Planning Commission Agenda 07-05-2000
.
.
.
AGENDA
REGULAR MEETING - MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION
W edncsday, .July 5, 2000
7:00 P.M.
Members:
Dick Frie, Robbie Smith, Roy Popilek, Richard Carlson, Rod Dragsten
Council Liaison:
Clint Herbst
Staff:
Jeff O'Neill, Fred Patch, Steve Grittman and Lori Kraemer
1 . Call to order.
2. Approval of minutes of the regular meeting held June 6, and the special meeting held
June 26, 2000.
3. Consideration of adding items to the agenda.
4. Citizens comments.
5.
Public Ilcaring - Consideration of a variance request to the side yard setback standards.
Applicant: Wayne Cox
6. Public Hearing - Consideration of an application for a variance allowing construction of a
deck within the 10' minimum setback standards. Applicant: Paul Kiefer
7. Public Hearing - 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.
S. Public Hearing - Consideration ofre-zoning from 1-1 to I-lA, Construction 5, Outlot A.
Applicant: City of Monticello Planning Commission.
9. Continued Public l-learing - 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. *Applicant requests continuation as site
plan data prep is still in progress*.
10. Discussion on the City Ordinance regarding enforcement of the Public Nuisance
Ordinance.
II. Adjourn
.
.
.
Planning Commission Minutes - 6-6-00
MINUTES
REGULAR MEETING - MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION
Tuesday, June 6, 2000
7:00 P.M.
Members Present:
Dick Frie, Robbie Smith, Roy Popilek, Richard Carlson, Rod
Dragsten and Council Liaison Clint Herbst.
Staff:
Fred Patch, Steve Grittman and Lori Kraemer
1. Call to order.
Chair Frie called the meeting to order at 7 PM.
2. Approval of minutes of the regular meeting held Mav 2. 2000.
ROY POPILEK MOVED TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE REGULAR
MEETING OF MAY 2,2000, WITH CORRECTIONS. ROD DRAGSTEN
SECONDED THE MOTION. Motion carried.
..,
.:l.
Consideration of adding items to the agenda.
Rod Dragsten requested a discussion regarding building code standards in the area of the
new Chelsea Road. Placed as Item 12.
Robbie Smith requested an explanation on the City's enforcement procedure relating to
blights. Placed as [tern 13.
4. Citizens comments.
None
5. Consideration of an amendment to the zoning ordinance for auto sales in the B-3 District
allowim~ for a principal building smaller than 4.500 square feet. Applicant: Dunlo
Motors
Steve Grittman provided the staff report noting the applicant's request that the City
consider lowering its standard for auto sales principal building size from 4,500 square
feet. Dunlo proposes to occupy the former Wendy's restaurant site which contains a
building of about 2,950 square feet. Staff has investigated other zoning ordinance
requirements for auto sales in neighboring communities and found the typical standard
applied in Albertville, Buffalo, Delano, and Big Lake to be 1,000 square feet. applicable
to any commercial building. This standard is a common one throughout the Twin Cities
-1-
Planning Commission Minutes ~ 6-6-00
.
area. A few metro communities tie the size of the sales lot to the size of the principal
building, and some metro communities do not permit outdoor auto sales lots. Others
limit the number of auto sales lots within the community to avoid their proliferation.
If the City believes that a lower threshold building size would be appropriate, the square
footage standard would need to be lowered to something below 2,950 square feet in order
to accommodate the Dunlo Motors proposal on this site (assuming no building
expansion). An alternative discussed by staff is the ratio of building to sales lot. To
accommodate the Dunlo proposal and lot, the ratio would need to be no more than 16.5
square feet of lot area per one square foot of building area, or a "floor area ratio" (FAR)
of no less than six percent. Comparisons were discussed.
Chair Frie opened the public hearing.
Molly Peterson, co-owner of the Playhouse Childcare Center, addressed the Planning
Commission stating she had shared the safety concerns at the last meeting but wanted to
add that she is also looking at the value of her property in the future, feeling that aIlowing
a car dealership on this site would decrease her property.
The public hearing was closed.
.
Grittman stated that this is more an issue of what the Plmming Commission sees as a
good use ofthis site, stating this is a new issue that the City has not dealt with. Grittman
added that he believes the current standard is not there to deter auto dealers but possibly
to deter auto sales lots with small buildings. Believes it was put there to encourage new
showrooms, discourage small office space. The majority of the Planning Commission
stated they would like to see a ratio set. Grittman states the reality is to deal with what's
placed before the Planning Commission at the time, adding that there is really no
"standard" ratio and encouraged the Planning Commission to work with Dunlo if they
believe this is a reasonable use of this site. If not, try to regulate for future applicants.
Grittman stated the City could adopt a standard just for used car sales if that is their
decision. It is used most commonly in more urbanized areas to regulate how much
building is going on in a parcel, less common in suburban or this type of setting, but it is
legitimate. A combination of floor area ratio and acreage could also be used.
A MOTION WAS MADE BY DICK FRIE TO TABLE ACTION ON THE
AMENDMENT, SUBJECT TO THE SUBMISSION OF ADDITIONAL
INFORMATION REGARDING FLOOR AREA. ROBBIE SMITH SECONDED THE
MOTION. Motion carried.
.
-2-
.
.
.
Planning Commission Minutes - 6-6-00
A MOTION WAS MADE BY DICK FRIE TO CALL FOR A SPECIAL MEETING AT
5 PM ON JUNE 26. 2000, PRIOR TO THE CITY COUNCIL MEETING, TO SUBMIT
FINDINGS TO THE COUNCIL FOR ADOPTION. ROD DRAGSTEN SECONDED
THE MOTION. Motion carried.
6.
Consideration of an amendment to the Conditional Use Permit conditions for Auto Sales
in a B-3 District issued to Dunlo Motors. Applicant: Dunlo Motors.
Steve Grittman provided the staff report regarding the Dunlo Motors request for an
amendment to their approved Conditional Use Permit to allow a reduction in the size of
the existing landscaped island north of the existing building and replacement of the
required fence along the south boundary with a landscaped median. The original plan
submission had proposed eliminating the north island altogether, replacing it with sales
lot space. "fhe staff report had recommended retaining the island, a recommendation
included in the CUP approval. With regard to the south boundary. concerns raised by the
neighboring child care facility resulted in a recommendation that a fence be installed.
The applicant's wish is to replace the fence with a landscaped median to allow more
efficient use of the parking and sales area.
The island is currently in place, and is the primary green space on the parcel together with
the required perimeter landscaping. Any change would reduce green area and affcct
traffic flow, although traffic is likely to be much less of a concern for auto sales than it
was for a fast food restaurant. The south boundary would increase landscaped grecn area,
and would likely improve aesthetics in the area. The child care operators had expressed
concern with the condition of property adjacent to them.
Chair Frie opened thc public hearing. Andrew Duncanson, Dunlo Motors, addressed the
commission noting his conversation with Jeff O'Neill, Deputy City Admin, in that the
need for a fence was not necessary and too costly, stating Mr. O'Neill was in agreement
on this item. This area was originally an egress lane and they are asking to modify.
The public hearing was closed. There was discussion regarding cutting down the green
space but noting that the fence was an issue with the childcare center area next door in
regard to safety issues. Duncanson noted he did attempt on several occasions to call Ms.
Peterson from the childcare center to discuss this but was unable to reach her. The
Playhouse stated the issue was more about the fence protecting people trom getting into
the Childcare area. Ms. Mandel, Playhouse Childcare, was under the impression that it
would be a privacy fence. Grittman stated the island should be reduced only enough for
cars to get around it. The Planning Commission addressed Dave Peterson, Peterson Ford,
concerning the 30 ft strip that Peterson owns, who stated he has no intention of
developing it. building on it or parking on it. Chair Frie advised that Peterson Ford would
-3~
.
.
.
Planning Commission Minutes - 6-6-00
be liable for any instances that might occur on this 30 ft. strip of land. It was also
discussed that a buffer to this area would not buffer the childcare center from Peterson
Ford.
A MOTION WAS MADE BY ROBBIE SMITH TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF
THE CUP AMENDMENT (a) REDUCING THE SIZE OF THE EXISTING ISLAND
JUST ENOUGH TO ALLOW TRAFFIC TO CIRCULATE THROUGH THE AREA;
(b) REQUIRING THE FENCE ALONG THE SOUTH BOUNDARY TO BE
DETERMINED IN AGREEMENT WITH THE CITY, PETERSON FORD, DUNLO
MOTORS AND THE PLAYHOUSE CHILDCARE CENTER. ROY POPILEK
SECONDED THE MOTION. Motion carried.
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 buffer 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.
Grittman 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, pun requests are intended
to be projects which demonstrate a superior site design. Due to the missing infonnation,
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-
. a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
Planning Commission Minutes - 6-6-00
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.
A MOTION WAS MADE BY DICK FRIE TO TABLE ACTION ON THE PUD
AMENDMENT, SUBJECT TO ADDITIONAL INFORMATION DETAILED IN THIS
REPORT, UNTIL THE SPECIAL PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING AT 5 PM,
JUNE 26, 2000. ROD DRAGSTEN SECONDED THE MOTION. Motion carried.
8-10. Consideration of an amendment to an Interim Use Permit to permit the expansion of a
building in the I-I District. Applicant: WAG Partnership.
Steve Grittman provided the report regarding the applicant's request for an addition to
their building. WAG Partnership, owner of a building in the Industrial Park, has been
leasing their building to the Monticello School District for use as an Alternative Learning
Program classroom. The ALP now wishes to expand the building to allow for additional
student capacity. The property is zoned I-I, Light Industrial. The I-I District was
amended to accommodate school facilities by Interim Use Permit (IUP) a few years ago.
.
Interim Uses are uses which are intended to occupy property for a defined amount of
time, after which the use will be discontinued and the property will be put to a land use
anticipated by the zoning ordinance and Comprehensive Plan. A building expansion to
accommodate an interim use raises an issue as to whether the interim use is most likely to
be permanent. The applicant has not requested an extension of the permit at this time, but
such a request could reasonably be anticipated. The existing interim use permit is in
force until sometime in 2001.
If the City believes that the LIse is an acceptable one in the Industrial District, it may be
more appropriate to amend the zoning ordinance to establish the use by Conditional Use
Permit rather than Interim Use Permit. Thus, the applicant was also encouraged to apply
for a text amendment and CUP in the I-I District. CUPs are permanent land uses and
future termination and re-use are therefore less of a concern. As with any Conditional
Use Permit, any industrial property would be eligible. The City recently revised its
ordinance to limit the location of institutional uses such as schools by establishing a PS,
.
-5-
Planning Commission Minutes - 6-6-00
.
Public-Semi Public District. The issue at the time was to control the ability of
institutional uses to consume industrial land. The City has greater discretion in rezoning
actions than it does with Conditional Use Permits.
Chair Frie opened the public hearing. Wayne Hoglund, WAG Partnership, stated that
everything seemed to be covered in the staff report. There were no further comments.
The public hearing was closed.
The commissioners stated their feelings that the school is not the intent of this area and
not consistent with the comprehensive plan. A safety issue was also brought up, although
there have been no complaints with the school operating on this site and a previous car
issue was resolved as well. Gene Garman, ALP, states that cost is a factor here and that
WAG has been very generous to them. He states that if the City puts them in a position
to have to move, the ALP would probably fold.
Alternative sites were discussed such as the old Senior Center, but it was stated by Mr.
Garman that their current site is ideal as it is a remote site. Fred Patch, Building Official,
also stated that there have never been any complaints received of any kind regarding the
ALP operating out of this site.
.
Mr. Frie stated that the bottom line is that an addition to the building can be granted, but
that a school is not suitable for this site. Robbie Smith stated his approval of the ALP
and that being a remote sites is useful versus downtown. It was also noted that this is a
privately owned building, paying taxes and leasing to the school. Gordon Hoglund,
WAG Partnership, stated that the SAC/WAC, trunk fees are heavier when a school is
involved and therefore, if the City is not intending to extend the IUP or make this a
permanent use, they would not be as inclined to add on to their building.
Mr. Grittman noted in his report that staff does not recommend approval of the IUP
expansion. The City previously elected to place such uses in the PS District to avoid
consumption of prime industrial land by institutional uses. Land along County Road 117
is in the heart of the City's industrial area, and with good access, should be considered an
excellent location for an industrial tenant. If the City believes that expansion of the use is
acceptable, it should consider adoption of the Conditional Use Permit as a permanent
land use. However, this action would have the same impact on industrial land use as the
IUP. Staff would recommend that the better solution would be to identify a location for
the ALP which can be established as a permanent use and which does not conflict with
the industrial development goals stated in the Comprehensive Plan.
.
-6-
Planning Commission Minutes - 6-6-00
. Decision 1: Amendment to the existing Interim Use Permit to expand the building.
A MOTION WAS MADE BY ROBBIE SMITH TO RECOMMEND DENIAL OF THE
IUP AMENDMENT, BASED ON A FINDING THAT THE USE IS INTENDED TO BE
TEMPORAR Y AND EXPANSION OF THE BUILDING IS INCONSISTENT WITH
THAT INTENT. RICHARD CARLSON SECONDED THE MOTION. Motion carried.
Decision 2: Amendment of the Zoning Ordinance to change school facilities in the 1-1
District from Interim Uses to Conditional Uses.
A MOTION WAS MADE BY ROBBIE SMITH TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF
THE ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT, BASED ON A FINDING THAT THE
SCHOOL USE IS COMPATIBLE WITH THE ACTIVITIES IN THE INDUSTRIAL
DISTRICT. TI.IERE WAS NO SECOND TO THE MOTION. Motion failed.
.
A MOTION WAS MADE BY ROY POPILEK TO RECOMMEND DENIAL OF THE
ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT, BASED ON A FINDING THAT THE
SCHOOL USE IS NOT COMPATIBLE WITH THE ACTIVITIES IN THE
INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT OVER THE LONG TERM. ROD DRAGSTEN SECONDED
THE MOTION. Motion carried 4 to I with Robbie Smith voting in opposition.
Decision 3: Conditional Use Permit for school use in an 1-1 District.
Decision 3 is a moot decision.
11. Consideration of a request for a simple subdivision affecting Lots II and 12. Block 2-
Oakwood Industrial Park.
Steve Grittman provided the staff report noting the request by H Window Company that
the property line dividing Lots 11 and 12 be moved 35 feet to the east, thus increasing
Lot 12 and decreasing Lot 11. This lot line adjustment is for the purpose of placing the
entire building on Lot 12. It also results in 30 foot setback which meets the minimum
prescribed by ordinance. Both lots would share the driveway from Dundas Road.
This is an important housekeeping matter that cleans up a longstanding problem. This is
still a buildable lot. There was discussion as to why H Window is requesting this
adjustment at this time. Fred Patch, Building Official, asked if this property line should
have just disappeared and Grittman stated it should have been combined and the owner
has not been in compliance with the ordinance. It was stated that this is not uncommon
.
-7-
.
.
.
Planning Commission Minutes - 6-6-00
for buildings that were built at that time, and Grittman also stated some cities have a
clause that states they cannot profit from a sale of the lot once combined.
DICK FRIE MOTIONED TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE SIMPLE
SUBDIVISION AFFECTING LOTS 11 AND 12, BLOCK 2, OAKWOOD
INDUSTRIAL PARK BY SHIFTING THE LOT LINE 35 FEET TO THE EAST, WITH
CLARIFICATION PROVIDED BY STAFF TO THE CITY COUNCIL AS TO Tl1E
INTENDED USAGE OF THE PROPERTY. ROD DRAGSTEN SECONDED THE
MOTION. Motion carried.
12. Building Codes as they relate to the new Chelsea Road area.
Rod Dragsten asked for information regarding building standards that the City will
determine in this area. Ordinance at this time does not address buildings. Dragsten asked
if the City would have anything in place before new commercial buildings are proposed.
Fred Patch, Building Official, stated that the City is not creating any new districts and the
standards for this area would be the same as any other areas zoned the same. Steve
Grittman noted that the City could establish architectural review standards if desired.
13.
Enforcement of Citv Code relating to blights.
Certain sites were discussed and what the proper procedure for cleaning them up was.
Fred Patch explained the procedures. They discussed other options of enforcing these
codes. Monetary fines were discussed. It was also noted that calls to the City regarding
blight complaints arc anonymous.
A recommendation was made by Robbie Smith that Building Official Fred Patch review
the issue of a stricter ordinance regarding blights and bring this item back to the Planning
Commission at their next regular meeting in July.
13. Adiourn.
A MOTION WAS MADE BY ROY POPILEK TO ADJOURN THE MEETING AT
9:20 PM. ROD DRAGSTEN SECONDED THE MOTION. Motion carried.
Recording Secretary
-8-
.
.
.
MINUTES
SPECIAL MEETING - MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION
Monday, June 26, 2000
5:30 P.M.
Members Present:
Dick Frie, Robbie Smith, Roy Popilek, Richard Carlson and
Council Liaison Clint Herbst
Absent:
Rod Dragsten
Staff Present:
Jeff O'Neill, Steve Grittman and Lori Kraemer
1. Chair Frie called the meetinll to order at 5:30 p.m.
2. Consideration of adding items to the allenda.
Chair Frie had a concern regarding the Alternative Learning Program agenda item which
was listed on the City Council Agenda for 7:00 p.m. this evening. leff O'Neill explained
the reason for this item being placed on agenda.
3.
Citizens comments. None
4. Consideration of an amendment to the zoning ordinance for auto sales in the B-3 District
allowine for a principal building smaller than 4.500 square feet. Apolicant: Dunlo
Motors.
leffO'Neill, Deputy City Administrator, provided a summary of the applicant's request
comparing the City's zoning ordinance which sets a threshold of 4,500 square feet as the
minimum size for a structure associated with auto sales and the Wendy's building which
is 2,950 square feet, 6% of the total land area at the I acre site. The new ordinance, if
approved, would reduce the building size threshold to 2,950 square feet.
Using the Dunlo building to site area ratio as the guide, the ordinance would also include
a required ratio of building area to site area which would eliminate the possibility of a
small building on a large parcel. On the positive side, the new ordinance would enable a
positive re-use of a now vacant building. Of concern is the potential of proliferation of
used car dealerships operating out of relatively small buildings.
Mr. O'Neill provided the staff's view on the issue stating there is no doubt that
regulation of used car dealerships is integral to the success of commercial areas. With the
great investment in new car dealerships it is likely that we will see continued interest in
used car dealerships which is not a bad thing unless a proliferation of used car lots and
associated absorption of land eats away at the potential for development of tax base.
Chair Frie opened the public hearing. Roger Zahn, Attorney for Oxboro Development
Special Planning Commission - 06/26/00
.
Co., addressed the commission noting their appreciation for the efforts they have put
forth on this matter, however they have had a contract with Dunlo Motors since April and
therefore have not had the property on the market since that time.
The public hearing was closed. The commissioners addressed Mr. Herbst, Council
Liaison, regarding the building size reduction that the staff and City Planner came up
with and if he felt City Council would agree with these numbers. It was also stated that
the intent of this ordinance amendment should not be based solely on this applicant, but
that their decision should be based as a whole. Frie also stated that he had spoken to
several appraisers, including Mr. Dragsten, who felt that a minimum of2,500 sq. ft.
would accommodate most requests, but it should still be determined by a land ration of
5% to 6%. A concern was brought up that possibly 5% was too low for possible future
applicants with larger sites and perhaps there should be flexibility regarding the size of
building to size of the site.
.
A MOTION WAS MADE BY DICK FRIE TO APPROVE THE ZONING TEXT
AMENDMENT AS RECOMMENDED ALLOWING MINIMUM SIZE STRUCTURE
OF 2,500 SQUARE FEET AND A BUILDING TO SITE AREA RATIO OF 6%,
BASED ON THE FINDING THAT THE AMENDMENT IS CONSISTENT WITH THE
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND CONSISTENT WITH THE CHARACTERISTICS OF
THE B-3 DISTRICT, AND CALL FOR A PUBLIC HEARING ON A ZONING TEXT
AMENDMENT THAT WOULD ESTABLISH AN ACCELERATED BUILDING TO
SITE RATIO RESULTING IN A HIGHER PERCENTAGE OF BUILDING AREA
COVERAGE AS SITE AREA INCREASES. RICHARD CARLSON SECONDED
THE MOTION. Motion carried.
There was continued discussion regarding a concern as to the Planning Commission
being able to regulate the types of new buildings in this district and leffO'Neill stated
that the Planning Commission could call for a public hearing instating an ordinance that
would restrict the types of buildings that could be constructed in these districts. The
commissioners felt this should be looked into. The Ford site was also discussed
regarding their intent to use their lot as a sales/storage lot.
5. 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. *Applicant requests continuation as site
plan data prep is still in progress *.
A motion was made by Roy Popilek to continue the public hearing for 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 by applicant Dave Peterson's Monticello Ford. Richard
Carlson seconded the motion. Motion carried.
.
6.
Adiourn
A MOTION WAS MADE BY ROBBIE SMITH TO ADlOURN THE MEETING AT
6:20 P.M. RICHARD CARLSON SECONDED THE MOTION. Motion carried.
.
.
.
Planning COI11I1l ission Agenda -07/05/00
5.
Consideration of a Variance request to side yard setback standards. Applicant: Wavne
and Sandra Cox. (NAC)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
Wayne and Sandra Cox have applied for a variance from the side yard setback standards on
their property at 306 East 4th Street. The property is currently improved with a single family
home and a detached garage. 'l'he existing home sits 9.5 to 9.7 feet from the side lot line, and
the applicants wish to construct an addition to the rear which would extend to within 7 feet
of the side lot line. The required side yard setback is 10 feet.
The City has considered side yard setback variances to property on lots in the older platted
portion of the community when it was to add a garage where none existed. The rationale for
such variances has been that to make reasonable use of the narrow lots (typically 66 feet),
a variance was justified and that garages are included in the definition of reasonable use. The
construction of additional 1100r space to an existing home would not necessarily fall within
the same rationale. Without the ability to make a finding that the regulations prohibit
reasonable use of the lot, the hardship criteria for consideration of variances is not met.
This request points up an issue with the application of the newer zoning regulations to older
lots. The new regulations apply ten foot side yard setbacks to 80 foot wide lots. However,
the Cox property is just 66 feet in width, common in the older portions of Monticello. As
the ordinance now stands, developed lots can not meet the required hardship criteria to
qualify for variances, and the regulations appear to unduly restrict expansion and
reinvestment in existing homes. Clearly, the Cox home can he expanded, but the dimensions
would be severely restricted. A better approach to consideration of variances would be an
amendment to the zoning ordinance which permits expansion of such homes to a lesser side
yard setback.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS
1. Motion to approve the variance, based on a finding that the narrowness of the
existing lot of record creates a hardship in complying with the strict regulations of
the ordinance.
2. Motion to deny the variance, based on a finding that the existing home constitutes
reasonable use of the property, and an addition could be constructed which meets the
ten foot setback.
3.
Motion to table action on the variance, subject to additional inftmnation.
-1-
.
c.
ST AFF RECOMMENDATION
Planning Commission Agenda -07/05/00
Staff can not rccommcnd the variance under the definition of hardship and reasonable use
in the Ordinance, as well as the State Statutes governing zoning variances. A bettcr routc
would be to amcnd the zoning ordinance to address the fact that for most of the original
platted lots in Monticello, a diffcrent side yard setback would be more appropriate. The ten
foot setback was established at the time the City increased it lot size requirements to 80 foot
widths, severely restricting the ability of owners of existing hOlnes to expand. Expansion
and reinvestment in the existing housing stock is an important factor in avoiding blight in
older neighborhoods, and the variance issue creates a roadblock to the reinvestment options
of many residents.
D. SUPPLEMENTARY DATA
Exhibit A - Site Survey
Exhibit B - Front & rear views of site
.
.
')
-.:..,-
612 595 9837
./<J I""..v"". IleNI I
~{f X t. : /
,,- / t q + I
~ IP I ~.~\t) /
1 ~-:..~ ~~. /
I " ....~~..9.9 I
I ".......,.. I
I ........ I'
~II ........ ":'L/!(2 JP LS743~
@I ~,
~'I ...., "'6:
I '....0.:>
~'"
I " I
I
I '.... ~!!2 IP OPEN
1._ ....
~/4 IP ()/"EN "
.~ ,~ .......
, / ...... "
/1 ".t...."" I.t~ ....,
~ ~..~~ ....
/ . 6'6'''; :::::'~?' ~.
I .I'A.........-.r
/ lfb......
I
/
1
I
1
/
1
/
1 q
I~
I "<l
I
1
I
I
I
~.~ I
Q..... I · r ~ r ~ / -,- I
~ .V)- / '_I I I I I 1 , , 1 " \ I
Q'.(1 I ' I ~ '" ~ '" I , I
j ~ /
e ~ / ~~
~ ~ /-... fJ""o...
~ b / '.... ~$
'" ? I 'l%- Its Ie'?
14 I ',.:-, .... ~
~ ~. / "'~ .r.
~.,-!r I .D"~' "'" Ii
Q_ .1(' I J I K ""'''
~/(,' / ~'/)3" ~....~ ." ,,,, '.'t
o / "'/ 0' .... 6"4' q",
~ I .. '...~ ~
/ ; 'I ........... $'
/ !.Ii ~ 7- ," ~
/ Q. or:J1) . ... , ,,,
/'9 ~ r- .If ...., cr.
/ ~ ".......... ~ ~ ....... 8',0
/ I' I' l.i:,J"' ....
/ " ~ .... ~ ~....
/ .' 'II .......................+ ........,j
I / '-0\1' I 'rI ;:: I ....,
/ 'I...... /. Z' I ........6'6"
/,.......... / ........10
/ '/../ ........ .......... I. /........ /
/ ,/1. ~ .......... ...J. / "..../..
'I ~.... LOT 2 / / ..........., 66-
11 Cl / I.... ..../0.
~" / I'"
6's I ~& ,,/'" r-I ' " I. ,,...:.. r~
~,::,:~~.o (' <,:;" ,~/' I~'I ' I '''l'~.~f'
...-:::~ fiiJ...f! .""q/ ,,, 1 / ~- ,,, , , L_' ·
....':::, tio, I ~~ ~I I.
-"-::" ' ....... / /
/ It.,;>. CfG- / /
I' I..'l~-/ ~ .... ~b... Ao. 1 1
CO ' I ..... ........ -"""r I'
~O ~/+\ ....."'. ~66- I or /
IA... <t/~ .... -1/ q 1
.... ~y Q,/; '.... "'" ~/_4( 1 ~/
f/ ' ....., 1 q..4l-.(' I "/
?/ .... ,~4';0........ '~ ~ - (or 8c?...... 1 /
<... r.... I L') , 111 ..... ~ -u 1 /
.r /1" -rr'.?>,tl/" '....,+/1 ....:::-., 66' '~~~..../ ,
/ ./P1h ..,': \ "~,"" .
, + <.; ~r. '0".'... .... '.. ....
,'It /J; ~/... "'''''0 \. .'::-,
/$/ !~, ~. . ", ~..
/
.f1r 4D
~'" ~-tt
i:>' '. -" 6'~ -tro
~.~""',''',.9...r ~
Ji~<t: """ ...,~
I)' (J 66-.......... '.... . ..J'-b
G .0 ..... ". ,,~ ..",
2.6 ......... ..... ".~.t'-- <10 (
.... '. ~
1'....'...
I ......... -'.
1 ....
/ ~
/
/
/
I
/
I
I
I
/
<t /
~/
"<l /
/
/
I
I
I
/
-,- I ,r - I -,- ;' "" I . ,... f
I ,..., ~- 1 " , I 111"\1
, I 'c.. _ I ' , , It
1
/
/
JUN-29-2121121121
1121:27
NAC
~
.
....
....
,
....
.....
....
....
....
.....
....
...
')
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/ .
I
/
/
1
I
I
/
" I,.~"~,,,...,
'I I / J-" I I ..., I .., .....
'" -, "..... / , ~ I ,..... ....... ........
/
/
/
/
I
/
I
/
/
" "
/ : ,,'
~,
-'
"-
80
.
'f..,
~
~
o
~
<J.~
~
-l
I
LOT 9
"
t)
, .
.....
. .
.
,.-
.,
P.12I6/1216
I
/
I
/
/
f
I
/
/
/
I
/
/
/
/
/
"
r.
,
I
Q /
I
~/
'i
I
I
I
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
I
I
/
/
k
-.:::
Exhibit A - Site Survey
~ TOTAL P.12I6
.
~CDX~
II Rtllf \/ i u011
..':~
..,".....
11......................'..........[........................'.
~
.
I -
~1.'i.;;:"L'1'
~.' .~~f~ .
.~.""';T:!;."I "",.
_., It-c.:...J L._"
i .~ ~,.
)\\:C\...... - .....--
IJ !' ~ -
~7;."~~. '. .. -._' t-. .' ,.
~ .
r"" -
~....~ Il.. -
~ "''If"'"
..... ~
.
rxhib\t 5 b
.
.
.
W~1tl Cox- ~t~
1\ -fW-* UitW h
t'ih\b\~ 5 -0
.
.
.
Planning Commission Meeting - 07/05/00
6.
Public Hearing - Consideration of an application for a variance allowinl! construction of a
deck within the 10' minimum setback standards. Applicant: Paul Kiefer (JO)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND
A fter further review of the application/site, it was found that the "deck" elevation is even
or below the main nom grade of the structure which means that it can extend to within 2'
of the side yard, therefore a variance is not required. The applicant has been informed.
This detail regarding deck elevation was discovered at a site visit after the public hearing
notices were sent and therefore, there may be people in attendance at this meeting
regarding this topic.
-1-
.
.
.
Planning Commission Agenda -07/05/00
7.
Consideration of a reQuest for a Conditional Use Permit allowing a Planned Unit
Development of 25 townhomes in the CCD Zoning District. Applicant: Silver Creek
Real Estate. (NAC)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
Silver Creek Real Estate is proposing a townhome development on 1.92 acres ofland along
East 7th Street. The parcel adjoins other R-3 housing on either side, and the parking lot for
the 5th Street Annex shopping center to the north. The concept plan submitted for the project
consists of25 townholl1es around a central drive and parking area. Most of the townhomes
would include patio space around the perimeter of the site which are not shown on the site
plan.
The purpose of concept plan review is to identify issues raised by the proposal and provide
direction to the developer as to how they may be addressed. This report will address
planning related issues which will require specific zoning action. The City engineer has
identified storm water management as the primary engineering issue, and the developers will
need to work with public works and engineering on utility design as well.
The primary zoning issue relates to the selection of the unit type and density. In the R-3
District, townhomes are permitted uses in clusters of no more than eight units, multiple
family buildings are permitted in buildings of no more than 12 units, with more than 12 units
allowed, but requiring a Conditional Use Permit. The issue raised by this proposal is the
density of the project using a townhouse style unit.
Monticello's Ordinance regulates density by unit type, rather than by zoning district.
cJ"ownhome projects arc allowed to be developed at a density of one unit per 5,000 square feet
oflot area, irrespective ofthe zoning district. Multiple family projects may be developcd at
a density of onc unit for the first 10,000 square feet, and one unit per each additional 3,000
square feet. On this parcel, therefore, a town home project may contain a maximum of 16
units, whereas a multiple family project could be as many as 25 units if all two bedroom
units. Moreover, under the general CCD regulations, ground floor units may be developed
only at a density of one unit per 9,000 square feet, with upper floor units at one unit per
3,000 square feet. The PUD is necessary to "import" the R-3 density standards onto this
CCD site. Otherwise, the density of a townhome project (where all of the units are ground
floor units) would be even further restricted.
The proposed project shows 25 units, an appropriate density under the multiple family
scenario, but t~lr in excess of the allowable townhome density. The rationale commonly
applied for requiring townhomes to be built at a lower density is that multiple family projects
will typically construct the same number of units on a smaller amount of land, thus leaving
-1-
.
Planning Commission Agenda -07/05/00
more area for green space and on-site recreational opportunity. Apartment units are also
typically smaller and result in a lower traffic count.
Townhome units are often t~iVorcd by cities because they have a higher likelihood of home
ownership and are larger. To allow this number of townhome units on the subject site,
however, would require an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance which would change the
way density is calculated within each zoning district, together with the PUD approval to use
the R-3land uses standards and private drive access to each unit. Such an amendment would
probably be written into the R-3 District Conditional Use Permit regulations to allow
townhome development at a density equal to apartments when developed as a Planned Unit
Development. The PUD review for such cases should focus on whether the design of project
attempts to compensate for the decreased green area and increased tratlic when compared
to a multiple family development of similar density.
The accompanying site plan provides a few comments on site plan issues if the project
proceeds as a townhome development. These include:
a.
b.
c.
. d.
e.
1'.
g.
.
Increase driveway width in traffic areas to 24 feet.
Look for opportunities to increase internal/central landscaped areas.
Consider alternative paving materials in the central area.
Redesign the northwest corner units to allow for better backing and access.
Maintain a maximum of eight unit townhome clusters
Plan for a highly intensified landscaped plan, particularly at the perimeter, including
well-designed patio areas, fencing, and other side/rear yard improvements.
Address outward appearance of buildings to maximize aesthetic impact on
neighboring property.
B.
ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS
1.
Motion to recommend approval of the concept plan for a PUD as a townhome
project, including a recommendation for the necessary ordinance amendments to
accommodate townhomes ofthc proposed density in the R-3 and CCD Districts.
2.
Motion to recommcnd denial ofthe concept plan, based on a finding that the density
exceeds the townhome density permitted in the ordinance.
3.
Motion to table action on the concept pIan, subject to additional information.
-2-
Planning Commission Agenda -07/05/00
.
C.
STAFF RECOMMENDA nON
Under the current ordinance language, staff can not recommend approval of the townhome
project due to the proposed density. '1'0 allow the project to proceed as a town home project,
it would need to be coupled with a proposal for an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance
which allows townhomes to be built at a density equal to multiple family dwellings in the
R-3 and CCD Districts. Alternative 1 above reflects this option. There is rationale for such
a change in that the City would be able to regulate density by zoning district instead of by
unit type as is now the practice. There are some issues raised by a new approach, however,
including loss of green space and potential increased population and traffic. The primary
advantages of a change would be the likelihood of increased ownership and larger units.
If the City chooses to proceed with the project as a townhome development, staff could have
an amendment available for review at the next Planning Commission meeting. A public
hearing should be called to consider that amendment. Finally, the Development Stage pun
plans should include attention to the site planning issues raised in this report, comments from
Engineering and Public Works staff: as well as full site development plans, floor plans,
grading, drainage, and utility plans, and landscape plans. A Preliminary Plat should also be
prepared to allow the subdivision of individual unit lots.
.
D.
SUPPORTING DATA
1.
2.
3.
4.
Site Plan
Site Plan Issues (by stai1)
Topography
Building Elevations
.
-3-
o -.....
O ,----,- ~
,//' ........................"-~ ~
/ --"'- -..... ~
If.....,. ....,
. \ :' \ ""-- '\ C
i \ REmI1K>I "" ) C -..... ~
\ \ 1\ I'OHO '><0'
~ \ .......~.....
\ \ ,,-" "".......
O\,~ /,,// ""-- (;
r~~" .....
\ \0 ..~f' --',
\0\
\
\
\ \~
\ "
~,
.
"
.
CD SITE PlAN
"
~ AlrIJllo-_
':..~::::Cf"1I'
.,'!';.~. '-:+'-'-""'11I;
,;~ -- ~=
'~, -----
~"") / .,
/ I OAKWOOD I
:' BUILDERS. I
/ INC. I
" 12901 ~"""~r Tr-atl I
////I~ ,;:::rQjri~.MN j
~ 952941$$(1
I.
~
/
I
-.....
~
-.....
~
-.....
~
I
LAURING LANE
Exhibit A - Site Plan
I
j
~
I
I Archi~eCr>4Fe
I Planning J
I Interiors l
CRE+
Associates
146I6W~BcllffdDrjv.
B~IlI#..&fN ~~.300
61-Z...lU0-..l;!06
REVlSlONS
.&.
.&
&.
.&.
&.
.&.
&
&
&.
&.
';Y
ill
.....
<(
~
ill
~ ..,j
i <(
ill
a:
~ ..
I ill ~
ill
a: I
0
a: I
I ill
::i
05
I SITE PlAN I ELEV.I
MlE
06.21.00
A-1
FmS:f III
...... ..........
(V"
A //----'-"""'_,~
VI '~
/'-'-'-'- """''-\ ^ ~
\ 1\ '-,- \~ ~
I \ RElOOKlH ''-, ,: C "
.\\\~ ~:~~<~ ~
1\ .. v:
'J,j// """" k~ ~ Jni.t'h 1V
\0 :~ >,;, 0" . rive vrJl17 .
O~ ' ~
\ \ ~~
\
I
\ \@
\
r
_\
"'-\
~ \\ ~'
ot.rnO .ft)UrJ(; i\ ?
yr'l , ;;;\ '"
~~ ~\.
lfrJ WI
~~r;z t- \' \ i
~''M'7. \ \ c
\~~
lV ffi
. CD 8fTE PlAN
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
<. I
~- /
. I
!~~ I
_^ I
I
I
I
I
I
I
:' /
~ . ~ I
- ----~------ ' J
/
~'W~
~
~VLD '* 1.J/ ~ Z-W1Yj
((,.,
L A U R I N G LAN E Exhibit 8 Si~~ r-"n Issues
J Planning-=
I Inreriors
CRE+
Associate~
1-4616 W=D:/iffd Dri
.l!l~Jl.e. AiLN .$S~l)
6.l2.ll50.J.206
IlEVISlONS
&.
.&
.&.
.&
.&
.&
.&.
.&
.&.
.A
~:Zf)().l Pion-tlt!!1r Trail
ill
r-
~
ill
~ -1
I ~ ~
I ~ I
! ~ I
I SITE: PLAN / ELEV.I
~lE
06.21.00
A-1
PmJB:T NO.
00--07 ,
.
//
.
.
r
i
I
!
I
,
Exhibit C - Topography I
LAURING
t"
:,'
"
I
j
I
1
l
. ... ' '.-.' ,.",.:~..,. " .~.~'. .,. .--. ',-,_. ,.~--
.
t
!
,
~.
f
)
"
~
~
1
!
!
I
t
;
Exhibit D .. Building Elevations
,
,
I
Planning Commission Agenda - 07/05/00
8.
Public Hearin!2: - Consideration of re-zoning from 1-1 to 1-1 A. Construction 5. Outlot A.
Applicant: City of Monticello Planning: Commission. (JO)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND
This is essentially a housekeeping matter that relates to a recent zoning district
amendment. As you might recall, some months ago the industrial land located along East
7th Street was changed from I-I to I-I a. During this process, a small portion of the land
to be designated as 1-1 a (Lafromboise parcel) was left out of the map information
supporting the Planning Commission and City Council decision making. Planning
Commission is asked to review the matter and correct the situation by recommending
approval of the proposed amendment to the zoning map. Please see the attached map
data for detail.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTION
1. Motion to recommend approval of the rezoning of the Lafromboise parcel from
1-1 to 1-1 a based on the finding that the proposed rezoning is consistent with the
comprehensive plan and consistent with the character of the area.
2.
Motion to deny approval of the rezoning.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION
As noted earlier, this is a housekeeping matter that properly completes City action taken
some time ago. Staff recommends approval.
D. SUPPORTING DATA
Exhibit A - Map information
Exhibit B - Copy of City Council Agenda Item hom 4/12/99
-1-
!
J.
J" ,:
Ou )"-1.
0)"-
..
13
".. ~~
~4C'~
..
~
&.;
..g
000092.
..
,).
<;
~
.. 318,'
---- _______ ~O
-------
J.
-- ____ <tl
--:--j
~ .
~.... '7,
".. 'J..
----
9 q.. ____________________
~ ----------
------------- -----
..... ..8,., _
---
---~
~'I ,
I ~ :.
L-_~~
'~9<J ~..
I ..
.........
_______ I ~
---~
----z
'~K~
II
Ethtb\t A
6~A
/
/
I-I
/<0/
-AI
!
/ /
II
, II
I II
!/
.;; I -
'" ...
~ N1 :
.t~, .:
.,
-
I
....: "
:. ~ -:..
.
m ..
><
I
OJ
-I
)>
I
(f)
-i
m
""'0
r
)>
Z
.
~
.
5 ~
. ~
::~
"
N ~
"" f .l>o
~
"
l.>I ~
;; t
~.
ifl.VtI ~
I"" ...
.
~
"
-l
I-
o
~
~
(I)
~
i!.
:lJ
'"
::
V,~!':ATf.D
I I
1/ ! /
!--/l-
./ / '
>t""'n II II
"Ooo~' I
'2.D~ ~I I
""","t ~ _. , '
r5 0' ;- -0 II' '
::l::l., ~ '11
- ~ I
~~f j l'
i~ j ~ j
::t, n =' j-f....D!
~ :r.- IJQ
=N=t"
o ~. 0
N::I:3
o ,....~ ......
::J ::: .
.. en ~
::3 0;'_
IJQ ~ 0
>~-
o.~~
3 ~ ;p-
S' ~
ij;' !t>
.....
.,
ll)
-
0'
::l
/
/
1.0
"
~
o
".
~. ;'",
....
";>J,..
N
(>) 'y
~
')-4
~
01
f
,,'f
$
,~s
~
- \
L'
3/1' l"
>"
" >"
(t)
'...
"'''>
a
~
9- A '\
lJ,f"
~ ",,. "1
.'". ('l
, '"
'- "'
-', "'f --'i"
, .~
~ .~. .....{:. ~.
, -<.
"
.:..
CEDAR-
',,.'
)0, $"
~"'~
N
I
I
^
- ~
~
~~
"
~~
~
"
..
..
u
.
u
~7l:.
r~Q.')
~
. '
:>-
00. )1
01
, I
I
t...rl.JS-
s
'.
"
" ~
N 8 ':'
~
]O<l'
fT1 ~
.
J>o .
(Jl /. ().I
...... '>,..
l: ';) ",
.. ..
':... Y.
~ ..,.
-t>
..
"
Ul
IN
I
,-
"JIO."l.
(])
I~
I"::.
^
~
">JO I
>'''. "Go
-...j.
Ul
.>"
,"
r
r
.,.,
...
~
l
&'"
ell
of'
"
~-.(
~ r
." ..111
t'
..
""
,..
t ;:.
r. a
" ':'
5' ~.
;Jl
;-~
"1'"'
~
P
to
("
""
-
I
f
"
.
.
.
SG.
Council Agenda - 4!l2/99
Consideration of rezoning Lots S~13~ Block 2: Hillside Terrace from I-I to I-lA.
(F.P.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
City Council is asked to consider rezoning the land nOlih of the freeway betwecn the new
post office facility and the Construction 5 residential area. The proposed rezoning would
change the dcsignation trom 1-1 (I ight industrial) to I -1 A. The I-I A designation allows
similar lIses to the I-I district. However, building facade requirements are stricter by
requiring facade to paliially consist of some material other than steel. Also, limited
wholesale retail uses are also allowed.
This request comes from the Planning Commission and is due in part from the impending
development of an industrial development "incubator" that provides some leased space
for both industrial and wholesale retail commercial uses. Technically, without the I-1A
designation, the retail uses proposed would be non-conforming. The rezoning of the area
also applies to theFSI site but will not render the site non-conforming.
It would appear to make sense to move to the stricter facade requirements due to the
residential and commercial development already existing in the area. The I~ 1 A
regulations will also enable wholesale retail use as contemplated by the proposed
development.
Planning Commission recommended approval of the rezoning at its April 6 meeting.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. Motion to approve the rezoning request from I-I to 1-1 A for the subject area based
on the finding that the proposed rezoning is consistent with the comprehensive
plan, compatible with the adjoining land uses, will not result in the depreciation of
adjoining land values, and there is a demonstrated need for the use.
2. Motion to deny approval of the rezoning request based on the finding that the
proposal is not consistent with the comprehensive plan, not compatible with the
adjoining land uses, will result in the depreciation of adjoining land values, and
there is no demonstrated need for the use.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
The Planning Commission and City staff recommend alternative #1.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Exhibit A - Site map.
Exhibit B - Copy of ordinance amendment
9 bhlbrt- b
S-E:>
.
.
.
9.
Planning Commission Meeting - 07/05/00
Continued Public Ilcaring - Consideration of an amendment to a phmned unit
development in a B-3 District to allow the expansion of an auto sales and storage lot.
Applicant: Dave Peterson's Monticello Ford.
* Applicant requests continuation as site plan data prep is still in progress*.
-1-
.
.
.
lih
Planning COll1l11ission Meeting - 07/05/00
Discussion on the City Ordinance reg.ardin!.': enforcement of the Public Nuisance
Ordinance. (FP)
A vcrbal discussion will be given at the meeting.
-1-