The URL can be used to link to this page

Planning Commission Agenda 01-03-2006 . J. 2. , ~. 4. 5. . 6. AGENDA MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION TUESDAY, JANUARY 3rd, 200Q 6:00 PM Commissioners: Dick Frie, Rod Dragsten, Lloyd Hilgart, William Spartz, and Sandy Suchy Council Liaison: Glen Posusta Staff: Jeff O'Neill, Fred Patch, John Simola, Bruce Westby, Angela Schumann and Steve Grittman - NAC Call to order. Approval of the minutes of the regular Planning Commission meeting of Tuesday, December 6th, 2005. Consideration of adding items to the agenda. Citizen comments. Continued Public Hearing - Consideration of a request for an Amendment to the Monticello Zoning Ordinance regulating Open and Outdoor Storage in I-I, 1-2, and 1-1A areas. Applicant: City of Monticello Continued Public Hearing - Consideration request for Variance from the Monticello Zoning ordinance to allow an 11,760 square foot detached accessory structure in an 1-2 district. Applicant: Wallboard, Inc. 7. Public Hearing - Consideration of a request for Conditional Use Permit for a Concept Stage Planned Unit Development in a PZM District. Applicant: UP Development 8. DWSMA and Zoning Presentation by City Engineer and Public Works Director 9. Adjourn. . . . . MINUTES MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION TUESDAY, DECEMBER 6th, 2005 6:00 PM Commissioners Present: Dick Frie, Rod Dragsten, William Spartz, and Sandy Suchy Commissioners Absent: Lloyd Hilgart, Council Liaison Present: Glen Posusta Staff Present: Jeff O'Neill, Fred Patch, Steve Grittman - NAC, and Angela Schumann I . Call to order. Chairman Frie called the meeting to order at 8:00 PM and declared a quorum, noting the absence of Commissioner Hilgart. Frie eXplained that while Deputy City Administrator O'Neill was not present, he would be available for the meeting if needed. 2. Approval of the minutes of the regular Planning Commission meeting of Tuesdav. November 1st. 2005. MOTION BY COMMISSIONER DRAGSTEN TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 1",2005. MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER SPARTZ. MOTION CARRIED, 4-0. 3. Consideration of adding items to the agenda. NONE. 4. Citizen comments. NONE. 5. Introduction of new citv staff. Patch introduced new City Engineer Bruce Westby and new City Building Inspector OJ Hennessey. Chairman Frie asked the secretary to provide contact information of both the City Engineer and Building Inspector to the Commissioners, should questions arise. 6. Public Hearing - Consideration of a request for Variance from the Monticello Zoning ordinance to allow an ] 1.760 square foot detached accessory structure in an 1-/ district. Applicant: Wallboard. Inc. Grittman reviewed the staff report, indicating that the applicants are proposing to construct a second accessory building. In the 1-2 zoning district, and others like it, accessory building space is limited to 30% ofthe principal building. Grittman eXplained that the applicant's Planning Commission Minutes 12/06/05 . proposal would exceed that by about 2500 square feet. Grittman reported that the applicant is proceeding with a building permit to move forward with building that complies with the ordinance at this time. If the variance is denied, they will proceed with that building. Grittman referred to the hardship requirements for a variance, listed within the ordinance. In this case, the site is used legally as an industrial property, and the applicant can expand the building and build an accessory structure up to 30% of the principal building without the variance. Grittman stated that in staffs opinion, there is no hardship, and therefore no justification for the variance. Dragsten asked if the other accessory building shown on the site would remain. Grittman confirmed. Chairman Frie opened the public hearing. Mike Sand, representing Wallboard Inc., at 207 Dundas Road, addressed the Commission. Sand eXplained that the company had applied for the variance above 30%, as they wanted a larger building that would get materials out ofthe elements. They were also thinking about doing an additional shed. Sand stated that the company had also considered adding on to the east side of the principal building, which would eliminate the need for the variance. Sand eXplained that in terms of a hardship, their company is limited in allocation as to what they can take in supply at one time. Sand stated that they need to take everything they can get at one time, which is the reason for seeking more space. Hearing no further comments, Chairman Frie closed the public hearing. . Frie asked if Sand was in attendance at any of the open and outdoor storage meetings. Sand stated he had been at the last meeting. 2 Dragsten asked when Wallboard was planning on starting construction on the building. Sand stated that they have applied for footings and foundation for the accessory structure. Sand stated that construction on the principal building expansion would hopefully begin in spring, with completion in 2006. Spartz asked if, with the additional principal building expansion, they would still be exceeding the 30%. Sand stated they would be within the 30% range with that expansion. Suchy asked what type of materials would be used on the accessory structure. Sand stated it would be steel columns with steel siding. He stated that the front face would be open. Frie referred to the justifications for variances as required by ordinance. Frie noted that the staff report suggests that the appl icant has opportunity to expand current building or combine an expansion of the principal building with the accessory. Grittman stated that either would increase the utility of the property. Dragsten noted the expansion of the principal building would eliminate need for the variance. Frie inquired whether the outcomc on the principal building would be based on this evening's decision. Sand stated they are planning on proceeding with the accessory building no matter what, but was not sure about the primary expansion. . Posusta stated that personally, because of the attractiveness of the current building, most people don't even notice the buildings behind. Posusta stated that he also believes that the Commission would address the open and outdoor storage issue by allowing him to put up this . . . Planning Commission Minutes 12/06/05 building. If the building is similar to the existing and helps promote their business and not drive them somewhere else, Posusta stated that he doesn't know why the Commission wouldn't allow that, other than that we are not following the letter of City law. Frie noted that the applicant's two other options accomplish the same thing, and stated that the Commission still needs to abide by the ordinance in their recommendation. Frie eXplained that the Commission can't base their decision on looks or economics. Posusta stated that by the same token, the Commission is looking again at a potential outdoor storage issue. Grittman responded that staff's position is that the variance ordinance has required findings that come out of our ordinance and also state statutes. While staff and Commission may think what the applicant is proposing is a good idea, they have to follow the ordinance. Grittman stated that if they were coming in with the expansion first, the variance request would be unnecessary. The request is a timing issue. Sand stated that open and outdoor storage is a big issue for them. He noted that al] of their storage would no longer be outdoors, it would now be inside. Sand indicated that his realtor had told him there were no restrictions for accessory structures. If we had learned this restriction earlier, they wouldn't be here. Patch stated that if the ordinance doesn't provide sufficient arca via the 30%, it could certainly be amended. Although staff and the Commission are somewhat sympathetic, the request may require an ordinance change rather than variance. Frie asked if perhaps the Commission should continue any action and allow time for the applicant to meet with staff to come up with an alternative. Sand stated that he was receptive to hat option. Frie noted that a recommendation would need to he made at the January meeting. MOTION BY COMMISS]ONER DRAGSTEN TO CONT]NUE THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR THE W ALLBOARD VARIANCE REQUEST, TO PROVIDE THE APPLICANT THE OPPORTUNITY TO EXPLORE OPTIONS OTHER THAN THE TWO PRESENTED. MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER SUCHY. Spartz asked what Sand would be looking for in January. Sand stated that they would be looking to bring the principal building expansion plan forward so that Commission knew there was something firm. Patch stated that ifthey were to pull the permit for both, it would be good for a year. Patch suggested tbat by pulling the permit for both, Wallboard could move on tbe proposed accessory structure without the variance. "'lOTION CARRIED, 4-0. 7. Public Hearing - Consideration of a reouest for Rezoning from PZM (Pcrformance Zone Mixed) to B-3 (Highwav Business) and consideration ofa reouest for a Zoning Text Amendment to allow a Tire Sales and Service as a Conditional Use within a PZM district. Applicant: Kean of Monticello Grittman eXplained that in conversations with the applicants prior to the meeting, they had requested that the only item for consideration be the rezoning. Frie restated for the record that tbe alternative for action is strictly the rezoning. 3 Planning Commission Minutes 12/06/05 . Grittman stated that the applicants are seeking to accommodate a tire service store as part of a retail strip center. They are requesting a rezoning to B-3 in order to accomplish this use. Grittman noted that as eXplained previously, the PZM district provides a land use transition between high and low intensity land uses. Staff had not recommended approval based on the use statements of the two districts. Grittman indicated that the PZM ordinance is set up to require some kind of slow transition between residential and commercial area. He stated that it is staff's opinion that condition is still present at this location. Grittman said that a PZM designation is well suited to this site, and that even a potential amendment to allow the tire salc and service use would create the same issues. Grittman reported that staff continues with its original recommendation, which is to deny the reqnest. Frie referred to the other agenda item, also requesting a rezone in the same area. Frie asked if the rezones would be considered spot-zoning. Grittman stated that staff had looked at rezoning this entire area, in order to avoid spot-zoning. Chairman Frie opened the public hearing. . Maxine Lilja addressed the Commission as a resident of the Riverview Drive townhomes, directly behind the property requested to be rezoned. Lilja commented that it was her understanding that according to the notices and letters received previous to the meeting, the request is being made to allow an auto accessory store. Lilja stated that the residents would I ike to know where the development would start, referring to trees and the location close to the river. Lilja noted that the B-3 zoning district is designed to capture high traffic, and she indicated that there are already a lot of other locations within the City suitable for this type of development. Lilja stated that her concerns are the noise, lighting, signage, traffic, potential environmental effects, and stacking and storage associated with this request. Lilja stated that it seems that this space is too small and too close to a residential area for such an intense business. Lilja asked about the yellow lines shown on the location map used for sitc location reference. Grittman stated that the yellow lines do not indicate areas included in the rezoning request, but rather show parcel delineations. Lilja asked about the amendment. Grittman stated that the applicants are not requesting the amendment. Grittman stated that if rezoned, the uses Lilja referred to are potential uses within the B-3. For many ofthose uses, Grittman indicated that the applicant would have to come back for a conditional use permit, including for the proposed tire and battery store. Lilja inquired whether when the request is approved or disapproved, residents would be notified what was proposed to go in. Grittman confirmed that if a use requires a conditional use permit, they would bc notified. Gittman also noted that the district ordinance language identifies what would be allowed within a given district via permitted use or conditional use. 4 . Lilja asked for permission to read a letter prepared by another resident of the town home association. Frie noted that the Commission had also received another resident letter and asked for a summary ofthe other letter. Lilja stated that the letter outlined many of the same concerns Lilja had expressed earlier, which included noise, traffic and potential environmental effects. The properly owner stated that she sleeps during day and works at night. The writer had stated that car repair less than one hundred feet away will destroy what she pays taxes for. The writer asked what the City would do to protect residents from noise, safety issues, and maintain ing the road into MacCarlund Plaza. Planning Commission Minutes 12/06/05 . Lilja asked the Commission to use the zoning that is in place and help the applicants be more creative in their thinking. Lilja stated that the residents are not in favor of this at all. Frie asked if she speaks for the group. Lilja confirmed. Walt Albold, resident of Riverside Drive townhomes, also addressed the Commission. Albold stated that there should be something in writing regarding the buffer zone, ifthe rezoning is approved. Albold stated that a fence and shrubs are not good enough. Abel asked ifthe applicants had developed MacCarlund. He stated that one thing the residents had come across was that the City was not responsible for the maintenance happens ofthe streets, which he indictaed he did not understand. Frie asked Albold if residents pay association fees. Albold stated that they do. Frie stated that it is most likely that maintenance, including private streets, was the initial intent of the association fees. Albold stated that residents were not aware of that when they moved in. Frie asked staffto respond. Grittman stated that the street that serves the townhouse development is private. The association owns the street and is responsible for the maintenance. Frie stated that was his understanding with associations as the responsible party. Frie suggested that the residents visit with their association company on this issue. Frie noted that if the rezoning is accomplished, all buffer information has to be laid out before any permits are issued. . Dan Gassier spoke to the Commission on behalf of A Glorious Church. Gassier stated that he wanted to address both the rezoning and amendment. Gassier noted that the Commission had held a discussion a month or two ago about the types of uses that would be allowed in commercial districts. Gassier stated that in the City's own staff report, a recommendation for denial was spelled out. Gassier indicated that he shares concerns already heard here. He stated that the church abuts PZM property that he does not want to see the PZM zoning changed. Grittman clarilied that the amendment item is not up for consideration. Carol Albold, 149 Riverview Drive, stated that she is concerned about Hart Boulevard and the traffic associated with these types of uses. She inquired what changes would be made to handle additional use, as there is already quite a bit of traffic located here. Maryann Pearson, Riverside town home resident, stated that it was her understanding that the City of Monticello was paid $35,000 to make sure these kinds of complications didn't come up. Staff and the Commission stated that they were unaware of any such negotiation. Hearing no further comments, Chairman Frie closed the public hearing. Suchy stated that she is not in favor of rezoning this parcel. Suchy noted that the northwest corner ofthe lot is within close proximity to Swan Park, which she stated is a wonderful asset for the City of Monticello. Suchy stated that the uses allowed under a rezoning may create more noise and potential detrimental effects to this area. 5 Spartz asked about the zoning designation on the other side of Highway 75. Griltman stated that the other side is B-4. . Frie noted that PZM is a transitional zone and asked what the difference is between B-4 and B-3. Grittman eXplained that the B-3 zone is geared toward automobile uses. B-4 is more rctail oriented, which is why it was applied to Ryan site. Dragsten noted that by ordinance, anything in B-3 would be allowed in B-4. Griltman noted that the B-4 district allows morc lypes of uses than B-3. In the future, Frie asked slaffto provide all three columns of comparable lIses when the potential rezoning is to commercial. . . . Planning Commission Minutes 12/06/05 Dragsten stated that even ifthe zoning doesn't change, the area will change. Dragsten noted that by ordinance, the property owners are allowed to put in a stripmall currently. He stated that there are many commercial uses that would be allowed in PZM. Dragsten stated that across the street, the City has already rezoned to B-4. He commented that the City had also just rezoned an area next to a senior housing facility to B-4. Dragsten stated that this area would fit with B-3 in his opinion. His stated concern is the permitted uses in the B-3 and B-4. Frie asked Dragsten if this rezoning was approved, wouldn't this put other PZM areas in jeopardy. Dragsten stated that it could, but he didn't know that there are a lot of PZM areas surrounded on three sides by commercial or industrial zones. MOTION BY COMMISSIONER SUCHY TO RECOMMEND DENIAL OF THE REZON lNG, BASED ON A FINDING THAT DUE TO THE BOUNDARY WITH RESIDENTIAL USES AND THE CONFLICTS THAT COULD BE CREATED BY B-3 USES, PZM IS THE MOST SUITABLE ZONING DISTRICT FOR THE SITE. Frie noted there will not be two decisions. MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER SPARTZ. MOTION CARRIED 3-1, WITH COMMISSIONER DRAGSTEN IN DISSENT. 8. Public Hearing - Consideration of a request for Rezoning from PZM (Performance Zone Mixed) to B-3 (Highwav Business) or B-4 (Regional Business). Applicant: MMC Land Company Grittman noted that as discussed, the purpose of the PZM district is to create a transition between uses. Grittman commented that in tbis case, the bulk of residential is buffered by the parcel that would retain the PZM designation. Staff is recommending rezoning to B-4, which is the most common commercial zone in the area. Grittman re-stated that B-3 is focused on automobile uses, while B-4 accommodates a more acceptable range of retail commercial uses. Grittman reported that in this case, there remains a transition to residentially zoned properties. For that reason, staff recommend approval ofthe rezoning. Chairman Frie opened the public hearing. Rick Williamson, MMC Land Company and property owner, made himself available to ans\ver questions. Frie stated that tbe agenda item calls for rezoning to B-3 or B-4 and asked if Williamson is receptive to B-4. Williamson confirmed that he was. Dan Gassier again addressed the Commission, and stated that he prefers the entire area to stay PZM due to the residential uses directly across from this property. He stated that adjacent owners need to protect the value of their properties. Carl Talonen, 9796 Ilart Boulevard, stated that he does not want to see the change to B-4, especially the eastern-most parcel. Frie asked him to note his location. Talonen stated that he owns the parcel directly across tram eastern parcel. David Gassier, 61 17 Mill Run Road, asked if the eastern parcel would be rezoned the B-4, would other restrictions apply, especially as it is so close to residential. For example, referring to adult uses, Gassier stated that it was noted previously that there are restrictions in terms of distance. Grittman responded that the primary requirement would be the buffer requirement 6 Planning Commission Minutes 12/06/05 . for distance and screening between residential and commercial uses. Grittman stated that there are also some use restrictions in terms of separation. Gassier asked if it would be possible for a tire shop could be located on the eastern parcel under B-4 zoning. Grittman confirmed it would be allowed, although it would require a conditional use permit. Frie restated that the rezoning does not allow anything in until applied for, in terms of conditional uses. Gassier stated that his main concern is noise. Josh Blonigen, 9806 Halt Boulevard, stated that he is one ofthe closest residents to these parcels and is opposed to the rezoning. Blonigan noted the potential traffic. Blonigan stated that while he recognized that some uses under a B-4 may need to come back for a conditional use permit and that the interchange may cause the area to change in terms of use, he stated that if the area is rezoned the chance is not good for the neighborhood that the request for CUP would be denied. Yvette Weirgang, 309 Riverview Drive, said that her concern is that, even if the property owners have to come back to the Commission and Counci I, once rezoned, the potential contlicts are still one step closer. She stated that many more business are permitted, and there is less the residents can say. Frie asked ifshe had seen the list of permitted and conditional uses, and ifnot that she check the list for reference. . Hearing no further comment, Chairman Frie closed the public hearing. . Dragsten commented that he understands the neighbor's concerns. However, he stated that when you have a concrete plant across the street, it seems that anything that would come in would be less noise than before. Dragsten stated that there may actually be less noise with the new arrangement ofthe interchange. Dragsten stated that the size of this site will also restrict \-vhat \vill go in. Spartz inquired whether the Commission would have to approve the whole parcel. Grittman stated that they could choose to rezone any or all of the parcels. Spartz agreed that someday, something more commercial will go on those parcels. Spartz indicated that as the parcel to the east does still abut the residential, the rezoning is still a concern. Suchy has a tendency to agree with Spartz and would recommend leaving the eastern parcel as PZM. Posusta stated that he sees this area as a lot more conducive to B-3. Posusta stated that he thinks people need to be reminded that the easterly lot will face a frontage road or face 7. He indicated that what will face the residential would probably be the back yard and be buffered. 7 F rie stated that the rezoning to commercial is consistent with the camp plan. MOTION BY COMMISSIONER DRAGSTEN TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE REZONING TO B-3, BASED ON A FINDING THA T THE MOST APPROPRIATE ZONING FOR THE AREA (DUE TO HIGHWAY PROXIMITY AND TRAFFiC VOLUMES) is THE B-3 DISTRICT. MOTION FAILS FOR LACK OF SECOND. . MOTION BY COMMISSIONER FRIE TO RECOMMEND APPROV AL OF THE REZONING TO B-4, BASED ON A FINDING THAT THE MOST APPROPRIATE ZONING FOR THE AREA (DUE TO HIGHW A Y PROXIMiTY AND TRAFFIC VOLUMES) IS THE B-4 DISTRICT. . . . Planning Commission Minutes 12/06/05 MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER DRAGSTEN TO REZONE TO B-4, CLARIFYING THAT THE MOTION WOULD BE FOR ALL THREE PARCELS. Spartz noted the discussion surrounding the Commission's previous approval for AST Sports, suggesting that moving forward to B-3 or B-4 will open up the area to increased traffic. Spartz stated that he doesn't know that the City has a handle on the traffic situation currently. Posusta commented that because ofthe redesign of the interchange, Highway 75 will have less traftlc than now. Suchy stated that this request seems very similar to the previous request and stated that she does not want residents to be subject to the noise and traffic. Suchy indicated that the City must be very specific about this when coming so close to the residential area. IN A VOTE ON THE MOnON ON THE TABLE, THE MOnON FAILS 2-2, WITH COMMISSIONERS SUCHY AND SPARTZ IN DISSENT. Grittman stated that they can go to Council with split vote. Frie directed that the item go on to the Council. 9. Public Hearing - Consideration of a request for Development Stage PUD and amendemtn to PUD for a retail/commercial development on Monticello Travel Center 20d Addition. Applicant: Mielke/Loch Retail Development Grittman reviewed the staff report, stating that this parcel is pali of an approved PUD for the larger plat. As part of that PUD, Grittman eXplained that an amendment for development stage PUD is needed in order to change the use from the approved gas/convenience store to a multi-tenant retail center. Grittman noted the proposed project;s location in relationship to the balance of the block, adjacent roads, and access points. Grittman stated that the rear ofthe building faces Cedar. He also noted that the elimination of the convenience store/gas station creates an opportunity for retail development that is a less intense use. The previous plan also had circulation conflicts, which this plan improves upon. However, Grittman did note that the proposed use does change the drive aisle, due to the size of building. Grittman stated that a series of parking stalls back into the drive aisle. Grittman stated that staff has asked the applicant to consider some design modifications to maximize the visibility in this location, which they indicated they would do. Grittman referred to the other comments I isted in Exhibit Z. These include conditions which would address the small amount of green space and the treatment ofthe face of the building along Cedar. Statlwould recommend a curbed island at the front entrance of the building with a landscaping treatment. Staff has also suggested that where there is sidewalk, the applicant could add some alternative types of paving to enhance pedestrian areas. Grittman stated that as noted in the report, they do need to add landscaping just to meet code. In discussion with the applicant, they have agreed that they will also try to accomplish the dress- up ofthe Cedar side ofthe huilding. Grittman stated that staff feel that the conditions can be meet, and that the conditions mostly serve as reminders as part of the final package. Staff recommends approval of the request. Frie inquired about approving both the development stage PUD and amendment at one time. Grittman stated that they go together. Suchy asked if the Commission could require signage on both sides as she thinks it would be 8 Planning Commission Minutes 12/06/05 . helpful to consumers. Grittman stated that would be a good idea and noted that there would be signs on both sides. Patch stated that the utility area lacks signs and explained that may be because signs imply entrance. Patch stated that what the applicants have proposed will help, but not confuse. Frie referred to the sign ordinance in terms of what the applicant had proposed. Grittman stated that the report discusses the signage allowances, which they are a little above. However, the Commission could approve that overage via the PUD. Spartz asked about required and proposed parking spaces in relationship to the parcel to north. Grittman stated that there is a shared parking situation. The applicant and staff knew there would be a shortage, but the idea is that they would share the spaces. Spartz asked about the island staff proposed. Grittman commented that the addition would create a traffic break and allow the opportunity for the appl icant to provide some additional green to the project. Dragsten stated that he was also concerned about parking. Dragsten asked ifthis property abuts Wendy's. Grittman answered that it does not. Grittman said that one parcel is awaiting development and that is where the discussed "future" parking would come into play. Dragsten asked whether it would still be available should this plan move forward. Grittman confirmed. Dragsten asked about the overages on signs. Grittman stated that the freestanding signage is consistent with what was originally approved. Dragsten stated that he does like the building and likes the design. Dragsten stated that he thinks it will be a nice addition. Chairman Frie opened the public hearing. Dan Mielke, Mielke Development and AI Loch, of Loch Jewelers, addressed the Commission as applicants. . Mielke referred to the uniqueness of the site due to the dual street exposure, and eXplained that the architect had worked to carry features around both ends of the building. Mielke stated that a lot of additional parking exists on the Ultra Lube site, which can easily take care of the parking issue. In terms of the signage, Mielke referred to the previously approved plat and PUD. Loch stated that they will be enhancing the corner entrance, putting in a concrete island. Loch stated that by doing this, they will be able to control parking access, and it will also be a walkway. 1t wi II not be landscaped. Frie asked for the record ifthat would satisfy the condition. Grittman stated that it would. Mielke reviewed the other conditions. Referencing that the landscape plan is to inelude additional trees, Mielke stated that the landscape architect had came up with 11 trees versus what was recommended. Mielke also referred to the requirement for the 35 shrubs, stating that because the City required a 15' easement due to the large amount of utilities, there is limited space for landscaping. Mielke also stated that there was a miscalculation in the staff report for perimeter footage. Therefore, Mielke stated that he believes they have met the code. Grittman stated that the appl icant and staff can work that out and determine if code has been met. Mielke stated that they have no problem with the photometric plan being subject to review and approval. . Frie commented that Grittman had noted in his report that tbe nine listed conditions are there for reference. Mielke stated that he would like to check tbem off with Commission so tbat they don't come back later. Patch stated that the lighting plan will be subject to review as part of building permit. Once into construction documents, the individual lights will be reviewed, as well. Patch stated that for the most part, these items are laundry list conditions that are typical to any development. 9 Planning Commission Minutes 12/06/05 . Mielke and Loch indicated that they had no problem with condition 5, which required that the building elevations be similar on all sides, or with condition 7 requiring that grading, drainage and utility plans be subject to the comment of the City Engineer. However, Mielke requested that condition 6, required pavers in sidewalk area, be removed. Mielke stated that this parcel is part ofa larger PUD, and this has not been required on any other parcel. Mielke also questioned why they would need an agreement drafted by the City Attorney, as conditioned. Grittman stated that it is essentially a PUD agreement, and that the requirement isn't new, just addresses these improvements specifically. Hearing no further comments, Chairman Frie closed the public hearing. Dragsten referred to the easement area on the corner of Cedar and Chelsea, inquiring if this area poses a problem. Grittman stated that the only issue is tree count. The shrub count that applicant proposes looks fine. Grittman stated that he would prefer to keep the pavers as a condition to mitigate the amount of pavement, but he is receptive to colored concrete to separate pedestrian areas from the parking area. Spartz stated that he is curious about the aesthetics question of the pavers. He stated that Counci I has dealt enough with this, and it is probably all right to leave it out. . Suchy asked about the parking in the northeast portion and the stacking of vehicles on Cedar. Mielke presented the site plan, referring to the parking and stacking via the central drive aisle. Mielke stated that there is a dip in the central aisle to slow traftic through the site. Suchy asked iftraftic becomes a problem, would the applicants have any issue with putting up additional signage. Mielke stated they do not, as they also have a vested interest in good traffic flow. Dragsten stated that those stalls won't be used that much, as drivers will anticipate that they won't be able to get in or out easily. Posusta stated this project will be a great addition. MOTION BY COMMISSIONER SPARTZ TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND DEVELOPMENT STAGE PUD BASED ON A FINDING THAT THE PROPOSED PLAN CONSISTENT WITH THE GOALS OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, SUBJECT TO THE APPLICABLE CONDITIONS OF EXHIBIT Z, AS FOLLOWS. I. \ shares aeeess 3USIUfleRt BRd ..Hares ]9arLiFlg agreemeHt skall Gt! flreJ3areEl aAa 8Frlrl"J'.ed RJ' tHe Cit:'. 2. Till::! ,:trifled ~:rea ,,,'i~hin tHe SS'JfJ:J." est J3SF1:iSR eftl10 ~'ite jl~:lJ Be n.isei:! tiKi fl:JplaeeEi',' itA laHEiseaJ3ed isL:R8S. 3. TAe H.J3J31ieaRt :;hall n.~', ise the lanElseal3ing J3lafl tB in:.:l-,'H,ie ~:r:lHiti8nal trees [,(['ld sAruHs a-~ tAe ]geriFt1eter sfth3 8Hildins and ,"ite ~:rea B"' Hetes iA tRis reJ3srt. '\11 L:nd:eaflin; areas shall 13e irrigalaEl ar:.El flrB"iEle a miniwl'.JFFl of a Bile :ear LlI1Lb,~afliFlg gU8FaFlt3e. 4. 5. . 6. , ,. The photometric plan shall be subject to the review and approval of tile Building Official. The building elevations shall be similar throughout the emire building, with false windows al the southern. eaSlern, and northern portions of the building. TI"Je e8Berete '''alL 6GJlAsE:ting the parLiFlg area:8 the s'3ilEiiRg shall iRGluEle a Hli::.tl:Hl:! of eel::orali e fl~: 't:F,'. The grading. drainage, erosion control and utility plans are subject to the review and approval of the City Engineer. 10 Planning Commission Minutes 12/06/05 . 8. The applicant shall enter into a development agreement and pun agreement with the City to be drafted by the City Attorney. 9. Additional comments from City Staff, Planning Commission or City Council. MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER DRAGSTEN. CHAIRMAN FRIE REQUESTED THAT CONDITION 3 BE INCLUDED FOR THE RECORD. MOTION CARRIED AS AMENDED, 4-0. 10. Public Hearing - Consideration of a request for Preliminarv Plat and Variance to the R- I Zoning District Standards for lot width for Pine View, a 5-unit single-familv development. Applicant: West Side Market Grittman reviewed the staff report, stating that the first phase ofthe proposed plat consists of four single-family home lots. It is staff's understanding that the applicant intends to plat a fifth lot upon the re-alignment to Otter Creek Road. The realignment will provide a 90-degree angle intersection with Highway 75. Grittman stated that the City has come to an agreement with the adjacent property owner for the realignment. Grittman referred to the companion variance request, which is needed in order to get five lots. Grittman noted that as discussed during the previous item, the City must make a finding of hardship that is non-economic. For new plats, Grittman reported that is a difficult finding to make. Plats can easily be designed to meet the requirement with only four lots. . Grittman stated that the proposed plat is set up with shared driveways, both accessing Highway 75. Staff has raised concern over that design, due to the driveways entering via a turn lane. Grittman indicated that design is not typically even allowed. Grittman referred to the Wright County Engineer's letter, which states that is not the preferred design. StaWs recommcndation is that the plat be redrawn, avoiding direct access to Highway 75 and with only four lots. Grittman stated that in a previous generation ofthis plat, a rear driveway design was not supported by the neighborhood. However, statf believes that with proper landscaping, the applicant could develop a design that meets expectations for those neighbors and is a better plan in terms of safety. Grittman suggested that the applicant and Commission possibly consider this area as R-2A, with narrow lot single family, with a private drive concept, as previously proposed. Staff still feels that design is appropriate and eliminates the need for variances. Grittman stated that it is both planning and engineering staff's opinion any plat approved should rely on a rear-loaded access, consolidating garbage and mail service. If not, the applicant should otherwise accommodate stopping traffic in the turn lane, Staff's recommendation is to table action for these reasons, and to accommodate the timing of the land purchase for the realignment of Otter Creek Road. Frie stated that the area is not being utilitized and he feels that there is a need for something that will be a win for residents, the City and the developer. 11 . Dragsten asked about the issue of driveways accessing directly onto 75. Grittman discussed the problem of pedestrian access to mai Iboxes and garbage pick-up and the potential for stopping traffic in a traveling lane of Highway 75. Grittman stated that even with a rear- loaded design, staff would look for sidewalk for those purposes. crie referred to thc County letter, which states that while their preference is for all four accesses to come from Otter Creek Road, there may be a requirement for some discussion Planning Commission Minutes 12/06/05 . between developer and City. The letter also said that if there is no agreement, the County would allow the two shared access drives. Chairman Frie opened the public hearing. Ed Solberg, 1204 Sandy Lane, spoke to the Commission. Solberg stated that he doesn't believe the plan should be for five homes, that the lot sizes are important to buyers and existing property owners. Solberg said that he believes the City should insist on the applicant meeting the code. Solberg indicated that he understands that the City is buying property. He questioned whether the City is giving this property away to the developer, or will he have to buy it. Posusta stated that it depends on how the road is platted. If it is by metes and bounds, he gets the land back. Solberg stated that he doesn't like rear-loaded entry proposal either. He said that the City has driveways accessing into turn lanes in other areas. Solberg restated that he thinks the plat should be restricted to four lots. Solberg asked when they would do the fifth lot. Posusta answered it would be after the road was realigned. O'Neill reported that the City would be proposing plans and specs for the realignment as early as the next Council meeting. Posusta asked O'Neill about the legalities for the purchase of the vacated property. O'Neill stated that the issue has to come before the City Council as part of the platting process. . Diane Peter, 1120 Sandy Lane, stated her objection to driveways in the back. She commented that the rest of the block isn't like that, and that she doesn't want a driveway in her backyard. Peter stated that there were originally four lots along Sandy Lane. Frie asked about berming for a rear-loaded design. Grittman suggested that ifthere were a rear driveway, it would be landscaped, so that people wouldn't be looking at driveways. Candy Johnson, 1233 Sandy Lane, related that she is against the five lots proposed and granting of the variances. Johnson stated that she was present for the first public hearing. She cited Mr. Posusta's earlier comment, in which he had indicated that the law is only reason why not to grant a variance. She stated that Frie had responded that the law is what the Commission has to go by. Lane asked the Commission to consider what the law is in this case. She inquired about the lot square footage requirements. Grittman responded that the R- I standards would be applied here. Patch indicated he could provide information. Lane sought confirmation that a variance would not relax side setbacks. Patch and Grittman both concurred that lot setbacks would not be relaxed. Applicants Tom Holthaus and Matt Holker made themselves available for comment. Holthaus stated that in response to the hardship issue, from their standpoint, the hardship was created prior to annexation. Holthaus stated that the City changed the zoning, which to him was a taking without compensation. Holthaus stated that they had a business use that turned into a residential use. Since that time, Holthaus said that he had brought forward a townhouse plat, and was informed the school wouldn't like it. He brought forward an 8-unit plat, which the neighborhood didn't like. Holthaus stated that he has compromised with this plan. Holthaus commented that he is trying to find a way to move forward that makes economic sense. He indictaed that he has seen variances granted and there is a level of economics to each one. . 1I0lthaus stated that this may not be a perfect compromise, but it sounds like maybe the ncighbors and County could be happy with this plan. lIe said that in regard to the service issue, this situation happcns all along Broadway. Holthaus stated that he would put the mailboxes interior to the lot; the proposed sidewalk would go nowhere. In summary, Holthaus indicated that he is out of alternatives and is looking for action on this plan. ]2 Planning Commission Minutes 12/06/05 . Frie asked if this is approved, does the applicant understand that the fifth lot is contingent on the real ignment of Otter Creek Road. Holthaus confirmed. Hearing no further commcnts, Chairman Frie closed the publ ic hearing. Dragsten commented that as to the rear versus front access issue, he prefers this design. Dragsten stated that one of the other alternatives mentioned had been approved. Holthaus responded that he had pulled it because of opposition and the many requirements on landscaping. Dragsten noted that in essence, there was a plan that Commission had approved, but applicant didn't like the conditions, so it was pulled before it went to Council. Dragsten agreed that the front sidewalk proposal doesn't make sense. He questioned the Otter Creek Road realignment. Grittman responded that it is his understanding that the realignment is primarily due to the angle of the intersection. Frie asked the applicants if they had seen the conditions. Holthaus replied that they had and that both the sidewalk and requirement for additional shoulder seem unreasonable. Holthaus stated that a sidewalk on Otter Creek is acceptable. Dragsten stated that the main issue for him is the lot size. It seems as if there is room is for compromise on the other items. . Posusta reiterated that this plat represents a win-win-win, as mentioned earlier by Frie. He stated that the City and neighborhood get rid of an eyesore, and the City wins because it gets five properties on the tax rolls versus a blighted property. There is no rear driveway, which the neighborhood was against. The neighbors also win because what was originally R-2 is now less dense. Posusta stated that this is a better plan than before. Patch asked if there would be a maintenance agreement on the shared driveways. Holthaus stated that there wou]d be. Patch asked about proposed driveway width. Holthaus reported that Wright County required that the maximum width would be ] 6'. O'Neill stated that there are some positive things about this plat. However, the reason for the safety concern is because the access points are in the turn lane. Staff's proposal for a sidewalk takes people to the crosswalk, and keeps them out of the turn lane. It is meant to serve residents ofthc proposed plat. Essentially, the City doesn't want to create a loss by creating a safety issue. Holthaus stated that the right turn lane was put in by the store and that the safety issues could be minimized with cluster mailboxes and sidewalk, and with wheel garbage carts. Dragsten asked for the length of the turn lane. Grittman responded that the County standard is 300'. Holthaus stated that the turn lane starts after the first acccss now. O'Neill noted it would be changed to meet standards with improvements. Spartz asked for clarification on the location of the fifth lot. Grittman noted the contiguration afterthe realignment. . Dragstcn asked what type of homes would bc built. Holthaus stated that they would be similar to what is already there. 13 Planning Commission Minutes 12106/05 . MOTION BY CHAIRMAN FRIE TO APPROVE VARIANCES FOR LOT WIDTHS LESS THAN 80 FEET, BASED ON A FINDING THAT THE APPLICANT HAS SHOWN A HARDSHIP IN COMPLYING WITH THE R-l STANDARDS. MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER DRAGSTEN. Suchy stated she would prefer they meet the R-l standards at 80'. Spartz agreed. Holthaus stated that four lots won't work due to the economics of the project. Posusta stated that if you do go with four lots with rear-loaded garages, who would maintain the drive. Holthaus stated that the City would require private maintenance. Dragsten asked ifhere is anything that can be done to enhance the house to offset the variance. Dragsten asked about house and garage sizes. Patch cited standards. Dragsten stated that perhaps requiring a larger garage would be an option. Holthaus stated that the suggested larger garages won't fit. Suchy explained that she did not see a hardship to justify the variance. Holthaus stated that there would be the same total number of lots on the front side as on the rear, adjacent to Sandy Lane. IN A VOTE ON THE MOTION ON THE TABLE, THE MOTION FAILS 2-2, WITH COMMISSIONERS SUCHY AND SPARTZ IN DISSENT. . Frie directed the motion to move forward to the City Council. MOTION BY CHAIR1\1AN FRIE TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE PRELIMINARY PLAT AS PROPOSED, WITH THE CONDITIONS LISTED IN EXHIBIT Z AS FOLLOWS. 14 I. Addition of a paved] 0 foot \-vide shoulder adjacent to the turn lane to allow garbage, rec:ycling, maiL and other service vehicles to stop out of the travel and turn lanes on] lighway 75. 2. Addition of a 5 foot \-vide side\valk for the length of the development be constructed to provide pedestrian access to the pathway at Olter Creek Road. 3. Addition of public sidewalk easement along the front lot lines oflhc individual lots to accommodale the sidewalk noted above. 4. /\dditional setback for the proposed houses to accommodate both the side\valk casement, and turn~around pads for vehicles exiting the individual driveways onto Higlnvay 75. 5. Consideration of locations for common mail box grouping and garbage pickup sites that minimize impacts to the County l-lighway. 6. Final review and approval of Engineering staffrclating to utility service and grading and drainage design. 7. Execution ofa Development Agreement prior to approval of the Final Plat. 8. Revision of the Preliminary Plat drawings reflecting all revisions for City records prior to submission oflhe Finallllat. . MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER DRAGSTEN. Holthaus questioned the conditions of approval. Frie clarified that if approved with . . . Planning Commission Minutes 12/06/05 conditions, it is between staff and applicant to resolve those conditions. Frie noted that conditions I and 4 seem to be the issue. CHAIRMAN FRIE AMENDED THE MOTION TO REQUIRE THAT CONDITIONS I & 4 ARE TO BE DISCUSSED WITH THE APPLICANT. COMMISSIONER DRAGSTEN SECONDED THE AMENDMENT. MOTION FAILS 2-2, WITH COMMISSIONERS SUCHY AND SPARTZ IN DISSENT. Frie directed this item to go on to Council, as well. Schumann eXplained that staff would research the tied vote on the variance. If a tie is determined to be a denial, the applicants may follow the formal appeals process. Grittman stated that because it was not actually denied, the request may need to go back to the Planning Commission. Frie stated that in that case, the Commission would be better off tabling. Holthaus stated that he would rather handle it by appeal to Council. At the request of Commissioner Suchy, Chairman Frie called a five minute recess. Chairman Frie called the meeting back to order. II. Public Hearing - Consideration of a request for Preliminarv Plat and an Amendment to PUD for Poplar Hill. a 298-unit single-familv residential subdivision. Applicant: Insignia Development Grittman reviewed the staff report for the request, illustrating the changes that had been made to the plat, which had been made primarily in the townhoues and apartment area of the development. Grittman indicated that in their review of the previous plat and PUD, the City Council had denied the applicant the ability to develop the apartment portion ofthe plat. Since that time, the applicant has redesigned the plat to reflect a completely single family product. The revised plat area includes R-l and R-2A homes. Grittman stated that the remainder of the project is unchanged. The one additional recommendation from staff in the replatted area is to add a sidewalk in the area, as City policy requires sidewalks on any moderate volume streets, which would be the case here. Apart from that, the replatted lots are consistent with the proposed zoning. In terms ofthe amendment to the Planned Unit Development, Grittman noted the other comments listed in Exhibit Z. Grittman stated that when looking through the building plans, a number of the home designs can be built as split entry designs. He stated that staff do want to place some kind of limitation on split entry homes, with a maximum of25% of all homes as splits. Grittman stated that the applicants have indicated that far less are likely to be built that way. Overall, the amendments requested are acceptable and staff recommend approval of the both the preliminary plat and amendment to PUD. Dragsten asked what dcsign amenities have been provided for in exchange for flexibility in ordinance standards. Grittman responded that the developer is providing private parks in addition to the land dedication for the City park itselt; which is an extra amenity to this project. The developer is providing more land tban required. The developer is also providing a significant reduction in density from what comprehensive plan would allow in this area. Dragsten asked about the noted swimming pool. Grittman stated that there would be a swimming pool within the development as part of the private park. 15 Planning Commission Minutes 12/06/05 . Frie asked about the easement area in terms of the park dedication requirement. Grittman stated that no credit is given for the easement area, clarifying that the City will be taking it, but not crediting them for it. Frie asked what the areas of flexibility were specifically. Grittman stated that the flex in Poplar Hill is mostly to the building standards, which is similar to what was giveu to past applicants. Spartz asked about the length of Exhibit Z and the discrepancy with condition 6 regarding parking stalls versus the staff recommendation. Grittman stated that in review of the parking demand for the park, the 100 stall number is the better number. Spartz asked ifthere is a possibility of creating an additional access to the parking lot. Spartz commented on the need for additional access due to drop-offs and pick ups. Grittman stated that the parking lot is designed to circulate through the lot. Suchy asked about condition 9, indicting that there was a difference between the report and the conditions for the number of parking stalls at the private park. Grittman answered that the number of parking stalls required there should be five, not ten. Suchy asked if the design conditions related to the styles of the homes or the ordinance requirements. Grittman stated the applicant has provided general design guidelines for the homes, and their proposals do meet the requirements. Chairman Frie opened the public hearing. David Adkins, representative for Insignia Development, made himself available for questions from the Commission or audience. . Jeff Fischer, 9005 Darlington Avenuc NE, stated that he is concerned about the road placement, so that it fits with his property. Fischer stated that he is also concerned about the height of the road in relationship to his property. Posusta asked Fisher ifhe has private driveway out to Prairie Acres. Grittman clarified that the connection to Darlington would not be constructed until the alignment was agreed upon by the two property owners. At this point, Grittman reported that Insignia will dedicate half the road right of way until the time Fisher is ready to develop. There is no requirement at this time that thc developer build the road. Fisher stated that he understands that, he is more concerned about the height of the road. Grittman stated that staff would make a note and defer to the engineer on that question. Fischer stated that to develop his property, there will have to be another road access. He stated that there would then be a road on three sides of his property. Posusta stated that he doesn't think Fischer needs to worry about development of roads on three side for some time. Fischer said that he doesn't want to be surprised at that time, and wants less road frontage. Dragsten commented that the road access gives him more options to develop. Frie asked if Fischer had been approached regarding the road right of way. Fischer indicated there had not been much conversation with the developer. Kim Garver. 2566 90'h Street, addressed the Commission. Garver stated that she was concerned about traffic at 90'h Street at Chelsea. She recommended noting that a three way stop sign will be needed at that location with this development. Garver also questioned whether the private parks would be accessible to local residents. . Bob Groen, 9831 Chamberlain Avenue, also stated concerns regarding traffic on 90'h Street. He recommended that the City install a path or sidewalk for kids to ride on. Groen also commented that the curve at Chelsea and 90'h is a concern. Frie agreed. 16 Planning Commission Minutes 12/06/05 . Dale Lusti, 9790 Chamberlain Avenue, stated that as most of the surrounding residents are from the township, they are concerned about what zoning would be around this. He stated that he had heard discussions about zoning for their properties. Grittman responded that because the majority of the surrounding properties are still in the township, the land is zoned according to County regulations. Grittman stated that the land stays as it is currently zoned through the County until the property owner decides to develop and be annexed. ry??? asked about the potential for commercial development on this site. Grittman indicated the proposed commercial is actually on the Schluender property. O'Neill referred to land-use plan for the area, noting it as a mixed-use designation. Dragstennoted to??') That he can come in to the City offices at anylime and discuss the comprehensive plan and potential zoning. Hearing no further comments, Chairman Frie closed the public hearing. Dragsten commented positively on the drop in density. He also indicated that in relationship to the reconstruction of90'h Street, the Commission had previously requested that when the development was 75% completed, the reconstruction should move forward. Dragsten stated that he likes the current plan better than the previous and believes it provides a better blend of residential. Dragsten inquired whether the ordinance requires a 1400 square foot foundation size in the R-] A. Grittman confirmed. Frie asked O'Neill about the acceptability ofthe parkland and when the comments of the Parks Commission would be available. Grittman stated that Parks Commission has looked at the plan and O'Neill stated that they were satisfied in what they had seen. . Spartz stated that he likes what the developer has done with the plat, as he believes it will be far more appealing. Spartz stated that the lower density will also help with the traffic situation. Spartz indicated that 90'h Street is still an issue in that regard. Suchy indicated she is happy with the proposed changes. 17 Frie asked about the price range for homes. Adkins replied that the R-I lots are priced around $80,000, and are targeted toward homes over $300,000. He estimated that the R-IA homes would be closer to $450,000 - $500,000. With the amenities provided, Adkins stated that the intent \vas toward nice homes. Frie asked if any of the listed conditions are of concern to the applicant. Adkins answered that the balance of the 21 conditions are straightforward. Adkins did question the 90'h Street reconstruction. I-Ie stated that Insignia is paying for School Boulevard and the development is paying for the cost to develop a future minor collector. Those collector roads cause double- fronting lots. Additionally, Insignia is providing the City with parkland, and being assessed for reconstruction of90'h Street. Adkins questioned the implication of upgrading 90'h at 75% at this time, as this development would only be responsible for their half of the frontage. Drgasten clarified that he is not inferring that Insignia pay for all of it, just that the condition gives the City a guideline. O'Neill contJrmed that the developer is paying for half of the reconstruction is standard City pol icy. . Adkins stated that there will be a swimming pool and a large amount of development landscaping, both of which will be association maintained. In terms of the parking area, Adkins stated that the engineer had just put in parking area based on estimate. He noted that they and staff had discussed two parking access points. However, as the City would be paying for the parking lot improvements, Commission would be asking the City to front additional Planning Commission Minutes 12/06/05 . costs for the second access. In relationship to the Fischer parcel, Adkins indicated that their engineer will look at the grading plan and work with him and berm if need be. Adkins referred to the plan for temporary cu-de-sac at that location, and noted that they will escrow for half of cost ofthe road. Adkins stated that Poplar Hill is not a gated community. However, the small pool area is intended for the residents of Poplar Hill and maintained by the homeowners association. O'Neill followed up that the Parks Commission would like the public park built soon. As such, they will work with the developer to try to get fine grading and seeding done so it is ready by 2007. MOTION BY COMMISSIONER DRAGSTEN TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE PUD AMENDMENT AND REVISED PRELIMINARY PLAT BASED ON A FINDING THAT THE PROPOSED PUD IS CONSISTENT WITH THE GOALS OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, SUBJECT TO THE APPLICABLE CONDITIONS OF EXHIBIT Z AS LISTED BELOW, WITH THE ADDITION OF A CONDITION REQUIRING THAT 90TH STREET BE RECONSTRUCTED AT THE TIME THAT POPLAR HILL IS 75% DEVELOPED. I. All lots and proposed units, with the exceptions of Lots 17 and 18 of Block 5 "flag lots" shall meet lhe performance standards per the zoning ordinance. unless otherwise noted within the application PUD narrative and exhibits. 2. The shared access tor the commercial area shall be shifted to the south and shall be utilized as a single-loaded access. . _1. The development of the commercial area shall require a separate site plan rcvicvv'. Approval oftbe Poplar Hill PUD shall not be considered an approval for any business use vvithin the site until additional plans are submitted and approved by the Planning Commission and City Council. 4. Access onto LOL 1-5, Block 17 shall corne off of \Veston Drive only. 5 The City shall need to determine if a portion of the easement area is acceptable to be included in Lhe park land dedication. 6 The appliesnt shall limit the parking stalls \vithin the park area to one hundred (100) parking stalls within the easement area. The remaining Isnd srea shall remain open space. The applicant shall identify handicapped accessible parking stalls within the park area. 7. The final street plsm shall be subject to the review cUld approval ofthe City Engineer. 8. The single family homes shall meet all performance requirements of their associated districts as defined in the zoning ordinance and outlined in the planner's report. 9. Outlot J shall have a minimum of five (5) parking ofC-street parking stalls. 10. All single family residential lots within the development shall contain the required 1\vo overstory trees per lot with the exception of corner lots which require fouf. 11. No more than t\venty-five (25) percent of all homes shall be spliL enLry design in the R-l and R-2A areas. rhis shall become a requirement orthe private covenants. 12. Alllors within the R-2/-\ disLrict shall be required to have no less than 600/0 ofthe front yard designated as landscaped garden areas. The City has prepared a site example and narrative information regarding this requirement \vhich will be applicable to this site. . 13. fhe homeowners association .will be responsible for landscaping mainlenance in the yards ofal! R.2A homes. 14. The applicant shall revise the landscaping plan based upon the conditions and recommendations loulld in the planner's report. 18 Planning Commission Minutes 12/06/05 15. . 16. 17 18. 19. 20. 21. All landscaped medians and HOA common landscaped areas shall be required to be irrigated. All site signage that \vill be used in the residential development must be submitted prior to final approval and must meet the requirement ofthe sign Ordinance. Issues related to the three \vetland areas on the site arc subject to the revie\v and comment of the City Engineer. The grading, drainage, erosion control and utility plans are subject to the revie\v and approval of the City Engineer. The applicant shall enter into a development agreement and PUD agreeme11l with the City to be drafted by the City Attorney. The applicant is to prepare a peD standards guide \vhich is to contain PUD information specific to each zoning district \vithin the development. A copy of the HO:\ documents shall be subject to the reviev..' and approval of the City. MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER SPARTZ. MOTION CARRIED, 4-0. 12. Public Hearing - Consideration of an Amendment to the Monticello Zoning Ordinance for setbacks in the I-I (Light Industrial) and 1-2 (Heavv Industrial) Zoning Districts. Applicant: Citv of Monticello . Girttman repOlted that the City has encountered issues related to the current side yard setback requirements in the I-I and 1-2 Districts. The standards require 30 foot setbacks along all interior lot lines. This has raised issues for some property owners related to the use of the property. Grittman stated that in these wider setback areas, the space tends to be occupied by additional paved area and/or outside storage, since it is not usable for any other purpose. Grittman indicated that planning staff is recommending a reduction in the interior side yard requirements to 15 feet, while maintaining the wider 30 foot setback along the street side of corner lots. Grittman stated that this reduction will permit more intensive use of Industrial lots, and may result in more landscaping area in those side yards, since the 15 foot dimension does not accommodate drive\vay or storage uses. Grittman noted that the amendment would not affect fire code requirements for additional setback based on building type, as noted in the staff report. Grittman also stated that this reduction in setback requirement is also subordinate to the buffer yard setback standard. In cases where an II or 12 parcel is adjaccnt to a residential area, the wider setback standard and landscaping requirement would apply. Chairman Frie opened the pnbIic hearing. Hearing no further comments, Chairman Frie closed the public hearing. MOTION BY COMMISSIONER DRAGSTEN TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE AMENDMENT, BASED ON A FINDING THAT THE AMENDMENT WILL GRANT GREA TER USE OF INDUSTRIAL PROPERTY, AND MAY ALSO RESULT IN UPGRADED SITE AND BUILDING PLANS. . MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER SPARTZ. MOTION CARRIED, 4-0. 19 Planning Commission Minutes 12/06/05 13. Public Hearing - Consideration of a request for an interim use permit for the relocation of a billboard within the River Street right ofwav. Citv of Monticello . Grittman reported that as the Commission is aware, the City is in process on construction of the 1-94 and CSAH 18 interchange. As part of the construction, the City acquired property which included three billboards. Grittman stated that one can remain in place, and two will need to be relocated. The request before the Commission is to approve the relocation of one of those. Grittman stated that the proposed relocation site is zoned industrial, and located within the existing right of way for River Street. The City can grant relocation via an interim use permit only, otherwise billboards are illegal. Grittman stated that staff recommend a maximum length of 15 years on the permit, to accommodates the lease period. Dragsten asked if this is something the City inherited and therefore has to provide for. Grittman replied that the City has to provide a location or buy them out. Frie asked if there was any comment from the adjacent property Electro Industries and noted they were not present to comment. Chairman Frie opened the public hearing. Hearing no further comments, Chairman Frie closed the publ ic hearing. . MOTlO!\ BY COMMISSIONER SUCHY TO GRANT LA:'vlAR SIGN COMPANY AND INTERIM USE PERMIT ALLOWING RELOCATION OF A SIGN FROM THE A VR SITE TO THE RIVER STREET LOCATION. THE TERM OF THE INTERIM USE PERMIT TO MA TCH THE TIME TERMS IDENTIFIED IN THE ORIGINAL LAMAR/A VR LEASE AGREEMENT. MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER SPARTZ. MOTION CARRIED, 4-0. Grittman noted that another request may come forward at some point for the other relocation. 14. Adjourn. Mono"! BY COMMISSIONER SPARTZ TO ADJOURN. MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER DRAGSTE'J. MOTION CARRIED, 4-0. Respectfully Submitted, Secretary . 20 . . . Planning Commission Agenda - 12/06/05 5. Public Hearin!!:: Consideration of a reQuest for an amendment to the Monticello Zonin!!: Ordinance re!!:ulation Open and Outdoor Stora!!:e in the I- 1,1-2. and I-I A Districts. Applicant: City of Monticello. (NAC) REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND Attached is a re-draft of an ordinance regulating outdoor storage in the Industrial districts. This ordinance ret1ects discussion at the most recent small group meeting and addresses four primary changes. These are as follows: 1. Redefines screening as an "effective visual interference", rather than "completely opaque", and encourages the use of berms and plant materials, or decorative fencing, but not chain link fencing with slats. 2. Redefines screening as being six feet in height above the natural grade, regardless of the height of the storage. 3. Allows for outdoor storage in the front yard - up to the building setback line in the I-I District, and up to the easement line in the 1-2 District. 4. Changes the treatment of trash handling equipment, requiring that it meet the requirements for outdoor storage only, instead of the other code requirements for trash enclosure areas. AL TERNA TIVE ACTIONS Decision 1: Zoning Ordinance Amendment for Open and Outdoor Storage I. Motion to recommend approval of the ordinance as submitted. 2. Motion to recommend approval ofan ordinance amendment, altered from the draft as recommend by the Commission. 3. Motion to recommend denial of the ordinance amendment. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends adoption of the ordinance based on the significant amount of discussion that has gone into the draft. However. we are not inclined to favor storage in the front yards as noted in the draft. We would note that we continue to be concerned about the allowance of outdoor storage generally as a use which is counter to the City's general industrial development goals of high employment Planning Commission Agenda - 12/06/05 . and high property and building values. The allowance of outdoor storage generally discourages the investment in buildings, and as we have noted in previous correspondence, is one of the areas of code enforcement that is most time-consuming and problematic for the City. Nevertheless, the proffered draft reflects a compromise with industrial development interests who believe that relaxation of outdoor storage regulation is important to business operation and development. SUPPORTING DATA A. Draft Ordinance Amendment . . . . . CITY OF MONTICEllO WRIGHT COUNTY, MINNESOTA ORDINANCE NO. 2005- AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE SECTION 2-2 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE RELATED TO OUT DOOR STORAGE WITHIN THE CITY OF MONTICEllO THE CITY COUNCil OF THE CITY OF MONTICEllO, MINNESOTA ORDAINS: Section 1. Section 2-2 Definitions of Title 10 Zoning Ordinance-City of Monticello is hereby amended to include the following definition related to Outdoor Storage: Outdoor Storage: The keeping of materials or equipment on a parcel of land for the purpose of transporting, using or employing such materials or equipment at a future date at another location, either on- or off-site. The keeping of motorized vehicles that are not licensed for operation on the public roadways, or other equipment that is not capable of self-powered movement (such as trailers), shall be included in this definition. Screening: A structure or other object, consisting of either fencing, landscaping, buildings, berms, or other material, which com:titutos a Gomplotoly opa(:jblO wall creates effective visual interference between materials or activities on private property and a viewer on adjacent property, public or private. Gated areas for access and circulation shall not be included in the requirement for screening. The height of screening shall be measured from the natural grade at the base of the screening Section 2. Section 3-11 B OUTDOOR STORAGE, shall hereby be inserted into the Zoning Ordinance as follows: [A] The following activities shall not be considered outdoor storage for the purposes of these regulations: a. Parking of passenger vehicles and light trucks, parked in compliance with the City of Monticello zoning regulations. b. Parking of company vehicles, including trucks, vans, and other similar vehicles, with the exception of semi-truck rigs which shall be subject to separate regulations. c. Semi-truck tractors and tractor-trailer rigs (not including detached trailers), when such tractors and tractor-trailer rigs are parked in the rear yard. . . . d. Semi-truck trailers located in designated loading docks, or otherwise in the active process of loading or unloading, for a period of not more than 72 hours. e. Trash handling equipment, provided such equipment is located within an enclosure in compliance with the City of Monticello zoning regulations. In the 1-1, 1-1A. and 1-2 zoninq districts, trash handlinq equipment and/or areas shall be treated as outdoor storaqe for the purposes of location and screeninq in those districts. [8] The following table details the processing requirements within the 1-1A, 1- 1, 1-2 District: DISTRICT 1-1 A 1-1 1-2 Processing CUP for accessory CUP for accessory Permitted as an Requirements use use accessorv use Front Setback, and Rear line of building BlJilEling line Equal Building line No Side Setback facing to the required required setback. a Street buildinq setback except that no closest to the public outdoor storaqe street on front or may be located side within a drainaqe and/or utility easement in a yard adioininq a public street. Internal Side Equal to building Zero feet setback Zero feet setback property line requirement permitted in rear permitted in rear Setback and side yard and side yard behind buildinq behind buildinq Rear Setback Equal to setback Zero feet setback Zero feet setback requirement permitted in rear permitted in rear and side yard and side yard behind buildinq behind buildinq Area Limitation 20% of building floor 50% of lot area, No limitation as an area, maximum maximum accessory use Screening from 100% screeni!!9. 100% screeninq WG% screeni!!9. Street and consistent with consistent with consistent with Residential and ordinance ordinance ordinance Commercial Uses or requirements via requirements via requirements via Zoning landscaping and lor landscaping and/or landscaping and/or decorative fencing decorative fencing decorative fencing required required from required from residential, residential, commercial or 1-1A commercial or 1-1A property, but not property, but not streets where streets where adioininq zoninq is adjoininq zoninq is . . . Industrial Industrial Screening from 100% screening No screening No screening Industrial Uses consistent with required if abutting required if abutting ordinance 1-1 or 1-2 zoned 1-1 or 1-2 zoned requirements via property property landscaping and/or decorative fencing required Occupation of Not permitted Permitted, with Permitted, with drainage and utility signed, recorded signed, recorded easements acknowledgement acknowledgement of owner's of owner's restoration restoration requirements~ requirements~ except as noted in except as noted in yards adioininq yards adioininq streets streets [C] For the purposes of this section, screeninq should consist primarily of berms and landscapinq in accordance with Sections 3-2 rGl and 3-3 rGl. and may include decorative fencinq, Where screeninq is required, chain link fencinq with slats shall not be permitted, unless the fencinq is itself screened with landscapinq, All screeninq required by this section shall be at least six (6) feet in heiqht, as measured from the natural qrade, Screeninq of storaqe areas, where required, shall be desiqned to screen from the view of the public riqht of way or an abuttinq property line, Views of storaqe areas within front yard areas shall be screened alonq from views Section 3. Enactment. This ordinance shall be in full force and effect upon its passage and publication, ADOPTED this day of 2005, CITY OF MONTICELLO By: ATTEST: Clint Herbst, Mayor By: Rick Wolfsteller, City Administrator Planning Commission Agenda - 12/06/05 . 6. Continued Public Hearinl!:: Consideration of a request for a variance from the Monticello Zoninl!: Ordinance to allow an 11,760 square foot detached accessorv structure in an 1-2 District. Aoolicant: Wallboard, Inc. (NAC) REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND At the December meeting of the Planning Commission, the request for a variance from the maximum 30% accessory building rule was tabled, with the direction that the applicant meet with staff to consider options to the variance request. In the original staff report, planning staff had noted that there were no grounds for consideration of a variance in this case. As noted in that report, both State law and City ordinance require that approval of a variance requires a finding by the City that there must be a unique set of conditions on the property, not created by the applicant, and not economic in nature, that cause a hardship with putting the applicant's property to a reasonable use according to the basic zoning regulations. In this case, no such condition is present. The applicant is able to put the property to reasonable use under the current regulations as demonstrated by the fact that: 1. 2. ~ " .>. . 4. The applicant is already putting the property to reasonable use; The applicant can expand the principal building without need for a variance; The applicant can expand the accessory building space to the 30% threshold without a variance. The expansion of the principal building would allow further accessory building expansion, again without variance. The sole rationale for the expansion of the accessory building space at this time is economic: the applicant notes that accessory building expansion is less expensive that adding on to the principal building. As a result, the request does not qualify for variance consideration. Granting of the variance would confer a privilege on this applicant that is commonly denied to other property owners. The applicant met with staff to consider other possible options. One option was to proceed with a building permit for the expansion of the principal building at this time, thereby authorizing a larger accessory building without need for a variance. The applicant indicates that company officials were not willing to expend funds on this type of project at this time. Staff also discussed other building expansion options as well, however, the applicant chose to proceed through the variance process before deciding on a building plan. . . http://156.99.28.84/serv1et/com.esri.esrimap.Esrimap?ServiceN ame=CustomParce1&ClientV ersion=3.1... 12/30/2005 . <l'i '-; ~ ! '" , . 1 . " " " , i , ~ , ~ , . , I I " '-- ~ , I ~ J , t I j\ " ~I . " I "I ' ,,/ i \'j ./ ~-.-J J'''C~, . ,o~CM: .~, ., :0>"'''' "", rf-n: ..--....... ''''''[ B:"-""N:;lJS PAR/:/N\; LOT . i , , ! , U"""YVSo.,,:'" ,. WEST . ...149,62 ~HED . / "- "., ""..1I./9'6' ':O'Y'CLn",F9'dJ.;?6 --~ ~5~_8 8,r<).JI~~"~'C[ 9~" oS"_' "'-. I , I = , 8 (XI"iTU fj{~l{)JNC i L I I,~ ~ 00 PARKiNC LOT 582..J8e lie ,e) ~\ ><p l-' ,;.."" .~ ,\ic"- v ~t#, ,_~t :..\J"..><<"'~ ~ w-Y"" {".J. ,'- lP uJL\\(\/-, {if. ~\'I~qi: .p i\' L, ''''iP' ,<; (lo../:}. '" '~'\'~,^(;i-l- <.$J I .,~ \' / -...' .' -l , --' , ., " , " e -VJe o..rL (vJ\Sl-fC , ' 154100 ~'6.' 056.J ~ t_~~-~-- 20: 62 - EAST L UTI"LlYL.sEt.EIlT~ "~ 297,24 1- ~ 7.00 A'YE5 ,,-~ ~, ,{ ,05,.' '1 '-, I ~~~.lt . ,lISSj\1 ..:..~-~~,' I~ \8t1JI!I/iC I ~..~ lIollh I 1a1ll; ..Gr' To._ ~ ~6." . / .JiY\.i ~jl< r} , 'I.)~\v ',+ <-\0 1jr.i) for") 1?J'l nlP'>X , .4 .;f 7 .#.~~,. I's'~ . i!: ~ L .).- ~ ___e- ""M>TNiY e ,/S'~ , , !\ wf ! 1 .... _I'U"(O-'~' - TOB<Il'El.{M ~OI'OSLU~''''U.PRIVloCYfEtO:l .--/ CS' ,tf'i,OC ()' l'RlJ'E~rr <,tll I / / ___.~.o ~_____~-~::...~u;;:~- ""'__ax;<crBlnM1= DlN'IOAS ROAD ~;', 9 ~7,' I ::tIc: ~I~ ~1:2 gr' , 1"( !g:i:i "I' .'1 ! ,; ~. '~ -I' ~",,7 I' +-, 'I '. , ~Sl , i,G..Io-l--."o '--~---L~_ , I' C) \'\0 I ~ , C> , :-J \ ! ---a.<!l \ n:xF ,..n,~gu,J~! ---"'---:-j ~"r\ ~ /i l" /, i 'll /,II,~i , i I " ~'..:.1 . 'I i-~-;--;; -,~ ~ 1 ~i . 1 I -t--- 1- 9IT<-"JItO/JS ~ i PARKING ior '.\ ' -~l--- . 1 I. _~I~--. ~--L~- 1 ! \ " 2 Ii t. . , J i 1\ / ~ I , i! .1, ~ ~ ~ -i ! "1/ ,I :..::-.;r " _2""-',"- ~ f,C. ~ . ",,' e . . . Planning Commission Agenda - 12/06/05 7. Public Hearinl!: Consideration of a request for a Conditional Use Permit for a Concept Stal!e Planned Unit Development in a PZM District. Applicant: CBR Development. (NAC) REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND CBR Development (formerly UP Development) is seeking a Concept Stage PUD approval for a 48-unit to'hTIhouse project located in the southwest corner of West 6th Street and Elm Street, on the former Ruff Auto property. The current plan shows 48 attached townhomes on a 6.8 acre site. The site is zoned PZM, Performance Zone Mixed Use. Permitted uses and standards of the R-3 Medium Density Residential are generally applied to the PZM district. This project is Phase I of a 21 acre total project. The] 4 acre site to the west of Elm Street is proposed to be submitted in a separate plan for formal review in coming months. The applicant has provided a sketch plan to illustrate his potential submission, however, no specific application has been made for the west parcel. The applicant previously submitted a plan for the east site in 2004 which contained 41 units, 30 detached and II attached. At that time, staff recommended denial of the PUD because the proposed project did not appear to fit the site or keep the intent of the use of PUD in place. The applicant has now submitted a new proposal for the site. Comorehensive Plan: Monticello's Comprehensive Plan designates this area for performance zoning of mixed uses. Zonin!!: The subject site is zoned PZM, Performance Zoned Mixed Use District, which allows for development flexibility and special design control within sensitive areas of the city due to environmental or physical limitations. CUP/PUD: A Planned Unit Development allows for flexibility in performance standards with the understanding that the development will be held to higher standards of site and building design than would ordinarily be required. It is the applicant's responsibility to design the development with significant benefits and communicate those benefits to the City for allowing a CUP/PUD. Site Desi!!n & Standards: The following table illustrates the applicable performance requirements for the proposed use in the PZM/R-3 district. The applicant meets the side yard setback requirements for this district but will require variation for both the front and rear yard setback requirements. The application has also not provided exact dimensions of proposed public open space. The plans indicate the required amount of public open space is 48,000 square feet. Howevcr, at 500 feet for everyone unit, the actual amount of required usable open space is 24,000 square feet. No information on the exact amount of usable open space has been provided, and has only been Planning Commission Agenda - 12106/05 . estimated by staff. Staff estimates indicate an inadequate amount of usable open space. Lot Area Per Unit Front Setback Side Setback Rear Setback On-site parking (2 spaces per Dwelling Unit) Usable Open Space (500 sq. ft. of usable open space per d\velling unit) R-3 Standard Reqnirements 5,000 SCluare feet/unit 30 feet 20 feet 30 feet 96 Pro nosed 6059 Sauare feet/unit 25 feet 20 feet 25 feet 96 24,000 sq. ft. -11,100 sq. ft. The intent of the PZM/PUD district is to encourage creative and innovative design approach to commercial and housing developments. The district provides flexibility from standard controls to allow the creation of common open space, wetlands and recreational facilities as well as mix of housing types and styles and commercial uses where feasible. Due to the flexibility of performance standards, a PUD is required to be held to higher standards of design and site amenities. . Desi!!n Overview 48 attached townhome units are proposed on a 6.8 acre site, for a gross density of 7 units per acre. The townhomes are proposed through a mixture of three 4-unit and six 6-unit structures. West 6 Y2 Street is extended west to Elm Street to provide public access to, and through, the development. Vehicular access to all units is via a winding private drive. Each unit faces a section of the private drive and has a 24 ft. by 25 ft. driveway to the front. These driveways will provide two parking stalls for each home. Two usable open space areas are proposed, as well as a large storm water pond in the southeast corner. The proposed units are two-story buildings ",ith tuck- under garage designs. Site Desi!!n The proposed site plan lacks a unifying use of open green space. While no exact dimensions of the open space are provided, staff has estimated that approximately I l, I 00 square feet of usable open space will be provided, as opposed to the 24,000 required. The usable open space is placed in two isolated pockets, one space roughly 3,200 sq. ft. in the extreme southwest corner and one space approximately 7,900 sq. ft. on the east side to the north of6 Y2 Street. None of the townhome units border the public open space, and residents must cross the private drive in order to access either area. . As with the original plan that was proposed, the open spaces appear to be outlots leftover after maximizing the site's housing capacity. The proposed public open space does not appear to meet the overall square footage requirement, and staff believes these areas are poorly placed, inaccessible, and small. Residents in the northwestern corner of the development would have virtually no access to either open space. The open space in the southwest corner is bordered to the north by the private drive and to Planning Commission Agenda - 12/06/05 . the west by Elm Street. The level of traffic on these roads may make this space dangerous for children and therefore unable to serve its purpose. If usable open spaces remain where they are proposed, staff would recommend that the city consider crosswalks and sidewalks to be implemented to allow for safe access, however, staff does not believe that the proposal meets the City's objectives as now designed. Staff is concerned that the use of PUD in this design merely results in more density without the benefits of open space preservation. \\Then PUD is used to lessen the zoning standards, the City's ordinance requires that the flexibility results in a specific, tangible benefit. The usable open space proposed on the site plan is not immediately accessible to any of the units, and only visible to roughly 12 of the 48 units. This issue is in addition to the fact that the space is only marginally useful for any purpose. There is also some concern with the design of the 6-unit structures. A single exposure wall will make the interior units much less appealing than the outer units. The lack of private open space is further aggravated by the limited amount of usable open space located elsewhere in the development. By zoning ordinance definition, these interior units are not townhomes, but are in fact multiple family units. ~ Streets The site plan indicates a curving private drive with a width of 28 feet, measured back of curb to back of curb. The city has established a practice for measuring the width of the street face to face. Staff is also concerned with the angle of the driveway for unit 2. This unit's driveway directly connects to the T-intersection of the private drive. The anglc of the private drive in this location may make it difficult for residents in unit 2 to safely access their driveway. Other driveways have similar concerns due to their proximity to the many corners in the driveway design. Moreover, the design results in a very high level of impervious surface in the project. There appears to be more street and driveway pavement in the project than previous versions of the design. Conclusion As noted in the discussion above, there are a number of concerns relating to the development details. The main issue of concern is whether or not this project would meet the City's requirements for PUD approval. For Planned Unit Development. the applicant is required to show that the project design results in a neighborhood that is substantially superior to a project that utilizes the straight zoning criteria. In this projcct. thc applicant relies heavily on access to the units from private streets. Such a design results in the ability to develop the site to a much higher density. ~ A design incorporating private street access may be acceptable under a PUD anangement, but the City must find that the other amenities to the project result in a superior neighborhood. The proposed plan demonstrates high levels of impervious surface, low levels of private open space, limited views and access to public open space, and limited exposure for the 12 interior units. Planning Commission Agenda - 12/06/05 . It is unclear what benefits are offered to the City with this PUD. The applicant has suggested that when considered in connection to the development on the west side of Elm Street, the overall development is more attractive. Staff has not reviewed the west side sketch plan due to a late submission, but this suggestion begs the question as to whether the east side proposal should be considered as proposed. AL TERNA TIVE ACTIONS Decision 1: Concept Stage Planned Unit Development for the west side of the Elm Street PZM development I. Motion to recommend approval of the concept PUD, based on a finding that the proposal meets the City's expectations for PUD design. 2. Motion to recommend denial of the concept PUD, based on a finding that the proposal does not meet the City's expectations for PUD design. STAFF RECOMMENDATION . Staff does not recommend approval of the Concept PUD. The project has numerous deficiencies, including high levels of impervious surface, negligible areas of usable open space, and several areas of concern with traffic and driveway design. While the application requests that the City consider the east side project in the context of the west side sketch plan, staff is concerned that the west side project is lagging in terms of submission of adequate detail, lack of official application for City approval, and lack of full City staff review. If the applicant \vishes to have both east and west side development considered together, this application should be either denied, subject to a new application with more detail, or at best tabled and amended to include the west side materials. SUPPORTING DATA A. Aerial Location Image B. Site Plan C. Proposed Building Elevations . . http://156. 99 .28.84/servletlcom.esri.esrimap.Esrimap?ServiceN ame=CustomParcel&ClientV ersion=3.1... 1213012005 . . . .. " ~ , 'C. "_.r! ~. ':1 .Jl . . ) ~ r:(. ".J:.:>lr' ~~ '.! .: ) , . .'~ , %' .pi j . \~,. ~ I ....1 i0'-J ,'~.. W", ,;<,.'<7;(., ~,. .~< ',1 , .J,-.....: .~- : l'.' ~ '1-&' -"1 {',: ;. ';~ . ".r . "" ('-' -., ...., , ! (J-'- ~. " ',~ . .~: -i,. '.fr' .", - . ";;.' j " ? ..j' . . . Planning Commission Agenda - 01/03/06 8. Consideration to review information re!!:ardin!!: the Wellhead Protection Plan and consideration to review Zonin!!: Boundaries in relationship to the Drinkin!!: Water Supplv Mana!!:ement Area. (BWiJO) REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND The City of Monticello recently developed a Wellhead Protection Plan (WHPP) to protect our drinking water supply and we are currently in the process of implementing the management strategies identified in the WHPP. The WHPP was developed through the Wellhead Protection Management Committee (WPMC) consisting of various City staff, a City Council liaison, a resident of the City, and representatives from the Wright County Soil and Water Conservation District and the Minnesota Rural Water Association. While developing the WHPP, specific areas within Monticello's Drinking Water Supply Management Area (DWSMA), an area primarily delineated by the limits of surface waters that may reach the City's drinking water supply within 10-years, were determined to be vulnerable or highly vulnerable to contamination from various land use activities that occur mainly in commercial and industrial zones. The accompanying map shows both the vulnerable and highly vulnerable areas of the DWSMA in relation to our current zoning district boundaries. As the map reveals, both commercial and industrial use zones are currently located within our DWSMA. The protection of our groundwater supply is a critical infrastructure goal. It is therefore vital that land use planning efforts incorporate information provided via the WHPP and that applicable land use regulations are established accordingly. Basic land use patterns established via the planning process should not be affected by the WHPP, however, specific land uses within each zoning district that fall within the City's DWSMA must be actively and effectively managed to eliminate the potential for any groundwater contamination. The WPMC is therefore requesting that City staff, with concurrence from the Planning Commission, review our current zoning boundaries, revise them as deemed necessary and establish future zoning boundaries in conjunction with our DWSMA. This will help to eliminate or reduce the chances that the City's drinking water supply may unnecessarily become contaminated. Also, in an effort to assist the City in locating future wells in less vulnerable areas, the WPMC is requesting that City staff, with concurrence from the Planning Commission, contact the Public Works Director once it is known that a developer is proposing to install a new water supply well. This will allow the City to locate our future drinking water supply wells based on the benefits to the City, not the dcvelopers. Planning Commission Agenda - 01/03/06 . ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS Decision 1: Assist the Wellhead Protection Management Committee (WPMC) 1. Motion to approve the WPMC's requests of City staff, with concurrence from the Planning Commission, to review our current zoning boundaries, revise them as deemed necessary and establish future zoning boundaries in conjunction with our DWSMA, and to contact the Public Works Director once it is knO\vn that a developer is proposing to install a new water supply well. 2. Motion to deny the WPMC's requests of City staff, with concurrence from the Planning Commission, to review our current zoning boundaries, revise them as deemed necessary and establish future zoning boundaries in conjunction with our DWSMA, and to contact the Public Works Director once it is known that a developer is proposing to install a new water supply well. STAFF RECOMMENDATION . Staff recommends fully approving the WPMC's requests for assistance from City staff, with concurrence from the Planning Commission. As the protection of the groundwater supply is a critical infrastructure goal, it is recommended that land use planning efforts incorporate information provided via the WHPP and that applicable land use regulations are established accordingly. SUPPORTING DATA A. DWSMA & Zoning Map - City of Monticello . 2 . . . L~?li1i;,(1'> ~ ~ Leaend ~~ h~ z (/l$,' ~ ~ ~ ~~n~ng Disuict Bounda~ ~ ~~::. ~. z z ~ ~ , ~ Monticello Wells ~:~'~N~'\:'i',,~.... ~,~P~~::tkj ,\:~ r~~ :;;::~::~:::n:~::rabil~ ~~, ...J.lI11 "<i~ <~;;7' . '.' I, " PZ.M _ DWSMA: High Vulnerability ':r'~ ~\ ~ /I~ ,~f)x"~'! . ~i/ PZ;,M ' \~~'i, ,):(~~cR'~,' . ~ii.'lB1 z ~-<<I"~ II ".J, '. PZM' )",-- ~~.. '//k'!'~i" j I:', .v'60,~". ;~:;:' ~:~':~~~X~b/~!)',' !/"/!, '/'f} ~ ~ &..0-. I ' ~,3 . ~ ." ~ ~, 1,- ~ ~.~ :t Wd1t/i,/; 7 ~.:'.';~:.'.'-.' ~~ ~,'/ ~ ~3~,7 N;V/L/V/ // ! f) ~ i ~l~.\ ~ " ~ Q \3 I ~/~ r.x& 'I'" Z7~ '!f\::::;>.,. ._p....S..'.'.....J....:]~oI.11.~1 () :r \\ I~ "/~<.~/' "!. // ."; dN(\\_.-rt-\'~1 ~ >0 'j; ~:..,-;=,JP;j'7.'.:::,,~\ ~Z' I~~ ~~"~ ! 11 rTTT? \~r;WlL / ,\\ ~ 11: "lih. '/' / ~ B4 ..t . 1_ - '~ pi Byr i 'VY/.'l'/ /:~ ~;/ ~ ~~BAT D 0J!; \- 'q~y0~O i ~ s ~ :: ~x(.~~}:: :..>i/J/ '- ~;~'%':' .....11= ~0 ,....~'f;J.(;".1[6f,~ .. ."'M Ilk r-.:::~ . A ~':B2 I I '....... " [ ~ i' (7 ,i ,,'~' I/i; ~~3i '1''/, 1 'j '1- A. 1 ! . 'I.' , · ~A(d' '~~ .~~Q 7!/.. /j , f#,,L~ 1 ~ . ..../ . "'~.'/ ipz.i.~' X, / I ~~.~ ,":;',=;, / "--"//7 /.~ /1.'.1 y, . ..a'~~/ 1 ~ ~H 1\\\\\\11\ , R~ R~-p (.jj rTlB8_ '" ill! 7ff, >>- ~/r' R2 ~~~ '<...i. . ~. 'i'~ " U ~ .* ~_____'" -.ruI!", City of Monticello Drinking Water Supply Management Area (DWSMA) & Zoning Map ~Feet o 500 1,000 2,000 &\