Planning Commission Agenda 11-02-1998
.
.
.
AGEN A
REGULAR MEETING - MONTICE LO PLANNING COMMISSION
Monday, Novembe 2, 1998 -7 p.m.
Members:
Dick Frie,Robbie Smith, oy Popilek, Richard Carlson, Rod Dragstcn
Council Liaison:
Clint Herbst
1 . Call to order
2. Approval of minutes of the regular meeti g held October 6 & special meeting of October 12,
1998.
3. Consideration of adding items to the age da.
4. Citizens comments.
5. Public Hearing - Consideration of a requ st for a simple subdivision and combination of lots
within the R-2 Zoning District. Applica t, Rick Fair.
6.
Continued Public Hearing - Consideration of a request for a Conditional Use Permit for a
commercial laundry pick up and beauty hop, a Conditional Use Permit for a residential
structure of more than two units, a Cond tional Use Permit for combined commercial and
residential uses in one building. AND
Public Hearing - Consideration of a vari nce from building setbacks and a variance from the
required number of parking stalls all wit in the PZM Zoning District. Applicant: Pat &
Susie Townsend
7. Public Hearing - Consideration of a req est for variances to the setbacks for parking and
drive aisles in the "CCD" Zoning Distri t. Applicant, City of Monticello, Zoning
Administrator.
8. Sketch Review - Rolling Woods. Jeff O'Neill will give review at the Planning Commission
Meeting.
9. Adjournment.
.
.
.
MINUT S
REGULAR MEETING - MONTICE LO PLANNING COMMISSION
Tuesday, October , 1998 - 7 p.m.
Members Present: Richard Carlson, Rod Dragsten Dick Frie, Roy Popilek and Robbie Smith.
Also Present:
Mayor Bill Fair and Council Li ison Clint Herbst
Absent:
None
2. Consideration of a
MOTION WAS MADE BY ROD DRAG TEN AND SECONDED BY RICHARD
CARLSON TO APPROVE THE MINUT S OF THE SEPTEMBER 1, 1998 REGULAR
MEETING. Motion carried unanimousl .
3.
Consideration of additional items to the a enda.
The question was raised whether the publi hearing notices could be written so that it is
easier to locate the property identified in t e notice. The staff responded with
suggestions for improving the public heari g notices and this item was not placed on the
agenda.
Steve Grittman informed the Planning Co mission that representatives from the St.
Benedict's Center were present to request final review of the PUD for the senior housing
project. This was added to the agenda as' em #5a.
4. Citizen Comment
Pat Townsend spoke to the Planning Com ission regarding his request for a conditional
use permit and variances for his property. His proposal had come before the Planning
Commission at their September meeting. His request for a conditional use permit was
tabled and his variance requests were den'ed. He stated that his CUP was supposed to be
considered by the Planning Commission t this meeting but it was not placed on the
agenda. Pat Townsend also stated that he was not advised that if variances were denied
he could not reapply for the variances for year. Mr. Townsend felt that he had been
misled by the city staff and had been give inadequate information about the planning
process.
Fred Patch explained that the ordinance d es state that when a variance is denied a year
1
.
.
.
5a.
Planning Commission Minutes - 10/6/98
must elapse before the same variance can e applied for again. He noted that Mr.
Townsend had reduced the number ofvari ces he was requesting and the variance
requested had changed so he could apply fi r a variance but he would need to go through
the variance process again as this would b considered a new variance request. The new
variance request application had not been ceived in time to meet the notice
requirements for this meeting. It was also ointed out that the Planning Commission
could act on the conditional use permit at is meeting. However, if they did not act on
the matter at this meeting, the City would end the applicant a notice that the City was
extending the 60 day review period. The on sensus of the Planning Commission was
that since they had not seen the revised pr posal ofMr. Townsend, they would prefer to
act on it at the next meeting.
Consideration of final sta e Planned Unit
Chair Frie asked for the staff recommenda ion on this item. Steve Grittman indicated that
since the Planning Commission had only I mited time to review this, the staff was
recommending that the Planning Commis ion table the item until they had sufficient time
to review it. Because time is of the essen e, the Planning Commission discussed holding
a special meeting.
CHAIR FRIE MOVED AND ROBBIE S ITH SECONDED THE MOTION TO HOLD
A SPECIAL MEETING OF THE PLA ING COMMISSION ON MONDA Y,
OCTOBER 12, 1998 AT 5:00 P.M. Moti n carried unanimously.
5b.
Steve Grittman gave the staff report on th s item and pointed out the area being
considered for rezoning. The PZM Distric allows a mix of residential and commercial
uses while the B-3 District allows for dev lopment of commercial uses that are highway
or travel oriented. Because of an omissio in mailing the notices to the affected property
owners, the City Council directed that the Planning Commission take up this item again.
Mr. Grittman explained that the staff felt 't was more appropriate to rezone the parcel to
B-3 rather than add restaurants as an use i a PZM district. Going from B-3 to PZM to
church use to R-I would provide a good t ansition ofland use. Fred Patch submitted a
petition the city had received from prope y owners in the area. Although the applicant
had requested rezoning of the full 15 acre parcel, the staff was recommending that the
southerly portion of the property, approxi ately 9 acres be rezoned to B-3. Chair Frie
opened the public hearing.
.
.
.
Planning Commission Minutes - 10/6/98
Jim Shun, 1 09 Mississippi Drive presented petition to the Planning Commission
opposing the rezoning. It was felt that the ZM District was set up as a buffer between
the residential and commercial uses. Mike Brower, Youth Minister from A Glorious
Church submitted a petition and a videotap d message from the pastor expressing the
church's opposition to the rezoning. Jean aslin from the River Mill Addition expressed
her concern about additional noise from tra fie generated by the business. Jim Shun
asked if the City would allow a B-3 zoning within this PZM District would they allow
this use in other PZM zones. Steve Grittm responded that because this location was
one of the busiest traffic locations in Wrig t County as well as the City of Monticello and
was more commercial oriented than other ZM Districts, he felt that this type of use
would be more suitable in this specific PZ District. This site is unique from other PZM
Districts in its visibility, traffic and locatio. Shirley Mindis, 149 Riverview Drive asked
if there were plans to widen County Road 9 and emphasized the difficulty in getting on
the road with traffic in that area. A nurnbe of residents also addressed traffic concerns
and the impact the rezoning would have 0 the amount of traffic. The staff pointed out
that the PZM District does allow commerc al uses which could also impact traffic levels
in this area. Steve Grittman stated that bec use so many commercial uses were allowed
in the PZM District it diluted the PZM Dis rict's effectiveness as a buffer. Harley Eggers
from MMC spoke about the development lans for the property and noted at this time it
was not known what type of restaurant wo ld be located there. Other resident questions
included the impact the rezoning would ha e on property values and what other types of
uses could come into the B-3 zone ifthe restaurant failed. Chair Frie closed the public
hearing.
The Planning Commission reviewed the s tbacks from the residential area for a B-3
District, the boundaries ofthe PZM Distri t and the zoning of adjacent properties. Since
the property is located adjacent to the co ty roads, the county would have to give
approval to any access onto a county road. Richard Carlson felt that the PZM District
was meant as a transition zone between us s but that it also designated properties that
were in transition so the Planning Commi sion should not be surprised to get requests for
rezoning in the PZM District.
ROBBIE SMITH MOVED AND RICHA CARLSON SECONDED THE MOTION
TO DENY THE REZONING REQUEST BY MCC LAND COMPANY FOR B-3
ZONING BASED ON THE FINDING T AT THE PZM DISTRICT DOES THE
BETTER JOB OF LIMITING CaMMER IAL EXPANSION IN THE DISTRICT.
Motion carried with Rod Dragsten and Ro Popilek voting in opposition.
6.
Consideration of a front ard variance for
Janice Demars.
3
licant: Paul &
.
.
.
Planning Commission Minutes - 10/6/98
Mr. and Mrs. Demars, 1500 West River S reet are proposing to convert a portion of their
garage to living area and adding a new g age and porch and requested a variance in the
front yard setback requirements. Chair F e opened the public hearing. No one was
present other than the applicant to speak fi r or against the variance request. Chair Frie
closed the public hearing. There was som question on the amount of the variance
requested. Based on the survey submitte approximately a 2 ~ foot variance would be
needed. Rod Dragsten asked what the har ship was that would be the basis for the
Planning Commission granting the varian e. It was noted that the garage would be
approximately 24' and that the second stal could be moved back an additional 2' which
would then require a variance of only I'.
ROY POPILEK MOVED AND RICHA CARLSON SECONDED THE MOTION
TO APPROVE A VARIANCE IN THE F ONT YARD SETBACK FOR THE
PROPERTY AT 1500 WEST RIVER ST ET TO ALLOW FOR THE
CONSTRUCTION OF A GARAGE AN PORCH ADDITION WITH THE
V ARIANCE NOT TO EXCEED 2' AND HAT THE CURRENT PROPERTY MEET
CITY BUILDING CODE REQUIREME TS. Motion carried unanimously.
In further discussion on the variance Rich d Carlson stated that granting the variance
would allow the maximum use of the prop rty for residential purposes and that a variance
in the front yard setback would have less i pact than a side yard or rear yard variance.
Roy Popilek also commented that aestheti s of the property would benefit from the
granting of a 2' variance.
7.
J.
Steve Grittman presented the staff report e plaining that in order to resolve a lot line
dispute a portion of this property had been recently platted. The portion that the
applicant is proposing to build a garage on was not included in the plat. The applicant
would like to have the two parcels conside ed as a single parcel for the purpose of
determining setbacks. The filing policy 0 Wright County would not allow for the two
parcels to be combined as one without goi g through a replatting process. A deed
restriction is proposed to be included so th t any future sale of transfer of property would
cover both parcels.
Chair Frie opened the public hearing. Bev rly Abrahamson spoke requesting the
Planning Commission to respond favorabl on her application. Chair Frie closed the
4
.
.
.
9.
public hearing.
Planning Commission Minutes - 10/6/98
DICK FRIE MOVED AND ROD DRAGS EN SECONDED THE MOTION TO
APPROVE THE CONDITIONAL USE P RMIT FOR A PUD SUBJECT TO A DEED
RESTRICTION BASED ON THE FINDI G THAT A FILING PROBLEM AT
WRIGHT COUNTY HAS CAUSED THE APPLICANT'S PROBLEM AND NOT
BECAUSE OF ANY PHYSICAL PROBL M WITH THE PROPERTY OR
ADMINISTRATIVE CONCERNS OF TH CITY. Motion carried unanimously.
8.
Fred Patch presented the staff report on the proposed amendment. Aesthetic and safety
concerns prompted the proposed ordinance endment. The Planning Commission
discussed how loading berths are handled u der the current ordinance, whether loading
berths are allowed to encroach into the setb cks and whether there were any alternatives
to an ordinance amendment that would add ess the safety and aesthetic issues raised by
the staff.
Chair Frie opened the public hearing on the proposed amendment. No one was present to
speak for or against the proposed amendme t. Chair Frie closed the meeting. There was
general discussion by the Planning Commis ion as to the impact that the requirement
would have. Chair Frie asked if this amend ent would make the city's ordinance more
consistent with the ordinance of other cities It was noted that this provision is more
commonly found in the metro area cities. T ere was also discussion of the conditions the
City could impose in issuing a CUP for a 10 ding berth facing a public street.
DICK FRIE MOVED AND. ROD DRAGS EN SECONDED THE MOTION TO
TABLE THIS ITEM WITH THE INTENT 0 GET INPUT FROM THE IDC
(INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT CORPO TION) AND WITH THE OPTION OF
ESTABLISHING AN AMENDMENT TO CLUDE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
PROCEDURES WITH ADDITIONAL INP T FROM THE STAFF AND IDC. Motion
carried unanimously.
Consideration of an a lication for renewal
in an I-I zone. A licant: Monticello Publi
ermit allowin a ublic use
An interim use permit was issued by the Cit in 1997 to allow the Monticello School
District to house their Alternative Learning enter in an I-I (Light Industrial District).
5
.
.
.
10.
Planning Commission Minutes - 10/6/98
The permit was approved for a one year per'od. The staff recommended approval of an
interim permit with a number of conditions.
Chair Frie opened the public hearing. No 0 e addressed the Planning Commission on
this item. Chair Frie then closed the public earing. It was asked whether the new high
school includes space to house this program
ROBBIE SMITH MOVED AND ROY PO ILEK SECONDED THE MOTION TO
RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE ISS ANCE OF AN INTERIM USE PERMIT
TO THE MONTICELLO SCHOOL DIST CT TO OPERATE AN ALTERNATIVE
SCHOOL PROGRAM AT 1248 OAKWO D DRIVE EAST BASED ON THE
FINDINGS THAT THE PROPOSED USE ILL NOT INTERFERE WITH THE
CITY'S LONG RANGE OBJECTIVES TO ENCOURAGE INDUSTRIAL
DEVELOPMENT IN THE AREA AND T AT THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS
APPL Y TO THE INTERIM USE PERMIT:
A. THE INTERIM USE PERMIT WILL E PlRE ON AUGUST 31,1999.
EXTENSION OF THE USE OF THE S BJECT PROPERTY FOR PUBLIC
SCHOOL USE BEYOND THE TERMI ATION DATE MAYBE ALLOWED BY
RE-APPLICA TION TO THE CITY.
B. THE DISTRICT AGREES TO EXPAN THE PARKING AREA AT THE
DIRECTION OF THE CITY. THE CIT WILL DIRECT EXPANDED PARKING
BASED ON ITS OBSERVATION OF ARKING DEMAND WHICH MA Y
CAUSE THE USE OF ON STREET P RKING AT ANY TIME.
C. THE USE OF THE SUBJECT PROPE TY WILL BE DURING NORMAL
SCHOOL HOURS ONLY.
D. THE GRANTING OF THIS INTERIM SE PERMIT SHALL NOT BE
EFFECTIVE UNTIL AFTER INSPECT ON AND APPROVAL OF THE
BUILDING AND PROPERTY BY TH CITY BUILDING OFFICIAL.
Motion carried unanimously.
Consideration of reschedulin
due to the General Election.
Chair Frie noted that he had a conflict with he proposed November 4th date for the
Planning Commission meeting.
6
.
.
.
Planning Commission Minutes - 10/6/98
DICK FRIE MOVED AND RICHARD CA SON SECONDED THE MOTION THAT
BECAUSE OF THE GENERAL ELECTIO TO MOVE THE REGULAR PLANNING
COMMISSION MEETING TO MONDAY, NOVEMBER 1, 1998 AT 7:00 P.M..
Motion carried unanimously.
11. U date: Discussion on Rollin
Jon Bogart presented preliminary drawings 0 the Planning Commission on the Rolling
Woods Development which lies adjacent to e Wildwood Ridge area. The proposed
development now meets the criteria for ann xation. The property to be developed
consists of 40 acres, the northerly third of w ich is moderately wooded and the balance is
open field and pasture. They are proposing 0 create approximately 89 lots. Mr. Bogart
provided preliminary information regarding drainage patterns, streets and lot layout. The
preliminary plat will come before the Planni g Commission at their November meeting.
ROBBIE SMITH MOVED AND RICHAR CARLSON SECONDED THE MOTION
TO ADJOURN AT 10:00 P.M.
Motion carried unanimously.
Recording Secretary
7
.
.
.
s.
A.
REFERENCE AND BACKGROU
Planning Commission Agenda -11/02/98
est for a sim Ie subdivision and combination
licant: Rick Fair. (NAC)
The applicant controls Lots 8, 9, 10, and aIr of Lot 7 in Block 25 of the original plat of
Monticello. The property is located along rd Street, just west of Elm Street. Lot 6 and the
rest of Lot 7 are utiliied for a 'parking lot or the Legion which is east of Elm Street. The
land is zoned R-2. The applicant proposed to resubdivide the land into two parcels. Parcel
A would be 105 feet in width, and parcel would be 126 feet in width. Both lots would
meet all requirements of the R-2 Zoning D'strict of80 feet in width and 12,000 square feet
in area (Parcel A is almost exactly 12,000 'quare feet, and Parcel B is over 17,500 square
feet).
The project can be processed as a simple s bdivision since it is not increasing the number
of lots, and the underlying land is already latted. The City Engineer should comment on
the need for utility or drainage easements a ong the lot lines as is typically required of new
subdivisions. The survey does not show a y existing or proposed easements.
B. AL TERNA TIVE ACTIONS:
1.
Motion to approve the resubdivisi n as proposed, based upon a finding that the
proposed lots mcet all required oning standards, subject to a condition that
appropriate easements are identifie at the direction of the City Engineer.
2. Motion to deny the resubdivision.
3. Motion to table action on the subdi ision, subject to additional information.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of the resub IVISIOn request. The resubdivision creates
conforming lots on this block of generally ubstandard parcels.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Exhibit A - Site Plan
~/
~ I
/
I
/
/
/
/
/
~
i1
~
IJ,;
~
~
:c:
"l(
~
~
~
I
I
I
I
I
...
;'
~ ..
:'~ .. .
... ..
~ ~.. ;..':: ~j
.. r~ '.= iI
. ~ .
~ ~, ~ 1~= ,-
~ ~ .. ih
. .
....
~ . ~ t'~:
...:'" ~c.
t" · ~-
"..
.. ~. ~!:
. . :-. r"..I
to :~ ~ -''=;- ,~
110':11:., , .. .
3 ~ l~ ;~t
H~ \~
;; ~~~ ~ . .
.-.
~ iH c~;
~~ -'A
i=1If -i~ l
! ....
,,~ ,..... -'.. .
..
.- :die .... , k
~I :.~; it: d
..
.. ~n .b:'
".... faH
'.......... ...1:=;0
.......... ".
"-
'..-.
t
Ci: ...~
. ,.. ~ ~ "=
!.!s;~ ;
.... 1'tII """
t~OOM~ Q
::=d:~ ~
-Ill 1:= -c.. :;:
~.:-:~;; !:
;.it~; ;
2......., . i: ~ ar:
:":~~i. :troe
:i:;~t;~': -:i
hHe. i;
! t
r
.
1 Z.,
~
,
i .
~
it
....
"-
~
I
I
/
I
,.
..
/
I
,
,
I
I
I
:/
I
I
/
I
/
/
/
I
I
,
t
~
~ /
I
I
I
.I
I
I
....
''',
"'I
-Y..;>o ~
. . &
"-"
'......
""C
.......
-....
....,
<:>
..
"';-,
, ,
':-J.
t5 ':,
CJ::
~
.......
l\j
~..~
__ ilO '/:n
II ./:It.sr.o N...
~.iXh'iiii.'A · Site P,lan
...
'"
<:i
i!i
..:
"-
a
..
...
~
:g
~
'I>
~
C> .. ...
Q .... ~
I ~ ~
...
';':~id~ ~
~~~,~ ;;l
'fI,US". ....
~!ilt.. :!
I~
i ~ ~
I )0. .
I ~ I.
I ~ ~.
j &Q ~ ~:I
Ii:,.. ~
~ j ~~.
ala.
~ ..;:: ~
.. I~!',
~ "..
.
.
.
Planning Commission Agenda -11/02/98
6.
Consideration of a re uest for a Conditional Use Permit for a commercial use
in the PZM District a Conditional Use ermitfor mixed use in the PZM District
and a variance from the rear ard se back in a PZM District. A licant: Pat
and Susie Townsend. (NAC)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROU D:
Pat and Susie Townsend have resubmitted an amended variance request to
accommodate the proposed expansion of their home at 338 West Broadway. In
the original request, the Planning Comm'ssion had tabled action on two Conditional
Use Permits for commercial and mixed se in a PZM zone, and denied a series of
variances which were necessary to a commodate the proposed design. The
applicant was instructed to redesign th project to avoid the extensive variances
originally requested.
The proposed redesign shifts the proje t to the east on the lot, and eliminates the
conflicts with the parking and public ri ht of way which were concerns with the
original project. The new proposal retains an encroachment into the rear (south)
yard, requesting a setback of approx mately 22 feet, rather than the 30 feet
required. Since the redesigned project as submitted, the applicant has notified the
City that the second story apartments w re no longer proposed due to unexpectedly
high costs. Therefore, the project as it ow stands is a single story addition to the
existing home to accommodate a hair salon. The footprint of the single story
building is the same as the two story uilding which was being requested in the
amended project.
This project is significantly improved fro staff's point of view. However, variances
must still be put to the same test one of physical hardship and special
circumstances. Any variance request must be able to show that the property could
not be put to reasonable use under the zoning without the variance. In the PZM
District, single family dwellings such a the one on the current lot, are permitted
uses. Moreover, the parcel could acco modate a commercial building footprint of
at least 2,300 square feet meeting all setbacks. The proposed encroachment
results in a building addition footprint 0 approximately 2,600 square feet.
Finally, without the second story apartm nts, the parking on the site is no longer an
issue. The commercial portion meetin setbacks would require ten spaces. Ten
spaces are shown outside of the two garage spaces attributed to the existing
residence. As a result, it would appear hat it is possible to meet setbacks and still
make some reasonable commercial u e of the property. In addition, the City's
planning would typically encourage the ommercial uses to front on Broadway with
the residential uses next to the neighbor ood. Given that the predominant land use
.
Planning Commission Agenda -11/02/98
in the neighborhood is single family re idential, it would not appear reasonable to
grant variances for a commercial use hen conforming commercial use could still
be made of the land.
With regard to the Conditional Use Pe mits which are a part of this proposal, well
screened parking and activity areas wo Id be important to protect the integrity of the
adjoining neighborhood. Since the P M District anticipates a mix of uses, the
landscaping section of the zoning or inance is references, rather than the full
bufferyard requirements. Nonetheless, the ordinance would require one overstory
tree per 50 linear feet of lot perimeter, together with appropriate understory trees
and shrubs. The bufferyard ordinance ould require 120 plant units - the equivalent
of eight evergreen trees or 12 deci uous trees. The point of the buffering
requirements is to create an effective visual barrier between conflicting land uses.
A landscape plan illustrating an approp iate screening plan should be prepared for
City review.
A final consideration of the Conditional Use Permit for mixed use is a requirement
that dissimilar uses occur on separate loors of the building. It is the interpretation
of staff that this requirement is being complied with since the residential use is
several steps above grade and the co mercial use is at existing grade.
.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS
Decision 1: Variance from the rear ard setback requirement of 30 feet.
1. Motion to approve the variance ased upon a finding that reasonable use of
the property is not possible without the variance.
2. Motion to deny the variance ba ed upon a finding that reasonable use can
be made of the parcel without th variance, as evidenced by the conforming
single family home and a con orming commercial development of 2,300
square feet, just 10 percent les than that proposed.
3. Motion to table action on the variance, subject to additional information.
Decision 2: Conditional Use Permi for commercial use in a PZM District.
1. Motion to approve the CUP for commercial use, subject to a condition that
an appropriate buffering and s reening plan is submitted for City approval.
.
2.
Motion to deny the CUP for co mercial, based on a finding that the conflict
between the proposed commercial use with neighboring residential uses
.
Planning Commission Agenda -11/02/98
cannot be mitigated on the plan which has been proposed.
3. Motion to table action of the CU subject to addition information.
Decision 3: Conditional Use Permit for mixed commercial and residential
uses in the PZM District.
1. Motion to approve the CUP, subject to a finding that the commercial and
residential uses meet the intent of the "separate floor" requirement.
2. Motion to deny the CUP, based on a finding that the intent of the City's plan
is for commercial uses adjacent 0 Broadway, and residential uses adjacent
to existing residential neighbor oods.
3. Motion to table action on the C P, subject to additional information.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION
.
Staff recommends approval of the Co ditional Use Permits, but with the condition
that extensive landscaping improveme ts be made to the south property line which
buffer and screen the use from the nei hboring residential areas. As noted above,
the commercial and residential uses re flipped on this site compared to a more
preferred arrangement of commercial along Broadway. As a result, an intensive
landscaping plan should be required 0 mitigate the effects of the activity in the
parking areas which would be expose to the existing houses.
Staff does not recommend approval f the variance. Although the proposed use
may suggest that a larger or wider building is necessary to make most "efficient" use
of the site and accommodate the pr posed business, the greater intent of the
zoning ordinance is to protect existi g neighborhoods from negative impacts.
Encroachments into the required yard pace would be counter to this intent. If the
applicant needs additional floor space in which to conduct business, there is room
along the west side in which to build. Or, perhaps this lot is just not suited to the
mix of uses as intensively designed a the applicant has proposed. In either case,
the test for variance approval does n t appear to be met.
D. SUPPORTING DATA
.
Exhibit A - Site Plan
Olta,wIllAY
r------ -------~- ------------0----
I
.
I
.
I
I
.
I
.
I
:r
~
"'ll
Iii
... I
....
:.lI I
!!l
.
'I :i
IE
!i II
:1
I !
I
I ;
I
I
I
I
I
. - - - -- -
..
II
------------
.
t
I
i
i
I
I
-
,
6---------~~---- -----------0
i
I:
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
/
. I
I
I
,
I
I
I
,
I
I
.1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
,
I
\
I
Exhibit A · Site Plan 11. .
rl"
.
.
.
7.
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROU D:
Plmming Commission Agenda -11/02/98
of Monticello. (NAC)
The City of Monticello is seeking approv' 1 of variances to allow for the encroachment of
Community Center driveways and parkin spaces into the required five foot setback along
the railroad property and along 6th Street Parking areas and driveways were not exempted
from the setback requirements when th CCD District was established, even though
buildings were allowed to be built with a ero lot line.
As with all variances, the City should fin some special condition or physical hardship in
complying with the zoning standards. The architect has developed a building plan based on
internal space needs, and attempted to t the building into the area available between
Burlington Northern and 6th Street The n ed to maximize parking around the building has
resulted in an inadequate parking area dim nsion. The site plan has been devised to shift the
parking as far north as possible to create zero setback for the drive lanes adjacent to the
railroad. This results in a setback adjacen to 6th Street of approximately 3 feet
With a zero building setback requirement in the CCD, the City has been relatively liberal
with parking setbacks in its recent handli g of CCD projects. The City was favorable to a
variance for First Minnesota Bank which r duced parking setback, with the approval of the
community's Design Advisory T emli. In t at proj ect, the DA T commented that the resulting
plan was consistent with the Downtown R vitalization Plan, the controlling Comprehensive
Plan document for the area. On the Cub 'oods site, the City approved extensive parking
setback exemptions (for cross.easements d access) through the PUD process. While PUD
does not require the same findings as do s a variance, the basis for approval was that the
resulting project was superior in design a function to that which would have resulted had
full City standards been applied. At the Bondhus Industrial Site, a parking lot setback
variance was granted along the railroad si e of the property.
In this case, the City's request is based in hose findings - that the resulting project after the
variance will be of superior design and f nction to that where full parking setbacks were
strictly adhered to. Holding to the standar on the north would effectively eliminate access
which would reduce efficiency of circulati n, especially for service and emergency vehicles.
On the 6th Street side, the setback cou d possibly be met by reducing the drive aisle
dimensions. The City has t1exed the parki g lot dimensional standards in other commercial
projects, however, full dimension parkin lots are preferred.
.
Planning Commission Agenda -11/02/98
B.
ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1.
Motion to approve the variances, based on a finding that reasonable use of the
property as a community center re uires maximizing the number of parking spaces
and circulation routes as shown on the proposed plan.
2.
Motion to deny the variances, base on a finding that strict hardship is not found for
this request.
3.
Motion to table action on the vari ces, subject to additional information.
c.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of the varianc s if the Planning Commission believes that the
standard for varying parking setbacks on 0 her CCD projects has been met. As noted in this
report, that standard is a test which states t at the resulting project will be superior in design
and function to that which would result u cler the strict application of the City's parking
setback standards.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
.
Exhibit A - Site Plan
.
~ ct
,.
....
() '"
s
,..
'1:
0
i :A>
~:;;iii /CJ
~ ~
.~ c
,)I
~ -+-
('\
\-l
C '-.....J
Z
Vl
-l
f'T1
"U ~
>
I z
0
Z
..,
trl
@
H
C:I
J
;D~.
()
(Tl
r
r
o
..,
-<
()
(Tl
z
-l
(Tl
;0
~
' "
" ;,:g{tt-:'"
'"
, .
, " 1
'""
.. ,
"
I
I
1
I
L
-1
I
I
I
IT
..
.
!~
3.
.
~
~
...
-
po
::.
('
..
...
;0
o
o
:I:
"'
...
~'
(n
.
.
.
Planning Commission Agenda -9/02/98
5.
Public Hearin - Consideration of a re
of lots within the R-2 Zonin District.
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGRO
The applicant controls Lots 8, 9, 10, and alf of Lot 7 in Block 25 of the original plat of
Monticello. The property is located along rd Street, just west of Elm Street. Lot 6 and the
rest of Lot 7 are utilized for a parking lot r the Legion which is east of Elm Street. The
land is zoned R-2. The applicant proposed 0 resubdivide the land into two parcels. Parcel
A would be 105 feet in width, and parcel would be 126 feet in width. Both lots would
meet all requirements of the R-2 Zoning Di trict of 80 feet in width and 12,000 square feet
in area (Parcel A is almost exactly 12,000 quare feet, and Parcel B is over 17,500 square
feet).
The project can be processed as a simple s bdivision since it is not increasing the number
of lots, and the underlying land is already latted. The City Engineer should comment on
the need for utility or drainage easements a ong the lot lines as is typically required of new
subdivisions. The survey does not show an existing or proposed easements.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1.
Motion to approve the resubdivisio as proposed, based upon a finding that the
proposed lots meet all required z ning standards, subject to a condition that
appropriate easements are identified at the direction of the City Engineer.
2. Motion to deny the resubdivision.
3. Motion to table action on the subdiv sion, subject to additional information.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of the resub IVISlOn request. The resubdivision creates
conforming lots on this block of generally s bstandard parcels.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Exhibit A - Site Plan
1
Il
/~
~
(
"'I
II
~/
t
"
QI .....
.!: 1"-;' ~ "=
.J."'1.tt
:a~r._: ~
~,5~:I.1I ....
'": ~ Clg.; Q
:..."=~:Le !:~
-:If::!~~ ~::
~.~~ ~ f~
i~~!: 'oil 'i;.
"':;"'iL,;': _;:.".
~"~"III':, .!:ro:
:i;.c~~' ";:.~
I t c:) ",..."
!H;e u:o
3
.
~.
11:-
..
~
~
~
<:
'0;;(
~
~
J.-.t
CJ)
~
i1
[S
Ll:
~
~
~
....
i-~
~"
~..
. .
-:-0;:
.:~'^
~~;
..';"
. ~ I"~
:.~ra
~ ;i
~~.~
il~!
~?i: .., 4l(
~; ;9~
::''''1 :r.iJe
:~~
.,) -air
iii ~(;,:
~ t
.
,
1 z ~.
,
I
~
.
::.
-',
.,
~
I
I
..
~...
...........
/
I
I
I
,
.'
i
I
I
/
I
/
/
/
I
I
I
I
I
I
~
~
~ /
I
\....
I
I
~....,
/
--....
.......
.""c......~
,~. '...
,-
OJ ~, ~...
-, -',
.......
........
......
011 Gj
"'a-
........ ~
......... a:
.......
"- i
'" '-- "1
"'-"
"',
....,
""
-.....
,
-oq:
-Y"o ~
. . <9
I
I
f/
~ '
/
/
I
/
I
/
/
/
I
I
I
I
,
..
"
--,.
~'--
'-
~,~
:-.
,
'~
lJj "--
~ .,
cr:
0:
"
I
<:I
..
~
,
.../
"
~ -'Ii.
"<f" cr, ...
-------'~~
....
;-iiihiilnr · Site Plan
._ i!D'S;U
II .~.tJ'.D N"~{
.....
,
........
~ .-
:' ";.
....
=..-:
ti.::
.,
r...:
.
~i
~
H-
Q_O
r- tI:'
ki.:
~!:
0.-
, . .
".,
~i~
., .
.~.
-~.
~~~
2 ::
-...
:.=
~1.
= ,.
: ~ :.!,
. . .
k..
~lii
,~
\~
'-:]i
. k
~i
....
.-.....
'"
...
c:i
1!i
t
a
:g
~
or>
~
g .
a ~ ~
c;, "- l:t
6 ,
g ~ t;
-<l~qj~ ~
~ ~ ~.~ :
~;e~.. ::!
..
...
I~
! r ~ -
i ~ ~
I a. ' 'l;'
. :::i :it;;'
j II) ,....
."
. i ; i:
:3 ~ "":
IS "e.
..J '.....
JiO I ...
:! ~f.'~
.
.
.
6.
Continued Public Hearin
Planning Commission Agenda -9/02/98
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROU D:
Pat and Susie Townsend have applied for several zoning approvals to accommodate the
remodeling and expansion of an existing si gle family structure at 448 West Broadway. The
property is at the southeast corner of the in ersection of Broadway and Maple Street, and is
zoned PZM, Performance Zone-Mixed. T e project would include commercial uses which
are allowed in the PZM District by CUP, we residential units in remodeled or expanded
space which encroaches into the required re r 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 mixe 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 ofT-street
parking setback of five feet to zero feet, an an additional variance to allow encroachment
into the Maple Street right-of-way. Varian e requests are evaluated on the basis of physical
hardship - do the Ordinance standards creat a hardship in putting the property to reasonable
use under the Ordinance. In this case, the roperty is already being put to an allowed use -
single family residential - in the PZM Dist ict.
Moreover, there is adequate expansion a a within the applicable building setbacks to
increase the intensity of use on the site, if de ired. The property contains 116 feet of frontage
on Broadway and 166 feet of frontage on M pic, a total of 19,340 square feet. There is little
justification for finding a hardship on this p reel. In addition, any variances granted would
encroach toward single family residential uses, directly counter to the City's traditional
objective of protecting such neighborhoods rom 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
2
.
Planning Commission Agenda -9/02/98
neighborhoods. The subject property inclu es substantial buildable land which may be put
to these uses without variance.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
Decision 1: Conditional Use Permit for se vice commercial uses in a PZM Zone.
1. Motion to rccommend approval ofte CUP, based upon the condition that the project
is designed to meet all applicable z ning standards.
2. Motion to deny the CUP, based upo a finding that the proposed use is too intcnse
for the site, in consideration of the urrounding land uses.
3. Motion to table action on the CUP, ending additional information.
Decision 2: Conditional Use Permit for m xed residential and commercial uses in a PZM
Zone.
1. Motion to recommend approval ofth CUP, based upon the condition that the project
is designed to meet all appHcable z ning standards.
.
2.
Motion to deny the CUP, based upo a finding that the proposed use is too intense
for the site, in consideration of the s mounding land uses.
3. Motion to table action on the CUP, ending additional information.
Decision 3: Conditional Use Permit forres'dential uses with more than two units in a PZM
Zone.
I. Motion to recommend approval of th CUP, based upon the condition that the project
is designed to meet all applicable z ning standards.
2. Motion to deny the CUP, based upo a finding that the proposed use is too intense
for the site, in consideration of the s rrounding land uses.
3. Motion to table action on the CUP, ending additional information.
Decision 4: Variance from the rear yard se back from 30 feet to 10 feet in a PZM Zone.
.
1. Motion to approve the Variance, ba ed upon a finding that Maple Street serves the
role of front yard for this site.
2.
Motion to deny the Variance, based upon a finding that there is adequate buildable
3
.
Planning Commission Agenda -9/02/98
area on the site, and that is no hard hip in putting the property to reasonable use in
full conformance with a performa ce standards.
3. Motion to table action on the Vari nee, pending additional information.
Decision 5: Variance from the parking 10 setback 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 ben ficia1 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 hard hip in putting the property to reasonable use in
full conformance with a performan e standards.
3. Motion to table action on the Varia ce, pending additional information.
Decision 6: Variance from the regulation prohibiting public right-of-way use for private
off-street parking.
I.
Motion to approve the Variance, ba ed upon a finding that the provision of off-street
parking in this location will be ben ficial 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 hard hip in putting the property to reasonable use in
full conformance with a performan e standards.
3. Motion to table action on the Varia ce, pending additional information.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
StafTrecommends tabling the Conditional se Permit applications in Decisions 1-3 above,
pending a redesign of the project, and deni I of the Variance requests. We do not believe
that there is sufficient rationale for app oving the variances in accordance with the
requirements of the zoning ordinance. Wit denial of the variances, the project will need to
be redesigned significantly. The proposed uses are acceptable in a PZM Zoning District
when properly designed and adequate attenti nhas been given to protecting surrounding land
uses. The redesign of the project without variances should be returned to the Planning
Commission for review and approval.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
.
Exhibit A - Site Plan
4
IFll.QAOIlI4T
r------- -------~
I
,
I
,
I
I
,
I
,
I
::I
ru
In
.... ,
ii I
6
,
'I :i
IE
!i II
:1
I j
,
I i
I
,
I
I
- - -- -
Ii
------------
~
i
i
I
I
i
i
I
I
---------------
--
I
I ___
0-----..--....---------..-------..__
....
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I:
J:
1
I
I
I
I
I
,
I
,
I
,
I
I
I
,
I
I
I
,
I
,
I
/
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
, I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Exhibit A · Site Plan, n
b'l'
.
.
.
Planning Commission Agenda -9/02/98
7.
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGRO
The City of Monticello is seeking approv 1 of variances to allow for the encroachment of
Community Center driveways and parkin spaces into the required five foot setback along
the railroad property and along 6th Street. arking areas and driveways were not exempted
from the setback requirements when th CCD District was established, even though
buildings were allowed to be built with a ero lot line.
As with all variances, the City should fin some special condition or physical hardship in
complying with the zoning standards. The rchitect has developed a building plan based on
internal space needs, and attempted to fi the building into the area available between
Burlington Northern and 6th Street. The n ed to maximize parking around the building has
resulted in an inadequate parking area dim nsion. The site plan has been devised to shift the
parking as far north as possible to create zero setback for the drive lanes adjacent to the
railroad. This results in a setback adjacen to 6th Street of approximately 3 feet.
With a zero building setback requirement 'n the CCD, the City has been relatively liberal
with parking setbacks in its recent handlin' of CCD projects. The City was favorable to a
variance for First Minnesota Bank which r duced parking setback, with the approval of the
community's Design Advisory Team. In th t project, the DA T commented that the resulting
plan was consistent with the Downtown Re italization Plan, the controlling Comprehensive
Plan document for the area. On the Cub oods site, the City approved extensive parking
setback exemptions (for cross-easements a d access) through the PUD process. While PUD
does not require the same findings as doe a variance, the basis for approval was that the
resulting project was superior in design an function to that which would have resulted had
full City standards been applied. At the Bondhus Industrial Site, a parking lot setback
variance was granted along the railroad si e of the property.
In this case, the City's request is based in t ose findings - that the resulting project after the
varimlce will be of superior design and fu ction to that where full parking setbacks were
strictly adhered to. Holding to the standar on the north would effectively eliminate access
which would reduce efficiency of circulatio , especially for service and emergency vehicles.
On the 6th Street side, the setback coul possibly be met by reducing the drive aisle
dimensions. The City has flexed the parki g lot dimensional standards in other commercial
projects, however, full dimension parking ots are preferred.
5
.
B.
AL TERNA TIVE ACTIONS:
Planning Commission Agenda -9/02/98
Motion to approve the variances, based on a finding that reasonable use of the
property as a community center re uires maximizing the number of parking spaces
and circulation routes as shown on the proposed plan.
1.
2.
Motion to deny the variances, base on a finding that strict hardship is not found for
this request.
3.
Motion to table action on the varia ces, subject to additional information.
C.
S"rAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of the varianc s if the Planning Commission believes that the
standard for varying parking setbacks on 0 er CCO projects has been met. As noted in this
report, that standard is a test which states t at the resulting project will be superior in design
and function to that which would result u der the strict application of the City's parking
setback standards.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
.
Exhibit A - Site Plan
.
6
Vl
-i
I'Tl
"'U ~
r
}>
. Z
0
Z
..,
()
0
I
i~ ~
.i"~ ~
c
z
t':I
:x:
;:c:
H
bd
H
.:
J
;p~.
()
fTl
r
r
o
..,
-<
()
fTl
z
..,
fTl
::u
---J----C T
t. "i:i;~n1'i':'.r..
I
I
I
I
L
--f
"-
.
"~
a __
"
3.
.
~
~
~
.....
~
;')
<-
'"
ot-~
A.)
(0
~
C
..
'"
~.
('\
\-.J
V
._...j ..',r"___
~r
"-
\.)
....
_.
p
')
"
'ti
~
-z
o
;0
--l
J:
1'1
"
Z
"
o
l>
tJ