Planning Commission Agenda Packet 08-03-1993AGENDA
REGULAR MEETING - MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION
Tuesday, August 3, 1993 - 7 pm.
Members: Cindy Lemm, Richard Martie, Jon Bogart, Richard Carlson, Brian
Stumpf
7:00 p.m. 1.
Call to order.
7:02 p.m. 2.
Approval of minutes of the regular meeting held July 6, 1993.
7:04 p.m. 3.
Public Hearing --A variance request which would allow
construction of an accessory building with a floor area in excess
of 1,000 sq ft and a variance request to allow an accessory
building to be built with a metal siding wider than 12 inches
and a roof covering material not consistent with other building
structures in the area. Applicant, Randy Ruff.
7:29 p.m. 4.
Public Hearing --A conditional use request which would allow
open and outdoor storage as an accessory use in an 1-2 (heavy
industrial) zone. A stall, aisle, and driveway design conditional
use permit.. Applicant, Standard Iron.
7:44 p.m. 5.
Continued Public Hearing --A conditional use request to allow
commercial storage contained entirely within a building in a
11.3 (highway business) zone. A variance request to allow no
curbing or hard surfacing of the off-street parking and
driveway areas. Applicant, Glen Posusta.
8:14 p.m. 6.
A request fsrr an extension of it previously -issued conditional
use request to allow thirteen (13) or more dwelling units in two
(2) apartment buildings on an unplatted tract of land. A
request to allow a subdivision of an unplatted tract of land.
Applicant, David Hornig.
8:29 p.m. 7.
Review potential proposal to subdivide two conforming
residential lots into three non -conforming lots. Applicant.,
Everette Ellison. (Jeff will report at the meeting.)
Additional Infirrmulion Items
8:45 p.m. 1.
A request for a special Planning Commission meeting.
Proposed special meetang date for Monday, August 9, 194:1,
i
6 p.m.
Planning Commission Agenda
August 3, 1993
Page 2
8:47 p.m. 2.
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.
Council action: Approved as per Planning Commission
recommendation.
8:49 p.m. 3.
Public Hearing --A conditional use request to allow an auto
body shop repair building in a B-3 (highway business) zone.
Applicant, John Johnson. Council action: Approved as per
Planning Commission recommendation.
8:51 p.m. 4.
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. Council action: No
action required, as the request did not come before them.
8:53 p.m. 5.
Set the next tentative date for the Monticello Planning
Commission meeting for Tuesday, Septemtwr 7, 1993, at 7 p.m.
8:55 p.m. R.
Adjournment.
MINUTES
REGULAR MEETING - MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION
Tuesday, July 6, 1893 - 7 p.m
Members Present: Cindy Lemm, Richard Martie, Richard Carlson, Brian Stumpf
Members Absent: Jon Bogart
Staff Present: Gary Anderson, Jeff O'Neill
The meeting was called to order by Chairperson Cindy Lemm at 7:02 p.m.
2. A motion was made by Richard Carlson and seconded by Brian Stumpf to
approve the minutes of the regular meeting held June 1, 1993. Motion carried
unanimously with Jon Bogart absent.
3. Public Hearine--A variance reauesk to allow the development of a temoorary
emploveg parkins lot with no curb, eutter. or hard surfacine. Aoulicant.
Buffalo Clinic Partnershin.
Jeff O'Neill, Assistant Administrator, explained the applicant's request to be
allowed to develop an additional employee parking lot. O'Neill indicated time
lines should be established to complete the parking lot in time frames as
approved by the Monticello Planning Commission or Monticello City Council.
Staff' recommends that Planning Commission approve the variance request
allowing a temporary parking lot to be 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 the Planning Commission should set a deadline for completion of the
parking area and require the signs to be posted at the entrance to the
temporary parking that is for employees only. It is our opinion that the term
of the variance should not exceed one year.
Cindy Lemm then opened the public hearing.
Linda Dirkes, representing the Buffalo Clinic Partnership, has put building
plans on hold for this year and hope for the construction of the clinic addition
in the spring of 1994. Plans are the addition of one additional family practice
doctor to begin practice in early spring of 1994.
Cindy Lemm then closed the public hearing and opened the meeting for any
discussion amongst Planning Commission members.
Discussion amongst the Planning Commission members was that they would
consider limitation of one year from City Council approval date.
Pago 1
Planning Commission Minutes - 7/6/93
Therefore, a motion was made by Richard Carlson and seconded by Brian
Stumpf to approve the variance allowing development of a temporary employee
parking lot with no curb and gutter or hard surfacing with the following
conditions:
1. The parking area be signed for employee parking only.
2. The one-year time limitation begin for one year following
completion of the parking lot.
Motion carried unanimously with Jon Bogart absent.
Planning Commission findings: The existing complement of parking for the
existing clinic has already been met, and this would be additional parking to
meet the clinics needs.
4. Public Hgaring—A conditional use reauest to allow an auto body shop repair
buildine in a B-3 &L-hwav business) zone. Applicant. John Johnson.
GaryAnderson, Zoning Administrator, explained Mr. Johnson's conditional use
request to allow an auto body shop repair building in a B-3 (highway business)
zone. Anderson explained the few minor changes that have taken place since
his original request. Mr. Johnson will now have a small building addition near
the rear northwest corner of the building, which will encompass an area for
storage of body shop equipment. The overall front appearance of the building
will change also with a roof covered open front porch to be constructed in the
front portion of the building.
Cindy Lemm then opened the public hearing.
Jeff O'Neill, Assistant Administrator, questioned Mr. Johnson as to the timing
of this project and the outside storage that exists at his existing site versus his
new site. Mr. Johnson answered that with favorable interest rates, it is now
time for him to own his own building instead of rent a building to operate his
business out of. Johnson answered that all storage that exists outside now will
either be in as part of his building under cover or will be in the enclosed
fenced -in area attached to the south of his now proposed building.
Cindy Lemm then closed the public hearing and asked for any input from the
Planning Commission members.
Comments from the Planning Commission were that Mr. Johnson's new plans
meet all the ordinance requirements, and with the changes he has done still
i meet all the minimum ordinance requirements.
Page 2
a
Planning Commission Minutes - 7/6/93
Therefore, a motion was made by Richard Martie and seconded by Brian
Stumpf to approve the conditional use request to allow an auto body repair
shop in a B-3 (highway business) zone with the applicant complying with all
10 conditions under auto body shop repair. Motion carried unanimously with
Jon Bogart absent.
6. Continued Publig Hearin --A conditional use reougst to allow commercial
storage contained entirely within a building in a B-3 (hiAwav business) zone.
A variance reauest to allow no curbing or hard surfacing of the off-street
parkine and drivewav areas. Aoolicant. Glen Posusta.
Jeff O'Neill, Assistant Administrator, updated the Planning Commission
members on Mr. Posusta's conditional use and variance requests. Much
attention of the update was on a remnant parcel of land that lies between
existing old Highway 25, now known as Cedar Street, and the existing new
Highway 25. Ownership of this parcel of land is still up in the air as to who
actually owns the property, but a portion of this parcel of land is needed to
create the extension of Dundas Road west to a proper alignment with new
Highway 25.
The comprehensive plan also shows a realignment of Cedar Street just north
of the present intersection of Cedar Street and Dundas Road. With the present
Cedar Street alignment posing to be a problem because it is not parallel to
Highway 25, it is important that the Posusta site design incorporate the proper
alignment of Cedar Street. Mr. Posusta has talked to the adjoining property
owner to the east and is willing to sell. If he would be allowed to develop on
this property, then the City could continue with its negotiation for the
purchase of the remnant parcel. With the money that would be needed to
purchase property to the east, Mr. Posusta would like the City to consider no
curbing or hard surfacing of the driveway/parking area of his proposed cold
storage building site.
There being no further input from the public, the Planning Commission
recommendation would be to table it for further information.
Therefore, a motion was made by Richard Martie and seconded by Richard
Carlson, to continue the public hearing for a conditional use request to allow
commercial storage contained entirely within a building in a B•3 (highway
business) zone, and a variance request to allow no curbing or hard surfacing
of tho off-street parking and driveway areas. Motion carried unanimously with
Jon Bogart absent.
Page 3
Planning Commission Minutes - 7/6/93
Additional Information Items
Consideration of a request to amend the Monticello Zoning Ordinance which
would modify the regulations governing signs as follows: 3-l[BI(b), modify the
ordinance to allow permit for promotional signage for 2 weeks of every month
or for a total of 168 days each year, 3-9[CYh), modify the ordinance which
would state that the promotional signage may bear an advertising message,
including product and pricing; 3-9[Fl(e), modify the ordinance to allow for an
annual permit fee of $25 to cover advertising signage. Applicant, 9 local
businesses. Council action: Approved a total of 40 days in a calendar year for
placement of 2 banners or 1 portable sign per private property with an annual
permit fee of $5.
2. 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. Council action: No action required, as the request
did not come before them.
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 R between the School District property and a point 300 ft south
of Chelsea Road.
4. 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.
Council action: Denied as per Planning Commission recommendation.
5. It was the consensus of the four Planning Commission members present to set
the next regular Planning Commission meeting date for Tuesday, August 3,
1993.
6. A motion was made by Richard Martie and seconded by Brian Stumpf to
adjourn the meeting. Motion carried unanimously with Jon Bogart absent.
The meeting adjourned at 8:21 p.m.
Respectfally submitted,
Gary Anderson
Zoning Administrator
Page 4
Planning Commission Agenda - 8/3/93
Pyblic Hearin¢—A vpriance reauest which would allow construction
of an accewwry building with a floor area in excess of 1.400 so ft.
and a variance reauest to allow an accessory building to be built
with a metal siding wider than 12 inches and a roof covering
material not consistent with other building structures in the area.
AApnlicant. Randv Ruff. W.O.I
A. RFFFRFNCF AND BACKGROUND:
Randy Ruff requests permission to build a 2,600 sq ft accessory
structure/garage that exceeds the maximum square I"ootage (1,000 sq ft),
and he requests that this building be allowed to be constructed with metal
siding. Under our present code, structures built accessory to the principal
residential use in residential areas shall not be allowed to have metal
siding.
The structure that Ruff proposes to build will be for storage of items
accessory to a residential use such as for storage of boats, recreation vehicle,
etc. This storage building will not lie used in conjunction with the Ruff
Auto enterprise.
As you know, the adjacent Ruff Auto operation has been allowed to
construct storage buildings which were built to house items that were
previously stored outside. Randy Ruffs proposal is different because the
storage building will he used to house articles that are accessory to a
residential use. Although the proposed storage building will he located near
the auto salavage area and may in u sense blend in with die local area, the
proposal should he reviewed in terms of the zoning district rules and
regulations as they apply to development of accessory buildings in I I'%M )
residential areas.
It also should he noted that the proposed structure will actually he built on
a parcel that is separate from the principal use (Handy's home). Ruff has
been informed that an accessory use cannot be constructed separate from a
principal use; therelore, he will need to eliminate his lot line and combine
the parcel on which his home is located with the parcel on which the
storage building will lie located. Ruff indicated that he has no problem with
combining the two parcels. In cogjunction with combining the parcels, the
easements between the two parcels will need to he vacated.
Planning Commission Agenda - 8/3/93
13. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. Motion to approve a variance request which would allow construction
of an accessory building with a floor area in excess of 1,000 sq ti, and
a variance request to allow an accessory building to he built with a
metal siding wider than 12 inches and a roof covering material not
consistent with other building structures in the area. This
alternative could be based on the finding that the proposed storage
building is consistent with the character of the area and that the
existing criteria for granting a variance do not apply in this case.
Under this alternative, the Planning Commission could be setting a
precedent that would enable property owners in residential zones to
build similar structures.
2. Motion to deny a variance request which would allow construction of
an accessory building with a floor area in excess of 1,000 sq ft, and a
variance request to allow an accessory building to he built with a
metal siding wider than 12 inches and a roof covering material not
consistent with other building structures in the area.
Under Ibis alternative, Planning Commission could make the finding
that there is no hardship or unique situation that would warrant
grunting of the variance. To grant the variance would impair the
intentof the ordinance and, thereby, set it precedent that would
enable development of similar structures in other residential zones.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the variance request he denied. Although atr first
blush it may make sense to allow the variance to he granted because the
structure proposed is fairly consistent with the area and the neighborhood,
it must he kept in mind that the natnure of the area results from operation
of a non -conforming use )auto salvage yard), and the intent of the zoning
ordinance is to gradually over time bring the area in compliance with the
P%M zoning district regulations. Therefore. the request should he analyzed
in terms of its consistency with the city standards and not in terms of
consistency with the area in which it's located. Staff is concerned that
granting the variance based on the fact that the proposed structure will he-
consistent
econsistent with the area will set a negative precedent for the rest of the
residential zones in the community and will work against the lone -term goal
of preparing the Ruff Auto area for residential uses.
D, SUPPORTING DATA:
Copy of site plan to be presented at the meeting: Excerpts from the zoning
ordinance.
Randy Rur-p
(W.
CHAPTER 2
RULES AND DEFINITIONS
SECTION:
2-1: Rules
2-2: Definitions
2-1:
RULES: The language set forth in the text of this ordinance
shall be interpreted in accordance with the following rules of
construction:
(A) The singular number includes the plural and the plural
the singular.
(B] The present tense includes the past and the future
tenses, and the future the present.
[C] The work "shall" is mandatory while the word "may" is
permissive.
[D] The masculine gender includes the feminine and neuter.
2-2:
DEFINITIONS: The following words and terms, wherever they
occur in this ordinance, shall be interpreted as herein
defined:
2V�S
(AA) ACCESSORY BUILDING OR USE: A subordinate building or
use which is located on the gaw"ot on which the main
1�
building or use is situated and which is reasonably
necessary and incidental to the conduct of the primary
use of such building or main use.
(AB) ADDRESS SIGN: A sign communicating street address only,
whether written or in numerical form.
(AC) ADMINISTRATIVE PERMIT: A temporary permit granted by
the Zoning Administrator, after City staff approval,
without a public hearing, granted to a specific
individual at a specific location, to address those
requests and proposals for specific uses that are not
allowed under the strict provisions of this ordinance,
but that present no apparent conflict with the intent of
this ordinance. An administrative permit may be renewed
indefinitely but cannot, under any circumstance, be
transferred to another person or location. An
administrative permit may be revoked upon ten (10) days'
written notice when and if the use evolves Into a use
determined to be in violation of this ordinance.
MONTICELLO ZONING ORDINANCE 2/1,
( J
j?v 4
measurement: of such area or width are within
seventy-five (75) percent of the requirements of
this ordinance.
4. Except in the case of planned unit development as
provided for in Chapter 20 of this ordinance, not
more than one (1) principal building shall be
located on a lot. The words "principal building"
shall be given their common, ordinary meaning; in
case of doubt or on any question or interpretation,
the decision of the Building Inspector shall be
final, subject to the right of appeal to the
Planning Commission and City Council.
5. On a through lot (a lot fronting on two (2)
parallel streets), both street lines shall be front
lot lines of applying the yard and parking
regulations of this ordinance.
[D] ACCESSORY BUILDINGS, USES, AND EQUIPMENT:
1. An accessory building shall be considered an
integral part of the principal building if it is
connected to the principal building either directly
or by an enclosed passageway.
C 2. No accessory building shall be erected or located
within any required yard other than the rear yard.
3. Accessory buildings and garages shall not exceed
fifteen (15) feet in height and shall be ten (10)
feet or more from all side lot lines of adjoining
lots, five (5) feet or more from the rear lot line,
shall be ten (10) feet or more from any other
building or structure on the same lot, and shall
not be located within a utility easement.
4. No accessory building or garage shall occupy more
than twenty-five (25) percent of a rear yard, nor'
VOJ��nIQ exceed one thousand (1,000) square feet of floor
NA,W . area.
5. No permit shall be issued for the construction of
more than one (1) private accessory structure for
each dwelling. Each applicant for a building
permit to construct any dwellings shall be required
to provide off-street parking apace for at least
one (1) automobile per family to be housed in
addition to any garage space to be used.
(7/22/91, 1211)
MONTICELLO ZONING ORDINANCE 3/5
3. The following architectural controls shall apply in
R-1, R-2, R-3, and P2 -R Districts:
(a) Minimum building width of 24 feet.
(b) Minimum 3:12 roof pitch with minimum six (6)
inch soffit.
(c) Building must be anchored to a permanent
concrete or treated wood foundation.
(d) No metal siding shall be permitted wider than
12 inches or without a one-half (1/2) inch or
more overlap and relief.
(e) Minimum floor area shall be 1,000 square feet.
(f) All dwellings shall meet all regulations of
the Minnesota Uniform Building Code.
n 4. In all, all buildings shall be finished
(1 V t on all s des with consistent architectural quality,
materials, and design.
5. In all residential zoning districts, all single and
two-family dwelling units constructed after
July 22, 1991, must Include development of an
attached or detached garage. Minimum size
requirement for garage floor is 400 sq ft with a
minimum garage door opening of 16 ft.
(07/22/91, #212)
(10/15/91, 1213)
(C) PLATTED AND UNPLA'iTEU PROPERTY:
1. Any person desiring to improve property shall
submit to the Building Inspector a survey of said
premises and information on the location and
dimensions of existing and proposed building,
location of easements crossing the property,
encroachments, and other information which may be
necessary to Insure conformance to City ordinance.
2. All buildings shall be so placed so that they will
not obstruct future streets which may be
constructed by the City in conformity with existing
streets and according to the system and standards
employed by the City.
3. A lot of record existing upon the effective date of
this ordinance in a residential district which does
not moot the requirements of this ordinance as to
area or width may be utilized for single family
detached dwelling purposes provided the
MONTICELLO ZONING ORDINANCE 3/4
/ 1
, \lit Vl\,J• ,,dal AL1\.�.1
Ky� reports and recommendations to the Planning Commission serving
as the Board of Adjustment and Appeals from the City staff
shall be entered in and made part of the permanent written
record of the Board's meeting.
23-3: FINDING OF PLANNING COMMISSION AND CITY STAFF: In considering
1 all requests for variance or appeal and taking subsequent
action, the City staff and the Planning Commission, serving as
the Board of Adjustment and Appeals, shall make a finding of
fact that the proposed action will not:
[Aj Impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent
property.
(B) Unreasonably increase the congestion in the public
street.
[CD
[ Increase the danger of fire or endanger the public
safety.
j Unreasonably diminish or impair established property
values within the neighborhood or in any other way be
contrary to the intent of this ordinance.
23-4: N-ECONOMIq HARDSHIP; I The Planning Commission, serving as
e Board of Adjustment and Appeals, shall, after receiving
he written reports and recommendations of the City staff,
ke a finding of fact and decide upon requests for a variance
by approving or denying the same, in part or in whole, where
it is alleged by the applicant that a non -economic hardship in
/ the reasonable use of a specific parcel of property exists.
A hardship that by some reason of narrowness, shallowness, or
shape of a specific parcel of property or lot existing and of
Lti{tRii1 NTICELLO ZONING ORDINANCE 23/1
FOR. GA106.4;
V4ripiltt i�rt� s^{'
/record upon the effective date of this ordinance or that by
reason of exceptional topographic or water conditions of a
specific parcel of land or lot, the strict application of the
terms of this ordinance would result in exceptional
difficulties when utilizing the parcel or lot in a manner
customary and legally permissible within the district in which
said lot or parcel is located, or would create undug hardship
upon the onwor of such lot or parcel that the owner of another
lot or parcel within the same district would not have if he
were to develop his lot or parcel in a mannor proposed by the
applicant. &[�auld tyhe Rlannina Co�miesl^^ fi:xd that the
conditions out l�ne,d..,..�o�.ARB:., to tt: uraitt?std �n o
he-? Ian�„igq_Co . 1„�gy c en a _to re a ,iron the
str Cut -110-11lcation of th s ardinanca so as to relieve such
dlisiculfles or on
to the doRroo considered reasonable,
proviuing Bucl rMet may pe oranted w�,UA LMWL rano the
`
Intent of this zoning ordinance.
as
he
23-9: Adjustment Tand Planning ppeal,Cshall, afters receiving t Board
the written
report and recommendation of the City staff, make a finding of
fact and make a decision on appeals whore it is alleged by the
applicant that error has occurred in any order, requirement,
decision, or determination made by the Building Inspector In
the enforcement of this ordinance. However, said appeal shall
Planning Commission Agenda - 8/3/93
Public Hparina--Consideration of a conditional use request which
would allow oven and outdoor storage as an accessory use in an I.2
zone, and consideration of a conditional use request allowing q
reduction in the parkins lot design requirements. AaDlicant.
Standard Iron. W.O. )
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND
Standard Iron of New Hope, Minnesota, is requesting two conditional use
permits. One would allow open and outdoor storage as an accessory use,
and the other would allow a reduction in the parking and drive aisle design
standards.
Standard Iron is a metal fabricating company that has been in business
since 1930. The facility proposed for Monticello will employ approximately
85 people. Currently, Standard Iron operates facilities in New Hope,
Alexandria, and Sauk Rapids. I understand that the shop developed in
Monticello will become the new home for their corporate headquarters as
well as being a manufacturing facility.
Site Plan
The site plan calls for development of a 32,000 sq ft warehouse and
manufacturing building along with a 2 -story office building. The 2 -story
structure will contain approximately 20,000 sq ft of office space. Although
Standard Iron purchased both Lots 7 (5.2 acres) and 8 (5.2 acres), the initial
development will occur only on Lot 8, with Lot 7 being reserved for future
expansion.
The site plan has been reviewed for consistency with city setback
requirements. It has been found that the plan meets code.
The area proposed for outside storage is located behind the warehouse and
office building. The total area included in outside storage amounts to
87,600 sq ft, or 1.55 acres. As you will note in the site plan, the area
proposed with this initial phase of development for outside storage may
some day become the site of a future building expansion. if this occurs, it is
likely that the outside storage would he shifted to another location on site.
The area proposed for outside storage will he screened in the front by the
office building and the warehouse building and on the sides by an opaque
cyclone fence. The rear of the storage area will be screened with either a
fence or perhaps a berm.
Planning Commission Agenda - 8/3/93
The site plan calls for development of 114 parking spaces, which is an
amount that is greater than the minimum requirement for this type of
facility. The number of parking spaces was based to a large extent on the
company's previous experience. It is the view of staff that the number of
stalls provided will be adequate.
The design of the parking area for employees and customers is designed to
meet code. The conditional use permit request does not apply to the
employee and parking area, which is all located in front of the office
building and in front of the manufacturing facility.
Outside Storn:e Conditional Use Permit Request
Open and outdoor storage as an accessory use is allowed by ordinance
provided that 1) the area is fenced and screened from view of neighboring
residential uses, 2) storage is screened from view from the public right-of-
way, 31 storage area is grassed or surfaced to control dust, 4) all lighting
shall he hooded or so directed that the light source shall not be visible from
the public right-of-way or from neighboring residences.
A review of the site plan reveals that the proposed site plan meets the
requirements mentioned above. The outside storage area will be completely
enclosed by either an opaque fence or by adjoining structures. The outside
storage area will he grassed or surfaced to control dust. At this time, I am
not certain exactly what type of material will be used to control dust in the
areas that will not be grassed. According lag Dae Public Works Director,
class V gravel is not, a gad material for controlling dust, and a crushed
granite surfiace is probably the best type of material to be used for
controlling dust in this area. I will he checking with Standard Iron
regarding this aspect of the site plan and will report on this topic at the
meeting.
Drive Aisle 1lesiam Conditional Use Permit
As you may recall, a few years ago the City adopted an ordinance
amendment that allowed a reduction or "lessening' of the parking lot and
drive aisle design requirements under speciul circumstances. This
particular development is well suited to this provision in the ordinance, as
there aro relatively largo areas that will he utilized by company vehicles on
an intermittent basis, and most of the area is within the screened -in storage
areas; therefore. to pave these areas does not make sense from an economic
standpoint.
Planning Commission Agenda - 8/3M3
As stated earlier, all of the drive aisle and parking areas used by employees
and by clients will be developed in accordance with the strictest standards
of the ordinance. As you will now in the site plan, areas that will receive
relatively low traffic levels and areas designated for future expansion are
those areas that will not be paved and/or will not he curbed.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
Two Decisions:
I.A. Motion to approve the conditional use permit allowing outside storage
in an 1-2 zone under the condition that the site plan meets the
requirements as noted by ordinance.
Under this alternative, Planning Commission is satisfied that the
outside storage as proposed meets the requirements of outside storage
areas in an 1.2 zone and that development of this outside storage
area will not result in a negative impact on adjoining properties in
the 1.2 zone.
1B. Motion to deny conditional use permit allowing outside storage in an
1-2 zone.
Planning Commission should select this alternative if it is not
comfortable with the level of outside storage at this location or if the
developer is not willing to apply a surface that will adequately control
dust.
2A. Motion to approve conditional use permit allowing construction of n
parking Int and drive aisle with less than the minimum standards
under Clio condition that the site plan meets the requirements as
noted by ordinance.
Planning Commission should select this alternative if the applicant
su(liciently meets the requirements of the conditional use
requitrments as outlined by ordinance.
211. Motion to deny conditional use permit allowing construction of a
parking Int and drive aisle with less than the minimum standards.
Planning Commission Agenda - 8/3/93
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that both conditional use permits be awarded. The
applicant has demonstrated a willingness to meet or exceed the
mquireniciAs outlined by ordinance with regard to both the outside storage
and the parking lot conditional use permit. In terms of the outside storage
conditional use permit, the combination of the screening fence and the
placement of the building will result in the outside storage area being
completely screened; therefore, the outside storage area will be in
compliance with the minimums noted by ordinance.
Staff also recommends that the conditional use permit allowing the
lessening of the parking lot requirements he approved. As noted earlier, the
ordinance amendment providing for a conditional use permit allowing a
lessening of parking lot design standards was actually designed for this type
of case in mind. In this situation, all of the areas used by the public will be
completely paved, and curb will be applied following the strictest
requirements of the ordinance. Areas that receive a relatively small level of
traffic that are separated from the public areas will not he paved.
SUI'PORTING DATA:
Copy of site plan; Excerpts from the ordinance --driveway design conditional
use permit --open and outdoor storage as an accessory use in an 1-2 zone.
1
_
_
'
�
�Mu•YrW
�
— — —
— — — — — "- — - —
— — - —
A1rM 1i/MLS L//f — _ _�
Verdi—
I
T
PAM
Cap-
-�
nw.r
Oy
A��ewL
iii
I
I
AWAY
1
rr
:mill
I
1111
A.W,r ^AVAW
— - � I Al Nr■d
L{Ml
400 00'
OI/NDA
J". 00
k1OAO
'�}��
WAM--
Oibl"A-N cE EXCERPT—
EXCEPTIONS: See D. 9 (a) Stall Aisle ana
Driveway Design Conditional Use Permit.
(9) STALL AISLE AND DRIVEWAY DESIGN CONDITIONAL
a USE PERMIT:
Stall aisle and driveway design requirements
as noted in (k) Surfacing, (o) Curbing and
Landscaping, and (r) Curbing, may be lessened
subject to the following conditions:
i. Any reduction in requirements requires
completion of the conditional use permit
process outlined in Chapter 22 of this
ordinance.
ii. Final approval of parking and driveway
drainage plans associated with
conditional use permit request shall be
provided in writing by the City
Engineer. Engineering expenses greater
than portion of building permit fee
allocated for engineer plan review shall
be paid,by applicant prior to occupancy
of structure.
iii. A surmountable "transition" curb or
cement delineator must be installed as a
boundary between an outside storage area
and a parking or drive area.
iv. Development of a curb along the boundary
between a parking area and an area
designated on site plan for future
parking is not required if said curb
line is not needed for drainage purposes
as determined by the City Engineer.
V. Exceptions to the standard curb
requirements do not apply to any parking
or driveway perimeter that runs roughly
parallel to and within 20 feet of an
adjoining parcel.
vi. This conditional use permit is allowed
only in I-1 and I-2 sones.
vil. Drive areae that are secondary and not
used by the general public and not used
for routine delivery of goods or
services do not require hard surfacing
or curb unless hard surface and curb is
needed for drainage purposes as
determined by the City Engineer. Access
to such drive areae may be rostricted by
a gate which must be closed after each
use. At such time that routine use In
noted, the drive area shall be paved.
(1192, 7/9/90) n
ORDItMOC ' aCE-07-
(DD) Wholesale business and office establishments.
15B-3: PERMITTED ACCESSORY USES: The following are permitted
accessory uses in an "I-1" district:
(A) All permitted accessory uses as allowed in the "B-4"
district.
15B-4: CONDITIONAL USES: The following are conditional uses in an
"I-1" district: (Requires a conditional use permit based upon
procedures set forth in and regulated by Chapter 22 of this
ordinance).
(A) Open and outdoor storage as an accessory use provided
that:
1. The area is fenced and screened from view of
neighboring residential uses or, if abutting a
residential district, in compliance with Chapter 3,
Section 2 (G), of this ordinance.
2. Storage is screened from view from the public
right-of-way in compliance with Chapter 3,
Section 2 (G), of this ordinance. ,
3. Storage area is grassed or surfaced to control
dust.
4. All lighting shall be hooded and so directed that
the light source shall not be visible from the
public right-of-way. or from neighboring residences
and shall be in compliance with Chapter 3,
Section 2 (H), of this ordinance.
5. The provisions of Chapter 22 of this ordinance are
considered and satisfactorily met.
(B) Open or outdoor service, sale, and rental as a principal
or an accessory use and including sales in or from
motorized vehicles, trailers, or wagons provided that:
I. Accessory outside service, sales, and equipment
rental connected with a principal use is limited to
thirty (30) percent of the gross floor area of the
principal use.
2. Outside sales areas are fenced or screened from
view of neighboring residential uses or an abutting
residential district in compliance with Chapter 3,
Section 2 (G), of this ordinance.
3. All lighting shell be hooded and so directed that
the light source shell not be visible from the
public right-of-way or from neighboring residences
and shall be in compliance with Chapter 3,
Section 2 (H), of this ordinance.
Planning Commission Agenda - 8/3/93
s. Continued Public Hearing»A conditional use reaueRt to allow
commercial storage contained entirely within a building in a B-3
(highway business) zone. A variance reauest to allow no curbing or
hard surfacing of the off-street oarlting and driveway areas.
ADDlicant. Glen Posusta. 0.0.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
Glen Posusta requests that the City grant him a conditional use permit
which would allow development of a commercial storage facility in a B-3
zone. As you recall, this item was discussed in some detail at the previous
meeting of the Planning Commission. Formal consideration of this item
was delayed pending establishment of the proper alignment of Cedar Street.
Subsequent to the previous meeting, Glen Posusta has acquired additional
property to the east of the original site, which has allowed him to shift the
storage facility to the east and also allowed Cedar Street to he aligned in a
position approximately 250 fl cast of Highway 25. This is the best
alignment possible, and Posusta should be recognized for working with the
City to provide the hind necessary to create this alignment.
Poausta will also bencfit by the new alignment in that he will own the
valuable property between the frontage road and Highway 25. All in all,
the Cedar Street alignment that will be established with the Posusta
conditional use permit is the best alignment possihle, provides enough room
for development of commercial uses between the frontage road and Highway
25, results in a relatively straight alignment which enhances traffic now,
and it provides for establishment of parcels without irregular shapes and,
therefore, will result in an efficient use of land.
MINI -STORAGE SrrE PIAN REvum
Unfortunately, I do not have a completed site plan at this paint. Most, of
Posustais efforts have been focused on creating the proper alignment and
obtaining the land necessary to place the mini -storage facility farther to the
east. Al this print, he is working on finalizing the site plan that will he
presented at the meeting. I do know, however, that the site plan does not
include paving or application of curb and gutter as required by ordinance.
It is my understanding that all other aspects of the site plan will comply
with city standards.
Associated with this conditional use permit request is the request for a
variance to the hard surface and curbing requirements. Posusta is
requesting It variance to these requirements due to the fact that Dundas
Road currently is not paved, and it does not make sense to Posusta to
require paving of the mini storage facility if Dundas Road is not paved.
Posusta also notes his strong efforts to work with the City to realign the
Planning Commission Agenda - 8/3/93
roadway, and he believes that the City can help him out by granting a
variance to the hard surfacing and curbing requirement at least for the
short-term. Posusta also has noted his intent to pave and curb the site per
city ordinance at such time that Dundas Road is paved.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
DmsiON 1
IA. Motion to approve conditional use permit allowing commercial storage
based on the finding that commercial storage is an allowable use in
the B-3 zone. It is, therefore, consistent with the comprehensive
plan. The conditional use permit is contingent on the following:
1. The development must meet city standards with regard to
paving, curbing, and landscaping, or a variance to these
standards must be obtained..
2. A grading and drainage plan must he prepared and approved
by the City Engineer.
3. Posusta must provide the City with a roadway casement as
!` proposed on the site plan at a cost not to exceed the market
value.
4. No outside storage or parking of vehicles is allowed under this
conditional use permit.
111. Motion to deny conditional use permit.
Planning Commission should select this alternative if Posusta is not
willing to comply with one or more of the conditions required by the
Planning Commission.
DECISION 2
2A. Motion to approve the variance.. request allowing no curbing or hard
surfacing of the off-street parking and driveway areas. Motion is
based on the finding that granting the variance docs not impair the
intent of the ordinance because of the following reasons:
1. At the present time, Dundas Road is not paved, and it does not
make sense to require hard surfacing until Dundas Road is
paved.
Oq
Planning Commission Agenda - 8/3/93
Posusta's efforts to work with the City to establish the proper
alignment of Cedar Street call for special efforts by the City to
bend the ordinance to make it easier for him to develop his
facility.
Posusta has agreed to pave and curb the parking area at such
time that Dundas Road is improved.
Under this alternative, the Planning Commission finds that the
situation is sufficiently unique to warrant a variance and that a
precedent has not been established by allowing the development to
occur without meeting city standards.
213. Motion to deny the variance allowing no curbing or hard surfacing of
the off-street parking and driveway areas based on the following
finding:
There is nothing unique about the situation.
A. There is no hardship demonstrated that would justify
granting a variance in this case. To grant a variance
this situation would, therefore, set an unwanted
precedent.
The fact that Dundas (toad is not paved is not relevant
to this situation. It is likely that Dundas Road will he
paved relatively soon. h'rom an engineering standpoint,
it is possible to establish the proper elevations for the
curb and pavement of the mini -storage facility in
anticipation of improvements being made to Dundas
Road.
The fact that the applicant has worked well with the City in
establishing the alignment, is very commendable; however, this
does not mitigate the precedent that would he set by allowing
him to develop the site without paving and curbing.
1 have been contacted by the operator of another mipi-storage
facility in the community who has indicated that it would he
unfair to his business to allow Posusta to develop his property
without meeting city standards. From an economic standpoint,
waiving the requirements would result, in Posusta having an
unfair advantage over the competition.
Planning Commission Agenda - 8/3/93
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
City staff recommends and filly supports granting the conditional use
permit; however, we believe that the variances associated with this request
should be denied. Although the applicant has worked well with the City
and has made significant efforts to create the best alignment for Cedar
Street, this reason and other reasons are not applicable criteria when
evaluating whether or not to approve the variance request. It is our view
that a sufficiently unique situation or hardship has not been demonstrated;
therefore, the variances should be denied.
D, SUPPORTING DATA:
Copy if site plan; Excerpts from the zoning ordinance; See criteria for
evaluating variance requests.
.?v. Z. -
4f
414-11/r'
-114
M�a wwiw WAF.rrir'
reports and recommendations to the Planning Commission serving
as the Board of Adjustment and Appeals from the City staff
Posw sfo,., shall be entered in and made part of the permanent written
record of the Board's meeting.
23-3:Call
INDING OF PLANNING COMMISSION AND CITY STAFF: In considering
requests for variance or appeal and taking subsequent
ction, the City staff and the Planning Commission, serving as
he Board of Adjustment and Appeals, shall make a finding of
act that the proposed action will not:
(A) Impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent
property.
[Bj Unreasonably increase the congestion in the public
street.
[C] Increase the danger of fire or endanger the public
safety.
DI Unreasonably diminish or impair established property
values within the neighborhood or in any other way be
contrary to the intent of this ordinance.
A
EC NO gN1P; 1The Planning Commission, serving as
Boar o, Adjustment and Appeals, shall, after receiving
written reports and recommendations of the City staff,
a finding of fact and decide upon requests for a variance
pproving or denying the same, in part or in whole, where
s alleged by the applicant that a non -economic hardship in
reasonable use of a specific parcel of property exists.
rdship that by some reason of narrowness, shallowness, or
e of a specific parcel of property or lot existing and of
Lf,�la14 �
FoR Eua�uo,�:
0
23-5s
ZONING ORDINANCE 23/1
record upon the effective date of this ordinance or that by
` reason of exceptional topographic or water conditions of a
secific
f a oflot,
strict the application
rmsothis ordinance would result in exceptional
difficulties when utilizing the parcel or lot in a manner
customarsaid lot or "
orparcel
lis lly ocated, districtmissible within the
ted, or would createundue hardship
upon the onwer of ouch lot or parcel that the owner of another
lot or parcel within the same district would not have if he
were to develop his lot or parcel In a manner proposed by the64.A thlt
applicant.
conditions out nod herstator a t�Oas
�ev�
"°-a mstrict apg cat on o th s ardinanca to rel,
tl1i11Cul oeor ha'dohl7�s to the degree Cons�rydoUt
eimDeizintl the
provltling such rellel may be u anted wi
intoU of this aonfnp orddinanco,,
APPEALSs The PlAnning Commission, serving as the Board of
Adjustment and Appeals, shall, after receiving the written
report and recommendation of the City
Staff, makafialleged ingtof
fact and make a decision on appeals
applicant that error has occurred in any order, requirement,
decision, or determination made by the Building Inspector in
the enforcement of this ordinance. However, said appeal �sha11,5
`_ ..----
Planning Commission Agenda - 8/3/93
6. Consideration of a reauest for an extension to a conditional use
permit. Annlicant. David Hornig. (J.0.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
Dave Hornig of Hornig Companies requests that the City consider granting
an extension to the conditional use permit issued on 8/10/92 which would
allow development of a multi -family complex located across from Kmart on
7th Street. Hornig needs an extension to his conditional use permit because
he will not complete the project within one year of obtaining his original
conditional use permit. He was also granted a variance to the 20 -foot
setback requirement along the northern property line.
In conjunction with the request for the extension of the conditional use
permit, Hornig has provided an updated site plan which reveals no
substantial changes to the original plan in terms of site density, setback,
landscaping, parking, etc. Therefore, there is no need to require that
Hornig obtain a new conditional use permit since the site plan changes that
have been made do not materially affect the use of the land or result in any
new or intensified impacts on adjoining property.
The modifications to the site plan result in an overall improvement on the
plan approved Inst year. For instance, the new plan calls for attached
garages versus detached garages as shown on the original plan. The new
plan also places greater emphasis on the architectural styling of the
buildings, which will result in a nicer looking facility. The base rent has
also increased to $570 per month, which includes utilities.
Overall, the site plan meets or exceeds the site standards that were
approved with the original conditional use permit.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
Motion to grant extension to the Hornig conditional use permit
allowing development of a multi -family housing facility in a I'7,M
none. Approval is subject to conditions as noted with the original
conditional use permit.
Under this alternative, Planning Commission is satisfied that the
new site plan is consistent with the plan approved in 1992 and,
therefore, the City is justified in granting an extension to the
conditional use permit.
Planning Commission Agenda - 8/3/93
t_ 2. Motion to deny an extension to said conditional use permit request.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that Planning Commission select alternative #1. Our
recommendation is based on the conclusion that no substantial changes
have been made to the original plan in terms of site density, parking,
setbacks, etc. In addition, nothing has occurred that would cause the City
to consider denying the original conditional use permit; therefore, staff
recommends that Planning Commission select alternative #1.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Letter from Dave Hornig requesting extension of conditional use permit;
Copy of site plan; Copy of City Council minutes approving original site plan.
12
IL
C
P.01
THE HORNIG COMPANIES
3101 IRVING AVENUE SOUTH, MINNEAPOUS, MINNESOTA 55408 • (612) 824-7503
Mr Jeff O'neil
City of Monticello
Pas 395-4404
July 28, 1993
R8: Conditional Use Permit
We are requesting a 90 day extension for the conditional use
permit issued by the city for our townhouse development. We
ere in the final stages of preparation and we anticipate
construction to start within 60 days.
Thank you for your consideration.
�P4.�-r
David A. Bornig
MANA0B1ma • DmLonsw • BROKMGB ��
are
ro
i F
I _ li
A �
_ _,AP HZP.
�Fp I L A II I �i — e aer-- .eov-• A A I� '� ''�� �
A L3-F.XIyT1N(/
%GTNNIWO WA"-
i I 'i
1� =`SEVENTH sr
�GHEMATIG 81TL`^PTRN Q� ��
CEV IbEG �- IA• 1b
i Ai? Et: E Tt0t�1 3. _ JbNt% OW -r UNIT — i°+'
COPY
Council Minutes - 8/10/92
g. Consideration of a conditional use request to allow 13 or more
dwelling units in 2 aLmrtment buildings on an unDlatted tract
of land. Applicant, David Horniq.
Assistant Administrator, Jeff O'Neill, reviewed the site plan
which called for development of 15 three-bedroom apartment
units on 1.64 acres of land located directly across from the
Monticello Smart. O'Neill also noted that included in the
request for a conditional use permit is a request to draw new
boundary lines between the proposed site and the parcel
containing apartment units to the north of the property that
will be the site of the new development.
O'Neill reviewed the requirements of the city ordinance and
noted that the proposal meets all requirements except for a
side yard setback requirement. O'Neill stated that Hornig
will be requesting a variance to this requirement at an
upcoming meeting of the Planning Commission.
O'Neill also explained that the area containing standing water
and cattails on the site, although small, does qualify as a
wetland according to the Vetland Conservation Act of 1991.
This area is only 3,000 eq ft. However, it meets the
definition of a wetland and, therefore, the wetland must be
maintained on site or an area not already a wetland in the
city must be identified as such and developed as a wetland at
some point in the future.
City Engineer, Bret Meles, noted that some communities are
Identifying future storm ponding areas as wetland replacement
areas. In this case, since it is ouch a small wetland, it may
make sense for the City to allow a portion of a future storm
water ponding area to be dedicated as a wetland area.
Shirley Anderson wondered if apartment units are overbuilt in
the community and was concerned that the additional units
would increase current vacancy rates. Gary Anderson noted
that currently in town there are 500 apartment units. An
Increase of 19 units will not have a significant impact. In
addition, the apartment units are three-bedroom unite, which
are very unique in Monticello and will be satisfying a
specific demand.
Assistant Administrator O'Neill noted that the property is
properly zoned for this type of use and there is probably
insufficient cause to legally deny the conditional use permit;
however, conditions can be placed against the project that
will mitigate impacts on adjoining properties.
Page 5
Council Minutes - 8/10/92
After discussion, a motion was made by Brad Pyle and seconded
by Clint Herbst to approve the conditional use permit allowing
construction of a multi -family development in a PSM
(performance zone mixed) zone based on the finding that the
conditional use permit and site plan are consistent with
requirements of the zoning ordinance and will not depreciate
the area in which it's located. It is consistent with the
comprehensive plan and consistent with the geography and
character of the area. Motion to approve the conditional use
permit request is subject to:
1. Developer obtaining a variance of 10 ft to the rear
yard setback requirement or developer amending the
site plan to conform with setback requirements.
2. Grading and drainage plan must be approved by the
City Engineer.
Motion includes approval of a plan to mitigate the wetland
lost with the development by constructing a wetland of equal
size as part of a future storm water improvement project.
Utilizing a city storm sewer project for replacement of a
wetland is allowable in this case due to the fact that the
wetland was determined insignificant in size and no feasible
alternative exists for maintaining the wetland on site.
Motion carried unanimously.
I