Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Planning Commission Agenda 05-07-2013
REGULAR MEETING MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday, May 7th, 2013 6:00 PM Mississippi Room, Monticello Community Center Commissioners: Chairman William Spartz, Sam Burvee, Brad Fyle, Charlotte Gabler, Grant Sala Council Liaison: Lloyd Hilgart Staff: Angela Schumann, Ron Hackenmueller 1. Call to order 2. Consideration to approve Planning Commission minutes. a. Regular Meeting of April 2nd, 2013 3. Citizen Comments 4. Consideration of adding items to the agenda 5. Public Hearing — Consideration of a request for Variance to front setback for Lot 8 and Part of Lot 9, Original Plat of Monticello Applicant — Rogosheske, John and Dawn 6. Public Hearing - Consideration of a request for Preliminary Plat and Final Plat for the Great River Addition, a commercial subdivision in a B -3 (Highway Business) District and R -3 (Medium - Density) Residential District. Applicant: City of Monticello and RiverWood Bank 7. Public Hearing — Consideration of an amendment to the Monticello Zoning Ordinance, Chapter 4, Section 11 — Building Materials and Chapter 5, Section 1 — Use Table and Section 2 — Use Standards for Convenience Services and Specialty Eating Establishments. 8. Consideration to call for a public hearing for an amendment to the Monticello Comprehensive Plan, Chapter 2 — Community Context and Chapter 4 — Economic Development. 9. Consideration to approve Resolution 2012 -107, recommending action as related to a request for Amendment to the Monticello Zoning Ordinance, Chapter 5, Section 3 — Accessory Uses to allow Machinery /Truck Repair & Sales, Auto Repair — Minor, Auto Repair - Major as Accessory Conditional Uses in the B -3 (Highway Business) District; a Conditional Use Permit for Vehicle Sales /Rental; a Conditional Use Permit for Machinery /Truck Repair & Sales, Auto Repair — Minor and Auto Repair - Minor; Variance to Monticello Zoning Ordinance, Chapter 4, Section 8 - Off - Street Parking Requirements; Variance to Monticello Zoning Ordinance, Variance to Monticello Zoning Ordinance, Chapter 4, Section 1 - Landscaping & Screening Requirements; and a preliminary and final plat for the Maas Addition. 10. Community Development Director's Report 11. Adjourn. MINUTES MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Tuesday, April 2, 2013 - 6:00 PM - Mississippi Room, Monticello Community Center Present: Bill Spartz, Sam Burvee, Brad Fyle, Charlotte Gabler, Grant Sala Absent: Lloyd Hilgart Others: Angela Schumann, Ron Hackenmueller 1. Call to order Commissioner Spartz called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. 2. Consideration to approve Planning Commission minutes a. Regular Meeting of March 5th, 2013 CHARLOTTE GABLER MOVED TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF MARCH 5, 2013. BRAD FYLE SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED 5 -0. 3. Citizen Comments None 4. Consideration of adding items to the agenda a. CUP Extensions 5. Public Hearing - Consideration of an amendment to the Monticello Zoning Ordinance, Chapter 2, Section 4 — Specific Review Procedure & Requirements Staff pointed out that language related to Council action to approve land use applications in two sections of Chapter 2, Section 4 of the Zoning Ordinance had likely been transposed and would require amendment to be in compliance with State Statutes 462.355 Subd. 3 & 462.357 Subd. 2. Chapter 2, Section 4 (A)(4)(b) - Specific Review Procedure & Requirements, Title 10 - Zoning Ordinance, Comprehensive Plan Amendments, City Council should indicate that, "Approval of an amendment shall require the approval of two - thirds of all the members of the City Council, except as may be exempted by State Statute. Chapter 2, Section 4 (B)(4)(b) - Specific Review Procedure & Requirements, Title 10 - Zoning Ordinance and Map Amendments, City Council should indicate that "Approval of an amendment shall require a majority vote of all members of the City Council except for amendments which change all or part of the existing classification of a zoning district from residential to either commercial or industrial, which will require the approval of two - thirds of all the members of the City Council. Planning Commission Minutes — 04/02/13 Bill Demeules opened the public hearing. As there was no public comment, the public hearing was closed. CHARLOTTE GABLER MOVED TO RECOMMEND THAT THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT ORDINANCE #576, BASED ON THE FINDINGS AS STATED IN RESOLUTION #2013 -015. SAM BURVEE SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED 5 -0. 6. Community Development Director's Report City Engineer — Bruce Westby has taken a position as City Engineer for the City of Ramsey after 7 years of service in Monticello. Westby completed many important transportation and infrastructure projects and established a foundation for future projects now in the planning and development stage. Engineering services will be provided by the city's long -time consulting engineering firm, WSB & Associates, during this transition. Comp Plan Update - Community Context & Economic Development — Both the IEDC and the EDA had an opportunity to review and provide input to the proposed update of the Community Context and Economic Development components of the Comprehensive Plan. The Planning Commission will conduct a public hearing related to Comprehensive Plan amendments at its May 7th meeting. Monte Club Hill Update — Staff indicated that there had been some recent interest in the Monti Club site and recommended that the Planning Commission, the Parks Commission and the City Council meet jointly to discuss goals and objectives. Training— Commissioners were invited to register for upcoming planning seminars. Seminars are relatively inexpensive and would be paid through the Planning Commission training budget. Flyers were made available for review. 7. Consideration of Added Items a. CUP Extensions Charlotte Gabler asked about CUPs scheduled to lapse due to non -use unless granted an extension at applicant request. The Planning Commission has annually revisited this issue since market conditions slowed some years ago. Angela Schumann noted that she would provide a specific status report at the next meeting. She indicated that although the Planning Commission had recommended a one year CUP extension for Mills Fleet Farm in June of 2012, the City Council granted Mills a two year extension. 2 Planning Commission Minutes — 04/02/13 8. Adiourn BRAD FYLE MOVED TO ADJOURN THE MEETING AT 6:13 PM. GRANT SALA SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED 5 -0. Recorder: Kerry Burri Approved: May 7, 2013 Attest: Angela Schumann, Community Development Director Planning Commission Agenda: 5/7/13 5. Public Hearing - Consideration of a request for Variance to front setback for Lot 8 and Part of Lot 9, Original Plat of Monticello; PID: 155- 010 - 009080. Applicants: Rogosheske, John and Dawn NAC Property: 6125 th Street West; PID: 155- 010 - 009080 Lot 8 and Part of Lot 9, Original Plat of Monticello The site is located south of 5th Street West between Minnesota and Vine Streets. Planning Case Number: 2013-008 A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: Request(s): Variance to allow a front yard building setback less than 30 feet. Deadline for Decision: June 3, 2013 Land Use Designation: Places to Live Zoning Designation: R -3, Medium Density Residence District The purpose of the R -3, Medium Density Residential District is to provide for medium density housing in multiple family structures ranging up to and including twelve (12) units and directly related, complementary uses. Current Site Use: The site is occupied by a medium density residential dwelling (adult foster care home). Surrounding Land Uses: North: Single Family Residential, BNSF rail line East: Medium Density Residential South: Medium Density Residential West: Medium Density Residential Project Description: The applicants wish to construct a covered porch addition on the front (north) side of the foster care home. An accessible ramp would be constructed within the covered porch. All residents of the foster care home are over 55 years of age and many of these are wheelchair bound. Presently, the only wheelchair ramp upon the property exists in the facility's garage. According to the applicants, the location of the existing ramp poses difficulties in regard to resident mobility as access activities are both difficult and time consuming. The proposed front porch, which would include a new handicap ramp, is intended to address this problem. Presently, the foster care home has a front yard setback of 24 feet. While this setback does not meet the 30 foot setback requirement imposed in the R -3 District, it holds legal grandfather rights. The proposed porch addition would extend 8 feet into the existing front yard and result in a structure setback of 16 feet. The covered porch would extend the entire length of the front building line (78 feet) and be supported by six columns. Ordinance Requirements: Section 2.4(C)(4)(a) of the Zoning Ordinance states that approval of a variance may only be made upon a determination that practical difficulties will result based on all of a certain set of criteria. The criteria, as well as a Staff response, are provided below: (i) The property in question cannot be put to a reasonable use if the provisions of the Ordinance are strictly applied. Staff Response. Presently, the facility's only handicap access ramp exists indoors, within the facility's garage. The applicant's desire to provide a covered, exterior ramp for a foster care home (a permitted use in the applicable R -3 District) is considered reasonable. To be noted is that the need for the variance relates to the applicant's desire to construct a roof over the proposed exterior wheel chair ramp Stoops and stairs are considered an allowed yard encroachment and would therefore not require additional variance. The desire to protect wheelchair -bound residents from adverse weather is also considered reasonable. While land area exists to construct a covered exterior handicap access ramp on the east side of the facility, such construction would negatively impact the off - street parking area which presently exists in this location. As noted in the applicant's narrative, the proposed ramp would also provide a second handicap accessible fire exit for wheelchair bound residents. (ii) The circumstances rendering the property unusable are unique to th e property. 2 Staff Response. The subject property is considered usable as evidenced by past and present site activities. Existing site conditions do however, impose a significant burden and practical difficulty upon facility staff and residents in regard to the transport of wheelchair bound residents. The subject property is unique in that it is occupied by an adult foster care facility with handicap residents. This population results in a routine need for common - carrier transportation such as scheduled vans or drop off /pick up traffic on which such facilities often rely. Other permitted uses in the district typically do not have similar resident transportation needs. In this regard, it is not believed that the granting of the requested variance would establish a poor precedent for similar setback variance requests. The circumstances rendering the property unusable were not created by the owner thereof. Staff Response. The subject property is not considered "unusable" as the foster care use has been in existence for many years. The existing means by which handicapped residents are transported has however, been a significant burden, as noted. (iv) A variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. Staff Response. The proposed building expansion would not alter the character of the area. The proposed setback along 5th Street West (16 feet) would appear to match the setback of the existing detached single family home located to the east. Further, the proposed porch construction would be in character with the abutting detached single family dwellings to the south and east, all of which have front porches. (v) Economic considerations alone shall not constitute a sufficient basis for a Variance if reasonable use for the property exists under the terms of the regulation. Staff Response. It does not appear that the applicant's request for variance relates to economic considerations. Rather, the applicants simply wish to provide a more accessible handicap ramp which happens to be protected from adverse weather by a roof. Pick -up /Drop -off Activities: As noted, the applicant's propose to construct a covered porch on the north side of the building (along 5th Street). Within the covered porch area, a handicap ramp for wheelchair access and egress is to be provided. Some concern exists in regard to the potential use of 5th Street for resident pick -up and drop -off activities. As a condition of variance approval, it is recommended that wheelchair vans utilize the driveway located on the east side of the building (rather than 5th Street) for resident loading activities whenever possible. B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS: Decision 1: Adopting Resolution No. 2013 -033 approving a Variance from the minimum 30 foot front yard setback requirement in the R -3, Medium Density Residential District as requested at 612 5th Street West. 1. Motion to adopt Resolution 2013 - 033 approving the Variance from the minimum 30 front yard setback requirement as proposed in the application of March 29, 2013, contingent on compliance with those conditions specified in Exhibit Z. 2. Motion denying Resolution 2013 - 033 for a Variance from the minimum 30 foot front yard setback requirement as, based upon findings to be made by the Planning Commission, and consistent with those attached to this report in Exhibit Y. 3. Motion to table action on the request, pending additional information as identified by the Planning Commission and staff report. C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff believes that the variance evaluation criteria of the Zoning Ordinance have been demonstrated. The subject property is unique in that it is occupied by an adult foster car use with handicap residents. Most often, other permitted uses in the district do not have similar resident transportation needs. In this regard, the proposal is considered "reasonable" and would not establish a poor precedent for other similar requests. Also, considering that the proposed setback would match the setback of the existing detached single family home located to the east, the proposal would not alter the character of the area. 2 Further, the proposed porch construction would be in character with the abutting detached single family dwellings to the south east, all of which have front porches. For these reasons, Staff recommends approval of the requested variance subject to the conditions listed in attached Exhibit Z. SUPPORTING DATA: A. Resolution 2013 -033 B. Aerial Image C. Zoning Map D. Applicant Narrative E. Site Plan / Survey F. Building Plans G. Site Photographs Y. Exhibit Y - Draft Findings of Denial Z. Exhibit Z - Conditions of Approval 5 CITY OF MONTICELLO WRIGHT COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION NO. 2013 033 Date: May 7, 2013 Motion By: Commissioner Resolution No. 2013 -033 Seconded By: Commissioner A RESOLUTION APPROVING A VARIANCE FROM THE REQUIRED 30 FOOT FRONT YARD BUILDING SETBACK REQUIREMENT UPON A RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY WHEREAS, John and Dawn Rogosheske, the property owners at 612 5th Street West, have requested a variance from the minimum 30 foot front yard setback requirement imposed in the R -3, Medium Density Residential Zoning District; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the application for Variance pursuant to the regulations of the Monticello Zoning Ordinance; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on May 7th, 2013 on the application and the applicant and members of the public were provided the opportunity to present information to the Planning Commission; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has considered all of the comments and the staff report, which are incorporated by reference into the resolution; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Monticello makes the following Findings of Fact in relation to the recommendation of approval: The application is consistent with the 2008 Monticello Comprehensive Plan for Places to Live; and 2. The proposed building addition will meet the intent of the Zoning Ordinance; and 3. The proposed addition improves the function of the site use by providing convenient and sheltered handicap access; and 4. The location of the principal building upon the site creates practical difficulties in complying with the building setback requirement; and 5. Such conditions creating the practical difficulties are unique to the property in question and not created by the applicant; and 2 6. The use is not expected to be detrimental to the health, safety, morals or welfare of persons residing near the use. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the Planning Commission of the City of Monticello, Minnesota: 1. Pursuant to Minn. Stat. §462.357, the application for Variance is hereby approved by the Planning Commission, sitting as the Board of Adjustment and Appeals. 2. Wheelchair van pick -up and drop -off activities shall take place within the subject site's driveway and shall not be allowed within 5th Street West. 3. The porch addition shall match the color and finish materials of the principal building. 4. A building permit shall be received and all requirements imposed by it be satisfied. ADOPTED this 7th day of May 2013, by the Planning Commission of the City of Monticello, Minnesota. ATTEST: Jeff O'Neill, City Administrator MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION an 7 Bill Spartz, Chair Exhibit Y Draft Findings of Fact for Denial 612 5th Street West Variance from 30 foot front Yard Setback Requirement The property has a number of available options to construct a covered handicap ramp which comply with Zoning Ordinance regulations. 2. Options include constructing such ramp in the southeast area of the site, overlaying a portion of the existing driveway. 3. With such options available, there are no practical difficulties in complying with the code. 4. The conditions leading to the variance request (handicap accessibility) is simply an inconvenience as handicap access does presently exist upon the property. 5. Approval of the variance as requested would tend to create a precedent for other property owners requesting similar setback allowances. Exhibit Z — Conditions of Approval 6125 th Street West Variance from 30 foot front Yard Setback Requirement 1. Wheelchair van pick -up and drop -off activities shall take place within the subject site's driveway and discouraged within 5th Street West. 2. The porch addition shall match the color and finish materials of the principal building. 3. A building permit shall be received and all requirements imposed by it be satisfied. 9 O N U O O cd A Q1 O 4-i O O � O O\ Q �Q � a U c� U � N_ •fir �O /T O. U i-+ C� 4-4 O 'C O Mil fop liw E ilk Ln w � C tm at 0 k BASE ZO N Residentia I I \ I \ \ I \ I -- Low Residential Densities � A -0 RA R -1 -- Medium Residential Densities J T -N R -2 R -PUD -- High Residential Densities C R -3 M -H OVERLAY DISTRICTS I � L — — — — _I - -- - IN IN IN - IN - - IN IN - B-1 B-2 U B'3 B -4 CCD City■ onti I Offici I Zonin Ma 9 P I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I � I � I I � I � I L............. I , I , I I , N I I "e I W E V ` I \ I \ S Kam ` \ 1 \ h \ c � \ "441 \ INI INI 4V AWAMI- FA h , ',. ....� F \ \ "441 \ ' • z ,, `. y, El El EIDIED Industrial Districts IBC Performance Based Overlay District Special Use Overlay District 1 =1 1 =2 Mississippi Wild, Scenic & Rec Overlay District Shoreland District Freeway Bonus Sign District OTHER u Water 27iIL mm MEMO MEMO :: :: NINE oily MEMO.... MEMO nmm mmn •. ■ • NIM == :: MEN H ET El Q LL MEMO,_ ,I 85th St NE luMEMO.. .. :: ,I IN milli I I a 03 =01 =13 Narrative for requested Variance St. Andrew's House is an adult foster care home for adults over 55 years old. Many of our residents have mobility issues or are wheel chair bound. Their day -to -day activities require bus transportation like the river rider or handicap busing. Our only wheelchair ramp exit is at the rear of the property in the garage. The time and difficulties the residents face in trying to access the van or bus in the front of the home is both time consuming and difficult on them, especially in bad weather. An additional handicap exit in the front of the building would add a second fire escape exit and allow shelter from inclement weather conditions while waiting for transportation. A covered wheelchair exit would blend into the existing neighborhood, improve safety and mobility of our valued senior population requiring a little assistance to continue functioning as a vital part of our community. \ 8 se ti 1r�iY Air -`PF Sitr7 / T + ti N£L Y CWP. 21" 10 D HOUSES EXIS77NG GARAGE / `p� .�► 70 o � / QP PROPOSED D• \ ,p GARAGE 1 0 B6 . 0. / Iry / ^ Ik, 70 l9 J 0 I % f• 3 �, 21.3 W. BROADWAY P. 0. BOX 179 MON RCELL O. MN 55362 FA u ti 4 / \ CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY FOR J. DESMARAIS CCNST. INC. it GRAPHIC SCALE IN FEET 0 30 60 90 DENOTES: IRON MONUMENT FOUND IRON MONUMENT SET dt CAPPED RLS 15233 LATH ONLY SET C] HUB OR REROD SET DESCRIPTION PER DOC. NO. 916888: Lot 5 and that part of Lot 9, described as follows: Commencing at \ the northeasterly comer of said Lot 9; thence northwesterly along the northeasterly line of said Lot 9, 33 feet; thence southwesterly parallel with the southeasterly line of said Lot 9, 165 feet to the / southwesterly line of said Lot 9; thence southeasterly along said southwesterly line, 33 feet to the southeasterly corner of said Lot 9; thence northeasterly along the southeasterly line of said Lot 9, 165 feet to the point of beginning, all in Block 9, in Town (now City) of Monticello. PARCEL AREA 16,396.3733 S0, FT. ONLY EASEMENTS ON RECORD PLAT ARE SHOWN ON THIS SURVEY UNLESS ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTATION OF OTHER EASEMENTS OF RECORD ARE 6 PROVIDED TO US. NO EXCAVATION OR CONSTRUCTION CAN BEGIN UNTIL THIS PLAN IS APPROVED BY THE LOCAL BUILDING INSPECTOR. LOWEST FLOOR IS SUBJECT TO SUB –SOIL AND WATER TABLE CONDITIONS. REV:10 -03 -07 DRIVEWAY LOC. SUBJECT TO PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAYS AND EASEMENTS OF RECORD IF ANY, NOTE: PRIOR TO ANY EXCAVATION, EXCAVATOR MUST COMPARE SURVEY WITH BUILDING PLAN WITH BUILDER TO VERIFY TYPE OF BUILDING AND FINAL ELEVATION. I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS SURVEY PLAN OR REPORT WAS PREPARED 8Y ME OR UNDER MY DIRECT SUPERVISION AND THAT I AM DULY REGISTERED LAND SURVEYOR UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA. ter'/ 76 -7 -- — ------- - - - - -- ENNIS V. TAYLOR 40.15233 DATE % 3 / 21.3 W. BROADWAY P. 0. BOX 179 MON RCELL O. MN 55362 FA u ti 4 / \ CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY FOR J. DESMARAIS CCNST. INC. it GRAPHIC SCALE IN FEET 0 30 60 90 DENOTES: IRON MONUMENT FOUND IRON MONUMENT SET dt CAPPED RLS 15233 LATH ONLY SET C] HUB OR REROD SET DESCRIPTION PER DOC. NO. 916888: Lot 5 and that part of Lot 9, described as follows: Commencing at \ the northeasterly comer of said Lot 9; thence northwesterly along the northeasterly line of said Lot 9, 33 feet; thence southwesterly parallel with the southeasterly line of said Lot 9, 165 feet to the / southwesterly line of said Lot 9; thence southeasterly along said southwesterly line, 33 feet to the southeasterly corner of said Lot 9; thence northeasterly along the southeasterly line of said Lot 9, 165 feet to the point of beginning, all in Block 9, in Town (now City) of Monticello. PARCEL AREA 16,396.3733 S0, FT. ONLY EASEMENTS ON RECORD PLAT ARE SHOWN ON THIS SURVEY UNLESS ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTATION OF OTHER EASEMENTS OF RECORD ARE 6 PROVIDED TO US. NO EXCAVATION OR CONSTRUCTION CAN BEGIN UNTIL THIS PLAN IS APPROVED BY THE LOCAL BUILDING INSPECTOR. LOWEST FLOOR IS SUBJECT TO SUB –SOIL AND WATER TABLE CONDITIONS. REV:10 -03 -07 DRIVEWAY LOC. SUBJECT TO PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAYS AND EASEMENTS OF RECORD IF ANY, NOTE: PRIOR TO ANY EXCAVATION, EXCAVATOR MUST COMPARE SURVEY WITH BUILDING PLAN WITH BUILDER TO VERIFY TYPE OF BUILDING AND FINAL ELEVATION. I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS SURVEY PLAN OR REPORT WAS PREPARED 8Y ME OR UNDER MY DIRECT SUPERVISION AND THAT I AM DULY REGISTERED LAND SURVEYOR UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA. ter'/ 76 -7 -- — ------- - - - - -- ENNIS V. TAYLOR 40.15233 DATE O a J a z 0 a W �c m W O M a Z a m W U 0 w CL - -- PRODUCED BY AN AUTODESK EDUCATIONAL PRODUCT 1DnaoadldNoavona3 msaoolnd NV Aa a3Dn=ld- -- -! 0 S� C CJ N M 0 a. z 0 a V M 0 W Y W D a z a y m W Q a °ROGUCE©- $X-AN� AJT�DUCATIONAL -PR I m z 0 C n r �.�1 � .�`°' 4 }�4.+ /� ' �- t Planning Commission: 05/07/13 6. Public Hearing - Consideration of a request for Preliminary Plat and Final Plat for the Great River Addition, a commercial subdivision in a B -3 (Highway Business) District and R -3 (Medium - Density) Residential District. Applicant: City of Monticello and RiverWood Bank (NAC) A. REFERENCE & BACKGROUND Staff is requesting that the Planning Commission table action on this item to allow for proper mailed and published notice for the hearing. B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS 1. Motion to table the public hearing to Tuesday, May 21st at 6:00 PM. C. STAFF RECOMMNDATION Staff recommends alternative 1 above. D. SUPPORTING DATA None. Planning Commission Agenda: 05/07/13 7. Public Hearing - Consideration of an amendment to the Monticello Zoning Ordinance, Chapter 4, Section 11— Building Materials and Chapter 5, Section 1— Use Table and Section 2 — Use Standards for Convenience Services and Specialty Eating Establishments. (AS) A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: For ease of review and recommendation, staff has included a resolution and ordinance specific to Chapter 4, Section 11 and a resolution specific to Chapter 5, Sections 1 and 2. Section 4.11 - Building Materials Standards In the recent re- drafting process for the zoning ordinance, a small group of IEDC members was involved in reviewing code changes as they related to industrially zoned properties. Part of their review included building materials standards. In encoding the language for the building materials requirements, a clerical error was made in the final drafting of the text. As such, the regulations may not reflect the small group's direction as related to required materials for industrial districts. The code under Section 4.11 (E) currently reads: (1) In the Industrial and Business Campus District (IBC), the Light Industrial District (I -1) and the Heavy Industrial District (I -2), the following building materials and standards shall apply: (a) Any exposed metal or fiberglass finish on all buildings shall be limited to no more than fifty (50) percent of any one wall if it is coordinated into the architectural design. Any metal finish utilized in the building shall be aluminum of twenty -six (26) gauge steel, the roof slope shall be limited to a maximum of one (1) in twelve (12) slope. (b) All buildings constructed of curtain wall panels of finished steel, aluminum, or fiberglass shall be required to be faced with brick, wood, stone, architectural concrete cast in place or pre -cast panels on all wall surfaces. (2) In the Light Industrial (I -1) and Heavy Industrial (I - -2) districts, the following building materials and standards shall apply: RESERVED Staff believes, based on recollection of the small group's discussion, that section (1) above was intended to apply only to the IBC district. Further, Section (2) for Light and Heavy Industrial Districts was intended to remain "Reserved" until new standards could be developed at a later date by the small group. Planning Commission Agenda – 05/07/13 In summary, the ordinance should have read as follows: In the Industrial and Business Campus District (IBC), the Lig& A ust-Fial Di9tr ; it 1) and the eai , r austr; ! DiqtFiet (r J), the following building materials and standards shall apply. (a) Any exposed metal or fiberglass finish on all buildings shall be limited to no more than fifty (50) percent of any one wall if it is coordinated into the architectural design. Any metal finish utilized in the building shall be aluminum of twenty -six (26) gauge steel, the roof slope shall be limited to a maximum of one (1) in twelve (12) slope. (b) All buildings constructed of curtain wall panels of finished steel, aluminum, or fiberglass shall be required to be faced with brick, wood, stone, architectural concrete cast in place or pre -cast panels on all wall surfaces. 2. In the Light Industrial (I -1) and Heavy Industrial (I -2) districts, the following building materials and standards shall apply: L. -YMMPI For reference, the previous zoning ordinance included no regulation on materials types for I -1 and I -2 industrial districts. Although the Planning Commission could take action on a limited scope corrective amendment as noted above, staff instead requested the assistance of the Industrial and Economic Development Committee (IEDC) to complete a more extensive code review to eliminate the "Reserved" component all together. Draft Ordinance #578 reflects the recommendation of the IEDC small group. The language for materials graduates from less restrictive to more restrictive as the districts progress from heavy industrial (I -2) to Industrial & Business Campus (IBC). The I -2 and I -1 districts still allow for primarily metal buildings, but do require some finish detail for those facades along public rights of way. Due to the combination of both industrial and commercial uses, the IBC district mirrors closely the materials requirements for business district buildings and allows no exterior metal finishes, with the exception of architectural or design detail metal. The IEDC's recommendation related to this language will be provided during the Planning Commission meeting. Section 5.1 (Use Standards) and 5.2 (Use- Specific Standards) as related to Convenience Services and Specialty Eating Establishments In 2012, the City adopted into the zoning ordinance the sub - districts for the Central Community District (CCD) as identified in the Embracing Downtown 2 Planning Commission Agenda — 05/07/13 Plan. As part of the CCD language, the City determined appropriate uses (both permitted and conditional) for each sub - district based on the Embracing Downtown plan's stated goals, as well as the uses' potential impact on the surrounding land uses. In day -to -day usage of the new CCD sub - districts, staff believes that there is a specific use category that warrants additional discussion. "Convenience Service: Retail, Vehicle Fuel, Specialty Food and Drive - Through " are treated as one category of uses within the CCD table (Table 5 -1A), while in the general principal use table (Table 5 -1), the uses within this category are listed separately. Staff would recommend that consistent with Table 5 -1, these uses should be listed separately within CCD Use Table 5 -1A as follows: • Convenience Retail • Vehicle Fuel Sales • Specialty Eating Establishments < 10,000 SF In addition, staff has provided to the Planning Commission a recommendation as related to whether the uses should be permitted, conditionally permitted or not permitted within the CCD sub - districts. Staff's proposal is to allow "Specialty Eating Establishments < 10,000 SF" as a permitted use in the F -1, F -2 and L sub - districts of the CCD, with a CUP required in the F -3 and in all districts for any drive- through use. Further, staff's recommendation would be to allow "Convenience Retail" as a permitted use in the F -2 sub - district, and as a conditional use in all other districts. Vehicle Fuel Sales is recommended as a conditional use permit for the L -8 and F -1 and F -2 sub - districts. Under Section 5.2 - Use - Specific Standards, Convenience Services and Specialty Eating Establishments are therefore proposed to be amended to include the following requirements. These requirements are included in the existing code under "Convenience Services: Retail, Vehicle Fuel, Specialty Food and Drive - Through Facilities ". With the separation of the uses, these standards will be added to requirements for the pre- existing "Convenience Retail" and "Specialty Eating Establishments" uses. The "Vehicle Fuel Sales" use includes existing requirements related to the CCD. Section 5.2(F)(10) will be deleted entirely and the sub - section numbers re- ordered accordingly. In the CCD, F -1 sub - district, the following conditions shall apply: (a) Building architecture shall be designed to reflect retail street -level architecture as defined in the City's Comprehensive Plan, and detailed in the document "Embracing Downtown Monticello. " Planning Commission Agenda — 05/07/13 (b) Site planning shall maximize building exposure to the street. (c) Drive- through facilities shall be approved by conditional use permit and shall be located to minimize their exposure to the street. (d) Accessory structures, including canopies, menu boards, pay windows, and other structures supporting drive - through functions shall be constructed of materials to match those of the principal building. (e) Site planning shall be designed to emphasize connections to pedestrian facilities. Staff's recommended changes to the existing code for Convenience Services and Specialty Eating Establishments are detailed in the draft ordinance #579 with supporting data. The Embracing Downtown's purpose statements for each sub - district, the map for the sub - districts, and the ordinance definition for each use is included with the report as supporting data. B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS: Decision 1: Resolution 2013 -031 recommending approval of an amendment to the Monticello Zoning Ordinance, Chapter 4, Section 11 — Building Materials 1. Motion to adopt Resolution 2013 -031, recommending approval of Ordinance #578, and Ordinance amending Title 10 of Monticello Zoning Ordinance Section 4.11(E) — Building Materials, based on findings in said resolution. 2. Motion of other. Decision 2: Resolution 2013 -034 recommending approval of an amendment to the Monticello Zoning Ordinance, Chapter 5, Section 1 — Use Table and Section 2 — Use Standards for Convenience Services and Specialty Eating Establishments 3. Motion to adopt Resolution 2013 -034, recommending approval of Ordinance #579, and Ordinance amending Title 10 of Monticello Zoning Ordinance Chapter 5, Section 1 — Use Table and Section 2 — Use Standards for Convenience Services and Specialty Eating Establishments, based on findings in said resolution. 4. Motion of other. 2 Planning Commission Agenda — 05/07/13 C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends adoption of the resolutions supporting the ordinance amendments. In respect to Decision 1, staff believes that the City, with assistance from the IEDC, should amend the code to address building materials standards for each of its industrial districts. Doing so is in the interest of providing clear and definitive guidance to industrial users and prospects As related to Decision 2, the separation of convenience - related uses is consistent with the treatment of the three use categories within the overall code and allows both greater flexibility and discretion in where each of the uses is allowed in the CCD. D. SUPPORTING DATA: A. Resolution 2013 -031 B. Ordinance #578 (Draft) C. Resolution 2013 -034 D. Ordinance #579 (Draft) E. Monticello Zoning Ordinance, 4.11(E), existing F. Monticello Zoning Ordinance, 3.5 (G), Figure 3 -3 G. Monticello Zoning Ordinance, 5.1 and 5.2, existing H. Monticello Zoning Ordinance, 8.4 5 CITY OF MONTICELLO WRIGHT COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION NO. 2013-031 Date: May 7th, 2013 Resolution No. 2013 -031 Motion By: Seconded By: A RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING AMENDMENT OF TITLE 10 OF THE MONTICELLO CITY CODE, KNOWN AS THE ZONING ORDINANCE, BY AMENDING CHAPTER 4.11 — BUILDING MATERIALS WHEREAS, the City of Monticello has adopted a zoning ordinance providing for the regulation of land uses in various zoning districts; and WHEREAS, the zoning ordinance regulations requires additional performance standards to ensure compatible, compliant industrial; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has conducted a public hearing on May 7th, 2013 to review the request and receive public comment on the proposed amendment; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Monticello finds that the amendments to the zoning ordinance will be consistent with the Comprehensive land use plan; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Monticello finds that the amendment to Chapter 4, Section 11 supports the zoning ordinance purpose statement for industrial districts, specifically as related to the creation of suitable environments for various types of industrial uses; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the Planning Commission of the City of Monticello, Minnesota: The Planning Commission recommends that the City Council adopt the zoning ordinance amendment in Ordinance No. 578. ADOPTED this 7th day of May 2013, by the Planning Commission of the City of Monticello, Minnesota. MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION M. ATTEST: William Spartz, Chair Angela Schumann, Community Development Director 14 Y Y U 1� cd O o cd z o � ct wz ti i 10. �Co o Cd U z � U 0 U r°" a4 0� 14 Y Y ti � r°" a4 0� •� Y O � o � U Y a n p Qn C V y O w Qt o Y y w° N - y ., vim.. Y ti O p O S tot, K O ? N O O � A � C U v i � o w C rot o Qon w V s � 0 Y Qo� O 0� Y d U O � C V V ° n IV 2 U Y 0� i y t2 V O ti O � � Ir •V -°ixo O V V U N O O d i w C S Y Qo� O 0� Y d V w � � Ir •V -°ixo U ( O •� � � O O U •V O fi •+.. Y; .� O y O C' OZ O •" ? U 4i Lt • V 1 V) V •� •z � O y O d C O ti C r \ � •� � O., Q CY C y `r O O o� w Y Qo� O 0� Y d w � � Ir •V U ( O •� � � O O U •V •N �a EO N N an 0 A O C* I 1, CITY OF MONTICELLO WRIGHT COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION NO. 2013-034 Date: May 7th, 2013 Resolution No. 2013 -034 Motion By: Seconded By: A RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING AMENDMENT OF TITLE 10 OF THE MONTICELLO CITY CODE, KNOWN AS THE ZONING ORDINANCE, BY AMENDING CHAPTER 5, SECTION 1— USE TABLE AND SECTION 2 — USE STANDARDS FOR CONVENIENCE SERVICES AND SPECIALTY EATING ESTABLISHMENTS WHEREAS, the City of Monticello has adopted a zoning ordinance providing for the regulation of land uses in various zoning districts; and WHEREAS, the zoning ordinance regulations requires additional performance standards to ensure compatible, compliant commercial development; and WHEREAS, the City of Monticello has adopted a zoning ordinance including regulations for the uses and development of its downtown area; and WHEREAS, the City of Monticello has found that certain amendments to the zoning regulations affecting the downtown area will benefit the intent of the regulations; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Monticello finds that the amendment to Chapter 5, Sections 1 and 2 supports regulations for compatible uses and development within the Central Community District; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the Planning Commission of the City of Monticello, Minnesota: The Planning Commission recommends that the City Council adopt the zoning ordinance amendment in Ordinance No. 579. ADOPTED this 7th day of May 2013, by the Planning Commission of the City of Monticello, Minnesota. MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION ATTEST: William Spartz, Chair Angela Schumann, Community Development Director I: ; ZI I 'C3 � N � C3 m rA V) r cn 0 Q � U N cn Q H � �o cd JO zc) ' �O N O, M �O "0 jr_4 N ry N N N N N N N ry N ry �r1 L Ln h V1 i.l1 Vj �/1 V1 i.l1 yj Vj Lfj a � O N o U � L a) a) Z a I— a) i a 3 a) a) a) a) bA a) G 0 Z w O O O O` c c a+ U c c Q� c c O N Z Z) .� N U LZ J Q rl u u u Cp u a u u u u u U a U U u u a u U uV U a U CL a u a a a U u a a U a LL - U a U (� a u a a U CL U U a .0 LL LL LL. 41 `d cn cn H v o o O L v Y O O O L L _ f_C — — O LL vN d � Q ao v n • Q J H V L a) (d V L td m L rci m V •« +y+ — •U _ = c _RR _ 0 U W 4+ I •al I S,U c O CL C fd L fd 0 L L Q _ c C G ! a) V -V L cc+ u a) V 'a L V o o L' c O +� v H H V ai �,, � U U U Li F O� 02 c2 a Vn W>> ce� 'I I R 'I N c Q Z N J Q Z N J a� O C ri J a u u u N b0 u u u u u u to LL Z;C 0 O I— LL C in Q I C I C I C I C a c L 7 0 m a N Cd F A 4 O .Y Q 7P O U Cd 'C ss, a H C U N At ,t3 b al cd U ti •� pr 0 w � O N� v� Ln •,,, O 'O � "O w Qt Z ~ y O O p Lt C C4 N c�i� s0� Cj Qt r O p •y U cz W c a •°�;' � cd U 0) O ' � y Oi +- U cd GO .Q A •.�, a � � �o � .ao � o � cz U •o �w 4 to cd ri G O V UOIM .'� '>1 O N 4r O c+i C O V U N an � O7:3 v a3 O ,c bA Q. W ^ bA Op N cd N � U N cn '^ O N .. En 0 'd +! a� O bA 2 cd cd N ~N O" 0 O O cl — O cdun O O4-4 O U � � spy •.d � O v� S�-� s, .— 4 O U `+'4 cd t- 00rn o cd `d y Q) o to •d v c Cd cd cC UO O to 0 N N U Cd to41 vUi V1 y > O O 5 C411 5 sO Q, _ O s. O O bA O bA S s b .'y y 7y r-1 V1 14-1 GO U N At ,t3 b al cd U ti •� pr 0 w � O N� v� Ln •,,, O 'O � "O w Qt Z ~ y O O p Lt C C4 N c�i� s0� Cj Qt r O p •y U cz W c a •°�;' � cd U 0) O ' � y Oi +- U cd GO .Q A •.�, a � � �o � .ao � o � cz U •o �w 4 to cd ri G O V UOIM .'� '>1 O N 4r O c+i C O V U cz 0 75 U � U � � O CLI 03 moo~ o ¢UU o O � O Cd ' �i cqj U d C° 0 4-4 � o � cq3 0 U � U to � O on 9 O � N 0 c� cn o m WON DO H CHAPTER 4: FINISHING STANDARDS Section 4.12 Wind Energy Conversion Systems (WECS) Subsection (A) Purpose (4) Metal exterior finishes shall be permitted only where coordinated into the overall architectural design of the structure, such as in window and door frames, mansard roofs or parapets, and other similar features, and in no case shall constitute more than 15% of the total exterior finish of the building. (5) Building Materials and Design for the CCD District: All buildings within the CCD shall meet the materials and design standards of the Comprehensive Plan as defined by the report "Embracing Downtown Monticello," Appendix B, Design Guidelines, as well as the standards in Section 4.11 of this ordinance. (E) Industrial Requirements (1) In the Industrial and Business Campus District (IBC), the Light Industrial District (1 -1) and the Heavy Industrial District (I -2), the following building materials and standards shall apply: (a) Any exposed metal or fiberglass finish on all buildings shall be limited to no more than fifty (50) percent of any one wall if it is coordinated into the architectural design. Any metal finish utilized in the building shall be aluminum of twenty -six (26) gauge steel, the roof slope shall be limited to a maximum of one (1) in twelve (12) slope. (b) All buildings constructed of curtain wall panels of finished steel, aluminum, or fiberglass shall be required to be faced with brick, wood, stone, architectural concrete cast in place or pre -cast panels on all wall surfaces. (2) In the Light Industrial (I -1) and Heavy Industrial (I -2) districts, the following building materials and standards shall apply: RESERVED (F) Institutional Requirements All institutional uses shall adhere to the building materials requirements spelled out for commercial districts in Section 4.11(D) above. Page 286 City of Monticello Zoning Ordinance _, --7— Landmark Areas: L -1 Public Parking Ramp L -2 River Oriented Shopping L -3 Cargill Site L-4 Community Center Site L -5 Riverfront Park L-6 Future Public Open Space L -7 Permanent Public Open Space L -8 Freeway Retail (B-4 Zoning Standards) Flex Areas: F -1 Shopping Area West of Hwy 25 F-2 Convenience and Services F -3 Transition Corridors: 1 Broadway Street 2 Walnut Street 3 Highway 25 / Pine Street Figure 22 — Design Guidelines Use Areas 53 CHAPTERS: USE STANDARDS Section S. I Use Table Subsection (A) Explanation of Use Table Structure TABLE 5- 1 A: Permitted Use Types Conditionally -. Permitted Indoor Commercial Recreation COMMUNITY CENTRAL Sub-Districts A] F-3 P P C Exceptions i C none Additional Requirements 5.2 F 12 Outdoor Commercial Recreation C C none 5.20(1 3) Medical / Clinical Services C P P P L -2: NA first floor, CUP upper floors 5.2 F 19 Restaurants, Bars < 10,000 SF P P C C none 5.2(JF 26� Restaurants, Bars > 10,000 SF P C C none 5.20(26) Commercial Lodging P P C none 5.2(Fl(71 Convenience Services: Retail, Vehicle Fuel, Specialty Food, Drive - Through C P* C *F -2 Drive Through by CUP 5.2(F)(9) 5.2(F)(28) 5,20(29) Places of Public Assembly C C C C none 5.2 F 23 Veterinary Facilities C P C C none 5.2 F 31 Commercial Day Care C C C C none 5.2 F 12 Funeral Services C C none 5.2 F 16 Residential —Upper Floors P P P P L -2: NA Residential — Street Level C C L -2: NA Residential — Multiple Family C C L -2: NA Residential — Townhouse C none Residential — Single Family C none Industrial PUD L -3: PUD Only Public Buildings or Uses C C C P none Page 308 City of Monticello Zoning Ordinance CHAPTERS: USE STANDARDS Section S.2 Use - Specific Standards Subsection (F) Regulations for Commercial Uses (i) The principal building lot coverage is no less than fifty (50) percent of the property, exclusive of easements devoted to public pedestrian use or other outdoor public spaces. (ii) The building, site, and signage meet the standards for the "CCD" district and design review is conducted by the Planning Commission. (iii) The proposed use demonstrates compatibility and consistency with the City's Comprehensive Plan and the Downtown Revitalization Plan. (8) Communications / Broadcasting All communication antennas, antenna support structures and satellite dishes shall Section 5.3: Accessory Use adhere to the applicable accessory use requirements for such outlined in Section standards 5.3 of this ordinance. (9) Convenience Retail In the B -1 zoning district, the following conditions shall apply: (a) The site is adequately served by a collector street. (b) Access point to the site shall be limited to a collector street. (c) Conformity with the surrounding neighborhood is maintained. (d) Adequate screening and landscaping from neighborhood residential districts is provided in accordance with this ordinance. (e) Traffic generated by the proposed use does not exceed the capacity of surrounding streets and intersections to accommodate it. (f) The site shall conform to parking requirements as provided in this ordinance. (g) Building setback from residential uses must be 30 feet or greater. (h) Parking lot setback from residential uses must be 15 feet or greater. (i) The site shall conform to signage requirements as recommended by the City. At no time shall the signage exceed the requirements as provided in this ordinance. (j) The site shall conform to lighting requirements as provided in this ordinance. The lighting shall be restricted to be consistent with the hours of operation, within one half hour of open and close times. (k) The hours of operation shall be limited to 6:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m. Page 328 City of Monticello Zoning Ordinance CHAPTERS: USE STANDARDS Section S.2 Use - Specific Standards Subsection (F) Regulations for Commercial Uses (c) In the CCD, F -2 sub - district, the following conditions shall apply to retail sales accessory services: (i) Accessory service shall occupy no more than 40 percent of the main floor of any building. (ii) Service may include activities that support the retail sales of goods on the premises, including repair, fabrication, rental, assembly, shipping, or similar activities. (iii) Service activities may occur as an entity separate from retail sales, but shall meet the requirements of this section. (28) Specialty Eating Establishments (a) Drive through service, if approved as an accessory use within the applicable district, shall be located to the side or rear of the building whenever feasible. (b) For all specialty eating establishments, if the establishment (building) or outdoor seating area is located within 300 feet of a residential zoning district, the following standards shall apply: (i) The use shall require authorization through a conditional use permit. (c) Restaurants having outdoor seating (including, but not limited to, seating for dining or listening to live or recorded acoustic or amplified entertainment outside of the building) shall comply with the following standards: (i) The outdoor portions of the restaurant shall not operate after 10:00 P.M. (ii) The outdoor seating area shall not obstruct the movement of pedestrians along sidewalks or through areas intended for public use. (29) Vehicle Fuel Sales: (a) Regardless of whether the dispensing, sale, or offering for sale of motor fuels and/or oil is incidental to the conduct of the use or business, the standards and requirements imposed by this ordinance for motor fuel stations shall apply. These standards and requirements are, however, in addition to other requirements which are imposed for other uses of the property. (b) Wherever fuel pumps are to be installed, pump islands shall be installed. (c) All signing and informational or visual communication devices shall be Section 4.5: Signs minimized and shall be in compliance with Section 4.5 of this ordinance. (d) Provisions are made to control and reduce noise. Page 336 City of Monticello Zoning Ordinance CHAPTERS: USE STANDARDS Section S.2 Use - Specific Standards Subsection (F) Regulations for Commercial Uses (e) If in the CCD District, the following standards shall also apply: (i) The design of the site promotes pedestrian access adjacent to and along the property. (ii) No more than two (2) curb cuts of twenty -four (24) feet in width or less shall be permitted. (iii) Site lighting shall utilize fixtures similar in style to that designated by the City for use in public areas of the "CCD" district. (iv) The building, site, and signage meet the standards for the "CCD" district and design review is conducted by the Planning Commission. (v) The proposed use demonstrates compatibility and consistency with the City's Comprehensive Plan and the Downtown Revitalization Plan. (30) Vehicle Sales or Rental (a) The minimum building size for any vehicle sales or rental use shall comply with the standards in Table 5 -3. TABLE 5 -3: MINIMUM BUILDING SIZE FOR VEHICLE SALES /RENTAL USES Parcel Size Lot Coverage Percent * Minimum Building Size 2,500 square feet 1'. 10,000 square feet 40,000 square feet * Whichever requires the larger building Section 4.1(G): (b) When abutting a residential use, the property shall be screened with an opaque Standards for buffer (Table 4 -2, Buffer Type "D ") in accordance with section 4.1(G) of this Perimeter Buffers ordinance. (c) All lighting shall be in compliance with Section 4.4 of this ordinance. (d) The outside sales and display area shall be hard surfaced. (e) The outside sales and display area does not utilize parking spaces which are required for conformance with this ordinance. (f) Vehicular access points shall create a minimum of conflict with through traffic movement and shall be subject to the approval of the Community Development Department. (g) There is a minimum lot area of twenty -two thousand five hundred (22,500) square feet and minimum lot dimensions of one hundred fifty (150) feet by one hundred thirty (13 0) feet. City of Monticello Zoning Ordinance Page 337 CHAPTERS: RULES & DEFINITIONS Section 8.4 Definitions Subsection (B) Lots CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY: A disturbance to the land that results in a change in the topography, or the existing soil cover (both vegetative and non - vegetative). Examples of construction activity may include clearing, grading, filling and excavating. CONSTRUCTION TRAILER: Trailers used as temporary offices to meet a short-term need while the permanent facilities are being expanded. A temporary use permit is required for such office trailers CONVENIENCE RETAIL: A retail store not more than 4,000 square feet in area that generally carries a reduced inventory of a variety of items such as dairy products, minor automobile related items, groceries, novelties, magazines, etc. A convenience store may be combined with vehicle fuel sales where permitted. COOPERATIVE (HOUSING): A multiple family attached dwelling owned and maintained by the residents. The entire structure and real property is under common ownership as contrasted to a condominium dwelling where individual units are under separate individual occupant ownership. COUNTRY CLUB: A membership club or business organized and operated primarily to provide recreational activities such as golf, swimming, tennis, and other outdoor recreation to its members and their guests which includes facilities such as a club house, banquet areas, locker rooms, and pro shop. COURT: An unoccupied open space other than a yard which is bounded on two (2) or more sides by the walls of the buildings. CREMATORY: A facility containing furnaces for the reduction of dead bodies to ashes by fire. DAY CARE - HOME: (see definitions for "Group Residential Facility "). DAY CARE CENTER: A service provided to the public in which children of school or preschool age are cared for during established business hours, and which does not qualify as a group residential facility. DECIDUOUS TREE: A tree that generally loses all of its leaves for part of the year. DECK: A horizontal, unenclosed platform with or without attached railings, seats, trellises, or other features, attached or functionally related to a principal use or site at any point extending above grade. City of Monticello Zoning Ordinance Page 417 CHAPTER 8: RULES & DEFINITIONS Section 8.4 Definitions Subsection (B) Lots SITE LANDSCAPING: Required vegetative material consisting of trees and shrubs that are placed on a development site to soften built edges and provide transitions. [See Section 4.1 H)] SHOPPING CENTER: An integrated grouping of commercial stores under single ownership or control. See also "RETAIL COMMERCIAL USES" SLOPE: Means the degree of deviation of surface from the horizontal, usually expressed in percent or degrees. SOLAR ENERGY: Radiant energy (direct, diffuse, and reflected) received from the sun. SOLAR ENERGY SYSTEM: A set of devices whose primary purpose is to collect solar energy and convert and store it for useful purposes including heating and cooling buildings or other energy -using processes, or to produce generated power by means of any combination of collecting, transferring, or converting solar - generated energy. SPECIALTY EATING ESTABLISHMENTS: Establishments selling specialty food items that normally do not constitute a full meal, including but not limited to: ice cream parlors, dessert cafes, snack shops, juice and coffee houses, and bakeries. STABILIZATION / STABILIZED: The exposed ground surface has been covered by appropriate materials such as mulch, staked sod, riprap, wood fiber blanket, or other material that prevents erosion from occurring. Grass seeding is not stabilization. STABLE: A building in which horses are sheltered; may be accessory to a residential or other use or a freestanding principal use. START OF CONSTRUCTION: The first land - disturbing activity associated with a development, including land preparation such as clearing, grading, excavation and filling; STEEP SLOPE: Land where agricultural activity or development is either not recommended or described as poorly suited due to slope steepness and the site's soil characteristics, as mapped and described in available county soil surveys or other technical reports, unless appropriate design and construction techniques and farming practices are used in accordance with the provisions of this ordinance. Where specific information is not available, steep slopes are lands having average slopes over 12 percent, as measured over horizontal distances of 50 feet or more, which are not bluffs. City of Monticello Zoning Ordinance Page 443 CHAPTER 8: RULES & DEFINITIONS Section 8.4 Definitions Subsection (B) Lots VEHICLE FUEL SALES: Buildings and premises where gasoline, oils and greases, batteries, tires and automobile accessories may be supplied and dispensed at retail (or in connection with a private operation where the general public is excluded from use of facilities), and where in addition, the following services may be rendered and sales made, and no other: • "Automotive Repair – minor" as defined by this ordinance • Sales of cold drinks, packaged foods, tobacco, and similar convenience goods for filling station customers, as accessory and incidental to principal operation; • Provision of road maps and other informational material to customers; and • Provision of restroom facilities. Uses permissible at a vehicle fuel sales establishment do not include "Automobile Repair – major" as defined by this ordinance, major mechanical and body work, straightening of body parts, painting, welding, storage of automobiles not in operating condition, or other work involving noise, glare, fumes, smoke or other characteristics to an extent greater than normally found in filling stations. VEHICLE SALES OR RENTAL: Establishments primarily engaged in the retail sale of new and used—in operating condition automobiles, noncommercial trucks, motor homes, recreational vehicles or farm machinery; including incidental storage, maintenance, and servicing. VEHICLE STORAGE: The act of keeping a recreational or commercial vehicle as defined herein on a parcel in an eligible storage location for an extended period of time without regular use, and with proper surfacing or maintenance of the groundcover as required. VEHICULAR USE AREA LANDSCAPING, INTERIOR: Vegetative material, structures (walls or fences), berms, and associated ground cover located within the interior of a parking lot, or other vehicular use area for the purposes of providing visual relief and heat abatement. [See Section 4.1(F)] VEHICULAR USE AREA LANDSCAPING, PERIMETER: Vegetative material, structures (walls or fences), berms, and associated ground cover located around the perimeter of a parking lot, or other vehicular use area when such areas are adjacent to a street right -of -way or land in a residential district or residentially developed lands, used property for the purposes of screening the vehicular use area from off -site views. [See Section 4.1(F)] VETERINARY FACILITIES – RURAL: An establishment for licensed practitioners engaged in practicing veterinary medicine, dentistry, or surgery for all animals. VETERINARY FACILITIES – NEIGHBORHOOD: An establishment for licensed practitioners engaged in practicing veterinary medicine, dentistry, or surgery for small household pets only. Page 448 City of Monticello Zoning Ordinance Planning Commission Agenda: 05/07/13 8. Consideration to call for a public hearing for amendments to the Monticello Comprehensive Plan, Chapter 2 — Community Context, Chapter 3- Land Use and Chapter 4 — Economic Development. (AS) A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: The Planning Commission is asked to call for a public hearing for the purpose of review and adoption of amendments to Chapters 2, 3 and 4 of the Monticello Comprehensive Plan. Monticello's Comprehensive Plan identifies the need for an annual review to ensure that it remains a relevant planning document for Monticello's growth policies. The Planning Commission has completed these annual reviews, focusing on Chapter 3, the Land Use Plan. However, for 2013, staff had recommended that Chapter 2 (the Community Context section) of the plan be updated to include more recent data, including 2010 Census info. This data provides an important perspective on the complexion of the community and sets a frame of reference for land use policy. Also, as the Parks, Transportation and Land Use chapters have been updated with recently adopted plans, the Commission also asked for a more focused review of the Economic Development Chapter, as we reach the 5 -year mark for the plan. For a more inclusive review process, two members of the Planning Commission have been joined by two members of the IEDC and one member of the EDA. The City Council has also been invited to participate. Commissioners Fyle and Gabler were the Planning Commission's designated representative to the group. The small group has concluded their work and amendments to Chapter 2 — Community Context, Chapter 3- Land Use and Chapter 4 — Economic Development have been drafted for review. The IEDC and EDA have each reviewed the draft amendments and unanimously recommend their approval. As such, the Commission is now asked to consider the amendments and must call for a public hearing in order to do so. B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS: Motion to call for a public hearing on June 0', 2013 for amendments to the Monticello Comprehensive Plan, Chapter 2 — Community Context, Chapter 3- Land Use, and Chapter 4 — Economic Development. 2. Motion of other. C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends alternative 1. Planning Commission Agenda: 05/07/13 A SUPPORTING DATA: None. Planning Commission Agenda: 05/07/13 9. Consideration to annrove Resolution 2012 -107. recommending action as related to a request for Amendment to the Monticello Zoning Ordinance, Chapter 5, Section 3 — Accessory Uses to allow Machinery /Truck Repair & Sales, Auto Repair — Minor, Auto Repair - Manor as Accessory Conditional Uses in the B -3 (Highway Business) District; a Conditional Use Permit for Vehicle Sales /Rental; a Conditional Use Permit for Machinery /Truck Repair & Sales, Auto Repair — Minor and Auto Repair - Minor, Variance to Monticello Zoning Ordinance, Chapter 4, Section 8 - Off - Street Parking Requirements; Variance to Monticello Zoning Ordinance, Variance to Monticello Zoning Ordinance, Chapter 4, Section 1 - Landscaping & Screening Requirements; and a preliminary and final plat for the Maas Addition. (AS) A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: The Planning Commission previously took action on this item, recommending denial of all requests, with the exception of a recommendation to approve vehicle sales and vehicle repair by conditional use permit. A resolution for the requests had been prepared for the Commission as part of the staff report, but that resolution included language for approval of all requests. As such, a revised resolution reflecting the Commission's varying recommending action needed to be prepared and adopted. The resolution was prepared, but was not formally adopted by the Commission. As a housekeeping matter, Commission is now asked to adopt the Resolution 2012 -007 which supports the motions made by the Planning Commission in December of 2012. As a side note, the City Council ultimately approved each of the stated requests and Maas Automotive has moved forward with their development as proposed. B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS: 1. Motion to adopt Resolution 2012 -107 2. Motion of other. C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends alternative 1. D. SUPPORTING DATA: A. Resolution 2012 -107 B. Planning Commission Minutes, December 5 th, 2012 CITY OF MONTICELLO WRIGHT COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION NO. 2012 - 107 Date: December 4, 2012 Motion By: Resolution No. 2012 -107 Seconded By: A RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL TAKES THE FOLLOWING ACTIONS: (1) DENIAL OF ADOPTION OF AN AMENDMENT TO THE MONTICELLO CITY CODE, TITLE 10 — MONTICELLO ZONING ORDINANCE FOR ACCESSORY USE AUTO REPAIR — MAJOR BY CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, ACCESSORY USE AUTO REPAIR — MINOR BY CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, ACCESSORY USE MACHINERY /TRUCK REPAIR & SALES BY CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT; (2) APPROVAL OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS FOR VEHICLE SALES & RENTAL, ACCESSORY USE AUTO REPAIR — MAJOR, ACCESSORY USE AUTO REPAIR — MINOR; (3) DENIAL OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR ACCESSORY USE MACHINERY /TRUCK REPAIR & SALES; (4) DENIAL OF THE MAAS ADDITION PLAT. AND FURTHER TAKES THE FOLLOWING ACTION AS THE MONTICELLO BOARD OF ZONING ADJUSTMENTS AND APPEALS: (5) DENIAL OF VARIANCES TO MONTICELLO CITY CODE, TITLE 10 — MONTICELLO ZONING ORDINANCE, SECTION 4.1— LANDSCAPING AND 4.8 - OFF - STREET PARKING WHEREAS, Bedrock Motors and its representatives have requested a plat, amendments to the zoning ordinance for truck sales and repair and automotive repair, conditional use permits for automobile and truck repair and sales, and variances to occupy the property at 3887 Chelsea Road; and WHEREAS, said property is zoned B -3, Highway Business District; and WHEREAS, automotive repair uses within the B -3 zoning district, and are consistent with the intent and requirements of the zoning ordinance and comprehensive plan; and WHEREAS, truck sales and repair uses are most compatible with the Industrial districts in the City, and not in the Business District; and WHEREAS, the occupancy of the property may be accomplished in conformance with applicable zoning regulations, including such regulations exempting the applicants from complying with building materials standards when such buildings are not being expanded; and WHEREAS, the plat and related submissions indicate that the property is generally in compliance with size requirements of the zoning ordinance; and WHEREAS, additions of landscaping and curb are necessary to comply with the zoning ordinance requirements for commercial property in this district; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Monticello finds that the proposed uses of the property will not be consistent with the Comprehensive land use plan without compliance with all zoning standards and requirements; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has conducted a public hearing on December 4, 2012 to review the requests and receive public comment on the rezoning; WHEREAS, the Planning Commission finds the plat, zoning amendments, and conditional use permits, to be inconsistent with the intent of the Comprehensive Plan without compliance with all applicable zoning regulations; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the Planning Commission of the City of Monticello, Minnesota: The Planning Commission recommends that the City Council denies the zoning ordinance amendments to be identified as Ordinance #567, based on a finding that the amendments are inconsistent with the intent of the zoning ordinance and Comprehensive Plan as proposed; and further The Planning Commission recommends that the City Council denies the plat, based on a finding that the plat is premature without a conforming development to occupy the plat; and further The Planning Commission recommends that the City Council, if adopting the amendments, approves the Conditional Use Permits for Vehicle Sales & Rental and Accessory Use Auto Repair — Major, Accessory Use Auto Repair — Minor, based on the Conditions of Exhibit Z of the staff report; and further The Planning Commission recommends that the City Council denies the amendments related to truck sales and repair, and also denies the Conditional Use Permit for such use, based on a finding that the sales and repair of trucks and equipment is an industrial use, compatible with other industrial uses, and is best located in industrial areas, rather than commercially zoned areas; and further The Planning Commission hereby denies the requested variances to the requirements for curbing and landscaping, based on the following findings: 1. The property may be put to a reasonable use in full conformance with the Zoning Ordinance without variances. 2. The property does not have unique conditions that justify consideration of variances to standards that are commonly applied to other similarly situated parcels, including parcels directly adjacent to the subject property. 3. There are no evident practical difficulties in meeting the zoning regulations as required. 4. The proposed variances are based on conditions that are primarily economic in nature, in contravention to the requirements of the zoning ordinance and state law governing the consideration of variances from zoning requirements. ADOPTED this 4th day of December 2012, by the Planning Commission of the City of Monticello, Minnesota. MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION By: William Spartz, Chair ATTEST: Jeff O'Neill, City Administrator MINUTES MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday, December 4th, 2012 - 6:00 PM Mississippi Room, Monticello Community Center Commissioners Present: William Spartz, Brad Fyle, Sam Burvee, Grant Sala Commissioners Absent: Charlotte Gabler Council Liaison: Lloyd Hilgart Staff.. Angela Schumann, Ron Hackemnueller, Steve Guthman -NAC I. Call to order Bill Spartz called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. and noted the absence of Commissioner Gabler. 2. Consideration to approve Planning Commission minutes of November 7,201 COMMISSIONER FYLE MOVED TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE NOVEMBER 7, 2012 MEETING. MOTION WAS SECONDED COMMISSIONER SALA. MOTION CARRIED 4 -0. 3. Citizen Comments None. 4. Consideration of adding items to the agenda None 5. Consideration of Public Hearing — Consideration to approve an Amendment to the Monticello Zoning Ordinance, Chapter 5, Section 3 — Accessory Uses to allow Machinery /Truck Repair & Sales, Auto Repair — Minor, Auto Repair - Manor as Accessory Conditional Uses in the B -3 (Highway Business) District; a Conditional Use Permit for Vehicle Sales /Rental; a Conditional Use Permit for Machinery /Truck Repair & Sales, Auto Repair — Minor and Auto Repair - Minor; Variance to Monticello Zoning Ordinance, Chapter 4, Section 8 - Off - Street Parking Requirements; Variance to Monticello Zoning Ordinance, Variance to Monticello Zoning Ordinance, Chapter 4, Section 1 - Landscaping & Screening Requirements; Automotive /Bedrock Motors. Planning Commission Minutes — 12/4/12 Mr. Grittman explained that the project is a series of applications, and the public hearing held will qualify for each of the applications. He briefly reviewed each of the applications and provided an overview of the proposed project itself. The subject site is a parcel previously operated by D and D Bus Company. There are two existing metal buildings on the property. This property was then used by the Hecker dealership. The current applicant proposes to use the site as an automobile dealership, along with a series of related uses. The automobile sales will be the principle use, the accessory uses will be automobile repair, and track sales and repair. The applicant is hoping to operate on the property as it exists today without making significant improvements. Eventually the applicant is hoping to make longer term improvements. Grittrnan explained that because the site was abandoned more than a year ago, the site loses its nonconformity rights under the zoning ordinance and also under state statue. Typically, when a parcel has a nonconforming use or nonconforming structures, those are allowed to be continued or allowed to be remodeled, repaired, and even replaced if within a 6 month thneframe. The only limitation is that nonconforming uses are not allowed to be expanded. Once 12 months has gone by, if no permits are filed, and no improvements are done, then the nonconforming rights are lost. In this case, any permits that were granted, any existing nonconforming conditions that were in place at the time essentially are extinguished from the site, and the site is intended to be redeveloped in conformance with the code. Grittman stated that the existing buildings are considered lawful nonconforming but because they have not been removed, the buildings can stay in place. However, to occupy the site, all other conditions of the code are required to be met. And as a result, the applicant is also asking for variances relating to the non - conforming site conditions, particularly landscaping and parking lot curbing. Mr. Grittman indicated that the site is zoned B -3, which is highway commercial zoning district. Amendments to the zoning are necessary to accommodate the accessory auto repair, both major and minor. Those are common accessory uses for automobile dealerships and are currently allowed as principle uses. The other category of arnendment the applicant is seeking is for machinery and trick repair and sales. These accessory uses are not allowed in a B -3 district, the applicant is proposing to amend the B -3 district to allow the vehicle machinery /truck uses to the site. Mr. Grittman said staff's recommendation is consistent with the applicant's requests. Staff is recormnending that truck/machinery sales and repair be allowed as an accessory use, again by conditional use permit. Planning Commission Minutes— 12/4/12 Mr. Grittman summarized that the principle use of the property would be the automobile dealership, with accessory uses of auto repair, both major and minor, and sales and repair for trucks, machinery, and equipment. Each of these accessory uses, if the Commission recommends amending the orduiauce, are proposed to be added as conditional uses, and so the applicant is then asking for requisite conditional use pen-nits that would go along with each of those. The applicant is also seeking variances from the zoning ordinance because the site is inconsistent with the code in terms of landscaping and parking lot improvements - primarily curbing in this case. The applicant is asking for those requirements to be waived by variance. In addition to the use permits, the applicant is also requesting the approval of a preliminary and final plat, which would combine three parcels associated with the site into one. One of the parcels is part of an old right -of -way that was tweed back to this property that area would also be used for vehicle display, along the Interstate 94 frontage. The other is a small remnant parcel. The proposal is to re plat these three parcels into a single plat that would accommodate the use. Staff considers this to be correcting an issue that exists on the property now. Mr. Grittman asserts that staff is supportive of the anendments, as staff believes they are consistent with the intent of the B -3 district, code, and Comprehensive Plan. This is a highway- oriented commercial use. The buildings are one of the remaining nonconfortnities that continue to exist. Normally the code would require an upgrade with the building standards, but because the buildings have not been removed, they are allowed to be reoccupied as they exist. Staff believes the conditional use permits are also appropriate, as the uses are consistent with the code and the Comprehensive Plan. The plat, staff believes is simply a ministerial action. However, staff is recommending against the variance requests. With a variance request, the applicant is required to show that there is a unique condition on the property that creates a practical difficulty to putting the property to use under the ordinance. So the City must find the use is reasonable in the proposed way, and that there is some difficulty with the property that keeps the applicant from complying with the code. The issue here relates specifically to the use of the property without landscaping and curbing improvements. In staffs view, it is very difficult to find why it is not plausible or feasible to comply when it is required of all commercial properties. There does not appear to be anything particularly unique about this property that would set it apart from other commercial parcels. Economic conditions are not to be considered as a principle finding in support of a variance request. As a result, staff is not recommending approval of the variances. Mr. Grittman suggested that the variances are considered separately from the other applications since the commissioners are the Board of Adjustment on the variances. Mr. Grittman closed and asked for questions. Planning Commission Minutes — 12/4/12 Mr. Spartz stated that he is in agreement to address the amendments and the variances individually. Mr. Fyle asked if both parcels have road frontage. Mr. Grittman said the combined parcel will have the frontage, and the plat corrects oddities in the boundary of the property. Mr. Sala asked if there is any reason this property couldn't have been purchased before the one year was up and grandfathered in. Mr. Grithnan replied that he does know of any reason why it could not have been purchased, the requirements for nonconformities do not relate to purchase, they relate to use or building activity. Mr. Sala asked if there is any reason that this building couldn't have been used before that tone, have they been trying to get this building, and their time ran out before they could. Mr. Grittman replied that he is not aware of that condition. Mr. Sala asked for a clearer definition of truck and machinery Mr. Grithnan replied that the applicant could give the best idea of the full nature of the use proposed. Mr. Spartz asked how long the property has been vacant. Mr. Grittman responded that it was in the 3 -4 year range. Mr. Spartz asked if the amendment would be to allow auto repair, both major and minor in the B -3 as a conditional uses as they are not currently allowed as either permitted or conditional accessory uses. Mr. Grittman responded that the auto repair is not listed in the list of accepted accessory uses; but it is listed in the list of allowable principle uses. The objective in the amendment is to add them to the list of accessory uses list. Mr. Spartz asked if that would be consistent with the properties that have been there. Mr. Grittman confirmed, and said that the auto dealers have traditionally been auto repair as an accessory use, it seems to be more of an oversight in the code. Mr. Spartz asked about the machinery and truck zoning, in what zoning district world that be an allowable use. Mr. Grittman replied that the truck repair and truck sales world be permitted in the industrial districts. Chairman Spartz opened the public hearing. Ron Maas, Bedrock Motors, 13830 Northdale Blvd, Rogers, addressed the Commission. Mr. Maas also introduced Scott Dahlke, with Civil Engineering Site Design, site engineer. Mr. Maas discussed the background of the company, where, and how the company began, and why he chose to come to Monticello to locate the fourth store. Two years ago, the applicant looked at the property and decided it was going to be one of the target locations. However, after being delayed by others who were interested in the property, they are finally back on track. Initially, the intent was to come in and do the best job they could with what is there. Eventually, Mr. Maas stated that it is his intent to come back and use the large grass area, in addition to the 2.9 acre of paved area. Mr. Maas explained that the economic issues on his side are definitely an obstacle. Mr. Maas state that the items referenced and discussed with staff are deal breakers, they wish to occupy the facility in the present condition. Mr. Maas assured the Commission that Planning Commission Minutes— 12/4/12 all facilities are all very nicely run, and that unfortunately, with this one, there are a couple of very large stumbling blocks that he would like to go through by item. Mr. Dahlke referred to Exhibit Z. Starting with item one, it Dablke noted that the landscaping and curbing are lacking around the perimeter. The property seems to function sufficiently in its current condition; there are no drainage problems that would be benefitted by installing curbing. He stated that the site has functioned for many years in the current condition and that is what the applicant is pushing for, is to continue under that condition. He also explained that it is impossible to install the required landscaping without tearing out existing bituminous. Condition number two requires that the applicant provide evidence that there is adequate water and sanitary sewer service on the property. Here again, Dahlke stated that the applicant is trying to use the property in the existing condition. Right now, water is served by a well on the site. It is not hooked up to city water, there is city sewer that has been extended out of the site, and the way it was set up originally and operated with the previous business there was that there was a meter on the well that gets read and reported to the utility department. That meter reading then determines the sewer billing for the property. Again, the applicant is looking to continue with the same program. Number three talks refers to a grading and drainage plan. Mr. Dahlke indicated that the applicant is again looking at utilizing it as is, as it drains sufficiently. There are no erosion problems, nothing would be corrected or bettered by going through all of this effort. Regarding condition number four and five, Mr. Maas said it is not their intention to have a large facility just for truck repair. Because of the economic changes, he wants to talk about it up front and make sure that if they were to take in a trade or were selling a semi -truck that there would be no problem with it. Their core business is cars and mediurn and small tricks. He stated that occasionally, there are larger trucks, most of which would be the size of a Penske truck/box truck. Mr. Dahlke stated that the applicant is proposing to use the existing lighting and would therefore object to a requirement to comply with condition six. Condition number 7 addresses sign permits, and the applicant understands that they will go through a formal permit process for signage. Mr. Dahlke indicated that the applicant objects to condition eight, which is a curbing requirement. The existing accesses are wider than 24 feet, they are 30 -35 feet. Mr. Gritttnan noted that the city engineer can approve a certain size of curb cut. Mr. Dalke said with their goal of using the property as is, they're not looking to go tear up the access and reconfigure it. Mr. Dhalde stated that the applicant can properly address items nine and eleven, but object to item ten requiring continuous curbing. Planning Commission Minutes — 12/4/12 Mr. Dahlke addressed conditions twelve and thirteen, which deal with repair operations within the building within 600 feet of the residential zone. There is code a requirement that within a 600 foot buffer, no repair can occur within 600 feet of a residential zone. The southerly building is within that 600 foot dimension from those residential properties to the south. Mr. Grittlnan indicated that it was his understanding from an earlier meeting with the applicant that the primary uses will be held in the building to the north, while at southern building will be used mostly for storage purposes. W Maas indicated that he would indeed like to repair in that south side building. If there were any type of repair done, they would make sure everything was up to code. Mr. Maas also has an issue with prohibiting the doors from being open while repair is going on. The problem lies that in the suminer time, it is difficult to convince the technicians to keep the doors closed. Commissioner Spartz asked the applicants to go through, by number, the items in Exhibit Z that they first agree with, and second, the items with which they have contention. Mr. Dahlke stated that the applicant has no issue with items 4,5,7,11, but does have contention with conditions 1,2,3,6,8,9,10,12,13. Mr. Spartz asked for the age of the existing building. Staff and Mr. Fyle responded that it is about 30 years. Council liaison Hilgart inquired about the nature of compliance relative to the re-use of the site and the requirements for other commercial buildings. Planner Grittman confirmed that these are requirements that would apply to the re -use of any commercial site whose non- conformity rights have lapsed. Angela Schumann noted that in any case, many of the conditions would be demonstrated with the final site plan which is required per zoning ordinance . She noted that the applicant will also need a new certificate of occupancy, which would trigger the site plan review. Schumann said they would also ask for site lighting plan, where there area variety of things that can be done to cone into compliance. It could be a change in the fixture head, a change in the light source, the way the light is tipped or focused. Those issues could be worked through to come into compliance. Grading and drainage is a function of site planning. Schumann stated that it is important to note that the prior use was allowed as an interim use. The interim use was extended a number of times, and that interim use was put into place due to the non - compliance with many of these same issues, so that eventually that applicant would need to comply with these same requirements. Mr. Spartz asked if the hook up to city water was a Council consideration. Schumann responded that it is a council consideration, and actually, one of the buildings has adequate sewer service. Schumann said that in the other building, they are currently working through some options with the applicant, there are some options for connection. Planning Commission Minutes — 12/4/12 Mr. Spartz indicated that as he was reading through the staff report, the three things that stood out most were the building, the curbing and the landscaping. Spartz pointed out that the parcel is located near a residential area that has had issues with noise before. Mr. Spartz said he thinks Commission would be failing in their job if they failed to recognize that issue. Addressing the noise, Mr. Maas said he has never had one noise complaint at his other stores. Commissioner Spartz asked if anyone else would like to speak on the issue. Hearing no other comment, Commissioner Spartz then closed the public hearing and brought it back to the Commission for discussion. Commissioner Fyle said he was not in favor of anything proposed. He thinks that area needs to be protected and should come into compliance, because there are some high quality buildings adjacent to the site. He said that although this is an existing building, if the applicant came back with a major facelift, going through all the conditions written have down, he would feel differently. He also expressed concern with the truck sales and repair. Both Commissioners Burvee and Sala stated that they did not support the variances as they both have concerns with noise. Commissioner Spartz asked the applicants if there are any time constraints related to their application. Mr. Maas explained that Bedrock's agreement with Chrysler runs out on the 18`1' of December. Mr. Fyle asked staff if he were to propose a motion denying all, how his findings might be stated. Mr. Gritttnan responded that the findings would be in part reflected in the resolution related to the variances, but he would also want to then add some findings that because of the inability to meet the site conditions, that they do not comply with the terms of the zoning ordinance. MOTION BY COMMISSIONER SPARTZ TO RECOMMEND DENIAL OF THE PRELIMINARY PLAT BASED ON FINDINGS MADE BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION IN REGARDS TO THE INABILITY TO PERFORM TO THE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOUND IN EXHIBIT Z. MOTION IS SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER FYLE. MOTION CARRIED 4 -0 The Coimnission held a brief discussion as related to the grouping of recommendations on the other applications. COMMISSIONER FYLE MOVED TO RECOMMEND DENIAL OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENTS TO ADD TRUCK SALES & REPAIR AS A CONDITIONAL USE AND AUTO REPAIR — MAJOR AND AUTO REPAIR — MINOR AS CONDITIONAL ACCESSORY USES TO THE B -3 ZONING DISTRICT. MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER SPARTZ. Planning Commission Minutes - 12/4/12 Commissioner Spartz called for discussion on the item. Commissioner Burvee inquired if the motioned addressed the amendments for both auto and truck uses. Commissioner Spartz confirmed. Planner Grittman noted that based on the discussion, the finding of the Commission was that the amendments as proposed in combination required additional research as to their appropriateness for the district. MOTION CARRIED 4 -0. Commissioner Spartz inquired whether the conditional use for Vehicle Sales is already allowed in the B -3 and would be specific then to this application. Mr. Grittman responded that this particular conditional use permit is to sell automobiles as a principal use, it is an allowed use in the B -3 district currently and does not require an amendment. The question for the Commission is whether or not the City would approve a conditional use pen-nit for sales if it meets the conditions of Exhibit Z. COMMISSIONER SPARTZ MOVED TO ADOPT RESOLUTION 2012 -107 RECOMMENDING APPROVAL FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR VEHICLE SALES WITH THE CONDITIONS OUTLINED IN EXHIBIT Z. MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER SALA. MOTION CARRIED 3 -1, WITH COMMISSIONER FYLE IN DISSENT. COMMISSIONER FYLE MOVED TO RECOMMENT DENIAL OF THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR TRUCK SALES & REPAIR IN THE B -3 DISTRICT. MOTION FAILS FOR LACK OF A SECOND. Cormnissioner Spartz called for clarification from Mr. Grittman as related to the Conditional Use Permits required for both major and minor auto uses. Mr. Grittman stated that while vehicle sales are an allowable principle use in the B -3, auto repair minor and major as accessory uses require the amendment to zoning ordinance. One of the applicants' requests was to add these as accessory uses, which was encompassed as part of decision two. Grittman stated that it would be appropriate for the Commission to consider whether they wish to approve this CUP regardless of the amendment. The Council may take a separate view of the amendment and therefore it is reasonable to take the two options separately. Spartz said he believes the use of the parcel is going to be auto- related. Spatz asked if someone else came to look at the parcel, would they have to bring it to us as a separate amendment. Grittman responded if the amendments are not adopted as part of this application, then some future applicant would have to propose the amendment again. Mr. Grittman responded that he would not say that it was irrelevant, because the Council will be the final decision makers on both the amendments and CUP. Staffs recommendation is that if you did recommend approval, it would go along with the conditions in exhibit Z. Ptamring Commission Minutes — 12/4/12 COMMISSIONER SPARTZ MOVED TO ADOPT RESOLUTION 2012 -107 RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS FOR AUTOMOBILE REPAIR CONTINGENT UPON COMPLIANCE THOSE CONDITIONS SPECIFIED IN EXHIBIT Z. SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER FYLE. MOTION CARRIES 4 -0. In relationship to the conditional use permit for truck sales and repair in the B -3 district, Commissioner Fyle said that he does think it is automotive in the future, and truck and sales and repair are not in that same category. COMMISSIONER FYLE MOVED TO RECOMMEND DENIAL OF THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT. MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER SALA. MOTION CARRIES 3 -1, COMMISSIONER BURVEE IN DISSENT. Nh•. Gritbnan confinned that the Commission made the finding would be that truck sales and repair was inappropriate for this district and more appropriate in a different district. Commissioner Spartz confinned. COMMISSIONER SPARTZ MOVED TO DENY THE VARIANCE TO CURBING AND LANDSCAPING REQUIREMENTS BASED ON THE FINDINGS THAT THE VARIANCES IT DID NOT COMPLY WITH EXHIBIT Z AND THE ZONING STANDARDS. MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER FYLE. MOTION CARRIED 4 -0. Schumann said that this will go to the Council on Monday, December 10. Schmnann also said that Planner Grithnan also wanted to clarify that the Commission is the board of appeal on the variances so that is a final decision, the applicant has five days by ordinance to appeal denial of the variances. If the applicant chooses to write a written appeal, the appeal will be put on to the Council agenda with the balance of the other requests. G. Consideration of Public Hearing — Consideration to approve an amendment to the Mnnfirnlln 7nnina Ordinanra r hnn*nr d Cnrtian G _ Rianc fnr raanlntinne nortaini Community Development Director Schumann stated that the issue of temporary signage is one that has been addressed on numerous occasions by the Planning Commission over the past five years. The Planning Commission has looked for a balance in relationship to business needs, aesthetics, and overall cormhnrnity goals and objectives. Schuman stated that the City currently has an interim ordinance in place for temporary signage. It was adopted in February 2011, and in February 2012, it was extended for an additional year. The interim ordinance allowed city, staff, and the business community to analyze the temporary signage issue, and determine what the effects of temporary signage are, both positive and negative on the community, in particular the business community. At this time, Schtnnann stated that the Commission is asked to consider recommending repeal of the interim ordinance to the City Council and recommend temporary sign ordinance Planning Commission Minutes — 12/4/12 amendments consistent with the City's goals for signage as a component of the overall land use policy. Schumann stated that the interim ordinance allows one sign per business for every business and the sign must be located on the parcel on which the business is located. The existing permanent ordinance allows only one temporary sign per parcel. While the interim ordinance allows one sign per business, the stipulation is that those signs must be spaced 75 linear feet apart. The reasoning is two -fold: to avoid visual clutter and to maintain the ability to read or see multiple signs. Schumann stated that the current ordinance allows forty days of temporary sign usage per parcel. Under the interim ordinance an unlimited number of days in the calendar year per business is allowed. A permit is required for all temporary signs, both under the existing and the interim ordinance. Schumann reported that the amendments proposed are based on the analysis completed under the interim ordinance. When the interim ordinance was brought back for review in early 2012, the Commission was given a large amount of data for consideration, including business surveys, corridor images, and feedback from a small business roundtable. Feedback on the ordinance has continued to be solicited from the business community through the assistance of the Chamber of Cormnerce. Schumann also referred to temporary sign permit data gathered over the past three years, which generally averages between 25 -40 permits per year. Sign violations have also been tracked. Violations were primarily for signs without permit, or signs that were too large, or too numerous on a parcel. Visual observation has been done, particularly of the primary corridors that being Highway 25, and Cormty Road 75. The amendments that are proposed will continue to allow for the extended flexibility allowed under the interim ordinance, as there were some provisions that were fol nd that seem to make sense for the business community and from an enforcement standpoint, and as such, staff is seeking to incorporate those into the ordinance permanently. Schumann noted that the most common feedback on the ordinance was to keep it simple and consistent. Therefore, staff is suggesting that the ordinance provisions continue to treat all temporary signs equally, whether it is a permant, banner, corrugated plastic sign, or a changeable copy board, remain. This responds to the business community's request for simplicity and flexibility in the type of signage they would like to use depending on the nature of their temporary signs needs at any given time. It also minimizes confusion in administration and enforcement on the City's part. Schurann reviewed the proposed amendment, which would allow one sign per business, spaced every 75 feet apart. The number of days would be increased from forty days under the current ordinance to 150 days. She noted that this would allow temporary sign usage Friday, Saturday, and Sunday, every week of the year. The signage size would be increased, from 32 square feet to 40 square feet and a permit will still be required, with number of days tracked. 10 Planning Commission Minutes — 12/4/12 Schumann stated that the proposed amendments would also allow for one additional flag device for a restaurant business with outdoor seating for a period of up to 150 days on or around the patio seating area. Another expansion would allow one sign per street fiontage on non - residential properties when a property is seeking to hire or employ personnel. Schumann then reviewed the current ordinance for temporary signs, noting the existing flexibility for sandwich boards, real estate and window signage. Commissioner Sala inquired about regulations pertaining to those businesses that do not necessarily have a building or parcel for such signage. Schumann responded that those would not be allowed, and are considered off premise signs. Commissioner Spartz asked about the size of the signs in the existing ordinance and why they went from 32 square feet to 40 square feet, and wanted to know what Schumann was using to support that decision. Schumann responded that most of the signs are 4x8, there are certainly places that rent larger signs, but as a staff, we have agreed that 32 square feet for the message boards seems to be sufficient. However, what has been discovered is that typically attached is a small piece to the top or the bottom to allow for a phone n1a nber that is usually 8 square feet or less. So, rather than complicate the ordinance further, the allowance was for 40 feet. Commissioner Spartz inquired whether help wanted signage is currently allowed. Schumann responded that businesses can currently use their existing signage allowances for such signs. The proposed amendments adds additionally flexibility specific to that purpose. On grand opening signs, Spartz asked for clarification on the opening of a new business, are there provisions for a re -grand opening. Schumann responded that staff have interpreted the ordinance as opening a new location. Commissioner Spartz opened the public hearing. Sandy Suchy with the Monticello Chamber of Commerce addressed the Commission. She thanked the Commission for looking at the sign ordinance, and stated that they worked very hard with staff and with the business community to develop an ordinance that will work very well for the majority of the businesses. She explained that every business has different needs; they use the signs for different opportunities. Although there are a couple of businesses who are not completely provided for under the amendment, overall, the majority of the businesses are much happier with the signage that is being proposed today. Commissioner Spartz asked if Suchy thinks this will be something that the majority of the businesses can support. Suchy confirmed that yes, she really believes they would and that by providing that information to the business community, the majority of the information that she has received has been that they can support it. Commissioner Spartz closed the public hearing and brought it back up to the Commission for discussion. Cormmissioner Fyle said the previous sign regulations were in his opinion too 11 Planning Commission Minutes— 12/4/12 restrictive, but the interim ordinance is too lax. His stance is that he would be in agreement to extend the interim ordinance for another year; as these are still difficult times, but not in agreement for an ordinance change to what is proposed today. Commissioner Spartz asked if it was the number days. Fyle said that was a lot of it. Spartz said that this review has been a three year process; several businesses utilized the signs all three years. Spartz stated that he is comfortable with the majority of the proposed regulations, although he has trouble with the for hire piece. He noted that there will never be a one size fits all ordinance for signage, and that it is time to move forward with something that makes sense, is easy to understand and is as consistent as possible. COMMISSIONER SPARTZ MOVED TO ADOPT A RESOLUTION 2012 -108 RECOMMENDING AN AMENDMENT TO MONITCELLO'S ZONING ORDINANCE CHAPTER 4 SECTION 5 FOR TEMPORARY SIGNAGE BASED ON THE FINDINGS OF FACT IN SAID RESOLUTION FOR THE PROPOSED ORDINANCE. MOTION SECOND BY COMMISSIONER BURVEE. MOTION PASSES 3 -1. 7. Consideration of Public Hearing — Consideration to approve an Amendment to the Monticello Zoning Ordinance Chapter 5, Section 3- Accessory Uses to allow Indoor Storage and Office Uses as a Permitted Accessory Use in the B -4 (Regional Business), B -3 (Highway Business), B -2 (Limited Business), B -1 (Neighborhood Business), CCD (Central Community District) and IBC (Industrial & Business Campus) Districts. Applicant: City of Monticello (AS) Community Development Director Schumann reviewed the staff report, stating that this is primarily a housekeeping item which would allow indoor storage in office uses as accessory uses in all of the business districts. Schumann explained that staff had provided a percentage recommendation, just to make sure the balance and ratio is reasonable between principle uses and accessory use. The other component of the amendment would allow office uses as accessory to retail. Almost all businesses have an office component somewhere. Offices are actually permitted uses in most of these districts, so adding it in as an accessory use seems logical. Commissioner Spartz opened the public hearing. Hearing no comment, Commissioner Spartz closed the hearing, and brought it back up for discussion. COMMISSIONER FYLE MOVED TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL FOR ORDINANCE NUMBER 570. MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER SALA, MOTION CARRIED 4 -0. 8. Public Hearing - Consideration of an amendment to Section 4.1- Landscaping and screening to allow and regulate Native Landscapes. Applicant: City of Monticello 12 Planning Commission Minutes - 12/4/12 Intern EE Community Development Intern Ellen Eden presented the staff report for the proposed amendment. Eden stated that with widespread increased interest in native prairie treatments, the proposed amendment responds to this interest while at the same time finding a way to place parameters and boundaries to ensure the preservation of the aesthetic quality of Monticello's yards. Eden cited the benefits of adopting such an ordinance, including water conservation, less usage of and in many instances no fertilizers and pesticides, and more choices for residents in selecting landscape and lawn coverings. Native landscaping will also help prevent soil erosion. Currently, Eden indicated that the City's ordinance does not allow for plant growth in excess of six inches in height. While these standards would not on their own prohibit the flexibility to install native treatments as a landscaping option, the City Code also includes public nuisance provisions which would prohibit native lawn coverings. The Public Nuisance ordinance restricts the height of grasses, for example. Eden stated that staff recognizes that native planting areas must be managed in order to avoid nuisance issues. In order for prairie grasses to be allowed, no noxious weeds are to be permitted. In fact, all weeds and turf will be removed in the beginning stages of prairie restoration. Setbacks will be required; a setback of 5 feet is required for side and back yards. A 20 foot setback is required for the front yard. The setback can be reduced to zero if there is: a public park, open space or vacant lot next to the property, if there is an adjacent wetland, pond, lake or stream, if there is a restoration in an adjoining lot, and finally if the property is contained within a solid fence constructed according to zoning guidelines. These setbacks must contain pavement, rock, gravel, wood chip mulch, trees, shrubs, or regularly mowed turf grass. There should be no overhang no encroachment onto sidewalks, curb or street areas; soil erosion must be controlled during the transition period of the restoration. All natural areas must be marked with a sign indicating that a restoration is in progress. Some companies will provide these and are included in the total price, or can be made in house for $35 per sign. All natural areas must be mowed once annually between April 15`h and June 1st, to a height no greater than eight inches. It was discussed among staff that although sometimes burning is beneficial every three years, it will not be an option at this time until a plan has been established with the fire department. Eden stated that the ordinance had been structured such that failure to comply with the ordinance shall result in cutting of the vegetation by the City of the designated contractor and the cost will be assessed the property. Prior to registration, landscape plans must be submitted to the Community Development Director for review and approval. The City would not be responsible for damage to landscaped areas resulting from public work improvements or snow removal activities. These guidelines will be clearly stated in the application process. 13 Planning Commission Minutes— 12/4/12 In addition to these basic regulations, staff would recommend an abbreviated registration process, by which residents and or businesses would register their property with the City as a native planting area. Doing so would allow the City to track these locations in a database, allowing staff to respond appropriately to questions about these properties from neighbors or interested parties. Staff would suggest that an ordinance for prairie grass is due and supports an ordinance which provides for native landscapes, while prohibiting lawns or weeds from being left to `go natural.' Staff recognizes the value in planning for the needs of citizens and the environment, while at the same time preserving the visual quality of the City. Staff believes that all three can be accomplished with this ordinance: we can provide a way for citizens to explore and enjoy the benefits of native landscapes, while knowing that it is a water -smart transition. However, regulations will be enforced to ensure quality. Commissioner Spartz how such an ordinance would impact foreclosed properties. The other question he had was if the natural landscapes would be allowed in the back yard and the front yard. Eden responded that both would be allowed, however the setbacks are wider in the front yard, 20 feet, versus just 5 feet in the back yard. Ron Hackenmueller answered about the foreclosed properties that whoever owns it would still have to come forward with a plan and be approved by the Community Development Director, he said he did not see any problems with the foreclosed properties because he would still have to enforce the code for a blighted property. Spartz expressed concern that this would become the new answer for not mowing the yard. Commissioner Spartz opened up the discussion to the public. Schumann suggested one small adjustment to the language proposed - that staff would like to see that percentage higher than 35% allowable per yard, particularly in rear yards, but would defer to the commission's recommendation. Commissioner Spartz closed the public hearing and brought it back up to the commission. Commissioner Fyle expressed concern over neighbors embracing native landscapes. He stated he would be more comfortable with this ordinance if there was a signed contract with a maintenance firm so that there is assurance of no noxious weeds. Commissioner Spartz said that although the City may be moving this direction some day, he does not think they are there just yet. Commissioner Spartz asked if there was anything in the amendment that could be changed to make it more workable. Schumann stated that the setbacks could be increased, restrict native landscaping to a percentage of the front yard, there is a consideration that would call for the approval from the neighbors, and a maintenance provision can be added. Commissioner Spartz indicated he would like to table the ordinance to allow for some of those potential modifications to be brought back for review and possible incorporation. COMISSIONER SALA MOVED TO TABLE THE ACTION ON THE REQUEST PENDING ADDITIONAL INFORMATION AS IDENTIFIED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND THE STAFF REPORT. MOTION SECONDED BY 14 Planning Commission Minutes — 12/4/12 COMMISSIONER BURVEE. MOTION CARRIED, 4 -0. 9. Consideration to review and recommend for the expiring terms of Planning Commissioners and to recommend appointment of Chair and Vice Chair. (AS) Schumann explained that Commissioner Spartz's term is up in December of 2012, but fortunately he has offered to serve another term and in addition Commissioner Spartz has indicated if nominated, he is willing to serve again as chair. Commissioner Fyle also indicated a willingness to continue service as vice chair. Schumann opened the floor to the Commission and their nominations. COMMISSIONER SALA MOVED TO RECOMMEND THE APPOINTMENT OF COMISSIONER SPARTZ FOR A THREE YEAR TERM ON THE PLANNING COMMISSION, AND NOMINATING COMMISSIONER SPARTZ FOR CHAIRMAN AND COMMISSIONER FYLE FOR VICE CHAIR. MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER BURVEE. MOTION CARRIED, 4 -0 10. Consideration to set a date for the January Regular Planning Commission Meeting.(AS) COMMISSIONER SPARTZ MOVED TO HOLD THE JANUARY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING TUESDAY, JANUARY 8"". MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISSION SALA. MOTION CARRIED, 4 -0. 11. Director's Report Schumann provided an update on the Safe Routes to School program, stating that staff, are working in concert with the school district to develop priorities to develop safe routes to school applications. Schumann stated that they will be looking at in particular the park and pathway plan, noted that there are some gaps in the pathways and those gaps may relate to places where children need to get to school and where the children do not fall within the bussing route. That will be first priority along with safe crossings. In Monticello there are a number of different barriers to safe crossings and to look at every opportunity is essential to fund some of those improvements. Commissioner Spartz whether any other process could have been undertaken to avoid some of the negative discussion and decision on the first hearing item. Schumann responded there is a pre application meeting in which application process and site details are discussed. The meeting walks through all the formalities from the types of fees they will encounter, assessments, utilities, grading/drainage, wetlands, enviromnental, parks, pathways are all on the list. That is gone through with every applicant. However, once an application is made, the request becomes subject to the public process. The public hearing is the forum for the applicant to provide the 15 Planning Commission Minutes— 12/4/12 Commission with their information and for the City to provide an analysis and decision. 12. Adiourn COMMISSIONER FYLE MOVED TO ADJOURN THE MEETING AT 8:15 PM. MOTION WAS SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER SALA. MOTION CARRIED 4 -0. Recorder: Ellen Eden —0 Approved: February 5th, 2013 Attest: Angela S&funhatfn, Community Development Director 16 Planning Commission Agenda: 05/07/13 10. Community Development Director's Report Building /Development Activity Dollar Tree, previously approved under a CUP by the City, is in for building permit and will be under construction in early May. Staff have received many inquiries regarding the activity occurring on the lot south of PetSmart at the Union Crossings development. Although Ryan Companies has put up erosion control fencing on the lot, no development is confirmed by Ryan reps at this time. It should be noted that the City approved an amendment to PUD for additional inline retail at the site in 2007. As such, if the development proposal submitted by Ryan for the lot east of PetSmart) is substantially consistent with the 2007 approval, no additional City approvals will be needed as related to the PUD. A final plat may be needed should any future user wish to split the existing platted lot. This would require only Council review and approval. The Department of Building Safety & Code Enforcement reports 12 new housing permits issued or in for review to -date. CUP Extensions Staff has reviewed the expirations and extensions calendar. The first extensions request will come before the Planning Commission in August, 2013 for M & I Banks cross parking and access CUP at the Broadway Market site. All other CUPs are current at this time. Economic Development Position Update On Wednesday, May 8th at 5:00 PM (in the Mississippi Room), the EDA will be holding a workshop for the purpose of reviewing the Economic Development services proposal presented to the City by WSB & Associates. The proposal concept — "Market Matchin" was previously presented to the EDA and City Council in a joint workshop on April 22" . After the session, further discussion and input on the concept was requested by representatives of both the City Council and EDA. As such, the May 8th workshop will be designed to walk through the economic development process, from the starting point of asset identification for the community to the time when the key is turned on a new business location in Monticello. We will be working to identify how the WSB proposal fits our current (and desired) process, where potential gaps may exist, and how such gaps could be filled should the City/EDA choose to try the WSB proposal. Pending the outcome of the workshop, the EDA may be asked to recommend direction on the proposal to the Council that evening during their regular meeting. Planning Commission Agenda: 05/07/13 CentraCare Health Monticello Hospital Helipad The hospital has been informed that their current helipad location along CSAH 75 does not meet new FAA regulations. The helipad has been closed until a new compliant location can be identified and developed on the hospital site. Staff has been working with hospital staff on both temporary and permanent potential locations. Upon complete and acceptable application, the hospital will be issued an administrative temporary use permit for the temporary relocation of the helipad on the hospital site. This will most likely be on the west end parking lot. However, due to the residential uses adjacent to this location, the hospital has been asked to submit an application for amendment to PUD at the same time as the application for temporary use permit. This will allow for a public review of the relocated temporary helipad. Once the hospital has identified a permanent location for the helipad, they will also apply for an amendment to PUD to formalize the final location. TH 25 Mill & Overlay MnDOT representatives have contacted the City with news that the TH 25 expansion project in Monticello has unexpectedly received funding to complete a mill and overlay on TH25 from I -94 to where the lane expansion project begins south of Kjellberg's. MnDOT is in the initial planning phases for coordination on that improvement and will provide additional information as the project moves forward. MnDOT will also be making pedestrian ramp upgrades on both sides of the highway as part of the project. There will be a need for in -depth coordination on this project, as it will occur at the same time as the I -94 improvements. This could make Monticello tricky to navigate next summer. We have received some indication that the mill and overlay component will occur at night, which will require a separate Council permit. As always, MnDOT will have a full communication plan developed and will work the local Chamber and businesses on any business interruptions. Monte Club Follow -Up As requested by the Council during their April 6th meeting, the Parks Commission's May agenda will include an item on the public and private use integration for the Monte Club property. Staff have also spoken with MET representatives regarding the Council's recent direction for the Monte Club site. In our discussion, MET did indicate that they would be happy to share information on what they learned about the development potential of the site in terms of utility connections, usable land area, etc. As such, IRET reps will be present at the May Parks meeting to provide a Monte Club development overview. IRET is currently looking at other Monticello site alternatives for the development of a multi- family project. They have indicated that they remain interested in Monticello as their primary focus for a 2013/2014 project. 2 Planning Commission Agenda: 05/07/13 Native Plantings Ordinance MN Native Landscapes has been contacted to present information to the Planning Commission on the design and maintenance of native landscaping. Their presentation is anticipated for June. In addition, staff spoke with both a residential and industrial Monticello land owner regarding the opportunity to tour their native landscaped properties. Both indicated that it would be better to wait until late summer to see the full effect of this type of landscaping. Great River Trails Bids for the Great River trail project were approved by the City Council on April 22nd. The project will begin May 10th, 2013. An official groundbreaking is set for Monday, May 20th at 10:30 at the Montissippi Park entrance. All are welcome to attend. Trails will be complete by end of summer, 2013.