Loading...
Planning Commission Agenda Packet 06-07-19940 AGENDA REGULAR MEETING - MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday, June 7, 1894 - 7 p.m. Members: Cindy Lemm, Richard Martie, .Ion Bogart, Richard Carlson, and Brian Stumpf 7:00 p.m. 1. Call to order. 7:02 p.m. 2. Approval of minutes of the regular meeting held April 5, 1994. 7:04 p.m. 3. Approval of minutes of the special meeting held April 11, 1994. 7:06 p.m. 4. noCL v, Approval of minutes of the regular meeting held May 3, 1994. 7:08 p.m. 5. Public Hearing --Consideration of a variance of 8 ft to the 10-11 side yard setback requirement in conjunction with construction of an attached garage. Applicant, Jack and Barb Leeman. 7:25 p.m. 6. Public Hearing --Consideration of a variance request which would allow placement of a pylon sign within the setback requirement. Applicant, Champion Auto (Warnert Automotive). 7:45 p.m. 7. Public Hearing --Consideration of a preliminary plat replatting the Prairie West subdivision. Applicant, West Prairie Partners. 8:05 P.M. 8. Review proposed land use plan for development of the Krautbauer property and consider authorizing public hearings for associated zoning ordinance amendments. Additional Information Items 8:50 p.m. 1. Consideration of a variance request to allow installation of a pylon sign that exceeds the 32 -ft high maximum. Applicant, McDonalds Corporation. Council action: Approved as per Planning Commission recommendation. 8:52 p.m. 2. 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. Council action: Approved as per Planning Commission recommendation. 8:54 p.m. 3. Consideration of amendment to Section :1-4 IGI of the zoning ordinance that further defines minimum floor area requirements for various styles of single family residential structures. Applicant, Monticello Planning Commission. Council action: Approved as per Planning Commission recommendation. Agenda Planning Commission June 7, 1994 Page 2 8:66 p.m. 4. Consideration of a preliminary plat of the Eastwood Knoll subdivision. Council action: Approved as per Planning Commission recommendation. 8:68 p.m. 6. Consideration of the Emmerich/Klein rezoning and comprehensive plan amendment request and consideration of the Hoglund/Lundsten rezoning. Council action: Approved the Emmerich/Idein rezoning and comprehensive plan amendment request; tabled the Hoglund/Lundsten rezoning request. 9:00 p.m. 6. Consideration of a conditional use permit allowing a church facility to operate in an R-1 zone. Applicant, A Glorious Church. Council action: Approved as per Planning Commission recommendation. 9:02 p.m. 7. Public Hearing --Consideration of a variance request to allow a garage addition onto an existing house within the 10 -ft side yard setback requirement. Applicant, Harold Austin. Council action: Approved as per Planning Commission recommendation. 9:04 p.m. 8. Consideration of a variance request which would allow placement of a sign on a public right-of-way. Applicant, Monticello -Big Lake Hospital District. Council action: Approved as per Planning Commission recommendation. 9:06 p.m. 9. Set the next tentative date for the Monticello Planning Commission meeting for Tuesday, July 6, 1994, 7 p.m. 9:08 P.M. 10. Adjournment. MINUTES REGULAR MEETING - MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday, May 3, 1894 - 7 p.m. Members Present: Cindy Lemm, Richard Martie, Jon Bogart, Richard Carlson, Brian Stumpf Members Absent: None Staff Present: Gary Anderson; Jeff O'Neill; Bret Weiss, Consulting Engineer, and Steve Grittman, Consulting Planner The meeting was called to order by Chairperson Cindy Lemm at 7:03 p.m. Approval of minutes of the regular meeting held April ra. 1994. The minutes weren't completed and will be brought back at the next regular meeting. Public Hearing Coptipueli—Consideration of a myliminary plat of the Eastwood Knoll subdivision. Jeff O Neill, Assistant Administrator, explained some new revisions to the original subdivision design and discussed other design alternatives for development of Outlots C and D. Bret Weiss, Consulting Engineer, explained the designs as presented in the agenda supplement. It was suggested that the Planning Commission members consider Alternative 2B, Bypass Design, as that being the Consulting Engineer's recommendation. Weiss also indicated under Alternative 3, a design which was the newest design, would not work under the existing topography that was out there. Cindy Lamm then opened the public hearing. With no input from the public, Cindy Lemm then closed the public hearing and opened the meeting for input from the Planning Commission members. Commission member Jon Bogart explained he would like to see the drainage issue be hilly addressed and completed before final platting. There being no finther input fiom Planning Commission members, a motion was made by Jon Bogart and seconded by Richard Martie to approve the preliminary plat of the Eastwood Knoll residential subdivision following the Meadow Oak Lane bypass design. Motion carried unanimously. Conditions added by the Planning Commission members were as follows: That the drainage issues be addressed and completed by the final plat request Pegs 1 Planning Commission Minutes - 6/3/94 2. The development of this residential subdivision meets all the minimum design standards as required by city ordinance. 4. Public Hearing Continued—Consideration of the Emmerich/lgein rezoning end comprehensive plan amendment Mg3Lest. and consideration of the Hoidund/Lundsted rezoning. Jeff O'Neill, Assistant Administrator, updated the Planning Commission on the additional information which outlined the impact of various land use development patterns for the above subject area. O'Neill highlighted that we will be presenting only new information, not information that had already been discussed. With this agenda item tabled at a previous meeting, the staff was requested to follow up with the City of New Hope video by contacting the New Hope City Hall with specific questions regarding the effectiveness of the berming shown in the video. Questions that were to be asked included the following: 1. Are property values for residential property negatively impacted by the proximity to the industry? 2. Do industries report problems with trespassing? 3. Are multi -family vacancy rates impacted? A report addressing these issues presented by Consulting Planner Steve Grittman of Northwest Associated Consultants was reviewed. The report outlined a land configuration that would preserve additional industrial land on the north half of the 10ein site. There were basically three requests for the Planning Commission members to consider: 1. The Emmerich rezoning request 2. The Mein comprehensive plan amendments 3. The Hoglund/Lundsten rezoning request Cindy Lemm then opened the public hearing for input 6 om the public. 1. Jay Johnson requested that the original proposal as submitted by Tony Emmerich be accepted as presented. 2. Dave lapin commented an the new proposal showing more industrial land on the north half of the 10ein property proposed to be rezoned, that it would not be acceptable to him. Pegs 2 Planning Commission Minutes - 6/3/94 3. Jay Johnson again reminded Planning Commission members if their original proposal is denied, they would have to go back and redo the Kiellberg property into what it is currently zoned at, that being 11-1 (single family residential). 4. Tony Emmerich commented on the negotiations have been going on for a long time with Dave Klein for the possible development of his property. Jay Johnson would like to combine the R-3 and the R-2 zoning adjacent to the existing heavy industrial zoned land in the Oakwood Industrial Park Addition. 6. Ron Hoglund, representing the Industrial Development Committee, felt that the City staff and the Planners had done a good job in working together to come up with a viable solution for the rezoning of these properties. 6. Glenn Nemec, representing the Chamber of Commerce, would like to we additional regional business be extended to include some of the land of the Hoglund/Lundsten property up for rezoning. We would definitely like to see proposals for the buffering between the Klein property and the heavy industrial zoned property in the Oakwood Industrial Park. 7. John McVay, Chairperson of the Industrial Development Committee, suggested rezoning for future I-2 land uses should be done now and not after the Klein property is rezoned for residential. Chairperson Cindy Lem- then closed the public hearing and opened the meeting for further input from the Planning Commission me -bees. Planning Commission members were dealt a tough decision to make, and they rendered the following decisions: Motion was made by Richard Carlson and seconded by Brian Stumpf to adopt or modify and adopt the zoning map amendment request based on the finding that the rezoning is consistent with the comprehensive plan, consistent with the character and geography of the area, and will not result in a depreciation of land values, and there is demonstrated need for the types of land use as proposed. Voting in fhvor. Cindy Lemm, Richard Carlson, Richard Martie, Brian Stumpf. Abstaining: Jon Bogart. Motion was made by Richard Carlson and seconded by Richard Martie to amend the comprehensive plan by specifically identifying acceptable land uses as requested by Klein. Motion included a recommendation to complete planning activities geared to addressing long-term need for industrial land. The Planning Commission is Page 3 O Planning Commission Minutes - 5/3194 satisfied with the land use plan as proposed. The next step for David 10ein is to request the annexation, followed by the rezoning process. Item's property, when annexed, enters the city with the AG designation and must subsequently be zoned to match the comprehensive plan designation. Voting in favor. Cindy Lemm, Richard Carlson, Richard Martie, Brian Stumpf. Abstaining- Jon Bogart. Ho¢lund/Lunplaten Rezoning. A motion was made by Richard Martie and seconded by Brian Stumpf to table the zoning map amendment request. Motion carried unanimously. A motion was made by Richard Martie and seconded by Jon Bogart to have the City staff look into a traffic study for this area of rezoning. Motion cabled unanimously. & ffic HP.aAng--Considerat 9j of a gDn¢itiona4 uff permit allowing a church facility to operate in an R-1 zone. Applicant. A Glorious Church. Jeff O'Neill, Assistant Administrator, explained the A Glorious Church conditional use permit allowing a church facility to operate in an R4 zone. A Glorious Church is before you again to request conditional use permit approval from a nearly identical request that was granted by the Planning Commission on November T, 1890, and was also approved by the City Council on November 13, 1890. The site plan has changed with their request that they be allowed to install parking and landscaping during the construction season following this season when the church facility is proposed to be built. The church is citing their problems with obtaining financial obligations from the bank to complete this portion of the project for them. By the next construction season, they will have raised enough money internally to facilitate the completion of the landscaping and parking lot requirements as proposed to be approved by City stag Chairperson Cindy Lem- then opened the public hearing. Dan Gassler, Pastor of A Glorious Church, explained his request to be allowed the no parking lot and landscaping improvements, that they be completed in the next construction season. The church has enough money to facilitate the construction of the building but does not at this time have the money to facilitate the completion of the parking lot and/or the landscaping. The church is proposing to raise sufficient fiends and should have those raised by the time the next construction season rolls around to complete the landscaping and parking lot improvements. Page 4 Planning Connmission Minutes - 6/3AM Chairperson Cindy Lemm then dosed the public hearing and asked for further input from the Planning Commission. There being no further input from the Planning Commission members, a motion was made by Jon Bogart and seconded by Richard Carlson to approve the conditional use request allowing a church facility to operate in an R-1 zone. The following conditions were part of the motion for approval: A City approval of the parking lot, landscaping, and screening plan. Adequate screening of the parking lot area from abutting residential uses and landscaping must be provided. The screen must be at least 6 ft high and achieve 90% opacity. The screen must consist of either a berm, solid fence, or landscape plantings. Installation of a parking lot ecreen shall occur at such time the adjoining residential property is platted. B. City approval of the drainage plan must be obtained prior to issuance of a building permit. C. City approval of the landscape plan must be obtained prior to the issuance of a building permit. The landscape plan should include 30 overstory trees to be planted along the perimeter of the developed portion of the property and spaced approximately 36 ft apart. Additional development will precipitate additional plantings. D. City approval of exterior treatment of the strudhue must be obtained to ensure compatibility of the neighborhood. The exterior materials shall be limited to one-half of the available wall surface. E. Installation of the parking lot fhcilities and landscaping may be deferred to the construction season following occupancy of the church building. This installation is to occur on or before October 15, 1996. Motion carried unanimously. Jeff O'Neill, Assistant Administrator, explained some of the deficiencies that were lacking ftom the site plan as submitted by bUton Olson. Page 5 Planning Commission Minutes - 5/3194 The plan does not show curb line extending along the southern perimeter of the parking lot. It's obvious that the curb is not proposed for this area because future expansion of the building would likely result in extension of the parking lot in a fashion that would require the curb be removed. In addition, the curb is not necessary to control drainage on site. The area designed for outside storage does not exceed the maximum allowable outside storage area if the area encompassed by the trees in the interior of the storage area is deducted from the square footage calculation. It was the view of City staff that it would be reasonable to allow the area encompassed by the trees to be deducted from the total square footage encompassed by the screening fence. The alternative to this would be to cut down the trees and reduce the outside storage area accordingly. Cindy Lemur then opened the public hearing. There being no comments from the public, Cindy Lemm then dosed the public hearing and opened it up for comments from the Planning Commission members. Discussion amongst the Planning Commission members was the location of a semi -trailer in the storage area and how high the screening fence should be within this area. There being no further comments Som the Planning Commission, a motion was made by Richard Martie and seconded by Brian Stumpf to approve the conditional use permits allowing minor auto repair and towing operation and allowing associated outside storage in a B-3 (highway business) none. Voting in favor. Cindy Lemur, Richard Martie, Brian Stumpf, Jon Bogart. Opposed Richard Carlson. Following are conditions that were added to the conditional use approval: The area be limited to six vehicles to be parked in the area outside of the fenced -in enclosure. The area where the curbing was to be eliminated will be completed with a split rail fence along the proposed curb linetend of bituminous surfacing. Page 6 G Planning Commission Minutes - 5/3/94 Public Hearing --Consideration of amendment to Sectiop 34 fGl of the zoning ordinagce which further defines the minimum floor area reouiremenI4 for various styles of single family residential structureEL Applicant. Monticello Planning Commission. Gary Anderson, Zoning Administrator, explained the request before them was basically to outline the different types of houses that are constructed today by their styles and put them into ordinance form which one could easily recognize by reading the proposed ordinance amendment. The ordinance defines as one story structure also being a split entry, split level, bi-level, 3 or 4 level split, and those be at the minimum of 960 sq ft. However, the square footage may be reduced to 864 sq R if a garage is added of at least 400 aq ft. In no case, however, shall the minimum dimension of the garage be less than 16 ft. Another section was added to identify the 1 1/4 story, 1 1/2 story, and 13/4 story type houses. That square footage would be a minimum of 1,060 sq ft. When we're talking about square footages of houses, it is recognized that this is the area observed above grade from the lot. Cindy bemm then opened the public hearing. There being no input from the public, she turned it over to any further discussion from the Planning Commission members. Discussion amongst the Planning Commission members was to Aufher clarity the intent of the ordinance. The clarification was made to their acceptability. Therefore, a motion was made by Richard Carlson and seconded by Jon Bogart to adopt an ordinance amendment that specifically identifies housing types, styles, and associated floor area minimums as presented in the ordinance amendment. Motion carried unanimously. a�1]]Ll a C3�? aiT'4`�ili �hi[cRi � Ef! [!i iii fitl'f �1■.IitTid �:;�i�T:7:1 �+!i:� 1 LI`1l _t •I: i ��ri= i a V.;._. Mr. Austin is proposing to build a 24' x 30' attached garage onto this existing single family residence. The plan showed the house on the lot, which was overshifted to the west to accommodate an attached garage. Unfortunately, it was shifted only far enough to accommodate a garage sire of less than 24 ft in width. The proposed garage would encroach approximately 2 1/2 R into the 10 -ft minimum side yard setback requirement. Page 7 �.J Planning Commission Minutes - 5/3/94 Cindy Lemm then opened the public hearing. There being no input from the public, she then closed the public hearing and opened it up for further input from the Planning Commission members. There being no input from the Planning Commission members, a motion was made by Jon Bogart and seconded by Brian Stumpf to approve the variance request to allow a garage addition onto an existing house within the 10 -ft side yard setback requirement. Motion carried unanimously. Reason for approval: In the past, the houses were placed inappropriately on the lots. Pgblic Hearin --Consideration of a variance request whichl would allow Blgceapnt of a sign on a public right-of-way. Applicant. Monticello-Bie Lake Hospital Distriq. Jeff ONeill, Assistant Administrator, explained the proposed plan to allow a pylon sign to be placed on the public right-of-way in front of the canopy at the Monticello -Big Lake Clinic. ONeill highlighted the location where the proposed sign was to go; and as part of the long-range planning, what exists as public right-of-way now would be turned over to private enterprise and a new street would be developed coming in off East County Road 75 (East Broadway), which would facilitate the vacation of Hart Boulevard. However, at this time, no vacation has occurred, so the sign would have to be placed on public right-of-way. Chairperson Cindy Lem- then opened the public hearing. There being no input from the public, she then closed the public hearing and opened it up for further questions from Planning Commission members. Questions raised by the Planning Commission members were how we deal with public enterprise versus public enterprise in placement of signs in public right-of-way. This being a unique situation of cooperative planning done between the Hospital and the City, the Hospital would indemnify the City in case of any liability; and a time limit should be placed on the placement of this sign until such time Hart Boulevard is vacated and the new street put in off of East Broadway. There being no further discussion from Planning Commission members, a motion was made by Jon Bogert and seconded by Richard Martie to approve the variance request which would allow placement of a sign on a public right-of-way. Motion carried unanimously with the following conditions: This is a unique situation of the cooperative planning done between the Hospital District and the City of Monticello. Page 8 0 Planning Commission Minutes - SGS4 The Hospital District is to indemnify the City of any liability. A time limit be established at a point in time that ties into the County's plan for redevelopment of East County Road 75 (East Broadway). 10. A motion was made by Richard Martie and seconded by Brian Stumpf to adjourn the meeting. The meeting adjourned at 10:37 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Gary Anderson Zoning Administrator Page 9 MINUTES REGULAR MEETING - MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday, April b, 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, Rick Wolfsteller, 011ie Koropchak, and Steve Grittman 1. The meeting was called to order by Chairperson Cindy Lemm at 7 p.m. 2. A motion was made by Richard Carlson and seconded by Jon Bogart to approve the minutes of the regular meeting held on March 3, 1994. Motion carried unanimously. A motion was made by Richard Carlson and seconded by Jon Bogart to approve the minutes of the special meeting held March 28, 1994. Motion carried unanimously. 3. Publig Hearing --Consideration of Amendments to the zoning mark and consideration of amendments to the,comnrehensive plan for thq laity relating to rezoning of the orooerty known ps "The Everareens" and relating to establishing a comprehensive IAnd use nlan for the Klein orooerty. AnWicant. Emmerich*iellbe in. AND 4. Public Hearing--Consideratign of amendrilents to the zoning man of the City 1 ine A rezoning of gertain orooertieR from their Furrent designation to I- IMght industrinll zoning designation. Aanlicant. Monticello Planning Commission. Jeff O'Neill, Assistant Administrator, described the proposed zoning map amendments relating to the site formerly known as "The Evergreens," and reviewed the proposed land use configuration for the Klein property, and then outlined possible amendments to the comprehensive plan. He also described the Industrial Development Committee's position on the proposed rezoning. Pago 1 Planning Commission Minutes - 4/5/94 The greatest concern with the development of the Klein property is the I-2 (heavy industrial) land to the north. According to the City Planner, despite the fact that the I-2 and the R-3 land uses will be in direct contact with each other, the Planner has indicated that isolation can be achieved through proper design of the development area. With the proper extension of roadways isolating residential tragic from the industrial traffic, and through installation of berms, landscaping, and fencing, an adequate, practical level of isolation can be achieved. A video of multi -family sites versus industrial sites versus single family uses was submitted for Planning Commission review. The video showed where these uses are existing and are compatible in New Hope. Cindy Lemm then opened the public hearing. The IDC recommendation was presented by 011ie Koropchak. Ron Hoglund gave the Monticello Chamber of Commerce recommendation. Dave Klein indicated that the likelihood of his property developing under I- 2 (heavy industrial) is quite unlikely, as the potential for multi -family and/or single family has greater potential than that of I-2 (heavy industrial) zoning. Mary Micke appreciated the video versus the maps and suggested that the Planning Commission members table the request to check with the New Hope planner and business and apartment owners to gain their input in regard to this rezoning request. John Lundsten indicated he was not present at the March 24, 1894, special Planning Commission meeting. He has just returned to Minnesota on April 4, 1894, and would like more time to explore the request. He asked that the Planning Commission take no action on the Hoglund/Lundsten property, but they could take action on the Kjellberg/IOein rezoning property as they seo fit. Jay Johnson asked that the Planning Commission members consider the Kjellberg/Klein proposal as it exists versus including it with the Hoglund/ Lundsten properties. Steve Johnson stated the Planning Commission members should look at the industrial needs first and then, secondly, at residential, as industrial pays for the residential services in this community. Cindy Lemm then closed the public hearing and opened the meeting for further comments from the Planning Commission members. Page 2 C�� Planning Commission Minutes - 4/5/94 Planning Commission members appreciated the Industrial Development Committee and the Chamber of Commerce comments. They were intent to down -zone as you leave I-2 property to R-1 zoning districts. They recognize the importance of School Boulevard needing to develop sooner or as soon as the R-1 uses develop. They also recognize the need of School Boulevard to continue all the way to Highway 25. They asked Consulting Planner, Steve Grittman, to review the buffer strip as used to down -zone from heavy industrial (I-2) zoning into an "R" zoning district. They asked that City staff look into obtaining the City of New Hope's information on I-2 (heavy industrial) zoning to R-3 (multiple family use) existing buffer strip zones. There being no further information from the Planning Commission members, a motion was made by Richard Carlson and seconded by Richard Martie to table the amendments to the zoning map and consideration of amendments to the comprehensive plan for the City relating to the rezoning of the property known as "The Evergreens." Voting in favor. Cindy Lemm, Richard Carlson, Richard Martie, Brian Stumpf. Abstaining: Jon Bogart. City staff is to provide additional information at their next regularly scheduled meeting on May 3, 1994. At that time, information should be received from suburban communities which have experienced this type of zoning transition. Continued Public Hearing—Consideration ofAvnriarnce reouest to allow installation of a ovlon sign that exceeds 32 -ft high rnsximum. Aoalicant. McDonalds Cornoration. Jeff O'Neill, Assistant Administrator, explained McDanalds' request is back before them with their request to allow a sign that exceeds the 200 sq It maximum and to allow a sign to exceed the 324 sign height requirement. The proposed sign square footage must meet the minimum sign square footage requirement. The sign height as proposed, 60 ft, exceeds our maximum 32 -ft sign pylon sign height allowed. Steve Grittman, Consulting Planner, indicated the :32 -ft sign height above the center of I-94 would be adequate. If it was raised to 60 ft in height, it would be in contrast to the other existing pylon signs in the area. Research on the process for the sign permit when it was built found that the Building Official issued a sign permit for the 60 -ft sign height and the excess sign square footage. The assumption was that the sign height was measured 32 ft above the center of Highway 25 in the area where the sign was located. Chairperson Cindy Lemm then opened the public hearing. Page 3 Planning Commission Minutes - 4/5/94 Jerry Roper, McDonalds Corporation, explained the McDonalds request to be allowed to replace their existing outdated sign with a new sign, which would be of less sign square footage but would still be above the 32 -ft maximum sign height. Cindy Lemm then closed the public hearing and asked for further input from the Planning Commission members. A motion was made by Richard Carlson and seconded by Richard Martie to deny the variance request to allow a sign height in excess of the 32 -ft maximum allowed. Upon further discussion from Planning Commission members, this motion was withdrawn. A new motion was made by Jon Bogart and seconded by Richard Martie to allow the sign without need for the variance, as the sign height proposed today is the same as originally presented and approved in 1979. 6. Cqntinued Public Hearine--Consideration of a conditional use permit allowine minor auto repair pnd oven and outdoor storaee in a B-3 (hiahwav business) zone. Applicant. Milton Olson. Jeff OWeill, Assistant Administrator, explained that Mr. Olson had not completed his plans at this time and asks that it be continued until the next regularly scheduled meeting. Cindy Lemm then closed the continued portion of the public hearing and asked for a motion from the Planning Commission members. A motion was made by Jon Bogart and seconded by Richard Martie to continue the public hearing for the conditional use permit allowing minor auto repair and open and outdoor storage in a B-3 (highway business) zone. Motion carried unanimously. Public Henrina--Consitlefation o[ alnendmegt to Section 34 101 of the Tonins ordinance %yhiell further defines rpipimuln Qpor area rgauitements, fpr the ynriops stvles-of single family residential structures. Aooli n Monticello Plnnnina Commission. Steve Grhtman, Consulting Planner, explained the research which he compiled for a proposed ordinance amendment. The ordinance amendment would address any other type of house styles in addition to the single and two family house styles which is already addressed by the zoning ordinance. Cindy Lemm then opened the public hearing. Page 4 Planning Commission Minutes - 4/6/94 There being no input from the public, Cindy Lemm then closed the public hearing and asked for further discussion from the Planning Commission members. Planning Commission members asked if they received any input from the builders. No further input was received from the builders with a recommendation by the Planning Commission members that they continue consideration of this ordinance 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 until the next regularly scheduled meeting, May 6, 1994,7 p.m., to allow additional time for City staff to get back to the builders and see how these requirements would affect proposed houses with their various house styles to be built in the city of Monticello. Additional Information Item 1. Set the next tentative date of the Monticello Planning Commission meeting for Tuesday, May 3, 1994, 7 p.m. Consensus of the five Planning Commission members present was to set this date as the next regular meeting date. There being no further business, a motion was made by Richard Martie and seconded by Brian Stumpf to adjourn the meeting. 'Motion carried unanimously. The meeting adjourned at 10:40 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Gary Anderson Zoning Administrator Page 5 MINUTES SPECIAL MEETING • MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION Monday, April 11, 1994-5:30 pm. Members Present: Cindy Lemon, Richard Martie, Jon Bogart Members Absent: Richard Carlson and Brian Stumpf Staff Present: Gary Anderson, Jeff O'Neill 1. The meeting was called to order by Chairperson Cindy Lemm at 5:30 p.m. 2. Frblic Hearin --Consideration of aonreval of oreliminary plat of the Eastwood Knoll subdivision. Jeff O'Neill, Assistant Administrator, explained some additional design considerations that had been done by our consulting engineering firm, Orr- Schelen-Mayeron. Bret Weiss, Consulting Engineer, showed an alternative as proposed by Charlie Pfeffer. This proposed alternative would affect the land area around the intersection of the overpass of 1-94 and County Road 118. Mr. Pfeffer was proposing to construct a frontage road that would connect up to the entrance into the Meadow Oak Estates addition. Mr. Weiss indicated that he would address the Planning Commission members with Mr. Pfeffer's proposal but showed no support for Mr. Pfeffer's report as presented. Chairperson Cindy Lemm opened the public hearing. Bob Grieman, a resident in the Meadow Oak Estates addition, indicated some of the residents concerns as follows: 1. Separation not needed between Briar Oakes Estate and Meadow Oak Estates. 2. The increased traffic. 3. The safety. 4. The City being the developer. He presented Chairperson Cindy Lemm with a signed petition by 14 of the 16 existing residents in the Meadow Oak Estates addition. Jerry Benson expressed his concern of the traffic in relationship to commuter tragic to I-94 with trips through Briar Oakes Estate and the Meadow Oak Estates additions. Jeff O'Neill, Assistant Administrator, showed the Briar Oakes/Oak Ridge addition and the Meadow Oak Estates roadway layout. There was a possibility of more Page 1 ;� Special Planning Commission Minutes - 4/11/94 traffic going through Oak Ridge to the Meadow Oak 2nd Addition to Highway 75 versus going through the Briar Oakes development through Eastwood Knoll and then through the Meadow Oak Estates addition. Mrs. Wayne Ward explained her concerns for the roadway coming through within two vacant lots of their residence and suggested why a roadway couldn't be constructed up where the two existing houses are located in the southwest corner of the Meadow Oak Estates development where a roadway already exists to be proposed to go into the Eastwood Knoll addition. Michael Beck asked of the possibility of a dead-end road off Meadow Oak Lane with that to terminate two lots past Jerry Benson's house. Charles Walters commented why the Briar Oakes developer didn't have to hook up to Meadow Oak 4th Addition. Bruce Berning questioned if the Planning Commission was going to make a recommendation to the City Council. Cindy Lemm then closed the public hearing and asked for further input from the Planning Commission members. Commission member Jon Bogart explained a proposal he would like to have the City Engineer take a look at with the roadway going through the Eastwood Knoll addition to go through like an "S" coming out of the Meadow Oak Estates going in an "S" type design up to the southwest portion of the Meadow Oak Estates addition. Bogart also explained his deep concerns of the possible perception by the City as the developer would tend to push things through to get the project developed rather than private development. Therefore, a motion was made by Jon Bogart and seconded by Richard Martie to table the request at this time to have the City staff explore another design. Motion carried unanimously with Richard Carlson and Brian Stumpf absent. There being no further business, a motion was made by Richard Martie and seconded by Jon Bogart to adjourn the meeting. The motion carried unanimously with Richard Carlson and Brian Stumpf absent. The meeting adjourned at 7 p.m. Respectfully submitted, r Gary Gderion Zoning Administrator Page 2 Planning Commission Agenda - 6/7/94 Public Hearina--Consideration of a variance of 8 ft to the loft side yard petback reautrement in cogiunction with construction of an attached Qaraae. AnndcanL Jack and Barb Leeman. (J.O. ) A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: Jack and Barb Leeman request that the Planning Commission approve an 8 -ft variance which would allow them to build an 18 -ft wide attached. The situation is similar to the condition commonly found in the Balboul and Anders Wilhelm development areas in that the home was centered on the lot, thereby providing little room on either side for development of an attached garage. Due to the tight distance between the house and the property line (20 ft), it is impossible to expect that the two -car garage could be constructed; however, there does appear to be sufficient room to allow development of a single car garage. As you recall, under similar circumstances, the City has granted variances; however, the extent of the variance has been limited to 6 ft to coincide with standard easement requirements on side yard lot lines. In the past, the City has been reluctant to grant variances that would place the garage 6 ft or closer to the side lot line. Therefore, as an alternative to the requested 8 -ft variance, it is suggested by staff that the Planning Commission consider a 4 -ft variance. B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIO: Motion to approve granting of a variance of 4 ft to the 10 -ft side yard setback requirement. Motion to grant the variance based on the finding that a variance is necessary for the property owner to obtain reasonable use of the property, the variance will not result in a negative impact on the adjoining property, and because variances have been granted in the past under very similar circumstances. Under this alternative, the attached garage would be limited to a 14 - ft wide single shill garage, and a 6 -ft side yard setback would be maintained. Motion to deny the variance request. This motion could be based on a finding that a unique situation or hardship has not been demonstrated. It has been argued in the past that placement of the structure in the center of the property should Planning Commission Agenda - 6/7/94 not be considered a hardship. The presentowner bought the property in its present condition under existing ordinances and cannot claim a hardship. C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends alternative it for reasons as outlined in the proposed finding. D. SUPPORTING DATA: Location map; Variance request application; A video will be provided at the meeting if necessary. 111 \\ Coneideretion of a variance of 8 ft to the 10 ft aide yard setback requirement in S conjunction with construction of an attached �\\ garage. S APPLICANT: Jack and Barb Leaman r A \ \ 14 R11, a a� �� . C ♦ J. .rte •�I,`�: ���' .� 'V ,. J �. J'Oprr�M 1 ��� 1 ti -On- r� o. CITY OF MONTICELLO VARIARCN R7SQUEST APPLICATION PBS: $50 for setback or $125 for others + necessary consulting expenses• • NOYEt Necessary consulting fees include the cost to have the City Planner analyse variance, rezoning, and conditional use permit requests at the rate of =75/hr. Generally, the level of City Planner involvement corresponds with complexity of request and/or the potential impact of the request on the City. The need for City Planner assistance is determined solely by City staff. APPLICANT'S NAME ADDRESSs Ta -.K• - & -b Lec'lila,t ,Ya7 L/i f PHONE: HOMEt .-X95=a31J WORx: .7•,�5�- .�.3%/ LEGAL DESCRIPTIONt LOT BLOCK SUBDIVISION OTHER DESCRIBE VARIANCE REQUESTt y -/y bu,•/� Q (7nR'n. e_ What are the unique circumstances that create exceptional difficulties when utilizing the property in a manner customary and legally permissible? 'Jr�/c hei s or .•] X11 F«f 1-4, ),w cue lze&hbnPs D,n�uerfIK—/, ire PC, jr2L1W Gv v of e a /f /i -Al i -;Iu bg. %! > IPC,- DATE. "�/.7C'/S�� SIGNS DATE. �r.u������������u��u . r�......�....[�1� u//1�............*.....• •�������������"Roca (.� Pee paids Rocaipt Numbers /7/(. 3 Currently Eoneds Q•OC Planning Case Numbers - Date Application Receiveds Date of Planning Commission Public Hearings Timet PLANNING COMMISSION FINDING Has a hardship been demonstrated? () Yee () No Will approval of the variance requests A. impair adequate supply of light and air to adjacent property? () Yoe () No B. create an unreasonable congestion increase in the public street? () Yoe () No C. increase !ho danger of fire or endanger the public safety? () Yes () No D. unreasonably diminish property values within the neighborhood? () Yes () No E. be contrary to the intent Of the ordinance? () Yes () no Summary of Planning Commission Findings Was there an appeal? () Yes () No If no, attach a copy of the appeal. Date of Council considerations Time: Decision of Councils O was attached Comoent•t () see attached Publication Dates Railing Dates Video? (J Yss Is (IND VARREQ.FRMs 7/1/97 Planning Commission Agenda - 6/7/94 6. Public Hearin --Consideration of a yariance request which would allow olacemgnt of a uvlon shin within the setback requirement. Auahcant. Champion Auto (Warnert Automotive). W.O.) A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: Champion Auto requests that the City grant a variance to the setback requirement that would allow placement of the pylon sign at a position very close to the property line. In the application, the exact, distance from the property line has not been provided; however, a physical inspection of the site shows the location of the proposed sign to be almost directly on the property line. The need to place the sign on the property line stems from the fact that the private drive serving as a frontage road for businesses in that area is located in a manner that conflicts with normal placement of a pylon sign. The presence of the frontage road eliminates the ability of Champion Auto to place the sign at the minimum setback of lb ft and forces the sign to be placed very close to the building at a distance much greater than 15 ft. Attached is a site plan showing the situation in more detail. A video will also be provided at the meeting which will make the situation more understandable. B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS: Motion to approve the variance request. Motion is based on the finding that the presence of the service drive/common roadway easement creates a hardship. The variance is necessary in order to place the sign in a position where it will have sufficient exposure. Motion to deny the variance request based on the finding that a hardship does not exist. Under this alternative, the Planning Commission could make a finding that the property owner can simply place the sign on the building side (cast) of the frontage road, thereby avoiding the need for the variance. The additional setback distance that is demanded by placing the sign east of the firontage road does not sufficiently diminish the effectiveness of the pylon sign; therefore, a unique situation or hardship has not been demonstrated. Under this alternative, the applicant would be required to place the sign in a position similar to the Subway Shop sign and in a position similar to the existing Billiards pylon sign. Planning Commission Agenda - 6/7/94 STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends alternative q2. It is our view that the situation is not sufficiently unique and that a hardship has not been demonstrated that would justify placing the sign on the west side of the frontage road. It is our view that adequate sign exposure can be achieved for the business if the sign is placed at a proper location on the east side of the frontage road. SUPPORTING DATA: Copy of location; Copy of site plan; Video presented at meeting. ` , -- ----. --,i I-- vh oh w ~! wl ICA �rj"M�,�*���`��ff'. i of a va: .anae request sliw plan ,stent of a pyion o eotkta requlrase+tt. ion 1 to �• I Plan I N.BB°oo'oo�E. 282.70'' .. ./ PROPOaD SIGN ALTER9ATIVE LOCATION u y .� $0 LOCARON Tr a t 'Ci� . � .� .''•. a :':;r:'•�''Z?�Oti.,.✓.. "-�+F-, '� 3� ='�'sf_-;. • �f� tel: a , tQi �� N.eB°00'00•f. �s� ; . :�7 �{�1*.1 j 4 •' O w sae•' ISTING BILLIARD S4dN°py •" �'i•.�.3 R�1�:T^ Q�pO + ! Aw,°ormro/tor ! e'''re " • ti`: •: ; �:; ��� Legal Doscriptionr Lot 1, Block 1, CD*MCIAL PLAZA 25, Wright County, Minnesota.' r '— �D according to the record plat thereof, except that part of said �� Q Lot 1, that lies Southerly of a line draws from a point on the Westerly line of said Lot 1, distant 3D.00 feet northeseterlq t ��•Y'.'- O of the Southwest corner of said Lot 1, to a point on the Sasterl line of Lot 2 of said Block 1, distant 5D.00 feet Southwesterly ' of the Northeast corner of said Lot 2. + ANDi That pert of Lot 2, of said Block 1, that lies Northerly of so a line dram from a point on the Westerly line of Lot 1 of said Block 1, distant 30.00 feet Northeasterly of the Southwest corner • of said Lot 1, to s point on the Easterly line of said Lot 2, ! distant 50.00 feet Southwesterly of the Northeast corner of said Lot 2. .ten CITY OF MONTICELLO VARIANCR REQUEST APPLICATION ,8300.0o FEE: $50 for setback or $125 for others ♦ necessary consulting expenses- - NOTES Necessary consulting fees include the cost to have the City Planner analyze variance, rezoning, and conditional use permit requests at the rate of $75/hr. 'L Generally, the level of City Planner involvement corresponds with complexity of request and/or the potential impact of the request on the City. The need for City Planner assistance is determined solely by City staff. APPLICANT'S NAME/ADDRESS: CA RM Flo - r) %a (JT-0 WAQnerT AyTo moTive PHONES �• WORK. 255-1eCO LEGAL DESCRIPTIONS LOT BLOCK SUBDIVISION Cern-,"A♦ PLRZA RDO OTHER DESCRIBE VARIANCE REQUESTS RE 121 5 T 'TO ALLow ?l. ue' m o-y- lip—rn' e 9Tlwnal rd ?,.I,o n 5 i a n - wi f i" sN r..r irr BAtA What are the unique circumstances that create exceptional difficulties when utilizing the property in a manner customary and legally permissible? DATE: SIGNED: •..••.....••...•.....►...............•..•.••••A•••.••.••..••.....••••aa• a ...►......... () Pee paidt Receipt Number:1-7 1 Za— Currently Zoned: Planning Case Number: l� [I - -� Date Application Roc ivad, ti �L�/�I✓ Date of Planning CommLasion Public Hearing:_y.._ti �- ` / Tlore:��%: PLANNING COMMISSION FINDING Hea a hardship been demonstrated? I You () No Will approval of the variance requests A. impair adequate supply of light and air to adjacent property? (J Yes (J No B. create an unreasonable congestion increase in the public street? () Yoe (J No C. lncreeee the danger of fire cr endanger the public safety? () Yea (J No D. unreasonably diminish property values within the neighborhood? () Yee () no E. be contrary to the intent of tho ordinance? () Yes () No Summary of Planning Commission FindLng: was there an appeal? I Yes (J No If •o, attach a copy of the appeal. p Date of Council consideration: -A� ` /3 Tio:e: ;%-'0Ur,V% Decision of Council: (J see attached Commont n ,/qay ( 1 see attached Publication 0•t•S �7MLSLn9 Dater video? (J Yea $: (J No VARREQ.FRMa 7/1/93 `� Pro t 4 s ?.,. Sa w••K " +I/ SAoaAW Was lee ,�ia iiao�tad 441 So" s•�.• y�u►..�.. fo& am,** * Afttea l - Ibteff ire t t �iuvi�•t 'I l D • 101 cz: 101 Planning Commission Agenda - 6/7/94 Public Hearing—Consideration of a areliminafv olat reolattina the Prairie West subdivision. Aunlicant. Prairie West Partners. (J.O.) A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: The applicant submitted a request for a public hearing on the preliminary plat in anticipation of completion of the preliminary plat documentation. Due to the fact that the preliminary plat is not complete, it is not possible at this time for the Planning Commission to conduct a preliminary plat review; however, enough data is available for the Planning Commission to complete a review of the sketch plan. Due to the fact that City staff has not received the sketch plan until Friday, we have not been able to do a complete and thorough review of the plan; however, a quick review shows that the revised plat changes the concept for development of the site from development of single family homes to development of two-family townhomes managed through a townhome association. Under the original density as proposed, seven single family lots would have been created. Under the new proposal, six structures would be created, resulting in 12 townhome units. The plan as proposed calls for a zero lot line between the townhome units. The concept behind the platting is similar W the Par West subdivision in that the person purchasing a townhome would be buying the townhome unit only. A commonwall agreement would he established, and an association would be formed for managing common areas. At this point in the process, Planning Commission is asked to review the sketch plan and provide feedlwck and questions to the developer accordingly. In the meantime, City staff will be doing the same. At the meeting on Tuesday, comments and questions can he discussed, thereby providing guidance to the developer which will assist him in finalization of the preliminary plat. It will also be necessary that the developer obtain a conditional use permit allowing zero lot line duplexes. A separate notice for this request will need to be processed and then considered at a meeting in July to coincide with formal consideration of the plat. D. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS: 1. Motion to continue the public hearing. No definitive action requested—review only. D. SUPMRTING DM: Site plan of Prairic West 11. Planning Commission Agenda - 6/7/94 RevieW ar000sed land use plan for development of the oroop;ta! formerly owned by Robert Krautbauer and consider authorizing public hearings for associated zoning ordinance amendments. (J.O.) A. REFERENCE. AND BACKGROUND: City staff has been informed by Bob and Rick Murray of Residential Development Inc. out of Chanhassen, Minnesota, that they have purchased the Krauthauer property for the purpose of development of commercial, townhome, and single family uses. The goal of the discussion scheduled for June 7 is to review the land use configuration as proposed and provide guidance to the developers as they begin the process of further defining the preliminary plat. Following are some of the issues that the Planning Commission will need to address. Planning Commission needs to determine whether or not to establish Hawks Bar as a conforming or non -conforming use. The applicant is proposing that Hawks Bar be annexed to the city as a conforming use. He plans on mitigating the negative impact of a bar/restaurant facility on the residential area through development of a small commercial area between the bar and the future residential area. In addition, roadway access to this commercial area and to the bar would be separated from the residential area. The developer's plans at this point are very conceptual and require Planning Commission input before the plans can be refined. It should be noted that under our existing ordinance, in order for Hawks Bar to be brought into the city as u conforming use, it must be brought in under a B-3 zoning district designation. The problem with this designation is that it creates a 11-:1 island or "spot zone" surrounded by PZM and residential zoning designations. As you will note on the zoning map, the 16 acres of land owned by Gladys Hoglund to the west of the Hawks Bar site is currently zoned VIM. A possible alternative for Hawks Bar to be brought into the city under conforming status would he to extend the IvZM zone easterly to include the Hawks Bur site and then introduce a zoning ordinance text amendment that would allow for restauranls/hars in a PZM zone. The concept of simply extending the PZM zone and making an adjustment to the ordinance text has some merit. According to Steve Grittman, the PZM zone is a commercial/residential area. Restaurant uses are commonly found in areas where commercial activity occurs. It would appear to be Planning Commission Agenda - 6/7/94 consistent to allow restaurants in a PZM zone as long as sufficient conditions and design standards are in place to protect residential uses from restaurant and bar uses. DEVELOPMENT SITE The proposal as described to me by Rick Murray will call for a very small area of commercial development, which would allow for development of a daycare and perhaps a convenience store adjacent to Hawks Bar. It is proposed that townhomes be developed on the upper level of the property east of Hawks Bar. The lower level of the property is earmarked for single family homes. According to the comprehensive plan, the entire area is earmarked for single family homes. Planning Commission needs to determine if the proposal for commerciaVtownhomes/single family is consistent or at odds with the comprehensive plan. B. ALTERNATIVE, ACTIONS: 1. Motion to authorize necessary zoning text amendments or zoning map amendments in conjunction with land use configuration presented by developer. Under this alternative, a public hearing would be called for the purpose of reviewing possible zoning map or text amendments in conjunction with development of the Murray property and annexation of Hawks Bar. The nature of the text amendments is to be established as n result of discussion. 2. Motion to deny request for text or zoning map amendments affecting properties outside of the development site. Under this alternative, the Planning Commission views Hawks Bar as a non -conforming use that should ultimately be converted to R-1 uses. This alternative is similar to what occurred when the West Side Market property was annexed to the city. C. STAFF RECOM AENDATION: It is our view that Hawks Bar should be incorporated as a conforming use into the future land use pattern for the area. Hawks is a viable commercial enterprise located along a busy highway. It appears reasonable to allow the long-term land use pattern to be effected by the presence of Hawks Bar. Therefore, it should be a goal of the City to attempt to hring Hawks into the Planning Commission Agenda - 6/7/94 city as a conforming use but in a fashion that enables proper transition from the restaurant/bar use to residential uses to the east. We are somewhat unsure as to the proper approach to use in bringing Hawks Bar into the city as a conforming use. Stall' is looking to the Planning Commission for input in determining whether or not to simply zone Hawks Bar as a B-3 use and extend the &3 district into the Hoglund site to the west, or should the PZM district be extended into the Hawks Bar area followed by a text amendment that would add restaurant/bar to the list of conditional uses in the PZM zone. D. SUPPORTING DATA: Copy of area map; Report provided by City Planner. Additional information provided by the developer at the meeting. li Amer 19 ),_q 6) Ill ft iA" ITO IN"i Multiple fimilyV`- , CoinT"ercial .-I'Mustrial Public/Quasi—Public,.,,, ❑ Prop6sed Park 16 �`II ESI o I)EVELOPMM AREA P11) It Figure 0 ,,�„P b«•,.dlpr,e S Ste ♦.a �t:u in P v Glotiaus u `'ti. t e9 Chu ' C`� 8onsing . '�, ♦'�,. '�Qsnp �� Itutrap ' SlnSle Femil,' ,� � ar ir' Mutcay - rovn bk a Foss; 4 ` N �JUM-03-1994 11:59 PPc 612 595 9837 P. 81/W �FNNorthwest Associated Consultants,, Inc. C O a 8 A a P L A a a 1 w 0 - 0 a e 1 0 4 - 0 A a K a T a a a a A a o It Tot Jeff O'Neill PBODIt Stephen Grittman DATE: 3 June 1994 RB: Monticello - MUrray, Development PILB 1930. 192.0 - 94.0 This memorandum is intended to highlight issues which may help guide the Planning Conmllesion's discussion of the concept review on the =rautbauer property. It is important to note that the purpose of a concept review is not to preempt the City's public hearing and review process, but rather gives the developer the opportunity to get the Planning Commieaioa's perspective and concerns up front. In this way, the developer can design a project for more formal review which ahould be able to address sone basic issues, ultimately allowing the proect to proceed more efficiently and with more attention to detail. Therefore, the Planning Commission's responsibility in a concept review is not to be concerned with specific lot sizes or other detailed performance standards, unless the developer is asking for an alteration of those etandards. Instead, the best use of concept review is to address the larger issues much as land use patterns, Comprehensive Plan and Policy consistency, general transportation and circulation, and to establish parameters for the City's further consideration of development on the property in Question. . land u1w Thepropse osed project consists of tour general land us: single family residential, two family residential, park lend, and commercial. The camercial area is proposed to be located around the Hawk's Bar property in an effort to buffer the impacts of the bar from the rwAindar of the dovelopmant. The Planning Commission should talk about the nature of the cammarcial use in this location, including the amount and intensity of the arca. As we 8776 Wayzata BMd - Sub 555 - St Loma Park MN 55416' (812) 595.983&Fax 598.9837 JUN -03-1994 12800 NAC 612 5% 9837 P.e2/04 have discussed, a part of this discussion may be the long-term viability of Hawk's Har in this location. Our feeling is that this is not an incompatible situation, an long as surrounding land uses are designed with the bar's situation in mind. A sub -issue related to the Hawk's Bar site is how the City will sone the commercial area to accommodate the bar, and other commercial uses. We have discussed amending the P= zone to allow bars and restaurants by Conditional Use Permit. An alternative would be to zone the site to a commercial designation which allows these uses now. We believe that hers and restaurants are compatible with other PEN uses. with the controls available through the Conditional Use process, and Comprehensive Plan guidelines which limit those sites which may not be compatible. The Planning Commission should discuss this process as wall. A further sub -issue is the zoning and use of the property to the west of the subject property. I believe that it is zoned P2M, and designated for residential in the Cospreheasive Plan's Proposed IBad Use Pian. The decisions on the xrautbauer property should be analysed as to how they impact the land use and servicing of the adjacent properties, particularly with regard to circulation. This discussion should be carried on about properties to the met as well. The park land aspect of the developmeant is apparently located in ouch a way to utilize an area of fill which is not compatible with building construction. The primary issue in this category relates to trail access and location, since the park will serve a large area for both neigbbbrhood and com®lnity recreation. The single family land is proposed to comprise the north and east portions of the property, buffered somewhat from the ca®ercial area and the freeway interchange by the grades on the property and the two gamily development. The single family arra would require 2-1 zoning, and the two family area A-1 zoning. Both of the residential areas would be considered low density residential, consistent with the land use plan for the parcel. Qbezdadon The property io divided by a steep wooded bluff which rune east - mat through the parcel. Single family development is located to the east, the Mississippi River is situated across County 79 to the north, A Glorious Church in proposing to develop its facility on the northwest quadrant of this property, and a larger undeveloped parcel lies wast of the property and Hawk's Bar. The undeveloped land runs to the intersection of County 39 and County 75. The circulation on site includes two acceooeo from County 79 and one from County 79. A proposed street would serve single family lots on the east portion at the property, and would eventually be o AN -M-1994 12+0a IWC 612 996 9837 P.09,04 extended to the adjacent property. More internal street connections would be preferablee to disperse locally generated traffic, however, the topography of the cite does not permit it. As such. the higher intensity uses along County 75 make sense in that they are generally less sensitive to higher traffic volumes. The plannixiq cm—ission should discuss the potential of estendiag the weeternmost street to the undeveloped property. without such an extension, both parcels become more isolated. The additional street connections would serve to disperse traffic more broadly throughout the area. However, the City will have to be aware o! the load use iupacto such a connection would have. The land aseppaatt�ern for the Murray project appears to be acceptable coamideriag the existing land uses and the needs of the traaeportation syetam through the elope. The planning C=od sion should approach the t review from the perspective of giving the developer guidance as more formal plane are prepared.. As vole have noted above, this should result in a better and more efficiently handled project as it proceeds further.