Planning Commission Agenda Packet 04-12-1993 SpecialAGENDA
SPECIAL MEETING - MONTICELL0 PLANNING CODOUSSION
Monday, April 12, 1893 - 6 pm.
Members: Cindy Leann, Richard Carlson, Dick Martie, Jon Bogart, Brian Stumpf
1. Call to order.
2. Public Hearing --Consideration of a request to amend the Monticello Zoning
Ordinance by rescinding section 20-2:[C] which requires that planned unit
development proposals must include an area of at least three contiguous acres.
Applicant, AmericInnlfaco Bell.
3. Public Hearing—Consideration of a conditional use permit allowing a
commercial PUD (planned unit development) in a B-3 (highway business) zone;
and a variance request allowing pylon sign height in excess of 32-R maximum.
Applicant, Taco Bell/Willard Murphy.
4. Adjourn.
Special Planning Commission Agenda - 4/12/93
Public Hearin[ --Consideration of a reaaegt [q amend the Monticello
Zoning Ordinance by rescinding section 20.2:[C] which reaui_res that
planned unit development mppos* must [nclutle an Wea of at least
three contiguous acres. Applicant. AmericlnnlTaco Bell. W.OJ
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
See report submitted by Steve Grittman.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. Motion to approve request to amend the zoning ordinance by rescinding
section 20-2:[C] which requires that planned unit development proposals
must include an area of at least three contiguous acres.
2. Motion to deny approval of the zoning ordinance amendment.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of this ordinance amendment with or without the
related PUD request.
J_' ;an _ �► _ .
City Planner's report; Site plan.
FRI s: -4o p P_.3`
I 7-N .
Northwest Associated Consultants, Inc.
U R 0 A N PL ANNI NO • D E S 1 O N• MARKET RESEARCH
PLANNING REPORT
TOI
Jeff O'Neill
FROM:
Stephen Grittman
DATE:
9 April 1993
RB:
Monticello . Taco Bell/Americinn DVD
FILE NOt
191.07 - 93.03
BACKGROUND
The developers of the proposed Taco Bell facility un the Americinn
property have requested that the City permit the construction of a
convenience restaurant which would effectively remove the public
street frontage from the Americlnn motel. In addition, Taco Bell
would like to place a sign on the existing pole adjacent to I-94.
The sign, which would technically be off of the Taco Bell site,
would also exceed the maximum height allowances for freestanding
signs.
The applicants had originally Bought variances to pursue this
development. Zoning variances are to be utilised where a
particular parcel has a unique physical condition where strict
enforcement of the Ordinance performance standards would cause a
hardship in the use of the parcel. In the case where a parcel is
already being used in general conformance with the Zoning
Ordinance, such a hardship would be difficult to imagine.
In discussing the proposal further, we have suggested that the use
of Planned Unit Development be considered. Under PUD, the City may
negotiate for certain performance standards and site improvements,
the theory being that am a result of giving a little in certain
areae, it receives improvements in others which result in a
superior planned project which could not have been achieved
otherwise.
The applicants have pursued this approach for the eubdivisiun of
the property and the location of the Taco Bell sign. We are
creating the height of the sign as a regular variance application,
however, as it has impacts beyond the scope of Planned Unit
Devolopnent.
v
47.7et %Ah i-pele Alum . t 10gN aaa . Rf 1 nine Park MN 55418 L (8121 595.9636'Fax. 595.9837
APR- 9-93 FR I 9 4 0 p
A final note regards the use of DUD on this site. The Zoning
Ordinance currently requires a minimum three acre site for PUD
application. It is our opinion that this standard is an antiquated
one which no longer applies to contemporary development. A FUD
should be able to stand on its own merits, regardless of lot size,
or it should not be approved. As a result, we are recommending
that the three acre threshold for PUDs be deleted.
ANALYSIS
PLAZOM UNIT DEVELOPMENT
The proposed FUD is being requested to solve two primary Ordinance
constraints on this development. First is the subdivision request
which would remove the AmericInn from public street frontage. The
second is to permit the sign location for Taco Sell on the
remaining Americinn property. We are concerned that the site
plane, as submitted, do not provide the positive trade off which
would justify the use of PUD in this case. Following is a brief
discussion of what such improvements might include.
1. Several existing parking stalls appear to have been eliminated
for hotel parking which need to be replaced in association
with new plane.
2. The required parking standard for convenience food
establishments isi i apace/40 square feet of dining floor
area, plus i apace/AO square feet of kitchen area which
necessitates that approximately 24 total parking stalls be
provided. The site plan shows 34 stalls (including the two
handicapped). This appearo to meet the Ordinance minimum.
subject to required motel parking.
Processing of this request as a PUD allows Flexibility in site
design but should not be used as a means of circumventing
Zoning Ordinance requirements. Approval of a DVD within the
City requires that higher standards of site/building design
and creative use of the land be implemented. This may be
achieved using one or more of the followinyi
a. Rnhanced Landscape Requirements. The detailed and
specialised us• of plant and site materials should be
required through unique plantings, increased quantity of
materials, flower bade, varying levels, theme design,
fountnine, sculpture, gazebo, etc.
oxo
APR- 9 -9 3 FR I P 0�7
b. Design for People. All site and landscape design should
focus on pedestrian interaction and patron/employee usage
of the site. Areae for sitting, eating, and relaxing
should be provided for shared use between Taco Bell and
AmericInn buildings such as a courtyard or "mini -park*.
Coordinated Site Design. visual and physical integration
of buildings, parking areas, and landscaping should be
required. Architectural continuity should be promoted
through the use of similar materials, colors, paving
materials, signage, etc. Connection between the two
buildings via a walkway would be very desirable. The
AmericInn building and surrounding areae should be
enhanced to coordinate with any new design.
SIGN RXXQ= VARIAHCB
The proposed Taco Bell sign is designed to be added to the existing
AmericInn sign pole. The current Americ2nn sign exceeds the
maximum 32 foot height for such signs, and the proposed location of
the Taco Bell sign would as well. We believe that the use of a
single pole is positive in that it would reduce the clutter of
poles on the site. However, the height issue must be measured
against the uniqueness and hardship criteria for variance
consideration.
The situation does not appear to be unique. There are a number of
signs in the corridor which are non -conforming by height. Approval
of this proposal could be seen as an endorsement of existing sign
conditions. If the existing sign conditions are acceptable to the
City, then this in much lees of an issue, however, it is our
understanding that a sign height variance was recently denied to R -
Mart. Approval of Taco Bell's request could be viewed as a
•special privilege" which is specifically probibited under the
variance language.
In any case, if the City believes that higher signs are
appropriate, we would recommend looking at the City's Ordinance
standards rather than treating them individually. Such a process
can lead to concerns over consistency in the application of the
Ordinance, as well as difficulty on the parts of both staff and
potential developers in preparing and reviewing development
proposals.
O P R- 19-9Z F R 2 S:42 O
MON DUMATION
P. em
Planned Unit Development is a process under which the City adopts
a flexible approach to certain performance standards in the
expectation that the resultant project will be more creative in its
design and generally superior to that which could have been
accomplished under the strict enforcement of the performance
standards. we do not believe that, as submitted, the applicaav e
plans meet that expectation. A more thorough treatment of the
AmericInn Oita should be accomplished, and the site plan should
better integrate the uses than it does now. As designed, the two
usesappear to ignore each other, rather than act as a Oplanned
unit •. If a site plan can be developed which more closely meets
these objectives, we believe the use of PUD would be appropriate
and approvable. This request should be tabled pending a more
enhanced site plan.
With regard to sign height, we do not believe that a finding of
hardship, uniqueness, or avoidance of special privileges can be
made. we recommend denial of the sign height variance and
encourage the applicant to pursue alternative identification
methods, if the 32 foot height is deemed to be inadequate for its
advertising purposes.
Finally, we recommend the City adopt an Ordinance which deletes the
three acre minimum lot size for the application of RM. This
standard unnecesearily ties the hands of the City in negotiating a
development proposal which may be desirable to the City, but which
cannot otherwise be processed due to this restriction.
0
(of,
t
Special Planning Commission Agenda - 4/12/93
3. Public Hearin -g -Consideration of a conditional pee petrmi� allpwj" a
pommercial PUD (planned unit development) in a B43 (hiaboyrgy
husln� zone: and a varlancg request allowing uvlou sign height in
excess of 32 -ft maximum. Auulicant. Taco Bell/Willard Murphy. W.O.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
See report with previous agenda item submitted by Steve Grittman.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS;
IA. Motion to approve the conditional use permit allowing a commercial
PUD in a B-3 zone.
113. Motion to deny the conditional use permit allowing a commercial PUD
in a B-3 zone.
2A. Motion to approve the variance to the sign height maamum.
2B. Motion to deny the variance to the sign height maximum.
`- C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
See report with previous agenda item.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
City Planner's report and site plan from previous agenda item.
z