Planning Commission Agenda 11-01-2004
.
AGENDA
RE(;ULAR MI~ETING - MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION
MONDAY, NOYEMBEH. 1st, 2004
(PLEASE NO'l'E SPECIAL DATE DUE TO GENERAL ELECTION)
6:00 P.M
Comm iss ioners:
Dick Frie, Richard Carlson, Rod Dragstcn, Lloyd Hilgart, and William Spartz
Glen Posusta
Council Liaison:
Staff:
Jeff ()'Neill, Fred Patch, Stcvc Grittman - NAC, and Angela Schumann
I. Call to order.
2. Approval ofthc minutes ofthe regular Planning Commission meeting held Tucsday, Octobcr 6th,
2004.
3. Consideration of add ing items to thc agcnda.
4. Citizen comments.
5.
Public Hearing - Consideration of a rcquest for Variance to the 30-foot rear yard setback for an
attached 4-unit townhomc complex in an R-2 district.
Appl icant: Ilomestead Multi-Fam i Iy Devclopment Corporation
.
6. Public Hearing-. Consideration of a requcst for a Comprehensive Plan Amendment to allow a
Rezone from a residential use to a mixed use, Rezone from R-2 (Single and Two-Family
Residential) to PZM (Performance Zone-Mixed), and a Conditional Use Pcrmit to allow
commercial retail activity in a PZM District.
Applicant: Don Hickman
7. Public Hearing -- Consideration of a Preliminary and Final Plat for Otier Creek Crossing, a
proposed commercial and industrial subdivision.
Applicant: OUer Creek, LLC
8. Consideration to call for a Public Hearing for Rezonc of a 120 acre parccl of Otier Creek Crossing.
9. Public Hearing - Consideration of an amcndment to the Monticello Zoning Ordinance allowing
Open and Outdoor Storage. Applicant: City of Monticello Planning Commission
10. Update: Comprehensive Land Use Plan Development Update: Jeff
11 . Adjourn.
.
.
MINUTES
REGULAR MEETING - MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION
Tuesday, October 51h, 2004
6:00 P.M.
Council Liaison:
Dick Frie, Richard Carlson, Rod Dragstcn, Lloyd Hilgali, and
William Spartz
Glen Posusta
Commissioners Present:
Staff:
Jeff O'Neill, Fred Patch, Steve Grittman - NAC, and
Angela Schumann
I. <:::.all to order.
Chairman Frie called the meeting to order at 6:00 PM and declared a quorum, noting the
absence of Commissioner Carlson.
2.
Approval oftheIlJinutes of the regu.Iar Planning CommLssion meeting heJp Tuesday, September
7th~2004.
.
MOTION RY COMMISSIONER HILGART TO APPROVE TIlE MINUTES OF THE
TUESDAY, SEPTEMRER 7Tl1, 2004 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING.
MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER DRAGSTEN. MOTION CARRIED.
3. C(~IJ~iJler;ltion of adding item~ to the agenda.
None.
4. Citizen comments.
None.
5. Public Hearing - Cont;ideration of a requ.~st for V ariancetQ. the front yard s~Jback for an attached
ac,-,~ssQn: structure in an R~){Single and 2 FalTlily Residential}.Qjstrict. Applicant; i\!<!!1d Janet
[\;t(!.~
O'Neill provided the staff report, indicating that the variance request was for the expansion of an
existing attached garage. The single-car garage is currently about 7 feet from side lot line. O'Neill
stated that the home is set back approximately 27 feet from the front propelty line. The proposed
addition would extend out to a point 7 feet from the front property line. As the front yard setback
in an R-2 district is 30 feet, the request would require a variance of 23 feet.
.
O'Neill indicated that the lot dimensions pose a problem for the applicant, and there do not appear
to be many economically tCasible alternatives, although the code does not allow such a large degree
of variance. In the past, the City has tried to accommodate as much of a variance to setback as
possible to accommodate the addition of two car garages, which are now require by code.
However, O'Neill stated that allowing this variance may establish a precedent that could create
problems in the future.
.
Planning Corom ission Minutes 010/05/04
Grittman asked if it would be possible to create a drive along the side yard to create an accessory
structure in the rear. Janet Maus, applicant, explained that there is not enough room for a drive
aisle to the rear yard.
Chairman Frie opened the public hearing.
Applicants Janet and Alan Maus, 305 Vine Strcet, addressed the Commission. Maus questioned
the setbacks for single-t~lInily versus townhome developments. O'Neill explained that there arc
different setbacks for public streets versus private streets. Townhome garages on private streets
are allowed to be placed closer to the private street.
Maus indicated that he had spoken with his neighbors about the addition; they do not have a
problem with the proposal. Janet Maus explained that without the addition, it would be difficult
to sell the home.
O'Neill eXplained that as there is a signiticant amount of space between homes, an extension into
the side yard would minimize the impact of a variance.
Hearing no further comment, Chairman Frie closed the public hearing.
.
Dragsten asked if the applicant could clarify why they could not put the garage in the rear. Maus
indicated that there is not enough room to get a driveway through due to the sebtacks. She also
stated that it is cost prohibitive to do so. They had tried unsuccessfully to buy adjacent land to
expand the garage to the side. Dragsten indicated that he would be more inclined to grant a side
yard variance to expand the garage to a dimension of 20 feet. He was concerned about setting a
precedent for such a large front yard variance. .Ianet Malis explained that there is an existing
variance on that side allowing the house to move closer to the property line. Dragsten noted that it
was a side yard variance from 10 to 7 feet.
Frie asked staff to elaborate on the observation that there was significant space between the homes
in the area. Grittman clarified that staff would prefer to see a lateral expansion and aecomnlOdate a
side yard setback variance rather such a large front yard variance.
Spartz asked how long the applicant had been living at the home. The Maus's indicated 27 years.
Frie clarified that it had been purchased, not built for, the applicants. Frie stated that the hardship
to justify the variance request seemed to be the original construction, as at the time the home was
built, ordinances controlling setbacks did not exist. Frie complimented the applicants for trying to
upgrade their structure. Frie asked the Maus' if other options for garages had been presented by
the builder. AI Maus stated that no other options had been proposed and Grittman agreed that
options were limited.
MOTION BY COMMISSIONER FRIE TO GRANT A VARIANCE TO THE FRONT YARD
SETBACK ALLOWING A TWO-CAR GARAGE BASED ON THE FINDING TlIA T STRICT
APPLICA nON OF THE CODE IN THIS INSTANCE CREATES A HARDSHIP RY LIMITING
THE ABILITY OF THE PROPERTY OWNER TO DEVELOP A TWO CAR GARAGE WHICH
IS A CUSTOMARY USE IN THE DISTRICT.
.
NO SECOND TO THE MOTION WAS MADE. FRIE RESCINDED HIS MOTION AND
REQUESTED nlA T AN ALTERNATE MOTION BE MADE.
- :2 -
.
.
.
Planning Commission Minutes 0 I 0/05/04
O'Neill and Patch noted that the Commission could also consider allowing a smaller than
requested variance for front yard setback to allow the proposed garage to move forward to allow lor
additional storage in addition to a potential side yard variance.
MOTION BY DRAGSTEN '1'0 ALLOW A SIDE-Y ARD SETBACK VARIANCE OF 5
FEET TO ALLOW THE EXPANSION OF A GARAGE LA TERALL Y TO UP TO 2 FEET
FROM THE PROPERTY LINE TO ACCOMMODATE A 16 X 21 FOOT GARAGE.
MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER SPARTZ.
Posusta recommended that the applicant seek agreement to the variance from the neighbor to
the south. Dragsten noted that a fence separated the two properties and the fact that there is an
existing variance between the two homes.
O'Neill clarified that the original public hearing notice would cover the revised language for
the variance.
MOTION CARRIED.
6.
t~lb!ic Hearing ---- Considemtion of a request fQr.a Variance for aJ~mporary wall in ~ID_J!.-A{Ligh!
Industrial) Distri~J._Applieant: SuburQ<,!n Manufacturing
O'Neill provided the staff report, stating that Suburban Manufacturing is requesting a variance
to allow construction of a wall on a temporary basis that does not meet the standards of the II ~
A District.
O'Neill noted that while building walls in the II-A district must be built to a relatively high
standard as defined by the code, Suburban is expecting that the subject wall will be removed at
some point in the future for a subsequent expansion.
O'Neill referred to the tact that Suburban had previously been granted a similar variance
which is resulting now in one temporary wall being replaced by another. In the future, when
the building has grown to match the capacity of the site, a permanent wall meeting the
standards of the II-A district will be constructed. O'Neill stated that the only hazard would be
that Suburban does not build out. At th is time, staff recommended approval of the variance.
Dragsten asked ifthe existing temporary wall will be taken out. Brad Barger, representing
Suburban Manufacturing, replied that it will become an interior separation wall.
Patch reported that the other side walls are in complete conformance with the code.
Chairman Frie opened the public hearing.
Applicants Brad and Mary Barger, representing Suburban Manutacturing at 301 Chelsea Road,
expressed their desire to remain in the community and expand their business in the future, which
is the primary reason for the variance request.
Frie asked Suburban to provide a timeframe for the future expansion. Brad Barger indicated that
')
~ (-, -
.
.
.
Planning Commission Minutes 0 I 0/05/04
things are already in progress for the expected expansion. Once the cost of materials comes back
down, they will move forward with planning the next expansion. Barger referenced that the last
expansion was in 1991 and they arc now starting their first new addition.
f !caring no further cOlllment, Chairman Frie closed the public hearing.
MOTION 13Y COMMISSIONER lIlLGART TO GRANT A VARIANCE FOR TIlE
CONS'rRUCfION OF A TEMPORARY WALL TO BE REPLACED AT SOME POINT IN
THE FUTURE WITII A WALL THAT COMPLIES WITH II-A STANDARDS. MOTION
BASED ON TilE FINDING THAT GRANTING THE VARIANCE FOR A TEMPORARY
WALL DOES NOT IMPAIR THE INTENT OF TilE ORDINANCE.
MUflON SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER DRAGSTEN. MOTION CARRIED.
7.
Consideration of a request for a C9Dditional Use Permit for retail commer<;:ials~-'-~~__in_aPZI'vl
~rforH1al}l;e Zone - Mixed) District and a request fix a1}_AI}]endment to the Monticello Zoning
Qrdinance to allow limited production as an access~lD'.:_v?e in a PZM (Pert(xmance Zone - Mixed)
District Applicant Structural Building~AST Sports
(Jritlman provided the staff report, noting the site's prominent location along lIart Boulevard and
thc low-density residential area to the east. Grittman cxplained that the request for the zoning
amendment is to allow accessory production or processing-type activities as a conditional use
within a PZM district. These types of activities arc not currently allowed under the code. The
requested conditional use permit would then allow those uses to occur on the sitc. The PZM
zoning is intended be a transition zone allowing a mix of residential and business uses, such as
those allowed under the current B-2 zoning designation.
Grittman indicated that production is typically an industrial activity, although it is not necessarily
manufacturing. B-2 docs accommodate very limited production, for example a bakery. Cirittman
stated that staft"s primary concern with the application has less to do with the user than with
allowing processing activities in other PZM districts. This particular use is relativcly low-density,
however, setting a precedcnt to allow even limited production may open the door to more intense
uses in other PZM districts, especially in areas adjacent to residential districts. Although current
appl icants have ind icated there wi II be no large truck traffic, a future user may havc that traffic.
Staffs rccommendation was structured to ensure that the production activities are minor, not
excecding 25% of building area. The applicant shows thc production space at 2/3 of the building.
Grittnlan also noted that if the amendment is acccpted, there are a number of othcr sitc plan issucs
to be addressed in consideration ofthc Conditional Use Permit. These arc rclatcd to ensuring the
site is compatible with the neighboring areas in terms of access, dcsign, and landscaping.
Chairman Fric opcncd the public hearing.
Applicants Jamie Paulson and Gerald Paulson, AST Sports, provided the Commission with
add itional supporting materials.
Dragstcn askcd if the structure was a pole construction building, and if so, does pole construction
meet the code requirements for this district. Grittman stated that there is nothing prohibiting pole
- l- ~
Planning Commission Minutes 0 1 0/05/04
.
buildings in this district; code requirements have to do with exterior materials and landscaping.
The Paulson's provided business background, explaining that they are looking to expand in
Monticello. They arc seeking to expand the retail portion of their business, specifically to sell
sports apparel. Jamie Paulson clarified that nothing would actually be manufactured at their
location. AST Sports would only be providing embroidery services in terms of production. In
fact, Paulson indicated that the retail are would take up 27'Yo of the floor area. The balance ofthe
space includes both work and storage areas, as well as utility and break rooms. The Paulson's
stressed the need for expansion space, which has been accommodated in this plan.
Gerald Paulson indicated that one end of the building will also be a rental space, most likely for
office use, whieh is the reason for parking areas on both ends. They indicated that they will have
a drive that connects both parking lots.
Gerald Paulson stated that they are willing to work with City staff on a majority ofthe conditions
as noted in the staff report, with the exception of the recommended type ofsiding. Paulson
suggested instead intensifying landscaping.
Frie asked how f~lr the applicants had proceeded in building plans before going to staff for input.
Jamie Paulson indicated that she had discussed the project with Patch, who provided a
recommendation assuming the use was acceptable.
.
Josh Blonigen, 9806 Hart Boulevard, addressed the Commission regarding concerns about the
potential traffic resulting from the proposed rental use. l3lonigen noted that Hart Boulevard is
already a busy road. Outside of traffic concerns, he has no problem with the use of the bu ilding.
Richard Bourke, 9800 Hart Boulevard, also expressed concerned about traffic created by the
proposed retail use and rental area.
Frie asked if the Wright County Sheriffs Office had been approached regarding this problem.
'rhe residents present indicated that they had been.
Marcus Glass, 6226 Mill Run Road, noted there are ways to conceal the building, however he is
concerned about the design as housing in that area would be looking directly at the back of the
building. Glass also questioned garbage enclosures and the use of inks and dyes. Glass inquired
whether an approval could potentially allow the use of chemicals in the future.
Karl Talonen, 9796 Hart Boulevard, also related his concerns about traffic as a result of
development and the future access to 75 and the interstate.
Paulson stated that they would never do screen printing; she is also accepting ofa condition to
that effect. Paulson noted that this is commercial land, and there will be traffic as a result of that
designation, no matter what the proposed use.
.
Patch explained that over the past 6 months, he has discussed the business with the Paulson's.
Patch reported that he did encourage them to stay within the city. Patch stated that he doesn't see
this as an incompatible use, in fact, it would generate less traffic then a retail strip mall. Patch did
note his concern about the proposed architecture, stating that it needs to be softened to be more
compatible with surrounding residences.
- ,'i -
Planning Commission Minutes 010/05/04
.
Hearing no further comment, Chairman Fric closed the public hearing.
Spartz asked about hours of operation. Jamie Paulson stated they are open 9:00 - 5 :00 Monday
through Friday, except for Thursday when they are open until 6:00 PM, and Saturday 10:00-2:00.
However, they would like to expand hours to 6:00 PM each day. Spartz askcd how many
embroidery machines were used. Paulson stated two in addition to sewing machines. The
machines take up approximately 100 square feet, including supporting items.
Dragsten stated that he is supportive of their expansion ctforts. llowever, he is not clear on the
specific difference between manufacturing versus assembly. He is concerned about the building
design, noting that it is one of the first commercial buildings that will be seen when corning into
town. Dragsten stated that the exterior materials will need to be improved. He explained that he
did not believe the office space would create much traffic volume.
Frie asked how many workers would be employed at the expanded location, and asked if parking
was adequate. hie also inquired whether there is production assembly line work. Paulson
responded that there are 6-7 employees, including part-time, and that there is no assembly line
work. Frie inquired whether the proposed parking is sufficient for expected retail traffic. Paulson
stated that whilc they can add more parking if needed, they have adequate parking based on the
ordinance requirements, according to their calculations for retail and office/storage space.
.
IIi I gaIt stated that he doesn't see traftic as an issue. He commented that the issue is how the
building looks and the potential production. Hilgart remarked that he docs not want to set an
inappropriate precedent. However, he noted the difficulty in distinguishing production uses.
Hilgart stated he does not want to change the ordinance.
Grittman relayed that his concern is that there are many businesses that take a finished product
and then add to it. Griuman' s primary reservation is higher-density uses that process material for
sale. Griuman reported that it is staff's view that even lim ited production isn't consistent with
other uses in a B~2 district.
Hilgart commented that if the Commission were to amend the ordinance, it would he advisable to
set a cap on what would clearly be production as an accessory use.
hie inquired if Commission gives up leverage on what would be allowed in the rental space if the
amendment is approved. Grittman stated that any commercial use would need to get a CUP
within the PZM district. Grittman stated that any CU P is only subject to conditions of approval.
Posusta asked if the Paulson's have a tenant in mind. Paulson stated that they have had inquiries
only. Posusta stated that ifthe exterior improvements are a financial issue, perhaps they do not
need to build such a large building. Paulson clarified that thc proposed size allows them
expansion area should they need it immediately.
.
Posusta commented that he doesn't see a significant issue with traffic, as another use would
increase traffic even more so. He indicated that in regards to the 25% cap on production space, it
appears that about 15% of the 40% production/storage area shown on the proposal is actually
storage space. Posusta reiterated that his main concern is maintaining the residential character of
the neighborhood.
- Ij -
.
Planning Commission Minutes 010/05/04
Frie asked if the amendment is approved, do other restrictions in terms of signage, garbage, etc.
apply. Grittman indicated that those are referred to in the report and are identified as conditions
of the CUP approval. Grittman noted the Paulson's intent to work with the City on eight of the
fourteen items and stated that he would review their revisions to provide a drive aisle for loading
space and parking access. Grittman stated that the two primary issues remaining arc the l1On-B-2
commercial uses and exterior building materials. Grittman recommended that Commission adopt
an amendment accommodating the work room/storage plan rather than trying to enforce an
interior use division issue. Grittman asked that Commission specifically provide a
recommendation on exterior materials.
Frie recommended brick and or stone on all exposed sides. Grittman also recommended lap
sid ing on all sides.
MOTION BY COMMISSIONER HILGART TO RECOMMEND APPROV AL OF AN
AMENDMENT TO TIlE PZM DISTRICT PROVISIONS ESTABLISHING ACCESSORY
PRODUCTION AND PROCESSING ACTIVITIES AS A CONDITIONAL USE, BASED ON
THE rOLLOWING FIVE CRITERIA:
I.
2,
. 3.
4.
5.
The production activities are accessory to a permittcd retail use in the PZM district
The building and site plan are designed to be compatible with architecture in the
adjoining neighborhood.
The production and storage activity shall not exceed forty (40) percent of the gross
floor area of the building.
When abutting a residential district, a buffer area with screening and landscaping in
compliance with Chapter 3, Section 2 (G) shall be erected_
The site is served by a collector street with access that avoids mixing of residential
traffic with truck traffic generated by the production use_
MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER DRAGSTEN. MOTION CARRIED.
MOTION BY COMMISSIONER SPARTZ TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF TIlE
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AMENDMENT TO ALLOW ACCESSORY
PRODUCTION ACTIVITIES WITHIN A PZM ZONING DISTRICT BASED ON THE
CONDITIONS LISTED IN EXHIBIT Z, NOTING THE CHANGE TO 40')1" IN ITEM #1,
AND THE ADDITIONAL CONDITION THAT NO SCREEN PRINTING AND RELATED
CHEMICALS BE ALLOWED AS ITEM #15.
I. The amount of production and storage area within the building be reduced to 40 percent
of the gross floor area (leaving retail activities as a primary use).
2. The dead end parking lot designs be eliminated (in t:wor of a consolidated design that
provides a through outlet).
.
3, The building is shifted to the north, and all traffic is directed toward the south, away from
the residential neighborhood,
- 7 -
. 4,
5,
6,
7,
8,
9,
10,
II.
12.
.
13.
14.
Planning Commission Minutes 0 1 0/05/04
A joint access agreement with the neighboring property owner to the west be executed,
The parking area be reconfigured to provide 29 otT-street parking spaces as required by
ordinance,
The site plan be modified to include two stalls designated for use by the disabled.
Off-street parking stalls be expanded from 16 to 20 feet in depth as required by
ordinance,
'fhe size of the proposed Northwood Red Maple trees be specified, In addition, a
complete butTer yard planting plan in compliance with the zoning regulations be added to
the landscape plan.
Additionallandscaping/plantings be provided around the base of the building. The size,
location and variety of such plantings shall be indicated.
The site plan be modified to include a designated loading area,
Finish materials of the building be modified to renect a more residential character,
including brick or stone on all exposed sides.
The site plan be revised to identify a trash handling location. Trash handling equipment
shall be located either within the building, or within an enclosure screen from view of
surrounding properties and public rights of way. The enclosure shall also be constructed
of brick or stone, consistent with the finish materials ofthe principal building,
A photometric lighting plan be submitted. All exterior lighting shall be directed such that
the source of the light is not visible from adjacent properties or rightH)f-way.
The City Engineer provide comment regarding grading, drainage and utility issues.
15. No screen printing or use of chemicals or dyes to be allowed,
MOTION SECONDED RY COMMISSIONER HILGART
Dragsten asked for clarification on number 11 referring to exterior finish. Grittman
recommended horizontal lap siding with the addition of brick or stone on all exposed walls,
SPARTZ AMENDED HIS MOTION TO INCLUDE STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION AS
NOTED FOR EXTERIOR FINISH MATERIALS.
AMENDED MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER HILGART. AMENDED
MOTION CARRIED.
Frie recommend that the Paulson's meet with staff to resolve the drive aisle issue as identified in
their site plan.
.
- H -
.
.
.
Planning Commission Minutes 010/05/04
8.
PubliS:.Hearing -::-Considerc!lion of a ~equest fora Rezon~Jronl a PZM (Performance Zgne -,
Mixed) District to apS (Public:-::- Semi-public) D!sJrict. ^pplicant:<::-~ity ofl'v1onticello P~lbJic
lYorks
Grittman provided the staff report, stating that the City of Monticello Public Works
Department is seeking a rezoning to allow the construction of an office and garage building on
a site across County Ilighway 39 from the main Public Works t~lcility. The rezone request
would also include the existing Public Works properties/facilities within the area identified on
the parcel map. The building would house a front office as a "Water Meter Shop", with a
larger rear portion for storage of equipment and materials for water and sewer maintenance.
Grittman stated that the site is currently zoned PZM. Staff is recommending a change in
zoning to P-S, Public-Semi Public, to renect the governmental use of the City property in the
area. In the Public-Semi Public District, "structures necessary for the health, safety, and
general we1t~lre of the community" are permitted uses. Grittman noted that to consider a
rezoning, the Planning Commission must find that the proposed zoning use is consistent with
the City's Comprehensive Plan, generally requiring a tinding that the use is compatible with
present and future land uses in the neighborhood. Grittman stated that there are a mix of uses
in the area, including residential to the east and south, and utility uses to the west and north.
Grittman reported that the site plan appears to meet all requirements of the P-S District and
recommended approval ofthe rezoning. To ensure compatibility with the residential areas to
the south and east, planning staff would recommend additional landscape plantings along the
south and east property lines.
Chairman hie opened the public hearing.
John Simola, Public Works Director, addressed the Commission. Simola reported that the Public
Works Department would be completing a needs study for the entire area in order to determine
future expansions and additions.
Simola stated that the Department had assured neighbors that Public Works would not have
outside storage. This request would accommodatc that goal. Simola referred to landscape plans
which would provide evergreens and existing cedar trees as screening. Simola stated that a chain
link fence would limit access to the site and noted that the only visible sides will be the west and
north elevations. Thc building will have a brick veneer all the way around the bottom on those
sides. While the back and east will not be wainscoted, thcy will be heavily screened. Simola
stated that staff had also recommended an asphalt roof. Dormers as indicated on the elevation
were also more in keeping with the residential area.
Frie asked if the property for the proposed addition is presently fenced in. Simola stated that it is
not. Simola stated that only one side of the proposed addition will be fenced. Simola is hoping
that based on the needs study, other pole buildings will come down and will be replaced with
masonry buildings. Frie asked whether the Puhlic Works buildings were equipped with security
systems. Simola stated that they arc not secured.
Hearing no further comment, Chairman hie closed the public hearing.
Dragsten stated that the uses proposed seem industrial in nature. Simola stated that in the future,
- ~) -
Planning Commission Minutes 010/05/04
.
this site will most likely not house the water facilities. Instead, those activities would transfer to a
location compatible with the proposed new treatment facility. Simola noted that although it is a
residential area, the buildings arc maintained well.
hie stated that he had similar concerns. Frie cited the public comment letter from WestCello,
which seemed to indicate that some of the surrounding residents were supportive of the request.
Simola stated that he had spoken with most of the neighbors. Simola also noted that the proposed
use would be compatible within the P-S District under the rezone.
Posusta asked if there is room across the street to accommodate the proposed uses. For example,
could Public Works add on to the existing building. Simola stated that the majority of this
building is unheated and 1110re suitable for the storage they need. They cannot expand office
space in the current building.
Posusta recommended an asphalt roof as the building is in a residential neighborhood, referring to
the previous approval and stating that vinyl lap siding would be consistent with that approval.
Posusta expressed concern about a barbed wire fence. Simola stated the current maintenance
building stores emergency vehicles and maintenance equipment. 80th buildings require securing
of some type.
.
MOTION 13Y COMMISSIONER SPARTZ TO RECOMMEND APPROV AL OF TI IE
REZONING FOR THE MONTICELLO PUBLIC WORKS FACILITY, BASED ON A
FINDING THAT THE USE MEETS THE CONDITIONS IN THE ZONING ORDINANCE
FOR REZONING, SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:
a. Additional landscape plantings are provided along the east and south property lines
to enhance with buffering from nearby residential uses.
b. Roofing to consist of asphalt shingles.
MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER HILGART. MOTION CARRIED 3-1,
COMMISSIONER DRAGSTEN IN DISSENT.
9. Public Hearing. - Con~ider~ltion of a--.IT9.uest for a Conditional Use permit fqWO-ut}it residcntial
(oncept Stage Planned Unit Development and a request for Rezone from PZM (Performanc~
Zone--=-MixedUQ...B,-2 (Single and Two Family Re?idential)~plic.ant: Jen~ Tor Construc.tion
Grittman provided the staff report, indicating that the applicant had originally presented a project
that was more dense. Since that time, the applicant has worked with staff to develop a
development that incorporates fewer units with more green space. Grittman stated that a PUD is
required as the project relies on a private drive to serve the units. Grittman reported that the
project meets code requirements for purposes of setbacks.
.
Grittman stated that if the project proceeds to development stage, planning staff will look for
more intense landscaping. However, staff's primary issue is the unit design. The applicant has
proposed a split entry design. Staff would like to see a more traditional design that is consistent
with the existing neighborhood, specifically a two-story style design.
- 10 -
Planning Commission Minutes 010/05/04
.
Chairman Frie opened the public hearing.
Dominick Ostapenko, 212 East 4th Street; Dick Martie, 336 East 4th Street; Wayne Cox, 306 East
41h Street; and the property owner at 424 East 41h Street expressed confusion about lots and blocks
in relationship to the proposal and the public hearing notice's legal description: specifically, Lots
2-9, l3lock II, which represented their property. As a group, they expressed their opinion that it
had been the intention of the City is to gain access to the vacant lots behind them.
Dragsten and Frie clarified that if they owned the land behind them, development cannot proceed
onto their property. O'Neill explained that public hearing notices are generated from County
databases. It is possible that there was an error in the database location information for this
application. Schumann requested that the applicant provide clarification on which properties
would be developed. Michael Haught, applicant and representative of len-Tor Construction,
clarified that the proposal was for land located at 300 and 224 East 4th Street only. Frie clarified
that there is no intent to intrude on their property. Haught indicated that was correct. It was
noted that there is a home at 218 East 4th Street which is also not included in this proposal.
Martie asked if the applicant is aware of the casement and ROW for the railroad and asked
whether the project meets setbacks. Public Works Director Simola also stated that there is a 30-
foot drainage and utility easement, which could be impacted by this development.
.
Cox stated that his property is adjacent to this development. Cox stated that there may be grade
issues ifback yards are filled for project.
Frie explained that this proposal is at concept stage only. Drainage, easement and setback issues
will be addressed at the next stage. Frie explained that this stage looks at general compliance
with the intent of the code on Iy.
The neighborhood property owners requested that it be noted on record that there was an error on
the part of the City when the public hearing announcement was sent to residences. They
expressed their desire for the record to show that Lots 2-9, Block H will not be impacted by this
plan. The Commission formally recognized these items.
Martie asked about the rezoning request, stating that the area is single and two-t~lll1ily residential.
Grittman clarified that the rezone would make that designation consistent throughout, adjusting
the one lot within the PZM district to an R-2 district similar to the remaining lot.
Applicant Michaelllaught, addressed the Commission, stating that he agreed with staffs
recommendations, indicating that they will look into a two-story style.
Dragsten asked staflfor information on the dividing line between the two differing zoning areas
in order to ensure that spot zoning would not be occurring. Grittman stated that the R-2 was
adjacent to the PZM area. It was staffs intent to make the parcels consistent in terms of zoning.
Dragsten also commented that if the split home style design did come back, he would look for
more brick and stone in the design.
.
Haught stated that a slab-on-grade design could satisfy some of the concerns related to drainage
and the water table. lIe noted that he had planned to use shake-style siding.
- 11 -
Planning Commission Minutes 010/05/04
.
Frie inquired whether the plan had gone to the Parks Commission. Grittman stated that the Parks
Commission had not yet looked at the plan. Frie agreed that intensive landscaping would be in
order.
Hilgart asked the applicant to provide his analysis of what made the project worthy of the PUD
designation in terms of superior design. Haught responded that redevelopment of an area,
bringing in higher value homes and the addition of green space, were significant improvements.
Posusta agreed that it is worthwhile to redevelop the area and stated that the drainage issues
should he looked at and can be addressed at development stage.
I-Iearing no further cOlllment, Chairman Frie closed the public hearing.
MOTION RY COMMISSIONER DRAGSTEN TO RECOMMEND APPROV AL OF THE 10-
UNIT' TOWNHOUSE CONCEPT PLAN, RASED ON A FINDING THAT THE LAND USE
AND SITE PLAN APPEAR TO MEET THE INTENT OF TIlE CITY'S PUD ORDINANCE,
WITH THE CONDITION THAT DEVELOPMENT STAGE PUD PLANS PROVIDE
ADDITIONAL LANDSCAPING CONSISTENT WITH THE COMMENTS IN THIS REPORT,
AND WITH TI IE CONDITION THAT THE HOUSING STYLE IS RE-DESIGNED TO
PROVIDE FOR A MORE TRADITIONAL TWO STORY HOUSING STYLE, RATHER
THAN THE SPLIT-ENTRY CONCEPT SHOWN IN TillS APPLICATION.
MOTION SECONDED BY HILGART. MOTION CARRIED.
.
MOTION RY COMMISSIONER I;RIE TO TABLE THE MOTION TO REZONE PENDING
SUBMISSION OF MORE DETAILED SITE PLAN AND CLARIFICATION ON ZONING
INFORMATION.
MOTION SECONDED RY COMMISSIONER SPARTZ. MOTION CARRIED.
10. Puhli~ I learing - C0I1sideratjon oran amendment to the MonticellQ Zoning Ordinance ~lllowing
Qpen andOutdooJ Storage. Appl ican!: Cityof Monticello Plalll.1ing Cqmm i~sion
hie noted that staff would be preparing a detailed recommendation and supporting materials on
the proposed amendment for a future meeting.
MOTION BY COMMISSIONER TO FRIE TO TABLE THE ITEM TO THE NOVEMBER
MEETING.
MOTION SECONDED RY COMMISSIONER DRAGSTEN. MOTION CARRIED.
11.
Puhlic: I rearing -- COItsideration of a reql}est for a Conditional Us~ Perm.!t to allow for.Open mill
Qutdoor 5torag~for a dr~supplv t~lcili~yjDJ!!l 1-2 Qistrict. Applicant:. Wallboard, Inc.
.
Grittman provided stall report, indicating that the applicant is seeking approval of a
Conditional Use Permit to expand outdoor storage as a pari of the occupancy of the former
Standard Iron building along Dundas Road in the 1-2 zoning district. Outdoor storage is
- 1 ~ -
.
.
.
Planning Commission Minutes 0 I 0/05/04
allowed by CUP, subject to conditions relating to screening, surfacing, and lighting as noted.
Grittman stated that the proposed plan shows storage area to be paved with bituminous
surfacing throughout the rear (north) and side (east) portions of the property. A line of trees is
also shown along the nOlth and cast property lines, and a chain link fence separates the area
from the front portion of the site.
Grittman stated that the plan appears to comply with the zoning regulations generally, however
planning staff would recommend the addition of spruce trees along the fence line east of the
building, and along the side property line toward the rear. These trees would ensure that the
screening requirements are properly met.
Chairman Frie opened the public hearing.
Steve Nelson, addressed the Commission, representing the buyer. Nelson indicated that the
current setbacks allow an expansion area. The buyer plans to asphalt the whole outside storage.
and to install a 6 f()ot fence, which they will screen.
Frie asked Nelson to respond to Grittman's recommendation on tree screening. Nelson
commented that the applicants will comply, they just want to be certain that the requirements are
commensurate with land area.
Hearing no further comment, Chairman Frie closed the public hearing.
Dragsten asked about the 12 foot recommended spacing for the trees. Grittman stated it was
typical and consistent with the zoning ordinance.
Patch reported to the Commission that the survey reflects a lot line shift of approximately 35 feet,
a change from the original survey presented to the Commission during the approval for the
Simple Subdivision. Commission recognized the change.
MOTION BY COMMISSIONER HILGART TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF 1I1E
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, BASED ON A fiNDING TI-IA T THE USE MEETS THE
CONDITIONS OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE, SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING
REQUIREMENTS:
A. Addition of 15-20 spruce trees, spaced 12 feet on center, along the fence line east of
the building, and along the side property line toward the rear, to complete the
screening requirements_
MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER DRAGSTEN. MOTION CARRIED.
12.
Contil!~~~_~.t Public Heariqg - Consideration of a request for a ConditLonal Use Perm,i,t[or a 41-unit
res identiil I Concept Stag~Planned Unit pevelopment ill a PZM (Performance Zon~_____iy1ixed)
Districto3-pplicant: UP Q~velopment
Grittman provided the staff report, noting the current plan has undergone a number of changes.
Originally, the development was an entirely detached project. The proposed plan includes 30
- 1:1 -
Planning Commission Minutes 010/05/04
.
detached units and] ] attached units. The attached units arc at the east end of the project, meant
to mesh with the neighboring Vine Place development. The development relies on rear alley
access to individual units.
Cirittman stated that planning staff felt the critical element of the project was that each ofthe units
have visual access, if not actual access, to the common space. The applicants have added
additional green space in this concept and additional space between units as a step toward that
recommendation. From a planning standpoint, Grittman noted that the plan is representative of a
staff s desire to continue to encourage a variety of housing stock styles.
Grittman indicated that a few issues remain relating to how the units are associated with the green
space. For example, the lack of driveways should be made up by the green space amenity. It
appears that balance has not completely been achieved. It also appears that the 30 foot setback on
the Elm Street frontage is not met. It is important that design elements that would make the
development superior in amenities, such as hardi-plank siding, also be maintained.
.
Grittman noted that engineering and public works staff do have some concerns about lack of
driveways and the number and location of parking areas. The development does contain a private
visitor parking bay on both ends of the site. Staff does have questions related to alley parking as
it may take away from the "clean" look the project intends. Engineering staff also has concerns
about accessibility to end units and turning movements and indicated that the inverted crowns
used on the developer's simi lar Hrooklyn Park project arc not feasible. Staff would prefer plans
showing appropriate curb and drainage.
[n conclusion, Grittrnan stated that planning staff like the concept idea, but find it may be a
difficult site tor the concept. Grittman explained that more than half of the un its do not have
access to central court. Staff recommended that developers keep working on the project to
address the concerns presented by staff.
Frie asked about the possible extension of 6 Y2 street. Grittman clarified that developer would
typically pay for that construction and that it would be completed with this project.
O'Neill asked Grittman whether he felt that the 30 foot front setback could be accomplished.
Grittman stated his concern that the common open space would be squeezed to do so. To
accomplish both the open space and alley design, the development would most likely lose units.
Chairman Frie opened the public hearing.
Larry Aim and Tom Rollings, representing UP Development, addressed the Commission.
Aim indicated to the Commission that the presented concept is based on a traditional
neighborhood style, including traditionally styled homes with sidewalks and boulevard trees. The
idea was to create the feel of a small town neighborhood and traditional streetscape versus the
more common driveway and garage streetscape common today.
.
Aim stated that as a planned unit community, a townhouse association would enforce items
related to rnaintenance issues. There will be no overnight parking and no outdoor storage of trash
cans. The units are equipped with large garages at approximately 480 square feet. This provides
ample room for 2 cars and storage. The lifestyle is most often a first-time or move-down buyer.
- I I -
Planning Commission Minutes 010/05104
.
AIm indicated that the typieal buyer doesn't have major storage needs. AIm also addressed the
visitor parking scenario, stating that all units have a visitor parking are that is no more than 100
feet from a unit. Aim stated that thc units are not rentals, and the average price starts at $180,000.
Frie asked Aim for finished square footage. Aim replied that designs range start at about 1500
square feet, with a design option adding a bonus room of400 square feet. AIm clarified that the
Brooklyn Park units are vinyl sided with maintenance-free hardi-plank trim and accents.
llearing no fUliher comment, Chairman Frie closed the public hearing.
Hilgart asked the applicants for their input on staffs suggestion to reduce the density. Aim
indicated that 41 units is the fewest number that is economically feasible for the site. Also, a
41-unit association fee is more reasonable for members. Hilgali asked Grittman for the
density per acre. Grittman indicated that a PZM District would accommodate R-3 density
levels, at 17 or 18 units per acre. So, technically the number of units could go up for this
development. This proposal meets and actually comes under maximum density.
Dragsten stated that having no driveways is still a concern, especially related to guest parking.
Dragsten asked for the dimensions of the garage. Aim stated that they are 24 by 22 inside.
Aim also indicated that with no driveway, the development achieves a 56% greenspace ratio.
.
Dragsten sought clarification on public versus private streets and related maintenance issues.
Aim responded that 6 1,12 Street will be public, the other internal drives will be private. Public
Works Director Simola stated that Public Works and engineering would not approve the
concept design for snow removal purposes, particularly due to parking bump-outs. Dragsten
inquired whether by spreading the units further apart, they were able to accommodate parking
one vehicle in between units. AIm stated that was accurate, altbough in the winter tirne, there
would be limitations on parking and no overnight parking. Aim clarified that they would
make 6 1,12 Street as wide as possible for em-street parking and to meet City standards.
Dragsten indicated that he would look for extra detailing and color definition in the final plans.
Spartz stated that he had visited the Brooklyn Park site. His questions had to do with the
drainage issue. Aim stated that l3rooklyn Park had sought the inverted crowns and lack of
curb. It isn't something they would like to do in the Monticello development. He also noted
that the green space pond will naturally be a drainage area.
Posusta asked Simola to review how the Vine Place snow was removed. Simola stated that
because of light winters, Public Works is waiting to see how a heavy snow winter will be
handled. Simola did note that the l3rooklyn Park site works well for snow removal, because
they can push it around a street that encircles the development. Posusta asked Aim to respond
to concerns about outside vehicle storage. Aim stated that the association documents are
written tightly and impose tines for on-street storage. Aim indicated that it has not been an
issue in their other developments.
.
O'Neill asked if public street parking would pose any problems and how it would be
regulated. Simola stated that public parking would be allowed on only one side of the public
street. AIm indicated they are not expecting people to park there.
- I.'; -
Planning Commission Minutes 010/05/04
.
Dragsten asked Spartz if the Brooklyn Park development exhibited storage or parking issues.
Spartz indicted that he did not see any issues, although it was the middle of the day.
MOTION RY COMMISSIONER FRIE TO RECOMMEND APPROV AI. OF A CONCEPT
STAGE PUD THAT REDUCES THE NUMBER OF UNITS TO 35, WITH EACH UNIT
IIA VINCI EXPOSURE ON A GREATLY ENLARGED COMMON GREEN SPACE. FRIE
NOTED 'rl-IA T THE MOTION IS BASED ON SUPPORT OF VARIATION IN HOUSING
STYLE, BUT REQUIRED THAT A SUPERIOR PRODUCT INCLUDING AN
ENLARGED GREEN SPACE MAY REQUIRE A REDUCTION IN UNITS.
MOTION SECONDED RY COMMISSIONER HILGART.
Dragsten questioned the Illotion holding the development to a specific number. Frie stated that the
developers now have the opportunity to address the Council with a plan that reduces the number of
units, although Frie is not tied in to a specific number. Spartz agreed.
FRIE RESCINDED TilE MOTION AND IIILGART RESCINDED HIS SECOND IN ORDER
TO ACCOMMODATE A REVISED MOTION.
.
MOTION BY COMMISSIONER DRAGSTEN TO RECOMMEND APPROV AI, OF THE
CONCEPT STAGE PUD, BASED ON A FINDING TI IA T THE APPLICANT HAS
PROPOSED A SUPERIOR PROJECT IN DESIGN AND AMENITIES, JUS'TIFYING THE
USE AND FLEXIBILITY OF PUD FOR THIS SITE. THIS RECOMMENDATION
WOULD RE SUBJECT TO COMMENTS RELATING TO ENGINEERING AND PUBLIC
WORKS ISSUES TO BE ADDRESSED AT THE DEVELOPMENT STAGE PUD
APPLICATION AND FURTHER ADJUSTMENTS TO ENStJRE SUPERIOR PROJECT
DEVELOPMENT, WHICH MAY REQUIRE A REDUCTION IN UNITS.
MOTION SECONDED RY COMMISSIONER SPARTZ.
MOTION CARRIED.
Rollings indicated that the developers will work with staffto develop a satisfactory plan.
13. PuhJic_.H~aring: - ConsideratjqI1 of a request f9!.<LConditional U~~Yenll it for a re5.i.defltinl
~:9n~ept Sta\!,e Planned U1lit DevelopmenUn an A-O (Agriculture - Open Smtce) District.
Applicant: Insiglli~l Development
Grittman provided the staff report, noting that the site is presently zoned A-O and is guided as
proposed for a mixed-use development.
.
Grittman stated that the concept proposal includes a mixture of single fiull i Iy residential lots,
town homes, and apartments, totaling 705 units. Additionally, 20 acres of commercial use has
also been proposed. Generally speaking, the proposed allocation and arrangement of land uses is
considered acceptable. Grittman explained that School Boulevard will enter the project as an
extension from Jefferson Commons, through the industrial park. I Ie also noted that a large
power! ine corridor cuts through the project.
- 1(;-
Planning Commission Minutes 010/05/04
.
Grittman stated that the applicant have come close to their park dedication requirement.
However, the Parks Commission is looking to acquire more land in the area to accommodate a
more regional park. The powerline corridor is shown as a parking area for that park. The Parks
Commission has expressed concern that Xcel could expand into their entire easement which
would eclipse the park use. That discussion will need to be resolved before development
proceeds. He noted that the comprehensive plan does call for park along School Boulevard and
along the powerline easement. Grittman concluded that in general, the proposed concept plan
meets staff" requirements for park, although final detail needs to be worked out.
Grittman noted that the City will require the submission of a proposed phasing plan for the
development at the time of development stage application.
Grittman expressed a concern relating to an existing excavating business located within the
easterly commercial parcel. Such use is not considered consistent with the long term land use
objectives for the area. Thus, questions exist regarding its eventual relocation. This issue
should be addressed by the applicant.
Grittman referred Commissioners to other design details noted in the staff report and called
attention to the 21 listed conditions, the majority of which relate to access and development stage
plans. Grittman stated that staff is recommending approval subject to those conditions.
Chairman Frie opened the public hearing.
.
O'Neill clarified for the Commission that the agenda had been ordered with items that would
potentially generate the least discussion first.
A Mr. Lesty, representing his parents as residents of Monticello Township, questioned whether
the City was following its own long range land use plan and expressed his concerns on the plan
layout, specifically the apartment location. Lesty also indicated his desire that residents near such
large proposals be informed of potential projects further in advance.
Frie clarified that all residents within 350' of proposed projects are notified accordingly to the
notification process outlined by state regulations.
Posusta clarified that the long range plan is a guide plan for development. I-Ie noted that under
the recent agreement for annexation, development proposals move forward based on property
owners.
O'Neill clarified that the long range land use plan was adopted over 2 years ago after a series of
public notices and open houses. An efrort was made to involve township residents as well.
O'Neill acknowledged that the City will be involving more residents ofthe township as
development proposals come forward. All residents within 350' will continue to receive will
receive notices. The public hearings are their opportunity to provide input.
Jon Laudert, 3036 90th Street Northeast, addressed the Commission, expressing concern that
the Commission had spent such a small amount of time reviewing the item that evening.
.
Dennis Jordan, 3214 90111 Street, addressed the Commission regarding the current industrial uses
on the property, including the cement erusher, asphalt production and mining activities. Jordan
- 17 -
Planning Commission Minutes 010/05/04
.
suggested that if the Commission considers the area where those aetivities are oecurring as a
commercial zone, they should require a time limit be placed on those existing uses. Jordan noted
that the uses were never properly approved by the township and that no action has been taken on
the current non-confonning uses.
Jordan also expressed his opinion that as 300 of the 700 units are apartments, it seems like too
many units are being placed in an area that was intended to be large lot housing. He also stated
that it docs not seem to make sense to putting single-family residential between an industrial park
and nom-conforming industrial uses, and between apartments and townhouses.
Jordan asked if the land has been annexed to the City. O'Neill stated that it has not been
annexed, although it is within the Orderly Annexation Area, explaining that within the Orderly
Annexation Area, the City has planning jurisdiction. Grittman added that applicants must bring a
concept plan forward, then annexation can move forward. Then developers can begin the
development stage PUD and preliminary plat process. Grittman stated that the annexation
agreement does not require that plans go to the joint board as long as the property abuts or is
adjacent to the City. However, Posusta noted that annexation has to be driven by the property
owner. Jordan asked who the property owner is. Posusta stated that at this time, the site is in the
selling process between owner and applicant/developer.
.
Jordan asked staff and the developer to explain plans for 90th Street. O'Neill stated that under the
terms of the annexation agreement, border roads are taken over by the City as part of the
agreement. In terms oftratlic, O'Neill noted that a limit will also be set as to how far the
development can proceed before School Boulevard is completed. That will come at development
stage. Jordan stated that he believes that School Boulevard should be primary entrance and
access for this development.
Jordan asked the Commission to consider the danger and unsightliness ofthe drainage pond in the
Groveland Addition. He indicated that the City should be working on storm sewer management.
Grittman stated that the engineers are working on stormwater and retention pond issues. He also
noted that the issues that Jordan raised are the same ones that staff is currently working on and
will be working through for this development.
Hope Laudert, also of3036 90th Street Northeast, addressed the Commission. Laudert indicated
that based on the proposed plan, she would live directly across from the apartments. She stated
that her family purchased their property for the rural setting it offered. This development would
eliminate that. She expressed her concern about her property valucs and taxes. She also asked
fcw information on future asscssments and services due to this development. She stated that
although she understands development is going to happen, she would ask that residents have the
time and opportunity to make decisions.
.
Posusta clarified that propelty owners have to request to be part of the City and that taxes will not
be affected until they are in the City. He indicated that he does not believe that sewer and water
will be placed along 90111 Street. Posusta a)so addressed the storm water issue, indicating that
ponding is needed to stop immediate run-ofT and prevents flooding. Posusta noted that there arc
also further meetings at development stage PUD and preliminary plat that allow for additional
resident input.
- 1 H -
Planning Commission Minutes 010/05/04
.
Jeff Fischer addressed the Commission, stating that he is considering future development of his
propelty. His concern is that his propcrty would be left useless due to double fronting lots or
roads running through his property on three sides. Fischer is also concerned that the continuation
of School Boulevard could create light glare into his home.
O'Neill clarified that Insignia will address design issues to ensure that the Fischer parcel and the
road situation are handled in the best manner possible. Simola indicated that developers will
cooperate in developing a sketch of potential uses on adjacent parcel to help determine what will
occur around them. Plann ing staff indicated that is identi fied as a condition of approval for this
request.
Paul Quarberg of Insignia Development and Troy Gamble of Anderson Engineering addressed
the Commission. Quarberg reviewed Insignia's responses to conditions as outlined in the staff
and indicated that they are willing to meet the conditions as identified.
Jordan asked if Quarberg could provide exact types of housing and price points. Quarberg
explained that because the project is in the preliminary stage, those details are not yet determined.
As the process moves forward, that information will become available.
IIearing no further comment, Chairman Frie closed the public hearing.
.
Frie asked Grittman if there is infrastruture in place to provide for the size of this development.
Grittman responded that he understood that to be true, although some oversizing will be needed
which will occur with the development.
Frie referred to the ordinance discussing powerline corridor credit for parkland. O'Neill stated
that the only credit the developers would receive is for parking lot existing under powerline
corridors.
Frie asked Quarberg if the existing excavating business will be relocating. Quarberg indicated
that the crushing operations will not be located there. However, the Schluender's would like to
maintain their oft-ices there for an unspecified amount oftime. At some point in the future, as
other commercial uses develop, it is Insignia's expectation that all of the related uses cease.
Dragsten inquired if the developer is willing to review the apartment location issue. Quarberg
stated that they could look at it as they move toward development stage. Quarberg stated that the
reasoning for the placement is that higher density uses are typical on roadways such as 90lh Street.
Dragsten asked if a trail system would be incorporated into development plans. Quarberg stated
that it will be. Grittman also noted the code requirements for sidewalk. Dragsten asked whether
the small lot single family reflected on the plans was intended to fit the R2-A zoning. Grittman
replied that was expected.
O'Neill reported that the Parks Commision had looked at the plan in depth and will continue to
do so. They will be reviewing every application as it moves forward.
.
Spartz addressed the applicants and the residents, stating that the proposal represented a
significant project. He noted that the Commission welcomes township comments and expressed
appreciation for residents' time.
- I~) -
.
Planning Commission Minutes 010/05/04
Posusta noted that he was also concerned by the apartments. He inquired what the expected
build-out time would be. Quarberg anticipates that a portion of the single-family and townhome
areas would be compelted in about 2 years, with the balance of the single-family and townhomes
coming another 2 years later. 'rlle apartments would come last, about 5 years from the project
statio
Dragsten inquired at which end the development would commence. Quarberg stated that they
would start in the northeast corner, although it will ultimately be determined by service extension.
Frie asked Patch and O'Neill to look into Groveland pond situation.
MOTION BY COMMISSIONER DRAGSTEN TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF TIlE
CONCEPT STAGE PUD BASED ON THE COMMENTS FROM THE STAFF REPORT
FOR THE OCTOBER 5, 2004 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING AND THE
FINDING THAT THE CONCEPT IS CONSISTENT WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE
PLAN, SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING COMMENTS AND OTHER NOTATION
WITI IIN THE MEETING DIALOGUE.
I.
2.
. 3.
4.
5.
.
An application for a rezoning of the property, consistent with the proposed uses, be
submitted.
The applicant address issues associated with the long term viability of the existing
excavating business use (within the easterly commercial area).
The acceptability of the proposed access points shall be subject comment and
recommendation by the City Engineer.
To avoid lot depth concerns, a "single loaded" street configuration (or other alternative
configuration) be considered within the easterly commercial parcel.
The public street which provides northerly access to the park be reconfigured as an
uninterrupted route (with the park access tying into such street).
6. Blocks 10 and II be combined into a single block.
7. The use of the lot located between School Houlevard and Lot 1, Block 13 be clarified.
8. Consideration be given to replacing the Lot I, Block 15 with a ponding area.
9. Lots 17 and 18, Block 5 be reconfigured to meet the minimum lot width requirements of
the ordinance, or a PUD rationale is generated that includes a broader area of R-I A
design and lot size flexibility.
10. The amount of park land, exclusive the transmission line easement, be claritied by the
applicant, working with staff and the Parks Commission.
II. The City will determine ifpark land used for parking within the transmission line
easement may be put toward the required land dedication.
- ~() -
.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
. 21.
Planning Commission Minutes 0] 0/05/04
12. Reconfiguration of the park area to move fields otf of the power line easenlent, consistent
with the comments in this report. The acceptability of the proposed park improvements
and other park and trail related issues be subject to further comment and recommendation
by the Park Commission.
Preparation of a development stage PUD consistent with the recommendations made by
the Parks Commission at the meeting of September 23, 2004.
Due to a feeling of neighborhood "intrusion", the inclusion ofa trail link within the
interior of Blocks 6 and 8 be reconsidered.
^ School Boulevard trail crossing be considered bctwcen soccer fields I and 2 (in
alignment with the nearby T-intersection).
The applicant consider the inclusion of a landscape feature at the intersection of 90'h
Street and School Boulevard.
As a condition of Development Stage PUD approval, a landscape plan be submitted.
Such plan shall indicate the location, size and variety of all site plantings.
All site signage comply with the applicable requirements of the Sign Ordinance.
The City Engineer provide comment and recommendation in regard to wetland issues.
As part of the Development Stage PUD, a grading and drainage plan and a utility plan be
submitted. Such plans will be subject to review and comment by the City Engineer.
Preparation of a development stage PUD that incorporates the 5 acre parcel owned by Jeff
Fischer. The Fischer parcel is located along a collector road alignment at the south end of
the development site.
MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER SPARTZ. MOTION CARRIED.
14. Ac:ljoUf!].o
MOTION BY COMMISSIONER DRAGSTEN TO ADJOURN AT 10:30 PM.
MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER SPARTZ. MOTION CARRIED.
Angela Schumann, Recorder
.
- 21 -
Planning Commission Agenda - 11/01/04
.
5. Public Hearing: Consideration of a request for a variance from the 30-foot rear
setback for an attached 4-unit townhouse complex in an R-2 District. Applicant:
Homestead Multi-Family Development Corp. (NAC)
REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND
The applicant is seeking approval of a variance from the rear yard setback
requirement for a 4-unit townhouse building in the R-2 zoning district. "I'he project is
under construction. and the setback violation was discovered during the construction.
The applicant has constructed the foundation and was proceeding with building
framing when the City's Building Department ordered work to be stopped pending
the outcome of the variance request. The applicant's survey shows a setback that
varies from 25.0 feet on the north end to 25.4 feet on the south end. The rear yard
setback requirement in the R-2 District is 30 feet.
A variance from the dimensional standards of the zoning ordinance requires a finding
by the City that a condition of the property, not created by the applicant, causes a
hardship is putting the property to reasonable use within the required standards. The
variance must be necessary to make reasonable use of the property, and may not bc
based solely on an economic hardship.
.
The zoning ordinance further specifics the following findings for variances:
FINDING OF PLANNING COMMISSION AND CITY STAFF: In
considering all requests for variance or appeal and taking
subsequent action, the City staff and the Planning Commission,
serving as the Board of Adjustment and Appeals, shall make a
finding of fact that the proposed action wi II not:
[AJ Impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent property.
[B) Unreasonably increase the congestion in the public street.
[C] Increase the danger of fire or endanger the public safety.
[0] Unreasonably diminish or impair established property values
within the neighborhood or in any other way be contrary to the
intent of this ordinance.
In this case, the property has been recently platted and was subject to the approval of
a Conditional Use Permit for townhouse units in an R-2 District. As a part of the plat
.
Planning Commission Agenda - 11/01/04
.
and CUP consideration, planning staff had made the following comments in relation
to the plans submitted at that time:
Preliminary Plat. The plat itselfshows 7 total lots - 2 are located
on land north (~lPrairie Drive, known as "The Meadows", andfive
located to the south. The two lots to the north mirror the previous
lot lines, tvhile the five lots to the .'i'outh are arrayed both along
Prairie Road and around a cul-de-sac. The cul-de-sac was platted
as a part of the Brother's Plat, but never constructed The
proposed units appear to meet all setback requirements as
designed. It should be noted that there would not be room for
porches on the rear oj'the Building 7 units due to the minimum
setbacks being proposed Future owners should be made aware of
this issue, as manyfi.illlre owners expect to he able to add this type
of space at some point.
Building 7 is the building at issue. The developer had represented, supported by
plans of the development, that he would be able to construct a building within the
setback requirements applicable on the site. Staff noted in the report that due to the
tight dimensions, no porch extensions could be constructed.
.
The applicant has apparently begun construction on a building design that varies from
the one submitted with the Conditional Use Permit and Plat. This situation docs not
conform to the requirements for variance consideration, in that the original plans
showed how a building could be constructed that meets the zoning standards, and the
encroachment condition was created by the applicant's actions. As such, reasonable
use can be made of the site without a variance, disqualifying the request from
variance consideration.
If information is presented at the public hearing that persuades the Planning
Commission to consider approval of the variance, the Commission should take the
concerns of the adjoining neighbors into account. By a\1owing the buildings to be
constructed five feet closer to the property line, some attempt at mitigation of this
encroachment should be made. Mitigation could include extensive, mature
landscaping along the boundary line, or modification of the rear building lines to
slope roofs in such a way as to minimize the impact on the neighborhood to the cast.
ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS
Decision l: Variance from the required 30 foot rear yard setback in an R-2 District:
.
2
Planning Commission Agenda - 11/01/04
.
I. Motion to approve the variance, based on findings that the standards for
variance approval listed in the zoning ordinance have been met, with the
condition that the applicant modify the rear building roof lines to minimize
impact on the neighboring property, and plant mature trees and shrubs along
the boundary line to screen the rear yard space from the adjoining lots.
2. Motion to deny the variance, based on a finding the applicant has not
demonstrated a hardship as required by the zoning ordinance, that the
encroachment will violate the required findings for variance approval listed in
the zoning ordinance, and that the applicant can put the property to reasonable
use within the required setbacks, as shown on the plans submitted for plat and
CUP approval.
ST AFF RECOMMENDATION
.
Staff recommends denial of the variance. Although the applicant has begun
construction and the cost of reworking the buildings could be extensive, economic
conditions are excluded by the zoning ordinance as the basis on which the City may
consider variances. The applicant was cautioned at the time of the CUP and Plat
approvals that due to the dimensions of the site, setbacks could raise concerns with
the development of this parcel. Moreover, the neighbors have specifically objected to
the encroachments toward their rear yards, where they seek privacy. As a result, the
framing that extends into the 30 foot rear setback should be removed, and the
structure made to meet the required setback regulations.
If the City bel ieves that the application should be approved, mitigation of the
encroachment should be considerable. Planning statl has suggested possible rootline
changes, and recommends extensive rear yard planting to screen the buildings from
the existing neighborhood.
SUPPORTING DATA
A. Site Location Map
13. Site Survey with Variance Illustration
C. Public Comment Letters
.
3
o
<0
'!'J
\,.....
,.
".', 'I"
J; h'j~,
, I ; cg
'~ :~~,:t'~.~
~. 0
i@
.lj
w
'"
~
'"
"
g~
@~
~~
OS>
~~
ii
'5
w
~ ~
~ g
e z"g
:;c @~
I"
~q
ss~ _W ,
I!I ~
Iii ~ i1 I
o
Z
w
OJ
',:..,"': 'oj.\~' ,...~..
",\1I,.i!
~. ~It ~'~~ ~,j,~ t
I- .,.
..I.,t ..'~
~ ';,
.
;/ p'-.'~" ...
- ~",,"g~.'
'!:' .
~~
~
In
o
Cl
Z
I.L.l
"
I.L.l
.....J
.. tj
i...l
1&101
:s~1
]011
1111
III
.t~
c,j
1>.~
)!:'0
~ \
~o \~
_\\~~
~ ~~ '-:
- "
AC\VONn08
"'0
- \
\l'
t'"...... ---,
I
I -, .--1
l~ .....J ~ J
C
.' .0
~
..~
8
11,;,'" r:- i'
~~}~ ,~,
~ '1 '"
-g
o
0::
'8
~
w
c
.:;:
'"
::;;
."
WO
c'"
j'"
N
",,-,
g II.
O~
@W
I
F
.E
"
'"
<!l
.ll
en Ol U"lL{}
~~~~
O')(J) Q} ~
"
" z
~S
~~
W--'
--,W
Wz
20 II II
B~55
CS~~~
z::>>>
i5S:':f':f
U.WWuJ
WCClO::O::
tQ<>:OO Z"
~o::go
ifi3u.ei:' 0
OU.Ou.~~ ~
<>:W ii
0.0.0::3: 0
:2e~g ill
eeoe 0
~~~~ ~
frfr1[fr ffi
0000 0.
0::0::0::0:: ~
c...o...n..n. 0...
32>-
"w
~ ~ ~
.,;." ~
~~ ~
'~~ ~
"'~ ~
;S-m .$
~~ .g
OE .s
~g 15
~i:l ~
~ w "
:;~ -E
5'~ ~
.E~
I.... ro ai
~iE ~
'ili.~ 15
6 -6 ~
~.E ~
~~ 0.
0" '"
z~ ~
N'~ <'i
-<
q
rS\
,I'.... 1",_,\1
\ 1 1\ \ ";i>--l. \ CI
\ \ \.....) .....J \ II
'""'
.0)
gCi;i
~~
.5 "-e
::;: 8
""en
5:;5
8 B
1" "
;:g
5".5
- '-
to 0
15 gj
,,<>:13
!I:C>') "E
~ 8
o !l'
ii ;::
0:: OJ
~15
::;;:~
_ 0
f- "
,..:gj
""--"
~'"
[Q-
.p.
;r.:a
~b
c
o
-m
1
:>
~~
.~ In
"W
"'C:
~~
~o
5~
~'"
ou;
"'w
E-"
EO
~~
~i
1;.-::
"'w
f~
t~
8."'-
~ ~
~ cO u
(tI "C -:i .E
0.16 8
>...J N
~1 ~
i~ I
=~ 0
g:g ~
.;0- '" "c
~~ ~
SE :s
",-"
~i
'"
'"
'"
C
:>
~
,.
g
'I'
~
'"
"
:0
.1:::
"
"
c:
0>
'0;
J
c
.~
~
.'"
~~p.~
~ ~~'
~3~j~~~"
1_ 0 I.~-" "u" ,"
j 5 ~ I f ~'1q; j I
II.. I ri,.~ ~~~ ~:,
l- >- . <t -' (> 0, , I
('''....IW ) . - :0-:,
"..-<_> I, ~I
.....::"J ~. .I". ':, ., I I
a:i n:= I ,.&:.I!~.l: "<:i I
00 ~,~Jij; ~ '
_ ,._~_ .. J
--.. ,....................-~~.............,
--
,..
'"
~
u.>
'0
.l!!
~ ~
~ ~
z
<=>
E
Q
!:i
o
c:
.--'"
.........
,,<:I
",0
= t22
"r~ffi~'
1i~""!J
.,,-::;;-
~.st=~
.a:-S
'E'i
",-
......
E~
"'<->
:=e;-
-c=
","'
.s~
- ~~ ~
~ 0 t i
u::l:C~
~ HI
~r
I It
~.i.!!
-~
<<
~i
ll<op'CDlIlIOO ~ i
~ .LY'IoH:ID1-l\
m: ldSt1 _1loop'81.1fIOIN~
_ __~ - ~ 'SO 8~')I,
56
160
r\ 11
~\ -\ \ \,\,Cr "I
Wl..~~'
1\
I' - I'
\ \ \ \'\.~ fll
~I..~~
- II
1 ~\\
\J~ It
I'\~-\ " \
\" \ I
:c. "I
^\~ -\ ~~~'I
t.n \'
11
\ \\t1
^\~-\ h
-r'l "
;U "
() \1
\ I
I'~~- I'
i " \'\~~l\.'t\
~~;r
^ -\" \
I
60 II
\ \ T.C
\ _ W.,O.s;
^\ \ \~,
'~-.....
-....."'"
,-'
- ......~,
I' "
"
"
"
"
\\
II
I r
II
It
11
II
It
It
II
I'
\ \
1\
II
\I
\ \
II
\I
\I
\I
II
\ \
\I
"
\I
II
1\
I I
II
\ \
\ I
II
\ I
\ I
\I
II
\I
II
II
I I
\ I
\ I
I'
\I
II
\ \
.....11
i'P-i<'\ \
'~I\
fll
II
11
\
, I
r.c. I I
(930.1) r\
\ \
1\
\ I
I
, I
, \
\ \
I'
I'
I
, I
II
II TC
,,~-!' (8j,; 0)
1'''
""
./ /
-/./
1/
II
0/: J; c:
, (gjo ~J
(, ..../
I
I
I
I
.
ReVl9lon8
g-
Z 'rl
5e>
927.2
OUTLOT B
DRAINAGE & UTILITY EASEMENT
OVER AU OF OUTLOT 8
,
25.0
,
30.3
4
926.7
co'ttRf'O-
PORCH
7
~3
_"'V
t;;~bg
""""0,,",
...,(,to
~~s~
~ ~- ~ 2
.2'
926,3
X 925.4
x 925.5
x 926.
925.4
1
.4'
,
30.0
x 92E
925.9
\)
/f
OUTLOT B
DRA/NAGr & UTILITY EASEMENT
OVfR ALL OF OUTLOT 8
I-
I ~o~
-.......... . -.. . ........
-",~=::
""''''' - --
...... loG.
I ~MESTEAD MULTIFAMILY
DEVELDPMM CORP.
I TIMBER RIDGE 3RD ADDmON I ~ 0'011
BLOt!< 7 EXHIBIT LL..:J
MfMfUMO~1~9
6QZv'oN
JOSSV SOOd ~NV~~ S8~OJJ~
~dgZ:t vOOZ '8['PO
.
vNl(~lt \ l\\[ OnnL -n\Cl2>en
\ 5((; ~ ~d~'\- LiLVl€-- h " ,
Jlol'\.t\cdLuJ ,,--,NU\J, 5:)3to2.
(r7iJ?)) lq5- 2gy-~
()c+, 10) L004-
~
.
10 wlloV\'\. this \1ltlj COn(e.ol:
W~ r QslLk, el-t \ 5w \-\ e.ciVY\~ ULn~) 'Lx~
ulflo\'\_-t1cdlo. W~ Cl(~ wr'rbV1.j -\:0 ~O\,L in
e 1P rtSS Dllf" m(u'j C?Y\c~r ~5 r.e~~9[lrd' ~-th~
{cwrJ.Dm6 btlrlj bi.\.d+ 01'\. 0\ILholCl.5 C.HcJ~
Wt llV~ l \'\ Cl f[llRb.{.r 3~\~ hClVn.e.. \he..
\J..J\ f\aDWS\ r\ D\A.-C \c)(~sex()U\.-t, o_re.- not -~l\ \
S i u... wI t\aDW::,. me..' , \\a.1"r\ bIter ~ ~ " -\:Dw y
bQ.\ ~ bw L-I:: De.-h,N1 lAS Clrt. ynu.(h. t(l\\.tl', ,r:J.
~O\..\. a..re.. oJ)lt in Lao\:-. clow\\. (lnd S-e.i. r~tLi
llL\n O\,L r ba.c..ljtlrd(,lX\c\ W \ nd DeuS. ihe..
~ 1"'\ \)f.lCJ -t.Q...Y\ c.e. ~.Q... \ h=,-hL \ \./' d ClI'O und OlJ
S\A:Hffi\'nlYlj pco\ --Hvt. ~eo.rs IAjOI no, Lo\'<3'
~t.l"1J ~ S L -b pu-r po SL, be C(.l u.se.. 0+ -the..,
h Ie ~\tt CU'0 tI O<;'.QJ'\.~ ss of t}c.Q... -townho I'YL eS
Jt\50, (L 1.\.\.5L COI'\('(!XT\- 0+ OlA..rs IS wh,^--\:
-t~Q.?~ --tDLO\'\.hDvnt~ \vtu-t dDY\Q.. -to Oll-r rfo~r
Do... \ u..e . We., LLs~cl -to SL t \ r\ OLLrb-.LC~.L~O
SiD, ~ -to wu1ch- -th.e. SU1l;.e1, \,J(D\,() oJ\
\}Jt' (M S-I'e.. \S Cc h~~ -6wl'lhOQ~ -tho.
bl0c.K5 OLLt .t.u~~\Ij'
.
.
.
Wh~h \De-. .f\rst \\eos-d o~ \(~r Ridj~ ,
Ofl\' \R, \t WitS. of l\t\k... .' '. CO\\.Cef...~ -tD U
""'Th.~R \.(liAS \'\Dt '-".nOU-jh.. rool'lL -\hI c.t.,
-faLL\ LLh\t -ID\,0nhoVY\R- -6 3D d i r(1c.+IJ
6eh\ \i..<l ou-r. home.. SI \'\c.e.. -8\e.n 4::h.~f
mOlliJ ~ciLo~sC\ ICJe.,-6 *~~ wt5t
-to qa.\t\. \1\. ore. Sro...(~ I SD -th.~J COLLld. 0-
Clno~~r ~nhOyne.. \Y\. ~ d,2L nest kx)(
{h is LLi1.-1'\l -th€.:J d IAj +ke.. bo..Se.tYle.J'\..t ,
~YjS. Sil'\.Ce. 4::he.t\. l-t h.1AS DeLY\.. %
\ Y\. . 0l-t -thCl-t -6 me.. \}J~ m ~f( S lA-f -('cL c
-foW'ld-B1R-t \t \ s -t\u~ f~~-l -teJ cJo~
-to OU-'. bacK. Lot LlVl~. 1\'\e..~ hClUQ.... I'\c
\o-tJ~n \ SS v... ~ d. 0... \jCLr \ CLrt C. Q. -to b lA.ll d
\JJ\cLu- 1::h t r~ ~ .(.d~..,
~ :;QQ.. {\.lb ~) L ~b DV\.S. ,,)1o\J~ -Lkf--
{oW'Y\J10\'Yl e. ~ 'to ~ d \ {-f-.Q_r -t.n-t- s'\'t_~) 0,'
{LCU ~eJn down. .
I-t Wou-ld -*llKi. 0... S\l.ttJ:JL {rot prl U(l(
~t~Jlce. -6 b\oc~ CJu,__t-the-\r \) \ {_uJ Ot
OU-I"' Do..ct~o..rd . t='rD 101 {\,e. i \ (l:lS -l:: 'IN \ nd b\..O
-tp D\l.r hOU.s.e.. -ther.e- \ S onl:) 105 f<:.e..t.
.
.
w~ -t ..e.EJ {he 1:DWYLf-lOrne5 loLl il5 So
tl(f,e., nQS CL ff\.Ojcr .eH -ed DIL' OlLf'
pro~{r *J LXA-\ kt..
-r n covlckslDR, we.- LlRn..t ~LL tD \6Jcw
haw th..\ S hRS CClllS-e-ci Ll6 hl u.ch adck_(
3tn. %. P ka.St j l ue.--tn is \'Y\R -\:l.e. (' 'jDlIJ
pmrn{Jt. O--tt~ on.
.
SihtNej,
~'l'
. ) Cx~..
/l1att ~~
.
.
.
.
sc
October 11,2004
City of Monticello
To whom it may concern,
This letter is in reference to the townhome built behind my property at 154 Hedman Lane
in Monticello. My recollection is that this building was not to be constructed in that
location but was instead to be a grassy area. The townhome is to close to my property;
i.e. less than 30 feet from my property line. How did this get missed at time of inspection
and when did the building plan change?
I am distressed by the existence of this townhome and the loss of privacy in my back
yard. I can see directly into the windows of the townhome, which means the person(s)
living there can see into mine. I am now very self conscious about turning my lights on
in the rear of my home because of this privacy breach. I feel that my property value has
decreased with the location of this townhome.
Of additional concern is the height of the townhome. It was my understanding that it was
to be a rambler. Two levels of windows are in the rear of that building. How can this be
a rambler? Also, the land is graded in a manner that appears that water drainage will run
directly into my back yard.
I am requesting that the city / builder be responsible to find a reasonable solution to this
situation and am anxious to know what the solution(s) may be. I am strongly against
granting a variance to the builder, which would. directly contradict strict city codes.
Regrettably, I am open to selling my property so that this situation my be rectified.
Thank you for your immediate attention in this matter.
Sincerely,
u~,(../ ,y.;; - '. ' d '.
~~
Debora Berthiaume
154 Hedman Lane
Monticello,MN 55362
(763) 295.6093
Planning Commission Agenda - 11/01/04
.
6. Public "carinI!: Consideration of a rCQuest for a Comprchensive Plan
Amendment to allow a rezoninl! from R-2. to PZM. and Conditional Use Permit
to allow commercial retail activitv in a PZM District. Applicant: Don Hickman.
(NAC)
REFERENCE AND BACKGROlJND
The applicant is the owner of a building at the corner of New Street and Broadway.
The property is zoned R-2, Single and Two family Residential, and was occupied by
a Laundromat and dry-cleaning facility, operating as a non-confonning use. The
applicant converted the property into a Servieemaster business, and a residential
apartment unit. This use was judged to be "less non-conforming" than the original
Laundromat - a required finding when considering the re-use of non-conforming
property.
Under the current zoning, the applicant has two choices. The first is to re-lease thc
property for a service-type business, similar to the recently vacated Servicemaster.
The second would be to convert the entire structure to residential use, consistent with
the R-2 zoning of the site. The site is surrounding by other residential uses and
residential zoning.
.
The applicant is seeking one of two potential uses for the building. The first would
be a retail use. Such a use would require a zoning that accommodates retail - B-2 or
higher. The applicant has requested a PZM zoning that allows B-2 retailing by
ConditionallJse Permit. To accommodate this zoning, a Comprehensive Plan
Amendment would be required, since the Plan calls for continuation of the existing
land use pattern (residential), and there is no other nearby commercial use. Often
when confronted with similar requests, the City will consider a more sweeping
amendment to take in one or more blocks, rather than just a single parcel.
The second option suggested by the applicant is reversion to a Laundromat facility.
This would require a rezoning to a B-1, Neighborhood Business zone. This district is
designed to fit within residential neighborhoods, and is specifically thought of as an
acceptable "spot zone" as it is not usually contiguous to other commercial uses.
In planning staff's opinion, the preferred solutions would be ordered as follows: (1)
conversion to residential use; (2) rezoning to B-1, Neighborhood Business to allow a
Laundromat; (3) continuation of the service business as a non-conforming use,
subject to future conversion; and (4) rezoning to B-2 or PZM, in conjunction with a
Comprehensive Plan Amendment supporting the change from residential to
commercial uses in this area.
.
Planning Commission Agenda - 11/0 I /04
.
Residential use is the preferred option since it would continue the pattern of
residential use along Broadway, and be consistent with the current zoning, the
Comprehensive Plan, and the existing neighborhood. The R-2 zoning district
supports the idea of small attached residential uses at densities that should be
compatible with the site.
If commercial use is considered appropriate, only limited commercial uses should be
considered on this property. The previous use of the property as a Laundromat,
although non-conforming at the time, would be a reasonable use of this parcel and
building. The B-1 District supports this use by CUP, and adequate parking could be
provided on the site as shown on the applicant's site plan. This plan would allow for
continued commercial uses, but remove the parking from the existing street, a
problem under the previous service business use.
The applicant has the right to continue to put the property to a service type of use, as
a grandfathered right. This right does not run forever, but is foreclosed after six
months, with the requirement that only uses conforming to the zoning ordinance
allowed thereafter. Continuation of a service use would not be ideal, and would carry
on some of the problems from the Servicemaster business, including (m-street
parking, lights, and activity incompatible with the surrounding residential area.
However, the applicant is granted this right under the code.
.
Planning staff does not recommend the fourth option- rezoning to B-2 or PZM. This
would be an intensification of the activity on the site, incompatible with the existing
zoning, inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan intent to maintain residential uses
along Broadway, and problematic for the surrounding neighborhood. Although the
applicant suggests that the proposed retail tenant would be a low-impact user, the
zoning would open up the site for much more intense retail activity that would not be
subject to City regulatory review.
Moreover, such a zoning change would clearly be a "spot zoning" decision, since
there is no nearby commercial zoning. This is differentiated from the B-1 district
which is specifically designed to fit onto small parcels in the midst of residential
areas.
ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS
Decision 1: Comprehensive Plan Amendment to redesignate this area for commercial
uses, rather than maintaining the existing residential pattern.
1. Motion to recommend approval of the Plan Amendment, based on a finding
that commercial uses are more appropriate for this block.
.
2
Planning Commission Agenda - 11/0 I /04
.
2. Motion to recommend denial of the Plan Amendment, based on a finding that
the preservation of residential uses along Broadway, and avoiding of
competition with other retail areas, continues to be an important objective for
the City's land use planning.
Decision 2: Rezoning from R-2, Single and Two-Family Residential:
1. Motion to recommend approval of a rezoning to B-1, Neighborhood Business
to accommodate low-intensity commercial uses in a residential neighborhood,
based on a finding that uses consistent with this district are compatible with
the area and with the historical use of the property.
2. Motion to recommend approval of a rezoning to rZM, Performance Zone
Mixed, based on a finding that the expansion of commercial uses in this area
would be consistent with the long-range "highest and best use" of the
properties along Broadway.
3. Motion to recommend no change to the zoning, based on a finding that the
continuation of residential uses is the proper objective of the zoning and land
use regulations in this area.
~
Decision 3: Conditional Use Permit
1. Motion to recommend approval of a CUP for a retail use in a PZM District,
based on a finding that the CUP would he consistent with the intent of the
district and the long range land use.
2. Motion to recommend approval of a CUP for a Laundromat in a B~ 1 District,
based on a finding that this use is compatible with the neighborhood and the
intent of the B-1, Neighborhood Commercial District.
3. Motion to recommend denial of the CUP, based on a finding that only
residential uses are appropriate for the site.
ST AFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends rezoning to a B-1 District and for granting the cur for a
Laundromat for the reasons noted in the body of this report. The applicant has
submitted a site plan that would accommodate the parking for the laundry facility
without cont1icting with street traffic. Although the applicant prefers a more
intensive retail zoning, this zoning would not appear to be compatible with the
----
3
Planning Commission Agenda - 11/01/04
.
predominant residential character surrounding the site. If commercial use (of any
type) is to be approved, planning staff would recommend thef1)110wing conditions:
I. Renovation orthe lighted canopy sign to reduce the amount of light emission
toward the residential area by painting or other technique.
2. Signagefor the site consistent with the requirements of the applicable zoning
district.
3. Parking layout consistent with standard dimensional requirements for angled
parking. (It appears that the plan may be a little optimistic in the number of
spaces that can fit on the site.)
4. Parking lot signage to direct traffic as to the one-way nature of the traffic
flow.
5. Planting to mitigate the impact of the building wall on the west, and the
lighting on the east, relative to the neighboring residential uses.
SUPPORTING DATA
.
A.
B.
e.
D.
Site Location
Aerial Image
Applicant Narrative
Site Plan
.
4
.
.
.
tJ8
To:
From:
Date:
Subject:
Whom It May Concern
Don & Bonnie Hickman
October 19,2004
355 East Broadway Building
Due to the need of more space, we bought the 355 East Broadway (on the corner
of New St. and Broadway) building in September of 1997. At the time of acquisition, the
building was occupied as a coin laundry and a dry cleaning service. The building was set
up to accommodate the needs of these types of services which opened up in the 1970's.
Upon purchasing the building, we knew there were necessary upgrades needed on
the building as well as some remodeling to fulfill our needs. Our business
(ServiceMaster) was a service-based business that required an office, shop area (heated
for equipment and chemicals), and a two-bedroom apartment that could be used
temporarily as living qumiers and office space down the road. The business grew from 2
employees to 14 employees and one vml to seven vans in a span from 1997-2004.
In May 01'2004, we decided to sell our business and pursue other goals in our life.
This is the point where we started running in to problems. We sold the business and
decided to hang on to the building for future opportunities. We decided that we would
lease the building out for a period of time while we take a break to ponder some options.
We have been trying to lease the building out since May 2004. The leasing of the
building turned out to be a learning experience not originally expected. We have been
informed by the city that the building can only be used for residential purposes or a
service business, which was grand fathered in.
The building is not cUlTently set up for residential purposes and would cost more
than what the building is worth to conveli it. Since May, we have had four different
service-oriented businesses show interest in the building. Each business figured to need
shop and office area with three out of the four needing to store supplies and such outside
the building, which was unacceptable to us.
Our business required that we keep four vehicles inside the building for weather-
related reasons. By doing this, most of the parking (employees, suppliers, subcontractors,
customers, etc) was on New S1. with tluee or four spaces utilized on the lot. For these
reasons, there could be anywhere from ten to twelve vehicles parked on the street on any
given day. We wanted to tone that ritual down when we decided to sell our business.
Our idea was to remove the two double garage doors on the building which would give us
fifteen angled parking spots on the lot itself. There are two entrances to the lot which
allows us to make all the traffic and pm'king go one way and solidify our idea of a neat
and clean operation.
1
.
.
.
Unfortunately, the service-oriented business does not fit within this scope. We
have been looking for the right fit since May and have been unsuccessful. We came up
with the idea of putting a coin operated Laundromat (not a dry cleaning service) in the
building or a small retail store. The growth of these businesses would be kept within the
walls of the existing structure and all the parking would be limited to the lot and not the
street.
We have a small retail business wanting to lease the building at the present time.
This business would have one to two employees with a potential of four to five customers
in the lot at a time. This company also provides delivery of its product. With delivery,
could this business be classified as a service-oriented business? Either way, I foresee this
as a perfect fit for the building. Again I want to emphasize that a retail store can only
grow to building's existing walls where service business can keep adding vehicles and
employees as part of their growth.
Our next idea of a Laundromat would be a good fit as well. The building was
originally designed for a Laundromat. After researching this idea and identifying all the
equipment involved, there would be room for a maximum of eight customers at a time
with an average of two to three customers at a time. The Laundromat would require one
employee on site during business hours.
In conclusion, we cannot limit our options to residential or service-oriented
businesses due to the conflicts identified above. We as owners ofthe building have taken
pride in developing and maintaining a quality image since its inception in Sept. 1997.
We operated a business that involved over 20 vehicles, with above-mentioned
stakeholders, at a time without any complaints whatsoever. At this point, we need to find
a good fit for this building as it has been six months sitting vacant. With ideas
mentioned, we would cut the vehicle traffic in half and contain it to the lot only. At this
time, we would appreciate consideration for rezoning of our property from R-2 to B-2.
Thank you for the consideration,
D~:H~
Bonnie Hi~k1Ran
~~~
2
.
t:
.
.
'"-'-['-- r.~"-' i-[Ii
, ! 'II
- :' :- 1---- ----- I n
--- I
I I
.i---.... i"'.
- -I. i'
V\/
,_~ '" ____ --,i.,.-.. - ~.~~ ~ -I~~ ~:~ ~ ~, ~~'_____
,l i
/II
.
Planning Commission Agenda 11/01/04
7. Public Aearine: Consideration of a request for Preliminary and Final Plat for
Otter Creek Crossine. a proposed commercial and industrial subdivision.
Applicant: Otter Creek LLC. (NAC)
REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND
Otter Creek LLC. is requesting preliminary plat approval of an approximately 184
acre site to be known as Otter Creek Crossings. The site, located northwest of the
Groveland residential development, abuts interstate 94 to the east and county road 39
to the north. A majority of the site is zoned agricultural with the exception of an
approximately 47 acre strip of B-4 commercial zoned land along Interstate 94. The
subject site has been the topic of much discussion with regards to its use and layout,
including the City purchasing a portion of the site for an industrial park.
.
The applicant is proposing to preliminary plat the entire site at this time, including
nine outlots and one lot, with the understanding that an amended preliminary plat with
in-depth topography, grading and drainage plans will need to be approved for the
remainder of the site as the phased development of the site occurs. Although the
report does address general issues and concerns regarding the Moon Motors site, a
more in-depth review will be undcrgone at the time the future applicant submits a
CUP site and building plan application with morc suilicient plans.
hind Use. As prcviously stated, a majority of the sitc is currently zoned
Agricultural with an approximately 47 acre 8-4 Commercial strip of land along the
interstate. Moon Motors, a motorcycle/ A TV dealer currently locatcd on the cast side
of Highway 25 across from the Town Center Retail Center, is proposed to be
relocatcd to Lot 1 Block I of Otter Creck Crossings. The proposed use is rctlective of
the City's Comprehcnsive land use plan and is allowed via a CUP in the 8-4 district.
A CUP for this use is not being applied for at this time, rathcr a simple concept sitc
layout has been submitted for staff's review.
At this time, the scope of industrial uses to be developed on the site are not known.
As such, the area currently zoned for Agricultural use will remain so until further
analysis is carried out.
Preliminarv Plat. The preliminary plat includes Outlot A through Outlot I and
Lot 1 of Block 1. Chelsea road is proposed to extend the length of the site, connecting
the southeastern portion of the site with County Road 39. As previously stated, the
area to the north and east of Chelsea Road is zoned 8-4 and the area to the south and
west of Chelsea Road is currently zoned A-O but is designated for future Industrial
Use. The following table illustrates the performance requirements of the two current
zoning districts;
.
1
Planning Commission Agenda 11/01/04
.
Lot Arca
. "~' N.',,' 'm,~' ..." '.',""',.",.,~ "'"_~.,_,~_~.~,_.,,.,.... ~__',.'~^r
Lot Width
Front Setback
Sidc Sctback
Rear Setback
Building Hci ht
B-4, Rcgional
Business District
""'"''.,'''~-~'''''''-'-'''''-'''-''''' .
N/A
"..,,~,^ 0" ~....,,' "'&.. ",_,'~"'.,',
N/A
o
o
o
Agricultural
2 stories
2 Acres
.'" "'''~'~'''''-'''--'----
200 feet
50 feet
30 feet
50 lCet
~,~,---". ,_.~." ", ,~' ,','-'~-~--~--' _.."
N/A
The applicant and the City are working on a phased transaction of the land south and
wcst ofChclsea Road which is to eventually become the City's Industrial park. This
area is shown on the plat as Lot I, Block 2. To complement this phasing process, the
applicant is proposing to preliminary plat a number of additional outlots at this time.
As future uses become more apparent, the outlots wi II be replatted. As such, although
Outlot I does not meet the two acre minimum lot area requirement for the Agricultural
District it is understood that it will be rezoned to the industrial district in the near
future at which point it will meet the performance rcquircments of the City's Zoning
Ordinance.
.
"fhe applicant has submitted a general preliminary plat drawing of the entire sitc dated
October 21, 2004, and conceptual preliminary utility and grading plans for a lot 1
block 1 of the proposed plat.
[001 I Block 1. The applicant has submitted a concept site plan along with grading and
utility plans for the proposed auto sales and display use to be located on Lot 1
Blockl. As noted, this is intended to show a conceptual layout for the future
Moon Motors facility, and to provide preliminary grading, drainage, and
utility information for this lot. Morc dctailed information will be presented
when the applicant gets ready for occupancy of the site. It will be necessary to
complete the connection of Chelsea Road from the east to provide acccss to
this parcel.
Circulalion / Access. Otter Creek Crossings is to be accessed via the extension of
Chelsea Road. The City will need to replat the future Chelsea right-of-way on thc
Denny I Icckcr site to match that of Otter Creek Crossings. While a concept plan has
been prepared for the industrial park that identifies preliminary road and lot design,
the circulation pattern of the future industrial portion of the site will be more
specifically determined as users of the industrial land are identified.
.
Gradin,e: Plan. The applicant has submitted a preliminary grading and erosion control
plan for Lot 1 Block 1. The City may determine that this is acceptable for the purpose
of platting the site with the condition that a final grading, drainage, and erosion
control plan be submitted for review at the time of CUP application on Lot 1 Block 1
and at the time of replatting each of the outlots. The grading plan is su~ject to the
review and approval of the City Engineer.
2
Planning Commission Agenda 11/01/04
.
Utility Plan. The applicant has submitted preliminary utility plans for Lot 1 Block
1. Thc City may determine that this is acceptable for the purpose of platting the site
with the condition that a final grading utility plan be submitted at the time of CUP
application on Lot 1 Block 1 and at the time ofreplatting each of the outlots. 'l"he
utility plan is subject to the review and approval of the City Engineer.
ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS
Preliminary Plat
1. Motion to recommend approval of the Preliminary Plat of Otter Creek
Crossings, based on a finding that the land use pattern is consistent with the
City's Comprehensive Plan, subject to the following conditions;
1. As future uses become more apparent, the outlots will need to be
replatted.
2. A CUP, including in-depth site plan, building plans, drainage and
erosion control plans, a photometric plan, signage plan, and landscape
plan must be submitted for Lot 1 Block 1.
.
2.
Motion to recommend den ial of the Preliminary Plat of Otter Creek Crossings,
based on a finding that proposed plat is not consistent with the requirements of
the Subdivision Ordinance or the land use pattern of the Comprehensive plan.
3. Motion to table the request for further study.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends approval of the Otter Creek Crossings Preliminary Plat with the
conditions I isted in the report. Approval of the Preliminary Plat allows for the
property owner to sell portions of the overall site. When future uses, including Moon
Motors, are phased in, the developers will need to submit detailed plans. The outlots
will need to be replatted and in the case of the agricultural area, rezoned, before the
process can continue. The City has had numerous discussions on the land use and
general layout of this particular area. The proposed plat retlects the intent of those
discussions and should meet the City's zoning and subdivision regulations, as well as
the Comprehensive Plan
SUPPORTING DATA
.
A. Site Location Map
B. Preliminary Plat
C. Preliminary Plans for I,ot I Block 1
3
.
.
~
.~."
. '
.
~
~
.
"
';;~,IO'I-I'l"''''' .
\
I
I~'..
1..0'\
,
.-
.
.~
~
\
1..0'\
.
.~
~
\
,
.-
_1
.'
,
.-
~~
~...
.~
~
\
,1
.-
,
"
.-
~-
l.~
!~
\0'\
.
-,:I
\
~'\
~t:\
~~
.~
~
\:!
I a ~ ,t ~
frl'J If 'Iff r f ~
", f I I '., . n 11;1 If, ~
rr!.,1. ;r ,Ut.JI.f.hPrI:l fi I:,:. If ~
:Jrr 11 (I Jf!.".:",.,. I' r JI i It, :;!
Ihf r ; 11":lfif4rhl' fl fla i;, ~
~J,tlli fi ~~i~I!:!JI'~; ifi '~!l!f ~
Ir i J! .' !'''!I''''11In'. .f! J5 1,'1 i If'
r'fi P ,.' If!I~ls, I rf..1 If I II f r
'I-I..; If r !:!I'!f.f,IIII!1 I ~il! II
: .r fl r I('UI.I 1,,1 -III Jr -J.' r ,1
.Iff ': ;'~IJf!'fi"f';;!! r if I .;
"if ! I. f~~J!!ll'd'lIf f~ ~~J II
Ii ell i II Ili~rf:r~'J!r.J g IItr I
U!l~ ! J i;lf!~iI,'fll~r li ilil i
J -I ' I' 'f'llil-lf fr. ;1 r! 9rJ
Ir'. f j, ; !'I~rl~.~i-&r _
(
I
I
I
(
~-
l.~
\
\0'\
~/;\
\
~~
-'~~'I
\...........................................................1
............".,.........".,...........................,..
........,,,...........,...........,,.,.....................
I :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
............',.n........".,..........".,.........".....
,....,........"...,.........."..............--..........'
....................... ................sNoisV\jij.
133HS 31111
Nn Q1J3QIlNOn
ON,s~~8133~d-~k
NOI1~m:llSNO~ HO:! 10N - 13S NVld lVnJ
(!)
C/) Z
Z g C/)
<( g C/),
.....J ~ 0 ~ z
a... .~ 0::: 0 ~_
>- wOOD
0::: ~ ~.....J::::I
<(.E o;.EW CO w
Z :6 W ..~
~ ~ 0:::;'" ~
.....J @ 0 0 ~
W ::>~ O:::.....J
0::: ~ W
if) I
z
<(
-'
u.. ,
h
-' l~. .,.
0 ""
~ u.,
z U
0
(.) uJ
z a:
0
Vi
z 0
<( 0:::
-' W
u.. 0
Z r z
t- <C
0 :J
~. 6: F <:>
::> z
.......... Ci
Cl (i W <C
Z t- o:::
() Vi <:>
I- (j) t- r r
W W W 0::: 0:::
W Cl w <C <C
I :r: z z
lJ) ~ ~
(j) w :J :J
-' w W
t- o::: 0:::
F u.. u..
tij
W ~ N t<')
I
(j)
...........................................................\
03)03HJ ,nu""""" 'n."..............,.,' n....... n. 'u.....
::: ::..::HHH:.:::.::::.H:.:::..tJll~tlj:
NVld Alnlln aNV
31IS A~VNlVm3~d
Nn OTa:I~NOn
ON'S~~:f'3~d-qjk.v
NOI1~m:llSNO~ ~O:llON . 13S N\fld lVnJ
.,JD8 ..... .I""~ .'111 ono\ 'ON '~n -31VO
~
( ~ cu..mnnx )
~ 'pV'..t.IU1n JO .\DlS 1i114\ Je U111
.'.Il J.pul'I .I...ut&U3 IDUiQI...,Q.,/d ~~l"I Mnp 0
wo I lDI.R pl.lO UCII.,...... l~P J;w ".pun .10 .W
~ .<q p....J..~d "M IiCIlcl '11ft lO," '<JIl.IG "..MI1.l ,
/- ,
--\,
/~
('1..,
/~'"
-c-\
....( ..
/(
!
\,
~
~
Uo
:;>",
f!:< '"
",0 \Ii'"
8~~~~
"'::J::IiZ
~~~~~
"'z"''''
::Ii~\jol~5
~i'5Q<",
tii~<~F
""~~\jol1D
~lli:::l',...o
1Il~~~~g
~F~~~~
;!,OItO"'O-;!::
z......~QtII~
<::.; ~<\:)
:~~~~~
~8g~~~
~~o....;!'~
~O\~~~~
-
--
II
1\ 1\
II
, I \
: I
I
I II
: II
! I
I I I
: I
I
I II
III
i I
f
! \. H.
'1'
.1l.H. I
"
<
'"
oti
@II
'" I
~ I
B: I
~ !:!li!! !ll! !ll !;
~ li~$~i!iBBBBli~ili .
ifi ~
~ 9
...J
W en
I- -
- ....
CJ) 9
94
......~~ 1\0.
\\\Gp."
~\tS'tt..1f.
),
~ -' -~~.
_ J.. _ _ _~e~\I<l\O~
- - . I
--
---
--
---
--
--
--
-1
---
I
I
1
I
I
I
I
~
~
<>
~ ~~
i :J
1
I--
@
~
~
I
I
I I
~~.
......,..1:.' ,..-
-f
~ I _.....
\ I
\\
\1
\1
\\
\1
\1
1\ .........
I
I
I
I ,..~
I
I .....-
I ~...,..
I ..
\~
\
~
\\ ;
\1 l-
V
IT
I
1\
}- II
,t.t\;
0')
~
1.C)
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
L
-<..:
:nl ~",fl' .'J(I 010Jb ~nlB 0'"
~
(cr.ItW~1
~
"--./
'ON '~11 -31va
Q3)C)]1oO ,..................
NMV..C1 n...,n,..,..,.,.".." .,..,. ,.,...... ,.............
Cl]NOS]O
'DlO..lilil" jt) '>>b1S .II~ .0 MOl
IIHn ~ljIpun J..Uj61l3 IDliDllIIAlo.Jd PIl.~DIl .(lflP CI
l1IQ I ~Qlll PUIlI IiOI~dM ~DLIIP ,{W ..pun JO .W
,{q PaJQ<t.Jd 100M l.lOtd '114\ \b'4l 041~"D ,(.....14 I
OJ.\",.ns ......... "uu U uu...........sNoisiAj.ii'
I NVld 10illNOO NOIS!
~~~u_~~laVij~ AijVNIViI
I ONls~Jgt;cr~~
8
$~
X
II
~...o".
II
II
~....&.
II
s~~
i ;
II; !slih;
~U h~H!!
is. ~~
L <5z F!Q
3-:i' '" 0 oV>
I'!E''' :><
'-< Q~~~~ ~ ~~ ~'"
~~ 0 --' "<
~~B1~~ Q: < 00 V>::; ~o
~o o..~..... ....."- ~~
-~g 8fSb~~ !a: ~ ...
z~ F-
~~~oz [ljlXf2 ...c 1:5<
Let: 3!~ J;F
..~ <::I~UJ v>:lI'~ 00 !::;~ BlE
>... ::::1:0::::(1')0 tx~
",,,, ~::i:to~ ~Q: iil..... IStl
-.-~ <f2... --,Q: ~~
'... o~...~z ca (f) E!. <WM lli~
-."~ I-- ~ lE ~~~ ::.~fil <V>
....N 6.:vl~g~ ",iil
-'S5F OV>)- ~~
;~ e:=>", "'0
Z::r: F "'0 "'~
..J 1= "g~...o..< 5<=> O~ffi ~O
_;.Iu ",... ::'0::1 t=o~ ~:ig ~~
'=> ~~~~i;i~ ...'" li'I!:4
.~ ~ ZUZ ViiS
~- F.....V> 0<0 ::.>-B 1:lI'
." VJ VJ~~~~;g: c.)~U ~~'" ~~ ~.....
~~ iS~~gi71g i5...~ ~~~ ......
:;U 0... ",><
"'0 '" (II ~"'a: :::1tl'" ...'" <~
- U"'OIS ~~
"..... "~a:Q:....._ ffi:25
5~ '" m Q: ~~~ film
;~ lflF i1?::l5 0.. >-t='VJ V>(II:>: l'!E'iji &lei
"'Z... I-<~
~~5~~~ <~Cl: l- F!!)
"'<F 3lfla ~~ (11"-
'''' ;~
-~ I"'-- <~"-;~Q: o>u :lI'U< ~~
::1"'i5~i5tl: ~a~ i550..
jg <5u",u< ~...'" l:l~j ~I'!E'
NOI1~n~lSNO~ ~O~ 10N - 13S N\fld l\fr
1~n1
m
~
51
Cl
~~ ~~ 0 i ~I
~ ~ 7 Ii ~ :. Ii
~ ~11 ~!2 "':' ""'.03""3>""" ~ 111'
ii~ ~ i ; ~ ":"'"'. ~ J~
'i! Iii! jl ~. l!11
\ .' ~ .
e ~
~; i;;
al li~
~ !I ~~~~
I
~I
(~)
~ ;
~ i
~ ~
II
(~)
~
~ I
~ I
~ ~
Cl ~
;
:.
,
~
I
lo
<l)
! ~
\.-
~
......7.....+-'
___' __ _ ---- .__.~:" -i,i- -~_=,~,~:~~ ~~~,_. -,- _,.,.-- ~~ ~,~:,~::-:.': _.-- ,-'" ~
~. --. --. .-" ..,-' ;'l1'f ~ '1 ~ . -- -,- .-- -- -- -- .--"~ ?
-- - -v~'t~~ _~~ -' --' .-'-' -'-, ~~ ~~ .-- ::~ ::: :::. "~~ ':_: ~, .~.. _..- ~,,-
~'i:!,:'.::, .",,~ _' ~
,,' / /.,,'" ,- "=. .-" .,,-- .- ...-:: .::: ::: ~~~~: .-- .-~: --~"..
~ rrrr.
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
---
-
~ -Se~\(. \,.\ne
__ ~'i1"B\,I\\O\1\Q
_--1--
_- .1
I
o
CO
O'J
\
\
\
\
\
\
,
'-l
n
(7)
\
\
\
I
J,-(
-~
\ ~
,
,
~/
I
Cl C!) LL ~,
W ~. ',-
(/) Z ! '- _._. ..._ ..._
o B -----
1l.....J
os8-
g:ml'ttb U -
\
c-...\
cO
OJ
\
\
\
\
\
/
_--11
-- -- -- /1
-- I
.o;or-
/
o
CO
0)
I~~
I
(
~
I
I
tn------
~
\ 'I
\ :
\ 1
\ :
-l. :
\1
:\ ~
1 ~
I
\
'-I
UJ
0')
\
\
\
\
~
;'i
V>
"
Z
~
0-
~
...
"-
"-
"-
\
_\
~OO" \ @
\
g
o
~@
"'\,
'"
"
" \
"-., \
"" \
\,~
'l
,\
.
.
.
Planning Commission Agenda - 11/01/04
8.
Consideration to call for a Public "carine for Rezone of a 120 acre parcel of Otter
Creek Crossing.
.
.
.
Planning Commission Agenda - 11/01/04
9.
Puhlic Hearin2:: Consideration of an amendment to the Monticello Zonine
Ordinance allowine Open and Outdoor Stora2:e. Applicant: Monticello
Plannine Commission. (NAC)
REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND
The purpose of this report is to provide background to the Planning Commission on
the issue of outdoor storage, and to establish a framework for considering possible
changes to the current ordinance language. With consensus on the various options,
planning staff would prepare ordinance language for consideration at the next
Planning Commission meeting.
Existing Ordinance Language. We have attached excerpts from the current
Ordinance to this report. As you can see, Open and Outdoor Storage requires a
Conditional Use Permit in each of the three industrial districts in Monticello. The
required conditions are nominal, and there is no specific language limiting the size of
the storage use of the site, except that the outdoor storage is to be an accessory use.
As a general rule, trash handling facilities are required to be in their own enclosure (if
not indoors), and arc not considered to be outdoor storage. With regard to truck
parking, parking is exempted from outdoor storage requirements, so long as the
parking is for vehicles with a maximum of 9,000 pounds. Semi-truck parking is
specifically not allowed in the Business Districts, however, no mention is made of
this use in the Industrial Districts. Generally, the Industrial Districts would permit the
parking of Semi-trucks (or other business trucks), whereas detached trailers (empty or
otherwise) would be considered storage.
Finally, in the 1-2 District, a property owners can apply for an Interim Use Permit for
Outdoor Storage as a principal use - thus, no principal building would be required.
Alternate Methods of Regulating Outdoor Storage. Other cities regulate outdoor
storage in a number of ways. The following is a brief list of these alternatives:
a. Relate Outdoor Storage to the size of the Principal Building. A number of
cities that allow outdoor storage restrict the size of the outdoor storage
area to a certain percentage of the size of the principal building, generally
varying from 50% to 200%. This concept allows for some outdoor
storage, but avoids overrunning the site with the use.
b. Relate Outdoor Storage to the size of the Lot. This is a different take,
suggesting that only a specific percentage of the lot can be put to this use.
This regulation is less common, but we have seen numbers between 10%
and 50%
Planning Commission Agenda - 11/01/04
.
c. Set a specific square footage for Outdoor Storage. This regulation would be
imposed on any lot, regardless of size of the building or lot. The cities
that impose this type of regulation usually do so to allow a very limited
storage area - usually used as a staging area. Typical sizes arc less than
10,000 square feet.
d. Prohibit Outdoor Storage. This is a very common situation in business or
industrial parks in the Twin Cities metro area. Surrounding communities
that have adopted a similar approach include Big Lake and Buffalo.
Rogers has very little land left in its district that permits outdoor storage-
its newer district prohibits it. This trend reflects most Cities' approaches
that such storage creates neither tax base nor employment (the primary
reason for industrial park zoning), and is typically the largest problem
from a code enforcement standpoint.
Other Issues to Consider. There are a number of issues to consider relating to the
regulation of outdoor storage. First, what constitutes an effective screening of the
storage area. Most fencing is six feet in height, and screens only low-piled material.
Large equipment, higher-pile material, or semi-trailers can not usually be screened by
a fence alone. Moreover. Chain link fencing with slats is the most common fence
material-- sometimes just as unsightly as the storage.
.
A second issue with regard to fencing relates to setback and landscaping. The City
typically requires a setback for accessory uses, but not for fences. As a result, storage
will commonly expand to consume the available area, and eliminate any interior
landscaping. One solution is to require the fence around outdoor storage areas to be
placed at the same setback and establish the landscaping on the outside of the lence.
The zoning ordinance language requires surfacing that is "grassed or surfaced to
control dust and drainage." This can be a problem in that it is difficult to maintain a
storage area of grass with material storage.- the grass does not survive, or can not be
cut. Gravel surfaces tend to be dusty despite the nature of the material, and few
owners (if any) apply dust control in a storage area. Paving is the preferred solution,
but the operation of large equipment on asphalt can result in destruction of the
surface. Concrete is the only f()ol-proof solution, however, it is expensive _
presumably the issue that storage owners are seeking to avoid by placing their
materials and equipment outdoors.
The zoning ordinance does not specifically state where outdoor storage can be
located. The City has typically required it to be in the rear or side yards only,
however, this can be become an issue on corner lots. Planning staff s
recommendation would be that if outdoor storage is allowed, it is required to be in the
rear yard only, and never any closer to the street than the principal building. This
allows for a landscaped yard and screening of the storage area.
....
.......
2
Planning Commission Agenda - 11/01/04
.
Finally, with any amendment, it would be important to create some definitions. The
current zoning ordinance does not define outdoor storage. Truck parking, trailer
storage, and other uses should be better defined so as to determine where and in
which zoning districts this use is to be allowed.
ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS
Planning staff is seeking direction from the Planning Commission on the issue of
outdoor storage. This report is intended to provide some background, and help
establish a framework for the Commission's discussion. StafTwill prepare a draft
ordinance based on this discussion fix the next meeting.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
.
StafT has no specific recommendation at this time. It is noted, however, that outdoor
storage is typically requested as a cost-saving measure in lieu of constructing a
building for INDOOR storage. Poorly organized outdoor storage is notorious in the
percentage of code enforcement time that it causes. Moreover, it creates no tax base
or employment - the most common reasons for industrial development in a
community. If it is to be allowed, planning staff's advice would he to severely limit
its scope, and strongly enhance the buffering and screening requirements.
SUPPORTING nATA
A. Ordinance Excerpts
n. Existing Non-Conforming Example Illustrations
.
3
Chapter 13 - B-3 District
. [El Open and outdoor storage as a principal or accessory use provided that:
1. The area is tenced and screen cd from vicw of neighboring residential
uses or if abutting an "R" district in compliancc with Chapter 3,
Section 2 10], of this ordinance.
2. Storage is screened from view from the public right-of-way in
compliance with Chapter 3, Section 2 [01, of this ordinance.
3. Storage area is grassed or surfaccd to control dust.
4. AI/lighting shall he hooded and so directed that the light source shall
not be visible from the right-of-way or from neighboring residences
and shall be in compliance with Chapter 3, Section 2 [El, of this
ordinance.
5. Does not take up parking space as required for conformity to this
ordinance.
6. The provisions of Chapter 22 of this ordinance arc considered and
satisfactorily met.
.
Chapter 14 - 8-4 District
[Al Open and outdoor storage as an accessory use provided that:
I. The area is fenced and screened from view of neighboring residential
uses or if abutting a residential district in compliance with Chapter 3,
Section 2 rOJ, of this ordinance.
2. Storage is sercened from view from the public right-of-way in
compliance with Chapter 3, Section 2 fO], of this ordinance.
3. Storage area is grassed or surhlced to control dust.
4. All lighting shall be hooded and so directed that the light source shall
not be visible from the public right-of-way or from neighboring
residences and shall be in compliance with Chapter 3, Section 2 [Hl, of
this ordinance.
5. The provisions of Chapter 22 of this ordinance arc considered and
satisfactorily met.
.
1
.
Chapter ISA ~ I-IA District
15A-4: CONDITIONAL USES: The following are conditional uses in a "I-IA" District:
(Requires a conditional use permit based upon procedures set forth in and regulated
by Chapter 22 of this ordinance.) (#298, 10/13/97)
[A] Open and outdoor storage as an accessory use providcd that:
I. Thc area is fenced and screened from view of neighboring residential
uses or, if abutting a residential district, in compliance with Chapter 3,
Section 2 [G], of this ordinance.
2. Storage is screened from view from the public right-or-way in
compliance with Chapter 3, Section 2 l G], of this ordinance.
3. Storage area is grassed or surfaced to control dust.
4. All lighting shall be hooded and so directed that the light source shall
not be visible from the public right-of-way or from neighboring
residences and shall be in compliance with Chapter 3, Section 2 [IIJ, of
this ordinance.
5. The provisions of Chapter 22 of this ordinance are considered and
. satisfactorily met.
Chapter ISH - 1-1 District
15B-4: CONDITIONAL USES: The f(Jllowing are conditional uses in an "1-1" district:
(Requires a conditional use permit based upon procedures set forth in and regulated
by Chapter 22 of this ordinance).
[A] Open and outdoor storage as an accessory use provided that:
1 . The area is fenced and screened from view of neighboring residential
uses or, if abutting a residential district, in compliance with Chapter 3,
Section 2 [GI, of this ordinance.
2. Storage is screened from view trom the public right-of-way in
compliance with Chapter 3, Section 2 [G], of this ordinance.
3. Storage area is grassed or surfaced to control dust.
4. All lighting shall be hooded and so directed that the light source shall
not be visible from the public right-or-way or from neighboring
residences and shall be in compliance with Chapter 3, Section 2 [11], of
this ordinance.
.
5. The provisions of Chapter 22 of this ordinance are considered and
satisfactori I y met.
2
.
.
.
Chapter 16 -1-2 District
16-4: CONDITIONAL USES: The following are conditional uses in an "1-2" district:
(Requires a conditional use permit based upon procedures set forth in and regulated
by Chapter 22 of this ordinance).
[A] All conditional uses allowed in an "I-I," light industrial, district.
Chapter 3 - General Provisions
3-2 [Nl EXTERIOR STORAGE: All materials and equipment except as provided for in
Chapters 5 through 19 of this ordinance shall be stored within a building or fully
screened so as not to be visible from adjoining properties except for the following:
4. Off-street parking of passenger vehicles and trucks not exccedi ng a gross
capacity of nine thousand (9,000) pounds in residential areas.
3-5 lGJ USE OF REQUIRED AREA: Required accessory ofT-street parking spaces in any
district shall not be utilized for open storage, sale, or rental of goods, storage of
inoperable vehicles as regulated by Chapter 3, Section 2 [Ml, of this ordinance, and/or
storage of snow.
3
.
.
.
Page 1 of 1
file:/ IF: \DJh \blight\OutdoorS torage\MVC-O 12SJPG
9/23/04
.
.
.
Page 1 of 1
file:/ IF: \DJh \b light\OutdoorStorage\MV C-O 1 9S .1PG
9/23/04
.
Planning Commission Agenda - 11/01/04
10. (Jpdate: Comprehensive Land Use Plan Development Update (JO)
Verbal report to be provided at Commission meeting.
.
.