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:
.
.