The URL can be used to link to this page

Planning Commission Agenda 08-06-2013REGULAR MEETING MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday, August 6th, 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 June 4th, 2013 b. Regular Meeting of July 2nd, 2013 3. Citizen Comments 4. Consideration of adding items to the agenda 5. Continued Public Hearing — Consideration of a request for Comprehensive Plan Amendment for a change in land use designation from Places to Shop to Places to Live and a request for rezoning from B -4 (Regional Business) District to R -4 (Medium -High Density Residence) District. Applicant: IRET Properties 6. Public Hearing - Consideration of a request for Amendment to Conditional Use Permit for Planned Unit Development for retail development Applicant: JR & R II, LLC 7. Community Development Director's Report 8. Adjourn. MINUTES MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday, June 4, 2013 - 6:00 PM Mississippi Room, Monticello Community Center Commissioners Present: Bill Spartz, Brad Fyle, Charlotte Gabler, Grant Sala Commissioners Absent: Sam Burvee Council Liaison Present: Lloyd Hilgart Staff Present: Angela Schumann, Ron Hackenmueller, Steve Grittman 1. Call to order Bill Spartz called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. 2. Consideration to approve Planning Commission minutes a. Regular Meeting of May 7ti', 2013 CHARLOTTE GABLER MOVED TO APPROVE THE MAY 7TH, 2013 MEETING MINUTES. BRAD FYLE SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED 4-0. b. Special Meeting of May 21St, 2013 BRAD FYLE MOVED TO APPROVE THE MAY 21 IT, 2013 MEETING MINUTES. CHARLOTTE GABLER SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED 4-0. 3. Citizen Comments None 4. Consideration of adding items to the agenda None 5. Public Hearing - Consideration of a request for Variance from the rear vard building setback requirement for an Accessory Trash Enclosure. Applicant: Monticello Development Group, LLC, Planning Case Number: 2013 — 013 Dollar Tree Store representatives requested a variance to the rear yard building setback requirement at final plan review for the retail facility planned for 9350 Cedar Street to move the trash enclosure to a more suitable location. A 10' x 20' trash enclosure had been proposed along the east (rear) elevation, approximately 20 feet from the southeast corner of the building. Modifications now proposed include: Planning Commission Minutes — 6/04/13 • Increasing the width of the enclosure from 10 to 15 feet to include a trash dumpster and a recycling dumpster (in a side by side configuration). The proposed enclosure would measure 15' x 19' and 6 feet in height. • Shifting the enclosure southward to improve truck accessibility and movement. • Changing the enclosure's finish materials to split face masonry block for improved endurance. The proposed modifications would result in a two foot encroachment and 4 foot setback into the 6 foot wide utility easement which exists around the site perimeter. 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 a certain set of criteria. (i) The property in question cannot be put to a reasonable use if the provisions of the Ordinance are strictly applied (ii) The circumstances rendering the property unusable are unique to the property. (iii) The circumstances rendering the property unusable were not created by the owner thereof. (iv) A variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. (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 summarized that the property could be used in a reasonable manner if the trash enclosure was constructed according to the previously approved plan. Staff also noted, however, that certain practical difficulties exist which would allow for consideration of the variance. The property is unique in that it is limited by a 6 foot wide utility easement within which no utilities exist or are planned. These circumstances were not created by the owner. The proposed setback encroachment is also unique in that no other nearby uses would be impacted. The proposed enclosure expansion/relocation would not alter the essential character of the locality. The request is not related to economic considerations. The proposed setback encroachment would enhance the use of the site by allowing for improved service vehicle accessibility and trash collection efficiency due to enclosure size and location. The finish material proposed would also enhance the area. Commissioners noted that moving the trash enclosure away from the street would also provide improved screening from public view. Planner Steve Crrittman suggested that the applicant respond to Commission questions related to the door previously included on the site plan. N Planning Commission Minutes — 6/04/13 Bill Spartz opened the public hearing. Jason Taduck, of 3027 Autumn Leaf Circle, Green Bay Wisconsin, speaking on behalf of the Monticello Development Group, explained that the door on the original site plan had been moved to the south side of the design for better trash access. He also noted that the door meets emergency exit requirements. Hearing no further comment, the public hearing was closed. Staff pointed out that all variances require an encroachment agreement. Such agreements state that, if the City requires access to the encroachment, repair costs would be the responsibility of the property owner. The request does not require City Council approval as the Planning Commission is the deciding body for variances. Decision 1: Adopting Resolution No. 2013-044 approving a Variance from the minimum 6 foot rear yard setback requirement in the B-4, Regional Business District as requested at Lot 1, Block 1, Monticello Business Center 41h Addition (9350 Cedar Street). BRAD FYLE MOVED TO ADOPT RESOLUTION 2013 - 044 APPROVING THE VARIANCE FROM THE MINIMUM 6 REAR YARD SETBACK REQUIREMENT AS PROPOSED IN THE APPLICATION OF MAY 4, 2013, CONTINGENT ON COMPLIANCE WITH THOSE CONDITIONS SPECIFIED IN EXHIBIT Z. GRANT SALA SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED 4-0. Exhibit Z — Conditions of Approval Lot 1, Block 1, Monticello Business Center 4th Addition (9350 Cedar Street) Variance from 6 Foot Rear Yard Setback Requirement 1. The color of the split -faced block to be utilized on the trash enclosure shall match the color of the block used at the base of the principal building. 2. Landscaping proposed on the north side of the trash enclosure shall meet minimum size requirements of the Ordinance. 3. A building permit shall be received and all requirements imposed by it be satisfied. 6. Public Hearing - Consideration of a an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance relating to the height and construction standards for fences in residential front _yards. Applicant: City of Monticello Planning Case Number: 2013 - 016 3 Plaiming Commission Minutes — 6/04/13 Steve Grittman summarized that the proposed zoning ordinance amendment would change residential height requirements for front yard fencing within 15 feet of the street right of way. It would eliminate the first 3 foot high step requirement and allow 4 foot high front yard fences from the front property line to the building line of the house and 6 foot fencing behind the building line. Staff suggested including language in the amendment which would create a definition of average heights over the span of a fence to accommodate common slope differences. There was also some discussion about the requirement that front yard fencing be at least 50% transparent and that the visibility triangle area at intersections be maintained. Staff recommended specifying in code language whether this applies to fencing along the front lot line or to fencing at the right of way line as well. Charlotte Gabler suggested that transparency rules could be drafted differently for interior lots as well as corner lot fencing. She also suggested that it would be useful to include illustrations to help clarify requirements. Bill Spartz opened the public hearing. Hearing no comments, the public hearing was closed. Spartz indicated that he would not vote on the request due to his interest in moving the issue forward. Lloyd Hilgart asked a number of questions about fencing location and visibility concerns. Ron Hackenmueller stated that tiering had been more of an enforcement concern than transparency. He agreed that the current tiered code is difficult to explain to residents. The proposed amendment would make code compliance and enforcement easier. The Commission seemed to agree that more information was needed to consider amending the fence ordinance. They specifically requested that "front yard" be specifically defined, and that fence height on slope and transparency issues be further discussed. Decision 1: Adopting Resolution No. 2013-045 recommending approval of an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance providing for a change to the City's fence regulations in Section 4.3 (D)(1). BRAD FYLE MOVED TO TABLE ACTION ON THE REQUEST, PENDING ADDITIONAL INFORMATION AS IDENTIFIED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND STAFF REPORT, AND TO CONTINUE THE PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER AMENDING THE ZONING ORDINANCE TO CHANGE FENCE HEIGHT STANDARDS IN RESIDENTIAL FRONT YARDS UNTIL THE JULY 2, 2013 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING. GRANT SALA SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED 3=0. (Bill Spartz did not vote.) 0 Planning Commission Minutes — 6/04/13 7. Public Hearing — Consideration of amendments to the Monticello Comprehensive Plan, Chapter 2 — Community Context, Chanter 3 — Land Use and Chapter 4 — Economic Development Community Development Director Angela Schumann and HKGi Consultant Rita Trapp, provided an overview of the process used to revise Chapter 2 — Community Context, Chapter 3 — Land Use, and Chapter 4 Economic Development of the City's Comprehensive Plan (Comp Plan) and highlighted some of the updates proposed. They summarized that representatives from the IEDC, EDA and Planning Commission had formed a small group tasked with evaluating the existing Comp Plan document and providing guidance about how best to revise it. Charlotte Gabler and Brad Fyle represented the Planning Commission in this effort. The City also engaged HKGi consultants to assist in the amendment process as HKGi was the lead consultant for the preparation of the original Comp Plan. As part of the Community Context chapter review, the small group consulted numerous resources including the latest Census data, surveys, and findings from recent economic development reports to determine specific recommendations for including data relevant for decision-making and policy development. Trapp provided a sampling of such data which underline trends that affect many local issues. Monticello is a young community with a large number of growing families with young children. It is traditionally difficult to engage this busy population in the community. The population is homogeneous in terms of race and ethnicity. The diversity of housing options in Monticello is similar to that of the Twin Cities. The local single family detached housing market has recovered more quickly from the recession than other housing types. Forty percent of rental properties were built prior to 1970. Monticello is primarily a commuter community. Those who commute to work elsewhere earn higher wages than those that work in the City. Fifteen percent of residents are employed within the City. There has been overall growth in local manufacturing employment. More than half of local employers have fewer than 4 employees. The leading employment sectors are retail, education, health care, manufacturing and hospitality. Higher education levels have increased since the 2000 census. Monticello's median household income is comparable to that of the Twin Cities. As part of the Land Use chapter review, the small group reaffirmed the existing five overall land use policies for Places to Work and recommended no modifications to the inventory of available industrial land. As part of the Economic Development chapter review, the small group confirmed the City's four overall economic development goals and added an emphasis on job retention. Other strategy amendments included broadening the focus for attracting industry, coordinating utility and transportation planning in expansion areas, and promoting the retention and expansion of health care services. The IEDC and EDA had both unanimously recommended adoption of the proposed 5 Planning Commission Minutes — 6/04/13 Comp Plan amendments with minor changes which have been incorporated. Staff pointed out that the proposed amendments have practical application in that they serve to guide annual workplan and budget development efforts. Bill Demeules asked Trapp how to determine if attracting or retaining businesses should be of a higher priority. Trapp stated that, in her experience, it has been more cost effective to retain and help grow businesses already in place. Citing two recent situations in which the City purchased property and removed the structure on site, Brad Fyle asked if the City was doing enough to retain small businesses. Grant Sala agreed that while business retention is important, the City must continue to try to address the needs of a young community. Bill Spartz opened the public hearing. As there were no comments, the public hearing was closed. BRAD FYLE MOVED TO APPROVE RESOLUTION 2013-023, RECOMMENDING THE ADOPTION OF THE PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO CHAPTER 2 — COMMUNITY CONTEXT, CHAPTER 3 — LAND USE, AND CHAPTER 4 — ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT OF THE 2008 MONTICELLO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, BASED ON FINDINGS AS STATED IN SAID RESOLUTION. CHARLOTTE GABLER SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED 4-0. City Council will consider these amendments at its June 24th meeting. 8. Consideration to appoint a Planning Commission representative to the Transportation Advisory Committee Staff asked that the Commission formally appoint a representative to the Transportation Advisory Connnittee (TAC) because the prior decision to rotate member attendance at TAC meetings had proved ineffective. The Commission's recommendation will be forwarded to the City Council for ratification. BILL SPARTZ MOVED TO RECOMMEND APPOINTMENT OF CHARLOTTE GABLER TO SERVE AS THE PLANNING COMMISSION REPRESENTATIVE TO THE TRANSPORTATION ADVISORY COMMITTEE. BRAD FYLE SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED 4-0. 9. Community Development Director's Report Hillside Farm — Lots in Hillside Farm 3rd and 4th Addition have been posted for a Notice of Expiration of Redemption period for tax forfeiture. The City filed an affidavit of developer default against all 42 lots. The affidavit outlines the City's right to complete the remaining public improvements and to assess costs to the lots. The recorded Planned Ce Planning Commission Minutes — 6/04/13 Unit Development runs with the land via the development contract and is binding. Development standards will be upheld until amended. Potential buyers would be made aware of this information. Economic Development Position Update - The City Council approved 50% of the funding necessary to pay for economic development consulting services with WSB. The proposed contract will be reviewed at the June 12a' EDA meeting. Building/Development Activity — Building Official Ron Hackenmueller highlighted recent Department of Building Safety statistics. 340 rental applications were received and 224 inspections completed. Help Desk inquiries related to blight decreased likely because banks have now sold many problem properties. 245 building permits have been issued so far this year. 80 permits were issued in the last month. The number of single-family home permits doubled in May. The average house value is $163,000. Hackenmueller has been attending Radiological Emergency Preparedness (REP) meetings and reviewing evacuation plans in preparation for a June 11�' practice drill. FEMA will evaluate the drill scheduled for July 23rd. Hackenmueller has also been reviewing the $15,000 REP budget to determine priority spending. The budget had been used to purchase radios for the Fire and Public Works Departments in prior years. Brad Fyle suggested that REP be more closely aligned with the efforts of other public safety personnel. Angela Schumann pointed out that representatives from various departments have also participated in National Incident Management System (NIMS) training which provides a systematic structure to handling communications during emergencies. 9. Adiourn BRAD FYLE MOVED TO ADJOURN THE MEETING AT 7:48 PM. CHARLOTTE GABLER SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED 4-0. Recorder: Kerry Bum Approved: July 2, 2013 Attest: Angela Schumann, Community Development Director 7 MINUTES MONTICIELLO PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday, July 2, 2013 - 6:00 ]PM -Mississippi Room, Monticello Community Center Present: Bill Spartz, Brad Fyle, Charlotte Gabler, Grant Sala, Sam Burvee Absent: None Others: Lloyd Hilgart, Angela Schumann, Ron Hackenmueller, Steve Grittman Call to order Bill Spartz called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. 2. Consideration to approve Planning Commission minutes a) Regular Meeting of June 4, 2013 BRAD FYLE MOVED TO CONSIDER THE JUNE 4, 2013 REGULAR MEETING MINUTES AT THE AUGUST PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING. CHARLOTTE GABLER SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED 5-0. 3. Citizen Comments None 4. Consideration of adding items to the agenda a) R -A Zoning — (Lloyd Hilgart) 5. Public Hearing — Consideration of a request for Comprehensive Plan Amendment for. a cha a in land use designation from Places to Shop to Places to Live and a request for rezoning from B-4 (Regional Business) District to R-4 (Mediu-m-High Density Residence) District Planning Case Number: 2013-023 Applicant IRET Properties requested that the parcel, located at Lot 1, Block 2, Riverview Square, (at the southeast quadrant of County Highway 39 and Hart Boulevard), be redesignated and rezoned to allow for construction of multi -family housing. The property is 5.2 acres and is currently vacant. The request involves a change in land use from Places to Shop to Places to Live and a change in zoning from B-4 (Regional Business) to R-4 (Medium -High Density Residential.) The request meets criteria required for rezoning. Zoning Ordinance 2.4 (B) (5) Approval Criteria (b) requires that the proposed amendment addresses needs arising from a changing condition, trend, or fact affecting the subject property and surrounding area; and (c) requires that the proposed amendment is consistent with achieving the goals and Planning Commission Minutes — 7/02/13 objectives outlined in the comprehensive plan. The request also meets criteria for amending the Comprehensive Plan in that, because some 40% of the city's multi -family housing stock was constructed prior to 1970, new multi -family housing stock is a "community need." The plan also requires that the City consider compatibility with existing and proposed uses surrounding the property. The proposed site plan illustrates how a building could be constructed on the property to meet the requirements of the R-4 district. Surrounding land uses are reasonably well isolated from the proposed site. Because of the site's proximity to the Mississippi river, it is also subject to Minnesota Wild & Scenic River requirements. The Department of Natural Resources (DNR) has been provided 30 days to comment on the request. Grittman pointed out that the Comprehensive Plan supports land use decisions that encourage commercial development downtown. Although several areas in town are zoned commercial, options for multiple -family residential development are limited. The R-4 District was created was to allow for new multi -family housing development compatible with the Comprehensive Plan's move up housing objective. The Conditional Use Permit required would define the higher performance standards of the R-4. Charlotte Gabler suggested that the proposed rezoning would he a lost commercial opportunity. She also indicated that the project might better fit the downtown area or across the freeway. Lloyd Hilgart pointed out that this project would require a rezoning no matter where it sought to locate because there are no parcels zoned R-4 at this time. Bill Spartz asked how the site might be used under current zoning. Grittman replied that retail, restaurants and offices are permitted uses in the B-4 District. Dill Spartz opened the public hearing. Steve Feneis, 615 7�h St N., Sartell, MN stated that IRET Properties seeks to provide the type of higher density, higher amenity housing described in the R-4 development standards. He noted that the site had not attracted a buyer in the ten years it has been designated commercial. He said that the proposed R-4 use would provide for logical district transition as the site is actually on the outskirts of commercial development according to the Embracing Downtown plan. He suggested that the 92 unit building would create less traffic, lighting and noise issues than would a commercial development. Dan Miller, of Miller Architects and Builders, said that the proposed plan includes a community room, a fitness center, a pool facility and underground parking. He summarized rent would range from $100041400 per month at a rate of $1-1.20 per square foot. Township supervisor Pete Stupar, who owns property at 9794 Hart Blvd., said that he and 2 Planning Commission Minutes — 7/02/13 his wife are against this kind of a structure on such a small parcel. He suggested that twin homes would better match the community. He was concerned about increased traffic and liability. He thanked Commissioner Gabler for sharing her concerns. Dick Berquist, of 9796 Hart Blvd, said that he was against the apartments because it would generate additional traffic. Dave Gasler, of 7410 Kahler Ct. NE in Otsego, the pastor at the church on the adjacent property said he had some concerns about runoff. He asked that drainage be pumped around the south side of the church property. He was also concerned that the development be adequately screened. Richard Burke, of 9800 Hart Blvd, said that a four story apartment building would be out of place on the corner. Janet Murdesdorf, of 6178 Mill Run Road, spoke of her concern about pres=erving the wildlife in her backyard. Josh Blonigan, of 9806 Hart Blvd., shared concerns about added traffic at an already dangerous intersection. Headlights would be directed ,into his home and yard.[He pointed out that the applicant would have to get a variance to the 25 foot building height limit to build a four story building. He said that project doesn't fit with the neighborhood. Nikki Blonigan, of 9806 Hart Blvd., shared her concern that the increased traffic would be a danger for kids riding bikes in the neighborhood. Jeremiah Rush, of 9808 Hart Blvd., said that he lives next door to the site. He agreed with the concerns related to increased traffic. He is also concerned about added drainage because his backyard currently floods. He doesn't want to look out at 12-20 windows 100 feet from his home. Brad Fyle asked about the height restriction. Staff confirmed that the Mississippi Wild and Scenic regulations restrictbuilding height to 25 feet and agreed to make a copy of the regulations available. Angela Schumann noted that since the public hearing was to be continued, the public would have ars opportunity to provide additional comment at the August 6th meeting. Decision I : Resolution of Recommendation for Comprehensive flan amendment reclassifying the subject property from "Places to Shop" to "Places to Live," and Rezoning to R-4, Medium-high Density. CHARLOTTE GABLER MOVED TO TABLE ACTION ON THE REQUEST TO ALLOW FOR DNR COMMENT PERIOD, AND TO CONTINUE THE HEARING TO THE AUGUST 6TH, 2013 MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION. SAM BURVEE SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED 5-0. 3 Planning Commission Minutes — 7/02/13 6. Continued Public Hearing - Consideration of an ordinance amending Monticello Zoning Ordinance Section 4.3 (D) — Requirements for Fences & Walls by District Type Applicant: City of Monticello Planning Case Number: 2013 - 019 Steve Grittman summarized that the Commission had discussed stepped height, transparency and slope height issues related to front yard fencing in residential areas at its June meeting. Grittman said that there had been agreement about eliminating the three foot step requirement in the front yard as it would result in more uniform front yard fences and make code enforcement easier. As a result, language related to the step fencing issue, which had been reflected in Subp. (a)(2), would be deleted from the ordinance. The section would read as follows: Section 4.3 (D)(1) Fences and Walls Residential Districts (a) Front Yards (i) Fences and walls shall not exceed a height of four (4) feet in front yards and that part of side yards from the front lot line to the front building line. No change would be made to Section 4.3 (D)(1) Subp. (b). Staff recommended maintaining the 50% transparency requirement for front yard fencing stating that raising the fence height to four feet may interfere with visibility for vehicles backing out of driveways dependent upon the transparency of the fencing material used. Staff had also suggested including language in the amendment which would create a definition of average heights over the span of a fence to accommodate common slope differences. Staff recorded adding a paragraph as follows: Section 8.2 (B)(5) (v) Fence and Wall Height on Slopes in Residential Side and Rear Yards Where a fence is constructed of posts and panels down a slope in a side or rear yar,d of residential property, and the top rail of said fence or wall maintains a horizontal alignment, the height of said fence shall be measured as follows: The maximum fence height identified in the ordinance applicable to said fence shall be measured from existing grade to the top of the fence panel nearest to the uphill post. The height of the top edge of the fence panel may exceed the maximum required height by up to two (2) feet when measured at the downhillosp t. Any fencing used to enclose the ggp below the fence panel shall match the panel in material, color, and style, or may be retaining wall constructed of stone, brick or concrete masonry units designed and sold explicitly for such purpose. 2 Planning Commission Minutes — 7/02/13 Grittman also confirmed that no change is recommend related to the visibility triangle area at intersections. Bill Spartz opened the public hearing. Hearing no public comment, the public hearing was closed. Decision l: Adopting Resolution No. 2013-045 recommending approval of an amendruennt to the Zoning Ordinance providing for a change to the City's fence regulations in Section 4.3 (D)(1). CHARLOTTE GABLER MOVED TO ADOPT RESOLUTION 2013-045 RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT CHANGING FENCE HEIGHT STANDARDS IN RESIDENTIAL FRONT YARDS. BRAD FYLE SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED 4-0. (Bill Spartz did not vote as he had introduced the fence height issue as a private citizen.) 7. Added items a) R -A Zoning — (Lloyd Hilgart) Hilgart suggested that the Commission discuss setbacks and tree preservation in Carlisle Village. Angela Schumann noted that staff has had to enforce the old zoning code because development standards are locked into the Planned Unit Developments at Carlisle Village, Hunter's Crossing, Sunset Ponds, and Featherstone neighborhoods. Schumann agreed to schedule a neighborhood tour to see development standards currently in place. 8. Adiourn GRANT SALA MOVED TO ADJOURN THE MEETING AT 7:48 PM. SAM BURVEE SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED 5-0. Recorder: Kerry Burri Approved: August 6, 2013 Attest: Angela Schumann, Community Development Director 5. A. Planning Commission Agenda — 08/06/13 Continued Public Hearing — Consideration of a request for Comprehensive Plan Amendment for a change in land use designation from Places to Shop to Places to Live and a request for rezoning from B -4 (Regional Business) District to R -4 (Medium -High Density Residence) District. Applicant: IRET Properties (NAC) Property: Lot 1, Block 2, Riverview Square (southeast quadrant of County Highway 39 and Hart Boulevard) The property consists of approximately 5.2 acres and is currently vacant. Planning Case Number: 2013 -023 REFERENCE & BACKGROUND Request(s): Comprehensive Plan Amendment from "Places to Shop" to "Places to Live" and rezoning from B -4, Regional Business to R -4, Medium -High Density Residential District Deadline for Decision: 8/12/2013 Land Use Designation: Places to Shop Zoning Designation: B -4, Regional Business, and the Mississippi Wild and Scenic Recreational River Overlay District The purpose of the "B -4" regional business district is to provide for the establishment of commercial and service activities which draw from and serve customers from the entire community or region. The purpose of the MWSRR district is to protect and preserve the scenic, recreational, natural and historical values of the Mississippi River in the city by carefully controlling development of this river corridor consistent with the state Wild and Scenic River Act. Current Site Use: The site is currently undeveloped. Surrounding Land Uses: North: County Highway 39, Single Family Residential, zoned R -1 East: Church and Twin Homes, zoned R -1 Planning Commission Agenda — 08/06/13 South: Retail and Service, zoned B -2/13-3 West: Retail and Gas /Convenience, zoned B -4 Planning Commission Review — July 2"d, 2013 The Planning Commission continued the public hearing on this item during their July 2nd meeting in order to allow for the 30 -day required comment period by the Department of Natural Resources relative to the site's location within the Mississippi Wild Scenic & Recreational River District (MWSRR) overlay. At the time of this report, no formal written comment has been received by the DNR on this application. Staff have had verbal discussions with DNR Area Hydrologist Roger Stradal regarding the nature of the request and the application of the MWSRR ordinance. It is anticipated that a written response will be received prior to the meeting of the 6th and will be forwarded to the Commission upon receipt. During the hearing on July 2nd, a number of residents from the River Mill neighborhood were present and addressed the Commission regarding concerns related to this application. The draft minutes included with this agenda provide record of the comments made during the hearing. Zoning Map Amendment Standards The applicants are seeking a rezoning and re- designation of the governing land use requirements for the subject site from commercial ( "Places to Shop ") and B -4, "Regional Business" zoning, to residential ( "Places to Live ") and R -4, "Medium -High Density Residential" zoning. This is a fundamental change in land use direction for the subject property. While there are technical aspects to any land use and rezoning question, such as street capacity, impacts on utilities, density and intensity of land use, and general impacts on surrounding neighborhoods, a rezoning of this type is essentially a policy question. Particularly in this case where the underlying zoning supports a highly intensive commercial activity, a higher density residential designation does not lead to extreme differences in impact. It is important to consider the request for re- designation in the context of the potential of one zoning /land use category to another — not (as is sometimes suggested by neighbors) a change from a vacant property to a developed one. Any new development on the subject property, whether under current or proposed zoning, will create significant new impacts 2 Planning Commission Agenda — 08/06/13 on traffic levels, infrastructure use, and other changes. For the Commission's reference, the criteria for Comprehensive Plan Amendment have been included as supporting data. The Zoning Ordinance also identifies the following standards for considering rezoning (or other zoning ordinance) amendment requests: 2.4 (B) (5) Approval Criteria Recommendations and decisions on zoning amendments shall be based on consideration of the following criteria: (a) Whether the proposed amendment corrects an error in the original text or map; or (b) Whether the proposed amendment addresses needs arising from a changing condition, trend, or fact affecting the subject property and surrounding area. (c) Whether the proposed amendment is consistent with achieving the goals and objectives outlined in the comprehensive plan. Of these, (b) and (c) are relevant to the current request. The Comprehensive Plan question, item (c), is the primary policy consideration for the City, as the applicant contends that conditions (from the time of the original commercial designation) have changed dramatically, supporting the rezoning request. Therefore, as noted above, the issue for consideration is the change from one land use designation to another. When the property was originally platted and zoned for commercial use, the city required the platting of an access street (Hart Boulevard) for primary access, and utility extensions designed to be adequate to serve an intense commercial development. The applicants suggest that the construction of a 92 unit multi - family residential building on the 5.2 acre parcel as proposed would be feasible from an economic standpoint, manageable from an infrastructure standpoint, and compatible with the existing land uses in the area. As identified previously, the surrounding land uses are: • B -4 Commercial to the west (both developed and vacant — uses include gas /convenience store and retail); • B -2 and B -3 Commercial to the south and southeast (both developed and vacant — uses include print shop and bar /restaurant); • R -1 Residential to the east (uses include two - family homes and a church); and 3 Planning Commission Agenda — 08/06/13 • R -1 Residential to the north, across County Highway 39 (uses are single family residential). The comprehensive plan amendment criteria requires that the City consider compatibility with existing and proposed uses surrounding the subject properties. The proposed site plan illustrates how a building could be constructed on the property to meet the requirements of the zoning district, if rezoned to R-4. This specific plan is not under consideration as a part of the rezoning, but is helpful in showing how the property could be used if approved. The surrounding land uses are reasonably well isolated from the proposed site. Perhaps the most "incompatible" use, the single family neighborhood to the north, is separated from the proposed development site by at least 90 feet of road right of way, as well as existing and required setbacks. Traffic impacts from the project would be focused internally toward Hart Boulevard, just as would any commercial development under the current zoning. From a traffic generation standpoint, the proposed apartment project would be expected to generate approximately 700 trips per day. A retail commercial development on this site would be expected to generate around 1,000 trips per day, more if fast -food restaurant or other convenience uses were part of a project. The comprehensive plan amendment criteria identified in the zoning ordinance also includes a reference to whether the amendment at addresses a demonstrated community need. In a recent update to Chapter 2 — Community Context of the Comprehensive Plan, it was noted that almost 40% of the city's multi - family housing stock was constructed prior to 1970. This suggests a need for updated multi - family housing units, developed consistent with the comprehensive plan's overall goals for both step -up and life -cycle housing. Perhaps the greatest change since this site was platted and zoned — apart from economic conditions — would be the City's adoption of the Embracing Downtown study as an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan. This study re- focused the community's attention on downtown Monticello development and redevelopment opportunities. Many of the uses allowed in the B -4 District would be those that the City might encourage — under the policies of the update Plan — to be located in the downtown area. The considerations above examine the impacts of the rezoning on the site in question. One of the related considerations for the City is how the reclassification of that land might impact other "competitive" locations in the community. While the Embracing Downtown project does not propose to "force" development to the downtown, it encourages the City to take positive steps that support downtown development. The zoning map envisions large areas of the community outside of the downtown that might 4 Planning Commission Agenda — 08/06/13 accommodate regional business activity. Paring down that regional commercial land supply can be viewed as consistent with the Comprehensive Plan in this way. Wild and Scenic Recreational River Overlay District Impacts. The Wild and Scenic River Overlay District would not change under this request. There are impacts on a proposed development under that district. These impacts would include a restriction on potential building height, which is currently 25 feet in the MWSRR, rather than the 3 or 4 stories expected for a multiple family building. This would need to be addressed as a variance from the MWSRR standard at the time of application. Finally, with the rezoning application occurring on a site that is subject to the MWSRR, the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources has 30 days to comment on the request. A notice is being forwarded to the DNR staff. However, final action must await the expiration of the 30 day period. Thus, the applicant should be notified of an extension to the 60 day City decision period under MN Stat. 15.99, and consideration before City Council will need to occur after the DNR has had the statutory opportunity for comment on the request. B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS Decision 1: Resolution of Recommendation for Comprehensive Plan amendment reclassifying the subject property from "Places to Shop" to "Places to Live ", and Rezoning to R -4, Medium -High Density 1. Motion to approve Resolution 2013 -052 recommending approval of the Comprehensive Plan amendment reclassifying the subject property from "Places to Shop" to "Places to Live ", and Rezoning to R -4, Medium -High Density Residential, based on the findings identified in the Resolution. This motion should include a condition that the City's 60 -day decision period is extended to 120 days, and that the DNR has the required opportunity to provide comment on the rezoning. 2. Motion to deny Resolution 2013 -052, recommending a Comprehensive Plan amendment reclassifying the subject property from "Places to Shop" to "Places to Live ", and Rezoning to R -4, Medium -High Density Residential, based on findings to be made by the Planning Commission. This motion should include a condition that the City's 60 -day decision period is extended to 120 days, and that the DNR has the required opportunity to provide comment on the rezoning. 3. Motion to table action on the request, pending additional information as identified by the Planning Commission and staff report. 5 Planning Commission Agenda — 08/06/13 C. STAFF RECOMMNDATION Land Use amendments and rezoning applications are policy - related decisions. As noted above, the proposed land use change from commercial to multi - family residential would have only minimal changes in traffic and other impacts, and in some cases would likely lessen the impact on the City's infrastructure. The Comprehensive Plan, as now amended with the Embracing Downtown study materials, can be read to support the rezoning, by taking steps that have the impact of focusing commercial development toward the downtown area, away from competing nodes. While this does not require the City to rezone undeveloped commercial land in any way, the proposed rezoning for this site can at least be viewed as being consistent with the City's land use policies in such manner. In some manner, the subject site should be able to function well under either commercial or high- density residential regulations. While there are several areas of the community that are zoned and can accommodate commercial land uses, the options for multiple - family residential are limited. Existing development patterns can often inhibit infill higher densities, and finding compatible high- density sites can be a challenge. This "alternative locations" factor supports the idea that rezoning to residential can be viewed positively. Finally, although unrelated to this proposal, the City has recently adopted an amendment to its zoning ordinance that establishes a zoning district that allows higher density residential development, but also places extensive requirements on that development to meet the Comprehensive Plan goal of higher quality development in all categories. Development of multiple family structures under that new district permit higher densities, but also apply greater performance standards (along with a requirement for Conditional Use Permit review) to ensure that the subsequent development proposal is consistent with the City's objectives. As a result, staff is supportive of the land use amendment and rezoning. There should be few, if any, negative impacts on surrounding land uses. The comprehensive plan supports land use decisions that have the effect of encouraging commercial development in the downtown area. There are several options for commercial development in the City, but relatively few competitive sites for high- density residential. And finally, the City's updated R -4 zoning district helps to ensure that multiple family residential development will be accomplished in a high quality manner and be a credit to the community. D. SUPPORTING DATA 0 Planning Commission Agenda — 08/06/13 A. Resolution 2013 — 052 B. Aerial Image C. Applicant Narrative D. Zoning Map E. Land Use Plan F. Site Plan G. Comparable Concept Image H. Comprehensive Plan Amendment Review Criteria 7 CITY OF MONTICELLO WRIGHT COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION NO. 2013 - 052 Date: July 2nd, 2013 Resolution No. 2013 - 052 Motion By: Seconded By: A RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPTS AN AMENDMENT TO THE ZONING MAP, REZONING FROM B -4, REGIONAL BUSINESS TO R -4, MEDIUM -HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL, TOGETHER WITH AN AMENDMENT TO THE COMPREHENSIVE LAND USE PLAN REGUIDING SAID PROPERTY FROM "PLACES TO SHOP" TO "PLACES TO LIVE ", FOR THE FOLLOWING DESCRIBED PARCEL: LOT 1, BLOCK 2, RIVERVIEW SQUARE WHEREAS, the property owner MMC Land Companies, together with 1RET Properties as applicant, have requested a comprehensive plan amendment and rezoning of the property named above; and WHEREAS, said property is currently zoned B -4, Regional Business District; and WHEREAS, the applicant proposes that the zoning map be amended to rezone the subject property to R -4, Medium -High Density Residential District; and WHEREAS, the property is designated as "Places to Shop" in the Monticello land use plan; and WHEREAS, the designation "Places to Live" would accommodate multiple family residential development; and WHEREAS, the "Places to Live" designation would accommodate residential development that would be compatible with the surrounding land uses; and WHEREAS, high- density residential development can be adequately served by existing public services, including utilities and roadways; and WHEREAS, the proposed zoning would be consistent with the land use plan as amended; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Monticello finds that the proposed uses of the property will be consistent with the intent of the Comprehensive land use plan and proposed zoning district; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has conducted a public hearing on July 2, 2013 to review the requests and receive public comment on the rezoning; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission finds that the applicant has met the requirements for Comprehensive Plan amendment and rezoning found in the zoning ordinance; 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 amendment to the Comprehensive Land Use Plan and a zoning map amendment to be identified as Ordinance #581. ADOPTED this 2nd day of July, 2013 by the Planning Commission of the City of Monticello, Minnesota. MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION By: William Spartz, Chair ATTEST: Jeff O'Neill, City Administrator Consideration of a request for Comprehensive Plan Amendment for a change in land use designation from Places to Shop to Places to Live anti a request for rezoning from B-4 (Regiorsal Business) District to R-4 (Medium -Hig$ Density Residence) District, Lot 1, block 2, River View Square, PID # 155117002010 a y. X41 +Y � y I I CITY OF MOrrMELLO COMTMwity D&MOpMA .__ . 505 Wadi" street, Seutie I Memtaceilo, MN 55552 Land Use Apptication N.- Ionticello (763)295-2711. . W APIPUC ROM PIIaDF'1:RTY ATtv�E P tv Address $tom escrow smeftkwOn Myear- 1 arscrr JLot f S' FnM ID Number - $500 since -bn-j PIOlAi1LER T10N owner Name Owner Address Owner Phone mail }5 -- r►I! ft, 3 i �j : ' 'Off ArAMIcant Name R , Applicant Address icannt Phone /Email / - 50-e4-1.4 S i APIPUC ROM LAND UM APPLWA7M ME A"UCA"* W $tom escrow smeftkwOn Myear- Administratwe rrt NotappUcable $2AGO Amendment to ordinance $500 since -bn-j 410 Map Amendment fAftoning) $'WO + esa" IUM basead + $i0ll unit T Text Amendment $200 + escrow ComLwehenskv Plan Amendment _ $200 +escrow Total FaesfWm Above krr .e.>r•�a++..+�m.+r�•..aw.ua.q Conditional Use Pamit $Ml0 + escr w $ Planned Unit Development $ Collaborative $50 + Escrow Concept $2W + escrow DnM $200+ escrow FInW $50 + escrow Site Plan Review 00 + escrow 51*kh Wan Review Not appikable . Subdivision Simple 5ubdivislon /AdmInistrative Lot CombiMtion/Lot Line Adjustment $200 + escrow PnOmirmy Plat $300 +escrow Final Plat $50 +escrow Variance $200 + escrow Vacetion Easement or of $201) +escrow Special Planning Commission Meeting' nOesar o $350 LAID USEAPFUCATIDH PLIW REVIEW BCN Ml COt><tR►OTM $tom escrow smeftkwOn Myear- ReWrlMdd 0.3 Acres $2AGO 1 unit $500 since -bn-j 410 $6 000 2 + units IUM basead + $i0ll unit LAND USE FMIM sic ESCROW CALCLAATHM Total FaesfWm Above krr .e.>r•�a++..+�m.+r�•..aw.ua.q $ ToaI Escrow froofn Above $ TOTAL TO BIE PAID AT APPUCATION $ Revised 5/$0/2013 Arum" 5maes Suess! I am the tee title owner of the described property and I agree to this application. I certify that I am ht compliance whh all ordinance mcorements and condh3aM regarding other Qty approval that have been prmiouly granted. {SAgnature * �' r Date t / ftf -- This applcation shall be processed In my name and I am the party whom the City should contact ragwdng the applcation. I have completed all of the appkaMe tAing requirements and I hereby admawledge that 1 have read and fully understand the appRtaMe provlslons of the City Ordieearttes and current poWas related to this application and that the documents and Warmatio n I have submitted also true and oortect. App1rWWX5gbd'nea1R &MKrVm 1 pelmoarledge the Fees A Escrow Purpose ex0anatkm below and hereby agree to pay all statemegts..alpived pertalning m acrid al rm seed City realew. __� Lv� TI *W Review MN State ISM allows a 6D-ft review period for final action on a bnd tsta appkatici% aria that appkwon is found to be complet% unless the C ty estends the mm bww paned and so ncdft Oa appftnL your request urdll cwt be schaduled for public hearten; or City rarbr until all required lnfornrstlos has been ptaWded amd Pound to be adequate by the Community Dxvafop ent Depano nt. Pure of Pon a EW ON fees: Tba application does eels used fm' publication of do public hmerlm nmtke In the Mcadwilo Times, for postage to mall the: nmiuked notice t a adleoat ptopartiss as nutlirted by ordinance. and recording fame. s The City uses oscraw deposits forstaff and c oirwAtaet tFnwfor cats rMAGWand prop mU*pe of documents related to On application. V* may Include &VbwerkM legal, planner and ammlrormmwrW cone time_ Should the original esceow beenteedod, theapplicant or responsible party Weil be billed for all addittorral services. It is the polky ortha Qty of Monticello to r squire appikants doe land use appnwas to reimburse the chy far amsts incarrad in r brtawtng and aeons upan applluttoM sc thatthem oosts are not'-a by the tames *f the City. Tbm costs Include all of the CWs out -nit costs for avemes, lndulhtg the Ott/$ Covi for radew of the appffcMM by tho Clans staff. OsnaaMM Engimear, CmMidnS oglomr, City Att=W, or umber tonsedtants. The City vA1 (crack* the spp&=4 for these costs wMIn 3 motifs of final salon an the land use application and payment vratil bo due Britt n thhty {3M days. If pagmant ISM received as spired tty this U earnaet, the will! promed ors actTan to tam or Ilan. Pavement aQ cnb vA be t6grxTnad whohorthe appkstinn is VorMW or denbd. 9 5 s I k RE: Lot 1, Block 2, River View Square PID — R155 -177- 002010 IRET Properties has placed the parcel referenced above under contract with the hope to have the zoning changed from Business District B4 to R4, which would allow density up to 25 units per acre. The existing parcel is 5.02 acres in size and with the current setback requirements, we calculate that a 92 unit apartment community would be permissible under an R4 zoning. Our intent would be to construct a Class A market rate apartment complex with underground parking. IRET has owned and operated Monticello Village Apartments since 2004. During that time, the property has continuously operated at or near full occupancy, which is an indication of a market that is in need of rental housing. IRET has researched developing more apartments in Monticello in the past but determined that a project would not be economically feasible due to the prior zoning requirements that drastically limited density. The above referenced parcel has been for sale for several years as a commercial use opportunity. However, the fact that it is removed from the other core retail centers in Monticello and the central business district makes it a less desirable location for this use. Past interest in the site for commercial use has been limited and no successful sales have been obtained An apartment community on this site would very desirable. The location offers direct access to Interstate 94 and is in close proximity to schools, entertainment and medical. Also, the primary uses in the immediate vicinity are light commercial and multifamily housing so an apartment community would be a natural fit. We feel that with the property's close proximity to shopping, banking, healthcare, schools, recreation and transportation that a change in land use would be well suited for this location. The change would be supported by the city's comprehensive plan and would enhance the existing city's assets in building a great place to live, work, shop and play. W A r W 7 fi C N N n a a s .n A fl P6m he Lks PYewb ft* Pbaeb Wbrl �R PbmbRxmmb Pberbrcmuww OWAMBMH Yom LM -- . -e Plmm**Ar U&m Rw ma b awma b ++ Rkm ■ee BOomw Prlf mum F r nbq YNIO QY9eea APJftvAv lle dabU Paw" Brmmw Pabww kftwwp td N ti Q a Q6 a TAKEN FROM THE City of Monticello Official Zoning Map 00mb a Rw Ovow Mdrhg sew mwm vnftf N /1, e� A.0 Da R-Ptm iMli 00mb a Rw Ovow Mdrhg sew mwm vnftf N /1, e� *1i 2N zOl-"7 '400S t,6'L7 dD L7 N CID 310 9f'9t-7 Ci 10A OL ON 7-7 jzt rt 6f- �zv ON 06' n 99 NOUIGGY GNn790H 0) bq'PJc:).)rl /,-1,-7 t—i /7 A r/ —),c all R 0 iv-1 V4, of F 1! lial 11. Liv WPM try AM. 46 4*/ L RA • d W-LffiLl M. 17 L "= , F . I M 9 CHAPTER 2: APPLICATION REVIEWS AND PROCEDURES Section 2.4 Specific Review Procedures & Requirements Subsection (A) Comprehensive Plan Amendments (iv) The existing and proposed land use and zoning designations for all properties proposed to change (if applicable); (v) A map of the properties to be modified to a different land use category, showing the addresses and land uses for adjacent properties (if applicable); (vi) The proposed text and/or maps to be added, amended, or deleted from the Comprehensive Plan along with documentation as to the location of the text changes in the Comprehensive Plan, if applicable. (4) Review (a) Planning Commission Before any amendment is adopted, the Planning Commission shall hold at Section 2.311: Public Notification least one public hearing after proper notice has been issued in accordance with Section 2.3(I). Following the hearing, the Planning Commission shall adopt findings and recommendations on the proposed amendment as soon as practical. The Community Development Department may forward an application to the City Council without a recommendation from the Planning Commission only if it is deemed necessary to ensure compliance with state mandated deadlines for application review. (b) City Council The City Council may hold a public hearing on the amendment if they deem such necessary or it is deemed necessary by the Community Development Department. After consideration of the Planning Commission recommendation and /or hearing, if applicable, the City Council may adopt the amendment or any part thereof in such form as it deems advisable. 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. (5) Approval Criteria Recommendations and decisions on Comprehensive Plan amendments shall be based on consideration of the following criteria: (a) Whether the proposed amendment corrects an error or addresses the need resulting from some changing condition, trend, or fact arising since the adoption of the Comprehensive Plan; Page 20 City of Monticello Zoning Ordinance ZONING TEXT OR MAP AMENDMENT CHAPTER 2: APPLICATION REVIEWS AND PROCEDURES Section 2.4 Specific Review Procedures & Requirements Subsection (B) Zoning Ordinance Text and Zoning Map Amendments (b) Whether the proposed amendment is consistent with the guiding principles of the Comprehensive Plan; (c) The extent to which the proposed amendment addresses a demonstrated community need; (d) Whether the proposed amendment will protect the health, safety, morals, and general welfare of the public; (e) The impacts on the natural and built environments, including air, water, noise, stormwater management, wildlife habitat, water quality, vegetation, drainage, streets, and other engineering design or environmental factors; (f) Whether the proposed amendment is compatible with existing and proposed uses surrounding the subject property; whether the proposed design and land uses are appropriate for the land; and whether the proposed amendment will maintain or improve compatibility among uses and ensure efficient development within the City; (g) Whether the proposed amendment will result in a logical, orderly and predictable development pattern; and (h) Whether the proposed amendment is consistent with the purpose of this ordinance. (B) Zoning Ordinance Text and Zoning Map Amendments (1) Purpose and Scope This section sets out the procedures to be followed in reviewing and considering a text change to this ordinance or an amendment to the zoning map with the exception of a map amendment to a planned unit development, which shall be subject to the procedures in Section 2.4(P), Planned Unit Development. (2) Initiation of Proceedings Proceedings for the amendment of the text of this ordinance or the zoning map shall be initiated by one of the following: (a) An owner of property or an authorized representative of an owner pursuant to Section 2.3(B), Authority to File Applications; (b) Recommendation of the Planning Commission; or City of Monticello Zoning Ordinance Page 21 Planning Commission Agenda – 08/06/13 1 6. Consideration to approve an Amendment to Conditional Use Permit for Planned Unit Development. Applicant: JR & R II, LLC. (AS) Property: Lot 2, Block 1, and Outlot C, Kirkman Addition (subject site) and Lot 1, Block 1, Monticello Mall The existing PUD consists of the 3.6 acre former Kmart property, and the 6.4 acre property which includes the CUB building and a multi-tenant retail complex. Planning Case Number: 2013 - 027 A. REFERENCE & BACKGROUND Request(s): Amendment to Conditional Use Permit for Planned Unit Development Deadline for Decision: September 9th, 2013 (60 days) Land Use Designation: Places to Shop Zoning Designation: CCD (Central Community District), sub-district L-8, Freeway Commercial The purpose of the “CCD”, Central Community District, is to provide for a wide variety of land uses, transportation options, and public activities in the downtown Monticello area, and particularly to implement the goals, objectives, and specific directives of the Comprehensive Plan, and in particular, the Embracing Downtown Monticello report and its Design Guidelines. Current Site Use: The 3.6 acre subject site is currently occupied by the now vacant Kmart retail building. The parcels also include an existing parking field and an outdoor sales/display area. Surrounding Land Uses: North: 7th Street and residential, zoned CCD (Central Community District), F-3 (Transition) East: Mixed Multi-Tenant Commercial Retail, CCD (Central Community District), sub-district L-8, Freeway Commercial Planning Commission Agenda – 08/06/13 2 South: Mixed commercial, zoned B-3 (Highway Business) West: Vacant, zoned B-3 (Highway Business) Project Description: The applicant is seeking approval for an amendment to Conditional Use Permit for an existing four lot commercial Planned Unit Development. The PUD includes two single- use principal buildings and a multi-tenant retail building. The applicants are seeking to re-use the existing 86,000 square foot building structure and parking area located on the subject site, Lot 2, Block 1 and Outlot C of the Kirkman Addition. The City approved the original PUD in March of 1998. At that time, the project included the demolition of the existing Monticello Mall retail building and the addition of the CUB and in-line retail buildings. The PUD included the allowance for the zero lot line development and cross access/cross parking for the retail complex. At this time, JR & R II, LLC as applicants, propose to use the site for the operation of a principal retail use, with accessory loading dock and outdoor sales and display, which may also include limited rental of small tools and equipment. No changes to the footprint of the existing building are proposed, however, the site is proposed to be modified to include a 19,950 square foot outdoor sales and display area and recessed loading dock. The applicant’s narrative references required conditional use permits and variances for the proposed use. Each CUP and variance is addressed within this analysis and can be encompassed by the amendment to planned unit development. Separate approval for each is not required. CUP – Retail > 10,000 SF in L-8, CCD, including limited rental sales CUP – Accessory use outdoor storage Variance – off-street loading, dock length Variance – sign area square footage, free-standing signs Planning Commission Agenda – 08/06/13 3 ANALYSIS Ordinance Requirements Use. The subject site is located in the L-8 (Freeway Commercial) sub-district of the CCD. Retail uses over 10,000 square feet require approval of a conditional use permit. The L-8 sub-district requires no additional specific standards for conditional use permit, outside of the base ordinance requirements for CUP, which are as follows: i) The conditional use will not substantially diminish or impair property values within the immediate vicinity of the subject property; Comment: The proposed use is consistent with the original development plan for the PUD and as such, is not expected to diminish or impair property values within the vicinity. (ii) The conditional use will not be detrimental to the health, safety, morals, or welfare of persons residing or working near the use; Comment: The proposed use is consistent with the original development plan for the PUD and as such, is not expected to be detrimental to the health, safety, morals, or welfare of persons residing or working near the use. (iii) The conditional use will not impede the normal and orderly development of surrounding property for permitted uses predominant in the area; Comment: The proposed use is consistent with the original development plan for the PUD and as such, will support normal and orderly development of surrounding property for permitted uses predominant in the area. (iv) The conditional use will not pose an undue burden on public utilities or roads, and adequate sanitary facilities are provided; Comment: Existing. (v) The conditional use can provide adequate parking and loading spaces, and all storage on the site can be done in conformance with City code requirements; Comment: Parking and loading has been evaluated and can be accommodated for the proposed use as described within this report. (vi) The conditional use will not result in any nuisance including but not limited to odor, noise, or sight pollution; Comment: Compliant. (vii) The conditional use will not unnecessarily impact natural features such as woodlands, wetlands, and shorelines; and all erosion will be properly controlled; Comment: The proposed use will occur on an existing developed site. No woodlands, wetlands or shorelines will be impacted. A grading and drainage plan for proposed site improvements is a recommended condition of approval. Planning Commission Agenda – 08/06/13 4 (viii) The conditional use will adhere to any applicable additional criteria outlined in Chapter 5 for the proposed use. Comment: Evaluation of each conditional use follows within this report. Access. Access to the property is gained via the north from two curb cuts on 7th Street, as well as cross-access from two curb-cuts on the adjacent Monticello Mall parcels. The curb cuts are wider than allowed by ordinance, at approximately 50’. The code maximum is 24’, but does allow for exceptions with review and approval of the Community Development Department. The accesses are considered an existing lawful non-conforming condition and are acceptable at this location due to the volume of customer traffic entering and exiting the site. Customer traffic is served by two drive aisles extending the width of the full PUD, the first running on the north side of the site parallel to 7th Street and the second lying along the frontage of the buildings within the PUD. In addition, the parcels jointly utilize a rear access drive aisle for loading/unloading of cargo and service vehicles. The current drive aisle allows for traffic to move in both directions along the rear of the building. With the amendment to PUD, the applicant is seeking approval for an accessory 40’ long recessed loading dock. The parking of a semi-trailer in this dock area for an extended period of time may cause conflict to delivery vehicles moving in and out of the multi- tenant retail area at the rear of the building. As such, as a condition of approval, vehicle traffic in the dock area shall be for temporary loading and unloading purposes only. Trucks may not be stored within the dock area. No semi-trailer storage shall be allowed on site. An existing Conditional Use Permit for shared access will remain in place concurrent with the amended PUD approval, guaranteeing both properties’ use of the access points and access drives. It should be noted that an additional cross-access easement exists for the properties to the west of the current CUB property, which provides additional access from TH 25. Setback. The subject site is located within the L-8 (Freeway Commercial) sub-district of the CCD. The L-8 district requires a 20’ building setback from all property lines. With the exception of the east property line, the current principal use structure meets these required setbacks. In addition, the CCD requires a 25’ building setback from property zoned other than CCD, which is a compliant condition for the existing structure. As a PUD, the multi-tenant retail buildings on the east were constructed directly adjacent to the former Kmart building, and as such, the current building is out of compliance with the CCD requirement that buildings must be setback 5’ from adjacent CCD property. That condition is considered a lawful non-conformity for this application request and is acceptable given the PUD which encompasses both properties. Planning Commission Agenda – 08/06/13 5 No maximum street setback is required for the L-8 sub-district. Parking. With the exception of the loss of stalls for the proposed outdoor sales and display area, the footprint of the existing parking area will remain unchanged. Currently, 356 parking stalls are provided in the parking area located on Lot 2, Block 1 and Outlot C, the subject site. This calculation includes the loss of 52 stalls for the proposed outdoor sales area. An additional 295 spaces are available on the adjacent CUB/multi-tenant PUD property. Within the CCD, properties are required to have 1 space per 350 square feet of retail area. Based on a total retail square footage of approximately 162,000, the PUD is required to 462 total available spaces. At 651 total available spaces, the PUD has amply met the CCD ordinance parking requirement. The applicant is asked to verify the placement of any proposed cart corrals which may result in additional parking loss on a revised site plan. It is noted that the parking lot for the subject site is in need of maintenance and striping. The City does not have an ordinance relating to parking lot maintenance. As such, no condition of approval has been included requiring parking lot maintenance improvements. However, the PUD is subject to a private common area maintenance agreement. The owner of the CUB and multi-tenant property, BBF Properties, has submitted a letter noting that maintenance is required per that agreement. The City does have an ordinance relating to parking lot striping, which is stated in Chapter 4.8 of the zoning ordinance. As the current striping within the parking lot is barely visible in many locations, staff is recommending as an approval condition the restriping of the full parking field for the subject site. Based on adjacent striping patterns, the current parking stalls appear to meet the ordinance requirement of 20’ in length and 9’ in width. Re-striping to this dimension is required. Aisle widths of 24’ are illustrated on the site plan and shall be maintained. Landscaping. Based on the applicant’s narrative, landscaping is proposed to remain unchanged, and currently consists of a combination of shrub and tree species and bare mulch at the front entry. While boulevard tree landscaping along the 7th Street corridor is adequate, the landscaping on the subject site itself is minimal. In some cases, the existing landscaping is in a dead or dying condition. Many of the landscaping islands include no landscaping and little or no established ground cover. As a PUD, the site should be required to meet, if not exceed, basic ordinance standards for landscaping. Therefore, as a condition of approval, staff is recommending that the applicant submit a landscaping plan illustrating the removal and replacement of any dead or dying plan material and compliance with Table 4-4 of the zoning ordinance for Planning Commission Agenda – 08/06/13 6 required plantings per site. This would require that the applicant provide 10.0 ACI of canopy trees (including at least 1 evergreen tree) per acre and at least 2 shrubs per each 10 feet of building perimeter. These standards can be met within existing landscaping islands, along the front store façade and along the west property line. In addition, staff would support the loss of additional parking stalls within the interior of the lot to support creation of addition landscaping features to accomplish compliance with the code. Any existing landscaping on the site within the property lines of the subject site will be counted toward the base landscaping requirement. It should be noted that a perimeter chain link fence exists on the south side of the property line. This fence has been damaged over time. Damaged sections should be replaced or repaired as a condition of the PUD amendment. Lighting. Site lighting is existing and is proposed to remain as previously approved by the City. The parking field lighting is of a shoe-box style and is currently downcast, with no light source visible from the side. However, the lights on the exterior of the building are broadcast light directly outward and the lights on the existing outdoor storage area adjacent to the store are on a pivot, currently angled outward. These lights should be required to come into code compliance by replacement or re-angling downward. The applicant will be required to provide a photometric plan verifying that all current site lighting meets ordinance requirements for glare. Signage. The property is located within the Freeway Bonus District. Replacement signage is proposed for the site, and includes the following: Applicant Request Code Allowance Status Pylon Signs 1 SF: 200sf Height: 31’ 1 SF: 200 sf Height: 32’ Compliant* Monument Signs 1 SF: 100 sf Height: 14’ 1 SF:100 sf Height 14’ Compliant* Total Freestanding Sign Area 300 sf. 200 sf *Requires variance under PUD to accommodate the additional square footage in sign face area Wall Signs 2 signs, north and south façade 180 sf, each Maximum of 15% of facades fronting not more than 2 public streets = 1642 sf (approx..) Compliant Planning Commission Agenda – 08/06/13 7 Total Wall Sign Area 360 sf 1642 sf Compliant The pylon is proposed to be located on the south side of the property, at the same location as the previous free-standing sign. The proposed sign will reuse existing posts. The monument sign is a new additional sign, proposed for location at the eastern-most entrance on Lot 2, Block 1. The monument sign base shall be required to be architecturally similar to the principal use building as per code. A variance under the PUD is required to accommodate the proposed amount of overall free-standing sign face area. The code allows up to 200 square feet; the applicant is requesting 300 square feet. It is recommended that the applicant be required to reduce the size of the north pylon to 100 square feet to maintain code compliance. No practical difficulty has been demonstrated for the proposed size. The PUD also includes existing free-standing signage totaling ? for the CUB site and existing compliant wall signage for both the CUB and multi-tenant uses. A photometric plan for any lit signage shall be required at the time of sign permit application. Additionally, a certificate of survey illustrating final sign placement is included as a condition of approval in order to accurately reflect sign placement relative to property lines. Building Design. No changes to the footprint of the existing building are proposed. The building is constructed of painted pre-cast concrete panels, with the exception of the enclosed seasonal sales area, which is constructed of hardiboard materials. Window detail is limited to the front façade and small seasonal sales area. Grading and Drainage. The off-street loading dock will create changes to drainage at the rear of the property. The applicant is required to submit a grading and drainage plan as a condition of approval. It was noted by staff in a site visit that a drainage issue currently exists within the alcove area behind the multi-tenant building. This condition allows water to flow off the multi- tenant building eastward to the CUB property, where it is flowing directly under the building. Although this is a pre-existing condition which staff have addressed with the CUB property owner, the grading and drainage plan for the site must illustrate that the drainage issue will not be compounded by the addition of the recessed dock. Utilities. The utility infrastructure at the site is not proposed to change. Planning Commission Agenda – 08/06/13 8 Accessory Uses Requirements Outdoor Sales & Display/Outdoor Storage - Permitted and Conditional Uses The subject site currently includes an approximately 50’ x 140’ seasonal landscape materials area, a portion of which is of which approximately 3000 square feet is unenclosed. The applicant proposes no changes to this outdoor sales and display area. The seasonal sales area is surrounded by an uncoated chain link fence. This is an existing non-conforming condition, as chain link fences are prohibited within commercial districts and considered inconsistent with materials recommended within the Embracing Downtown plan. As part of the PUD amendment, the applicant has proposed to construct an additional sales and display/outdoor storage area on the property. Outdoor sales and display is a permitted use in CCD. The ordinance defines outdoor sales and display as “products normally sold inside a retail establishment”. As the applicant proposes display and store tools, small equipment, and agricultural equipment which may not necessarily be found inside the store, the City is including within the PUD an approval for conditional use permit for outdoor storage. The outdoor sales and display/storage area will lie along the western edge of the subject property, directly adjacent to the property line. The display area totals approximately 19,950 square feet. The code specifies no limitation on the amount of outdoor sales and display area relative to the principal use, although the code does include the following requirements, with which the proposed accessory use is compliant. (a) Directly serve the principal use or structure; (b) Be customarily accessory and clearly incidental and subordinate to the principal use and structure; (c) Be subordinate in area, extent, and purpose to the principal use or structure; (d) Be owned or operated by the same person as the principal use or structure; (e) Be located on the same lot as the principal use or structure; The ordinance allows fences to be placed on the property line and exempts them from the required 6’ setback for all other accessory structures. Therefore, the proposed location of the fencing for the display area is acceptable per code. However, the southern portion of the display area does obstruct a fire hydrant at the southwest corner of the site and as such, the site plan shall be revised to eliminate this obstruction. The applicant will also be required to execute an encroachment agreement as the display area and fence lie within the existing 6’ drainage and utility easement on the west property line. The proposed display/storage area has been evaluated for compliance with outdoor storage requirements as follows. Planning Commission Agenda – 08/06/13 9 (i) The area is fenced and screened from view of neighboring residential uses in compliance with Section 4.1(I) of this ordinance. Comment: Not applicable. (ii) Storage is screened from view from the public right-of-way in compliance with Section 4.1(I) of this ordinance. Comment: The applicant proposes to surround the display and storage area on the west and south sides with an 8’ fence, constructed of 100% opaque maintenance free PVC. The ordinance for fences and walls allows 8’ fence heights in side or rear yards within commercial districts. The east side and north side fenceline of the display area is proposed to be constructed of 8’ vinyl-coated chain link to allow visibility into the display area. It is recommended that the north side of the storage area be screened from the public right of way with the proposed maintenance-free fencing per code. The code does require that all chain link fences must have a top rail, and barbed ends must be placed at the bottom of the fence A building permit is also required for any fence over 8’ tall. (iii) Storage area is grassed or surfaced to control dust. Comment: Compliant; the entire area is currently surfaced with existing pavement. (iv) When such storage is to include vehicle parking, storage areas must be paved. Comment: The applicant has not proposed to store vehicles within the display area, indicating the use is for equipment only. (v) Vehicle storage may not occur within front or side yards. Comment: The applicant has not proposed to store vehicles within the display area, indicating the use is for equipment only. (vi) All lighting shall be in compliance with Section 4.4 of this ordinance. Comment: A photometric plan for the entire site is condition of approval to guarantee compliance with this requirement. (vii) Does not take up parking space as required for conformity to this ordinance. Comment: As noted, the loss of approximately 52 stalls for the display area does not create a non-compliant condition with required parking for the site. (viii) Noise shall be controlled consistent with the standards of this ordinance. Comment: As a condition of approval, the applicant shall verify any required outdoor paging systems proposed for this area. (ix) The use shall require authorization through a conditional use permit following the provisions of Section 2.4(D) of this ordinance. Comment: The outdoor storage used is proposed to be included as a CUP use through the amendment to PUD. Planning Commission Agenda – 08/06/13 10 Off-Street Loading – Permitted Accessory Use, Variance to Dock Length As part of the amendment to PUD, the applicant is also requesting the addition of a new off-street loading dock at the rear of the existing building. The proposed dock will be located at the southeast corner of the building and measures 14’ in width and 40’ in length. The applicant proposes to recess the dock, which will require the submission of grading and drainage plan to ensure adequate storm water control. Off-street loading is a permitted accessory use within the CCD, however, the applicant is requesting a variance to the required dock length of 55’ feet, which is required for any first loading dock to ensure adequate space for circulation and truck exit/entry. The applicant has indicated that due to existing dimensions on the site, a variance from this requirement is needed. It should be noted that the dock dimensions place it partially on the adjacent property. The PUD accommodates this configuration, although the applicant may be requested by the adjacent property owner to enter into common use agreement. As noted earlier in the report, it is recommended that vehicle traffic in the dock area shall be for temporary loading and unloading purposes only. All loading areas shall be screened and landscaped in compliance with Section 4.1(I), of the zoning ordinance. In this case, the recessed dock is screened from I-94 by both existing vegetation, topography and partial screening from the proposed dock retaining wall. The dock is screened from the north and west by the building itself. The proposed dock is compliance with all other code requirements as follows. (1) All required loading berths shall be off-street and located on the same lot as the building or use to be served. Comment: Compliant. (2) The location of required loading berths shall be such that circulation occurs within the designated site or property and does not depend upon a public street or alley. Comment: Compliant. (3) All loading berth curb cuts shall be located at a minimum fifty (50) feet from the intersection of two (2) or more street right-of-ways. This distance shall be measured from the property line. Comment: Compliant. (4) No loading berth shall be located closer than fifty (50) feet from a residential district unless within a structure. Comment: Compliant. (5) Loading berths shall not occupy the front yard setbacks. Planning Commission Agenda – 08/06/13 11 Comment: Compliant. (6) Loading berths located at the front or at the side of buildings on a corner lot shall only be permitted if the following conditions can be met: (a) Loading berths shall not conflict with pedestrian movement. (b) Loading berths shall not obstruct the view of the public right-of-way from off- street parking access. (c) Loading berths shall comply with all other requirements of Section 4.8. (d) All screening requirements of Section 4.1(I) are met. Comment: Not applicable Trash Handling. The trash handling details were not provided, but the applicants shall enclose trash handling equipment within the building, or within an enclosure that is attached to the building and designed to blend with the overall building architecture. The current trash container is unenclosed and is located at the southwest corner of the property. PUD FINDINGS Although the current code presumes PUD will occur as a zoning change, this particular PUD is now proposed as an amendment to a previous Conditional Use Permit. In evaluating an amendment to PUD, the applicant is required to demonstrate the ability to meet the following PUD objectives, as stated by ordinance 2.4(P)(9): a. The PUD plan is consistent with the city’s comprehensive plan; Comment: Application is consistent with “Places to Shop” designation of the Comprehensive Plan. b. The PUD plan is tailored to the specific characteristics of the site and achieves a higher quality of site planning and greater public benefits than would be achieved under conventional provisions of the ordinance; Comment: As a re-use of the property, the proposed use represents an appropriate use of existing site characteristics. c. The PUD plan addresses the purpose and intent of the PUD rezoning laid out in Section 2.4(P)(1), and the public values statement established at the beginning of the process Comment: Not applicable. The Planned Unit Development in place was adopted prior to the current rezoning action associated with newly proposed PUD. However, the proposed retail use is consistent with the previous plan and intent for PUD. d. The PUD plan addresses the expectations of a PUD laid out in Section 2.4(P)(7); Planning Commission Agenda – 08/06/13 12 Comment: Section 2.4(P)(7) includes requirements applicable to commercial PUDs such as:“Promote aesthetically-pleasing design within the neighborhood and appears attractive and inviting from surrounding parcels”; “Promote development that is designed to reduce initial infrastructure costs and long-term maintenance and operational costs”; “Ensure high quality construction standards and the use of high quality construction materials”. This application seeks to re-use an existing structure, as such, the strength of the design aesthetic will reply on other site improvements, including landscaping, which is discussed later in this report. From an efficiency standpoint, the current PUD provides for shared parking and access, minimizing impacts to the transportation corridor and the storm water system. e. The PUD plan maintains or improves the efficiency of public streets, utilities, and other public services; Comment: As noted above, the use of cross-access and cross-parking for the full retail development results in fewer access points onto one of the City’s major east-west collector routes. In addition, the City has been striving to achieve a balance between actual parking demand and supply for the benefit of providing less storm water run-off and better overall stormwater management. The PUD also maximizes commercial development density at a transportation corridor location situated to handle such density. The 2014 completion of 7th Street between Minnesota and Elm will provide further improvement to the system and support increased flow along the frontage of this development. f. The PUD plan results in development compatible with existing adjacent and future guided land uses; Comment: The proposed use is consistent with both existing and proposed uses. The existing uses to the east are of a regional commercial nature, and the property directly to the west has also been guided and zoned for commercial uses. g. Whether the PUD can be accommodated by existing public services, such as parks, police, fire, administration, and utilities, or the developer has provided for the growth and extension of such services as a component of the PUD. Comment: Existing. No comments received from Public Works on an re-use or expansion concerns. h. Whether the PUD is designed to take advantage of, and preserve, the natural features of the subject property, including waterways, forested areas, natural prairie, topography, views, etc. Comment: Proposed amendment is not intended to change or alter an pre- existing conditions. The topography of the site relative to I-94 does provide a level of screening for the proposed loading dock. Planning Commission Agenda – 08/06/13 13 B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS Decision 1: Approval of an amendment to a Conditional Use Permit for PUD 1. Motion to recommend approval of Amendment to Conditional Use Permit for Planned Unit Development for Lot 2, Block 1, and Outlot C, Kirkman Addition and Lot 1, Block 1, Monticello Mall, based on a finding that the proposed project is consistent with the intent of the Monticello Comprehensive Plan, and results in a development that meets the objectives and requirements of the City’s Planned Unit Development zoning regulations as found in Resolution 2013-058, subject to the conditions outlined in Exhibit Z. 2. Motion to recommend denial of Amendment to Conditional Use Permit for Planned Unit Development for Lot 2, Block 1, and Outlot C, Kirkman Addition and Lot 1, Block 1, Monticello Mall, based on a finding to be made by the Planning Commission. 3. Motion to table for further discussion. C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of the proposed amendment to Conditional Use Permit for Planned Unit Development. The reuse of the site as a retail principal use is consistent with the original PUD, the Comprehensive Plan and the Embracing Downtown Plan. The conditional use supports the normal and orderly development of surrounding property for the predominantly commercial uses in the area. The proposed use and accessory uses will not substantially diminish or impair property values within the immediate vicinit y or adjacent to the subject property. In addition, the conditional uses proposed can be supported by the site’s current parking capacity and location on a major collector road. Staff’s recommendation is subject to the conditions listed in Exhibit Z, which require that all storage on the site can be done in conformance with City code requirements and the applicant reduce the size of free-standing signage to meet code requirements. D. SUPPORTING DATA A. Resolution 2013-058 B. Applicant Narrative C. Site plan D. Monticello Zoning Ordinance, excerpt 3-5 (G) E. Zoning Map F. Embracing Downtown Framework Zones Map Planning Commission Agenda – 08/06/13 14 EXHIBIT Z – CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Amendment to Conditional Use Permit for Planned Unit Development for Lot 2, Block 1, and Outlot C, Kirkman Addition and Lot 1, Block 1, Monticello Mall, including Conditional Use Permit for Retail over 10,000 SF in the L-8 (Freeway Commercial) sub-district of the CCD, Conditional Use Permit for Accessory Use Outdoor Storage, Variance to Off-street Loading and Variance to Sign Area 1. The applicant shall submit a revised site plan illustrating: a. Placement of any proposed cart corrals which may result in additional parking loss on a revised site plan. b. Elimination of obstruction of the fire hydrant at the southwest corner of the site. c. A certificate of survey illustrating final sign and fenceline placement shall be submitted. d. The north side of the storage area shall be screened from the public right of way. 2. Vehicle traffic in the dock area shall be for temporary loading and unloading purposes only. No semi-trailer storage shall be allowed on site. 3. Restriping of the full parking field for the subject site shall be required. Restriping shall be to required code dimensions. 4. The applicant will be required to provide a photometric plan verifying that all current site lighting meets ordinance requirements for glare. All building and display lights shall be code compliant by replacement or re-angling downward. 5. The applicant shall submit a landscaping plan illustrating the removal and replacement of any dead or dying plan material and compliance with Table 4-4 of the zoning ordinance for required plantings per site. 6. The monument sign base shall be required to be architecturally similar to the principal use building. 7. A photometric plan for any lighted signage shall be required at the time of sign permit application. 8. The applicant shall reduce the size of the north pylon to 100 square feet to maintain code compliance. 9. The applicant is required to submit a grading and drainage plan as a condition of approval. The grading and drainage plan for the site must illustrate that the drainage issue at the rear of the PUD buildings will not be compounded by the addition of the recessed dock. 10. The applicants shall enclose trash handling equipment within the building, or within an enclosure that is attached to the building and designed to blend with the overall building architecture. Planning Commission Agenda – 08/06/13 15 11. The applicant will be required to execute an encroachment agreement for the display area and fence. 12. The applicants enter into a PUD Development Agreement guaranteeing compliance with the terms of the PUD approval. CITY OF MONTICELLO WRIGHT COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION NO. 2013 — 058 Date: August 6th, 2013 Resolution No. 2013 -58 Motion By: Commissioner Seconded By: Commissioner A RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF AN AMENDMENT TO CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR LOT 2, BLOCK 1, AND OUTLOT C, KIRKMAN ADDITION AND LOT 1, BLOCK 1, MONTICELLO MALL WHEREAS, on March 96, 1998, the City of Monticello approved a conditional use permit for planned unit development to allow zero lot line development and cross parking and access for property legally described as Lot 2, Block 1, and Outlot C, Kirkman Addition and Lot 1, Block 1, Monticello Mall, and WHEREAS, JR & R II, LLC., applicant, in conjunction with Monticello/Washington Assoc. and BBF Properties Inc., property owners, have requested an amendment to conditional use permit to planned unit development for retail uses larger than 10,000 square feet, accessory use outdoor sales and display /outdoor storage, and a variance to loading dock length in the CCD, Central Community District; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the application for amendment to conditional use permit pursuant to the regulations of the Monticello Zoning Ordinance; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on August 6th, 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: 1. The application is consistent with the 2008 Monticello Comprehensive Plan for Downtown; and 2. The application is consistent with the Embracing Downtown Plan; and 3. The proposed uses will meet the intent of the Zoning Ordinance; and 4. The proposed uses will meet the intent of the approval for the original planned unit development; and 5. The amendments to the PUD as proposed are tailored to the specific characteristics of the site; and 6. The conditional uses proposed will not substantially diminish or impair property values within the immediate vicinity of the subject property; and 7. The conditional uses proposed will not impede the normal and orderly development of surrounding property for permitted uses predominant in the area; and 8. The conditional uses proposed will not pose an undue burden on public utilities or roads, and adequate sanitary facilities are provided; and 9. 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: Pursuant to Minn. Stat. §462.357, the application for amendment to Conditional Use Permit for Planned Unit Development, including Retail Uses over 10,000 square feet in the L -8, sub- district of the CCD, a conditional use permit for accessory use outdoor storage, and a variance for off - street loading dock length are hereby recommended to the City Council for approval. 2. The recommendation for approval is subject to those Conditions as follows: a. The applicant shall submit a revised site plan illustrating: i. Placement of any proposed cart corrals which may result in additional parking loss on a revised site plan. ii. Elimination of obstruction of the fire hydrant at the southwest corner of the site. iii. A certificate of survey illustrating final sign and fenceline placement shall be submitted. iv. The north side of the storage area shall be screened from the public right of way. b. Vehicle traffic in the dock area shall be for temporary loading and unloading purposes only. No semi - trailer storage shall be allowed on site. c. Restriping of the full parking field for the subject site shall be required. Restriping shall be to required code dimensions. d. The applicant will be required to provide a photometric plan verifying that all current site lighting meets ordinance requirements for glare. All building and display lights shall be code compliant by replacement or re- angling downward. e. The applicant shall submit a landscaping plan illustrating the removal and replacement of any dead or dying plan material and compliance with Table 4 -4 of the zoning ordinance for required plantings per site. f. The monument sign base shall be required to be architecturally similar to the principal use building. g. A photometric plan for any lighted signage shall be required at the time of sign permit application. h. The applicant shall reduce the size of the north pylon to 100 square feet to maintain code compliance. i. The applicant is required to submit a grading and drainage plan as a condition of approval. The grading and drainage plan for the site must illustrate that the drainage issue at the rear of the PUD buildings will not be compounded by the addition of the recessed dock. The applicants shall enclose trash handling equipment within the building, or within an enclosure that is attached to the building and designed to blend with the overall building architecture. k. The applicant will be required to execute an encroachment agreement for the display area and fence. 1. The applicants enter into a PUD Development Agreement guaranteeing compliance with the terms of the PUD approval. ADOPTED this 6 °i day of August 2013, by the Planning Commission of the City of Monticello, Minnesota. MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION William Spartz, Chair ATTEST: Angela Schumann, Community Development Director CITY OF Monticello CITY OF MONTICELLO Community Development 505 Walnut Street, Suite 1 Monticello, MN 55362 Land Use Application (763) 295 -2711 . infolu,ci.monticello.mmus APPLICATION ION Property Address 3 o e w 7Z -f Property Legal Description /- 0'r ec &A +1 y-- „ AIL— Property ID Number Z SS a 4 T o Deb 3 o P ERT1f OW 4A 1�4FQWARON Owner Name Map Amendment (Rezoning) Owner Address Owner Phone /Email $200 + escrow AMI[tAINT E A 1LiN Applicant Name L G Applicant Address % - �„ '� Q M Applicant Phone /Email APPLICATION ION LAND UsE Apmwim 'TYPE. A PP =, 110ff FEE Total Escrow from Above Administrative Adjustment Not applicable $ Amendment to Ordinance Map Amendment (Rezoning) $200 + escrow Text Amendment $200 + escrow Comprehensive Plan Amendment $200+ escrow Conditional Use Permit $200 +escrow Planned Unit Development Collaborative $50 + escrow Concept $200 + escrow Development $200+ escrow Final $50 + escrow Site Plan Review $200 +escrow Sketch Plan Review Not applicable Subdivision Simple Subdivision $200 + escrow Preliminary Plat $300 + escrow Final Plat $50 + escrow Variance $200 + escrow Vacation (Easement or Right of Way) $200+ 1 Ablp USE LICA [ L rN: I LFtE i► Ulill Commercial *See escrow Residential 0 -3 Acres $2,000 statement on 1 unit $500 (single - family) 4 -10 $6,000 reverse. 2 + units $1000 based + $100 /unit 11+ $10,000 LAND UNAPPLICATION FEE, Tit t Total Fees from Above $ Total Escrow from Above $ TOTAL TO BE PAID AT APPLICATION $ Revised 3/9/2012 ownees statement I am the fee title owner of the described property and I agree to this application. I certify that I am in compliance with all ordinance requirements and conditions regarding other City approval that have been previously granted. ApplicaWs Statement This application shall be processed in my name and I am the party whom the City should contact regarding the application. I have completed all of the applicable filing requirements and I hereby acknowledge that I have read and fully understand the applicable provisions of the City Ordinances and current policies related to this application and that the documents and information I have submitted are true and correct. (Signs (Date) °i Foes &_I I acknowledge the Fees & Escrow Purpose explanation below and hereby agree to pay all statements received pertaining to additional application expense and City review. Timeline for Review MN State 15.99 allows a 60 -day review period for final action on a land use application, once that application is found to be complete, unless the City extends the review period and so notifies the applicant. Your request will not be scheduled for public hearing or City review until all required information has been provided and found to be adequate by the Community Development Department. Purpose of Fees & Escrow Fees: The application fees are used for publication of the public hearing notice in the Monticello Times, for postage to mail the required notice to adjacent properties as outlined by ordinance, and recording fees. Escrow: The City uses escrow deposits for staff and consultant time for case review and preparation of documents related to the application. This may include engineering, legal, planning and environmental consultation. Should the original escrow be exceeded, the applicant or responsible party will be billed for all additional services. It is the policy of the City of Monticello to require applicants for land use approvals to reimburse the City for costs incurred in reviewing and acting upon applications, so that these costs are not borne by the taxpayers of the City. These costs include all of the City's out -of- pocket costs for expenses, including the City's costs for review of the application by the City's staff, Consulting Engineer, Consulting Planner, City Attorney, or other consultants. The City will invoice the applicant for these costs within 3 months of final action on the land use application and payment will be due within thirty (30) days. If payment is not received as required by this agreement, the City will proceed on action to assess or lien. Payment of costs will be required whether the application is granted or denied. —_ clTY REVIEW INFOfINATION - INTERNAL US[ Application Received Date Application Determined Complete Date /By Application Action Deadline Date 60 Days I i 120 Days .0!! rr I acknowledge the Fees & Escrow Purpose explanation below and hereby agree to pay all statements received pertaining to additional application expense and City review. Timeline for Review MN State 15.99 allows a 60 -day review period for final action on a land use application, once that application is found to be complete, unless the City extends the review period and so notifies the applicant. Your request will not be scheduled for public hearing or City review until all required information has been provided and found to be adequate by the Community Development Department. Purpose of Fees & Escrow Fees: The application fees are used for publication of the public hearing notice in the Monticello Times, for postage to mail the required notice to adjacent properties as outlined by ordinance, and recordingfees. Escrow: The City uses escrow deposits for staff and consultant time for case review and preparation of documents related to the application. This may include engineering, legal, planning and environmental consultation. Should the original escrow be exceeded, the applicant or responsible party will be billed for all additional services. It Is the policy of the City of Monticello to require applicants for land use approvals to reimburse the City for costs incurred in reviewing and acting upon applications, so that these costs are not borne by the taxpayers of the City. These costs include all of the City's out -of- pocket costs for expenses, including the City's costs for review of the application by the City's staff, Consulting Engineer, Consulting Planner, City Attorney, or other consultants. The City will invoice the applicant for these costs within 3 months of final action on the land use application and payment will be due within thirty (30) days. If payment is not receiv- w will proceed on action to assess or lien. Payment of costswlll be required' � �i�r� ied. _mow^�,, Application Received Date I Determined in Action Deadline Date 1 : 60 Days _1 120 Project Narrative City of Monticello Attn: Angela Schumann 505 Walnut Street Monticello, MN 55362 July 22, 2013 RE: PUD Amendment, Variance, Conditional Use Permit, and Signage Applications Runnings 300 7th Street West, Monticello, MN Request Runnings is requesting PUD Amendment, Variance, Conditional Use Permit, and Signage approvals related to the property at 300 7th Street West, Monticello. Retail sales and related business operations are proposed uses of the site in similar fashion to previous use of the site (former Kmart site). No change is proposed to the customer parking configuration north of the building, and no change is proposed to the existing site lighting. The property is zoned CCD and is within the L -8 Freeway Commercial Sub - District and is within the Freeway Bonus Sign District. Backeround Runnings currently operates 31 retail stores throughout Minnesota, the Dakotas, and Montana. The closest stores in proximity to Monticello are Litchfield and Hutchinson. Runnings sells farm and livestock equipment and supplies, hunting and fishing equipment, housewares, automotive goods, plumbing, electrical, clothing, footwear, hardware, lawn and garden supplies, paint, pet supplies, sporting goods, and tools. Runnings started as an automotive supply store in December of 1947, when founder Norman A. "Red" Running opened his first store in Marshall, Minnesota. The Runnings team is over 1,000 strong and still calls Marshall home to its corporate office and flagship store. The company has undergone incredible change over the years, but one thing that will not change is owner Dennis and Adele Reed's commitment to serving customers with quality merchandise at great prices and excellence in customer service. Project Narrative, Runnings 300 7h Street West, Monticello, MN Store Operations Page 2 of 5 July 22, 2013 Operations at each store are similar. We recommend visiting our website at www.runnings.com and any of our existing stores to see the quality, management /organization, and pride we take in operating our businesses. Hours of operation are proposed to be; Monday - Friday 8:00 AM to 9:00 PM Saturday 8:00 AM to 6:00 PM Sunday 10:00 AM to 5:00 PM We anticipate maintaining a skilled employment staff of approximately 35 -40 people at the Monticello location. PUD Amendment PUD Amendment is requested for the following activities: • Fence enclosure for outdoor display /storage area • Truck Dock, recessed dock to be constructed in loading area A fence enclosure is proposed to be located west of the existing building adjacent to the west boundary of the property. A drive aisle is to be maintained between the existing building and proposed fence enclosure for truck and delivery vehicle circulation and access to the fence enclosure. The fence enclosure is proposed at 70 feet in width and 285 feet in length with an area of 19,950 s£ The enclosure is proposed to be a secured area with 8.0' tall vinyl coated chain link fence on the north and east sides, and 8.0' tall 100% opaque PVC fence on the south and west sides. See example fence graphics on page 4 of this narrative. The current building loading area is configured with two drive -in doors (no dock) at the south east corner of the existing building. The existing doors are located on the east wall of the existing building. It is proposed to construct a recessed dock at the southerly door; the other door would remain unchanged. The loading area is shared by the multi tenant building to the east. The proposed configuration of the recessed loading dock would not change access or delivery vehicle circulation to the adjacent multi tenant building. Screening of loading dock is provided by existing coniferous and deciduous trees adjacent to the loading dock area. See existing loading area screening picture on page 5 of this narrative. Variance Variance is requested for the following activities: • Truck Dock, recessed dock to be constructed in loading area Project Narrative, Runnings 300 7th Street West, Monticello, MN Page 3 of 5 July 22, 2013 City Code Section 4.9(F) requires the first loading berth to be 55 feet in length. Due to existing property boundaries and site conditions, the loading berth is proposed to be 40 feet in length. Conditional Use Permit Conditional Use Permit is requested for the following activities: • Retail Sales • Rental Equipment • Outdoor Display /Storage area with fence enclosure Retail sales are the primary activity of the business. Rental of tools and small equipment is a small component of business activity. Rental items not stored inside the building would be stored in the proposed fence enclosure. Agricultural equipment display and storage is also proposed within the proposed fence enclosure. Sikn a ,ue Signage is proposed as follow • 9' x 20' sign mounted on north wall of building at main entrance • 9' x 20' sign mounted on south wall of building facing I -94 • 10' x 20' two sided pylon sign mounted on existing pylon posts at 31' tall • 10' x 10' two sided monument sign at 14' tall at 7th Street West site access Proiect Schedule We have secured the property by purchase agreement to date. We anticipate the following schedule: • City approvals: August 2013 • Take ownership of the property: August 2013 • Building and site improvements: September 2013 • Commence retail operations: To Be Determined We look forward to successful operations in Monticello. Thank you for your consideration Project Narrative, Runnings 300 7h Street West, Monticello, MN Example Fence Pictures Example Vinyl Coated Chain Link Fence Example 100% Opaque PVC or Vinyl Fence Page 4 of 5 July 22, 2013 Project Narrative, Runnings 300 7h Street West, Monticello, MN Existing Loading Area Screening Picture Page 5 of 5 July 22, 2013 PROPOSED - MONUMENT SIGN 14' TALL I O'x 10' SIGN FACE TWO SIDED go -_ - PROPOSED FENCE 8.0' TALL VYNL COATED CHAINLINK PROPOSED 70'x285' OUTDOOR STORAGE AREA SECURED WITH FENCE FOR AGRICULTURE EQUIPMENT DISPLAY AND RENTAL EQUIPMENT STORAGE , — - - � a _ 00 _r I � _ . SOUTH AND WEST SIDES OF I VVV DIULU loppwl Rip" 21 20 PARKING AND LIGHTING TO REMAIN AS EXISTING i PROPOSED SIGN 9'X 20' MOUNTED ON BUILDING EXISTING BUILDING 300 7TH STREET WEST ti 20 20 a' L =18.00 20 J - V_ ^0. EXISTING - - RADIO SHACK r 7 EXISTING HALLMARK EXISTING LEGEND: 0 40 80 120 GRAPHIC SCALE IN FEET PROPERTY BOUNDARY EXISTING LOT LINE PROPOSED SECURITY FENCE PROJECT LOCATION: PART OF SECTION 11 TOWNSHIP 121, RANGE 23, WRIGHT COUNTY, MINNESOTA. LEGAL DESCRIPTION: LOT 2 BLOCK 1, AND OUTLOT A, KIRKMAN ADDITION, WRIGHT COUNTY, MINNESOTA SITE DATA: EXISTING ZONING: CCD BUSINESS CENTRAL COMMUNITY DISTRICT L -8 SUB— DISTRICT FREEWAY COMMERCIAL FBS FREEWAY BONUS SIGN DISTRICT PROPOSED USE: RETAIL GROSS LOT AREA: 374,000 +/— SQ. FT. OR 3.6 ACRES (Approximate) EXISTING BUILDING: 86,000 +/— SQ. FT. (Approximate) PARKING DATA: OWNER: 911 Michigan Rd Marshall, MN 56258 -2721 (507) 532 -9566 Wayne Elam - Agent Commercial Realty Solutions (763) 682 -2400 welam@coininrealtyso]Litions.com SEASONAL LAN DSCAPE I' MATERIALS AREA 1 EXISTING 7 GALVANIZED CHAINLINK FENCE TO REMAIN l� � r� _ I VVV DIULU loppwl Rip" 21 20 PARKING AND LIGHTING TO REMAIN AS EXISTING i PROPOSED SIGN 9'X 20' MOUNTED ON BUILDING EXISTING BUILDING 300 7TH STREET WEST ti 20 20 a' L =18.00 20 J - V_ ^0. EXISTING - - RADIO SHACK r 7 EXISTING HALLMARK EXISTING LEGEND: 0 40 80 120 GRAPHIC SCALE IN FEET PROPERTY BOUNDARY EXISTING LOT LINE PROPOSED SECURITY FENCE PROJECT LOCATION: PART OF SECTION 11 TOWNSHIP 121, RANGE 23, WRIGHT COUNTY, MINNESOTA. LEGAL DESCRIPTION: LOT 2 BLOCK 1, AND OUTLOT A, KIRKMAN ADDITION, WRIGHT COUNTY, MINNESOTA SITE DATA: EXISTING ZONING: CCD BUSINESS CENTRAL COMMUNITY DISTRICT L -8 SUB— DISTRICT FREEWAY COMMERCIAL FBS FREEWAY BONUS SIGN DISTRICT PROPOSED USE: RETAIL GROSS LOT AREA: 374,000 +/— SQ. FT. OR 3.6 ACRES (Approximate) EXISTING BUILDING: 86,000 +/— SQ. FT. (Approximate) PARKING DATA: OWNER: 911 Michigan Rd Marshall, MN 56258 -2721 (507) 532 -9566 Wayne Elam - Agent Commercial Realty Solutions (763) 682 -2400 welam@coininrealtyso]Litions.com - REQUIRED PARKING: 1 SPACE PER 350 SF FLOOR SPACE 86,000 SF x 1/350 = 246 SPACES REQUIRED J PROPOSED PARKING: 337 SPACES PROVIDED (INCLUDES 8 ADA SPACES) � L =40'00 PROPOSED 14' X 40' PARKING SPACES AND DRIVE AISLES TO U II DRM SEWER RECESSED LOADING DOCK REMAIN AS EXISTING W :D LOADING WITH RETAINING WALLS TO CONNECT 'ORM SEWER AND FENCE PER CODE moll REQUIREMENTS E_. I,, q U x N 0 IS) Q y II o II N -' ZO N ,c r — (/) (1) (n EXISTING CONIFEROUS AND ° m � m DICIDUOUS TREES IN PLACE o m W o PROVIDING SCREENING W QO QO U j FILE NO. 00449 C,44 _ S .j T TO NNS 194 0% i0w. il, C I Site Plan o v 7 N � O I� IN 2 CL p y C o U W �~ d- U Z�U.v_ O W W a �N cp Ln ci o LL m 3 � � o r� INC Zp LU a ZzZ '2 yo LU LU I00 o[zO IZ cc cc Mo 5� 11cc CL m LL Z ° o o a�4i 3 W IIII'_ Nam co - REQUIRED PARKING: 1 SPACE PER 350 SF FLOOR SPACE 86,000 SF x 1/350 = 246 SPACES REQUIRED J PROPOSED PARKING: 337 SPACES PROVIDED (INCLUDES 8 ADA SPACES) � L =40'00 PROPOSED 14' X 40' PARKING SPACES AND DRIVE AISLES TO U II DRM SEWER RECESSED LOADING DOCK REMAIN AS EXISTING W :D LOADING WITH RETAINING WALLS TO CONNECT 'ORM SEWER AND FENCE PER CODE moll REQUIREMENTS E_. I,, q U x N 0 IS) Q y II o II N -' ZO N ,c r — (/) (1) (n EXISTING CONIFEROUS AND ° m � m DICIDUOUS TREES IN PLACE o m W o PROVIDING SCREENING W QO QO U j FILE NO. 00449 C,44 _ S .j T TO NNS 194 0% i0w. il, C I Site Plan o CIO N � I� IN 2 CL p y C o U W �~ d- U Z�U.v_ O � w Ln ci o q � o ILd ai3 IZ- �Q '2 v I00 IZ o m ° o o a�4i 3 Q - REQUIRED PARKING: 1 SPACE PER 350 SF FLOOR SPACE 86,000 SF x 1/350 = 246 SPACES REQUIRED J PROPOSED PARKING: 337 SPACES PROVIDED (INCLUDES 8 ADA SPACES) � L =40'00 PROPOSED 14' X 40' PARKING SPACES AND DRIVE AISLES TO U II DRM SEWER RECESSED LOADING DOCK REMAIN AS EXISTING W :D LOADING WITH RETAINING WALLS TO CONNECT 'ORM SEWER AND FENCE PER CODE moll REQUIREMENTS E_. I,, q U x N 0 IS) Q y II o II N -' ZO N ,c r — (/) (1) (n EXISTING CONIFEROUS AND ° m � m DICIDUOUS TREES IN PLACE o m W o PROVIDING SCREENING W QO QO U j FILE NO. 00449 C,44 _ S .j T TO NNS 194 0% i0w. il, C I Site Plan Section 3.5 (G) CCD Central Community District The purpose of the "CCD ", Central Community District, is to provide for a wide variety of land uses, transportation options, and public activities in the downtown Monticello area, and particularly to implement the goals, objectives, and specific directives of the Comprehensive Plan, and in particular, the Embracing Downtown Monticello report and its Design Guidelines. All proposed development or redevelopment in the CCD shall be subject to the requirements of the Design Guidelines and other standards identified in the Embracing Downtown Monticello report. It is not the intent of this chapter to abrogate any general Zoning Ordinance requirements in the CCD, and all such requirements of the Monticello Zoning Ordinance apply fully within the CCD unless addressed separately by a more detailed CCD zoning regulation. Sub - Districts. The CCD is hereby divided into sub- districts, including three Flex Areas (F -1, F -2 and F -3), and eight Landmark Areas (L -1 through L -8). The City Council shall, in accordance with the process providing for zoning map amendments in the Monticello Zoning Ordinance, adopt a zoning map for the CCD area identifying the sub- district boundaries. Base Lot Area • No minimum Base Lot Width • No minimum CHAPTER 3: ZONING DISTRICTS Section 3.5 Business Base Zoning Districts Subsection (G) Central Community District Typical CCD Lot Configuration City of Monticello Zoning Ordinance Page 1 19 CHAPTER 3: ZONING DISTRICTS Section 15 Business Base Zoning Districts Subsection (G) Central Community District • • West 25 East 25 and Transition Cargill Community Public Open Freeway Development and Walnut Cedar Center /Liquor Space Commercial Standards F -I, L -1 L -4, L -6 L -5, L -7 L -8 F -2, L -2 F -3 L -3 Buildings Buildings Buildings Buildings should gain should face should face Provide should TH 25 as major access and maximize Building exposure from TH 25, primary roadways, exposure to exposure to Orientation or from exposure, minimize streets; local streets, provide exposure to accommodate preserve major roadways access to district pedestrians pedestrian parking boundary connections Minimum TH 25: 10 feet Building Setback Broadway: 10 feet 20 feet None None 20 feet Other streets: None Maximum 80 feet from Street Setback None Hwy 25 15 feet None None None None only Setback from Private Property w /in None None 5 feet 20 feet None None 5 feet CCD Setback from Private Property Zoned 15 feet 15 feet 25 feet 40 feet 15 feet 15 feet 25 feet other than CCD Freestanding Freestanding signs shall signs shall Freestanding Freestanding Freestanding be of be of Freestanding signs shall be signs shall be of signs shall be Follow monument monument signs shall of monument monument of monument existing design, no design, no be of design, no design, no design, no freeway Signage more than more than monument more than 16 more than 22 more than 16 bonus 22 feet in 22 feet in design, no feet in height, feet in height, feet in height, district height, and height, and more than 6 and no less and no less and no less allowance no less than no less than feet in than 5 feet in than 5 feet in than 5 feet in (32 feet 5 feet in 5 feet in height width at base width at base width at base height) width at width at base base Exempt Exempt Buffering Buffering from from required at Buffering Buffering Buffering required at buffering buffering the edge of required at required at the required at the edge of generally. generally. the CCD the edge of edge of the the edge of the CCD Where Where the CCD per CCD the CCD per Buffering directly directly per requirement requirement per requirement of requirement per requirement abutting abutting of Zoning of Zoning Zoning of Zoning of Zoning single family single family Ordinance Ordinance Ordinance e Ordinance Ordinance residential, residential, Section Section Section 4 I . Section Section per Section per Section 4. I (G) 4.1(G) 4.1(G) 4. I (G) MMMIN 4.1(G) 4.1(G) Page 120 City of Monticello Zoning Ordinance 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 _, --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 Planning Commission Agenda: 08/06/13 7. Community Development Director's Report Verbal report to be provided at meeting.