Loading...
Planning Commission Agenda 11-02-1999 . AGENDA REGULAR MEETING - MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday, November 2,1999 1. 2. " -, . 4. 5. . 6. . -..;;; Members: Dick Frie, Robbie Smith, Roy Popilek, Richard Carlson, Rod Dragsten Council Liaison: Clint Herbst Staff: Jeff O'Neill,Fred Patch, Steve Grittman and Lori Kraemer Call to order. Approval of minutes of the regular meeting held October 5,1999. Consideration of adding items to the agenda. Citizens comments. Puhlic Hearing - Consideration of a request for an amendment to a Planned Unit Development within the B-3 Zoning District to allow for an off-site auto sales/storage lot. Applicant: Dave Peterson's Monticello Ford. Public Hearing - Consideration of a preliminary plat for residential subdivision; and consideration of a request to rezone proposed Klein Farms Sixth Addition plat area from Agricultural - Open Spacc to R-I Single Family Residential. Applicant: Frank Klein & David Klein. 7. Public Hearing - Consideration of an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance to allow for a deferral of parking lot paving and/or curh requirements in the Business Districts. Applicant: City of Monticello. 8. Consideration of an amendment to the Monticello Zoning Ordinance relating to signs to allow electronic message board signs. Applicant: City of Monticello 9. Discussion regarding a Comprehensive Plan amendment to the OAA area affecting the Kjellberg West Trailer Park. 10. Discuss update ideas to the Subdivision Ordinance. 11. Adjourn. . . . Planning Commission Minutes - 10/05/99 MINUTES REGULAR MEETING - MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday, October 5, 1999 Members Present: Dick Frie, Robbie Smith, Richard Carlson, Rod Dragsten, and Roy Popilek Absent: Clint Herbst Staff Present: Jeff O'Neill, Fred Patch, Steve Grittman and Lori Kraemer 1. Call to order. Chair Frie called the meeting to order. 2. Approval of minutes of the regular meeting held September 7. 1999. ROD DRAGSTEN MOVED TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE SEPTEMBER 7,1999 REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING. RICHARD CARLSON SECONDED THE MOTION. Motion carried. ROBBIE SMITH MOVED TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE SEPTEMBER 27, 1999 SPECIAL PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING. ROD DRAGSTEN SECONDED THE MOTION. Motion carried. .., .J. Consideration of adding items to the allenda. Robbie Smith asked to clarify an issue regarding Resurrection Lutheran Church in regard to utilizing the former otlice space for classrooms on Sundays only. This item was placed as Item 12 on the agenda. 4. Citizens comments - None 5. 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 Broadwav. Applicant: GreQ"orv W. Dunn, DDS. Fred Patch provided the staff report noting that the owners of the building located at 106 & 106 'is West Broadway are requesting that a conditional use permit be issued to allow the erection of a 4' x 6' internally illuminated business identi1ication wall sign on the east wall at the rear (south end) of the building~ The business signs are needed to advertise three separate businesses from the same 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. A copy of the sign drawing was provided to each member. Greg Dunn, DDS was unable to attend the meeting. A condition would be that no signs will be displayed on the north wall except for a directional sign. -1- Planning Commission Minutes - 10/05/99 Chair Frie opened the public hearing. Clarence McCarty of CENTCOM and the owner of . this building, stated he is the former owner of the Sunrise Dental office and it is his understanding that Dr. Dunn will take the Sunrise sign down. He also noted that the wiring is already there from the previous sign. Chair Frie closed the public hearing. There was discussion among the members as to why this particular sign was not brought to DA T for review. Fred Patch stated he was given the authority by DA T to review signs and make a decision without DA T' s review. Fred did, however, discuss this particular sign with Pam Campbell, Chairperson of DA T and it was agreed that this did not have to come before the DA T. They also discussed that this proposed sign was to be internally illuminated rather than externally as in the Downtown Revitalization Plan, but that this sign was allowable by code and therefore there was no point in having DA T review it. Nevertheless, it was the consensus of the Planning Commission that they desired DA T review of signs that are allowable only by conditional use permit. The members also discussed regulations in regard to glare as well as color of the sign. Fred stated that there are regulations in place as to glare. Some of the members stated their concern with internal lighting being more obtrusive and that it should meet the same requirements as on Broadway. It was stated that this sign being on Highway 25 would probably not affect Broadway and that the Chamber sign is internally illuminated as well. A MOTION WAS MADE BY ROBBY SMITH TO APPROVE THE ISSUANCE OF A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR THE ERECTION OF THIS 4' X 6' SIGN AT 106 AND 106 'l2 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. 3. There shall be no other sign other than directional and address placed on the South wall. 4. Prior to installatioh, the sign will be approved by City Building Official. ROD DRAGSTEN SECONDED THE MOTION. ROY POPILEK OPPOSED. Motion carried 4 to 1. 6. Public Hearing for consideration of a request for a Conditional Use Permit within the 1-1 Zoning District to allow Outdoor Storage of Equipment and Materials. Applicant: . -2- . . . Planning Commission Minutes - 10/05/99 Mainline Distribution Properties. Steve Grittman provided the staff report stating the applicant, 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 of the building. The applicant proposed to fence in the pad with a chain link fence, using slats in the fence to screen the storage area. 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 applicant shows an existing tree line consisting of II evergreen and 10 deciduous trees, a total of 255 plant units. Therefore, the existing bufferyard is in compliance with the ordinance. Chair Frie opened the public hearing. Mr. Steve Groebner, Groebner & Associates, was present and gave a brief discussion on their request. Mr. Groebner noted that they are not proposing to use a large amount of storage and they have no special storage requirements. He also stated they would have only one trailer which will be used to handle these banded tubes being stored. The only access to this area is their driveway and it is behind their building. Mr. Groebner stated that a good tree line has been established and the elementary school has planted three rows of pine trees as well. Chair Frie closed the public hearing. The members were concerned with security lighting possibly shining into the residential area which is approximately 1/4 mile south of their building. Mr. Groebner stated that currently there is one outdoor security light on the building which shines out into an agricultural field and it has been there since the building was built in approximately 1994 and they have had no complaints to date. He also does not anticipate the need to add more security lighting as he does not foresee this storage area as a high risk area. He also noted the height of the fence would be 7 feet and will have a rolling gate which will be open during business hours and pulled closed and locked after hours. A MOTION WAS MADE BY ROY POPILEK 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 1-1, LIGHT INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT, AS IDENTIFIED IN CHAPTER 15B-4 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE. ROD DRAGSTEN SECONDED THE MOTION. Motion carried. 7. Consideration of an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance to allow for a deferral of parking lot paving and/or curb requirements in the Business Districts. Applicant: Citv of Monticello. -3- Planning Commission Minutes - 10/05/99 Steve Grittman provided the staff report. Following requests which were heard at a . previous Planning Commission meeting, the Commission directed staff to investigate the possibility of establishing a process for deferring paving and/or curbing requirements for certain commercial uses. The current 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. If such 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 different standards which would be applicable to commercial uses. Previous commercial applications were for 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. 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 economics), the primary enforcement measure is revoking the Conditional Use Permit, and perhaps, suing for compliance with the terms of the 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 compliance with all portions of the Zoning Ordinance. It is not clear that this would inspire compliance, however. Chair Frie opened the public hearing. No one was present. Chair Frie closed the public hearing. \ Concerns of the members were specifically of enforcement. Some suggestions were to make a determination based on percentage of improvements being made to existing property and the burden of the Building Official to determine this. A suggestion was to prepare a deferral clause, but again it was noted that enforcement would be an issue as . there is no real threat to a business if they do not abide by the clause. -4- e - .- Planning Commission Minutes - 10/05/99 The Monticello Country Club was also discussed as to whether or not it is significant for them to install curb and gutter other than aesthetics and it was stated it is important for traffic control as well as protection and longevity of the pavement. Typically drainage is an issue, although not in the case of the golf course. The members discussed the possibility of deferring these requirements in lieu of a correction of some other kind. Again, the problem would be enforcement at a later date. The members would like to be able to look at each case individually but do recognize that this would cause inconsistencies. A MOTION WAS MADE BY DICK FRIE TO CONTINUE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND TABLE ACTION ON THE AMENDMENT, SUBJECT TO ADDITIONAL INFORMATION AND RE-NOTIFICA TION TO INCLUDE ALL DISTRICTS. RICHARD CARLSON SECONDED THE MOTION. Motion carried. 8. Consideration of approval of Preliminarv Plat of "Monticello Commerce Center Fourth Addition". Applicant: Monticello Industrial Park Inc.. Pfeffer Co. Inc. Jeff O'Neill presented the staffreport stating the Planning Commission is requested to review the preliminary plat of Monticello Commerce Center Fourth Addition. This plat is located directly north of the new high school property in the 1-1 A zoning district. The plat consists of 6.38 acres. This plat is being established in conjunction with a development of the Twin City Die Castings facility which will be developing a facility that produces machine parts from magnesium. The 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 all together will result in an 80,000 sq. ft. facility. 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 will need to include 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. No outside storage is planned. Chair Frie opened the public hearing. There was no one present. Chair Frie closed the public hearing. It was clarified that the property owner on the other side of this parcel is the Monticello Schools (High School) and'that the roadway is a prviate drive and entirely on school property. Buffering is a requirement of the developer of the facility, Twin City Die Castings. A MOTION WAS MADE BY ROBBIE SMITH TO APPROVE MONTICELLO COMMERCE CENTER FOURTH ADDITION PRELIMINARY PLAT. MOTION BASED ON THE FINDING THAT THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE INDUSTRIAL PLAT AT THIS LOCATION IS CONSISTENT WITH THE -5- . Planning Commission Agenda -11/02/99 messages without flashing. The approved sign was 2 feet high by 12 feet, 8 inches long. The proposed sign would be 5 feet, 1 inch by 18 feet long, an increase from about 26 square feet to morc than 90 square feet. The proposed change would allow for a longer message on two lines, instead of just one line as currently approved. Because of the multiple uses on this site, and the intensity of the improvement, the City approved a PUD which allowed for more than the allowed signage. The request would increase the size even more. The proposed amendment allowing electronic message board signs states that the allowable signage is not to be increased by the use of such signs, but that the electronic sign is to comprise a portion of the currently allowed sign area. The City has the ability to approve a different amount under the PUD, but the PUD process is to be used where there is a finding that the site development resulting from the PUD i1exibility is superior in quality and design to that otherwise allowed. It is not clear from this request how that finding might be made. If the only argument in this regard is that the larger message is less likely to flash or cause driver distraction, it may be questioned whether these types of signs are appropriate at all. Moreover, the original sign request was based on the recommendation of another sign installer who evidently believed that the smaller sign was adequate for the job. . B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS 1. Motion to recommend approval of the PUD amendment allowing the expanded outdoor sales/storage and sign changes, subject to the conditions listed in Exhibit Z, based on findings that the proposed amendment meets the requirements of the City's PUD zoning regulations for superior design. 2. Motion to recommend approval of the PUD amendment allowing the expanded outdoor sales/storage, but not the sign changes, subject to the conditions listed in Exhibit Z, based on a finding thatthe outdoor storage area will meet the requirements of the City's PUD zoning regulations, and a finding that the approved signage plan currently in place better meets the City's intent with regard to commercial sign regulation. 3. Motion to recommend denial ofthe PUD amendment, based on a finding that the proposal does not conform to the City's standards for the use of planned unit development. 4. Motion to table action on the PUD amendment, subject to additional information. . . Planning Commission Agenda -11102/99 c. STAFF RECOMMENI)ATION StafT does not recommend approval of the increased signage. This site has been permitted, under the previous approval, a significant increase in allowable sign number and area. The proposed Ordinance to allow electronic message board signs states that such signs are not to increase the allowable sign area. Although the applicant's new sign contractor states that the revised sign would be convenient from the standpoint of allowing more flexibility in the messages it transmits, it does not appear to be necessary to provide effective communication. With regard to the sales lot expansion, sta[[ believes that this expansion of the PUD is appropriate in general. However, there has been very little detail submitted in support of the proposal with regard to site improvements, screening size or materials, or landscaping. These details are typically required of PUD applications, and the applicant was notified of statTs request for them. If only the minimum requirements are to be applied, it may be possible for staff to review a more complete submission following the Planning Commission's recommendation. If more than the minimum is suggested, it may he preferable to require more complete plans prior to approval. D. SUPPORTING DATA . Exhibit ^ - Off-site Storage Site Plan Exhibit B - Site revision and related topics submitted by applicant Exhibit Z - Conditions of PUD Approval . . l'LI~1 . I ~J.' A~'rn' 9 ~~3Lq-' "<0j/)?;l:~ ~.>:./I ~/?~'"';7'~~:/I~(/!l!~~~/~;,~~/ ,::J:~j~:.:~jfi~~:~-"("""!!'!- :;J 'T' - ".., ,....>- ..../.../~~"!).i (l~'> It.;, II' W''h- ,.,' , ~-~ ~~. i _ .~....' - /" /'-: \! J:"" VJ,'~ __~/ ,/ /' ,/ /~i""~ .....J~.,' /.' I ~"'.////i-p.. :""..~~~//j .l ~_... ~~~ ~.~. -I~~~' ! .,/ " / .... '..i .....: I. ~""'......(,/ ,,: ... ,,' .....,.. -......t "',,~//; ~ ~~, -- \ .' 't..,'.. 1.7' ' . ., ' .......... "," , I~"'" 1".....,... "';-.... / " .\._. - ~_. 1.' ..~. , ./ ~ ....., . . ", 'Sl: ~ ,I I , I' ~,.. .......'!"J r',' ." .' ~ "" 'L_,_'/ "'I) I ;.... '....................... ~ .... '. '-'I I ! ,. , , .. Sf:' , .. ':-.... ~.. :', Ir! A-f>-\ -.~o . -' L-n...!<J. /h,<< I 'I:l:'", h_ "-/ I/''' ./,' .' I' --:-,.,-" ......,Il..;.. ,.. ..1'>-....>--.../ /;^ . .)rrfJ .'-1 ~iJi ,!::,'>:--,~'/ ..>,.,/ <..............<~I..(, '/:'/.,'/>')> __,_~,~ '; /. ....:') <:'J . --$~: ( 1 !;! , /.' r /. / :f ...'-~~t> [~<::::~Y)"'>.,>-:'.:/<~.' , ,/1// >-....~--f...j . :' i' . ;" ,I {;-'-'" . ~- ~>" 'f I .. :'.,:',.: ~~. '(;''>' ,......y...~fl;. !':;'~::~~~iJj:..", ... -', (:i,..' / /<-:./'-'--,.... /,:' ,:. :', -:n '- g, . / ' '. _ '. !,'~. .^' ! ". ..,st:-.,. ...~.'':t;p:r..' . . ! . .... '/ . ~ ... "...... I / . .' ,~.... ~ I'{ . ......._~ ~ I J j...... -~ 7-........ ....../ / ' :" ">- '.... I...... ........ "' J \':,';:- r I I........., .......""t._..',1 " (,......'--1,) (r / ;' 'I/; ................... /r"). ......... ;.. // ~ , " ~ I..:,I! ""'.. '....... ~-~... / ' )-.~...... [.......... .....,.... . iI.., ,'/........... '.....~ I.'-f ...... 1"'- \, .' . : ~. , _c ~- ---.' --- : "'--... ", ,'.. .;-'.... .' ..,." ( l.,. ' ............ / q,: ". '" . --~. -. _.~'. "'-/// ........... (j) ..' , :' : , .,-.,...... K...~ " /If-..':~.tj ..:... /.,' / ," '~." , " / -; .....'} ''Y) 'I....,. I ').." r....... ~, ., '\ \ ~/// <!:' . :.'</ ...;,;,...~ ". ~ /,>7 -.....';.,>,-.... ....:'.. "''-'. ' \ ~v//' t- , . -"'-..'.:./ /I!;,,/~/~,,~~,,':'j !~.....) ........::~~ - '. I:)-t \ // / 0 , I ~:.. '...:.J ,r "j;; , -", . / J--- '''''' -"-, ~~ '- // (j) l---------.....,-:,.---~~-.~ --~,.0.. / f,fi /4'.""'-'~ --....,,,.... - "t;,y / W ~ ~ ;' --,-> '<., ~. - / I.:..... ", ~. Z' ~==---1...'- i ' / 'b.......... ......-. . . / .3::!......, 9:- .' -'. ". . ~~~ ~ ~ _.-- I v' . ,~ /O'fj '~'''' -c...../ ~ I ~..__....., _ ' ~ 1:, \...__.____ ___" - .' ",:'.i"///ff~/r" .....~....... /g\ :.( \ JI ~----------- ; II " ;',' .: ...... :' / :" 6/ /)--,.. ....j - ~ ~--- I ...............-_, I t' , . ~ i ,: j (\ ................... - ----- L -.' "',.' -,.,., // J' ~----, ------ I -...... ... Y, I ~ --- -I ---- -------- : /~~...------..' / l l, : I J ~ ' . I ' - ~ --....... ,---- ~ IIJ~ I ' i' -)iI' ~-------______ --- .....<~-r...j~ -- '.. - -".1 .' Ii: vHWA Y -~-, ---.... i I ,I \ ---..........~ %.> -~ _ \ ._,. - -- .--m'_~:':-~"~'-O::'S::l:;":: - ~- ......-..-..-.-----\ -~_.-. .\",-,,~~.~ ----.~.!__.~I ;' ......... "I"" ,- ~-- -, -':' , '1 r...... ~/)' , --......---~-...- , '.. ;" -. - -\ " ~. i ; '<'t(~ _ , J' .. ---- j .... ", (----~--.7-'------T--~r~---- : II 1,]lI, '... '. I:' cr---~ I I ~\ .' ~-.~~ ) /:~~~iQ i ..l1!'~L ~-N( THO~AS , "--a I. _" N- i '''''- ........?~ . 1,_._____~-__-... I - 2: I .:l... ." >'..., I 7Z ifi -. . ~ "~I - ',\ \ : ~ ~-. ( / 4.,::t;.-.--.-- .;.... -:\ I i"--.-:O"'>; ~.-.- $' ~--'-FHECSEA- \ -.- -./ t;;--- t; \ ! . \ -/I:~----- \,/'% \ c_' .: ..--- \ ' ". B:-- (' IA' {ff ___ __ ~ / / //, -- " ~~~:~--=~-~ - ---- - ! I I / DUNDAS i j / / / / ,) ---.I .-1' ~ I J ~ . ~ C1 o o ~ ~ ......) <J: : o -- . --- . ROAD ~ " . ~ , ':.~I{1f-J ..I - ,-'- , I Exhibi,it A · Sit.._ofi.~\Jfh . --- 'z' r--/ : ~. : COt , , ! . . . ,0 '1 ;; II J -"'-- '-., -" (- -.._- B '_.'-- ' ..~.. I I ZlZ'd ZS- LLElrS62219 SANDIISRG ROA~ - --- - .-\ -- - -1-'- --.'1 ._,.., . - ,'- -').- . - .- 1- - - -I -- - ~ - T' ,- --'- - ._ L.- -.-1.-- .- -\ -- .. _ L- - __.1-- _ 1_- - \-~----- I \ , i 1 , , \ . \ \ \ ! , \ rim. -- 1\: , \ \ i \ : I I \ \ \ \ . \ \ I \ \ · t \ \ " i l- - .. - _I ~...........--.- ...""",..-~....---......-------~ -. -"- . - . -' II' _. - -. .- _. .- --. - - - _' _ L_ I' . - \ \ I \ I I \ \ I I 1._, _ -.'- -. - ',- ,- -, .-' I I \ I \ j . \ \ ~!;G <<# --"'" .... r ...;)/..J --'~ (-- " ...--- - .- \- - - -l-' . . -, .. _ -J -" .'- 1-. -. -. -.1- - -, ~ ..- . - ........... .- .- - .-. ., - -\ - . - r - -. --I - .. ~L ,- --. \ - -~.~. ~ -. .,-- \ -, - , - - \ - .-. \ . -,-' 1 .~ ~~ .... - . . - .. , ~~ ~ - \ 1 ~. .-' - 1 \ - , I \ \ I I \ I i \ \ I . \ \ I \ I \ \ \ I I I ' I I \ I I 5ECUR~ -~"oiAGE I I _. ,_, _ _ _ _ .J . 1 '. .'-, \ ".... ~- ..../ \ \ I _---#-1 ...-------..-~.. MI\IR\1q~ fIl0~O 01 ~~9S:80 66-21-81 Exhibit B · Site P.lan 1H0 89S 219 -~TO 1ol011:l . . .- '- CONDITIONS OF PUll APPROVAL - Monticello Ford PUD Amendment 1. Submission ofa landscape plan for the expanded site, illustrating compliance with the City's requirements for ground cover and tree planting, The plan should also address any landscaping which is part of the screening plan (see note 2. below). 2. Submission of a plan showing the screening proposed for the secure storage lot, including construction details of fencing. 3. Submission ofa revised site plan detailing the surfacing materials, including pavement, curb, and gutter, of the sales area. 4. Approval of the City Engineer with regard to grading and drainage. 5. Approval of the City Engineer with regard to curb cut locations along Sandberg Road in relation to curb cuts for the main building site. 6. Comments of other City Staff. EXHIBIT Z . . . Planning Commission Agenda -11/02/99 6. Consideration of a request for a Preliminary Plat for Klein Farms 6th Addition within the Monticello Orderly Annexation Area. Applicant: Frank Klein and Dave Klein. (NAC) A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: Frank Klein and David Klein have submitted an application for preliminary plat for approximately forty acres south of Klein Farms 4th Addition. The site borders the west side of Fallon Avenue, and is crossed by a number of utility easements, including United Power Association, NSP, and Amoco. The Monticello Orderly Annexation Area Board reviewed the proposal at its October meeting and made the required findings of contiguity with existing City boundaries, and consistency with the MOAA land use plan. Both the MOAA and City of Monticello land use plans call for low density residential development on this property. The applicant has requested an R-I, Single Family Residential zoning designation. The development is proposed to consist of 51 single family lots on about 23 developable acres. Another 3.07 acres is designated for park, adjoining the south line of Pioneer Park. About thirteen acres in the southwest portion of the tract is left in an outlot due to the location ofthe 315 toot wide NSP easement and accessibility problems the easement causes. A small wetland has been delineated in the southeast portion of the property. This wetland is proposed to remain untouched. The developer has designated a regional stormwater pond area under a portion of the NSP transmission lines. The City Engineer will need to comment on both the location and accessibility of the pond for maintenance purposes. Planning stafTwould recommend a more natural shape to the ponding area to avoid the proposed straight line edges. As with other similar features, a landscape plan is requested which illustrates the proposed vegetation of the pond area. It is recommended that plant materials be used which can withstand the wet-dry cycles of stormwater ponds, but which do not required mowing. A mixture of shrubs and grasses would be appropriate in the proposed location. There are some park issues which are raised by the proposal. The plat drawing illustrates a park in the northeast corner oCthe project which would be connected to the rest of the plat by pathway. One of the proposed connections follows the UP A easement along the north boundary of the plat to Farmstead A venue, a part of Klein Farms 4th Addition. "fhe City has been requiring pathway dedication along the UP A easement as other plats have developed. A 30 f()ot wide corridor was preserved from the south portion of Klein Farms 4th Addition. Another 40 feet should be reserved from the rear portion of Lots 1-4, Block 1 to widen this pathway. This would follow the line of the pathway dedication east of Farmstead to the park. The additional pathway dedication would cut into the rear yards of the lots, reducing their size below the 12,000 square foot minimum. It would appear that there is adequate depth in the lots to the south (Lots 1 ~5, Block 5) to make this adjustment without losing lot count. The Parks Commission reviewed this plat and recommended approval of the park and pathway systems. One of their specific recommendations is to include a pathway that follows the UP A easement described above. The Park Commission's meeting minutes will be made a part of the Planning Commission Agenda -11/02/99 . Planning Commission's review packet. The Park Commission also commented on the potential for tree preservation within the plat. There is a significant stand of trees in the middle of the plat area. The Grading Plan indicates a few areas where trees are to be saved. The landscaping plan should indicate more dearly the areas and methods of tree preservation. Street construction should be designed to match the extension offarmstead A venue from the north, including the requirement for sidewalks on one side. Park Drive would not require sidewalks, and may be built at the City's narrower 30 foot width. The extension of Park Drive to the west would likely require the wider construction standard, subject to a more thorough review of its ultimate route. A concept plan for the neighboring property (discussed below) would be important in helping to determine the standards for this street. finally with regard to pedestrian access, the plat illustrates two park/pathway access openings. The first is from the Park to Park Drive, and the second is from the Park Drive cui-de-sac to the south. Planning staff is not sure that these access paths would be necessary with the other pathway and sidewalk in the subdivision. Since side yard walkways can become problems from both the neighbors' and City's perspective, it may be best to eliminate these small paths. As a part of consideration for access to the pond, a wider pathway/maintenance access may be considered in Block 5, generally in the area of Lots 6-8. . This issue also relates to the lot layout in the northwest corner of the plat, and the impacts that the easements wi II have on the future development of the neighboring property to the west. The current plat proposal includes a street extension into the next parcel. However, it is not dear how this access will be utilized. It would be beneficial to see a more comprehensive sketch plan of the area to ensure that the access street to thc west is well placed. Also relating to layout is the gap between the Amoco easement and the NSP easement. The Amoco easement coincides with the rear lot line of the lots in this plat, but a narrow strip of land would exist between the lots and the NSP easement. ^ portion ofthis area is proposed to be graded for storm water management, but additional development would be seemingly impossible. It may be worthwhile to consider extending lot lines across the Amoco easement to the NSP easement to encourage beneficial use of this area. The applicant should comment on this idea, or other concepts which they are considering. 8. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS Decision I: Rezoning from A-O to R-I, Single Family Residential I . Motion to recommend approval of the rezoning to R -1, based on a finding that the zoning designation would be consistent with the low density residential recommendations of the City's land use plan for the area. . 2. Motion to recommend denial of the rezoning, based on findings developed at the hearing. 3. Motion to table action on the rezoning, subject to additional information. Although it appears possible to develop this plat as proposed, from an engineering standpoint it is Planning Commission Agenda -11/02/99 . preferable to have a complete approval from the City Engineer along with a description of the financing plan for lateral and trunk improvements as part of preliminary plat approval. We do not have this information at this time. Decision 2: Preliminary Plat for Klein Farms 6th Addition 1. Motion to recommend approval of the preliminary plat for Klein farms 6th Addition, subject to conditions listed in Exhibit Z, and based on a finding that the plat meets the standards of the R-1 Zoning District and the intent of the City's Comprehensive Plan. 2. Motion to recommend denial of the preliminary plat based on findings developed at the hearing. 3. Motion to table action on the preliminary plat, subject to additional information. C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION . Staff recommends approval of the rezoning as stated in Decision 1, Alternative 1. The area is clearly recommended for low density residential, and the R-l designation meets that intent. With regard to the preliminary plat, Staff recommends tabling action to address the issues raised in this report. If the City is inclined to approve the plat at this stage, it should only with the conditions attached as Exhibit Z. The plat is consistent with the standards of the R-l district. Issues which need to be addressed include the location of the connection to the property to the west, and the additional pathway route along the UP A utility casement. The requested sketch plan would verify that the proposed street extension is the best solution, or that a revision should be considered. Second, while there appears to be adequate area to accommodate the pathway route, this will result in changes to the plat as well. A third issue raised is the use of the land left over, both between the utility easements and in the southwest corner ofthe property. Finally, the grading plan should be revised to show a more natural pond shape, and a landscaping plan should be prepared which illustrates how the pond can be both a visual amenity and require minimal public maintenance. The landscaping plan should also detail tree preservation efforts to be made during construction. D. SUPPORTING DATA Exhibit A - Site Location Exhibit B - Preliminary Plat Exhibit C - Grading Plan Exhibit D - Parks Commission Minutes of 10/21/99 Exhibit Z - Conditions of Plat Approval . "<-r;;~$l:' '. , .,'_ iOt't; . - . . _, . ,~' <./fttr ~ .--: ~ ',,' ~I ./(~) /'~'->_'"1;;:'~"~::. - .' /'. ' . . , I ~ /, "rr sl. '. _ -t::' '-""'~ /!"'j'-"Rl:t;r,...... /"'1/0'" ~ l' ~'" t;;. "'~ I ' . ! "_ '/;<{. I /.... ~l'ISr. " t;; "',.1"" .... "eljej, I" ..Ii!!,-, '~'r , i' f{t;t;,. W "'" I . .7.1& ". 19Cto:"U./-t,,, ~, . _ 1/ c" -- '", I" , , '. , <>',<; ,0:," di '/lc " ::"..., i ". $, '" ;:-.; '/ /~ -" ", Iii 1./>" , ','" " " ,"<."! , .9.<1. '11,"( II ':'7;;"-:'~1' (~f;lf, ;;jj<< ;! ~'lr><~ , "'" lit 'k"" Ii"''$' '. t: r.. ,/~.... , ' --..--: '~7 ,;' "-j ~ '</k'-i!jjJ"/"" ."'. //;; "/~ . 7#,' ':"'<!{:. .) r-";:">",,---i'j. r c.". ! r~ .! ., 0' 0'-...:/ /..., '. / ./" /", ',!. "j -Ai. <~ ! /":.'" . ! ..........j.....' \0 '-"//"" I,. la.,? '~"'\I, . (.... "- /' /.<';'>.,,,",,. '" c'>"'-".'-I/ '~l (~. I r--:-::..'-' I $1: . /" 10 . j' I[; ""', '.j... '" _, "".--zr " /f",'t'; ", 'l"f!7'<.".,,/, "'," ,#;; "''$'<1:1" ',j/l.'.., I,. i, ,<J (~i ", ('.::>:' <C.' '. '. /. /'.' i ~~..'/;;; ""$.,,,. ,j ($'. /Iirc', f;; '< ".pM / '" ''''''' "", . I" 1 i." .. Cc',J I. '., It' ') Ii'./ /.." : /' ~ " " ""f,' ,~"". . i I, '. I r. ..., '. I, . / r '. ," . ~'\. t. . ~. '/;' j<<~f{r- -:-j~ /"~!<I ' . . <>,,/('~. 1 11f-:';"~"'.-...j!..~ . I ;fS<"/k,'<-~" "<'_ ~ , "~---"""'-!.") '. '. I~, I.... . '< ',,~ " '"i' ('~" ~'" ",,~ . "'::"0/. "'/Ifii":<., '." '. . "' ", "..' "<", "">..' '. '. '; -'! . . . -- III , , ,', ;& 'j;," '. .. .. '.. ......... /~, ~ "'"N,,, ,. ~ .. '..~F4-./ ~.. '<:::,<",'" !,.......~'Y ~""'" ~ o '..>C---...", I! ,.", ' ;$ , ", ",,' / . , / " . '",.. ~;;=~=:7th/..:...">S'r.~'~.'-;.'~:_.:1f lij -- '),>).~..,t;,__ ''j(~~ ~':.c__.. .."\_~ · , ~", "'.[/ , ! ~ ~ '-C. -~-'~, /c. ,: 4' ....', z,,, Co t i: I .,:':i.:/);, \I--~-'---- , >'t",""<</i;l'" ~', ]J---~"~--------------- 1/1-....' '.....,- : , ".. ".., ' .. ;. ~. , .... .. , . ~..~ l '>_, '>, ',,.....! ~ ,; ''''''''"'''' ~ '.. ' ....~~~-~- I , ", " ~ 0.., ~ "0', , ,:Ds". ~'..,,!~-, , ": < '"0,.. " , , ',I I-tICH..4;-'---_____~ -\ ....... ......... \0.~.. '~____" "" '. ",< ~ .. , \ I ,":~........... ;"~<"'e. "'i:" -'-,"", ", ...... .._~..... }.vj.,.. "" -'0" t"",., .' ~~ ""'~', I + ~ \ k ~ j 1.1:: ''', i 1 'fNV$ ~.. ~)''<~ '),'e.." ;1;:........ - ( / -1, [~Il~,~,~, I ; .; l,f .. i ......:c:'. I ~ .. ~ / i-=o~.--"R~~O:--Bli--=:::ii J ' __I ' '--~11~ '-:=::::::""1- """",, ~ , i : I ~ 'I I Z ' " ".. ' , , I ~-,... ,0 -~-- g: L~ L_~""'""I~ : ,"_.. t-- TEAD_PBJV~" 'J,(:-!-Ei}-~-~ i I:, ":"\ji rIn: i )."'\'\'.\~';c' ~ : i: .- ':"I ~'pUHTR, \.~~ &d'~') .. , , _~,_ i---IJ'ycl~;:\ ',1',\>/: g "'''''' ~ = "C"_ -I'r-- l~; J", ,0 '<0 \ ....\\ -,~ · " .~ -~SIJ I:r _..~, i ~ :0 "'- '/Ify.> \ :....:%, r'" ' =-~~ C , "<>Il"'~~\ ~_ rT~j ':' a: '"I'!i '...L - , - ..ec'=-fu"''''' '''''" . k,~~", "\0 " : <.;J - cr--;m:vD;, \ -;=;:-" ~--=:::I r ~~ ~ :-- --.:__-: I '," .. ~ \}!-_ ~ _ ,?; _ _ I: ' > \ ijml''''':':';c\\c~11 :iT' , Ie , ':~;;, .:~.,,'!J ~'" \ ~"Y"!i '~i'" --~ II ~,: - ;-:P[R~l"J U"';':m\ " r'; !!IJ:~\ Tie ffi-;. 'O.~.. _ {. V t: _ ~. ~.' '" L. ~-?>. -C)j iID!('::} _ ,:1 g ::: [I 'n, ~ ....' " ~, ,.<0 it - '8 I,~".. ." ~~ ~~"'" IL I 00 '''''. i 'PI . ~\', id. ~ '"' W! ,~ , :~. L ", '_, " ,"" c ~ ..' g , I ~,~ i W Ie, ~, Iff , ,,,-',r ~"'> c.I", ,];~,,_"__ 'w ci ~ Z' I ~ ':or' "'I> '~I t;;. I i,;'h,-"" _.. _'__..~ , ~ U I ,.',' :,g '0. < > '"""c.:__n_.., 'I '-- -' "-"l"P' I ~ -''''-1' .c i '.1 .._"im,,:~,... 1"""- ,1111" I, "". : 'i I! · .'1 '10 - .!! .. .. r F <c,i . " II . ''? 'I ~____ Ii I, 'I >- H z B "Il . . -' I I I I~'.... I / l "-----~------ i / <t> ~-______.::._:.:::::::::::::._::::~::_::_=__ I , ./ t: ',t I 0 " ~. I / .'f . / ) ...-....... J......._ . . ........ ..,... /~ ,v- -, SITe . N.E. 85th___ STflE~~__ S>-?'> ! <f~>: \ \ I \\, \))-.. '..- , -""""11 I \\ N:E. 8S!~i ~,~ite Location z STREET Exhibit A . . ,,:,,?, :"i:' ~i ~~... ;1~.," l~'~ :~hCt:,' ,(.>J '<'1 DIAMOND DRIVE ' I r - T -- T -" ~ ~ f- I 0) I " f ~ ~ I c::l I ~/3 \ < \ ~ ....: I 0" I ('.').-';. t ~ _, I I "'-1 r- ~ '-. ~, fJ' b:i, 0 0, ~C.~~ L~-i\'00~'\' '~Ilh CI rr of'MONTlCELLO II '""M ~ --- <Jrr <.j -.~ ..;;''I'''J~',~n (' ," ' I --j I -t r-- I I ,,'" ,I'- "<~"'''-I I'Af,K \,0" CITy OF Alo",rICELL~i> ':i 0 \ .' ~., \..~\.... 'f.. 1';. 1 ( . ~~+~;.' G~:J:t::,~;~:':2T/~;":;; ~,~'"x;'" '; cg.'i~~[MW , 1;: ..'~ ("' 4.. '.-.wa.o.,~05.'04-9.E: . IJl2.81 /-CiTl' , liMIT'; '\ " ~, ~ . 1 I ,-.:.'1. ~ ~! I w <n o ~ i5 '" J ! i'O,. ;~,~ l "4' ~' Z kl > ~ I ! ,- ----F ... ' ~."'n' I ---I r, --- -li~ --- ---, ':!---l[ iT --- 1~ ~. 'I I . ,'.1 I , : I I; : I 'Iii! 4 s,i 3 ~.,! 2 ~"! 1 ~I ,: 1.J.5119 :11:14,.m,'$f" II 11104,Xl.59 r '., ~ L __---.JI 'L. :' ': :' ': ..n", : I __ J L -.-:,~ 'L..., ----JI L_.--.J' --lJ.7 ~6cr' ~J 1_ _ -r -.J <.'''-'-10----____.. PARK ~ :;; ID::. '~' ~, Z :I ,; 5 1 "_I-. 50 FOOT AM~CO EAS....:lJ T '- '-' 1 'D l-/'---r' , ;J~ : Ii< L ___ ...:u...' .._l,e', ., - - "tT j ~__,~II<jeo! i . --- .-------,--- - s- n't"H~'i~~'+~~<l - . ..,~., 1, : ~ : I \. I I I.: ~ L .':,.....""'o!.~--~ ' ,- I ZOo ij~ l I I i i r i ._+.!j'>:l!._ I I I (i' . "'-.' ! $" .:, . !:! <J ft 48' !? .., ..""'t~ ">' ';," 0," ~1l1~,.~J..../', ...., :;:f,,~ .. }; -r. , ~: .: ~<'l::.~,,_. OUTLOT A ,- ~ . ,\ ,. .:.::' ,~'/- ~;; I <OJ ::.. wr..,-! "~ ~~. " _~.....l.,r; " :' f ~ N ,r.Jd'~r, C",'.,I\ S89;'IO'05"W \. '.c'"7',,!" l.lr.",- (0,'1 U'.,~ /'.;C' if"", I'" trl._' ~,j~ I/:l 1~~7.0e. ,~'. ~ ,- C;I,i"I~;np"n~ P, &: C"ii?,:i. J /-.:Lt.."!t,' Exhibit B · Preliminary Plat . I L \ -j I -4. " I POND OUTLET I '..IE 950.0 ,'. -"" ".~'44-- EXrSW4i:' PONO NWL::z!)483 12,....[,. ~~o , ,,11- . f' i\f-( f\ I '" I. . ~"i '\ :: I, r-- .~ "c I I I I L DlA\\UNI> [JRl\l: ~ T -" ~'1 -:< f- n f · I' I ~ I ,~~ \;) I I ~ f.",--" . r,''', fJ "'~\I "~I:'~-I \ (,l ' 00 ~ 'cr----"-----J J....I ~ ~ WI . .., t-""./t'- . ,~. '" . i-' I I ~) I ~.~ ,L r ,') I " J ",' C"t't < " - 'f. . )~~: .. 0" \ \ Q' p... 0 . a.; J---I.':.. \ " ? 0 \ r- 50 FOOT I UPA ~AS''''l''T tiT( LIM~ TS .1 ~' I,.' ,,: : I i !'ji'~_W._. K " 0'."''-'"-''' ".,......., , To" , - -. ~I: PARK S TRUC T --'_, 'ORARr -DE-SAC , -.') F.\ I'.' :1 ,~ Z '".<JJ , \, ", " ',- EXISTING ~ OTHER Oli' BE RAZED 957.5 Ij::: ' .~...: ' / ~7:'? Sf II " ..,' '1 }/ #I :;7 I INST ALL CULVER: c. !'t';i)~ ./""--~'1'j,:,_ / OUTLOT A ,_ ~..<l i ~', ", ReMOVE',' EXISTING I FENCe; i " " ". ."'--., -- "1''- C'~ "" :.'\' "j. I 'I ;) I ".1' [ W". iUU] l'- - 1- ~ l ( ." ^ II!"~~ -.... " ' "" -------J- -----~--:._- - . _. --,_.,~~-~.._~._-~-~~~~-,~~~.~~~'~'-~~~~ . SI'LI'! . . . Parks Commission Minutes - 10/21/99 6. Update on Klein Farms 6th Park. JefT O'Neill, Deputy City Administrator, reported that the application for thc Klein farms 6th Addition preliminary plat is on the November Planning Commission Agcnda. The Parks Commission had agreed to the concept of the Klein Farms park area being located at the southeast side of the existing Pioneer Park at the June 24, 1999 meeting. It had been discLlssed at the previous park meeting that the land was wooded and would be added as a passive area to the existing park and also provide a buffer to the housing development. Mr. O'Neill rcquestcd a motion stating the recommendation of the Park Commission regarding the concept for the park area. A MOTION WAS MADE BY EARL SMrrH TO ACCEPT THE NORTHEAST 3.07 ACERS, PLUS CASH FOR REMAINING DEDICATION REQUIREMENTS, FOR . . KLEIN FARMS 6TH ADDITION. THE FOLLOWING WOULD BE REQUIRED: 1. THE PLANNING COMMISSION REQUIRE A 30' PATHWA Y ACCESS BETWEEN LOTS 6 AND 7 BLOCK 3 TO THE PARK. 2. INCLUDE A PATHWAY EXTENSION ALONG TIlE NORTHERN UPA EASEMENT. 3. REQUEST TIlE CITY ENGINEER TO REQUIRE A GRADING PLAN THAT WILL PRESERVE AS MANY TREES AS POSSIBLE. Motion passed unanimously. (Rick Traver absent) LoD . . . CONDITIONS OF PRELIMINARY PLAT APPROY AL - Klein Farms 6th Addition I. Submission of a sketch plan showing layouts of the neighboring property to verify the feasibi I ity of the street connection location. 2. Incorporation of an additional 40 foot wide pathway from Farmstead Avenue to the west plat boundary. 3. Revision of the lots to accommodate the added pathway. 4. Elimination of the internal 20 foot wide pathway connections. (This IS contrary to Parks Commission recommendation). 5. Addition of sidewalk along Farmstead Avenue from the north plat boundary to Fallon Avenue. 6. Addition of pathway within the Fallon A venue right of way. 7. Revision of the plat to illustrate future use of the land between the Amoco and NSP casements. 8. Revision of the grading plan to show a more natural pond shape. 9. Submission of a landscaping plan showing an appealing treatment of the pond area which minimizes the need for public maintenance, such as mowing, and which illustrates the proposed tree preservation efforts. 10. Revision of the plat to show adequate maintenance vehicle access to the pond. 11. Comments of other City Staff. 12. Preparation of a finance plan funding lateral and trunk improvements. Exhibit Z - Conditions of Preliminary Plat Approval . . . -=;.., Planning Commission Agenda -11102/99 7. Consideration of an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance to allow for a deferral of parking lot paving and/or curb requirements in the Business Districts. Applicant: City of Monticello. (NAC) A. IZEfERENCE AND BACKGROUND: Following requests which were heard at a previous Planning Commission meeting, the Commission directed staff to investigate the possibility of establishing a process for deferring paving and/or curbing requirements for certain commercial uses. The current zoning regulations allow for such a deferral for industrial uses in the industrial districts. ^ separate text mnendmentwould be necessary to accommodate these requests in commercially zoned areas. If such 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 different standards which would be applicable to commercial uses. For the industrial district, the intent ofthe deferral is to allow for the likelihood of future expansion where the installation of concrete 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 (often non-conforming) business was remodeling and redeveloping over time. This was the case with both Little Mountain Fecd and lIawk's Bar. For these uses, the issue is whether a limited improvementto 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 arc existing, and where the expansion or remodeling is correcting some other signficant 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 economics), the primary enforcement measure is revoking the Conditional Use Permit, and . Planning Commission Agenda -11/02/99 perhaps, suing for compliance with the terms of the Zoning Ordinance. "['his 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 compliance with all portions of the Zoning Ordinance. It is not clear that this would inspire compliance, however. Finally, the draft ordinance has been written to include both the PZM and A-O Districts as potential applications. The Planning Commission's interest was in allowing flexibility for both the Golf Course expansion and those commercial uses which have converted former residential buildings along Broadway. The new draft would apply the sanle standards to these areas as for other applicable sites. B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS 1. Motion to recommend approval of the 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 difficult to apply and to enforce. . 3. Motion to table action on the amendment, subject to additional information. C. STAFF RECOMMENDA nON As noted previously, the di11lculty in tracking and enforcing this CUP would be great, and staffis 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. The ordinance is set up to allow properties which are being expanded or remodeled, typically to allow for a new use. The ordinance does not attempt to incorporate valuation issues as it has been our experience that such clauses are difficult to evaluate. Instead, the requirements of the permit allow the City some f1exibility in determining where the deferral will be allowed, and incorporates the approval of the City Engineer regarding drainage and traffic control as well. D. SUPPORTING DATA . Exhibit A - Draft Ordinance Amendment . . . City of Monticello Wri~ht County, Minnesota AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE ]0, CHAPTER 3, SECTION 3-5 [01, OF THE MONTICELLO ZONING ORDINANCE RELATING TO PAVING AND CURBING REQUIREMENTS IN THE A-O, B-], B-2, B-3, B-4 and PZM ZONING DISTRICTS. THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MONTICELLO, MINNEscrrA l-IEREI3Y ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Chapter 3, Section 3-5 [OJ is amended by adding thc following: [D] 9. (t) ST ALL, AISLE, AND DRIVEWAY DESIGN CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT IN THE A-O, B-1, B-2, B-3, B-4 AND PZM 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 bc 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. Ill. Only properties which have existing buildings and are being expanded or remodeled for a new use shall be eligible for this conditional use permit. IV. The applicant must show, and the Planning Commission must find, that thcrc are existing non-conformities ofthe property which are being eliminated by the expansion or remodeling whichjustify a deferral to the paving, landscaping, or curbing . . . requirements. v. A deferral shall be considered by the City as a pali 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 gnmted for no more than two (2) years, after which the paving, landscaping, and curbing shall be brought into conformance with the zoning ordinance ffi1d the approved plans. Section 2. This ordinance shall become effective from and after its passage and publication. / /s/ / . . . Planning Commission Agenda -11102/99 8. Consideration of an amcndment to the Monticello Zoning Ordinance relating to si2ns to allow electronic messa2e board si2ns. Applicant: City of Monticcllo. (NAC) A. REfERENCE AND BACKGROUND: At its previous meeting, the Planning Commission and staff discussed the application of an amendment for electronic message board signs to the High School. Staff has researched the amendment and application made on behalf of the school. That amendment addressed "public signs", and specifically allowed electronic message signs for governmental applications (such as the school campus). The proposed amendment attached to this report addresses the use of electronic message board signs in commercial districts, and should not aiTect the previous amendment. When Monticello Ford processed its expansion earlier this year, a request was made fl.)r an electronic message board sign, which was approved through a variance. At that time, staiT 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 traffic 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. However, 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 potentialior nuisance and public safety concerns. The attached ordinance attempts to minimize the glare issue by requiring LED displays rather than brighter light sources. The attached ordinance would permit signs in the B-3 and 13-4 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, 13-2, 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 noted above, governmental signs in the residential districts are allowed under a separate section. 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 if it 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. . Planning Conunission Agenda -11/02/99 B. AL TERNA TIVE ACTIONS 1. Motion to recommend approval of the amendment to add electronic message board signs as permitted sign types in the B-3 and B-4 Districts, with the regulations as proposed, based on a finding that the regulations will avoid problems of nuisance or traftic hazard. 2. Motion to recommcnd denial of the amendment, based on a finding that despite the regulations, such signs will create visual hazards to traffic safety and public nuisance. 3. Motion to table action on the amendment, subject to additional information. C. STAFF RECOMMENDA'rION . Staffrecommends 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 Exhibit B - Governmental Sign Amendment, Ordinancc No. 314 . . . . Planning Commission Agenda -11/02/99 City of Monticello Wright County, Minnesota AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 10, CHAPTER 3, SECTION 3 [B] AND SECTION 3 ICJ OF THE MONTICELLO ZONING ORDINANCE RELATING TO ELECTRONIC MESSAGE BOARD SIGNS. THE CITY COUNCIL OF TI IE CITY OF MONTICELLO, MINNESOTA IIEREBY ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS: Section I. Chapter 3, Section 3 [B] 2. (i) is amended to read as follows: (i) Except for Electronic Message Board Signs as allowed in Section 3 fEl 4.(f), UNo 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 Messag:e Boards mav be allowed in the B-3 and B-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. !L. The sig:n does not create a traffic hazard or a nuisance. ill.:. The sign does not Hash its message, although continuous scrolling text is allowed. iv. Light display utilized LED technology, or other low glare lighting specifically approved by the City Council. . . . v. The sign meets all requirements o[the Citv's l1uilding and Electrical Codes. VI. The sign does constitute a separate or additional freestanding sign support structure. The sign must be otherwise allowed under this ordinance as a pvlon sign, or must be a part of an allowed pylon sign plan, as d.efined herein. Section 3. This ordinance shall become effective from and. after its passage and publication. / /s/ / . ~ . . (a) Any sign in violation of the prohibited signs as defined in [B] 2: Thirty (30) days (exception: advertising signs, five (5) years). (b) For all other non-conforming signs: five (5) years. [E] DISTRICT REGULA nONS: The following sections concern signs which require application and permit. 1. Within the A-a, R-I, R-2, R-3, R-4, and PZR districts, signs are subject to the following size and type regulations: (a) Institutional or area identification signs, provided that the gross square footage of sign area does not exceed eighteen (18) square feet, and if the sign is freestanding, the height does not exceed eight (8) feet. (b) Public signs, including public signs that display information electronically, provided that the gross square footage of sign area does not exceed sign height and size requirements identified in .Section 3-9[E]4c of the Monticello Zoning Ordinance. (#314,8/10/98) 2. Within the PZM, B-1, B-2, B-3, B-4, CCD, 1-1, I-lA, and 1-2 districts, signs are subject to the following size and type regulations: (#298, 10/13/97) (#334, 9/13/99) (a) Within the PZM and B-1 districts, the maximum allowable square footage of sign area per lot shall not exceed the sum of one (1) square foot per front foot of the building plus one (1) square foot for each front foot of lot not occupied by a building, up to one hundred (100) square feet. Each lot will be allowed one (1) pylon or freestanding sign and one (1) wall sign or two (2) wall signs total. (b) For buildings in which there is one (1) or two (2) business uses within the B-2, B-3, B-4, CCD I-I, I-lA, and 1-2 districts, and for buildings used for commercial retail activities located within a PZM district and located on property adjacent to B-2, B-3, B-4,CCD, 1-1, I-lA, or 1-2 districts, there shall be two (2) options for permitted signs, as listed below in 2(b)i and 2(b )ii. The property owner shall select one option, which shall control sign development on the property. (#298, 10/13/97) (#334, 9/1 3/99) 1. Option A. Under Option A, only wall signs shall be allowed. The maximum number of signs on any principal building shall be six sign boards or placards, no more than four (4) of which may be product identification signs. Signs may be displayed on at least two walls, or equal to 3/46 MONTICELLO ZONING ORDINANCE EXhibit b . . . Planning Commission Agenda - 11/02/99 9. Discussion re ardin a Com rehensive Plan amendment to the OAA area affectin the Kiellberg West Trailer Park. Steve Grittman and Jeff O'Neill will provide a verbal report. . . . 10. Planning Commission Agenda - 11/02/99 Discuss update ideas to the Subdivision Ordinance. .Jeff O'Neill to provide a verbal report.