Loading...
Planning Commission Agenda 11-08-2000 I ~. . AGENDA REGULAR MEETING - MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION Wednesday, November 8, 2000 7:00 P.M. Members: Dick Frie, Robbie Smith, Roy Popilek, Richard Carlson, Rod Dragsten Council Liaison: Clint Hcrbst Staff: Jeff O'Neill, Fred Patch, Steve Grittman and Lori Kraemer 1 . Call to order. 2. Approval of minutes of the regular meeting held October 3,2000. 3. Consideration of adding items to the agenda. 4. Citizens comments. S. Public Hearing - Consideration of an application for a conditional use permit to allow a second accessory building on a single family lot. Applicant: John & Kim Carlson 6. Public J learing - Consideration of an application fi.1f a variance to a side yard setback fronting on a publ ic street in the R-l, residential district to allow construction of a detached garage. Applicant: City of Monticello 7. Public llearing - Consideration of an appl ication for a concept stage planned unit development for mixed commercial use. Applicant: Dan Mielke 8. Public J learing - Consideration of an amendment to the zoning ordinance establishing building material standards in the business districts. Applicant: City of Monticello 9. Consideration of approval of a simple subdivision and review final plans for development of the Dodge Dealership. Applicant: Jacob Holdings of Monticello LLC/Denny Hecker Dodge. 10. Discussion regarding garage size versus house size standards. (Discussion only, no report attached). 11. Request for Planning Commission to CalJ For a Public Hearing - Consideration of an ordinance amending the Monticello Zoning Ordinance, Chapter 3, Section 3-5, rD] 7, by adding subsections (a) and (b), establishing regulations for commercial vehicles in residential districts. Applicant: City of Monticello 12. Adjourn. -1- . . , MINUTES REGULAR MEETING - MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday, October 3, 2000 7:00 P.M. Members Present: Acting Chair Richard Carlson, Robbie Smith, Roy Popilek, Rod Dragsten and Council Liaison Clint Herbst Members Absent: Chair Dick Fric Stafl Present: Jeff O'NeilL Steve Grittman and Lori Kraemer 1. Call to order. Acting Chair Richard Carlson called the meeting to order at 7 p.m. 2. Approval of minutes of the regular meetinll held September 5.2000. A MOTION WAS MADE BY ROY POPILEK AND SECONDED BY ROBBIE SMITH TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE SEPTEMBER 5, 2000 REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING. Motion carried unanimously. 3. Consideration of addin~ items to the agenda. None 4. Citizens comments. None S. Consideration of a request for a simple subdivision rec.luesting that Lots 6 and 7. Manhattan L.ots. 321 Rivcrview Drive, be split into two separate parcels. Applicant: Michael and Pamela Willen. Jeff O'NeilL Deputy City Administrator. provided the staff report noting this property is currently recorded under the same Property Identification number [PID] and as such is a single parcel of land. City approval of a simple subdivision is required to enable each of the lots to be considered independent tax parcels with independent PID numbers. Upon approval of the simple subdivision, the applicant's residence will be fully contemning to the Zoning Code upon only Lot 6. Lot 7 will be returned to the party who intended to sell only Lot 6 to the applicant. and will remain undeveloped at this time. A MOTION WAS fvIADE BY ROD DRAGSTEN AND SECONDED BY ROY POPILEK TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE SIMPLE SUBDIVISION OF THAT PARCEL DESCRIBED AS LOTS 6 AND 7. MANHATTAN LOTS, TO CREATE TWO PARCELS TO BE KNOWN AS LOT 6. MANHATTAN LOTS AND LOT 7, MANHATTAN UTI'S. Motion carried unanimously. -1- . . t Plann ing Comm ission Minutes - 10/03/00 6. Consideration of a Conditional Use Permit allowing a shopping center development in the CCD. Central Communitv District and a Subdivision dividing the new development parcel from the municipal liquor store. Applicant: Silver Creek Real Estate Development. Steve Grittman, City Planner, provided the staff report noting that the applicant is proposing to construct a shopping center CCD, Central Community District. Grittman discussed the building height, setbacks and density as well as parking. There are 44 parking spaces supplied on the north side of 5-1/2 Street which leaves a deficit of 26 spaces. The ceo permits such shortages where the developer agrees to pay into a parking fund for public parking in the district on a per space basis. The 9,000 square foot retail addition to the municipal liquor store would generate an additional demand for 41 spaces. The liquor store property is currently developed with a surplus of parking, a portion of which may be made available to the developer. This issue has been addressed by the purchase agreement and will be further defined by the development contract as a part of the Conditional Use Permit and the sale of the land. The downtown revitalization plan encourages the use of mixed use design, and urban building styles in the corridor along Walnut Street. The proposed project would maximize the amount of Walnut Street frontage for commercial development. with the exception of access to 5 Yl Street (to be developed as an internal access drive). The site plan does not provide any dedicated loading areas. The applicant's anticipate using front of store loading. This does raise issue with circulation within the parking lot unless deliveries occur before or after store hours. Pedestrian access has also been provided which is in accordance with the CCD and downtown revitalization areas. At this time the project has not shown any sign detaiL with the exception of two freestanding sign locations - one along Highway 25 and one along Walnut. The sign along Highway 25 would be acceptable under the revitalization plan as an area with more of a highway commercial focus. However, the Walnut Street frontage is expected to have pedestrian scale signage, mounted on the building facades, including projecting signs over the sidewalk where appropriate. Additional sign detail will be supplied l()r review. Strcetscape and landscape details have not yet been submitted. The revitalization plan encourages the use of urban design materials including planters and furniture, site and parking lot lighting consistent vvith the City's standard, and alternative paving materials for walkways and other locations. These details will be submitted to stall and the Design Advisory Team f()r review. The applicants had prepared an early rendering of the proposed building design, but no building plans have been submitted at this time. The OAT has reviewed these preliminary building plans and gi ven conceptual approval. Prior to final approval of the -2- . Planning Commission Minutes - 10/03/00 A MOTION WAS MADE BY ROBBIE SMITH TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE SUBDIVISION, BASED ON A fINDING THAT THE SUBDIVISION WILL F ACILlTA TE DEVELOPMENT CONSISTENT WITH HIE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. There was further discussion as to whether this subdivision was being addressed in the purchase agreement and it was stated that it is. MOTION WAS SECONDED BY ROY POPILEK. Motion carried unanimously. 7. Public Hearim~ - Consideration of a request for a variance to the setbacks for installation ofpvlon for si!.!na!.!e. Applicant: Automaxx Jeff O'NeilL Deputy City Administrator. provided the report noting that on September 27. 1999. the City Council approved a Conditional Use Permit for Automaxx to operate an Auto Sales and display business at 1205 and 1219 Highway 25 South. At that time. the City Council allowed signs on the property "in accordance with City standards". Automaxx is now requesting that the City allow a variance to reduce the required front yard setback of 15 feet to I foot from the front property line for the erection of a pylon sign. The height and design of the proposed sign are otherwise regulated by ordinance. . Automaxx currently has two wall signs erected on the building. one facing Highway 25 and one facing Sandberg Road. The sign ordinance would allow one (1) pylon sign and tvvo (2) wall signs with 300 square feet as the maximum total allowable sign area on the property. As this is a double occupancy building. the maximum allowable sign area on the property is 300 square feet. After subtracting the existing sign area. the maximum allovvable area for the pylon sign is 64 square feet. The proposed sign is 48 square feet in area. Ifa pylon sign were setback the required 15 feet from the front property line it would be located in the auto sales display area (because the parking lot is built only I ft)ot away from the front property line on Highway 25). Installation of the pylon sign in the display parking lot area could be accomplished by construction of a landscaped peninsula into one of the parking stalls. The landscaped area would break up the line of vehicles and provide an area upon \vhich the sign could be placed in confiJrmance \vith the zoning code. , One major concern for allowing a variance for the pylon sign is that all of the automobile dealers look to one another for sales and promotional ideas. "["his variance may initiate future similar requests from the other local dealers. O'Neill advised the planning commission that they are asked to determine a hardship. Another concern from staff was the applicant" slights \vhich need to be hooded to avoid shining out onto Iligh\vay 25. This will be addressed by staff. A- . . , Planning Commission Minutes - 10/03/00 Acting Chair Carlson opened the public hearing. Paul Kruchten. operator of Automaxx. addressed the commissioners and provided a handout t<.)r review. He noted that the pylon would be at least 14' in height and the overhang would not be in the ROW but rather on their property. He also questioned whether the North side of the building would now be considered the front of their building due to no access to Highway 25. O'Neill advised that if the front of the building was determined to be on Sandberg Road the signage area allowable would be even smaller. The applicant also explained that they waited with the sign issue until construction of Highway 25 and Chelsea Road was near completion. The public hearing was then closed. There was discussion regarding the General Rental site being in compliance regarding their signage and it was stated that this site was grand fathered in. Other options were discussed as welL noting that a variance would still be required. A MOTION WAS MADE BY ROBBIE SMITH AND SECONDED BY ROY POPILEK TO RECOMMEND DENIAL OF THE VARIANCE REQUEST AS NO HARDSHIP COULD BE FOUND AND GRANTING THIS VARIANCE COULD SET A PRECEDENCE FOR FUTURE REQUESTS. Motion carried 3 to 1 with Rod Dragsten voting in opposition. 8. Public Hearimr - Consideration of a request for a conditional use permit allowing an auto bOLivirepair shop in the B-3 district. Applicant: John Johnson. Monticello Auto Bodv Jeff O'NeilL Deputy City Administrator, provided the staff report advising that the applicant proposes to relocate his auto body shop to the adjacent lot. The new site is located at the corner of Sandberg Road and the newly constructed Chelsea west. Johnson"s plan calls for development ofa 10.275 square foot structure. Setbacks in the B-3 district were discussed with O'Neill advising that these are not identified in the Code. The site meets the literal requirements of the code however the proposed setback along the Chelsea side is only 10'. In Zoning Districts R-l through B-2 a minimum of 20' is required on the side lot line for a corner lot. A minimum of 20' is not identified by code therefore this site plan meets the minimum. O'Neill stated that Planning Commission should discuss this item and determine if a 20' setback should be required. It is staff s view that the Planning Commission/Council has authority to increase the setback to 20' via the conditional use process if desired. O"Neill commented on parking, door openings. and vehicle storage. This project does not contain outside storage therefore it complies with this requirement. It is hoped that the operation of the facility \vill assure compliance with the requirement that vehicles be stored in containment area. Past practice has shown that this is not always the case. -5- . Planning Commission Minutes - 10/03/00 Also discussed were repair operations, building/wall materials and the requirement that "the secondary or non-advertising wall facing a public right-of-way shall utilize a combination of colors or materials that serve to break up the monotony of a single color flat surface." Mr. Johnson stated that he plans to construct the building of texturized block with very little metal. Regarding landscaping, O'Neill stated that the site plan shows eleven trees and the minimum required by code is twelve. The plan needs to be updated to show that the tree size meets code requirements. He also noted that in compliance with code, the site is more than 600' from the Groveland residential development. There was discussion by the commissioners as to the future plans for Marvin Road and O'Neill advised that in the next 2 to 10 years it could be developed but there are no specific plans at this time. He also noted that this site plan does not encroach on Marvin Road and it is not an issue. . Acting Chair Carlson opened the public hearing. John Johnson, applicant, stated he would be remodeling his current site and renting it out. There would be no outside storage on that site either. He also stated that he would eventually have additional employees. The 1 A' setback issue was again discussed and options were given to possibly move the building forward, which the applicant stated would cause turn around problems. Moving the building to the west would encroach on Marvin Road. It was again noted that the applicant's plans meet the City's code and if the code is in error, that is not the applicanfs concern. Acting Chair Carlson closed the public hearing. The commissioners further discussed the conditions in Exhibit Z noting that item one stating "shifl: wall along Chelsea Road to achieve 20' setback" should be deleted. but add the condition that there be no outside storage. The applicant did ask what defined outside storage as he would occasionally have a vehicle parked outside of his building that would be left there after hours and that it would be left there until the next business day. The planning commission stated the outside storage issues would be items such as parts. bumpers. etc. O'Neill stated that the planning commission needs to be very c\ear that no vehiclc (inoperable) be allmved to bc parked thcre as a standard. The applicant stated that it is his practice to move these vehicles inside the building for safety reasons but there is the occasional \'Chicle left there after hours. . ',,-, A MOTION WAS MADE BY ROBBIE SMITH AND SECONDED BY ROD DRAGSTEN TO APPROVE THE SITE PLAN SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS IDENTIfiED IN EXHIBIT /, WITI I THE DELETION OF CONDITION NUMBER ONE RELATING TO THE 20' SETBACK AND THE ADDITION OF A CONDITION THAT THERI,: RE ABSOLUTEL Y NO OUTSIDE STORAGE. MOTION BASED ON ~6- . THE FINDING THAT THE SITE PLAN, IF COMPLAINT WITH ORDINANCE REQUIREMENTS AS IDENTIFIED IN EXHIBIT Z, MEETS THE STANDARDS FOR THE DISTRICT AND THEREFORE IS CONSISTENT WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. Motion carried unanimously. Planning Commission Minutes - 10/03/00 9. Public Hearing - Consideration of an amendment to the District. Applicant: Citv of Monticello Steve Grittman, City Planner, provided the staff report noting that previously staff had raised concerns that the language developed tor the CCD parking requirements gives the developer or landowner the choice between providing the required number of off.street parking spaces according to the zoning ordinance, or choosing to "overbuiId" the site and pay into a parking fund which the City would use to provide public parking at the City's discretion. The City assigned a parking fee of $1,025 per stall as the requisite figure if a choice is made to provide less than the required amount of parking. It is currently bc1ieved that the cost of acquisition and construction of parking would cost approximately $3.000 per stall or more. Acting Chair Carlson opened the public hearing. Hearing no response, the public hearing was closed. . There was tlmher discussion on designated parking as it relates to some of the new developments proposed. A MOTION WAS MADE BY ROY POPILEK AND SECONDED BY ROBBIE SMITH TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE CHANGE IN THE TEXT GIVING THE CITY THE OPTION OF OFFERING THE FEE-IN-LIEU OF PARKING OPTION. Motion carried unanimously. 10. Consideration to call for a ublic hearing establishin" building and architectural desi"n ~tandards in the business district. Steve Grittman, City Planner, provided the statT report noting the Planning Commission had raised the concept of establishing building materials standards in the Business Districts \vith the opening of the expanded commercial area on Chelsea Road West. lhe discussion tlJeused on the establishment of minimum materials requirements. but \vithout architectural or design review, such as is applied in the CCD District. ~ The commission discussed the percentage of metal allowable in the ordinance language and Grittman explnined that this amount retCrred to accent feature. trim. etc. and was not structural. - 7- . O'Neill asked if the planning commission members wanted the IDC to review these first or if they would like them to go straight to the City council. It was stated that it was not necessary to have these reviewed by the IDC but that they would be specifically notified. Planning Commission Minutes _ 10/03/00 A MOTION WAS MADE BY ROBBIE SMITH AND SECONDED BY ROD DRAGSTEN RECOMMENDING APPROV At TO CALL FOR A PUBLIC HEARING ON THE PROPOSED ORDINANCE AMENDMENT. Motion carried unanimously. II. Verbalu date on "ross vehicle weinht standards and Council action to den . Fred Patch. Building Omcial, was to update the commissioners on the Council's previous action but was unable to attend the meeting. The commissioners discussed this item being denied by City Council and felt that this was a contlict of interest on council member Brian Stumpfs part. It was also asked whether this council member was violating city code and it was stated that he was. . It was discussed whether the c1assi!ication of these vehicles could be made more clearly. The members noted that in the case of an emergency vehicle it should be allowable but not vehicles such as dump trucks. semis. etc. It was then noted that "emergency vehicles" would have to be more clearly defined. It was argued that a "tavv truck/wrccker" would not necessarily be classified as an emergency vehicle and that it could be stored somewhere else other than in a residential area. It was also suggested that possibly a "tow truck/wrecker" owner/operator would need to come into City Hall for a specific permit to park in a residential area. This item would be discussed further at another time. Roy Popilek advised that he resigned as Liaison for the MCP. He stated his frustration with the lack of support from downtown businesses and others. He states mixed emotions and \vishes them well. O'Neill added that the MCP has accomplished many items in the past and now perhaps they need to re-focl/s. 12. Adiourn. ^ MOTION WAS MADE BY ROBBIE SMITH AND SECONDED BY ROD DRAGS TEN TO ADJOURN THE MEETING AT 9 P.M. Motion earried unanimously. . Recording Secretary ~--'-'--------------'---------.,_. -------._-~ -8- . . , Planning Commission Agenda - 11/08/00 ~ Public Hcaring - Considcration of an application for a conditional use permit to allow a sccond accessory building on a single family lot. Applicant: John & Kim Carlson. (JO) Under our code, a second acccssory building can not bc constructed without a conditional use permit unless thc 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 building 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 docs not matter in which order they are constructed. The Carlson's application will be rcfunded. -1- . . . Planning COllllll ission Agenda - I 1/08/00 6. Publ ic llearing - 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 garage. Applicant: City of Monticello (FP) A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND Mr. Stacy Braun residing at 9336 Ilomestead Circle has been issued a building permit for a detached garage that is facing upon Homestead Drive. When the building permit was issued for this garage, the building inspector referenced Scction 3-2[0]3 of the Zoning Code: .. Detached accessory huildings shall not exceed jifteen (/5) feet in heil(lIt and shall he teu (/0) feet or morefrom all side lot lille,\' (~f at/joining lots,jive (5) feet or more from the rear lot line, .\h,,1I he tell (/0) feet or more from allY other huildillg or structure 011 the same lot, amlslwllllot he located with ill a utili(v eaumellt." Because that section of the code does not rcfcr to side yards honting public streets, the building inspector determined that all sidc yard setbacks for the acccssory structure are tcn (10) feet. In thc opinion of the Zoning Administrator, even though thosc sctback requirements flW accessory structures are more specific, Scction 3-2[0]3 provides only for "side lot lines of adioining, lots", and did not intend to supcrcede Section 3-3 l el2 of thc Zoning Code which rcquires a 20 foot side yard setback for buildings honting on a public streets: "/11 R- /, R-2, B-1, amI B-2 districts, if lot is a comer lot, the side yart/sethack shall he not less than twellty (20) feet from the lot line ahuttilll( the street rigl1t-(~f-w{(y lille. " Future clarification to the zoning code may be necessary to avoid this problem in the future. This problem was not discovered until the garage was entirely framed. Thc Planning Commission may choose to allow a variance to the side yard setback. That will allow the garage to remain where it is constructed at 10 feet back from the property I ine fronting on Homestead Drive. IIardship is established by thc questionable application of the Zoning Code hy the City. In addition, the Planning Commission may call for a public hearing to amend thc Zoning Code Section 3-2[1)13 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. - 1- . Planning Commission Agenda - 11108/00 Alternatively, the Planning Commission may deny the variance; however, the City staff approved the permit and location of the garage and it does not seem reasonable for the property owner to bear the entire burden of moving and rebuilding the garage. B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS I. Motion to approve the variance based on the finding that the variance is necessary due to the hardship imposed by the questionable interpretation of the Zoning Code by the City, subject to the addition of additional landscaping (as may be determined by the Commission). 2. Motion to deny approval of the variance request (and recommend some remedy to the City Council). C. STAff RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve the variance based on the finding identified under alternative 1. . Ilc SUPPORTING DATA . Site Plan showing location of garage. , -2- IQ ti on :levation ~(Jme ~ouse _ 2: 1t 3.. 8(.ock 2 bl1.67 {~ / ~ \'l- .. / \ \ \ \ \ \ \ , T.;tp (If I.P, -_ El.:.v.=esa,2a I i I ( 9S9A2) \157.5 ~S6.9 l-@ to-. ....... \.. , \ k. ~ J , .~ '- -- , \,.. ,., .... , \ \ ....~ \.tvcJA< (1)>--- LOC S~ ARE ......-..--.....-".. " LeA Lot 1 t J KLEIN F Wright I . . . -- Plann ing COllllll ission Agenda -11/08/00 7. Consideration of a Conceot Stage Planned lJnit Development to allow a mix of commercial uses. Applicant: Dan Mielke. (NAC) A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: Ex isl in!! and Prof)osed Conditions. The appl icant controls property between Trunk Highway 25, the new Chelsea Road (east) and Cedar Street, south of the Tom Thumb. The several parcels which arc a part of the proposal total about 3.5 acres in area. Currently, the land is developed with the Ultra Lube building, the Subway restaurant, and two houses along Cedar Street. The applicant is also seeking a vacation ofa 16 foot wide portion of the Cedar Street right-of-way to accommodate the redevelopment of the site. The proposed development would retain the Ultra Lube and Subway restaurant. In addition, another fast-food restaurant would be constructed in the southwest corner near Chelsea and TH 25. a car wash facility would be added to the north side of the Ultra Lube building, a eonvenience store with gas would be constructed in the southeast corner near Chelsea and Cedar Street (with an additional 1,600 square feet of other retai I space attached), and a full- service restaurant would be located in the northeast corner of the site along Cedar Street. The proposal relies on Planned Unit Development "PUD" l1exibility since much of the project would share parking between parcels and utilize common driveways without separate landscaped areas between parking lots. Planned Unit Development is a zoning technique whieh is employed to permit llexibility in the application of zoning regulations and allow liJr site design whieh integrates common design elements such as aceess, parking, and open space. The assumption for any PU D is that the sum of the proeess will create a project whieh 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 fi.wa PUD. It is common in PUD design to flex internal setbacks and other standards. The zoning ordinance treats all lots within a PU D as a single parcel for zoning purposes. Therefore, adherence to external setbacks is required. The applicant states in his application letter that they have assumed that TH 25 is the hont. This would make Chelsea Road and the north property line side yards, and the area along Cedar Street on the cast the rear yard. Building setbacks are 30 feet front, 10 feet side, and 30 feet rear. The ordinance defines the front yard as that frontage which is the least on a mul ti pIe-frontage lot. Therefore, Chelsea Road (the south line) should be treated as the front of the lot. This wi II raise issues with front building setbacks for the gas canopy, the List food restaurant, and the rear setback for the full-service restaurant. In summary, the applicant is requesting encroachments into the perimeter setback area for the following elements: . Drive Lane f()t, Fast Food Restaurant- reduction from 5 feet (required) to 0 feet along Chelsea Rd. -1- . Planning Commission Agenda -11/08/00 . Drive Lane for Gas/Convenience Store - reduction from 5 feet to 0 feet at Chelsea! Cedar Street corner. Building setback from Chelsea Road for Fast Food Restaurant - reduction fi'OIl1 30 feet front yard to 14.8 feet. Building setback from Chelsea Road for Gas Station Canopy - reduction from 30 fect front yard to 1 7 feet. Building setback from north property line for Full Service Restaurant - reduction from 30 feet rear yard to 10 feet. . . . A generalized discussion of signage has been provided in the application letter. although the plans arc not prepared to this level of detail at this stage. Formal review of the sign plan would be conducted at a later stage of PUD approval when the plans are ready. Analvsis. The site includes all uses which are permitted or conditional uses in the B-3, Ilighway Business District. Each of the uses is a high-traffic generator and is automobile- oriented, that is, there is likely to be little cross use of the site. As such, the design must accommodate access to the individual uses f(Jr a sufficient number of visitors, and little interaction between uses would be expected. . 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 half of the site. The applicant suggests that the primary access to the site will be via the main driveway offofCedar Street. ^ central drive running north-south distributes traffic internally. There arc a few design concerns with the site as presented on the plan, most of which relate to the levels of tratTic and the related site amenities. Included in these concerns arc exiting traffic li'om the f~lst-t()od 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. In aggregate, the buildings cover about 11% of the site. L,andscaped coverage is about 18% of the site (almost half of which is around the full-service restaurant. The remaining 71 % of the site is paved parking and drive aisle. 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 tCllmd in narrow, five-foot wide planter areas or small traffic islands. In planning staffs view, while islands are important, they represent only the minimum eH()rt to break up the predominance of paved area. In pre-application meetings, the applicant's representatives indicated that neither the applicant or the proposed occupants of the project arc amenable to a shopping center design. . .... 1'"01' PLlD design, the applicant is required to exceed the minimum. 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. This suggestion is supported by the parking setback encroachment request, and the application letter comment that some of the plantings may need to be located on the right-of-way instead ! -....- . Planning COllHl1 ission Agenda -11/08/00 of private property. The front yard/side yard orientation would further complicate the applicant's intended layout. Nonetheless, a statl sketch is attached to this report which proposes a slightly altered plan at the cost ofa numherofparking spaces. It is based on the huilding and access layout provided by the applicant, and assumes that the building locations would be appropriate. Under the planning staiTsketch, approximately 149 parking spaces arc shown. This would be 19 spaces short of the estimated requirement for the buildings as proposed. The most difficult area on the site is the space around the proposed fast~tc)Od restaurant. TralTic and parking demands for these uses are often the most intensive, and due to the location of the Ultra Lube. the available area for the hlst-food building and parking is the tightest. Ilowever. the alternative design is intended to illustrate a greater emphasis on landscaped areas by creating a planted corridor along the main interior access drives. In these areas, the island plantings would be widened to at least 8 to 10 feet or more. Staff would envision an creatively and intensively planted, irrigated corridor which creates a distinct impression on the visitor. With this type of approach. the required findings tc)r PUD consideration could he more appropriate. . 'To mitigate the parking deficiency, it may he necessary to reduce overall building size. A partial solution would hc the 1,600 square feet of undesignated retail space adjacent to the convenience store. The applicant's representatives have indicatcd that this rctail space has no prospcctive tcnant. If the applicant is held to the setback orientation with Chelsea as the rront yard. a more major redesign of the site is likely to be necessary. 13. AL TERNATIVE ACTIONS 1. Motion to recommend approval of the PUD Concept Stage based on a finding that the design of the site is appropriate for the location and proposed uses, and that the proposed improvements qualify for PUD consideration under the City's PUD ordinance. This recommendation would he suhject to the condition that all site improvements meet the required standards of the zoning ordinance, and includes a recommendation that Chelsea Road hc treatcd as the ii'ont yard for purposes of huilding setbacks. 2. Motion to recommend denial of the PUD Concept Stage, based on a finding that the proposed uses are too intense for the site, and that the plan does not meet the standards Cor consideration or a PUD. .. -) . Motion to table action on the PUD Concept Stage, suhjcct to the submission of additional intcmnation. . -3- . Planning Commission Agenda -11/08/00 c. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Stall does not recommend approval of the PU[) as presented. As noted in the text of this report PUD consideration is to be used where the City finds that the flcxibi I ity granted under the PU[) results in a site design which is superior to a plan which complies with the basic zoning regulations. Because the site plan shows such a large number of encroachments into the perimeter site area, including driveways in the setback, required plantings on the public right-of-way, and building orientation inconsistent with the zoning ordinance's definitions, it would appear that the site would be overbuilt under the proposed development. Nonethe]ess, if the encroachments and the front/side orientation are resolved, the creation of a distinctive, integrated site design is still the basic requirement of the use of pun flexibility. StalThas illustrated one possible design option (without resolving all issues) and suggested a second (attached "shopping center" building layouts). The primary issues to resolve at Concept Stage PU[) should include the following: ]. Application of the ordinance delinitions of front and side yard - Chelsea is the front according to the zoning ordinance; the applicant proposes Highway 25 as the front. This determination will alTeet the building setback requirements. It is assumed by slalTthat building setbacks at the perimeter of the PUD will not be varied. . 2. Likelihood of variance consideration f()r driveway encroachments - hardship is required for these encroachments, and staff believes that in the B-3 District a variance would not be likely. 3. Application ofPUD to the project, and what additional requirements, ifany (such as landscaped area) would be made of the applicant for PU[) approval. 'fhe intent of Concept Stage PUD is to identify issues and direct the developer's continuing design process. Because a number of these issues could greatly affect the project a revised concept plan may be the most appropriate follow-up to this proposal. For City Council consideration, the applicant is also seeking City financial assistance in the establishment of the redevelopment district. D. SUPPORl]NCJ DATA ]. Proposed Site Plan 2. Planning Staff Alternative Plan . -4- -----------1 tJ 0 . 6 S r.~ ~~ ","~-o ~ n ~ ~~~~ -n~a ~. n~~~~ ~~~~~ i ~ t'i - ~ ;1 ~g~~~ ~n! !:lO ~~~~g ~~ z"- ~~ r~i~~ ~~ ~ c: t: ... ~ ~~~.~ ~~ I ~ T 9l,,~':o. ~ On~;;l(I ~ I ~I~~E ~. . ~.~~~ ~ ~ t'i ~ a J: ~ N \,T1 ~6z""';;!'" ~~! ~~~~~~ g~~~zs~ ~~ ~~t'ii , , n 0 ~Q ~".. ~i~~~m 8f ~ C'l5c ~~ ~ m-o ~~ ~~~~i g~~ 6~ g~~~~ c::;:; n o~El ~~ ~~i~i S$ g~ 5' ~ z;~ ;; ~ tl ~ t; . 8 -. ~ o...Iopnwt loIN"" OtIdClloloookd. --, . CISTY L E lWp NCII"11!MP&IICII1IfIjAftN.llNO!fJW IW!IlIIi_MWII~ WI'''' =~~....tilE'l'...III\I(IOT... MW-4JtO !cm-~luRfrtDMJtb- ~ "ltuliMI.iIItIM Ilr.al_._" mi IIE!IaIPIKIN : ~lt '7A . I . q o )> '" l.n :-I . :t' ~ CHELSEA RD. r ~ 16 . . . Planning Commission Agenda - 11/08/00 ~ Public Hearing - Consideration of an amcndment to the zoning, ordinance establishing buildinl! material standards in the business districts. Applicant: City of Monticello (NAC) A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND Planning Commission is asked to conduct the publ ic hearing and consider adoption of the ordinance amendment governing building and design standards in the Business Districts. Please refer to reports provided previously by NAC on this topic. li ALTERNATIVE ACTION 1. Motion to recommend adoption of ordinance amendment governing building and design standards in the Business District based on the findings outlined in the Planners report and based on the finding that that the proposed amendment is consistent with the comprehensive plan. 2. Motion to deny approval or table consideration of proposed ordinance amendment. c. STAFF R.ECOMMENDATION Stall recommends approval of the ordinance amendments as proposed. The City has not received any negative comments regarding the amendment. Adoption of the new code will help assure development of high quality commercial structures in the City. Comprehensive plan for the City. D. SUPPORTING DATA Copy of ordinance amendment. Previous staff reports on topic. -1- . . . Exhibit A - Draft Ordinance Language A. No galvanized or unfinished steeL galvalum or unfinished aluminum buildings (walls or roofs), except those specifically intended to have a corrosive designed finish such as corten steel shall be permitted in the B- I. B-2. B-3. or B-4 zoning districts. except in association with legal farming activities. B. Buildings in the uB". Business zoning districts shall maintain a high standard of architectural and aesthetic compatibility with conforming surrounding properties to ensure that they will not adversely impact the property' values of the abutting properties and shall have a positi,,-e impact on the public health. safety. and general welfare. C. In the "B", Business districts. exterior building finishes shall consist of materials comparable in grade and quality to the following: 1. Brick. 2. Natural stone. 3. Decorative concrete block. ..t Cast in place concrete or precast concrete panels. 5. Wood. provided the surfaces are finished for exterior use and wood of proven exterior durability is used. such as cedar. red\vood. cypress. 6. Glass curtain wall panels. 7. Stucco. D. Metal exterior finishes shall be permitted only where coordinated into the overall architectural design of the structure. such as in windov; and door frames. mansard roofs or parapets. and other similar features. and in no case shall constitute more than 15% of the total building exterior finish. Source: Zoning Ordinance Effective Date: 8-23~85 EXHIBIT A COA . . . ill Planning Commission Agenda - 10/03/00 CONSIDERATION TO CALL FOR A PUBLIC HEARING FOR AMENDMENT TO THE ZONING ORDINANCE ESTABLISHING BUILDING MATERIALS STANDARDS IN THE nB". BUSINESS DISTRICTS. APPLICANT: MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION. (NAC) A REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND The Planning Commission has raised the concept of establishing building materials standards in the Business Districts with the opening of the expanded commercial area on Chelsea Road West. The discussion focused on the establishment of minimum materials requirements, but without architectural or design review. such as is applied in the CCD District. The attached language is utilized in other communities to raise the level of building materials above the pole building construction style, and does not permit the metal siding typical of such buildings. While "polen buildings are technically allowed. they are often disqualified because of their inability to support the required finish. As stated in the ordinance. this language would only apply to the B- I, B-2, B-3. and B-4 districts. Application of similar restrictions in the industrial districts has met opposition in the past. B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS I. Recommend approval for calling for a public hearing on the proposed ordinance amendment. If this ordinance is ultimately adopted, the action could be based on a finding that the restriction of building materials in this manner is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and the City's development goals in the business districts. 2. Recommend denial of calling for the public hearing on the proposed ordinance amendment. based on a finding that the restriction on building materials in this manner would unduly interfere with business development. 3. Table action. c. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of calling for a public hearing on the amendment. It is believed that the City of Monticello is well-situated to grow without fear of stopping development with enhanced development regulations. However. it is not uncommon to see some types of development make the least investment possible. This can actually interfere with high-investment businesses in some cases. Increasing building materials standards should help to ensure that high-quality. and highly valued, businesses located within the City. D. SUPPORTING DATA Draft Ordinance Language - Exhibit A -1- 86 . . . Exhibit A - Draft Ordinance Language A. No galvanized or unfinished steeL galvalum or unfinished aluminum buildings (walls or roofs), except those specifically intended to have a corrosive designed finish such as corten steel shall be permitted in the B-1, B-2. B-3. or B-4 zoning districts. except in association with legal farming activities. B. Buildings in the uB". Business zoning districts shall maintain a high standard of architectural and aesthetic compatibility with conforming surrounding properties to ensure that they will not adversely impact the property values of the abutting properties and shall have a positive impact on the public health. safety. and general welfare. C. In the "S". Business districts. exterior building finishes shall consist of materials comparable in grade and quality to the following: 1. Brick. 2. Natural stone. 3. Decorative concrete block. .... Cast in place concrete or precast concrete panels. 5. Wood. provided the surfaces are finished for exterior use and v\iood of proven exterior durability is used. such as cedar. redwood. cypress. 6. G lass curtain wall panels. 7. Stucco. D. Metal exterior finishes shall be permitted only where coordinated into th~ overall architectural design of the structure. such as in window and door frames. mansard roofs or parapets. and other similar features. and in no case shall constitute more than 15% of the total building exterior finish. Source: Zoning Ordinance Effective Date: 8-23-85 EXHIBIT A 80 . Planning Commission Agenda - 09/5/00 12. Consideration of an amendment to the zoning ordinance establishinll building materials standards in the "B", Business Districts. Applicant: Monticello Planning Commission. (NAC) A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND The Planning Commission has raised the concept of establishing building materials standards in the Business Districts with the opening of the expanded commercial area on Chelsea Road West. The discussion focused on the establishment of minimum materials requirements, but without architectural or design review, such as is applied in the CCD District. The attached language is utilized in other communities to raise the level of building materials above the pole building construction style, and does not permit the metal siding typical of such buildings. While "pole" buildings are technically allowed, they are often disqualified because of their inability to support the required finish. As stated in the ordinance, this language would only apply to the B-1, B-2, B-3 and B-4 districts. Application of similar restrictions in the 1-1 and 1-2 industrial districts has met opposition in the past. B. AL TERNA TIVE ACTIONS 1. Recommend approval of the proposed ordinance amendment, based on the tinding that the restriction of building materials in this manner is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, and the City's development goals in the business districts. . 2. Recommend denial of the proposed ordinance amendment, based on a finding that the restriction on building materials in this manner would unduly interfere with business development. 3. Table action on the amendment, pending additional information. C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of the amendment. It is believed that the City of Monticello is well-suited to grow without fear of stopping development with enhanced development regulations. However, it is not uncommon to see some types of development make the least investment possible. This can actually interfere with high-investment businesses in some cases. Increasing building materials standards should help to ensure that high- quality, and highly valued, businesses located within the City. D. SUPPORTING DATA ~ Draft Ordinance Language -1- 51 ,.,~'1 --.....'d...'~'lH,...U Illlll",;n '=!llt'n ............ ::~.,... . . . Planning Commission Agenda - 09/05/00 A. No galvanized or unfinished steel. galvalum or unfinished aluminum buildings (walls or roofs), except those specifically intended to have a corrosive designed finish such as corten steel shall be permitted in the B-1, B-2, B-3, or B-4 zoning districts, except in association with legal farming activities. B. Buildings in the "B", Business zoning districts shall maintain a high standard of architectural and aesthetic compatibility with conforming surrounding properties to ensure that they will not adversely impact the property values of the abutting properties and shall have a positive impact on the public health, safety, and general welfare. C Exterior building finishes shall consist of materials comparable in grade and quality to the following: L Brick. 2, Natural stone. 3, Decorative concrete block. 4, Cast in place concrete or precast concrete panels. 5, Wood. provided the surfaces are finished for exterior use and wood of proven exterior durability is used, such as cedar, redwood, cypress. 6. Glass curtain wall panels. 7. Stucco. D. Metal exterior finishes shall be permitted only where coordinated into the overall architectural design of the structure, such as in window and door frames, mansard roofs or parapets, and other similar features, and in no case shall constitute more than 15% of the total building exterior finish. Source: Zoning Ordinance Effective Date: 8~23-85 of: Id A- . . . Planning Commission Agenda ~08/0 1100 15. Consideration of establishing buildin2 and architectural desil!n standards in the business districts. ADplicant: City of Monticello. (NAC) A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND The Planning Commission has discussed the possibility of establishing building and architectural design standards for business districts. This report is intended to identifY potential methods of regulation, and levels of complexity. Based on the Planning Commission's discussion, a draft ordinance will be developed for consideration at a future meeting. There are basically two levels of possible regulation. The first is a common requirement in many communities establishing some baseline building materials standards which new buildings must adhere to, just as they adhere to setbacks or parking requirements. The second level would entail more specific architectural style issues which are usually taken through a design review process, such as DA T does with the CCD developments. Buildinlf Materials Standards. Many zoning ordinances require that commercial buildings be constructed of either solid-wall masonry products, including concrete block, tip-up concrete panels, or other similar material. Some ordinances will address the exterior appearance of the building as well, allowing frame construction or pre-engineered steel buildings with masonry veneers. It is becoming common to see ordinances which require a minimum exterior finish of some percentage of brick or stone on buildings which are otherwise exclusively concrete. The advent of "rock-face" block has allowed concrete block buildings to become more attractive, but a 25% treatment of brick and/or stone integrated into the building design helps to add architectural interest and value. These percentage measurements are usually taken of the wall area exclusive of windows and doors. There are some ordinances which will require masonry exteriors on the building front only, or on wall surfaces which face residential or public areas. Most newer regulations are now requiring that the entire building meet the standards, particularly in commercial areas (as opposed to industrial) where public traffic around the building is common. In our experience, these regulations typically apply to all business districts. and this should be made a part of the discussion. The use of wood and metal is more mixed. Most ordinances exempt window and door framing from what is otherwise a prohibition ofmetal exterior. Some ordinances will permit a maximum amount of metal exposure to allow for certain architectural uses of metal canopies or roofs, for instance. A 15% maximum exposure is an average where these regulations are in place. The use of wood is also an issue. Many ordinances will limit its use to a certain percentage of the exposed wall, and require that it be treated or of decay resistant species. Also to be considered is whether residential siding such as vinyl or steel lap siding would be permitted on commercial buildings. -1- &f . Planning Commission Agenda -08/01100 It would be important to discuss newly developed building materials, such as EIFS (Exterior Insulated Building Systems) - often fabricated to look like stucco or other material, and how an ordinance should address these new building options. Input from the building official would be valuable in this regard. Finally, the Ordinance will need to address the expansion of buildings which would now be non-conforming due to their building materials. Under the non-conforming structure section of the zoning regulations, an expansion would require a varaince, often difficult to qualifY for. We are aware of ordinances which address this issue by allowing such buildings to expand by Conditional Use Permit. This approach allows the City to require site and/or building improvements to be phased in although the building materials may be difficult to change dramatically. Another option is to allow a blanket exemption for expansion up to a certain threshold size, then require full conformance with the building materials ordinance. One metro community provides for a 25% expansion of non-conforming structures, after which the entire building would be required to meet the materials standards. . Architectural Standards/Design Review. Beyond building materials, some municipalities have adopted more detailed architectural standards and included a design review process to ensure well-designed buildings and/or sites. Monticello has such a process in the downtown, Central Community District, utilizing the Design Advisory Team for architectural review. Many of these standards are developed to continue or re-establish a particular architectural theme. Common elements of architectural standards include specific materials, window sizes and/or arrangements, roof design, door design, cornice or other detail requirements, and building massing. The process for developing these types of standards is more complex and usually involves a series of design workshops to identifY the architectural issues, preferred style(s), and create graphics which help illustrate the standards to the community. Ifthis option is of interest to the Planning Commission, staff will develop a more complete outline of the process for establishing architectural standards. B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS 1. Motion to direct staff to prepare a draft ordinance regulating building materials in commercial districts per Planning Commission discussion. 2. Motion to direct staff to prepare a work program outlining a process to establish architectural standards for business districts. . 3. Motion to not recommend building materials or architectural standards at this time. 4. Motion to table action on building materials and architectural standards. -2- BS . Planning Commission Agenda -08/0 !l00 C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Planning staff is supportive of commercial building standards for Monticello's business districts. Architectural standards and design review would be a more extensive level of involvement, and staffwiII follow up as directed by the Planning Commission's discussion. D. SUPPORTING MATERIALS None . . -3- 8+t . . .~-- Planning Commission Agenda - 11/08/00 9. Consideration of approval of a revised final plat and review final plans for development of the Dodge Dealership (.TO) A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND Subsequent to Planning Commission and Council Approval of the Conditional use permit allowing auto sales in a B-3 zone, the developer made a revision to the plans. Under the 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 is asked to review it. There was some thought of establishing the the two parcels 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. No public hearing is required. Stafr did not receive the updated plan until late in the week therefore a full site review is not available. However, we have reviewed the site for adherence to the 15% rule and it does comply. Between today (Friday) and Tuesday, staff will be reviewing the site and will be prepared for a more detailed report at the meeting. Following are the decisions that the Planning Commission will be asked to consider. ALTERNATIVE ACTION: Decision 1. I. Motion to approve the revised plat based on the finding that the subdivision will result in two lots that conform to ordinances. Motion contingent vacation of easement along the northern edge of lot 2 block I. 2. Motion to deny approval of the revised final plat. Decision 2. I. Motion to accept the revised plan without requiring the applicant to process a new Conditional Use Permit request contingent on the following. -1- . Planning Commission Agenda - 11108/00 a. b. Conditions noted in the initial ClJ P approval. Completion of a revised final plat consistent with the site plan as prepared. City Council granting of a lease to occupy casement or approval of the vacation of utility easement along the northern edge of Lot 2, Block 1. c. Under this alternative the developer will be able to get started on the project immediately as desired. 2. Motion to deny acceptance of the revised plan and require that the applicant submit an application for an amendment to the Conditional Use Permit which would require a public hearing and Planning Commission review at the December meeting. Under this alternative approval will be delayed one month (two-three weeks if special meeting is conclucted). This delay could push the project into spring construction. STAFF RECOMMENDA nON . With regard to decision I, staff recommends approval of the revised plat. With regard to decision 2, staffwoulcl normally support processing a new application since the new plan is different than the original. However, due to the time of season and the ditlicultics associated with a month delay (two week delay even with special meeting) and due to the fact that there were no concerns regarding this development by neighbors, staff is recommending that the Planning Commission consider allowing the project to proceed under the original approval, subject to conditions that will be discussed at the meeting on Wednesday. SUPPORTING DATA Copy of original plat - 90lh Street Addition Copy of new site plan which is also the basis or the revised final plat .- -2- .L. ~ ~ 1"1 ~ '4- t S .". !/" ..; ~ -,~ ~ " ~ ~ " ~ n ..,;. \J <:01 ~~ CJ.> ~'-- s- "l-- ...... ...... --.. ~ '-' '- \' () ~ ~ ~ '-' "' \) () - ...... '"";) Q...... '-. - ,~ Q..... - tl <:;<: ~C!2 /0 J) -+' ;( \J cf) )lb ~ oJ <1l <:; j \..:: ~ . ,~) \ i.;.i 't:!: l!;~ ...~ ~~ $~ ~;;; :-",. I.' :~ r-,. ..r" :,:'~: I / I / I / :" / / .............::l /______~=~~~T=-~--------------i--.~--- I .~. I.' I H C: ~t, Li (..... ." :g .'t.>\{ '. ....\ I..~~._:;:u~:..:~-.:..!:-....-..-n..-....-.----._-......_..-..-....m"-'-""-"- / / / / .:','J :if:; .p 001 / / / ,./' """",,"/""" /" / / / , I I I , , I I I I I , I , I , I ... / , I ~:/ .:: I -./ ~l ,i 1 / / / "'" / '." / / "" / '.It; I I <::) I "'1. f. c:':' /: II ,":" I , "'., I : . I : '.':' ,I 1,:.:" fir-. I <.J- I : De! """""...~ //......,,/ " /" " , I / I , I I I I I I I I I I I I I / / / / / / / / i / I I / I / / I I I / 1------------ I I I / / I I I / / I I I I / I I I I I I -r ~ ~\'" ,.:' '.. a ... , .. , . . '" , ... , a i::' " :.: '" . ;~~ 15",8 "'..... 'N ~ ~:i .:;- ,,; '" I, i .. .. N -, '" 3;~ a. ....iJi i"i !~I~I ~ i"", i"", l';ill';~ ~ ~;: W~ i"~ _u ......u ~~I~~ ;l:; I-Li.. ~I,;. d~ T.~ I~~ ~::; ~'" w "-~ ;!: --r !lI~ --' -'" r~ ~ ;".. r ~ ~~I~ CD!: IIIU1! '"' ~;p ~ 13., ;N,_ - \lib ~~ I l>'" ~!i lli .. 15d "'j; ------ I'; ~. :iit ",'" oil... ~~ '. " -":"'6z'~ - -Ar-fl./ ,.; ::'N . t:(f: ~ ~~ oJ 1';'" S g::a t- 8- i'i bt~ i 'J ;' ..............II.II....II......t;i"."...t- .., ~ I w ", ~f.'" ~ '~t..., .l ..I oil t,\" l :~ ~ is 4 \ 5~ a E ::r \ iEl!I l!I ~ :t: I , i~ ~ ~ z ; , tl,.J il./ .... 05 J / '" r ...-...- .,' ............... ..~:..~..........~....... N : ;. ___D___I ~ J__________ .... ~.:----..-...-T....." ~~ <P ~~ ~~ :::-;, ~~ ~it ~~ "'.... i!:~ ~I.( iii... ~~ ....'" ~~ 1.(:::; "'''' "'.... ~~ L.t..: b II i".;I11 i I III' . I ! ~ II i I ! I } '~ I ~ ~ ~I i Y.LOIII.. "OTmWIOW GYOI YIIWC) 111M Elgaoa 011E1::>I.LNOW lIOII A.IIIDYaI IALI.OWO.IIlY MItt J IIIIII1 .. ~qfl,1 I 6 ."- J · j ~ tll~ I .. ~ ~ ,1111111 lti . J tilt ~...,..l .II c;v'L8t ~ III'- __.,..,- ~r-~~ ~ ~___---- ~--,,;r ... . , .----...-- - I - - ., I !It ~ III ,j, -l( - - " t.._ " { .. "8t !. lv'6or ~ -"-11 I! .....__.__.u."'.... <0 i If) N r-- ! I"') ! ~ "8t OJ I' ~ <c Ii c; Ii If ~ ..: III I c!t r. ! -- fI :Il - ..- 1:-- 11'ft""'"._i:III!..:....-_. ~ , ) -- - - .. - III - i .1 \" - - - - .... -t . . . ill Planning Commission Agenda - 11/08/00 Discussion regarding garage size versus house size standards. {Discussion only, no report attached}. (10) Verbal Discussion Only. . - . , LL Planning Commission Agenda - 11/08/00 Request for Planning Commission to Call For a Public Hearing - Consideration of an ordinance amending the Monticello Zoning Ordinance. Chapter 3. Section 3-5. [DJ 7. by adding subscctions (a) and (b). cstablishing regulations for commcrcial vehicles in residential districts. (FP) A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND On September! I ,2000 the City Council did not follow the recommendations ofthc Planning Commission and denied the Zoning Ordinance amendment to allow enforcement of ordinances restricting commercial vehicles from residential districts. The Council dirccted statT to look into allowances for emergency vehicles, tow trucks, and the like. The current ordinances intend to disallow commercial vehicles in rcsidential districts (with some exceptions); however, alone thc 9,000 lb. gross vehicle weight rcstriction is insufficient to enable enforcement. This ordinance amendment along with amendments to thc tratlic ordinances (em-street parking ordinances) will help to preserve the character of our residential districts while not limiting necessary commcrcial vehicle traffic serving those districts. A proposed draft of the ordinance amendment is attachcd tl1f discussion at the meeting. R. AL TERNATIVE ACTION 1. Motion to call for a public hearing for an Ordinance amending Monticello Zoning Ordinancc, Chapter 3, Section 3-5, [D] 7, by adding subsections (a) and (b). and establishing regulations for commercial vehicles in residential districts. 2. Motion to not call for a public hcaring. c. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff rccommends Alternative 1 to thc Planning Commission. D. SUPPORTING DATA . Copy of proposcd Ordinance with underlining to show amcndments. -1- . . . ORDINANCE NO. CITY OF MONTICELLO WRIGHT COUNTY, MINNESOTA AN ORDINANCE AMENDING MONTICELLO ZONING ORDINANCE, CHAPTER 3, SECTION 3-5, [D] 7, BY ADDING SUBSECTIONS (A) AND (B), ESTABLISHING REGULATIONS FOR COMMERCIAL VEIllCLES IN RESIDEN'rtAL DISTRICTS: 'THE CITY OF MONTICELLO DOES ORDAIN: Title 10, Chapter 3, Section 3-5, [D] 7 is hereby amended to read as follows: 7. Off-street parking facilities accessory to residential use may be utilized solely for the parking of licensed and operable passenger automobiles, no more 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 facilitics accessory to rcsidential structures be used for the storage of commercial vehicles or equipment or for the parking of automobiles belonging to the employees, owners, tenants, or custOlners of business or manllt~lcturing establ ishments. (ill For the purpose of this section, a commercial vehiclcs or equipment (buses, trucks, truck-tractors, vans, and thc like).shall be defined as. i. Any vehicle with Minnesota license plates carrying a designation of "BY" (bus, except as provided below), "CZ" (commercial zone truck); or ii. Any vehicle with Minnesota license plates carrving a designation of"Y" (truck with Minnesota base plate) or "T" (farm truck), and displavin!.!, on the lower right corner of the license plate any gross vehicle weight designation of "F" through "T"; or iii. Anv vehicle with a gross vehicle weight in excess of 9.000 Ibs. (h} Commercial vehicles, shall be subiect to all other provisions of this ordinance; however, the prohibitions of this Section shall not apply to the following: i. Commercial vehicles that are actually in the process of being loaded or unloaded in the due course of business. ii. Commercial vehicles that arc directly ancillary to construction and parked within 1,000 feet onhe related construction site. iii. Vehicles liccnsed with Disability Plates, or displaving a Disabilitv Parkin!! Certificate. IV. One~ton passenger vans used solei v for transporting persons. v. Vehicles owned and/or operated by a l!overnmental a(!cncv. vi. Public alld private emerJ!ellcv vehicle.~ sucll as tllose lI.\'etl hI' police. fire. securitl'. vehicle towinl!. /JIlb/ic al/(l private IItilitl' companies; IIowever, sllcll vellicles muM displal' tile name of tile COI11lJ(IIlV IJTOl'idinl! the service ami he equipped with equipmellt tllat l11al' be used ill an emerl!enCV .,'itllatioll. 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: . .