The URL can be used to link to this page

Planning Commission Agenda 08-01-2000 . Members: AGENDA REGULAR MEETING - MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday, August 1,2000 7:00 P.M. Dick Frie, Robbie Smith, Roy Popilck, Richard Carlson, Rod Dragsten Council Liaison: Staff: 1. 2. '" -, . 4. 5. . 6/7. Clint Herbst Jeff O'Neill, Fred Patch, Steve Grittman and Lori Kraemer Call to order. Approval of minutes of the regular meeting held July 5, 2000. Consideration of adding items to the agenda. Citizens comments. Review status of public nuisance ordinance enforcement. Public Hearing - Consideration of a request for an amendment to the zoning map to re- zone from R-2, Single Family and 2 Family Residential, to a Planned Unit Development District. Applicant: Church of St. Henry, Barry Bluhm and Don Bauer; and Public Hearing - Consideration of a concept stage development approval allowing office space, private school, performing arts center, recording studio, residential uses and off- site parking; and consideration of a 4 unit town house development and 4 single f~lmily homes. Applicant: Church of St. Henry, Barry Bluhm and Don Bauer. 8. Public Hearing ~ Consideration of a conditional use permit allowing mixed use development of office, commercial and residential. Applicant: Silver Creek Real Estate Development. 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 coverage standards for residential development. Appl icant: City of Monticello Planning Commission. 10. Public IIcaring - Consideration of a concept and development stage Planned Unit Development review for an 11 unit town house project known as Klein Farms Estates 4th Addition. Applicant: D. Klein Construction Inc. . -1- . . " 11. Public Hearing - 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 yard setback requirements and consideration of a variance to storage area size maximums. Applicant: John Johnson, Monticello Auto Body. 12. Continued Public llcaring - 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. 13. Public Hearing - Consideration of establishing revised setback standards fix residential uses in the Original and Lower Monticello plats. Applicant: City of Monticello Planning Commission. 14. Public Hearing - Consideration of a zoning text amendment establishing a building to site area ratio for auto sales commercial buildings in the B-3 zoning district. Applicant: Monticello Planning Commission. 15. Public Ilearing - Consideration of an amendment establishing building and architectural design standards in the Business Districts. Applicant: City of Monticello Planning Commission. 16. Public Hearing - Consideration of an amendment to the zoning ordinance clarifying the definition of 9,000 lb. gross vehicle weight motor vehicles. Applicant: City of Monticello City Council. *Tabled* 17. Adjourn. -2- . . . MINUTES REGULAR MEETING - MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION Wednesday, July 5, 2000 7:00 p.m. Members Present: Richard Carlson, Rod Dragsten, Dick Frie, Roy Popilck, Robbie Smith and Council Liaison Clint Herbst. Members Absent: None Staff: Steve Grittman, Jeff O'Neill 1. Call to order. Chair Frie called the meeting to order at 7 p.m. and declared a quorum present. 2. Approval of minutes of the regular meeting held June 6. 2000 and the special meeting held .June 26. 2000. Rod Dragsten asked about the architectural review standards for commercial buildings along Chelsea Road. Steve Grittman was asked to prepare information on the standards and to have this matter on the agenda for the August Planning Commission meeting. ROBBIE SMITH MOVED TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE JUNE 6, 2000 REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING. ROD DRAGSTEN SECONDED TIlE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSL Y. RICHARD CARLSON MOVED TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF "fIlE JUNE 26, 2000 SPECIAL MEETING. ROY POPILEK SECONDED TI IE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSL Y. 3. Consideration of adding items to the agenda. None. 4. Citizens comments. None. 5. Public Hearine - Consideration of a variance reauest to the side yard setback standards. Applicant: Wayne Cox. Steve Grittman gave the staff report on the request of Wayne Cox, 306 4th Street East fc)r a Planning Minutes - 7/5/00 . variance in side yard setback 1rom 10 feet to approximately 7 feet in order to eonstruct an addition to his residence. The lot in question is a platted lot with a width of 66 feet. The existing residence is approximately 9.5 feet from the side lot line and the proposed house addition would encroach further into the setback. Steve Grittman noted that it would be possible to construct the proposed addition without encroaching into the setbacks so the property docs not meet the hardship criteria for a variance. The fact that the property is used for a residence with space for a garage allows for reasonable use of the property. The Commission has considered variances in the setback requirements for the platted lots with smaller lot widths in the older area of the community when the purpose was to add a garage. However, in this case the variance is for a house addition so that rationale would not apply. . The staff felt the request for a variance did not meet the definition of hardship and reasonable use as set forth in the ordinance. The staff did feel that it was important to do something for those lots that were platted prior to the establishment of the ordinance requiring 80 feet lot width. These earlier platted lots generally have a lot width of 60-66 feet and cannot meet the current setback requirements without a variance. This may discourage the property owner from making improvements to the property. To rectify the situation it was suggested that an ordinance amendment be considered for those properties that were platted prior to the current ordinance that would provide for different setback requirements than for lots that do conform to 80 feet lot width standard. Primarily the lots that would be ailected by the ordinance amendment would be the lots in the Lower Monticello plat and the Original Townsite plat. City Planner, Steve Grittman, indicated that ordinance amcndment language could reference thc affected properties by plat dcsignation or by date of platting but thc language could be specific enough focus on a gi ven segmcnt of lots. Chairman Frie opened the public hearing. Wayne Cox, the applicant, eXplaincd his reason for requesting the variance. He notcd that while it was possible f()f his proposed house addition to be attached to the existing garage and not cncroach in the setback area, doing so would limit access to his back yard which he felt was a hardship. While he was aware of the hardship criteria in granting a variance, he was not aware that the City was considering an ordinance amendment f()r existing non-conf()fming lots. Chairman frie then closed the public hearing. The Planning Commission asked if an ordinance amendment was proposed what would be considered rcasonable setbacks. Steve Grittman indicated that some research would have to be done in this area as far as what the existing conditions were when the property was platted but he felt that a six foot side yard setback could be a possibility. Mr. Cox was asked his time frame for construction and whether he could wait until the August Planning Commission meeting when a public hearing could be conducted on the proposed ordinance amendment. . ROY POPILEK MOVED TO DENY THE REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE IN THE SIDE YARD SETBACK FOR 306 EAST 4TH STREET BASED ON A FINDING THAT THE EXISTING HOME CONSTITUTES REASONABLE USE OF TIlE PROPERTY AS AN ADDITION COULD BE CONSTRUCTED WIIICH MEETS THE SIDE YARD SETBACK 2 . . . Planning Minutes - 7/5/00 REQUIREMENTS. ROBBIE SMITH SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSL Y. ROD DRAGSTEN MOVED TO CONDUCT A PUBLIC HEARING AT THE AUGUST PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING ON THE PROPOSED ORDINANCE AMENDMENT ON SETBACK REQUIREMENTS FOR RESIDENTIAL PROPER'l'V PI-A TTED PRIOR TO THE CURRENT ORDINANCE TAKING EFFECT. RICHARD CARLSON SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSL Y. There was further discussion on what options Mr. Cox could pursuc regarding the addition to his property. ROD DRAGSTEN MOVED TO GRANT A VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY A"I" 306 EAST 4rI1 STREET TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF AN ADDITION SO LONG AS IT MAINTAINS THE SAME SIDE YARD SETBACK AS TI--IE EXISTING RESIDENCE AND Tl-IERE IS NO FURTHER ENCROACHMENT INTO THE SETBACK. ROY POPILEK SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSL Y. 6. Public Hearing - Consideration of an application for a variance allowing construction of a deck within the) 0' minimum setback standards. Applicant: Paul Kiefer. It was dctermined aftcr further revicw that a variance was not required and the request was withdrawn. 7. Public Hearin!! - Consideration of a request for a conditional use permit allowing a planned unit development containing a multi-family structure with more than 12 residential units. Applicant: Silver Creek Real Estate Development. Steve Grittman provided the background information on this item. The proposed planned unit development shows 25 town homes located on this site along 7th Street East. The primary issue with this development is the density. In the R-3 District town homes are permitted and based on the acreage of the parcel, a maximum of 16 units could be placed on the site and still meet the requirements of the ordinance. The ordinance also restricts town homes to clusters of no more than eight units and the proposal showed a cluster of ten units. If the proposed develop- ment was laid out as a multiple family project 25 units would be an appropriate density. Even though town homes and multiple family units are permitted uses in an R~3 District the density requirements for each are different. If the Planning Commission preferred the town home concept, they may want to consider an ordinance amendment that would set density requirements by zoning district rather than by type of use. Steve Grittman briefly reviewed the site plan and commented on a number of areas including driveway widths, landscaping concerns, number of units in a cluster, aesthetic considerations, alternative paving materials for central area, and issues such as storm water drainage and 3 Planning Minutes - 7/5/00 . utilities which would be further reviewed by the City Engineer and Public Works. There were additional questions concerning the density issue and what the positives and negatives were in regulating density by zoning district rather than by use. Steve Grittman noted that the language in the City's ordinance was commonly used in the zoning ordinances established in the 1970's and emphasized that town home units tend to use up more green space than multiple f~lmily units which was why their density was less than multiple family dwellings. It was also pointed out that currently a single family dwelling is an allowable use in an R-3 District and if there was going to be an amendment to the R-3 District it should be considered whether the single family should continue as an allowable use in that district. Chairman Frie then opened the public hearing. Bruce Haverly, representing Silver Creek Real Estate spoke briefly regarding the proposal. He explained that they had looked at various layouts including multiple family but felt that aesthetically the town homes better suited the site. He indicated that the density of the units may be reduced somewhat, possibly to 23 units and the cluster of ten units would be broken up. It is proposed that the units will be constructed so they could be sold off as individual units. Chairman Frie then closed the public hearing. . Roy Popilek stated that in addition to the items noted in the agenda from the site plan review, he also had concerns about open areas/play area for the children. Bruce Ilaverly indicated that reducing the number of units would open up some additional area for open space but stated that because of topography, the northwest area of the parcel would be kept for drainage. The Planning Commission also addressed parking facilities not only for the residents of the units but also visitor parking. There was concern that while a good number of these units are 2-3 bedroom units there are only single car garages for many of the units (approximately 2/3 of the units had single car garages). The Planning Commission felt parking would probably not be adequate and could have a negative impact on the ability to sell the units. Jeff 0' Neill indicated that the City's zoning ordinance only specified garage unit requirements for single hlmily and two family dwellings. Bruce Haverly indicated that the development will have a homeowner's association and that each unit has individual sewer access which tends toward individual ownership rather than rental. Dick Frie asked if the only entrance to property was ofT Lauring and whether one entrance was adequate as far as the Fire Department was concerned. Steve Grittman noted that this would be looked at further when the plans were reviewed by Public Works. Dick Frie also asked about signage for the development. Mr. Haverly indicated that there would be just a single entrance sign. He also indicated that the median price for the units would be about $130,000. . There was additional discussion on the density of the development. Mr. Haverly was asked if 16 units, which would comply with the ordinance provisions, was not economically feasible, 4 . . . Planning Minutes - 7/5/00 what number of units determined whether it would be economically feasible. Mr. Haverly indicated that above 20 units would be feasible. DICK FRIE MOVED TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE CONCEPT PLAN FOR A PUD AS TOWN HOME PROJECT INCLUDING COMMENTS A-G AS NOTED IN THE AGENDA ITEM AND SUBMITTAL AND REVIEW OF LANDSCAPING, UTILITY AND DEVELOPMENT PLANS BY TIlE CITY ENGINEER AND STAFF AND TO CALL FOR A PUBLIC HEARING ON AN ORDINANCE AMENDMENT TO ACCOMMODATE TOWN HOMES OF TIlE PROPOSED DENSITY IN TIlE R-3 AND THE CCD DISTRICTS. ROBBIE SMITH SECONDED THE MOTION. Richard Carlson noted that the recommendation is based on the proposed density but that the Planning Commission felt the density was too high. Steve Grittman suggested rather than specifying a number of units, they could create a green space requirement that everyone would have to meet. He indicated that 35%-40% was the requirement of communities that he was familiar with. RICHARD CARLSON MOVED TO AMEND THE MOTION TO INCLUDE A I.crr COVERAGE/GREEN SPACE REQUIREMENT AT A PERCENTAGE TO BE DETERMINED AS RECOMMENDED BY THE CITY PLANNER AND STAFF. ROY POPILEK SECONDED THE AMENDMEN"r. UPON VOTE BEING TAKEN THE ORIGINAL MOTION WAS PASSED UNANIMOUSL Y. UPON VOTE BEING TAKEN THE AMENDMENT TO THE MOTION WAS PASSED UNANIMOUSL Y. 8. Public Hearinu - Consideration of rezoninu from 1-1 to I-lA. Construction 5. Outlot A. Aoolicant: City of Monticello Planninu Commission. Jeff 0' Neill provided the background information indicating that previously when the Planning Commission had considered rezoning land along 7th Street from 1-1 to 1-1 A this parcel was inadveliently omitted. It was now coming before the Planning Commission so that this omission could be corrected. Chairman Frie opened the public hearing. Joseph LaFromboise, 2326 Eastwood Circle, the owner of the property was present and stated his belief that an I -I A zoning would not be the best use of the property. He felt that the appropriate zoning should be R-3 and asked that the Planning Commission consider the R-3 designation for this parcel. No one else was present to speak for or against the proposed rezoning. Chairman Frie then closed the public hearing. Rod Dragsten concurred that the R-3 zoning designation may be a more appropriate use for the property. 5 . . . Planning Minutes - 7/5/00 ROD DRAGSTEN MOVED TO DENY APPROVAL OF TIlE REZONING OF OUTLOT A, CONSTRUCTION 5 ADDITION FROM I-I TO I-IA. Motion died for a lack of second. RICHARD CARLSON MOVED TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF TIlE REZONING OF OUTLOT A, CONSTRUCTION 5 ADDITION FROM I-I TO I-IA BASED ON Tl--IE FINDING THAT THE PROPOSED REZONING IS CONSISTENT WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND CONSISTENT WITH THE CHARACfER OF TI-IE AREA. ROBBIE SMITII SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED WITH ROD DRAGSTEN VOTING IN OPPOSITION. 9, Continued Public Hearin!! - Consideration of an amendment to a olanned unit development in a B-3 District to allow the expansion of an auto sales and stora!!e lot Applicant: Dave Peterson's Monticello Ford. It was noted that the applicant had requested continuation of the public hearing as the site plan information was not yet completed. The Planning Commission discussed the number of times an item can come before the Planning Commission without either having to reapply or having notice sent again. Matters coming before the Planning Commission should be acted upon within a reasonable length of time and not allowed to drag on. It was also noted that the propel1y is being used fiJr a purpose that has not been approved. It was discussed whether a time frame, such as 90 days could he set requiring that the applicant get all information to the Commission for action on a request. ROD DRAGSTEN MOVED TO CONTINUE THE PUBLIC HEARING ON THE AMENDMENT TO A PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT IN A B-3 DISTRICT TO ALLOW THE EXPANSION OF AN AUTO SALES AND STORAGE LOT AND TO NOTIFY THE APPLICANT THAT THEY ARE UNLAWFUl ,L Y USING THE SITE AND IF THE APPLICANT DOESN'T HAVE THE INfORMA TION FOR THE AUGUST 1,2000 IT COULD BE RECOMMENDED T'O THE CITY COUNCIL THAT TIlE CARS BE REMOVED. ROBBlE SMITH SECONDED THE MOTION. There was some discussion on the wording of the motion. It was noted that requiring the information for the August 15t meeting would not allow time for review if the information was not suhmitted prior to August 1 st. The applicant should be made aware that the Planning Commission could recommend to the Council that both the amendment he denied and that the cars be removed. Steve Grittman suggested specifying a set date for the submittal of the information. He noted that typically 2-3 weeks prior to the monthly meeting is the deadline for submittal and indicated that by July 17th all data should be submitted to the stalT. ROD DRAGSTEN AMENDED THE MUrtON TO INCLUDE THAT THE APPLlCAN'r MUST MEET THE JUL Y 17TII DATE FOR SUBMITTAL OF INFORMA nON TO THE ST AFF ON THE AMENDMENT TO THE PUD. ROBBIE SMITH SECONDED THE AMENDED MOTION. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 6 . . . 10. 11. Planning Minutes - 7/5/00 Discussion on the City Ordinance reeardine enforcement of the Public Nuisance Ordinance. In the absence of Fred Patch, Jeff 0' Neill gave a verbal report on the enforcement action taken on blights/nuisance properties. Out of the 93 properties that were notified of violations 28 had been corrected at this time. A number of the violations had been turned over to the City Attorney. At the present time two positions remain unfilled in the Community Development Depmiment. The City is looking at the various needs in the organization as part of the rehiring process. It may be necessary to modify one of the job descriptions to include emphasis on code enforcement. I-Ie also indicated that staff members and the Mayor had toured the community and reviewed some of the blight properties. Dick Frie stated that the blights had been brought up numerous times by the Planning Commission. It is an area of concern to the Commission members and a matter that they felt should be addressed. The question is whether to give stall another opportunity to resolve it or submit the matter to the City Council. The Planning Commission requested staff to place on the August 1 sl Planning Commission agenda a comparison between current enforcement system and a system that would include issuance of citations. The comparison should include projections on percent of violations corrected and cost of enforcement. Richard Carlson also suggested that the City consider garage requirements for all residential districts not just R-l and R-2 districts. Adjourn. ROBBIE SMTfI! MOVED TO ADJOURN AT 9:20 P.M. ROY POPILEK SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Recording Secretary 7 . . . Planning Commission Agenda - 08/0 I /00 5. Review status of public nuisance ordinance enforcement. (10) At the previous meeting of the Planning Commission, the Commission requested that City stafT prepare an analysis or comparison of two basic methods for processing violations of the public nuisance ordinance. We were to compare the formal complaint process versus the ticketing process. The goal was to determine which is more effective and which makes best use of City staff and Attorney time. During the past month, staff met with the City Attorney and Roger Carlson regarding this matter. At this time City staff prefers to stay with the current method. According to the City Attorney, the two methods are equally effective. In terms of economy, the formal complaint process might be slightly more economical unless tickets can be "batched". In addition, the formal complaint process places the City Attorney on "the point"with the offender, whereas the citation process places regular City staff on "the point". From a public relations standpoint it may be better for the organization to have the hired gun be the heavy when it comes to tough enforcement action. Due to the fact that this meeting is full of public hearings, Planning Commission may want to table discussion of code enforcement to a special meeting at which time the Planning Commission could tour the City. The purpose of the tour is to obtain input from the Planning Commission on enforcement priorities and it will also provide stafT with an opportunity to describe specific action taken to enforce the code at various locations. We look forward to your comments on staif exercise of discretion. As a final note, you remember that at the previous meeting I reviewed a listing of about 100 violations and noted that about 30% have come into compliance. Although the percentage was correct at that time, a large portion of those not in compliance had only recently received the notice. Actual compliance rates are much better than 30%. -1- Planning Commission Agenda -08/01/00 . 6 & 7 Consideration of a Rezonine to Planned Unit Development and concept sta~e PUD approval for office. private school. performing arts center. recording studio. residential uses and off--site parking. Applicants: Church of St. Henry. Barn' Bluhm. Don Bauer. (NAC) A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: Don Bauer and Barry Bluhm are filing joints applications 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 in elude a conversion of the sanctuary into a performing arts center. Much of the remainder of the building would inelude office space, a recording studio, and two 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. . 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. Ilowever, 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. Proiect A - Barry Bluhm Mixed Use. Issues related to this portion ofthe PUD include traffic and access to the project through the existing neighborhood. 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 traffic 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 traffic access to and from the south would best avoid potential conflicts with the residential areas to the north and cast. Additional detail regarding the scheduling of performances would help to refine the land use issues and any steps necessary to minimize negative impacts. Proiect B - Don Bauer 3rd Street Residential. This portion of the project is proposed to be low density residential uses consistent with the surrounding neighborhood. Concept plans . -1- Planning Commission Agenda -08/01/00 . have not been developed for this portion of the project at this time. Proiect C - Don Bauer Maple Street Townhomes. This p0l1ion ofthe project consists off()Uf 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. The first shows the units clustered along Maple Street, with garages to the rear, and the private drive to the adjacent parking lot along the north. The second plan shows the private drive splitting two pairs of units, then connecting to the adjacent parking lot. Due to the traiTic 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 trank from the parking lot, heaviest after performances in the m1s center, leaving the site through thc "fronts" ofthc townhousc 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. The Planning Commission should express any issues or preferences with both site plans to provide guidance to the developer. Staff has encouraged retention of the access drive to facilitate a southerly access fc)r the parking lot, as discussed previously. . Process. It is the intent of this report to present the general concept and raise potential issues for City consideration. The developers seek a PUD Zoning over the entire project, at staff direction. This would facilitate the mixing of uses, shared driveways and other facilities, and allow for a PUD Ordinance and development contract which would establish a "customized" zoning ordinance for this site. 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. 'rhe Planning Commission should provide feedback to the developers on two levels. First, the overall acceptability of the land use proposal should be reviewcd. Atthis level of review, it is understood that the land use proposal may generate several issues which will require special attention as more details plans develop. The identification of those issues, and any suggested solutions, comprise the second level of review and feedback. tfthc City finds that the land uses may be acceptable but only if the development addresses ccrtain concerns, it will be important to have as comprehensive a list of those concerns as possible at this stage. . -2- Planning Commission Agenda -08/01100 . B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS Decision 1: Consideration of a rezoning to pun Zoning District 1. Motion 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 which enhances the existing neighborhood. 2. Motion to recommend denial ofthe PUD Zoning District, based on a finding that the proposed uses are not compatible with the existing neighborhood land use, a primary goal of the Comprehensive Plan. 3. Motion to table action on the PUD Zoning District, pending additional information. Decision 2: Consideration of a }'UD Concept Plan 1. Motion to recommend approval of the PUD Concept, conditioned on the applicants' ability to address the issues identified at the public hearing for each of the three primary components ofthe project, and the submission of appropriate development stage PUD plans and applications, including site plans, grading and drainage plans, utility plans, building and Hoor plans, and landscaping plans, as appropriate. A survey of existing conditions should also be prepared to verify site conditions and building locations. . 2. Motion to recommend denial of the PUD Concept, based on a finding that issues related to the proposed uses and their impacts on the existing neighborhood can not be adequately addressed. 3. Motion to table action on the PUD Concept, pending additional information. c. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the PUD Zoning District as an appropriate technique to guide the redevelopment of the St. Henry's church property. The district will not affect allowable residential density, since townhouse and single family density is regulated by lot size in either the R-2 or PUD district. . -3- Planning Co 111 111 ission Agenda -08/01100 . Subject to the issues raised at the hearing, staff is supportive of the PUD concept as an innovative re-use concept for a large building in a developed neighborhood. As noted in the report, it will be important to continue to plan for traffic and access to avoid problems in the existing residential areas. One of the components oftra11ic planning will be to maintain the access to Maple Street from the parking lot so that most tratlic can access the area from the south. Related to this is staff's support for the first townhouse site plan which keeps the units clustered and the driveway to the side, rather than splitting the residential development in half. On the whole, traffIc generated from this project should be light, with the exception of the use of the performing arts center for larger productions. In this way, it will not be unlike the tra11ic patterns which were created by the church use previously. D. SUPPORTING DATA Bluhm Floor Plml Sketches Bluhm Summary oruse of buildings. Bauer Townhouse Site Plan #1 Bauer Townhouse Site Plan #2 . . -4- /-... l~., I.- <.t \ ,...,... )< I .., I ----=~- ."" e:i ~ 0.. ~ <t w '-..J 0 ., ~ fi ~ c/. & \' II ':. 90 -=- " \.II ~ J 4- V 'vi .- [" /} ~ ,1;1' '{): l', "t"'I' e;.,:, '.... "~ ~. ","1 . ,~ '<'"" "~-'~~~".1TTT ~ I ,I ' ~;..!~ .' ~~:,.:' : : --1..t~:.';:_'.'.-:I. , .".,;-1 I ! ...~:j i 1 r, ~....., . '1_"':'._-"'""':""'~....t.","1 \ L I I .. I >. /. fj ,... 'e> -..:) <"~ Vi'! J''o /..) .) ~ 1 ..~ ~* .;. -- ...:.) ~ ~~ \0 c..,... J- ~ -;:" A i .--~~~ ~ ,..,,,- ( ~41 m.~ ",.y.., ./ :;:/!~ , ,f~ /. .~ t __ ~ '-.11 ~ " '). ,',\) ,\,",0" ~~~~'l \;.\', ('" i .....-,: f'l' ) ~.~\~'~l' . [. .t .II.:~'~, ......-').,-'" . n- ' l."".r ,-...~-~"!........., +- \ \ aJ.. '\) ~ \J \..l f. <;) I,. I-. (l N. ~ t1 "J' \ ...9. i1 f1> ~ ..J Ii) <1 Q ~ \0. W !) (I.L () , \ U. ~ .l:. ~ 1\ ~ .J 't IJ '^ .. -~.l---- _._- - - (.~ '. ..), /)..\ \ ::.~ -)~'\ \ \, ,.:.. fY \ :"""-- '\'~." 7.... o - ,~ ",./' ',,,/\ 'b ~:j \ ;;, ",,\. ,...J. '. --.'"" \ l0 ---.>> , .-' \ .,-{) ,-:",~" ,\ 1 J ~ < {).'';7- ~..,...,.~--~~. -~ -- ~ T '".'-. .. - ~ ""ll o E QI 0( N II I i "'\. "h C>" ~~., e,. 1 ?'~ \;) ..,..) ~., "~ .~ D- ~ ...,~.,,".. -4-q--~ ( .~ \ 'ts r1 I "i I I I / -~. -""..._-, ~-........ ~.......~ t l ' .~~- / ,~ , , " '" '" .... " ':.;).;~. ,f,') \t" .;;:: .~ \..-J VI .j " <:;r. x, . WY; i ,;,\ ~~"'" ';,;, -1;, ). '<. i;. .\ '" \tl ..... i' ~ :x.. W ...... ........ ....,. 4- <,. '\\) E:l., ~~. 'Jo>t" ~":. <t. ~(Y 1>4- ~ +- D -A.") \)> ~ ...""'} ~"" ~"''"\'.~''_. --. -t.. UJ ~ <t. ~-_.~ -",-','" _._-'- ~~=ft. <. ..J (.j, "'t., "..r <- -~ . -',,:-- r ~ ~;:., ~ . '-;;'~ ,"- ,..,.,- .~,:,. ~ :'-' ./ ,,' ~' ./ ~' ...- -' "i"'- ..J !) 1: 1- .., v, 'j 1. M VI 'Ii -~ /Ii t ~ ~., . Bany Bluhm 8959 I 65th Ave. Becker, MN 55308 RE: Plans for use of buildings being purchased from St. Henry's Catholic Church located on Maple St. in Monticello, MN. Plans for the buildings are as follows: Existinf: Sanctuat:X- Top Floor - 250-300 seat auditorium 1200 sq. ft. stage 735 sq. ft. foyer 420 sq. ft. entry 305 sq. ft. control room 360 sq. ft. backstage properties room 264 sq. ft. dressing room 121 sq. ft. office . Plans are to use the auditorium for family entertainment in the form of theater, concerts, etc. The facility will also be avail- able for rent. (i.e. seminars, recitals, etc.) (2) 525 sq. ft. offices on the west side for lease (These are accessible from a 400 sq. ft. hallway and entry.) Bottom Floor - Working with tenants on possible renovation for a Montessori School, but not limited to this use only. Existinl: Parish Cente~ _ Top Floor - (1) 3 bedroom apartment for short term lease rental (1 ) 4 bedroom apartment for short term lease rental Bottom Floor - (l) 3 bedroom apartment for short term lease rental (2) 350 sq. ft. office spaces for lease (Creating access to these on Minnesota Street) . {o/rr C- . , -, r--- ADJACENT FROFERTY (LOT 3, BLOCK 2]) ~ .~ L6J..1PSC4n L__ r ~~I J FRlvATE DRIvE 165.08' N 21" 45' 43' E I-- I 1 ~I ;1 ~I ZI DRIVEWAY DRIVEWAY ~1 I I --J . r- rf\ '& I~ I ~ 1"1: I~ ~ ~ o W I- .q ). ~ (l 11.0' 5 21 c Ir- rf\ . l!t'.e' 5E!TeACIC :::I il! P ~ 1) r m ) (j) ;: .., -i I> ... -I . flJ Ill' a ~ A! m ~ -i . iJ! I ~ I ~ ~ III .., i:i I'! ~ ~ III ~ ~ ~ ~ BURLINTON NORn-IERN RAILROAD Ile'.e' 132.81' N 63" 03' 14' W . ."'.OSI' -c dZ ?)-i :!l~, ~c ;jZ., ~ -i " ~:t:: " ... '\, GREEN SPACE " ..., . <,:,'(;'1 , "",~> , ~ . , " '. DRIVEWA Y PRiVATE DRivE :-0 DRIVEWA Y (;'I ~' '. (;'I 1>, ~, m , " GREEN SPACE . & LANDSCAPE SUFFER (J) tv --l . .....e. r 3e>'.~' BEYOND I"ICIOPEJlUY LIN! r !t..~ r- ," ";" c :'1>' " ""--'Z.' ....' '... .\.....'tV_,'".,>, "',. ,,~-i. ".' "', . .',', \, . :!lp,' ' . . r :-0' 'I' :-0 ...:.c dZ ~-i ,:!l~ 66.40' 5 63" 01' 31' to..) ."., IJJ E r :J o P. :J-flJ O(J)r Z.".,m -; ... ~ G' \JI I _ Iz tv --l . ."., It.. IJJ I . m - " r ~ {) ~ 1> rll ~ m ~ r ~ {) ~ 1> 1) m 2! 11 m ~ --~-'- p. -.,0 rL Op. -fO IJJm , z OJ-f rlJ O~ 00 7\1) tvm cl{) -t -{ --~ . 8. Consideration of a Conditional Use Permit aDowin mixed Use sho in center develo ment of office commercial and residential in the CCD Central Communi District. A lieant: Silver Creek Real Estate Develo ment. (NAC) Plann ing Comm ission Agenda -08/01/00 A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: Silver Creek Real Estate Development is proposing to construct a mixed use development on a parcel bounded by tbe 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. The project includes 15,500 square feet of retail/commerciaJ use on the first level, 12 second floor residential units of! -2 bedrooms, an underground parki ng garage 1'0 r the residential tenants, and future commerc ial space on the liquor store s ide of the property of approximate I y 9,000 square feet, in addition to the existing liquor store space of 6,480 square feet. The site is zoned CCO, Central Community District. . The downtown revitali7.ation plan encourages the use of mixed use design, and urban building styles in the corridor aJong Walnut Street. The proposed project would maximize the amOunt of Walnut Street frontage for commercial deVelopment, with the exception of access to 5 Yo 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 Yo Street. South of 5 Yo Street, a redesign of the parking lot would be proposed, concurrent with the deve! opment 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 5'" Street right of way which is shared with Burlington Northern. Access to this driveway tram Walnut, as well as the garage access, wou Id req ui re a reconstruction of the Walnut on-street parking in this area. Hei"ht, Sethacks, Density. The CCD requirements require building heights of between 15 and 35 feet and zero setbacks. The proposed bnilding is two stories in height, approximately twenty feet (building elevations are yet to be submitted), and is located with zero setbacks along north, cast, and west lot I ines. At-grade parki ng lots are required to maintain the live fi,ot setbacks where practical. It Would appear that tbere is room to accommodate this standard, and the site plan should be revised to reflect this. Density for second story residential units is allowed to be up to one unit per 3, ODD sq uare feet oflot area. For the land north of the 5 Yo Street dri veway, this would accommodate up to 14 units. The project is in compliance with 12 proposed units. . -1- . . . Planning Commission Agenda -08/01/00 Parkiqg. The residential parking is designed to he contained in the garage. There will he an overflow into other areas due to visitor parking. Typically, one visistor space per four units is recommended. The north side retail space requires a total of 65 spaces at one space per 200 square feet of net retail area. Wtih 36 supplied on the plan, this leaves a deficit of 29 spaces. The CCD pennits such shortages where the developer agrees to pay into a parking fund for public parking in the district on a per space basis. The existing 6,480 square foot liquor store shares the south side of the site with about 9,000 square feet of "future" retail area, Some of which would be leased space and some which would be liquor store expansion. This area would require a total of29 spaces for the CUlTent Ii quor store, 14 spaces for I iq uor store expansion, and 27 spaces lor the future I eased retai I space al on g Walnut Street, a total demand 0170 parking spaces. The site plan for the south portion of the site shows a total of 66 spaces after redevelopment. Because no floor plans have been submitted for the south side, staff has assumed a ten percent reduction lor non- productive space. The total demand may bc reduced ifthere is significantly less usable floor space once floor plans are developed. There is likely to be limited overflow onto 6th Street due to the planned curb cuts tram the parking lot. fedestrian Access. The CCD and the downtown revitali?.ation area are intended to promote pedestrian access and pedestrian-based business interchange. The development block will be adjoined by public sidewalks along Walnut and Highway 25, and eventually, a pathway along the 5 '" Street (B N Railroad) right of way. Sidewalks are al so shown to con nect Walnut and the retail storefronts, extending to Highway 25 along tbe new retail bUilding. Signs. Tbe Monticello Sign Ordinance applies to all development within tbe CCD, subject to Design Advisory Team (DA T) review. The project has not sbown any sign detail, with tbe exception of two Ireestanding sign locations - one along Highway 25 and one along Walnut. Tbe sign along Highway 25 wou Id be acceptable underthe revi talizati on plan as an area with more of a highway commercial focus. However, the Walnut Street frontage is expected to bave pedestrian scale signage, mounted ou the building facades, iucluding projecting signs OVer the sidewalk where appropriate. Additional sign detail will be necessary to permit complete review. .il.treetscapelLandscapJ;. Streetscape and landscape details have not been submitted with this plan set. The revitalization plan encourages the use of urban design materials indudiug planters and furniture, site and parking lot lighting consistent witb the City's standard, and alternative paving materials for walkways and other locations. Tbese details should be submitted to staff and the Design Advisory Team for review. Building Design. The applicants had prepared an early rendering of the proposal, but no building plans have been submitted at this time. The DA T will need to review the bUilding -2- P: \98056\Drwgs\AKA-Sd\NWT -al.l. dwg Thu JuJ 13 10: 03: 26 2000 Ankeny Ke I] Archi tects (651) 645'-6806 I ~ I ID ,. "-~ ~ 1IIiI_ ""-'-...... i 11:1 NY1d aus [Ill ,...:1 <(I dflJ~",=~:W~ lN3V1d0l31\30 NM0lI\\3N .- 111/ III l1/1~ 111/1 !~~ hU ~ . -------- Pc PH A~P rJOSJHH/ff r~'-"'~~'~~-!:'.:...-,,=,.:.. _", ~-G _.-~--- _n_ -----_n_____n__._______n___ I.. 0 \ (0 (.) 0 ~ J .M.8l N ~ , i~ , 'l g" .~ 8A . . . g ~ ~. ~J iJ '< 0:: '< ~.. ....... -. "';f- l. If) ~J RPJ . . ~- ; ! W j ; , i , i i , , ! ! i I , .., I I I I i ! . I , l1f: I'. ~-+ I ~ "11'-" \/!!_ "' r f 'I ! ~ -1"T: mJ ~, I I OLJiJJ1~ ~ I . .,: "- , II I......... ',r /,!, '- !/.. IUIIII/ /---. ) W~ I f~ - ; B · ~;~~ ~:l' . i j~/,j . ~ ~ ,~. . I , <::t., T:: . ~' !~ ,'1.'/ ~'- tfR';..: I . , '" le. ~ II ~ ' ~~! " Ii ~ ~ ~', 'w ~ _f . ., :/ ~ ~.~ '." -'- .~ ;it ~ , , < '. r (' 'II 1, I r. L fl :;:~iI~ ~'~t~~~JI, *- I~ ,~, I.l:~:~'~~~~f~ }j , " :", ,Y. . ". 1Ji'. ,__::,r" Lit. ' J!::N J=Y f: . .~~''"; "",r , f ~, III f6; f,;; , " 'l~ r ~"" .~ n r IIO>'f~~ 'III "'i.1;g ..<:1'-,~h." G (Jl , ", \!) .~ ~""l'''' ~ ~. z ~~ --~ 1,: '.; \Ilk .....~ -', \' If,/ (J,ll :j::J , /1 'I ..r ; I ~ " .f'\ :j '" :/ o 'I " -J I! II ! ~ .t {) II j 'Z " ~ <l .~ :.i ~;~ qln ~C-- . . . ."'~...... ' : ; ~ ,(J i r ~ / , / f t I; (j I , ,.. I - ~rR, I ",i ~ i ~ I. 1/ ! '" i Ii '!i /I I, ! I it ! i ~ : I I, i ~ ! , ~ '" ~ ! .. ol\ ,.; , I. I,Go1Z:Z I '~iL/ ~ I' i ! II Ii i I: I, n i! ii : i. "Ii ~ :i ,/ 'p " ~~ ~ I ,I 'I I! ,: 1 il "if' :, " , ,'" C7 ~ '. 1111:: II MJ f1~ 7,,", 'r! ~'Ij 1>>1" ~l: _,' HI \: l f ":,, '(. I ~i:: ~ U" .-' 'Ii" "-c' c:.. lk g,' I "d F=-P u "'II .. ~ fj~ ; ~ ,Mm' ~i:rr '1/' .~ ~ ;,,! m~ 1'1 "" /II 'J'..... I', I '" --itJ-. I" '\:: ill / ~~ !H~:;.- --,L ~I Ii, ;0. ~ ,~ 'I __ILlL ~- --t r ~f- 'If ---- -1----------1-,---__ '-'-_ f ' II" __'\~___""'--__ I 1\', \ . \ "" I . I " \ '\ \ " '- '- , , ! l , \ , , , \~.O~lqtll, , '- '- '- " , '- " , , '\ I I ~ e & t ~~~ ~.. ~; ~f " ! I! \Il' z M ;~ llC ~ '<(' Q... r! Q o .J II.. " i I1J Q I.{) ~ " '<,4. c( Ii' ':t:~ ~ f,' ro I .Jl1 .If) ~b . 9. Planning Commission Agenda -08/01/00 A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: Silver Creek Development is processing a request to construct a townhouse project along east 7'" Street which would consist of up to 25 townhouse llllits. Due tu the way in which the Monticello Zoning Ordinance currently calculates density, a townhouse project on this R-J 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 overcrowd a parcel. The attached ordinance is designed to accomplish this objective. It consists of three components: . The Lot Area Per Unit section is amended to add a clause which relers to the fact that ind i vi dual distri c ts may have speci fi c densi ty standards. For a project which was in a district without a specific standard (most districts do not address this issue), the Lot Area Pcr Unit Tab Ie would apply, such as in a PU 0 in the R -2 District, or a standard R _I single tilmil y pI at. The second porti on amends the "U sab I e Open Space" section by app lying the 500 square feet of open space standard to to""house development, and adding an alternative clause which would mandate a 30% green space requirement. 111is requirement is within the average range of such regulations trom other communities, but also includes some exemptions from the calculation. For instance, narrow strips of la"" between parking areas and sidewalks would not be included in the 30% calculation, nor would storm water ponds or wctlands. As a result, the actual landscaped area of a project will be higher than 30%. Because of the urban natnre of CCD mixed use projects, they are exempted from this clause. Fi nally, the ordi nance amends the R - 3 District to state that townhonse proj ects wi thi n the R _ 3 District may Use the densi ty all owances of mnltiple tilmi Iy development. Combined with thc green space req uirement, a to""house development could be constructed at a higher densi ty in the R-3 District, but wonld still have to maintain a livable amonnt of green space in the project. B. AL TERNATIVE ACTIONS 1. Motion to recommend approval of the amendment, based on a finding that the regulation of density by zoning district is in keeping with the intent of the Comprehensive Plan and other density projections nsed for engineering purposes. . -1- . 2. Motion to recommend denial of the amendment, based on a finding that townhouse projects will sacrifice openness at densities equal to multiple family development Planning COlllm ission Agenda -08/01/00 3. Motion to table action on the amendment, pending additional infonnation. C. STAFF RECOMMENDA nON Staft'recommends the amendment The use of density regulation by zoning district rather than unittype hel ps to ensure accurate projecti ons of traffic, sewer 11 ow, water use, and other issues. In addition, it should help to encourage townhouse development in areas which woul d tend to be developed as multiple linn il y, resul ting in a possi bi Ii ty 0 f higher resi dentia] ownership rates. By applying the open space/green space requirement to both types of development, townhouse projects should not be able to sacrifice green space for higher density. D. SUPPORTING OAT A . Draft Ordinance Amendment . -2- . . . City of Monticello Wrig-ht County, Minnesota AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 10, CHAPTER 3, SECTION 3-4 AND CHAPTER 8, SECTION 8-5, OF THE MONTICELLO ZONING ORDINANCE RELATING TO TflE ESTABLISHMENT OF DENSITY STANDARDS AND GREEN SPACE REQUIREMENTS FOR TOWNHOUSE AND MUL TIPLE FAMILY DEVELOPMENT, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MONTICEl.LO, MINNESOTA HEREBY ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS: ~ection I. Chapter 3, Section 3-4[BJ is amcnded to read as tollows: [HI LOT AREA PER UNIT-.bND RESIDENTIAL DENSITY: Unless otherwise s ecified within the individual zonin districts the lollowiu' table re of an residential dcvelo ment: Unit TYRe Lot Area Per Unit Single Family Two Family Townhouse Mobile Home Park Multiple Family Elderly Housing 12,000 square feet 6,000 square feet 5,000 square feet 4,000 square feet 10,000 square teet t()r first unit, plus 2,000 square fect for each additional one bedroom unit, plus 3,000 square feet for eaeh additional two bedroom unit. 1,000 square feet (Note: the lot area per unit requirement fin tOWnhouses, condominiums, and planned unit developments shall be calculated on the basis of the total are in the project and as controlled by an individual and joint Ownership.) .section ~ Chapter 3, Section 3-4 [DJ is hereby amended to read as follows: [DJ USABLE OPEN SPACE: Exce t lor mixed use ro 'eets in the CCD District each multiple family dwelling site or townhouse site shall contain at least five hundred (500) square feet . of usable open space as defined in Chapter 2 of this ordinance lor each dwelling unit contained thereon, or a minimum 000% green space, whichever is greater. For the purposes of this ordinance, green space shall include lawn, shrubs, trees, or other planted open space usable for ardens shade or recreation and shall not include lanted areas between arkin areas or sidewalks and parking areas which are less than ten feet in width. nor shall it include an art of the ublic ri ht-of-wa delineated wetland orre uired storm water ondilP areas below the 10 year flood elevation. Section 3. Chapter 8 is hereby amended by adding the following Section 8-5, Density Standards: 8-5 DENSITY STANDARDS [A] Residential development in the R-3 District shall conl'(mn to the Lot Area Per Unit requirements of Section 3-4[B] of the Monticello Zoning Ordinance, except that townhouse projects may utilize the lot area per unit standards applicable to multiple family dwellings. . //s// This ordinance shall become elfective lrom and after its passage and publ ication. . . . . 10. Planning Commission Agenda _ 08/0 J /00 Consideration of an a lieation for a Conditional Use PermiVPlanned Unit Develo ment and a Preliminar Plat to allow the develo ment of a townhouse ro'eet to be known as Klein Farms Estates 4th Addition. A lieant: D. K1eiu Construction. Inc. (NAC) A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUNQ D. Klein COnstruction. Inc. has applied for a CUP/PUD and Preliminary Plat to allow an I 1 -onit town home development The property is 1.4 acres in size and is located 00 the northwest Corner of the i ntersecti on of S tooerid ge Drive and N.E. Falloo A veo ue. A simiJ ar townhome development call cd KI ein Farms Estates was approved in 1995 and is located west of the subject site. The property is zoned R-2. Single and Two Family Residential. Land Use and Zoning Tbe proposed townbome land use is consistent with the guided land Use and zoning for the property. Ten two-unit townhomes and one detached townbomc are proposed. The City may Want to consider Whether a detached townbome is appropriate in this location surrounded by two-unit townhomes Density After SUbtracting tbe area of the private street. the parcel is approximately 57.000 square feet in size or 1.3 acres. The proposed 1 I units would create a density within this area of 8.5 units per acre. Typically, a density of more than 8 units per acre is considered to be high density rather than medium density. The adjacent development has a density of 6.2 units per acre, exclusive of the ponding area and private drive area. A density of 6.2 units per acre on the subject site Would result in 8 townbome units rather than the proposed 11. A reduction in density is likely in order to meet required setbacks and may be more appropriate for this site. Also, an early, preliminary plan for Klein Farms Estates showed a concept of eight units for this site. Setbacks The required minimum setbacks in the R-2 District compared to the proposed conditions are listed below: Front Yard (south) Interior Side Yard (west) Corner Side Yard (east) Buffer Yard (north) Required 30 feet 1 0 feet 20 teet 50 feet Proposed 20 feet 7 feet 20 feet 37 feet ~1- . Planning Commission Agenda - 08/0]/00 The developer of the adjacent PUD, Klein Farms Estates, requested a variance from setback standards, and the application was denied due to a finding oflack of hardship. The proposed development is in a similar situation; however a variance has not been requested. Plans must be revised to meet district standards. A greater setback from the north prope11y line is needed in the proposed development for a buffer yard that is required due to the industrial park to the north. A preliminary plan for the adjacent Klein Farms Estates development showed a side yard setback of 25 feet for that development. The City may wish to consider whether a setback of more than 10 feet from the west side property line is appropriate to allow greater building separation and more usable green space around buildings. Bufler Yard A buffer yard is required along the northern boundary of the site between the proposed residential land use and the existing industrial use. A residential use next to an industrial use is considered a severe type of conflict that requires a minimum building setback of 50 feet, a minimum landscape yard of 40 feet, and a minimum of 160 plant units per] 00 feet of property line. Unit 5 encroaches into the required setback and a planting plan for the buffer yard has not been submitted. . Landscaping A landscape plan has not been submitted. In the adjacent Klein Farms Estates development the City negotiated extensively with the applicant to produce a landscape plan that is enhanced compared to a typical development. The enhanced landscaping was given in exchange for flexibility from other development regulations. The proposed development appears to have no enhancements that would justify flexibility from development standards. A landscape plan must be submitted that includes required landscaping in the buffer yard, and additional landscaping between buildings is appropriate given that this is a PUD. A plan illustrating the landscaping that was provided between buildings at Klein Farms Estates is attached in Exhibit F. Building Design and Spacing A general standard for building spacing is that a building should be no closer to another building than half the sum of the building heights of the two buildings. Building height information has not been provided. Buildings are spaced no eloser than 15 feet apart. Building floor plans and elevations must be submitted for review and approval. . Paved Surf(.lCes. The proposed private drive is 24 feet wide, exceeding the minimum of20 feet. Each unit has a driveway that is 20 feet long. Driveways that are 22 feet long arc preferred by the City to allow a little extra parking room for large vehicles. The site plan indicates a sufficient number of parking spaces, including five guest parking spaces. -2~ . Planning Commission Agenda - 08/0 I /00 Grading and Utilities Grading and utilities plans have been submitted. These plans must be reviewed and approved by the City Engineer. Snow Storage As a condition ofPUD approval, the developer should identify snow storage areas on the site plan or agree that all snow wiU be hauled to an off-site location. Development Agreement As a condition of final plat approval, the applicant will be required to enter into a development agreement with the City. Homeo}1/}Jer Rules and Byhrws As a condition of final plat approval, the applicant must submit a copy of aU rules and bylaws to be utilized by the development's homeowners association for City review. The rules and bylaws should address such issues as maintenance of common open space and snow removal. . RejiJse The location of refuse containers has not been indicated on the plan. Containers must be fully screened and indicated on the plan if they are not going to be located within the individual units. B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS 1. Motion to approve the CUP/PUD and Preliminary Plat based on the finding that the proposed plat, with conditions, is in compliance with the City's Comprehensive Land Use Plan. The conditions to approval are listed in Exhibit 7 2. Deny the ClJPlPlJD and Preliminary Plat based on the finding that the proposed project does not meet performance standard requirements, including an insufficient buffer yard building setback and lack of landscaping. 3. Table the CUPlPUD and Preliminary Plat based on the finding that the conditions be met and re-submitted for review. . -3- Planning Commission Agenda - 08/0 I /00 . c. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the cuP/pun and preliminary plat be tabled until the conditions listed in Exhibit Z arc 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 buffer yard landscaping, and no elements of a superior development have been presented in exchange for the flexibility a pun provides. D. SUPPORTING DATA Exhibit A - Site Location Exhibit B - Preliminary Plat Exhibit C - Grading and Drainage Plan Exhibit D - Utility Plan Exhibit E - Klein Farms Estates Landscaping between buildings (example) Exhibit Z - Conditions of Approval . . -4- 'I! III Bi', -., 'I.! I' WI ~!I ~ ~ar---- Q ~ ~ ~ ~ .- ......... = f ~ Q ~ ......... .- U \ .. <=: ... 0 ~ ~ ~.~ :5 ~ i ~ ~"fii N 0:: ~ ~ (U ~ M:J""'~Q6~~~:3 8 :>, 0:: .- 0 ._ il. ell N N ~u81 :>..>-.C'l __ (Q.~....... Q iJ.l ~ Q.) Q.) "" <=: -' III .- OJ S "" <=: IlJ "S S "" 0 ell c: <=: ;j ,,<U ;:l ell ell ell ell a"'.,;::r..r-.. :J::"'"'S8 COQ6";:l1lJ<u8<u~,,<-. 0(.'1 :::$.-1'1:100 Q) "0 p....-; ~ QO..... ....... <M 8 ~ 3 ;;n.: .~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ;; N '"' U -0: '" 1Il :::s ::<: 0:: il. Il.. ~. ~ : ~ Sl1Wl1 A lJ &j o ~ j of ~ ~ 'b, 10 "'"' <=: IlJ "0 " IlJ 0::10 "'"' .~ <-. "'"' " "" :>, " en "'"' ~ CI} ~ ~ ;:l '(;; en 8 ;;l ;;l 8 COcoa ~ 10 u ~ .~ ~ "" "" <=: .,~ ~~~;O -' :3 ~ ci: " " " .5 " ;;l " CO ~ " <=: o " o ;:l '<=:co <-. o "0 "" <U .<=: ... ~e <U 'M Z-' o EXHI~IT A - SITE OCATION ::10::.::1: 0-<( O~~M~~NN_~M~U'_~~ -<(o::.::o::.::o::.::o::.::~~~====u=__~ " EXRtBI~~;J. , 73 I ./~ \ I \, ...,/ I' I ' ,I r- I I ~, I I .~ r.... .... ~(, l' i I -.- I r.... I ,..( I I ' . . I ,\. \..... ,-, ,,- -' , ' I , ,J r.... ,..' , . I' ,-, r.... ....' \ \ , \'\ \.a.l , \' , ~ : =- - - --~- S 89024'30" W 205.01 956.2 956--0 '~.... " ~ -'" () " .Q ;; if) .. 0 .;< 0 '" V) W I- <( l- V) W V) ::; -0:; (0<( .0"- Oz 1")- ~ w'-' I ;. <ci . 0 ;" 0.... 00 z" :g ~ ~I - if) 81 " w " " :J, s::: l- I'" oi~g <> . '" <ci g <0 '" '" Is IS' 81 --- /2 ., I I 'J I , I -- / 0 , \ , ,. ~SS \~ ~ *-INE '., //'\ . \ \ / / / a:\ (- , r( , -?' g <ci <0 '" ~ " p g 9 ? \/1 \C""----J N 8ir 9'56" W 63.00 ~FO : ~ I I x 15505,7 ,-, I I~ - \ " -, , -< , " ~ I , , , -t H 0 I , I / I ( ,..- \"d ,. ../--<, ~;'---fo; \ 11 10 N 89'59'56" W 63.00 ~ ~ g '" x 959,8 " - '.( :f{ ....~-). ./" PINt: ('. """"",'" ....., --~ 958 ---.------'. o 0 O~ ./,/ ....-....0.-1 -. --:,----r <~~#jfJGE - - -"'--::-f) I. ,/t, - - - - l I . t3 r I 1---- I a'~ I I ~I~ I ~o '" 96'0 r-_ I- _ " 73 J 961c19 . I ~ ~ ~ i ~ ~ ~ I ,; 73 9811H Y PLAT ~ /" /"/ - ~RIDG~5~90 I '~, ..., ~'\ 958 ---f)--- I 0(/ . _ _ _ _'_ ---1 ,------- -9-~ - -.: g, : I----~--- !: -'" t I ~ I ~ I EXHIBIT C · GRAp'~G AN~ DRAINAGE I ,-..~ , ------------ -=& o !Is<\, "" ~) *INf' \ -)"I~' ....f\ "\. \ x 954,4 958.70 GR 958;50 x GR o x 955.5 x 957.0 ( 58.50 x GR -~._,-_..- ---' /1 / ;ftINt ", '",- ----::r 958 ' I!l o 957,60 "'6'0 Ii '" '\ iIJ J 961.19 I ~ ~ i 0 ~ <D ," ~ I ~ o 961~4 -------/ . L ------ <:> '" --- -',- - --- ,- - -- --. -- -., -- - e- --.-- [J 12 Om LOCI( III o --- (1 .~ 0 ~IN~: <~ (~> /~INF.: /' . / (, 3 o CONNECT TO EXISTING MANHOLE tNV. 953.26 CONNECT TO XISTING 6" TEE 11 CONNECT TO EXISTING MANHOLE tNV. 944.34 , ~-N ;r. .sieNE:JiiliGE i;RIVE~"-<:'. ~ ~ \1 ~ -----~ l'fVi-------------i . --I I t3~ I I 1.- -- -- - - ~ - -I I lD I all r-l I I I I ~~ ~ I EXHIBIT 0 - UTILITY ~LAN I r:)I~ I I I [,..l . . g.r:r. :c r:: .. &0' Q.;' t 111 (I) Q.l ns ~ Q.l ."ac:; Q.l 0 ~ 0...... 0 ~ lil...t:: <Il_ I/.l -0 'E ~.... ....J I/.l "0 o en ~ ~ a ~ -!:: ,... > 0 .;:: Cl N :8 ~ t .. II 8' 0 t ~ l:!.; , t.. Z '" -< >,] ,..<:;c..c ~ ~ p., /lO s'-l] P-; 6 c: ~..:::.---- "6"",.,!l! o .... D.. ~ p:;v_ ,0 8 I ~-; ~ o' ~ ~ (fJ 8'c..~___ <r: Q.) ~ U res ~ . "'d ~ (f) U) 0 ~ a ~ en v > 'C Q Z U) S <r: <<1 ~ c:;~.-_-- '" ~ ~ o u >.1l '';::: 5' ~ 8"~ : ..c:o..c ~ ~ P. /lO '---- ~ :g 'E 0 ~ ~ "'" a g .... 0.. . ?"""'l p:; <l.l :::::l ~ (J) ~ ~ ~ l""'-l --- ~ ~ - t ~ ~-Bt o 1-< I 'J:l 0 , U 0' p., '- - - - ~ iU' ~ "'0 ~ ~ 0 ~ ~ (f:J 'C 0 . EXHIBIT E - KLEIN FARMS ESTATES <::a"d e6.LSt~9z:!9 l:::Id .:L~-03"},II.l."':'I...H::I "3llaM W".IOH l.l:::9t I~.=i ~b.....0Z.......L:::)O . . . 1. Planning Commission Agenda - 08/0 1/00 CONDITIONS OF CUP/PlJD AND PRELIMINARY PLAT APPROVAL 'rhe building locations must be revised to conform to setback standards, including the required 30 foot setback from the front property line, the required 10 foot setback from the west property line, and the 50 foot setback from the north property line due to the required buffer yard. A greater setback from the west property line may be required by the City Council. 2. Additional plans must be provided that include building floor plans, details, and elevations. "> .J. A landscape plan must be submitted that conforms to buffer yard standards and includes landscaping between buildings. This plan is subject to review of City staff and approval by the City Council 4. The Preliminary Grading Plan is subject to the review and approval ofthe City Engineer. 5. The Preliminary Utility Plan is subject to the review and approval of the City Engineer. 6. The applicant must submit a copy of all rules and bylaws to be utilized by the development's homeowners association for City review. The rules/bylaws should address such issues as maintenance of common open space and snow removal. 7. The applicant must identify areas to be used for snow storage or agree to haul snow ofl- site. 8. A lighting plan must be submitted for review by the City. 9. The applicant must enter into a development agreement with the City. 10. Comments from other City staff EXHIBIT Z . ~ . . Planning Commission Agenda - 08/01/00 Consideration of an amendment to a planned unit development allowine cxoansion of a shared use. outdoor stora~e area and consideration of a variance to the rear yard setback requirements and consideration of a variances to stora1!e area size maximums. Apolicant: John Johnson - Monticello Auto Body. (.fO) A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND John Johnson requests an amendment to a conditional use permit and a variance that would enable expansion of the area used for outdoor storage. 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, 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 from this provision would therefore be needed in conjunction with the PUD/CUP approval. In the event a finding can not be established supporting the variance and if the Planning Commission is inclined to support the expansion, then the Planning Commission should call for a public hearing on an amendment allowing larger outside storage areas for auto body shops. The Auto Body shop has been in operation since 1989. The city zoning ordinance was amended to allow auto body shops to operate in the B-3 district when the Planning Commission and City Council were convinced that the auto body shops can be good neighbors in a commercial district. Since this time, Johnson has been allowed to merge outside storage associated with two parcels (1997). In 1997, Johnson was denied the variance allowing storage closer 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 and important issue with the development of the Grovcland 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 ofthc parking problem. This issue is very relevant to development of future auto body shops. For future shops, we -1- Planning Commission Agenda - 08/01/00 . should be careful to require more parking. 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. B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS Decision 1. 1. Motion to approve a variance request to the rear setback allow development of an outdoor storage area within 5' of the lot line. Motion based on the finding that the expansion does not violate the intent of the ordinance due to the undeveloped status of Marvin Road. In the event the Planning Commission can not make a finding supporting the variance and is inclined to support allowing outside storage within the rear yard set-back, then the concept of amending the zoning ordinance could be explored. . 2. Motion to deny approval of the variance request based on the finding that a hardship has not been demonstrated. Planning Commission could make the finding that a varimlce is not appropriate and could establish a negative precedent. The main reason for the variance is Johnson's need for additional space. The property can be put to reasonable use without a variance from the code. This is the alternative chosen by the Planning Commission in 1997. Decision 2. 1. Motion to approve variance request allowing a vehicle storage area in excess of 50% of floor space of the structure housing the auto body Shop. Under this alternative the Planning Commission would need to make a finding showing a hardship or unique circumstance that limits Johnson's use of the land if the ordinance is followed. . -2- Planning Commission Agenda - 08/01/00 . 2. Motion to deny approval of a variance request allowing a vehicle storage area in excess of 50% of f100r space of the structure housing the auto body Shop. This alternative could be based on the finding that no hardship exists and by following the code, the applicant is not denied reasonable use of the property. Decision 3. 1. Motion to approve an amendment to a PUD/conditional use permit allowing expansion of an outdoor storage area. Motion based on the linding that the outdoor storage proposed in consistent with the area in which it is located. 2. Motion to deny approval of and amendment to a conditional use permit allowing expansion of an outdoor storage area. C. STAFf RECOMMENDATION . The proposal to expand the outdoor storage area is in direct contradiction to the zoning code therefore unless a finding can be established supporting the expansion, the requests for both the setback variance and the expansion should be denied. If the Planning Commission is inclined to support the expansion, then the PC should call for a public hearing on possible amendments to the code. Also, as you see in the supporting data, the site is currently operating in violation ofthe city code. Planning Commission may wish to request that the applicant bring the site up to standards required in 1997. D. SUPPORTING DATA Copy of site plan and pictures. Chelsea Road/Groveland map information Excerpts from the zoning ordinance Approval with Conditions from 1997 and staff comments . -3- , Monticello Auto BOdy 217 Sandberg Road Monticello, MN 55362 I I L . '. :,..---...- ~.;> .-&..".. A " ~, . . -.... .. '. . '., ..,......,~. '\.~,. '. "',- .... '.. '. """"\ ~. ',; . , ( ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~~ \. \) .~ 1 I / ~ $) / + / / ~ / / / ./ -/ ,/ ~,-- / -- <i-~6 ~ ~~<p // sP\ '/ ------ / " o / / ~ ~t/ "!i of \" ",""'~ ., /' i 1 {~ . ~- ~~~ ./ ~ ~~/ ~ \ "Y .t'1.~ . I tS.'~ "" \ }, r ~ I o ,\ \: : ""'Y.$'" ';a ....".? rJ'A ~D j./,A - ----~c-- __=--_=.-=,~-.- , ~ -, 'e ~ ,.} ~ ~ ~ ~~'U __ ~ j '~I ~I ."-.. -.J ~ -... .... _. I Id ~, \' ~ ~~ \ '\'t :.\ ~ . \" " ~ \) -\ .' .... ... ~ , ~ ..... \2 . . ~ o .~ -,j....J ro ~ o .~ > bJ) ~ .~ ~ Cl.) Cl.) ~ u VJ (j,) bJ) ro ~ o -,j....J VJ (j,) ~ .~ rj'J -,j....J ;::::s o ;>. ~ o CO o ~ . .~ ~ o ~ . ILl "'0 'm "5 o ~ o c~'o ILl "'0 ILl 9J C "'0 . :$ (Ij .,....; ro +-' ILl r.n 1) 1)c'S.... ...0 .,....; 0 ro bIJ ....... "0 C bIJ "'0 1) :E .S ~ >- "!::""Oo2 i?"), ~ +-' n C .,....; r.n ....... ...... ;:::l en 8< "'" ...0 .,....; ".. c 1) 1) .... cb ii ~ c 0 ::J1il . . 1l-~8 ~ , \' .... --....-.....__ 0 \ ~ w --_ (lJ, 'UJ~ ------_ W \ i ----- z, INtERS;. ----._.~j \ (lJ ~ tE 94 2 L_______ --.... ------~-----~- - I ~/ i L:i .I -"/ __t------u-- --- I i I , I i2 '-'- FIarFOOTAGE ad ~eland P~ase 1 irrtnut Improvements Minnesota WSB Project No. 1196.00 City Project No. Q8..25C Dale: Febrtllry 14,2000 Figure 10 Il L--- . . ~~g 97-0:J.. 0 Planning Commission Minutes - 10/7/97 7. Public Hearing--Consideration of a conditional use permit to allow: 1) the establishment of an autobody repair shop and accessory outdoor stora&::e area within a B-3, Hi~way Business, zoninll district. 2) a planned nnit development conditional use permit (PUD/CUP) to allow shared use of an outdoor storage area (with acljacent autobody shop). and 3) a variance from the minimum 30-ft rear yard setback reQ,}lirements imposed in the B-3 zoning district. AppHeant, fJohn 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'Neill 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 1\ b . . . 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 AUTOBODY 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 COMPLY 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. 3. 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. 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 COMPLY 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 1 \ b . . . 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 ordinance, 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 unanimously. Page 6 ,\ b ---" . 0,7-020 !J ff~~,-: J LO/1 ~ : c i O/l S. Council Minutes ~ 10/13/97 B. Consideration ofa conditional use permit to allow 1) the establishment of an auto body repair shop and accessoty outdoor stora~e area witbin a B-3 (hilthway business) zonine- district; and 2) a planned unit development conditionalllse permit (PUD/CUP) to allow shared use of an outdoor stora2:e area (with adjacent 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: 3. · A J-u~ ,,~~ f'~b~o01.(04. \J \,-..... ~ I LO""~ Q \,-,,0 ' vJ~ Jl'c- 0- ~l.I k 0 'V' . 5. ~ \0 ~ u( .;yo'> \ ~,J..Q J ~ tP" .).~ et p' O-fv J. ~(L \ Q., .., 6. GO::: !)... ",\0 { ~~b\O ~ sf' ~f" '/'f''''^ . "I f'/"1 . 1. ol 2. 0"- , ~ 8. 0"-- o V-.. 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. 7. 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. \ \ E . . . f\ JV' 1I. \ \t t 0/ 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 ordinance, 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. 1\ E -e--u (o&e C\AIf!."f t+op oLP~ cI Of.t..1 () .., i 0.., 0 ~o.. .., I C ~ 1. {M'f /: (L~) I DN~ D tVc L .C ie, I D (Vc- r ? I L ( ( . -. Df,)~ "] tI?~t 2. c-o^-f '6(g#Je} 3. c c c C ~.jl/I" .~ 4. 5. 6. 7. DIJ C 8. 7 / L rc2..a v- IRe Me/I-f ~ Auto body shop repair provided that: Door opening to service area garage must not face street frontage. Vehicle storage area limited to 50% of floor space of the structure housing the auto body shop. All vehicles being serviced and all vehicle parts must be stored inside or in vehicle storage area. 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. The floor of the vehicle storage area shall consist of asphalt or concrete paving. No work on vehicles or vehicle parts shall be conducted outside the confines of the auto body shop. The advertising wall facing the public right-of-way shall consist of no more than 50% metal material. 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) \\ ~ . . . 12. Planning Commission Meeting - 08/01/00 Continued Public Hearing - 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 A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND At the most recent meeting of the Planning Commission, the Commission directed City stafTto notify Dave Peterson that the planning item would be placed on the Planning Commission agenda fix consideration with or without the additional information that the Commission has been waiting for. I informed Steve Johnson of the Planning Commission's desire to consider the matter and I spoke to Dave Peterson asking him for the necessary site plan information by July 17,2000. I also followed up my conversations 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 noted this problem in a letter to me which is on file. Planning Commission can proceed with the review and recommendation or wait another month or until the site plan data arrives. Following is the staff report trom June 6 which may be used as a guide in your decision making. SUPPORTING DATA Memo of 7/17/00 horn Dave Peterson Letter of 7/10/00 to Steve Johnson Planning Commission Agenda Item & Minutes of 6/6/00 Planning Commission Minutes of 11/02/99 -1- Dave PetO!llY"'son . . . 612 271-6881 07/17/00 02:45P P.002 D ? ro (IJ C0P F,LE COpy ~MONTICELLO~ -- ~- FORD - MERCURY I - 94 & Hwy 25, Monticello, MN 55362 Memo Date: July 17, 2000 To: Jeff O'Neil From: Dave Peterson Re: Storage / Display lot for Monticello Ford Mercury I am working diligently to obtain a workable proposal from my Architect. He has been very busy and out of toWn. I hope to have one completed next week D(r~ 763-295-2056. Fax 763-271-6354, 800-450-2056 1005 Highway 25 South, P.O. Box 68, Monticello, MN 55362 1'2- A FlLE COpy MONTICELLO July 10, 2000 Mr. Steve Johnson Dave Peterson's Monticello Ford P.O. Box 68 Monticello, MN 55362 Dear Steve: This is written as a follow-up to our phone conversation on July 6, 2000, at which time I informed you that at the July meeting of the Planning Commission, the Commission indicated that they would be taking action on your request for an amendment to a planned unit development at the next regular meeting scheduled for August 1, 2000. . I also noted that the Commission requires that the site plan data be provided to City staff no later than July 17,2000. Thank you for your attention to this matter. Yours truly, ~~~ Jeff O'Neill Deputy City Administrator JO/lk Enclosure . I 2- e:, Monticello City Hall, 505 Walnut Street, Suite I, Monticello, MN 55362~883 I . (763) 295-.2711 . Fax: (763) 295-4404 Office of Public Works, 909 Golf Course Rd., Monticello, MN 55362 . (763) 295-3170 . Fax: (763) 271-3272 Planning Commission Minutes - 6-6-00 . FiLE COpy 7. 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. Chair Frie addressed Mr. Dave Peterson, Peterson Ford, regarding the required information that still needs to be supplied by the applicant. Steve Grittman advised that it's a matter of adding detail to the site plan such as detailed landscaped plan, minimum requirements, and stating there are still a number of standards that need to be met. . Diane Mandel, Playhouse Childcare Center, addressed Mr. Peterson on the fact that there is no landscaping in effect and they feel they are engulfed by cars. At the Planning Commission meeting in November of 1999, Peterson Ford had stated they would contact the childcare center and work with them to design a landscape plan or buJler and to this date there has been no contact from Peterson Ford. Chair Frie stated at that point that this public hearing would be re-scheduled to a later date, once all of the initial items necessary were received from the applicant. Mr. Cirittman stated that a meeting should be set up with Jeff O'Neill, Mr. Peterson and their architect as soon as possible and Mr. Peterson stated he would contact Jeff O'Neill. Mr. Frie stated that possibly this item could be addressed at the special Planning Commission meeting at 5 pm on June 26th. Staff has provided the applicant with comment on this item at the time of the previous submission. As noted in the report, PUD requests are intended to be projects which demonstrate a superior site design. Due to the missing information, and site planning which does not meet the minimum standards, staff does not recommend approval at this time. Mr. Peterson noted his disappointment and City staff also stated their disappointed at not receiving the appropriate information to this date. The following information should be included on a subsequent submission: . -4- I~V . a. b. c. d. e. f. Planning COIl1Il1 ission Minutes - 6-6-00 I.andscape Plan showing a minimum of 24 trees Screening of the storage area in conjunction with the chain link fence. Screening of the parking/sales inventory area, with particular emphasis on the north boundary adjacent to the child care facility. Lighting details, ensuring that lights do not glare or spill over onto adjacent property. Identification of the proposed use of the vacant area of the parcel in question. Submission of adequate plans f()r grading, drainage, and utilities in accordance with requests of the City Engineer and Public Works staff. A MOTION WAS MADE BY DICK FRIE TO TABLE ACTION ON THE PUD AMENDMENT, SUBJECT TO ADDITIONAL INFORMATION DETAILED IN THIS REPOWr, UNTIL THE SPECIAL PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING AT 5 PM, JUNE 26, 2000. ROD DRAGSTEN SECONDED THE MOTION. Motion carried. . . -5- IZ-V . . . ^dO~ Planning Commission Agenda - 06-06-00 7. Consideration of an amendment to a Planned Unit Development in a B-3 District to allow the expansion of an auto sales and storae:e lot. Applicant: Dave Peterson's Monticello Ford. (NAC) A. BACKGROUND Peterson Ford previously received approval for a Planned Unit Development on 6.2 acres of property bounded by Highway 25, the new Chelsea Road, and Sandberg Road. The PUD accommodated a mix of auto-related uses, including auto sales, service and storage on the property. Peterson Ford is now requesting approval to expand the PUD to incorporate an off-site sales and storage lot west of Sandberg Road. The site would be used for storage and display of automobiles for sale, as well as a secure storage area. There would be no principal building on the new parcel. The Zoning Ordinance specifies that each principal use shall be associated with a principal building on the same site. As a result, the current Peterson Ford proposal may only be considered as a part of a Planned Unit Development incorporating the new lot into the existing project and associating it with the existing building(s). As with all PUDs, the City must make a finding that the design of the project justifies the f1exibility granted under the PUD by creating a coordinated project which exceeds the minimum standards of the Ordinance. Flexibility in this case would be an agreement to forego the requirement for a principal building on the new sales/storage lot. Staff had indicated in a previous concept review that the off-site sales use would be appropriate, subject to additional detail. A marked-up site plan was provided to the applicant with the following comments: a. Identify lighting style b. Identify paving and curbing c. Identify and dimension setbacks (5 foot minimum from property line) d. Identify landscaping, including one tree per 50 feet of lot perimeter e. Identify fence material - wood or masonry preferred, chain link with landscape screen OK, chain link with slats not acceptable The plan illustrates a paved lot with curbing per ordinance requirements, and a setback of more than five feet. The landscape plan shows a total of eight trees (unspecified species) and four areas of smaller shrub plantings (also unspecified). The perimeter of the sales/storage area is just over 1,200 feet, requiring a total of 24 trees. The fencing material is shown as eight foot high chain link around the secure storage area. but without any screening. There are a series of gates opening to a portion of the rear (west) lot area, however no development plans are shown for that area. No landscape plan detail is given for the ground areas which are not being used for development. Previous discussions have indicated a desire for landscape screening from this site and the adjoining child care I~[) (i~;V~\,; '\", ,J , ,"~,,: "'" ';;"'''';)4''''- Planning Commission Agenda - 06-06-00 facility. Lighting locations are shown around the perimeter of the sales/storage lot, however no detail is provided as to type or lighting pattern, . One item which the Ordinance typically calls for is a series of island delineators within the paved area of the parking lot. We have not applied this standard given the stated intent of the applicant to use the lot primarily as a storage and display lot, although some employee parking will likely occur here. The original PUD plan included a number of parking spaces adequate to cover ordinance requirements. On the understanding that those spaces will still be available, staff has considered this site as storage and display, exempt from the island delineator requirement. As noted above, PUD approvals should be based on a site plan which exceeds the minimum standards of the ordinance. The proposed expansion, while it would be an acceptable land use in association with the existing dealership, requires a significant amount of additional detail to meet even the basic regulations, As a final note, the dimensions of the main parking/sales inventory lot is substantially wider than would be required for a typical parking arrangement. If the site is subject to any redesign, the aisles could be narrowed, retaining additional landscape buffering area at the perimeter. B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS I. Motion to recommend approval of the PUD Amendment, contingent on compliance with the standards of the Zoning Ordinance and the additional submission requirements listed in the recommendation paragraph below, based on a finding that the plan is acceptable in concept and requires additional detail to be reviewed by staff . 2. Motion to recommend denial of the PUD Amendment, based on a finding that the use of a parcel as automobile sales/storage without a principal building is inconsistent with the intent of the Zoning Ordinance and Comprehensive Plan. 3. Motion to table action on the PUD Amendment, subject to additional information as highlighted in this report. C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff has provided the applicant with comment on this item at the time of the previous submission. As noted in the report, PUD requests are intended to be projects which demonstrate a superior site design. Due to the missing information, and site planning which does not meet the minimum standards, staff does not recommend approval at this time. If tabled, the following information should be included on a subsequent . submission: I~O . 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. . . ~ Planning Commission Agenda - 06-06-00 Landscape Plan showing a minimum of 24 trees Screening of the storage area in conjunction with the chain link fence. Screening of the parking/sales inventory area, with particular emphasis on the north boundary adjacent to the child care facility. Lighting details, ensuring that lights do not glare or spill over onto adjacent property. Identification of the proposed use of the vacant area of the parcel in question. Submission of adequate plans for grading, drainage, and utilities in accordance with requests of the City Engineer and Public Works staff. D. SUPPORTING DATA Exhibit A - Site Plan 12- b ( . . . FILE COpy 5. Consideration of a request for an amendment to a Planned Unit Development within the B-3 Zoning District to allow for an off-site auto sales/storage lot. Applicant: Dave Peterson's Monticello Ford. The applicant is requesting an amendment to their PUD approval granted earlier this year for the purpose of expanding the area of the PUD creating an additional area of on about 2.2 acres of land west of Sandberg Road which would be utilized for the storage of automobile inventory, including an enclosed secure storage lot. The applicant is also requesting an amendment to the approved sign package which would allow a larger electronic sign, based on comments from the sign installer. The expansion site would allow for the storage or more than 150 additional cars, plus a secured storage area for approximately 80 vehicles. Steve Grittman noted this would be allowed in the district, subject to the improvements applied to similar uses, such as paving, curbing, and landscaping. The submitted plan meets required setbacks and screening requirements for commercial areas, but does not illustrate the landscaping or specify the curbing and paving proposed. A written proposal describing a commitment to meeting landscaping and screening requirements was submitted prior to the meeting. 1 t-C Planning Commission Minutes - 11/02/99 . The applicant is also requesting a larger electronic sign than the one previously approved by the City noting the sign contractor stated that the approved sign would not allow for certain longer messages without flashing. The approved sign was 2 feet high by 12 feet, 8 inches long. The proposed sign would be 5 feet, 1 inch by 18 feet long, an increase from about 26 square feet to more than 90 square feet. The proposed chmlge would allow for a longer message on two lines, instead of just one line as currently approved. Steve Johnson, Monticello Ford, provided yet another proposed sign of 63 sq. ft. on the face with 2 lines of 12" matrix which is smaller but would be adequatc. He requested to work with staff to corne to an agreement on the sign as soon as possible. Because of the multiplc uscs on this site, and the intensity of the improvement, the City previously approved a PUD which allowed tor more than the allowed signage. This request would increase the size even more. The proposed amendment allowing electronic message board signs states that the allowable signage is not to be increased by the use of such signs, but that the electronic sign is to comprise a portion of the currently allowed sign area. . Mr. Grittman stated that staff does not recommend approval of the increased signage. This site has been permitted, under the previous approval, a significant increase in allowable sign number and area. The proposed Ordinance to allow electronic message board signs states that such signs are not to increase the allowable sign area. Although the applicant's new sign contractor states that the revised sign would be convenient from the standpoint of allowing more f1exibility in the messages it transmits, it does not appear to be necessary to provide effective communication. With regard to the sales lot expansion, staff believes that this expansion of the PUD is appropriate in general. However, there has been very little detail submitted in support of the proposal with regard to site improvements, screening size or materials, or landscaping. Jeff O'Neill provided a picture showing setbacks in regard to the daycare center located next to the proposed storage lot noting there have been no plans submitted showing a buffer to the daycare. It is staffs intent to work with dealership regarding this Issue. . Chair Frie opened the public hearing. Melody Peterson, co-owner of the Playhouse Daycare and owner of building, was present to state the concerns of the parents as well as the daycare as a business owner. They feci they are being complctely encircled by car lots and they feel they are not being visible. Chair Frie advised Ms. Peterson to speak with Steve Johnson concerning landscaping and butTers. Steve Johnson advised the mcmbers that they are only trying to keep them informed of their future plans and he does realize that this is very preliminary and would have the appropriate inf()[mation available for the Planning Commission meeting in December. Chair Frie closed public hearing. The consensus of the membcrs was to table any action for further information. At that time they would address items such as lighting and screcning. 2 (tE ~ Planning Commission Minutes - 11/02/99 . ROBBIE SMITH MOVED TO TABLE ACTION ON THEPUl) AMENDMENT, SUBJECT TO ADDITIONAL INFORMATION. RICHARD CARLSON SECONDED THE MOTION. Motion carried. There was further discussion by Steve Johnson on the need to proceed with the proposed sign. The size of the proposed sign has changed since the Planning Commission's previous approval. Robbie Smith requested a copy of the previous minutes relating to the previous approval of the sign. CHAIR FRIE MOVED FOR A SPECIAL MEETING TO BE HELD PRIOR TO THE CITY COIJNCIL MEETING OF NOVEMBER 22, 1999. RICHARD CARLSON SECONDED THE MOTION. CHAIR FRIE MOVED TO AMEND, TABLE AND CONTINUE THE PUBLIC HEARING TO 5:00 PM ON NOVEMBER 22,1999. RICHARD CARLSON SECONDED THE MOTION. Motion carried. . . 3 IL.- E . . . Planning Commission Agenda - 08/0] /00 13. Consideration of revised setback standards for residential uses in the Original and Lower Monticello Plats. Applicant: Citv of Monticello. (NAC) A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND 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. Over time houses have grown in average size, and many garages are now built with 3 car garages, whereas houses of 50 or more years ago were usually built with no garage at all. The changes in home construction, garage needs, and other lifestyle changes have resulted in a significant squeeze on the buildable area of older lots. With ten flJot side yards, lots in the original plat and Lower Monticello have just 46 feet of buildable area, making garage construction problematic. Moreover, homes in these areas are often in need of more 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 foot side yard setback requirement, is a significant impediment to this process. With garage requests, the City could often address the problem through the issuance of a setback variance. The requirement that single family homes have two car garages, and the common demands of home ownership in Minnesota have usually resulted in an easy finding that a variance for a garage setback was justified to allow "reasonable use" of the property - a necessary standard for variance consideration. However, this approach does not work when the applicant wishes to expand the home by the addition of more livable space, such as a family room or additional bedrooms. Because reasonable use is already being made of such properties, no hardship exists which would justify the variance. As a result, reinvestment in older homes can be thwarted in these cases. The attached ordinance is intended to rectify that problem in the older plat areas by creating an "overlay" allowance for narrower side yard setbacks on single family lots of record in the older platted parts of the community. The ordinance does not contemplate -1- . . . City of Monticello Wright County, Minnesota AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 10, CHAPTER 3, SECTION 3-3 [C], OF THE MONTICELLO ZONING ORDINANCE RELATING TO SIDE YARD SETBACK REQUIREMENTS IN PORTIONS OF THE R-1 AND R-2 ZONING DISTRICTS. THE CITY COUNCil OF THE CITY OF MONTICEllO, MINNESOTA HEREBY ORDAINS AS FOllOWS: Section 1. Chapter 3, Section 3-3[C] is amended to read as follows: [C] All setback distances as listed in the table below shall be measured from the appropriate lot line and shall be required minimum distances. Front Yard Side Yard Rear Yard A-O 50 30 50 R-1* 30 10* 30 R-2* 30 10* 30 R-3 30 20 20 R-4 30 30 30 PZR See Chapter 10 for specific regulations. PZM See Chapter 10 for specific regulations. 8-1 30 15 20 B-2 30 10 20 8-3 30 10 30 8-4 0 0 0 1-1 40 30 40 1-2 50 30 50 1-1A 50 30 40 P-S See Chapter 19B for specific regulations. *See Section 3-3[C] 3. below for special side yard setbacks in the R-1 and R-2 Districts. . . . Section 2. Chapter 3, Section 3-3[C] is amended by adding the following: 3-3[C] 3. Side yard setbacks for single family homes on lots of record in the Original Plat of Monticello and Lower Monticello which are zoned R-1 or R-2 shall be six (6) feet, subject to the corner lot provisions of Section 3-3[C]2. above. Section 3. This ordinance shall become effective from and after its passage and publication. I/s// Planning Comm ission Agenda -08/01/00 . 3. Motion to table action on the amendment. C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff endorses the idea of increased lot coverage requirements for auto sales to avoid the concern that small buildings would be located on large commercial parcels which would then be devoted to oversized sales and car storage lots. The City's commercial land is valuable and scarce. Consumption of that land for large auto sales lots without complementary building construction could damage the City's economic development balance. Because of the expansion of Peterson Ford and Gould Brothers, as well as the expected development of the Denny Hecker's Chrysler dealership, used auto sales is likely to be a growth industry in Monticello. However, staff is unsure of the appl ication of this ordinance to the proposed new dealerships. We would caution that a subsequent amendment may be requested if the GM or Chrysler dealerships do not quite reach the standard. D. SUPPORTING DA'I'A . Draft Ordinance Amendment . -2- . . . City of Monticello Wright County, Minnesota AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 10, CHAPTER 13, SECTION 13-4 [D], OF THE MONTICELLO ZONING ORDINANCE RELATING TO AUTO SALES BUILDING SIZE IN THE B-3 ZONING DISTRICT.. I'HECITY COUNCILOFTHE CITY OF MONTICELLO, MINNESOTA HEREBY ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Chapter 13, Section 13-4 [D J 1. is amended to read as follows: 1. The minimum huilding size for any auto sales use shall comply with the following standards: Parcel Size Lot Coverage Percent * Minimum Building Size* Up to 2 acres 5OA) 2,500 square feet More than 2 acres to 4 acres 10% 10,000 square feet More than 4 acres 15% 40,000 square feet *Whichever requires the larger building. Section 2. This ordinance shall become effective from and after its passage and publication. / /s/ / . . . 15. Planning Comm ission Agenda -08/01/00 Consideration of establishin2: buildin2: and architectural design standards in the business districts. Aoolicant: City of Monticello. (NAC) A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND The Planning Commission has discussed the possibility of establishing building and architectural design standards for business districts. This report is intended to identify potential methods of regulation, and levels of complexity. Based on the Planning Commission's discussion, a draft ordinance will be developed for consideration at a future meeting. There arc basically two levels of possible regulation. The first is a common requirement in many communities establishing some baseline building materials standards which new buildings must adhere to, just as they adhere to setbacks or parking requirements. The second level would entail more specific architectural style issues which are usually taken through a design review process, such as DAT docs with the CCD developments. Building Materials Standards. Many zoning ordinances require that commercial buildings be constructed of either solid-wall masonry products, including concrete block, tip-up concrete panels, or other similar material. Some ordinances will address the exterior appearance of the building as well, allowing frame construction or pre-engineered steel buildings with masonry veneers. It is becoming common to see ordinances which require a minimum exterior finish of some percentage of brick or stone on buildings which arc otherwise exclusively concrete. The advent of "rock-face" block has allowed concrete block buildings to become more attractive, but a 25% treatment of brick and/or stone integrated into the building design helps to add architectural interest and value. These percentage measurements are usually taken ofthe wall area exclusive of windows and doors. There are some ordinances which wiU require masonry exteriors on the building front only, or on wall surfaces which face residential or public areas. Most newer regulations are now requiring that the entire building meet the standards, particularly in commercial areas (as opposed to industrial) where public traffic around the building is common. In our experience, these regulations typically apply to all business districts, and this should be made a part of the discussion. The use of wood and metal is more mixed. Most ordinances exempt window and door framing from what is otherwise a prohibition of metal exterior. Some ordinances will permit a maximum amount of metal exposure to allow for certain architectural uses of metal canopies or roofs, for instance. A 15% maximum exposure is an average where these regulations are in place. The use of wood is also an issue. Many ordinances will limit its use to a certain percentage of the exposed wall, and require that it be treated or of decay resistant species. Also to be considered is whether residential siding such as vinyl or steel lap siding would be permitted on commercial buildings. -1- Planning Comm ission Agenda -08/01/00 . 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 how an ordinance should address these new building options. Input from the building official would be valuable in this regard. Finally, the Ordinance will need to address the expansion of buildings which would now be non-conform i ng due to their building materials. Under the non-conforming structure section of the zoning regulations, an expansion would require a varaince, often difficult to qualify for. We are aware of ordinances which address this issue by allowing such buildings to expand by Conditional Use Permit. This approach allows the City to require site and/or building improvements to be phased in although the building materials may be difficult to change dramatically. Another option is to allow a blanket exemption for expansion up to a certain threshold size, then require full conformance with the building materials ordinance. One metro community provides for a 25% expansion of non-confCm11ing structures, after which the entire building would be required to meet the materials standards. . Architectural Standards/Design Review. Beyond building materials, some municipalities have adopted more detailed architectural standards and included a design review process to ensure well-designed buildings and/or sites. Monticello has such a process in the downtown, Central Community District, utilizing the Design Advisory cream for architectural review. Many of these standards arc developed to eontinuc or re-establish a particular architectural thcme. Common elements of architectural standards include specific materials, window sizes and/or arrangements, roof design, door design, cornice or other dctail requirements, and building massing. The process for developing these types of standards is more complex and usually involves a series of design workshops to identify the architectural issues, preferred style(s), and create graphics which help illustrate the standards to the community. If this option is of interest to the Planning Commission, staiT will develop a more complete outline of the process for establishing architectural standards. B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS I. Motion to direct staff to prepare a draft ordinance regulating building materials in commercial districts per Planning Commission discussion. 2. Motion to direct staff to prepare a work program outlining a process to establish architectural standards for business districts. 3. Motion to not recommend building materials or architectural standards at this time. . 4. Motion to table action on building materials and architectural standards. -2- Planning Commission Agenda -08/01100 . c. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Planning staff is supportive of commercial building standards for Monticello's business districts. Architectural standards and design review would be a more extensive level of involvement, and staff will follow up as directed by the Planning Commission's discussion. D. SUPPORTING MATERIALS None . . -3-