The URL can be used to link to this page

Planning Commission Agenda 11-01-2005 . . . AGENDA MONTICELl,O PLANNING COMMISSION TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 1,2005 Commissioners: Dick Frie, Rod Dragsten, Lloyd Hilgart, William Spartz, and Sandy Suchy Council Liaison: Glen Posusta StaCr: Jeff O'Neill, Fred Patch, Steve Grittman - NAC, and Angela Schumann I . Call to order. 2. Approval oCthe minutes of the regular Planning Commission meeting held Tuesday, October 4111, 2005. 3. Consideration of adding itenls to the agenda. 4. Citizen comments. 5. Introduction of new city staCr. 6. Continued Public I leafing - Consideration to amend the Monticello Zoning Ordinance relating to Open and Outdoor Storage. Applicant: City oCMonticello 7. Publ ic Hearing - Consideration of a Request for rezoning from A-O (Agriculture-Open Space) to R- I A (Single-Family Residential). Appl icant: Shadow Creek Corporation 8. Consideration of a Request for rezoning from PZM (Performance Zone Mixed) to B-3 (Highway Business). Applicant: Kean of Monticello 9. Adjourn. . . . MINlJTES MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION TUESDAY, OCTOBER 4th, 2005 6:00 P.M Commissioners Present: Dick Frie, Rod Dragsten, Lloyd Hilgart, William Spartz, and Sandy Suchy Council Liaison: Glen Posusta Staff: Jeff O'Neill, Fred Patch, Steve Grittman - NAC, Angela Schumann Ollie Koropchak 1. Call to order. Chairman hie called the meeting to order at 6:00 PM and declared a full quorum. 2. Approval of the minutes of the regular Planning Commission meeting held Tuesday, September 6th, 2005. MOTION l3Y COMMISSIONER DRAGSTEN TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 6th, 2005. MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER SUCHY. MOTION CARRIED 5-0. 3. Consideration of adding items to the agenda. Chairman Frie requested that introductions to the new City Engineer and Building Inspector be added to the agenda in November. O'Neill agreed. 4. Citizen comments. Bill Tapper, 3935 Walnut Lane, Deephaven, addressed the Commission. Tapper requested that the Planning Commission consider recommending that he be allowed to plant prairie grass at 1320 Edmonson, on top of the berm he constructed as a condition of his CUP. Tapper noted that the ordinance requires that the Commission make a recommendation to the Council on such matters. Patch stated that the ordinance section involved relates to sodding and ground cover. He stated that the ordinance provides for prairie grass based on the recommendation of Commission. Patch referred to the location of Tapper's site and the recent addition. Patch explained that the berm is between Edmonson and the loading dock area. The Commission had previously considered and recommended approval of the CU P with a landscape plan for the berm. Patch stated that staff have no objection to this request. Frie asked if this needed a formal application. Patch stated that the way the ordinance reads, it is a simple verbal recommendation. Patch inquired whether Tapper would keep the evergreen trees. Tapper confirmed they would. Patch indicated that the prairie grass would provide additional screening as well. Planning Commission Agenda 10/04/05 . Spartz asked how much area the grass would cover. 'rapper stated that he would like to plant it on the berm and around the back of the building. He noted that prairie grass is expensive to seed and requires annual maintenance annually. Tapper stated that they would complete this maintenance and plant lilacs in addition to the evergreens. Frie noted that in some areas of the trail system, the City had planted prairie grass. Frie asked which side ofthe building he would be continuing the grass. Tapper stated that it would be the cast side. Suchy asked ifthere were any drawbacks to this planting. Patch stated there were not. Posusta asked what the black dots shown on the plan indicated. Tapper stated that they arc existing evergreens. Posusta stated that the burning along ncw areas seem to be taking a toll on the evergreens. Tapper stated that was due to the northwest winds. MOTION TO RECOMMEND THAT TilE PROPERTY AT 1320 EDMONSON BE ALLOWED TO USE PRAIRIE GRASS AS AN APPROPRIATE LANDSCAPE I3UFFERING ELEMENT. MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER HILGART. MOTION CARRIED, 5-0. 5. Continued Public Ilearing - Consideration to mnend the Monticello Zoning: Ordinance relating to Open and Outdoor Storage. Applicant: City of Monticello . Grittman outlined for the Commission the proceedings of the outdoor storage amendment process to date. He explained that the mnendment originated out of questions relating to setbacks on an application for outdoor storage. A taskforce was formed in response and the City held a series of meetings over an 11-1nonth period. Out ofthose meetings, Grittman reported that staff generated a draft ordinance. However, there were still some issues of contention and the consensus that had been reached seemed to dissolve. Grittman stated that essentially, staff felt it would be wOlthwhile to bring to the Commission the two options that had evolved. Grittman reported that one was the recommendation presented by the IDC and the other was prepared by staff. The end result seems to be far afield of where this discussion had started, which was to address the ambiguity related to setbacks. Grittman reviewed the IDC version, staying that while it has it lnerits, it creates problenls relating to enforcement. Staff's ordinance docs present more enforceability, but creates new ordinance standards. Grittman indicated that staff is also offering the option for the C01111nission to leave the ordinance as is and not take any action. Grittman commented that the ordinance in place is relatively simple, requires a CUP for any industrial outdoor storage, and requires screening from residential areas and ROW. Grithnan stated that apart from occasional bumps, that ordinance has performed reasonably well. It may be that the proposed amendnlents tackle too much. He noted that struggles with the application ofthe ordinance are relatively rare. Chairman Prie opened the public hearing. . Bill 'rapper, owner of properties at 212 Chelsea and 1320 Edmonson, stated that he is concerned about dropping th is effort. He stated that he doesn't think that staff and the industries are that far apart in terms of a resolution. Tapper stated that there are still concerns about what can and cannot be done with outdoor storage. I Ie indicated that it his perspective that this discussion needs to continue. 2 Planning Commission Agenda 10/04/05 . Tapper stated that he has a number of on-going issues with the staff proposal. In particular, he cited definitions, such as view of storage at eye-level at property line. He questioned the use of the term "eye-level". He also noted that measurement from propel1y line is ditlicult, as one needs to see a surveyor to determine a property line. Tapper noted that there seems to be a major reluctance from staff to allow storage of materials beyond the height of the screen. Tapper commented that it seems that the vast majority of storage causing concern would be below ground level. Tapper stated that the City should define all of the equipment that business uses, including trash handling equipment. He also indicated that he doesn't like the chain link fence with slats as a screening option, as they are unattractive. He believes that staffs ordinance seems to encourage them. The staff ordinance also doesn't provide for viewing angles. Tapper indicated that if we're concerned about views straight on, we should also be concerned from the side and behind. He stated that he doesn't see how semi-trailers are different from other equipment. In conclusion, Tapper stated that the City needs an ordinance that is well defined, that tells property owners what they can do, is enforceable, and recognizes real life needs. .lay Morrell spoke to the Commission, supporting what Tapper stated. Morrell referenced some ofthe past issues that have eome before the Commission. Morrell stated that when the possibility of amending the ordinance came up, the IDC welcomed the chance to have input. Morrell thanked the Commissioners and Council for their time spent on this matter. Morrell stated that he believes there is roon1 for compromise. Morrell recommended that Commission set a timeline for a workable solution. . Charlie Pfeffer, Pfeffer COlnpanies, spoke representing Monticello Commeree Center. Pfeffer stated that it is his impression that most of the issues in question relate to the 1-2 district. Pfeffer stated that in his experience, the main issues for industrial users in terms of outdoor storage are security, storm water, and dust control. There are silos, trash compactors, etc., that are critical to business. Pfeffer noted that the current controversy deals with owner- occupied and single tenant buildings. He stated that over time, the storage needs are going to change and affect the ordinance. Pfeffer requested that if Commission is going to require screening, they should think about security. He noted that chain link is appropriate when considering security. Pfeffer recommended that a CU P eontinue to be used in the 1-1, I-I A districts. Frie asked if Pfeffer had attended the meetings. Pfeffer indicated he was at the last meeting. Suchy stated that she had the opportunity to visit different industrial areas. Suchy commented that she believes the 1-2 should be allowed to do their business without much restriction, but that it should be different in I-I, 1-1 A areas. As far as the height, Suchy dosn't think the outdoor storage was that much of an eyesore. Suchy stated that the 1-2 area is a very specific area and we need to allow greater flexibility in that area. Spartz stated that a goal of the amendment was to not handcuff the businesses. Spartz indicated that while the City wants to allow businesses to do their business, we need to allow the City to enforce something in terms of buffering, etc. He does believe there is room between the City and the IDC's proposal. Frie asked Grittman to respond to the public's comments. . Grittman referred to the original ordinance that staff developed after the first couple of meetings in contrast to the existing ordinance. All three industrial districts currently require a CUP, and require storage to be screened from residential and ROWs. Grittman reported that 3 Planning Commission Agenda 10/04/05 . the issues the task force raised involved setbacks and storage areas, as well as the need for CUPs in 1-2 districts and handling of equipment. Grittman stated that what staff did in response was draft an ordinance that brought those barriers down. Grittman reviewed the proposed amendment elements. In an 1-2, outdoor storage would be permitted with zero setback in side and rear yards. He stated that is was the consensus of the task force at the first meeting stated that storage didn't need to be in the front yard. The amendment docs require screening if across from residential property. Ilowever, if abutting another 1-2 or I-I industrial district, no screening was needed in 1-2 areas. Finally, Grittlllan stated that the proposed amendment allowed occupation of drainage and utility casements in I-I and 1-2 districts. In summary, staff felt they relaxed the standards quite a bit for the 1-2 district. He noted that the ordinance also defined screening. Grittlllan then reviewed the proposed amendment for the I-I and I-I ^ districts. In those areas, there are limits on outdoor storage as noted. Grittman stated that there are still obviously some disagreements about how screening is defined and where it is measures from. Grittman stated that the IDC thought a 6-foot screen should be acceptable regardless of the height of storage. Staffs concern is the problem of unsightliness, not the storage itself. Grittman explained that the problem is that the violators don't worry about neatness. Grittman stated that it is his personal feeling that the way the current ordinance is written, he doesn't know the application has caused that great ofa problem. . Frie asked whether the IDC and staff agreed on the need for screening. Grittman stated that he thinks they arc in agreement that there is a need for screening, but disagree as to in what circumstance and how it should be measured and defined. Frie stated that he visited with two IDC members, who suggested that the height of screening at 6 feet is acceptable. Tapper stated that the IDC recommendation is a working reeOlnmendation. The philosophy was that the things that really need to be screened happen at a lower level. Frie stated that Commission does consider the type of environment when evaluating these issues. Frie stated that the amendment that Commission is attempting to develop has to focus on overall industrial areas, not individual businesses. Frie indicated that he believed there were four primary issues to be addressed: screening, definitions, measurement, and waste handling. He asked ifthose four issues had been addressed. Tapper stated they were discussed, but staff and industry seem to be in differing opinions. Dragsten inquired about the hours oftruek parking within the current ordinance. Grittlllan responded that those had been proposed in the staff amendment as an exemption from the outdoor storage requirements. Tapper had referred to it in terms of enforceability in hours. Grittman stated that they unless they are in a dock, they are subject to outdoor storage requirements. Frie stated that if there are interpretation problems, then there are clarity issues that need refinement. Tapper stated that he believes there arc problems, including that as he understands the amendlnent, a company like Sunny Fresh would be considered outdoor storage in ternlS of their rooftop systems Grittman stated that there is an item in the ordinance specific to rooftop screening. Dragsten stated that it seems as though they agree on most items, perhaps in one more meeting, they could iron out these itenls. Hilgart agreed. . hie asked about the reference to enforceability on the IDC's recommendation. Tapper stated that he hopes that the opposite would occur. He stated that enforceability was a legal opinion and he couldn't comment on that. 4 Planning Commission Agenda 10/04/05 . hie stated that he was disappointed that there were two separate drafts. Therefore, he supports Dragsten and Hilgart an requesting another meeting. Posusta stated that it seems the only difference between the two is verbage. Posusta stated it doesn't need to be made (nore complicated than it needs to be. Posusta commented that the other thing that needs to be talked about is accessory storage buildings to the main structure. Hearing no further comment, Chairman Frie closed the public hearing. MOTION BY COMMISSIONER FRIE TO CONTINUE THE ACTION ON THE ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT REGULATING OPEN AND OUTDOOR STORAGE. MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER SPARTZ. MOTION BY COMMISSIONER DRAGSTEN TO AMEND THE MOTION TO INCLUDE A 90-DA Y TIME LIMIT THE CONTINUATION. MOTION TO AMEND SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER I IILGART. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Morrell requested that staff schedule and notice the meeting well in advance. 6. Continued Publ ic Ilearing - Consideration of a request for amendment to the Monticello Zoninc. Ordinance relatinll: to the regulation of pvlon signall:e. Applicant: City of Monticello . With no one being present to provide comment during the public hearing, Chairman Frie moved this item to number 14 on the agenda. 7. Consideration to review for final approval the development stage PUD for Monticello Travel Center 2m' Addition. Applicant: IRET Properties Grittman presented the staff report for the item, illustrating the site and landscape plan for the project. Grittman explained that the applicants have provided quite a bit of information, as requested. However, the signage question is still an issue. In summarizing the proposal, Grittman stated that there are three signs on the Holiday canopy, each at 38 feet; a Holiday pantry sign at 3 I feet; and three signs on the Wendy's building t~19ade, each at 42 feet. Finally, the applicants are combining to request a high rise pylon to provide identification. It would be a joint sign with an electronic readerboard, with a total sign area of 392 square feet. The signage on this site totals 663 square feet, which is more than what is allowed for multi- tenant commercial sites. There are seven signs proposed, and only four allowed by code. The pylon is proposed at 57', although the ordinance allows for 32' in height with 200' of face area, and that includes freeway bonus allowances. Grittman noted that the applicants are looking to exceed code requirements by the use of a PUD. . Grittman explained that in exchange, the applicants propose a significant amount of increased landscaping and architectural enhancements to the fueling area. Grittman reported that when statTmet with the applicants, they were looking for oversized signage and looked to staff for trade-off enhancements. Grittman stated that while the applicants were looking far an endorsement, which staff could not provide tar the signage, staff did provide suggestions for architectural and landscaping enhancements that could be made as a PUD consideration. Grittman stated that staff sti II bel ieve the sign ordinance isn't set up to allow the PU D to tlex in this way. In t~lct, the sign ordinance was recently amended to avoid just this type of 5 Planning Commission Agenda lO/04/05 tlexing. Grittman noted that the amendment actually allowed more signage flexibility for new businesses. . Grittman indicated that staff recommends that the current ordinance is acceptable for the purposes of this application. Tfthe Commission does want to use PUD to flex sign standards, a monument would be a better use. In viewing the site from the freeway, in both directions, the pylon sign wouldn't be particularly visible. The monument would do a better job at the intersection. Staff recommends two monument signs and the wall signs as proposed. Frie asked if staff's primary concern is signage. Frie stated his focus is consistency. There are half a dozen signs at lnore than 32' already in the area. He stated that he took a trip along 1-94 and noted that every community from St. Cloud to Maple Grove has this type of proposed signage. Frie questioned whether the City ordinance is out of line. Grittman responded that there are communities that allow more or higher signage. As you go in toward the metro, there are communities that allow less signage. Hilgart stated that he agreed with Grittman that the sign will not be visible going west. He also noted that travelers going cast will go to the other Holiday. There was a brief discussion on the appearance of a sign for Guadalajara restaurant. The Commission asked statl'to look into the size and height of the sign. Dragsten asked what would happen if this property were not a PlJl). Cirittlnan stated they could have two or three wall signs, and one pylon sign. Grittman clarified that each sign face the applicant is requesting is larger than what is allowed. Dragsten confirmed that the landscaping proposed was enhanced. Grittman agreed. . Spartz agreed that blue highway signs are much more effective along the highway; the larger signs arc ineffective. Suchy indicated that she is tending to lean towards staffs recommendation. She stated it is nice to be consistent, but a sign this size doesn't make sense. Frie asked if the ordinance refers to signs based on height near freeway. Grittman stated that the ordinance is based on both the speed and type of the road. Posusta stated that staff shouldn't dictate what type of sign the property owners should have. He stated that staff is misleading on some oftheir information. He stated that in terms of total sign area, if this propel1y was broken up into two entities, the numbers change. Posusta referred to the need to get rid ofthe liquor store sign because it's ugly. The City has stated that they need that sign for business. Posusta stated that logic should apply in this circunlstance, too. Wendy's and Holiday have been in business long enough to know what they need. Posusta stated his opinion that the double sign is more attractive than two separate signs. Posusta added that this project is a total demolition and redeveloplnenl. lie commented that elsewhere the City tries to bend the rules to help that process. In this case, they aren't asking the City for anything except trying to make the site more viable. . Victor Sacco, representing Holiday Companies, addressed the Commission. Sacco stated that they are trying to put in a showpiece and flagship property. Sacco stated that they have made changes at staff~s request in terms of architectural and landscaping treatments. He noted that there had been a suggestion from City staff to place a welcome sign at the Highway 25 and Oak wood corner and they offered to do that. Sacco stated that they had tried to work with staff and that they were led to bel ieve there was common ground. Sacco noted that a PUD is (-) Planning Commission Agenda] 0/04/05 . a negotiation for which they had sought to build a coalition of support. Sacco stated that the pylon requested is not really a high rise sign and stated that it is not visible 1 mile down the road. Ilowever, before you approach the ramp, drivers can see the sign. Sacco stated that while the blue highway signs arc good, they tell you what, but not where. Sacco stated that when people see the sign that says Holiday, they will know the location. Sacco referred to the existing pylons for McDonald's and SA and stated that he believes the sign is reasonable. Eric Kellogg provided comments to the Commission, representing Wendy's. Kellogg referenced the proposed landscaping improvements. He noted that as separate properties, each party is allowed one 32' pylon. Instead, they are proposing one 52' sign, which is 8' below what would be allowed with separate parcels. Suchy said that when you come down the interstate, you want to be able to see the sign, which you might not be able to in this case. She asked if an eye level sign might make more of an impact and be more attractive. Sacco stated as marketers, that isn't what we expect. We believe drivers will look up to see where to go. Suchy asked if, in Sacco's opinion, it is more valuable to have the pylon. SaccO confirmed. Hilgart asked about the height of SA sign. Patch stated it was allowed by variance at 57'. . Frie asked the question that if Commission could handle the 57', should the issue then be the area size. O'Neill agreed that is also concern. He stated that ultimately, it is Commission's decision on whether the amenities are enough of a trade-off for the proliferation of pylon signs. O'Neill noted that the Commission had just gone through a process that establishes the signage parameters. O'Neill thanked the developer for coming in and noted that staff is not picking on the developer. He stated that the City has an ordinance and staff have a responsibility to identify and explain it. Frie asked if the Commission allows the 57' and the area proposed, is there enough tlexibi I ity to not have four walls signs, etc. Grittman confirmed that the Commission can negotiate what it would like. Frie stated that the Commission is here to work with the developer. posusta noted that people can just go quarter mile and see two separate smaller signs and one obscures the other in either direction. He stated that one pole with two signs would have been a better application. MOTION BY COMMISSIONER FRIE TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF TI-IE PUD AS SUBMITTED, BASED ON A FINDING THAT THE ADDITIONAL LANDSCAPING AND BRICK POSTS ON THE FUEL CANOPY JUSTIFY THE DEPARTURE FROM THE SIGN ORDINANCE FOR NUMBER OF SIGNS, HEIGHT OF PYLON SIGN, SIZE OF PYLON SIGN, AND OVERALL SICJN AREA MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER SUCHY. Suchy stated that if this sign helps to level the playing field, she believes it to be a fair trade. Dragsten stated that his concern that an approval sets a precedent. lIe inquired what wi 11 happen on the east end of town. He noted that that now instead of two shorter signs obscuring each other, there will be 57' signs obscuring each other. . O'Neill reminded the Commission that they had approved only one pylon for the entire Ryan site; all other signs on that project are nlonument signs. If Commissions hold its ground, developers can only get a change if they ask for an amendment. However, if Commission is 7 . . . Planning Commission Agenda 10/04/05 looking to be consistent in all area, now across the freeway from Ryan, you may also have a problem. O'Neill clarified that Ryan got the sign size because there was less signage elsewhere on the site. Dragsten noted that other tall signs in the City were grandt~lthered in. Hilgart stated that he is undecided. The current pole is 57', but they will need a new one. On the other side of the freeway, he indicated there really won't be a precedent set. Frie stated that the Ryan pylon is 57'. Spartz asked whether both parcels arc located in the freeway bonus areas. Grittman confirmed that they are and that therefore they can go up to 32'. O'Neill noted that if we keep saying that we want to level the field, we will keep approving 57' signs. The reason for this code is to provide a reasonable benchmark. O'Neill pointed out the future, stating that if the Commission feels that high signs are okay, then that is your decision. Frie stated that this is different, as it is already there. O'Neill responded that there is also a 32' sign already existing for Subway and the oil center. Patch noted that there is also another 57' pylon that will be going on the site. It was granted with a previous PUD for the southern end ofthe site. The approval specified a certain area. However, when it was applied for, it was at double the area approved. Posusta stated that when reterring to what is going on the east side of town, the City allowed Ryan to put up 57' where there are none. This is already a high sign area. Dan Mielke addressed the Commission as a property owner on the site. Mielke stated that the sign that Patch refers to is the sign that is to be constructed. DQ has heen workable to positioning. That sign was also approved to carry two tenants. Mielke stated that he bel ieved the proposed area was allowable under the approval for the tive combine parcels. O'Neill stated that before commenting on that, staff will need to check the record on that. Patch stated that he has checked the record, the area that was allowed at approximately 260'. Schumann commented that although there may be high signs in other communities, the Commission should consider whether that is what they want for Monticello. MOTION CARRIED 4-1 AS PROPOSED, WITII COMMISSIONER DRAGSTEN IN DISSENT. 8. Public I !caring - Consideration of a for a Conditional Use Permit for a detached accessory structure in an R-I Zoning District. Applicant: Jason VanderHeyden Grittman provided the staff report, explaining that the request is an amendment to the original CUP approval. VanderHeyden is seeking to extend the area of pavenlent associated with his accessory structure. Grittlnan stated that the concern is in regard to the amount of impervious surface on the lot. Staff believes the approved conditions were in place for a specific reason. In this case, the Commission had indicated that they did not want traffic going in and out of the structure regularly, and also wanted to limit the possibility of storage on the impervious area. If Commission would like to approve the amendment to CUP, staff have outlined mitigating conditions. Grittman stated that staff recommend against the amendment for the reasons noted. Chairman Frie opened the public hearing. 8 Planning Commission Agenda 10/04/05 . Jason VanderHeyden, 4537 Cobblestone Court, spoke to the Commission. VanderHeyden stated that the green space in his yard area is still more than most backyards. The area that is left to fill in with concrete is very minimal, versus the green space left. VanderHeyden noted that the concrete area is a good place for children to play. hie asked if VanderHeyden is receptive to providing the recommended landscaping, should the Commission approve the request. Frie stated that he wanted it on the record to compliment the applicant on the structure and landscaping. Frie noted that he was a promoter of the detached accessory structure ordinance amendment. VanderHeyden stated that his neighbors were not concerned about his use. Frie asked if he would comply with the landscaping and no outdoor storage conditions. VanderHeyden agreed, although he stated that his work truck tllay be parked there. Frie asked if the two accessory structures are filled. VanderHeyden clarified that the smaller one would be leaving. Grittman stated that detached accessory structures are allowed in order to create a location for additional residential storage for the kind of things they don't use everyday. The large impervious areas essentially create traffic in rear yards, or they become places where things get stored. Hearing no further comment, Chairman Frie closed the public hearing. Suchy stated that she doesn't look at this as a large driveway, instead viewing it as more of a sport court. Suchy stated that she thinks he's done a wonderful job. She noted that it he agreed to landscaping, that would be ideal. . Spartz asked for the definition for detached accessory structure. Grittman defined it as stated in the ordinance. Spartz asked if the structure tllet setbacks. Grittman stated that it appears that all setbacks have been met. . Frie comtllented that there would only be a small area for grass if the request is denied. VanderHeyden stated that it is about 5' on one side and 15' on other side. Dragsten commented that when he had voted to recommend approval ofthe request, it was with the understanding there would be an apron. He stated he didn't think it was going to be a 30' apron. He noted that in the current situation, of course this request makes sense. Dragsten stated that while it docs look nice, the original approval was for just an apron. VanderHeyden stated that if he recalled correctly, he had asked for an apron large enough to park a 51h wheel. Hilgart stated that there is a precedent that would be set with an approval, in that the applicant would be allowed to put in a driveway where the Commission had said he couldn't. The whole point was not to have impervious access to these structures. Posusta stated that each situation is a little different. Posusta's concern is that the applicant wi II pave on the north side of the garage. VanderHeyden stated that it wi II only be landscape rock. VanderHeyden stated at most, it would be a snowmobile trailer storage area, but he intends to keep that inside. VanderHeyden stated that he plans on keeping everything in the shed. Frie indicated that original conditions prohibit outdoor storage. . MOTION BY COMMISSIONER HILGART TO RECOMMEND DENIAL OF THE CUP, BASED ON A FINDING THAT THE ADDITIONAL GREEN SPACE CONTEMPLATED BY THE ORIGINAL CUP APPROVAL IS A VITAL COMPONENT OF THE CITY'S DECISION TO APPROVAL TIlE GARAGE AND THE FINDING THAT TilE 9 Planning Commission Agenda 10/04/05 . COMMISSION SEEKS TO AVOID SETTING A PRECEDENT ON THE PAVED ACCESS. MOTION SECONDED BY DRAGSTEN. MOTION CARRIED 3-2, WITH COMMISSIONERS FRIE AND SUCHY IN DISSENT. 9. Public Ilearing __ Consideration of a request for preliminarv plat for a commercial subdivision and rczonin J from P-S to 13-4 for Church of S1. Henr 1 st Addition. A licant: Cit of Monticello Grittman presented the staff report, illustrating the new alignment ofih Street. Grittman referred to the zoning and comp plan as consistent with this request. Grittman referred stated that the plat creates a developable parcel for St. Henry's and accommodates the new ROW and storm water ponding. Chairman Frie opened the public hearing. Hearing no comment, Chairman hie closed the public hearing. Dragsten asked why the 13-4 zoning designation was requested. Grittman stated that 13-4 is the zoning on adjacent parcels and is most consistent with that land use. Dragsten commented that he doesn't know if 8-4 is compatible with the Church uses to the west. Frie confirmed with staff that all lots would conform to zoning regulations and clarified that the plat and zoning are compatible with goals for the area in the long tenn. . posusta noted that this action is a piece of the interchange project. Frie inquired whether staff knew what St. Henry's intended for the parcel. Grittlnan stated that staff have only looked at parcel to make certain it is developable. Posusta stated that to the cast, there is also a move for more commercial. MOTION BY COMMISSIONER SUCHY TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF T\-IE REZONING FOR LOT 1, BLOCK 2, CHURCH OF ST. HENRY I ST ADDITION, BASED ON FINDINGS THAT THE BEST LONG-TERM USE OF THE SITE IS FOR REGIONAL COMMERCIAL USES, AND THAT THE 13-4 DESIGNATION WOULD BE COMPATII3LE WITH THE ADJOINING COMMERCIAL PROPERTY, ALSO ZONED B- 4. MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER SPARTZ. MOTION CARRIED, 5-0. MOTION BY COMMISSIONER SUCHY TO RECOMMEND APPROV AL OF T\-IE PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR THE CHURCH OF ST. HENRY 1ST ADDITION, CONTINGENT ON THE REQUIREMENT THAT ACCESS TO LOT I, BLOCK 2 . IS SHARED WITII THE ADJOINING PARCEL TO THE EAST AND THAT CROSS EASEMENTS GOVERNING JOINT USES ARE PROVIDED BY THE OWNERS IN CONJUNCTION WITH TIlE RECORDING OF THE PLAT. THIS RECOMMENDATION IS BASED ON A FINDINC THAT THE PRELIMINARY PLAT CREATES A LOT BEST SUITED FOR THE SPECIFIC DEVELOPMENT NEEDS OF THE PROPERTY, AND 10 Planning Commission Agenda 10/04/05 THAT ALL LOTS IN THE PLAT WILL CONTINUE TO MEET THE CITY'S ZONING REQUIREMENTS. . MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER SPARTZ. MOTION CARRIED, 5-0. Grittman reviewed the staff report, noting the loeation of the request. Grittman explained that the PZM distriet, which is the current zoning for the property, provides for and limits commercial service activities. Grittman referred to the chart in the staff report, which compares and contrasts the allowable uses and regulations in both districts. Grittman stated that because the site is adjacent to single family uses, staff would suggest instead amending the ordinance to determine each proposed use's compatibility on its own merits. Grittman stated that staffs recommendation is to deny the request. John Ryan, property owner, stated to the Commission that they would specifically seek to allow fast food and auto accessories. They do not necessarily need rezoning. Ryan noted there is no allowance in the PZM f()r auto service. Urittman stated that there is a clause for motor service within the code, that could be added by amendment to the PZM district as permitted by CUP. Ryan also noted that hotel/motel is not allowed in a PZM. Ryan stated that most of the adjoining properties are commercial and most residential uses do not directly abut their property. Ryan stated that he does not think we need to rezone, ifmay they have the opportunity to seek the CUP under an amendment. Ryan referred to their assessment for interchange. Frie asked if Ryan got the table outlined in the staff repol1. Ryan stated that he did. Frie reviewed CUP uses within the B-3. Grittman stated that none of the uses Frie stated are allowed in the PZM. hie stated that may be why the applicant is seeking the 13-3. Grittman stated that the amendment may be acceptable as well. Frie asked if that option was made available to the applicant. Patch stated that he didn't believe so. . Chairman Frie opened the public hearing. Dan GassIer addressed the Commission, representing A Glorius Church. GassIer stated that he noticed that the church wasn't considered in potential rezoning impacts. Gassier stated that the church owns the parcel with the largest amount of lineal footage directly abutting this property. Gassier clarified that he doesn't want anyone to think of the church as a buffering area between commercial and residential uses. Cjassler stated that he drove through town looking at B-3 districts, which includes uses such as General Rental and McDonald's. Gassler stated that he doesn't think that is really the type of use we want to see next to the church. GassIer also noted the clause allowing adult uses within the B-3 district. GassIer stated that it was interesting to him that adult uses are permitted without even the need for conditional use permit. CJassler stated that they want to protect the quality of their propel1y. Additionally, he stated that the types of uses allowed in a 13-3 are not compatible next to R-I areas. He indicated that when the church searched for property, they were discouraged from siting in a location that was incompatible with their use. GassIer stated that the church is against this rezoning. . 11 Planning Commission Agenda 10/04/05 hie asked what Gassier's attitude is towards the PZM district. Gassier stated that with limited knowledge, he is satisfied with what is there now. . Albel1131asovich, also a property owner, addressed the Commission, asking Gassier to provide them with information on what types of uses might be acceptable, as it would help them in who they would invite in and determine what is acceptable. Frie stated that is really a separate issue from the rezoning. Blasovich stated that he would like to go on record that they would at least like to see the portion adjacent to Hart Boulevard rezoned. posusta agreed that might be more acceptable. Gassier stated that seems more favorable, athough it seems as though the applicants are still moving toward other uses. David Gassier, resident of the Mill Run development, stated that he shares his father's concerns. He added that he represent the residents of Mill Run area. He noted that he did not receive a mailing because he is outside the 350' area. Gassier stated that he was also made aware ofthe adult uses allowed in the B-3, and as a nearby resident that concerns him. He mentioned his children and stated that it is a concern, even if only allowed on paper. Gassier stated the residents are also concerned about noise. He stated that the compromise in zoning only a portion ofthe property may be a favorable option. Gassier indicated that in his opinion, all are residents should have been notified, noting the nearby child care facility. Grittman stated that while the zoning district does allow adult uses as permitted uses, there is a spacing requirement between the adult use and residential areas, parks and churches. None of th is area wou ld be eligible for adu It use because 0 fits proxi m ity to those areas. . Frie asked about whether adult uses are permitted uses in a B-3. Grittman stated as long as they meet code requirements, they are permitted uses. posusta clarified that the City is only required to notify property owners within 350 feet and also posts notices on the website, as well as newspaper. A citizen asked whether the Commission could address the issue of AST Sports being allowed to park a mobile home on their property. Frie asked him to address his concern at the Council meeting. Grittman also recOIn mended a call to statT during the day. If there is a violation, they can follow up on it. Hearing no further comment, Chairman Frie closed the public hearing. Hilgart stated that he agrees with keeping the lot next to church PZM and possibly rezoning the others. Dragsten, Spartz and Suchy agreed. MOTION BY COMMISSIONER DRAGSTEN TO RECOMMEND DENIAL OF THE REZONING, BASED ON A FINDING TllAT THE MOS'r APPROPRIATE ZONING FOR THE AREA (DUE TO PROXIMITY OF EXfENSIVE RESIDENTIAL USES) IS TilE PZM DISTRICT. MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER IIILGART. MOTION CARRIED, 5-0. . 12 Planning Commission Agenda 10/04/05 . 11. Public Hcarin~ - Consideration of a request for Conditional Use Permit for a detached accessorv structure in an R-4 residential district. Applicant: Kiellberg's, Inc. Grittman presented the staff report, stating that the applicant is seeking a conditional use permit to acid an accessory storage unit. Grittman stated that in reviewing the plans, staff was unsure whether the structure was to be enclosed and how it would be screened, which can be clarified with the applicant. Grittman noted the other conditions in the staff report, and stated that with verifications as noted, staff arc recommending approval. Chairman Frie opened the public hearing. Kirk Kjellberg, representing Kjellberg's Park at 1000 Kjellberg's West, explained that there is an existing shop building, which has been there for 30 years. Obscuring that building from Highway 25 is a large, mature lilac hedge obscuring from Highway 25. Kjellberg stated that the whole area is only used for parks maintenance and the proposed structure is meant to only house vehicles. Kjellberg stated that as far as dust and drainage, the structure will have a concrete floor. Frie clarified that the structure wouldn't be rented. Kjellberg stated that it would only be used for company use. hie asked about storm shelter use. Kjellberg stated that there is a misconception regarding that issue. Kjellberg's already has a large storage area with a number of rooms. The storm shelter room is empty and is the designated shelter area. The other rooms may be occupied. Patch stated that he had conducted an inspection and it is as Kjellberg stated it. . Frie inquired if Kjellberg had held dry runs for shelter use. Kjellberg stated that they have had real instances where the shelter has been used, noting that every resident has a map. He stated that it is well understood where the shelter is and how it works. Kjellberg stated that they do want to put an overhang on the proposed building. The drawings don't reflect that. Kjellberg stated that they are planning on making it an open bay; in the future they may add doors. Frie asked staff if there is any concern on this item. Patch indicated there was not. Hearing no further comment, Chairman Frie closed the public hearing. Posusta asked when something is being added to an existing structure, does it need to be compliant. Patch asked whether Posusta was referring to the zoning or building code. Posusta asked in terms of handicap accessibility. Patch stated that determination is based on what percentage the expansion is of the original building. MOTION BY COMMISSIONER HIL(jART TO RECOMMEND APPROV AL OF THE CUP, BASED ON A FINDING THAT THE BUILDING SHOULD BE ABLE TO MEET EACH OF TIlE CONDITIONS OF THE ORDINANCE, AND WILL MINIMIZE OUTDOOR STORAGE IN THE MOBILE HOME PARK. THIS APPROV AI, SIIOULD INCLUDE THE CONDITIONS THAT THE APPLICANT VERIFIES SCREENING OF TIlE STORAGE AREA FROM SURROUNDING RESIDENTIAL AREAS, AND THAT TIlE STORM SHELTER BUILDING IS NOT BEING USED rOR STORAGE. MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER SPARTZ. . MOTION CARRIED, 5-0. 13 Planning Commission Agenda 10/04/05 . 12. Public Hearin 1 - Consideration of re uest to rczone an industrial ro Industrial) to 1-2 (Heavy Industrial). Applicant: Citv of Monticello Grittman presented the staff report, illustrating the approximate location of the rezoning area within the City's Otter Creek businesslindustrial park. The application is to rezone a portion of the plat from 1-1 A to 1-2. Grittman stated there is a contract for deed on this portion of the property and when the City takes ownership, they will apply a series of covenants. Grittman reported that the 1-2 district zoning causes some potential conflicts between the covenants and 1-2 code requirements. Grittman stated that statf want to make clear that the covenants will also be applicable to an 1-2 district,just as they would in the I-IA part of the industrial park. Grittman stated that the purpose ofthe rezone is to consider a potential relocation site for the A VR plant, which is being moved as pat1 of the interchange process. In the event A VR does decide to relocate, this area is an option. Grittman stated that one of the things that may come into play with this rezoning is whcther other 1-2 uses would be allowed. Grittman reviewed the five concerns as listed in the staff report. The 1-2 dcsignation could generate some negative impact on property valuations. This is important when Commission considers impacts on adjoining land uses. Finally, the report outlines that there must be a demonstrated need for the use proposed. If the City is going to acquire the A VR property, there is a basis for need. Grittman reiterated that it is staffs view that Commission should only recomlnend approval with active enforcement of covenants and existing ordinances. . Hilgart asked if there is any other 1-2 land in the City that A VR could move to. Grittman stated that there are limited amounts of 1-2 land and it is his understanding that they are not large enough to accommodate site. They are looking for about 10 acres. I-lilgm1 asked if they store trucks outside. Grittman statcd that outdoor storage is not allowed by the covenants for the park. A VR would have to accommodate that. Chairman Frie opened the public hearing. John Uban, of planning firm Dahlgren, Shard low and Uban, spoke to the Commission representing the YMCA, as an adjacent propel1y owner. Uban stated that the public hearing notice seemed unclear in terms of rezoning boundaries. He noted that it is unusual to not see exact zoning boundaries. He noted that if a dcveloper came before the Commission, the Commissioners would want to see details regarding the application prior to rezoning. And yet, the C0l11lnission is being asked to consider rezoning without an exact site location and configuration. Uban stated that other considerations include the impacts on surrounding uses. He stated that it is unusual to put 1-2 uses next to residential uses. I-Ie stated that there is a billion dollars worth of investment in land development in this area. The City has also just purchased property for a high-end business industrial developmcnt. Uban discussed the types of uses allowed in and 1-2, including render plants and others. He stated that there is a definite contlict with surrounding propetiies. Uban stated that the YMCA does not support this rezoning. Uban presented letters from DSU and the YMCA's attorney in this regard. . Uban rcferrcd to other uses that could go in other areas of the park and indicated that the dust, vibration and other negative intluences from 1-2 uscs would negatively impact the City's own I_I A area. Uban stated that the request is almost like a spot-zoning, in that although it is still industrial, the uses don't seem to fit with the City's stated goals. Uban illustrated a site in Oakwood Industrial Park, which seems to have ample land. He noted that location wouldn't be adjacent to residential area and would be close to the existing plant. Uban stated that another option might be to look at sites in the township or in the County land. Uban stated again, that he goes on record reconunending denial of the request. 14 Planning Commission Agenda 10/04/05 . Posusta responded that the City has been looking for a new site for two years. posusta stated that A Y R can't go outside the City, as the County has rules for these types of uses related to mining. Posusta stated that once the mining use goes away, the cement plant needs to go away. Posusta stated that as far as other locations within the city, ^ YR has certain criteria they need to operate. Posusta reiterated that the City has tried to find someplace other than this. Tfthe City doesn't find them a place to go, there is a possibility of paying a loss of going concern claim. Posusta stated that if this is the location, they will have to do extensive landscaping and benning and all equipment will be indoors. Posusta stated that there would also be a screening wall and trees. Posusta also noted that the site is a basin, so we don't believe it would have a lot of impact on the residential area. The only significant issue left is the truck traffic. Uban asked about the noted vacant land. Posusta stated that the site Uban referred to was not large enough to support A YR. Posusta also stated that the City doesn't know for sure that this location is where the Ready Mix will go. Uban stated that almost more of a concern than the cement plant is the rezone. Posusta stated that if the cement plant goes away, so does the zoning. Uban stated that he had not heard of that happening. Uban stated that perhaps a CUP with specific requirements would be more acceptable. In essence, the City would keep it the same zone, but treat this cement plan as a conditional or interim use. The change of zone represents all the other uses that can be there. Posusta stated that if that's plausible, then maybe we can look at it. Posusta stated again that this rezone is not taken lightly; this is something the Council has wrestled with. hie stated that the Commission can keep Uban's suggestion on the table as another option. . Jerry Crocker, 53 Mallard Lane, addressed the Commission. Crocker stated that he has a house on 39, which would be getting a lot of truck traffic from this proposed use. He stated that he would not look forward to that. Crocker stated that the plant itself wouldn't bother him, but the truck traffic would. Frie asked Posusta ifthere is any intent to redirect traffic. Posusta stated that trucks would likely be moving down Chelsea or School. Posusta stated that trucks would go east on Chelsea. Crocker stated that they won't be coming that way with the gravel. Posusta stated that they'll just take the easiest way. Crocker stated that he knew where the trucks would get the gravel from and which way they would go. Ollie Koropchak addressed the Commission, speaking as in her capacity as Economic Development Director, noting that she is not representing the I IRA or EDA. Koropchak noted for the record that the site Uban referred to is 37 to 40 acres. She also noted that Planning Commission is being asked to rezone an area that is not defined. Koropchak stated that Outlot B consists of 44 acres. Koropchak stated that the City has been told that the eventual site may range fronl 10-15 acres. Koropchak read the purpose statement for the 1-2 zone, which provides for the establishment of heavy industrial or manufacturing uses, which by their nature require isolation from residential or commercial uses. Koropchak referred to the City's long range land use plan and stated that when looking at rezoning, the Commission is looking to make decisions for future use. She explained that the proposed site might be in the center of Monticello in the future. Koropchak stated that the HR^ will be meeting tomorrow night and has not had a chance to review this request. From a Planning Commission perspective, the irnpact of heavy industrial next to residential should be considered. She asked whether the City should base planning decisions on reactions or actions of economic benefit as opposed to good long range planning. . Lastly, Koropchak stated that she wanted to bring to the Commission's attention the economic impact of their decision. The City has established criteria for land purchase in the 15 Planning Commission Agenda 10/04/05 . City industrial park. In presenting the contrast, Koropchak stated that the preferred measures are intended to attract a certain number of jobs, and a certain size building of a certain value. Koropchak explained that a twelve acre property meeting the criteria requires a company to employ 96 people at a wage of $16.00 per hour, without benefits. Multiplied out annually, that business would generate over $3 million in wages per year. In contrast, based on information supplied by the proposed user, they would generate 20 jobs with an average wage of $30.00 per hour. Annually, Koropchak stated that equals approximately $1 million in wages. That calculation is a loss of close to $2 million in wages alone. As such, Koropchak pointed out that there is a definite value impact to a potential rezoning. Koropchak stated that under the criteria set up for the park, a company would have to build a 130,000 square foot building to purchase 12 acres. Koropchak indicated that would mean an approximate assessed value of over $6.5 million, yielding $158,000 in local taxes. Again pointing out the contrast, Koropchak stated that the proposed user would only generate $32,970 in local taxes based on a building valuation of$lmillion. Koropchak reported that would be a loss in market value of $5 million and over $125,000 in local taxes annually. Koropchak stated that she recognizes and is SUPP0l1ive of other projects in the community. She is only addressing this issue from an economic development perspective. Koropchak explained that the City did approve a tax increment district at the east end oftown to offset potential interchange costs. TI F will assist to minimize higher than expected cost of public improvements. Frie asked who Koropchak represents. Koropchak re-stated she represents herself as Economic Development Director. She stated that she is not supportive of either a rezoning or CUP within an 1-1 A. Frie asked if she could go on record that the site noted in Oakwood Industrial Park is another siting option. Koropchak stated that as Gritttnan noted, that property would also require rezoning. It is currently I-I A. . Dan Olson, owner of the Monticello State Farm Insurance branch, addressed the Comlnission as Chair of the Industrial Development Committee. Olson stated that the IDC has put great efforts into finding industrial land for the City park. Olson reported that the vision of the IDC for the City's industrial park has always been that it would have a campus feel. He stated that the rezoning proposal is disturbing in terms of that vision. Olson indicated that he thinks the group is very understanding of the situation, but we're hoping there can be a better solution. Olson stated that as a group, the IDC has not come up with a solution. He commented that they have visited alternate sites, and many don't seem workable. Olson noted that the IDC is currently trying to market the business center and feels this will be tough to do until a tone for the park is established. Olson stated that he feels this use will have a negative impact. lie noted that the IDC has also seen the numbers that Koropchak presented. Olson asked if Commission would like a copy. Frie stated that O'Neill will make cel1ain they get a copy. Frie asked if the IDC had recommended the I-I A zoning. Olson confirmed they had supported the I-I A zoning. Hilgart asked it~ as of right now, there are any tenants secured for the new park. Koropchak stated that they are working with one potential buyer, aside from Dahlhimer's. Hilgart stated that if someone signed up, this may make them re-think the area. Olson agreed that is a concern. Frie asked ifthe IDC had worked with Dahlheimer's. Olson stated they had not. . Paul Bilotta spoke to the Commission representing Otter Creek, LLC. Bilotta stated that Otter Creek, LLC is still the underlying land owner. He explained that others have discussed the appropriate land uses and he agrees with those comments. He noted that Otter Creek, LLC didn't hear about the specitics of the rezoning until this evening. Bilotta stated that there is a contract for deed on the land with the City, and he doesn't know how this request impacts that. He stated that they arc concerned about the spot-zoning and the covenant issue. 16 Planning Commission Agenda 10/04/05 . Bilotta indicated that thcre is some concern that even though the rezone would have covenants, it isn't something that is readily available to a potential buyer. He stated that he understands that a negotiation is going on, but also feels like rules are being bent. 13ilotta stated that sometimes you end up ereating new legal issues and Otter Creek, LLC feels uncomfortable with this proposal. Mary 13arger, resident at 105 Mississippi Drive, business owner in Oakwood Industrial Park and member of IDC, spoke to the Commission. She asked the Conlmission to deny the request for two reasons. Barger noted that although Posusta stated that the City is between a rock and a hard place, there was an option presented tonight that hadn't been looked at. Barger stated that in fact, this morning the IDC had heard that A VR might go to Osowski's, if they got an interchange. Barger stated that the numbers that Koropchak presented are striking. Barger stated that the impact on the surrounding area is a concern. Barger stated that with the Jefferson at Monticello project, the YMCA and other existing residential, having an 1-2 zoning district in the area is unconscionable. Barger asked after Ready-Mix goes in, then what. 13arger commented that when we change the zoning, then will we be known as a City with "flexible zoning". Barger stated that property values in the area will decrease. She noted that the reason we don't have single-family in existing 1-2 areas, is because this is not a good mix. She explained that when the IDC looked at doing 1-1 A zoning, it was to bring in quality businesses with aesthetically pleasing buildings, such as UMC and Twin City Die Casting. Barger stated lastly that she would not want the City to repeat the mistakes of the past, referring to the residential developlllent of Klein Farms against the 1-2 industrial park. As a business owner in the area, she stated that they do get eomplaints from the residents. For those reasons, 13arger asked that Commission consider denial. . Frie stated that when the City put in Oakwood, they did not imagine the residential uses adjacent. However, the developer did a good job by using condos and town homes as a bu ffer. Hearing no further COlllment, Chairman Frie closed the public hearing. Hilgart asked if A VR would be the park's first tenant. O'Neill stated that Dahlheimer's would be. Patch confirmed that Dahlheimer's is under construction. Hilgart stated that he is in favor of seeing A VR move somewhere else. Dragsten inquired that if A VR comes in, would they come in under CUP or PUD. Grittman stated that in an 1-2, they would be permitted. As property owner, the City ean impose other restrictions. Dragsten stated that he is also concerned about not knowing the size of site, nor the building type and landseape plans. Grittman stated that he thought the size of the parcel A VR sought was closer to II acres. Spartz noted that the City has seen the conflicts with 1-2 zoning next to residential areas. He stated that he agrees that should not be allowed to happen here. Suchy stated she cannot support 1-2 in this location. She stated that while she is all for letting them do their business, she cannot support the use in the City's prime new business development. . MOTION BY COMMISSIONER SUCHY TO RECOMMEND DENIAL OF THE REZONING, BASED ON ^ FINDING THAT THE POTENTIAL USES IN THE 1-2 DISTRICT, AND THE SPECIFIC NATURE OF THE USE OF THE PROPERTY FOR A CONCRETE READY-MIX PLANT (INCLUDING DUST, TRUCK TRAFFIC, NOISE, 17 Planning Commission Agenda 10/04/05 . MATERIAL STORAGE, AND DUMPING OF EXCESS CONCRETE, WILL CAUSE A DEPRECIATION IN THE VALUE OF SURROUNDING DEVELOPMENT PARCELS. MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER SPARTZ. MOTION CARRIED, 5-0. 13. Consideration to review an update on parking requirements for Landmark Square II. Grittman reported that he and the site designer had looked at the site and determined that is acceptable for the applicant to create proof of parking as the space is leased. The variance is not needed. hie stated that Opal Stokes sold her property to the Landmark developers: perhaps that will be parking. 14. Continued Public Hearing - Consideration of a rellllest for amendment to the Monticello Zoning Ordinance relating to the regulation of pylon signage. Applicant: City of Monticello Grittll1an eXplained that this amendment had come out of the Denny Hecker request for addition pylon signage on his lots. The City Council had requested that the Commission look at changes to the ordinance to allow multiple pylon signs. The proposed amendment would allow I sign per 300 feet of highway frontage. Chainnan Frie opened the public hearing. Hearing no further comment, Chairman Frie closed the publ ic hearing. . Chairman Frie stated that when the present sign ordinance was put into effect, he and Commissioner Dragsten served on the amendment committee. Frie questioned whether the Commission should be reacting based on one request. He stated that if this is the attitude of the Council, they should draft an amendment based on freeway frontage. Frie noted that a similar request had been made in 2001; the Council denied that request. Frie indicated that he doesn't know what else the Planning Commission can otTer on this item. Suchy stated that she doesn't understand why we're wasting staff time and money on this issue. If an applicant wants to come before the Commission and make a specific request, let them. O'Neill stated that the point of an ordinance is to draw the line in the sand and try not to allow variances, as a precedent ends up being set over tinle. If the Council wants to allow it, then this gives them the standards to do so. Frie asked for clarification on O'Neill's standpoint on this item. O'Neill indicated that the current ordinance works well, but it is the Comlllission's decision if they feel a change is justified. Spmiz asked about the practical appl ication of the ord inance. Cirittl11an stated if you only have 300 feet of frontage, even though you have a ten acre parcel, you arc still allowed only I sign on that parcel. Dragsten asked how many more signs Denny Hecker would get under this anlendment. Grittman stated they are already maxed out, even with this amendment. . Hilgart stated that in this opinion, this amendnlent docs not make sense. 18 Planning Commission Agenda 10/04/05 . MOTION BY COMMISSIONER SPARTZ TO RECOMMEND DENIAL OF TIlE AMENDMENT AS SUBMITTED. MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER SUCHY MOTION CARRIED, 5-0. 15. Consideration of scheduling additional Planning Commission meetings relating to ordinance matters and long-range planning. O'Neill reviewed the long-range planning initiatives that the Planning Commission had notable to address, due to the number of planning case applications. O'Neill noted the need for the Commission to address these items and recommended adding a second regularly scheduled meeting in order to do so. O'Neill stated that the meeting would also be a chance for feedback and open forums. O'Neill noted that these meetings would be for pure planning purposes, not for planning applications or public hearing purposes. Frie stated that he supports the idea of not holding any public hearings. O'Neill stated that it has to be that way due to the reviewed and public notice cycle. Frie asked for consensus among the Commissioners. Hilgart stated that he is somewhat reluctant due to the time commitment. Dragsten also noted the time commihnent involved. Spartz, Suchy, and Frie agreed the second meeting should be recommended. . Frie asked when the schedule would commence. O'Neill stated that it would be up to the Commission. Frie inquired whether the Illotion should include a recommendation to hold no public hearings. O'Neill recommended against that amendment, in case the Commission needed to hold a hearing on an item related to their discussions. MOTION 13Y COMMISSIONER HILGART TO REQUEST THAT TI IE CITY COUNCIL AUTHORIZE ESTA13L1SHMENT OF A SECOND MONTHLY REGULAR MEETING OF '1'1 IE PLANNING COMMISSION TO BE fiELD THE 3RD TUESDAY OF THE MONTH AT 5:00 -7:00 PM. MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER SUCHY. MOTION CARRIED, 5-0. 16. Adiourn. MOTION TO ADJOURN BY COMMISSIONER SPARTZ. MOTION SECONDED 13Y COMMISSIONER DRAGSTEN. MOTION CARRIED. . 19 . . . Planning Commission Agenda - 11/01/05 6. Continued Public Hearine: Consideration to amend the Monticello Zonine Ordinance relatine to Open and Outdoor Storaee. Applicant: City of Monticello. (NAC) REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND The Planning Commission tabled action on this item at its October meeting for a period of 90 days. Staff and the various interested parties have scheduled another workshop meeting for Tuesday, November 81h, 2005. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS The Planning Commission should table action on this item. STAFF RECOMMENDATION In anticipation of a number of lengthy items for the December Planning Commission agenda, staff recommends tabling the item until the regular January Planning Commission meeting. SUPPORTING DATA I. None \ ~ ~ I I , , It --I , ~ i ~ ~~~ .~,~ 1! ,~ . ~~ ~ ~il' 0",.1: ~ ~~.~ , , 0 :.~ : ~ i t:~~ .i;;..9,!l ~ ~:f~~ II,)"Q., l> ~ ~~! \ ~~~~ . i: ~ i "'I I. " ; \1 -- - , - ~ I ~ I I , CI....., , , , , "g , g J~ /t-J """" ~,:.;~::/;;1; \) ... -:~, I ~ ,i" ,~'~:;;:~~,i ' 00 '- J..'t?,o;.~ a""N . :i!: <:) i:: ..... ~ q: ~ ... ~ q: ...... ;::::! S .....cr;"":Jf:-, " ' L&.I ...... ~ ~ ~ . ~~ ~.o;: <:) ~:.~ ,4- ~ t.5; _-s,:5- ~"': ~~~ IS'll --; ~~~.! .q~:s .,:t Hh ~~il ':i;.,,= I: ~ ; ~.~~ ~ d i: i ~i ~ ~ ~ ~~ H!:< t ~ t~ .5: ~ 'S: ~ ~~ d t.d :I.,-J fj~ ;.~ It.t 1:13 s' si ~g .~ ~~ ~ ~:5 Ug ~~ ~ j ~1l ~~~ ~~:~ ~~F i:it5 ~- . oCt~ ~ ..d 0 -S.... I) '(;;li ~~ I ji: ~. - ." ~ ,.i Qti O' 0" !<o.. .~ ::Ii,): ...~ ~H ~~ ::Ii~ ~ Iii l ~ ~ ';; "'" z- ~ ~ .c ~ , . ~ ~ :5 & O~'IOO' $:I _::-.f ;, 'I . I ~~~' :~ '" I..'.j -/ ,,' r:~ \) i~ ~;r.!f/;;W -< :':"~'::; ~'';.?,I ;::: '.. ~ I ..... 'C ~ ,- : ~ : J/ ~' : 'ff~~~~~'~~~~';' :1 ~<"~,, :8 O.J: 8-"'.\ I~ I NrlQo(!Il'II!/">'f IHfJl : , , <D IB :~ 1/1 i17"1;' . [,'?~"~; l '~\ _1!~"!'~-I!"'17 ~l :$"1 -. s~ to) // :~ ~ ~,~ J'<?~ I " ~ t~~~~:~~~~~~" t :~I (o"j ~<>~ I ~ i:_ ~'~'~'~'"- :~'~;: Iti I" I ~, I , N?O~~1~~~S : !-I 1~;~'~r;l~u 3:~;/11~~;". __J . . . Planning Commission Agenda - 11/01/05 7. Public Hearin2;: Consideration of a request for a rezonine: from A-O (Ae:riculture-Open Space) to R-IA (Sine:le Family Residential. Applicant: Shadow Creek Corporation. (NAC) REFERENCE AND BACKGROlJND The applicants are seeking approval of a rezoning from A-O to R-IA. This rezoning is for the 4lh Addition of Carlisle Village. The rezoning of the property commonly occurs at the time that the Final Plat is ready to be filed, and the lots are ready to be developed. In the case of Carlisle Village 4th Addition, the Planning Commission had intended to recommend approval of the R-l A zoning designation for the 4th Addition in its 2003 decision on zoning for the entire site. However, the public hearing notice for tbe rezoning actually only included the 1 sl Addition. Therefore, the Commission is asked to consider this matter during the proper public forum. The R-IA zoning district is an important part oftbe Carlisle Village project, and the request is consistent with the original PUD application from 2003. The proposed rezoning also reflects the intent of the City's Comprehensive Plan for the area. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS Decision 1: Rezoning from A-O to R-l A. 1. Motion to recommend approval of the rezoning, based on a finding that the rezoning meets the intent of the City's Comprehensive Land Use Plan for the area. 2. Motion to recommend denial of the rezoning, hased on findings as identified at the public hearing. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of the rezoning based on the Comprehensive Plan as noted. The recommendation is consistent with the approved final plat for Carlisle Village 4th Addition. SUPPORTING DATA 1. 2. 3. Site Plan Staff Report for Planning Commission - 05/06/03 Minutes of Planning Commission - 05/06/03 . . . 8. Planning Commission Agenda - 05/06/03 Public Hearing - Consideration of a request for concept stage planned unit development and preliminary plat approval, and consideration of a request to rezone from AO to R-IA, R-2 and R-2A. Applicant: Shadow Creek Corporation (NAC) REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND Shadow Creek Corporation is requesting concept review for a Planned Unit Development proposal and preliminary plat approval of an approximately 80 acre mixed residential development to be known as Carlisle Village. The site is located off of C.S.A.H 18 (Jason Avenue), just east of the Wild Wood Ridge and Rolling Woods developments. The northern 40 acres of the site is proposed to consist ofa mix 01'76 R-2A single family lots and 95 row-townhouse units. The southern 40 acres includes 76 R-IA styled lots. The site is currently zoned A-O, Agricultural Open Space, and is proposed to be rezoned R-IA, R-2A and R-2. The Comprehensive Plan designates this site for future R-IA development. The southerly half has been annexed and the northerly half will be reviewed by the City Council for annexation in June. The Planning Commission needs to make comment on three major issues in order to determine the direction and process of this application. The first of these issues includes the appropriate type of land use for this site. The Planning Commission has a great degree of discretion as to what zoning and land usc pattern will be approved. The Comprehensive plan designates this site for R-IA, large lot low density single family use. The northern portion of the proposed project includes a mixture of R-2A. small lot single family lots, and row-townhouse uses. Is this mixture of uses acceptable for this site? The second point of discussion, also tied to land use, is the requested use of a Planned Unit Development. The applicant is proposing to use a PUD to average the density of the site to meet the 3 units per acre low density qualification as well as to narrow the street right-of-way and street cross section in the southern portion of the site for the purpose of salvaging a number of major overstory trees. Should the averaging of the lot sizes in determining density be exclusive to the northern portion of the site as the southern portion of the site is simply meeting the R-IA standards? Is the narrowing of the street right-of-way in the southern portion of the site accomplishing its purpose? It is the applicant's responsibility to make a compelling case as to how the granting of a PUD will make this project superior to what would be developed under the strict standards of the ordinance. The third point of discussion includes the design and layout of the site which will be discussed, along with the previous points, within this report. Planning staff would like to emphasize again, that although this project has somewhat jumped ahead with their request for preliminary plat approval, it is important that both planning staff and the Planning Commission start from the beginning and determine the correct zoning, land use and density for the subject site. Land Use: The currently undeveloped site rises in elevation from north to south with a few fairly steep grades in the southern portion of the site. There are 12 jurisdictional 1 Planning Commission Agenda - 05/06/03 wetlands dispersed throughout the site and the majority of the southern 40 acres is . covered with a large area of overstory trees. As previously stated, the Comprehensive Plan designates this site for R-IA (Single family District) development. The R-l A district was created for the purpose or delegating area with amenities such as rolling terrain, considerable vegetation cover, and visual appeal for low density, larger lot styled development. The southern 40 acres of this site matches this description and is being proposed to be developed in this manner. It can be argued however, that the northern 40 acres of this site lacks the amenities needed to develop in the R-IA standards. The most common zoning distinction for the low density land use class is the R-l District. The applicant is proposing to zone this portion of the site, R-2 and R-2A, with a PUD allowing a mixture ofrow-townhouse units. The purpose of the R-2A district is to provide for low to medium density, detached single family housing and directly related complementary uses. The R-2A district is distinguished from the R-2 district in that it has more extensive development standards and is intended to accommodate small lot residential development in traditional neighborhood arrangements with high levels of amenities. The following table illustrates the lot summary for the proposed project: Lot Summary R-1A 76 Lots R-2A 70 Lots Row 94 Lots Townhou ses TOT AL: 240 Lots . The proposed density for the entire 79.68 acre site is as follows; Gross 3.01 Acreag un its/ac e re Net 3.13 Acreag units/ac e re It has been the City's standard to consider low density as being under 3 units per gross acre or 4 units per net acre. Arguably, the R-l A district density should be considered lower than three units per acre. The southern portion of this site, which is proposed to be developed under the R-IA standards, is at a density of approximately 1.9 units per acre. As such, staff suggests that the southern 40 acres be taken out of the equation when determining the average density. With the approval of the PUD averaging and land use designation of R-2A and R-2, the applicant would then have to stay within the 3 units per gross acre as defined as low density development within the northern portion of the site. . As the site is currently designed, the gross density of the northern section is equal to 2 . . . Planning Commission Agenda - 05/06/03 approximately 4.1 units an acre. Under this interpretation, the northern portion as a proposed 164 units, but would be permitted no more than 120 units. Zoninz: The subject site has been annexed and is zoned A-O, Agricultural Open Space. The northern approximately 40 acn::s o1'thc site is being requested to be rezoned R-2A and R-2. The remainder of the site is proposed to be rezoned R-1A. Due to the lack of amenities in the northern portion of the site, Planning staff supports developing it as a PUD with a mixture ofR-2A and R-2 development, subject to the overall density of this portion of the site not exceeding 3 units per acre. As previously stated, it rests on the applicant's shoulders to present a compelling case for the use a PUD. Although the Planning staff is comfortable with the mix of uses, the proposed density is too high and there are design issues that will be discussed in this report. Lot Standards: The following table illustrates the lot requirements for both the R-l A and R-2A districts; R-IA R-2A R-2 Lot Area 16,000 sf avg. 7.500 sfavg. 12.000 Lot Width 90 feet avg. 45 feet 80 feet Front Setback 35 feet avg. I 0 feet 30 feet Side Setback - 15 feet 6 feet 10 feet House Side Side Setback - 6 feet 6 feet 10 feet Garage Side Rear Setback 30 feet/usable 10 feet 30 feet Roof Pitch 6112 5/12 3/12 . Garage Size 700 sf 450 sf none Foundation Size 2.000 sf 1.200 sf none Fin ished Size 2.000 sf 1.200 sf none Foundation Size 1,400 sf None none Garage Location No closer than 5 No closer than none ft. in front of front front building line building line of of living space living space Fa<;ade Detail 20% brick/stone 20% brick/stone or standard or 10% if70% is 10% if70% is covered with covered with wood wood or stucco ... or stucco Garage Frontage 40% of bldg. 50% of bldg. width standard width in front- in front-facing facing Landscaping Sod & two trees Special standard per lot in new requirements for subdivision or front yard four trees for landscaping comer lots Both the R-l A and the R-2A districts allow for an averaging of lot sizes. The proposed average area for the R-2A district is 12,800 square feet and the average area for lots in the 3 Planning Commission Agenda - 05/06/03 R-lA district area is 18,093 square feet. All other perfonnance standards will need to be met, including building setbacks from wetlands. . The exception area at the northwestern portion of the site is ghost platted into five lots, with a portion of the northern most lot needing a portion of Lot 1, Block 2. The preliminary plat should eliminate the sliver of land at the southern portion of Lot I, Block 2. Circulation/Street Layout and maintenance: The project is proposing that a large portion of the street right-of-way in both the southern and eastern portion of the site be at a 50 foot width. The City's standards are 60 feet with a 32 foot street cross section. This is being requested as part of PUD flexibility for the purpose of limiting the damage to a large area of existing trees. The applicant has not, however, documented how the narrower right-of-ways will accomplish this task. Upon review of the grading plan, it appears that grading will occur outside of the 50 foot right-of-way, which defeats the purpose. If the applicant is going to pursue this request further, the applicant must show exactly what trees will be saved and how the narrower right-of-way will accommodate all of the public utilities, a street, a sidewalk on one side, and the "small" utilities (gas, electric, cable). Further, the applicant should describe what process will be lIsed to save trees on each lot - (i.e. marking, site management during construction). If all of this is accomplished and the narrower street right-of-way is justified, staff proposes that we follow the model approved for the Bruggeman project, which was a 52 foot right-of-way with a 32 foot street which may be off set to provide room for a sidewalk. . Other issues and/or comments regarding circulation and access are as follmvs; · Although the City has no plans to extend development to the east at this time, a connection should be made in case it becomes an important some time in the future. · Street connection to the south, east, and west need to be confirmed as to whether they are located in a spot that can accommodate reasonable development layouts. · The street connection to the west should be a through street in the R-2A area and the cul- de-sac should be redesigned to T into it. · The townhouse area shows 12 foot wide connector loop streets to provide service vehicle through -access. The engineer is concerned this may be too narrow, or two hammerhead turn arounds should be employed. · Cul-de-sacs should be used only where necessary due to wetlands and/or topography. Where used, they should be oversized cul-de-sac's with the landscaped medians. · The landscaped median islands that should be located in the cuI-dc-sacs should be an outlot owned by each of the lots fronting on the cul-de-sac in equal undivided interests, responsible for maintenance of the plantings, etc. · There are currently too many R-2A lots located off of the cul-de-sac. The City generally limits the number of driveways off of cul-de-sacs to 4 or 5 at the most. Park / Trail: The site does not provide area for a park. The future park and trail plan does not discuss the area. A payment in lieu of park dedication will be required from the . applicant and the- Parks Commission must decide where a park to serve this area and future surrounding development should be located. The Parks Commission has identified 4 . . . Planning Commission Agenda - 05/06/03 a park search area directly west of the site. Sidewalk and pathway systems will be required to allow good access to the future park. The Parks Commission is in the process of updating the Comprehensive Park Plan for this area. A pathway along the County 18 right-of-way needs to be included. The following is a list of additional comments and concerns: · The property owner to the south of this project area claims that the property line is not shown in the right location. . The little hook curve in street F should be eliminated. . City needs to evaluate the feasibility of extension of sanitary sewer to the south. · The exception parcel in the NW part of the development needs to be incorporated into the plat. . The townhouse area needs to be designed with a minimum building separation of 96 feet - a 52 foot public right.of.way and a 22 foot front building setback. . If private streets are used, the minimum building separations are 74 feet - 24 foot private street with 25 foot garage-to-curb distance on each side of the private street. . The townhouse area needs to show additional parking as two -car garages, two spaces in the driveway, plus onc additional space per three units. · Planning commission should comment on the architectural characteristics of the R-2 and R-2A units. · Additional thought should be given to establishing a grading plan that trades trees for wetland. The current plan saves \vetland at the expense of trees in an area where trees may be the more valued resource. AL TERNA TIVE ACTIONS Decision 1: South Portion la. Rezone from A-a to R-IA l. Motion to recommend approval of the rezoning from A-a to R-IA based on a finding that the proposed zoning would reneet the intent of the City's Comprehensive Plan. 2. Motion to recommend denial of the rezoning form A-a to R-IA based on a finding that the proposed zoning is not consistent with the intent of the City's Comprehensive Plan. I b. Concept Stage PUD approval l. Motion to recommend approval of the concept stage PUD, based on a finding that the proposed PUD is consistent with the goals of the Comprehensive Plan, subject to the applicable conditions of Exhibit Z. 5 2. Planning Commission Agenda - 05/06/03 Motion to recommend denial of the concept stage PUD, based on a finding that the proposed PUD is not consistent with the goals of the Comprehensive Plan. . lc. Development Stage PUD 1. Motion to recommend approval of the development stage PUD based on a finding that the proposed PUD is consistent with the goals of the Comprehensive Plan, subject to the applicable conditions of Exhibit Z. 2. Motion to recommend denial of the development stage PUD based on a finding that the proposed PUD is not consistent with the intent of the Comprehensive Plan. I d. Preliminary Plat 1. Motion to recommend approval of the preliminary plat based on a finding that the plat meets the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance, subject to the applicable conditions listed in Exhibit Z. 2. Motion to recommend denial of the preliminary plat based on a finding that the plat is premature until the land use and design issues described within this report arc figured out. . Decision 2: North Portion 2a. Rezone from A-O to R-2A and R-2 1. Motion to recommend approval of the rezoning from A-O to R-2A and R-2 based on a finding that the proposed zoning would reflect the intent of the City's Comprehensive Plan. 2. Motion to recommend denial of the rezoning form A-O to R-1 A and R.2 based on a finding that the proposed zoning is not consistent with the intent of the City's Comprehensive Plan. 2b. Concept Stage PUD approval 1. Motion to recommend approval of the concept stage PUD. based on a finding that the proposed PUD is consistent with the goals of the Comprehensive Plan, subject to the applicable conditions of Exhibit Z. . 6 . 2. Planning Commission Agenda - 05/06/03 Motion to recommend denial of the concept stage PUD, based on a finding that the proposed PUD is not consistent with the goals of the Comprehensive Plan. 2c. Development Stage PUD 1. Motion to recommend approval of the development stage PUD based on a finding that the proposed PUD is consistent with the goals of the Comprehensive Plan, subject to the applicable conditions of Exhibit Z. 2. Motion to recommend denial of the development stage PUD based on a finding that the proposed PUD is not consistent with the intent of the Comprehensive Plan. 2d. Preliminary Plat 1. Motion to recommend approval of the preliminary plat based on a finding that the plat meets the requircments of the Zoning Ordinance, subject to the applicable conditions listed in Exhibit Z. . 2. Motion to recommend denial of the preliminary plat based on a finding that the plat is premature until the land use and design issues described within this report are figured out. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS Staff recommends approval of (l a, 1 b, 2a, 2b) subject to the conditions listed in exhibit Z and tabling of (1 c, 1 d, 2c, 2d). Both development stage PUD and Preliminary Plat considerations appear premature in that upon compliance with the conditions tied to approval of the concept stage PUD and rezones. the plat will need to be revised and may change substantially. Staff recommends that Planning Commission members walk the site prior to the mceting if possible. SUPPORTING DATA Exhibit A - Site Location Map Exhibit B ~ Site Plan Exhibit C - Landscape Plan Exhibit 0 - Townhouse building elevation plans Exhibit Z - Conditions of Approval . 7 . . . Planning Commission Agenda - 05/06/03 Exhibit Z: Concept Stage pun Conditions of Approval - Carlisle Estates 1. The southern portion of the site (R-IA) is to be taken out of the equation in calculating an averaging of density. The northern portion of the site (R-2A, R-2) will be permitted no more than 120 units (3 units per acre). 2. The exception parcel in the NW part of the development needs to be incorporated into the plat. (The developer has agreed to this request). 3. The plans must show what trees will be saved by narrowing the right-of-way to 50 feet. 4. The applicant must show how the proposed narrow right-of-way can accommodate all of the public utilities, a street, a sidewalk on one side, and the "small" utilities (gas, electric, cable ). 5. The applicant must describe what process will be used to save trees on each lot ~ (marking, site management during construction). 6. A connection should be made to the east of the site for possible future development. 7. Street connection to the south, east. and west need to be confirmed as to whether they are located in a spot that can accommodate reasonable development layouts. 8. The street connection to the west should be a through street in the R-2A area and the cul- de-sac should be redesigned to T into it. 9. The 12 foot wide connector loop streets in the townhouse area should be widened to provide adequate access for service vehicles. 10. Cui-dc-sacs should be used only where necessary due to wetlands and/or topography. Where used, they should be oversized cul-de-sac's with landscaped medians. 11. The landscaped median islands that should be located in the cul-de-sacs should be platted as an outlot, owned by each of the lots fronting on the cul-de-sac in equal undivided interests, responsible for maintenance of the plantings. 12. The number of driveways off of the cul-de-sacs are limited to 5 at the most. 13. A payment in lieu of park dedication will be required from the applicant as determined by the parks commission and approved by City Council. 14. A pathway along the County 18 right-of-way needs to be included on the plans. Additional sidewalk in townhome area linking to sidewalk at Street A is needed. 15. The hook curve in street F is to be eliminated. 8 Gxhibit z.. 16. Planning Commission Agenda - 05/06/03 City needs to evaluate the feasibility of extension of sanitary sewer to the south. 17. The townhouse area needs to be designed with a minimum building separation of 96 feet ~ a 52 foot public right-of-way and a 22 foot front building setback. 18. If private streets are to be used, the minimum building separations in the townhouse area are to be 74 feet - 24 foot private street with 25 foot garage-to-curb distance on each side of the private street. 19. The townhouse area needs to show additional parking as two-car garages, two spaces in the driveway, plus one additional space per three units. 20. Planning commission should comment on the architectural characteristics of the R-2 and R-2A units. 21. The plan requires approval from Wright County Highway Department. 22. Approval from the Wright County Soils and Conservation District. . . . . , . 8. Public Hearing - Consideration of a request for concept stage planned unit development and preliminary plat approval, and consideration of a request to rezone from AO to R-l A and R- 2A. Applicant: Shadow Creek Corporation Steve Grittman, City Planner, provided the staff report and advised that the Planning Commission looked at this project previously when it only included the north portion where they proposed attached townhouse style homes. It was the direction of staff and City Council to reduce the density and since that time the applicant has acquired the area to the south. R-l A standards apply here due to the wooded land and taking advantaged of the physical site amenities. When looking at this proposal since the smaller project was proposed, the land use plan directs that the south portion be zoned R-l A and the north portion would be more appropriately zoned low density, typically R- I single family, although the city has allowed R-2 zoning. Grittman advised that the working definition of low density is 3 units per acre on gross, 4 units on net. The applicant's have proposed utilizing the 3 and 4 units per acre over the entire site, and as a result there is a net density of appro x 3.01 units per acre, the calculation factoring the R-IA section of the property. Planning staff's opinion is that the intent is not to co-combine those two areas and not to do away with R-l zoning, further advising that the Planning Commission should look at this site as two physical zones such as R-l and R-IA. Grittman summarized that the north portion would have 40 too many units on the site to comply with the 3 units per acre, although the applicant disputes that interpretation. He stated the applicant wishes to proceed with development stage and preliminary plat. In staff's opinion the land use issLle needs to be resolved. The applicant's are looking for PUD approval on the south portion asking for narrower streets and narrower cross sections which will permit them to save additional trees in that area per the applicant. Grittman stated that late last week the applicant provided a plan showing which trees would remain and which would be lost. Their indication is that they would save 62o/cl of the trees in the wooded area after development. More detailed tree preservation is to be provided by the applicant as a requirement of staff. Therefore the recommendation is to proceed with concept stage and re-zoning, but hold on the development stage and preliminary plat until they have a chance to review and pending Planning Commission's direction, they will proceed. It was recommended by Grittman that the item be continued and table action at this time. He further stated regarding the structure of the decisions in the staff report, this is a complex project and therefore they have broken down the decisions between the north and south portions. Brian Stumpf questioned Grittman if on a concept stage PUD, is it common to have a list of conditions as long as the one provided in the staff report. Grittman stated at concept stage a list of conditions/suggestions can vary. Concept stage gives the opportunity to get these items on the table to discuss and bring baek at development stage. Since this is a combined concept and development stage, that I ist is combined. hie asked if the applicant was aware of the 22 conditions for approval of the concept stage, and Grittman stated that they did get a copy of the report, and they have had a number of conversations with the developer. -7- . Whether they expected to see all of these conditions, he was unsure. Staff felt it was their obligation to bring these forward. Chair Frie opened the public hearing. Frie asked Mike Gail', representing the applicant, to present a compelling case to the Planning Commission and focus on this to convince the Planning Commission to approve. Gail' stated that the matter of compelling argument is subject to definition and that he would present their best thoughts, and due to a long history with this project, hopefully by the end they will convince the Planning Commission. Chair Frie asked Lucinda Gardner, applicant, about her comment in her recent letter to the Planning Commission stating she was taken aback and would she explain. Gail' stated f(Jr Gardner that it was primarily due to the request to separate the two parcels. lIe further stated that the list of conditions could either be reduced or expanded, depending on the results of this meeting. , Gail' concurred with Grittman's statement that this project could be seen as complex, but from their point of view it is good and simple. Regarding the PlID, the only flexibility they are seeking has to do with the 50 f1. ROW versus a 60 ft. ROW, and only in the wooded area. I f determined that there is little if any value in reduction, they will maintain the 60 f1. ROW. It is their feeling it is bene1icial. (rail' provided a site plan indicating wetlands, topographic relief, noting the highest portion is in the wooded area. Gail' provided the tree preservation count which listed types and numbers of trees, and where they are located on the site. Their primary focus is preservation of the woodland area and protection of wetlands. He also pointed out the road way and how it lays out in the site plan for maintaining larger lot sizes, saving trees, and producing a lot yield that is usable and in accordance with the ordinance. Gail' concurred there had been several meetings previously with staff dating baek to 2000 and advised that all previous comments by staff have been incorporated into this plan. Regarding Bret Weiss' report on wetlands, they knew approximately where they were located. A decision was made to design an intersection at the location fl1r ROW, enter the development, loop back through development and back out. The subdivision to the west would be connected. Gail' stated 3 product types indicating 94 row townhomes, noting the 12 ft. road width was an alley and only for trash vehicles and snow plows to pass through. He stated a selling price of approximately $215,000 to $230,000 and owner/occupied attached. The second type would be single family, R-2A standards with 50 ft. lot widths versus the 45 ft. required; the last type is in the southern area and would be R-l A single f~lmily with larger wooded lots and selling price of approximately $200,000 to $260,000. He does not feel this project has jumped ahead as stated in the stafr report and also advised that the tree inventory was a pricey ordeal and feels that this developer will do a good job at preserving the trees. , Gail' stated that regarding density, he felt they had a fairly good understanding that the larger lots would be located to the south and smaller to the north, hlending together, but staff is asking to separate the 40 acres and he didn't see any particular value to segregate. lie -8- . advised there was already a mix of homes in the southern 40 acres. Gair further stated that he felt the density was slightly low, versus high. In regard to the request for a 50 ft ROW, he pointed out that there is roadway, curb, gutter, sidewalk, and utilities, all within that 50 ft. He also noted for the Bruggeman proposal they settled for 52 f1. If they were to have a 60 f1:. ROW the buildings would be moved back and he felt they would lose an additional 77 trees. He noted that the intent of the R-I A is to preserve wooded lots and therefore the reduction in ROW. Frie asked Gail' to work with staff on addressing the 22 conditions, due to the length of the agenda. Gair advised that conditions 2 I and 22 deal with the County, conditions 17 and 18 regarding separation of buildings has been included in revised plans, and condition 19 meets the standards as well. Parking within the townhome area per 8ret Weiss' concern, provides for a ratio of I space per 2 units which is in excess of the 1 per 3 required hy ordinance. Gair advised that 37% of the total units proposed are townhomes and 63% single family. In the Wildwood Ridge development, he advised it was 66% townhomes, 44% single family, which is just opposite. Gail' further stated that the proposed Spirit Hills addition is also the same way and this development is generating more single family detached than the other two he noted. , Lucinda Gardner, Farr Development, advised that regarding the trees, those listed are only the trees that are 8" and larger. Frie asked Gair to address stormwater and he advised that there will be a new storm water basin which was originally designed to minimize or eliminate problems with Ditch 33. He also advised of more catch basins as well as wetlands, and that this was all engineered by a professional. Frie asked staff about the holding pond in the southeast corner of Rolling Woods and was it the intent to hold stormwater olTthe Hermes property as well as adjacent properties. Grittman stated that was correct, this one will handle its own. O'Neill clarified that there are possihilities to shift some of the water from this site to Gillard, avoiding construction of a stomrwater lift station to the north, but that details need to be explored. He also added that this might have some impact on this site and Gair stated that this would be good for them as well. O'Neill added that one of the reasons the former mayor and himself encouraged inclusion of the souther portion in this plat was due to affc)rdability. Steve Conroy, Attorney representing Scott Walters, an adjacent property owner to the south, addressed the commission and stated he had spoken to Lucinda Gardner already advising of a potential issue with a fence and property line discrepancy, adding that the fence has been in place for approx. 40 years. Mr. Walters may seek annexation at some point, per Conroy. O'Neill advised that this would be addressed at final plat stage, and from now until that time they will proceed. Frie asked Gardner if she had applied for annexation for the north portion and it was c1arilied that the southerly portion is the part that has not been annexed, not the north poriion as stated in the staff report. . Roger Mack, Street Dep1. Supt., questioned if there would he park dedication and O'Neill advised that there is a park search area that staff has identified and they will be acquiring -9- . park dedication tlll1ds from the developer. He advised that the adjoining subdivision will provide park, as well as the trails in place that will connect. Mack feIt this was a lot of people with no park. He also discussed street width and due to snow plowing, this could be a problem. 1 fe also asked about parking and it was stated they propose two spaces per unit, per ordinance. Mack stated as a private citizen, he did not leel that 16,000 sq. it. lots were considered large. , Chair Frie then closed the public hearing. There was discussion among the members regarding how to address the park situation and Carlson did not fcel they should rely on the neighboring parcel. Grittman stated that the park plan concept is that neighborhood parks would be spaced approx. ~ mile apart. Rolling Woods would meet that space requirement. The park search area is also meeting that requirement. Frie stated that the park in Rolling Woods is small and does the Parks Commission know that this will not be large enough to handle both. 1t was advised that the Parks Commission has reviewed the plan. For the short term, access will be hom existing parks. It was further stated that this project will obtain fces to acquire additional park land. It was advised that this development would require 8 acres of raw park land. Gair also noted that trail connection will be added. Carlson asked Gair about preserving trees in the front yards and Gair stated they could, it is almost impossible but there are ways. He stated that at the next level they would provide engineering data to show how these will be preserved. There is a management system put in place for tree preservation. Grittman added that another project that Gail' was involved in had a successful tree preservation plan. Frie added that upgraded housing was a goal of the city and he questioned if this development was meeting that, referring to the price of the homes per Gair. Grittman stated he felt it does from a development side with preserving woodlands, leaving the dollar Jlgure discussion out. Frie was surprised that the homes in the wooded arca were only in the $200,000 to $260,000 range. Gail' noted that this number is conservative and also noted the proximity to 1-94 as a positive thing, stating that area would continue to grow. O'Neill clarified that the 2,000 sq. ft. finished requirement for this zoning would put the lot average at approx. $62,000, just to meet code, and the homes may be closer to $260,000 to start. , Dragsten asked how the developer would guarantee the size and quality of the homes, referring to the problems with the Wildwood Ridge development. ft was noted that there were problems with covenants, or the lack of. Lucinda stated she had submitted house plans and proposed covenants/association documents for this development. I-lilgart asked about the previous zoning of the north portion being R-l at 3 units per acre, and now wanting to avcrage this over the entire 80 acres, going tl.om R-IA to R-2A. Gardner stated that when they purchased the property to the north it was zoned R-IA. Through the process of working with staff it was determined that in one area, due to Ditch 33, they needed to remove 5 acres for storm water and when they put the costs together several years ago, it was at that point in time they were encouraged to acquire additional property, spreading the 3 units per acre Over the entire area. She stated they felt that was the direction given from the past Mayor and staff O'Neill clarified that they did not necessarily state the entire area to be 3 units per acre, they were just trying to spread the costs out but not necessarily the - J 0- . density. Gardner further commented that when the city was looking at R-IA and R-2A, she had munerous conversations with O'Neill that they were guiding the north portion toward R-2A as it did not have the amenities. O'Neill stated that with every site plan that comes through they do not state that it would definitely not work or vice versa. Gair further added that in the stafTreport it states it has been the city's standard to use 3 units per acre net and 4 units gross, and he feels they are not abusing this. Hilgart did not feel it should be spread out over the entire 80 acres. Grittman further advised that this was the intent to further discuss what this portion should be zoned, since it is not zoned at this time. I-Ie noted they were reluctant to go too far without having this discussion first. Land use types and residential mix is not the city's objection, it's the density, per Grittman. Hilgart stated that presuming they require 3 units per acre on the north 40 acres, how would they feel as this would give them 120 units versus 160 units. Gair stated that would be something they would definitely need to discuss to see if it would be viable. O'Neill asked Uair about the stormsewer lift station and had they figured out a cost. O'Neill stated that there could be additional savings if this is found to not be necessary. Frie asked if the concerns noted in the staff report were those noted in the conditions of Exhihit Z. Grittman stated these were general comments/concerns, some are reflected in the conditions, some are design issues. O'Neill clarified that he did have the elevations of the homes on hand for them to view. " Decision 1: South Portion Rezoning from A-O to R-IA A MOTION WAS MADE BY DICK FRIE TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE REZONINU FROM A-O TO R-IA, BASED ON A FINDING THAT THE PROPOSED ZONING WOULD REFLECT THE INTENT OF THE CITY'S COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. LLOYD IIILGART SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSL Y. Concept Stage PUD ^ MOTION WAS MADE BY DICK FRIE TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE CONCEPT STAGE PUD, BASED ON A FINDING THAT TilE PROPOSED PUD IS CONSISTENT WITH TI-:lE GOALS OF THE COMPREIIENSIVE PLAN, SUBJECT TO 1'1 IE APPLICABLE CONDITIONS OF EXI-HBIT Z. LLOYD HILGART SECONDED 1'1 IE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Development Stage PLJD . A MOTION WAS MADE BY ROD DRAGSTEN TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE DEVELOPMENT STAGE PUD, BASED ON A FINDING THAT THE PROPOSED PUD IS CONSISTENT WITH THE GOALS OF -rHE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, SUBJECT TO THE APPLICABLE CONDITIONS OF EXI--IlBIT Z. LLOYD HILGART SECONDED THE MOTION. -] 1- . There was further discussion by Frie asking Grittman if stair was comfortable with the PUD and Grittman stated yes, with the assumption that the tree preservation was the basis for allowing a PUD. THEREFORE ROD DRAGSTEN AMENDED "fHE MOTION TO INCLUDE TREE PRESER V A TION AS Tl IE BASIS FOR APPROVAL OF TilE PUD. LLOYD IIILGART AMENDED HIS MOTION TO SECOND AND TIlE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Preliminary Plat O'Neill advised that the City Engineer and Public Works Director may want this item tabled until resolution of the conditions. A MOTION WAS MADE BY DICK FRIE TO CONTINUE THE PUBLIC HEARING TO THE JUNE MEETING AND TABLE ACTION, PENDING RESOLVING CONDITIONS LISTED IN EXHIBIT Z AND TilE CITY ENGINEER M[':ETING WITH THE APPLICANT. ROD DRAGSTEN SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSL Y. Decision 2: North Portion Re-zone from A-O to R-2A and R-2 " A MOTION WAS MADE BY ROD DRAGSTEN TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF TilE REZONING FROM A-O TO R-2A AND R-2, BASED ON A FINDING THAT THE PROPOSED ZONING WOULD REFLECT THE INTl~NT OF TIlE CITY'S COMPREIIENSIVE PLAN. DAVE RIE"rVELD SECONDED TIlE MOTION. There was further discussion by Hilgart clarifying the 3 units per acre on the north portion only and (hiUman stated the density would be addressed on the plat and this was regarding the zoning only. THERE WAS NO FURTIIER DISCUSSION AND THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Concept Stage PUD A MOTION WAS MADE BY RICHARD CARLSON TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF 1'1 IE CONCEPT STAGE PUD, BASED ON A fINDING THAT TIlE PROPOSED PUD IS CONSISTENT WITH THE GOALS OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, SUBJECT TO TilE APPLICABLE CONDITIONS OF EXlIIBIT Z. ROD DRAGSTEN SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSL Y. . -12- . Development Stage PUD - North A MOTION WAS MADE BY RICHARD CARLSON TO CONTINUE TI-IE PUBLIC HEARING TO THE JUNE MEETING AND TABLE ANY ACTION. LLOYD IIILGART SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSL Y. Preliminary Plat - North A MOTION WAS MADE BY RICHARD CARLSON TO CONTINUE THE PUBLIC HEARING TO THE JUNE MEETING AND TABLE ANY ACTION. ROD DRAGSTEN SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSL Y. . . ..... -13- . . . Planning Commission Agenda -- 11/01/05 8. REFERENCE AND BACKGRO{)ND The applicants are seeking a rezoning of their property from PZM to B-3. The parcel is 3.1 acres in size, and abuts a mixed variety ofland uses: West: Monticello Waste Water Treatment Plant North: R-I, Single Fml1ily Residential (Mississippi Drive) East: R-2, Townhouse Residential East: Vacant PZM zoned land South: Broadway (CSAII 75) and the Target/Home Depot project The applicants wish to construct a strip commercial center, a portion of which would includc an auto repair business that the buyer of the property would operate. It should be noted that if the rezoning is approved, the applicant would need to submit plans l()r the approval of a ConditionallJse Permit authorizing the use. The two zoning districts are described by their purpose statements as listed below: "PZ-MIXED USE ZONING DISTRICT": The purpose of the "P/._ Mixed Use Zoning District" is to provide a land use transition between high density residential land uses and low intensity business Imld uses, as well as the intermixing of each such land use. B-3 -- HIGHWAY BUSINESS: The purpose of the "13-3," highway business, district is to provide for and limit the establishment of motor vehicle oriented or dependent commercial and service activities. The PZM District is established to provide for transitions between high activity and low activity locations. The B-3 District, on the other hand, is designed to focus on, and capture, high volume trafJic. The parcel in question would appear to be a typical location for the PZM District. In this area, both commercial mld residential land uses abut the site. If a 13-3 District werc to be considered, including the establishment of an automobile repair t~lcility, buffering both the activity and the noise gencratcd by thcse uses could bc difficult. The retail commercial strip center could be established on the site under the PZM zoning, howevcr, the automobile service would not be allowed. Planning staff believes that the PZM District does the best job of addressing the various land use constraints for this site. In a previous rezoning application on a nearby site, we had summarized the differences bctwcen the PZM and B-3 Districts. That summary is repeated below: . T e of Use Barber/Beaut Governmental Buildings Multiple family Buildings Commercial Offices Convenience Grocer Laundromat Art/School Supplies Bakery/Grocery/lee Banks Cand /Iee Cream Camera/Electronics Dry Cleanin Dru Store Florist Gift/Novelty/Hobby Hard ware/Paint Professional Om.ees H&1!il".i!al Locksmith/Glass Service Plumbing/Electrical Sales Shoe repair Jewelry Gas/Convenience Club/Lod e - no food Restaurants Car Wash Priritiu..Publ.ishill! . . Planning Commission Agenda -- IlIO lI05 PZM Permitted CUP CUP Permitted Permitted CUP CUP CUP CUP CUP CUP CUP CUP CUP CUP CUP CUP CUP CUP CUP CUP CUP CUP Permitted CUP CUP NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA CUP NA NA B-3 Permitted CUP CUP Permitted Permitted CUP Permitted Permitted Permitted Permitted Permitted Permitted Permitted Permitted Permitted Permitted Permitted NA Permitted Permitted Permitted Permitted CUP Permitted Permitted CUP Permitted Permitted Permitted Permitted Permitted CUP CUP CUP CUP CUP C1JP CUP CUP CUP IUP 2 Planning Commission Agenda - 11!O 1 /05 . This list is a summary of the uses in the two districts. Uses which are allowed in one, but prohibited in the other have been highlighted. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS Decision 1: Rezoning from PZM (Performance Zone-Mixed) to B-3 (Highway Business 1. Motion to recommend approval of the rezoning from PZM to B-3, based on a finding that the proposed B-3, Highway Business District is the most suitable zoning district for the site. 2. Motion to recommend denial of the rezoning, based on a finding that due to the boundary with residential uses and the con11icts that could be created by B-3 uses, PZM is the most suitable zoning district for the site. ST AFF RECOMMENDATION . StatTrecommends denial of the rezoning, based on the finding PZM zoning district is acting as it should in this circumstance, by providing a valuable bulTer between more intense commercial uses to the south and the residential uses to the north and east. The PZM is intended to provide a transition between those types of uses. Although some automobile uses have become "cleaner" and therefore less detrimental to adjoining uses, it is staff's view that this area is too small and too close to residential uses to support these more intense uses. Staffs recommendation is also based on the fact that as noted above, a number of retai I and commercial uses are allowed as either permitted or conditional uses in the PZM district, allowing the applicants flexibility in the use of their property. SUPPORTING DATA 1. Site Plan 2. PZM Zoning District Provisions 3. B-3 Zoning District Provisions . 3 o CO o T""" o o I'- M o LO LO T""" . . .a - SECTION: 10-1 : 10-2: 10-3: 10-4: 10-5: 10-6: 10-7: 10-8: 10-9: 10-10: 1 0-11 : 1 0-12 : 10-13: 1 0-14 : 10-1 : CHAPTER 10 "PZ-RESIDENTlAL & PZ-MIXED" ZONING DISTRlCTS Purpose General Description PZR, Pennitted Uses PZR, Pennitted Accessory Uses PZR, Conditional Uses PZM, Pennitted Uses PZM, Pennitted Accessory Uses PZM, Conditional Uses Apartment Density Bonus Findings of Fact Standards Project Review Process Procedures Compliance PURPOSE: The purpose of the "PZ," Perfonnance Zoning, districts is to allow for development flexibility and special design control within sensitive areas of the city due to environmental or physical limitations. The perfonnance zoning districts also attempt to create a reasonable balance between the interest of the property owner in freely developing his property and at the same time protect the interest of surrounding properties in the following ways: [A] By encouraging a more creative approach in commercial and housing developments that will result in quality living environments through innovative design and aesthetic controls; [B] By permitting a combination of housing types and styles, including single family, two-family, and multiple family dwellings, with the exception of mobile homes; [C] By allowing flexibility in design by permitting cluster developments and a variety of architectural styles and treatments; [D] By allowing flexibility in setback and height restrictions. [E] By providing an efficient use of land resulting in more cost efficient installation of utilities, streets, and other facilities; [F] By encouraging the preservation of common open space, recreational facilities, natural features such as woodland, wetland, and flood plain; MONTICELLO ZONING ORDINANCE 10/1 [G] By contributing to the tax base of the community without making undue demands on the community services; . [H] By providing the means for greater flexibility in environmental design than is provided under the strict application of the Monticello Zoning Ordinance and Subdivision Ordinance while at the same time preserving general welfare of the city of Monticello and its inhabitants. 10-2: GENERAL DESCRIPTION: It has been determined that within certain unique areas of the community, the precise designation of acceptable land use and the geographic definition of such activities cannot be accomplished without detailed analysis of land use, construction costs, and improvement feasibility and costs, market conditions, and financing. In such cases, in order to allow property owners the opportunity to pursue the highest and best use of their land within the constraints of environmental and physical limitations, the "PZ", performance zoning, districts have been created. To further define the intent of performance zoning, two separate districts have been created as follows: [A] "PZ-RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICT": The purpose ofthe "PZ- Residential Zoning District" is to provide a harmonious mixture of different residential land uses in a manner which best utilizes the development potential of the land and natural environment, existing adjacent and future adjacent land uses. . [B] "PZ-MIXED USE ZONING DISTRICT": The purpose of the "PZ-Mixed Use Zoning District" is to provide a land use transition between high density residential land uses and low intensity business land uses, as well as the intermixing of each such land use. 10-3: PERFORMANCEZONE-RESIDENTJAL ("PZR") PERMITTED USES: Only the following uses are permitted uses within a PZR district: [A] Those uses listed as permitted uses within the R-1 zoning district. Standards shall be as contained therein. [B] Those uses that exist prior to the adoption of this chapter. [C] A permitted use shall be regulated by the terms and conditions of this ordinance as they pertain to an R -1 district. 10-4: PZR PERMITTED ACCESSORY USES: Only the following uses are permitted accessory uses within a PZR district: [A] Those uses listed as permitted accessory uses in the R-1 zoning district. [B] A permitted accessory use shall be regulated by the terms and conditions of this ordinance as they pertain to an R -1 district. MONTICELLO ZONING ORDINANCE 10/2 until such time as the applicant or City staffhas prepared the necessary studies. . 3. Surrounding Property Owners: Surrounding property owners shall be notified in writing of any proposed developments. Applicants shall be encouraged to meet with property owners prior to public hearings or whenever such a meeting will allow better involvement of neighbors in the review process. While complete consent of adj acent property owners shall not be mandatory for approval ofprojects developed under the PZ-Residential zoning, involvement with adjacent owners shall be encouraged through all steps within the approval process. 4. Submission Requirements, Amendments, and Special Requirements: . (a) All applicants shall submit final building plans to the City prior to the granting of permits. No changes to the plans shall be permitted without consent from the City Council. All requirements as a condition of approval shall be addressed in the final developers agreement and indicated on all appropriate plans. City staff shall inspect the work during construction to assure that such plans are followed. (b) The City Council may at its discretion place special requirements that will ensure the complete construction of all requirements. Such conditions may include performance bonds, time limitations for commencement of the work, and limitations on the hours of construction. (c) When areas are to be preserved by the developer, the City may require that such areas be fenced during construction to assure that equipment will not damage preservation areas. 10-6: PERFORMANCE ZONE-MIXED (PZM) PERMITTED USES: Only the following uses are permitted uses within a PZM district: "PZ-MIXED ZONING DISTRlCT" [A] Those uses listed as permitted uses within the R.3 zoning district subject to the standards contained therein. [B] Club or lodge without the serving of food or beverages. (#226, 6/8/92) -. [C] A permitted use shall be regulated and controlled by the terms, conditions, and provisions of this ordinance as they pertain to an R-3 district. -- 10.7: PZM: PERMITTED ACCESSORY USES: Only the following uses are permitted MONTICELLO ZONING ORDINANCE 10/7 . . . accessory uses within a PZM district. [ A] Those uses listed as permitted accessory uses in the R- 3 zoning district. [B] A permitted accessory use shall be regulated and controlled by the terms, conditions, and provisions of this ordinance as they pertain to an R-3 district. 10-8: PZM: CONDITIONAL USES: Only the following uses are conditional uses in a PZM district. [A] Those uses listed as conditional uses in the R-3 zoning district and as regulated therein except as modified in this chapter. [B] Hospitals, medical offices and clinics, dental offices and clinics, professional offices and commercial (leased) offices (limited to appraisers, architects, attorneys, certified public accountants, clergymen, dentists, engineers, manufacturers representatives, physicians, real estate agents, and other similar uses which have no storage of merchandise and are service oriented with no retail sale of goods on the premises), and funeral homes and mortuaries provided that: 1. When abutting R-I, R-2, R-3, or PZR district, a buffer area with screening and landscaping in compliance with Chapter 3, Section 2 [G], shall be erected. [C] Nursing homes and similar group housing, but not including hospitals, sanitariums, or similar institutions, provided that: I. Side yards are double the minimum requirements established for this dis~ct an~ are screened in compliance with Chapter 3, Sect~ [G], OfthlS ordmance.-==----__ 2. One (1) off-street loading space in compliance with Chapter 3, Section 6, of this ordinance is installed. [D] Parking facilities for adjacent commercial or multiple dwelling establishments provided that: I. Screening of abutting residential uses and landscaping is provided in compliance with Chapter 3, Section 2 [G], of this ordinance. [E] Retail commercial activities as listed in Chapter 12, Section 2, of this ordinance, provided that: I. Merchandise is sold at retail only. 2. The procedures outlined hereinafter are complied with in full. 3. Accessory production or processing activities provided that: MONTICELLO ZONING ORDINANCE 10/8 . . . a. The production activities are accessory to a permitted retail use in the PZM District. b. The building and site plan are designed to be compatible with architecture in the adjoining neighborhood. c. The production activity shall not exceed twenty-five (25) percent of the gross floor area of the building. d. When abutting a residential district, a buffer area with screening and landscaping in compliance with Chapter 3, Section 2 (0) shall be erected. e. The site is served by a collector street with access that avoids mixing of residential traffic with truck traffic generated by production use. (#415, 10/11/04) [F] Buildings combining residential and non-residential uses allowed in this district provided that: 1. Residential and non-residential uses shall not be contained on the same floor. 2. The procedures outlined hereinafter are complied with in full. [0] Senior citizen housing provided that: 1. Not more than ten (] 0) percent of the occupants may be persons sixty (60) years of age or under (spouse of a person over sixty (60) years of age or caretakers, etc.). 2. Except for caretaker units, occupancy shall be limited to man and wife, blood relatives, or a single man or single woman. 3. To continue to qualify for the senior citizen housing classification, the owner or agent shall annually file with the City Administrator or the Building Inspector a certified copy of a monthly resume of occupants of such a multiple dwelling, listing the number of tenants by age and clearly identifying and setting forth the relationship of occupants sixty (60) years of age or under to qualified tenants or to the building. 4. One (l) off-street loading space in compliance with Chapter 3, Section 6, of this ordinance is installed. 5. Elevator service is provided to each floor level. MONTICELLO ZONING ORDINANCE 10/9 . . ~ ..., 6. Usable open space as defined in Chapter 2, Section 2, oftrus ordinance, at a minimum, is equal to twenty (20) percent of the gross lot area. 7. The site of the main entrance of the principal use is served or is located within four hundred (400) feet of regular transit service. 8. The site of the main entrance of the principal use is within four hundred (400) feet of commercial shopping development or adequate provision for access to such facilities is provided. [H] Restaurants and private clubs and lodges serving food and beverages, provided that: 1. The proposed use complies with applicable screening and buffering standards in compliance with Chapter 3, Section 2[G], of this ordinance. 2. Service of prepared food or alcoholic beverages shall be in compliance with all federal, state, and municipal regulations. 3. Offices of such use shall be limited to no more than twenty (20) percent of the gross floor area of the principal structun:(#318, 10/12/98) [I] Bed and breakfast facilities provided that: 1. Bed and breakfast operations shall be limited to residential structures existing prior to the date of this ordinance. 2. When abutting R-l, R-2, R-3, or PZR district, a buffer area with screening and landscaping shall be provided in compliance with Chapter 3, Section 2 [G], of the Monticello Zoning Ordinance. 3. Adequate off-street parking and an access shall be provided in the form of one parking space per rental unit plus one space for each ten rental units and one space for each employee on each shift. 4. Food served on the premises may be served only to overnight guests of the bed and breakfast. 5. The owner, operator, or manager of the bed and breakfast shall reside on the premises. 6. Activities shall be limited to those customary to the operation of a bed and breakfast facility. Commercial use of the property for other activities not normally associated with the operation of a bed and breakfast such as wedding receptions, parties, etc., are not allowed under this conditional use permit. MONTICELLO ZONING ORDINANCE JO/I0 7. Material used for the parking area shall consist of dust and erosion resistant materials that will not cling to vehicle tires and track onto public streets. The materials used shall also be capable of supporting vehicular traffic. . 8. Operation of the bed and breakfast facility shall comply with all state regulations governing such facilities. (#180, 8/14/89) [J] Dry cleaning processing provided that: 1. Dry cleaning operation must meet all OSHA safety standards. 2. Dry cleaning operation shall be self-contained in terms of noise and fumes with no venting to outside of building. 3. Dry cleaning facility shall have direct access to major thoroughfare via driveway or frontage road. 4. Screening of abutting residential uses and landscaping must be in compliance with Chapter 3, Section 2 [G], of the zoning ordinance. 5. Voice amplifiers used in conjunction with drive- through process shall not be audible to adjoining residential areas. . [K] Car wash activity provided that: 1. The architectural appearance and functional plan of the building and site shall not be so dissimilar to the existing buildings or area as to cause impairment in property values or constitute a blighting influence within a reasonable distance of the lot. 2. Magazining or stacking space is constructed to accommodate that number of vehicles which can be washed during a maximum thirty (30) minute period and shall be subject to the approval of the City Engineer. 3. At the boundaries ofa residential district, a strip of not less than five (5) feet shall be landscaped and screened in compliance with Chapter 3, Section 2 [G], of this ordinance. 4. Each light standard island and all islands in the parking lot landscaped or covered. 5. Parking or car magazine storage space shall be screened from view of abutting residential districts in compliance with Chapter 3, Section 2 [G], of this ordinance. -- 6. The entire area other than occupied by the buildings or plantings shall be surfaced with material which will control dust and drainage which is subject to the approval of the City Engineer. - MONTICELLO ZONING ORDINANCE 10/11 . . . 7. The entire area shall have a drainage system which is subject to the approval of the City Engineer. 8. All lighting shall be hooded and so directed that the light source is not visible from the public right-of-way or from an abutting residence and shall be in compliance with Chapter 3, Section 2 [H], ofthis ordinance. 9. Vehicular access points shall be limited, shall create a minimum of conflict with through traffic movement, and shall be subject to the approval of the City Engineer. 10. All signing and informational or visual communication devices shall be in compliance with Chapter 3, Section 9, of this ordinance. 11. Provisions are made to control and reduce noise. 12. The provisions of Chapter 22 of this ordinance are considered and satisfactorily met. 13. Car wash facility shall have direct access to major thoroughfare via driveway or frontage road. 14. Intermittent sounds produced by car wash operation such as the sound of a vacuum or warning signal shall not be audible to users of adjoining PZM or residential properties. (#181,9/11/89) [L] Radio antennas and other communication transmission devices provided they meet the following conditions: 1. Height: A ground-mounted communication device height shall not exceed 60 feet when fully extended. 2. Yards: The communication device shall not be located within a front yard setback, a required side yard, or any side yard abutting a street. Communication devices shall be located five (5) feet or more from rear lot lines and shall not be located within a utility easement. 3. Roofs: The communication device may be placed on the roof of any authorized structure on the premises. The height of the communication device shall not exceed 20 feet above the peak of the roof or roof line. 4. Neighboring Property Impact: The communication device shall be so constructed and located that in the event it falls, it will not fall on adjoining property. The communication device may be set back from adjoining property at a distance that is less than the height of the communication device if a certified engineer certifies that the device as constructed will not fall on adjoining property. MONTICELLO ZONING ORDINANCE 10/12 . . . 5. Building Permits: A building permit shall be required for the installation of any communication device which requires a conditional use permit, or for any device which has a structural surface exposure of greater than nine (9) square feet. Building permit applications shall be accompanied by a site plan and structural components data for the communication device, including details of anchoring. The City Building Official must approve the plans before installation. 6. Color/Content: Communication devices shall be of a neutral color and shall not be painted with scenes or contain letters or messages which qualify as a sign. 7. Lightning Protection: Each communication device shall be grounded to protect against natural lightning strikes in conformance with the applicable state and local codes. 8. Electrical Code: Communication device electrical equipment and connection shall be designed and installed in conformance with the applicable state and local codes. 9. Use or the physical presence of the communication transmission device shall not interfere with the operation of electronic equipment, including televisions, radios, computers, etc. (#224,4/13/92) [M] Governmental and public utility buildings and structures necessary for the health, safety, and general welfare of the community provided that: 1. Conformity with the surrounding neighborhood is maintained, and required setbacks and side yard requirements are met. 2. Adequate screening from neighboring uses and landscaping is provided in accordance with Chapter 3, Section 2, ofthis ordinance. 3. The provisions of Chapter 22 of this ordinance are considered and satisfactorily met. 4. The facility must have direct access to county or city state aid highway. (#225,6/8/92) 10-9: APARTMENT DENSITY BONUS: When multiple family structures often (10) units or more are approved, a maximum often (10) percent reduction in the lot area per unit as regulated in Chapter 3, Section 4, may be allowed. The reduction in lot area shall be determined based upon the following table: Condition to Earn Bonus Lot Area Reduction (per unit) MONTICELLO ZONING ORDINANCE 10/13 . . . 1. Type two (2) construction. 1 00 sf. 2. Elevator serving each floor. 50 sf. 3. Transit service available within three hundred (300) feet of entrance. 50 sf. 4. Two-thirds (2/3) of the required fee, free parking underground or within principal structure (not including attached or detached garages). 150 sf. 5. Indoorrecreation and social rooms equal to twenty-five (25) square feet per unit or seven hundred fifty (750) square feet total, whichever is greater. 50 sf. 6. Major outdoor recreation facilities such as swimming pools, tennis courts, or similar facilities requiring a substantial investment equaling at minimum five (5) percent ofthe construction cost of the principal structure. 20 sf. 10-10: FINDINGS OF FACT: Prior to granting of a conditional use permit, the City Planning Commission and City Council shall make the following findings of fact. In the event that the applicant shall submit insufficient materials for the City to make informed findings of fact, the City staff and Planning Commission shall request additional infoDnation pursuant to Chapter 22 of this ordinance. 1. The proposed project is consistent with the spirit and intent of the Monticello Comprehensive Plan goals and policies and in keeping with the intent of the Monticello Zoning Ordinance. 2. The proposed project is consistent with the purpose of the performance zoning ordinance as outlined in Section 1 of this chapter. 3. The proposed project will not have any adverse impacts as outlined in Chapter 22 of this ordinance. 4. The proposed project shall meet minimum screening and landscaping requirements as outlined in Chapter 3, Section 2 [G]. 5. The proposed project shall provide adequate parking pursuant to Chapter 1, Section 5, of this ordinance and off-street loading pursuant to Chapter 3, Section 6, ofthis ordinance. 6. The proposed project shall provide a wider range of housing types, price ranges, and styles within the community. MONTICELLO ZONING ORDINANCE 10/14 7. The proposed project will provide amenities and facilities and open spaces greater than the minimum requirements under alternative zonmg. . 8. The proposed project shall in no way be detrimental to the environment. Scenic aspects and natural features such as streams, trees, topography, and geological features shall be protected and preserved to the greatest extent possible. 9. The proposed project shall not impose any undue burden upon the public services and facilities such as fire, police, schools, streets, water, sanitary sewer, and storm sewer. 10. The proposed project is designed in such a manner to form a desirable and unified environment within its own boundaries, and also which will not be detrimental to future land uses in the surrounding areas. Architecture and site treatments shall be compatible with adjacent structures and site plans and shall respect the privacy of neighboring homes and/or businesses. 11. Findings of fact submitted by the Planning Commission to the City Council shall address additional requirements necessary to make the project in compliance with this chapter in all areas where the Planning Commission feels the proposed project is lacking. . 10- I 1 : STANDARDS: Except as specifically provided herein, there shall be no fixed standards for conditional uses within the mixed performance zoning district. In their review, the City shall take into account standards that are contained in other sections of this ordinance that most closely resemble those that would apply to a similar use if it were proposed in a district other than the performance zone. 10-12: PROJECT REVIEW PROCESS: The following are guidelines for reviewing projects within the PZ-Mixed zoning district. Procedures for the review of such proposals shall be as outlined in the PUD section of the Monticello Zoning Ordinance. The City staff and Planning Commission shall review the project and give recommendations so as to permit the City Council to make informed findings of fact as outlined above. Variance from these guidelines may be permitted when site specific conditions and specific proposal elements show that a strict interpretation of the guidelines will either place undue hardship on the developer or will be detrimental to adjacent properties. In no case shall standards be reduced so that the findings of fact outlined above cannot be achieved, AND in no case shall the guidelines prevent the City from requiring greater standards when specific conditions outlined in above must be satisfied. 1. Setback Guidelines (a) Setback requirements shall be based upon the zoning requirements of the district for which the project would be zoned if conventional zoning was applied as described in Chapter 3, Section 3, of this ordinance. --- -- MONTICELLO ZONING ORDINANCE 10/15 . . . (b) Site specific conditions such as topography, existing and proposed vegetation, and visibility from other properties may warrant increasing these standards. Setbacks should not be reduced below those set forth in the applicable zoning district. (c) The front yard guidelines shall be as described in Chapter 3, Section 3, of the ordinance. (d) The rear yard setback shall be as described in Chapter 3, Section 3, of this ordinance unless natural topography shall dictate a greater setback. The applicant shall preserve vegetation and minimize grading to the extent that consideration is given to these features. (e) When projects propose to construct more than one principal structure on the same lot, the above guidelines shall apply to the perimeter of the site. Internal setbacks shall give due regard to such consideration as fire protection and public safety, traffic visibility at circulation intersections. Reduction of internal standards shall be pennitted if the applicant can demonstrate that external setbacks are adequate and that the reduction is used to ephance the layout or shall preserve significant natural features. 2. Density Requirements (a) Density calculations shall be based on the zoning requirements of the district the project would be zoned for if conventional zoning were applied. (b) In applying these standards, credits for innovative construction methods or provision of amenities above normal construction may be permitted. The following is a list of density credits. 1. Undercround Parking--400 sq ft per space provided under the structure. 11. Preservation of Natural Features-- When the project will preserve significant natural features, the area preserved may be deducted from the required lot area. This deduction shall not include required setbacks. 111. Additional Landscaping-- When the project provides for landscaping above and beyond the normal requirements, a density allowance shall be permitted. The extent afthe credit shall be determined by evaluating the visibility of the project from adjacent parcels and similar projects within the city. MONTICELLO ZONING ORDINANCE 10/16 . . . IV. Usable Recreation Space--When the project provides usable recreational open space above the normal requirement, that area may also be deducted from the lot area requirement. v. Innovative Housinf?:-- When the project shall propose innovative housing opportunities, a reduction of the site requirements may be permitted. Such innovations must be demonstrated such that this type of housing would not be feasible without a density credit. Financial feasibility alone shall not be considered unless the applicant can demonstrate that the housing will benefit low and/or moderate income households. (c) Negative Credits 1. Under special conditions, the City may consider requiring additional area requirements to ensure the preservation of significant natural site features, when utility demands will place a burden on public facilities, and when projected traffic counts are greater than the carrying capacity of the surrounding transportation system. 11. When imposing negative credits, the City shall base such determinations on studies prepared by qualified professional City staff or consultants. When such conditions may warrant, the staff shall direct the applicant to have prepared such studies that will demonstrate that these issues will in fact not cause a negative impact to the health, safety, and general welfare ofthe city. Should the Planning Commission or the City Council feel that these issues have not been properly addressed, they shall withhold any approval until such time as the applicant or City staff has prepared necessary studies. 3. Surrounding Property Owners: Surrounding property owners shall be notified in writing of any proposed developments. Applicants shall be encouraged to meet with property owners prior to public hearings or whenever such a meeting will allow better involvement of neighbors in the review process. While complete consent of adjacent property owners shall not be mandatory for approval ofprojects developed under the PZ-Mixed zoning, involvement with adjacent owners shall be encouraged through all steps within the approval process. 4. Submission Requirements, Amendments, and Special Requirements: (a) All applicants shall submit final building plans to the City prior to the granting of permits. No changes to the plans shall be permitted without consent from the City Council. All requirements as a condition of approval shall be addressed in the [mal development MONTICELLO ZONING ORDINANCE 10/17 . . . 1 0-12 : 10-13: agreement and indicated on all appropriate plans. City staff shall inspect the work during construction to assure that such plans are followed. (b) The City Council may at its discretion place special requirements that will ensure the complete construction of all requirements. Such conditions may include performance bonds, time limitations for commencement of the work, and limitations on the hours of construction. (c) When areas are to be preserved by the developer, the City may require that such areas be fenced during construction to assure that equipment will not damage preservation areas. PROCEDURES: Applicants requesting a conditional use permit shall submit plans, specifications, and other materials as outlined in Chapter 20 of this ordinance. Application procedures shall be defined pursuant to provisions contained in Chapter 20, Section 4, of this ordinance. COMPLIANCE: No development shall occur, nor shall any building permits be issued for any construction, that is not in accord with the approved final plans. MONTICELLO ZONING ORDINANCE 10/18 . SLCTION: CHAPTER 13 "B-3" f-IIGI-IW A Y BUSINESS DISTRICT 13-1: Purpose 13-2: Permitted Uses 13-3: Permitted Accessorv fIses 13-4: Conditional Uses 13-5: Interim lIses I 3- I : PURPOS E: The purpose of the "B-3, " highway husiness, district is to provide for and I imi t the estahlishment of motor vehicle oriented or dependent commercial and service activities. 13-2: PERMITTED (ISES: The following are permitted uses in a "B-3" district: fA] [B) [C1 . [OJ IE] All permitted lIses as allowed in a B-1 and B-2 district. Auto accessory store. COllll11l'rcial recreational uses. Motels, motOr motels, and hotels provided that the lot area Contains not less than livl' hundred (500) square leet of lot area per unit. Restaurants, cate" tea rooms, tavems, and olJ'sale liquor, provided that the Use is not located within 300 ft of a residential 20ne. (#258.09/26/94) [1'] Private cluhs or lodges serving food and beverages with use heing restricted to members and their guests, Adequate dining room, kitchen, aud har space must be provided according to standards imposed upon similar unrestricted cllstomer operations. The serving of alcoholic beverages to members and their guests shall be allowed, providing that such service is in compliance with applicable federal. state. and municipal regulations. Oft1ces of such use shalJ be limited to no more than twenty (20) percent of the gross floor area of the bUilding. [G] Taxi !erminals. stand. and offices. [fI] Small printing or publishing business employing six (6) or less persons, MONT/CELLO ZONING ORDINANCE 13/1 . . . 13-3: PERMITTED ACCESSOR Y USES: The following are permitted accessory uses in a "B-3" district: [A] All permitted accessmy uses as allowed in a "B-2." limited business. district. [B] Adult Use/Accessory (#217, 01/13/92) 13-4: CONDITIONAL USES: The following are conditional uses in a "B-3" district: (Requires a conditional use permit based upon procedures set forth in and regulnted by Chapter 22 of this ordinance.) [A] Drive-in and convenience food establishments provided that: 1. The architectural appearance and functional plan of the building and site shall not be so dissimilar to the existing buildings or area as to cause impairment in property values or constitute a blighting influence within a reasonahle distance of lot. 2. At the boundaries of a residential district. a strip of not less than five (5) feet shall be landscaped and screened in compliance \vith Chapter 3, Section:2 rei]. of this ordinance. 3. Ench light standard island and all islands in the parking lot landscaped or covered. 4. Parking areas shall be screened from vie\\! of abutting residential districts in compliance with Chapter 3. Section :2 [G]. of this ordinance. 5. Parking areas and driveways shall be curbed with continuous curb not less than six (6) inches high above the parking lot or drive\vay grade. 6. Vehicular access points shall be limited. shall create a minimum of connict with through traffic movements. shall comply with Chapter 3. Section 5, of this ordinance. and shall be subject to the approval of the City Engineer. 7. All lighting shall be hooded and so directed that the light source is not visible from the public right-of-w'ay or from an abutting residence and shall be in compliance \vith Chapter 3. Section 2 [H]. of this ordinance. 8. The entire area shall have a drainage system \vhich is subject to the approval of the City Engineer. 9. The entire area other than that occupied by buildings or structure or plantings shall be surfaced with a material which \vill control dust and drainage and which is subject to the approval of the City Engineer. MONTICELLO ZONING ORDINANCE 13/2 . . . 10. All signing and informational or visual communication devices shall be in compliance with Chapter 3, Section 9. of this ordinance. II. The provisions of Chapter 22 of this ordinance are considered and satisbctorily met. [81 CARWASI-IES (DRIVE THROUGH. MECHANICAL AND SELF- SER VICE) PROVIDED THAT: ). The architectural appearance and functional plan of the building and site shall not be so dissimilar to the existing buildings or area as to cause impairment in property values or constitute a blighting influence within a reasonable distance of the 101. 2. Magazining or stacking space is constructed to accommodate that number of vehicles which can be washed during a maximum thirty (30) minute period and shall he suhjeet to the approval of the City Engineer. 3. At the boundaries of a residential district, a strip of not less than five (5) feet shall be landscaped and screened in compliance with Chapter 3, Section:2 ICI, of this ordinance. 4. Each light standard island and all islands in the parking lot landscaped or covered. 5. Parking or car Illag:lzillc storage space shall be screened from vie'vv of ahulting residential dislricts in compliance with Chapter 3. Section :2 IGJ. of this ordinance. 6. The entire area other than occupied by the buildings or plantings shall be surl~1ced with material which will control dust and drainage which is subject to the approval of thc City Engineer. 7. The entire area shall ha\'t:~ a drainage system which is suhject to the approval of the City Engineer. 8. All lighting shall he hooded and so directed that the light source is not visible from the public right-oF-way or from an abutting residence and shall be in compliance 'vvith Chapter 3. Section 2 [HJ. of this ordinance. 9. Vehicular access points shall be limited. shall create a minimum of conflict with through traffic nW\'Cmcnt and shall he subject to the approval of the City Engineer. 10. All signing and informational or visual communication de\iccs shall he in compliance with Chapter 3, Section 9, of this ordinance. MONTICELLO ZONING ORDINANCE 13/3 . . . 11. Prm'isions are made to control and reduce noise. 12. The provisions or Chapter 22 of this ordinance are considered and satis1~1Ctori Iy met. [C] MOTOR FUEL STATION. MOTOR FUEL STATION/CONVENIENCE STORE. AUTO REPAIR~MINOR. AND TIRE AND BATTERY STORES AND SERVICE PROVIDED THA T: 1. Regardless of whether the dispensing. sale, or offering for sale of motor fuels and/or oil incidental to the conduct of the use or business. the standards and requirements imposed by this ordinance for motor fuel stations shall apply. These standards and requirements are. however. in addition to other requirements which are imposed for other uses of the property. I The architectural appearancc and fUllctional plan of the building and site shall not be so dissimilar to the existing buildings or area as to cause impairment in property values or constitute a blighting influence \vithin a reasonable distance of the lot. -. -, . The entire site other than that taken up by a building. structure. or plantings shall bc surbced \,ith a material to control dust and dr::linage \vhich is subject to the approval of the City Engineer. 4. A minimum lot area oft\\enty'-two thousand fi\e hundred (22.500) square feet and minimull1 lot dimensions orone hundred lifty (] 50) feet by one hundred thirty (130) feet. 5. A drainage systel11 subject to the approval of the City Engineer shall be installed. 6. A curb not less than six (6) inches above grade shall separate the public side\valk frol11ll1otor vehicle service areas. 7. The lighting shall be accomplished in such a way as to haw no direct source of light visible from adjacent land in residential use or ham the public right-of-way and shall be in compliance with Chapter 3. Section 2 [/-11. of this ordinance. 8. Wherever fud pumps are to be installed. pump isbnds shall be installed. 9. At the boundaries of a residential district. a strip of not less than fl\'e (5) ket shall be landscaped and screened in compliance \"ith Chapter 3. Sectil)n 7 [Gj. of this ordinance. MONTICELLO ZONING ORDINANCE 13/4 . . ...... ..., 10. Each light standard landscaped. II. Parking or car magazine storage space shall be screened f1"0111 view of abutting residential districts in compliance w'ith Chapter 3, Section 2 [G], or this ordinance. 12. Vehicular access points shall create a minimum of conflict with through tranic movement, shall comply with Chapter 3, Section 5, of this ordinance. and skill he suhject to the approq! of the City Fngineer. 13. All signing and informational or visual communication devices shall be minimized and shall be in compliance with Chapter 3, Section 9, of this ordinance. 14. Provisions are made to control and reduce noise. IS. No outside storage except as allowed in compliance with Chapter 13, Section 4, of this ordinance. 16. Sale of products other than those specifically mentioned in Chapter] 3, Section 4, be subject to a conditional use permit and be in compliance with Chapter 13, Section 4 [F), of this ordinance. ] 7. All conditions pertaining to a specific site ore subject to change when the Council, upon investigation in relation to a formal request. finds that the general wclbre and public betterment can be served as well or better by modifying thc conditions. 18. The provisions of Chapter :21 of this ordinance arc considered and satisfactorily met. [0] New and used automobile/light truck sales and display provided that: I. The minimum building size for any auto sales use shall comply \vith the following standards: Parcel Size Lot Coverage Percent* Minimum Building Size* Up to 2 acres 5% 2,500 square feet More than 2 acres to 4 acres 10% 10,000 square feet More than 4 acres 15% 40,000 square feet *Whichever requires the larger building. (#35 L 8/14/00) MONTICELLO ZONING ORDINANCE 13/5 . . . ') Outside sales and display areas arc fenced or screened from view of neighboring residential uses or an abutting "R" district in compliance with Chapter 3, Section 2 [GJ, of this ordinance. 3. All lighting shall be hooded and so directed that the light source shall not be visible from the public right-of-way or from neighboring residences, and shall be in compliance \vith Chapter 3, Section 2 [H), of this ordinance. 4 The outside sales and display area shall be hard surfnccd. 5. The outside sales and display area does not utilize parking spaces which are required for conformance with this ordinance. 6. Vehicular access points shall create a minimum of contlict with through traffic movement, shall comply with Chapter 3. Section 5, of this ordinance. and shall be subject to the approval of the City Engineer. 7. There is a minimum lot area of twenty-two thousand five hundred (22,500) square feet and minimum lot dimensions of one hundred fifty (150) feet by one hundred thirty (130) feet. 8. A drainage system subject to the approval of the City Engineer shall be installed. 9. All signing shall be in compliance with Chapter 3. Section 9. of this ordinance. 10. "fhe provisions of Chapter 22 of this ordinance are considered and satisf::lctorily met. [EJ Open and outdoor storage as a principal or accessory use provided that: I. The area is fenced and screened from view of neighboring residential uses or if abutting an "R" district in compliance with Chapter .3. Section 2 [G), of this ordinance. -, Storage is. screened from view from the public right-of-\\ay in compliance \vith Chapter 3. Section 2 [G), of this ordinance. ., .J. Storage area is grassed or surfaced to control dust. 4. All I ighting shall be hooded and so directed that the light SOllrce shall not hI.:' visible Ji'ol11 the right-of-way or from neighhoring residences and shall he in compliance with Chapter 3, Section 2 [H). of this ordinance. MONTICELLO ZONING ORDINA.NCE 13/6 . . . 5. Does not take up parking space as required for conformity to this ordinance. 6. The provisions of Chapter 22 of this ordinance are considered and satisfactorily met. [F] Open or outdoor service, sale. and rental as a principal or accessory use and including sales in or from motorized vehicles, trailers, or wagons provided that: I. Outside services, sales and equipment rental connected with the principal uses is limited to thirty (30) percent of the gross floor area of the principal use. This percentage may be increased as a condition of the conditional use permit. 2. Outside sales areas are fenced or screened from view of neighboring residential uses or abutting "R" district in compliance with Chapter 3, Section ~ rGj, of this ordinance. 3. Alllighting shall be hooded and so directed that the 1 ight Source shall not be visible from the public right-of-way or from neighboring residences and shall be in compliance with Chapter 3, Section 2 [1-1]. of this ordinance. 4. Sales area is grassed or surfaced to control dust. 5. Does not take up parking space as required for conformity to this ordinance. 6. The provisions of Chapter 22 of this ordinance are considered and satisfactorily met. [GJ Accessory. enclosed retail, rental, or service activity other than that allowed as a permitted use or conditional Lise within this section provided that: I. Such Use is allowed as a permi tted use in a "B-1" or "B-:2" district. 2. Such use does not constitute more than thirty (30) percent of the lot area and not more than fifty (50) percent of the gross floor area of the principal use. 3. Adequate off-street parking and off-street loading in compliance with the requirements of Chapter 3, Sections 5 and 6, of this ordinance is provided. 4. All signing and inf()rmational or visual communication devices shall be in compliance with Chapter 3, Section 9, of this ordinance. MONTICELLO ZONING ORDINANCE 13/7 5. The provisions of Chapter 22 of this ordinance are considered and satisfactorily met. r HJ Shopping Center. . fI] Animal Pet Clinics. I. Annual inspection by City's health officer at owner's expense. 2. All pets must be leashed. 3. Treatment to be limited to household pets. [.11 Pet hospitals with the fOllowing condition: 1. No oLltside pens or kennels. 2. Annual inspection by City Health Officer at owner's expense. 3. All animals must be leashed. 4. 'freatment would be limited to sma/J domesticakd animals. . 5. No outside storage of carcasses. (#364.9/10/01) IKI Commercial storage contained entirely within a building. ILl Commercial planned unit development as regulated by Chapter 20 of this ordinance. 1M J Consignment auction sales and/or auction sales. I. The architectural appearance and function plan of the building and site shall not be so dissimilar to the existing buildings or area as to caLIse impairment in property values or constitute a blighting influence l,Vithin a reasonable distance of the lot. I At the boundaries of residential districts, a strip of not less than 5 feet shall be landscaped and screened in compliance with Chapter 3, Section 2 [GJ. of this ordinance. .., ~1. Any light standard islands and all islands in the parking lot shall be landscaped or covered. I\.IONTICELLO ZONING ORDfN..\NC'E 13/8 4. Parking areas shall be screencd from view of abutting residential districts in compliance with Chapter 3, Section 5 [0], of this ordinance. . 5. Parking areas and driveways shall comply with Chapter 3. Section 5 [DJ. 6. Vehicular access points shall be limited, shall creatc a minimum of conflict through traffic movements, shall comply with Chapter 3. Section 5. of this ordinance, and shall be subject to the approval of the City Engineer. 7. All lighting shall be hooded and so directed that the light source is not visible from the public right-of-way or from an abutting residence and shall be in compliance with Chapter 3, Section 2 [HJ, of this ordinance. 8. The entire area shall have a drainage system which is subject to the approval of the City Engineer. 9. ^II signing ~lI1d information or visual communication dc\ices shall be in compliance with Chapter 3, Section 9. 10. 'fhe provisions of Chapter 22 of this ordinance are considered and satisl~lctorily met. ] I. ^II conditions pertaining to a specific site are subjcct to change when thc Council, upon investigation in relation to a tC1rmal request. finds that the general welbre and public betterment can be served as well or better by mod i fyi ng the condi tions. . 12. Outside sales areas arc Jenced or screened from view of neighboring residential uses or abutting residential districts in compliance with Chapter 3, Section :2 [G]. of this ordinance. ] 3. Outside sales connected with the principal use is limited to 30% ofthe gross nom area of the principal building. This percentage may be increased as a condition of the conditional use permit. 14. Outside sales may not take up parking space as required for conformity to the ordinance requirement. 15. No pets or livestock may be sold at this auction sales facility. 16. Provisions must be made to control and reduce noise when adjacent to a residential zoning district. 17. All outside storage shall be effectively screened from public view in aCC()rd~lnCe with Chapter 3. Section :2 [OJ. and limited to 10% of the gross 1100r area of the principal use building. . I\IONTICELLO ZONING ORDIN.\NCT 13/9 . . . INJ Outdoor go-kart tracks provided that: 1. The pruposed use must meet all conditions of Chapter .3. Section ...j. IAJ. 2. The conditional use permit will be reviewed yearly to determine \\hcther or not it is compatible with neighboring properties and in conformance with conditions of the conditional use. .3. /\ solid wood. six-foot high fence must he part ofthl' screening required when the adjacent property is residential. 4. For dust and noise (7008 at residential property line) must be controlled at all times to the satisfaction of the City. 5. The provisions of Chapter 22 of this ordinance are considered and satisfactorily met. [OJ Day-care centers provided that: I. No overnight facilities are. provided for children served and that said children arc delivered and removed daily. 2. An outdoor recreational facility shall be appropriately separated 1'1'0111 the parking lot and driving areas by a \Nood fence not less than 4 feet in height or Council approved substitute. and shall be located continuous to the day-care facility, and shall not be located in any yard abutting a major thoroughfare. and shall not have an impervious surface for more than one- halfofthe playground area, and shall extend at least 60 feet hom the wall of the building or to an adjacent property line. \\'hichcyer is less. or shall be bound on not more than two sides by parking and driying areas. A minimum size of the outside recreational facility shall be 2.000 sq. ft., or in the alternative 75 sq. ft. per child at licensed capacity. vvhichever is the greater fIgure. 3. The regulations and conditions orthe Minnesota Department ofI-luman Services and Department of I-Iealth. Public Welfare Manual I ] -31-30 as adopted. amended, and/or changed, are satisfactorily met. 4. A vvritten indication of preliminary. pending. or tlnallicense approval from the regulatory agencies is supplied to the City of l'vlonticdh (# 152. 9/22/86) [PJ Auto hody shop repair provided that: 1. Door opening to service area garage must not lilce stred frontage. l'vIONTICELLO ZONING ORDINANCE 13/10 . . . 2. Vehick storage area limited to 50% of floor space of the structure housing the auto body shop. 3. All vehicles being serviced and all vehicle parts must be stored inside or in vehick storage area. 4. V ehic Ie storage area shall be enclosed by enclosure intended to screen the view of vehicles in storage from the outside. Enclosure shall consist of a six~foot high. J 00% opaque fence designed to hlend with the auto hody shop structure and consisting of materials treated to resist discoloration. 5. The floor of the vehicle storage area shall consist of asphalt or concrete pavll1g. 6. No work on vehicles or vehicle parts shall be conducted outside the confines of the auto body shop. 7. The advertising wall facing the public right-of-way sha1\ consist of no more than 50% metal material. ~t The secondary or non-advertising \vall facing a public right-of-way shall utilize a combination of colors or materials that serve to break up the monotony of a single color flat surface. 9. The development shall conform to minimum parking and landscaping requin:ments of the zoning ordinance. I n. No conditional use permit shall be granted for an auto body shop within 600 feet of a residential or PZM zone existing at the time the conditional LIse permit is granted. (#175,4/24/89) [OJ Restaurants. cafcs. tca rooms. taverns. and off-sale liquor located within 300 ft of a residential zone provided that: 1. Primary access must not be through residential street(s). (#258,9/26/94) [R] Governmental and public utility buildings and structures necessary for the health, safety. and general welt~ll'e of the community provided that: I. Conformity with the surrounding neighborhood is maintained and required setbacks and side yard requirements are met. ..., Adequate screening from neighboring uses and landscaping is provided in accordance with Chapter 3. Section 2. of this ordinance. MONTICELLO ZONING ORDINANCE 1311 1 . . . 3. The provisions of Chapter 22 of this ordinance are considered and satJst~lctori Iy met. (#300. 12/8/97) 13-5: INTERIM USES: The following are interim uses in a "B-3" district (requires an interim use permit b<lscd upon pwu:dures set forth in and regulated by Chapter n or this ordinance ). lAJ Trucking and Trucking Service provided that: 1. The architectural appearance and functional plan of the building and site shall not be so dissimilar to the existing, conforming buildings or areas as to cause impairment in property values or constitute a blighting influence within the district in which the proposed use is located. 2. Parking areas shall be screened from view of abutting residential districts in compliance with Chapter 3, Section 2, of this ordinance. 3. The entire site, other than that taken up by a building, structure. or plantings, shall be surfaced with a material to control dust and drainage, which is subjcct to the approval of the City Engineer. 4. The site shall meet minimum lot dimension requirements of the District. 5. No outside storage except as allO\'led in compliance \'lith Chapter 13, Section 4[1:::], of this ordinance. 6. Parking areas accessible to the puhlic. including customers and employees shall he paved in compliance \'lith Chapter 3, Section 5, of this ordinance. 7. No morc than six thousand (6.000) square feet of the site shall be devoted to the storage. parking, and/or circulation of semi-tractors and trailers, as illustrated on a site plan submitted in connection with an application for a conditional use permit. 8. All service activities shall OCCllr within the principal building or approved accessory buildings. 9. The provisions of Chapter 22 of this ordinance are considered and satisfactorily met. (#JO-U/12/98) I\IONTICELLO ZONING ORDINANCE 13/12