Planning Commission Agenda Packet 05-04-1993AGENDA
REGULAR MEETING - MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION
Tuesday, May 4, 1993 - 7 p.m.
Members: Cindy Lemm, Richard Carlson, Jon Bogart, Richard Martie, Brian
Stumpf
1. Call to order.
2. Approval of minutes of the regular meeting held April 6, 1993, and the special
meeting held April 12, 1993.
3. Public Hearing --Consideration of a variance request that would allow
development of a driveway within the 5 -ft minimum setback area. Location
is Block 22, Lot 1 and West U2 of Lot 2, Lower Monticello. Applicant,
Monticello -Big Lake Community Hospital.
4. Public Hearing --Consideration of a variance request to the front yard setback
requirement that would allow construction of a canopy over the clinic entrance.
Location is Block 22, Lot 1 and West U2 of Lot 2, Lower Monticello. Applicant,
Monticello -Big Lake Community Hospital.
b. Public Hearing --Consideration of amendments to the zoning map of Monticello
proposed in conjunction with development of the Monticello Commerce Center.
Applicant, Monticello Industrial Park, Inc.
6. Public Hearing --Consideration of amendments to the City of Monticello
Comprehensive Land Use Plan. Amendments are proposed in conjunction with
the request for zoning district boundary changes. Applicant, Monticello
Industrial Park, Inc.
7. Consideration of a zoning ordinance amendment allowing banners and portable
signs to be displayed 40 days per year.
8. Consideration of petition for extension of conditional use permit allowing a
public works building in a PZM zone. Applicant, City of Monticello.
9. Acljourmnent.
MINUTES
SPECIAL MEETING • MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION
Monday, April 26, 1893 - 6 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
The meeting was called to order by Chairperson Cindy Lemm at 6 p.m.
Public Hearine--A variance request to allow a detached accessory buildine to
be placed within the front vard setback requirement. Applicant, Allan Poach.
Gary Anderson, Zoning Administrator, explained Mr. Poach's request to be
allowed to place a detached accessory building in a front yard setback
requirement. Mr. Poach's adjoining property owner to the east has a 21 -ft
setback from their property line, and Mr. Poach's house is currently set 80 ft
from his front property line. Mr. Poach is proposing to set his detached
accessory building 30 ft from his front property line. To meet the minimum
setback requirement, Mr. Poach would have to place his detached accessory
building 50.5 ft from the front property line.
The reason Mr. Poach is requesting to be allowed to have it placed 30 ft from
his front property line is that if he moves the building farther back toward his
house, Mr. Poach will have problems with surface water drainage off of his
existing lot around the back end of the proposed detached accessory building.
When the house was built on the lot, it was built far back to the rear of the lot
and placed at an elevation not much higher than the center of the road surface
in front of the house, that being West River Street. To accommodate surface
water drainage around the existing house and the proposed detached accessory
building, Mr. Poach is proposing to be allowed a separation between the back
of the proposed garage and the front of the existing house to allow surface
water drainage to drain around in front and in back of the proposed detached
accessory building.
Jeff O'Neill, Assistant Administrator, explained the following comments on the
proposed variance request. O'Neill explained the definition for the accessory
use. The garage could he placed farther back on the site to lessen the variance
setback request. The use of the proposed detached accessory building for fish
house construction is not allowed by ordinance. A detached accessory building
is for residential accessory uses to the principal residential use. The applicant
should explain what his intent of the use of the detached accessory building is
for.
Page 1
Special Planning Commission Minutes - 4/26/93
Cindy Lemon then opened the public hearing
Allan Poach, applicant, explained that at the time he started building fish
houses, he was not aware of the ordinance requirement not allowing the
building of fish houses at his residence. He said he stopped building the
houses when he was informed that this practice was not allowed.
Allan Poach cited his family is growing and the need of the use of the existing
tuck -under garage would like to be converted into a bedroom for one of his
family members. The size of the garage which he selected is to accommodate
his personal pickup and automobile and boat, motor, and trailer within the
enclosed confines of this detached accessory building.
Cindy Lemm then closed the public hearing and opened the meeting for any
further comments from the Planning Commission members.
Questions raised from Planning Commission members, if moving the garage
back any farther was possible, possibly 2 ft farther back. They also questioned
the size that he had chosen for his garage, if another size might be more
applicable to accommodate his needs.
There being no further input from the Planning Commission members. a
motion was made by Richard Carlson and seconded by Richard Martie to
approve the variance request to allow a detached accgosory building to be
placed in the front yard setback with the condition that the owner is put on
record that the variance is granted for the accessory use to be placed within
the front yard setback requirement, that is for the use that is found incidental
to the residential use. The use of this accessory building is not for storage of
more than one commercial vehicle over 9,000 lbs. or for the commercial use of
this detached building to build fish houses in and sell them from this property.
Motion carried unanimously.
Reason for approval: The potential problems with drainage between the
detached accessory building and the existing house. The garage will be located
on the cast side of the property, thereby lessening the negative sight line
impact of the variance on the prooprty to the west.
3. A motion was made by Jon Bogart and seconded by Brian Stumpf to adjourn
the meeting. The meeting adjourned at 6:42 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Gary Anderson
Zoning Administrator
Pago 2 �D ;
MM1UTES
REGULAR MEETING - MONTICELLO PLANNING CONMMION
Tuesday, April 6, 1995 - 7 p.m.
Members Present: Cindy Lemm, Richard Martie, Jon Bogart, Brian Stumpf
Members Absent: Richard Carlson
Staff Present: Gary Anderson; Jeff O'Neill; Steve Grittman, Consulting Planner
1. The meeting was called to order by Chairperson Cindy Lemm at 7:02 p.m.
2. Brian Stumpf indicated a correction within the motion for approval of the
minutes of the February 2, 1993, and the special meeting held February 16,
1993. The change to the motion for item q2 of the March 2, 1993, minutes is
as follows:
The motion was made by Brian Stumpf and seconded by Richard
Carlson.
A motion was made by Brian Stumpf and seconded by Richard Martie to
approve the minutes as amended of the regular meeting held March 2, 1993.
Voting in favor. Cindy Lemm, Richard Martie, Brian Stumpf Abstaining:
Jon Bogart. Absent: Richard Carlson.
3. Pul lic Hearing--Consi&ratiop of a Mgueat to amend the Mpnticellq Zoninq
Ordinancevghi h would Inodifv the reaa_tionLffovernino signs as follows:
_
3-11C1(b): Modifv the prdinance to allow a hermit far nromotiongl'signage for
g weekq of every fnonth or for a total of 168 days each vear. 3-9f61(h): Modify
k1 g ordinance that would state that aromotipgal sien}►�mgv bp awn
advertising message. including nroducl end pricing: 3-8fF1(e): Modifv the
ordinance to allow for an annual permit fee of 825 to cover advertising and
signage. Applicant. 9 local businesses.
Jeff O'Neill, Assistant Administrator, provided some recent history of the
meetings and conversations relating to this topic that have occurred over the
past few months.
On November 12, 1992, a meeting was held with convenience store owners/
managers and City staff, with Consulting Planner, Steve Grittman. It was the
consensus of this meeting that Dorothy Ritz would prepare an outline of her
request, and City staff would outline the pro's and con's and three basic
options, which would include: 1) Change the existing ordinance;
Page 1
Planning Commission Minutes - 4(6/93
2) Liberalization of the existing ordinance to allow more special events, days,
or longer special event periods; and 3) allow 30 sq ft temporary signs or
banners to be placed on display at any business at any time.
On December 1, 1992, Planning Commission members reviewed the existing
ordinance regulating temporary banners and signs and was asked to consider
calling for a public hearing to amend the present ordinance. It was the
consensus of the Planning Commission to have City staff research further
portable signs and banners in surrounding communities and some metro
communities and return to the Planning Commission with a formal list of
alternatives.
On January b, 1993, City staff prepared additional information relating to the
subject matter. A detailed review of the pro's and cons Liberalizing the rules
governing the use of temporary banners as prepared by City Planner, Steve
Grittman. It was the consensus of the Planning Commission to leave the
current sign ordinance in effect until a petition for an ordinance amendment
is received.
Steve Grittman, Consulting City Planner, made the following comments to the
sign ordinance amendment request. There is no problem drafting a sign
ordinance amendment to meet the request of the applicant.
Clutter Issue: This starts with one business putting up a banner for a
particular product, then other businesses put up a banner with a similar
product advertised on the banner. No net increase in sales is ultimately
accomplished. All that changes is an increase in sign clutter and a diminished
value of existing permanent signs.
With the additional banners does become an enforcement headache for City
staff with constant monitoring of banner permits, when they were put up, and
when they have to be taken down.
Cindy Lemm questioned any metro area community with a more liberal banner
ordinance requirement allowing more days than 30 total days in a year. Most
communities with which Steve Grittman is familiar with or has worked for
have ordinances very similar to the City of Monticello's, whereas maybe in
some communities banners are allowed to remain displayed for a longer period.
Communities treat them on a case-by-case example, starting with enforcement
on a complaint basis.
Page 2
Planning Commission Minutes - 4/6193
Cindy Lemm then opened the public hearing. Comments were received as
follows:
Dorothy Ritz: Banners put up for advertising are beneficial or they wouldn't
be put up at all. Both Total Mart locations depend on the summer months'
traffic through town, a major share of their business. To be beneficial, the
banners should be up for a time, then removed and a new, completely different
banner then be put up. A possible option for the Planning Commission
members is to increase the time during the summer months. She would
consider with an additional length of time for more banners to be placed
contacting the City on the time and the length and when they would be
removed.
Currently, Total Mart has other convenience stores in five other communities,
and this is the only community where there is an enforcement of the banners.
Rick Pribyl, Tom Thumb, had the following comments: Mr. Pribyl felt that 2
weeks was not enough time for the placement of banners within a calendar
year. The banner permit system would work with the owners contacting the
City with the date and times that the banners would be up.
Cindy Lemur then closed the public hearing and opened the meeting for input
from the Planning Commission members.
Jon Bogart questioned if the banners will help Monticello stores compete
against other stores in other communities along Highway 25 or I-94. Steve
Grittman commented that a good location will get the majority of the travelers.
The presence of a banner will have a very minor impact. Research reports
support distribution of this sales pattern within this area; people will stop
where it is the most convenient for them for the goods which they would like
to purchase.
Richard Martie commented that 168 days is too many days in a calendar year.
The additional banners would be cluttering of the existing signage which is at
these existing businesses.
Brian Stumpf suggested consider once a month, a banner to be placed once a
month with a possible 60 total days.
Jon Bogart suggested weekends only and then the banners be down during the
week.
Page 3 `�
Planning Commission Minutes - 4(6/'93
Dorothy Ritz objected to the weekend only. Promotions typically run 2 weeks,
one month at a time. It is very costly because banners are not always given
to the convenience stores by the manufacturer. Dorothy Rita suggested an
interim period for this proposed ordinance amendment, 3, 6, 9 months for a
real test of it. Memorial Day through Labor Day, with a 9 -month period
suggested as the best time frame to give the ordinance amendment a real test.
Jon Bogart and Richard Martie commented on possibly 30 days as being the
maximum time frame.
Dorothy Ritz suggested that the primary time being Memorial Day through
Labor Day that the Planning Commission consider ten 5 -day periods for a total
of 50 days in a calendar year.
Commission members made the following buggestion that they might consider
up to 40 days per calendar year with a $25 annual fee and/or $5 per
application with a maximum $25 per year.
A motion was made by Jon Bogart and seconded by Richard Martie to table the
request to amend the Monticello Zoning Ordinance and direct City staff to
come back to the Planning Commission members at the next regularly
scheduled meeting with a refined ordinance amendment. Motion carried
unanimously with Richard Carlson absent.
Public Hearing--Cppsideration of a variance reauest to allow no curbing in an
area of tiLture building expansion. a nroMped driveway. 40licant. Jim Beyl
JGggom Canonv).
Gary Anderson, Zoning Administrator, explained Custom Canopy's request to
allow no curbing in areas of their driveway. The areas in the north portion of
their building where the driveways come out of the buildings and easterly out
onto Fallon Avenue. This is the area of proposed future expansion. Where
future expansion is to occur, Planning Commission has in the past approved
variances for no curbing in these areas.
Cindy Lemm then opened the public hearing portion of the meeting.
Jim Beyl, representing Custom Canopy, explained to Planning Commission
members he would answer any questions that they might have about their
proposed project.
Jon Bogart questioned Mr. Beyl if he would consider putting a small asphalt
lip around the exterior perimeter of the driveway to control water run-off
erosion around the exterior perimeter of the driveway. Mr. Beyl indicated that
they were considering putting this in as part of their bituminous surfacing.
Page 4
Planning Commission Minutes - 4/8(93
Cindy Lemm then closed the public hearing and opened the meeting for further
input from the Planning Commission members.
A motion was made by Richard Martie and seconded by Jon Bogart to approve
the variance request to allow no curbing in an area of future building
expansion, a proposed driveway, with the applicant installing a bituminous
curbing edge around the exterior perimeter of the driveway. Planning
Commission is satisfied that the variance would not impair the intent of the
ordinance. Interpretation of this intent of the ordinance is to allow limited
phasing of a drive area development. Motion carried unanimously with
Richard Carlson absent.
Public Hearine--Consideration of a variance reouest 4o allow less than thepft
green area separation between QMDerty line and back of curb. Applicant. Dan
Olson/State Farm Insurance.
Jeff ONeill, Assistant Administrator, explained Olson's request to develop an
off-street parking lot at the site of his newly -purchased residential property
located at the northwest corner of the intersection of West 4th Street and
Walnut Street. Mr. Olson is proposing to develop 11 off-street parking spaces
to meet the minimum parking space requirement. With its proposed use, the
parking lot will more than likely not be occupied at all times; therefore,
Planning Commission might want to consider a variance request to the total
number of parking spaces required with an understanding with Mr. Olson that
the City can demand construction of an additional stall if the off-street parking
becomes a problem.
Cindy Lemm then opened the public hearing.
Mr. Wally Dunning questioned the location of the proposed parking lot on the
property in relationship to his adjoining property which is located just west of
the proposed new parking lot.
Cindy Lemm then closed the public hearing and opened the meeting for further
input from the Planning Commission members.
There being no further input from the Planning Commission members, a
motion was made by Jon Bogart and seconded by Brian Stumpf to approve a
variance request to allow one stall less than the minimum number of parking
spaces but require proof of parking. Under the proof of parking requirement,
Olson would agree to construct an additional parking space if the need is
determined by the City. Motion carried unanimously with Richard Carlson
absent.
Page 6 ��_
Planning Commission Minutes - 4/6/93
Pliblic Hearine--Considgratiop of a condilignal use reauest to allow expansion
of an exis�u�e medical clinic in a PZM (performance zone mixed) zone.
Annlicant. Monticello-Bie Lake Communitv Hospital District.
Jeff ONeill, Assistant Administrator, explained the conditional use request of
the hospital district to expand the newly -purchased clinic building to the east.
O'Neill explained the following area impacts.
On the east property line, the neighboring property is a residential use. Along
this east property line, a proposed screening fence would be installed meeting
the minimum opacity requirements by ordinance.
Parking Lot Desien. The proposal calls for 71 parking spaces, which would
meet the minimum ordinance requirement for the proposed 16,000 sq ft
addition. However, considering the hospital district with its hospital building,
nursing home building, and this medical clinic building, the total complexes
are still 45 parking spaces short. Obstacles to increasing clinic parking to
serve other hospital district uses are as follows:
Adding additional stalls to the plan would require extension of a
parking lot toward the river, which would further undermine the
pleasant river setting in the area and further obstruct the view
of the river from the nursing home.
Access to other hospital district buildings from this clinic lot may
not be convenient and many problems in allowing users of the
clinic parking lot to enter the nursing home from the east wing,
as entrance and exiting of the nursing home is designed to occur
in the front of the building, which makes the clinic location for
the nursing home parking stalls undesireable.
3) From a legal standpoint, the City may not have leverage to
require development of additional parking to serve other hospital
district uses. Technically, the City lost legal authority to direct
parking location and design when the building permit for the
recent clinic expansion was granted without the district first
obtaining a conditional use permit.
Cindy Lemm then opened the public hearing.
The Monticello Hospital District was represented by Gary Tushie, Rick
Holloway, and Nancy Dahlin. The hospital district would like the Planning
Commission to consider their conditional use request first with allowing the
hospital district to explain the concept plan which they have come up with
since the public hearing was published for a driveway entrance to the front of
the building.
Page 6
Planning Commission Minutes - 4(6/93
Cindy Lemm then closed the public hearing and opened the meeting for further
input from the Planning Commission members.
There being no further input from the Planning Commission members, a
motion was made by Richard Martie and seconded by Jon Bogart to approve
the conditional use permit allowing expansion of the clinic facility in a PZM
(performance zone mixed) zone subject to the following conditions:
1. Staff review and approval of detailed landscaping plans.
2. Staff review and approval of design and constriction of screening
fence.
3. Staff review and approval of grading and drainage plan.
4. Hospital district providing easements necessary to construct
storm water facility along length of drive area.
b. Conditioned upon the hospital district consideration of developing
more than 71 stalls at the clinic location and/or consideration of
working jointly with the City to design a long-term plan that
serves the needs of the hospital district while being sensitive to
the nearby residential neighborhood concerns.
The ?Tanning Commission is satisfied that the site plan as prepared is
consistent with the purpose of the P2M zone and that the proper action has
been taken to mitigate the negative impacts of this development on adjoining
residential areas. Motion carried unanimously with Richard Carlson absent
The hospital district then explained its concept plan for the development of a
driveway area in front of the existing clinic building. The proposed driveway
as shown on the plan would allow development of this driveway on their own
property with no encroachment onto the City public street right -of --way. With
allowing development onto their property tine does pose some problems for the
creation of this driveway. With the placement of this driveway up to the
property line allows only approximately 19 ft of driveway width; therefore, a
single driving lane only could be accomplished by this.
Also, a proposed canopy to be constructed over the driveway and the curb being
placed right on the property tine requires two variances Brom the ordinance.
The first variance being a building within the front yard setback requirement,
and the second being allowed to construct a driveway within the 5 -ft green
area separation from property line to back of curb.
Page 7 11�
Planning Commission Minutes - 4/6/93
It was preferred by the hospital district to be allowed to expand into the public
right-of-way to allow for additional width of the driveway to accommodate a
driving lane where if someone was parked under the canopy in front of the
building loading or unloading person, another vehicle could pass to the left of
that and go around the vehicle underneath the canopy.
The hospital district requested the City to get back to them with the best
alternative for the hospital district to develop the plans for a driveway in the
area in front of the existing clinic building. When a recommended alternative
is presented to them, they will proceed with the public hearing process and be
back before the Planning Commission at their first regularly scheduled
meeting on May 4, 1993, with the Planning Commission members to consider
their request.
7. Public Hearine—Consi4eration of a vpriancq reauest to allgw construction of a
roef cov.pred oven porch within the side vard setback reauirement. Aoolicant.
Richard Carlson.
Jeff ONeill, Assistant Administrator, explained Mr. Carlson's request to be
allowed a 1 -ft variance encroachment within the side yard setback
requirement. Mr. Carlson was before the Planning Commission a few years
ago with his request to allow construction of a garage within the side yard
setback requirement.
Cindy Lemm then opened the public hearing.
There being no comment from the public, Cindy Lemm then closed the public
hearing and asked for further input from the Planning Commission members.
There being no further input from the Planning Commission members, a
motion was made by Richard Martie and seconded by Jon Bogart to approve
the variance request to allow construction of a roof -covered open porch within
the side yard setback requirement. The Commission is satisfied that this
situation is significantly unique to warrant the issuance of a variance. Motion
carried unanimously with Richard Carlson absent.
Additional Information Items
1. Continued Public Hearing --Consideration of a request to rezone the Oak Ridge
residential subdivision from R -PUD (residential planned unit development) to
R -I (single family residential) zoning designation. Applicant, Tony Emmerich.
Council action, Approved as per Planning Commission recommendation.
2. Sot the date for a requested special Planning Commission meeting for Monday,
April 12, 1993, at 6 p.m. It was the Planning Commission's consensus to set
this as the date.
Page 8
Planning Commission Minutes • 4/6193
Set the date for a requested special Planning Commission meeting for Monday,
April 26, 1993, at 6 p.m. It was the Planning Commission consensus was to
set this date.
Set the next date for the regular Monticello Planning Commission meeting for
Tuesday, May 4, 1993, at 7 p.m. It was the consensus of the Commission to
set this as the next tentative date.
A motion was made by Brian Stumpf and seconded by Richard Martie to
adjourn the meeting. The meeting adjourned at 9:34 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Gary Anderson
Zoning Administrator
Page 9 1 '
MINUTES
SPECIAL MEETING - MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION
Monday, April 12, 1893 - 6 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; Steve Grittman, Consulting Planner
1. The meeting was called to order by Chairperson Cindy Lemm at 6 p.m.
2. Puklic Hearine--Consideration of a reapeat 0 amend the Monticello Zoninv
Ordinance by rescindine Section 20-210 which requires that planned unit
development proposals must include an area of at least 3 contieuous acres.
Aunlicant. Americlnn/Paco Bell.
Jeff O'Neill, Assistant Administrator, explained the background to the
proposed ordinance amendment. O'Neill explained procedures similar to what
was done with the Battle Rapids subdivision. The only thing is, with the
exception that we went through the variance procedure for allowing
development of that subdivision with less than 3 acres.
Steve Grittman, Consulting Planner, stated that property size is not relevant
to determining acceptability of a PUD request. Typically, with the use of the
planned unit development, there is a trade-off, will allow development to occur
on these parcels, with the development usually occuring in a perimeter around
the parcels of land usually within the building setback requirement perimeters.
Usually what occurs is some type of development requiring a variance or an
allowance from an ordinance requirement to allow the full development within
the site, always inside of the building setback perimeters.
Cindy Lemm then opened the public hearing.
There being no input from the public, she then closed the public hearing.
Chairperson Cindy Lemm then opened the meeting for comments from the
Planning Commission members.
Concerns of the Planning Commission members were with future
developments, this might be the start of a number of PUD's where
development could occur not meeting the minimum ordinance requirements.
Grittman reiterated that PUD size is not a relevant factor determining PUD
acceptability.
Page 1 ,
Special Planning Commission Minutes - 4/12/93
There being no further discussion amongst Planning Commission members, a
motion was made by Jon Bogart and seconded by Richard Martie to approve
the request to amend the zoning ordinance by rescinding Section 20-2[C] which
requires that a planned unit development proposal must include an area of at
least 3 contiguous acres. Motion carried unanimously. Motion is based on the
finding that PUD size is not a relevant factor in determining whether or not
a PUD is designed properly.
3. Public Hearing --Consideration of a conditional use permit allowine a
commercial PUD (planned unit development) in a B-3 (highwav business) zone:
and a variance request allowing pylon sign height in excess of 32-fi: maximum.
Applicant. Taco BeIVWillard Mumhv.
Jeff' O'Neill, Assistant Administrator, commented that Steve Grittman had
prepared the agenda item and referred Mr. Grittman for the review of his
comments.
The proposed PUD is being requested to solve two ordinance constraints on
this development. The first is the subdivision request which would remove the
Americlnn from having public street right-of-way frontage. The second is to
permit a pylon sign location for Taco Bell on the remaining Americlnn
property. Concerns are raised that the site plans as submitted do not provide
the positive trade-off, which would justify the use of the planned unit
development in this case. Possible improvements are as follows:
Several existing hotel parking stalls have been eliminated from
the hotel parking lot, which need to be replaced in association
with the new plans.
2. The required parking space requirements for convenience foods
establishments require this site to have 24 total parking stalls
where the site plan shows 34 total stalls.
To consider this request, approval should be subject to the City requiring that
higher standards of site/budding design and creative use of the land be
implemented by using one or more of the following:
A. Enhanced landscape requirement. The detailed and specialized
use of plant and site materials should be required through unique
plantings, increased quality of materials.
Page 2
Special Planning Commission Minutes - 4/12/93
B. Design for people. The site and landscape design should focus on
pedestrian interaction from the motel site to the proposed Taco
Bell restaurant site.
C. Coordinated site plan. Visual and physical integration of
buildings, parking areas, and landscaping should be required.
Sign Heieht Variance.
Taco Bell is proposing to add a pylon sign to the existing pylon pole, which has
Perkins on the top and AmericInn below that. The total height for the existing
pylon sign being at 90 ft above the ground. Taco Bell is proposing to be
allowed to use this pylon pole for the placement of a 97 sq ft pylon sign below
the AmericInn sign at a height of approximately 65 ft above the ground;
however, this situation does not appear to be unique. A sign could be
constructed on the site and meet the minimum sign height and sign square
footage requirements.
Cindy Lemm then opened the public hearing.
Meleah Miller, representing the architectural/engineering firm for the Taco
Bell franchise restaurant, explained some of the site area improvements that
were placed onto the site plan, which was distributed to Planning Commission
members which wasn't in their handout materials. Ms. Miller highlighted
some of the concerns the Consulting Planner, Steve Grittman, had in regard
to the new site plan, integration of a pedestrian sidewalk from the proposed
Taco Bell restaurant to meet with the existing AmericInn Motel sidewalk.
With the small site, the chances of integrating some type of outside eating
areas on the site could be possible but would not be practical on this small site.
Additional shrubs and tree plantings are also shown on the plan. The existing
dumpater for the Americlnn has been relocated to the rear of the existing
AmericInn parking lot with a screened enclosure around it and landscaped
around the screened enclosure.
The pylon sign is proposed to be located on the same pylon sign pole as the
AmericInn and Perkins Restaurant sign. If this is not acceptable to the
Planning Commission, they would propose to have an easement extended along
the AmericInn property to the rear of the AmericInn property to allow for
placement of a 32 -ft high, 200 aq ft pylon sign.
John Ruggieri, partner in the Tarn Bell architectural/engineering firm,
explained that his staff had been working with City staff all day to tomo up
with the site plan revisions as requested by City staf0'Consulting Planner.
Page 3 ,1
Special Planning Commission Minutes - 4/12/93
Mr. Schorr, attorney for Mr. Murphy, commented on the Taco Bell request that
Mr. and Mrs. Murphy are in complete agreement with Taco Bell's planned unit
development request and would also like to have the pylon sign for Taco Bell
mounted on their existing pylon sign pole.
City staff brought up a Taco Bell location in Plymouth about the same type of
location with that one not having a pylon sign 65 ft in the air. Mr. Scherr
commented on the location. This would not be a project here without the Taco
Bell restaurant being able to utilize some freeway exposure of their pylon sign
to attract travelers off the road to stop at their location.
Mr. Ruggieri commented on a good location for the pylon sign is needed for its
accessibility, travelers' accessibility to the restaurant. O'Neill commented that
hardship is not created by location. Monetary cannot be a reason for the
hardship. Steve Grittman commented that the City's sign ordinance should
not be jeopardized to facilitate this development.
Representatives of the Monticello VFW Club commented on the parking, where
the current semi -truck tractors are parking in their lot.
Cindy Lemm then closed the public hearing and asked for further input from
the Planning Commission members.
Jon Bogart questioned the cueing length for the driveup being only
approximately 4 stalls in length. Richard Carlson commented on the
architectural continuity between the two uses. Also questioned the size of the
sign and the square footage of the existing Americlnn/Perkins pylon sign.
Mr. Ruggieri commented his staff had sent up a copy of the proposed 97 sq ft
Taco Bell pylon sign to be mounted on the existing 90 -ft high Americlnn/
Perkins pylon sign.
There being no further input from the Planning Commission members, a
motion was made by Richard Martie to deny the request for allowing a pylon
sign height in excess of the 32 -ft maximum. Motion died for lack of a second.
A motion was made by Richard Carlson and seconded by Brian Stumpf to
approve the variance request allowing a pylon sign to be constructed in excess
of the 32 -ft maximum. Also to allow a conditional use permit for a commercial
planned unit development in a B-3 (highway business) zone. Voting in favor:
Cindy Lemm, Jon Bogart, Richard Carlson, Brian Stumpf. Opposed: Richard
Martie.
Page 4
Special Planning Commission Minutes - 4/12/93
Reason for approval of the variance: They would rather see a pylon sign
attached to the existing pylon pole with Americlnn and Perkins rather than
have an additional pylon sign constructed near the existing pylon sign. The
negative effect of a higher sign (65 ft) possessing a sign face of 97 sq ft is offset
by eliminating the need for a new pylon with a sign area potential of 200 sq ft.
A motion was made by Richard Martie and seconded by Brian Stumpf to
adjourn the meeting. The meeting adjourned at 7:05 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Gary Anderson
Zoning Administrator
Pap 5 �,
Planning Commission Agenda - 6/4/93
S. Public hearing --Consideration of a variance request that would allow
development of a drivewav within the 5 -ft minimum setback area.
Location is Block 22. Lot 1 and West 1/2 of Lot 2. Lower Monticello.
FMI I
4. Public hearing—Consideration of a variance reauest to the front Yard
setback reauirement that would alloyv construction of a canon over
the clinic entrance. Location is Block 22. Lot 1 and West 112 of Lot 2.
Lower Monticello. AonlicanL Monticello•Bia Lake Communitv
Hospital District. (J.O.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
As you recall, at the previous meeting of the Planning Commission, the
Planning Commission approved a conditional use permit and reviewed a
proposal for extending a driveway in front of the clinic entrance which would
include construction of a protective canopy. Variances necessary to allow drive
and canopy were identified which are now before the Planning Commission for
formal consideration.
Also at the previous meeting, there was general discussion regarding the
proper width of the drive. From a functional standpoint, it was concluded that
a 24 -ft width is the best alternative, as it provides efficient room to allow
vehicles to pass. The problem with this alternative is that it requires
extension of the drive area onto city right-of-way. The other alternative was
to reduce the width of the drive area to approximately 19 ft, which would
eliminate the need to place the driveway on city right-of-way: however, the
functionality of the drive is significantly reduced when it is reduced to 19 fl.
Under both alternatives, a variance to the driveway setback requirement is
necessary. In addition, a variance is necessary to allow construction of a
canopy in the front yard area, as the city ordinance defines a canopy as a
structure; therefore, placement of the structure in the required front yard area
is not permissible without a variance.
A new strategy for development of the hospital district site has emerged, which
may resolve variance issues noted above. Preliminary results of planning
efforts conducted by City staff and the hospital district indicate that it may
make sense to vacate a major portion of Hart Boulevard and develop a new
entrance to the site off CSAH 75 at a point approximately even with the clinic
Planning Commission Agenda - 5/4/93
expansion area. If this plan is executed, the portion of Hart Boulevard that
the canopy variances affect will no longer be public right-of-way; therefore,
there will be no need for the variances.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. Motion to table the variance requests pending the outcome of planning
efforts. If Hart Boulevard is not vacated, then the variance requests
will be considered.
Under this alternative, Planning Commission takes the view that it does
not make sense to grant the variances as proposed in light of the fact
that the variances may not he needed anyway; therefore, this alternative
allows the City to avoid setting a precedent.
2. Motion to approve the variance requests.
Perhaps the hospital district construction plan requires action. The
district may need a determination before finalization of the hospital site
plan/Hart Boulevard study and associated street vacation can occur.
The Planning Commission may be convinced that a variance is
appropriate with or without the Hart Boulevard street vacation;
therefore, we should just go ahead and grant the variances.
To mitigate the precedent, Planning Commission could find that a
variance is appropriate to allow a driveway to encroach on a setback
area because the drive will improve the ability of the site to serve
handicapped or elderly that may have difficulty reaching the site
without direct vehicular transportation to the door.
3. Motion to deny variance requests.
Under this alternative, Planning Commission would argue that the
applicant hasn't demonstrated that the variance requests meet the
criteria for granting a variance. It could he argued that the site has
served seniors and the handicapped for many years as is. Furthermore,
any hardship created as a result of poor original placement of the
structure is due to action taken by the property owner. A hardship
created by the property owner is not a legitimate basis for a variance.
I-
Planning Commission Agenda - 5/4/93
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
City staff recommends that the item be tabled pending completion of the
planning efforts, which could ultimately result in vacation of Hart Boulevard.
As a second alternative, staff would recommend approval of the variance but
only if the applicant expresses a dire need to have this issue resolved prior to
completion of the planning study. I talked to Barb Schwientek about the
prospect of tabling the item. She noted that she strongly prefers that the City
grant the variance.
SUPPORTING DATA:
Summary of staff/hospital district meeting April 22, 1993; Copy of site plan.
4
r
C
250 East Broadway
P. 0. Box 1147
Monticello, MN
55362.9245 MEMO
Phone: (612) 295-2711
Metro: (612) 333-5739
Fax: (612) 295-4404
TO: Barb Schwienwk, Steve Grittman, Liz Stockman, Rick Wolfsteller, John Simola,
Gary Anderson, 011ie Koropchak, Bret Weiss, Mayor and City Council, HRA,
Planning Commission
FROM: Jeff O'Neill, Assistant Administrato?. I�
DATE: April 26, 1993 v
RE: Meeting Summary/Hospital District Site Planning
The following is a review of the conclusions drawn at a City/hospital district staff meeting
initiated by the City Council and conducted on Thursday, April 22. The purpose of the
meeting was to define and study short-term and long-term issues relating to future
development of the hospital district property and to identify site factors that will guide plan
development for the area.
Following is a brief review of some of the issues discussed by the group, followed by general
conclusions.
Parking, Stall DpQei( The current parking stall deficit of db stalls was reviewed.
Barb Schwientek indicated that the problem is magnified by the fact that existing
parking stalls are not all located where they are needed. She also indicated that the
problem is so severe that controlling employee parking would not completely correct
the situation. Finally, the parking problem is intensified during construction projects
because scarce parking spaces are sometimes used for storage of vehicles and
equipment used in construction. Despite the immediacy of the problem, it was
concluded that development of new parking areas could be delayed until after the
completion of the study.
Amijsted Living Housing Project. Representatives from Guardian Angels of Elk River
were present to describe the HUD program which was utilized to develop an assisted
living facility in Elk River. Carol Mills reviewed the HUD program and noted that
Q
Memo
Hospital District Site Planning
April 26, 1993
Page 2
the grant application for HUD funds is relatively difficult to prepare. A successful
grant requires considerable contact with HUD officials during the grant application
process. Housing developed under the HUD program is for low income elderly only.
Most elderly utilizing the program are living on social security only. Maximum
income for couples is $21,500; for single people, $14,000.
The housing project pays taxes; however, taxes paid are at a lesser rate than a market
rate housing development. A non-profit sponsor is needed to apply for the grant
application. In this case, the hospital district would be the non-profit sponsor. A
separate non-profit corporation must be established to direct the on-going operation
of the facility.
If an assisted living project is created, the need for parking is relatively low. The City
of Elk River required less than one space for every two housing units that were
created.
It was estimated that the total amount of land area necessary for a 40 -unit housing
project would amount to approximately 2 acres. The site in Elk River consisted of 53
units and was 2.63 acres in size. Carol Mills indicated that the results of the market
study is the most important factor in designing the application. The market study
will dictate which segment of the elderly population has housing needs to be
addressed and will help define where the facility should be located.
Storm Sewer Locatioil. The precise location for the storm sewer remains to be
resolved. It appears, however, that the best location will be through the clinic site
rather than through the Soltis(Bondhus property. The need to develop plans and
specifications for the project has been delayed a month due to a delay in the clinic
expansion plans.
It was noted that the location of the storm sewer crossing at Highway 75 could
ultimately become the location of a now entrance point to the hospital district
grounds. This possibility should be incorporated into the design of the storm water
system.
Entrance Relocntioaarkipe pm. gfi¢urntion. Relocating the drive entrance from its
present position at Hart Boulevard to a point approximately even with the existing
clinic along with vacating a portion of Hart Boulevard for clinic parking would likely
produce a not increase in parking sufficient to satisfy short term and long-term
parking space requirements for the hospital district.
Memo
Hospital District Site Planning
April 26, 1993
Page 3
It was determined that OSM should identify the best location and design of the
entrance. The City Planner would be responsible for integrating the entrance design
with site plan/parking redesign alternatives.
A. Short-term Needs
Existing Parking Stall Deficit. According to Steve Crittman, if Hart
Boulevard is vacated, a significant amount of land will then become
available for additional parking. Crittman believes that the 45 -stall
deficit could be eliminated by vacating Hart Boulevard and redesigning
the parking area to better serve the needs of the hospital district. This
strategy would enable avoidance of adding additional parking on the
River Street side of the complex.
Creation of a new entrance and elimination of the old entrance will
improve public safety. The existing entrance is awkward at best and
would no burger be necessary if a new entrance is developed.
Lona -term Needs
It was the consensus of the group that at some point in the future, be it
1994 or the year 2000, additional senior housing facilities will be
developed on site. Improving the access to the site via development of
a new, safer entrance and associated improved parking will place the
hospital district in a better position to provide adequate access to future
housing facilities.
LocatjonMinxtion of Future Expnnsio . No consensus was drawn as to whether or
not the district should expand toward the west or toward the east. Neither
alternative appeared very attractive. Expansion to the west would likely require
acquisition of residential properties on both the River Street and CSAH 75 sides of the
block. It did not appear realistic to expect that only the Broadway side of the block
would be impacted by future development and that ultimately the entire block should
be developed. If this were to occur, then access to the nursing home from the rear
would not be a problem because there wculd be no neighborhood left to impact. This
alternative, of course, would be very expensive; therefore, it may make more sense to
push future development toward the east.
Expansion toward the cast would be easier in terms of land acquisition, as fewer
properties are involved; however, the land area that is developable in this direction
is smaller and is located adjacent to the wastewater treatment plant. There was a
concern that development of senior housing at this location might be a mistake due
Memo
Hospital District Site Planning
April 26, 1993
Page 4
to the potential for odors created at the wastewater treatment plant. Determining
whether to go east or west with future development is an issue that the City Planner
will definitely need to address.
Summary. A considerable amount of ground was covered at the meeting with a number of
issues discussed. The primary conclusion of the group was that a new entrance to the
hospital complex should be developed and that overall site parking problems could be greatly
alleviated through vacation of Hart Boulevard and reconfiguration of the existing parking
area. It was also concluded that the City Planner would summarize the site characteristics
and issues and then provide a proposal to the City outlining the cost and program for
addressing the issues, which would include preparation of area development plan
alternatives. It was also concluded that the study should be coordinated with the HRA, and
it was the goal of the group to present the information at a joint meeting sometime in June.
(The joint meeting would include membership from the HRA, Planning Commission, City
Council, and Hospital District Board.)
If you should have any questions or would like clarification of anything outlined, please give
me a call.
W
'�' ex�de� c�.alw w.ct� pro .v oov�po.l Imp"
MbAy
WIlly
x �ra.e.a� oce�.eur j
cel
ex*Pd. smr+
c
Nainp 404LT gouLD"v
Hto��Tif to1c� ce+Jr��t
�M�i� t7WV�.1�►rf ..
9r�.ei rv�iT� �-o• 4.4�p1
l
Planning Commission Agenda - 5/4/93
5. l�pbllc Hearin --Consideration of amendments to the zoning mpu of
Monticello prouesed in couipnction with develODment of the
Monticello Commerce Center. Aoolicant. Monticello Industrial Park.
Inc. AND
& Public Hearing—Consideration of amendments to the Citv of
}Ylonticello Comm
rghensive Land Use Plgn. Amendments are aronosed
Inco unctign with the reauesj for zoning district boundary changes.
AouHcanL Monticello Industrial Park. Inc. (J.O.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND
Planning Commission is asked to consider proposed amendments to the zoning
map which are proposed in conjunction with development of the Monticello
Commerce Center. Charles Pfeffer, representing Monticello Industrial Park,
Inc., and his consulting planner, Mike Gair, will be in attendance to present
their rezoning proposal. Steve Grittman of Northwest Associated Consultants
will also be in attendance to provide pros and con's associated with the
proposal.
Please review both the developer's detailed request and the City Planner's
response.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
Alternative actions can be found on page 5 of the Planners report. They are
as follows:
Deny the rezoning proposal based on the issues identified in the City
Planner's report.
2. Approve the rezoning request based on the applicant's proposal.
3. Permit flexibility by allowing limited alterations to the adopted land use
plan in one or hoth of the following arena:
A. Allow opportunity for light industrial development fronting Fallon
Avenue between the school district property and Chelsea Road.
B. Allow opportunity for relocation of B•2 commercial uses in one or
more quadrants of the County Road 118/1.94 intersection provided
the same area is maintained as that approved as part of the
adopted plan.
V.
Planning Commission Agenda - 5/4/93
With regard to the amendments to the comprehensive plan, City staff' has not
prepared amendments to the comprehensive plan at this point in time. If the
developers proposal is approved, then staff will make revisions to the
comprehensive plan as necessary for approval at a subsequent meeting.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Compelling arguments are made by the developer which would allow greater
flexibility in marketing of his property by providing a wider array of types of
land uses that would be allowed in the area. On the other hand, the City
Planner has presented reasons why the proposed amendments and developer
goals for the property are not consistent with the comprehensive plan for the
area or beneficial to the City as a whole.
All in all, it is our view that the reasons supporting denial of the request
outweigh the positive factors defined by the applicant. We do, however,
support the concept of allowing the opportunity for greater flexibility by
allowing limited alterations to the adopted land use plan, by allowing light
industrial development fronting Fallon Avenue between the school district
property and Chelsea Road, and by allowing opportunity for relocation of B-2
commercial uses in one or more quadrants of County Road 118/1-94
intersection provided the same area is maintained as that approved as part of
the adopted plan.
Although the applicant has not made the request, perhaps the City could
consider reducing the 30' green space requirement in the BC district, which
would have the effect of making the BC district more like the 1-1 district. The
green space requirement was included in the BC Campus to contribute toward
a "campus" atmosphere. The City of Buffalo has the same requirement in their
BC zone. The green space requirements in the 1.1 district amounts to 151A of
the developed area. Action on this concept should be limited to calling for a
public hearing and direct staff to prepare a zoning ordinance amendment
accordingly.
Finally, the Industrial Development Committee has reviewed the zoning
ordinance proposal and has not made a formal recommendation as a group;
however, the IDC Chairman and Economic Development Director support the
recommendation, including the request that the 3014 green space requirement
be reviewed.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Notice of public hearing; Monticello Commerce Center zoning change request
as submitted by Michael Gair; City Planners report; Map showing proposed
changes to comprehensive land use plan; A copy of the Chelsea Area Land Use
and Circulation Study is enclosed for review at your discretion.
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
Notice is hereby given that public hearings will be held by the City of
Monticello Planning Commission on May 4 , 1993 , at
7 p.m., in the Monticello City Hall to consider the following matters:
PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of amendments to the zoning map of Monticello proposed
in conjunction with development of the Monticello Cossssssers:e Center,
proposed toning district boundary changes are located on map
below.
APPLICANT: Monticello Industrial Park, Inc.
,.. PROPOSED ZOI M DISTRICT BOUNDART CBABGES
1 APPLICANT: MDBTICELUD INDUMIAL PAR[. INC.
JL
Prom B-2 to B-3
L ti I
from R -POD to B- 3
Prom R -POD to D -Z
ii ACCR= DISMCT 1882
_ !C
R1 i�1-
M - -
._.._.—.� R-PUDs Residential Pleased Unit Development -
B -2s Lisiced Business 1\
f B -3s
pICtss Lw1Bhe 7 Business
ndcaa
e
`
Written and oral testimony will be accepted on above subjects, and all
persons desiring to be heard on referenced subjects will be heard at
this meeting.
NOTE: Decisions of the Planning Commission will be subject to the
approval or denial of the City Council and will be heard on
Monday, _Wv to 19 93 , at 7 p.m., at the
Monticello City Hall.
'
Gary-- erson, Boning rAmLiistrator
.S
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
Notice is hereby given that public hearings will be held by the City of
Monticello Planning Commission on May 4 , 19 93 , at
7 p.m., in the Monticello City Hall to consider the following matters:
PeBLIC BMX=: Consideration of amsndmaats to the Cita of Monticello Cosprehensive
Land Uge Plan. Amandm—ts proposed in conjunction with request
for coning.district boundary changes.
APPLICANT: Monticello Industrial Park. Inc.
Written and oral testimony will be accepted on above subjects, and all
persons desiring to be heard on referenced subjects will be heard at
this meeting.
fiMA Decisions of the Planning Commission will be subject to the
approval or denial of the. City Council and will be heard on
Monday, ly�n , 19.L3_, at 7 p.m., at the
Monticello City Hell.
Gary seen;'os armor
�J
McCombs Frank Roos Associates, Inc.
15050 23rd Avenue Nonh, Plymouth, Minnesota 55447 Telephone Errq,neers
612/476010 Ptanner
612/476-8532 FAX Surveyor
April 19, 1993
Mr. Jeff O'Neill, Assistant Administrator
and Community Development
City of Monticello
250 Bast Broadway
Monticello, Minnesota 55362-9245
SUBJECT: Monticello Commerce Center
Zoning Change Request
MFRA /10191
Dear Mr. O'Neill:
With this letter, we are transmitting an application, filing fee and
exhibits in support of our Client's (Monticello Industrial Park, Inc.) request
to rezone portions of its property.
Taylor Land Surveyors, Inc. of Monticello has prepared a boundary survey
and a property description for the 150.9 acres. A copy of the Taylor Survey
accompanies the application.
In prior meetings with yourself, other members of the City staff, and a
meeting with the Industrial Development Commission on 04/15/93, Charlie
Pfeffer, Pfeffer Company, Inc. representing Monticello Industrial Park, Inc.,
Dennie Taylor and myself described in detail the extent of this zoning district
amendment request and the general premise of the request. With rdgard to the
scope of the rezoning, we have provided exhibits which illustrate the areas to
be rezoned and will provide, later in this letter, the approximate areas of the
requested amendments.
We will elaborate on the basis for this request during our presentations to
the City Council and various City commissions; however, as a summary statement
of our position, we offer the following:
Prior to January, 1992, the property (150.9 acres) was zoned I-1, B-2,
B-3 and RPUD source: Attached Chelsea Area Land Use and Circulation
Study, dated January, 1992. The RPUD (Residential Planned Unit
Development) zoning district is limited to property east of County
Road 118, an area of approximately 28.7 acres. The B-3 district was
limited to land north of Chelsea, extending to I-94. The B-2 and I-1
zoning districts extended to the subject property's southern boundary;
School District No. 882 north boundary. The east -mat dimension of
the B-2 district on the School District line measured approximately
1,270 feet, while the east -west dimension of the I-1 district was
1,360 feet; both Districts adjoin school District property, for a
total length of 2,630 feet (refer to Exhibit A). Immediately south
M Equet epooTnirlY Engglw ��
lJ �
City of Monticello Chelsea Area land Use and Circulation Study
U
Existing Zoning
R -i Sksgle family
8.2 1kN1ed 8uskvss
R -MUD ResMemIJ
PUI.Wd INI Devek""O
8-1 IUghway Ruskxss
RA Mukke Ikon Palk
I -I It#4 kAnuW
N) AgIkulluaUOpen Spare
1.2 Ilrary kdusu{al
Kcal.
1991 ZONING
EXHIBIT ' A
0
Mr. Jeff O'Neill
April 19. 1993
Page Two
and adjoining the B-2 and the I-1 districts is a R-1. Residential
district; the School District property of approximately 120 acres.
In 1991, the City reviewed a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) Application
for School District 0882. This requested CUP was for land contiguous
to the subject property I-1 zoned land. At that time, the school
district was seeking a permit to construct an elementary school
fronting Fallon Avenue. The school would be located approximately 500
feet south of the I -I District boundary (refer to the attached Site
Plan).
In July, 1991, the City Council approved the Conditional Use Permit
for School District 0882, paving the way to construct an elementary
school. The background planning reports and opinions provided by the
City's planning consultant and City staff (Council Agenda (Y1/22/91)
stated that the Elementary School proposal was "consistent with the
Comprehensive Plan, compatible with the character of the existing and
Future neighborhood" and "represents a positive development factor in
ibis area". 'Ihe elementary school would be sited approximately 500
feet south of the I -1/R-1 zoning district boundary. The intervening
open space and planned active recreation facilities occupying the
space between the school and the I-1 zoning district boundary were
"mitigating factors". The Conditional Use Permit approval required an
buffer strip along the north boundary line, consisting of evergreens
planted 15 feet on -center. Another pertinent statement contained in
the staff background report to the City Council was the following: "it
appears that school development as proposed dovetails nicely with the
overall development pattern".
The July 22. 1991 City Council approval motion found the school
facility consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and compatible with
the character of the existing and future neighborhood.
In January, 1992, a study was published titled "Chelsea Area Land Use
and Circulation Study". The plan addressed issues of land use
compatibility, zoning, land use intensity and land use transitions.
The end result of the study, relative to the Monticello Commerce
Center subject property. was the 'creation" of the BC zoning district
which was adopted and made a part of the City's zoning ordinance on
February 24, 1992 (refer to Exhibit B).
The BC zoning district includes essentially all permitted uses
contained in the I-1 zoning district; however. significant design and
site plan standards encumber the BC district and distinguish it from
the I -I district. These standards include a requirement for 30% open
apace, increased front yard setback (50 feet versus 40 feet), 10.000
square foot larger minimum lot size in the BC District, and the
requirement that not more than 50% of any exterior wall be metal or
fiberglass in the BC District.
I
or,0J. H 0-
VIM a
FIR
EXHIBIT B
�; '� � ���:•,,,. ill I. / //I
TMT :
SCHOOLTT
SUBJECT R -PUD
PROPERTY
��
1992 PRESENT. ZONING
Mr. Jeff O'Neill
April 19. 1993
Page 'three
The BC zoning of the subject property allows for the same permitted
uses as the I-1 district; however, the BC district, which is
approximately 107 acres of the subject property, has a requirement for
30% of the area to be green space, which equals more then 30 acres.
We understand the purpose and intent of the BC zoning district,
relative to the school district property. The fact that the school
buildings are situated a substantial distance south of the subject
property and that the intervening open space is planned for recreation
and athletic fields mitigates potential conflicts in land use.
Furthermore, the owners of the Monticello Commerce Center propose to
construct. as early as Pall. 1993. a 3 to 4 foot earthen berm and
plant 3-4 conferious trees. 15 -foot on center on the berm the entire
length of the south property line, except no berm will be constructed
where storm rater ponds are to be located (refer to Typical Section).
The berm, plantings and accessory drainage swales/ ponds will
substantially achieve the expressed intent of the BC zoning district
open space provisions. This proposal will provide special separation
and positive visual aesthetics.
The attached Exhibits A and B illustrate 1991 - 1992 City zoning of
the subject property and Exhibit C illustrates the Owner's requested
zoning.
The 1991 zoning (Exhibit A) included 28 acres of B-2 while the Owner
proposes 5.2 acres. We believe Neighborhood Commercial (B-2) is very
important to the overall development of the southeast section of
Monticello.
The 1991 zoning included 35 acres of B-3, while the Owner proposes
23.6 acres. We believe the B-3 districts provided an important array
of retail and service uses complimentary to the area and the future
planned development pattern of southeast Monticello.
The 1991 zoning included 60 acres of I-1. while the Owner proposes 53
acres.
The 1991 zoning included no BC, while the Owner proposes 53 acres; we
believe the BC zoning along the Interstate Highway and Chelsea
achieves the objectives of a Business Campus aesthetics.
The BC zoning along I-94 and Chelsea will serve the City and the
Monticello Commerce Center well and uphold the purpose and intent of
the BC District along these high exposure and high visibility
corridors.
We understand the R -PUD land use was in place prior to the School
H District's involvement. The residential zoning and development
activity to the east of Highway 118 warrants retail and service uses
convenient and proximal to end users.
J
M
EXHIBIT C
1.993 OWNER REQUESTED ZONING
O
Mr. Jeff O'Neill
April 19. 1993
Page Four
The proposed circulation plan and apparent City support for an
interchange component at Highway 118 and I-94 are complimentary though
not dependent on the Owner proposed B-3, B-2, park and ponding plans
for property east of C.R. 118.
The proposed land use and roadway plans for the east 28 -acre parcel
are well -conceived and provide for a balanced pattern of development;
i.e., retail, services. ponding, park, road circulation and
multi -density residential.
To the best of our knowledge, at the time the City was completing the
Chelsea Area Industrial Park/School Facility Land Use Plan and
conducting hearings regarding land use and zoning changes, the subject
property was in receivership. The current owner recognizes the need
for the 1992 Chelsea Area Study and is proactive in working
constructively with the City and area land owners to develop and
market the Monticello Commerce Center property. The Owner and its
team of consultants seek to "shape' this property for productive use
and become a source of pride for Monticello. The proposed "shaping",
i.e., rezoning, is not contrary to the City's long-term development
plans for the area.
We believe the the long-term success of the Monticello Commerce Center
is dependent upon rezoning portions of the property as requested. The
diversity of the proposed zoning plan and the resultant array of
associated uses will be conducive to the future development of the
Commerce Park and complimentary to the area. We believe the concept
of the Monticello Commerce Center at I-94 and Highway 118 compliments
the City's long-range land use plans, the apparent growth pattern, and
will result in progressive development.
The southeast area of Monticello from Fallon Avenue East consists of
approximately 600 gross acres. The Chelsea Area Land Use Plan
contemplates approximately 600 households in this are&. This could
result in 1,600 - 1,900 population. Additionally, the Chelsea Area
Land Use Plan contemplates up to two million gross square feet of
light industrial uses at development saturation. 4his development
potential, in conjunction with the School District uses, the potential
Ice Arena, churches and recreational facilities emphatically point to
the importance for planned development, responsive to the market and
supportive to the neighborhood and the greater southeast Section of
Monticello.
The proposed zoning amendment request was based on considerations,
such as:
1. Area stormwater requirements;
2. Future land subdivision;
r 3. Additional road requirements;
4. Apparent City support for an interchange;
Mr. Jeff O'Neill
April 19. 1993
Page Five
5. Future development and marketing;
6. Transitional buffers;
7. Future development flexibility; and
S. Lend use context.
In conclusion, the applicant/owner desires the proposed zoning changes
within the Monticello Commerce Center and beleives Monticello will benefit from
the diversity in zoning. Such diversity creates an "energy" and synergism;
diversity and "energy" nurtures identity and commerce. Schools, churches.
paries, housing, retail and employment opportunities all generate community
longevity and tax base. Successful communities cultivate a "sense of place"
and are self-sustaining.
'Ran zoning diversity, as requested, will provide for an array of uses which
will promote vitality and bring valuable opportunities to this important area
of Monticello. fie City has "guided" this area prudently. The Owner's of the
Monticello Commerce Center desire to participate in implementing the City's
plans. Me understand this is a long-term program and view this as a vital
first step.
Kindest regards.
M PRANK ROOS ASSOCIATES, INC.
1
J.
r
NO:jak
I
C5 �
APR -2S -SZ T H U 9:08 0 9'. 02
FN Northwest Associated Consultants, Inc.
I C UROAN PLAWNI NO • DESIGN• YAR K L T RESEARCH
PLANNING REPORT
TO: Jeff O'Neill
FROM: Hlizabeth Stockman/Stephen Grittman
DA:'E: 29 April 1993
R8: Monticello • Commerce Center Rezoning
OILS NO: 191.07 - 93.04
BACKGROUND
In January of 1992, a land use plan was adopted for the Chelsea
area, south of Interstate 94 and east ofState Highway 25, ao part
of the City's Comprehensive Plan. The project was initiated to
address developing land use conflicts in the area and provide a
means which the City could utilize to guide future development in
a coordinated and cohesive manner. The area is viewed as a unified
sub -region as well as a component of the larger community.
The basis for establishment of the land uses which were adopted
remains a valid part of the overall City plan and provides an
integral link between existing industrial and commercial
development, the School District property, residential
subdivisions, and future development upon now vacant lands. A
summary of the intent of each area, as shown in Sxhibit A, is
included as follows.
Heavy IndrlsUW
Heavy industrial soned land is bounded by major roadways which act
as a buffer sone around the district to maintain the visual Quality
of the exterior, while outdoor storage and primary activities are
allowed on the interior. Direct access is available to state and
interstate highways where highway business uses complement the
truck traffic and adjacent industry. The supply of available
parcels is sufficient to last well into the future.
5775 Wavzata Blvd • Sulte 52LEJoiAs Park NN 5.5416 ' (0 1,2) 898.9638•Fax. 898.9837
APR -29-903 T H U 9: 0 9 0 P. 0 E
Business Campus
The need for increased site develoyzwnt standards in industrial
areas, as well as the necessity to provide land uses compatible
with the School District property, lead to the designation of a
Business Campus District. A transition between the heavy
industrial land uses to the west and the residential uses to the
east provides added justification for this decision, while positive
visibility and vehicular circulation aspects further support it.
The long term supply of campus style deveINMtwith high
architectural and open space standards is viewed as an integral
portion of the comprehensive comnusnity plan. The increased site
Standards and subsequent escalated value have a direct impact on
the City's tax benefits and are intended to balance out lower
valued development which "consumes" more public services provided
to it than it "pays for" in property taxes.
Commercial
Land currently soned Highway and Regional Business within the City,
located predominantly along zaterstate 94 and Highway 15, is
intended to serve an extended clientele, attracting persons from
a the City and region. The Limited Business District, established
between the interstate and the school District property along
County Road 118, is intended to provide convenience and support
services for adjacent residential areae. The acreage of the 8•2
sone has been assigned based on the anticipated surrounding
development and service area.
The commercial districts coplement one another by satisfying a
specific need. The Limited Business area does not detract from the
Intent of the Regional and Highway Business core and does not
require a high visibilit7 location because it serves the
neighborhood rather than the traveling public or rest of the
community. while potential development of an interchange at County
Road 118 may occur, it would not affect the size or type of
cc= rcial buainses in this location from a land use planning
perspective.
A proposal to rescue a portion of the Chelsea area has been
submitted by Pfeffer Company, Inc.. The property is located
between the School District land Lad induetrial development to the
west and residentially soned land to the east. The request is
being pursued to establish the •Monticello Commerce Center". The
applicants wish to provide a varisty of commercial and industrial
APR -2S-93 T H U 9: 1 0 O
P.04
districts with plane of attracting all types of business clientele.
The subject property is currently zoned a combination of BC,
Business Campus, B -T, Limited Business, and R -PUD, Residential
Planned Unit Development as shown in Exhibit B.
MUO ANALYSTS
Comoreheaeive R1ea. The proposed resoning is an alteration of the
intent of the Chelsea Area Plan, which was adopted as part of the
City's Comprehensive Plan, given the types and locations of land
uses proposed. Any change in what was previously approved would
require an official amendment to the Comprehensive Plan, including
both written and graphic material.
Re ow nine. The property owners wish to rezone their land as shown
in Exhibit C to include a lesser arca of BC, Business Campus and B-
2, Limited Business while adding I-1, Light Industrial and B-3,
Highway Business, and reducing the area of R -PUD, Residential
Planned Unit Development. This raises concerns for several
reaeone:
1) Business Canipua versus Industrial. The decrease in business
campus land use and increase in industrial land use negates
the City's intent to provide a long term supply of business
campus property inclusive of high quality architectural and
open apace design. In this regard, the provision of remaining
business campus land in a •strip" arrangement along the
Chelsea corridor dilutes the benefits of a campus atmosphere,
as was achieved in the adopted plan through designation of a
larger contiguous area. one benefit of a campus type
arrangement is the assurance that land owners and adjacent
properties share the same desire to invest in high quality
architectural and site design.
While it is viewed as most advantageous if the majority of the
business campus area remains as currently zoned, it may be
gasible to provide the property owners with some alternative
or establishment of light industrial land. As shown in
Exhibit D, the provision of a small portion of light
industrial land fronting Fallon Avenue may provide Compatible
land use transition without disrupting the intent of the
Chelsea Area Plan.
2) Surrounding Area Vsee. The proposed industrial land uses
would create unnecessary conflict with the School District
property given the smaller lot sites which are proposed and
the lesser aeathetic requirements imposed as part of the I.1
District. While a buffer etrif hae beenprraCsed ae Dart of
the resonang r st, overall of eisee prim nave aeon
shown at reduced sizes when compared to the adopted Chelsea
1
APR -MV -S3 T H U 9: 1 0 0
P. 05
Area plan, which would bring buildings closer to the School
District land and increase overall area density. Also, in
association with minimal open space area on lots, the leaser
architectural and landscaping standards will be more
prominent.
3) Highway Business. The addition of a Highway Business District
in place of limited business park areae is viewed as
inappropriate in relation to the overall City goals. The
intent of the Chelsea Area plan was to maintain and promote
highway and regional businesses along the Highway 25 corridor,
while allowing only neighborhood, convenience, and/or support
commercial on a limited basis to serve adjacent residential
development. The 2.94/County Road 118 intersection, with its
limited visibility and access is not a prime location for
highway oriented development and would only detract from the
highway and regional development along State Highway 2S.
It could be possible, however, to achieve a compromias between
the City's needs and the property owners desires. The
location of limited business development on the west side of
County Road 110 as shown in Exhibit H, is not as critical as
is maintaining the same designation and approximate area of
such. In this regard, the City may opt to allow a change in
orientation at that intersection without being detrimental to
previous land use planning efforts.
4) aesideatial and park Land. Deletion of a portion of park and
residential land is proposed to provide additional area for 8-
7, Highway Business development on the east side of County
Road 118. For the same reasons se indicated in item 3) above,
the provision of B•7 land is viewed negatively. Secondly, the
elimination of park land may be in conflict with the City's
need for multi -use open space areas within the co=%nity and
does not allow for the parking of vehicles. Furthermore, the
extension of Chelsea Road across County Road lie to connect
with a local street system is unacceptable. In this scenario,
segregation between public/residential and commercial/
industrial uses is no longer achieved utilizing County Road
118, but rather invites truck traffic into residential and
public areas.
SUMMARY
The proposed rezoning of land within the Chelsea Area is being
requested to provide a business park capable of attracting varied
types of commercial and industrial uses. While the concept may be
reles
Movant, as may the financial and marketability aepecte also be,
the proposal donot coasider the City as a unified whole, but
rather attempts to provide diversity on a small scale and somewhat
APR -29-9E THU 9:11 0
P. O's
segregated manner. In this regard, the City must consider the
community's best interests while at the same time adequately
address the needs of the applicant. One of three options are
available:
1. Deny the rezoning proposal based on issues identified herein.
2. Approve the rezoning request based on the applicant's
proposal.
3. permit flexibility by allowing limited alterations to the
adopted Land Use plan in one or both or the following areas
(see Bxhibit D)t
a. Allow opportunity for light industrial development
fronting Fallon Avenue between the School District
property and Chelsea Road.
b. Allow opportunity for relocation of B-2 commercial uses
in one or more quadrants) of the County Road 118/1.91
intersection, provided the same area is maintained as
that approved as part of the adopted plan.
5
M
City of Monticello Chelsea Area land Use and Circulation Study
p
V
0
m
City of Monticello Chelsea Area land Use and Circulation Study
v
m
d
City of Monticello Chelsea Area Land Use and Circulation Study
Rh -
n --I
R�UD
i v
M
0
C
r
AP 30, 1993
CHANCES TO COMPREHENSIVE LAND USE F -.N NECESSARY TO SUPPORT PROPOSED ZONING DISTRICT A.,,LNDKENTS
City of Monticello
Chelsea Area Land Use and Circulation Study
Proposed Land Use
I — D".1 y Rsidmlul 11 t"t .1 .1 i,-1 El
KWDenmly Rhidmijl 13 Nnghb.h,.d C.—,.1 0
figh 11.gh—y
Ml -hi, I 1,-e Pj,k ighl
R—d—lul n
PU—d thrvt llw-k,pm nl
Se--Pub4C
FROM NEIGHBORHOOD COKMERCIAL
TO HIGHWAY COILMERCIAL
JFK-1011MI 7NsT1;t-TIONAI.
TO O "Ir
THIGHWAY ASD NEIGBORHOOD CORMERCIA1.
Planning Commission Agenda - 5/4/93
7. Consideration of a zoning ordinance amendment which would allow
a Dermit for Dromotional signaae/banner for 2 weeks out of every
month. or a total of 168 days a vear. AND
Consideration of a zoning ordinance amendment that would allow
Dromotional signage/banner to bear an advertising message. including
Droduct and Dricing. AND
Consideration of a zoning ordinance amendment that would allow for
an annual permit fee of $28 Jo cover Dermittina costa associated with
Dromotionai slanave fees. ADDlicant 9 local businesses. (J.0.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
As you recall, at the previous regular meeting of the Planning Commission, the
Commission directed City staff to prepare an ordinance amendment that would
allow promotional or advertising banners to be displayed for a period of 40
consecutive days versus the present limit of 20 consecutive days. In addition,
it was the view of the Planning Commission that the permitting fee should be
changed from $5 per permit to $5 per permit or $25 per year, whichever is less.
Planning Commission directed staff to adjust the zoning ordinance in
accordance with the suggested changes above.
Following is a review of each ordinance amendment request followed by
suggested action.
CONSIDERATION OF A ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT THAT
WOULD ALLOW PROMOTIONAL SIGNAGE/BANNER TO BEAR AN
ADVERTISING MESSAGE, INCLUDING PRODUCT AND PRICING
After closer review of the ordinance, it was discovered that this amendment is
unnecessary because a banner which carries a specific message is permissible.
According to our ordinance, a banner, when reviewed and approved as a
portable sign in conjunction with the proper permitting process, is defined as
"fabric, paper, vinyl or other similar material which carries a suecific mes�agg
and which can be hung on a wall, facade, awning, canopy, suspension cable or
wire, etc."
The confusion around this issue results from language under the general
provisions section of the ordinance which states that a decorative attention -
getting device may "bear the name of a business but ehall not bear any service,
product, price, etc., or advertising message." Under the special pennitting
process, a banner is not considered an attention -getting device. It is
considered to be a portable sign. Therefore, a specific message can be placed
on a banner, and there is no need to amend the ordinance.
Planning Commission Agenda - 5/4/93
CONSIDERATION OF A ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT THAT
WOULD ALLOW FOR AN ANNUAL PERMIT FEE OF $25 TO COYER
PERMITTING COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH PROMOTIONAL SIGNAGE
FEES
Under the present ordinance, there is a one-time annual fee of $5 to cover the
20 -day period proposed for display of the portable signstbanners. It is
suggested that no changes be made to this particular requirement, which
requires that a business owner submit a single application for a portable sign
or banner.
The current ordinance requires that an application form be used to identify
particular times of the year that the portable sign will be in use. Obviously,
it may be difficult for a business owner to say exactly when and how long each
banner will be displayed during the 40 -day period allowed.
It is proposed that the ordinance and associated process for administering the
permitting process he changed to require that the applicant simply keep a
daily log of banner use. From time to time, the Building Inspector can spot
check individual businesses to make sure that they are documenting the days
in which the sign is displayed. The form would be used to identify the type of
banner displayed and document each day that the banner is up. Once a total
of 40 days have been used, the banner can no longer be displayed tit the
location identified in the annual permit.
As a clarification to the existing ordinance, it should be noted that the
ordinance provides for two permitting processes for special events signs. One
permitting process is for portable signs, which includes banners, and the other
process includes permitting for decorative attention -getting devices. Attention -
getting devices are permitted on an individual event basis for a maximum
period of 10 days with a minimum period of 180 days between consecutive
issuance of such permits for any property or parcel. There are no changes
proposed that would affect this provision. Attention -getting devices, of course,
include items such as search lights, streamers, spirals, pennants, etc. The
permit process for this type of advertising would remain unchanged.
CONSIDERATION OF A ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT WHICH
WOULD ALLOW A PERMIT FOR PROMOTIONAL SIGNAGEIBANNER
FOR 2 WEEKS OUT OF EVERY MONTH OR FOR A TOTAL OF 168
DAYS A YEAR
This heading is the original request submitted by the applicants. The
Planning Commission reviewed this request at the previous meeting and
indicated that it made more sense to simply increase the number of days that
a Kanner or portable sign would be allowed. As you can gee in the attached
amendment to the zoning ordinance, a simple change was inserted which
increases the number of days allowed for display of a banner from 20 days to
40 days.
Planning Commission Agenda - 5/4/93
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
Motion to approve an ordinance amendment which would allow portable
signs to be displayed for a maximum period of 40 days per calendar year
and would amend the portable sign administration process.
Under this alternative, Planning Commission is comfortable with the
proposed increase in the amount of time available for display of banners.
Planning Commission is comfortable that the increase as proposed will
not result in excessive cluttering and is consistent with the intent and
purpose of the sign ordinance.
It should be noted that businesses such as Marquette Bank Monticello
have 40 days available for banners and portable signs. Other
organizations using the property as a site for their sign will be reducing
the days available for the bank itself to display banners, etc. In the
past, we have been granting 20 -day periods for any organization to have
a portable sign at any site. By limiting each site to 40 days, the City
can eliminate the use of certain properties as a permanent location for
serial temporary signs.
Motion to deny approval of proposed zoning ordinance amendment.
Under this alternative, Planning Commission is not comfortable with
the proposed amendment and takes the view that increasing the amount
of time available for banners will result in an undue proliferation of
banners and will diminish the value of the existing sign system and will
not result in added benefit to commercial enterprise.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
City staff recommends that the Planning Commission increase the amount of
time available for banners and portable signs; however, we are not certain that
doubling the amount of time available is appropriate. We would prefer that
the increase be somewhat less than 40 days. We also feel that we can develop
a method for monitoring the use of banners and portable signs through
development of a permit form that must be kept up to date by businesses using
banners and spot checked by the Building Inspector. Finally, we believe that
the changes as proposed by staff are the only amendments necessary to
accomplish the goals as identified by the business owners. Finally, the
proposed amendment will apply to portable signs and banners only. The
provisions for limiting attention -getting devices to no more than 10 consecutive
days is not changed by the ordinance amendment us proposed.
SUPPORTING DATA:
Copy of proposed ordinance amendment; Copy of banner/portable sign permit
form. Please see agenda supplement provided with previous regular meeting
agenda.
C ORDINANCE AMENDMENT NO.
THE CITY COUNCIL OF MONTICELLO, MINNESOTA, HEREBY ORDAINS
THAT CHAPTER 3 OF THE MONTICELLO ZONING ORDINANCE BE
AMENDED BY AMENDING THE FOLLOWING SECTION PERTAINING TO
SIGN& LANGUAGE DELETED IS UNDERLINED; LANGUAGE ADDED IS
NOTED IN PARENTHESIS:
3-9: [CJ 4 (a): An annual pennit for portable signs, as defined herein,
shall be granted for a maximum period of twenty (forty)
days per calendar year. As a condition of the annual
permit, applicant shall maintain a daily record of the use
of portable signs on a form provided by the City.
Adopted this 10th day of May, 1993.
City Administrator
C
Mayor
CITY OF MONTICELLO
ANNUAL PORTABLE SIGNIBANNER
APPLICATION/PERMIT FORM
The following information and associated form is used to assist City staff in administering City regulations
ith regard to portable signs and banners. Please review the following information and complete the form
. ccordingly:
Each permit is valid for remaining length of the calendar year.
The "Applicant" is defined as the owner of the site on which the sign will be placed. Or, in the case of
multiple businesses located on one property, an applicant is defined as each individual business. Also in
the case of multiple business location on one property, the Association of said businesses is eligible for an
annual permit. Each applicant (property) is limited to 40 days in which a portable sign/banner can be
displayed.
Below is a log sheet which must be used to identify actual days that a portable sign or banner is displayed.
For each day that a banner is displayed, a corresponding entry on the log sheet must be made. No contact,
with city hall is necessary when changing banners. Simply identify each banner and the days displayed
throughout the course of the year.
This form must be kept in an accessible place and available for review by City staff at any time during
normal working hours. Failure to maintain an accurate log sheet may result in the City rescinding the
annual permit.
Al such time that 40 days have been used or at the end of the year, please return this form or a copy of it
to City staff for our files.
have reviewed city regulations pertaining to portable signs and banners. 1 recognize that this permit
allows me to display a portable sign or banner on my property for a maximum of 40 days per calendar year.
Furthermore, I hereby agree to maintain a daily account of the use of banners on my property. If I fail to
keep such an accounting, 1 will not object to the City rescinding my permit, and I will not object to having
a City employee enter my property to remove banners or portable signs.
Applicant/Property, Owner:
Address:
Phone Number: Date of Application:
Applicant Signature
(For City Use Only)
THIS PERMIT IS APPROVED THIS DAY OF , 10_
FEE: $5.00
F 'ECEIPT 0 City of Monticello
SIGNBAN.APP: 4/30/93 Page 1 .
(7,
PORTABLE SIGN/BANNER LOG SHEET
Day Date BWMr-O oesC"- IrdfiW
1
2
8
4
5
8
7
8
9
10
11
12
18
14
18
18
17
18
19
20
21
22
29
24
25
28
27
28
28
SO
91
32
99
94
35
98
97
98
98
40
SIDNBAN.APP: 90 -Apr -09
Planning Commission Agenda - 5/4/93
B. Consideration of petition for extension of conditional use permit
allowina a public works building in a PZM zone. Applicant. Citv of
Monticello. 0.0.1
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
The City of Monticello Public Works Department requests that the City
consider granting an extension of time in which to complete the improvements
to the public works facility. According to the city ordinance, whenever within
one year after granting a conditional use permit the work as permitted by the
permit shall not have been completed, then such permit shall become null and
void unless a petition for extension of time in which to complete the work has
been granted by the City Council.
As you know, the conditional use permit granted almost a year ago included
plana for development of the entire site, which included three phases of
construction. The phase completed this past year included only the first phase:
therefore, the site has not been completely developed as outlined in the original
conditional use permit. In order to maintain the status of the site as having
an approved conditional use permit, it is evident that an extension to the
conditional use permit granted a year ago needs to be considered for extension
by the Planning Commission and City Council.
B. ALTERNATIVE. ACTIONS:
1. Motion to grant a one-year extension to the conditional use permit
allowing the public works facility to he constructed in a P7,M zone.
2. Motion to deny an extension to the conditional use permit allowing
construction of a public works facility in a IIZM zone.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of the conditional use permit extension. The site
is being developed in accordance with the original conditional use permit
granted. Tree installation has occurred as required under the conditional use
permit, and other site amenities have been installed, which has resulted in a
neater, cleaner, more efficient facility than that which was present prior to
development of the first phase. Extension of the conditional use permit as
proposed will enable the second phase of the facility to be constructed as
planned under the original conditional use permit request.
D, SUPPORTING DAM:
None.