporation. 9:16 P.M. 9. Public Hearing --Consideration of an amendment to Section 3-2: (F) of the zoning ordinance regulating placement of fences. Amendment would allow placement of fences on a property line only with written approval from property owners affected. Applicant, Monticello Planning Commission. Agenda Monticello Planning Commission March 3, 1994 Page 2 9:31 p.m. 10. Public Hearing --Consideration of an amendment to Section 34: (G) of the zoning ordinance that further defines minimum floor area requirements for the various styles of single family residential structures. Applicant, Monticello Planning Commission. 9:46 p.m. 11. Public Hearing --Consideration of a conditional use permit allowing minor auto repair and open and outdoor storage in a B-3 (highway business) zone. Applicant, Milton Olson. 9:48 p.m. 12. Consideration of calling for a public hearing on an amendment to the Monticello Zoning Ordinance regulating pole construction (Jeff report). 10:08 p.m. 13. Adjournment. Prl— 7 �•..l..a• V.fe T..&ls' GL.Pi-t�3'l....-,ylJolrF�•�..;o.......l". P1a — 0 0 MINUTES REGULAR MEETING - MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday, February 1, 1994 - 7 p.m Members Present: Cindy Lemm, Richard Martie, Jon Bogart, Brian Stumpf, and Richard Carlson Members Absent: None Staff Present: Gary Anderson, Jeff O'Neill 1. The meeting was called to order by Chairperson Cindy Lemm at 7:01 p.m. 2. A motion was made by Brian Stumpf and seconded by Jon Bogart to approve the minutes of the regular meeting held January 4, 1994. Motion carried unanimously. 3. Public Hearing --Consideration of a variance p Seption 3-9 E: 2 (b) ii of the Montipello Zoning Ordinance which would allpw disnlav of two additional Premise identification signs. Aoulicant. Holidav Stationstores. Jeff ONeill, Assistant Administrator, explained Holiday Stationstores' request to be allowed three premise identification signs on their building exterior walls. The plan as proposed does not show any product identification signs in addition to the three proposed premise identification signs. The ordinance allows two product identification signs and premise identification sign in addition to a freestanding pylon sign. Holiday Stationstores' request does not exceed the maximum square footage that would be allowed, that being 100 sq ft. Chairperson Cindy Lemm then opened the public hearing. Mark Nelson, representing Holiday Stationstores, questioned the existing sign ordinance by today's standards where theirs would be a unique situation, that being frontage on Highway 25, West 7th Street, and also Walnut Street. With the ordnance being specific to one premise identification sign, Holiday Stationstores is stuck to only specific wall on which to display the Holiday Stationstore identification sign. Mr. Nelson explained in his request that with the unique situation where they are located and the chances of additional properties requesting this are probably very slim. So if the Planning Commission would be looking at an ordinance amendment to allow situations with buildings where they have more than two public right-of-ways which serve their property, they should be allowed to be granted additional signage to display their business fronting each of these public right-of-ways. Page 1 Planning Commission Minutes - 2/1/94 Chairperson Cindy Lemur then closed the public hearing and opened the meeting for discussion amongst Planning Commission members. The discussion brought up by Commission members was as follows. The existing Flickers business location being allowed to have more signs than what the ordinance allows. Staff responded that Flickers had gone through two or three different variance requests to allow the additional wall signage. The signage as proposed does appear to be a much cleaner use of the signage in relationship to the size of the building and in its location. There should be no change needed, as one pylon sign and one wall sign should be sufficient to advertise your business name at your site. There being no further discussion amongst Planning Commission members, a motion was made by Jon Bogart and seconded by Richard Carlson to table the variance request to Section 3-9 E: 2 (b) ii of the Monticello Zoning Ordinance, which would allow display of two additional premise identification signs for the City staff to research a possible ordinance amendment which would allow certain businesses with more than two public right-of-ways which serve their properties to be allowed additional premise identification signs. Motion carried unanimously. Public Hearin¢..Consideration of a variance reauest which would allow two curh cuts where street frontaee is less than 250 ft. Anolicant. Libertv Savings Jeff O'Neill, Assistant Administrator, explained Liberty Savings' request to be allowed two curb cuts along existing street frontage having less than the minimum allowed by ordinance, that being 125 ft of street frontage along a public right-of-way per curb cut. O'Neill highlighted on the overhead transparency the proposed alternates that the City staff had come up with in relationship to the ingress/egress from the proposed remodeled location for the new Liberty Savings building off of East Broadway. Alternative #1 was to create a right -in only off of westbound East Broadway and a right -out onto westbound East Broadway, and allow two-way traffic on site out to Palm Street. Alternative q2 was to place a curb cut in the center of the two proposed driveway curb cuts to allow a right -in off of westbound East Broadway and a right -out onto westbound East Broadway. Alternative N3 was to leave the curb cut in place where the one is proposed to service the parking lot with the drive-through drive area to be redesigned to utilize this same curb cut for a right -in only off of westbound East Broadway and a right -out onto westbound East Broadway. Alternative A3 was to utilize the two new proposed curb cuts as proposed to allow a right - in off of westbound East Broadway into the parking lot and a right -out out Page 2 Planning Commission Minutes - 2/1/94 of the existing parking lot onto westbound East Broadway and a right -out of the drive-through onto westbound East Broadway. Alternative #4 was to allow the two curb cuts as proposed which would allow crossing traffic to cross eastbound East Broadway and go eastbound on East Broadway or to go westbound on East Broadway. Cindy Lemm then opened the public hearing Mr. Mark Braggleman, representing Liberty Savings, introduced the design team of Don Miller, President of Miller Construction, and Mr. Stuart Bailey, Miller Construction's staff architect. Mr. Braggleman highlighted the utilization of the proposed design as presented allows the customers to choose to go right out of the drive-through and the parking lot westbound onto East Broadway, or it also allows the customer to cross the center median and go eastbound on East Broadway out of the drive-through curb cut and also out of the parking lot curb cut. It also allows the customer in the parking lot to go from the parking lot into the drive-through driving aisle to proceed through the drive-through lane. The site plan allows for customers to enter only from Palm Street into their building site to go through the drive-through aisle or out into the parking lot. Mr. Braggleman explained Liberty Savings' position in Monticello. Liberty Savings has experienced a considerable amount of growth in the mortgage department service out of their Liberty Savings location in Monticello. It is the intent of Liberty Savings to preferably stay in a downtown location rather than go out to a new site and build a new building. Liberty Savings has spent a substantial number of dollars of investment into their downtown location in St. Cloud off of Division Street and would, therefore, like to put a substantial investment into the acquisition and demolition of a portion of the existing former funeral home business building and totally remodel the interior and the exterior of the building to more resemble a savings and loan business building. At this time, Liberty Savings is not proposing to get into the banking business, but they are looking at that as an option. That is the reason for the drive-through portion of the building to be added onto the existing building. It approximately takes two years from initial application until you actually receive approval from a federal deposit insurance company to establish a banking facility at this proposed location. Chairperson Cindy Lemm then closed the public hearing and opened the meeting for comments from the Planning Commission members. Commission members dealt at great length trying to come up with a proposed solution to accommodate Liberty Savings' development need in relationship to what the minimum requirements of the ordinance would be. Page 3 l `� Planning Commission Minutes - 2/1/94 Therefore, a motion was made by Richard Carlson and seconded by Brian Stumpf to recommend the alternative utilizing a proposed driveway curb cut for the parking lot to be a right -in only westbound off of East Broadway and a right -out only westbound on East Broadway. The drive-through to have a right -out only onto East Broadway. Motion to approve variance based on the finding that two driveway access points are acceptable due to the fact that one of the driveway access points is limited to one way out traffic only. With this proposed alternative, it should limit the congestion in this area. It is further recommended that the recommendation be referred to the County Engineering Department for their final design approval. Motion carried unanimously. Public Hearing --Consideration of a 12 -ft variance to Section :1-9; C7 of the zonine ordinance, which would allow a Bien to be set back 3 ft from the rieht-of-way. Aoulicant. Libertv Savings. AND Public Hearing --Consideration of a variance to Section 3-9: D2 of the zoning ordinance which would allow a non-conformine sign to be changed to another non -conforming sign. ADWicant. Libertv Savings. Jeff ONeill, Assistant Administrator, explained Liberty Savings' site plan, which includes development of a pylon sign proposed to be located 3 ft from the Broadway right-of-way. The ordinance requires the pylon sign to be located no closer than lb ft from the public right-of-way. The existing sign that was used in cor junction with the funeral home use provides the best location according to Liberty Savings to provide the best visibility for their site. Cindy Lemm then opened the public hearing. Mr. Mark Betterman, representing Liberty Savings, questioned some existing signs in the downtown locations where the signs are being allowed to be constructed closer than 15 ft from the public right-of-way. Cindy Lemm then closed the public hearing and opened the meeting for input from the Planning Commission members. Planning Commission members recognized Mr. Betterman's statement that there are other signs which have been allowed to be placed closer to the property line. However, the Liberty Savings proposed request would have a larger sign square footage than the maximum allowed, that being 50 sq ft, but would meet the proposed 18 -ft maximum height. City staff proposed that the Planning Commission members look at an ordinance amendment that would be similar to the ordinance amendment that was done to address signage along Highway 25. That signage related to the amount of street Page 4 L� Planning Commission Minutes - 211/94 frontage which abutted the public right-of-way to get the maximum that would be allowed, that being 100 sq ft where the minimum that would be allowed is 50 sq ft. Therefore, a motion was made by Jon Bogart and seconded by Richard Martie to table the consideration of a 12 -ft variance request to Section 3-9: C7 of the zoning ordinance, which would allow a sign to be set back 3 ft from the public right-of-way, and to table the consideration of a variance request to Section 3-9: D2 of the zoning ordinance, which would allow a non- conforming sign to be changed to another non -conforming sign. Motion carried unanimously. Additional In(prmation Items. Chairperson Cindy Lemm read a letter which she would like to have distributed to Council members at their next regularly scheduled meeting regarding their position for an appointment to the Planning Commission. Cindy felt she had done a respectable job in her position as a Planning Commission member and also as Chairperson of the Monticello Planning Commission and felt that should not be counted against her as criteria for Planning Commission member reappointments. 2. The next regular scheduled meeting is proposed to be for Tuesday, March 1994, at 7 p.m. It was the consensus of the five Planning Commission members present that that be the next date for the regularly scheduled Planning Commission meeting. There being no further business, a motion was made by Richard Carlson and seconded by Richard Martie to adjourn the meeting. The meeting adjourned at 9:48 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Gary Anderson Zoning Administrator Page 5 MINUTES SPECIAL MEETING - MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday, February 22, 1984. 8 pm. Members Present: Cindy Lemm, Jon Bogart, Brian Stumpf, and Richard Carlson Members Absent: Richard Martie Staff' Present: Gary Anderson, Jeff O'Neill The meeting was called to order by Chairperson Cindy Lemm at 5:01 p.m. Public Hearim--Consideration of amendment to the zonine man which would change the,zenine digtrict degignation of Parti of Lot 4. Block 1. Laurina Hillside Terrace Addition, from R-3 (multi -family residential) to PZM (uerformance zone mixed) zonine. Anolicant. Vauahn Veit Jeff 0 NeiU, Assistant Administrator, explained the applicant's, Hillside Partnership, request to be allowed an expansion of the former PJ's Pizza place to accommodate a restaurant and a bar within this remodeled lease space. The proposal required 18 additional parking stalls with PJ's restaurant and with this proposal would be required to have 56 total additional parking stalls. As of this date, City staff has not received any plans on the grading, drainage, or the proposed parking lot expansion layout. Cindy Lemm then opened the public hearing. John Gries, attorney representing Hillside Partnership and Vaughn Veit, proposed leasing the land from Vaughn Veit to the Hillside Partnership for the proposed parking lot expansion rather than go through a simple subdivision lot split. The rationale for that is the uncertainty of the proposed development of this vacant lot and not to tie a proposed development into a proposed subdivision at this time. Vaughn Veit questioned the amount of land area that would be needed for the parking lot. Some quick figures that were put together by City staff would accommodate, depending on where he'd like to put the parking and which would be most amenable to the property, that probably being an extension further east of the rear -most portion of the parking lot at the rear of the building. The approximate figures brought out were 93 ft of width that would be needed by approximately 270 some ft of depth to accommodate the 56 required number of off-street parking spaces needed. Page 1 �� Special Planning Commission Minutes - 2/22/94 ONeill highlighted that proper notification had been sent to neighboring properties within a 350 -ft radius of the property, and we had received no comment from the affected property owners with the exception of a phone call from the management company for the Hillside Apartments, that being that they would be unable to attend the meeting and that they were definitely in opposition to any type of proposed rezoning of the lot from the R-3 (medium density residential) zoning. Cindy Lemm then closed the public hearing and opened the meeting for any further input from the Planning Commission members. Planning Commission members raised a good point, that being who's actually going to utilize this additional parking. If the existing parking lot is not utilized to its full extent right now, what are the chances of all the businesses needing the off-street parking space at one time where we'd ever see the possible need for the 56 additional parking stalls. There currently exists a letter of agreement with Vaughn Veit in regard to the development of those 18 additional parking stalls that were required for the former PJ's restaurant. Planning Commission members asked the owner of the proposed to be remodeled restaurant/bar to be known as the Sunshine Depot to explain his proposal for the use of his business in relationship to what he has existing in Elk River. The existing site in Elk River does not have any parking problems. The majority of his business is 80% food and 20% liquor. His establishment is proposed not to have any arcades, video machines, karaoke music, or live music of any kind. His atmosphere provides light music with several tv's that are installed within different locations of the leased space area to more resemble a sports restaurant/bar atmosphere. His existing business in Elk River caters to the athletics which happen in the Elk River school program. He proposes to do the same thing in Monticello to promote sporting events. Food is served until 10 p.m. from Sunday through Thursday. Friday and Saturday nights the food portion is open until 11 P.M. Discussion was also brought up about the amount of vandalism/crime which occurs in this area. A comment brought up by Vaughn Veit was that the rear parking lot has had recent additional lighting installed to better lighten up the area in the rear at night and that he would be amenable to Page 2 Special Planning Commission Minutes - 2/22/94 other things to open up this area as more or less to allow this leased space to actually have two fronts, that being off of the front of the building and also off of the rear of the building to allow access to this leased space. John, one of the owners of Sunshine Depot, explained that he prefers to have a double entrance. It would also allow the people to utilize the rear entrance to this leased space if at all possible. Some possible suggestions to the crime problem would be installation of windows along the east wall to have that parking lot more accessible for viewing from inside the proposed leased space during the nighttime hours it's open. Steve Grittman's memo to the Planning Commission members and City staff was highlighted that the entire lot should be rezoned to PZM zoning, that the existing R-3 zoning is compatible with the PZM uses, as most of the uses in a PZM are acquired only through the conditional use process. Planning Commission members felt quite uncomfortable about rezoning the entire lot, only at this time should an area sufficient to handle the proposed off-street parking to handle the 56 additional parking stalls, that land area be rezoned only to PZM at this time. There being no further discussion amongst Planning Commission members, a motion was made by Richard Carlson and seconded by Jon Bogart to rezone the portion of the lot adjacent to the existing rear parking lot to be only the area needed for this parking lot expansion and to keep it as close to the existing shopping center rear parking lot as possible. Motion is based on the finding that the rezoning is compatible with the character and geography of the area. The motion carried unanimously with Richard Mart.io absent. Consideration of an amendment �o a condiyionnl use perInit that would allow Mnnsion of an existing feAlnurant jn a PZM (performance none mixed) zone. Applicant.'1H� lside Partnership. Jeff O'Neill, Assistant Administrator, highlighted some additional conditions which could be added to the conditional use permit previously granted to the Hillside Partnership for the expansion of the PJ's restaurant into this proposed leased space. Conditions are as follows: 1. The applicant submit a grading and drainage plan, and that be approved by the City Engineer prior to leased space occupancy. Page 3 , Special Planning Commission Minutes - 2/22/94 2. The applicant go through a simple subdivision to split off the land area needed from the existing lot to accommodate a parking lot expansion. 3. A landscaping and screening plan be submitted for approval. 4. The number of spaces that is short existing is 18 parking spaces short, and that be increased to 56 number of parking space short. Commission members brought up the point that maybe the proof of parking concept might be fine at this time, but a plan should be developed for the area needed to allow the additional parking lot expansion. The area proposed to be developed for additional parking lot be left into a green area at this time, that the lot split and rezoning should be in place prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy. The owners of the proposed Sunshine Depot restaurant/bar invited Planning Commission members and staff to come over and take a look at their existing Sunshine Depot restaurant/bar in Elk River to view that this is a family dining restaurant/bar establishment. There being no further input from the public, Cindy Lemm then closed the public hearing and opened the meeting for input from the Planning Commission members. There being no further input from the Planning Commission members, a motion was made by Jon Bogart and seconded by Richard Carlson to approve an amendment to the conditional use permit which would allow expansion of an existing restaurant in a PZM iperformance zone mixed) zone with the following conditions: Approval of the grading and drainage plan by the City Engineer. 2. Proof of parking be incorporated with the development agreement. 3. A simple subdivision lot split occur for the parking lot portion only. Page 4 �3 Special Planning Commission Minutes - 2122194 A landscaping and screening plan be completed and submitted for approval. To make the rear entrance more accessible to the public with the installation of additional windows in the rear portion of the proposed leased space area. Motion is based on the finding that the operation of the restaurant is incidental to the multi -commercial use and it is consistent with the character and geography of the area. Conditions imposed will serve to mitigate conflicts between the commercial and residential uses. Motion carried unanimously with Richard Martie absent. There being no further business, a motion was made by Jon Bogart and seconded by Brian Stumpf to adjourn the meeting. The motion carried unanimously with Richard Martie absent. The meeting adjourned at 6:26 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Gary Anderson Zoning Administrator Page 5 1 Planning Commission Agenda - 3/3/94 Public Hearing --Consideration of a conditional use oermit allowinq open and outdoor storage. and consideration of a narking lot and drive aisle conditional use hermit in an I.2 (heavv industrial) zone. Annllcant. Sunnv Fresh Foods. Inc. W.O.) A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND Sunny Fresh Foods is proposing to expand the company's meeting and production facilities. In conjunction with the proposed expansion, the Sunny Fresh Foods site must be upgraded to current standards. In order to meet existing standards, Sunny Fresh needs to acquire a conditional use permit which would allow a reduction in the standard driveway requirements, and a conditional use permit allowing outside storage. Following is a brief site plan review followed by alternatives. The new employee facility will be a two-story structure on the northwest side of the facility. The additional square footage added to the two-story facility for meeting/office space and employee break room amounts to 8,200 sq ft. The second major construction component includes construction of a 4,200 sq tt addition to the production area in the northwest corner of the structure. 1'J:`-111,tfzle? The total parking demand created by the proposed expansion in addition to the existing facility amounts to 21 parking stalls. Under the site plan as proposed, the site will generate 119 parking stalls; therefore, it complies with city ordinance. In addition to providing sufficient parking stalls, the parking lot design meets the minimum requirement of the city ordinance except for those areas where it is proposed that curbing and asphalt be omitted. The areas noted where no curbing or asphalt is proposed are outlined on the attached site plan. One of the unique aspects of this site is a shared parking and drive aisle arrangement between Sunny Fresh and the Methodist Church. According to Sunny Fresh officials, there is an agreement between the two that allows joint use. Under this agreement, Sunny Fresh employees have free access to the parking adjacent to the Methodist Church property. In exchange, church members are firee to use portions of the Sunny Fresh property for parking during Sunday services. 1 have asked for a summary of the joint parking agreement between the two organizations. Apparently this is a friendly, informal agreement with nothing in writing; however, they may put the agreement in writing prior to the Planning Commission meeting. There are two locations where curb widths exceed 24 ft. As you recall, we amended the ordinance to allow for wider curb cuts where justified as deemed by the Zoning Administrator and City Engineer. The two curb cut Planning Commission Agenda - 3/3/94 locations are at Walnut Street on the southeast side of the site and the large opening on 4th Street near the truck scale. It is possible that the 36 -ft wide curb cut on Walnut Street could be narrowed. Thirty-six feet may be excessive at this location. The wider curb cut on 4th Street is also quite excessive; however, the presence of the truck scale and the turning movements needed to enter the truck scale make it very difficult for any other type of arrangement to exist. This may be an aspect of the site plan that we may simply have to live with. From time to time, there is parking of semi -trailer trucks in the southwest corner of the site in an undeveloped portion of the property. The parking area is currently surfaced with gravel. There is little use of this area by Sunny Fresh and no public use at all. Due to the infrequency of use, it is proposed that this area be allowed to continue as is with a gravel surface rather than paving and curbing the entire area. The existing site, though well landscaped in the area of the Allen Research Center, is deficient in terms of the number of trees and shrubs that should be installed to meet the minimum defined in the ordinance. As you can see in the site plan, Sunny Fresh is taking an aggressive approach to approve the appearance of the facility through installation of a row of trees along the railroad track side of the property. In addition, they are using shrubs to screen areas that are considered to be outside storage, which include an existing CO, tank and two other tanks on the south side of the structure. Shrubs will also be planted at various locations throughout the perimeter of the building. City staff' will be working with Sunny Fresh to see if we can convince them to install additional landscaping on the 4th Street side of the facility in an effort to create a better separation between the industrial use and the residential uses. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS: Motion to approve a conditional use permit allowing outside storage and a conditional use permit allowing a reduction in the drive aisle and parking requirements. Motion is based on the finding that the conditional use permits, with the conditions as attached, are consistent with the character and geography of the area. The 1-2 zoning district designation and will not result in a depreciation in the adjoining land values. Furthermore, the conditional use permit is consistent with the comprehensive plan for the city. Planning Commission Agenda - 3/3/94 Under this alternative, the Planning Commission may wish to require that a written agreement between Sunny Fresh Foods and the Methodist Church be established which allows joint use of the site. It would seem to make sense that an easement be prepared allowing Sunny Fresh vehicles to pass over the Methodist Church property to reach a portion of the Sunny Fresh parking. In addition, as noted earlier, the City Engineer will need to look at the curb cut openings and make a finding with regard to the proper width. If the width of the curb cuts as defined by the City Engineer are excessive, then they will need to be reduced in conjunction with the construction of the facility. Motion to deny conditional use permit allowing outside storage and a conditional use permit allowing a reduction in the drive aisle and parking requirements. Under this alternative, the Planning Commission would make a finding that the open and outdoor storage and the proposed reduction in the parking design requirements will result in a negative impact in the area and, therefore, should be denied. Under this alternative, Sunny Fresh would need to retrofit their entire site to meet the precise letter of city code and would not necessarily mean that the plant expansion would not occur. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the conditional use permits as requested. The areas where curbing is asked to be omitted are areas where there is little traffic or areas where joint use of drive aisles do not allow a curb line to be established. With regard to outside storage, actual outside storage is limited to tanks on the south side of the structure. The site plan calls for proper screening of these tanks; therefore, staff recommends that the conditional use permit be awarded. Finally, the plant expansion will also include the complete repainting of the exterior walls of the structure, which results in a more unified appearance for the building. As mentioned earlier, a strong landscaping component is included. All in all, the development will improve functionality for Sunny Fresh and will improve the appearance of the site as viewed from the public right-of-way. SUPPORTING DATA: Copy of site plan; Copy of joint parking agreement from Methodist Church to be provided at the meeting. L' 1l�LLLl.I'F-i �_ I J J SITE PLAN - swum Fr. sk ._�. 6 cr-%.. _ - - Planning Commission Agenda - 3/3/94 Public Hearina—Consideration of amendments to the zoning map and to the comprehensive plan for the City relgting to rezoning of the property known as'The Evergreens." Applicants. Kim Kiellberg, Klellhere. Inc.: and Tons Emmerich. Tonv Emmerich Construction, Inc. W.O.) A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND Planning Commission is asked to review the proposed zoning map amendment relating to the site formerly known as "The Evergreens," review the Chelsea Corridor Study to determine if the proposed rezoning is consistent with the study, and review possible impacts or associated future changes to the zoning map that could occur in the future affecting other properties neighboring the Kjellberg site. As you may know, in the late 1980'x, the Kjellberg site was zoned from agricultural to the R-1 designation in cogjunction with a proposal to develop single family housing at the 110 -acre site. In conjunction with the housing development, it was planned that a sanitary sewer line would be extended to serve the east mobile home park with the goal of correcting problems with the wastewater treatment system at Kjellhergs Fast. Obviously, the Evergreens project did not proceed; and in the meantime, Little Mountain Elementary School was constructed, Cardinal Hills development blossomed, and the industrial park began to fill up. All of these forces acting together made the Evergreens site a logical place for industrial or commercial versus residential and made the Klein property a more logical place for residential development. In addition, the development pressure is resulting in a need for development of the School Boulevard roadway to help serve the burgeoning residential areas. As you recall, in 1991 the Planning Commission and City Council adopted amendments to the comprehensive plan in conjunction with the Chelsea Corridor Study. A copy of the study is attached for your review. It should he noted that whatever action is taken with regard to the Evergreens rezoning application, it should be done in a manner consistent with the Chelsea Corridor Study. As pari of your findings, you should note that the proposed rezoning is either inconsistent or consistent with the Chelsea Study. Enclosed is an updated report from the City Planner on the zoning configuration proposed by the developer (Tony Emmerich). Please review the Planners report carefully. Planning Commission Agenda - 3/3/94 B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS: Motion to approve the zoning ordinance amendment as submitted. Motion to approve based on the findings as outlined in the Planners report. Under this alternative, the Planning Commission is making a recommendation with regard to the zoning configuration of the Evergreens only. As part of the discussion, the Planning Commission will be touching on future zoning of the lGein farm. Please note that any discussion relating to the zoning of the Klein farm is preliminary since the l4ein farm is located in the township. It is important, however, to discuss the future zoning of this property, as it provides the developers of the Klein farm (Dave I4ein and Tony Emmerich) with some direction as to the prospects for obtaining a zoning configuration that meets or does not meet his needs. The developers will then take the preliminary opinion of the Planning Commission and Council to the Township for their review. The developer's goal will be to immediately obtain a joint resolution from the City and Township supporting annexation followed by a formal process of identifying the zoning boundaries to occur at such time that the property comes into the city. Motion to deny the rezoning request. If the Planning Commission believes that the zoning ordinance amendment is not consistent with the comprehensive plan of the city, or if there is a strong feeling that the zoning amendment is not consistent with the character or geography of the area and so on, then the Planning Commission should select this alternative and clearly state its precise findings in the motion. Motion to table the matter. If the Planning Commission is not comfortable with making a decision on this matter given the complexity and the long-term ramifications for the City, perhaps the Planning Commission would like to table it pending gathering of additional information and public testimony. Planning Commission Agenda - 3/3/94 C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: It is the view of City staff that the present R-1 zoning designation does not make sense. The property is criss-crossed with power lines and gas line easements. It's adjacent to Highway 25 on the east, an industrial area on the north, and a mobile home park on the south. We believe strongly that the site should be used for a business use. The question then becomes, what is the proper mix of business uses. As you can see, the plan calls for a large portion of the property to be designated for commercial use, thereby creating an opportunity for development of shopping, etc. Perhaps the site will become Monticello's version of what's happening on the north side of Buffalo. The Planning Commission has to ask itself, is this what it wants for the City? Does the Planning Commission feel comfortable with a second city or second commercial area being developed on the southern perimeter of the community? Should the City be restricting this type of fracturing of our commercial base? Would it not be better to invest funds in redeveloping the core areas in order to keep our commercial area as compact as possible? Or perhaps it is a lost cause to try to make space available in the core area for a regional mall shopping complex. If this is the case, then the proposal makes sense because it provides land area necessary for shopping malls that need lots of land and quick and easy access to the main road. D. SUPPORTING DATA: Planners report; Proposed zoning configuration of the Kjellberg property; Preliminary proposal for zoning configuration of the IUein property; Recommendation from IDC Infrastructure subcommittee supporting the rezoning proposal; Resolution adopting Chelsea Corridor Study as amendment to the comprehensive plan. FEB — 2 9— 9 4 M O N 12:01 O P.01 T -� IFNNorthwest Associated Consultants, Inc. C URBAN PLANNI NO- e C a I O N- M A R x e T e e a s A R C N PLANNING REPORT TO: Jeff O'Neill FROM: Elisabeth Stockman / Stephen Grittman DATE: 28 February 1994 RE: Monticello - Klein/2—rich Mixed Use Concept (Chelsea Area) FILE: 191.07 - 94.03 BACKGROUND Mr. Tony Emmerich has submitted a concept plan for development of the Klein property located between State Highway 15 and Fallon Avenue south of the Oakwood Industrial Dark. The 371 acres is proposed as a mix of several land use types. The majority of the western portion of the site has been shown as commercial while the majority of the eastern site area is devoted to low density, Bingle family development. There are also two areas of multiple family residential proposed, one directly adjacent to the industrial park and the other between the commercial and single family areas. Additionally, a portion of the site has been reserved for a park. Attached for reference) Exhibit A - Site Location Exhibit B - Concept plan Exhibit C - Chelsea Area Land Use plan Exhibit D - Chelsea Area Concept Plan Exhibit 8 - Chelsea Area Zoning Exhibit P - Recommended Land Use - Option i Exhibit G - Recommsaded Land Use Option 3 Exhibit H - Recommended Zoning C5- F E B - 2 e- 9 4 M O N 1 2: 0_ 0 ISSUES ANALYSIS Chelsea Area Study P . 0 2 In 1991 a study was undertaken by the City of Monticello to determine the most appropriate land uses for the area south of Interstate 94 and east of State Highway 25 to the City limits. This Chelsea Area Study resulted in a conceptual land use plan for the region which was aimed at promoting positive land use relationships, transportation patterns, and development opportunities. This concept, which was adopted and has been promoted by the City, is shown in Exhibit C. Land Use Review of the submitted concept plan indicates that the commercial and residential land use types being proposed are acceptable, however, the arrangement and interrelationships of such to the surrounding area raises acme concerna. The City's goal has been to follow the established land use and zoning criteria of the Chelsea Area Plan to the extent possible. However since completion of the plan, the Evergreens Plat has been abandoned and an expanded area for industrial development has been deemed necesaary. Thus, two land use concepts have been prepared which are reflective of the Chelsea Area concept while incorporating the changes mentioned. Exhibit F shows a reduced single family land area on the west side of County Highway 117 which is instead being replaced by a slightly amended commercial -industrial land use relationship. Exhibit G, which is an alternate land use concept to Exhibit F, shows the extension of single family development further north on the east aide of County 117 to take advantage of the available utilities in this location, while maintaining the multiple family land uses as a buffer zone from the industrial area. It is our opinion that the types of land uses proposed by the applicant will be more responsive to the community's needs when laid out in this fashion, shown in Exhibit D. The City is willing to work with the developer to agree on a concept which is beneficial to both parties, without destroying the developers' original intent. The reasons for recommending these changes are based on 1) the need to concentrate and focus commercial development toward Highway 25, 2) the need for axpanded industrial land, 3) the need to provide medium and high density residential development in the community, while promoting more than just a strip of land as a buffer between industrial and low density residential areae, 4) the need to provide high Quality single family lata which are located further from the industrial park and more appropriately aid in the integration of the mobile home park within the area, rather than segregating it by an adjacent connercial development, and 5) the need to integrate park and trail areas within the residential neighborhoods, rather than providing a large block of land away from the central development areas. FEB -20 -?4 M O N 12:02 O P . 0 3 The location of the zoning lines are not intended to be exact. [rather, responsiveness to these developer's site planning proposals may dictate precise locations. Street Ci %MMOn Review of proposed street configurations within the concept plan has shown that they are generally acceptable, although some improvements are recommended to improve the overall circulation pattern in the region. $nee -west Colieater street. The layout of the east west collector street is generally in conformance with the Chelsea Area Plan, directly connecting School Boulevard to Highway 25, however, the intersection with School Boulevard should be in direct alignment with the existing right-of-way. Yrontaae Road. The submitted concept plan shows a frontage road which parallels Highway 25 from the mobile home park and then curves to traverse east along the northern edge of the site. Given the recommended layout of land uses, the continuation of this road to the east is not necessary; rather, the frontage road should provide for future extension to the north to maintain the configuration parallel to Highway 25. North-sont3 street. A north -south street connection will be necessary from the east -west collector street, north to the adjacent property in order to provide frontage for the industrial lots proposed in the vicinity. This road should be located about half way between the frontage road and County Road 117 and should intersect at a ninety degree angle to the east -west collector street, thus allowing for a full intersection which also provides a main point of access to the residential land south of the collector. All remaining minor collector or local street patterns will depend on the layout of multiple family areas and single family residential lots. As has been appropriately done in the submitted Concept, no direct lot frontage will be allowed and access points should be limited onto arterial and collector streets. MCOIVII1 MATiON Saeed on the review of land use and transportation issues discussed herein, the proposed land uses have been found to be appropriate, however, it is recommended that the applicant provide a revised concept plan which is more responsive to the Chelsea Area layout and to the overall configuration and transition of land use types. Given the proposed land use configuration shown in Hxhibit V. the developer has the ability to provide a possible comm ercial mall, single and multi -family residential development as was originally intended. 0- CONCEPTUAL PLAN FOR PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT City of Monticello Chelsea Area Land Use and Circulation Study Proposed Land Use law oM,ur I�aaeuuu ® �unlvlbwa�.® O� �� `� aaeAan Oenspy ResNercial ® ►h+groal.00e cm,.w.cia� Q oenu� Reaidenllal ® 16gAray coanr.dal a AM6Ie home PallIm iklu bulumW ® heavy InJmiata] Seml•PubLc Q ►� ik`k� i Mixed Uses M 1U RECOMMEN,)ED LAND USE - OPTION , 3 Mobile Home Park UE Industrial Low Density Residential 1 I= v —7771 Semi -Public Family a Commercial L�A I I �J 1 �) m ..10S m ND VSE .. Q ��tiai � tm ,AAMEIG`", LPA `O,, QetY QtM• {e Family ► QFC Muitip . r 0 RECOMMENDED ZO. ANG oil I -lk m R-1 IDC - INFRASTRUCTURE SUBCOMMITTEE Thursday, February 24, 1994 PRESENT: Chairperson Dennis Taylor, Arve Grimsmo, Ken Maus, Brad Barger, Jeff O'Neill, John Simola, and 011ie Koropchak. RECOMMENDATIONS: The industrial design load recommendation for the Monticello Waste Water Treatment Study was to consider the existing wet - industries and for the addition of new wet -industries. B. The recommendation was to support the zoning request for Kjellberg property to the west of County Road 117 as presented and to support the conceptional zoning request of the Klein property to the south of the I-2 Zoning based on the following: 1. Property owners in the I-2 Zoning are notified of the Planning Commission Public Hearing of March 3 in writing. 2. Screening inclusive of fence, berm, and tree plantings are constructed and maintained at the expense of the developer of the Klein property to the immediate south of the I-2 zone. 3. The City governmental unite take an active aggressive approach to research and assist in the development of the Hoglund Property (1-1) therebye ensuring marketable I-1 land. 4. The City governmental unite take an active aggressive approach to rezone the B-3 property to I-2 (west of County Road 117 [Oakwood Drive] and to the east of Cedar Road, and north of Dundee Road to an approximate line south of the Silver Fox) therebye allowing for a concentrated area of industrial zoned lands and ensuring the availability of I-2 land. C. Planning Commission will review the City Zoning or Ordinance as it pertains to the definition of pole barns and if allowable within the City. D. The Subcommittee tabled the discussion to consider the Chelsea Traffic Study as it relates to the safety issues at the Intersection of Chelsea and Oakwood Drive. The IDC will review the Infrastructure Subcommittee's recommendations on March 17, 1994. RESOLUTION 91- 4 RESOLUTION ADOPTING CHELSEA AREA LAND USE AND CIRCULATION STUDY AS AN AMENDMENT TO THE COMPREHENSIVE PIAN FOR THE CITY OF MONPICELLO WHEREAS, the City Council has recognized the need to update land use policies and prepare amendments to the comprehensive plan that will enable the Chelsea area to achieve its full potential in terms of commercial and industrial development without negatively impacting school and neighborhood uses. WHEREAS, the City Council has recognized the need to develop a plan for development of a transportation system necessary to support development in the Chelsea area. WHEREAS, in response to the needs above, the City of Monticello Planning Commission has been directed by the City Council to study and update comprehensive land use plans for the Chelsea area; and WHEREAS, the Chelsea area planning process included information gathered via a formal public hearing along with numerous informational meetings involving various agencies and City committees; and D WHEREAS, the Planning Commission finds that it is in the beat interest of the City to preserve a portion of the undeveloped areas in or adjacent to the city for industrial uses. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Monticello City Council, in agreement with the Planning Commission, finds that the Chelsea Area Land Use and Circulation Study achieves the planning goals set forth; therefore, the City Council hereby adopts the Chelsea Area Land Use and Circulation Study in full as an amendment to the comprehensive plan for the City of Monticello. Lot it further be resolved that the City should plan to preserve land for industrial uses at the site of the Klein farm or at the "Evergreens" residential development site. Final location of the site for industrial uses is to be established at such time that the viability of the Evergreens residential development project has been determined. Approved by the Monticello City Council this 14th day of February, 1991. Mayer City Admlostrator �J MONTICELLO Chelsea Area Land Use and Circulation Study Cm OF 14ONrICffi,LO (MML$BA AREA IMXMRW. PARK/ SCgOOL PACILIIR XJ= USE PLAN JANUARY 1991 Prepared By: Northwest Associated Consultants, Inc. 5775 Wayzata Boulevard, Suite 555 St. Louis Park, Minnesota 55416 City of Monticello Chelsea Area Land Use and Circulation Study D The City of Monticello, in the area south of Interstate 94 and east of Trunk Highway 25, has recognized a need to address the developing land use conflicts in the area. For several years, the area has been programmed for industrial development. However, within the past few years, the School District has constructed a middle school and a bond referendum, passed last year, will lead to an elementary school on the same campus. The school construction has led to a rapid increase in the interest in residential growth in the immediate vicinity. The resolution of a foreclosure on a large parcel directly south of the school campus has accelerated that interest. In addition, questions have been raised as to the appropriateness of existing base zoning, traffic patterns, and the City's ability to encourage high quality industrial development in the district. These and other issues have led to this study of the area's land use and related conditions. It is the objective of this report to develop a guide development plan, in the form of a Comprehensive Plan amendment, to resolve the various issues as identified, and integrate the plan into the existing planning framework. That framework includes utilities and storm water control measures underway, as well as the developed landscape. Several items have served to define the study area (shown in Exhibit A) in addition to the issues already raised. Initially, the properties which were under immediate development pressure provided a starting point for analysis. How these parcels were served by utility and transportation networks then expanded the scope of study. The general area of review grew to include lands from Trunk Highway 25 on the west, Interstate 94 on the north, County 118 on the east, and the City limits on the south. To be sure that proper transitions and connections were considered, study often •spilled over* onto adjacent lands for circulation and/or land use. One of the most significant of such parcels is the Klein parcel which lies between the school property and the Kjellberg development. Background and guidance for this project has been provided through several meetings with City Staff and various property owners, community boards, and commissions. The City's Comprehensive Plan has been utilized as a base for policy direction, together with comments from the groups who have reviewed the drafts. Since some of land included in the development plan in outside City boundaries, the City cannot enforce all of the specific recommendations of the report. However, these plans are designed to help guide the decisions on adjacent properties so the eventual development will occur in a coordinated and cohesive manner. Si A. PHYSICAL ISSUES (See Exhibit B) Physical features existing upon the land significantly impact the planning and future development of land use and transportation systems. If is for this reason that review of such issues within the Chelsea Study Area follows. An -tion. The study area contains and borders a number of designated orderly annexation areas. These areas have been designated to insure that City growth, urbanization, and the conversion of agricultural land occur in a well planned and orderly fashion. The land use plan should be coordinated with the designated orderly annexation areae so as to reinforce preferred urban growth patterns. Transportation. A City's vehicular circulation system, as it relates to and serves the surrounding land uses, is the component which makes an area functionally successful. The transportation system in the study area is complex and contains roadways of all functional classifications. The principal arterials in the area are Interstate 94 and State Highway 25, which generate traffic and draw persons into the City from regional, state, and out-of-state locations. County Road 75 (Broadway Avenue) is classified as a minor arterial and collects traffic from state and interstate roadways as a main connection to downtown and neighborhood areas. County Highway 117 and County Highway 118 are collector streets which primarily serve the Chelsea area by siphoning traffic from sub -collector and local streets to access arterial roadways. Chelsea Avenue is the only sub - collector street which serves the study area by joining County Highways 117 and 118 to provide an east -west community corridor south of and in lieu of Interstate 94. Numerous local streets serve the Chelsea Area to access individual lots from sub -collector or collector roadways. It is the local streets which present the most significant transportation problems in regard to safety, alignment, and intersection design. More specifically, Cedar Street, Marvin, and Sandberg Roads and Oakwood Avenue which are all located near the I-94/Highway 25 intersection, function as part of a frontage road system. The angular alignments and numerous access points from State Highway 25 and County Road 117 to these local frontage roads create safety hazards and difficulty in planning for future extensions, connections, and/or improvements to these roadways. Consideration must be given to the realignment of portions of these roadways to provide acceptable access, circulation and development opportunities in the future. 1 �S, o Drainageway. The study area is bisected by a natural drainageway which flows between County Highway 117 and Fallon Avenue. Sensitivity toward the natural feature should be incorporated within an area land use plan. o Trail System. In terms of area circulation, the preparation of a land use plan for the subject area should make provision for a pedestrian trail system. The trail system should be arranged so as to provide logical routes between destinations and, for the most part, should follow vehicular routes. The physical issues map, Exhibit B, designates potential trail system connections which coordinate with and complement the land use and transportation patterns in the study area. o Utility Basements. A number of utility easements overlay the study area. The land use plan and subsequent lot arrangements must be responsive to such easements in an advantageous fashion. B. &aaa—w BONIW/LAND USE (See Bzhibit C) Because zoning is essentially a tool by which desired land uses may be achieved, it will obviously be of importance in the preparation of the Chelsea Area Land Use Plan. In review of the area's existing zoning designations, a number of concerns have been identified which will need to be addressed. School Property. The School District parcel is currently zoned Single Family Residential. This district allows educational facilities by conditional use permit. The School District requested this zoning from industrial and commercial in 1991. A second issue, related to the school property which needs to be addressed, will be the minimization of conflicts between surrounding area industrial, commercial, and residential land uses and school facility/associated site uses. Heavy Industrial Uses. The majority of existing heavy industrial land uses are concentrated between County Highway 117 and Fallon Avenue south of Chelsea Road, although a small parcel exists to the west of County Highway 117. The architectural quality and levels of site design vary considerably between lots and businesses within this district. The area, as a whole, also lacks a singular transportation route which unifies and emphasizes entrance into the industrial district. �-J Light Industrial Land. A significant portion of land zoned as light industrial exists north and east of the City's heavy industrial uses and extends across Interstate 94 to County Road 75 (Broadway Avenue). The location and orientation of this land use is generally well -served, however, a portion of the School District property abuts this light industrial zone. Even though the two land uses are usually compatible, careful consideration is necessary in order to minimize potential conflicts, provide buffer areas, and promote high quality light industrial developments. This study will address the possibility of the creation of a new zoning district which would both increase the site development standards, as well as decrease the intensity of the industrial use. With such a new district, the exact boundaries of the various industrial districts may change to better accommodate the transition between uses and development quality. Commercial Land. The study area contains a large portion of commercially zoned Highway and Limited Business District land along State Highway 25 and Interstate 94. Attraction of business from both arterial roadways and connection to the City's Regional and Central Business Districts via this interchange have made this area function successfully, despite several transportation problems. In addition, significant portions of this commercial district remain undeveloped and under -developed. It is for these reasons that the commercially zoned land to the east along Interstate 94 and County Highway 118 be reconsidered in terms of need and appropriateness. More specifically, the amount of land, as zoned, may be unnecessary due to the amount of commercial land remaining vacant in the State Highway 25 region. In addition, accessibility of this area from Interstate 94 and County Road 75 is inconvenient at present and construction of an interchange at County Highway 118 may not be warranted functionally or financially. Agricultural/open Space. Two significant parcels of agriculturally zoned land exist within the study area. The first is located along Highway 25, just north of Rjellberg's Mobile Home park (Exhibit D). A preliminary plat design of this area called "The Evergreens" was completed prior to this study which proposed subdivision of the parcel for additions of single family uses. The lot Addition has been final platted but remains unbuilt. 0 The appropriateness of this land use in direct proximity to heavy industrial and commercial zones is questionable. This incompatibility and the fact that no construction has taken place necessitates reevaluation of the remainder of parcel in association with preparation of the land use and transportation plan for the Chelsea Study Area. Final determination as to the future of this parcel should be decided by the City at its earliest convenience in order to facilitate planning and development of surrounding areae. The second parcel of agriculturally zoned land exists directly south of the School District property and includes a portion of it, as discussed previously. The new owners of the 109 acre tract south of the school, Value Plus Homes, have recently proposed subdivision of their property for •R- 1, Single Family" uses. One initial conceptual plan drawn for the area showed varied sizes of lots focused around interior park and trail system components which connected to school and surrounding properties. Residential Planned Unit Development. A large tract of land zoned for Residential PUD uses lies east of County Road 116 (NE Jason Avenue) and extends to the Interstate 94 and Burlington Northern Railroad rights-of-way. Platting and development of several additions in this area have taken place and represent a positive movement toward this type of residential land use in the City. Orderly Annexation Areas. As stated previously, the study area contains several orderly annexation areas which are necessary to reinforce urban growth patterns. The three most significant parcels, as related to this study, are located 1) at the intersection of Interstate 94 and County Road 75 (Hogland property), 2) east of Penning Avenue in the Jason Avenue/County Road 116 area (Schultz property), and 3) between County Road 117 and Fallon Avenue (Klein property). A fourth annexation area exists west of State Highway 25, which although not directly addressed in this study, will undoubtedly have an effect on the Chelsea Area and need to be coordinated with its land use and transportation components as development proposals west of Highway 25 necessitate this. Each of the orderly annexation areas are an important part of achieving the desired land use transitions and integrity between existing land uses. CS-�` A. CIRCOLATION PLAN In response to the transportation issues discussed previously, several changes are being proposed within the Chelsea Study Area to alleviate existing conflicts, and improve the overall circulation system as development occurs throughout the region. 92nd Street NH Extension (School Boulevard). The proposed extension of 92nd Street NE between County Road 118 and State Highway 25 will function as a collector roadway to provide the necessary east -west access in the City south of Interstate 94. The first phase of the extension is necessary to serve the School District property directly to the north. In addition, developers of a single family subdivision opposite the school property on the south side of School Boulevard will benefit from the access. As the extension of School Boulevard continues westward through the Klein property annexation area, more residential land uses of varying densities will be served before the roadway bisects commeercial land uses and becomes part of the realigned Highway 25 frontage road system. The single family subdivision final platted and approved for the Kjellberg property has been accommodated in the extension of School Boulevard, however, changes to the associated preliminary plat may be necessary to respond to the changes in roadway alignment and surrounding area land uses. Exhibit D shows the subdivision layout and proposed roadway extension. This issue will be addressed further in the land use section. Highway 25 Proatage Road System. As discussed previously, the existing angular alignment and inferior intersection design of Cedar Street, Marvin, and Sandberg Roads in relation to State Highway 25 present safety hazards and traffic congestion problems. In order to alleviate these problems, realicnment and extension of the roads are proposed. By providing a frontage road system which closely parallels Highway 25, existing commercial businesses have "equal" frontage and visibility while development opportunities are enhanced for the addition of other commercial lots. The alignment of frontage roads on both sides of Highway 25 is a safer alternative which limits access on the state arterial roadway by allowing shared curb cute controlled at signalized intersections. Minimal extension of Dundas Road allows a positive connection to this system and provides direct access through commercial and industrial land use areas. Sandberg Road, which currently meets Highway 25 only 1,200 feet from the Interstate 94/Highway 25 intersection, would be better designed as a right -in/right -out intersection which provides direct access from Highway 25 through to Marvin Road. In this regard, the necessary access is provided on the west side of Highway 25 while eliminating dangerous cross -traffic. Termination of Thomas Park Drive. Thomas Park Drive and Thomas Circle currently provide access to a clustering of commercial parcels which front along Interstate 94. Vehicles approaching this area from County Road 117 are faced with traversing a confusing intersection at Chelsea Road where Thomas Park Drive extends north from this point. Improper space for turning and stacking of vehicles creates a dangerous situation on County Road 117 as vehicles turning to go north to the Thomas Circle area must cross traffic as vehicles on Chelsea Road are trying to enter and exit onto County Road 117. In order to minimize vehicular conflicts at this intersection, it is proposed that Thomas Park Drive be terminated just north of the Chelsea Road/County Road 117 intersection. The elimination of this small portion of roadway will greatly reduce traffic congestion and conflicts at this intersection by forcing vehicles to use the Thomas Park Drive entrance further east on Chelsea Road. Access can be maintained to the Monticello Roller Rink and Joyners Howling Lanes, and then terminated immediately afterward. This solution provides the opportunity for a signalized or otherwise controlled intersection in addition to aesthetic improvements via landscape design and signage which designates entrance into the proposed industrial areas. A suggestion to be considered is shown on the Circulation Plan (Exhibit S). This design will alter the traffic pattern by allowing Chelsea Road to flow directly to Highway 25, bringing County Road 117 into •T" intersection. This alignment would better distribute the traffic, however, the County Highway Department is not ready to endorse the concept. As a result, the Concept Development Plan is drawn with the intersection as it exists. Fallon Avenue Overpass. The City of Monticello has expressed a desire to consider construction of an overpass connecting Fallon Avenue over Interstate 94 to the downtown area of the City. The positive and negative aspects of this concept need to be weighed against one another to determine its feasibility and necessity. 6V It may be advantageous to have an additional connection to industrial and commercial area, although Highway 25 and County Highway 118 serve the same purpose and traffic volumes may not justify it at this time. In addition, improved east -west circulation via the proposed extension of 92nd Street NB would expedite movement between Highway 25 and County Road 118 which currently have connections north of Interstate 94. Likewise, the improved frontage road system and signalized intersection at Dundas Road allow for relatively direct access from commercial and industrial areae to Highway 25 and consequent connection to the CBD. However, the positives of this connection are several. Fallon would serve as a second major north -south access between school campuses. In addition, traffic flow between the Central Business District and this "new" area of the community would be improved, strengthening the connection and helping to reduce the barrier effect of the freeway. Also strengthened is the access tie between industrial areas on opposite sides of the interstate. This tie can help to mitigate truck traffic in the Highway 25 interchange area, as well as on County 118. The plan has been developed with the anticipation that the Fallon overpass will be eventually developed. County Road 118/Interstate 94 Interchange. The existing Comprehensive Plan identifies the need to develop access from the interstate via an additional interchange at County Road 118. Preliminary review of this idea reveals more potential adverse effects on the surrounding area than positive ones. For instance, limited visibility of land in this area from the interstate lessens its value for commercial uses. Furthermore, promoting commercial use in this area, separate from the City's main business sector along Highway 25 and into downtown, may be in opposition to City objectives. Although an interchange at County Road 118 may take pressure away from the one at Highway 25, the two existing ramps which provide access eastbound onto the interstate and westbound off of it, seem to adequately serve the local population and frequent travelers commuting between Monticello and the 'Iain City Metropolitan Area. The existing Comprehensive Plan pursues the interchange as an aid to commercial development in the study area. In fact, the primary advantage of the interchange, with respect to commercial traffic, is one of convenience based business development. The development plan has de-emphasized commercial and industrial land use in this area, however, due to the introduction of the school and the broad increase in residential development appears more appropriate toward the Highway 25 corridor and thus, the "need" for the increased freeway access at this point is lessened. �.S H. PROPOSED LAND USE (See Hxnibit F) In response to the concerns raised in review of the area s existing zoning, physical issues, and vehicular transportation, a Land Use Plan has been completed for the Chelsea Area. The plan represents a culmination of ideas from two Conceptual Land Use Plans which were previously prepared for this purpose and also reflects input received from City residents and staff. The following paragraphs summarize the elements of the plan, which is meant to guide land use and zoning decisions as development progresses in the region. School Property. The recent school rezoning to R-1 aids in the minimization of conflicts between school and surrounding uses by allowing only compatible land uses to occur adjacent to the school property. Residential land uses of varying densities surround the school facility on all sides except the north, where light industrial and commercial uses front along Chelsea Road. The abutting commercial parcel is of minimal size and proposed as a neighborhood retail location. The school property is physically separated from the commercial area by Chelsea Road. The adjacent light industrial land uses are aligned so as to back up the school property line. Setback distances and buffering materials can be set to promote aesthetic harmony, noise control, and safety between the light industrial lots and school uses. The school property is participating in the buffering effort to facilitate these goals. Heavy Industrial Land Uses. The Land Use Plan has retained the majority of the existing heavy industrially zoned land as such. Due to the number of vacant parcels and the newly proposed light industrial area to the east, the heavy industry will remain bound by Chelsea Road to the north, County Road 117 to the west, and Fallon Avenue to the east. Medium density land uses are proposed to the south of the area, with parcels from each backing up to one another to allow for a buffer zone between the two land uses. The perimeter configuration of the roadways acts as a buffer zone around the district to maintain the visual quality of the exterior, while outdoor storage and other heavy industrial activities are allowable on the interior. These types of land uses within Monticello are not only a necessity now, but will be sought after more and more as the City and Chelsea Area continues to develop. Planning for heavy industrial uses in this manner lessens the burden on the City and surrounding area uses when the need for them arises. 50 Light Industrial Land USeS. Areae designated for light industrial land uses in the Land Use Plan include the same areae currently zoned as "I-11, Light Industrial, but extend eastward to include a portion of commercially zoned land north of the school property. In response to the issues of visibility and access from Interstate 94, and the vacancy rate of commercially zoned land along Highway 25, the addition of light industrial uses adjacent to the interstate and extension of existing light industrial uses seemed to be the most legitimate solution. As mentioned previously, the creation of a new zoning district for light industrial related uses is proposed. A need exists in Monticello for increased site development standards in areae of architectural quality, outdoor storage, open space, and landscape design. Entitled "B -C", Business Campus, this district imposes such Standards on light industrial uses. The need is Seen as an assurance to existing and new high quality developments that surrounding properties will be developed to high quality standards. In addition, the proximity to the school property encourages the "campus" development style here. Commercial Land Uses. After study of commercial land uses in the Chelsea Area, it has been ascertained that land currently zoned as Highway and Limited Business Commercial along Interstate 94 and County Road 118 appears to be in excess of what is needed in the Chelsea Area. As discussed previously, the land seems to be more warranted for light industrial land uses which typically do not require a high visibility location. In addition, access on and off of the interstate to County Road 118 poses questions of convenience, as does the feasibility of an expanded interchange at this location. In light of this, highway oriented commercial uses have been expanded to follow the proposed Highway 25 frontage road system and regional commercial uses have been recommended and contained in the area west of County Road 117. Improved access to these areae has been proposed via the realigned intersection at County Road 117/Chelsea Road and additional cross axis off of Cedar Street with connection to Dundas Road and County Road 117. The regional statue of land which is currently zoned for highway commercial uses would provide greater flexibility in the permitted uses and attract businesses which do not need a high visibility location. Medium/Sigh Density Residential I-nd Uses. within the Study Area, south of Interstate 94, no areas are currently zoned for medium/high density residential land uses. Consequently, conflicts between heavy industrial and single family districts are apparent. In light of this, steps have 10 0 been taken to eliminate and prevent further conflicts between antagonistic land uses in the Proposed Land Use Plan. High density land uses are proposed along the frontage road system which is planned to run parallel to Highway 25. This approximately 26 acres of land provides a transition between the highway commercial uses proposed adjacent to Highway 25 and the single family land uses east of here. Likewise, medium density land uses are proposed south of the heavy industrial district (Klein Orderly Annexation Area) as a buffer between the lower density single family uses to the west and south. Some discussion has occurred regarding the expansion of industrial land uses into this area from the north due to concern over ultimate "build out" condition on the other industrial zoned parcels. With the transportation system as designed, such a scenario would occur with appropriate screening and landscaping. This district would need to be designed with a interval focus and a perimeter screen to integrate the visual and trunk traffic impacts on area single family properties. Single Family Land Uses. A large portion of land that is currently zoned "A", Agricultural -Open Space or that is part of the City's orderly annexation areae is proposed as single family land uses in the Land Use Plan. This area includes land directly south of the school property (Cardinal Hills preliminary plat) adjacent to 92nd Street NS and progresses west to include the single family subdivision proposed on the Kjellberg property. Low density residential uses would benefit from the 92nd Street extension through to Highway 25, proximity to the school facilities, and neighboring commercial uses. Residential Planned Unit Development. A large portion of land zoned as "R -PUD", Residential Planned Unit Development exists within the study area north and east of County Road 119/Jason Avenue (Meadow Oaks PUD). Land Use Concept One proposes to extend this district to the intersection of 92nd Street NS and County Road 119. High quality park and trail system amenities associated with residential developments planned as an integrated unit will complement the school property and surrounding single family land uses. Special Sites. A few specific sites have been highlighted here due to current development status. First is the Kjellberg plat, known as "The Evergreens". This plat was approved by the City over two years ago but was not recorded. Although the development plan accommodates the single family plat, higher intensity land uses in this area 11 may be more appropriate due to the proposed collector street and its intersection with T.H. 25. As a result, the implementation steps in the next section do not include this area, as the City is pursuing options to abandon the plat. Secondly, a local church has expressed interest in occupying a portion of the cc= rcial property along Chelsea near County 118. The development plan shore land for this type of institutional use east of County 118. The plan was developed with the intent of reserving the most desirable commercial parcel for neighborhood convenience commercial. Location of a church on this parcel would erode some of that land, further limiting the commercial floor space potential. If the City believes the church use to be appropriate, we would recommend the parcel furthest from the intersection. 12 Cs? With the background presented in the exhibits and this report, a number of implementation steps are appropriate. Pirst is amendment of the City's Comprehensive Plan. This step is important on two levels. As the guide to development policy, the Comprehensive Plan explains the rationale for various zoning decisions the City makes. Therefore, the base must be established prior to rezoning an area where a departure from current land use is proposed. The second level is reflective of the fact that some of the land is not ripe for immediate rezoning or capital improvement. This may be for reasons of development status, as with The Evergreens, or lack of development jurisdiction, such as the Klein parcel. The Comprehensive Plan can, however, provide for the future development of these parcels, thereby facilitating more immediate development decisions. The Comprehensive Plan amendment may take either of two paths. The City may choose to adopt the development plan as a land use guide, or it may adopt this report as an amendment document, which would accomplish the former option, as well as enforce the supporting text. Procedurally, either step is acceptable. The next step in implementation is to enact the rezonings directed by the Plan. As noted, certain of those rezoninge suggested by the plass are not ready for enactment. As a result, the Rezoning Plan, Exhibit A, shows those which are being proposed at this time. 13 0 C D A i City of Monticello Wright County, Minnesota � -. .. � .1571' t7: • • \.y(i • 7 5^'; Chelsea tody Are N� • �_1t.Q . �f1*tom i � •� f'i - •• �,• i . J City of Monticello Chelsea Area Land Use and Circulation Study Physical Issues Orderly Anne.ation Areas Iranspalatiun issues \/, / \\�\�C `;/��� �\ PbtmtW 1'edrstrien Isis..• NatNal Drainagmayr..nr \ �� ,� •l��/� Ips Accns falma in Dangerrxuly j - ltnwle Menectim CbYse WmimityI- AAgrment / .tJ�.0 6rellicient frontage I _ Road Design Il x W •• _ StAod Oistrirl Prtperty �1 rl KjrA 'g Wrpnty Need lot Addnbnal I Klein Wnperty y 1'ast•V%k�t Roadway - - City of Monticello FA Chelsea Area Land Use and Circulation Study .Existing Zoning R•1 SkIle faniy B• I 1 iWted Business I'Z•M Ilrtumare Zune•Mimd THE EVERI-Dv1:K'Q- 4pproved uction red) 12nd Streel Cxtenlion s 0 City of Monticello Chelsea Area Land Use and Circulation Study proposed Transportation k1tH5titi ffK�'� 7 City of Monticello Chelsea Area Land Use and Circulation Study Proposed i, and Use I— $)—,ily R-idemw 0 FnI tw Mxntrnu�nal City of Monticello V -1 - Chelsea Area Land Use and Circulation Study Conceptual Area Plan City of NlonticeI to K.F-I- Che I sea Area Land Use and Circulation Study Conceptual Area Plan Y� v .rare -• Planning Commission Agenda - 3/3/94 Public Hearing—Consideration of a conditional use permit allowing oven and outdoor storage and consideration of a parking lot and drive aisle conditional use hermit in an I.1 (light industrial) zone. AanlicanL SMA Elevator. (G.A.) A, REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND SMA Elevator Construction is proposing to construct a 54'x 80' addition onto their existing building. In looking at the enclosed site plan, the site plan shows the proposed addition to the west with seven off-street parking spaces created in front of the proposed building addition and three additional parking spaces to the west of the existing office. The existing site, even where the proposed building addition would go, currently has hard -surfaced concrete around its perimeter for curbing and a hard -surfaced parking lot. To upgrade their parking lot to our current design standards, we'd ask them to stripe the parking to accommodate nine spaces in front of the proposed building addition, and also to stripe and sign for two handicap spots in front of the existing office. The existing site also shows 14 existing trees on site. The minimum number of required overstory trees would be 26 total trees under the building square foot requirement, or 12 trees utilizing the lot perimeter requirement. They do have some existing, probably overgrown, shrubbery which surrounds the building on the west and the south side of the existing office building, with some additional oversized shrub plantings on the east side of the existing warehouse/office portions of the building. The applicant is proposing to ask for a 50% reduction in the overstory tree requirement. With the existing situ plan would show 14 trees, would meet the minimum overstory tree requirement. City staff is recommending that these overstory trees he spaded out and transplanted into a proposed area as located on the staff recommendation site plan. The applicant is also requesting to be allowed outside storage which currently exists at the site, Most of the outside storage would go into the new building addition, but there still would he some outside storage which would occur outside or north of the existing and the proposed building addition. The applicant is proposing only to put a screening fence from the northeast corner of the existing warehouse building to the property line parallel at a 90 degree angle to the north properly line. City staff is recommending on the enclosed staff recommendation site plan that the screening fence also be installed from the northwest corner of the proposed building addition parallel to the west property line. Within this screening fence would he a gate for access out to the area where the outside storage Planning Commission Agenda - 3/3/94 would occur. The applicant is also requesting to be allowed to install a gate in the screening fence on the east side of the property, which material would consist of chain link fence with plastic slats in between it similar to what was installed at Custom Canopy. B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS IA. Approve the conditional use request to allow open and outdoor storage in an 1-1 (light industrial) zone. 113. Deny the conditional use permit allowing open and outdoor storage in an I-1 zone. 2A. Approve the parking lot and drive aisle conditional use permit. 2B. Deny the parking lot and drive aisle conditional use permit in an I-1 zone. C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Taking into consideration the applicant is proposing to upgrade their property by building an addition to store most of the outside storage but yet still utilizing some area for outside storage, staff recommends approval of the conditional use permit allowing open and outdoor storage and parking lot and drive aisle conditional use permit in an 1-1 (light industrial) zone. D. SUPPORTING DATA: Copy of the location of the proposed request; Copy of the SMA Elevator Construction, Inc., site plan; Copy of the staff recommendation for changes to the SMA site plan; Copy of the conditions for allowing open and outdoor storage in an 1.1 zone; Copy of the conditional use for parking lot and drive aisle conditional use permit. S. M. �• Fhu44-oi..Cf- - 64 ®® 'tile c v C 1 ® ®® 1, SwI. to Syrtoo Jd v X41, 09U44 C Pei Sra i�oa d CIA FfA?WWied Me �liw• 0®® c * �T7 v Iv CJ Asefol iAsaD�s p ee/%rms v"i 6. ' ReloptedfOhAPI&O .as .06.11V I � � pr.p.e•% F�c,��a 65 K i Svi Eo Svif ' 50 I U-1,0111 Nw- 014 pst:as � Vd ® jr r�� CNeI Srq Road . T R F (P) Blacksmith, welding, or other metal shop. (0) Laundries, carpet, and rug cleaning. [R] Bottling establishments. (S] Building material sales and storage. [T] Broadcasting antennae, television, and radio. [U] Camera and photographic supplies manufacturing. (V] Cartage and express facilities. (W] Stationery, bookbinding, and other types of manufacturing of paper and related products but not processing of raw materials for paper production. (%] Dry cleaning establishments and laundries. [Y] Electric light or power generating stations, electrical and electronic products manufacture, electrical service shops. (Z] Engraving, printing and publishing. (AA) Jewelry manufacturing. (BB] Medical, dental, and optical laboratories. [CC] Storage or warehousing. (DD] Wholesale business and office establishments. 15B-3: PERMITTED ACCESSORY USES: The following are permitted accessory uses in an "I-1" district: [A] All permitted accessory uses as allowed in the "B-4" district. 15B-4: (CONDITIOMAL USES The following are conditional uses in an 4-4 4240 42466• Requires a conditional use permit based upon procedures set forth in and regulated by Chapter 22 of this ordinance). (A) Open and outdoor storage as an accessory use provided that: 1. The area is fenced and screened from view of neighboring residential uses or, if abutting a residential district, in compliance with Chapter 3, Section 2 (G), of this ordinance. 2. Storage is screened from view from the public right-of-way in compliance with Chapter 3, Section 2 (G], of this ordinance. ��� MONTICELLO ZONING ORDINANCE 15B/2C 3. Storage area is grassed or surfaced to control dust. 4. All lighting shall be hooded and so directed that the light source shall not be visible from the public right-of-way or from neighboring residences and shall be in compliance with Chapter 3, Section 2 [H], of this ordinance. 5. The provisions of Chapter 22 of this ordinance are considered and satisfactorily met. (e] open or outdoor service, sale, and rental as a principal or an accessory use and including sales in or from motorized vehicles, trailers, or wagons provided that: 1. Accessory outside service, sales, and equipment rental connected with a principal use is limited to thirty (30) percent of the gross floor area of the principal use. 2. Outside sales areas are fenced or screened from view of neighboring residential uses or an abutting residential district in compliance with Chapter 3, Section 2 (G), of this ordinance. 3. All lighting shall be hooded and so directed that the light source shall not be visible from the public right-of-way or from neighboring residences and shall be in compliance with Chapter 3, Section 2 (H), of this ordinance. 4. Sales area is grassed or surfaced to control duet. 5. The provisions of Chapter 22 of this ordinance are considered and satisfactorily met. [C] Industrial planned unit development as regulated by Chapter 20 of this ordinance. (DJ Amusement places (such as roller rinks and dance halls) and bowling alleys. (EJ Consignment sales provided that: 1. Sales and storage are not to exceed 1,000 square feet in area. 2. At least 80% of the sales shall be of consigned merchandise. ,i 3. No auctions shall take place on the premises. 4. There shall be no outside storage. KONTICZ= ZONING ORDINANCE 15B/` (CST AISLE AND DRIVEWAY DESIGN CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT: Stall aisle and driveway design requirements as noted in (k) Surfacing, (o) Curbing and Landscaping, and (r) Curbing, may be lessened subject to the following conditions: L. Any reduction in requirements requires completion of the conditional use permit process outlined in Chapter 22 of this ordinance. ii. Final approval of parking and driveway drainage plans associated with conditional use permit request shall be provided in writing by the City Engineer. Engineering expenses greater than portion of building permit fee allocated for engineer plan review shall be paid by applicant prior to occupancy of structure. iii. A surmountable "transition" curb or cement delineator must be installed as a boundary between an outside storage area and a parking or drive area. iv. Development of a curb along the boundary between a parking area and an area designated on site plan for future parking is not required if said curb line is not needed for drainage purposes as determined by the City Engineer. Exceptions to the standard curb requirements do not apply to any parking or driveway perimeter that runs roughly parallel to and within 20 feet of an adjoining parcel. vi. This conditional use permit is allowed only in I-1 and I-2 zones. vii. Drive areas that are secondary and not used by the general public and not used for routine delivery of goods or services do not require hard surfacing or curb unless hard surface and curb is needed for drainage purposes as determined by the City Engineer. Access MONTICELLO ZONING ORDINANCE /2g ragate h drive areas may be restricted by which must be closed after each At such time that routine use is the drive area shall be paved. (#192, 7/9/90) (E) MAINTENANCE: It shall be the joint and several responsibility of the lessee and owner of the principal use, uses, or building to maintain in a neat and adequate manner, the parking space, accessways striping, landscaping, and required fences. (F) LOCATION: All accessory off-street parking facilities required by this ordinance shall be located and restricted as follows: 1. Required accessory off-street parking shall be on the same lot under the same ownership as the principal use being served except under the provisions of Chapter 3, Section 5 (I). 2. Except for single, two-family, and townhouse dwellings, head -in parking directly off of and adjacent to a public street with each stall having its own direct access to the public street shall be prohibited. 3. There shall be no off-street parking within fifteen (15) feet of any street surface. 4. The boulevard portion of the street right-of-way shall not be used for parking. 5. SETBACK AREA: Required accessory off-street parking shall not be provided in front yards or in side yards in the case of a corner lot in R-1, R-2, R-3, PZ, and B-1 districts. 6. In the case of single family, two-family, and townhouse dwellings, parking shall be prohibited in any portion of the front yard except designated driveways leading directly into a garage or one (1) open, surfaced space located on the aide of a driveway away from the principal use. Said extra space shall be surfaced with concrete or bituminous material. (0) USE OF REQUIRED AREA: Required accessory off-street parking spaces in any district shall not be utilized for open storage, sale, or rental of goods, storage of inoperable vehicles as regulated by Chapter 3, Section 2 (N), of this ordinance, and/or storage of snow. KORTICELL40 ZONING ORDINANCE 3/29 _ Planning Commission Agenda - 3/3/94 7. Public Hearing»Considerasion of amendment to Section 3-8: (E) of the zonina ordinance reaulating definition. size. number. and location of premise and product signs allowed within the PZM. B-1, B-2. B-3. B4. I.1. and I.2 districts. Applicant. Monticello Pianninq Commission. W.O. ) A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND This item stems from the recent variance request submitted by Holiday Station. As you recall, at the previous meeting of the Planning Commission, the Commission tabled the variance request pending development of a potential zoning ordinance amendment that would allow placement of a wall sign along each wall that faces a public right-of-way. In addition, Planning Commission reviewed the ordinance with regard to signs on gas station canopies and learned that we currently do not allow signs on gas station canopies. Under the proposed zoning ordinance amendment, a canopy sign would be considered to be an eligible place to display allowable wall sign area. Please review the Planner's report and associated proposed ordinance amendment for more detail. B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS: Motion to adopt or modify the proposed zoning ordinance based on findings outlined in the Planner's report. 2. Motion to deny approval of the proposed zoning ordinance amendment. Under this alternative, the Planning Commission will need to bring the previous variance request off the table and make a decision with regard to the variance request. If the Planning Commission denies the variance request, then, upon petition by the property owner, the variance request would be submitted to the City Council for final consideration. C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends alternative 01. D. SUPPORTING DM: Copy of Planner's report; Copy of proposed ordinance amendment. - n a A .. U. ., „ 1 „ o • u t b 1 Y N - M A M A 6 1 R a 4 a A R c N t MEMORANDUM TO: Monticello planning commission FROM: Stephen Grittman DATE: 28 February 1994 RE: Monticello - Sign Ordinance Amendments FILE NO: 191.06 - 94.04 The attached Ordinance amends the City's Sign Ordinance in two ways. First, it permits signs placed upon fuel station canopies to be treated as wall signs. In this way, a fuel station owner may choose to utilized the canopy for sign locations, but would sacrifice a wall sign location elsewhere on the building. The second amendment alters the calculation for the total number of sigason a parcel which utilizes wall and pylon signs. In such a situation, the property is allowed one sign per street frontage, with a minimum of two signs. Under this allowance, a property may identify its business on each of the streets on which it has legal frontage. This latter language would require full width frontage on a street to qualify for sign identification. A property owner could not acquire a narrow strip of land merely for the purpose of constructing an additional sign. 5775 Wayzata Blvd • SUte 888 ' St. Louis Park. MN 88416 • (612) 598.9636 -Fax. 598.9637 r7 CITY OF MONTICELLO COUNTY OF WRIGHT ORDINANCE NO. AN OWUMNCE AMM=G TBB ZONING ORDINANCB, TITLB 10, SECTION 3, SIGN REOLATIONS BY INCLUDING REWUTIONS FOR FUEL STATION CANOPZBS, AND ALLOnBLB SIGNS PER STREET FRONTAGE. The City Council of the City of Monticello, Wright County, Minnesota does ordain: geation 1. Title 10, section 3-9 (Ci, of the Monticello Zoning Ordinance is hereby amended by adding the following: 10. Signs may be located oa pump island canopies. considered as wail signs, the same manner as any property. conforming fuel station Such signs shall be and shall be regulated in other wall signs on the gentian Z. Title 10, Section 3-9 (S) Z. (b), of the Monticello Zoning Ordinance is hereby amended to read as follows: ii. oytion B. Under Option B, either wall eiigae or pylon eigas may be utilized, or a combination of both. The total number of business identification signs allowed (whether wall or pylon) shall be at least two (a), or equal to the number of streets upon which the property has legal frontage, whichever is greater. in no case, however, shall more than one pylon sign be allowed. only two product identification signs aro allowed, and /theme wa;l sips may be only an owe Val The total maximum allowable sign area 'Loss Aay.xmll shall be determined by taking ten percent (100) of the gross silhouette area of the front building up to one hundred (100) square feet, whichever is Isms. The method for determining the gross silhouette area for wail signs is me indicated in Option A. g saQa s_ Thia Ordinance shall take offset imadiately upon its pas go and publication according to City Charter. PASSED this day of , 1994. Kan Maus, mayor Richard Wolfatoller, City Admuistrator Planning Commission Agenda - 3/3/94 e. Public Hearing—Considgration of a variance request to allow replacement of an existing non-conformine evlon sign With a new non-conformina pvlon sign and reader board sign. Replacement sign sauare footage will exceed the 2"A so ft maximum and exceed the 32 -ft high maximum allowe(L Applicant. McDonalds Corporation. W.0.) A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND McDonalds is requesting two variance requests that would allow replacement of an existing non -conforming pylon sign with a new non- conforming pylon sign. The pylon sign now in place has a sign area of 424 sq ft. Its height is 64 ft as measured from the top of the sign to the freeway right -of --way. Sign height is always measured from the right-of-way from which the sign gains its principal exposure. According to the city ordinance under the freeway bonus provision, sign area is limited to 200 sq ft, and sign height is limited to 32 ft. The freeway bonus gives McDonalds an additional 14 ft of height and 100 sq ft of sign area over what is allowed to other property owners on Highway 25 that lie outside of the 800 -ft freeway bonus area. The sign now in place was installed either prior to the City establishing sign ordinances, or it was installed without formally obtaining a variance. Therefore, no approvals were ever granted for the sign as it now exists. The sign is either a lawful non -conforming sign if it was installed prior to the sign ordinance being enacted, or it is an illegal sign that was installed without first obtaining the proper permits. Or perhaps it was installed without properly being monitored by the City. Whatever the case, the City is not obligated to allow the sign to be replaced as is or replaced with a sign that is less non -conforming. Any sign replacing the one that exists must at a minimum meet code, or variances must be granted to allow it to have characteristics that don't meet code. The now sign is proposed to have a sign area of 344 sq fl, making it 144 sq ft bigger than allowed by code. In addition, it is proposed that the sign height amount to 60 ft versus city code, which limits sign height to 32 ft. In terms of a variance to the sign size requirement, it is difficult to justify a variance based on hardship due to the fact that a sign constructed to the maximum size allowed by code provides ample notice to travelers on 1.94 that a McDonalds is located at the exit ramp. In terms of the sign height, ii does appear that the baso of the sign is relatively low in relation to the Planning Commission Agenda - 3/3/94 Highway 25 overpass. It may be that additional sign height might be necessary in order to raise the sign above the Highway 25 bridge ramp so as to provide a view of the sign for traffic that is eastbound on I-94. Unfortunately, I have not been able to visit the site to determine whether or not a 32 -ft sign would be high enough to project over the ramp and, therefore, be visible by traffic that is eastbound on I-94. If a 32 -ft sign is not high enough to provide a view of the sign for eastbound traffic, then perhaps a variance to the sign requirements is justified. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS: IA. Motion to approve the variance to the sign size requirement. Under this alternative, Planning Commission would approve the variance to the sign size requirement. As usual, with every variance request, a unique situation or hardship should be identified that explains why a variance is necessary. As you have noted in the motion, I've included no reference to a unique situation since I couldn't think of one. If the Planning Commission is serious about granting a variance to the sign size maximum, then we should definitely change our ordinance to allow larger signs. Motion to deny the variance to the sign size requirement based on the finding that the applicant has failed to demonstrate a unique situation or hardship that would warrant the variance, it is not consistent with the ordinance, and would result in a negative precedent. 2A. Motion to approve the variance request allowing a sign height in excess of 32 ft. Under this alternative, Planning Commission could make a finding that added sign height is necessary in order to allow the sign to project, over the Highway 25 bridge ramp so that the sign is visible to travelers eastbound on 1-94. City staff will be researching the matter further and hopes to have a better indication as to the proper extent of the variance, if necessary, to achieve sign visibility for eastbound traffic on 1-94. Motion to deny variance based on the finding that a hardship has not been demonstrated and that a precedent would be set by granting a variance. Planning Commission Agenda - 3/3/94 Under this alternative, Planning Commission makes a finding that a 32 -ft high sign is of a sufficient height to accomplish the sign's goals and, therefore, there is no hardship or unique situation that warrants a variance. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Stats recommends that Planning Commission deny the variance to allow any sign square foot area in excess of the maximum allowed (200 aq ft). With regard to the sign height variance, it appears to be reasonable to allow a variance to the extent necessary to achieve adequate visibility of the sign for travelers eastbound on I-94. D. SUPPORTING DATA.- Sign ATA: Sign detail submitted by McDonalds. 12 VWU DFIRMtp I M NO] ASA.NRI SO AND AMES AND UP AS X WR I AV� pscyo�p �y�g 6L IINpOI Gr' N °Na Au Am111 a SU ro AC01 ADM ��I I[ AIDE m R C41W IT 1.41111111 t I I�i 0l7elb M�LLf� PW RCip C AIPa W 42 V. p VAFm / 'v' Km Silk [ iJ�r N Dou tn•n / rllllf [ADI b NP CKUlf tAns 11.4 AN' (INCH 444 iAv to)1"Sm MA Im IaIAL p own CI=IS) �•� ® 001II IIF uxvs>aluvurr °slicLTom B4 CIA n[ Ar01 .. q [ADI [A D 1Iv1 Imre rat Sim , To u[ umx I rl.IC1OrN �E�r p ulrtl slop D Flu Ruem SIIVLL , ELIC RE �'�n Io 7 / F [.// 7 r I[ADE"W.P 7— --- Ps SS rtv r'r [N `_ 6 V AIDS RN. • _ �` : 1114, IQJIM RTS I[IAL Slim 111114W �'- p = recur 0=11. ID Fum11 - luk Nms ntrl m h ' I Y -'slaw II IN. W a �rUI 'v p 1 Rrrt \ Pe IRCtQ to at IR 141 to IpSn�IG J� 11SL �KjSr'�di� N[M�v ICDfiN iult� tQ fm may.4 n AIDE FACES I -- IO�gi Nlls 11anon IDIS MY)�d f'1 l\K �m I �l[fln/,l Olitrl nn Ma Irf RAI VA' I .� I I f-0 fI IRIIO m� ,to ` 1CI4li 1 I ! AALI nr 8 @ A 11,411 MO ey`gIIArI h MAIL IQIL IIM'II6t (/411. yV ppqp �t �p� si'1•r I l _1tStr01►si fVlj Qis a m j� `r `QaCttSCN, In 0 �3 leplASu�sl�mrusmr mA r ._. r"T t Nrps�l[rcmClS Cp0�rr0{ esARn nupe u las a OSIS ry lal[t�l S . �� � -' aFP e� ►u wuirt�u m rn QI�r� [�rt1ACrp �r • A~' rfaMY Y141 rrDl' I'ua ID 1►A I17 Rsp Iou1>•, G F a Ilt Rtp[al IO V�uIR�A s m V C 11'� ' . • a ROG FRfLI[I Q = V. IF TISK RL =in$10 a COSI D a of C111[um Rum- IlillT to MN I KV MR nwo ri r Em IS[ (Ims AR MIN d 11M MIR anal 0 men w Inn ® In y. I ID[NgOIrYI / 1pUUIR'91R ll��" Planning Commission Agenda - 3/3/94 9. Public Hearing—Consideration of @rmendment Lo Section 32: (F) of the zoning ordinance regulating Dlacement of fences. The amendment would allog Diacement of fences on a Dronerty line only with written aunroval from DroDerty owners affected. "Dlicant, Monticello Planning Commission. (J.0.) A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND For some time, City staff has been meaning to bring a possible zoning ordinance amendment regulating placement of fences before the Planning Commission. The City Planner has reviewed our ordinance as well as ordinances in effect in other cities and has recommended an alternative if the Planning Commission is interested in taking a stronger stand with regard to regulating placement of fences. Please see the Planner's report for more detail. B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS: 1. Motion to approve proposed zoning ordinance amendment as submitted based on the findings outlined in the Planners report. 2. Motion to deny approval of the proposed zoning ordinance amendment. C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Based on information received from the Planner, it appears that adoption of an ordinance regulating placement of fences as proposed is workable; however, it should be noted that incorporation of this ordinance into our books will result in additional administrative duties relating to regulation of fences. On the one hand, it makes sense to regulate fence placement as proposed. On the other hand, we are having a difficult time keeping up with the work that we have already. It might be more realistic to table this matter until we have the staff to adequately enforce this new ordinance. We would suggest that the ordinance be modified to include language requiring that a permit be obtained. D. SUPPORTING DATA: Planner's report; Copy of proposed ordinance amendment. 13 •+. .� ., � w vim., .. v. �...,�y,/1 IIIV• VMCj URB A M CL ANNI NO D'Q31 ON YARK91 R [S! ARO N MEMORANDUM TO: Monticello Planning Commission FROM: Stephen Orittman DATE: 28 February 1994 Rs: Monticello - zoning Ordinance Amendment - Fences FILE NO: 191.06 - 94.03 The City has been discussing the issue of fence placement with respect to boundary line fences. The attached Ordinance would permit the construction of fences on property boundary lines with the written approval of the property owner sharing the fence. The primary concerns over the written approval are ongoing notification and maintenance issues. This Ordinance provides for an agreement which is recordable against both properties. The agreement should address responsibilities for maintenance and costs. It is not necessary that the parties agree to split the responsibilities, only that they make a determination as to who is responsible. The recordable nature of the agreement is iaportant since future owners should have an understanding of the maintenance responsibilities. If no agreement is reached, the Ordinance provides for a setback of three feet to permit maintenance of the land and fence by the party which constructs the fence. This option is less desirable, since contiguous property owners who cannot agree on a boundary line fence, but who both want fences, wind up creating an alley of unusable area between them. This approach has been used in numerous other co=uunitiea with success. No problems have been encountered with mortgage companies or title search issues. We recommend it over a flat requirement of fence setbacks or unrecorded boundary line fence agreements. 5775 Wayzata Blvd - Suite 855 - St. Louis Park, MN 55416 - (812) 595.9636•Fax. 595.9837 Pan -29-94 MON 11 :24 0 P.OE Please insert the following text in place of that is the detached Ordinance: (e) Except as provided in Chapter 3, Section l Ie) 1, fences ma erected on the aide of rear lot lines of a property subject to a recordable agreement between adjacent and 8 cost rerty esponsibilii. Said ties between ement shall assign gthe adjoining properties, shall become null and void upon removal of the lance, and shall be recorded against the titles of each property. Where no agreement is reached, fences shall be set back a minimum of three (3) feet from any lot line. At the discretion of the Building official, a boundary survey may be required to ascertain the wmct location of the boundary line. CITY OF MONTICELL0 COUNTY OF WRIGHT, MDOWSOTA ORDINANCE NO. AN AMMMT TO THE CITY SONMQ OPD=MCS MICH ALLOWS FOR TES PLACSWMT o8 FENCES ON TSS 5m8 AND REAR PROPEETr LnMS 07 A LOT. Section 1. Section 3.2.(P).2 is hereby amended by adding the followings (e) Except as provided in Chapter 3, Section T (71 T, fences may be erected on the side or rear lot lines of a property with a recordable, written agreement between adacent jacent T ropnsty owners. At the discretion of the ad aspector, a survey may be required to locate the property line for proper placement of the fence. Section 9. This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect an and after its passage and publication. Adopted by the City Council this day of 1994. Zen Maus, mayor ATTEST: Riex wciteteller, Csty Acministrator i Y.. .ii �Il II i��. Kirin. •••• "o�• rw .. •••• �9 Planning Commission Agenda - 3/3/94 to. Public Hearina--Consideradon of an amendment jo Section 8-4: (G) of the zoning ordinance that further 4efings minimum f1oor prea reauirementq for the various sWIes of single family residential structures. Avolicant. Monticello Planning Commission. (d.0. ) A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: As you recall, some months ago Planning Commission called for a public hearing on the possibility of adjusting our zoning ordinance so that more flexibility would exist to allow for the various types of housing styles that are now constructed. The current ordinance is somewhat limited in its approach to regulating floor area, and the new language would expand flexibility and so on. Please see Steve Grittman's report for further detail. B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS: 1. Motion to adopt zoning ordinance amendment based on recommendations as outlined in the Planner's report. 2. Motion to deny adoption of zoning ordinance amendment as proposed. C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends alternative #1 as outlined in the Planner's report. D. SUPPORTING DATA: Planners report; Copy of proposed ordinance amendment. 14 JJ "C 11U1 t,ilrrObt AbsuctdLeU VunsUJtants, Inc. U A 9 A N PLANNI NG • DES l e N• MARKET ROSE ARCH 1 EEMORANDUM TO: Jeff O'Neill FROM: Cary Teague/Steve Grittman DATE: 28 February 1994 RE: Monticello - Minimum Floor Area Requirements FILE NO: 191.06 - 94.05 BACKGROUND Over the past few weeks, the City has been considering the appropriateness of the current minimum requirement of floor area per dwelling unit for single family homes. This memo will outline the current Zoning Ordinance regulations on floor area, offer two alternatives, and make recommendation on adopting one of the two alternatives. Also, attached is a draft of an ordinance amendment in conjunction with our offices' recommendation. ANALYSIS current ordinance Requirements Section 3.4 (OJ 1. of the Monticello City Code requires that one- story dwellings be at least 960 square feet, and two-story dwellings be at least 780 square feet per story. However, minimum square footage of a one-story building may be reduced to 964 square feet if a garage is added with at least 400 square feet. In no case, however, shall the minimum dimension of that garage be less than 16 feet. in the definition section of the current City Code square footage in not specifically defined. With the ever charging styles of new housing, both single family dwellings and townhomas, the above ordinance does not most the current desires of builders and developers. In particular. development housing unite, with let floor livable areas of much lees than 750 square feet with a garage, and a larger second level. This is a current trend in both two story town homes, and multi- level Giggle family dwellings. ' 8778 Wayzata Blvd. - Supe 555 ' St. Louts Park, MN 55410 - (812) 895-9830•Fax. 895-9837 00 Therefore, the following sections of this report outline alternatives which may offer greater flexibility in building new homes in Monticello. Alternative 01 - Require a minimum of 960 square feet of livable floor area for the entire unit. Thio alternative allows housing units to be constructed with a first floor square footage of less than current 750 square foot requirement. As an example, a townhome could be constructed with 400 square feet of livable floor area on the first level, and 560 on the second, or a multi-level single family home could be constructed with a 400 square foot livable area on the first level, 1,000 square feet on the second level and 400 square feet on the third level. This alternative gives a much greater amount of flexibility and creativity to the developer/builder, as the livable floor area of the first, and second floor may be significantly reduced in size. Also, the style of housing is not dictated. Current regulations require hones to be somewhat uniform in size and shape, unless the structure is significantly larger than that which is required by City Code. As trends in housing styles change, due to the flexibility that this regulation offers, the ordinance can adapt to those changes, because it only regulates the minimum square footage of the entire house, rather than a specific floor of the house. it should also be mentioned, that in many instances, homes built in Minnesota are usually constructed with a two stall garage (400 square feet), therefore, the minimum building foot print for most new home construction will likely be at least 800 square feet. The State uniform Building Code requires single family homes to be at least 800 square feet in size, therefore, this new requirement of 960 square feet would satisfy the State requirement. Under Alternative 01, Livable Floor Area must be defined within the City code. Livable Floor Area may be defined as follows: The total of all floor areas of a building, excluding stairwells and elevator shafts, equipment rooms, interior vehicular parking or loading; and all floors below the first or ground floor, except when used or intended to be used for human habitation or service to the public. Alternative 01 - Require Two -Story Dwellings to be 500 s.f per story. By reducing the two-story dwelling requirement to 500 square feet per story, greater flexibility is also afforded builders for construction of two-story family homes, by reducing the required size of the building foot print. Two-story homes would now be required to contain at least 1,000 square feet of livable area, 6_0 rather than the current regulation of 1,800 square lest of floor area. Again, a garage in usually built in conjunction with homea in Minnesota, which causes livable areae oa first floors to be smaller in size, therefore, this alternative also allows livable area on the first level to be reduced in size while maintaining the State Uniform Building Code requirement of 600 square feet. This alternative does not offer the flexibility to the builder as Alternative 01, due to the fact that the first floor must contain at least 500 square feet of livable area. Also, under Alternative 02, a definition of livable floor area will have to be created. RECONIIVl MATION Our office recanmende Alternative 01, as it of fere the most flexibility to builders with the minimum required floor area, and the it will adapt to the ever changing trends in. housing styles. The attached document contains an ordinance amendment per Alternative 41, including the addition of the livable floor area def inition. CXfY OF NIO fiC ELLU COUNTY OF WRIGIiT ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDZNANCB AUMzNG THE Zcs Tl'(R ORDIN36MM, TITLE 10, SECTION 3 -4 AREA AND B=LDING SIZE REWLATIONS The City CO=Cil of the City Of Monticello, Wright County, Minnesota does ordain: section 1. Title 10, Section 3-4, (G) of the Monticello Zoning Ordinance is hereby amended to read as follows: 1. ALL ONE AND/OR TWO-FAMILY DWELLINGS AND TOWNRMZS shall contain at least 960 square feet of livable floor area as defined in section 2.2 (FLI of the City Zoning Ordinance. section 2- Title 10, Section 2-2 of the Monticello Zoning Ordinance is hereby amended to add the following: (FL1 FLOOR AREA - LIVABLE: The total of all floor areas of a building, excluding stairwells and elevator shafts, equipment rooms, interior vehicular parking or loading; and all floors below the first or ground floor, except when used or intended to be used for human habitation or service to the public. Section ]. This Ordinance shall take effect immediately upon its passage and publication according to the City Charter. PASSED this day of , 1994. Ren Maus, Mayor ATTEST: Richard Molfeteiler, city Administrator Planning Commission Agenda - 3/3/94 ii. Public Hearing—Consideration of a conditional use Dermit allowing minor auto renair and open and outdoor storage in a"(highwav business) pone. Location is Section 11. Part of W 1/2 of SW 114. UnDlatted Dronertv in the city of Monticello. ADDlicant. Milton Olson. (J.0.) A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: As reported verbally at the previous meeting, Jerry's Towing has relocated from Big Lake Township to the building owned by Milton Olson. Both Olson and Foley have been informed that utilization of this space for a towing and minor auto repair facility first require acquisition of a conditional use permit. Unfortunately, Milton Olson is not in town to address this issue due to a vacation he had planned some time ago. He has requested that this item be tabled until the next regular meeting of the Planning Commission. B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS: 1. Motion to approve the conditional use permit. 2. Motion to deny the conditional use permit. 3. Motion to table this item. C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Although staff is disappointed that Milton Olson is not here to follow up on his application on a timely basis, we also feel that it is reasonable to allow him to delay this matter another month. Therefore, staff recommends that this item be tabled, D. SUPPORTING DATA: None. is