Loading...
Planning Commission Agenda 08-04-2009 AGENDA MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION August 4th, 2009 6:00 PM – Mississippi Room, Monticello Community Center Commissioners: Rod Dragsten, Charlotte Gabler, Lloyd Hilgart, William Spartz, and Barry Voight Council Liaison: Susie Wojchouski Staff: Angela Schumann, Gary Anderson, Steve Grittman – NAC 1. Call to order. 2. Consideration to approve the Planning Commission minutes of July7th, 2009 and the special meeting minutes of July 21st, 2009. 3. Citizen Comments. 4. Consideration of adding items to the agenda. 5. Public Hearing - Consideration of a request for a Conditional Use Permit for an accessory storage building in a mobile home park, zoned R-4, Mobile Home Park District. Applicant: Kjellberg’s, Inc 6. Consideration of a request for extension of Conditional Use Permit for Planned Unit Development for a multi-tenant commercial development in a B-3 (Highway Business) District. Applicant: Cornerstone/DOJO LLC 7. Consideration to review an update regarding the amendment of the Monticello Zoning Ordinance for Off-Street Parking. 8. Consideration to review possible adjustment of the September Planning Commission regular meeting date. 9. Consideration to set regular meeting dates for the Monticello Zoning Ordinance Revision Steering Committee. 10. Community Development Director’s Update. 11. Adjourn. MINUTES MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION July 21, 2009 — Workshop on Off -Street Parking 5:00 p.m. COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Rod Dragsten, Charlotte Gabler, Bill Spartz, Barry Voight, Lloyd Hilgart COUNCIL PRESENT: Clint Herbst, Tom Perrault, Suzie Wojchouski, Glen Posusta, Brian Stumpf STAFF: Angela Schumann, Gary Anderson, Steve Grittman - NAC, Deb Ward, Ron Hackenmueller, DJ Hennessey, Jeff O'Neill Workshop began at 5 p.m. with introductions Angela Schumann explained history of ordinance for public nuisance and recent building department sweeps to cite violations of the ordinance. The Building Department has compiled results of the sweep. It was noted that public comments resulted mostly from off-street parking citations. Purpose of workshop is to identify issues and concerns over current ordinance and create an off-street parking section of the ordinance. Gary Anderson explained the process of doing an annual sweep and results of sweep: 213 public nuisance citations with 156 related to vehicles and/or off-street parking. The City mailed notices to comply with notification requirements within 20 days of citation. If not compliant, Wright County handles processing of citations. Wright County Sheriff's Department has 5 days to inspect property and work with owner to comply. If the owner does not, the citation is turned over to the Wright County Attorney's office. Angela noted the Planning Commission recently discussed the public nuisance ordinance. Public nuisance violations are considered misdemeanors and can be prosecuted. Off- street parking issues are currently considered public nuisance and would be handled like blights or other public nuisances. A City resident in attendance noted that he was interested in hearing what was being proposed. Charlotte Gabler asked about the process involving Sheriff's Department. Schumann described the new public nuisance process, by which a property receives a first notice from the City, with one follow-up inspection. If the notice has not been complied with, it is turned over to Wright County sheriff's Office, who then completes an inspection, writes a citation if needed and then completes a follow-up inspection. At that point, if not remedied, the violation is sent forward to the Wright County Attorney's office. Schumann stated that violations of the zoning ordinance were treated differently in the past. The Building Department would issue a violation notice, then re -inspect. If the notice wasn't complied with, they were eventually sent on to the City Attorney. In the most recent sweep, Schumann reported that all violations were processed in a public nuisance format. Clint Herbst expressed his thought that the problem is not so much the ordinance but the interpretation of the ordinance. He mentioned that City would not want boats and other recreational vehicles in the back yard, but if it is nicely set up and maintained, would that be an issue? He would rather see the City back off and not be so particular while interpreting the ordinance. He stated that he thinks the notification process is working well. Steve Grittman explained two things to accomplish as part of the workshop: 1) can the City write an ordinance to be interpreted the way intended, and (2) does the end result say what the City wants it to say. Brian asked how the City would answer a hypothetical situation if someone called and said they bought a 22 ft RV and where can they park it on their property. Would it be clear to city staff when reading the ordinance? He would like the ordinance to be clear enough that residents can look it up on the website and understand it themselves. Steve Grittman noted that it would not be difficult to do, but we want to assure that staff would answer this consistently. It should also be clear for homeowners to look up ordinance and find what they are looking for. Steve discussed some definitions that should be clarified within the ordinance. Define "yard" in terms of front yard, side yard and rear yard. Define "vehicle" types (ex. passenger, recreational/RV, commercial). Distinction between "parking" and "storage." Currently the description of the front yard line is not clear in where the front yard ends and side yard and/or rear yard begins. Steve suggested it should be clarified to mean front yard is the area in front of living area of housing unit. There is some confusion in some cases with the distinction between front yard and side yard, especially in townhome units. Glen Posusta commented that he thought that some townhome units may have to be considered separately for parking purposes in the front yard.. Steve suggested that agreement of definition of "yard" should be clarified first. Then the ordinance can be written to distinguish uses in front yard. DJ noted that there is not a huge problem with interpretation of front yard lines; rather the bigger issue is interpretation of side and rear yard lines. 2 Glen noted that it appears difficult to identify language in ordinance to satisfy everyone. He felt that no matter how specific you make the ordinance, there will always be someone that does not feel that it is being interpreted correctly for his property. Steve recommended that the goal is to establish a code that applies rules fairly across the board. You do not want to regulate based on comments from just one neighborhood. If you establish appropriate definitions, it will make it easier to apply proper uses. Steve asked the Planning Commission and City Council members how they would classify area behind a garage but adjacent to the side of a house that is setback further than the house. Consensus was that should be considered side yard and not rear yard. That would leave the area that is behind the garage and house to be considered rear yard. Glen asked if residents with an accessory building in the rear yard are allowed to park vehicles next to such buildings. Steve noted that is not allowed under the current ordinance. It is felt that they built the accessory structure to handle storage needs and should not be parking outside of the structure. Angela noted that those present will be expected to help define vehicle types. Steve noted that current ordinance references terms such as passenger and commercial vehicle, but there are no definitions in the ordinance that differentiates between vehicle types. Several Planning Commission and City Council members described how they would classify non-commercial versus commercial vehicles. Some felt that vehicles with business signage should be considered commercial. However, others said that would not be enough to differentiate for parking purposes. Steve asked for consideration of size and weight in determining allowable commercial vehicles. He noted that this may run up against definition of allowable RV parking. Steve noted there are references in the ordinance that address parking and storage but does not clarify what can go where in terms of parking and storage. He asked Planning Commission and City Council members for their opinion on what could be parked in a driveway in front of a garage. Everyone agreed that passenger vehicles, business vehicles, and RVs could be parked there as long as they do not obstruct and are licensed and operable. Steve asked several other questions related to parking. • Does this include converted buses? Yes, if they are licensed and operable. • What about the empty trailer that held the boat or snowmobiles? Yes, agreed that it could be parked in driveway as long as it is licensed. • Can all those same things be parked in a hard -surfaced area next to the driveway? Yes, agreed that would be allowed. 3 • What about parking anywhere else in front yard? No, agreed to not allow parking anywhere else in front yard. Harlan Hamson, 2841 Oakview Drive, described his situation with parking an extra vehicle at his neighbor's in what is actually defined as the rear yard. He parks a pickup track (passenger vehicle) in a surfaced area, which appears to be within the city right-of- way. This appears to be a relatively isolated situation and consensus was to leave this be for now and address outside of the ordinance. Lloyd Hilgart asked how many complaints the City receives related to off-street parking. Angela noted that not too many are received. However, those people that were cited are questioning the application of the ordinance. It is required to have an ordinance that is used so the City cannot discontinue applying the ordinance. Clint Herbst asked if we could draft ordinances and still grandfather in those situations that are not in compliance. Steve noted that could be done but felt it would be better to address each non-compliant situation informally. Some cities approve non compliant use until such time as property is sold. Steve moved on to addressing side yard parking. What should be allowed to park in side yards? Not semi trucks. What about commercial vehicles? Currently there is 9000 lb weight restriction. Generally there is not much support to allow larger size commercial vehicles in a residential neighborhood. Consensus seems to allow side yard parking next to garage similar to driveway parking as long as the surface is acceptable for the type of vehicle (i.e. hard -surfaced, gravel, grass) and maintained. Gary noted that there are sometimes issues with how close vehicles are parked to the road. Consensus is to restrict the distance if there is a safety issue and the vehicle blocks the sidewalk or street. It was asked how much of an area can be surfaced in side yard. It was felt that the width should be restricted so that residents don't hard surface their entire side yard. Consensus was to limit to 15 feet of surfacing so that it only allows one vehicle width at most. Steve asked for opinions regarding allowing extra side yard area in terms of storage. Clint suggested that people will have to make some choices on how they are going to use their property and preferred to stay with 15 foot width for parking or storage on one side or the other. Discussion of how much parking should be allowed for non -passenger vehicles. Current ordinance allows for one non -passenger vehicle in driveway. Is that sufficient? Consensus is to leave that as is. Steve asked for feedback on whether ordinance should address right-of-way (ROW) area along street. Should parking be allowed in driveway if it extends all the way to the rd street? Or would it be better to create a setback from the curb? Consensus is to leave the ordinance as is and not create a setback. Steve asked for feedback on ROW setback on side yard. Jeff noted that there is currently a 3 -yard allowance which is probably sufficient as there is already a 15 yard setback on side yards from house to street. Steve asked for feedback on parking or storage in those cases where there is a side yard area behind garage and to side of house. Consensus is to allow storage of non -passenger vehicles in that area. Several City Council members noted that they do not like the requirement to get a driveway permit. Angela and Jeff explained the issues that were created before driveway permits were required. Residents were covering water and sewer lines; curb cuts were not appropriate; and there were issues with setbacks. Clint Herbst suggested that applications for a driveway permit be required but there be no charge for the permit. There was further discussion on when it would be required to hard surface an access to the side or rear yard next to a driveway. Current ordinance requires that access be hard - surfaced if a passenger vehicle is parked along the side of a garage on a surfaced area because it essentially becomes a driveway. It was suggested that if RV or recreational equipment is parked along side the garage, the access should not have to be hard - surfaced. It was pointed out that there may be issues with occasional parking in access areas that normally would not be compliant. Lloyd Hilgart asked why it would be okay to park a non -passenger vehicle on grass along the garage but not a passenger vehicle? It was explained that passenger vehicles tend to be driven on a regular basis and the grass would not be maintained. Gary Anderson pointed out situations where there is a home with a detached garage in the rear yard. What would be the allowances in these cases for parking along the house? It was recommended to allow up to 35 feet of side yard parking provided they did not violate the setbacks between the street and the building. Steve asked for feedback on what should be allowed in the rear yard. It was recommended to not allow passenger vehicles at all in the rear yard. Some suggested that recreational vehicles and equipment could be stored in the rear yard. Steve pointed out that there are questions between parking and storage because the ordinance is not clear in those definitions. Other opinions noted that the city should discourage any parking or storage of vehicles and equipment in rear yards. Gary asked what to do in situations where people have a road that runs through the back yard. Consensus is to deal with those on a case-by-case basis because it does not occur often. 5 Steve noted that the City should not write the ordinances based on bad cases; rather the code should address all situations fairly. Ordinances should not allow or restrict uses based on permission granted from property owners. Clint Herbst feels that if the ordinance allows for enough accessory parking and storage, it should not be necessary to park in the rear yard. DJ Hennessey felt that parking should not be allowed in the rear yard if they do not have access from the front yard. Brian Stumpf suggested that parking in rear yard be allowed by variance only. Deb Ward noted that it would be very harsh to not allow any parking or storage in rear yard; many residents use their rear yards for storing their recreational vehicles and equipment. She does agree that passenger vehicles should not be parked in rear yard. Steve noted that the City could set up requirements for fencing or screening for rear yard storage/parking. DJ Hennessey noted that the ordinance currently states that parking is not allowed in rear yards, but does not address any restrictions on storage of recreational vehicles or equipment. Complaints related to rear yards generally are regarding the number of junk vehicles, possibly inoperable and unlicensed. Clint recommended that storage of RVs and equipment be allowed in rear yards but not parking of other vehicles. Clint suggested that there be restrictions on commercial vehicles and where they are parked in yards. Jeff recommended that the ordinance continues to require a 3 foot setback on side yards related to parking and storage of vehicles and equipment. Jeff asked about situations where there is limited side yard area along the garage for storage. At his home, he has very limited parking on the garage side, but has a lot of space on the opposite side along the house. He would prefer to put his boat on the other side of his house, which is not immediately next to a neighbor. Could there be allowance, in the case of a hardship for homeowners, to choose which side of their property to use for parking/storage? Ron Hackenmueller asked that there be some consideration given to the homeowners and the use of their property. If inspectors receive complaints or have to apply ordinances strictly, homeowners question why they don't have leeway to choose how they use their property. Suzie Wojchouski questioned how often building inspectors are out in the field and whether they go out and seek out problem properties. Angela noted that there is an annual sweep done to track compliance with the ordinance. The building inspectors try to interpret the ordinance consistently, but there are issues with trying to apply fairly across the board when the ordinance is not clear. In addition to the annual sweep, problems are also addressed when complaints are received. 0 Suzie feels that the city should attempt to do this in a respectful manner preferably in person. Deb Ward pointed out that many times there is no one at home when the building inspector stops to address an issue of non-compliance. There are also many cases where the property is a rental and it is sometimes difficult to reach the appropriate party. The City is required to send a notice to the property owner who might not be the one in violation. The message does not always get to the proper party. Ron Hackenmueller asked if Council would allow building inspectors to also send out notices when they observe problems when out doing building inspections. Council felt that is appropriate since they are city employees and that is part of their job. Brian Stumpf asked if building inspectors could also address problems with temporary signs. Gary Anderson noted that, in many cases, the building department is trying to control violations related to signs. It was noted that it might be good to require a name and/or phone on temporary signs so that they can be contacted if in violation. Suzie Wojchouski asked when Planning Commission would be addressing driveway widths. Currently the city ordinance allows up to 24 foot width. There are a number of driveways in town that are not in compliance. This will be looked at in the future. The off-street parking workshop ended at 7:30 p.m Cathy Shuman, Recorder 7 Planning Commission Agenda –8/04/09 1 5. Public Hearing: Consideration of a request for a Conditional Use Permit for an accessory storage building in a mobile home park, zoned R-4, Mobile Home Park District. Applicant: Kjellberg’s, Inc. (NAC) REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND The applicant is seeking a Conditional Use Permit to allow the use of an accessory storage building. The storage building has been previously constructed without the required zoning reviews or building permits. The construction of the building without the required approvals represents a clear violation of the City building and zoning codes. The applicant indicates in the project narrative accompanying the application that the building has been inspected and passed for fire code compliance by Monticello Fire Department officials. The Zoning Ordinance, in Chapter 9, R-4, Mobile Home Park District, makes the following provisions: 9-4: CONDITIONAL USES: The following are conditional uses in an "R-4" district: [A] Accessory Storage Buildings subject to the following conditions: 1. If associated with any open storage, the storage area is screened from surrounding mobile home units. 2. The storage area is surfaced to control dust and drainage. 3. The storage area and building(s) are for the sole use of the residents of the mobile home park and are not available for use by non-residents. In Section 9-3 [A] 1. (g), the ordinance further requires: “All structures (fences, sidewalks, roads, storage, cabana, or other) shall require a building permit from the Monticello Building Inspector.” The building is a 30 foot by 36 foot cold storage building. It has been located within a storage yard of about 120 feet by 200 feet. The storage area is surfaced with a gravel Class V surface and is enclosed by a 6 foot tall chain link fence, strung with barbed wire along the top. There is a line of lilac shrubs along the eastern edge of the storage area. The storage area is open to view from the west and south. Conditional Uses are considered to be an approved use of property, provided the conditions required by the Ordinance and other reasonable conditions imposed by the City are met. In reviewing this CUP application, it is necessary to consider Planning Commission Agenda –8/04/09 2 the request as if the building had not already been constructed. In doing so, staff would make the following observations: 1. The storage yard is not fully screened in accordance with the requirements of the CUP provisions. As a part of any CUP consideration, the applicant should be required to submit a landscaping plan that provides screening in accordance with the ordinance section screened from surrounding mobile home units. Landscaping plans are common requirements of Conditional Use Permit applications, and are specifically called for in the Mobile Home Park District, Section 9-2 [A] 3.(g) iii as follows: All areas shall be landscaped in accordance with landscaping plan approved by the City. 2. The storage area is surfaced with Class V gravel. It appears that the requirement for control of dust and drainage is met by the existing surface. 3. The applicants indicate that the building will be used for operations integral to the needs of the Mobile Home Park and its residents. While the building will be used by employees of the facility, and not the residents themselves, the applicant does not indicate any intent to use the building for outside users. As noted above, the applicants constructed the building without the required building permit. Such a permit is generally required for any building in the City, but is also specifically required by the language of the zoning district. The City’s Building Code provides for a double fee attached to the review of any building so constructed. As a part of this CUP, the applicant should be required to submit to a full inspection of the building, including corrections as noted by the Building Official resulting from said inspection(s). ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS Decision 1: Conditional Use Permit for an accessory storage building in an R-4, Mobile Home Park District. 1. Motion to recommend approval of the Conditional Use Permit, with the following conditions (see draft findings attached to this report): a. Submission of a landscaping plan to City Staff showing full screening around the west and south boundaries of the storage area. Said landscaping should be designed to provide year-round screening to a height of at least six feet. b. Installation of the planned landscaping should be required to be completed by October 31, 2009. Planning Commission Agenda –8/04/09 3 c. Any fencing proposed as part of the plan shall receive the proper permits from the City of Monticello d. The building shall receive full inspections by the City of Monticello Building Department, and be subject to double fees as provided by the City’s Building Code. e. The applicant shall make all corrections directed by the Building Department in a timeframe as directed by the Building Official 2. Motion to recommend denial of the Conditional Use Permit. This motion should be based on the following findings, and other findings to be made by the Planning Commission: a. The associated outdoor storage area is not screened as required by the applicable zoning ordinance section (9-4 [A] 3). 3. Motion to table action on the Conditional Use Permit, pending the submission of a landscaping plan for Planning Commission review, and a report from the Building Department relating to required building code improvements. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends Alternative 3, with a requirement that the plan is submitted by August 17 for staff review, and consideration by the Planning Commission at its September 1 meeting. If the Planning Commission wishes, it may recommend approval in accordance with Alternative 1, providing for staff review of the landscaping plan prior to City Council action. SUPPORTING DATA A. Site Plan and Application Materials B. Draft Findings of Fact for Approval Planning Commission Agenda –8/04/09 4 Draft Findings of Fact for Approval Kjellberg’s Inc. 1000 Kjellberg Park 9127 State Highway 25, NE Monticello, MN 56362 1. The proposed building, if compliant with the Conditions identified in this report, will provide screening as required by the zoning ordinance. 2. The proposed building, if compliant with the Conditions identified in this report, will meet the requirements of the Monticello Building Code. 3. The proposed Conditional Use Permit meets all other applicable conditions and requirements of the zoning ordinance. 4. With adherence to these conditions, the proposed Conditional Use Permit will not be a threat to public health, safety, or welfare. 5. The proposed CUP will meet the intent of the Comprehensive Plan relating to this use. 6. The proposed CUP will not tend to depreciate the value of the area in which it is located. 7. The applicants have demonstrated a need for the Conditional Use through their application materials. NARATIVE DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST The site of the proposed cold storage building is located directly south of the present shop building at the site of the office and maintenance facility for Kjellberg's mobile home park. The presently existing structures include an office building and the maintenance shop. The presently existing site includes an asphalt parking area directly to the east of the presently existing structures and east of the proposed storage building. The asphalt parking area is to be used exclusively by the office and maintenance shop building. Directly east of the proposed storage building is a six foot high chain link fence. Also separating the proposed storage building from the asphalt parking area is mature lilac bushes approximately 8-10 feet tall. The fence previously mentioned extends approximately 60 feet south meeting a corner where the fence extends to the west approximately 200 feet. The fence again turns to the north approximately 120 feet. The fence again turns to the east approximately 120 feet where it meets the shop maintenance building. The area on which the proposed storage building is constructed is entirely secured by the six foot high chain link fence. Within the chain link fence is a gravel storage and work area. Which includes heavy equipment, scrap materials, recycling and refuse held for pickup and fuel supplies? The proposed storage building will be placed on a concrete slab dimensions 40'x 40'. The storage building will be 8 feet from the existing maintenance shop. The area between the storage building and the maintenance shop will be concrete with drainage provided to the west. The entire fenced in storage area is lighted by 24 hour flood lights and switched entryway lights for the existing and proposed structure. The proposed structure is a 30 x 36' un -insulated steel building of modular const4ruction. See attached American Steel Inc. design materials. The building will be provided with electrical power. There will be no sewer or water fixtures contained within the building or added to existing structures. The storage structure will provide inside storage for maintenance equipment. It will also contain a wood -burning furnace. The wood burning furnace will be connected to two ducts which will run into the existing maintenance shop. One duct is for heat supply and the other is for an air supply return. It is intended that the wood burning furnace will provide forced air heat to the shop in winter months. The ducts connecting the furnace to the shop are 16" corrugated steel, both fully insulated the Monticello Fire Department has inspected the building and furnace for fire code violations and after alterations by the owner it has been passed. The storage building will also be used to store fire wood to be used by the furnace. Please see 9/26/08 for further details of proposed structure's location to other buildings and Highway 25. .� '; �' s ,� —�_ ,, �� �. a =.� �� .. _ .r__� -. . y-. ,p Map 0 1221t Parcel ID 155500154402 Alternate ID N/A Owner Name N/A`' Sec/Twp/Rng 15-121-25 Class 101 - AGRICULTURAL Owner Address N/A' •' Property Address 9127 STATE HWY 25 NE Acreage 66.50 MONTICELLO District Brief Tax Description Sect -15 Twp -121 Range -025 UNPLATTED LAND MONTICELL01 66.50 AC SEI/4 OF SWI/4 &TH PRT OF S1/2 OF SEI/4 DES BEG SW COR OF SO S1/2 OF SEI/4 TH NOD23'W ALG W LN 1170.18FT TH E2016.86FT TO NW COR OF TR DEEDED TO WILLIAM BELLOCH TH S24D50'W ALG WLY LN OF SD TR 272FT TH S 72DOTE ALG SLY LN OF SD TR 321.50Ff TO WLY R/W LN OF HWY 25 TH S26D46'W ALG SO R/W LN 923.61FT TO S LN TH W ALG SO S LN 1784.78FT TO POB EX TR DES ON DOC656960(153100) (Note: Not to be used on legal documents) Last Data Upload: 6/26/2009 5:26:47 AM Mght County, MN ObeaconTM A 1555001 Date Created: 6/2412009 Map Scale: 1 in = 53 ft Overview IL egend lul Parcels CJty!Toonshlp Limits Roads fyl CTYCL fI MU CL /V PR WATECL TO)PCL ry us 11,q Last Data Upload: 6/24/2009 5:24:44 AM �ldeveloped by The Schneider Corporation Schneider www.schneidercorp.com APR -24-2007 13:26 FROM: AUG 15,2006 11:07A AMERICAN STEEL CARPORTS i� TD : 6123379574 3098521805 P.3 page 2. �o fl �m a r C a s �1 G'3 , 4prm 24 � Wow *7J a. ma C .rte moi,, �s(,F;� •-.... .��;�y�' yA1�pNn�fiE}i v„e..U� f � P.3 page 2. �m r G'3 i APR -24-2007 13:27 FROM: 10:6123379574 P.4 AUG 15,2006 11.07A AMERICAN STEEL CARPORTS 3098521805 page 3 IR X I JIM it iL J. a cs r � a n Sal F:sAic W491 � 4W l I • l t�� < i c; .� APR -24-2007 13:27 FROM: AUG 15,2006 11:08A AMERICAN STEEL CARPORTS 46' 3098521805 t5 Ill TO:6123379574 -i 13 C3 N � Z T F ju P.5 page V I nt RPR -24-2007 13:27 FROM: T0:6123379574 AUG 15,2006 11:09A AMERICAN STEEL CARPORTS 3098521805 .,rnnumru,.. HE m � o T z F S In u w P.6 page 5 APR -24-2087 13:28 FROM: AUG 15,2006 11c09A AMERICAN STEEL CARPORTS 3098521805 SEE 'to t. rn Cv F. • Mrulrr,n'�miut R T0:6123379574 � ��Kpau�utmirrr�e ' » P.7 page 6 i APR -24-2007 0:28 FROM: AUG lb,=b 11:1)9A AMERICAN ST66h k;A"UKf5 406nLldun UJI" Oil 77E T0:6123379S74 I 129 P.e KK INDnl D t. t. APR -24-2007 13:28 FROM: AUG 15,2006 11:10A AHMCAN STEEL CARPORTS 30985218D5 TO:6123379574 aid �4 -71 n '• a 36• P.9 page 8 0 Lq y Planning Commission Agenda – 08/03/09 1 6. Consideration of a request for extension of Conditional Use Permit for Planned Unit Development for a multi-tenant commercial development in a B-3 (Highway Business) District. Applicant: Cornerstone/DOJO LLC (AS) REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND Cornerstone Development/DOJO LLC is requesting an extension of their conditional use permit for its planned unit development project. On August 4th, 2008, the Planning Commission reviewed and recommended approval of a Conditional Use Permit for Planned Unit Development for a multi-tenant commercial development in a B-3 (Highway Business) District submitted by Cornerstone/DOJO LLC. The City Council approved the Conditional Use Permits on August 11th, 2008.. Due to non-use, the conditional use permit for PUD will expired on August 11th, 2008. The Monticello Zoning Ordinance requires that conditional use permits expire due to non-use after one year. As such, the applicant has requested a one-year extension. All previously approved conditions will apply to any extension of the permit. The planning report for the original item has been provided for reference. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS 1. Motion to recommend extension of the August 11th, 2008 Conditional Use Permit for Planned Unit Development for a multi-tenant commercial development in a B- 3 (Highway Business) District for Cornerstone/DOJO LLC, with the condition that all previously approved conditions be assigned to the extension. 2. Motion to recommend denial of an extension of the August 11th, 2008 Conditional Use Permit for Planned Unit Development for a multi-tenant commercial development in a B-3 (Highway Business) District for Cornerstone/DOJO LLC, based on a finding to be made by the Planning Commission. 3. Motion of other. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of the extension request. The request is consistent with current and proposed objectives for the B-3 (Highway Business) District. IT should be noted that the applicant has not yet submitted record drawings reflecting adherence to all approved conditions. These documents are required prior to any further development reviews or approvals. SUPPORTING DATA Exhibit A: Staff Report for August 11th, 2008 Exhibit B: Conditional Use Permit Plan documents City Council Agenda 08/11/08 Consideration to approve a request for Conditional Use Permit for Planned Unit Development for a multi -tenant commercial development in a B-3 (Highway Business) District. Applicant: Cornerstone/DOJO LLC. (NAC) The Planning Commission reviewed this item at the August 5"' regular meeting. The Commission unanimously recommended approval. During review of the request, the Commission discussed the physical aesthetics of the building in detail, as the two buildings will be highly visible from multiple street frontages — Cedar Street, Highway 25 and Dundas Road. The applicant agreed with Commission's direction to enhance the appearance of the facades facing those public streets. The improved facade treatment on the backs and sides of buildings is consistent with other recent projects along the Cedar Street and Highway 25 corridor. The Commission added a single condition to Exhibit Z, which requires that the applicant's free-standing monument sign be consistent with the building in terms of style, material and color. The applicant and staff had met previously regarding the other conditions outlined in Exhibit Z. The Planning Commission, staff and applicant are comfortable with the conditions as listed. The applicant has indicated that they have already begun revisions to reflect adherence to the conditions. Cornerstone/DOJO Properties, LLC is seeking a Planned Unit Development Conditional Use Permit (PUD/CUP) to allow the construction of two retail commercial buildings upon a 1.7 acre site located south of Dundas Road and east of State Highway 25. The processing of a PUD is specifically necessary to accommodate the location of two principal buildings upon a single lot of record. The underlying zoning of the subject property is B-3, Highway Business. ANALYSIS Planned Unit Development. As shown on the submitted site plan, the applicant wishes to locate two principal buildings upon a single lot. To accommodate this condition, the processing of a PUD/CUP is necessary. A Planned Unit Development allows for flexibility in performance standards with the understanding that the development will be held to higher standards of site and building design than would ordinarily be required. It is the responsibility of the applicant to design the development with significant benefits and communicate those benefits to the City as a basis for allowing a CUP/PUD. Comprehensive Plan. The City's Comprehensive Plan directs commercial use of City Council Agenda — 08/11/08 the subject property. Thus, the proposed use of the property is consistent with the land use directives of the Plan. Zoning. The subject site is zoned B-3, Highway Business. The purpose of the B- 3, Highway Business District is to provide for and limit the establishment of motor vehicle oriented or dependent commercial and service activities. The B-3 District allows a wide array of commercial activities. As a condition of PUD approval, uses within the two commercial buildings will be limited to those allowed in the B-3 District. Access Access to the site is provided from two points long Cedar Street. Considering there are no access points along the east side of Cedar Street, there are no alignment issues that need to be considered. However, the south access location may raise concerns as it relates to the future commercial development of the adjoining parcel. Along Cedar Street, the City has required commercial projects to minimize access locations for traffic safety. This southern access point should be designed in such a way as to permit cross access with the adjoining future development. This may include either an agreement to provide access to the proposed location, or (preferably) a joint location straddling the property line. Parking. The parking requirement for retail and service establishments is one off-street parking stall for each 200 square feet of net floor area. Using this "net area" calculation, 10 percent of the total building area is presumed to be reserved for hallways, restrooms, utilities and the like. As a result, the parking requirement for the proposed commercial use is as follows: Square Feet Ratio Required Spaces North Building 9,504 gsf (8,553 nsf) 1 space per 200 nsf 43 spaces South Building 5,472 gsf (4,925 nsf) 1 space per 200 nsf 24 spaces Total 14,976 gsf (13,478 nsf) 67 spaces Note: Parking ratio applies to retail and service establishments As calculated above, a total of 67 off-street parking spaces are required of the proposed commercial use. In satisfaction of this requirement, a total of 69 stalls have been proposed on the amended plan. In accordance with ADA requirements, three of the proposed stalls have been designated as handicapped stalls, although it would appear that these may be better located near building entrances to meet the intent of the handicapped parking regulations. It should be noted that the required off-street parking supply assumes retail use of the two buildings. If, at some future point, a restaurant use (which has a greater parking supply requirement) is proposed, it will likely be necessary to increase the site's existing off-street parking supply. This could only occur via a PUD amendment. As part of the processing of such amendment, the applicant would need to demonstrate compliance with applicable off-street parking requirements. City Council Agenda— 08/11/08 All proposed parking stalls and drive aisles have been found to meet the minimum dimensional requirements of the ordinance. With one exception, the parking lot design is considered well conceived. To better accommodate vehicular backing maneuvers, it is recommended that the parking stall in the extreme southwest corner of the site (along the site's southern boundary line) be eliminated. Building Design. As shown on the submitted building elevations, the proposed commercial buildings are to be finished in horizontal cement board siding with manufactured stone provided on the front elevations. Building colors have not been noted. As a condition of PUD/CUP approval, building colors should be specified and subject to City approval. The proposed buildings measure 27 feet in height and satisfy the maximum two story height requirement imposed in the B-3 zoning district. With the exception of the front entrance canopies, a hip roof design is proposed. All roof areas are to be finished in asphalt shingles. While the proposed buildings meet applicable building height and material requirements of the ordinance, staff has some concern in regard to the "back of the building" appearance provided along Highway 25, Dundas Road and Cedar Street. These areas will be highly visible to passersby. With previous retail projects along Cedar Street, the City has required "four-sided architecture" to enhance the views of the projects from all sides, particularly given the high visibility of these buildings. Upgraded materials on exposed walls have been required of the Monticello Travel Center project, the Warnert retail project, and the retail buildings along Cedar Street west of Wal-Mart. Staff has recommended that the walls exposed to the public streets on this project be improved with additional stone detailing, particularly around the door areas, including some of the same column architecture which is proposed for the entrance side of the buildings. Setbacks. As shown below, all applicable setback requirements of the B-3 zoning district have been satisfied: Front Yard Side Yard Rear Yard Re uired Setbacks 30 feet 20 feet 30 feet Proposed Setbacks 32 feet feet 71 feet Note: 30 foot setback applied to side yards which abut public rights-of-way Landscaping. A landscape plan was submitted as a part of a recent addition to the application packet. The landscape plan shows a total of 23 trees, meeting the City Council Agenda — 08/11/08 minimum requirement for a commercial site with a site perimeter of approximately 1,100 linear feet. The landscaped parking islands meet the minimum area for such islands. Staff would comment that while the landscape plan meets the minimum, it could be enhanced through additional plantings along the perimeter of the site, particular along Highway 25 and the south boundary. Lighting. To date, a lighting plan has not been submitted. Prior to the City taking official action on the application, it is recommended that a photometric lighting plan be submitted in accordance with ordinance requirements. Signage. The applicants have proposed a freestanding sign as a recent submission, reducing the parking supply in the front of the building to accommodate the sign location. The proposed sign is 20 feet in height and a total sign exposure of approximately 128 square feet in sign area. The sign is mounted on two poles with a stone base, presumably matching the stone on the building. This sign is the only freestanding sign on the project, and appears to meet the City's sign requirements within a PUD. The submitted front building elevations identify wall sign panels for the individual building tenants. The total maximum allowable sign area for any wall is determined by taking 10 percent of the gross silhouette area of the front of the building up to 100 square feet, whichever is less. The subject site has legal frontage on Highway 25, Dundas Road and Cedar Street making the north building eligible for wall signage on its north, east and west sides. The south building is eligible for wall signage on its east and west facades. As a condition of PUD/CUP approval, all site signs must meet applicable location and dimensional requirements of the ordinance. Trash. As shown on the submitted site plan, trash enclosures are proposed on the east side of the site near the two Cedar Street access points. To be specifically noted is that both enclosures are located in front of the building line, making them highly visible to business patrons. While the location of such enclosures (near site entrances) is understood from a functional standpoint, the locations are considered less than ideal from a visual perspective. To address this concern, consideration should be given to attaching such enclosures to the principal buildings. Considering the proximity of the enclosures to the adjacent principal buildings (approximately 7 feet), attached enclosures would reduce site clutter and minimize the visual presence of the trash handling areas. Such enclosures or "wing walls" should be finished in materials similar to those used on the principal buildings, including the stone elements. Loading. It assumed that loading and deliveries will occur through front entrances to the various commercial tenants. While service or fire doors are provided on the "back" side of the two buildings, such doors are not accessible 4 City Council Agenda — 08/11/08 either by driveway or sidewalk. As a condition of PUD/CUP approval, the handling of loading activities should be addressed by the applicant (to the satisfaction of the City). Engineering Issues There are several details identified by the City's Engineering staff relating to utilities, grading and drainage, and related items. The staff met with the applicants as a part of the project review and have agreed to address those issues pursuant to the discussions at that meeting. A copy of the engineers report is included with this packet, and its recommendations are included here by reference. The comment letter does not incorporate the results of the staff discussion. Grading and Drainage. Issues related to grading and drainage should be subject to comment and recommendation by the City Engineer. Easement. As shown on the submitted site plan a United Power Association (UPA) easement is proposed in the southwest corner of the subject site. The easement area is overlaid by off-street parking. The acceptability of this condition should be subject to comment and recommendation by the City Engineer. Utilities Issues related to utilities should be subject to comment and recommendation by the City Engineer. Right -of -Way Dedication. Consistent with the recommendation of City staff, the northeast corner of the subject property should be dedicated as public right-of- way. Such dedication (as depicted upon the submitted site plan) will better accommodate necessary street turning radii and provide additional area within which utilities may be installed. It is recommended that such dedication occur prior to building permit issuance. This issue should be subject to additional comment by the City Engineer. Dundas Road Vacation. As a condition of PUD/CUP approval, it is recommended that the narrow strip of the Dundas Road right -of way (as depicted on the submitted site plan), recently vacated by the City, be combined with the subject property. The recently vacated piece will be conveyed to the current property owner this site. The property owner will need to convey the vacated strip to the new owners of the subject site. Such conveyance should occur prior to building permit issuance. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS City Council Agenda — 08/11/08 The Planning Comnnission recommends alternative 1 below. Regarding the request for a for Planned Unit Development Conditional Use Permit (PUD/CUP) approval, the City has the following options: 1. Motion to approve the PUD/CUP, based on a finding that the proposed use is consistent with the intent of the B-3 District, subject to the conditions outlined in Exhibit Z. 2. Motion to deny the PUD/CUP, based on a finding that the proposed use does not satisfy the intention of planned unit development by providing higher development standards than would normally be required. RECOMMENDATION The proposed use, a Planned Unit Development Conditional Use Permit (PUD/CUP) for two retail commercial buildings, appears to be consistent with the intent of the B-3 District and compatible with existing and anticipated future surrounding uses. To qualify for PUD consideration, a project must demonstrate that it exceeds the minimum standards of the zoning ordinance. Staff has made a series of suggestions in this regard related to access, landscaping, and building materials. With these improvements, staff would recommend approval of the PUD. SUPPORTING DATA Exhibit A: Location Map Exhibit B: Application Package, including: Title Sheet Site Plan Grading Plan SWPPP SWPPP Details Utility Plan Water & Sanitary Details Storm, Sidewalk & Street Building Plan — North Elevations Landscape Plan Landscape Detail Monument Sign Detail Exhibit C: City Engineer's Comments Exhibit Z: Conditions of Approval City Council Agenda — 08/11/08 EXHIBET Z Conditions of Approval 1. The proposed site access point locations be revised subject to review and approval by the City Engineer. 2. Any future proposal to accommodate uses which generate a greater off-street parking demand (i.e. restaurants), the processing of a PUD amendment and additional parking shall be required. 3. To better accommodate vehicular backing maneuvers, the parking stall in the extreme southwest corner of the site (along the site's southern boundary line) be eliminated. 4. Building colors be specified and subject to City approval. 5. The applicant revises the building materials as discussed in this report, particularly as related to the building facades facing the surrounding streets. 6. The landscape plan be amended to increase planting on the site, particularly along the south and west boundary areas. 7. A photometric lighting plan be submitted, in accordance with ordinance requirements, subject to City approval. 8. Consideration be given to attaching the two trash enclosures to the adjacent principal buildings. Such enclosures or "wing walls" should be finished in materials similar to those used on the principal buildings. 9. Requirements of the City Engineering staff are complied with, as agreed to at the staff -applicant meeting on July 29, 2008 10. Right of way dedications and vacations are finalized prior to final building permit approval. 11. The free-standing monument sign shall be consistent with site buildings in terms of style, material and color. 7 150 ' `z- L 4 '"Z-`DEEGAN AVE m cn „e. a. `•..:.'% .t jai 1 _ w j .'4. • i c: �v 1 OAKWOOD D EA'GLECT.. ` _ .1 : c CD N GOON fIr. CD Qo 4 N< 40 A (4 CL LLI � z C l z 0 CC 0 � ul 0 WD z 02. � a (A z 4 mi IL z 0 � cc� � � � � z 0 � � � � z � � � � � cc a iz 0 L6 a z � � � � � � 12 c m LLI � � � � 0 0 C4 � z � � a ) § /\ ■ \,/ \ ,` a � � 2. ». « a_ �\ ■ \' 4 N< 40 A (4 CL LLI � z C l z 0 CC 0 � ul 0 WD z 02. � a (A z 4 mi IL z 0 � cc� � � � � z 0 � � � � z � � � � � cc a iz 0 L6 a z � � � � � � 12 c m LLI � � � � 0 0 C4 � z � � a ) § /\ ■ \,/ \ ,` # �•; , | /!) \ k AVO vc¢c-gee (°ec) mj SNV9d NOIIOOIlISNOO ANVNIWIl3Ud ue am3a �u�-os� (ou •wua .u• ZO£55 NN 'alopu°Iuy HVId 3j(S S _ szu x°a 'O•d w m aa, w man ,, an ue raxvaG '3 1S Nl3 OSZ U 'A101M11vM4 roup •�ossy 6ulJeau)6u3 AII(aH d V1O53NNIW `Ol•13OLLNOW 'OZV,d Sa3Nao3 oro® °b '�a3xpiS3a i A �e �j k� $ $ 333tl q< &� &fti oE3D W _ N A YL1iY cN J3Y arra -4Z Bei SNV'Id NOL4nYIL1SN00 AMVNIWI13"d ° ZO£GQ NA ' - J-Puouuy Ntlld `JNIQtl}iD gg FZII Me '0'd or uY Nxwo auk mYf mossy g Bu{�eeu�6ug ���a H,Q V10S3NNIW `0113,I1NOW U VZVId SH3Nl303 oroa U1 0 / ' ae i a: _ _r Lam"' �.� ^<• .� .^.4 J ifu --------------- &i w — Aka CO X96 4, 110 1eu � I\ �, •�a3`-�.. "�, -+� - � � a r 3 `tea _y `'e bio `\ �• C a� �R F 3 9LtLi vN a3Y ana Ypyyy� �� aej SN%nd NO=nVISNOO AUVNIW113Ud ue mew �zLf- NriNv ZOESS Iopuo"V NVId ddMS g EZLL =8 '0'd.1 Is z M aun un au auxi mYro�w iwbwve.a wt Ae yYl �065(I ]$ BU BDGZ RINON�Q VLMRNNIVJ'O113JItNO-WIW U VZV1d Sa3NHOO OroO 3 =gym 4 911��� �� All go= w 3 g"a g� � tlB s al 111i fll �t�7p$�@�� 'g-1 � g 'fill �3R � 9 2 1 y4 �S I!!!" 5@ _�9 as 8 d2�s s s zi �, fife kS �. C go logo go@f�3� uaR aN WY R -Ya (-0 ma SNV'Id NOIIOON1SNOO ANVNIW113Nd VO UY 6LAT310 ESS N ('-) P... ZOESS N n I'0'.1 tl S71V134 ddMS EZII i '0'dLD am :ae Yxvao 3 '15 W13 OR U SY< mY m,, �,� °'�azw« roul •oossy $ 6ul1-16u3 AM-M,O tl10S3NNIW `0113011N OW : vznld Sa3NHO3 Or Oa a m m x gu� gPg spot g� y �7a6b3 y ajd� p k�u �a X21 Jb e� kd Magi lal 1 MH o � v� �es �F 3 � 5 O \ jji�A I�rl ma S f,6666 w e s gg pp� Baal hi y g �?�C� � M 411 In r. Pal Nnd NO=nU.LSNOO AUVNIVJ113Ud Zpigg NK N"d A.Lllllfl I � 31S " o9z vlosa—m 1011301INO w 'Oul 'DOSS.V :9 5UJJ9&uiSU3 A111914,(3 VZVld S83N803 OPOU In, aaa ig ig all -------- --- ------------------- Air- *4, 404V C) 4jL 0) 11C.- 4 s- h, 7-"f- ik F ol BisZi nx ntltl gpuy�e + ej SNmd NO=nuj-SNO0 AHVNIWIl3Nd mb3b ZaE99 NN rolopucuuy 5'IIVl3� AHtllINtlS $ !l3itlM ,a •a13 '0'E U waanwmw ms oro�xoa a•x rcn .0 xxvao 3'1 I S W13 OSZ p1OS3NNIW'O113011NOW o -eul •flossy R BNNsaul6u3 ARIGH,0 tlZ9rld S1i3N8i0O OPO® 3noisHse v,ro vounimtle .iu ®uina uim x� I ow m�oeao 11AIM41)491 R i EI �I r I N a PI �p • e 1 5� 1 • F 1 a+ g g F Y I � F B j� @F �, �aaluFs 1 %YY F I I� i t: F aP' as R i e7 � �a ei :I .i i€Ptd 0 g I N PI �p • e 1 5� 1 • F a+ g g F j� @F �, �aaluFs 1 %YY I I� i NVId NO=nH1sNO3 AHM11113Ud ZOM NA 'L33U.LS W 31-MMEIGIS 'WUD.LS CM -8 'O'd .3 IS K3 0 D VIOS3 NN W '0-1130 [IN OW -oul mossy V aupe I8u3 A1119H,a VZVld SU3HUO3 OrOCI_j SH ARM gill 11, oil. zz z z Z. L •'U ELI • awc='O^'scea—»o (tsa) xva/3loxa SNtlld ONIOlIN9 AtltlNIWll3tld rvr ue mhJ]Vq i0199 NW 'lflVd 1NItli gg _ y==n r 30N3Atl ONOdVI MZ (H1HON) UV -1d°.. mu-nns S Q 1O311HO8tl g r�x�vw. tl1053NNIW 'O113011NOW A3)iOVw Wlr 31vuvm OPOO P6 JS A g fps NN, �g� 11lih INN Gggg g °31:h HIN �i �a3A a i21f8 a d ra a ap tldR sse 8's i6 2 e SSd O O O O O O awrc rox y3a gra --- (m) %Vi/3NdW bSNV9d omia nO AHVNIWI73Hd 3nN3 Ic ua a NW inYd 1 S N nN3nv Moen ¢Z4L zt( & OOyg NOLLVA393 0 a A3��dW H�� IN P VLOS3NNIW'OT73011Nov9 _ snroaxw nva .ani xue,a..wxalau.a.a»II aa:aaxaaaa 31VmVHorou .. ai a 'ox mu cora eaw- s 08p7 xvYIDmHd SNtl"1d 9NIO7H19 A!lVN m -Md _ wr ue aumw 40155 NW '1Nvd 1NIV5 x W 3nNMV ONO.iV1 fZLI eN M (HlOOS) Ntl7d `JN101108 19 a a�ru�W mi ue xxvaa 10311H.7iiV V1OS3NNIfV'011301iNOW anuenvrosw.vuunin ®w" A2310VW WIP 31VII" OP00 sve ma mxee:.a ❑ ® _'._, . -. »���m. .nd__e,«_■ jJ ��m�V _ _._ �ovw mr �¥aVMoroa ) P dd/ / / § ;+ §£ �^ §� q �� a �� � 4 �. .� � Q' fN i Cl 2)5 ExClUsive Landsca - -Q=LO, - � PC S Professional Landscape, Landscape Management & Irrigation .Services q Landscape Designfor.- DOW o Corners Plaza Prepared by: Thomas G. Maas Dojo Corners Plaza Planting Schedule Common Name Size Qt Colo. Blue Spruce 8' B&B 12 Autumn Spire Maples 2" 7 Patmore Ash 2" 2 Spring Snow Crab 2" 2 Gold Mound Spireas 18" 33 Red Barberries 18" 12 Miss Kim Lilacs # 5 Pot 5 Stella Day Lillies 1 #1 Potl 76 Boulders 1 18-24"1 10 Notes: 1. 1.5" River Rock typical in all shrub beds and ground cover areas. Edger typical where planting bed interfaces with lawn. 2. Planting beds edger to be Balck Diamond or equal. 3. All Sodded areas to be Irrigated 4. Plants count per thius sheet only. 5. All Trees to hard a hardwood mulch ring. I . SCARIFY BOTTOM AND SIDES OF HOLE NOTE: GUY ASSEMBLY OPTIOvAL I PRIOR TO PN11NG BUT CONTRACTOR ASSUMES FULL 2. TRIM OUT DEAD WOOD AND WEAK AND/OR RESPONSIBILITYFOR MAINTAININC ' DEFORMED TWIGS. DO ,101 CUT A LEADER. �r TREE IN A PLUMB POSITION Fit)R DO NOT PAINT CUTS. SEE SPECS REGARDING \ THE DURATION OF HE PRUNING OF ALL OAKS. GUARANTEE PERIOD 3. SET PLANT ON UNDISTURBED NATIVE l/ GUY ASSEMBLY- 16" POLYPROPYLENE SOIL OR THOROUGHLY COMPACTED f� OR POLYETHYLENE (40 MIL) 1-1/2" BACKFILL SOIL, INSTALL PLANT SO THE ` j WIDE STRAP (TYP) DOUBLE STRMD 10 ROOT FLARE IS AT OR UP TO 2" GA. WIRE, 2-7" ROLLED STEL POSTS ABOVE THE FINISHED GRADE. \ (MnDOT 3401) 0 180' G.C. (SEE 4. PLACE PLANT IN PLANTING HOLE STAKING DIAGRAM) WITH BURLAP AND WIRE BASKET, (IF USED), INTACT. BACKFILL WITHIN APPROXIMATELY 12" OF THE TOP OF Rrl HALL, WA—tr_i PL'.i. REMOVE TOP 1/3 OF THE BASKET OR THE TOP TWO HORIZONTAL RINGS. WHICHEVER IS GREATER. REMOVE ALL BURLAP AND - NAILS FROM TOP 1/3 OF THE BALL. REMOVE ALL TWINE. 5. PLUMB AND BACKFILL WITH 8ACKFILL o SOIL 6. WATER TO SETTLE PLANTS AND FILL VOIDS, 7. WATER WITHIN TWO HOURS OF INSTALLATION. WATERING MUST BE SUFFICIENT TO THOROUGHLY SATURATE ROOT BALL AND PLANTING HOLE. i S. PLACE MULCH WITHIN 48 HOURS OF THE SECOND WATERING UNLESS SOIL MOISTURE IS EXCESSIVE. r DECIDUOUS TREE PLANTING' DETAIL I E NOT T9 SCALE 1. SCARIFY BOTTOM AND SIDES OF HOLE PRIOR TO PLANTING 2. TRIM OUT DEAD WOOD AND WEAK AND/OR DEFORMED TWIGS. DO NOT CUT A LEADER. DO NOT PAINT CUTS. 3. SET PLANT ON UNDISTURBED NATIVE SOIL OR THOROUGHLY COMPACTED BACKFILL SOIL, INSTALL PLANT SO THE ROOT FLARE IS AT OR UP TO 2" ABOVE THE FINISHED GRADE. 4. PLACE PLANT IN PLANTING HOLE WITH BURLAP AND WIRE BASKET, (IF USED), INTACT. BACKFILL WITHIN APPROXIMATELY 12" OF THE TOP OF ROOTBALL, WATER PLANT. REMOVE TOP 1/3 OF THE BASKET OR THE TOP TWO HORIZONTAL RINGS, WHICHEVER IS GREATER. REMOVE ALL BURLAP AND NAILS FROM TOP 113 OF THE BALL. REMOVE ALL TWINE. 5. PLUMB AND BACKFILL WITH BACKFILL SOIL. 6, WATER TO SE-TTLE PLANTS AND FILL VOIDS. 7- WATER WITHIN TWO HOURS OF INSTALLATION. WATERING MUST BE SUFFICIENT TO THOROUGHLY SATURATE ROOT BALL AND PLANTING HOLE. 8. PLACE MULCH WTII-Illq 48 HOURS OF THE SECOND WATERING UNLESS SOIL MOISTURE IS EXCESSIVE. �j CONIFEROUS TREE PUA NTING DETAIL. � NOY To scA,x T COORDINATE STAKIIG TO INSURE UNIFOOM !12!?i 1z • ORIENTATION �F r•� �y LINES AND STAKE: - 12. STAKING DIAGRAM TREE WRAP FROM BELOW MULCH LINE TO FIRST BRANCH OPTION PERFORATED SLI' PVC COLLAR 4'-6" SHREDDED BARK MULCH %-,''EXISTING GRADE ---PLANTING SOIL MIXTURE (SEE SPEC.) MINIMUM 112 WIDTH OF ROOT 3ALL J_____UNDISTURBED OR STABILIZED SUBSOILS NOTE: GUY ASSEMBLY OPTIONAL BUT CONTRACTOR ASSUMES FUL(_ RESPONSIBILITY FOR MAINTAININC. TREE IN A PLUMB POSITION FOR THE DURATION OF THE GUARANTEE PERIOD -r GUY ASSEMBLY- 16" POLYPROPYLENE OR POLYETHYLENE (40 MIL) 1-1 !2" WIDE STRAP (TYP) DOUBLE STRAND 10 GA_ WIRE, 2-7" ROLLED STEEL POSTS (MriDOT 34111) ® 180' O -C_ (SES STAKING DIAGRAM) COORDINATT STAKIN',' TO INSURE UNIFORM 2912 • ORIENTATION OF GUY UNEP AND STAKES 12 - b STAKING DIAGRAM -GUY WIRE WITH WEBBING FLAGGING- ONE PER W!r:- -4"-6" SHREDDED BARK MULCH F --EXISTING GRADE M 1/2 WIDTH OF ROC-€ B' \iG SOIL MIXTURE (SEE =C.) —UNDISTURBED OR STABILISED SUBSOILS /-7INCHES MULCH 1 SEE LANDSCAPE NOTES FOR TYPE OF MULCH ��IF SHRUB IS B & 8, THEN REMOW BURLAP & RODE FROM TOP 1/3 OF BA" BACKFILL MiX UNDISTURBED SUBSOIL SHRUB & CONTAlNER PUNTING DETAIL NO! TO SCALE 54"144" TOP SECTION 20' OVERALL HEIGHT 54"x'144" 14" deep 8'x10' 12" deep 10"x10" poles 26"x130" 24" deep base WSB AIMEMENEM & Associates, Inc. Infrastructure 1 Engineering 1 Planning 1 Construction July 23, 2008 Mr. Gary D'Heilly D'Heilly Engineering & Assoc. Inc. 250 Elm St. E. P.O. Box 1123 Annandale, MN 55302 Re: Dojo Corners Plaza -- Preliminary Construction Plan Review City of Monticello Planning No. 2008-020 WSB Project No. 1627-94 Dear Mr. D'Heilly: Mr.aH 701 Xenia Avenue South Suite 300 Minneapolis, MN 55416 Tel; 763-541-4800 Fax: 763-541-1700 We have reviewed the preliminary construction plans dated June, 2008, for the above -referenced project and offer the following comments. Sheet C1— Site Plan 1. Consider providing a future access to the south and/or moving the southerly access to the south property line to act as a joint access to the property to the south. Is a car wash still proposed for the South Building? Previous discussions with City staff indicated that the southerly access was needed to allow for cars to exit the car wash. 2. Show a concrete driveway apron at the site entrances per City Standard Plate No.5007. The proposed sidewalk along Cedar Street should be 6 -feet wide as per City standards. 4. Truncated dome pedestrian ramps are also required at the driveway entrances. Add the removals to the grading or utility plan. 6. Note a bituminous pathway along TH 25, instead of a sidewalk as noted. 7. The pathway removal is on the incorrect location. Signs indicating that the pathway is closed will need to be provided until the bituminous pavement is replaced. The striping on Cedar Street may need to be revised with the proposed access points. 9. Revise the parking lot dimensions to indicate the standard 20 -foot long parking stalls and 24 -foot driving lane. 10. Explain why the handicap stalls are not included in the parking spaces in fiont of the building. Minneapolis I St. Cloud rams vau,,,,,o«su.rn.Rar�arynr.:rsQr Equal Opportunity Employer Mr. Gary D'Heilly July 23, 2008 Page 3 7. Watermain bends should be called out in standard sizes: 11 1/4,22 % and 45 degree bends with blocking as per City detail plates. The existing sanitary sewer stub extending to the South Building is 8 -inch PVC and extends 50 feet from the manhole as per City as-builts. Please note the % grade of the service pipe. 9. A sanitary sewer sampling manhole is required for each service to the building if it is a food -service type use. 10. Label where the sanitary sewer and water service connection points are. 11. Add a legend indicating standard line types for each utility and revise the plan as such. 12. A utility excavation permit must be obtained from the Public Works department prior to commencement of utility connections. 13. Provide an as -built plan once construction is complete. Sheet C4.,C6, C7 Details All detail plates should be revised to reflect the current plates from the City General Specifications dated May 2008. These can be found on the City's website. 2. The plans should include a note indicating that construction shall conform to the most recent addition of the City of Monticello General Specifications and Detail Plates. Please provide a written response addressing the comments above. Final construction plans will need to be submitted, reviewed, and approved prior to building permit approval. in addition, the final plat must be recorded prior to building permit approval. Please give me a call at 763-287-7162 if you have any questions or comments regarding this letter. Thank you. Sincerely, WSB & Associates, Inc. A�� I., Shibani K. Bisson, PE Project Manager C cc: Bruce Westby, City of Monticello John Simola, City of Monticello gel==hrrian City of Monticello Steve Grittman, NAC skb Kaa16'7-9714 d� ,,.h ID..%LT8-g X1011y 07721d4dr Planning Commission Agenda –8/04/09 1 7. Consideration to review an update regarding the amendment of the Monticello Zoning Ordinance for Off-Street Parking. (NAC) REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND The attached material constitutes a summary of the workshop discussion held two weeks ago between staff, the Planning Commission and the City Council. The workshop proved to be highly productive in helping get consensus on the parking and/or storage of passenger and recreational vehicles on residential property. Through the use of the enclosed table and diagrams, it is hoped that the City Officials, enforcement staff, and property owners will all be able to understand the requirements for parking on residential lots. There is one remaining outstanding issue, as identified in the written notes. There is, as yet, no clearly defined consensus as to what commercial vehicles are to be allowed on residential property. As discussed at the workshop, there is a need to balance the rights of property owners against the impacts of their use on their neighbors. If this format is successful in helping to add clarity to the keeping of passenger and recreational vehicles, it may provide a good foundation to discuss commercial vehicles as well. The material presented here is not in final ordinance format. Instead, it is intended to summarize the comments at the workshop. If these materials seem to do a good job of that, staff will create ordinance formats that can be formally considered for adoption. Due to the nature of the existing ordinance material, it is envisioned that a large amount of material will be deleted from the existing text, replaced by a series of new or updated definitions, the accompanying table and graphics, and enough new text to give effect to the City’s intent in this area. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS With the direction of the Planning Commission, staff will proceed to develop ordinance language for consideration at a future public hearing. If appropriate, the Planning Commission may call for a public hearing at its September 1st meeting to consider a formal amendment. 1. Motion to call for a public hearing to consider amendments to the Zoning Ordinance relating to parking and storage of vehicles on residential property. 2. Motion to lay over discussion of this item to a future meeting. Planning Commission Agenda –8/04/09 2 STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff would be ready with ordinance language at the direction of the Planning Commission. SUPPORTING DATA A. Parking material background B. Table of parking and storage locations C. Illustration of parking and storage locations Planning Commission – 08/04/09 1 8. Consideration to review possible adjustment of the September Planning Commission regular meeting date. (AS) REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND The September regular meeting date falls on September 1st, which is also open house night for many local schools. The Planning Commission is asked to consider the possibility of shifting its regular meeting date to accommodate those who may need to attend these open house events. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS 1. Motion to set a September Planning Commission regular meeting date of ___________________. 2. No action. Planning Commission – 08/04/09 1 9. Consideration to set regular meeting dates for the Monticello Zoning Ordinance Revision Steering Committee. (AS) REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND The City Council has authorized moving forward with the comprehensive update of the Zoning Ordinance. As part of that authorization, the City Council requested clarification from the designated consultant, MFRA, on the “diagnostic” process described in their written and verbal proposal. Attached for reference is a project overview, which includes a more in-depth description of the diagnostic. In short, MFRA will meet with staff, the steering committee, and key community stakeholders to determine the main priorities for the ordinance revision. The groups will describe the current concerns and problem areas within the ordinance and review potential formats and structures. Based on the outcome of the diagnostic process, MFRA will revise their original proposal scope of work and budget. The diagnostic process will help MFRA determine which pieces need the most focus versus those that can be blended into a new, streamlined ordinance format without large-scale review and revision. MFRA’s proposal describes a process guided by a steering committee. Staff proposed, and Council approved, a Steering Committee made up of all five Planning Commissioners and two City Council members. Other City commissions and committees will also be asked to provide input at strategic points along the way. The steering committee will assist in guiding the ordinance revision process, providing critical feedback throughout the revision. At this time, the Planning Commission is asked to consider setting regular meeting dates for the steering committee’s work. As the Planning Commission had previously set the third Tuesday as a regular meeting date for overflow items, this may be an ideal time for Steering Committee sessions. This date also does not conflict with any other City meeting date. The first meeting of the Steering Committee has been tentatively set for August 18th. This meeting is part of the initial diagnostic portion of the project. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS 1. Motion to set regular Zoning Ordinance Revision Steering Committee meeting dates of ___________________. SUPPORTING DATA Zoning Ordinance Revision Project Overview Planning Commission Agenda – 08/04/09 1 10. Community Development Director’s Update. (AS) Adopt-a-River Event Please see attached flyer. The City would love to see you attend! Neighbors Strengthening Wright County Communities Please see attached. Again, if you’d like to be involved, please use the contact information provided to find out more. Fiber Construction Kick-Off FiberNet Monticello has officially begun construction. You may have noticed crews in the Groveland area. Please check out the website www.fibernetmonticello.com for important updates and information. Storm Damage Update Approximately 1,600 letters were sent out to contractors and residents for storm damage repair that was completed and with no final inspections called in. We have been very busy scheduling those final inspections. We are hoping to update our GIS map soon showing the homes where permits were pulled so we can see where permits were not pulled and contact those individuals if indeed work was completed. Movies in the Park The Sherburne-Wright Cable Commission purchased a huge outdoor movie screen for the 10 cities in the commission to use. We will have our first Movie in the Park on Friday, July 24, 2009. The movie is Madagascar 2. We have another family movie scheduled on Friday, August 14th. This is a great addition to our community programming schedule and we hope to have three or four movies in the park next year. The movies are in Pioneer Park and are being sponsored by FiberNet Monticello. Reception Desk City staff is excited to welcome a new face at the front desk. Kerry Burri has been hired on for the Thursday – Friday reception position. Cathy Kasper, the current receptionist, has moved to a Monday – Wednesday schedule. Kerry will begin employment with the City on July 29th. She has had past experience with local government and will be an asset to the front desk and City Hall as a whole. Stop in and take the opportunity to meet Kerry! With a new employee starting at the front desk, Community Development is also looking to make service improvements at the front counter. The goal will be to provide the two staff at the desk with better resources and information to do a great job. Off-Street Parking All action related to citations for off-street parking issued with the spring sweep will not be pursued further. A special item in the October utility billing and November City newsletter will also detail the new ordinance for residents. Planning Commission Agenda – 08/04/09 2 Sign Ordinance Brochure The Community Development department and the Chamber of Commerce are teaming up to produce a brochure for businesses regarding the new sign ordinance. The new brochure will be paired with a full copy of the ordinance and an introduction letter and will be mailed out to the Chamber’s complete Monticello business listing in August. Website Updates A new section has been added to the main page of the City website. Titled “Monticello Living”, the new section is geared at providing helpful information and links for residents. In addition to this new section, some revisions were made to the “Business & Property” section to make information available to new and existing businesses. These revisions will be further enhanced by additional updates by the Economic Development department next year. The “Monticello Living” section will be under construction over the next month. Your ideas and feedback are welcomed! Bertram Chain of Lakes The master planning process for the Bertram Chain of Lakes has begun to move forward. The Bertram Chain of Lakes Advisory Council has set up four task groups that will focus in on particular pieces of the planning process. These groups may mature to include other members of the community. 1) Athletic Field Subcommittee: Work with user groups on the design and future management of a regional and community athletic complex that meets the current and future needs. (Staff assigned: Tom Pawelk and Kitty Baltos) 2) Technical Committee: Provide valuable background information on technical issues ranging from site resources (natural and cultural) to site safety, and trail design standards. (Staff assigned: County Park Administrator Marc Mattice, Angela Schumann as needed) 3) Friends of BCL: Create an organization of concerned area residents who are interested in preserving and protecting the environment and supporting the activities of the park. Responsibilities include fund raisers for park needs. providing a pool of volunteers for various park events, communicate with elected and appointed government and community officials. (Staff assigned: Angela Schumann) If you’d like your name added – please contact Angela! 4) Day Use/Programs/User Groups: Provide user-based perspective on passive park development, facilities and use issues. (Staff assigned: Kitty Baltos and Marc Mattice) The Advisory Council will also be responsible for overseeing all 4 sub-groups and the entire planning process, representing the interests of the public and evaluating how the 4 main aspects relate to each other. Updates on the progress of the subcommittees and the work of the full Advisory Council will be provided to the Council. Planning Commission Agenda – 08/04/09 3 The City and County are currently obtaining estimates for creating a separate URL for the Bertram Lakes pages of the City website, in effect creating a new website for the project. The new site will offer new features and expanded content. In relationship to Bertram acquisition funding, the City and County just received news that Grants for Regional Parks were approved by the Commissioner of the DNR. With over $16 Million in grant requests, and with total funding of $266,499 only one request was funded. That was the Bertram Chain of Lakes, the award is for the entire $266,499, and will require our local match. We have until after the Legacy Regional Park Grant, LCCMR and Bonding request are considered, to spend these funds. The City of Monticello expects to hear whether it was made the first round of consideration for the Metro Greenways grant by mid-August. In regard to the LCCMR application, which was submitted May 1, the County/City project made it through the preliminary scoring for first-round cuts. The City and County continue to receive positive feedback as a result of the June 22nd event. Attached are charts illustrating the visitor origination and age for the June 22nd event. Carlisle Village The City has contacted Main Street Bank to mow Carlisle Village in accordance with City code. The bank has also been requested to spray the thistle, which is defined by City and State code as a noxious weed. The City will look for action on these requests within the next week. River Street Access Closure Pilot Project Staff met with the Monticello Downtown Business Association on July 14th with the intent being to discuss their access (ingress and egress) needs and any other concerns they might have. However, the MDBA invited a pedestrian expert to the meeting and stressed the importance of pedestrian access, mobility and safety, noting that these are some of their primary goals with any improvements that are proposed for the downtown area. Following the meeting staff started working on a plan that would best fit the goals of our Transportation Plan, while also addressing as many of the comments received from Council, the MDBA, and the residents of East and West River Street as possible. Staff is in the process of finalizing this plan, and once it is complete we will meet with the MDBA again to review the plan. The plan will then be finalized and presented the plan to Council for review and approval, most likely on August 24th as staff would like the Wright County Sheriff to be in attendance to address any questions related to traffic enforcement that people may have and he is not available on August 10th. The final plan will address as best as possible the access and traffic circulation needs of the downtown businesses, as well as the traffic concerns of East and West River Street residents. The primary goals of the plan are to enhance vehicular access, circulation routes and parking, to increase pedestrian accessibility, mobility and safety throughout Planning Commission Agenda – 08/04/09 4 the downtown area, and to discourage non-local traffic from using the adjacent residential streets. Staff has discussed potential improvements at the intersection of TH 25 and River Street with Mn/DOT in more detail and was informed that while Mn/DOT will allow us to leave the temporary traffic control devices (orange barrels) in place on TH 25 for a while longer, they expect a more permanent solution to be in place before late October when the snow season officially begins. Staff was also informed that Mn/DOT will let the City decide whether vehicles should be allowed to turn left from West River Street to northbound TH 25, whether or not the signal system is reactivated. Mn/DOT’s I-94 Twin Bridge Replacement Project Update Mn/DOT’s contractor is still in the process of mobilizing their equipment to the site but they should break ground on the project very soon. They are also in the process of placing three field trailers and a gravel parking lot on the site north of Liberty Bank between Hart Boulevard and CR 39. The only concern staff had with this was that they may drag aggregate surfacing out onto Hart Boulevard, but the contractor has assured us they will sweep Hart Boulevard on a regular basis to make sure this doesn’t become an issue. Once the project is complete the field trailers will be removed, along with the gravel surfacing, and the site will be restored to its original condition. East Bridge Park Gazebo Parks staff has completed the construction of the wedding gazebo located in the East Bridge Park. The next major projects will be replacing the decking on Otter Creek Bridge, West Bridge playground, Pioneer playground, and both playgrounds are scheduled for plastic playground equipment replacement. wo ER 01 � O � N C� 4� O � wo ER A 0 11 4 '— a, a = N. •_ > 3 a 0 E m CD c E a � C x IA O C o s C4 a= C > > = W {.d L � d : =s—c Cc ` V It N o� 6m M A 0 11 4 '— a, a = N. •_ > 3 a 0 E m CD c E a � C x IA O C o s C4 a= Eli CV x 0 M CO a M N %a 3 Y� _ N V = dd�,o•= d •o o �39t C N H = o V _ O O M a Q L y Z 0 Q _ a = � _ • L d O 'a o � V a� a O 000 G s 'rn • v m' i LL � •o v z - h ¢ a m > P 8 > O RE GIOa <c V TEC = T 8 W W. Q N O Y T E E V T O O Q V IN L •= V 8! E w m o 0 o e .. c 3 L e a _e u o ti 0 C. a > o c `o L d m ... a V! = d N i O N d O T 0 C m E °' 0 0 w $ e Lm a a >� o > >= a ; E C L E 'a 0 O a Q Y YdN s s .O' O •C� - = dami, 04 "0a a 4.2 O -0a CL a \aa sO L= . ' NDo C.i O 0-0 , 0-0 •�Ql C QS a d QIP Q.. C !. .� +a- N IS d r d N C d=L ' _ S O v d s = of N O M �-- H 0 M CV O M 0 TEC = T 8 W W. Q N O Y T E E V T O O Q V IN