Planning Commission Agenda 09-07-2004
.
.
.
AGENDA
REGULAR MEETING - MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION
Tuesday, September 7th, 2004
6:00 P.M.
Members:
Dick Frie. Richard Carlson, Rod Dragsten, Lloyd Hilgart, and
William Spartz
Glen Posusta
JetT O'Neill, Fred Patch, Steve Grittman - NAC, and
Angela Schumann
Council Liaison:
S taiT:
1. Call to order.
2. Approval of the minutes of the regular Planning Commission meeting held Tuesday,
August 3rd, 2004.
3. Consideration of adding items to the agenda.
4.
Citizen comments.
5. Public Hearing - Consideration of a request for a Conditional Use Permit for a Special
Home Occupation for Spiritual/Intuitive Readings and Reiki Bealings in an Roo! district.
Applicant: Kristin M. Thomas/Healing with Spirit
6. Public Hearing - Consideration of a request for an Amendment to an existing
Development Stage PUD for a fence line addition and building expansion in a B-3
district.
Applicant: AMAX Self-Storage
7. Public Hearing - Consideration of a request for a Simple Subdivision to create two
industrial lots in an 1-2 district.
Applicant: Standard Iron & Wire Works
8. Discussion Item - Review of Open and Outdoor Storage Ordinance Requirements
9. Adjourn.
.~,,,,,,..
.
.
.
MINUTES
REGULAR MEETING - MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION
Tuesday, August 3rd, 2004
6:00P.M.
Members Absent:
Dick Frie, Rod Dragsten, and William Spartz
Richard Carlson, Lloyd Hilgart
Glen Posusta
Members Present:
Staff:
Council Liaison:
Jeff O'Neill, Fred Patch, Steve Grittman - NAC, and Angela Schumann
1. Call to order.
Chairman Frie called the meeting to order at 6:00 PM, declaring a quorum ofthe Commission and
noting the absence of Commissioners Hilgart and Carlson.
2. Approval ofthe minutes of the regular Planning Commission meeting held Tuesday, July"6th,
2004.
MOTION BY COMMISSIONER SPARTZ TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF JULY 6TH, 2004.
MOTION SECONDED BY DRAGSTEN. MOTION CARRIED.
3.
Consideration of adding items to the agenda.
None.
4. Citizen comments.
Chairman Frie explained that due to a missed deadline for publication of notification of public
hearings, the Planning Commission would not be holding public hearings on the agenda items.
Instead, the Commission would make a recommendation on the agenda items to the City Council
based on the provided staff reports and input from applicants. The required public hearings will be
held at the upcoming City Council meeting on August 9th.
5.
Cons~deration of a request for a Conditional Use Permit, Simple Subgivision and Yariance!Q
create two single-family residential lots in the Central Community District. Applicant:, Dennis
James Custom Builders
Grittman presented the stafr report, stating that Dennis James Custom Builders is seeking
approval of a subdivision to create two single family residential lots in the CCD zoning
district. Grittman explained that a Conditional Use Permit is also required to allow for ground
floor residential units in this district. A variance had also been listed in the application
materials due to concern over lot width. Grittman stated that because the CCD does not have
minimum lot standards, no variance will be needed.
Grittman indicated that the zoning for the Central Community District requires that proposed
ground floor residential units be consistent with the goals and objectives ofthe Downtown
Revitalization Plan, that the proposal does not interrupt the flow of commercial pedestrian
.
Planning Commission Minutes 08/03/04
traffic in the district, and that density for ground floor residential units shall not exceed one
unit per 9,000 square feet of lot area, exclusive ofland area utilized by, or required for,
permitted uses on the property.
Grittman indicated that the applicant's proposal creates two 66 foot wide single family lots.
These lots would be consistent with the original plat lot size, and would acconllllodate single
family homes. The site plan provided illustrates two building pads with 30 foot front yard
setbacks and 10 foot side yard setbacks. The site is within the original plat, where the City has
allowed for side yard setbacks of 6 feet to accommodate garage expansion on the narrower
lots. Therefore, Grittman recommended that these lots utilize a 6 foot side yard setback rather
than 10 foot, and apply a house design that avoids the garage-forward layout to de-emphasize
automobile parking and visibility.
Grittman noted that the Revitalization Plan calls for a mix of uses in the downtown core,
including all types of residential use. Grittman stated that the requested use is compatible with
the neighborhood, as other residential uses can be found, including ground floor multiple
family units and single family homes. Grittman stated that staff recommends approval of the
CUP and subdivision based on these conclusions.
.
Dragsten inquired whether other lots in the area are 66 feet. Grittman stated that those on the north
are, those on the south may not be. Dragsten indicated that should the request be granted, it is
important that lot sizes in the area remain consistent.
frie asked whether the applicant is aware that the planner is requesting 6 foot setbacks rather than
the 10 foot setback illustrated. Grittman stated that the applicant understands that possibility.
Spartz inquired about the existing building. Grittman clarified that the current structures would be
removed.
hie requested that Dennis James be notified of the public hearing at City Council on August 91h.
MOTION BY COMMISSIONER DRAGSTEN TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE
SUBDIVISION, BASED ON A FINDING THAT THE PROPOSED LOTS ARE
CONSISTENT WITH OTHER ORIGINAL PLAT LOTS, AND THAT THE DOWNTOWN
PLANNING DOCUMENTS SUPPORT MIXED (INCLUDING SINGLE FAMILY) USES.
MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER SPARTZ. MOTION CARRIED.
.
MOTION BY COMMISSIONER SPARTZ TO RECOMMEND APPROV AL, OF THE CUP,
BASED ON A FINDING HIA T Hm PROPOSED HOUSING MEETS THE
REQUIREMENTS OF THE CUP REGULATIONS IN THE CCD SECTION OF THE
ZONING ORDINANCE. THIS MOTION SHOULD INCLUDE A RECOMMENDATION
ON THE HOUSING STYLE, INCLUDING A RECOMMENDATION THAT TIlE
APPLICANT NOT USE GARAGE-FORWARD HOUSE DESIGN, AND THAT TI-IE
APPLICANT BE PERMITTED TO CONSTRUCT THE BUILDING TO 6 FOOT SIDE
YARD SETBACKS.
MurlON SECONDED BY DRAGSTEN. MOTION CARRIED.
- 2 -
.
.
.
Planning Commission Minutes 08/03/04
6.
ConsideratioD of a request for a Conditional Use permit for a commercial concept stage Planned
Unit Devclopment in a B-3 (Highway Business) distri~t. Applicant: Shingobee Builders/UBJ2
Development
Grittman provided the staff report, outlining current uses on the site and stating that the
proposed project consists of 6 potential commercial uses, including a conven ience/car wash,
quick lubc tacility, fast food, retail, and restaurant uses.
Grittman stated that the plan proposed is concept stage. Therefore, not all of the tenants have
been identified. At development stage, some of the building sizes or configurations may flex.
Grittman noted items that had been adjusted to improve site design as well as remaining issues
identified by planning staff.
Grittman pointed out that a central north-south drive provides access to the entire project,
connecting Chelsea and Oakwood. The crossing of this drive is reasonably well coordinated,
given the differing uses. The sidewalk along the full length of the drive is a significant
advantage to this design, facilitating pedestrian trips between facilities, rather than
encouraging multiple-stop vehicle trips. Grittman stated that it will be important to enhance
this connection with a unified tree-planting and lighting plan that emphasizes the central drive.
Grittman stated that the few contlict points would appear to be internal, and should not affect
traffic on public streets. The addition of pull-through angled parking between fast-food
restaurant No.2 and No.4 should tacilitate trailer and truck access from the Cedar Street
driveway. The circulation around the Subway appears to be adequate, and parking has been
added to the south of the building where the primary entrance is located. Grittman stated that
staff encourages the applicant to minimized paved areas, while maintaining parking supply.
Grittman commented that parking on the project appears to be close to requirements. If
significant changes occur due to building plans that increase parking demands, further plan
changes may be necessary.
The applicants have illustrated the access to Chelsea as right-in, right-out due to the existing
median. No access is proposed to Cedar Street near the intersection, easing previous concerns
over congestion at the corner with turning traffic.
Grittman stated that a few external circulation issues will require resolution, including concern
regarding the westernmost access drive into the Holiday. The Oakwood median will be closed
due to previous MnDOT requirements, and right-turn-out traffic will proceed to the cast, then
U-turn in the street or at the intersection with Cedar Street, wherever the median ultimately
ends. Staff believes that large numbers ofLJ-turning vehicles could create an unsafe condition
in heavily traveled areas. Staff has proposed permitting the median to end where traffic could
leave this site from the central drive and turn left onto Oakwood. Eastbound traffic on
Oakwood would still be able to turn left into the SuperAmerica at this location as well. This
issue is still under study by the developer, City Planner and City's engineering consultant.
Grittman noted that although signage is not identified at the concept stage, planning staff
would encourage a unified approach to sign age for the project.
'J
~ d -
.
Planning Commission Minutes 08/03/04
Grittman explained that planning staff believe the plan represents a superior design and are
recommending approval subject to those comments and noting the remaining Oakwood access
Issue.
Frie inquired about the right of way on Cedar Street. O'Neill indicated that as outlined in the
staff report, the issue is being discussed between City staff and the developer. O'Neill stated
that it is most likely that the City will charge market rate for the property.
Dragsten asked if considerable changes are made to the plan, would the developers need to
come back to Commission. Grittmanindieated that the development stage application
subsequent to concept stage requires that they come back. Significant departures fronl the
current proposed plan would require that, as well.
Frie expressed that the proposed plan is very positive for the existing site. Frie asked the
applicants if they could provide an approximate timeframe for development. I Ie also inquired
whether the differing properties were ground lease or purchase, and lastly, whether in
requesting a PUD, they had addressed the pros and cons of staff s signage recommendation.
.
Keith McDonald, Shingobee Builders, addressed the Commission, introducing Victor Sacco of
Holiday StationStores, and Rick Janssen of Wendy's International. McDonald stated that with
approval at Council level, they would like to move to development stage and hopefully begin
construction this fall. At this point, the buildings will be ground lease. McDonald stated
agreement with staff's desire to have less signage.
Frie asked who would be taking the lead on the project. McDonald indicated that for the most
part, Shingobee will take the lead and consult with Wendy's and Holiday. Shingobee will be
the overall contractor, creating a cohesive development.
Dragsten inquired of the developers whether there would be a theme for the architectural style
of the buildings. Dragsten also noted that the recommended landscaping would be desirable in
creating a unified site. McDonald indicated that staff had requested that they landscape along
the sidewalk. It is their intention to comply with that request as mush as possible. They will
also try to provide a unified look, while recognizing that each building may have its own look
through franchising.
hie inquired whether landscaping will work with the sidewalk. Grittman noted that while the
sidewalk reduces the overall arca for green space, it provides pedestrian through ways and still
leaves opportunities for landscape treatments. Standard PUD enhanccd landscape plans will
be expected at development stage.
.
Spartz noted that the sidewalk would provide a natural flow through the site. Spartz inquired
about Holiday's plans for the store on the other side of the freeway. Sacco indicated that the
store would stay. Sacco discussed the potential elimination of the Oakwood access in terms of
their site and use, stating that they understand there is a problem with right-in, right-out access.
Sacco proposed a right-in only with a slip lane. They will work to ensure that this is a safe
access, noting that the access is conven ient fe)!' the user and important to the Holiday site.
- /1. -
.
.
.
Planning Commission Minutes 08/03/04
Frie inquired about the distance from the westernmost turn to Highway 25. Frie indicated that
it seems easier to swing in, rather than double-back. O'Neill stated that would be true as long
as traffic wasn't backed up at the pumps themselves. Sacco indicated that there would be 10
fueling stations, and as such could accommodate a high volume of traffic. O'Neill stated that
the engineers will look at the space issues in trying to create a win-win situation. Frie
encouraged staff and the developer to work towards a resolution of the issue.
Posusta commented that staff's request for a reduction of paved areas seems to be in
contradiction to the addition of sidewalk. posusta also stated that in regard to the portion of
Cedar Street right of way, perhaps that City should look at what the piece of land is currently
contributing to the tax base in contrast to helping move along a worthwhile project. Therefore,
if it has to be sold, it should be done so at a reasonable pricc.
Frie concurred, inquiring what the City's current policy is. O'Neill stated that the traditional
policy is to charge an amount equal to the appraisal value. Council has the authority to make
adjustments to the prices as it deems appropriate. Frie asked applicants for their input on the
matter. McDonald stated that the project cannot be completed without the right of way.
O'Neill stated that in an initial site planning meeting with the developer, staff' had identified
that all of the area was not needed for City ROW purposes. That analysis led to the ROW's
inclusion in the site plan.
Fric noted that both sides of the proposed devclopmcnt compliment onc another. Howcver, hc
inquircd whether Wendy's and Holiday could move forward without the south portion.
Janssen and Sacco indicated that it could.
McDonald noted that they have filed for vacation of right of way. The only othcr critical dctail
is to work with stafT on full access at the interscction in question.
Spartz inquired about the parking spots on the northeast side, which seem tighter. McDonald
indicated that parking would most likely bc used as staff parking.
MOTION BY COMMISSIONER flUE TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE
CONCEPT STAGE PUD, BASED ON A FINDING THAT THE PROJECT APPEARS TO
PRESENT TI-lE POTENTIAL FOR A SUPERIOR PROJECT DESIGN DUE TO THE
SHARED ACCESS AND CENTRAL DRIVE CONCEPT, AS WELL AS COORDINATED
PEDESTRIAN CIRCULATION, BUILDING DESIGN, PARKING, LANDSCAPING, AND
OTHER SITE PLANNING ELEMENTS, NOTING COMMENTS ON THE
INTERSECTION.
MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER SPARTZ, WITH A NOTATION BY
DRAGSTEN TO COORDINATE ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN STYLE AMONG THE SIX
BUSINESSES.
MOTION CARRIED.
7.
Consideration of a request for a Pn;;limil}ary Plat for Nathan's Court. a residential subdivision
in an R-I district. Applicant: Quality Buildcrs
Grittman presented the staff report, indicating that a full analysis of the preliminary plat request
- :; -
.
.
.
had been provided in the written report.
Planning Commission Minutes 08/03/04
Grittman statcd the cul-dc-sac did meet requirements, contrary to the staff report. In terms of
setbacks, lot size, density, and landscaping, plann ing staff has determined that the proposed
plat meets the requirements. The City Engineer has provided written comments on the
grading, drainage and utility plans.
Grittman commentcd that staff's primary concern relates to the encroachment of a portion of
thc Fairhill Lane right-of-way within the adjacent NSP powerline easement. As shown on thc
submitted preliminary plat, approximately 10 feet of the right-of-way encroaches thc eascment.
While it is understood that the street itself is not proposed to be constructed within the
easement, a southerly shift ofthe right-of-way is recommended to avoid potential conflicts
relating to future street maintenance. Considering that all lots exceed the minimum area
requirements of the district, it is not expected that this change will result in the loss of any lots.
This issue should be subject to furthcr comment by the City Engineer. Planning staff would
recommend revised plans be submitted illustrating the shift.
Frie clarified that as the 600' length cul-de-sac meets requirements, a variance hearing is not
nceded to coincide with thc final plat hearing.
Grittman indicated that thc Parks Commission has not reviewed this plan. The Parks Commission
may ask for a cash contribution in lieu of park dedication.
Dragsten inquired about Outlot A in terms of drainage purposes. Grittman stated that the City
Engineer did not have any substantive comments regarding drainage issues.
hie inquired if this was straight R-I. Grittman replied that was correct.
Scott Foley, Quality Builders and Ken Adolf~ Schoell and Madsen Engineering, made themselves
availablc to answer questions from the Commission.
hie asked the applicant if they are familiar with the conditions outlined by staff. Adolf indicated
that they are aware of the conditions and are in agreement.
Adolf stated that they have not yet talked with the Parks Commission. I Ie noted that the
neighboring development, Hunter's Crossing, has provided a neighborhood park. Adolf also
explained that Outlot A contains a large power line easement, a majority ofwhich would be
conveyed to the City for storm water ponding.
MOTION BY COMMISSIONER DRAGSTEN TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE
PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR NATHAN'S COURT, BASED ON THE COMMENTS FROM
THE STAFF REPORT FOR THE AUGUST 3,2004 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
AND THOSE NOTED IN EXHIBIT Z.
MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER SPARTZ MOTION CARRIED.
8.
Continucd Public Hearing - Consideration of a request for a Conditional Use Perm it for a copcept
stage Planned UI~it Development for 41 detached town homes in a PZM (performance Zone _
Mixed) district. Applicant: UP Dcvelopment
- (i -
.
.
.
Planning Commission Minutes 08/03104
Grittman noted that he had spoken with the applicant beforc the meeting. They indicated that if
they were not present at the meeting, they would request tabling of their item to a future meeting.
Grittman stated that as they are not present, action to table the request should be taken.
MOTION BY COMMISSIONER FRIE TO CON'fINUE THE HEARING AND TABLE
ACTION ON THE REQUEST.
MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER SPARTZ.
Dragsten inquired whether there would be any violation of the 60-day rule. Grittman indicated that
as a written request to table was also provided, there would be no violation. The request is also not
a preliminary plat request, for which the 60-day rule applies.
MOTION CARRIED.
9.
Carlisle Village Update
O'Neill provided an update on the Carlisle Village development. O'Neill stated that the project
had received approvals via a PUD and preliminary plat. The final plat for first phase was approved
with a caveat that revised plans be provided to ensure that the plans were conducive to the original.
In the process of reviewing the revised preliminary plat, it was discovered that some of the lots on
the southern boundary do not meet the R- I A requirements. This is most likely die to the fact that
acreage along the boundary was reduced. Grittman noted that some of the lots along south
boundary arc 9,000 feet in area and 120 feet deep rather than 15,000 square feet and 175 feet deep.
As the R-IA standards have been a special focus of the Commission, O'Neill noted that this may
come back as a discussion item. It is staft~s view that this is a high amenity area and should be
preserved as such. Planning statTwill be meeting with the developer to discuss the issue. The
Commission can expect another update next month.
Frie noted that Mike Gail', the developer's representative, had stated that area would bc the higher-
end area die to the amenities. Frie hopes that intention can be accommodated.
Dragsten inquired whether Shadow Creek is still the owner. O'Neill indicated that they are.
Frie asked if this would go to Council. O'Neill stated that at this time they are simply seeking
Commission's input at this time. Spartz expressed his desire that the developer meet the
requirements. Dragsten and Frie concurred.
10.
Continued Public Hearing - Consideration ofa request to amend the Monticello Subdivision
Qrd inilllIT. regardin g:
a. Topographic survey requirements
b. Tree survey requirements
c. Final plat submission requirements
d. Park dedication requirements
Applicant: City of Monticello Staff and the Parks Commission
- 7 -
.
Planning Commission Minutes 08/03/04
Grittman provided the staff report, indicating that the items noted for amendment had come up as
palt orthe Parks Commission discussion regarding their authority in terms of where parks could be
located. Staff has taken those comments, along with other issues that needed to be addressed, in
drafting the proposed amendment. Grittman stated that changes to Section 2 on dedication
requirements clean up the ordinance for both the City and developers. Grittman noted that the
second alternative, which is to apply park dedication based on density is the better standard in
terms of what previous court cases deem "reasonable or proportionate demand".
Grittman explained that the Parks Commission wanted to make sure they did not have to accept
encumbered land. They have that authority given court cases, but they thought it best outlined
within the ordinance.
Dragsten inquired ifthere is currently a time limit for recording multiple phases of plats. Grittman
responded that theoretically, developers have an unlimited amount of time to file a final plat. The
proposed amendment simply sets a limit between preliminary and final. Dragsten's concern is
whether three years is ample time to complete a multiple phase development. Grittman stated that
it doesn't force developers to build within three years, it just requires them to plat the land, whether
it be in outlots or actual lots.
.
Dragsten sought clarification on what the actual recommended amendment to the park dedication
was. Grittman stated that the second option, the density clause, is somewhat cleaner and. is actually
what staff recommends.
Frie asked if the dedication ordinance has been challenged. Grittman stated it had been challenged
in other areas and the second alternative seems to be what is most consistent with rulings.
Posllsta asked if the City has discretion whether they take land or money for park dedication
purposes. Grittman replied that the City has the sole responsibility of that determination. Posusta
asked if in the case that the City determines that land isn't feasible for park development, they can
decide to take cash instead. Posusta stated his concern that the City has proposed some lands for
park that are not conducive to parks. Grittrnan stated first, the City can decide to accept cash or
land for dedication, and then ultimately what land is acceptable as parkland.
Dragsten expressed concern on the tree survey requirements. Grittman stated it is more of a
concern to not have the clause, citing the case of Carlisle Village. The City can always waive the
requirement. Dragsten stated that if you are a developer, it would seem you want to keep the trees.
GriUman indicated that is not the case, in most cases.
MOTION BY COMMISSIONER SPARTZ TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE
AMENDMENT, BASED ON A FINDING THAT SUBDIVISIONS NEED TO BE ARLE
TO DEMONSTRATE COMPLIANCE WInI THE CITY'S ZONING REGULATIONS
AND COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, AND THAT THE PROPOSED AMENDMENTS
SUPPORT THIS ORJECTIVE.
.
MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER FRIE WITH COMMISSIONER DRAGSTEN
NOTING THAT THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO SECTION 8 OF THE ORDINANCE
REGARDING TREE SURVEYS BE A POINT OF DISCUSSION FOR COUNCIL.
- H -
.
Planning Commission Minutes 08/03/04
MOTION CARRIED.
II. .h-png-Range Planning Effort: Framework Discussion
O'Neill explained that in terms of identifying a scope of study, Grittman would be putting together
a summary of what would be needed to properly plan for the future. Subsequent to that, Mayor
Theilen is looking at a community visioning process to look at overall goals and the planning
process as a whole. O'Neill noted that as such, the long-range planning effort is becoming more
comprehensive than just land use. It will be a well-focused community effort. The City Council
will be looking at an outline for the process in the near future.
Frie requested that open forums be held with all City Commissions.
O'Neill stated that they are looking at having a charter group lnanage the process, soliciting input
from many different sectors. O'Neill stated it would be a fall/winter project.
12. Adiourn.
MOTION BY COMMISSIONER DRAGTSEN TO ADJOURN AT 7:30 PM.
MOTION SECONDED BY SPARTZ. MOTION CARRIED.
.
Angela Schumann, Recorder
.
- ~) -
-..,
---
~,
Planning Commission Agenda 09/07/04
5.
Public Hearinl! - Consideration of a request for a Conditional Use Permit for a Special
Home Occupation for Spiritual/Intuitive Readinl!s and Reiki Healinl!s in an R-l district.
Applicant: Kristin M. Thomas/Healinl! with Spirit
REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND
Kristin Thomas requests a Conditional Use Permit for a special home occupation permit
that would allow "Healing with Spirit" services at her home. The home is located in an
R-l district, at [,ot I, Block 1 of the River Mill Subdivision (6191 River Mill Drive).
The proposed use and associated operation is similar to other uses allowed by special
permit such as barber and beauty services, photography studio, saw sharpening, skate
sharpening, small appliance and small engine repair and the like.
In describing the Healing with Spirit activities, Thomas notes in her application that her
business provides spiritual/intuitive readings, Angel Card Readings and Reiki healing.
Please see her letter to the Planning Commission for detail.
The applicant's letter also reviews the city ordinance standards point by point, noting that
the business will be in compliance with all requirements of the special home occupation
permit, with the exception of the limited retail activity will occur on site.
It appears that the use proposed is no dilTerent than other home occupation uses that arc
allowed. Therefore, it is the view of staff that the proposed use is eligible for a home
occupation permit.
ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS
Decision 1: Conditional Use Permit for a Special Home Occupation for Spiritual/Intuitive
Readings and Reiki Healings in an R-l district.
1. Motion to approve the Healing with Spirit Conditional Use Permit for a Special
flome Occupation with the condition that the operation of the home occupation
comply with the standards identified by ordinance. Retail activity shall be limited
to purchases made by customers in conjunction with an appointment for service.
No retail sales apart from appointments will be allowed. Planning Commission
has the latitude to add additional conditions if so desired.
2.
Motion to approve the Healing with Spirit Conditional Use Permit for a Special
Home Occupation based on the finding that the proposed use is consistent with
the standards identified in the Special Home Occupation section of the Monticello
Zoning Ordinance.
.
August 16, 2004
Kristin M. Thomas
6191 River Mill Drive
Monticello, MN 55362
liY.K\
Chair Frie and Planning Commissioners
City of Monticello
505 Walnut Street, Suite 1
Monticello, MN 55362
I-teC{L~rAg w~tVl Sp~Y-Lt
Dear Mr. Frie and Members of the Commission:
Thank you for the opportunity to further explain my request for a special home occupat.ion
permit. I would like to provide you with a detailed description of the services J will provide
within the conditions of the permit.
.
My company, "Healing with Spirit" provides the following services:
A. Spiritual/Intuitive Readings whereby my client and I will sit in my living
room and he/ she will ask questions and I in return will provide the client
information I receive from spirit.
B. Angel Card Readings where I use two decks of cards and intuitively interpret
information received from spirit through the card's messages
C. Reiki healings were I place my hands within the client's energy field or lightly
on top of his/her clothed body and channel energy from the universe.
These services will be provided out of my home approximately fifty percent of the time.
The remainder of my work will be conducted at the client's home or at a designated holistic
center. Office activities relating to my business, such as billing, phone calls, establishing
appointments, etc., will also occur within my home.
.
My home occupation meets the requirements of a permitted home occupation:
Section 3 - 11 [D], General Provisions
A. My home occupation will not produce light glare, noise, odor, or vibration that will
in any way have an objectionable effect upon adjacent or nearby property.
B. No equipment will be used in my home occupation that will create electrical
interference to surrounding properties.
C. The residential character of the neighborhood will not be affected.
D. I will not conduct any internal or external alterations or involve construction features
not customarily found in residential dwellings.
E. There will be no exterior storage.
F. My home occupation will meet all required building and fire codes.
G. There will be no exterior or interior signage for this home occupation that are visible
from the outside of the dwelling with the exception of a potential identification sign
identifying me as the resident by name only.
H. My home occupation will comply with the provisions of the city code.
L My home occupation will be by appointment only and no business that requires the
client to be present will be conducted between the hours of 10:00 pm and 7:00 am.
.
.
.
J. All parking of clients will be within the driveway area at least fifteen feet from the
curb line.
My home business also meets the requirements stated in:
Section 3 - 11 [E] Permitted Home Occupations
1. I am the owner of "Healing with Spirit" and will be the sole employee. My husband
and I jointly own and live in the home where the business will occur.
2. All of my services will be provided within the principal structure.
3. All client parking will be within my driveway and be the required 15 feet away from
the curb line.
4. My home occupation is similar to and qualifies under the permitted use as,
"professional offices".
5. My home occupation will not involve any of the following: repair senrice or
manufacturing that requires equipment other than found in a dwelling; or teaching
which customarily consists of more than one pupil at a time. I will provide for the
limited retail sale of small metaphysical items, such as stones ranging from 1/4" to 1"
in size, or small containers of oils, etc., that are not products widely marketed and
sold in wholesale or retail outlets.
I will be in attendance at the Planning Commission meeting of September 7,2004 to answer
any questions the Commission may have. Thank you in advance for your time and
consideration.
Sincerely,
~nLrnJ~
Kristin M. Thomas
Home: 763-295-8355, l)aytime: 763-635-1013
.
.
.
CITY OF MONTICELLO
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
505 Walnut Street, Suite 1
Monticello, MN 55362
(612) 295-2711
Planning
Case #
ADMINISTRATIVE PERMIT - HOME OCCUPATION
APPLICA TION/PERMIT
Applicant Name: 5r, s-h n m. TnC7rY1O.s
Address: l.P I q I K; \t'eV' m'I.11 Dr I VG
Phone: Home: (7tp3) ,.;2Q 5-:.2355__
Business Name: \~eo.\', YlS \At 'I.~h \)pi r; +
Business:
Zoned:
1. Please describe the proposed home occupation activity in general tenus and location within home.
I UJ\ \\ be P(O\l"dln~ 8e<\IIC'es +h<\t lne-lude.. ps~en"lc/l'rrtu'I-h\le OJ')cJ.
('(1("'6 reac\.i09S/ (1 Gn3 w',+h 'k'e'd<-l heaJ,ngs wh;ch Qfe enef'g~ -+hCY~.
WILL THE HOME OCCUPATION INCLUDE ANY OF THE FOLLOWING?
(Circle your response)
2.
3.
4.
5.
Retail activity? ~ No .
Manufacturing or repair activity? Y es ~
Inventory to be kept on the premises? ([iJ5 No
Any person other than those residing on the premises employed in the
home occupation? Yes @
Use of mechanical equipment not customarily found in the home? Yes ~
More than one room devoted to the home occupation? Yes e
Outside storage of materials? Yes @
Signage? Yes @
Internal or extemal alterations involving construction? Yes ~
Will the home occupation be conducted in a garage or accessory building? Yes @
Will the home occupation result in more than one customer's car being parked
on the premises at any given point in time? Yes @
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13. Describe the cntrance to the space devoted to the home occupation:
C\\ertts ~\6 eC\1e[ -1-h,ouSh -\-f\e +t-Ch+ c:iox fa -the hO'Yle.
HOM EOC:C.^PP: OR/22103
Page 1
.
Please provide detail for all YES answers above:
.:. I WI II halIe. sane o~ls, slmes. ax0 olhe.- Srna-II metQph~~;aJ \-lerns a.ua; lable.
+1'( pu..<cha.Se.
4. A 3rr.a.1I ~ 01" -fI-e tlems h&iit1 alJoJe. Shall be fYUt".ja,!"1/d In (h~ ~ ,
I have reviewed the regulations associated with operation of a home occupation, and I have reviewed City staff
comments. I do hereby agree to abide by all City of Monticello home occupation regulations.
~ C), dD:-ic _:J~~r\ UY\ (~hoy\Qn
I? te Applicarl't Signature
FEE: $IO/@
Receipt #
*******************************************************************************************
(For City Use Only)
.
I t has been determined by staff that this home occupation permit is:
[ ] Approved
[ J Denied
j(j Special Permit Needed
STAFF COMMENTS:
Assistant Administrator
Zoning Administrator
Date Approved
Date Approved
.
Public Hearing Date: ~ N/ A
[or) 5tp\f. B; wM
HOM EOCCAPP; OS/22103
Page 2
Planning Commission Agenda - 9/07/04
.
6. Public Rearinl!: Consideration of a request for an Amendment to an existinl!
Development Stal!e PUD for a fence line addition and buildinl! expansion in a B-
3 District. Applicant: AMAX Self-Storal!e. (NAC)
REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND
The applicant is seeking approval of an amendment to a PUD approval that was
previously granted to accommodate outdoor storage, a common signage plan, and
physical improvements to the AMAX Self-Storage facility south of Dundas Road.
The current PUD approval incorporates a small stormwater pond in the southwest
corner of the site, along Cedar Street. With the Cedar Street improvements, the
applicant will have access to the City's improved stonnwater system, climinating the
need for the on-site ponding. With this change, the applicant is requesting the
expansion of two existing storage buildings toward Cedar Street in the area currcntly
occupied by the pond.
Also as a part of the original plan, the applicant proposed a fence consisting of split-
face concrete block and black iron fencing along Dundas Road. Thc new proposal
extends the fencc along the Cedar Street exposure.
.
The elimination of the pond was a part of the City's anticipated street improvements,
and appears to be consistent with the Engineer's expectations for stormwater
management in the area. The buildi ng expansion and extension of the fence line
would allow fiJr full utilization of the site. The plans are not clear, however, it is
staff's understanding that the site improvements, including paving, building style, and
landscaping will bc consistent with current site use.
Finally, previous approvals were conditioned on bringing the site into compliance
with signage regulations, with appears to be completed.
AL TERNA TIVE ACTIONS
Decision 1: Development Stage pun for expansion of the AMAX Self Storage
facility.
1.
Motion to recommend approval of the PUD Amendment, based on a
finding that the proposed improvements are consistent with the previous
approvals and meet the City's engineering requirements for stormwater
management in the area. This recommendation should be conditioned on
all new improvements being consistent with the existing conditions on the
site, including building materials, landscaping, and paving.
.
Planning Commission Agenda - 9/07/04
.
2.
Motion to recommend denial of the PUD Amendment, based on findings
from public hearing information.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends approval of the PUD Amendment. As noted in the report, the
proposed improvements have been anticipated by the City's engineering design, and
should be consistent with the existing and planned use of the property in question.
SUPPORTING DATA
A. Site [.ocation Aerial Image
B. Letter from Applicant
C. Site Plan
.
.
.
.
.
A-MAX STORAGE
...................................................................,............."...,..,.........."",..".,.,........"..".....,.......................,.........",.,,,,.,,.,.,,...,..................
""""...."..........................."""'1"..............."",....................."...............",.,..."""",.............""...........""....."'....."..........."""...,..............."........,.",,,
,,.,,.,,.........,''''''""""'"""
36 Dundas Road
MonlicclJo.MN 5S:lfi2
Phone: 76i-295-3152
Fax: /().i-]()5-.) l:'i--l-
August 12,2004
Dear Mr. Oneill,
Please find enclosed site plan, survey and proposed fence and building addition.
At this juncture I hope these suffice. As per Mr. Patch I need to change my front
(per ordinance) back to side.
As with the Cedar Street construction my previous side yard is now the front.
My desire is to change that for my additions to buildings and fence on the West of
the property parallel to Cedar Street.
The existing pond will be filled and storm drainage from my property to make a
direct connection to city storm tile.
My goal is to receive the front side yard changes to complete a fence this fall
before restoration of Cedar Street boulevard takes place.
Detail drawing will be supplied per request prior to Council action if needed. As
most of the need for items are moot if a 10 foot setback is not granted.
Sincerely, ;r;~;~ ~
,. ~_.~
Glen R osusta
---........
~
\\-~ ...
XDeten~ ... <::..
....... "-uf7 --:" 'Il":-- .......
in ........\ p"'\ _.::- ....
C ~. \\ on - ~.-
- "-.-
Z . -- .-..-.
Q \\ t -'.
- \\-. ~~
.~ .\ ":-1("
t,~ ..'.' a .-)(..,~~
;...~ ... S f3
"'&' ~ ~""
--,.. a .
,/ .:s-
.<:-- "
, :~: I I .
I - LiJ E
h :-' g l:::l I
I "I Q I 5
,;,-, I ~ I ~ I ~ I
I~ ~~ I ~ I
I fT1 II I fT1 I tl
f=2 ~ [lJ [8
L~-J ~ I ~ I
I I ~ I i
I" I ~ I~" I
r',~ I'~~,I
~fJI L'J
I (
I [lJfT1
I r-x
c-
tm- .~2~
. - en
I ()~
~o
,--:;:0
. >
C'>
fT1
[lJJTI
I'X
c-
G")~
\1' z .......
'^ G) \
\
\r- (/)
~~
-g
>
C'>
JTI
.. .. -.
. ,
~l'
~~
IS'
I \.,
\ \
I ~
I ~'
I .s;:-
('\.
~,
I
I
I
I
I
I
11
I I
I rT1 I
I ~ I
:::I
I 5 I
I ~ I
I ~ I
fT1
I ~ I
c
I ~ I
j I
I~ I
.-
I I
L~
I I
I I
I ~ I
I ~. I
I ~ I
--f
o
>
C')
fT1
CD
I'
C
~.
-~ ~
~ ~9
{\\ ~9
tz
JA::11
Jd
I
I
/
I
J
/
~ I ~t
\f~ I~~J~
e '?- ....
, ~
~ r; ~
~ (t) (p
N IJ~r
I~
Ie
I~
If"
~
R
l"'t'
...
i
~
o
"
-;-
~
o
>
/
/
I
/
I
/
/ .-
.... ,.,.. J I
?"" Ii
' to
,/ en
/ r::::Ol> U\
~ II" II
o C;;-a
c....I <.nco 0
[D~p~
r a-
o a~
(") -
^
01
o
(J)
~
::e
z
o
N
()1
\
""'"'- .J
~ ""'"'-
-''de '"'-......
-,..,~~ 't 0 ~
1~.. ~'-
'] . ---: -- "-
~"'do __............
--:: '''\'3':': d . --:- :::
"""'- --~.' --"d.. __
'" '-:;-"~3:J 0 . ., __
q "', ~-". - ""d
....... '. ~ -- ...,-;:'..10 .
....4 '. '" __ ~ ,-,
'"' '..r....., '-- .
'" " '~, < '" , I
........... . ~R('..." "'............ /
........... t:l.. fi....... ............
...........'-1
::----....
- ------ - ---=
w
w
----
()1
.......- 0
--.-----...........
VlZ)>
-~.
I ~"'{2
::em
I 0'"
"Tlz)>
~m~
I IO.
fTl""'~
z~.
I ::e~~
- ~
40 I ~ ~
l--~~
I I
I ) /
/-1
/ ~
en
0-0
~
-
~
'I.
J'T1
~1) .
....~
"V:t
,~
TJI
,J'T1
I~Z
"
,
~\
I
:::00
om
)>S2
o()
:::o~
-/'T1
~o ._.
-to '....
'e
Oz
""'0
::e>
)>Vl
-<
101 r.
'..., -
.:
...
,
. -~
- -,
.,-
I
I
._,-
""",' ,
. I .
~~'..."
~ 17
,. --
,.. ..;..
1'-
_ _ _ _1-':'84..69 _ __
- I
I
I
I
I
,-,
I . ...
-,A., ...
.
.
.
Planning Commission Agenda 09/07/04
7.
Public Aearine: - Consideration of a request for a Simple Subdivision to create
two industrial lots in an 1-2 (Heavy Industrial) District. .Applicant: Demeulcs
Family Limited Partnership / Standard Iron & Wire Works, Inc. (FP)
REFERENCE AND BACKGROlJND:
Standard Iron & Wire Works, Inc. is requesting a simple subdivision of their
property, legally described as Lots 7 and 8, Block 2 of Oakwood Industrial Park,
located at 207 Dundas Road, to create two separate parcels [parcel A and Parcel B].
Parcel A would contain all improvements built for Standard Iron. Parcel B would be
created as a separate parcel for future development in the 1-2, Heavy Industrial
District.
Both parcels to be created would fully conforming to the zoning standards applicable
to the 1-2 District, so long as the chain link fence shown by the certificate of survey as
extending onto what will be Parcel B is removed.
No vacation of easements is required. Public drainage and utility easements are
provided on each side of the new lot line dividing the parcels and on the east line of
Parcel B.
AL TERNA TIVE ACTIONS:
A. Motion to: Recommend to the City Council that the simple subdivision of
the parcel described as Lots 7 and 8, Block 2, Oakwood Industrial Park be
allowed, to create two parcels as described by the Certificate of Survey
prepared by Taylor Land Surveyors, dated August 10, 2004 and last revised
September 3, 2004.
B. Motion to: Recommend to the City Council that the simple subdivision of
the parcel described as Lots 7 and 8, Block 2, Oakwood Industrial Park be
denied [for cause to be determined by Planning Commission].
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission move Alternative Action I above.
Planning Commission Agenda - 9/7/04
.
SUPPORTING DATA
A. Site Location - Aerial Image
13. Certificate of Survey prepared by Taylor I.,and Surveyors.
.
.
.
.
to
r--
\
\
\
\
\
\=~r~
I
I 40 I 4 I ---_
--
I 4 -----
I - ......."01;,
-_ ~'<T
...............------....----.
I ~ ~~
I I ------
--
\ I il -. -------,
I I ~a ~.""'" I
I ~I I'
\ ~I I
I 1\ · "I " ;1\
\ I i ~ I
\ a Iii l7J I! ~I
~
If'
I . . CCt'/CIfCTf S OCWAU<' . '. I
. t~__NfZ!lH- _____
------- . _A.'. 6JO.OO I
I
I
I
\
I
I
~I~
. I~
8\1
I
I
I
I
I
I
110
\
I
8
Il
J.
f
I
~I
____.0..-----
I
I
I
I
I
\
I
I
I
I
I
I 40
i!
~i
~!
ll' .
<Xf""C r, .
aI/fIlNI)
101m
co. DO
I\)
~\
i,-----<>
-...,J
I
I
I
I
I
'"
~
Rl
il
aCIJ
.
q
!l
I
4
st:JtJnI ctJ.(J(J
.....~--
~~I
~'!i~
en
Hi ~ U~ ~
ct~ ~ R .... ~ ~
8 a ..... ..... .....
9._ _ ....:;.!1 ...
~ 01"1I
oe;;: ....
.
.
.
Planning Commission Agenda 09/07/04
8.
Discussion Item - Review of Open and Outdoor Storae:e Ordinance Reauirements
REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND
Discussion item; information to be provided by stafT at meeting.