The URL can be used to link to this page

Planning Commission Agenda 09-02-2003 . . . Rw AGENDA REGllLAR MEETING - MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday - September 2. 2003 6:00 P.M. Members: Council Liaison: Staff: Dick Frie. Richard Carlson. Rod Dragsten. Lloyd Hilgart. and David Rietveld Brian Stumpf .kff O'Neill. Fred Patch. and Steve Grittman 1. Call to order. 2. Approval of the minutes of the regular Planning Commission meeting held August 5. 2003 and approval of the minutes of the special Planning Commission meeting held August 25. 2003. 3. Consideration of adding items to the agenda. 4. Citizens comments. 5. Continued Public Hearing - Consideration of a request for an interim use permit allowing outside storage as a principal use in an 1-2 zoning district. Applicant: Jay Morrell/JME of Monticello 6. Continued Public I-Iearing ~ Consideration ofrequest for a simple subdivision to create two city lots. and consideration of a variance to the rear yard setback. Applicant: Kathleen Gauthier 7. Continued Public Hearing - Consideration of a request for a variance to the side yard setback requirements to allow construction of a garage. Applicant: David Kranz 8. Continued Public Hearing - Consideration of an amendment to the comprehensive plan and consideration of an amendment to a concept stage planned unit development for Otter Creek Crossing. Applicant: Otter Creek. LLC 9. Public Hearing - Consideration of a Conditional Use Permit allowing a drive through carwash in the Central Community District and Consideration of a variance to the bufferyard requirements. Applicant: Broadv,;ay Kwik Stop. LLC 10. Public Hearing - Consideration of a request for a variance to the lot area in the R-2 District and Consideration of a request for a simple subdivision to create two buildable parcels. Applicant: Mike Cyr 11. Public Hearing - Consideration of a request for a special home occupational permit to allow hiring an employee. Applicant: David & Kelly GassIer. Rejuvenate Salon 12. Public Hearing - Consideration of a request for a 14 foot \'ariance to the rear yard setback to allo\\ addition of a 16' x 16' deck. and consideration of a request to amend the zoning ordinance clarifying definition of decks and/or open porches for purpose of setback clarification. Applicant: Pat & Angie Ronayne -1- 16. 13. Public Hearing - Consideration of a request for de,.clopmentstage planned unit development and preliminary plat approval of the Emeral.d Estates Townhomcs. Applicant: Tom Johnson. . Emerald Estates. LLC 14. Public Hearing - Consideration of a request for a conditional use permit aIlo,,-ing a mixed residential and commercial use in a PZM district. Applicant: Janice Maxson 15. Consideration to call for a public hearing for proposed amendment to the sign ordinance regarding "sandwich board" signs in the Central Community District. Adjourn ~2- . . Planning Commission Minutes - 08/05/03 . MINUTES REGULAR MEETING - MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday - August 5, 2003 6:00 P.M. Members Present: Absent: Staff: Dick Frie. Richard Carlson. David Rietveld and Council Liaison Brian Stumpf Rod Dragsten. Lloyd Hilgart, and Jeff O'Neill Fred Patch and John GlomskilNAC 1. C all to order. Chair Frie called the meeting to order at 6 p.m., noting the absence of two commissioners and Deputy City Administrator Jeff O'Neill. "') Approval orthe minutes of the regular Planning Commission meeting held Julv 1. 2003. A MOTION WAS MADE BY RICHARD CARLSON TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE JUL Y 1. 2003 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING. DAVE RIETVELD SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED. . Consideration of adding items to the agenda. None 4. Citizens comments. None 5. Continued Public Hearing ~ Consideration of a request for an Interim Use Permit allowing outside storal!C as a principal use in an I~2 zoning district. Applicant: Jav Morrell/HvlE of Monticello Fred Patch. Building Official. provided the staff report. It was noted that the applicant is seeking approval of an interim use permit in the I~2 zoning. No structures are proposed. only storage of equipment and materials. Patch stated it is recommended the permit be for a maximum of 5 years. and the applicant would need to re~apply at that time. Patch also advised of the zoning ordinance requirements for this type of permit. as \veIl as requirements in Chapter 3. Section :2 that must be complied with if the city is to consider an interim use permit. Patch then proviLkd some background regarding this site as \veIl as the adjacent parcel also l)\\ned by the applicant. It was advised that no landscaping or screening plans were provided \\ith the application and are required by ordinance to separate the residential area from this industrial lot. Patch stated that Matt Brokl. City Attorney. called earlier today and recommended tabling this item to address the above issues. . Chair Frie opened the public hearing. Jay ~lon'e11. 1401 Fallon Ave.. applicant. disagreed with Patch regarding items that were not submitted with the application. He further stated that Steve I Planning Commission Minutes -- OS /05 '03 . Grittman. Brad Larson. Matt Brokl. and himself met several months ag0 and discussed \\-hat \\'as necessary in order to proceed. He further stated that his attorney. Brad Larson. spoke to the City Attorney and they had agreed that this item be tabled. There were no more public comments and the public hearing was closed. . Chair Frie asked 1,,1r. Morn:ll to address the issues in the staff report. He further questioned the applicant if this site had been dealt with previously by the Planning Commission and Morrell ad\'ised that he applied for and received a CUP for the 3 lots west of the current lot: and prior to that the property was owned by another party. Morrell purchased the building and property in foreclosure. although one lot was retained by original owner. Two lots were later combined. and one lot was paved. Several years ago the applicant swapped lots with the prcvious owner. Morrell advised that it was his understanding \\'ith Jeff O'Neill that he did not nced a CUP if the parcel was adjacent to his building. but he states no\v he finds that it is not true. !-Ie further added that it is his feeling that the items on this lot are not visible from the road as there is a 6' concrete wall on the west side of the property. There is also a drainage pond on the south side which Lots 5 and 6 drain into and therefore he does not see the need for another outlet. Frie asked if Monell had been approached by any adjacent land owners regarding his request and he stated no one had approached him. He did state, however that there have been occasional complaints regarding the lights, but those are actually on Lot 5. Morrell stated he previously discussed this with staff and he felt they were not in violation. Frie asked Morrell if he would respond to the 6 requirements listed in the staff report. further adding that the Planning Commission's objective is to work with the applicant. although it is a two-way street. Frie asked Morrell to advise them what he will do to comply with the requirements. prior to the Planning Commission moving forward on this item. if justified/satisfactory to both sides. Morrell stated the 5 year term for the permit was previously discussed, he did not have a problem with this but in reading the ordinance it implies that he must \'acate the premise before being allowed to n>apply. He also advised at this time he does not intend to construct a building on this lot. although he may at some future date. lIe further stated that a specific termination date w0uld put him in a position where he would have to shut doml a significant portion of his business and he would like to have something in writing from the city in this regard. Item 3 stated the permit prohibits parking of automobiles. \\'hich he disagreed with as he stated the lot is paved and provides parking for tenants and employees from Lot 5. He also felt the gravel on this site is suitable for parking and that they do have visual screening. again noting the berm. fence. trees. and the fact that they are far enough away from the residential property with the drainage pond between the sites. He does not plan to havc lighting on this site. Chair hie asked him to address item 6 regarding setbacks and Morrell stated he is unaware of any necessary setbacks and the fence is on the property line. but if it has to be mowd he \\'ill mo\e it. Frie further advised that he wanted to make sure that those 3 items noted hy MOlTell \\-ere addressed prior to coming back to the Planning Commission. Morrell stated he would address all 6 items. . Fred Patch noted that there have been no plans submitted showing the condition of the site at this time and that this was a necessary part of the appl ication process. He suggested that sdbacks be determined for the proposed use and shown on the survey. further stating this was a simple process. Morrell noted that he specifically asked the Planner what items were necessary 2 Planning Commission Minutes - 08/05'03 to be submitted and felt he had provided this. He was not aware that there were questions on the south or west side of the site. Patch further stated showing setbacks on the sun'ey was a minor item for the applicant to provide. In terms of an e~piration date. Patch advised that this \\as suggested by the City Attorney and that the applicant would not haw to \'acate the premises. as long as the applicant applies for another interim use permit bel()re the expiration date. Frie further commented that it was his understanding that the Planning Commission sets the expiration date as they have for others in the past and then approwd by the City Council. Patch concurred and Frie further advised Morrell the reasoning for having an expiration date. . It was advised that the request for grading/drainage/paving plans as well as landscaping plans showing berming and surfacing. are necessary to establish uses. as well as the current state of the site. If all requirements of the zoning code are met by that plan. they could bring the item forward. Parking was still an issue and Chair Frie questioned why the applicant could 110t park on this site. Patch clarified that it is not allowable with an interim use permit as the Ordinance prohibits this. He further stated that parking creates a problem as there is no curb or gutter installed and parking then OCcurs all over the site, and therefore the reason it ,,'as written into the zoning ordinance. A MOTION WAS MADE BY DICK FRIE TO TABLE ACTION UNTIL THE SEPTEMBER MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION WITH THE INTENT TO HAVE THE APPLICANT SATISFY ZONING ORDINANCE REQUIREMENTS NOTED IN THE STAFF . REPORT AND AS FOLLOWS: I. A specified termination date is documented. 2. The applicable requirements of Chapter 3. Section 2. General Building and Performance Req 1I i rements are met. 3. The perm it prah ibits parking of alltomobiles. 4. The permit specifies a gravel surface. suitable for parking oftrllcks. 5. The permit specifies that the intensity ofvisllal screening shall be related to the location and nature of the storage and the duration of the interim use. 6. The perm it specifies that appropriate setback of necessary fencing and/or setback of storage shall be related to the location and nature of the storage and the duration of the interim use. RICHARD CARLSON SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSL 'Y. 6. Public I-IearinQ - Consideration of request for a simple subdivision to create two cit\ lots and consideration of a variance to the rear Yard setback. Applicant: Kathleen Gauthier .John Glomski. NAC. prO\'ided the staff report for the applicant" s request to subdi\'ide her property. Glomski felt this might be premature at this time. advising that all contouring information had not been shown on plans submitted to staff. which is necessary fC)f this process and mono' important to this site in particular due to the bluff. The property is located \\'ithin the Mississippi \\'ild. Scenic. and Recreational River System and Shoreland Areas of the City. The . Shoreline District requires additional requirements and performance standards. in addition to the R-l District standards. Glomski noted the applicant is 200 feet short of the Shoreline 3 . . . Planning COlllmission Minutes - 08/05/03 regulation requirement. although the lot line could be moved to the west. but may impact the amount of livahle area on the added lot. It appears there would need to be a large amount of fill and \'egetation cutting which would require a conditional use permit as well. The DNR would also have to review the setbacks. further stating the possible need for a variance as well. If the Planning Commission \\'ere to allO\\ this subdivision. staff \\ould recommend the applicant to provide a concept drawing demonstrating that a house conforming to the new R-I regulations could be constructed on the lot prior to approval. Chair Frie opened the public hearing. Kathleen Gauthier, 126 Hillcrest Rd. advised that there is a hill behind her house that is at least 15 feet straight down to a swamp. and did not feel the OHM \vas relevant in this case. She also did not feel that trees would have to be removed. as there is a natural open space on this site. Gauthier advised the Planning Commission her property is too large for her to maintain any longer. but she would like to continue living there. Hearing no further response. the public hearing was closed. The applicant was advised to contact the DNR to get approval and any necessary permits as well. There was further discussion regarding the applicant's options and it was determined a meeting should be set up with staff and applicant to discuss options. Fred Patch advised the applicant to call him for contact names/numbers regarding the DNR and OHWM. A MOTION WAS MADE BY DICK FRIE TO TABLE THE ITEM TO THE SEPTEMBER MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION IN ORDER TO GIVE THE APPLICANT SUFFICIENT TIME TO REVIEW OPTIONS AND TO CONTACT THE DNR FOR THEIR REVIEW. RICHARD CARLSON SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSL Y. 7. Public Hearinc - Consideration of a request for a variance to the side yard setback reclUirements to allow construction of a cara!.!.e. Applicant: David Kranz John Glomski. NAC provided the stafT report stating the purpose of the variance request was to construct an addition to an existing attached. two-stall garage to store a motorhome. No dimensions \\'ere noted on the site plan: staff assumed that an existing shed would be removed. Photos of the site were provided as well. Glomski advised that in order to grant a variance. a hardship would need to be found for justification. He further stated that vehicles are currently being parked in the ROWand expanding the garage as proposed would further impact public safety. He also stated that adding to an existing nonconforming structure is generally not allowed. therefore an attached structure may not be seen as a possibility, although a detached structure may. A detached structure, meeting the requirements. could be built on this structure \vithout a variance or possibly a rear facing garage may be allowed. providing a different access. Chair Frie opened the public hearing. David Kranz. applicant. addressed the commission and questioned setback requirements. stating that he had measured setbacks from the curb. He advised the location for the proposed addition and stated it would be at least 25 feet from the rear property line. Kranz preferred an attached addition versus a cement slab in the back yard. They further discussed setbacks for corner lots. Patch advised that the Planning Commission is 4 Planning Commission Minutes - 08/05'03 asked to consider a yariance to allow construction of a conforriling structure onto a non~ conforming structure. therefore the reason for the variance request. Kranz proyided plans for the proposed addition. noting that it was drawn to match up \\'ith the front of the house and existing roof lines, He stated the proposed addition to be 14' x 40 and that he currently has a 21' motorhome. but may have a larger one in the future. Glomski advised that this size of structure \\-ould require a conditional use permit as it \vmIld be larger than the 1200 sq. ft. that is allowable by ordinance. Kranz stated he could reduce the size to 36' or 31' if necessary. . Chair Frie then closed the public hearing and advised the applicant that they could not consider a conditional use permit at this time as it was not part of the public hearing application. The applicant stated he had not spoken to neighbors at this time as he \vas waiting for feedback from the commission. Frie asked that staff provide the applicant with options and Patch stated he had spoken to the applicant on a previous occasion, but at that time the applicant was unsure of the size of the addition. Patch advised the applicant to meet further with staff and asked the Planning Commission to consider tabling the request for a variance with the applicant possibly coming back with a request for a conditional use permit. There was further discussion that they would prefer the applicant meet the 20' setback requirement. A MOTION WAS MADE BY RICHARD CARLSON TO TABLE THE VARIANCE REQUEST. DIRECTING THE APPLICANT TO WORK WITH STAFF TO DISCUSS OPTIONS AND POSSIBLY COME BACK TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION WITH A REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT. DAVE RIETVELD SECONDED THE . MOTION. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 8. Public Hearing - Consideration of a request for preliminarv plat approval of the Monticello Market lace 2nd Addition commercial subdiyision and consideration of a roval of conce t and development sta~e planned unit development. Applicant: Brendsel Properties, Inc. John Glomski prO\'ided the staff report for the Monticello Marketplace 2nd Addition. clarifying that the proposed restaurant site would be a sit down. not driye in as noted in the staff report. His review of the preliminary plat indicates that the proposal complies v,'ith requirements. Glomski stated the applicant is proposing rock faced block, briek and stucco. although the building design may change. Applicant exceeds parking requirements: the landscaping plan submitted was short 2 required overstory trees: a signage plan has not yet been submitted. although the applicant is working on one. Fred Patch adyised of a discrepancy in sign area allowable. noting that along School Blvd. which is a collector street at 45 mph. the allowed sign area is 150 sq. ft. and 26 ft. in height which is actually more signage area than what is allowed on Highway 25. He felt this may be due to prohibiting a proliferation of signs on Hwy 25. Glomski stated no other issues and that staff recommends approval. It was adyised that the applicant will have to come back to the Planning Commission \\'ith a CUP request when the restaurant is brought in. and Patch clarified that joint parking would not be allowed if a restaurant did not occur. although it could within the PUD. Chair Frie opened the public hearing. Rick Brendsel. applicant. noted that he had discussed the signage at length today with stafT. I-lis concern is sign allowance for the carwash: he doesn't feel the restaurant signage \\-ill be an issue. Brendsel stated the strip center will be over] 7.000 . 5 Planning Commission Minutes - 08.105/03 . sq. f1. and his intent if it can be worked out with staff is to have a reader board on a pylon for use by all tenants in the strip center. Regarding the landscaping plan. he thought this had been resolved when he talked to Jeff O'Neill prior to haying it completed. His understanding on the amount of trees required was that the number could be reduced based on other enhancements of the site. Frie did not feel the :2 trees \vere an issue. There was a concern by the commissioners regarding the sign plan and if it would be coming back to the Planning Commission or only to staff. Patch stated he would like the Planning Commission to instruct staff on their desired standards. but other elements of the sign plan can be dealt with by staff. Chair Frie then closed the public hearing. Decision]: Preliminary Plat A MOTION WAS MADE BY RICHARD CARLSON TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE PRELIMINARY PLAT, SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS LISTED IN EXHIBIT Z, AS FOLLOWS: I. A revised landscape plan, providing an additional 2 overstory trees along either the Highway 25 or School Boulevard site perimeters should be submitted and approved by the City Staff prior to submittal of the final plat. . 2. Landscaping of the parcel per revised landscape plan prior to issuance of a building permit or via a landscape bond. 3. A lighting plan meeting the requirements of the zoning ordinance, Section 3-2[H]. is submitted and approved by City Staff prior to Final Plat. 4. An in depth signage plan, showing construction material and dimensions for all signage within the site. meeting the requirements of Section 3-9 of the Zoning Ordinance. is to be submitted and reviewed by City Staff. prior to Final Plat approval. 5. Final building elevations and layout plans are to be submitted to City staff prior to final approval. 6. All impervious surface is to be curbed with continuous curb not less than six inches high above the parking lot or driveway grade as required by City Code. 7. The grading. drainage. and utility plans are subject to the review and approval of the City Engineer. 8. Recommendation of other City Staff. including the City Engineer. 9. Submittal of a description as to methods and location of removing and storing snow. DA VE RIETVELD SECONDED THE MOTION. . There was further discussion with the applicant stating his concern with item 4 in Exhibit Z regarding sign requirements. He wi)) provide the plan. but is concerned with the 50 sq. ft. maximum area. Patch advised that the Planning Commission could approve the sign plan subject to staff approval and allow a larger pylon sign, taking into consideration the speed limit, and the sign could go up to 150 sq. ft.. only allowed because of the site's frontage on Ihvy 15. The Planning Commission could also work \vith wall signage. hie then added item #9 to the 6 Planning Commission Minutes - 08'05/03 conditions which requests submittal of a description as to methods and location of remoying and storing snow. . CARLSON AND RIETVELD AMENDED THEIR MOTION. AS STATED. WITH THE CONDITION THAT IF THE SIGNAGE EXCEEDS WHAT IS ALLOWABLE B'y" ORDINANCE. THE APPLICANT \VOULD COME BACK TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION FOR APPROVAL. AS WELL AS ADDITION OF CONDITION #9. THERE \VAS NO FURTHER DISCUSSION AND THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSL Y. Decision 2: Commercial Planned Unit Development allowing a multi unit retail use in the B-3 district. A MOTION WAS MADE BY RICHARD CARLSON TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE COMMERCIAL PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT ALLOWING A MULTI-UNIT RETAIL USE IN THE B-3 DISTRICT. SUBJECT TO APPLICABLE CONDITIONS LISTED IN EXHIBIT Z AND STATED ABOVE. TO INCLUDE THE ADDITION OF #9. BASED ON A FINDING THAT THE USE IS APPROPRIATE FOR THE ZONING DISTRICT AND THE SITE. DAVE RIETVELD SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSL 1'. 9. Public Hearing - Consideration of an amendment to the comprehensive plan and consideration. of an amendment to a concept stage olanned unit development for Otter Creek Crossinf;?-. Apolicant: Otter Creek. LLC Fred Patch. Building Official. provided the report and identified the proposed 19 acre site within the industrial area. noting that the city's current plan shows this area as primarily residential and that the Planning Commission has accepted a commercial pattern along 1-94 as well. It was advised that the IDC met earlier today as \vell. concurring with the recommendation of planning staff which reduces the residential density by incorporating industrial development along the power lines and enforcing the R-2A standards. Two issues raised by staff were the proposed residential subdivision having a border by the power lines. as well as the density being significantly denser that the district would permit. Also noted was that the PUD amendment appears to be somewhat at odds \vith the city's long standing goals for industrial development. Due to the proximity to the rest of the industrial area and the Chelsea Road corridor and power transmission lines. planning staff believes that the transmission line corridor would be better left with its industrial designation. Patch did state however. that this was concept stage only and there would be ample time for changes to be made. Staff and the IDC recommend tabling the request and directing the developer to reyise concept plans as noted in the staff report. F rie asked Patch if the completion of Chelsea Road \-vould affect this project and Patch stated it may. Its future location has not been determined at this time. Land ownership and access issues need to be resolved and staff and city council have taken the position to let the applicant \vork those issues out. . Chair Frie opened the public hearing. Paul Bilotta. 18202 Minnetonka Blvd.. Wayzata. 7 Planning Commission Minutes - 08/05/03 . addressed the Planning Commission representing Otter Creek LLe. He provided an aerial showing the 19 acre parcel and advised concept approval had been given a while back. but they were held up by annexation issues. He also pointed out cel1ain amenities of this site. identified as Area C on the future study area map. such as trees. existing residential area. as well as the cemetery and noted that they \\ould need sensitivity when addressing this area. The applicant had previously left that specific parcel as an area to be reviewed. He noted that annexation was approved earlier in the year and during the annexation process. this piece had been hard to market as it is an interior site. He further stated that annexation issues also held up the marketing of this site due to the utilities not being available at the time. Bilotta provided the concept plan. noting that 10% of the site is proposed for residential uses, the power lines being the buffer. and that the applicant didn't like the transition of residential to industrial along the rear lot lines. He did realize the concems of the power lines and would work on that. He further advised that the applicant would not be the end user of that part of the project. but they do need direction for the future developer. The applicant will concentrate on the industrial area. Bilotta stated they need to get the annexation process moving fonvard on this proposed residential parcel. further stating that density and undersized lots are not an issue at this time as this was merely to get feedback from the Planning Commission. . Jerry Crocker, resident on Co. Rd. 39. stated his main concem was not with the proposed residential. but with what is being proposed at the tip of the project where it looks like Chelsea Road is proposed to run into Co. Rd. 39, stating his house is about 135 1'1. from where the road is proposed. John Chadwick, Otter Creek LLe. stated this was a City Engineer and County Engineer design. not Otter Creek. Crocker further stated that back a while ago it was the thought that the road would not be put in at that point due to safety, increased traffic, signal lights. and proximity to his house. He feels there is another option to address the placement of the road. Frie stated he felt the applicant's concept plan was not that far along in the process. Bilotta stated his understanding is that this is only conceptual stage at this time. further stating that they looked at the full phase first and gave it their best guess. realizing things may change and the road may not be constructed for possibly another 5 years. Patch stated that the City Engineer working with the applicant has put consideration into the future Chelsea Rd and Co. Rd. 39. keeping it away from the overpass and pushing it as far av.,'ay as possible. and there are no firm plans at this time. Frie fUl1her stated that his understanding was the possible placement of a cloverleaf over by the power plant. Crocker sti II felt it was an important part of the planning of this project and Frie stated he did not feel that City Council had any input at this time and Stumpf concurred stating the County will have the final say. John Chadwick. 11430 Zion Cir, Bloomington. applicant. addressed the Planning Commission and stated they \\'ould like to push this project forward. noting that with this large of a site there are a number of details that need to be worked out. however with potential users they would like to be able to move forward. . Chair Frie then closed the public hearing. Frie advised the two major concems to keep in mind. after input from the IDe. City Council and staff is that the focus is to provide industrial opportunities and enforce R-:2A standards in the residential portion. Frie asked what type of industrial was intended. and Bilotta stated their idea would be for Area A along the Highway to 8 Planning Commission Minutes - 08/05/03 have something more yisually pleasing for a better entrance into the community. but compatible. with the commercial area next to it. He further stated some limited commercial uses. as well as I-I A uses. In Area B. the city wanted to see an increase on the Hem'y Industrial sidc. although it is I-I A zoned. with the thinking being that there are several areas in town that are higher uses and may relocate to this area. These being possibly a bus company and ready mix plant. but they are not looking to bring in heavy. obnoxious users. and the intent was as directed by staff. Area C was to be held off and reviewed. Chair Frie noted that staffs request is to table action and give the developer direction. He asked for a more specific time line from the applicant and Bilotta noted that their time line is trying to get the Chelsea Rd project started and that they have a purchase agreement that was to have closed. but the plat is being held; they had hoped to be started several months ago. Bilotta further advised that they would like to see a two part approach on the portion to the south and the first phase would need a lift station and infrastructure that the city would need to put in: the applicant would build their loop from there and would work with staff on the residential portion. The applicant felt there was sufficient time to make the necessary revisions for the September meeting of the Planning Commission. A MOTION WAS MADE BY DICK FRIE TO TABLE THE REQUEST AND DIRECT THE DEVELOPER AND PLANNING STAFF TO PREPARE CONCEPT PLAN REVISIONS THA T INCORPORATE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT ALONG THE POWER LINES. THEREBY REDUCING THE AREA PROPOSED FOR RESIDENTIAL USES. MOTION. BASED ON THE FINDING THAT THE SURROUNDING LAND USE AND TRANSPORTATION PATTERN SUPPORT THE RESIDENTIAL DESIGNATION. DAVE RIETVELD SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSL Y. 10. Public Hearing - Consideration of a request for sketch plan review and consideration of a rcquest for re-zoninr: from A-O to R-I. R-2. and R-2A for a sinr:le family residential subdivision. Aonlicants: Bison Development Co. and Svlvia Development. L.P. John Glomski. NAC. proyided the staff report advising of the proposed land use for this site. \vhich is consistent \\'ith low density. Howeycr. the applicant has included the R-2A lots with the detached single family lots which allows the site to increase the allowable attached townhome units to the 90 units they propose. Staff feels this method takes advantage of the R- 2A district standards. allO\ying for more attached housing and undermining the intent of the 2: I '"' '"' ~ ratio. He further stated that the 42 proposed R-2A lots more clearly represent detached townhome units and are more closely linked to the attached to\\"J1home dewlopment. It was noted that staff is comfortable with the types of residential uses being proposed. The proposed lots also appear to meet requirements. although circulation/access should be revised to show a more direct route. which will also need City Engineer and Public \\'orks Director approyaI. Efforts should also be made to eliminate corner lots that are difficult to determine the front lot line. It was also noted that the Parks Commission is requcsting a 5 acre park at the south\\est comer. as well as trails/pathways to provide a connection between dcvelopments. Staff is recommending approval \\'ith a re\'ised concept plan mecting the 1: I ratio requirement prior to preliminary plat submittal. . 9 Planning Commission Minutes - 08/05/03 . Chair Frie opened the public hearing. Jay Roos. Bison Developmerit and Bob Schmidt. Sylvia De\".. stated they are \\"orking jointly on this project to make them compatible. A resident at 4758 Park Dr. which is on a cui-dc-sac. asked the developer what will happen to his property when this development goes in. and also stated a concern with a pipeline behind his home. Jay Roos. Hokanson Development. advised that the street \\'ould be extended. as well as another stub out of the Klein Farms Development. but he was unsure about the process of removal of the temporary cul-de-sac. He stated the city would have a process for them to follow. The street would then be a through street with single family homes fronting the street. Chair Frie also mentioned to the resident that this is strictly at concept stage in order to provide direction. Frie further advised the applicant that he was of the understanding that in order to move on a zoning request it requires a 4/5 vote and with only 3 Planning Commission members present. it could not be addressed at this meeting. Another concern he had was with the trail connection and neighborhood park. He questioned if the applicant understood the request and dollar amount that would be required. Fred Patch addressed the 2: 1 ratio and density concern, noting that even the concept stage comes into jeopardy and ideally the Planning Commission could make a decision if all members were present and therefore he is recommending to not approve the concept stage at this time. He further suggested re-designating the areas with the 5 acre park requirement and 2: 1 ratio for density. . Ken Adolphson. Schoel & Madsen, stated that the biggest issue appears to be the attached townhomes and small lot single family detached. He stated the lots are actually larger than what is required and pointed out the 140 small lot single family and 42 townhomes. and that the applicant is trying to provide a variety of lot sizes. widths, and housing styles. He also provided another concept plan showing an identical street layout, but converted all detached townhome lots to R-l lots. noting the exact same number of total single family lots of 182. He further stated the detached lots are larger and the single family lots are somewhat smaller but still meet requirements. This second plan would meet the 2: 1 ratio and the applicant feels the established ratio can be achieved. . There was continued discussion by the Planning Commission regarding the new proposal presented at the meeting and if they felt they should move forward or table the item. Annexation still needs to occur. but also they would like to expedite the project and keep it moving for the applicant. Jay Roos added that it was his understanding of the city's ordinance that the 4/5 rule referred to the members present. Stumpf advised that the City Council typically requires a full commission when acting on zoning decisions. Frie further stated that this has come up before. only to have the action become null and void. Patch suggested a possible special meeting be held, due to the fact that the Planning Commission could not provide the applicant with a full commission. This could be held prior to the 2nd meeting of the City Council. which is the 41h Monday of the month. Roos further pointed out that the area indicated by the Parks Commission for park dedication has a home currently on that site. built in 1996. and not proposed to be removed. The intention of the Parks Commission should be clarified. There was no further discussion. A MOTION V,'AS MADE BY DAVE RIETVELD TO TABLE THE REQUEST FOR THE REZONING AND CONCEPT PUD APPROV AL TO MONDAY, AUGUST 25. 2003. 5:30 10 Planning Commission Minutes ~ 08/05/03 P.M.. PENDING REVISIONS TO THE PLAN THA; RESULT IN A 2: I RATIO OF SING. F AMIL Y TO TOWNHOME DEVELOPMENT. AND INCLUSION OF A 5 ACRE PARK. THE 2: I FORMULA TO COUNT SMALL LOT SINGLE FAMIL Y AS A TO\VNHO!v1E. RICHARD CARLSON SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION .CARRIED UNANIMOUSL Y. I I. Consideration of aDpointing a Planning Commission member to the C.R. I 8/1-94 Interchanl!e Task Force. It was advised that Lloyd Hilgart had called city hall earlier in the day and noted his willingness to be a member of the task force. A MOTION WAS MADE BY RICHARD CARLSON TO NOMINATE LLOYD HILGART TO THE c.R. I 8/1-94 INTERCHANGE TASK FORCE. DAVE RIETVELD SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 12. Rich Carlson asked Patch if it was realistic to limit signage on collector roads to monuments only to deter proliferation of pylons. Patch stated that the ordinance does not differentiate pylons and monuments and that staff was directed to review this issue previously. He felt it behooves the city to provide something more aesthetically pleasing and to determine a definition and then designate. . Frie then stated that the Planning Commission had directed staff to come up with a date for an open forum to discuss townhome ratios and \vanted to know where staff was at with this. Frie felt there have been negative remarks on the amount of townhomes being constructed. Patch stated he would discuss this with JeffO'Neill and advise that this was a priority of the Planning Commission. John Glomski added that Steve Grittman was also working on this item and Frie asked that this be discussed at the special meeting on the 25th. 13. Adjourn A MOTION WAS MADE BY DA VE RIETVELD TO ADJOURN TI-:lE MEETING AT 9:00 P.M. RICHARD CARLSON SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSL Y. Recorder . 11 . . . MINUTES SPECIAL MEETING - l\10I\TICELLO PLA!'\NING COMMISSION Tuesday - September 25,2003 5:30 p.m. Members Present: Rod Dragsten. Richard Carlson. Dick Frie. Loyd I-lillgart. Da\'!.:" Rl.:"it\c1d. Council Liaison: Brian Stumpf \\'as unable to attend due to conflict \\-ith City Budget meeting. Staff Present: Steve Grittman and Jeff O'Neill 1. Public Hcarin~: Consideration of a request for Conccpt Subdivision and Rezonin~. Apolicant: Syh'ia Dcveloomcnt/Bison Dcyelopment. (NAC/.JO) Steve Grittman reported that the applicants are seeking the initial approvals for a 282 unit residential development on 94 acres of land. north of 85th Street NE and cast of County Highway 117 (Edmondson A venue NE). The Planning Commission had tabled action on the request at its original August 5th meeting. Grittman summarized his report from the previous meeting noting that: "The area is guided for Low Density Residential development. This designation directs. in practice. a predominantly single family residential pattern. dominated by R-l zoning subdivisions. The plan distinguished areas directed for Low Density Residential1l'om those identified for Low Density Residential- R-l A, a "Very Low Density" designation that was intended to take advantage of identifiable site amenities (trees. views. etc.). The basic Low Density designation was placed on land had limited natural amenities. with the expectation that neighborhoods in these areas would be de\t~loped in a similar fashion to those which already exist such as the Klein Farms or Groveland areas. The plan made seYeral accommodations for the increased residential requirements made by the newly created R.l A designation. Another new zoning category \vas created. providing for "detached townhomes" - the R.2A district. This district was established to accommodate the growing market demand for townhome-style li\'ing but in smaller. detached units. For the traditional R-] neighborhoods. other accommodations included a\'eraging of lot size and widths to provide greater design flexibility for developers. It was hoped that this flexibility \vould allow developers to create neighborhoods that provided a greater diversity of housing opportunity within the R-] district. An outgro\\1h of the planning activities that resulted in the above changes included an interest in permitting a limited amount of to\\-nhome de\'clopment in the LO\\ Density R- 1 planning areas. 1\\0 baseline reference points \\'ere established. each designed to Special Planning Commission rvlinlltes - 08/25/03 . ensure that the dOJ11inant land use pattern remained the R-I neighborhood.' The first \\as an overall .3 unit per gross acrc maximum density. The second \vas a maximum ratio of R-I single family to townhouse units of 2: I. In this proj)()sal. the applicant is seeking to exceed the 2:] ratio. The attached and detached to\mhomes total approximately one half of the proposed units. Staff noted this issue in the original report. The applicant has suggested that they use a "PUO"" designation to substitute the proposed unit mix for the 2: 1 ratio. using the rationale that the detached to\vnhouses could be counted as detached single family units. rather than as to\mhouses. In a subsequent drawing. the applicants support their request by showing that they could achieve the same unit count (282) by revising the lot lines and eliminating their version of the detached townhomes. apparently meeting the City's ratios and density standards. Planning staffs review' is that the alternative illustration provided by the applicants is consistent with our understanding of the intent of the recent planning and zoning changes. The purpose of the changes was to allow some higher density design within the low density areas. but with limits that ensure that the typical R-I single family pattern remains the dominant land use. There arc areas within the community that are designated for higher density development. however. the applicant's property is not one of those. As an additional note, the request that a PUD approach be taken to accommodate the . applicant's request raises separate concerns. Planned Unit Development is intended to result in a tangibly superior design. \vhich justifies the flexibility granted by the PUD. The planning and zoning changes were made to specifically identify those areas where flexibility \\'as acceptable through the averaging techniques and the introduction of to\vnhouse-style housing. The applicant suggests that under their original proposaL the remaining R.] neighborhoods would have lot sizes that are larger than the ne\\' alternative. Planning staff is unconvinced that the small increases in lot size would result in significant improwl11ents to the size. style. or value of housing in these neighborhoods. There would be no change in general plat layout. nor any obvious amenities that \\'ould result in the tangible justification for PUD. In summary. planning staff would support the alternative option as provided by the developer as being consistent with the City's planning goals for this area. It should be noted that we have not had the opportunity to conduct a thorough review of the proposaL however. it appears to address a number of the original design issues cited in the initial staff report. \\'ith some notable exceptions. The second issue of concern relates to the provision of a neighborhood park space \\'ithin the boundaries of this plat. The Parks Commission has requested a park of approximately five acres he located within this space to provide for neighborhood play and tot-lot space ') . Special Planning Commission Minutes - 08/25/03 . based on a concl.?rn 'that nl.?arby parks are not close enough to provide this O\Jportunity for small childrl.?n in this den:lopml.?nt (including Pioneer Park. the future park in Featherstone. or tlK school complex). The park dedication requirement for this plat is approximatl.?ly 9.-+ acres. The additional dedication requirement not taken inland would be captured as fees, \\'hich \\'ould then be used to help acquire a regional community playfidd complex in some other location. The Parks Commission recommends that the neighborhood park for this project be located along the southern boundary of the site to maximize its exposure and access to 851h Street and its distance from Pioneer Park to the north. " Developer Bob Schmidt noted that they wanted to come in with something unique. We have had success with detached townhomes. These to,vnhomes are not a lesser priced unit. In St Michael they haw units that exceed $150.000. He "'ent on to say that his goal ,,'as to have a product that was a bit more upscale. Jay Roos noted that the patio home proposal resulted in lots with a slightly larger width and on average an addition 1.000 square feet per lot. He noted that the wider lots would allow larger homes to be constructed on these lots. . Dave Rietveld ask if there is a method for assuring the city that the larger lots under the patio home layout 'vould yield larger homes. Jay Roos noted that the larger lots provide the flexibility for larger homes. O'Neil1 noted that the R-1 rules would apply and that the City could not be guaranteed that larger homes would be built on the larger lots. The location of the park was reviev,'ed. It 'vas noted that the five acre park could be placed in the Southeast corner of the site according to the wishes of the Parks Commission. A sketch plan 'vas presented which showed the park location. It was noted by Roos that 14 lots were replaced ,vith the park land. Dick Frie explained that one reason fl)r establishing the 2~ 1 ratio was to provide for housing SlOCK for Llmilies. This goal stemmed in part from concerns regarding housing mix that were expressed by the School District School District. The School District requested that the City maintain an inventory of single family housing thus encouraging student population gnm1h. Counting patio homes as a single family home would not be consistent with the original purpose for establishing the 2-1 ratio. After discussion. motion by Dave Riet\'Cld and seconded by Richard Carlson to recommend approval of the developer supplied alternative zoning pattern. based on findings that the alternative plan more closely corresponds to the direction in the City's Land llse Plan. Motion includes the requirement that detached to\\'nhomes (or Patio Homes) be counted as to,,'nhomes ,,,hen calculating the 2~ I single family to two family ratio. Motion carried unanimously. . 3 Special Planning Commission Minutes - 08/25/03 Motion by Lloyd Hilgaj"t and seconded by Rod Dragsten to recommend tentath"c approval of the Concept Stage PUD for the town home areas. based on findings that the plans are consistent with the City's zoning regulations and the approval is conditioned on compliance with the staff reports from planning and engineering, Development stage and preliminary plat documents should reflect the 1- 1 ratio of single family to two family housing with detached townhomes defined as two family homes. Complete concept approval contingent on further engineering and planning review, The next stage of the pun process to include both Concept and Development stage appro\'al. Motion carried unanimously. There being no further discussion. meeting was adjourned. Jeff O'NeilL Deputy City Administrator 4 . . . .. " .J. .. Planning Commission Agenda - 09/02/03 Puhlic Hcaring: Considcnltion of a rcqucst for an Intcdm Usc Pcrmit allowing Outsidc Sto/"agc as a Ilrincillal usc in an 1-2 zoning dis.Tic(. Alllllicant: .fa" Morrcll/.fME of Monticcllo. (NAC) REFEJ~ENCE AND BACKGROlJND The applicant is seeking approval of an Interim Use Permit to utilize a parcel in the J-2 zoning district for outside storage. 'I'here are no buildings on the property, and the only activity would be the storage of equipment and materials. No structures of any kind are proposed by the applicant according to the site plan submitted with the application. This use is allO\ved in the district only as an Interim Use, with a specific date to be established for the expiration of the permit, and the termination of the use. For this type of permit the zoning ordinance sets several requirements. 1. A specified termination date is documented. 2. The applicable requirements of Chapter 3, Section 2, General Building and Performance Requirements arc met. The permit prohibits parking of automobiles. The permit specifies a gravel surface, suitable for parking of trucks. 5. The permit specifics that the intensity of visual screening shall be related to tbe location and nature of the storage and tbe duration of the interim use. 6. The permit specifies that appropriate setback of necessary fencing and/or setback of storage shall be related to the location and nature of the storage and the duration of the interim use. , ~ If approval of the permit is considered, planning staff would recommend an initial term of five years, after which period the applicant would need to discontinue the use, receive a new permit in accordance with the zoning requirements in place at that time. Chapter 3, Section 2 provides for the following requirements: 3-2 IE]: Provides for the submission of drainage plans to the City Engineer. and a requirement for \vritten approval. 3-2 [F): Provides for regulation of fencing where required or proposed. 3-2 [G] 1-]3: Provides for minimum landscaping requirements. . 3-2 101 2: Provides for the required submission of landscaping plans. Planning COll1mission ^gcnda - 09102/03 3-2 I GI 3: Provides i()I" the elemcnts of an acceptable landscaping plan. . 3-2 I(n 12: Provides for a bond securing the installation and survival of required landscaping. 3-2 /I I): Provides i()J" prohibition of Glare caused by lighting on the subject propcrty. 3-2 fJ]: Provides for regulation of dust created by activities on the site. 3-2 IK): Provides for regulation of noise created by activities on the site. 3-2 rM): Provides for prohibition of junk, including inoperable or unlicensed trucks. The requirements of Chapter 3, Section 2 are to be complied \vith in order for the City to consider an Interim Use Permit under the zoning regulations. Other generally applicable zoning requirements include 3-3 rG] which provides for required buifer yards between the usc and neighboring incompatible land uses. There are several other general performance standards that would apply, depending on the applicant's anticipated use and development of the site. It is the intent of this report that all applicable general standards are incorporated into the consideration of any permit. Similar to the previous submission, little detail has been provided on the site plan. Essentially. the applicant proposes to utilize the entire site for storage, with no accommodation fl)]" use setbacks, landscaping. circulation, or buffering. The section providing for outdoor storage . provides for flexibility in setbacks, based on the nature of the use. As such, planning sta1Twould recommend that a minimal setback to the street right of way and adjoining industrial lots be considered. A five foot setback would accommodate a landscaped edge, and screening. Screening from the public right of\vay v,rould be expected for any outdoor storage. The applicant proposes no landscaping pcr the submitted plan. FinalIy, a buffer yard of 50 feet is required by the Zoning Ordinance section 3-3 fG). This section states that no building may be located within 50 feet of the adjoining property line yvhere the transition is between residential and industrial land lIses. A minimum landscaped yard of 40 feet is required as well, with a specific amount of planting required in the buffer area (160 plant units per 100 feet of length). The plan shows no separation from the residential area, and no landscaping or screening as required by the Zoning Ordinance. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS Dccision 1: Consideration of an Interim Use Permit for Jay Morrell/JME of Monticello i()J" outdoor storage. 1. Motion to recommend approval of the Interim Use Permit. subject to compliance with the specific and general standards orthe zoning ordinance, including a term of five years documented by a signed agreement between the City and the applicant. Significant additional information on this plan would be necessary to show compliance with the Zoning Ordinance. If . 2 .. Planning Commission Agenda 09/02/03 the npplieant expects to hnve any of'these standards forgiven, a variance application should be riled. It should be noted that planning staff is not mvare of conditions on the site that would support variance approval. Conditions or approval arc attached as Exhibit Z. 2. Motion to recommend denial of the IntcrimlJse Permit based on a finding that the applicant has not complied with the standards of the zoning ordinance, including screening, setbacks, and buffering requirements as noted in this report. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval or the Interim Use Permit only with the conditions attached as Exhibit Z. This property owner has operated on this site without a permit for some time, however in recent discussions with the City Attorney, the applicant has indicated an intent to comply with the terms of the Zoning Ordinance. If denied, the applicant should be requireclto return the site to its previous condition and in full compliance with the zoning regulations applicable to the property. If the City believes that approval is \,varranted, planning staff would recommend that the Interim Use Permit be for no more than a five year term, in addition to the conditions noted in this report that would require full compliance with the terms oftl1e zoning ordinance. A financial security ensuring compliance with the conditions would be appropriate. . SUPPORTING DATA . Conditions ..- Exhibit Z Site Plan 3 . . . Planning Commission Agenda - 09/02/03 Exhibit Z Conditions of (UP Approval for JME of Monticello 1. A specified termination date is documented in a Deyelopment Contract, to be no later than December 31.2008. 2. The applicable requirements of Chapter 3. Section 2. General Building and Performance Requirements are met. 3. The permit prohibits parking of automobiles. 4. The permit specifies a gravel surface. suitable for parking of trucks. 5. The permit specifies that the intensity of visual screening shall be related to the location and nature of the storage and the duration of the interim use. A landscape plan should be deyeloped that identifies this screening. 6. The permit specities that appropriate setback of necessary fencing and/or setback of storage shall be related to the location and nature of the storage and the duration of the interim use. A setback of no less than tjye feet should be applied to this permit. 7. Review and approval of drainage plans to the City Engineer 8. Fencing in compliance with the City's Zoning Ordinance. Section 3-2 [F]. 9. Landscaping in compliance with Zoning Ordinance Section 3-2 [G] 1-13. 10. Compliance with lighting and glare requirements as listed in Zoning Ordinance Section 3~2 [11]. 11. Compliance with dust regulations as listed in Zoning Ordinance Section 3~2 [J]. 12. Compliance \\ith noise regulations of Zoning Ordinance Section 3-2 [K]. 13. Compliance \\ith junk and debris regulations of Zoning Ordinance Section 3-2 [ivl]. 1-1.. Compliance \\ith bulTer yard requirements of Zoning Ordinance Section 3-3 G]. 15. Compliance \\ith other applicable zoning and City Code requirements. including regulali\ln of nuisance acli\ilies. ~ (r ~ \I1l!l ~ '" ~ ~ '" = ... en S~ ~ \I1l!l ,~ ~ g -' . ~~ ~ is:' l!!!1I .., ~~ 0 '" ~ ~ ~ ~b '" ci' lC~ Ii~ ~ ...... , .~; &~ c;. ~ ".. ;: -1 ~ ~ "') -..I, ll!~ (j ?: '" ~ ~~ ~;:: ~ - 'w i t-:: ).... "'0 ~ .... ., " ~ -~-'~ u ~ !g ~ ~l.-I ~ 'r. ~~ ~ ~ ~ .~ ~ .0.... '" ~~ 0;: ~ ~ .... s.... ~~ ~ ~~iS ~g'S ~ ~' t..j 3~ L~ ~ ilf~", - ~"~ ~ ~ ...- ...~ ~~~ ~ . " . . . Planning COlllmission ^gcnda ...09/02/03 6. Continued j)uhlic H(~adng - Considnation of minor suhdivision '~lIlProval to allow fot, the nealion of two lots in the R-l ~lIld Wild and Sccnic/Shoreland Arca of the City of Monticello, and a variance for rear yard sethacJi.. AflJ)litant: Kathleen Gauthin (NAC) REFr'~RENCE AND BACKGROUND Background. Kathleen A. Gautheir is requesting approval of a minor subdivision to al]O\v for the creation of two lots. 'rhe total lot area is roughly 60.000 square feet above the Ordinary High Water Level. the elevation at \vhich the ordinance defines the lot boundary for purposes of measuring size. 'fhe site is located within the R-l District. The purpose of the R-l, Single Family District is to provide for low density, single family, detached residential dwelling units and directly related complementary uses. The location of the site is within the Mississippi Wild, Scenic. and Recreational River System and Shoreland Areas of the City of Monticello. The Shoreland Overlay District requires additional requirements and performance standards in addition to those within the R-l District. This overlay district regulates the alteration of the natural shoreland. vegetation and topography as \vell as the regulation of the subdivision of land. Subdivision Criteria. The applicant has submitted a survey that illustrates the various relevant elevations. The two lots both meet the required 15.000 square feet above the Ordinary High Water elevation (OI-lW). Although staff had some initial concern about setback from the bluff, it appears based on the ne\\! information that the slope 1'1'0111 Otter Creek does not meet the technical standards as a bluff so the separate bluffline protection requirements do not apply. If topographic conditions shQ\.v that the creation of a new lot (specifically the proposed house location) would involve the placement of fill and vegetative cutting. a Conditional Use Permit would be required. liovvever, there appears to be adequate room on the lot to place a home, within the required setbacks, and meet the maximum 30% impervious surface standard for both lots. The one issue relates to the building setback from the Ol-!W \vhich is 50 feel. It would appear that these setback requirements will impact the "possible" buildable area 1'(Jr construction of a new house. The buildable area on the ne\\! lot is triangular. and must respect both a 50 foot rear setback from the edge of the creek and a 30 foot setback from the front lot line. The setback shown for a corner of the house location appears to be approximately 45 feet from the OWl-! elevation line. Variance Criteda . The applicant has requcstcd a variancc from thc rcquired 50 foot setback from thc OWII. Variances arc required to be reviewed as to whcther a unique physical hardship interferes with the ability of the owner to put the property to reasonable use. Moreover, the standards require that the hardship condition (ifthcrc is one) may not be created by the applicant. In this casc, therc vmuld appear to be no such condition creating a hardship. If there were, it \vould be created by the applicant's request for subdivision in any case. As such, a setback variance would not typica1ly be appropriate for a newly subdivided lot. In j~ict, there appears to be adequate area to meet the zoning regulations without a variance for setback cncroachment. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS DECISION 1. Subdivision A. Motion to recommend approval of a subdivision request to allow for the follmving: The creation oft\'vo lots Vvith new lot areas of more than ] 5,000 square within the Shoreland Area of the City of Monticello. This recommendation would be based on a finding that the Subdivision is consistent with the requircments of the City's zoning and subdivision regulations applicable to such parcels. . B. Motion to deny the subdivision request based on a finding that the new building lot would negatively impact the environmental conditions adjacent to Otter Creek, a part of the Wild and Scenic River Overlay District. DECISION 2. Variance for Setback A.Motion to approve a variance for a setback encroachment adjacent to Otter Creek of approximately 5 feet. to a setback of 45 feet. This motion would be based on a finding that the conditions of the property. including size, shape and \vater conditions, create a hardship in putting the property to reasonable use. B. Motion to dcny the variance. based on a finding that no unique hardship exists, and that the lot may be subdivided and bui It on without a variance. RECOMMENDA TION Planning staIr recommends approval of the subdivision. however. docs not recommend the variance. As noted in this rcport. the subdivision can be . 1 . accomplished in conformance ",,,ith zoning rcgulations. As such. no conditions cxist that vmuld \varrant the variance. SUPPORTING DATA Exhibjt A- Site Location Exhibit /3- lJpdated Survey . . ~ .' \ E '~ \~ ~ \ \ \ \ , \\ \\ \ \ \ \ '<\ '\ \' \ \\ \ \ \ \ .\ '^ \ \ ~ \~ \ \ \ \ \. \ \ ~ "- . .9'~_ ", 9..'0... """ .~ , ~v, .........____ m:;~..,- ....................~Q-""' \~'" "'-... ............~'~<i<r \ -~................... ""~~, '\ m~, '. -.................. .........~~.o 1l \ ~...~............., .........................1 ~_."_ ,~ -- --- "--- - \ '0' _/_ ~ ~ .____ / ............ __:..< n, <07,0 n tI.t "1-:J--,. ___. -....... .. . ~ cA.,' HS 1J, J,t' ~ / -V- --=:::::>-. :---.... -....... 910 /t;; ~~_ . -.......__ ~ ONE!. ~r' '''_' 9~2j :,~.. '- --. -,. \ \ \ \ ~ \ \ ~ \ ~ \ \ \. \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ ----........~._~.~----.... \ \ \ \ ~ '9, Ii " 920__ \ ~n.J\ I.l) '0 ~ - \ . \ \ \ ~~ J' - ;' '" ,;> ,,,, ,; \ 'j:.. , \\ ~ lot) /; If') I.......... ~21.J \ q.1::/, :;ARA/X ,{ "'. I ".. "t<" ''''0 '-"-, ;' ?cr- ./ ~J.' . JJ .... '............... _ . 924 ~ -' --;~/l -.- , - i- __ _ .... . r f.~ _,_~___ I . o ,;, --- ..., '1 I --... ~I ( 9'9," <O.?iI.......... i (J,<~'" N 8."00'2' '- oJ .. 'W~ - 920'___,9 "'!, ' '1 ' , \---_ - . -_J '--- (p 921 ; \. LL'II~-.i:J:j _ __---._ _ .~._ _ . \f1lH ~ g2' . _-.___ __. ". -......._-,~ l.J \ \ \ \ ~) \ \ \ \ \ \ \ >.......... f i ~'--- t' ~ , ,/ I ~/ ~ \ \. 1~. 10 --- . . . Planning COll1mission Agenda - 09-02-0] 7: Contin UN) Pu hlic H ea ,'in!! -Considcra tion of v~i ri~lIH~(~ f"om the minim II m twcnty foot side YaJ'd scthacl{ associated with accessory st..ucturcs. Apl})icant, David B. Kranz. (NAC) REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND B~lckground. Mr. David B. Kranz has requested a variance from the City's side yard setback requirement. Such variance responds to the applicant's desire to construct an addition to an existing attached two-stall garage. Specifically, the request is to construct an additional garage stall in order to store a motor home vehicle during the winter, however, the dimensions of the proposed garage were not clear from the original submission. The applicant has provided additional plans, \vhieh clarifY the request. The subject site is zoned R-2, Single and Two Fami]y Residential District. The proposed garage would encroach to within 6 feet of the street right of way. A required 20 foot setback applies on the side yard facing a street. The design of the structure is intended to generally follow the existing line of the house, although it appears to encroach about 2 feet more than the existing non-conforming setback. Variance Evaluation Criteria. Section 23-3 of the ordinance states that in considering requests for variance, the Planning Commission and City Staff must make a finding that approval of the variance will not: 1. Impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent property. 2. Unreasonably increase the congestion in the public street. 3. Increase the danger of fire or endanger the public safety. 4. Unreasonably diminish or impair established property values within the neighborhood or in any other way be contrary to the intent of the ordinance. The ordinance further states that a finding of non-economic hardship must be made and that the property in question cannot be put to reasonable use if the variance is denied. While the ]Jrc-existing driveway condition is recognized, the proposed use will cause an additional driveway area to be within the right-of-\vay off of Elm Street. llardship. As noted previously, the Ordinance stipulates that a finding of non- economic hardship, unique (0 (he subject property. must be made to justify variance approval. Currently, the applicant has a t\vo-garage attached garage. Given the current location of the garage and the fact that the driveway is located with the right- of-way, it is in the opinion of stafT that no non-economic hardship has been demonstrated by the applicant to justify variance approval. While the request ('or variance is to allow storage ofa motor home. the applicant"s current tVio-sta]] garage docs not cons(il~lle an undue hardship. Thc applicant is e. currently making "reasonable use" of the property, and as such, cannot mcet the requircments that a physical hardship exists in meeting thc ordinance standards. Finally. it would clearly bc possible to construct a garage on the property that could meet the required setback standards. The variance would appear to be req uested as a matter of convenience to the applicant, rather than a true hardship in putting the property to reasonable use. The current condition results in driveway access and parking that may be considered to have an impact on public safely. Expanding the garage as proposed would increase the concern. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS DECISION: A. Variance Approval. Motion to approve a variance frolll the minimum IO-foot setback requirement to allow a garage to be placed 6 feet from the property line subject to the conditions listed in Exhibit C. 1. Findim!.s a. Approval of the variance will not: (]) Impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent property. (2) Unreasonably increase the congestion in the public street. (3) Increase the danger of fire or endanger the public safety. (4) Unreasonably diminish or impair established property valucs within the neighborhood or in any other \vay be contrary to the intent of this ordinance. . b. The subject property cannot be put to reasonable LIse if the variance request is denied. B. Variance Denial. Motion to deny a variance from the minimum side yard setback requirement. 1. FindinQs. a. Non-economic hardship has not been demonstrated to warrant approval of the req uested vari ance. b. The expansion orthe driveway use within the public right oJ'vvay would be a danger to public safety. e :2 RECOMMENDATION . Because approval of the reques'tcd variance vmule! further cncroach on the rig.ht- or-way of Elm Street, ane! because hardship has not been demonstratcd to \.varrant approval of the req ueskd variancc, planni ng staff recommends denial of the req uestee! vari ance. SUPPORTING DATA Exhibit A- Site Location Exhibit 13- Site Plan Exhibit C- Site Aerial Exhibit Z - Recommended Conditions if approved . . .) In V' ." ~~. '-' > 0' ~n lor '" ~ .i'> I , v' ~ ~ Ld - . i'i~ ld ., .. ~'S' I. '" ~ ~~ t, '" ~ ~ .. _'0 ~ ld " :f;t' (;)- _ J ~ ~-J~ -.- <i .~o '" ....- l.) ii'r. ~ )... ~ (/l 'till ~ I.) ~:.. ~~ C5~t.... -In y- , ,- ..,.. :'~e- 'to- n Zz " ~ ~.( ~.~ A~ c:s-------- --- - O. lI'~VI ~ 'I , , .1:( 0 ~~ 'If C) t.... VI '_' -J ~ v' ~'.;' ~ ""' . y ~~~ - ' ' "'.l ~ ~ , , , N .- .~;' / .... / /; / .' 'i- I ~' / ./ ".... ~ ( '.. 1/ '\ ...... ...... t') - Cc..t " ~ ~~ oV) . . c:v~ ' fa '" N ...... ...... U L~ <C ." ,.. ~\: 4f " "'0 ,So O<c?' S -, ...... , ............... ...... , , ........ '/. --.... t , II. .. ',. .. \.. n: ... / I / , II . E.xhibit Z Kranz request for variance V ARIANCE CONDITIONS (1) The accessory building shall be constructed to be similar to the principal building in architectural style and building materials. (2) The combined size of the garage area shall not be more than 1,200 square feet unless a Conditional Use Permit is applied for and approved. (3) The size and dimensions of the garage shall conform with applicable performance standards prior to the issuance of a building permit. . EXHIBIT Z . -t I . . . Planning Commission Agenda -- 09/02/03 8. Public )-h~"ring: Consideration of an amendment to t1}(~ Comprehensive Plan and an amendmcnt to a Concept Sta2:c pun. Appli('ant: Otter c..cck LLC. (NAC) REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND City staff and the applicants have discussed the proposal to designate approximately 19 acres of property for Residential land uses, first considered by the Planning Commission at its August 5 meeting. Planning staff continues to believe that the City's land use policy has been to maximize industrial development opportunities, and that proposed land use plan changes that run counter to that policy should be closely scrutinized. While there may be occasions where residential uses are more appropriate than some of the designated industrial areas, sta1fbelieves that the proposed site is not one of them. Examples of land that would be better used for residential would include sites that have high residential amenities (tree cover, significant water features and/or hillside views), and avoidance of characteristics that tend to hold down residential development quality and value, such as high volume roadways and power transmission line corridors. As such, planning staff maintains its position stated in the August 5, 2003 planning report. If the Planning Commission and City Council believe that a change to the land use policy of preserving industrial land is appropriate, that change should be included as a finding in any approval resolution. Detailed review of a residential development would be \'vithheld until after a decision is made on the Land Use Plan request. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS Decision 1: Amendment to the Comprehensive Plan designating 19 acres for Residential land uses. 1. Motion to recommend approval of the amendment subject to densit)' and concept development review of more detailed plans. based on a finding that the land use pattern in this particular area is better suited to residential uses than industrial uses. 2. Motion to recommend denial of the amendment, based on a finding that the current lanel use plan is supported by the City's land lIse policy of protection of industrial land. Planning Commission Agenda.- 09/02/03 Decision 2: Concept Stage Planned Unit Development (or ,I detached tovmhome development. 1. Motion to recommend approval of the concept plan. 2. Motion to recommend denial o(the concept plan. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff continues to recommend denial of the amendment and the concept plan, based on the findings related to the City's policy for protection or ruture industrial development opportunities. If the Planning Commission believes that residential land use in the subject area is appropriate, we would recommend that the Concept Stage PUD is tabled, subject to more detailed plans and additional City revie\v. SlJPPORTING DATA Exhibit A - Aerial photo Exhibit B - Narrative description fi'om Developer Exhibit C -- Concept site plan Exhibit D - Copy of Otter Creek Concept PUD :2 . . . U{IL~/~~~3 16:12 952249137913 BIRCHLAND DEV. CO. PAGE 133 . Otter Creek Crossings Business Park PUD Concept Amendment Narrative The approved concept pun for this 185 acre project contained the following objectives; 1. Create an attractive extension and transition of uses in the high visibility 1-94 corridor. 2. Provide the City of Monticello with a development plan that is flexible enough to locate large industrial uses or smaller ones depending on changes in market demand. 3. Extend the Chelsea Road frontage road concept to improve traffic movement between Highway 25 and CR 39. 4. Buffer existing residential areas (particularly Bondhus Addition). 5. Locate infrastructure that will open up large areas for development beyond this project. 6. Protect and enhance existing wetland areas to serve as an amenity to the business park and community. . This proposed amendment proposes no changes to the project's overall objectives. ProDosed Amendment Recently, the City has begun to look in greater detail at some major City infrastructure projects within this project (Objective #5) and the proposed extension of School Blvd., in particular, has a significant impact on the original concept plan. The City has already extended some stormwater facilities into areas of this project that are not yet annexed and the City will likely be looking for more detailed planning soon for the location of iLs proposed sanitary sewer lift station that will serve developments beyond the area contained in this planned unit development. Increasingly, it seems that the concept PUD should be updated and additional annexation should occur to take into account the City's street, stonn water and sarJtary sewer facility needs as well as to provide flexibility to the City to annex areas beyond this project which are currently not adjacent to City borders. In the first concept approval the project was divided into three areas-~A, B and C. Areas A & B had more detailed discussion, uses and requirements and the developer is proposing no changes to those areas other than the revision of the street network due to the extension of School Blvd. Area C, in the original approval, was identified as a future study area that needed to be sensitive to adjacent residential uses (Objective #4) and it was indicated that this area should be more concerned with buffering adjacent residential USl:S, possibly with the addition of some additional housing. . The dominant feature in Area C is the large easement for overhead power structures and the irregular shape that they create in relation to the property lines. This Concept PUD amendment 1 bxAt'bjf-- ~ 13 _.JE/211.2elel3 16: 12 952249El79el BIRCHLAND DEV. CO. PAGE 04 . proposes to use that large easement as a logical buffer area between the residential uses to the south and west of Area C and the non.residential uses to the north and east of Area C. TIlls proposed amendment shows a density of 5.24 units per acre for this triangular shaped area, although planning of the local street system and lots are only conceptual. The land will likely be marketed to a development company that specializes in residential projects and the residential developer will complete the detailed, development stage PUD planning process. . . 2 -~-- "-- . / . ~ i i i ! ~ :. ,. ... :. - i - - ... - .. . to ,. ~ e s: .. .. ... ~ >- II> ~ !:: ... ... ... - , E;xhibit ~"c., I _: ---' ...- _li__ . . . ~ ~ ~ . o ~ ~ ~ t"""t- ""-, ~ t- _ '" Slo l' ~~ ~ ~ , '\:::1':;:"'" ~ ~ ~. ~ ~ N "\ ~~ ~ ~ J ~- ~ l' ~ "'~C) n . :"\:: " ........ ;. ~ ~......... '" ~ ~ ~ Iii - : :: ; .. . e !;: ... ... : ~ :. ~ i II' 2 j ~ ~ j ! . ! ~ . ... . -, ~ ......... r-\... t\ 7' ~ " -f- - ( " ~ ~ E;xhibi+ ~. ~ Obiectives: Otter Creek Crossings Business Park Description of Approved Concept Stage Planned Unit Development Development Projects Require Development Stage PUD Approval . The Oller C reek Crossings B usi ness Park is a large project ( 185 acres) and is intended to lidfill the tollowing objectives; · Crcate an allracti'-e extension and transition of uses in the high visibility 1-94 corridor_ · Proyide the City of Monticello with a development plan that is flexihle enough to locate large industrial uses or smaller ones depending on changes in market demand. · Extend the Chelsea Road Irontage road concept to impro,-e trallic movement between Highway 15 and CR 39. · Buffer existing residential areas (particularly Bondhus Addition). · Locate in/rastructure that will open up large areas for development beyond this projecl. . · Protect and enhance existing wetland areas to serve as an amenity to the business park and community. Sub-areas..;. There are three areas of the proposed business park that have unique characteristics_ A Planned U ni t De'-elopment approach is being uti I ized to provide the tlexibi I i ty to take ad, -antage of those unique characteristics. Area A: This area has superior visibility Irom 1-94 and is immediately adjacent to the existiog commercial businesses on Chelsea Road_ The goal in this area is to proYide de,-elupment that has uses and aesthetic standards 'hat are compatible with the adjacent commercial businesses and pro\'ide a good image of the City to tra\'elers on 1-94. ..\lthuugh the underlying zoning in this whole projeet is based un the 1-1..1. standards_ the Cuneept PLD ealls Ii" building 'ypes in ,his area '0 be held to a more stringent design standard_ Speeitieally_ the PL;D eliminates the use of exposed metal or tiberglass linishes in Area _~ rather ,han allo wits use on up to 500,; 0 f ,he "-all surlaces_ Th is ,,-i II make the bui Id i ng design much more consistent "i ,h the com mere ial areas to the easl. In addi tio n. ,he setbacks in this area may be the same as in the commercial areas to ,he east so that there is a consistent --Ieel-- and massing along the frontage road and 1-94. CZb . Final/y. in order '0 provide a solier transilion of Uses. pro,'ide conveniently localed services ro tillure em p 10 yees of ,he business park and 10 aI/ow tor expansion of the rapidly diminishing undeV<loped areas in the city that have highway visibility. the tol/owing uses to be added '0 Area .-\. · Enclosed boat and marine sales · Books. office supplies. stationery stores and copy ser.-ices · Furnilure. carpet. mg. tik glass. paint. wal/paper. hardware. and electrical appliance stores · '\,Iolor tir<l station. auro repair. car wash. auto body shop. tire and baltery stores and SetTlce · M<Jchinery sales · :--iew and used automobile/light truck sales and display · D<JY can: Center · ~o outdoor Storage Area B: . This area has limited hiehwav visibili,y and mOst of Ihis area is bulTered trom the deV<lopmems -. . '0 the casl by a large wetland and the existing ceme'ery property. The goal io this area is 10 provide a tlexible de, <lopmem plan that would enable Ihe ciry 10 de'e1op a large industrial use or smal/er Users in response to changing market 'rends. In addi'ion. since much of this area is more remote with low visibility. il may provide an opportunity tor localing or relocating uses thaI the ci'y might no, Want in a high visibility area. One of ,he goals in this area is 10 de"<lop a plan rhat quickly go, truck trallic Onlo Chelsea Road and highways rather Ihan di"erting it to\vards residential areas. Since ,his area is no, a Continuation of existing de'e1Dped areas. Ihe sethacks remain accDrdiag to the I. I A standards. The uses that we would proPDse in this area in addilioa to whal is already pro,ided tor in the I - 1.-\ are thl.: tOllo\\-ing: · Trul.'king and rrtll.:king scn'ice · concrete asphalt plant and manut.Cture of CDncrele products · .-\utlllllllhi/e asst.'ll1b/y and ll1<Jjor repair C'ses abme muS[ be eonducled inside. OU'door storage by canditionaluse pennit Dnly Area C: The de, e/ 0 pment in 'h is area w i 1/ aeed to be sensi I i 'e tD the adjacent residem ialuses. G i 'en tha, the overal/ Otter Creek Crossings Bttsiness Park develDpmem is quile large and wil/ likely take mallY ye<lrs ta Je'<lop. tbe PCD al/ows this area remain an area tor tillure study 10 ensure Ihat the interests of the adjacent residents are preserved. Depending on the market conditions and . development patterns at the lime this area is studied, this area potentially ending up as an industrial development with special concern tor butTering and uses or even a mixed use de"e!opmenl area that provides Some housing for lhe workers in lhe business park in addilion to industrialappollunities, TIle propelly Owners and the Cily will be in a beller position to creare the best standards for this area in the future when all have had an oPpollunily 10 see lhe results of some of the earlier phases of this project. . ~ .., . . . Planning COlllmission Agenda - 09/02/03 9. Puhlic Hearin2: Consioenltion of a request for a Conoitiollal Use Permit for a car wash in the eeD Dist,"iet and a variance to hufTervard rcqui,"cments. Applicant: Broadwav Kwik Stoll LLe. (NAC) nEFEnENCE AND BACKGnOlJND The O\vners of the Broadway Kwik Stop, a gas and convenience store facility at the corner of Locust Street and Broadway, are seeking a Conditional Use Permit to add a drive-through automated car wash to the site, and a variance from the bufferyard requirements for the south property line. The CCD zoning district requires that any drive-through "window" facility receive a Conditional Use Permit due to the genera] inconsistency of an automobile-oriented use within a commercial district that is intended for a pedestrian orientation. Motor fuel and convenience stores arc allowed by CUP as well. Car washes such as the one proposed by the applicant are specifically allowed in the B-3 zoning district by CUP. There arc a number of attached regulations in that section of the Ordinance, however, the use does not carryover into the CCD District. Moreover, for Drive-through windows, a minimum lot coverage of 40% is required of the principal building - the current convenience store is just] 1 % of the parcel. Under the current zoning regulations, it does not appear that the proposed use can be accommodated in the CCD District. The applications before the Planning Commission are not adequate to cover the various variances that would be necessary to process this permit, even if the City were to take the position that the car wash is allowed under the drive through windmv clause - already a stretch of an interpretation. As a result. if the Planning Commission believes that the request has merit. staff recommends that the applicant's request be tabled and the Planning Commission schedule an additional public hearing at its next meeting to consider an amendmcnt to the CCO language. The text of such an amendment vvould envision that a Car Wash would be a Conditional Use (as already requested). however, several different conditions would apply to the CCD version as compared to the B-3 regulations. An initial draft of such an amendment with examples or the conditions likely to be considered is included with this report as an exhibit. The Design Advisory Team will be reviewing this planning case at 4:30 on 9/2/0:'. Staff will report the DA T recommendation at the Planning Commission meeting which follows. Planning COll1mission Agenda - 09/02/03 ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS Decision 1: Conditional Use Permit for a Car Wash in a eCD zoning district. 1. Motion to recommend approval of the ClJP, based on a finding that the car wash should bc allowed under the Drive Through WindO\v section of the zoning district languagc. This recommendation would be contingent on final stafl review of the site plans. 2. Motion to recommend denial of the CUP, based on a finding that the zoning ordinance does not provide for car wash f~lci)ities in the CCD. Decision 2: Variance hom the Bufferyard requirements. 1. Motion to recommend approval of the variance, based on a finding that a hardship exists in putting the propcrty to reasonable use under the regulations. 2. Motion to recommend denial of the variance, based on a finding that the property is being put to reasonable use without the variance. and as such, no variance is justij-ied. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends tabling action on the requests. pending a public hearing for an amendment to the eCD District that will accommodate the use under specific conditions applicable to the district. If the Planning Commission believes that a car \vash is not an appropriate use in the CCD. the applicant could be denied at this point \vithout the need to consider an amendment. SUPPORTING DATA Draft of components for Zoning Amcndment Aerial Site Location Site Plan Landscape Plan Sign Plan Elevations Floor Plans 2 . . . Planning Commission Agenda - 09/02/03 . Draft Zoning Amendment Language for Car 'Vasil as CUP in the CCD Zoning District. Car Wash as an accessory use to a Motor Fuel Station by Conditional Use Permit. provided that: I. The car wash building and the principal building must meet the architectural requirements of the Design Advisory Team (OAT). 2. The automobile stacking space area is screened from abutting property. both residential and commercial. 3. Noise generated by the use is mitigated by location or architectural features from adjoining or nearby residential uses and pedestrian or outdoor commercial activities. of. Lighting on the site is consistent \vith the City"s themed lighting style, whether freestanding or wall-mounted. 5. Signage meets the requirements of the CCO zoning district and the approval of the OAT. 6. Drive through traffic does not interfere with pedestrian routes around and/or through the property. . 7. A minimum of five stacking spaces for car \vash customers is provided that avoids interference \vith other traffic on the site. 8. Site landscaping is provided to mitigate the amount of concrete and/or asphalt surfacing. The USe of alternative paving surfaces is encouraged. 9. Measures are taken to avoid freezing and icing fI'om washed vehicles prior to exiting the site to the public street. Draft Zoning Amendment . 3 g . 7 Site Location Map Broadway Kwik Stop, LLC ~ .... ~ ...'" ~_._- .<C _J r 0- w... 0 '" W II ~ :: I c:~ no () () 0 0 () () () (J (II <c .C )~'-:-~~=-----=:~~'-'====::-:==:-'=::_:::"--:::::::::~;NI~g-~~?:::::::::'::::_.. I :::.:~=-~,_:.'~=:.:c'-- ...J () ..J c:( 0 s 0 Z I'") ; '\.. .c! I- 0 l.lJ cC ::r <.') .:t=::::-._-- :.. -:r I N 81 -----.. [~ ~ (:-, 80S ~ 0::: ,.f ,,$ Z ~. C:"J^ I f:l, ~ _,,__,_~,__-,__ \.00:::: ._ <..9 2" o o a: r-- a) a- (:) ::c ....) vJ &: <( wJ :5 tr a: /7} c:::C \....,-' 4: 'Z v w w cr::: , C) ~) /, u . :r.: I..) uJ 2: )In__ .J 4. 0 :s l~ </1 (', D W I- OJ a:: ~ LW -1 :::1: Vi o o ~, ~--.~'.__r.__ _'. t:} :z 0- 22 ..:t:. o.~ <..') o Z ~ 0 I- w }- LI1 Co :>< uJ .............~...............------~- ...........~-~ ~ w l- I>> rx:. '-' Z 0, <J ;> (~~~~~~~: r:J!] ~, r.;:;.J c:-...~ "~I c- r ;;- linn ~~ y-- (~ n" n I ~I L...n.._____. r;::=:::y- ~~_f r ..~._~.~.'._, '.-",,,, "..~..._.. ._"..~...,..- .',..-. "., ''''''-'"..~,.,--'' "-'~-T" I -l__l o <':>2 ZD tr;..J ::::> ':><r:D L1\ I I I I ~ ~r~~-T,~-.~ ,-1 I s I A' 0 ~ .0, I .... - 14 I ;s. Q ~a_ l ~ ': '3 .'i ::r: ,,-, i ?5 --~"'~-~ ~'---.',- ~,'-~-~-_. _.__._,_L__. .J__..__ . .__'_."~._"'_' I..J !(j) WI a. .,;( J ~ .::-. 'i I': 'I" i, i= ,'4 ~ I Q/. '0 !Ij '0 r~ I; ,<0( '..J Vl J ~ <I: ..J ~ r ------......~~..-.............................~.......:......:,-~ V1 a. ::[ =' a... -.... > a.. o Z <:C V a d ~ ;::r: ct uJ "7 <) ._-._'-~~.-----~-- / / / / / / / / / / / / / )' 0", OJ> j::~...:c::::>" I' /i ! II \ ,-, -....--;::~'.. ._~, ~ 0", , / /" ,'r& / '1'- 'f '~ ~ ~ ....., Q' :;-;; ;157 (?/ '-'I '1-, ~'S. .-.._~-:-..- ~ .-..":'"~....... _ ..Y ""\,, 'I], .... < .-> ' WI-, _ c;.-> '~ '-2:-, .. c;.- ("I -~:" ~0.9 "~>>>,<"">- :.9 S ~.~.', 0-", I, (~), ,#,' (;..")/ .'{t. it' if :'/ II A( ~,/ . ,\ . ~ /l ' -.:.---:::::;.- / /, /j-J0,----- / <'1.-.', / ; ""'0.)--...... ;' ; --7Q 'J.;..- / '0 ~:P'7 /-L -' () / "e (' / ~J ~ ! o .-.,.......,. () '- "- -' //' ~~ ", /.-.,IIIM.,- .......~~ .... "...... t::::J,''tb~,-- ----N-. '1>'6 -'--.. SQ~'_'~"I--. Ci ~f--;--";" ~ fde'-,"'" ''-----)' ", I ; C::::--- - s ,r<c~(, ~'< '<;, . -- " -Z:::::z:' -"., ~ ;' I / /' " -i ......--:::--.....- --~<::.-~ ._~-,- .~.::::":::..::~ <":j-.., -1/>/u-.. /" "--", ' /0 l:,- -, ...... -...... .......'................ 4t .., "'0 IySI>I 09'_~-'_ ".('''>0 /") ~'p:., '" .7,,9 -',_,__ "0':iSJ .,------ IJI l'~'Y~7~~, ,:~> I ,; I '--/ '''-.,\ / (.' --- r~~? / ~~ oS ,/ -""'""'----.---- --, ~ ~ o ~ -, ,,' \ ---,--_/i" (.9 i' ~ 1/ / f " i i(j '-'Iv, ' , "S, YJ o , >- ~ -----'-,,)U -- " '-!> ...... ' I /,~ .........~....... / f ~.~..... " ",--/) / - ! , '__ ;' i -4. ~/ / ........ I ...~ I / (... ll,,")./ -----, I'S/ ......, I I~J I /$/ i." i / / "- / / '--'.j / 'I, /,-/ -~-~~- " ,I ON/O 7/f1B I '~ 1/ ~.~, l ", / " I ;' ~ , , ~ , , ~ ~z :c ~ s ~ Ct: -d: 0 c.J <C ~ 0 UI LU a en - 0 en (/) A. 0 cr. c.- eo ....... ....... ",~ ~ 1~ - ____. :.~I F l/;:-<~ ( / ~"----",~ /- ~ - "\ \ ! 'OJr?fr; ~". dll'\f.V7G WI 8u IQ)'2j\QJ\N(8..l:U ~?r1/)t??J?~{ (07~if/7).iD) ~ ~ iJLJf c!...I. / C?) U!/Lr ~@ ~@DWiYD (\jJU1JO@@.l(Q]@@ TIoTI~@ (UJifOO@@@@@ Uo TI~@ ~Ol11J@ ...... 1]P ~~ ~@D [fIT 0 uoowrn~ ~~~~ - ~~(BOOu ~~~oo . W~ill[ID~w w@illwlID *I m9 .-. -- &)9 q . JO. - 1ft fir: i i ~ .. I i 1II ~ " . 'Q. t:.:- .. r.... e ~. -.9.1 o. i - , 'lit ...' _' a - . - :(:1.' . .' '. - . . ' ~:o' ~ i.." ~ ' . ~ pi '.' Q, - , Sf , ". ' . , '0. - . ' . .' ... ~ ~\ a I I e 5'0' ., ~ <S. 0. 0: C1 ::c U'J ~ 8 ~ I- U'J == ~ -< ::.:: ~ u ~~ 0 m [?'C7 00 L.JJ :> < i= -< U a:: 0 u ~ ....... u... (!) ii3 2 I- :z;; l..lJ :I: ~ 3r: Q ::.:: 0 < ....J U - a::: I- 0 E- o ~ -' ~ u CD ::..; > ~ u w <: :> pQ I- al 1= .....J <( :z ~ eg a::: 3:: 0 0 u 0 ~ E- ~ a::: :z;; al Cl a ::..; ....... a:: is ~ < "" Cl (D l- I Q -' ~ l'U':) -< ~ F- 00 = S:t I III ~ o u u :::> I- U'J = ==0 9 . I n"" I 1 I ::z: V) ~ 0 u g l- V) U - ::.:: I u 0 a5 LU :> i= < a::: 0 u ~ I:t :::) :z; co 0 ~ :r: - s.:2 E-o I..o.J Ir- ....J -< S.2 > z ~ a::: 0 ..J u ea LU PI: ~ I I- 0< ~ IlQ 0 l:llil (j I..o.J Cl :>c: U 0 ....J llJ L.J > ;::: < a:::: 0 ~ 1 0 I I ~ lD l- I -I s.:2 I ....J I J: V) ~ I.J... 0 U u f'" =:J t- V) I - I I LJ/r I 9 . . . ::.:: W 0 ::.:: as u 0 w as :> ;= ~ ~ t- O <: u Cl:: l:5 0 0000 u It: l..U ~ C co ~ . t- Z G co t- S 0000 -oJ ::r <.:> E-o -oJ < 0000 > 0000 Z I:Q ...., 0 - J:q &-0 E-ol -< 0000 r::r.. > J:q ::.:: J:q ~ w ....:I 0 ::.:: 55 u r;q 0000 0 E-ol- ~ -oJ CI) :c t- w 0 <: ~ .... a::: llIll 0 <: w 0:: ~ 0 u tt w Q => t:: CO t- => G CIl t- :J I <.:> :J . q . . ~ 'b .., b b o .., ~.o . I I I I , I I I I L .A9l .o.a. .~-------..~---- --......... -- -... -- i-......: . -i:iMJ.oo I: I : I : I : I I I I I _ J - -- - -- - -- = (P.lo < ~ . < t) lJX3 .o,a .0 ~ s.:. :ij ~ --. o :.- ;.:. tl ... '" b ;., <D "" .0$1 .O!Jl j:;, 2 z < ..... 0.. GIS o o o-l "" = o < iit= . -< U q . . . Plnnning Co III III ission Agenda - 09/02/OJ 1<1 Public I-fearing: Considcration of a reQucst for a variaJH.t~ and subdivision to (Teatc two buildahle lots in the R-2 zoning district. Applicant: Mike Cvr. (NAC) RI~FERENCE AND BACKGROlJND Mike Cyr is seeking the subdivision of a parcel at the southwest corner or 6th Street and Minnesota Street in the "Original Plat of Monticello", an area zoned R- 2. The current parcel is 133.27 feet wide along 6th Street. and 165. I 2 feet deep along Minncsota Street. The existing home sits near the corner, and is a legal non-conforming structure due to setback violations from Minnesota Street. The parcel is the result of the combination of two original plat lots - Lots 6 and 7 of Block S. -rhe applicant wishes to divide the property along its previous lot line, separating the two combined parcels into two lots of the typical dimension in the neighborhood - 66 by ] 65 for an area of approximately 10, 970 square feet each. This requires variances from Lot Width and Lot Area. The standards for single family lots in the R-2 District is 80 feet of "vidth and 12,000 square feet of lot area. As an R-2 zone, the existing parcel at 21, 940 square feet could accommodate a three or four unit townhouse by Conditional Use Permit or a two-family home as a permitted use. It vlould appear to be unreasonable to deny a subdivision 10 accommodate two single family homes, unless the City's policy were to encourage more density in this neighborhood. Variance requests require a finding that the applicant's property demonstrate a hardship in putting the property to reasonable use under the applicable zoning regulations. Planning staff believes that such a hardship exists in that density is not increased by the request (in i~Kt. it may be lowered). and that single family detached use of the property is reasonable. AL TERNATIVE ACTIONS Decision J: Variance for Lot Width and Lot Area. ]. Motion to approve the variance, based on a finding that compliance \vith the regulations results in an unreasonable result, and as such, a hardship exists in putting the property to reasonable use "vithout the variance. ') Motion to deny of the variance, based on a finding that no hardship exists in cOll1plying \vith the zoning ordinance. I)t'dsion 2: Subdivision into two lots. Planning COlllmission Agenda -- O()/02/03 L Motion to rccommcnd approval ofthc sulxlivision, contingent on the approval of thc lol width and area varianccs. 2. Motion to recommend denial of the subdivision, based on denial of thc lot width and area variances. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recomlTlends approval of the variances and the subdivision. As noted in the text of the report, the applicant can put the property to even more dense use under the current zoning. MoreoveL several lots in the neighborhood reflect reasonable single family use on lots of the size proposed. SUPPORTING DATA Aerial photograph Site location map Site survey 2 . . . ~ Site Location ~C: 1l!J1l/j ~ v . ~ ~---- ( I;::;-=~~~.":,,. I. .....,.",,:~"'-~ ,/ -.....:.~~, ) '""., ! '-,- " " "'~""'" j/"""~''',,,,,,-, "''''~,. 1/ ,I,' .f I' l' ,f I, I! '* ,~ l /; ,.II /1 " // " ;,'/ // " (~~, i If ~ - ~ f ~ \ ~ o ~ ~ "" CO' ij I' .'/ I~' c) ~ '- ~. {~'" ~ ~i, VI .( ~ '.. o.:ls: ~ ~~ ~ \. .... ~ 5 "'~~ 'I.. l1) ~~ ls: ~~~ ~ C)~ ~ ~.....s ~ '" ~ :r~~ ~ ~~ G, <': ~ ~ ~ '" ~ ~~ ~ ~'I. Vi ~ ~, '- ~~ ".... v, ~ C)~ t~ '... d"~l'\ ~ \ V)._ I;.~ ~~~ '" ~" ~~ r <:(S ~ ;j ).: .... ~ (il~~ , ~~ .. () ~, "... '( - '"' . ".. ~ ~ It'~ ~ 't .. '. ~l: ~ ~~ ~~ '- '. (t " ... .~~ ~ ~21~ ~ ~ ~ (,j ~~ l'\:- ~~~ l1) - " ~k " k:' ~ct: . ~ ~ .~ ~ ~~~ G:' ~.o C ~ l) () ).&~ ......... '- ~ C) ...., b:~Q .... II :~~ \ ~.....~ ~ ~~~ ~ v; " ~ ~ '\ -lJ'J',1# ..f.~ tf.f.o,r ~.yN/~ --;-:.."~- "", ..............'""'-. ~, --- ---'-., ..y " --.~ '.i"$1 ..~ o""C'" ~ ,. -, , " .....( /~ ,,/ I /,.,-----, / g ~ . / " / ""-'-, ~ ~.' .'....- ' --- --.. "," - ". ct.~ , I ......~ ..........._........... / " "~I '. . '. .. ..~,-. '" .-~. .... c:; '" . (Q It! 't 't 't "i r-; 0, ~ &>'.;. '~f, &> / t......,.. f... I , '1 ,~. ~: ", I ~/~ I ' . . . Planning COlllnlissioJl AgeJlda - 09/02/OJ II. Puhlie Beill-in!! - "CQD""id~n\tion of a .'equest for a spedal home occupation allowing a non-resident to conduct the home oe(~upation. Applicants: David & Kelly CassIeI' (.10) REFERENCE AND BACKGROlJND Description ofrequesl: David & Kelly Gassier are currently operating a home salon under an approved conditional use permit. The location of the home occupation is 61 17 Mill Run Road. The city has not received any neighborhood complaints regarding the operation and it appears to be following rules relating to home business operation. The applicant wishes to 1110dif)/ the operation of the home occupation by introducing an employee. Mode of operation: According to Gassier, there would never be more than one person working at the home at anyone time; the employee would work during hours that the resident is not working. The rule limiting more than one customer at the salon at anyone time \vOldd be followed. Ordinance requirements: According to the city ordinance. no person other than the resident is allowed to viOrk at the home except under special circumstances. The ordinance states that" no person other than a .'esident shall conduct the home occupation, except where the applicant can satisfactorily prove unusual or unique conditions or need 1'0.' non-resident assistance and that this exception would not compromise the intent of this chapter". Planning Commission should revievv' the request and consider whether or not it complies with ordinance language above. The intent of the ordinance is to establish regulations that result in home occupations being "transparent" to the neighborhood. Non-resident employees are restricted because the presence of w-orkers would not be consistent \\Iith maintaining the residential character of a neighborhood. However. there is a provision in the code which allows a non-resident to work at a home occupation under strict conditions. Planning Commission should review the case and determine if this request meets the criteria for allowing a non- resident to work at this home. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS I. Motion to allow a non-resident to work in the home occupation subject to the following conditions: 1. The non resident shall not work at the home occupation at the same time that the resident is \vorking. 2. Non resident vehicle parking should occur in the residence driveway. Planning COllnnission Agenda - 09/02/0:1 . 3. A space for parking inthc driveway !()r customers shall be available at all timcs. Resident parking in the street should not result from making space for customer parking in thc driveway. 4. All other terms of the previoLls home occupation shall be mct along with standards identified in the zoning ordinance. 5. The duration of the permit is one year with the renewal process at thc discretion of city staff If staff receives complaints or finds that the aj)plicant is not complying with conditions noted above to the detriment of the neighborhood then the applicant will be requested to rene\\! the special homc occupation penT\it via Planning Commission and City Council reVlew. Motion based on the finding that the applicant has proven unusual or unique conditions or need for non-resident assistance. and that this exception would not compromise the intent of this chapter. 2. Motion to deny said request based on the finding that the applicant has not proven unusual or unique conditions or need for non-resident assistance and that this exception would not compromise the intent of this chapter. . Under this alternative the Planning Commission believes that the standards for allowing non-resident home occupations are not met under the proposal and that adding an employee under this circumstance would result in a use that is not consistent with the neighborhood and inconsistent with the intent of the ordinance. STAFF RECOMMENDATION ]1' the Planning Commission believes that the proposed non-resident business activity as proposed \vill remain transparent to the neighborhood. then approval is probably justificd. ]f the Planning Commission is concerned that the non-resident commercial use will result in a negative affect on the neighborhood and if such a decision could set a bad precedent for other neighborhoods. then the Planning Commission should select alternative 2. SUPPORTING DATA Location Map Copy of ordinance pcrtaining to home occupations Application for a Special Home Occupation . 2 Site Location ~-~- ~ .- R/I./er Mill "'-D"'-. ~ nile . ~"_,,,______~J I . . . access: a. ~lovie Rentals. Display areas shall be restricted from general view and shall be located within a separate room. the access of which is in clear view :lnd under the control of the persons responsible for the operation. b. Magazines. PublicJtions c1assitied or qualifying as adult uses shall be covered with a wrapper or other means to pre....ent display of any material other than the publication title. c. Other Use. Adult use/accessory activities not specitically cited shall comply with the intent of this section subject to the approval of the Zoning Administrator. 4. Adult use/accessory activities shaH be prohibited from both internal and external advertising and signing of adult materials and products. 5. Adult use/accessory activities shall be prohibited in establishments where liquor is served. 6. Adult use/accessory activities shall be prohibited at any public show. movie. caravan. circus. carnival. theatrical. or other performance or exhibition presented to the general public where minors are admitted. .01:1"'9' ~"17) ( ;.JI _..,._ 3-11 : HOME OCCUPATIONS: [A] Pumose. The purpose of this section is to prevent competition with business districts and to provide a means through the establishment of specitic standards and procedures by which home occupations can be conducted in residential neighborhoods without jeopardizing the health. safety. and general welfare of the surrounding neighborhood. In addition. this section is intended to provide a mechanism enabling the distinction between permitted home occupations and special or customarily "more sensitive" home occupations so that permitted home occupations may be allowed through an administrative process rather than a legislative hearing process. [B j Aoolication. Subject to the non.confomling use provision of this section. all occupations conducted in the home shall comply with the pro\isions of this section. This section shall not be construed. ho\\e\"t~r. to apply to home occupations accessory to farming. [Cj Procedures and Permits. 1. Permitted Home Occupation. .-\ny permitted home occupation as ddined in this section shall require a "pemlitted home occupation permit." Such pemlits :\IOl'jTICELLO lONIi'iG ()RDI~..\NCE 3/63 1 { .-. shull be issued subject to the conditions of this sel.:tjon. other applicable city code provisions. and state law. This permit may be issued by the Zoning Administrator or his agent based upon proof of complianl.:e with the pro\'isions of this section. . Application for the permitted home occupation permit shall be accompanied by a tee as adopted by the Council. If the Administrator denies a permitted home occupation permit to an applicant. the applicant may appeaJ the decision to the City Council acting as the Board of Adjustment and Appeals. which shall make the final decision. The permit shall remain in force and dfect until such time as there has been a change in conditions or until such time as the provisions of this section have been reached. At such time as the City has reason to believe that either event has taken place. a public hearing shaH be held before the Planning Commission. The Council shall make a tinaJ decision on whether or not the permit holder is entitled to the permit. 2. Special Home Occupation. Any home occupation \vhich does not meet the specific requirements for a permitted home occupation as defined in this section shall require a "special home occupation permit" \\hil.:h shall be applied for. reviewed. and disposed of in accordance with the pro\'isions of Chapter 22 of the zoning ordinance. ... .). Declaration of Conditions. The Planning Commission and the Council muy impose such conditions of the granting of a "special home occupation permit" as may be necessary to carry out the purpose and provisions of this section. . . 4. Effect of Permit. A "special home occupation permit" may be issued for a period of one (I) year atter which the permit mo.)' be reissued for periods of up to three (3) years each. Each applicution tor permit rene\\:al will be reviewed bv Citv stuff. City statY will detemline whether or not it is necessarY ... .. . to process permit renewal in Jccordance with the procedural requirements of the initial special home occupmion permit. Staff determination will be made based upon the manner of operation observed by staff and based upon the level of complaints mude about the home occupation. 5. Transti:rability. Permits shall not run with the land Jnd shall nOt be transti:rabl~. 6. Lapse of Special Home Occupation P~rmit by ~on-L;s~. Wh~ne:\~r within one ( I ) yeJr alter granting J permit the use: as p~rmitted by th~ permit shull not ha\'c: b~en initi;,ued. th~n such pe:rmit shall become: null and void unless a petition tor extension of time: in which to com plett.' the work hus been granted by the Council. Such t.'xtension shull be: reque:sted in writing and tile:d with the Zoning Administrutor at It.'ast thirty (30) Juys betore: the: c:xpiration of the original permit. The:re shall be no charge tor the tiling of sllch petition. The . ~IONTICELLO ZONING ORD/:-.J..-\:\CE 3/64 -" . . . request tor extension shall state tacts showing a good taith attempt to initiate the use. Such petition shall be presented to the Planning Commission for a recommendation and to the Council tor a decision. 7. Reconsideration. Whenever an application tor a permit has been considered and denied by the Council. a similar application tor a permit affecting substantially the same propeny shall not be considered again by the Planning Commission or Council for at least six (6) months from the date of its denial unless a decision to reconsider such matter is made by not less than four.tifths (4/5) vote of the full Council. 8. Renewal of Permits. An applicant shall not have a vested right to a pennit renewal by reason of having obtained a previous permit. In applying for and accepting a permit. the permit holder agrees that his monetary investment in the home occupation will be fully amortized over the life of the permit and that a pennit renewal will not be needed to amortize the investment. Each application for the renewal of a permit will be reviewed without taking into consideration that a previous permit has been granted. The previous granting or renewal of a permit shall not constitute a precedent or basis for the renewal of a permit. [0] Requirements: General Provisions. All home occupations shall comply with the following general provisions and. according to detinition. the applicable requirement provIsIons. I. General Provisions. a. No home occupation shall produce light glare. noise. odor. or vibration that will in any \'lay have an objeclionable effect upon adjacent or nearby propeny. b. No equipment shall be used in the home occupation which will create electrical interference to surrounding propenies. c. Any home occupation shall be clearly incidental and secondary to the residential use of the premises. should not change the residential character thereof and shall result in no incompatibility or disturbance to the surrounding residential uses. d. :--';0 home occupation shall require internal or external alterations or invoh-e construction teatures not customarily tound in J",ellings except \\here required to comply with local and state tire Jnd police recommendations. t:. Tht:re shall be no t:xterior storage of equipment or materials used in tht: home occupation. except personal automobiles used in the home occupation may be parked on the site. \IQNTICELLO ZONING ORDIN.-\~CE 3/65 . . . f. The home occupation shall meet all applicable fire and building code::;. 11 There shall be no exterior display or exterior sign::; or interior display or interior signs which are visible from outside the dwelling with the exception of an identitication sign \vhich is limited to identifying the name of the resident onJy. h. All home occupations shaH comply with the provisions of the city code. I. No home occupation shall be conducted between the hours of 10 p.m. and 7 a.m. unless ~d occupation is contained entirely within the principal building and will not require anyon-street parking facilities. J. No home occupation shall be permitted which results in or generates more traffic than one (I) car for off-street parking at any given point in time. [E] Requirements: Permitted Home Occupations. I. No person other than those who customarily reside on the premises shall be employed. 2. All permitted home occupations shall be conducted entirely within the principal building and may not be conducted in an accessory building. 3. Permitted home occupations shall not create a parking demand in excess of that w-hich can be accommodated as defined in Section 3-5 [F] 6. where no vehicle is parked closer than fifteen (15) feet from the curb line. 4. Permitted home occupations include and are not limited to: art studio. dressmaking. secretarial services. foster care. professional offices and teaching with musical. dancing. and other instructions which consist of no more than one pupil at a time and similar uses. 5. The home occupation shall not involve any of the following.: repair sep;ice or manufacturing. which requires equipment other than tound in a dwelling: teaching which customarily consists of more than one pupil at J time: on:r-tht:- counter sale of merchandise produced off the premisl.:s. except for those brand name products that are not marketed and sold in J \\holesale or retail outlet. [F] Requirements: Soecial Home Occuoations. 1. No person other than a resident shall conduct the home occupation. eXl.:ept where the applicant can satisfnctorily prove unusual or unique conditions or \IONTICELLO ZONIl'iG ORDIN.-\;\iCE 3/66 .- . .-IIA: . need for 110n-n.:sident assistance and that this exception would not compromise the intent of this chapter. '" . Examples of special home occupations include: barber and beauty ser....ices. photography studio. group lessons. saw sharpening. skate sharpening. small appliances and small engine repair and the like. 3. The special home occupation may involve any of the following: stock-in-trade incidental to the pertormance of the service. repair service or manutacturing which requires equipment other than customarily found in a home. the teaching with musical. dancing, and other instruction of more than one pupil at a time. 4. Non-Conforming Use. Existing home occupations lawfully existing on the effective date of this section may continue as non-conforming uses. They shall, however. be required to obtain permits for their continued operation. Any existing home occupation that is discontinued tor a period of more than 180 days. or is in violation of the provisions of this chapter under which it was initially established. shall be brought into conformity \'t;th the provisions of this section. 5. Inspection. The City hereby reserves the right upon issuing any home occupation permit to inspect the premises in which the occupation is being conducted to ensure compliance with the provisions of this section or any conditions additionally imposed. (8/10/92. #232) OUTDOOR SALES AND DISPLA Y: [A] LICENSE. A license must be obtained by any person or business engaging in the operation of seasonal outdoor sales and displays as herein detined. No license shall be required tor temporary outdoor sales and displays as herein detined that are conducted by the operators of a legitimate business if it is determined by the Zoning Administrator that such outdoor display or sale is consistent with the intent of the Zoning Code and the Comprehensive Plan. (Transient merchants engaged in outdoor sales and display shall be subject to the provisions of Chapter 10 of the City Code.) [B] Those ourdoor sales and displays that are determined by the Zoning .-\dministrator not to be consistent with the intent of the Zoning Code or Compn:hensi\-e Plan may be appealed to the City Council. [C] .-\ppuc.-\ TIO~. FEE. .-\~D LICE:--.iSE PERIOD. .-\pplication tor In outdoor salt:s and display license shall be made [0 the Zoning .-\dministrator of the City on a form to bt: pro\ided by the Zoning Administrator. The Zoning Administrator is hereby authorized ll) re\'iew and Jppro\'e licenses for outdoor saks Jnd displays as tollows: :\I01'<TICELLO lONI:'\iG ORDI~:\:\CE 3/67 -' . CITY OF MONTICELLO COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT PO Box 1147, 250 E. Broadway Monticello, MN 55362 (612) 295-2711 ADMINISTRATIVE PERMIT--HOME OCCUPATION CHECKLIST AND INFORMATION Complete application form, signed by the property fee owner. Fee per current City of Monticello Fee Schedule. A home occupation permit allows certain commercial use of residential land that is clearly incidental or secondary to the principal residential use of the property. The purpose of the permit process is to protect the value of residential property by assuring that commercial use of residential land is properly regulated and conducted in a manner consistent with rules governing the operation of home occupations. The information required with this application will assist the City in determining if a permit may be issued directly by staff, if a special permit is necessary, or if the proposal does not meet the minimum requirements of the special permit. . PROCESS After the City receives your application, the following steps will be taken: 1. City staffwill review the application and determine that the home occupation meets the requirements of the ordinance. If so, City staff will issue a permit directly. 2. Home occupations not eligible for a permit may qualify for a "special permit." If so, the applicant must pay a special permit fee in the amount of $125. The matter will then be reviewed by the Planning Commission and City Council via the public hearing process. 3. City staffis responsible for rejecting home occupation proposals that do not meet the minimum requirements for a permit or special permit. FOLLOWING IS SECTION 3-11 OF THE MONTICELLO ZONING ORDINANCE PERTAINING TO HOME OCCUPATION PERl\1ITS: 3-11: HOME OCCUPATIONS: . [A] PUIJ)ose. The purpose of this section is to prevent competition with business districts and to provide a means through the establishment of HOMEOCC.HAN: 1/30/95 Page 1 ,. . . . speclfic standards and procedures by which home occupations can be conducted in residential neighborhoods without jeopardizing the health, safety, and general welfare of the surrounding neighborhood. In addition, this section is intended to provide a mechanism enabling the distinction between permitted home occupations and special or customarily "more sensitive" home occupations so that permitted home occupations may be allowed through an administrative process rather than a legislative hearing process. [B] Application. Subject to the non-conforming use provision of this section, all occupations conducted in the home shall comply with the provisions of this section. This section whaIl not be construed, however, to apply to home occupations accessory to farming. [C] Procedures and Permits. 1. Permitted Home Occupation. Any permitted home occupation as defined in this section shall require a "permitted home occupation permit," Such permits shall be issued subject to the conditions of this section, other applicable city code provisions, and state law. This permit may be issued by the Zoning Administrator or his agent based upon proof of compliance with the provisions of this section. Application for the permitted home occupation permit shall be accompanied by a fee as adopted by the Co.unciI. If the Administrator denies a permitted home occupation permit to an applicant, the applicant may appeal the decision to the City Council acting as the Board of Adjustment and Appeals, which shall make the final decision. The permit shall remain in force and effect until such time as there has been a change in conditions or until such time as the provisions of this section have been reached. At such time as the City has reason to believe that either event has taken place, a public hearing shall be held before the Planning Commission. The Council shall make a final decision on whether or not the permit holder is entitled to the permit. 2. Special Home Occupation. Any home occupation which does not meet the specific requirements for a permitted home occupation as defined in this section shall require a "special home occupation permit" which shall be applied for, reviewed, and disposed of in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 22 of the zoning ordinance. 3. Declaration of Conditions. The Planning Commission and the Council may impose such conditions of the granting of a "special HOMEOCC.HAN: 1/30/95 Page 2 . . 8. . HOMEoee.RAN: 1/30/95 home occupation permit" as may be necessary to carry out the purpose and provisions of this section. 4. Effect of Permit. A "special home occupation permit" may be issued for a period of one (1) year after which the permit may be reissued for periods of up to three (3) years each. Each application for permit renewal will be reviewed by City staff. City staff will determine whether or not it is necessary to process permit renewal in accordance with the procedural requirements of the initial special home occupation permit. Staff determination will be made based upon the manner of operation observed by staff and based upon the level of complaints made about the home occupation. 5. Transferability. Permits shall not run with the land and shall not be transferable. 6. Lapse of Special Home Occupation Permit by Non-Use. Whenever within one (1) year after granting a permit the use as permitted by the permit shall not have been initiated, then such permit shall become null and void unless a petition for extension of time in which to complete the work has been granted by the Council. Such extension shall be requested in writing and filed with the Zoning Administrator at least thirty (30) days before the expiration of the original permit. There shall be no charge for the filing of such petition. The request for extension shall state facts showing a good faith attempt to initiate the use. Such petition shall be presented to the Planning Commission for a recommendation and to the Council for a decision. 7. Reconsideration. Whenever an application for a permit has been considered and denied by the Council, a similar application for a permit affecting substantially the same property shall not be considered again by the Planning COmmission or Council for at least six (6) months from the date of its denial unless a decision to reconsider such matter is made by not less than four- fifths (4/5) vote of the full Council. Renewal of Permits. An applicant shall not have a vested right to a permit renewal by reason of having obtained a previous pennit. In applying for and accepting a permit, the permit holder agrees that his monetary investment in the home occupation will be fully amortized over the life of the permit and that a permit renewal will not be needed to amortize the investment. Each application for the renewal of a permit will be reviewed without taking into consideration that a previous Page 3 .' . . . permit has been granted. The previous granting or renewal of a permit shall not constitute a precedent or basis for the renewal of a permit. [D] ReQ.uirements: General Provisions. All home occupations shall comply with the following general provisions and, according to definition, the applicable requirement provisions. 1. General Provisions. a. L-C,,^p\\Q S b. / l:"- S Lc..-vr c. ~\o..t' 1\ \ Cl C '\ c., C) t, r' L<;. o tI' \.,,1 ~v-<c d. \; "S Ca~f e. Lc.-r~\"(! s f. CO,...,-p\1CS g. GO" fl. t'-, \, (k. L(J~r HOMEOCC.HAN: 1/30/95 No home occupation shall produce light glare, noise, odor, or vibration that will in any way have an objectionable effect upon adjacent or nearby property. No equipment shall be used in the home occupation which will create electrical interference to surrounding properties. Any home occupation shall be clearly incidental and secondary to the residential use of the premises, should not change the residential character thereof and shall result in no incompatibility or disturbance to the surrounding residential uses. No home occupation shall require internal or external alterations or involve construction features not customarily found in dwellings except where required to comply with local and state fire and police recommendations. There shall be no exterior storage of equipment or materials used in the home occupation, except personal automobiles used in the home occupation may be parked on the site. The home occupation shall meet all applicable fire and building codes. There shall be no exterior display or exterior signs or interior display or interior signs which are visible from outside the dwelling with the exception of an identification sign which is limited to identifying the name of the resident only. All home occupations shall comply with the provisions of the city code. Page 4 .- . . . [F] Sl2& y\O\C -t [Vl(Q.0 1. No home occupation shall be conducted between the hours of 10 p.m. and 7 a.m. unless said occupation is contained entirely within the principal building and will not require anyon-street parking facilities. f * J. No home occupation shall be permitted which results in or generates more traffic than one (1) car for off-street parking at any given point in time. [E] ReQ)1irements: Permitted Home Occupations. 1. No person other than those who customarily reside on the premises shall be employed. 2. All permitted home occupations shall be conducted entirely within the principal building and may not be conducted in an accessory building. 3. Permitted home occupations shall not create a parking demand in excess of that which can be accommodated as defined in Section 3-5 [F] 6, where no vehicle is parked closer than fifteen (15) feet from the curb line. 4. Permitted home occupations include and are not limited to: art studio, dressmaking, secretarial services, foster care, professional offices and teaching with musical, dancing, and other instructions which consist of no more than one pupil at a time and similar uses. 5. The home occupation shall not involve any of the following: repair service or manufacturing which requires equipment other than found in a dwelling; teaching which customarily consists of more than one pupil at a time; over-the-counter sale of merchandise produced off the premises, except for those brand name products that are not marketed and sold in a wholesale or retail outlet. Requirements: Ejpecial Home Occupations. 1. t No person other than a resident shall conduct the home occupation, except where the applicant can satisfactorily prove unusual or unique conditions or need for non-resident assistance and that this exception would not compromise the intent of this chapter. 2. * Examples of special home occupations include: barber and beauty services, photography studio, group lessons, saw HOMEOCC.HAN: 1/30/95 Page 5 . . . sharpening, skate sharpening, small appliances and small engine repair and the like. 3. The special home occupation may involve any of the following: stock-in-trade incidental to the performance of the service, repair service or manufacturing which requires equipment other than customarily found in a home, the teaching with musical, dancing, and other instruction of more than one pupil at a time. 4. Non-Conforming Use. Existing home occupations lawfully existing on the effective date of this section may continue as non-conforming uses. They shall, however, be required to obtain permits for their continued operation. Any existing home occupation that is discontinued for a period of more than 180 days, or is in violation of the provisions of this chapter under which it was initially established, shall be brought into conformity with the provisions of this section. 5. Inspection. The City hereby reserves the right upon issuing any home occupation permit to inspect the premises in which the occupation is being conducted to ensure compliance with the provisions of this section or any conditions additionally imposed. HOMEoce.HAN: 1/30/95 Page 6 e- e e Planning COll1mission Agenda - 09/02/03 12. Puhlic Hcal'ing: Considenltion of a request 1'01' 1) a variance from the 30 foot rear yard sethack ,'equircmcnt in the H.-I, Single Family District and 2) an amendment to the zoning onlinalHT (~stahlishing decks as allowahle "ea,' "m'd sdhack encroachnH~nts. Applicants: Pat and Angie Ronayne. (NAC) REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND Val'iance Request Pat and Angie Ronayne have submitted a proposal to construct a 256 square foot (16' x 16') deck attached to the rcar of their home located at 8823 Farmstead Court. To accommodate the proposal, the approval of a variance f)-om the 30 foot rear yard setback applicable to the property is necessary. Specifically, the applicant \vishes to locate the deck 15 feet from the rear property line. As shmvn on the submitted site plan, the proposed deck would be centrally located in the rear yard. According to the applicant, hardship exists in that thc home is located only 31 feet from the rear lot line thus providing minimum buildable area within the year yard. It is also anticipated that the 1100r plan of the home is likely most conducive to a rear yard deck. In consideration of variance requests, the applicant is required to demonstrate that a unique physical condition of the property exists that creates a hardship in complying vlith the strict standards orthe ordinance. While the limited amount of "buildable" land \vithin the rear yard of tile subject site is recognized, it cannot provide a sole basis for variance approval. To be noted hovv'ever, is that ample land area does appear to exist within the site' s side yard areas in conformance with the applicable setback requirements. With this in mind it does not appear that the tests for variance have been met by this application. Amendment Request Should the City feel inclined to allow decks within 30 foot rear yard setback arcas, it is believed a preferred means to accommodate sllch structures is via an amcndment to the zoning ordinance (rather than individual variance requests). Presently. the ordinance 311mvs rear yard setback encroachments for thc follo\ving: . Recreational equipment Laundry drying equipment Arbors and trellises . . Planning Commission Agenda ~ 09/02/03 . Balconies BreeZev.iays Open porches Detached outdoor jiving rooms (iarages Air conditioning or heating equipment . . . . . . While it is possible one could construe an "open porch" to be a deck, the City has not historically considered decks as allowable rear yard encroachments. In addition to making an allowance for decks, it is also considered appropriate to both define the term and establish some parameters for such allowable setback encroachments. As the ordinance presently reads, it appears that all listed allmvable encroachments could be located anywhere within a rear yard up to property]ines. The attached draft amendment is intended to make a specific setback encroachment allowance for decks. To eliminate any debate in terms ohvhat constitutes a deck, a specific definition of the term has been included in the amendment as reiterated below: DECK - A horizontal. unenclosed platlornl lvith or without aI/ached railings, s('ats. trellises. or otherfeatures. aI/ached orfimcfionally related to a principal use or site at any point extending ahove grade. . Additionally, the following set of conditions (or parameters) for allmved for rear yard encroachments has also been included: a. Setback requirements of environmental protection districts shall remain applicable. b. A side yard setback of six (6) feet shall be maintained. c. A rear yard setback often (10) feet shall be maintained. d. No encroachment shall be permitted within an existing or required drainage and/or utility easement. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS Decision 1: Variance fro 111 required Rear Yard Setback. 1. Motion to recommend approval of the rem yard setback variance based on a finding that a hardship exists in that the limited amount ofbuildablc rear yard area prevents the applicant Jj-om satisfying ordinance setback requirements. . 2 Planning Commission Agenda - 09/02/03 . ! Motion to recommend denial ol'the variarice, based ()n a finding that the applicant has not demonstrated unique physical hardship and that an ability exists to construct a deck within the side yards of the property. 3. Motion to table action on the variance. subject to additional information. b2ecision 2: j,oninf], Ordinan~e Aq.1Cndment pcrmittillg dccks to encroach into rear yard setbacks. I. Motion to recommend approval of the zoning ordinance amendment, based on a finding that it is consistent with the goal of encouraging reinvestment in the City's existing housing stock. 2. Motion to recommend denial of the zoning ordinance amendment, based on a finding that the allO\vanee of decks \vithin required yards holds a potential for negative impact upon adjacent properties. 3. Motion to table action on the amendment, subject to additional information. STAFF RECOMMENDATION . Staff cannot recommend approval of the variance based on the findings staled. While it is acknowledges that the subject ]ot has limited buildable area within its rear yard, it appears that ample land area exists within side yards to accommodate the construction of a deck and meet the applicable side yard setback requirements. Staif recommends approval of the amendment. From an impact standpoint. a deck is not considered dissimilar f)'ommany of the presently allowed encroachments (i.e. balconies, breezeways, opcn porches. detached outdoor living l:ooms). The allowance of decks within rear yard setback areas \vill also serve to encourage further investment in the City's existing housing stock. A]so to be noted is the difficulty in accommodating rear yard decks via a variance procedure as it is often very difficult to establish justiliab]c findings. SlJPPORTING DATA Site Location Site Plan Drait Ordinance /\mendment . ::; . I I Site Location Map . . Park Drive ," . . . Approximate Scale 1" = 30' .// //' ~.'/ /" W ,/ / / / / SKiewak i I I ! // Drive\Ahu --, HouseIGarage \ I. ~ \ 't , ) \~/ / /,,/ /./' ~. ~Y':; ~ /1 .,/. I i i I 1 I I i 31'__1 i . . . . . . . . .. Pat and Angie Ronayne 8823 Fannstead Court Monticello Lot 15 Block 3 Klein Farms 6th Addition Wright County I~ . . . Planning COllllllissitln Agenda - 09/02/03 DRAFT - DRAFT - DRAFT ORDI1\A!'CE NO. CITY OF i\10NTICELLO WRIGHT COLTNTY, 1\1INNESOT A AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 10, CHAPTER 3, SECTION 3-3.D OF THE 1\10:\'1'ICELLO ZONING ORDINANCE ADDRESSING ALLO\\'ABLE YARD SETBACK ENCROACH1VlENTS. THE CIT'{ COUNCIL OF THE CIT'{ OF MONTICELLO. MINNESOTA HEREBY ORDAINS AS FOLLO\VS: Section 1. Chapter 3. Section 2-2 (Definitions) is hereby amended to add the t()llo\\'ing: DECK: A horizontal. unenclosed platform ,,-ith or without attached railin!.!s. seats. trellises. or other features. attached or functionally related to a principal use or site at anv point extendinQ above Qrade. Section 2. Chapter 3, Section 3-3.D (Allowed Setback Encroachments) is hereby amended to read as follows: D. The following shall not be considered as encroachments on yard s,etback requirements: I. Chimneys. flues. belt courses, leaders. sills. pilasters. lintels. ornamental features. cornices. eaves. gutters and the like. provided they do not project more than two (2) feet into a required yard. J Terraces. steps. or similar features provided they do not extend ahove the height of the ground floor level of the princi pal structure or to a distance less than two (2) fed from any lot line. 3. In rear yards: recreational and laundry drying equipment arbors and trellises. balconies. breezeways, open porches. decks. detached outdoor living rooms (i.e. cazebos). garages. and air conditioning or heating equipment subject to the followinc conditions: 12- a. Planning COlllmission Agenda - 09/0~/03 Sethack r~quirements of environmental protection districts shall rellwin applicable. h. A side yard sethack of six (6) feet shall he maintained. c. A rear yard setback of ten ( 1 0) feet shal I he maintained. d. No encroachment shall be permitted \vithin an existinu or required drainaue and/or utilitv easement. 4. Solar systems. Section 3. This Ordinance shall become effective following its passage and publication. ADOPTED this Monticello. day of ATTEST: By: Rick WolfsteIler. Administrator 2003 by the City Council of the City of CITY OF MONTICELLO By: Bruce Thielen. Mayor . . . Plann ing Cnllllll iss ion Agenda - 09/02/03 . 13. Public Ilearin1!: Consideration of a request for Ih'nlolllllent Stagl' PllD and PreliminarY Plat f(ll" Eml'ntld Estates TownhollH.'s. A(mli('ant: Emnald Estates. LLC (;\AC) REFERE\CE Al':D BACKGROlfND Emerald f-:stutes. LLC. has reqlll.:sted Dewlopment Stage PLID and Preliminary Plat appronll for an eight unit town home deyclopment located south or Third Street and m:st of Jv1uplc Street. The development consists oft\\{) four-unit buildings upon a site measuring 0.93 acres in size. The subject site is zoned R-2. Single and Two Family Residential which allows tmmhomes via a Conditional Use Permit/Planned Unit De\'elopment. At the July mceting of the Planning Commission. the Commission approved the Concept Plan PUD for the development subject to varioLls conditions. The concept Plan \vas subsequently approwd by the City Council. . Densitv. The devclopment proposal calls for a total of S dwelling units (within two buildings upon 0.9 acres ofland. This results in a development density of 8.9 units per gross acre. In pre\'ious concept plan consideration. the City C ounci I determined the proposed number of dwelling units (and resulting development density) were acceptable. Lots. Typical of most townhome developments. a base lot/unit lot platting configuration has been proposed. The unit lots correspond to the generalized footprints of the dwelling units while the base lot (Lot 9. Block I) overlavs the remainine. common areas. The . ~ processing of the PUD is necessary to accommodate the creation of lots \\ithout public street frontage. Setbacks. In conjunction \\ith the previous pun Concept Plan application. the applicants also requestl'd a variance from the required 30 fi:)()t sethack along Maple Street. Specifically. a setback of 20 feet (consistent with the required side yard setback along Third Street) was requested. In consideration of the variance request. the Planning Commission and City Council determined that adherence to tht.: 30 foot front yard setback \vould constitute a hardship and limit the applicant's ability to make reasonable use of the property. Suhsequelltly. the City Council approved the variance request. Buildine. Desil!n. No changes to the building design (considered as part orthe concept plan) hu\'e been proposed. \Vhile it appears that the buildings are to be finished in horizontal lap siding and brick. the elevations should be modified to specify finish materials. . Planning COlllmission Agenda - 09/02/0:1 Easements. The City Engineer sl1l)uld pro\"ide comment and recommcndation in regard to the acceptability of proposed easemcnts. Of particular note is thc placcmcnt of a grading and utility eascmcnt O\er all of Lot 9. Block 1 (the base lot) in that such easement cOlIlcl encumher the us\.' of yard areas. Property Owner's Association. As a condition or linal stage PUD appro\"al. a property o\\'Jler"s association should be created addressing maintenance responsibilities J'(.1r common areas. co\"enants etc. The by-Ia\\s 1'(.1r such association should be subject to re\"ie\\ and approval by the City Attorney, Park Dedication. The proposed de\'Clopment does not include any park land dedication. As a rcsult. a park dedication fee should be paid as determined by the City Council. Streets. The four internal townhome units (Lots 3 through 6) are to be accessed \"ia a pri\"ate dri\"e extending south from Third Street. Likewise Units 7 and 8 arc also to be accessed \"ia a pri\"ate drive. Appropriately. vehicle backing areas haw been pro\"ided for such units. Sidewalk. Sidewalk is being extended along 4th Street in conjunction with area 'wide core city street reconstruction project. Landscapil1!l. As required by the ordinance. a landscape plan has been submitted lor review. As shown on the plan. landscaping has been proposed around the perimeter of the site and around the foundations of the two townhome buildings. A mixture of Flowering Crab and Autumn Blaze tvlaple Trees have been proposed on the north. east. and west sides or the site \\hile a \"ariety of shrubs (Mugo Pine. Globe Arborvitae. Compact Cranberry and Anthony V/aterer Spirea).ha\"e been proposed around the base of the to\\"I1homes For a Planned Unit De\"elopment. site improvements and amenities are one of the areas in \"hich a developer can enhance the projcct and more closely adhere to the baseline justification tor PUD apPI\wal - a higher leve] of site design and amenities than would be required tor a project being built ,,'ithout PUD flexibility. On this plan. the landscaping is minimal. comprised of the minimum number of trees per unit and a narrow line of foundation plantings around the buildings. Planning staff \\"Quld suggest larger spaces of shrubs and perennial gardens. with more and larger trees reflecting the developed neighborhood in \\"hich the project is proposed. Other site amenities in a creative landscape might include patio spaces ,,'ith pm'crs. ornamental fencing or arbors. or other similar features. Without measurable enhancements to the site plan. PUD is not justified. and the applicant should bc held to the basic standards of the zoning ordinance. including full street frontage and the resulting 10\\"(:1' densities. ") .. . . Planning Commission Agenda - 09/02/03 . Li!!htin!.!, :\s a condition oePtTD appro\'al. a photometric lighting plan should bc submitted \\hich indicates the location and illumination 1c\'l~ls of all olltdoor lighting. Gradin!!. Draina!!e and l'tilities. Issues rdated to site grading. drainage and utilities should he subject 10 commcnt and rccommendation by thc City [:ngineer. DC\"e1opmcnt A!.!reclllent. :\s a condition ofPUD and final plat appro\'aL the applicant should enter into a dc\clupmcnt agret'mcnt \"ith th\? City and post allth\? necessary sccurities required by it. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS Decision]: Dl'velopment Stage pun fl.))" Emerald Estates: 1. Motion to recommend approval of the Development Stage PUD for Emerald Estates. based on the comments from the staff report for the September 2. 2003 Planning Commission meeting. ') Motion to recommend denial of the Development Stage PUD for Emerald Estates based on a finding that the plans which have been submitted to date are inconsistent v,'ith the Concept Plan approval. . 3. iVlotion to table action on the Development Stage PUD for Emerald Estates. subject to submission of revised plans consistcnt ,,'ith previous decisions and appro\'ecl conditions. Decision 2: Preliminary Plat for Emerald Estales: 1. r-,'lotion to recommend approval of the Preliminary Plat for Emerald Estates. based on the coml11ents from the staff report fell' the September 2.2003 Planning Commission meeting. 2. Motion to recommend denial of the Preliminary Plat for Emerald Estates based on a finding that the plans which have been submitted to date are inconsistent with the Concept Plan approval. 3. Motion to table action on the Preliminary Plat for Emerald Estates. subject to submission of rc\'ised plans consistent \\'ith previous decisions and approY\:~d conditions. . ,., .J r Planning Commission Agenda ~ 09/02/03 STAFF RECOMMENDATION The sunmitted De\'elopment Stage Plan is consistent "ith the previously appro\l..'d Concept Plan. Based on the preceding n:vic,,' and acknowledgement of the City Council's previous approval of the setback "'trianee. Staff recommends approval of the Dcwlopmcnt Stage PUD and the Prdiminary Plat subject to the conditions listed in Exhibit Z. These conditions include significant enhancements to the landscape and site planning. As noted above. PUO requires a finding that the proposal demonstrates a substantively higher level of site planning and site amenities to justify the flexibility that the PUD allows. In this case, the site would likely accommodate just 4-5 d,,-c1ling units without the PUD. The developer should be required to demonstrate how the higher density results in a superior project under the PUD. SUPPORTING DATA Preliminary Plat/Site Plan Landscape Plan Grading. Drainage & Erosion Control Plan Utility Plan Building Elevations Floor Plan Conditions - Exhibit Z 4 . . . STREET 41'-l'Zl' 4l'Zl'-l'Zl' 41'.l'Zl" 2l'Zl' -l'Zl' f f '"" ""1J --f :- ::c :J: ~C)m . -0 en ~ m 'J~ Il-i~ J -< ;x:. JO:;:E )"Tl 1-f2 J:cG) jm(/) 1 0 ;x:. lm:JJ . (/) m : G5"""'" z:I: m -f m ~ s: (j) --I /U rn rn --I z ~ G' I LON ~ul -(p \.JJ to m :::I ~m clU z~ 4\) --I Om ~~ r1> 04 :::I~ 1- --. '..n m f f 1 I I I I I S 21 o0~"0J.: W 10~.31' .... ~ . ~ DRiVEWAY '" ~ . ~ 20' SETBACK N ~ UNIT 2 .... Il! ~ ..J(j) ~m ~4 {JJ 1> o ^ ----..-..-..-...---.-.- UN I T 3 :=::-.-.-.-. ;;;j ~ I ~I (pI nll -f OJI 1>1 01 ^I I I I CURB , -l'Zl' '---1 .... ~ ~ ..J ~ ~ .... ~ ~ DRivEWAY ;;;j " ~ CURB ..J ~ , ~ UN I T to .... ~ , ~ UN I T l::=:~_==.=:.::'~:'==: -{j3o e ro Efj>- - .' j ",/, . ':, I (.-rt\ .._ w. :o_~~-......_--.t:. ..-_ 'I" -..... . "' --- ~ - n. Ur .~ 8 01 , I r----'-" ~ -~-- 1 ........--.----.-..-..- f I O.Eli ' 0- I I ~, I - i _m____,," _ ._......_. _ ___'-_~__.___ ._.____~_ I @: t - I . t1 . ~ <. .,., , , F- il ~ ~ .- .lJ i~ L _I I -} -.J -' I I --" .... -<, -' :7 n /) :="J I I ., rl) o .., n 0 o '--. .-+C1> -. n o .-+ :J G> :D ~ )>m ~ ~~\J~ ZOO:D~ s: 9~m> 0 )>zCt"'l ~ zG>S:~ (5 _ m OOZ~ F cO)>rJ:J. P -I Z :D 1-13.. ..s: r=O-<> Z _ =i -0 1-13 Z -I-r~ rn -< 0 )> rJ:J. 0 Z -1-- -I -000- )> r _ t"'I )> t"'I Z (i m 3:: m JJ )> r o m en -I )> -I m en -I o =E z :J: , ...... , , ~ , , , , , .. ..' ~",. ...,.. " \ ~-'V'~ &J"~ ~&o- , ~~J" ;' , ,.' / / / -J...... , , ~ i ~ ~tJ:l!l Iq i ~~~ ~ ~ a .. 'l' :! ~~~ ~ .. .. ~~'" ~ ~ 01 , , .." ";, ~", , , , "- , ! , , , , , , , / ...~~I ....... , ............. , , , , ", , ,.:1 / , , .~ - , .., , , .., , , ", , , o 0 Y' '01 '.(' ~ x,Q ", (;-, ;'i11~1 ~ ~ 0( Pl r., lJ ~ ~ ...... UI "" 1'1 ~,j 1I1....... ~.oiif~~ ....J::r~g' g, ~I m~ f:~ ~g 1 ~!-ii~::"~,,~ ~-e:f"'1~(J)!t:~n ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~)? ~a ~ ~t.n:~' m~~~ ~ t...IU'fto. ...... Loi /tI 1 ~. r~ ~g"o n i: ~ ..' .~,_... , , , (;) ~ 0 rrl '1J ~,-t In ~!i rr1 l' .. 7' .:::0 ,-. --to .. F~~'U1: ...,> ~ 0 m~ }> ~ i t; ~ ~ t:D.. l' I ~l g I Sl ~~ ~ ~ , , , ............. II ".. ~--,I ~II .......... ...... .......... ............ ............ ............ ............ ............ ............ ............ ............ ............ .......... ............ >" "'>;> o'ti co ,;;'~ ::;0 -<0 ,.," >!: 1'1;; !l:(;} ,.,,~ 3 ............ ............ ............ ..... ,.-" \ \ \, .......... ............ " ! ............ ............ ............ .......... .......... ........... ~~~~Q n " z 1- ~~~...!e ;;;&l~ ll: .... ............ .......... / ............ ............ . ~.Ji'" ....... C7I f'O'lb, ~ 00 - * OJ ~, ~~ · =t ~-< ':;~~~ ~~g~ al"1..-la. ~<~I..o ~~'~ Q~i~ ~<'!:~ ~~~~ Ol"'l....... ~;~i ~~" .......... / / / / ............ o .... Q~~ """- .............. ~~lJE' ' ~~~ ~~ :i~~ .............. ~V1 r ~~~.., ,:;~on g-"~ ;;1~~~ i1br~1"1 ''''~m ............ ............ ............ ............ ............ ............ C) i 0 ~1 "U ~--f I r') ,'~ fTl ,. )lo7::uf~ or;: ~ ~ -< Vl ~ ~~ -t ~ ~':; ~ )> III --.. --t m ~" q ~J, _ ~ ............ ............ ............. ............ .......... ............ ............. .......... !':!~! iil -- ..-... m -..,'"" -....-..- _...____n ._"---'-'"..~,- 00661 'QN 'b_~ - .--.--- -.....- - :~Il)O ---_..,~.", .,-----.-------...--..- ".. .."'.-.. -------." .. -- I ~VOOd Nor 1>~"l:tl'."lIl .x..., F~~-tOi:.,riL .Hl N~ 'Ol13011N -----'---.,~".,_,,__..___._____,~'" .,. '_""0_'_'- -o',-.tro,- 'ON 31lj .tl"-jOtt;, 1M 'lII]j1jlQ U~U', 15lf1.J ttoo _.._._-'....~~- --.--- ~--- :P:ii1I(l\S --,.----.'-"._,.,~--_._-,-~, ~,."..--...--.--. --- "~,...~- ---- '-"--:15"8 ::nu :J.y.a --"G ONIHllNON] '1I^1~ ,," 9Z >iOO18 6'9'L'9 ___.__"_"__.,....._ _.m___.__.__..._..__ .-.- ------.----- ...-- '--S)jr :.1..8 :lNU, l\W\$ (IN'" 51 , ' "~,...._-,,-,._..__.,-- "-'-", .'.,'.' .... --- --...--- --.... 'n_".___._ --.-. O])(331.l::) --"";"ON' 'Sill-WinOISY V' _ ____'~'....N..________._.,_, .,."..",..._..._._._. --,~~.__.. --. '--'-'N'jr~"- 'Aij NM'vUO S3~OHNMOl 11N -_'~~,,~,-_._----_.,-,~~ '",-~.._- _~._..,V"._ .- Ol(J'_uu~n '0 -IQISo '" ,0 '''01 '" ^.._~-~ -';ijr- :Aij NQ,S'jU ~t;;pl"tn jll.VIo,o,;) IguO~".IO'd plI~v~~n Ajnp NOSU303d '~UYt)08 'S31 V 1S3 --.~ ""'ON' 0 wo, 11;1\11 1;11010 \l(jI"AJ~dl'lt. 1:).11'11;1 ALl, 011 a1V~3 NOll~U:j:JS:la ) ~ 'y'(l --'--'-'-roTiJ9" .)1\10 Iilpun JO 'W 'q p.1llJod~j4 '0" IJQdi, " -- .-. A)" 'uIi!IO)~J~~lIdl 'uQtlJ '!"ll IQljl .('!IJ";) A;qllJ;I"l , :;l- j;:: ~~-~ n V . ~3 i Ij I ; f \ 1 . · h i J t 51 i Ii S i) II \' I . i ("t 1 - P t rll ~ 1[1 It J II , if n j;l! HI 51! ii .Id!. ; ij sit} },' it i: {' .! iJi f!i hI! Ijl J~ r ~! pJfr!f{111fL!i!::~, . 1!1 il!;i! iillil'l!;if ,Ii ~. '" f.r ~ IjIJj dl ~ \'1 f<< ~ ~p d ~p j Ii: j:fi! H~ ~t 2, z "J~fi"iI..,L_.\J.i",.sJ." :i' II Ii l 1jjl ~ ! i~ii~J l!lt!!!if~~I!ifI'l1 ~ i i j , 1.1 i t ~ ! i l j f! 1 ! J l .I J '" & 'it j & ,j ~nn{fffffJfHJJJf!fJfl!IJIl i J. ~i~.iW~,",I.olWW_l..,I4IW~ Iolilw w4:]~ cl:d:.! o . e 1 B .. 0 X '(. 0 ! ! I I 8\~ 111111... : IT] 12D / I f ~ '/1 " /I '-, ...........-..--~.- 0 -~ tool ~; Q '" "''--J / / / ~ -l -l <( U "" og ;W ~ ,Z ~iI1 I 0 g~ . '" IW ,,~ . I- Y.. ! <( i~t:~ : J..- ~ ~ Ul )- j It.. () ~ cr ~: .W;o'.' I I P'" fA 0... ';< o ~ () ~ '" ...... '" y ~ ", ~j --' .. U " III o _ ~ " " ~ ~ hi / 1/ / Jli "~,~, ;t(' /~~? /" ~ '----.... ...........~...... ...........~. '.' '. ..1/........';....'...rr..."...........'...,....I.........'.'.:..'J..:'.'''..../..'......... d.e.. :.; / CC. '. --.........,. ...' i' ." ............ '.' .' ............. '.'.............".....,'.."....".0....'..:.....'i.f:4!.... . / / ~,,~\ .......,~'7t4!rl/ ~ fr . ... .' ,/ UJ'. '" '" '" '" '" '" W "- UN "- "0 0 "-0 ':... u '" '.. Cl , '" '" '" '" '" '" ~ ~ ~ '" / '" ~ '" 15 "- ~g ~ <Lo "- '-, ~ " I .~ Cl .. -' l~ / / / / '" / / / / ~'7 ~, I g~ ~ Z"'" /0 ..~ ':4J )r-~ .....1/) I,j.,oo( ~~.J .f5~ e;<~:>.:= ~~IIO.o( 5B~~g3 ...... ~ '~ ~ ~t~ ~ .~!:'..& ... '" "' " ;!; --n):>-o-i -) .- m Z :IJ :J: ~~~O~G~ ., c: ::n )..-, 'I rn ,~ 2:.' );:> ;:.J '-'J 0 ] J> , rTl ---1 -JJ ; ~ 8 ~J ::~:: ;:':'~ ) CJ -< -...~ ~1 ~.:-;: { :J.J I! rl"l ~"T- G) - ~,-=, C) --'- en ) N rj _--' rT1 -rn:Crrlo:J:> .O-iOm:IJ iC'{XJ(J)m cn):>-<G:i-i m~ z:r.: . rTl -f m )> ~ ~ ~. ~(p ~CJ !!1m \>1m \;lr ~m :.-< ," 1> ~-f ~ C Z -f <I'll ()~ ~o !!Iz \1.1-1 ...... ~m ,,' r -m ,- -< ~l> -I o Z c Z -I (p tV " I .t:.. 4loo. W I ~ I 11i< o"l-'x-""."i ...,-... (o.c) "..j ".,-..- (oac) ,.uO"d f3 ~ ! B ~ I~ ~ 1 I ~ i ~ ~ : .. , LUCilit N" "'1...,J Glll-. 4\nQ~ IInu~~v 1.(10 l '-lit ... i'IL~~ili~~~I~!' ~ Ii ~~~~~I!il~ ~ !:t i 0t::10 SlSIIBlOadS uBISOO oWOH j ~I. :1.i~i~hnii~llhl ggg ~ttll N~IS1Q < I'np~~Jiisi: bJ l-H--U.... _:.L_:Mf~ ~ J'H~]hJ!1;.n II. .. .. _.".._on__ \ .i' f NV1d ~ld X31d 1>' 931\7'193 al~3W3 ~ ~f3 it :i UI~ fi ."',' liJ] .. ~. "". ~ :.1":'''- t- s~; 11. d cJ') .. ~ ~ it;,.. 3: ~ ~~,..,. ~~; ~ i:: N (Ei] t: 5 u [Q] ,"','f ."-,(,11< .~cf.."x ..,-j .Iii"." "lnII i "",-9(:U: Mora 'iIIlrJY",....~.tll;.(lJ l5~ ~ ~'liiI::) lY'1i , -----------~--------- ~ ~ O:HI~ ~~ ):-' _I!! --r --'--~r-D..-T--, [ L:JL.:J1 " I , ~: --~_!-._'-~""/)) I - ~:~; Z! -i~x' ~ -, U X I l-is) 1. ~~ i,~ 'J'; " ; ~IITJ Of ~1lil1j O:iiQ,I'Al ~1'01"'.o - r...''fJ- r---;l ,~"~,, )( .....~,. 'OlIl I mc..cu. t"tOn:J ."..." .~,,-,t ~ ~~ h ~ _ / NI~ ax O!. ~ .. /l ~~ 8~ ! ; .. ~ ..-- . ..- I p ~ II\: l\: I I ..::........ ~~ Sl w i Ii 1$ :i\ IS ~.. ,.." i "" t- Z :::J ~ ........J 0.... ~ o o -----l lL (- ~ -0 :D ,0 -0 rn ):0 1-1 j -< '0 J-n I i-i )I ..i rT1 _~ Cl Jm .:J U) ....- -ev z --I ~ ~ R '.'.f' t. --r "'-<0' M'-" .- ,.,.~. );11'-.' OJCK.I mA-:tW1!: ~,","W' lit......"'. CJ.Cli.1 tnl..lII. ~..'.,...' )0:......... lIt."-."" 1Il(t,1i".~ 1/'10' ~):lI'.,JIiI' ~U'III.-""I! lIlb. .".JI.t, IQ) fU''''''.dI''I.....,... J--t"J'I,.'lI't.1o '-'lM'\,."",-" f1J'~'di"\.""'" :S~ ~;! ^ -- -- -- -- -" .; ;~-~'~~:f- f" cn.~ ~ .. ~ ~~ ~ 'iioF~~Lnn ~M .. ~~ " ~ ~ :s~ ~h j e-~mJ7t~~ ,/ 1../ I L..:JL.:J ' \/~---_.- : I ;!~ 'a 'r ~ <I 1~ II ;~~ 'i:! ! II "'JI(C'C r4 :I~ x .... ij; m ~ ~ h. j ~!. "'~~ h. ~.' J'~ .'1, [LiJ ~ ~ ~.. ~ 1: :se ~.y ~H r :se. ..v ~H ! ",Mc'i .'.',,," .'It.",tlnll , """ ..-. ..... -,,:,... :tt."-". r---- .-.-"' ,". .,; .,...... I .'C',( 'rnt ~~~!!~~--_:.~~~.:~=,~- ---_._~-~-, ;~ ~~ l'l ~I l'l f~------~- I I ~I 1'1 ~i 1'1 :. 1- ? I -n ... .. . 1- , I -n ... II , ,'.',. II .."I'.t:'Q"III '.f(t:~ ~'II;1:7~' :~e ..v 'j:J '! ~ :sv 1 ~h t r liU';:;I-'2:~a (O~C) :~"..:f L1Ql"2:~~ (OZC) ~~uo~d L1ilC~ljf tm '!lud 1111\11. I.(lhOg anuiIIAY 4.101 La ~i:n!~~fl~~ ..... Oa ~~~I~ E-< 1I.~!!~~h, :Z-il,,'Ud~i g, < i;~;g~~~Fi !Z:.I,.!. ;p.a.T~ ~] 'i~I~~lh~ <lhi()e~~,~S ~ "H~h~:H .. ~i k IH~ .~ l ~ 5 l:t" nl~! ~i il '. 11 ~... E '!I .!l "a o t::l 0 SlSIIBP9dS u61S9(J eWOH gQQ~l~Sla N't"l=l ~,. X3ld V 931V'193 alV'~3W3 _.'_n i ~ ~ ::.-. ......e: I I e: ~ ::...- --. 5l Ul i ij I~ I~ . L. lS IS ~[- I i ~(.. ~;~ I li ^~, a~: (:L.J;)HJ,1].a.. ilO )'.~'" x.....". I ~~ ~~ !: ~"'NJ.-IWIII' lIIiQ.t'-. "'fl' r lic...-.V jl~.WCW"\....M'1ll - ~~~!!':!- ..- --~t -- - o",IW"Ii"1W'tQj!.IIQ :, ....!o F--.""' --w----~--.~,.-.-~--.--;irl~~ ~...~"'i---r--=~,:!~.: -..C.. _ _._..J fi]J \.... ,.... ~ O-,,;,;.Lrn " I""'" I. ... ~ " y - I! I> I~ "... '--, I 6 "l- i ; I I I I I . .____ _ __ __ .J - __ ... _, .._ ,_, J' ') I 6 , .: ~ .i'..~ .. ...... -r .....;{ .~.-,,, Ml .""-,"'(nII . 1IIi' ftU i'taO .'.-,111111 ........ '"' .iIC.~1'ICft) .....,.,.,.&:11.,'" .'jI\'.~".C .. -","'"'"'"'"' .., .j;"'"'"' ?'-""Jf~![,,'!"' i o.,.,.."l'rM)j~ ill ~ ~~ !l _.~~ ..~~ I~ Ii r - - - - .", - ~ - i! ~ I ~ "I- , ". I I I I I L____nr___. I r-~ ,'------ I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I A~~ " h: I~ i '\ r.;~- lrtll A~' a.~ aa: :I ~ (:u()MS". I: RO t'-I\.' 1(........". ... II!!: . rQl jI Gi ~;; i li ~., ~: {} Il .f: /. < G r (. ~ ( ( ~ l . . . Planning Commission Agenda - 09/02/03 EXHIBIT Z Emerald Estates - Conditions ]. The building eleYation~ be modified to specify finish materials. ') A. property mmer" s association be created addressing maintenance responsibilities f(>r cpml110n areas. Ct1\'enants. etc. The by-laws for such association shall be subject to n:yic\'; and approyal by the City Attorney. 3. The City Engineer prm'ide comment regarding the placement of a grading and utility easement over all aLLot 9. Block I (the base lot). 4. A park dedication fee be paid as determined by the City Council. 5. The landscape plan should be greatly intensified. including more shrub and perennial garden spaces (as opposed to the few scattered trees and foundation shrubs only). patios, and other ornamental features that improve both the aesthetics of the project from the street and the livability of the project for the future residents. Final landscaping mllst be approyecl by the City Planner. 6. A photometric lighting plan be submitted which indicates the location and illumination Icycls of all outdoor lighting. 7. The City Engineer prmide comment regarding grading. drainage and utility issues. 8. The applicant enter into a development agreement with the City and post all the necessary ~ccurities required by it. 5 1 .s Sxhibif L . . . u. Planning COll1mission Agenda - 09/02/03 Puhlic Hearing - Consideration of a request for i.t conditiomll use permit allowin2: a mixed residential and commercial use in a PZl\l District. Allplicant .hmice 'Iaxson (.10) REFERE~CE AND BACKGROF~D Janice i\1axson recently purchase the old hrick home at 4..J.X ,\\'. Broad\\'ay to use as both a residence and a retail business location. l\laxon proposes W operate a \\'oolen shop that \\'ill include retail sales and some training. She notes that she will conduct classes that include no more than 4- students. Her retail space will consist of approx. 435 square feet and occupy the current living room and dinning room. Maxson notes that the business \\ill be 100v key and that except for classes. she does not expect that she \vill be serving multiple customers at anyone time. She proposes to utilize the existing ofT.street parking for her customer parking. She does expect that there will be some parking in the street from time to time. Given the small size of her retail area. the standard parking stall requirement would be 3 stalls. Signage proposed will meet standards for the PZM district and designed to blend into the residential character of the neighborhood. The location of the proposed mixed use is in the PZM district. The purpose of the PZM district is to act as a transition zone between commercial and residential uses. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS 1. Motion to grant the conditional use permit allo\ving a mixed residential/commercial use based on the finding that the proposed use. with conditions noted in Exhibit Z. is consistent with the purpose of the PZM district. Please note that under Exhibit Z. a curbed parking lot is not required at this time because the volume of traffic would justify this expense. Due to the potential temporal nature of the home/business. it is suggested that a parking lot be installed in the event traffic/parking in the public street becomes a problem as determined by the Planning Commission. 2. Motion to deny the conditional use permit request based on the finding that the proposed use is not consistent with the intent of the PZM district. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends alternatiw 1. It is our view that the proposed use is consistent \\'ith the intent of the PZM district which is to act as a transition zone bet\yeen commercial and f., Planning Commission Agenda - 09/02/03 residential districts. We do not support installation ofadditioiial otTstreet parking until it is dcmonstrated that such an investment is needed. SlTPPORTING DATA Application Pictures Exhibit Z 2 . . . . . . Planning Commission Agenda - 09/02103 Exhibit Z Janice !\1a:'\son mixed residential/commercial use request 1. No additional parking required \vitb initial conditional use permit request. bo\\ ever the permit is subject to n:view and additional off-street parking could be required in the future. I At least 3 parking spaces should be ayailable for customer use in the driveway and al1 otber parking associated ,,-ith the property should occur on roads fronting the home. 3. If at such time, the commercial use of the property clearly exceeds the residential use as defined by the building official. the applicant shal1 comply with building code standards associated with commercial use of property. 4. Business identification signage shall not exceed 25 sq. ft. and shal1 be setback at least 15' from the road righHlf-way. 5. No more than 10 students al10wed to take classes at the location at anyone time. EXHIBIT Z 3 . CITY OF MONTICELLO COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT 505 Walnut Street. Suite 1 Monticello. MN 55362 (612) 295-2711 Planninu Case # .fli1;;8-o ADMINISTRA TrVE PERMIT - HOME OCCllPA TION APPLlCA TION/PERMIT Applicant j\;ame: ,J A, J ICe:: fvJ A X S D J Address:----':lJ 1r \^/ [j l\'() A f) vv' A y' Phone: I-Iome: 71c], - ,~ 9 ,5 - S D I I BusinessName: L(ARk) J.:\rJD STI)r-:F Business f~) IlJ.l' Ml Zoned: P Z. fv1 . I. Please describe the proposed home occupation activity in general terms and location within home. WILL THE HOME OCCUPATION INCLUDE ANY OF THE FOLLOWING? .(CirCle your response) 7 Retail acti\'ity? @ No 3. r....L:tnufacturing or repair activity? Yes @ 4. Inwl1tory to he kept on the premises? ~ No 5. Any person other than those residing on the premises employed in the home occupation? Yes €, 6. Use of mechanical equipment not customarily found in the home? Yes ~l 7. More than one room de\'oted to the home occupation? @ No 8. Outside storage of materials? Yes @ 9. Signage? ~ No 10. Internal or external alterations in\'ol\'ing construction? Yes ~ 11. Will the home occupation be conducted in a garage or accessory building? Yes @ 12. \Vill the home occupation result in more than one customer's car being parked on the premises at any given point in time? ~ No 13. Describe the entrance to the space de\'oted to the home occupation: Tk ~~ W'L-0~~ -tA./,JJ U ~~ t ().~LL:J-:J-tt'JJ L'Yv\.L-- -L~~~"__L~. .J /J./tL~ ~ CA- ~/'v\-U~v"--' ol'-t)~ I n _ C ,+-. G id ...t _ r.l- J 'j O. Jc,,1 - ~'--'-~"-~ U"-L> )~~ )~V -w t:1)...v.~~ JU'-1.>-r. . HOMEOCC.APP: 123'03 Page I 14 Please provide d~tail f] all YES answers above: r\. n---I/ J \J...A..>,..h-t);/-...L_ . I have reviewed the regulations associated with operation of a home occupation. and I have reviem;~d City staff comments. I do hereby agree to abide by all City of Monticello home occupation regulations. ~;]1-0~ Date l Applicant Signature FEE: $10/$125 Receipt # *************************************..*****************************.********************** (For City Vse Only) It has been determined by staff that this home occupation permit is: [ J Approved [ ] Denied [ ] Special Permit Needed . STAFF COMMENTS: Assistant Administrator Zoning Administrator Date Approved Date Approved Public Hearing Date: N':,\ . HOMEOCCAPP: 1'.:!:>'03 Page 1 . . . Description of property: West 'is oflot 12, lots 13, 14, 15; Block 38, City of Monticello Located at the corner of West Broadway and Maple Street, 448 W. Broadway 3.5 city lots House faces Broadway, garage entrance off Maple Business entrance faces Broadway Property bounded by fencing on the east side, lilacs on the south side Footprint of original house 1000 square feet Customer parking: Off street parking for 4 cars in the driveway Street parking available on Broadway and Maple Business: Retail sales of yarn, knitting and crocheting accessories, objects ofart Classes for knitting, crocheting, weaving, spinning Estimated class size - 4 on average. Estimate 1-9 persons for 2 hours, Tuesday through Friday and Sunday, 4-8 hours on Saturday. There could be persons staying Friday and Saturday evening for classes or knitting time (anticipate no more activity than a large family in residence). Sales and class location -living and dining rooms - total area of 4"'3 5 ~.". I~ . . . Planning Commission Agenda - 09/02/03 15. Consideration to c.lIl for a Jlublic hearing for proposed amendment to the si~n ordinance regarding "sandwich hoa,'d" si~ns in the Central Community District. (.TO) Report to be pro\'ided at meeting.