Loading...
Planning Commission Agenda 12-03-2002 . . ..... - AGENDA REGULAR MITETING - MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday - December 3, 2002 7:00 P.M. Members: Council Liaison: Staff: Dick Frie, Robbie Smith, Richard Carlson, Rod Dragsten and Lloyd Hilgart Clint IIerbst Jeff 0 'Neill, Fred Patch, and Steve Grittman I. Call to order. 2. Approval of the minutes of the regular Planning Commission meeting held November 8, 2002. 3. Consideration of adding items to the agenda. 4. Citizens comments. s. Public Hearing - Request/or preliminary plat of the Monticello Marketplace Commercial Subdivision and consideration of conditional use permits allowing a convenience store, car wash, and joint parking in a B-3 District. Applicant: Richard Brendsel, Brendsel Properties 6. Adjourn. -] - . . . MINUTES REGULAR MEETING - MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION Thursday - November 7, 2002 8:00 P.M. Members Present: Dick Frie, Robbie Smith, Richard Carlson, Lloyd Hilgart and Council Liaison Clint Herbst Rod Dragsten Jeff O'Neill, Fred Patch, and Steve Grittman Absent: Staff: 1. Call to order. Chair Frie called the meeting to order at 8:00 p.m. and declared a quorum. 2. Approval of the minutes of the relll1lar Plannim~ Commission meeting: held October 1.2002. A MOTION WAS MADE BY ROBBIE SMITH TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD OCTOBER 1.2002. RICI-IARD CARLSON SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Approval of the minutes of the special Planninu. Commission meetin!! held October 14. 2002. A MOTION WAS MADE BY ROBBIE SMITH TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING I-lEU) OCTOBER 14.2002. LLOYD I-1ILCJART SECONDED TilE rv'IOTION. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Approval of the minutes of the special Planninu. Commission meetin!! held October 28. 2002. A MOTION WAS MADE BY RICHARD CARLSON TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF TI IE SPECIAL PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD OCTOBER 28. 2002. ROBBIE SMITH SECONDED THE MUTION. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 3. Consideratioll of addin!! items to the allenda. Chair Frie noted he \voldd not be available for the December meeting Chair Frie asked to address handicap parking on West Broadway between Walnut and Locust. This was placed as item 9 on the agenda. 4. Citizens comments. None - 1- . . . Planning Commission Minutes - 11/07/02 5. Public I !carin!..! - COl1sidcr:ltion ora n:qucst Ii)!" a conditional use permit and variance allowinu construction or accessorv structure in excess of 1200 square teet. Armlicant: Crail! and Naomi Schibonski Fred Patch, Building Official, provided the staff report advising of the applicant's request for conditional use permit and variances. Patch advised the Planning Commission of conditions that starr felt should he included for both the conditional use permit and the vanances. Chair Frie opened the public hearing. Naomi Schibonski, applicant, stated several reasons for their requests such as parking for a fourth vehicle, the length of their truck being 23 feet long which is longer then the existing garage, as well as wanting a shop area for personal use. She added that they felt the request for an additional driveway would add to the neighborhood as they would not be driving over their grass to get to the accessory structure which would preserve their lawn. and stated that there arc 2 other corner lots in thcir neighborhood that have :2 driveways. Their plan includes matching siding, \\-inc\(nvs of the same dimension as their house. as well as shingles, stating it would be aesthetically pleasing. They "vould like this to be a nice addition for storing equipment and cars versus storing in the driveway or backyard. Chair Frie asked Schibonski if when she came in lor the building permit was she advised or the things that were not allowed by ordinance and she stated she was but that they needed the additional size or the a<:<:essory structure due to the length of their truck and the driveway \\-as again due to not \Nanting to ruin their yard. She also noted that the pla<:el1lent ur the pruposed structure is clue to the house initially being constructed on the \\Tong side or the pruperty by previous o\vners. They had already had their plans drawn up by the bu i IdeI' prior to cum i ng in for a permit and hearing of the condi tional use permit and varian<:es necessary. Robbie Smith asked about the tru<:k and she again stated it's size and type, and that they wish to have it encl(lsed. She noted they have no other deta<:hed buildings on their property. Lloyd Ililgart asked O'Neill ItH' c1arifi<:ation orthe ordinance's intent for accessory structures and were they intended IlH. storage or tt)r vehicles to be entering/exiting from. O'Neill advised that it was not necessarily delined in the ordinance, but that the intent was f()r existing drive\\ays to he used tlW entering/exiting storage structures. He did state also that in the appli<:ant's <:ase that would not be possible. Paul Zemke, 107 II i I /crest Road, next door to the proposed oversized garage, advised that he sent a previous letter to tht.' City in regard to this matter stating they are very opposed to this structure. He also mentiuned that this \\hole process has been stressful as they have lived in the lIillcrest ^ddition ror many years and are now having to come and defend their property. The garage would be \\jthin 10 feet of their bedroom, the variance for the drive\vay \vould place it right past their bedroom and he noted that the applicant likes to work in his garage late into the evenings \\hich \\ill callse noisc right by their bedroom window. I-Ie also stated the proposed structurl' \vtHdd t)hstruet their vie\\ to the east and they would be '"boxed" in. -2- Planning Commission Minutes - 11/07/02 . Ik lelt also it \vould be a value loss to their property. His opinion is that the ordinances are in place to protect the property owners and this has a significant impact on them. Fred Patch stated he also received a phone call from the neighbor at 102 Hillcrest Road which is to the south of the applicant registering an objection to the structure as well. Steve Griuman, City Planner, addressed the commission providing a possible alternative. He stated one of the problems is definition of front yard. I-Ie stated that staff could have discretion as to defining this which would allow the applicant to construct within 10 feet of the sidewalk and build out to the rear, although it would not be as large as they had wanted. Grittman advised that the applicant could do this by building p€rmit process and no variance would be needed. Frie stated that if everything was in compliance this would be within their right. This addition, along with the existing garage, would be elose to the 1200 sq. ft. allowable. Craig Schibonski then addressed the commission and stated that he would not be able to get the large truck in where the current garage door is and that they would have to park the vehicles back to back as they would only have one entrance. Grittman stated that was true in this case and that would be the dovvn side to this alternative. He also added that it may be possible to build out to the side, but it \vould not be very effective. Frie asked the Zemke's if from this option do they have any concerns and they stated they were not opposed to this alternative. . Clint Ilcrbst asked what size the new building \vould have to be to fit into compliance and Grittman stated 634 sq. ft.. or approximately 20 x 32. Patch advised Grittlnan of another zoning aspect in that the R-I district allows f()r a 6 ft. setback on the garage side and it may also be possible to build a ]'d stall garage as they would han? slightly more buildable area. Chair Frie then closed the public hearing and it \vas clarified that if the Planning Commission denied one orthe requests. the others would also be denied. Action I: Conditiomll Use Permit A MOTION WAS MADE BY DICK FRIE '1"0 TABLE AND CONTINUE THE PUBLIC HEARING TO TI IE DECEMBER PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING. . There \vas further discussion regarding the applicant's options if the Planning Commission were to deny the requests. Also, if the applicant were to comply with the ordinance it would not he necessary to come back to the Planning Commission. Fred Patch stated that the structure could possihly be moved in closer to the house as well. but did not knO\v how that would affect the neighbor. Patch Ielt that Grittman' s options were good as well. somewhat more expensi\"e but may add value in the long run. Hilgart recommended that they keep the structure to thl.' 1200 sq. n. maximum. Robbie Smith commented that the neighborhood is , - -;- Planning Commission Minutes - 11/07/02 . quaint and he felt this proposed structure would have an adverse affect. He added that their property is a beauti ful piece of land and perhaps they could look at other options as stated by Cirittman and Patch. Frie again stated that i I' they jelt comfortable, Planning Commission could continue the public hearing if the applicant wanted to meet with statT in regard to other options. He stated he felt the intent of the ordinance for conforming. detached garages, was for indoor storage. Naomi Schibonski stated their preference would be to have a vote on the detached accessory structure and then consider the other options. Chair Frie then rescinded his motion. A MOTION WAS MADE BY ROBBIE SMITH TO RECOMMEND DENIAL OF A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT ALLOWING CONSTRUCTION OF ACCESSORY STRUCTURE IN EXCESS OF 1200 SQUARE FEET. LLOYD HILGART SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSL Y. . Clint Herbst asked for clarification by staff whether they wanted the applicant to build \vithin 1200 sq. ft. There was further discussion again as to the definition of side yard and rear yard, and that the Planning Commission would have to determine that. They also discussed that the side yard/rear yard has already b('en determined. Smith asked Mr. Schibonski how he would feel if his neighbor was proposing this structure instead of him and he stated that he would feel that it was their property and could do whatever they want with it. O'Neill added that the applicant docs ha\'e the option to build to a smaller size but would still need the variance for a curb cut. Patch added that the curb cut was not a necessity. but rather something they desire. .10 Ann Zemke stated that no matter how it is determined as j~ll' as front or rear. the structure is still going to be in the same spot and out of place. Action 2: Variance - Second Curb Cut A MOTION WAS MADE BY ROBBIE SMITH TO DENY A VARIANCE PROVIDING FOR A SECONI) RFSIDENTIAL CURB CUT. RICHARD CARLSON SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSL,Y. Action 3: Variance - Front Yard Accessory Structure A MOTION WAS MADE B'{ ROBBIE SMITH TO DENY A VARIANCE ALLOWING CONSTRUCTION OF AN ACCESSORY STRUCTURE IN THE FRONT YARD Of THE SUBJECT PARCEL. LLOYD HILGART SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED UNANI1VIOUSL Y. . Chair Frie added that he fdt there is still an opportunity for the applicant to work something out. possibly \\'ith the other options as presented. -4- . . . Planning Commission Minutes - 11/07/02 o. Puhlic I /carin!.! - Consideration ofa reL]uest f()I" preliminarv rlat armroval for Monticello Business Center 2'1(1 Addition. Aoplicant: Michael Krutzi!l and Darvl Krutzig Steve Grittman, City Planner. provided the staff report advising of the applicant's request for preliminary plat approval and also that since the time he wTote the staff report the owner of the property advised that he has decided to retain Outlot A and would not be selling to the applicant. Grittman stated that in lieu of this infl1rmation, stalTwould then alter their recommendation with a condition that the owner of Outlot A continue to work with the City on the alignment of the property with Cedar Street. Chair Frie opened the public hearing. Shawn Weinand, property owner, clarified that during the process of negotiations with the applicant, it was determined that it would not be feasible for the applicant to purchase and develop the entire property. Weinand did ask that the City dedicate a ROW to Cedar Street and allow some t1exibility. He states it's an awkward piece as well as expensive. Krutzig added that he agrees with this compromise. Chair Frie closed the public hearing. Frie asked what the intent for the purpose of the property would be, asking irit fit \vith the intent of the Comprehensive Plan. Grittman stated that the zoning and lots arc fully in compliance. Krutzig added that it would mainly be retail and prokssional ortices and he vvould like to start building this spring. Clint Herbst asked if they would have to bring that road through to Kjellberg's Parle questioning if they arc allowing enough room f()r this. Weinand stated there would be and that with the present alignment. Kicllberg \vould not lose many units. It was c1aritied that the extension of Cedar Street would happen prior to Chelsea Road. Grittman added that Chelsea will be extended based on development demand and Cedar is ready to go. Weinand stated they have buyers on both sides of School Blvd. that arc ready to start next Spring. They would like to work out the alignment soon with staIr and City Engineer. A MOlION WAS rvlArX: BY LLOYD HILGART TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF TilE PIU:LIMINARY PLAT FOR MONTICELLO BUSINESS CENTER SECOND ADDITION, WITH THE CONDITION THAT THE OWNER OF OUTLOT A CONTINUE TO WORK WITH TilE CITY ON THE ALIGNMENT OF THE PROPERTY WITH CEDAR STREET, \VITII -IlIE APPROPRIATE RIGHT OF WAY. MOTION CONTINGENT ON INTEGRA T/ON OF FUTURE SITE PLAN DEVELOPMENT/FINAL PLAT WITH THE CITY ENGINEER'S ROAD AND UTIUTY PLANS FOR DEVELOprvlENT OF CEDAR STREET RIGHT OF WAY. RICHARD CARLSON SECONDED THE t\,(OTION. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Shawn Weinand requested this move to tinal plat stage at the City Council meeting in NO\'l'mbcr and O'Neill stated it \\ould. -5- . . . Planning COlllmission Minutes - 11/07102 7. Review revised skdeh plan for the "Bruuu.ernan" residential PUD. nO\v referrcd to as M.W. Johnson residential PUD. Steve Grittman advised that this itcm is a review of a revised sketch plan that has been proposed by Bruggeman. stating the developer is looking at another company to partner with to construct the homes. They also got a resolution from MnDOT regarding the 1-94 project which had been interfering \'vith this project. Grittman summarized the new proposed sketch plan, stating MnDOT would drop 1-94 underneath the railroad bridge rather than go over Co. Rd. 75. but basically the same alignment. After this is complete, the bulk ofthc land would still remain. There are some changes, although general layout is similar, access will be from Gillard, which allows for central access for single t~lll1ily homes in the NW corner. with the NE corner for townhouses. as wcll as in the SE corner. Thc developer is looking at R-2A standards and row townhouses that are not back to back as previously sketched. These changes as reported by staff would be more acceptable. giving a more private feeL and small lot single family seem to be a good solution to the tvvin homes \vhich staff is more supportive of. Density is relatively similar. The developer is aski ng lhe Planning Commission if there arc any issues that would interfere with them proceeding \vith preliminary plans, other than anncxation. Mike Gair. rvlFRi\. representative for Bruggenmn. as well as Mark Gergen with MW Johnson. the builder. addressed the Planning Commission. O'Neill stated to Gail' that there had been some concern as to \vhy they were back again since there were no major changes. Gair stated that they \vanted to introduce the builder and advise of the MnDUr plans. He noted the two temporary bypass lanes and that previously there was a potential to lose some of thc homes. but this has been resolved. Gair advised that in regard to density there will be one less unit. He also stated that previously they were proposing ten 8 unit buildings, back to back. and now they are proposing I'()\\ to\\'llhLlmes and 50 ft. wide lots for the R-2A. Frie asked if the Parks Commission had revie\\"Cd this and O'Neill staled that happens at development stage. hie asked Herbst about a previous comment on the intent of the City Park that is proposed. stating it was to be both for residents of the development and the public. O'Neill advised that this project t:.111s under the R-l requirements. Frie asked about sale price, and Mark Gergen stated that possibly in the to\\I1home project they would have two different floor plans with di ffercnt prices. approximately from $130.000 to $150.000 ti)r one style. the other style slightly higher. The small lot sing1ebmily homes would be higher in value than a twin home. They are proposing splits. ramblers and two stories. with splits selling for under $200.000 and the t\VO stories in excess of $200.000. Frie stated that his concern is that he feels we have a sholiage of single bmily detached homcs. lie was also concerned \\'ith phasing and how quickly there could be sewer and water 10 this prujecL and then extend further east of town. Herbst stakd that the major issue \vould bc the bypass. O'Neill stated that the new alignment for the interstate will now be a road that -6- . . 10. . Planning COlTImission Minutes - ] 1/07/02 will almost tunn<:l through and be at grade, and in order to accomplish that design there \\ill have to be a frontage/bypass road, and the question would be when the freeway is reinstated, should they leave that bypass road as a collector road for properties to the east. Initially GiHard A venuc will be the primary entrance to the development. He stated in discussions with MnDOT there would be costs and land acquisitions. MnDOT needs to acquire the land for ROW now and thc City does not know of all thc costs at this point. Gair advised that the mceting in August was with MnDOT and staff, and so the connection with them has been madc. Gair explained the buffer they propose which will not be a fence but rather a plante'cJ landscaped buffer, adding that this is an important part of their project. Therc was no further discussion. A MOTION WAS MADE BY ROBBIE SMITH ACCEPTING THE REVISED CONCEPT PLAN PRESENTED BY MW JOHNSON AS BEING CONSISTENT WITH THE ORIGINAL CONCEPT PLAN SUBMITTED BY BRUGGEMAN HOMES. RICl-IARD CARLSON SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSL Y. It was advised that the developer will now procced to the preliminary plat/development stage PUD. 8. Summar of the Fair Jlousin!.! discussion at the HRA !11Cetilw of October 7.7002. Chair Frie asked ifeveryone had read the summary provided to them by Ollie Koropchak, Economic Development Director. and it was noted that they had and there were no questions. No action was needed. 9. Handicap PUI'kin!.! on West Broadwav. Chair Frie advised that he had been approached by a business O\\ner on West Broadway who stated a concern with the lack of parking for their block during the construction of the new restaurant on the corncr of Broadway and Locust. He stated there was no rear entrance to this particular business and this makes it difficult for an employee who is handicapped to get to thc building. It was also noted that this will be even more diHicult once it snows. Frie stated that this is somewhat of a unique situation in that there are 2 businesses on this block with no entrances from the rear of thcir building. It was noted that parking on Broadway in front of their business is limited to two hours so the employee could not park in front to get access to their building during business hours. It was discusscd that this should be brought to the attcntion of John Simola and Roger Mack with the Public Works Department to see ifthcre is a solution for this. O'Ncill advised that he would contact them. Robbie Smith asked about the Holthaus proposal. \vhich is scheduled to be on the ncxt agenda. in regard to a lettcr received from Ed Solberg and his comment that the applicant had previously stakd that he would not ask for re-zoning. -7- . . . Planning COlllmission Minutes - 11/07/02 It was noteu that this statement was madc a number of years ago, in fael it was prior to some staff members who have been employed for 15 years. Herbst added that it is hard to hold somcone to a statcment like that from so long ago as there have been many changes. Herbst also stated that his perception is that the residents aren't opposed to homes, just the density and where driveways and yard areas were placed, and felt these were legitimate concerns. Fric also stated that from comments from the residents they would be happy if nothing happened on that property but that would not be good for the City. Frie added that with the conditions previously stated for this proposal this could be a nice project and Herbst added that this is a unique property. O'Neill added that referring to the roadway in the back as an aUcy rcally is not that, it is just a private drive to one side of the home. Carlson stated he felt possibly putting driveways in the front and pushing the units forward to allow for a nice rear yard would make more sense. O'Neill added that the proposed t100r plan is 1,400 sq. ft. and that these would be nice units. 11. Adjourn A MOTION WAS MADE BY RICHARD CARLSON TO ADJOURN THE MEE"fING AT 9:40 P.M. LLOYD HILGART SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED. Recorder -8- . . . Planning Commission Agenda - 12/03/02 s. rublic Hearin.~ ronsideration of arcqucst for prcliminary plat of tl,1e M.onticello Marketplace C~om":1crcial Subdivision and cO!lsideration of conditional us~ per~its allowif!gJ!conyeniencc ~tore, a c.arwash and joint parking in the B-3 Distri{:t AI!plicant: Richard Brendsel (NAC.) -".'-~~"-'_." A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: _.._"-'-"-,---~"-,.,~. Mr. Brendscl has appl ied for a preliminary plat liJr Lot 1, Block I of the Monticello Marketplace Commercial Subdivision. The property, located at the corner of lIighway 25 and School Boulevard, is zoned B-3, Highway Business District, and is guided for commercial use in the Comprehensive Plan. The request includes consideration of a conditional use permit for a convenience store, a car wash, and joint parking. The zoning ordinance describes a number of conditions lor the allowance of the proposed uses. The t-ollowing is an analysis of some general issues (i.e. parking, landscaping, site layout) followed by a list of requirements and staffcomnlents pertinent to the proposed uses. Land Use: The 1.61 acre parcel is zoned B-3, J lighway Business District, and does allow, with conditional use permit, the proposed uses. The site is currently surrounded by vacant land zoned for similar commercial use. .!,andscaping: The zoning ordinance sets out specific requirements fiJr landscaping in Section 3-2IGl. For commercial use, the ordinance requires 1 overstory tree per 50 lineal teet of site perinleter. The over-tory trees need to be 2.5 inches in diameter (Deciduous) or at least 6 leet in height (Coniferous). The applicant has provided a landscaping plan, however the plan will need to be revised to meet the minimum ordinance requirements. The plan provides for 14 overs tory trees where a minimum of 23 are required. StatI would like to see an increased amount of landscaping along the perimeter of the entire parcel, specifically along School Blvd. and Highway 25. There should also be an increased amount of landscaping within the open greenspace of the parking lot. 1 Plann ing C0I11111 ission Agenda - 12/03/02 . r_~!E~J!1:g: The zoning ordinance sets specific parking requirements for each use as follows: .. ... ...---....".--.---- Requirement Required Use Carwash Min. --...- ...' ,. -- 10 spaces, I per 0 employee on maximum shift (minus stacking). Deli Cp-e"i-gO-kitchcn " - '~'., .".,"".'- 22 I per 40 restaurant/dining (avg. 1 per 60) Convenient ....-...--..-. ..-..,. Store 1 per 200 15 TOTAL: .--..., . 37 -- ---. "".- .".., ...._-".". The plan provides for 36 parking stalls, 1 short of the requirement fCJr such uses. The parking requirements may change when the applicant provides building layout plans. The applicant should be held to the parking standards, which may be accomplished by squeezing the site plan, to provide an additional parking stall, moving the lot line to the north to provide more rOOITl f(.1r an additional stall, or creating the additional parking stall on the adjacent lot if the joint parking Conditionalllse Permit is granted. . _I,.ocHtion and Scrccnin~ of dumpstc,:: ^ location for a dWl1pster has not specifically been defined on the site plan. The ordinance requires that exterior storage be fully screened so as not to be visible from adjoining properties. Staff prefers such dumpsters to be internal or attached and not separate from the building. The site plan should be revised to meet these requirements. Glare: The zoning ordinance, Section 3-21H I, requires that any lighting used to illuminate off- street parking, sign, or other structures, be arranged as to deHect light away from any adjoining residential zone or from public streets. Staff supports locating the parking to the east of the building thus blocking the glare ii'om Highway 25. A more specific lighting plan needs to be submitted, reviewed, and approved by City statI. Conditional Use Permit: Drive in and convenience food establishment: . The architectural appearance and functional plan of the building and site shall not be so dissimilar to the existing buildings or cause impairment to the property values around the site. Detailed building plans need to be submitted and reviewed by City staff. . 2 . . . Plann i ng COIllIll ission Agenda - 12/03/02 · Parking areas and driveways should he eurbed with continuous curb not less than six inches high above the parking to or driveway grade. Paving plans will need to be submitted and approved hy the City Engineer prior to final plat. · Access points shall be limited, ereate minimum conflict with through traffic movements, comply with Chapter 3, Section 5 of the Ordinance and be suhject to the approval of the City Engineer. Tranic Cireulation doesn't appear to be an issue. · All lighting shall be hooded and so directed that the light source is not visible hom the public right-of-way or from an abutting residence and shall be in compliance with Chapter 3, Section 31HJ of this Ordinance. The applicant needs to submit a lighting plan. · Drainage is subject to the review and approval of the City I-':ngineer. The engineer is reviewing the drainage plan. · Signs are consistent with the City's sign regulations. A complete sign plan is not yet available. The Ordinance specifies that any portion of any sign exceeding two (2) square feet shall he set back a distance equal to lifty percent (5(Y%) of the required building setback f(Jr that district. The py Ion/monument sign at the southwest corner of the parcel needs to he 15 feet from both Ilighway 25 and School Boulevard. Canvash: · The architectural appearance and functional plan of the building and site shall not be so dissimilar to the existing huildings or cause impairment to the property values around the site. Detailed building plans need to be submitted and reviewed by City staff. · Stacking space is constructed to accommodate the number of vehicles which can be washed during a maximum thirty (30) minute period and shall be subject to the approval of the City Engineer. There appears to be a sufficient amount of stacking space provided. · Drainage is subject to the review and approval of the City Engineer. The engineer is reviewing the drainage plan. · Access points shall be I imited, shall create a minimum of conllict with through traffic movement, and shall be subject to the approval of the City Engineer. Access and circulation appear to be adequate. 3 . Planning COllllll ission Agenda - 12/03/02 · All signing and inf(mnational or visual communication devices shall be in compliance with Chapter 3, Section 9, or the Ordinance. A complete sign plan is not yet available. The Ordinance speciJies that any portion or any sign exceeding two (2) square feet shall be set back a distance equal to ntty percent (50%) of the rcquired huilding setback for that district. The pylon/monument sign at the southwest corner of thc parcel needs to be 15 leet from hoth Highway 25 and School Boulevard. · Provisions are made to control and reduce noise. Staff does not see this as issue being as the carwashis not located near residential use. .Join~ Parking: . The zoning ordinance requires that the perimeter curb barrier for parking lots be a minimum of fi ve (5) feet from all lot lines. This is so that there is always a ten (10) foot strip between parking lots on separate parcels. The applicant's parcel will eventually be connected to the parccl to the north, so the applicant has provided two access points, one to the east and one to the west or the parcel, connecting to the future development to the north. Staff encourages internal circulation between the parcels, however this provides for only a three (3) foot strip along the northcrn property line, whieh violates code. The lot line should be shifted to the north approximately two (2) feet in order to provide for the required green space. B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS --"--..'.'-'-"'.-..--..- Decision 1: Preliminary Plat 1. Motion to recommend approval of the Preliminary Plat, subject to conditions listed in Exhibit Z. 2. Motion to rec0l11lnend denial ofthe Preliminary Plat, based on findings discussed at the public hearing. 3. Motion to tahle action on the Preliminary Plat. subject to additional information. Decision 2: Conditional Use Permit allowing a Convenience Store in the B-3 District. 1. Motion to recommend approval of the ClJ P for a Convenience Store, subjcct to thc conditions listed in Exhibit /, bascd on the finding that the use is appropriate for thc zoning district and the proposed site. 2. Motion to recommend denial of the CU P for a Convenience Store, based on the findings discussed at the puhlic hearing. ^l -, . Motion to table action on the CUP for a Convenience Store, subject to additional information . 4 Planning COlllll1ission ^genda - 12/03/02 . Decision 3: ... ConditioI1.aJ Use PCl"rllit allowing a carwas_h in thcB-3 District. 1. Motion to recommend approval of the CUP for a carwash, subject to the conditions listed in Exhibit Z, based on the finding that the use is appropriate for the zoning district and the proposed site. 2. Motion to recOlnmend denial orthe CUP for a carwash, based on the findings discussed at the public hearing. 3. Motion to table action on the CUP for a carwash, subject to additional information. Decision 4: Conditional Us~ Pel'mit al!owing .io!nt parking. 1. Motion to recommend approval of the CUP for joint parking, subject to the conditions listed in Exhibit Z, based on the finding that the two access points connecting the parcel to the north will improve circulation between the two parcels. 2. Motion to recommend denial of the CUP for joint parking, based on the findings discussed at the public hearing. . ., -) . Motion to table action on the CUP ft.)!" joint parking, subject to additional infonnation. c. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS Sta1Trecommends approval of the Prelin1inary Plat for the Monticello Marketplace Subdivision and the proposed conditional use permits. The site is zoned appropriately for the proposed uses. The plans submitted, with adherence to the conditions listed in Exhibit Z, comply with the City's requirements outlined in the zoning ordinance. D. SUPPORTING DATA l':xhibit ^ - Site Location Map Exhibit B - Site Plan Exhibit C - Landscape Plan Exhibit Z - Conditions of Approval . 5 .. -- -.... . i . ~"~~N~t~.. I ...... " C~I"'f~, 1" !~i-;':-;';~ I .a::t-__~~-.... - 'i.: ~ ~:~"f.' !,:i~::' tt\S !H-r7Ub/"v<5?r , s =:~,';'~ - '..- ~'e'\Of~ I ~ ~. ~ '" T D<.e'-'"/M.....r r."'''.;;:;';';1 ~::-_/ " 1 ! ~ '--,~~~ '/ -- i 11 O I p I,r '-< I " ,E R.cft>~e..t> ~ ou..5 \ '-.:l G.-- .;;:t /f'? I~I I ., ~' ~ bev"eLOr':-e.<...tr f: ,..{,... ! , S. ~ i J J..O :t 'A~-e..S II!' I ;~~ Ilj -~ , : _:~ ~ " LO ~ I - ." i I :1 " ~<......! " -- ,I, 1 , , . "" I : \ I i il '\ -,:.....~-t--~_~~~---L_ --/ Ij. ! ,. II . '., ,I . . i -, ---jl-----;----'---;.----il--~-c'- I ~ I , J; I I r '. Integrated Recyclin T( Pipeline Sup ~ E t !.\. ~ .. .. o .. 'l : "o~ t' 0 I O'b-~.~ !', () ~~'t$.\: ~ '''''''''-l \~ij. </'l1-\f. ~..: ". ' .. ; "",I'ut ~ ~ ~.... ..) . ,+() DUNDAS ROAD DUNDAS ROAD " "0 DUNDAS "D . , I - I \'-0 ~l ) :.J ~. \\:t . ~I e/;-.. ;,~ >..1_ t_. 1. ),J ." i_. ~ ~~1 ~ -"9 H4 ~ - , \ _. ~ l ~ -, ''\'... I., lLk[ ::t::' 1 1=A.A-<' ~'i ", \. '.,,' '?', . ,; I",.' Little Me 2 , ' ~,. ,'" Elementar " ' '3 I . I .', ~,;. ~". - \<;:\ I .:.:... -. .' i' \ r- __ -:;':' --:..... -= _ .~ ~. - ~ ~ t'X.h \ bit- A . ~~ . Iyo_ 25 ~ (l> ::j m ~ ~ ~: L ~ ~ i Hmll ~ ~ .JJ~=~ - E l -, ~t 8. Z I> 1 t~~. -m GI 10 Ii .~' ~:t9 ;l) r 2 p.~~t!.. HI '" ; ~~ i-I! ~ ~ I '~"~E! t1l--< , .. h.Q -{ () c" ,0 _ ~ i1l !.; :~.~ ~ HI :t _'I E 10 ;~ 'i ! i ""^GJtJ " \. . III \0 I> ;" 'OiO"-'-t to ()!:: -/>.E-f>." (J\[j;(J\'-. o J:O JtJ TI '-." III --I --I (J~ () -, I 1".... U' \" '-1 iO o I> JtJ Z nt -t ~ <.1:' -t -t m fTl -..---.-...- ------- PH H,~ .t ~!, n,4! .. i' $ ~ \.! ! ~ ~ JJ~~ ~lt . . ~ ~i'~ l' ~ 'lI- t ~;.p f l if~l'~ : "\ 4 ~ i~n ..J It, f hJ flq JJ;r .d. 'Hi ~H I!!. II i , . t':M W.A~~ FO~' MONTicELL~ MARKET l'1O-I'ftclill.LO, 1"t~8CrA ~ CONSTRUCTION L"LC_ OE~IGN AND. FRlDI,...'f.....tr/>.an bth:b;""B .--,..- Planning Commission Agenda - 12/03/02 . Exhibit Z: Preliminary Plat/CUP Conditions of Approval - Monticello Marketplace 1. ^ revised landscape plan, providing an additional 9 overstory trees and additional landscaping along the site perimeter, should be sublnitted and approved by the City Stall prior to submittal of the final plat. 7 Landscaping of the parcel per revised landscape plan prior to issuance ofa building permit or via a landscape bond. 3. The final plat site plan should be revised to show location and screening of dmnpstcr as required in the zoning ordinance. 4. A lighting plan meeting the requirements of the zoning ordinance, Section 3-2[11], is submitted and approved by City Staff prior to Final Plat. 5. The northern lot line is to be moved two (2) feet north as needed to provide the required five (5) foot green space separation fi'onl all lot lines. 6. Detailed building plans are to be submitted and reviewed by City StaLe as required by the zoning ordinance, prior to Final Plat approval. . 7. Paving plan is to be submitted and reviewed by City Staft~ as required by the zoning ordinance, prior to Final Plat approval. 8. An in depth sign plan is to be submitted and reviewed by City Staff, as required by the zoning ordinance, prior to Final Plat approval. 9. The required amount of parking stalls, as determined by the zoning ordinance, arc achieved. 10. Recommendation of other City Stan~ including the City Engineer, EXHIBIT Z . ----., -........ " -........ ---.. -........ ............ ............ , , ....... ~ "- , "- , ---.. "- -....... , , ~ "- -....... " w o Ul f- a --l -- -- ------- '--.. 0::: W Z 0::: " a "- u " "- "- " I II // / / I __ I I .1 I I 1 , I .' I, I _. I I I I I I I I I I !. ~ ~ ; I W 0::: o r--- (f) I () L_ / .-J W o (:J' ~ Qj ~