Planning Commission Agenda 12-05-2000
.
1.
2.
..,
_1.
4.
. 5.
.
AGF:NDA
REGULAR MEF:TING - MONTICI,~LLO PLANNING COMMISSION
Tuesda)' - Dcccmher 5, 2000
7:00 P.M.
Members:
Dick Frie. Robbie Slnith. Roy Popilck. Richard Carlson. Rod Dragsten
Council Liaison:
Clint Herbst
StatT:
Jeff O'NeilL Fred Patch. Steve Grittman and Lori Kraemer
Call to order.
^pproval ofminutcs ot"the regular meeting held November 8. 2000.
Consideration of adding items to the agenda.
Citizens comments.
Public Hearing - Consideration or an arnendment to the zoning map to establish a
Planned Unit Development District and Consideration of an application for a concept
stage Planned Unit Development to expand business. Applicant: Iloglund Bus Company
6. Public Hearing - Consideration of an ordinance amending the Monticello Zoning
Ordinance, Chapter 3, Section 3-5, I D I 7, by adding subsections (a) and (b). establishing
regulations for commercial vehicles in residential districts. ^pplicant: City or Monticello
7. Discussion by City Planner regarding ]--1ouse and CJarage Sizes for Single Family
Developlnent.
R. Consideration of calling for a public hearing on proposed amendment to setback
standards limiting construction of p;:lrking lots and drive areas on drainage and utility
easements.
9. Consideration of appointments and accepting terms for Planning Commission
mClnhership - 2001.
10. ^djourn.
-1-
.
.
.
MINUTES
REGULAR MEETING - MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION
Wednesday, November 8, 2000
7:00 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, Steve Grittman and Lori Kraemer
1. Call to order.
Chair Frie called the meeting to order at 7 PM.
2. Approval of minutes of the reuular meeting held October 3,2000.
A MOTION WAS MADE BY ROY POPILEK AND SECONDED BY RICHARD
CARLSON TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE OCTOBER 3, 2000 PLANNING
COMMISSION MEETING. Motion carried 4 to Owith Chair Frie abstaininu.
C!hfukd L-/ - 0) ~
3. Consideration of addil1L~ items to the aQenda.
.
Rod Dragsten asked to add discussion to item 10 regarding house size standards.
Roy Popilek asked for an update regarding the Jay Morrell truck site violations.
This was placed as item 12A.
Roy Popilek asked for an update on the audio/visual problems in the council
chambers. Building Official Fred Patch addressed this issuc stating that they have
been working vvith Bose who is in the process of coming up with a solution to this
problem. Patch stated something should be accomplished within the next 30 days
and that the time frame for correcting this problem would be spread out betvveen
now and after the fi rst of the year due to budget constraints.
Chair Frie asked for discussion regarding the procedure for the appeal process,
noting the Automaxx denial for a variance by the Planning Commission and the
City Council denying the Planning Commissions recommendation. This was
placed as item 12B.
Chair Frie asked for discussion regarding procedure of commission members and
applicants prior to pubic hearings. This was placed as item 12C'.
.
.
.
4. Citizens comments.
None
5.
Public HearilH! ~ Consideration of an application for a conditional use permit to allow a
second accessorv buildinu on a sinQle family lot. Applicant: John & Kim Carlson.
Fred Patch, Building Official. addressed the commission noting that this item vvas
-1-
.
Planning COll1mission Minutes - 11/08/00
withdrmvn. Under our code, a second accessory building can not be constructed without
a conditional use permit unless the second accessory building is less than 120 square
feet. If the second accessory building is less than 120 feet it docs not need a CUP. In
the Carlson case, the second accessory bui Iding was greater than 120 square feet so a
CUP process was initiated. It was later discovered that the first accessory building on
the Carlson property was 120 square feet. Staff determined that a conditional use permit
was not necessary because it was the intent of the ordinance to allow two accessory
buildings without a conditional use permit so long as one of them is 120 square feet or
less. It really does not matter in which order they arc constructed.
The Carlson's application is in the process of being refunded.
6. Public Hearine - Consideration of an application for a variance to a side yard setback
fronting on a public street. in the R- L single familv residential district at 9336
Homestead Circle. to allow construction of a detached Qaraq:e. Applicant: Citv of
Monticello
Fred Patch, Building Official. addressed the planning commission and noted an error
made on the part of the City in regard to setback requirements at this particular address.
.
Mr. Stacy Braun residing at 9336 Homestead Circle had been issued a building permit for
a detached garage that is facing upon I Jomestead Drive. When the building permit was
issued for this garage. the building inspector referenced Section 3-2[D]3 of the Zoning
Code: "Detacltedac('(!.uory buildil1f{\ .\ltalll1ot exceed.f!fieeu (15) feet ill Iteight alld sit all he teu (10)
feet or lIlorefrolll/lll side lot lilies (~/{Il(joillillg lots,fil'e (5)feet or morefrolll tlte rear lot lille, sltall he
tell (10) feet or more frOlllall,l' other buildillg or structure 011 the .HIII/e lot, /llId shallllot be located
witMII a IItili~J' easelllellf." Because that section of the code does not refer to side yards
fronting public streets. the building inspector determined that all side yard setbacks for
the accessory structure are ten (10) feet.
In the opinion of the Zoning Administrator, even though those setback requirements for
accessory structures are more specific. Section 3-2[DJ3 provides only for "side lot lines
ofadioininu lots". and did not intend to supercede Section 3-3 [CJ2 of the loning Code
which requires a 20 foot side yard setback for buildings fronting on a public streets:
"II/ R-I, R-2, B-1, allll 8-2 districts, [I lot is a comer lot, the .\'ide yard sethack sltall he I/ot less tltall
twell~I' (20) leet/rolll tlte lot lille abuttillg tlte street rigl1t-{~f-waJ' lille.
.
Patch stated that clarification to the zoning code may be necessary to avoid this problem
in the future. This problem was not discovered until the garage was entircly framed. The
Planning Commission was asked to allow a variance to the side yard setback which will
alkwi the garage to remain where it is constructed at 10 feet back from the property line
fronting on Ilomestead Drive. Hardship is established by the questionable application of
the Zoning Code by the City. In addition. the Planning Commission may call for a public
-2-
.
.
.
Planning Commission Minutes - 11/08/00
hearing to amend the Zoning Code Section 3-2[0]3 to include accessory structure
setbacks for side yards fronting on a public streets. Additional landscaping may soften
the impact of the garage in its closeness to Homestead Drive.
Chair Frie opened the public hearing. Stacy Braun. the home owner. stated Patch had
covered all issues in his report and that he discussed landscaping possibilities with him as
well. Braun was receptive to the landscaping adding that he felt it is necessary as well fix
the integrity of the neighborhood. The public hearing was then closed.
There \vas discussion among the members as to who would be responsible for the cost of
the landscaping and they felt it should not be the homeowner. Patch stated staff would
work with Mr. Braun regarding landscaping.
A MOTION WAS MADE BY ROY POPILEK AND SECONDED BY RICHARD
CARLSON TO APPROVE THE VARIANCE BASED ON '1'1 IE FINDING THAT THE
VARIANCE IS NECESSARY DUE TO THE HARDSHIP IMPOSED BY THE
QUESTIONABLE INTERPRETATION OF THE ZONING CODE BY THE CITY.
Motion carried unanimously.
7.
Consideration of a Concept Sta!!e Planned Llnit Development to allow a mix of
commercial uses. Applicant: Dan Mielke.
Steve Grittman. City Planner. provided the report regarding the applicant's request to
develop property he owns between Trunk Highway 25. the new Chelsea Road (east) and
Cedar Street south of the Tom Thumb. The applicant is also seeking a vacation of a 16
foot wide portion of the Cedar Street right-or-way to accommodate the redevelopment of
the site. The proposed development would retain the Ultra Luhe and Subway restaurant
and in addition another fast-food restaurant. a car wash hlCility. a convenience store with
gas (with an additional 1.600 square feet of other retail space attached). and a full-service
restaurant. The proposal relies on PLIO tlexibility since much of the project vmuld share
parking bet\veen parcels and utilize common driveways withoutseparate landscaped
areas between parking lots.
Grittman advised that the assumption lor any PUD is that the sum of the process \vill
create a project which is superior to a project which would adhere to the strict standards
of the zoning ordinance. Such a finding is one of the requirements to issue a Conditional
Use Permit f()r a PUD.
Building front classification was discussed in detail as applicant devised site plan
assumin!! TI 125 to be the front. A !!eneralized discussion of si!!na!!e was provided in the
'-"' '- L- ~
application letter. although the plans are not prepared to this level of detail at this stage.
The site includes all uses \vhich are permitted or conditional uses in the B-3 District.
Each of the uses is a high-tramc generator and is automohilc- oriented. that is. there is
-3-
.
Planning Commission Minutes ~ 11108/00
likely to be little cross use of the site. As such, the design must accommodate access to
the individual uses for a sufIicient number of visitors, and little interaction between uses
would be expected. The applicant states it is their feeling that there would be a great deal
of cross traffic.
The applicant's information includes an analysis that approximately 168 parking spaces
would be required for the entire development. The site plan illustrates 186 spaces with
the majority of those on the northern halfofthe site, with primary access to be via the
main driveway off of Cedar Street. A central drive running north-south distributes traffic
internally. There arc a few design concerns with the site as presented on the plan,
including concerns with exiting traffic from the fast-food restaurant, and access through
the gas island area to Cedar Street. and the availability of parking next to the car wash
along the main internal access drive.
.
Grittman stated that if a shopping center design. which would concentrate more
meaningful open spaces, is not acceptable to the applicant it may be that the proposal is
too intense to qualify for PUD consideration. Because the buildings are all separate
concerns instead of an attached "shopping center" design, there is a need for additional
drive way space, and the landscaping which is included is almost entirely found in
nano,"v, five-foot wide planter areas or small traffic islands. In planning stafrs view. this
represents only the minimum effort to break up the predominance of paved area.
Grittman adyised that in pre-application meetings. the applicant's representatiyes
indicated that neither the applicant or the proposed occupants of the project are amenable
to a shopping center design.
Another concern from staff is general design/green space/ reception from people driving
by. and also areas with a significant amount of traffic with fast food/convenience which
would be a connict between driveways and parking. Staff did suggest a slightly less
intense alternative, trying to reorient space so more landscaping could be added. avoid
direct access. vvith wider drives trying to identify circulation patterns.
Chair Frie opened the public hearing. Dennis Iylla, Northco Real Estate, displayed an
enhanced drawing of the project for the members. He noted that back in April they
approached the City with their plan and felt at that time the City ,"vas interested in their
site plan. Z)'lla also noted the consulting of Kraus Anderson in regard to this site plan
and states a regional sit-down restaurant is committed to this property as well as a
national fast food restaurant a family owned C- store. additional retail as well as a car
wash. I-Ic also stated that they chose this plan in accordance with the City code.
.
Zylla discussed setbacks noting there are limited setbacks and minor driyeway setbacks,
which in affect are partly unique to the property. A setback yariance is required due to an
odd configuration. lie also noted that the landscaped islands arc 7 ft.. and the coverage is
18% aooye what is required by the City. He also noted that the applicant has offered to
-4-
.
Planning Commission Minutes - 11/08/00
plant in the public ROW as there is an abundance of ROW and felt this would improve
the site. Zylla noted the \vider 9 x 20 parking stalls as well. Lot coverage was discussed
once again which staff suggested was too intense. Zylla maintains it is not.
The applicant stated a proposed time frame of spring 2001. Frie also asked if there were
issues in the stafT report that were not discussed at previous meetings and Zylla stated that
landscaping was discussed at both meetings but not resolved.
Clint Herbst Council Liaison. discussed the recent IDC meeting with concerns that staff
is not working well with applicants, and also he felt that the site plan proposed seemed to
be a contained site plan and very workable.
.
Jeff O'NeilL Deputy City Administrator. stated that there had been a lot of homework
down by the developer who made major changes to the site plan with good ideas. Zylla
concurred but did state that the second plan was a little more difficult as to issues such as
widening the drive isles and landscaping that could not be resolved. O'Neill stated that
with a PUD, the City should get more out of the plan in order to grant a PUD. Grittman
also stated that the meetings were very constructive, but from staff standpoint these issues
had to be brought tl)fward to the Planning Commission for their input and that front
yard/side yard classification had to be determined by the Planning Commission as it is
clearly stated in City code. It is the responsibility of staff and City Planner to bring these
issues forward to the Planning COlnmission.
Mike Knisley. Distyle Design, explained the organization of this site again and that it \vas
designed to encouraue cross access. Knislev also stated thev increased the width of drive
'- ....... ,., ..
isles to accommodate large vehicles and therefore the encroachment on existing property.
Planning Commission asked how the applicant would address the travel center as far as
semi trucks and drive isles. Zylla advised that they feel they haw general drive isles but
it could be looked at and may need to be changed to accommodate semi trucks. They
purposely proposed double head-in parking to accommodate semis as well. It was also
stated that there arc 25 extra parking spaces to accommodate snow fall.
Chair Frie closed the public hearing.
.
O'Neill noted there are utilities in the area of the 16 foot portion of Cedar Street that the
applicant is asking for vacation of and that the City Engineer would have to review and
approve this request. There was some discussion regarding the time frame on
improvements to Cedar Street and O'Neill stated the City is to be looking at this soon.
but it is not necessary as far as this appl icant is concerned. It was stated however that it
\vOLdd make sense to look at the improvements along vvith this applicant's project. Chair
Frie asked Herbst to bring this matter up to the City Council.
-5-
.
.
.
Planning Commission Minutes - 11/08/00
A MOTION WAS MADE BY ROD DRAGSTEN AND SECONDED BY ROBBIE
SMITII TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE PUD CONCEPT STAGE BASED
ON A FINDING TI-IA T THE DESIGN OF THE SITE IS APPROPRIATE FOR THE
LOCA nON AND PROPOSED USES, AND THAT THE PROPOSED
IMPROVEMENTS QUALIFY FOR PUD CONSIDERATION UNDER THE CITY'S
PUD ORDINANCE, SUBJECT TO THE CONDITION THAT ALL SITE
IMPROVEMENTS MEET THE REQUIRED STANDARDS OF THE ZONING
ORDINANCE, AND RECOMMENDS THAT HIGHWAY 25 BE TREATED AS THE
FRONT YARD FOR PURPOSES OF BUILDING SETBACKS. Motion carried
unanimously.
~ Public Hearing - Consideration of an amendment to the zoning ordinance establishing
building material standards in the business districts. Applicant: City of Monticello (NAC)
Steve Grittman provided the staff report noting previous discussions by the Planning
Commission regarding this issue. Planning Commission is asked to conduct the public
hearing and consider adoption of the ordinance amendment governing building and
design standards in the Business Districts.
Jeff O'Neill noted that there are certain buildings that would not meet this code and staff
would be creating a situation for existing buildings that may deal with this issue at a later
date. Danner trucking was one example. Again it was suggested that existing buildings
could be grand-hlthered in and that the 25% of the building clause would apply as a one-
time expansion clause. It was discussed that this clause could be added to the language.
Chair Frie opened the public hearing and hearing no response. the public hearing was
closed.
A MOTION WAS MADE BY ROY POPILEK AND SECONDED BY ROD
DRAGSTEN TO RECOMMEND ADOPTION OF ORDINANCE AMENDMENT
GOVERNING BUILDING AND DESIGN STANDARDS IN THE BUSINESS
DISTRICT HASED ON FINDINGS OUTLINED IN THE PLANNERS REPORT AND
BASED ON THE FINDING THAT THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT IS
CONSISTENT WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. EXISTING BlJILDINGS
WOULD BE ALLOWED TO EXPAND, UP TO 25%, UNDER A CONDITIONAL USE
PERMIT. Motion canied unanimously.
2..,
Consideration of approval of a revised final plat and revie\v final plans for development
of the Dod!.!.c Dealership
JerrO'Neil1 stated that this is a rcquest by the applicant for approval ofa revision to the
original pIal. Subsequent to Planning Commission and Council Approval of the
applicant's Conditional use permit. the devcloper made a revision to the plans. Under the
-6-
Plann ing COIllIll ission Minutes - 11/08/00
.
new plan. the parking and display area is larger and the entire 1-94 frontage is occupied
by the dealership. Planning Commission is asked to consider allowing the original CUP
approval to apply to the revised plan.
Also, although the Planning Commission does not normally make recommendations on
the final plat the new layout represents the basic layout of the revised final plat and the
Planning Commission was asked to review it There was some thought of establishing
the two pareels via simple subdivision, however. after reviewing the plan and the
complications associated with combining various lots via simple subdivision, it is
recommended that the final plat simply be revised to reflect the actual development
pattern. Staff did not receive the updated plan until late in the week therefore a full site
review was not available. However, the site plan was reviewed for adherence to the 15%
rule and it does comply.
.
Steve Grittman noted a primary issue that arose was that the length of property along 1-94
and the northwest property line there are City drainage and utility easements. and he
advised that to move curb/parking off the easements and placing utilities there would
require extensive obstruction; therefore. the applicant is requesting this be moved back
otT the casement. It was noted that if 7 feet were to be taken off they may lose some
interior short parking segments instead of losing a long parking area. possibly up to 6 or 7
spaces. which is a minimal impact. It was also noted that City Engineer and Public
Works are requesting that the Planning Commission adopt an ordinance for easement
requirements on perimeters. Also noted was that the City regularly allows curb within 5
ft... although the easement is 12 teet. The problem \vould be that if the City has to tear up
curb for utilities. the City is responsible for that cost.
Decision I,
A MOTION WAS MADE BY ROBBIE SMITH AND SECONDED BY ROD
DRAGSTEN TO APPROVE THE REVISED PLAT BASED ON THE FINDING TIIA T
THE SUBDIVISION WILL RESULT IN TWO LOTS THAT CONFORM TO
ORDINANCES. Motion carried unanimously.
Decision 2,
A MOTION WAS MADE BY ROD DRAGSTEN AND SECONDED BY RICHARD
CARLSON TO ACCEPT THE REVISED PLAN WITHOUT REQUIRING THE
APPLICANT TO PROCESS A NEW CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT REQUEST
CONTINGENT ON THE FOLLOWING:
.
u. ('olldil iOlls lIoled in I he ill i 1;01 (' r;p UfJfJrovol.
h. ('oll/plelion oj'o revised/illol plol ('o/J\islell/ll'ilh thelile pIon us prepored.
c, ( 'i l\' COIIIIC il grunl illg oj' 0 leose 10 occ IIpl' euse melll or OI!fJro\'ol OJ'1 he \'ocol ion
oj'lIlilill' easell/ent ulong the lIol'thel'lI edge 1?j'Lot 1, Block I.
Motion carried unanimously.
-7-
.
LL
.
.
Planning Commission Minutes - 11/08/00
ill
Discussion re!!arding garaQC size versus house size standards.
Therc was a brief discussion regarding a possible issue with garage sizes exceeding house
sizes in the City. Fred Patch, Building OniciaL stated that there have been applicants
who question how large their garage can be whcn coming in to apply for building
permits. He stated that some applicants want to maximize the size, City ordinance states
up to 1000 sq. f1. combincd, in all cases for garage space. Also noted was that the
principle use has to be larger than the accessory usc in Residential Districts. Steve
Grittman gave examples of how other cities address this issue, stating that if garage sizes
are allowed to be larger than houses, it would then become an issue.
O'Neill stated that stafT is lookin!! for direction from the Planningy Commission regarding
"- "- "-
this issue and the members asked that Grittman provide information on what the City's
ordinance states, possibly adding language to it, and also information from other cities.
Grittman will provide this information at the December meeting.
Request for Planning Commission to Call For a Public HearinQ - Consideration of an
ordinance amendin!! the Monticello ZoninQ Ordinance. Chapter 3. Section 3-5. (01 7. by
addin!! subsections (a) and (b). establishin!! reQulations for commercial vehicles in
residential districts.
Fred Patch. Building Official. advised the members that on Septemberll. 2000 the City
Council did not follow the recommendations of the Planning Commission and denied the
Zoning Ordinance amendment to allow enforcement of ordinances restricting commercial
vehicles from residential districts. The Counci I dirccted staff to look into allowances for
emergency vehicles. to\V trucks. and the like.
The current ordinances intend to disallow commercial vehicles in residential districts
(with some exceptions): hO\vever. alone the 9.000 lb. gross vehicle weight restriction is
insufticient to enable enforcement. This ordinance amendment along with amendments
to the traffic ordinances (on-street parking ordinances) will help to preserve the character
of our residential districts \vhile not limiting necessary commercial vehicle traffic serving
those districts.
.Teff(YNeill stated that City Council looked at the draft ordinance prepared, which \vas
intended to enforce the code. but City Council stated they did not want to adopt that
particular code but was not against an amendment of some kind. It was noted that there
continues to be a problem with enforcement and this needs to be addressed.
Chair Frie stated his frustration over council member Stumpf spcaking as a taxpayer at
the City Council meeting vvithout excusing himself from his council seat. It was also
stated that Stumpf had the opportunity to attend the public hearing \vhen it was held and
he did not. It was stated that this will give Stumpf another chance to attend the public
hearing \vhen it is held at the December meeting.
-8-
.
12A.
.
12B.
12C.
Planning Commission Minutes - 11/08/00
The ordinance submitted addresses commercial vehicles on private property, not on the
street. The Planning Commission did ask that the language stating "vehicles owned
and/or operated by a governmental agency" be removed from the proposed ordinance
amendment. It was again stated that emergency vehicles could be added to this
amendment. but Council Liaison Herbst stated that it may not have to be added irthere
are no comments at the next public hearing.
A MOTION WAS MADE BY ROY POPILEK AND SECONDED BY ROD
DRAGSTEN 'ro CALL FOR A PUBLIC HEARING FOR AN ORDINANCE
AMENDING MONTICELLO ZONING ORDINANCE, CHAPTER 3, SECTION 3-5,
[0] 7, BY ADDING SUBSECTIONS (A) AND (B). ESTABLISHING REGULATIONS
FOR COMMERCIAL VEHICLES IN RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS. Motion carried
unanimously.
Update on Morrell Trucking violations.
Jeff O'Neill stated that nothing has happened at this time. He does have the status of the
violations vvhich he will provide in the next planning commission agenda packet. He also
noted that the Planning Tech position has been approved and they will be looking at
taking applications. This may aid in follow-up of these types of violations. He also
noted that the City Attorney does have the information on this matter but it is back in
staff shands.
Dick Frie stated his concern with the City Council denying the Planning Commission's
decision to deny AutOll1aXX' s request for a variance. Frie asked the members if
discussion at the previous Planning Commission meeting was different than the
discussion held at the City Council meeting, as the Council Liaison, Clint Ilerbst
motioned to deny the Planning Commission's request to deny this variance. Herbst
stated that he agreed with the applicant that visibility was not good at that site and stated
that the City is trying to work better with property owners regarding these matters. Also
stated was the fact that access to the Automaxx site had changed with the improvements
made to Ilighway 25. and Automaxx actually sits higher than General Rental. It was
noted that the issue may be more that the site was not as easily accessed once l-lighvvay
25 was completed. It was also noted that the business has now relocated to out of town.
Dick Frie states that agenda items should be dealt with at the public hearings and not
commission members meeting with applicants on their personal time. They discussed
pros and cons of this. Frie also stated that council members, who are elected officials,
should be available to meet with applicants. It was the consensus of the Planning
Commission members that it is up to the individual member as to whether they want to or
not.
. 120. JefT O'Neill advised. that Dave Peterson Ford had provided a revised site plan. but now
they have expanded their storage area which is increased by 1/4 to 1/3. and that the owner
has requested this without going through a formal amendment process. O'Neill noted
-9-
.
.
.
11.
Planning Commission Minutes - 1]/08/00
that initially there was an 80 foot setback, now they are within 5 ft. of Marvin Road,
noting that height relative to location needs some setback. O'Neill noted that storage
areas can come no closer than 30' from the ROW. O'Neill asked for direction from the
Planning Commission and it was the consensus that as long as Ford meets the setbacks
they will accept this relatively minor modification. O'Neill stated he would address this
item via letter to Peterson Ford.
Adiourn.
A MOTION WAS MADE BY ROY POPILEK AND SECONDED BY ROD
DRA.GSTEN TO ADJOURN THE MEETfNG AT 10 PM. Motion carried unanimously.
Recorder
-10-
.
.
.
Planning Commission Agenda -12/05/00
5.
Consideration of a Rezoning to a Planned Unit Develooment Zoning District and a
Concept Stae:e PlID to permit the expansion of a bus service and !!arage. Applicant:
Hoe:lund Bus Company. (NAC)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
Hoglund Bus Company has applied for an amendment to the City's Zoning Map to allow the
expansion of its Iloglund Coach Lines facility along the south side of Interstate 94. The
property is currently zoned 13-3 on the west, and I-Ion the east, with a number of buildings
and related uses on the site. Staff has noted that the business has gradually expanded over
the years onto property which was not a part of previous permits. Moreover, a separate
business (Hoglund Transportation) occupies a pOliion of the property. As such, the
businesses currently exist as legal, non-conforming uses. The zoning ordinance allows the
continuation of non-conforming uses (so-called "grandfather" rights), but docs not permit
their expansion. Because of the mix of buildings and activities, the only procedural way to
allow an expansion of the existing husiness would be through the PUD zoning process.
Staff considered whether the bus company, based on previous growth and permits. should
be considered a conforming use in the 13-3 District. Ilowever, due to the site developlnent
standards which currently exist, the mix of buildings and uses on the site. and the two zoning
districts which currently encompass the project area, it is believed that a separate PUD
zoning district would he the most proper way for the applicant to proceed. Under the current
zoning. a Conditional Use Permit ll.lr vehicle sales would have to be issued (the ordinance
actually refers to "automohile and light truck sales"), and a Conditional Use Permit PUD
would be necessary to accommodate the uses and site development. Staff suggested the
PUD zoning as the more flexible tool to incorporate the expansion into the current
development.
Under PLJD zoning, the City and the applicant negotiate a range of land uses and site
developlnent standards, sometimes with specific phasing requirements. It is implicit in PLJD
zoning that the proposed uses show compliance with the direction and intent of the City's
Comprehensive Plan. The Comprehensive Plan fl.)r this area directs that commercial uses
which can take advantage of the sitc's freeway exposure would be the preferred land use.
There are two sets of issues which the City should address in reviewing this application. The
first is the land use plan compliance, and whether the existing land use is most appropriate
long-term use for this area. This is a question of hoth highest and hest use, and what
alternatives would be considered fl.)r the site and for the current businesses. The second
consideration would be the development standards applicable to this site if the City
determines that the use is appropriate.
- 1-
.
Planning Commission Agenda -12/05/00
Land Use. As noted, the Comprehensive Plan directs the site for commercial uses which
would take advantage of the freeway exposure and access to both Chelsea Road and Trunk
Highway 25. Any business may argue that it receives some benefit from freeway exposure.
However, the Comprehensive Plan language is written to refer to businesses which have a
stronger retail COll1pOnent to their operation. Common examples are found around the 25/94
interchange now - restaurants, hotels, retail automobile sales and service, and other retail
stores and service businesses. The B-3 District is designed to allow these types of uses,
whether by permitted or conditional use.
Uses such as the transportation and bus companies currently occupying the site are more
typical of industrial district uses. These uses typically provide business services to other
business (or institutional) entities rather than directly to the retail public. In a spot check of
other Twin Cities area communities with bus services, we could find none where such uses
are allowed in commercially zoned areas.
.
I n areas where industrial districts are developed adjacent to freeways, a heightened level of'
building and site development standards are typically applied. The existing improvements
consist of generally, metal buildings and gravel surf~lCe. Only a few areas of paved parking
arc developed, with limited landscaped open space on the site. This would be inconsistent
with expectations commonly held f()r freeway exposure. The proposed develoPlnent would
add a pole structure addition to the existing parts storage building.
Sile Deve!O/JInenl. As noted in the previous paragraphs, the existing and proposed site
improvements arc below the level required for the City's commercial areas. Even in the
industrial districts, paved and curbed parking with organized landscaped screening is
required. While a PUD district permits flexibility in the application of standards, the intent
of the PUt) technique is to encourage a higher standard ofdevelopnlent rather than lower.
In the 25/94 interchange area, the City has recently seen a significant increase in
dcvelopnlent activity, most with a high level of building and site improvements. As with
land use, planning staff bel ieves that the proposed development is inconsistent with the
City's typical develoPlnent standards.
In summary, the existing land use of the property does not appear to comply with the
direction ot'the Comprehensive Plan or the highest and best use attributes of the site. Bus
and transportation f~lCi lities are an inlportant service business, but would be more compatible
with industrial areas, preserving high visibility sites f()r higher intensity commercial uses.
Ifan industrial use in considered to be appropriate f()r the freeway exposure, a mueh higher
level of site and building development would be expected, particularly under the PUD
designation.
.
The existing site is a significant economic development opportunity for both the land owner
-2-
.
Plann ing COllllll ission Agenda -12/05/00
and the City. With the dramatic increase in the community's population and commercial
activity. together with the improvements to Ilighway 25 and Chelsea Road, the property in
question could likely be put to a highly intense commercial use which complements the
surrounding commercial development and takes advantage of the new and existing
transportation LlCilities. In the past. the City has helped businesses such as this one to seek
alternative locations more compatible with their operational needs. The Hoglund application
may be another example where this assistance would be appropriate.
B. ALTERNA TIVI~ ACTIONS
Decision 1: Zoning Map Amendment from B-3 and 1-1 to pun
I. Motion to recommend approval of the rezoning to PUD, based on a finding that the
existing use is consistent with present and future land uses of the area.
2. Motion to recommend denial of the rezoning to PUD, based on a finding that the
proposed use is inconsistent with the direction of the Comprehensive Plan and the
highest and best use of the site.
3. Motion to ta,bIe action on the re/.oning~ subject to additional inforn1atioll.
.
Decision 2: Concept St~lge Planned Unit Development
I. Motion to recommend approval of the Concept Stage PUO, subject to eOlnpliance
with lninimum site development standards including paving and curbing of parking
areas, screening of storage areas, and development/maintenance of appropriate
landscaping.
7 Motion to recommend den ial of the Concept Stage PU 0, based on a finding that the
proposed use and site development plans are inconsistent with the area and the
requirements of PUD design as listed in the loning Ordinance.
3. Motion to table action on the PUD. subject to additional information.
c. STAfF RECOMMENDArlON
Staff does not recommend the PUD. The expansion of the existing facility is not in keeping
with the higher level of development recently seen in the 25/94 area. nor is it consistent with
the direction of the Comprehensive Plan for this neighborhood. The addition would tend to
be disincentive fiJr eventual relocation of this business, and would also encourage a
.
'">
-J-
.
Plann ing COIllIll issioll ^gcnda - 12/05/00
continuation of the current level of site development if a new business were to occupy the
site. AssUllling that the investment in more substantial buildings, paved surfacing and
landscaping is not economically sound for this business, encouragement could be given to
the applicants to seek another site whcre it could prosper with fewer expectations fex high-
end site improvements.
(fthe City chooses to approve the pun zoning to accommodate the expansion of the existing
business on its current site, staff would recommend that the site is significantly upgraded,
both in terms of building design and site improvements. Since the site borders the freeway
and an active commercial district, compatibility with these areas would be appropriate
requirement for this business. Concept Stage PUD would be the time to identify the site
improvements necessary for further approvals. Examples would include building materials
and design, landscaping, paving req uirements, screening, storage area requirements, signagc,
and any other issues which will impact future approvals.
D. SUPPORTING DATA
Exhibit A -Existing Zoning Map
Exhibit H - Aerial Photo
.
.
-4-
-....-:
~~.;1L~:~.,~~.~ ~~~7---- ~~- ~~~--- ---
)~... . ~ . 'q," 1'1' ,.. WIli:j o::!'fI// A lJo
'_. r.;r.\.- ~ ~ r ~ I. ",. 'It.I!~~ '.ItII1IIfj ~. · · '1:u ~ -~...
'..'liiiiI'i . , L -.. ~ - ,. <U ,,"-1.41 [] ..ill ,., ~ ",...p.
~ ,. .. 'L >........... ,~.. 'h:'.", 'L ,u -.., ~ - .
~_=--'---: ~ :"'IJ" .. r:z:. ~';.... &iJ'ff~ '!lIfI/Hil. rJ ' 'rliiltiJ7rf1) '- ·
~ .. t"" "Jlllfik: '<<l1/ $liE ;/U/j. ... '!!III /ilfff'"!. ""- "":.
. \ 1., ~ hi'M ;;;g!/ /J'fJ; /h::' ~'!,k ~ . ~t~ w J)tt..
-...\ -.....::!t~@f ~ ~v~ ". '~~~h'
>;,~ ~ _~~ ~ 'fjJ!fIjitt,~~
~. ~ ~~ [b} iWi1'J' -" ,:-. ~~"-' ~~. ~
p- -L r--:::- '- .....-rs,.,g' fi~,,;;," ,''': .\ .~ 1/~J --~"" · ~~
_ _ ~y ....../It. ' r! '" ~ ~'t~~ ~
__ I I. ,,_ 'T~"
..... ..:-.- _ ~~ -.. ": " IT. /0 ~l^""'::-'-'
I ~ '!Ii, .' B 3 · oJ _'Yi -~L. ~ V -<..:::
I . . _--- tel. ~. ,. ....
~ ,,, I' l= '" · f Tl ...... ....
m~ fj ~ · , ' · 'J ~ ""
K ' ;/ ",;rJ
itl ~ : 1,:,11> " L<i>.';f" '/,
\ I") 'Ii
u~, r- ~ Q f.ff, · ,
~ . ~TI';
'/
r
brfE'
~IION V)
~
-
:::E
.
-
~
~
I 1 ~
I ..' ~ :.u
~
s
'I Z '
'T""" ..
j , , .
tt- P U ESTATE5 ,.
==-" ..;......, 'II"
,....." "" \. I 1 A::J l:iI=:'~' ..,~ I t:i .
LJ. ~ - 0.... ~....."... }.. L!: ..
.. ...~ I t.;~ .' .~~...
.. ...... _ ~. '''~ "~,:,,
'iJ - ' L -I
. ~ -.: ~\.. 1:.1 .A-
!~. ~ ~c-~,... IoCr .:.,".' ~ .~~.~
...._ ' " " ~r-.. Z -~ '-' r. :' · ." ;.(1. .'(;;
iJ~ 1\ r---..... \....., r-:"1oo- ~ R U "'
. . r /71 If ' "" .J.p'.' ~...... i& '. ii.~
tr~ "7 ~ ~ ~.. ..
..-..---cc .. - '
, ."
CITY LIMITS.
J
s(
83
E$1ib,t ~\
t~~~~.~h .;
40- C/::> J'~
b<hibit 5-6
Planning Commission Agenda - t 2/05/00
.
6.
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND
On November 8, 2000 the Planning Commission called for a public hearing to reconsider this
ordinance amendment relating to 9,000 lb. vehicles in residential districts. On Septemberll,
2000 the City Council did not follow the recommendations of the Planning Commission and
denied the Zoning Ordinance aITlendment to allow enforcement of ordinances restricting
commercial vehicles from residential districts. The Council directed staff to look into
allowances for emergency vehicles, tow trucks, and the like.
The current ordinances intend to disallow commercial vehicles in residential districts (with
some exceptions); however, alone the 9,000 lb. gross vehicle weight restriction is insufficient
to enable enforcement.
This ordinance amendment along with amendments to the traffic ordinances (on-street
parking ordinances) will hclp to preserve the character of our residential districts while not
limiting necessary commercial vehicle traffic serving those districts.
.
A proposed draft of the ordinance amendment is attached for discussion at the meeting.
B. Al ,TERNA TIVE ACTION
1. Motion to recommend approval to the City Council of this Ordinance amending
Monticello Zoning Ordinance. Chapter 3, Section 3-5, [OJ 7, by adding subsections
(a) and (b), and establ ishing regulations flW commercial vehicles in residential
districts.
2. Motion to recommend to the City Council denial of this Ordinance amending
Monticello Zoning Ordinance, Chapter 3, Section 3-5, [D17, by adding subsections
(a) and (b), and establishing regulations for commercial vehicles in residential
districts.
C. STAI:F RECOMMENDATION
StatT recommends Alternative 1 to the Planning Commission.
D. SUPPORTING DATA
.
.
Copy of proposed Ordinance with underlining to show amendments.
-1-
.
.
.
ORDINANCE NO.
CITY OF MONTICELLO
WRIGHT COUNTY, MINNESOTA
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING MONTICELLO ZONING ORDINANCE, CI IAPTER 3, SECTION 3-5, rDl
7, BY ADDING SUBSECTIONS (A) AND (B). ESTAl3LlSHING REGULATIONS FOR COMMERCIAL
VEHICLES IN RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS:
THE CITY or MONTICELLO DOES ORDAIN:
Title 10, Chapter 3, Section 3-5.lD] 7 is hereby amended to read as follows:
7. Off-street parking facilities accessory to residential use may he utilized
solely flJr the parking of licensed and operahle passenger automobiles. no
lllore than one (I) truck not to exceed gross capacity of nine thousand
(9,000) pounds, and recreational vehicle and equipment. Under no
circumstances shall required parking facilities accessory to residential
structures be used for the storage of conllllercial vehicles or equipment or fix
the parking of automobiles belonging to the employees. owners. tenants, or
customers of business or manubcturing establ islullents.
(ill
For the purpose of this section. a commercial vehicles or equiPIm:nt (buses,
trucks. truck-tractors. vans. and the like ).shall be dcfint:d as.
i. Any vehicle with Minnesota lict:nst: plates carrying a designation of
"BY" (bus. except as provided below), "e!" (commercial zone truck): or
ii. Any vehick with Minnesota license plates carrying a desiunation of"Y"
(truck with Minnesota base plate) or "T" mlrlll truck). and displaving on the
lower right corner of the license plait: any gross vehicle weight designation
of ''1''' through "T": or
iii. Any vehick with a gross vehicle weight in excess 01'9,000 Ibs
f!22 Commercial vehicles. shall be subiectto all other provisions of this
ordinance: howevn. lht: prohibitions of this Section shall not aooly to the
following:
i. COlllmercial vehicles that art: actuallv in the process of being loaded or
un loaded in the due course of busint:ss.
ii. Commercial vehicles that arc directlv ancillary to construction and
parked within 1.000 feet of the related construction site.
iii. Vehicles licenst:d with Disability Plates. or displaying a Disability
Parking Certificate.
IV. One-ton passenger vans ust:d solely for transporting persons.
v. PuMic tll1(l/Jrivtlte emerfIellCI' vehicle.~ such tiS Ihose used hI' /Jolice.
.fire. ucuritl'. vehicle tmvi/1f!. mIMic amI /Jrivate utilill' com/}{{lIie.\';
however. .mcll vehicles must dis/JIIII' the lIt1me of the COII1/J(1I11' /JrovidillfI
tlte service tllld he e({ui/JJJed witlt e(/ui/JmellttltatIlUlv he used ill till
emerfIellCV situtltioll.
.
.
.
This Ordinance shall become effective immediately upon its passage and publication
according to law.
ADOPTED by the Monticello City Council this
day of
,2000.
CITY OF MONTICELLO
By:
Roger Belsaas, Mayor
ATTEST:
By:
Rick Wolfsteller, City Administrator
AYES:
NAYS:
.
.
.
Plann ing COIl1Il1 ission Agenda - 12/05/00
7.
Discussion Item - House and Garace Sizes for Sincle Family Development. (N AC)
^. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
lhe Planning Commission raised discussion regarding appropriate sizes for accessory
buildings and garages on single family home lots in the City. There arc several approaches
to this issue. and vary with each cornmunity. In this report, we have identiJied the
requirements under the current City zoning regulations. and also identified methods
employed in other areas. The purpose of this discussion is to determine whether the City is
interested in examining its regulations in this area and considering any changes.
!,'xislin'<! Monticello Reeufations. Current regulations arc found in Section 3-2 lD J of the
Zoning Ordinance. Essentially. these regulations state that attached garage space is
considered a part of the principal dwelling. and is not calculated as accessory building space.
even though it is housing an accessory use (residential parking and storage). ror detached
accessory buildings. including garages. the following regulations apply:
))eight:
Setbacks:
15 feet maximum
) 0 feet side yard. 5 feet rear yard (No front yard encroachment
allowed)
1.000 square fect or 10<1'0 of the rear yard. whichever is less
10 from all other buildings
1. plus one of 120 s.L or less (more by CliP)
Size:
Location:
Number:
Because the ordinance docs not count attached garage footage. it is conceivable that garage
and accessory building space could cover more space than the principle use. 1.000 square
feet would be the size of a 4-ear garage. An attached 3-car garage would likely be at least
700 square feet.
Other Ammmches. There are almost as rnany other ordinances regardingaccessory buildings
as there are cities. )loweveL they tend to break down into the following:
a. Accessory building size capped. including both attached and detached, usually 1.000
square feel. with more space by CliP. These ordinances will sometimes include a
provision that the accessory building can never be rnore than a certain size to avoid
overcrowding on the lot and compatibility with neighboring residential structures.
b.
Accessory building size tied to the principal building size. These ordinances limit
accessory building space to no more than the principal building space. Variations
include or exclude attached garages. and count either foundation size or all finished
house space.
-1-
.
Plann ing Co III III ission Agenda -12/05/00
c.
^ccessory building tied to the size of the lot or rear yard. These ordinanccs use the
size of the lot to determine the size of the building. Monticello's applies this
standard as a part of its regulation. Ten percent is common. although others range
from 5lYo to 25%. ^ typical rear yard on a Monticello lot would be about 4,000 to
6.000 square /eet. Thus. most recently platted lots could accommodate an accessory
building of only 400 to 600 square feet. despite the language allowing up to 1.000
sq uare feet.
Olher ('onsideruI ions. This issue has become Inore prevalent in recent years as homeowners
increase the number of cars, boats. yard equipment, and other recreational vehicles, not to
mention vehicles being restored and other hobby activities. A common concern regarding
additional accessory building area is the crowding of a lot and cornpatibility of the size of
the building with neighboring buildings. However, the flip side of the argument is that as
people acquire more stufe larger accessory buildings may be better than outdoor storage of
that stuff. The second common concern over larger accessory buildings is the chance that
such buildings are used f()r commercial, rather than residential, purposes. Most home
occupation ordinances prohibit the use of such buildings flJr comlnercial purposes to avoid
over-intensilication of commercial activity in residential areas and unL.ir competition with
the City's eonHnercial tax-paying enterprises.
.
13.
^LTERN^,I'IVE ACTIONS
I. Motion to call for a public hearing to consider amendments to the Zoning Ordinance
regard i ng accessory buildings.
7 Motion to no further action on this issue.
3. Motion to table action on the issue. subject to additional infornwtion.
C. ST^FF RECOMMENDATION
Staff has no spcciJic recommendation at this time. Planning Commission direction will be
the basis for further staff follow-up.
D. SUPPORTING DATA
None
.
-2-
.
.
.
Planning COIl1Il1 ission Agenda -12/05/00
8.
Consideration of calling for a oublic hcaring on proposed amendment to sctback
standards limitin1! construction of oar king lots and drive areas on draina1!c and utility
casements. (.10)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
The Planning Commission is asked to discuss the possibility of changing parking lot setback
standards to match easements. Under our current ordinance, a problem is created when we
allow parking lots to extend within5' of a property line. This is because doing so results in
parking lot/curb to be constructed in casement areas. There is no law lill1iting this type of
construction within a utility easement.
A perimeter lot utility casement ranges from 6' - 12', normally 6' on the sidcs and] 2' in the
1ront and back. At the same time we allow parking lots within 5' of the property line. This
means that parking lots can be installed hom I' to 7' into the easement arca. This
encroachment of parking lots docs not legally limit City use of the easement but if the
parking lot is somcday disturbed to accommodate a utility project, the City is liable for the
cost of repair. This liability can cfTectively eliminate the ability of the City to use the
easement.
If the setback requirements matched casement requirements, this problem would be
eliminated and additional green spacc would result. On the other hand, simply increasing
setback standards hom 5' to as much as ] 2' could impact efficient use of land and increasc
the cost of developmcnt. Also a discussion of right-of.way width might also be appropriatc
with this topic because utility installation also occurs in the right-of-way adjacent to
easen1ents in the tront yard area. Perhaps increasing ROW width and reducing easement
width at the front yard (] 2') is another alternative. Unfortunately this option has limits as the
major commercial strcet widths are already set with strcets already in placc such as School
Blvd.. Chelsea Road, 7th Street, etc.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS
]. Discuss and make a motion calling for a public hearing on an ordinance amendment
adj usting setback standards to coincide with easements.
2. Motion to table for further research.
3. Motion to take no action.
- 1-
.
Planning Commission Agenda -] 2/05/00
c.
STAFf RECOMMENDATION
Staff suggests that we research what other cities do in this regard and that we inventory or
assess the impact of amcnding the codc on individual properties and con1e up with a draft
ordinance hctlwe the Planning Commission calls for a public hearing. TherefiJrc, staff
recommcnds alternativc 2.
I). SUPPORTING DATA
None
.
.
-2-
'S.I8qlUJlU M.;1U .10) 8S!pJAIW 01
p8JU 11lM. 8M. U;1lP ';1A.IJS Oll[S!M. 10U op A;1l/lJI 'lU;1UI1UloddB .lo.I I!Juno:) A1!:) ;1l11 J.IOjJq
pJ:'Hqd 8q 11lM. ;1lUBU .I !;1l(1 u8l11 'lU.I;11 IBUOP!PPB UB 8A.IJS 01 ;18.IIlB p.mqJ!l! pUB AO}[ J I
'(s.m8A 8J.Il[1) UU;11 .I8l(lOuB ;1A.I8S 01 qS!M. P.IBl/J!ll pUB AOtl Op OS!
uopsJnb 8lLL 'UU;11 .IBJA J;mll B 011UJlU1U!OddBJ.l .10) dn 8m p.lmPm pUB A<)l! '8.IopJJlLl
'SlU.l81 JBJA 0M.1 IlU!U!BlU8.I 8l(1 01 U;11SIlB.ICI POl! pUB J!Jd ~P!G pUB lUJ;J1 .lH;1A 8UO B 01
UOSI.IH:) P.lBqJ!}l pUB ~JI!dOd AOll 'UU;11 .IB8A JJ.IlP B Olll1!lUS ;1!<Noll PJ1U!oddB [!JlIl10:)
'OOOl AJBmmf U! U;J~fn UO!)J\f IlJUllo:) Jl(l uI 'OOOl A.lHt1UHf U! [!JlIl10,) A1!:) Jq1 Aq
UOqdOpB IBlUJOj jO ;1WP Jq1 pllH uOqBpU;JlUlUOJ8.I UO!SS!lUlUO:) 'i'lU!UUBld UJJM.Pq 7lEJ 8LU!)
;1l/1 01 ;Jnp lU.IJl S.l;1qlUJlU lpH;1 U10.IJ pJPH.l1qIlS Jq 01 pmI .IBJA \f 'UI1UIlO.IcJ UI.IJ1 P;1.I8IlIlBlS
Jq1 P;11cJOPB AIIBUI.IOj [!JUIlO:) All:) ;Jl(1 'OOOl AJBIlUCf uI 'SUl.P1 .IB8A JJJq1l pUB SLUJJ1
.IBJA 0M.1l 'lUJ;J1.lI~8A JUO H .IO lUJlUqS!lqB1Sd pJpU;JlUlUOJJJ UO!SS!U1U10:) 7lU!UUHId JlLL
'LU.IJ1 B 7lUpcJ;JJJB .I8qUl::lllI lPB8 ql!M. UO!SS!LUlUO:) 7lU!UUBld Jq1 Aq p8socJOJd SHM. UIB.l7l()Jd
LU.IJl P;1.I;17171B1S H 66/l/t LUOJJ S;11IlU!Ul 7lU!ld;1LU UO!SS!LULUO:) Ilu!um~ld 01 IlU!pJOJJV
GNnOllD)J:)VH UNV 3:)N:n:l3.:l3ll"
(or) .uosl.lr.:) P.lr.qJ!'H pur. 'Ial!OOd AO}f .UO!SS!WWO:)
:iU!uur.ld JqJ uo O!qs.lJqwaw oJ JUJwJu!oodr.J.I aunsJnb;u .10 uonr..IJp!SUo;J
oo/~o/z [ - epuJf)v 1I0!SS!UllUO:J 1I11!1I11Uld
.6
.
.
.