Planning Commission Agenda Packet 10-07-1992;T-1
AGENDA
REGULAR MEETING - MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION
Wednesday, October 7. 1992.7 pm.
Members: Cindy Lemm, Richard Carlson, Richard Martie, Jon Bogart
7:00 pm 1. Call to order.
7:02 pm 2. Approval of minutes of the regular meeting held August 4, 1992.
7:04 pm 3. Public Hearing --Consideration of a variance request to allow an
addition to be built onto an existing garage within the side yard
setback requirement. Applicant, Gordon Steinert.
7:17 pm 4. Public Hearing --Consideration of rezoning West Side
Market/Conoco property from R -I (single family residential) to B-
1 (neighborhood business). Applicant, Tom Holthaus and Matt
Holker/West Side Market.
7:37 pm b. Public Hearing --Consideration of granting a conditional use
permit which would allow operation of a convenience store in a
B-1 zone. Applicant, Tom Holthaus and Matt Holker/West Side
Market.
7:57 pm 6.
Public Hearing --Consideration of a variance request allowing sign
area in excess of the maximum allowed. Consideration of a
variance to the sign setback along a public right-of-way.
Applicant, Monticello -Big Lake Community Hospital.
8:17 pm 7.
Continued Public Hearing --Consideration of a request to amend
a condition of a previously -approved conditional use permit which
would allow operation of a restaurant/arcade establishment.
Applicant, Hillside Partnership.
8:47 pm 8.
Consideration of calling for a public hearing on a zoning
ordinance amendment to Section 22.1 IJ], which would allow the
City Council to consider a conditional use permit request or
zoning ordinance amendment request at a special meeting of the
City Council. Applicant, City of Monticello. W.O. verbal report)
8:57 pm 9.
Planning Commission applicant interviews --postponed. Few
applications received. Will leave position open.
Planning Commission Agenda
October 7, 1992
Page 2
Additional Information Items
9:41 pm 1. A variance request to allow construction of a building within the
front yard setback requirements. Applicant, Northern Natural
Gas Company. Council action: Approved as per Planning
Commission recommendation.
9:43 pm 2. A variance request to allow an apartment building to be
constructed in the rear yard setback requirement. Applicant,
David Hornig. Council action: Approved as per Planning
Commission recommendation.
9:45 pm 3. A variance request to allow a building wall to have more than the
minimum 50% wall coverage of a metal or fiberglass finish.
Applicant, Brad and Mary Barger. Council action: Approved as
per Planning Commission recommendation.
9:47 pm 4. Consideration of a preliminary plat request for a commercial
subdivision plat. Applicant, Barry Fluth/Monticello Mall. Council
action: Approved as per Planning Commission recommendation.
9:49 pm b. Consideration of approval of a preliminary plat of the Silver Fox
Subdivision. Applicant, Ed and Arlys Larson. Council action:
Approved as per Planning Commission recommendation.
9:51 pm 6. Set the next tentative date for the Monticello Planning
Commission meeting for Wednesday, November 4, 1992, 7 p.m.
9:63 pm 7. Adjournment.
MINUTES
SPECIAL MEETING - MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION
Monday, September 28, 1992 - 6 p m.
Members Present: Richard Martie, Jon Bogart, Cindy Lemm, Richard Carlson
Members Absent: None
1. The meeting was called to order by Acting Chairperson, Cindy Lemm, at 6 p.m.
2. Public Hearino.--Cnnsideration of an amendment to a conditional use permit
allowine a restaurantlamusement center facility. Applicant, Hillside
Partnership.
Jeff O'Neill, Assistant Administrator, explained that the applicant and City
staff need additional time to review the parking requirements associated with
development of a restaurant/arcade. A firm recommendation is not available;
therefore, the applicant, Peter Norgren, and staff have mutually agreed to
request that the Planning Commission open the public hearing this evening
and then continue the matter to the regular meeting scheduled for Wednesday,
October 7, at 7 p.m.
O'Neill also informed the Planning Commission that the owner of the
restaurant/amusement center facility is here, and we might want to hear his
proposed use of the facility.
Acting Chairperson, Cindy Lemm, then opened the public hearing.
Patty Olsen, realtor with Edina Realty, reviewed with the Planning
Commission the proposed use of the property and how it would be beneficial
for all parties involved to sit down in an informal meeting and determine the
amount of parking spaces that are required. She shared her findings after
calling other communities regarding the number of parking spaces that are
required for this type of facility.
Judy Leming, partner of Hillside Partnership and realtor with Edina Realty,
introduced Mr. Peter Norgren, part owner of P.J.'s Pizza Parlor. Mr. Norgren
asked if lie could give a short presentation on the proposed use of the 4,500 sq
ft space which he is proposing to lease in the 6th Street Annex. Mr. Norgren
indicated the proposed use of this facility is similar to the "Chuck E Cheese"
restaurant/umusement center facility in St, Cloud, Minnesota, and also similar
to the "Circus, Circus" amusement center facilities located in the metro area.
Page I
Special Planning Commission Minutes - 9/28/92
Mr. Norgren highlighted that the focus of his business marketing pian is young ->
families. The P.J.'s Pizza Parlor would promote patronizing his business,
supporting events at the Monticello Public Schools. After the events, the
teams and their coaches and/or fans could join in food and refreshments at
reduced prices at the P.J.'s Pizza Parlor, with portions of the proceeds from the
restaurant's business going to support that particular sport at the Monticello
Public Schools.
Judy Leming introduced Mr. Greg Mooney, owner of 21st Century Builders.
Mr. Mooney indicated that 25-30 additional parking spaces can be
accommodated by creating 30 -degree angle parking.
Patty Olsen commented that while waiting for appointment at Great Clips,
some people could utilize the arcade facility within the restaurant/amusement
center facility.
There being no further comments from the public, Acting Chairperson, Cindy
Lemm, then asked if there was any further input from the Planning
Commission members.
Discussion amonst the Planning Commission was that City staff should set up
a meeting with the developers at a date and time agreeable to both parties.
A motion was made by Richard Carlson and seconded by Richard Martie to
continue the public hearing to its next regularly scheduled meeting on
Wednesday, October 7, 1992, 7 p.m. Motion carried unanimously.
3. A motion was made by Richard Carlson and seconded by Richard Martie to
adjourn the meeting. The meeting adjourned at 8:44 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Gary Anderson
Zoning Administrator
Page 2
J
MINUTES
REGULAR MEETING • MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION
Tuesday, September 1, 1892 • 7 p.m.
Members Present: Richard Martie, Jon Bogart, Cindy Lemm, Richard Carlson
Members Absent: Dan McConnon
Staff Present: Gary Anderson, Jeff O'Neill
The meeting was called to order by Acting Chairperson, Cindy Lemm, at
7:05 p.m.
2. Avvroval of minutes.
The minutes of the regular meeting held August 4, 1992, have not yet been
completed; therefore, approval of these minutes will be made at the regular
meeting in October.
3. Public Hearing -•A variance reauest to allow construction of a building within
the front vard setback reouirement. Apulicant. Northern Natural Gas
Company.
Jeff O'Neill, Assistant Administrator, reviewed the applicant's request to
construct a building within the rear and side yard setback requirements.
Acting Chairperson, Cindy Lemm, opened the public hearing.
Matthew Storm, representing Northern Natural Gas Company, informed the
Planning Commission that the building will be used for equipment only. He
noted that due to the minimum setback requirements for the gas lines, along
with trying to meet the minimum setbacks for zoning, there just isn't enough
land on which to fit the building and still be within the setback requirement.
Acting Chairperson, Cindy Lemm, then closed the public hearing and opened
the meeting for input from the Planning Commission.
There being no further discussion from the Planning Commission, a motion
was made by .Ion llogart and seconded by Richard Carlson to approve the
variance request to allow construction of a building within the front and rear
yard setback requirements. Motion carried unanimously.
Approval of the variance is based on the finding that due to the small lot size
and the fact that this use of the property is an essential service, granting of
the variance would not impair the intent of the ordinance.
Page I.
Planning Commission Minutes - 9/1/92
Public Hearine--A variance reouest to allow an apartment buildine to be
constructed in a rear vard setback reauirement. Applicant. David Homie.
Jeff O'Neill, Assistant Administrator, reviewed the variance request to allow
an apartment building to be constructed in the rear yard setback requirement.
The ordinance requires the rear yard setback to be a minimum of 30 ft. The
proposed plan shows a setback of 20 ft. If granted, the variance would allow
the apartment building to be placed in the best position given the topography
of the property.
Acting Chairperson, Cindy Lemm, then opened the public hearing.
David Hornig, applicant, explained that the architect, along with himself, spent
several hours arriving at a final site plan that would be most beneficial to both
parties involved. The building location is placed to allow for maximum use of
the property without encroaching on the retaining wall. Mr. Hornig went on
further to state that the total number of apartment units has been reduced
from the originally planned 24 units to the currently proposed 15 units.
Acting Chairperson, Cindy Lemm, then closed the public hearing and opened
the meeting for input from the Planning Commission.
There being no further discussion from Planning Commission members, a
motion was made by Richard Martie and seconded by Jon Bogart to approve
the variance request to allow an apartment building to be constructed within
the rear yard setback requirement. The approval is based on the finding that
a hardship exists due to the unique topography of the property; therefore,
granting the variance is consistent with the intent of the ordinance. Motion
carried unanimously.
Public Hearinti—A varianco request to allow a building wall to have more than
Ike 5qrk wall coverage of a metal or fberelass finish. Qgplicant. Brad and
Mary Bareer.
Jeff O'Neill, Assistant Administrator, reviewed the Barger's request to allow
a building wall to have more than the minimum 50% wall coverage of a metal
or fiberglass finish. Mr. and Mrs. Bargers proposed industrial development
project, Suburban Machine & Manufacturing, is an approximate 11,000 aq ft
building.
The site plan as presented meets all of the minimum requirements of the city
ordinance with the exception of the side of the structure facing the freeway.
This finish of this wall is proposed to be entirely metal. The Bargers are
requesting a varianco Brom the minimum 60% wall coverage of a different
Page 2
Planning Commission Minutes - 9/1/92
material, as this wall will be an expansion wall. As the project continues to
develop in the future, this wall would be expanded out to allow for a proposed
addition.
Mr. Barger went on to explain that the wall make-up of stucco, rock face, and
steel materials, with the total building exposure being more than 50% of other
materials other than the exterior metal finish.
Acting Chairperson, Cindy Lemm, opened the public hearing.
John Abramson of Remmele Engineering expressed their concern on the overall
building front appearance. To date, Remmele has experienced over $A million
in sales for the first two years and is expecting over $12 million in sales in
1993. Remmele Engineering would like to see first class buildings and first
class operations of any proposed businesses locating in the Business Campus
District.
Acting Chairperson, Cindy Lemm, then closed the public hearing and opened
the meeting for input from the Planning Commission.
Planning Commission felt the minimum tree requirements could be dispersed
around the entire site with some trees being located in front.
There being no further input from the Planning Commission, a motion was
made by Richard Carlson and seconded by Richard Martie to approve the
variance request allowing development of a completely steel freeway wall based
on the finding that the future development of the site calls for completion of
the building in compliance with the zoning ordinance; therefore, the variance
request as proposed is consistent with the intent of the ordinance. The
variance would be contingent on the Bargers agreeing to install brick facing
within 5 years. Motion carried unanimously.
If conetruction does not occur within the 5 years, the applicant will again be
required to cone before the Planning Commission to ask for a continuance of
the variance request.
Cons)derattn of it prglir►linnry plat rLo}rest for n commercial subdivision olat.,
Annlic►nt. Rurry Fluth/Monticelln
Jeff O'Neill, Assistant Administrator, explained the preliminary plat request
for a commercial subdivision plat. ONeill highlighted some of the unique
circumstances that exist at this site.
Page 3
Planning Commission Minutes - 9/1/92
Currently, the Monticello Mall and the Country Kitchen share a water and
sewer service line that extends from the city right-of-way on West 7th Street
into the mall site. Under the current ordinance, a service is not allowed to
extend across one site (i.e., the Monticello Mall) to serve another site (i.e.,
Country Kitchen).
ONeill proposed that the developers establish a document that allows the
shared system of the water, sewer, and storm sewer for the Country Kitchen
and Monticello Mall properties. A provision should also be placed within the
document allowing crossover parking from the Country Kitchen property onto
the Monticello Mall parking lot property.
ONeill also asked the developers to check on the agreements for ingress and
egress from the Highway 25 and West 7th Street public right-of-ways.
Acting Chairperson, Cindy Lemm, opened the public hearing.
There being no comments from the public, Acting Chairperson, Cindy Lemm,
then closed the public hearing and opened the meeting for input from Planning
Commission members.
There being no further discussion from the Planning Commission, a motion
was made by Richard Martie and seconded by Jon Bogart to approve the
preliminary plat of the Monticello Mall contingent on preparation of documents
governing joint use and maintenance of utilities and parking areas. Motion
carried unanimously. The developer is also to ehow on the plat where the
ingress easements are from West 7th Street.
Continued_Publiq Iicarine--ConsideratLoR of nanroval of a ureliminary plat o
the Silver Fox subdivision. Aaalicant. Ed and Arlvs Lnrson.
Jeff O'Neill, Assistant Administrator, reviewed the Larsons' proposed Silver
Fox subdivision plat, As shown on the plat, Lot 1 indicates a square footage
of 60,000 sq ft. In reality, it is actually only 35,000 sq ft. On Lot 1 exists the
pylon sign for the Silver Fox Motel. if the pylon sign is to remain, a sign
easement should be recorded on Lot 1. If Lot 1 is sold, then the sign is to be
relocated.
Acting Chairperson, Cindy Lemm, opened the public hearing.
There being no comments from the public, Acting Chairperson, Cindy Lemm,
then closed the public hearing and opened the meeting for input from the
Planning Commission members.
Page 4
Planning Commission Minutes - 9/1/92
Discussion amongst the Planning Commission centered on the drainage issues
in this area. Because there is no storm sewer there, all the surface water
drainage is to go through the ditch system along East Oakwood Drive, or East
County Road 17, and South Cedar Street.
There being no further discussion, a motion was made by Jon Bogart and
seconded by ffichard Carlson to approve the preliminary plat of the Silver Fox
subdivision and recommend that the final plat approval be subject to the
preparation of a development agreement requiring construction of a drainage
Swale that blocks water from entering the property to the south, and
development of a document identifying the plan for development of a
cooperative strategy for storm water run-off relating to Lot 3 of the Silver Fox
plat and the parcel to the south. This document is to be signed by all parties
affected. Motion carried unanimously.
The following conditions were also attached as follows:
All owners south are notified of any drainage and utility
casements necessary to make this work.
2. Amend discrepancies/inaccuracies as noted in the discussion,
which includes limiting access to Lot I off Cedar Street, eliminate
the sign casement requirement. Note that the pylon sign to be
removed upon development of Lot 1.
Additional Information Items
1. Consideration of amendments to the Monticello Zoning Ordinance pertaining
to the definition and regulation of home occupations. Council action:
Approved as per Planning Commission recommendation.
2. Consideration of a special home occupation permit request which would allow
persons other than the resident to conduct a home occupation. The applicant
is a tour operator for high school music festivals. Applicant, Dave and Joan
Thielman. Council action: Approved as per Planning Commission
recommendation.
3. A conditional use request to allow (13) or more dwelling units in (2) apartment
buildings on an unplatted tract of land. A request to allow a subdivision of an
unplatted tract of land. Applicant, David Hornig. Council action: Approved
as per Planning Commission recommendation.
4. A request for an ordinance amendment to the PZM (performance zone mixed)
zone to allow as a conditional use an automotive/light truck oil change/lube
facility. Applicant, Gerald Hoglund. Council action:. No action required, as
the request did not come before them.
Page 6
Planning Commission Minutes - 9/1/92
5. A conditional use request allowing operation of an automotive/light truck oil
change/lube facility in a PZM (performance zone mixed) zone. Applicant,
Gerold Hoglund. Council action: No action required, as the request did not
come before them.
6. A conditional use request to allow a sign system for a building to be considered
as a shopping center or a shopping mall. Applicant, Barry Fluth. Council
action: Approved as per Planning Commission recommendation.
7. Continued Public Hearing --A preliminary plat request entitled Silver Fox
commercial subdivision to subdivide an existing 6.9 -acre tract of unplatted
land. Applicant. Ed and Arlys Larson. Council action: No action required, as
the request did not come before them.
8. It was the consensus of the Planning Commission members to set Tuesday,
October 6, 1992, 7 p.m., as the date for the next meeting of the Planning
Commission.
9. A motion was made by Richard Martie and seconded by Richard Carlson to
adjourn the meeting. The meeting adjourned at 9:09 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Gary Anderson
Zoning Administrator
Page 6
MINUTES
REGULAR MEETING - MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION
Tuesday, August 4, 1892 - 7 pm.
Members Present: Dan McConnon, Richard Martie, Jon Bogart, and Cindy Lemm
Members Absent: Richard Carlson
Staff Present: Gary Anderson and Jeff O Neill
1. The meeting was called to order by Chairperson Dan McConnon at 7:06 p.m.
2. A motion was made by Cindy Lemm and seconded by Richard Martie to
approve the minutes of the regular meeting held June 2,1992. Motion carried
unanimously.
3. A motion was made by Jon Bogart and seconded by Richard Martie to approve
the minutes of the regular meeting held July 7, 1992. Motion carried
unanimously.
4. A motion was made by Jon Bogart and seconded by Cindy Lemm to approve
the minutes of the special meeting held July 27, 1992. Voting in favor:
Richard Martie, Jon Bogart, Cindy Lemm. Abstaining: Dan McConnon.
5. Consideration of amendmgnts to the Monticello Zonine Ordinance pertaining
to the definition and rceulation of home occupations.
Chairperson Dan McConnon explained that this item is for the ordinance
amendment only and not the Dave and Joan Thielman home occupation
request.
Assistant Administrator, Jeff O'Neill, reviewed the background of the
procedures and permits portion of the home occupation permit process. O'Neill
highlighted the conditions under procedures and permits, general provisions,
permitted home occupations, requirements --special home occupation, zoning
ordinance amendment applications, and home occupation --zoning ordinance
amend ment/enfurcement summary.
Chairperson Dan McConnon then opened the public hearing.
Ms. Pat Ray questioned what to do with existing home occupation uses if they
don't comply.
Page 1 (a, l
Planning Commission Minutes - 8/4/92
Assistant Administrator O'Neill explained that those home occupation and
other business uses in residential zones that existed prior to the enactment of
the original zoning ordinance have "grandfather" rights and are allowed to
operate. They are not allowed to expand or intensify the use without a permit.
Chairperson Dan McConnon then closed the public hearing and asked for
comments from the Planning Commission members.
It was the consensus of the Planning Commission that City staff should have
the latitude to determine which home occupations should be required to be
reviewed. The proposed ordinance should be modified.
There being no further discussion, a motion was made by Cindy Lemm and
seconded by Jon Bogart to approve the amendments to the Monticello Zoning
Ordinance pertaining to the definition and regulation of home occupations (as
attached). The Planning Commission selects alternative #1 based on the
finding that the proposed zoning ordinance amendment will contribute toward
maintaining the residential character of the areas in which the home
occupations are conducted, while providing a tool allowing limited, controlled
commercial use of residential property. The ordinance will benefit the City by
providing a mechanism for allowing home occupations to exist that operate in
a manner completely transparent to the neighborhood but do not precisely
meet the minimum requirements. Motion carried unanimously.
6. Consideration of a special home occunation permit reauest which would pllow
persons other than thg resident to conduct a home occupation. The applicant,
is a tour operator for high school music festivals. Applicant. Dave and Joan
Thielman.
Jeff O'Neill, Assistant Administrator, explained the only change in the site
plan is that all off-street parking will be in the existing driveway, and the
previously -proposed area would remain green area/landscaped area.
Chairperson Dan McConnon then opened the public hearing.
Joan Thiclmmt, part owner with her husband, David, complimented the City
staff and the Planning Commission members on their efforts to thoroughly
research their request and create an ordinance amendment that would be
beneficial to them as the applicants and also other home occupation businesses
which currently exist. She felt the City staff and Planning Commission
members should be complimented on their ordinance amendment efforts as
proposed.
Amy Dzuik informed Planning Commission members that as a neighboring
residential property, they had no problem with the Thielman's homo
occupation permit request, as hardly anyone knows their business exists.
Page 2 OJ
Planning Commission Minutes - 8/4/92
Chairperson Dan McConnon then closed the public hearing and opened the
meeting for input from the Planning Commission members.
There being no further input from the Planning Commission members, a
motion was made by Jon Bogart and seconded by Cindy Lemm to approve the
special home occupation permit which would allow a person other than the
resident to operate the home occupation subject to the following conditions:
1. No more than one vehicle associated with the home occupation can be
parked on site at any one time.
2. No on -street parking is allowed.
3. All parking on site must meet the requirements of the city ordinance,
which includes parking to be conducted on the driveway area only. No
parking in the front yard.
4. No more than two employees are allowed to work at this site at any
given time.
Motion carried unanimously. The Planning Commission finds that the
proposed home occupation is unique; and allowing the presence of employees
at the site is consistent with the intent of the ordinance because the employees
do not come and go and no clientele or retail traffic is generated by the home
occupation activity; therefore, the home occupation is transparent to the
neighborhood.
Due to the fact that the home operation is transparent to the neighborhood,
the activity will not result in depreciation of adjoining properties, it is
consistent with the character and geography of the area, it is consistent with
the comprehensive plan, and the need has been sufficiently demonstrated.
euhlig Hearing --A conditional use request to allow thireeq (13) or morn
dwelling units ip two (2) apartment buil ' es on pn unolntted 4ract of Innd.
A reauest to allow n subdivision of an unolntted tract of land. Aaalioll
David Hornig,
Jeff O'Neill, Assistant Administrator, reviewed Mr. Hornig's request to be
allowed to place two apartment buildings on an unplatted tract of land
consisting of one 6 -unit building and one 9 -unit building. The buildings will
consist of 14 3 -bedroom units and 1 2 -bedroom handicap unit. Seven
continuous garage unit stalls will be developed between the two existing
Page 3 O
Planning Commission Minutes - 8/4/92
garage units of the Ridgeway Apartment complex, and there will he one
additional parking stall near the handicap spots in the northeast comer of the
parking lot.
O'Neill highlighted the following: Parking and driving areas, the lot area per
unit, the usable open space, the multiple dwelling units --minimum floor area,
parking and driveway design, landscaping, and setback requirements.
Gary Anderson, Zoning Administrator, commented that the owner of the
Ridgeway complex has been lax in maintaining the existing four buildings.
They do not have maintenance free exterior with exception of the brick on the
exteriors. The wood is in need of paint again, and the sprinkler systems have
been sprinkling the building regularly; therefore, the exterior brick of these
buildings has been stained. The City has also had to mow the area proposed
for the two new apartment buildings.
Skip Sorenson, architect for Mr. Hornig, commented on the unique
circumstances that led to the creation of this site in regard to the extensive
landscaping and site development to accommodate these two apartment
buildings. He highlighted that the proposed use of the area when the
Ridgeway Apartments were built was for two additional 12 -unit apartment
buildings. The site plan presented has been down scaled to a 9 -unit building
and a 6 -unit building for 15 total apartment units.
David Hornig, applicant and part owner of the proposed project, commented
on the development issue of a very low area which was left as part of the West
7th Street expansion for the Kmart project. He also commented on the
proposed rent of $475 to $525 per month plus utilities. The maximum gross
income per year to qualify would be $31,000.
Chairperson Dan McConnon then closed the public hearing and opened the
meeting for input from the Planning Commission members.
Discussion amongst commission members centered around the development
issues of this site and that the developer would have to come back to the
Planning Commission through the public hearing process for a variance to
allow the apartment buildings to be built within 10 feet of the rear lot line
since the minimum requirement is 30 feet.
There being no further input from commission members, a motion was made
by Jon Bogart and seconded by Cindy Lemm to approve the conditional use
permit allowing construction of a multi -family development in a PZM
(performance zone mixed) zone based on the finding that the conditional use
permit and associated site plan are consistent with the requirements of the
zoning ordinance, will not depreciate the area in which it is located, are
Pago 4 O
Planning Commission Minutes - 8/4/92
consistent with the comprehensive plan, and are consistent with the geography
and character of the area. Motion includes approval of associated lot
subdivision.
Motion to approve the plan is subject to:
Development of a landscaping plan that is consistent with the
requirements of the Planning Commission.
2. The grading and drainage plan must be approved by the City Engineer.
3. The plan must be modified to eliminate the need for a variance to the
setback requirements.
Under this alternative, the Planning Commission is satisfied with the
information provided at this point and with the plan as prepared and is willing
to recommend approval and further review by the City Council. Motion carried
unanimously.
8. Public Hearing --A reauest for an ordinance amendment to the PZM
(aerformance zone mixed) zone to allow as a conditionpl use an
automotive/light truck oil change/lube facility. Analicant. Gerald Hoglund.
Cary Anderson, Zoning Administrator, reviewed the request to amend the
zoning ordinance to allow as a conditional use in the PZM zone an
automotive/light truck oil change/lube facility. These facilities are similar to
ones commonly known as a "Jiffylube." Mr. Hoglund is proposing to perform
only oil change and lubrication to automotive and light truck vehicles.
Anderson reviewed the applicant's site plan. The building was set on the lot
to allow for development of a future addition and still be within the setback
requirements. The landscaping plan as presented meets or exceeds the
minimum requirements of our ordinance. The driveway is a single access
driveway only, and it is situated on the lot so as not to allow traffic to flow
freely from the Scrub -a -dub Carwash to the Total Mart gas station.
Chairperson Dan McConnon then opened the public hearing.
Mr. Hoglund responded to questions of the Planning Commission members.
Chairperson Dan McConnon then closed the public hearing and opened the
meeting for further comments from the Planning Commission members.
Page 5 O
Planning Commission Minutes - 8/4/92
Dan McConnon stated that maybe we should look at B-3 zoning for this area,
which would allow these types of uses without having to amend the PZM
zoning districts all the time.
A motion was made by Cindy Lemm and seconded by Richard Martie to
approve the request for an ordinance amendment to the PZM (performance
zone mixed) zone to allow as a conditional use an automotive/tight truck oil
change/lube facility. Motion carried unanimously.
9. Public Hearine—A request for a conditional use permit allowine operation of
automotive/lieht truck oil chaneeAube facility in a PZM (performance zone
mixed) zone. Applicant. Gerald Hoglund.
Gary Anderson, Zoning Administrator, reviewed Mr. Hoglund's conditional use
request. Under the ordinance amendment, there were 14 conditions that were
added to the conditional use permit process for an automotive/light truck oil
change facility activity. The conditions are very similar to the conditions used
for the carwash facility, with the one major condition being that the use of this
facility is for automobile/light truck oil changes and lubrication only; therefore,
the building could not be switched to a major auto repair of any type.
Chairperson Dan McConnon then opened the public hearing.
There being no input from the public, Chairperson Dan McConnon then closed
the public hearing and opened the meeting for input from the commission
members.
There being no further input from the commission members, a motion was
made by Richard Martio and seconded by Jon Bogart to approve the
conditional use request to allow an automotiveAight truck oil changeAube
facility in a PZM zone. Motion carried unanimously.
10. Public Heayine--A conditional use reauest to allow a sign Avstem for a buildine
to bg considered as a shopnina center or shopping mall. AP licant. Barry
Fluth.
Gary Anderson, Zoning Administrator, reviewed the request for a sign system
for the Monticello Mall complex. Mr. Fluth has building frontage on two public
rights-of-way, State Highway 25 (Pine Street) and West 7th Street. The total
wall exposure on these two public rights-of-way is 619 lineal feet. The total
lineal feet times the height of the building (16 feet) will give you the gross
silhouette area for a sign system of 9,904 square feet. Mr. Fluth will be
allowed 5r4 of that area, which equals approximately 495 square feet.
Mr. Fluth is proposing to have 16 businesses in the Monticello Mall that will
be utilizing some type of exterior signage. If the 495 allowable square feet of
sign area is divided by 16, it would equal approximately 30 square feet per
Page 6
Planning Commission Minutes - 8/4/92
sign space, with no one tenant having more than 255f or 125 square feet of this
sign area. Mr. Fluth is proposing to use an individual letter system for the
sign system. This is similar to what is being used on the 6th Street Annex
project.
Chairperson Dan McConnon then opened the public hearing.
Mr. Fluth explained that if they had any questions, he would be more than
happy to answer them.
With no further input from the public, Chairperson Dan McConnon then closed
the public hearing.
There being no further input from the commission members, a motion was
made by Richard Martie and seconded by Jon Bogart to approve the
conditional use request to allow a sign system for a building considered as a
shopping center or shopping mall based on the finding that the sign system
proposed is consistent with the requirements set forth by ordinance. The
motion carried unanimously.
11. A Continued Public Hearine - A preliminary ulat request, entitled Silver Fox
Commercial SAdivisinn, to subdivide an exist.ine 6.69 acre tract of unulatted
land. Aanlicant. Fd and Arlvs Larson.
Mr. Jeff O'Neill, Assistant Administrator, requested that the commission
members table the Larson's request. City staff is still working with the
applicant and adjacent land owners regarding the storm water issues. It was
evident that there are limited alternatives for managing added storm water
created by the development of these parcels.
It was the consensus of the commission members to continue the public
hearing until the next regularly scheduled meeting on October 6, 1992,
beginning at 7 p.m.
Additional information items.
Consideration of an amendment to Section 2.2 [HB1 of the Monticello Zoning
Ordinance governing home occupations. The proposed amendment would
modify the requirement that "No other than persons residing on the promises
shall be employed." Applicant. Dave and Joan Thielman. Council action: Set
a public hearing date for August 4, 1992, before the Monticello Planning
Commission.
2. Preliminary plat request to subdivide an unplatted tract of land into an
industrial subdivisionlat. Applicant, Brad and
p pp Mary Barger. Council action:
Approved as per Planning Commission recommendation.
Pago 7 1
Planning Commission Minutes - 8/4/92
3. Consideration of a request to amend a condition of the previously -approved
conditional use permit. Applicant, Hillside Partnership/6th Street Annex.
Council action: Approved as per Planning Commission recommendation.
4. Continued public hearing --Consideration of a variance request to allow less
than the minimum off-street parking spaces. Applicant, Hillside
Partnership✓6th Street Annex. Council action: Approved as per Planning
Commission recommendation.
Ii. Continued public hearing --A preliminary plat request entitled Silver Fox
Commercial Subdivision to subdivide an existing 6.69 -acre tract of unplatted
land. Applicant, Ed and Arlys Larson. Council action: No action required, as
the request did not come before them.
6. The Monticello City Council will hear the final plat request to subdivide an
unplatted tract of land into an industrial subdivison plat (Barger Addition) at
their first regularly scheduled City Council meeting Tuesday, September 8,
1992.
7. Set the next tentative date for the Monticello Planning Commission meeting
for Tuesday, September 1, 1992, 7 p.m. It was the consensus of the Planning
Commission members to set this as the date for the next Monticello Planning
Commission meeting.
8. Adjournment. A motion was made by Richard Martie and seconded by Jon
Bogart to adjourn the meeting. The meeting adjourned at 9:41 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Gary Anderson
Zoning Administrator
Pago 8
Planning Commission Agenda - 10/7192
3• Public Hearing—C4naideration of a variance regpest to aIIow an
addition to be built onto an existing garage within the side yard
setback requirement. AoDlicant. Gordon Steinert. (G.A.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
Mr. Steinert is proposing to build an addition to his garage to within 5'4" of his
side property line. The minimum setback requirement on a side lot line is 10
feet.
The area in which Mr, Steinert lives was originally part of the township; and
when it became part of the city, the legal description for his property remained
as an unplatted tract of land in Section 3. At the time these houses were built,
they were placed on the lot so as to probably allow for an average 16 -ft garage,
which was an adequate size at that time. By today's standard, the minimum
size required by ordinance is a 20' x 20', or 400 sq ft, garage. In looking at the
enclosed sketch plan, you will see that if the 6 -ft addition is allowed, Mr.
Steinert would still be 16'4" from the nearest adjoining structure, which is his
neighbor's attached garage.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. Approve the variance request to allow a garage addition to be built
within the side yard setback requirement.
2. Deny the variance request to allow a garage addition to be built within
the side yard setback requirement.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
City staff takes the position as this is a judgment call for the Planning
Commission. If the garage addition is allowed, it would still be only 16'4" from
the nearest adjoining structure, which is his neighbor's attached garage.
On the other hand, the Planning Commission members have dealt with soveral
variances in the past, primarily within now developments, where a singlo•car
garage (probably a 12 -ft garage) was built in the early 1980's without enough
room for a double -car garage to be constructed within the minimum side yard
setback requirement.
D. SUPPORTING R$TA:
Copy of the location of the proposed variance request; Copy of the site plan.
A variance request to allow an addition to be
built onto an existing garage within the side
yard setback requirement. Location is a tract
described in Book 187-94, Section 3, Unplatted
Property in the city of Monticello.
Lzz- APPLICANT: Gordon Steinert
�aRcod „5rcw x -r- C R66 K Aro 4D Gt be p ' R Ric A
PRoPo;64--'ARR4E A0047 io
1?a4414 SKETCH 4
Sj 3
E 3v-3
V oc
`i0 plpox')
WAydg YoNAK
RES.
�I
a
' a
r PRoP�iG
A 144 40O09'rerl
Fd}�F
p�uet< i
GARA46 1 44*44C
{
1
I
I
t so 9
S.Ae.
1
IJ
0
4
tiI
h
W
A/Rex.
yf'
1 �
j?AtE
6.+.T, SraiN6Rr I Azcck
ONoL6. TOP ORP116
Planning Commission Agenda - 10/7/92
a. Public Hearin¢—Consideration of rezoning West Side Market/Conoco
property from 11.1 (single family residential) to B-1 jneighborhood
business). Aaulicant. Tom Holthaus and Matt Holker/West Side
Market. (J.O.)
REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
Planning Commission is asked to conduct a public hearing and make a
recommendation -regarding the proposed rezoning request. Members of the
Planning Commission have reviewed this request in the past. Following is a
brief review of the most recent City action regarding this matter.
In October 1991, the Planning Commission recommended denial of the R-1 to
B-1 amendment. Council then tabled the decision on rezoning and then
proposed a zoning ordinance amendment allowing convenience stores as
allowable as a conditional use in the B-1 zone. It was thought that the
controls associated with a conditional use permit would make the convenience
store in conditional use permit more palatable. Council later approved a
zoning ordinance amendment which made convenience stores a conditional use
in the B-1 zone. This decision did not end up directly affecting West Side
Market, as the Council did not rezone the West Side Market property from the
R-1 designation to the B-1 designation. The motion to deny the rezoning
request was based on the finding that the original zoning map was correct in
establishing an R-1 zoning designation at the site, rezoning of the site to B-1
would amount to spot zoning, the geography and character of the adjoining
area is residential in nature, and the presence of commercial activity and
associated traffic at this location will tend to depreciate adjoining residential
land values. Voting in favor of this motion at that time was Ken Maus, Shirley
Anderson, Brad Fyle, and Clint Herbst. Dan Blonigen was opposed.
The owners of the West Side Market again request that the City consider this
matter.
In discussing his plans for the West Side Market, Tom Holthaus has not
indicated any immediate plans to expand or enlarge the facility; however, he
would like the rezoning in anticipation of expanding the use of the property at
some point in the future. In addition, according to the strict interpretation of
the ordinance, the use of the property for Christmas tree sales would represent
an enlargement or intensification of use and technically should not be allowed
to occur by ordinance. However, in the past the City has waived this
restriction and allowed Christmas tree sales to occur at the site,
Planning Commission Agenda - 10/7/92
REZONING DECISION CRITERIA
As with each rezoning request, the City needs to review the request in terms
of its compatibility with the comprehensive plan, the effect of the rezoning on
the character and geography of the adjoining properties, whether or not there
is a demonstrated need for the rezoning, and whether or not the rezoning will
tend to depreciate land values. As was noted earlier, it was determined by the
City Council with the previous decision that the rezoning as proposed did not
properly 6t the criteria for rezoning. Following is a quick summary of each
rezoning criterion in terms of the proposal.
Geoerauhv and Character of Adioinin¢ Area
The Planning Commission needs to analyze whether or not the proposed &1
(neighborhood business) district activity is compatible with existing R-1 uses
and nearby school district uses. Following is the language outlining the
purpose behind the &1 zoning district, which may assist you in determining
whether or not rezoning the property to a &1 use would be consistent with the
character and geography of the area.
"The purpose of the B -I (neighborhood business) district is to provide for
establishment of local centers for convenient, limited office, retail, or
service outlets which deal directly with the customer for whom the goods
or services are furnished. These centers are to provide services and
goods only for the surrounding neighborhoods and are not intended to
draw customers from the entire community."
A case could be made that the existing convenience store does deal primarily
with customers from the area and that the store is not intended to draw
customers from the entire community.
On the other hund, the Pinewood Community Playground, along with the Little
League activity and the Pinewood School activity, all draw people from the
entire community, who in turn utilize the West Side Market in conJunction
with school activities. In addition, with its location on County Road Ili, it
services customers from outside of the city and, therefore, outside of the
neighborhood area. Therefore, the West Side Market indirectly provides goods
and services to a wider market than the local neighborhood, which is not
consistent with the intent of the A-1 zoning district.
Planning Commission Agenda - 10/7/92
Denreciation of Value of Adioinine Properties
The West Side Market is bounded by residential properties on the north and
east. Under the current configuration, there is some distance between the
business use and the residential uses. If the property was rezoned to B-1 uses,
then the facility could be expanded and enlarged; therefore, the businesses
uses would then become closer to the residential uses. This enlargement of the
site could have a negative impact on the value of adjoining properties unless
intensive landscaping and/or berming is constructed.
Relationship to Municipal Comprehensive Plan
The following sections of the comprehensive plan may apply to the situation.
On page 48 under "Commercial Policies," item b states:
"Commercial areas should be as compact as possible. Compact
commercial areas are particularly advantageous for retail uses, as they
concentrate shopping and parking. The community is benefited by
reducing exposure to residential areas by having better control of
parking and traffic needs. For this reason, strip and spot commercial
development should not be permitted."
It could be that this particular section of the comprehensive plan, though
pertaining to commercial areas, may not have been intended to pertain directly
to neighborhood commercial areas and might be more likely to pertain to
development of larger, more intense commercial areas. On the other hand, this
section of the comprehensive plan could pertain directly to this situation and
could be a reason for denial of the rezoning request.
Item 49 of the Commercial Policies states that:
"Boundaries of commercial districts shall be well defined so as to
prevent intrusion into residential areas. Residential areas must be
properly screened from associated ill effects of adjacent and nearby
commercial area."
The proposed B-1 district is bounded on the south, east, and west by a
residential district; however, all access to the site comes directly off a major
thoroughfare and a local collector street. Therefore, with adequate screening,
the impacts of the commercial use could be minimized.
Planning Commission Agenda - 10/7/92
Demonstrated Need for Such Use
There does not appear to be an overriding reason why the City should rezone
the site. The existing non -conforming use may continue as it is without
expansion for many years to come. There does not appear to be an overriding
need in the area for enlargement of the convenience store and potential
intensification of the property's use as a commercial site.
Other Factors
Maintaining the R-1 zoning designation at this site sends the message that
this site should ultimately revert to R-1 uses. Unfortunately, the configuration
of the property does not lend itself to R-1 development. R-1 development
would require platted lots with direct acess to County Road 75. It is doubtful
that Wright County would allow direct driveway access to County Road 75.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS
Motion to approve the rezoning request based on the finding that the
change from an R-1 to &1 zoning district is consistent with the
comprehensive plan and consistent with the character and geography of
the neighborhood. Furthermore, the need for the rezoning has been
sufficiently demonstrated.
Under this alternative, the Planning Commission takes the position that
the B-1 zoning designation fits well into the residential area and is
consistent with the purpose of the 13-1 zoning district being a
neighborhood commercial site serving the needs of local residents.
Under this alternative, the West Side Market is no longer a non-
conforming use and is no longer restricted by the rules governing non-
conforming uses, which means the building can be expanded for
convenience store type activities, and the site can be freely used for
Christmas tree sales and other seasonal sale activity once a conditional
use permit is obtained. This alternative will also add value to the
property by making it a conforming use in a business zone.
This alternative also creates the opportunity for improving the site via
the conditional use permit process. Without the rezoning, the site may
operate as is with the County Road 75 access problem. If the rezoning
occurs, the City can require removal of that County Road 75 access as
one of the conditional use permit requirements. In addition, the City
could require additional landscaping and perhaps a smaller sign.
2.
Planning Commission Agenda - 10/7/92
Motion to deny the zoning ordinance amendment as requested.
Under this alternative, Planning Commission could make a funding that
the original zoning map designation including this site in an R-1 zone
was correct; the geography and character of the area is residential in
nature and, therefore, the City should be maintaining the existing
zoning designation, which is intended to ultimately result in the site
being converted to residential uses; a mistake was not made in the
development of the original zoning ordinance.
Under this alternative, Planning Commission would take the view that
the residential nature of the area needs to be preserved, and the site
should maintain its non -conforming status, which over time is intended
to result in conversion of the use from commercial to residential. In
addition, this alternative will eliminate the possibility of the convenience
store from enlarging its present operation and may limit the ability of
the property owners to sell Christmas trees and other items outside the
confines of the structure or conduct any additional business which could
be construed as expansion and enlargement of the existing non-
conforming use.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
City staff recommendation is neutral on this topic. Both sides have good
arguments on which to base a finding.
D. SUPI'ORTING DATA:
Copy of Council minutes from meeting held October lb, 1991, and
November 25, 1991; Excerpt from the zoning ordinance (B-1 district
regulations). — i. � L4.4LN0 et,—% OA Mwn•D O.t S1 Iii 1
+o o.nt fIt. wu.--b'LrtS. M1^�f .,. So,..,
l
s.r
Council minutes- 10/15/91
6. Consideration of a request to rezone Lot It Block 4,, River
Terrace, also known as West Side Market, from R-1 (single
family) zoninq designation to B-1 (neighborhood business).
Applicants, Tom Holthaus and Matt Holker.
Assistant Administrator O'Neill informed Council that the
owners of the West Side Market request that the City rezone
the West Side Market from its present residential zoning
designation to the B-1 (neighborhood commercial) zoning
designation. The request for the rezoning stems from the
desire of the applicants to operate under a zoning designation
that is consistent with the business operation that is now in
place.
O'Neill went on to note that if the zoning ordinance amendment
is allowed, the West Side Market is no longer considered a
non -conforming use, which would allow the property owner to
fully utilize all the land area for commercial use as allowed
in the B-1 zone. This would allow the existing facility to be
enlarged significantly. In addition, the rezoning would allow
the West Side Market to sell Christmas trees at the site.
Under the present rules governing non -conforming uses,
Christmas tree sales are not technically allowed at the site,
as such outside sales could be construed as an enlargement or
intensification of a non -conforming use. In his presentation,
O'Neill informed Council that the Planning Commission
recommended that the rezoning be denied based on the finding
that the original zoning designation as R-1 was correct and
changing the designation to a B-1 district would constitute
spot zoning.
Ed Solberg, resident living at 1204 Sandy Lane, expressed
opposition to the rezoning request. He noted that the
rezoning constitutes spot zoning.
Tom Holthaus stated that his business must be able to compete
with other convenience stores, and in order to do so, he needs
to have the flexibility to use the site in a manner that
allows him to achieve the highest business potential at the
site. He also noted that the store has been a good neighbor,
as it has eliminated all beer sales and adult magazines. Over
400 people use the convenience store per day.
Clint Herbst stated that the West Side Market owners knew what
they were getting into when they bought the property. They
knew that enlargement of the facility would not be allowed in
the R-1 district. They shouldn't be allowed to come back
later and request the rezoning.
Dan Blonigen disagreed with Herbst in stating that the
property has no potential for residential uso, and the
property is being used as a neighborhood business center;
therefore, it should be zoned as such. 14D
Council Minutes - 10/15/91
Shirley Anderson noted that she is in the middle and agrees to
some degree with Dan. She noted that the original tavern that
was converted to the market was there prior to development of
residences.
Ren Maus stated that the local neighborhood deserves a first-
class convenience store; and in order to remain first class,
the store needs to be able to compete with other businesses
providing similar services. By allowing the rezoning to
occur, the business is in a better position to remain
competitive and more likely to remain an asset to the
neighborhood.
Jon Bogart, a member of the Planning Commission, was in
attendance. He suggested that the City somehow allow the
property to be rezoned to B-1 but require restrictive
covenants against the site which limit the enlargement of the
store.
Assistant Administrator O'Neill suggested that if Council is
striving to seek a compromise which would allow the West Side
Market to operate as a legal permitted use and at the same
time regulate or apply conditions associated with enlargement
of the site, then Council may wish to consider establishment
of a convenience store as a conditional use in the B-1 zone.
After discussion, a motion was made by Shirley Anderson and
seconded by Clint Herbst to table consideration of rezoning
the West Side Market site from R-1 to B-1 and to direct City
staff to prepare an ordinance amendment allowing a convenience
store to operate in a B-1 district as a conditional use only.
Motion carried unanimously.
A motion was made by Dan Blonigen and seconded by Shirley
Anderson to allow Christmas tree sales to occur at the West
Side Market during the upcoming Christmas season. Motion
carried unanimously.
U
Council Minutes - 11/25/91
Consideration of a zoninq ordinance amendment modifyinq the
B-1 (neighborhood commercial) zoninq district requlations by
eliminatina convenience store and laundromat uses as permitted
uses and instead allowinq said uses as conditional uses in the
B-1 zone.
Assistant Administrator O'Neill reviewed the history behind
the development of the proposed ordinance amendment. He
recalled that the Planning Commission had voted in October to
recommend denial of the West Side Market's request to rezone
the site from R-1 to B-1 zoning designation. The
recommendation for denial was based on the finding that the
rezoning would constitute spot zoning.
In turn, on October 15, 1991, the City Council considered the
rezoning request and developed an alternative which represents
a compromise between the owner's desire to more freely use his
land for commercial use and the desire of the local residents
to limit the size of the operation. The Idea, which is the
basis of the proposed ordinance amendment, consists of
amending the zoning ordinance by allowing convenience stores
and laundromats to operate on a limited basis as a conditional
use in the B-1 zone.
O'Neill went on to describe the proposed ordinance amendment,
which includes conditions under which a convenience
store/ laundromat could operate in a B-1 zone. O'Neill
finished by saying that the amendment makes sense in that the
B-1 zoning district as a neighborhood commercial zone and
associated commercial activity is bound to create or result in
conflicts between business and residential uses. The
conditional use permit requirement for convenience store and
laundromat uses as proposed serves to provide the City with
the ability to manage and control such conflicts between
residential and convenience store/ laundromat uses.
Council then discussed the proposed ordinance amendment.
After discussion, a motion was made by Brad Pyle and seconded
by Clint Herbst to recommend approval of the zoning ordinance
amendment including convenience stores and laundromat uses as
conditional uses in the B-1 zone and adopt conditions as noted
by the proposed ordinance with the Inclusion of condition 13,
which requires that only one gas dispenser is allowed per 400
sq ft of retail floor area, with total dispensers not to
exceed four. Motion is based on the finding that allowing
convenience stores to operate under the conditional use permit
process in the B-1 zone can serve to protect the character of
adjoining residential areas and thereby assist In maintaining
residential property values. Voting in favors Clint Herbst,
Brad Fyle, Ren Maus, Shirley Anderson. Opposed: Dan
Blonigen. SEE ORDINANCE AMENDMENT NO. 216.
Page 3
Council Minutes - 11/15/91
Consideration of a request to rezone Lot It Block 4. River
Terrace, also known as West Side Market, from R-1 Jsingle
family residential) zoninq designation to B-1 (neiqhborhood
business). Applicants, Tom Holthaus and Matt Holker.
O'Neill noted that the City Council had tabled consideration
of this rezoning request pending potential development of a
conditional use permit allowing convenience stores and
Laundromats to operate as conditional uses in the B-1 zone.
Now that consideration of this matter is complete, Council can
now consider the matter of the actual rezoning of the West
Side Market site. O'Neill went on to note that just because
the Council provided for allowing convenience stores to
operate as a conditional use in the B-1 zone, this does not
mean that Council must automatically approve the West side
Market rezoning request.
Ren Maus stated that it was his view that the rezoning did
make some sense. It was his hope that the conditional use
permit placed enough restrictions on the property to allow the
neighborhood to feel comfortable with the commercial operation
and at the same time provide the property owners with the
flexibility to maintain a high-grade business.
Council discussed the matter at length.
Candy Johnson spoke against the rezoning request. She noted
that the Planning Commission had turned it down twice, the
applicants knew the limitations of the property, the rezoning
could be a foot in the door for other commercial rezoning
requests, and the rezoning is not consistent with the
surrounding neighborhood, as the business is met to draw
people from a larger area. Johnson suggested that there is no
demonstrated need for the rezoning, as there are 400 customers
today, and the store can operate successfully without
expansion.
Assistant Administrator O'Neill noted that the City Council
cannot legally base a rezoning decision on whether or not the
applicants knew the limitations of the property, nor can it
make a decision based on a fear that the rezoning would be a
foot in the door for other rezoning requests. These are not
valid criteria. The other reasons for denying rezoning as
noted by Johnson are based on valid criteria when considering
a rezoning request.
Clint Herbst noted that he's concerned about the close
proximity of the driveway access to the intersection of Otter
Crook Road and Highway 75. It was his view that it is the
responsibility of the property owner to correct this situation
and that the City should not have to resort to development of
a conditional use permit process that would provide leverage
Pago 4
Council Minutes - 11/25/91
to get the developer to move the access point as a condition
of any expansion to the site. The owners of the West Side
Market should move this access point on their own accord.
Shirley Anderson noted she is torn on this issue, but she has
to be more concerned for the homeowners. It was her opinion
that the residential property neighboring the convenience
store could be diminished by the store's expansion. This is
one of the primary factors in considering a rezoning request.
After discussion, a motion was made by Dan Blonigen to approve
the request to rezone the West Side Market property from the
R-1 zone to the B-1 zone. Motion died for lack of a second.
A motion was made by Clint Herbst and seconded by Brad Fyle to
deny the proposed rezoning request based on the finding that
the original zoning map was correct in establishing an R-1
zoning designation at the site, rezoning the slte to B-1 would
amount to spot zoning, the geography and character of the
adjoining area is residential in nature, and the presence of
commercial activity and associated traffic at this location
will tend to depreciate adjoining residential land values.
Voting in favor: Ren Maus, Shirley Anderson, Brad Fyle, Clint
Herbst. Opposed: Dan Blonigen.
0
CHAPTER 11
"B-1" NEIGHBORHOOD BUSINESS DISTRICT
SECTION:
11-1: Purpose
11-2s Permitted Uses
11-3: Permitted Accessory Uses
11-4: Conditional Uses
11-1:PURPOSE: The purpose of the B-1, neighborhood business,
PUMP is to provide for the establishment of local centers
for convenient, limited office, retail, or service outlets
which deal diroctly with the customer for whom the goods or
services are furnished. These centers are to provide services
and goods only for the surrounding neighborhoods and are not
intended to draw customers from the entire community.
11-2: PERMITTED USES: The following are permitted uses in a B-1
district:
(A) Barber shops
(B] Beauty parlors
(C) Essential services
(11/25/91, 1216)
11-3: PERMITTED ACCESSORY USES: The following are permitted
accessory uses in a B-1 districts
[A) Commercial or business buildings and structures for a
use accessory to the principal use, but such use shall
not exceed thirty (30) percent of the gross floor space
of the principal use.
(B) Off-street parking as regulated by Chapter 3, Section 5,
of this ordinance but not including semi -trailer trucks.
(C) Off-street loading as regulated by Chapter 3, Section 6,
of this ordinance.
11-4*: CONDITIONAL USESs The following are conditional uses in a B-1
districts (Requires a conditional use permit based upon
procedures set forth in and regulated by Chapter 22 of this
ordinance.)
(A) Governmental and public utility buildings and structures
necessary for the health, safety, and general welfare of
the community provided that:
MONTICELLO ZONING ORDINANCE
1.
Conformity with the surrounding neighborhood is
maintained and required setbacks and side yard
requirements are met.
2.
Equipment is completely enclosed in a permanent
structure with no outside storage.
3.
Adequate screening and landscaping from neighboring
residential districts is provided in accordance
with Chapter 3, Section 2, of this ordinance.
4.
The provisions of Chapter 22 of this ordinance are
considered and satisfactorily met.
[B]
Professional
and commercial (leased) offices provided
that:
1.
The services which are provided are for the local
area rather than the community or region.
2.
The traffic generated will not raise traffic
volumes beyond the capacity of the surrounding
area.
3.
The architectural appearance of the building
housing the office use shall reflect the building
character of the area and shall not be so
dissimilar as to cause impairment of property
values or constitute a blighting influence within
the neighborhood.
4.
The provisions of Chapter 22 of this ordinance are
considered and satisfactorily met.
(C)
Commercial planned unit development as regulated by
Chapter 20 of this ordinance.
\)� (D]
`VYI
Convenience
grocery stores provided that:
1.
The site is adequately served by a collector
street.
2.
Access point to the site shall be limited to a
collector street.
3.
Curb cuts or access points shall be at least one
hundred (100) feet from the intersection of two (2)
streets.
4.
Conformity with the surrounding neighborhood is
maintained and required setbacks are met.
/
9.
Adequate screening and landscaping from
a
neighborhood residential districts is provided in
accordance with Chapter 3, Section 2, of this
ordinance.
NONTICELW ZONING
ORDINANCE 11/
6. Traffic generated by the proposed use does not
exceed the capacity of surrounding streets and
intersections to accommodate it.
7. The site shall conform to parking requirements as
provided in Chapter 3, Section 5, of this
ordinance.
8. The provisions of Chapter 22 of this ordinance are
considered and satisfactorily met.
9. Building setback from residential uses must be 30
feet or greater.
10. Parking lot setback from residential uses must be
15 feet or greater.
11. The combined total or individual gross floor area
of convenience store and/or laundromat
establishments shall not exceed 3,000 sq ft in any
single B-1 district.
12. Hours of operation shall be limited to 5:00 a.m. to
11:00 P.M.
13. The number of gas dispensers allowed is limited to
one gas dispenser per 400 sq ft of retail floor
area, with total dispensers not to exceed four.
(E) Laundromat, self-service washing and drying provided
that:
1. The site is adequately served by a collector
street.
2. Access point to the site shall be limited to a
collector street.
3. Curb cute or access points shall be at least one
hundred (100) feet from the intersection of two (2)
streets.
4. Conformity with the surrounding neighborhood is
maintained and required setbacks are met.
5. Adequate screening and landscaping from
neighborhood residential districts is provided in
accordance with Chapter 3, Section 2, of this
ordinance.
6. Traffic generated by the proposed use does not
exceed the capacity of surrounding streets and
intersections to accommodate it.
NONTICELM ZONING ORDINANCE
7. The site shall conform to parking requirements as
provided in Chapter 3, Section 5, of this
ordinance.
8. The provisions of Chapter 22 of this ordinance are
considered and satisfactorily met.
9. Building setback from residential uses must be 30
feet or greater.
10. Parking lot setback from residential uses must be
15 feet or greater.
11. The combined total or individual gross floor area
of convenience store and/or laundromat
establishments shall not exceed 3,000 sq ft in any
single B-1 district.
12. Hours of operation shall be limited to 5:00 a.m. to
11:00 P.M.
(11/25/91, #216)
MONTICELLO LONINO ORDINANCE
I
LARKIN. HOFFMAN. D..%LY & LINDGREN. LTD
ATTORN[YO AT LAW
L•
r000 noww[{r nn•nu•L unrc{
�{ u2,
.�[w
){pp [[{{L{ •v[Mu[ {pYTn ,1�� .,
6LOOMInOIOn, nln nL{OT•{6•>. �Kw•[L �K [,
{,o.w[• � o ,2,[w
`iwoaw-..:`'al`,
*nvwonc Im2, sae-a{oo
r •. 1612, 606.3333
rt[ww
. uc.
i�r. i. t e.•w
ii:e�:�: ...,... ��
Direct Dial Number
;�",•,"���� ( 612 ) 896-3203
Ct • rA,wIwLIL[r
October 1, 1992
Mr. Jeff O'Neil
City Planner
City of Monticello
P.O. Box 1147
Monticello, Minnesota 55362-9245
Res West Side Market --Rezoning Request
Dear Jeffs
This letter is submitted in support of the application of Tom Holthaus
and Matt Holker (the Applicant), owners of the heat Side Market
located at the northeast corner of Broadway Street (County Road 75)
and Otter Creek Road (the Property). The Applicant has petitioned for
a rezoning of the Property from R-1 Single Family Residential to B-1
Neighborhood Business. Also included in this request, at the
recommendation of City staff, is a request for a Conditional Use
Permit (CUP) for a convenience grocery store pursuant to Section
11-4s(D) of the Monticello Zoning Ordinance (the Ordinance). The
Property presently operates lawful, nonconforming use in a R-1
district pursuant to a CUP issued in 1987.
The Property consists of approximately 57,000 square feet. The
Property is flat with vegetation consisting of mature trees along the
east and part of the north boundary, scattered trees on the west
portion of the north boundary and turf. The Property is developed
with an approximately 1,800 square foot convenience store and a single
pump island with canopy for dispensing motor fuels. The Property is
bounded on the east and north with a six foot high wood privacy fence.
The Property is served by municipal sewer and water. The Property is
Mr. Jeff O'Neil
October 1, 1992
pgge 2
bounded on the south by institutional uses (Monticello schools and
Broadway Street/County Road 75), on the north and east by single
family residential and on the west by Otter Creek Road with single
family residential to the west.
Background
The Property was developed in the 1940's as a resort, and from the
1950's through 1986 was operated as Charlie's west, a bar/restaurant.
The Applicant purchased the Property in 1986 for the development of
the current convenience store. In 1987, the City approved a CUP to
allow the lawful, non -conforming use of the Property as a convenience
store. In 1990 the Applicant requested a rezoning of the Property to
the PZ -M Performance Zone -Mixed Use District. That rezoning request
was denied. In 1991, the Applicant requested a rezoning to B-1. The
City Council amended the B-1 District at that time to designate a
convenience store a conditional use in a B-1 district rather than the
previously allowed permitted use. Subsequently, the request to rezone
the Property to B-1 failed in 1991.
Present Application
The current request for the B-1 district is intended to bring the
zoning into compliance with the existing use so that the present and
future use of the Property is no longer a lawful, non -conforming use.
Section 11-1s of the Zoning Ordinance provides the intent of the B-1
Neighborhood Business district. That section states
Purposes The purpose of the B-1, neighborhood business, district
is to provide for the establishment of local centers for
convenient, limited office, retail, or service outlets which deal
directly with the customer for whom the goods or services are
furnished. These centers are to provide services and goods only
for their surrounding neighborhood and are not intended to draw
customers from the entire community.
The proposed rezoning request is consistent with the stated purpose of
the B-1 District as set forth in the Zoning Ordinance. The Property
is intrinsically well-suited to a neighborhood business use. First,
the Property is located on a minor arterial thoroughfare, Broadway
Street or County Road 75. As such, the Property is exposed to
significant drive-by traffic serving the neighborhoods of the west end
of Monticello. Patrons of the convenience store can access the
neighborhood retail commercial store directly from Broadway Street or
Otter Creek Road without penetrating into the single family
neighborhood to tho north. The only traffic that does proceed north
Mr. Jeff O'Neil
October 1, 1992
Pace 3
into the single family residential neighborhood is that which would
otherwise use the residential area as a destination. Second, the
Property is bounded on the south by an institutional use --Monticello
Schools. Third, the Property, at approximately 57,000 square feet,
provides a significant buffer area to the surrounding uses. Fourth,
the convenience store use, by definition, provides a neighborhood
convenience retail service without adversely affecting the surrounding
area.
The City of Monticello created the B-1 neighborhood business district
to allow those uses, that by purpose and definition, serve and are
compatible with neighborhoods. In examining the zoning map and land
use patterns, the Property is ideally suited to the neighborhood
business use designation.
The B-1 neighborhood business district is that commercial zoning
designation that permits zoning conformity for the Property but also
provides for the most highly restricted business district.
Specifically, the only permitted uses allowed in a B-1 district are
barbershops, beauty parlors, and essential services. Other uses such
as governmental and public utility buildings, professional office
uses, or convenience retail stores are regulated by a CUP. The
specific site standards set forth in Section 11-4f[D] 1-13 set forth
very specific site requirements including the location of curb cuts,
screening and landscaping, parking requirements, and hours of
operation. These highly restrictive limitations attendant with the
B-1 neighborhood district assure compatibility and control through the
CUP process.
A further issue for consideration by the Applicant and City is what
alternative uses of the Property would be appropriate other than a
neighborhood retail convenience use. With the orientation to the
well -traveled Broadway Street, single family residential fronting
Broadway Street is not a reasonably foreseeable use when other
superior home sites are considered throughout the City. Multi -family
residential or mobile home park are possible uses, but would increase
the intensity of the use of the Property and require difficult
rezoning amendments. On balance, a well-designed limited neighborhood
convenience retail use is appropriate to the Property. The Applicant
seeks to bring the zoning into conformity with this appropriate use.
Additionally, the Applicant had concerns brought to their attention
regarding the curb cut location and its relation to the intersection
of Broadway Street and Otter Creek Road. By bringing the zoning into
conformity with the land use, the Applicant would be more secure in
making long term investments to improve the property.
Mr. Jeff O'Neil
October 1, 1992
W. a
For the reasons stated herein, the Applicant respectfully requests
approval of the rezoning to B-1 Neighborhood Business and approval of
the conditional use for a convenience grocery store.
Sincerely,
Timothy J. eane, for
LAREIN, HO , DALY & LINDGREN, Ltd.
it
cc: Monticello Planning Commission
Tom Holthaus
Matt Holker
TJA:IR3s
Planning Commission Agenda - 10/7/92
Public Hearinu--Consideration of granting a conditional use hermit
which would allow operation of a conyenience s1gre in p li-1 zone.
ADplicant. Tom Holthaus and Matt Holker/West Side Market. (J.O.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
In conjunction with the rezoning request, the applicant is*requesting that the
City grant a conditional use permit which would allow the convenience store
to operate as a conforming use, which in turn would allow sale of Christmas
trees at the site. Planning Commission should conduct the public hearing and
review the conditional use permit request in anticipation of a possible approval
of the rezoning request. If the Planning Commission does not conduct the
public hearing on the conditional use permit request, then this item would
need to be brought back to the Planning Commission at the next meeting after
potential subsequent approval of the rezoning request by the City Council.
If the rezoning is approved, then the City is obligated to grant a conditional
use permit; however, the City may apply certain conditions intended to protect
the character and nature of the adjoining uses. The conditional use permit
granted would apply to the existing use and seasonal sale use. Any
enlargement of the facility in the future would require that the property
owners come before the City again for an amendment to their conditional use
permit.
Following is a list of conditions that Planning Commission may want to
include:
Require that the parking lot entrance to County Road 75 be
eliminated.
This requirement is proposed because of the conflicts in traffic
movement at that corner. As you know, west -bound traffic on
County Road 75 signaling an intent to turn right onto Otter
Creek Road can confuse drivers exiting the parking lot onto
County Road 75. The exiting party does not know if the driver on
County Road 75 is turning right at Conoco or right at Otter Creek
Road. In addition, the County Road 75 access is relatively close
to the Otter Creek Road intersection and is considered to be in a
poor position according to the Wright County Engineer.
Planning Commission Agenda - 10/7/92
Additionally, removal of this access point will reduce the turning
movements onto County Road 75 and will result in a safer area
for pedestrian crossing. As you know, during the summer months
and school year, children frequently cross County Road 75 in this
area. Any reductions that can be made to the turning movements
onto the highway will enhance traffic Flow and reduce confusion,
thus promoting safety.
2. Signage - Although the sign does not exceed the B-1 sign
requirements, complaints from the neighbors regarding the
brightness of the sign have been submitted to the City in the
past. The existing Conoco sign is relatively large and bright. As
a requirement of the conditional use pp. -mit, it could be required
that the sign be reduced in size and that the illumination of the
sign be somewhat subdued.
3. Landscaping - There are few trees on the site and no landscape
plantings. At a minimum, the site should meet standard
landscaping requirements.
B. ALTE:KNATIVE ACTIONS:
Motion to recommend approval of the conditional use permit allowing a
convenience store to operate in a B-1 zone subject to the following:
Conditions as noted in the zoning ordinance.
2. Other conditions as identified by the Planning Commission.
Under this alternative, Planning Commission is satisfied that the
proposal is consistent with the requirements of the zoning ordinance and
the proposal, with the added conditions, will result in a facility that is
consistent with the geography and character of the area, will not
depreciate adjoining land values, etc.
2. Motion W deny the conditional use permit.
Under this alternative, Planning Commission makes the finding that the
conditionul use permit should he denied if it is found that the proposed
development cannot meet the minimum requirements of a convenience
store in a B-1 zone. This alternative could also be selected if the
applicant is unwilling to comply with the conditions required by the
Planning Commission.
Planning Commission Agenda - 10/7/92
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
If Planning Commission supports the zoning ordinance amendment, then it
follows that the conditional use permit should be awarded if the applicant
agrees to comply with conditions.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Please refer to supporting data of previous agenda item.
Planning Commission Agenda - 10/7/92
s. Public Hearina--Consideration of a variance reauest allowina sian area
in excess of the maximum allowed. Consideration of a yariance Sa 1he
siap setback along a public right-of-way. Applicant. Monticello -Big
Lake Community Hospital. W.O.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
The Monticello -Big Lake Community Hospital District would like to install a
pylon sign near the intersection of Hart Boulevard and County Road 75/
Broadway. An 80 sq ft sign with 12 -inch letters is proposed. The sign as
proposed would need a 30 sq f1 variance, as the ordinance limits signs on
30 mph thoroughfares to 50 sq ft.
Due to the fact that Hart Boulevard merges with County Road 75 at a shallow
angle, it is difficult to place a sign in the area outside of the existing parking
lot without encroaching in the sign setback area. Thus, there is a need to
encroach in the Hart Boulevard setback by 8 f1. Please see the map for detail.
Sign Size Variance
It is the view of the sign company salesman that 12 -inch letters are necessary
to clearly communicate the message. In order to get the entire hospital district
title on a sign using 12 -inch letters, one will need an 80 sq R sign.
The City Planner visited the site for the purpose of assisting staff in
determining whether or not the sign company's assertion is correct. After
reviewing the site, the Planner concluded that the letters can be 8-10 inches
and still have the intended impact, therefore, there are no grounds for a
variance to the sign size requirement, In summary, it is the view of the City
Planner that a hardship has not been demonstrated.
Sign location Variance
In this case, a hardship appears to exist. Due to the configuration of the
streets adjacent to the site, the only place where Cho sign can be located in a
manner meeting setback requirements is in the parking lot. Placing the sign
in the parking lot is a poor alternative in an area that is already short on
parking. The proposed location would place the sign 7 R firom Hart Boulevard.
This location would require an 8-11 variance to the 15-f1 setback requirement.
Planning Commission Agenda - 10/7/92
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
IA. Motion to approve a 31 sq ft variance request to the sign size maximum
of 50 sq ft.
1B. Motion to deny a 31 sq ft variance request to the sign size maximum of
50 sq ft.
2A. Motion to approve an 8 -ft variance request to the 15 -ft minimum
setback requirement.
2B. Motion to deny an 8 -ft variance request to the 15 -ft minimum setback
requirement.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
The City Planner and staff recommend denial of the sign size variance request
based on the finding that a hardship has not been demonstrated. Approval of
this variance could result in a precedent that could impair the intent of the
ordinance and thus reduce the future ability of the City to control sign size.
Regarding the setback variance request, staff recommends approval.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Copy of the proposed sign; Map showing sign location.
W
HOWICELL4 BL HO'4'ITAL TEL:612-245-459 3 Sep 15 92 8:31 No .011`1 F.0
71
,..tea ,.,.� ...► � 4
AIRMrICEt L 0
,• �l.r. B/GLA,K,E�i/O.�p/TAL i, 1
'' '1�ir. �irRlrl`'siYrriw"' . ::.:.:..r_: t•,y}y� • ,rr/;.._,x.;:. iu.'.' .'�' � �
a ,:,••"S 89•,20'1.4"E"�;.:��i i 4 !.
1.
v
77
u'•tw
I"
4
T ; d
t
CJ
I•
°'00
�}����-�- 1 � ,`L,
, ` Z••
�.,py N.rn cam,
5
CL
a
1
11);1rrr, /•c
zL
,�
3•
�
4Irgt� Fact,
JJ
$o•'
w
�., ��
�
�
1 1
� + 9.s
A,r•SS
Ro••.�a c,pll
J
�
r m
J
3.
i/Ir•W11iC1 e 1 rJ71AC-
1b)_` 1 AI_
I 1'1 mnsignCo.
O g
I
4
Planning Commission Agenda - 10/7/92
Continped Public Hearing—Consideration of an amendment to a
conditional use Permit which Would allow operation of a
restaurant/areade, Aaalicant. Hillside Partnershlo. 4.6)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
Planning -Commission is asked to conduct-a-publichearing and review an
application for an amendment to a conditional use permit which would allow
a restaurant/arcade to operate in the 6th Street Annex. The application has
been submitted by Judy Leming and Patty Olson of Edina Realty on behalf of
the property owners and the potential tenant, Peter Norgren.
Before launching into the agenda item, I would like to provide a bit of history.
An application for an amendment to the original conditional use permit which
would allow a restaurant was reviewed by the'Planning Commission some
months ago. The Planning Commission recommended approval of a 1,900
square foot restaurant so long as 10 parking spaces were created. By adding
10 parking spaces, there would be no need for a variance, and the development
would, therefore, meet the minimum parking standard. The City Council
reviewed t.ho`recommendation and elected to deny the proposed amendment to
the conditional use permit because of the concern that too many of the
available parking spaces were in the rear of the structure and thus not in good
position to serve the site. There was a fear that the overflow parking
associated with a popular restaurant would end up on an already congested
Cedar Street. The developer was not present to review this item with the
Council, which might have hurt the chance for approval.
PA.'S Pi=t Proaosal
If you have ever visited a "Circus, Circus" or "Chuck E Cheese" pizza
parlor/family entertainment center, you have a good idea of what is being
proposed. Please review the attached business description for additional detail.
It is proposed that P.J.'s Pizza be located in the center of the development as
noted on the attached map. The space requirements in square feet are as
follows: Restaurant - 1,700; Kitchen - 700; Arcade - 2,100. A maximum of 34
arcade machines is proposed.
Planning Commission is asked to review the proposal and determine whether
or not the operation will result in a negative impact on adjoining properties
and determine conditions necessary to protect adjoining properties. Following
is a review of factors to consider in your decision making.
Planning Commission Agenda - 10/7/92
Parkine Imnact/Demand
Parking appears to be the major factor affecting the decision. As you know,
Cedar Street is often congested, therefore, the City needs to be careful not to
introduce activity that will contribute to the problem. Following is a review
of the parking demand created by the facility, followed by a potential plan for
satisfying the demand.
The parking demand created by the entire 6th Street Annex facility, including
the proposed restaurant/arcade, amounts to 156 parking spaces. The existing
parking spaces on the site amount to 132 spaces, which leaves a deficit of 24
spaces. Please see the attached worksheet for the formula used in calculating
the demand.
Following is the plan for making up the parking stall deficit.
In the spring of 1993, the final lift of bituminous will be put in place,
and the existing purking stall striping will be covered. It is proposed
that the new striping include provisions for compact car parking. This
will result in a net increase of 6 additional spaces. r
The remaining deficit of 18 spaces would be accounted for via the "Proof
of Parking" provision within the ordinance. Under this provision, the
developer guarantees that he will develop 18 additional parking spaces
as the need arises. This additional parking need would be defined by
the City. The developer would provide the City with a certificate of
deposit in an amount equal to the cost to install the additional parking
area. If the developer does not install the additional parking as
required by the City, then the City has the latitude to install it.
The proof of parking areas can be found on the attached maps.
Basically, 8 spaces can be developed along the southern boundary of the
property, and 10 spaces can be developed along the northern boundary
of the property. At both locations, landscape plantings now in place
would have to be reinstated after development of the additional parking
spaces. In addition, Cho parking along the northern boundary would
require filling of the BN right- of -way ditch and installation of a storm
sewer pipe. Of course, the entire cost to develop additional curb,
bituminous surface, tree replacement, fill, and piping would be included
in the amount provided to the City via the certificato of deposit provided
by the developer.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
Motion IUi approve an amendment to the conditional use permit allowing
a restauront/arcadc to operate at the 6th Street Annex site contingent
on the following:
Planning Commission Agenda - 10/7/92
a. The restaurant shall be limited to 1,700 square feet.
b. The kitchen shall be limited to 700 square feet.
C. The arcade shall be limited to 2,100 square feet.
d. The number of arcade machines shall be limited to 34.
e. The parking lot shall be re -striped to include compact car spaces
and achieve an increase of 6 spaces to the present number (132).
f. The developer shall enter into an agreement with the City
guaranteeing potential development of at least 18 parking stalls.
The timing of the development of the additional stalls shall be
solely at the discretion of the City. The design of the additional
parking stalls shall be consistent with city code.
g. All existing landscape plantings removed with the installation of
additional parking shall be immediately reinstated.
.. , t , . ,a GI.,'„ , . . — 3AB
h. A bike rack shall be installed nearby the entrance to the
restaurant/arcade.
i. The restaurant/arcade shall be located in the building in a
manner that will allow direct access to both the front and rear
parking areas.
This alternative is based on the finding that the proposed addition of a
restaurant to the site (17'X) is incidental to the'retail activities occurring
at the site. The development as a whole continues to be retail in
orientation. The additional traffic created by the restaurant/arcade use
will not exceed the capacity of the roads or parking lot serving the site.
Under this alternative, future development of the full complement of
parking stalls could be staged to coincide with demand. At the same
time, no variances to the parking stall requirement would be necessary.
This alternative would require ongoing monitoring and review by stall.
1
2. Motion to approve an amendment to the conditional use permit allowing
a restaurant/arcade to operate at the 6th Street Annex site but require
that the full complement of parking be installed immediately.
Under this alternative, it is proposed that the same conditions apply
except that the additional parking stalls be constructed immediately.
This alternative should be selected if the Planning Commission is not
satisfied that the City will ultimately be able to require that the
additional parking be installed when the need arises.
14
Planning Commission Agenda - 10/7/92
Motion to deny approval of an amendment to the conditional use permit
allowing a restaurant/arcade to operate at the 6th Street Annex site
based on the finding that the proposed use will create a negative impact
on adjoining properties.
This motion could be made based on the concern that the City parking
requirements associated with the restaurantlarcade need further
research, and perhaps allowing this facility to go in will ultimately
result in a parking problem for the area once all of the retail sites are
occupied. Parking problems could result in overflow parking occurring
on Cedar Street.
In addition, the proposal could be denied because the restaurant/arcade
is not specifically mentioned as one of the retail uses in the PZM zone.
It could be argued that the restaurant/arcade at 17% of the retail
complex changes the nature of the development to the extent that it can
no longer be considered a retail use.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt alternative #1. It is
our view that the proposed use and phasing in of required parking is the most
reasonable alternative with the help of the City Planner. Staff has done fairly
extensive research on parking demand created by this type of facility and
found that our standards are relatively strict. We are confident that the total
amount of parking required will be sufficient to handle the demand. The
conditions attached to the proof of parking requirement will serve to preserve
the original conditions of the conditional use permit issued in August of 1991.
It also makes sense to allow additional parking to be phased in as the need
arises. Perhaps our estimates of the need will be high. If this is the case, a
significant amount of money on unneeded parking area will be saved. This is
not to say that we will allow this type of phasing in to occur with every
development. In this case it makes sense because of the current occupancy
rate and the lack of experience with the impact on parking demand that might
be created by a restaurantlarcade.
1). SUPPORTING DM:
Copy of original conditional use permit terms; Two maps showing proof of
parking areas; Parking demand analysis worksheet; P. J: s Pizza business
proposal; Site plan showing tenant locations,
CUP N w '14 ?I06CP COPY
4. Consideration of a conditional use request to allow retail/
commercial activities as listed in Chapter 12, Section 2, B-2,
(limited business district) of this ordinance in a PZM
(performance zone mixed). Applicant, 21st Century Builders.
Assistant Administrator O'Neill informed Council that the
Planning Commission has recommended that the conditional use
permit be approved with a number of conditions. O'Neill noted
that the original conditional use request issued to 21st
Century Builders in May of 1990 had lapsed, and there are some
substantial changes to the original site plan; therefore, the
developer needs to obtain a new conditional use permit before
proceeding on development of the structure.
After discussion, a motion was made by Brad Fyle and seconded
by Dan Blonigen to approve the conditional use permit request
subject to the following conditions:
1. Development of final landscaping and berming plan
creating effective transition between commercial
and residential properties must be reviewed and
hadapproved by the City Planner prior to issuance of a
N building permit. A bond in the amount of 100% of
C the cost to install landscaping shall be provided
to the City prior to issuance of a building permit.
2. Development of a retaining wall shall be
1,
accompanied by installation of a safety fence for
14 J the purpose of eliminating access to the edge of
Council Minutes - 8/12/91
the retaining wall. The fence shall be made of
weather -resistant material and be at least B feet
high.
3. Prior to issuance of a building permit, drainage
LQ0 and retaining wall construction plans shall be
1 approved by the City Engineer.
nn , 4. The parking requirements are based on retail use of
11L the structure only. Restaurant use is allowed only
with an amendment to the conditional use permit.
^;Vl 9. Grading and landscaping plan are to show a sidewalk
located 1 foot off the property line and located on
City right-of-way.
C�a CJI -All code requirements relating to fire department
O access to the rear of the structure shall be met.
Motion carried unanimously. D
I
9 CL 9 n�O 934.7) �+
• y
934.7 '� \
;A • oye
q�, J 9
I,.✓ . .92B
• �g34 9i � o `
PIP, I
�J•r /
i a J.5
b
REDUCER
HYD.W ALVE 0 <
a(934.e
" Ix mo+dnum
,rdf.
• \yG1��' � ♦R pR00P OP d
34 04 0\0 �NO 0
TE 4//IpGN
gpf e l-
1,
Inatf�I
OIBB )
this site plan, UtUlty 1000tlant, pIa°e °� 00°4o dne, Rfrom exleting a o
location and protection a required. Contract ,o'decpAe p P-,.. e"Y14 °°�,B o
n power pole,,north of ranrod 10, h;
and west of Codw;Av&1
,ia�Hlatwn /
Montleello �u��RBM
0
O A,i eK 831.64 '90 9 .7.96
v r: fS�9'�3Z•86-
i
EXISnNG`_,,APARTMENr BUADING
CHIANUN�1 (proposed)
1 9ho tg_.-- —/—fncr �ArCfiea St•.
417.94' R0P PROOF OF PARKING AREA
Install eight parking spaces
L
Replace landscape plantings
E / a+ 5 �(e i I`;; • Extend retaining wall maintaining J to I grade
O
TOTAL SO FT FOR EACH USE
TOTAL SO FT MINUS 10%
STALLS REQUIRED PER SO FT
MAX. LICENSED GAME MACHINES
STALLS REO. PER GAME MACHINE
REDUCTION FOR RESTAURANT/
ARCADE OVERLAP*
'ARKING STALL DEMAND PER USE
TOTAL PARKING STALL DEMAND
PARKING SPACES AVAILABLE "
FRONT - 99 REAR - 39
NET SURPLUS OR DEFICIT
PROOF OF PARKING STALLS
(10 PARALLEL SPACES ON N. SIDE)
(8 HEAD -IN SPACES S. SIDE)
NET STALL SURPLUS OR DEFICIT
PARKING DEMAND ANALYSIS
SIXTH STREET ANNEX
SEPTEMBER 30, 1992
97.85 38.25 7.875
158
138
37
-18
18
0
4.725
ALLOWS A CREDIT OF 50% DUE TO OVERLAP OF USE BETWEEN RESTAURANT AND ARCADE
CURRENTLY, 132 SPACES AVAILABLE, INCREASE OF SIX SPACES CAN BE ACCOMPLISHED IF A
PORTION OF THE LOT IS RESERVED FOR COMPACT CARS. THIS REQUIRES RE -STRIPING IN THE
SPRING OF 1993.
The same facility with the same mix of uses: St. Cloud - 124; Edina, 137;
.Aonticello - 158; Brooklyn Perk - 187; New Hope, 124-148 depending on mix of uses.
7.5
0
TYPES OF USES
AMUSEMENT'
CENTER
LICENSED
RETAIL
RESTAURANT
KITCHEN
SO FT
MACHINES
21700
1700
700
2100
NA
19530
1530
830
1890
NA
1/200
1/40
1/80
1/200
NA
30
0.5
50%
50%
97.85 38.25 7.875
158
138
37
-18
18
0
4.725
ALLOWS A CREDIT OF 50% DUE TO OVERLAP OF USE BETWEEN RESTAURANT AND ARCADE
CURRENTLY, 132 SPACES AVAILABLE, INCREASE OF SIX SPACES CAN BE ACCOMPLISHED IF A
PORTION OF THE LOT IS RESERVED FOR COMPACT CARS. THIS REQUIRES RE -STRIPING IN THE
SPRING OF 1993.
The same facility with the same mix of uses: St. Cloud - 124; Edina, 137;
.Aonticello - 158; Brooklyn Perk - 187; New Hope, 124-148 depending on mix of uses.
7.5
0
PJ's
Pizza Parlor
Inc.
0
TABLE OF CONTEXTS
o Introduction
o Philosophy
a City/County Profile
A-
0 Dining
e ----Pee= S_,* -i— "-eevt
0 marketing Techniques signs
a susinese P+&!6 � east Anslysi
a
INTRODUCTION
PJ's Pizza Parlor is established with the intentions of capturing
the interest of the full range of population within the Monticello
and surrounding areas. While PJ's Pizza Parlor will appeal to
each age group individually, the main theme will be that of the
family unit.
It is our intention that this facility will offer clean, desired,
family entertainment as well as affordable, enjoyable Italian/
American cuisine.
While the past decade bears witness to the desirability of the
Monticello area, little has been done or provided in the way of
family entertainment. PJ's Pizza Parlor is expected to be received
(_ favorably by the community particularly in light of current
demographics (see: City/County Profile.)
While the Monticello, Buffalo, and Big Lake areae host approximately
six (6) pizza facilities (combined,) one third of them are take
out only and the other two thirds offer no entertainment. PJ'a
Pizza Parlor will offer the type of entertainment typically
found in a •Chuck E Cheese" or "Circus, Circus" with two distinct
differences:
1) Local Location (vs. St. Cloud or Brooklyn Park)
2) Scaled Down, Cleaner, Ouiter Atmosphere
These factors, in addition to the convenient location, are
intended to contribute to the desirability and success of this
venture.
D
PHILOSOPHY
It is our intention that PJ's Pizza Parlor will be viewed as
a quality family and community focused entertainment/dining
facility. To achieve this status, PJ's Pizza Parlor will take
the following steps:
1) PJ's Pizza Parlor will use only the finest food products
at the lowest available cost and;
2) will offer a quite dining atmosphere (ex: no loud music,
no hard rock or rap music, no loud juke boxes etc.)
3) Selective Arcades: No pool tables, foosh ball tables, etc.
4) Bright, attractive atmosphere.
5) Periodic, (perhaps scheduled) children attractions such as
Clown visits, balloons, etc.
6) Active sports participation and perhaps donations to increase
ccmmunity participation in school activities.
7) Fun, safe childrens play area.
PJ's Pizza Parlor will also actively discourage non-profitable
loitering, profanity, and roughhousing. It is our opinion that,
only by maintaining a desirable atmosphere will this venture be
successful.
Additionally, it is felt that by becoming actively involved in
school sports activities and daycare activities PJ's Pizza
Parlor could tap into a large portion of the local market aa
of yet unrepresented.
a
DINING
While Pi's Pizza Parlor will offer the finest in pizza and family
entertainment in the Monticello and surrounding areas, we also
recognize the necessity of segregating (for the most part) the
Arcade area from the Dining area. Our design will be such that the
Dining area will be sheltered from the noise of the Arcades with
the exception of the children's area which will be visible (at least
partly) to the dining area.
The following Menu Items will be offered at Pi's Pizza Parlor:
PIZZA:
Ten (10") inch
Fourteen (14") inch
Thick Crust
LASAGNA
SALADS
�_.. BREAD STICKS/SAUCE
GARLIC BREAD
GARLIC BREAD WITH MOZZARELLA CHEESE
HOAGIES
BAKED POTATOES
PATTIE MELTS
RUEBENS
HOT DOGS
CHIPS
COFFEE/TEA/HOT CHOCOLATE/POP/MILK ETC.
NOTE: This is not an all inclusive list.
D7
❑ ❑ D D
D❑❑❑
❑❑C
❑ E'V
❑
�► GON1JIL W.
El
/ D❑❑ El
o ❑ ❑ ❑1 El
00'
❑
F] El
El ❑
�®
El 7 El El
MARKETING TECHNIQUES / SIGNS
While Pi's Pizza Parlor will corner the market on local
dining/family entertainment, we also realize the strong
competitive impact Take -Out pizza will have on sales. PJ's
Pizza Parlor may indeed offer a scaled down delivery service
(ex: week -day lunch hours and perhaps three hours per evening,)
but must also employ creative marketing techniques to ensure
an appropriate through -population since that will be our primary
focus.
While these techniques will be utilized through -out the year,
it is anticipated that the heavy marketing effort will take
place during the school year since school hours will limit
children accessibility.
In addition to the normal obvious 'draws', Pi's Pizza Parlor
will offer programs for, and possibly even discounts or donations
to, the following type of activities:
ACTIVITY TYPE: PURPOSE:
Daycares o Daytime activities,
�. primarily during school
Birthdays o Daytime activities,
Family entertainment
Movies o Post -Movie crowds
School Sports o Family/Community
involvement
• Football
• Volleyball
• Hockey
• Tennis
• Basketball
• Swimming
• Cross Country
• Wrestling
• Gymnastics
Community Sporto o Community involvement
70
PROGRAMS: Programs could be developed for both Birthday
and Daycare type of activities. These programs wuuld include
festive plates and cups, helium balloons, party hats, etc.
The ideal age group for this type of program would be the
pre-school children.
DISCOUNTS: PJ's Pizza Parlor could develop promotional
type of discounts through other community businesses such
as Maus Foods and the Monticello Theater. These programs may
simply be a coupon for a discounted or -free food item for
purchasing a certain volume of food items (Maus Foods) or for
purchasing a ticket to a movie (Movie Theater.) This could
prove to be a very effective means of advertising.
Another effective discount program could be geared towards the
members and teams of school sports. PJ's Pizza Parlor would
work closely with the administrators and coaches of the school
activities in an effort to get the teams to come to our facility
as a post -game activity in return for discounted team/member
prices. This is anticipated to also draw the parents and fans
from many games and matches.
DONATIONS: Another possible marketing technique could be
that of donations. Again this would be geared around school
activities and would take place on game nights. Two thoughts
to this program are:
o A pre -designated amount from each pizza (for non -team
purchases) would be donated to the school for sports
sponsorship.
A donation 'JUG' located at the check-in counter clearly
labelled as a donation for that particular sports activity.
NOTE: The emphasis on Discounts and Donations for
school 'sports activities would ensure the active participation
and attendance of the teams and coaches.
0
FAMILY NIGHT:Pi's Pizza parlor would also like to dedicate
one night per week as 'family night.,, During this night,
The family unit will be the primary focus. This night would
include such draws as festive atmosphere 6 music, clown visits,
helium balloons, etc.
0
b
Mq
NOITHO • waOAD
•aoarn. 1
0