The URL can be used to link to this page

Planning Commission Agenda 09-05-2000 . " -) . 4. . 5. 6. AGENDA REGlJLAR MEETING - MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday, September 5, 2000 7:00 P.M. Members: Dick Frie, Robbie Smith, Roy Popilek, Richard Carlson, Rod Dragsten Council Liaison: CI int Herbst S tatT ./effO'Neill, Fred Patch, Steve Grittman and Lori Kraemer 1. Call to order. 2. Approval of minutes of the regular meeting held August 1,2000 and the special meeting of August 14, 2000. Consideration of adding items to the agenda. Citizens comments. Public Hearing - Consideration of a request for a variance to the side yard setbacks to construct a garage. Applicant: Edward & Marla Hughes Public Hearing.. Consideration of a request to amend the conditional use permit for Monticello Auto Body to add a parcel of land to the planned unit development for future development. Applicant: John Johnson (Monticello Auto Body) 7. Public lIearing .. Consideration of a preliminary plat for right-oF-way and commercial tots known as the 90lh Street Addition. City of Monticello 8. Public llearing - Consideration of a request fix a CUP for new and used automobile/light truck sales and display in the B-3 District. Applicant: Jacob Holdings of Monticello, LLC (Denny Hecker's Automotive Group) 9. Continued Public Bearing.. Consideration of an amendment to a planned unit development in a B-3 District to allow the expansion of an auto sales and storage lot. Applicant: Dave Peterson's Monticello Ford. 10. . Public llearing - Consideration of an ordinance amending the Monticello Zoning Ordinance, Chapter 3, Section 3-5, rD17, by adding subsections (a) and (b), establishing regulations for commercial vehicles in residential districts. Applicant: City of Monticello City Council -1- . . . II. Review status of publ ic nuisance ordinance enforcement. 12. Draft ordinance establishing building and architectural design standards in the business districts. City of Monticello. 13. Consideration to call for public hearing on amendments to parking requirements in the CCD District. 14. Adjourn. -2- . . . Planning COI11I11 ission Minutes - 08/0 1/00 MINUTES REGULAR MEETING - MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday, August 1,2000 7:00 P.M. Members Present: Dick Frie, Robbie Smith, Roy Popilek, Richard Carlson, Rod Dragsten and Council Liaison Clint Herbst Staff Present: Jeff O'Neill, Fred Patch, Steve Grittman and Lori Kraemer 1. Call to order. Chair Frie called the meeting to order at 7 p.m. 2. Approval of minutes of the regular meeting held July 5. 2000. ROD DRAGSTEN MOVED TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE JUL Y 5, 2000 REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING. RICHARD CARLSON SECONDED THE MOTION. Motion carried. .., .J. Consideration of adding items to the agenda. None 4. Citizens comments. None 5. Review status of public nuisance ordinance enforcement. This items \-vas moved to item number 17 of the agenda, and at that time it was decided to review this item at the next regular Planning Commission meeting of September 5, 2000. A MOTION WAS MADE BY ROBBIE SMITH AND SECONDED BY ROY POPILEK TO REVIEW STATUS OF PUBLIC NUISANCE ORDINANCE ENFORCEMENT AT THE REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 5. 2000. Motion canied unanimously. 6 & 7 Consideration of a Rezoning to Planned Unit Development and concept stal!e PUD approval for office, private school, performing arts center, recording studio, residential uses and ot'f--site parkin!!: and Consideration of a concept staee development approval allowine office space, private school, performing arts center, recording studio, residential uses and off-site parkin!!; and consideration of a 4 unit town house development and 4 single familv homes. Applicants: Church of St. Henry, Barry Bluhm, and Don Bauer. -1- Planning Commission Minutes - 08/01/00 . Steve Grittman provided the staflreport explaining the joint filing by the applicants for the redevelopment of the St. Henry's Church site along Maple and 4th Streets. The redevelopment consists of three main components. Barry Bluhm proposes to redevelop the main church building and maintain the church parking lot south of 4th Street. The development would include a conversion of the sanctuary into a performing arts center. Much of the remainder of the building would include office space, a recording studio, and three apartment units. The lower level of the building may be leased as a private school. Mr. Bluhm expects no exterior changes at this time, although a small addition to accommodate loading may be sought at a future date. Issues related to this portion of the PUD include traffic and access to the project through the existing neighborhood. Don Bauer proposes residential use in two adjacent parcels. The first component would be potential single family homes along 3rd Street. Plans for this portion of the project are still being developed. However, it is expected that a private access drive would be developed along the rear of the project to share with the Bluhm project. The third component would also be residential. Don Bauer proposes four townhouses along Maple Street. A shared driveway is proposed which would provide access to Maple Street from the church parking lot being used by the Bluhm development. Mr. Bauer has provided two alternative concept plans for this component. . Chair Frie opened the Public tlearing. Mr. Don Doran, 515 Maple St, addressed the Commission stating his concerns over parking on south side of Maple St. Mr. Jeff Gardner, 500 W. 4th SL also stated his concern with parking issues as well as increased trafflc, noting he has small children and is concerned about the speed of the traffic as well. Mr. Grittman noted that it is expected that daily traffic generation would be quite small. Apart from the performing arts center. the parking demand would be approximately 20 spaces. The performing arts center would generate the greatest parking demand and trat1ic levels, although on a more sporadic schedule. The auditorium would generate a demand for between 90 and 100 spaces, with an additional need for 20 spaces, depending on the production. The existing parking lot is estimated to have about 130 spaces, meeting the projected demand. A preference for traHic accesS to and from the south would best avoid potential conf1icts with the residential areas to the north and east. . Grittman also stated additional detail regarding the scheduling of performances would help to refine the land use issues and any steps necessary to minimize negative impacts. Traffic, lighting and signage were also addressed. Mr. Barry Bluhm, Becker. MN, addressed the Commission regarding these issues and also addressed the proposed rental units. He did note tbat these residential units would be short-term leased as he felt there was a need for this. He also commented on the proposed private school which would be for approximately 35 children, rvlonday through Friday. The current daycare was addressed and it was noted that this is not part of the proposed PUD. Grittman addressed the 3rd Street Residential portion of the project which is proposed to be -2- Planning Commission Minutes - 08/01/00 . low density residential uses consistent with the surrounding neighborhood. Concept plans have not been developed for this portion of the project at this time. Grittman also addressed the Don Bauer Maple Street Townhome pOIiion of the project which consists of four townhouse units between Maple Street and the existing parking lot, adjacent to the north side of the Burlington Northern rail line. The land use is consistent with the existing zoning (R-2), but a PUD approach is necessary to provide for the use of common areas and shared driveways. Two site plans were submitted. Due to the traffic potential from the parking lot, staff prefers the first option. The green space would be concentrated in the front yard, and service/garage spaces would be located adjacent to the parking area. The second plan would result in traffic from the parking lot, heaviest after performances in the arts center, leaving the site through the "fronts" of the townhouse units. Green space would be concentrated at the rear of the units, along the perimeter of the site, and two units would be quite close to the parking lot itself. Mr. Peter Donohue, attorney for Mr. Bauer, addressed the Commission stating these would be upscale, individually owned townhomes. He also stated that their preference is to have two townhome units. one on each end, but noted they are willing to work with City staff on this issue as well as any parking Issues. Chair Frie closed the public hearing. . Grittman explained the process of this project noting that because of the unique nature of the use, as well as the long-established character of the surrounding neighborhood, a PUD zoning is a valuable tool in managing the land use impacts of redevelopment on this site. It also allows both the City and the developers to proceed incrementally, and provides the neighborhood to gain a clearer understanding of the project and its issues early in the process. Jeff O'Neill also advised that this item would come before the City Council on 8/14/00, at which time it would be forwarded back to the Planning Commission for final development stage plan. A MOTION WAS MADE BY ROY POPILEK TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE PUD ZONING DISTRICT, BASED ON A FINDING THAT THE PUD DISTRICT PROVIDES THE GREATEST AMOUNT OF ASSURANCE THAT THE PROPOSED LAND USES WILL BE DEVELOPED AND MANAGED IN A WAY WHICII ENHANCES THE EXISTING NEIGHBORHOOD. ROD DRAGSTEN SECONDED THE MOTION. Motion carried unanimously. . A MOTION WAS MADE BY ROD DRAGSTEN TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE PUD CONCEPT, CONDrrlONED ON TI--IE APPLICANTS' ABILITY TO ADDRESS THE ISSUES IDENTIFIED AT THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR EACH OF THE THREE PRIMARY COMPONENTS OF THE PROJECT, AND THE SUBMISSION -3- . . . Planning Commission Minutes - 08/01/00 OF APPROPRIATE DEVELOPMENT STAGE PUD PLANS AND APPLICATIONS, INCLUDING SITE PLANS. GRADING AND DRAINAGE PLANS, UTILITY PLANS. BUILDING AND FLOOR PLANS, LANDSCAPING, LIGHTING AND SIGNAGE PLANS, AS APPROPRIATE. A SURVEY OF EXISTING CONDITIONS SHOULD ALSO BE PREPARED TO VERIFY SITE CONDITIONS AND BUILDING LOCA TIONS. ROBBIE SMITH SECONDED THE MOTION. Motion carried unanimously. 8. Public Hearinl! - Consideration of a conditional use permit allowinl! mixed use shopping center development of office, commercial and residential in the CCD, Central Communitv District. Applicant: Silver Creek Real Estate Development. Steve Grittman provided the stat1 report regarding Silvcr Creek Real Estate Development's proposal to construct a mixed use development on a parcel bounded by the Burlington Northern Railroad on the north, Walnut Street on the west. the municipal liquor store site on the south. and Highway 25 on the east. Grittman noted that 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 Y2 Street (to be developed as an internal access drive. and an access ramp to the below-grade parking garage). The project would provide 36 at-grade parking spaces north of 5 Y2 Street. South of 5 Y2 Street, a rcdesign of the parking lot would be proposed, concurrent with the development of the new commercial space. A perimeter driveway is proposed along the north side of the building which lies in part on the property, and in part on the 5th Street right of way which is shared with Burlington Northern. Access to this driveway from Walnut, as well as the garage access, would require a reconstruction of the Walnut on-street parking in this area. Grittman stated the CCD requirements require building heights of between 15 and 35 feet and zero setbacks. The proposed building is two stories in height which he stated was desirable in this district, approximately twenty feet (building elevations are yet to be submitted). and is located with zero setbacks along north, east, and west lot lines. At-grade parking lots are required to maintain the five foot setbacks where practical. It would appear that there is room to accommodate this standard. and the site plan should be revised to reflect this. Density for sccond story residential units is allowed to be up to one unit per 3,000 square feet oflot area. For the land north of the 5 Y2 Street driveway, this would accommodate up to 14 units. The project is in compliance with 12 proposed units. Grittman also provided information regarding parking, pedestrian access, signage, strcetscape/landscape building dcsign and site coordination. Chair frie opened the public hearing. Hearing no response, the public hearing was closed. -4- . . . Planning Commission Minutes - 08/01/00 Jeff O'Neill advised the Planning Commission that City Council directed City staff to begin the negotiation process with this applicant because this was a mixed use site. He also added that the City still has site control. There was discussion among the Commissioners regarding parking spaces. Grittman noted that the City ordinance is set up to obtain parking funds for future parking options in cases where there are limited parking spaces. He also added that the applicant would have access to the Liquor Store parking which has an over-abundance of parking spaces. Grittman also noted that generally parking will occur on Walnut Street, 6th Street, as well as the Community Center parking lot. Herbst asked if there were to be access from Highway 25 to Walnut Street would the plan change significantly and would they need to acquire a permit from MnDOT. It was stated that this would need to be obtained and the chances of this happening are 50/50. The plan would need to be modified slightly. After further discussion, the applicant wished to have this matter heard by the Planning Commission at their special meeting scheduled for S/14/00 and they felt they had adequate time to prepare. DICK FRIE MOTIONED TO RECOMMEND APPROY AL OF THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT. BASED ON A FINDING THAT THE PROPOSED USE IS CONSISTENT' WITH THE REVITALIZA nON PLAN AND THE CCD ZONING REQUIREMENTS, WITH THE CONDITION THAT THE APPLICANT PREPARE SITE LANDSCAPING. SIGNAGE, AND BUILDING PLANS FOR REVIEW AND RECOMMENDATION Of THE DA T AND PLANNING COMMISSION. PRIOR TO FINAL CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL AND WITH THE CONDITION THAT THE DEVELOPER SATISFY THE PARKING DEFICIENCY REQUIREMENTS OF THE CITY AS A PART OF THE FINAL APPROY AL. RICHARD CARLSON SECONDED THE MOTION. Motion carried unanimously. 9. Public Hearing - Consideration of an amendment to the ordinance regulating housing density standards and an amendment establishing minimum green space and/or maximum lot covera2:e standards for residential development. Applicant: City of Monticello Plannin2: Commission. Steve Grittman provided the staff report stating this item came up fiJr consideration after Silver Creek Development requested to construct a townhouse project along east Th Street which would consist of up to 25 townhouse units. Due to the way in which the Monticello Zoning Ordinance currently calculates density. a townhouse project on this R-3 zoned site would be permitted just 16 units, whereas a multiple family project would be allowed up to 25 units. The Planning Commission requested an amendment to the zoning ordinance which would address this disparity. but also ensure that townhouse projects would not overcro\vcl a parcel. Grittman added that in checking with other communities. this 30(1'0 requirement is -5- . . . Planning Commission Minutes - 08/01100 average. Grittman explained the proposed ordinance amendment which he provided, stated the Lot Area Per Unit section is amended to add a clause which refers to the fact that individual districts may have specific density standards. For a project which was in a district without a specific standard (most districts do not address this issue), the Lot Area Per Unit Table would apply. such as in a PUD in the R-2 District, or a standard R-I single family plat. The second portion amends the "Usable Open Space" section by applying the 500 square feet of open space standard to townhouse development, and adding an alternative clause which would mandate a 30% green space requirement. This requirement is within the average range of such regulations from other communities, but also includes some exemptions ii'om the calculation. Finally. the ordinance amends the R-3 District to state that townhouse projects within the R- 3 District may use the density allowances of multiple family development. Combined with the green space requirement. a townhouse development could be constructed at a higher density in the R-3 District, but would still have to maintain a livable amount of green space in the project. Chair Frie opened the Public Flearing. A representative from Silver Creek addressed the Commission stating they had reduced the number of townhouse units to 22. the calculated green space is well over the 30% required, accommodations have been made for snow removal as well as the parking requirements. There are now 98 parking spots and 2 car garages per unit. Fire and ambulance access was also redesigned. The Public Hearing was then closed. A MOTION WAS MADE BY ROBBIE SMITH TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE AMENDMENT. BASED ON THE FINDING THAT THE REGULATION OF DENSITY BY ZONING DISTRICT IS TN KEEPING WITH THE INTENT OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND <JfHER DENSITY PROJECTIONS USED FOR ENGINEERING PURPOSES. ROY POPILEK SECONDED THE MOTION. Motion carried unanimously. ~ Consideration of:m application for a Conditional Use Permit/Planned Unit Development and a Preliminary Plat to allow the development of a townhouse proiect to be known as Klein Farms Estates 4th Addition. Applicant: D. Klein Construction, Inc. Planning Commissioner Roy Popilek excused himself stating a conflict of interest. Steve Grittman. City Planner. provided the stall report stating D. Klein Construction, Inc. has applied for a CUP/PUD and Preliminary Plat to allow an II-unit townhome development. The property is 1.4 acres in size and is located on the northwest corner of the -6- . . . LL Planning Commission Minutes - 08/01/00 intersection of Stoneridge Drive and N .E. Fallon Avenue. A similar townhome development called Klein Farms Estates was approved in 1995 and is located west of the subject site and the land use is consistent with the guided land use and zoning for the property. Ten two-unit townhomes and one detached townhome are proposed. The City may want to consider whether a detached townhome is appropriate in this location surrounded by two-unit townhomes. Grittman also discussed density, setbacks, buffer yard, landscaping, building design and spacing, paved surfaces, grading and utilities, snow removal, developers agreement, homeowner rules and bylaws and refuse. Chair Frie opened the public hearing. Dave Klein of D. Klein Construction. advised the members that he revised his plans since receiving information from staff regarding the necessary changes. Roy Popilek, 4870 Stoneridge Dr.. addressed the members stating his concern with this particular property noting that it has been an eyesore for some time now and although he would like to see it developed. he was concerned with the initial proposed density. Klein stated that the number of units has been reduced to 8, advising that initially this was a project of another developer. The public hearing was closed. After further discussion regarding revised plans and the definition clarification of unit 3 as single family dwelling detached or townhome which Grittman stated was a PUD. it was recommended by staff that the CUP/PUD and preliminary plat be tabled until the conditions listed in Exhibit Z are met and re-submitted for review. Increasing building setbacks along the north, west, and south property lines will have a significant affect on lot layout and density. A landscape plan has not been submitted with the required butTer yard landscaping, and no elements of a superior development have been presented in exchange for the flexibility a PUD provides. A MOTION WAS MADE BY ROD DRAGSTEN TO TABLE THE CUP/PUD AND PRELIMINARY PLAT UNTIL THE SPECIAL PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING ON 8/14/00. BASED ON A FINDING THAT CONDITIONS LISTED IN EXHIBIT Z BE MET AND "THE SUBMITTAL OF A NEW SITE PLAN FOR REVIEW. RICHARD CARLSON SECONDED THE MOTION. Motion carried 4 to 0 with Roy Popilek abstaining. Consideration of an amendment to a planned unit development allowing expansion of a shared use, outdoor storage area and consideration of a variance to the rear vard setback requirements and consideration of a variances to stora~e area size maximums. Applicant: .John Johnson - Monticello Auto Body. Jeff O'NeilL Deputy City Administrator. provided the report stating the applicant's request for an amendment to a conditional use permit and a variance that would enable expansion of -7- . Planning Commission Minutes - 08/01/00 the area used for outdoor storage. The expansion area is proposed to extend within 5' of Marvin Road right of way, which requires a 25' variance. Johnson proposes to install a 6' stockade style fence. Pine trees will be planted at 6' intervals to help break-up the view of the fence from the west. Planning Commission turned down the variance request in 1997 based on a finding that a hardship had not been demonstrated. Also, the proposed expansion area would cause the outside storage to exceed 50% of the area of the principal building which is in violation of the zoning code. A variance trom this provision would therefore be needed in conjunction with the PUD/CUP approval. O'Neill did state that per the applicant, this would be temporary as he is anticipating moving his business to the adjacent property. O'Neill stated that the zoning ordinance was amended previously to allow auto body shops to operate in the B-3 District. The area of expansion includes both the Auto Body shop and adjoining parcel. Since this time, Johnson has been allowed to merge outside storage associated with tvvo parcels (1997). In 1997, Johnson was denied the variance allowing storage closer to the rear lot line, however he has used the area for outside storage anyway. This unauthorized outside storage area has been unscreened for some time which has become an important issue with the development of the Grovcland project. . Ovcr the years, it has been observed that the parking has been deficient. This problem is relevant only if the Planning Commission believes that enlarging the storage area will create a bigger parking problem. If anything, enlarging the storage area might relieve some of the parking problem. O'Neill also stated that Marvin Road is currently undeveloped. Under the Groveland project plans, Marvin Road to the north of Chelsea Road will be developed as a pathway/private drive for Olson Electric. Chair Frie opened the public hearing. John Johnson, Monticello Auto Body, addressed the members stating he would like to put up a fence to buffer this storage area. He also stated several times that he was not aware that he could not have outdoor storage on this property. O'Neill advised M1'. Johnson that a fence would interfere with the setbacks as well. Chair Frie closed the public hearing. There was further discussion regarding the amount of debris on this property as well as the applicant being in violation of the conditions of his CUP. Several options discusscd were to build storage on the lot to the north of this parceL which M1'. Johnson recently purchased, and include this parcel in a planned unit development. It was also discussed that M1'. Johnson could use this current building as storage once his new building is complete. . A MOTION WAS MADE BY ROD DRAGS TEN TO TABLE THIS ITEM UNTIL THE -8- Planning COllllllission Minutes - 08/01/00 . APPLICANT FILES fOR A PUD AMENDMENT. RICHARD CARLSON SECONDED THE MOTION. Motion carried unanimously. After further discussion, it was agreed by all members that if Mr. Johnson does not seek an amendment to his PUD by August 14,2000, this item becomes an enforcement issue. 12. Continued Public Hearine - Consideration of an amendment to a planned unit develonment in a B-3 District to allow the expansion of an auto sales and storaee lot. Applicant: Dave Peterson's Monticello Ford Jeff O'Neill, Deputy City Administrator, advised the Planning Commission that the applicant stated he was having difficulty getting the necessary information from his architect. At the most recent meeting of the Planning Commission, the Commission directed City staff to notify Dave Peterson that the planning item would be placed on the Planning Commission agenda for consideration with or without the additional information that the Commission has been waiting for. Steve Johnson, Ford, was informed of the Planning Commission's desire to consider the matter and O'Neill spoke to Dave Peterson asking him for the necessary site plan information by July 17, 2000. O'Neill also followed up with a letter. . Dave Peterson indicated that his architect has been tied up and that he would not have the site plan information completed in time for the meeting. Peterson notcd this problem in a letter to O'Neill which is on file. Planning Commission can proceed with the review and recommendation or wait another month or until thc site plan data arrives. O'Neill stated the options of the Planning Commission being either to table this item or deny it. He also stated that if it was denied by both the Planning Commission and the City Council, the City would then need to enforce that the applicant is in violation. A MOTION WAS MADE BY ROBBIE SMITH TO RECOMMEND DENIAL OF THE PUD AMENDMENT BASED ON THE FINDING THAT NO INFORMATION HAS BEEN PROVIDED TO II-IE PLANNING COMMISSION SINCE NOVEMBER OF 1999, AND IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO MOVE FORWARD WITHOUT SUFFICIEN"r INFORMATION. ROY POPILEK SECONDED THE MOTION. Clint Herbst. Council Liaison, stated that perhaps if the Planning Commission denies this application, the City Council may review and send it back to the Planning Commission directing stafT to enforce the City code until the applicant provides the proper information requested. . THE MOTION WAS -rHEN AMENDED BY BOTH ROBBIE SMITH AND ROY POPfLEK TO NOT ACCEPT TIlE APPLICArfON FOR AN AMENDMENT TO THE -9- . . . 13. Planning Commission Minutes - 08/01/00 PUD AND DIRECT STAFF TO ENFORCE THE CITY CODE. Motion carried unanimously. Consideration of revised setback standards for residential uses in the Original and Lower Monticello Plats. Applicant: Citv of Monticello. Steve Grittman provided the report stating that recently, the City has considered a number of variance requests for reduced setbacks on lots of record in the older portions of the community. Most of these lots are 66 feet wide by 165 feet deep, consistent with the historical platting practice of the community's original founders. Platting of single family lots changed in the late 1970s upon the adoption of a new zoning ordinance which established a standard of 80 foot wide lots, with 10 foot side yard setbacks. This mandated a buildable width of at least 60 on new residential lots. The new setback standard was applied to all residential building in the City. An additional requirement made of new homes was the construction of a two car garage. With ten foot side yards, lots in the original plat and Lower Monticello have just 46 feet of buildable area, making garage construction problematic. Moreovcr, homes in these areas are often in need of morc regular maintenance and upkeep. One of the common trends in real estate which helps to ensure regular reinvestment in older homes is the ability to update and expand them to meet contemporary housing requirements. The City has frequently found that the current zoning regulations, especially the ten f()ot side yard setback requirement. is a significant impediment to this process. Grittman provided an ordinance which is intended to rectify that problem in the older plat areas by creating an "overlay" allowance for narrower side yard setbacks on single hlmily lots of record in the older platted parts of the community. The ordinance does not contemplate that more intense residential uses would qualify for this exemption since it would be reasonable to expect that two family homes, townhouses, or other multiple family structures will need more than just one of the old lots to qualify for the additional density. and additional spacing \vould be appropriate in any case. The ordinance recommends a six foot side yard setback standard for eligible parcels. This standard was common in many areas prior to the advent of wider lots, and is consistent with building code requirements for building separation. At the six foot standard, buildable area would be increased from 46 feet to 54 feet, a significant impact for those parcels, while still maintaining a reasonable building spacing. Six feet is usually enough to maintain the side of a two story home. and install a sidewalk around the side of the house from front to back. Chair Frie opened the public hearing. Wayne Cox. 306 E. 4th St. addressed the members asking if this ordinance amendment was approved, what is the next step needed for him to ~ 1 0- . . . l:h Planning Commission Minutes - 08/01/00 take in order to obtain a building permit. He was advised by Fred Patch to apply for a building permit and stay within the 6 ft. setback. Public hearing was closed. There was further discussion regarding the clarification of "Original and Lower Monticello" and it was determined this should be stated in the motion. A MOTION WAS MADE BY ROBBIE SMITH TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT FOR LOTS OF RECORD AND WHICH ARE 66 FEET IN WIDTH OR LESS. BASED ON A FINDING THAT IT IS CONSISTENT WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN GOAL OF ENCOURA.GING REINVESTMENT IN THE EXISTING HOUSING STOCK. ROD DRAGSTEN SECONDED THE MOTION. Motion carried unanimously. Consideration of an amendment to the zonine: ordinance establishing a buildine: to site area ratio for auto salcs commercial buildings in the B-3 zoning district. Applicant: City of Monticello. Steve Grittman provided the report stating the reason for consideration of this proposed ordinance amendment. The concern was that the small lot coverage percentage allowed previously for Dunlo Motors on a small site would permit extraordinarily large sales lots with minimal building requirements and a consumption of valuable commercial land. The standards established for Dunlo on a one acre site were no less than 5% lot coverage. with a minimum building size of 2.500 square feet. whichever requires the larger building. A 5% lot coverage on a five acre site would allow a building of just 11.000 square feet. The Peterson Ford building is approximately 59.000 square feet on slightly more than 6 acres. Peterson's lot coverage is 21.8%. Grittman provided a proposed scale. Under this scale. Peterson Ford could have built a 40,500 square foot building. Gould Brothers is currently on a 7.0 acre site. At 15% coverage. this would require a building of about 45,000 square feet. Staff is aware that Gould's bas plans to expand their dealership. A preliminary concept plan has been revievved brietly showing a 50,000 square foot building on a lot of about 8 acres. On an 8 acre site, a building of 52,000 would be required. Grittman also stated that the Planning Commission and City Council may wish to take these factors into consideration as an ordinance is drafted. It was also noted that the two proposed applications. Gould Brothers and the Dodge Dealership. should be made mvare of this ordinance amendment. Chair Frie opened the public hearing. I'learing no response, the public hearing was closed. A MOTION WAS MADE BY ROBBIE SMITH TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE DRAFT ORDINANCE AMENDMENT EST ABUSHING A GRADUATED BUILDING LOT COVERAGE FOR AUTO SALES IN THE B~3 DISTRICT. RICHARD CARLSON -11- . . . Planning Commission Minutes - 08/0J/00 SECONDED THE MOTION. Motion carricd unanimously. 15. Consideration of establishin2: buildin~ and architectural desilw standards in the business districts. Apolicant: City of Monticello. Steve Grittman provided the report regarding the possibility of establishing building and architectural design standards for business districts. The 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 arc basically two levels of possible regulation, one being 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. Thc second level would entail more specific architectural style issues which are usually taken through a dcsign review process. such as OAT does with the CCD developments. Grittman also discussed the possibility of building material standards. Most newer rcgulations 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 was another option. It would be important to discuss newly developed building materials. such as EIFS (Exterior Insulated Building Systems) - often fabricated to look likc stucco or other material, and hovv an ordinance should address these new building options. Input from the building oHicial would be valuable in this regard. finally. the Ordinancc will need to address the expansion of buildings which would now be non-conforming due to their building materials. Weare 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 improvcments 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. Architectural Standards/Desi!!n Reviews were also discussed. Bevond buildin!! materials. ........ '.,. L. 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 fix architectural review. Many of these standards are developed to continuc or re-establish a particular architectural theme. -12- . . . Planning Commission Minutes - 08/01/00 Chair Frie opened the public hearing. Hearing no response, the public hearing \vas closed. A MOTION WAS MADE BY ROY POPILEK TO DIRECT STAFF TO PREP ARE A DRAFT ORDINANCE REGULATING BUILDING MATERIALS IN COMMERCIAL DIS'rRICTS PER PLANNING COMMISSION DISCUSSION. RICHARD CARLSON SECONDED THE MOTION. Motion carried unanimously. 16. Public Hearine: - Consideration of an amendment to the zonine ordinance c1arifvin2 the definition of 9,000 lb. e:ross vehicle wei2ht motor vehicles. Applicant: City of Monticello City Council. A MOTION WAS MADE BY ROD DRAGSTEN 'fO CONTINUE THIS ITEM AT THE REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING ON SEPTEMBER 5, 2000. ROBBIE SMITH SECONDED THE MOTION. Motion carried unanimously. 17. A MOTION WAS MADE BY DICK FRIE TO CONDUCT A SPECIAL MEETING ON MONDA Y. AUGUST 14,2000 AT 5:15 P.M. TO DISCUSS THE 'fWO SILVER CREEK REAL ESTATE DEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS AND THE D. KLEIN CONSTRUCTION PROPOSAL. ROD DRAGSTEN SECONDED THE MOTION. Motion carried unanimo L1s1 y . 18. Adjourn. A MOTION WAS MADE BY ROBBIE SMITH TO ADJOURN THE MEETING AT 11 P.M. ROD DRAGSTEN SECONDED THE MOTION. Motion carried unanimously. Recording Secretary -13- . . . Special Planning Commission Minutes -08/14/00 MINUTES SPECIAL MEETING - MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION Monday, August 14,2000 5:15 P.M. Members Present: Dick Frie. Robbie Smith, Roy Popilek, Richard Carlson, Rod Dragsten and Council Liaison Clint Herbst Staff Present: Fred Patch, Steve Grittman, Cindy Sherman and Lori Kraemer 1. Call to order. Chair Frie called the meeting to order 5 :25 p.m. 2. Citizens comments. None ,.., 1..:. Consideration of a Conditional Use Permit for a Planned Unit Development of 22 townhouses in a CCO Zoninf.!: District. Applicant: Silver Creek Development. Cindy Sherman. NAC, provided the staff report regarding the Silver Creek Developmcnt plans for a Development Stage PUO approval of 22 townhouses on a parcel along East Th Street. The City has considered its zoning density restrictions and thc option of allowing townhouse development at densities similar to multiple family housing. A zoning amendment is being considered by the City Council which would permit the same density calculation. and add a green space requirement to all developments. If that amendment is adopted by the City Council, the proposed townhouse project would be eligible for up to 25 units. Without the amendment, a townhouse project would be held to just 16 units on this site. The proposed ordinance requires a minimum of 500 square feet of open space per unit. or 30% green space (as defined) whichever is greater. The site plan illustrates approximately 34% green space in compliance with the draft standard. Sherman also noted that previous concept discussions had raised a number of issues. Additional review has generated some additional comments. These were summarized te)l" the Planning Commission including increased driveways to 24 feet in width, garage and parking area for units 9 and 10. parking circulation pattern. and the visitor parking. unit IS, a handicapped accessible unit with the only single car garage in the complcx. increase central or internal landscaping areas. radius on the northwest corner of central island should be increased. alternative paving materials in the central area. plan for a highly -1- Special Planning Commission Minutes -08114/00 . intensified landscape plan, particularly at the perimeter, including well-designed patio areas, fencing, and other side/rear yard improvements, and address outward appearance of buildings to maximize aesthetic impact on neighboring property. Other comments supplied by staff included grading and drainage, utilities, and the possibility of recreation space. Chair Frie opened the public hearing. Bruce Haverly, Oakwood Builders representing Silver Creek, addressed the commissioners stating they had received the stafT report on Friday and have already addressed most items in this short period of time, and that they are also working with Jon Bogart on driveway widths. I.le did note that they have a substantial amount of parking and can remove more parking, still having a substantial amount left. He stated regarding the island landscape that they could increase the radius providing better access or an increased green space. I-Ie stated that practicality would be to lose a few feet of green space to make circulation better. . 1-laverly noted that they had shown several types of paving materials and feel that concrete is best but also noted that they are open to staff s comments. Regarding the northwest corner unit they've proposed eliminating that stall and modifying backing area. Regarding landscaping, he noted that they've revie'vved the guidelines given and feel they have exceeded them, but again would work with staff to meet further requirements. Jon Bogart Bogart & Peterson, addressed the commissioners providing copies of grading and drainage plans stating they spent a considerable amount of time with Public Works Director John Simola to have the plans meet the City's specifications. He also commented on the utility issue which revolves around the sanitary sewer which is very shallow near the end 2 units and they may require a sma11 lift. He commented on the layout of parking and curb, and feel they have met all requirements listed in statT report. Bogart advised on landscaping stating the berms on the adjacent properties which cannot be lowered and that they wouldn't need a retaining wall if the berms were not already there. Mr. Haverly again addressed the members regarding recreational space and stated they do have availability on the property and can accommodate City staff if necessary, he just asked for direction from staff. Haverly and Bogart also stated the timing of this project due to construction and it is their hope that the Planning Commission would move forward on this project and let Silver Creek work with City stafT on remaining issues. . Chair Frie closed the public hearing. There was further discussion by staff and commissioners addressing the above mentioned ~2- . . . Special Planning Commission Minutes -08114/00 issues as well as noting the previous requirements that have already been met by Silver Creek. Mr. Popilek was not comfortable with approving this item at this time noting the stafI recommendation in this report was to table action. Overall, it was noted that most of the issues listed above have been complied with and most commissioners felt comfortable with having staff work with the applicant on remaining details. Mr. Grittman did state that he would encourage a significantly enhanced landscape, patio, fence, and retaining wall plan as a minimum step in meeting the intent of the City's PUD ordinance. Chair Frie asked Mr. Haverly about several issues noted above including the backing of cars from the units stated above which was already addressed. He also asked again about landscaping which Mr. Haverly stated they could suggest a landscape architect work with staff to meet staff s requests. Recreational area was also discussed further noting the requirement for Monticello Village Apartments to provide recreational space in their project. It was noted that there was not a recreational area near the Village Apartment project, but there are areas nearby to the proposed East 7th Street project. It was also stated that this is a townhouse project versus an apartment complex. Fred Patch, Building OfficiaL raised some questions regarding water and sanitary sewer hook-ups, noting that if these units were rentals they would not have separate connections, but if the units were to be for sale, the connections 'vvould be separate. Mr. Bogart advised that these units would be rental but with the possibility of selling them at some point in the future. Patch also discLlssed elevations and aesthetics on the north side and this was clarified by Mr. Haverly. There was further discussion regarding the engineering issues and it was noted by Mr. Grittman that he felt contident that this would be worked out appropriately. A MOTION WAS MADE BY ROBBIE SMrrH TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE CONCEPT AND DEVELOPMENT STAGE CUP/PUD FOR SILVER CREEK REAL ESTATE FOR A 22 UNIT TOWNHOUSE PROJECT ON EAST 7TH STREET, BASED ON THE CONDITION THAT THE ABOVE ISSUES ARE ADDRESSED IN A SATISF ACTOR YMANNER TO THE STAFF PRIOR TO FINAL PUD APPROVAL. ROD DRAGSTEN SECONDED THE MOTION. Motion canied 4 to 1 with Roy Popilek voting in opposition. 4. Continued Public l-Iearin!! - Consideration of an application for a Conditional Use Permit/Planned Unit Development and a Preliminarv Plat to allow the development of a townhouse proiect to be known as Klein Farm Estates 4th Addition. Applicant: D. Klein Construction. Cindy Sherman. NAC provided the repOt1 noting the revised plan consisting of a site plan. utility plan. grading and drainage plan. and a conceptual landscaping plan from Mr. -3- . Special Planning Commission Minutes -08114/00 Klein which address most of the issues noted at the previous meeting. Sherman also advised the Planning Commission that they will have another opportunity to review this item as this is a concept stage plan. The proposed project has been reduced trom the previous 11 units to a total of 8 units - 4 twin home buildings. Each unit has a two car garage with a driveway space for open parking, as well as eight visitor parking spaces on the east side of the private street. The new plan has adjusted setbacks to meet the minimum requirements on all sides, including the buffer yard to the industrial on the north. In addition, although the west side yard setback could be as little as ten feet to meet the district standard. the applicant has proposed approximately 25 feet. consistent with the adjacent development. . The project plan shows an illustration of landscaping on the north and east boundaries. The north boundary has a butler yard requirement to meet of about 320 plant units, as defined in the zoning ordinance. Other landscaping is generally ornamental, although the adjacent twin home project was required to create a significantly enhanced landscape to help justify the use ofPUD on that project. A complete plan should he designed and submitted for review on this project as welL including both common area and unit landscaping. Special attention to the tront yard spaces was emphasized on the adjacent property, and should he made a part of this project as well. It was noted that the buildings arc arrayed along the west and north sides of the private drive, with visitor parking along the east side. The wide twin home driveways create a continuous expanse of pavement at the curb line, particularly around the cul-de-sac. This design both creates problems for snow removal, as well as limits the opportunity for green space. Narrower driveways would help to reduce the impact of this pavement area. An alternative to consider would be a central island design which incorporates both the visitor parking and a central landscape element. Because there is ample room to work with adjacent to the Fallon Avenue right-of-way, a creative concept could be applied to this project. In addition. it would permit greater spacing between the garage fronts and the private drive. An optional layout was provided as a sketch attached to the report. With regard to utilities and drainage, complete public works and engineering review is pending. Water line size is one item which has been identified as a potential issue. Building f100r plans and elevations have not been submitted with this package, and will need to be reviewed prior to final approval. Chair Frie opened the public hearing. . Dave Klein, D. Klein Construction, addressed the planning commission advising several items that were listed in stafT report that have been addressed. Steve Grittman stated that everything \vas preliminary when reviewing the plans and at the time of the statl meeting they did not have time to work \vith the engineer but wanted the opportunity to look at -4- . . . Special Planning Commission Minutes -08/14/00 this more closely. They looked at it as a general land use ~ green space, would need to have full landscaping plans in detail showing perimeter around the units themselves as well as buffer yard landscaping. Although they feel the plan itself is well done, it was noted again to refer to the staff sketch provided which would address certain issues in this report. Chair Frie closed the public hearing. There was discussion by the Planning Commission that the applicant consider an alternative layout for the private street such as the staff sketch attached to this report as well as working with the City Engineer for his review With a complete landscaping plan similar to the original Klein Farms Estates project to the west, and resolution of engineering issues, this project could be reviewed for both Development Stage and Final Stage PUD in the next round. A MOTION WAS MADE BY ROY POPILEK '1'0 RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE CONCEPT STAGE CUP/PUD AND PRELIMINARY PLAT, BASED ON A FINDING TI-IAT THE PROPOSED PLAT IS CONSISTENT WITH THE ZONING DISTRICT AND NEIGHBORING ISSUES. ROD DRAGSTEN SECONDED THE MOTION. Motion carried unanimously. 5. Chair Frie asked Steve Grittman to clarity why the Silver Creek Real Estate application f0r the "Nevv10wn" de\/elopment was pulled from the agenda. Grittman noted that because of the elimination of the 2nd story residential and underground garages, staff felt this needs to be re-Iooked at and would need to go back to the Planning Commission with a public hearing. It was also advised that the purchase agreement part of this project will be on the City Council agenda. 6. Adiourn. ROBBIE SMITH MOVED TO ADJOURN THE MEETING AT 6:30 PM. ROD DRAGSTEN SECONDED THE MOTION. Motion carried. Recording Secretary -)- . . . Planning Commission Agenda - 09/05/00 5. Public Hearing - Consideration of a request for a variance to the side yard setbacks to construct a garage. Applicant: Edward & Marla Hughes. (.10) A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND The Planning Commission is asked to consider granting a variance request to the side yard setback which will allow development of an attached garage. "fhe setback proposed under the request is 8 feet which results in a variance of 2 feet. As you recall, variances are regularly granted in this neighborhood due to the fact that the homes were situated on lots in a fashion that does not allow development of a two car garage without a variance. Also, this particular request is a repeat of an identical request submitted and approved earlier by the Planning Commission. This item is back before the Planning Commission because the applicant did not build the garage within one year of the granting of the variance and therefore the item needed to come back befc)I"e the Planning Commission. 1L AL TERNA TIVE ACTION I. Motion to approve the variance bascd on the finding that the variance is necessary to allow customary use of the property which includes development of a two car garage. Approval of the variance request docs not impair the intent of the ordinance 2. Motion to deny approval of the variance request. C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION StafT recommends that the Planning Commission approve the variance based on the finding identified under alternative 1. D. SUPPORTING DATA Information from previous variance request. -1- .IlL .....,..-. . . . NOT.CE OF rllB~JC H~ING~ NOllce: is hereby lJlvcn thai Pllblic hcmlngs will be held by the Cily of Monticello Pli.\nuing COlnrnission on AuaUSI1. 1998 at 7 Pl\t. illlhe MomlccUo Cit~ ; lallto consider the (ollowlnR multt.~r5; PUBLIC HEARING: CUfl5idcHllion c, s!de Yilrel vAliance ror gilrage. I.ocation: LOI 8, Block 1, 13<11 boul Est<ltcs. Applicant, Edward and Marla I lughes. I qO d (J nose L l('Clr\lc~~ CjA " L/:2. " . ~ .... ?'1 C; :rI00t.& J -... <..f'::l-c ~ 1; ~. .... qo' WriUen and orallestlmony\Vill be accepted 011 auave subjects, and all persons desiring to be heard on referenced subjects will b~hcdl'd.nllhls tncctinj. ~ Decisions of the Plqlllling Commission willlJe final unless appealctll>y an individual by Qj&Ll_~ on WednesdilY. ^JJi.l&U.2.~ 1998. Appeals must be in writing, signed, and rnu~t st':ltc rr.nsons for appeal, If ..:tppc~1 is riled, the City Coullcil shall hear appe\ll on Mpnd4y.l\lIllul:il 2.1...1j;J!)_~1~tZ fM at.lhe Monticcllp City Hall. II I ii II I. 5t\ I JI ~ . . . FILE COpy Planning Commission Minutes - 08/05/98 2. Public Hearing - Consideration of a side yard variance for garage. Applicant Edward and Marla Hughes Fred Patch presented the staff report on the request by the property owner at 147 Hedman Lane for a variance in the 10' side yard setback requirements in order to construct a 22' x 30' garage. Since the residence was originally constructed without a garage it does not conform to the current Zoning Code. It was noted that there were instances in the same neighborhood where the City allowed variances for attached garages to be built 6' from the property line. The staff recommended approval of the variance request. against the requested variance. Acting Chair Carlson closed the public hearing. The Commission discussed whether to allow construction of a garage with a width of 22' when a 20' wide garage could be constructed and still meet the setback requirements. The consensus of the board was that a structure 22' in width was not excessive. There was also discussion on whether the trees would remain. The property owner indicated it was their intention to keep the trees if possible. MOTION WAS MADE BY ROBBIE SMITH AND SECONDED BY ROY POPILEK TO GRANT THE VARIANCE FOR A 2' REDUCTION IN THE 10' SIDE YARD SETBACK TO ALLOW FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF 22' X 30' GARAGE BASED ON FINDINGS #1, #2 AND #3 IN THE STAFF REPORT. Motion carricd with Rod Dragsten voting in opposition 56 . . . Planning Commission ^genda - 09/5/00 6. Consideration of an amendment to a planned unit development adding a parcel of land to the planned unit development area: allowing temporary expansion of a shared use, screened and fenced outdoor storage area. Applicant: John Johnson ~ Monticello Auto Body. (JO/FP) A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND .John Johnson requests an amendment to the conditional use permit to add the parcel of land to the north of the existing auto body repair shop. By the addition of this land area to the PUD, the Planning Commission may consider allowing the yard area toward Marvin Road (undeveloped) to be used as a temporary addition to the open, outdoor storage area. The area of expansion includes both the Auto Body shop and adjoining parcel. The expansion area is proposed to extend within 5' of Marvin Road right-of-way. No variance is required as the Planing Commission may allow f1exibility within the PUD, recognizing that the fenced storage area in the yard toward Marvin Road must be discontinued prior to further ffi11endment of the PUD by development of the parcel north of the existing shop. Johnson proposes to install a 6' stockade style fence. Pine trees will be planted at 6' intervals to help break-up the view of the fence from the west. Normally a tree inside setback lines may not exceed 4' in height. This regulation too can be discontinued once the lot north of the shop is developed. In 1997, Johnson was denied a variance allowing storage closer to the rear (north) lot line; however, he has used the area for outside storage anyway. This unauthorized outside storage area has been unscreened for some time and an important issue with the development of the Groveland project. Over the years, it has been observed that the parking has been deficient. On most occasions one will find at least two cars parked in the street and it is not unusual to see cars parked on the adjoining vacant lot. This problem is relevant only if the Planning Commission believes that enlarging the storage area will create a bigger parking problem. If anything, enlarging the storage area might relieve some of the parking problem. This issue is very relevant to development of future auto body shops. As you know, Marvin road is currently undeveloped. Under the Groveland project plans, Marvin Road to the north of Chelsea Road will be developed as a pathway/private drive for Olson Electric. It is not known at this time what will happen to Marvin Road. It may be vacated and then absorbed by parcels in the area as part of a redevelopment project, or it could be improved to provide rear access to the neighboring parcels. -1- Planning Connnission Agenda - 09/5/00 . B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS ]. Motion to approve an amendment to a planned unit development, adding a parcel of land to the planned unit development area; and, allowing temporary expansion of a shared use, screened and fenced outdoor storage area to within 5 feet of the Marvin Road right-of-way. Motion based on the/inding that the outdoor storage shall he removed/rom the requiredyard.l;^onting on Marvin Road upon.lilture development on the Parcel north olthe existing shop. 2. Motion to deny approval of an amendment to a conditional use permit. C. S'I'Af'r RECOMMENDATION If the Planning Commission is inclined to support the storage area expansion, then the PC may move alternative 1 above, knowing that the fenced storage mea must be eliminated or otherwise relocated from the Mmvin Road setback area upon future amendment of the PU D for development of the parcel north of the existing shop. . Also, as you see in the supporting data, the site is currently operating in violation of the City code. D. SUPPORTING DATA Copy of site plan and pictures. Chelsea Road/Groveland map information Excerpts from the zoning ordinance governing outside storage (B-3) Approval with Conditions from 1997 and sta11 comments . -2- \ Monticello Auto BOdy 217 Sandberg Road Monticello, MN 55362 I L , " V"'-;-".:> rt...... A " ill' . ......... . '. "".. ',",',~. ,,~,. '. '.', '. "., " '"..,\ ~ \~ . . . f ~ \l ~ ~ ~1 ~~ \, \'S '~ ~ 4- &j "" / I .j / ~ 1llI t .\) / ~~ ~,/ ,. ~ ~ "\ /' i 1 {f'~ ~. ~~~ ./ ~~~ \ ~ , ;~ 'l ~ ~. .1., \ ~, ! \ \ . \: : J -YS-.. "'~~.1 '*0 ::o~"'t .- \\ ~ \' \ ~ ~ ~~.\, ~ ~ ~ '\ "'''-- (\ ~ / / / / / /" ....- -~,-' ~<f.6 " ~~~ // S (>\ '/ ~ / -- -- 'lit -, 1 a ,.~ "!- Y : t( ~'U __ ~ I., -J " \)..r Q , .s I ~ .. ..... .... \... ~ . . o o .~ ~ ~ o .~ > b1) o .~ ~ <1) C1) ~ u r:/J <1) b1) clj ~ o ~ r:/J <1) ""'d .~ r..rJ ~ ;j o ~ ""d o ~ o ~ ;::::$ < . .~ ~ o ~ . CI,) :-g ZJ =: o c CI,) CI,) bD ti rj C 0 ~ ~ ~ 0,,- Ce::::O 11 "'0 11 OJ == -0 ~ ~.cn ~ V ;!d :5 ~ ..c .:: 0 "'0 :::0 -; "'0 CI,) C .- 1) > :.a .:: 0 2 ;;:":::2 V; 0... C .;:; ~ g. -< ..c._ " . M6A~. .,' ~~~:f~. ""\~""'. .~~;j;~i;..' .,' (PO c:( --__. 5 : \: tu --"__" en \ \ u.l I -"-- w, 'ct N1ERs -----.--..---.-- i \ \ ~ '.4 rE 94 -~-J i__ ___. '-- .._--~-------- ___--_0/ I -..--.. _.- ..- I iZ '. L 'I.." ~~, -- /. t-o(..ari~""I I ...""./,/ FRQIl FOOTAGE ; d <JIPeland Phase 1 rrteDant Improvements Minnesota WSB Prtlject No. 1196.00 Date: February 14,2000 City Project No. ~25C Figure 10 Iov . [P] Auto body shop repair provided that: . . 1. Door opening to service area garage must not face street frontage. 2. Vehicle storage area limited to 50% of floor space of the structure housing the auto body shop. 3. All vehicles being serviced and all vehicle parts must be stored inside or in vehicle storage area. 4. Vehicle storage area shall be enclosed by enclosure intended to screen the view of vehicles in storage from the outside. Enclosure shall consist of a six~foot high, 100% opaque fence designed to blend with the auto body shop structure and consisting of materials treated to resist discoloration. 5. The floor of the vehicle storage area shall consist of asphalt or concrete pavmg. 6. No work on vehicles or vehicle parts shall be conducted outside the confines of the auto body shop. 7. The advertising wall facing the public right-of-way shall consist of no more than 50% metal materiaL 8. 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. 9. The development shall conform to minimum parking and landscaping requirements of the zoning ordinance. 10. No conditional use permit shall be granted for an auto body shop within 600 feet of a residential or PZM zone existing at the time the conditional use permit is granted. (#175,4/24/89) CoD . 7. . . ~~g 97-0:J.. 0 Planning Commission Minutes - 10/7/97 Public Hearine---Consideration of a conditional use permit to allow: 1) the establishment of an autobody repair shop and accessory outdoor storae'e area within a B-3. Hi~way Business. zonini district. 2) a planned nnit development conditional use permit (PUD/CUP) to allow shared use of an outdoor storage area (with adjacent autobody shop), and iJ) a variance from the minimnm 30-ft rear yard setback requirements imposed in the B-3 zoning district. Applicant, tJohn Johnson. Steve Grittman, City Planner, reported Mr. Johnson has submitted a request to construct an autobody repair facility upon a 14,650 sq. foot parcel of land located south of Interstate 94 and west of Sandberg Road. There are three points to consider. First, the conditional use permit is to allow the establishment of an autobody repair facility (with accessory outdoor storage) within a B-3 Highway Business District. The purpose of the conditional use permit process is to enable the City Council to assign dimensions to a proposed use after consideration of an adjacent land use and their functions. Second, if the planned unit development conditional use permit (PUD/CUP) will be allowed a shared use of an outdoor storage area (by an adjacent autobody repair facility). The applicant is proposing to share an outdoor storage area with an adjacent autobody shop to the north (also owned by the applicant). To accommodate this "shared use" arrangement, the processing of a planned unit development conditional use permit (PUD/CUP) is necessary. The PUD process is intended to allow certain design flexibility in order to provide a more desirable development product. Aside from the referenced outdoor storage area, the pun may also accommodate a shared parking arrangement and associated parking lot setback flexibility. Third, a variance from the minimum 30 foot rear yard setback imposed in B-3 Zoning Districts. Chairman Frie opened the public hearing. John Johnson, applicant, explained with the position of the building in relation to the office space and why the variance was requested. Johnson also inquired if Marvin Road would be closed because then a variance would not be needed. Jeff O'Neill, Assistant Administrator, stated the future of Marvin Road has not been determined. O'N eill read a letter from Greg Smith, neighboring property owner against the expansion because of current encroachment on his property. Johnson answered that was not his business but General Rental. Fred Labrum, applicant's future renter, inquired why this expansion was labeled a Page 4 1oE- Planning Commission Minutes - 10/7/97 body shop when it was for a detail shop. . Chairman Frie closed the public hearing. Grittman explained the code lists detailing shops under the autobody category. JON BOGART ]MADE A MOTION TO APPROVE, SECONDED BY RICHARD CARLSON, THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AS PER THE SITE PLAN. MOTION TO APPROVE A PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW AN AUTO BODY REPAIR FACILITY (WITH ACCESSORY OUTDOOR STORAGE) WITHIN A B-3 ZONING DISTRICT, AND SHARED USE OF AN OUTDOOR STORAGE AREA PER THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: 1. THE SUBMITTED SITE PLAN IS MODIFIED TO COl\1PL Y WITH APPLICABLE OFF-STREET PARKING REQUIREMENTS (11 SPACES REQUIRED). 2. CONSIDERATION IS GIVEN TO CONSOLIDATING THE PARKING LOTS OF THE SUBJECT SITE AND ADJACENT NORTHERLY SITE IN A MANNER SIMILAR TO THAT ILLUSTRATED UPON EXHIBIT C. . THE CITY ATTORNEY PROVIDE COMMENT AND RECOMMENDATION IN REGARD TO ISSUES ASSOCIATED WITH POSSIBLE FUTURE SALE OF THE SUBJECT SITE OR ADJACENT NORTHERLY PROPERTY. 4. THE OUTDOOR STORAGE AREA IS REDUCE IN SIZE TO NOT MORE THAN 50 PERCENT OF THE AREA OF THE PRINCIPAL BUILDING. 3. 5. THE OUTDOOR VEHICLE STORAGE AREA IS MINIMALLY SCREENED BY A SIX FOOT HEIGHT, 100 PERCENT OPAQUE FENCE WHICH IS DESIGNED TO BLEND WITH THE AUTO BODY SHOP AND WHICH IS CONSTRUCTED OF MATERIALS TREATED TO RESIST DISCOLORATION. 6. THE OUTDOOR VEHICLE STORAGE AREA IS SURFACED IN ASPHALT OR CONCRETE. . 7. EXTERIOR FINISH MATERIALS OF THE BODY SHOP COl\1PL Y WITH APPLICABLE ORDINANCE REQUIREMENTS. 8. ALL EXTERIOR LIGHTING IS HOODED AND DIRECTED SUCH THAT THE LIGHT SOURCE IS NOT VISIBLE FROM PUBLIC RIGHTS-OF-WAY OR NEIGHBORING RESIDENCES. Page 5 ~t:- . . . Planning Commission Minutes - 10/7/97 9. ALL SITE SIGNAGE COMPLY WITH APPLICABLE PROVISIONS OF THE ORDINANCE. 10. THE SITE PLAN IS MODIFIED TO ILLUSTRATE AN OFF-STREET LOADING SPACE. Motion based on the following findings: the proposed project is consistent with the spirit and intent of the Monticello comprehensive plan goals and policies and in keeping with the intent of the zoning ordinance, is consistent with the purpose of the performance standards of the zoning ordinance and planned unit development, will not have any adverse impacts as outlined in the conditional use permit section of the zoning ordin~nce, the proposed project shall provide adequate parking and loading as outlined herein, and shall not impose any undue burden upon public facilities and services. Motion passed unanimously. JON BOGART MADE A MOTION TO DENY, SECONDED BY ROD DRAGSTEN, THE VARIANCE FROM THE MINIMUM 30 FOOT REAR YARD SETBACK REQUIREMENT IMPOSED IN THE B-3 ZONING DISTRICT BECAUSE NO HARDSHIP WAS DEMONSTRATED ON THE SITE PLAN. Motion passed WlaDimously. Page 6 lPE- ---- . . Cf7- 020 f.d ff. 10 ~-e J Lo/1 eY- ~ C i 0 -'1 S Council Minutes - 10/13/97 Consideration of a conditional use permit to allow 1) the establishment of an auto body repair shop and accessory outdoor storae-e area within a B-3 (hi~way business) zonine- district; and 2) a planned unit development conditional use permit (PUD/CUP) to allow shared use of an outdoor stora~e area (with aQjacent auto body shop). Applicant, John Johnson. Recommendation: Approve the conditional use permit to allow an auto body repair shop and accessory outdoor storage area within a B-3 zone and approve a planned unit development conditional use permit to allow shared use of an outdoor storage area with adjacent auto body shop per the site plan shown as Exhibit C in the Planner's report, with the following conditions: B. 1. O~ 2. OJ/... 3. ""'l 7. . A d0~ of' C s:Le-" '-'\ . {1 )P JebO 01,( "'4. o "" ~ \.""'b \ ,-"C 1<. I ;: .-' Q... J.. ~ \ .... ~ oJ' \'1 '0 .^ . 5. , 10 v' ('\ fi''\~ \ 0 f~ vJov- \J-Q V *" eV \\t..Q.. ~ f...,t o 9-+ f)..0- '?t.. \ c ? 6. -' J- , / ~6\o ~ "i\S'I' ~ )-i' i'. \ , . '\ f'J \i\' (\ 8. OV- 0'1- 9. DlL 10. The submitted site plan is modified to comply with applicable off-street parking requirements (11 spaces required). Consideration is given to consolidating the parking lots of the subject site and adjacent northerly site in a manner similar to that illustrated in Exhibit C of the Planner's report. The City Attorney provide comment and recommendation in regard to issues associated with possible future sale of the subject site or adjacent northerly property. The outdoor storage area is reduced in size to not more than 50% of the area of the principal building. The outdoor vehicle storage area is minimally screened by a 6-ft high, 100% opaque fence which is designed to blend with the auto body shop and which is constructed of materials treated to resist discoloration. The outdoor vehicle storage area is surfaced in asphalt or concrete, Exterior finish materials of the body shop comply with applicable ordinance requirements. All exterior lighting is hooded and directed such that the light source is not visible from public rights-of-way or neighboring residences. All site signage complies with applicable provisions of the ordinance. The site plan is modified to illustrate an off-street loading space. Lc>E . . . {\ Jll 11. \ \l ~ D/ Council Minutes - 10/13/97 Damaged screening fences must be reinstated along the Marvin Road side of the auto body shop. . The recommendation is based on the finding that the proposed project is consistent with the spirit and intent of the comprehensive plan goals and policies and in keeping with the intent of the zoning ordlnance, will not have any adverse impacts as outlined in the conditional use permit section of the zoning ordinance, and shall not impose any undue burden upon public facilities and services. loS . . . Planning COll1ll1ission Agenda - 09-05-00 L Consideration of a Preliminary Plat lor the 90lh Street Addition. Applicant: City of Monticello. (NAC) A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: "fhc City has finalized acquisition of the land for the construction of Chelsea Road West, including negotiation with the Township and County for the disposition of thc formcr 90th Street right-of-way along Interstate 94 which will be transferred to the adjacent private propeliy owners. A plat of the area is necessary to clarify title and allow the distribution of the parcels. The City Engineer has prepared the plat, attached as an exhibit to this report. In order to proceed with development in this area, approval of the 901h Street Addition plat is required. Also, on a related matter it was discovered that the annexation of the Hoglund land on which the plat is located was only partially completed. Only the Iloglund land that included the original Groveland Plat was included in the recent annexation. Therefore, a joint resolution supporting the annexation of the 90lh Street Addition needs to be processed via City/Township joint resolution. Please note that the MOAA Board has already approved the annexation of the entire Hoglund parcel. B. AL TERNA TIVE ACTIONS 1. Motion to recommend approval of the preliminary and final plat, based on a finding that it is consistent with the development plans for the area as described in the Comprehensive Plan. 2. Motion to recommend denial ofthe plat, based on Endings discussed at the public hearing. 3. Motion to table action on the plat, subject to additional information. C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of the plat. This plat and the land distribution has been a basis for the proposed development adjacent to the extension of the Chelsea Road West through this area. D. SUPPORTING DATA Exhibit A - Plat Drawing 1 ! .... .. , .. ... ~ .. '.. 0 ~ . D !:, , ~:.- " .. ... ~ '~( h 0 I .,. :- :..oiI' \ D I \ !' In I . I f I , \ I E , \ ~Hli I \ ~ :~ I .. , \ .".. .. p;-:o- ':Ie;. I I \.k .. , .. g l!~ . ~ I .. eo I, .. ~'I -I I. " , .,. I I ~ '~i I , .. , .. I to ~i , .11:' I I .. I ... I to I _ -'I; ~ 'I , ~ii; I " I I i~ a~h ~-L_ _I> Iii; H1- ~ .~ I I . t r I'~i I i"" .., =!I I- I" I I , , ~ . ~ :1 , Ilfi...;:-:z........... , I ." / I' ~ I: " I _ I" : g..i' " I .. _I \ ... . \ .,' , ,~ / :v. .. -, .... l 1',,/ ... -_-..- I, I I , I : I~ I !~I I ': I r' I n I ~; ; ~ ~; t t '",; I ..... " ~ "'t.. L' " ,,-y----"""""...... _......t '_'_"___'_'_1_. " \. Ie. q i,. :-; a.o ;.;;; 0 ~ ~. ,... . ~ II~ 'i .. ~ I III .." ~ iii in --- ---- ~ {~- ,- "f,.... ~- "':'~~ " '-,::" f'~ '# J''' I .:ljI'....." ~ . . I I , l ~!1~~ f:i~ :'i:1 IBill e ji I '. ~ " I , I I I '7A " ~-::.,.., I~...... .:,. I , I Planning COl1llnission Agenda - 09-05-00 8. Consideration of a Conditional Use Permit for an Automobile Sales facility in a B-3 Zoning Distict. Applicant: Goldridge Group. (NAC) . A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: The Goldridge Group has applied for a Conditional Use Permit to establish a new automobile dealership to be known as Monticello Dodge between Interstate 94 and the extension of Chelsea Road West. The property is zoned B-3, General Husiness, and guided for commercial use in the Comprehensive Plan. Automobile Sales is a Conditional Use in this zoning district. The conditional use permit section of the zoning ordinance was recently amended to require that on parcels of this size (5.8 acres) a building must be built which is at least 15% of the lot area. In this case, a building of at least 40,000 square feet is required. The proposed building appears to be at least 42,000 square feet, in compliance with the standard. Staff will verify compliance as more detailed building plans are developed. There are other requirements as well: . . Outside sales area is screened from neighboring residential districts. The property will he surrounded hy commercial land or the interstate. . Lighting is to be hooded so that the light source is not visible from residential areas or the public right of way. The site is hrightly lit. Stal/will he }j'orking with the developer to ensure that this clause is met. . Outside sales area is hard surfaced. This requirement is met. . Adequate parking is provided aparthom the area utilized by outside sales. Fhe site plan illustrates parkingf()1< customers (?lthe sales area, the parts and service area, as vvell as employee parking area along the western boundary. Fhere are more than adequate parking areas designated on the site plan. Statf would recommend that the customer parking areas he physically separatedfi'om the display areas by a curbed or landscaped boundwy to belieI' distinguish those .spaces/rom display area. The entire paved area is to be surrounded by concrete curb to control trq/fic and drainage, in accordance with the zoning ordinance require me nts. . Vehicular access points do not create traffic cont1icts, ffild are approved by the City Engineer. The applicant has been vl/orking with engineering stqtf to coordinate access points vl/ith the construction olChelsea Road West. . Lot dimensions are at least 22,500 square feet. The parcel exceeds all lot dimension requirements. . Drainage is subject to the review and approval of the City Engineer. The engineer is reviewing this issue with the applicant. . Signs are consistent with the City's sign regulations. . 1 Planning COlllmission Agenda - 09-05-00 . A cO/nplele siXn plan is not yet available. The applicant has mod(/ied the prinwr.v buildinX sign to cOInpZv vvith the prohihition to roolsignaxe. The applicant has submitted a landscapc plan which appears to be in conformance with the City's requirements for site and parking lot perimeter landscaping. B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS 1. Motion to recommend approval of the Conditional Use Permit for Monticello Dodge, subject to the conditions listed in Exhibit Z. 2. Motion to recommend denial of the Conditional Use Permit, based on findings discussed at the public hearing. 3. Motion to table action on the Conditional Use Permit, subject to additional information. C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION . Staff recommends approval of the Conditional Use Permit for Monticello Dodge. The site is zoned appropriately, and the plans submitted appear to comply with the City's requirements for Automobile sales hlcilities. Exhibit Z includes appropriate conditions of approval as outlined in the zoning ordinance. D. SUPPORTING DATA Exhibit A - Site Location Exhibit B - Site Plan Exhibit C - Lighting Plan Exhibit D - Landscape Plan Exhibit Z - Conditions or Approval . 2 Request: for conditional use permit for new & used auto/light:truck sales & display in the B-3 District. ,), ,. 104100 ~;z,J: ~, ~~~ 0.... ~ 4):. ,I' ~~- ~ ,00 ~~ ~~ 104200 ~ ~.. ~ ~ ........ .4" " 104200 ~ ;;~ ~. ~ / I ~.~ ~ ~ -.......... ~---.. ---..........- ~ ------- ~ -------- OJ ---- -----... ----... .. ,... 7"- ~O.2... , A '. ':.:i -------- 104202 . 4100 400 --- -I .: j ., ~ ," ". .... \~ I 104306 <"55.4 OF $ ;/~:: 104301 OF . . . . 'l'l'Ll3 . .,. -' -t '" ... 104307 ~ '6A 104307 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARINGS Notice is hereby given that public hearings will be held by the City of Monticello Planning Commission on September 5. 2000. 7 PM. in the Monticello City Hall to consider the following matter: PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of a conditional use permit for new and used automobile/light truck sales and display in the B-3 district. Location: Part of the SE quarter of Section 10, Township 121, Range 25 lying North of the Groveland Addition. PID# 155-500-104100. Full legal description can be viewed at Monticello City Hall. Applicant: Jacob Holdings of Monticello, LLC (Denny Hecker's Automotive Group) Written and oral testimony will be accepted on above subjects, and all persons desiring to be heard on referenced subjects will be heard at this meeting. Note: Decisions of the Planning Commission will be subject to the approval or denial of the City Council and will be heard on Monday, September 11, 2000, at 7 p.m., at the Monticello City Hall. --- . . . L ;;Z', i ~ ~'Hl ~ 0 UJ~ I ~ i:li~:O ~ B ,~ f ~' ~a ;": O!: C>~ i i · f'i ~ '" r; ! ~ 8 <2 'j i "i!I :0> ~ .j. 0 0..::> %'!/~ ' '" ~ ~l ~ ~ i\;~~ ~ 8 '" 0 -0.::0 i!'~ '"' ~ ~tn...l~ :i;! ~ :E ~d J ~a~~ i -J UJ Z...l > I ~~ . ~ ~~h ~ .. ~ 2 1..1.. ~O!:OuO ~ '0;0 o:4l~.1 ~ i ill ~ ~ i II UJU-VI i'" ~,lli ~ ~~!i :3 ~ 1-1 ,,:,,\-J f-Z 8 ~ ~ Iii ~ t/') . ~ d ~ !~j~~ i i# !i Iii 8 j ~ O!:: j.1j~6~ ~ ~ 'It:] I ~d i '" ~ ~ I irl ~ ~ u:. --:} 0 Z ~ ~ a \2 , _if <I) -'" ~I ~ ~ is i i i j \?o ~~~ f ~ &! (2j'"' :.!i:<1 ~ t;l Sl ~ 01 ~7~ ~~ S t2 ~ ~ ~~ ;0< .OJ US\? it? ~r.," ~ i! 8~1~: ~~ ~!~ ~ :i! ;i!.~ g~ ~.Iga I I ) ~ ) ~!ll I * 1 '1'1 ,.~ )---~---t- I g i "~~ ~ i ~ ". "- ~ ~ ~ ~ "'", \ II~ 001 a:D':IIIi=:t.___1I::r::IW""",~ ""-~ ",,,,~ Q ;;1; - - ___ z_._.. __ ~ z :s l1.. 0.:: o o ......J LL. oJ z - 0" u~ lJ.J, VI - ~ ,'"-- .'~ I .. N .... < ~ ~ -< ~ ao:Q Lie; ~~ ZI- Z 2, I ~ p~ V'l 0 LU~ a . ~ .....J IS i <!J' ~ ~ f ~i,,~ ... U<( ~~~~ "' 8 ~jr~d '" i :;1 ~tu '. ::> ~; ~~2~ ~ " .j. -'="0 ~I /i;-<i5 t ~ <;i ~ 1-0 ~pd h!~ j e '"' ~ L:tn....l< ii! :i:i j J: "lZ....If-> I L i ( g~g~ t<:: II UQ'd ""-OuO 0 ~j!; ~Id! ~ i I :Jz IJU_Vl ~ j :;;i~e; ~ ~ ; , f- I.U ~"' ti~~3 Ii; .... zZ ~~ :3 ~m~~1 i ~ ~ I! ~:s ~~O?;~ ~d i I I:l 1:; 8 -< I ~ ~ . I i \/w ",g;~~ ~ '" }Z~~ !:I _2' <l) '" :;> /I V'l c... c o ;,., '" N j~ i~ '1 W r- '11{ ...J OJ .I: '1li'd <<; 0 3~ Ii' . ~ t1", w .1)( ~ 'I: I)(~ :: :;)W ~; at: I, W :"5 2 ...J <( .... 0 2i~ ~z ?F= 0. i~ I I;'~ ...--"'".-, .1;' ~~ OJ I;'~ OJ I ~~ ~~ " ~ ~~ .. ~ .q- ~ ~~ ..~ ~~ n ;~ !I;; '" LL ~ I~ ~I , u ~~ ~ 8 ~ i= z ,~ : I o ...J W . ''1 I >-0 x 0 ~ z~ l():=::! z ~ <<; ftl" of: n:: N>-<( '-' ~ p ~ ~ :~~ I ~ H i1 8 '" ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ c~ ~ .. "'I;; " 3b '"' 3 ~:\ ~~ ~ ~ i i1i " ~ ~:l' ~Ir ~ ill 1512 ~ ':; ~ ~ 5 ~L.~ . F . ~ ~ ~ i ! "' ~ o jj z::!: i!'1 Ii ~ S U ~li' G: ,- g :!! ~ ~~ ~ b ~ 'i ,'J .' .0 J ,0 ,0 ;J ,- ,0 .P .~ .r:i ; .0 .0 ;J .- " ," ,0 .P ,- ;, .0 .d - .P ,0 ;, .r " ^ . .P ~ ,0 .P ,d .0 ,0 . ,. '" .P " .0 ,0 ,d ,.; .P .0 ,. ,. ,0 " .J .<> ,0 .. .0 J .<> .0 ,. ;; 00 00 ." .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 ,0 ,0 .0 0 . .. ;, ,0 ,. ,0 ,0 ;, '" ,0 ,0 ;, ,0 .0 .0 .. .0 .0 ,0 " ;, ,0 .. ,0 .- ,0 ,0 .0 .- .0 .' .- ." ,- .- ." ,^ ,- ." .... ,- ." ;i .' ;. " ,- ;. .- .- ;; .- .r ;; .n .N ;. ." ,0 .'~ .- · . '---"'--- "-""*.. ::---+- :!-".i- ~ ~ -;;;....._~ --'f-----';; .. L_: ---'-- ~ -" .;...- : ----r-- :----"-- "J...-*- r- ~ ~ :: :: ' :; :rrrr :m-Im-rtfj.~Tt.tTtrtrtrtm~ritdJIjJTIrtrtrt( :: " ..-...~ . ~. . ~ ~ .. . , . . . .- -......... ..'"': ." '''':., .-<q- .......' "'Y",!C'i"<I!~ e~O""oDlI;!~.;,....................... Y"", , ". ~ .~ .~ .; ~ .~ ':::-'~ ~ ;! ~ .: ;; .~ .: .: .: .: .~ .: .: .~~.., <: .: '.~ .- ----:::. '~f~- .- ,- ," \li' ~ ,- ij"" .-.. - ,- ::-.^ .- .- ,.~."'--... r ." .- .- , .- ':--....... I" 0 ...........~ '" Q "1 <;11\) - Y >-.., oil ~ __......: .~ ~. .- .~. ~ \>..---,,,," ._ ,_ ,. ,<J '--~ ,> ,-' ." ,; .~ o 'j .a..:.. ~.,/ 1A , .. .- .~ ...... " '--.;; .~. .~.z ,2 .~ '~ . "'....." 1r~" '0 ~ . .. '--. ;. .N .~ .. .~ .,j .0 .0 21 1 ~ ~i~~ UJ LW I ~ ~ ".....J i I 15 O;ie ~::> (!)i ~ i ~"'~~ <T UJ '" <;1 i I- hi i~~~ Q ~ 8 UJ<:O ~ld- ~ ~ ! /;;"'\5 'i t.I'l o..tuUJ 9-<(:.! ~I I "i il <: I ~ ::2. ~ ~ i i ~~~~ ~ .....J .....J UOU _n- > i h I ;1'~1,~ ~ .. ~ <: l-UO 0 41li! e ~ t.I'l t.I'l ~V'l~ i ~ ~ r; '" I- l-U ~ r< ~~~f5 I :5 ! ~ ~ ~ OZO ~ ii~ .~ ! ~ Iii ~ UJ zZ..... d ~ ;mh~ I \;! ~ OZ~ >' !:i Ii; ~ > Z:SZ ~~ a '" , ~~ l ~ ~ i ';: I ~ I ~ ~ ~ !iJ 0 :So.. < \2 tQJ ~~i;:~" iil 'i /j iii / 01 ~ / s " ....I t ~. / :;,:: W(D( tu J.., 0 cD z ! :5 / c- o f l-U, lJ 0 ClI! .' ~~ z.:::. f l.U - I .. ..., , !::; '"... ....I ....I ~ :;,:: ~ t;:j l --. -----..cc -. 0 0 z z :5 :5 W 0- c- o /) 0 l.U. tJ '0 lJ 0 ClI! .' ClI! .' ....J II ......I ii -<(I.. -<(I.. Z::::. z::::. l-U - l-U - t~ ~~ ~.-.--- ~. -<::::::-----... ~ ~--;;;;:I ....I :;,:: t;:j o z :5 c- o l-U, lJ 0 ClI! .' ~~ Z::::. l-U - ..::.\ ~ ~ 3 ~ l \ ~ ....I :;,:: tu o ~ 0- o tJ'o ClI! .~ ....I " -<( I.. Z.:::. l-U - (~ ~ '" "'Ill & ci ~o- (I ~h () &l UJ ~ Ii ~ ~8~ ~ ~ 2 ~ 0 U"'Q ~ Oil ..J '" 'Z~&l g ~ '" III ;;; ... J i'i ~-~ Cl ~ '" '" ~ '" J -0 <{- ~~;;~ ~~'" ~ '" )-Q i~' ~ ~~ III~ ~ ~~ 0- ~ -,'" <{I f~i~ )-~ill ,- <I '"I!' ~ III 8~ ~ '" '!1<{ !1 0 l'ia 1l~1II~ Ii ~);-' J: II' Il- h ~ ;;;r ;;;x. ~~- -'t:: ~1II~Cl <I <I u. . 011' J: ~~ ~ :R~ o-.._~ ~~u ~ ~ ..1 x t:: U~~ ~~~ ~<I' UJ ~ Ill'" ~~ ~~UJW ~ ~ II'~ \q~~~ '" (~ (!Ii) I ~ ~ Cl Cl ii ci> U III III i i 1\ 6 rJl 0- ,.. ., '" III III :'! oil iil ill ~ ;1 Z ~ ~ ~ II n <\ .~ -m w i:II <\ <I { <( ~ ii: l~ ~ 5 ~ <I ," " ., I- I" II' II' !jI III '" ~ iL il ~ ; -~ n I!' '!1 ~ ..J il '" II! ~ Q ~ z ~ III Ii ~ 1. ~ c.. !l ~ l) !!j "J Q ~ ~ ~ --' "-- ct III I: III ~ .u ~ ill ;., ~ ~ !i LJ ~ --' z ~ '01 u. .. u' ~ ~: <{ '" z /ii. iii III ~ u IIllil --' ~~ ~ ~ <\ ~~ <\ 1'< Z ~~ <\ ~p H '5 z '" ~ '" w ~ ~~ '!l" 111 <\ :i\ ~m J~ w III ~ ()~ [~ U U - U., I II'I <\ [ ~ III g ~ ~ ~ ~ III III l- iii iii iii Z \!:l ~ ,. ~ " " '" ~ ~ - in ;, in I:: :l\ :l1 ~ $I <( Q '9 '" f- III .. ~ [ ~ ~ III ..J !:! <\ ~ U U .J - OO~J -Iii 0.. ~ . Ql 0 ~ ~ !if -' ~ II;! Q liI ~ '" 3 :I I!l , 3 li! o z o B , . ::> o!o ,-t;;.....< io! i!i 20ZudO~1 ':U~~ ~ 'S~o~ ~a .. ":)Z~~ ~ V l ! 'j h ~I I~ $"' I ~I ~ :Z:'! ~ ~ ~; ~ ~ ~ I <C~ . i r i' 5'-idv -===~ I ~ i ~ <: ...:::;\0 ~ ( · " ~~H! I ~ HI i ~ . ~ 0 ~:~~ e~~~ l!:l'!,,'I' ;5~~~ "'/D"l'l ~i~~ !rh ~~~s ,!iil ... @ ~ i I ! I \ \ \ \ ~ ~ I ~ a ~ i i ~ 1 i i m ~ I I ~ I I ~ i Plann ing Co 111 111 ission Agenda - 09-05-00 . Exhibit Z - Conditions of Approval for Monticello Dodge 1. Verification of compliance with the lighting provisions of the ordinance. 2. Customer parking is delineated by a separate curb and landscaped island barrier to distinguish it from sales area. 3. The paved site is surrounded by curbing to control traffic and drainage. 4. The City Engineer approves of the drainage pian for thc property. 5. The applicant submi ts a signage plan consistent with the regulations f()l' signs in the B-3 zoning district. 6. Final staffreview of the building and site plans. =. . ~ . ~ ..... .. . Planning Commission Agenda - 09/05/00 9. Consideration of an amendment to a planned unit develoDlllent in a B-3 District to allow the expansion of an auto sales and storage lot. Applicant: Dave Peterson's Monticello Ford. (JO) A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND As you recall, at the previous meeting of the Planning Commission, this item was forwarded to the City Council f()r action. In forwarding this matter, the Planning Commission recommended denial because sufficient data was not avai lable for rendering a recommendation. Subsequently, the City Council remanded the item back to the Planning Commission because the necessary site plan data is available for planning review. Please note that additional data regarding site drainage is being prepared for review by the City engineer. This information is not a strict information requirement f()r Planning Commission review. The site is bordered north by a Day Care facility and empty lot. One the east by Sandberg Road and adjoining Ford facility. The Life Fitness facility is located along the southern border of the parcel. The proposed use is acceptable in the district. Storage/sales lots and employee parking are not allowed by code without the presence of a principal use on site. In this case, the PUD is employed to link the Ford Dealership and its operation to the use of the nearby but separate property. Please note that in calculating the ratio of building area to total site area, even with the additional land, the building is greater than 15% of the total area, thus the PUD meets code in this regard. The plan calls for development of a paved area for vehicle inventory and some employee parking and a paved area for vehicle storage. Curb and gutter will be placed around the entire perimeter. Trees will be located in the setback area betwecn curb and the adjoining properties. Following is a quick summary of certain site plan elemcnts and possible concerns. Landscaping/Bufter Yard Screenim;. The site does not meet the minimum requirements of the code in terms of creating separation between the parking area and the Day Care facility. According to staff interpretation of the ordinance, there needs to be a 10' buITer yard between the parking area and the Day Care. The plan currently shows five feet. Staff interpretation includes defining the Day Care as an institutional use which needs a 10' buffer yard when located next to a commercial use. - 1- Planning COlllll1ission Agenda - 09/05/00 . 'l'hc plan shows a wood fence along the boundary betwecn the Day Care and the parking lot. The fence also wraps around the back of the Day Care propeliy thereby providing a complete screening effect. Lighfinr: Plan It is our understanding that the lighting from the original ford Dealership will be reused in the storage area. The intensity of the light must not exceed maximums defined by code. The Building OHicial needs to determine whether or not the lighting plan will result in a violation of the City ordinance governing glare. This may require preparation of a photometric plan for the site. ""forage Area - Screening Fence. As you will note on the plan a significant area is identified as a storage lot. In the past, the City has required that these areas be screened from view. In the case of Olson Electric, when Jerry's Towing was given approval for storage, slats in a chain link fence were installed. Planning Commission may wish to discuss the method for screening the storage area and determine whether or not slats need to be added to the fence in addition to the landscaping. .- ..... -. One the west end of the northern boundary there is no landscaping which wi II allow future expansion of the facility. The plan does however show curb along the expansion boundary which normally the City would not require. Drive Access Points The plan shows two access points on Sandberg that contributes to an efficient parking lot layout. Please note that the access points do not line up with access point across the road which will result in an indirect route for the vehieles moving from one side of Sandberg Road to the other. John Simola mentioned a concern that drivers might make diagonal crossings as a result. Planning Commission may wish to discuss this matter and determine whether or not to require cross street access points to line up. Parkin'.! Island Delineators According to the City Planner, parking island delineators arc not necessary because the area is used for inventory primarily and is not a public/employee parking area. Therefore landscaped island delineators are not required. . -2- Siznage . No signage plan has been provided therefore this pun amendment will not include changes to the sign plan. The code does allow for installation of directional signs (ten square feet) without a permit. In addition, according to staff interpretation of the code, we believe that the dealership is in violation of the sign ordinance by displaying used car banners on a number of light poles. It is our interpretation that thcse are product identification signs that werc not included in the original sign program. The operator says that these are directional signs. We havc referred the matter to the City Attorney. We believc that it is important that this issue gct resolved because we have been getting pressure from a nearby used car dealership that wants to display similar banners. Failure to enforce the code in this instance could lead to proliferation of banners. As an alternative to requiring removal, the Planning Commission could amend the PUD to allow the banners as they are now currently displayed. B. ALTERNATIVE ACTION I. Motion to approve the amendment to a planned unit development in a B-3 District to allow the expansion of an auto sales and storage lot. Motion contingent on completion of items noted in exhibit Z. - Motion based on the finding that the proposal is consistent with the comprehensive plan and the Planned Unit Development approach results in development of a superior site plan. -. 2. Motion to deny approval of the amendment to the planned unit development based on the finding that the off-site parking/storage area. C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of the amendment to a planned unit development in a B-3 District to allow the expansion of an auto sales and storage lot subject to conditions noted in Exhibit Z. D. SUPPORTING DATA Exhibit Z - Conditions of approval Excerpt of Zoning Ordinance Site Plan . -3- . .- -w . Exhibit Z 1. Installation of additional trees and or establishment of a 10' setback between curb and property line adjacent to the day care in accordance with the buffer yard requirements. 2. Approval of the grading llild drainage plan by the City Engineer. ^l j. Approval of the lighting plan by the Building Of1'ieial. 4. Removal of the used ear banners not identified in the original sign system. 5. I nstallation of screeni ng slats within the chain link fence. This to screen the storage area. 6. Payment of trunk sanitary, watcr and storm sewcr fees as requircd by City Policy. qA . the housing units shall meet the setback distances of the applicable zoning district. In addition, each condominium unit shall have the minimum lot area for the type of housing unit and usable open space as specified in the area and building size regulations of this ordinance. Such lot areas may be controlled by an individual or joint O\\'nership. ') Lots containing twin homes or townhouses may be subdivided along the common wall in a '.zero lot linen arrangement. provided each resulting lot contains the required amount of lot area per unit as prescribed elsewhere in this Ordinance, and all other setback and performance standards of the Zoning District are met. (#320, 3/8/99) [F] In residential districts where the adjacent structures exceed the minimum setbacks established in subsection [C] above. the minimum setback shall be thirty (30) feet plus two-thirds (2/3) of the difference between thirty (30) feet and the setback or average setback of adjacent structures within the same block. [G] Required Buffer Yards 1. PURPOSE: Buffer yards are required as to reduce the negative impacts that result when incompatible uses abut one another. 2. The following table lists the minimum buffer yard requirements dependent upon the intensity of the conflict of the abutting uses: . Intensity of Conflict Tvpe Minimum Building Setback Minimum Landscape Yard No. Plant Units Required-l 00 Feet of Propeliv Line ..........."'"- ( Minimal Moderate Significant Severe ---A'"-30-k~--'-_~=_1-Q~fee:-=~~~=~ B 30 feet 20 feet 80 C 40 feet 30 feet 120 D 50 feet 40 feet 160 -.)0 PIo" -;" v,,;t<; "l L ~lj/ (('C'it (' r (a) Minimum building setback .!]}easured from the ahlltting property line. (b) Minimum landscaped yard measured as extending perpendicular from the abutting property line and extending along length of property line. Half of the reQllir~ci distance on each side of the property line and ~enw.ngJhe length.9Dlt~.Q[QE~r.!Y.E-11!;.,...- (c) Plant units are a quantitative measure ofthe required plantings for the minimum landscaped yard. . i) Plant unit value shall be assigned as follows: Q6 MONTICELLO ZONING ORDINANCE 3/19 Vel!etation Plant Unit Value . Evergreen Trees Deciduous Trees Evergreen/Coniferous Shrubs Shrubs/Bushes 15 10 - 5 1 ii) The number ofplantings required shall equal or exceed the number of required plant units based upon the values assigned in Section 3-3[G]2(c) of this ordinance. iii) The property ov.'ners on both sides of the abutting propel1Y line for which the buffer yard overlays shall each be responsible for fifty (50) percent of the required planting required for the length of the abutting property line. 3. MINIMUM REQUIRED BUFFER YARD: The following table represents the type as specified by Section 3-3 [F]2 of buffer yard required for abutting incompatible uses: MINIMUM REQUIRED BUFFER YARD Low High f\ ( o-e ~ jJlA( . . Density Density Insti- / Use Resid. Resid. tutional Comm'l Ind'l Low Density None A B C D Residential High Density A None A B D Residential Institutional B A None A C Pt r'.?~tJ/l ^/Commercial C B (9 None B forr Industrial D D C B None 4. The size and type of required plantings shall be according to Section 3-2[G]4 and Section 3-2[G]5 of this ordinance. 5. Existing trees or vegetation within a required minimum landscape yard preservation may substitute for required plants. The number of plant units required shall be proportionately reduced according to the number of trees or vegetation preserved. . * 6. The location of an opaque fence or earth berm of at least 5 feet in height within a required landscaped yard shall be considered credit MONTICELLO ZONING ORDINANCE ~6 3/20 toward the plant unit requirement. The number of required plant units shall be reduced by fifty (50) percent. . i) All fences shall be subject to the requirements of Section 3-2[G] of this ordinance. All berms shall be subject to the requirements of Section 3~2[G] of this ordinance. ii) 7. i) DEVELOPMENT OF VACANT PROPERTY: The owner of a vacant property which would require a buffer yard under the terms of this ordinance shall be required to install one~half of the v,'idth and intensity of the required buffer yard along the entire length of the abutting property line in all cases except for the following: ii) When a vacant property abuts propeliy that has alre~dy developed more than 50% of.th~l~!!gth ofthe ~ting, vacant property line .!2x..fO?!.~.~~;~t.~e owner/d~ve~~~~.gf.. the vacant parc~d will be required to in~t?-IJ)he .~l1tir~_.^ .:width and intel~sity of buffer..r~!:..d..~?9~*~p:.nin<;;.9!Il this ordinance. 8. EXISTING DEVELOPMENT: Any existing development adjacent to propeliy developed in accordance with Section 3- 3[G]7i) shall be considered exempt from the provisions of said ordinance until such time as the property or development is substantially altered. remodeled. or expanded. At such time. the existing development shall provide the remaining one-half of the buffer yard improvement. . 9. The criteria for the submission requirements and approval of a buffer yard landscape plan shall be according to Section 3-2[G] of this ordinance. (#266, 2/27/95) 3-4: AREA AND BUILDING SIZE REGULATIONS: [A] PURPOSE: This section identifies minimum area and building size requirements to be provided in each zoning district as listed in the table below. DISTRICT LOT AREA LOT WIDTH BUILDING HEIGHT A-O 2 acres 200 NIA R-l 12,000 80 2-1/2 R-2 12,000 80 2-112 R-3 10,000 80 2 R-4 48,000 200 1 . PZR 12,000 80 2-1/2 PZM 12,000 80 2 B-1 8,000 80 2 B-2 NIA 100 2 MONTICELLO ZONING ORDINANCE ~b 3/21 B~3 N/A 100 2 B-4 N/A N/A 2 1-1 20.000 lOa ! 1-2 30.000 100 ! . DISTRICT LOT AREA LOT v.,']DTH BUILDING HEIGHT ]~ 1 A 30.000 100 2 P~S N/A 150 50 feet (#298, 10/13/97) (#259.10/10/94) 1. The building height limitation in an R-3, PZM. B-1. B-2. B-3, B-4. ]-1. and 1-2 zoning districts shall be t'Vvo (2) stories. 2. In zoning districts R~3. PZM. B-1, B-2, B-3, B~4, I-I. and I~2, a three (3) story building may be allowed as a conditional use contingent upon strict application of a requirement that fire extinguishing systems be installed throughout the building. (Requires a conditional use permit based upon procedures set forth in and regulated by Chapter 22 of this ordinance.) [B] LOT AREA PER UNIT: Unless otherwise specified within the individual zoning districts. the following table represents the maximum density of any residential development: . Unit Tvpe Single Family Two-Family Townhouse Mobile Home Multiple Family Elderly Housing Lot Area Per Unit 12,000 square feet 6,000 square feet 5,000 square feet 4.000 square feet 10.000 square feet for first unit + 2.000 sq ft for each additional one bedroom unit, + 3,000 sq ft for each additional two bedroom unit. 1,000 square feet (The lot area per unit requirement for townhouses, condominiums, and planned unit developments shall be calculated on the basis of the total area in the project and as controlled by an individual and joint ownership.) (#350, 8/14/00) UTILITY TRANSITION AREAS: All areas in which sewer is not currently available shall be designated as utility transition areas. The minimum lot area of any platted lot in such areas shall be two and one-half (2-1/2) acres. Any lot platted according to the provisions of this subdivision may be replatted provided that public sanitary sewer will be made available and all conditions and provisions of this ordinance are met. [C] . [0] USABLE OPEN SPACE: Except for mixed use projects in the CCD District, each multiple family dwelling site or townhouse site shall contain at least five MONTICELLO ZONING ORDINANCE 3/22 C1'D <D s ,~~I~!I& ---1,..--- + #\/Q) ~C,fO~ ~ et1' - CONC. APRON G w ~~~uf~~~~ w . " S ,----.-- E "---------- ---. - -L---. _ _---. .,. 26'-3" 25'-0" w w S . 'b I w w-- h I c..i ;.... E s- m ," ~ -, - I Ac'f \ I \ I I ) II 9 C- SITE LIGHTING (REU E EXISTING) 6 __--.fl. 8'- . H. CH IN LINK 6 FEN E 6 8'-0" H. CHAIN LINK FENCE 9 9 ~---...----~~....------~ 11 11 ....__... '" .... / ' I \ "'- --~3 - C ( .ill . . Planning Commission Agenda - 09/05/00 Public Hearing - Consideration of an ordinance amending the Monticello Zoning Ordinance. Chapter 3. Section 3-5. rOI 7. by adding subsections (a) ~Uld (b), establishing regulations for commercial vehicles in residential districts A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND ~rhis Zoning Ordinance amendment coupled with a proposed amendment to the traffic ordinances of the City of Monticello are intended to allow enforcement of ordinances restricting commercial vehicles from residential districts. The current ordinances intend to disallow commercial vehicles in residential districts (with some exceptions); however, alone the 9000 gross vehicle weight restriction is insufficient to enable enforcement. This ordinance amendment along with amendments to the traffic ordinances (on-street parking ordinances) wi II help to preserve the character of our residential districts whi Ie not limiting necessary commercial vehicle traffie serving those districts. B. ALTERNATIVE ACTION 1. Motion to recommend approval to the City Council of this Ordinance amending Monticello Zoning Ordinance, 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 recommend denial to the City Council of this Ordinance amending Monticello Zoning Ordinance, Chapter 3, Section 3-5, [D] 7, by adding subsections (a) and (b), and establishing regulations for commercial vehicles in residential districts. C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends Alternative 1 to the Planning Commission. D. SUPPORTING DATA · Copy of proposed Ordinance with underlining to show amendments. -1- . ORDINANCE NO. CITY OF MONTICELLO WRIGHT COUNTY, MINNESOTA AN ORDINANCE AMENDING MONTICELLO ZONING ORDINANCE, CHAPTER 3, SECTION 3-5, [OJ 7, BY ADDING SUBSECTIONS (A) AND (B), ESTABLISHING REGULATIONS FOR COMMERCIAL VEHICLES IN RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS: THE CITY OF MONTICELLO DOES ORDAIN: Titlc 10, Chapter 3, Section 3-5, [OJ 7 is hereby amended to read as follows: 7. Off.street parking faei I ities acccssory to residcntial use may be uti I ized 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 facilities accessory to residential structures be used for the storage of commercial vehicles or equipment or for the parking of automobiles belonging to the cmployees, owners, tenants, or customers of business or manufacturing establishments. . ill For the ur ose of this section a commercial vehicles or e( ui trucks. truck-tractors, vans. and the likel.shall be defined as. i. ^n "BY" iii. ^nv vehicle with a gross vehicle weight in excess of9.000 Ibs. ill Commercial vehicles.shall be subiect to all other provisions of this ordinance; however. the prohibitions of this Section shall not applv 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 are directly ancillarv to construction and parked within 1.000 feet of the related construction site. . iii. Vehicles licensed with Disability Plates. or displayinl?, a Disability Parking Certificate. iv. One-ton passenger vans used solely for transporting persons. ID A . . . This Ordinance shall become effective immediately upon its passage and publication according to law. ATTEST: By: AYES: NAYS: ADOPTED by the Monticello City Council this day of , 2000. CITY OF MONTICELLO By: Roger Belsaas, Mayor Rick Wolfsteller, City Administrator /D A . . . lL Planning COlllmission Agenda ~ 09/05/00 Review status of public nuisance ordinance enforcement. (FP) Fred Patch to provide verbal update at the meeting. . 12. B. . 1. 2. Planning Commission ^genda - 09/5/00 Consideration of all amendment to the zoninQ ordinance establishing 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 minimul11 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 arc technically allowed, they are often disqualiJied 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 8-4 districts. Application of similar restrictions in the 1- I and l-2 industrial districts has met opposition in the past. AL TERNA TIVE ACTIONS Recommend approval of the proposed ordinance amendment, based on the l1nding 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. 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 inil)rmation. C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of the amendment. It is believed that the City of Monticello is weU-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 DA lA . Draft Ordinance I,anguage -1- . . . 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 BA zoning districts, except in association with legal fanning activities. B. Buildings in the "B", Business zoning districts shall maintain a high standard of architectural and aesthetic compatibility with conflmning surrounding properties to ensure that they wi II 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: 1. Brick. 2. Natural stone. 3. Decorative concrete block. 4. Cast in place concrete or precast concrete panels. 5. Wood, provided the surf~lces are 1inished f()r 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 ofthe structure, such as in wi ndow 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 ) d fJt- . . . 13. Planning Commission Agenda - 09/05/00 Consideration of Calling for a Public l-Iearing on Amendments to Parking Requirements in the CCD District. (.10) A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND City staff requests that the Planning Commission review the current city ordinance allowing developments in the CCD District to opt for payment ofa fee in lieu ofparking. As you recall, the CCD ordinance was set up to encourage on-street and centralized public parking in part by allowing businesses to pay into a fund for development of street and centralized parking. Staff believes that the goals of the CCO District regarding remain, however there is some concern that the language of the ordinance gives the developer too much latitude in selecting whether or not to pay the fee or create parking. With the fee per stall now set at $1,075 and the actual cost to develop a stall, including land around, $2,700 per stall, stat1 is concerned that there needs to be more city control in determining when to employ this provision. Therefore it is suggested that Planning Commission look at allowing this provision to be employed at the discretion of the city. Factors used in making determination as to whether or not a business could pay the fee in lieu of creating parking would include proximity to available public parking and the number of parking stalls needed. As an alternative and possibly in addition to giving the city more discretionary authority, the city could consider increasing the fee which would make this option less desirable. Please note that the CCO district is also in a TIF district where parking related expenses are eligible for coverage via TI F funding. 'T'herefore, deficiencies in the parking fund could be supplemented by "1'1 F funding. 13. ALTERNATIVE ACTION I. Motion calling for a Public Hearing on Amendments to Parking Requirements in the CCD District. Under this alternative a public hearing would be scheduled for the regular meeting in October. 2. Motion denying staff's request for a Public Hearing on Amendments to Parking Requirements in the CCD District. C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that Planning Commission select alternative 1 D. SUPPORTING DATA Excerpt from the zoning ordinance -1- [G] Parking: . ~ , \ \~Q,l. Yb~(I\~\~Sb Oil rCY C\t> . ~. l. r'~ (' AO (~" O\c./ ..U 1\.. 1\0" rfY '. . J,Q G:t Q ,\ 0 Il"' ~'" (;f/., . ~\~, () \ ,.\(0 Lei' ~\c ;.. ,\ c -, r\ '( (; J"" {.;J\ \/" 0\ ' .~ ~\::<J/ ~ (~ o~ \/' \,-\Q.v ')\~~s. C}~"0 ,) ~ '(\ \ ~ (') K' [H] r6,\L \ ra . 1. Supply: Property owners shall comply with the parking supply requirements as listed in Subdivision 3-5 [H] of this ordinance. However, property owners may be granted flexibility from a portion of their required parking supply under the following conditions: a. At the property owner's choice, for each parking space not supplied on-site by the property owner, the owner shall pay into a "CCD" Parking Fund an amount as established by City Council Resolution. Said fund shall be used for the acquisition, construction, and/or maintenance of publicly-owned parking in the "CCD" district. b. In addition to, or as an altemative to, the option listed in Subdivision 14B-6 [O]la, a property owner may supply parking at a rate which is sixty (60) percent of the requirement listed in Subdivision 3-5 [H], provided that the owner grants an easement to the public for automobile parking use over the subject area. The owner shall retain responsibility for maintenance of said parking area. 2. Location: Parking shall not be located on a parcel between the front building line of the principal building and the public street, except where expressly provided for by the City Council after recommendation from the Plmming Commission. Signs: The following requirements shall apply to all sign displays and construction in the "CCD" district: 1. Signs shall comply with the Monticello Building Codes and Zoning Ordinances relating to signs, including special allowances which may be made for the "CCD" district. 2. All signs in the "CCD" district shall receive review and approval from the Design Advisory Team. a. Signs in compliance with applicable ordinances: For signs which meet the regulations of the City's sign ordinances and the goals and objectives of the Downtown Revitalization Plan, such review shall be given the weight of an administrative determination. Appeal of a determination by the Design Advisory Team shall be as provided for in Chapter 23 of the Monticello Zoning Ordinance. b. Signs not in compliance with applicable ordinances: Signs which do not meet the regulations of the City's sign ordinances shall require review by the Board of Adjustment and Appeals, as provided for in Chapter 23 of the Monticello Zoning Ordinance, following Design Advisory Team review and recommendation. MONTICELLO ZONING ORDINANCE 13 A 148/5