Planning Commission Agenda Packet 07-06-1993AGENDA
REGULAR MEETING - MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION
Tuesday, July 8, 1893 - 7 pm.
Members: Cindy Lemm, Richard Martie, Jon Bogart, Richard Carlson, and Brian
Stumpf
7:00 pm 1.
Call to order.
7:02 pm 2.
Approval of minutes of the regular meeting held June 1, 1993.
7:04 pm 3.
Public Hearing—A variance request to allow the development of
a temporary employee parking lot with no curb, gutter, or hard
surfacing. Applicant, Buffalo Clinic Building Partnership.
7:24 pm 4.
Public Hearing -•A conditional use request to allow an auto body
shop repair building in a 13-3 (highway business) zone. Applicant,
John Johnson.
7:44 pm b.
Continued Public Hearing --A conditional use request to allow
commercial storage contained entirely within a building in a B-3
(highway business) zone. A variance request to allow no curbing
or hard surfacing of the off-street parking and driveway areas.
Applicant, Glen Posusta.
ADDITIONAL. INFORMATION ITEMS
8:14 pm 1.
Consideration of a request to amend the Monticello Tuning
Ordinance which would modify the regulations governing signs as
follows: 3.11CI(b), modify the ordinance to allow a permit for
promotional signage for 2 weeks of every month or for a total of
188 days each year, 3-91CI(h), modify the ordinance which would
state that the promotional signage may hear an advertising
message including product and pricing; 3.91F1(e), modify the
ordinance W allow for an annual permit fee of $25 to cover
advertising signage. Applicant, 9 local husinesses. Council
action: Approved a total of 40 days in a calendar year for the
placement of 2 banners or 1 portable sign per private property
with an annual permit fee of $.ri.
Planning Commission Agenda
July 6, 1993
Page 2
8:16 pm 2. Conditional use request to allow commercial storage contained
entirely within a building in a 13-3 (highway business) zone. A
variance request to allow no curbing or hard surfacing of the off-
street parking and driveway areas. Applicant, Glen Posusta.
Council action: No action required, as the request did not come
before them.
8:18 pm 3. Consideration of amendments to the zoning map of Monticello
proposed in conjunction with the development of the Monticello
Commerce Center. Applicant, Monticello Industrial Park, Inc.
Council action: Allowed the opportunity for light industrial
development fronting along Fallon Avenue at a depth of 400 feet
between the School District property and a point 300 feet south
of Chelsea Road.
8:20 pm 4. Consideration of amendments to the City of Monticello
Comprehensive Land Use Plan. Amendments are proposed in
(� conjunction with the request fir zoning district boundary changes.
Applicant, Monticello Industrial Park, Inc. Council action:
Denied as per Planning Commission recommendation.
8:22 pm 6. Set the nest tentative date for the Monticello Planning
Commission meeting for Tuesday, August 3, 1993, at 7 p.m.
8:24 pm 6. Adjournment.
MINUTES
REGULAR MEETING - MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION
Tuesday, June 1, 1993 - 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
The meeting was called to order by Chairperson Cindy Lemm at 7:01 p.m.
2. A motion was made by Brian Stumpf and seconded by Richard Martie to
approve the minutes of the special meeting held April 26, 1993. Motion carried
unanimously.
3. A motion was made by Richard Carlson and seconded by Jon Bogart to approve
the minutes of the regular meeting held May 4, 1993, with the following
changes:
Regarding the motion on item Ito, "motion carried unanimously
with Brian Stumpf absent" should be changed to "motion carried
unanimously with Brian Stumpf and Cindy Lemm absent."
On page 3 of the minutes, third paragraph from the bottom, it
states "Jon Bogart felt that there should be some type of 1-1
zoning next to Fallon Avenue." This should be restated to "Jon
Bogart felt that there should be some type of mixed zoning next
to Fallon Avenue."
These would be the only changes. Motion carried unanimously.
4. Continued Public Henrine--Consideration of a reauest to amend the Monticello
7.gpina Ordinance which wopld M914V the regulations governing signs as
follows: 3.1 [Cl(bl;. odifv the ordl'nnnce to Amy it permit for promotional
signage for 2 weeks of every month or for a total of 168 days each vear: 3-
9[Cl(h): Modify the ordinance that would state that promotional signage may
bg{►in.1 ndvertisinq mepsage, inciuding product and pricing: 3-91F](e): Modify
jhe ordinapco p nllow for arl annum permit fee of %25 to rover advertising and
signage. Applicant. 9 local businesses.
Jeff O'Neill, Assistant Administrator, updated Planning Commission members
on the applicants' request. He expressed his disappointment in the lack of
input on the matter from the applicants.
Page I of 6 ;�
Planning Commission Minutes - 6/1/93
Cindy then opened the public hearing portion of the meeting
Mr. Don Grewe, representing the original 9 applicants, explained that there
wasn't a lack of interest by the local businesses. The word out is that the
Planning Commission denied their request for the 168 total days and that a
new proposal was up for consideration.
O'Neill commented on the number of public hearing notices that were
published and sent to the affected businesses in the City of Monticello.
Mr. Grewe commented on the existing sign ordinance as they have nothing
now, the City is telling them how to run their businesses, charging for permits
to put up portable signs and banners.
Cindy Lemon asked Grewe if the Planning Commission should act on the
original request or consider a compromise. Grewe requested that the Planning
Commission act on the original request.
There being no further input from the public, Cindy Lemon then closed the
public hearing and opened the meeting for further input from the Planning
Commission members. Comments from the Planning Commission members
are as follows:
1. 168 days is too many and 20 days not enough.
2. Set a nominal fee, suggesting $5/year vs. $25/year.
There being no further input from the Planning Commission members, a
motion was made by Jon Bogart and seconded by Richard Marcie to deny the
request to amend the Monticello Zoning Ordinance which would modify the
regulations governing signs as follows: 3.1[Cl(b): Modify the ordinance to
allow a permit for promotional signage for 2 weeks of every month or for a
total of 168 days each year, 3.9[F)(e): Modify the ordinance to allow for an
annual permit fee of $25 dollars to cover advertising and signage. Motion
carried unanimously.
Finding of Fact: The 168 days is too excessive. And also, following the
recommendation of the Consulting Planners Report December 12, 1992.
b. Public Henrine••A copliitiounl pqe reaucat tn pllow tnmrpercial storage
contained entirely vrithin a buildina in n B-3 (hiahwaX business) zone. A
vanapgo reaucst to allow qp curbina or hard surfncine of the off-street narking
and drivewav arens. Aaalicnnt. Glen Posusta.
Jeff O'Neill, Assistant Administrator, commented that Mr. Posusta's plans
were not complete at this time. The finalization of the plans will hopefully he
complete by the next Planning Commission meeting.
Pago 2 of 5
Planning Commission Minutes - 6/1/93
Therefore, a motion was made by Richard Martie and seconded by Richard
Carlson to table the conditional use request to allow commercial storage
contained entirely within a building in a B-3 (highway business) zone. A
variance request to allow no curbing or hard surfacing of the off-street parking
and driveway areas. Motion carried unanimously.
6. Continued Public Hearing --Consideration of amendments to the zoning map of
Monticello proposed in coniunction with development of the Monticello
Commerce Center. AND
7. Continued Public Hearing --Consideration of amendments to the City of
Monticello Comprehensive Land Use Plan. Amendments are Dr000sed in
eoniunction with the request for zoning district boundary changes. Applicant,
Monticello Industrial Park, Inc,
Jeff O'Neill commented on the preparation of the assemblance of the data from
the original zoning to the existing zoning as it is today. The IDC, Industrial
Development Committee, is recommending allowing an 1.1 zoning strip
running parallel with Fallon Avenue. The depth of the strip to be determined
by the Planning Commission and City Council.
Cindy Lemm then opened the public hearing.
Charlie Pfeffer commented on the changes to his original two requests and
they are as follows:
1. Eliminate the B-2 zoning east of County Road 118.
2. Move the I-1 zoning line cast to 1,320 feet back of the center line of
Fallon Avenue.
The balance of the zoning would be business campus zoning coming up to the
B-2 zoning just west of the intersection of Chelsea Road and County Road 118.
The area east of County Road 118 would go hack to the residential PUD
zoning.
Mr. Pfeffer commented on the enhancements of the BC zoning with the
breakup of the building materials on the exterior walls of not more than 80%
of one product and the additional 30% green area required. The research has
not found that it exists in today's market for these types of amenities for a
prospective industry to relocate here in Monticello.
O'Neill noted that businesses recently developed here such as NAWCO,
Tappers Inc., Remmele Engineering, and Barger would all fit the BC zone;
therefore, there is a market for BC zoned property.
Page 3 of 5 `�.
Planning Commission Minutes - 6/1/93
Dennis Taylor commented that the City should create a combination of
business campus zoning on the other side of the freeway also that being the
Hoglund property on the north side of the freeway from this property, as this
is the only area in Monticello with BC zoning.
Cindy Lemm then closed the public hearing and opened the meeting for any
further comments from the Planning Commission members. The Planning
Commission members were trying to come up with an acceptable amount of BC
zoning to be left with the I-1 zoning as proposed.
There being no further input from the Planning Commission members, a
motion was made by Richard Carlson and seconded by Jon Bogart to amend
the zoning map to reflect a change in the BC (business campus) zoning as
follows: The easterly 900 ft. between the school district property and a point
300 ft. south of Chelsea Road. The balance of the property to remain BC
zoning as will the B-2 west of County Road 118 and north of Chelsea Road and
the property east of County Road 118 that being R -PUD (residential planned
unit development). Portions of the rezoning request that were denied were
denied based on findings outlined in the Planners report and based on the
finding that the proposed rezoning is not consistent with the comprehensive
plan. The motion carried unanimously.
Additional Information Items
1. Consideration of a variance request to allow development of a driveway within
the 5 -ft minimum setback area. Applicant, Monticello -Big Lake Community
Hospital. Council action: Approved as per Planning Commission
recommendation.
2. Consideration of a variance request to the front yard setback requirement that
would allow construction of a canopy over the clinic entrance. Applicant,
Monticello -Big Lake Community Hospital. Council action: Approved as per
Planning Commission recommendation.
3. Consideration of amendments to the zoning map of Monticello proposed in
conjunction with the development of the Monticello Commerce Center.
Applicant, Monticello Industrial Park, Inc. Council action: No action required,
as the request did not come before them.
4. Consideration of amendment to the City of Monticello Comprehensive Land
Use Plan. Amendments are proposed in conjunction with the request for
zoning district'boundory changes. Applicant, Monticello Industrial Park, Inc.
Council action: No action required, as the request did not come before them.
Pago 4 of 5
Planning Commission Minutes - 6/1/93
5. Consideration of a zoning ordinance amendment allowing banners and portable
signs to be displayed 40 days per year. Council action: No action required, as
the request did not come before them.
6. Consideration of a petition for extension of conditional use permit allowing a
public works building in a PZM zone. Applicant, City of Monticello. Council
action: No action required, as the request did not come before them.
7. Set the next tentative date for the Monticello Planning Commission meeting
for Tuesday, July 6, 1993, at 7 p.m. Consensus of the five Planning
Commission members present was to set Tuesday, July 6, 1993, at 7 p.m. as
the next date for the Monticello Planning Commission meeting.
8. Adjournment. A motion was made by Richard Martie and seconded by Brian
Stumpf to adjourn the meeting. Motion carried unanimously. The meeting
adjourned at 9:23 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Gary Anderson
Zoning Administrator
Page 5 of 6 )
Planning Commission Agenda - 7/6/93
3. Public Hearin¢ --Consideration of a variance request to allow the
development of a temoorpry emulovee parkin lot with no curb.
guster, or hard surfacing. Location is Bloci; 1, iot 2. Sandberg South
Addition. Aonlicant. Buffalo Clinic Buildina Partnership. W.O.1
REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
The Buffalo Clinic Building Partnership requests that the City grant a
variance to the parking lot design standards in order to allow for development
of a temporary parking area. The parking area is intended to serve employee
parking and is proposed for construction in anticipation of development of an
addition to the building. The temporary parking area will be rough graded and
class V gravel will be used as a base for the parking area. The temporary
parking area will be in the same location as the future long-term parking area
when the future addition is constructed.
This situation is somewhat unique, as the Hart Clinic already has sufficient
parking to meet city code. The temporary parking developed will he surplus
parking that will be used by employees only.
13. AI.TFRNATIVE ACTIONS:
Motion to deny a variance allowing development of a temporary
employee parking lot without curb, gutter, or hard surfacing.
Under this alternative, the Planning Commission could take the view
that since the temporary parking area is going to he in a location of the
permanent parking area, it does not make sense to waive our normal
standards. The City has no guarantee that the temporary parking
would he upgraded to meet city standards. By allowing the temporary
parking to occur without meeting the standards under the premise that
it will he upgraded to meet city requirements in the future sets fairly
significant precedent. Obviously, there will he others that will request
this type of allowance in the future if the City grants it in this case.
Motion to grant the variance allowing development of it temporary
employee parking lot with no curb and gutter or hard surfacing.
Planning Commission could take the position that the request is
reasonable and that there is sufficient assurance that the parking lot
will he ultimately developed to meet city standards; therefore, a
variance could he granted which would allow short-term use of a
parking area that does not meet city standards. Perhaps under this
Planning Commission Agenda • 7/6/93
alternative, the Planning Commission may wish to put a deadline for
completion of the parking area and/or request that the property owner
provide a performance bond in the amount equal to complete the
parking area as a guarantee to the City that the parking lot will be
completed to meet city requirements within a certain time frame.
Another factor which might encourage the Planning Commission to
grant approval is the fact that the clinic has sufficient parking area for
patrons and that the temporary parking area would be used by
employees only. Planning Commission could take the view that since
the clinic provides the full requirement for parking, it does not impair
the intent of the ordinance to allow additional surplus parking that does
not meet city standards. The fact that a full complement of parking
spaces is available at the clinic and the substandard parking area is
temporary for employees only will serve to mitigate the precedent that
is set. Future applicants cannot point to this situation as a precedent
unless the applicant already has met the hard surface parking
requirement.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve the variance
allowing the temporary parking area to he constructed based on the finding
that the variance does not impair the intent of the ordinance because the clinic
already has parking area sufficient to meet city requirements. It is our view
that Planning Commission should set a deadline for completion of the parking
area and require that signs be posted at the entrance to the temporary parking
that it is for employees only. It is our opinion that the term of the variance
should not exceed one year.
SUPPORTING DATA:
Copy of site plan showing proposed temporary parking area.
11*
11
pgRT J (2>.S p Apfgox•'1
L.v`c ® SAepe R �� S�bgaafe T
$a,ra
Q Plaed RioFAO el.
c5
f ajrr.9 TP$O;l T
leige o� CRq�e! S.+R�aoe i
1 QR4i�+eCF 1
for
Saozaeag Roel
Planning Commission Agenda - 7/6/93
4. Public Hearing—Consideration of al conditional use request to allow an
auto bodv shoo repair building in a B-3 (highway businessl zone.
Location is Block 2, Part of Lgt 4. Sandberg South Addition in the city
of Monticello. Annlleant. John Johnson. W.0. )
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
This request is nearly identical to the conditional use permit request
considered by the Planning Commission on April 8, 1992. As some of you on
the Planning Commission may recall, a zoning ordinance amendment was also
necessary in cort unction with the issuance of the conditional use permit. Due
to the fact that the applicant did not complete construction allowed under the
conditional use permit within one year, it is necessary to bring this item back
before the Planning Commission. Unless the present Planning Commission
disagrees with the findings made by the Planning Commission in April 1992,
it is recommended that the Planning Commission take the same action as
taken in April 1992 when it recommended approval of the conditional use
permit.
Following you will find the agenda supplement provided to the Planning
Commission in April 1992. Also included is a copy of the minutes of both the
Planning Commission and the subsequent City Council meeting. Gary
Anderson will detail at the meeting any of the minor changes to the site plan
that may have occurred since the original conditional use permit was granted.
CI�
Planning Commission Agenda - 4/8/92 �
5. Public Hearing --Consideration of conditional use request to
allow auto body shop repair in a B-3 (highway business) zone.
Applicant, John Johnson. (G.A.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
John Johnson, owner of Monticello Auto Body, is proposing to
build a building to be leased out to another company that does
automobile pin striping and automotive visor and automotive
sunroof installation. City staff interpreted that proposed
use of this building, even though it's not auto body repair,
at some point in time could be occupied by Monticello Auto
Body or some type of auto body shop repair. That is why we
are proposing that Mr. Johnson go through the conditional use
permit to allow this building to be built and this use to
operate in a B-3 (highwy business) zone.
Please note that in April, 1989, the City amended the
ordinance to allow auto body shops in the B-3 zone as a
conditional use. The city went on to award Mr. Johnson a
conditional use permit with the same conditions as noted
below. Johnson, however, did not follow through and develop
his property. The new application is, therefore, virtually a
repeat of a previous matter considered and approved by the
Planning Commission.
There are ten conditions that apply to the auto body shop
repair:
1. The door opening to the service area of the garage must
not face the street frontage. The doors will not face
the street.
2. The vehicle storage area is limited to 50% of the floor
space of the structure housing the auto body shop. There
will be no outside storage.
3. All vehicles being serviced and all vehicle parts must be
stored inside or in a vehicle storage area. All work
performed and all parte will be within the confines of
the proposed building.
4. Vehicle storage area shall be enclosed by enclosure
intended to screen the view of vehicles in storage from
the outside. Enclosure shall consist of a six foot high,
100% opaque fence designed to blend with the auto body
shop structure and consist of materials treated to resist
discoloration. There will be no outside vehicle storage
area.
0®40
Planning Commission Agenda - 4/8/97 �
5. Floor area of the vehicle storage area shall consist of
asphalt or concrete paving. There will be no vehicle
storage outside and no hard surfacing required.
6. No work on vehicles or vehicle parts shall be conducted
outside of the confines of the auto body shop. All work
will be done inside the confines of the building.
7. The advertising wall facing the public right-of-way shall
consist of no more than 50% metal material. The
applicant is proposing a different type of material on
the front portion of the building.
B. The secondary or non -advertising wall facing the public
right-of-way shall utilize a combination of colors or
materials to serve to break up the monotony of the single
color flat surface. The applicant is proposing to
address this requirement through a combination of colors
or materials.
Development shall conform to the minimum parking and
landscaping requirements of the zoning ordinance. The
parking requirements are met for this use on this parcel
of land. The landscaping requirements will be submitted
before building permit application and will be reviewed
at that time for compliance to the minimum landscaping
requirements.
10. No conditional use permit shall be granted for an auto
body shop within 600 feet of a residential or PZM zone
existing at the time that the conditional use is granted.
Proposed use is not within 600 feet of a residential or
PZN zone.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. To approve the conditional use request to allow auto body
shop repair in a B-3 (highway business) zone with
applicant complying with all ten conditions under auto
body shop repair.
This alternative is consistent with action taken on the
application made in April, 1989.
Z. To approve the conditional use request to allow auto body
shop repair in a B-3 (highway business) zone.
3. Deny the conditional use request to allow auto body shop
repair in a 8-3 (highway business) zone.
O®
Planning Commission Agenda - 0/8/94 ��
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
City staff recommends approval of the conditional use request
to allow auto body shop repair in this B-3 (highway business)
location. The applicant must comply with all ten conditions
as noted under the auto body shop repair.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Site plan for Parcel B/proposed auto body repair shop; Floor
plan for the proposed auto body repair shop; Front and side
view elevations of the proposed auto body repair shop; Zoning
ordinance Section 13-11, P.
65,
pMpond~
'ft'ad J
l j1 TAYLOR LAND SWEEW
-i19 -*Eii s70w4m. P.O. go,
MONTICELLO. MVWQWrA W,
PROW (612129!•3308
el
��J
(P] Auto body shop repair provided that:
1. Door opening to service area garage must not face
street frontage.
Z. Vehicle storage area limited to 50% of floor space
of the structure housing the auto body shop.
3. All vehicles being serviced and all vehicle parts
must be stored inside or in vehicle storage area.
4. Vehicle storage area shall be enclosed by enclosure
intended to screen the view of vehicles in storage
from the outside. Enclosure shall consist of a
six-foot high, 100% opaque fence designed to blend
with the auto body shop structure and consisting of
materials treated to resist discoloration.
5. The floor of the vehicle storage area shall consist
of asphalt or concrete paving.
6. No work on vehicles or vehicle parts shall be
conducted outside the confines of the auto body
shop. t
7. The advertising wall facing the public right-of-way
shall consist of no more than 50% metal material.
B. The secondary or non -advertising wall facing a
public right-of-way shall utilize a combination of
colors or materials that serve to break up the
monotony of a single color flat surface.
9. The development shall conform to minimum parking
and landscaping requirements of the zoning
ordinance.
10. No conditional use permit shall be granted for an
auto body shop within 600 feet of a residential or
PZM zone existing at the time the conditional use
permit is granted. (#175, 4/14/09)
NONTICELLO ZONING ORDINANCE
Planning Commission Minutes - 4/8/92
5. Public Hearinq--A conditional use request to allow auto body
repair shop in a B-3 (highwav business) zone. Applicant, John
Johnson.
Gary Anderson, Zoning Administrator, explained Mr. Johnson's
request to construct a building with an auto body related use,
but it would be of the nature of an automobile detailing shop,
one that installs pin striping on automobiles, sun roofs,
visors, and other auto accessory related items. Gary Anderson
reviewed the ten conditions associated with the conditional
use permit. Kr. Johnson indicated that the site would comply
with all ten conditions.
Acting Chairperson, Cindy Lemm, then opened the public
hearing.
Mr. Jeffrey Wallace, partner in the new Hart Memorial Clinic
project just north of this proposed project site, explained
that he was not opposed to the project but wanted the minimum
requirements of the ordinance to be met with no variances or
deviations from the ordinance with this request.
O'Neill further reiterated to the public that Mr. Johnson was
Intending to develop it according to the minimum requirements
of the ordinance, which includes the ten conditions that are
listed under the conditional use permit.
Mr. Johnson addressed the building's location on the proposed
site, with the walls of the proposed building to be vinyl
siding and a breakup of vinyl siding with other sidings so as
not to be dissimilar with the other buildings that have been
constructed in this area.
Acting Chairperson, Cindy Lemm, then closed the public hearing
and asked for further comments from Planning Commission
members.
Commission members felt that the proposed use, even though it
is leas than what the use would be if there was an auto body
repair shop there, had been thoroughly reviewed previously,
and the ordinance amendment, along with the ten conditions, is
very appropriate for this use also.
There being no further input from the Planning Commission, a
motion was made by Richard Martie and seconded by Richard
Carlson to approve the conditional use request to allow auto
body repair shop in a B-3 (highway business) zc^n. Notion is
to include that the applicant develop his site according to
all ten conditions included under the conditional use permit
with an additional condition that approval is for Parcel B
only. Motion is based on the finding that the proposed
development is consistent with the character of the B-3
district. Motion carried unanimously. �/
0,
f Council Minutes - 4/13/92
Consideration of a conditional use request to allow auto body
repair shop in a 8-3 (highwav business) zone. Applicant, John
Johnson.
Assistant Administrator O'Neill informed Council that John
Johnson, owner of Monticello Auto Body, is proposing to build
a structure to be leased to another company that does
automobile pinstriping and automotive accessory installations.
Staff interpreted the activity as being akin to auto body
repair, which is allowed as a conditional use in the B-3 zone.
O'Neill reviewed the ten conditions outlined by ordinance that
must be complied with in order for an auto body shop to
operate in a B-3 zone.
John Johnson was present and noted that the site and operation
would comply with all the conditions as noted.
After discussion, a motion was made by Brad Pyle and seconded
by Dan Blonigen to approve the conditional use request to
allow an auto body repair shop in a B-3 zone with the
applicant complying with all ten conditions under the section
of the zoning ordinance allowing auto repair shops to operate
in a B-3 zone as a conditional use. Motion carried
unanimously.
C
''-- 5m5o'o2'eno
Easement
am
10
SO' Base
PARCEL A so,
0.3443 Actit
,AA
It
00,
14r' INK
Opaq ad Note 1)
hG A 41 4 -In
Gat it Water R=124.02' 55
A CH-38-04-
Prcip�owg Min. Setback
Z.
fol -0. 588*01,'31"E 141.01' Proposed Drainage # UtilitV Ea6emamt
Protiosed Min Setback
9
^ � o
Planning Commission Agenda - 7/6/93
Continued Public Hearina—A conditional use request to allow
commercial sforaae contained entirely within a building in a B-3
Shighwav business) zone. A variance reguest to allow no curbing or
hard surfacing of the off-street narkina and drivewav areas.
Auulicant. Glen Posusta. (J.O.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND
At the previous meeting of the Planning Commission, the Planning
Commission continued the public hearing pending development of additional
information regarding development of the site. Unfortunately, the Planning
Commission may not yet be in position to make a decision with regard to this
conditional use permit request, as the request has been complicated by the fact
that the location of the property conflicts with the future alignment of Cedar
Street. As you can see in the attached raspy of the comprehensive plan, the
comprehensive plan shows Cedar Street being extended from its present
termination point at Dundas southward along and parallel to Highway 25. In
addition to being extended southward beyond Dundas, the comprehensive plan
also shows a realignment of Cedar Street just north of the present intersection
of Cedar Street and Dundas. The present Cedar Street alignment is
problematic because it is not parallel to 25 and, therefore, meets Highway 25
at an awkward angle, which results in odd -shaped lots and awkward
intersections. In order to achieve the highest and best use of the land adjacent
to Highway 25 and establish the best possible design for the intersection of
Highway 25 and Dundas and the nearby intersection of Cedar Street and
Dundas, it is imperative that the Posusta site design incorporate the proper
realignment of Cedar Street.
As noted earlier, the property owned by Posusta is located south of Dundas but
directly in line with the future alignment of the Cedar Street right-of-way.
Therefore, in order for Pususta's conditional use permit to he approvable, it
must show where Cedar Street will pass through the Posusta property. Please
note that the City will need to compensate Posusta for the land area taken
with the extension of Cedar Street.
At the City Council meeting held June 28, 1993, City Council was given an
update on the topic. City Council members made some general observations
relative to the site. It was their view that the best alignment would bring
Cedar Street through the center of the Posusta property. As you can see, this
alternative, though most efficient in terms of design and traffic flow, will have
the most impact on Posusta's property. City Council alm) saw the importance
of contacting all of the property owners affected by the future realignment.
Planning Commission Agenda - 7/6/93
Staff was directed to prepare alternatives for review by affected property
owners. Staff was also directed to identify the cost associated with two or
three different alignments.
It was also mentioned by some Council members that Posusta's request that
the City waive the hard surfacing requirement would not likely be acceptable.
At the Planning Commission meeting, 1 hope to review the various possible
alignments and get feedback from the Planning Commission as to the preferred
route. It is hoped that an agreement between the City and Posusta can be
arrived as to what the proper location should he for the roadway. Comments
from adjoining land owners will be obtained as well. Obviously at this time,
it is difficult to consider approval of a conditional use permit when the
configuration of the parcel on which the mini -storage will be placed has not
been finalized. Therefore, the Planning Commission cannot provide a
recommendation at this time. It is hoped that by the next meeting we will
have identified the location of the right-of-way and associated parcel to be
developed as a site for the mini -storage facility. At that time, Planning
Commission can move forward to consider the conditional use permit and
associated variance request.
B. ALTFRNATIVR ACTIONS:
Motion to continue the public hearing. This is the only real alternative
for the Planning Commission at this time because without a Cedar
Street alignment identified on the conditional use permit plan, the plan
is not consistent with the comprehensive plan.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Various maps showing possible roadway alignments; Fxcerpt from Chelsea
Corridor Study/Comprehensive Plan.
v , fi
... ^+ f /fit.• t ,' . �
4 4T
_ _ yr _ � �vl , �*s ,•�,:4.»
WL
SITE OF I Sto
nc ._._
I
PoA I I_. .+I. 'f .
�a POSUSTA PRQPE
PS C�'!
r
006600
Q �
i
lL J ALTBi IYAit TR # i I
,,, I *` .,, . ` / 7+' �^ = .r_n rn.r• rr, oo .•fir
1 1 Y �Vi•� •
. ♦e Jr .QJ� � $ v �
i 44 as
SITE OF FUTURE HTERS CTI
oe
14+ai o t
Fu r + /
PO 4
A
,f !f POSUSTA PROPERTY
4 �
4�
t
Y ; / At.TMNATB 12
AQ 2'd + , R414 -4-cW 160 ZOICT E6, 82 141f
0
11
SITE OF
t '•
I
N
c�z�cal�rlvE'a
City of Monticello Chelsea Area Land Use and Circulation Study
Proposed .Transportation
rce
g�}ppp
b"V%late Fwayffm
i�