Loading...
Planning Commission Agenda Packet 06-22-1992 SpecialAGENDA SPECIAL MEETING - MONTICELL.O PLANNING COMMISSION Monday, June 22, 1992 - 6 p.m. Members: Dan McConnon, Richard Martie, Richard Carlson, Cindy Lemm, Jon Bogart 1. Call to order. '2. Consideration of approving preliminary plat of the Battle Rapids subdivision. Applicant, Investors Together. 3. Consideration of a variance request allowing development of a \` PUD (townhome development) containing an area less than 3 acres. Applicant, Investors Together. j4. Consideration of a conditional use permit request which would allow development of townhomes in an R-2 zone. Applicant, Investors Together. S. Consideration of a request to amend a condition of a previously -approved conditional use permit. Applicant, Hillside Partnership/6th Street Annex. 6. Consideration of a variance request to allow less than the minimum off-street parking spaces. Applicant, Hillside Partnership/6th Street Annex. 7. Consideration of a zoning ordinance amendment which would allow certain commercial buildings located in the PZM zone to qualify to follow sign requirements pertaining to buildings in commercial zones. Applicant, Hillside Partnership. A. Consideration of a conditional use request to allow a sign �- system for a building with three (3) or more business uses but Q which, by generally understood and accepted definitions, is not considered a shopping center or shopping mall. Applicant, Hillside Partnership. 9. Consideration of a variance request to allow more than the 100 sq ft maximum wall sign square footage. Consideration of a variance request to allow more than the 29 eq ft maximum pylon sign square footage and to allow more than the maximum 16 -ft pylon sign height. Applicant, Hillside Partnership. 10. Adjournment. Special Planning Commission Agenda - 6/22/92 2. Consideration of avvrovina vreliminary plat of the Battle Rapids subdivision. Applicant, Investors Toaether. (J.0.) A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: Investors Together requests that the Planning Commission/City Council consider approval of the preliminary plat of the Battle Rapids subdivision. This subdivision consists of a replat of Outlot A of the East View plat. City staff has reviewed the preliminary plat and found it to be consistent with the city ordinance; however, there are a few issues that need to be addressed prior to final plat approval. The following report provides a general description of the plat along with issues that need to be resolved. The development plans call for the phased development of 4 structures, which include a total of 14 townhomes. In the initial phase, only one of the four structures will be constructed; however, retaining walls and all site grading will be completed with phase I. Phase I also includes development of only that portion of the drive area needed to serve the initial structure. Development of phase I will have a very significant impact on the site, as much of the subgrade material at the east end of the site will be moved to fill low areas at the west end of the site. City staff has reviewed the preliminary plat for consistency with the city ordinance and found that the plat meets City minimums. There are a few issues that need to be addressed prior to final plat approval. Please review the plat itself for detail. A more thorough description of the plan will be provided at the meeting. Gradinq and Drainaqe Plan The City Engineer has noted a number of items that need to be included in the grading and drainage plan. These items are outlined in the attached correspondence from the City Engineer. It is proposed that approval of the preliminary plat be contingent on the incorporation of the comments into the grading plan. The grading plan includes development of a high retaining wall. It is important that the structural integrity of this wall be reviewed and approved by a registered engineer prior to construction. Special Planning Commission Agenda - 6/22/92 Storm Sewer System The development plan incorporates the possibility that the Meadow Oak related storm sewer system will pass through the property between blocks 3 and 4. It is proposed that the City pay the cost to extend the storm sewer pipe from the parking area to the south edge of the property and pay the additional cost to oversize the storm sewer system so that it will be able to handle the additional storm water coming from the south. This item can be addressed in the development agreement. Townhouse Association The city ordinance requires that townhouse developments in an R-2 zone meet the requirements of a PUD. One of the requirements of a PUD is creation of a townhouse association. The City is responsible for reviewing and approving the townhouse bylaws. The developers have not prepared the Battle Rapids Townhouse Bylaws; however, they plan on using the MacArlund Plaza Bylaws as a guide. Final plat approval should be contingent on the developer providing the final bylaws for the Battle Rapids Townhome Association. Development Aqreement Although there are no public improvements Included with site development, the City may wish to enter into an agreement assuring the City that proper site restoration and erosion control measures are taken in conjunction with project phasing. The City may wish to require that a performance bond be obtained in an amount equal to retaining wall and site restoration expenses. Staff is concerned about the potential problem that could be created if the project does not proceed past the first phase. Park Dedication The park dedication associated with this site was provided in conjunction with the creation of the East View plat. Parkinq Area Screeninq The developers indicated that they will provide landscape plantings to help screen the parking area from the view of the Peterson property located directly west of the site. The screen needs to be defined prior to approval of the final plat. Special Planning Commission Agenda - 6/22/92 B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS: 1. Motion to approve the preliminary plat contingent on the following: 1. The preliminary plat should be amended to include comments made by the City Engineer in his letter of June 10, 1992. Final plat approval shall not be granted until this item is complete. 2. Final plat will be contingent on completion of a development agreement which would include the developer providing a performance bond in an amount equal to complete phase I site improvements as defined by the City Engineer. 3. Final plat approval will be contingent on preparation and recording of townhouse association bylaws. Bylaws must be consistent with the city ordinance governing planned unit development bylaws. 4.% An easement allowing the owner of the adjacent property to the east to use the Battle Rapids drive 4' area must be recorded along with the final plat. 5. Final plat approval is contingent on developer v paying City expenses in excess of preliminary plat fee (amount not known at this time). 2. Motion to table approval of the preliminary plat. If the Planning Commission/City Council is not comfortable with approving the preliminary plat due to information deficiencies noted above, then this alternative should be considered. C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: It is the view of City staff that the preliminary plat and associated information are sufficient to warrant approval of the preliminary plat. The developer should be on notice, however, that the issues above relating to grading, site restoration, retaining wall design, easements, etc., must all be addressed prior to the next step, which is City approval of the final plat. D. SUPPARTTNr, nATAi Developer's narrative description of project phasing. A copy of the preliminary plat was delivered with the previous agenda packet for this Item. 3 Planning and Zoning Commission City of Monticello Be: Battle Rapids Townhomea Other Information The total development will consist of 14 townhomes, housed in 4 buildings. a.) Phase One of the development will be the construction of one building, containing 4 units. located on Block 1 of the development. b.) Drivevays and roads for the entire development will be "roughed in" at the beginning of construction of phase one. The driveways will be completed and blacktopped as the buildings are completed. c.) All disturbed waiting areae will be seeded to prevent erosion. J O.SNt Orr Uv- 2021 East Nenneron Avenue Mlnneap01B, MN 354 U 612-3314W June 10, 1992 FAX 3313806 engineers ArrhnecM Planners Surveyors Mr. Jeff O'Neill City of Monticello 250 East Broadway Box 1147 Monticello, MN 55362 Re: Battle Rapids Townhomes OSM Project No. 1748.95 Dear Mr. O'Neill: We have received and reviewed the revised grading, drainage and utility plan for the above referenced subdivision. It appears that most of the comments from my May 26, 1992 letter have been incorporated into this revised plan: however, the following items still require modification 1. The proposed contours should reflect the vertical curves shown on the entrance drive. 2. The concrete nub and gutter should be bullnosed at the County right-of- way line. 'There does not appear to be a need for surmountable curb, a B612 nub would be move suitable within this project. The detail should be changed from surmountable to 8612. 3. The limits of the retaining wall are still unclerr on the plan I still have not received a design from a registered Structural Engineer. 4. The ditch contours are not tied off properly. The east property line will require sloping onto lot 4 of the Eastview plat. This has not been shown on the grading plan 5. The west property line Swale has not been shown on the plan. 6. Insulation should be installed on all services with lest than seven feet of cover over the pipe. The insulation should be 4 inches thick and should extend five feet beyond the outside edges of the pipe. 7. The existing 3T X 18` RCP Arch culvert under tSAH39 should be accurately placed on the plan. Mr. Jeff O'Neill June 10, 1992 Page 2 8. The storm sewer system should be shown on the plan as per the attached drawing. 9. The garage floor elevations are still shown too low to accommodate positive drainage away from the buildings. 10. The plans do not include specifications for construction of any of the utilities, streets or grading The utilities should follow city of Monticello standards and CLAOM standard specifications. 'Ile streets should have compactions of 95% and 100% of standard Proctor density for all tilling and the top three feet of street subgrade, respectively. Street design should follow Mn/DOT specifications. 11. All phasing should be shown on the construction plan, along with erosion control measures for the site. Specify location of silt fence, straw bales around inplace flared end sections, eta Please give me a call if you have any questions or comments at 378.7440. Sincerely, ORRSCFIELEN-MAYERON & Y ASSOCIATES, C. '0" 1, Bret A. Weiss, P.E. City Engineer cc John Simola - City of Monticello Al Nuen - Otto A Associates (AD 250 East Broadway P. 0. Box 1147 June 10, 1992 Monricello, MN 55362.9245 Phone: (612) 295-2711 Merro: (612) 333-5739 Fax: (612) 2954404 Mr. Dean Hoglund and Mr. Ren Schwartz Investors Together PO Box 295 Monticello, MN 55362 Dear Sirs: I have reviewed the preliminary plat and related information pertaining to the Battle Rapids subdivision and found that the information provided meets the requirements of the subdivision ordinance. There may, however, be additional engineering -related information that the City Engineer may wish to have placed on the preliminary plat. There are a few changes that should be made prior to Planning Commission review on June 15, 1992. Following are the changes that should be made to the plat: 1. Revise the title from final plat of Battle Rapids Townhousee to preliminary plat of Battle Rapids subdivision. 2. Prior to approval of the final plat, an easement document should be prepared that allows the owner of Lot 4, Block 1, to use the townhouse driveway. 3. Describe the type of screening and design of landscaping between the Peterson property and the adjacent townhouse parking area. It is important that sufficient screening be developed so as to eliminate any negative impact that the parking area might have on the Peterson property. 4. In your narrative description of the phasing, you ntAted that driveways and roads for the entire development will be "roughed In aL Lha buy Lu:iny ut thu cunnLrucLloa of phase I. The driveways will be completed in blacktop as the buildings are completed." The term "roughed in" needs to be better described. Will the roughed -in area be seeded, or will it be partially developed with a crushed rock surface? 0. Mr. Dean Hoglund and Mr. Ren Schwartz June 10, 1992 Page 2 5. As noted earlier, the City Engineer will be providing comments on the plan and may be asking you to make some last minute changes. 6. The MacArlund Plaza Townhouse Association rules as a model for the Battle Rapids Townhouse Association rules is sufficient for the preliminary plat review stage. Please note that final plat approval will require completion of and recording of the Townhouse Association Articles of Incorporation for the Battle Rapids development. 7. Upon completion of the adjustments noted by myself and the City Engineer, please deliver 15 copies of the preliminary plat to City staff for subsequent review by the Planning Commission and City Council. If you should have any questions, please give me a call. Yours truly, CITY OF MONTICELLO Jeff O'Neill Assistant Administrator JO/kd cc: Subdivision File �S ��•o.. Mme_. C.�..., y<., .H r �� � .•oo Piy SFA JTAnit Lu(ti% OF MOIJTICELLC- Z2O C31sco 0) T^r- 'n LYP cctJtAE-u 2. goo -ALVE M+f 11 SE 2 55 SFA JTAnit Lu(ti% OF MOIJTICELLC- Z2O C31sco 0) T^r- 'n LYP cctJtAE-u 2. Special Planning Commission Agenda - 6/22/92 3. Consideration of a variance reauest allowing development of a PUD (townhome development) containing an area less than 3 acres. Applicant, Investors Toqether. (J.0.) A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: As noted in the previous agenda item, townhomes developed in an R-2 zone must meet the requirements associated with a planned unit development. One of the requirements is that PUD sites must contain at least 3 acres. City Planner, David Licht, has recommended that the City grant a variance to this provision and also consider deleting this requirement from our ordinance. It is his view that the 3 -acre minimum is an unnecessary restriction. He stated that other communities have eliminated similar provisions that set a PUD area minimum. B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS: 1. Notion to grant a variance which would allow development of a PUD containing an area less than 3 acres and authorize City staff to prepare an amendment eliminating the requirement. Notion is based on the finding that the variance is necessary to allow the use of the land for townhome development under the provisions of the R-2 zoning district. Under this alternative, the conditional use permit would be valid, and the site plan would be consistent with City requirements. 2. Notion to deny granting of a variance which would allow development of a PUD containing an area less than 3 acres. This alternative should be selected only if Planning Commission/Council denies the conditional use permit request. Planning Commission/Council cannot approve the conditional use permit request and then deny this variance request. C. STAFF RECOKMENDATIONs If Planning Commission/Council approves the preliminary plat and conditional use permit requests, then alternative it should be selected. D. SUPPORTING DAM Excerpt from zoning ordinance. [I] To give the landowner and developer reasonable assurance of ultimate approval before expending complete design monies while providing City officials with assurances that the project will retain the character envisioned at the time of concurrence; [J] Flexibility for variation from the provisions of this ordinance including setbacks, height, lot area, width and depth, yards, etc. 20-2: GENERAL REQUIREMENTS AND STANDARDS: [A] OWNERSHIP: Application for PUD approval must be filed by the landowner or jointly by all landowners of the property included in a project. The application and all submissions must be directed to the development of the property as a unified whole, i.e., a planned unit. In the case of multiple ownership, the approved final plan shall be binding on all owners. [8] COMPREHENSIVE PLAN CONSISTENCY: The proposed PUD shall with omprehensive plan. (C] SIZE: Planned unit development proposals must include a..... ... .... Lr, .: � • na jii ren �� n a wrrna, (D] SANITARY SEWER PLAN CONSISTENCY: The proposed PUD shall be consistent with the City capital improvement program and comprehensive utility plan. (E) COMMON OPEN SPACE: Common open space at least sufficient to meet the minimum requirement established in this NrP ordinance and such complementary structures and improvements as are necessary and appropriate for the l/ benefit and enjoyment of the residents of the PUD shall a Lw t be provided within the area of the PUD. (F] OPERATING AND MAINTENANCE REQUIREMENTS FOR PUD COMMON OPEN SPACE/FACILITIES: Whenever common open space or service facilities are provided within the PUD, the PUD plan shall contain provisions to assure the continued operation and maintenance of such open space and service facilities to a predetermined reasonable standard. Common open space and service facilities within a PUD may be placed under the ownership of one or more of the following as approved by the City Councils 1. Dedicated to public where a community-wide use is anticipated acid the City Council agrees to dccopt the dedication. 2. Landlord control where only use by tenants is anticipated. MONTICELLO ZONING ORDINANCE — 20/2 Special Planning Commission Agenda - 6/22/92 a. Consideration of a conditional use permit request which would allow development of townhomes in an R-2 zone. Applicant. Investors Together. (J.O.) A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: City ordinance requires that a conditional use permit be obtained before a townhouse development can occur in an R-2 zone. The description of the townhome development is addressed in the review of the preliminary plat application. This agenda item will discuss the proposed conditional use permit application in terms of the requirements noted by ordinance. The ordinance states that townhouse developments in the R-2 zone must meet the standards defined in the PUD requirement. Please note that not all rules pertaining to a PUD apply to this development because generally a PUD involves a much larger area and would include many more housing units. PUD REQUIREMENTS Comprehensive Plan and Sanitary Sewer Plan Consistency The proposed plan is consistent with both the comprehensive and the sanitary sewer plans. Size Ordinance states that the PUD area must include an area of at least three (3) contiguous acres. A VARIANCE IS REQUIRED because the site consists of 2.7 acres (see next agenda item). David Licht of NAC indicated that this section of the ordinance regulating PUD's should be eliminated, as there is no significant reason why a minimum area is even necessary. He recommended granting a variance and eliminating this section of the ordinance later. Common Open Space This is a flexible standard. The City needs to determine if common open space is sufficient. Townhome Association The ordinance requires that a townhome association be formed that meets numerous conditions noted by ordinance. As noted under the previous agenda item, the final plat should not be approved until the townhouse bylaws have been completed and are conaletenL with Lhe ordinance. The develupurs have Indicated that they will use Lhe NacArlund Plaza Bylaws as a guide. staginq of Public and Common Open Space Not applicable in this case. 5 Special Planning Commission Agenda - 6/22/92 Density Must meet the requirements of the comprehensive plan. Proposal complies. Utilities Utilities must be installed underground. Proposal complies. Roadways Approved curb and gutter and 20 -ft wide roadway is required. Proposal complies. Landscapinq Due to the proximity of the parking area to the neighboring single family residence to the west, it has been suggested that a screen made of pine plantings be installed along the western edge of the site. The precise plan has not been completed. Urban Development and Availability of Public Service Proposal complies. Townhouse Proposal meets all minimums. Setbacks Proposal meets setback requirements defined in the R-2 zone. As with all conditional use permits, Planning Commission/City Council needs to consider the character/geography of the area, relationship with the comprehensive plan, the demonstrated need for the use, and the impact on adjoining land values when addressing a conditional use permit application. B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS1 1. Motion to approve the conditional use permit application allowing a townhouse development in an R-2 zone subject to the conditions below. Notion is based on the finding that a townhome development at this location is consistent with the comprehensive plan and regulations governing planned unit developments. The duvuluywesiL la coueidLeuL with the character and associated land uses identified in the R-2 zone. The development will have direct access to a county road and, therefore, traffic impact on adjoining R-1 uses will be minimized; therefore, the development is consistent with the geography of the area. The need for this type of use has been sufficiently demonstrated. Special Planning Commission Agenda - 6/22/92 Conditions: {, 1. A variance must be granted to the requirement that a PUD encompass an area of at least 3 acres. 2. The final plat must be approved and recorded, and all conditions associated with the final plat must be complete. Items relating to the final plat as noted in the previous agenda item are as follows: • The preliminary plat should be amended to include comments made by the City Engineer in his letter of June 10, 1992. Final plat approval shall not be granted until this item is complete. • Final plat approval will be contingent on completion of a development agreement which would include the developer providing a performance bond in an amount equal to complete phase I site improvements as defined by the City Engineer. • Final plat approval will be contingent on preparation and recording of townhouse association bylaws. Bylaws must be consistent 1 with the city ordinance governing planned unit development bylaws. • An easement allowing the owner of the adjacent property to the east to use the Battle Rapids drive area must be recorded along with the final plat. • Final plat approval is contingent on developer paying City expenses in excess of the preliminary plat fee (amount not known at this time. 2. Notion to deny the conditional use permit application allowing a townhouse development in an R-2 zone. If Planning Commission/City Council does not agree with the finding above, then this alternative should be selected. C. STAFF RECONNENDATION: Staff recommends alternative /1. D. SUPPORTING DATAt See previous agenda item. 7 Special Planning Commission Agenda - 6/71/92 5. Consideration of a request to amend a condition of a previously -approved conditional use permit. Armlicant„ Hillside Partnership/6th Street Annex. (G.A.) A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: Hillside Partnership is requesting an amendment to one of the six conditions of their August 12, 1991, conditional use permit approval. Condition t4 states that "The parking requirements are based on retail use of the structure only. Restaurant uses only allowed with an amendment to the conditional use permit." Hillside Partnership is proposing to lease portions of their building for one or possibly two restaurants. The example that they would like to use is as follows: Consider a 4,000 sq ft restaurant lease space, which results in the need for 88 parking spaces. Subtracting the 20 off-street parking spaces which are already required from the 88 total spaces that are now required leaves a deficit of 68 off-street parking spaces using the existing site plan. The developer's revised site plan now shows a total of 139 on- site spaces. If we include the 4,000 aq ft restaurant lease space, we are short 55 parking spaces. In consideration of amending this conditional use permit, the Planning Commission/Council is asked to consider whether or not the proposed amendment to the conditional use permit is consistent with the comprehensive plan, is it consistent with the character and geography of the area, will the amended conditional use permit tend to depreciate the area, and has the need for the amended conditional use permit been sufficiently demonstrated. The factual answers to these questions then become the basis for your decision. Following is a review of the site in terms of each of the criteria that should be reviewed when addressing an amendment to a condition of a conditional use permit: A. Conslstoncv with the comprehensive plan. The proposed amendment will result in a deficiency in parking spaces at the site, which could result in considerable on -street parking and result in spillover parking at neighboring Maus Foods. Allowing development to occur without adequate parking is not consistent with the comprehensive plan. B. The geographical area Involved. The amendment allowing a restaurant without sufficient parking could further congest Cedar Street, which is already quite busy. C. The character of the surrounding area. Although the site Is consistent with the character of the area as determined when the original conditional use permit was Special Planning Commission Agenda - 6/22/92 awarded, the amendment will result in edded congestion and traffic, which could result in the site becoming a problem. D. Whether such use will tend to or actually depreciate the area in which It is proposed. Development of a site without sufficient parking could result in spillover parking onto adjoining properties. If the problem became severe, it could result in depreciation of adjoining values. E. The demonstrated need for such use. It could be argued that the city needs another restaurant. On the other hand, the city does have quite a few. It does not seem reasonable to grant the conditional use permit amendment based on the need for an additional restaurant. B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS: 1. Approve the request to amend a condition of a previously - approved conditional use permit. 2. Deny the request to amend a condition of a previously - approved conditional use permit. C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This is a very difficult issue. On one hand, it is important that the City support efforts to fill the 6th Street Annex with viable businesses. Allowing a restaurant at the site makes sense from this standpoint. On the other hand, allowing a 4,000 sq ft restaurant at the site could very well result in parking problems and street congestion. Allowing the conditional use permit as proposed will also need a variance approval that will result in a precedent. From a land use planning standpoint, the recommendation would be to deny the amendment to the conditional use permit. As an alternative, Planning Commission/Council might consider authorizing a detailed study of parking/traffic problems that could occur as a result of allowing a 4,000 sq ft restaurant to be developed at the site. Perhaps the item could be tabled pending a study by a city planner? A detailed study might reveal that the parking deficiency may not be severe. If Planning Commission/Council authorizes a study, it is recommended that the developer be required to fund the study prior to commencement of the study. D. SUPPORTING DATA: Copy of the location of the proposed retell/business use site; Copy of the site plan; Copy of the minutes of the 8/12/91 City Council mooting minutes. =� /�\',•� A r vat to aammend a condition of a previously appt�ved cNATTonal use permit. �- \�-�� A request to amend the sign ordinance, •. •"�\\ \ Section 9-3 (6) 2(b) to include a building located in the PM =one in which there \ are three or more busineso uses. -'•� - - A conditional use request to allow a sign system for a building with three (3) or more businean uses but which, by generally understood and accepted definitions, is not considered a shopping center or shopping L„,;� _ APPLICANT: Hills Partnership %'/`( rte. 77 4(,'/!I 4/`� 1 qjr M� .•�,/f.a� `Ir : 4,T��,%r I' /lrn4f ^' "O �i:n. I �////”'%'r • -'I `wr ' :/,• :,/��/J ))) 1 L (' s �, /'/I+r, r.,�.,'./f l!'T,r'�r/li� i///�y/ � .: - � '+� )''•,`,�.','• ' l ��� %;'" '. ;' '''„ ,�l iti'%?%" fes' 4'j', y�E��l�'1 "!�/�:. u r �S ° '^•'J 1 alp � \. �• �.;I /J .r .!y t � I /. / / . /1 �/I' �' r rr:ro�' �r 1' ��\�\rf J�iIT /1'• T%�r '� � � •�4y/,��///' . r.. /.,7 �All1 ;. ... �,%�,►�.✓ \,�I l �.- ;,�:;. �;/fir,- �� ��. `- i /!j 1,. ,'� i, / / nn _ ...� MVV �•��4/ll/(��f/•. 4 11 i J 1 1 (A) SIT& RAM STUDY ' M ♦,n'I vOnJ `/WlC_I OAIA" pAi r—: SIMM rt rflM �lr��� rr� 1�6—OAr��rl/�r�AY MIr}IrrY le'�.i11FA7Y �_I FY1dI Flld{Sgl►ASOlp1V�kSdfl,41f. �� rw �,� I A /1010i1D UTAC CIMTIS MOMIICIII0, WMMITOIA 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 approved by the City Planner prior to issuance of a building permit. A bond in the amount of 100% of 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 _ accompanied by installation of a safety fence for 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 6 feet high. J. Prior to issuance of a building permit, drainage and retaining wall construction plans shall be approved by the City Engineer. 4. The parking requirements are based on retail use of the structure only. Restaurant use is allowed only with an amendment to the conditional use permit. 9. Grading and landscaping plan are to show a sidewalk located 1 foot off the property line and located on City right-of-way. 6. All code requirements relating to fire department access to the rear of the structure shall be met. Notion carried unanimously. O 5 Special Planning Commission Agenda - 6/22/92 6. Consideration of a variance reauest to allow less than the minimum off-street Rarkina spaces. ADDlicant. Hillside Partnership/6th Street Annex. (G.A.) A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: Hillside Partnership is proposing to have a parking lot with less than the minimum number of required off-street parking spaces. The site plan that was submitted and approved in August of 1991 showed a retail business site accommodating the required minimum of 126 off-street parking spaces. The site plan showed six additional off-street parking spaces (a total of 132) over and above the required minimum off-street parking spaces and was approved. However, the developers are proposing to include a restaurant facility within their complex, which requires additional off-street parking spaces. Under the existing plan, using an example of a restaurant area of 4,000 sq ft, the current requirement for retail business off-street parking is one parking space per 200 eq ft of building area. The restaurant section of our ordinance requires one off-street parking space per 80 sq ft of kitchen/food preparation area and one per 40 sq ft for eating/dining, reception, and restroom areas. With 4,000 eq ft of area, a retail use would require 20 off-street parking spaces. A 4,000 eq ft restaurant facility with 1,000 sq ft of kitchen/food preparation area and 3,000 sq ft of eating/dining and restroom area would require a total of 88 off-street parking spaces. Replacing a retail activity with restaurant activity would create a shortage of 68 off-street parking spaces. Under the new parking plan, which takes advantage of the option of using compact car spaces in the lot design, the lot contains 139 spaces. Replacing the retail use with the proposed restaurant use under the now plan would result in the developers being short 47 spaces. B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS: 1. Approve the variance request to allow lose than the minimum number of off-street parking spaces. This alternative must be selected if the associated conditional use permit is approved. 2. ueny the variance request to allow lees than the minimum number of off-street parking spaces. 10 Special Planning Commission Agenda - 6/22/92 STAFF RECONMENDATION: City staff has several reservations regarding the large number of off-street parking spaces (47) that this building site would be short with a 4,000 sq ft restaurant space consisting of 3,000 sq ft of eating/dining area and 1,000 sq ft of kitchen/food preparation area. We could experience congestion problems at some point in the future if all of the spaces within the complex are leased, all of the off-street parking spaces are filled, and parking occurs along the east and west sides of Cedar Street where there is also congestion occurring around the Maus Foods loading/unloading area. The developers could propose that all tenants and their employees park in the rear -most portion (the easterly portion) of their lot in back of the building. Customers entering either at the northwest or southwest side of the parking lot only and utilizing the southwest side as an exit from the parking lot should help minimize traffic congestion at this site if the off-street parking spaces are totally full. The chances of this occurring are occasional at best, depending on the time of the day and the time of the year. Hopefully the expansion of Naus Foods will encourage the developers/leasees of the 6th Street Station complex to redo the loading/ unloading dock area located in the northeast corner of the existing Maus Foods building. Lessening of the use of this loading/unloading dock area would certainly limit the congestion occurring along this area of Cedar Street. In addition, allowing development to occur without sufficient parking would result in establishment of a precedent. SUPPORTING DATA: �r • thw j� .� 7l%�;!��y '�... ,� �.�. �.� v.�r ❑���..�..,.. --^«a ..r sen NonQ, Special Planning Commission Agenda - 6/22/92 7. Consideration of a zoning ordinance amendment which would allow certain commercial buildings located in the PZN zone to aualifv to follow sign reaairements pertainina to buildinas in commercial zones. Applicant. Hillside Partnership. (J.0.) S. Consideration of a conditional use request to allow a sian system for a building with three (3) or more business uses but which, by oenerally understood and accepted definitions, is not considered a shopping center or shopping mall. Applicant, Hillside PartnershV). (J.O.) 9. Consideration of a variance request to allow more than the 100 sq ft maximum wall sign square footage. Consideration of a variance request to allow more than the 25 sq ft maximum pylon sign square footage and to allow more than the maximum 16 -ft pylon sign helaht. Applicant, Hillside Partnership. (J.O.) A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: The 6th Street Annex, previously referred to as the Hillside Partnership Retail Nall, is in the process of preparing a sign system to serve the facility. Unfortunately, the sign system proposed is not consistent with the limitations imposed by the PZN zone. Following is a review of the proposal, followed by a summary of the amendments and variances that are necessary to allow the sign sytem to be installed as proposed. The developer proposes 13 wall signs advertising 13 businesses containing a total sign area of 390 sq ft. In addition, the developer proposes a pylon sign that is 18 ft in height and possesses a sign area of 50 sq ft. The combined sign area is 440 eq ft. Existinq Siqn Requlations--PLM Zone Under the present ordinance in the PZN zone, the maximum allowable square footage of sign area amounts to 100 sq ft. The 100 eq ft area can be divided between a pylon sign and one wall sign or divided between two wall signs. The reason why signage in the PZN zone is limited is because the PZN zone is considered to be a combination commercial/residential zone. Under the existing ordinance, the developer would need a 340 eq ft veriance to the sign area. Pylon sign height and size limitations are categorized by the type of street that the pylon sign is located on. Cedar Street is a 30 mph collector road. Pylon signo on 30 mph collector roads are limited to 16 ft in height and 50 sq ft in sign area. The proposed 50 sq ft pylon sign would need a variance of 25 eq ft and a 2 -ft variance to the pylon height maximum of 18 ft. Special Planning Commission Agenda - 6/22/92 As an alternative to the variances noted above, it is proposed that an amendment to the zoning ordinance be drafted that would allow the 6th Street Annex to fall under the rules governing signs in the B-1 through I-2 districts. This makes sense because the structure and associated use, although located in a PZM zone, has strong ties to the neighboring B-3 zone. Using commercial zone sign requirements would allow the 6th Street Annex to have 300 square feet in sign area OR a pylon sign and 100 sq ft of sign area. Unfortunately, even with the amendment as proposed, variances would need to be granted to allow the sign system to be installed as proposed. If the zoning ordinance amendment is adopted, there are two options for granting variances that would allow the sign system as proposed: IA. Under Option A, the total sign area is limited to wall signs only with a total sign area of 300 sq ft. In order to lessen the variance to the sign area maximum, a variance could be granted to allow the presence of a pylon sign in addition to the 300 sq ft wall signs. In addition, the pylon sign would require a height variance of 2 ft and a sign area variance of 25 ft. Under this option, the total variance to the sign area requirement amounts to 140 sq ft. 16. If a pylon is allowed without a variance, then a larger variance to the total sign area would be necessary. with both the pylon and wall sign in place, the total sign area is limited to 125 sq ft, which creates a need to grant a 315 -ft variance to the sign area square foot maximum. As with option IA, the pylon sign would require a height variance of 2 ft and a sign area variance of 25 ft. An option that was not proposed by staff that could be used as reference is the city sign limitations as they apply to shopping malls. Following are the variances necessary if the City categorized the 6th Street Annex as a shopping malls 1. Total wall sign area in this case would be limited to 296 eq ft, which would mean that a variance of 94 sq ft to the total wall sign area maximum would be needed. A second pylon sign would be allowed without a reduction in the amount of wall sign allowed. A verlanro of 25 eq ft and 2 ft in height would be necessary to allow the pylon sign to be developed as proposed. 13 Special Planning Commission Agenda - 6/21/92 On the surface, it makes sense to simply categorize the 6th Street Annex as a shopping mall, which would allow a significant reduction in the variances necessary. Somewhere I have heard, "If it walks like a duck and it quacks like a duck, it is a duck." On the other hand, an argument could be made that the structure is not a retail mall. The building is a single structure with no internal walkways or "mall" area. In addition, the City has already defined the use when it granted a conditional use permit allowing "retail activities" in a PEN zone, which is allowed as a conditional use in the PEN zone. It would now be inconsistent to define the facility as a retail mall. Retail malls are not specifically cited as being allowed in the PEN zone. If the City labels the site as a retail mall for purposes of establishing signage, then the site becomes a non -conforming use in the PEN zone. B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS: Alternative 1: A. Notion to amend the zoning ordinance to allow certain commercial buildings located in the PEN zone to qualify to follow sign requirements pertaining to buildings in commercial zones (see proposed amendment). Notion is based on the finding that the PEN zone to a transition area between commercial and residential uses. Allowing intensification of sign systems in the PEN zone along the perimeter of commercial areas is consistent with this purpose and consistent with the geography and character of the area. The amendment as proposed will not result in proliferation of business signs within residential areas. B. Notion to grant a conditional use permit allowing 13 wall signs with a total square foot area of 390 sq ft and allow a 16 -ft pylon sign with a sign area of 50 eq ft. Notion to grant a variar.ce allowing both a 300 eq ft wall sign and a pylon sign and grant a 140 sq ft variance to the wall sign requirement. This alternative should be selected if the Planning Commission/Council Is comfortable with the sign plan submitted. Under this alternative, the variances would be granted withm:t dAmnnetrating hardship, and the action to grant the variances would serve to set a precedent that would Impair the intent of the ordinance. If the variances are granted as proposed, the City should consider amending the sign ordinance accordingly. 14 Alternative 2: Special Planning Commission Agenda - 6/22/92 A. Motion to amend the zoning ordinance to allow certain commercial buildings located in the PZM zone to qualify to follow sign requirements pertaining to buildings in commercial zones. Motion is based on the finding that the PZM zone Is a transition area between commercial and residential uses. Allowing intensification of sign systems in the PZM zone along the perimeter of commercial areas is consistent with this purpose and consistent with the geography and character of the area. The amendment as proposed will not result in proliferation of business signs within residential areas. B. Motion to approve the conditional use permit request subject to revision of the sign plan to meet the requirements of the ordinance. Motion is based on the finding that the sign system as proposed is consistent with the requirement set forth by ordinance. The signs are oriented toward a commercial area and are away from residential areas; therefore, the sign system is consistent with the geography and character of the area. C. Motion to deny the variance request allowing both a pylon sign and 300 sq ft sign area based on the finding that a hardship has not been demonstrated; therefore, to grant the variance would impair the intent of the ordinance and set a negative precedent. D. Motion to deny a 25 sq ft variance to the pylon sign area requirement and deny a 2 -ft variance to the sign height requirement. This motion is based on the finding that a hardship has not been demonstrated; therefore, to grant the variance would impair the intent of the ordinance and set a negative precedent. Under this alternative, the Planning Commission/Council could take the position that the 6th Street Annex and associated retail activities should follow the same sign requirements as followed by other buildings housing three or more businesses. Under this alternative, It could be argued that the pylon sign should not be allowed if extensive wall signs are to be employed. This alternative does not allow the pylon sign but provides the development with the potential for 300 sq ft in sign area, which is 140 eq ft less that the original sign area requost of 440 sq ft. It also represents 71% of the total sign area originally requested. 15 Special Planning Commission Agenda - 6/22/92 Alternative 3: A. Notion to interpret the 6th Street Annex as qualifying as a retail mall; therefore, the rules governing signs for retail malls apply. S. Notion to grant a conditional use permit allowing development of a sign system associated with the 6th Street Annex. Under this alternative, Planning Commission/Council would need to consider whether or not to grant the 94 sq ft variance to the sign area requirement and also consider variances to the pylon sign height and size requirement. Under this alternative, if Planning Commission/Council construes the site to be a retail mall, then the site becomes a non-conforminq use. C. STAFF RECONMENDATION: Staff recommends alternative i2. It is our view that the applicant should follow the rules that apply to other businesses in the commercial zones. To grant the variances as proposed will set quite a precedent, as there is no unique situation or harde,:? involved. Obviously, the presence of Highway 25 provides a unique opportunity for the developer. The bigger and higher he can get the sign, the better the chance that he can attract drive-by customers. The business opportunity created by the proximity to Highway 25 is probably not sufficient to justify granting the variances. If the variances are granted as proposed, the City will be hard pressed to deny sign variance requests from other businesses not located on Highway 25 but wishing to capitalize on Highway 25 traffic by developing bigger, higher signs. D. SUPPORTING DATA: Excerpt from zoning ordinance; Proposed zoning ordinance amendment. 16 SIXTH STREET ANNEX SIGN PROPOSAL AND ASSOCIATED ORDINANCE AMENDMENTS JUNE 11, 1992 TOTAL MALL SIGNS TOTAL MALL SIGNS VARIANCE MALL SIGN SQUARE FT MALL SIGN VARIANCE PYLON ALLOWED PYLON HEIGHT PYLON HEIGHT VARIANCE Y PYLON SQUARE FEET I PYLON So FT VARIANCE SJCOMBINED SIGN AREA PROPOSED DOMIINED SIGN AREA VARIANCE A. 8. c 40. E F. PROPOSED 71ISTING "PROPOSED -iWPPIMD WPOSED AMENDMENT SIGN BOE AMENDMENT HALL IITHOUT VARIANCES SYSTEM IN ZONE 311TH VARIANCE SN!,f1 OPTION A OPTION 0 'YLON REDS 9194 A.004 11 2 UNLIMITED OILINITED JNLIMITEO 17 11 0 0 0 0 790 100 700 100 296 300 290 90 290 111 0 YES NO YES YES NO 16 16 16 16 16 is 2 2 2 2 0 s0 is ZS 25 25 NA 25 25 25 ZS MA u0 100 700 125 721 700 740 140 71S _ 119 0 NO - A VARIANCE iS NEEDED TO ALLOW A PYLON SIGN AND 700 SQUARE FEET IM MALL SIGN AREA 2. Within the PZ4, B-1, B-2, B-3, B-4, I-1, and I-2 districts, signs are subject to the following size and type regulations: O O"QinAAcP Within the PZM and B-1 districts, the maximum allowable square footage of sign area per lo': shall not exceed the sum of one (1) squara foot per front foot of the building plus one (1) square foot for each front foot of lot not occupied by a building, up to one hundred (100) square feet. Each lot will be allowed one (1) pylon or freestanding sign and one (1) wall sign or two (2) wall signs total. For buildings in which there is one (1) or two (2) business uses within the B-2, B-3, B-4, I-1, and I-2 districts, there shall be two (2) options for permitted signs. The property owner shall select aon which shall control sign size on Hach o L. option A. Under Option A, only wall signs shall be allowed. The maximum number of signs on any principal building shall be six sign boards or • placards, no more than four (4) of which may be product identification signs, with only two walls allowed for the display of the signs. Each wall shall contain no more than two product identification signs and two business identification signs. The total maximum size of wall signs shall be determined by taking twenty percent (IO%) of the gross silhouette area cf the front of the building, up to three hundred (300) square feet, whichever is less. If a principal building is on a corner lot, the largest side of the building may be oR Q used to determine the gross silhouette �Brea. �✓12(L 5�G-�/ S For purposes of determining the gross Q area of the silhouette of the principal © H e building, defined as drawing of the that the silhouette shall be area within an outline principal building as viewed from the front lot line or from the related public street (a). IT] ii. Option B. Under Option B, either wall signs or pylon signs may be utilized or a combination of both. In no case, however, shall more than one pylon sign be allowed. Only two product identification signs and one premise identification sign is allowed, and these wall signs must be only on one separate wall. The total maximum allowable sign area for any wall shall be determined by taking ten percent (10%) of the gross silhouette area of the front building up to one hundred (100) square feet, whichever is less. The method for determining the gross silhouette area for wall signs is as indicated in Option A. ,.a � 3. Conditional Uses in Commercial and Industrial Districts: The purpose of this section is to tQM, provide aesthetic control to signage and to prevent a proliferation of individual signs on buildings US�� �S with three (3) or more business uses. The City �a. Adp shall encourage the use of single sign boards, a placards, or building directory signs. (a) In the case of a building where there are three (3) or more business uses, but which, by generally understood and accepted definitions, `„� is considered a shopping center or 'I shopping mall, a conditional use shall be granted to the entire building in accordance with an overall site plan under the provisions of B (described in 2 (b) i and a ova provi ed that: i. The owner of the building files with the Zoning Administrator a detailed plan for signing illustrating location, size in square feet, size in percent of gross silhouette area, and to which business said sign is dedicated. ii. No tenant shall be allowed more than one sign, except that in the case of a building that is situated in the interior of a block and having another building on each aide of it, one sign shall be allowed on the front and one sign shall be allowed on the rear provided that the total square footage of the two signs does not exceed the maximum allowable square footage under Option A or Option 8 described in 2 (b) L and Li above. ^ 1 0nt iii. No individual business sign board/placard shall exceed twenty-five percent (258) of the total allowable sign area. iv. An owner of the building desiring any alteration of signs, sign location, sign size, or number of signs shall first submit an application to the Zoning Administrator for an amended sign plan, said application to be reviewed and acted upon by the Zoning Administrator within ten (10) days of application. If the application is denied by the Zoning Administrator, the applicant may go before the Planning Commission at their next regularly scheduled meeting. V. In the event that one tenant of the building does not utilize the full allotment of allowable area, the excess may not be granted, traded, sold, or in any other way transferred to another tenant for the purpose of allowing a sign larger than twenty-five percent (258) of the total allowable area for Big". vi. Any building identification sign or building directory sign shall be included in the total allowable area for signs. vii. Any sign that is shared by or is a combination of two or more tenants shall be considered as separate signs for square footage allowance and shall meet the requirements thereof. viii. All signs shall be consistent in design, material, shape, and method of illumination. (b) In the case of a building where there are two (2) or more uses and which, by generally understood and accepted definitions, is considered to be a shopping center or shopping mall, a conditional use permit shall be granted to the entire building in accordance to an overall site plan indicating their size, location, and height of all signs presented to the Planning Commission. O A maximum of five percent (53) of the gross area of the front silhouette shall apply to the principal building where the aggregate allowable sign area is equitably distributed among the several businesses. In the case of applying this conditional use permit to a building, the building may have one•(1) pylon or freestanding sign identifying the building which is in conformance with this ordinance. For purposes of determining the gross area of the silhouette of the principal building, the silhouette shall be defined as that area within the outline drawing of the principal building as viewed from the front lot line or from the related public street(a). (c) Signs for promoting and/or selling a development project: For the purpose of promoting or selling a development project of three (3) to twenty-five (25) acres, one sign not to exceed one hundred (100) square feet of advertising surface may be erected an the project site. For projects of twenty-six (26) to fifty (50) acres, one or two signs not to exceed two hundred (200) aggregate square feet _ of advertising surface may be erected. For projects over fifty-one (51) acres, one, two, or three signs not to exceed three hundred (300) aggregate square feet of advertising surface may be erected. No dimension shall exceed twenty-five (25) feet exclusive of supporting structures. Such signs shall not remain after ninety-five (95) percent of the project is developed. Such sign permits shall be reviewed and renewed annually by the City Council. If said sign is lighted, it shall be illuminated only during those hours when business is in operation or when the model homes or other developments are open for business purposes. 4. Pylon Sign: The erection of one (1) pylon sign for any single lot is allowed under the following provisions: (a) Location: No pylon sign shall be located in a required yard area. In the case of a corner lot, both sides fronting on a public right-of- way shall be deemed the front. (b) Parking Areas, Driveways: No part of the pylon signs shall be less than five (5) feet from any driveway or parking area. -Pli /" , 5;� 11 (c) Area, Height Regulations: Ga k cl' O vi `e ex wx;dre -�- SPEED AREA n ROAD CLASSIFICATION (MPH) (SO FT) eels R Collector f3 0 25 /Toi 35 50 �rc e t /ay5ipr:Ca��c� 40 100 Major Thoroughfares 30 50 35 100 � 40 125 45 150 50 175 �Sr y�5t /o n HEIGHT FEET 14 i6 ' 20 24 18 22 24 26 28 Freeways and Expressways 55 200 32 and above Highway 25 NA 50- 22 100 L. In the case of subject property directly abutting State Hiahway 25; pylon sign area may ranae from 50 so it to 100 sg ft depending on total lineal feet fronting Hiahwav 25. Ten square feet of lon sign area is allowed per every 03 Leet of lineal frontage with the following exceeetions: 11 all Properties may erect a ovlon elan with a sign area of 50 regardless of front footage abutting Hfahwav 25 and 21 the maximum gtlop Sian area shall not exceed 100 eq regardless of total lineal footage of crooerty abuttina Hiahwav 25. (d) Definitions: Definitions of road classifications apply as defined by the official comprehensive plan as adopted. (e) Application: The level at which the sign control system applies is determined by the type of road, as defined above, which directly abuts the subject property. L. In the case of subject property directly abutting more than one (1) road, each designated by a different road classification type, the lose restrictive classification shall apply in determining sign area and height. A I 1 Li. Actual sign height is determined by the grade of the road from which the sign gains its principal exposure. iii. Area as determined by the formula under 3 (c) above, applies to one (1) face of a two (2) faced pylon sign, or two (2) faces of a four (4) faced sign, etc. iv. A bonus allowing "freeway standard signs" (200 sq ft in area and 32' high) in a commercial or industrial area is available to all businesses located within 800 feet of a freeway but do not abut a freeway. S. Address Numbers Sign: A minimum of one (1) address number sign shall be required on each building in all zoning districts. (a) Location: The address numbers shall be so placed to be easily seen from the public street. (b) Size Regulations: The address numbers shall not be less than three and one-half (3-1/2) inches in height. (c) Material Regulation: The address numbers shall be metal, plastic, or wood. (d) Color Regulation: The address numbers shall be in a contrasting color to the color of the building/dwelling. (e) Enforcement Regulations The Building Official or Zoning Administrator or their authorized representative shall: i. Assign all new building/dwelling address numbers. ii. Approve type of material and color of all building/dwelling address numbers. (t158, 9/14/87) (F] FEES AND LICENSE: 1. FEES: (a) payment Foes: The permit fee and other fees and charges set forth in this ordinance shall be collected by the City before the issuance of any permits, and the City Administrator, Building Inspector, or other personslly PROPOSED ZONING ORDINANCE ANENMIENf Current zoning ordinance lanouaae: (b) For buildings in which there is one (1) or two (2) business uses within the B-2, B-3, B-4, I-1, and I-2 districts, there shall be two options for permitted signs. The property owner shall select one option which shall control sign size on each lot. To be amended as follows: (b) For buildings in which there is one (1) or two (2) business uses within the B-2, B-3, 8-4, I-1, and I-2 districts, and for buildings used for commercial retail activities located within a PZN district and located on Droperty adjacent to B-2. B-3. B-4. I-1, or I-2 districts, there shall be two options for permitted signs. The property owner shall select one option which shall control sign size on each lot. L