The URL can be used to link to this page

Planning Commission Agenda 10-05-1999 . 3. 4. -- 5. ~ 6. AGENDA REGULAR MEETING - MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday, October 5,1999 Members: Dick Frie, Rohbie Smith, Roy Popilek, Richard Carlson, Rod Dragsten Council Liaison: Clint Herbst Staff: Jeff O'Neill, Fred Patch, Steve Grittman ffild Lori Kraemer 1. Call to order. 2. Approval of minutes of the regular meeting held September 7, 1999 and the Special Meeting of September 27, 1999. Consideration of adding items to the agenda. Citizens comments. Public Hearing - Consideration of a request for a Conditional Use Permit to allow three or more business signs on a commercial building at 106 & 106 Y2 West Broadway. Applicant: Gregory W. Dunn, DDS. Public Hearing - Consideration of a request for a Conditional Use Permit within the 1-1 Z0'ling District to allow outdoor storage of equipment and materials. AppJ'r;ant: Mainline Distribution Properties (Groebner & Associates). 7. Public Hearing - Consideration of an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance to allow for a deferral of parking lot paving and/or curb requirements in the Business District. Applicant: City of Monticello. 8. Public Hearing - Consideration of approval of Preliminary Plat of "Monticello Commerce Center Fourth Addition". Applicant: Monticello Industrial Park, Inc. (Pfeffer Co. Inc.) 9. Consideration to approve a resolution finding that the modified Redevelopment Plan for Central Monticello Redevelopment Project No. I and the TIF Plan for TIF District No. 1- 26 conform to the general plans for the development and redevelopment of the City. 10. . 11. .,'.........,..... 12. Consideration of an amendment to the Monticello Zoning Ordinance relating to signs to allow electronic message board signs in business districts. Applicant: City of Monticello. Review ofthe preliminary comprehensive plan implementation steps. Adjourn. . MINUTES REGULAR MEETING - MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday, September 7, 1999 Members Present: Dick Frie, Robbie Smith, Roy Popilek, Richard Carlson, Rod Dragsten and Council Liaison Clint Herbst Staff Present: Jeff O'Neill, Steve Grittman, Fred Patch and Lori Kraemer I. Chair Dick Frie called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. 2. Approval of minutes of the regular meeting held AU2:ust 3,1999. ROY POPILEK MOVED TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE AUGUST 3, 1999 REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING. ROD DRAGSTEN SECONDED THE MOTION. Motion carried with Chair Frie abstaining. 3. Consideration of addin2: items to the a2:enda. . No items were added. Chair Frie thanked Vice Chair Carlson for chairing the August 3, 1999 meeting in his absence. 4. Citizens comments. There were no comments from the audience. 5. Public Hearin - Consideration of are uest for a Rezonin from R-I Sin Ie Famil to A- o A ricultural-O en S ace District and a Conditional Use Permit within the A-Q Zonin District to allow a Golf Course and Club House. Aoplicant: Monticello Country Club. Steve Grittman presented the staff report noting the Monticello Country Club is requesting a rezoning of its golf course property to A-O, Agricultural-Open Space to re- establish the club as a conforming use, and facilitate the expansion of the club house by Conditional Use Permit. Steve noted that the R-I zoning was transferred over from the previous ordinance and needs to be changed to A-O. The expansion consists of a two- level addition which includes lower level access to the golf course from a new pro shop, and kitchen, lounge, and banquet facilities on the upper level. The request also includes the construction of a new maintenance building adjacent to 1-94 and County Highway 39. - The A-O District sets certain standards for Golf Course or Country Club Conditional Use Permits. These include a requirement that no more than 5% of the property is covered by buildings and that appropriate buffering is considered where adjacent to residential uses. The Monticello Country Club is in conformance with the general performance standards. . However, there are a few issues which needed to be addressed. First, the parking area should be expanded appropriately. It was requested by commissioners to have 139 parking spaces. Also as noted above, the Conditional Use Permit provisions require buffering from adjacent residential uses. A landscape plan was not included in the submission packet. In order to conform to the req uirements of the CUP, staff recommended that a landscape plan be prepared illustrating a plant material buffer between the commercial activity areas of the club house and maintenance buildings from the residential development to the southeast. Chair Frie opened the public hearing. Idella Ziegler, 1201 Golf Course Rd, stated she had several concerns regarding the width of the road coming into the course, options of other entrances into the course for use of the banquet facility and concerns of guests leaving the facility after consuming alcohol if a liquor license were issued. Todd Hill, member of the Monticello Country Club and Secretary for the Board, represented the Country Club. He noted that it is important for the Country Club to enlarge in order to better meet the needs of the community. Their plans are to improve the club house and put up a maintenance building for storage purposes which will also enhance the "view" by storing equipment. . The course representative addressed the comments from staff and neighbors who were concerned about traffic, hours of operation, possible public financing as well as parking problems. Mr. Hill stressed that the facility is being constructed to support golf related activity and that its specific use for banquet and as a standalone restaurant is limited. He further stated the level of traffic should not increase dramatically with the expansion of the club house. Traffic and other options for entrance/exit to the facility were discussed again, and Mr. Hill stated as a Board they have not yet addressed this. Additional consideration has been given to entrance into the facility, however, it was noted that this is not a City owned road but a private drive. Merle Dahlheimer, 1201 Golf Course Rd, asked Steve Grittman to explain the rezoning and how far it will expand in regard to the borders. Mr. Dahlheimer's concern was that the City could consider a rezoning of this property at any time again in the future. Dennis Sullivan, 1201 Golf Course Rd, commented that he has no objection to the expansion and that he wishes to have no screening as he enjoys his view. ..... ...... Genevieve Aydt, 1201 Golf Course Rd, had concerns regarding the landscaping. She was assured that the MCC would be working with staff and input from the residents. Mrs. Aydt also had a concern about the underground water service and it was questioned whether this was actually on golf course property or townhome property. 2 . . ~ .. Holly Inderlee, 120 I Golf Course Rd, was concerned also with the number of parking spaces ifthere were a tournament and a banquet going on at the same time. Mr. Hill stated that would not be the case as they could not handle that number of people. Chair Frie closed the public hearing. The consensus of the members were concerns with parking, exterior of the proposed maintenance building, additional restrooms, screening and entrance into the course. It was noted by Rick Traver and Todd Hill, representatives of the MCC, that these items are being worked on. Grading and drainage will be reviewed by the City Engineer. It was also noted that the maintenance building exterior would match the club house and that it would be landscaped as well. It was noted by the Planning Commission members that language should be added to the conditions stating specifics on the number of parking stalls needed. Compliance with all performance standards of the parking lot standards should also be adhered to. There was an issue on the requirement for curbing which will be discussed with the engineer. A MOTION WAS MADE BY ROY POPILEK TO APPROVE THE REZONING FROM R-l TO A-O, BASED ON A FINDING THAT THE GOLF COURSE BETTER MEETS THE INTENT OF THIS DISTRICT, AND THAT THE FUTURE LAND USE OF THIS AREA IS BETTER PROTECTED BY AN A-O ZONING DESIGNATION. RICHARD CARLSON SECONDED THE MOTION. Motion carried unanimously. A MOTION WAS MADE BY ROBBIE SMITH TO APPROVE THE CUP, SUBJECT TO THE CONDITIONS IN EXHIBIT Z, BASED ON A FINDING THA T THE PROPOSAL MEETS THE STANDARDS APPLICABLE TO THIS USE. RICHARD CARLSON SECONDED THE MOTION. ROBBIE SMITH AMENDED HIS MOTION TO ADD LANGUAGE TO ITEM 3 OF THE CONDITIONS TO STATE THE MINIMUM NUMBER OF P ARKING SPACES WILL BE 139 AND ADDING CONDITION NUMBER 5 STATING STAFF HAS THE OPPORTUNITY TO REVIEW MAINTENANCE BUILDING PLANS FOR ARCHITECTURAL AND COLOR CONSISTENCY WITH NEARBY BUILDINGS. ROD DRAGSTEN SECONDED THE AMENDED MOTION. Motion carried unanimously. 6. Public Hearing - Consideration of a reauest for a Final Planned Unit Development Permit within the CCD Zoning District to allow a mixed use feed and retail operations. Applicant: Little Mountain Feed. Steve Grittman presented the staff report. Little Mountain Feed has applied for a final PUD approval to allow for the expansion of their facility between Linn and Maple Streets, north of the Burlington Northern Railroad. The applicant has shifted the building slightly to the north from the original approval. This change allows him to concentrate the truck and forklift activity to the east, resulting in less of an impact on the residential property adjacent to the north boundary of the site. 3 . The applicant is requesting that employee parking continue to be located on the gravel area adjacent to Linn Street. As a part of the original PUD discussions, the applicant has been permitted to expand the operation in phases to minimize the economic impacts on the business. Retaining an unpaved parking area for employees may be approved as a part of the PUD, however, staff recommended some delineation of spaces to maintain a clear parking area. It was noted that concrete curb bumpers are in place at this time. The planning commission did not feel comfortable requiring immediate paving of the drive/parking areas on the Linn Street side when the City street is not paved. Therefore, a period of two years after the completion of paving and curbing along the adjacent Linn Street ROW is satisfactory to the planning commission. . With regard to customer parking adjacent to the retail area, the applicant shows 12 spaces to be paved, striped, and curbed in accordance with the ordinance. This area would actually require approximately 25 spaces, depending on the amount of floor space which is used for storage or material handling (as opposed to retail floor space). The City has the flexibility to permit a parking supply lower than the ordinance requirement in the CCD District, based on an agreement in which the applicant contributes to a public parking fund. The parking lot to be provided should meet standards, however. In this case, the applicant has proposed that the curb line be located on the property line, with a landscaped screen on the adjacent railroad easement (also the City's right-of-way). There is adequate room on this plan to meet the 5 foot setback, and provide the landscaping on the applicant's own property. Finally, the site plan shows an eight foot high property line fence along the north side of the site. The remaining 25 feet is to be landscaped, and serve as a buffer to the residential area to the north. Due to its height, it may be preferable to locate the fence five feet from the property line, and provide a landscaped buffer outside of the fenced area to mitigate the impact on the residential area. The Zoning Ordinance provides a list of required sizes, and other guidance for the development of the landscape plan. An additional issue was the proposed exterior grain bin which would be added to the south side of the existing building. The bin is a metal Structure, apparently 34 feet high, based on the information submitted by the applicant. Staff was concerned about the visual impacts of the site from the Community Center property south of the railroad. Chair Frie opened the public hearing. Hearing no comments, the public hearing was closed. .a. ., Planning Commission members asked Jeff Burns, Little Mountain Feed, ifhe was in agreement with the conditions. Mr. Burns stated he is currently working with the railroad on the ROW which would allow the required setbacks. Mr. Burns also stated that there is an 8 ft. fence on the north side of the property and would like to continue that affect as part of the buffering. Steve Grittman suggested adding language to condition number 2 that the applicant works with the property owner regarding the landscaping. It was noted that the grain bin already exists and that the conformity of these types of bins seem to work best for the applicant as well as the City. 4 . . . ROBBIE SMITH MOVED TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE FINAL STAGE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT, SUBJECT TO THE CONDITIONS IN EXHIBIT Z, AND BASED ON A FINDING THAT THE PROPOSAL MEETS THE INTENT OF THE CCD DISTRICT AND THE PREVIOUS DEVELOPMENT STAGE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT APPROVAL. ROY POPILEK SECONDED THE MOTION. ROBBIE SMITH AMENDED HIS MOTION TO STATE IN ITEM 5 OF THE CONDITIONS THAT LIMITATION OF VNP A VED PARKING AREAS FOR NO MORE THAN TWO YEARS FROM THE DATE OF FULL ROAD AND CURB IMPROVEMENTS TO LINN STREET. ROY POPILEK SECONDED THE AMENDED MOTION. Motion carried unanimously. 7. Continued Public Hearing - Consideration of a zoning text amendment to allow external illuminated proiectinQ wall signs. Apolicant: Citv of Monticello. Fred Patch presented the staff report. City Council recently tabled this item for further research. Subsequently, the OAT and planning commission reviewed the ordinance again, prepared clarifications and obtained pictures showing projecting signs that would comply with the proposed ordinance. The Monticello Downtown and Riverfront Revitalization Plan encourages the design and installation of projecting signs of up to 6 square feet. Currently, the Monticello Zoning Ordinance does not recognize the CCO District for the purposes of signs. In addition, the Downtown and Riverfront Revitalization Plan Design Guidelines are inconsistent with the general regulations of the Zoning Code which specifically prohibits projecting signs. Suggested amendments made would allow externally illuminated projecting wall signs only in the Central Community District. Such signs would have to be erected at least 8 feet above grade and must not exceed 6 square feet in area. Fred Patch provided the proposed ordinance. Chair Frie opened the public hearing. Pam Campbell, Chair of the OAT provided pictures of projecting signs allowed in other cities. The Planning Commission reviewed the proposed ordinance and suggested language clarifications which have been incorporated into the document and will be presented to the City Council for approval. There were several concerns regarding the interpretation of the language in the ordinance relating to the distance the signs can project from the building, as well as illumination of the signs. Mr. Scott Hill, resident, felt it was unfair for the City to regulate signs as this is regulating 5 . . . advertising as well. Fred Patch stated there would be a need for a CUP for any businesses of more than two per building. The commission also had concerns with hours of illumination. This could be addressed in ordinance. The commissioners stated there be a clause in the ordinance subject to the approval of DA T and appeal would go to the Planning Commission. Chair Frie closed the public hearing. The members clarified that this sign ordinance is in the CCD district only. A change was made in Section 6, item iii as well as the addition of items vi and vii. ROD DRAGSTEN MOVED TO RECOMMEND TO THE CITY COUNCIL THAT THE ORDINANCE AMENDMENT ALLOWING PROJECTING WALL SIGNS IN THE CCD DISTRICT, WITH CORRECTIONS MADE, BE APPROVED. RICHARD CARLSON SECONDED THE MOTION. Motion carried. 8. Public Hearing - Consideration of granting a conditional use permit allowinll a small expansion to a restaurant/bar. Applicant: Hawks Sports Bar and Grill. Planning Commission was asked to consider granting a conditional use permit that would allow a small expansion to Hawks Bar. As you may know, Hawks was annexed to the City into a B-3 zone. The B3 District allows Bars/Restaurants as a conditional use when located in close proximity to a residential area. When Hawks was annexed, the facility came into the city as a permitted use (by conditional use permit). However, the site itself is non-conforming because it was developed under County regulations. Typically, when such non-conforming sites are expanded, an effort is made to bring the site up to code. City staff knows of no complaints from local residents regarding the operation of the facility. The site area, not including the parcel in the Township, is 40,000 square feet. The useable building area is being expanded from 2,338 to 3,326 square feet. The expansion area is on the south side of the building and will result in 988 sq. ft. of addition dining area. The parking requirement for the site is estimated by the contractor, using code requirements, at 75 stalls. Parking stalls shown on the site plan amount to 68. The site plan needs to be updated to show parking stall and drive aisle dimensions. There is no curb proposed by the owner around the perimeter of the parking area. Striping of the lot is also needed. It is suggested that the stall deficiency be accepted under the "proof of parking" provision of the Zoning ordinance. Under this provision, the CUP could be approved under the provision that additional stalls be constructed somewhere on the property at some point in the future, if necessary, as determined by the Planning Commission. Storm water flows off the site on the north side of the parking lot onto an adjoining 6 . parcel. It may be necessary to make improvement to control this flow to avoid erosion. Currently there is minimal landscaping and no trees on site. It was suggested the site plan be adjusted to show plantings necessary to comply with city code. The site consists of three parcels. The building expansion is occurring on the middle parcel with the westerly wall located withing the setback of the adjacent parcel. Typically, this problem could be resolved simply by extinguishing the lot line. In this case, this is impossible within the developers time frame because the westerly parcel must first be annexed to the city before the lot line can be extinguished. As an alternative to removing the lot line, the owner will be placing a restriction against the lot that promises that the lot will not be sold separately. The sign system consisting of a wall sign and pylon sign have been permitted by the City and require no updating. It was stated that it if this were a new building it would be in violation of the City code. . Chair Frie opened the public hearing. There were no complaints from the audience. Carla Hunt, owner of Hawks, stated her concern regarding curb and gutter. She asked if the Planning Commission could write something in the conditions that states curb and gutter would need to be completed in 3 to 5 years. She also stated they had made some changes to the drainage flow. Chair Frie closed the public hearing. The commissioners requested that proof of parking area be identified and that the owner needs to construct the parking area. Relaxation of this requirement to occur if the City changes the ordinance. They were also in agreement with being lenient on the time length to require curb and gutter. The commissioners added condition number 9 stating the applicant seek annexation of the adjoining township parcel. The Planning Commission recommended approval based on the conditions listed under Exhibit Z. It was noted that the commissioners were firm on the need for curb and gutter, but will likely be introducing ordinance language that will allow flexibility in timing of curb improvements for businesses that are upgrading facilities. If and when the code changes, the applicant will be submitting a request for consideration under the new provision governing curb installation. . DICK FRIE MOVED TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT ALLOWING EXPANSION OF A RESTAURANT/BAR IN A B-3 ZONE CONTINGENT ON MEETING REQUIREMENTS OUTLINED IN EXHIBIT Z. MOTION BASED ON THE FINDING THAT THE EXPANSION UNDER THE CONDITIONS LISTED WILL UPGRADE THE AREA AND WILL NOT RESULT IN A NEGATIVE IMPACT ON THE NEARBY RESIDENTIAL AREA. ROBBIE SMITH SECONDED THE MOTION. Motion carried. 7 . . . 9. Continued Public Hearing - Consideration of Concept and Development Stage Residential Planned Unit Development Consistin!l of Five 12 Unit Apartments. Applicant: Monticello Village Apartments. Monticello Village Apartments has submitted a revised Concept Plan for Planning Commission consideration pursuant to the direction of the City Council. The applicants are now requesting approval of both the Concept Plan and Development Stage PUD Plan. Changes to the original plan include the following: ... Revised the pond dimensions to provide a portion of the ponding area to the north of the apartment buildings adjacent to the property line. ... Revised the building locations to provide for better building spacing. ... Revised the garage structures to provide some garage stalls on the east side of the project. One item has been identified which should be incorporated into the plans for the project. Due to the number of units on the site, staff recommended that a play structure be located within the project to provide on-site recreation for young children living in the complex. The Community Center and Pinewood Elementary School are within a few blocks of the project which will provide reasonable play opportunities for school age children in the neighborhood. A suggested location would be to offset the central 10 space parking lot, and include a play area in this courtyard. The applicants were in agreement with this recommendation. Lastly, the developer is aware of the $750/unit park dedication fee and appears to be able to fund this cost. Chair Frie opened the public hearing. Brian Sullivan ofRLK addressed concerns of the planning commission as well as resident Scott Hill regarding run-off from Ruffs Auto draining into the pond. It was stated that they will not be changing the flow of the runoff from what it is now. Mr. Brennan, resident, noted that they had a soil pollution test done and there was no pollution found. Signage and security were also discussed and it was noted by Mr. Bates that they will have a small ground sign, not illuminated, at the entrance of the building. The building will have secured doors as well as parking lot lighting. Chair Frie closed the public hearing. Concept PUD approval for Monticello Village Apartments ROY POPILEK MOVED TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE REVISED CONCEPT STAGE PUD, SUBJECT TO THE CONDITIONS LISTED IN THE ORIGINAL STAFF REPORT, AS WELL AS ADDITION RECOMMENDATIONS 8 . . .. ,., MADE IN EXHIBIT Z. ROD DRAGSTEN SECONDED THE MOTION. Motion carried. Development Stage PUD Approval for MonticeHo ViHage Apartments ROBBIE SMITH MOVED TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE DEVELOPMENT STAGE PUD, SUBJECT TO THE RECOMMENDATIONS IN EXHIBIT Z. RICHARD CARLSON SECONDED THE MOTION. Motion carried. 10. Public Hearing - Consideration of Renewillll the Interim Use Permit for the Monticello Public Schools Turnilllz Point ALP. Aoplicant: Monticello Public Schools. The Monticello School District is applying for renewal of an interim use permit for public school use at 1248 Oakwood Drive East, in an I-I Light Industrial District. Originally allowed by the City in September 1997, the interim use permit stipulated that upon the one year anniversary of the original interim use permit, the applicant must reapply to the City. Over the course of the past year staff received no complaints from adjacent property owners. The Alternative Learning Center program has been a success and staff is recommending that the interim use be allowed to continue for an additional year term. It is suggested that the interim use permit again expire on some date certain, and that the School District be required to reapply to the City on or before that expiration date should they want to continue the interim use. Chair Frie opened the public hearing. Gene Garman, representative of the ALP, addressed the Planning Commission stating that this location works better for their students as it is removed from the general school property and they find that remote sites are most successful. Chair Frie closed the public hearing. After discussion, the Planning Commission asked that this interim use permit be extended to two years, subject to inspection by the Building Official/Planning and Zoning Administrator . DICK FRIE MOVED TO RECOMMEND TO THE CITY COUNCIL TO APPROVE THE ISSUANCE OF AN INTERIM USE PERMIT TO THE MONTICELLO SCHOOL DISTRICT TO OPERATE AN AL TERNA TIVE SCHOOL PROGRAM AT 1248 OAKWOOD DRIVE EAST, SUBJECT TO THE FINDINGS THAT THE PROPOSED USE WILL NOT INTERFERE WITH THE CITY'S LONG RANGE OBJECTIVES TO ENCOURAGE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT IN THE AREA, AND THAT THE FOLLOWING 9 . . . CONDITIONS APPL Y TO THE INTERIM USE PERMIT: 1. The interim use permit will expire on August 31, 2001. Extension of the use of the subject property for public school use beyond the termination date may only be allowed by re-application to the City. 2. The District agrees to expand the parking area at the direction of the City. The City will direct expanded parking based on its observation of parking demand which may cause the use of on-street parking at any time. 3. The use of the subject property will be during normal school hours only. 4. The granting of this interim use permit shall not be effective until after inspection and approval of the building and property by the City Building Official. ROBBIE SMITH SECONDED THE MOTION. Motion carried. 11. Zoning Code Violations at Lots 6 and 7. Block 3. Oakwood Industrial Park. City staff has compiled a partial listing and documented zoning code issues at the subject property. The list includes the following problem areas. 1. Expansion of outside storage onto adjoining parcel has occurred recently without a conditional use permit. Also, the expansion area does not contain a principal structure. Outside storage on an individual lot is not allowed without an interim use permit. The solution here is to combine the lots and process a conditional use permit allowing outside storage. Requirements associated with outside storage CUP are not being met which include establishment of a buffer yard adjacent to residential area to the south. Storage or parking areas need to be paved or non-dust producing rock used. Other landscaping improvements as required 2. Glare. Flood lights on the south wall spill light into the adjoining residential area to the south. These lights should be relocated to poles and pointed down. 3. Above ground tanks constructed without a permit and in violation of set-back ordinances. 4. No permit ever obtained for storage of blocks. It should be noted that pine trees were planted by the owner in an effort to screen blocks. This was done on his own without city involvement. 10 . . . City Staff is looking for direction from the Planning Commission to address this issue. It was noted that there have been complaints regarding glare from the lighting recently put up. After further discussion, the Planning Commission recommended City Staff put together a letter listing all recommendationslissues and have City Attorney Dennis Dalen review and comment. City staff will arrange a meeting with the property owner to discuss opportunities to upgrade the site to meet code. 12. Discussion on registering for the tele-conference session for the Y2 Plan Conference. It was recommended that everyone look over the information provided by Jeff O'Neill and contact Jeff if there is an interest in registering for this session. 13. Consideration of signing UP for the Annual Planning Association Conference. Registration forms were included in packet to the Planning Commissioners. 14. Adiourn. ROD DRAGSTEN MOVED AND ROY POPILEK SECONDED THE MOTION TO ADJOURN THE MEETING. Motion carried. Lori Kraemer, Recording Secretary 11 . MINUTES SPECIAL MEETING - MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION MONDA Y, SEPTEMBER 27, 1999 5:30 p.m. Members Present: Dick Frie, Robbie Smith, Roy Popilek, Richard Carlson, Rod Dragsten, and Council Liaison Clint Herbst Staff Present: Jeff O'Neill, Fred Patch and Lori Kraemer I . Call to order. Chair Frie called the meeting to order. 2. Consideration of adding items. None 3. Citizens comments. None 5. Public Hearin - Consideration of are uest for a Conditional Use Permit within the B-3 Zonin District to allow Outdoor Sales and Displav of automobiles and a Conditional Use Permit Planned Unit Develo ment to allow the automobile sales 0 eration to be located on two se arate arcels. Applicant: Automaxx Car Stores. . Jeff 0 'Neill provided the staff report noting Automaxx Car Store's application to develop an automobile sales facility on portions of two parcels currently owned by Jay Morrell. The properties are at 1205 and 1219 Highway 25 South - the former Royal Tire building and the Glass Hut property. The operation would utilize the Royal Tire building for its inside activities, including office and some minor detailing. The lot area of the Royal Tire building would be used for customer parking and automobile display, together with the northerly portion of the Glass Hut property. The property line between the two parcels runs just 10 feet south of the Royal Tire building, resulting in the overlap of uses. The developer has asked to accommodate customer parking for the Automaxx use by providing 14 parking spaces on the east and south walls of the building. The Zoning Ordinance does not specify the required number of spaces for this type of use. Based upon other available data, it would appear that the 14 spaces proposed should be adequate, assuming that no other uses will be made of the building, such as service or parts. A condition of any PUD approval should be that the facility provide additional parking spaces in the event that the proposed 14 spaces do not prove to be enough. Mr. O'Neill also noted that there are a few issues related to the parking spaces, and the proximity a of the display area. A regulation parking space requires 20 feet of depth and at least 22 feet of ... drive aisle to accommodate backing and turning space. Because of the siting of the display vehicles, only three of the nine spaces on the west side of the building would have adequate area to -1- . pull into and out of On the south side of the building, four of the five spaces do not have adequate backing space. The display area should be rearranged to accommodate these needs. It would also be beneficial to clearly delineate the difference between customer parking and vehicle display. Given the layout of the site, it would probably be impractical to require curbed medians separating the two areas. However, pavement markings would be a positive addition to avoid parking in the display area or vice-versa. Mr. O'Neill stated the layout should be revised as suggested on the staff sketch to ensure adequate parking and circulation. A revised site plan was provided by Mr. Paul Kruchten when the public hearing was opened The site plan shows a proposed curb line along the front and north side property lines, complying with the five foot setback. There are two areas where the curb has been discontinued. The first is at the primary site entrance along Sandberg Road. The zoning ordinance directs a maximum curb cut opening of 24 feet to control traffic flow. The proposed curb should be revised as shown in the staff sketch to comply with this standard. The second area is along Marvin Road, which is currently unimproved. The applicant is requesting flexibility under the PUD to defer curbing in this area, pending a City decision on the status of this right-of-way. Both full street construction and vacation have been discussed, and the City Council is expected to consider this issue in the near future. Given this potential change, it may be reasonable to defer this improvement until the Marvin Road status is resolved. . The City has a requirement on commercial sites that one tree per 50 lineal feet of site perimeter be planted on the property. The PUD site contains just over 1,250 lineal feet, resulting in a requirement for 25 trees. The applicant has complied with this requirement on the proposed site plan. It was discussed that the trees or shrubs could be strategically placed so that the display vehicles would have adequate exposure from Highway 25. The remaining issue involves improvements to the Glass Hut property. The Glass Hut site includes an area of existing concrete paving, and a proposed customer parking area along the Highway 25 frontage. At just 30 feet in width (minus the 5 foot curb setback) the parking area which is proposed is too narrow to allow for effective parking and circulation. An accessible parking area for this building should be added to the site plan. Due to the setback of the building, the area along the Highway 25 frontage may provide room for a driveway, but parking will need to be located elsewhere on the site. Under the PUD, the applicant may wish to consider a joint parking arrangement, if appropriate. It would appear the Glass Hut site would be a potential redevelopment site at some time in the future. Finally, the applicant has indicated an expectation for 96 cars on display. With the pavement markings suggested above to protect parking and circulation, staff believes that organization of the display area would not require a maximum number of cars. The primary issue would be keeping them in the appropriate locations on the site, allowing for tight circulation or double stacking of vehicles, not normally permitted in standard parking lots. ~ Chair Frie opened the public hearing. Mr. Paul Kruchten, Automaxx Car Stores was present and provided the commissioners with a revised site plan. Mr. Kruchten advised that he was under the impression that a variance for l' setbacks was already in place. The revised plan involves jogging the curb line back an additionall '. He also added his desire to be allowed to keep the curb where they have it as it would work best for them in regard to parking and traffic as he felt it would make ..-.. -2- . . . it a smoother traffic flow. Jay Morrell, owner of this property, addressed the members. Mr. Morrell stated his goal is to eventually join these two properties and to match the existing curb line. Jeff O'Neill added that there was a portion of the curb out in the right-of-way at this point and asked the members if they want it to come back in to meet the existing code. He did note that it would be a jagged line if it were pulled back, but it would closer meet the intent of the ordinance unless its going to be an obstruction for snow plowing, etc. Mr. O'Neill stated that perhaps it needs to be straightened out and not set precedence on the 5' setback. He did note, however, that if there is to be a variation from the code it needs to be stated by the Planning Commission as to why this would work better for this particular property. Chair Frie closed the public hearing. The commissioners had concerns on space regarding parking and drive aisles. The requirement for planting trees and/or shrubs was also described by Mr. O'Neill and the reason this business needs to comply as it is an entrance into the City. It was noted, however, that the plantings along the Marvin Road side of the building could be determined at a later date when those improvements are completed and that the requirements for this particular property are somewhat different in that this is an existing building. It was noted the possibility that if planting was done in this area, there is a possibility that they would need to be removed with the improvements. The commissioners were concerned as well with the entrance to this property being only from Sandberg Road. Mr. Morrell stated that technically entrance could be made from Marvin Road which is on the north side of the building, but that Marvin Rd is not always accessible in the winter months. The commissioners also noted that drainage issues need to be looked at further, but Mr. O'Neill noted that this should not hold up Planning Commission's decision. Mr. Kruchten stated that they would be installing three light poles in the front of the property but would like at some point to attach some poles to the front of the building. He is also aware of the sign ordinance. He did note that they would also like to place a sign on the north side of the building facing Sandberg Road, as well as the south side. Mr. O'Neill stated that if there were to be wall mounted lighting it could not be shining out into the road creating glare. The commissioners questioned customer parking and vehicle display, as well as employee parking. Mr. Kruchten stated that initially there would be four employees and there is adequate parking as they would be driving company vehicles which would be placed in the display area. Snow removal and possible stock piling was also addressed. Mr. Kruchten did state the need to maintain adequate parking so they would be removing the snow, but they have not discussed this at length. It was also suggested by the commissioners that drainage and landscaping issues be added to the conditions in Exhibit Z. A MOTION WAS MADE BY ROY POPILEK TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR AUTO SALES/DISPLA Y, SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS IN EXHIBIT Z, BASED ON A FINDING THAT THE USE IS APPROPRlA TE FOR THE ZONING DISTRICT AND THE PROPOSED SITE. THE -3- . . . Lori Kraemer, Recording Secretary RELAXATION OF THE CURB SETBACK REQUIREMENTS FOR THIS EXISTING DEVELOPMENT ALLOW FOR BETTER TRAFFIC FLOW AND CIRCULATION WHICH PRESERVES REASONABLE USE OF THE PROPERTY. After further discussion, amendments were added to the conditions as follows: I. Paving and curbing constructed in all areas as delineated on revised site plan, with the following alterations: a. Addition of a conforming 24 foot wide curb cut at Sandberg Road. b. Addition of conforming parking stalls for the Glass Hut Parcel. c. Pavement marking which preserve fourteen 9'x 20' parking stalls with 24' drive aisles on the Automaxx/Glass Hut parcel. 2. Ability to expand parking area on the Automaxx parcel if the Planning Commission finds that additional parking supply is necessary. 3. Paving and curbing along the Marvin Road frontage within twelve months of a resolution of the status of Marvin Road by the City Council. 4. Landscaping of the parcel per revised site plan. 5. Recommendations of other city Staff, including City Engineer. 6. Drainage be approved by City Engineer. 7. Lighting and signage be in accordance with City standards. ROY POPILEK AMENDED HIS MOTION TO INCLUDE THE AMENDED CHANGES/ADDITIONS TO THE CONDITIONS. RICHARD CARLSON SECONDED THE AMENDED MOTION. Motion carried unanimously. A MOTION WAS MADE BY DICK FRIE TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE PUD, WITH AMENDMENTS TO THE CONDITIONS, BASED ON A FINDING THAT THE SHARED DISPLAY AREA IS A REASONABLE USE OF THE PARCELS IN THIS LOCATION. MOTION WAS SECONDED BY ROD DRAGSTEN. Motion carried unanimously. 6. Adiourn. A MOTION WAS MADE BY ROBBIE SMITH AND SECONDED BY ROY POPILEK TO ADJOURN THE MEETING AT 6:45 P.M. Motion carried unanimously. -4- . . . Planning Commission Agenda - 10/5/99 5. Public Hearin2: -- Consideration of a reauest for a Conditional Use Permit to allow three or more business si2:ns on a commercial building at 106 & 106 12 West Broadway. Applicant: Gregory W. Dunn, DDS. A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: The owners of the building located at 106 & 106 Y2 West Broadway are requesting that a conditional use permit be issued to allow the erection of a 4' x 6' internally illuminated business identification wall sign on the east wall at the rear (south end) of the building. The business signs me needed to advertise three separate businesses from the same building. In the CCD district, a conditional use permit is required for signs where there are three or more business uses in one building. The sign plan for the building has been reviewed and found to be in compliance with the required conditions for the conditional use permit. B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS: Move to: approve the issuance of a conditional use permit for the erection of this 4' x 6' sign at 106 & 106 Y:z West Broadway, as requested by the applicant, subject to the following conditions: 1. All signs for tenants shall be consistent in design, material, shape, and method of illumination; and, 2. Prior to making any alteration of signs, sign location, sign size, or number of signs, the building owner shall submit an application and revised sign plan to the City, and receive an amendment to this conditional use permit. C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends issuance of a conditional use permit for 106 & 106 Y2 West Broadway to allow signs to be erected as illustrated by the sign plan submitted by the applicant, and subject to the conditions required by ordinance and provided in the motion above. Attachments: . . Copy of Applicable Ordinance Section: 3-9 [E] 3. Copy of Sign Plan for 106 & 106 Y:z West Broadway as submitted by applicant. . . ~ MONTICELLO ZONING ORDINANCE (a) In the case of a building where there are three (3) or more business uses, but which, by generally understood and accepted definitions, is not considered a shopping center or shopping mall, a conditional use shall be granted to the entire building in accordance with an overall site plan under the provisions of Option A or Option B (described in 2 (b) i and ii above) provided that: 1. The owner of the building files with the Zoning Administrator a detailed plan for signing illustrating location, size in square feet, size in percent of gross silhouette area, and to which business said sign is dedicated. 11. No tenant shall be allowed more than one sign, except that in the case of a building that is situated in the interior of a block and having another building on each side of it, one sign shall be allowed on the front and one sign shall be allowed on the rear provided that the total square footage of the two signs does not exceed the maximum allowable square footage under Option A or Option B described in 2(b)i and ii above. 111. No individual business sign board/placard shall exceed twenty-five percent (25%) of the total allowable sign area. IV. An owner of the building desiring any alteration of signs, sign location, sign size, or number of signs shall first submit an application to the Zoning Administrator for an amended sign plan, said application to be reviewed and acted upon by the Zoning Administrator within ten (10) days of application. If the application is denied by the Zoning Administrator, the applicant may go before the Planning Commission at their next regularly scheduled meeting. v. In the event that one tenant of the building does not utilize the full allotment of allowable area, the excess may not be granted, traded, sold, or in any other way transferred to another tenant for the purpose of allowing a sign larger than twenty-five percent (25%) of the total allowable area for signs. VI. Any building identification sign or building directory sign shall be included in the total allowable area for signs. Vll. Any sign that is shared by or is a combination of two or more tenants shall be considered as separate signs for square footage allowance and shall meet the requirements thereof. All signs shall be consistent in design, material, shape, and method of illumination. Vll1. -5A . . . Planning Commission Agenda -10/05/99 6. Consideration of a reQuest for a Conditional Use Permit within the 1-1 Zonine: District to allow Outdoor Storage of EQuipment and Materials. Applicant: Mainline Distribution Properties. (NAC) A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: Steve Groebner, on behalf of Mainline Distribution, has requested a Conditional Use Permit to use a portion of the property for accessory outdoor storage. The property is currently developed with an existing building and a paved and curbed parking/driveway area. The proposed outdoor storage will be located on a Class 5 gravel pad to the east ofthe building. The applicant proposed to fence in the pad with a chain link fence, using slats in the fence to screen the storage area. As a developed site, there are few issues relating to the current or proposed use of the property. The specific conditions of the Zoning District relating to outdoor storage appear to be met, including screening and setbacks. The site would be subject to bufferyard requirements, however. The bufferyard ordinance requires that existing development is subject to the bufferyard improvements at the time of expansion or alteration. The addition of the storage area would qualify as an expansion of the activity on the site. Bufferyard requirements for an industrial use adjacent to an institutional use (elementary school) are one half of the planting requirements, defined as 120 plant units per 100 feet of shared property line. The property line appears to be approximately 420 feet in length, resulting in a bufferyard plant requirement of 504 plant units, 252 of which are required by this applicant. The applicant shows an existing tree line consisting of 11 evergreen and 10 deciduous trees, a total of 255 plant units. Therefore, the existing bufferyard is in compliance with the ordinance. B. AL TERNA TIVE ACTIONS 1. Motion to recommend approval of the Conditional Use Permit for outdoor storage for Mainline Distribution, based on a finding that the proposed CUP complies with all of the standards for outdoor storage in the I-I, Light Industrial District. 2. Motion to recommend denial of the CUP, based on findings to be made following the public hearing. 3. Motion to table action on the CUP, subject to additional information. . Planning Commission Agenda -10105/99 C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of the Mainline Distribution outdoor storage CUP. The application appears to be in full compliance with the City's zoning regulations for this use and this location. D. SUPPORTlNG DATA Exhibit A - Site Location Exhibit B - Site Plan Exhibit Z - CUP Requirements . . -. - ", .'-...... "'-;-i/-'- '-I..-l!~" ~-.,. ..'i....". <.........,..-./.'-....-..-~, /ff\ ,-- -- 'll \ ./ / -~1~~:.0~,./tJI.,:j,~-?~'~;~~-:;,...~/ .//;~>"~::/<~/,>i /> >.~ <<-<:~~;:J></./ /,.<:.: -"..~ .~ ~~-~==L., />~(/'.://,l!):;,~_<".(_., >,:<y:;,/i) .'. ..../</,>//'. .>:>'i',,"'//<>:>\, '<:~'r::~~:~:<':'~')'--" :".- ---.-~ ~...., "-.......} /.: /':<1, j'.j !l!. '~" ....c.' : i .~ .: . -'.J i.,......-' /.. I.': i" \: 7 ",.: -'; " f ! ) ! :' ::--"'_' '_ >'1,'/ I I ~' -__......" '-.c..' I'~_' c. '-i .: ,- -.~, _' :.-j ::.-/",.,i,---4 <.; /. j i i / / .7t~~~Sr:?;;::? /<l/..~-": "-~"-/~ ~~~',',y;~_ _L,~'____u...~_____ l>"--',"'-,,>~><~ ' ? : i i . i .' i ,. 1l~l2j-'-''--",.. I 111, : -----.-:..:'.'. '9. ~---___________ / "a" . '<', 'k'. J... ,..: ; ! {f i ./-' ,--' // ../ I ,Ii -----.."-..... '::~"-,../ II I i. :1)0"\ f~ ----8'--1,:0--.. -----...---_ ;/ v-.i~'" ",<,~'. C? \ " --. I . , ....... '. u'f?L. ---_ --_ _ / }- " , _ ,.,_.~-t_ ! ! ,/ /','./ // . >.\ \ ) j ~ t;/~ l11iG"tOi{"'\ --~<--__... /"",,'- . '-~ ! -' .' , " . \ v )-'1((' \ ....,-. ., -L.;~_~:_~_/____// ,i.--,---~\ / z-'~--i \,,-~~r. ,.......~,,~ --~'-.--- --~..:..... ,/'~ \-0- --' ,,,'t.,tf/.ltI "". , ~ -~---------_ /- -' _-.\ \ ....J '_____:' , :.... ~ ---:--... -', .... \..' ....J '-------------- ' : ~'Pt/' iiiO~-- ",,_,:~~....;'J ~ . . r -i~J-i--1 ! 1 ~~-----____ ~ ' I I , l " ... ~ --'-----'-' . - - ---- ------. --- ~ --. ..-- -.- _.--- -, ........ ITHOMAS ARK I '! , '-"-...~ '~~ 1\:0 i -----~~ ~--..., rL '---:--1- ~i ---'; ---~ /~~...............'-----. ~........... ., .............. ~ , '......"-....'. ~ '---. )- ~HEL9EA l RO:.A D .' i..) ..f.:::--.......~ if: /;;;l:~ ,.-......~"-....... i l !! I: 1\' Iii C;;').~~ (I?Sr4~-----~ ". i I i 'i.-' i " 'l.S€4"-~""" r€'.......~_ ::,'.'.-':-::--~~~\-- ...-....-lr----- ...-cr.-,J .________./-~__"--_-_-------l-..---__1 I -"~....... I \i .~---'J\9[:,'-.-.,-----,---:/ Il ..........<:::::::.'-----. .~ \~g / I ----...--, ..,~~~-----. L'; % \ II___Z_ -----.,---...',' I L'lO'-----...-~~,..--- : '~, . I '7, '4D" '. - -J\ROA~ 0 - f ',-l ~::::! r-S 1Te' -.. !~ I \ I' --....., 'I \ I I 1, \ I I ! i .. __ ______J ........1._____.__ .....1..__ _-._ ____.j______n.._ . _.______..~...... --,-- - ----....----.---- ------. ..- j.\STEAO Q!li"-E_-~~~f~~t: C': ~~-_.-------- --'--"-7-",\ -\.~l""""---"--'-..ic'-----:--I -I -j' _~~.~......-"'--,,"r--- ~--. i I : :; \ ~<(.,\-~ \ !:';.Q\"w. i 1 ~ -_no -~/ !-~ cl -~:- ~TR~<._<~\.'" '.~.\~._.......-\\.~~\.Q,\~-~~ f~.:.. ~,_-J: <v<<::;.> . . 'a. \,\ -Y .-.--.' l"'t \-""'--"- h-~< lR~. . -"-'~~'~..-~ I.<~; ;-----1 ['.:.:r .0;; \ !..-((-,," /~-' ',-,\-\ '\. -' _i- l~--l-' /'-, H(lc$~.). v/. \<.~~o~: .' '_~\ '. .-:- ". ig ,-,.,." , . '-"",1;- - '( - -\ ...\ -~-, 0:: I _ '------'--- ---- , \ __ ...-' _~ _ f8 ['1TL~itPiJ I:"~!~{\!~- ~.J______n___~__~__n-__S~CHI)OL I ..~==:~~;~::~~~-=:\ ~iOOEt~~W6~~\:.,-,~---" -- ---'-=::-~:'-"'--'II r-'-~Ri{~~-Q~JyE--~"---~.~ r---~- r~~~Lt6J_ __A V E III /', "< ,-). \' Dn;lV(~t'-;-:--T-:-' \ \ I I u:[ [ri'l --r---~----'I )'- .~~ \~ \/:~~-:::---i--r---'Iufl--- -.. - I \-' //,/'\,'" ~t_:. 1--" l '. \ \ 1-...-1'f-l-~'''' -I .__~(y"~ \ " I, l: I :_, . _ ~ \-~ (~' ,y -, \ - :i - . ~Ht. Y5tlNr \. I L=--_:._.~::~::.~~:-~~.__=:.. " L._ _l'dJ C~j~. r /5 t..ARl !l NG ..i:t ': t\ ~"" ,~.J..~\ \' 0' ~--'~..!C ~ ~lv I J ~ ~~ ~~E i ~ / --='--,:cr:-rTORFvi=~r=:;:=~-:',zJ_--: -. . \~cr"'--'--a::- tt-I "'."" ~. fr ..UJ~ll'lr:..'l\~ . ,\.~\~ '. '~I' ---z -'_ t E~ _/... ,,<4;$ . ~~ i . r ----I -e'/ .',!.;' ,J~).., --1 .... I' u. '--- '. -- '1X. > I j -r- . ! 'I '[ <. '1/' .':.~~ _=.~_9 ..cr :___ [~. : ,-.\ i / '> I . - ( ;/ '-- -- .-lr'--~-~ 0::' I _::.....,.::..~.:::;..;:;:......:IC..J DIAMOND. : .1 ~ '__ _____-----'--~.. . . . Planning Commission Agenda -10/05/99 CONDITIONAL USES IN AN 1-1 DISTRICT [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 [G], of this ordinance. 2. Storage area is grassed or surfaced to control dust. 3. Storage is screened from view from the public right-of-way in compliance with Chapter 3, Section 2 [G], of this ordinance. 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 [H], of this ordinance. 5. The provisions of Chapter 22 of this ordinance are considered and satisfactorily met. Exhibit Z tJ..~ . . - Planning Commission Agenda -10/05/99 7. Consideration of an amendment to the Zonin!! Ordinance to allow for a deferral of parkin!! lot paving and/or curb requirements in the Business Districts. Applicant: Citv of Monticello. (NAC) A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: Following requests which were heard at a previous Planning Commission meeting, the Commission directed stafT to investigate the possibility of establishing a process for deferring paving and/or curbing requirements for certain commercial uscs. The currcnt zoning regulations allow for such a deferral for industrial uses in the industrial districts. A separate text amendment would be necessary to accommodate these requests in commercially zoned areas. Ifsuch a process is to be proposed, it is recommended that a Conditional Use Permit be used. This is the process used for industrial districts, and the same general process would be appropriate to avoid confusion. However, there are differcnt standards which would be applicable to commercial uses. For the industrial district, the intent of the deferral is to allow for the likelihood of future expansion where the installation of concrcte curb would be inappropriate based on the expansion plan. Few commercial uses have this characteristic. Instead, the request being made in the previous commercial applications was for a deferral to allow a lesser immediate installation cost where an existing (usually non-conforming) business was remodeling and redeveloping over time. This was the case with both Little Mountain Feed and Hawk's Bar. For these uses, the issue is whether a limited improvement to an existing property, even without proper paving or curbing, is preferable to no improvement at all. In some cases, there may be a concern that adding the cost of paving or curbing as a condition to the approval of an expansion may stop any improvement to the site. One option, therefore, would be to allow the paving/curbing deferral for a limited time, and only for those businesses which are existing, and where the expansion or remodeling is correcting some other significant deficiency with respect to the zoning ordinance. For instance, replacing a non-conforming sign with a conforming sign, eliminating a setback encroachment, screening an outdoor dumpster, or eliminating an illicit outdoor storage area. Effectively, the City would be conditionally allowing the use of a site based on a finding that the improvements resolve some tangible zoning issue, exceeding (on balance) the negative created by deferring the paving and/or curbing. Any such deferral should also require a recommendation by the City Engineer that traffic and drainage may be handled effectively without the deferred improvements. The primary concern with this issue is one of enforcement. Since it is unlikely that the City would be able to require a financial security (on the assumption that the request is based in . Planning Commission Agenda -10/05/99 economics), the primary enforccment measure is revoking the Conditional Use Permit, and perhaps, suing for compliance with the terms ofthe Zoning Ordinance. This seems to be an unlikely scenario. As such, the draft: ordinance includes a provision that the Conditional Use Permit would lapse if not complied with in a timely manner, and the property would be considered a non-conforming use until it were brought into full compl iance with all portions of the Zoning Ordinance. It is not clear that this would inspire compliance, however. B. AL TERNA TIVE ACTIONS 1. Motion to recommend approval ofthe amendment to the Zoning Ordinance allowing deferral of paving and/or curbing requirements in the Business Districts as proposed. 2. Motion to recommend denial of the amendment, based on a finding that the amendment would be diflieult to apply and to enforce. 3. Motion to table action on the amendment, subject to additional information. C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION . Staff does not recommend approval of the amendment. The difficulty in tracking and enforcing this CUP would be great, and staff is concerned as to the ability to distinguish between properties which are to be approved or denied the deferral. The only distinction is one of economics, which makes it difficult to evaluate different proposals on a legitimate land use basis. If the amendment is to be considered for approval, it will be important to include clear findings as to the benefit which is being "traded" for deferral. D. SUPPORTING DATA Exhibit A - Draft Ordinance Amendment . . . . Planning Commission Agenda -10/05/99 City of Monticello Wright County, Minnesota AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 10, CHAPTER 3, SECTION 3-5 [D], OF THE MONTICELLO ZONING ORDINANCE RELATING TO PAVING AND CURBING REQUIREMENTS IN THE B-1, B-2, B-3, AND B-4 ZONING DISTRICTS. THE CITY COUNCIL OF TI-IE CITY OF MONTICELLO, MINNESOTA HEREBY ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Chapter 3, Section 3-5 [DJ is amended by adding the following: [DJ 9. (t) STALL,AISLE,AND DRIVEWAY DESIGN CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT IN THE B-1, B-2, B-3, AND B-4 DISTRICTS: Staff: aisle, and driveway design requirements as noted in (k) Surfacing, (0) Curbing and Landscaping, and (r) Curbing, may be lessened subject to the following conditions: 1. Any reduction in requirements requires completion of the conditional use permit process outlined in Chapter 22 of this ordinance. 11. Final approval of parking and driveway drainage plans associated with a conditional use permit request shall be provided in writing by the City Engineer. Engineering expenses greater than the portion of building permit fee allocated for engineer plan review shall be paid by applicant prior to occupancy. 111. Only properties which have existing buildings and are being expanded or remodeled shall be eligible for this conditional use permit. IV. The applicant must show, and the Planning Commission must find, that there are existing non-conformities of the property which are being eliminated by the expansion or remodeling whichjustify a deferral to the paving, landscaping, or curbing req uirements. 7A . . . v. A deferral shall be considered by the City as a part of an application which includes full site plans, drawn to scale, of both the immediate paving, landscaping and curbing improvements and the ultimate paving, landscaping, and curbing improvements. VI. A deferral of the paving, landscaping, and/or curbing shall be granted for no more than two (2) years, after which the paving, landscaping, and curbing shall be brought into conformance with the zoning ordinance and the approved plans. Section 2. This ordinance shall become effective from and after its passage and publication. / /s/ / . . . Planning Commission Agenda - 10/5/99 8. Consideration of approval of Preliminarv Plat of "Monticello Commerce Center Fourth Addition". Applicant: Monticello Industrial Park Inc., Pfeffer Co. Inc. A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: The Planning Commission is requested to review the preliminary plat of Monticello Commerce Center Fourth Addition. This plat is located directly north ofthe new high school property in the I-IA zoning district. The plat consists of6.38 acres which is being separated from approximately 70 acres of land owned by MonticeUo Industrial Park Inc. This plat is being established in conjunction with a development of the Twin City Die Castings facility. 'fwin City Die Castings will be developing a facility that produces machine parts from magnesium. 'fhe first phase of the facility will contain 36,000 sq. ft. of usable space. The property area is intended to house a future expansion which aU together wiU result in an 80,000 sq. ft. facility. (See the next agenda item for more detail). The 6 acre plat is tucked into the far southeasterly corner of the property owned by Monticello Industrial Park Inc. The private service drive providing Chelsea Rd access to the high school wraps around the southeast corner of the site. Please note that according to the buffer yard ordinance, the site plan wiU need to inelude construction of a bufTer yard to the south and east. The site is serviced by Chelsea Road on the north. Water and sewer service is available, therefore no public improvements are necessary. There may need to be an extension of a watermain internal to the site to provide additional fire protection. This extension will be done in conjunction with development of the facility. Detailed grading, parking or utility plans were not provided in conjunction with the development of the plat. This is because this is a single lot plat that wiU be developed simultaneously to development of the facility. Plan review for grading and utilities will occur in conjunction with the site plan development process. Since this site is zoned I -I, the Planning Commission will not review the site plan unless there is a need for a variance. No outside storage is planned. B. AL TERNA TIVE ACTIONS 1. Motion to approve Monticello Commerce Center Fourth Addition preliminary plat. Motion based on the finding that development of the industrial plat at this location is consistent with the comprehensive plan and zoning ordinance. 2. Motion to deny approval of the preliminary plat. C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: StafT recommends approval of the preliminary plat as submitted. D. SUPPORTING DATA: Copy of preliminary plat Copy of letter from Charlie Pfeffer . I I I I I I I I '1j I ~ ..,~ I ~ II ' I " I / II ", ,----_/ / t'1 II " / I --.... ! / ~ - - n 632.6 ,..,.- --'",,-- :-- , J ___I, ':--- ---- ---ow. ------ ..--- .---. I "It 0 -- - 78a.;Jj . -- u il.1 ~-----------T i I .J I 'I I I i '1 \ I l. I . G I Or I ~ i! I! ~S lJ I I I Ii- I I; I '.lOCi( i ! I! ~ , U:I : I ~;t\ ,', : !id <,; I '.1 I IV ~ II i II I J; i ~S ",' " : 1.L~1f! i I ~~ I !(\f.0-? I Ii' i;'-- ~ · '. r ~ _~~U___ _. _ _ _ _ _- -603.33 ~~ - ~ - - - -;- ~ fJ./ ( ~ ~ ~ ~ - ~ ~ ~ - - ~ - ~ ~ - - - ~ -~ ~ - - . ~ - ~ - - ~ ~ '---647. OWNER: MONTICELLO NOLISTRlAL PARK. tlC_ 11\115 BROCK TON AVE. NO. OSSEO. lM'l. 55369 ZONNG 1-1.0. ., -...~ .\.). ,\., ~~ ,. o --- "g ~l' WA' ,- "g h' -. OWNER I>UPENOENT SCHOOl OlSTRICT NO. 882 302 ...ASI1NlTON ST. MONTiCELLO. MN. 55302 ZONING B-2 HU :; ~ ~ i - - p -. i;I ~ p f s ! 8 8 I I 5!1l~- ....~I,J~ !al!9 !I:~ ~!ili i!s~ 2H' t ~ l ....jU~ r=H N 1>0' fH t. i i EH:i~ n~~ J ;a: FP~!i t~:f~ii il~-J?- :~fil ~~ a.J l Q .2 fir Pfeffer Company, Inc. . September 28, 1999 MAPLE GROVE EXECUTIVE CENTRE 7200 HEMLOCK LANE SUITE 101 MAPLE GROVE, MN 55369-5587 (612) 425-2930 FAX: (612) 425-2823 e-mail: pfefferco@aol.com City Council and Planning Commission City of Monticello PO Box 1147 Monticello, MN 55362 Attn: Mr. Jeff O'Neiil RE: Monticello Commerce Center Fourth Addition, Preliminary and Final Plats Dear Mr. O'Neill: . Due to a commitment, made some six months ago, I will not be able to attend the October 5, 1999 Planning Commission meeting and subsequent City Council meeting that will consider subject subdivision. It is my understanding that the submittal request is in order, and that at this time, there are no known issues that should cause a delay in the approval process. Please extend my apology to the Commission and Council members for not being in attendance. We respectfully request their approvals of this subdivision. Thank you for conveying this message. Very truly yours, ~~ Charles C. Pfeffer, Jr. cc: Shawn Weinand Jack Jarrard Ollie Koropchak . IT ~tC~D~~TI .. SEP 2 9 1999 U l::;I '31) . 9. Consideration to a rove a resolution tindin · that the modified Redevelo. ment Plan for Central MonticelJo RedevelopmentProiect No.1 and the TIF Plan for TIF District No. 1-26 conform to the eneral lans for the develo ment and redevelo ment of the City. O.K. Planning Commission Agenda - 10/5/99 A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: The Planning Commission is asked to approve the enclosed resolution finding that the proposed project is consistent with the Monticello Comprehensive Plan. The resolution is a part of the TIF approval process. Twin City Die Castings Company plans to construct a 52,000 sq. it. office, die casting and machining facility. The Phase IA plan consists of approximately 36,000 sq. f1. for Occupancy by June 2000, and the Phase IB plan consists of an approximate 16,000 sq. f1. addition for occupancy June 2002. Job and wage-level goals for this project are 89 jobs at an hourly average wage of$17.06 plus average hourly benefits of$5.47. The proposed project meets the Business Subsidy Criteria of the HM, EDA, City and State. . The site is a six-acre parcel located along Chelsea Road to the south and to the immediate west of the new high school entrance road. The parcel to be known as Lot 1, Block I, Monticello Commerce Center Fourth Addition, is zoned I] -A (Light Industrial). Mr. Charlie Pfeffer has submitted the preliminary plat application, which appears on this agenda, for review and approval by the Planning Commission. The contractor for the project is Olson General Contractors, Inc., Minneapolis, MN. Building and site plans to be submitted with the permit application sometime the first or second week in October. Groundbreaking is initially intended for sometime between November] and 15. Please consider the following alternative actions. B. AL TERNA TIVE ACTIONS 1. A motion to approve the resolution finding that the modified Redevelopment Plan for Central Monticello Redevelopment Project No. 1 and the TIF Plan for TIF District No. ] -26 conform to the general plans for the development and redevelopment of the City. . 2. A motion to deny approval of the resolution finding that the modified Redevelopment Plan for Central Monticello Redevelopment Project No. ] and the TIF Plan for TIF District No. 1-26 does not conform to the general plans for the development and redevelopment of the City. 3. A motion to table any action. . Planning Commission Agenda - 10/5/99 C. RECOMMENDA TlON: Recommendation is alternative no. ]. The proposed project lies within the proper zoning, enhances the economy of the community, and meets the goals and objectives of the City. D. SUPPORTING DATA: Copy of the resolution for approval and map identifying the site. The Planning Chair has a copy of the TIF Plan and Central Monticello Redevelopment Project, and a copy is also available at the Office of the Housing and Redevelopment Authority. . . e: e = ; ~" , SEP: 27 '99 '~0S: S9AM EHLERS & ASSOCIATES j i I , ! j :: ; , . i , ,I , I P.2/4 i' i I . PLANNING COMMISSION i,' :" ;'i,::~I1YOFMONTICEtLO,MlNNESOTA : . ..<>";~~,~!~>:., . RESOLUTION _ " RE$6LjjnhN OF THE MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION FINDING ;'i\~~r "tHE MODIFIED REDEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR CENTRAL ,".~N!hCELLO Rl;:DEVELOPMENT PaOJEcr NO. I AND THE TAX '. iM':REMENT FINANCING PLAN FOR TAX INCREMENT FINANCING i..,: .,lS'ISTRIcr NO. 1-26 CONFORM TO THE GENERAL PLANs FOR l1fE ';.,,: '~:..;:> -DEVELOPMENT AND REDEVELOPMENT OF THE CITY. :'. WHEREAS, the City Council fOT lbe City of Monticello, MillOeso... (lbe "City") has proposed to adopt a Modi tied Redevelopment PIan for Central Monticello Redevelopment Project No. I and a Till< In....menl Financing Plan fOT Tax In""""ent Fill3lleing District No. 1-26 (collectively, the "Plans"J and has su bm ittcd the Plans to the Monticello Planning Commission (tho "Commission") pUl'SWUlt !O Minnesota Statutos, Section 469.175, Sub,diYision 3, and " : , I , WflEREAS, the Commission has "",iewed the Plans to determine the.. conformity with the genotal plans fOT the development and redcvelopment of the City IS described in the comprehensive plan for the City, . , NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESoLVED by the Commission that the Plans conform with the genetal plans for the deyelopm,nt and redevelopment of the City as a whole. I, I I , , , , , Adopted this _ day of I r { : ' ,{ _.1999. I; i { , I ( ; Chair , ) ,/ I AITf3ST: 1 II ,( , . :' , i f , ;' t: I ,( 1, I ! i e. Secrc,tary . ! I.' r f ; , 1 I j , I' I J. ! i I' I I ; f , \ N:IMlnn$OllllMlIndcelIOlllFl_26IpJ::lll ~lIIm rllJ.wpd ; I, I , ! I .- I I ~ 1 , I 9 A I. , , /~~ F ., " , '. '.~ ....... . . a;a . ;e. .>( . LIJ ',' , , .! . . . .. .- ~'i' :~. , E--t' . . ,z.~ 'E:3'; ", , , '. . , ~ '0 0:::, 1"'_'"11 " ~< ~~. ~~ .0- . s: u.... ,0'" ~. ~I;; , ~:a.... E-i ~, Z~'. 0... ~.5" " " ' '" N I , , ' -az-.... . I- . -0 C.Z c. ct:E-< :c' .~ I- p::j C . ~~. .;:3 0: ,~, g:':. . ~ A" ~,~ "t, ,L5' UJ Z' , ,VI Ut-I -' ,U .UJ. tj ~ 0' a: z: UJ I-l ' U. .. ..~ ~ . 0 ' . en ..... ' < ;~' to- ~ V Z .~ >- ' ' ~ 00 '~'..,. ;j' Cl ~~ S .. V') ~ . eta r;j 5 i= .~ ~ ..u Z t:r.: 'u . UJ...._ I-lUJ <~ " m ~. l1. :r: Cl b~ .~ ~ ~S' ~ ~x ~~ V')lX I'. . ~ ; '.' . '. '. oj '1 . ". . .' , , . .' . - . . :: -," . .' . ...1 I." . .' . ' '. " . .' . _._. :._01 .:": '.: '.. . " ", t' .t'lt."", , . 'j .: 1",1 '. ~. '.: r . . 'f "l '.. .' '. ...... ~ . '. , . .; . I, & . . . t". . . . . , '. ., . I" ." . . - ".' . I '," ; I" ". 'r .. ". I." . . ,. , , J " ' I .' , :\" " , " ,,' .. . , , , " .. . .' ,I ' I .1 '" . ' . . ."",.. " " ..,.."... . ... . . , '. , , .' II ,II"' " 'I~'! i~!'.1 '1II1,OWII !II '" ~.,.. I , · .... I.... ,. 11 i ti t i' . .. .. f, ..' . , '1 l'flU" :. :" , .' .tt .t09 " : ;'j. " " I _ .' I . 0 ~ t'" . ',~ ,Ulf3dOHd" . ~ " " " l"- . II'" : tr) , . 010 , '4' " .', 1~)'88l lit' .. "'. '. , , . " . . k~ ~ ...' "." . - , ", . ","'" , ,p ,'.." . I' " 1~ ' . ..' "l' '(.. . , loT . ' .' " , , * .' . . .' .. ....: . t . . or; , . 01 ... I '. '....It .... :' I" .' .". . '.' ." P. I' , '. ~ .. .' , . .,. .- ..!."', ~ " , " . '. '" ..' t .' .',' I , ..;'- .'" ". Ii III '. I, .. .. ~ ~I .. ., , . "" .... II . , ", . . ill . . 'I"'" <I I. '. 0 . ''''II \. , " t. . I... " . . 4 .,. I. .', I .: 0: .,. I ..... ..' .. ... " " , 'I "l" .:~~I . , , .. ~."a I '. .' II '" - , :.' . '" ......r ','- ", ~;.' . " b ..: . " -,- .~ ~"', S1:~1 66. 91 daS , . ~~8~-S~v-~19:xe~ ,.' 'i"O, ". :;'0' .'. I " m'd . , , :'. . , ~" ill : " '" : .~ '. " , . , . . ':" .. :1' , , .. .' ,. . . , , to. '. , , . ... , I , I . . I , j I , , . I I' :'. .10 . .- Ow' .) " t" .", , . "j ;\0 , ' ,. . . , :', ! . .., ... II . ~ . 'JNI 'OJ ~3~~3~d 9E . . . Planning Commission Agenda -10105/99 10. Consideration of an amendment to the Monticello Zonin2: Ordinance relatin2: to signs to allow electronic message board signs in business districts. Applicant: City of Monticello. (NAC) A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: When Monticello Ford processed its expansion earlier this year, a request was made for an electronic message board sign, which was approved through a variance. At that time, staff and the Planning Commission discussed the possibility of writing such signs into the ordinance, including some standards which would regulate their display. The intent of any regulations of these signs would be to ensure that they do not become a nuisance or traiIic hazard. There are a number of ways which these signs might be regulated. Due to the improving technology, the impression of motion and color are not uncommon. In addition, when fully lit, such signs can be extraordinarily bright. Flashing of these signs can be distracting, even during the day, or in areas which are already highly lit at night. l-Iowever, monitoring signs under a high level of regulation is problematic for the City. As a result, the components of regulation need to balance enforcement with the potential for nuisance and public safety concerns. The attached ordinance would permit signs in the B-3 and B-4 commercial districts only, on the theory that they do not belong in areas near residential neighborhoods (as would be the case in the B-1, B-2, or PZM districts), nor would they appear to meet the intent of the Design Guidelines for the CCD. The Planning Commission should discuss whether the CCD is an appropriate district, as well as the P-S District. It is staffs understanding that the School District may seek such a sign for the new High School. The elements of regulation may be summarized as: ~ No flashing (scrolling messages would be allowed) ~ The sign must be a component of the allowed signage in the district, that is, the electronic message board is not an extra sign - it would be treated as ifit were a changeable copy portion of a pylon sign. ~ The sign must meet all other requirements of the City's Sign Ordinance and Building Code. ~ LED, Non-glare lights are used. . Planning Corrunission Agenda -10/05/99 B. AI"TERNATIVE ACTIONS I. Motion to recommend approval ofthc amendment to add electronic message board signs as permitted sign types in thc B-3 and B-4 Districts, with the regulations as proposed, based on a finding that the regulations will avoid problems of nuisance or traffic hazard. 2. Motion to rccommend denial of the amendmcnt, based on a finding that despitc the regulations, such signs will create visual hazards to traffic safety and public I1lIlSancc. 3. Motion to table action on the amendment, subject to additional information. c. STAFF RECOMMENDA nON . StafTrecommends approval of the amendment, assuming it is limited to areas which will not impact residential development, and can be managed to minimize the nuisance potential. Given the amount of monitoring it would take to enforce a highly complex ordinance, we have attempted to draft regulations which would allow the signs, but would limit the amount of enforcement issues. The Planning Commission and City Council should carefully consider any expansion of the proposed allowable districts due to the likely impact on residential areas where lighting can be a significant issue. D. SUPPORTING DATA Exhibit A - Draft Ordinance . . . . PlaIming Commission Agenda -10/05/99 City of Monticello Wright County, Minnesota AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 10, CHAPTER 3, SECTION 3 [HI AND SECTION 3 [C] OF THE MONTICELLO ZONING ORDINANCE RELATING TO ELECTRONIC MESSAGE HOARD SIGNS. THE CITY COUNCIL OF 'fHE CITY OF MONTICELLO, MINNESOTA HEREBY ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Chapter 3, Section 3 [B] 2. (i) is amended to read as follows: (i) Except for Electronic McssaQe Board Signs as allowing in Section 3 rEl 4.(f), nNo sign shall display any moving parts, nor shall it be illuminated with any flashing or intermittent lights, nor shall it be animated. Exempt are time and temperature information and barber poles. All displays shall be shielded to prevent light to be directed at oncoming traffic in such brilliance as to impair the vision of any driver. No device shall be illuminated in such a manner as to interfere with or obscure an official traffic sign or signal. Section 2. Chapter 3, Section 3 [E] 4. is amended to add the following: Section 3 [E] 4. ill Electronic Message Boards may be allowed in the B-3 and 8-4 Zoning Districts as a part of the freestanding or pylon sign display, provided that: 1. The sign complies in all other respects with the Sign regulations of the Zoning Ordinance. 1L. The sign does not create a traffic hazard or a nuisance. 11.1. The sign does not flash its message, although continuous scrolling tcxt is allowed. 10 A . . . IV. The sign mcets all requirements of the City's Building and Electrical Codes. v. LED - Non-!.dare lights are used. VI. The silln docs constitute a separate or additional freestandinll sign support structure. The sign must be otherwise allowed under this ordinance as a pylon sign, or must be a part of an allowed pvlon sign plan, as defined herein. Section 3. This ordinance shall bccome effective from and after its passage and publication. / /s/ / EXHIBIT A . . . Planning Commission Agenda - 10/5/99 11. Discussion ofthe Comprehensive Plan Implementation Steps established in 1996. Jeff O'Neill to provide verbal discussion. Report is attached for your review. This summary is provided for the purpose of showing how much has been accomplished in thc past three years. Is the Planning Commission interested in developing a new or updated list of planning objectives with the City Council? ~ ~v., ~ w e_.J 'f 1''1/99 ~ .. , " I ~~~ ~ MONTICELLO 250 East Broadway P. O. Box 1147 Monticello, MN 55362-9245 Phone: (612) 295-2711 Metro: (612) 333-5739 Fax~ (612) 295-4404 MEMO TO: Members of Planning Commission, Parks Commission and HRA FROM: Monticello Planning Commission DATE: August 16, 1996 RE: Comprehensive plan implementation steps - PRELIMINARY . Planning Commission developed the following preliminary list of possible work activities for the next year to two-year time frame. This list is a starting point for discussion. As you review it, please gauge each item for relative importance and come prepared to discuss priorities. And, of course, if you have additional items you'd like added to the list, please jot them down and we can insert them as appropriate. MONTICELLO ORDERLY ANNEXATIONfI'OWNSHIP/CITY PLANNING 1. ~bmit comprehensive plan to Monticello Orderly Annexation Board for adoption. Once the plan is adopted, then it can become the framework for zoning decisions for the MOM. 2. ~prove the process for zoning ordinance amendments at the MOM level. Possible approaches are as follows: A. Request a change to the MOAA guidelines to provide the City with more authority in regulating activity in the MOA area and possibly granting the City veto power over zoning ordinance amendments. Currently, Wright County administers the zoning ordinance in the MOAA following County zoning regulations. In many communities, the city actually provides the zoning administration, and city zoning regulations are followed in the MOAA. The suggestion that the City basically take over planning and zoning in the . Office of Public Works, 909 Golf Course Rd., Monticello, MN 55362 · Phone: (612) 295-.'3170 · Fax: (612) 295-3170, ext. 1 II A . . 2. Memo Planning Commission Members August 16, 1996 Page 2 orderly annexation area is relatively extreme, and it is doubtful whether the Township and County would support this concept when it appears that the MOAA is working fairly well. . B. In lieu of taking over administration of planning and zoning in the MOAA, the City should push for a formal review process of all zoning ordinance amendments, both text and map amendments, in the MOAA. Currently, all zoning ordinance amendments in the MOAA require a public hearing, which the City is notified of in advance. If the item is relatively controversial, it usually comes before the Planning Commission and the City Council before the City's MOM representative votes on the matter. It is proposed that the process be more structured, which would require Planning Commission and /- City Council input prior to MOAA zoning decisions. 3. V The MOAA boundaries have not been altered in over 20 years. Due to the development patterns that have occurred in that time frame, it may make sense to redraw some of the MOM boundary lines. There are large areas that probably will never become part of the city and other areas that are relatively close to the city where utilities are available that are not in the MOAA. Perhaps it is time that the City, County, and Township work together toward shifting the boundaries to more accurately reflect the true urban planning area for Monticello. 4. ~e City needs to work with the Township and County toward revision of the urban service area boundaries. The urban service area is that area in which development is likely to occur and where annexation requests would not be contested. The original urban service area boundaries were drawn in the early 1990's; and since then, there has been a significant level of development in these areas, thus the need to push farther out and identify the next tier of land ready for urbanization. ZONING MAP AND TEXT AMENDMENTS Following is a short list of map and text amendments that should be considered for adoption or at least review in the next two years. 1. ~amine the PZM zoning district desi~ation in the area of River Street and the downtown area. As you know, the Riverstreet Antiques mall was recently changed from the PZM zoning to the B-3 zoning. There was a thought that perhaps the entire tier oflots along River Street should receive the same treatment. Perhaps a new zoning designation will spin out of the MCP planning process. ~ezone the Edgar Klucas proper~y from the current desi~ation ofR-3 to R-l or R-2. . Memo Planning Commission Members August 16, 1996 Page 3 3. v-eomplete MCP/Downtown Redevelopment zoning and district re~ation modIfications. Such modifications could consist of changes to the sign ordinance, adoption of architectural controls, adoption ofland use district designations, etc. 4. V"l!pdate the zoning district regulations to include a designation specifically suited to the traditional downtown area. The current regulations governing the old plat are the R-2 regulations. These regulations are geared almost more specifically for urbanizing areas rather than traditional old town areas. Perhaps it would make sense to create a new zoning district that applied specifically to the original plat of the city. 5. ~o much PZM? There has been discussion that perhaps there is too much PZM property identified in the city. There is a concern that the PZM inventory may invite apartment building development that is not necessarily desired. There is also concem that the PZM designation does not provide enough specific direction as to the type of development desired in the PZM areas and that perhaps the City should eliminate PZM or reduce the PZM areas. . vfn a related matter, the Planning Commission needs to look at the 15-acre Gladys Hoglund property along with the entire area generally located at the intersection of East County Road 39 and 75 as far west as the wastewater treatment plant. Currently, this is a PZM area that has some strong highway business attributes, but yet it may be somewhat sensitive to many of the uses found in a B-3 zone; therefore, it might make sense to create another zoning district for this area. 6. Commercial Zonin~ Districts. Currently, the zoning ordinance includes four commercial zones which do not fit the way commercial activity occurs in Monticello. The City has some highway-oriented commercial, traditional downtown, a non- traditional downtown expansion area, and some typical suburban shopping areas. The B-3 district is an adequate highway commercial district, and the B-4 is a good representation of the suburban shopping district; however, the traditional and non- traditional downtown areas don't have very good representation in the zoning ordinance. ffO..........'vT CC'"....""Ul.<',,,.1 iv..;y - {).........\ (;"",q 7. Low- Density Residential Zoning. There has been interest given to the creation or '..f- modification of a residential district to encourage larger homes. Providing a specific zone for high value homes supports the goal statement of high-quality residential development at all price ranges. We need to determine if the current R-l district standards meet this goal, or should they be modified. Should the City designate an "R" district which might require 20,000 sq ft lots, and should the City establish an "R" district which would allow 2-acre unsewered lots. . . Memo Planning Commission Members August 16, 1996 Page 4 8. General Performance Standards. General performance standards appear to be fairly well up-to-date with the exception of the application of the downtown area currently being studied by the MCP. The areas of concern might relate to sign standards. What kind of commercial signage does the City want? This philosophy should be identified and translated to the ordinance. Some cities want to encourage creativity, some want only to do whatever the commercial businesses want, and some want to create a consistent theme. In order to limit sign variance requests, identification of a clear sign regulation objective would help result in a sign ordinance which the City and the businesses understand and support. . 9. .xTpdate Variance Procedure. Currently, the procedure for processing variances is V not in step with State Statutes and is somewhat awkward and inconsistent in its application. We would recommend that the variance procedure be reviewed and brought up to date. 10. ~iness Campus District Rel:Ulations. There has been some discussion that perhaps the requirement that 30% of the land be used for green space is somewhat extreme and not providing additional value to the business campus area. In exchange for removing this requirement, perhaps stronger, more clear landscaping and building facade requirements could be adopted and/or the requirement that irrigation be included in the code. Also, irrigation requirements could be introduced in exchange for reducing green space requirement. 11. Pole Buildings. Regulation of pole buildings was deferred pending completion of the comprehensive plan. Now that the plan is complete, we need to determine ifpole buildings in commercial and industrial areas should be regulated. 12. Screenln~ Fence StandardEl. Screening fence standards need to be reviewed and modified. The cyclone fence with slats technique currently used by facilities such as Custom Canopy and NSP Service Center do not appear to meet the intent of a screening requirement. Perhaps the ordinance should be modified to more clearly delineate acceptable screening fence design. 13. Outside Storage. Regulations limiting outside storage as a percentage of a principal building should be established to avoid proliferation of large storage areas. CSAH 75 ~ . Increases in regional and commuter truck and auto traffic is affecting the value of land on Broadway and negatively impacting local traffic patterns. As discussed in the comprehensive plan, the City needs to determine if steps should be taken to quiet traffic on CSAH 75. A position needs to be established soon. . Memo Planning Commission Members eAugUst16,1996 Page 5 e e RUFF AUTO PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT City staff and Ruff Auto need to get together to develop a long-term PUD plan for the facility. This was a condition of allowing a recent expansion to the Ruff Auto office building. ADMINISTRATIVE ISSUES 1. Fee Structure. The comprehensive plan says that growth should pay for itself in /terms of infrastructure development. The City currently has sewer, water, and V storm sewer access fees that need to be revised from time to time to make sure that existing development does not subsidize growth. This also relates to park dedication fees. Perhaps it is time that the Planning and Parks Commissions work together toward development of a park dedication fee or pathway fee that will enable us to meet City goals in this regard. - f~< i?e.<....-cJ-t.'G.. _ J Plannin~ Cost Recovery. Currently, the City attempts to recover costs for consulting fees from development; however, no cost for other administrative time is recovered. Perhaps it would make sense to increase the fee structure to allow us to recover more administrative expense. This additional revenue source could help us justify an additional staft'person to help us complete the ongoing work of planning and zomng. 2. 3. Code Enforcement. We do a fairly good job at making sure that all new development meets code. We are not as gOQd at policing violations to the code by established property owners. The credibility of the zoning ordinance requires at least some level of enforcement. At this point in time, our enforcement efforts are very weak. Without additional staff, it is not likely that we will be able to do any additional code enforcement without elimination of other duties. 4. General Integration of HRA and Park Planning. As you know, a few months ago we met to discuss joint planning between Parks, Planning Commission, and HRA. Now that the comprehensive plan is complete, we can use it as a guideline for developing specific work plans for the three organizations so that we are all pulling in the same direction. I would support that the Planning Commission complete its preliminary work plan and submit it to the HRA and Parks Commission as food for thought for both of these commissions as they begin working on their own work plans. At some point in the next few months, we could bring the plans together, discuss them at a joint meeting, and come to the City Council with an integrated plan. It is critical that this integrated plan be prepared in time for budget setting for August 1997. . Memo Planning Commission Members August 16, 1996 Page 6 5. ~affinli. Accomplishment of the tasks set out in these pages will require a significant effort. Given the level of day~to-day activity resulting from ongoing development pressure, it would be unrealistic to expect that staff at its current level will be able to adequately support the Planning Commission in completing even the high priority items. As part of the process of defining tasks and task priorities, we need to come up with a plan for providing sufficient staffing and our consultant support. Is it time to hire a planner or increase Steve Grittman/NAC's presence or shift city staff responsibilities? We need to study the options and make a recommendation for inclusion in the 1997 budget. 6. Report Generation. Most cities and counties complete annual reports that describe planning and zoning trends in terms of planning case and building construction activity. The budgets for the departments from year to year derive from the statistics/trends defined in the annual report. Unfortunately, we have never done an annual report. I think it is time that we start. The information could certainly help Planning Commission and City Council with decision-making relative to staffing and land use. . 7. ~L~ Improved communications/follow-u.p with applicants. Our record for providing good, immediate follow-up with applicants has been poor. We need to do a better job at summarizing Council action to applicants. For instance, all conditional use permit conditions should be outlined in writing to applicants immediately after Council action. This is rarely done. 8. GlS. Geographic information systems and computerization of parcel data needs to be explored. 9. Ir'nternet applications. There are all sorts of ways that cities are using the intemet V ~ provide better access to city information. Many planning departments have data available like the subdivision ordinances, zoning ordinances, and so forth. This is another area that needs to be explored. ~SUBDMSION REGULATIONS From time to time there has been talk oflooking at our subdivision design standards. It may make sense to re~examine sidewalk, pathway, and road width standards in new subdivisions in an effort to make sure that the design of subdivisions encourages the types of neighborhoods and environment that we want to have developed in the community. . Memo Planning Commission Members tit August 16, 1996 Page 7 ~APITAL IMPROVEMENT PLANNING A very important area that has been given very little attention is maintenance of a 5-year capital improvement program. A capital improvement program is important because it identifies the major infrastructure and equipment needs of the City and identifies appropriate funding sources. To some extent, the success of the comprehensive plan depends on establishment of financing strategies necessary to support capital improvements needed to support the comprehensive plan. The City has done a fairly good job of inventorying major infrastructure needs in the areas of road development, sanitary sewer system expansion, public works building expansion, and wastewater treatment plant expansion. We have done a fair job of projecting our needs in the area of park development. What we don't have is an integrated financial model showing exactly what money is available to complete which projects by what time period. It is critical that we begin to identify major projects and agree as to the method for funding these projects so that in the future we aren't saddled with huge expenses to complete projects done on almost an emergency basis. tit Following are projects that have been identified as necessary improvements but are not identified on a financial plan. Please note this is only a partial listing. 1. Orchard Road/1-94 interchange 2. Fallon Avenue overpass 3. City park developments in the River Mill, Klein Farms, and downtown! nver area 4. Chelsea/Highway 25 corridor improvements 5. Downtown redevelopment activity, including land acquisition and demolition 6. Major storm sewer improvements 7. EXI3RRsisft-of city hall .. 8. Development of ramps at County Road 118/1-94 9. Extend Chelsea to West 39 The projects identified above are just a beginning to the list that could be assembled of all the projects that will need to be completed as the city grows. We need to come up with a statement (capital improvement plan) which identifies how these projects are going to be funded using sources such as general taxes; tax increment financing pooled funds; access fees, including sanitary sewer, storm sewer, water, etc.; special assessments; and others. tit Similarly, we do not have a plan for expansion of manpower needs necessary to meet a set standard for service provided by various departments. This is not a planning item but is noteworthy. . PARKS COMMISSION IMPLEMENTATION PLAN - COMPREHENSIVE PLAN The following is a budget and work plan prepared by the Parks Commission which outlines goals and objectives for park development for the remainder of 1996 through 2001. The projects identified in the work plan were selected based on review of the existing park system and analysis of the needs of our growing community. In developing this plan, Parks Commission looked at the demographics of the community and attempted to focus park improvements to satisfY the needs of the fastest growing segments of the community. The Commission also worked towards spreading park investments in areas where needed most geographically. Park activity areas programmed for expansion were selected based on demand and take into account National Park and Recreation Association standards of service per capita. It is evident by the recently conducted picture survey that parks are a very important component of quality of life in Monticello. The goal of the Parks Commission, through completion of the items below, is to continue to maintain and develop a park system that meets the needs of a growing population and is in step with a tradition of providing a well-maintained park system. PARK DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS . 1. ~eadow Oak Outlot A/Freeway Park Parking Lot - $39,000. Construction in 1998. Funding 96,97,98. Meadow Oak Outlot A is the site of 2 ballfields and a soccer field. These fields will be used by teams from outside of the neighborhood; therefore it is important that adequate off-street parking is provided. Money has been allocated in the 1996 budget for development of a parking lot at this location. The 1996 budget included $13,000 toward this project. Storage/Concessio~Qd...r"."-qJs. $12,000 - Construction in 1997. Funding 97. Small storage building with concession area. 2. ~eadow Oak Park Basketball Court. $2,000. Construction in 1997: A basketball court is proposed to be added in 1997 which will serve to reduce the deficiency in courts and provide one on the east side of town. . PARKPLAN.SUM: 8/16/96 Page 1 . . . , 3. Prairie Creek Park Cleanup and Restoration V<;;ean up and Development - $2,500. 1997. Prairie West development area will result in the city acquiring .6 acres of park land adjacent to and immediately west of Otter Creek. According to the development agreement with John Komarek, he is responsible for general cleanup of the park area. However, additional funds will be necessary for some level of park restoration and development. Although a specific plan for development is not in place for this project, Parks Commission would like to budget $2,500 for park development. It is likely that the city will be able to obtain some level of in-kind contribution of time and manpower from the general public to help develop this park area. 4. MCP Park Improvements General- $20,000, Budget Year. 1997. It is expected that recommendations for park development that will enhance the river as an amenity for the downtown will emerge from the City/MCP planning effort. The Parks Commission would like to set aside $20,000 for downtown/river- related improvements or for debt service. 5. Lions Park/7th Street West Development Date: unknown. Budget Impact: unknown. As you know, the city owns 16 acres ofland known as Outlot A of Country Club Manor which is located between the freeway and 7th Street West at the intersection of 7th Street and West Co Rd 39. The Lions Club is aware that the city owns this land and may be interested in developing a portion of the site as a Lions Park. The Parks Commission would like permission to investigate the possibility of development of a park on a portion of Outlot A. This is a target area of the city for park development due to poor local park access. The city has a sizable amount of money tied up in this land in unpaid assessments. City Council will need to determine to what extent it wants to forego revenue from the sale of this property for the sake of park development. Perhaps the next step in the process of development of this area is for the Lions Club to determine its level of interest make a presentation to the Parks Commission and City Council outlining a program for development of the park area. 5. /Klein Fanns Park and trail General Development. PlaygroundIPicnic area trail. $40,000 . Budget Year. 2000. Tony Emmerich has indicated that in the spring of 1997 he wants to begin development of the 80-acre section of the Klein Farms development south of School Boulevard Initial park plans called for development of a 16 acre park on the northwest corner of the property. The original intent of this park was to have a ballfield and recreation complex. At the previous meeting of the Parks Commission, it was agreed that Parks PARKPLAN.SUM: 8/16/96 Page 2 . Commission would look at modifying the park plan to enable use of the oak grove and pond area as the core of the park dedication for the Klein Farms south. Parks Commission felt that this change was appropriate because it would allow public enjoyment of the oak grove and pond area. Parks Commission felt that the active park area originally contemplated could be placed at other locations in the southern region of the community. The city has a history of developing parks at a point in time where development is nearly complete. It is expected that, based on current trends, the Klein Farms south development area will be completely full by 1999. This is the single city park serving the area 160 acre development. Improvements in the park will be selected based on the recreation needs of young families. 6. River Mill Parking, trail, playground and athletic field, parking $80,000 . Budget Year - 1999. The River Mill project includes a 5 to 7 acre park which is in need of a small parking area, trail, playground equipment, backstops, and soccer goals. Based on development trends, it appears that the subdivision will be developed within 2 years; therefore, funds need to be placed in the 1998 or 1999 budget for this project. This is the single major park serving the Northeast section of the city. 7. lk Ballfields . Three Ball-fields. Construction in 1998 . $50,000. The NSP Ballfield site has become a very popular location for local and regional baseball and softball play. The existing site is served by three fields which are in constant use during the summer. NSP property is available for development of three additional fields. Currently, th:6ee city and school ballfields serving the Monticello area. According .NRPA tandards, there is a field deficiency when the township population is us determine the population to field ratio. Construction of the three fields would serve to reduce the deficiency. It should be noted that the level of deficiency will change if new high school fields are developed. Consideration should be given toward long term development of a paved parking area at the NSP Ballfields. PATHWAY DEVELOPMENT . The pathway plan calls for development of a number of pathways throughout the community that are difficult to fund through development revenue alone. Such areas need to be funded either through additional ISTEA funding or through general funds provided by the city or perhaps through some other source such as liquor funds. The budget calls for completion of the three trail segments below as part of a single project that is funded by general funds, street funds, and assessments. No ISTEA revenues were projected. PARKPLAN.SUM: 8/16/96 Page 3 '1. . . . Meadow Oaks to Middle School (CRl18) Construction 1997 - $30,000. It is proposed that $3, 000 be derived from street funds, $15,000 from 1996 budget as planned, $6,000 from Eastwood Knoll, and $6,000 from Briar Oakes II. Please note that the Briar Oakes development agreement calls for payment of $6,000 toward the needed amount. This project would be combined with other pathway projects proposed for 1997. 2. CSAH 75 to Middle School Construction 1997 . $60,000. $15,000 was placed in the budget in 1996 to help fund this project. This important segment connects the existing pathway at River Road Plaza along County Road 118 to the Middle School. This pathway become more important as the school campus develops. Pathway development will require installation of "jersey barriers" on the freeway bridge deck. Jersey barriers are temporary cement structures that separate pedestrian traffic from vehicular traffic. City staff will continue to seek ISTEA funding for pedestrian bridge improvements. 3. Mississippi RiverwalklEllison Park to Mississippi Drive Budget Year 1997 - $60,000. According to the pathway plan, a pathway should be installed connecting Ellison Park/Community Hospital/Mississippi Shores area to Mississippi Drive. As you may lmow, the city has control over the right-of-way or owns most of the land along the shoreline between the nursing home and Mississippi Drive. A huge opportunity exists to develop a river walk that would serve as a wonderful amenity and transportation route. A very small segment of the proposed route is owned by John Bondhus. It is hoped that the city can acquire easement rights from Bondhus to enable completion of this segment of pathway. Development of this pathway is consistent with the goal of the comprehensive plan to improve public access and enjoyment of Monticello's river setting. 5. Pathway Maintenance By resolution, when the City Council applied for ISTEA funds, it allocated $26,000 a year for pathway maintenance. The fund is to be used both for maintenance of the pathway system and a sinking fund for future replacement of the pathway as is needed in years to come. Parks Commission wants to keep track of these funds and make sure that they are used for pathway maintenance and upkeep and suggest that it be used as follows. A. Snow removal equipment - 1996 purchase. Parks Commission recommends that the public works department purchase equipment necessary to remove snow from the sections of the pathway and to install snowmobile direction signs. A portion of the $26,000 could be PARKPLAN.SUM: 8/16/96 Page 4 used towards payment of the cost to purchase the equipment necessary to remove the snow. . B. General Maintenance. The balance of the funds could be used for general maintenance of the grass along the pathway and for development of a pathway replacement fund. It should be noted that the snow removal equipment necessary to keep the pathway clear could be used in many other applications throughout the community including maintenance of the sidewalk system. There should be some labor savings experienced through purchase of a piece of equipment because it can remove snow at a high rate of speed. The Parks Commission believes that the pathway will be used in the winter time and that it is important to discourage snowmobile use of the pathway due to the damage resulting from snowmobiles driving on the pathway. 6. Park Maintenance . Budget Year 1997 ~ $10,000; Budget Year 1998 - $20,000; Budget Year 1999 - $30,000. Due to aging of playground equipment, stricter safety standards, and ADA requirements, it is necessary to start a systematic program for updating playground equipment. It is proposed that updating begin in 1998. Future budgets will identifY specific update projects. The goal of this budget item would be to make park equipment in compliance with ADA requirements and to make sure that all equipment is up to safety codes. vr;-andelions, Weeds. Weed Control 7. A number of residents and Parks Commission members have complained about the condition of the turf at a number of the parks. The Parks Director has indicated that he does not have the staff necessary to complete systematic spraying of weeds and dandelions; therefore, the Parks Commission recommends that $5,000 be allocated towards spraying for dandelions, weeds, etc. 8. Reduced Mowine- at Certain Parks . The Parks Commission will be examining the possibility of reducing maintenance at certain parks. There are areas that are mowed such as the water tower site and the storm water basin/park at the Meadows subdivision. Parks Commission would like to look at other areas where they can find a cost savings by altering maintenance activities. Such strategy might include establishment of native grasses in suitable areas. Such strategies have been used effectively by other parks departments to improve their communities by reducing maintenance expense while enhance wildlife habit and improving biodiversity. PARKPLAN.SUM: 8/16/96 Page 5 . 9. ./ ~mprehensive Park Plan - Increase in Staff Support . The goals and projects detailed respond to park needs identified by the Parks Commission. In determining need, the Commission considered current park locations and neighborhoods served, population characteristics, actual park demand and other factors. The report is general in the sense that specific "sub budgets" for each project have not been prepared. More work is needed to determine actual design of each park. The Parks Commission would like to put together a plan that identifies specific improvements for existing and new parks. Parks Commission would like to allocate $10,000 for additional park planning support either from a consultant or from city staff. $10,000 for city staff time could be used to supplement pay needed to support a new employee. . With the list of park projects listed above, it is necessary to maintain a park system that citizens of Monticello have come to enjoy. In order to accomplish the goals of the comprehensive plan, park facility development needs to coincide with city growth just as wastewater treatment plant and water systems develop with population growth. The list of items noted above is quite industrious and will require additional staff support. Ifit is the goal of the city to maintain and develop a future park system that is equal to what we have today, it is important that city staff be provided with the resources necessary to complete projects on a timely basis. It is therefore proposed by the Parks Commission that city allocate funds necessary to support the salary of an employee spending at least one-half time in the area of parks development and programming. The Parks Commission requests that the City Council work with city staff determine the organizational structure necessary to provide the staff time to adequately support development of parks. It is estimated that the cost to provide the staff necessary to provide adequate support of the Parks Commission would amount to $25,000 per year. 11. ~hade Tree Program Parks Commission requests that the City Council continue to make its annual allocation of $15,000 for shade tree planting. It should be noted that the shade tree program has faltered somewhat due to inadequate staff support of the program. Funds allocated for 1996 have not been spent to date. However, it is hoped that by the end of the Bummer, the tree planting will be completed. Parks Commission has been working with Roger Mack on this matter and has identified School Boulevard as a prime location for tree planting and has identified areas within the older part of the community. Roger Mack will have a more complete report for you on this topic. . PARKPLAN.8UM: 8/16/96 Page 6