Loading...
Planning Commission Agenda Packet 09-07-1993AGENDA REGULAR MEETING . MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday, September 7, 1993. 7 p.m. Members: Cindy Umm, 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 August 3, 1993; the special meeting held August 9, 1993; and the special meeting held August 23, 1993. 7:04 p.m. 3. Public Hearing --A request to amend Section 3-3 [C] of the Monticello Zoning Ordinance by changing the R-1 (single family residential) side yard setback requirement from ten (10) feet on both side yards to six (6) feet on one side and ten (10) feet on the other side. Applicant, Tony Emmerich. 7:29 p.m. 4. Public Hearing --A conditional use request to allow open and outdoor storage as an accessory use in an I-2 (heavy industrial) zone and a variance request to allow a forty (40) foot curb cut. Applicant, H -Window Company. 7:44 p.m. 5. Public Hearing --A request to amend Chapter 10 of the Monticello Zoning Ordinance by adding a provision that would increase the maximum size allowed for private garages accessory to a residential use in a PZM (performance zone mixed) zone. Applicant, Randy Ruff. 8:00 p.m. 6. Adjournment. DUNUTES SPECIAL MEETING - MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION Monday, August 9, 1993.6 p.m. Members Present: Cindy Lemm, Richard Martie, Jon Bogart, Richard Carlson, Brian Stumpf Members Absent: None Staff Present: Gary Anderson, Jeff O'Neill, Bret Weiss The meeting was called to order by Chairperson Cindy Lemm at 6:02 p.m. Continuell Publiq Hearing --Conditional use reauest to allow commercial storage contained entirely wjlhin a building in a B-3 ( highwpy business) zone. A varjanoe request to allow no curbing o; hard surfacing of the off-street narking and drivewav areas. ADnlicant Glen Posusta. Jeff O'Neill, Assistant Administrator, explained the condition of the conditional use request that was not answered at the last meeting, that being the surface water storage and drainage issue question. Will the water directed off the site drain away to the proposed Dundas Road, be allowed to pond next to the proposed Dundas Road, or drain away to a storm sewer ditch system? Once the drainage plan is reviewed, a combination of existing site grades and proposed grades will be utilized to develop the site. A performance bond could be issued as part of a condition to the conditional use request, therefore, negating the request for a variance for hard surfacing, and curb and gutter be installed after Dundas Road is in or a period of no longer than two years. Chairperson Cindy Lemm then opened the public hearing. Mr. Posusta said that he would be in agreement with the conditions that he post a performance bond for the installation of the curb and gutter, and hard surfacing. He also will be willing to negotiate a purchase price to the City at fair market value for the right-of-way needed for the realignment of Cedar Street. With no ILrther input from the public, Chairperson Cindy Lemm then closed the public hearing and opened for further input from the Planning Commission members. Pago 1 9 Special Planning Commission Minutes - 819/93 With no further input from the Planning Commission members, a motion was made by Jon Bogart and seconded by Richard Carlson to approve the conditional use request to allow commercial storage contained entirely within a building in a B-3 ( highway business) zone with the following conditions: A. The applicant is to post a bond in the amount of 6% of the engineers estimate of the cost of the construction of the hard surfacing, and curb and gutter, within two years of this date, August 9, 1993, or after Dundas Road is developed, whichever comes first. B. Drainage and grading plan to be approved by the City's consulting engineer. C. Right-of-way be obtained for Cedar Street from Mr. Posusta at a fair market value. The motion carried unanimously. 3. A motion was made by Jon Bogart and seconded by Ridwd Martie to adjourn the meeting. The motion carried unanimously. The meeting adjourned at 6:24 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Gary Anderson Zoning Administrator Page 2 0 MINUTES REGULAR MEETING • MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday, August 3, 1893. 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 1. 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 regular meeting held July 6, 1993. Voting in favor. Cindy Lemm, Richard Martie, Richard Carlson, Brian Stumpf. Abstained: Jon Bogart. Planning Commission Member, Brian Stumpf, indicated that he will not make any comments or a decision on the next agenda item. 3. Public Hepring--A vanancg reauest which would allow construction of an accessory building with g,ftool are$ in excesq of 1.00Q on, R. and a variance reauest to allow an accessory building to be built with a metal sidine wider than 12 inches and a roo(ceverine material not consis n with other buil in structures in the area. Applicant. Sandy Ruff Mr. Jeff O'Neill, Assistant Administrator, explained Mr. Ruffs request to be allowed to build a 2,600 sq. ft. accessory building, which exceeds the maximum 1,000 square footage, and that he be allowed a metal roof and wall coverings in excess of the maximum 12 inches allowed. Mr. Ruff is proposing to use this building for storage of a boat, a recreational vehicle, and other accessory uses, which currently are stored outside at the present time. At first, it appears the request for this building would be consistent with the existing uses which are around it at this time. However, long range planning may occur at sometime in the future. The existing land area currently occupied as a storage yard for the Ruff Auto business might be eliminated and be developed for residential housing uses. In PZM zoning, this accessory use is allowed only if it is similar to other residential uses. Page 1 9 Planning Commission Minutes - 8/3/93 Mr. O'Neill highlighted that one other possibility might be the creation to allow this type of use within the PZM zone with certain restrictions having to be met first before this could be allowed. Cindy Lemm then opened the public hearing. The applicant, Mr. Randy Ruff, commented that he would be available to answer any questions from the Planning Commission members. Cindy then closed the public hearing and opened for any comments from the Planning Commission members. Planning Commission members asked if there were any comments received from any of the neighbors. Staff responded that there were no comments either oral or written from the affected neighboring property owners. Planning Commission members felt that Mr. Ruffs request in the area as it exists now is probably a reasonable request, but under the current zoning and its requirements, Mr. Ruffs request is neither consistent with the existing zoning nor is there any special unique hardship being demonstrated by the applicant. With there being no further input from the Planning Commission members, a motion was made by Richard Carlson and seconded by Richard Martie 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 be built with a metal siding wider than 12 inches and a roof covering material not consistent with other building structures in the area. Reason for denial. Proposed request is not consistent with the existing PZM (performance zone mixed) zoning. The applicant has not demonstrated any unique hardship in his variance request. The motion carried unanimously with Brian Stumpf abstaining. Public Hearing --A conditional use rywu"l which would allow onen and qutdgor glg;ppe as an nccessory utle in an I_2 (heayv ipdustrial) zone. A shall. aisle, and drivewav desion conditional use permit. Applicant, Standard Iron. Jeff O'Neill, Assistant Administrator, explained the two conditional use requests, with one requesting open and outdoor storage as an accessory use, and the other would allow a reduction in the parking and drive aisle design standards. Page 2 G) Planning Commission Minutes - 8/3/93 The outdoor screening of the outside storage area to the rear of the proposed building will consist of 90% opaque screening fence in combination with possible berroing using excess fill material from the site along the north portion of the proposed outdoor storage area. The outside storage areas will have no hard surfacing or curbing beyond the north end of the building wall. The exterior materials stored in the outside storage area will not be stored/stacked higher than the proposed screening fence. The applicant is also requesting a conditional use request to lessen the parking lot and drive aisle design standards. As noted on their site plan, they are proposing to be allowed no curbing in the drive aisle portion to the east of the proposed building site. The parking lot as designed will meet and exceed the minimum parking requirement for this type of building use. Cindy Lemm then opened the public hearing. The applicant responded that he would answer any questions that the Planning Commission members had of his proposed development as shown on their enclosed site plans. There being no specific questions at this time, Chairperson Cindy Lemm then closed the public hearing portion of the meeting and opened for any other input from the Planning Commission members. There being no input from the Planning Commission members, a motion was made by Jon Bogart and seconded by Richard Martie to approve the conditional use permit allowing open and outdoor storage in an 1-2 zone under the condition that the site meets the requirements as noted by ordinance. The motion carried unanimously. A motion was made by Jon Bogart and seconded by Richard Martie to approve the conditional use permit request allowing construction of a parking lot and drive aisle with less than the minimum standards under the condition that the site plan meets the requirements as noted by ordinance. The motion carried unanimously. Page 3 Planning Commission Minutes - &W3 Continued Public Hearing --A conditional use reauest to allow commercial storage contained entirely within a buildine in a -3 (hiehwav business) zone. A variance "guest to allow no turbine or h@rd surfacine of the off-street parkine and drivewav areas. Avelicant. Glen Posusta. Jeff O`Neill, Assistant Administrator, updated Planning Commission members on how Mr. Posusta has progressed in the development of the land for the commercial use on it. The land area west of the existing Cedar Street is still in question yet as to the actual ownership of the property. Mr. Posusta recently purchased additional land to the east of property which he currently owns. Mr. Posusta would like to combine this newly purchased land with his existing land for the development of the commercial outside storage on these two properties. The purchase of this additional land to the east by Mr. Posusta has allowed for the development of the public street right- of-way needed for the realignment of Cedar Street. Mr. O'Neill highlighted some conditions, should the Planning Commission look at approval of his conditional use request, with that being as follows: that there be no variance from the hard surfacing requirements. Mr. Posusta will dedicate to the City the proper alignment needed for the proposed relocation of Cedar Street with the City paying a fair market value for the proposed Cedar Street right-of-way. Cindy Lemm then opened the public hearing. Mr. Posusta requested that he be allowed to wait until the development of Dundas Road is hard surfaced before the hard surfacing of his parking/driving areas. Mr. Posusta also explained that he has expended over $18,000 to purchase the additional land to the east of his existing land and would ask for some consideration from the City on his variance request for no curbing or hard surfacing at this time. He said he would be willing to post a performance bond to complete the hard surfacing and curbing of the parking/driveway areas. Mr. Gordy Hoglund questioned that if Mr. Posusta is granted the variance request for no hard surfacing or curbing of his site, that this would be unfair competition for him being an owner of another outside storage business in Monticello. Mr. Posusta, not having to install the hard surfacing and curbing, would have lesser cost for development; so in tum, he would be able to offer lower rates for the rental of these storage units. Page d v Planning Commission Minutes - 8/3/93 Chairperson Cindy Lemm then closed the public hearing and opened for further comments from the Planning Commission members. The Planning Commission members were trying to decipher Mr. Posusta's request for a variance if there really was indeed a hardship that is already created on Mr. Posusta's development if he is proposed to develop his site to grade, to properly allow for surface water drainage towards the street ditch. Without a grading drainage plan for the Planning Commission members to review, it is kind of hard for them to give their input as to whether there is really a hardship that exists. Mr. Posusta indicated that he could have a grading plan prepared and submitted to them for their review, if they would consider setting a special meeting prior to the City Council meeting on August 9. The consensus of the Planning Commission members was to table and continue Mr. Posusta's conditional use request to allow commercial storage contained entirely in a &3 (highway business) zone. A variance request to allow no curbing or hard surfacing of the off-street parking and driveway areas. The consensus of the Planning Commission members was to set a special meeting for Monday, August 9, 1993, 6:00 p.m. 6. Consideration of a request for an extension to a nreviously-issued conditional use request to allow thirteen (13) or rqore dwelline units in two (2) apartment builliineQ on an unplaged tract of land. A request to allow a subdivision of an ynnplatted tract of land. Applicant David Hornig. Gary Anderson, Zoning Administrator, explained Mr. Hornig's request to be allowed an extension of the previously issued conditional use request. He also explained the changes in Mr. Hornig's request. The new project would be funded through the MN Housing and Finance Agency. The image that they are trying to create is that these be two separate distinct building projects. The proposed extensions south of the existing parking lots would not be installed as part of the project, but the base material underneath these two driveway extensions would receive the baso material with a black dirt and sod covering planted over these areas. There will be three buildings now instead of two as proposed before. All units now will receive an attached garage with the automobiles, toys, bikes, roll -around garbage carte, and recycling containers to bo stored in the garages at all times. The units on the exterior will be maintenance free with pretinished siding, prefinished windows, soffit and facia. Page 6 OZ Planning Commission Minutes - 8/3/93 Cindy Lemur then opened for further input from the Planning Commission members. With there being no further input from the Planning Commission members, a motion was made by Richard Martie and seconded by Brian Stumpf to approve the request for the extension of the previously issued wnditional 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. Approval is for one year pending Council approval on August 9, 1993. The motion carried unanimously. Review ootentiial orouosal to subdivide two conformine residential lotsinto three non-confone lots rmi. Annlicant. Everette Ellison. Jeff O'Neill, Assistant Administrator, updated Planning Commission members on Mr. Ellison's potential request to subdivide two existing lots of record into three lots. Mr. Ellison was there to informally discuss his request with Planning Commission members. Additional Information Items 1. A request for a special Planning Commission meeting. Proposed special meeting date for Monday, August 23, 1993, 6 p.m. The consensus of the five Planning Commission members present was to set Monday, August 23, 1993, at 6 p.m. as a special meeting date. 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. 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. 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. Page 6 0 Planning Commission Minutes - 8/3/93 b. Set the next tentative date for the Monticello Planning Commission meeting for Tuesday, September 7, 1993, at 7 p.m. The wnsensus of the five Planning Commission members was to set Tuesday, September 7, 1993, at 7 p.m. as the next regular Monticello Planning Commission meeting date. Adjournment. A motion was made by Richard Carlson and seconded by Jon Bogart to adjourn the meeting. The meeting was adjourned at 9:09 p.m. RespectMy submitted, Gary Anderson Zoning Administrator Page 7 0 MINUTES SPECIAL MEETING - MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION Monday, August 23, 1893 - 6 p.m. Members Present: Cindy Lemm, Richard Carlson, Brian Stumpf, Dick Martie, Jon Bogart Members Absent: None Staff Present: Gary Anderson, Jeff O'Neill 1. Then meeting was called to order by Chairperson Cindy Lemm at 6 p.m. 2. Ptkklig Hearine--Consideration of a feauest for a conditional use permit which will allow expansion of a motor fuel/convenience store in a B-3 zone. AND Consideration of a variance reauest to buildine and parkins lot setback reauirements. AND Consideratioq of a variance to the maximum curb cut width requirement. Applicant. Holidaystores. Jeff ONeill, Assistant Administrator, explained Holidaystores' request to allow expansion and relocation of their existing facility on the same site. To accommodate this proposed expansion, Holidaystores is requesting variances to the building setback on the Walnut side of the property and driveway setback on the 7th Street side of the property. They are also requesting a variance to the maximum curb cut width allowed 124 ft.) with the applicant requesting to keep both of their existing 30 ft driveway curb cuts. The building project will include a larger store on the northwesterly side of the property from the current 3,920 sq. ft. existing building to the new proposed building being 4,460 sq. ft. Additional pump islands will also be installed, as there currently exists four twin seta of pump islands with the now proposal adding four additional twin sets of pump islands. Walnut Street Setback variance: The proposal calls for a 16 ft. setback linin the Walnut Street public righ"f- way were the minimum setback requirement is 30 ft. As this side of their lot and also the Highway 25 side of their lot aro the shorter sides of their lots, even though the store itself will face west 7th Street, the shortest side of the lot is still called the front, for setback purposes. The front yard setback as proposed to be within lb ft. of the property lino, linea up with the existing building structure to the north, that being the Edina Realty building. Page 1 Special Planning Commission Minutes - 8/23/93 Walnut Street Access Problems: Developers are also proposing to be allowed to place a driveway access off of their site onto Walnut Street. O'Neill reported that John Simola, Public Works Director, and Roger Mack, Street Superintendent, noted that there currently exists a 5.08% grade slope on Walnut Street between the intersections of west 7th Street and west 6th Street. During the winter months, the intersection at west 7th Street and Walnut Street becomes a very hazardous intersection, as this intersection requires heavy sanding and salting to try and reduce the winter icing problems at this intersection. If a driveway curb cut were allowed, we would have problems with vehicles having to maneuver out of their access going south onto Walnut Street. Variance to 8 ft. Green Requirement: The site plan shows the existing curb line directly adjacent to the 7th Street right-of-way line. The ordinance requires a 5 ft. green area separation between the 7th Street right-of-way and the edge of the parking area. The applicant is requesting this request to make more room for vehicle maneuvering within their site. Curb Cut Width Variance: The two existing curb cuts on 7th Street are 30 ft. wide, while the maximum allowed by ordinance today is 24 fL in width. The applicant is requesting to keep these two 30 ft. curb cut widths, with the westerly access being relocated to accommodate the driving area to approach the parking area for the new building site. The applicant is requesting the added width to ease turning maneuvering movements into the congested 7th Street public right-of-way. Cindy Lemm then opened the public hearing Mr. Mark Nelson, real estate specialist for Holidaystores, highlighted the proposed changes in their existing site with their new proposed plans as submitted. The loading/unloading area will be relocated to the northeast corner of the new proposed building as per city staff request. The two 30 ft. driveway curb cut widths, and the no b R. green area separation between the property line and the back of the curb in-between the two driveway curb cuts, are deemed by the Holidaystores, to be very vital for the movement of traffic in and out of their site and also to allow the incorporation of two additional pump islands. Page 2 J Special Planning Commission Minutes - 8/23193 The access onto Walnut Street is very important for their expansion plans. They feel with the design they've submitted, allowing parking on the east side of the proposed new building adjacent to the building will allow the customer that doesn't purchase fuel from their store but may come to purchase goods from the store, to have better accessibility to their store with the layout that is proposed. Without this access onto Walnut Street, by the creation of two different pump islands, they are not solving the need which they feel this store should have, that being better accessibility to the products which they sell at the store, with that being better accessibility with the parking on the east side of the building adjacent to the building. Cindy Lemm closed the public hearing and opened for further comments. Planning Commission members brought up the following: 1. On the b ft. green area separation from the property to the back of the curb, they failed to see some sort of rationale for the justification of the variance request. 2. The Walnut Street Access. Looking at their site with the proposed grades that are there, without this access out onto Walnut Street their expansion plans to accommodate existing customers at this station, they felt the Walnut Street access would be very vital to this business. The additional access would also relieve congestion at the 7th Street access points. With 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 two curb cut requests from the maximum 24 ft. curb cut width allowed to the requested 30 ft. curb cut width, with the westerly curb cut being relocated. The motion carried unanimously. Reason for approval: The curb cuts proximity to the congested 7th Street/ Highway 25 intersection and the need to expedite easy in/out access creates the need for providing ample room for vehicles turning in and out of the Holidaystore. A motion was made by Richard Carlson and seconded by Brian Stumpf to approve the variance request to allow a 15 ft. variance from the minimum 30 ft. front yard setback requirement. Motion carried unanimously. Page 3 9 Special Planning Commission Minutes - 8/23/93 Reason for approval: The unique topography of the site requires building construction along the western edge of the property in order to gain full use of the site. In addition, the 16 fL front yard setback would match up with the existing Edina Realty building to the north 16 ft. side yard setback. A motion was made by Richard Carlson and seconded by Richard Martie to deny the variance request to allow less than the 6 k green area setback requirement from the property line to the back of the curb. Motion carried unanimously. Reason for denial: It is difficult to find a unique situation or hardship that justifies the variance. A motion was made by Jon Bogart and seconded by Brian Stumpf to allow the expansion of a motor fuel/convenience store in a B-3 (Highway Business) zone with the following conditions. 1. The developer would be allowed to put in a driveway access onto Walnut Street with all drainage to be contained and dispersed on private property with no water run off to go hack out onto Walnut Street. d 2. The installation of no exit signs at the easterly access point onto 7th Street. 3. The development must comply with all existing landscaping and signage requirements. 3. A motion was made by Jon Bogart and seconded by Richard Martie to adjourn the meeting. The meeting adjourned at 6:67 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Gerson Zoning Administrator Page 4 8 Planning Commission Agenda - 9/7/93 Public Hearing• -Consideration of a ceagest to amend Section S-3 (CI of the Monticello Zoning Ordinancepv changing the R-1 (single family residential) side yard setback reaulrement from ten (10) feet on both side yards Lo six i6) feet on one side and ten (10) feet on the other side. AAPnlicant. Tonv Emmerich. (J.O.) A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: Tony Emmerich of Emmerich Construction requests that the City amend its ordinance by allowing a 6 foot side yard setback on one side of the property versus 10 feet on both sides. The ordinance amendment limits the 6 foot setback to the garage side of the structure. This request stems from Emmerich's desire to build homes with 3 -car garages. The home design that he commonly uses requires 64 feet of buildable frontage. Unfortunately, our ordinance only allows 60 feet of frontage when lots are developed to the minimum lot width of 80 feet. According to Emmerich, the additional 4 feet that would be available would allow him to develop a home with a 3 -car garage that would be better balanced from an architectural standpoint. The additional 4 feet in width allows the garage W be offset slightly more from the home making it less prominent when viewed from the front. Without the 4 feet, more of the home is behind the garage making the garage more of a focal point than the home. The design of the Oak Ridge subdivision does not adequately take into account the city setback requirement; therefore, the plat that was developed included lots designed at minimum width standards of 80 feet. This ordinance amendment would not have been necessary if Emmerich had simply added an additional 4 feet of width to his lots. Attached you will find a report submitted by Steve Grittmun which provides additional background as to the pros and cons of amending the ordinance as proposed. R. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS: Motion to approve the zoning ordinance amendment as proposed based on the finding that the amendment is consistent with the geography and character of the R-1 zone and that the zoning ordinance amendment is consistent with the comprehensive plan. Furthermore, reducing the setback requirement on the garage side of structures in the 11-1 zone will not result in a depreciation of adjoining property values. Under this altemative, Planning Commission is comfortable that the Planning Commission Agenda - 9n193 Motion to deny the zoning ordinance amendment based on the finding that the zoning ordinance as presently written is correct and there is no reason to change it at this time. Reducing the side yard setback requirement on the garage side is not consistent with the comprehensive plan and could result in a depreciation of property values in the R-1 zone. Planning Commission could take the view that the present yard requirements which include lot width minimum of 80 feet and total square footage of 12,000 square feet and current side yard setbacks of 10 feet are up to date and provide ample room for contemporary construction. In addition, maintaining 10 feet on both side yards creates needed separation between structures. An argument could be made that the developer should have designed his plat within the confines of the existing ordinance and that it is not appropriate at this time to change the ordinance because the developer did not plat lots wide enough to accomodate the homes that he and his builder normally construct. It could also be argued that if contemporary home building is now including 3 -car garages, then perhaps the ordinance should he changed to require that lots be platted a minimum width of 84 feet versus 80 feet. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: It is the view of city staff that the zoning ordinance should be amended as proposed if the Planning Commission is comfortable that a 6 foot side yard setback on the garage side of a structure will create sufficient separation. Although city staff sympathizes with the developer and we agree that allowing an additional 4 feet of building area will improve the architectural balance of homes proposed, we do not feel that the ordinance should be approved if the side yard reduction will result in long term problems. D. SUPPORTING DATA: City Planner report; Copy of proposed zoning ordinance amendment; Copy of exerpts from Comprehensive Plan. SEP— 2-9E T H U 1 1 1 9 0 P. 02 - �;; NNorthwest Associated Consultants, Inc. IC Y R e A N P L A N N I N O • 0 e e 1 0 N • V A R K I T R It 6 e A R C N TO: Jeff O'Neill ' FROM: Stephen Grittman DATE: a September 1993 RE: Monticel)o . Residential Setbacks FILE NO: 191.06 • 93.04 This memorandum is in response to your Question regarding the proposal to reduce residential aide yard setbacks from ten feet to six Leet on one side. As we discussed, setbacks are a established as a function of other development regulations, including lot width sad area, as well as market trends and constraints. The City should be concerned first with public welfare, but in the context of the marketplace. One of the market trends which ie becoming a more commonplace occurrence in single family development is the inclusion of three car attached gar&ges. These garages challenge the Standard buildable lot configurations in that an additional ten feet of "acceseory" structure width is added to the home. The Question for the City to how to accommodate the newer housing designs in its plat and development review. There are a couple of ways to address the issue. One of these is the reduction of side yard setbacks in the manner proposed by the developer. As we have indicated to you, this is an issue which can have some impacts on the look and feel of a neighborhood. Although we may cite the tact that only tour feet of side yard are being lost, the four feet comprise twenty percent of the current required building separation, and would comprise forty percent it the six foot yards were placed next to each other. We believe that this reduces the "Spaciousness ,of a neighborhood to a noticeable degree. 2t this is a goal of the City's neighborhood design, then the reduction in setback approach should be avoided. SUP- 2-93 T H U 1 1: 1 9 0 P. 03 There are cities which have responded to wider housing designs by increasing the lot width requirements, or creating stratified coning districts with two single family districts, one for smaller lots and one for larger. This is not a necessary step for the City, however. Under the current arrangement, the minimum City lot would contain adequate buildable area for a sixty foot wide building. There in no requirement that a developer plat minimum Width lots, of course, and a developer who wishes to build particularly wide houses could be expected to accommodate those structures with larger lots voluntarily. The City should consider that the text amendment approach will apply to all future subdivision development. it is assumed that there are developers working in the City who may have liked the opportunity to reduce the setbacks an well, and the City should consider its response to any past requests in a similar vein. Finally, you may wish to consider requiring future plat proposals to include all setbacks to be shown on the preliminary plat. This is not an uncommon plat review requirement and serves to notify less vigilant developers of the constraints of the lots which they are platting. in reviewing your proposed ordinance Amendment, your approach with the exception would appear to accomplish the amendments goals. It may be that horisontal "extensions" of the six foot line established by the garage would not be precluded by the reference to "above" or "tuck under". You may wish to consider language for the exception as follows: •1n the R•1 Zoning District, attached garages may be permitted to encroach into a side yard not adjacent to a public right of way to a minimum side yard setback of six (6) feet. This exception is not intended to permit the encroachment of any livable area into the required ten foot setback. This language is specific to attached garages only and also clarifies and issues about encroachment on corner lots. Please do not hesitate to contact me to discuss these aommeat@ further. G) ORDINANCE AMENDMENT NO._ THE CITY COUNCIL OF MONTICELLO, MINNESOTA, HEREBY ORDAINS THAT TITLE 10 (COMMONLY KNOWN AS THE ZONING ORDINANCE) OF THE MONTICELLO CITY ORDINANCE BE AMENDED BY ADDING THE PORTION IN PARANTHF.SIS TO SECTION C OF CHAPTER 3-S AS IT RELATES TO YARD REQUIREMENTS. CHAPTER GENERAL PROVISIONS 3-3: YARD REQUIREMENTS: [C] All setback distances as listed in the table below shall be measured from the appropriate lot line and shall be required minimum distances. (*In the R-1 zoning district, attached garages may be permitted to encroach into a side yard not adjacent to a public right of way to aminimum side yard setback of six (6) feet. This exception is not intended to permit the encroachment of any livable area into the required ton (10) foot setback.) Adopted this day of , 1993. Mayor City Administrator Front Yard Side YW Rear Yard A-0 60 30 60 R-1 30 010 30 R-2 30 10 30 R-3 30 20 30 R-4 30 30 30 PZR See chapter 10 for specific regulations. PZM See chapter 10 for specific regulations. B-1 30 16 20 B-2 30 10 20 B-3 30 10 30 B-4 0 0 0 I-1 40 30 40 I-2 60 30 60 (*In the R-1 zoning district, attached garages may be permitted to encroach into a side yard not adjacent to a public right of way to aminimum side yard setback of six (6) feet. This exception is not intended to permit the encroachment of any livable area into the required ton (10) foot setback.) Adopted this day of , 1993. Mayor City Administrator COMPREHENSIVE PLAN EXCERPTS Emmerich Zoning Ordinance Amendment Request Is request consistent with Goals, Policies, etc? toe the C WGMnsiva Plan to validly !unction, it mut be basad on an mAerstandinv of the aspirations bald by the aitisena tot theic .»- 0 0 community. The community goals are preferences as toi (1) the general type of community that future physical development should help producer and (2) the character and location of the major physical elements forming the urban cnvironment. Before the Comprehensive Plan can be carried into effect, these community goals must be stated clearly and general agreement on them must be reached. Otherwise, the plan cannot be conceived of as the community's policy concerning physical development. Investigating community attitudes and formulating a publicly acceptable statement of broad community goals is a basic part of the planning process. A "goal* is a desired objective to be reached. 1. To develop and emphasize Monticello as a community that can offer the advantages of being near a metropolitan area for the enjoyment of major cultural, sports, and business assets and yet be completely and distinctly separate from the metropolitan area and its suburbs. a 2. ib encourage steady, careful growth by maintaining reasonably ! high standards. D. To utilize the inherent advantages of the community in terms of location, existing population, school system# available land, ate., to gain the best possible advantage from these assets so as to develop a reputation as a community combining all the desirable elements for living in Minnesota. 4. To develop the City according to an officially adopted Comprehensive Plan for land use, transportation, and community facilities. while the plan should not be inflexible, neither should it be amended indiscriminantly. S. To develop urban land uses according to a set of uniform standards applicable to the City. Such standards should govern land use, public improvements, health conditions, safety features, aesthetic considerations, and other elements of the urban environment for purposes of safeguarding the public health, safety, convenience, and general welfare. 6. To maintain a public image which associates Monticello with *=silence in planning, design, and etcuctural quality. 7. To coordinate local plans with those of the school district, adjacent and nearby communities, and others, is essential to the well-being of local residents. S. To develop a sound and broad tar base for the City and the school district is essential in order to provide revenue tot adequate public facilities and services without creating undue burdens upon property owners. 9. Sb bass all development decisions upon compliance with the City Plan. appropriate planning methods and procedures, and development standards that help to assure the best possible results within the realm of economic and legal feasibility. -15- 10. To make major public expenditures according to a capital improvements program and budget which establishes priority schedules for live or six years in advance based on projections of need and estimated revenues. U. Tb encourage Suitable housing in goad living environments for people of all ages, incomes, and racial and ethnic groups throughout Monticello. 12. To allow development of new housing only where it is in harmony with the natural environment and where adequate services and facilities are available. 11. To eliminate all instances of housing blight (dilapidation, poor maintenance, etc.) as rapidly as possible. 11. Tc concentrate commercial enterprises into relatively compact and well-planned areas by discouraging *spot' and 'strip* business developme9t. 15. To encourage the development of a strong industrial employment base so that persons can live and work in Monticello. 16, To develop high quality industrial areas which are free from nuisance characteristics such an noise, smoke, odors, vibrations, glare, dust, and other objectionable features. 17. ib purchase recreation sites for long-range needs at an early date in order that proper sites can be obtained before urban development or land costs render acquisition hopeless. 18. To develop public utilities and services that are well planned and cost-effective for present and future needs at the lowest possible operating and maintenance costs. 19. To evaluate present and future traffic flow volumes in order to develop various land use strategies to prevent congestion on the public streets. 20. Tb protect residential areas by channeling major traffic volumes onto a relatively few major streets. GENERAL HOUSING POLICIES In Monticello, urban planning should b d iqned to promote high standards for residential development elp to assure the best possible living environment. 1. The Planning commission, in coordination with the Housing and Redevelopment Authority, will be advocates for reform of land use controls, increased housing funding, governmental and legislative changes, and in general, act to increase public awareness of housing problems and solutions. The Commission will evaluate the City's regulatory codes and ordinances to insure that these regulations provide maximum opportunity to develop a range of housing types at various income levels and permit utilisation of innovative site development and construction techniques. 3. Attempts will be made to develop and implement affirmative programs for open housing. open housing is housing that is available to all persons without regard to race, creed, color, sex, or ethnic background. 3. Now hoesing'areas shall be provided utilities as they expand toward the perimeter of the City. 1. Residential uses should be permitted to mix with commercial or industrial uses unless it can be demonstrated that the residential and non-residential uses will be in conflict. S. Developments' shall be designed to respect the natural features of the site to the maxianss extent feasible. 6. Development' proposals will be evaluated with respect to their potential' effect upon adjacent and nearby developments and their effect upon the public welfare of the City and adjacent ca®unities. 7. Developments must be developed according to well conceived plans that tend to unify and relate to each others developments that are'a.hodlge-W9e and ill-conceived will be disapproved. S. Within the OAA, a density of 10.000 to 12,000 square feet of lot area per dwelling unit will be promoted in the areas of utility service contiguous to the present city and in those areas where central utility service construction is contemplated within five years. 1. . I. : 44y141.1p. 9. Although antidipeted-densities in areas capable of utility service within five years may be designed at 10,000 to 12,000 square feet of lot area per dwelling unit, building permits shall not be issued for a density of more than one dwelling unit per 2.5 acres'with on-site sewer systems based upon percolation tests.' • •Sn S. -44- 10. The existing density reqnt (land area per dwelling units) ae outlined in the ronin inane shall be continually reviewed to determine their appropriateness for adoption to changing times and conditions. 11. Appropriate urban renewal measures will be taken to assure maintenance of the existing housing supply in good to excellent condition. Suitable standards for structure and yard maintenance will be developed and enforced to help assure maintenance of residential neighborhoods in a sound condition. 12. All types of housing will be permitted including apartment structures, townhouses, and others, provided each to properly located according to the Comprehensive Plan, the site plans and structural quality (materials, workmanship, and design) are in accordance with the highest feasible standards, and each is in conformance with the provisions of the zoning ordinance. 13. Where provisions toe sanitary sewer are not contemplated in the near future (within five years), the density shall not exceed one dwelling unit per forty acres. The actual lots size per unit, however, may be as small as 2.5 acres subject to the provision of an approved individual on-site sewage system based upon percolation tests. Single Family Housing Policies i I. dome occupations will be permitted provided such activities are conducted in a manner which assume that evidence of such occupation is not present. 2. Single family housing should not be allowed individual access to major thoroughfares but will orient toward minor residential streets. Moltiola ramily Housing Policies 1. Multiple Family Dwellings ars recognised as being a worthwhile addition to the urban environment and tax base under conditions as established In the Comprehensive Plan and by zoning, subdivision, and other codes and ordinances. However, the Planning Commission will look with disfavor upon projects with design features that are considered Inappropriate, such as architectural designs that are incompatible with existing and proposed developments and unimaginative site designs. 2. Multiple Dwelling projects shall be encouraged to develop as •Planned Units" with specific plans submitted for structures, architectural design, landscaping, circulation, open space, recreation facilities, and any other features that may be proposed. ed8- O 1 do not follow the proper procedures which olte r sults in their decisions having been overturned by a court of, La when challenged by prospective developers. For example. in those °ncances when public hearings are required, it is important not onl: t. hold the public hearing but to follow the proper legal requir"nt� for public notice In a legal newspaper. !!!! A common mistake in thea application of the Zoning inq Ooda involves the double standacd. For example, different proceduces may be used depending upon whether the applicant is a long-time resident of the community or a developer. It should be emphasized that the law does not recognize differences between applicants and that the same procedures must be used regardless of the background and stature of the applicant. The following are some questions which sbould be raised when proposals for zoning amendments, variances, and conditional use permits are brought pefore the Planning Commission. ZONING AKENEKEPf 1. Has there been a change in the development policies of the community? 2. Has there been a change in the conditions in the community such as rapid population or development change? 7. Was there a mistake made in the development at the original zoning ordinance which needs to be corrected? C4. Is the zoning ordinance up to date? S. toes the proposed amendment conform to the intent of the z Comprehensive Development Plan? i 6. Is the proposed use compatible with adjacent land uses? i 7. Is the proposed amendment and land use likely to lead to a monopoly situation so as to amount to a spot zoning? H. What is the affect of the proposed rezoning on ouch public utilities as sanitary :were, water, roads, schools? 9. will the proposed development place an undue financial burden on the local community? ZONING Vasa" H 1. Drag the zoning ordinance and its standacdo. and regulations lead to a practical difficulty or undue hardship on the pact at the property owner in the use of his property? 2. Is the hardship unique to the property, i.e., lot shape, topography, had soils, eta.? 3. Is the hardship caused by any actions on the part of the land owner? I6. Is the land owner unable to acquire adjacent land so as to most the dimensional standards of the ordinance? IS. Will the proposal alter the essential character of the area? ' 6. Is the proposal In conformance with the spirit and intent of the zoning ordinance? ' CMMITIOtAL USE P6MIT 1. Is the proposed use speci;ically listed under the special uses Iof the zoning ordinance? 2. Does the proposed use need or conform to the development standards listed for special use -permits in the ordinance? I]. Was the proposed use conform in all respects to the Comprehensive Development Plan? M ^J Planning Commission Agenda - 9/7/93 4. Public Hearing—Consideration of a conditional use renuest to allow oxen and outdoor storage as an accessory use in an I-2 (heavy industrial) zone and a variance request to allow a forty (40) foot curb cut. ADDllcant. H -Window Comoanv. (J.O.) The two conditional use permits and the variance requests are being made in conjunction with the imminent expansion of the H -Window Company. Under the proposed expansion, the H -Window Company will be constructing an addition of a size approximately equal to the existing building. All aspects of the site plan will conform with city requirements in terms of landscaping, parking, signage, etc. Please see the site plan for more detail regarding the layout of the facility. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT ALLOWING OUTSIDE STORAGE The expansion of the facility calls for use of a very small area for outside storage. This area will be screened from view from the public right-of-way through the use of a screening fence. The location of the outside storage is noted on the attached site plan. As you can see, it is a relatively small area and there does not appear to be any reason to deny approval on this request. STALL, AISLE, AND DRIVEWAY DESIGN CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT The site plan conforms to the city requirements in regards to parking, drive areas, etc. with one exception. H -Window Company requests that curb not be required along parking expansion areas. Granting of this conditional use permit request lessening the standard requirements would be consistent with what the city has done for other companies that plan for future expansion. VARIANCE REQUEST ALLOWING A 40 -FOOT CURD CUT The site plan calls for a 40 -foot curb cut on the eastern -must access drive on Dundas Road. This is 16 feet wider than the maximum allowed by ordinance. H -Window requests a wider curb cut to allow for more maneuvering mom for semi -trailer trucks entering and leaving the loading berth area located on the southerly side of the structure. It is their view that a 24 -foot wide curb cut at this location is not wide enough to allow for maneuvering room and easy access for trucks and vehicles moving in and out of the site at this location. Planning Commission Agenda - 9/7/93 Although the variance request seems reasonable and makes sense in terms of the site plan prepared, it also appears that a 40 -foot curb cut is not completely necessary to assure functional operation of the site. There does not appear to be a particular hardship that justifies a 40 -foot curb cut at this location. On the other hand allowing a larger curb cut at this industrial site improves the functionality of the site without necessarily creating a negative impact on traffic movement in the area. If the Planning Commission is inclined to grant the variance, perhaps it is time that the city look at its ordinance regulating curb cut width and consider adding language allowing us to be more flexible in establishing curb cut widths. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS: DECISION ONE Motion to approve the conditional use request allowing outside storage and allowing a stall, aisle, and driveway design conditional use permit. Approval is contingent on compliance with requirements noted by ordinance. Motion based on the finding that outside storage and parking design are in compliance with the pertinent regulations; therefore, the request should be approved. The conditional use permit is consistent with the character and geography of the neighborhood, is consistent with the comprehensive plan, and will not result in a depreciation of adjoining property values. Planning Commission should select this option if it agrees with the findings above. This alternative is consistent with action taken at a previous meeting with regards to a similar request by Standard Iron. Motion to deny the conditional use permit as requested. Planning Commission should select this alternative if it does not agree with the findings as noted. DECISION TWO Motion to grant variance request allowing a curb cut of 40 feet based on the finding that the additional 16 feet will provide improved ingress and egress for semi -trailer trucks and, thereby, improve traffic flow and associated traffic safety. Direct city staff to investigate options for modifying the zoning ordinance to provide more flexibility in establishing curb cut widths, Planning Commission Agenda - 9n193 2. Motion to deny variance request based on the finding that a hardship is not demonstrated. With this alternative, the Planning Commission could take the view that a 24 -foot wide curb cut is sufficient for ingress and egress to the site and that a true hardship has not been demonstrated; therefore, granting this variance request would set a precedent. C. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: DECISION ONE Staff recommends Alternative til. DECISION TWO It is our view that a 40 -foot curb cut at this location will improve the functionality of the site. We do not foresee any significant problems created by granting the variance specific to the site itself or traffic on Dundas Road. However, there is the concern that the variance is being granted without proved demonstration of hardship and that perhaps, if Planning Commission wants to grant the variance, we need to look at our curb cut width requirement and consider amending the ordinance to allow greater flexibility. Perhaps we include curb cut width as an aspect to be considered in conjunction with the conditional use permit allowing a lessening of parking lot standards. Prior to the meeting, 1 hope to discuss this issue with Steve Grittman to get some insight from him as to whether or not a 24 -foot wide curb cut is overly restrictive in an industrial zone. D. SUPPORTING DATA: Copy of site plan. I I I I I 1 it I I t.l h a. I i I I I I I I I I i i I I I I I I I am I I I I I I • • I I ' uiiiiiillllllllll11111111IL fi` I ------------------------- — -- — —— - — —_ Va�fo�e! • t.l h a. I i I I I I I I I I i i I I I I I I I am I I I I I I • • I I ' uiiiiiillllllllll11111111IL fi` I ------------------------- — -- — —— - — —_ Va�fo�e! Planning Commission Agenda - 9/7/93 Public Hearina-Consideration of a request to amend Cbauter 10 of the Monticello Zoning Ordinance by adding a urovision that would increase the maximum size allowed for private garages aacessory to a residential use in a PZM (performance zone mixed) zone. Aonlicant. Randy Ruff. (d.0.) A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: As you recall at the previous meeting of the Planning Commission, Planning Commission considered granting a variance to Randy Ruff to allow development of a 2,600 sq ft accessory structure. The exterior wall of the structure was to be covered with steel siding. Planning Commission denied the variance request whereupon Ruff appealed the Planning Commission decision to the City Council. The City Council denied the variance request as well but suggested that Ruff reintroduce the request as a zoning ordinance amendment. Under the zoning ordinance amendment concept, an accessory structure in excess of 1,000 sq ft could be constructed in a PZM zone as long as it meets a relatively strict set of standards as defined by ordinance. The concept behind establishing a zoning ordinance amendment would he to make the requirements relatively strict so that a garage in excess of 1,000 sq ft would only he allowed under limited circumstances where lot size allows construction of a larger accessory garage. According to the City Planner, the conditions allowing an accessory structure can not he written so tightly so as to allow the structure to be located on only one site in the P7A district; therefore, there is a possibility that accessory structures in excess of 1,000 sq ft, if allowed as a conditional use permit for Randy Ruff in his neighborhood, could also he developed in other areas within the P7.M zoning districts. Following is a quick review of the conditions associated with the conditional use permit as noted in the proposed ordinance. Accessory Building Size and Setback The ordinance requires that accessory buildings he no larger than the principal structure. This would seem to make sense because, by definition, a building that is accessory to a principal structure should he smaller than the principal structure or at least no larger than the principal structure. In addition, the accessory building should not occupy more than 2511of the rear yard. Another proposed ordinance setback requirement would he double the setback requirement for the accessory structures in the R-3 zoning district. The standard requirements for setbacks for accessory structures in the R-3 zoning district at the side yard is 10 feet and at the rear yard is b feet. These requirements would he doubled under the proposed zoning ordinance amendment. The ordinance would not allow the structure to he located forward of the front yard setback of the principal structure. Planning Commission Agenda - 9n193 Design Standards Under the proposed ordinance, building would need to have a minimum of 3:12 roof pitch and a minimum of a 6 -inch soffit. This is a standard building requirement already enforced by the City. Accessory building must be anchored to a permanent concrete foundation. Accessory building shall be designed and finished on all sides of materials consistent with principal structure. This aspect of the conditional use permit is not consistent with the request made by Ruff. Ruff originally requested that he be allowed to construct a steel building. The ordinance as proposed would not allow this option. Planning Commission will need to consider whether or not it wants to include this restriction in the conditional use permit conditions. The proposed ordinance amendment also limits the height of the structure to 15 feet and prohibits the building from being placed within 10 feet from any other structure on the lot. This particular requirement is consistent with existing requirements regulating accessory structures. Limiting the height of the structure will result in the building being a less imposing structure on the site without reducing its function. Activities/Use The ordinance limits the use of the building for uses accessory to a residence. No commercial storage, manufacturing, etc. is ullowed. This aspect of the conditional use permit is very difficult to enforce. One has to he concerned about the future use of a large accessory structure and, that over time, residential use would become secondary t,) commercial use. B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS: Motion to approve proposed zoning ordinance amendment allowing accessory buildings or garages with a floor area in excess of 1,000 sq ft. Under this alternative, Planning Commission is comfortable that allowing large accessory buildings in a PZM zone is consistent with the intent of the P7.M zone and that the conditions under which such a building can be established are sufficient. to assure that the P7,M neighborhoods will he protected. Under this alternative, Planning Commission could make the finding that the zoning ordinance amendment is consistent with the geography and character of the P/M zoning district and the amendment is consistent with the comprehensive plan. Planning Commission Agenda - 9/7/93 Motion to deny zoning ordinance amendment to allow accessory buildings or garages with a floor area in excess of 1,000 sq ft. Under this alternative, the Planning Commission could make a finding that the proposed zoning ordinance amendment is not consistent with the geography and character of the PZM zoning district. One could argue that, even with relatively strict conditions, it is possible that large accessory buildings will be constructed in other PZM zoning areas throughout the city. 9,r By allowing large accessory structures in residential zones, the door is open for the use of the structures for uses other than residential use. Already we have seen individuals that construct 1,000 sq ft garages using their garages for manufacturing sites and for storage of construction equipment or materials that are simply not accessory to a residential use. C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION[: Although city staff is sympathetic to Ruffs request and that if the conditional use permit is granted in his case, it would seem to be justifiable given the Ruff neighborhood. However, it is our view that, even that with these strict conditions as noted, an opportunity would now exist for similar structures to be developed in other PZM districts. We do not feel it is in the best interest of the city to allow large accessory structures to be constructed in other PZM zones. D. SUPPORTING; DATA: Copy of proposed zoning ordinance amendment; Map identifying 1'ZM districts; Description of purpose of PZM zone; Copy of exerpts from Comprehensive Plan. ORDINANCE AMENDMENT NO._ THE CITY COUNCIL OF MONTICELLO, MINNESOTA. HEREBY ORDAINS THAT TITLE 10 (COMMONLY KNOWN AS THE ZONING ORDINANCE) OF THE MONTICELLO CITY ORDINANCE BE AMENDED BY ADDING SECTION N TO CHAPTER I" AS IT RELATES TO THE PZM ZONING DISTRICT, AND RENUMBERING FOLLOWING SECTIONS ACCORDINGLY. CHAPTER 10 "PZ -RESIDENTIAL & PZ -MIXED" ZONING DISTRICTS 10-8: PZM: CONDITIONAL USES: Only the following uses are conditional uses in a PZM district. [M Accessory buildings or garages with a floor area in excess of 1,000 square feet provided that they meet the following conditions: 1. The setback requirement shall be double the setback requirements for accessory structures in the R-3 zoning district. 2. No accessory building shall be erected or located within any required yard other than the rear yard nor shall it be located forward of the front yard setback of the principal structure. 3. The accessory building shall not occupy more than twenty-five (25) percent of a rear yard, nor shall the floor area of the accessory structure exceed the floor area of the principal structure. 4. The accessory building shall be constructed to have a Minimum 3:12 roof pitch with minimum six (8) inch soffit. 5. The accessory building must be anchored to a permanent concrete foundation. 8. The accessory building shall be designed and finished on all sides with materials consistent with the principle structure. 7. The accessory building shall not exceed fifteen (16) fact in height and shall be ten (10) foot or more from any other building or structure on the same lot and shall not be located within a utility easement. 0 Ordinance Amendment No. Page 2 8. The accessory building shall be used for activities or storage accessory to a residential use. No commercial storage or activities shall be allowed. Adopted this day of 1993. City Administrator I Mayor VO0� ). Sul'� AGGEggOR,pINGS WITS aLs 101- �EpS Et'I ui�gg FLS • ,. � `:'�!;�►.���c;+H t pVt 1♦p00 84 '� _..... _ _ ___..�-•.� .�'� •*_,t+• ,y, •,. � , �'.i .i'Y �,ii�, int•. k`. i , . .,. 1 �±i• int' `� �i :� - 4-t �• n off 1 tP � i 0 s a a `i CHAPTER 10 "PZ -RESIDENTIAL S PZ -MIXED" ZONING DISTRICTS SECTION: 10-1: Purpose 10-2: General Description 10-3: PER, Permitted Uses 10-4: PZR, Permitted Accessory Uses 10-5s PER, Conditional Uses 10-6s PEN, Permitted Uses 10-7: PEN, Permitted Accessory Uses 10-8: PEN, Conditional Uses 10-9: Procedure 10-10: Compliance 10-1s / PURPOSE: The purpose of the "PZ," Performance Zoning, districts is to allow for development flexibility and special design control within sensitive areas of the city due to environmental or physical limitations. The performance zoning districts also attempt to create a reasonable balance between the interest of the property owner in freely developing his property and at the same time protect the interest o' surrounding properties in the following wayes (A].' By encouraging a more creative approach in commercial and housing developments that will result in quality living environments through innovative design and aesthetic controls; (B) By permitting a combination of housing types and styles, Including single family, two-family, and multiple family dwellings, with the exception of mobile homes; (C) By allowing flexibility in design by permitting cluster developments and a variety of architectural styles and treatments; (D) By allowing flexibility in setback andheight restrictions. (E) By providing an efficient use of land resulting in more cost efficient installation of utilities, streets, and other facilities; (P] By encouraging the preservation of common open space, recreational facilities, natural features such as woodland, wetland, and flood plain; (G) By contributing to the tax base of the community without making undue demands on the community services; 0 MONTICELLO ZONING ORDINANCE 10/1 [H] Sy providing the means for greater flexibility i environmental design than is provided under the strict application of the Monticello Zoning Ordinance and Subdivision Ordinance while at the same time preserving general welfare of the city of Monticello and its inhabitants. 10-2t GENERAL DESCRIPTION: It has been determined that within certain unique areas of the community, the precise designation of acceptable land use and the geographic definition of such activities cannot be accomplished without detailed analysis of land use, construction costs, and improvement feasibility and costs, market conditions, and financing. In such cases, in order to allow property owners the opportunity to pursue the highest and beat use of their land within the constraints of environmental and physical limitations, the "PZ", performance zoning, districts have been created. To further define the intent of performance zoning, two separate districts have been created as follows: (A] "PZ -RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICT": The purpose of the "PZ -Residential Zoning District" is to provide a harmonious mixture of different residential land uses in a manner which best utilizes the development potential of the land and natural environment, existing adjacent and future adjacent land uses. (S] "pZ-MIXED USE ZONING DISTRICT"t The purpose of the "PZ - Mixed Use Zoning District" is to provide a land use transition between high density residential land uses and low intensity business land uses, as well as the intermixing of each such land use. 10-7t PERFORMANCE ZONE -RESIDENTIAL ("PER") PERMITTED USESt Only the following uses are permitted uses within a PER distriett (A] Those uses listed as permitted uses within the R-1 zoning district. Standards shall be as contained therein. (BJ Those uses that exist prior to the adoption of this chapter. (C) A permitted use shall be regulated by the terms and conditions of this ordinance as they pertain to an R-1 district. 10-41 PER PERMITTED ACCESSORY USES: Only the following uses are permitted accessory uses within a PER district: (A] Those uses listed as permitted accessory uses in the R -t. zoning district. qOXMICBLLO ZONING ORDINANCB r `1.. Ruff Zoning Ordinance Amendment Request Is request consistent with Goals, policies, etc? Par the Comprehensive, Plan to validly tunatian, it must be based on an understanding at the aspirations held by the citizens tae !bait' community. The community goals ace preferences as tot (1) the general type of community that future physical development should help produces and (2) the character and location of the major physical elements forming the urban environment. Before the Comprehensive Plan can be carried into effect, these community goals must be stated clearly and general agreement on them must be coached. Otherwise, the plan cannot be conceived of as the community's policy concerning physical development. Investigating community attitudes and formulating a publicly acceptable statement of broad community goals is a basic part of the planning process. A 'goal' is a desired objective to be reached. 1. 7b develop and emphasise Monticello as a community that can offer the advantages of being near a metropolitan area for the enjoyment of major cultural, sports, and business assets and yet be completely and distinctly separate from the metropolitan area and its suburbs. A 2. To encourage steady, careful growth by maintaining reasonably high standacda. I. Tb utilise the inherent advantages of the community in terms of location, existing population, school system, available lend, etc., to gain the best possible advantage from these assets so as to develop a reputation as a community combining all the desirable elements for living in Minnesota. 4. To develop the City according to an officially adopted Comprehensive Plan for land use, transportation, and community facilities. While the plan should not be inflexible, neither should it be amended indiscriminantly. S. To develop urban land uses aS22xdJW to a set of unbform standards 12211cable to the MI. Such standerds should govwrn len e, public improvements, health conditions, safety natures, aesthetic considecatLWs, and other elements of the urban environment for purposes of safeguarding the public health. safety, convenience, and general welfare. 6. Sb maintain a public image which associates Monticello with excellence In planning, design, and structural quality. 7. 7b coordinate local plans with those of the school district, adjacent and nearby communities, and others, is essential to the well-being of local residents. 6. To develop a sound and broad tax base for the City and the school district is essential in order to provide revenue for adequate public facilities and services without creating undue burdens upon property owners. 9. So base all development decisions upon compliance with the City Plan, appropriate planning methods and procedures, and development standards that help to assure the best possible results within the realm of economic and legal feasibility. -IS- 0 10. ib make major public expenditures according to a capital improvements program and budget which establishes priority schedules for Live or six years in advance based on projections of need and estimated revenues. 11. To encourage suitable housing in good living environments Loc people of all ages, income, and racial and ethnic groups throughout Monticello. 12. To allow development of new housing only where it is in harmony with the natural environment and where adequate services and facilities ace available. ll. To eliminate all instances of housing blight (dilapidation, poor maintenance, etc.) as rapidly as possible. le. To concentrate commercial enterprises into relatively compact and well-planned areas by discouraging 'spot* and *strip* business developmatt. 15. To encourage the development of a strong industrial employment base so that persons can live and work in Monticello. 16. To develop high quality industrial areas which are tree from nuisance characteristics such as noise, smoke, odors, vibrations, glace, dust, and other objectionable features. 17. ib purchase recreation sites for long -tango needs at an early date in order that proper sites can be obtained before urban development cc lend costa render acquisition hopeless. 18, To develop public utilities and services that are well planned and cost-effective tot present and future needs at the lowest possible operating and maintenance costs. 19. Sb evaluate present and future traffic flow volumes in order to develop various land use strategies to prevent congestion on the public streets. 30. To protect residential areas by channeling major traffic volumes onto a relatively few major streets. -39- GENERAL ROUSING POLICIES In Monticello. urban planning should b d igned to promote high standards for residential development alp to assure the beet possible living environment. 1. the Planning Commission, in coordination with the Rousing and Redevelopment Authority, will be advocates for reform of land use controls, increased housing funding, governmental and legislative changes, and in general, act to increase public awareness of housing problems and solutions. The Commission will evaluate the City's regulatory codes and ordinances to insure that these regulations provide maximum opportunity to develop a range of housing types at various income levels and permit utilization of innovative site development and construction techniques. 2. Attempts will be made to develop and implement affirmative programs for open housing. 'Open housing is housing that is available to all persons without regard to race, creed, color, sex, or ethnic background. 3. New housing areas shall be provided utilities as they expand toward the perimeter of the City. 4. Residential uses should be permitted to mix with commercial or Industrial uses unless it can be demonstrated that the residential and non-residential uses will be in conflict. S. Developments shall be designed to respect the natural features of the site to the maximum extent feasible. 6. Development proposals will be evaluated with respect to their potential effect upon adjacent and nearby developments and their effect upon the public welfare of the City and adjacent com unities. 7. Developments must be developed according to well conceived plane that tend to unify and relate to each other) developments that area hedge-podge and ill-conceived will be disapproved. S. Within the OAA, a density of 10,000 to 12,000 square feet of lot area per dwelling unit will be promoted in the areas of utility service contiguous to the present city and in those areae where central utility service construction is contemplated within five years. 9. Althoagh'anticipatedIdone ItLos in areas capable of utility service within five years may be designed at 10,000 to 12.000 square feet of lot area per dwelling unit, building permits shall not be Issued for a density of more than one dwelling unit per 2.5 acres with on-site ewer systems based upon percolation tests. . . -aM O 10. the existing density req�rnt (lend area per dwelling units) as outlined in the toninnance shall be continually reviewed to determine their appropriateness for adoption to changing times and conditions. 11. Appropriate urban renewal measures will be taken to assure maintenance of the existing housing supply in good to excellent condition. Suitable standards for structure and yard maintenance will be developed and enfocced to help assure maintenance of residential neighborhoods in a sound condition. 12. All types of housing will be permitted including apartment structures, townhouses, and others, provided each is properly located according to the Comprehensive Plan, the site plans and structural quality (materials, workmanship, and design) ace in accordance with the highest feasible standards, and each is in conformance withythe provisions of the zoning ordinance. 13. Where provisions for sanitary saner are not contemplated in the near future (within five years), the density shall not exceed one dwelling unit per forty acts@. The actual lots size per unit, however, may be as small as 2.S acres subject to the provision of an approved individual on -cite swage system based upon percolation testa. Single 8aaily Houaina Policies 1. Home occupations will be permitted provided such activities are conducted in a manner which assumes that evidence of such occupation is not present. 2. Single family housing should not be allowed individual access to sajor thoroughfares but will orient toward minor residential attests. Multiple Family Housing Policies 1. Multiple family Dwellings are recognised as being a worthwhile addition to the urban environment and tax base under conditions as established in the Comprehensive Plan and by zoning, subdivision, and other codes and ordinances. However. the Planning Commission will look with disfavoc upon projects with design features that are considered inappropriate, such as acchitectucal designs that are incompatible with existing and proposed developments and unimaginative site designs. 2. Multiple Dwelling projects shall be encouraged to develop as Manned Units* with specific plans submitted for structures, architectural design, landscaping, circulation, open space, recreation facilities, and a" other features that way be proposed. 0 JPWIWO VANiAws 1. Does the toning ordinance and its standards and regulations lead to a practical difficulty or undue hardship on the part of the property owner in the use of his property? -73- 0 do not follow the proper procedures which of r sults in their 1, decisions hewing been Overturned by a court of when challenged by prospective developers. for example, in those nces when public hearings are required, it is important not onl bold the public hearing but to follow the proper legal requir n for public notice in a legal newspaper. A common mistake in the application of the Zoning Code involves the double standard. Pbr example, different procedures may be used depending upon whether the applicant is a long-time resident of the •� community or a developer. It should be emphasized that the lav dose i not recognize differences between applicants and that the same procedures must be used regardless of the background and stature of the applicant. The following are some questions which should be raised when proposals for toning amendments, variances, and conditional use permits are brought before the Planning Commission. EDWIM ANEMMU ! 1. Bas there been a change in the development policies of the community? it 2. Bae there been a change in the conditions in the community such as rapid population or development change? 1 1. Was there a mistake made in the developmsnt of the original yi zoning ordinance which meds to be corrected? 1. Is the zoning ordinance up to date? S. Does the proposed amendment conform to the intent. of the Comprehensive Development Plan? 6. Is the proposed use compatible with adjacent land ones? 7. Is the proposed amendment and land use likely to lead to a monopoly situation so as to amount to a spot zoning? 8. What is the affect of the proposed rezoning on such public utilities as sanitary savers, water, roads, schools? 9. Will the proposed development place an undue financial burden on the local community? JPWIWO VANiAws 1. Does the toning ordinance and its standards and regulations lead to a practical difficulty or undue hardship on the part of the property owner in the use of his property? -73- 0 2. Is the hardship unique to the property, i.e., lot shape, topography, bad soils, etc.? 3. Is the hardship caused by any actions on the part of the land owner? •. Is the land owner unable to acquire adjacent land so as to meet the dimensional standards of the ordinance? S. Will the proposal alter the essential character of the areal 6. Is the proposal in conformance with the spirit and intent of the zoning ordinance? CONDITIONAL 088 PMIS ' 1. Is the proposed use specijically listed under the special uses of the zoning ordinance? 2. Does the proposed use need or conform to the development standards listed for special use_parmits in the ordinance? 3. Does the proposed use conform in all respects to the Comprehensive Development Plan? -7M O