Planning Commission Agenda 06-06-2000
.
Members:
AGENDA
REGULAR MEETING - MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION
Tuesday, .June 6, 2000
7:00 P.M.
Dick Frie, Robbie Smith, Roy Popilek, Richard Carlson, Rod Dragsten
Council Liaison:
Clint Herbst
Staff:
l.
2.
"'l
.).
4.
5.
.
6.
.
Jeff O'Neill, Fred Patch, Steve Grittman and Lori Kracmer
Call to order.
Approval of minutes of thc regular meeting held May 2, 2000.
Consideration of adding items to the agenda.
Citizens comments.
Continued Public Hearing - Consideration of an amendment to the zoning ordinance for
auto sales in the B-3 District allowing for a principal building smaller than 4,500 square
feet. Applicant: Dunlo Motors.
Continued Public Hearing - Consideration of an amendment to the Conditional Use
Permit conditions f()r Auto Sales in a B-3 District issued to Dunlo Motors. Applicant:
Dunlo Motors.
7. Continued Puhlic 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.
8. Public Hearing - Consideration of an amendment to the Interim Use Permit allowing
operation of the Alternative Learning Program in an I-I District. Applicant: W AU
Partnership
9. Public Ilearing - Consideration of an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance allowing
public and private educational institutions as a conditional use in the I-I District.
Applicant: WAG Partnership
10. Public Hearing - Consideration of an application for a conditional use permit allowing a
public institution to operate in an I-I District. Applicant: W AG Partnership/Alternative
Learning Program.
II.
Request for a simple subdivision f()f Lots II and 12, Block 2, Oakwood Industrial Park.
Applicant: H Window Company.
12. Adjourn
.
.
.
MINUTES
REGULAR MEETING - MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION
Tuesday, May 2, 2000
7:00 P.M.
Members Present:
Dick Frie, Robbie Smith, Roy Popilek, Richard Carlson, Rod
Dragsten and Council Liaison Clint Herbst
Staff Present:
Jeff O'Neill, Steve Grittman and Lori Kraemer
1. Call to order.
Chair Frie called the meeting to order at 7:05 p.m. with Council Liaison Herbst absent.
2. Approval of minutes of the regular meeting held April 4. 2000.
ROBBIE SMITH MOVED TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE REGULAR
MEETING OF APRIL 4, 2000. RICHARD CARLSON SECONDED THE MOTION.
Motion carried.
Council Liaison Herbst arrived.
"'l
.J.
Consideration of addim!" items to the agenda.
Rod Dragsten requested an update on the bike path and Roy Popilek stated when the next
section is completed, sand will be used versus the rough material previously used. Popilek
felt they met halfway and Chair Frie concurred that a portion of the path would be done
using sand to see how that works out. Chair Frie stated he received calls prior to the meeting
stating that (walkers) were complaining of the unevenness of the pathway. He also stated he
has received numerous calls since the meeting regarding dogs being walked on the paths and
owners not picking up after the dogs. He referred this on to Rick Traver, Parks Commission,
and he also asked that Jeff address this issue in the next newsletter.
Roy Popilek asked for an update on the Jay Morrell Trucking issue. This was placed as item
6B.
4.
Citizens comments.
None.
5.
Public Hearing - Consideration of a Conditional Use Permit for Auto Sales and a variance to
the minimum building size requirements for auto sales. or an amendment to the minimum
building size requirements in a B-3 Zoning District. Applicant: Dunlo Motors.
Steve Grittman, City Planner, provided the staff report regarding the applicant's request for a
-1-
Planning Commission Minutes - 5/2/00
.
Conditional Use Permit to operate an automobile sales facility on the property formerly
occupied by Wendy's along Oakwood Drive. The existing building, currently vacant,
consists of approximately 2,950 square feet in area. The applicant indicates that they intend
to retrofit the existing building for sales, maintaining the parking lot for customer parking
and vehicle display.
The Zoning Ordinance lists a number of conditions attached to the consideration of auto
sales in the B-3 District. Almost all of the listed conditions would be complied with by the
proposed use, with some discussion about landscaping and the parking and curbing along the
west boundary. The primary issue is with the building size requirement. The applicant
would also add additional lighting and address the landscaping. Dunlo is looking at a
display area to the west of the site and has indicated they would like to defer final
improvements of that boundary as they are working with Peterson Ford on this issue.
The applicant is pursuing a variance to this requirement, or the City's approval of an
amendment to the Zoning Ordinance to lower the building size requirement to accommodate
the proposed use. The applicant argues that the access to the property resulting from the
changes to the Highway 25/Interstate 94 interchange area have made other uses, including
the fast food restaurant use, no longer viable.
.
The alternative option requested by the applicant is an amendment reducing the floor area
for auto sales facilities. Auto sales uses can have a tendency to maximize paved open sales
area, and minimize building area. The 4,500 square foot threshold in the ordinance is
designed to encourage a greater proportion of site utilization by building as opposed to open
sales lot. In most cases. building size is directly related to employment and property value.
These are issues on which the City has focused its economic development activities in the
past. Reducing the building size would apply throughout the B-3 District, and would tend to
limit both employment and building valuation.
Chair Frie opened the Public Hearing.
Roger Zahn, Attorney representing Oxboro Development, states the developers agreement
with the project the applicant has applied for. Oxboro is a partnership who has been selling
off it's properties slowly over the pasts years, this particular site being one of them. The
previous Wendy's was a tenant ofOxboro Development. He also stated that Wendy's had
contacted them to locate back in Monticello at their previous site and negotiated with them,
but with the access to the location the way it is they did not proceed with the purchase. He
states that they have tried to get another fast food chain into this building to no avail. Mr.
Zahn believes that there is reasonable hardship in that this building cannot be used as its
intended use as a fast food restaurant due to the access to this building.
.
Andrew Duncanson, President of Dunlo Motors, gave a brief description of his business
which has been in business for 16 years. He clarified that they are a sales company only, no
servicing of autos, therefore the size of this building is suitable. He states they plan to do
everything to make the site attractive, especially the south side. He would like to work with
Dave Peterson Ford, but would comply on his own if need be. Mr. Duncanson stated Dunlo
Motores would generate approx $25,000 per month in taxes.
-2-
Planning Commission Minutes - 5/2/00
Allan Wright, Realestate Broker from St. Cloud representing Oxboro Development stated
the difficulty with putting in a fast food restaurant was the access problem.
.
Molly Peterson, co-owner of Playhouse Childcare Center and one of the owners of the
adjacent properties, stated some of the concerns they have if a variance is granted. She
states that there are a great number of fast food and auto sales facilities but they are the only
licensed childcare center. She also reminded the commission of the concerns they had
previously brought to their attention when the Ford expansion occurred. She states they are
surrounded on three sides now with auto dealers and if this variance is granted they will be
surrounded on all four sides. They have concerns with people walking around looking at the
cars and the uneasy feelings they have being a childcare provider with this increase in traffic.
She states that the City would be creating a hardship for them if this variance is granted. She
provided a letter stating concerns from parents if this variance is granted. Chair Frie
addressed Ms. Peterson asking about the hours, which she stated are 6 a.m. to 6 p.m. and that
there is a possibility for extended hours. Chair Frie also asked about the Playhouse staff
parking in the Wendy's site now and she stated that it is their assumption that parcel is
actually part of the Childcare Center property.
.
Diane Mandel, co-owner of the Playhouse Childcare Center, addressed the Planning
Commission sharing a letter stating concerns from a parent regarding health, safety and
increasing pedestrian and vehicle traffic. She stated they felt the children would be more
susceptible for incidents to occur and does not feel this is conducive to the Childcare site.
Ms. Mandel stated they feel the City has a responsibility to these children. She also
provided pictures of the current conditions with the expansion of the Ford Auto.
Chair Frie closed the public hearing.
Jeff O'Neill, Deputy City Administrator, provided an update on the Ford dealership stating
that Ford did not go through the proper process for their CUP, stating staff had asked Ford to
revise their site plan before approval and unfortunately they did not get their revised site
plan to the Planning Commission prior to this meeting. O'Neill state there are curbing and
landscaping issues and that perhaps staff will request fencing.
Chair Frie asked Molly Peterson if Steve Johnson, Monticello Ford, had gotten together with
the Playhouse Childcare Center to address the previous issues with them and she stated he
has had no contact with them.
.
Robbie Smith asked about Ford using that site without a CUP and O'Neill stated that this is
an issue and that when they requested a revised site plan it did not arrive until this week.
Smith also stated that if Dunlo Motors decides to put a 4,500 sq. ft. building on that site they
would be in compliance with City ordinance, and Ms. Peterson stated that if that was the
case they would deal with it, but it would be better that than the City granting a variance to
them without the dealer demonstrating a hardship in meeting the ordinance. Smith also
stated he still is not happy with the Automax issue or the Monticello Ford issue with their
noncompliance with the City's conditions placed on them.
Rod Dragsten addressed the safety issue that Playhouse is concerned with, noting that being
"
-.)-
Planning Commission Minutes - 5/2/00
.
in a B-3 zone there could be any type of business that would create the same type of
pedestrian/vehicle traffic. Dragsten also asked if the City ordinance stated the number of
cars allowed and Steve Grittman stated it does not but the City could limit the number via a
condition of a CUP.
Popilek had questions on setbacks being to the west only and Grittman stated it appears
there needs to be an additional strip of landscaping to the south. The display area did meet
the required setbacks. It was also stated that there would be access from the Playhouse to
the car lot but that it would be buffered and suggested that the same condition would be
placed on the south. The outdoor play area on the south side is strictly secluded to the back
and is in use for at least 6 hours of the day. Ms. Peterson stated they would need
landscaping along the north as well, which would be Dunlo' s south.
The Planning Commission asked Dunlo Motors if the 4,500 sq. ft. condition is a viable
option and they stated it is not. The commissioners asked Grittman if 4,500 sq. ft.
requirement is consistent with other communities and he stated that it is a bit unusual, most
of the ordinances require a minimum commercial building size of 1,000 to 2,000 sq. ft.,
although some require additional square footage for auto service but not as large as 4,500 sq.
ft.
Decision 1: Conditional Use Permit for Auto Sales in a B-3 District
.
ROD DRAGSTEN MOVED TO APPROVE THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
WITH CONDITIONS LISTED BELOW, BASED ON FINDINGS THAT WITH
LANDSCAPING, APPROPRIATE CURBING, AND OTHER CHANGES, THE SITE
IS SUITED TO THE PROPOSED USE:
Conditions:
1. Retain landscaped island north of the building.
2. Install five foot wide landscaped green space along west and south boundary lines, in
accordance with the Zoning Ordinance requirements for parking areas and as
approved by City staff.
3. Install continuous concrete curbing along the west side protecting the landscaping
from the parking area.
4. Total refinishing/re-paving of the entire parking lot.
5. Fencing installed on south side to buffer "The Playhouse" from auto dealer on left side
with a 6 foot fence as approved by City staff.
6. Compliance with 4,500 sq. ft. building regulation or adoption of/modification of an
amendment to the Zoning Ordinance reducing the building size.
DICK FRIE SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED 3 TO 2 WITH
ROBBIE SMITH AND ROY POPILEK VOTING IN OPPOSITION.
Decision 2: Variance to Building Size for Auto Sales in a B-3 District
.
ROBBIE SMITH MOVED TO DENY THE VARIANCE BASED ON A FINDING
THAT THERE IS NO PHYSICAL HARDSHIP IN COMPL VING WITH THE
-4-
Planning Commission Minutes - 5/2/00
ZONING STANDARDS FOR THE PROPOSED USE. ROY POPILEK SECONDED
THE MOTION. Motion carried 4 to 1 with Rod Dragsten voting in opposition.
.
Decision 3: Amendment to the Zoning Ordinance Reducing the Building Size
ROBBIE SMITH MOVED TO DENY AMENDMENT TO THE ZONING
ORDINANCE REGARDING REQUIRED BUILDING SIZE. THERE WAS NO
SECOND TO THE MOTION. Motion did not prevail.
RICHARD CARLSON MOVED TO TABLE ACTION ON THE AMENDMENT,
PENDING ADDITIONAL INFORMATION, NAMEL Y RESEARCHING EXISTING
ORDINANCE AS IT RELATES TO BUILDING SIZE. ROD DRAGSTEN
SECONDED THE MOTION. Motion carried 4 to 1 with Robbie Smith voting in
opposition.
6.
Discussion reeardine an amendment to the comprehensive plan that would convert the Gold
Nugget residential area to industrial uses.
.
Jeff O'Neill stated that the Industrial Development Committee asked the Planning
Commission to re-look at this area and determine if the land use plan should be reviewed
given the interest in converting the use to Industrial. O'Neill also stated that no information
has been compiled at this time. Chair Frie stated the fact that this may not be an appropriate
time to do this while there is court action in process, but O'Neill stated that the City's
planning effort may continue during this process. It should have no effect on the court case.
O'Neill stated they are just looking at an objective study at this point. Roy Popilek stated
that it was a unanimous vote of the Planning Commission previously that this land be
residential. Steve Grittman stated it is legitimate to say that the City looked at this area,
studied it and is confident in their decision. Grittman also stated that the court may ask that
this zoning be changed and stated the more data the City has to base their recommendation
on the better chance they stand in court.
O'Neill states that he will pass this information back to the IDC stating the Planning
Commission is confident in their decision that this area be zoned residential. It was also
stated that earlier this year, the City Council did have the opportunity to direct the Planning
Commission to study a potential amendemnt but felt that there was no need as well.
ROY POPILEK MOVED TO TAKE NO ACTION ON THE GOLD NUGGET ZONING
ISSUE STATING IT IS THE CLEAR CONSENSUS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
TO NOT DIRECT STAFF TO COMPILE A STUDY OF THIS AREA. MOTION WAS
SECONDED BY ROD DRAGSTEN. Motion carried unanimously.
6B. - Morrell Trucking update.
.
Jeff O'Neill states that nothing has been done in regard to this matter. He apologizes for
this. He did remind the members that the City Council had advised staff to proceed with
code enforcement regarding Morrell Trucking. Roy Popilek asked if there was anything the
Planning Commission could do to help direct City Council with staff matters and it was
-5-
.
.
.
Planning Commission Minutes. 5/2/00
stated that there was no need at this point.
Jeff O'Neill also supplied an update on the former Ferrell Gas Site stating the City had
selected a developer and the project is moving forward.
O'Neill stated there would be a special HRA meeting at 5:30 p.m., Wednesday, May 3
regarding downtown redevelopment. Staff is asking that the focus be on the Amoco site.
Jeff O'Neill asked Steve Grittman about our zoning map in regard to the Lafromboise
property. He asked if staff could handle this issue. If the legal description of the
Laframboise property was not include he asked the Planning Commission to hold a public
hearing to make sure this gets handled.
ROBBIE SMITH MOVED TO CALL FOR A PUBLIC HEARING REGARDING THE
LAFRaMBOISE PROPERTY SHOULD IT BE FOUND TO NOT BE INCLUDED IN
THE ZONING MAP. ROD DRAGSTEN SECONDED THE MOTION. Motion carried
unanimousl y.
7. Adiourn.
RICHARD CARLSON MOVED TO ADJOURN THE MEETING AT 9 P.M. ROY
POPILEK SECONDED THE MOTION. Motion carried.
Recording Secretary
-6-
.
.
.
Planning Commission Agenda -06/06/00
5.
Consideration of an amendment to the zoning ordinance for auto sales in the B-3
District allowing for a principal building: smaller than 4.500 square feet. Applicant:
Dunlo Motors. (NAC)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
Dunlo Motors requested that the City consider lowering its standard f()r auto sales principal
building size from 4,500 square feet. Dunlo proposes to occupy the fonner 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. The typical
standard applied in Albertville, Buffalo, Delano, and Big Lake is 1,000 square feet,
applicable to any commercial building. This standard is a common one throughout the Twin
Cities 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.
In discussing the 4,500 square foot regulation in place in Monticello, it is thought that it
relates to the original Peterson Ford site and the size of the building on that property. The
motivation for establishing a minimum building size on commercial property in general, and
auto sales lots in particular, is a concern over the underutilization of commercial real estate,
usually a scarce resource in many communities. The idea is that parcels which arc used ft.1[
auto sales lots may have a tendency to result in minimal investment in property
improvements. Most communities seek the opposite - higher building investments which
result in higher building valuation and property tax revenues, and often greaterjob creation
as well.
I f 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 stafT is the ratio of building to sales lot. It is believed that
Monticello had such a standard prior to the original Peterson Ford development several years
ago. 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 "f100r area ratio" (FAR)
of no less than six percent.
For comparison, the Peterson Ford property contains more than 59,000 square feet of
building space on 6.2 acres. This is 4.6 square feet oflot area per one square foot of building
area, or a FAR of21.8 percent. The ratio is about three and one halftimes the concentration
of building to land area. Even with the additional lot proposed by Peterson Ford, there
would be 7 square feet of lot area per square f()(Jt of building, or aFAR of 14.2 percent.
-1-
.
.
.
Planning Commission Agenda -06/06/00
B.
ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS
1.
Motion to recommend approval of an amendment to the Auto Sales Conditional Use
Permit requirements reducing the minimum building square footage to 2,900 square
feet.
2.
Motion to recommend approval of an amendment to the Auto Sales Conditional Use
Permit requirements changing the building size standard to a lot area to building area
ratio of no more than 16.5 to 1 (a floor area ratio of no less than 6 percent).
"l
-, .
Motion to recommend denial of the amendment, based on a finding that the
minimum standard in the ordinance is reflective of City policy on commercial land
use.
4.
Motion to table action on the amendment, subject to submission of additional
information.
c.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff does not have a specific recommendation on this item. Major auto dealers will often
have large sales lots, but are most often accompanied by major building investments. 'l'hc
Peterson Ford site is an example. If a change is to be made, it may be better to utilize the
ratio requirement to avoid a condition where a very small building could be used to serve a
sales lot of several acres.
D. SUPPORTING DATA
none
-2-
.
.
.
Planning Commission Agenda -06/06/00
6.
Consideration of an amendmcnt to the Conditional Usc Permit conditions for Auto
Salcs in a B-3 District issued to Dunlo Motors. Applicant: Dunlo Motors. (NAC)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
Dunlo Motors is req uesting an amendment to their approved ConditionallJ se Permit to allow
a reduction in the size of the existing landscaped island north of the existing building and
replaccment 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. The statT 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 to replace the fence with a landscaped median to allow more
efTicient 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. It was designed by Wendy's to facilitate traffic flow
around the building, including traffic through the drive-through window area. Any change
would reduce green area and affect trai11c 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 green area, and would likely improve
aesthetics in the area. The child care operators had expressed concern with the condition of
property adjacent to them. However, it has been discovered that there is a strip of land
between the child care facility and the Dunlo site, apparently owned by Peterson Ford and
currently being used for storage. The unsightly nature ofthe area is not related to the Dunlo
site or its proposed use.
B. AL TERNAn VE ACTIONS
I. Motion to recommend approval of the CUP amendment (a) reducing the size of the
existing island; (b) replacing the required fence along the south boundary with a
landscaped median.
2. Motion to recommend denial of the amendment, based on a finding that the original
conditions were necessary to comply with the City's standards for sales lots and
screen the site from the child care center.
3. Motion to table action on the amendment, pending additional information.
-1-
.
Planning Commission Agenda -06/06/00
C.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends approval of the amendment for (h) replacement of the fence with a
landscaped median. This improvement would he more attractive than a fence, and should
he adequate to control traffic and access in the area. Concerns over property condition relate
to a separate parcel unrelated to this use. Staff docs not recommend the amendment for (a)
reduction of the island size as proposed. However, a smaller reduction in the size of the
island could be acceptable. As noted, this area is the primary location of green space within
the sitc and should be retained for that purpose.
D. SUPPORTING DATA
Exhibit A - Proposed Site Plan
.
.
-2-
-.Y
::::
..
.
DUNLO MOTORS INC
Fax:6l25333572
lun 2 2000 8:57
P.Ol
E -,t h ~ ~ " t A.
SOurn I;Nl"~~t.
Otl EAS/iIo1ENT
1_
h/1U / 6fU/}'!iPtA I' t /Je ~i~";
- I'
L 7130 en .5o....l~
r3e v., '\ d ().r~ FENCEtl
OUMPSTER
AAI5A
, , f
Q.FB
'-'"
..
"
...
..
"
.. ..
..
.. ..
lD!SPLA Y
I I I
~~C'r
\').1I u.. f ttf ~
ACw=2J.I","'i'\I~ ~I('
~IL. .,tt" ftI,\
GA./Sr.~~ ~
.. ..
..
.. ..
..
.. ...
..
..
.."..
"
~
.. ..
.. ..
.. "
.. ..
.. ...
...'\.," ..
.. ..
.. .. ..
.. ..
.... ..
... ..
.... ..
a:EEN
S/>/ICE
I
@.::
ffi-
i
CUB
.
'....i
5'
<HiN
SPAai
<.;
r
A,.AC
,Cv.II<<-^-+
, .c'
V' 'Z.e
'-
l brt.t.11 5,J~ -
I r& be redwitd
I bu..t <"'11'0 ll"'ou6~
\ to '" t\ 0'-<.)
..... {f<~#,iC -'''''0\1 L..
"-
" ....IOeSi<nVl
7130.
,I
,. i .,:.
EJ CR!!NSPACe
. EXl$TING MM." AECE$$ED CNoI DOWNLIQHT
EXI$flNG M1l1" WAl,V'ACl( AENOUN1l;O TO WE$T S10l!
SIIII(U.E MH1000 . 206 Fr MI1
lWlN MH1 CIOO - ;M I'T MH
_W._I.S.L P<LE& 0111 m1\IAE& ~~ .!!'lNllWITHElOI11IOO
......':"~,,~~~~
I
o
io
~
G)(t\\b t+ A
SCALE
.00
/l-1/eJUj SO~ p
f(Qdtdft'cv> /1')
6,,-(',., ~fo ( e, -S u <; 4-
eol100~ l., 11:; A I low
Troffi c of 0
c;I~t.u..\",,1€
.
.
.
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 stora1!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 ofT-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 flexibility
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 oiT-site sales use would be
appropriate, subject to additional detail. ^ 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 trom 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
.
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 [rom the island delineator requirement.
As noted above, PlJD 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
.
1.
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 PUO 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, stafT does not recommend approval at this
time. If tabled, the following inf()rmation should be included on a subsequent
submission:
.
1.
2.
"
-'-
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
JIIIIIII--~KfU J
~ ~!"jJ~ J
c j 0 {II "l I tb
o .Y1"it
J I I I I I II I ~ filii ! 0
\
\
\ 0
\~ 2
'\ ~
\' \
\
\
\
j
I \ \
! \ \
!L.=~~-;~~~~_l\
I
I
(Z~ G'::)CI'M.LIt;.)(iiI J,.....~..,... ~ -.c::s....?d .? '~H ...J....~
II
.1----
....
-
..
.
..
..
~...J
/' ...
, \
I I \
, ,
\ ,
\ I
= '... ....,.;
1\
01
L-
.... ....- ,-~
z
WoC;
!::...lI
U>>l!b
r;:::::=
o
o r;:::::=
l ~
~
~ lIO'ot '''J. .1D"'W
~ 'a1't'01Q.".
II
D
\
\
\
-
Planning Commission Agenda -06/06/00
-
8-10. Consideration of an amendment to an Interim lYse Permit to permit the expansion of
a building in the 1-1 District. Applicant: WAG Partnership. (NAC)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
W AU Partnership, owner ofa 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 schoo]
facilities by Interim Use Permit (IUP) a few years ago.
Interim Uses are uses which are intended to occupy propeliy 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.
.-
It should be noted that the property owner does not necessarily need an interim use permit
to expand the building. However, the expansion of the school use triggers the need fe}l" the
amendment. If the City issues the permit amendment allowing the expansion, the applicant
should be f()rewarned that there is no guarantee that the interim use perm it wi II be extended
beyond its planned termination next year. As a result, it is important that the building
expansion is designed so as to easily accommodate occupancy by an industrial use. This
condition was also enf(Jrced at the time of the original IllP.
Ifthe City believes that the use 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 lJ se Permit. 'Thus, the appl icant was also encouraged to apply f()r a text
amcndment and CUP in the I-I District. CUPs are permanent land uses and future
termination and re-use arc 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, Public-Scmi Public
District. The issuc at the time was to control the ability of institutional uscs to consume
industrial land. The City has greater discretion in rezoning actions than it does with
ConditionallJsc Permits.
Regardless of the administrative route chosen, any approval of a permit to allow the
expansion should be accompanied by a series of site improvements as if the use were to be
permanent. A limited waiver of additional site improvements had been granted due to what
-1-
Planning Commission Agenda -06/06/00
was presumed to be the temporary nature of the school's occupancy. The applicant should
be prepared to construct the parking lot in compliance with all ordinance standards, including
paving, perimeter concrete curb, and adequate handicapped facilities. The Building Code
requirements for this occupancy should be verified by the City Building Ot1icial, and Water
and Sewer connection fees should be brought up to date. If the application proceeds as an
amended Interim Use Permit, the applicable conditions from the original permit (attached)
should be incorporated into the extension.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS
Dccision 1: Amendment to the existing Interim Use Permit to expand the building.
1. Motion to recommend approval of the I UP amendment, contingent on the conditions
listed in Exhibit Z, and the applicable conditions from the original permit attached
as Exhibit Y.
2. Motion to recommend denial of the IUP amendment, based on a finding that the use
is intended to be temporary and expansion of the building is inconsistent with that
intent.
3. Motion to table action on the IUP amendment, pending additional information.
If action is taken under Decision 1, Decisions 2 & 3 do not apply (moot).
Decision 2: Amendment of the Zoning Ordinance to change school facilities in the I-I
District from Interim Uses to Conditional Uses.
1. Motion 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.
2. Motion 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.
3. Motion to table action on the ordinance amendment, pending additional information.
Dccision 3: Conditional Use Permit for school use in an I-I District.
1. Motion to recommend approval of the Conditional Use Permit, contingent upon
conditions listed in E:xhibit Z, based on a finding that the use will be compatible with
the long term land uses of the area in which is located.
-2-
Planning Commission Agenda -06/06/00
2. Motion to recommend denial ofthe Conditional Use Permit, based on a finding that
school uses should remain in the PS District as the ordinance currently requires.
3. Motion to table amendment of the zoning ordinance, pending additional information.
c. STAFF RECOMMENDATION
StafT does not recommend approval of the IUP expansion. The City previously elected to
place such uses in thc 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 adoptionofthe
Conditional Use Permit as a permanent land use. l-Iowever, this action would have the same
impact on industrial land use as the IUP. Staff would recommend that the hetter solution
would be to identify a location for the ALP which can be established as a pennanent LIse and
which does not conflict with the industrial development goals stated in the Comprehensive
Plan.
Exhibit A - Site Plan & Aerial View
Exhibit Y - Previous IVP Conditions
Exhibit Z - Proposed IUP/CUP Conditions
-3-
.
<6- 10 "0
')
~
"I
.,J ~
}
.
I ~ ~
0
5
I t:
~
-.I B
-.I
I .... ()
, ..... ~
<:)
.... -J .
~ ts i
~
-J I
0; ~
~
I
g
....
~ \
-
I
I "\
\
I
'"
I \
00'0
0' HJ.nOS
I
I Of
- I
I
I
...
---L
I
I
- 00 OOf .
e
;;--/
~ ~ ~e
~ ~iri ~
1<:""
I c::i ,;;' '< '-J .
~ (rj t< III <:;,
.... l/') c::
~ llJ I1J ro - CI.> I..l '<
&llJ...... 01...> 3lw I--
I ...... ~ "'"-J ......
:::) .0 I1J "-- ~~ ~
l<..c>'lJ t.."--
C>........CI.>O Ci!
l1) . <:;, l/') .c:; ::t'-
I ~c>~llJ""CI.> <:::ICl (J
C>C:~ .c:: l<.. .....
<: ..... l/) ~c:>
Cj c::....I1J.... ~ I
I ......c::i'llJ-. ~~
1---"" llJOlC:'
Q,.:J "-- C'"' (1) lw~ ,
..... c. It) '"-> f2 I
Q:(j)~C l:Jl:l
~ i->lt)....c..l/) l1):! (
I l1)CI.>~ .callJ "<( '- ,
~.c:: .....tlll...>C':: lw~ ~ r
,-8~,",llJC: )-~ ~ l,
c.. c.. i! -.-/ d c
I ~ I.J
~f5 ::i
(J)
'-
I
I
~.......
II" (\"\
~ ~
~ SS
~ ~
~ ~
~ I~
~. ~
~ ~
~.~
'...~...
?
~f
~ ~~
~ ~~
~~ ~ ~
~ ~ ~
~ ~ r
~ t \J\
~ ""\ ~Q
" ~ ~ ~ ~
~ (J~ ~
~ ~ ~ ~ .
~ ~~ ~~I.
~'n.~~~
tJ ~ ~\' ~ ~
~ '\ ~~ ~ ~
~ \ ~~
~ ~ ~ ~\ ~ ~ ~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 1\
~ I)~ ~! ~ ~ ~
~ ''\ ~~~ \)
. \i~ ~
~
~
~.
~
I(
N
~, ~
~
~ \\
~ ~
\
\
I
\.
~
~
~
~
~
~
.
.
.
Monticello Public Schools Turning Point ALP - Conditions of Interim Use Permit (9-7-99)
1. The interim use permit wilJ expire on August 31, 20fH. Extension of the use
of the subject property for public school use beyond the termination date
may only be allowed by re-application to the City.
2. The District agrees to expand the parking area at the direction of the City.
The City will direct expanded parking based on its observation of parking
demand which may cause the use of on-street parking at any time.
3. The use of the subject property will be during normal school hours only.
4. The granting of this interim use permit shall not be effective until after
inspection and approval of the building and property by the City Building
Official.
EXHIBIT Y
. CUP/fUr Conditions for ALP in WAG Partnership Building
1. Construct the parking lot in compliance with all ordinance standards
a. paV1l1g
b. perimeter concrete curb
e. adequate handicapped facilities
2. The Building Code requirements tl)f this occupancy are verified by the City Building Official
3. Watcr and Sewer connection fees are made currcnt, per City Engineer.
4. Compliance with original IUP Conditions as applicable.
5. Compliance with landscaping standards.
.
Exhibit Z - CUP/IUP Conditions of Approval
.
.
.
.
11.
Planning Commission Agenda -06/06/00
Consideration of a request for a simple subdivision affecting Lots 11 and 12. Block 2,
Oakwood Industrial Park. (.10)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
J-I Window Company requests 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.
B. AL TERNA TIVE ACTIONS
1. Motion 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.
2. Motion to recommend denial of the request.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends alternative 1.
D. SUPPORTING DATA
Copy of application and site plan.
-1-
.
CITY OF MONTICELLO
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
250 E. Broadway, PO Box 1147
Monticello, MN 55362
(612) 295-2711
Plannina
Case # Do-olD
PUBLIC HEARING APPLICATION
Check Requested Action;
_ CONDITIONAL USE - $125 + all necessary consulting expenses'"
~ING MAPI TEXT AMENDMENT - $250 + necessary consultip.& expenses*
IMPLE SUBDIVISION - $125 {iIl~ f ~.I) ~~ r"f1 v .,~J )
_ SPECIAL PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING - $2,0
_ SUBDIVISION PLAT - $300 + $100/acre up to 10 acres; $25/acre
after 10 acres + expenses. City will refund excess of per-acre deposit.
_ V ARlANCE REQUEST - $50 for setbackl$125 for others + nec. consult. expenses'"
OTHER - Fee $
Applicant Name:
* NOTE: Necessary consulting fees include cost to have City Planner analyze variance, rezoning, & conditional use permit
requests at the rate of $75/hr. The need for City Planner assistance is determined solely by City staff.
t-\ LJ v'V\dc c; ) en "'" p {'~
8.. ~ Oak......Jccd 0,-, \.~
Business: 7if!,3 - .;J.'9~-; -53oC
.~
13.J.'f
Address:
Phone(Home}
Property Address:
.1 Description of Property:
Lot: II ;- I J...-
(3~tf E ()akuX~ h<"l~
Current Zoning:
; Block:
;;J...
; Subdivision:
OakuJccd 'IV'fu,,>f..r,~i P~t"I'L
Other:
Describe Request:
.,
1
Information provided by t e applicant on this form is true and correct.
5:19/00
Date
Date
Applicant Signature (if applicable)
.
(CONTINUE ON BACK...)
PHapp.han: 12/98
Date Received/Paid: 6-0.....60
Receipt Number:
Public Hearing Dale: ~~
FOR ZONING MAP AMENDMENT ONLY: Proposed Zoning:
FOR SIMPLE SURD [VISION ONLY: Size of parcel to be divided:
5 SC'> I
)c;.
((,3c
.
FOR SUBDIVISION PLAT ONLY: Size of Parcel to be Platted:
Name of Firm Preparing Subdivision Plat:
Street Address:
City: State:
Acres
Zip:
Phone:
FOR VARIANCE ONLY: Please identify the unique property conditions or hardship that exist that justifies granting a variance. A
hardship exists when by reason of property narrowness, shallowness, shape, or exceptional topographic or water conditions, combines
with strict application of the terms of the ordinance result in exceptional difficulties when utilizing the parcel in a manner customary and
legally permissible within the district in which the lot is located.
.
**************************************************************************************************************
(For City Use Only)
COMMENTS:
.
.~. "'"
.'....
. .,._-'........~-,~.,....~ ._..'1,;....... .u. ....__._._ &,~ y__.
':9"j
-~
flfvlOCJ
SfvlflNnfl
!
''''jJ. .....
J.4"7W'A .JI.f'!J
"..
. . . <
~ ~ ~ +'
/ J " ./
'-""
26 "rei
1 S 3/1
- "'-
- - - J."'_'~ - _ -r- _ _ -.:. _ _ ~ '.;.:.;... ~
+'
~
S7.J"'IS !/III"""" 91
snON [Hnll g
'""'-. o,m"III"
""'-. m ~
-"'"'_,,- 8
'-
D'""S ')NI_" .,
<'>...... Z { <'>......
j
i
a
1lOd J.Hf111
~--
,,' .
4,.*'$>/;;>'// 1>V"-''''''',-',;<''IVvr/ ..J:IY,J ~ooo
"lj S "v2=~Nral[na JO IH~r3H
(J'iJHg'3'J"
,
18I ",
-:
~
~ "
~ ~
"~ Il!I
\\ ;;;
;:>
~ .' a
, ~
~
18I~
I
~
~w
I\J
~
LJ 'os 6 'f:91 '9S., DI17l[.JO '13~'1
']N II17 Inl[
~
110aN[11 H
"
J
I
~
at
j
"
,1
!\r\J
.()
f~
I
~-
'Nt ~
~
c.n
o
..
i
~ .
~
UN'"
", .
_I
t
1
I
I
I
I
,n,
b:r" ~st
'"-i
~
...
~ I-
f;
.~,.~:':-:,' =-~::: ,I
-- I Jnn
!:!~
i
i
~
un '9
I
I
;10 :&r