Loading...
Planning Commission Agenda 09-01-1998 . . . AGEN A REGULAR MEETING ~ MONTICEL 0 PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday, September!, 1998 - 7 p.m. Members: Dick Frie, Robbie Smith, Ro Popilek, Richard Carlson, Rod Dragsten Council Liaison: Clint Herbst 1. Call to order. 2. Approval of minutes of the regular meeting eld August 4, 1998. 3. Consideration of adding items to the agend . 4. Citizens comments. 5. Consideration of revisions to preliminary p at of the River Forest Residential Subdivision. Applicant, John E. Chadwick, LLC. 6. Consideration of a preliminary plat for seni r housing and church. Applicant Church of St. Henry. 7. Consideration of a request for a Conditiona Use Permit within the CCD Zoning District to allow a drive-up banking facility. Appli ant, Marquette Banks. 8. Consideration of a request for an amendme t to the PZM Zoning District, or in the alternative, an amendment to the zoning m to B-3 from PZM, to allow restaurant use. Applicant, MMC Land Company LLC. ' 9. Consideration of a request for an amendme t to a Conditional Use Permit PUD within the CCD Zoning District to allow Cub foods to install a drive-up window for its pharmacy. Applicant, Cub Foods. 10. Consideration of a request for a Conditiona User Permit for a commercial laundry pick- up and beauty shop, a Conditional Use Pe it for a residential structure of more than two units, a Conditional Use Permit for combin d commercial and residential uses in one building, a Variance from building setback , a Variance from parking setbacks, and a Variance from the prohibition to off-street arking within the public right-of-way, all within the PZM Zoning District. Applican, Pat & Susie Townsend. 11. Consideration to approve a resolution findi g that the modified Redevelopment Plan for Central Monticello Redevelopment Project o. 1 and the TIF Plan for TIF District No. 1- 25 conform to the general plans for the dev lopment and redevelopment of the city. . . . 12. 13. Consideration of an amendment to the City' Zoning Map. (Discussion Item) Adjournment. . . . MINU ES REGULAR MEETING - MONTICE LO PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday, August , 1998 - 7 p.m. Members Present: Richard Carlson, Rod Drag ten, Roy Popilek and Robbie Smith. Also Present: Bill Fair and Council Liais Clint Herbst Absent: Dick Frie Deputy City Administrator Jeff O'Neill opened th meeting in the absence of Planning Commission Chair Dick Frie. MOTION WAS M DE BY ROBBIE SMITH AND SECONDED BY ROY POPILEK TO APPOINT CHARD CARLSON TO SERVE AS ACTING CHAIR FOR THE MEETING. Motion carried unanimously. 2. 7 1998 and minutes of MOTION WAS MADE BY ROD DRAGS EN AND SECONDED BY ROBBIE SMITH TO APPROVE THE MINUTES 0 THE JULY 7, 1998 REGULAR MEETING AND THE JULY 7, 1998 SPECIAL MEE ING. Motion carried unanimously. 3. Consideration of additional items to the a e da No items were added to the agenda. 4. Citizens Comments No comments from the citizens 5. Public Hearin - Consideration of a side and Marla Hughes Fred Patch presented the staff report on the equest by the property owner at 147 Hedman Lane for a variance in the 10' side ard setback requirements in order to construct a 22' x 30' garage. Since the reside ce was originally constructed without a garage it does not conform to the current Zo ing Code. It was noted that there were instances in the same neighborhood where t e City allowed variances for attached garages to be built 6' from the property line. The staff recommended approval of the variance request. Acting Chair Carlson opened the public he ing. No one was present to speak for or Page 1 ~ . . . Planning Commission Minutes - 08/05/98 against the requested variance. Acting Cha r Carlson closed the public hearing. The Commission discussed whether to aHo construction of a garage with a width of 22' when a 20' wide garage could be construct d and still meet the setback requirements. The consensus of the board was that a structure 22' in width was not excessive. There was also discussion on whether the trees w uld remain. The property owner indicated it was their intention to keep the trees if po sible. MOTION WAS MADE BY ROBBIE SMI H AND SECONDED BY ROD DRAGS TEN TO GRANT THE VARIAN E FOR A 2' REDUCTION IN THE 10' SIDE YARD SETBACK TO ALLOW FOR TH CONSTRUCTION OF 22' X 30' GARAGE BASED ON FINDINGS #1, #2 AND #3 I THE STAFF REPORT. Motion carried unanimously. 6. Public Hearin - Consideration of a conditi nal use ermit for shared drivewa . Applicant Blue Chip. Inc. City Planner Steve Grittman presented the s aff report on the request for a conditional use permit for a shared driveway for the pro erty at 206 Dundas Road. The shared driveway will facilitate truck movement an traffic to the site. Acting Chair Carlson opened the public he ing. Ken Lantto stated that the request for a shared driveway was because the number 0 driveway accesses for the property was limited to three. Acting Chair Carlson clos d the public hearing. Rod Dragsten questioned how the shared dr veway would be handled if either property was sold. Ken Lantto stated that was a lega question that would be addressed if any real estate transaction took place. MOTION WAS MADE BY ROD DRAGS EN AND SECONDED BY ROBBIE SMITH TO APPROVE THE SIMPLE SUB IVISION AND THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A SHARED DRIVEWAY I AN 1-1 ZONING DISTRICT BASED ON THE FINDING THAT THE SHARED DRI EW A Y WILL REDUCE INDUSTRIAL TRAFFI C IMP ACTS ON THE PUBLIC RI HT -OF - WAY. Motion carried unanimously. 7. Public Hearin - Consideration of a relimi lat and final lat and consideration of a side ard setback variance. A licant Brian Worth and Bev Abrahamson. City Planner Steve Grittman provided backg ound on the plat and variance request. It Page 2 ~ . . . Planning Commission Minutes - 08/05/98 was pointed out that the staff recommended a replatting of the property in order to clear up title issues relating to the land and reco mended the granting of the variance to recognize the existing conditions. No new arcels are created and no extension of services are required. Acting Chair Carlson opened the public he mg. Jan Larson and Deb Abrahamson were present and spoke in favor of the plat and v iance request. Brian Worth representing the Worth estate also spoke in favor ofthe requ st. Acting Chair Carlson closed the public hearing. Roy Popilek questioned what would happe if either of the non-conforming structures were destroyed. The staff indicated that a n w approval process would be required before rebuilding would be allowed. MOTION BY ROBBIE SMITH AND SEC NDED BY ROY POPILEK TO APPROVE THE PRELIMINARY PLAT AND FINAL LAT OF WORTH ESTATES BASED ON THE FINDING THAT NO NEW BUILDA LE PARCELS ARE CREATED AND THERE ARE NO NEW IMPACTS ON PU LIC SERVICES. Motion carried unanimously. MOTION MADE BY ROBBIE SMITH A D SECONDED BY ROD DRAGSTEN TO APPROVE THE VARIANCE REQUEST OR LOT 2 WITH THE CONDITION THAT ANY NEW CONSTRUCTION WILL BE UBJECT TO A NEW APPROVAL PROCESS AND BASED ON THE FINDI G THAT THE BUILDABLE AREA OF THE LOT IS RESTRICTED DUE TO SH RELAND SETBACKS AND THAT DEVELOPMENT PRECEDES APPLICA ION OF CONTEMPORARY SETBACK REGULATIONS. Motion carried unanimo sly. Public Hearin - Consideration of a conditi nal use ermit allowin a drive-throu h teller and cano and consideration of a variance 0 setback standards. A licant First Minnesota Bank. NA 8. City Planner Steve Grittman presented the s aff reported noting that in the CCD district banks are a permitted use but drive-through acilities require a conditional use permit. The applicant is also requesting two varianc s for the site. One variance is for a reduction of 8' in the 20' width required to accommod te a landscape buffer. The second variance is a reduction from 5' to I' for parking setba k. Steve Grittman also noted that there is a clause in the ordinance which allows for co tribution to the downtown parking fund but the city has not utilized that provision yet. Page ~ . Planning Commission Minutes - 08105/98 Acting Chair Carlson opened the public he ing. Dick VanAllen questioned the entrance location of the proposed facility and expres ed concerns about entering and exiting onto TH 25 as well as adding to the traffic conge tion on TH 25. Jerry Clement whose residence is on the eas side ofthe proposed site asked about the buffer, the size ofthe fence and also expres ed his concern about the traffic noise generated from this site. Rick Keillor, architect for First Minnesota ank, spoke to the commission addressing the parking on the south side of the building, th required handicapped parking and screening for the storage area in the back. It was aske if angle parking had been considered instead of parallel parking. Both Kevin Dot and Rick Keillor spoke about the layouts that had been considered in attempting to m et the zoning requirements. Rita Ulrich of DAT spoke noting that the si e doesn't allow for off-site parking and she would like to see the applicant have as much parking as possible on site as long the area is well landscaped. Acting Chair C Ison closed the public hearing. . Roy Popilek asked if making the entrance fr m TH 25 one way only would allow enough space to meet the requirements for andicap parking and asked how the use of angle parking would affect the parking requ rements.. Steve Grittman responded that angle parking might provide better traffic ci culation but parking spaces would be lost. Other commission members also noted thei concerns about exiting and entering onto TH 25 from the site. Steve Grittman explained hat if the applicant meets the requirement that the building occupies not less than 40% of the site, it takes away from the area they can utilize for parking spaces. Kevin Doty sked if the canopy space was considered part of the building and if the canopy area had b en figured in that 40%. Steve Grittman responded that the canopy area over the dri e-through facility, which is approximately 800 feet had not been included. Jerry Cle ent asked how many of the parking spaces would be used by bank employees. Kevin oty indicated that they did not anticipate more than 9 of the parking spaces would be sed by bank employees. The commission also discussed whether the site could meet the tree planting requirements of 8 trees as well as the screen ng requirements. MOTION WAS MADE BY ROD DRAGS EN AND SECONDED BY ROBBIE SMITH TO TABLE THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT IN THE CCD ZONING DISTRICT FOR DRIVE-UP BANK FACI ITIES FOR A PERIOD OF ONE MONTH TO WORK OUT THE ISSUES OF P ARKI G SPACES AND LANDSCAPING. . Page ;l . Planning Commission Minutes - 08/05/98 Acting Chair Carlson asked the applicant a out his time frame for development ofthe site. Kevin Doty indicated that they would I ke to start construction yet this fall. The Planning Commission discussed setting a s ecial meeting to deal with the issues of parking, landscaping and whether the canop over the drive-through facility should be included in the 40%. There was additional iscussion on the whether the canopy area should be included. Since the canopy has v lue as a structure for tax purpose it would give credence to including it as part ofthe b ilding. Acting Chair Carlson asked Rod Dragsten t amend his motion to address setting a specific meeting date on this item. The co mission reviewed the items to be resolved: I )meeting the 40% building area if canopy ea is included; 2) meeting the 5' setback requirement, and 3) screening requirements. ROD DRAGSTEN AMENDED HIS MOTI N TO TABLE THE ACTION ON THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT UNTIL A GUST 24, 1998. ROBBIE SMITH SECONDED THE AMENDED MOTION. There was further discussion and Rod Dragsten agreed to withdraw his motion. . ROBBIE SMITH MOVED TO APPROVE HE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT WITHIN THE CCD ZONING DISTRICT 0 ALLOW A DRIVE-UP FACILITY FOR A BANK SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS #1-#6 LISTED IN EXHIBIT Z OF THE STAFF REPORT. ROY POPILEK SECO DED THE MOTION. Motion carried with Rod Dragsten voting in opposition. ROBBIE SMITH MOVED AND ROD D GSTEN SECONDED THE MOTION TO APPROVE THE V ARIANCE TO THE 20' PEN SPACE REQUIREMENT ON THE EAST PROPERTY LINE BASED ON TH FINDINGS THAT THE SCREENING REQUIREMENT MAY BE MET BY A L SSER SETBACK AND THAT THE PROJECT WOULD MEET THE INTENT OF THE DOWNTOWN REVITALIZATION PLAN AND SUBJEC TO SUBMITTAL OF A LANDSCAPING PLAN THAT INCLUDES A FENCE. Mot on carried unanimously. ROD DRAGSTEN MOVED AND ROBBI SMITH SECONDED THE MOTION TO DENY THE FIVE FOOT SETBACK FOR ARKING FACILITIES ON THE SOUTH PROPERTY LINE BECAUSE IT IS POSS BLE FOR THE APPLICANT TO MEET THE 5' SETBACK IF THE SITE PLAN IS ESIGNED TO MEET LOT COVERAGE STANDARDS AND SOME OF THE P A ING IS REPLACED BY A CONTRIBUTION TOWARD PUBLIC P A ING AREAS. Motion carried unanimously . Page :l . . . Planning Commission Minutes - 08/05/98 The Planning Commission noted that incl sion of canopy as part of the 40% building area will be included in the findings for th conditional use permit. The commission considered the request by the bank for a te porary structure during construction of the facility and did not have a problem with a emporary structure. 9. Public Hearin - Consideration of a 55 lot ubdivision and consideration of front ard variance. A licant John E. Chadwick L C and Residential Develo ment Inc. City Planner Steve Grittman present the st ff report on the proposed development consisting of 55 single family lots. The a plicant is also requesting a variance in the front yard setback from 30' to 25' with the ariance to apply to those lots who back the storm water ponds. The staff recommenda ions included that a second access connecting to Gillard Avenue be provided and also tha the offset intersection be eliminated. In discussing the variance request Steve Grit an noted that the reasons for the variance was to preserve the existing trees and keep grad ng to a minimum. The staff felt it was a trade off between the saving front yard trees or r ar yard trees. The commission addressed questions to Steve Grittman concerning the pond, area of tree locations, and related items. Acting Chair Carlson opened the public he ing. Garth Holley raised questions about 1) drainage issues especially in the lower end f the complex; 2) efforts to save existing trees. Dick VanAllen a resident in the Rive Mill development also expressed concern about drainage issues asking if the stormwa er holding ponds were adequately designed to handle the runoff from the area. Deputy Cit Administrator Jeff O'Neill indicated that the engineer had reviewed this and had not oted any design concerns on the holding ponds. Other residents commented on items pertaining to drainage including whether all pipe and culverts were adequately sized, ero ion control especially if the trees are removed, the traffic generated by the develo ment and the need to preserve the existing trees. Richard Bloom representing the applicant s oke addressing some of the questions residents had concerning the storm drainag . He noted that a portion of the proposed development drained to the River Mill Addi ion and the runoff from the balance of the proposed development would be handled by the storm water holding ponds which are of sufficient capacity to handle the flows. A to al of 9 lots back the stormwater ponds and the variance would apply only to those lots. Mr. Bloom did not favor a second connectio to Gillard A venue. He stated that it would impact more homes than having just the no erly connection. Residents questioned what efforts would be ade to preserve the existing trees. It was Page 6 ~ . . . 10. Planning Commission Minutes - 08/05/98 noted that once the property is sold to indi iduals it is hard to govern what that individual does. It was asked ifit was realistic for th city to request that the trees in the area of the property line easement be retained. A resi ent also suggested that east end of the development where the bluff is located sh uld also be considered as an area for tree preservation. Residents asked about the decision to have a second access to Gillard A venue at the south end of the plat rather than the trail access at was shown. Steve Grittman responded that recommendation was based on an effort to educe accident potential. Additional accesses are usually made to accommodate traffic d emergency vehicles. After all residents had the opportunity to c mment on the proposal, Acting Chair Carlson closed the public hearing. The Planning Commission stated that drain ge from the proposed development should not impact the adjacent properties in greate volume than it currently does. The commission also discussed traffic onto Gill d A venue. MOTION WAS MADE BY ROBBIE SMI H AND SECONDED BY ROY POPILEK TO APPROVE THE PRELIMINARY PL T BASED ON FINDINGS THAT THE PROPOSED PLAT IS IN COMPLIANCE ITH THE CITY COMPREHENSIVE LAND USE PLAN AND THE CITY'S ZO ING AND SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE AND WITH THE CONDITIONS #1, #2, # , #5 AS CONTAINED IN EXHIBIT Z OF THE ST FF REPORT AND THE ADDITION OF ITEMS STATING THAT 1) RUNOFF FR M THIS DEVELOPMENT WILL NOT DRAIN ONTO ADJACENT PROPERTIE IN VOLUMES GREATER THAN WHAT CURRENTL Y EXISTS AND TO TAKE N CESSARY STEPS TO LIMIT EROSION AND THAT 2) SITE PLAN FOR INDIVID ALS LOTS MAY BE REVIEWED BY THE CITY ENGINEER AT THE DISCRE ION OF THE CITY STAFF. Motion carried unanimously. MOTION WAS MADE BY ROD DRAGS EN AND SECONDED BY ROY POPILEK TO DENY THE REQUEST FOR A V ARI NCE FOR A REDUCTION IN THE FRONT YARD SETBACK BASED ON T E FINDINGS THAT THE SITUATION DOES NOT MEET THE CRITERIA LIST D IN THE SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE FOR ALLOWING A VARIANCE. Motio carried unanimously. Page 7 ~ . . . Planning Commission Minutes - 08/05/98 City Planner Steve Grittman gave the staf report on the proposed amendment. Since the PUD was approved the hospital has ac uired additional property which is intended to be used for parking and would provide 9 parking spaces. The acquisition of the land necessitated the amendment for the PUD. Steve Grittman noted that conditions # I and #2 in the staff report had been met. The ho pital is working on the indemnification and hold harmless agreements regarding the v ation of Hart Boulevard but they did not feel that issuance of permits should be held up ecause of this item. It was also reported that no agreement had been reached on the alig ent of the pathway area. Acting Chair Carlson opened the public h aring. Barb Schwientek representing the Monticello-Big Lake Hospital spoke expla ning the hospital's parking needs. The land acquired will be used as primary parking ding the construction phase and auxiliary parking until such time as the proposed par ing ramp is completed which may be 3-5 years. Steve Andrews spoke in support of he hospital's effort to minimize the impact on the neighbors. Acting Chair Carlson then c osed the public hearing. The commission reviewed traffic issues an landscaping requirements. MOTION WAS MADE BY ROD DRAGS EN AND SECONDED BY ROBBIE SMITH TO APPROVE THE CONDITIO AL USE PERMIT FOR A PUD AMENDMENT WITH CONDITIONS #1 ND #2 IN EXHIBIT Z OF THE STAFF REPORT BEING MET AND CONDITIO S #3 AND #4 LEFT TO BE MET AND BASED ON THE FINDING THAT THE MENDMENT IS GENERALLY CONSISTENT WITH THE ORIGINAL P D APPROVAL AND THAT ADDITIONAL PARKING WILL REDUCE NEGATIVE I PACTS ON ADJOINING PUBLIC STREET AND PRIVATE PROPERTY FR M THE RESULTING TRAFFIC. Motion carried unanimously. 11. Public Hearin - Consideration of an amen standards for the erection of overnmental s Monticello. of Deputy City Administrator, Jeff 0' Neill m de the presentation on the proposed amendment. The amendment stems from th request of the high school for an electronic reader board. The CUrrent ordinance does n t have a provision for that type of sign in that zoning district. The proposed amendm nt would regulate "public sign" size and height based on speed of adjacent highway. Since public signs would be limited to city, county, state and school the staff did n t feel this ordinance amendment would create a proliferation of this type of sign. Page 8 ~ . . . 13. Planning Commission Minutes - 08105/98 Acting Chair Carlson opened the public he ing. No one was present to speak on this item and Acting Chair Carlson closed the p lic hearing. Rod Dragsten felt the whole sign ordinance hould be revisited as far as where reader signs should be allowed. MOTION WAS MADE BY ROD DRAGS EN AND SECONDED BY ROY POPILEK TO APPROVE THE AMENDMENT TO T E ZONING CODE TO PROVIDE STANDARDS FOR THE ERECTION OF UBLIC SIGNS IN RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS BASED ON THE FINDING T AT IT IS CONSISTENT WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND CONSIS ENT WITH THE CHARACTER OF RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOODS AN THAT THERE IS A COMPLETE REVIEW OF THE SIGN ORDINANCE WITHIN NI E MONTHS. Motion carried unanimously. Public Hearin Construction Fred Patch provided the staff report on the ariance request for the property at 4753 Pebblebrook Drive. An error was made on he land survey which resulted in the garage being built 8' from the property line instead f the required 10'. At the last Planning Commission meeting it was suggested to pr vide a buffer consisting of five trees in addition to the two boulevard trees. The st ff was recommending that the variance be allowed subject to the planting requirement . Acting Chair Carlson opened the public he ing. The surveyor for Shade Tree Construction was present. He asked for cla ification on the planting requirements and indicated that there was no problem comply ng with the planting requirements. Acting Chair Carlson then closed the public hearin . MOTION WAS MADE BY ROBBIE SMI H AND SECONDED BY ROD DRAGSTEN TO ALLOW A VARIANCE OR A 2' REDUCTION IN THE SIDE YARD SETBACK AND TO PROVIDE B FFER YARD PLANTINGS AS NOTED IN THE STAFF REPORT. Motion carried un imously. 12. Continued Public Hearin - Consideration fa zonin ma amendment from A ricultural to R-PUD for Wild wood Rid e Subdivisio . A licant Darrel Farr. Page ~ . . . Planning Commission Minutes - 08/05/98 City Planner Steve Grittman reported that th plan has been reviewed and that the orderly annexation hearing is scheduled for 8/5/98. he staff recommends approval of the change in zoning. MOTION WAS MADE BY ROD DRAGS EN AND SECONDED BY ROY POPILEK TO APPROVE THE CHANGE IN ZONIN DESIGNATION FROM AGRICUL TURAL TO R-PUD CONTING NT UPON APPROVAL OF THE ORDERL Y ANNEXATION AND FINAL LAT APPRO V AL BY THE CITY COUNCIL. Motion carried unanimously. 14. Consideration of recommendations to Cit Fred Patch summarized the fee study that h d been done and the commission discussed the findings and the recommendations of th staff. While the Planning Commission received the information on all the fees, the taff was asking for their recommendation specifically on the park dedication fees. MOTION WAS MADE BY ROBBIE SMI H AND SECONDED BY ROY POPILEK TO RECOMMEND TO THE CITY COUN IL THAT PARK DEDICATION FEES BE INCREASED TO $750/LOT EFFECTIVE OR ALL FINAL PLATS RECORDED AND FILED AS OF 1/1/99. 15. Consideration ofP Ion Monument si n for ub Foods. A licant Cub Foods. Fred Patch provided the staff report on the s.gn request for Cub Foods. The sign would allow space for signs for Cub, Hallmark an a future tenant. The sign would run perpendicular to TH 25 and be in the appro imate location of the old Monticello Mall SIgn. MOTION WAS MADE BY ROBBIE SMI H AND SECONDED BY ROD DRAGSTEN TO APPROVE THE PYLON MONUMENT SIGN FOR CUB FOODS AS APPROVED BY THE MONTICELLO DE IGN ADVISORY TEAM. Motion carried unanimously. 16. Consideration of a resolution findin St. Be edicts Home con re ate care housin develo ment is consistent with the Com re ensive Plan for the Cit . City Planner Steve Grittman provided the b ckground for this agenda item pointing out that passage of the resolution is a statutory equirement for tax increment financing. Page 0 ~ . . . Planning Commission Minutes - 08/05/98 MOTION WAS MADE BY ROBBIE SMI H AND SECONDED BY ROY POPILEK TO APPROVE THE RESOLUTION FIN ING THAT THE ST. BENEDICTS HOME CONGREGATE CARE HOUSING DEV LOPMENT IS CONSISTENT WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN FOR THE CI 'Y. Motion carried unanimously. There being no further business the meeting was a joumed. Jeff 0' Neill Deputy City Administrator Page 1 d- . . . 5. Forest Subdivision. A A. REFERENCE AND BACKGRO Planning Commission Agenda - 9/01/98 John Chadwick requests Planning Commis ion consideration of "River Forest" (formerly The Forest) Plat which has been slightly m dified through removal ofa portion of River Mill 4th land area. In removing this small ea, a cul-de-sac is eliminated but two flag lots at River Mill 4th result. Although the origi al design is preferred, there is no legal requirement forcing Mr. Chadwick to inclu e the lots from River Mill 4th. Murrays will likely come before the Planning Commissi n in the near future with a separate request to develop two flag lots. Finally, the plan has also been adjusted to accommodate drainage concerns identified by the City Engineer. B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS: 1. Motion to recommend approval of r vised preliminary plat of River Forest. Approval subject to conditions und r original Exhibit Z. 2. Motion to deny approval of revised reliminary plat of River Forest. c. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends Alternative 1. D. SUPPORTING DATA: Exhibit A - Copy of Preliminary Plat Exhibit Z - Original conditions of prelimina plat approval. 1 I cc j~ ~!i . a:ll l~ r ...... j J 1~1 Ii: ~r' .. r~ ;~", ,::l! 1~ , t . I, , _ ~f I....... D I J.'.I.' 111.'1<'1' I". _ I. I 'u !llJ 'tl~ :J.j 1Hz tl' fn! i~o:o~ ~l~1 j u :j ~ u ! '" i ill 'a'" ~ill .., - I 1 I j : .t ~ I R! i 1< J I ! ;; ~ I- ... .... a: c'"' &.1..'" .i ~ f l!. a: '" n; ;;:; ~ '" .. :~ f! "- If <i-1 ~ L:f] i - ~ ~ \ ~ t ie I ! ~ !j :P !; I :: llf II! g llS A.. ~ ~ i r 9~ R ~ ~ b i~ i j II...J e~ r ~5-'~~;8 n~~~~~ I , ! ~ Ix i~ I L : ~ 9 I . ~ J I ~ ~ m~. "~~ ~ ;~~ f ~ I I p i~ Ii :!' ~: I ~ I ~ L . ,~ M ~ ~~ ~ Ii I : ~ 1t i 6L r i ;i 1 ~ i t 9 !i 1 I' i Jil III !.ijl P i! ,!! m I.!: 18 I! II! IlIli ! ; I iill! '" g. B ~ ~ ~ ~a ~"" ~ I i,. ~ P n ~ ~h ~ ~ ;{~ ~!q: ~~l!!~,~p -'''''".r (:'1' .'.......,.';:~\y .... .;,.~. '- ,,:.tJ/h .'. '''/'[ :r:: .. \.. I~~I t: ~ ''W ~~ji~~:~lr.~.:~~ ,J ~' -', . I 1 ' r"'l~ <',I . . . ; I :.:3 :';1 ~ ' ,.., I I I Ii I ~ ' I, I - I I _.J ... . E-< < H ~ P-< '-- >t 0:: < Z H ::0:: H H ~ 0:: P-< J::<.. 0 >< P-< 0 U I < H H 'p:) H ::c: ~ ~ ;, .. · II I . . I I I I I I I I I -.~-l I : I I I ' I k1 I I I i:,!~ ,I;! I;:! I,! f'.. I I I ;,"1 .., ;' '.1' :.1' ~'... I :Iii 'it (1~;i.A \. "/. 1/' .J~ ",',. . . HI ;... " -I ,; I " I I I. ." , I ;""JI ~;.',',i\I,,}~''':"'~'_," I._I <,~~';.~ . I (" :,/.,' I'''',: . CONDITIONS OF PRELIMINARY P AT APPRO V AL 1. Lots that are located on a curve h ve the width of the lot labeled at the building setback line and the width is at leas eighty feet. 2. Proposed streets are named. 3. A second street access is provided connecting the spine road to Gillard Avenue instead of providing a trail. 4. The offset intersection is eliminated 5. A trail is provided along the side pro erty line ofIot 6 connecting the spine road with the River Mill Park. 6. The front yard setback is thirty feet. . . 5.~ Exhi it Z - Conditions to Approval . . . Planning Commission Agenda -9/0 1/98 6. Consideration of a re uest for a Preli (NAC) A. REFERENCE AND BACKGRO licant: Church of St. Hen . The Church of St. Henry has submitted a lat of their property along the 7th Street extension adjacent to Washington Street and the free ay. The plat is in the form of a Final Plat, since the Preliminary Plat information had b en submitted as a part of the Planned Unit Development process. The Plat consists f two blocks, the first of which includes the site for the St. Henry's church facility, as well as the two St. Benedict's Center senior housing buildings. The second block is a single lot adjacent to the freeway and Fallon Avenue. Two outlots are shown, one of which will cons st primarily of slopes for Fallon A venue (Outlot A) and another which will consist primari y ofponding area (Outlot B). The plat also includes the necessary righ -of-way for 7th Street and for the connection to Fallon Avenue. The City Engineer shoul verify the location of Fallon A venue, as well as the location and alignment of the various ! tility easements shown on the Plat. A final issue involves the relocation of the ark, through which 7th Street extends. The City should identify appropriate alternatives i the area. Lot 1 of Block 2 may be a logical alternative since it is directly across from. e current park location, and is easily accessible to the residential developments in the are . B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS: I. Motion to recommend approval 0 the Preliminary Plat for Church of St. Henry, based on a finding that the Plat is i compliance with the approvals granted as a part of the Planned Unit Development rocess. 2. Motion to table action on the Plat, ending the submission of additional information. C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends Alternative I, approva of the Plat. This recommendation is subject to review and approval of the City Engineer d other City Staff. D. SUPPORTING DATA: Exhibit A - Plat Drawing 2 . . . ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ! h'O!.LIt]t]~1 = q --4Z~ ! i I ~ i ;; I~ " .1 J~o ~ ~ ~ 1.1 (~. ~) '\ -f.~ ~- ....... " b ....-6~.i!.-----....... "'" . oJ; 6i?, -- '. '''i?i?r IV -g': , -l , .... ~~ ~ .. OJ <II I ~-lJ "''!-- ;J.._ :-...- 6' OJ l-LJ '~- .< , ' ;.... \1. e- ~) I I;, IH. )~. ~d 1m ~t~ ).1 I~~; ~' ~';i "'1 ".... \J "'" ~"" '. ~ .l~ " ',,- ~-I~ \J ::---. ~lJ --,. <- /, ; i....~..I It"~'" .~, X (,' {\~ , . ' ,'.(,' /... " ~'>.' ............ p ,a ;1 ~I ~~ "'f-~ ~ " "'" "' ~"" -"" '> ...., , /':: I " cJ' / / f~: I , r..~ I I l ./' w ')'" ,,~- ~ f.~'~ ~s c,<c;.l, "':: If l"/~"" ).!t .JV" t' (" . "'!;::'::!.. hi >~ /I'~<' =-:-. g__,,)'''' <: 7",~~ ::0<> 'i~ )~ -"-".i> ~.lJ ~~l~ tI~ -", ~ "" = \ I ~: ~J..~ .. ..~ :g , ~. '-.i~ \: Ii I l1. (~- ......l co t- e:> ~ I lLJ -~, .< . . ~._- [1. (~- ~) r I t I ~ , 1 I i a~ ip ;.1 'p ~'I ;~. ~;i ';1 .1 ;;~, I ..~" "-1 ..=!!~ I '~i' I iH! I I "4 I .1 JJ T 1 . I -"'~) ./ .' i) /,1 ) ~ ..l '" '\ -I~ ~ '" "'" '" H ~;" ;.: H ..~~ ~ <-'" '" m I;. h~ ~J. i,,~ .;~ 11 ' IJ !!i' .,", h,: ,:' . F~L .n.:; ~ ~ s f I j i s ~ a ~ ,,~\ ~ ~ ~ c.!> Z H ~ Q E--i j p., I < E--i H j:Q H ::I:l >:: ~ ----- . . . 7. Planning Commission Agenda -9/01/98 Consideration of a re uest for a Cond tional Use Permit within the CCD Zonin District to allow a drive-u bankin faci i . A Heant: Mar uette Banks. (NAC) A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROU D: Marquette Bank has applied for a Conditio al Use Permit to allow the construction of a new bank building with a drive-up facility on th ir current property at Sixth and Walnut Streets. The site is zoned CCD, Central Community istrict. Banks are permitted uses in the district, however, drive-up facilities trigger the need for a Conditional Use Permit. The CCD zoning district was designed to implement the obj ctives of the Downtown Redevelopment Plan, with an emphasis on pedestrian orientation. Therefore, drive-up facilities were allowed in the district only be Conditional Use Permit, and with conditions intended to emphasize the pedestrian focus of the community's traditi nal downtown area. Conditional Use Permit The elements of the Conditional Use Pe it for drive-through facilities in the CCD area include the following: 1. Service through drive-through facili ies is accessory to interior on-site, or sit-down, service within the same building. 2. Drive-through lanes are designed t avoid disruption of pedestrian and vehicular traffic flow, both on- and off-site. 3. Landscaping and other site improv ments are included which screen automobile stacking space from the public stree . 4. The principal building occupies no less than forty (40) percent of the property, exclusive of easements, devoted to ublic pedestrian use or other outdoor public spaces. 5. The building, site, and signage, me ts the standards for the "CCD" district, and design review approval is granted b the designated Design Advisory Team. 6. The proposed use demonstrates c mpatibility and consistency with the City's Comprehensive Plan and the Downt wn Revitalization Plan. The City recently considered a similar reque t for First Minnesota Bank along TH 25 and 4th Street. Although for a smaller site, the issu for First Minnesota was the same as it is for Marquette: The lot coverage of the buildin and other improvements is required to be at least 40%. The Planning Commission pproved the previous application with the interpretation that the drive-up canopy count d in the lot coverage, resulting is a requirement 3 . Planning Commission Agenda -9/01/98 for First Minnesota to increase the size 0 the canopy and adhere to the 40% lot coverage requirement. For Marquette, the issue is similar, altho gh more dramatic due to a larger parcel, and a larger drive-up facility. On the Marquette ite, the area devoted to drive-up lanes and access comprise approximately 12,000 square fee - more than 27% ofthe parcel. The lot coverage of the building and the landscaped plaza areas cover another 12,000 square feet. The remainder of the site is paved parking 10 or perimeter landscaping. To meet the 40% standard, approximately 5,300 square feet fthe lot must be improved either with building (including the drive-up canopy), or pedest ian plaza area. Alternatives for increasing coverage inclu e at least the following two options: (1) Conversion of five parking spaces 0 additional plaza area. The building requires a parking supply of 28 spaces, ac ounting for mechanical and other discounted building area. The site plan shows 33 spaces proposed. (2) Significant expansion ofthe canop over the drive-up teller lanes. A canopy which covers the area shown on the attac ed site plan exhibit would provide the defined coverage. . Short of these two changes, the applic would need to seek a variance from the lot coverage requirement, or an amendment 0 the zoning district language setting the 40% standard. These applications would need t be considered at a future public hearing, and the current approval would need to be tabled u til the City could consider such a request. Since the City has just recently applied these stan ards to another bank proposal, it may be difficult to justify a revision in those standards. Design Review The DA T reviewed this project at its most recent meeting and granted approval to the applicant for both the building and site Ian elements. The DA T specifically withheld comment on the lot coverage issue as a zon ng matter better suited to Planning Commission consideration. The DA T stated that ap from the lot coverage, the project was well designed to meet the character of the do town area, and to complement the Community Center which will be sited directly to the n rth ofthis project. B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS: 1. Motion to approve the Conditional se Permit for a drive-up facility, contingent on the conditions listed in Exhibit Z, ased on a finding that the project is consistent with the objectives of the Downt wn Revitalization Plan and the CCD zoning district. . 4 . 2. Planning Commission Agenda -9/0 I /98 Motion to deny the Conditional U e Permit, based upon a finding that as proposed, the project cannot meet the pedest ian orientation objectives of the Comprehensive Plan/Downtown Revitalization PI . 3. Motion to table action on the Co ditional Use Permit, pending consideration of a request to amend the lot coverage equirements applicable to this project. C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the project ith changes made per the conditions in Exhibit Z. These conditions relate to additional 10 coverage changes to the site plan in an effort to meet the standards for drive-up banking facilities in the Central Community District. Although the changes may add some cost t the project, staff believes that the objectives of the downtown planning recently done by th City are particularly important in this area along Walnut, the "Main Street" of the concept. Moreover, the City has recently applied these same standards to a similar proposal on another site in the CCD. Consistency in the application of zoning standards is an impo ant factor for the City to consider. With regard to the Walnut Street frontage, he building has been sited to accommodate the City's streetscape improvements, based pon preliminary estimates of street width and sidewalk needs. The City will be consideri g the development of a concept streetscape plan which integrates the preliminary dimension . Staff is proposing that changes to the street or streetscape be done as a more comprehensiv project once the streetscape plans are complete. Therefore, the bank need not include WaIn t Street changes in the development of its site. . One final note - the applicant is requesting a proval for a temporary facility during the period of construction, as was granted for First Mi esota. A six month time frame was granted for the First Minnesota temporary facility. As noted with that application, an extension could be considered later in the event constructi n of the permanent improvements are delayed unexpectedly. D. SUPPORTING DATA: Exhibit A - Site Plan Exhibit B - Building Elevation Exhibit C - Temporary Facility Site Plan Exhibit Z - Conditions of Approval . 5 I I m !c&1-.....' . ------1 . I I 01 I I , ~~~r I J I ! I ).. I J I i IL I I R!f I. I I [ I I I I' I I I Nec.......y I I I Canopy ~~y{ . 1 I ... I l01I III llI: ... I <0 I ':I: ... X I - I on I I VI CI,. I 0 "'II/" ... ~---'-'- - .............--.. -+-~----- ---....... . . 1___ . 1 Exhibit A · Site Plan E ~ . u I 'h z7 <C.. --f- a.. .. w~ 1-<'2: VifX \li.ll,I.I'I\lIII-IIO:'r. r. ~ . ! i!~ ~, .-. n. I:I~~," ?:,. + ~, , a · I -_.. j ~ ~ ~ '.:. ~! I :,' It' . I I '0: , :- ~.::~ n:::i 1-_'_"1 . ~, I ... : @, EJi ~f : I r .~ it ~ lIt II P ~ t 11 III ~ ~ : lI!IIU~ ~ I ..... ~~ =J I ~ I . ! !! il! J :tg i I I, f 1.11 .~ II !~ \I \ I ~ Iii ,!I !!~ Iii i J .. ~ I I : I : I I ~I' I 'fj, I 't : I ifl . : I ~-) ~l f3' "ll ~I i~ ~,~ r ~1 I-~ ~IJi ~~ ~I- ~I~ 'I\:; U WVI . xhibit B · Walnut St. Elevation 1\4 ~ . --- . I I I III ~, III nr , ... I ! . ! x ,. , ~ I '.. i ..., ,..: ! -- . 1II"'1.,.un' 6""1.' Exhibit C - Tempora,ry Site Plan .-........._____....___.....""" ...--..-..... .. _II~ ei .,. ~ ...J 0.. W 1/\ I-c... - I V's:'? > ~ ~ ~ o a.. ~ I- ~ .......n I t5~ _ II 1-';... c5L..i :::i W (..l Ccn po . . . Planning Commission Agenda -9/01/98 Conditions of Approval- Marquette Ba k Conditional Use Permit 1. Site Plan amendments to illustrate cornplia ce with the 40% lot coverage standard through either or both of the following, or other me s: (a) Conversion offive parking spaces t additional plaza area. The building requires a parking supply of 28 spaces, acc unting for mechanical and other discounted building area. The site plan shows 3 spaces proposed. (b) Significant expansion of the canopy over the drive-up teller lanes. A canopy which covers the area shown on the attac ed site plan exhibit would provide the defined coverage. Exhibit - Conditions of Approval "., '-\ . . . 8. Planning Commission Agenda -9/01/98 Consideration of a re uest for an amen ment to the PZM Zonin District or in the alternative an amendment to the zonin ma to B-3 from PZM to allow restaurant use. Applicant: MMC Land Company. (NAC) A. REFERENCE AND BACKGRO MMC Land Company has applied for an endment to the City's zoning map or ordinance which would allow a restaurant to built on 1 d which is currently zoned PZM, Performance Zone-Mixed. The property is located on th triangular parcel at the south west quadrant of the County Highway 75/County Highway 39 intersection. Hawk's Bar (zoned B-3), the River Mill development and A Glorious Ch rch (zoned R-l and R-2) adjoin the property to the west. To the east is the Liberty Saving and the River Road Plaza complex, consisting of a Convenience Store, coffee shop, and ar wash (zoned PZM). The City has recently refused to expand the PZM District to incl de lube/oil facilities (a B-3 use) based on an application from owners ofthe car wash fa ility. The PZM District includes commercial use which are allowed in the B-1 and B-2 Districts. The only food establishments allowed in th se commercial districts would be smaller cafes and delicatessens. Restaurants are allowed .n the B-3, Highway Commercial District. This application again opens the issue of the inte t and nature of the PZM District, and whether it is appropriately applied in this area. The ZM District is intended to provide for a mixed land use transition area in areas of residential development. The limited types of commercial activities in the PZM suggests that it is not ppropriate for higher volume uses or locations. County Highway 75 has been cited as th highest volume County Highway in Wright County. County 39 carries a significant amo nt of traffic as well. With exposure and access to the freeway, PZM as it was intended may ot be appropriate for this location. The option of amendment to allow restaurant uses in th PZM would raise the issue of compatibility in all areas where PZM has been applied, not j st this location. Other uses of PZM zoning are in and around the downtown where the rincipal land use is to be transitioning from commercial to residential. This intent has b en compromised somewhat by the inclusion of convenience stores, gasoline sales, and car shes - typical highway commercial land uses - to be included in the B-2/PZM Districts. The applicant has provided a site plan whi h illustrates an internal road system angling southeast to northwest which connects the iver Mill area adjacent to Hawk's Bar to the access street serving Liberty Savings and Ri er Road Plaza. Proposed parcels to the south of this internal street (including the propos d site for the restaurant) have their principal exposure to County Highway 75. Lots to the orth of this road have their exposure internally or to County Highway 39. A zoning map am ndment which rezones the parcels south of this road to B-3 could be supported based on adjo ning zoning and land use (B-3 and commercial use to the east, PZM and commercial use to t e west). Leaving the lots north of the internal 6 . Planning Commission Agenda -9/01/98 street as PZM would accommodate the tran itionaI role of the PZM district between the B-3 area and the church and residential areas t the east. B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS: 1. Motion to recommend approval of zoning map amendment which would establish a B-3 District on the land south of he proposed internal street, based on a finding that surrounding land uses and zoning patterns provide support for this rezoning in accordance with the objectives oft e City's Comprehensive Plan. 2. Motion to recommend approval an mendment to the PZM District language which would include restaurants as Condit onal Uses in the district, based on a finding that restaurants are compatible with oth r PZM uses. 3. Motion to deny any zoning amend ent action, based upon a finding that the PZM as currently structured best regulate the future land uses on this site in accordance with the Comprehensive Plan. 4. Motion to table action additional information. ing amendment, pending the submission of . C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends Alternative I, rezoning fthe south portion of the site to B-3, Highway Commercial. This area is located near one of the highest traffic street intersections in the City. Given its access and exposure to bo the County Highway system and the freeway, staffbelieves that the structure and intent of he B-3 District is most consistent with existing and future conditions in the area, and the int nt of the Comprehensive Plan. In addition, the internal street provides a natural break betw en the higher intensity B-3 uses, the moderate intensity of the PZM district, and church or residential uses to the east. D. SUPPORTING DATA: Exhibit A - Existing Zoning Exhibit B - Proposed Zoning Exhibit C - Site Survey/Concept Exhibit D - Draft Rezoning Ordinance Exhibit E - Draft PZM Amendment Ordin ce . 7 ~ !~~ ~ Ii(~~:-. '. ......... ... Site in Question Rl IIJIWIUIMl.l .... . .......... ..... 1--1 Site in Question Rl ."'III'1lI ...... ....."'..~. ....... g-~ ~tI '2. ~.:I. . ~1' COUNTY ~JNUwtll1 HlIIl1H LINt 01 S<eIlON 13, lWi'. 121. ~t 15 . . r'""l"'lr'~1 1-1""')";'::'! !, lr.~n C,11! j! ~ ....h:. II!... V!..!.-n'~~J f~' 100 I. :_,---,~~",\" , ..... rf.~ '\ ':x: .- ,~, "........\-- ~.. ...(ji 1;)' Cl".....-) \. ,...." · ~ ~11;-" ...,.... '. " ..'1> ~:/ " ." ~~. \......... '?' rt'r' /' ~. .... 'S , /...:, //'\ : ,)ll'" .. .-;Y .. . , I ,/ /,L" ... / / / cy " '. I ..:.# ,/'l " fI'-,K" ;r,J'l : 1 / / ''/'/ ~'ilil' <" ~ ~~ ~ /~I- /.1-',-, '/:, :1 'T I~ , ' ", ......." ~...q-~~:.. ,:" -,,/ J' 'Y t\'j'.. _ I <.: ' -:l-;;,., 'i-/ /, .../ : ~I ~ .:,. .~::.. /;;d l/)i,"- ./: : '~"':~Z~-c-:'/ // //~~ LOTD ~';.::>..:~ ... I I ~ . --<t ~.t,./ -If;~I'I~'''' / to' \ . II ::;:1, _'0... >--./ . ~~'U'f ./j::-' ~ \\ '\ ".\ ~{!ft~" I I~_; / (: /[;/ · 1\\"'" : :~~ <..........." ,'....~ f/1j(?(:'" ~ j' ):); ,>, \( , i i! C(h ". " ,~ , ~:;"" '>:: '.'j, '. 1 "', '~.$I~"'>""''''''':'''' ..~~;;>- ..:<\ ~J'" 1;:)"1,1/,\\\\\.,' \ "'! .:.f~ '....,.." . -:-:::-. :-:;=> ..<< , V 'I \, ____ I III .0..,"'., ....,.. -fJa.tn., .....,.. .....:~:;::;::::-. :~&./'''(J,'';:;.... /y )1 "''- J.... __ ~I I 'V.o.. '" . ". -'3)0 ""'<........:;. '. ~.'.. "II _ .'., t.. I . ~""" .,.,~ '''''. "<~:-_-;;.,' ':>:'-:>'. ....'f" . ,....-;-::.. .':-' 1 I ~--"'---. I . 'j/a))... '''. ""~'~' ""...*. ../'!-.,.... ............. , ,", i I ''''f;I~ ,.'..... .. '.., """- ~..:.,:.-::.; :-:-~.. .... .-: ' / LOTD / :11..\ '... o~... ..... . .,......" .'::-:::::::::>~~:-" . ~.;::il'./ t:=nr- 1!Ji~ I .,. -, '. ~")I.'" " ',. ......... ,. .........../ . : I I I.~.i F. '. r"~"'" "', ...........-.:-. .........; , / I ..... '-. - '. '..... . ~.:.:.:......:-::<? ' ... / Lan I~ ,~ '. , " . , ',- ".:-::,.,..ff....( I ,c&n:" 'i!~' .. .... ....., '- I I~l ~.. .......,.... .. <1 / '.. / I 11 ~e ...... "i , I ;i ~ f: ..,=5 S ~.:. ~', '/ . \. ..... I I_ " - ~ '" ;;; so: !,; !!! .... --. ..,'.... ... ~' I JJ ...__ 1Lf.l_ t:~ ~:::!? ~.....,...=~ =uO .. "" ~n c' ~I - -- ~- ~ .,.....;:1 ,,~ 1 ~, :~!-'lO S,:'-"':o:- "''''__ - ~ ~ !;~ · : ~ ~ g :~. ...~- - n 262.94--8 '? .......:':' i= ~ ~;: :::: ~ " - ~ -_. .. N 88"45'34" [ o! :: ~ ~ ~"'.. ~ ~ .~. ...- '~i:..>,-., """ . ..,....... . -; ;~ ~ 8 ~ ~ ; ~,.,.., , . "-" ~ ~ ~ ! ~ ; ~ '11 '" '. i3;,;;l~ I~~ II~ $ ~l ~fj3!i ~~ l..,j .s" :;" ':...,j "" .~ "'J ~ o :;.-R C 0..., ~ V7 'a\.'1O WRI'h IV/l.~ I 1 ~ ;:~"\"'\.' b.~ lJ~r-, ~ ; \. ~ -Wll ~'c; I 1"\1 '\1\ ':l -'-I ~ So ;i( ~ '" .. ::! l!I a So ~ l!I :rt ~ ~ a e: ~ :.. - ;;. " !~ r- 1,,'; ..- s '" . " ". Exhibit C - SitiSurVey t,3 . . . Planning Commission Agenda -9/01/98 City of M nticello Wright Coun , Minnesota AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE MON ICELLO ZONING MAP BY REZONING CERTAIN PROPERTY FROM PZM - PE FORMANCE ZONE - MIXED TO B-3, HIGHWAY BUSINESS. THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MON ICELLO, MINNESOTA HEREBY ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. The Official Zoning Map of the City of Monticel 0 is hereby amended by rezoning the following parcel(s) from PZM -Performance Zone - Mixed t B-3, Highway Business. (insert legal description) Section 2. The Zoning Administrator is ordered to make the ppropriate amendments to the Official Zoning Map, and to have said Map republished. Section 3. This ordinance shall become effective from and a er its passage and publication. / /s/ / Exhibit D - raft Rezoning Ordinance ,,tf . . . City of M nticeIlo Wright Co un , Minnesota AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 10, HAPTER 10, SECTION 8 [H], OF THE MONTICELLO ZONING ORDINANCE R LATING TO RESTAURANT USES BY CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT IN THE PZM, PERFORMANCE ZONE-MIXED DISTRICT. THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MON ICELLO, MINNESOTA HEREBY ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Chapter 10, Section 10 [H] is hereby amended to ad as follows: [H] Restaurants and Private clubs and lodges s rving food and beverages, provided that: 1. The proposed uses complies with pIicable screening and buffering standards in compliance with Chapter 3, Sectio 2 [G] of this ordinance. 2. Service of prepared food or alcoh lie beverages shall be in compliance with all federal, state, and municipal regula ons. 3. Offices of such use shall be limited 0 no more that twenty (20) percent of the gross floor area of the principal structure. Section 2. This ordinance shall become effective from and aft r its passage and publication. //s// Exhibit E - Draft ZM Zoning Amendment ~o . . . 9. Planning Commission Agenda -9/01/98 Consideration of are uest for an amend ent to a Conditional Use Permit PUD within the CCD Zonin District to allow Cub Foods to install a drive-u window for its pharmacv. Applicant: Cub Foods. (NA ) A. REFERENCE AND BACKGRO Cub Foods has requested an amendment to i s Planned Unit Development approval to permit the installation of a drive-up window for it pharmacy on the east side of the building. The window would be installed through the wal , with the addition of a drive-up lane island and a canopy over the area. This application raises two primary issues. he first is compliance with CCD requirements for pedestrian orientation and compatibilit with the downtown environment. The second is traffic circulation and parking. With reg d to the CCD requirements, the site plan shows no changes to the overall layout with the ex eption of an elimination of about nine parking spaces to accommodate the drive throug lane. The remainder of the walkway and landscaping systems would be left as origi ally approved. There is also a 40% coverage standard for drive-up facilities in the CC . The supermarket and retail buildings, in combination with the front "plaza" sidewalk and the landscaped sidewalk to Walnut Street, appear to total approximately 91,000 square feet in area. The lot size of the Cub Foods and retail building site is approximately 228, 00 square feet. This calculates to 39.91 %, substantially complying with the minimum tandard. Circulation on the site raises a more signific t issue. As designed, the access to the drive-up lane would be from the common driveway fi r east area parking and truck circulation. Few vehicles would be able to make the 1800 tu from the driveway aisle into the drive-up lane. Instead, the plan apparently anticipates that v hicles heading from the main vehicle entrances to the drive-up will proceed south onto the ountry GrillIot and cross over and turn north to the Cub driveway over a painted island at the south end of the parking area (see site plan at point A). A better solution would be to c eate a cut in the parking bay near the entrance to the drive-up lane as shown in the proposed site plan revision, Exhibit B. This would avoid the need for retail traffic to use the Country Grill parcel, and would reduce the temptation to cut through unused parking stalls. The Exhibit B alternative fails to solve wha may the most problematic conflict, however. That is the concern over the location ofvehi les exiting the drive-up lane. These vehicles will enter the busiest intersection on the site t a point which will conflict with northbound traffic in the adjoining driveway lane and ast bound traffic from the front of the store. Exhibit C provides a solution for this conflict, building on the Exhibit B layout, but reversing the traffic flow. Since the driver would b on the "wrong" side of the drive-up, this alternative would require a product delivery system such as the pneumatic tubes used by drive-up banking facilities. Although this is a more extensive solution that Exhibit B, it does 8 . Planning Commission Agenda -9/01/98 a much better job of resolving all the traffi conflicts created by the addition of the drive-up facility to this project. Staff anticipates that the applicant will be reluctant to lose the additional three spaces for these solutions, based on their original c ncern over the City's site design suggestions. However, the applicant is apparently will ng to sacrifice the parking spaces necessary to accommodate the drive-up lane. To be a proved, this should only be done in a manner which does not compromise sound site de ign and traffic safety. The Design Advisory Team has reviewe the proposal, and found that it enhances the architectural appearance of the project by a ding interest to the east wall, a prominent portion of the building. Signs for the building s ould be held to a maximum square footage as previously approved, but may be redistrib ted to accommodate the amended plan. B. AL TERNATIVE ACTIONS: 1. Motion to recommend approval the amendment to the Conditional Use Permit PUD to allow a drive-up window on th Cub Foods site, contingent on the conditions listed in Exhibit Z, and based on a fi ding that the project would continue to meet the objectives and expectations of the ity's Downtown Revitalization Plan. . 2. Motion to deny the CUP amendme t, based on a finding that the circulation for the drive-up will not adequately protec traffic safety and could encourage the use of neighboring property for access. 3. Motion to table action on the CUP endment, pending the submission of additional information. C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the amendm nt, subject to the conditions listed in Exhibit Z. These conditions address changes to the ci culation plan near the drive-up which should resolve concerns over potential conflicts wit either truck traffic or patrons of the adjoining restaurant. As discussed above, there are two alternative site plans. Exhibit C is the preferred alternative since it does the best j b of resolving the traffic conflicts which the drive-up window will cause. Alternative B would resolve most of the conflicts, with the exception of the intersection issue (which ay be the most pressing concern). For context on this issue, the City denied a request by other downtown area pharmacy for a drive-up window based on a concern over traffic con icts. . 9 . Planning Commission Agenda -9/01/98 The approval recommendation is also base on a condition that the drive-up is for pharmacy purposes only. With the lack of stacking sp ce for vehicles waiting for drive-up service, this arrangement would not accommodate a ma e intense use such as a fast-food window. If the applicant proposes to change the service fr m this facility in the future, a new amendment to the Conditional Use Permit should be re uired. D. SUPPORTING DATA: Exhibit A - Site Plan Exhibit B - Staff-Proposed Site Plan Revis on Exhibit C - Alternative Staff Site Plan Rev sion Exhibit Z - Conditions of Approval . . 10 y. fj'" . , " , , . I , fJ: : . , ,,"/ v " I ' " ' fj./ , , , , :/ , .. . ' (1;" .. . , . " " ., '. " , , " fj:~ ..' A , , , . . " , , , , . , , , , , , , 1/ , : ' i _ . '---!D -. A.. /1.t , , . , , .. . " , , , " , , , , . . . -. ..... .e..::: ......... .~ ........... ('-.. QI...:~ , ~ .t .,._iIt ... / r:::....~ :1::' !R : .~ : :--- " ~-- " - r- :-- iL- l, I-- ~ "-- ~ . - ;...- ;.... . ~ ffiH-H-~ : i lH#HtH-H~ I ~ ;LWliL/illllLlII J ,-! · .. ~r"" Il~ ~ u . -- /E= ,,-~ .... I 1&.1 t :IC~ ;:; J1 ! 0 I ~i I:: r j) ~ E pi t . i . . r . t iii · t , ;I' ~--.9', /" I .;:;:-:==zJ.I,.... u ..... -, i '-=&:zs & . . :;: $ /l't ~. ...... ; -, J'e"' -i ", 4r. ~J.f ~ ~ ", ..ts .A',Ii=..~" , I ~ J . ai. i:.- ~~-! d.1. ~ll.'. IU o ~; u ~! tho .. :: WI i i "; .,; ~ i '-'".:-'':'..':. ." ~2r;r:~ .. ........ 111:...; < 0 s . ~ ~ .. . III ~ llIl: ~ ~ Exhibit \ "II' .,. > < ~ :z: (j J: au ~ -< ,... U') ffi ,... ~. '-- . . " ~ " ~ . . . . . . . . . ..i Site PI n 1 ,.. . 25 - DO HOT ENTER SCHS ~IVE UP WINDOW 'e CANOPY 10 PARt(INC SPAa:S I LOST I I DRI\I'E UP PtiARt.fACY slGNS . ) Ll\ 12 22 Eliminate Sp cec 24 Relocated I and · Revi ('11 (n1 "II II 1111 II 1If1 " "II /If IIlLlJ ~ \\ fr\ ~ 'I '\ ~ " ~ II " ~ .:::--= III "'" .... ~ ..........- -==- - -.. :::.. -=. -.::::::= ::; - --- - -... --. - ---- -- 7 CK LOT .- - 25 ((I,n1 (n1 II II "II II JIll II n II "I II lLJJ \c= rr\ " II" ~. " ~ \I " ~ .:::- ~ tl '~~~_~ ~ :: == ;; ==-== ie DO NOT ENTER S3CHS ~IVE UP WINDOW . C,:\NOPY 22 10 PARK..C SP.-.tEs LOST Relocated 12 E Imin DRrYt UP PIofARWACY SiGNS --..--- -- ~ 24 Relocated I land 7 . CK LOT ) /"1\ Exh. . . . . Planning Commission Agenda -9101/98 Conditions of Approval - Cub Foods Ph rmacy Drive-up Window CUP 1. The site plan is revised per Exhibit B or C 0 resolve potential traffic circulation conflicts. 2. The CUP is for the use of the drive-up r pharmacy purposes only. Future proposed changes to use of the drive-up will require amendment to the CUP. Exhibit - Conditions of Approval ,-~ . . . 10. Planning Commission Agenda -9/01/98 A. REFERENCE AND BACKGRO Pat and Susie Townsend have applied for several zoning approvals to accommodate the remodeling and expansion of an existing sin Ie family structure at 448 West Broadway. The property is at the southeast comer of the int rsection of Broadway and Maple Street, and is zoned PZM, Performance Zone-Mixed. Th project would include commercial uses which are allowed in the PZM District by CUP, IVe residential units in remodeled or expanded space which encroaches into the required re yard, and parking areas which would encroach into the Maple Street right-of-way. The proposed land uses are all allowed in t e PZM by Conditional Use Permit. The PZM District imposes certain restrictions on proj cts which mix commercial and residential uses, however. One such restriction is that mixed use projects must separate the uses on different floors. While this project would limit th second floor to residential use, the proposal includes both commercial and residential u es on the first floor. Of additional concern is the need for sig ificant variances from the Zoning Ordinance performance standards in order to accom odate the request. The applicant would need variances from the rear yard standard from 30 feet to 10 feet, from the required off-street parking setback of five feet to zero feet, an an additional variance to allow encroachment into the Maple Street right-of-way. Varianc requests are evaluated on the basis of physical hardship - do the Ordinance standards create a hardship in putting the property to reasonable use under the Ordinance. In this case, the p operty is already being put to an allowed use _ single family residential - in the PZM District. Moreover, there is adequate expansion ar a within the applicable building setbacks to increase the intensity of use on the site, if des' ed. The property contains 116 feet of frontage on Broadway and 166 feet of frontage on Ma Ie, a total of 19,340 square feet. There is little justification for finding a hardship on this p eel. In addition, any variances granted would encroach toward single family residential ses, directly counter to the City's traditional objective of protecting such neighborhoods om impacts of more intensive uses. The PZM District has been designed to accommodat mixed uses, with the objective of creating a reasonable transition between active com ercial or high-density uses and low density neighborhoods. The subject property includ s substantial buildable land which may be put to these uses without variance. 11 . B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS: Planning Commission Agenda -9/01/98 Decision 1: Conditional Use Permit for s rvice commercial uses in a PZM Zone. 1. Motion to recommend approval oft e CUP, based upon the condition that the project is designed to meet all applicable oning standards. 2. Motion to deny the CUP, based up n a finding that the proposed use is too intense for the site, in consideration of the surrounding land uses. 3. Motion to table action on the CUP pending additional information. Decision 2: Conditional Use Permit for ixed residential and commercial uses in a PZM Zone. 1. Motion to recommend approval oft e CUP, based upon the condition that the project is designed to meet all applicable z ning standards. 2. Motion to deny the CUP, based up n a finding that the proposed use is too intense for the site, in consideration of the urrounding land uses. . 3. Motion to table action on the CUP, pending additional information. Decision 3: Conditional Use Permit for res dential uses with more than two units in a PZM Zone. 1. Motion to recommend approval oft CUP, based upon the condition that the project is designed to meet all applicable z ning standards. 2. Motion to deny the CUP, based upon finding that the proposed use is too intense for the site, in consideration of the surro nding land uses. 3. Motion to table action on the CUP, p nding additional information. Decision 4: Variance from the rear yard set ack from 30 feet to 10 feet in a PZM Zone. 1. Motion to approve the Variance, bas d upon a finding that Maple Street serves the role of front yard for this site. 2. . Motion to deny the Variance, based pon a finding that there is adequate buildable area on the site, and that is no hardship in putting the property to reasonable use in full conformance with a performance st dards. 12 . Planning Commission Agenda -9/01/98 3. Motion to table action on the Vari ce, pending additional information. Decision 5: Variance from the parking lot etback from 5 feet to zero feet in a PZM Zone. 1. Motion to approve the Variance, ba ed upon a finding that the provision of off-street parking in this location will be bene lcial to protecting traffic in the neighborhood. 2. Motion to deny the Variance, base upon a finding that there is adequate buildable area on the site, and that is no hardsh' in putting the property to reasonable use in full conformance with a performance st ndards. 3. Motion to table action on the Vari e, pending additional information. Decision 6: Variance from the regulations rohibiting public right-of-way use for private off-street parking. I. Motion to approve the Variance, bas d upon a finding that the provision of off-street parking in this location will be bene lcial to protecting traffic in the neighborhood. 2. Motion to deny the Variance, based pon a finding that there is adequate buildable area on the site, and that is no hardshi in putting the property to reasonable use in full conformance with a performance st dards. . 3. Motion to table action on the Varian e, pending additional information. C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends tabling the Conditional U e Permit applications in Decisions 1-3 above, pending a redesign of the project, and denial f the Variance requests. We do not believe that there is sufficient rationale for approving the variances in accordance with the requirements of the zoning ordinance. With denial of the v 'ances, the project will need to be redesigned significantly. The proposed uses are accept ble in a PZM Zoning District when properly designed and adequate attention has been gi en to protecting surrounding land uses. The redesign of the project without variances sho Id be returned to the Planning Commission for review and approval. D. SUPPORTING DATA: Exhibit A - Site Survey . 13 ~o I ........... '.... ... / / ;tf .vl.4.........;.y ~/"c//A?,. ,;;;r;;....r 8A1e.eJ" ,....P...e..--d... ("",.....,...r>-....e e/ C '-/0,;4/. '-........ ~ -~ . ."j ...... I / I -9'0 / ~ ...' I . I 1/ / ~ I" I / I I I I I lq / ' ~ vI' ~ I 6 / /. I 1.. ~ 11'0 / / / / .; / \~. / ~~ I fJ Ex"'bit A · Site Survey / l~'\ .-" 1 / / ./ / 2 s&YORS. ItYC. PO. BOX 119 '5362 3388 fAX j: 612-:295-3408 ..... ...... "" tJr' jj #...-9 A' C e!""t:: A A.. I oco . . . 11. Planning Commission Agenda - 9/01/98 Consideration to a rove a resolution fi in that the modified Redevelo ment Plan for Central Monticello Redevelo m nt Pro'ect No.1 and the TIF Plan for TIF District No. 1-25 conform to the eneral lans for the develo ment and redevelopment ofthe City. (O.K.) A. REFERENCE AND BACKGRO The project proposed for TIF District No.1 25, an economic district for manufacturing facilities, is the construction of a 12,000 sq steel building by Blue Chip Development Company (Brad Barger/Jim Harwood). Th proposed project will increase the local tax and employment base. At least 7,000 sq ft ill be leased to B&B Metal Stamping, Inc. The remaining 5,000 sq ft will either be lea ed to B&B or will be speculative for lease. The parcel described as the East 161.00 ft 0 Lot 5, Block 3, OIP, is zoned 1-2. The company currently employs 5 full-time and 3 part-time employees. They plan to hire an additional 3 to 5 full-time employees withi two years at an average hourly wage of $14.10 without benefits. Previously, I believe the Planning Commis ion approved the division of Lot 5 through a PUD. The question for the Planning Com ission is: Does the proposed manufacturing project conform with the general plans for t e development or redevelopment of the city? B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS: 1. A motion to approve a resolution fi ding that the modified Redevelopment Plan for Central Monticello Redevelopm nt Project No. 1 and the TIF Plan for TIF District No. 1-25 conform to the ge eral plans for the development and redevelopment of the city. 2. A motion to deny approval of a res lution finding that the modified Redevelopment Plan for Central M nticello Redevelopment Project No.1 and the TIF Plan for TIF District N . 1-25 conform to the general plans for the development and redevelopment of he city. 3. A motion to table any action. C. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends Alternative 1. The prop sed project lies within the proper zoning and enhances the economy of the community. D. SUPPORTING DATA: Exhibit A - Copy of resolution Exhibit B - TIF District No. 1-25 Map 14 . . . PLANNING CO MISSION CITY OF MONTICELL, , MINNESOTA "",, '.. " , '. . ,',i, R~~64~~ION OF THE MONTICELLO PI NlNG COMMISSION FINDING ':<:,,:,::I:~~l '" THE MODU"IED REDEVELO MENT PLAN FOR CENTRAL ",,>',~QNTICELLO REDEVELOPMENT P JECT NO. 1 AND THE TAX ". '" I~cREMENT FINANCING PLAN FO TAX INCREMENT FINANCING ,ii'i,'" ..J>ISTRICT NO. 1~25 CONFORM TO T GENERAL PLANS FOR THE ";~'>::,,:,::;"DEVELOPMENT AND REDEVELOPMEN OF THE CITY. WHEREAS, the City Council for the City of Montie 110. Minnesota, (the "City") has proposed to adopt a Modified Redevelopment Plan for Central Monticello edevelopment Project No.1 and a Tax Increment financing Plan for Tax Increment Financing District No 1-25 (collectively, the "Plans") and has submitted the Plans to the Monticello Planning Commission (th "Commission") pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.175, Subdivision 3, and I I I WHEREAS, the Commission has reviewed the PI ns to determine their conformity with the general plans for the development and redevelopmentofthe CitYI described in the comprehensive plan for the City. I NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the C mmissioll that the Plans conform with the general plans for the development and redevelopment ofthe C' yas a whole. Adopted this _ day of , 1998. Chair ATTEST: Secretary EXHIBIT A COpy OF RESOLUTION \\;\ Tax Increment Financing istrict No. 1-25 Central Monticello Redevelopm nt project No.1 City of Montic 110 Wright county, Min esota . ~ ~ . !IF DISTRICT NO~ 1-2S 1 DUNDAS aoAD :lOG o.N)AS AOAO - . ... .... " 8. , , 1 I I :i , , I 1 \ ~ . it \ \' \ \ \ \ \ I . \ ~ \ i \\ I' 1. . \ Ii \ ' . . \ \\ \ \ 1 \\ I \ "\ , \ I \ I \ I I \ \! 1\ \Ii t :: Q] ! ! jl -~\ \\ =1\ \ \I .._ I \ I :-:~ 'i 11 - .: I , _.~ ,; '1 ~ , . , ., I. ~ ~ \ 4lIi ~ ;I II F I , , '-_:' EXHIBIT B - TIF DISTRICT NO. 1-25 MAP t "' \\' d-- . . . 12. Planning Commission Agenda -9/01/98 Consideration of an amendment to the C A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUN This past spring, the Planning Commissionr viewed two concept plans put together by Star City Builders for land along the westerly e ension of 7th Street, south of Ruff Auto. The concept plans depicted townhouse develop ents of approximately 60 units. While design of the projects raised a number of issues r garding layout and access, one of the greatest concerns was in screening the project from ff Auto, a heavy industrial use with significant areas of outdoor storage. With the lay ofth land sloping toward the Ruff Auto property, it would be difficult to effectively screen the esidential views to the north. One of the concerns raised among Staff h s been the continued vitality and value of a neighborhood developed in that location. taff has discussed this issue and is suggesting that one option may be to redesignate the I d use for this parcel to a district which could more compatibly coexist with this use to the north, future commercial uses to the south, and high density residential to the east. Rezon ng this parcel to a light industrial zone, or for future commercial use may be appropriate, iven the surrounding land uses. There are still a number of issues to consider, including ccess to the site for commercial or industrial traffic. Since Star City has not actively pu sued their project, it was felt that it may be an appropriate time to hold a discussion on thi issue. B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS: 1. Motion to call for a public hearing or a rezoning ofthe subject property from R-3 to I-lA, or other district. 2. Motion to hold the issue over for a ditional discussion and research. C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff has no specific recommendation on is item at this time. It has been brought to the attention ofthe Planning Commission for fi rther action at the direction ofthe Commission. D. SUPPORTING DATA: none 15