Planning Commission Agenda 12-07-2004
.
AGENDA
REGULAR MEETING - MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION
TUESDAY, DECEMBER 71,\ 2004
6:00 P.M
Commissioners:
Dick Frie, Richard Carlson, Rod Dragsten, Lloyd Hilgart, and
William Spartz
Council Liaison:
Glen posusta
Staff:
Jeff O'Neill, Fred Patch, Steve Grittman - NAC, and
Angela Schumann
1. Call to order.
2. Approval of the minutes of the regular Planning Commission meeting held Monday,
November 1 st, 2004.
3. Consideration of adding items to the agenda.
4. Citizen comments.
.
5.
Public Hearing __ Consideration of a request to rezone Outlot I-I, Outlot E, Outlot B,
and Lotl, Block 2 ofthe Proposed Plat of Otter Creek Crossings, from A-O
(Agricultural/Open Space) to ll-A (Light Industrial).
Applicant: City of Monticello, Otter Creek, LLC
6. Public Hearing __ Consideration of a Preliminary Plat and Conditional Use Permit for a
Development Stage Planned Unit Development for a 47.65 acre commercial/retail
development.
Applicant: Ryan Companies lJS, Inc.
7. Continued Public Hearing - Consideration of an amendment to the Monticello Zoning
Ordinance allowing Open and Outdoor Storage.
Applicant: City of Monticello Planning Commission
8. Adjourn.
.
.
.
.
MINUTES
REGULAR MEETING - MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION
MONDA Y, NOVEMBER 1 st, 2004
(SPECIAL DATE DlJE TO GENERAL ELECTION)
6:00 P.M
Commissioners Present:
Diek Frie, Riehard Carlson, Rod Dragsten, Lloyd Hilgart, and
William Spartz
Richard Carlson, Lloyd Ililgart
Glen Posusta
Commissioners ^bsent:
Council Liaison:
Staff:
Jeff O'Neill, Fred Patch, Steve Grittman - NAC, and Angela
Schumann
1. Call to order.
Chairman Frie called the meeting to order, declaring a quorum, noting the absence of
Commissioners Hilgart and Carlson.
2.
wproval of the minutes of the regular Planning Commission meeting held Tuesday, October ~
2004,.,
MOTION BY COMMISSIONER DRGASTEN TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF OCTOBER
61\ 2004.
MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER SPARTZ. MOTION CARRIED.
3. Consideration of adding items to the agenda,.,
None.
4. Citizen cQill.!!lents.
None.
5. Public Hearing .- ~~onsideration of a request for Variance to the 30-foot rear vard ~etback for an
attached 4-unit to~nhome complex in an R-2 district. Applicant: Homestead Multi-F.amily
Development Corporation
Grittman provided the staff report, reviewing the applicant's request for a variance. Grittman
provided background on the planning and approval process for the development and noted that
during the construction process, it had been discovered by a neighbor that the units are being built
25 feet from the property line, rather than the required 30 feet. At that point, the applicant was
issued a stop work order. StatT requested that the applicant to file a variance request in order to
bring the matter to the Commission.
Grittman referred to the ordinance which cites a series of items qualifying as hardships to justify
the variance. Grittman explained that it had been noted to the applicant during stafT review of
that he would be required to meet the setback as Lot 7 was particularly shallow. At that time, the
Planning Commission Minutes 11/1/04
.
applicant had indicatcd he would be able to meet the setbacks. Grittman summarized that
planning staff did not find a hardship to justify a variance and is not recommending the variance.
He offered an alternative, stating that the Commission and applicant could consider modification
to the rear portion of the existing building and intensify landscaping in that area.
Dragsten inquired if the original plans showed a 25' setback. Grittman indicated that the original
plans showed the 25' foot setback, which was the reason for staff's recommendation on meeting
setbacks.
Posusta clarified that a variance had not been granted based on the original plans. Posusta asked
how staff missed the setback violation during review of building plans. Grittman explained that
as the building itself is built inside a townhouse lot, the unit is separate from the setback
boundaries. O'Neill indicated that due to the fact that staff had specifically addressed the setback
issue, it was presumed that setbacks were being met. Additionally, the building plans did not
show the specific setback dimension for the building.
Frie asked when the error was detected. Grittman indicated it was brought to the attention of staff
early in October by the neighbors. Frie asked if there is procedure that should have been
followed so that accountability can be determined.
.
Patch indicated that accountability lies with the developer who violated the law. In this case, the
townhouse lot or building pad is considered entirely buildable, and most often the lot lines are
entirely within the setbacks for townhome building pads. In this case, the lot lines extend into the
setback areas. It was assumed that the townhome would be placed within the building setbacks
and within the lot lines. Patch also pointed out that in most cases, the land surveyor will indicate
setbacks on the survey. That did not happen in this case. Posusta asked if staff had approved a
drawing with no dimensions. Patch clarified that there are various dimensions on the plan sets,
but no setback lines. Patch explained that the underlying setbacks always apply for the district.
Patch indicated that an as-built foundation survey is required just after foundation is rough-
graded. That would have helped the building department determine exactly where the foundation
was in terms of setbacks. There are occasions where the as-built survey isn't turned in until
framing inspection. In this case, the survey wasn't turned in until the after the framing inspection.
Patch explained that in any case, the structure is still too large for the lot. In fact, the developer
also included a patio door on the upper level. The previous Planning Commission reports
specifically state that setbacks would not allow for a deck to be built. Patch stated that it seemed
clear that the developer didn't understand what was recommended by staff.
hie asked if there was something for the staff to be learned, so that this doesn't happen again.
For example, staff could complete a check at time of foundation. Patch indicated that at times, it
can be difficult due to construction. Frie asked if a survey is incorrect, is that justification for a
hardship. Grittman stated that according to the ordinance, it would not be ajustification, as it is
not physical in nature.
Chairman frie opened the public hearing.
.
Mike Schneider, Homestead Multi-Family Development Corp., builder and developer, addressed
the Commission. Schneider stated that he was not aware of the setback violation until the
neighbor lneasured and then the building inspector red-tagged it. Schneider stated that he had
- 2 -
Planning Commission Minutes 11/1 /04
.
used the exact same plans as what was presented in the very beginning. He commented that at the
time the tirst plans were presented, the lots were too shallow to be eonsidered buildable. For that
reason, Nicholas Circle was moved. He stated that he recalled only that he was to stay within the
lot I ines and that he had no intention of violating setbacks.
Frie asked about whether the plans he was using for development were the same as what was
presented to the Commission for approval. Schneider stated they were the same. Schneider
stated that the townhome style is the same as those that were built first on Prairie Road.
Matt and Yvonne Theisen, 156 Hedman Lane, spoke to the Commission, stating that they had
concerns when the development was tirst proposed. They noted that they had reviewed the
concept plans, which showed Block 7 to be an unbuildable lot. When construction began, it
appeared that the buildings were too close. Upon measuring, Theisen determined that the unit
was into the setback. The Theisen's expressed their concern about not only the setback violation,
but also the height of the building, which sits 16' higher than their house. Matt Theisen indicated
that drainage could also be an issue in the area. The Theisen's explained that selling their house
would now be much more difficult. They had also been told that the 4-plex would be a rental.
Frie asked if they had attended the previous public hearings for the site. Matt Theisen responded
that after viewing the concept plans, they were under the impression that the lot behind them was
not buildable and did not attend.
.
Frie asked Schneider ifthe units were going to be rented, especially as that question had been
asked when the application had been heard by the Commission. Frie noted that at that time,
Schneider had stated that they would not be rented. Schneider stated that they are built for sale as
individual units, but there is no restriction that someone can't buy all of them and then rent. Frie
clarified that although they didn't make a restriction, Commission may not have approved the
CUP had they known they would be rental units. Schneider stated that he can't restrict a buyer
from purchasing them. Frie stated that may be true, but the Commission can deny the application.
Spartz asked about moving the units forward in terms of the front setback. Grittman stated they
would violate the front setback if they slid the building forward.
Debora Berthiaume, also an abutting property owner, expressed her concern about the setback
violation. Frie asked if Berthiaume had attended the public hearings. Berthiaume stated that she
too, understood that the lot was not buildable based on the original concept. Sandy Anderson
addressed the Commission on behalf of Berthiaume, stating that Berthiaume is concerned about
property values and the grade difference between the neighbor's homes and the 4-plex, which
seems to be a significant issue. Frie explained that by law, the development can't drain onto her
property and the engineering would have been reviewed in detail to ensure that.
Hearing no further comment, Chairman Frie closed the public hearing.
Dragsten asked the applicant's engineer for information. John Bender, MFRA, responded.
Bender explained that he had only come on as project engineer earlier this year. Bender provided
a synopsis of project, explaining that the original plans included a non-buildable area. Once
Nicholas Circle moved, the new plans included a development summary showing the building
setback at 2S feet. The final preliminary plat submittal also showed those same dimensions.
.
- :\ -
Planning Commission Minutes 11/1/04
.
Frie confirmed that the preliminary plat as shown illustrates a 25-foot setback, Frie asked the
engineers if they were aware that they were presenting a non-compliant plan, Bender stated that
he had spoken with Ryan Bluhm, the tlrst project engineer, and he was aware that a 25' setback
may require a variance. However, this was the plan that was approved, for whatever reason,
Dragsten clarified that a rear setback was never granted through the CUP approval. O'Neill
indicated that the rear setback was always a concern as the lots were very shallow. Statl reports
always noted that setbacks had to be maintained,
Posusta indieated that his concern isn't so much the 5' violation as the loss of privacy,
Frie stated they would first have to make a ruling on variance, then on how to mitigate the issues,
Spartz asked if other buildings had been constructed in the plat. Schneider replied that only those
on Prairie Road's north side have been completed, SpaJ1z asked ifthe other proposed units meet
the setbacks. Schneider stated that he is unsure, Bender stated that some others are at 30',
however the south unit is set at a 25' setback,
Frie stated that in granting the previous approval, the Commission had deemed that the applicant
could put the property to reasonable use without a variance, Frie stated his opinion that the
applicant has put the Commission into an unfortunate position. As such, Frie recommended that
the applicant consider the following options:
.
I. Buy neighbors' property,
2, Mitigate the setback violation through intensive landscaping
3, Modify rear building lines,
Schneider stated that he concurred with the recommendations. Schneider noted that if not for the
lIve foot violation, the development wouldn't be subject to another review and the general look of
the 4-plex wouldn't be difterent from what exists,
Frie asked the other Commissioners and neighbors for input on the recommendation, Dragsten
agreed with the recommendations, stating that even ifthe building is moved back, it won't solve
the real problems for the neighbors,
MOTION BY COMMISSIONER DRAGSTEN TO DENY THE VARIANCE, BASED ON A
FINDING TilE APPLICANT HAS NOT DEMONSTRATED A HARDSHIP AS REQUIRED
BY THE ZONING ORDINANCE, THAT THE ENCROACHMEN'r WILL VIOLATE TIlE
REQUIRED FINDINGS FOR VARIANCE APPROVAL L1S'rED IN THE ZONING
ORDINANCE, AND THAT TIlE APPLICANT CAN PUT THE PROPERTY TO
REASONABLE USE WITHIN THE REQUIRED SETBACKS, AS SIIOWN ON TilE PLANS
SUBMITTED FOR PLAT AND CUP APPROVAL.
MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER SPARTZ, MOTION CARRIED,
.
Frie recommended that staft: builder and engineer work together to resolve the issue, Frie
encouraged the neighbors to be in attendance at City Council meeting when the appeal is heard on
November 22"d.
- l-
.
.
.
Planning Commission Minutes 11 II /04
6.
Public Hearing -:- Consideratio!J of a ~equcstfor a c,;omprehensive Plan_Amen~lment t9 allow <!
Rezone from ;1 resid~ntialu~e to a mixed .use, Kezonefiom 1\-2 (Single and Two-Falnily
ResidentiaJ) to PZM (Performance Zon.e-Mix~d), and a ConditiolJal Use PenniJ to allo'Y
cOlnmerci<u retail activity in a PZM Di$trict. Applicant: [Jon Hi~_kman
Grittman reviewed the staff report, explaining that the subject property is sited in the midst of
residential properties. The current use is an allowable non-conforming use as it had been
grand fathered in. The same non-conforming use can continue, if the applicant chooses to sell or
rent the property. However, Grittman stated that it is staffs opinion that in the event that
Planning Commission were to consider a more intensive use, they would have to amend the comp
plan. Grittman suggested another alternative, which would be to rezone the property to a B-1, or
neighborhood commercial use. The zoning ordinance specifically allows for "spot-zoning" with
the B-1 designation. Grittman explained that small sites embedded within residential areas are
ideal for the B-1 designation as they are low-intensity commercial uses. Grittman reported that
the applicant is seeking a PZM zoning designation with the comp plan amendment. Staff
recommends B-1, as it would be more compatible with the surrounding neighborhood.
Frie asked if under the present zoning, the applicant can operate a service-type business or
convert the property to residential and whether the applicant was receptive to either. Cirittman
stated that it was staffs understanding that the applicant was not looking for residential, and did
not want to continue a service use. Grittman noted that there is PZM district one block west.
Posusta stated that staff should apply the 6-month sunset on grandfathered uses consistently,
citing the Public Works facility as an example.
Frie clarified that the applicant seems to have a variety of options. He stated that he sees the
Hickman's business as a positive addition to the community and doesn't see many problems with
the current use, but perhaps residents see differently.
Chairman Frie opened the public hearing.
Don Hickman and Shawn Ilickman addressed the Commission, stating that the property was
never built as a residential use but was designed to be a service business. Hickman reported that
they have four businesses interested in continuing a service use. However, each would need
outside storage. Hickman stated that they don't want outside storage, nor are they looking to put
in a higher intensity use. They are looking at office products or other light retail, noting that a
service business would put parking back on-street, where light retail would keep parking on-site.
Don Hickman reported that he has never heard a complaint from neighbors on vehicle traffic.
Shawn Hickman stated that there may be more complaints with a service business than the retail.
Frie clarified that the allowable uses are broken down within the ordinances and questioned
whether what II ickman had discussed would work under a B-1 with a cond itional use perm it.
Grittman stated that he isn't sure that the type of retail uses suggested would be allowed under
B-1. Frie asked about PZM with CUP. Grittman agreed that a PZM designation would broaden
the scope of penn itted uses. II ickman stated that he bel ieved that limited office or service retai I
could be allowed under B-1. Hickman inquired whether a new CUP would be needed each time a
different use was proposed. Grittman stated if it was the exact same use, they would not need to
come back. However, a different use would require a new CUP to ensure that the nature of the
use is compatible with the surrounding neighborhood.
- .J -
Planning Commission Minutes 11/1/04
.
Dragsten asked if the Hickman's would continue to own the building and then lease it. Hickman
stated that it would depend on the use.
Hickman asked about long-range zoning plans for the area. Grittman stated that the long-range
land use plan illustrates the area as residential.
Hearing no further comment, Chairman Frie closed the public hearing.
Dragsten clarified that the PZM zoning gives the applicant a lot more flexibility, but requires the
eomp plan change. The B-1 rezone would require them to come back for a CUP with each new
use. Dragsten stated that the size of the building also seems to limit them if it was rezoned to
PZM. Grittman noted that businesses could grow and so will activity. Frie agreed, stating that
the building may limit growth but not the intensity of future uses.
Dragsten asked if an office products store with only a small percentage of walk-in business would
be permitted under the B-1 district. Grittman stated that if "limited retail or office use" is
permitted, the Commission would need to decide that issue.
Spartz stated that B-1 zoning would provide some flexibility while balaneing residential interests.
.
Posusta stated that he believes that the applicants should be able use their property as they see fit,
especially as there have been no complaints about the business. Posusta recommended more
flexibility, with limitations based on traffic generation. Posusta recommended the CUP in a
PZM, which would still gives staff control of conditions.
Frie asked IIickman what he could do under PZM versus B-1. Hickman clarified that although
the PZM would open up more options, they would we still need to come back each time fl.)!' a
CUP. In that case, Frie asked if they were receptive to a B-1 district. Don Hickman answered
that they are receptive to anything that allowed light retail.
Grittman corrected the definition of pennitted uses in the B-1 district, noting the limited office
and service retail was listed in the purpose statement for the district, but general retail is not
allowed. The ordinance goes on to list specific permitted service retail uses such as convenience
grocery. It does not seem that the B-1 district will allow hinl what he would like. Grittman stated
that to allow what the applicant wants, Commission would have to go to PZM, which will require
a comp plan amendment. Or, the Comm ission can amend the B-1 district.
Dragsten stated that there are many similar llses to an office products store, many of which are
more compatible than a neighborhood convenience store.
GrittJnan asked Hickman when the o/lice products store was looking to occupy the building.
Hickman said immediately. Frie asked for operation hours. Hickman replied that they are
typically Monday through Friday from 9:00 AM until 5 :00 PM and no evenings or weekends.
Hearing no further cOlnment, Chairman Frie closed the public hearing.
.
Grittman indicated that the B-1 district could be amended to accommodate their use and the
Commission could issue a CUP under this clause. The Commission could proceed with the
amendment at future date.
- (i -
.
Planning Commission Minutes 11/1/04
MOTION BY COMMISSIONER SPARTZ TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF A CUP
UNDER AN AMENDED B-1 ZONING ORDINANCE ALLOWING LIMITED RETAIL
COMMERCIAL BUSINESS, BASED ON A FINDING THAT THIS USE IS COMPATIBLE
WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND THE INTENT OF Tl-IE B-1 NEIGHBORHOOD
BUSINESS DISTRICT, AND SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:
a. Operating hours arc limited to 8 AM -6 PM, Monday through Friday.
b. Lowering the intensity of lighting for the existing building.
e. Conformance to the sign ordinance regulations for the B-1 District.
MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER DRAGSTEN. MOTION CARRIED.
7. public Hearing - Consideration of aPreliminary and Final Plat for Otter Creek Cross~~
ill:9posed comlllercial and industrial subdivision. AJml.icant: Otter Creek, LLC
Grittman outlined the staff report, explaining that the applicants will be developing the property
shown on the proposed plat between Chelsea and 1-94 and the majority of the remainder of the plat
will be developed by the City.
.
Grittman stated that the applicants will be developing Lot 1, Block I first. As such, the have
provided complete preliminary plat detail for that parcel. A CUP for the proposed use will be
needed at the time the lot develops. The items detailed in the report for Lot I, Block I are notices
for the future development and are not conditions of this approval.
Grittman concluded that the preliminary plat appears to meet all the needed requirements, subject
to future preliminary and final platting of the outlots. Grittman noted that the plans have been
subject to quite a bit of staff review.
Frie asked if the preliminary plat is being approved to allow them to sell portions and if that is a
common practice. Grittman stated that it is, and that it is allowable, provided that greater detail is
presented at the time of development. In this case, at the time of development, the outlots will
need to be preliminary platted.
Dragsten asked if the outlots are divided up by uses following the comprehensive plan. Grittman
stated that divisions are due to the phasing of the sale agreements, as purchases will be by outlot.
Chairman Frie opened the public hearing.
Ollie Koropchak, Economic Development Director, addressed the Commission. Koropchak stated
that the plat presented represents work between the Small Industrial Group and the City, who had
been working with the seifer on the process of preliminary and final plat. All parties are anxious to
have it move forward in order to cOlllplete land sale transactions.
Koropchak also noted that the City Engineer had requested an additional condition that the
applicant provide an easenlent through Outlot F so that the City maintains access to its parcel. That
casement should be a condition of approval. Koropchak stated that the City Attorney had indicated
that the Seller had agreed to a blanket casement allowing for that access. Koropchak indicated that
the Plann ing Comm ission may want to note that in their motion.
- 7 -
Planning Commission Minutes 11/1/04
.
Fric asked planning stall for clarification on the access. Grittman noted that there may be a road
extension needed through Outlot F to the City parcel. If the road access is determined not to be
needed, the City would abandon that easelnent. However, Grittman agreed that it would be
important to preserve that option.
Paul Zisal, attorney for the applicant, addressed the easement. Zisal indicated that they had agreed
to allow a temporary easement, commenting that the City doesn't need a blanket easement. Zisal
stated that the applicant recognizes that the City may need to cross that area, but they cannot
provide a blanket casement. Koropchak replied that she was not aware that the applicants had
offered the temporary easement and explained that the basic purpose is to reserve the right to the
easement for road at the time it will be needed. If the temporary easement serves that purpose, it is
acceptable. Zisal stated that the problem with a blanket easement would be that a large chunk of
the prope11y would be encumbered. Zisal noted that there are unresolved questions on where a
road would be, the width, etc. Zisal acknowledged the need to allow access and suggested a
separate agreement. Bilotta added that other agreements in progress will help resolve those issues.
MOTION BY COMMISSIONER DRAGSTEN-- TO RECOMMEND APPROV AL 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;
I. 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 I BLOCK I.
Frie asked the applicant if they would be amenable to producing a site plat showing the
easement. Zisal stated that it would still be dedication, which they do not prefer. They are
willing to state that they will provide a temporary casement.
Frie wants it on the record through the motion that the easement will be there should the City
need it and asked the application how they would suggest it stated. Bilotta stated that they are
agreeable to that condition as recommended by Frie.
MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER SPARTZ WITH THE ADDITIONAL
CONDITION THAT THE APPLICANTS PROVIDE AN EASEMENT, IF NEEDED BY THE
CITY, TIIROUGH OUTLOT F. MOTION CARRIED.
8. ConsideratiQ!Lto call for a Public J-1earinl-'; for Rezone of.!Ll:;W acrclli!Icel of Otter Creek Crossi!l&
MOTION BY COMMISSIONER FRIE TO CALL FOR A PUBLIC HEARING ON THE
REZONING OF A 120-ACRE PARCEL OF OTTER CREEK CROSSING AT THE
DECEMBER 7TH PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING.
.
MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER SPARTZ. MOTION CARRIED.
- H -
.
.
.
Planning Commission Minutes 11/1/04
9.
Public llearjng: - c,;onsideration of an_amendment to the MOIl,ticello Zoningilrdinance allow.!ng
Open and O~ltdoor Storage. Applicant: City of i\tlontigello Planning COlmnis.sion
Grittman presented the staff report, stating that there had been previous discussion on the whether
the ordinance properly defined and regulated outdoor storage. The subject had also been
discussed in terms of zoning and covenants for the proposed Otter Creek industrial campus. As
such, Grittman reported that planning staff had provided a series of alternatives within the staff
report. The rep0l1 also addresses items within the current ordinance that need clarification.
Grittman explained that the way the ordinance is currently structured, it doesn't differentiate
between the three industrial zoning designations. Grittman indicated that it would seem logical to
be more restrictive in the ll-A district and less so as the industrial uses intensify.
Grittman stated that the draft language determines the amount of storage based on square footage
ofthe use or of the parcel. Grittlnan noted that some communities are restricting open and
outdoor storage in all districts, with the justification that outdoor storage in itself doesn't create
either taxbase or employment. Grittman indicated that at this time, planning staff is presenting
the examples as a basis for formulating a structure, which can then be put into a formal ordinance
proposal.
Frie asked if amending the ordinance will provide the City with the mechanism to reduce blight.
Grittman stated that the reality is that the current blight is existing non-conformance. It would
probably not give the Commission any additional leverage. O'Neill commented that the
amendlllent would help better determine what Commission finds acceptable. O'Neill cited
screening limitations and landscaping requirements as examples.
Frie asked if this amendment pertained to open and outdoor storage only in industrial areas.
Grittman responded that is the way the drafted examples had been phrased.
Chairman Frie opened the public hearing.
Curt Christopherson of Pipeline Supply addressed the COlnmission. Christopherson indicated
that Pipeline Supply is one ofthe businesses considered to have blighted outdoor storage,
although he stated that he does consider their product blight. Christopherson explained that
having available oustide storage is becoming a problem for wholesalers. They arc finding limited
access because communities want everything under a roof. Christopherson stated that putting all
their materials under a roof isn't cost effective for their type of industry. He also questioned the
employee and tax base statement, citing his employee count, which has grown over the years.
Christopherson also noted that they had tried to buy additional land to further their yard and
extend storage. He commented that if a building had been located on the adjacent parcel, it
would screen the existing storage. Christopherson indicated that if Pipeline Supply were to lose
outside storage or be restricted, they couldn't locate in Monticello.
Frie asked Christopherson if the outside storage is in the rear of the property. Christopherson
replied that it was.
hie indicated that Commission could add ordinance requirements for screening and standards I()\"
rear yard storage which would allow them some control, but still provide opportunities for
storage. Frie asked Christopherson if he was agreeable to such measures.
- ~) -
Planning Commission Minutes 11/1/04
.
Christopherson noted that no matter what, there may still be issues unless the Commission was
reasonable with setting restrictions.
Frie expressed his opin ion that there has to be some type of restriction on outdoor storage and that
there should be a point of cOlnpromise. Frie stated that he would like to work with business
owners on what is fair.
Stve Bonham, Integrated Recycling, addressed the Commission. Bonham stated that the
company, which buys materials to be recycled, has experienced growth in last few years. He
explained that during day the material is outside, at night it is brought inside. They are willing to
work with City to create a clean industrial area.
Frie expressed appreciation to Christopherson and Bonham for their input and asked them to be
available as the Commission moves forward on this issue.
.
Jay Morell, owner of property in one of Monticello's 1-2 zoning areas, spoke to the Commission.
He requested cooperation in working with the industrial park on outdoor storage, particularly in
setbacks and landscaping requirements. He expressed his opinion that storing product is no
different than car dealerships displaying their vehicles. In that case, auto dealerships have
product right up to property line. Morrell requested that Commission give industrial properties
the same options. Morrell stated that he is not opposed to landscaping. Morrell also
complimented the Commission on the recent Wallboard decision as they needed the additional
outdoor storage in order to locate in Monticello. Morrell indicated that he did not agree with tax
base comment in the staff report. Grittman clarified that comment had been based on broadening
tax base and employment.
Morrell cited a number of examples of other communities which allowed outdoor storage and
asked the Commission for reason and logic in developing its recommendations. Frie noted the
recommendations included trade-offs between more storage and additional screening and
landscaping. Morrell responded that the recommended additional setback requirements could
force business to buy add itionalland, and therefore prices them out of the land.
Koropchak addressed the Commission, stating that she is present to listen and gather information
on behalf of the IDC, who will then be able to provide input on the issue as well. Frie asked if
the IDC will provide a recommendation. Koropchak and Gerittman statcd that they would.
Hearing no further comment, Chairman Frie closed the pubic hearing.
Frie asked if adjustments to the ordinance had been made to accommodate Wallboard's request
and does Councilor Commission have the authority under the current ordinance to allow such
adjustments. O'Neill stated that Wallboard's storage needs were accommodated under the
existing code. HE explained that staff is seeking clarification by addressing the issue as a whole.
Posusta asked the Commission to consider what would be more attractive, the blight or the
recommended screening wall? He commented that the job of industry is not to be appealing, but
to provide jobs and services.
.
O'Neill agreed, noting that the purpose of amending the ordinance is to provide better definition.
O'Neill also noted the City's support of industry, citing the purchase of industrial areas in order to
- 10-
.
.
.
Planning Commission Minutes 11/ 1/04
create more industrial land. The goal is to set a threshold in order to balance the amount of
business and jobs created in contract to storage.
Posusta read report passages that concerned him and eXplained that he has reservations about the
amount of regulation.
Frie stated that the real issue seems to be the concern about outdoor versus indoor storage. Frie
agreed that fair restrictions are needed. However, it is his opinion that an open-ended approach to
outdoor storage isn't fair. Frie stated that buffering and screening may be the solution.
Morrell questioned the limitations on the amount of outdoor storage identified in the staff report.
Frie stated that the Planning Commission is not out to eliminate outdoor storage, however, there
needs to be guidelines.
O'Neill stated that no motion needs to be taken at this point, staff is just looking for input.
Posusta stated that it seems that staff is trying to create language versus just gather input,
referencing the staff report recommendations. O'Neill stated that the examples were put forward
to generate discussion.
Frie thanked those present for their input and indicated that the item would COlne back fix
additional discussion in December.
10.
~)Qdate : Comprehensive Land Use Plan Development
O'Neill stated that the Council will be reviewing the visioning and long~range planning process.
He noted that the common theme will be long-range land-use planning for annexation areas.
O'Neill explained that the method or format is up in the air pending the election.
O'Neill indicated that staff had met with representatives for Heritage Development. The
company is looking at a large master-planned development in the northwest corridor of the
community. Staff and developer had received valuable feedback from a City Council workshop
regarding the development.
Frie asked if the planning process will stay on schedule after the election. O'Neill responded that
they would try to follow the format, noting that there could be questions on budgeting. There
may be a need to update the process and prioritize.
11. ^diourn.
MOTION BY COMMISSIONER SPARTZ TO ADJOURN AT 9:00.
MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER DR^GSTEN. MOTION CARRIED.
- II -
.
.
.
Planning Commission Agenda - 12/07/04
5.
Public "carine:: Consideration of a request for a rezoning from A-O.
Ae:riculture-Open Space to I-IA. Lie:ht Industrial. Applicant: City of
Monticello. (NAC)
REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND
The City is nearing the completion of its purchase of land along the westerly
extension of Chelsea Road for the purposes of establishing an industrial park.
The plat for the area was previously approved as Otter Creek Crossing. The
concept that the City has used for the park is that of a higher-end business park,
with a greater emphasis on office uses and better building quality.
The City has three industrial zoning designations in the current zoning ordinance.
These are as follows:
. I-I, Light Industrial - a general purpose industrial district.
. 1-1 A, Light r ndustrial - virtually the same as the 1-1 District, with elevated
building materials standards.
. 1-2, Heavy Industrial - a district that allows a number of industrial uses
that have more noxious effects, including emissions or noisc.
The City hopes to market the property to businesses that are seeking a more
professional exterior image than found in the Oakwood Industrial Park area. To
complement the 1-1 A zoning requirements, the City expects to impose covenants
that will require the following:
. No outdoor storage. Limited truck and trailer parking will be allowed, but
no long-term storage of empty semi-trailers would be permitted.
. Landscape irrigation in front yards, or side yards that face the public
streets to ensurc attractive and wcll-maintained grcen spaces.
. No metal or steel exterior building materials.
Buffering would be required of any new use that abuts an area of incompatible
land use. For this location, the west edge abuts the YMCA open space, and
agricultural uses are currently to thc south. ButTering would be required by
zoning regulations, subject to land use plan direction for those properties.
Planning Commission Agenda - 12/07/04
.
AL TERNA TIVE ACTIONS
Decision 1: Rezoning from A-O to 1-1A
1. Motion to recommend approval of the rezoning to 1-1 A, based on a
finding that this district is compatible with the City's land use plan and
would be best suited to fulfill the City's industrial development
objectives.
2. Motion to recommend denial of the rezoning, based on findings
identified at the public hearing.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends approval of the rezoning. The City's industrial development
planning has been in process for some time, and this site is consistent with the
City's land use plan for the area.
.
SUPPORTING DATA
A. Site Location Map
B. Plat Map
C. HRA Recommendation
D. IDC Recommendation Forthcoming
E. Current Il-A Zoning Regulations
.
2
.
\
J
.
e}
........./ ......._~
5A
6~
Preliminary Plat
fl.'"
o
'"
J. EDWIN CHAD~
J. X. BOWE~
CITY OF MONTIC
I i j
I i j
I I I ';~ ':\
I I
, !(
",f
~ ~ ,t~
,t<
",I
+
~~
EXISTING PROPER
..--
-..........
II ..._....
I) ;.:.1.;....:::.:.
-....
..--
..:~
-"
';~
,t<
",I
-"
-
~'"
:: :".....::.::
;.. .. .;, ..:,.
....-
~.:.
---
._"of
=.r...":":
.. .. ... 1.01
--.
-......
~::.=
-....&.
... .. ., -
--"
-
:-~~
".
_ -:.r''': t:
-....-
~..;.. .,.....,
::;.:... :::=s
..
I
.....
'~~
,
,~~
,;!
.
--T
---
",,/..'\-
i
i I
I
I I
l i
r i ~ .,:
I I
!~
I ' -
Ii =-:-...~
Ij ... · .
IJ
"
f tor
",I
..:~
Cj
<&
-"
1M,.".., " ~
"IM.. ,.., UC Of ..... --......._~
-- ~/ ~
. _ "/'C'/ ' ___=-'
"Il' /\/ ~
~ ~~ ~~~v nil '
__~~I1S ~ ,.~\~~ tll ~.:,
L."1W\ti:' "'~'O'l;,..t::>~'(..;~ '7" "~"'--
au'~/ "-'Q /'!3'{ -. ' ~
_ ;P.jv _....n.-... ,~......
- _.. - / - I _ _~......
-"
f !'(
",I
,n
"\' ",
.
o
-'......
,
,
J_
.
RECOMMENDA TIONS
Approved December 7, 2004
BY THE
INOIJSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE (IDC)
for
OTTER CREEK BUSINESS CAMPUS
1.
RECOMMENDATION TO RE-ZONE THE 120 ACRES OF OTTER CREEK
BUSINESS CAMPUS FROM A-O TO I-1A (Light Industrial District)
2.
RECOMMENDA TION TO ESTABLISH THE FOLLOWING COVENANTS FOR
OTTER CREEK BUSINESS CAMPUS.
A.
Require installation of an irrigation .Wstem with the exemption of prairie
grass.
Landscaping Irrigation Required: On all lots on which a building is proposed to be
constructed, the owner shall, prior to occupancy of said building, install, or cause to be
installed, in-ground landscaping irrigation between the front building line and the public
street. This requirement shall also apply to the side lot areas of corner lots which face a
different street. In the case of rear lot areas that front on a public street, the owner shall
install, or cause to be install, landscaping irrigation for all landscaped areas within 50
feet of said public street. Irrigation required by this restrictive covenant shall provide
adequate irrigation water to all landscaped areas, including lawns, shrubs, tress, Hower
beds, or other similar features. This requirement also applies to the "boulevard" portion
of the public right of way between the owner's property line and the curb line of the
public street.
.
No outdoor storage allowed. On all lots, no owner, tenant, or other occupant
shall store materials, equipment, or items outside of any building. The
following exceptions are not to be considered storage, and may be located
outside in compliance with other applicable regulations:
B.
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
.
Parking of passenger vehicles and light trucks, parked in compliance with the
City of Monticello zoning regulations.
Parking of company vehicles, including trucks, vans, and other similar vehicles,
with the exception of semi-truck rigs which are subject to separate regulations.
Semi-truck tractors and trailer rigs when such tractors and trailer rigs are
parking in the side and rear yard.
Semi-truck trailers located in designated loading docks.
Trash Handling equipment.
.
.
.
3.
RECOMMENDA TION TO RETAIN THE DESIGN AND SITE PLAN
STANDARDS,IB! Building Type and Construction and Roofas required within the
I-IA Light Industrial District.
4. RECOMMENDATION TO RETAIN THE EXISTING LANDSCAPING
ORDINANCE.
Reason for zoning recommendation:
I-IA Zone is consistent with Monticello Commerce Center zone. (UMC, TCDC, Suburban area.)
.
.
.
~
RECOMMENDATIONS
Approved November 3,2004
BY THE
MONTICELLO HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
for
OTTER CREEK BUSINESS CAMPUS
1. APPROVED A RECOMMENDATION TO RE-ZONE THE 120 ACRES OF OTTER
CREEK BUSINESS CAMPUS FROM A-O TO I-1A (Light Industrial District)
2. APPROVED A RECOMMENDA TION TO ESTABLISH THE FOLLOWING
COVENANTS FOR OTTER CREEK BUSINESS CAMPUS.
A. Require installation of an irrigation system from the front perimeter of the
building and public right-of-way.
B.
No outdoor/open storage allowed.
C. No metal or steel exterior building materials allowed.
3. APPROVED A RECOMMENDA TION TO NOT AMEND THE EXISTING
LANDSCAPE ORDINANCE AS FOUND IT TO BE SUFFICIENT AND
COMPATIBLE.
Reasons for the above recommendations:
1. 1-1 A Zone is consistent with Monticello Commerce Center zone. (UMC, TCDC, Suburban area.)
2. Covenants will protect the investments made by both the businesses and the city.
3. Covenants are consistent with surrounding communities: Becker, Big Lake, Buffalo, and Rogers.
4. Covenants support and compliment the Preferred Measures and Land Price offered by the City
to qualifying businesses.
5. Covenants support the image of a professional business campus.
6. Covenants and the desired requirements of the targeted businesses are parallel.
7. The HRA is promoting a quality park maximizing the building to land ratio and creating jobs at
wages which support families, in return, for the preferred (discounted) land price.
.
.
.
SECTION:
15A-l:
15A-2:
15A-3 :
15^-4:
15A-5:
15A-l:
15A-2:
CHAPTER 15A
6E
"1-1 X' LIGI IT INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT
Purpose
Permitted Uses
Permitted Accessory Uses
Conditional t Jses
"I-IAt! Design and Site Plan Standards
PURPOSE: The purpose of the I-lA, Light Industrial District is to provide for the
establishment
of limited light industrial business offices, limited light manufacturing, wholesale showrooms
and related uses in an environment which provides a high level of amenities, including
landscaping, preservation of natural features, architectural controls, and other features.
(#298, 10/13/97)
PERMITTED USES: The following are permitted uses in a 1-1A District:
(#298. 10/13/97)
Radio and television
Research laboratories
Trade school
Machine shops
Paint mixing
Bus terminals and maintenance garage
Warchouscs
Laboratories
Essential Services
Governmental and public utility buildings
Manufacturing. compounding, assembly. or treatment of articles or merchandise
Manufacture or musical instruments. novelties, and molded rubber products
Manufacture or assembly of electrical appliances, instruments, and devices
Manufacture of pottery or other similar ceramic products using only previously
pulverized clay and kilns fired only by electricity or natural gas
Manufacture and repair of electrical signs, advertising structure, light sheet metal
products. including heating and ventilation equipment
Blacksmith. \velding, or other metal shop
Laundries. carpel. and rug cleaning
Bottling establishments
BuildinQ material sales and stora!!e
~ ~
Broadcasting antennae, television, and radio
Camera and photographic supplies manut~lcturing
Cartage and express facilities
MONTICELLO ZONING ORDINANCE
15^/1
[AI
IBI
lei
ID]
IL::l
rFI
I (J]
[I-II
[II
I-'J
IK]
I L]
1M]
rNI
[OJ
IP]
rOJ
[R]
rS]
ITl
[U]
IVI
[W]
lXJ
. [V]
[Z]
[AAJ
[88]
[eq
[DO]
[EE]
[FF]
[GG]
[HRI
~
Stationery. bookbinding. and other types of manufacturing of paper and related
products but not processing of raw materials for paper production
Dry ckaning establishments and laundries
Electric light or power generating stations. electrical and electronic products
manuracture. electrical service shops
Engraving. printing. and publishing
Jewelry manufacturing
Medical, dental, and optical laboratories
Storage or \varehnusing
Wholesale business and office establishments
Commercial/professional offices
Wholesale showrooms
Conference centers
Commercial printing establ ishments
15A-3 :
PERMITTED ACCESSORV USES: The following are permitted accessory uses in a
"1-lA" District: (#298.10/13/97)
[A] Commercial or business buildings and structures for a use accessory to the
principal use but such use shall not exceed thirty (30) percent of the gross tloor
space of the principal use:
.
1.
The parking requirements of Chapter 3. Section 5. are complied "ith in
rull.
2. The off-street loading requirements of Chapter 3. Section 6. are complied
'vvith in full.
CONDITIONAL USES: 'rhe following are conditional uses in a "1- I A" District:
(Requires a conditional use permit based upon procedures set forth in and regulJtecl by
Chapter 22 of this ordinance.) (#298.10/13/97)
15A-4:
[A] 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 [G]. of this ordinance.
') Storage is screened from view from the public right-of-\\'ay 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
he visible hom the public right-of-way or from neighhoring residences and
shall he in compliance with Chapter 3. Section:2 [HJ. of this ordinance.
MONTICELLO ZONING ORDINANCE
15A/2
.
.
.
15A-5:
). The provisions otThapter 22 of this ordinance are considered and
satisractorily met.
[81
Industrial planned unit development as regulated by Chapter 20 of this ordinance.
[C1 Indoor limited retail sales accessory to office/manufacturing uses provided that:
1. Location:
(a) All sales are conducted in a clearly defined area of the principal
building reserved exclusively for retail sales. Said sales area must
be physically segregated from other principal activities in the
building.
(b) The retail sales area must be located on the ground floor of the
principal building.
2. Sales Area. The retai I sales acti vity shall not occupy more than fi neen (15)
percent of the gross floor area orthe building.
3. Access. T'hc building \"here slIch llse is located is one having direct access
to a collector or arteriallcvel street without the necessity of using
residential streets.
4.
I-lours. Hours or operation arc limited to 8:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.l11. The
provisions or this section arc considered and satishlCtorily met.
"I-IA" DESIGN AND SITE PLAN STANDARDS: -rhe rollo'vving minimum
requirements shall be observed in the "I-I A" District subject to additional requirements,
exceptions. and modi rications set rorth in this chapter: (#2l)g. 10/13/(7)
[A] Lot Coverage. There shall be no minimum or maximum lot coverage requirements
in this district. (#2l)g. 10/13/97)
[B] Building Type and Construction and Roof Slope
1. Any exposed metal or fiberglass finish on all buildings shall be limited to no
more than tifty (50) percent or anyone wall if it is coordinated into the
architectural design. Any metal finish utilized in the building shall be
aluminum of t'vventy-six (26) gauge steeL the roof slope shall be limited to a
maximum of one (I) in twelve (12) slope.
MONTICELLO ZONINC; ORDIN-\NCF
15A/3
.
.
.
')
In the "I~ I A" District. all buildings constructed of curtain wall panels of
finished steel. aluminum. or fiberglass shall be required to be bced with
brick. wood, stone, architectural concrete case in place or pre-case panels
on all wall surfaces. (#298, 10/13/(7)
rq Parking. Detailed parking plans in compliance with Chapter 3. Section 5. shall be
submitted for City review and approved before a building permit may be obtained.
Inj Loading. A detailed off-street loading plan. including berths. area. and access shall
be submitted to the City in conformance with the provisions of Chapter 3, Section
6, for review and approval prior to issuance of a building permit.
[E] Landscaping. A detailed landscaping plan in conformance with Chapter 3, Section
2 [G], shall be submitted to the Council and approved before a building permit
may be obtained.
In addition to the requirements of Chapter 3, Section 2 [GJ, all parcels developed
along the boundary between the 1~ I A zone and a residential zone shall include
planting of evergreens as a screen between I-I A and R-l uses. The evergreens
planted shodl be planted every 15 feet along the property boundary.
(#298, 10/13/(7)
IFI
Usable Open Space. Every effort shall be made to preserve natural paneling areas
and features or the land to create passive open space.
IGI
Signage. A comprehcnsi'v'c sign plan must be submitted in conformance with
Chapter 3. Section 9.
Lot Requirements:
Lot Area -
Lot Width -
30.000 sq ft
I 00 feet
Scthaeks:
Front Yard -
Siele Yard -
Rear Yard -
50 feet
30 feet
40 feet
(#22 I, 2/24/(2)
15A/4
i\IONTICEU.O ZONING ORDINANCE
.
.
.
Planning Commission Agenda-- 12/07/04
6.
Public "carin!!: Consideration of a request for a I>reliminarv Plat and
ConditionallJse Permit for Development Sta!!e Planned IJnit Development.
Applicant: Ryan Companies. (NAC)
REFERENCE AND BACKGROllND
The applicant is seeking approval for a retail center at the northwest quadrant of
Interstate 94 and County Highway 18. This location is currently scheduled for a
full-access interchange, planned for construction in 2006. The interchange will
provide for west hound [-94 off-ramps and on-ramps in the northeast quadrant
(current location of the A VR Ready Mix facility), and cast bound 1-94 off-ramps
and on-ramps in the southeast quadrant (currently undeveloped).
The subject site consists of the Dahlheimer Distributing facility and undeveloped
land. It is bounded on the west by the St. Henry's/St. Benedict's property (zoned
P-S, Public-Semi-Public), on the south by Interstate 94, on the east by County
I fighway 18, and on the north hy the Burlington Northern Railroad and County
Highway 75.
As a part of the project, ih Street would be extended from its current terminus at
the St. Henry's Church-St. Benedicts Residential facility to connect with County
Ilighway 18 at the location of the west bound ramp intersection. In addition, a
new public street would connect ih Street with County Highway 75 via a new
railroad crossing. This new street (labeled as "Highland Way"), splits the
proposed project into two halves.
The project itself consists of a General Merchandise and Grocery facility of
174,550 square feet east of Highland Way, a llome Improvement facility of
102,500 square feet in the northwest corner of the site, and 54,000 square feet of
additional "in-line" retail adjacent to the Home Improvement building, west of
Highland Way.
There are also three areas of additional retail/restaurant "pad" sites. Four
buildings comprising 22,000 square feet of space are shown on Outlot B at the
east side of the site; Two additional buildings totaling 16,500 square feet are
shown in the parking lot area of the Home Improvement store, and three
additional buildings arc shown in the southwest corner of the site, across 7'11
Street, totaling 19,200 square feet. In all, approximately 390,000 square feet of
space is shown on the plans.
The site plans also indicate possible phasing. The two larger stores, the 54,000
square feet of "in-line" retail, and 11,500 square feet of space on Block 2, Lot 3
are shown as first-phase projects. The remainder of the space is labeled for
"Future Development".
1
Planning Commission Agenda - 12/07/04
.
Staff has met with the developers and provided preliminary comments on the site
planning, building information, and the streets, stormwater, and utilities. Because
the project is closely tied to the construction of the interchange, much of the
information in these plans (especially the public streets and utilities) has already
been part of extensi ve review. In this report, we will summarize comments
provided to the developer, with the understanding that they are working to address
many of these issues prior to the upcoming Planning Commission and/or City
Council meetings.
Site Planning and Circulation.
The site plan is designed to provide for access from ill Street and Highland Way.
No access is available directly from County Highway 1 X. Highland Way will
provide access to the site from County Highway 75.
Truck access will be provided to the north side of the buildings where loading
docks are shown. Truck circulation and access has been a point of significant
review, particularly on the west side of the site where access to the St. Benedict's
residential facility is provided from ill Street. As a part of this project, the
developer proposes to shift ill Street to the south from its current alignment. This
will require the extension of the St. Benedict's driveway to connect to the new ill
Street location.
.
Due to intersection spacing requirements, no direct access to ill Street can occur
in the southwest corner of the development site. The developer had proposed a
combined access with St. Benedicts. Staff and the developer met with the St.
Benedicts representatives to discuss this concept. A one-way, in-bound,
circulation was agreed to, requiring the Home Improvement loading docks to be
positioned at the northeast corner of their store. The current plans have reversed
this location and abandoned the one-way concept. It docs not appear to stall that
the current plan is workable, on the understanding that St. Benedicts will not
approve the connection as shown. As such, the applicant will need to revise the
layout to show access and circulation on its own site, or revise the plan to the
satisfaction of St. Benedicts.
Staff has also identified some concerns with the traffic delineator at Highland
Way behind the General Merchandise store. The purpose of this delineator is to
restrict south-bound traffic from County Highway 75 from turning left behind the
building - this would raise concerns over stacking of traffic across the railroad
and into the intersection with Highway 75. However, the cJelineator would appear
to be designed in a way that may not significantly discourage this type oftrallic.
The applicants should review the concept and refine the design.
.
For many of the Future Development sites, there would appear to be minimal
vehicle stacking space for cars exiting these facilities. When these access drives
become congested, in-bound traffic is required to stop and block tratlic in the
2
Planning Commission Agenda - 12/07/04
.
public street. Additional site planning work should be required to minimize the
potential conflicts cause in these locations. This situation exists on Outlot C and
Block 2, Lot 3.
One of the greatest issues relates to the right of way proposed for ih Street.
Where ih Street abuts the Interstate Highway property, its width is reduced and
the boulevards arc narrowed, raising snow-storage issues and pathway-sidewalk
safety concerns. The applicant should be required to revise the plans to provide
adequate width per City Engineer recommendations. Included in this design
should be 10 feet of boulevard space on each side of the street, and a sidewalk
along the north side of ih Street that does not directly abut the street curb.
With regard to the parking lots, two primary comments are made. First, the
"wall-to-wall" distance is shown as 63 feet. This is common for these users,
however, the City's standard is 64 feet. The City can grant t1cxihility in this area
where appropriate. For the General Merchandise store, this design should work
well. For the Home Improvement store, this distance will work, however, staff
would recommcnd that wider spaces be provided to accommodate the significant
truck and trailer vehicles using this type of facility. It is staffs experience that
these facilities do not need the amount of parking shown on the plan.
.
The second comment on the parking lot relates to the location of lighting
standards, cart "corrals' , and island delineators. Each of these elements are
shown in different locations, resulting in a very scattered look to the parking lot.
The site would benefit from the combination of these elements. Moreover,
unprotected lighting standards in the parking lot contlict with parking space use.
This should be addressed on revised plans.
Public Works and Utilities Comments
The following comments reflect information from the Public Works Department.
Some of these comments are also included in the Engineer's report, separate from
this document.
. The pond on the St. Henry's site will need to meet design requirements per
City Engineer.
. ] f a combined driveway with St. Benedict's is used, the appl icant wi 11 need
to manage stormwater to avoid flows across intersection.
. The applicant will need to work with the City Engineer and Public Works
staff to ensure adequate casement area is provided over the deep trunk
sanitary sewer planned for the west boundary line.
.
:3
Planning Commission Agenda - 12/07/04
.
· The applicant and City staiT will need to identify suitable water mains f(n
public ownership/maintenance, and which mains are to remain private.
· The City will require individual metering and access for each individually
owned parcel.
· The City prefers a single access point to the sanitary sewer, rather than
several individual direct access locations.
Landscaping and Buffering
.
In the northwest corner of the site, the plans show the location of the Home
Improvement store's loading docks. As noted previously, combined driveway
access with the St. Renedict's driveway would require the relocation of these
docks away from the adjacent property. If they remain in the location shown,
they will raise a buttering issue with the residential property, both visually and
with respect to noise. The applicant shows a landscaped buffer, however, it is
relatively narrow, and shows a single row of evergreen trees. This buffer should
be increased in intensity with larger tree plantings, and the addition of a row of
evergreen shrubs and/or a fence. The addition of the fence would account for the
narrower buffer distance. To help minimize the visual impact, the doors should
not be painted orange as shown on the plans.
The Home Improvement site shows no landscaping adjacent to the building. Staff
would recommend a combination of planter areas and better definition between
display areas and pedestrian areas through the use of low walls and/or decorative
paving materials. Because this site faces south, the combination of asphalt and
concrete with no landscaping will result in a very harsh environment.
Building Design and Other Js.me.'i
The plans show an "Outlot 0", located in the southeast corner of the site. This
outlot has no vehicular access, but serves as the landing site for the pedestrian
bridge crossing 1-94. In addition, the applicant has shown a pylon sign on this
outlot. Planning staff would recommend that the site be designed to serve as an
attractive landscaped entry to the project, including a plaza and seating or rest
area for pedestrians, in addition to the pylon sign location.
'rhe building designs are quite plain. 'fhe plans do not detail building materials,
and thcse should be provided as a part of a revised package. Revised plans should
add dctailing to the roof line (including cornice treatment and roof line height
variation, building corner attention, and upgraded materials to includc some use
of brick and/or stone. The City made similar requirements of the recently
approved Wal-Mart facility.
.
4
Planning Commission Agenda - 12/07/04
.
These revisions should also address the north building walls. This area is highly
exposed to County I lighway 75, consisting of more than 1,500 linear feet of
building wall. Due to the exposure of this wall, both architecture and landscaping
should reflect an attractive design.
The various outlot pads will have all four walls exposed. Minimal building
information is provided for these areas. Prior to proceeding to final PUD
approval, the applicant should provide building and sign age information to the
Planning Commission for review.
The sign plan shows basic waIl sign locations for the primary buildings, together
with a large pylon on Outlot D and other monument-style signs. The City's sign
ordinance permits the tall pylon sign, with the requirement that other signs in the
project are limited to monument designs. The applicants will need to reduce the
pylon sign shown, however, to the 400 square feet all owed in the ordinance.
AL TERNA TIVE ACTIONS
Decision 1: Development Stage Planned Unit Development for Ryan
Companies.
1.
Motion to recommend approval of the PU D, based on a finding that
the project meets the general intent of the City's planning objectives
for this area. This recommendation should include the requirements in
Exhibit Z, including reference to the requirements of the City
Engineer's report. It should be noted that Exhibit l requires the
submission of revised plans meeting all conditions prior to final
approval, and additional review of the building plans by both Planning
Commission and City Council.
.
2. Motion to recommend denial of the PUD, based on a finding that the
plans are not consistent with the City's requirements f()r PUD design.
Decision 2: Preliminary Plat for Ryan Companies.
1. Motion to recommend approval of the Preliminary Plat, based on a
finding that the plat provides for the project as regulated by the PUD,
with the Conditions as specified in Exhibit Z.
2. Motion to recommend denial of the Preliminary Plat, based on a
finding that the plat is inconsistent with the City's planning
requirements for this area.
.
5
Planning Commission Agenda - 12/07/04
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
.
Staff recommends approval with the Conditions identified in Exhibit Z.
SUPPORTING DATA
A. Exhibit Z - Conditions of Approval
B. Condition Illustration Map
C. Applicant Packet, including:
a. Project Narrative
b. Aeriallmage
e. Site Plan
d. Site Survey
e. Utilities Plans
f. Grading and Drainage Plans
g. Landscaping Plans
h. Building Plans
i. Signage Plans
D. City Engineer's Comments
.
.
6
.
.
.
.
.
.
;nt '~U!IlaH '~d tt:Ot:U ffiOll'iU~ t '6MP'31IS-JH~H'l:JU33HSNV1.
! ~rWd I~S
U81d e:US -:"'lU.,J
V\lO~)'Si.IlNVd~O:JNV'\lI.4.\4\4\ SdlHSNOllYi3Cl ISINI.1s\fl DNIOltna
XIIJ lS"~'~-l.tpZTfj
'''''''''9<:f-Z1, Mill
LaH-z:oJoss NJIt.I '''!lodll~u",!W
limos :l1lQ::)^,t' pUO!'>;lIS 1.10(,
iU1U:':) 11'1II1!1"UJ,nlil OOi.
":;INf'st] S3'INVjlI'iOJ NV.\U :lU1li:1I0
-1_"j-1ll>>1tIl (l)W _1_"'-lO!Il"""'l!l_
~"='~ -::..~-~
"""'-...
'oui'~~dsp:^~ ;'ii';~os - _ --
-
Sd
:AS PG>t""~o
Sd
:AIilUMIlJO
Sd
:.(e J)eu8ISBO
...g..qUI" 'QII_O.,UOII
ellS 1181el::l Olleonuow
:uopRoa-yeWBN 'I01iJ(DJd
..>:.:~,--,. ,,~::~.,
I
,
1
I
,
i
i
1 ,
I /
.......:::;~.:~~/
"
i.
i
I
,I
t"
i;
:::::::::::::::.:~
~~;f:".,~ ~ ~ ~'~"~. ~.<
" \
t., !.l.. fJ
, f
L_j
f
;i rj'
, ,
I) q I
", I
,
,I
I
. .' ~ i
/'/
,'/
: i.','!
. I ,';i!
;,' n'l'
f I ~',I I
" l')'
,I: ~ : I
;", /i//I
! . .
I ; ,.' ~: ,
i:!' i/, I
'l:1 ", I
i).,', I
',..
".
iI
<f
rf
'I
.~
,
~
':~
.~ :
Y)'
.~
,~
....~~.
..t
X
~
~fh
~~
g ~
,;:.
~A ~
;;;
@
? 7-
0 ~
"-
~~
&j"!",
.0>0
"'-"
ia
~~~ bl
Vl'"
~!~ ~
-f".-t-.,I lrl
t ~ ~
~ ~ ac~
(!), ~tAg:
,;;~~ u~
l;!!i~ f;l"'<l
~:to.g.:l,,~!!l
U . ~if~iU~ j
.:l""i-!1"""!1
I- !i~i!O _i!Oi!OVl_
o os~ uu~
S ..JCDIl.. O'D...ll...........a.
o
Vl
w"-
(J~ ~UI
'I( 5i~~ ~
3~~ ~~~ ~
~ ;~i
s~~ ~~~
,,~~ <l:ili)
cii;>;o.Ocii!':!cd3
.~g:~~~~~3
C cii""i:iI"""";"
b ~9~~~~~~~
... 9alh~~~~~
~
0]
ia,,-
"- ~Vl,,- i:;
""~ !J;l'3Vl
...'" '"
'""", ~8~ '"
~i~ '"
"'-'" '"
~ ~ ~
d.. ad
~~ ~ui~
~;;,. WOld
N Iii,,;; ~~~
,,~~ &l f;l
::; cii~o.Scii~ffi~
... .':io.~"'':i:,o.5
IN ~!fOtiij[,!l~C)~O
* ~g~~~~~V1~
is s~HHH~
...
III
11I1
~_.-
-.-
'~'''-~7-
:s --,.
Vl;.lj':l~ .ON .o~~
1iI11'l'f;euUI\N j(:I "'lelS 84ll(l 5.
1'...,olsaejOJd De!lu~lli.1' WB Il2~H pu
JGDun JO aw kj p~JedGJtJ !;I;INI ue,d .
15
..
"
" e
z
w 9 ~
z ~
:0 co
" u
~ ~ u
M
0. '" :0
~ '5 '.
0. U "
" " w
Vl
Z z Ii'
[i; ~ "
<::I i,j I:i g:
a5 l;] ~ ~
~ " "
i':i ~ (5
" " "
~
a5
C>
ia
~t:1lL
"" 0. '"
Vl",
" .;-"
'" "'"'"'
0> '" 1I1U'i""'1.
.; ""'''
i~ I~i
,,' "
~I~ ~~~
cii15 0. Qcii!!l",:g
III . ~lf~h~lI'~
cii"!1<0 ""!1";"
.. ~5:12~~~~U)~
9 b"l~~~U~~
... -IaJCI..........a..Q...CI............Q...
8i
ia
,. ~~lL "-
:~ 51",Vl v,
~~I"'l ~~~ ~
--.... "''''- .f
~ 8 ~
~ 9;; C
g~ 6~~
~.- [:t=f/)n.
'" c;~~ ~~~
w~........ ~Il}~
t ~~o.gdS~ffi~
... .~g::ili\'i':i5":~
N ~~~m~~~~~
lj ~~~~~n~~
o ~mc.._Cl...D...O"_CI...
~
.
.
.
Planning Commission Agenda - 12/07/04
7.
Continued Public "carine: - Consideration of an amendment to the Monticcllo
Zonine: Ordinance allowine: Open and Outdoor Storae:e. Applicant: City of
Monticello Plannine: Commission. (JO)
REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND
Staff to provide verbal report at Planning Commission meeting
SUPPORTING DATA
A. Public Comment Letter
7A
. November 8, 2004
Monticello Zoning & Planning Commission
Dick Frie
Richard Carlson
Lloyd Hilgart, Jr.
William Spartz
Rod Dragsten
Glen posusta
I would like to thank all of you for serving on the Planning Commission. This is a non-
elected position that holds a great deal of responsibility and I'm sure on your part
consternation and yet this position is extremely important to the growth of our
community.
After reviewing the process and appearing before the planning commission on Monday,
November l! 2004 regarding outdoor storage for industrial lots, I would like to suggest
the following process:
.
Because outdoor storage is so crucial to many industries, because "I believe" that
the new land for industries the city is proposing will be all I-I, and becau,se of the
tone and wording that staff put forth"during outdoor storage and regulating of
outdoor storage, I would like to suggest that a committee be formed or at least a
workshop meeting between members of the plannirig commission, council
representative Glen Posusta, members of Monticello's Industrial Park who are
using outdoor storage, and city staff. This would allow an open dialog that might
be used to create a workable ordinance regarding outdoor storage within
Monticello's Industrial Park.
I see no need to rush into a decision that might become overly restrictive and burdensome
for current industries, so let's try to work together towards a common goal and the
betterment of the City of Monticello. .
.
cc: JcffO"Ncill
St-M: Gittman
-,