Loading...
Planning Commission Agenda Packet 11-01-1994AGENDA REGULAR MEETING • MONTICELLD PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday, November 1, 1884.7 pxL Members: Cindy Lemm, Richard Martie, Jon Bogart, Richard Carlson, Brian Stumpf 1. Call to order. 2. Consideration of approval of minutes of the regular meeting held September 6, 1994. 3. Public Hearing --Consideration of a variance request to the driveway setback requirement; and consideration of a variance to the driveway access width maximum of 24 R. Applicant, Rick Murray, Residential Development, Inc. 4. Consideration of a variance request to the yard setback requirement. Applicant, Sunny Fresh Foods. This item was withdrawn by the applicant. A new application for a variance is expected in the next few months. 5. Consideration of amendments to the Monticello Zoning Ordinance establishing buffer yard standards for the purpose of separating residential, commercial, and industrial land uses. 6. Adjournment. MFgYrE8 REGULAR MEETING-MONTICELL0 PLANNING COMMIBBION Tuesday, October 4, 1984 - 7 p.m. Members Present: Cindy Lemm, Richard Martie, Jon . Bogart, Richard Carlson, and Brian Stumpf Members Absent: None Staff Present: Gary Anderson, Jeff O'Neill, Rick Wolfsteller, 011ie Koropchak, Wanda Kraemer and Steve Grittman, Consulting City Planner The meeting was called to order by Chairperson Cindy Lemm at 7 p.m. Agwmval Of the minutes of the remdar meeting held September 6. 1994. The minutes were not completed for the Planning Commission members to review. Public Hearing -Consideration pf amendmentq to the zoning ordinances establishing zonine district degjer1#1ions entitled ogblic and semi-public uses (PS). Applicant. Monticello Planning Commissignn, Jeff O'Neill, Assistant Administrator, explained that the Planning Commission's authorization to prepare an ordinance amendment that would establish a zoning district specifically designed to regulate institutional land uses which were previously allowed as a conditional use in residential zoning districts (R-1 through R-3). One of the reasons for establishing this zoning district is to allow a property to be zoned specifically for an institutional use without the risk of a property being used for residential uses. At this time, it is proposed that the PS zoning district designation be established in conjunction with the St. Henry's Church/Gladys Hoglund rezoning application. Of the proposed PS zoning district designations in the future could be placed on such institutional uses as the Little Mountain Middle School area, Pinewood School, Hospital District, and other church uses. Steve Grittman, Consulting Planner, explained to the Planning Commission and the proposed draft ordinance amendment. Cindy Lemm then opened the public hearing portion of the meeting. Being no input from the public she then closed the public hearing and opened it up for any comments from the Planning Commission members. With there being no further discussion from the Planning Commission Page 1 9 Planning Commission Minutes - 1014194 members a motion by Richard Carlson, seconded by Jon Bogart to approve establishment of the PS (public and semi-public) zoning district based on consistency with one or more of the five factors below: Relationship to the comprehensive plan. Geographic area involved in the request. Tendency of proposal to depreciate the area. Character of the surrounding area. A demonstrated need for the use. Motion carried unanimously with Richard Martie absent. Em lic HQaring-Consideration amenihnentq the Monticello comprehensive nlan which Wpuld alloy; public and semi-public uses of the Western portion of the Gladva Hoglund Property. ?Vblic Hparing-Consideration amendments to the official maP of the City of Monticello, Proposed is a change from I-1 (light industrial) to PS (public and semi- public uses). Applicant, St. Henry's Church/Gladys Hoglund. Mr. Jeff O'Neill, Assistant Administrator, explained the consideration of amendments to the comprehensive plan which would allow Public and Semi -Public uses of the Western portion of the Gladys Hoglund property. In reference to the comprehensive plan on page 61 it is specific to the Hoglund property in this section of the plan pertaining to industrial development. The comprehensive plan states "the area North of Interstate 94 between Highway 25 and Washington is also recommended for industrial development because of the exposure to Highway 94 and Highway 25". It is obvious the St. Henry's Church/Gladys Hoglund proposal developed church uses at We location is inconsistent with the statement in the comprehensive plan. Proposed amendments to the official zoning map of the City of Monticello is proposed be changed Brom I-1 (light industrial) to PS (public and semi-public uses). As a result to prior discussion on this item it was determined that perhaps it is not appropriate to rezone the property for residential uses, thereby opening the door for the possibility of residential uses rather than a church use which would ultimately develop at this location. It was at this point that the Planning Commission looked at establishing a public and semi-public use to consider zoning the area under consideration accordingly. As Mr. O'Neill understands, St. Henry's Church was contacted by the Malone family regarding a potential onto of the Malone property to the church. It Is important because the Malone property is located directly Page 2 D Planning Commission Minutes - 10/44 Northwest of the Hoglund property. The purchase of the Malone property by the church reduces the church's need for industrial land and results in the reduction of land converted from industrial uses to PS uses from 35 acres to 30 acres. Consulting Planner Steve Gritfman's report was submitted for Planning Commission members. Cindy Lemm then opened the public hearing portion of the meeting. Mr. Malone felt it was a good use for the property and would welcome this proposed use. St. Henry's Church is very much concerned with the traffic and needs to be addressed. Proposed size of the church is to accommodate 1,600 members with three church services. In all likelihood there could be a possibility of 1,000 people per service, which would in turn lead to 300 plus vehicles per service. Proposed accesses to this new proposed church site would be accessed to County Road 76, County Road 118, Washington and West 7th Streets. Other possibilies in the future could be a Fallon Avenue overpass. Mr. Jeff O'Neill said the Fallon Avenue overpass is estimated to possibly happen sometime during the year 2000 to 2010. 7th Street will have to be designed to state aid standards. Mr. Steve Conroy questioned industrial areas being lost for We development. Is this not being replaced in other places in the City? Mr. Jeff O'Neill stated these standards in place with current development show a 20 to 23 year total before total of industrial zoned land property in inventory before it would be used up. Cindy Lemm then closed the public hearing portion of the meeting and opened it up for any further input from the Planning Commission members. Input from the Planning Commission members is as follows: Is the road layout set as proposed? The goals and policies statement state that it be consistent with the comprehensive plan. Is this land originally zoned to match aggressive industrial growth development? What is The churches plan for development in regards to Fallon Avenue overpass? Richard Martie, absent Planning Commission member then joined the Planning Commission meeting. Two churches have already been turned down when asking for rezoning in a B-2 zone and 1.2 zone. There being no further discussion, a motion by Jon Bogart and seconded by Brian Stumpf to end the comprehensive plan in a manner allowing for church uses at the proposed location. To approve the request to rezone a 30 acre Gladys Hoglund site from 1.1 to public and semi-public uses. Motion carried unanimously. Proposed use PS (public and semi- public uses) be compatible with comp plan and its location to the Rand Page 3 0 Planning Commission Minutes - 10/4194 mansion and Little Mountain settlement. Planning Commission would like to encourage the St. Henry's Church to consider the 7th street right of way as proposed being close to the I-94 right of way. Public Hearing- . i i ;aJior1 of variance request to the side vard egLback requirement. Pyblic-Hearjng_rpnsi0eralion of the variAn2Lsg the vard setback requirement which pvould allqw construction of a temporary structure in an I-1 zone. Applicant. Jeff Michaelis. Riverside Mr. Jeff O'Neill, Assistant Administrator, explained the combining of these two public hearings at the same time as they are somewhat related. Sunny Fresh Food is proposing to build a refrigerated warehouse facility directly adjacent and South of the existing complex. Proposed expansion would be constructed up to the property line boundary between 6th Street and Sunny Fresh Foods. Sunny Fresh is working with City Planner to 1) define the long term development plan for Sunny Fresh. 2)How Sunny Fresh plane will impact the area. 3) To assist the City in finding the best use of the 6th street property for the long term. 4) to provide a plan for achieving this goal. Chairperson Cindy Lemm complimented Mr. Steve Grittman on his detailed report for the proposed development of the Sunny Fresh Foods complex. Mr. Michaelis is proposing to build a temporary structure to enclose his fuel transport truck. Mr. Michaelis needs a variance to the front yard setback requirement to construct this proposed temporary structure. Mr. Michaelis has noted that his fuel transport truck has incurred damage when parked outside of his location due to vandalism. Mr. Michaelis also proposes to build a screening fence to screen materials currently stored on-site. Under this proposal it makes sense to allow Mr. Michaelis to build this structure if he agrees that the structure will be used temporarily and there is no guarantee that the site will be used in the long-term as a fiiel storage facility. On the other hand; the long term goal is to eliminate the Biel storage facility on this site and no action should be taken to encourage future investments at this location. Cindy Lamm then opened the public hearing portion of the meeting. Mr. Michaelis indicated that he would move if feasible but would like to stay and clean up the existing site. Cindy Lemm then closed the public hearing portion of the meeting and opened up for any fluthes input fiom the Planning Commission members. Planning Commission would like City staff to look at options for right of way of Linn Street of the Linn Pago 4 Planning Commission Minutes - 10/4/94 Street entrance in relationship to the proposed loading and unloading for the proposed cold storage expansion project. Therefore, on a motion by Jon Bogart, seconded by Brian Stumph, to continue the request for a variance to the yard set -back requirement until the next regularly scheduled meeting held Tuesday, November 4, 1994. Motion carried unanimously. Planning Commission members felt sympathetic to Mr. Michaelis's request as long as there are enough conditions in there that should another location be found, Mr. Michaelis remove his temporary structure and relocate to another location. Therefore, a motion made by Brian Stumpf, seconded by Richard Martie, to approve the variance to the yard set -back requirement which would allow construction of a temporary structure in an I -I zone. Motion is based on the finding that a garage is necessary in order for Mr. Michaelis to have reasonable use of the property. Due to the dimension of the lot, it is impossible to build a storage structure at the location without a variance. Furthermore, the structure is temporary in nature and will be moved at such time the fuel storage facility is relocated. The motion is contingent on possible relocation of this fuel storage facility and agreement in place to remove the temporary structure upon notification. The motion carried unanimously. Jon Bogart would like to abstain from voting on Items 8, 9 and 10 due to a conflict of interest on these hearings. Qulllic-Hearin Consilferation of amendments tQ thg Mopticello Zoning Ordinance, ostablishine buffer yard ptandards for the ouroose of sooamUng residential. commercial, and industrial land uses. Mr. Jeff O'Neill, Assistant Administrator, explained the outlying of an ordinance buffering industrial and residential using the draft that has been completed for their review. Mr. Steve Orittman, Consulting Planner memo and associated draft ordinance was submitted for their review. The City staff had hoped to have some examples on how the buffer yard requirements would affect development in time for presentation at this meeting but time did not allow for that to be completed. Cindy Lemm then opened the public hearing portion of the meeting. She read a letter which Mr. O'Neill had received from Mr. Jay Morrell, President of M & P Transport. Mr. Morrell highlighted in his letter that he would "like to emphasize the responsibility of each of you as improving the zone change. While we all would like to have growth and expansion, it is of the utmost importance that we look at the potential problems which may occur now and in the !inure when making zoning changes. I would Page 6 Planning Commission Minutes - 10/4/94 suggest that the requirements be made as strong as possible regarding berm density and street locations so that we are not trying to close the barn door after the horse has escaped five or ten years from now". Chairperson Cindy Lemm then closed the public hearing portion of the hearing and opened it up for any further input from the Planning Commission members. Consensus from the members was to table this at this time. A motion was made by Richard Martie, seconded by Brian Stumpf, to go the consideration of amendments to Monticello zoning ordinance establishing buffer yards standards for the purpose of separating residential, commercial, and industrial land uses. The motion carried unanimously with Jon Bogart abstaining. Public Hearin¢-Consi4gration of amendmentq to the official zoning and gonsiderption of establishment, of zonina district designations and boundaries irl conjunction vyith gnnexation request. ProDoped is a chanee in zoning distActjesianations for AO (agricultural) to R-1. R-2, and R-3 zoning district designations. Aoolicant. E & K Development. 10. Public Hearing-Cansidgration of approval of "Klein Farms" preliminary plot, Applicant. E &K Development. Mr. Jeff O'Neill, Assistant Administrator explained that with the development of the Klein Farms preliminary plat and associated annexation request, E & K Development is requesting amendments to the official zoning map as noted on the attached copy of the preliminary plat. The zoning map amendments are identical to the land use annexations approved during the review of the plan completed in conjunction with the associated rezoning of the land to the West previously owned by Kent Kjellberg. Property is annexed to the City, it is annexed under Agricultural uses unless specific action is taken to bring the property into the City under specific different zoning designations. The petition for annexation submitted by the developer is contingent upon approval of the preliminary plat and associated zoning district designation. Cindy Lemm then opened the public hearing portion of the meeting. Mr. Rusty DeMules, representing Standard Iron, and Mr. Joe Abramson, representing Remmele Engineering, questioned the proposed residential zoning adjacent to the existing 1.2 (heavy industrial toning) that exists at the 1hr West end to M & P Transport at the far East end. Cindy Lemm then closed the public hearing portion of the meeting and then opened up for any further input from the Planning Commission members. With there being no further input Brom the members, with a motion from Richard Martie, seconded by Richard Carlson, to approve the amendments to the official zoning map and consideration and Page 8 Planning Commission Minutes - 10/4/94 establishment of the zoning district designation and boundaries with the annexation request. Proposed is a change in the zoning district designations from AO (agricultural) to R-1, R-2, and R-3 zoning district designations. Motion is based on the finding that the rezoning is as proposed and consistent with the comprehensive plan and is consistent with the geography and character of the area given the presence of the Little Mountain School and the impending establishment of a buffer yard requirement. The finding also refers to the demonstrated need for the land use involved. Motion carried unanimously with Jon Bogart abstaining. 10. Mr. Jeff ONeill, Assistant Administrator, explained E & K Development and the proposed Klein Farms preliminary plat. Preliminary plat encompasses 80 acres and is located North of the future School Blvd. and between Fallon Avenue and Edmonson Avenue. Plat proposed for development of 107 single family dwellings in the R-1 (single family residential) zoned designated area. Outlet A is designated for R-2 (single and two family residential) uses and is proposed that 48 unite be developed at this location. Outlet B is also zoned R-2 (single and two family residences) zoning and will contain 80 units. Outlet C is proposed to be designated R-3 (medium density residential) and will be developed as 44 total unite. East of this existing site is Little Mountain Elementary School. These two uses, the school and the proposed Klein Farm residential development plat are compatible. A cross walk will be designed so it is situated in a logistical place proper crossing to the school property. Utility plan is under review by City Engineer, Bret Weiss. Mr. Weiss feels the development of this property is feasible and that it is appropriate to review the preliminary plat prior to approval of the utility plan as pmaented. Park Development will provide 8 acres of park land with this 80 acre plat. In addition, another 8 acres will need to be provided with the development in the area South of the proposed School Blvd. public right of way. The Monticello Parks Commission has met with the developers in regards to the development of a possible overall park facility. Cindy Lemur then opened the public hearing portion of the meeting. Being no further comment she closed the public hearing portion of the meeting and opened up for any comments fiom PC members. With there being no further comment from the PC members a motion by Richard Martie, seconded by Richard Carlson to approve preliminary plat of the Klein Farm subdivision. Motion is contingent on approval of the utility plans by the City Engineer and contingent upon modifications to the plat as suggested during the course Page 7 O Planning Commission Minutes - 10/4/84 of the meeting. Approval is also contingent on entering a development agreement guaranteeing development of the park area South of School Blvd. Motion carried unanimously with Jon Bogart abstaining. 11. Pstblic Hearing -Consideration pf a variance reaueet to the oarkine lot perimeter curb reouirement. Aonlicant- Fav-Mav Manufacturing Jeff O'Neill, Assistant Administrator, chimed Fay -Mar's Manufacturing request to be allowed a first phase of the parking area be constructed without curb in the area proposed for expansion. Cindy Lemm then opened the public hearing portion of the meeting. With there being no input from the public she then closed the public hearing portion of the meeting and opened up for any comments from the Planning Commission members. Being no further comments from the members and a motion from Richard Carlson, seconded by Brian Stumph to approve the variance request to the parking lot perimeter curb requirement. Motion tarried unanimously. 12. Adjournment. Motioned by Richard Martie and seconded by Richard Carlson to adjourn the meeting. Meeting adjourned at 10:28 p.m. RespecWlly submitted, Gary Anderson Zoning Administrator Page 8 C� MINUTES REGULAR MEET *JG - MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday, September 6, 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, Steve Grittman, 011ie Koropchak, and Wanda Kraemer The meeting was called to order by Chairperson Cindy Lemm at 7 p.m. It was requested that item Its, paragraph 2, on page 3, of the July 5 minutes be amended to read that Jon Bogart made the motion to approve, seconded by Richard Martie, with the following voting in favor: Cindy I.emm, Richard Carlson, Brian Stumpf, Jon Bogart. Those opposed: Dick Martie. A motion was made by Jon Bogart and seconded by Richard Martie to approve the minutes of the regular meeting held July 5, 1994, as amended, and the regular meeting held August 2, 1994. Motion carried unanimously. Public Hearing --Consideration of conditional use reouept allowing a reduction in the narking lot design reouirements. Annlicant. Fav -Mar Manufacturing. Jeff O'Neill, Assistant Administrator, requested that the Planning Commission not consider this item at this time, as the public hearing notice should have been published as a variance request instead of a conditional use request. Public Hearing --Consideration of a yarian&e request which would allow gn_kkructiop of q, cold Qtorage gdslitioq within the rear vard setback. , pulicant. Ron Chihos/General Rental. Jeff O'Neill, Assistant Administrator, explained Mr. Chihos' request to build a 60 -ft x 56$ cold storage building addition on the south side of his existing 40 -ft x 60 -ft building. The minimum requirement of this rear yard setback would be a 30 -ft setback requirement. The request as presented defined the proposed southwest corner of the building addition to be 24 -ft from property line, which would mean a 6 -ft variance request, as the building proceeds northerly toward the northwest corner of the proposed building. The building is 36 -ft from the property line, which is 6 -ft more than the minimum 30 -ft roar yard setback. Page 1 Planning Commission Minutes - 9/6/94 O'Neill highlighted that the Planning Commission needs to determine whether or not a hardship or unique situation exists that justifies granting this variance. Chairperson Cindy Lemm then opened the public hearing. Ron Chilies explained that his request would be to enclose all of the area, a good portion of the area currently encompassed by the exterior screening fence enclosure to put things in under cover. Also by allowing more things to be under cover with the building addition, it would also allow him to move things that are currently stored outside of rental equipment, to also put those inside the proposed building addition. Chihos indicated his type of business is a service -type of business where the people come in for 10-15 minutes at the very most, and they are gone after they've picked up their piece of equipment to rent or have dropped that back off when they've returned the rented equipment. Therefore, on his plan, he indicated where the off-street parking would occur in relationship to his site. Assistant Administrator O'Neill asked Chairperson Cindy Lemm to read the two letters that were received from affected property owners within the 350 -ft radius of Chihos' property. Letters were received and read from Southside Dental Center, Dr. J.C. Erlandson, 201 Sandberg Road, and from the Hart Medical Clinic, 200 Sandberg Road. Cindy Lemm then closed the public hearing and opened the meeting for input from the Planning Commission members. Discussion amongst the Planning Commission members was they were finding a hard time to find a hardship or unique circumstance with Mr. Chihos' request. Therefore, a motion was made by Jon Bogart and seconded by Brian Stumpf to deny the variance request which would allow construction of a cold storage building addition within the rear yard setback requirement. Motion carried unanimously. Reason for denial: No justification for the hardship. Ppblic Hearing--Consi4eration of ampndmept to the zoning mqn Changine the zonina tlistKict desigpation ftom 1.1 to R-1 zoning district designation. Annlicnnt. St. Henrv's Church/Gladys Hoglund. Jeff O'Neill, Assistant Administrator, explained St. Henry's Catholic Church request to develop the 72 -acro Gladys Hoglund property jointly with Bondhus Corporation and Dahlheimer Distributing. St, Henry's Catholic Church would acquire the easterly half of the property, approximately 35 acres, with the balance of the property to be divided between the Bondhus Page 2 Planning Commission Minutes - 9/6/94 Corporation and Dahlheimer Distributing. O'Neill highlighted the land use guide plan showing the entire area as an I-1 (light industrial) zoned use. City Planner Steve Grittman provided a report on the pro's and con's relating to the proposed rezoning. Such rezoning, if it were to occur, would require at least some type of description of the land area, which is proposed to be rezoned. The public hearing notices that were sent out with a map highlighting the area proposed to be rezoned was incorrect for the area that the applicant was proposing to have rezoned. Should the Planning Commission consider approving the rezoning request, it should be based on one or a combination of the five following findings: 1. The amendment is consistent with the comprehensive plan. 2. The amendment is compatible with the geographic area involved. 3. The amendment will not result in any depreciation in adjoining land values. 4. The amendment is consistent with the character of the area. 5. There is a demonstrated need for such use. Consulting Planner Steve Grittman commented on the proposed zoning uses could be considered for the possible rezoning. If it were rezoned to R-1 (single family residential) and something should happen that the church would not build there, the R•1 (single family residential) uses could then be developed. Or in a PZM (performance zone mixed) zone, uses could be controlled and be compatible with other land uses. R -PUD (residential planned unit development), however, is the best zoning use, as it restricts uses and activity. Assistant Administrator O'Neill outlined other church rezoning activities such as A Glorious Church and the Monticello Covenant Church which was proposed to go into a business type zone. Grittman commented that it could be rezoned to a new zoning district which would be called an institutional district, which would have zoning just for schools and churches. Cindy Lemm then opened the public hearing. The following comments were received from the public. Merrill Busch, effected property owner, felt the creation of more development in this area would mean more traflic. When would an overpass be constructed at Fallon Avenue? Page 3 Planning Commission Minutes - 9/6/94 Robert Jamison, another affected property owner, asked the commission to consider the impact of I-1 zoned uses paying taxes where if it were rezoned to allow a church in it, the church pays no taxes. How are water and sewer utility extensions proposed to be installed? Is there a bike path proposed? If so, would it be on the road with no parking and a sidewalk constructed? Merrill Bush commented on the proposed use by the St. Henry's Catholic Church would be very positive for protecting the original uses of the old structures such as the old Rand Mansion and his neighbors, the Jamison's Little Mountain Settlement Project. Bill Malone, representing his mother, was in full support of the St. Henry's Catholic Church proposed land use. Cindy Lem m then closed the public hearing and opened the meeting for further input from the Planning Commission members. Planning Commission members questioned should the 7th Street extension be developed as part of the church development. Steve Grittman responded that St. Henry's could be developed part or all of the church property roadway with the expansion. Could the St. Henry's rezoning request be turned down with similar residential uses around it. The proposed church use of this property would be a very visible project for the City. There being not enough positives for the R-1 proposed rezoning. Ralph Hermes commented the possibility of up to 2,400 family growth numbers in 3-5 years. The other possibility is other area churches coming to Monticello for their church needs. Hilary Hoglund commented that this is the last piece of the Hoglund property. This land was there for the industrial needs to grow. Most importantly, the community's need to meet the city population needs. There being no further comment from the Planning Commission members, a motion was made by Jon Bogart and seconded by Brian Stumpf to table the amendment to the zoning map changing the zoning district designation from I-1 to R-1 zoning district designations. Motion carried unanimously. Reason for tabling the request: City staff will send out a new public hearing notice with a map identifying the area which St. Henry's Catholic Church is proposing to rezone, and City staff' will look at a now proposed zoning district in the city of Monticello specifically for zoning of schools and churches. Page 4 Planning Commission Minutes - 9/6/94 6. Publig Hearing--Consideratiorl of amendments to thegffiicial Conine man boundaries in coniunction with annexation reauest. Proposed is a change in ejCdenation from AO (aeripdtprah to R-1. R-2. and R-3 zoning district designations. Annlicant. E & K Development. Prior the start of this public hearing, Jon Bogart abstained from participating in items #6 and t)7, as he has a conflict of interest with these two requests. With a public hearing not held for the proposed preliminary plat in item p7 of the Klein farm subdivision, a motion was made by Richard Martie and seconded by Richard Carlson to table the consideration of amendments to the official zoning map boundaries in conjunction with the annexation request. Proposed is a change in designation from AO (agricultural) to R-1, R-2, and R-3 zoning district designations. Voting in favor: Cindy Lemm, Richard Martie, Richard Carlson, Brian Stumpf. Abstaining: Jon Bogart. 7. Review of the prebminary plat of the Klein farm subdivision. Steve Grittman, Consulting Planner, commented on the City staffs concerns with this project as follows: 1. Buffer area between this plat and the I-2 (heavy industrial) zoned land uses to the north. 2. Exterior parking for the northerly townhouse units to be located to the north side of these units. 3. The curve designs for School Boulevard must be designed to state aid standards. 4. The park land dedication --all of the area to be dedicated for park land development, it is not part of this plat. Developers responded to Grittman's comments that they would incorporate his comments into their design for next month's scheduled public hearing date for their preliminary plat public hearing. Discussion on the speed zone of School Boulevard was discussed. The Planning Commission would like to we the School Boulevard design for 38 mph speed zone. Page 5 Planning Commission Minutes - 9/894 There being no further comments from the developers or Planning Commission, it was the consensus of Planning Commission members to consider those changes as outlined by Consulting Planner Steve Grittman, and they would took at those at the neat scheduled public hearing date for their preliminary plat review. Review amendments to the oreliminary plat of the River Mill subdivision. Assistant Administrator O'Neill explained the River Mill subdivision residential plat has changed substantially from its original preliminary plat proposal. City staff obtained a copy of the new plat late on Thursday. This is very little time to review it. Due to the magnitude and scope of this project, and due to the fact that the design plat has been changed significantly, it is our view that the public hearing on the revised plat should be conducted. Rick Murray, the developer, explained in detail the proposed revisions to the preliminary plat. He apologized for the lateness of this, but they have been working as expediently as possible to come up with the revised plat and still meet the City's timetables. Jon Bogart went through the list of the Planning Commission's concerns from the last meeting with eight items of concern as follows: County State Aid Highway 75 access into this plat. A proposed trail system throughout the development. The proposed roadway widths. The long block with the cul-de-sac at the end of that. The sanitary sewer/environmental assessment worksheet threshold, The park land development. The storm water/grading issues. The land area swapped with A Glorious Church property. Rick Murray highlighted to Planning Commission members each of those eight areas of concern and how they have addressed each of those eight items. There being no further discussion, a motion was made by Jon Bogart and seconded by Richard Martie to forward the proposed plat to the City Council because the changes to the plat are not of a magnitude or significant enough to justify initiation of a new platting process and because the contingencies associated with the original approval remain. Page 6 Planning Commission Minutes - 9/6/94 Rey;gwine standards relaOne to pole construction. Consider omerine a public hearine on an ordinance amendment reeWatine Dole building construction. Assistant Administrator ONeill explained the Industrial Development Committee's concern to review standards relating to pole building construction in I-1 (light industrial) and I-2 (heavy industrial) zoned areas. The two items of concern brought forward from the committee were quality of the basic construction associated with pole buildings, and the supporting structure for such pole buildings. O'Neill highlighted Consulting Planner Steve Grittman's report prepared for their review on this matter. Planning Commission members were concerned that some additional information should be submitted prior to them considering ordering a public hearing for this ordinance amendment regulating pole building construction. Therefore, it was the consensus of the Planning Commission members to table this request until an upcoming meeting. 10. Revigw the oropo end standards relating to buffer/scm9gApndsca p requirements alone boundary between residgntial an industrial districts. Consider orderine a nubiic hearing on associated ordinance amendment. Steve Grittman, Consulting Planner, explained the proposed standards regulating a buffer/screening/landscaping strip between residential and industrial districts. Grittman explained in his presentation other communities that have adopted some type of standards regulating buffer/screening/landscaping requirements along the boundaries between residential and industrial districts. Cindy Lemm then asked if there were any additional comments from Planning Commission members on this item. There being no further comments on this item, a motion was made by Richard Martie and seconded by Richard Carlson to order a public hearing on proposed standards relating to buffer/screen/landscaping requirements along boundary between residential and industrial districts. Motion carried unanimously. 11. fpnsiiler calline for a public hearing on an ordinance amendment that would allow a reduction in the square footaee requirement for a 2 -story residence Assistant Administrator O'Neill explained that Building Official Gary Anderson had received a building permit application for a 2 -story structure Page 7 Planning Commission Minutes - 9/6/94 which he has refused to issue a building permit for. Developers of the Cardinal Hills project, Value Plus Homes, were of the understanding that the square footages were amended for 2 -awry residences also. Building Official Gary Anderson presented Planning Commission members with a copy for their review of a proposed 2 -story house to be constructed. In reviewing the plans, Planning Commission members felt it was stall too small a house plan to meet the minimum requirements of a 2 -story home. It was the consensus of the Planning Commission members to not make any changes to the minimum square footage requirements for a 2 -story home. 12. Discuss process for uodatine comorehensive elan in 1995 (Steve Grittman report). Assistant Administrator ONeill explained that the process for updating the comprehensive plan in 1995 has not been completed at this time; therefore, he is looking for a motion to table it at this time. A motion was made by Richard Carlson and seconded by Brian Stumpf to table the updating of the comprehensive plan in 1995. Motion carried unanimously. 13. Conpider reauestine the Citv Councils to consider amendments to thg bdi suvision standards Miatine to yvidth of minor and mareinal cul-de-sac streets. minor streets 36 ft to 32 ft, mareinal access/cul-de-sacs 32 ft to 2t• Assistant Administrator ONeill explained the River Mill residential developer's request to have the City Council consider amendments to subdivision standards relating to width of minor and marginal access cul - do -sac streets, minor streets 36 ft to 32 ft, and marginal access/cul-de-sacs 32 ft to 28 ft. O'Neill requested that the Planning Commission members consider this completely separate from the River Mill subdivision. Discussion amongst Planning Commission members centered around the widths of streets in relationship to the proposed River Mill plat as an example. With there being no further discussion, the consensus of the five Planning Commission members present was to recommend that City Council consider street widths apart from the River Mill subdivision. Page 8 Planning Commission Minutes - 9/6/94 14. Adiournment. A motion was made by Jon Bogart and seconded by Richard Martie to adjourn the meeting. Meeting adjourned at 11:41 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Gary Anderson Zoning Administrator Pale 9 Planning Commission Agenda - 1VV94 3. Public Hearin[ -Consideration of a variance reaugst t9 -Lim A#vewav setback ignuirement along the side Yard. AND $clic Hearing -Consideration of a varla nye to the driveway access width maximum of 84 feet. Anullcant. Rick Murray. Residential Develonment. Inc. (J.OJ REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: Rick Murray of Residential Development, Inc., requests multiple variances to the driveway setback requirement and to the driveway access width maximum. The variance request stems from Murray's desire to build zero lot line twin homes in the R-2 area within the River Mill subdivision. As you recall, the preliminary plat of the River Mill subdivision calls for 48 twin homes. Subsequent to the Planning Commission review of the plat, Murray informed staff that the twin homes are proposed to be situated on the lot line (zero lot line). The design of the twin home places the garages side to side, which then results in the driveways being connected to each other and a double driveway access well in excess of the 24 -ft maximum. Drivewav setback Current code requires a driveway setback of 3 ft along sideyards. This is an important setback requirement, as the 3 -ft separation between driveway and side yard provides room for car door swing and provides a lane for car passengers to exit and enter a vehicle without entering the neighbor's property. It also provides for snow storage from the driveway to be located on the same property that the driveway is located on. Current code limits driveway access openings to 24 ft. The double driveway twin home design as proposed will result in a curb opening about 36 ft wide. This design provides no room for snow storage between properties at the street line, which means that all snow pushed into the driveway from street plowing operations must be piled on the two outside comers of the driveway. Planning Commission Agenda - IVV94 B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS: 1. Motion to approve the variance requests. Under this alternative, the Planning Commission will need to make a finding identifying a hardship or unique circumstance that justifies granting the variance. Is there a situation here that limits the reasonable use of the property without a variance? 2. Motion to deny approval of the variance requests. Under this alternative, the Planning Commission could find that a variance is not appropriate because a hardship has not been sufficiently demonstrated. It could be argued that the property is developable for R-2 uses within the regulations governing the R-2 district. NEELY►n9y:i3LK11u1!i 5r7;yY_co; It is the view of City staff that the regulations governing driveway setback and driveway access width are sensible and necessary. It does not appear that a unique hardship exists that justifies a variance. Redesign of the twin home concept is probably the best alternative for solving the problem. Finally, if the Planning Commission believes that the design as proposed is workable under the twin home concept, then the Planning Commission should consider changing the regulations governing driveway setback and access width as they apply to twin home design. D. SUPPORTING DATA: Copy of plat; Copy of twin home design site plan; Copy of excerpt from zoning ordinance. RIVER MILL A1:L-11-1l*i 1I[- /�XAi iii RIVER MILL is a proposed land development project sited on the remaining Kreutbauer property generally located between the Interstate 94/County Road No. 75 Intersection area, and County Road No. 39. The project will be a combination of three(3) different housing types plus a small commercial buffer strip. The 166 future homes will consist of 70 single family detached homes, generally located in the north and east portions of the site; and 96 single family attached homes to be built as side by side twinhomes in 48 structures. The twinhomes are proposed for the south-central portion of the site, adjacent to County Road No. 75 and across the southerly entrance road from the proposed commercial area. The Commercial sites surround the exisdng Hawk's Bar and Grill site and act as a transition buffer between the existing "active, everting use" and the twinhomes. RIVER MILL is a proposed subdivision by Residential Development, Inc. (RDI), Chanhassen, Minnesota. The fully Improved building sites will be marketed to select Homebuilders for actual home construction. Site development activities will commence in the fall of 1994; as soon as Cly, County and State approvals are received. 11. PROJECT SPECIFIC DESCRIPTION: RIVER MILL will be a land development project comprised of three different housing types and a commercial buffer strip. The primary housing component win be single family homes selling In the $95,000.00 to $115,000.00 price range. These single family units will be upper entry level or move up units in the Monticello marketplace. The divided entrances for the single family subdivision will be provided from County Road 39 (Riverview Drive.) These two divided entrances will provide access to ebdy eight single family homes located In the northern and eastern portions of the site. There Is an additional 10.23 acres of single family property which cannot be accessed from Riverview Drive due to the elevation difference between Riverview Drive and the wooded eastern boundary of the Property. This 10 plus acres can be accessed through the Sandberg East (Norelt) property. The second component of the residential housing proposed for the RIVER MILL Project consists of 48 twin home buildings (96 units) located In the central to southwestern 4porton of the she gaining access from County Road 75. Twenty-eight buildings of these unite will be split entry style units abutting County Road 75 and the Interstate 94 exit ramp. The remaining 20 units will be rambler walkout unite taking advantage of the wooded bluffs along the central and western ridge of the Property. The split entry units will accommodate a product in the $80,000.00 to $85,000.00 range. The rambler units will start In the $80,000.00 to $110,000.00 range. 0 sixteen (16) feet in length when served adequately by access aisles to accommodate compact car parking and should be marked as such. (b) WITHIN STRUCTURES: The off-street parking requirements may be furnished by providing a space so designed within the principal building or one (1) structure attached thereto; however, unless provisions are made, no building permit shall be issued to convert said parking structure into a dwelling unit or living area or other activity until other adequate provisions are made to comply with the required off-street parking provisions of this ordinance. (c) Except in the case of single, two-family, and townhouse dwellings, parking areas shall be designed so that circulation between parking bays or aisles occurs within the designated parking lot and does not depend upon a public street or alley. Except in the case of single, two-family, and townhouse dwellings, parking area design which requires backing into the public street is prohibited. (d) No curb cut access shall be located less than forty (40) feet from the intersection of two (2) or more street right-of-ways. This distance shall be measured from the intersection of lot lines. (e) Except in the case of single family, two- family, and townhouse dwellings, parking areas and their aisles shall be developed in compliance with the following standards: MALL MALL TO INTERLOCK TO TO INTERLOCK INTERLOCK ANGLE MINIMUM MINIMUM MINIMUM 30 48.6' 44.9' 40.3' 49 96.8' 93.4' 90.0' 60 62.0' 99.7' 97.4' 90 64.0' 64.0' 64.0' Parallel Parking: Twenty-two (22) feet in length. (f) No curb cut access shall exceed twenty-four (24) feet in width with the following exception: Curb cut access in industrial and MONTICELLO ZONING ORDINANCE 3/23 O commercial zoning districts may exceed twenty- four (24) feet with the approval of the City Engineer and the Zoning Administrator. Denial by the City Engineer and Zoning Administrator of curb cut access in excess of twenty-four (24) feet may be appealed following the procedures outlined in Chapter 23 of the zoning ordinance. (10/11/93,1242) (g) Curb cut openings and driveways shall be at a minimum three (3) feet from the side yard property line in residential districts and five (5) feet from the side yard lot line in business or industrial districts. (h) Driveway access curb openings on a public street except for single, two-family, and townhouse dwellings shall not be located less than forty (40) feet from one another. (i) The grade elevation of any parking area shall not exceed five (5) percent. (j) Each property shall be allowed one (1) curb cut per one hundred twenty-five (125) feet of street frontage. All property shall be entitled to at least one (1) curb cut. Single family uses shall be limited to one (1) curb cut access per property. (k) SURFACING: All areas intended to be utilized for parking space and driveways shall be surfaced with materials suitable to control dust and drainage. Except in the case of single family and two- family dwellings, driveways and stalls shall be surfaced with six (6) inch class five base and two (2) inch bituminous topping or concrete equivalent. Drainage plans shall be reviewed by the City Engineer and subject to his approval. City staff may waive this requirement if it is determined that the drainage plane do not merit further study by the City Engineer. Staff determination in this regard shall be based on size of parking surface area, simplicity of design plan, and proximity/accessibility to existing storm sewer facilities. EXCEPTIONS: See D. 9 (a) Stall Aisle and Driveway Design Conditional Use Permit. (1192, 7/9/90) MONTICELW ZONING ORDINANCE 3/26 rram ftposft i a,euc sit IZo b LAT 7, BLACK 5, IUVER MILL BATNRB•o8R00018T, INC. L"a3D� PREPARED FOR: NO WutN Mwow+.wATIA c soup RESIDENT" DriEUMENT, INC. to omur0000 n� �n•ow Iss < *-Lj/V IF 1 3 Or'r4eD MYYL'! vrYpRiNywi � -_• -• --- t� YI[RSI W 1!!T �M aY OlO tbtR l♦jiT �T f1G�N i(L� � . ' r•✓" � lNpUrtXI% I nIRnM 1 IYR1',4uwL'\i Yam 1 N/V WNv. errr,m 4 OlALM A1Y,t06 v. gOi Z IUML AMA 01 19M im oe mmm n • W T,= Loo M WW" R M if PAC" Q7Yii • �. i.I.WmanY 3 `�--. --- iR 4.I, . ' r•✓" � lNpUrtXI% I nIRnM 1 IYR1',4uwL'\i mt i` �.T�� � =�`.c "!— A+I41YYil ilii � IlfR111if Y2Y12 i.I.WmanY AYM e'1YMII.I RS4 { ii iii p('►i iRM,6 3 Planning Commission Agenda - 11/1/94 Consideration of amendments to the Monticello Zoning Ordinaneg SataLblishing buffer vend standa#ls for the ourooee of senaratina residential. commercial. and industrial land uses. (J.0.) A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: Attached is a copy of the agenda supplement from the October meeting. 0®pY Planning Commission Agenda - 10/4/94 Public Hearinn—Coasideratlan of amendmpnts to the Monticello Zonina 04inance 9stab i)l 8N IIn bgtler vard standards ;for the MM pose Qf senaratim MidentieL commercial- and industrial I, ad um". (J.O.) A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: In conjunction with the establishment of the residential uses adjacent to the Oakwood Industrial Park as envisioned under the Klein/Emmerich plan in May 1994, the Planning Commission and the City Council authorized development of an ordinance buffering industrial and residential uses. The first draft is now complete and ready for formal review. Please see Steve Grittman's memo and associated draft ordinance for further detail. B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS: Motion to adopt or modify and adopt proposed regulations establishing buffer yard requirements. Motion is based on the finding that the proposed ordinance is consistent with the comprehensive plan, consistent with the geography and character of the areas involved, will not result in depreciation of adjoining land values, and there is a demonstrated need for the proposed ordinance. Under this alternative, if the Planning Commission adopts the ordinance as presented, the ordinance will apply not only to buffering industrial and residential uses, but also commercial and residential uses. Please note that the ordinance does go beyond merely buffering the impacts between the industrial and residential uses and is meant to apply to other areas where it may make sense to create buffer yards between districts. If the Planning Commission believes that this ordinenoe goes beyond the scope of the original request, then it could simply be scaled back to include only areas between industrial and residential uses. Staff hopes to have some examples of how the buffer yard requirement would affect development in time for presentation at the meeting on Tuesday. We would like to be able to show you some case examples of easting development in Monticello to show how the buffer yard requirement might have been employed. D u Planning Commission Agenda - 10/4194 Motion to deny proposed regulations establishing buffer yard requirements. If the Planning Commission believes that the regulations do not make sense and do not axomplish the goal of buffering industrial and residential uses, etc., then this alternative should be selected. It is the view of City staff that, at a minimum, the regulations buffering industrial and residential uses should be established Perhaps the buffer yard requirements affecting other districts should be put on hold until we have had a chance to review the proposed ordinance amendment in more detail. One item of controversy that you may wish to consider is the height of the berm separating land uses. Please note that Jay Morrell, owner of M & P Transport, would desire a higher berm (13 R) than that which is identified as acceptable in the buffer yard requirement (8 R). Please see his attached letter for detail on his request. Perhaps the buffer yard berm between residentiaVmdustrial should be increased? D. SUPPORTING DATA: Memo from Steve Gnttman; Buffer yard requirement ordinance; Letter Brom Jay Morrell. rN SEP0823 PWC 01G W-0 xuf r.nc.io Northwest Associated Consultants. Inc. (rj URBAN PL ANNI NO - DOSI eN - NAR KaT RQ!! A AC M MEMORANDUM TO: Jeff O'Neill FROM: Dan Licht/Stephen Grit-- DATS: 29 September 1994 R8: Monticello - Huffer Yard Ordinance FILE NO: 191.09 - 94.11 RACKGROUM Recently, the City has considered adopting a buffer yard ordinance requiring buffer yards separating incompatible uses. This memorandum will outline the current Zoning Ordinance standards for separating incompatible uses and outline the co Monents of an attached draft ordinance amen&=t requiring buffer yards. Attached for reference: Bchibit A - Draft Ordinance ANALYSES e— .—A— The current Monticello Zoning Ordinance does not establish specific requirements for abutting incompatible uses regarding setbacks or 1sadseaying. section 3-2 (01 of the Stoning Ordinance specifies the requires screening and landscaping standards. This is a blanket ordinance which does not take Sato consideration adjoiniag uses and potential impacts. Like the required landscaping ordinance, the setback ordinance is a blanket ordinance with standards that do not increase dependent on the adjoining use, such as when an industrial use abuts a residential use. 5775 Wayzata BNd. • Suite 555 -St. Louis Park. MN 55416 • (612) 595.9636 -Fax. 595.9837 O SEP -29-1994 08:23 NRC 612 595 JAis/ N.W-Vib Draft Huffer Yard OrdLn&=e. The draft ordinance establishes a matrix of land use interfaces and applies a specified buffer yard requirement based on the degree of conflict. The concept of a buffer yard involves a horizontal component and a vertical component. The horizontal component of a buffer yard involves the use of setbacks to separate incompatible uses. The vertical component of a buffer yard is the landscaping and screening used to separate the incompatible uses. The draft ordinance has four buffer yard types which are defined by the width and intensity of landscaping required. This system of having buffer yards is intended to accommodate different types of conflicts by anticipating all possible combinations of conflict. In terms of required vegetation, the draft ordinance requires a number of plant units. A plant unit is simply a measurement that translates the amount of vegetation required into a quantitative unit. Various types of vegetation have been assigned a plant unit value. Under the draft ordinance, evergreen trees are assigned a plant unit value of is. Thus, in a Type A buffer yard, where 40 plant units per 100 feet of property line is required, three pine trees would be required per 100 feet. However, because the ordinance does not specify what types of trees must be planted, the developer is free to create a unique landscape plan. The only requirement is that the plant units of the proposed landscaping must equal or exceed the number required for the type of buffer yard. The number of required plant unite may be reduced two ways. The first involves the preservation of existing vegetation. The number of plant units will be reduced proportionately to the number of trees and shrubs preserved. The second reduction of plant units and buffer yard width as a credit for berms or fences. plant units may be reduced to 75 percent or buffer yard width may be reduced to 50 percent of the ordinance requirement if a fence or berm is used to screen the incompatible uses. The draft ordinance is written so that in areas of vacant land, the required landscape yard is overlaid an the abutting property line, with half of the area on each side. The property owners on each side are responsible for SO percent of the required planting units for the required landscaped yard. To protect existing developments from undue hardship when a new development establishes on an abutting property, the draft ordinance has a provision which axeto existing development from the requirements of the ordinance until such time as the existing development is significantly changged, altered, or expanded. In addition, the draft ordinance requirse that where a developer of vacant land must install a buffer yard adjacent to property which is 50 percent developed (by footage), the new developer must install the entire buffer yard on the new property. SEP -29-1994 88:23 MAC bid Vzo xuv r.nw ao The draft ordinance is designed as an amendment to Section 3-3, Yard Requirements, of the Zoning Ordinance. The amendment involves adding the buffer yard language as additional yard requirements. The draft ordinance uses the current required landscaping ordinance, Section 3-2 (01 for regulating the area designated to be landscaped. Therefore, the landscaped portion of the buffer yard can be regulated and admiaistered as would any other required landscaping. i In response to the City of Xonticello's interest in a buffer yard ordinance, our office has drafted such an ordinance. This ordinance seeks to anticipate negative impacts that may arise between adjoining uses. To reduce those impacts, the draft ordinance assigns one of four buffer yard requirements based upon the intensity of conflict between the uses. The City should consider how the ordinance will offset each land use interface, and whether the intensity of the buffer yard should be increased, decreased, or left as proposed. Under the City's Zoalnq Ordinance, the Planning Commission is to consider five factors in its consideration of an amendment. The Planning Cama►ission is to thea make a finding of fact and recommendation to the City Council regarding the proposed amendment. The five factors are as follows: 1. Relationship to the Co�rehensive Plan. 2. Geographic area involved !a she request. 3. Tendency of the proposal to depreciate the area. 4. Character of the surrounding area. S. Demonstrated need for the use. In this case, the intent of the ordinance amendment is to effect a compatible transition between differing (and potentially conflicting) land uses. This action Should have the effect of enhancing the subject areas, rather than depreciating them. in addition, a major concern of the Couprebeasive Plan is appropriate land use transitions, and concern over this possibility is the Klein Parms/Oakwood Industrial Park area gave rise to the need for the Ordinance. The Planning Commission may make a finding of fact that the buffer yard ordiniance positively impacts the affected areas and complise with the intent of the Comprehensive Plan goals and objectives. i ORDIIVANCE AMENDMENT NO. THE CITY COUNCIL OF MONTICELLO, DEMMOTA, oL6n&o t ORDAINS THAT CHAPTER 3, SECTION 8, OF THE MONTICELLO ZONING ORDINANCE PERTAINING TO YARD REQUIREMENTS BE AMENDED BY ADDING THE FOLLOWING: 3-3: YARD REQUIREMENTS [G] Required Buffer Yards 1. PURPOSE: Buffer yards are required as to reduce the negative impacts that result when incompatible uses abut one another. 2. The following table lists the minimum buffer yard requirements dependent upon the intensity of the conflict of the abutting uses: Intensity Minimum Minimum No. Plant Units of Building Landscape Required -100 Feet Conflict 1jx Seftek Yard of ProneKv Line Minimal A 30 feet 10 het 40 Moderate B 30 het 20 het s0 Significant C 40 feet 30 het 120 Severe D 50 feet 40 feet 160 (a) Minimum building setback measured from the abutting party line. (b) Minimum landscaped yard measured as extending perpendicular from the abutting property line and extending along length of property line. Half of the required distance on each side of the property line and extending the length of the property line. (c) Plant units are a quantitative measure of the required plantings for the minimum landscaped yard. i) Plant unit value shall be assigned as follows: Plant Vegetation Unit Value Evergreen Teets 15 Deciduous Tree 10 Evergreen/Coniferous Shrubs 5 Shrubs/Bushes 1 Ordinance Amendment No. Page 2 ii) The number of plantings required shall equal or exceed the number of required plant units based upon the values assigned in Section 3-3 [G] 2(c) of this ordinance. iii) The property owners on both sides of the abutting property line for which the buffer yard overlays shall each be responsible for fifty (50) percent of the required planting required for the length of the abutting property line. 3. Minimum Required Buffer Yard. The following table represents the type as specified by Section 3-3 (F) 2 of buffer yard required for abutting incompatible uses: 1 MND4UM REQUIRED BUFFER YARD Lop -Density, High -Density Insti. Use Residential Residential tutional Commercial Industrial Low Density Residential None A B C D High Density Residential A None A B D Institutional B A None A C Commercial C B A None B Industrial D D C B None 4. The size and type of required plantings shall be according to Section 3-2 [G] 4 and Section 3-2 (G) 5 of this ordinance. B. Existing trees or vegetation within a required minimum landscape yard preservation may substitute for required plants. The number of plant units required shall be proportionately reduced according to the number of trees or vegetation preserved. 6. The location of an opaque fence or earth berm of at least 8 feet in height within a required landscaped yard shall be considered credit toward the plant unit requirement. The number of required plant units shall be reduced by fifty (BO) percent. i) All fences shall be subject to the requirements of Section 3-2 [G) of this ordinance. Ordinance Amendment No. Page 3 ii) All berms shall be subject to the requirements of Section 3.2 (G] of this ordinance. i) Development of a Vacant Property. The owner of a vacant property which would require a buffer yard under the terms of this ordinance shall be required to install one-half of the width and intensity of the required buffer yard along the entire length of the abutting property line in all cases except for the following- ii) ollowing ii) Where development of abutting property exceeds fifty ((io) percent of the length of the abutting property line by footage, the owner/developer will be required to install the entire width and intensity of buffer yard as determined in this ordinance. 8. Existing Development. Any existing development adjacent to property developed in accordance with Section 3-3 [G] 7 i) shall be considered exempt from the provisions of said ordinance until such time as the property or development is substantially altered, remodeled, or expanded. At such time, the existing development shall provide the remaining one-half of the buffer yard improvement. 9. The criteria for the submission requirements and approval of a buffer yard landscape plan shall be according to Section 3.2 [G] of this ordinance. Adopted this 14th day of November, 1994. Mayor City Administrator 0 September 15. 1994 M 8 P TRANSPORT, INC. Plane - (612) 29613122 Melm - (e 1 2) 772-4740 Fax - (612) 772.2786 ALEXANDRIA CONCRETE CO. Phan .(812) 7634600 Fax • (612) 7834676 Mr. Jeff O'Neill Aset. City Administrator City of Monticello 250 Broadway East Monticello, MN 55362 Dear Jeff: CONCRETE PRODUCTS OF NEW LONDON, INC. Phone - (612) 064.2711 CONCRETE OF MORRIS, DIC. Phone • (612) 66913700 WADENA READY -MOI Phone - (216) 871.1666 Fax . (812) 7634678 After Bitting through the "Work Shop/Hearing" regarding the zoning change requested for the Klein/Emmerich development on Tuesday. September 6, as an interested party I would like to make the following observations and recommendations: It would appear that this development will achieve the zoning change and will proceed in placing multiple family dwellings adjacent to the I-2 zone/Industrial Park. With this in mind, it is essential that requirements be made at the time of rezoning so as to minimize problems both for the present and the future. The requirement of berm barriers is essential; however, it can only be effective if it is maintained at a minimum of 1A feet in height. The suggestion of a 6 foot berm is ludicrous if it is believed to be of any value in separating these two non -conforming zoning districts. If plantings are required. a minimum height of 7 feet at the time of planting would be necessary to address the issues of separation immediately. I would like to suggest that if a 6 foot high berm is still found to be essential, the developer should be required to place an 8 foot high cyclone fence on top of this berm permanently separating the R-3 zone from the I-2 zone. It would be unjust to ask current and future I-2 occupants to construct a fence of this nature for security and safety purposes when it is the R-3 non -conforming zoning making the request of a change for their accommodation. The suggestion of placing the east/west street on the north side of the R-3 buildings, I believe is a very sound idea. This would create somewhat of a natural division line and boundary between the two conflicting zoning districts. I believe this should be mandatory for any site plan that would be approved, regardless of which berm configuration in required. r • r twirOHt. MC. AtauHOHr COMM CO. flIOEM11 QA07irtLOOM ML co PR pit OF loom P.O. as 477 P.O. am see P.O. an ee 17660 Nq. 27 N.H. 1200 Peels A Monde . MN 66762 AkxwW e. MN 6670e Weems, MN 5"U NOW Loll". MN 66277 Ma1b. MN Page 2 September 15, 1994 Mr. Jeff O'Neill I would like to emphasize approving this zone chang expansion, it is of the ut problems which will occur changes. I would suggest as possible regarding the that we will not be tryi the responsibility e. While we all like most importance that we now and in the future that the requirements berm, density, and s ng to close the barn do has escaped 5 or 10 years from now. Sincerely, M & P RANSPORT J Morrell .82d". nt JCM/1i each of you has in to have growth and look at potential when making zoning be made as strong treet locations so or after the horse D